Trump Administration to open 90% of US Offshore to leasing and roll back Obama-era drilling regulations

Guest post by David Middleton

The plan is to open almost everything in the 2019-2024 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program, with Eastern Gulf leasing beginning when the Congressional moratorium expires after 2022.

Secretary Zinke Announces Plan For Unleashing America’s Offshore Oil and Gas Potential

Draft Proposed Program considers nearly the entire U.S. Outer Continental Shelf for potential oil and gas lease sales

1/4/2018

WASHINGTON – U.S. Secretary of the Interior Ryan Zinke today announced the next step for responsibly developing the National Outer Continental Shelf Oil and Gas Leasing Program (National OCS Program) for 2019-2024, which proposes to make over 90 percent of the total OCS acreage and more than 98 percent of undiscovered, technically recoverable oil and gas resources in federal offshore areas available to consider for future exploration and development. By comparison, the current program puts 94 percent of the OCS off limits. In addition, the program proposes the largest number of lease sales in U.S. history.

“Responsibly developing our energy resources on the Outer Continental Shelf in a safe and well-regulated way is important to our economy and energy security, and it provides billions of dollars to fund the conservation of our coastlines, public lands and parks,” said Secretary Zinke. “Today’s announcement lays out the options that are on the table and starts a lengthy and robust public comment period. Just like with mining, not all areas are appropriate for offshore drilling, and we will take that into consideration in the coming weeks. The important thing is we strike the right balance to protect our coasts and people while still powering America and achieving American Energy Dominance”

Earlier this year, 155 Members of both the U.S. House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate sent letters to Secretary Zinke in support of a new 5-year plan that recognizes America’s potential for energy dominance.

The Draft Proposed Program (DPP) includes 47 potential lease sales in 25 of the 26 planning areas – 19 sales off the coast of Alaska, 7 in the Pacific Region, 12 in the Gulf of Mexico, and 9 in the Atlantic Region. This is the largest number of lease sales ever proposed for the National OCS Program’s 5-year lease schedule.

“By proposing to open up nearly the entire OCS for potential oil and gas exploration, the United States can advance the goal of moving from aspiring for energy independence to attaining energy dominance,” said Vincent DeVito, Counselor for Energy Policy at Interior. “This decision could bring unprecedented access to America’s extensive offshore oil and gas resources and allows us to better compete with other oil-rich nations.”

Release of the DPP is an early step in a multi-year process to develop a final National OCS Program for 2019-2024. Today’s draft proposal was informed by approximately 816,000 comments from a wide variety of stakeholders, including state governments, federal agencies, public interest groups, industry, and the public. Before the program is finalized, the public will have additional opportunities to provide input. The 2017-2022 Five Year Program will continue to be implemented until the new National OCS Program is approved.

“This plan is an early signal to the global marketplace that the United States intends to remain a global leader in responsible offshore energy development and produce affordable American energy for many decades to come,” said Katharine MacGregor, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Land and Minerals Management. “This proposed plan shows our commitment to a vibrant offshore energy economy that supports the thousands of men and women working in the offshore energy industry, from supply vessels to rig crews.”

Inclusion of an area in the DPP is not a final indication that it will be included in the approved Program or offered in a lease sale, because many decision points still remain. By proposing to open these areas for consideration, the Secretary ensures that he will receive public input and analysis on all of the available OCS to better inform future decisions on the National OCS Program. Prior to any individual lease sale in the future, BOEM will continue to incorporate new scientific information and stakeholder feedback in its reviews to further refine the geographic scope of the lease areas.

“American energy production can be competitive while remaining safe and environmentally sound,” said Acting BOEM Director Walter Cruickshank. “Public input is a crucial part of this process, and we hope to hear from industry groups, elected officials, other government agencies, concerned citizens and others as we move forward with developing the 2019-2024 National OCS Program.”

The Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act requires the Secretary of the Interior, through BOEM, to prepare and maintain a schedule of proposed oil and gas lease sales in federal waters, indicating the size, timing, and location of leasing activity that would best meet national energy needs for the five-year period following Program approval. In developing the National OCS Program, the Secretary is required to achieve an appropriate balance among the potential for environmental impacts, for discovery of oil and gas, and for adverse effects on the coastal zone.

BOEM currently manages about 2,900 active OCS leases, covering almost 15.3 million acres – the vast majority in the Gulf of Mexico. In fiscal year 2016, oil and gas leases on the OCS accounted for approximately 18 percent of domestic oil production and 4 percent of domestic natural gas production. This production generates billions of dollars in revenue for state and local governments and the U.S. taxpayer, while supporting hundreds of thousands of jobs.

Gulf of Mexico:

The DPP includes 12 sales in the Gulf of Mexico, one of the most productive basins in the world and where oil and gas infrastructure is well established. The draft proposal continues the current approach to lease sales in the Gulf of Mexico by proposing 10 biannual lease sales in those areas of the Western, Central, and Eastern Gulf of Mexico that are not subject to Congressional moratorium or otherwise unavailable, and two sales in the portions of the Eastern and Central Gulf of Mexico after the expiration of the Congressional moratorium in 2022. This is the first time the majority of the Eastern GOM Planning Area would be available for leasing since 1988.

Alaska:

The DPP proposes 19 lease sales in the Alaska Region (3 in the Chukchi Sea, 3 in the Beaufort Sea, 2 in Cook Inlet, and 1 sale each in 11 other program areas in Alaska). These 11 program areas consist of the Gulf of Alaska, Kodiak, Shumagin, Aleutian Arc, St. George Basin, Bowers Basin, Aleutian Basin, Navarin Basin, St. Matthew-Hall, Norton Basin, and Hope Basin. No sales are proposed in the North Aleutian Basin Planning Area that has been under Presidential withdrawal since December 2014.

Pacific:

The DPP proposes 7 lease sales in the Pacific Region (2 each for Northern California, Central California, and Southern California, and 1 for Washington/Oregon). There have been no sales in the Pacific Region since 1984. Currently there are 43 leases in producing status in the Southern California Planning Area.

Atlantic:

The DPP proposes 9 lease sales in the Atlantic Region (3 sales each for the Mid- and South Atlantic, 2 for the North Atlantic, and 1 for the Straits of Florida). There have been no sales in the Atlantic since 1983 and there are no existing leases.

Dept. of the Interior

Trump aims to open nearly all federal waters to offshore drilling in biggest lease sale ever

  • The Trump administration announced Thursday a draft proposal to offer offshore blocks to oil and gas drillers in almost all of the U.S. outer continental shelf.
  • The plan opens the door to drilling in the Atlantic and Pacific oceans, marking a break with previous administrations.
  • The proposal faces challenges from coastal governors and an uncertain oil price environment that could keep many drillers from bidding for blocks in uncharted territory.

Tom DiChristopher

The Trump Interior Department announced Thursday plans to offer blocks in the Arctic, Atlantic and Pacific oceans for oil and gas exploration in an ambitious new five-year offshore lease plan.

Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke said the draft proposal for offshore leasing between 2019 and 2024 would offer about 90 percent of the U.S. outer continental shelf, the largest lease sale ever. The only area that will not be included is the North Aleutian Basin in Alaska.

The plan would open the door for drilling in areas far beyond the U.S. epicenter of offshore drilling in the central and western Gulf of Mexico, giving oil and gas companies the opportunity to explore areas left out of leases for decades.

But the move also sets up a battle with environmental groups and coastal governors opposed to drilling off the shores of states from California to North Carolina. Additionally, it comes at a time when oil prices are on the rise, but stuck in a range that makes multibillion-dollar projects in new offshore areas unattractive for many drillers.

It would also overturn indefinite bans on drilling in much of the Arctic Ocean and parts of the Atlantic announced during the final days of the Obama administration, potentially sparking a court battle over executive authority.

The administration’s expansive lease schedule was widely anticipated.

In April, Trump signed the America First Offshore Energy Executive Order instructing Zinke to revise the current five-year schedule for leasing blocks of the U.S. outer continental shelf, the waters off the U.S. shore that the federal government governs. At the time, he explicitly said it reversed the Obama administration’s ban on Arctic leases.

[…]

CNBC

The drilling regulation rollbacks and modifications are not nearly as significant as portrayed by the lamestream media; but they are certainly a step in the right direction.

BSEE Proposes Revisions to Production Safety Systems Regulations

12/28/2017
WASHINGTON – In response to a Presidential Order to reduce undue burden on industry, the Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement (BSEE) completed a comprehensive review of the Production Safety Systems regulations. The proposed regulations will be published Friday in the Federal Register. The announcement describes the proposed revisions and invites public comment on the proposal.

“I am confident that this revision of the Production Safety Systems Rule moves us forward toward meeting the Administration’s goal of achieving energy dominance without sacrificing safety,” said Director Scott A. Angelle. “By reducing the regulatory burden on industry, we are encouraging increased domestic oil and gas production while maintaining a high bar for safety and environmental sustainability.”

The Production Safety Systems Rule addresses safety and pollution prevention equipment, subsea safety devices and safety device testing for the production of oil and gas resources on the U.S. outer continental shelf (OCS). The proposed amendments address provisions of the regulations that create an unnecessary burden on operators, while providing the same level of safety and protection of the environment. BSEE’s initial regulatory impact analysis estimates that the proposed amendments would reduce industry compliance burdens by at least $228 million over 10 years.

“It’s time for a paradigm shift in the way we regulate the OCS,” Angelle said. “There was an assumption made previously that only more rules would increase safety, but ultimately it is not an either/or proposition. We can actually increase domestic energy production and increase safety and environmental protection.”

One out of every six barrels of oil produced in the United States is produced on the OCS. Annual production on the OCS totals over 550 million barrels of oil and 1.3 trillion cubic feet of natural gas. BSEE permits operations and conducts inspections on approximately 2,400 production platforms located in the three OCS regions: Arctic, Gulf of Mexico, and Pacific.

Stakeholders can view and provide comment on the proposed amendments to the Production Safety Systems Rule via regulations.gov, the federal government’s official rulemaking portal. The proposed regulations are also available here. The public comment period for will remain open for 30 days.

-BSEE-

MAGA!

Related articles:

Trump Administration to Open Oil & Gas Leasing on the Atlantic Outer Continental Shelf (OCS)

“Offshore drilling is not a fit for Florida”… It doesn’t have to fit in Florida.

A Senate Tax Bill Energy Trifecta: Opening ANWR, Killing EV’s and Energy Dominance!

Irony can be so… Ironic – Trump’s solution to AGW: “Drill, Baby, Drill!”

Deepwater Horizon: EpiLLOG

Advertisements

162 thoughts on “Trump Administration to open 90% of US Offshore to leasing and roll back Obama-era drilling regulations

    • Indeed.
      My hope is that the American economy is at the beginning stages of a Reagan Revolution, but bigger. And primarily due to our government just getting out of the way.

      • Fry, don’t count on it. At 4.1% unemployment we are already at full employment. Our next recession shouldn’t be too far off. If energy prices and inflation stays low, we might see a little longer wait. Trumps fed pick is as about as far left as we’ve seen in decades, so there is some hope. (should be an interesting ride)…

      • Afonzarelli, more specifically, we are just one Democrat or one Bush President away from the next recession.

      • We are not at 4.1% unemployment. The U3 number is just that: a fabricated number. The Labor participation rate is a far more accurate gauge of how many potential employees are out there; we haven’t even returned to the labor participation rate of the much maligned and malaprop prone presidency of El Dubya. The dismal science never can account for the power of animal spirits. The only thing holding the American economy back from growing 10%+ annually is ourselves…and the regulatory stranglehold the federal government has on the economy…and people who want to manage the decline…and paid Soros trolls whose job is to preach the Gospel of Libtard Dogma.

      • Yep. Only about 1/3 of the decline in the labor force participation rate can be tied to an aging population. The rest is due to able-bodied people choosing to not work.

        On the bright side, there are some indications that the LFPR is beginning to recover… but it’s still only about 63%.

      • Regardless, when the unemployment rate stalls, we have no more than a year or two until a recession. (historically, that’s what happens)…

      • David, the worker participation rate is irrelevent as far as when a recession kicks in. The only metric that seems to matter is the unemployment rate. Once it stalls in earnest, we have no more than two years until our next recession. You have to go back as far as nixon to find lengthier times for the unemployment rate holding steady. (i suspect that has to do with philosophical changes at the federal reserve during the 70s)…

        https://data.bls.gov/pdq/SurveyOutputServlet

  1. My highly sophisticated models predict major, possibly catastrophic, Greenhead explosions particularly in southern California over this. Maybe mobs of Hollywood celebrities with pitchforks.

    • Yes, they will likely fly in to Aspen, Switzerland, or some tropical island in the south Pacific in their private jets and ride in their limos to meet up at a nice resort to pat each other on the back about how socially conscious and morally superior they are for opposing such a move…and they won’t even for a moment recognize the irony.

      • WR
        So right.
        The irony will be wa-a-ay beyond them – poor souls in their Holly-Wash [DC-wood, if you like it better. Other phrases are available.
        I didn’t say polite phrases are available!//bubble.”

        [A query:
        Do they need serious aid to escape their bubble??]

        Thanks.

        Auto

    • Reminds me of this


      Just imagine the song being “I will drill for oilllllllll and gasssss”

      James Bull

    • I was one who made a claim and was paid. I had a beach front rental property on the Gulf just west of St Pete. Due to the amount of bad publicity of the oil spill, no one rented it that season. I was paid for the lost rental revenue. No fraud.

      • plenty of f r a u d…..people in the Keys were picking up tar balls and claiming Horizon as just one example

        Tom, you were legit

      • Tom,

        We took a road trip from Dallas to Pensacola the week after the blowout was contained. We saw first hand, the economic damage caused by histeria about the spill. People we talked to in Pensacola said business had never been that bad before.

        Yet, we didn’t see any evidence of the spill itself from Pensacola to Biloxi… apart from BP-funded cleanup crews sitting around near the beaches.

    • Latitude noted “plenty of f r a u d…..people in the Keys were picking up tar balls and claiming Horizon as just one example”

      Since there are natural oil seeps along the Santa Barbara coast in California, with tar balls a natural result, one can imagine the ambulance-chasing lawyers and their celebrity friends already starting on the paperwork to file after/if drilling starts there again.

    • “Florida’s GOP governor opposes Trump move to expand offshore oil drilling”

      And Florida’s future GOP governor, Rep. Ron DeSantis, said this morning that he is also opposed to drilling off the Florida shores.

  2. AND Trump is going to need as much energy on the markets as possible to keep his economy going strong. Inflation may be on the horizon and cheap energy is key in keeping inflation under control. We’ve already reached “full employment” by historical standards. Should inflation kick in, it’s bye-bye economy (and hello recession). Keep an eye on the inflation index and Trump’s new pick for fed chair (Powell). Depending on how all things inflationary go we could be looking at easy street or bust. (a bust just in time for the 2020 elections)…

    • Nor do some of us forget about Barack Obama being so unpleasantly aggressive about “British Petroleum”. BP had in fact formally changed their name to “BP” decades earlier to emphasize they were a global company, and had ~40% of US-based ownership at the time. He knew that, but pretended he didn’t. As a US-born American with English accent, I was disgusted by his inflammatory language. Fortunately I had also just moved to live in the US south-east where it was big news, and not a single person ever spoke to me negatively about it.

    • I was just sent a paper on Barataria Bay dolphin effects from the Louisiana spill. While due to offshore circulation Barataria received a lot of the oil and surface animals are certainly susceptible, the paper has several problems, for starters it was two months from reception to acceptance, published a month later. I guess modern scientists are so much smarter, better trained with a much larger literature (well, with a few exceptions in the 1990s, all were from this century), and have so many better technologies, it could be justified.

      A few quotes from the open paper–(http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/282/1818/20151944)

      “Only one carcass (Y12) was recovered, but this is not surprising, as cetacean mortalities most often go unobserved [42].” 42 was a paper on killer whales, greatly different species and habitat.
      “A similar situation exists for Barataria Bay dolphins; whether the observed reproductive failures are directly related to oil exposure or indirectly related to the oil through a cascade of other health impacts to the adult females, cannot currently be determined.” Nevertheless,
      “5. Conclusion
      In the wake of the DWH oil spill, dolphins living in one of the most heavily oiled bays along the Gulf of Mexico coast were documented with severe and highly prevalent disease conditions, raising significant concerns for potential long-term consequences for the population [8]. Our findings from follow-up monitoring studies confirm significant decreases in reproductive success and high mortality rates when compared with other populations not impacted by the spill. This evidence suggests that dolphin reproduction and survival is being impacted by chronic disease, indicating that the effects of the DWH oil spill have been long-lasting. Continued studies are needed to further understand the potential recovery trajectory for dolphins in Barataria Bay, as well as other Gulf Coast regions impacted by the spill.”

      I found this quote in this document.
      http://www.gulfspillrestoration.noaa.gov/sites/default/files/wp-content/uploads/Front-Matter-and-Chapter-1_Introduction-and-Executive-Summary_508.pdf
      “Extensive response actions, including cleanup activities and actions to try to prevent the oil from reaching sensitive resources, were undertaken to try to reduce harm to people and the environment. However, many of these response actions had collateral impacts on the environment.”

      I have to wonder if these had anything to do with the results in the dolphin study. I suspect it may be decades before we get a decent summary of the actual effects from the spill.

  3. My guess is that a lot of those offshore blocks won’t actually attract bids at current prices. Not enough information about prospects, as some have been off limits even for exploration for decades. Same thing just happened in Mexico. But the symbolism is rich in further Obama legacy reversal. Plus California and East Coast green heads exploding. Plus putting more prospective hurt on OPEC and Russia. Great PR move. MAGA!

    • Not that I’m ‘colluding’ or anything you know but not exactly sure what the benefits of hurting Russia are at this time. The US is holding a strong hand and perhaps a new era of detente with post-Communist Russia rather than grinding their faces in the dirt might be a smart move.

      • It would seem simply doing what we’re doing in the energy sector potentially “hurts” Russia, therefore, not “hurting” Russia means not doing what we’re doing, which wouldn’t be in the American people’s best interest.

        If “grinding their faces in the dirt” is a result of our exploration/sale of energy on the world market…yeah so be it. Maybe Pretty Pooty should try freeing up his economy to serve his nation’s best interest rather than his own for a change.

    • Most blocks in the open areas don’t get bids now, particularly on the shelf. Area-wide leasing of the Western and Central Gulf has been ongoing since 1983. Almost every prospect remaining in less than 5,000′ of water is a retread. Leases with recognized undrilled prospects have been turned over 3-7 times and are few & far between.

      There’s still a lot of oil & gas to recover in the Central Gulf and decent exploration potential in deepwater… But most of the potential for large new discoveries lies in the areas that have not been open lately, primarily the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas.

      When these areas are openened from 2019-2024, the initial activities will likely be concentrated near ongoing activity and infrastructure: the Beaufort Sea, Scotia Basin in the Atlantic, near current production offshore California and the western part of the Eastern Gulf of Mexico. In many cases, like the Atlantic OCS, there hasn’t been any new seismic shot since the 1970’s.

  4. Russia gets 40% of its revenue from OPEC-inflated energy prices that are threatened by booming US output.

    But the collusion narrative will rattle on and on.

    • This is what I never understood about this Russian collusion. Trump is doing everything to help USA oil companies at the expense of Russia. It is pretty clear he is not a friend of Putin.

      • The Clinton’s have always been a lot closer to the Russians than Trump ever was.
        It was just another convenient lie.

      • Trump “not a friend of Putin”? Not sure about now, but as a businessman Trump would have done anything to tap into Putin’s oligarch buddies. Just follow the recent histories of characters like Michael Flynn and Paul Manafort. Trump is a friend of anyone who he thinks can enrich him personally.

        Now, not even Trump thinks he can get away with this behavior while in the White House. But he can take Putin’s side when he tells Trump that Russia didn’t interfere in the election, even while the intelligence community can tell him unequivocally that they did. Why do you think he does this?

        So if he can stick it to the Russians this time, that at least is something he can do that I agree with, along with pulling us out of the Paris Accords.

      • There was no Russian interference in the election.
        The so called “leaks” from the intelligence community are not credible.

      • Scraft1,
        I don’t think the Russians attempted to interfere in the 2016 elections any more than prior elections; it just got more attention this time. Hell, even our allies interfere in our elections; think about what it means when state run media in another country endorses one candidate over another. And that’s just the most visible form of interference. Also don’t think that the US government doesn’t try to influence the elections in other countries.

        What we really have to be on the lookout for is direct corruption of the election process, like hacking voting machines or stuffing the ballot box. I believe that when President Trump says there’s no evidence that Russia interfered in the 2016 election, he was talking about these kind of efforts.

      • “The so called “leaks” from the intelligence community are not credible.”

        The “Intelligence Community” in this case consists of Obama appointees who lie for political purposes. Obama corrupted the entire intelligence community with his partisan, treasonous crimes against the American system of government, with his spying on his political opponents and the planting of vicious lies against Trump.

        I hear Hillary is going to get a little closer scrutiny now. The Justice Dept. is going to be looking into here “pay for play” Uranium One deal, and her criminal mishandling of U.S. national security secrets.

        Her and Bill thought they were going to skate. But maybe not. Justice must be done even when it involves prominent political figures. Especailly when it involves prominent political figures.

  5. and Trudeau and BC will shut down tanker traffic off the BC coast, basically making any pipelines to the coast useless….

  6. In my opinion offshore mega projects can’t compete, at this oil price, with the onshore shale/unconventionals.
    Still, a nice development, so to speak.

    • Static analysis, Ryan… as demand goes up in a boom economy, the price of energy goes up with it. Before too long, we’ll be looking for energy anywhere we can get it. (think Bush back in ’08 begging opec to produce more)

  7. I like it but I am not sure how any company can plan when with every administration the regulations are changed. Why invest when next democrat president will roll back ?

    • Maybe the investors should realize that it’s time for companies to take the gloves off and start paying people to put their case better in public.

      Despite the allegations from opponents, they spend effectively zero on combating people openly trying to destroy the industry entirely. Look at all the people like Anthony Watts who are doing their heavy lifting for free. Steve Milloy has commented on how tardy the coal industry was to take on board the magnitude and intensity of the threats he explicitly warned them about. If the CEOs of these companies haven’t learned from that, then they meet every definition of a disgrace to their profession.

    • Add to that how thoroughly the population has been indoctrinated regarding the evils of drilling, particularly on the east and west coasts. Many of these sheeple will try to block all efforts. ENVIRONMENT is very important to many of these folks as it makes them feel like they’re saving the planet. Even in the conservative, supposedly, area where I live we subsidize recycling to the tune of tens of thousands of dollars each year when it is not at all beneficial or necessary where we live.

    • The political risks are very significant… much greater than they are in Mexico or South America.

  8. America’s economy relies on energy, and economic growth has always been strongest when energy is cheap. The so-called “recovery” from the “great recession” was so small because energy remained expensive. With Obama unfriendly to conventional energy, and trying to shift away from fossil fuels, he doomed America to slow (or nonexistent ) growth, higher unemployment, and lower wages. And it was the economic effect of Obama’s energy policies which put Trump in office.

    Few people realize how large an effect even a small rise in energy prices can have on the economy.

    So long as Trump can keep energy prices low and stable, America will have economic growth and strong employment. And if such is the case, Trump will be reelected. A working economy must be efficient, trying to cheat or manipulate the price system always results in trouble. The best way to help the economy is to leave it alone, and let it run itself. The more tinkering which politicians and central banks perform, the more booms, crashes, and calamities occur.

      • Yeah, Mark, Guthrie is wrong… Energy prices on the whole remained low under Obama. Electricity prices remained flat, and gas prices low resulting in a low inflation rate up til this very day. (we saw the opposite materialize during the Bush years) Obama’s problem was that he did not instill consumer confidence. You have to make people sing happy days are here again before they readily part with their hard earned cash. And liberal that he was, he did not do that…

      • “If you like your health plan, you can keep your health plan, period.”

        I wonder why Obama didn’t inspire confidence? He was and still is such a pathological liar he could be a Mann-approved scientute. He was/is the Bill Nye of politics.

        Obamacare raised health care costs, which was a real tax. The fact that energy cost did not go up during his reign of error had nothing to do with his or his administrations actions. They would have been much lower without his actions.

      • Extreme, energy prices are low because of the green push for alternative sources of energy. So, yes, Obama’s actions did cause that. (not that he knew what he was doing) There are “positive” unitended consequences to the green movement that we should celebrate. And low energy costs on the whole is one of those. People need to understand that the more energy that is put out on the markets, the lower the cost of energy. We learned that under Reagan and, yes, we learn it again under Obama. (and Trump has been the benefactor of all this)…

      • afonzarelli says, energy prices are low because of the green push for alternative sources of energy.
        Say what, then tell how come electrical prices have skyrocketed everywhere that swallowed the green pill, the poison pill.

      • “afonzarelli January 4, 2018 at 6:36 pm

        Extreme, energy prices are low because of the green push for alternative sources of energy.”

        Not so in South Australia, quite the reverse in fact.

      • Guys, think dynamically! The green push for alternatves ended up with cheap natural gas (which obama liked). It also meant that green areas took less from traditional fossil fuel sources. The end result is that energy prices are down on the whole. (and with it inflation which everybody benefits from)…

      • Natural gas prices are low because of frakking, which the greens have opposed with ever fiber of their being.

      • “i think the reason growth was so slow under Obama was that he was a jerk who instilled little consumer confidence.”

        No, the problem was Obama raised taxes and wrote numerous new regulations which created an uncertain business atmosphere and took money out of the pockets of business people, big and small. The Obamacare fiasco was a huge impediment to businesses, and still is.

        It’s plain to see:

        Obama raised taxes and wrote crippling regulations, and implemented Obamacare and the economy stumbled along slowly as a result.

        Trump came in and he cut taxes and regulations and now the U.S. economy is booming.

        There are really few things a president can do to stimulate the economy and those are cutting taxes and regulations and good energy policies. Obama did not do this and the economy did not do well. Trump did do this, and the economy is really starting to move.

        I heard Obama on tv today taking credit for the millions of jobs created during his two terms and he said Trump ought to thank him.

        But Obama didn’t do anything to create those jobs. They were created in spite of Obama. Obama’s policies actually hurt job creation. Those jobs would have been created no matter who was president.

        Now, Trump is a different story. His actions *are* creating jobs because he has acted in the areas where presidents can boost the economy: lowering taxes and regulations and keeping energy prices as low as possible.

      • TA says: ” Trump came in and he cut taxes ”
        ….
        WOW oh WOW, so the economy is now booming because the tax cut has been in effect for …..errrr….just under five days?

      • TA, yes, i stand corrected on gas prices…

        All those things that you say that obama did to business are true. But, all that feeds into consumer confidence. It’s very simple. If consumers buy the economy expands. (if they don’t, then not so much) As long as consumers are confident, economies will grow*. All those things that you mentioned were impediments to that confidence…

        *the exception to the rule is when federal reserve monetary policy, higher interest rates, shuts down the economy. This occurs when we hit 4% unemployment or 3-4% inflation, whichever comes last. (it can also happen with an oil price shock, as did in the mid 70s)…

      • “TA says: ” Trump came in and he cut taxes ”
        ….
        WOW oh WOW, so the economy is now booming because the tax cut has been in effect for …..errrr….just under five days?”

        Perhaps you didn’t notice, but the stock market took off as soon as Trump was elected on the promise that Trump would cut taxes and regulations and would terminate Obamacare, so the stock market went up thousands of points in anticipation of all this, and when the tax cut bill finally was signed, the stock market went even higher. The Trump economic boom started on November 8, 2016.

        Businesses invest based on what they think the business climate is going to look like in the near future. Trump offers them a bright, unlimited future and they start spending money in anticipation. Obama offered them tax hikes and regulations and job-killing Obamacare which causes businesses to hang onto their money because they don’t know what the future is going to bring.

        Many business owners say Trump’s elimination of onerous regulations is even more important to them than tax cuts.

        So there you have it: Presidents can stimulate the economy through tax cuts, regulation elimination, and keeping energy prices as low as possible. Trump did all those things and the economy booms. Obama did just the opposite, and the economy proceeds at a snail’s pace.

      • TA, a snail’s pace does have an upside. As long as the economy keeps growing there is no risk of recession. The problem comes when we reach full employment and there is no more room for growth. (at full employment, either the fed deliberately stalls the economy or the shortage of labor naturally does so) The slower the economy grows over the long haul, the longer the time between recessions. This year does mark ten years of economic expansion, which is pretty good. My fear is that Trump is stepping on the accelerator and we’re headed for a brick wall. Powell is the wild card here. How low will the fed let the unemployment rate go? Keep an eye on that number. Once the unemployment rate stalls for real, the next recession is no more than a couple years away…

    • Guthrie, just not true… U.S. electricity prices remains flat throughout the Obama years. (comparatively they rose 33% under Bush) Gasoline prices, too, have remained low, unlike under Bush. This is largely due to fracking and alternative fuels taking the heat off traditional sources of energy. i think the reason growth was so slow under Obama was that he was a jerk who instilled little consumer confidence. By and large consumers are rich. And Obama just spent 8 years making war on them. Trump, however, is the benefactor of the green push for alternative fuels. Because of this, inflation is low even though the unemployment rate is low. At 4.1% the unemployment rate is as low as it’s been since Clinton was president (and before that since Nixon!). At this point it is imperative that enegy prices remain low. At full employment, inflation is expected to kick in at any time now. Once that happens, the Fed will begin to seriously raise interest rates and our next recession won’t be too far off. The wild card here is Powell, Trump’s pick for fed chair. Trump went as far left as he could reasonably go with a conservative congress. Powell sounds like a maverick, so we might expect to see something new…

      • Not quite right, Fonz.

        Oil price was generally low under Bush II, and high under Obama until the Saudis opened the floodgates in 2015.

        Electricity prices have been trending higher in the US, up about 20% over the Obummer years.

      • WB, thanks for the info… One of the reason that i put stuff out there is to be corrected, so thanks. i actually have seen electricity data that shows flat under obama. Perhaps it was inflation adjusted. We still need to adjust for inflation even though we are checking for inflation simply because the dollar loses value over time anyway. (gas prices under carter were among the highest, but only when adjusted for inflation) So i’m a little skeptical of graphs that use a “fixed” dollar. It’s all good though. This will have me headed back to the books to make a better argument…

      • Alternative fuels are such a tiny fraction of the market that there is no way they can have more than a miniscule impact on prices.

      • If politicians use “Climate Change” as a cash cow and lever, then it is a Hockey Stick. 8-)

      • Rollback is a noun. Rolled back, rolls back… roll is a verb. Did I misuse it in the post?

      • @David Middleton I don’t think you wrote the headline:
        “Trump Administration to open 90% of US Offshore to leasing and rollback Obama-era drilling regulations”

        My objection is to “to … rollback”, which should be “to … roll back”

        @MartinA Is there any other English verb conjugated in third-person-singular present by inserting an “s” in the middle of the verb rather than adding it to the end of the verb (and past/past participle forms inserting “ed” in the middle rather than the end)? The correct forms are “He rolls back” and “They rolled back”. See how “roll/rolls/rolled” and “back” are two separate words, rather than one larger word? If you’d followed that Wayback link I posted above, you’d have seen a wonderful web site (that appears to be down now) that explains why words like “rollback”, “shutdown”, etc. can’t be verbs (but are nouns and adjectives) despite the common misconception among my fellow IT people that they are (due to the fact that we construct one-word commands like “shutdown” that appear to be verbs in the imperative mood).

    • The Monster
      January 4, 2018 at 4:49 pm
      Conjugate it. “He rollbacks”? “They rollbacked”?

      He rollsback. They rolledback.

  9. Congressional moratorium expires after 2022.

    Obama’s executive orders aside, a Congressional moratorium can be revoked by Congress.
    Elections are coming up.
    They said Trump had no chance to be the Republican nominee, let alone President.
    Stop listening to “them” and listen to us.

  10. There are other ways for America to sustain itself and be independent/autonomous financially. This is one way. If you live in one of the areas that President Trump has plans for offshore drilling (and I do), it is not a palatable morsel to swallow, and I will not. Another reason I will not is because I am an educator, and for literally most of my life I have championed ALL life, not just human life. I fully respect and realize that ocean life is its’ own distinct species. I am in a position to be able to speak FOR them, to protect them, so I will. If the food chain is disrupted under the ocean’s waters because of human error, that error simply CANNOT be fixed.

    • If you are an educator then you should start by educating yourself, I’ll help. Where did all that oil after the Horizon spill go, well it got ate by microbes. Did you know more oil naturally seeps into the Gulf in one year than from the blow out. Gets eaten by the microbes.

      Being an educator you hold a responsible position and it is your responsibility to educate yourself otherwise you are negligent.

    • ” I fully respect and realize that ocean life is its’ own distinct species.”

      ???????????????????????

    • callingallcoachesblog (and teachers too)
      I am an educator …. ocean life is its’ own distinct species

      I hope your roll as educator does not extend to teaching English grammar.

    • What is this so called error that can’t be fixed?
      Even after recent huge oil spills, life returned to normal very quickly.

    • That was one of the most ignorant postings I’ve seen on here in a long time, and that’s saying something. You are the root of America’s educational problems. I weep for our future with people like you teaching our children.

  11. on the thread where Bill Nye threatened that the blue states would sanction ‘hillbillies’ states that voted for Trump, I remarked that development of the Calfornia offshore would reduce the enormous oil seeps that flow out of fractures in seafloor. I also predicted that the the crescendo of climate nuttiness engulfing California would soon see a Republican governor take the reins. Gee. It looks like California is going to become one of the biggest oil states in the Union. I now revise my prediction to a sooner change in state gov once Californians start to get these higher quality jobs. They’ll want some cheap NG fired power too.

    • California turn Republican, there would be brain matter covering Hollywood from all the exploding heads.

    • Introducing photo ID in Californian elections will also return a Republican Governor.

  12. This is great news for all those offshore regions where there is no Congressional moratorium. If the Congressional moratorium doesn’t expire until 2022, who knows which party will control Congress by then?

    For all the hoopla about the greenies in California who want to impose a statewide cap on CO2 emissions and who send valuable snowmelt into the sea to save fish instead of irrigating the fertile but dry Central Valley, a person who takes a taxi or Uber from LAX airport to Hollyweird passes by at least 12 operating oil rigs on land, adjacent to the freeway. Is that oil refined and burned in California, or exported to Nevada or Arizona?

  13. So much, so quick, happening to upset the Green/Socialist manifesto in the US that they don’t know where to begin complaining/attacking. This presidency will go down as one of the most disruptive, and successful economically, in history. Guilting and shaming countries into economic suicide will give way to reality as the US prospers while other countries falter. And people said American voters were stupid and uninformed!

  14. It looks to me like a fire sale.

    Let’s say five years from now an announcement is made, we’ve got born-proton fusion working and it comes with no radioactive waste, no meltdown physically possible, and electricity costs in the sub $0.01 per kWh range with quick build outs and relatively low investment needed to buy a plant.

    That reduces the value of all our oil, gas, and coal deposits by quite a bit. I could see Trump signing lots of contracts to sell these resources at the old price before the cat comes out of the bag. With our national debt, we could use the money.

    Navigating the end of the fossil fuel age ain’t beanbag.

    • Dream on,, countries like Germany would love it (present electric rate 0.67 euro cents a Kw/h ) taxes, taxes, and more taxes with an average of 12 hours sun a week for the whole of Germany the money to pay for millions of solar panels has to come from somewhere.

  15. With this announcement I can see green subversive NGOs funding increase from oil gas competitors such as Russia. Oh wait Trump is buddies with Russia

    Sarc.

  16. I have been watching the energy market for 25 years. I did not see any actions by either POTUS Clinton or Obama to improve energy supply.

    • Bill Clinton was hit and miss. He vetoed opening ANWR. But he did institute royalty relief for deepwater production. Obama was horrific… much worse than Al Gore would have been. Bush-41 allowed some areas to be put off limits. Bush-43 were OK, but he signed off on the Eastern Gulf moratorium. Reagan was very good. He got rid of the nomination process and instituted area-wide leasing in 1983.

      Trump has done more in one year to facilitate our business than Clinton and the Bushes did in 16 years and he has begun to undue all of the regulatory malfeasance of the Obama maladministration.

      • David thanks for the answer. My perspective is how natural gas prices affect the nuclear industry. For 12 years after getting out of the navy and until POTUS Clinton took office, I was on the nuclear gravy train. Built my dream log house house in the Sierras with cash and bought a big sailboat. After my second job in California went away, we moved to Washington State and adopted a lifestyle of living below our means.

        Good thing too because that job went away because of cheap Canadian natural gas on the west coast but we did get NAFTA benefits before going to work for Duke Power which became Duke Energy.

        What I observed is that were were building a lot of CCGT to replace SSGT. This is a no brainer. More power with the same amount of natural gas. Then we built a lot more CCGT.

        What I did not observe was a increase in new domestic supplies of gas. We were actually were increasing imports of LNG by the end of the Clinton era.

        My next question is who gets credit for the increases supply for fracking or other sources?

  17. The planet’s oceans are already under enough pressure as it is. Climate sceptic numpties think that CO2 emissions are soaked up solely by trees and so the world is getting greener and the more CO2 – yes, the more vegetation, crops etc.

    Although this is completely incorrect. A great proportion of CO2 is absorbed by the planet’s oceans, rivers and lakes. Just some of its negative impact can be seen here:

    https://mankindsdegradationofplanetearth.com/2018/01/05/two-developments-showing-action-must-be-taken-over-the-planets-oceans/

    Also, it is incredible how short-term the memories are of many Republicans/fossil fuel advocates of the 2010 BP offshore oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico that caused catastrophic damage to the local economy/environment. Here’s a reminder…

    https://mankindsdegradationofplanetearth.com/2017/12/30/why-scott-pruitt-and-the-trump-administration-are-lethal-for-the-environment/

  18. An interesting development, economically sound. I’m sure that Common Sense and Logic will rule.

  19. Drill, baby, drill.

    Leftist have absolutely NO idea how economies actually grow and prosper…

    You see, Lefties, if you increase the supply of something, then… the price of that commodity/service goes down.. Let me repeat that, if you increase the supply of something, the price goes down. Got it?

    If the price of energy goes down, that means the price of all goods and services that require energy to produce (everything) also decrease, which means consumers will be able to buy more stuff with less money, which they can either save and invest for the future, or spend on other stuff..

    Companies also benefit because their cost of goods sold decreases, which they can use to hire new staff, lower wholesale prices, increase salaries, invest in capital goods , to improve production efficiency/competitiveness, buy back stock, spend on R&D, etc.

    Coupled with lower energy prices, corporations will also be getting $100’s of billions in tax cuts, which they can also use in the aforementioned manner.

    Corporations will also be saving $100’s of billions in regulation compliance cost cuts that Trump is rescinding at a pace of 22 regulations cut for each new one implemented, and these savings can also be used in the aforementioned manner…

    It’s such a joy moving from Obama’s “You-didn’t-build-that”, to Trump’s “Make America Great Again”.

    • SAMURAI (san), it’s alway great talking economics with you… Conservatives are clueless as well. Higher interest rates are also expensive job killers. Conservatives piss and moan every time inflation kicks in, calling for higher interest rates. This has been true for a long, long time. The result being lousy economies that inevitably hand the reigns over to the opposition party. Trumps pick for fed chair (Powell) is about as far left as he could go with a conservative congress. This guy sounds like a maverick to me. Hopefully, he’ll snap us out of the Greenspan malaise that has gripped this country since the 1980s…

      • Malaise since the 1980’s? Or you delusional?
        If you think high inflation is a good thing, you must believe that Carter was the greatest president ever.
        Secondly, given your ignorance of economics, I wouldn’t go around insulting others.
        Conservatives don’t call for high interest rates, they call for low inflation.
        If you can’t understand the difference no wonder you like leftwing economics.

      • Economists are arguably the only group worse than climate scientists at predicting future events in their field of study. So excuse me if I don’t take you too seriously.

      • Conservatives don’t call for high interest rates, they call for low inflation.

        Mark, who is the ignoramus here? How do you think that we get low inflation? By high interest rates! This time round, at this point, low energy prices are staving off inflation. (it’s been a unique situation) Today’s unemployment rate stands at 4.1%, aside from the late clinton years, the lowest it’s been since nixon. Usually at this point in the cycle, the fed is in need of significantly higher interest rates to ward off inflation. They have already raised interest rates the past two years to slow down the economy. The fed is currently not happy with Trump ramping up the economy. This will likely change when Powell gets in. It must or we’re headed soon for our next recession. i don’t know why i even waste my time responding to you, Mark. (you’re too chicken to ever engage me in a discussion on economics)…

      • Paul, i’m not an economist! (just a guy in a leather jacket with a wallet in my back pocket) It’s not hard to predict with economics because we see the same thing over and over again. And unlike climate science, we know exactly why these things happen because the people in charge tell us exactly what they are doing. If you have any points of contention with anything i’ve said, feel free to enquire…

      • Which is better? High inflation with prices that more people can afford OR low inflation with prices that fewer people can afford? (because the latter is exactly the greenspan philosophy; low inflation coming at the expense of wage growth)…

      • Afonzarelli-san: I’m a big proponent of ending the Fed and allowing free-floating interest rates determined by the market.

        Keeping interest rates artificially low leads to massive malinvestemnts of limited land, labor and capital and creates massive boom/bust economic cycles.

        The main reason governments like Central Banks to keep interest rates artificially low is to enable them to finance their massive unsustainable and growing national debts. The US national/state debt stands at around $22 Trillion, and if interest rates were at average levels of around 6%, debt financing alone would devour 30% of all tax revenues.

        Another reason government hacks like low interest rates is that they create the illusion of economic growth through stock, real estate and asset bubbles. Since investors can’t get highs enough returns to even beat inflation by putting their cash in low-risk savings accounts/bonds/CDs, they’re forced to buy high-risk stocks, high risk corporate bonds, and real estate assets, which cause economic bubbles.

        Central Banks also can’t be trusted to keep the M1 money supply at sustainable levels and always end up printing money to cover annual budget deficits rather than cutting spending… Mieny printing is a form of stealth tax that devalues every asset you own and destroys the purchasing power of currencies. During Obama’s disasterous 8 years, the Fed increased the M1 money supply from $800 Billion to $4 Trillion, which is the largest increase in US history… it was totally insane, and the FED will eventually have to unwind that toxic waste off their books with dire consequences..

        Trump is doing a lot of excellent things to improve the economy, but I worry he’ll listen to RINO Keynesians and implement a stupid $1 Trillion infrastructure “stimulus” program, which will explode the debt (+666 Billion added this year), while misallocating a lot of land, labor and capital the market could have invested much more wisely.

        We’ll see. BTW, Apple just announced they’ll be repatriating $200 Billion this year thanks to Trump’s tax-cut bill, and rumor has it they’ll use this to buy Netflix.

        Winning!

  20. Another post promoting fossil fuels when we need to go nuclear that is a million times as energy dense. It gets old.

    • David we went nuclear many years ago.

      All US navy combat subs and aircraft carriers are nuclear powered.

      About 20% of US electricity is nuclear. It is 75% in France.

      I think promoting all energy sources is a wise policy.

      • At least 80% of our electricity should be from nuclear and of a particular kind of which we have zero. Molten Salt thorium reactors. The kind we developed at Oak Ridge in the 60’s and 70’s and never got.

        I don’t see any point in promoting fossil fuels when synthetics can be easily made from these reactors if need be for the transportation sector.

        Why disturb a million times as much of the planet for fossil fuels as you would nuclear? There is no rational reason to do that. And then we have all these resource wars — primarily for oil. So this is not a wise policy at all and disingenuous to promote it.

        This board is full of fossil fuel promoters. It get’s old.

        (I have lots of Exxon stock only because we have no nuclear alternative to fossil fuels because we never developed the reactors that could make fossil fuel synthetics if we needed them). I would like nothing more than to dump my Exxon stock and invest in a company making molten salt thorium reactors.

        I hold the fossil fuel industry responsible for much of our failure to go nuclear. They push renewables just because they know renewables can’t compete. They never push nuclear because they know they can’t compete with nuclear.

        Posting this video here for the umpteenth time since 2011.

  21. Ivan writes,

    “Keep in believing your own wonky science. I would like to know at what university you studied. Perhaps it was Trump University? I can see it teaching this rubbish…”

    So Ivan where did you study science? Most people who rant about the environment never bother learning the science. This is why they are acceptable to fear mongering.

    Notice Ivan did not dispute my scientific argument but where I learned it and who was president. Science is science. It is not a belief system but something you measure in the lab and in the field.

    My first college level chemistry was at a local ‘community’ college when Johnson president. It was Purdue’s hardest freshman chemistry class. Chemistry for chemistry majors. When Clinton was president, I took graduate level environmental chemistry at Washington State U.

    “article that will teach you something about the science underpinning CO2 absorption into the oceans:”

    Maybe Ivan post the wrong link but the article is not about C02; it is about energy absorption in the ocean. It is not a scientific article, it is a fear mongering.

    “the equivalent of roughly five Hiroshima bombs exploding every second — since 1990.”

    I liked this too:

    “a scenario potentially akin to the massive ocean carbon release that helped end the last Ice Age.”

    I am not sure about what they mean. The earth in the last million of years has experienced a pattern of glaciers growing and receding.

    Clearly warmers is better for living things like now. I vote for breaking the cycle.

  22. “I’m a geologist, who has worked the Gulf of Mexico for 30 years.”

    So David, how many died?

    I am sicked by those who worry more about the environment than workers who will never return home.

    However, after reading reports on Deep Water and the mining disaster in West Virginia I have to wonder when will other industries look at how the US Navy and the US nuclear industry responded to serious issue to prevent future problems as recommended in the report.

    • 11 men died. I stated that this was the only truly catastrophic damage in the Deepwater Horizon disaster.

      • So what has changed in the oil and gas industry to prevent such things from happening again? Or another Piper A?

      • A lot of people have died as a result of the fossil fuel industry in comparison nuclear to nuclear based deaths. Nuclear is far safer and we don’t even build anywhere near the safest reactors, which are molten salt cooled. All nuclear accidents have been the result of water cooling and pressurization because water only stays liquid for 100 C without pressurization. Molten salt stays liquid for 1000 C without pressurization. Molten salt cooled reactors are potentially several hundred times as safe as water cooled reactors and far less costly to make since pressurization is what drives up the cost. Molten salt reactors can compete with coal on cost.

        But there is also tremendous damage to the earth with fossil fuels as opposed to nuclear. Since nuclear is one million times as energy dense there is a million times less disturbance of the earth. Any disturbance is a damage of some kind, even if very negligible at a given place.

      • Any disturbance is a damage of some kind, even if very negligible at a given place.

        By that logic, shouldn’t humans avoid building homes, infrastructure, commercial buildings and other structures that make life easier for us, especially those who are the poorest?

        After all, “any disturbance is a damage of some kind”, regardless of how negligible.

      • So you equate building homes and infrastructure to digging holes and shoveling out large amounts of dirt? False equivalency and you know it.

        I notice you did not address my point which is that nuclear is a million times as energy dense as fossil fuels. Maybe you have a financial interest in fossil fuels? What other reason is there for your response?

      • Good evening, David. Just a few comments here. First, I suppose that “catastrophic” is a matter of definition amongst those that were affected by DH but you are correct that no Extinction Level Event occurred from that spill, nor is one likely from any other as the environment is resilient (the reason that Species Diversity is important!) and most people recovered financially. The fatalities, of course, remain catastrophic for the families and friends of those lost and the event remains noteworthy at the least.

        I left a short comment earlier that drilling in the GOM is economically sound and that Common Sense and Logic would rule because I have a sense about the political nature of such drilling in our state’s psyche and felt certain that political power would come to bear on the subject. As I’m sure everyone knows by now, the federal government and the State of Florida have come to an understanding that no drilling will occur near Florida’s coasts.

        I’m not here to argue the merits of drilling or no drilling but do want us to take notice that something that was announced as certain, changed quickly after political realities were injected into what was a technical/economic discussion. That reality: Florida is a growing state with increasing electoral votes! Right or wrong, good or bad, up or down.

        And, as a skeptic, we should take notice. We tend to argue against CAGW on the basis of the science, technical considerations, logic and common sense and that is absolutely necessary and good. Necessary and Good because that has laid the foundation for political power to grow and be applied so that, at least, the “Science is settled” argument is beginning to lose its appeal. Our opponents do the same, or try to, but they have been better in the past at using political power to promote their viewpoint, and more importantly, to get something concrete done such as laws and regulations. Until recently, that is.

        The new administration has from the outset expressed skepticism about CAGW and is beginning to wield substantial political power as an expression. Much of that power is in the changes to federal agencies but I suggest that the Florida drilling reversal is another expression. Some will say that the federal government caved to Florida’s environmentalists while others will say that any new (an old) drilling is caving to the fossil fuel industry. But, I would say its a chess move (or gamble), electorally speaking, to consolidate or extend future political power to achieve the administration’s goals.

        We need more of that kind of thinking. Yes, the science, technical, common sense and logic underpinnings remain vitally important but all of that must get translated into political power local and national.

        One final note, my working career as a biologist took me to a number of refineries, gas processing plants, low and high pressure ammonia plants, and a number of defense facilities. The people in those industries that I had the privilege of engaging (and others) were highly intelligent, motivated, hard working, and very safety-minded individuals. None of them took safety for granted because the nature of their work was inherently dangerous and I’m confident that will continue.

        Hope all is well with you and your families.

      • Regarding my use of catastrophic… The Gulf of Mexico recovered from the spill fairly quickly. Transocean, BP, Andarako and other companies on the hook financially for the spill all recovered. The Macondo prospect was successfully developed by LLOG. Gulf of Mexico fishing recovered. Presumably Florida’s tourist industry recovered.

        The 11 men who perished on Deepwater Horizon will never recover. Nor will their families fully and truly recover. That’s why I say that the only catastrophic damage was the loss of those 11 men.

        Regarding the deal between the Trump Administration and Gov. Scott, I can only hope that it involves the opening of at least the western portion of the EGOM. The plays that currently end at the “state line” could be developed with no more impact on Florida than existing projects in the eastern CGOM.

      • David, a quick apology for an omission in my earlier post. I had meant to reference regarding the loss of lives that you had mentioned the horrible nature of that fact on multiple occasions. A slip on my part.

      • People do die in this business. Every company strives to do everything possible to avoid “lost time injuries,” death being the most serious version. However, drilling holes into the Earth’s crust is fundamentally dangerous. There are no space places on a drilling rig.

  23. “So you equate building homes and infrastructure to digging holes and shoveling out large amounts of dirt?”

    Well…yes…indeed I would. And so should you shouldn’t you? Or maybe we don’t, e.g., move dirt when we build homes and buildings…or maybe we don’t, e.g., dig piling holes when we build bridges and/or skyscrapers?

    “I notice you did not address my point which is that nuclear is a million times as energy dense as fossil fuels.”

    Yes, because that argument isn’t nearly as interesting to me as the rest. I like nuclear! But if it’s less expensive to the poor for NatGas or some other fossil fuel then I like that even better.

    The poor are better served when their basics aren’t overly expensive for no other reason than irrational arguments from morons.

    ” Maybe you have a financial interest in fossil fuels? What other reason is there for your response?”

    ROFL! ad hominem/Alex Jones much?

    Yes I have a financial interest in fossil fuels. I’m interested in saving money putting gasoline/diesel in my tank. I’m interested in buying NatGas as cheaply as possible to heat my home. And I’m interested in buying electricity as cheaply as possible from the power plants that serve my little community.

    Other than that my interest is in asking you questions to see whether you’ve made any attempt to think about your arguments versus not.

Comments are closed.