Your blog piece is nonsense. How does he argue that blocking states from trying to exploit offshore oil and gas is tantamount to increasing greenhouse gases? (Reply: He's not. )He doesn't. Consumption reduction and renewable energy are the salient topics. Besides, Tierney is a total lightweight. He is kept around the NYTimes because he is one of the best intellects the right can muster. Remember, he was the predecessor to Kristol who in turn helped birth the neo-con debacle we are living in.

The real issue is that while southern states will gladly trash their lands and shores for a fast buck, the rest of the country will have to pick up the tab when the things go wrong. What is more, there is no recovery when things have gone wrong. The risks are totally assymetric. If we have learned anything from the Exxon Valdez disaster, the largest corporations' strategy of decades long litigation in Federal courts infested with Reagan and Dubya Bush judges, and lobbying an easily corrupted Congress will make the people pay versus the perpetrators.

In fact, your blog entry is so foolish, I read your bio because I could not believe a scientist would make such an idiotic argument. I was relieved to see you are not a scientist, but have the credentials of someone who reads the weather on local television stations. (Reply: You must not have read my bio or even the article that I referenced to in order to come up with that conclusion. I have a BS in atmospheric science from Rutgers and 19 years of experience as a forecaster here at AccuWeather.)Do yourself a favor. Limit your comments to the likelihood of a successful picnic, or softball game. Leave science to scientists. On the other hand, if you truly are a malicious sort, should the country have the misfortune of a McCain presidency, a.k.a. Bush III, you could likely get a top job censoring scientists.

My only real gripe with this piece is with the following claim:

My colleague Andy Revkin notes an interesting argument by Peter Maass in favor of offshore drilling here: better to do it under the strict environmental controls of America than to �outsource� the job to places like Nigeria.

Why should increased oil production in the U.S. discourage Nigeria from producing oil? The world is in a state right now where demand will keep up with any increase in supply, so Nigeria would have no incentive to either reduce production or clean up its act. It would perhaps reduce U.S. dependence on foreign oil and stabilize prices here a bit, but I don't see it reducing any environmental damage done there...it would just make us forget about it since we're less reliant on it. Out of sight, out of mind?

On the other hand, I realize that wasn't a claim actually put forth by the author. I more or less agree with the arguments made by Tierney. Who am I to argue against state rights?

I just have a couple questions (for anyone who would like to respond) because I'm not up on those kind of things...is the ban a ban on drilling in federal waters off the coasts of states? And if the ban is lifted, will states also have the right to ban drilling in federal waters off their coasts if they so desire?

YES!!!! DRILL NOW!!! DRILL OFTEN!!! DRILL YESTERDAY!!!!! BUILD REFINERIES!!!!..The mear mention that we are going start drilling will have an effect on the world markets (NOTE: It will NOT bring gas prices down overnight, but there will be an impact on the markets and it will send Ali Baba and the 40 OPEC Thieves into a tizzy)..AND TO HECK WITH THE SPECKLED OWL AND THE CARIBOU AND THE POLAR BEARS and the LIE THAT IS GLO-BULL WARMING!!!.....and stop with this defeatest attitude that "we can't drill our way out of this" from the Democrats and the enviroMENTALists! Got to love them! The Party of "We Can't!" And believe me, I have my inklings as to why they behave this way, but out of respect for Brett, I will refrain. At least for now.

Oil. The Fuel that runs the world. GET OVER IT AND GO GET IT!!!! NOW!!!!

China and Cuba plan to drill in the Gulf. Now who do you suppose will likely be kinder to the environment -- a large corporation subject to our regulations or the Communists?

Has anybody ever visited a Communist country? Eastern Europe was an environmental disaster when it was part of the Soviet bloc. China is a terrible polluter. Our country is getting cleaner and is less polluted than it was a century ago. China is becoming more polluted as they build dirty factories, dirty coal power plants and dump wastes wherever they wish.

When Katrina tore through the gulf, there weren't any leaks from the oil rigs that I saw reported. Maybe the fears of the enviros are ancient history.

I'm so out of it, I thought the objection to offshore drilling was the sight of oil rigs from LA beach houses. But I guess with offshore wind farms becoming the next big thing, they can't use the visual pollution argument anymore.

There are plenty of places that can be drilled for oil. Something like 68 million acres or something. Reply: But this is about offshore drilling.

I think he missed the nail when he said:

Aside from being distraction from the serious new danger of global warming

At least there are more people ready to drill, and realize that it is very safe.

Brett, it sounds as if you weren't aware that Tierney has a long history of attacking environmentalists by way of giving them supposedly helpful advice. The first commenter obviously was aware of it (and probably assumed you were as well).

The funniest thing about Tierney's post was his assertion that everything's been just swell since the 1969 Santa Barbara spill. That reminds me of Tom Lehrer's lyric re the Germans (written about 20 years after World War II): "We taught them a lesson back in 1918, and they haven't bothered us much since then."

I don't see the states' rights angle as having any traction, in part because the amount of oil that could be gotten from offshore drilling is too little, too late. That it would produce a small amount of oil in 15 or 20 years just doesn't make for compelling politics.

Also, environmentalists have never made a fetish of states rights. We're interesting in protecting and improving the environment at whatever level is most effective.

Once again AccuWeather shows it's bias favoring Big Oil.

Not enough that you all actually accept oil money for 3rd rate forecasting (because you make lots of noise as skeptics), but now you are actually promoting offshore drilling. Reply: Keep in mind Andrew, I found the article and stated my own opinion about Tierney's thoughts. Nothing more than that.

Eventually, all the oil that's worth drilling for will be gotton. Why hasten the effort when oil is still relatively cheap.

Yes; that's correct: CHEAP!

In time, oil will virtually run out and the price will be far higher than it is now. Better save the offshore stuff for the next generation than to waste it all now.

Sadly, there is little incentive to develop alternative sources of energy that carry less risk for environmental damage otherwise.

Reply: I am all for alternative energy, but there are also many worse options than well regulated offshore drilling. Also, I was not aware that I was receiving oil money. Where did you get that one from!?

The arguments in favor of drilling are as thin and species as ever. The same kind of arguments are made now for neo-con nuclear power. Safety has come so far since the "bad old days". I am sure the fisherman of Alaska and Washington, still struggling to recover from the devastation of Exxon-Valdez will see the truth of this argument. While the rest of us wander about saying "it can't happen here" even though it always does happen to someone. But that is of no consequence. Will they drill? Of course they will. Would a junkie turn down the last hit; the alkie the last shot? World civilization is now completely relient on(read addicted to) a non-renewable resource. That re-source is getting more difficult to obtain (i.e. deep not shallow), the product is not as good (i.e. sour not sweet) and the cost is going up at a debilitating rate. So it should come as no suprise that The Power will drill. Will it do any good? Ask the next junkie you see. In the end the last one left will be oiznop, dancing around barefoot but in a tuxedo drinking the last bottle champagne and shouting about ending the AGW myth as the world sputters and dies around him. Adios

Holy Batcrap!!! Observer needs to take a pill or hug a tree or something.

Man, Tierney's a lightweight? Only because he says something you don't like. If he spewed the crud that is AGW mantra, I bet you'd have a different view.

And stating that southern states will gladly trash their lands? Sure, all them 'hicks just love to sit around trashin' where they done live.

Let me guess, your from the northeast ain't cha? What an elitist and frankly ignorant view. Typical greeny liberal talk.

And then Observer tops it off by attacking Brett. Now Brett don't need nobody defending him and goodness knows that ideologically, we probably don't see eye to eye, but dang, your comments are idiotic. Brett has probably forgotten more crap about atmospheric science then you even come close to knowing. Read his real blog and listen to him on PCP and you see he's pretty darn bright and intelligent about this climate stuff.

You want to know how I know that? I'll tell you, you spit out the same agenda driven drivel and terms that show you to be a follower of the Goreacle. What that means is that you are unlikely to have any real understanding of technical things and really think with your emotions instead of the logical side of your brain.

The comments about impending disasters of oil production put the nail in the coffin. Gee, Katrina ripped right through the oil fields and guess what? No spills. Huh... doesn't quite fit the party line does it? No matter, just spit it out there anyway right? And gee whiz, any comments about Hussein lighting up 700 oil wells? Nope, didn't think so since you would rather beat up the guy that put that Monster away. In fact, you could say that "Dubya" is one of the better environmentalists out there. Gore never tried to catch Hussein and hold him accountable for the ravages he committed upon the environment.

And finally, there is no proven case of censoring of scientists. I mean really, the guy who has bi***ed about it the most (Hansen), is one of the most quoted ones out there. What more could he say? Especially, since HIS models are so HOT biased anyway, as Bastardi astutely points out today.

You know, facts really stink if you're an AGWer. Never let a good story (have you heard Gore talk about the poor Polar Bears?) get in the way of reality.

AS for drilling, I say we drill and refine until we're blue in the face. There is plenty of resources available and new technology allows us to be more efficient (read conservative) with it when we get it.

The piece seems more like a rant that tends to not go anywhere. If he is trying to make the case that the feds should lift the ban on offshore drilling and let the states decide. I agree.

Now, if the states decide that they don't want to drill off their shores, maybe some sort of penalty should be imposed on them in the form of higher fuel prices due to increased transportation costs. The NIMBY attitude has got to go.

As far as the greenhouse gas angle goes, if there was actually a problem, I might worry about. But since there isn't, who cares?

Veets,

In order for them to drill on the 68 million acres, there has to be something worthwhile to drill for. You have to have some sort of evidence that there is oil down there, like source rock, structural traps, salt domes, etc. Otherwise, why drill? This acreage would have been drilled if they thought there was enough economically recoverable oil to make it worth their while.

I think that Tierney is right. Environmentalists are taking a major hit because of their opposition to off-shore drilling. CO2 emissions will continue to increase regardless of whether or not we harvest our own oil or use foreign sources. Besides, CO2 has not been shown to harm the environment or cause climate change - that's just a theory. Gasoline at $4.00 a gallon - now, that's a reality.

I also believe that the risk to the environment of off-shore drilling is minimal. Just like with nuclear power, America has been intimidated into abandoning this clean energy solution by a powerful, well-funded environmental movement. And yet, other nations, like France, produce some 70% of their electricty safely and cleanly using nuclear technology.

The arguments put forth by environmentalists are losing their "fear factor" and more and more people are realizing this.

Anonamy,

The theory of peak oil may be a myth. Scientists have created 'bugs' that secrete oil as a waste product. Could this be the process that is taking place in the mantle of the earth.

http://www.examiner.com/x-243-Progressive-Politics-Examiner~y2008m6d15-The-Future-is-Oil-Excreting-Bugs

Do you like the idea of ethanol? could we then say that you are in the pocket of big agribusiness? (Bigagri)ADM, Cargil, Dole etc

All of those lovely Government subsidies coming from our tax dollars to produce a product that is less efficent than gasoline and raising the price of food so the poor of the world cannot afford tortillas, pasta, matza, falaffell.

LOL. It's Thursday and the laughs have started.
Of course we should drill. We can do it safely and cleanly. It's only until we drill can we see just how much oil is actually there.
I know some of you are saying, "My mind is made up Please don't confuse me with the facts!" I guess an old teacher was right when he told me, "Do what you can but remember you can't fix stupid!"
Here's a challenge for all you anti-drilling folks. Turn your electricity off, stop eating anything you don't grow and kill yourself, stop taking drugs, getting medical diagnostic procedures, sell your car and walk to work.(no subway ,bus, train or taxi for you) Unless you are manually cutting firewood don't forget to wear very warm clothes (no doubt to be made from locally grown organic grass)as the winter may be a tad bit cool without the energy made from the very practices you are whining about. Most of it comes from underground sources (Mining, or drilling.)
Until such time as you can accomplish those feats it would behoove you to do a bit of actual soul searching. So every morning just click your wooden shoes three times, look straight in the mirror and say to yourself, "I'm a hypocrite" 10 times real fast and then real slow. You may just get the idea how asinine the action of not drilling actually is.
BTW Some of us in Central NY, PA, W.VA and Kentucky may just get to join BIG OIL and GAS as we may be sitting on one of the largest natural gas reserves in the world. They just got to start drilling (hopefully within the next 18 months) and see if their computer models are correct. What sublime irony if Big Oil’s computers are proven better than those of the zealots of AGW!

Wow -- Tierney must be on to something if he has the greens so worked up! I notice there are not many cogent postings arguing logically against the idea of the USA drilling off our coasts, just a lot of name calling and angry rants.

I wonder how I missed the payoff from big oil? I have been and remain very skeptical of the AGW hypothesis but big oil has never given me a dime. I guess you don't buy the milk when you can get the cow for free.

Anybody else here not getting money from big oil, or am I the only one?

jep, Kansas USA says,

China and Cuba plan to drill in the Gulf. Now who do you suppose will likely be kinder to the environment -- a large corporation subject to our regulations or the Communists?

Jep - even Dick Cheney, who first uttered this non-sense, said it is not true! Just because a few fanatics continue to repeat it doesn't make it true.

http://www.miamiherald.com/campaign08/story/570011.html

Rick Ressler says: Besides, CO2 has not been shown to harm the environment or cause climate change - that's just a theory.

Rick, how can you say that with a straight face. The physical link between climate change and CO2 is a theory. A theory, for scientists, isn't conjecture. It's well established fact broadly accepted, even by most deniers. Remove the greenhouse effect and see how long life on earth last.
The lack of solid science education in this country is shocking.

ted,

BTW Some of us in Central NY, PA, W.VA and Kentucky may just get to join BIG OIL and GAS as we may be sitting on one of the largest natural gas reserves in the world.

A buddy of mine has been looking at this trend which extends from Kentucky up into upstate NY and there have already been some major finds. Same trend as you reference, most likely. I can't remember exactly what kind of trap it's in, but I'll see if I can find out.

Great blog Brett ! ! !

Realities have to be considered ! ! ! ! !

It is clear that AGW alarmists are trying to shift to environmentalism to try to save their cause/religion.

It's extremely ironic that the solution to one problem is the curse of another, particularly in this case.

Offshore drilling will permit us to maintain and progress in our research and development for alternative solutions for fossil fuels.

Now, not only is the fever of the planet reducing, but we have a potential to offset our dependence on foreign oil and allow research to reduce REAL pollution and improve the quality of life on the planet IMMEDIATELY ! ! ! ! ! !

Of course, it's a lot safer to worry about maybe's, if's and/or but's and not do anything productive about the environment.

Remember, short term pain for long term gain work on BOTH sides of this issue ! ! ! ! !

Steve Bloom,

Gosh Steve, it must be killing you that the Artic sea ice is hanging on like it is. Odd how that thin ice seems to being doing better than last years ice. I would think by now you're resorting to various forms of hocus pocus to get that stuff to melt. All those dire predictions and all.

ted,

My buddy just got back to me. Here's what he had to say about it.

...that is the Trenton Black River Trend. It is basically hydrothermal dolomites in structural grabens. Deep seated brines work their way up basement fractures and alter the limestone to dolomite between the faults. Pretty radical mineralization and tremendous porosity development. The diagenesis is so intense that bed boundaries are lost or severely deformed.

Only outcrop in the world that I know of is just south of Winchester, KY.

...think some of the NY wells made 50MM a day. Good well anywhere in the world. They were a lot deeper up there 10 - 18,000 feet. In KY, the same rock are at +/- 5,000. We had a barn burner here in KY about a year ago, but it was illegally drilled so we made him plug it.. Blew out into streams for about 2 mi. sq. Charged 2 cubic miles of rock; blew out in hundreds of caves and streams, and while leaking still had about 2,000 lbsg on the well head. One heck of a well.

The porosity increase creates a volume loss, Ca / Mg blah, blah, blah, ...so the overlying shales sag into the graben and can be picked up on seismic or mapped. Some of these features are extremely narrow, couple hundred feet wide. Miss it by a foot and you don't get squat. I'd for sure be approaching this with horizontal wells perpendicular to your faulting to increase the chance of hitting the target zone.

That 50 MM is 50 million cubic feet/day. At $8.29 per 1,000 cubic feet (at the wellhead), that amounts to about $415,500/day or $12,435,000/month. It be kind of nice having one of those in your back yard at 12.5%. That would be a royalty check of about $1.5 million/month. I think I could retire on that.