Day: May 30, 2023

Column: This is the century of natural gas

Here’s a 2023 headline from an anti-hydrocarbons website: “China, India lead US$534 billion global gas pipeline build out.” The article notes that globally, over 59,000 kilometres of transmission pipeline are under construction and an additional 151,000 kms are proposed (for reference, the earth’s circumference is 40,000 kms). 

From BOE Report

By Terry Etam

The headline above is not designed to make young heads explode, It’s really not. But it might. 

Before getting to why that might be, consider why the headline is a credible statement. The evidence is, in total, overwhelming.

Here’s a 2023 headline from an anti-hydrocarbons website: “China, India lead US$534 billion global gas pipeline build out.” The article notes that globally, over 59,000 kilometres of transmission pipeline are under construction and an additional 151,000 kms are proposed (for reference, the earth’s circumference is 40,000 kms). 

That’s just the growth, and that’s just the bigger transmission lines. Natural gas pipeline distribution systems are made up of large transmission lines and then smaller distribution systems. I have not been able to find a statistic for the combined length of the total global distribution system, perhaps none exists, but consider the U.S.’s pipeline system characteristics: The U.S. has over 300,000 miles of natural gas transmission lines, and about 2.2 million miles of smaller distribution pipelines – the ones that get gas to customers. 

Those numbers, and particularly that ratio, give some examples of the staggering size of the global natural gas infrastructure system. And natural gas is used almost everywhere.

According to a gas infrastructure tracking site, about 130 countries in 2022 either have existing natural gas pipeline systems or have some in development.

Perhaps the most pertinent aspect of the 130-country statistic is that 103 countries as of December 2022 are developing natural gas transmission pipelines, with a total length of 210,000 kms, or more than five times the earth’s circumference.

You may read in the news that net zero 2050 is upon us, and that the fossil fuel industry is in terminal decline, full of stranded assets that will be made obsolete in a few decades because of the sheer will of governments and a very boisterous cheering section.

Yet the world isn’t acting that way at all. The U.S. is undergoing an LNG expansion boom, one that isn’t too scared of stranded assets – according to SP Global, in 2022 there were 23 LNG offtake contracts signed with a term of 20 years or greater. Another nine were signed with terms from 15-20 years. 

These contracts are backstopping what is expected to be a 15 billion cubic feet per day (bcf/d) expansion of the U.S.’ LNG export capability within the next decade. Canada will eventually add a significant amount to that tally, as will Mexico. 

That’s the western world. Here’s what Africa has to say: This is from the Gas Exporting Countries Forum, of which many members are African: “Unfortunately, the issue of African energy access has rarely been reported or prioritised, despite African energy consumption per capita being the lowest globally. In light of the need for a secure, affordable, and sustainable energy source to fuel economic growth and alleviate poverty in Africa, all the available energy options will continue to be relevant…the abundance of natural gas and the proven efficiency of combined cycle gas turbines (CCGTs) in power generation make it a suitable complement to renewables in Africa’s just transition plan.

The continent’s primary energy demand is expected to increase by 82 per cent from 860 Mtoe in 2021 to 1,565 Mtoe by 2050 (Figure 5). Sub-Saharan Africa is expected to account for 84 per cent of this growth amid higher living standards, signaling better access to energy and improvements in the energy poverty problems. Natural gas will be responsible for around 30 per cent of Africa’s total energy demand increase.”

Here is a list of countries that have, in the past few years, either built or are planning to build, LNG import terminals (source: articles like this and this): Myanmar, Thailand, Vietnam, Philippines, Singapore, Malaysia, Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Dominican Republic, Jamaica, Mexico, Panama, and Puerto Rico, and Germany.

The following countries have called for support of Africa in pursuing natural gas development (and long-term gas displacement by renewable energy and green hydrogen “if financially and technically feasible”): Kigali, Rwanda, Democratic Republic of Congo, Ghana, Kenya, Malawi, Morocco, Nigeria, Rwanda, Senegal, Uganda, and Zimbabwe. 

The following countries are looking to be LNG exporters by the end of the decade: Mozambique, Tanzania, Nigeria, Mauritania, Congo, and Equatorial Guinea. 

Global LNG demand is expected to nearly double by 2040. 

All in all, those statistics point towards a pretty robust future, no?

The global natural gas business is exploding, with a clear trajectory of growth for at least the next few decades, backed by both contracts and new infrastructure. That infrastructure won’t be abandoned in 20 years, or 30, or 40. Look at coal, which was supposedly the fuel of a distant century, and global consumption of that stuff is at record levels.

Rapid gas development has been happening for at least the past 15 years; Russia’s antics have accelerated it in every part of the world where countries are trying to avoid consumption of Russian hydrocarbons. 

Russia’s war simply accelerated some facets of what was happening regardless. 

Hey, I get it though, the general population does not care about natural gas all that much, not until they pay a whopping utility bill anyway. 

But aside from that, why is booming natural gas development a story worth making the average citizen pay attention?

The fact is they simply have to, because, as mentioned at the outset, the title of this article might be enough to send a good slice of our youth into the darkest of depression or the wildest of rebellion. 

They – the youth of today – have been taught and terrorized and tormented that fossil fuel usage is accelerating us towards Armageddon. They have thunderously been assured that they have no future whatsoever unless hydrocarbon usage ceases immediately. 

The news is full of stories like this: “As climate changes, climate anxiety rises in youth.” The article includes some horrifying stats: In a 2022 study of 10,000 people from around the world, “59 per cent of youth and young adults said they were very or extremely worried about climate change and more than 45 per cent said their feelings about climate change negatively affected their daily life and functioning.”

Kids have always been terrified of the weather, with good cause – when you’re ten years old, the thought of experiencing a flood or fire or tornado is fairly close to as bad as it gets.

Now, the narrative is vastly worthwhile for youth, because they’ve been told, hey kids, you know all those weather events that cause terror in your little hearts? Well, they’re getting worse, they’re going to be inevitable, and they’re YOUR FAULT. YOURS AND YOUR PARENTS AND ALL YOUR STUFF.

Actually, that’s not quite true – the kids are told that the actual culprit are the industries that provide the fuel that causes CO2 emissions. That includes the coal, oil and natural gas industries, lumped together as fossil fuels because it fits so much better on the chest of a villain’s costume than getting all hydrocarbon-technical.

But kids aren’t idiots. (You may well know an exception here or there; I won’t deny that they exist.). They know that the cushy lives most of them lead here in the West have to come from somewhere, that travel has a footprint, that the life they know includes a lot of consumables and throw-away crap and waste. On average they’re not Greta’s, and they’re also not Paris Hiltons. 

But they are, as the youth poll above suggests, gravely concerned about the climate because almost every authority figure in their lives assures them they should be terrified, and that there is little hope of living an entire life to the standard they’ve known thus far. 

They also can read, and all the natural gas stats quoted above are available for viewing online, anytime (some things are really hard to censor). 

They can see how people live, and how people want to live, and how three-quarters of the world’s population would do anything to have the lifestyle we do in the West. They can see the amount of fuel burned every day to make their lives so comfortable. They can see the challenges of building out renewables as a replacement; if old enough, they have seen several decades worth of accelerating renewables spending, trillions of dollars around the world, while at the same time they can readily see that global demand for oil, natural gas, and even coal are all at all time record highs.

So what happens when some genuinely terrified yet curious teenager finds out that the whole world is rushing madly towards a fuel they’ve been told will kill them all? What are they supposed to do then?

Here’s a hopeful path forward. 

Someone will start changing the narrative, pointing out the obvious that natural gas can reduce the emissions profile in many countries that currently burn far dirtier things. Africa currently relies to a sadly great degree on burning dung and wood; it’s not a big stretch to point out that natural gas will be superior.

Relatively simple (and achievable) pathways such as increased LNG fuelling of big trucks will clean up emissions profiles of certain large industries like trucking.29dk2902lhttps://boereport.com/29dk2902l.html

On a larger scale, large natural gas consumers will start capturing and sequestering CO2 at scale, and natural gas combustion with CO2 sequestration by definition meets any sane person’s definition of low emissions energy. 

One of the biggest current knocks against natural gas usage is methane leak emissions. A lot of progress is being made to rectify that issue; new technology is making leak-spotting easier, and at the end of the day, a leak is a leak – it can be fixed.

On the horizon are new technologies, new ideas with vast potential. One such is hydrogen created from natural gas at the point of use, a technology being pioneered by the likes of Innova Hydrogen, Aurora Hydrogen, Ekona Power, and Monolith Corp. This technology could dramatically change emissions profiles, and, crucially, what will be rocket fuel for this industry is the fact it can utilize much of the existing natural gas infrastructure.

It is profoundly absurd to try to envision an energy transition that does not maximize the existing system of millions of kms of pipelines and infrastructure, particularly when advocates of something else are proposing as a solution something that they have no clue as to how to build.

Wouldn’t it be far better to be filling kids’ heads with positivity, and constructiveness, and point out where we can make things work better, rather than scaring them into therapy and wiping out their hope for any sort of future?

Energy conversations should be positive and, most of all, grounded in reality. Life depends on it. Find out more in  “The End of Fossil Fuel Insanity” at Amazon.ca, Indigo.ca, or Amazon.com. Thanks!

Read more insightful analysis from Terry Etam here, or email Terry here.

Media Bombshell: Shocking Outbreak of ‘Climate Disinformation’ in the Media, i.e., Journalists Asking Questions About Net Zero on GB News and Talk TV

Green agitators working on the climate ‘blacklist’ site DeSmog have “scoured hours of online footage” and concluded that many journalists and presenters working at GB News are a tad sceptical about claims that the ‘climate emergency’ is rapidly approaching the point of no return and only the collectivist Net Zero project holds out any hope of averting imminent catastrophe. Needless to say, the Guardian is all over this scandalous outbreak of sceptical journalism.

From THE DAILY SCEPTIC

By CHRIS MORRISON

A participant holds a drawing depicting Swedish environmental activist Greta Thunberg during a protest march to call for action against climate change, in The Hague, Netherlands September 27, 2019. REUTERS/Piroschka van de Wouw

Green agitators working on the climate ‘blacklist’ site DeSmog have “scoured hours of online footage” and concluded that many journalists and presenters working at GB News are a tad sceptical about claims that the ‘climate emergency’ is rapidly approaching the point of no return and only the collectivist Net Zero project holds out any hope of averting imminent catastrophe. Needless to say, the Guardian is all over this scandalous outbreak of sceptical journalism. The Green MP Caroline Lucas notes the “truly toxic misinformation” on GB News, adding: “Ofcom cannot allow these statements to go unchallenged and un-investigated”.

DeSmog found that 16 of the station’s 31 presenters “attacked” U.K. climate policies last year, including the ‘Net Zero 2050’ target. The Guardian noted that 10 of the presenters made statements rejecting or challenging “widely accepted scientific findings” about how humans are affecting the climate, and the role the climate crisis plays in extreme weather events.

The latter comment is interesting. Attributing individual bad weather events to long-term changes in the climate is pseudoscience, and such claims invariably rest on computer models contrasting our atmosphere with wholly imaginary ones. Any data these models spit out fail to qualify as science since they are based on opinions that cannot be tested or falsified. The former economics professor and science writer Roger Pielke is particularly scathing about the attribution of extreme weather events to anthropogenic global warming, which has rushed to fill the alarmist space vacated by global warming running out of steam over 20 years ago. “I can think of no other area of research where the relaxing of rigour and standards has been encouraged by researchers in order to generate claims more friendly to headlines, political advocacy and even lawsuits”, he observed.

Neil Oliver, whose Saturday monologue is a social media hit, is singled out for criticism. On December 30th, he is said to have asserted that polar bears are “doing fine”, and the ice in Antarctica is getting thicker every year. In fact, polar bears are doing fine with surveys suggesting their numbers are at recent highs. Extra food in the Arctic and a ban on hunting has helped the recovery. Meanwhile, a recent paper in Nature (Singh and Polvani) notes that over the last seven decades, the Antarctica sea ice area has “modestly expanded” and warming has been “nearly non-existent” over much of the ice sheet. In November, Oliver criticised green policies by suggesting they were part of a “hellish potpourri of policies guaranteed to condemn hundreds of millions to death by poverty, death by starvation”. DeSmog characterises the statement as a “conspiracy theory”, although the less hysterical might regard it as a fair comment on a potentially disastrous political agenda.

Weather attribution propaganda reached a high point on July 19th last year in the U.K. with news that the temperature topped 40.3°C for 60 seconds half way down the runway at RAF Coningsby, home to Britain’s Typhoon jet fighters. GB News host Calvin Robinson, referring to the short heatwave surrounding the claimed record, accused the Met Office of “alarmism”. Around this time, Nana Akua noted that: “If we [humans] only generate 3.5% of carbon dioxide and the rest of it is natural, then surely the CO2 is not the reason for the climate changing because it’s such a small proportion?” DeSmog accuses her of “challenging the science consensus”, while Lucas in the Guardian clutches pearls and states that climate denial is “deeply dangerous”. Of course, Akua is simply identifying the dubious scientific assumptions that lie at the heart of the unproven hypothesis that humans have caused all or most global warming since the mid-19th Century by burning fossil fuels.

DeSmog only looked at the Net Zero and climate reporting record of GB News, but over on the rival station Talk TV, similar appalling levels of investigation and scepticism are flourishing. If DeSmog is looking to add to its ridiculous blacklist of climate sceptics, it will be spoilt for choice. Julia Hartley-Brewer, Richard Tice, Mike Graham, Kevin O’Sullivan and Dr. Renee Hoederkamp are names that spring immediately to mind, and there are many more. What is happening, of course, is that when journalists are employed on media that allows them to do what they do best – ask questions, inquire, debate – a more nuanced and interesting story often emerges. The Net Zero collectivist project is backed by decades of virtue signalling and the false claim that the science surrounding climate change is ‘settled’. As scientists learn more about the complex natural influences that have major impacts on long-term climate, attributing all or most of the recent changes to humans looks more implausible by the day.

Some media companies are also aware that scepticism about Net Zero and the climate catastrophisation that promotes it is gaining ground in the wider population. Last month, the Daily Sceptic reported that climate scepticism was on the rise throughout the world, as populations start to grasp the effects of the looming Net Zero disaster. A recent poll conducted by a group within the University of Chicago found that belief in humans causing all or most climate change had slumped in America to 49% from the 60% level recorded just five years ago. Last year, a major Ipsos survey covering two thirds of the world’s population revealed that nearly four in every 10 people believe climate change is mainly due to natural causes.

Perhaps worryingly for the BBC and the Guardian with their steadily shrinking audiences, the Chicago survey found climate scepticism increasing more rapidly in left-wing Democrat circles than among Republican. In addition, support for human-caused climate change fell by 17% among young people aged 18-29.

Chris Morrison is the Daily Sceptic’s Environment Editor.

The story of polar bear evolution could not be told without discussing climate change

Polar bears arose as a new species because the climate changed and forced some brown bears to colonize the sea ice. Polar bears epitomize the story of how evolution works but perhaps not quite how you imagined it.

From polarbearscience

Polar bears arose as a new species because the climate changed and forced some brown bears to colonize the sea ice. Polar bears epitomize the story of how evolution works but perhaps not quite how you imagined it.

Moving from extremes in warmth to extremes in cold characterized the last million years of geological history, as the graph above shows, where odd-numbered Marine Isotope Stages (MIS) are warm interglacials and even-numbered stages along the bottom are cold interglacials. MIS 2 was the Last Glacial Maximum.

But where and when during this period of change did polar bears come to be–and how, exactly, did it happen? My new book tells the whole story, which has never been done before. Not long to wait now, the release date is only about a week away (1st week June).

Polar Bear Evolution: A Model for How New Species Arise explains when and where the species came to be, as well as how it happened and why they were able to survive repeated cycles of sea ice change, some of unimaginable magnitude.

Here you’ll find a detailed account of fossil evidence, recent hybridization events between brown bears and polar bears, and summaries of more than a dozen genetic studies that have been done on these bears to determine the most plausible time and place for the origin of polar bears.

It’s logical to assume this speciation event happened during a cold interglacial, but which one?

And if you’ve ever wondered whether polar bears could have arisen more than once or if hybridization with brown bears really did play a significant part in polar bear evolution–as some geneticists insist–this book is for you.

Unique to this account, a biological mechanism reveals how this rapid transformation from a brown bear ancestor could have happened.

Thyroid hormone, essential for countless coordinated body functions including stress responses, the growth of embryos, and the activation of critical genes, seems to have played a vital role in the vast majority of all rapid speciation events.

A testable theory based on thyroid hormone not only explains how polar bears came to be but does the same for domestic dogs, flightless birds like the dodo, and extinct dwarf proto-human from Indonesia known as “Hobbits.”

This evolutionary history of the polar bear also explains why the modern species is essentially pre-adapted to persist in a warmer world.

Whenever the species first arose, its survival through the very warm early Eemian interglacial, an extended period of about ten thousand years (at ca. 130-120k years ago), when there was consistently much less summer and winter sea ice than today, ensured the polar bear was forever flexible enough to deal with profound variations in sea ice. 

Or did lack of sea ice cause it to go extinct and arise a second time?

It’s a fabulous story–you’re going to love it.  

Jim Steele Corrects NPR: Setting the Record Straight on Climate Narratives

Jim Steele does not disappoint on correcting the constant dissemination of climate misinformation. Today, his ire has been directed towards NPR’s report attributing the destructive fire in Denton, Montana in December 2021 to climate change. Professor Jim Steele, an acclaimed geologist and ecologist, perfectly dissected the issue in a tweet, revealing the extent to which NPR missed or misconstrued the critical nuances of the story.

From Watts Up With That

Jim Steele does not disappoint on correcting the constant dissemination of climate misinformation. Today, his ire has been directed towards NPR’s report attributing the destructive fire in Denton, Montana in December 2021 to climate change. Professor Jim Steele, an acclaimed geologist and ecologist, perfectly dissected the issue in a tweet, revealing the extent to which NPR missed or misconstrued the critical nuances of the story.

Steele wrote,

“I listen to NPR radio to hear what fake climate propaganda they’re pushing. Today was ‘Climate Change is Increasing the Fire Risk on the mostly treeless Great Plains’.”

Accusing NPR of fearmongering climate change, Steele goes on to explicate their flawed reasoning in blaming the Denton fire on global warming.

He continues,

“NPR blamed the December 2021 destructive fire in Denton Montana, on 70 mph winds, the supposedly unusual 56°F nighttime temperatures, and lack of snow on the ground, and suggesting it was all due to global warming. But NPR perverted well-established natural weather science.”

He points out that NPR conveniently ignored the fact that the fire was started due to high winds toppling a power line, rather than some climate-induced anomaly.

Steele also brings up the concept of the winter jet stream and its role in producing strong winter Chinooks or fohn winds in eastern Montana. Steele elucidates.

“The native Blackfeet of that region long ago referred to the Chinooks as snow-eaters because the dry warm winds remove the snow,”

According to Steele,

“Fohn winds dry as the water vapor in the rising winds, condenses leaving snow over the Rocky Mtns at higher elevations, but that also releases latent heat that warms the air which warms further as the winds descend onto the Great Plains.”

The unique climatic characteristic of the region was conveniently omitted from the NPR story.

Steele invokes historical data to emphasize his point, recalling two notable instances in Montana’s weather history.

“In December 1933 around Havre MT, just 130 miles north of Denton, Chinook winds raised temperatures 27°F in just 5 minutes, and over the next 36 hours temperatures rose by 53°F. The most extreme temperature change in a 24-hour period happened January 15, 1972, in Loma MT, just 70 miles north of Denton, when temperatures increased from −54 °F to 49 °F.”

His rebuke ends with a rhetorical question,

“I wonder how many people realize NPR is brainwashing the public?”

This is a call to the public to question the information they receive and to strive to understand the underlying processes that drive our environment.

Steele’s critique of NPR’s coverage highlights a pressing issue in the current climate conversation: the tendency to attribute extreme weather events solely to climate change. It is crucial to remember that weather is complex and influenced by many factors.

Misinformation and fearmongering narratives do little to inform the public. The need for reliable, accurate reporting that goes beyond simplistic narratives to encompass the complex reality of our climate, and scientific issues in general, has never been more important.

Net Zero Watch says Bank of England has been distracted

It has been reported today that the Bank has spent £150,000 on an inconclusive study on the carbon footprint of its banknotes.

From Net Zero Watch

It has been reported today that the Bank has spent £150,000 on an inconclusive study on the carbon footprint of its banknotes.

In 2021, Rishi Sunak gave the Bank a new mandate to fight climate change and help to achieve the Govt’s Net Zero policy, a move that has since been widely criticised for distracting it from its key role in combating inflation.

Former Chancellor George Osborne and his old sparring partner, Ed Balls, have both called for the mandate to be cancelled so that the Bank can focus on its core mission.

Net Zero Watch director Andrew Montford said:

It’s preposterous for the Bank to be worrying about tiny carbon footprints at a time of high inflation. Reasonable people will conclude that the Old Lady of Threadneedle Street has lost the plot, and will ask themselves whether this is why the inflation target has been so badly missed.”

Yet Another Coffee Scare

In Britain, we drink about 98 million cups per day, with an estimated two billion consumed worldwide. The coffee industry sustains 210,000 jobs here, and around 100 million farmers depend on it globally.

From NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT

By Paul Homewood

h/t Ian Magness

More drivel from the Telegraph:

Every morning, before doing anything else, I make coffee. It’s a ritual as much as a caffeine fix, with little thought given to its provenance. Yet this morning, I’ve got my hands on something a little different. Lighter in colour than my usual jet-black brew, it is more nuanced in flavour, with hints of grapefruit and less bitterness. It is delicious. It may also secure the future of one of the world’s most popular drinks.

In Britain, we drink about 98 million cups per day, with an estimated two billion consumed worldwide. The coffee industry sustains 210,000 jobs here, and around 100 million farmers depend on it globally. From instant coffee at a greasy spoon to a fancy oat-milk latte, coffee is big business. Yet its future is at risk.

A recent report by Christian Aid warned that climate change could reduce the land available for growing coffee by 54 per cent by 2100, even if global temperatures are kept to internationally agreed targets. On May 17, the World Meteorological Organisation said that temperatures could breach the 1.5C above pre-industrial levels by 2027. It’s not good news for coffee growers and lovers.

According to Dr Aaron Davis, a global expert in coffee and climate change, and head of coffee research at the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, coffee is one of the most researched plants when it comes to climate change, with almost 150 studies published, and the outlook seems dire. Even if commitments to reduce carbon emissions are met, a 2022 study in Nature suggests coffee production will still see a rapid decline in countries accounting for 75 per cent of the world’s arabica coffee supply. 

“It’s not something that’s going to happen in the future, it’s already happening,” says Dr Davis. “It’s very real.” 

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/food-and-drink/drinks/why-your-morning-coffee-is-facing-extinction/

Notice the comment, it’s already happening. So this is not just the usual scare about something happening in the distant future; it’s a very specific claim that climate change is already affecting coffee production.

And is it?

Plainly not. The UN figures go up to 2021, and although there was sharp decline that year, such drops frequently occur. Even then 2021 coffee output was the 4th highest on record.

https://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#compare

The Telegraph goes on to specifically mention three countries:

The world’s largest producer, Brazil, and Vietnam, the second, have both experienced concerning weather patterns just this year: extreme heat and drought in Vietnam, heavy rains in Brazil. “Last year, coffee harvests were influenced by drought in many countries, and long-term climate change may cause those drought periods to become longer, more severe and more regular,” Dr Davis explains. In Uganda, exports fell by about 20 per cent in 2022. 

But the UN data shows nothing of concern in the long term trends in any of these. Note also the weasel words, climate change may cause those drought periods to become longer, more severe and more regular. On the other hand, maybe it won’t!

Interestingly the drop in Brazilian coffee output in 2021 was due to severe frosts, the opposite of what global warming is supposed to bring:

The journalist who wrote this piffle is the Telegraph’s Assistant Food Editor. I suggest that in future he sticks to restaurants and recipes, and leaves serious stuff like this to economic experts.

New Study Destroys ‘Doomsday Glacier’ Narrative…Today’s Ice 8 Times 𝑇ℎ𝑖𝑐𝑘𝑒𝑟 Than Last 8000 Years

Scientists have determined there is no measured data to “indicate thicker than present ice after 4ka” at a West Antarctic study site near the Thwaites “Doomsday” Glacier. Any ice melt observed today is thus “reversible”… and natural.

From NoTricksZone

By Kenneth Richard on 29. May 2023

Map of the central Amundsen Sea coast generated using data sets from Quantarctica version 3 (Matsuoka et al., 2021) and showing major glaciers, the drill site at Kay Peak Ridge, and historical grounding line positions in the Thwaites–Pope–Smith Glacier region. The 1992–1995 and 2020 grounding line positions are from Rignot et al. (2011) and Milillo et al. (2022), respectively. The blue shading is a qualitative representation of ice flow velocity and is intended to highlight major glaciers.

Scientists have determined there is no measured data to “indicate thicker than present ice after 4ka” at a West Antarctic study site near the Thwaites “Doomsday” Glacier. Any ice melt observed today is thus “reversible”… and natural.

Synthetic oblique view of the drill site at the north ridge of Kay Peak generated from WorldView imagery (© 2018, Maxar) and the Reference Elevation Model of Antarctica (REMA) digital elevation model (Howat et al., 2019). View direction is to the south, as indicated in Fig. 1, from the position of a viewer located over the Crosson Ice Shelf and looking up Pope Glacier. The overlay is an elevation profile along the axis of Kay Peak Ridge showing the relationship between samples collected from the exposed portion of the ridge, drill sites, and subglacial bedrock samples. Note that the vertical scale of the inset profile excludes many samples collected from above 170 m elevation on the ice-free portion of the ridge; Fig. 4 shows the elevation distribution of the entire sample set.

The Thwaites, Pine Island, and Pope Glaciers in the Amundsen Sea region of West Antarctica are all situated on a hotbed of active geothermal heat flux, which has led to anomalously high regional melt rates. Indeed, “there is a conspicuously large amount of heat from Earth’s interior beneath the ice” in the very locations where the ice melt is most pronounced.

While the Earth’s crust has an average thickness of about 40 km, in the Thwaites-Pine Island-Pope Glacier region the anomalously thinner crust (10 to 18 km) more readily exposes the base of the ice to 580°C tectonic trenches. The “elevated geothermal heat flow band is interpreted as caused by an anomalously thin crust underlain by a hot mantle,” which is exerting a “profound influence on the flow dynamics of the Western Antarctic Ice Sheet” (Dziadek et al., 2021).

Despite the established natural causes of ice melt this region (see also Schroeder et al., 2014, Loose et al., 2018), it has nonetheless become commonplace for those who believe human behaviors are the climate’s “control knob” to claim the melting of the Thwaites Glacier – dubbed the “Doomsday Glacier” by alarmists – is caused by humans driving gasoline-powered trucks or using natural gas for energy.

But a new study categorically undermines claims that the ice melt occurring in the Thwaites-Pine Island-Pope Glacier region is unusual, unprecedented, or unnatural.

The thickness of the ice sheet at this Amundsen Sea region site averages about 40 m today.

Scientists (Balco et al., 2023) have used cosmogenic-nuclide concentrations and bedrock cores to determine the ice sheet is presently around 8 times thicker than it was for most of the last 8,000 years of the Holocene, when the ice thickness ranged between 2 m and 7 m.

“…the West Antarctic Ice Sheet (WAIS) at a site between Thwaites and Pope glaciers was at least 35m thinner than present in the past several thousand years”

Image Source: Balco et al., 2023

Even more interesting, the scientists found there are “no exposure-age data in the Amundsen Sea region indicating thicker than present ice after 4 ka,” suggesting that the present thickness is close to the most pronounced it has been over the last 4,000 years.

Any ice melt from this region, then, is not only natural, but the opposite of “unprecedented.” The scientists thus characterize modern changes to the West Antarctic ice sheet as “reversible” instead.

The Great Energy Deception: The Truth Behind the $5 Trillion Renewable Energy Scam

Did you know governments worldwide have spent over $5 trillion in the past two decades to subsidize wind, solar, and other so-called renewables?

From Financial Underground

By NICK GIAMBRUNO

Did you know governments worldwide have spent over $5 trillion in the past two decades to subsidize wind, solar, and other so-called renewables?

To put that in perspective, if you earned $1 a second 24/7/365—about $31 million per year—it would take you 158,550 YEARS to make $5 trillion.

$5 trillion is an almost unfathomable amount of money.

However, even with that astronomical financial support, the world still depends on hydrocarbons for 84% of its energy needs—down only 2% since governments started binge spending on renewables 20 years ago.

That’s all according to Mark Mills in a report from the Manhattan Institute, who concludes that:

“The lessons of the recent decade make it clear that solar, wind, and battery technologies cannot be surged in times of need, are neither inherently ‘clean’ nor even independent of hydrocarbons, and are not cheap.”

With all that in mind, it should be clear that so-called renewables—more accurately, unreliables—have been a giant flop. They are not viable for baseload power—even with $5 trillion in subsidies and two decades of trying. Today, using wind and solar for mass power generation is an artificial political solution that would not have been chosen on a genuinely free market for energy.

Wind and solar power might be useful in specific situations. Still, it’s ridiculous to think they can provide reliable baseload power for an advanced industrial economy. It’s like trying to force a square peg into a round hole.

Nonetheless, governments, the media, academia, and celebrities flippantly push for an imminent energy “transition” as if it’s preordained.

It’s shocking and depressing so many adults think they can magically change the underlying economics, chemistry, engineering constraints, and physics of energy production to suit their childish fantasies and political agendas.

Unreliables—i.e., renewables—will not replace hydrocarbons anytime soon and will certainly not bring about energy security… despite what many “serious” people believe.

When it comes to reliable baseload power, most of humanity has only three choices:

1) hydrocarbons—coal, oil, and gas

2) nuclear power

3) abandon modern civilization for a pre-industrial standard of living.

Aside from friendly aliens delivering a magical new energy technology, most places have no other alternatives.

So, with Western governments intent on going green, sanctioning large energy exporters (Russia, Iran, Venezuela), and shunning hydrocarbons in general (ESG, windfall profits taxes, limiting exploration, burdensome regulations), it boils down to a simple choice.

They can either embrace nuclear energy—which has zero carbon emissions—or give up reliable electricity.

I suspect it won’t be long before Western governments turn to nuclear energy in a big way for two reasons.

Reason #1: Rising hydrocarbon prices.

Reason #2: Concerns about energy security.

Rising Hydrocarbon Prices

First, a necessary clarification.

Sloppy, vague words lead to sloppy, vague thinking.

The term “fossil fuels” is an excellent example of this.

When the average person hears “fossil fuels,” they think of a dirty technology that belongs in the 1800s. Many believe they are burning dead dinosaurs to power their cars. They also think fossil fuels will run out soon and destroy the planet within a decade.

None of these absurd things are true, but many people believe them. Using misleading and vague language plays a large role.

I suggest expunging “fossil fuels” from your vocabulary in favor of hydrocarbons—a much better and more precise word.

A hydrocarbon is a molecule made up of carbon and hydrogen atoms. These molecules are the building blocks of many different substances, including energy sources like coal, oil, and gas. These energy sources have been the backbone of the global economy for decades, providing power for industries, transportation, and homes.

Modern civilization has only two choices for baseload power—hydrocarbons or nuclear.

I believe hydrocarbon prices will rise substantially in the months ahead, making nuclear—the only practical alternative—even more attractive than it already is.

There are four powerful trends that I think will push hydrocarbon prices higher.

Trend #1—The End of the Petrodollar System: The US government will soon lose its ability to print money to buy energy—an incredible privilege no other country has. That will have significant consequences for oil prices.

Trend #2—Rampant Currency Debasement: Governments worldwide have no choice but to engage in ever-increasing currency debasement. 2023 could be the year it reaches a crescendo.

Trend #3—Carbon Hysteria and Under-Investment: Governments have redirected trillions in capital away from nuclear and hydrocarbons and sent it to wind and solar. Further, ESG madness, “net zero” goals, and other unfavorable government policies have led to a massive under-investment in hydrocarbons. I expect the carbon hysteria will cause tighter supplies and higher prices.

Trend #4—Geopolitical Turmoil: The conflict between Russia (the 2nd largest oil exporter) and Ukraine has no end in sight. Tensions with Iran could explode at any moment. As a result, geopolitical turmoil could easily escalate, causing hydrocarbon supply disruptions out of Russia and the Middle East.

These are four powerful trends pushing for shortages and significantly higher hydrocarbon prices.

When hydrocarbons become expensive, the world looks to alternatives. And there is only one: nuclear.

Energy Security

Having secure access to energy, which is essential for any economy and any country’s stability, is paramount. That’s why energy security is national security.

Without energy security, any country is in a vulnerable position. No sovereign nation can tolerate being at the mercy of someone else for something as crucial as energy.

Unsurprisingly, many governments inevitably turn to nuclear to help ensure their access to reliable energy. That’s because a small amount of uranium can produce tremendous energy in a nuclear power plant.

According to the Nuclear Energy Institute, a one-inch tall uranium pellet can produce as much electricity as one ton of coal, 149 gallons of oil, and 17,000 cubic feet of natural gas.

It’s impractical for countries without domestic hydrocarbon supplies to stockpile several years’ worth of coal, oil, or gas. On the hand, it is practical for countries to stockpile five years’ worth of uranium for nuclear power plants.

Take Japan, for example.

Japan is the world’s third-largest economy. Before the Fukushima disaster, nuclear power plants produced around 30% of Japanese electricity.

After Fukushima, Japan shut down all of its nuclear reactors.

Japan shuttered its nuclear power plants despite a government policy that requires it to stockpile at least five years’ worth of energy supplies. This policy dates back to the early 1970s when a large regional war in the Middle East disrupted energy supplies and rocked Japan, which lacks its own energy resources.

Uranium is the only feasible way for Japan to meet the terms of this policy. It’s impractical for Tokyo to stockpile five years’ worth of coal, oil, or gas.

Japan has made an emergency exception to this policy because of Fukushima. But without energy security, it’s in a vulnerable position concerning its historical rival China. That is especially true if geopolitical turmoil in the Middle East or Eastern Europe disrupts oil and gas supplies.

It would be ironic to see Japan suffer from another oil shock during the period in which it suspended the very policy to protect it from one. That should incentivize Japan not to delay restarting its nuclear reactors.

In fact, Japan has recently made a dramatic pivot towards nuclear power because it has finally realized there is no alternative for it to meet its energy security needs.

Tokyo has started reactivating its nuclear reactors and implementing pro-nuclear policies.

While Japanese restarts are an important factor determining the market balance, it is not the only one. Even if the Japanese demand for uranium never returns, the 150 new reactors in China could create enormous new demand that will more than offset it over the longer term.

Here’s the bottom line with uranium.

I wouldn’t be surprised to see hydrocarbon prices spike amid a geopolitical crisis, which would be a catalyst for much higher uranium prices.

Regardless, hydrocarbon prices are set to soar for the other reasons I mentioned above. As a result, I expect Western countries will soon become desperate for energy security.

They’ll eventually realize—as Japan did—that nuclear power is the only solution. And when they do, it will turbocharge the uranium bull market that is already underway.

With multiple crises unfolding right now, the next big move could happen imminently.

Dumping Coal Assets Near the Bottom of the Market a Green Energy Success?

“Her … contract was not renewed”: A recent 4000 attendee climate change summit in Paris came up with some interesting ideas on promoting renewable energy to company boards.

From Watts Up With That

Essay by Eric Worrall

“Her … contract was not renewed”: A recent 4000 attendee climate change summit in Paris came up with some interesting ideas on promoting renewable energy to company boards.

Incentivizing Boards Of Directors To Address Climate Change, At ChangeNow Summit

Joan Michelson
Contributor

To truly avoid reaching that potentially irreversibly devastating 1.5 degrees Celsius warming – which the UN’s World Meteorological Organization just announced that we’ll cross in a few years – we need every aspect of the economy to take action, literally.

At the ChangeNow 2023 Summit in Paris, France last week with over 4,000 attendees from 120 countries and across industries, gathered to strategize how to do that and share solutions, as well as to make deals.

…

Isabelle Kocher de Leyritz explained in one of my sessions at ChangeNow how she did just that as CEO of Engie, one of Europe’s largest fossil fuel energy companies. She talked about how the board asked her, then CFO, to develop a plan to transition the company and then elevated her to the CEO role to execute her plan. She told us about the robust debates she had with Engie’s board of directors, and how she persuaded them to sell off coal assets and invest that money into renewable energy assets instead. Now CEO of Blunomy, a consultancy, her Engie contract was not renewed, but Engie remains in renewable energy.

…Read more: https://www.forbes.com/sites/joanmichelson2/2023/05/28/incentivizing-boards-of-directors-to-address-climate-change-at-changenow-summit/?sh=24d9ee77722d

Engie CEO Isabelle Kocher de Leyritz announced the deal to sell Engie’s European coal assets on the 26 April 2019, close to the bottom of the coal price cycle.

Shortly after disposing of European coal assets in 2019, in February 2020, Engie announce they would not be renewing Isabelle’s CEO contract.

… In an interview with French newspaper Les Echos, Clamadieu explained the board blamed Kocher for Engie “falling behind over four years in the area of electricity generation and gas infrastructure, which now represents 80% of our profits”.

Engie’s stock price opened at €15.63 on 7 February — down from the previous close of €15.71/share — following the announcement. Its shares continued to fall as low as €15.51. …Read more: https://www.windpowermonthly.com/article/1673343/engie-will-not-renew-ceo-kochers-contract

Engie didn’t just own coal plants, they also owned at least some of the adjacent coal mines. Isabelle was CEO when Engie decided to close the Australian Hazelwood plant, which used to provide 25% of the State of Victoria’s energy.

… Engie shuttered Hazelwood with just five months’ notice in 2017 – a scenario that the Victorian government has avoided with Yallourn by arranging with its owner to close the plant, which delivers about 20% of Victoria’s electricity, in 2028, four years earlier than planned.

Before Engie closed it, Hazelwood produced about 25% of Victoria’s electricity and was responsible for about 14% of the state’s emissions.

The nearby open-cut mine from which it sourced brown coal also burned out of control for 45 weeks in 2014 after a bushfire spread into it.

Engie’s chief executive for Australia and New Zealand, Augustin Honorat, said the company had a “long-term commitment” to Hazelwood and the Latrobe valley that included remediating the site and acting as “the builder and owner of a new energy asset that helps with the decarbonisation of the energy system”. …Read more: https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2021/dec/01/australias-biggest-privately-funded-battery-under-construction-at-hazelwood-power-station-site

Hazelwood produced $387 million dollars profit in 2010. Even if Hazelwood needed to be completely scrapped, a brand new 1GW HELE coal plant would cost around AUD $2.2 billion according to APO, an Aussie think tank. $387 million / year profit on a $2.2 billion investment would have been a 17.5% return on investment, as opposed to what actually happened – a site rehabilitation money pit and speculative, subsidy dependent 150MWH green battery investment, which is still struggling to arrange connection to the grid.

Obviously my interpretation of events could be wrong, my apologies to Isabelle if I have misunderstood the situation. I would be happy to publish her version of events if she gets in contact.

But something obviously went very wrong with the relationship between Isabelle Kocher de Leyritz and Engie, otherwise they would have renewed her CEO contract.

What can I say? If I have understood the situation correctly, if this is the green movement’s idea of successfully influencing an energy company to go green, I’d hate to see their idea of a failure.

Correction: h/t Mr – got my millions and billions mixed up.