Shell Oil Company has announced it must scrap efforts to drill for oil this summer in the Arctic Ocean off the northern coast of Alaska. The decision comes following a ruling by the EPA’s Environmental Appeals Board to withhold critical air permits. The move has angered some in Congress and triggered a flurry of legislation aimed at stripping the EPA of its oil drilling oversight.
Shell has spent five years and nearly $4 billion dollars on plans to explore for oil in the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas. The leases alone cost $2.2 billion. Shell Vice President Pete Slaiby says obtaining similar air permits for a drilling operation in the Gulf of Mexico would take about 45 days. He’s especially frustrated over the appeal board’s suggestion that the Arctic drill would somehow be hazardous for the people who live in the area. “We think the issues were really not major,” Slaiby said, “and clearly not impactful for the communities we work in.”
At stake is an estimated 27 billion barrels of oil. That’s how much the U. S. Geological Survey believes is in the U.S. portion of the Arctic Ocean. For perspective, that represents two and a half times more oil than has flowed down the Trans Alaska pipeline throughout its 30-year history. That pipeline is getting dangerously low on oil. At 660,000 barrels a day, it’s carrying only one-third its capacity.
Production on the North Slope of Alaska is declining at a rate of about 7 percent a year. If the volume gets much lower, pipeline officials say they will have to shut it down. Alaska officials are blasting the Environmental Protection Agency.
“It’s driving investment and production overseas,” said Alaska’s DNR Commissioner Dan Sullivan. “That doesn’t help the United States in any way, shape or form.”
So Shell invests $4b into getting oil from the middle of no where and is shut down by 4 democrats on a EPA board. Is it any wonder why oil companys have reservations to developing leases they have (this is one of the most common complaints by liberals).
So while the administration is busy blaming others for the price of oil, they are in fact helping to drive it up and increasing our dependence on foreign sources. As usual, you have to remember not to listen to what they say, watch what they do.
It is strange that there is no agreement prior to setting up drill station or what ever research they do.
If you are going to invest 4b dollars, you would make sure you have agreements with the local politics.
What i do find interesting is the notion that if the US does not benefit from it, it will not be done. I mean who uses the most oil ?
the next economic bomb to drop will be massive increases in home utility bills. Yet another one of the obama's campaign promises.
You wouldn't think that if the government sold you a lease to drill for $2.2 billion that eventually you...get to drill?
Awesome viewpoint she has there..."vote for a Democrat president so I don't have to work." Guess who DOES pay for her morgage and gasoline? Hard working Americans with jobs and families to support that have to give an UNCONSTITUTIONAL amount of money to the government so lazy idiots like her can sit on their fat asses and wait for a free check...
What percentage of current US output does this represent?
The EAB request cited two issues. First, at what point should the EPA start counting total emissions (when the drill ship arrives onsite, when it's ready to start drilling, or at some other point)? Secondly, what yardstick should the agency use to consider nitrogen dioxide emissions and their potential impact on local communities? Shell has committed to burning only ultra-low sulfur diesel on the project, and has installed emissions-reducing equipment on the Noble Discover to minimize its impact on the arctic airshed. Despite such measures, the proposal has been controversial: Opponents have cited potential impacts on wildlife as well as the difficulty of managing any oil spill that occurred in the region.
Read more: Shell Offshore Oil Arctic Plans Cancelled - Offshore Oil Drilling in the Arctic - Popular Mechanics
The EPA is the national regulatory agency which issues these permits, and its members are appointed by Obama (or, at least, his administration).It is strange that there is no agreement prior to setting up drill station or what ever research they do.
If you are going to invest 4b dollars, you would make sure you have agreements with the local politics.
What i do find interesting is the notion that if the US does not benefit from it, it will not be done. I mean who uses the most oil ?
I doubt the Obama administration had something to do about it. The US is a big country. Do you really think all the democrats are that organized with a single policy nation wide ? If that was the case the US would be a very different place. Expect more here then just simple republican/democrat envy.