Episode 1 of BBC’s Big Oil vs The World is a polished, emotional, lawyer-like brief for one side of a multi-sided, complex issue. But in the final analysis, the BBC case is long on agenda and feelings and short on facts, balance, and proper context. The documentary is slick propaganda that accuses oil companies of producing slick propaganda.

With its documentary Big Oil vs The World, the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) has added its voice to the chorus accusing the petroleum industry in general, and ExxonMobil in particular, of misleading the public and slowing the global response to climate change. The three-part documentary (Denial, Doubt, and Delay) was produced in cooperation with PBS, which ran its version on Frontline under the title The Power of Big Oil in April and May of this year.…

“Equatorial Guyana and Suriname have combined oil reserves estimated to be 17 billion barrels of oil equivalent. The biggest hurdle to the extraction of these reserves could come from lack of capital … if the international climate-industrial complex takes a strong stand against their extraction plans and their own governments acquiesce.”

The poverty-stricken Caribbean countries of Guyana and Suriname have hit the jackpot with the discovery of huge offshore oil reserves that are on track to produce revenue for decades.

Opposition from the United Nations and other anti-hydrocarbon entities might hamper the pace of production but won’t stop it. The global need for more crude is too great, and the economic situation of the two South American nations is too dire.

Suriname has been experiencing double-digit inflation for a while now (35 percent in 2020).…

I have been actively engaged on social media for the last year, challenging climate alarmism and forced energy transformation. My opponents begin with a particular argument on climate science to which I respond with a different view. (For example, here at MasterResource, I promote the benefits of CO2 fertilization from the peer-review literature summarized by Craig Idso.)

As we go back and forth, inevitably the ‘argument from authority’ is resorted to. For example:

But the IPCC reports are compiled from the work of hundreds of independent scientist’s peer reviewed works. The views your organisation are expressing are not. In effect you/your organisation is the one playing politics and spreading misinformation that doesn’t stand up to peer review.

Then, when I rebut the shortcomings of the peer review process and how our side has opted out (‘Atlas Shrugged’), my critics then go ad hominem.…

“In the short term, the U.S. government could enact … waivers of Jones Act provisions and some fuel specifications to increase supplies. Longer term, government can promote investment through clear and consistent policy that supports U.S. resource development, such as regular and predictable lease sales, as well as streamlined regulatory approval and support for infrastructure such as pipelines.” – ExxonMobil to Biden

“We need clarity and consistency on policy matters ranging from leases and permits on federal lands, to the ability to permit and build critical infrastructure, to the proper role of regulation that considers both costs and benefits…. Most importantly, we need an honest dialogue….” – Chevron to Biden

It’s cosmetics time again with Biden and energy. DOE Secretary Jennifer Granholm is meeting today with oil executives in the symbolic quest to reduce gasoline and diesel prices.…