Anonymous
By the U.S. Department of Justice
On March 2, the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California entered final judgment against HVI Cat Canyon Inc., formerly known as Greka Oil & Gas Inc., in a civil suit brought jointly by the United States, on behalf of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the U.S. Coast Guard, and by the State of California on behalf of the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) and the California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Central Coast Region.
The United States and California filed the suit alleging that HVI Cat Canyon, which previously owned and operated multiple oil and gas production facilities in Santa Barbara County, California, was liable for:
- 12 oil spills into waters of the United States in violation of the Clean Water Act;
- 17 oil spills into waters of the state in violation of state law;
- Reimbursement of the federal and state governments’ costs of cleaning up the oil spills;
- Natural resource damages under state law for harm to fish, plant, bird, or animal life and habitat; and
- Numerous violations of federal Oil Pollution Prevention Regulations identified in 16 EPA inspections across 11 facilities.
The court’s judgment follows an earlier 65-page opinion dated Feb. 25, in which the court awarded the United States and California the full amount of civil penalties, response costs, and damages that they sought at trial.
“We applaud the court’s decision to hold HVI Cat Canyon responsible for the full extent of the harm they caused,” said Assistant Attorney General Todd Kim of the Justice Department’s Environmental and Natural Resources Division. “This outcome is a prime example of strong federal and state partnership and persistence in pursuing justice against a company that long flouted its compliance obligations.”
“This final judgment reflects EPA’s continued commitment to ensuring companies that operate oil and gas production facilities comply with federal clean water laws and prevent unnecessary oil spills,” said Regional Administrator Martha Guzman of EPA Pacific Southwest. “Holding companies responsible for failing to meet their environmental obligations is key to protecting our waterways and surrounding communities.”
“The California Department of Fish and Wildlife is committed to protecting our state’s pristine natural resources,” said CDFW Director Charlton H. Bonham. “Staff from our Office of Spill Prevention and Response work daily to prevent, prepare for and respond to oil spill incidents statewide. The collective efforts of state and federal regulators to hold this company accountable for the significant impacts they have caused is evidence of our dedication to fighting every day for the resources we hold in trust for all Californians.”
“HVI Cat Canyon, formerly GREKA, is being held accountable in their long history of multiple violations and on-going non-compliance across many agencies,” said Regional Water Board Chair Jane Gray. “This judgment is a testament to the multi-year efforts of agencies and the legal system’s ability to provide justice for egregious actions perpetrated against the environment.”
The court found that the 12 spills into waters of the United States, which occurred from 2005 through 2010, resulted from HVI Cat Canyon’s gross negligence. “Based on the totality of the circumstances, the spills evinced a pattern of reckless disregard for good oilfield industry practices, and a series of negligent acts or omissions by HVI concerning oil spill prevention, and pipeline and facility inspection and maintenance,” the court wrote. In total, the court found that the spills had discharged approximately 26,584 barrels of crude oil and produced water, a briny waste by-product of oil production. The court also ruled that HVI Cat Canyon had committed a total of 60 violations of the federal regulations at 11 facilities for a total of 86,842 days of violation.
Ultimately the court held HVI Cat Canyon liable to the United States for $40 million in civil penalties for the spills, $15 million in civil penalties for the violations of federal regulations, and $2.5 million in cleanup costs. The court also held HVI Cat Canyon liable to California for $7.7 million in civil penalties and nearly $200,000 in natural resource damages and cleanup costs.
The case is styled United States, et al. v. HVI Cat Canyon, Inc., formerly known as Greka Oil & Gas Inc., No. 2:11-cv-05097-FMO-SS (C.D. Cal.). The court’s order is available through the court’s website, www.cacd.uscourts.gov.
I thought that oil companies didn’t pollute – and only electric cars polluted when they caught fire?
Sac, although “renewable energy” is a lot dirtier than oil and gas, it is a lot more profitable and enables environmentally destructive mining and manufacturing operations that would not otherwise be tolerated. In addition, the reduction in production of oil and gas drives up prices which has generated record profits for the oil and gas industry. The result: all the big companies win, the consumer gets the shaft, and the environment gets trashed in the name of environmentalism.
Yeah, screw the humanitarian costs as long it’s 1% cleaner than oil and gas.
““renewable energy” companies can pretend to be champions of the environment despite the terrible environmental and humanitarian costs of their mining and manufacturing operations.” – If they’re cleaner by 1% than oil & gas production, then it’s a step in the right direction.
Then again, you’re the guy who actually said coal/oil/gas is cleaner than wind and solar.
The difference is, the pollution associated with electric vehicles happens overseas. Rare earth mining and the manufacture of batteries is a very dirty business and the pollution it generates is orders of magnitude worse than an oil spill. For example, a significant portion of the countryside in the Congo has been contaminated with uranium as a result of cobalt mining. Unfortunately, big corporations can save a fortune by offshoring their pollution since we don’t impose any tariffs or consequences to level the playing field with domestic industry. If a company can pollute with impunity to save costs and utilize cheap labor or child and slave labor overseas, why bother trying to produce something in the US? For the oil industry, this means winding down operations in the US and passing profits on to the shareholders instead of investing in new production. The “ renewable” industry may well generate more toxic and enduring pollution, but as long as it’s overseas that’s A-ok and “renewable energy” companies can pretend to be champions of the environment despite the terrible environmental and humanitarian costs of their mining and manufacturing operations.
“Sac, although “renewable energy” is a lot dirtier than oil and gas” – LOL dude….. no. Congrats on earning absolutely 0 credibility in anything else you say. Done, out, wrong, buh bye!
If it’s cleaner, why would we continue that hurts others even more?
Chip, it’s easier to just write “lies from carbonista terrorists” and ignore the real harms their polices cause so they can maintain their misplaced altruism than it is to acknowledge the world doesn’t work the way they see it through their privileged progressive goggles.
More outright lies from the Carbonista terrorists.
CHIP – yes, we ALL know renewable energy isn’t 100% green. Nothing new. The point is, since it IS cleaner than coal/oil/gas, why not use it? Why would we refrain from using something that’s cleaner and less deadly just because it’s not perfectly clean.
The only LIE here is this statement: ” “renewable energy” is a lot dirtier than oil and gas”
So you think this is all lies? The Washington post and science news are “Carbonista terrorists”?
Cobalt mining in the Congo
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/in-sight/wp/2018/02/28/the-cost-of-cobalt/
Lithium production in Chile
https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/kidspost/mining-lithium-for-electric-cars-is-hurting-this-deserts-local-environment/2019/06/12/aa5a5f64-83b9-11e9-95a9-e2c830afe24f_story.html
Cobalt in the Congo
https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/business/batteries/congo-cobalt-mining-for-lithium-ion-battery/
Rare earth production leads to radioactive waste from “one of the most heavily polluted places on earth” contaminating water and farmland in China, among many other environmental disasters
https://www.sciencenews.org/article/rare-earth-mining-renewable-energy-future
The environmental effects of battery materials pales in comparison to the environmental destruction caused by fossil fuels. You’re just another whataboutism pusher.
“If it’s cleaner and less deadly [to me], use it. Simple” but screw all those poors who will die or starve because it. – Sacjon.
If it’s cleaner and less deadly, use it. Simple.
@Sacjon, because the cleaner comes at the expense of greater humanitarian costs. The rapid carbon free push is borne on the backs of of the poor and impoverished throughout the globe. Developed countries became developed because of fossil fuels – cheap, reliable and abundant energy. Now many developed countries like ours are trying to take this away from undeveloped countries before green sources of cheap, reliable and abundant energy are available to them. What saves and improves the most lives in the world right now isn’t solar panels and windmills, it’s fossil fuels – even with their negative environmental aspects. Families in developing countries, even many families in developed countries, can’t even begin to care about the ocean levels rising a few inches over the next decade – they’re trying to survive next week and inhibiting their access to fossil fuels makes getting to next week all that harder.
VOICE – show me where I said immediately halt all fossil fuel production/use.
“Sac, how would you quantify whether oil and gas is cleaner than “renewable” energy?” – You’re the one that said ““renewable energy” is a lot dirtier than oil and gas,” so how about you explain.
It’s so cute how you put “renewable” in quotes, as if in some bizarro world, you honestly believe the wind and the sun are not renewable. LOL
“screw all those poors who will die or starve because it” – if less of the “poors(?)” will die if we make a switch, how is that a bad thing? You’d rather have more people die and more damage to our planet. That’s just cruel.
Sacjon, are you intentionally ignoring the benefits poor and developing nations, and the billions of people who live there, receive from fossil fuels? Benefits, that if removed, will literally cause millions to die?
* just because it’s not perfectly clean, yet.
Wind turbine blades are now capable of being completely recycled. Amazing what progress can be made!
Sac- I for one would like to know how recycling fiberglass and resin is possible?
Into what?
The surf industry would have jumped at the tech except it has no value as shredded/ground up or any thing else.
I call BS.
Have you been up close to one of those blades?
I have repaired some trashed in shipping ,and they are not recyclable , as they are of no value.
They would have to go offshore somewhere else.
I would love to hear what they make with the end product.
Assumptions are not proof and neither is cut and paste.
5:10 – Facts and data that encompass the entire life cycle of the technologies, and not your cherry-picked version of fossil fuels that ignores all their destructive effects, are the basis for the established fact that carbon-free (not just “renewable”) energy is cleaner, cheaper, and less harmful. You also haven’t been keeping up with the percentage of our energy production world wide that is carbon-free and environmentally responsible. But, you’ll stick with your politically-motivated disinformation no matter how many times you’re shown to be lying, as per the playbook.
possible/capable does not mean feasible. You should do some research on the reality of what we put into the recycling container, what is actually done with it, and how much is truly recycled. AND the amount of energy it takes to do it.
5:17 – Gallooop, gallooopp, gallooooop. Keep piling it up, it’s still BS.
VOICE – your absence was noticed last week. The lack of elementary school logic and reasoning was most welcome.
Sac, how would you quantify whether oil and gas is cleaner than “renewable” energy? There are a number of ways to look at this question. “Renewable” certainly is dirtier when it comes to contaminating the environment with radioactive waste, since that’s not an issue with oil and gas. “Renewable” also results in substantial CO2 emissions, but one could argue it is a significant reduction compared to oil and gas. One could also consider the humanitarian aspects of “renewable” vs oil and gas and in that category “renewable is objectively worse hands down. In addition, I would add that “renewable” energy is only providing a small fraction of the energy the world consumes compared to fossil fuels, and the environmental footprint of “renewable” would scale up dramatically if we ever make the transition or “decarbonize” so to speak. So, what is your basis to quantitatively say “renewable” is cleaner than fossil fuels?
VOICE – here you go, right at 5:17: “Benefits, that if removed, will literally cause millions to die?” See? You said those words. Those words in the English language suggest that if we suddenly “removed” fossil fuels, without a transition having been accomplished, “millions would die.”
Further, that’s literally all you complain about – that us “liberals” or whatever want to shut off the gas to the entire world without a feasible plan. So yeah, YOU DID MEAN THAT.
Sacjon – show me where I said you did. But keep on moving those goal posts….
Sac, the sun and the wind will go on forever in practical terms. I would call firewood a renewable resource, it’s formed by the sun and the trees can harness that energy forever to continue producing wood. However, there is nothing renewable about solar panels, windmills or batteries and the dirty rare earth mining and manufacturing industry that produces them. Solar panels, windmills, and batteries all have finite lifespans, and they are made with finite resources.
7:08 – Ignoring the fact that the same applies to all the paraphernalia and activities associated with fossil fuel production and use use, and those have larger detrimental effects. You see only what you want to see.
And the fossil fuels will definitely not last forever.
Wood may be renewable, but it’s not carbon neutral, which is the key factor in what we should be using to produce energy.
I’m so glad you brought that up 7:14, because I have been struggling to understand why people keep saying wood is not carbon neutral. How is wood not carbon neutral, and how can it be renewable but not carbon neutral at the same time?
9:26 @
By your definition, which is ludicrously inane, fossil fuels are also carbon neutral.
Natural gas is especially problematic because so much leaks out in the delivery process, and methane is a potent greenhouse gas.
But, you’ve heard and ignored all that for a long, long, time.
Whatabout? What? A? BOUT?! oh please someone tell me what about? Wahhhhhatabout?
Sacjon @ 6:29 but that’s exactly what we’re doing. SB banning gas stoves without calculating the increased electrical demand and asking SCE if they can provide the needed electricity. Same with CA mandating only EV’s without any plan to provide the necessary green electrical generation nor adequate transmission and charging capabilities. At the same time suppressing oil and gas exploration, development, refinement and transportation. That’s what I and many hate about many of these ideals, not the goals, the goals are great, they just through it out there and legislate it without a robust plan to achieve it. That’s not leadership. It’s not a switch, no, but for every law or mandate that increases the cost of fossil fuels increase the number of people that freeze during winter, that can’t pump water, or turn on the lights. There are nearly a billion people on earth living without electricity today and some nat gas to cook, heat, and boil water with is literally a life saver. We should be expanding out nat gas production and exporting it all over the world to literally save and improve the lives of billions, the money we make in the process is used to further develop green technologies that can, in the future, also be exported all over the world.
@9:05. You are correct, but so is Chip about it being carbon neutral. Which brings up another good point, why aren’t these ‘fossil fuels are the devil type’ not banning fireplaces, campfires, and bbq’s? they are way more wasteful and polluting than a natural gas stove or heater.
8:20 – That’s been explained here several times. Carbon sequestration has a time dimension. When you burn wood, you’re immediately releasing all the carbon it has stored up for its lifetime. It is, once you kill the tree, just like a carbon fossil fuel. Sure, you say, you plant a new tree, but that tree will take years to suck out the carbon you’ve just pu into the air, which has just spent those years heating up the atmosphere through radiative forcing.
Didn’t anybody study physics and chemistry in school? Or learn critical thinking?
Natural gas is a potent greenhouse gas when unburned, and produces CO2, another and longer-lived greenhouse gas, when burned. It is foolhardy to advocate expanding its use when better technologies are already cheaper.
CHICO – so about that “BS” you called….. lol now you’re mad they didn’t do it sooner. No pleasing some of you oil guzzlers!
@12:32 I missed where someone here was advocating for coal. 60% of our countries CO2 reductions are the result of switching from coal to nat gas electrical generation. We could be exporting our nat gas all over the world to help them make this same switch we did, but no…. doesn’t fit the agenda.
Sounds like an idea whose time was 20 years ago.
I like the convert to concrete idea.
Simple.
Why wasn’t this old tech used before now?
Well large transnational cos. were not interested until it became popular.
The company you cite is one of those.
1:48 @
Better yet, we could be exporting our better and cheaper technologies. But, that doesn’t fir your agenda.
What cheaper technologies? Solar and wind aren’t cheaper. Even then, to be better than nat gas solar/wind would need a large battery component and that would make it much much more expensive. Please tell us, what is this magical technology you speak of that can power and heat homes cheaper and cleaner than natural gas?
Other than nuclear, which could be weaning us of fossil fuels super fast if there wasn’t such an irrational and strong anti-nuclear component the past 30 years. The best time to build a new nuclear plant was 20 years ago, the next best time is today.
As you were informed earlier, solar, wind,and hydro power, along with gravity, hydro, and thermal storage technologies are all cheaper than carbon-based energy. You just ignore the subsidies and costs of the detrimental effects of the obsolete technology.
Fission power is the most expensive of all, and is slow to come online, and produces dangerous waste. That’s why the carbon shills promote it – they know it will result in prolonged use of hydrocarbons.
Weak.
You have to burn more natural gas in a power plant in order to cook the same food with an electric stove that you can cook with a gas stove.
The lithium and cobalt shills ignore the devastation caused by their mining industries, the looming perils of the disposal of their waste, and the inability of their so-called “renewable” energy to meet the needs of a growing world. Instead, they attempt to scare everyone into believing that CO2 is more dangerous than contaminating land and water with toxic and radioactive waste for generations to come. They shamelessly promote a technology that is incapable of providing the energy the world relies on, while they dismantle the energy infrastructure that we all depend on for our lives and livelihoods. These lithium hacks do this to drive up the cost of energy and increase their profits as they are able to justify horrendously destructive and exploitative mining and manufacturing practices. They hide the environmental and humanitarian costs of their profits, and they use their influence to make the government force the people to adopt their technology of profit, poverty, and environmental destruction. In the name of saving the world, the lithium and cobalt shills cause it more harm than ever as they ravage the planet of its resources and and impoverish it’s people.
VOICE – “what technologies are cheaper and cleaner than nat gas” – nice job moving those goal posts. Excellent use of the motte and bailey fallacy. No, CHIP (whom you defend and upvote on the regular) has said coal and oil are cleaner than wind and solar. Defend that one now.
The boomers now care about the environment AND poor people! The world is saved. We’ll all pretend the last 50 years didn’t happen @VOR
7:42 – Nope. It’s just that the carbon shills fail to compare the huge amounts of damage from their obsolete technology to the relatively minor (in comparison) effects of the replacement technologies.
@VOR looking for “robust discussion” in an edhat comment section LMFAO ultimate boomer move
@ 10:48, what technologies are cheaper and cleaner than nat gas to cook and heat that include cleaner electrical generation? There aren’t any, if there where, the entire undeveloped world would be using them.
TD – thinking I’m a boomer shows how inaccurate your thoughts of me and my opinions are.
Sac that was specific to @1048’s comment “It is foolhardy to advocate expanding its use [nat gas] when better technologies are already cheaper.” I would love to learn about this breakthrough and world changing technology. What is it!
VOICE – so you don’t support CHIP’s assertion that oil is cleaner than wind and solar? You sure acted like it both times he’s said it here.
CHICO – No assumptions here, it’s cold hard fact. Read for yourself. It’s pretty big news in the industry:
https://www.ge.com/news/press-releases/ge-renewable-energy-announces-us-blade-recycling-contract-with-veolia
https://www.energy.gov/eere/wind/articles/carbon-rivers-makes-wind-turbine-blade-recycling-and-upcycling-reality-support
https://newatlas.com/energy/ge-worlds-largest-recyclable-wind-turbine-blade
That’s cool that you’ve supposedly repaired some turbine blades, but this technology is brand new so unless you work in the future, your personal anecdote is kind useless.
9:44 – The cheaper and better are the non-carbon technologies like wind, solar, hydro, and things like gravity and thermal batteries. But, you knew that, and are just flailing around trying to spread FUD, as usual.
Sac, turbine blades are a small problem compared to batteries and solar panels. There is no practical way to recycle these highly toxic components which have around a 20 year lifespan. There is a rapidly growing backlog of solar panels and batteries that are set to be thrown away in the years ahead and this is going to be a major problem.
#1 Not that toxic
#2 Much longer lifespan than you imagine
#3 Recycling technology there
#4 Just the usual FUD
CHIP – you and others have moaned endlessly about these blades in landfills, so spare us that BS that you think it’s only a “small problem.” Once again, progress is made and one of your major concerns is alleviated, but you push those goalposts further down the denier field. If wind and solar was 100% green and free, you’d still be complaining about it.
Hey, we get it. You work in oil or gas. It’s OK to be honest about your love for pollution.
11:11
I’m not surprised to see that the slums of the world are your benchmark for how things should be done.
You don’t seem to understand infrastructure nor problems with legacy technology replacement. But, if you pay attention, you’ll see those obsolete technologies melt away everywhere.
@10:44, those are certainly cleaner / greener, but they are no way cheaper. Someday they will be but that day isn’t today. If that were the case, you’d see the slums of the world with solar panels and windmills rather than propane takes and gasoline generators.
“The fact is, solar and wind can’t provide the power we need when we need it.” – It’s a relatively new technology, making progress almost daily. It’s not perfect now, but it’s still cleaner than oil and gas. The only way for it to help us is if we use it. Sure, it may take a long while before we can completely stop using fossil fuels, but we can’t just ignore the cleaner alternative because it hasn’t been perfected yet.
Yes, coal is cheaper, but at what cost? Fossil fuel production/use kills over a million people each year around the world. If you and VOICE are really so concerned about the world’s poor not being able to afford renewable energy sources, then I hope you are actively supporting government subsidies for renewable development and use!
Coal only looks cheaper to these denier shills because all the subsidies and costs from their ill effects aren’t being considered. Willful ignorance on display.
Sac, if solar and wind could actually provide the energy the world needs id be open to it. The fact is, solar and wind can’t provide the power we need when we need it. The us is forging ahead with dismantling the infrastructure to provide reliable energy without a viable replacement in place. This will result in dramatically higher prices and shortages. This is also why China is building coal power plants as rapidly as possible, since coal is a low cost and reliable way to make electricity. Ironically, this coal generated electricity powers the manufacture of “green” solar panels and lithium batteries which are made in China to take advantage of the low cost coal power and cheap labor. Even more ironically, as the cost of energy increases in the us, more and more electricity intensive processes are being offshored to places like China that offer cheap coal power.
@11:21 you conveniently ignored your erroneous assertion that these technologies are cheaper. They will be, eventually, but aren’t yet, and just as importantly, we’ll need fossil fuels to make them cheaper.
@5:36 if you ignore the subsidies for fossil fuels you need to ignore the subsidies for solar, wind, etc. when comparing apples to apples. Even then, it just isn’t reality to say those sources are cheaper when you also include the batteries and energy storage to make it reliable – it’s not cheaper yet! but will be. Other than nuclear being slow to come online you’re flat wrong on nuclear, the per-unit cost of the electricity over the plants lifetime is incredibly low and how the relative small volume of waste is relatively easy to store safely. see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dry_cask_storage#:~:text=Dry%20cask%20storage%20is%20a,either%20welded%20or%20bolted%20closed.
says the guy citing Wikipedia…… LOL
Edhat, why is it that if we select ‘Most recent comments’ OR ‘First commented’ we get the same comment at the top? And it’s from GT, so that’s weird.
I thought… that since it was such a great comment to get 28 REPLY’s it was just first & last.
It’s because you don’t understand reply threading. All of the posts after GT’s and before yours and mine are replies to his post, and thus threaded under it. It would be confusing to separate them from the thread.
BASICINFO805 – let us show you how to use the Internet…
GREKA, say no more…
Greka is an awful joke of a company, they’ve been spilling for YEARS. Avoiding worker and environmental safety regulations, crashing trucks, leaking pipelines. All oil companies are cartoonishly backwards cesspools if you look hard enough but at least the main ones stay in compliance. Not complying is part of Greka’s business model.
Greka is a fine example of fossil fuel industry irresponsibility and determination to pollute at will. Burning fossil fuels pollute land, air and water, and are proven heat source disruptors of the earth’s climate. The “mining” of fossil fuel is notoriously destructive and polluting. Alternatives – solar , wind, geothermal heating/cooling , magnetic propulsion, hydrogen, and other “clean” power technologies are far cleaner and less damaging overall (and in the long run much cheaper) than the development and burning of fossil fuels. Some of the biggest hinderances to adopting clean energy is inertia (difficult to change from one source to another), extremely well paid jobs in the industry (which creates an understandable concern for job loss) and the enormous power of the fossil fuel industry.
Recycling we ship overseas isn’t that “green” either.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dSL6HuqM0Yc
Here is the current problem facing recycling old solar panels
“There’s a cost problem in the US because it’s way more expensive to recycle than it is to dump. It costs less than $1 to dump a panel in a landfill and between $12-25 to recycle it, but only $3 is paid out for recovered aluminum, copper, and glass”.
YouTube. The go to source for any disinformation you need on any subject.
Chip isn’t that far off saying oil and gas are cleaner than wind and solar. Granted the wind is clean, the solar energy is clean, but what is not clean is all the stuff mined, extracted, smelted, manufactured, recycled, most of it overseas in Asia.
Here is a current map of Asian air pollution, then go to the pollution map of North America at the same link. Then deny we are outsourcing pollution.
https://aqicn.org/map/asia/
We use a ton of fossil fuels in the USA but somehow how pollution in North America is lower than the places USA imports everything from. Explain?
Sorry, you’re just wrong. You’re not accounting for all the damage the production and use of fossil fuels cause.
Honest question: how may acres or square miles, of solar panels (where the natural ecosystem destroyed to install the solar arrays) would it take to replace the potential energy production a single natural gas well on less than an acre of land? How much earth needs to be mined to produce the steel for that single oil well vs. the earth minded to produced the solar arrays? These are questions everyone should be asking, and questions anyone in government pushing for the abolition of fossil fuels should have answers to. It’s easy to say “let’s make our energy infrastructure green” or “build more affordable housing” or “solve homelessness”, but real leadership would have a robust and well thought out plan (including all the +/- consequences) to accomplish that. We don’t have real leadership, we have rhetoric – which doesn’t solve anything.
EDNY – “Chip isn’t that far off saying oil and gas are cleaner than wind and solar.” No, he’s MILES away from being close. From material sourcing to operations, wind and solar blow fossil fuels away on the cleanliness scale.
Not that you’ll read it, or if you do, actually believe it, but a lot of great info and answers in this article: https://www.wri.org/insights/setting-record-straight-about-renewable-energy
If you’d like to know more about toxic oil companies and why we’re still using 19th century fuel, please check out the book, “Suppressed Inventions” by Jonathan Eisen.
Reminds me of the old saying, what do you call alternative medicine that actually works? Medicine.
Let’s try to stick with the real world here, and not the Qniverse.
Search “nevada lithium mine news” It’s not/will not be all overseas.