Slashdot Mirror


Oil Exploration Ramps Up In US Arctic

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."

27 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 characterZer0 · · 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 · · 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 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
    6. Re:Good by Githaron · · 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.

    7. Re:Good by Billly+Gates · · 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.

    8. Re:Good by AK+Marc · · 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.

    9. 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
    10. Re:Good by Billly+Gates · · 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.

    11. 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.
    12. 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. This is news? by ColdWetDog · · 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 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.

    2. 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.
    3. Re:This is news? by Anonymous Coward · · 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!

    4. Re:This is news? by Anonymous Coward · · 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

  3. So long, Arabia by ch-chuck · · 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 · · 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 turbidostato · · 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?

  4. Re:the what ??? by benzaholic · · Score: 3, Funny
    Huh?

    One spill wasn't stopped. Therefore, no spill can be stopped.

    I applaud your flawless logic.

    Clap.

    Clap.

  5. Economist article on Arctic warming by DavidHumus · · 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 hey! · · 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.
  6. 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.

  7. Alaskan Pipline may have to shut down by peter303 · · 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,

  8. 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.