We keep running out of fossil fuels

Meanwhile we continue to see signs that fossil fuels are running out, and prices will have to rise to satisfy the industry’s need for cash flow to make the huge investments needed just to keep crude oil and condensate production at today’s 82 mmbopd real rate (the higher rates you read about are inflated with NGL, which are increasing as natural gas production rises, as well as the refinery gains which result from hydrogenation of the refinery feed). 
I started writing about this subject in 2013, when I saw the RCP8.5 paper, and realized it had a huge mistake built into its logic because it didn’t handle the industry need for ever increasing prices to justify extracting oil, gas, and coal. For those who don’t follow industry trends, I can point out that oil prices have had to increase way beyond inflation over the last 20 years. I remember preparing a detailed budget for a business unit in 1998 which assumed the price was $14 per barrel ($25 in today’s dollars). That price constrained what we could do somewhat, but the fields we had were good enough to justify several hundred million in new investments and nearly doubling production. Today, new investments in most areas outside the Middle East require at least $50, and many are on line after being approved assuming the price would be $80. 
Although it may be hard to believe, natural gas will see the same trend, but with a delay. In 2040 natural gas prices will be a lot higher (I anticipate the first serious uptick in the USA market will take place this fall). And coal will follow. 
I also believe there are potential new technologies which allow burning natural gas and coal using variations of existing turbine technology which will allow easier CO2 capture. But I can’t visualize where all that co2 can be injected unless the requirement that it be kept sealed forever be relaxed. 
There’s also the fact that some areas have rocks which make injection a risky proposition because it can trigger earthquakes. And these earthquakes can be caused by density differences which make the bulk rock density change and reactivate faults (this means rate control won’t be enough, this is a highly specialized field which climatologists and most geoscientists know nothing about, therefore they haven’t even considered it). 
I guess I’ll close by writing that the RCP8.5 and siblings all share the same serious flaw, and that I realize I’m getting a bit of traction but the majority of the individuals dealing with this problem haven’t got the foggiest idea of what’s really going on, and how serious it will be if we don’t develop new technologies to soften the impact as we run out of fossil fuels.


2018 Venezuela Pseudopresidential pseudoelection

Update: I was wrong. The dictatorship made Madurothe winner, now they risk no recognition in January 2019. The question is whether the moribund opposition will have the drive to create a government in exile and claim control of Citgo as well as all oil exports.

Original post follows:

Henri Falcon could win the forthcoming pseudo elections and the communists would still control Venezuela. You see, that red Mafia has put in place an illegitimate "Constituyent Assembly" they claim is the supreme power over and above the Executive, Legislative, and Judicial powers. This means Falcón would remain a puppet subject to an illegitimate autocracy which in turn is partially controlled by Raul Castro. 

Some may think Raúl handed power to Diaz Canel, but that's just a cover they needed to have so the international left would continue supporting the Castro regime. Raúl remains Communist Party head, his son Alejandro Castro controls state security services, his former son in law heads GAESA, the military conglomerate which strikes deals with foreign multinationals, his grandson Raulito controls the body guard service as well as the high level medical services delivered to high level regime capos. 

Returning to Venezuela, the word in Havana is that Raúl already convinced Maduro to retire. Maduro would lose and Falcón would be "president". The National Assembly, controlled by the opposition, would continue to be ignored, and Falcón would be asked to submit to the illegitimate Constituyent Assembly.
Jorge Rodriguez with his younger sister Delci 
would control Venezuela if Falcón "wins"

The assembly president is Delci Rodriguez, a hard core Castroite who in turn follows the lead of his older brother, Jorge Rodriguez. A narco and military Mafia headed by Diosdado Cabello, and a separate narco Mafia led by Tareck el Aissami will expect to get pieces of the pie. But as reported by Reuters, Venezuela is serving as a captive colony of the Castro family, and has been purchasing hundreds of millions of dollars worth of oil for delivery to Cuba. 

Falcón would be expected to continue sending oil and cash to the Castros as part of the deal. And the Torino Capital guy would have to be in this deal in which communists, narcos, the Castros, and assorted mafias continue to destroy Venezuela. 

Thus we see that either Maduro wins and continues destroying Venezuela simply because he's Marxist and under Castro control, or Falcón will win, fake being in charge, and continue destroying Venezuela almost as fast as Maduro has been. The root cause of this tragedy is in Havana, and unfortunately that communist Mafia seems to be getting a lot of help from the left. Pope Francis, Obama, Federica Mogherini, et al are making sure the regime survives. And this means the fate of Venezuela is sealed. Production will continue to drop, the genocide of the infirm, those with chronic diseases and the elderly will continue. And nothing will be done. 


Technical and political comment about global warming

The “must move to zero emissions” statement is simple dogma. One point these guys forget is that roughly half the anthropogenic CO2 being emitted is taken by carbon sinks. The carbon sinks function at variable speeds, trees moving north into tundra, and other “greening” we observe with satellites are a fast response. A fast response is seen in the shallower ocean layers taking CO2 (which drives pH down). A slower response would be deeper ocean layers gradually taking CO2, as well as the erosion which puts ions in the water to make more carbonates, some of which turn into rock deposits. 
CO2 uptake by sinks is very hard to model, but the empyrical rule can be used to state with confidence that, if we cut emissions to 1/3 of the peak value, the CO2 concentration should stabilize or drop. Remember the sinks take more than 1/3 of emissions and gave done it for years. Therefore a reduction to 1/3 of peak implies the sinks will take more CO2 than is emitted. And thus CO2 concentration stabilizes and drops. 
To create the disaster scenarios, the IPCC built RCP8.5 and the EPA built a similar case. These assume huge emissions volumes including increases in the use of coal to way beyond resource limits. I think most of you agree we do have resource limits and there will be peak fossil fuels no matter what we do. The key is to tie the limits we think are within reasonable ranges, estimate the peak concentration, and focus on wether the sinks can absorb the CO2. Thus the cumulative CO2 mumbo jumbo we read about is pure baloney. The system reacts to both cumulative AND rate. 
The world is being misled by groups which, either out of ignorance or for political reasons, are constantly stating that CO2 emissions have to be driven to ZERO. To achieve this they propose impractical solutions and technologies, which I know won't solve the problem but will cause enormous economic damage. 
What is being done is to build emission FORECAST to ungodly RATES so the carbon sinks are overwhelmed, this drives concentrations into danger territory. One can argue this is possible, but the IPCC and others selling the zero emissions dogma should make it very clear that their carbon sink model IS SET TO BE CHOKED so that concentrations do rise to extreme levels. I happen to think the combination of exaggerated resources, the use of very high emissions, the choking of carbon sinks, and very optimistic estimates of carbon capture and renewables performance amount to fraud. This is more than scientific fraud, because it involves engineering, project management, and economics, all of these fields conjugated into a fraudulent political case. 
I believe we ARE running out of fossil fuels, and we do need to get alternatives installed, piloted, tested, and made as efficient as possible. This is also needed because it’s nutty to rely on highly unstable nations like Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Venezuela, etc. But this should not be done by lying, and that’s what’s going on. What we need is adults working on the problem, and the politics should be limited to making sure we don’t let communists insert their bullshit about not growing the economy, dedevelopment and such ideas. They introduce these concepts because they know socialism/communism destroys economic growth, so they use the global warming boogie man to justify their stupid ideas.


Post modern science

I copied this from "Four questions on Climate Change" by Garth Partridge:

"But the real worry with climate research is that it is on the very edge of what is called post-modern (as opposed to post-normal) science. Post-modern science is a counterpart of the relativist world of post-modern art and design. It is a much more dangerous beast where results are valid only in the context of society’s beliefs, and where the very existence of scientific truth can be denied(18). Post-modern science envisages a sort of political nirvana in which scientific theory and results can be consciously and legitimately manipulated to suit either the dictates of political correctness or the policies of the government of the day."

This paragraph reminded me of the smear job on Dr Susan Crockford, which is best documented in the following paragraphs by "Donna Laframboise" at "nofrakkingconsencus"

"Last November, a shocking paper was published online. It has now appeared in the print edition of the journal BioScience. Titled “Internet Blogs, Polar Bears, and Climate Change Denial by Proxy,” the PDF version fills five pages of text, followed by two pages of references. This is an assault by a gang of 14 authors on an individual scholar.

The target is Susan Crockford, a Canadian zoologist and adjunct professor with more than 35 years experience in her field. As the author of PolarBearScience.com, Crockford performs a public service. She encourages us to look past activist spin and media hype. Not everything we’re told about polar bears, she says, rests on a solid foundation."
I think I'll leave this post as is. Lately I've been referring to the Ministry of Truth whenever I tweet about media lies, which seem to be very common nowadays. This is definitely looking like 1984 is coming a few years late. But it's coming.