Biden to eliminate oil and gas by 2035

No one cares.
You care. You are on a mission to prevent earthquakes from water pumps. I need to catch my breath on that one.

What convinced me was that last year alone, 42 fracking companies went bankrupt to the tune of $26B:
Let's see if you are consistent. Do you believe that banking is also not cost-efficient?

Yeah, chemical water does poison water tables.
We're talking about fracking, not moving the goalposts to other things. How do you believe that any water, underneath impermeable rock kilometers beneath the surface, somehow gets into a water table tens of feet below the surface? Thoughts? Does it "teleport" there? Does it avail itself of magical gateways? Wormholes?

Is this where you tip your king? [hint:YES]

giphy.gif
 
My argument isn't merely that fracking isn't safe...my argument is that it's outrageously costly along so many terms, it doesn't make the process worth it.

That's why 42 fracking companies went bankrupt last year, totaling $26B in debt and losses.

How many solar companies went bankrupt last year?

These are the Obama era ones...

https://www.weaselzippers.us/127128-list-the-36-obama-funded-green-energy-failures/

Then there's the Crescent Dunes plant...

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...plant-was-obsolete-before-it-ever-went-online

Georgia's biggest solar company went chapter 11 last year
https://www.bizjournals.com/atlanta...gias-largest-solar-energy-firm-files-for.html

DC solar was another
https://nascar.nbcsports.com/2019/02/04/dc-solar-files-for-chapter-11-bankruptcy-in-wake-of-raids/

SunPower has one foot in the grave and is dumping assets
https://www.pv-tech.org/news/sunpower-to-sell-more-assets-to-avoid-bankruptcy-in-2019

The reason is the same exact one that hurt the fracking industry: Prices fell dramatically for their products. This is due to an abundance compared to demand in the market.

On the other hand, part of solar's problem here is that many systems are becoming obsolete like Crescent Dunes.
 
You're the real fucking joke here because you're spitting out bullshit about a process of which the design is to artificially manufacture seismic activity (earthquakes). Like, dude, THAT IS LITERALLY WHAT FRACKING IS. Shooting the water into the earth...TO WHAT END? To dislodge the resources trapped...and you can only free those resources BY INITIATING SEISMIC ACTIVITY.

For a moment I thought you were a clueless moron who knew nothing of the subject matter, but then you wrote "Like, dude, ..." and I knew right away I was talking to an expert.

Fracking creates rock-fracturing pressure, not seismic activity. Someone convinced you that water pumps can cause tectonic plates to shift. How easy was that? Did it involve the words "When I snap my fingers you will awaken and you will remember everything we discussed"?
 
More ignorance. Facebook alone has 5, count them 5, data collection facilities in Prineville, and has built enough solar to power 100,000 homes.
Nope. Solar power doesn't work at night. Look at all those trucks building those places. They are oil powered. Equipment in them will also be installed by other oil powered trucks. Supplies used will be supplied by oil powered trucks.
Amazon is going all electric, and has ordered 100,000 electric vehicles.
Amazon doesn't give cars away to it's employees. They don't even have decent parking available in downtown Seattle. Their warehouses are still supplied by oil burning trucks, and pretty much everything they sell requires oil to produce it.
While I have never said oil would disappear completely, it is being replaced by vegetable oils, graphite, and other lubricants. We sure as hell won't need to buy millions of barrels for lubricants.
You have said cars and trucks burning oil products will disappear completely. You are a loon. Won't happen. Gasoline and diesel oil have the most energy per given volume or given weight, respectively. They are CHEAP. There is plenty of oil.

Solar and wind power are piddle power.
 
Last edited:
It's only doable if you consider bankrupting the country to be acceptable. Economics is not your strong suit. Ask me how I know.

So that's it - and when fossil fuels run out what are we going to do? Good think you have sensible, Democratic friends looking out for you!

We got ya, buddy! :)
 
right now it's not doable. I dont think battery improvements are gona make pure renewables ever able to solely run an economy.

Windmills are resoucre hogs to produce and cause their own problems. Solar farms are nightmare for the enviornment and habitation

Get the improvements to make them capable of running an economy, and market forces will bring them in.
Hell -give them tax credits

But this idea of all electric cars requires charging stations that will be vandalized.
And they are expensive

All that said, when these problems are solved there is no reason they can't eventually take over the energy market. They are not ready now or teh foreseeable future

My friend, neither you or I know what alternative sources of energy are being worked on in oil company secret labs - <-- Did you see that? You bet you that oil and gas companies are looking for alternatives as well! They see resources harder and more costly to find - they're not as stupid as most science-denying trumpublicans!

We got you, my little friend. I swear if it weren't for progressive thinkers we'd all be choking on our own raw sewage right now!!!
 
So that's it - and when fossil fuels run out what are we going to do?
Geology isn't your strong suit either. Ask me how I know.
You are easily tooled by absurd Marxist propaganda targetting the extremely gullible. Ask me how I know.

[hint: we aren't going to run out of hydrocarbons; the earth will keep making more ... in vast quantities]
 
Water is a lubricant, water does carry the fuel necessary to cause flaming faucets, and walking has never created an earthquake (not even with Jericho since it was the blowing of the horns that shattered the walls).

Water doesn't burn, dumbass.
Any walking creates earthquakes. You can even measure them.
 
My friend, neither you or I know what alternative sources of energy are being worked on in oil company secret labs
Are you pretending to speak for me as well?

Petroleum companies invest their resources into finding the next well of hydrocarbons, not in trying to defy physics and "develop" unprofitable options.
 
Geology isn't your strong suit either. Ask me how I know.
You are easily tooled by absurd Marxist propaganda targetting the extremely gullible. Ask me how I know.

[hint: we aren't going to run out of hydrocarbons; the earth will keep making more ... in vast quantities]

Awww.... there's that cute little, "fuck science" trumpian rage I've grown so very fond of. You are so darn adorable Muahhhhh!
 
Are you pretending to speak for me as well?

Petroleum companies invest their resources into finding the next well of hydrocarbons, not in trying to defy physics and "develop" unprofitable options.

Oooh.... look at you stomping your little ignorant foot like you're smart or something :) So cute!

https://www.nsenergybusiness.com/features/oil-companies-renewable-energy/

Some of the oil majors have invested heavily in renewables, such as wind and solar, as they look to transition towards cleaner energy sources

Wind turbine
India is looking to expand its clean energy capacity from 86.3GW at the beginning of this year to 175GW by 2022 and 450GW by 2030 (Credit: Wikimedia Commons/Tom Corser)

Oil and gas is often painted as the dirtiest sector within the energy industry, but major companies have begun to invest in renewable technologies in a bid to clean up the economy.

Of the six “super-majors” – BP, Shell, Chevron, Total, Eni and Exxon – many of them have pumped billions into clean energy projects, although question marks remain over whether they are doing enough.

Despite the growth in renewables, “big oil” only spent 1% of its combined budget on green energy schemes in 2018.

Matthias J Pickl, economics professor at King Fahd University of Petroleum and Minerals in Saudi Arabia, wrote a report in November 2019 discussing whether oil companies are transforming themselves into energy firms.

Titled The renewable energy strategies of oil majors – From oil to energy?, it highlighted how wind and solar are taking an increasingly important role in the energy industry, and that oil majors are “progressively positioning themselves for the proclaimed energy transition”.

“Oil firms are essentially attempting to figure out how the best presently available cash cow in the world can be replaced for the benefit of their own sustainable future,” he wrote in the report.

“Furthermore, growing concerns about climate change following the Paris Agreement may provide an additional drive for such strategy to hedge against hardening investor sentiment towards carbon emissions.”

Here, NS Energy looks into how each of the six oil majors have invested in renewable energy projects.



Major oil companies’ investments in renewable energy projects
BP
BP was the first oil major to commit significant capital to renewable projects, such as wind and solar, from 1980 onwards.

Formerly known as the British Petroleum Company, it rebranded to Beyond Petroleum in 2001 with a look towards other energy sources beyond oil.

In the aftermath of the 2010 Deep Water Horizon oil spill incident in the Gulf of Mexico, BP closed most of its previous green energy investments, believed to be worth about $8bn to $10bn.

But the company still has more than 2200 megawatts (MW) of wind capacity in the US and has started to re-invest in renewables in recent years.

bp greenwashing
BP has been investing in solar power in recent years (Credit: Mike Mozart/Flickr)
It spent $200m in 2017 on acquiring a 43% stake in Lightsource, which has rebranded to Lightsource BP and is Europe’s largest solar power project developer.

In 2018, the firm made three investments to prepare for a low-carbon future.

The first of which was a $20m investment in StoreDot, an Israeli developer of rapid-charging batteries.

BP then made a $5m investment in US company FreeWire, which makes fast-charging infrastructure for electric vehicles.

And finally, $160m was spent on acquiring Chargemaster, the UK’s leading network of charging points.

This allowed the oil firm an opportunity to combine Chargemaster’s 6,500 charging points network with its 1,200 petrol stations.



Shell
Shell’s investment target for green energy projects was set between $4bn and $6bn for the period from 2016 until the end of 2020 – but with less than a year to go, The Guardian says the sum is “well below” those figures.

The Anglo-Dutch firm’s 2016 New Energies strategy covers several areas including electricity, wind and solar, electric vehicle charging, and initiatives to encourage the adoption of hydrogen fuel cell electric vehicles.

It spent a reported $2bn on setting up a low-carbon energy and electricity generation business in 2016 – ensuring it was on course to meet its targets at the time.

The following year, it acquired UK-based electricity and gas provider First Utility, as well as Europe’s largest electric vehicle charging company NewMotion.

In 2018, Shell bought a 44% stake in US solar power firm Silicon Ranch for $200m and made a $20m equity investment in India-based renewable power company Husk Power Systems.



Total
Total’s plan for renewables is to invest $500m a year in clean energy technologies.

That figure is about 3% of the French oil major’s total capital expenditure, with plans in place to ramp that up to 20% over the next 20 years.

Lightsource BP solar
Total is aiming to become a global integrated leader in solar power (Credit: Flickr/Dept of Energy Solar Decathlon)
Over the past 10 years, it has made a number of strategic investments, which included $1.4bn being spent on acquiring a 60% stake in US solar firm SunPower in 2011.

Total is aiming to become a global integrated leader in solar power and has 1.6 gigawatts (GW) worth of capacity, and plans to increase that to 5GW over the next five years.

In 2016, it purchased French battery manufacturer Saft for $1.1bn and bought Belgian green power utility Lampiris for $224m.

Total acquired a 74% stake in the French electricity retailer Direct Energie for $1.7bn in 2018, propelling the company forward into being one of the top utility providers in France.



Eni
Although Eni is not quite up to speed with its rival oil majors, the Italian company has plans in place to invest further in renewable technologies.

In 2014, it launched the world’s first conversion of a traditional refinery to a biorefinery that produces jet fuel, green diesel, green naphtha and liquid petroleum gas.

With an eye on growing its onshore and offshore wind capacity, Eni formed partnerships with France-based GE Renewable Energy and Norwegian energy company Equinor.

Clean energy sources play a key role in the firm’s corporate strategy and it is targeting to deliver 1GW of installed renewable power capacity between 2018 and 2021 by investing €1.2bn ($1.3bn), with a long-term goal of reaching 5GW by 2025.



Chevron
Chevron’s investments in renewables have been relatively scarce, with no target in place for a move to cleaner technology.

The US firm has invested in solar, wind and geothermal projects over the past 20 years but, following low returns, the focus has remained on its oil and gas business.

In 2018, Chevron launched a Future Energy Fund, with an initial commitment of $100m set aside to invest in breakthrough technologies that will reduce carbon emissions and provide cleaner energy.



ExxonMobil
Like its US counterpart, Exxon has shown very little interest in investing in renewable energy technologies, with no budget or time-scale planned for future projects.

The company’s strategy revolves around reducing greenhouse gas emissions, advancing biofuels, and carbon capture and storage (CCS).

Exxon holds interests in about a third of the world’s CCS capacity and captured 6.9 million metric tonnes of carbon dioxide for sequestration – the process of separating the gas from the atmosphere – in 2015.

In 2019, it announced plans to develop carbon capture fuel cell technology, which produces power and captures and concentrates CO2 for storage – resulting in potential cost reductions.
 
You mean to say that you have been gibbering with other economics-challenged losers.

I suggest that you confer with me before you make any future stupid comments. It will spare you a bunch of mocking.

Then you, in your constant state of ignorance, won't mind actually addressing the question, or will you.

BTW, do you think maybe they add chemicals, sand, etc., to the water BEFORE beginning the fracking process, and that the residue might just be polluting the groundwater, streams, etc.? Maybe, just maybe, hey idiot?
 
Awww.... there's that cute little, "fuck science" trumpian rage I've grown so very fond of. You are so darn adorable Muahhhhh!
Too funny. I'm on the science side of the fence. You are on the scientifically-illiterate-gullible-moron-who-believes-any-and-all-misinformation side of the fence. You clearly don't know the difference between a hydrocarbon and a hydro-massage.

Learning always was just beyond your abilities, right?
 
Then you, in your constant state of ignorance, won't mind actually addressing the question, or will you.

BTW, do you think maybe they add chemicals, sand, etc., to the water BEFORE beginning the fracking process, and that the residue might just be polluting the groundwater, streams, etc.? Maybe, just maybe, hey idiot?

SCIENTISTS AGREE: FRACKING DOESN’T HARM OUR WATER


Colorado’s lakes, reservoirs, and streams make our state beautiful—and more importantly, nourish our wildlife and supply our communities with water. When it comes to protecting our water, stringent regulations keep Colorado’s water clean while ensuring we can still responsibly access our state’s vast energy resources.

In fact, scientists and researchers from over two-dozen governmental organizations, universities, and nonprofits confirm that fracking does not contaminate groundwater.

Take a look at the findings of 26 of these independent, scientific studies below:

The Academy of Medicine, Engineering and Science of Texas (2017): “Direct migration of contaminants from targeted injection zones is highly unlikely to lead to contamination of potential drinking water aquifers.” (p. 128)
United States Geological Survey (2017): Unconventional oil and gas operations, such as fracking, did not affect drinking water quality.
Duke University (2017): “Based on consistent evidence from comprehensive testing, we found no indication of groundwater contamination over the three-year course of our study.” (From press release)
University of Cincinnati (2016): Water quality not affected by fracking or natural gas drilling in Ohio.
University of Texas-Austin (2016): Groundwater not affected by fracking in Parker County, Texas.
Syracuse University (2016): No evidence that fracking altered water quality in Appalachian Basin.
Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality (2016): Scientists show fracking had no impact on water-supply wells in Pavillion, Wyoming.
Susquehanna River Basin Commission (2016): “To date, the Commission’s monitoring programs have not detected discernible impacts on the quality of the Basin’s water resources as a result of natural gas development, but continued vigilance is warranted.” (p. 8)
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Yale University (2015): “We have found no evidence for direct communication with shallow drinking water wells due to upward migration from shale horizons. This result is encouraging, because it implies there is some degree of temporal and spatial separation between injected fluids and drinking water supply.” (p. 5)
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2015): “[H]ydraulic fracturing activities have not led to widespread, systematic impacts to drinking water resources.”
U.S. District Court, Wyoming (2015): “[E]xperts and government regulators have repeatedly acknowledged a lack of evidence linking the hydraulic fracturing process to groundwater contamination.” (p. 26)
Syracuse University (2015): No evidence of fracking contaminating groundwater in heavily drilled areas of Pennsylvania, West Virginia, and Ohio.
California Council on Science & Technology (2015): “The study found no releases of hazardous hydraulic fracturing chemicals to surface waters in California and no direct impacts to fish or wildlife.” (p. 35)
Stanford University (2015): Scientists find no evidence that fracking chemicals seeped into drinking water.
U.S. Department of Energy (2014): “Current findings are: 1) no evidence of gas migration from the Marcellus Shale; and 2) no evidence of brine migration from the Marcellus Shale.” (p. 2)
U.S. Geological Survey (2014): “The comparison of groundwater data from this study with historical data found no significant difference for any of the constituents examined and therefore warrant no further discussion.” (p. 47)
Duke University, U.S. Geological Study (2013): Fracking and other gas-production activities had no effect on groundwater quality in Arkansas.
Gradient (2013): There is “no scientific basis” for the claim that fracking fluids will contaminate water aquifers.
University of Michigan (2013): “The often-postulated percolation upward of fracking water used in deep, long lateral well extensions to contaminate drinking water aquifers near the surface through the intervening impermeable rock formations is highly unlikely and has never reliably been shown to have occurred.” (p. 13)
National Groundwater Association (2013): “[T]hese findings suggest that the methane concentrations in Susquehanna County water wells can be explained without the migration of Marcellus shale gas through fractures, an observation that has important implications for understanding the nature of risks associated with shale-gas extraction.” (Study abstract)
Cardno Entrix (2012): Fracking has not caused groundwater contamination in Los Angeles.
U.S. Government Accountability Office (2012): “[R]egulatory officials we met with from eight states – Arkansas, Colorado, Louisiana, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, and Texas – told us that, based on state investigations, the hydraulic fracturing process has not been identified as a cause of groundwater contamination within their states.” (p. 49)
Ground Water Protection Council (2011): “In recent years, the national debate on natural gas E&P has been focused nearly exclusively on a single, brief, yet essential activity, hydraulic fracturing. Neither state [Ohio and Texas] has identified hydraulic fracturing as the cause of a single documented groundwater contamination incident.” (p. 102)
Center for Rural Pennsylvania (2011): Gas drilling in the Marcellus Shale has not contaminated nearby water wells.
New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (2011): Fracking did not cause groundwater contamination.
Massachusetts Institute of Technology (2010): Risk of water contamination is low due to distance between groundwater and where fracking occurs.

https://www.cred.org/scientists-fracking-doesnt-harm-water/
 
Then you, in your constant state of ignorance, won't mind actually addressing the question, or will you.
Try speaking English instead of gibber. Be clear. Be specific. It's no wonder you cannot formulate a correct argument; you can't string together a coherent set of words.

BTW, do you think maybe they add chemicals, sand, etc., to the water BEFORE beginning the fracking process,
They do. That's why I used the word "solution." Now, can you in any way justify your overhyped fear of fracking by providing some rational basis instead of blatantly false Marxist misinformation? Why should any rational adult be hyper-phobic about fracking as you are? Why should any rational adult be up-in-arms over pumping a high-pressure water-based solution into a (kilometers) deep hole beneath impermeable rock?

[let me know if I used too many multi-syllable words]

... and that the residue might just be polluting the groundwater, streams, etc.? Maybe, just maybe, hey idiot?
No, moron, it's not possible, although the people abusing your trust and doing your thinking for you have convinced you to panic over the impossible. I don't let anyone do my thinking for me so those kinds of attempts to manipulate me don't work.

Water tables are a few/several meters beneath the surface, far above layers of impermeable rock. Fracking is performed in wells that are kilometers deep, beneath impermeable rock. No, it is not possible.

You are gullible and naive. You richly deserve to be mocked for your utterly stupid comments.
 
Oooh.... look at you stomping your little ignorant foot like you're smart or something :) So cute!
Now you are shifting goalposts. Your original context was the replacement of hydrocarbons. Now you are simply pointing to financial investments. All major companies make financial investments.

You obviously aren't very good at this. You don't even know what you are trying to argue.
 
Back
Top