Lars Larson: The new plan to “Drill Baby Drill” by the Obama Administration

I know people say I ought to be happy that the Obama administration is allowing for some oil drilling. In fact, for all the big press conference and the bio-fuel military jet, all they opened up was some areas off Virginia

For the rest of it””the Gulf Coast and the coast of Florida””all they are allowing is exploration. “You can look around oil companies. If you happen to find something come back to us. We’ll run you through all the regulations and have you write all the environmental statements. Then, maybe, we’ll lease it to you. But that will be ten years from now.”

Meanwhile, off the coast of California, Oregon and Washington where 75% of the known reserves are there is no drilling allowed at all.

That’s what passes for energy policy in the Obama nation? Wow.

“For more Lars click here”

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

Posted by at 06:00 | Posted in Measure 37 | 44 Comments |Email This Post Email This Post |Print This Post Print This Post
  • Rupert in Springfield

    The offshore oil drilling thing is a dopey sap move.

    BO played Stupak for a dopey sap with the executive order on abortion funding in health care maneuver.

    The offshore oil drilling is the same thing – pointed straight at the usual suspects in the Republican party – Olympia Snow et al.

    The idea is to get the saps to start going along with him on some issues by appearing reasonable in allowing drilling. Of course any idiot would know BO has about as much interest in domestic oil drilling as he does in domestic gun ownership – zero. Of course those in congress are not just any idiots so more than a few will fall for this. Unless you are on welfare or work for the government ( sorry for the redundancy ) BO is about making your life harder, not easier. You think he wants more domestic oil? Don’t hold your breath.

    • David Appell

      > You think he wants more domestic oil?

      No, he doesn’t, and this is a very good thing. He want alternative, carbon-free energy. So should you, if you cared about what is good for your offspring (or just the future).

      • Steve Plunk

        Leaving a ruined economy for our children based upon discredited ideas makes no sense. Oil has many years left to serve us until natural gas becomes our primary energy source. Raising artificial barriers through government only distorts the market and harms all of us.

        • David Appell

          > Leaving a ruined economy for our children based upon
          > discredited ideas makes no sense.

          The science of (anthropogenic) climate change is stronger than ever, even more so than a year ago. Which was stronger than the year before that, and so on. A few nasty words in a few personal emails and one person’s failure to response to FOIA requests hardly undoes basic physics, or the thousands of peer-reviewed papers that have established AGW over the last several decades.

          Did you miss this?

          “U.K. Panel Calls Climate Data Valid,” NY Times, 3/30/10
          https://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/31/science/earth/31climate.html?src=mv

          You free to keep deceiving yourself, of course.

          • jim karlock

            *David Appell:* The science of (anthropogenic) climate change is stronger than ever, even more so than a year ago. Which was stronger than the year before that, and so on.
            *JK:* Would that stronger than ever science include Phil Jones, head of the CRU which underlies the IPCC statements to the BBC:
            —BBC: Do you agree that *from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming*
            CRU Head, Dr. Jones: *Yes,* but only just

            —BBC: Do you agree that from January 2002 to the present there has been statistically significant global cooling?
            CRU Head, Dr. Jones: No. This period is even shorter than 1995-2009. *The trend this time is negative (-0.12C per decade),* but this trend is not statistically significant.

            —BBC:- Do you agree that according to the global temperature record used by the IPCC, the rates of global warming from 1860-1880, 1910-1940 and 1975-1998 were identical?
            CRU Head, Dr. Jones: So, in answer to the question, *the warming rates for all 4 periods are similar and not statistically significantly different from each other.*

            —- BBC- If you agree that there were similar periods of warming since 1850 to the current period, and that the MWP is under debate, what factors convince you that recent warming has been largely man-made?
            CRU Head, Dr. Jones: The fact that *we can’t explain the warming from the 1950s by solar and volcanic forcing* – see my answer to your question D.

            So, there you have it form the “best” that climate “science” has to offer:
            1. *The world quit warming in 1995.*
            2. *The world has been cooling since 2002.*
            3. *There was nothing unusual about the rate of the recent warming.*
            4. We know that the, not unusual, recent warming which stopped in 1995 and has reversed since 2002 was man caused because, *applying flat earth logic, we can’t figure out an alternative explanation.* And, David, you heard Hansen say the same thing (item 4) at OSU a few months back. You have nothing except sloppy guess work.

            Pretty lame, David. That anyone would still believe in catastrophic, man caused, warming is laughable.

            *David Appell:* A few nasty words in a few personal emails and one person’s failure to response to FOIA requests hardly undoes basic physics, or the thousands of peer-reviewed papers that have established AGW over the last several decades.
            *JK:* Yep, that’s it. Ignore the fact that the email contain evidence of criminal activity intended to maintain the climate fraud:
            1. Subversion of the FOI act, *a crime.*
            2.Manipulating data to fit a desire outcome. *Scientific fraud,* a probable crime when government funding is involved.
            3. Asking others to lie about a date, a *probable crime* when government funding is involved.
            4. Asking others to delete emails subject to FOI, a *probable criminal conspiracy.*

            *David Appell:* Did you miss this?
            “U.K. Panel Calls Climate Data Valid,” NY Times, 3/30/10
            https://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/31/science/earth/31climate.html?src=mv
            *JK:* That was a whitewash & any intelligent person realizes this. But is does give temporary cover for the liars, their fellow travelers and their paid bloggers.

            *David Appell:* You free to keep deceiving yourself, of course.
            *JK:* Feel free to keep ignoring reality and using flat earth logic.
            Thanks
            JK

          • David Appell

            > Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no
            > statistically-significant global warming

            The first decade of the 21st century was by far warmer than the previous decade, which was warmer than the previous century, which was warmer than the century before that.

            Theorem: The world is _always_ cooling.
            Proof: Consider the highest temperature point ever measured. Unless it occurred this day/week/month/year, the world is, by definition, cooler.

            Hence, unless a new temperature record is set EVERY day, the world is “cooling.”

            That’s obviously BS, but is the type of logic JK is using here by insisting on taking 1998 as a starting point.

            (BTW, NASA GISS has 2007 as the warmest yr in existence.)

          • jim karlock

            *David Appell:* The first decade of the 21st century was by far warmer than the previous decade, which was warmer than the previous century, which was warmer than the century before that.
            *JK:* Thanks David, for showing that there is a, centuries long, natural background warming coming out of the littel ice age which continues to the present. More evidence that our recent warming (if it still exists) is nothing unusual. Especially when combined with Jones’ verification that the rate of warming is nothing unusual.

            *David Appell:* That’s obviously BS, but is the type of logic JK is using here by insisting on taking 1998 as a starting point.
            *JK:* You need to brush up on your reading comprehension. The year was in Jones’ quote, not my choice. BTW it was 1995

            Just to refresh your memory:
            —BBC: Do you agree that *from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming*
            CRU Head, Dr. Jones: *Yes,* but only just

            *David Appell:* (BTW, NASA GISS has 2007 as the warmest yr in existence.)
            *JK:* Not relevant:
            1. All the data is suspect because of tampering by criminal scientists.
            2. Irrelevant – the real question is what is the evidence that man has caused warming and the bust case you have is simply laughable and can be summed up as:

            We know that the, not unusual, recent warming which stopped in 1995 and has reversed since 2002 was man caused because, *applying flat earth logic, we can’t figure out an alternative explanation.*

            Please address this problem, and quit wating our time with diversions.
            Thanks
            JK

          • David Appell

            It’s funny, Jim: before these recent Jones quotes, you considered him just another part of the IPCC conspiracy. Now you consider his thoughts holy writ.

            What changed?

          • jim karlock

            *David Appell:* It’s funny, Jim: before these recent Jones quotes, you considered him just another part of the IPCC conspiracy. Now you consider his thoughts holy writ.
            *JK:* Come on David, even you aren’t that stupid. I just used his quotes because your side considers him one of the climate Gods, not me. But it is nice to see that he is finally telling the truth.

          • David Appell

            > JK: That was a whitewash

            Why?

          • jim karlock

            Because many of the committee members are warmers.

            Because they didn’t take input from several important realists.

            Thanks
            JK

      • Anonymous

        We may be running out of cheap easy to get to oil, but we still have 100 years worth of oil sand in Alberta Canada for the planet. Not counting 100 years of oil shale in the United State, for the United States and then you add all the oil we are not allowed to drill for in the US.

        We do have a problem with government and green road blocks, not supply.

      • Hawk

        “He want (sic) alternative, carbon-free energy”

        Hahahah. David, define “carbon free”. There is no such thing. You know even less about thermodynamics than you do about physics.

        • David Appell

          Solar. Wind. Wave. Tidal. Geothermal. Are they 100% carbon-free from source to use? Of course not, and no one claims so. But the are far, far, far better than fossil fuels with respect to the climate. That’s the point (which I’m sure you knew already).

          • jim karlock

            And which of these can supply our current usage at the current cost or lower?

            Or are you counting on people shivering in the dark from the lack of energy to meet the shortfall?

            Thanks
            JK

          • Anonymous

            It was fossil fuel that saved our Forrest, because before the use of oil and gas, wood was a major fuel for warming homes and running steam engines.

  • BONO

    Hey, this is a step inthe right direction. Why cannot we just compliment Obama for once?

    • hapypacy

      In one word…distrust. This President doesn’t know how to speak truthfully.

  • valley p

    “Meanwhile, off the coast of California, Oregon and Washington where 75% of the known reserves are there is no drilling allowed at all. ”

    Huh? (a) there are pretty much zero “known reserves” of oil off the coasts of Washington and Oregon. Second, there are a fair amount of known reserves already being pumped out in California. Third, most of the remaining suspected off shore reserves are in the Gulf of Mexico, not in the Pacific.

    As for the rest…it exposes the hypocrisy of the right. They can’t credit Obama with anything, even when he hands them what they say they wanted on a silver platter.

    • Steve Plunk

      The analysis from energy experts is this is an empty gesture. It’s theater much like Obama’s claim of a bipartisan health care bill. You don’t give credit for such nonsense.

      • valley p

        Empty gesture? The right is unhappy being given something for nothing, the opportunity to explore and produce offshore oil without having to negotiate on renewable energy and carbon limits. I suspect the reason they are unhappy is because they know there is not much recoverable oil out there, so the game they played that we have plenty of domestic oil will now be exposed for what it always was…a diversion.

        And I’d still like to know…where does Lars get his misinformation? Why do his fans never call him on his nonsense?

        • Steve Plunk

          Read my previous post. The experts conclude this is an empty gesture. The areas where drilling will be allowed are not promising while the good areas have been kept off limits.

  • Bob Clark

    It is obvious Lars is right about this being not much more than image making. It’s part of Bama’s old bait and switch game. The lifting of the ban is on exploratory drilling, not on drilling to actually produce oil once found in economically sizeable deposits offshore. Any finds are subject to a bevy of environmental review and processes. What this “lifting” is really for is to help provide Bama with a sound bite for saying his policies are balanced when in fact very soon he will be pushing congress to enact more restrictive policies on low cost energy production.

    Meahwhile, despite over ten years of heavy subsidization of renewable energy the nation still faces rising oil import bills. For all this hundreds of billions of dollars of government subsidization and all the extra transmission wires required by the Democratic party’s energy policy, just opening the Alaskan National Wildlife Refuge would have provided much, much more in terms of energy supply.

    Time to replace the DEM-wits come this November.

  • David Appell

    As valley_p correctly notes, Larson is extremely wrong with his assertion that 75% of known offshore reserves lie off the coast of California, Oregon and Washington.

    According to the latest EIA numbers (2008; see https://is.gd/berhc), 357 Mbbl oil lie off of California. 3,546 Mbbl lie in the Gulf of Mexico, and total offshore US reserves are 3,903 Mbbl. They don’t even list Oregon and Washington because there is essentially nothing there.

    So the Pacific Northwest holds 9% of offshore US oil reserves.

    By the way, the US uses about 20.8 Mbbl/day, so the California offshore reserve only represents 17 days worth of oil. Two-and-a-half weeks.

    The entire US offshore reserves represent only 6 months of US usage. That’s not worth the risk related to going after it, to both the climate and the offshore environment. Besides, we might really need that oil someday, for products not even yet envisioned.

    • Steve Plunk

      Playing loose with the facts won’t work here. You should know by now what you’re selling is subject to examination.

      Estimates of offshore reserves go much higher than the approximately 4 billion barrels you’re claiming. Most estimates come in at over 80 billion barrels. Some estimates are higher and new oil is being discovered every year. Your claim of 6 months supply is false.

      Understanding oil exploration and production takes more than just reading Time and Newsweek.

      • valley p

        There are proven reserves and speculated reserves. And then there are economically and technically recoverable reserves. You seem to be using speculated reserves with unknowable recovery levels Steve.

        And to your note above. Give me a citation on which “experts” have concluded that what Obama did was an empty gesture. I have seen no such conclusions from actual experts.

      • David Appell

        Steve, where is this 80 Bbbl data?

        • Steve Plunk

          Just Google it. It’s that simple. Do I have to do it for you? I expect everybody else did it for themselves and found the 4 billion barrel figure a total lie. The estimates are around 80 billion.

          • valley p

            The Minerals Management Service estimates that all the off shore areas, including those that up until a few days were off limits to drilling contain *18 billion barrels, not 80 billion* . The 80 billion (actually 86B) figure is for areas already open to drilling, which have been more completely explored.

            The 18B figure is based on decades old data. It could be way too low or way too high. Chances are about equal. By opening areas to seismic testing, Obama is basically saying “show me the oil.” Seismic testing is quite expensive, and oil companies will not do it unless the expect to find something, probably more than current estimates.

          • David Appell

            Steve Plunk wrote:
            > Just Google it. It’s that simple. Do I have to do it for you? I expect everybody
            > else did it for themselves and found the 4 billion barrel figure a total lie. The estimates
            > are around 80 billion.

            What is your source, Steve?

            Mine was the EIA, a well-respected agency.

            An op-ed in today’s NY Times by energy consultant Michael Lynch (ex-MIT) puts the number at “4.5 billion to 22 billion barrels of potential oil….” That’s *potential* oil, not proven reserves. It’s far, far below your number.

            And, let’s note, that even the upper end of Lynch’s estimate would represent ONLY 2.5 yrs of US oil usage. And this is your salvation? And it wouldn’t come online for years. It won’t change at all the need to find other sources of heat and transportation, and it will add to the climate problem. And use up oil future generations might need someday. We should not be pigs at the trough.

  • Anonymous

    Appell,
    You know darn well the science of AGW is in crisis and worse than ever.
    Your claim that the opposite is simply more evidence of your fanaticism and lack of ethics.
    Just as you were when lecturing about the always required and reliable IPCC peer review and THIS YEAR finding out the IPCC relied upon non-peer reviewed/baseless propaganda from Greenpeace and WWF.
    Of course the examples of folly, fraud and fatal flaws are many as they piled up over the last year.
    But due to your maniacal absence of any integrity you’d have people believe even taller tales of CO2 emissions.

    Really David, you are as honest and credible as a Sam Adams or Tre Arrow.

    A sleaze bag really, who advocates through deceit.

    As for v-dean, you’re much like the fanatics over at portlandtransport.com
    Are you familliar with their brilliance?

    • David Appell

      > the IPCC relied upon non-peer reviewed/baseless propaganda
      > from Greenpeace and WWF.

      A few mistakes in a huge 3-volume treatise changes nothing. There are frequently mistakes in scientific papers. The glory of the peer-review method, and the scientific method in general, is that such mistakes get found and corrected. What you’ve seen is a strength of the science, and none of it undoes the fundamental physics behind the concerns of AGW.

      • jim karlock

        A few mistakes???

        No David, dozens of claims supported ONLY by the green propaganda machines of the multi-million dollar, multinational green corporations like the WWF and Greenpeace.

        Not just any claims, but the key, most scary claims of future harm – just green propaganda from multinational corporations.

        Thanks
        JK

        • David Appell

          “U.K. Panel Calls Climate Data Valid”
          NY Times, 3/30/2010
          https://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/31/science/earth/31climate.html?ref=science

          • jim karlock

            Stephen Schneider of the National Center for Atmospheric Research described the scientists’ dilemma this way: “On the one hand, as scientists, we are ethically bound to the scientific method, in effect promising to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but-which means that we must include all the doubts, the caveats, the ifs, ands, and buts. On the other hand, we are not just scientists but; human beings as well. And like most people we’d like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climatic change. To do that we need to get some broadbased support, to capture the public’s imagination. *That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have.* DISCOVER OCTOBER 1989, Page 47, Bold Added (Steven Schneider is now Editor of Climate Change Journal)

            *JK:* Its incredible that anyone actually believes these admitted liars. Especially after the CRU emails, the UN usage of corporate green propaganda as sources and the NASA emails.

            Thanks
            JK

          • valley p

            So based on that quote you assume every scientist who has studied the issue and concluded that global warming is real is a liar? Your mind must appear even stranger from the inside Jim.

            Now tell us. What makes you conclude that global warming skeptics are truth tellers?

          • jim karlock

            What makes you believe the warming is cause by man after Jones and Hansen admitted that they think man caused it only because they can’t figure out an alternative explanation?

            Thanks
            JK

          • valley p

            My belief is based on the fact that every major scientific organization in the US and most of those in the world are on record that the earth is warming as a consequence of an increase in certain greenhouse gasses attributable to human activities. Had Hansen never lived this fact would be unchanged.

  • Chuck Wiese

    David Appell: Your comments that “climategate” is nothing more than a few nasty e-mails and failure to provide FOI requests is as luny of a statement as anyone could make and is completely disengenuous, which has become the MO of your posts that are peppered with dishonesty and bad information.

    Phil Jones and Michael Mann are either totally incompetent boobs that deserve to be fired, or prosecuted for their deliberate misdeeds. It is no simple matter or an acceptable answer for a supposed trained scientist to “lose” the raw temperature record requested in an FOI by Steve McIntyre that contains the bulk of the data possesed that they based their claims upon. And without it, nobody will ever know the scheming techniques used to falsify the slope of the temperature rise of the 80s and 90s decades.
    Further, it is totally statistically invalid and improper to mix the temperature records with proxied tree ring data such as was done to “hide the tree ring decline” and match up the temperature rise to the algorithms they used for their IPCC reports. These two clowns are liars and charlottans who have engaged in deceiving the public to advance the governments case claiming Co2 causes climate change.

    To this date, David, there is not ONE SINGLE MEASUREMENT of OLR off of the satelites that confirms the computer climate model projections. If you knew anything about this, you would know damn good and well that OLR must decrease as CO2 rises to validate any modeling. It has not done this and it will not do it as long as water vapor maintains its dominance in the atmospheric system, and which we know it will continue to do as long as the earth is here.

    Computer climate models are not only unscientific with respect to truncating physical parameters well short of the mathematical limits necessary to function properly, but employ an incorrect boundary value assumption of the Eddington equation which allows for a theoretical optical depth which has no limit at the bottom. This is not valid for an earth atmosphere, and Ferenc Miskolczi’s paper properly solves it using REAL measurements from TIGR radisonde profiles and HARTCODE radiation code. The earths mean optical depth only has one free variable which can change it under the balance equations used, and that is the solar forcing, not IR downwell from GHG’s. This work supports and affirms the original works done by Elsasser that you keep claiming are outdated like all the other climate kooks which have come up short of offering ANY proof that their assertions are correct.

    Your statements that climategate does not undo basic “physics” is idiotic as usual, and falls well short of offering any proof. The “physics” you refer to are grounded in error and incorrect assumptions. Crap in = Crap out, David which is a major problem with your claims. It is not as simple as claiming a more opaque atmosphere with one GHG means a warmer surface temperature when you have a complex GHG like water vapor that interacts with it, and not in ways that are modeled….and the more people like you keep clinging to the turd of AGW that keeps spoiling and stinking worse, the more foolish you will continue to look. Some are smart enough to realize this, so they are now focusing on the next public scare to try and dupe everyone with “ocean acidification”. Another huge whopper now being touted and spread as if it were fact by the queen of the AGW farce, Jane Lubchenco.

    Chuck Wiese
    Meteorologist

    • David Appell

      I see, Mr. Wiese, that you are _still_ unable to disagree with people (especially highly educated and accomplished scientists) without calling them names such as “boobs” and “queen of farce.” That might play well on extreme talk radio, but for serious people who know a few things it makes it difficult to take you seriously, and seriously detracts from your credibility. I can’t understand why you haven’t realized that by now.

      • Chuck Wiese

        David: These people, though highly educated, are not “accomplished scientists” as you claim, and do not deserve the respect of community any longer. They have a clear MO to deceive and promote for their own selfish gains and that of their client, the US government. ( and foreign governments like in the UK as well ) If they did not deceive deliberately ( which I do not believe ) they are too incompetent to do work in climate science.

        BTW, “extreme talk radio” and “deniers” are the descriptives your ilk and these “scientists” have used as personal insults for years against those who ever questioned their assertions and work and long before they dug themselves the hole they are in now. And I see you continue to do this, while continuing to assert that you are some sort of kind, honest individual that is just trying to educate people with this crap. It is not fooling anyone any longer, David. It is being disengenuous to the max.

        Chuck Wiese
        Meteorologist

        • David Appell

          Mr Wiese, do you not know that when you’re in a hole, the advice is to stop digging?

          • jim karlock

            You are the one doing the digging!

  • Anonymous

    Editorial by S. Fred Singer, President, Science and Environmental Policy Project

    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/04/03/singer-on-climategate-parliamentary-inquiry/

    ClimateGate Whitewash

    “o what do the e-mails really reveal? We know that Jones and his gang tried and largely succeeded in “hiding the decline” of temperature by using what he termed “Mike’s [Mann] Nature trick.” Most people think it refers to CRU tree ring data after 1960, which do show a decline in temperature. However, I believe that it refers to Michael Mann’s “trick” in hiding the fact that his multi-proxy data did not show the expected warming after 1979. So he abruptly cut off his analysis in 1979 and simply inserted the thermometer data supplied by Jones, which do claim a strong temperature increase. Hence the hockey-stick, suggesting a sudden major warming during the past century.
    Only a thorough scientific investigation will be able to document that there was no strong warming after 1979, that the instrumented warming record is based on data manipulation, involving the selection of certain weather stations, [and the de-selection of others that showed no warming], plus applying insufficient corrections for local heating.

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)