Speak Out: "Climate Change" explained again

Posted by bothedog on Mon, Jul 15, 2013, at 7:09 PM:

Subject: Carbon Dioxide EMISSIONS

author's credentials:

Ian Rutherford Plimer is an Australian geologist, professor emeritus of earth sciences at the University of Melbourne, professor of mining geology at the University of Adelaide, and the director of multiple mineral exploration and mining companies. He has published 130 scientific papers, six books and edited the Encyclopedia of Geology.

Where Does the Carbon Dioxide Really Come From?

Professor Ian Plimer could not have said it better!

If you've read his book you will agree, this is a good summary.

PLIMER: "Okay, here's the bombshell. The volcanic eruption in Iceland . Since its first spewing of volcanic ash has, in just FOUR DAYS, NEGATED EVERY SINGLE EFFORT you have made in the past five years to control CO2 emissions on our planet - all of you.

Of course, you know about this evil carbon dioxide that we are trying to suppress - it's that vital chemical compound that every plant requires to live and grow and to synthesize into oxygen for us humans and all animal life.

I know....it's very disheartening to realize that all of the carbon emission savings you have accomplished while suffering the inconvenience and expense of driving Prius hybrids, buying fabric grocery bags, sitting up till midnight to finish your kids "The Green Revolution" science project, throwing out all of your non-green cleaning supplies, using only two squares of toilet paper, putting a brick in your toilet tank reservoir, selling your SUV and speedboat, vacationing at home instead of abroad, Nearly getting hit every day on your bicycle, replacing all of your 50 cent light bulbs with $10.00 light bulbs.....well, all of those things you have done have all gone down the tubes in just four days.

The volcanic ash emitted into the Earth's atmosphere in just four days - yes, FOUR DAYS - by that volcano in Iceland has totally erased every single effort you have made to reduce the evil beast, carbon. And there are around 200 active volcanoes on the planet spewing out this crud at any one time - EVERY DAY.

I don't really want to rain on your parade too much, but I should mention that when the volcano Mt Pinatubo erupted in the Philippines in 1991, it spewed out more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere than the entire human race had emitted in all its years on earth.

Yes, folks, Mt Pinatubo was active for over One year - think about it.

Of course, I shouldn't spoil this 'touchy-feely tree-hugging' moment and mention the effect of solar and cosmic activity and the well-recognized 800-year global heating and cooling cycle, which

keeps happening despite our completely insignificant efforts to affect climate change.

And I do wish I had a silver lining to this volcanic ash cloud, but the fact of the matter is that the bush fire season across the western USA and Australia this year alone will negate your efforts to reduce carbon in our world for the next two to three years. And it happens every year.

Just remember that your government just tried to impose a whopping carbon tax on you, on the basis of the bogus 'human-caused' climate-change scenario.

Hey, isn't it interesting how they don't mention 'Global Warming'

Anymore, but just 'Climate Change' - you know why?

It's because the planet has COOLED by 0.7 degrees in the past century and these global warming bull artists got caught with their pants down.

And, just keep in mind that you might yet have an Emissions Trading Scheme - that whopping new tax - imposed on you that will achieve absolutely nothing except make you poorer.

It won't stop any volcanoes from erupting, that's for sure.

But, hey, relax...... and have a nice day!"

Replies (34)

  • Maybe Gore's company need to donate some carbon credits to Mt Pinatubo.

    -- Posted by We Regret To Inform U on Mon, Jul 15, 2013, at 7:25 PM
  • And of course the global warming/climate change/whatever-they-call-it-this-week people completely ignore the effects of that little yellow disc in the sky called the "sun".

    Sunspot activity has a direct correlation to climate change. Google "maunder minimum" and you'll see. The rays from the sun affect cloud formation according to several leading scientists. That has much more of an impact on climate than you exhaling CO2 from your lungs...

    It's all about the money with liberals.

    -- Posted by not_sorry on Mon, Jul 15, 2013, at 7:28 PM
  • Kinda wondering when our Bollinger County meteorologist,global warming expert,financial guru,race relations,judicial law student, police/neighborhood watch and all round genius is going to tell us how a professor emeritus is wrong. Bet the old dial up is chugging.

    -- Posted by bothedog on Mon, Jul 15, 2013, at 7:56 PM
  • "driving Prius hybrids,"

    I drive a used Mercedes by choice, my back hurts when I drive a new Ford or Chevy. My old bones like a comfortable seat.

    Bet this guy doesn't convince many tree huggin liberals hell bent on, we are crowding ourselves off the planet.

    -- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Mon, Jul 15, 2013, at 8:00 PM
  • They have found the hybrids cause more pollution that their gas chugging counterparts.

    -- Posted by We Regret To Inform U on Mon, Jul 15, 2013, at 8:03 PM
  • -- Posted by bothedog on Mon, Jul 15, 2013, at 7:56 PM

    Bothedog,

    Now be nice.... everyone knows you are talking about Common.

    -- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Mon, Jul 15, 2013, at 8:03 PM
  • Exactly Rick. Got to thinking about this driving down 55 to work. As much as I would like to see better mileage, less pollution,etc, it just can't be done with the path that Obama wants us to take. When he flies a self powered hot air ballon to give a speech on global warming I will start pedaling my old Schwinn.

    -- Posted by bothedog on Mon, Jul 15, 2013, at 8:59 PM
  • When he flies a self powered hot air ballon to give a speech on global warming I will start pedaling my old Schwinn.

    -- Posted by bothedog on Mon, Jul 15, 2013, at 8:59 PM

    Obama probably stands a better chance of getting where he is going if he is supplying the hot air to keep the balloon aloft.

    -- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Mon, Jul 15, 2013, at 11:03 PM
  • When the oil wells in Iraq were set fire these same alarmists were saying it would permanently change our climate. Same thing with St Helen.

    Mr.Heston mentioned the arogence Rick referred to.

    -- Posted by Old John on Mon, Jul 15, 2013, at 11:53 PM
  • -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, Jul 16, 2013, at 6:46 AM
  • Darn nil,I really thought it would be common throwing in on this. I didn't post the thoughts from Prof Plimer without a bit of research on him. When he first made these type of statements he was jumped on by a multitude of Global Warming advocates dismissing him as a fraud. That's exactly why I like him. Right or wrong about who spews out what and how much the blame cannot be put solely on humans. The earth is a dirty,grimy place for sure but the thinking that the US can clean the place up is beyond even the dreams of Obamas father. Even though the US,I think this is correct,is second to China in energy usage,it is pretty clean place to live. I found several lists of the smoggiest countries and most agree on the following:

    1: Iran

    2: Mongolia

    3: India

    4: Pakistan

    5: Botswana

    6: Saudi Arabia

    7: China

    8: Egypt

    9: Mexico

    10: Bosnia

    Honorable Mention goes to the United States but not the whole country, Just Los Angeles and Bakersfield, which I find hilarious. Doesn't LA have the strictest emissions laws?

    Look at the labels on all that Walmart stuff and compare it to those countries. Look at that list and think of all the funding given to some and the petroleum we may buy. We do seem to be enablers to some extent.

    Without disputing one side or another's figures on the cause or not of weather anomalies the US can't solve all this planets problems.

    -- Posted by bothedog on Tue, Jul 16, 2013, at 10:30 AM
  • The question is not really whether or not natural emissions exede human emissions. It is generally accepted that they do, by a great margin. The seas, which cover more than three-fourths of the Earth's surface, contribute considerably to the emissions, as do the myriads of flora and fauna covering the planet. Indeed, even the melting of the ice in the North and South regions release trapped gases.

    Water vapor is one of the leading greenhouse gases, and our puny efforts there add little to the overall scheme of things in that regard.

    The question has always been one of equilibrium. The question rests in whether or not the Earth can absorb and compensate for the additional emissions we humans spew forth continuously. Volcanoes erupt now and again as a part of the natural cycle of things, but our automobiles run constantly, in warm weather and cold, whether there be a volcanic eruption or not. Therein lies the question.

    Think of it this way: If the Earth were a bucket with a small hole halfway to the top, and natural emissions were a flow of water into the bucket, the bucket would, in theory, reach an equilibrium at some level, wherein the (more or less) steady flow of water into the bucket would match the flow out of the bucket, as determined by the weight of the water above the hole. Minor fluctuations in flow would cause the level to rise or fall slightly, but the level would more or less remain constant.

    The human factor, then would be like the addition of another flow. A slight drip at first, which would add little or nothing to the level in the bucket, the rate of flow increases, causing a rise in the level. In theory, a new equilibrium would be reached at some level, if the total flow, natural and human, remained relatively constant. But, human emissions increase as the population and the level of industrialization increase, such that the level at which equilibrium is reached is also rising steadily.

    The goal, therefore, of the scientists is to determine both what is an acceptable level of equilibrium in the bucket, and to determine what level of additional flow from humans will achieve it, and how to regulate the flow to maintain equilibrium.

    The skeptics' concern is whether or not the bucket model is accurate. That is, the Earth is a living entity, or rather comprised of living entities, and is not so simple a system as the perforated bucket. The scientists point to the data regarding temperature, which his their 'level in the bucket', and claim it upholds their model. The skeptics point to the fact that equilibrium seems to be maintaining despite increasing flow as evidence that the model is flawed. If global temperatures (equilibrium level) are not rising despite increased emissions (greater flow from the human tap), what has happened? Has the hole gotten larger? Is there another hole higher up? Or does the flow from natural sources reduce itself to maintain equilibrium (the feedback question)?

    -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, Jul 16, 2013, at 11:32 AM
  • A study by the University of North Carolina at Charlotte suggests that Scientists have over-estimated the capacity of wind farms to generate power.

    This means even less bang for our subsidy bucks.

    http://publicrelations.uncc.edu/news-events/news-releases/research-suggests-scie...

    "Current estimates of the global wind power resource over land range from 56 to 400 terawatts. Most of these estimates assume implicitly that the turbines extracting the wind energy have little impact on the atmosphere and, therefore, little effect on the energy production.

    "The new research says that scientists have underestimated the impact that large numbers of wind turbines have on energy production within large farms. Estimates of wind capacity that ignore the effect of wind turbine drag on local winds have assumed that wind power production of 2 and 4 watts per square meter could be sustained over large areas.

    "The new modeling results suggest that the generating capacity is more likely limited to about 1 watt per square meter at wind farms that are larger than 100 square kilometers.

    "It's easy to mistake the term renewable with the term unlimited when discussing energy," said Adams who is lead author. "Just because you can keep generating new energy from a source does not mean you can generate energy in an unlimited amount."

    "The research suggests the potential for wind energy could be significantly less than previously thought."

    In essence, it seems, they are saying the proximity of turbines one to another reduces their potential output due to the turbulence they create, much as a sailboats 'wind shadow' blocks the wind available to sailboats sailing nearby. This means wind turbines have to be spread further apart in order not to diminish their capacity, reducing the total amount of energy per acre which they can produce.

    One would wonder if having units of varying heights on the wind farm would improve that, but much of the cost savings comes from building identical units. Taller units cost considerably more, thus still reducing the reducing the bang for the buck.

    There ain't no such thing as a free ride, it seems.

    -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Thu, Jul 18, 2013, at 9:22 AM
  • And of course the 1000's of protected "raptor" birds that have been killed by these turbines.

    You can't drill a well if there's a turtle or ant hill within 100 miles - but a wind farm? You can take the taxpayer money, put them anywhere and d*** the environmental impact. Oops - forgot. Can't put them where the rich democrats live like Martha's Vineyard or Nantucket Sound.

    -- Posted by not_sorry on Thu, Jul 18, 2013, at 12:11 PM
  • Another thing the skeptics challenge with regard to the 'bucket model' is the idea that any particular level in the bucket is the optimum level. That is to say, scientists seem to have selected a random level based on a select point in time and said "this is the level that we should try to hold as a target, anything other than this level is bad for the Earth".

    I've pointed out before that the majority of the Earth's population lives in the hottest part of the Earth. The cooler the climate, the less populous. The same is true of the Earth's flora and fauna, all seem to thrive where it is warmest.

    To be sure, all the evidence seems to indicate that, back when dinosaurs roamed the Earth, the world climate was much warmer than today. One would assume that the Earth was thus able to generate enough food to feed those huge, useless creatures which have so generously provided us with the oil we burn today.

    Now, granted, we don't know exactly how densely populated the Earth was with dinosaurs, but we can surmise that, for the huge carnivores to have existed and survived as long as they did, there had to be an ample supply of huge herbivores for them to feed on. For the huge herbivores to have grown as large as they did, there has to have been an ample supply of herbiage available for them to keep their bellies full. All this occurred on a massive scale, and seemingly on every continent on Earth, including Antarctica.

    Now, I'll grant you there are other factors involved in permitting the dinosaurs to grow to the size they grew, including possibly a lesser gravitational pull. Thus, we don't have to worry, no matter how abundant the world's salad bowl may become, about growing Alabama rednecks the size of Tyrannosaurus Rex. But, a warming Earth may well increase the supply of herbiage on the planet.

    There are other concerns, of course. Warmer climates also seem to breed diseases in both animal and plant life, and thus the idea that a warmer climate might create a new Eden on Earth is far-fetched. But, the fact that life on Earth was able to survive the cataclysmic change from the hothouse that was the Jurassic period, through the ice age, and into today's more temperate world points to a resiliance that many believe the doom-and-gloom climate watchers are neglecting.

    Indeed, we humans seem to be the most resilient of all, despite the fragile and unprotected design of our bodies. We populate the four corners of the Earth, relatively unchanged physically from one end to the other, through our adaptability. Thus, the idea of adapting to the changing climate, rather than wasting resources trying to prevent that which may be inevitable, makes more sense to many.

    -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, Jul 24, 2013, at 9:06 AM
  • "Thus, the idea of adapting to the changing climate..."

    ... is what has been happening for eons. And that is all well and good for flora and fauna that had years and years to adapt to gradual change.

    In the world today man has established societies that have tended to occupy many coastal areas. While animals moved away from shorelines when sea levels change, man is not quite as flexible. The most recent example was 9 months ago with Hurricane Sandy and its impact on New York City.

    In addition to island nations, sea level changes could be catastrophic to a country like Bangladesh where millions live along the coast. It's easy for us to just say, "Tough, learn to swim..." but that solves nothing.

    The point has always been that there is a human impact, and if something can be done, it should be done if a reasonable cost. Opponents are fond of claiming that any change will cost trillions of dollars without calculating the "do nothing" cost.

    -- Posted by commonsensematters on Wed, Jul 24, 2013, at 12:07 PM
  • The Government just can not control everything , it's pointless to even try

    -- Posted by .Rick* on Wed, Jul 24, 2013, at 12:20 PM

    Rick the Government will control everything.... everything but the weather that is, if we don't put a stop to the far left wingnut's philosophy in this country.

    -- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Wed, Jul 24, 2013, at 12:32 PM
  • "In addition to island nations, sea level changes could be catastrophic to a country like Bangladesh where millions live along the coast. It's easy for us to just say, "Tough, learn to swim..." but that solves nothing."

    Nobody is saying "Tough, learn to swim..."

    We humans are more, not less, adaptable than the flora and fauna that surround us. As the sea levels rise a few feet over the next hundred years, the citizens who live along the coasts will do what men who live along the coasts have always done; they will raise their houses on stilts or move to higher ground. Some may even build floating houses, an idea that has served mankind for hundreds of years. Entire floating cities have been built over the years.

    Cities have risen and fallen with the tides. The Red Sea was once much higher than it is now, according to recent excavations. The remains of a port city were discovered some five meals from the coast, apparently left high and dry by receding sea levels.

    I visited Ephesus in Turkey last year. The city used to sit on the coast of the sea, and was a favourite seaside resort for Romans. Marc Antony and Cleopatra honeymooned there. Now, it is some two miles from the sea, which can be viewed on a clear day off in the distance.

    My home town of New Madrid was constantly creeping northward before the construction of the levee system, as the Mississippi River eroded the banks on the North side of the New Madrid Bend, on which it was situated. Houses built nearest the river were consumed by it, and the citizens who owned those homes would build new ones further away. This was repeated for years until the levee trapped the River, more or less, within its current banks. Even so, islands rise and fall, such as the Madrid Bar, which gradually works its way downriver towards Marston. When I was a young man, it blocked the view of the Kentucky side of the river when standing at the boat dock. Now, from the same vantage point, you have to look considerably downstream to see it. The river eats away the upriver side and deposits silt on the downriver side. Older, more mature trees grow on the upriver side, while the downriver side, upstream of the more recently deposited bare sand, is populated with saplings. eventually, it seems, it will attach itself to the Missouri side of the river, though it is a part of the state of Kentucky. We accept this inevitability, and do not attempt to halt it.

    Your post is typical of the doom-and-gloom we hear: we humans aren't capable of keeping up with the changing planet. Hogwash! We are the most adaptable species there is. What other species lives and dwells in the same general form in all climates and places on the planet? Nearly every species has, through evolution and adaptation, adapted itself to its specific geographical location. We humans, however, adapt the geographical location to suit our needs.

    -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, Jul 24, 2013, at 12:41 PM
  • "Humans are only one of the 1,000,000s and 1,000,000s of species that live on this rock."

    But we are only one of a few, if not entirely unique, in that we live in nearly every climate zone, terrestrial elevation, and environment on this rock. That's quite an accomplishment.

    Cockroaches may have us beat, but only narrowly...

    -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, Jul 24, 2013, at 2:13 PM
  • "Humans are the only species that decides to self abort."

    As far as we know...

    -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, Jul 24, 2013, at 2:32 PM
  • "I've seen hogs eat their young...after they were born."

    If it occurs after the birth, that is not abortion.

    -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, Jul 24, 2013, at 2:42 PM
  • I did read once that some species can delay or stop the birth process if they find themselves due to give birth in a hostile environment. I don't recall the details of the article, so I'd have to search for it to find out if they actually abort the fetus or simply delay the delivery.

    -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, Jul 24, 2013, at 2:44 PM
  • I read where humans only use a small percentage of their total brain capabilities .

    -- Posted by .Rick* on Wed, Jul 24, 2013, at 2:48 PM

    Rick,

    With some Posters, they may be using all they have.

    -- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Wed, Jul 24, 2013, at 3:49 PM
  • "...typical of the doom-and-gloom we hear..."

    In no way do I support "gloom and doom." I simply feel it is rational to take action when there are measures that potentially have positive results. What I object to is people that throw up their hands and declare there is nothing we can do, nature is omnipotent, mankind is powerless, etc., etc.

    The fact is that man does influence his environment. Things that are done by man can be undone. Simply claiming that man can adapt is certainly true. There is no one that even vaguely suggests that this is the "end of the world." However, doing nothing could condemn some world citizens to an untimely end, but so what they probably live on the other side of the planet and just are not clever enough to adapt.

    - - - - - -

    "...species can delay or stop..."

    Kangeroos.

    -- Posted by commonsensematters on Wed, Jul 24, 2013, at 4:22 PM
  • "What I object to is people that throw up their hands and declare there is nothing we can do, nature is omnipotent, mankind is powerless, etc., etc."

    I'm not aware of anyone who has claimed that.

    "However, doing nothing could condemn some world citizens to an untimely end, but so what they probably live on the other side of the planet and just are not clever enough to adapt."

    The evidence seems to be that 'doing something' has condemned many to an untimely end, as well. Diseases that were stopped or slowed by the use of DDT are returning and killing many. Food-based Ethanol has raised the price of grain to the point that it unaffordable to many poor countries whose populations are starving. The road to Hell is paved with good intentions, as good intentions often carry dire consequences.

    But, overpopulation is killing the planet, so they needed to die anyway, no?

    -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, Jul 24, 2013, at 4:53 PM
  • "Climate change" is easily explained and understood once we take into account all of the hot air expended in Washington, DC.

    Rick, how will the "climate change" advocates blame the pole shifting on "CO2" coal fired generators and other industrial activities?

    -- Posted by voyager on Fri, Oct 4, 2013, at 10:11 PM
  • Rick, how will the "climate change" advocates blame the pole shifting on "CO2" coal fired generators and other industrial activities?

    By claiming it's Bush's fault. (Rick may or may not agree with that assessment.)

    -- Posted by FreedomFadingFast on Fri, Oct 4, 2013, at 10:23 PM
  • A thought on carbon emissions. The United States is at or near the top of countries in regulating emissions. That is to say, we are more efficient than others in the use of coal and other fossil fuels. My question is this; when we refuse to build a project such as the Keystone Pipeline do we do the earth a favor?

    The point is this. The oil is being produced. Canada is searching for a market. If we build the pipeline, the oil will be refined in this country and I would suggest that; everything else being equal, making use of that energy in this country would make sense. It would help to insulate us from disruption of oil supplies coming from the Middle East.

    If we do not build the pipeline and refine the oil, bringing jobs to us and fueling our economy, there is already consideration of building a pipeline to the Pacific coast of Canada. If this is done, the crude oil will probably be shipped to China and other Asian countries. Their economies will profit from that energy source.

    At the same time, they will produce greater amounts of emissions than we would. Transportation of oil by ships is not as efficient as pipelines; there is more chance of pollution because of shipwrecks, etc. To make a long story short, the world environment would see more pollution because of our not building the Keystone pipeline.

    The discussion should really go along these lines. What is the most efficient method of transporting and using this oil? Will our economy profit more by building the pipeline and making use of the abundant source of local energy? Would building this pipeline improve relations with our neighbor nation to the north? If we are really concerned about the total sum of emissions on a world-wide basis we would do the environment a favor by using the fossil fuels more efficiently. And we do that by refining and using them locally.

    -- Posted by Robert* on Sat, Oct 5, 2013, at 7:03 AM
  • Robert - when it comes to "global warming" or "climate change" or whatever-they-call-it-this-week you cannot use logic or facts to support your position. They don't matter to the liberals (as we've seen).

    But you're 100% right. I've posted the same. Global temperatures are on hold and cooler despite even more human-emitted CO2. Yet the IPCC just produced a report saying there is even more evidence of human caused global warming.

    So I have to ask the question - why would liberals like Obama push an agenda that has no affect on "global warming" or "climate change"? Peel the layers off that international money grab and you'll have your answer. Obama despises America's past and has said/written as much. Hurting and weakening this country in the world status is his intention. He knows what you and I know about the Keystone pipeline.

    So why does he delay and stop it at every turn? It's not about being "green" or "global warming"...

    -- Posted by not_sorry on Sat, Oct 5, 2013, at 9:24 AM
  • "To make a long story short, the world environment would see more pollution because of our not building the Keystone pipeline."

    I agree with you 100%. Now that the State of Nebraska objections have been resolved, there is no reason not to go ahead with the project.

    -- Posted by commonsensematters on Sat, Oct 5, 2013, at 2:55 PM
  • Common, talk to your President. He is the one holding up the pipeline. The earliest any decision is scheduled to be made now is 2014.

    It has been over 1700 days since TransCanada first submitted an application to the State Department. Since then, the House has voted seven times -- six last Congress and once last month -- to finish construction, and the President has reviewed numerous environmental studies.

    The Keystone XL pipeline, perhaps the most studied and scrutinized project in infrastructure history, is a $7 billion private-sector infrastructure project capable of moving up to 830,000 barrels of oil per day -- about half the amount the U.S. imports from the Middle East. An Energy Department study found that the rise in Canadian crude oil imports "would curb dependency on crude oils from other sources, notably the Middle East and Africa." That's good news for our economy and good news for our national security.

    Read more: http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/energy-a-environment/308221-keystone-pipe...

    -- Posted by Robert* on Sat, Oct 5, 2013, at 3:06 PM
  • "...talk to your President..."

    That's funny, I would have thought he's your President too. Unless you're Canadian like Senator Cruz.

    Anyhow, I'll tell him to go ahead with it, as he may not listen to you, with all that bad-mouthing of him on SO.

    -- Posted by commonsensematters on Sat, Oct 5, 2013, at 3:18 PM
  • "Common, talk to your President. He is the one holding up the pipeline. The earliest any decision is scheduled to be made now is 2014."

    Robert,

    Protecting his Arab buddies and their market for oil could not be at the root of his delay in making a decision....... could it?

    -- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Sat, Oct 5, 2013, at 3:22 PM
  • I will not say that it is the reason, but a major Obama supporter is heavily invested in the railroads. And railroads are used to transport crude oil when pipelines are not available. Railroad transportation slower, less efficient, more accident-prone, and more costly but at the present time railroads go where pipelines do not.

    In its latest short-term energy outlook, the EIA projects domestic crude production will hit 7.9 million barrels per day in 2014.

    The last time we hit that mark was in 1989, according to oil markets guru Stephen Schork.

    One of the major beneficiaries of this surge has been the railroad industry, he writes.

    And among all rail companies, BNSF may be best positioned to take advantage of shipments of crude from America's oil boom.

    Three years ago, of course, Warren Buffett bought BNSF railroad for $26 billion.

    It's looking like a wise investment.

    "We're the 1,000-pound gorilla in the oil markets," BNSF CEO Matt Rose told Bloomberg. "Crude by rail is going to be really strong for us. It's been a real benefit to us to replace some of that lost coal business."

    The company says it will boost crude-oil shipments by 40 percent this year, to 700,000 barrels per day, Bloomberg reports.

    Schork points out that in declines in rail shipments across the industry of coal are being offset by shipments of crude.

    Whereas year-on-year coal movement's in November 2012 were down 10½%, shipments of oil were up by 45% and shipments of crushed stone, gravel, sand (as in, fracking sand) were up by 7.8%.

    Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/warren-buffetts-burlington-bet-2013-1#ixzz2gshN5H...

    -- Posted by Robert* on Sat, Oct 5, 2013, at 3:26 PM

Respond to this thread