Big Oil goes Big Green

Oil companies give billions to climate alarmists, but hardly a dime to climate realists

David Wojick

Climate alarmists often accuse skeptics, like myself and independent groups like the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow and Heartland Institute, of being in the pay of Big Oil. This is completely false – the Big Lie repeated so often that people eventually believe it. We do not receive even a dime from Big Oil. It’s part of the green fairy tale that skepticism exists only because the oil companies are funding it.

For the record, none of us skeptics – climate realists – doubt or deny climate change. We all recognize that Earth’s climate is in nearly constant turmoil and fluctuation, locally, regionally or globally.

What we question is assertions that emissions from fossil fuel use have somehow replaced the sun and other powerful natural forces that have driven beneficial, benign, harmful or even hugely destructive climate changes throughout Earth and human history:

Changes such as at least five glacial periods that buried much of North America, Europe and Asia under mile-high rivers of ice, warm periods in between that melted those massive glaciers, Roman and Medieval Warm Periods, a Little Ice Age, the century-long Anasazi and Mayan droughts, the Dust Bowl, and countless other major and minor climate and weather changes.

The standard refrain is that ExxonMobil gave a cumulative few million dollars to various skeptical groups prior to 2007. But that was many years ago. They got scared off by alarmist pressure groups and haven’t given climate realists a dime since then. In fact, the situation today is completely the opposite.

Big Oil companies now give at least a billion dollars a year to climate alarmists, projects and lobbying, to drive the Manmade Climate Chaos narrative. Why would they do that? Two reasons come to mind.

First, typical commercial reasons – what some would call corporate greed, or eliminating competition through the laws of the jungle. Feeding climate alarmism helps oil companies kill off “dirty” coal and position natural gas as being more “climate friendly.” After all, Big Oil is also Big Gas.

Second, public relations and “greenwashing” – portraying themselves as being more “green,” more socially and environmentally “responsible,” for supporting environmentalist groups and providing “clean” (or at least “less dirty”) alternatives to “climate destroying” coal.

The central vehicle for moving these green billions of dollars goes by a perfectly descriptive name: the Oil and Gas Climate Initiative (OGCI). If the false accusers were correct, “oil and gas” would never be connected logically or ethically to “climate initiative.” But there it is, and it is very big. OGCI members include these well-known Big Oil names:

British Petroleum * Chevron * China National Petroleum Corporation (CNPC) *

Eni * Equinor * Exxon Mobil Corporation * Occidental Petroleum *

PEMEX (Petróleos Mexicanos) * PETROBRAS (Petroleo Brasileiro) * Repsol *

Royal Dutch Shell * Saudi Aramco * Total

Collectively, they claim to produce 30% of the world’s oil and gas. Their OGCI website also features a lineup of Big Oil corporate CEOs, just to show how seriously and responsibly “green” they are. Their latest annual report has a letter from the CEOs, including this little gem:

“As our ambition grows with the scale of the challenge, we look forward to working closely with policy-makers, regulators and all stakeholders to help develop the levers that can economically and sustainably accelerate the pace of the low carbon transition.”

You have to wonder whether their list of “stakeholders” includes families, companies and communities that understand how completely dependent they and all of modern industrialized society are on fossil fuels, especially oil and gas. Just read this list and watch the little embedded video.

More to the point, consider its origins. OGCI was launched in 2014, shortly after the infamous Chesapeake Energy scandal, when its CEO got caught giving the Sierra Club millions of dollars to support the environmentalist and Obama Administration war on coal. Ironically, even Club members opposed taking the money, since they consider all fossil fuels to be their enemy – and after it had bashed coal into submission, the Club took aim at natural gas, Chesapeake’s primary revenue source.

What seems to have happened is that the ever-wily Big Oil companies created their own “green” organization. With its billion bucks in annual funding, Big Oil is now one of the biggest financiers of Big Green, not counting Big Government funding sources.

The Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) is also actively engaged with Big Oil, through its EDF+Business arm. In particular, EDF has a huge methane reduction program – the Methane Challenge – which not surprisingly involves OGCI. The program features prominently in “Sustainability Reports” of several major oil companies. EDF is even building and launching its own satellite, cleverly called MethaneSAT.

EDF is clearly getting a lot of money for this. It claims it gets no money “directly” from the companies. Instead, the cash comes from unspecified “philanthropies.” Of course, where these philanthropies get their cash may be a different story; they could easily be laundering Big Oil money. It may be telling that OGCI does not issue a financial report – or provide any transparent online information about its financials.

Space News actually asked EDF about this funding – but got stonewalled. Here’s its report:

“However, EDF has provided few details about how much MethaneSAT will cost or how it will be funded. The project received last year a grant from a new initiative called The Audacious Project, although the size of the award was not disclosed. An EDF spokesman did not respond to an inquiry about the financial status of the project.”

Having EDF on its side is certainly a big plus for Big Oil. But talk about hypocrisy – for both of them.

In any case it is clear that Big Oil is spending at least a billion dollars on green stuff, which is a lot of green. (Cold cash, in the form of American greenbacks, is clearly the new Big Green.) There is no evidence that climate skeptics are getting any of this. But if some are getting any, it is trivial in comparison. Meanwhile OGCI and Big Green get billions, and EDF maybe many millions.

Another big irony is that the supposed alternative to abundant, reliable, affordable, civilization-enabling fossil fuels is supposedly “clean, green, renewable, sustainable, responsible” wind, solar and biofuel energy. (Hardcore environmentalists do not approve of nuclear or hydroelectric power, either.)

Those alleged “alternatives” require inconceivably vast amounts of land – not just for the wind turbines, solar panels, backup batteries and biofuel farms, but to mine and process the billions of tons of iron, copper, rare earth metals, lithium, cadmium, limestone and other materials needed to make the turbines, panels, batteries, transmission lines, tractors, trucks and other “sustainable” infrastructure.

All that mining, processing, manufacturing and transportation requires fossil fuels. And biofuels emit just as much (plant-fertilizing) carbon dioxide when they are burned as do coal, oil and natural gas.

Even more disturbing, many of those raw materials are produced with widespread slave and child labor, under health, safety and environmental rules and conditions that would make Upton Sinclair and other early Twentieth Century reformers think their oppressed workers were living in paradise.

When it comes to skepticism, the simple fact is that roughly half of Americans do not accept climate alarmism, right up to the President. Yet no one is paying for this widespread skepticism. As for Big Oil, it is pouring big bucks into Big Green and green climate initiatives. Conservative and climate realist groups have think tanks that do manage to find some funding, but it doesn’t come from Big Oil .

That Big Oil is responsible for skepticism is just another part of the alarmist fantasy world.

David Wojick is an independent analyst specializing in science, logic and human rights in public policy, and author of numerous articles on these topics.

5 1 vote
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
May 4, 2019 6:13 am

“Our grandchildren will be better off than we are.”

Warren Buffet

Reply to  Stephen Heins
May 5, 2019 10:40 am

His grandchildren will be. Not so sure about mine, or yours.

Global Cooling
May 4, 2019 6:31 am

Their goal is to pump up the oil price. Oil is more valuable in chemical industry than as a fuel in heating and transportation. Big oil producers like Norway are driving the world away from cheap oil. They promote electric cars heavily.

As a fuel oil (and coal) has quite low maximum price. You can increase that by making competitive fuels more expensive and having a cartel to keep competition in bay. This is what environmentalists and politicians do.

Reply to  Global Cooling
May 4, 2019 6:47 am

100% nonsense.

Reply to  David Middleton
May 4, 2019 11:06 am

On the subject of petrochemicals, I do wonder where hard greens think plastics are going to come from when we achieve their stated plans to stop extracting oil and leave it all in the ground.

Reply to  Archer
May 4, 2019 11:48 am

“Hard greens” don’t think.

Reply to  David Middleton
May 5, 2019 3:45 am

David, the best put down of leftists I ever heard was “The difference between us is that you socialists feel whereas I think“.

Fits watermelons to a T.

Patrick MJD
Reply to  Archer
May 4, 2019 1:19 pm

Leaving aside steel, glass, rare earths etc, have you seen how much plastic is in a Tesla battery pack alone?

Michael S. Kelly LS BSA, Ret
Reply to  Archer
May 4, 2019 3:41 pm

Petroleum may be a feedstock for plastics, but it isn’t the only one. In the United States, it isn’t the biggest one. The petrochemical industry, of which plastics are a subset, uses large amounts of hydrocarbon gas liquids (HGL). According to the Energy Information Agency, 86% of HGL came from natural gas processing, and the remaining 14% from petroleum refining (

Polyethylene is the most widely produced and used plastic by far. It is made by polymerization of ethene, which in turn is derived by cracking ethane, propane, and other HGLs. In other words, mostly natural gas products.

A number of websites are devoted to the elimination of plastic straws. They all use the same graphic of a barrel of oil divided into its various uses. Most of their text is almost a cut and paste of all of the other sites’ text. All of them claim that plastic straws consume enough of a barrel of oil to fuel some huge number of cars per year. But in reality, not much petroleum goes into plastic straws. And the particular molecules that do would not translate into additional gasoline. Just a tangential observation… sorry.

Reply to  Michael S. Kelly LS BSA, Ret
May 6, 2019 8:45 am

a difference without meaning. Hydrocarbon gas liquids come from the same wells as the rest of the crude oil. Refineries separate out the various fractions, including HGL for specific purposes.

But all the fractions are still fossil fuel.

On the outer Barcoo
Reply to  Global Cooling
May 4, 2019 10:12 am

Norway has a lot of hydroelectricity, so promoting electric cars there makes a lot of sense.

Farmer Ch E retired
Reply to  On the outer Barcoo
May 4, 2019 6:01 pm

So pure economics does not play into the promoted use of electric cars in Norway? Only the fact that dams generate electricity? So does nuclear, gas, oil, coal, and the list goes on. The Norwegian Oil and Gas Taxation Code may push consumers towards electric cars and is justified to “save the planet” from all the harm we are still waiting to see.

(PS – Norway is my motherland)

Reply to  Global Cooling
May 5, 2019 1:05 pm

There’s a 19th century solution: antitrust

This administration can do it.

May 4, 2019 6:38 am

Hedging their bet for clean, renewable green-backs.

Reply to  n.n
May 4, 2019 6:48 am

Hedging their bets on the near-certainty of tighter government regulations at some point in the not to distant future.

Reply to  n.n
May 4, 2019 9:31 am

the oil companies are owned by the same people who want to remake the world using Agenda 21. The rabbit hole goes far deeper than many realize.

Reply to  ENKI
May 4, 2019 9:33 am

Most oil companies are owned by shareholders.

Reply to  David Middleton
May 5, 2019 7:51 am

Why is that so hard for many people to understand. Most large corporations and many smaller ones are public and their shares owned by individuals, groups such as pension funds, and investment funds. They are not the enemy, they are us and if they exhibit any greed it is ours.
A note: the financial records of public corporations are matter of public record and easily accessed. The details vary with the regulations imposed by various countries and their exchanges. Chinese disclosure is a little difficult and suspect.

May 4, 2019 6:45 am

Big Oil companies now give at least a billion dollars a year to climate alarmists, projects and lobbying, to drive the Manmade Climate Chaos narrative. Why would they do that?

1. “Wall Street” expects them to do this sort of thing.

2. If they firmly believe that the government will impose stricter climate change regulations and/or taxes, they have a legally binding fiduciary responsibility to do everything possible to reduce the harm to their shareholders from those regulations and/or taxes.

3. “At least a billion dollars a year” from all of “Big Oil” is slightly more than zero-point-zero (less than 0.1%).

2018 Revenue
Shell $322 billion
BP $304 billion
ExxonMobil $241 billion
Total $156 billion
Chevron $130 billion (2017)
Valero $117 billion

Just those six companies generate almost $1.3 trillion in revenue per year.

4. Last I checked there was exactly one professional scientific society with a position statement that does not endorse the alleged AGW consensus. That would be the American Association of Petroleum Geologists. Any guesses as to which industries support the AAPG? Hopefully, the AAPG won’t cave in on their upcoming revised position statement. While AAPG’s Division of Professional Affairs appears to be holding strong, the current president has been too focused on not offending students and academics and manages to squeeze the word “sustainable” into just about every paragraph she writes.

Reality “is what it is.” The industry does not have the option of operating in an AGW skeptic’s fantasy-land; it has to operate in the real world where “Wall Street” is the main source of capital and governments are increasingly tightening regulations and/or taxes on GHG emissions.

By “Wall Street” I am referring to the entire fiance industry.

Reply to  David Middleton
May 4, 2019 7:19 am

Who’s center just happens to be London. See Shaxson’s Britain’s Second Empire.
It is vast.
And Big Oil knows very well the complete carbon economic dependence now.

So the entire effort is to use climate, weather, CO2, Ozone, …. to gas-light the transatlantic voters and carry on unnoticed in the shadows.

Trouble is, Trump let sunshine in on their game – the scurrying under the floorboards is quite noisy right now.

Reply to  bonbon
May 4, 2019 8:15 am

Unfortunately, Donald Trump can’t be president forever and our nation is demographically moving toward Idiocracy.

Gary Pearse
Reply to  David Middleton
May 4, 2019 9:04 am

Repubs have an opportunity to lock dems out of the Whitehouse gor a generation or more if they can get the RINOs out of the picture. They have to get very active on coaching the right on this “Last Chance for the Survival of Repubs”. If they pull it off, they will survive and even thrive. Is there someway to get a seminar of these people tigether?

Reply to  Gary Pearse
May 4, 2019 9:25 am

We get Democrats more often than not when we knock off RINO’s.

Reply to  Gary Pearse
May 5, 2019 1:13 am

“We get Democrats more often than not when we knock off RINO’s.”

Mr. Middleton, can you elaborate? I am racking my brain but not coming up with data to support your statement.

Reply to  KcTaz
May 5, 2019 2:40 am

US Senate

2018 Arizona RINO Jeff Flake –> Democrat Kirstin Sinema
2017 Alabama RINO Luther Strange –> Democrat Doug Jones
2012 Indiana RINO Dick Lugar –> Democrat Joe Donnelly
2010 Utah RINO Bob Bennett –> Republican Mike Lee
2010 Alaska RINO Lisa Murkowski–> RINO Lisa Murkowski
2008 Alaska RINO Ted Stevens –> Democrat Mark Begich

There aren’t a lot of successful examples of forcing RINO incumbents out of office and replacing them with conservatives, small-r republicans, libertarians or TEA Party candidates.

Reply to  David Middleton
May 4, 2019 9:05 am

The deplorables put Trump in there, quite a smart move actually.
Forever is a long time, meanwhile….

Reply to  bonbon
May 4, 2019 9:22 am

I am a proud “depolorable”… Trump is the best president since Reagan… Maybe since Monroe… But the long-term trend is against us.

Michael S. Kelly LS BSA, Ret
Reply to  bonbon
May 4, 2019 3:42 pm

Amen, Mr. Middleton…Amen!

Reply to  David Middleton
May 4, 2019 7:43 am

What CEO’s and corporate boards think is the correct response to the continuous attacks by the green blob is not necessarily the right response. I have sat in the board room and know that of which I speak. Plenty of cowards and idiots sit in those meetings and have input to corporate strategies. Just saying.

Reply to  JimG1
May 4, 2019 8:18 am

Some of it is really annoying… And some of those spouting it aren’t just paying lip service.

Reply to  David Middleton
May 4, 2019 7:57 am

Hi David,

I won’t opine on your “oil vs coal” hypothesis, because I have not studied it.

My observation is that modern corporate boards tend to select senior management that is non-controversial, so as to not attract the attention of the radical greens, who they fear. This means that senior management tend to accommodate green falsehoods to avoid controversy, because that is the “path of least resistance”.

I suggest that this misconduct by management and boards is “short-term gain for long-term pain”, because it is NOT in the greater interests of their shareholders or the public. When the global warming / climate change fraud machine finally crashes, every organization and individual who collaborated with it will be publicly disgraced.

Given the propensity of the public to blame corrupted corporations rather than uber-corrupt greens and politicians, the corporations will take the brunt of the criticism, and some will not survive.

Regards, Allan

May 4, 2019 8:13 am

“The global warming / climate change fraud machine” isn’t going to crash. It will ebb and flow longer than we will be consuming fossil fuels. It would take the onset of the next glacial stage to crash it. The onset of the next cooling phase of the millennial cycle won’t be “late” until 2100. While it could happen anytime between now and 2100, it’s unlikely to quickly crash the “climate change fraud machine”.

There’s just enough scientific basis for anthropogenic global warming to prevent it from being killed.

  • CO2 is a greenhouse gas.
  • All other factors held equal, adding more CO2 to the atmosphere will cause the bulk temperature of the atmosphere to rise.
  • Natural factors will often totally obliterate any trace of this effect, but it is real and can’t scientifically be killed.

    The best we can do is to try to prevent our government from reacting in the stupidest possible way (Green New Deal, etc.).

    Reply to  David Middleton
    May 4, 2019 9:17 am

    Not a good strategy, merely a rear-guard action.
    In such a fight in history someone always takes the lead. Right now Trump is taking the point. He is attacking right where the enemy feels it.
    It is after all irrelevant what CO2 can or cannot do – it is strategic to beat this thing for once and for all.
    Now see Trump’s tweets just this week, first about UK Intelligence, now about working with Russia, China, and telling both parties to get back to work on infrastructure. Winning!

    Greta may claim to see CO2, but the joke is most adults do not even see the smoke of battle!

    Reply to  bonbon
    May 4, 2019 9:30 am

    The only way to “beat it” is to take limited action (coal with CCSU, more natural gas, more nuclear) and claim credit for the lack of catastrophic warming… Which would have happened anyway.

    This way we could demonstrate that all of their “cures” are worse than the supposed “disease”.

    Reply to  David Middleton
    May 4, 2019 9:38 am

    David Middleton

    Tragically, sceptics are forced to hope for just what we don’t want, a cooling cycle, to persuade the asylum ready alarmists that no one can do anything about climate change.

    Maybe we should use some reverse psychology, make some placards and march the streets, calling for a big freeze “NOW”.

    Kurt in Switzerland
    Reply to  David Middleton
    May 4, 2019 9:47 am

    You said, “The best we can do is to try to prevent our government from reacting in the stupidest possible way (Green New Deal, etc.).”

    I think we can (and must) do better. We need to separate environmentalist-conservationist philosophy and actions from ostensibly climate-protecting philosophy and actions.

    The former addresses real and important threats, whereas the latter is a house of cards, built upon unvalidated models and doomsday scenarios which have failed remarkably to manifest themselves. If the “Green” movement is incapable of a reform, then let the Climate Realists and Libertarians provide the catalyst to do so.

    Reply to  Kurt in Switzerland
    May 4, 2019 9:58 am

    The problem is in demographic trends.

    Kurt in Switzerland
    Reply to  Kurt in Switzerland
    May 4, 2019 10:34 am


    “The problem is in demographic trends” won’t do.

    That sounds defeatist at best. The “other” demographic which you apparently don’t hold in high esteem is (IMHO) indeed capable of grasping that throwing yet more money and resources at climate science / climate protection, etc. would accomplish precious little for the environment even as real environmental crises fester without nary a peep. The environmentalist movement has been de-facto hijacked by climate zealots and their cronies (e.g., from the “CleanTech” industry. It is a monstrous machine, which has corrupted science and environmentalism through its marriage to politics (and industry).

    Hell, you have the Audubon Society promoting Wind Farms! They were either brainwashed, paid off or both. Nothing else could explain it.

    Reply to  David Middleton
    May 4, 2019 9:49 am

    David says: All other factors held equal, adding more CO2 to the atmosphere will cause the bulk temperature of the atmosphere to rise.

    I disagree. The specific heat of dry air is 1.005 kJ/kg C and the specific heat of CO2 is .846 kJ/kg C. With a mass of 28.8 kg/mol for air and 44.1 for CO2. So as CO2 is added it takes more input energy to raise the temperature 1 degree C. Specific heat is a property and the energy input can be of any form.

    Anthony’s CO2 jar experiment demonstrated that.

    Reply to  mkelly
    May 4, 2019 9:57 am

    You’re disagreeing with the laws of physics.

    Patrick healy
    Reply to  mkelly
    May 6, 2019 7:20 am

    MKelly and David,
    Watched a wonderful video once where a great realistic scientist (damn – can’t remember his name) used the analogy of painting a wall red to describe the diminishing returns of adding more plant food to the atmosphere.
    Once it is red – it does not get much redder by adding more coats.
    Btw as a pensioner of a “very big” oil major, our annual news letter is beginning to read like a greenpiss circular.

    Reply to  David Middleton
    May 4, 2019 10:31 am

    I recently wrote: “If I had to guess, I think moderate global cooling will start close to 2020…”
    This plot explains why.

    Moderate global cooling has happened before, from ~1945 to 1977, even as fossil fuel combustion greatly accelerated. If cooling happens again, even moderate cooling, there will be a point where even the most avid warming alarmists and the most stupid of their minions will have to capitulate. That is my hypo – we’ll see who is correct.

    Reply to  ALLAN MACRAE
    May 4, 2019 10:50 am

    The millennial scale cycle is what gave us the Little Ice Age and Medieval Warm Period. The last trough of this cycle was around 1600 AD. The next peak should be around 2100 AD (+/- 100 yrs).

    Reply to  ALLAN MACRAE
    May 4, 2019 1:06 pm

    Hi David,

    Clearly, I’m not talking about LIA cooling or anything that extreme. I’m talking about a return of the PDO to “cold mode” such as occurred from ~1945 to 1977, or even an extension of “the Pause”.

    There is NO WAY that the moderate warming Earth has experienced since 1977 can be considered dangerous – it is clearly moderately net-beneficial for humanity and the environment.

    There is only one significant impact of increasing atmospheric CO2, and that is greatly increased plant and crop yields. To date, that is end-of-story.

    After a certain point, even the most corrupted radical greens and their minions will have to find another great scam to cling to.

    Best personal regards, Allan

    Reply to  ALLAN MACRAE
    May 4, 2019 1:12 pm

    I absolutely agree with you… but I don’t think a mid-20th century style cooling would crash the global warming fraud, that’s why it became climate change, etc.

    Reply to  ALLAN MACRAE
    May 4, 2019 1:53 pm

    I suggest it is time for major push-back – since 2013 or earlier I’ve been advocating for Civil RICO lawsuits against wealthy institutions who benefitted from the global warming scam.

    If anyone is seriously interested in funding this approach, contact me through my website.

    Reply to  ALLAN MACRAE
    May 5, 2019 2:43 am

    The climate lawsuits may very well lead to this.

    Reply to  David Middleton
    May 4, 2019 11:26 am

    Hi David,
    I’m not as pessimistic as your good self about the resilience of the green blob, in fact I believe it has had its day in the sun and it is beginning it’s belated decline into obscurity (although I’ll submit, it won’t be a rapid decline and won’t end with richly deserved extinction).

    Gullible warming is primarily a political cause de jour, so even though the far-fetched ‘science’ that form its central tenants you’ve listed can never be decisively scientifically disproved, once the cause becomes sufficiently sour to a critical mass of voters, no government will touch the cause, or its snake-oil salesmen with a bargepole.

    As it is today, that loss of interest is already well advanced and gullible warming is always a distant last place in lists of voter priorities but there are too many personal ambitions, reputations and brown paper bags full of other people’s money tied up in the gullible warming cause for an expedient break-contact drill to be executed today.

    The fighting withdrawal is maintained by ever more desperate noisy minorities who know they’ve got nowhere else to go once the gullible warming rock-show inevitably winds down. The great unwashed of Extinction Retardation, Greenpricks, et al who have nothing else to yell about in order to kid themselves that they’re part of something that matters, despite most of them being demonstrably feeble minded, dedicated non-thinkers who mums probably harboured delusions of adequacy for them as children. There are a horde of washed up celebrities who currently jetset about the world lecturing the sheeple about, among other things, not flying. There are the flash-in-the-pan ‘rockstars’ of the cause like Saint Greta and Occassional Cortex who are so monumentally unremarkable without the fans of the cause thronging to blow smoke up their arses. There are a lot of quite useless career politicians who need gullible warming to distract voter attention from the fact that they have no policies other than ‘the other guys are worse than us’, who demonstrably don’t have the imagination or ability to organise a dalliance in a whore-house and who also need the save-the-planet excuse to raise still more tax revenue to pay for their mismanagement and growing government pension liability. There are by now a legion of climastrologists, ‘climate-communicators’, eco-lobbyists, holders of ‘green-jobs’ (like the army of useless bloatocrats who periodically infest working businesses, clip-board in hand, to document that business’s ‘carbon footprint’). That whole worthless rabble would collectively have a very hard time finding a way of putting food on the table, much less enjoy the lifestyle to which they believe they’ve become entitled to, once the gullible warming gravy train pulls into a bleak, deserted siding at the end of the line and the conductor kicks their worthless fat arses off the train onto a cold deserted platform to fend for themselves.

    So to some extent I agree with your despair, there is a pretty hefty momentum behind the gullible warming gravy train that needs to be overcome or derailed and that isn’t likely to be easy or quick.

    Once something unambiguously more important comes along enough attention will shift for gullible warming to lose its place as the poster child of the lame-stream media and insipid middle-of-the-road political parties. Then the cause will wither away to who-gives-a-toss.

    In my view, the seeds of that are already sown in the EUSSR (in receivership) whose economy is existing very much on life support and overdue for either complete collapse or a necessary metamorphosis into something like the US of E (along with a healthy dose of miracle serum No.5), which no doubt features nightly in wet dreams of the Duma in Brussels but is unlikely to be palatable to the average continental tax payer. Old fashioned nationalist parties are on the rise in Europe so the spiritual home of gullible warming ‘action’ is going to have far more pressing things to deal with than masturbating about ‘fixing’ the weather in a century.

    One thing is obvious, it is only affluent people with full bellies and warm houses and a large enough safety net to insulate them from the worries of the real world who have the luxury of indulging in gullible warming posturing and virtue signalling. It helps if those people are conditioned to meekly accept more or less anything that’s foisted on them; which in general describes Northern Europe. So when the EU has finally stretched the elastic of imaginative financial malfeasance to snapping point and the odious brown goo hits the fan, people will have enough trouble keeping fed and warm so there will be precious little tolerance left-over for any precocious brats still demanding ‘little people’ pay even more for unreliable electricity, clockwork cars, or for oil companies to continue losing shareholder money on purpose funding whirly-gigs after the subsidies and manipulated markets dry up when they should be delivering the gas people need to avoid freezing to death in winter.

    The reality check may not even require an EU implosion, even though it’s surely in the post. Generation Y (your ‘idiocracy’) may have been brought up with nano-second attention spans and been thoroughly indoctrinated with a steady diet of gullible warming ghost stories and as a result they actually believe that their enlightened generation can run batphones and dodgem cars off whirly-gigs and mirrors with miracle batteries. Any thinking person knows that’s a pipe-dream and if Generation Y actually get their way and seek to kill evil big oil/coal/reliable energy, it won’t take long after the chooks come home to roost for even the most dedicated non-thinker to realise that all they’ve been fed about the opportunities of the ‘low carbon transition’ or cheap renewables etcetera was 97% bovine excrement. And once simple ‘necessities’ like charging trendy dodgem cars and batfones become onerous even the growing idiocracy may reassess their precious green cause de jour.

    Of course the worst of that could be avoided if the ‘silent majority’ dug deep and started publically calling out the green blob and their useful idiots for being the deluded, hypocrits they are. Ecotards and ‘activist shareholders’ only get their way, even though representing a dogmatic minority view, by being obstreperous, intransigent louts and bullying the majority into tacit consent for greenwashing like ‘carbon disclosure’ or divestment or ‘low-carbon’ investment because it’s a path of least resistance.

    That goes especially for ‘big oil’, who are already dogmatically hated by ecotards and therefore have nothing to lose in calling them out since by now it should be obvious that green-washing is working as well for big oil as appeasement did for Neville Chamberlain and that even if king coal is politically unfashionable on European catwalks this season, it’s not at a loss for pragmatic customers elsewhere in the world.

    (Edited, to make paragraphs, no words were added or deleted) SUNMOD

    Reply to  Erny72
    May 4, 2019 12:26 pm

    thanks sunmod – I typed that up in MS Word to avoid data loss if my home wifi had a turn and failed to consider the default paragraph style in word when copy/pasting.
    My bad. you have my gratitude.

    Reply to  Erny72
    May 5, 2019 12:11 pm

    The green movement has gotten as far as it has exactly because the real movers behind it do not feel the need to save the earth at all — environmentally anyway. Its purpose is to retard the US and the rest of the West economically, so that China or some other power can overtake us as the world’s dominant power — in most cases because they believe their own countries will be the economic and cultural winners.

    This is why we are now in what amounts to a pause in green political activity — because the same people are busy right now in the movement to deplatform conservatives (very broadly defined, including climate skeptics) in the media, a movement that will continue (if it can) until it has completely duplicated the Chinese Cultural Revolution in the western world. That is the battle to be won or lost now.

    Mike Haseler (Scottish Sceptic)
    Reply to  David Middleton
    May 5, 2019 3:47 am

    ” It would take the onset of the next glacial stage to crash it” – you fundamentally misunderstand the eco-cult. The eco-cult exists because of three things 1. because some people need to believe in something. 2. Because we are rich enough to waste money of pathetic fads like global warming non-science 3. Because the rise of the internet ~2000 created an environment in which a doomsday eco-cult could for a short while grow rapidly.

    Indeed,if it weren’t for the fact we stopped emissions of smog causing coolants in the 1970s and got a few decades of warming to counter the global cooling cult that had already gained a foothold, then, there is little doubt the present eco-cult would be predicting doomsday cooling with the same vigour and probably with almost identical “solutions”.

    So, even if we did have a “onset of the next glacial stage” the eco-cult would just adapt to include that in its supposed “predictions”.

    Reply to  Mike Haseler (Scottish Sceptic)
    May 5, 2019 4:53 am

    To paraphrase Roger Daltry, “Meet the new cult, same as the old cult”…

    Science News, March 1975 — A real magazine cover.

    Fortunately climate models saved us from The Ice Age Cometh.

    I have the above picture on my office door… Little Oil doesn’t have to pay quite as much lip service as Big Oil.

    The problem is that back then, politicians weren’t stupid enough to think they could legislate the climate, and they had yet to devise the Big Tobacco extortion model.

    Mickey Reno
    May 4, 2019 6:47 am

    I completely agree with your central premise, David. The forces that sought to demonize coal usage were first and foremost other fossil fuel interests seeking advantages for their product, natural gas. Those efforts and expenditures come under the rubric of cronyism. The government sided against coal and in favor of less CO2 emissions, and the natural gas industry happily went along, knowing they would be the beneficiaries. Luckily for us who are not in the coal mining and transport industries, the coal will wait patiently in the ground for us, and be there when we need it.

    But the main reason all fossil fuel industries give to PR efforts, environmental groups, and political campaigns is because they want to be “at the table” when law and policy and regulations are decided. I wish they would choose to spend more on fighting back against the stupid, personally, and starving the stupid of the cash it needs to brainwash us.

    Reply to  Mickey Reno
    May 4, 2019 10:02 am

    Without proof, I have always thought the BIG COAL was behind the funding of the anti-nuclear electrical industry activists to help maintain their market share.

    I think BIG OIL and GAS play the renewable game because they know only nuclear power can really cut into their market share for electricity, and nothing can really cut into their share of transportation to any significant degree for years to come.

    It is still just political cronyism.

    May 4, 2019 6:58 am

    I have a lot of money invested in oil stocks. I don’t believe in man-made global warming and I do believe that the oil companies perform a vital economic and social function and that they are profitable investment.

    Having said that I am constantly irritated when I read financial reports from my stocks that the companies are concerned about global warming or that they are donating money to some environmental goodie goodie cause. As I see it their primary reason for being is to maximize the legal profit that they return to me and to other stock holders and secondarily to provide a product that the free market wants to buy. I don’t want them donating to charity and I really don’t want them donating to environmental groups.

    I guess you probably think that’s an awful point of view. Tough. Everyone benefits society the most when they lawfully pursue their own selfish economic interests. Most money given to “causes” is wasted. And the so-called environmental activism the worst of the worst waste and does far more harm than good.

    Gerald Machnee
    Reply to  Marty
    May 4, 2019 12:28 pm

    ** I really don’t want them donating to environmental groups. **
    That is done for PR to keep them quieter. i would not do it either. I would ask for a high quality study with no “links’, “confident”, and “very likely” nonsense.

    I do not know why any oil company would accept a report that says man made CO2 causes significant warming.

    May 4, 2019 8:14 am

    Big oil may process a lot oil oil but most oil reserves are owned by sovereign nations. However, oil company natural gas reserves are huge. Climate alarmism has likely doubled the size of the natural gas market. So the question should not be why oil companies support green groups, it’s why are green groups such patsies for big oil?

    Reply to  Sean
    May 4, 2019 8:17 am

    If that was the case, the “green groups” would be all for “natural gas to nuclear.” Very few of them are… Because the “green groups” largely consist of zealous morons.

    Reply to  David Middleton
    May 4, 2019 11:49 am

    Collectives of domatic automatons who contribute nothing to society (nor the causes they think they represent when you consider how most green voters live in urban constituencies and are against fracking but cheer on deforrestation posing as ‘biomass’), who hate what they’ve been programmed to hate and haven’t sufficient ability for independent thought to bring logic to bear on the processing of compelling counter arguments.
    You can’t fix stupid, so it would seem a no-brainer just to ignore the morons and spend time convincing those who make a contribution to society what is the difference between sheisse and Shinola and seek the ‘social license to operate’ from people who matter.
    Which is why it beggars belief that big oil hasn’t figured out that greenwashing might look like an easy opportunity today apparently without realising that it’s tantamount to jumping into a pool with a school of under-fed piranhas.

    Beta Blocker
    May 4, 2019 9:09 am

    Sooner or later, the Democrats will be back in full control of the federal government. As it concerns energy policy, everything Donald Trump and his people did while he was in office will be quickly and completely erased. If oil and gas executives aren’t sitting at the table, they will be on the menu.

    If you are an oil & gas industry executive and you know how to play the game of national energy politics to your best advantage, what’s not to like about powerful government intervention in the energy marketplace? What’s not to like about raising the price of all energy resources and directly or indirectly reducing energy production and consumption?

    An energy policy which places a stiff tax on all carbon fuels, plus the eventual adoption of a government-imposed carbon fuel rationing scheme, could serve to greatly increase oil industry profits per unit of production. If the policy is written with this goal in mind, then it becomes desirable for industry executives to support these kinds of anti-carbon measures. Assuming they can play their cards right, and assuming they aren’t eaten by the tiger they are riding.

    If the cost-price structures of oil & gas production and distribution can be manipulated in active collusion with those who will determine the government’s future energy policies, the ultimate result after everything shakes out could be higher total income on a lower total volume of oil & gas production.

    Here is another profit opportunity which oil & gas industry executives should be closely watching over the next two decades. What if the reliability of the power grid begins to fall precipitously at some point in the future as a consequence of relying too much on wind and solar?

    Not to worry. Fifteen years from now, if the power grid’s reliability has declined significantly as a consequence of government-imposed renewable energy mandates, the quickest way to fix the problem is for LNG-powered gas peaker plants to be quickly constructed wherever they can be easily serviced by rail transport.

    In this scenario, the oil & gas industry wins, the railroads win, the manufacturers of gas-fired peaker plants win, and energy consumers can now feel good about themselves and their contribution to a clean environment because they are using half as much electricity per capita as was being used twenty years earlier.

    At any rate, oil & gas industry executives owe it to their stockholders to take the best advantage they can of emerging profit opportunities. Even if those opportunities involve taking direct advantage of government-enforced energy policies which might appear on the surface to be nominally anti-carbon.

    May 4, 2019 9:12 am

    The fact that a gallon of spilled crude on the ocean destroys more environment than 100 tons of CO2 is apparently lost on this new flock of WHINE WHINE WHINE warmist panic chickens.

    Berndt Koch
    May 4, 2019 9:25 am

    and yet the greens still want more of the cash by suing the oil companies because “the oil companies knew…”

    This battle is exactly that, just one battle in the greens war on humanity…

    Reply to  Berndt Koch
    May 4, 2019 9:31 am


    Kurt in Switzerland
    May 4, 2019 9:34 am

    Since you didn’t mention it, I’ll ask the question: do you get funding from Big Coal? Little Coal? Medium-sized Coal? (Not that this should be a problem, mind you).

    But the message of this post is very important: Big Oil & Gas are big donators to the Climate Industrial Machine. Not a lot of people know that.

    Reply to  Kurt in Switzerland
    May 4, 2019 10:06 am

    It depends on how you define “big”. $1 billion/year is chump change compared to what the US government spends and what NGO’s like the NRDC, WWF, Sierra Club, etc raise every year.

    Reply to  Kurt in Switzerland
    May 4, 2019 12:24 pm

    Green Blight, mitigated through outsourcing before and after, and obfuscated midstream.

    Gary Pearse
    May 4, 2019 9:44 am

    David W. You left out one thing regarding Big Oil’s participation in the Green industry. They know and the Greens know and every rational person knows that actually NOTHING is going to be done about climate change. The sector doing all this stuff- govs and NGOs- don’t DO things. They talk. Oh, they’ll jack up taxes if they can get away with it and they will fund the klatch functions and fun and give out grants and give out Nobel Prizes (Greta Thunberg will be on the list) and throw our money away until we stop them. Here’s the data: If Germans, the most disciplined, technologically adroit, doggedly persistent, obedient society on earth cannot make this stuff work, the other 200 countries should throw in the towel if they have one.

    Add to this America, maybe slack on discipline, but technologically adroit, the most disobedient and creative people on earth, the engine of the world’s economy, stubborn and zealous protectors of their freedoms and largely impervious to the sillier of Eurocentric grand schemes that rely 100% on US being all-in with their cash. They wont take the red pill. Therefore NOTHING will be done.

    Reply to  Gary Pearse
    May 4, 2019 10:03 am

    Apart from some dabbling with wind, solar and biofuels, there’s not a lot of participation. It makes sense for major oil companies to support biofuel research, particularly algal lipids, because is just another potential source of refinery feedstock.

    That said, oil companies that think they’re really energy companies, like Equinor, are trying to position themselves for the future… as they foresee the future.

    Reply to  David Middleton
    May 4, 2019 12:23 pm

    It is fair to observe though that for all the hot air about being a ‘broad energy company’ and indulging in an expensive rebranding to take the ‘oil’ out of Statoil, Equinor is still about 70% owned by the Norwegian government, so their being in thrawl of the gullible warming cause is hardly surprising given the company is an NOC in all but title and therefore, on political issues (like gullible warming), is little more than a manniquin’s dummy with a government hand up it’s fundamental orifice operating the dummy’s mouthpeice while a government spokesman does all the talking without the audience seeing their lips move.

    Reply to  Erny72
    May 4, 2019 12:32 pm

    When they changed the name, they put out a promotional video. It was nauseating.

    Equi = All energy is equal.
    Nor = Norway

    paul courtney
    Reply to  Gary Pearse
    May 5, 2019 12:34 pm

    Gary Pearse: Greta is on the list? The Nobel short list should include that Covington High School kid,, for staring down Big Indian!

    Berndt Koch
    May 4, 2019 10:26 am

    When you find yourself in a rip tide it’s prudent to swim with the tide not against it.

    Reply to  Berndt Koch
    May 4, 2019 12:44 pm

    “When you find yourself in a rip tide it’s prudent to swim with the tide not against it.”
    …I was always told to swim sideways out of a rip, then get back to the beach and warn others of the danger.

    Reply to  Erny72
    May 4, 2019 1:18 pm

    If you get caught in a riptide, here’s what to do:

    Don’t panic. Feeling like you’re getting swept out to sea can be terrifying. But try to keep calm. Rip currents won’t pull you under — they’re just channels of moving water. And while they can extend a ways out, they do eventually dissipate, most within 50-100 feet of the shoreline. So you’re not going to wash up on the shores of a deserted island with only a volleyball for a friend.

    Don’t try to swim against the rip. Deaths that result from riptides aren’t caused by the current pulling someone under; instead, the person typically panics, starts trying to swim against the rip to get back to shore, becomes exhausted, and drowns. An 8-feet-per-second riptide is so strong that not even Michael Phelps could swim against it. Don’t kick against the pricks.

    Swim parallel to the shore. Instead of swimming against the rip current, you want to swim perpendicular to it, in either direction. Rip currents are typically only 20-100 feet wide. Once you leave the rip, swim at an angle away from it towards the shore.

    Go with the flow. If you don’t have the swimming skills or energy to swim out of the rip, float on your back and go with the current. Just imagine you’re taking a spin on the Lazy River at the water park you went to as a kid. Once the rip current dissipates, you can do the parallel swim thing or try to signal to the lifeguard or someone else that you’re in need of help.

    Walt D.
    May 4, 2019 10:35 am

    Fantasy Island.
    Was Mr. O’Rorke’s first name Beto?

    May 4, 2019 1:56 pm

    There was a time when the energy industry fought back with great vids like these.

    Reply to  Tab Numlock
    May 5, 2019 6:10 am


    Thanks for that link to that video. The science back then as explained in the video was bang on.. accurate.

    Reply to  Tab Numlock
    May 5, 2019 7:02 am

    Videos like that, by the coal industry, handed them tan angle on Big Tobacco-style lawsuits.

    Reply to  Tab Numlock
    May 5, 2019 7:03 am

    Videos like that, by the coal industry, handed them an angle on Big Tobacco-style lawsuits.

    Steve O
    May 4, 2019 2:30 pm

    I guess this means we can now dismiss climate alarmists as being shills for Big Oil. With the right policies, climate alarmism can result in a financial windfall for them.

    May 4, 2019 3:33 pm

    Exxon Misled the Public on Climate Change, Study Says

    “Exxon Mobil has acknowledged climate change is real since the mid-2000s. “We support the Paris climate agreement and are members of the Climate Leadership Council, which advocates for a revenue-neutral carbon tax,” Mr. Silvestri said.

    The company stopped funding groups that vigorously pushed climate denial in the mid-2000s, including the Competitive Enterprise Institute and the Heartland Institute, claiming that their fiery rhetoric had become a “distraction” from the issues. But Exxon Mobil has taken fire over its continued support for groups that oppose taking action on climate change, including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the American Legislative Exchange Council.

    The new research was partly financed by the Rockefeller Family Fund, which has been active in environmental causes and education. Exxon Mobil has accused the Rockefellers of being part of a conspiracy against the company. Lee Wasserman, director of the organization, dismissed those claims.

    “In America, civil society organizations coming together to solve major problems is considered a virtue, not a conspiracy,” he said.”

    Reply to  jmorpuss
    May 5, 2019 7:01 am

    Those idiots think that oil industry studies of past sea level cycles and sedimentary geology were secret climate change science. They also think that the elevation of subsiding offshore oil platforms proves the oil industry was hiding evidence about sea level rise.

    May 4, 2019 4:13 pm

    Big Green and Big Oil and Coal have discovered a symbiosis. Big Oil and Coal pay protection money to Big Green and Big Green forces in legislation that raises the price of energy, oil and coal by endorsing ridiculously expensive sources of power like wind and solar coupled with electric cars. Big Oil supports the chemical and plastics industry and promotes electric cars which are heavy users. Environmentalists and politicians have also discovered a similar useful symbiosis to raise taxes and increase government revenue which is sucked out of a perilously uninformed public that thinks that it is ‘doing the right thing’ by enslaving and impoverishing itself. The truth is struggling to get out but future generations will wonder at the catastrophe created by CAGW. Watts up is leading the charge to the Truth.

    May 4, 2019 5:16 pm

    Way back, like the 1980 tees Mikell Gobachov was elected as President, of the old USSR.

    In his retirement he stated that why his attempt to reform Communism failed was that the millions of the Public servants who ran the country, did not like the new ideas and did their best to prevent any meaningful reforms from happening.

    President Trump has exactly the same problem, So today we have
    government department and agencies who are obviously still running as they did under President Obama.

    And with the constant opposition from the House of Representatives now controlled by the Democrats it would take about 4 terms of a President Trump to really turn things around. But of course since FDR that cannot happen,

    So again I have to say, “We must wait until the lights go out” and of course the near total collapse of the USA economy, for the majority of the population to realise that they have been “Conned” for so many years.

    It may well be that the USA and many of the EU countries will go through a hard right type of political system, all over again. See the film, “”Seven days in May””

    I hope that I am wrong. Sadly perhaps I will not be around to see this
    happen, but then I am not sure that I would wish to see a rise of a Nazi type government., even if its the only way to clean up the big mess.


    Farmer Ch E retired
    May 4, 2019 6:38 pm

    “That Big Oil is responsible for skepticism is just another part of the alarmist fantasy world.”

    It is only an alarmist fantasy world to the group thinkers. To the leaders, it is an intentional deception. I see it daily where the deceivers are silencing their opposition by accusing them of the exact things they are guilty of. It’s like like being called a denier when you are a solar physicist who’s in the know.
    (my opinion)

    Serge Wright
    May 4, 2019 8:02 pm

    I attended a work conference recently where we had a Shell executive present their long term business strategy and it was almost entirely based on climate change and diversification into RE. He outlined how they were purchasing solar and wind generation companies and their marketing plan was based almost soleley on highlighting their green credentials.

    Howeever, when you looked at their revenue generating sources up to 2050, it was 80% from oil/gas and 20% other, where the other included RE. At this point it was obviolus that the RE ventures and green marketing campaign was a smoke screen to prevent adverse media coverage driven by the climate alarmist zealots.

    Upon further reflection, I can’t really blame Shell and the other big oil companies from taking this approach, becuase they need to find ways of continuing to sell oil and gas to make profits for their shareholders. It’s obvious that they have a big fear of being ostracized by media and especially social media, with the predictable tactic from the green zealots of calls to ban filling up your car at their branded gas stations. Such is the fear from the left wing protest groups, big oil is being forced to waste billions of dollars on usless projects just so they can continue producing oil and gas.

    Richard Mann
    May 4, 2019 11:52 pm

    Wind and solar are not effective for reducing C02 emissions.
    In fact, adding wind and solar increases use of backup fuel (natural gas).
    In Ontario Canada Enbridge Energy supplies natural gas for wind turbines.
    More turbines = more natural gas sold + tax/ green write off.

    Reference: “Ontario’s Electricity Dilemma – Achieving Low Emissions at Reasonable Electricity Rates”. Ontario Society of Professional Engineers (OSPE). April 2015.

    Page 15 of 23. “Why Will Emissions Double as We Add Wind and Solar Plants ?”

    – Wind and Solar require flexible backup generation.

    – Nuclear is too inflexible to backup renewables without expensive engineering changes to the reactors.

    – Flexible electric storage is too expensive at the moment.

    – Consequently natural gas provides the backup for wind and solar in North America.

    – When you add wind and solar you are actually forced to reduce nuclear generation to make room for more natural gas generation to provide flexible backup.

    – Ontario currently produces electricity at less than 40 grams of CO2 emissions/kWh.

    – Wind and solar with natural gas backup produces electricity at about 200 grams of CO2 emissions/kWh. Therefore adding wind and solar to Ontario’s grid drives CO2 emissions higher. From 2016 to 2032 as Ontario phases out nuclear capacity to make room for wind and solar, CO2 emissions will double (2013 LTEP data).

    – In Ontario, with limited economic hydro and expensive storage, it is mathematically impossible to achieve low CO2 emissions at reasonable electricity prices without nuclear generation.

    Global Cooling
    Reply to  Richard Mann
    May 5, 2019 1:40 am

    Thank you for the insightful reference and its summary.

    May 5, 2019 3:03 am

    I have claimed for years the oil companies want the public to believe oil is both scarce and destroying the weather, that way nobody complains about the price. Would the public accept cartels and price fixing if oil was just another commodity, don’t think so. The oil companies want you racked with guilt as you fill your car, want you to feel like an addict.

    The modern world can not run without oil, a fact and if the public had no guilt using oil and gas, the oil companies would have to abide by the rules of a free market, that the reason oil companies support climate alarmism and green energy projects, to keep us terrified at all times.

    We know Exxon Mobil was pushing man made climate change when it thought nuclear was to be the future and wanted to be part of that future, we know Margret Thatcher did the same thing to brake the coal miners unions. We are being manipulated at all times and our only weapon the truth, but then we have to know the truth.

    May 5, 2019 4:59 am

    I have claimed for years the oil companies want the public to believe oil is both scarce and destroying the weather…

    100% nonsense.

    Reply to  David Middleton
    May 5, 2019 6:05 am

    Why is it, when anybody reacts this way, I am more convinced than before I must be right? Would be nice you told us all why you know what I wrote to be 100% nonsense, would be a real discussion.

    May 5, 2019 6:56 am

    The burden of proof is on those who make such defamatory nonsensical assertions.

    However… I’ve been a petroleum geologist/geophysicist since 1981 and I’ve never seen a single oil industry assertion that oil was scarce and/or destroying the weather.

    American Petroleum Institute, 2010…

    The theory of Peak Oil is one of the most widely discussed–and intriguing–energy topics in the blogosphere. Simply put, the theory refers to the widely-held concept that oil is finite and production inevitably will decline, forcing major changes to our way of life, our economy, as well as the fate of humankind worldwide. The theory is attributed to M. King Hubbert, an oil company geologist, who created a graph called Hubbert’s Curve predicting a sharp decline in oil production near the beginning of the 21st Century.


    Many believe the world is depleting its oil supplies; others focus on EROI (energy return on investment)and postulate that the cost of producing oil will outstrip oil’s economic value discouraging production; and the National Petroleum Council (NPC)says there are plenty of hydrocarbons below ground but policies above ground will sharply limit access. (API is not a member of the NPC.)


    Please note that API does not have a position on Peak Oil.

    American Association of Petroleum Geologists, 2017…

    The World Keeps Not Running Out of Oil

    July 2017 By David Brown, Explorer Correspondent


    The world has anticipated the “rapid exhaustion” of crude oil supplies for at least 100 years.


    Will it go on being close to running out of crude for the next 100?


    “Peak Oil” — the idea that global oil production will soon reach a maximum and then begin to decline — attracted a significant number of believers in the 1990s and early 2000s.


    Then unconventionals happened.

    Unconventional resource production blossomed in the United States. With rising crude production, the U.S. stopped soaking up the world’s excess oil supply.


    Instead of cutting back crude production to balance the market, Saudi Arabia increased production to protect its market share.


    And ta-da! — we got a global glut of crude and liquids, along with a truly major price collapse. Today, you are more likely to hear people talk about a possible worldwide peak in oil demand rather than a peak in oil production.


    But the principal arguments for Peak Oil haven’t changed much.


    Doomsday Averted

    The concept of Peak Oil developed from a theory put forth by American geoscientist M. King Hubbert. Based on overall reserve estimates and the pattern and history of field discoveries in the United States, Hubbert created a composite, mega-decline curve that predicted U.S. crude oil production would peak in the 1965-70 time period.


    And U.S. oil production did reach a peak, a little later than the original Hubbert curve predicted. But with the discovery of North Slope oil in Alaska, production began to increase again. The domestic Peak Oil estimate was re-labeled as a Lower 48 prediction.


    Now, it appears that Hubbert’s approach predicts a profile for conventional oil production in a defined geographic area, when technological development and oil prices remain within limited bounds.


    “When people ask, ‘How much oil is there?’ the answer is, ‘At what price?,’” Sternbach noted. “Things like tar sands could release huge amounts of oil at the right price.”


    Breakthroughs in technology, especially horizontal drilling plus hydraulic fracturing — call it “hydrozontal development” — combined with today’s improved exploration and production tools have reversed the U.S. oil production decline.


    In its June energy outlook, the U.S. Energy Information Agency forecast that U.S. crude production will reach an all-time high of more than 10 million barrels per day (b/d) in 2018, along with 4.19 million b/d of natural gas liquids and 1.02 million b/d of ethanol.


    Instead of Peak Oil, the world has gotten a peek at a new energy future.


    Innovation is “ increasing the value of the resources and it’s reducing the cost of getting to them. When those two things combine, you get to a sweet spot,” Sternbach said. “That’s a paradigm shift that creates waves of increased value.”

    AAPG Explorer

    Watts  Up With That? 2017 “The World Keeps Not Running Out of Oil”

    Watts Up With That? 2019 Peak Oil, Abiotic Oil & EROEI: Real(ish) Things That Don’t Matter, Part One: Peak Oil

     AAPG Climate Change Position Statement

    Reply to  David Middleton
    May 5, 2019 7:46 am

    Thank you, something to mull over, more later. Again thank you.

    Reply to  David Middleton
    May 5, 2019 7:47 am

    Thank you, something to mull over, more later. Again thank you.

    Reply to  David Middleton
    May 5, 2019 8:12 am

    I am Icelandic as maybe you guessed by my name. I hold out a discussion in Iceland in Icelandic on the the climate now well over million hits, would compare to about a billion in this country. Maybe the only voice in Iceland against the believe man has destroyed the weather.

    A lot of what I do, copy and paste links to this site and comment on it. I am a layman, no expert in anything but maybe cows, being a farmer. Another discussion I keep up, on the origin of oil. No million hits but up there, my argument it must have more or less geological origins, logical if nothing else.

    I live in upstate New York, my first real knowledge of Trump was they wanted to build a casino not far from me, bus the retirees in New York City up to the Catskills instead of to Atlantic City, the funds staying in New York State. Trump did not like that one very much. So what he did, supported anti gambling organisations in the area, able to kill it until he was out of the business.

    On to if the oil industry supports anti-oil organisations/climate fear mongers. The oil industry does not speak with one voice of course, but oil companies and even oil producers in the Middle East openly support “green” energy projects that do not make economic sense, why?

    May 5, 2019 11:42 am

    Iceland is on my “bucket list” of places to visit… some of the coolest geology in the world… 😎

    I have a few WUWT posts on the origin of oil.

    [The mods must challenge “coolest geology in the world” ….
    Almost coldest geology in the world perhaps?
    Ex-used-to-be-hottest geology in the world? .mod]

    Reply to  David Middleton
    May 6, 2019 2:37 am

    In my mind the strongest proof oil might have a geological origin, was an Icelandic news caster flying over the Eyjafjallajökul’s lava in a helicopter. saying she smelled new asphalt.
    Lava coming up, sometimes comes from pools not that far down that have been sitting there maybe for centuries and degassed. But sometimes the lava is coming from way down straight up and doesn’t have time to degas, that the reason she smelled the asphalt in my mind. Obviously lava coming up mixed with hydrocarbons will burn everything off very fast ones in the oxygen atmosphere. But sometimes not everything gets burned before it cools if it is thrown up into the air and the news caster smells newly laid asphalt as she said. I made fun of her beautiful nose being a scientific instrument and was made fun of being so stupid, nobody took me seriously. Still think this an important issue, her nose, quite cute.

    May 6, 2019 4:19 am

    Crude oil can’t exist for prolonged periods of time at temperatures above 300 °F (150 °C). It cracks into natural gas.

    The generally accepted theory of oil formation also holds that oil is of geological origin. There is a serious misconception that the theory holds that it is a biological process. The original source material was of biological origin. Geological processes turn that material into kerogen, then oil, then natural gas. Methane can form directly from the decay of organic matter, thermogenic cracking of oil or volcanic/igneous/metamorphic processes.

    This doesn’t mean that there is or was oil in lava…

    In Hawaii, some 2,000 people are still waiting to get back into their homes after the Kilauea volcano on the Big Island spewed all this lava into residential neighborhoods. The lava burned homes and buildings.

    JEREMY WILSON: It smells like burning asphalt and trees and sounds like a engine going off. You hear popping and rocks. And it looks like a – you know, there’s a mix of, like, liquid red and orange and, like – along with, like, the black cinder rock that kind of drags along, leaving behind, like, a white ash.

    Reply to  David Middleton
    May 6, 2019 6:16 am

    Nobody know how things are in the mantle, just theories, carbon mixed in everywichway under enormous pressure. What I was saying, sometimes the lava comes directly up from way below and does not have time to degas or adjust to the lower pressure, comes out mixed with carbon compounds (not only methane) that then burn up very quickly before anybody can analyse them, the asphalt smell again. The proof in my mind all oil is not of biological origin. Her nose again, nose fetish?

    May 6, 2019 8:04 am

    We know that it is too hot for oil to exist well-above the mantle.

    Even if the carbon came from the mantle, it wouldn’t make any difference. Oil and gas can only be produced from economically viable accumulations.

    May 6, 2019 4:32 am

    Actual asphalt “volcanoes” do exist, but don’t smell like asphalt…

    The Native Arsenic mineral smells like garlic… but wouldn’t make a good substitute for garlic.

    Mike Haseler (Scottish Sceptic)
    May 5, 2019 3:38 am

    I think a lot of companies pay off the eco cult simply as a way of getting them off their back in the short term. But like any mafia extortion racket – paying them off just makes them more keen to come back for more.

    Reply to  Mike Haseler (Scottish Sceptic)
    May 5, 2019 4:57 am

    The problem is that, despite the best efforts of President Trump, it is a government-approved, if not -required, mafia extortion racket.

    Reply to  David Middleton
    May 5, 2019 6:37 am

    Government, the Midas touch in reverse. Everything they touch turns to sh%t.

    May 5, 2019 10:00 pm

    Big Oil and Gas is very effective pretending to be Green with devious intent to kill coal industry. Coal is biggest energy competitor and will be big loser with carbon taxes. Big winners will be oil and gas with increased market share and inevitably higher product prices which more than offset carbon taxes they will pay.

    Big O&G have a token wind/solar/bio-fuel making small percentage of their business. However, their public propaganda campaigns insinuate that they will be the green saviors of the future. I don’t know whether to laugh or vomit at their effective advertising.

    Business is business, and I can’t really fault their dis-information efforts in order to make Bigger Buck$ !!

    Reply to  RelPerm
    May 6, 2019 1:31 am

    Abject nonsense.

    Oil and coal aren’t directly competitive.

    Coal isn’t competitive with natural gas when natural prices are low, as they have been for a decade.

    Higher natural gas prices would be beneficial to both the coal and oil & gas industry.

    Coal has been the primary target of regulatory assault for more than a decade because it yields more real full-cycle pollution per Btu than natural gas and twice as much CO2 as natural gas.

    The regulatory assault on coal has nothing to do with anything the oil & gas industry has done because the oil & gas industry doesn’t do anything collectively. Industry trade groups like the API aren’t “the oil & gas industry.” Chesapeake CEO Aubrey McClendon isn’t the “the oil & gas industry.” Chesapeake was dependent on high natural gas prices. The company was built on the assumption of long-term natural gas prices of $6-9/mcf… 2-3 times what they have been. The $26 million they contributed to the Sierra Club from 2007-2012 had nothing to do with the near-bankruptcy of the coal industry. The collapse in natural gas prices is what nearly killed coal.

    Reply to  David Middleton
    May 6, 2019 10:32 am

    Abject nonsense!?!

    David, your feedback is usually wise and insightful, but you are showing some ignorance into basics of oil and gas industry and ability to act strategically against the coal industry. Oil and gas can generally be considered one industry as petroleum reservoirs contain varying content of natural gas and liquids. “Big Oil” has very significant production of both oil and gas as part of their business. “Big Oil” has insignificant wind/solar/bio-fuels as part of their business. However, you would never know that from their ad campaigns touting green efforts and supporting concept of carbon taxes in lobbying efforts. This facade has duped a lot of people, it looks like you included.

    Coal and gas and oil are directly competitive hydrocarbon energy resources. All can be used competitively for electricity generation, transportation fuel, and feedstock to petrochemical industry. Market share all depends on economics.

    Coal for many decades has been the primary fuel for US electricity generation. Oil is currently not an effective competitor because on an energy equivalent basis it has ~10 times the price of coal and gas. However, during the 60/70’s, there was a crash in oil prices. Domestic fuel for electricity: oil increased and coal decreased. During the 70/80’s oil price increased and the reverse happened.

    You are correct that recent reliable low cost supply of natural gas and expensive regulations on the coal industry have caused natural gas to become much more competitive fuel for electricity which resulted in larger gas market share. Law of supply and demand, gravitating toward lowest cost fuel for electricity demand is only reasonable.

    Carbon tax will certainly throw another monkey wrench into the supply demand equation as the coal tax will be ~30% higher than the oil tax and 100% higher than natural gas tax on energy equivalent basis. Death knell for coal industry and boon for natural gas. Hmmm…., why is “Big Oil” in favor of carbon tax? It isn’t because of their minuscule renewable fuels business growing but rather their anticipated booming natural gas business.

    Reply to  RelPerm
    May 6, 2019 12:17 pm

    The oil & gas industry has no “strategic interest against the coal industry”.

    Higher natural gas prices due to market forces would be good for both industries.

    Coal is nowhere close to being competitive with oil for transportation purposes. It wasn’t competitive during the price shocks of the 1970’s. It wasn’t even “competitive” in Nazi Germany; they lacked sufficient access to oil. Oil is nowhere close to being competitive with coal for electricity generation, except in places like Hawaii. There is no direct competition.

    There’s an old joke about two Yuppies hiking in Yellowstone National Park and they encounter a Grizzly Bear. One Yuppie sits down, takes his running shoes out of his backpack and starts to put them on. The other Yuppie says, “You’ll never outrun that bear.” To which the first Yuppie replies, “I know, I just have to outrun you.” Oil & gas companies have a legally binding fiduciary obligation to their shareholders and no one else. “Big Oil” has adopted a favorable position on a carbon tax because it is the form of carbon regulation least destructive of the oil & gas industry. “Big Oil” and much of “Little Oil” understand that carbon regulations/taxes are coming. Big Coal understands this too. This is why they advocated staying in the Paris Accord, to maintain “a seat at the table.” It’s just a matter of when and trying to soften the impact when they arrive. The “strategic interest” is against the government and for the oil & gas industry – Which does not act collectively for two reasons” 1) It’s illegal and 2) We are in direct competition with one another.

    Reply to  David Middleton
    May 6, 2019 5:43 pm

    Dave, I’ll have to send you some writings about capitalism invisible hand by Adam Smith. Just because Big Oil companies are acting similarly doesn’t mean they are acting collectively or colluding. They are competing against each other and competing with different energy providers such as coal. This is not illegal.

    I agree with David Wojick on his excellent excellent article and am not impressed with your blathering.

    Peter Fraser
    May 6, 2019 4:42 pm

    This is not the first time the Seven Sisters have contributed to the greens They provided substantial funding to slow down the Alaskan Pipeline because they were fully committed to the development of the oil fields in the North Sea

    Johann Wundersamer
    May 8, 2019 6:22 am

    “OGCI was launched in 2014, shortly after the infamous Chesapeake Energy scandal, when its CEO got caught giving the Sierra Club millions of dollars to support the environmentalist and Obama Administration war on coal. Ironically, even Club members opposed taking the money, since they consider all fossil fuels to be their enemy – and after it had bashed coal into submission, the Club took aim at natural gas, Chesapeake’s primary revenue source.:

    Um es auf den Punkt zu bringen, betrachten Sie die Herkunft. OGCI wurde im Jahr 2014 kurz nach dem berüchtigten Skandal von Chesapeake Energy ins Leben gerufen, als sein CEO erwischt wurde, wie er dem Sierra Club Millionen Dollar gab, um den Krieg gegen die Umwelt durch die Obama-Regierung zu unterstützen. Ironischerweise lehnten sogar Clubmitglieder das Geld ab, da sie alle fossilen Brennstoffe als ihren Feind betrachten – und nachdem Kohle die Kohle unterworfen hatte, zielte der Club auf Erdgas, Chesapeakes Haupteinnahmequelle.

    Real time irony – in German the words for ‘cash, green bucks, money orders’ is

    ‘Penunze, Asche, Schotter, KOHLE …’

    so Kohle [coal] bashed Kohle [coal].

    Johann Wundersamer
    May 8, 2019 6:45 am

    Great stuff, David Wojick!

    / Wozzek’s, Wozniak’s, … hard stuff

    %d bloggers like this: