TOTAL has a partnership with FIDE...Alberta, time to knock on doors :)

[Larry Bevand]

FIDE announced a new partnership with TOTAL



The International Chess Federation is pleased to announce a new partnership with TOTAL.

With presence in more than 130 countries and over 100,000 employees, TOTAL is a major energy player, which produces and markets fuels, natural gas, and low-carbon electricity. The company’s ambition is to become “the responsible energy major, providing energy that is safer, more affordable, cleaner and accessible to as many people as possible”.

By this agreement, TOTAL becomes one of the sponsors of the Women’s Grand Prix series 2019-20, as well as the Women’s Rapid and Blitz World Championship 2019. Thanks to TOTAL’s support, two new special trophies are established:

• A prize for the Best Overall Performance in the FIDE Women Rapid and Blitz World Championship 2019. This trophy will be awarded to the player who achieves the best combined result in the blitz and rapid categories.

• A prize for the Best Overall Performance in the Women’s Grand Prix Series, combining the results attained in Skolkovo, Monaco, Lausanne, and Italy.

The partnership, which became effective on December 1st, will have a duration of half a year.

More info about TOTAL Group:

Official site: www.total.com




Total Exploration & Production in Canada

Total has been present in Canada’s upstream since 1999. In addition to Fort Hills, the Group holds a 50% interest in the Surmont project with a gross capacity of 150,000 barrels of oil per day. In 2017, the Group’s production in Canada was 59,000 barrels of oil per day

[Neil Frarey]

For a sober look at TOTAL SA ...

https://www.climatechangenews.com/20...l-major-total/

"As the fifth largest publically traded oil and gas company in the world, Total is responsible for the emissions of a supreme amount of carbon dioxide, which is the prime cause of climate change. The company operates in over 130 countries, and mines 2.3 million barrels of oil equivalent every day."

[Bob Armstrong]

thanks Neil - any economic partnerships now that ignore climate change are to be boycotted, IMHO.

Bob A

[Sid Belzberg]

For a sober look at TOTAL SA ...

https://www.climatechangenews.com/20...l-major-total/

"As the fifth-largest publically traded oil and gas company in the world, Total is responsible for the emissions of a supreme amount of carbon dioxide, which is the prime cause of climate change. The company operates in over 130 countries, and mines 2.3 million barrels of oil equivalent every day."

Neil, 90% of greenhouse gasses are water vapor from oceans, 6% is carbon and the other 4% is methane and other gasses. The radiative balance in the atmosphere will not change one way or the other even if we halved or doubled the carbon emissions as most of the radiation is already absorbed by the water that leads to the greenhouse effect. To be sure I am all for clean and renewable energy but expecting that by achieving carbon emission goals will change the climate one way or the other is sheer folly.

Therefore, shunning Total as a potential sponsor of chess serves no useful purpose.

[Neil Frarey]

Sidney, surely you're not saying that carbon dioxide doesn't contribute to global warming? Are you?

In this day and age?

You hold stock in Total SA?

[Sid Belzberg]

Sidney, surely you're not saying that carbon dioxide doesn't contribute to global warming? Are you?

In this day and age?

You hold stock in Total SA?

Dear Neil,
Read very carefully what I posted. The lions share of the Greenhouse effect is caused by water vapor, the relative percentage of contributions of CO2 will not
change the climate materially one way or the other. I do not hold stock in any fossil fuel company including Total.

[Bob Armstrong]

The Greenhouse Effect

Wikipedia

This is the process by which radiation from a planet's atmosphere warms the planet's surface to a temperature above what it would be without this atmosphere. Radiatively active gases in a planet's atmosphere radiate energy in all directions.

The atmosphere of Earth is the layer of gases, commonly known as air, that surrounds the planet Earth and is retained by Earth's gravity. The atmosphere of Earth protects life on Earth by creating pressure allowing for liquid water to exist on the Earth's surface, absorbing ultraviolet solar radiation, warming the surface through heat retention (greenhouse effect), and reducing temperature extremes between day and night (the diurnal temperature variation).

By volume, dry air contains 78.09% nitrogen, 20.95% oxygen, 0.93% argon, 0.04% carbon dioxide, and small amounts of other gases.^[8] Air also contains a variable amount of water vapor, on average around 1% at sea level, and 0.4% over the entire atmosphere.

Sid - reading this, it would seem to conflict with your contention that "water vapor" is the major percentage of the atmosphere and bears the "lion's share" of being the cause of trapped heat above the earth (The Greenhouse Effect gone rogue, due to Anthropogenic Negative Climate Change activity).

Am I wrong in my thinking on this?

Also, because I have been very interested in this topic of "atmosphere" and "greenhouse effect", can you give any source confirming your opinion that water vapor is so significant a cause of "greenhouse effect" that reduction of any other atmospheric gases (E.g. CO2 is quite irrelevant to reversing negative climate change we are creating?

[Peter McKillop]

Bob, I believe Sid was referring to the makeup of greenhouse gasses, not the makeup of the atmosphere as a whole.

[Bob Armstrong]

Peter - seems like a good distinction - lower atmosphere (regular air) composition vs Stratosphere composition.

I think of the gasses causing the most problem in the highest atmosphere, causing our increasing "greenhouse effect" to the point of negative climate change, as methane and CO2.

I have not seen reference, as Sid has maintained, that ordinary water vapor in the highest atmosphere is by far the most significant heat-trapper.....to the effect that it is practically useless to reduce CO2 & Methane, without reducing Water Vapor. That is why I am asking for confirmatory sources on this (I have done some modest reading on this, though make no claim to be educated on this complex issue).

[Bob Armstrong]

Stratospheric water vapor has a positive climate feedback effect: a warming climate increases stratospheric water vapor, and the increased stratospheric water vapor enhances surface warming. There is strong debate on the importance of this feedback. Previous studies reported a wide range of stratospheric water vapor feedback strength from 0.02 to 0.3 Wm^-2K^-1, with the high-end magnitude comparable to that of the surface albedo or cloud feedback. Furthermore, the stratospheric water vapor feedback is modified by interactive ozone chemistry through changes in the Brewer-Dobson circulation and tropical tropopause temperature. But the magnitude of this chemical modification is highly uncertain. The purpose of this study is to quantify the stratospheric water vapor feedback, its impact on surface warming, and its modification by interactive ozone chemistry in the Goddard Earth Observing System Model, Version 5 (GEOS-5).

https://ams.confex.com/ams/21Fluid19...per319586.html

[Bob Gillanders]

I share Bob's sentiment that we should consider a potential sponsor's ethical and environmental records.
I visited the website for Total and found two reports:

2019 Climate change report: Integrating Climate into our strategy - 60 pages
Lobbying Ethics Charter dated January 2016

So maybe you want to review those documents, rather than relying on any opinions expressed here.
Maybe this Oil & Gas giant takes these issues seriously, or maybe it's all a pile of propaganda BS. ??

Or perhaps we should ask a real expert in this field, Time's person of the year, Greta Thunberg.

[Vlad Drkulec]

Obviously this is the comedy thread.

[Neil Frarey]

Sidney, here's some for you to chew on...

Total was held responsible for one of France’s worst environmental disasters to date, when a ship that they had chartered split off the Bay of Biscay in stormy waters, spilling roughly 20,000 tonnes of oil.

The disaster spoiled 400km of coastline around Brittany and killed up to 100,000 birds. The company was found guilty of negligence and fined €375,000 and ordered to pay nearly €200 million to those who were impacted by the spill.

The oil giant tried to appeal against the charges, saying that they were not responsible for the state of the 24-year old ship because they didn’t own it, but a French court upheld the original decision in a 2012 appeal hearing.

https://www.climatechangenews.com/20...l-major-total/


It was one of Europe's grimmest maritime oil spills, suffocating hundreds of miles of France's Atlantic coastline with a tide of black, toxic heavy fuel and killing or injuring 300,000 sea birds. Yesterday in a historic ruling, a Paris court held that the oil giant Total was responsible for the 1999 sinking of the ageing oil tanker Erika and must pay millions of euros in damages.

The slick fouled 250 miles of coastline and crippled local industries, including sea-salt production, oyster-farming, fishing, hotels and tourism.

...

https://www.theguardian.com/environm...ills.pollution


Merry Christmas.

[Hugh Brodie]

I guess we'll have to boycott the Wijk aan Zee tournament..sponsored by a polluting company called Tata Steel?

[Graham Sorgard]

Sidney, here's some for you to chew on...

Total was held responsible for one of France’s worst environmental disasters to date, when a ship that they had chartered split off the Bay of Biscay in stormy waters, spilling roughly 20,000 tonnes of oil.

The disaster spoiled 400km of coastline around Brittany and killed up to 100,000 birds. The company was found guilty of negligence and fined €375,000 and ordered to pay nearly €200 million to those who were impacted by the spill.

The oil giant tried to appeal against the charges, saying that they were not responsible for the state of the 24-year old ship because they didn’t own it, but a French court upheld the original decision in a 2012 appeal hearing.

https://www.climatechangenews.com/20...l-major-total/


It was one of Europe's grimmest maritime oil spills, suffocating hundreds of miles of France's Atlantic coastline with a tide of black, toxic heavy fuel and killing or injuring 300,000 sea birds. Yesterday in a historic ruling, a Paris court held that the oil giant Total was responsible for the 1999 sinking of the ageing oil tanker Erika and must pay millions of euros in damages.

The slick fouled 250 miles of coastline and crippled local industries, including sea-salt production, oyster-farming, fishing, hotels and tourism.

...

https://www.theguardian.com/environm...ills.pollution


Merry Christmas.

First as someone who farms and needs oil and gas to make fertilizer and and fuel so we can grow food I get a little tired of people throwing the petroleum industry under the bus. Everyone wants fresh food and heat and no one wants oil companies. But that is not my point, I wanted to comment on the accidents. In these situations they go after the deepest pockets, whether this is fair or not that is how they enforce the rules. I don’t think you can assume that Total is responsible, only that they had the deepest pockets. I have worked on drilling rigs (never offshore though) and if we make a colossal mistake the oil company gets blamed regardless of whose fault it is. I certainly wouldn’t turn away their money or support for a chess event.