Nuclear Power: Again, Why Not?

 | 

Those who believe that manmade climate change threatens civilization, and even nature itself, with imminent death should be clamoring for more nuclear energy production, which releases no greenhouse gases. I wrote this recently as part of a longish essay about my nonexpert citizen’s skepticism regarding climate change. I speculated that one reason for the fact that there is no closing of the ranks around nuclear energy is that it’s reputed to be dangerous, especially in view of the possibility of radiation leaks. I also argued that, in spite of this ill fame, it’s difficult to find anywhere evidence of much health damage caused by radiation.

This information scarcity makes it difficult to assess the reasonableness of the widespread avoidance of nuclear energy production. Almost everyone who expresses an opinion dislikes it or is mistrustful of it. Voicing the objection that these unfavorable attitudes are not rooted in evidence either raises the eyebrows of disbelief or triggers the silent charge that you have not looked hard enough (which may, of course, be true).

Soon after writing the essay I just mentioned, I read a new book overflowing with anti-nuclear evidence that moved the hand on my clock some — only a little, but enough — to be worth discussing. The book is Kate Brown’s A Manual for Survival: A Chernobyl Guide to the Future. In any case, if I don’t discuss it, others will, from a predictably laudatory angle, I would bet.

Brown is an engaging writer, though one with baffling lapses, in several languages.

Brown’s thesis is that the 1986 Chernobyl nuclear accident released more radioactivity, in more places, for longer than the official sources allow, and that many more people’s health was affected, and much more severely, as well as more lastingly, than is openly acknowledged.

Brown is an engaging writer, though one with baffling lapses, in several languages (“tribunal” for “tribune,” “amass” for “mass,” “bales of hay,” for “bales of wool,” to “curate” for to “examine,” “Judenrein” for “Judenfrei”). Although she is a Soviet expert and a reader of Russian, for several pages (p. 184 and on), she confuses perestroika (“deep societal reform” or “restructuring”) with glasnost (informational “opening,” in the sense of increased transparency). And despite the fact that Brown is a tenacious, assiduous, even a formidable, researcher in the service of her thesis (more on this below), several major defects detract from the persuasiveness of her book.

First, Brown is not a neutral investigator, or even a journalist, but unambiguously an activist who hates nuclear anything. Perhaps as a result, she pretty much treats every dissenting voice as part of a long-lasting conspiracy involving Soviet authorities (national and local — no surprise), major UN agencies, and several US federal agencies, to conceal the scale of the ill effects of radiation exposure, as well as the intensity and duration of such exposure. This is not completely unbelievable. I myself think that the deadly climate change narrative is supported at once by local, national, and international government actors, although not within the context of a conspiracy but of a passively shared perception.

But Brown’s overreliance on a conspiracy explanation ends up undermining the credibility she earns by good archival digging. When she adds the International Red Cross to her already rich mix of plotters, my willingness to suspend disbelief vacillates. I don’t see how it cannot. As she continues, it crashes. The main international organization that cites large numbers of radiation victims following the accident is Greenpeace. But Brown herself honestly describes Greenpeace’s attempt to collect data in the Soviet Union as a fiasco.

Second, and possibly fatally for her, Brown straightforwardly imputes increases in mortality and morbidity in the vicinity of Chernobyl to a rise in radioactivity in the region following the reactor’ meltdown. She does this without benefit of baseline estimates regarding either radioactivity or health conditions before the accident. This is a major defect, of course: you may not impute a rise in Y to a rise in X if you cannot demonstrate a rise in X. In a roundabout way, she admits in several places that she cannot demonstrate a rise in radioactivity around Chernobyl or, in fact, anywhere at all, following the accident. She argues — persuasively if you disregard the rest of her book — that hundreds of nuclear weapons tests in the ’50s and ’60s had so overwhelmingly loaded the atmosphere with radioactivity that it may be difficult or impossible to isolate the comparatively modest radioactive emissions from Chernobyl specifically. (See, for example pp. 244–245, for the radioactive saturation following American tests.)

Brown’s overreliance on a conspiracy explanation ends up undermining the credibility she earns by good archival digging.

But it seems to me that if you are unable to measure a rise in X, there is no point in trying to blame it for a rise in Y. And if you believe that X causes Y and you cannot link an actual increase in Y even to an identified increase in X, you may not claim much about anything. Brown thus finds herself in the impossible situation of trying to demonstrate rigorously that something that she argues cannot be assessed (increase in radioactivity) is the cause of something that she loosely measures or that remains unmeasured (rises in illness and in mortality reasonably traceable to radiation exposure).

Third, like many writers with a cause, Brown devotes no attention to possible negative evidence, to evidence against her thesis. She has nothing to say about situations where there should be an excess of pathologies and of mortality — according to her implicit model that enough exposure to radiation must result in noticeable excess morbidity — but none appears. The book is written a little like a scholarly article in which contradiction is pretty much expected, even guaranteed, from other knowledgeable sources, as part of a social process. But for this book, it’s not, for reasons I develop below.

Some of the book’s tangible findings seem defective as soon as you perform a little comparison around them. For example, Brown deals abundantly with rates, including accident rates, of course, before and after the Chernobyl disaster. But she seldom provides absolute numbers, which alone can tell us how much the rates matter. (If I read that the annual rate of suicide among churchgoing southern black grandmothers of five has increased by 100% in one year, I should ask whether it’s gone from 10,000 to 20,000, or from two to four, or even from one to two.) When she does give real numbers, absolute numbers, the effect tends to be underwhelming in ways she does not seem to understand: “eighty new thyroid cancers among 2.5 million Belarusian children . . .” (p. 250). Obviously, that’s hundreds of tragedies for parents and relatives and for the sick children themselves, but it’s not a massive epidemic. Perhaps it’s no more than a counting error.

Here is an indirect but reasonable comparison of orders of magnitude: in 1990, the rate of child mortality for Russia was 2.15% (“Child Mortality,” Max Roser, Our World in Data, May 10, 2019). Applying this rate to Brown’s 2.5 million children gives us a raw number of children’s deaths from all causes of about 54,000. I am sorry, but 80 out of 54,000 is not a big surplus. This comparison assumes that Belarusian children's death rate from all causes after Chernobyl is similar to Russia’s in 1990. This does not seem farfetched. Furthermore, the 80 thyroid cancers Brown reports probably did not all result in deaths, which makes the raw number of 80, blamed on accidental exposure to radioactivity, look even smaller.

When she does give real numbers, absolute numbers, the effect tends to be underwhelming in ways she does not seem to understand.

More strangely, the author treats what I believe is her best causal evidence with near indifference. She mentions in passing two large studies of nuclear plant workers conducted in Europe, in relative openness and under favorable European conditions — studies that convincingly link exposure to radiation to several pathologies (p. 294). To reach skeptics like me, that research should have been presented at the beginning of the book, rather than near the very end. Since it was not, I have to wonder what’s wrong with this research. (It’s probably nothing, but am I expected to confirm the research myself?)

Even the best evidence that Brown collects herself seems relegated to a near afterthought. She reports that the health statistics for areas affected by radiation remain normal-looking until shortly after the dissolution of the Soviet Union in the ’90s, when higher figures begin to show up. It’s as if a lid had been removed that constrained the truth. However, there are other possible explanations for this sudden change and its coincidence with the end of Soviet power; Brown spends little time discussing them.

In spite of its serious structural defects, in spite of its inadequate treatment of intriguing data, I am not able to dismiss Manual for Survival . . . not entirely. The main reason is that I am one of those who secretly suspect (against orthodoxy) that a large enough accumulation of anecdotal evidence ceases to be merely anecdotal.

If nothing else, the secretive habits of the Soviet informational first responders at the time pretty much guaranteed that some data were locked up, and others simply not collected.

Brown has performed huge amounts of both field research and archival research, spread over what seems to be 25 years, or even 30 years. Her perseverance is exceptional. Thanks to the quality of her narrative, the reader easily gathers that much of her work was done under adverse conditions, physically and politically. (The thought crossed my mind that I would want Brown on my side in any bar fight.) But, as I said in an opening paragraph, Brown is an activist. She seems to understand the scientific endeavor, but science isn’t her main business. It’s difficult to imagine anyone checking her numerous sources, except perhaps a scholar funded by the nuclear industry. The hire would pretty much have to be a Ukrainian with a very good command of English, because a high proportion of the book references are in Russian, or even in Ukrainian. It’s not going to happen. No one is likely ever to check all her sources — not even a principled sample of her sources, not even a handful.

Yet, I am thinking, a portion of her alarming assertions is probably true, and official sources probably underestimate the health damage caused by the Chernobyl accident. If nothing else, the secretive habits of the Soviet informational first responders at the time pretty much guaranteed that some data were locked up, and others simply not collected. The health lessons that Chernobyl has for today are still necessarily limited. The accident happened in connection with a primitive nuclear technology and under the rule of a political system that was routinely both criminal and mendacious. Since Chernobyl, the nuclear reactor core at Fukushima melted down in the worst possible context of a natural catastrophe. Dissimulation of the health consequences of the Fukushima disaster was unlikely in the relatively open Japanese society. Radiation leaks took place in the midst of a population especially sensitive to such dangers. And yet, not much appears to have happened to anyone’s health that can be linked to radiation.

So, Manual for Survival has moved the needle a little for me — not much, but some. The best way I can express it is this: I would still advocate the replacement of nearly all coal-fueled energy production plants with nuclear plants. I would probably refrain from the same recommendation in connection with relatively clean natural gas plants. That’s because there is no doubt that coal burning pollutes in several ways, irrespective of the reality of the climate change narrative. Natural gas is so clean by contrast that it may not be worth it to take even the slight and poorly demonstrated health risk that may be associated with accidental radiation exposure in order to avoid burning gas.

Her monumental work is largely irrelevant for rationalists, except from a historical viewpoint. It may stand well as another chapter in the sorry history of the Soviet Union.

Of course, if someone whom I thought qualified reviewed Brown’s multiple sources and pronounced them mostly adequate, I would revise my judgment again about the safety of nuclear energy production.

In the end, her monumental work is largely irrelevant for rationalists, except from a historical viewpoint. It may stand well as another chapter in the sorry history of the Soviet Union. The primitive technologies and the incompetent and weak sociopolitical controls of Chernobyl are gone for good. There is a segment in Steven Pinker’s well-documented Enlightenment Now (2018) about both the disadvantages and the overwhelming advantages of nuclear power (pp. 144–150). Why, even climate-change-fixated National Geographic shows a few signs of coming around! Though not many signs: see the short feature on nuclear engineer Leslie Dewan, in the March 2019 issue.


Editor's Note: Review of "A Manual for Survival: A Chernobyl Guide to the Future," by Kate Brown. Norton: New York, 2019. 432 pages.



Share This


Conserving the Body Electric

 | 

My electric company, San Diego Gas and Electric, is a state-franchised monopoly that behaves in the weird way that has become natural for such entities. Obsessed with conserving our reputedly endangered resources, it is trying to get customers to buy less of its product.

Every month it sends me a discouraging report about my energy use. The damning data appear in three graphs.

One is a dull gray and shows the average kilowatt hours used by “90 similar homes an average of 1 mi.” from me. There’s nothing to say how these “homes” are “similar,” besides an indication that the company knows how many square feet I inhabit and whether I own or rent (as if that mattered). Clearly, it doesn’t know how many people live in my place, what their ages are, whether they work for a living, whether they are absent for months at a time, or, really, anything directly relevant to their energy use. And why is it “an average of 1 mi”? Why not within one mile? If my next-door neighbor is included in this similarity derby — which would make a lot of sense, since her home is physically identical to mine — I guess the statisticians will have to identify a corresponding someone two miles away, in a completely different neighborhood and population, to insert among the magic 90. Makes a lotta sense, don’t it?

So who are these efficient people? For all I know, they may be leaving their TV on all night, but they never use their stove.

Another graph is blue. That’s for my own energy use during the month. The third one is green. It represents my “Efficient Neighbors,” and it’s the one that has the enviable, top position in the grand display of stats.

So who are these efficient people? They are the “most efficient 20%” of the “90 similar homes.” So we’re back to that problem. Why these people? But if you’re wondering what “efficient” means, that’s not a mystery: the loaded word simply means that they use less total energy. For all I know, they may be leaving their TV on all night, but they never use their stove — because they go out to eat, thus transferring their inefficient use of energy onto other people’s bills.

I’m not as bad as the average, but I’m one hell of a long way from being “efficient.”

But I know you’re curious to discover exactly how inefficient I am. I’ll tell you. The average energy use of the 90 homes is 322 kWh. The average of the Efficient People (who, remember, are only “efficient” in relation to the 90 users sampled, all of whom, as far as I know, may be 20 times less “efficient” than normal people) is 159 kWh. I, environmental criminal that I am, sucked 303 kWh out of the ecology, all in a single month. I’m not as bad as the average, but I’m one hell of a long way from being “efficient.”

Yet somehow the notices from SDGE fail to make me ashamed of this Neronian orgy of energy use. They inspire me, instead, with two thoughts. The first is, “How much stupid energy does it cost these people to mail me this notice every month?” The second is, “Let’s turn on all the lights.”




Share This


OPEC Death Watch

 | 

A number of recent articles suggest that OPEC — that kleptocratic cartel that has artificially jacked up oil prices for so many decades — is in its death throes.

The cause is something upon which I have long commented in these pages: the roaring renaissance of the American oil and natural gas industry, a renaissance produced by entrepreneurial capitalism — as opposed to interventionist statism. While the Department of Energy funded wind and solar power, along with biomass and ethanol production, all of which together have accounted for only a tiny sliver of American energy production, and that only with massive subsidies and draconian mandates — private enterprise backed the winners: oil and natural gas.

But the recent dramatic increase in production and exportation was occasioned by Speaker Paul Ryan’s success in enacting into law the right of American energy companies to export those resources. This allows frackers (and ordinary drillers) to increase production, because they now have an unlimited world market within which to sell their products.

There's a roaring renaissance in the American oil and natural gas industry, a renaissance produced by entrepreneurial capitalism — as opposed to interventionist statism.

And this is already happening, as several noteworthy articles report. One is a Bloomberg report that of all countries, no less than the United Arab Emirates (UAE) — the fourth largest oil exporter in OPEC — is buying oil from shale wells in Texas. It turns out that the Texas crude is much “sweeter” (lighter and of superior quality) and more useful to the UAE’s refining than the local brand. The 700,000 barrels of oil that it is buying are their first purchase from us.

Bloomberg notes that while American exports to the UAE are not projected to continue, the explosion of American oil exports will. Shipments from America rose from a mere 100,000 barrels per day (BPD) five years ago to 1.53 million BPD in November of last year.

Besides increasing American exports of oil, the fracking revolution has reduced non-American imports to below 3 million BPD, the lowest level since data were first gathered 45 years ago. Our current net imports are only one-fourth of what they were in 2006, and we are likely to become a net exporter in about a decade — sooner, if ANWR is finally tapped, and new offshore areas are opened up for drilling.

The 700,000 barrels of oil that the UAE is buying are their first purchase from the US.

A second story reports the rapid growth in exports of domestically produced natural gas. It reveals that China has signed a long-term contract with Cheniere Energy — a major exporter of liquefied natural gas (LNG) — under which Cheniere will ship LNG from the Gulf Coast to China. Under this contract, Cheniere will provide 1.2 million tons of LNG annually to China, starting in five years, and lasting for 20 years after that.

And there is a third story, which notes that besides a rapid rise in American LNG shipments to China, we are seeing an explosion of exports of American crude oil shipments to that country. These exports have mushroomed from zero, before two years ago, to 400,000 barrels per day during the past two months. And again, if we bust open ANWR and the coastal waters of Alaska, such exports will increase even more quickly.

One nice side effect of this is that the more oil China buys from us, the lower our balance-of-trade deficit is with China. Two months ago our trade deficit with China was $25.55 billion. Last month it dropped to $21.895 billion.

Our current net imports are only one-fourth of what they were in 2006, and we are likely to become a net exporter in about a decade.

For the foreseeable future, of course, China will continue to buy most of its oil from Russia and the OPEC countries. But our share of the Chinese market will grow, for two reasons. First, at $60 per barrel, American crude is more than $4 cheaper than the benchmark (Brent) price. Second, while there are certain infrastructure bottlenecks that have to be overcome, they are being addressed. For example, while we don’t yet have ports capable of handling the biggest oil tankers (“Very Large Crude Carriers”), we have already started expanding one of the largest ports on the Louisiana coast.

All of this has added to the stress on OPEC that may result in its collapse as a cartel: the members of the cartel may go their own ways. The recent uptick in oil prices above the $60 per barrel range has helped OPEC find some relief. The recovery of the old price from its lows in the $40–50 range has two causes.

One is the meltdown of socialism in Venezuela, which has cut its oil production dramatically. Venezuela, a founding member of OPEC, is allocated by the Cartel to produce 1.97 million BPD. But the near civil war in Venezuela has dropped actual production to only 1.64 Million BPD. In fact, Venezuela’s production dropped by a whopping 30% last year alone. This is a steeper decline than that experienced by Russia when the Soviet Union broke up, and that experienced by Iraq following the 2003 invasion!

As noted by the Wall Street Journal article that I am referencing, the drop in Venezuelan petroleum output will likely continue, if not accelerate, because the nation is trapped in a vicious socialized spiral. As it exports less, it receives less foreign currency, which cuts its ability to buy food and other necessities that its own dysfunctional economy cannot produce, which in turn increases its hyperinflation and thus the political and economic failure. Moreover, Venezuela’s declining shipments of crude are deducted to paying creditors (such as Russia) and are in constant danger of being seized by creditors.

All of this has added to the stress on OPEC that may result in its collapse as a cartel: the members of the cartel may go their own ways.

In short, the ill winds that have so badly buffeted the hapless Venezuelan people have blown great good to the rest of OPEC. I suspect this is the real reason why Russia — no longer itself socialist — so strongly supports the Venezuelan socialist regime: it keeps a formidable competitor on the ground. The Russians want nothing so much as fair competition — the history of their Olympic teams shows that!

Speaking of Russia, the second major reason that OPEC has been able to keep the price of oil as high as it has recently (i.e., in the $60–70 per barrel range) is that so far Russia has stuck to its agreement with OPEC to hold down production. In early 2017, OPEC and Russia — which, while not a member of OPEC, is certainly an ally of it — agreed to cut back Russia’s production. This agreement has held up for thirteen months, now, and the Russians have signaled that they are inclined to keep to the bargain through the rest of this year and even into the first half of next year. However, the Russian oil oligarchs are expressing doubts about the deal — since Russia needs to maximize its income in order to arm itself maximally.

Vadim Yakovlev, deputy CEO of Gazprom Neft, the giant Russian oil company, has said that the company views the OPEC agreement as only temporary, and it irks the company to be forced to hold back production. Gazprom’s CEO Alexander Dyukov has said, “Following the OPEC agreement, instead of growing at eight to nine percent, we [Gazprom] have increased by just 4.5 to five percent. Which is, without a doubt, a negative factor for us.”

At this point, American production is a regulator of world prices: whenever the price rises much above $60, the industry jacks up production, and the result brings the price right back down.

It is clear that OPEC’s day of rule is coming to an end. America — already the greatest producer of oil and natural gas combined — is on track to become the world’s biggest oil producer this year. Energy research firm Rystad Energy estimates the US production will rise by 10%, hitting 11 million BPD. America hasn’t been the global leader since — 1975!

The report from which I have drawn that last piece of information notes that in 2015 the Saudis drove oil prices down to $26 a barrel. This lowered American production by 11%. But the American oil industry, not destroyed, became stronger — and more efficient, able to turn a profit with prices as low as $30 a barrel. While some experts are not so sanguine about the US becoming number one, it is clear that our production will continue to grow. At this point, American production is a regulator of world prices: whenever the price rises much above $60, the industry jacks up production, and the result brings the price right back down. A recent article spells this out — oil prices have been driven down by American production’s rise to a new high of 10.25 million BPD.

In sum, the days of OPEC — an evil cartel of evil states, from socialist Venezuela to religious-fascist Iran to duplicitous Saudi Arabia to revanchist neofascist Russia — are numbered. The free market will at last prevail.




Share This


The Geo-Petroleum Order Overturned

 | 

Several recent articles point to the continuing rapid evolution of the world’s geopolitical order in regard to energy — what I dub the “geo-petroleum order”. The upheaval was caused by America’s resurrection as a dominant oil and natural gas superpower, which in turn was caused by the fracking revolution. This resurrection, I would suggest, has had two phases.

The first phase started in the 1990’s, when George P. Mitchel combined hydraulic fracturing (known for decades) with horizontal drilling. This technique — fracking, as it has come to be known — allowed oil production in America to grow like a bodybuilder on steroids. It grew linearly up about 50% between 2011 and 2015. This allowed the US to shrink steadily as a net oil importer. We are close to hitting the goal of zero net imports, which is to say we are close to energy independence. Moreover, fracking drove the price of oil down by something like two thirds, to the current range of $40 to $60 per barrel.

The introduction of that kaleidoscope creator of pointless boondoggles, the US Department of Energy, was another monumental mistake.

The second phase began when House Speaker Ryan managed — amazingly! — to get a bill through Congress allowing domestically produced oil to be sold abroad. And he got President Obama — no big fan of fossil fuels — to sign it into law. As I noted at the time, this was an astounding piece of work. It overturned a grotesquely stupid law (passed during the energy crisis of the 1970s) that forbade the sale of presumably scarce domestic oil abroad. It never occurred to the morons who enacted this law that it would discourage oil companies and innovators from finding different ways to extract oil here, and making them look abroad instead.

Parenthetically, I would suggest that future historians will record that it was primarily our own idiocy that caused our energy shortages during the period running from the OPEC oil embargo to the rapid rise of fracking — a period that saw the greatest transfer of wealth from the US to its enemies ever known, for which we were “rewarded” by terrorist attacks and Russian neoimperialism. The enactment of the aforementioned subhumanly stupid law prohibited the shipment of American-produced oil, incentivizing oil producers and innovators to focus on foreign oil production. The introduction of that kaleidoscope creator of pointless boondoggles, the US Department of Energy (DOE), was another monumental mistake. The projects it forced innovators to pursue exhibited a degree of asininity seldom exceeded in the private realm. These projects range from syn-fuels and geothermal energy to biomass and corn ethanol (the mother and father of all boondoggles) to solar farms and windmills that shred birds and produce expensive energy at the very times it is least needed. Another DOE achievement was killing of the fast breeder reactor, which would have taken the nuclear “waste” we have accumulated and use it as fuel.

The DOE should top the list of federal departments to be eliminated. And for those of you who are worried about a rise of ocean levels said to be caused by global warning, may I offer a helpful hint? Just create a US Department of Water Creation, and the ocean levels won’t just fall; they will simply dry up.

Development in ANWR will provide thousands of high-paying jobs and $60 billion in royalties for the state — some of which goes directly to the people of Alaska.

But I digress. The flawed tax bill recently passed by Congress and signed into law by the president contains a provision allowing limited drilling in the formerly locked away Alaskan National Wildlife Reserve (ANWR). ANWR — which is in the middle of nowhere, and protects nothing but mosquitoes — was created at a time of high oil prices, and with only one purpose: to deny oil companies the chance to develop a small piece of vast Alaska. ANWR was, of course, opposed by the great majority of actual Alaskans but favored by soi-disant “environmentalists” in Silicon Valley and Beverly Hills. But then, neither Silicon Valley nor Beverly Hills has Alaska’s unemployment rate, which is the highest in the nation. Nor do they have Alaska’s large budget deficit.

Development in ANWR will provide thousands of high-paying jobs and $60 billion in royalties for the state — which puts some of the funds in a master-fund, the income of which goes directly to the people of Alaska. ANWR will also rejuvenate the Alaskan Oil Pipeline, keeping that great project alive. Not bad, considering that the drilling will take place on less than 2,000 acres — which is one-hundredth of 1% of the ANWR reserve.

It has also been reported that the $3.8 billion dollar Dakota Access Pipeline — created to ship the burgeoning oil production from fracking operations in North Dakota — is delivering bountiful benefits after only six months of operation. Lowering the cost of shipping has caused an increase in production. October’s production hit 1.185 million barrels per day (BPD), which is about a 13% increase over the peak before the pipeline.

As a result, unemployment in North Dakota is exceptionally low (2.3% in November), state revenues rose by $43.5 million in the first five months since the pipeline opened, and the pipe is projected to deliver $210 to $250 million in extra tax revenue by the end of its first two years. That’s delivering the green!

Saudi Arabia is now looking to invest in — American shale operations! How the geo-petroleum worm has turned.

Speaking of green, there has been a bonus for the environment as well. The pipeline has eliminated about 83% of the train traffic carrying oil, with only two trains a day now needed to transport oil instead of the 12 needed before the pipeline. This dramatically decreases the chance of ecologically damaging oil spills, or hominid-damaging oil explosions when trains carrying oil crash.

Another encouraging report explores an unseen upside of the growth in American fossil fuel production. The domestic steel industry — long an industry under stress from foreign competition — is itself experiencing a rebirth. Both oil and natural gas are shipped mainly by pipeline (unless misguided environmental activists stop the projects) and the pipes aren’t made of wood; they’re made of steel. Recently the newer domestic steel plants have become dramatically more efficient and are increasing capacity in anticipation of the pipeline buildout.

One American steel manufacturer projects growth in domestic oil and natural gas for the next ten to 20 years. Shipments from American steel producers went up 5% in the first ten months of last year — not as good as the 15% experienced by foreign producers, but still on the right track.

Some American manufacturers worry that the domestic buildout in steel plants will lead to a glut. But research done by Pipe Logix estimates that the number of oil and natural gas wells increased by 60% in 2016 alone. Those wells, and the pipes that ship their products, both require steel. So the worry about a “glut” of domestic steel mills seems exaggerated.

The foxy frackers just tightened their operations and kept innovating, winding up with an amazingly flexible industry that remains profitable in a below-$40 per barrel environment.

The American fossil fuel renaissance is having an impact on our major oil competitors. There is fascinating news that Saudi Arabia is now looking to invest in — American shale operations! How the geo-petroleum worm has turned!

Specifically, Aramco — the Saudi state-owned oil company — has approached the Houston based natural gas producer Tellurian, looking to invest. Aramco is also looked at acquiring assets in the two huge fossil fuel basins, Permian and Eagle Ford.

Admittedly, these developments are only incipient. But the fact that the Saudis are knocking at the door marks a major shift. They realize that America — once a pitifully energy-dependent giant brought its knees by despicable dictators sitting on top of large oil reserves — is now the world’s biggest producer of oil and natural gas, eclipsing both the always-treacherous Saudis and the authoritarian Russians. If you add on our coal production, we completely eclipse other countries in fossil-fuel production.

How sad that is for oil potentates, socialist caudillos, and dictators in general, who got fat on oil at an over-$100 price!

Of course, while we are the world’s largest producer of oil and natural gas, we are still net importers, because we consume so much. But as we increase production, we will become a net exporter. And this is what the Saudis realize. Aramco already owns some refineries in the US (and elsewhere in the world), but all Saudi production of oil and natural gas takes place in Saudi Arabia. The new leader of the country (Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman) plans to privatize Aramco, and the IPO shares would fetch a higher price if Aramco sites production here.

The Saudis have two other reasons for wanting to buy into US oil and natural gas production. First, they aim to understand better how fracking works in such nimble ways. A couple of years ago, the Saudis tried to drive the frackers out of business by jacking up their own production and thus driving down prices. For a while, the price of oil hit about $30 per barrel. This caused the Saudi government to hemorrhage foreign reserves, but the foxy frackers just tightened their operations and kept innovating, winding up with an amazingly flexible industry that remains profitable in a below-$40 per barrel environment. When the price drops that low, less efficient operations get closed, but they can be expanded again, in the blink of an eye, when oil goes over $50 a barrel. How sad that is for oil potentates, socialist caudillos, and dictators in general, who got fat on oil at an over-$100 price!

The Saudis envy this flexibility and deeply resent the fact that it will keep the price of oil below $60 a barrel for the indefinite future. Witness the Crown Prince’s attempt to seize the assets of corrupt relatives and get Saudis used to working, rather than living on welfare paid by the rest of the world.

The Russians have “kept up” with American technology since the time of Lenin, usually by stealing it.

The other reason the Saudis want to have operations here is that they want to shift from their reliance on their own oil to power everything. The world’s natural fossil fuel distribution has involved using oil to power transportation, but natural gas and coal to generate electricity — and coal is a much dirtier fuel. But Saudi Arabia’s own natural gas reserves — which are about equal to America’s — are sulfur-laden and hard to get out of the ground. So to convert its production of electricity to natural gas, the country would have to import 12 million metric tons of LNG annually. Extracting that here in America would make sense.

But I have another, deliciously rich, piece of news. It is said that imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. If that’s true our archenemy Russia is flattering us in the extreme. It is trying to develop its own shale.

Russia’s main shale formation — the Bazhenov formation — is the largest in the world. And Russian oil production is the largest in the world. But Russians are looking at oil fields that are six decades or more old, and have declining outputs. So they want to do what America did: recover peak production by means of fracking. The trick is to replicate America’s technological expertise. To this end, the Russian government — i.e., Putin and his corrupt cronies — is offering tax incentives for shale companies, and incentivizing cooperation among energy companies and research institutes to develop fracking technology.

Alexei Vashkevich, exploration director for Russian energy conglomerate Gazprom Neft, who conveniently worked on the North Dakota’s Bakken formation operations, assures us that the Russians won’t rip off American technology but will develop a totally different Russian technology.

Oh, please, Alexei — as if the new Russian 5th-generation fighter weren’t a direct clone of America’s F35. The Russians have “kept up” with American technology since the time of Lenin, usually by stealing it. Witness A-bomb plans stolen by spies, F35 plans, obviously filched by cyberspies, aka hackers, who use the computer and internet technology they stole from — Americans!

We should work to keep oil prices so low that they delay Russia’s massive military buildup.

The news article just mentioned observes that it will be, perhaps, another six or seven years before Russian fracking operations produce very much, in part because of the embargo placed on Russia when it dismembered Ukraine. But wait: if the Russian technology-to-be is going to be totally different from America’s, why would the denial of that technology hold back Russia’s development?

I think you can expect Russia to do three things in the immediate future.

First, you will see it unleash its hackers to steal massive amounts of American fracking technology. My advice to American fracking companies is this: If you haven’t done so already, set up encryption and other barriers to stop cyberspies from an orgy of theft.

Second, you should be prepared to see mysterious “environmental” groups spew colossal amounts of deceitful anti-fracking propaganda. These groups will be funded by Putin for the sole purpose of retarding America’s own fracking.

Third, you can expect a dramatic increase in Russian meddling with elections, here and in Europe, by feeding propaganda to news media and funds to political activist groups. They likely played a role in strangling Poland’s development of its own substantial shale formations — keeping Poland and the rest of Eastern Europe dependent on Russian natural gas and oil. No doubt they will try to elect anti-fracking candidates here as well.

My strong belief is that we should work to keep prices so low that they delay Russia’s massive military buildup. To do this, we need to open up more offshore sites, and more in Alaska, and push for the systematic exploration of the Arctic.

In this regard, there is some very recent good news. Secretary of the Interior Ryan Zinke has announced a plan that would overturn the Obama administration’s effort to restrict offshore drilling to only 6% of the American coastline. Under the new plan, fully 90% of offshore areas would be opened, in the largest sale of offshore leases in history. This is a huge new step towards the goal of making America, in Zinke’s words, “the strongest energy superpower.”

While oil company CEOs may fear a glut — and lower prices — consumers would welcome it.

This means that Southern California’s coastline would be open for offshore drilling for the first time since the late 1960s, when it was closed because of an oil spill in Santa Barbara. The East Coast offshore areas would also be reopened.

Naturally, environmentalist groups are already screaming. For example, Diane Hoskins of the activist group Oceana called the plan “absolutely radical.” This is to be expected. Democratic governors in several states (including California, Oregon, North Carolina, and Washington) also expressed complete opposition, and some Republicans became alarmed as well. Senator Marco Rubio and Governor Rick Scott both came out against drilling off Florida’s coastline.

Even oil companies have stated reservations, since they are now experiencing what they regard as a glut of oil. But while oil company CEOs may fear a glut — and lower prices — consumers would welcome it.

Zinke has pointed out that the plan will not be finalized until 2019, and only after comments have been received in public hearings around the country. While all that is pending, we can be thankful for inventive frackers and the prosperity they have given us.




Share This


Frackin’ . . . Like the Doo-Dah Man

 | 

Recent stories in the wonderful Wall Street Journal give us the happy news that (while receiving no coverage from the mainstream media, of course) the fracking revolution rolls on.

The first story reports that American crude oil exports are accelerating to new highs, rapidly approaching as much as Kuwait currently exports. Amazing. As of last month, we were exporting 1,984,000 barrels per day (BPD), an increase of nearly 500,000 BPD from the week before, and up an astounding 684,000 BPD in May. Considering that Kuwait ships about two million BPD, this is great news.

Admittedly, the US is still a net oil importer. But we import almost all the decreasing amount of foreign oil we need from our great ally Canada — our great ally, unless President Trump pulls out of NAFTA.

This exporting craze will only continue to build — if we don’t try to destroy our fracking industry, and allow it to flourish.

The reason for this surge in US crude oil exportation is that American crude is relatively cheap. In the week in which the record in exports was set, the US crude price was nearly $7 per barrel cheaper than the world standard. This is a new record low during the period since the 50-year-old ban on oil exports was lifted a couple of years ago, thanks to the much-maligned Congressman Paul Ryan.

In the irony that is the mother and father of all ironies, the second biggest buyer of America’s crude oil is our devoted enemy, China, which now takes about 180,000 BPD from us, up almost 900% from last year.

This exporting craze will only continue to build — if we don’t try to destroy our fracking industry, and allow it to flourish. All it needs is to be left alone in the free market. If so, it will guarantee that we never see $100 a barrel oil again ever. Here I must give Trump his props — he has allowed fracking to go unmolested.

What the frackers have shown is a profound and continuing ability to innovate and lower costs, in the face of an attempt by OPEC, that rent-seeking cesspool of corruption, to drive them out of business by lowering prices. But it was the OPEC companies that were driven to the wall.

This is just more of the daffy Malthusian “peak oil” thinking we’ve heard before.

The Wall Street Journal reports that one of the biggest natural gas fields from a decade ago, the Haynesville Shale field in Louisiana, has been reborn. Ten years ago it was productive, but five years ago it was nearly played out. Yet this field has come roaring back to life. The number of drilling rigs has tripled in the past year, and the current amount of natural gas is up by 17% in the same period.

What has allowed this resurrection of gas fields is “refracking” — the process of using more sand and extending the wells further. In fact, the US Geological Survey now estimates that the Haynesville, Louisiana and adjacent fields hold 300 trillion cubic feet of natural gas. That is a 430% increase over its 2010 estimate.

Helping the process is investor recognition that natural gas has a bright future. The US Department of Energy projects that over the next quarter of a century or so, use of natural gas will outstrip that of all other fossil fuels, especially coal. Cheniere Energy has a large liquefied natural gas (LNG) plant and export facility in Louisiana. Additional LNG plants are being built in Louisiana, Mississippi, Texas, and even Maryland.

Natural gas is the “feedstock” in many industries — petrochemicals, plastics, and fertilizers, to name the biggest. Nearly 80 petrochemical plants are being built in the Gulf Coast region alone, where they will result in jobs, and the continued resurrection of Dixieland.

The major hurdles are an apparent fall in innovation in the fracking industry, wariness among investors, and rising labor costs.

The WSJ notes that some “experts” are worried that the export market will siphon off so much natural gas that prices will rise, hurting manufacturers that are now ramping up. This is just more of the daffy Malthusian “peak oil” thinking we’ve heard before. We can simply increase production of natural gas from all over the US — from the Dakotas to Pennsylvania to Texas — to meet the demand. All the while good paying jobs will be created, and our adversaries (such as Iran, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and Venezuela) will be kicked in their teeth.

When will the “experts” finally wake up and realize that in a free market there is no “peak” anything — least of all oil and natural gas?

In fact, during the past year, Castleton Commodities International spent more than a billion bucks to buy 160,000 acres of Anadarko’s Haynesville land. For that it got an infusion of capital from Tokyo Gas America, the largest utility in Japan. This shows the true expert assessment of fracking’s value.

A third WSJ article amplifies the idea that the glut of US production is spooking producers. In other words, it’s such a bitch that prices are set by supply and demand! The piece notes that the growth in the number of rigs — typically used as a measure of future activity &‐ dropped from 20% for the preceding four quarters to “only” 6% in the third quarter of this year.

Many of the OPEC states (especially Saudi Arabia) need oil to be around $100 per barrel to keep their economies stable and their citizens quiet.

This shouldn’t cause any pain. With the buildout of American industry and the roaring appetite of East Asian consumers, demand will just keep increasing. The Journal notes that US oil production may surpass the supposed “peak oil” production of 9.6 million BPD set in 1970. The major hurdles are an apparent fall in innovation in the fracking industry, wariness among investors, and rising labor costs. But despite the slowdown in the increase of production, there is no decrease in production, and the Energy Information Agency expects American oil production to hit 9.69 million BPD at the end of the year. This, despite oil prices stuck at about $50 per barrel.

The last WSJ story that I want to mention points to the continuing geopolitical fallout from the growth of US oil production. It reports that continued low prices on world oil markets have led Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, and other OPEC members to push Russia — which, while not technically an OPEC member, is surely a fellow traveler — to continue to agree to the current limits on production.

The narrative here is as simple as it is delicious. In the face of the American fracking revolution — which dropped world oil prices from over $100 per barrel a few years ago to $50 and below — OPEC has tried to figure out what to do. Many of the OPEC states (especially Saudi Arabia) need oil to be around $100 per barrel to keep their economies stable and their citizens quiet. But Putin’s regime has used Russia’s oil wealth for a huge military buildup, and kept Russian citizens happy by using military power to conquer the Crimea and threaten the rest of the former Soviet empire. To keep this up, Putin is prepared to sell as much oil as possible, even at lower prices, to fund his mechanisms of corruption.

In 2017 Russia agreed with the OPEC strategy to cut back production by 2% to keep prices from plummeting further. While this production cut helped raise the world price of oil by about 13%, American fracking has kept the world price well below $60 per barrel. But Russia’s participation in continuing the cuts is unclear, to say the least. The current agreement ends in March 2018, and OPEC is pushing the wily Putin to agree to extend it. The Saudis are offering to set up a billion-dollar fund to invest in energy projects.

The US should open all the spigots and end net importation of foreign oil once and for all.

Putin so far remains noncommittal. He can see what is obvious, which the WSJ article notes: if OPEC succeeds in raising prices, American shale companies can immediately crank up their output, rapidly driving the price back down.

Now, whether the Russians are bluffing OPEC to get more concessions, or simply intend to cover their drop in revenue by increasing their own production, we will have to wait to see. But I think the US should open all the spigots and end net importation of foreign oil once and for all. The US should make our own oil a major export. This means: opening up more federal land for fracking and offshore drilling, opening up ANWR in Alaska, opening the East Coast for offshore drilling, and pushing to open up the Arctic for the rapid exploitation of the region’s resources.

I would suggest to Trump that he get over his fears about free trade agreements and cut a deal that would allow him to sign the TPP agreement, but with one new provision: the TPP members should agree that if the US can sell them oil and LNG at world market prices, they will buy from us. That would eliminate the trade imbalances that so anger Trump (though not economists, of course). It is, alas, very doubtful that Trump can grow that much in strategic thinking.

that the export market will siphon off so much natural gas that prices will rise, hurting manufacturers that are now ramping up. This is just more of the daffy Malthusian ‐




Share This


Gas Expands!

 | 

An amazing and welcome development has been achieved. As the Wall Street Journal just reported, for the first time in six decades, America exported more natural gas than it imported. It has once again become a net exporter of natural gas, and this new export sector will grow rapidly.

The net export volume is starting modestly: in November we exported 7.4 billion cubic feet (BCF) per day, while still importing 7.0 BCF per day. But no one doubts that from this modest start the volume of exports will grow. American gas exports have gone up by 50% over the past six years, and the Energy Department projects that we will be the third-largest exporter of liquefied natural gas (LNG) by 2020 — behind only Australia and Qatar. Citigroup estimates that by 2020 the US will be supplying to the rest of the world about 20% of the natural gas it produces.

No one doubts that from this modest start the volume of natural gas exports will grow.

To cite one example of success: Cheniere Energy opened a facility in the Sabine Pass (on the border of Texas and Louisiana). It was originally intended to import LNG, but the fracking revolution so decreased the price of natural gas that the plant was quickly “reverse-designed” to export it. Since February, when the plant started shipments of LNG, its output has grown to an average of 1.5 BCF exported per day. Not surprisingly, Cheniere is expanding the Sabine Pass plant rapidly, and will open more export facilities over the next two years.

Three years ago, the Freeport LNG facility at Quintana Island, Texas, got approval to export LNG, and it will begin exporting massive quantities of LNG in two years. Next year, Dominion Resources will start exporting LNG to India and Japan.

The only way this US export industry won’t grow is if the government — intentionally or by simple bungling — stops it.

So this trend toward America becoming the dominant reliable supplier of LNG for the whole damn planet will not just continue — it will accelerate. Thank you again, free market: remarkably shrewd private individuals, acting primarily out of self-interest, came up with a way — fracking — to make domestic oil and natural gas plentiful again, and plentiful indefinitely. Government subsidized losers — technologies such as wind and solar energy — but the free market found the efficient answer.

In fact, the only way this US export industry won’t grow is if the government — intentionally or by simple bungling — stops it. The progressive liberal Democrats hate fracking, of course. Obama did everything he could to impede it — such as taking an unprecedented amount of land out of public use — although most of the land upon which fracking operations are happening is private. Hillary Clinton repeatedly stated her total opposition to fracking (not to mention coal), which likely was a major factor in her ignominious loss to Donald Trump.

Speaking of Trump, he may ironically set back the natural gas export boom brought by fracking. For while he certainly claims to support it, the largest customers of our natural gas are, outside of ourselves, our NAFTA partners, Canada and Mexico. Together they are buying a record high of our total output. But Trump — a populist to the core — hates free trade, and has targeted NAFTA as a “bad deal” for America. His bungling trade policy could well get us into trade wars with the very countries that could become our biggest future energy export markets.




Share This


Once Again, Spontaneous Order Beats the Dead Hand of Statism

 | 

A number of recent reports on American energy illustrate anew the power of markets to deliver prosperity — rapidly — and the impotence of government to do the same. In short, spontaneous order has once again accomplished what the dead hand of statism could not.

The first report concerns the unsurprising demise of yet another solar power company. SunEdison is filing for bankruptcy, after seeing its stock price drop a whopping 98% in less than a year. Wall Street mavens such as David Einhorn (billionaire owner of a hedge fund called Greenlight Capital) and Leon Cooperman (of Omega Advisors) had considered the company a sure bet, but it proved to be a sure loser.

SunEdison is just one of an endless stream of solar companies that started, during the reign of the Obama administration, with the promise of giving us cheap power while healing the planet of global warming. Typically, they began with direct or indirect government subsidies — only to fail miserably.

Other stories tell us of better news. Just two months ago — in a nice piece of negotiation for which he received only vilification from the pestilent swarm of populist talk show hosts — Speaker of the House Paul Ryan (R-WI) reached a budget deal with the administration that once again (after a ban of biblical proportions — 40 years) allowed the exportation of domestically produced oil abroad. I have argued before that this is a major geopolitical game changer. We can now sell the fruits of our petroleum fracking revolution on the world market, thus ending, once and for all, the power of the oil cartel (OPEC) to gouge the rest of the world. Oil prices can now be kept low indefinitely. If Russia or the OPEC thieves try to cut back on production to extort more money from Europe and Asia in the form of higher prices, or if the demand for oil goes up because of a future worldwide economic boom, the Great American Frackers can just drill more wells, with no shortage for the foreseeable future.

SunEdison is just one of an endless stream of solar companies that started with the promise of giving us cheap power while healing the planet of global warming, only to fail miserably.

Less remarked upon, but no less remarkable, has been the flourishing of American natural gas production — driven again by the fracking companies. The miracle of fracking has dramatically reduced the prices of domestic natural gas — in fact, driven the price of natural gas to the lowest it has been in 17 years. Moreover, North America’s natural gas production is now about 450% greater than Africa’s, 80% greater than the Asian Pacific’s, 50% greater than the Middle East’s, and only 5% smaller than Eurasia’s; and it is set to grow apace over the next few years.

Why? Because the domestic price is now so low that American energy companies find it attractive to liquefy natural gas and ship it abroad. And that’s what is starting to happen. For example, just last month, the first shipment of American produced natural gas — ethane — left the Marcus Hook terminal in Philadelphia, headed for Europe. The purchaser of the liquefied natural gas (LNG), Swiss petrochemical company Ineos, plans to use it in its Norway facility. (Ethane is primarily a feedstock for plastic production. Methane is what is typically used for heating and power generation.) Given current trends, the US could become the world’s third largest exporter of LNG, right behind Qatar and Australia — in just four years.

Now consider the Cheniere Energy company’s Sabine Pass facility (located on the Gulf Coast), which aims to be fully operational in less than three years. By itself alone it will be able to export 3.5 billion cubic feet (Bcf) per day.

US producers have a key cost advantage: they can reconfigure import facilities to become export facilities relatively inexpensively. So as domestically produced natural gas replaces all imports, we can seamlessly start sending LNG abroad. The US Department of Energy has approved projects that will increase the potential exports of LNG to 10 Bcf per day, and is swamped with new applications that if granted could boost those exports another 35 Bcf per day. That is nearly the size of today’s global market.

Of course, already some people have raised worries that by exporting so much of our domestically produced natural gas, our own consumers will face shortages and see domestic prices soar. This is doubtful. For one thing, the US already has something like four trillion cubic feet (Tcf) of natural gas stored underground, and produces 30 Tcf a year. So even if the Department of Energy approves all the projects under submission, the effect on domestic prices will be limited. One recent estimate by the US Energy Information Administration is that an increase of 12 to 20 Bcf per day in exports would raise domestic natural gas prices by 4–11% per million Btu.

The miracle of fracking has driven the price of natural gas to the lowest it has been in 17 years.

Making the chance that increasing exports will raise domestic prices of natural gas even more remote is the fact that, with the colossal amount of American shale deposits of natural gas — not to mention our immense amount of conventional supplies — the number of fracking operations will grow dramatically as our exports increase. That will increase domestic supplies as well, and hold their price down. Moreover, because building out export facilities is costly, the rate of increase will be relatively tame.

Still, the excellent economic news is that we will have another great export market to exploit, providing hundreds of thousands of high-paying blue-collar jobs all over this country — jobs sorely needed, as our older manufacturing jobs are automated away. For example, it is estimated that America will need 100 more LNG tankers over the next 15 years, as our exports surge ahead.

American natural gas exports will soon be headed to Asia as well as Europe. China is increasing its own production of natural gas, in part because the pollution caused by all its coal-fired power plants is making city life intolerable, but developing its own shale resources is proving difficult. Japan is perennially in need of natural gas (and petroleum as well). The export route to Asia will be dramatically improved by the $5.3 billion expansion of the Panama Canal just being completed. This will cut an average of 11 days off the time it takes to ship oil from the Gulf Coast to Asia.

This is also great geopolitical news. We will be able to supply natural gas to Europe, which right now depends upon the thoroughly corrupt and evil Russian company Gazprom. Russia has shown a vicious propensity to price-gouge when it can, and it uses its supply as an instrument of state power in the revanchist quest to reestablish the Soviet Empire. That quest will be sharply curtailed by American natural gas exports to Europe.

The prospect of American natural gas liberating Poland, the Baltic states, and other formerly Soviet-controlled countries from Russian hegemony was the subject of another recent report. It notes that several countries are eagerly awaiting buying LNG from the United States, and some — such as Poland — are building import terminals in anticipation that American shipments will increase. Russia supplies about a third of all Europe’s natural gas. Some of the former Soviet countries (such as Bulgaria) get 90% of their supplies from Russia.

As Lithuania’s energy minister has said, “In Russia, gas always goes together with politics.” But he added, “Russia is extremely aggressive in gas pricing and the arrival of US LNG will change that.” Goldman Sachs estimates that the arrival of American LNG should drop the price by one-quarter in just two years.

The US will have another great export market to exploit, providing hundreds of thousands of high-paying blue-collar jobs all over this country.

Russia feigns unconcern about the arrival of American LNG. Alexander Medvedev, Gazprom’s deputy chairman, discreetly claimed, “We are very relaxed about US LNG, though very attentive.” Analyst Trevor Sikorski explains that while Russian gas currently costs about $4.60 per million Btus, American gas will cost about $3.60 (when the cost of shipping is included). So Russia could “chase out” the US (as Sikorski suggests) by, say, lowering its price to $2. But I think the Russians are merely whistling past the graveyard. For one thing, Russia has for several years funded European environmentalist organizations, enabling them to propagandize against fracking. If it were so easy for the Russians to undercut the price of gas produced by fracking, why does Russia so oppose it in other countries?

Second, there is a flaw in the argument that Russia can just chase the US out of the European market by dumping its own natural gas at (say) half what it currently charges. The problem with that argument is — against all “dumping” arguments — that the Americans would stay out only as long as Russia incurred that 50% lower revenue stream. But the reduction would severely limit Russia’s ability to continue upgrading its military and taking over more of Eastern Europe. Worse for Russia, the minute it decided to raise its prices back up, American oil companies would need only a day to start shipments to Europe, and only a couple of weeks for the oil to arrive.

It seems likely that Russia will simply lower its prices to match or slightly undercut the American pricing — say, pricing its natural gas at $3.50. But this will still be quite damaging to Russia’s revanchist goals, and therefore good news for the rest of us. Russia will lose 20–25% of its current revenue stream — a major hit indeed. More importantly, even if Russia charges approximately what American companies do, the former Soviet countries will probably still order American gas, the better to keep their freedom from Russian domination.

In sum, American LNG may forever free the Eastern Europeans from Russia’s paws. This is reason for rejoicing.

But there are two reasons for not rejoicing. First, both candidates for the Democratic nomination for president — Clinton and Sanders — have said that they utterly oppose fracking. No doubt whichever one wins the nomination will be lavishly, if covertly, funded by the Russians.

Worse, the two leading candidates for the Republican nomination — Trump and Cruz — would almost certainly lose to the Democrat in the general election. The Republicans are hellbent on losing the best shot they have had to take back the White House in eight years. Go figure that out.




Share This


Now the Majority

 | 

Amid all the hoopla surrounding the elections, the nation passed a milestone worth noting. We now have right-to-work (RTW) laws in place in the majority of states. This is a cause for quiet celebration.

Earlier this month, West Virginia — long a stronghold of Big Labor (specifically, the United Mine Workers) — voted to become the nation’s 26th RTW state. This was as surprising as Michigan’s decision a couple of years ago.

Workers find their dues used to elect politicians who want to close down the very industries that employ those workers.

It took maneuvering. The law had narrowly passed the Republican-dominated legislature the week before, but Democrat Governor Earl Ray Tomblin vetoed it. However, the state constitution allows the legislature to override a veto with a simple majority. The Republican-dominated legislature did just that, by 18–16 in the Senate and 54–43 in the House.

Undoubtedly the driving force for this change is something I have long noted in these pages. Ever since FDR, there has long been an unholy alliance between Big Labor and the Democratic Party. Labor unions freely used enormous amounts of workers’ money to elect Democrats, who then passed laws favorable to unions, but often opposed to the desires of workers. Over the past 20 years, and especially with the election of Obama, Big Labor has elected Democrats who are environmental extremists. This is the ultimate in irony: workers find their dues used to elect politicians who want to close down the very industries that employ those workers!

That is especially true in West Virginia. Of course, the state has long had major coal-mining operations. But Obama’s campaign against coal has devastated those industries. This has been the major reason that West Virginia has the second-highest unemployment rate in the nation — 6.5%, or about a third higher than the average.

Workers of the country, unite, and throw off the chains with which the vicious environmentalist Democrats have shackled you! Not only will you be free — you may just keep your job!




Share This


Credibility vs. Credulity

 | 

Climate catastrophists are distraught. The planet is headed for hellish doom, and few of its inhabitants care enough to alter its climatological trajectory in any meaningful way. The world has ignored catastrophist demands to decarbonize its economies, and rich countries, who have caused catastrophic anthropogenic global warming (CAGW), are not doing enough to help poor countries, who are its victims. Worse yet, the climate cult is crumbling, as its science-challenged leaders struggle to wage a crusade whose viability depends on propping up a scientific hypothesis that cannot stand on its own.

Catastrophist leaders have been unable to make a convincing scientific case for CAGW, or for the solution that they propose to avert it. Decades of advancing their scientific arguments (based on, e.g., flawed climate models, blatant manipulation of climate temperature data, shrill pronouncements of unsubstantiated alarms, followed by shriller, more frequent pronouncements of unsubstantiated alarms) have failed to win public support. So have vigorous attempts to appropriate scientific authority, coerce scientific consensus, and quash scientific debate. Their most ambitious intellectual efforts (incessant ridicule of skeptics, unrelenting vilification of dissenting scientists, and threats to imprison fossil fuel company CEOs, "climate deceivers," "doubt-sowers," and others) have attracted few converts.

According to catastrophist lore, America is the problem. Americans, catastrophists say, are in denial about the coming devastation and the science that predicts it. We dismiss the ominous tweets of President Obama (e.g., "Ninety-seven percent of scientists agree: #climatechange is real, man-made and dangerous"). We chuckle when John Kerry likens global warming to weapons of mass destruction (WMDs), skeptics to Holocaust deniers, and alternative theories of climate change to the work of "shoddy scientists." We are blind to the self-evident truths of climate warming that catastrophists see, everywhere they look: storms, floods, droughts, fires, famines, terrorism, species extinction, heatwaves, cold snaps, allergies, and diarrhea, to name a few.

The climate cult is crumbling, as its science-challenged leaders struggle to wage a crusade whose viability depends on propping up a scientific hypothesis that cannot stand on its own.

America remains doubtful and oblivious. Just how stupid can we be, wonder alarmists? Bill Clinton thinks that such skepticism makes America look like "a joke." It's "almost like denying gravity," muses Joe Biden. Have Americans become even stupidersince Obamacare, which, according to Obamacare architect Jonathan Gruber, relied on "the stupidity of the American voter" for its passage?

Indeed, American ignorance is said to be behind the watered-down Paris climate change accord. Thought to be humanity's last best chance to avert otherwise certain climate disaster, the agreement was not legally binding and fell far short of catastrophist demands. Catastrophist leaders blamed the US Senate. Had that body been willing to ratify a treaty mandating US emissions reductions, then Messrs. Obama and Kerry would have been able to persuade the other 190 or so countries to mandate theirs.

The US Senate, of course, is controlled by Republicans, as is the House of Representatives. That is, the US Congress is controlled by Republicans, for whom climate change is not the most important issue of their time. Congressional Democrats, on the other hand, having been duly indoctrinated by climate science that was settled decades ago, believe that CAGW is the greatest threat to humanity. Unlike Democrats, Republicans do not understand that fossil fuel is the scourge of the planet, abetted by the industrialization, capitalism, and democracy that threaten its very existence. This misapprehension is typified by so-called Tea Party Republicans — "flat-earthers" that Obama has no time to meet with — and "climate deniers," whose ignorance of science, according to Kerry, disqualifies them from "high public office." Presumably they would have been qualified had they attended the kinds of high schools and colleges where, Kerry continued, he "learned that the sun rises in the east and sets in the west and it does so 24 hours a day."

We are blind to the self-evident truths of climate warming that catastrophists see, everywhere they look: storms, floods, droughts, fires, famines, terrorism, species extinction, heatwaves, cold snaps, allergies, and diarrhea.

Which raises the question: in this intractable climate change battle, who are the actual idiots? Where is the evidence that the catastrophist elite is any smarter than the Americans, even the ordinary Americans, that it obsessively derides and belittles? Instead of asking why America is unwilling to buy their planet-saving scheme, catastrophists should ask why their leadership has been unable to sell it. Why is it that — armed with daily evidence of omnipresent climate damage, the pressure of world opinion, the unrelenting propaganda of stroppy environmentalism, the vociferous endorsement of celebrities and journalists, and the lofty, unified validation of the world's climate scientists — such luminaries as Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, and Al Gore can't make the case? They are losing to the Koch brothers and 40 or so members of the Tea Party!

Part of the answer is that those leading the climate crusade know the least about science. Otherwise, they would be able to explain climate change issues (such as the ongoing warming pause, the elusive tropical hotspot, the pesky Medieval Warm Period, the perfervid climate models, and the profligate green technologies that are "unproven or even illusory") in a way that Americans could understand. Dr James Hansen, the father of global warming, laments Obama's inability to articulate his policies to the public. “He’s not particularly good at that," said a discouraged Hansen.

There has been no measurable global temperature increase for 18 years of uninterrupted, anthropogenic belching of record quantities of CO2 into the atmosphere. This is no small fissure in the CAGW theory; it is a gapping chasm that screams for resolution. Yet in May 2013, more than 15 years into the hiatus, as climate scientists frantically struggled to find an explanation of why the climate had not warmed as fast as everybody had anticipated five or ten years earlier, a clueless Obama asserted, "We also know that the climate is warming faster than anybody anticipated five or ten years ago." Three years later, still clutching a theory in need of serious modification, if not complete revision, he fatuously calls skeptics "deniers," as he remains in obstinate denial of the continuing warming pause.

After injecting over 100 billion tons of CO2 into the atmosphere since 1998 (one quarter of the amount that all humanity has spewed since 1750) with no temperature increase to show for it, one can understand how Americans, even ignorant Americans, would be skeptical of the CAGW hypothesis, and embarrassed by their president's habitual attribution of storms, floods, droughts, and terrorism to rising temperatures that have yet to occur.

Where is the evidence that the catastrophist elite is any smarter than the Americans, even the ordinary Americans, that it obsessively derides and belittles?

While they wait for the missing heat to appear, perhaps catastrophist leaders could use the time to explain the tropical hot spot (the signature of manmade warming, predicted by climate models). It too is missing — as is the rapidly melting Arctic ice predicted by Mr. Gore in his 2006 Academy Award winning documentary, An Inconvenient Truth. In accepting the Nobel Prize for his climate prediction abilities, Gore warned, "The North Polar ice cap is falling off a cliff," and "could be completely gone in summer" by 2013. But in May 2015, NASA reported that polar sea ice has been increasing, and is currently about 5% greater than the post-1979 average.

As an example of another precognitive gem, in his documentary, the doltish Gore proclaimed:

Humanity is sitting on a time bomb. If the vast majority of the world’s scientists are right, we have just ten years to avert a major catastrophe that could send our entire planet’s climate system into a tail-spin of epic destruction involving extreme weather, floods, droughts, epidemics and killer heat waves beyond anything we have ever experienced — a catastrophe of our own making.

With only months until the bomb is scheduled to go off, the vast majority of the world’s scientists are no doubt in denial about ever having belonged to Al's "vast majority" club. Gore has become a laughingstock, and his credibility as a climate forecaster has vanished in the eyes of most climate experts — except for the catastrophist elite, who, as the case for climate hysteria crumbles before their eyes, step up the hysteria.

To Obama, "the scientific consensus" that he cites in his delusional rantings extends to an endorsement of his policies. It does not. That there is scientific authority attached to his policies is the bilge of political dogma. Unfortunately, it is this bilge that Democrats grasp as scientific truth, angrily rejecting divergent ideas as anti-science — promulgated, of course, by fossil fuel company shills. Skeptics should be prosecuted under the RICO Act, and coal company CEOs should be jailed "for all of eternity," says Robert F Kennedy Jr. Such is the preferred catastrophist method of settling science.

The climate cult has hijacked climate science for political purposes. Its hysterical claims of future havoc are disingenuously designed to scare the world into believing that eco-socialism is earth's only hope for survival. But such claims are based on the projections of severely flawed climate models. Even the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) admits that “there remain significant errors in the model simulation of clouds." There is observational evidence that “water vapor feedback” used by models to amplify the warming effect of CO2 is offset by clouds. Moreover, a recent study of the earth's albedo (the fraction of incoming solar radiation reflected back into space) found that "climate models fail to reproduce the observed annual cycle in all components of the albedo with any realism" and that the inability to accurately quantify the reflection of sunlight by clouds is "one of the major obstacles in climate change predictions."

(Clouds and water vapor make up 95% of atmospheric greenhouse gases (GHG); CO2 comprises only 3.6%, of which only 0.117% is manmade. Catastrophists claim that this miniscule quantity will significantly raise the temperature of the entire planet.)

Even the Tea Party would agree that, through the greenhouse effect, some level of manmade warming is expected. But where is the evidence for significant warming? It's what the Global Climate Models (GCMs) tell us, catastrophist leaders insist. That is, we are being told that 0.117% of atmospheric GHGs drives our climate, and the information comes, not from scientifc observation, but from GCMs that are incapable of faithfully simulating 95% of atmospheric GHGs. We are also being told that, because we wonder about all this, we are knuckle-dragging morons who may need to go to jail.

There has been no measurable global temperature increase for 18 years of uninterrupted, anthropogenic belching of record quantities of CO2 into the atmosphere.

Climate cultists, in their reflexive attacks against those who question the authority of mystical climate models, demonstrate their own, and more fundamental, ignorance of science. As Thomas H. Huxley long ago noted, the true scientist "absolutely refuses to acknowledge authority . . . For him, skepticism is the highest of duties; blind faith the one unpardonable sin."

Yet blind faith is the price of admission to the cult. Skepticism must be checked at the door. In a study reported by the Huffington Post and Mother Jones, the Tea Party is ridiculed for its skepticism. "Tea Party Members Really, Really Don't Trust Scientists," scoffs the Mother Jones headline. Based on the study sample, Democrats are the most trusting, with 83% of them believing scientists on environmental issues. Independents are next, at 63%, followed by mainstream Republicans, at 60%. The Tea Party comes in last, at 28%.

Only 1% of Democrats distrust scientists, boasts the report, compared to 43% of the Tea Party crowd. That is, Democrats are incurious, credulous lemmings, and 43% of the Tea Party seem to have passed high school physics. This would explain why the Tea Party has a few questions for climate scientists (who, after more than 30 years and untold billions spent on climate research, can't make their case), and why almost all Democrats have no questions at all.

To be fair, what could climate change gurus be expected to know about climate science? They are lawyers. For all Mr. Obama knows, the Stefan-Boltzmann Law is a racist statute, surreptitiously enforced in the South. Harry Reid's total knowledge of global warming is that the Koch Brothers are behind it; they "own that ugly tar stuff in Canada." Harry probably thinks that a CO2 absorption band is an undergarment worn by Al Gore when being theatrically elevated by a pneumatic scissors lift, as he was in An Inconvenient Truth.

John Kerry's closest brush with science was the clean room "bunny suit" that he donned at the Kennedy Space Center (KSC) to promote his 2004 presidential campaign. It was an experiment that went awry: photographs of the event portrayed Kerry as a goofy ass; the Kerry campaign blamed NASA for leaking them to the media; NASA's General Council ordered the removal of all images of Kerry's KSC visit from all NASA websites. Some might consider the removal to be censorship, while others might view it as a scientific contribution — since the display of John Kerry in a bunny suit would have scared dozens of promising space camp kids away from pursuing a career in science.

Climate cultists, in their reflexive attacks against those who question the authority of mystical climate models, demonstrate their own ignorance of science.

Nowadays, as an international climate change star, Kerry imparts climate science wisdom to world leaders, urging them to exploit "the small window of time that we have left in order to be able to prevent the worst impacts of climate change from already happening." At home, when he is not pondering time-travel, Kerry advises the American public about "shoddy scientists" and "extreme ideologues" whom we should not allow "to compete with scientific fact" — fact such as the idea that climate change is the "most fearsome WMD," that Canadian tar sands are a "hydrogen bomb," and that "those who continue to make climate change a political fight put us all at risk," all notions plucked from the meditative, objective, non-ideological mind of John Kerry.

In reality, climate cult leaders are boisterous dilettantes who are distressingly ignorant of science, except for its shameless use as bunting for their political ambitions. Hillary Clinton, who has even less scientific credibility than Kerry, is suddenly, and furiously, following his "small window of time" advice — now that she is running for president. She cannot explain why she thinks that only manmade CO2 causes global warming, that only catastrophic warming will ensue, or that only solar panels and windmills can stop it, but to win the Democrat nomination, she promises to install a half-billion solar panels by 2027, enough, supposedly, to power every American home. Depending on the polls, the theatrics of Gore and Kerry would not be beneath her. With Obama blaming global warming for droughts, and Biden blaming it for forest fires, Clinton could start showing up at tornado sites, wearing a green pantsuit and a whirling, funnel-shaped hat, spinning in proportion to her feigned outrage.

In the Democrat debates, let's just hope that no one asks Mrs. Clinton about the tropical hotspot. She might reply, after a grating cackle, that it's a nightclub on a Caribbean island where Bill goes to sate his albedo. The enraged catastrophist elite would attack the moderator, accusing him of being a denier, a climate-deceiver. "Go to jail, oil company shill," would cry the big government shills. On the other hand, at a Democrat debate involving climate science, only 1% of the audience would doubt her answer. Where credulity reigns, dilettantes have credibility.




Share This


Take This Climate Deal — Please!

 | 

On December 12, 2015, climateers the world over celebrated as a new climate change accord, known as "the Paris Agreement," was approved. It was the culmination of four grueling years of behind-the-scenes negotiations designed to save the planet from catastrophic anthropogenic global warming (CAGW). At the stroke of the gavel marking its acceptance, the more than 40,000 climate change diplomats from 195 countries erupted into cheers, ovations, high-fives, champagne toasts, tearful embraces, and, of course, rampant backpatting.

“This is truly a historic moment,” proclaimed United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki-moon — the first "truly universal agreement on climate change." According to the New York Times, President Obama "strode triumphantly into the Cabinet Room of the White House to declare victory in his quest" for the ambitious deal. An ebullient John Kerry tweeted: "#COP21 agreement is the strongest, most ambitious global climate agreement ever negotiated." It is "the best chance to save the one planet we got," intoned Mr. Obama, perhaps too choked up for grammar. Or perhaps he noticed the Eiffel Tower illuminating the phrase "no Plan B," and the shuddering possibility that the deal — his vaunted legacy — could fall apart.

It is a progressive's dream: a profligate, utopian scheme that will fail, even if it achieves its goal.

Scaremongering climateers tell us that, unabated (i.e., absent the Paris climate change accord), mean global temperature will rise 3.7 °C by 2100, rendering earth uninhabitable. With the accord, the nations of the world pledge to reduce their greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions to levels intended to limit the rise to no more than 2.0 °C. But the decline in GHG emissions resulting from the Paris agreement is predicted to reduce the temperature rise by a vanishingly small 0.2 °C. That is, if the pledges of all 195 participating nations are carried out to a tee, including the expenditure of trillions of dollars on green technology, the mean global temperature will rise 3.5 °C by 2100, rendering earth uninhabitable.

While cameras inside the convention hall captured the joyous tears of climate diplomats as they celebrated fabricated success, they missed the angry tears of climate activists outside, as they rebuked the Paris agreement as an irresponsible, fraudulent charade, too diluted to be of any meaningful value. The soft-spoken Dr James Hansen, father of CAGW, referred to the deal as "a fake," "a fraud," "just worthless," and "just bullshit." But it will establish a colossal, intrusive UN climate bureaucracy that will haunt the world forever. It is a progressive's dream: a profligate, utopian scheme that will fail, even if it achieves its goal. Measured on a scale of maudlin self-congratulation (the auto-aggrandizometer), this is progressivism's finest achievement in central planning.

Although the agreement is not legally binding, climate change luminaries such as Obama, Kerry, and Ban Ki-moon assure us that the emission reduction goals will be met. Signatory nations must fulfill their pledge or face international ridicule through the agreement's clever "name-and-shame" mechanism. There is nothing like peer pressure to bring totalitarian police states such as China into compliance.

Similar pressure will be applied to support the Green Climate Fund — a coffer to be filled annually with $100 billion from rich nations for the purpose of cajoling poor nations into remaining poor.

Without the fund, none of the 130 nations of the developing world would have signed the agreement. With the fund — according to the delusions of progressives from the developed world — dictators, bureaucrats, and crony industrialists from impoverished countries will purchase exorbitantly expensive solar panels and windmills instead of extremely cheap coal, oil, and gas, and they will convince their citizenry that chronic disease and poverty can wait while 0.2 °C is shaved off the 2100 global temperature. (To the 1.3 billion people who have never experienced electricity, what's the rush?)

There is nothing like peer pressure to bring totalitarian police states such as China into compliance.

To ensure compliance, the Paris accord mandates that all nations shall report on their emissions reduction progress every five years — “a serious form of enforcement and compliance,” insists Mr. Kerry. Patting himself on the back, Kerry said that the voluntary pact (a 31-page cornucopia of vague commitment, toothless aspiration, and astounding deceit) would "prevent the worst most devastating consequences of climate change from ever happening." Who knows? With CAGW thought to be so solved, progressives may use the Paris agreement as a model to tackle other vexing problems, such as social injustice or income inequality. At this very moment, liberal thinktanks could be pondering the idea of bribing African or South Asian countries into pledging lower birth rates; or shaming Islamic terrorist organizations when their beheading reduction pledges are not met.

Returning to reality, the pledges of the landmark Paris accord (an agreement that will not work even if its pledges are met) will not be met — not even close. Rich countries will try; they will achieve some token, largely symbolic, degree of success. Poor countries won't bother; they have vastly more pressing challenges. No matter the size of the Green Climate Fund, the developing world will not be persuaded to replace cheap, reliable fossil fuels with expensive, unproven solar and wind technology — technologies that, after more than 30 years of development, still rely on subsidization for survival. These are also technologies that have become staggeringly more expensive after only five years of the enormous, unsubsidized strides in US fracking technology that have produced staggering declines in oil and gas prices. Oil prices, for example, which have been above $100 per barrel since 2011, have plummeted to below $40.

Media accounts credit Obama for the agreement's acceptance. They say that in pledging the US to draconian emission cuts, he leveraged the rest of the world to follow. But the US is in no position to make such a commitment, it is not legally bound to do so, and there is neither congressional nor popular support for it. Warned Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, “Before his international partners pop the champagne, they should remember that this is an unattainable deal based on a domestic energy plan that is likely illegal, that half the states have sued to halt, and that Congress has already voted to reject.”

This lack of enthusiasm is produced, in no small part, by the economic stagnation that has plagued the US economy from the day Obama took office. With unprecedented, and growing, national debt, declining net worth, and labor participation at its lowest since the Carter years, where will the money come from?

Dictators, bureaucrats, and crony industrialists from impoverished countries will convince their citizenry that chronic disease and poverty can wait while 0.2 °C is shaved off the 2100 global temperature.

Ironically, the most promising source of money is the energy bonanza that fracking has created — the very source of prosperity that progressives seek to ban, in their efforts to decarbonize the world's economies. Unleashing US energy production could swiftly stimulate the US economy, lift incomes and wages, expand the middle class, create new jobs, generate enormous tax revenues, and eradicate the debt. But with the 2016 election drawing near, Democrat candidate Hillary Clinton pledges to outdo Obama. She plans to build 500 million solar panels and promises that 33% of all US electricity will be generated from wind and solar by 2027. Not to be outpandered by Mrs. Clinton, rival candidate Bernie Sanders promises 80% by 2050; and Martin O’Malley promises 100%.

It is highly unlikely, however, that a beleaguered American public will allow a Democrat president to shutter its energy goldmine, thereby continuing economic stagnation. As to the prospect of a Republican president, McConnell says that Obama should not make "promises he can’t keep." Nor should he "take credit for an ‘agreement’ that is subject to being shredded in 13 months.”

The Paris deal has no chance of thwarting CAGW — if planet salvation was even an important consideration. For those who are astounded by Mr. Obama's claim of victory, or who are wondering how so much credit could be awarded for so little accomplished, his triumph has nothing to do with saving the planet. It is a purely political victory — one for which he does deserve credit, and the highest of praise from progressivism, considering the coming creation of the UN climate change behemoth.

It is this deceitful absurdity that has progressives doing cartwheels and patting themselves on the back. The agreement itself is irrelevant, serving only to set the stage for future global central planning. The four years taken to write it featured little more than a backroom search for language that would read like a treaty but would be watered down and rendered toothless enough to get 195 nations to sign it — of which, 130 had to be bribed with the Green Climate Fund. It is not legally binding; the emissions reduction pledges are voluntary and aspirational, enforced only by the palsied hand of a “name-and-shame” system of global peer pressure. As to contributions to the slush fund, rich countries are "strongly urged" to fulfill their commitments.

The watering down process persisted to the end, holding up the vote to adopt the agreement for two final hours. Fearing that the Obama administration might be required to seek Senate approval for a binding treaty, US diplomats insisted that the word "shall" be changed to "should" in a clause on meeting emissions targets. They might as well have found a place for "pretty please" or "just bullshit."




Share This
Syndicate content

© Copyright 2019 Liberty Foundation. All rights reserved.



Opinions expressed in Liberty are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the Liberty Foundation.

All letters to the editor are assumed to be for publication unless otherwise indicated.