Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Shell to quit US Arctic due to "unpredictable federal regulatory environment"

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Shell to quit US Arctic due to "unpredictable federal regulatory environment"

    Disappointing results from an initial rank wildcat can't kill a play.

    The cyclical ups and downs of product prices can't kill a play.

    High operating costs can't kill a play.

    Only massively incompetent government can kill a play.

    “This is a clearly disappointing exploration outcome,” Marvin Odum, director of Shell’s Upstream Americas unit, said in a statement. While indications of oil and gas were present in the Burger J well in Alaska’s Chukchi Sea, they weren’t sufficient to warrant further exploration, the company said. Shell will now plug and abandon the well.

    Shell had planned a two-year drilling program starting this July. The company was seeking to resume work halted in 2012 when its main drilling rig ran aground and was lost. It was also fined for air pollution breaches. The Anglo-Dutch company first discovered oil and gas in the region in the late 1980s.

    The company continues to see potential in the region and the decision not to explore further in Alaskan waters “reflects both the Burger J well result, the high costs associated with the project, and the challenging and unpredictable federal regulatory environment in offshore Alaska,” according to the statement.

    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articl...ulations-costs


    The potential of the Alaska OCS is nearly as large as the Central Gulf of Mexico...



    Product prices and exploration results are by their nature, unpredictable. Operating costs are tied to product prices and regulatory requirements. Regulatory requirements must be predictable in order for any business to function.
    11
    Disappointing results of the initial exploration well.
    18.18%
    2
    Low oil prices.
    18.18%
    2
    Regulatory malfeasance by the Maobama Maladministration.
    63.64%
    7
    But 97.3% of scientists said something!
    0.00%
    0
    Watts Up With That? | The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change.

  • #2
    The thinking in the SHrillary camp states that if she were to (somehow) become president then the 'go ahead' ticket presented to RDutch/Shell by the Obama administration would most likely be rescinded.
    ARRRR! International Talk Like A Pirate Day - September 19th
    IN MARE IN COELO

    Comment


    • #3
      No one is supposed to drill in the Arctic by international agreement, so this is just another attempt by the oil industry to win sympathy for their obscene profits.

      Once Shell figures out the right people to bribe, it will all go away.

      Much ado about absolutely nothing, as usual.
      Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes? Who is watching the watchers?

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
        No one is supposed to drill in the Arctic by international agreement...
        100% pure ignorance.
        Watts Up With That? | The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by The Doctor View Post
          Disappointing results from an initial rank wildcat can't kill a play.

          The cyclical ups and downs of product prices can't kill a play.

          High operating costs can't kill a play.

          Only massively incompetent government can kill a play.

          “This is a clearly disappointing exploration outcome,” Marvin Odum, director of Shell’s Upstream Americas unit, said in a statement. While indications of oil and gas were present in the Burger J well in Alaska’s Chukchi Sea, they weren’t sufficient to warrant further exploration, the company said. Shell will now plug and abandon the well.

          Shell had planned a two-year drilling program starting this July. The company was seeking to resume work halted in 2012 when its main drilling rig ran aground and was lost. It was also fined for air pollution breaches. The Anglo-Dutch company first discovered oil and gas in the region in the late 1980s.

          The company continues to see potential in the region and the decision not to explore further in Alaskan waters “reflects both the Burger J well result, the high costs associated with the project, and the challenging and unpredictable federal regulatory environment in offshore Alaska,” according to the statement.

          http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articl...ulations-costs


          The potential of the Alaska OCS is nearly as large as the Central Gulf of Mexico...



          Product prices and exploration results are by their nature, unpredictable. Operating costs are tied to product prices and regulatory requirements. Regulatory requirements must be predictable in order for any business to function.
          So, Shell's decision had nothing to do with this?

          Royal Dutch Shell has stopped Arctic oil and gas exploration off the coast of Alaska after "disappointing" results from a key well in the Chukchi Sea.
          http://www.bbc.com/news/business-34377434

          You clearly do not understand the term "laissez faire capitalism." To wit -

          Laissez Faire Capitalism

          "Laissez Faire" is French for "leave alone" which means that the government leaves the people alone regarding all economic activities. It is the separation of economy and state.

          There are two ways that a government typically is tempted to interfere with the economy. The first is through the initiation of force, and the second is through socialized industries. Neither of these activities are aligned with the proper role of government, and are both unacceptable.

          "Laissez Faire Capitalism" is actually redundant, due to the nature of Capitalism. Therefore, simply "Capitalism" is sufficient to get the point across although historically it has been misrepresented as compatible with government economic interference.
          http://www.importanceofphilosophy.co...ssezFaire.html

          Clearly Shell's decision was not based either of the above instances so your argument can only described as a flawed and illogical and likely based on your personal ideology.
          Give me a fast ship and the wind at my back for I intend to sail in harms way! (John Paul Jones)

          Initiated Chief Petty Officer
          Hard core! Old School! Deal with it!

          Comment


          • #6
            This is the case here:

            http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/04/25...illing-denial/

            Shell has spent five years and nearly $4 billion dollars on plans to explore for oil in the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas. The leases alone cost $2.2 billion. Shell Vice President Pete Slaiby says obtaining similar air permits for a drilling operation in the Gulf of Mexico would take about 45 days. He’s especially frustrated over the appeal board’s suggestion that the Arctic drill would somehow be hazardous for the people who live in the area. “We think the issues were really not major,” Slaiby said, “and clearly not impactful for the communities we work in.”
            As to drilling in the Arctic in general, international agreements don't apply to territorial waters.

            The EPA has become one of the most obstinate, scientifically illiterate, agencies of the US government. They need a major house cleaning with the firing of most of their management.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by The Doctor View Post
              Disappointing results from an initial rank wildcat can't kill a play.

              The cyclical ups and downs of product prices can't kill a play.

              High operating costs can't kill a play.

              Only massively incompetent government can kill a play.

              “This is a clearly disappointing exploration outcome,” Marvin Odum, director of Shell’s Upstream Americas unit, said in a statement. While indications of oil and gas were present in the Burger J well in Alaska’s Chukchi Sea, they weren’t sufficient to warrant further exploration, the company said. Shell will now plug and abandon the well.

              Shell had planned a two-year drilling program starting this July. The company was seeking to resume work halted in 2012 when its main drilling rig ran aground and was lost. It was also fined for air pollution breaches. The Anglo-Dutch company first discovered oil and gas in the region in the late 1980s.

              The company continues to see potential in the region and the decision not to explore further in Alaskan waters “reflects both the Burger J well result, the high costs associated with the project, and the challenging and unpredictable federal regulatory environment in offshore Alaska,” according to the statement.

              http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articl...ulations-costs


              The potential of the Alaska OCS is nearly as large as the Central Gulf of Mexico...



              Product prices and exploration results are by their nature, unpredictable. Operating costs are tied to product prices and regulatory requirements. Regulatory requirements must be predictable in order for any business to function.
              So when they started the exploration the regulatory environment was predictable and made no difference?????
              “The time has come,” the Walrus said,
              “To talk of many things:
              Of shoes—and ships—and sealing-wax—
              Of cabbages—and kings—
              And why the sea is boiling hot—
              And whether pigs have wings.”
              ― Lewis Carroll

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Combat Engineer View Post
                So when they started the exploration the regulatory environment was predictable and made no difference?????
                The answer to that is a qualified yes. Shell has been doing arctic oil exploration for about 50 years. The first oil fields on the North Slope were verified during WW 2.

                What has changed is the EPA is now playing games with permits. The EPA issued Shell permits to drill. After issue, environmental groups complained and the EPA pulled the permits and started hearings to see if they should be re-issued.
                Shell complied with the original permit requirements. The EPA acted arbitrarily and pulled them based solely on complaints rather than addressing whether the complaints had merit.

                http://www.akbizmag.com/Alaska-Busin...on-activities/

                The EPA has also stymied Shell's efforts to drill, limiting locations, depth of wells, and such greatly reducing the chances Shell will be successful.

                http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/29/bu...tion.html?_r=0

                What it really comes down to is the EPA doesn't want Shell drilling in the Arctic solely for political reasons. The EPA shouldn't be involved in the politics of environmentalism in any way shape or form. That is for politicians and issues groups to decide not a government bureaucracy.
                The EPA should be neutral and following its regulatory guidelines without favoritism. But, and in particular, with the Obama administration the EPA has become completely political in its actions. If you are doing something they favor you get fast tracked. If they oppose what you are doing you are given the run around and stalled at every turn.

                The management of the EPA should be sacked in its entirety.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
                  The answer to that is a qualified yes. Shell has been doing arctic oil exploration for about 50 years. The first oil fields on the North Slope were verified during WW 2.

                  What has changed is the EPA is now playing games with permits. The EPA issued Shell permits to drill. After issue, environmental groups complained and the EPA pulled the permits and started hearings to see if they should be re-issued.
                  Shell complied with the original permit requirements. The EPA acted arbitrarily and pulled them based solely on complaints rather than addressing whether the complaints had merit.

                  http://www.akbizmag.com/Alaska-Busin...on-activities/

                  The EPA has also stymied Shell's efforts to drill, limiting locations, depth of wells, and such greatly reducing the chances Shell will be successful.

                  http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/29/bu...tion.html?_r=0

                  What it really comes down to is the EPA doesn't want Shell drilling in the Arctic solely for political reasons. The EPA shouldn't be involved in the politics of environmentalism in any way shape or form. That is for politicians and issues groups to decide not a government bureaucracy.
                  The EPA should be neutral and following its regulatory guidelines without favoritism. But, and in particular, with the Obama administration the EPA has become completely political in its actions. If you are doing something they favor you get fast tracked. If they oppose what you are doing you are given the run around and stalled at every turn.

                  The management of the EPA should be sacked in its entirety.
                  We are talking about this specific development, the one canceled. Start with when it started, this one, not in general.
                  “The time has come,” the Walrus said,
                  “To talk of many things:
                  Of shoes—and ships—and sealing-wax—
                  Of cabbages—and kings—
                  And why the sea is boiling hot—
                  And whether pigs have wings.”
                  ― Lewis Carroll

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Combat Engineer View Post
                    We are talking about this specific development, the one canceled. Start with when it started, this one, not in general.
                    If you bothered to read the articles they give a time line. The EPA issued permits for drilling in March / April 2010 after about a year and a half of review. They then held the permits in abeyance because of objections by two environmental groups until December of that year when they revoked them for a hearing.
                    They then applied new standards to the permits that were not conditions of the original ones as the new standards came into effect after the original permits were issued. They then dithered on these into mid 2011. It is now 2015 and permits have still not been issued.

                    The normal process under previous administrations would have been somewhere between 45 days and 9 months. The EPA has been stalling on these for nearly 5 years now, all of which are within the Obama administration's time in office.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Bass_Man86 View Post
                      So, Shell's decision had nothing to do with this?



                      http://www.bbc.com/news/business-34377434

                      You clearly do not understand the term "laissez faire capitalism." To wit -

                      Laissez Faire Capitalism



                      http://www.importanceofphilosophy.co...ssezFaire.html

                      Clearly Shell's decision was not based either of the above instances so your argument can only described as a flawed and illogical and likely based on your personal ideology.
                      Learn to read. I listed the results of the initial exploration well in the OP and the poll...

                      Originally posted by The Doctor View Post
                      Disappointing results from an initial rank wildcat can't kill a play.

                      The cyclical ups and downs of product prices can't kill a play.

                      High operating costs can't kill a play.

                      Only massively incompetent government can kill a play.

                      “This is a clearly disappointing exploration outcome,” Marvin Odum, director of Shell’s Upstream Americas unit, said in a statement. While indications of oil and gas were present in the Burger J well in Alaska’s Chukchi Sea, they weren’t sufficient to warrant further exploration, the company said. Shell will now plug and abandon the well.

                      Shell had planned a two-year drilling program starting this July. The company was seeking to resume work halted in 2012 when its main drilling rig ran aground and was lost. It was also fined for air pollution breaches. The Anglo-Dutch company first discovered oil and gas in the region in the late 1980s.

                      The company continues to see potential in the region and the decision not to explore further in Alaskan waters “reflects both the Burger J well result, the high costs associated with the project, and the challenging and unpredictable federal regulatory environment in offshore Alaska,” according to the statement.

                      http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articl...ulations-costs


                      The potential of the Alaska OCS is nearly as large as the Central Gulf of Mexico...



                      Product prices and exploration results are by their nature, unpredictable. Operating costs are tied to product prices and regulatory requirements. Regulatory requirements must be predictable in order for any business to function.


                      Under a lawful regulatory environment, Shell would have moved on the the next prospect. They would have tested several per drilling season. They were reday to start drilling in 2010. After 5 years of regulatory malfeasance, they managed to drill just one exploration well.
                      Last edited by The Doctor; 30 Sep 15, 09:53.
                      Watts Up With That? | The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Combat Engineer View Post
                        So when they started the exploration the regulatory environment was predictable and made no difference?????
                        Prior to 2010, the regulatory environment was extremely stable, consistent, predictable and lawful.
                        Watts Up With That? | The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Combat Engineer View Post
                          We are talking about this specific development, the one canceled. Start with when it started, this one, not in general.
                          Shell shut down the entire program... not just this prospect, not just the Chukchi Sea... They are walking away from the entire U.S. Arctic.
                          Watts Up With That? | The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by The Doctor View Post
                            Prior to 2010, the regulatory environment was extremely stable, consistent, predictable and lawful.
                            I take it as the result of the Macondo Well blow-out.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Gorque View Post
                              I take it as the result of the Macondo Well blow-out.
                              That was their excuse for imposing an unlawful "dynamic regulatory environment" on the US OCS.
                              Watts Up With That? | The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change.

                              Comment

                              Latest Topics

                              Collapse

                              Working...
                              X