Oil and Gas Issues

[ArcticMelt2]

Another version of this scheme:

[gerontocrat]

The market continues to act on fear,

Gold almost at 1,400 bucks,
Oil yet another buck up.

See what happens tomorrow. Either people will take profits or it will go up again.
____________________________________________________________
For those who worry about a military response, I posted about the US military's new posture on the use of nukes on the unsorted thread.

https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php/topic,2346.msg206961.html#msg206961

[ArcticMelt2]

For those who worry about a military response, I posted about the US military's new posture on the use of nukes on the unsorted thread.

https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php/topic,2346.msg206961.html#msg206961

There is nothing surprising. Defeating a country like Iran with ordinary bombs is extremely difficult. But nuclear weapons can give the illusion of a quick victory in a big war.

[Alexander555]

A new imperialist power is on the horizon i think. And in that case it's not about Trump backing down, it's about others going forward. Lets assume that all humans are equal. Than why would the rest not have " interests" that need to be protected.

[ArcticMelt2]

And in that case it's not about Trump backing down, it's about others going forward.

Retreat Trump is difficult. The following year, new elections, and the voter loves the winners, not the losers.

[Bob Wallace]

I truly believe Republicans in the Senate are working to keep Trump from starting a war with Iran.

That is not to say that he might not make some stupid move and send some bombers in retaliation but I think if he started gearing up for a major attack some drastic action would be taken.  The Senate might claw back their prerogative as the institution that decides when war is necessary or they might signal the House to impeach.  At the minimum the leadership would visit the Oval Office and behind closed doors tell Trump to cool his jets or be met with a problem he doesn't want.

Were Trump to start a war with Iran over some spitball level stuff it could be hard for any Republican congress member to get elected in 2020. 

 

[Bob Wallace]

There is nothing surprising. Defeating a country like Iran with ordinary bombs is extremely difficult. But nuclear weapons can give the illusion of a quick victory in a big war.

Were Trump to call for the nuclear code briefcase under these conditions I think there's a very high probability of a military mutiny.  A temporary action taken by the highest ranking officers in all the branches of the service. 

This kind of possible insane action by Trump has certainly received discussion among our military leaders.

[Archimid]

There won’t be a war with Iran unless daddy Putin says so. However, the war drumming does help Trump. Plus Bolton gets to jerk off to the thought of more dead civilians. But unless Putin and his oligarchs can benefit from this, there won’t be a war. Notice I said Putin, not Russia

[Tor Bejnar]

I basically agree, Archimid.  Unfortunately, part of the mix includes Mr. Putin wanting a weakened USA and more money from petroleum exports.

[b_lumenkraft]

Remarkably, the orange fart seems to have toned down, talking about that it was only an unmanned drone in this case (totally unaware drones are always unmanned (hahaha)) and no harm was done.

Sounds like he is listening to FoxNews again. Some host there told him it would jeopardize his reelection.

Let's hope he can somehow contain the warmongering shitheads like Bolton and Pompeo...

[Alexander555]

I think daddy Putin has other worries. He has a couple billion people living south of his border with needs. He's just going to watch the drama unfold i think.

[ArcticMelt2]

Last hopes to avoid big war.

https://edition.cnn.com/2019/06/21/politics/trump-military-strikes-iran/index.html

(CNN)President Donald Trump abruptly called off military strikes against Iran on Thursday night after previously approving the strikes in retaliation for Iran shooting down a US military drone, The New York Times reports.

The operation was already underway in its initial stages -- ships were in position and planes were in the air -- but no missiles had been fired when the order came to stand down, a senior administration official told the Times. The strike had been scheduled for just before dawn on Friday in Iran to minimize the risk to civilians and the Iranian military, and military officials received word shortly after then that the strike was off, at least temporarily.
The United States remains locked in a standoff with Iran, with US military or diplomatic responses having the potential to provoke further escalation from Tehran. Iran's downing of a US drone earlier Thursday has left the President caught between Republicans demanding a response and congressional Democrats warning that Trump -- and the Iran policy hardliners on his national security staff, who welcome the confrontation -- could lose control of the situation and lead the US into war.
Military and diplomatic officials were expecting a strike as late as 7 p.m. on Thursday after intense debate among Trump's top national security officials and congressional leaders at the White House, multiple senior administration officials involved in or briefed on the deliberations told the Times.
Trump initially approved attacks on a handful of Iranian targets, like radar and missile batteries, and the Times reports it was not clear whether Trump simply changed his mind or whether his administration pulled back because of strategy or logistics. It was also not clear whether the attacks may still occur.
The Times reporting drew swift reaction from Trump's Democratic rivals.
Democratic Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts tweeted that "there is no justification" for escalating tensions with Iran.
"Donald Trump promised to bring our troops home. Instead he has pulled out of a deal that was working and instigated another unnecessary conflict," she wrote. "There is no justification for further escalating this crisis -- we need to step back from the brink of war."
The White House and Pentagon officials declined to comment to the Times, but no government officials asked for the article to be withheld. CNN has reached out to the White House for comment.
The strikes would have been Trump's third military action against Middle East targets, according to the Times. Trump has twice struck targets in Syria.
Earlier Thursday, before the Times report, a senior White House official told CNN that Trump and national security adviser John Bolton were engaged in an ongoing debate about how to handle Iran.
Lt. Gen. Mark Hertling, a CNN military analyst, told CNN's Don Lemon Thursday on "CNN Tonight" that disagreement within the administration about whether to attack is not unusual for a White House.
"That's something that occurs at any strategic decision level," Hertling said, "when you're mitigating risk or you're attempting to understand what the risk might be based on the processes of war gaming and determining what your objectives are."
Trump moved to ease tensions with Iran Thursday morning after Tehran downed a US drone near the Persian Gulf, CNN previously reported. He struck a starkly different tone on Iran from Bolton and other senior security aides.
Iran shot down a US military drone on Thursday, further escalating the already volatile situation playing out between Washington and Tehran in the Middle East.
Iran's Revolutionary Guard said it shot down an "intruding American spy drone" after it entered into the country's territory.
A US official confirmed to CNN a drone had been shot down, but said the incident occurred in international airspace over the Strait of Hormuz, one of the world's most vital shipping routes.
Earlier Thursday, the Federal Aviation Administration issued a notice that it was prohibiting US flights over the Persian Gulf and Gulf of Oman due to rising tensions.

[Bob Wallace]

There's no backing for a new 'big war'. 

Americans feel exactly no threat from Iran.  Some of us were sold a bunch of BS over Iraq/Saddam somehow being involved in 9/11 but there's no attack on the country that can be spun as an excuse this time. 

Trump is going to do his usual bully-boy routine and make lots of threats.  Parade some ships around.  Fly some extra airplanes.  Maybe bomb a radar station or two.  But it is extremely unlikely that things will go further than that.

Trump is so hated that if he made any moves that looked like he was going to order an invasion it's likely millions of people would swarm on Washington DC and simply shut things down.

[SteveMDFP]

Trump is going to do his usual bully-boy routine and make lots of threats.  Parade some ships around.  Fly some extra airplanes.  Maybe bomb a radar station or two.  But it is extremely unlikely that things will go further than that.

Things *shouldn't* go further than that.  The problem with stupid leaders, though, is that they're utterly unpredictable.  Stupidity is possibly worse than malignancy.  Of course, we have both in the White House.

[b_lumenkraft]

Well, if unpredictable means he calls it all off in a totally unpredictable way, i fucking take it!

[ArcticMelt2]

Maybe bomb a radar station or two.

Any such response will lead to further escalation of the conflict.

I doubt that war will be avoided. The Strait of Hormuz is very narrow, with a billion tons of oil and liquefied natural gas flowing through it every year. Any military action will lead to further intensification and wider military actions.

As I understand it, now Iran has felt its strength and indecision of its enemies, and can continue military pressure on its neighbors (like Iraq in the 80s-90s of the 20th century).

[SteveMDFP]

As I understand it, now Iran has felt its strength and indecision of its enemies, and can continue military pressure on its neighbors (like Iraq in the 80s-90s of the 20th century).

I think that's a bizarre assertion.  Iraq has cordial relations with its immediate neighbors.  Iran was instrumental in the fight against ISIS.  There's no rational reason for the US to be hostile to Iran.

[ArcticMelt2]

As I understand it, now Iran has felt its strength and indecision of its enemies, and can continue military pressure on its neighbors (like Iraq in the 80s-90s of the 20th century).

I think that's a bizarre assertion.  Iraq has cordial relations with its immediate neighbors.  Iran was instrumental in the fight against ISIS.  There's no rational reason for the US to be hostile to Iran.

I am talking about Iraq 40 years ago. Then Iraq conducted a very aggressive policy and quarreled with all its neighbors (Iran, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia).

Now Iran is following a similar path. His influence is growing rapidly. Iranian finances are manifested in the conflict in Yemen and Syria (Hezbollah). Such ambitions often end in a big war.

[SteveMDFP]

As I understand it, now Iran has felt its strength and indecision of its enemies, and can continue military pressure on its neighbors (like Iraq in the 80s-90s of the 20th century).

I think that's a bizarre assertion.  Iraq has cordial relations with its immediate neighbors.  Iran was instrumental in the fight against ISIS.  There's no rational reason for the US to be hostile to Iran.

I am talking about Iraq 40 years ago. Then Iraq conducted a very aggressive policy and quarreled with all its neighbors (Iran, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia).

Now Iran is following a similar path. His influence is growing rapidly. Iranian finances are manifested in the conflict in Yemen and Syria (Hezbollah). Such ambitions often end in a big war.

Still bizarre.

I meant Iran has cordial relations with its immediate neighbors.  Iran is not following Saddam's path at all.  Iran has cordial relations with its immediate neighbors.  Iran was instrumental in the fight against ISIS.  Hezbollah is part of the civilian government in Lebanon.  Yemen has been bullied and almost colonized, now devastated, by Saudi Arabia.  Iran has supported Yemen's independence.

It's true that Iran,Syria, and Hezbollah are extremely hostile to Israel.  But Israel is more than capable of defending itself.  These aren't an existential threat to Israel. 

Iran is less of a threat to the US (and US interests) than is Saudi Arabia.

[ArcticMelt2]

Iraq has cordial relations with its immediate neighbors

I doubt it is true. There are three huge contradictions between Iran and the Arab countries:

1) Iran is a state with an ancient history. At the same time, the Arab statehood is at best a hundred years old. In this regard, the Iranians overthrew their kings 40 years ago, while in the majority of Arab countries, kings still rule.

2) Religious question. Iran is actually the only major country of the Shiites. The rest of the Arab countries are Sunnis.

3) Due to the different geography, the Iranians are mostly farmers and the Arabs are herders.

Friendly relations between Iran and the Arab world are very difficult.

[ArcticMelt2]

Iran is less of a threat to the US (and US interests) than is Saudi Arabia.

But the facts tell a different story. The American Embassy in Tehran has been abandoned for 40 years, while the US Embassy in Riyadh is actively functioning all the time.

[Sigmetnow]

U.S.:  Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

Fire at Oil Refinery in South Philadelphia Causes Massive Explosions

A massive fire rocked an oil refinery in South Philadelphia early Friday morning, causing explosions that could be felt as far away as New Jersey, according to early news reports. No evacuations have been issued for the area, but those in neighborhoods near the blaze have been ordered to shelter in place.

The fire started at the Philadelphia Energy Solutions refinery at 3100 Passyunk Avenue shortly after 4:00 AM, according to the local NBC News affiliate. Witnesses in the area reported at least three explosions that rocked their vehicles and lit up the early morning sky. ...

https://gizmodo.com/fire-at-oil-refinery-in-south-philadelphia-causes-massi-1835723050
Image below; video clips at the link.

[ArcticMelt2]

Iran is less of a threat to the US (and US interests) than is Saudi Arabia.

But the facts tell a different story. The American Embassy in Tehran has been abandoned for 40 years, while the US Embassy in Riyadh is actively functioning all the time.

This is ridiculous, but in Iran there is not only the US embassy, but most of its neighbors (Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Israel, Egypt, Yemen).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_diplomatic_missions_of_Iran

And this is called a "normal" relationship with your neighbors?

[vox_mundi]

The giant fireball from the Philadelphia refinery explosion was seen by satellites in space   
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/06/21/philadelphia-refinery-explosion-was-spotted-from-space-by-satellites.html



A satellite of the National Weather Service (NWS) spotted the massive fireball from the explosion at the Philadelphia Energy Solutions refinery early on Friday morning .

[Bob Wallace]

Trump is having a snit.  Americans have no major issues with Iran.  European countries have no major issues with Iran.

Trump ordered a strike on Iran and then called it off when the planes were already in the air.  I suspect he got a strong message from leading Republicans in the Senate.

Trump has supposedly been telling his underlings to cool the war with Iran talk.  Someone got to him.

The majority of Americans are counting the days until we can vote Trump out of office.  If we fail next November that will be the time to get worried.  Until then expect Trump to cause temporary problems, most of which can be reversed early on in a Democratic presidency.

[Tom_Mazanec]

I suspect Trump might have purposely made a feint at Iran to pressure them.

[Bob Wallace]

I suspect Trump might have purposely made a feint at Iran to pressure them.

You actually think Trump would think things through that deeply?


 

[Tom_Mazanec]

I suspect Trump might have purposely made a feint at Iran to pressure them.

You actually think Trump would think things through that deeply?

I don't know if he is crazy like a fox or crazy like a crazy, but he has a job that a millionth of a percent of Americans of each generation get to have, so he seems to be doing something right.

[b_lumenkraft]

Sure, he would be the president also when his father would have been a black coal miner. Him being president is not at all a function of class or money.
/s

[Bob Wallace]

I suspect Trump might have purposely made a feint at Iran to pressure them.

You actually think Trump would think things through that deeply?

I don't know if he is crazy like a fox or crazy like a crazy, but he has a job that a millionth of a percent of Americans of each generation get to have, so he seems to be doing something right.

There's little doubt that Trump is an ignorant person who seeks to learn nothing new and makes decisions on the spur of the moment.  He changes his position frequently, sometimes within a single exchange.  And changes not based on new facts or ideas but because he doesn't remember what he's said in the past.  Trump has lied so much that I suspect has much idea at all what the truth is. 

Trump lied and bullied his way into his job.  He mainly got there based on the character he played on a TV reality show and even that was a fake.  According to people who worked on the show they could not get Trump to stay on topic or follow a script.  They just shot him saying things and then cut that into the story they were writing. 

[gerontocrat]

US sanctions are killing the Iran economy bigly and quickly.

The Iranian Shiite Theocracy can only judge this is to bring them down and install a western friendly regime.

Meanwhile Saudi Arabia  - a Sunni Monarchy, and other Sunni nations in the Gulf enthusiastically support and assist the USA, and vice versa in the proxy wars going on (e.g. Yemen)

It is logical for a regime to fight for its survival with the weapons at its disposal.  The Strait of Hormuz is one of those weapons - warning the world the price the world will pay for the US power game if the USA does not back off.

This puts Iraq in a bind. Mostly Shiite and supported overtly and covertly by Iran, it is also dependent on US forces and money.

With Trump and Bolton in charge, what could possibly go wrong?
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Theocracy

a system of government in which priests rule in the name of God or a god.

[SteveMDFP]

This is ridiculous, but in Iran there is not only the US embassy, but most of its neighbors (Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Israel, Egypt, Yemen).


And this is called a "normal" relationship with your neighbors?

These nations do not share borders with Iran.  You're looking at a Sunni-Shia divide here.
If Iran were actually expansionist, relations with its bordering neighbors would be fraught.
It's a convenient myth for Western governments to pretend that Sunni=good and Shia=bad.

Al Qaeda and ISIS derived their support from the Sunni nations.
Iran was instrumental in the fight against ISIS.  Iran was a de facto ally of the US in that fight.
Iran does support Shiite enclaves in majority-Sunni states.  I fail to see how this makes them evil.

I don't support either the Iranian theocracy nor the Sunni monarchies and dictatorships--they're all evil.  But from what I can see, Iran is less of a threat.  Regardless, for the US or other nations to take sides in the Sunni-Shia divide is madness.

[ArcticMelt2]

This is ridiculous, but in Iran there is not only the US embassy, but most of its neighbors (Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Israel, Egypt, Yemen).


And this is called a "normal" relationship with your neighbors?

These nations do not share borders with Iran.

Iran borders with Saudi Arabia and Bahrain in the Persian Gulf. I think every square kilometer of the bottom of the  Persian Gulf is worth billions of dollars due to possible oil and gas reserves.

[SteveMDFP]

These nations do not share borders with Iran.

Iran borders with Saudi Arabia and Bahrain in the Persian Gulf.

Lying on opposite sides of the Persian Gulf, international waters, is not sharing a border.  The matter arose in the context of whether Iran is expansionist.  Did you think Iran plans to fill in the Gulf and encroach on Saudi territory?

Pointing out that there is a divide between the Sunni and Shiite nations does not further the argument that one side is especially evil or dangerous, compared with the other.

However, when one side supports Sunni extremist groups like ISIS and al Qaeda, that does suggest one side is especially dangerous.

[Bob Wallace]

There's a simple solution to all this. 

Speed up the transition from petroleum to electricity for transportation.  No more oil fields to fight over, no more oil fields to protect, no more tankers, no more refineries.  Cleaner air, no more oil spills, cheaper transportation.

If we got serious we could greatly degrade the oil industry in a decade.

[gerontocrat]

Lying on opposite sides of the Persian Gulf, international waters, is not sharing a border. 

Pretty close to it. Part of the gulf and strait. is, apparently designated as an international waterway so under international law.. But that is just the two narrow shipping channels (one in, one out).

Each country has got its 3 mile limit under its own law, and of course beyond that the up to 200 mile economic zone so that border marked down the gulf has real meaning. I do not know if the land each side of the border marked on the map is recognised as part of the territory of each country. I suppose there is a treaty somewhere.

But if it hits the fan that will be a discussion for afterwards.

[ArcticMelt2]

Each country has got its 3 mile limit under its own law, and of course beyond that the up to 200 mile economic zone so that border marked down the gulf has real meaning. I do not know if the land each side of the border marked on the map is recognised as part of the territory of each country. I suppose there is a treaty somewhere.

The funny thing is that between these border countries (Iran, Saudi Arabia and Bahrain) there is not even diplomatic relations.

[ArcticMelt2]

Did you think Iran plans to fill in the Gulf and encroach on Saudi territory?

I haven’t heard about Saudi Arabia, but Iran has questions for Bahrain.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Territorial_disputes_in_the_Persian_Gulf#Iranian_claims_on_Bahrain

Iran has often laid claim to Bahrain, based on its history of being a prominent part of the Persian Empire and its seventeenth-century defeat of the Portuguese and its subsequent occupation of the Bahrain archipelago for many centuries. The Arab clan of the Al Khalifa, which has been the ruling family of Bahrain since the eighteenth century, has many times shown loyalty to Iran when disputes with British colonizers were brought up by raising the Iranian flag on official buildings during the last years of the 19th century. Iran in return reserved two seats for Bahrain in her parliament, from 1906 to 1971, as her "14th province". The last shah of Iran, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, raised the Bahrain issue with the British when they withdrew from areas east of the Suez Canal by 1971. Iran agreed to a limited, UN-sponsored opinion poll to decide the fate of Bahrain. The UN declared the limited public opinion (conducted under serious limitations involving selected few tribal and political elite) to have favored independence. Iran recognized the outcome, and Bahrain was officially declared independent.

It is obvious that small states in the Persian Gulf can become an easy victim without American assistance (as, for example, happened to Kuwait in 1990).

[Alexander555]

Steve, maybe it's also about Iran's allies. Just like the US has allies, Japan, South-Korea, Europe.....For Iran that's China, Russia, Turkey, North-Korea......Energy, financial system, technological advantage.....With the right combination you have the power to enforce your will to others. Today the US has sanctions against Iran. One day there will maybe be sanctions against the US, Europe..... If that would fit the interests of others. Just like China claims that entire sea today.

[oren]

There's a simple solution to all this. 

Speed up the transition from petroleum to electricity for transportation.  No more oil fields to fight over, no more oil fields to protect, no more tankers, no more refineries.  Cleaner air, no more oil spills, cheaper transportation.

If we got serious we could greatly degrade the oil industry in a decade.

YES.

[morganism]

United States Spend Ten Times More On Fossil Fuel Subsidies Than Education (or defense)

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesellsmoor/2019/06/15/united-states-spend-ten-times-more-on-fossil-fuel-subsidies-than-education/

IMF report

https://www.imf.org/en/Publications/WP/Issues/2019/05/02/Global-Fossil-Fuel-Subsidies-Remain-Large-An-Update-Based-on-Country-Level-Estimates-46509

"while coal and petroleum together account for 85 percent of global subsidies. Efficient fossil fuel pricing in 2015 would have lowered global carbon emissions by 28 percent and fossil fuel air pollution deaths by 46 percent, and increased government revenue by 3.8 percent of GDP."

[Bob Wallace]

United States Spend Ten Times More On Fossil Fuel Subsidies Than Education (or defense)

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesellsmoor/2019/06/15/united-states-spend-ten-times-more-on-fossil-fuel-subsidies-than-education/

IMF report

https://www.imf.org/en/Publications/WP/Issues/2019/05/02/Global-Fossil-Fuel-Subsidies-Remain-Large-An-Update-Based-on-Country-Level-Estimates-46509

"while coal and petroleum together account for 85 percent of global subsidies. Efficient fossil fuel pricing in 2015 would have lowered global carbon emissions by 28 percent and fossil fuel air pollution deaths by 46 percent, and increased government revenue by 3.8 percent of GDP."

"the $649 billion the US spent on these subsidies in 2015 is more than the country’s defense budget and 10 times the federal spending for education"

Most education spending in the US is at the state and local level.  " Total expenditures for public elementary and secondary schools in the United States in 2014–15 amounted to $668 billion"  "the (federal) Budget provides $69.4 billion in discretionary funding for the Department of Education in 2017"  Feds are paying about 10% of the ed budget.

I  think most of the fossil fuel subsidies are tax avoidance, not direct payments.  If so, that won't free up any money as FF use drops.  But we should be able to lower our military spending once we no longer provide oil security services.                                                                                                                                       

[wili]

apologist much?

[Bob Wallace]

apologist much?

Did you aim that at me?

If so, do you understand the importance of facts?

[SteveMDFP]

A thought-provoking piece on the risks and consequences of war with Iran:

Eve of Destruction: Iran Strikes Back
https://www.counterpunch.org/2019/06/24/eve-of-destruction-iran-strikes-back/

"It could be a false flag. Or it could be because the Iranian government feels it’s going to be attacked and then sinks a cargo ship or two. What matters is the final result; any blocking of the energy flow will lead the price of oil to reach $200 a barrel, $500 or even, according to some Goldman Sachs projections, $1,000.

…This figure, times 100 million barrels of oil produced per day, leads us to 45% of the $80 trillion global GDP. It’s self-evident the world economy would collapse based on just that alone."

___________________________________________________________

It's looking increasingly probable that war with Iran will erupt.  This would be, effectively, a Sunni-Shia war, with the US and Israel on the Sunni side.  Egged on by Bolton and Pompeo, Trump came very close to serious escalation in response to Iran downing a spy drone.  Trump made the right decision to stand down, by an awful process in getting to that decision.

Jim Kavanagh here points out that wholesale devastation of oil infrastructure across the Middle East would be a probable outcome of war.

So 2019 might well be the year of "peak oil."  Not because oil production reaches its limit to extraction, and not because of falling demand for oil due to adoption of renewables.  Rather, because of destruction of petroleum infrastructure on a massive scale.

[Bob Wallace]

The probability of the US entering war with Iran is very low.  No one outside of a few radical hawks in the US wants that war.  Trump's base does not want war.  One of the issues Trump ran on was no more foreign wars and that was popular with his base.  Businesses don't want that war, it would be economically damaging.  The military doesn't want to fight and bleed in a senseless war.

In general, people in the US want to greatly decrease their involvement with the Middle East.  I think most of us would like to get away from the religious wars that are messing up that part of the world. 

[Sciguy]

A natural gas plant built in California in 2009 will close 20 years before the end of its useful life because it can't compete with renewables.

https://cleantechnica.com/2019/06/21/ge-will-shutter-california-natural-gas-plant-20-years-early/

Now GE has notified the California Energy Commission it is shuttering a natural gas generating facility it owns and operates in Riverside, California, according to Reuters. The Inland Empire plant was only commissioned in 2009. Such generating facilities normally have a 30-year useful life, so GE is losing two-thirds of its roughly $1 billion investment in the plant.

The problem is two-fold. One, the Inland Empire Power Plant is fitted with GE H series turbines, which have proved troublesome in service. The only other facility in the world that used the H series turbines is located in Wales. Two, those turbines are not easy to start and stop quickly. As renewables have become more common in California, the Inland Empire plant is ill-suited to ramping up when the supply of renewable energy dwindles due to a lack of sunshine or wind.

[Bob Wallace]

A natural gas plant built in California in 2009 will close 20 years before the end of its useful life because it can't compete with renewables.

https://cleantechnica.com/2019/06/21/ge-will-shutter-california-natural-gas-plant-20-years-early/

Now GE has notified the California Energy Commission it is shuttering a natural gas generating facility it owns and operates in Riverside, California, according to Reuters. The Inland Empire plant was only commissioned in 2009. Such generating facilities normally have a 30-year useful life, so GE is losing two-thirds of its roughly $1 billion investment in the plant.

The problem is two-fold. One, the Inland Empire Power Plant is fitted with GE H series turbines, which have proved troublesome in service. The only other facility in the world that used the H series turbines is located in Wales. Two, those turbines are not easy to start and stop quickly. As renewables have become more common in California, the Inland Empire plant is ill-suited to ramping up when the supply of renewable energy dwindles due to a lack of sunshine or wind.

The turbines used at that plant are a type that cannot start and stop quickly, making them inappropriate for filling in around wind and solar.  GE now installs turbines that they designed to work optimally with wind/solar.

[Sciguy]

Rhode Island rejected a new natural gas power plant due to power prices being too low.

https://www.powermag.com/rhode-island-rejects-burrillville-gas-fired-plant/

A proposed 900-MW gas-fired power plant was rejected by Rhode Island regulators on June 20, leaving project developer Invenergy pondering its options for the planned facility in Burrillville.

The Burrillville plant, known as the Clear River Energy Center, was first proposed four years ago, before falling power prices in the region and across New England brought questions about the economic viability of new power generation projects. Invenergy originally planned to bring the plant online this year; that date had been moved to 2023 pending state approval.

A report from ISO New England (ISO-NE) earlier this year outlining future generation capacity in the region did not include the Burrillville plant; in fact, the April Participants Committee Report listed no new natural gas capacity coming online in the region from 2023 to 2025. The fall in power prices over the past few years is notable. ISO-NE said its capacity auction in 2015 had prices clearing more than $17.50/kW-month, the highest level recorded. ISO-NE said 34.8 GW of capacity cleared its auction this past February, at a price of $3.80/kW-month.

Meanwhile, a new wind farm off the shores of Rhode Island is advancing.

https://www.providencejournal.com/news/20190528/proposed-wind-farm-clears-another-hurdle

WARWICK — A proposal for a large offshore wind farm that could power as much as a quarter of Rhode Island’s electric load cleared a major hurdle on Tuesday when regulators approved a contract between the developers and the state’s dominant utility.

The state Public Utilities Commission unanimously voted in favor of the 20-year agreement under which National Grid will buy power from the 400-megawatt Revolution Wind Farm that is being developed in Rhode Island Sound by Danish-owned Orsted U.S. Offshore Wind and Boston-based energy company Eversource.

National Grid will pay 9.8 cents per kilowatt-hour as part of a deal that state energy officials estimate could save Rhode Island electric consumers $90 million over the life of the contract, or about 50 cents per month for the typical customer.

[Tom_Mazanec]

Other threats Iran has over us: Terrorism:
http://endoftheamericandream.com/archives/death-to-america-iran-is-poised-to-unleash-hezbollah-terrorists-all-across-america