Drill! Drill! Drill! Wall Street Journal Article (1 Viewer)

[Jobber]

Anytime you brought it up you were just a tree hugger that wanted to ruin the economy. Well had the tree huggers been listened to on this we would be much better off than we are today.So if it takes getting into peoples pockets to finally do what we should have been doing for the last 3 decades then so be it. If we can do it while oil is cheap then so be it. We just need to do it already.

Ok - at least ask your treehugger friends to get onboard Nuclear power.

We are.

:(

 

[Josie Maran]

Anytime you brought it up you were just a tree hugger that wanted to ruin the economy. Well had the tree huggers been listened to on this we would be much better off than we are today.So if it takes getting into peoples pockets to finally do what we should have been doing for the last 3 decades then so be it. If we can do it while oil is cheap then so be it. We just need to do it already.

Ok - at least ask your treehugger friends to get onboard Nuclear power.

We are.

Well, the smart ones anyway. Different parts of the country need different sources of energy...nuclear would work for lots of places.

 

[RoarinSonoran]

NCC, DFL = the Minnesota Democratic Party, essentially.

DFL = Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party

 

[The Z Machine]

I lived through the embargo in '73. That is what help formed my opinions on our need to be oil independent. It was a matter of national security that no one addressed for over 30 years. Anytime you brought it up you were just a tree hugger that wanted to ruin the economy. Well had the tree huggers been listened to on this we would be much better off than we are today.So if it takes getting into peoples pockets to finally do what we should have been doing for the last 3 decades then so be it. If we can do it while oil is cheap then so be it. We just need to do it already.

What amazes me is that for a LONG time (continuing today) Jimmy Carter was vilified for trying to address the oil and energy dependence of the nation. He was the last President to have a real energy policy, and people consider him an imbecile on economics and someone who would have ruined the US economy.However, it's quite possible that he could have changed the nature of US economic policy for the better, and the US would be a leader in alternative energy research and application. Think about the geopolitical implications in a post-cold war world. But instead we got monetary, energy, and foreign policy predicated upon the access to cheap energy sources. That paradigm no longer exists.

 

[rascal]

I consider myself an environmentalist and I think we need to drill...and then use those profits to fund an AGGRESSIVE and COMPREHENSIVE energy strategy.As soon as we get some effective leadership we might actually see this happen.

Why those profits? Why don't you take the tax subsidies giving to oil companies now to fund it?It's obvious they aren't using it to improve things for the american consumer.

 

[NCCommish]

NCC, DFL = the Minnesota Democratic Party, essentially.DFL = Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party

Thanks

 

[NCCommish]

We're better off dealing with the fact that cheap gas isn't an American right, and finding ways to change our useage patterns, as well as taking the huge oil subsidies and reinvesting those in an energy policy that will yield more efficient results in the future.DRILL DRILL DRILL is the short-sighted answer that will only enrich the oil companies and prolong our nation's energy problems.

Why can't we drill for the resources we know we have in our backyard while simultaneously invest in alternative energy sources? It's not an "either/or" situation we have to subject ourselves to.

Wow - LHucks is right on (and NCC is dead wrong). We need a short term answer and a long term answer. The long term answer (alternatives) is coming just due to the expense of oil. Any drilling from now on probably won't bring oil down (maybe moderate it a tad), but it sure will help keep it from rising through the roof. What we need is ANWR opened, the 50-100 mile Atlantic shelf opened, and the oil shales opened. NOW. Take the taxes from that and plow them right into alternatives.If we don't moderate the price of oil all those monies which could be used for R&D will be heading to Saudi Arabia. I'd rather keep them here. There are obviously folks in this country who would rather see us bankrupt and technology dependent on those countries which are doing heavy R&D than drilling and getting us both technologically and economically there. There are two variables here and both need to be tended to. Too many just see one.

Would you people please stop. The bubble that is oil prices will burst before we get one drop from any field you can name. Any field. And when the price comes down then the same people who want to drill today will use lower proces as a reason not to do anything tomorrow. I've already seen this play out several times. The consistent voices calling for change are drowned out by the people that either say it isnt worth it or we have to drill first. I am tired of the song and dance personally.

 

[Linus Scrimmage]

We're better off dealing with the fact that cheap gas isn't an American right, and finding ways to change our useage patterns, as well as taking the huge oil subsidies and reinvesting those in an energy policy that will yield more efficient results in the future.DRILL DRILL DRILL is the short-sighted answer that will only enrich the oil companies and prolong our nation's energy problems.

Why can't we drill for the resources we know we have in our backyard while simultaneously invest in alternative energy sources? It's not an "either/or" situation we have to subject ourselves to.

Wow - LHucks is right on (and NCC is dead wrong). We need a short term answer and a long term answer. The long term answer (alternatives) is coming just due to the expense of oil. Any drilling from now on probably won't bring oil down (maybe moderate it a tad), but it sure will help keep it from rising through the roof. What we need is ANWR opened, the 50-100 mile Atlantic shelf opened, and the oil shales opened. NOW. Take the taxes from that and plow them right into alternatives.If we don't moderate the price of oil all those monies which could be used for R&D will be heading to Saudi Arabia. I'd rather keep them here. There are obviously folks in this country who would rather see us bankrupt and technology dependent on those countries which are doing heavy R&D than drilling and getting us both technologically and economically there. There are two variables here and both need to be tended to. Too many just see one.

Would you people please stop. The bubble that is oil prices will burst before we get one drop from any field you can name. Any field. And when the price comes down then the same people who want to drill today will use lower proces as a reason not to do anything tomorrow. I've already seen this play out several times. The consistent voices calling for change are drowned out by the people that either say it isnt worth it or we have to drill first. I am tired of the song and dance personally.

Home heating oil is at 5 dollars a gallon? You think that's a bubble? Wait till this winter, when people in the north cannot heat their homes.

 

[Tiger Fan]

Yeah because ship yards don't take time. And when you get done investing billions upon billions in the infrastructre needed to produce new oil where will the financial incentives be?

oil companies seem to be doing just fine...if it's a government endeavor the nice part is that it doesn't necessarily have to be profitable...a simple break even would suffice just fine...if we had the 10% profits that oil companies do, those billions can be used to fund green energy technologies.Why is this not on the table?

pretty sure oil companies don't want to get into the rig building business

 

[snogger]

We're better off dealing with the fact that cheap gas isn't an American right, and finding ways to change our useage patterns, as well as taking the huge oil subsidies and reinvesting those in an energy policy that will yield more efficient results in the future.DRILL DRILL DRILL is the short-sighted answer that will only enrich the oil companies and prolong our nation's energy problems.

Why can't we drill for the resources we know we have in our backyard while simultaneously invest in alternative energy sources? It's not an "either/or" situation we have to subject ourselves to.

:(

Wow - LHucks is right on (and NCC is dead wrong). We need a short term answer and a long term answer. The long term answer (alternatives) is coming just due to the expense of oil. Any drilling from now on probably won't bring oil down (maybe moderate it a tad), but it sure will help keep it from rising through the roof. What we need is ANWR opened, the 50-100 mile Atlantic shelf opened, and the oil shales opened. NOW. Take the taxes from that and plow them right into alternatives.

If we don't moderate the price of oil all those monies which could be used for R&D will be heading to Saudi Arabia. I'd rather keep them here. There are obviously folks in this country who would rather see us bankrupt and technology dependent on those countries which are doing heavy R&D than drilling and getting us both technologically and economically there. There are two variables here and both need to be tended to. Too many just see one.

Would you people please stop. The bubble that is oil prices will burst before we get one drop from any field you can name. Any field. And when the price comes down then the same people who want to drill today will use lower proces as a reason not to do anything tomorrow. I've already seen this play out several times. The consistent voices calling for change are drowned out by the people that either say it isnt worth it or we have to drill first. I am tired of the song and dance personally.

Home heating oil is at 5 dollars a gallon? You think that's a bubble? Wait till this winter, when people in the north cannot heat their homes.

Saudi's increasing Oil supply.. Admitting prices are over board... trying to setup a meeting with outher Oil producing countries to increase their output. Plus the talk of possibility putting limits on future commodity prices.

All of this should equal lower oil prices.

:fingers crossed:

 

[Linus Scrimmage]

We're better off dealing with the fact that cheap gas isn't an American right, and finding ways to change our useage patterns, as well as taking the huge oil subsidies and reinvesting those in an energy policy that will yield more efficient results in the future.DRILL DRILL DRILL is the short-sighted answer that will only enrich the oil companies and prolong our nation's energy problems.

Why can't we drill for the resources we know we have in our backyard while simultaneously invest in alternative energy sources? It's not an "either/or" situation we have to subject ourselves to.

Wow - LHucks is right on (and NCC is dead wrong). We need a short term answer and a long term answer. The long term answer (alternatives) is coming just due to the expense of oil. Any drilling from now on probably won't bring oil down (maybe moderate it a tad), but it sure will help keep it from rising through the roof. What we need is ANWR opened, the 50-100 mile Atlantic shelf opened, and the oil shales opened. NOW. Take the taxes from that and plow them right into alternatives.

If we don't moderate the price of oil all those monies which could be used for R&D will be heading to Saudi Arabia. I'd rather keep them here. There are obviously folks in this country who would rather see us bankrupt and technology dependent on those countries which are doing heavy R&D than drilling and getting us both technologically and economically there. There are two variables here and both need to be tended to. Too many just see one.

Would you people please stop. The bubble that is oil prices will burst before we get one drop from any field you can name. Any field. And when the price comes down then the same people who want to drill today will use lower proces as a reason not to do anything tomorrow. I've already seen this play out several times. The consistent voices calling for change are drowned out by the people that either say it isnt worth it or we have to drill first. I am tired of the song and dance personally.

Home heating oil is at 5 dollars a gallon? You think that's a bubble? Wait till this winter, when people in the north cannot heat their homes.

Saudi's increasing Oil supply.. Admitting prices are over board... trying to setup a meeting with outher Oil producing countries to increase their output. Plus the talk of possibility putting limits on future commodity prices.

All of this should equal lower oil prices.

:fingers crossed:

Link to how/when that will happen?

 

[snogger]

We're better off dealing with the fact that cheap gas isn't an American right, and finding ways to change our useage patterns, as well as taking the huge oil subsidies and reinvesting those in an energy policy that will yield more efficient results in the future.DRILL DRILL DRILL is the short-sighted answer that will only enrich the oil companies and prolong our nation's energy problems.

Why can't we drill for the resources we know we have in our backyard while simultaneously invest in alternative energy sources? It's not an "either/or" situation we have to subject ourselves to.

Wow - LHucks is right on (and NCC is dead wrong). We need a short term answer and a long term answer. The long term answer (alternatives) is coming just due to the expense of oil. Any drilling from now on probably won't bring oil down (maybe moderate it a tad), but it sure will help keep it from rising through the roof. What we need is ANWR opened, the 50-100 mile Atlantic shelf opened, and the oil shales opened. NOW. Take the taxes from that and plow them right into alternatives.

If we don't moderate the price of oil all those monies which could be used for R&D will be heading to Saudi Arabia. I'd rather keep them here. There are obviously folks in this country who would rather see us bankrupt and technology dependent on those countries which are doing heavy R&D than drilling and getting us both technologically and economically there. There are two variables here and both need to be tended to. Too many just see one.

Would you people please stop. The bubble that is oil prices will burst before we get one drop from any field you can name. Any field. And when the price comes down then the same people who want to drill today will use lower proces as a reason not to do anything tomorrow. I've already seen this play out several times. The consistent voices calling for change are drowned out by the people that either say it isnt worth it or we have to drill first. I am tired of the song and dance personally.

Home heating oil is at 5 dollars a gallon? You think that's a bubble? Wait till this winter, when people in the north cannot heat their homes.

Saudi's increasing Oil supply.. Admitting prices are over board... trying to setup a meeting with outher Oil producing countries to increase their output. Plus the talk of possibility putting limits on future commodity prices.

All of this should equal lower oil prices.

:fingers crossed:

Link to how/when that will happen?

Saudis to increase Oil output

"The king believes that the current oil prices are abnormally high, and he is ready to restore prices to their appropriate levels," SPA quoted Ban as telling reporters in Jiddah. The report carried by SPA was in Arabic, and it did not say what language Ban spoke in.

as for the commodity limits.. I'm sure there is a link somewhere, I just saw it on CNN, or one of the other news channels.

 

[Linus Scrimmage]

Right now, gas is $4+ and oil is $5+. How much do you think "appropriate levels" are? And why do we keep falling into the same trap and not producing our OWN oil and stop buying it from them?

 

[TinHat]

What the #### is with all of this revisionist history?.

America has had a ####in oil crisis for at least the past 35 years.

Alternative resources and stategic initiatives have had a tremendous amout of R&D poured into them for that whole time. Conservation has always had a big push and incentives.

We've had the energy acts of 1978, 1992, 2005 and 2007.

We've been working on aleternative sources for decades, wind, solar, nuclear (until liberals souted it down) fuel cells. don't act like this is a 2008 thing...

 

[TinHat]

It's simple:

tactical solutions: Drill offshore and ANWR, Shale, nuclear

Strategic solutions: Nuclear, Hyrdrogen, fuel-crapping bugs

I belive in the free market, but in some cases the Feds need to get involved - after all, it wasn't the free market that put a man on the moon. The fed needs to invest some R & D here, because the voliatility of oil prices may scare off many capitalists.

 

[lod01]

Honestly people? Is there any other option?

If there isn't, get ready to trim about 4 billion + from the world's population. You do realize that even if you drill for all this oil, it too will run out eventually so you in fact MUST have another option.

 

[Linus Scrimmage]

The shocker of all shockers!!

Someone finally made McCain realize he needs to get behind drilling in order to have a chance at winning this election.

McCain wants to lift ban on offshore drilling

(CNN) -- Sen. John McCain on Tuesday proposed lifting the ban on offshore drilling as part of his plan to reduce dependence on foreign oil and help combat rising gas prices.

Sen. John McCain says it's time for the federal government "to put our own reserves to use."

"The stakes are high for our citizens and for our economy," McCain, the presumed Republican nominee for president, said at a press conference Tuesday in Houston, Texas.

Hours later, White House Press Secretary Dana Perino said President Bush on Wednesday will ask Congress to lift the ban on offshore drilling.

Bush has long called for opening the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska to oil exploration, but Perino said he now wants to go further.

"For years, the president has pushed Congress to expand our domestic oil supply, but Democrats in Congress have consistently blocked such action," she said.

Earlier in the day, McCain, describing the high price of fuel, confused the cost of gallons versus barrels, which drew laughs from the crowd and the candidate himself. He quickly corrected himself.

"And with gasoline running at more than $4 a barrel ... a gallon ... I wish ... $4 a gallon, many do not have the luxury of waiting on the far-off plans of futurists and politicians," he said.

"We have proven oil reserves of at least 21 billion barrels in the United States. But a broad federal moratorium stands in the way of energy exploration and production. And I believe it is time for the federal government to lift these restrictions and to put our own reserves to use."

McCain's plan would let individual states decide whether to explore drilling possibilities.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/06/17/mcc...ergy/index.html

 

[Darth Cheney]

Is there a guarantee that drilling in these spots would ease the financial burden on the American consumer?

 

[Linus Scrimmage]

Is there a guarantee that drilling in these spots would ease the financial burden on the American consumer?

I can guarantee you not drilling isn't going to ease the financial burden on the consumer, so why not try?

 

[Darth Cheney]

Is there a guarantee that drilling in these spots would ease the financial burden on the American consumer?

I can guarantee you not drilling isn't going to ease the financial burden on the consumer, so why not try?

Because I for one would be ticked if we increased the chances of ruining our environment to further line the pockets of the oil industry.

 

[LHUCKS]

Is there a guarantee that drilling in these spots would ease the financial burden on the American consumer?

Yes.If supply goes up and demand increases, prices will be eased relative to what they would have been.If supply goes up and demand remains the same or lessens, prices will go down.At this point there is no other way around it, we just need to make it a short term solution and use govt. pressure to get hydrogen cars on the road.

 

[Josie Maran]

Heard from my Congressman on the radio today (and then from a commentator on a different show) that oil companies have leases and drilling permits for 68 million acres of offshore oil fields, have had them for years, and simply aren't drilling.

Any ideas what that's all about?

 

[Tiger Fan]

Heard from my Congressman on the radio today (and then from a commentator on a different show) that oil companies have leases and drilling permits for 68 million acres of offshore oil fields, have had them for years, and simply aren't drilling.

Any ideas what that's all about?

Few (not all) reasons:
Not all acres are drillable. The leases are awarded on a blind bidding basis, companies could have had bad information when they bid on the leases, and thus they are holding acerage that won't produce....or some acres are more profitable than others, so they have to pick and choose
Offshore Oil rigs are near 100% utilization...it takes multiple years to build new ones - and when a new one is complete, the market for that rig is global, not just in the US. If someone in China wants to pay for that rig twice as much as someone in the US, then it's going to China
Most oil companies who go deepwater offshore are global companies. If it's more profitable/easier for them to drill elsewhere to extract the same product that they can get in the US, then by all means they would allocate resources to the more profitable area
Companies currently hold leases in Alaska but aren't allowed to drill b/c of environmental reasons
Due to the amount of people with skin in the game b/c of the oil prices, there is an extreme shortage of qualified labor in the industry. Going offshore is very dangerous, time consuming and costly.....if the right people aren't there, it's not going to work

 

[Josie Maran]

Heard from my Congressman on the radio today (and then from a commentator on a different show) that oil companies have leases and drilling permits for 68 million acres of offshore oil fields, have had them for years, and simply aren't drilling.

Any ideas what that's all about?

Few (not all) reasons:
Not all acres are drillable. The leases are awarded on a blind bidding basis, companies could have had bad information when they bid on the leases, and thus they are holding acerage that won't produce....or some acres are more profitable than others, so they have to pick and choose
Offshore Oil rigs are near 100% utilization...it takes multiple years to build new ones - and when a new one is complete, the market for that rig is global, not just in the US. If someone in China wants to pay for that rig twice as much as someone in the US, then it's going to China
Most oil companies who go deepwater offshore are global companies. If it's more profitable/easier for them to drill elsewhere to extract the same product that they can get in the US, then by all means they would allocate resources to the more profitable area
Companies currently hold leases in Alaska but aren't allowed to drill b/c of environmental reasons
Due to the amount of people with skin in the game b/c of the oil prices, there is an extreme shortage of qualified labor in the industry. Going offshore is very dangerous, time consuming and costly.....if the right people aren't there, it's not going to work

So what does it mean when the Republicans want to lift the "offshore drilling ban"? What is banned?

 

[BigSteelThrill]

The OIL companies do NOT want to drill more.

They are making record profits as it is. Waiting to drill increases their profits.

 

[Tiger Fan]

Heard from my Congressman on the radio today (and then from a commentator on a different show) that oil companies have leases and drilling permits for 68 million acres of offshore oil fields, have had them for years, and simply aren't drilling.

Any ideas what that's all about?

Few (not all) reasons:
Not all acres are drillable. The leases are awarded on a blind bidding basis, companies could have had bad information when they bid on the leases, and thus they are holding acerage that won't produce....or some acres are more profitable than others, so they have to pick and choose
Offshore Oil rigs are near 100% utilization...it takes multiple years to build new ones - and when a new one is complete, the market for that rig is global, not just in the US. If someone in China wants to pay for that rig twice as much as someone in the US, then it's going to China
Most oil companies who go deepwater offshore are global companies. If it's more profitable/easier for them to drill elsewhere to extract the same product that they can get in the US, then by all means they would allocate resources to the more profitable area
Companies currently hold leases in Alaska but aren't allowed to drill b/c of environmental reasons
Due to the amount of people with skin in the game b/c of the oil prices, there is an extreme shortage of qualified labor in the industry. Going offshore is very dangerous, time consuming and costly.....if the right people aren't there, it's not going to work

So what does it mean when the Republicans want to lift the "offshore drilling ban"? What is banned?

1. Much of Alaska2. Pacific Ocean

3. Atlantic Ocean

4. Eastern Gulf of Mexico (off of Florida)

 

[Tiger Fan]

The OIL companies do NOT want to drill more.

They are making record profits as it is. Waiting to drill increases their profits.

ok

 

[analog_hiss]

Is there a guarantee that drilling in these spots would ease the financial burden on the American consumer?

Unless the US does something drastic (a la Venzuela) and requires oil producers in America to keep all oil produced in the country, I do not believe there is a way to guarantee that domestically produced oil would not hit the global market.I believe the current proposal for ANWAR oil includes an overseas sale ban, but that ban does not include oil produced anywhere else in Alaska...I would have to research if other US oil sales are limited.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Shell’s Arctic drilling plans on track as Obama administration OKs lease saleWASHINGTON — The Obama administration reaffirmed a 2008 government auction of Arctic drilling rights on Tuesday, delivering a major victory to Shell Oil Co. as it aims to resume exploratory drilling in the Chukchi Sea this summer.

In validating the seven-year-old auction, Interior Secretary Sally Jewell stressed that the Arctic “is an important component of the administration’s national energy strategy.”

“We remain committed to taking a thoughtful and balanced approach to oil and gas leasing and exploration offshore Alaska,” Jewell said in a statement. “This unique, sensitive and often challenging environment requires effective oversight to ensure all activities are conducted safely and responsibly.”

The move illustrated anew the balancing act the Obama administration has taken toward oil and gas development amid steep environmental opposition, coming the same day the White House formally pledged greenhouse gas emission cuts ahead of international climate talks. It also marked the second time the Obama administration has affirmed the Chukchi Sea lease sale in response to a court order and a long-running legal challenge that began even before the auction took place in February 2008.

The decision keeps the door open for Shell to return to the Chukchi Sea this summer and drill wells into its Burger Prospect about 70 miles from Alaska’s shoreline.

It is far from the final regulatory step for Shell, which still must secure individual drilling permits and win the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management’s approval of its broad exploration plan.

It is far from the final regulatory step for Shell, which still must secure individual drilling permits and win the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management’s approval of its broad exploration plan. But Jewell’s formal “record of decision” affirming the disputed lease sale was a critical hurdle for Shell’s 2015 Arctic ambitions.

Most immediately, it allows the ocean energy bureau to begin formally reviewing Shell’s Arctic exploration plan as soon as a new version is filed with the agency. Once the bureau deems the plan complete, it has 30 days to decide on the drilling blueprint.

“Above all, it means we can continue making plans to drill this summer,” said Shell spokesman Curtis Smith, though he noted that the company’s planned exploration program “remains contingent on achieving the necessary permits, legal certainty and our own determination that we are prepared to explore safely and responsibly.”

The company’s previous Arctic venture, in 2012, was marred by mishaps, including higher-than-permitted air pollution from a drillship while in the Chukchi Sea and the beaching of its Kulluk drilling unit on an Alaskan island weeks after exploration ended for the year.

Shell has already begun moving its two contracted drilling units to the United States in anticipation of operations this summer.

The company also just conducted drills of its emergency containment system for the Arctic, demonstrating the equipment in waters off Washington state for officials with the Interior Department and U.S. Coast Guard.

A Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement spokesperson confirmed agency officials witnessed the successful deployment of the system.

“BSEE continues to work with Shell during its preparations for possible exploration activities to ensure that all activities meet safety standards and are in compliance with federal regulations,” the spokesperson said.

lthough Tuesday’s decision was widely expected, it still disappointed environmentalists who have pushed the Obama administration to rule out Arctic drilling and have long questioned the validity of the 2008 auction.

“The Obama administration has steadfastly refused to fully and fairly evaluate the risks of selling leases in the Chukchi Sea and, instead, treats the leases sold in 2008 as if they’re set in stone,” said Susan Murray, Oceana’s deputy vice president for the Pacific. “Rather than once again committing to a risky, poorly justified decision to sell leases in the Chukchi Sea, the government should wipe the slate clean and start over.”

The Chukchi Sea lease sale has long been under a legal cloud. The Interior Department previously was ordered to redo its environmental analysis in 2010 after an Alaska-based federal district court found deficiencies with the review. The Interior Department issued a new environmental impact statement and validated the auction a year later, paving the way for Shell’s 2012 Arctic drilling campaign.

But the sale entered legal jeopardy again after the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals last year faulted the Interior Department’s initial calculation of how much crude would be extracted from the Chukchi Sea leases.

Previously, regulators had said up to 1 billion barrels of oil were economically recoverable from the available leases.

In a final environmental impact statement unveiled in March — as well as a draft released last October — the bureau produced a new estimate: 4.3 billion barrels of oil and 2.2 trillion cubic feet of natural gas.

The agency said the new, higher prediction is based on better information about where oil companies’ interests lie and a deeper understanding about geologic structures in the region. In revising its estimate, the bureau also relied on actual bidding data from the disputed 2008 auction, which brought in a record $2.6 billion in high bids. Most of them — $2.1 billion worth — came from Shell, which joined six other companies in nabbing Chukchi Sea drilling rights.

The new analysis also says there is a 75 percent chance of at least one large spill that releases more than 1,000 barrels of oil over 77 years of drilling and development on those Chukchi Sea leases.

The plaintiffs — including more than a dozen conservation organizations and Alaska native groups — did not say Tuesday whether they planned to keep fighting the lease sale in federal court.

They broadly faulted the Interior Department for issuing a final environmental impact statement less than two months after receiving hundreds of thousands of comments on the earlier draft — a timeline they said showed the administration was catering to Shell Oil’s drilling desires.

“We are disappointed in Interior’s rushed lease sale decision,” said Erik Grafe, a staff attorney with Earthjustice, which filed the lawsuit. “Interior still has time to make a better decision when evaluating Shell’s drilling plan, and we sincerely hope it says no to Shell’s louder, bigger, and dirtier tactics, loaded with potential environmental harm.”

Plus la change, la meme, and all that.

 

[msommer]

Shell has postponed Chukchi so many times now, my guess is they will wait a bit to see if the oil price recovers before they start pouring money into that project

 

[cstu]

Shell has postponed Chukchi so many times now, my guess is they will wait a bit to see if the oil price recovers before they start pouring money into that project

"The trick of Arctic energy development is that the time horizons are extraordinary long, some 10 to 30 years from when companies start these complex deals to even seeing when those resources would get to market," said Heather Conley, an analyst at the Center for Strategic and International Studies.

Shell will conduct tests to see how much oil and gas are in the Chukchi and Beaufort Seas. The Arctic is estimated to contain about 20 percent of the world's undiscovered oil and gas, 34 million barrels of oil in U.S. waters alone. Only Russia has bigger deposits. The National Petroleum Council, a group led by oil companies that advises the Energy Department, said in an assessment of Arctic potential last week that the region will boost U.S. energy security.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Shell has postponed Chukchi so many times now, my guess is they will wait a bit to see if the oil price recovers before they start pouring money into that project

"The trick of Arctic energy development is that the time horizons are extraordinary long, some 10 to 30 years from when companies start these complex deals to even seeing when those resources would get to market," said Heather Conley, an analyst at the Center for Strategic and International Studies.

Shell will conduct tests to see how much oil and gas are in the Chukchi and Beaufort Seas. The Arctic is estimated to contain about 20 percent of the world's undiscovered oil and gas, 34 million barrels of oil in U.S. waters alone. Only Russia has bigger deposits. The National Petroleum Council, a group led by oil companies that advises the Energy Department, said in an assessment of Arctic potential last week that the region will boost U.S. energy security.

Is this an argument for opening up as many areas for as much exploration and future drilling as possible, because actual extraction might only happen 1-3 decades from now as a practical matter?

 

[cstu]

Shell has postponed Chukchi so many times now, my guess is they will wait a bit to see if the oil price recovers before they start pouring money into that project

"The trick of Arctic energy development is that the time horizons are extraordinary long, some 10 to 30 years from when companies start these complex deals to even seeing when those resources would get to market," said Heather Conley, an analyst at the Center for Strategic and International Studies.

Shell will conduct tests to see how much oil and gas are in the Chukchi and Beaufort Seas. The Arctic is estimated to contain about 20 percent of the world's undiscovered oil and gas, 34 million barrels of oil in U.S. waters alone. Only Russia has bigger deposits. The National Petroleum Council, a group led by oil companies that advises the Energy Department, said in an assessment of Arctic potential last week that the region will boost U.S. energy security.

Is this an argument for opening up as many areas for as much exploration and future drilling as possible, because actual extraction might only happen 1-3 decades from now as a practical matter?

We don't want to get stuck not having options if shale oil starts running out. I believe the thinking behind this is "Let Shell invest the money for energy security reasons but if we continue to have breakthroughs in renewable energy they will never drill there anyway".

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Shell has postponed Chukchi so many times now, my guess is they will wait a bit to see if the oil price recovers before they start pouring money into that project

"The trick of Arctic energy development is that the time horizons are extraordinary long, some 10 to 30 years from when companies start these complex deals to even seeing when those resources would get to market," said Heather Conley, an analyst at the Center for Strategic and International Studies.

Shell will conduct tests to see how much oil and gas are in the Chukchi and Beaufort Seas. The Arctic is estimated to contain about 20 percent of the world's undiscovered oil and gas, 34 million barrels of oil in U.S. waters alone. Only Russia has bigger deposits. The National Petroleum Council, a group led by oil companies that advises the Energy Department, said in an assessment of Arctic potential last week that the region will boost U.S. energy security.

Is this an argument for opening up as many areas for as much exploration and future drilling as possible, because actual extraction might only happen 1-3 decades from now as a practical matter?

We don't want to get stuck not having options if shale oil starts running out. I believe the thinking behind this is "Let Shell invest the money for energy security reasons but if we continue to have breakthroughs in renewable energy they will never drill there anyway".

Ok .... so, just so I'm clear... the Obama administration's policy is now Drill Baby Drill after all this?

 

[TobiasFunke]

Shell has postponed Chukchi so many times now, my guess is they will wait a bit to see if the oil price recovers before they start pouring money into that project

"The trick of Arctic energy development is that the time horizons are extraordinary long, some 10 to 30 years from when companies start these complex deals to even seeing when those resources would get to market," said Heather Conley, an analyst at the Center for Strategic and International Studies.

Shell will conduct tests to see how much oil and gas are in the Chukchi and Beaufort Seas. The Arctic is estimated to contain about 20 percent of the world's undiscovered oil and gas, 34 million barrels of oil in U.S. waters alone. Only Russia has bigger deposits. The National Petroleum Council, a group led by oil companies that advises the Energy Department, said in an assessment of Arctic potential last week that the region will boost U.S. energy security.

Is this an argument for opening up as many areas for as much exploration and future drilling as possible, because actual extraction might only happen 1-3 decades from now as a practical matter?

We don't want to get stuck not having options if shale oil starts running out. I believe the thinking behind this is "Let Shell invest the money for energy security reasons but if we continue to have breakthroughs in renewable energy they will never drill there anyway".

Ok .... so, just so I'm clear... the Obama administration's policy is now Drill Baby Drill after all this?

What is "all this"?

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Shell has postponed Chukchi so many times now, my guess is they will wait a bit to see if the oil price recovers before they start pouring money into that project

"The trick of Arctic energy development is that the time horizons are extraordinary long, some 10 to 30 years from when companies start these complex deals to even seeing when those resources would get to market," said Heather Conley, an analyst at the Center for Strategic and International Studies.

Shell will conduct tests to see how much oil and gas are in the Chukchi and Beaufort Seas. The Arctic is estimated to contain about 20 percent of the world's undiscovered oil and gas, 34 million barrels of oil in U.S. waters alone. Only Russia has bigger deposits. The National Petroleum Council, a group led by oil companies that advises the Energy Department, said in an assessment of Arctic potential last week that the region will boost U.S. energy security.

Is this an argument for opening up as many areas for as much exploration and future drilling as possible, because actual extraction might only happen 1-3 decades from now as a practical matter?

We don't want to get stuck not having options if shale oil starts running out. I believe the thinking behind this is "Let Shell invest the money for energy security reasons but if we continue to have breakthroughs in renewable energy they will never drill there anyway".

Ok .... so, just so I'm clear... the Obama administration's policy is now Drill Baby Drill after all this?

What is "all this"?

".... all this [time, controversy, campaign and policy arguments]."

 

[cstu]

Ok .... so, just so I'm clear... the Obama administration's policy is now Drill Baby Drill after all this?

Can't find the link because of the broken search but he's issued nearly as many drilling permits as Bush.

Everyone knows we need energy security, the difference to me is that I feel like Democrats have an intelligent, logical strategy (renewables, drilling where necessary, etc.) while Republicans turn off their brains and say drilling is the only solution.

 

[TobiasFunke]

What is "all this"?

".... all this [time, controversy, campaign and policy arguments]."

I think this administration has been fairly reasonable and balanced on O&G. I'd rather our government review each decision on its merits and come to the best answer instead of defaulting to "drill everywhere all the time!" or "no more fossil fuels ever, hug a tree!"

 

[Bonfire]

Ok .... so, just so I'm clear... the Obama administration's policy is now Drill Baby Drill after all this?

My team does XYZ...its smart, awesome, and super cool.

The other team does XYZ...its evil, bad, stupid, ugly, poo poo face.