The storm troopers at the EPA, under the directive of the Obama administration, have set their sites on the oil and gas sector, under the guise of fighting global warming.
The new regulations will add $530 million in costs per annum, by 2025–which is 25% higher than estimates released in August.
Obama and friends are attempting to control emissions from oil and gas wells, in order to save the planet. They are, essentially, super heroes.
But don’t worry. Obama estimates the additional costs that will be absorbed by an already beleaguered energy sector will partially be offset by the savings that will be ‘enjoyed’ by a marked reduction in storms, floods and other natural disasters that are a byproduct of climate change. The dreamers in the administration have released an opiate induced study that suggests cost savings, by reducing NATURAL FUCKING DISASTERS, will be in the magnitude of $690 million, per annum, by 2025.
Bottom line, assholes: spend an extra $530 million per annum for our filters and other ‘green remedies’, and you will net a profit of $130 million per annum, thanks to sunny and dry weather.
I am not making this up. These people actually released this proposal and want you to believe it.
“The commonsense steps we’re rolling out today will help combat climate change and reduce air pollution that immediately harms public health,” EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy told reporters on a conference call. The mandates, applying immediately to new and modified wells, are a “critical first step in tackling methane emissions from existing oil and gas sources.”
To fall in line with the green mafia, companies will be forced to reoutfit with environmentally friendly pumps and compressors. The ‘green completion’ initiative has afflicted the natural gas industry since 2015 and today’s rule change will apply such draconian measures to the oil industry too.
There are 9 million Americans employed in the energy sector, an industry that is now, for the first time in Obama’s long reign, under direct attack by his environmental goon squads.
The House of Saud lobby is rumored to be celebrating this environmental victory tonight inside of their harems filled with freshly stocked females and catamites.
If you enjoy the content at iBankCoin, please follow us on Twitter
It would be nice to see Obama’s college records one day.
We said he, or the power administrators he is associated with were subversive didnt we
and footnote: Still dont think they are gona let the election result completely reverse what they’ve shaped&molded last several yrs
I’m sorry Fly,
You’re a fantastic writer (the best and only financial blogger I read at that) but ever since you’ve gone out of your way to post additional content at the sacrifice of sufficient proofreading, it’s getting painful to read your posts at times, extra yahoo
“…will add $530 million in coast per annum”?
Jesus.
fuck you and fuck grammar. how much blogging do you do?
This isn’t the god damn WSJ & NYT.
The important thing is MAKING M0NEY & if the numbers add up
We’re not out here trading phonics
I do exactly zero blogging.
However, I’m not the one trying to become the next great financial blog site as I believe the fly wants to be.
While I understood the fly has many loyal followers who’d get defensive about my post prior to such, mine wasn’t a grammar drill in the use of comma placement/something particularity anal.
If the fly truly wants to be the next best thing, which he is on his way to becoming, I’d like to believe that if anyone can take constructive (albeit snarky) feedback like a man, it’s him.
Dabbers
You’re right. How about I hire you to point out my typos? This way I can continue to write great articles that tell the truth, without the 2nd grade grammatical errors.
If I thought you were serious, had the time to do such and (most importantly) thought you weren’t perfectly capable of doing it yourself, I’d happily do it for free.
However, I have no qualms admitting you’re much smarter and a better writer than I could ever aspire to become if I tried and you’d, as such, quickly dismiss my services, ala Doyle.
I just consider you the best (no homo) and want everyone else to see it as well.
Great articles that tell the truth? Look forward to reading those. Up to now just a lot of whacko nonsense.What the fuck happened to you? All the fun has been sucked from the blog. Keep on waiting for it to return. Real bummer.
The dirt worshippers have transitioned from praying to Mother Nature, to now believing they can control her…
Didn’t Buffet himself say that insurance claims have not gone up from storm increases?
I would believe in the climate mission a lot more if it wasn’t such a large political agenda checkpoint. It reeks of bullshit.
#RefundNASA
It’s physics, bitches.
Ottnott
Are you a thinking person or a party line robot?
Physics is party line?
Where do you stand on gravity, Fly?
Show me some thinking on the topic, Fly.
Complete this sentence:
“I don’t believe that the rapidly increasing levels of atmospheric CO2, caused largely by human activity, will result in damaging amounts of warming over the next 50-100 years, because ______________________________________________.
the earth is a system far too complex to draw a simplistic correlation-causation effect between ONE PARAMETER and global temperature. Models are largely garbage as predictors because WE AREN’T NEARLY AS SMART AS WE THINK WE ARE.
I would like to go back to the days of sucking on Saudi Arabia titties again. Their women are beautiful — designed to please only the finest gentlemen.
First the coal industry, now oil and gas.
January 20th can’t come soon enough
EPA threatened to fine a Wyoming man $16M for building a pond on his own property despite the facts that 1) they didn’t identify any environmental damage and 2) they had no jurisdiction under existing Supreme Court precedent.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/05/10/wyoming-welder-facing-16m-in-fines-beats-epa-in-battle-over-stock-pond.html
One day we will all walk again. To fucking everywhere. The scam is so massive it is automatically brilliant. Taxing movement and light is demonic.
The list of industries the government remain hell bent on driving to the point of “pockets inside out” is growing. The Banking in particular has been a laughable effort. It does not likely get better after Jan. 20th.
Hillary, it has been reported, supports eliminating Bankers from the Fed. As my friend Andy Brenner pointed out, this is the equivalent of removing doctors from the hospitals.
http://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/asiapacific/india-probes-claims/2776602.html
People ask the wrong question, namely “Is global warming caused by man?” That question is in dispute. This isn’t in dispute (by scientists not directly funded by energy comapnies, at least):
1) Climate change is occurring
2) Climate change means some palces get warmer, some get colder, some get wetter and some get dryer
3) Man-made (or produced, whatever) greenhouse gases accelerate climate change
In other words, even if man is completely responsible for cliamte change, we should be striving to reduce its effects, not increase it.
Also, considering the costs of a weather-related natural disasters (floods, droughts, hurricanes, snow storms, etc), is in the $100B worldwide and probably well above $50B in the US, I don’t think a ~1% savings in natural disaster costs is far-fetched.
In fact, this is one of the weakness of pure capitalism with self-regulating companies: many of the costs that they create to others cannot be easily calculated, so the libertarian system of regulation through litigation won’t work.
I meant to write,
“In other words, even if man isn’t completely responsible for climate change, we should be striving to reduce its effects, not increase it.”
Great Scott Btn
Global warming is the biggest farce, the biggest fraud ever purported upon man.
It’s a tax, a means of control.
The big mistake was not leaving the subject as Air Pollution. Air pollution is bad. It can be measured. CO2 as a catalyst of rising temperature is a whole ‘notha animal.
Religion is the biggest fraud. Go stand in a meadow in July. Pave it, turn it into a frying pan. That parking lot will retain heat through the night, grass won’t. This blog has jettisoned common sense in favor of right wing talking points. Still enjoy it, though.
Yeah, those parking lots are where the Climate Fanatics/Charlatans place the temperature monitoring stations. It’s called skewing the data to fit desired outcomes.
Cognitive dissonance,fool.
Fly, So how do you explain the vanishing glaciers world wide? It’s not even like you need a scientific measurement that can be talked awaya such as sea temperatures. Just take a look at the photographs. Do you know of anywhere where glaciers are increasing in size?
Alaska: http://www.cbsnews.com/pictures/repeat-photography-of-alaskan-glaciers/
Mt Kilamanjaro: http://www.cnn.com/2014/04/03/world/africa/last-chance-disappearing-glaciers/index.html
On the other side, there is this:
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2013JB010860/abstract
I did not say the earth wasn’t warming. I just don’t think man has anything to do with it.
Because…..?
There’s no thinking in your statement.
We await your answer to the question of why, even though physics drives the anthropogenic warming hypothesis, you don’t think humans have “anything” to do with it?
Because the earth apparently warms and cools drastically on its own?
Because current climate change theory is essentially “there will be weather tomorrow – it might be colder or warmer than today, but wither way man is causing it”?
Because there’s no proof?
You posted something similar on my comment, I’m not sure if you’re trolling or just retarded.
Let me know.
Because the earth apparently warms and cools drastically on its own?
Not news to scientists, though they would need you to define “drastically” in terms of magnitude and rate of change. Also not news, to those familiar with logic, is that the existence of natural changes in no way rules out or even argues against the existence of human-caused changes.
Because current climate change theory is essentially “there will be weather tomorrow – it might be colder or warmer than today, but wither way man is causing it”?
You lack the maturity for continued discussion.
“that the existence of natural changes in no way rules out or even argues against the existence of human-caused changes.”
It certainly can argue against “human-caused” changes since it “causes” such “changes” in the absence of human intervention, you dolt.
I agree it doesn’t, on its own, rule out possible human causation/aggravation. Nevertheless, the “science” (as you would call it) simply has not convinced me that humans are causally contributing in a significant fashion. We can go back and forth all day on this.
In essence, from a scientific standpoint, I think we haven’t been studying this issue long enough to derive any meaningful conclusions from the data collected. Especially not conclusions that justify killing entire industries on a whim. I also think there are a lot of commercial and political reasons to be peddling this “science” onto people.
“You lack the maturity for continued discussion.”
No, I actually think that’s a decent point. See, I remember when the theory was called “global warming”. I remember Al Gore telling me my house would be underwater by now and scientist were sure this would occur because their computer models predicted it.
What happened? Turns out they were wrong, their model couldn’t predict anything. So now, we call it “climate change” since that’s a nice and safe and essentially infallible. Hotter? Climate change. Colder? Climate change. Tornado? Climate change. More rain this year than last year? Climate change.
Excuse me for being skeptical of a “scientific” theory that describe everything yet predicts nothing all at the same time.
Bingo. It is worth noting that the weather propagandists changed their shtick from “global warming” to “climate change” …because they couldn’t find any global warming. I also like how they glibly dismiss the “interglacial” fact by asserting that AGW will automatically prevent the return of the “glacial” phase.
Btn,
Glaciers are shrinking because we are in an interglacial period.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interglacial
Have no qualms, they will return and most of us humans will be wiped out as a consequence.
Ebb and flow.
Ebb and flow?
That’s an observation, like “the tide ebbs and flows,” not an explanation.
Explanations need to account for not only observed direction of change, but also timing, magnitude, and pattern.
Climate science does that.
Kugar+Fly,
Unless you want to argue that man-made greenhouse gasses do not *contribute* to climate change in a negative fashion, then you have not disputed anything I wrote.
If you find yourself in a hole, step #1 is to stop digging
As long as the Spotted Owl isn’t harmed, I’m good with it.
Ottnott and btn, Right Wing “news source” bubbles have tons of rational sounding responses to news and questions about global climate change. Nothing we can say or do can change a Right Winger’s mind about that. There are “think tanks” that have hundreds of people working full time to explain why whatever policies the Koch brothers like are the best ones, because global climate change is a hoax. It’s like trying to explain that Obama is not Muslim and was actually born in the U.S.
This year alone, the Kochs will spend almost 900 million bucks on propaganda to get their global climate change denying candidates appreciated enough to be elected.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/27/us/politics/kochs-plan-to-spend-900-million-on-2016-campaign.html?_r=0
We can’t expect to compete with that well financed a propaganda factory. But that doesn’t stop me from trying to either, so i completely understand.
Climate religion zealots can predict future climate patterns no better than Evangelicals can predict the Second Coming of Christ. Both are most often equally as dogmatic.
It’s not an easy thing, whatsoever, to establish causation in an extremely complex system. The “97% consensus” bullshit bandied about should cause thinking people to question the motivations behind such proclamations. I don’t know if CO2 production is causing the earth to warm. Maybe it is, maybe it’s not. Look back at predictions made by either shysters in it for personal profit like Al Gore or true believers like NASA.
I don’t know if CO2 production is causing the earth to warm.
You are about 120 years behind science on that issue. The Earth radiates a lot of energy to space in the infrared band. CO2, at the levels found in the atmosphere, blocks a good portion of that radiation. The amount blocked increases with increasing CO2 levels. CO2 is far from the only influence on the planet’s energy balance, but it is a significant one, a long-lived one, and one that humans have changed to a large degree.
Again, simplistic. The earth is constantly changing, and it is not possible to quantify the reasons why, ascribing each of dozens of parameters random coefficients.
This makes me wonder – are the AGW zealots also the ones declaring “Markets are up because of rising consumer confidence,” or “Markets are down because of scares of Brexit,” etc. Don’t consider nuance. There has to be one single reason for everything.
You lack understanding of how climate scientists develop their models and what claims climate scientists are making.
They don’t gather the data and then try to sort out what factors caused what amount of change. They start with the physics and build what they call General Circulation Models (which integrates a lot of submodules) that describe mass and energy transport to/from/within the atmosphere. For the past 15 years or so, those have been combined with physics-based models of the ocean.
The models allow scientists to understand how changes, both natural and human-caused, interact and affect regional and global climate. Natural perturbations, such a a large volcano, extremes of sunspot activity, massive wildfires, El Niño events, and the like provide natural experiments that let scientists compare measured real-world effects to those produced within the model. The models also allow scientists to test how sensitive the model outputs are to parameters that scientists have had to estimate, and therefore to identify where the field might need more or better instrumentation or finer-grained modeling (boosting the computational load).
There is a strong emphasis on CO2, because that is the big banana of human-caused climate change. There are other human activities that increase or decrease energy in the atmosphere, and those are all part of the models. If we don’t get the CO2 levels under control, however, those other factors won’t matter. Most of the natural contributions to climate change are small or cyclical (which means little or no net change over a cycle). There are some natural changes that can have a large impact on climate, but they operate on a very long time scale. The climate models have helped us understand that large climate changes sometimes are triggered by changes in energy transport in the oceans and atmosphere rather than by changes in overall energy input or retention.
Errors in my description of climate modeling and science are mine, and not to be held against the field.