Shell commences Chukchi Sea drilling

[graciew]

Good that you can do this. But not everyone can. My part of the country is blessed with a limestone karst geology, so anywhere you drill, you’ll find water, and not too far down either. (People who purport to be able to “witch for water” never fail because of it. ) But it’s also true that the wind here is not capable, most of the time, of pulling water up from even a fairly shallow well. Water is heavy, and it takes a fair amount of force to lift even a thin stream. Windmills are geared down in order to get enough force. But days can go by without enough wind power to pump water. That’s why farmers around here abandoned windmills as soon as electricity became available. The power was stronger and more reliable.

Bless the land God gave us all. I learn much from your posts.
We manage the animals with the wimdmlls throughout our country and what we call Australian tanks from where water is distributed to the " bebidas" from where the animals drink.That would be the typical.

I do understand what you are.saying , just thinking aloud cause the simple also works for many. But often times they lack a simple windmill or a safe water pump.
But sometimes the obvious and simple escapes our attention.
Electricity lines are expensive to draw when the distance is long in rural areas and we do not have natural gas. But we have always managed well.The ranch itself is over 130 years old.
Only that I think of persons who.do not have the basics and share what I can.
Water is very basic. That was.my connection as I was watching my husband work.
Men and women who struggled in tough rural conditions have taught me a lot. In knowledge and spirit ,I mean.
Bless you ,Ridge.

 

[EmperorNapoleon]

When the US can come up with alternative energy that can replace what we currently do with fossil fuels and do it in a manner that is affordable for the average American and better for the planet, I’m all for it. The greatest challenge to that is probably going to be environmentalist themselves. Wind power? Wind turbines are ugly and they kill birds. Hydro? Hydro affects the ability of fish to move to their spawning grounds. (Seriously, we have had two projects in Alaska on hydroelectric blocked by enviro’s who would rather see us burn oil than dam up a river). Solar is unreliable, expensive, and environmentally damaging to produce the panels. It is more costly to produce fuel from corn than it’s worth on the market, it’s not cost effective and can only be done with heavy gov’t subsidies.

If enviro’s like yourself really want to make a difference, then come up with the technology that makes the current production and consumption of fossil fuels safer and cleaner, or come up with replacement technologies that are just as effective, safer, and cleaner. Presented with two options where one is cleaner and they’re both inexpensive, people will choose the clean option. But expecting a family living on $30K a year to buy $20 LED lightbulbs or to put solar panels on their house, etc. is not going to happen.

And please STOP trying to block every project that comes along as though you’re not typing on a keyboard made of plastics, run on electricity that comes from fossil fuels, and that you don’t drive a car, or own a refrigerator, or heat your house, or benefit from modern medicine etc. That’s simply hypocritical- “good for me but not for thee.”

It is interesting that only Americans seem to take the position that the technology doesn’t exist while many developed nations are using it right now as their primary source of energy. No one said that it wouldn’t be a multi-faceted solution or that the transition would be inexpensive, but there is no denying that it is an inevitability and it becomes more expensive the longer we wait. The United States is leagues behind the rest of the developed world when it comes to infrastructure and that needs to change. Your reservations about the aesthetics of wind turbines not withstanding. Personally, I find strip mines, deforestation, oil wells and oil spills much uglier.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Bless the land God gave us all. I learn much from your posts.
We manage the animals with the wimdmlls throughout our country and what we call Australian tanks from where water is distributed to the " bebidas" from where the animals drink.That would be the typical.

I do understand what you are.saying , just thinking aloud cause the simple also works for many. But often times they lack a simple windmill or a safe water pump.
But sometimes the obvious and simple escapes our attention.
Electricity lines are expensive to draw when the distance is long in rural areas and we do not have natural gas. But we have always managed well.The ranch itself is over 130 years old.
Only that I think of persons who.do not have the basics and share what I can.
Water is very basic. That was.my connection as I was watching my husband work.
Men and women who struggled in tough rural conditions have taught me a lot. In knowledge and spirit ,I mean.
Bless you ,Ridge.

I think in parts of the western U.S. they use windmills to pump water for cattle in locations that are a long way from any power source. Of course, those areas also have a lot more wind than we do where I live.

 

[Ridgerunner]

It is interesting that only Americans seem to take the position that the technology doesn’t exist while many developed nations are using it right now as their primary source of energy. No one said that it wouldn’t be a multi-faceted solution or that the transition would be inexpensive, but there is no denying that it is an inevitability and it becomes more expensive the longer we wait. The United States is leagues behind the rest of the developed world when it comes to infrastructure and that needs to change. Your reservations about the aesthetics of wind turbines not withstanding. Personally, I find strip mines, deforestation, oil wells and oil spills much uglier.

The U.S. is also less densely populated than other advanced countries, with a lot more distance from hither to yon.

But I do note that Germany is now turning to Brown Coal, the dirtiest of all, because the alternative energies just aren’t sufficient and are ruinously expensive. I understand there’s a saying in Germany: “You can make windmills with steel, but you can’t make steel with windmills.”

One needs to be careful about overstating deforestation in the U.S. Harvesting woodlands is necessary to keep them healthy and to encourage CO2 fixation by trees. Young trees (“adolescent trees, actually”) sequester far more carbon than do old, mature trees.

 

[AKDee]

It is interesting that only Americans seem to take the position that the technology doesn’t exist while many developed nations are using it right now as their primary source of energy. No one said that it wouldn’t be a multi-faceted solution or that the transition would be inexpensive, but there is no denying that it is an inevitability and it becomes more expensive the longer we wait. The United States is leagues behind the rest of the developed world when it comes to infrastructure and that needs to change. Your reservations about the aesthetics of wind turbines not withstanding. Personally, I find strip mines, deforestation, oil wells and oil spills much uglier.

You misread my post- please re-read it. I have no problem with wind turbines, or most other forms of technology. I was pointing out what other people object to, and often they are the same people who object to the use of fossil fuels. Wind turbines are objected to because they kill birds and because they are ugly and no one seems to want them nearby. Hydro is objected to because it can impact fish, for one. Some people even object to hydro because of its effect on insects. Nuclear is objected to because of fears of a meltdown, despite the fact it’s cheap, abundant and has zero emissions and the cascading type of reactors such as failed at 3 Mile Island and Chernobyl have long since been mothballed and replaced with better technology. Assuming you keep them out of tsunami zones, nuclear energy is pretty great.

Additionally, I did not say no such technology exists. I did say that it needs to be able to replace what we currently use with something that will be affordable for the average America and there lies the rub. I assume your goal isn’t to impoverish people? Thus the obvious solution is for environmentalists to stop naysaying and start creating affordable technology that will replace what we currently use. We all live on this planet, I think everyone would be on board for keeping it clean, but don’t ask them to choose between that and food, or that and taking care of their kids. There are obstacles to going green: affordability, having something green that can be tapped for energy (not all locations get abundant sun, wind, hydro options), and getting around objections of people sometimes including environmentalists who object to certain technologies based on aesthetics or to protect fish or insect habitat.

 

[GEddie]

The U.S. is also less densely populated than other advanced countries, with a lot more distance from hither to yon.

But I do note that Germany is now turning to Brown Coal, the dirtiest of all, because the alternative energies just aren’t sufficient and are ruinously expensive. I understand there’s a saying in Germany: “You can make windmills with steel, but you can’t make steel with windmills.”

One needs to be careful about overstating deforestation in the U.S. Harvesting woodlands is necessary to keep them healthy and to encourage CO2 fixation by trees. Young trees (“adolescent trees, actually”) sequester far more carbon than do old, mature trees.

I read someplace that more of NA is in fact forested now than was the case historically. Forest is not just renewable, it is restorable, provided the land isn’t required for other uses.

And timber needs to be harvested to limit the damage due to fires.

ICXC NIKA

 

[Tony_Micelli]

a little background: these leases where awarded to shell among others back in 2008. a lease is a legally binding contract that guarantees that the leasee can develop the oil and gas within the lease. the u.s. government would be sued by shell for the value of thier leases and missed economic opportunity if they were not allowed to drill. shell spent about 2 billion on leases and 100s of millions on seismic and permitting.

many of the natives who live closest to the drilling along the chukchi coast were opposed but many support after they were assured they would recieve some compensation as a result, be they jobs, royalty, or whatever.

this isnt a black and white situation though it is stupid that we have done next to nothing to transition to renewables in this country. shell is desperate to find giant sized conventional fields, hence dropping huge dollars in a politically sensitive place to find a big prize. it’s bush’s fault!

 

[AKDee]

a little background: these leases where awarded to shell among others back in 2008. this lease is a legally binding contract that guarantees that the leasee can develop the oil and gas within the lease. the u.s. government would be sued by shell for the value of thier leases and missed economic opportunity if they were not allowed to drill. shell spent about 2 billion on leases and 100s of millions on seismic and permitting.

many of the natives who live closest to the drilling along the chukchi coast were opposed but many support after they were assured they would recieve some compensation as a result, be they jobs, royalty, or whatever.

this isnt a black and white situation though it is stupid that we have done next to nothing to transition to renewables in this country. shell is desperate to find giant sized conventional fields, hence dropping huge dollars in a politically sensitive place to find a big prize.

That is, of course, all true. The oil companies have massive investments in these leases. Only by them abdicating their responsibility to explore the leases for oil deposits can the leases be terminated. It happens, but it’s rare.

The natives in that region are pragmatists. In addition to allowing offshore oil exploration, there is also a major zinc/lead mine in the area called the Red Dog Mine. Google if you’re curious. The nearby villages do make money off the mine, both directly and indirectly (because some of the villagers are employed there, the mine has made a commitment to do as much local hire as it can). Additionally, when the west coast of Alaska got battered by storms a few years back, the villagers fled to the mine for shelter. It’s not as cut and dry as some people think- there are tremendous benefits to the locals for allowing responsible exploration. The Red Dog Mine is a major example of this. Before the mine went in, the natural deposits of lead and zinc in the area had made the the creek unable to sustain a fishery and the vegetation on its banks unsafe for consumption. After the mine went in- and we’re talking a major open pit mine- the treated discharge water going into the creek is so pure that it now has fish running up the creek and the mine had to put in a weir to keep the fish from going all the way into the mine. That is the result of responsible development.

The Natives, again, have a vested interest in protecting the land and waters that provide for them. They also have a vested interest in an economy in a region that really has none, outside of resource development. That is why responsible development is the key. It simply does not have to be one or the other. You do not have to choose between resource development and the environment. You can- and we do, in Alaska- have both.

 

[Tony_Micelli]

Only by them abdicating their responsibility to explore the leases for oil deposits can the leases be terminated. It happens, but it’s rare.

it’s not rare at all for an operator to not drill their lease in remote areas of AK, in fact it’s rare for them to drill on thier lease. I think you are talking about units which are aggregated leases that have drilling obligations. Offshore leases have only a lease term which is extended when it has a well capable of production or is actively producing.

whether shell can operate a giant field in the chukchi responsibly remains to be seen. as far as i know, no other fields are currently producing in such a remote and extreme environment. i think they can but there is always risk and thats the tricky part to decide where is it too risky–where the cons outweigh the pros-- for resource development.

as a catholic, i find myself at odds at times with the pro-development crowd. history is rife with examples of greedy and irresponsible development. we should listen to the poor and the weak especially when we are discussing natural resource development and industrialization (pebble mine). given our Holy Father’s call for greater enviromental stewardship, especially in consideration of the climate, i think catholics in good faith can and maybe should oppose some offshore drilling.

 

[Exiled_Child]

According to the Los Angeles times, “a federal report earlier this year estimated a 75% chance of at least one large oil spill over the life of the 77-year lease.”

latimes.com/opinion/editorials/la-ed-chukchi-sea-drilling-royal-dutch-shell-20150729-story.html

And if that happens, what then? Recall that the average life expectancy of workers who helped to try to cleanup after the Valdez disaster is 51 years. Recall them knowingly making the Gulf disaster inestimably worse by using Corexit. Recall the endless lawsuits energy corporations, which are the most powerful corporations in the world, always wage in order to skirt as much financial responsibility as possible following their disasters. Recall that Exxon still to this very day hasn’t paid for the long-term damage of the 1989 Valdez spill. This whole scheme seems short sighted and greed based.

I might add that Native Alaskans no more own the Arctic Sea than I own the ocean where I grew up. Morally, it’s a moot point.

 

[AKDee]

it’s not rare at all for an operator to not drill their lease in remote areas of AK, in fact it’s rare for them to drill on thier lease. I think you are talking about units which are aggregated leases that have drilling obligations. Offshore leases have only a lease term which is extended when it has a well capable of production or is actively producing.

whether shell can operate a giant field in the chukchi responsibly remains to be seen. as far as i know, no other fields are currently producing in such a remote and extreme environment. i think they can but there is always risk and thats the tricky part to decide where is it too risky–where the cons outweigh the pros-- for resource development.

as a catholic, i find myself at odds at times with the pro-development crowd. history is rife with examples of greedy and irresponsible development. we should listen to the poor and the weak especially when we are discussing natural resource development and industrialization (pebble mine). given our Holy Father’s call for greater enviromental stewardship, especially in consideration of the climate, i think catholics in good faith can and maybe should oppose some offshore drilling.

To clarify: the termination of leases is rare. There was a big deal when Sarah Palin was Governor because she did terminate some leases due to non-exploration.

To your final point: without oil and gas exploration and mining, most Alaska Natives who reside in villages would be destitute. This is not an exaggeration. Some villages in the Southwest have fishing to support them, but most villages do not. There are few jobs in the villages. Lifestyle is subsistence, but you can’t get milk or Tide detergent out on the Tundra. What they do have is massive landholdings that they can lease to developers and they can make development contingent on local hire and responsible development. This has turned some native corporations (their version of tribes) into very rich corporations, such as CIRI which has paid out annual dividends to shareholders (individual in their tribe) of up to $100K a year- that’s every man, woman and child. Not all corporations do that, but many of them pay out $30K to every person in a year, and that adds up in large families. That is their economy. If you take that away, you will return them to absolute poverty. They don’t live on the road system, everything has to be brought in my air and everything is expensive. Yet most do not want to move to places like Anchorage or Fairbanks that have jobs because these villages are their ancestral homes. And in some instances, it would be devastating for them to move to a place like Anchorage or Fairbanks, because Alaska Natives are genetically predisposed to alcoholism. Many villages are “dry” for that reason and do not allow the sale or import of alcohol. Some villages are “damp” and allow people to bring it in but it cannot be bought or sold. Anchorage, as an example, has a large homeless population comprised largely of Alaska Natives who are alcoholics. They die every year living in homeless camps in arctic conditions where they drink themselves to death or freeze to death because they choose to live outdoors rather than go to a homeless shelter that doesn’t allow inebriated people inside for safety reasons. It’s not a good place for them to be.

I just feel that people who are stubbornly anti-development really don’t understand how many products we use in the United States every day that require oil and gas or mining - products that you are using right now. I also find it baffling that people who do not live in Alaska are constantly trying to meddle in our affairs, as though we’re incapable. And I think they are completely unaware how many people would suffer if this part of our economy were shut down- it would destroy our economy. I don’t think you have any idea how big Alaska really is and how little impact these industries truly have on a piece of land as big as Alaska. I also don’t think you have any idea how stringent our enviromental laws are - they are more stringent than federal law- or how seriously we take infractions. We fine companies like BP millions of dollars when they screw up. There is a huge financial incentive for these companies to not screw up, to not have an oil spill, to not impact the wildlife, to not allow a human being to be injured or killed on the job. Even if you think corporations are evil (and I admit that some seem to be) they do take considerable notice of what action is more profitable. In Alaska, that means following the law because when they don’t the fines greatly exceed any profit they might have made by cutting corners. We go after both real and punitive damages, and the punitive damages are always incredibly high.

 

[AKDee]

I might add that Native Alaskans no more own the Arctic Sea than I own the ocean where I grew up. Morally, it’s a moot point.

This is true, they don’t own the waters. But they certainly care about what happens there. A large part of their subsistence lifestyle comes from fishing and whaling. You can be assured they will be keeping an eye on what happens out there and that if they become concerned they will be taking Shell to court to remedy their concerns. They routinely sue other developers to keep them in line. It’s fairly effective.

 

[Ridgerunner]

I read someplace that more of NA is in fact forested now than was the case historically. Forest is not just renewable, it is restorable, provided the land isn’t required for other uses.

And timber needs to be harvested to limit the damage due to fires.

ICXC NIKA

You may well be right in saying more of north America is forested now than was the case historically; perhaps even in pre-Columbian times.

It is almost certainly true in the area where I live. I had the good fortune of knowing, when I was just a little kid, an octegenarian whose parents were original settlers near where I grew up. He told me that there were no forests on hilltops then. Here and there a massive, ancient white oak, but that was all. All the trees were in the bottoms and hollows and were of varied sorts, with pine and a good number of walnut trees, along with hickory, ash and flowering varieties.

The settlers plowed up the tall grasslands on the hilltops for crops, cut the pines for building, walnuts for furniture, and so on. The big white oaks were cut down for building and wagon construction.

The woods in the valleys regenerated pretty quickly, except for the pines. More prolific varieties like walnuts and hickories made a very quick comeback. The settlers never cut down the flowering varieites or fruit-bearing trees.

But on the hilltops, eventually opportunistic hardwoods took over, hardwoods like red and black oaks, sassafras and haw, eventually turning the whole region into virtually one vast thicket/forest as poor farming methods wore out the thin soil.

I will say that there is a slow return going on to the pre-settler state, with ranchers (mostly them because the hills never were suitable for row crops and still aren’t) returning the hilltops to deep bunch grasses and nurturing and encouraging the bottom and valley varieties of trees.

Ever see the Henry Rifle commercials where the guy touts their use of the “finest American walnut from Missouri”. Well, they can thank Missouri farmers and ranchers and the growing conditions for that.