Al Gore criticises Obama climate policy


Guest essay by Eric Worrall

Former Vice President Al Gore has strongly criticised President Obama, for allowing oil drilling in the Arctic.

According to Al Gore;

“I think Arctic drilling is insane. I think that countries around the world would be very well advised to put restrictions on drilling for oil in the Arctic ocean,” Gore told the Guardian in Toronto, where he was passing on his techniques for talking about the climate crisis to 500 new recruits from his Climate Reality Project.

As conventional fields decline, the Arctic is the last frontier of the oil era, containing more than 20% of the world’s undiscovered, recoverable oil and gas. But after the BP oil disaster five years ago, the risks of offshore oil drilling are all too clear – and Arctic drilling should not go ahead, Gore said.

“I think the Deepwater Horizon spill was warning enough. The conditions are so hostile for human activity there. I think it’s a mistake to drill for oil in the Arctic. I think that ought to be banned,” Gore said.

Read more:

By any reasonable measure President Obama is the greenest president ever, but I guess there is no pleasing some people.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
July 17, 2015 11:17 am

OK, done with the lame duck, throw him under the bus since he didn’t advance our agenda far enough. The only thing surprising about the history of the Environmental/Socialist cabal is to use every one to their advantage then toss them aside. The only thing surprising about this is Gore is being quoted… anyone. And what’s with the finger in the pic? Since Bin Laden that seems to be the posture of choice.

Reply to  markl
July 17, 2015 11:19 am

Ooops….that should be “not” surprising.

Bryan A
Reply to  markl
July 17, 2015 12:33 pm

Can’t believe his
hasn’t been flushed away yet

george e. smith
Reply to  markl
July 17, 2015 2:27 pm

Well maybe it is Al Gore that is insane.

Reply to  markl
July 17, 2015 2:19 pm

GORE??? Isn’t he in the Wax Museum by now? He SHOULD be!

Reply to  Goldrider
July 17, 2015 5:44 pm

His prediction of an ice-free Arctic by 2013 is in the Smithsphonyan !! …. as Mother Nature continues to take the piss:

Reply to  Goldrider
July 17, 2015 5:48 pm

Al Gore did not make such a prediction.
He cited a statement made by Wieslaw Maslowski in his speech.

Reply to  Goldrider
July 17, 2015 9:37 pm

Stop lying Joel. He never mentioned that name in the speech he gave in Germany around December 12, 2008 (with the dinosaur skeleton backdrop) and it’s so embarrassing that they tried to make it disappear from the internet, and failed.
…. and so what anyway. The both of you are compulsive liars.

Reply to  markl
July 17, 2015 7:34 pm

He is showing his IQ.

Cold in Wisconsin
July 17, 2015 11:21 am

[Snip – OTT. mod]

Reply to  Cold in Wisconsin
July 17, 2015 1:29 pm

[Comment went too far. mod]

Reply to  kamikazedave
July 17, 2015 1:47 pm

My apologies.

Dodgy Geezer
Reply to  kamikazedave
July 18, 2015 6:03 am

…@kamikazedave July 17, 2015 at 1:29 pm
[Comment went too far. mod]…

CAN a comment on Gore go too far?

Roy Jones
July 17, 2015 11:23 am

“the Arctic is the last frontier of the oil era, containing more than 20% of the world’s undiscovered, recoverable oil and gas.”
If the oil and gas hasn’t been discovered yet how does he know how much is there, let alone how much of it will be recoverable? He really must be omniscient.

Reply to  Roy Jones
July 17, 2015 11:37 am

That lie has been repeated since before the first oil well was drilled. Oil was to never be found west of the Mississippi, it wasn’t in the Middle East, it wasn’t in the Arctic, and people still fall for the same mistake of thinking that the Earth has been fully explored for oil and gas. The United States perhaps has had more oil wells drilled in it than all other countries combined and we are still finding oil here. What should that tell you about the rest of the world that hasn’t been explored? Central Africa’s solution to economic prosperity is probably right under their feet.

Reply to  RWturner
July 17, 2015 11:42 am
This doesn’t include the millions of plugged producing or dry wells drilled in the U.S. It’s all about economic feasibility and infrastructure that makes the U.S. so prolific in hydrocarbons. Half of finding oil is a country welcoming in the industry, providing security and infrastructure, and the other half is the oil actually being there and producible.

Reply to  RWturner
July 17, 2015 11:48 am

I’m very upset with myself that I can’t properly attribute this; I had his name written down somewhere once.
Oil is found in the human imagination; reserves are found in the tax code.

Reply to  RWturner
July 17, 2015 12:02 pm

Central Africa in general? First need better governments. Oil won’t solve anything when governments are as corrupt and unstable as they are in that region. And there isn’t that much oil.

Reply to  RWturner
July 17, 2015 1:21 pm

Sorry, Central Africa, for example. And I agree that the region needs better governments before anyone seriously explores there, hence, this line: “Half of finding oil is a country welcoming in the industry, providing security and infrastructure.” How would you know that there isn’t much oil there? Are you as clairvoyant as Gore?

Reply to  RWturner
July 17, 2015 1:41 pm

Kim, that sounds like a twist on a famous saying from Wallace Pratt’s 1952 paper, “Toward the Philosophy of Oil Finding”. The paper is well worth the read if you can find a copy.

Reply to  RWturner
July 17, 2015 11:50 pm

“Fernando Leanme
July 17, 2015 at 12:02 pm
And there isn’t that much oil.”
Sorry, but you are very wrong. There is PLENTY of oil in Africa, along with coal, gas, gold, diamonds and many many other raw resources just waiting to be tapped.

Reply to  Roy Jones
July 17, 2015 11:40 am

We have technology which allows us to make very rough guesses at the amount of oil we can produce in a given area. This is usually done with seismic data and a broad understanding of regional geology. It’s similar to what is done to justify drilling a well, but the data is a bit skimpier.
I believe there’s very little oil left to be found around the world, the 20 % is a valid figure, but it’s not going to make a big difference except for the USA, in the sense that the economy benefits from not importing the oil.
Thus far Shell doesn’t inspire much confidence, but we will have to see what they find.

Reply to  Fernando Leanme
July 17, 2015 1:15 pm

Spoken like a true engineer. I would laugh at anyone trying to estimate reserves on seismic alone. How many times throughout history are people going to repeat the fallacy “I believe there’s very little oil left to be found around the world” and be proven wrong?
There’s a lot of places left to explore in the USA, let alone the world. New technology has been implemented recently, called stress field detection, that will greatly expand the ability to explore unexplored areas. The technology is already proving a success.
Sure looks like there’s very little new oil being found…

Reply to  Fernando Leanme
July 17, 2015 1:33 pm

RWTurner, could you please give me the source of your Known Oil Reserves graph? Thanks.

Reply to  Fernando Leanme
July 17, 2015 1:46 pm

The specific graph is from a TCU economics blog but several renditions can be found all over the web. I would assume that all of the graphs are constructed using BP’s annual global energy report.

Reply to  Fernando Leanme
July 17, 2015 8:30 pm

Fernando, you’re guessing. Nothing more.

Reply to  Fernando Leanme
July 18, 2015 3:23 am

Sigh. Let’s take you in order:
The comment was about CENTRAL AFRICA. That region has no oil worth considering because the rocks are an ancient continental shield. That’s the type of terrain to look for diamonds and minerals rather than oil.
The reserves graph is skewed by an arbitrary increase in Venezuela’s extra heavy oil reserves. That happens to be a field I happen to have considerable expertise, and I can assure the audience that oil volume was identified several decades before.
The key metric is the discovery rate. And for many years we haven’t discovered new oil reserves to replace what we are using.
Finally, the comment about the use of seismic isn’t worth answering. It shows too much disconnect from reality.

Reply to  Fernando Leanme
July 18, 2015 1:00 pm

Central Africa happens to have several sedimentary basins, the Congo/Zaire Basin, Kalahari Basin, Djouf Basin, and Chad Basin. These basins have several km of sedimentary section and have been very sporadically explored for oil and gas.
You truly believe that the global proven oil reserves has been “arbitrarily” increased from Venezuelan heavy oil? I actually find it hard to believe that you would actually believe that. I thought everyone in the industry knew that the increased global production in the last decade came primarily from horizontal resource plays in North America.
Let’s not talk about a “disconnect from reality” shall we?

Reply to  Fernando Leanme
July 18, 2015 2:35 pm

Mr Turner
I generally agree with many of your comments, where I have some reading/knowledge.
Your graph ‘Known oil reserves’ seems – to me – to be a little off-centre – with a (slowing) rise of about 30% over seven years or so, up to the time that St Barack became POTUS – and nothing since [in your graph].
Sorry – but I like decent graphs.
Others may have slipped under my radar- I do make mistakes, too.
Enjoy Sunday.

Reply to  Fernando Leanme
July 18, 2015 10:53 pm

That bump in reserves figure is probably also related to Athabasca bitumen which had a major restatement as below:
“In December 2002, Houston-based Oil & Gas Journal released its authoritative estimates of global petroleum reserves where it raised Canada’s total proved oil reserves (including conventional) nearly fortyfold from 4.9 to 180 billion barrels.”
all the best

Reply to  Fernando Leanme
July 19, 2015 3:01 am

Turner, I just retired from the oil industry, and I’m an expert in the Venezuelan oil industry. The 200 plus billion barrel sudden increase in your graph (around 2003-4) is due to the Venezuelan booking of reserves in the Orinoco oil belt. That was an arbitrary decision, and I don’t think it’s justified under current rules. However, I think they can be considered resources which could be developed if the Maduro regime falls and is replaced by a rational government.
Central African resources aren’t that significant in the grand scheme of things. The oil prone areas are small rift basins with limited potential. I’ve been looking at or worked in that region since 1987 (look up something I wrote called “Close encounters in the Chalbi Desert” if you want to have a laugh).

DD More
Reply to  Roy Jones
July 17, 2015 1:39 pm

Roy “If the oil and gas hasn’t been discovered yet how does he know how much is there”
Within the next fifteen years, the properties that make up the Naval Petroleum and Oil Shale Reserves (NPOSR) were brought under the NPOSR umbrella. This included the Naval Petroleum Reserves 1, 2, and 3 plus the Naval Oil Shale Reserves 1, 2, and 3. The Naval Petroleum Reserve Number 4, on the north slope of Alaska, was added in 1923.
If they didn’t know it was there, why did they set up Reserve #4 in 1923??

Gunga Din
July 17, 2015 11:25 am

Sounds like Al must have investments in Gulf of Mexico drilling.

July 17, 2015 11:25 am

If you want a laugh, go read Salon pumping Gore up for President.
They say he has ‘gravitas’. My friend Iggy agrees and says it is enough to give him his own gravitas field, possibly his own climate.

Reply to  kim
July 17, 2015 12:41 pm

Your friend Iggy is wrong, kim.
Gore has a strong anti-gravitas field and it growing. Need proof? He’s becoming more repulsive by the day. Soon Gore will be going from anti-matter to doesn’t-matter, but not soon enough for me.

Reply to  kim
July 17, 2015 7:38 pm

Is that where his ‘gravity’ is?

Reply to  kim
July 17, 2015 8:35 pm

Salon is a rag, I want it to be a funny rag, ut I’m just not comfortable enough in my skin to shake off the rage I feel reading their headlines to really dig in.

July 17, 2015 11:25 am

I’m pretty sure Al Gore is against drilling anywhere. I don’t know why he feels he has to qualify it due to latitude.

July 17, 2015 11:25 am

Woa! Woa! and thrice Woa! …..Listen to the Gore, he doesn’t need any more oil.

July 17, 2015 11:26 am

Can’t forget my friend Peter Bocking who said that if Al Gore’s hair caught on fire it would provide enough heat and light for a small English village.

James Francisco
Reply to  kim
July 17, 2015 11:36 am

Then should we drill for oil in his head?

Reply to  James Francisco
July 17, 2015 11:53 am

Here be hippogryts and catastrophic blowouts.

Reply to  kim
July 18, 2015 2:37 pm

For how long – a nuclear winter, or longer?

July 17, 2015 11:27 am

Oil council: Shale won’t last, Arctic drilling needed now
March 27, 2015
WASHINGTON — The U.S. should immediately begin a push to exploit its enormous trove of oil in the Arctic waters off of Alaska, or risk a renewed reliance on imported oil in the future, an Energy Department advisory council says in a study to be released Friday.
The U.S. has drastically cut imports and transformed itself into the world’s biggest producer of oil and natural gas by tapping huge reserves in shale rock formations. But the government predicts that the shale boom won’t last much beyond the next decade.
In order for the U.S. to keep domestic production high and imports low, oil companies should start probing the Artic now because it takes 10 to 30 years of preparation and drilling to bring oil to market, according to a draft of the study’s executive summary obtained by the Associated Press.
“To remain globally competitive and to be positioned to provide global leadership and influence in the Arctic, the U.S. should facilitate exploration in the offshore Alaskan Arctic now,” the study’s authors wrote.
The study, produced by the National Petroleum Council at the request of Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz, comes at a time when many argue the world needs less oil, not more. U.S. oil storage facilities are filling up, the price of oil has collapsed from over $100 a barrel to around $50, and prices are expected to stay relatively low for years to come. At the same time, scientists say the world needs to drastically reduce the amount of fossil fuels it is burning in order to avoid catastrophic changes to the earth’s climate.

Reply to  brent
July 17, 2015 11:50 am

Oil from tight rocks won’t last. It delivers a lot of oil in the first five years of well life, but it’s marginal after that. At today’s prices drilling the U.S. “Shale” fields is a money loser, but prices will rise in the medium term.

Reply to  Fernando Leanme
July 17, 2015 1:26 pm

Fernando – are you sure prices will rise in the medium term? With Iran about to put a million barrels a day into the market, I would think oil is going to stay at around US$60 a barrel for some time which is also what the Saudis want to keep US tight oil production down. The plus side to this is that the US keeps its reserves in the ground (ignoring the negative impact on shale producers and my own energy portfolio).

Reply to  Fernando Leanme
July 17, 2015 5:44 pm

Oh please!
The costs are dropping so fast those wells are more profitable at $60 than they were at $100..
Sure, they come on strong, (which gets you your capital back fast), but did you know that they actually decline slower than a conventional well late in the production?
There are 4 million barrels a day being produced already, and we have hardly applied the technology outside of the USA.
We will swim in oil for a long time.

Reply to  Fernando Leanme
July 18, 2015 3:40 am

Wayne, the decline rate for conventional oil is 4 to 7 % per year. Worldwide crude oil and condensate production is a bit less than 80 million BOPD. This means we have to perform activities to replace about 3.2 million BOPD plus per year. From what I gather there’s enough backlog of uncompleted wells in North Dakota to sustain production at 1.2 mmbopd for about a year. But the other sources are hurting, are starting a slow decline or have already been declining. The Gulf of Mexico is having extra activity caused by the Macondo backlog, but that won’t offset the other declines. This tells me USA production will be lower this summer. And I don’t think it will recover to exceed the peak we just saw.
In other regions we see a continuous decline even at $100 per barrel prices. So this leaves Iran, and Iraq as the potential growth contributors. But the overall extra oil won’t be enough to make up for decline. This tells me that crude oil production will be essentially flat between 2015 and 2016.
If production is flattish and demand increases due to economic growth we should see drawdown from storage. And this should edge oil prices higher (say to the $80 range). The higher prices will encourage more activity, but I don’t think it will be enough to increase production that much. Which implies a gradual price in crease to as much as $150 per barrel in 2015 dollars by 2035. This will keep production oscillating, possibly increasing a little bit, but crude oil plus condensate will never reach 100 Million BOPD.
I think this is Shell’s vision, they think oil prices will increase and the Arctic ice won’t be as tough. Otherwise getting into that ice in the Chukchi looks like a huge gamble.

Reply to  Fernando Leanme
July 18, 2015 6:23 am

Actually, the so called “shale” oil is actually flowing from the conventional carbonate reservoirs above and/or below the shale source beds. One cannot control fracture height pumped at 60-80 barrels per minute to keep the hydraulic fractures from breaking into these zones. In addition, it is physically impossible to get a molecule of oil out of a shale matrix in less than geologic time, when one applies the Darcy equation using a permeability in the order of magnitude for shales of 10^-8 darcies or less. Finally the first year decline rate of a typical “shale” well will be 70%-90% just like the previously exploited carbonates that are actually producing the oil. These wells may deliver a lot during the first year, but then only produce at low rates.

Reply to  brent
July 17, 2015 12:57 pm

I agree that higher prices are going to be required to justify investment required for longer term. We are seeing a lot of news to that effect. Some examples below:
Shell’s boss claims the world will face a massive energy crisis if fossil fuel production scaled back
May 20, 2015
He warned that if there was no further investment in oil production then the world could face a catastrophic 70 million barrel per day (bpd) shortfall in crude by 2040 because of the decline in existing production coupled with rising energy demand
At the same time global oil demand is expected to hit 111 million bpd of crude as growing economies in Asia require increasing volumes of fuel
Total SA chief warns Alberta NDP against tax hike
Now, industry austerity may be setting the stage for an upward spike in prices in three or four years, as new projects remain on the shelf, even as demand grows by 1 per cent a year and production from existing wells declines by 4 per cent annually. Even with no demand growth, the industry would have to develop about 50 million barrels a day of new production over the next 10 years, just to offset the decline rate.
“If we don’t have the right level of returns, we cannot do it,” Mr. Pouyanné said.
Royal Dutch Shell Plc needs US$80 per barrel oil price to restart oilsands projects, says executive
New oil bull market in sight as Brazil, Iraq cut output targets
LONDON (Reuters) – Massive downward revisions to oil output in Brazil and Iraq have increased the risks for oil markets of going from the current feast to famine within just a few years, leading to a price spike that would give a new boost to the U.S. shale industry.
Brazil and Iraq had been expected to add over 2 million barrels per day to global supply by 2020 and another 2.5 million by 2025, becoming the two biggest contributors to help meet rising global demand, according to the long-term forecast of the International Energy Agency.
With Brazil’s Petrobras cutting this week its five-year production outlook by 1.4 million bpd in response to low oil prices and the ongoing corruption probe and Iraq renegotiating deals with oil majors to reflect “more realistic” output targets, the current glut in the oil markets is poised to end sooner than expected.
The Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers said it estimated Canadian oil production would reach 5.3 million barrels per day by 2030, up from the 3.7 million bpd produced last year. In June, when crude oil prices were $40 more per barrel, CAPP estimated 2030 output at 6.4 million bpd.
“While the two forecasts are similar during the early years of the forecast period, the slower pace of production in the latter years is the result of reduced capital spending intentions due to the sharp decline in global oil prices,” the association said.
Shell expects oil price recovery to take several years

Reply to  brent
July 18, 2015 3:58 am

I see many signals showing a reduced ability to produce crude oil and condensate to meet demand unless prices climb gradually to provide better incentives. The oil price recovery depends to some extent on expectations. To me it’s evident the tight oil from the Bakken, Eagle Ford, Niobrara and others require a higher price to sustain production beyond 2016. Many companies involved in the “shale” plays are barely staying afloat, they won’t have the ability to get cash flow or loans to drill more unless the price goes to, oh, around $80.

Reply to  brent
July 17, 2015 3:11 pm

Realizing the Promise of U.S. Arctic Oil and Gas Resources

Reply to  brent
July 18, 2015 4:05 am

Appendix D chapter 6 is very good.

July 17, 2015 11:29 am

I can see concern for the difficulty in fixing an oil spill, the artic is way far away, and difficult to work. What is missed by most people is that for US companies, spilled oil is lost money. It is in their interest to prevent spills and stop them asap. Granted without legal penalties it might not be in their interest to clean up, but in terms of lost oil being lost money; they certainly want to not spill.

Reply to  AC
July 17, 2015 11:47 am

The. $20 billion penalties are a bigger concern.

July 17, 2015 11:29 am

The Arctic inherently comes with so many risks that make deep offshore exploration there very dangerous from an economic standpoint. Certainly that’s what Gorebot is talking about right, deep sea exploration, since he alluded to the BP blowout? He would never use straw man arguments, right? After all, on shore and near shore Arctic exploration have safely taken place for decades. The shifting sea ice would make deep sea Arctic exploration impossible anyways. That pesky sea ice that just won’t go away like predicted by the cult.

John F. Hultquist
Reply to  RWturner
July 17, 2015 11:44 am

shifting sea ice
Say what? How can something that doesn’t exist shift?
“The final collapse … is now happening and will probably be complete by 2015/16,” Prof Peter Wadhams of Cambridge University told The Guardian.

Reply to  RWturner
July 17, 2015 11:45 am

Onshore is a piece of cake. Offshore gets hairy. I would love to get a look at Shell’s internal reports to see what they have in mind. I guess they’ll use something like a deluxe version of the Russian Prirazlomnoye platform.

Reply to  Fernando Leanme
July 17, 2015 1:39 pm

Let’s go back to the late 70’s and early 80’s when the big rush to the arctic to look for oil and gas took place. Lots of arctic technology was proven but we found lots of much more accessible oil and gas so it sits and waits. With new horizontal drilling techniques, some of that old technology will be even more viable if and when the time comes.
Remember the Mackenzie Valley Pipeline proposed in the early 1970’s? And left due to environmental and “local” concerns? It was eventually approved in 2011 but still awaits construction. Maybe someday, maybe never; maybe two pipelines. Around 2000 wells have been drilled.

July 17, 2015 11:33 am

I’m pretty sure the only country that will be following Mr. Gore’s wishes is Russia. No drilling in the Arctic, no way.

Terry - somerset
July 17, 2015 11:35 am

As a politician and (I assume) a pragmatist, Gore should read the UN Myworld survey showing climate change as the issue of least consequence to the world public – and even in developed wealthy countries it is a matter of little current concern.
It is not a vote winner as it is unlikely to convince many but the wealthy professional classes with a comfortable disposable income at present.
I do however wonder whether, in 50 years time when the science is settled through actual observational data, my grandchildren will be pleased that they are:
– educated etc and living in a society with sufficient income to adapt to likely climate impacts, or
– will blame earlier generations for their profligate and polluting use of carbon.

Reply to  Terry - somerset
July 17, 2015 11:44 am

If you tell me whether your grandchildren will be a free people or not, I can answer your question.

Leonard Lane
Reply to  kim
July 17, 2015 11:11 pm


Reply to  Terry - somerset
July 17, 2015 4:44 pm

I am hopeful that my children and grandchildren will not waste time/emotional energy blaming anyone for whatever obstacals they may encounter.
If they are free I would hope that they have the capacity to take of themselves. If they are not free I would hope they would work toward freeing themselves.

July 17, 2015 11:37 am

Don’t leave out Alaska and the seas and islands around it, surely that is similar?

July 17, 2015 11:40 am

He’ll have a blast in Paris, a winter blast.

July 17, 2015 11:40 am

According to the Algorian theory, the Arctic is going to tropical soon! So drill now, get all the oil out, then build tropical resorts. Such hypocrisy…lol

Reply to  highflight56433
July 18, 2015 6:27 am

Algorian Logic
A reasoning technique that entails reaching a supposition about a subject in which one has no expertise and subsequently creating factoids to support the supposition without using critical thinking skills or research to discern the obvious implausibility of the facts or the conclusion.

Reply to  Billyjack
July 18, 2015 8:57 am

Exactly. This allows him to say things no scientist would dare and then simply use his press-given authority to assimilate the public to those factoids.

Just Steve
July 17, 2015 11:53 am

Lets see…Gore family makes millions of dollars investing in Occidental Petroleum. Douchnozzle Al Jr now has, what, 2 or 3 homes that use enough energy to power several African villages per year? And lets not even get into private jets and a caravan of vehicles left idling while he gave an audience of true believers a rousing speech about the dangers of global warming or whatever the term is in the NYT style book this week (I didn’t just put rousing and the human cure for insomnia in the same sentence, did I?).
Moral of the story; he got his, time to close the store.

Reply to  Just Steve
July 18, 2015 4:40 pm

Gore family got their money from tobacco.

July 17, 2015 11:57 am

I love when the diseased and destitute begin to feed on their own kind.

July 17, 2015 11:58 am

Don’t you pay any attention to the climate forecast? We’re facing 30 years of the little Ice Age-like conditions…Drilling in the Arctic is suicide…

Reply to  Enginer
July 17, 2015 2:22 pm

And I’m so annoyed . . . I was really looking forward to CT’s climate resembling SC so the farm work would be easier in my old age! Now I’ve gotta buy SNOWSHOES etc.

Pamela Gray
July 17, 2015 12:19 pm

The middle sound segment of that link to the interview is missing. On every website I have visited. I wonder what he said.

Tom J
Reply to  Pamela Gray
July 17, 2015 1:16 pm

It’s probably predictable. Gloom. Doom. Tipping points. Amplifiers. Depletion. Equivalent of war. Destruction. World treaties. Massage techniques.

July 17, 2015 12:27 pm

Shell aims to drill its Berger prospect in the Chukchi Sea. It is ‘only’ 60 miles offshore, at a depth of 50 meters. Nothing like BP’s deepwater Macondo problem. If the prospect proves out, they will build and set during a late summer a year round, sea floor anchored, ice proof platform for production. There are North Sea analogs. The Chukchi ice window problem is only for the exploration phase.

Reply to  ristvan
July 17, 2015 12:57 pm

Chukchi Sea is west of Pt. Barrow. Beaufort Sea and Prudhoe Bay are east of it. If Berger pans out, ‘all’ Shell has to do is run a pipeline 60 miles ashore, then another ~150 miles east to the 800 mile Trans Alaskan Pipeline from Prudhoe Bay to Valdez. Otherwise Berger would not make sense. Offshore North Sea is the only place in the Artic that has basic transport infrastructure more or less in place.
Offshore Yamal Penninsula in Russia would be next, after Russia builds the infrastructure to produce giant Russkoe (discovered in 1968, stranded) and 4 other Yamal giants discovered in 2012. That 374 km pipeline down to preexisting Samotlor was originally scheduled for completion winter 2015. Now it plus field development have been pushed back to 2017, with full production by 2021. Offshore Yamal exploration would not start until Yamal is fully operational at a cost of $12 billion by the (troubled) TNK-BP consortium. No use exploring for stranded assets, especially not at $60/bbl.

William Astley
July 17, 2015 12:30 pm

The cult of CAGW pushes multiple issues into weirdness.
Obama for ‘environmental’ reasons is blocking the construction of the Keystone Pipe line which would increase the supply of Canadian Oil Sands crude from Hardisty, Alberta to multiple US locations.
The Canadian Alberta, Oil Sands deposits have 1.6 trillion barrels of oil of which conservatively 340 billion is recoverable.
Canadian Oil Sands 340 billion barrels recoverable is sufficient to supply all US hydrocarbon needs for 47 years.
Ironically if there was a war in the Mideast, interrupting Mideast oil production the US economy would be crippled.

The Athabasca Oil Sands, the Cold Lake Oil Sands and the Peace River Oil Sands, which contain initial oil-in-place reserves of 260 billion cubic metres (1.6 trillion barrels), an amount comparable to the total world reserves of conventional oil. The World Energy Council reported (2007) that the three Alberta oil sands areas contain at least two-thirds of the world’s discovered bitumen in place.[3] These three major oil sands areas, all in Alberta, have reserves that dwarf those of the conventional oil fields.[4]
According to the Alberta Energy and Utilities Board (EUB, now known as the Alberta Energy Regulator, the AER), Alberta’s oil sands areas contain an ultimately recoverable crude bitumen resource of 50 billion cubic metres (315 billion barrels), with remaining established reserves of almost 28 billion cubic metres (174 billion barrels) at year-end 2004.

Reply to  William Astley
July 18, 2015 4:51 pm

Obama is against Keystone Pipeline because his buddy Warren Buffett has the rail concession. It ain’t rocket surgery, but still too hard for the legacy press to figure out.

Robin Hewitt
July 17, 2015 12:32 pm

UK Prime Minister David Cameron is also having trouble being the greenest ever…
In a speech last month, the Energy Secretary Amber Rudd warned the renewables industry and campaigners that support for the environment has to be weighed against the impact on energy bills.
“All that support costs money,” she said. “We cannot ignore the fact that, obviously, people want subsidies if they are on the receiving end of subsidies, but we have to ensure that we get the good measure of it.”

July 17, 2015 12:36 pm

… where he was passing on his techniques for talking about the climate crisis to 500 new recruits from his Climate Reality Project. …

Holy Crap! 500 people want to learn propaganda and go out and lie for a living? Damn. Damn. Damn.

Tom J
Reply to  markstoval
July 17, 2015 1:12 pm

If it was only 500 I’d be fine with it. Throughout the ages it’s been millions times millions.

Bubba Cow
Reply to  Tom J
July 17, 2015 2:35 pm

I had a seemingly living and breathing useful idiot show up at my door last night – home invasion – a university junior boy child summer freebie interning with Vermont Public Interest Research Group wanting to explain to me how my paying carbon taxes would save the world from global warming. I asked him what the global temperature is – no idea. How has it changed – no idea. Explain photosynthesis – no idea and now getting angry. Clearly no child left beyond here. Told him to express sorrow to his parents for flushing tuition down the bowl and vanish your arse from my prop.

Mike the Morlock
Reply to  Tom J
July 17, 2015 3:30 pm

Bubba Cow ; another good one to ask is, “explain the Co2 green house effect:, is chem? atomic? Where in the atmosphere does it take place? At proper time, state “I know”. Finish with “Pay me and I will tell you”
once a Capitalist always a Capitalist

Bubba Cow
Reply to  Tom J
July 17, 2015 3:36 pm

Mike, I was headed there, thanks. Ran out of patience and I was igniting propane for the plants and prepping to burn some steaks for the animals. So, bad timing. I’ll go on neighborhood watch tomorrow in my pick up and see if I can blow out a green mtn bike.

Tom J
July 17, 2015 12:41 pm

I wonder if he’s preparing to make his (place number here)nth run for the presidency. Hillary really seems to be tanking. She’s holding people off with rope lines, answering no questions, and presenting no policy viewpoints whatsoever. People don’t seem to like her. Meanwhile, Sanders is eating her alive. I wonder is the Dem party is worried: Sanders; an independent socialist, or Hillary; who nobody likes. So, Al Gore comes to the rescue. Yikes.
I hope this all was idle conjecture.

Bubba Cow
Reply to  Tom J
July 17, 2015 2:39 pm

I do too, but I’m not seeing a silver lining from any party, yet.

Reply to  Bubba Cow
July 17, 2015 4:23 pm

John and Jane Doe walk with Walker. There’s a bunch of ’em, over hill, over dale.

Reply to  Tom J
July 17, 2015 5:18 pm

Watch what the does in Vermont?

Reply to  Barbara
July 17, 2015 5:25 pm

Watch ’em interrupt and scream infantiley at wobbling, wabbling Mistress of the Private(heh, semi) Server, in New Hampshire. Her sin? She wouldn’t commit to stopping all fossil fuel development immediately.
It’s not easy for me to feel any tinge of sympathy for her. Now, if only someone would call her a denialist.

Reply to  Tom J
July 17, 2015 5:34 pm

I hope it was too, and that Bernie gets the nomination. In fact, Republicans should donate to his campaign.

Jeff D
July 17, 2015 12:57 pm

Follow the money……

Louis Hunt
July 17, 2015 1:15 pm

Al Gore is so hostile to human activity, I think he should be banned.

Reply to  Louis Hunt
July 17, 2015 2:23 pm

Maybe HIS human activity should be banned as “hostile” FIRST; they guy hasn’t exactly got a LOW “carbon footprint!”

July 17, 2015 1:25 pm

Let’s see: the arctic is hostile to human activity because it’s too cold? No, no. It’s no longer cold because of global warming; every public school child knows that. It’s hostile to human activity because of dangerous animals? No, can’t be. Polar bears are extinct by now, yes? Then, why?

July 17, 2015 1:27 pm

I cannot think of a better place in the world to drill for oil than the Arctic.
So, a few polar bears get a bit oily, so what?
Here in the UK we have assorted nimbies objecting that a small fracking well might bring a bit of noise and visual interference.
In the Arctic the polies could not give a s**t as long as you gave them a tasty bit of meat.
Apparently they like a nice bit of thigh. Any volunteers warmies?

July 17, 2015 1:27 pm

All the worry about oil spills is overblown. As far as I can tell the ecosystem recovers almost immediately. Combine this with the ever improving technology and methodologies and there is no legitimate reason for concern.
I recently drove to Prudehoe bay. Based on how clean the drill site and the pipeline are, there is virtually no reason to freak out. The place is practically pristine.

Reply to  JohnnyCrash
July 17, 2015 4:31 pm

Why aren’t children taught how immensely biodegradable hydrocarbons are?

Robert of Ottawa
July 17, 2015 1:43 pm

Al Gore et. al, super rich, don’t have to work or bother about prices. So stuff them telling us we should all be poorer.

Bruce Cobb
July 17, 2015 1:57 pm

Wait, what? He’s against drilling in the arctic because he’s afraid of possible oil spills, and because conditions there are “hostile for human activity”? What happened to the central Warmist tenet, that fossil fuels are EVIL, because of the “carbon pollution” they emit? And, why should he care about the conditions there being hostile? I would think that would be a plus, making it more difficult, and therefore less economical for oil companies to drill there. Something doesn’t add up. He’s slipping.

Reply to  Bruce Cobb
July 17, 2015 2:25 pm

Yeah, I thought the Arctic was all gonna melt by next year anyway, or was that last year?

July 17, 2015 2:36 pm

“I think Arctic drilling is insane. I think that countries around the world would be very well advised to put restrictions on drilling for oil in the Arctic ocean,” – Al Gore
Because when they out how much is up there the price will crash for half a century and we don’t want the lower life forms (voters) getting cheap gas that long.

George Devries Klein, PhD, PG, FGSA
July 17, 2015 2:49 pm

Does any educated, thoughtful person listen to AL Gore? No way.

Leonard Lane
Reply to  George Devries Klein, PhD, PG, FGSA
July 17, 2015 11:24 pm

I listen to Al Gore, very carefully. After pondering what he said and sorting through the inconsistencies, then I do the exact opposite of what he says. Works very well. Also works very well with Obama, Hillary, and all the other leftists.

July 17, 2015 4:52 pm

Poor Al, we need to pity him.
Just think of the psycholoical damage encountered when he realized that the individual cigar gifts from Bill were really just an underhanded joke.

tom s
July 17, 2015 5:04 pm

This sniveling, hypocritical, greasy disgusting POS is the epidemy of grotesque theater

Pamela Gray
Reply to  tom s
July 17, 2015 8:06 pm

I was going to comment but I like the way you said it.

July 17, 2015 6:09 pm

I think… I think… I think…
Who cares?

July 17, 2015 8:38 pm

Double, double oil and trouble;
Fire burn, and cauldron bubble.
Cool it with a baboon’s blood,
Then the harm is firm and good.

Reply to  Max Photon
July 17, 2015 8:41 pm

I got bard from Avon because of that …

Bubba Cow
Reply to  Max Photon
July 17, 2015 8:55 pm

need a cartoon of that!

charles nelson
July 17, 2015 9:20 pm

I agree with Fat Al.
Drilling in the Arctic is insanity.
The ice when it returns will sweep the rigs and platforms away.

William Astley
Reply to  charles nelson
July 18, 2015 1:30 am

In reply to: charles nelson
I am curious as you use the word insanity in your comment if you do or do not understanding logic and reason.
The Canadians have supplied crude oil from Hardisty, Alberta to the US for over 50 years, via multiple pipelines. The first pipeline was installed immediately after the second world war. There is sufficient Canadian Oil sands, oil to supply the entire US needs for 47 years.
The Canadian oil sands crude oil has been developed by US, International, and Canadian oil companies.
The Canadians do not have and never will have nuclear weapons. The Canadians have fought alongside the US for a decade in Afghanistan. The US and Canada have a joint anti terrorism effort and have a join North American defense effort.
It is a fact that in five years time every major Islamic country in the Mideast will have nuclear weapons. If there was a war in the Mideast (let say a nuclear war), interrupting Mideast oil production the US economy would be crippled. The US purchase oil for the ‘strategic’ oil reserve for that very event.

The Athabasca Oil Sands, the Cold Lake Oil Sands and the Peace River Oil Sands, which contain initial oil-in-place reserves of 260 billion cubic metres (1.6 trillion barrels), an amount comparable to the total world reserves of conventional oil. The World Energy Council reported (2007) that the three Alberta oil sands areas contain at least two-thirds of the world’s discovered bitumen in place.[3] These three major oil sands areas, all in Alberta, have reserves that dwarf those of the conventional oil fields.[4]
According to the Alberta Energy and Utilities Board (EUB, now known as the Alberta Energy Regulator, the AER), Alberta’s oil sands areas contain an ultimately recoverable crude bitumen resource of 50 billion cubic metres (315 billion barrels), with remaining established reserves of almost 28 billion cubic metres (174 billion barrels) at year-end 2004.

The following is more insanity.comment image
The real problem/issue is forced spending of limited public money (percentage of shrinking GDP) which we do not have on green scams that do not work, do not significantly reduce CO2 emissions but do triple the cost of electricity. All the pain for no gain.
The green scams that do not work for basic engineering and economic reasons. That is a fact.

beyond astronomical

Recently Bill Gates explained in an interview with the Financial Times why current renewables are dead-end technologies. They are unreliable. Battery storage is inadequate. Wind and solar output depends on the weather. The cost of decarbonization using today’s technology (William: Solar and wind power rather than nuclear) is “beyond astronomical,” Mr. Gates concluded.

The key problem appears to be that the cost of manufacturing the components of the renewable power facilities is far too close to the total recoverable energy – the facilities never, or just barely, produce enough energy to balance the budget of what was consumed in their construction. This leads to a runaway cycle of constructing more and more renewable plants simply to produce the energy required to manufacture and maintain renewable energy plants – an obvious practical absurdity.
A research effort by Google corporation to make renewable energy viable has been a complete failure, according to the scientists who led the programme. After 4 years of effort, their conclusion is that renewable energy “simply won’t work”.

July 17, 2015 10:10 pm

“By any reasonable measure President Obama is the greenest president ever” … by “green I assume he means “naive”.

July 18, 2015 7:30 am

I see that the Goratola is displaying the total number of original thoughts he had since convincing himself that he invented the internet. Haven’t we all heard quite enough from this bloviating gasbag?

July 18, 2015 10:07 am

“I think arctic drilling is insane”
Well if there is one thing Al Gore has intimate knowledge of it’s insanity.

July 18, 2015 10:13 am

Isn’t it terrifying that he came as close as he did to becoming President?

July 19, 2015 3:22 pm

I’m very much in favor of oil exploration and drilling, but there are more problems with ocean arctic drilling than in more temperate areas. The BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico did not do lasting harm to large areas of the environment because oil is naturally occurring there (seeping out from the sea floor) and microbes actually feed upon and break up the oil. Man actually cleaned up only a portion of it, and much of it “disappeared.” (It has actually been a boon to fishing – the year-long ban plus more food let fish populations grow) The cold weather of the arctic would prevent this action from happening and the effects would have been much worse if it had happened there. (plus the weather will cause a lot of problems)
Arctic exploration needs to be done very carefully and very slowly. We have lots of good experience in drilling on land in arctic areas, and know how to pipe oil out of there (tankers would be a problem), so if the infrastructure and experience is improved carefully, there should be minimal problems. A quick boom, however, could cause problems and bad press which will set back energy exploration for years.
Meanwhile, lets work on exploring for oil lot of other places.

Reply to  SocietalNorm
July 19, 2015 5:10 pm

Good post. Thanks

July 19, 2015 5:25 pm

Why should we worry? When we have so many experts willing to share their insight here for free.

Verified by MonsterInsights