Lars Larson on Drilling for Oil

It’s time to start drilling for oil again before the price spikes come back.

I got the chance to talk with a member of the Energy Alliance for America. The gentleman makes a convincing case that America’s making a big mistake. We’re in an economic downturn right now, yet gasoline prices haven’t sunk that far. In fact, most of us are paying just short of $3/gallon.

When the economy recovers we’re going to end up with a gigantic price spike. Is that something we have to do? No, absolutely not.

The Obama Administration could be issuing new gasoline leases to go out and drill for oil. Gas companies could be out there getting all those resources available and ready. When the economy does recover we’ll have the chance not to be paying $4 or $5 a gallon.

We could be actually paying something that will let the economy fully recover. But, could it be the agenda of the Obama Administration is that they don’t want us to have cheap gas? Ya, I thought so too.

“For more Lars click here”

Post to Twitter Post to Facebook Post to LinkedIn Post to Reddit

Posted by at 04:00 | Posted in Measure 37 | 14 Comments |Email This Post Email This Post |Print This Post Print This Post
  • jim karlock

    Those guys are so stupid that they think that $10 a gallon gas will drive us to mass transit just like in Europe.

    Oh, Wait.

    Europeans don’t use transit much either. As of 2000, 78% of mechanized travel is by CAR. And all forms of mass transit has been losing market share big time (except air).

    Of course bus mass transit DOES NOT save energy compared to average cars. In even the highest density cities’, neither bus or toy train systems can beat small cars. But these guys are planners and they live in a world without inconvenient facts. They are delusional idiots.

    As an aside there is a way to build the Columbia River Bridge without needing tolls:


    • Max

      Mass transit is for people who can not afford a car. It is that simple.

      • Zero

        Right now,
        a lot of people cannot afford many things they need.

  • Provo

    Oil is cheap and plentiful and when it was high it reduced people’s driving. Why rock the boat?

  • Steve Plunk

    There is little doubt that the high oil and gas prices of last summer help destroy consumer confidence and plunge us into a recession. You cannot expect people to pay more for gas and not cut back on other things. High energy prices drove up the price of deliveries and even fertilizer for farms. The cost of that energy spike made an immediate impact on people’s pocketbooks and psyches. Much more of an impact than the $787 billion stimulus ever will.

    For an industrialized country such as the United States to be successful we must have not energy independence but energy security. That means our own lands must be available for exploration and development. That energy security and lower prices would lead to renewed business confidence and a path out of recession. It would also allow consumers to spend more money on consumer goods rather than filling their tanks. Why do some oppose these goals? I think they just don’t like the way we Americans live.

  • Bob Clark

    Even Obama’s big meal ticket, George Soros, says the U.S is in a go-stop economy. Why? Because government is restricting rather than fostering the growth in supplies. There is still lots of domestic oil to be had. In fact, up to 1 million barrels per day of added oil production capacity sits untapped because folks don’t want to touch a remote place like the Alaskan National Wildlife Refuge. I think punching a few holes in a remote place like this is even a better environmental solution than stringing tens of thousands of miles of new transmission lines for expansive wind mill complexes.

  • v person

    “The Obama Administration could be issuing new *gasoline* leases …”

    Great idea Lars. That would save the need for refining altogether. Why hasn’t this been thought of before?

    • Steve Plunk

      That added nothing of value to the discussion. Trolls are pathetic.

      • v person

        It was offered as a point of factual clarification Steve. And on this site, that is needed more often than not.

        What is a troll?

        • Steve Plunk

          The snark you used was evidence it was not merely factual clarification. Playing innocent now only makes you look more juvenile. I expect you post enough to know what a troll is and why the term fits. Here’s an idea, try adding something of substance to the debate. Opine why the exploration and development of domestic energy reserves would be a bad thing.

          • v person

            OK. I don’t think exploring for domestic reserves IS a bad thing. I’ve supported opening the Arctic refuge to oil exploration ever since we invaded Iraq, rationalizing that if we are willing to send folks off to kill and be killed to secure oil in the Mid east then we should be willing to sacrifice some of our few remaining wild lands.

            But according to the experts, there is not enough oil in the Refuge or far off shore to make much of a difference for us. And since by definition those are the last options we have, then what? Oil sands and tars take as much energy to extract as they contain, so that is zero sum.

            I don’t see any rational way forward other than a full bore effort to develop alternative energy sources and improve our conservation as fast as we can. If we are able to tap additional domestic sources, we ought to tax the hell out of them, like they do in Alaska, and use the proceeds to help develop the alternatives.

            And yes, I was being snarky with Lars. No apologies there. But I still don’t know what a troll is. To me, the Catalyst is an open access site to post ideas or comments as long as one avoids personal attacks, obscenity, and so forth. Am I wrong about that?

          • Steve Plunk

            ANWR is one piece of the puzzle not a solution in itself. There are estimates of very large reserves on the outer continental shelf and in proven areas like the California coast. Technologies are improving that allow oil shale extraction and extraction of natural gas from fields where it was once not economically feasible.

            Conservation is far and away better than alternative energy which has proven to be non cost effective. Why make consumers pay for alternatives that cost a lot by taxing them on less expensive energy?

            Off shore oil is environmentally sound (much safer than tanker shipping) and would provide a part of the solution. Nuclear has advanced and would provide part of the solution. Rather than tear down dams we should keep them as part of the solution. Natural gas will be part of the solution. The problem is today’s Democratic party believes in none of those. Those are rational choices being ignored by the likes of Henry Waxman and Nancy Pelosi.

            I should quickly correct your false assertion we invaded Iraq over oil. We invaded because of a series of events including the original Gulf War and 9/11. We removed a murdering tyrant and have started the spread of democracy in the Middle East. Even the Iranians recognize that.

            A troll is a disruptive poster who doesn’t debate but rather tosses out snarky comments while misrepresenting facts or statements. You knew full well Lars made a minor error referring to oil leases as gasoline leases. It was not a material error since gasoline and oil prices are connected and synonymous to consumers.

            You can certainly post here but how seriously you are taken depends on you behaving like an adult not an adolescent.

          • v person

            “The problem is today’s Democratic party believes in none of those. ”

            The D party is not unified on this or any other topic. There are Democrats who support each alternative you list, and those that oppose each. What most elected Ds at the federal level seem to agree on is a robust effort at conservation and alternative energy. Rocky Mountain natural gas drilling is proceeding at a fast pace by the way. Many Republicans voted against drilling for oil, even though they had 12 years to open things up if that was their priority. Nukes are not being built primarily due to financial choices made by private utility companies. They are free to build them in most states but choose not to for good reasons. Too expensive and too risky.

            “I should quickly correct your false assertion we invaded Iraq over oil.”

            I did not say it was the only reason, but it was a key reason. There are murdering tyrants all over the place we have not invaded, Darfur and the Congo being two current examples where millions are being slaughtered as we blog. You can add Syria, Burma, North Korea, Cuba, Belauruss, China, and several of the “Stans” to the list of tyrant states. Iraq sits on the 2nd largest pool of oil in the world. That raised the ante a lot. We are not “spreading democracy” anywhere Steve. Democracy grows from the ground up or not at all, with rare exceptions.

            “A troll is a disruptive poster who doesn’t debate but rather tosses out snarky comments while misrepresenting facts or statements.”

            I’m happy you defined it. I don’t fit that description. Snarky at times? Yes, I’ll plead guilty, but less so than Jerry and Rupert, who post regularly here. Are they trolls as well? Do I misrepresent facts? I don’t think so. I point out facts that make conservatives uncomfortable. Do I seek to debate? Absolutely. In return I am more often than not subject to attacks and innuendos.

            But I admit I was picking on poor Lars, and I suspect he knows the difference between gasoline and oil. Still, I wonder what he might do to a liberal guest on his show who makes the same error.

            I have no illusions about being taken seriously here. I have gotten enough feedback that what is welcome is preaching to or from the choir. Nevertheless, you need me, so I continue to serve.

  • Ali

    That’s an ignorant statement. Drilling for oil takes years even to turn a profit. Oil companies sell on the world market, and are not charity organizations trying to nurture the US Economy. Drilling here will not mean lower oil prices here. Get it?

Stay Tuned...

Stay up to date with the latest political news and commentary from Oregon Catalyst through daily email updates:

Prefer another subscription option? Subscribe to our RSS Feed, become a fan on Facebook, or follow us on Twitter.

Twitter Facebook

No Thanks (close this box)