This is good news for Saudi Arabia for sure. Too bad we can't get our crude into the trans-Alaska pipeline.
Quote
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
"
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
Quote from: "Shen Li"
Quote
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
"
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
Offshore Arctic drilling will return to that area when the price of crude eventually recovers.
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.
Quote from: "Shen Li"
Quote
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
"
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
Offshore drilling is expensive even on a per barrel produced basis no? I assume a lot of offshore activity would be shelved for now.
Quote from: "Shen Li"
Which poster? I've been reading the other mirror thread over there. Who are you keen to include in this discussion and why?
Quote from: "Dinky Dianna"
Quote from: "Shen Li"
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
On the technical side, one of the worst spills ever, the
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.
Quote from: "easter bunny"
Quote from: "Dinky Dianna"
Quote from: "Shen Li"
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
On the technical side, one of the worst spills ever, the
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.
Quote from: "easter bunny"
Quote from: "Dinky Dianna"
Quote from: "Shen Li"
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
On the technical side, one of the worst spills ever, the
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.
Quote from: "Herman"
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. :crazy:
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.
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!
Quote from: "Gay Boy Roberto"
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.
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!
Quote from: "Gay Boy Roberto"
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.
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.
Quote
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:
Quote
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montreal,_Maine_and_Atlantic_Railway
Here's the new name:
Quote
Its United States operations are named the Central Maine & Québec Railway US Incorporated with offices in New York, NY and
Its Canadian operations are named the Central Maine and Québec Railway Canada Incorporated with offices in Sherbrooke, QC and
//https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_Maine_and_Quebec_Railway
Here's the new CEO promising to run two man crews again:
Quote
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
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.
Quote from: "easter bunny"
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. :icon_wink:
Quote from: "Shen Li"
Quote from: "easter bunny"
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. :icon_wink:
I'm not comparing oil rigs and trains. I'm comparing people; people responsible for machinery that can cause huge amounts of destruction if not properly managed. We're never going to get anywhere here because we're both right. There's no question that your knowledge of the industry is better than mine. I can't compete with you there.
My only point is that as long as we have a system that rewards people who cheat we're going to keep having these kinds of accidents no matter how good the rules are. Oh and I looked it up. Freddy is the guy at the back of the train who flashes his rear end at people. =P
A $7 billion exploration for nothing. Economic woes. A billion-dollar budget gap. "We need to do it as quickly as possible". Open up one of the last pristine refuges on Earth.
I thought peak oil was a myth? What happened to all the oil wealth?
It's gone. Oil and gas are limited resources and they're gone within mere decades. Opening up ANWR is like trying to finish the last sip of drink with a straw.
Quote from: "easter bunny"
I'm not comparing oil rigs and trains. I'm comparing people; people responsible for machinery that can cause huge amounts of destruction if not properly managed. We're never going to get anywhere here because we're both right. There's no question that your knowledge of the industry is better than mine. I can't compete with you there.
My only point is that as long as we have a system that rewards people who cheat we're going to keep having these kinds of accidents no matter how good the rules are. Oh and I looked it up. Freddy is the guy at the back of the train who flashes his rear end at people. =P
We do NOT have a system that rewards cheaters. Industry IS properly managed. The exact opposite is true. Mistakes mean huge financial costs, plus a total loss of face in the eyes of the public, investors and customers. Contractors for class 1 railways like CN and CP will not cut corners when it comes to safety if they want work. It's really that simple. In fact A&B, came close to losing permanently a lucrative contract with CN when it was discovered they had a crew performing work deemed unsafe and a violation of CROR. It was a minor violation for the overall public, but that's how seriously CN along with Transport Canada took it. That's how industry works, but if someone has never worked in industry and knows nothing of how it works, but insists something is true that is totally false then I guess I am wasting my time.
Quote from: "Romero"
I thought peak oil was a myth? What happened to all the oil wealth?
It's gone. Oil and gas are limited resources and they're gone within mere decades. Opening up ANWR is like trying to finish the last sip of drink with a straw.
It wasn't for nothing dude. It doesn't make sense right now that's all.
In case you haven't heard the US still buys oil from OPEC which is completely unacceptable considering they have untapped resources within their own borders and from a reliable neighbour like Canada. Besides, the worse thing anyone could do for the environment is to hand over industry to countries that don't give a shit about people let alone the environment.
Quote from: "Shen Li"
Quote from: "Romero"
I thought peak oil was a myth? What happened to all the oil wealth?
It's gone. Oil and gas are limited resources and they're gone within mere decades. Opening up ANWR is like trying to finish the last sip of drink with a straw.
It wasn't for nothing dude. It doesn't make sense right now that's all.
In case you haven't heard the US still buys oil from OPEC which is completely unacceptable considering they have untapped resources within their own borders and from a reliable neighbour like Canada. Besides, the worse thing anyone could do for the environment is to hand over industry to countries that don't give a shit about people let alone the environment.
The US will use up the resources of others before they tap into their own.
Quote from: "Dinky Dianna"
Quote from: "Shen Li"
Quote from: "Romero"
I thought peak oil was a myth? What happened to all the oil wealth?
It's gone. Oil and gas are limited resources and they're gone within mere decades. Opening up ANWR is like trying to finish the last sip of drink with a straw.
It wasn't for nothing dude. It doesn't make sense right now that's all.
In case you haven't heard the US still buys oil from OPEC which is completely unacceptable considering they have untapped resources within their own borders and from a reliable neighbour like Canada. Besides, the worse thing anyone could do for the environment is to hand over industry to countries that don't give a shit about people let alone the environment.
The US will use up the resources of others before they tap into their own.
No mr, that is not the reason they are buying foreign oil over their own or ours. Too many idiotic ladyboys like homoero and easter bunny care so much about the environment they would rather see countries that don't care about the environment be the producer. That's a minor reason though. The real reason is the same reason low skill manufacturing is overseas.....it's cheaper.
It's ma'am, and price isn't the underlying factor. It's future supply. The US is hoarding and expending other peoples resources first.