Oil Exploration Ramps Up In US Arctic

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Oil Exploration Ramps Up In US Arctic

Posted by Soulskill on Wednesday June 27, 2012 @07:15AM 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."

132 of 182 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Burn it by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-27 07:18 · Score: 2, Insightful

Nothing changes until it is all gone.
1. Re:Burn it by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-27 10:48 · Score: 1
  
  This may have been meant as a snarky comment, but it is true. Find it all and burn it until a barrel of oil costs more than a barrel of blood, only then can we focus on sustainability.
2. Re:Burn it by Taco+Cowboy · 2012-06-27 12:01 · Score: 1
  
  This may have been meant as a snarky comment, but it is true. Find it all and burn it until a barrel of oil costs more than a barrel of blood, only then can we focus on sustainability.
  Unfortunately, by that time, this world simply can't sustain us anymore
  
  --
  Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
3. Re:Burn it by vawarayer · 2012-06-27 14:03 · Score: 1
  
  We should have never sold this piece of land.
4. Re:Burn it by jjjhs · 2012-06-27 17:20 · Score: 1
  
  I'm all for sustainability but every attempt at 'going green' results in, or for whatever reason requires, immediate financial harm to everyone. Not talking about just a few cents more here or there in our energy costs.
5. Re:Burn it by Phoghat · 2012-06-28 10:20 · Score: 1
  
  We should have never sold this piece of land.
  What, Manhattan Island??
  
  --
  Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that.
6. Re:Burn it by RockDoctor · 2012-06-28 22:21 · Score: 1
  
  We should have never sold this piece of land.
  What, Manhattan Island??
  I assume that the GP is Russian. You do know that the Russians sold Alaska to the American government in about ... (Wikis) ... 1867. As an side effect of the Crimean War and the "Great Game." Hmmm, I didn't know that last bit, but it makes sense.
  
  --
  Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
7. Re:Burn it by Phoghat · 2012-06-28 22:54 · Score: 1
  
  You do know that the Russians sold Alaska to the American government in about ... (Wikis) ... 1867. As an side effect of the Crimean War and the "Great Game." Hmmm, I didn't know that last bit, but it makes sense.
  Not to be a snarky pain in the arse, but, OH PUHLEEEEZE !
  
  --
  Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that.
8. Re:Burn it by RockDoctor · 2012-06-29 03:13 · Score: 1
  
  snarky pain in the arse, but, OH PUHLEEEEZE !
  
  What?
  Are you an American (I've no way of knowing)? And if you are, is this knowledge common in America? How many Americans actually pay attention to their history lessons at school (playing a lot of pub quizzes, I know that a lot of my country people have a lamentably poor memory of our history of the comparable era) and then remember it? It seems a perfectly fair FYI to me.
  
  --
  Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
9. Re:Burn it by Phoghat · 2012-06-29 03:29 · Score: 1
  
  is this knowledge common in America? How many Americans actually pay attention to their history lessons at school (playing a lot of pub quizzes, I know that a lot of my country people have a lamentably poor memory of our history of the comparable era) and then remember it? It seems a perfectly fair FYI to me.
  
  A) Yes; B) at least one, me, probably lots more since it's some covered extensively in primary school; C) Damn shame; D) maybe medication would help with that; E) if so, what country are you currently residing in?
  
  --
  Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that.
10. Re:Burn it by RockDoctor · 2012-06-30 09:13 · Score: 1
  
  Medication is unlikely to help with people who are disinterested in history, their own or anybody elses'. Our arsenal of neuropharmacological chemicals for improving memories is slight, poorly targeted and fraught with side effects. The "cure" is quite likely to be worse than the "disease."
  I suspect that the prime issue is motivation ; few people think that they're likely to benefit by learning this stuff, or retaining it a minute longer than the exam.
  Which country am I in ? : through the winter I was mostly in Tanzania ; I'm at home in Britain for the moment ; where I'll be next month, I don't know - Iran, Iraq, Azerbaijan are all on the agenda ; Tanzania again, perhaps. I simply don't know (or care, much). Oh, the Canadians were asking after my availability too.
  
  --
  Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
Good by Stumbles · 2012-06-27 07:19 · Score: 3, Insightful

Good.

--
My karma is not a Chameleon.
1. Re:Good by i+kan+reed · 2012-06-27 07:46 · 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 · 2012-06-27 07:56 · 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 characterZer0 · 2012-06-27 08:20 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  Electric cars are not the answer. Better city planning, public transportation, and human-powered transportation are the answers.
  The second half of the 20th century was an experiment in car-centric city planning. It failed.
  
  --
  Go green: turn off your refrigerator.
4. Re:Good by similar_name · 2012-06-27 08:23 · Score: 3
  
  What's interesting is that we're okay with $3.75/gal. 10 years ago $2 made people angry.
5. Re:Good by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-27 08:25 · Score: 1
  
  Electric cars are not the answer. Better city planning, public transportation, and human-powered transportation are the answers.
  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.
6. Re:Good by jmorris42 · 2012-06-27 08:26 · 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
7. Re:Good by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-27 08:42 · Score: 1
  
  "Try getting a sig without an error in every word, then someone might take your seriously."
  "your". Uh huh.
8. Re:Good by Githaron · 2012-06-27 08:44 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  Electric cars are not the answer. Better city planning, public transportation, and human-powered transportation are the answers.
  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.
  What about those of us that do not live in a city? Everywhere I need to go is 20 minutes from where I live.
9. Re:Good by characterZer0 · 2012-06-27 08:44 · Score: 2
  
  Joe 6-Pack cares about the cost of gas at the pump, not the cost of crude. If we stop subsidizing car traffic by cutting subsidies for oil, refining, road building, maintenance, and parking space and let the price of gas (and tolls and parking rates) go up accordingly, Joe will notice.
  
  --
  Go green: turn off your refrigerator.
10. Re:Good by mk1004 · 2012-06-27 08:47 · Score: 1
  
  So obviously the goal of the oil companies would be to keep the price somewhere between $3.75/gal and $4.50/gal.
  
  --
  I can mend the break of day, heal a broken heart, and provide temporary relief to nymphomaniacs.
11. Re:Good by nitehawk214 · 2012-06-27 09:05 · Score: 1
  
  You forgot to adjust for inflation.
  Inflation was not 40% in the last 10 years.
  
  --
  I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust
12. Re:Good by Darinbob · 2012-06-27 09:13 · Score: 2
  
  Better work planning too. Ie, work from home, don't put offices miles away from residential areas or in upscale neighborhoods where workers cant' afford to live. Even then you will have problems due to geography. Ie, SF Bay Area is never going to have great public transportation or city planning because the geography is oddly shaped and confining. Never the less SF area has better transportation than LA which is flat and perfect for designing things efficiently. Still you have yuppies commuting an hour outside of SF for jobs while others commute for an hour to get into SF. Economics just does not put jobs where people live. If you do have a nice commute it can all change suddenly if you lose a job and have to work 50 miles away from the place where you have a mortgage. Meanwhile no matter how long your commute, or how many hills there are, or how dangerous the roads, or if you have a history of cardiapulmonary problems, some militant idiot at work wearing spandex is going to hound to commute on a bicycle.
13. Re:Good by CaptainLugnuts · 2012-06-27 09:18 · Score: 1, Flamebait
  
  Move out of the sticks, hayseed!
14. Re:Good by Billly+Gates · 2012-06-27 09:21 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  Not good great!
  Living in Alaska gave me a different perspective. The oilpipeline is Alaska. What I mean by that is it funds natives(indians) to survive, pays for education, gives research money to conservation and global warming researching indirectorly by funding the U of Alaska system, brings in 20% of the population in Anchorage and so on.
  By 2016 the oil pipeline will be done! The state and its people will be devestated. Any oil they find needs to quickly be pipped to the oil pipeline. The oil industry is not this evil thing up there and people depend on it. It has done amazing things with a great education system in the state and funding for many poor native Americans in rural areas who survive by hunting and fishing. With milk $7 a gallon the dividend fund can really help as every man,woman, and child is paid by it. ... just giving slashdotters another perspective.
  The arctic in Alaska is not negatively effected at all by the drilling. It enables more of us to enjoy its wilderness by creating jobs for those who want to move even if they are not paid directly by the big oil companies.
  
  --
  http://saveie6.com/
15. Re:Good by roman_mir · 2012-06-27 09:41 · Score: 1
  
  Inflation is expansion of money supply, this does not directly translate into rising prices.
  Inflation is about 11-15% per year.
  
  --
  You can't handle the truth.
16. Re:Good by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-27 10:00 · Score: 1, Insightful
  
  If I was standing near you, I'd bitch slap you.
  He can live where ever the fuck he wants. Who the hell are you to bitch about anything?
17. Re:Good by AK+Marc · 2012-06-27 10:11 · Score: 1
  
  But electric cars powered from coal plants will reduce our reliance on fossil fuels. All we have to do is listen to the "clean coal" supporters.
  
  --
  Learn to love Alaska
18. Re:Good by AK+Marc · 2012-06-27 10:13 · Score: 1
  
  Joe 6-pack won't know. Because the real cost to oil spikes is goods. When everything in the US is moved by diesel trucks, the cost of everything goes up, and unlike airlines and cruise ships, you don't get a "fuel price" fee on your veggies.
  
  --
  Learn to love Alaska
19. Re:Good by AK+Marc · 2012-06-27 10:21 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  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
  Those are easy to fix. They have all been fixed on a small scale already, and the solution scales well. The problem is that nobody wants to invest the capital to make it work. Everyone expects the government to pony up a trillion dollars or so for the fix, so any private work done before that is at a loss. After all, we spent multiple trillions to kill two people (neither of which tried for the reason we initiated aggression against them), so what's another trillion to greatly improve the US? If we can find so much money to ship overseas, why can't we spend a fraction of that domestically?
  
  Eletric cars are easy. They pre-dated IC for a reason (they were easy). The *only* issue left is that with everything solved, nobody will do it. Selling a few here or there to the niche makes more money and protects the embedded interests better than raising CAFE to 50 and mandating appropriate standards on electric cars, which would solve the problem in less than a year.
  
  --
  Learn to love Alaska
20. Re:Good by AK+Marc · 2012-06-27 10:25 · Score: 2
  
  And if I were a native, what would that matter to your rant? The natives are Mongolian anyway (well, so far as the current theories go). Or Russsian, there were some that came with Alaska. The oldest Russian Orthodox church in the US is in Unalaska (why yes, I've been there).
  
  --
  Learn to love Alaska
21. Re:Good by Red+Flayer · 2012-06-27 10:29 · Score: 1
  
  Inflation is expansion of money supply,
  No. Inflation is the increase in general prices in an economy over a period of time -- specifically, we're talking about price inflation. While there is a direct correlation between rising money supply and inflation under certain conditions, the two are not the same thing.
  
  --
  "Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
22. Re:Good by Red+Flayer · 2012-06-27 10:30 · 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
23. Re:Good by BlueStrat · 2012-06-27 10:34 · Score: 2
  
  Move out of the sticks, hayseed!
  If you move everyone into urban areas, then good luck raising your own chickens, cows, pigs, and growing all your grains, fruits, and vegetables in downtown $YOURCITY.
  Let the rest of us know how that works out for you.
  Strat
  
  --
  Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
24. Re:Good by budgenator · 2012-06-27 10:35 · Score: 2
  
  What are you going to eat, grass clippings city-slicker? Can't grow much wheat in an urban square foot garden; bottom line, you need the hayseeds a lot more than the hayseeds need you.
  
  --
  Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
25. Re:Good by Billly+Gates · 2012-06-27 10:36 · Score: 1
  
  Well for one if I am an American I have a right to live here. If you don't then I have to say you are an invader too if you are American or a Canadian for that matter. Me live comfortably? Did you read my post.
  The natives OWN the oil pipeline. Aleyska corporation is owned by the native corporation (one of them) and BP does have a major interest in it but it goes to the native people to pay for things like education, milk, gas, groceries, etc. The dividend fund pays for it and I think it is a great reverse tax idea. If you take something you don't get too rape it at others expense.
  The profit from this ensures whites and natives work and live side by side and I think it is a great alternative than to pillaging and raping resources. FYI that will happen by somebody else if we do not grab it. I would rather see it used to preserve wilderness and give to others who live up there.
  If you have a problem with this then go all green, walk to work or get a horse and do not use electricity. People complain and want to support the environment until it is there lifestyle you ask to change then its GOVERNMENT GET OFF MY BACK etc.
  Oil and using the existing pipeline is VERY environmentally safe compared to the tar sands in Alberta. I would prefer drilling and giving to natives vs fracking any day.
  
  --
  http://saveie6.com/
26. Re:Good by Billly+Gates · 2012-06-27 10:53 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  Or we can just not drill and have you pay more at the pump?
  Or let Canada get the money instead and really pollute the environment with its tar sands?
  Why is it evil to help poor native Americans living in these villages get free education and money for groceries and a better life for their kids? No matter where you spend your money you subsidize people regardless through standard economics. Alaska pays to use its resources because most of the population is native and they own a majority stake in the pipeline. It is their land so why can't they keep it?
  So where I used to live has resources and a large part of the economy is more dependent on that than any other source. Natives fish around the oil well in Prudhoe Bay all the time and the water is prestine and clean. They have a stake in making sure it is.
  I am not an ulta conservative nutcase or work in the oil industry. I am just giving slashdotters another perspective.
  
  --
  http://saveie6.com/
27. Re:Good by BlueStrat · 2012-06-27 10:55 · 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.
28. Re:Good by navyjeff · 2012-06-27 11:11 · Score: 1
  
  Suburbs have been eating up farmland like crazy these past decades. Killing the suburb and exurb growth is probably the way to keep farms producing in rural areas.
29. Re:Good by Kohath · 2012-06-27 11:25 · Score: 1
  
  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.
  206 days left
30. Re:Good by budgenator · 2012-06-27 11:26 · Score: 1
  
  What makes you feel that you're entitled to live in Alaska? Are you a native? Why should we pawn future generations' climate for cheap oil so that you can live more comfortably in one of the harshest climates on Earth?
  --Jeremy
  What makes you feel that you're entitled to live? Why should we pawn future generations' climate so that you can exhale CO2 with every breath.
  
  --
  Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
31. Re:Good by BlueStrat · 2012-06-27 11:28 · Score: 1
  
  Try getting a sig without an error in every word, then someone might take your seriously. Also, a brain.
  Well, at least your post shows you have "brains" enough to attack him personally for his sig while completely avoiding refuting anything the OP posted.
  That's something, I suppose...
  Um, congratulations? :/
  Strat
  
  --
  Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
32. Re:Good by BlueStrat · 2012-06-27 11:42 · Score: 1
  
  Suburbs have been eating up farmland like crazy these past decades. Killing the suburb and exurb growth is probably the way to keep farms producing in rural areas.
  Killing the suburbs through higher oil/transportation costs will make both those in the suburbs AND those on farms move to urban areas. There may be more land available to clear and to farm, but nobody will be able to afford to live out there and clear the land, then farm it, and then ship it into the urban areas to feed everyone. The price will come in human lives, particularly the working-poor and those on Social Security retirement/disability.
  Strat
  
  --
  Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
33. Re:Good by jmorris42 · 2012-06-27 12:41 · Score: 1
  
  > Those are easy to fix. They have all been fixed on a small scale already, and the solution scales well.
  No they haven't. Even you agree with me if you would stop doublethinking for a second and try to think a bit you would see it. But you won't. I write the material below for the benefit of readers who aren't so emotionally invested.
  > The problem is that nobody wants to invest the capital to make it work. Everyone expects the government
  > to pony up a trillion dollars or so for the fix, so any private work done before that is at a loss.
  So which is it? Is EV just waiting for somebody to actually build them or are they a trillion or so in R&D and capital expense away? There is a fairly important difference between the two you know. While a Trillion isn't a lot for the current US government (apparently) it is quite a bit in the private sector. It is far more than any one individual or corporation possesses. It is almost certainlu more than the market capitalization of the entire worldwide auto industry.
  > raising CAFE to 50 and mandating appropriate standards on electric cars, which would solve the problem in less than a year.
  See this? That is you giving the game away. You are all butthurt that evil oil companies are stopping all this wonderful EV tech, that already exists and is perfect, from being able to reach the market. In a world where a lot of people that aren't in the oil industry or the legacy ICE based auto industry would love to capture that market, and get a Nobel Prize for 'saving the earth' as a cherry on top, it is inconceivable that nobody would be marketing an already 'proven' solution anywhere in the world. At some level under your delusional feelings (not thoughts) you realize just how silly you are because you, right up there in B&W, admit it would require the government to tilt the marketplace and render existing designs illegal.
  Since existing cars are quite legal (hell, Obama made the US government a major shareholder in GM) and aren't going anywhere it doesn't require a dark conspiracy to understand why nobody is going into volume production on the currently far inferior EV tech. It can't compete. Even with massive government subsidies on R&D and on each unit sold they tend to sit unsold. They make just enough to keep the government busybodies off their back and write off the losses as a cost of doing business and as R&D toward a distant future when the battery tech catches up.
  
  --
  Democrat delenda est
34. Re:Good by thereitis · 2012-06-27 13:39 · Score: 1
  
  That's the answer for some, but I don't want all that. Keep me out of the rat race and it's high-density living and high-density transportation. Not everyone wants or is suited for that lifestyle.
  Let people telecommute and live wherever the hell you want.
35. Re:Good by spazzmo · 2012-06-27 13:59 · Score: 1
  
  What makes you feel you're entitled to live?
  
  --
  The cheese stands alone...
36. Re:Good by AK+Marc · 2012-06-27 15:06 · Score: 2
  
  So which is it? Is EV just waiting for somebody to actually build them or are they a trillion or so in R&D and capital expense away?
  It's $0 in R&D away. If there weren't trillions of dollars in oil infrastructure, IC would be worse off. But with 100+ years and trillions of dollars in pipelines and stations and such, it has an advantage. The R&D is done. There is no more required time or money on that. But the infrastructure of electric cars is not equal to gasoline. Wow, and you are the one asserting I'm blind by my emotional attachment.
  
  --
  Learn to love Alaska
37. Re:Good by Pseudonym · 2012-06-27 15:33 · Score: 1
  
  Sadly, science funding very much depends on public opinion. No political will, no science.
  
  --
  sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
38. Re:Good by bzipitidoo · 2012-06-27 16:48 · 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"
39. Re:Good by Jeremi · 2012-06-27 18:59 · Score: 1
  
  If you move everyone into urban areas, then good luck raising your own chickens, cows, pigs, and growing all your grains, fruits, and vegetables in downtown $YOURCITY.
  Once all the Americans live in the cities, the only people left afuera will be the undocumented agricultural workers. It's all part of the secret plan to cede the Southwest back to Mexico.
  
  --
  
  I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
40. Re:Good by roman_mir · 2012-06-27 19:34 · Score: 1
  
  Prices don't inflate, prices rise and fall.
  Money supply is what inflates - it expands and contracts. Prices do not expand, they rise, they don't contract, they fall.
  This entire conversation is based on propaganda that is pushed by the powers that want to confuse you and prevent you from understanding most basic concepts.
  
  --
  You can't handle the truth.
41. Re:Good by dunkelfalke · 2012-06-27 21:49 · Score: 2
  
  I don't live in a city. Have used public transportation in the past, use a bicycle now. Never in my life have I been so fit.
  Admit it, you are just lazy.
  
  --
  "It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
42. Re:Good by nedlohs · 2012-06-27 23:27 · Score: 1
  
  No, it was 30% (assuming you mean the CPI).
  Of course I'm not sure how you got 40% from $2.00->$3.75
43. Re:Good by Githaron · 2012-06-28 04:06 · Score: 1
  
  I don't live in a city. Have used public transportation in the past, use a bicycle now. Never in my life have I been so fit.
  Admit it, you are just lazy.
  The closest bus station to my house is 10 - 15 minutes away by car going at an average of 55 - 60 mph. From there, if I choose to take the bus, I am guessing it would tack on an additional hour of travel when you consider the low bus count in the area. Even if it only tacked on 30 minutes, by the time I am at the bus station, I am only 5 - 10 minutes from work by car. Is it really going to save all that much if I just go all the way to work by car?
  As far as bikes go, even if I was willing to pad on the extra time it would take to travel, I would probably be fired if I came to work all gross and sweaty everyday. There are no showers at work. I also would not be comfortable traveling on the required roads by bike. It just wouldn't be safe. If I lived closer to work, lived in a cooler area, had bike friendly roads between me and work, and possibly had a shower at work would I ride a bike? Probably but I don't. Another thing I would like to mention is that work is actually a little closer to me than everything else. Also, I am by far do not live in the most remote area in the country.
  More public transit is all fine and dandy but for some areas it infeasible. Unlike many other countries, most of the United States built its infrastructure. cities, and towns under the belief that cars would be used to get around. It would take generations to change the infrastructure to accommodate the whole country if we lost personal vehicles.
44. Re:Good by BubbaDave · 2012-06-28 08:19 · Score: 1
  
  Well, there was little or no choice to make the cities car-centric after the automakers bought most of the urban and local rail and destroyed it (scrapped the cars and tore up the rails) to foster car sales.
45. Re:Good by dunkelfalke · 2012-06-28 20:14 · Score: 1
  
  As I said, just lazy. I live half an hour from work by car, I still use a bicycle. No showers at work, and you don't really need them because you don't stink if you use sports clothes for sports and just change at work.
  
  --
  "It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
46. Re:Good by BlueStrat · 2012-06-29 11:30 · Score: 1
  
  'll call you, and raise you a "it'll destroy civilization" if we don't do it.
  Oh, bullshit!
  Seriously. Stop with the "OMG we're all gonna DIE!!!11".
  It almost sounds like your saying "we have to destroy civilization to save civilization", which currently wouldn't be far from the truth, as most of the Western nation's economies are desperately struggling, and many scrambling to avoid collapse
  Even the worst-case climate change scenarios modeled so far don't come anywhere close to "destroying civilization". To reach an extinction-level of damage would take many, many thousands of years, even using data from the most pessimistic models. It also doesn't take into account continued scientific and technical progress and assumes none occurs. It is FUD and scare-mongering.
  Look, there's nothing wrong with having reasonable rules about not screwing up the planet that are reasonably effective AND that don't cripple entire industries and/or bankrupt struggling national economies as well as slam the poor, while crippling the advancement of technology and civilization.
  But, there seems to be a vocal radical subset that sees this as an opportunity to use such regulation as a weapon against Western capitalist industrial and energy production capacity as part of their ideological agenda. It's not even like they make a lot of effort to hide it. If one visits the websites of these various groups and organizations, it quickly becomes quite obvious. Many state openly that is one of their goals.
  That pisses me off. *I* want effective, reasonable, and fair environmental protections and policies, but these agenda-driven assholes muddy and skew the discussion so much that it makes truly productive policy discussions and reasonable, fair decisions impossible, and often impede the adoption of good policies.
  So, then we end up with effectively *less* effective environmental policies that actually protect the environment *less* in favor of their ideological agenda. Quit damaging our environment to push your damned ideology!
  They do this because when they are open about their agendas and goals and tell people what their actual views are and the kind of policies they want to enact and *give people choices*, most people reject them and their ideology. They refuse to accept the notion that their ideas might just be wrong, and fall back on a variation of "everyone else is stupid, we're smarter than everyone else, therefor we must force our views and policies on them for their own good no matter what it takes, as the ends justify the means" to justify their deceptions and lies.
  Strat
  
  --
  Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
This is news? by ColdWetDog · 2012-06-27 07:22 · Score: 4, Interesting

For techy people? Oh well, probably more topical that a fake severed head on a fake TV show.
FWIW, Shell has drilled in the Arctic before - several other exploratory wells. They've done quite a bit of due diligence to mitigate problems including painting their disaster recovery ship a dark blue so as not to scare the whales.
They realize quite perfectly if they have a major spill or blowout then the game is over. Further, there is no assurance that this will go anywhere beyond the exploratory wells - they may not find oil, they may not find much oil, it may cost too much to pull out.
And if they wait long enough, the whole area may turn into a tropical paradise, much like it was when the algae, etc. that created the biomass that subsequently became oil was alive.

--
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
1. Re:This is news? by Sarten-X · 2012-06-27 07:31 · Score: 1
  
  It sounds like you're trying to say "people are behaving responsibly to meet their goals with minimum damage" on a Slashdot article about a mix of environmentalism, technology, and politics... Your signature is wonderfully appropriate.
  
  --
  You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
2. Re:This is news? by d'baba · 2012-06-27 07:37 · 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 quarkscat · 2012-06-27 07:39 · Score: 1
  
  "And if they wait long enough, the whole area may turn into a tropical paradise ..."
  You mean, like with a dramatic shift in the magnetic poles? Do you know something that the rest of us are not aware of, like perhaps being associated with the HAARP program?
  BTW, IIRC Shell Oil has had a number of less-than-stellar environmental issues in regions like Nigeria and Brazil. BP also had a reasonable environmental record, but only so long as their operations were located off-shore of a country that actually gave a good GD, like the North Sea off the coast of Britain. The Arctic Ocean is a quite sensitive region ecologically, considering the recent discovery of major bloom fields of plankton under the ice.
4. Re:This is news? by ColdWetDog · 2012-06-27 07:40 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  This is likely to be the best scenario in a potential worst case scenario. Even if Shell doesn't drill in the Beaufort Sea, the Russians, Canadians, Danes and anybody else who can manage to plant a flag above the Arctic Circle will.
  We ARE going to Drill Baby, Drill until it costs too much to pull the stuff out of the ground. If we have any collective brains we will use that time to figure out how to power civilization using less environmentally disastrous methods. I'm not to sanguine about the collective intelligence of humanity however.
  "A person is smart, people are dumb, panicky animals and you know that".
  Agent K
  
  --
  Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
5. Re:This is news? by mosb1000 · 2012-06-27 07:41 · Score: 1
  
  It should be. They have an appalling safety record. Why anyone would sell them an oil lease is beyond me.
6. Re:This is news? by sycodon · 2012-06-27 07:43 · 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.
7. Re:This is news? by sl4shd0rk · 2012-06-27 07:48 · Score: 1
  
  You mean like BP's game is over?
  
  Good point, but keep in mind It would be over if people were to go elsewhere for gas.
  
  --
  Join the Slashcott! Feb 10 thru Feb 17!
8. Re:This is news? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-27 07:52 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  Can't actually do that. Gas for a geographic area is usually supplied by the nearest refinery. Here in Denver all you can get is Conoco gas. I don't care where you go Shell, Wal Mart, Costco, Safeway, etc. you're getting Conoco gas. The only difference is the additives.
  Hooray for free market competition!
9. Re:This is news? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-27 08:14 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  For techy people? Oh well, probably more topical that a fake severed head on a fake TV show.
  Hate to be pedantic* but it's certainly a real TV show. The content is fake, but the show really exists.
  * blatant lie, obviously
10. Re:This is news? by Mindcontrolled · 2012-06-27 08:25 · Score: 1
  
  To be more precise, Shell has drilled several other dry exploratory wells...
  
  --
  Ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant.
11. Re:This is news? by HornWumpus · 2012-06-27 08:37 · Score: 2
  
  Gasoline is fungible. The pipeline operators are just optimizing the physical flow.
  Money flow follows entirely different patterns that reflect ownership.
  
  --
  John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
12. Re:This is news? by Pope · 2012-06-27 08:47 · Score: 1
  
  Continental Drift.
  
  --
  It doesn't mean much now, it's built for the future.
13. Re:This is news? by Delarth799 · 2012-06-27 09:11 · Score: 2
  
  Money makes everything happen, its just that sometimes you just need a little extra money to get things moving.
14. Re:This is news? by subreality · 2012-06-27 10:56 · Score: 1
  
  Nope. BP had a spill on an established field. They get to pretend like nothing's wrong and continue on as before.
  Shell wants to start up a new field. They need permission, and they won't get it if they create a PR clusterfuck.
  Right? Wrong? Few care. It's politics.
15. Re:This is news? by Kohath · 2012-06-27 11:13 · Score: 2
  
  Because oil is useful? Also, because a couple of years after "the worst thing that ever happened anywhere, ever" there's very little evidence any oil was spilled in the Gulf of Mexico at all. Incidents without lasting harm are easy to forget or disregard, as they should be.
16. Re:This is news? by budgenator · 2012-06-27 11:29 · Score: 1
  
  Oh yeah it makes so much more sense for BP to be drilling in the gulf under Cuban rules and regulations.
  
  --
  Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
So long, Arabia by ch-chuck · 2012-06-27 07:26 · Score: 3, Interesting

The sooner we decouple from the Muslim extremists the better

--
try { do() || do_not(); } catch (JediException err) { yoda(err); }
1. Re:So long, Arabia by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-27 07:37 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  We buy most of our oil from Canada but oil is a global market, so this will only help drive down prices long term.
  If you buy any oil, you can't really say you are not buying or contributing anything to "Arab" countries, even if you only buy it from one place due to oil's global nature.
2. Re:So long, Arabia by Princeofcups · 2012-06-27 08:16 · Score: 1, Insightful
  
  We buy most of our oil from Canada but oil is a global market, so this will only help drive down prices long term.
  If you buy any oil, you can't really say you are not buying or contributing anything to "Arab" countries, even if you only buy it from one place due to oil's global nature.
  This has nothing to do with lowing the price of oil, and everything to do with making the oil companies richer. They've proven that all it takes is to raise the prices $2 for a while until everyone is upset, and then drop it down a $1, and everyone is happy again. Kaching. $1 price increase and no one seems to care. The price of oil right now is based purely on the highest rate that the customer is willing to bear, and has little to nothing to do with availability.
  
  --
  The only thing worse than a Democrat is a Republican.
3. Re:So long, Arabia by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-27 08:22 · Score: 1
  
  but oil is a global market
  Yes, you can trade petroleum commodities planet wide, so there is a global price. That global price is quoted sans delivery costs. The FOB price doesn't including refining costs either. You don't burn FOB quoted Brent Crude next to a Saudi well. You burn gasoline, here.
  Most US consumed oil is sourced from North America (US, Canada, Mexico) so the delivery costs remain a small factor in the price of finished petroleum products. If all the oil had to come from the middle east then delivery would be much more expensive; the global futures price would be the same but the price of actual 'gas' to you would be much higher.
  You hear this 'global market' argument from anti-fossil fuel types that want to convince you that domestic drilling won't effect price. They're wrong and you should stop listening to them. The question of whether they're misdirection is due to ignorance or deceit is left as an exercise to the reader.
4. Re:So long, Arabia by mk1004 · 2012-06-27 09:41 · Score: 1
  
  You are correct that location affects price. That's why, for instance, Cushing OK has lower gas ($0.10 to $0.15/gal) prices than surrounding areas, because the existing Keystone pipeline terminates there.
  You're arguing that increased production can significantly change prices on a local level, and that delivery costs are a big issue. If that was the case, no one would care if the XL pipeline is extended from Cushing to the Gulf--which is in progress. The purpose of adding that leg is to get oil to the refineries AND shipping terminals there. That $0.10-$0.15/gal loss in revenue is enough to make the expense of running the pipeline worth it to the oil companies. They plan to refine and ship product from the Gulf. That will increase gas prices in the Cushing area. Increased local production will cause global demand to shift delivery origins/destinations enough to limit the local effect.
  
  --
  I can mend the break of day, heal a broken heart, and provide temporary relief to nymphomaniacs.
5. Re:So long, Arabia by turbidostato · 2012-06-27 10:44 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  "the US imports more oil from Canada than any country in the Middle East"
  But of course yes. Why the hell would any Middle East country import oil from Canada?
6. Re:So long, Arabia by nedlohs · 2012-06-27 23:47 · Score: 1
  
  The price of oil right now is based purely on the highest rate that the customer is willing to bear, and has little to nothing to do with availability.
  That sounds exactly like the market determining the price. of course you charge as much as the market will bear - you'd be an idiot not to.
  Especially when you are selling something of fixed supply.
  You have X barrels of oil available to be pumped out of the ground, as supply dwindles price will rise so you want to sell as little as possible now and as much as possible later at higher prices.
  Except of course there's always the risk of governments nationalizing you if you don't supply enough. And of someone else buying you out for cheap if you don't make enough profits in the short term. And of an alternative energy source being developed and lowering the price of oil.
  So charging as much as you can before the government intervenes seems like the sweet spot. All the other players have the same criteria.
  Sure one player could undercut and make short term profits but they'll lose out in the long term when they have less oil left to sell at much higher prices. So it wouldn't be a rational move free market wise.
  if alternative energy sources pick up steam you charge less - not to try and kill them (though that's a bonus) but because now the future value of your oil is less so you want to sell more of it now.
  For a market dominated by huge suppliers who enter into open collusion (OPEC, for example) it doesn't seem to be all that far off what you would expect in a free market.
the what ??? by fluffythedestroyer · 2012-06-27 07:34 · Score: 1, Interesting

Uhh, anyone remember the BP oil spill ? I guess no one can forget that. It's clear with that attempt to stop the oil spill, any organisation or company didn't know how to stop it. It's also clear that any spill can't be stopped right now so why in the hell can the US go dig there ? This is beyond stupidity if you ask me.
1. Re:the what ??? by benzaholic · 2012-06-27 07:38 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  Huh?
  One spill wasn't stopped. Therefore, no spill can be stopped.
  I applaud your flawless logic.
  Clap.
  Clap.
2. Re:the what ??? by fluffythedestroyer · 2012-06-27 07:49 · Score: 1
  
  and look at this before you puke your words at me. And yeah, BP isn't the only idiots who left a mark.
3. Re:the what ??? by Jeng · 2012-06-27 07:54 · Score: 2
  
  Go back and look at the causes of that oil spill and why it was unable to be plugged quickly. It was easily preventable, and Shell should be making doubly sure that all of their safety devices work.
  If Shell has a spill in the Arctic on the scale of BP's spill in the Gulf then NOBODY will be allowed to drill in the arctic for probably another decade. The environmental groups will go absolutely nuts.
  If Shell does not have a spill in the next decade it will be a lot easier for them to convince the environmental groups that they will drill responsibly in ANWR.
  
  --
  Don't know something? Look it up. Still don't know? Then ask.
4. Re:the what ??? by Sarius64 · 2012-06-27 08:01 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  No more stupid than people basing personal and political modern nuclear power stations on 40+ year old models breaking that were far over their mean-times for operation. More people have died from sugar plant explosions than nuclear power; this even in the primitive models. A few hundred liquid fuel thorium reactors would dissolve the need for high-price municipal monopolies on energy generation and distribution. That's the real issue here.
  LFTR's eat old nuclear waste from the U235 systems Carter forced upon us. So, no more poisoning the water tables!
5. Re:the what ??? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-27 08:06 · Score: 1
  
  So how much oil do you consume? Put your best foot forward and turn the number into a zero if you don't want a repeat of what happened with BP. Otherwise your point is hypocritical.
6. Re:the what ??? by Jeng · 2012-06-27 08:08 · Score: 1
  
  You make no sense, can you please pull your head out of your ass explain that random collection of characters you typed?
  
  --
  Don't know something? Look it up. Still don't know? Then ask.
7. Re:the what ??? by fluffythedestroyer · 2012-06-27 08:12 · Score: 1
  
  The real issue is about oil rigs being (or will be ?) built in the artic...keep to the subject please.
8. Re:the what ??? by Jeng · 2012-06-27 08:14 · Score: 2
  
  No seriously, go back and re-read what you wrote. It only makes sense in your head because there is a lot of context you are not writing out that exists only in your head.
  I don't know what is up with you today, but you are being a huge fucking asshole, it is probably best for you to get up and take a little walk and clear your head.
  
  --
  Don't know something? Look it up. Still don't know? Then ask.
9. Re:the what ??? by Mindcontrolled · 2012-06-27 08:38 · Score: 1
  
  Seriously, you are still butthurt about Carter?
  
  --
  Ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant.
10. Re:the what ??? by MightyMartian · 2012-06-27 08:59 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  This is what we in the debate business call misdirection. Rather than conceding the parent's point, the above poster attempts to lead the debate away from that by asking what he feels is a humiliating question.
  
  --
  The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
11. Re:the what ??? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-27 09:17 · Score: 2, Funny
  
  ...or that the first person to call the opposition names in a debate is the first side that loses?
12. Re:the what ??? by Solandri · 2012-06-27 10:46 · Score: 1
  
  Uhh, anyone remember the BP oil spill ? I guess no one can forget that. It's clear with that attempt to stop the oil spill, any organisation or company didn't know how to stop it.
  Oh they knew exactly how to stop it. It's a simple hydrodynamics problem. You need to drill a relief well to inject mud down at the bottom where there's zero ambient pressure, rather than trying to force it down through oil exiting at 10,000 psi at the top. But a relief well would take months to drill, and every day the spill continued was driving BP's reputation and stock price lower and lower. So they had to put together a dog and pony show of wild ideas and hail mary schemes during those months which had virtually no chance of succeeding but would give the public the sense that they were doing something until the relief wells were finished.
  
  That's why it seemed like they were flailing around impotently and all the ideas to stop it failed one after another. Things like "junk shot" were just PR moves to deflect criticism, not expected to actually succeed. The only realistic solution were the relief wells. (Well, the blowout preventer was supposed to prevent it too, but apparently it encountered a situation it was not designed for and ended up about 7% short of the force needed to sever and seal the pipe as they were designed to do.)
13. Re:the what ??? by Hatta · 2012-06-27 10:51 · Score: 2
  
  Such an oil spill could be stopped in a matter of days instead of months, if they were required to drill a relief well simultaneously with the main well. Other countries manage to enforce this simple precaution, but the US government is too beholden to the interests of industry.
  
  --
  Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
14. Re:the what ??? by TapeCutter · 2012-06-27 15:42 · Score: 1
  
  I'm an 'environmentalist', I believe deep sea drillers are responsible in that they will comply with regulations, the drillers themselves want a spill even less than I do (albeit for different reasons). However I'm also a realist and know for a fact that oil spills will eventually occur even with the most stringent regulations, so when people suggest drilling in the polar regions, or the coral sea, the great barrier reef, etc, no amount of "we will be careful" is enough to convince me that the risk is worth the gain. Compared to the Artic, the Gulf was already an environmental wasteland when the BP spill occured.
  
  --
  And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
15. Re:the what ??? by Jeng · 2012-06-28 02:09 · Score: 1
  
  Congratulations you have managed to write out a complete thought!!!
  There should be balloons and cake!
  And here is one example of you just being an asshole without adding anything to the discussion.
  http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2942817&cid=40471273
  So anyway, in your opinion, what precautionary measures would you like them to implement?
  
  --
  Don't know something? Look it up. Still don't know? Then ask.
16. Re:the what ??? by ultranova · 2012-06-28 02:50 · Score: 1
  
  However I'm also a realist and know for a fact that oil spills will eventually occur even with the most stringent regulations, so when people suggest drilling in the polar regions, or the coral sea, the great barrier reef, etc, no amount of "we will be careful" is enough to convince me that the risk is worth the gain.
  
  That implies that either the arctic etc have infinite value, or that the increased supply of oil has zero or negative value. Neither is true, as far as most people are concerned. Consequently, your "nothing will convince me" tells them that your opinion should be simply ignored, since it's irrational from their point of view.
  
  --
  Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.
Re:I thought all drilling was banned.... by CanHasDIY · 2012-06-27 08:01 · Score: 1, Troll

I thought all drilling was banned - Hope & Change I can believe in.
And I thought monkeys couldn't stop jerking off long enough to type a legible sentence, yet here you are...

--
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
Economist article on Arctic warming by DavidHumus · 2012-06-27 08:05 · Score: 5, Interesting

The Economist has a funny quote in their article -http://www.economist.com/node/21556800 - on how faster-than-expected warming in the Arctic will open up previously inaccessible resources:
"Oil companies are reluctant to admit that climate change plays a part in their northward shift. They do not want to be seen to be profiting from the environmental damage to which their activities have contributed."
1. Re:Economist article on Arctic warming by Mindcontrolled · 2012-06-27 08:40 · Score: 2
  
  Heh, yeah, they are pretty much placing their bets on the ice-free summer arctic within the next couple of years with this.
  
  --
  Ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant.
2. Re:Economist article on Arctic warming by MightyMartian · 2012-06-27 09:01 · Score: 2
  
  Nothing to worry about. The Heartland Institute has their backs. They can safely ruin the environment while the Heartland Institute and like-minded organizations go around teaching school children that God wants us to puke CO2 into the atmosphere and that nothing can possibly go wrong with it.
  
  --
  The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
3. Re:Economist article on Arctic warming by hey! · 2012-06-27 09:09 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  They're not the only ones. Russia has also been making noises about creative interpretation of the international law rules about territorial waters. The UN Convention on the Law of the Seas (which the US has signed but not ratified) allows countries to measure their territorial waters and exclusive economic zone from the edge of the continental shelf rather than from land. Russia has claimed that a undersea mountain range crossing over the North Pole is part of the East Siberian Shelf, which if allowed gives them sovereignty over the North Pole and exclusive economic control over a vast swath of the Arctic Ocean running from Komsomolets Island to almost Greenland.
  With about equal justification, Denmark has argued that the same range is an extension of Greenland, and Canada that it is an extension of North America. Russia has already sent a deep submersible to plant the Russian flag at the North Pole. If there are significant resources found in an ice-free region of what is now international waters, we could well see a serious conflict develop as each claimant seeks to control who gets to extract those resources.
  This business of allowing territorial claims out to the continental shelf is insane, and very dangerous.
  
  --
  Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
4. Re:Economist article on Arctic warming by Teresita · 2012-06-27 13:32 · Score: 1
  
  Russia has claimed that a undersea mountain range crossing over the North Pole is part of the East Siberian Shelf, which if allowed gives them sovereignty over the North Pole
  
  Moot point. Russia is a kleptocracy. They don't have the wherewithal to drill in deep water, and if a Western corporation got to the verge of making a platform on the North Pole pay off, Gazprom would move in with Pootie's blessing.
And here's how pump prices really work... by tlambert · 2012-06-27 08:20 · Score: 1

Chevron: We really don't care about the price of a barrel of oil one way or the other, except for those of us who have commodities futures in our portfolios. We've just successfully lobbied California to get the gas reformulated again so out of state gas can't compete in our private sandbox. Oh yeah, we'll be taking two of our refineries offline for preventive maintenance to celebrate this achievement.
Granted by US? by majorme · 2012-06-27 08:22 · Score: 1

why would they ask america (fuck yeah) for permission to drill there? its a sad sad news, though, bye bye penguins :(
1. Re:Granted by US? by HornWumpus · 2012-06-27 08:42 · Score: 1
  
  Penguins in the Sahara?
  Giant electric penguins! When we paint the sand white it looks more like snow then snow.
  
  --
  John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
2. Re:Granted by US? by Algae_94 · 2012-06-27 08:55 · Score: 1
  
  There's no penguins in the arctic. They asked America for permission, because its in American territorial waters.
3. Re:Granted by US? by Jeng · 2012-06-27 08:55 · Score: 1
  
  Penguins are in the antarctic.
  When referencing cute cuddly arctic animals go with Polar Bears and Seals.
  
  --
  Don't know something? Look it up. Still don't know? Then ask.
Bzzzzzt Sorry... by SuperCharlie · 2012-06-27 08:49 · Score: 1

Oil prices have everything to do with futures speculation and nothing to do with availability.
1. Re:Bzzzzzt Sorry... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-27 09:52 · 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.
2. Re:Bzzzzzt Sorry... by TapeCutter · 2012-06-27 14:47 · Score: 1
  
  Uhu., and what speculations are they making to determine the price, future supply/demand perchance? I remeber reading a SciAM article back in the day you had to go to a news stand (~1990). It investigated sources of oil and projected prices, they suggested that by 2010 oil would be $100/b and oil companies would be digging up tar sands.
  
  --
  And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
Re:Discovery Channel Show in the Making by mcgrew · 2012-06-27 08:51 · Score: 1

I'll start drilling your mom...

Hi, Eugene!

--
Free Martian Whores!
Of course they are. by gestalt_n_pepper · 2012-06-27 08:54 · Score: 2

They're desperate, as they should be. There's less then 40 years of conventional oil at current usage rates. Far more importantly, the remaining oil is going to have declining energy return all the way to the bottom. If the oil companies can put the days of reckoning off for five more years, they've done well for themselves, and we have that much longer before people start starving.

--
Please do not read this sig. Thank you.
1. Re:Of course they are. by Teresita · 2012-06-27 14:39 · Score: 1
  
  Sure, the Oil Drummers told us "peak liquids" for years, and the word on the street now is the terminals we built to import LNG will soon be used to export it.
2. Re:Of course they are. by gestalt_n_pepper · 2012-06-28 01:57 · Score: 1
  
  Which has nothing to do with overall supply, and even less to do with depleting energy return of hydrocarbons over time.
  Numbers. They're good things: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cubic_mile_of_oil
  
  --
  Please do not read this sig. Thank you.
A convo i inagine... by cant_get_a_good_nick · 2012-06-27 09:02 · 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.
1. Re:A convo i inagine... by Jeremi · 2012-06-27 18:49 · Score: 2
  
  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.
  It's funny you should mention tobacco... every time I hear about the push to drill in the (newly ice-free) Arctic, this image (of the cancer victim who has figured out that his newly installed throat-hole makes a fine nicotine delivery mechanism) is what comes to mind.
  
  --
  
  I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
Alaskan Pipline may have to shut down by peter303 · 2012-06-27 09:09 · Score: 4, Interesting

I heard below 20% capacity or about 400,000 barrels a day it can become unsafe to operate in the winter. Its down to about 500,000 now.

I drove along the pipeline road from Valdez to Fairbanks 6 years ago. Its an amazing thing to see,
1. Re:Alaskan Pipline may have to shut down by rubycodez · 2012-06-27 09:14 · Score: 1
  
  you're not thinking fourth dimensinally, Marty. why use a pipe when we can have caravans of supertankers burning #2 bunker oil? That makes demand even higher, and drives up shareholder and executive satisfaction.
2. Re:Alaskan Pipline may have to shut down by Billly+Gates · 2012-06-27 11:42 · Score: 1
  
  Well for one had do you get it up there?
  Alaska is almost a continent in its own right and huge is an understatement. It is remote and very mountainous in spots. The road from Anchorage to Prudhoe Bay is one lane in spots in a side of a mountain with several feet of ice in several spots. Most dangerous road in the world. Truckers have to call in on the radio to make sure no one is on these certain stretches and then drive and pray you survive. What happens if it crashes and falls off the side of the mountain.
  I was told it was 600,000 barrels a day and that was just in 2010. If it is deterioting that rapidly it is a very bad thing as it wont matter if they hit big. It will shutdown in a year or two. 10 years ago it used to provide 1 million barrels a day. It is possible it is in slow mode right now to preserve it.
  If it shuts down a depression in Alaska will surely follow as will 1/5th the population of Anchorage and 90% of housing prices in the area as they have went up 200% in 10 years. They should have drilled for this 5 years ago. Sigh
  
  --
  http://saveie6.com/
3. Re:Alaskan Pipline may have to shut down by rubycodez · 2012-06-27 17:44 · Score: 1
  
  I was speaking of ignoring Alaska altogether and getting oil from the arctic ocean floor. oil spills won't matter as Alaska will become a third world shit hole, and we already export our pollution to those.
Meantime, Car Companies by DaKong · 2012-06-27 09:10 · Score: 1

Meantime, many major car companies have come out with either EVs or plug-in hybrids. In the United States, automotive use accounts for the vast majority of our oil consumption, so how long before those two juggernauts collide?
When the tipping point is reached and people switch to EVs because OMG the sky is falling "range anxiety" issues disappear and because it's quicker, easier, cheaper, and feel-good-er to drive an EV, then the oil industry could well find itself in Kodak's shoes in the face of the digital camera revolution.
I for one am stocking up on hot dogs and marshmallows to roast over the bonfire of their vanities...

--
If not us, who? If not now, when?
1. Re:Meantime, Car Companies by jmorris42 · 2012-06-27 10:33 · Score: 1
  
  > Meantime, many major car companies have come out with either EVs or plug-in hybrids.
  Which tend to sit on lots unsold even with epic subsidies as customers don't buy them in droves. The only people who do buy them are yuppies with more money than common sense, who also tend to buy them as a second or third vehicle so their range problems aren't much of an issue.
  > the oil industry could well find itself in Kodak's shoes
  The conversion to digital cameras didn't become game changing until digital was better than film in every way, quality cost, convience, etc. EV isn't better in any way than ICE yet so there isn't much uptake beyond the early adopter crowd who are willing to buy the things for green egoboo or simply because it is new and shiny. So yes, put an EV on the market that goes 300 miles on a charge, recharges in less than an hour and is priced (without a subsidy as those will never scale into mass adoption) the same or less than an ICE powered version of the same basic vehicle and the switchover will happen in a few short years.
  And your analogy fails anyway because Kodak was a early player in digital photography. They were just too petrified from being dominant for so long they just couldn't adapt fast enough and died. But they did make some good digital products, especially early on. The correct lesson is to realize companies like Exxon and Shell are energy companies. Yes they have a lot of institutional inertia tied to oil and gas but in the end if another source of energy promises to be profitable you can expect them to make a play for that new market and to try to leverage their existing infrastructure, financial resources, etc. to gain a position. But like Kodak they may not succeed, really depends what competencies are required for whatever source proves out as the 'next big thing.' For Kodak there apparently just weren't enough similarities between the chemistry and mechanics of the camera and film world and the computers and software that defines a digital workflow.
  
  --
  Democrat delenda est
2. Re:Meantime, Car Companies by KozmoStevnNaut · 2012-06-27 21:30 · Score: 1
  
  EV isn't better in any way than ICE yet
  Except for smoothness, quietness, instant-on torque, direct drive (no gear changes), drivetrain reliability (much fewer moving parts), 'fuel' cost, emissions, energy source independence and a host of other areas. The only areas where ICE is objectively better are refueling time and weight.
  Go drive a Tesla Roadster. It's astonishing.
  
  --
  Eat the rich.
3. Re:Meantime, Car Companies by jmorris42 · 2012-06-28 05:16 · Score: 1
  
  > Go drive a Tesla Roadster. It's astonishing.
  How much does a Roadster cost? If you are shopping for >$100K USD sportscars there are a lot of excellent choices with a wide range of features and benefits. And most of the other options won't turn into an expensive, not covered by warranty, brick if the charging circuit is interrupted while you are out of town for an extended period and the battery goes to 0%.
  Now explain the practical reason for someone to buy a Volt, Prius or any other mainstream EV. You can't. And that is why the only people buying them are tech nerd early adopters and greens. The price premium voids any advantage of fuel savings over the typical life of the vehicle and they are small crappy vehicles. And those economics are with a huge government subsidy which could not possibly scale to mass production. True cost / benefit is so awful they wouldn't even be able to sell em to Hollywierd celebutards.
  
  --
  Democrat delenda est
Re:It is off Alaska by Billly+Gates · 2012-06-27 09:13 · Score: 1, Redundant

Last time I checked it was owned by the US.
This is really great news. For the record I lived in Alaska and just moved back last year to the lower 48 and miss it greatly. Everyone is terrified of the oil pipeline shutting down completely by 2015. Besides the military there are no other employers in Alaska! The dividend fund where you get paid to live in Alaska is based off the oil pipeline, teachers including my exwife are paid by the oil pipeline. Even the universities get their money from the pipeline and are the next major employer over there.
By 2015 if the pressure is too low the pipeline will no longer be able to pump itself and it is game over. 40,000 would leave Anchorage overnight and devestate the housing market. The rest of the fallout would happen as I outlined above.
This is a great thing for the Indians who live up there who need jobs and get funds even and free education even if they are not employed by the oil industry directorly. Prudhoe buy in the arctic is perfectly clean and wildlife flourishes. The environmental record is fine and conservation and funding for researching into the arctic environments and protections of wildlife by the universities up in Alaska are all indirectly funded by big oil. It would be a loss.

--
http://saveie6.com/
Re:It is off Alaska by Billly+Gates · 2012-06-27 10:45 · Score: 1

Why was this modded down?
This is not flamebait, and is a simply fact that the Beaufort Sea is on the Alaskan coast and Alaska benefits more from this differently than any other state. It might not sound kosher to those living in the lower 48 but that is the perspective from folks who live there as I never met a single person from there who opposes it.

--
http://saveie6.com/
A decade to production? by DirkDaring · 2012-06-27 12:53 · Score: 1

"...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."
Thats the real problem right there. In 10 years it might not even be needed with how fast technology advances.
Politicians... by sociocapitalist · 2012-06-27 18:56 · Score: 1

Obama, the Republican's Democrat...

--
blindly antisocialist = antisocial
Already Active in the Arctic by andersh · 2012-06-27 21:52 · Score: 2

As a Norwegian I don't understand your frankly ignorant attack on Arctic resource exploitation. We have been active in this region for a long time, with rapidly increasing activity levels the last two decades.
As an Arctic nation we are very concerned with regards to our environment and safety. We have a proven track record.
May I ask if you have any real knowledge of the region or indeed oil & gas exploration?