Shell: No Beaufort Sea drilling in Arctic for 2011

[Trinnity]

Shell: No Beaufort Sea drilling in Arctic for 2011 (http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Shell-No-Beaufort-Sea-apf-844337881.html?x=0&sec=topStories&pos=main&asset=&ccode=)

February 3, 2011

ANCHORAGE, Alaska (AP) -- Shell Alaska has dropped plans to drill in the Arctic waters of the Beaufort Sea this year and will concentrate on obtaining permits for the 2012 season, company Vice President Pete Slaiby said Thursday.

The recent remand of air permits issued by the Environmental Protection Agency was the final driver behind the decision, Slaiby said at a news conference.

Alaska receives upward of 90 percent of its general fund revenue from the petroleum industry, and top state officials reacted strongly to the decision. U.S. Sen. Mark Begich, D-Alaska, blamed the Obama administration and the EPA.

"Their foot dragging means the loss of another exploration season in Alaska, the loss of nearly 800 direct jobs and many more indirect jobs," Begich said. "That doesn't count the millions of dollars in contracting that won't happen either at a time when our economy needs the investment."

The EPA issued Shell an air permit, but the agency's review board granted an appeal because of limited agency analysis regarding the effect of emissions from drilling ships and support vessels.

Slaiby said the issue is not with the environment but with the process not being satisfied. He said Shell has no air issues with Alaska villages.

"That's coupled with $15 million in improvements we made on these assets to put together what's really a world-class program," he said.

The subsidiary of Royal Dutch Shell PLC has invested more than $3 billion in exploration off Alaska's coast since 2005, Slaiby said. The company paid $2.2 billion for leases in the Chukchi Sea off Alaska's northwest coast that have been challenged.

The company had hoped last year to drill exploration wells during the 2010 open water season in both the Chukchi and the Beaufort but its plans were put on hold by Interior Secretary Ken Salazar after the Deepwater Horizon disaster in the Gulf of Mexico.

Salazar suspended applications for permits and has announced no timetable for lifting the suspension, saying the department will take a cautious guided by science and the voices of North Slope communities.

Slaiby in October said Shell would focus on one or two exploratory wells in the Beaufort off Alaska's north coast during the roughly 105-day open water season.

Drilling in Arctic waters is opposed by environmental groups and some Alaska Native groups, who say petroleum companies have not demonstrated an ability to clean up a spill in ice-choked waters. They also say the remote location of drilling sites, the area's notorious inclement weather and the lack of infrastructure, including a deep-water port, would make a cleanup of a major spill nearly impossible.

They also claim drilling will stress marine mammals already being harmed by climate warming and diminishing sea ice, including polar bears, ice-dependent seals and walrus.

Shell has stressed that Arctic drilling would be in water far more shallow than the Macondo well, the site of the Gulf of Mexico disaster, and that the risk of a spill is minimal. The company also said it would position a second drilling ship in Alaska as a safety measure, so if the first drilling ship were crippled by a blowout, the second ship could drill a relief well.

Shell's primary drilling ship has been moved to prospects off New Zealand and the company will look for other ways to use support vessels. The backup drilling ship will remain in Dutch Harbor, a port in the Aleutian Islands, Slaiby said.

Alaska officials have been unwavering in their support for drilling. The trans-Alaska pipeline operates at about one-third capacity, and state officials have looked to offshore sources to keep it viable. Alaska Gov. Sean Parnell said it was unfathomable that a company could buy federal leases but not get onto them within five years.

"It's also unfathomable that they cannot get an air permit after five years when they can get one in the Gulf of Mexico within months," he said.

Republican U.S. Sen. Lisa Murkowski said actions taken by the Obama administration will result in higher gasoline prices and a loss of jobs and revenue.

"We talk a lot about the economy, but rarely do our actions match our rhetoric," she said. "That's unfortunate.

[Gaffer]

Trinnity comes up with interesting, timely articles. RSR and Kath will like what she adds to the board.

[blarset]

Shell: No Beaufort Sea drilling in Arctic for 2011 (http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Shell-No-Beaufort-Sea-apf-844337881.html?x=0&sec=topStories&pos=main&asset=&ccode=)

February 3, 2011

ANCHORAGE, Alaska (AP) -- Shell Alaska has dropped plans to drill in the Arctic waters of the Beaufort Sea this year and will concentrate on obtaining permits for the 2012 season, company Vice President Pete Slaiby said Thursday.

The recent remand of air permits issued by the Environmental Protection Agency was the final driver behind the decision, Slaiby said at a news conference.

Alaska receives upward of 90 percent of its general fund revenue from the petroleum industry, and top state officials reacted strongly to the decision. U.S. Sen. Mark Begich, D-Alaska, blamed the Obama administration and the EPA.

"Their foot dragging means the loss of another exploration season in Alaska, the loss of nearly 800 direct jobs and many more indirect jobs," Begich said. "That doesn't count the millions of dollars in contracting that won't happen either at a time when our economy needs the investment."

The EPA issued Shell an air permit, but the agency's review board granted an appeal because of limited agency analysis regarding the effect of emissions from drilling ships and support vessels.

Slaiby said the issue is not with the environment but with the process not being satisfied. He said Shell has no air issues with Alaska villages.

"That's coupled with $15 million in improvements we made on these assets to put together what's really a world-class program," he said.

The subsidiary of Royal Dutch Shell PLC has invested more than $3 billion in exploration off Alaska's coast since 2005, Slaiby said. The company paid $2.2 billion for leases in the Chukchi Sea off Alaska's northwest coast that have been challenged.

The company had hoped last year to drill exploration wells during the 2010 open water season in both the Chukchi and the Beaufort but its plans were put on hold by Interior Secretary Ken Salazar after the Deepwater Horizon disaster in the Gulf of Mexico.

Salazar suspended applications for permits and has announced no timetable for lifting the suspension, saying the department will take a cautious guided by science and the voices of North Slope communities.

Slaiby in October said Shell would focus on one or two exploratory wells in the Beaufort off Alaska's north coast during the roughly 105-day open water season.

Drilling in Arctic waters is opposed by environmental groups and some Alaska Native groups, who say petroleum companies have not demonstrated an ability to clean up a spill in ice-choked waters. They also say the remote location of drilling sites, the area's notorious inclement weather and the lack of infrastructure, including a deep-water port, would make a cleanup of a major spill nearly impossible.

They also claim drilling will stress marine mammals already being harmed by climate warming and diminishing sea ice, including polar bears, ice-dependent seals and walrus.

Shell has stressed that Arctic drilling would be in water far more shallow than the Macondo well, the site of the Gulf of Mexico disaster, and that the risk of a spill is minimal. The company also said it would position a second drilling ship in Alaska as a safety measure, so if the first drilling ship were crippled by a blowout, the second ship could drill a relief well.

Shell's primary drilling ship has been moved to prospects off New Zealand and the company will look for other ways to use support vessels. The backup drilling ship will remain in Dutch Harbor, a port in the Aleutian Islands, Slaiby said.

Alaska officials have been unwavering in their support for drilling. The trans-Alaska pipeline operates at about one-third capacity, and state officials have looked to offshore sources to keep it viable. Alaska Gov. Sean Parnell said it was unfathomable that a company could buy federal leases but not get onto them within five years.

"It's also unfathomable that they cannot get an air permit after five years when they can get one in the Gulf of Mexico within months," he said.

Republican U.S. Sen. Lisa Murkowski said actions taken by the Obama administration will result in higher gasoline prices and a loss of jobs and revenue.

"We talk a lot about the economy, but rarely do our actions match our rhetoric," she said. "That's unfortunate.

If the state of alaska is so concerned why dont they take the EPA to court to fight unfair regulatory practices?

[logroller]

What is this infatuation with drilling for more oil, I think its about time to transition to a society less dependant on fossil fuels. I'm sure Shell will prevail in the end, but will our society? Not if we ignore the inevitable decline of the petroleum industry. I don't forsee a time where we are free of their use mind you, petroleum is a wonderful resource, but we continually return to the same song and dance: They're takin' our jobs. Sorry, but these jobs are drying up because the fossil fuel industry is decreasing in efficiency. Increasingly more complex exploration isn't going to solve our problem of overconsumption- it prolongs it! I guess the question we must ask ourselves is when is the best time to start changing; now, when it's by choice; or later, by necessity!

[Gaffer]

What is this infatuation with drilling for more oil, I think its about time to transition to a society less dependant on fossil fuels. I'm sure Shell will prevail in the end, but will our society? Not if we ignore the inevitable decline of the petroleum industry. I don't forsee a time where we are free of their use mind you, petroleum is a wonderful resource, but we continually return to the same song and dance: They're takin' our jobs. Sorry, but these jobs are drying up because the fossil fuel industry is decreasing in efficiency. Increasingly more complex exploration isn't going to solve our problem of overconsumption- it prolongs it! I guess the question we must ask ourselves is when is the best time to start changing; now, when it's by choice; or later, by necessity!

There is no viable alternative in place. Coal and nuclear are uberregulated. Solar is not dependable. So called hybrids are still in the development stage. Most of the gas and oil usage today goes for everyday living. Driving to work, moving products, general needs. Increasing the cost of oil just cripples people ability to do what they need to do. You can't transition to a different energy source when there isn't one available.

We need to keep oil prices low and stable while we develop other sources of energy.

[avatar4321]

If the state of alaska is so concerned why dont they take the EPA to court to fight unfair regulatory practices?

It's a good question.

But unfortunately, even if they did it would be a long time before anything was resolved. In the meantime gas prices are going to be rising even more now.

[chloe]

What is this infatuation with drilling for more oil, I think its about time to transition to a society less dependant on fossil fuels. I'm sure Shell will prevail in the end, but will our society? Not if we ignore the inevitable decline of the petroleum industry. I don't forsee a time where we are free of their use mind you, petroleum is a wonderful resource, but we continually return to the same song and dance: They're takin' our jobs. Sorry, but these jobs are drying up because the fossil fuel industry is decreasing in efficiency. Increasingly more complex exploration isn't going to solve our problem of overconsumption- it prolongs it! I guess the question we must ask ourselves is when is the best time to start changing; now, when it's by choice; or later, by necessity!

cause I own stock in it:laugh2:

[Binky]

There is no viable alternative in place. Coal and nuclear are uberregulated. Solar is not dependable. So called hybrids are still in the development stage. Most of the gas and oil usage today goes for everyday living. Driving to work, moving products, general needs. Increasing the cost of oil just cripples people ability to do what they need to do. You can't transition to a different energy source when there isn't one available.

We need to keep oil prices low and stable while we develop other sources of energy.

And no viable source of a different energy is the crux of the problem. Oil is consumed and consumed and our powers that be should have thought far enough ahead years ago in developing one. So instead, we continue to use the oil we have and at the same time, spend trillions on that from foreign countries. Seems like we have our heads shoved high up our butts, and have arrogantly thought we were all that and didn't need to find others. And look where it has gotten us. Diggin' a bigger hole for us to bury ourselves in. :bang3:

[logroller]

And no viable source of a different energy is the crux of the problem. Oil is consumed and consumed and our powers that be should have thought far enough ahead years ago in developing one. So instead, we continue to use the oil we have and at the same time, spend trillions on that from foreign countries. Seems like we have our heads shoved high up our butts, and have arrogantly thought we were all that and didn't need to find others. And look where it has gotten us. Diggin' a bigger hole for us to bury ourselves in. :bang3:

Exactly. The lack of a viable alternative indicates a need for increasing the efficiency of energy consumption. Remember the adage work smarter, not harder! We as individuals need to take more responsibility for our own personal use of energy, not merely its supply. The energy required to get energy out of oil is becoming less and less favorable, to the point where reducing our demand is a more viable alternative to the increasing of supply.

[Kathianne]

I'm in favor of private companies being unhindered in R & D for energy, but without taxpayer subsidies. Here's what happens when Uncle Sam is involved:

http://washingtonexaminer.com/politics/2011/02/green-energy-plant-sucks-subsidies-then-goes-bust


Green-energy plant sucks up subsidies, then goes bust
Comments (5)
To turn wood chips into ethanol fuel, George W. Bush's Department of Energy in February 2007 announced a $76 million grant to Range Fuels for a cutting-edge refinery. A few months later, the refinery opened in the piney woods of Treutlen County, Ga., as the taxpayers of Georgia piled on another $6 million. In 2008, the ethanol plant was the first beneficiary of the Biorefinery Assistance Program, pocketing a loan for $80 million guaranteed by the U.S. taxpayers.

Last month, the refinery closed down, having failed to squeeze even a drop of ethanol out of its pine chips.

The Soperton, Ga., ethanol plant is another blemish on ethanol's already tarnished image, but more broadly, it is cautionary tale about the elusive nature of "green jobs" and the folly of the government's efforts at "investing" -- as President Obama puts it -- in new technologies.

Late in the Bush administration, corn-based ethanol started to get a bad rap. Corn for ethanol was crowding out other crops, and food prices were soaring. Mexicans rioted as tortilla prices spiked. So Bush started talking up "advanced biofuels" including "cellulosic ethanol": roughly, ethanol distilled from plants that were not also food products. Bush mentioned wood chips and switchgrass in two consecutive State of the Union addresses

Georgia politicians saw an opportunity here. "The Saudi Arabia of Pine Trees" became an unofficial state motto among Peach State politicians, and Gov. Sonny Perdue declared, "I'm confident the bioenergy industry and sector is going to be a cornerstone of the new Georgia."

Amid all this hopeful talk by politicians, there were naysayers among the scientists. One Nobel Prize-winning physicist talked to the New York Times about these startups trying to turn logging waste into fuel. "You have to look at starts with a grain of salt, especially starts where they say, 'It's around the corner, and by the way, can you pay half the bill?' "

But that same scientist, Steven Chu, is now the secretary of energy, and his Energy Department has recently offered a loan guarantee of as much as $1 billion to a Texas company looking to squeeze fuel out of wood...

[logroller]

I'm in favor of private companies being unhindered in R & D for energy, but without taxpayer subsidies. Here's what happens when Uncle Sam is involved:

http://washingtonexaminer.com/politics/2011/02/green-energy-plant-sucks-subsidies-then-goes-bust

You are right about ethanol being lame, subsidized or not. Business investment, however, wont likely result an a longterm sustainable result either. Overconsumption is the problem, the latest and greatest technology wont change that. I'm all for greener technology, but it will only be effective when paired with a decrease in consumption beyond which is granted by the technology itself. Solar,wind geothermal, nuclear; none can give us the power that millions of years worth of sunlight has given us through fossil fuels in the last hundred years. It is imperitive that we transition our lives to be less consumptive; this will result in less production, and businesses typically oppose any reduction in productivity. Market forces ignore the social costs of overconsumption because it reduces their bottom line profits, regardless of social efficiency. It is important to realize this propensity for market failure from these external costs. Governement cant solve the problem, only we can. Though it is a collective effort, each of us must dedicate ourselves to reducing the energy we demand-- period!