6 billion. Could have made a killing with that if it had been invested in solar or wind. The shareholders should be quite upset.
2
There's an oil glut right now. If we were smart, we'd be putting the money we're saving into developing non-fossil fuel energy. Not only would it be better for the planet, it would get us off the petro industry perennial boom-bust cycle and make the economy both more stable and more sustainable.
2
We will have to find renewable energy sources, as soon as possible. If this is going to take time(years), the best way is to consume much less energy, as an induvidual/community/people/nation, in any way possible. I would think, that this is definetely possible..
1
It's easy to criticize Shell for its mistakes but so far, no environmental damage was done. Shell might give up the project if the current lower price of oil makes the project unprofitable but if the price rises again which it surely will, Shell will likely figure out how to correct their mistakes and find a way to extract the oil, if it's there. Shell is perfectly capable of assessing the financial viability of the project. What outsiders should be worried about is the potential environmental damage that might occur once the oil is being gotten out of the ground.
I was impressed by how many public resources were involved in the problem-solving and the rescue. The Coast Guard, its helicopters and pilots were heroes. So was the National Weather Service. Our government rallied public resources to avert private disaster. I just want to offer thanks and appreciation, and not take such efforts for granted. BTW did Shell reimburse us?
7
"But it eventually realized that it lacked the proper expertise, and it got rid of its investments in wind and solar to refocus on oil and gas."
Mr. Nocera, please explain how a company with the deep pockets of Shell lacks expertise in anything it desires to pursue. They could obtain said expertise simply by purchasing the relevant scientists and small companies that have been focused on wind and solar. Same way Microsoft, Apple, Google, Facebook etc. purchase smaller companies that excel in an area they'd like to enter. Same way Big Food is now purchasing family run organic brands, or Big Pharma acquires new cutting edge biotech startups. Same way it works with every large multinational. The term has probably been featured on Jeopardy. Under Business- What is M & A? Answer: the Daily Double! Mergers and Acquisitions.
Word choices matter. Big Oil firms like Shell could acquire expertise in any endeavor they chose. They have the cash reserves to buy anything they want (including politicians the world over). They have simply chosen not to, perhaps because pursuing said path would be a serious blow to climate change denialists, and hasten the demise of fossil fuels. I'm no MBA and don't have spread sheets for all the renewable energy firms. But my guess would be that Shell could easily purchase every leading firm and scientist in the field, and still have plenty of cash left in the piggy bank.
Mr. Nocera, please explain how a company with the deep pockets of Shell lacks expertise in anything it desires to pursue. They could obtain said expertise simply by purchasing the relevant scientists and small companies that have been focused on wind and solar. Same way Microsoft, Apple, Google, Facebook etc. purchase smaller companies that excel in an area they'd like to enter. Same way Big Food is now purchasing family run organic brands, or Big Pharma acquires new cutting edge biotech startups. Same way it works with every large multinational. The term has probably been featured on Jeopardy. Under Business- What is M & A? Answer: the Daily Double! Mergers and Acquisitions.
Word choices matter. Big Oil firms like Shell could acquire expertise in any endeavor they chose. They have the cash reserves to buy anything they want (including politicians the world over). They have simply chosen not to, perhaps because pursuing said path would be a serious blow to climate change denialists, and hasten the demise of fossil fuels. I'm no MBA and don't have spread sheets for all the renewable energy firms. But my guess would be that Shell could easily purchase every leading firm and scientist in the field, and still have plenty of cash left in the piggy bank.
28
morality?
what's that?
doesn't he read David Brooks?
As long as there is commodification (of anything), someone will want to use (exploit?) it, looking at consequences narrowly and egocentrically (I'll get rich!), or widely and altruistically (is it sustainable, are there harmful consequences?).
As oil prices plummet, creating, et again, havoc in its wake, can we contemplate a a long-term approach to the challenge of flourishing on a shrinking planet?
what's that?
doesn't he read David Brooks?
As long as there is commodification (of anything), someone will want to use (exploit?) it, looking at consequences narrowly and egocentrically (I'll get rich!), or widely and altruistically (is it sustainable, are there harmful consequences?).
As oil prices plummet, creating, et again, havoc in its wake, can we contemplate a a long-term approach to the challenge of flourishing on a shrinking planet?
2
Oil companies who fund organizations that fight against climate change policies clearly show their hypocrisy by actively going to places that would not be accessible without the effects of climate change. It is ironic that a further effect of climate change is killer weather that stymies their efforts. But hey, anything for a dollar.
2
Just for the record: The Kulluk ran aground in the Gulf of Alaska--an area famous for its storms, by Funk's account--and not in the Chukchi or the Beaufort.
4
I'm not surprised that new technology ran into problems. This usually happens when something new is being tried out. But the comments are very predictable. Bad oil. Bad everything except make do with less. Were this to hit the economy today, Democrats would never be reelected.
1
Great article. Gripping tale of incompetence. But what the article did not tell us is what Shell was going to do with oil once it pumped it up to the platform? Transfer it to a waiting fleet of tankers who would then need to travel, in awful conditions, to a port 1,000 miles away, where it would be offloaded? How much additional pollution that involve? And this for just a few months a year? And everyone in the oil buisiness knows that each transfer multiplies chances of spill, large and small. In the Arctic Ocean yet? Why would any sentient government body extend those leases?
12
"Maybe we’ll never need it at all."- this would be true is 20 years if we had a Government that works. As long as the GOP continues to deny global climate change, and is owned by the 1%, we will see damage done to this planet in order for them to gain politically- the future be damned. Mitch McConnell ran using the canard that the current administration was trying to kill coal. But reality and science are going to kill coal. Mitch would still be fighting to make cars illegal in 1900 as he would be an investor in horse stables.
19
Suddenly a journalist is an expert in energy exploration. Aside from equating three very different oil-related mishaps, Mr. Nocera also persists with the "renewables are the answer" myth. They aren't. People do scientific, responsible, industry-independent studies that demonstrate time after time that renewables can only be a tiny part of world energy needs. To supply the world as we know it, not to mention the world to come, it's either fossil or nuclear. The alternative is a world much reduced, with no prospects for those now living in the Third World, and bleak outlooks for the rest of us.
3
Sadly David,
You're talking about bubbles. There is a problem with "renewables;" they often have a greater carbon footprint than the energy they are supposed to replace --- except for wind energy. This is true of solar and electric cars --- and nuclear that you are so fond of --- when accounting for disposal costs. Back to bubbles.
Right now, we're chasing the fracking boom with it's benefit of paraffin carbon that is similar to the sweet crude we must have in refineries. This bubble will burst, in about 3-5 years. As for nuclear, that bubble has burst because we have only a dozen years of fisionable materials. My background is oil and gas so I have some knowledge of where we are going.
You're talking about bubbles. There is a problem with "renewables;" they often have a greater carbon footprint than the energy they are supposed to replace --- except for wind energy. This is true of solar and electric cars --- and nuclear that you are so fond of --- when accounting for disposal costs. Back to bubbles.
Right now, we're chasing the fracking boom with it's benefit of paraffin carbon that is similar to the sweet crude we must have in refineries. This bubble will burst, in about 3-5 years. As for nuclear, that bubble has burst because we have only a dozen years of fisionable materials. My background is oil and gas so I have some knowledge of where we are going.
2
the problem with fracking is its tremendous use of fresh water. let's see, here in CA-- drinking water for all of us? Water available for arguably our most important industry-- agriculture. That's the problem with fracking, at least in my state, and David Jones, I would love to her your reply to my point.
2
As the article made clear, Shell is going back because it will lose its leasehold if it fails to do so and it needs to shore up its "proven" reserves. Shell management apparently never heard the expression about throwing good money after bad.
5
" Shell had once embraced climate change and the need for renewable energy. But it eventually realized that it lacked the proper expertise, and it got rid of its investments in wind and solar to refocus on oil and gas."
And now it learns that it doesn't have the expertise to explore the Arctic, so what does it do--refocus on renewables? No, it goes back to the Arctic. Think again, oil companies. Are you in the oil business or the energy business?
And now it learns that it doesn't have the expertise to explore the Arctic, so what does it do--refocus on renewables? No, it goes back to the Arctic. Think again, oil companies. Are you in the oil business or the energy business?
8
Climate scientists assert that more than 99.9 % of fossil carbon will have to stay underground to avert a climate disaster, and the US government and many other OECD governments are committed (or so they say) to limits on carbon. So why not start to "ring-fence" those fossil fuel deposits likely to produce the worst additional damage the environment, such as tar-sands, coal, and any deposits in environmentally risky locales.
24
"Climate scientists assert that more than 99.9 % of fossil carbon will have to stay underground to avert a climate disaster"
Funny with all the fossil fuels burned over the last 18 years, satellites show no rise whatsoever in troposphere temperatures.
Funny with all the fossil fuels burned over the last 18 years, satellites show no rise whatsoever in troposphere temperatures.
One reason companies drill in these frontier areas is, and I am no apologist for the oil companies by the way, that many areas in the US have been placed out of bounds for environmental and political reasons. Just remember this op-ed the next time you read of protests against hydrofracturing, and offshore wind "farms" that spoil the views of the rich and those who depend on tourism. I remember the 1969 spill offshore Santa Barbara, and people were driving to the pier, tearing up their Union Oil credit cards, and going across the street to Chevron to fill their tank. We all want gas and oil, but we'd rather it be produced in some place like the Niger delta far away, which by the way is also an environmental disaster.
6
Don't forget the destructive, feckless on-shore wind power scourge. In Maine, the wind companies are ruining the most beautiful landscape in the eastern USA for no good reason except the reaping of taxpayer subsidies, and selling Enron-inspired RECs, bolstered by heinous RPS mandates. Wind power does nothing to offset any concerns about the environment, while being an unreliable lightweight source of electricity.
There are three 2.5 megawatt wind turbines (big ones!) in the heart of Gloucester, Massachusetts, and most people there think they're awesome.
2
"the world is awash in oil"
True, but the world also uses a lot of oil - about 2 billion barrels a month - so 24 billion barrels is only a year's worth of consumption.
Much better we learn to wean ourselves off oil.
True, but the world also uses a lot of oil - about 2 billion barrels a month - so 24 billion barrels is only a year's worth of consumption.
Much better we learn to wean ourselves off oil.
12
So Shell loses a billion or more to the high seas. Meanwhile, Aquamarine Power, based in Edinburgh, is developing the Oyster wave generation system, to be built by Burtisland, also of Scotland, to be deployed in the North Sea.
No shortage of irony in these stories...
No shortage of irony in these stories...
9
I would have called it as it is, on the part of the oil company, which is the "Immorality of the Kulluk".
The unconscionable, insatiable avarice, of these oil company's is mind numbing.
The unconscionable, insatiable avarice, of these oil company's is mind numbing.
11
The Danes have made it quite clear that with a vision, constant implementation, and a change in culture and focus, energy savings can be achieved on a grand scale. Renewables as an energy source can take on a significant role.
Americans prefer to bury their heads in the sand. No politician wants to tell them that the unlimited oil world is a thing of the past and that hard choices need to be made. To say nothing of actually proposing the menu of what's on offer.
What is required is a remaking of American society. Our cities and towns need to create public transportation systems that are the envy of the world. Gas prices need to rise to levels that make it impractical for most folks to use their cars except in special situations.
By changing our demand patterns, companies will change what they do and how they do it. The Kulluk fiasco will simply not happen. Wind turbines might fall on people, sure. But they won't be in deep water in the Arctic.
Americans prefer to bury their heads in the sand. No politician wants to tell them that the unlimited oil world is a thing of the past and that hard choices need to be made. To say nothing of actually proposing the menu of what's on offer.
What is required is a remaking of American society. Our cities and towns need to create public transportation systems that are the envy of the world. Gas prices need to rise to levels that make it impractical for most folks to use their cars except in special situations.
By changing our demand patterns, companies will change what they do and how they do it. The Kulluk fiasco will simply not happen. Wind turbines might fall on people, sure. But they won't be in deep water in the Arctic.
7
Denmark is not quite so clean as their PR. 50% of the electricity is coal and they are net exporters of oil. 30% of the electricity is wind based.
2
Yes, Denmark, the country with the highest electricity costs of all the developed countries. In the USA, the average cost of electricity is around 12 cents per kwh and in Denmark, it is 44 cents. Not something I wish to emulate. Let the energy markets operate, unsubsidized and unfettered from government interference.
2
Let the energy markets operate, unsubsidized and unfettered from government interference? Have you ever heard of Chernobyl?
5
What struck me in the magazine article was how cheaply Shell acquired rights to oil blocks in Beaufort Sea - $44 million for 84 blocks.
10
Loved the article. I'm astounded by the hubris and mind boggling waste.
I'm sure there are plenty of people in Houston already kicking themselves over this, but just imagine how many high school football stadiums could have been built!
I'm sure there are plenty of people in Houston already kicking themselves over this, but just imagine how many high school football stadiums could have been built!
9
The question isn't how many football stadiums but rather how many college scholarships for the needy. Football is a corrupting influence at all levels and on the whole a waste of time, effort and money for the nation.
4
Dear Joe, you are right on one point, I couldn't put the article down. I had to review it in detail to see how many errors, obfuscations, and pejoratives the NYT would tolerate. Congratulations to you in missing all of them. The wreck of the Kulluk was a sad accident brought about by poor decision making in planning and executing an ocean tow. Kulluk, like many of its related drilling units, served a long and useful life in harsh northern environments. It is a shame to see such fine and proven technology dragged through the mud in so many ways. Perhaps you and the article's author could get down from your respective ivory towers and actually visit the areas of the Arctic where hundreds of wells have been drilled. Fortunately, as in most of the petroleum industry, technology, economics, and good operating practice will determine where drilling occurs. Not fluff.
4
yes Mike, like Horizon in the USA gulf, by BP, a british company-- they did a great job and had "good operating practices."
Shell was desperate to bolster proven reserves just to please shareholders. No one actually cared of possible environmental risks, they were secondary. With Congressional committees in the hands of the GOP, we will be moving inexorably towards the Russian model, when there will be no regulation, mostly because of government collaboration. In fact, the U. S. Government should not only charge Shell the direct cost for different services, but it should also collect some significant share of the eventual revenue from the oil fields. That will be fair enough and environmental risks will be minimized.
10
This wasn't really about the questions surrounding exploration and drilling in the Arctic. It's a much bigger story about world energy. Every step we take towards securing more and more fossil fuels, whether drilling in the Arctic or the Gulf of Mexico, or fracking shale, or mountaintop removal for coal, is a step further away from developing alternatives. As long as we allow ourselves to think that there's always more and that we need to devote our efforts to getting it, we're postponing the inevitable and running ourselves up against a situation where we no longer have the time it takes to do anything.
7
There is nothing quite so good as a story about the oil companies--to bring out the left-wing anti-business, global warming crowd. Never have I seen such enthusiastic use of the "G-word". (Greed).
Funny thing is....they are all typing on their laptops and smart phones--powered by electricity--generated by fossil fuels--from inside their homes and non-profits--heated by same. And it doesn't take much to get them to get into their fossil-fueled Subarus, Volvos and Audis (never anything made HERE), to demonstrate against anything that smacks of Capitalism (or police brutality). Liberals are certainly an odd group.
Funny thing is....they are all typing on their laptops and smart phones--powered by electricity--generated by fossil fuels--from inside their homes and non-profits--heated by same. And it doesn't take much to get them to get into their fossil-fueled Subarus, Volvos and Audis (never anything made HERE), to demonstrate against anything that smacks of Capitalism (or police brutality). Liberals are certainly an odd group.
3
This kind of comment is as foolish as saying "All those complaints about food safety come from the pointy-headed intellectuals who are sitting at home right now enjoying their dinner." A great deal of our energy comes from sources that have serious environmental drawbacks and risks and cost more and more to produce less and less. The fact that we need and use energy is not a reason to throw our concerns to the winds. In fact, the more we need the more careful we should be that the extraction and production processes don't do us serious harm.
19
Who said anything about being "anti-business?"
(OK, I admit that any American company that ships a single American job overseas without enduring a penalty is one I would boycott. You see, I happen think there's a social contract going on here. Not a "free market." I always love it when folks talk about the genius of the "free market." Because there is no such thing. All companies do their best to make markets tilt in their direction - monopolizing them is the highest calling. But that's another argument for another time.)
So here's the thing. I think that as a citizen I am a commander in chief when it comes to my relationships with companies. I, through my representatives, should set the boundaries within which companies operate in my country. These companies are not "people" to me. They are collections of people that use a legal shield of corporate structure to reduce their own personal liability for the things they do through corporate activities.
Any society with any heart and a moral compass understands that it is the citizens, the people, who come first. Not the companies. (I could add the local environment to the list too without too much heartache.)
I don't think that makes me "anti-business." I think that makes me patriotic.
(OK, I admit that any American company that ships a single American job overseas without enduring a penalty is one I would boycott. You see, I happen think there's a social contract going on here. Not a "free market." I always love it when folks talk about the genius of the "free market." Because there is no such thing. All companies do their best to make markets tilt in their direction - monopolizing them is the highest calling. But that's another argument for another time.)
So here's the thing. I think that as a citizen I am a commander in chief when it comes to my relationships with companies. I, through my representatives, should set the boundaries within which companies operate in my country. These companies are not "people" to me. They are collections of people that use a legal shield of corporate structure to reduce their own personal liability for the things they do through corporate activities.
Any society with any heart and a moral compass understands that it is the citizens, the people, who come first. Not the companies. (I could add the local environment to the list too without too much heartache.)
I don't think that makes me "anti-business." I think that makes me patriotic.
16
Jesse
Liberals are not anti-business. The controversy between liberal/conservative on business is whether we have swung into oligarchy and whether that is just as big a threat from the right to our way of life as Communism was on the left. Those of us advocating a departure from oil/coal/gas are not unaware of the great benefits they provided for development. We just believe the science that points out what we did not know before: that the emissions will mean the end of civilization if we continue. Google "Risky Business Report" from Republicans who realize that business as usual vis-a-vis Climate Change is foolhardy and ultimately spells the end of prosperity. Liberals seek prosperity just as conservatives do. We just differ on how to bring that about.
My car and my laptop are powered by the solar panels on my roof. We liberals have faith in our business leaders that given the right incentives we can prosper without fossil fuels. That incentive must come from government, just as building the interstate system, and the internet came from government. (And yes, I know that means taxing you and me to get it done... government is not free. Wars are not the only threat we face.) Already there are far more jobs in the wind and solar industries than in coal. Pretending Climate Change is a hoax does not make it so.
Liberals are not anti-business. The controversy between liberal/conservative on business is whether we have swung into oligarchy and whether that is just as big a threat from the right to our way of life as Communism was on the left. Those of us advocating a departure from oil/coal/gas are not unaware of the great benefits they provided for development. We just believe the science that points out what we did not know before: that the emissions will mean the end of civilization if we continue. Google "Risky Business Report" from Republicans who realize that business as usual vis-a-vis Climate Change is foolhardy and ultimately spells the end of prosperity. Liberals seek prosperity just as conservatives do. We just differ on how to bring that about.
My car and my laptop are powered by the solar panels on my roof. We liberals have faith in our business leaders that given the right incentives we can prosper without fossil fuels. That incentive must come from government, just as building the interstate system, and the internet came from government. (And yes, I know that means taxing you and me to get it done... government is not free. Wars are not the only threat we face.) Already there are far more jobs in the wind and solar industries than in coal. Pretending Climate Change is a hoax does not make it so.
7
600 BILLION DOLLARS a year in subsidies to companies like this. No wonder they feel they can so cavalierly gamble with money and the environment. WE THE PEOPLE pay for their mistakes and they pocket the profits.
6 billion dollars gambled on Arctic oil, instead of spent on research of better solar, better wind and Cold Fusion.
We are indeed and extraordinary people. Extraordinarily blind to the consequences of our destruction of our ONLY home.
6 billion dollars gambled on Arctic oil, instead of spent on research of better solar, better wind and Cold Fusion.
We are indeed and extraordinary people. Extraordinarily blind to the consequences of our destruction of our ONLY home.
29
The wonderful article on the Kulluk wreck felt like devouring some updated version of Mobby Dick.
It is shocking to seek oil in a region where the effects of burning it are most dramatic. Whether the industry needs more oil or not, we should never extract it unless happy to kill the biosphere. It is our single chance to avoid climate disaster and mass extinction. Burning needs be cut much faster than depletion, while economic growth asks for an increasing consumption. Additional ressources to extract fossil fuels are being wasted. We will miss them when most needed: when extraction stops, as it requires more energy than we would retrieve. We are getting there fast and will hit reality without having adjusted to it. Deprived of fossil fuels while entirely dependent on them, the world economy and civilization will collapse.
The world is NOT awash with oil and gas. The shale boom is likely to peak within a couple of years. Shale oil and gas and tar sands can never replace declining, conventional oil and gas. Not just a matter of volumes. It is a matter of Energy Returns Over Energy Investment (EROEI). We need ever more energy to get the same volumes of oil and gas. Demand will decrease globally, not out of an industry loss of appetite for oil, gas, coal, and uranium, but because it will afford them ever less as they get depleted. Volatile prices will regularly fall as demand degrades. Unless we wake up, come to terms with reality, and act rationnally, we are lost.
It is shocking to seek oil in a region where the effects of burning it are most dramatic. Whether the industry needs more oil or not, we should never extract it unless happy to kill the biosphere. It is our single chance to avoid climate disaster and mass extinction. Burning needs be cut much faster than depletion, while economic growth asks for an increasing consumption. Additional ressources to extract fossil fuels are being wasted. We will miss them when most needed: when extraction stops, as it requires more energy than we would retrieve. We are getting there fast and will hit reality without having adjusted to it. Deprived of fossil fuels while entirely dependent on them, the world economy and civilization will collapse.
The world is NOT awash with oil and gas. The shale boom is likely to peak within a couple of years. Shale oil and gas and tar sands can never replace declining, conventional oil and gas. Not just a matter of volumes. It is a matter of Energy Returns Over Energy Investment (EROEI). We need ever more energy to get the same volumes of oil and gas. Demand will decrease globally, not out of an industry loss of appetite for oil, gas, coal, and uranium, but because it will afford them ever less as they get depleted. Volatile prices will regularly fall as demand degrades. Unless we wake up, come to terms with reality, and act rationnally, we are lost.
6
It's wishful thinking to imagine we're not going to need huge stocks of oil into the foreseeable future. The world's economy essentially runs on the stuff. That cheap TV you bought for Christmas came from halfway around the world on a massive container ship that is fueled with oil. The truck that picked it up in Long Beach and drove it to the Wal-Mart in Boston ran on diesel. The store is heated with oil or gas. And the car you took to pick it up was most likely fueled with gasoline. Oh, and your house, on this cold winter day, is most likely heated with gas or oil. Fracking is picking up some slack, but will it last? Why are they drilling so many wells? Is it because they exhaust them almost as quickly as they can drill them?
I totally agree with the foolhardiness of trying to poke a hole in the bottom of the Arctic Ocean and pipe oil out, but don't be fooled; oil is still the material that greases the skids of the world and we're going to need a lot of it for a long time...
I totally agree with the foolhardiness of trying to poke a hole in the bottom of the Arctic Ocean and pipe oil out, but don't be fooled; oil is still the material that greases the skids of the world and we're going to need a lot of it for a long time...
1
It is defeatist thinking to not accept/understand that using all possible alternative energy sources will reduce reliance on petroleum and its derived products. Existing resources of the stuff will last longer. Scientific research, however maligned by know nothings on the right, will improve the efficiency of the methods of using energy. Conservation methods will decrease the need for energy. What have I failed to mention?
6
You failed to mention exactly how much efficiency can save us per capita? Will it cut oil usage by 1% or 10%? And for how long, as population continues to expand and more cars and trucks take to the road, worldwide. And conservation? Didn't I just hear a report yesterday on NPR about how American's are once again buying massive SUVs because gas prices are lower? We seem to have very short memories when it comes to conservation...
Listen, I'm playing devils advocate here, but far too much of the "renewables" meme is wishful thinking. Yes, we must change, but if the oil runs out before all this magical thinking comes to fruition I don't want to see what happens...
Listen, I'm playing devils advocate here, but far too much of the "renewables" meme is wishful thinking. Yes, we must change, but if the oil runs out before all this magical thinking comes to fruition I don't want to see what happens...
1
Are we the victim or the crime?
The only reason oil companies are prepared to drill in places like the Arctic is that they know the potential rewards far outstrip the potential costs. And that's because even if something goes disastrously wrong and they wind up spewing millions of barrels of oil into the ocean, they will face at most a few billion dollars in fines. Their executives will not go to prison. The companies involved will survive. Their shareholders will be held harmless. If things go right, they'll make billions and shoulder none of the costs that result when the oil is burned. If BP had been put out of business and its executives were languishing in prison after the Deepwater Horizon disaster, the calculus for Shell and other companies might be different. But of course that will never happen.
9
This mad scramble to get the last barrel of convention oil would be unnecessary if we only used the oil we have more effectively.
We have had a revolution in lighting technology in the past 20 years, first CFL and now LED. Both where great leaps in efficiency reducing power consumption by 1/3 to 1/10 of incandescent technology.
There is nothing sexy about a light bulb but it shows that there are ways to efficiency that could not have been imagined just 50 years ago. (And not considered or needed then as the world was awash with cheap energy.)
Today America produces half the oil it uses.
The shame of all this is: ENERGY is a NATIONAL SECURITY ISSUE!
There is no will in the USA to treat it as such. America thinks that it can take what it wants, hence the big military spending and the lack of education and healthcare spending that would happen with the big military.
So you feel that you are entitled to 25% of the world's oil to burn has you please and that is what you do.
All manner of technology could reduce America's addiction to unfriendly oil. That technology already exists. I ask you one question; "Why do people in Florida need the largest of SUVs?" There are neither hills nor snow.
You need to make ENERGY a NATIONAL SECURITY ISSUE and require that all vehicles and other users of fossil fuels double their energy efficiency.
In that one act you would become independent of fossil fuel imports. No more kowtowing. All your oil will be domestically produced.
We have had a revolution in lighting technology in the past 20 years, first CFL and now LED. Both where great leaps in efficiency reducing power consumption by 1/3 to 1/10 of incandescent technology.
There is nothing sexy about a light bulb but it shows that there are ways to efficiency that could not have been imagined just 50 years ago. (And not considered or needed then as the world was awash with cheap energy.)
Today America produces half the oil it uses.
The shame of all this is: ENERGY is a NATIONAL SECURITY ISSUE!
There is no will in the USA to treat it as such. America thinks that it can take what it wants, hence the big military spending and the lack of education and healthcare spending that would happen with the big military.
So you feel that you are entitled to 25% of the world's oil to burn has you please and that is what you do.
All manner of technology could reduce America's addiction to unfriendly oil. That technology already exists. I ask you one question; "Why do people in Florida need the largest of SUVs?" There are neither hills nor snow.
You need to make ENERGY a NATIONAL SECURITY ISSUE and require that all vehicles and other users of fossil fuels double their energy efficiency.
In that one act you would become independent of fossil fuel imports. No more kowtowing. All your oil will be domestically produced.
4
The story not sufficiently told is what Shell Oil cost the U.S. Coast Guard in time, money, expertise and diversion away from more useful work. Or put another way - it's the financial burden Shell Oil laid on US taxpayers. Time and again the Coast Guard had to come to the rescue of workers, or send out investigators to determine the extent to which a rogue corporation was violating the law. How much time and money was eaten up in compiling the lengthy report the Coast Guard was required to produce because of Shell's illogical and illegal behavior? We don't know.
The anti-government contingent and monied interests, represented by the Republicans now taking over our Congress, loves to disparage government and deny the public goods our government agencies provide every day. The original story, and Nocera's commentary, should have made this point.
The anti-government contingent and monied interests, represented by the Republicans now taking over our Congress, loves to disparage government and deny the public goods our government agencies provide every day. The original story, and Nocera's commentary, should have made this point.
13
This certainly makes us question the planning and preparedness. And, WHY there should be drilling in this currently unspoiled place. Please stop.
6
"The Kulluk was an offshore exploratory drilling rig, owned by Royal Dutch Shell, which, in December 2012, ran aground in some of the most inhospitable waters in the world.
Those waters were the Chukchi and Beaufort Seas in the Arctic Circle, more than 1,000 miles from Dutch Harbor, Alaska, the nearest deep-water port."
The drilling rig did not run aground in the Chukchi and Beaufort Seas, it ran aground on an island in the Northwest Pacific Ocean. Geography is important.
Those waters were the Chukchi and Beaufort Seas in the Arctic Circle, more than 1,000 miles from Dutch Harbor, Alaska, the nearest deep-water port."
The drilling rig did not run aground in the Chukchi and Beaufort Seas, it ran aground on an island in the Northwest Pacific Ocean. Geography is important.
4
That was the first thing that struck me. Mr. Nocera, did you read the article? Or even just look at the map that it included? That kind of misstatement is sloppy, and makes us call into question your understanding of the whole problem.
Actually, I found the article fascinating for all the mistakes Shell and its contractors made -- but it's also noteworthy that the stuff really only hit the fan after they left the Arctic. Yes, the Kulluk disaster should be a warning, but they got the rig out of the most sensitive Arctic areas well before the worst weather hit. Do they really know and can they control all they should to go drilling up there? Probably not -- and that's evident even without expertise on the differences between the Alaskan Arctic and the Gulf of Alaska, in weather and other conditions. But as you suggest, Jonathan, the Kulluk fiasco doesn't teach us about the environmental risks of drilling in the Arctic nearly as directly as Mr. Nocera implies.
Actually, I found the article fascinating for all the mistakes Shell and its contractors made -- but it's also noteworthy that the stuff really only hit the fan after they left the Arctic. Yes, the Kulluk disaster should be a warning, but they got the rig out of the most sensitive Arctic areas well before the worst weather hit. Do they really know and can they control all they should to go drilling up there? Probably not -- and that's evident even without expertise on the differences between the Alaskan Arctic and the Gulf of Alaska, in weather and other conditions. But as you suggest, Jonathan, the Kulluk fiasco doesn't teach us about the environmental risks of drilling in the Arctic nearly as directly as Mr. Nocera implies.
23 billion barrels sounds like a lot of oil, but daily consumption world wide is 90 million barrels a day. That would last the world less than nine months, or three years if the United States could hoard it all to itself -- which it couldn't without nationalizing Shell Oil.
We are scraping the bottom of the barrel -- all the easily drilled oil is gone. Instead of wasting time trying to squeeze those last few drops of oil from the arctic ice, we should be switching over to a new source of energy whose days aren't numbered.
Drilling in the arctic will only prolong the agony of withdrawal from oil.
We are scraping the bottom of the barrel -- all the easily drilled oil is gone. Instead of wasting time trying to squeeze those last few drops of oil from the arctic ice, we should be switching over to a new source of energy whose days aren't numbered.
Drilling in the arctic will only prolong the agony of withdrawal from oil.
13
Whenever the fossil fuel industry or other extractive industries say some activity can be done in an environmentally responsible manner, the relevant question is always, "but will it?" Too many companies cut corners to save money, while Congress continues to under-fund the enforcement of existing laws. Our representatives will grandstand and bloviate in response to the latest disaster, and they may even propose new laws, which often wouldn't be necessary if existing law were enforced. And any new law will be rendered toothless in the legislative development process anyway.
7
Unlike Antarctica and the South Pole there is no there ...there in the Arctic Circle and the North Pole. There is only ice and water and a few small scattered islands. And with the Earth's climate changing there is much more water for a longer time than ever before. The fabled Northwest Passage has become reality.
While there are very fewer voters at either pole who matter to the robber baron crony capitalist corporate plutocrat welfare kings and queens and their lobbyists and puppet pawn public legislators and executives.
That the polar bears and seals and sea birds and leopard seals and penguins and whales nor Inuit do not vote nor matter much is the moral of the Kulluk and Exxon Valdez. While the Deepwater Horizon Gulf oil spill has the same moral for the 99.9% of real humans who pay taxes and vote.
Who owns the poles?
While there are very fewer voters at either pole who matter to the robber baron crony capitalist corporate plutocrat welfare kings and queens and their lobbyists and puppet pawn public legislators and executives.
That the polar bears and seals and sea birds and leopard seals and penguins and whales nor Inuit do not vote nor matter much is the moral of the Kulluk and Exxon Valdez. While the Deepwater Horizon Gulf oil spill has the same moral for the 99.9% of real humans who pay taxes and vote.
Who owns the poles?
4
"...this area is considered to hold one of the last great oil fields." Isn't it a bit immoral to consume all, and the last, of such a valuable resource during our own short lives? Five hundred years from now, our descendants might wish we had been just a little less profligate. We might want to leave more than good wishes and expectations of miracles to the future.
5
At least when businesses make mistakes, they pay for it. The loss of the Kulluk, not to mention the costs of drilling, will be borne by the company's shareholders. (Or employees if this leads Shell to cut back on exploration.) When governments make mistakes the taxpayer pays for it. (See, among others, the VA hospital scandal.) When regulators fail, it's always an excuse for more money, but it never seems that more money ever prevents the next regulatory failure.
Now I do believe that businesses and individuals should be required to reimburse the Coast Guard for any rescue effort needed. Even when they are not grossly negligent, there is usually a fair amount of bad judgment involved when someone needs to be rescued.
Now I do believe that businesses and individuals should be required to reimburse the Coast Guard for any rescue effort needed. Even when they are not grossly negligent, there is usually a fair amount of bad judgment involved when someone needs to be rescued.
1
At least when businesses make mistakes, they pay for it.
This statement is so very naive: They try every strategy in the book to avoid paying and minimizing that which they should bear the onus for. As a result, the taxpayers do indeed foot the bill; furthermore, we taxpayers subsidize the oil companies; we pay for non accidental environment damage which has reached mammoth levels; we pay for the health problem and WITH the health problem occasioned by the environmental damage; we pay for an unneeded inflated military to protect and/or secure sources of the black gold, and so on.
This statement is so very naive: They try every strategy in the book to avoid paying and minimizing that which they should bear the onus for. As a result, the taxpayers do indeed foot the bill; furthermore, we taxpayers subsidize the oil companies; we pay for non accidental environment damage which has reached mammoth levels; we pay for the health problem and WITH the health problem occasioned by the environmental damage; we pay for an unneeded inflated military to protect and/or secure sources of the black gold, and so on.
15
Jim, you start by saying that businesses DO pay for it, but in your second paragraph you say they SHOULD pay for it. Which is it?
4
When big money is involved comment sense is not. Drill baby drill.
7
According to Wikipedia, "The proven oil reserves in Venezuela are recognized as the largest in the world, totaling 297 billion barrels (4.72×1010 m3) as of 1 January 2014." That is ten times the amount of oil reserves in the middle of no where. Drilling and processing oil there means we'd have to deal with the "commies."
1
Venezuela also has a trillion barrels of tar sand bitumen.
2
Funny how anti-government-regulation corporations are in dire need of our government's resources such as extravagant rescue operations.
Question: did we, the taxpayer foot the bill or did Shell pay the government back?
Question: did we, the taxpayer foot the bill or did Shell pay the government back?
32
Not only don't we "need it," we should not allow it. Developing more oil sources should be precluded until we change the downward spiral of environmental calamity we already face in climate change. Carbon taxes and laws should make these reckless adventures illegal and unprofitable. Investment in renewable energy must be fostered and required if necessary. Now, Now, Now. Before it's too late.
26
As Joe has pointed out many times in the past, we can avoid dangerous explorations and costly disasters because there is a safe and economically viable alternative.
Fracking to the rescue.
Fracking to the rescue.
3
I'm waiting for them to close up that mess in North Dakota (and Canada, too.) By the time they get back to extracting oil from those places the equipment will be all rusted out.
2
There is also the need to establish dominion for new passageways in the area. As ice melts traffic will change and ownership will be claimed by several. I wonder how many of those billions spent have been provided by taxpayers or will be reimbursed by taxpayers in the future. Citizens take the risk and front the capital. A perfect rainbow for Shell in any stormy sea.
5
If all the present known reserves of oil are exploited catastrophic climate change is practically guaranteed. There is simply no rational other than increasing profits for oil companies to encourage searching for additional oil reserves in dangerous places. What oil corporations know best is how to extract oil but if they don't diversify their activities they will either go the way of the coal industry or the planet will have to endure some very unpleasant changes that will negate all the profits from oil.
11
As each year passes, it becomes crystal clear that we must not allow the Arctic ice to melting away. Every Arctic nation has 'dibs' on the natural resources beneath the ocean floor and although most countries say they want to stop climate change, they will barge in there with all kinds of equipment as soon as the ocean is ice-free.
The Kullik experiment could be the story of mankind. Something with so much hope and potential that ended up on the rocks because of hubris and stupidity. An ice-free Arctic is the death knell for humans and many other species. Let's not let it happen.
The Kullik experiment could be the story of mankind. Something with so much hope and potential that ended up on the rocks because of hubris and stupidity. An ice-free Arctic is the death knell for humans and many other species. Let's not let it happen.
3
imagine if you will the alternative energy situation in this country if al gore had been allowed to assume his elected office solar collectors on the white house roof maybe a windmill or two on the ellipse strong government support for these and other alternative energy industries a stronger epa and before the first frack was fracked an extensive study into the potential environmental hazards of this practice but to get back to the kulluk after reading this article it is plainly obvious that no one should ever attempt to extract oil form this area there is no way to guarantee the safety of the environment and the slightest spillage would be an incalculable disaster
4
What happened to the Kulluk is surely another instance of how poor planning was followed by rash action with grave results. They absolutely had not planned ahead as they should have, so as to had any recourse, when bad weather hit.
With machinery in tow that cost such an enormous sum, they had yet not considered deploying an anchor in case the rig had to be set loose.
Knowing that no one was to on board the rig to do such a thing in such an event, they hadn't put in place a radio-controlled anchoring system. There is no excuse.
It amounted to lame planning, combined with unmonitored, inept operations, like happened in April, 2010 in the Gulf of Mexico.
With machinery in tow that cost such an enormous sum, they had yet not considered deploying an anchor in case the rig had to be set loose.
Knowing that no one was to on board the rig to do such a thing in such an event, they hadn't put in place a radio-controlled anchoring system. There is no excuse.
It amounted to lame planning, combined with unmonitored, inept operations, like happened in April, 2010 in the Gulf of Mexico.
2
Corporate ownership, where all the rich share in the ownership of companies like Shell, are the root cause of most of our problems today. There is no one individual personally or financially responsible for the harm caused by these corporation. Fines will simply be paid from future profits. No one goes to jail, unless it is a lowly employee.
Corporate governance must change. Those making the decisions, even if they are not the "sole" owners must be held personally and financially responsible for any harm caused by the corporation. Until we make Boards of Directors and Corporate CEO's personally responsible and liable for the acts of their corporations we will see more and more unethical and harmful behavior from these unaccountable behemoths.
Corporate governance must change. Those making the decisions, even if they are not the "sole" owners must be held personally and financially responsible for any harm caused by the corporation. Until we make Boards of Directors and Corporate CEO's personally responsible and liable for the acts of their corporations we will see more and more unethical and harmful behavior from these unaccountable behemoths.
6
This article points out that Shell oil is up against the clock. As climate change gets worse, the political pressure to tax carbon will reach a tipping point to and then arctic oil gets too expensive to extract. The moral of this article is that the arctic controls the time table right now.
2
As one who grew up in the region in question I can attest to its unpredictability and how hazardous it can be on a daily basis. One further thing to consider is that when the Deepwater Horizon blowout happened, BP was able to hire and mobilize a flotilla of private boats to assist in the cleanup. There is no such flotilla in the arctic. Help is thousands of miles further away.
Shell has been trying to drill offshore exploratory wells in the Arctic for years. All along they have promised an ironclad commitment to safety and honesty. After much delay they finally brought their "state of the art" drilling rigs to the arctic and promptly started lying and cutting corners. The results were multiple unreported safety violations, oil soaked bilge water released in to the ocean, and the nearly catastrophic grounding of their fundamentally unsafe rig.
It may be theoretically possible to safely drill in the arctic (though it also may not be), but one thing has been proven beyond a doubt. Shell is not capable of doing so, and should not be trusted with one of our last pristine places on the earth.
Shell has been trying to drill offshore exploratory wells in the Arctic for years. All along they have promised an ironclad commitment to safety and honesty. After much delay they finally brought their "state of the art" drilling rigs to the arctic and promptly started lying and cutting corners. The results were multiple unreported safety violations, oil soaked bilge water released in to the ocean, and the nearly catastrophic grounding of their fundamentally unsafe rig.
It may be theoretically possible to safely drill in the arctic (though it also may not be), but one thing has been proven beyond a doubt. Shell is not capable of doing so, and should not be trusted with one of our last pristine places on the earth.
21
Some would drill through their mother's grave to get to a quart of thirty-weight.
7
We are flawed, imperfect. shortsighted. selfish, cruel, indifferent, blind, rapacious descendants of apes driven by greed and indifference to the consequences of our acts whether they damage another or the environs in which we live.
Some rise heroically to challenge our crude and selfish behavior pointing to the immense damage we do to each other and to our home, this incredibly gorgeous planet on which we live but do we learn and live more prudent lives?
Only if we think and observe and work WITH each other in our shared stewardship of our now shrinking planet but not all agree or are willing to do what is clearly needed to preserve our environments and see to the well being of our children and their children.
Shakespeare knew how tragically and foolishly we live not together but as entrepreneurs thinking only of ourselves and not our communities and the community of mankind.
It is a flaw so deeply embedded that as prominent as we are spreading across this planet of ours we will surely become extinct because we know not what we do and will not change.
Some rise heroically to challenge our crude and selfish behavior pointing to the immense damage we do to each other and to our home, this incredibly gorgeous planet on which we live but do we learn and live more prudent lives?
Only if we think and observe and work WITH each other in our shared stewardship of our now shrinking planet but not all agree or are willing to do what is clearly needed to preserve our environments and see to the well being of our children and their children.
Shakespeare knew how tragically and foolishly we live not together but as entrepreneurs thinking only of ourselves and not our communities and the community of mankind.
It is a flaw so deeply embedded that as prominent as we are spreading across this planet of ours we will surely become extinct because we know not what we do and will not change.
10
It's not that complicated: oil companies need to keep increasing their proven reserves, so they keep drilling, and they will do so no matter what, so that we can keep pumping CO2 into the atmosphere of the only planet we have and destabilize our climate. The entire process is unethical and immoral.
15
The Exxon Valdez oil spill occurred after the vessel hit a reef in Prince William Sound Alaska in March 1989 in calm waters.
Aside from the dereliction of duties by Captain Joseph Hazelwood, who was not at the controls when the ship struck the reef, there were many other areas of corporate negligence.
At the helm, the third mate never would have collided with Bligh Reef had he looked at his RAYCAS radar. But the radar was not turned on. The tanker's radar was left broken and disabled for more than a year before the disaster, and Exxon management knew it. It was in Exxon's view just too expensive to fix and operate.
Exxon - the owner of ill-equipped ship and employer of the crew - blamed Captain Hazelwood for Valdez disaster.
Other factors, according to an MIT course entitled "Software System Safety" included:
Tanker crews were not told that the previous practice of the Coast Guard tracking ships out to Bligh Reef had ceased.
The oil industry promised, but never installed, state-of-the-art iceberg monitoring equipment.
The Exxon Valdez was sailing outside the normal sea lane to avoid small icebergs thought to be in the area.
The 1989 tanker crew was half the size of the 1977 crew, worked 12–14 hour shifts, plus overtime.
The crew was rushing to leave Valdez with a load of oil.
Coast Guard tanker inspections in Valdez were not done, and the number of staff was reduced.
The moral of the story is to never trust Big Oil and to heavily regulate their greedy instincts.
Aside from the dereliction of duties by Captain Joseph Hazelwood, who was not at the controls when the ship struck the reef, there were many other areas of corporate negligence.
At the helm, the third mate never would have collided with Bligh Reef had he looked at his RAYCAS radar. But the radar was not turned on. The tanker's radar was left broken and disabled for more than a year before the disaster, and Exxon management knew it. It was in Exxon's view just too expensive to fix and operate.
Exxon - the owner of ill-equipped ship and employer of the crew - blamed Captain Hazelwood for Valdez disaster.
Other factors, according to an MIT course entitled "Software System Safety" included:
Tanker crews were not told that the previous practice of the Coast Guard tracking ships out to Bligh Reef had ceased.
The oil industry promised, but never installed, state-of-the-art iceberg monitoring equipment.
The Exxon Valdez was sailing outside the normal sea lane to avoid small icebergs thought to be in the area.
The 1989 tanker crew was half the size of the 1977 crew, worked 12–14 hour shifts, plus overtime.
The crew was rushing to leave Valdez with a load of oil.
Coast Guard tanker inspections in Valdez were not done, and the number of staff was reduced.
The moral of the story is to never trust Big Oil and to heavily regulate their greedy instincts.
91
The failure to waterproof the fuel tank vents after the fist time the fuel injectors got clogged in the engines of the tugboat is beyond inexcusable.
4
Never trust our government either to carry out what they are supposed to do... I think there is more to the story, too. The less than supreme court of the united states decided that Exxon shouldn't have to pay such a big fine (that might have cut into the retirement program of the corporate executives).
5
Mr. Nocera points out that Royal Dutch Shell pulled out of wind and solar developments because they lacked expertise in those industries. It sounds as if they don't yet have the expertise to drill in the inhospitable environment of the Arctic Ocean.
The role that the Coast Guard played in rescuing the crew and equipment suggests to me that we are paying for the backup to allow the company to experiment in this dangerous form of drilling. If they ever develop the needed expertise, will taxpayers share in the benefits the corporation reaps?
That the Coast Guard investigation found that the company took dangerous shortcuts is also not surprising. We may as well accept that, when a disaster happens, we will also pay to mitigate its impact.
Not all government regulation is bad and not all profit-seeking by corporations is good. Maybe we need to invest in government that can regulate more effectively.
The role that the Coast Guard played in rescuing the crew and equipment suggests to me that we are paying for the backup to allow the company to experiment in this dangerous form of drilling. If they ever develop the needed expertise, will taxpayers share in the benefits the corporation reaps?
That the Coast Guard investigation found that the company took dangerous shortcuts is also not surprising. We may as well accept that, when a disaster happens, we will also pay to mitigate its impact.
Not all government regulation is bad and not all profit-seeking by corporations is good. Maybe we need to invest in government that can regulate more effectively.
10
"If, two decades from now, we need it, maybe by then the industry and the government will be in a position to drill for it — and regulate it — safely" This is a fine thought but, if we don't actively drill and regulate in the Arctic (which for much of the open water season is not "dark") how will we develop the skills to operate safely?
1
We don't have to wait a decade or two to realize we don't need Arctic Circle oil. We know that today. For our own well-being and survival, we *can't* need all that fossil fuel.
Energy change is not about "maybe" -- it is an imperative.
Energy change is not about "maybe" -- it is an imperative.
59
By Nocera's logic, we don't need to take our umbrella when we leave the house because it isn't raining right now, even if there are storm clouds on the horizon.
We can only hope we move past oil before we need the Arctic reserves, but history isn't on our side. Developing the technology and infrastructure to safely explore for Arctic oil will take years or decades. Just because oil today is $55 doesn't tell us anything about oil prices in 2020, and if we need Arctic oil in two decades, we can't wait even one decade to develop the technology.
There are storm clouds on the horizon. We continue to fight wars to obtain the oil that drives our economy and way of life. We are making limited progress on reducing demand, but continued population growth and emerging markets moving out of poverty continues to makes oil look like a scarce resource.
We can only hope we move past oil before we need the Arctic reserves, but history isn't on our side. Developing the technology and infrastructure to safely explore for Arctic oil will take years or decades. Just because oil today is $55 doesn't tell us anything about oil prices in 2020, and if we need Arctic oil in two decades, we can't wait even one decade to develop the technology.
There are storm clouds on the horizon. We continue to fight wars to obtain the oil that drives our economy and way of life. We are making limited progress on reducing demand, but continued population growth and emerging markets moving out of poverty continues to makes oil look like a scarce resource.
2
Just a fact check. I thought the article said the Kulluk went aground in the Gulf of Alaska after leaving Dutch Harbor to go to Seattle (not the Beaufort Sea or the Chukchi). And, Shell had the option of leaving in Dutch Harbor over the winter,
Come on, Joe, you missed the real irony here: As you yourself point out, the arctic weather is becoming dangerously unpredictable because of climate change. And what is causing that climate change? The burning of fossil fuels, like oil!
6
Psychology of decision making: if your salary is 6 digits, you might ask for advice, then ignore it. If your salary is nearing 7 digits, you are so big and important you no longer need advice.
Sunny Louisiana boys made the decisions about the Arctic venture.
Sunny Louisiana boys made the decisions about the Arctic venture.
4
What is the moral of the Kulluk? Very simply, it is that hubris and greed remain a very basic and fundamental part of the human condition.
6
Off topic, I know, but if you need further proof of this just wait until our new Congress swings into action, starting today.
1
"Shell had once embraced climate change and the need for renewable energy. But it eventually realized that it lacked the proper expertise, and it got rid of its investments in wind and solar to refocus on oil and gas. Now, like every other big oil company, it must explore for oil in evermore hostile environments, because those are the only fields left untapped."
What a shameful story. Rather than ramp up to a profitable enterprise in clean energy, they abandoned it to embrace the old and reject the new.
In addition, they ignored the very real probability that all of science and physics might be right, that fossil emissions of heat-trapping greenhouse gases (global warming, unfortunately a misleading term) are a danger to our planet's circulatory system, resulting in climate changing in big and small ways.
Another thing I've noticed as I worry and go on reflecting on the problems of communicating the dangers of our headlong path to ever more dangerous big fossil instead of modernizing and cleaning up our act, is the extreme difficulty of doing anything in polar realms.
We are misled by the increase in observations, some by satellite, into thinking that things are "safer" there. It is, even in a warming state, and even because of the warming state, a home to extremes, and any kind of work or observation there has to be done under difficult conditions.
Those exploiting the shortage of long-term observations at the poles miss the point: the difficulty has not gone away.
What a shameful story. Rather than ramp up to a profitable enterprise in clean energy, they abandoned it to embrace the old and reject the new.
In addition, they ignored the very real probability that all of science and physics might be right, that fossil emissions of heat-trapping greenhouse gases (global warming, unfortunately a misleading term) are a danger to our planet's circulatory system, resulting in climate changing in big and small ways.
Another thing I've noticed as I worry and go on reflecting on the problems of communicating the dangers of our headlong path to ever more dangerous big fossil instead of modernizing and cleaning up our act, is the extreme difficulty of doing anything in polar realms.
We are misled by the increase in observations, some by satellite, into thinking that things are "safer" there. It is, even in a warming state, and even because of the warming state, a home to extremes, and any kind of work or observation there has to be done under difficult conditions.
Those exploiting the shortage of long-term observations at the poles miss the point: the difficulty has not gone away.
9
The purpose of an oil company is to make a profit at the lowest possible cost. They have no incentive to care about the environment if they are not regulated. At present, neither the oil companies, our system of laws and regulations or the technology are sufficiently advanced to drill in the arctic. Precautionary principle, when in doubt, don't.
44
Shell Oil depended on the resources of the U.S. Coast Guard to save its employees and equipment. When Shell returns, the dependency will continue. In exchange, for these and other extraordinary services the U. S. Government should not only charge Shell the direct cost for those services, but it should also collect some significant share of the eventual revenue from the oil fields.
181
Yes, another example of public funding for private enterprise, like manufacturing that abandons wastes to be cleaned up by Superfund and other federal and state funds.
2
More corporate welfare.
Do you extend your comment to other sea ventures, even airplanes perhaps.
We are addicted to oil and will do anything to get it. We could understand this better using the economics of addiction.
33
Hmmm: 23 billion barrels in the Arctic at wold consumption of 80 million per day is less than 300 days of oil for what risk?
59
"One of the reasons this remote location is at least theoretically accessible to oil companies is because of climate change."
Ah, such irony.
Ah, such irony.
38
These same seas crushed and swallowed a US whaling fleet hunting for oil a century and a half ago. We have grown only in arrogance.
The whole universe is made of energy, and we have only scratched the surface of quantum mechanics. We will blow it all because we are insane.
The whole universe is made of energy, and we have only scratched the surface of quantum mechanics. We will blow it all because we are insane.
51
Scientifically ignorant people have always seemed insane in hindsight. With the speed of everything today we sadly don't have time for enough folks to wake up...
"We have grown only in arrogance." ----- Truer words were never spoken. Thank you, Mr. Bolger, for your excellent comment.
Whether it's Exxon, BP or Shell, or some other big corporation, they hide behind a phalanx of lawyers and deny the reckless risks they regularly take in defiance of regulations or laws because it lowers their profit margin or simply because they know that the odds are in their favor that the legal liability will be relatively inconsequential. It's "bottom line" corporate think which disregards any ethical values or sense of responsibility. The distopian future is knocking on our door now.
60
And they appoint judges to rule blindly in their favor when they dominate the political process too.
33
They skipped out of town, Dutch Harbour, with the rig to avoid $6 million in taxes and ended up loosing a $1 billion in taxes. One of many things that where poorly planned in that operation but not unlike early American adventures in the Arctic in the 19th century, poorly conceived with little understanding of the environment. Based on a lack of knowledge then and hubris today.
The Gulf disaster was about squeezing $40 million dollars, a cost overrun, off the cost of one well and ended up spending $5 billion. Strangely close to the total cost of the Shell fiasco in the Arctic.
The oil industry trips over millions and ends up loosing billions in the trade.
They will do anything to cut costs especially in the Arctic where the daily costs are so high. The goals are clear, drill and cut costs, hence the use of an un-certified component in the towing setup and the gamble on going north to spud two holes in the first place. They ran out of season but they did spud two holes. A success before they lost the rig. Prudence never takes the prize with those folks.
The Gulf disaster was about squeezing $40 million dollars, a cost overrun, off the cost of one well and ended up spending $5 billion. Strangely close to the total cost of the Shell fiasco in the Arctic.
The oil industry trips over millions and ends up loosing billions in the trade.
They will do anything to cut costs especially in the Arctic where the daily costs are so high. The goals are clear, drill and cut costs, hence the use of an un-certified component in the towing setup and the gamble on going north to spud two holes in the first place. They ran out of season but they did spud two holes. A success before they lost the rig. Prudence never takes the prize with those folks.
1
Dear Mr. Nocera,
One only has to do the math (23 billion times whatever oil is selling for is a large amount of money) and realize that as oil per barrel has dropped in price, so, too, it shall rise someday making the 23 billion barrels a very worthy commodity.
It is especially appealing if "regulators" shy away from really dangerous places to, well, regulate as it sounds this area of the Arctic Circle might be quite dangerous to life and limb (Nobody wants to drown while figuring out if Shell is dotting i's and crossing t's; just let 'em "drill, baby"!).
The drilling is, apparently, worth the risks as even Shell understands one primary thing; the earth WILL run out of oil at some time while the demand for "cheap" energy just keeps increasing.
Welcome to the 21st Century, still powering itself primarily on 20th Century combustibles and still at the whims of a commodity sold for as much money as possible to benefit the people who own the means of energy production. In the U.S.A., it's anybody with the money, political backing and power to pull it off; profit trumps national security any day of the week (Seems we've all forgotten the 1973 oil boycott and it's disastrous effects on the economy).
Just hope, Mr. Nocera, that they don't find a means of drilling oil out of journalists such as yourself; an oil derrick protruding from one's head makes wearing a hat, even a Stetson, hard to do!
One only has to do the math (23 billion times whatever oil is selling for is a large amount of money) and realize that as oil per barrel has dropped in price, so, too, it shall rise someday making the 23 billion barrels a very worthy commodity.
It is especially appealing if "regulators" shy away from really dangerous places to, well, regulate as it sounds this area of the Arctic Circle might be quite dangerous to life and limb (Nobody wants to drown while figuring out if Shell is dotting i's and crossing t's; just let 'em "drill, baby"!).
The drilling is, apparently, worth the risks as even Shell understands one primary thing; the earth WILL run out of oil at some time while the demand for "cheap" energy just keeps increasing.
Welcome to the 21st Century, still powering itself primarily on 20th Century combustibles and still at the whims of a commodity sold for as much money as possible to benefit the people who own the means of energy production. In the U.S.A., it's anybody with the money, political backing and power to pull it off; profit trumps national security any day of the week (Seems we've all forgotten the 1973 oil boycott and it's disastrous effects on the economy).
Just hope, Mr. Nocera, that they don't find a means of drilling oil out of journalists such as yourself; an oil derrick protruding from one's head makes wearing a hat, even a Stetson, hard to do!
7
"Maybe we’ll never need it at all." I hope it is not a maybe but a certainty.
9
There is more to burn than the planet can take.
6
Until the government stops subsidizing oil companies they will continue to rape the earth for the largest profits of any industry.
80
If you own mutual funds, you have a stake in the oil industry yourself.
1
The actions of Shell described in this article are clear evidence of the energy companies' lack of commitment to protecting the environment and the human inhabitants of the Earth. They would have done much better seeking the low-lying fruit of energy efficiency that is largely based upon off-the-shelf technology and is proven to be effective. With the advances in battery storage systems, solar and wind energy will become more competitive and reliable. There are already off-the-shelf technologies and more that will come online to make battery storage cost-effective. Here we have yet another example of the energy giants scheming to avoid any responsibility for containing, if not reversing global warming. They are the ones we most need to guard against, not the individual voices of climate-change deniers.
125
So, no to 'big things'? Without 'kulluk's', progress would never happen. You live and learn.
1
You think they will learn something this time? That would be a change.
13
No to big dangerous things. And to silly little ones, like straw men.
6
The big oil companies have no interest in learning anything at any time, they just want big profits. Why do we think they will change? They clearly don't want to change and hoping they change is foolish. They will not change and we need to understand that and stop their obstruction of alternative sources while they continue to take taxpayer $.
1
No one is going to develop the technology to drill for oil in the Arctic if no one is drilling for oil in the Arctic. And writing (sensible) regulations has always been reactive: no one can plan for unknown unknowns. But don't worry: with the Republicans in control of the US government and austerity fever still gripping Europe demand for oil is likely to remain slack for a decade or more. Losing billions in finding oil that cannot be profitably extracted will keep the rigs out of the arctic until this changes.
16
Stephan: I would try not to mix political labels ("Republicans", "austerity fever") into everything, if it is possible. I would try to push renewables as hard as possible, but I would not try to stop efforts for "plan B". Banning people's activity is simple, just pen and paper. Actually doing/building something is much harder.
Shell wants to learn how to drill in Arctic - let them learn. This is what they know how to do, banning them will not (I think) make them plant trees. Trees need to be planted, but this is another story, support "tree planting guys" but do not shoot the others. Also, never mind gasoline, we all need oil also for plastics and such. And yes, world without gasoline and plastics would be very nice, just check poverty and mortality numbers for periods when that stuff was not available. I would really aim for a rational middle ground.
Shell wants to learn how to drill in Arctic - let them learn. This is what they know how to do, banning them will not (I think) make them plant trees. Trees need to be planted, but this is another story, support "tree planting guys" but do not shoot the others. Also, never mind gasoline, we all need oil also for plastics and such. And yes, world without gasoline and plastics would be very nice, just check poverty and mortality numbers for periods when that stuff was not available. I would really aim for a rational middle ground.
2
Szafran, If Plan A is to work for a living, and Plan B is to rob from our neighbors, should we all invest some of our time in Plan B even while primarily pursuing Plan A, just in case? Destroying that arctic to gain the oil whose burning will destroy the Earth's ecology is less sane than destroying the neighbor's house to find the jewelry to sell to the fence who then gets busted and turns you in, followed by some years in jail. Once done with the jail term, you still have some chance to turn things around. Climate change is a life sentence at best.
2
Beth, the way I see it, being radical often works against the cause. I also seethe when listening to people who deny the gravity of climate change (we just had the warmest year on record here in Poland, 2014 summer temps were not something the infrastructure of the country is designed for). But some people will not/can not accept the sacrifices necessary for drastic weaning off oil, this is just an objective fact. So I think we (meaning humanity) have to compromise.
You can build solar/wind (Poland last week was producing 13% of electricity from wind, I mean produce, not just have installed), but you need a humming economy to develop all necessary alternative infrastructure. And for this you need oil for yet many years. I see no way around, I wish there was (dictatorship? Eeee, maybe not...)
Having said that, there are plenty of things which should be done to promote renewables, this will be (everywhere) a hard enough fight and work, and I would concentrate on that, with as little divisive fighting as possible.
You can build solar/wind (Poland last week was producing 13% of electricity from wind, I mean produce, not just have installed), but you need a humming economy to develop all necessary alternative infrastructure. And for this you need oil for yet many years. I see no way around, I wish there was (dictatorship? Eeee, maybe not...)
Having said that, there are plenty of things which should be done to promote renewables, this will be (everywhere) a hard enough fight and work, and I would concentrate on that, with as little divisive fighting as possible.
There is a significant chance that there will be shortage of oil in a not-so-distant future. I would think it is better to explore and practice recovery today, than to do it in haste, cutting corners, tomorrow. If there are companies willing to pay for this today, even with (I am afraid temporary) low oil prices - great. These companies should be helped to do it responsibly, instead of barring them from trying (will this ban hold when oil shoots over 200$/barrel?).
It is obvious that every effort should be put into renewable energy sources and other actions to limit oil use (that gas tax?), but we all will need oil for a long time in any case. So why stop people who actually want to try and have resources to do it from trying to provide us all some insurance?
It is obvious that every effort should be put into renewable energy sources and other actions to limit oil use (that gas tax?), but we all will need oil for a long time in any case. So why stop people who actually want to try and have resources to do it from trying to provide us all some insurance?
1
Good, rational piece.
I read the Kulluk story on Sunday, as well; and while the message Mr. Funk telegraphs by the story was pretty transparent, it was a compelling message: this really isn't meant to be ... for now. Maybe forever.
But who knows? The premise to the efforts Shell took to make it work in the teeth of immense expense and high risk was that they needed to demonstrate reserves to the world that determines stock prices; and if the Beaufort Sea really represents one of the last huge oilfields, doing enough work to in effect ready it for tapping when the need comes and the price of oil rises enough to make it financial sensible ... could be irresistible.
Could be an argument for more billions spent and for Kulluk II. Could also be an argument for figuring out how to frack an underwater oilfield from onshore facilities that could be built and operated far less riskily 12 miles away.
But it all really seems moot. Oil companies right and left are announcing dramatically lower exploration investments due to a price of oil that continues its 2014 drop in the first few days of 2015. And the Obama administration is unlikely to look favorably on Shell's continued explorations in the area anyway, given their apparent unpreparedness with Kulluk.
Leave it in the ground.
I read the Kulluk story on Sunday, as well; and while the message Mr. Funk telegraphs by the story was pretty transparent, it was a compelling message: this really isn't meant to be ... for now. Maybe forever.
But who knows? The premise to the efforts Shell took to make it work in the teeth of immense expense and high risk was that they needed to demonstrate reserves to the world that determines stock prices; and if the Beaufort Sea really represents one of the last huge oilfields, doing enough work to in effect ready it for tapping when the need comes and the price of oil rises enough to make it financial sensible ... could be irresistible.
Could be an argument for more billions spent and for Kulluk II. Could also be an argument for figuring out how to frack an underwater oilfield from onshore facilities that could be built and operated far less riskily 12 miles away.
But it all really seems moot. Oil companies right and left are announcing dramatically lower exploration investments due to a price of oil that continues its 2014 drop in the first few days of 2015. And the Obama administration is unlikely to look favorably on Shell's continued explorations in the area anyway, given their apparent unpreparedness with Kulluk.
Leave it in the ground.
13
They need to increase proven reserves because this is what the stock price is based on. The International Energy Agency's 2012 World Energy Outlook states "No more than one-third of proven reserves of fossil fuels can be consumed prior to2050 if the world is to achieve the 2°C goal."
So increasing proven reserves must be stopped, they can not be burned if we are to have coastal cities and current agricultural production. Ignoring this will not just collapse the oil industry, it will collapse western civilization.
So increasing proven reserves must be stopped, they can not be burned if we are to have coastal cities and current agricultural production. Ignoring this will not just collapse the oil industry, it will collapse western civilization.
12
Uh ... It will collapse all civilization!
The two environmental problems that garner the most attention now are the rise in atmospheric CO2 due to the burning of fossil fuels, and "global" warming. Both would be greatly mitigated if oil exploration in the arctic were delayed until a time when the now arctic region has a climate as ice free as the Gulf of Mexico has now. That exploration rig would not have been lost if conditions in Alaska waters were like the Gulf. Minus the hurricanes, of course. Maybe in a couple of decades or a couple of generations nature will be more forgiving up there.
Two problems? Do you think global warming is something other than a side-effect of the rise in CO2? Please explain what.
Holy cow! By then if it's any more livable up there, it'll be unlivable down here! Be careful what you wish for ....
1
Nicely put, Mr. Nocera.
-- As a Sierra Club volunteer I labored to block oil development in wild lands around Yellowstone and Jackson Hole in the 1970's -'80's.
-- 'Where is the right place?' When? Whether it is a good thing or not, recent advances in onshore drilling and extraction technology (including, but not only, hydraulic fracturing) have cast doubt on the idea you repeat, that eventually remote regions of the planet will be drilled. Perhaps new "places" for fuel can be found on already-travelled ground.
-- As a Sierra Club volunteer I labored to block oil development in wild lands around Yellowstone and Jackson Hole in the 1970's -'80's.
-- 'Where is the right place?' When? Whether it is a good thing or not, recent advances in onshore drilling and extraction technology (including, but not only, hydraulic fracturing) have cast doubt on the idea you repeat, that eventually remote regions of the planet will be drilled. Perhaps new "places" for fuel can be found on already-travelled ground.
2
I read the story last week - loved it...seems to me the example of RDS is so similar to how our own elected representatives run our country.....I visualized that and had to laugh.... just sayin.....we out in the body politic bleachers need to look at our own Kulluk adrift in Washington and learn from this......
3
Consider the vast amount of money spent over any 5-year period for developing oil and gas fields. If some fraction of that money, like several hundred $Billion, had been spent in an all-out effort to develop a working nuclear fusion plant, we could see immediate reductions in the use of oil, gas, coal, and no need for windmills or solar power either. Besides which, whereas coal-fired electric utilities, even gas-fired or oil-fired, emit toxic pollutants, nuclear plants generally don;t pose radioactive danger, and only create 'heat' pollution. However, even one fusion powered electric plant could replace perhaps dozens of ordinary power plants. It would emit no toxic chemicals or dust. Electricity could be distributed using super-cooled electric lines, which have almost zero resistance, generating no loss as heat whatever. Our energy problems would instantly be solved!
3
Lockheed's "Skunk Works" is suggesting that they've figured out how to build small, cheap fusion power plants. No one else seems to have such hopes. Two people at MIT are proposing nuclear fission plants that don't waste expensive uranium and would otherwise be vastly more desirable than the big plants we now have.
1
Fusion power has been "20 years in the future" for decades, and will remain so; unless you believe the fairy-tales of the fusion flacks. The multiple laser design is a huge kluge with no chance of being economically viable or generating continuous power cheaply. The tokomaks haven't panned out. Fusion plants themselves will become massively radioactive, due to neutron irradiation of the reactor blanket. As for the cost of super-cooled superconductive power lines, you obviously have no idea of what you're talking about.
We're probably a good deal closer to solar-catalyzed hydrolysis of water to hydrogen and oxygen - clean power, storable power. And without centralization.
We're probably a good deal closer to solar-catalyzed hydrolysis of water to hydrogen and oxygen - clean power, storable power. And without centralization.
There is a fundamental reason that plasma fusion reactors have to be very big. Hot plasmas tend to radiate away heat as x-rays as fast as it can be added with neutral beam injectors. The only effective insulator to contain these x-rays is more plasma to absorb them. That is why the ITER reactor under construction to demonstrate a positive energy yield from fusion is so huge.
Obviously the oil industry has learned a lot since that unfortunate affair with BP in the Gulf of Mexico. And the necessary regulatory functions of government have strong political support.
Drill, baby, drill cuz the planet is already up the creek so get in on the last bonanza.
Drill, baby, drill cuz the planet is already up the creek so get in on the last bonanza.
2
There is not a lot in human history that suggests any meaningful shift to renewable energy sources will take place short of governmental action to encourage it.
The positive results of such action can be seen here in Germany with the rise of wind and solar power creating tens of thousands of in your face, great jobs, Today ... In huge, brand spanking new facilities in my region and my town. Employment at an all time high according to the evening news, particularly in manufacture. Little people like me have jobs with benefits and decent pay. Not in theory, not someplace else.
But alas, the GOP political and propaganda branches of the US government know better than any of that fluffy stuff. It is abundantly clear that for the price paid, they will spare Amur'ca the indignity of long term sustainable energy jobs, energy security and the chance to make a dent in global warming.
The positive results of such action can be seen here in Germany with the rise of wind and solar power creating tens of thousands of in your face, great jobs, Today ... In huge, brand spanking new facilities in my region and my town. Employment at an all time high according to the evening news, particularly in manufacture. Little people like me have jobs with benefits and decent pay. Not in theory, not someplace else.
But alas, the GOP political and propaganda branches of the US government know better than any of that fluffy stuff. It is abundantly clear that for the price paid, they will spare Amur'ca the indignity of long term sustainable energy jobs, energy security and the chance to make a dent in global warming.
71
Lars, note that the Times stories on renewable energy ordinarily (almost always?) focus on some negative effect. Just as bad, the stories and even your comment only name wind and solar to the total exclusion of other established technologies going strong in Sweden for 50 years.
This problem is evident with Nocera. Here in a departure from his usual practice he does write about environmental concerns but you will never read anything in Nocera about the standard technologies that heat much of Sweden.
Only-NeverInSweden.blogspot.com
This problem is evident with Nocera. Here in a departure from his usual practice he does write about environmental concerns but you will never read anything in Nocera about the standard technologies that heat much of Sweden.
Only-NeverInSweden.blogspot.com
6
Does Sweden still have a lot of hydro? Nuclear (Barsebäck etc)? Kampen går vidare?
Is this the same Germany that is building 25 new coal fired generating plants and dramatically increasing mining of dirty coal (lignite) because they shut down 8 nuclear power plants and renewables were too expensive and insufficient to power their industries and meet domestic requirements? Germany is the poster child of the failure of renewable energy.
The world can't afford to extract and burn another 23 billion barrels of oil or 23 billion cubic metres of tar sand or 23 billion tonnes of coal!
Please Mr Nocera get on board with the people who know that this is not possible without causing irreversible global warming.
The only thing Shell and the other major oil companies are going to end up with are a lot of stranded assets in more ways than one!
Please Mr Nocera get on board with the people who know that this is not possible without causing irreversible global warming.
The only thing Shell and the other major oil companies are going to end up with are a lot of stranded assets in more ways than one!
16
Without question oil companies are addicted to their model and taking greater risks. Shell is the poster child for this insatiable quest for oil along with the fracking industry – the ultimate consequences of which are entirely unknown.
What I don't see is significant change in the habits of people in this country to change our consumption, how much we pollute, and to be more conservation minded – I accept that there are many people who are, but no where near enough.
And to make matters worse the rest of the world is following our capitalist and consumption model – one example: the Indian auto maker TATA making a very affordable and polluting car for the masses.
Imagine this world in twenty five years with another billion or so cars belching exhaust on a daily basis.
Last time I checked we didn't have a back up planet.
I am a devout believer in evolution, however I am starting to question its efficacy when it comes to learning from the past and our mistakes.
What I don't see is significant change in the habits of people in this country to change our consumption, how much we pollute, and to be more conservation minded – I accept that there are many people who are, but no where near enough.
And to make matters worse the rest of the world is following our capitalist and consumption model – one example: the Indian auto maker TATA making a very affordable and polluting car for the masses.
Imagine this world in twenty five years with another billion or so cars belching exhaust on a daily basis.
Last time I checked we didn't have a back up planet.
I am a devout believer in evolution, however I am starting to question its efficacy when it comes to learning from the past and our mistakes.
8
The only way to change people's habits is with a carbon fee or tax, just like with cigarettes. Make something more expensive, and people use less. There are many ways to achieve this without pricing out the pie. The fee can be returned to the poor to offset heating costs, etc.
To get new solutions, Government incentives and regulations can drive innovations and new industries, promoting renewables.
We need both now. We need to stop ignoring the elephant in the room. Human caused global warming is real and we need to take action to stop it. NOW.
To get new solutions, Government incentives and regulations can drive innovations and new industries, promoting renewables.
We need both now. We need to stop ignoring the elephant in the room. Human caused global warming is real and we need to take action to stop it. NOW.
9
Keep the faith, evolution works, just not as fast as hoped. I advise my desendant's to invest in higher ground.
1
"Despite spending $6 billion preparing to explore for oil in this remote part of the world, Shell didn’t plan adequately, and it cut too many corners. According to the Coast Guard, which investigated the Kulluk disaster, not only had Shell’s risk management been “inadequate,” but there also had been a significant number of “potential violations of law and regulations.”
Same old story. Sounds a lot like the BP Deepwater Horizon disaster, but if the same thing happened in the Arctic, the blowout could never be sealed. Remember those videos of the BP blowout? Imagine the endless blowout of the future. Provided by those "smartest guys in the room" at an insatiable corporate oil conglomerate who couldn't care less about he demise of all life on the North Pole.
Same old story. Sounds a lot like the BP Deepwater Horizon disaster, but if the same thing happened in the Arctic, the blowout could never be sealed. Remember those videos of the BP blowout? Imagine the endless blowout of the future. Provided by those "smartest guys in the room" at an insatiable corporate oil conglomerate who couldn't care less about he demise of all life on the North Pole.
34
Well said. The risks, with current technology, seem to outweigh any benefit; true particularly now that speculators are unable to keep oil prices at a ridiculously high level, thanks in part to the world's economic contraction and an over-abundance of oil, exceeding its demand for the foreseeable future. As an aside, let's hope we won't splurge on this cheap liquid at the cost of fouling our environment (acid oceans, climate change) by not investing in, and improving, alternative sources of energy.
2
With the issue of government being "up to the task of regulating such high-risk ventures," I can only be reminded of the 2 1/2 million miles of fuel related piping criss-crossing the U.S. Millions of miles of large bore (5 inch and larger) piping and most of it more than 50 years old! Over 50 years old and almost none of the pipe is made of stainless steel. Ever see what happens to carbon steel after years of being exposed to the elements? Con Edison, New York's mammoth utility company, admits to the use of natural gas mains, made of cast-iron, that were installed in 1887 are still in use.
Oil companies, just like American banks, can and will do whatever they want, whenever they want. Shell Oil is trying to get a foothold in this part of the Arctic just as Chevron did in Alaska's Northslope back in the 60's. Tragic consequences will come to the area if history is any lesson and I truly doubt that any oil company's R and D departments have discovered a new and effective method of mitigating any spills much as the BP Gulf disaster demonstrated. It all reminds one of what President George W. Bush once said about Exxon's upper management: "...nobody tells those guys what to do."
Oil companies, just like American banks, can and will do whatever they want, whenever they want. Shell Oil is trying to get a foothold in this part of the Arctic just as Chevron did in Alaska's Northslope back in the 60's. Tragic consequences will come to the area if history is any lesson and I truly doubt that any oil company's R and D departments have discovered a new and effective method of mitigating any spills much as the BP Gulf disaster demonstrated. It all reminds one of what President George W. Bush once said about Exxon's upper management: "...nobody tells those guys what to do."
13
If I were an oil company, I'd start thinking about more than oil extraction. Rather, I'd get in the electricity/renewable business. Imagine if Shell and Exxon Mobil began massive investments in solar farms or wind farms and sold that electricity to utilities. Environmental risk? Little--in fact, good environmental "bragging rights". Investment outlook? Safe investment, not a high amount of risk. It would definitely help with reducing carbon emissions and shutting down fossil fuel plants (or moving those plants to base power). And since these oil companies would own the production of energy, they wouldn't go out of business.
By my rough estimates, Shell could've taken that six billion and build a 4000+ MW wind farm. For reference, the biggest wind farm in the U.S. is currently 1,320 MW, with planned final capacity of 3,000 MW.
Of course, investors want high return immediately, which is what oil and gas bring.
By my rough estimates, Shell could've taken that six billion and build a 4000+ MW wind farm. For reference, the biggest wind farm in the U.S. is currently 1,320 MW, with planned final capacity of 3,000 MW.
Of course, investors want high return immediately, which is what oil and gas bring.
24
You're not going to get 'immediate high returns' from drilling in the High Arctic because - at the moment - there is no way to economically move the stuff to market. Look at the oil and gas reserves in the Canadian Beaufort-Mackenzie Basin that were discovered three decades ago. Not a drop has moved because there are no pipelines to move the stuff south. Ditto for the large gas reserves proven up by Panarctic at about the same time in the Canadian Arctic Archipelago.
Given the storms and ice of the Arctic, perhaps the platform should be built on the sea bottom after we develop the submarine and underwater technology to do this. This might take a generation or two, and more money than Shell has or our government is allowed to spend. Our government is allowed to spend huge sums of development money only on weapons systems that often turn out poorly, and not on basic or applied research and technology or on anything that might threaten a profit-making business.
Big Oil is no better at cleaning up oil spills since a generation ago because they have chosen not to spend much money researching the topic and no governments make them. They are used to being sloppy because most governments let them be sloppy and occasionally slap them on the wrist. They forgot or did not notice that the Arctic will penalize sloppiness, carelessness, or hubris and cannot be bribed to look the other way.
Does Shell still embrace climate change and the need for renewable energy now that it is clear that renewable energy and conservation are Big Oil's chief competitors rather than growing company divisions? The American Dental Association used to push fluoridation of water because they thought it reduced cavities; these days, no trade association would be so insane. Much more typical would be Big Oil acting like Big Coal does.
Big Oil is no better at cleaning up oil spills since a generation ago because they have chosen not to spend much money researching the topic and no governments make them. They are used to being sloppy because most governments let them be sloppy and occasionally slap them on the wrist. They forgot or did not notice that the Arctic will penalize sloppiness, carelessness, or hubris and cannot be bribed to look the other way.
Does Shell still embrace climate change and the need for renewable energy now that it is clear that renewable energy and conservation are Big Oil's chief competitors rather than growing company divisions? The American Dental Association used to push fluoridation of water because they thought it reduced cavities; these days, no trade association would be so insane. Much more typical would be Big Oil acting like Big Coal does.
3
Sooner or later we are going to have to take a big foot into the energy questions of the future. It can be delayed, at our peril, but somewhere over the horizon, decisions are going to have to be made about which way we go.
Markets, with their dynamic aspects, generally make better decisions than we can, but the need for decisive change will press upon us until either disaster strikes or we wake up to the necessity of directing our own fate. Oil companies cannot pull back from doing what they are in business to do. Shell probably concluded that the money to be made from renewables was not even half of what they can rake in from oil.
It makes little sense to go after oil in ways that are almost certain to bring environmental disaster or the loss of many lives. Right now, since we are not fully heading toward a renewable future, no one can say STOP.
The world runs on energy. The western economies run on cheap energy. Everything about modern life is threatened if we fail to manage both our supplies and needs.
The poet Charles Bukowski had a vision of the collapse of the modern world:
and the banks will burn
money will be useless
there will be open and unpunished murder in the streets
it will be guns and roving mobs
land will be useless
food will become a diminishing return
nuclear power will be taken over by the many
explosions will continually shake the earth
radiated robot men will stalk each other
the rich and the chosen will watch from space platforms
Doug Terry
Markets, with their dynamic aspects, generally make better decisions than we can, but the need for decisive change will press upon us until either disaster strikes or we wake up to the necessity of directing our own fate. Oil companies cannot pull back from doing what they are in business to do. Shell probably concluded that the money to be made from renewables was not even half of what they can rake in from oil.
It makes little sense to go after oil in ways that are almost certain to bring environmental disaster or the loss of many lives. Right now, since we are not fully heading toward a renewable future, no one can say STOP.
The world runs on energy. The western economies run on cheap energy. Everything about modern life is threatened if we fail to manage both our supplies and needs.
The poet Charles Bukowski had a vision of the collapse of the modern world:
and the banks will burn
money will be useless
there will be open and unpunished murder in the streets
it will be guns and roving mobs
land will be useless
food will become a diminishing return
nuclear power will be taken over by the many
explosions will continually shake the earth
radiated robot men will stalk each other
the rich and the chosen will watch from space platforms
Doug Terry
4
Apocalyptic nonsense aside we have built in inhospitable seas before and no matter how we exaggerate the damage to the environment, technology will advance as long as there is oil is out there we will harvest it.
Meanwhile the sales of pick up trucks remain steady and SUV's are going up and they giving away midsized hybrids.
Meanwhile the sales of pick up trucks remain steady and SUV's are going up and they giving away midsized hybrids.
Joe G, you need to speak to Mr. Bukowski about "apocalyptic nonsense". Unfortunately, he's not available any more. I quoted him not because I agree with everything stated, but because I admire his poem, "Born into This".
I believe we will be using oil in one form or another 100 to 200 years from now. I don't believe we will bore to the center of the earth or travel to the moon to get it. I think we must realize, further, that nature rules the earth and we ultimately have to submit to those rules.
The fact that people are rushing out to buy big SUVs essentially proves nothing. They are very popular for their ability to intimidate other people out of the way, except when two SUVs are tailgating each other at 70 miles per hour, it doesn't work out so well. If you are interested, it is estimated by reliable sources that you are 5 times more likely to kill someone in an opposing car in a crash. That makes driving an SUV at normal speed something akin to going 140 mph in a car.
"Technology", by the way, does not answer the challenges of the seas, frozen islands of floating ice nor the limits of human beings to operate in that situation. Not being expert or studied on deep sea exploration, don't know whether the extreme northern regions are practical as places to take oil, but I do believe that we face a reckoning in the coming decades about how we are going to get and use enough energy to keep the wheels (all of them) turning.
Doug Terry
I believe we will be using oil in one form or another 100 to 200 years from now. I don't believe we will bore to the center of the earth or travel to the moon to get it. I think we must realize, further, that nature rules the earth and we ultimately have to submit to those rules.
The fact that people are rushing out to buy big SUVs essentially proves nothing. They are very popular for their ability to intimidate other people out of the way, except when two SUVs are tailgating each other at 70 miles per hour, it doesn't work out so well. If you are interested, it is estimated by reliable sources that you are 5 times more likely to kill someone in an opposing car in a crash. That makes driving an SUV at normal speed something akin to going 140 mph in a car.
"Technology", by the way, does not answer the challenges of the seas, frozen islands of floating ice nor the limits of human beings to operate in that situation. Not being expert or studied on deep sea exploration, don't know whether the extreme northern regions are practical as places to take oil, but I do believe that we face a reckoning in the coming decades about how we are going to get and use enough energy to keep the wheels (all of them) turning.
Doug Terry
1
Terry I find apocalyptic visions from the religious with or without god not based in reality. Even the nuns in my grade school down played the concept. We are not running out of oil. There's plenty in the ground and oceans to keep us going and we proved to Middle East we are willing to get it. So what's next from that part of the world besides lower oil prices.
SUV's are popular everywhere in the world even the cute ones are gas guzzlers compared to regular cars. People want them.
With so many countries dependent on the sale of oil do you think it would be wise to stop using it? Your absolutely wrong technology can solve these problems. As the article showed MBA's should not be allowed near equipment they don't understand or anything else.
There it is Doug, the real problem, not global warming, not an oil shortage but MBA's.
SUV's are popular everywhere in the world even the cute ones are gas guzzlers compared to regular cars. People want them.
With so many countries dependent on the sale of oil do you think it would be wise to stop using it? Your absolutely wrong technology can solve these problems. As the article showed MBA's should not be allowed near equipment they don't understand or anything else.
There it is Doug, the real problem, not global warming, not an oil shortage but MBA's.
I was a scholar and intern for Exxon and when I was young and impressionable the CEO explained to me that they were an energy company - not an oil company. They could easily adapt to the changes on Planet Earth through all time.
That struck me as a very intelligent response and strategy.
However, never have I once seen such dexterity exercised by this company since.
Never, not in all the oil booms and busts, not in all the economic cycles, not in the increasing realization of the devastating impact of climate change on the planet, have I ever witnessed any dexterity by Exxon to be an energy company.
They are an oil an gas company headquartered in Irving, TX. They can see as far as Houston.
They are led by old men who want to run out the clock on climate change. They wan't to die in their big homes and Cadillacs. They want to leave all the world's problems to the next generation.
The Moral of the Kulluk is we should't be draining the last reservoir of oil out of planet Earth to cause more droughts and floods and famines to cover the rest of the Earth.
We should spend some of the hundreds of billions of resources developed on such to design renewable energy sources that don't produce such negative externalities.
Basic ideas like carbon taxes price externalities.
While that is a conservative Coasean economic theory of capturing externalities for the benefit of society, the more compelling conservative theory is get mine now.
That struck me as a very intelligent response and strategy.
However, never have I once seen such dexterity exercised by this company since.
Never, not in all the oil booms and busts, not in all the economic cycles, not in the increasing realization of the devastating impact of climate change on the planet, have I ever witnessed any dexterity by Exxon to be an energy company.
They are an oil an gas company headquartered in Irving, TX. They can see as far as Houston.
They are led by old men who want to run out the clock on climate change. They wan't to die in their big homes and Cadillacs. They want to leave all the world's problems to the next generation.
The Moral of the Kulluk is we should't be draining the last reservoir of oil out of planet Earth to cause more droughts and floods and famines to cover the rest of the Earth.
We should spend some of the hundreds of billions of resources developed on such to design renewable energy sources that don't produce such negative externalities.
Basic ideas like carbon taxes price externalities.
While that is a conservative Coasean economic theory of capturing externalities for the benefit of society, the more compelling conservative theory is get mine now.
58
I believe Joe got several facts wrong: he implies the Kullik ran aground in the Chukchi and Beaufort Seas. In fact, the Kullik drifted aground on Sitkalidak Island, which is in the Gulf of Alaska, a part of the Pacific Ocean. To say the Kullik "ran aground" implies it was under power. In fact, the Kullik was not self-powered. The Kullik drifted aground after it lost its connection with its tow boat. Although it is true the Chukchi and Beaufort Seas are more than 1,000 miles from Dutch Harbor, the island where the Kullik drifted aground is about 560 miles from Dutch Harbor. Sitkalidak island is also about 80 miles by sea from the port of Kodiak, Alaska.
4
The moral of this story, and others, is that there's a limit to how much pillaging, over-development, pollution and natural resource depletion the earth will tolerate before reminding us that she's not interested in anyone's bottom line.
15
Recent consensus estimates in climate science are that to avoid warming to the point of global catastrophe, no more than half the known reserves of fossil fuels can be used in the future. So, here we have a giant oil company that decides to "stick to its knitting" and try to tap very high risk, very high cost oil reserves in extremely unpredictable and unsafe conditions. For what? Presumably for a bet that some time in the future global economic growth will be high enough for oil prices to go back up and make these high-cost reserves profitable. But what if, before then, countries representing almost all of the global economy learn to grow with much less dependence on oil and other fossil fuels? Then Shell loses, but we all may win. But if not, and that oil becomes economically viable, then Shell may win, but we all will lose.
7
I have a hard time believeing the gov't would allow this , it makes me sick to see how corrurpt the gov't has become . we need another Ike or kennedy .
6
If Sports Illustrated had understood or had the vision that they could provide sports through various mediums perhaps ESPN would have been the SINetwork. But, apparently they were committed to providing a paper magazine only. So, it is sad to read about Shell oil: "Shell had once embraced climate change and the need for renewable energy. But it eventually realized that it lacked the proper expertise, and it got rid of its investments in wind and solar to refocus on oil and gas." If Shell and other oil/gas companies with so much wealth understood they are in the energy business and not just the oil/gas business they could become leaders in developing renewable energy. With the billions of dollars available the oil/gas industry does not lack the funds to gain the "proper expertise." What a cop out! And how terribly frustrating that those who could help us slowly convert to the use of less carbon are unwilling.
12
Non polluting, non water using, infinitely renewable wind and solar can do everything oil can do.
Without destroying the habitability of our ecosphere.
What's the question?
Without destroying the habitability of our ecosphere.
What's the question?
29
Have you heard of "stranded assets", Mr. Nocera? Most of the remaining hydrocarbon reserves, including oil in the Arctic, will have to be left unburned if the world is to avoid disastrous climate change and manage to deal with the problems caused by carbon dioxide already at record high concentrations in the atmosphere.
8
Mr Nocera, I share your view that an abundance of caution and forceful government regulation are necessary to protect against the long-term dangers of risky, wasteful, reckless, and dangerous oil drilling. I hope that you can discuss your beliefs with the columnist who wrote in this space a few weeks ago. I believe he even shares your last name.
2
Yes! Your last point is the most important. Whatever oil in the ground we forgo now remains a resource for future generations, if they really need it. By that time, it is probable they will be able to extract it far more safely.
2
My takeaway from reading various pieces about fracking, Arctic Exploration, etc. is that the fundamental problem is just plain drilling - not the toxic chemicals injected, not the hostile environment. It costs money to drill cleanly, and the majors have so much money, they can buy the government oversight (or lack thereof) they want. And they do. And they will continue to do so. It doesn't matter where the drilling happens - unless, perhaps the oil execs and their families are required to live over the drill sites and next to the pipelines, drink the water, etc. And next to the railroad tracks the crude gets shipped on.
30
If Shell won't work on renewable energy technologies, somebody needs to. This endangering lives, property, and the environment is out of hand. We have earthquakes every day in Oklahoma now because of fracking. Usually there is a loud bang, like a shotgun going off, followed by slight shaking. The bang is pretty scary. But today, about four-ten central time, there was a rumbling like I've never heard before, like thunder that wouldn't end. Then the house began to shake. The floor shook enough that it was hard to stand. My dog ran around crazy-like. Ten minutes later, it happened again, only harder. The windows rattled, lamps swung. According to a earthquake tracking website, those were the sixth and seventh Oklahoma earthquakes today.
Here's the thing. I've lived here almost forty years and there were no earthquakes until fracking came along. Now there are half a dozen a day. But the state, which is run by the oil companies, says the daily earthquakes have nothing to do with fracking. Yet, they don't have any other answers as to why a state that never had earthquakes had nearly 2,000 of them in 2014.
Here's the thing. I've lived here almost forty years and there were no earthquakes until fracking came along. Now there are half a dozen a day. But the state, which is run by the oil companies, says the daily earthquakes have nothing to do with fracking. Yet, they don't have any other answers as to why a state that never had earthquakes had nearly 2,000 of them in 2014.
155
Interesting that l haven't come across those stats on the # of earthquakes or rumbles per year.
Homeowners beware. Start reading your insurance policies. Earthquake coverage is excluded unless specifically added.
If your homes gets damaged now after one of those "earthquakes", don't count on the federal govt for assistance. With this current congress, if you are not a corporation, fend for yourself and don't expect any handouts.
Homeowners beware. Start reading your insurance policies. Earthquake coverage is excluded unless specifically added.
If your homes gets damaged now after one of those "earthquakes", don't count on the federal govt for assistance. With this current congress, if you are not a corporation, fend for yourself and don't expect any handouts.
10
Some Oklahomans do not live where there are earthquakes. They believe the oil companies, or like the prosperity they bring, or fear the economic problems the absence of fracking would bring.
The state is run by the oil companies only because Oklahomans want it that way or are afraid to change it. They make sure they have guns so they can fight off the Feds. The same guns would work against oil companies and the state government, but state politicians and officials are not worried and instead take pains to promote gun ownership.
The state is run by the oil companies only because Oklahomans want it that way or are afraid to change it. They make sure they have guns so they can fight off the Feds. The same guns would work against oil companies and the state government, but state politicians and officials are not worried and instead take pains to promote gun ownership.
3
Is the USGS (United States Geological Survey) monitoring earthquakes in fracking-fluid disposal areas? Perhaps you can try to find out.
6
Big companies typically have difficulty moving their business bases to new technologies, so Shell was probably wise to leave renewable energy to others.
The inability of government regulatory agencies, even in some developed countries, to ensure safe oil exploration raises questions as to whether governments should simply forbid oil explorations in areas with serious safety issues. It's looking increasingly as though sustainable energy, recently thought difficult and costly, may prove more affordable and easy than we would have hoped.
The inability of government regulatory agencies, even in some developed countries, to ensure safe oil exploration raises questions as to whether governments should simply forbid oil explorations in areas with serious safety issues. It's looking increasingly as though sustainable energy, recently thought difficult and costly, may prove more affordable and easy than we would have hoped.
18
What strikes me about this cautionary tale is that Shell (and it's not alone) lives on fossil fuel as the be-all-and-end-all of sustaining itself in the energy business. I know capitalism is supposed to be all about taking risks, but this seems totally foolhardy. Then again, who knows how much of the risk is encouraged, and ultimately borne, by a skewed tax structure. On a more level playing field, Shell would surely invest the $6 billion in alternatives to fossil fuels, of which there are plenty to choose from; perhaps the potential returns would be more modest, but the risk to its workers and contractors, and – ultimately even more important, to the climate itself – would be greatly reduced.
Mr. Nocera quoted the environmentalist Michael LeVine saying that climate change had opened up arctic waters to exploration but also to the unpredictability that makes it so risky. Precisely. That seems to me just one of Mother Nature’s more obvious reminders that we have to pay our dues for violating the only earth we have. He should extend his line of reasoning to the mining of tar sands, which may be safer for the people who extract the oil, but is just as big a threat to our climate. We can’t quit fossil fuels cold turkey, but the time to start freeing ourselves from dependence on them is now, not some undefined future date when we are really desperate.
Mr. Nocera quoted the environmentalist Michael LeVine saying that climate change had opened up arctic waters to exploration but also to the unpredictability that makes it so risky. Precisely. That seems to me just one of Mother Nature’s more obvious reminders that we have to pay our dues for violating the only earth we have. He should extend his line of reasoning to the mining of tar sands, which may be safer for the people who extract the oil, but is just as big a threat to our climate. We can’t quit fossil fuels cold turkey, but the time to start freeing ourselves from dependence on them is now, not some undefined future date when we are really desperate.
115
I would not worry about the oil sands or tar sands. At $50/bbl, those fields are now big boat anchors on the O&G companies that are operating in them. These fields only make sense when the price of oil is over $80/bbl. The process is energy/water intensive, requires expensive transportation, expensive cleanup and expensive processing to turn into fuel. You cannot get past basic chemistry or physics. I don't care how "efficient" they make the process.
1
Polluting the Arctic would be bad.
Polluting our fresh water with fracking chemicals is no better.
Fracking is not justified by the idea of putting off the pollution of the Arctic until later.
Polluting our fresh water with fracking chemicals is no better.
Fracking is not justified by the idea of putting off the pollution of the Arctic until later.
103
Shell was desperate to bolster proven reserves to please shareholders. Environmental risk was secondary.
While US regulation of offshore drilling is lamentable, Russia provides a good example of how bad it can get when there is no regulation, because of government collaboration. An estimated 30 million barrels of oil is spilled in Russia every year, 6 times the Deep water Horizon disaster, but every year!
With Congressional committees in the hands of the GOP, we will be moving inexorably toward the Russian model.
While US regulation of offshore drilling is lamentable, Russia provides a good example of how bad it can get when there is no regulation, because of government collaboration. An estimated 30 million barrels of oil is spilled in Russia every year, 6 times the Deep water Horizon disaster, but every year!
With Congressional committees in the hands of the GOP, we will be moving inexorably toward the Russian model.
165
Given what has happened to the Russian economy due to their dependence on the energy industry, what does that say about the structure of the U.S. economy? U.S. needs to get back in the business of INNOVATION and leave the dirty, unstable extractive businesses to other countries. The only businesses that withstand the test of time is the knowledge business.
Another note: there was a recent article about how O&G companies were using the state regulatory boards and the state courts to override the concerns of local townships and how the extraction industry was impacting them.
What I find confounding is WHY the regulatory boards in these states are NOT listening to their own constituents and what exactly are the O&G businesses doing to mitigate the concerns of the local townships who are directly in harms way. It is easy for the executives and boards of these companies to be carefree about their actions when they don't live in the communities affected by their decisions.
Another note: there was a recent article about how O&G companies were using the state regulatory boards and the state courts to override the concerns of local townships and how the extraction industry was impacting them.
What I find confounding is WHY the regulatory boards in these states are NOT listening to their own constituents and what exactly are the O&G businesses doing to mitigate the concerns of the local townships who are directly in harms way. It is easy for the executives and boards of these companies to be carefree about their actions when they don't live in the communities affected by their decisions.
1
I think of the oil reserves like Ali Baba's cave after the 40 thieves met with that workplace accident: he's got a cave full of treasure - but he doesn't know how much treasure is in the cave. What he does know is that the 40 thieves aren't putting more treasure in the cave, so if Ali Baba keeps spending it, the treasure will one day be gone.
For us, the cave is looking pretty close to empty: all the easy to reach treasure is pretty much gone. We've got to go to out-of-the-way, hard to get to places to locate more treasure.
In the story, Ali Baba used the treasure to start a business. We could use the remaining oil reserves to help ease a transition into renewable energy sources. Or, we can keep draining the reserves as fast as we can until suddenly the oil's gone. If that happens, it'll be too late to develop replacement energy sources and get them on-line. To use another example: what happened to the sardine industry in Monterey, California after the sardines disappeared?
For us, the cave is looking pretty close to empty: all the easy to reach treasure is pretty much gone. We've got to go to out-of-the-way, hard to get to places to locate more treasure.
In the story, Ali Baba used the treasure to start a business. We could use the remaining oil reserves to help ease a transition into renewable energy sources. Or, we can keep draining the reserves as fast as we can until suddenly the oil's gone. If that happens, it'll be too late to develop replacement energy sources and get them on-line. To use another example: what happened to the sardine industry in Monterey, California after the sardines disappeared?
49
In other words ....... Plan Ahead.
I'll drink to that.
I'll drink to that.
7