The demand to keep Arctic oil and gas in the ground has become a rallying call of climate campaigners worldwide. Now, Fatih Birol, the new executive director of the powerful International Energy Agency, is questioning the global race to drill from a purely business perspective—arguing that geological and technological limitations, as well as rising costs of production, make such extraction simply unprofitable.
As of yet it isn't Arctic Oil it is still Maybe Arctic oil. Once oil IS discovered then it becomes 'What about using all that oil we have in the arctic?' The oil companies are not all that concerned about actually producing that oil yet, what they want is to discover it to make it a fact on the ground. Right now it is only a maybe... a possibility.
It is much easier to get us to develop that oil resource once it is something real and not just theoretical. Once discovered it will be very hard to keep it in the ground... especially when prices get hiked to make it desirable.
But if the price of oil was to shoot up to $100+ per barrel then it'd be anchor's aweigh.
The difference between stupid business and smart business is how much you'll get.
Rather than a principled stand and leadership, the Obama administration chose to allow RD Shell to explore Artic waters for oil & gas, thus providing a precedent for other nations to do the same, hopefully others will not follow the pathetic lack of "leadership" from the 'change we can believe-in" prez - if oil prices were higher we would see something much different.
Its been the same on so many different issues from Obama&Co who put corporate/banker/Wall Street profits and exploitation/pollution//usury ahead of a sustainable future and any semblance of fairness or good leadership. What good are "jobs" on a poisoned, depleted planet? Its no wonder people are sick and tired of politicians (read; professional liars) who sell-out at the drop of a hat to big-money and greed for short-term gains.......
Wereflea, you are right. In Southern Colorado a couple of years ago Shell (SWEPI) was up to doing some exploring. They sonic sampled the earth and decided on a couple of locations to drill in the county. The first sight, just west of a small artsy type of town, ran into big opposition. Law suits were filed and Shell was stalled out. So they went for the second site.
They drilled to a depth of 8,000 feet and did a frack, but the thing didn't work out and they failed to get any oil "stimulated" enough to flow. They then packed their bags and pulled out while putting their leases up for sale. They told the public that there was indeed oil in the ground it was just too jammed in to get a flow going. Proof that it is there is all they needed.
Have they really left? No one here believes so. They are just waiting for the price of crude to drop and it will be on again.
This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.
Supra national corporations are run to benefit the top executives not the shareholders. The most important thing is the stock price and that in the case of oil companies is tied to assets most of which is in the ground. The executives are the ones to decide where and how much to drill. They are also the ones to decide how much to contribute to campaigns and how much to spend on lobbying both of which are legalized bribery. The oil in the ground is more valuable to the CEO than profits made for the company else they would pump the cheapest oil first, There are many capped wells in the Gulf and many other cheap sources because they are a stable asset base. Looking at Arctic oil from a profitability point of view i.e. revenue minus costs it makes no sense. To the CEO of Shell it makes perfect sense. The more proven reserves the higher the assets the higher the stock price the greater the CEO's compensation and he is willing to spend company money to influence elections and legislation and Obama is willing to take the money even knowing what the consequences could be.
You mean the price of crude to go up?
That explains so much. I also wonder if because the Arctic is thawing and becoming increasingly logistically important, our dear President thought it would be a good idea to establish even more of a presence there. Shell is not an American company, but corporate ties run deep. It's even more suspicious when they're playing the waiting game and not actually drilling.
What's astonishing is that the American people are letting them get away with it. I won't be buying any Shell gas soon.
I wish our federal government could find whatever leaders we have in Homeland Security and Defense who believe that making our electric grid much more resilient and reliable and that more renewable energy in civilian economy will do more for national security than adding anything to our stock of weapons would. And then delegate to them finding whatever pork is still in our Defense budget and negotiating with too big to fail MIC firms making it to make equipment to either improve grid or harness renewable energy. I figure 10% of budget for improving grid reliability, 10% for energy storage, and 80% for harnessing renewable energy. And keep going. It will be good to have stockpiles of spare parts for grid and of known reserves of fossil fuel and of energy in either utility size batteries or tanks of hydrogen or both. With natural gas available, there won't be much need for more than about 3 days worth of energy stored ready to go.