Bad News For Alaska: Shell Abandons Arctic Drilling Plans

[Anonymous]

This is good news for Saudi Arabia for sure. Too bad we can't get our crude into the trans-Alaska pipeline.

ANCHORAGE, Alaska (AP) — Royal Dutch Shell's dry hole in the Chukchi Sea may be disappointing to shareholders, but it's potentially devastating to Alaska.



The company's decision to end oil exploration in offshore Alaska for the foreseeable future means the state must find another source to fill the 800-mile trans-Alaska pipeline and solve its economic woes, Gov. Bill Walker said.



"We need to get some oil in the pipeline, and we need to do it as quickly as possible and in the safest method possible," Walker said. He is suggesting the federal government open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to natural gas drilling.



The petroleum industry funds upward of 90 percent of state government. Declining oil production and low prices have left Alaska with a billion-dollar budget gap, and state leaders saw rays of hope in Shell's offshore prospects.



Confirmation of the estimated 15 billion barrels in the Chukchi lease area could have led to additional exploration by other leaseholders. And a transition to production — though a decade or more off — would have meant jobs, potential revenue and a source to replenish the trans-Alaska pipeline, now running less than one-quarter full.



Kara Moriarty, president and CEO of the pro-industry Alaska Oil and Gas Association, noted other companies holding leases in the Arctic were waiting to see what happened with Shell and will follow its lead.



"I haven't talked to anyone, but I have very low expectation that we're going to see any type of exploration or development in the Arctic anytime in the near future," she said.



She cited a loss of jobs as one of the biggest immediate effects in the state



"At any given day during the project this summer, they'd have 600 to 800 workers and another 600 to 800 workers waiting to shift in and out, on a two-to three week rotation," Moriarty said. "So, I think in the short-term, it's loss of jobs, it's loss of investment."



Shell spent $2.1 billion on 275 Chukchi Sea leases in 2008 and $7 billion overall on Arctic offshore development. Before this year, the company last drilled off Alaska's northwest coast in 1991.



The exploratory well Shell drilled this month extended to 6,800 feet in 150 feet of water. It found oil and gas but not in commercial quantities that would justify additional exploration with two drill vessels, thousands of workers and a flotilla of 28 vessels supplied from a base 150 miles away in the community of Barrow.



A return to Alaska waters will depend, as always, on how drilling prospects compare to other areas, Shell spokesman Curtis Smith said.

http://www.businessinsider.com/ap-alaska-fears-fallout-of-shells-arctic-drilling-decision-2015-9">http://www.businessinsider.com/ap-alask ... ion-2015-9">http://www.businessinsider.com/ap-alaska-fears-fallout-of-shells-arctic-drilling-decision-2015-9

[Anonymous]

This is good news for Saudi Arabia for sure. Too bad we can't get our crude into the trans-Alaska pipeline.

ANCHORAGE, Alaska (AP) — Royal Dutch Shell's dry hole in the Chukchi Sea may be disappointing to shareholders, but it's potentially devastating to Alaska.



The company's decision to end oil exploration in offshore Alaska for the foreseeable future means the state must find another source to fill the 800-mile trans-Alaska pipeline and solve its economic woes, Gov. Bill Walker said.



"We need to get some oil in the pipeline, and we need to do it as quickly as possible and in the safest method possible," Walker said. He is suggesting the federal government open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to natural gas drilling.



The petroleum industry funds upward of 90 percent of state government. Declining oil production and low prices have left Alaska with a billion-dollar budget gap, and state leaders saw rays of hope in Shell's offshore prospects.



Confirmation of the estimated 15 billion barrels in the Chukchi lease area could have led to additional exploration by other leaseholders. And a transition to production — though a decade or more off — would have meant jobs, potential revenue and a source to replenish the trans-Alaska pipeline, now running less than one-quarter full.



Kara Moriarty, president and CEO of the pro-industry Alaska Oil and Gas Association, noted other companies holding leases in the Arctic were waiting to see what happened with Shell and will follow its lead.



"I haven't talked to anyone, but I have very low expectation that we're going to see any type of exploration or development in the Arctic anytime in the near future," she said.



She cited a loss of jobs as one of the biggest immediate effects in the state



"At any given day during the project this summer, they'd have 600 to 800 workers and another 600 to 800 workers waiting to shift in and out, on a two-to three week rotation," Moriarty said. "So, I think in the short-term, it's loss of jobs, it's loss of investment."



Shell spent $2.1 billion on 275 Chukchi Sea leases in 2008 and $7 billion overall on Arctic offshore development. Before this year, the company last drilled off Alaska's northwest coast in 1991.



The exploratory well Shell drilled this month extended to 6,800 feet in 150 feet of water. It found oil and gas but not in commercial quantities that would justify additional exploration with two drill vessels, thousands of workers and a flotilla of 28 vessels supplied from a base 150 miles away in the community of Barrow.



A return to Alaska waters will depend, as always, on how drilling prospects compare to other areas, Shell spokesman Curtis Smith said.

http://www.businessinsider.com/ap-alaska-fears-fallout-of-shells-arctic-drilling-decision-2015-9">http://www.businessinsider.com/ap-alask ... ion-2015-9">http://www.businessinsider.com/ap-alaska-fears-fallout-of-shells-arctic-drilling-decision-2015-9

Offshore Arctic drilling will return to that area when the price of crude eventually recovers.

[Anonymous]

I tried to get someone who is registered here, but posts on the other forum to participate in this thread, but no luck. He needs the cover and security that old evs skirt provides.

[Anonymous]

This is good news for Saudi Arabia for sure. Too bad we can't get our crude into the trans-Alaska pipeline.

ANCHORAGE, Alaska (AP) — Royal Dutch Shell's dry hole in the Chukchi Sea may be disappointing to shareholders, but it's potentially devastating to Alaska.



The company's decision to end oil exploration in offshore Alaska for the foreseeable future means the state must find another source to fill the 800-mile trans-Alaska pipeline and solve its economic woes, Gov. Bill Walker said.



"We need to get some oil in the pipeline, and we need to do it as quickly as possible and in the safest method possible," Walker said. He is suggesting the federal government open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to natural gas drilling.



The petroleum industry funds upward of 90 percent of state government. Declining oil production and low prices have left Alaska with a billion-dollar budget gap, and state leaders saw rays of hope in Shell's offshore prospects.



Confirmation of the estimated 15 billion barrels in the Chukchi lease area could have led to additional exploration by other leaseholders. And a transition to production — though a decade or more off — would have meant jobs, potential revenue and a source to replenish the trans-Alaska pipeline, now running less than one-quarter full.



Kara Moriarty, president and CEO of the pro-industry Alaska Oil and Gas Association, noted other companies holding leases in the Arctic were waiting to see what happened with Shell and will follow its lead.



"I haven't talked to anyone, but I have very low expectation that we're going to see any type of exploration or development in the Arctic anytime in the near future," she said.



She cited a loss of jobs as one of the biggest immediate effects in the state



"At any given day during the project this summer, they'd have 600 to 800 workers and another 600 to 800 workers waiting to shift in and out, on a two-to three week rotation," Moriarty said. "So, I think in the short-term, it's loss of jobs, it's loss of investment."



Shell spent $2.1 billion on 275 Chukchi Sea leases in 2008 and $7 billion overall on Arctic offshore development. Before this year, the company last drilled off Alaska's northwest coast in 1991.



The exploratory well Shell drilled this month extended to 6,800 feet in 150 feet of water. It found oil and gas but not in commercial quantities that would justify additional exploration with two drill vessels, thousands of workers and a flotilla of 28 vessels supplied from a base 150 miles away in the community of Barrow.



A return to Alaska waters will depend, as always, on how drilling prospects compare to other areas, Shell spokesman Curtis Smith said.

http://www.businessinsider.com/ap-alaska-fears-fallout-of-shells-arctic-drilling-decision-2015-9">http://www.businessinsider.com/ap-alask ... ion-2015-9">http://www.businessinsider.com/ap-alaska-fears-fallout-of-shells-arctic-drilling-decision-2015-9

Offshore drilling is expensive even on a per barrel produced basis no? I assume a lot of offshore activity would be shelved for now.

[Frood]

I tried to get someone who is registered here, but posts on the other forum to participate in this thread, but no luck. He needs the cover and security that old evs skirt provides.

Which poster? I've been reading the other mirror thread over there. Who are you keen to include in this discussion and why?

[easter bunny]

I tried to get someone who is registered here, but posts on the other forum to participate in this thread, but no luck. He needs the cover and security that old evs skirt provides.

Which poster? I've been reading the other mirror thread over there. Who are you keen to include in this discussion and why?

Hi!  :JC_howdy:



Most of my opposition to offshore drilling is based on my distrust of the people in charge. To me the whole system looks like a hen house guarded by wolves. There is no incentive to put safety ahead of profit. We're all eating fish flavoured with Corexit® now thanks to one guy who wanted to save a few bucks on drilling mud. I'd like to see a system that rewards companies who improve safety and gets rid of the incentive to cut corners. If I had it my way a huge chunk of BP would now be owned by all the people whose lives were adversely affected by their negligence.



On the technical side, one of the worst spills ever, the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ixtoc_I_oil_spill">Ixtoc 1 blowout, happened in only 160 feet of warm water. I'm worried that if something like that happens where it's really cold they'll be helpless to do anything about it and the oil will take ages to dissipate.



I'm not against offshore drilling if it's done properly, but I think some special precautions need to be taken up north. I don't want to see a mad rush that leaves the place a disaster area for the next two hundred years.

[Frood]

I tried to get someone who is registered here, but posts on the other forum to participate in this thread, but no luck. He needs the cover and security that old evs skirt provides.

Which poster? I've been reading the other mirror thread over there. Who are you keen to include in this discussion and why?

Hi!  :JC_howdy:



Most of my opposition to offshore drilling is based on my distrust of the people in charge. To me the whole system looks like a hen house guarded by wolves. There is no incentive to put safety ahead of profit. We're all eating fish flavoured with Corexit® now thanks to one guy who wanted to save a few bucks on drilling mud. I'd like to see a system that rewards companies who improve safety and gets rid of the incentive to cut corners. If I had it my way a huge chunk of BP would now be owned by all the people whose lives were adversely affected by their negligence.



On the technical side, one of the worst spills ever, the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ixtoc_I_oil_spill">Ixtoc 1 blowout, happened in only 160 feet of warm water. I'm worried that if something like that happens where it's really cold they'll be helpless to do anything about it and the oil will take ages to dissipate.



I'm not against offshore drilling if it's done properly, but I think some special precautions need to be taken up north. I don't want to see a mad rush that leaves the place a disaster area for the next two hundred years.

The difficult drills won't mostly happen in our lifetimes.



War is coming and therefore death is coming.



The US is losing its shit. Russia, India, China, and parts of South America and Africa are gaining. The US and Canada thinks it's got the Rockies for reserves, and while big enough, only works if Russia or China doesn't make the range unworkable. They'd rather milk the rest of the world for as long as they can before chewing into their own lands. Russia and China aren't stupid. They continue to play along. China continues to buy excess barrels every month. Economists attribute it to a squirrel mentality. We should be looking at it like rabies. At the same time, China is offloading foreign currency debt in their treasury.



The writing is on the wall. Debt will either be continued at worse rates (inflation or hyperinflation) or the shit hits the fan, severely.



Shitloads of people will die soon. Nice knowing you all.

[Anonymous]

I tried to get someone who is registered here, but posts on the other forum to participate in this thread, but no luck. He needs the cover and security that old evs skirt provides.

Which poster? I've been reading the other mirror thread over there. Who are you keen to include in this discussion and why?

Hi!  :JC_howdy:



Most of my opposition to offshore drilling is based on my distrust of the people in charge. To me the whole system looks like a hen house guarded by wolves. There is no incentive to put safety ahead of profit. We're all eating fish flavoured with Corexit® now thanks to one guy who wanted to save a few bucks on drilling mud. I'd like to see a system that rewards companies who improve safety and gets rid of the incentive to cut corners. If I had it my way a huge chunk of BP would now be owned by all the people whose lives were adversely affected by their negligence.



On the technical side, one of the worst spills ever, the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ixtoc_I_oil_spill">Ixtoc 1 blowout, happened in only 160 feet of warm water. I'm worried that if something like that happens where it's really cold they'll be helpless to do anything about it and the oil will take ages to dissipate.



I'm not against offshore drilling if it's done properly, but I think some special precautions need to be taken up north. I don't want to see a mad rush that leaves the place a disaster area for the next two hundred years.

I have worked offshore and I can assure you that that safety measures are very much in place. These are legal, but it's industry's own standards that prevent accidents. The operating company is ultimately responsible but that does not mean drilling, cementing, and wireline contractors are off the hook if a worker is injured or there is damage to the environment.



In Canada, we have the CAODC(Canadian Association of Oilwell Drilling Contractors and internationally we have the IADC. A poor record on worker or environmental safety means rigs sit idle. Worse than that, they cannot be insured for liability.

Operating companies have zero tolerance for any contractor that fails to follow best industry practices when it comes to the environment or worker safety. We have a 100 %  success rate in offshore drilling for oil and gas in Canada on the environment, but not on worker safety. We have learned our lessons from the Ocen Ranger. That could not happen today. The contractor responsible for bringing workers to and from the drilling platform in Newfoundland is now out of business.



These levels of safeguards are in place to prevent to prevent blowouts. That along with first and second line well control certificates. And on offshore rigs there has to be three people on each tour as opposed to two on land based rigs. Rigs drilling offshore in Canadian waters are required to have everyone from derrickhand up to be in possession of a valid first line well control certificate and BOP ticket. I am a company representative, so I require a second line well control certificate, just like the push.



All drilling and service rigs in Canada are he safest ones I have ever worked on anywhere in the world. But offshore drilling is even safer than that again. Our environmental and worker safety record proves it too.

[Anonymous]

[I have worked offshore and I can assure you that that safety measures are very much in place. These are legal, but it's industry's own standards that prevent accidents. The operating company is ultimately responsible but that does not mean drilling, cementing, and wireline contractors are off the hook if a worker is injured or there is damage to the environment.



In Canada, we have the CAODC(Canadian Association of Oilwell Drilling Contractors and internationally we have the IADC. A poor record on worker or environmental safety means rigs sit idle. Worse than that, they cannot be insured for liability.

Operating companies have zero tolerance for any contractor that fails to follow best industry practices when it comes to the environment or worker safety. We have a 100 %  success rate in offshore drilling for oil and gas in Canada on the environment, but not on worker safety. The contractor responsible for bringing workers to and from the drilling platform in Newfoundland is now out of business.



These levels of safeguards are in place to prevent to prevent blowouts. That along with first and second line well control certificates. And on offshore rigs there has to be three people on each tour as opposed to two on land based rigs. Rigs drilling offshore in Canadian waters are required to have everyone from derrickhand up to be in possession of a valid first line well control certificate. I am a company representative, so I require a second line well control certificate, just like push.



All drilling and service rigs in Canada are he safest ones I have ever worked on anywhere in the world. But offshore drilling is even safer than that again. Our environmental and worker safety record proves it too.

Only an occutard who wouldn't know the difference between a Kelly and slips would think that Arctic offshore drilling is akin to a fox guarding the hen house.

In Canada, all applications for offshore Arctic drilling are made to the National Energy Board. It is a rigourous process that goes from the initial application to exploration to production to transportation to eventual abandonment. Issuing Exploration Licences and Issuing Significant Discovery Licences is the responsibility of the Department of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development. Canada's framework is similar to Norway's.



That bit about the drilling platform in shallow water is laughable. Like saying every rig is the same. :001_rolleyes:



However, I am surprised the occutard responded at all. I never thought he would give up the security of old evs skirt.

[Gay Boy Roberto]

How very odd - in this entire thread, Shen Li hasn't once blamed Rachel Notley for Shell pulling out (ahem) of Alaska



Shen Li is slipping!

[Anonymous]

How very odd - in this entire thread, Shen Li hasn't once blamed Rachel Notley for Shell pulling out (ahem) of Alaska



Shen Li is slipping!

Well, when she bankrupts this province and puts everyone out of work maybe she'll take her team of social workers and students to Alaska in four years when we fire her inept socialist ass.

[Gay Boy Roberto]

So Rachel is to blame for the world-wide drop in oil prices long before she was elected premier



That's Shen-logic at its finest!

[Anonymous]

So Rachel is to blame for the world-wide drop in oil prices long before she was elected premier



That's Shen-logic at its finest!

She is responsible for raising taxes, raising carbon fees, promising a royalty review, withdrawing support for critical infrastructure that Alberta needs to get our product to new markets. What did you expect from a caucus that does not have one person with industry experience? That's like the government of Newfoundland electing a government with nobody that has set foot in a boat.



Ralph Klein used to say tongue-in-cheek that the best cabinet minister he ever had was an NDP premier in BC(Glen Clark). Brad Wall's best cabinet minister is the incredibly incompetent NDP government of Alberta. Capital spending is moving to Saskatchewan with every new cost Nothead adds to the industry. She's kicking them while they are down.

[easter bunny]

There seems to be some confusion. I assumed that drilling in Alaskan waters would fall under US jurisdiction. I would agree that Canadian regulations are tighter, and our practices probably a bit better, but the whole system on which everything is built is still fatally flawed.



It's true that if a company screws up badly enough they'll go out of business, which all sounds very final, as if there's some real punishment involved, but in reality the worst that can happen is that their assets get sold and they have to continue operations under a new name. Remember the guy who blew up the town of Lac-Mégantic and killed 47 people because he was too cheap to run a two man crew? He got away scot-free.

The bankrupt MMA is nominally named as a co-accused in the trial, but none of its top officials are charged, including Edward Burkhardt, president of Rail World, the parent owner of MMA.



http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/24098-oil-by-rail-on-trial-in-lac-megantic-quebec-and-in-maine">http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/2 ... d-in-maine">http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/24098-oil-by-rail-on-trial-in-lac-megantic-quebec-and-in-maine

Here's the bankrupt MMA (that can't pay any fines) being sold off to another limited liability company:

MMA's assets were sold at auction to Railroad Acquisition Holdings, LLC, a subsidiary of Fortress Investment Group, LLC on January 21, 2014.[6] Fifteen locomotives worth $1.6 million were excluded from the deal and will be sold separately.[7] The sale was approved by bankruptcy judges on January 23, with the transfer of assets expected to occur on or before March 31, 2014.[8] Railroad Acquisition Holdings, LLC has established a new railroad named Central Maine and Quebec Railway (reporting mark CMQ)[9] to operate the former MMA rail lines.



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montreal,_Maine_and_Atlantic_Railway">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montreal, ... ic_Railway">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montreal,_Maine_and_Atlantic_Railway

Here's the new name:

The Central Maine & Québec Railway (reporting mark CMQ)[1] is a Class III freight railroad operating in the U.S. states of Maine and Vermont and the Canadian province of Quebec with headquarters in New York, NY. It is owned by Railroad Acquisition Holdings, LLC, a subsidiary of Fortress Investment Group, LLC.



Its United States operations are named the Central Maine & Québec Railway US Incorporated with offices in New York, NY and was registered with the Surface Transportation Board on February 14, 2014.



Its Canadian operations are named the Central Maine and Québec Railway Canada Incorporated with offices in Sherbrooke, QC and was registered with Revenue Québec on February 14, 2014.



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_Maine_and_Quebec_Railway">//https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_Maine_and_Quebec_Railway

Here's the new CEO promising to run two man crews again:

John Giles, chief executive of Central Maine and Quebec Railway, which purchased the assets of Montreal, Maine and Atlantic Canada, said better safety practices had been put in place including the elimination of one-man crews, the hiring of a senior superintendent for Canadian operations, the swapping out of old locomotives. The railroad was spending $8.5m on overhauling neglected track and would delay any crude oil shipments until 2016, he said.



http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/aug/20/lac-megantic-oil-train-disaster-inquiry-finds-string-of-safety-failings">http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/a ... y-failings">http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/aug/20/lac-megantic-oil-train-disaster-inquiry-finds-string-of-safety-failings

And it's back to business as usual. It's the same story every time. The only thing that ever changes is the body count. It's a formula for disaster. It's been proven over and over again and the cause is always the same: greed. In the words of the most recent poster boy for CEO psychopaths: "I like money more than I like people."



It's basically a roll of the dice. We're just lucky Ed Burkhardt is into choo-choo trains and not oil rigs.

[Anonymous]

There seems to be some confusion. I assumed that drilling in Alaskan waters would fall under US jurisdiction. I would agree that Canadian regulations are tighter, and our practices probably a bit better, but the whole system on which everything is built is still fatally flawed.



It's true that if a company screws up badly enough they'll go out of business, which all sounds very final, as if there's some real punishment involved, but in reality the worst that can happen is that their assets get sold and they have to continue operations under a new name. Remember the guy who blew up the town of Lac-Mégantic and killed 47 people because he was too cheap to run a two man crew? He got away scot-free.



And it's back to business as usual. It's the same story every time. The only thing that ever changes is the body count. It's a formula for disaster. It's been proven over and over again and the cause is always the same: greed. In the words of the most recent poster boy for CEO psychopaths: "I like money more than I like people."



It's basically a roll of the dice. We're just lucky Ed Burkhardt is into choo-choo trains and not oil rigs.

The only thing that is fatally flawed is a grown man so ignorant of industry he posts copy pasta crap as proof of anything. Comparing freight trains to offshore rigs would get you laughed at by people in both industries if you were man enough to get a job in either.



Let me school you first on trains. The only reason Lac Megantic happened was because a hog head did not apply the prescribed amount of handbrakes and perform his push pull test. CROR !!2. I know he was likely tired, but it is not that time consuming and it is a $120,000+ per year job. He was punished for doing the same thing when he worked for a class 1 railway. As Hunter Harrison, CEO of CP  pointed out, what is the point of new rules 4.5 and 6 when rules 1, 2 and 3 are not being followed?



Having a conductor and a hog head would not have changed Lac Megantic one iota. A conductor looks after the switching and a hoghead goes forward and backward with the power. Just like the blowout in the gulf, the fault was rules compliance.



Of course, I don't tell have to tell an industry expert like you. For example I'm sure you know what a FREDDY on a train is and what purpose it serves.