Author Topic: Energy Politics & Science  (Read 607118 times)

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 17984
    • View Profile
Electric bus won't work in Oslo
« Reply #1250 on: December 14, 2023, 05:37:57 PM »

Body-by-Guinness

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 1474
    • View Profile
AFL-CIO Impedes Blow Jobs
« Reply #1251 on: December 15, 2023, 07:57:24 PM »
 :-D Or that’s one way of looking at it.

Another is when the Biden admin has to chose between green energy and bowing before the union, they make the more obsequious choice.

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2023/12/15/100-year-old-union-backed-law-among-snags-derailing-bidens-green-energy-agenda/?fbclid=IwAR2Ifg_XBajR-UudMA0kZIzOK079JJLMIvU2bl2Y8DFdhfxnbAnDiSi-0zY
« Last Edit: December 15, 2023, 08:00:26 PM by Body-by-Guinness »

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18066
    • View Profile
Re: Energy Politics & Science
« Reply #1252 on: December 15, 2023, 08:50:40 PM »
I am looking at these things and wondering how long they will last before they fall apart.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 68566
    • View Profile
Re: Energy Politics & Science
« Reply #1253 on: December 16, 2023, 06:29:43 AM »
As David Gordon would say "Prepare to have (y)our assumptions shattered!"

Body-by-Guinness

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 1474
    • View Profile
Coal Consumption High and Rising
« Reply #1254 on: December 17, 2023, 04:40:53 PM »
The Greenies run their mouths about those rotten hydrocarbons, and do whatever they can to increase the cost of their use, but if they were succeeding coal use would be diminishing rather than rising. At the end of the day the ones they impact the most are the poorest among us. Their mothers must be proud:

https://joannenova.com.au/2023/12/more-coal-burned-on-earth-in-2023-than-ever-before-in-human-history/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=more-coal-burned-on-earth-in-2023-than-ever-before-in-human-history :-D

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 68566
    • View Profile
WT: Fracking to reopen in PA after pollution of water
« Reply #1255 on: December 27, 2023, 03:33:05 AM »
PENNSYLVANIA

Driller set to frack again after ban over alleged pollution of water supply

BY MICHAEL RUBINKAM ASSOCIATED PRESS

A year after pleading no contest to criminal charges, one of Pennsylvania’s leading natural gas companies is poised to drill and frack in the rural community where it was banned for a dozen years for polluting the water supply.

Coterra Energy Inc. has won permission from state environmental regulators to drill 11 gas wells underneath Dimock Township, in the state’s northeastern corner — the sweet spot of the largest natural gas field in the United States, according to well permit records reviewed by The Associated Press.

Billions of dollars’ worth of natural gas, now locked in shale rock deep underground, awaits Coterra’s drilling rigs.

Some landowners, long shut out of royalties because of the state’s lengthy moratorium, can’t wait for the Houston-based drilling giant to resume production in Dimock. Other residents dread the industry’s return. They worry about truck traffic, noise and the threat of new contamination.

Coterra has not set a date for the resumption of drilling. A company spokesperson, George Stark, said “Coterra is committed to safe and responsible operations wherever we work.” Under its deal with the state, the driller agreed to monitor drinking water supplies within 3,000 feet of the new gas wells and take other steps designed to mitigate risk.

Dimock, a tiny crossroads 15 miles south of the New York state line in northeastern Pennsylvania, became ground zero in a national debate over fracking — the extraction technique that spurred a boom in U.S. oil and gas drilling — after residents began reporting that methane and drilling chemicals in the water were making them sick.

A state investigation concluded that faulty gas wells drilled by Coterra’s corporate predecessor, Cabot Oil & Gas, had allowed methane to leak uncontrolled into the community’s aquifer. Cabot was banned from Dimock in 2010 after regulators accused the company of failing to keep its promise to restore or replace the water supply.

An Emmy Award-winning documentary, “Gasland,” showed residents lighting their tap water on fire.

After years of litigation and a grand jury inquiry that resulted in criminal charges, the company pleaded no contest to a misdemeanor count Nov. 29, 2022.

Under a plea agreement, Coterra agreed to foot the bill for a $16 million public water system to supply 20 homes whose water wells had been damaged, and to pay for temporary treatment systems for those who want them.

But for some residents, elation about the water line turned to anger when they learned the Department of Environmental Protection had quietly lifted its long-term moratorium on gas production in Dimock. State officials have denied that Coterra pleaded no contest in exchange for being allowed to drill, but residents such as Victoria Switzer said they felt deceived.

“I have seen how justice played out here, and it’s not justice,” said Ms. Switzer, whose well was among those found to be contaminated, and who has not had a drink from her kitchen faucet since 2009.

Coterra remains prohibited from drilling inside the 9-squaremile moratorium area itself. The company plans to start the wells outside of Dimock and drill horizontally underneath the community. Some of the planned wells will be nearly 5 miles long and well over a mile deep, snaking under the land of more than 80 individual property owners, according to permit records.

The landowners are sitting on a gas gusher. Dimock’s natural gas could be worth $2.5 billion to $3.8 billion, according to Terry Engelder, a retired Penn State geologist whose 2008 calculation of enormous reserves in the vast Marcellus Shale natural gas field helped spur a drilling frenzy in Pennsylvania.

The area’s state representative, Jonathan Fritz, said an overwhelming number of his constituents favor natural gas drilling, an important economic engine in a county where farming, logging and bluestone quarrying were primary industries.

A Coterra subsidiary is the No. 1 employer in Susquehanna County, a mountainous region with a population of 38,000.

“Natural gas development has been a godsend,” Mr. Fritz said. The residents of Dimock, he said, “were harmed, they did realize a hardship, but I believe they have been made whole.”


Body-by-Guinness

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 1474
    • View Profile
The Death of Climate Catastrophism
« Reply #1257 on: January 10, 2024, 09:26:13 AM »
This piece explores how the energy needs of emerging nations combined with Russia and China's utter disregard for sky-is-falling predictions and the edicts that are then spun off effectively kill the sundry agreements based on catastrophic claims:

https://archive.ph/8AZCl

Body-by-Guinness

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 1474
    • View Profile
Hertz Dumps ⅓ of its EV Fleet
« Reply #1258 on: January 12, 2024, 03:21:12 PM »
Wait, they are costly, expensive to maintain, take too long to charge (assuming you can find a charging station), and customers don't want to drive them? Who knew...?

https://legalinsurrection.com/2024/01/hertz-selling-20000-electric-vehicles-for-gas-powered-cars/?utm_source=feedly&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=hertz-selling-20000-electric-vehicles-for-gas-powered-cars

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 68566
    • View Profile
Re: Energy Politics & Science
« Reply #1259 on: January 12, 2024, 04:05:40 PM »
and cost LOTS more to fix after accidents.

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 17984
    • View Profile
Re: Energy Politics & Science
« Reply #1260 on: January 12, 2024, 06:18:25 PM »
Wait, they are costly, expensive to maintain, take too long to charge (assuming you can find a charging station), and customers don't want to drive them? Who knew...?

and cost LOTS more to fix after accidents.

Apparently, with higher insurance rates, they cost more to fix even if you never have an accident.

https://www.nerdwallet.com/article/insurance/tesla-insurance
« Last Edit: January 12, 2024, 06:26:58 PM by DougMacG »

Body-by-Guinness

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 1474
    • View Profile
Training Judges to Dispense Environmental Serfdom
« Reply #1261 on: January 20, 2024, 03:58:31 PM »
Lookie here, left wing org sponsors conferences, symposia, and such judges are brought to to “learn” about environmental issues:

https://the-pipeline.org/indoctrinating-judges-on-climate-change/?fbclid=IwAR3vhO0uZw-YrDnY7qUlM0N_Pr3quXunaeqgM3S0oN47kPTOK6YMis5JyMU

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18066
    • View Profile
The Chevron doctrine
« Reply #1262 on: January 20, 2024, 04:53:20 PM »
https://www.eli.org/law-environmental-protection

Don't see George or son Michael Soros names identified on their website .... :-P

from their website on the Chevron vs. Fisherman case before SCOTUS.

My understanding is this is a big deal that will affect the power of bureaucracies vs legislatures.
(if I understand it correctly)

Indications are thus that the deciding votes will be up to Barrett and Roberts.
Of course the leftists on the Court want to keep it and maintain the bureaucrats power (especially most bureaucrats are libs)
while Alito, Thomas, Kavanaugh, and  Gorsuch seem to want to limit the doctrine or reverse it and Barrett and Roberts appear the wild cards on the fence.

Justice Kagan worries about a reversal of the doctrine will open up the floodgates of anti-bureaucracy lawsuits but OTOH I am thinking without this check unelected bureaucrats are almost free to do as they please. 












Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 68566
    • View Profile
Re: Energy Politics & Science
« Reply #1264 on: January 25, 2024, 05:20:52 AM »
That might have fit better in the Globalism thread  :-D

Hope I'm not getting on your nerves with his; I do realize we have a ton of threads but I do believe that some discipline in thread coherency really helps this forum be a resource for finding our way through the flotsam of cyberspace and the Controligarchs' efforts to manipulate how we think.

Body-by-Guinness

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 1474
    • View Profile
Re: Energy Politics & Science
« Reply #1265 on: January 25, 2024, 07:26:47 AM »
That might have fit better in the Globalism thread  :-D

Hope I'm not getting on your nerves with his; I do realize we have a ton of threads but I do believe that some discipline in thread coherency really helps this forum be a resource for finding our way through the flotsam of cyberspace and the Controligarchs' efforts to manipulate how we think.

I'm happy to do what I can and do search thread titles using the main topic of the piece as the search term and then dropping the results in the most germane result. With that said, I've several issues:

• Rote memory. I don't have any, which means I don't have a catalog in my head of many of the topics. I remember some that I post to often, but many simply aren't in the ol' mental card catalog. I'm one of those folks that always has 8 balls in the air (what I lack in rote memory I more than make up with my ability to keep those balls from dropping) with the downside being I frequently don't have time to do any deep digging as I'm doing a quick driveby upon encountering an interesting piece.

• Notifications. They seem to be an all-or-nothing affair on this board. It's difficult to describe how many needless, irrelevant, and redundant notifications I get through the course of a day. I might be going to bid on a ~$10 million contract soon; those chummed waters, for instance, bring every vendor in the biz my way by every communication mode imaginable, including those too small to handle the contract among other non-starters. Bottom line, I don't have notifications turned on here as a sanity preservation measure and hence often miss thread suggestions until the next time I'm in said thread.

• Topic organization. My brain seeks to impose rhyme and reason on things, endlessly searches for patterns, or otherwise deal with my nonexistent rote capabilities by instead finding underlying consistencies and using them as a guidepost. Alas, some topics here defy that technique as they are either so broad or so amorphous that everything connoted by the thread label is a candidate to be placed there. Some that consistently flummox my admittedly different drummer synapses include:

"Money, the Fed, Banking, Monetary Policy, Dollar, bitcoin, crypto, Gold/Silver." What involving economics COULDN'T go there?
"The Goolag, Facebook, Youtube, Amazon, Twitter, Gov censorship via Tech Octopus." Everything online PLUS the government hand in it? Way too broad for me to handle, at least consistently and to your standards.
"Antifa-BLM, SJW warriors, gender warriors, victimhood, cancel culture, satanism." I can almost handle this one but ... satanism? So all things "Progressive" and occult go here?
"Homeland Security, Border, sabotage of energy, transportation, environment." I feel like I'm taking an SAT or something: which terms don't belong in this series?
"US-China (& Japan, South China Sea-- Taiwan, Vietnam, Philippines, etc)." So can only US interactions with the countries listed be placed here or can say a Vietnam piece or Japan/Philippines piece live here too?

And so on.

All day long I deal with nitpicky higher ed types that do so as they don't think a given policy should apply to them, and now feel like I'm channeling 'em, much to my shame. And hey, I realize this is an organic place that has evolved over time via the input of numerous users, making some sort of universal cataloging or whatever more than a daunting task, one that would gum up most other folks were a topic they know well to change name. In a lot of ways I think this is a tool problem; SimpleMachines ought to allow tags so that they can be added to posts that cross jurisdictional boundaries and thus achieve your goal of making this forum a resource that indeed was one of the reasons I started posting here way back in the day. Alas, current tools such as Feedly and various clip-boarding apps handle that desire better for me, so my posting here is less to be able to find it again and more of a "hmm, neat piece worth sharing with folks I hold in high regard" deal for me.

With all that said, I suspect I'll do better moving forward as my gray matter gets a handle on underlying patterns and such, but in the interim I trust you understand that I don't drop things where I drop them to cause confusion, but rather as a result of confusion where my admittedly odd way of taking in the world is concerned.
« Last Edit: January 25, 2024, 08:58:21 AM by Body-by-Guinness »

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18066
    • View Profile
Re: Energy Politics & Science
« Reply #1266 on: January 25, 2024, 07:49:28 AM »
BBG

I feel your points.

I have been posting and reading the forum for must be near 20 yrs now so I have learned the different threads along the way otherwise I would also have a hard time figuring out which thread to use as the most apropriate one.

The "search" for a particular thread that I recall but cannot find often does not find the right thread for me either.

I am not sure how to improve this function though.

Some threads have been duplicated along the way as well or have overlap topics.
At this point it would be like trying to streamline the encyclopedia.

Body-by-Guinness

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 1474
    • View Profile
Energy Policy Keystone
« Reply #1267 on: January 25, 2024, 12:08:51 PM »
Piece tracks Biden admin policy choices and compares them to what then happened to gas prices:

https://realclimatescience.com/2024/01/three-years-of-joe-biden/#gsc.tab=0


Body-by-Guinness

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 1474
    • View Profile
RIP EVs?
« Reply #1269 on: January 27, 2024, 04:50:44 PM »

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 68566
    • View Profile
WSJ: Biden and Tik Tok energy policy
« Reply #1270 on: January 28, 2024, 05:28:54 AM »
Biden and the TikTok Anti-LNG Crusade
His ‘pause’ on export permits may be his most destructive climate act—damaging to the economy at home and U.S. influence abroad.
By
The Editorial Board
Follow
Jan. 26, 2024 5:52 pm ET


Share


Americans received a preview of a second Biden term on Friday when the President halted permits for new liquefied natural gas (LNG) export projects. Climate politics has become the tail wagging this Administration’s economic, national security and foreign policy. President Biden isn’t running for re-election. Climate lobbyist Bill McKibben and his TikTok army are.


“This pause on new LNG approvals sees the climate crisis for what it is: the existential threat of our time,” Mr. Biden said. “We will heed the calls of young people and frontline communities who are using their voices to demand action from those with the power to act.” Didn’t he campaign in 2020 by promising to be the adult in the room?

Now he’s letting TikTokers dictate U.S. policy. Press reports say Biden adviser John Podesta pushed for the “pause”—which tees up an outright ban—after TikTokers and Mr. McKibben made stopping LNG exports a cause celebre. Mr. Biden’s advisers at the White House even met with a TikTok climate “influencer.” The Administration hopes its climate gesture will boost the President’s flagging political support among young people.

Who cares about the real-world impact, or the signal to allies and adversaries that the U.S. isn’t a reliable partner? Europe and Asia should plan to import their gas from Qatar, Russia or even Iran. Xi Jinping and Vladimir Putin now know they can exploit the Administration’s climate obsession to undermine U.S. interests.

During the pause, the Energy Department will conduct an environmental and economic review of LNG exports. “Today, we have an evolving understanding of the market need for LNG, the long-term supply of LNG, and the perilous impacts of methane on our planet” and “pollution from new export facilities,” the White House statement says.

Mr. Biden’s views sure have evolved. As Vice President, he boasted about the benefits of U.S. LNG exports. “The United States is now a net [gas] exporter,” he proclaimed at the 2016 CAF conference. “There are even greater opportunities to supply the energy needs of our partners in Latin America and around the world.”

He was right. Global demand for natural gas is expected to increase 46% by 2050 as countries industrialize and shift from coal. Most developing Asian economies still rely on coal for power, including India (71%), Indonesia (59%), Vietnam (57%) and the Philippines (55%). Global coal exports and power generation last year hit a record.

China was the biggest coal importer, followed by India, Japan, South Korea and Taiwan. Demand for LNG has outstripped supply especially as Europe tries to wean itself from Russian gas. A Bangladesh energy official complained last year that Asian countries couldn’t buy gas because of skyrocketing prices. Instead, they burned coal. How will this be good for the climate?

The climate lobby also doesn’t care that some 2.3 billion people in the world still cook with open fires or stoves that burn heavily-polluting wood, coal, biomass or kerosene. Developing countries want and need gas to escape poverty, which is another reason demand for LNG is expected to exceed supply for decades.

Hence, Russia, Iran and Qatar are expanding their export capacities. By the way, Russia last year supplied Europe with almost as much gas as the U.S. The White House says its pause won’t jeopardize supply to Europe, but energy officials across the pond disagree. Germany accounted for a third or more of the contracted capacity of a large planned Gulf Coast LNG project.

Nobody in the White House seems to understand that countries sign long-term contracts years in advance so they can plan their energy infrastructure and needs. They won’t build new gas plants or import terminals without supply locked in—or they will turn to more reliable sources. Russia now looks like a more reliable energy source than the U.S.

Much of the supply from LNG projects in the works is slated for Asia. They would strengthen U.S. relationships and influence in the region to counter China. Xi Jinping no doubt is elated by the Administration’s pause, which will do more damage to U.S. strategic interests than blocking the Keystone XL pipeline.

***
Re-election imperatives have partly restrained the President’s attack on fossil fuels in his first term, but don’t expect the same in a second. Recall how the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission in early 2022 backtracked on a plan to conduct greenhouse-gas analyses for natural gas pipelines and export projects after West Virginia Sen. Joe Manchin raised a ruckus.

But Mr. Manchin is retiring, and Mr. Biden won’t need to worry about him in a second term. Nor will he have to heed voters in states such as Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin. Mr. McKibben will lead a no-holds-barred children’s crusade against fossil fuels. Is Mr. Biden trying to give Americans another reason to vote for Donald Trump?

Body-by-Guinness

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 1474
    • View Profile
Fantasy, Tyranny, & the Green Embrace Thereof
« Reply #1271 on: January 28, 2024, 08:37:52 PM »
Good overview of green energy issues, outcomes (higher cost!), and the nitwittery posing as science seeking to create a green stampede:

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2024/01/27/climate-and-energy-fantasy-and-tyranny/

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 68566
    • View Profile
WSJ: Sen. Kennedy of LA vs. Biden on LNG
« Reply #1272 on: January 29, 2024, 07:07:15 PM »
I’ll Fight Back Against Biden’s LNG Pause
I plan to block every State and Energy department nominee until he relents.
By John Kennedy
Jan. 29, 2024 6:09 pm ET




Resize
68

Gift unlocked article

Listen

(3 min)


image
LNG tanker in Cameron Parish, La., April 14, 2022. PHOTO: STAFF/REUTERS
The Biden administration has announced a pause on every new and pending permit for liquefied natural gas export terminals in the U.S., including several in Louisiana.

The White House claims this is necessary because the Energy Department based its permit reviews on five-year-old data. Here’s the truth: Climate warriors want President Biden to destroy America’s fossil-fuel industry, but he doesn’t want to pull the trigger himself. By withholding permits, the president can scare away investors, bleed these projects of capital, and claim to have clean hands if the terminals close.

OPINION: POTOMAC WATCH
WSJ Opinion Potomac Watch
Joe Biden's Dilemma on Natural Gas Exports


SUBSCRIBE
Add to Queue
Explore Audio Center
Any way you look at it, Mr. Biden’s blockade is bad for America. Consider the Calcasieu Pass 2 export terminal in Cameron Parish, La. Once completed, it will be the country’s largest terminal. Nixing its permit would jeopardize $20 billion in investments for U.S. industry and kill thousands of good jobs in my state.

There is no environmental justification for killing these jobs. Natural gas is the reason America leads the world in carbon-emission reductions. From 2005 through 2019 natural gas drove a 32% reduction in American carbon emissions while creating 1.4 million manufacturing jobs and ensuring that families paid half as much to heat their homes. Apparently, whichever TikTok influencer convinced the Biden administration to ban LNG permits forgot to mention that side of the natural-gas ledger.

Natural gas is also a key to several of the Biden administration’s other environmental pet projects. Electric cars? They plug into an electrical grid powered by natural gas. Wind turbines and solar panels? Natural gas provides a reliable backstop so folks don’t face blackouts when the wind doesn’t blow and the sun doesn’t shine. That’s why the European Commission recognizes natural gas as a sustainable energy source.

Americans will suffer because of Mr. Biden’s attack on natural gas, and so will our allies. When war broke out in Ukraine, the president promised our friends in Europe and elsewhere that they could depend on the U.S. to keep natural gas flowing. Unless his administration plans to run a pipeline through the mid-Atlantic ridge, liquefying natural gas and transporting it on tankers is the only way Washington can fulfill its promises. Our allies shouldn’t have to rely on Russia, Iran and China to keep the lights on.

In a recent letter, I warned Energy Secretary Jennifer Granholm that her proposed pause on LNG export permits is an unjustifiably bad policy. The Biden administration listened to the climate influencers instead and tried to bury this foolish ban in a Friday news dump.

Until Mr. Biden drops this battle against American energy, I’m going to block every nominee he tries to place at the State and Energy departments. Like the Terminator, I’ll be back again and again to stop his nominees and remind the world that he’s intentionally killing jobs and threatening our national security to placate confused climate extremists.

Mr. Kennedy, a Republican, is a U.S. senator from Louisiana.

Body-by-Guinness

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 1474
    • View Profile
A Tantrum Masquerading as a Policy Deliberation
« Reply #1273 on: January 30, 2024, 04:38:40 PM »
Fine indictment of Biden’s recent LNG edict. Lots of useful tables/graphics at the link:

Biden’s 'Pause' on LNG Exports Is Impulsive and Destructive
US LNG pause impacts industry
•Cato @ Liberty / by Travis Fisher / January 30, 2024 at 12:01PM
Travis Fisher

LNG tanker
On January 26, the Biden administration announced it would pause new approvals of liquefied natural gas (LNG) exports. The official news followed several leaked stories—including one prominent article by The New York Times—that triggered criticism from LNG supporters and praise from climate activists.

The announcement appears to be a concession to the “keep it in the ground” movement and the 65 federal lawmakers who asked for the policy change in November 2023. However, some pragmatic progressives see the pause as misguided: “The urgency of the energy transition cannot excuse counterproductive purity tests,” wrote Elan Sykes and Neel Brown of the Progressive Policy Institute.

From the libertarian perspective, the pause is unwise energy policy, an encroachment on free trade, and a continuation of the Biden administration’s use of uncertainty as a political weapon against energy suppliers. Let’s dig in.

What Is Changing, Exactly?

LNG is the liquefied version of natural gas (mostly methane, CH4). Shippers cool the gas to approximately negative 260 degrees Fahrenheit to make it a liquid that is portable via tanker ships. International trade in LNG has spiked in part because of the abundant natural gas resources in the United States, which were enabled by technological improvements in unconventional production from shale formations.

The United States did not export significant quantities of LNG until about 2015, so one might say the industry is in uncharted waters. The aggressive growth in LNG exports (particularly relative to historic levels of imports) can be seen in the graph below.

Liquefied natural gas imports and exports, 1985-2022
(Source.)

Although the large quantities of exports are new, the legal apparatus is not. Specifically, under the Natural Gas Act (NGA), the Department of Energy (DOE) must approve any import or export of natural gas. Congress passed the NGA in 1938, so the statute predates the organization of the DOE itself, which was formed by Congress in 1977 by the DOE Organization Act.

Before the DOE was established the responsibilities in this section of the NGA were carried out by the Federal Power Commission (renamed in 1977 to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission or FERC). Now the two agencies each regulate different parts of the LNG industry. DOE explains their roles as follows:

The NGA directs DOE to evaluate applications to export LNG to non‐​FTA [Free Trade Agreement] countries. … Typically, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) has jurisdiction over the siting, construction, and operation of LNG export facilities in the US In these cases, FERC leads the environmental impact assessments of proposed projects consistent with the National Environmental Policy Act, and DOE is typically a cooperating agency as part of these reviews. Obtaining a DOE authorization to export LNG to non‐​FTA countries is an important step for most projects in their path toward financing and construction.

The Biden administration said the DOE will now scrutinize applications to export LNG through the lens of climate change and other factors in determining whether additional US LNG exports are in the public interest. The White House stated:

The current economic and environmental analyses DOE uses to underpin its LNG export authorizations are roughly five years old and no longer adequately account for considerations like potential energy cost increases for American consumers and manufacturers beyond current authorizations or the latest assessment of the impact of greenhouse gas emissions. Today, we have an evolving understanding of the market need for LNG, the long‐​term supply of LNG, and the perilous impacts of methane on our planet.

The DOE has never denied an LNG export application, so this is a big shift in public policy.

Who Carries the Burden of Proof?

The rise of low‐​cost natural gas production in the United States—combined with high prices and resource constraints in other parts of the world—means US producers can profitably refrigerate, ship, and deliver gas to other countries. In contrast to other energy resources that require mandates and subsidies, LNG exports merely require approval from the federal government. All the government has to do is get out of the way.

The text of the NGA establishes approval as the default position. The statute says the DOE “shall” issue an order approving a project “unless, after opportunity for hearing, it finds that the proposed exportation or importation will not be consistent with the public interest.” Hence a pause to further consider new factors is the wrong posture—LNG approvals should continue until and unless DOE makes a new finding that LNG exports are inconsistent with the public interest. Ideally, of course, the government shouldn’t have the power to bar energy exports in peacetime.

There is a case to be made on either side of the climate debate regarding LNG.

Supporters of LNG exports cite the lower CO2 emissions of natural gas combustion over coal. By exporting natural gas and displacing the use of coal globally, the argument goes, the United States can help other countries reduce their CO2 emissions. We have certainly seen coal‐​to‐​gas switching bring down emissions in the United States.

Opponents of LNG exports, however, argue that the energy required to cool and transport natural gas—not to mention leakage of uncombusted methane, itself a potent greenhouse gas—makes it little better for climate change than burning coal.

The Administration’s Action is Arbitrary and Capricious

As experts debate the net impact of natural gas exports on factors like global climate change, the structure of the NGA indicates that approvals should move forward while the DOE deliberates. In July 2023, the DOE rejected a petition by environmental groups to do precisely what it now accepts—to undertake a blanket review of its LNG policy.

In fact, the DOE’s rejection notes in the first sentence of the document that the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) provides that each agency “shall give an interested person the right to petition for the issuance, amendment, or repeal of a rule.” The DOE’s new policy of a “pause” runs afoul of the APA and deprives interested parties the ability to challenge it before it goes into effect.

The new stated policy of a pause is especially capricious—meaning impulsive or unpredictable—given how the DOE responded to the environmental petitioners just six months ago:

After carefully considering Petitioners’ request, DOE is denying the Rulemaking Petition. As discussed below, DOE has reasonably exercised its discretion to implement its LNG export program through a combined approach of individual adjudications and export‐​focused regulatory actions, rather than a single rulemaking of broad applicability. DOE‘s existing LNG export regulatory program is responsive to Petitioners’ principal concerns—namely because, since 2013, DOE has, in fact, established a decision‐​making process under NGA section 3(a) that “respond to the complex issues raised by LNG export and appropriately serve the Natural Gas Act,” as Petitioners request. (emphasis in original)

How can the DOE now claim that it does not need to go through a formal rulemaking process in reversing course and implementing a new LNG approval regime? Even the environmental groups that want the DOE to shut down LNG exports should agree that their petition for a new rulemaking was the appropriate vehicle for enacting new policy.

Further, in the event of an administrative policy change at DOE that rises to the level of national significance—I think an indefinite LNG export pause qualifies—the Supreme Court’s “Major Questions Doctrine” should come into play. As the Congressional Review Service summarized the doctrine, “if an agency seeks to decide an issue of major national significance, its action must be supported by clear congressional authorization.” (emphasis in original) Did Congress give the DOE clear authorization to deny LNG export applications based on the factors DOE now finds important?

Political Uncertainty as Punishment

We have already seen the playbook of capricious policy in action. In February 2022, FERC issued new policy statements “providing guidance for future consideration of natural gas projects by the Commission.” The policy change—which suggested that an unspecified level of climate mitigation would be necessary to serve the public interest and receive FERC approval of gas pipeline projects—injected enormous uncertainty into the pipeline approval process.

The concept of the February 2022 policy statement was also the subject of a series of rebuttals (prebuttals?) by Commissioner Bernard McNamee, who argued forcefully beginning in 2019 that “the commission does not have the authority under the NGA or [the National Environmental Policy Act] to deny a pipeline certificate application based on the environmental effects of the upstream production or downstream use of natural gas nor does the commission have the authority to unilaterally establish measures to mitigate” emissions.

Ultimately, FERC withdrew its proposal after receiving blistering blowback from members of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee (ENR). Senator Joe Manchin (D‑WV), ENR chairman, said FERC was “constructing additional road blocks that further delay building out the energy infrastructure our country desperately needs.” Delay is the practical impact of political uncertainty.

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) appears to be using the same strategy. Last year, the EPA proposed in its power plant rulemaking to mandate two unproven technologies—green hydrogen and carbon capture—for new or reconstructed power plants to meet greenhouse gas emission targets. The EPA proposed that “affected sources that commenced construction or reconstruction after May 23, 2023” would need to meet the requirements of the final rule.

The electricity generation industry remains in the middle of the uncertainty caused by the EPA’s unworkable proposal. For any new or reconstructed natural gas‐​fired power plant (affected source) subject to EPA’s new standard, a company can construct the unit today and be held—at some future date—to a standard that does not yet exist and may be impossible.

Given the recent track records at DOE, FERC, and EPA, crippling uncertainty is beginning to look like the aim of energy policy rather than an unfortunate side effect.

LNG Export Pause Offers a Lesson in Economic Thinking

The White House listed “potential energy cost increases for American consumers and manufacturers” as one justification for the LNG pause. It is true that, in the very short term, an announcement that the federal government will forcibly restrict the export of natural gas would likely cause its domestic price to fall. But, as French economist Frederic Bastiat implored, we should attempt to foresee long‐​term impacts. Bastiat wrote:

There is only one difference between a bad economist and a good one: the bad economist confines himself to the visible effect; the good economist takes into account both the effect that can be seen and those effects that must be foreseen.

Yet this difference is tremendous; for it almost always happens that when the immediate consequence is favorable, the later consequences are disastrous, and vice versa. Whence it follows that the bad economist pursues a small present good that will be followed by a great evil to come, while the good economist pursues a great good to come, at the risk of a small present evil.

Restricting the sale of LNG abroad would send ripple effects up the supply chain, blunting incentives to explore for more natural gas and to produce what’s already been found. Advocates of thwarting the global natural gas trade—and of hoarding domestic natural gas—are focused on temporary, short‐​term impacts to commodity prices and ignoring long‐​term impacts to natural gas supply infrastructure.

Whose Gas Is It Anyway?

Economics aside, what business does the federal government have in dictating the direction of an industry that delivers a product that so many people find valuable? Advances in directional drilling and hydraulic fracturing technology (commonly referred to as “fracking”) allowed American firms to produce astonishing amounts of useful energy from hydrocarbons trapped over a mile deep in rock formations. (Turn useless, 6,000-foot-deep rock into electricity? Yes, please.)

People here and abroad want to use that energy. Natural gas is a valuable resource—we use it not just to fuel power plants but to cook food, heat homes, and fabricate a dizzying array of plastics, fibers, and even medicines. Natural gas liquids like propane and ethane are especially useful as a material feedstock but also have energy‐​related applications.

The DOE, EPA, and FERC may try to stifle the progress of the natural gas industry in the name of climate change (or industry protectionism), but the demand for energy will always be there. Globally, energy consumption continues to increase, as shown below.

Increase in global energy use 1900-2022
(Source.)

The challenge to meet growing demand should be exciting because energy consumption reflects the increasing living standards of countless millions (hopefully billions) across the globe. The US Energy Information Administration stated in its 2023 International Energy Outlook: “as incomes and population rise over time, energy consumption increases as more people can afford to drive, use commercial services, demand goods, and control building temperatures.”

For the hundreds of millions of people worldwide who still lack access to electricity, LNG exports could be the difference between dark and light.

https://www.cato.org/blog/bidens-pause-lng-exports-impulsive-destructive

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 17984
    • View Profile
Gas prices rising (in an election year)
« Reply #1274 on: February 01, 2024, 05:04:07 PM »
https://www.startribune.com/twin-cities-gas-prices-float-near-3-mark-expected-to-keep-rising/600340292/

What is he going to do, take more from the Reserve?

Why are gas prices going up in winter?  Probably increased government consumption.  Also, constraints on production.

Body-by-Guinness

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 1474
    • View Profile
Re: Gas prices rising (in an election year)
« Reply #1275 on: February 01, 2024, 05:30:01 PM »
https://www.startribune.com/twin-cities-gas-prices-float-near-3-mark-expected-to-keep-rising/600340292/

What is he going to do, take more from the Reserve?

Why are gas prices going up in winter?  Probably increased government consumption.  Also, constraints on production.

Not to mention the signal Biden is sending to the market with his LNG antics. Is it a shot across Abbott’s bow, a bone thrown to environmentalists, or a case of a leopard (one that belongs in a memory ward) showing its true spots?

Body-by-Guinness

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 1474
    • View Profile
Volvo Quits Making EVs, Stock Jumps
« Reply #1276 on: February 03, 2024, 09:35:19 AM »
Well this leaves me sniggering:

Volvo, An Early Electric Car Adopter, Cuts Off Funding For Its EV Affiliate
Move follows other retrenchments by big automakers as sentiment turns against EVs

Follow the WSJ in Apple News
STOCKHOLM—Volvo Car said it won’t provide further funding to Polestar, the electric-car maker it created with Volvo’s Chinese owner Geely—the latest EV retrenchment by the global auto industry.
The auto industry’s pivot to electric vehicles has been rocked by setbacks this year, just as a flood of new battery-powered models is hitting showrooms.

Earlier this week, French automaker Renault said it has decided to cancel the initial public offering of its electric-car unit Ampere. Ford, meanwhile, has slashed production of its electric F-150 Lightning, a pickup truck that has generated major buzz since its launch. Rental-car firm Hertz has said it was dumping about one-third of its EV rental car fleet, replacing the cars with gas-engine vehicles.
Also earlier this week, Tesla—the world’s most valuable automaker—warned of notably lower growth this year. Data earlier this year has shown a slowdown in EV sales growth in the U.S., automakers delaying or cutting back on plans and anxiety rising among dealership owners.
In a sign of investor unease about automakers’ march toward an EV future, Volvo shares surged more than 20% Thursday on its decision to cut off funding to Polestar.

Volvo and Geely founded Polestar as a stand-alone EV maker, separate from Volvo’s substantial in-house effort to go electric. Through a special-purpose acquisition company merger, the two listed it on Nasdaq in 2022. Polestar shares have fallen 83% since then.
Analysts have highlighted how Volvo’s 48% stake in Polestar has been a drag on its resources, with the company struggling with losses amid the slow consumer uptake of electric vehicles and the increasingly competitive market, tapping Volvo for around $1 billion in financing while the company works through a turnaround plan.

The company’s Polestar stake impaired its group EPS by around 1.9 Swedish kronor (18 cents) in 2023, UBS analyst David Lesne said in a note. This compares to Volvo Car group EPS of SEK4.4 for the year.

Volvo said Thursday it will extend the repayment period for the existing convertible loan by 18 months to the end of 2028. But it said it would be concentrating its financial resources on Volvo’s own needs from now on.

The company said it was also evaluating a potential adjustment to its shareholding in Polestar, including a possible distribution of shares to Volvo Cars’ shareholders, including Geely.

If it decides to distribute its stake to shareholders, Geely would become a significant new shareholder.

The Chinese auto group said in a statement that it will continue to provide full operational and financial support to Polestar as an independent exclusive brand going forward. That support wouldn’t require a reduction of its shareholding in Volvo Car, it added.
Volvo Car Chief Executive, Jim Rowan, said on a call after outlining the news that a separation from Polestar is a natural evolution and that now is the right time to consider reducing its shareholding, and for Polestar to look for alternative funding.

Meanwhile, Volvo posted a rise in fourth-quarter revenue, driven by higher volumes and said it expects the growth rate in retail sales to increase this year as long as there are no major disruptions.

Net profit attributable to shareholders rose to 3.11 billion Swedish kronor ($299.2 million) from SEK2.46 billion a year earlier, as revenue rose 4% to SEK109.44 billion.

Analysts polled by FactSet had projected a net profit of SEK4 billion on revenue of SEK108.35 billion.

“We remain firm on our ambition to report an EBIT margin above 8% for 2026, and now do so based on expected revenues between SEK550 billion-SEK600 billion,” Rowan said.

“By the end of 2026, this calculates to a revenue compound annual growth rate of 11%-15% from 2023 to 2026.”
In terms of total 2024 retail deliveries, Volvo aims for a higher year-over-year growth rate than in 2023.

Write to Dominic Chopping at dominic.chopping@wsj.com
WSJ Workout Challenge
New for 2024: Our five-week challenge is designed to get you excited about fitness. And it's free for all readers.

https://apple.news/ApX5K5KZlR1qv1nwN-0VMCw

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18066
    • View Profile
screw EVs
« Reply #1277 on: February 03, 2024, 09:43:56 AM »
if Trump wins time to invest
in EOG, LNG and CVX or Oke?

thoughts?

If Biden wins sell GM ?


DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 17984
    • View Profile


Body-by-Guinness

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 1474
    • View Profile
A Pair of Dems Against Biden’s LNG Posturing
« Reply #1280 on: February 08, 2024, 04:48:07 AM »
Pair of Dem congresscritters take issue with Biden’s LNG antics he's slung at Abbott.

Biden's LNG decision will make it harder to reach our climate goals
The Hill News / by Mary Landrieu and Tim Ryan / February 08, 2024 at 07:38AM

China is orchestrating a massive investment in solar and wind power to meet its growing energy needs, installing as much renewable energy capacity as the rest of the world combined, six years ahead of schedule.

However, this impressive success story masks an ugly truth: Without natural gas as a foundation, this renewable power is inextricably linked with rapidly expanding coal-burning in order to ensure grid reliability, which is creating more harm than good for our climate.

China quadrupled permits for new coal power plants in 2022, building six times more than all other countries. It now burns more coal than the rest of the world combined. Although China is the most disturbing example, the use of coal is expanding across developing countries in Asia, including India — which also, despite its push for renewables, will be heavily reliant on coal for the next several decades. Coal today accounts for 44 percent of global emissions, with nearly 70 percent coming from two countries, China and India. Even Germany, which Europe’s leader on renewable power installation, is turning its coal-fired plants back on to restore grid reliability in the absence of sufficient natural gas supply because of the war in Ukraine.

As Democrats supporting President Biden, we are aligned with the imperative to reverse climate change quickly with bold action, including ramping up investments in renewables and clean energy. The Inflation Reduction Act funds vital technologies such as carbon capture, rare earth mineral production, and hydrogen, which will all be critical to moving toward net-zero carbon emissions. That work has to happen now to reach scale in the years ahead.

But low-carbon natural gas must be part of the equation too, both here at home and exported abroad. That’s why Biden’s recent actions to halt LNG approvals is so disappointing.

Bipartisan energy leaders in Congress understand what’s at stake, as 30 of them traveled to COP28 in Dubai. At a recent summit at the Capitol following their trip, Democrats and Republicans, business, labor and renewable power leaders, have all identified the need to address permitting reform and get back to building energy infrastructure for both renewables and natural gas.

We’ve shared this sentiment with the Biden administration, including the critical role American natural gas exports must play to move the world off coal and provide our allies abroad with secure energy, so they aren’t instead forced to rely on hostile leaders. In fact, during this administration, American natural gas exports have largely been credited with stopping Putin’s attempts to bend European economies to his will. They have also helped Europe's economies stave off crippling price increases.

The U.S. was once heavily reliant on coal, too, right up until 2005. But the growth of U.S. natural gas production and power plant conversions away from coal have helped us lead the world in emissions reductions — accounting for nearly 60 percent of US carbon emission reductions over the last 15 years. And while there is still work to do on methane, the natural gas industry is answering the call, certifying their gas to beat strict methane standards, investing in satellite tracking, and collaborating with the United Nations Methane Partnership.

Shrill and impractical voices in this debate have long blatantly ignored these realities, dishonestly attempting to force a false binary choice of renewables or fossil fuels upon a complex debate over geopolitics, economics, and climate. Young people absorbing their misinformation need to understand the future risks of the policies they are advocating.

They will even claim that natural gas is worse than coal, despite the fact that natural gas emits 50 percent less carbon dioxide than coal. If they had their way in ending natural gas use, many economies, including the U.S. would need to burn more and more coal to keep the lights on — moving us backward on climate — no matter how many wind and solar panels we install.

The value of natural gas is backed up by leading and trusted scientific experts like former Obama administration Energy Secretary Ernie Moniz, who has said natural gas should be viewed “as a multi-decadal, critical component of the energy transition.” One recent study found that simply converting the top 5 percent of the world’s dirtiest power plants to natural gas would cut electric sector global emissions by 30 percent.

So what are we waiting for, and how can we meet the challenge?

The answer is not to stop natural gas buildouts here in the U.S., but to expand energy infrastructure, meeting growing demand at home to ensure a solid foundation that supports the scaling up of renewables, and moving this secure, cleaner fuel overseas to cut coal emissions abroad.

It's time for radically practical thinking about the urgent challenges we face on energy and climate, from both Democrats and Republicans. From our time serving with him in Washington, we know Biden to be the type of leader capable of this.

We urge his administration to rethink this counterproductive policy, which not only sets back our climate agenda, but also undermines his strong record of rebuilding American jobs and manufacturing.

Mary Landrieu (D-La.) served in the U.S. Senate from 1997 to 2015. Tim Ryan (D-Ohio) represented Ohio's 13th congressional district from 2003 to 2023. The two are co-chairs of Natural Allies for a Clean Energy Future.

https://thehill.com/opinion/energy-environment/4453275-bidens-lng-decision-will-make-it-harder-to-reach-our-climate-goals/
« Last Edit: February 08, 2024, 09:47:47 AM by Body-by-Guinness »

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 17984
    • View Profile
Re: A Pair of Dems Against Biden’s LNG Posturing
« Reply #1281 on: February 08, 2024, 07:16:25 AM »
Good for them for speaking out and speaking truth. Moderate Democrats without a party or a state, both are former elected officials.

In their last Senate elections Mary Landrieu was defeated in the 2014 Louisiana runoff election to Republican opponent Congressman Bill Cassidy 56% to 44%.  In 2022, Tim Ryan lost to Republican JD Vance in Ohio by 6 points.  Tim Ryan was the most reasonable voice in the 2020 Democratic Presidential race and gained zero traction.  Their party would like to ban your grandfather's Oldsmobile.

Tim Ryan would make a good 'no-labels' candidate.

Question, is their (former?) party listening?  No.  The Dem Party is doing exactly the opposite of the common sense they advocate.

We need energy when the sun is down and when the wind is calm.  We need energy just to build and transport the solar and wind infrastructure around the globe. We need fossil fuel energy, of which natural gas is the cleanest.  We need more power on the grid to support the transportation and heating sectors BEFORE we switch it all over.  We need to export clean energy or the rest of the world will find less clean alternatives.  But no.  Not unless you vote all of them out and the other team in.

Natural gas replacing coal is what lowered our emissions, they point out.  It happened because of fracking.  It happened under Obama, no thanks to him.  It happened because of American ingenuity and because of long term, risk-based investments (some dare to call it capitalism).

Long term investments are not made when you say you will end that industry in 5-6 years.

What they write is all true but mostly we should be pursuing nuclear.  Not mentioned because they are pursuing one interest.  Instead of half the carbon emissions of coal, nuclear power has no carbon emissions.  For the most part, (almost) all the base energy should be nuclear and all the on-demand energy should be natural gas.  Solar and wind can lower those demands but electrical demands aren't going lower as we try to electrify everything.

"China is burning more coal than the rest of the world combined", and we are still subsidizing them and leaving them out of our meaningless 'climate agreements'.  If Leftist climatists were serious, they would be strong on sanctions and trade with China, but they aren't.  If you build it in China, it is dirtier than if you build it here.

No mention of pipelines like the one that Joe Biden cancelled in his first minute in office.  What is the safest way to move oil and natural gas?  Pipelines.  To mention it is to criticize Biden, and their is an appeal to Biden and his handlers.

"We’ve shared this sentiment with the Biden administration..."   - to no avail.  The other party (R) already agrees with them, and now holds their seats.

A vote for today's Democratic Party is a vote against your own energy and economy, and food, and they aren't making the environment any cleaner with what they are doing to us.

The fastest path to a better environment, including reducing levels of CO2, is to focus on prosperity.  China and India are using too much coal because they are still developing economies, and following them will be the rest of the developing world.  Only economies of prosperity can afford the cleanest solutions , a lesson learned when we discovered the filth of East Germany as compared with the west.  Command economies (cf. China) aren't cleaner. 

Why are doing all these things to put freedom and prosperity and a cleaner environment further out of reach?
« Last Edit: February 08, 2024, 09:00:10 AM by DougMacG »

Body-by-Guinness

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 1474
    • View Profile