Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Oil Exploration Ramps Up In US Arctic

Posted by Soulskill on from the gotta-bring-those-gas-prices-down dept.

ananyo writes "A new round of exploratory oil drilling is due to begin in the Arctic this July. The oil giant Shell was granted permission some months ago by the U.S. government to drill two exploratory wells in the Beaufort Sea and three in the Chukchi Sea, both north of Alaska, this year — between 15 July and late September. The project is finally coming to fruition after years spent fighting legal challenges. It will be the first oil-exploration program to run in U.S. Arctic waters since 2000, and could mark the start of the first offshore commercial drilling in the American north, although it would take another decade to establish production wells."

11 of 182 comments (clear)

  1. Good by Stumbles · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Good.

    --
    My karma is not a Chameleon.
    1. Re:Good by i+kan+reed · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Bad.

      I provided 1 trillion times the evidence and supporting reasoning of the parent. My post is better.

    2. Re:Good by Penguinisto · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You both have it wrong. Here's how US public opinion on the matter actually works:

      Average gasoline prices under $3.75/gal? "Bad oil company! No drill! NO DRILL! bad! bad! bad!"

      Average gasoline prices over $4.50/gal? "I don't care if you have to line the well with baby seal fur and lubricate the rig with infant dolphin blood! Drill, damn you! DRILL!"

      --
      Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
    3. Re:Good by jmorris42 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Electric cars are a stupid idea. And they will be until we get much better batteries, they must be smaller, lighter, charge faster and be cheaper. That is a lot of miracles that need to happen. If only one of those things had to happen we could probably do a massive research push to get there, but with everything needing to get dramatically better it is a dumb idea to cast all of our future on one dice roll.

      Combine with the hard reality we will also require a massive new electrical generating and distribution capacity if electric cars are to be anything but egoboo for a select few wealthy greens subsidized by the taxes of 'wasteful' slobs they despise. And unless you know of a viable 'alternative' energy source that can not only supply current load but the massive new one implied by electrifying transportation all al electric car's battery is is a semi efficient storage medium for electricity generated by fossil fuels.

      No, what I get out of this announcement is an oil company is willing to plunk down coin to drill somewhere there is no chance Obama's regulators will ever allow actual production so they are betting on that not being a problem.

      --
      Democrat delenda est
    4. Re:Good by Red+Flayer · · Score: 3, Insightful

      He can live where ever the fuck he wants

      Sure he can. But why should we, at the pump, subsidize his living there?

      --
      "Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
    5. Re:Good by BlueStrat · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Higher oil prices are the answer. They are the only external force that will cause Joe 6-Pack to care about better city planning, public transportation and the like.

      So, you want poor people to pay more for food, medicine, housing, energy, and clothing, besides not being able to afford to get to work, the doctor's, the kid's school(s)?

      That's the effects higher oil prices have. Not just higher gasoline prices. Nobody who advocates for higher oil prices ever mentions that or offers any practical solutions, if they'll even talk about it at all.

      It won't only affect those living outside urban areas or the rich. It will take a real toll in human lives. Mostly the working poor and those on Social Security.

      You just ooze the milk of human kindness, don't you?

      Strat

      --
      Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
    6. Re:Good by bzipitidoo · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Oh, the old "it'll wreck the economy" and "hurt the poor" arguments. I'll call you, and raise you a "it'll destroy civilization" argument if we don't do it.

      Higher gas prices won't wreck the economy. There are alternatives. People don't have to drive monster SUVs. Don't have to live in McMansions and commute 100 miles to work every day. There are a bunch of easy things we could do to save gas if we got serious about it.

      If the environment is wrecked, that will wreck the economy more surely than any tiny price increase. You'd suddenly realize just how petty a $1 or even a $5 increase in the price of a gallon of gas is compared to millions of homeless people forced to move to higher ground thanks to rising sea levels, and more hungry millions swarming over the land because the weather made our crops fail. Civilizations have fallen over crop failures.

      --
      Intellectual Property is a monopolistic, selfish, and defective concept. It is "tyranny over the mind of man"
  2. Re:This is news? by d'baba · · Score: 5, Insightful

    They realize quite perfectly if they have a major spill or blowout then the game is over.

    You mean like BP's game is over?
    ---
    Any conversation about a sufficiently complex subject is indistinguishable from babble.

  3. Re:This is news? by sycodon · · Score: 3, Insightful

    "...how to power civilization..."

    We know how...Nuclear.

    But that's on the list of OhNoes!

    --
    When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
  4. A convo i inagine... by cant_get_a_good_nick · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Oil Guy: Do you find it ironic that we denounce global warming, but use higher temps and lower ice mass to get more oil for more Carbon emissions?

    Tobacco Guy: no, not at all.

  5. Re:Bzzzzzt Sorry... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    And how did you figure that out? Wishing to the economist fairy that a non-renewable resource will instead last forever, production will never be less than demand (despite demand rising exponentially), and never go into permanent supply decline?

    Futures speculation affects short-term prices. Yes. But actual supply and demand affects long-term prices. Even OPEC learned this back in the 1970s when they artificially flattened supply increases, prices spiked during the oil crisis, the global economy crashed, demand correspondingly crashed, and then so did the prices despite OPEC desperately reducing supply. If OPEC couldn't artificially dictate whatever price they wanted back in the 1970s, what makes you think speculators can artificially set whatever price they like? Speculators can perturb the overall trend for a little while, and that's where they make their money, but the price is not disconnected from availability over the long term. On top of that, if prices rise sufficiently, demand empirically falls. If the economy does poorly, demand falls, and so do prices. This is not the signature of a system entirely controlled by speculation.

    Also, if supply wasn't ultimately a constraint, then you wouldn't have companies spending money to try to find oil in remote and/or deep-water and/or harsh Arctic environments where it easily costs 10x as much to drill and produce as it would on land closer to markets. They're drilling here because the conventional/cheap supplies are dwindling away. They're drilling here because they have no other choice if they want to maintain production levels. If that's not a sign of a real issue with regards to availability, I don't know what could convince you. Why spend 10x as much for a barrel of oil there if, supposedly, they could get all the oil they wanted from somewhere else cheaper?

    We're genuinely in the bottom half of the barrel.