Posted on 01/06/2016 5:49:09 AM PST by thackney
Late last year a second major oil company was forced to abandon plans to drill in the Arctic Ocean off the coast of Alaska - and irresponsible, high-fiving anti-development activists, most of whom live thousands of miles away and will not be affected, could not be more thrilled.
But for those who live close by, the ones who will be most affected, the news is devastating.
Statoil recently announced that it's giving up 16 of its company-operated leases in the Chukchi Sea and abandoning its stake in 50 Chukchi leases operated by ConocoPhillips. The Norwegian company added that it would close its offices in Anchorage.
The news comes after Royal Dutch Shell, after spending $7 billion on Arctic offshore exploration in the Chukchi and Beaufort seas, announced it would bow out of Arctic drilling. The two decisions, Alaska Gov. Bill Walker says, were "largely tied" together.
Statoil's reasoning for axing its Arctic ambitions paralleled Royal Dutch Shell's explanations. Both cited how Arctic exploration was, "for the foreseeable future," "not feasible," "given the current outlook," it just "no longer made financial sense."
Some deemed these comments as a nod to the falling oil prices. With inventories at record-highs, oil giants are facing continued pressure to chop costs, especially at the exploration front.
But as Alaska Sen. Lisa Murkowski said, the "real project killer" in both instances was the unprecedented, convoluted, ever-changing federal regulatory process that previously dogged ConocoPhillips in the Arctic.
Just-in-time permitting and conflicting agency decisions ensured that Shell would spend all that time and money just to drill one exploratory well in an area of the Chukchi Sea reportedly the size of Texas, where hundreds of other exploratory wells have been drilled successfully. And instead of trying to extend lease terms, the Interior Department placed limits on this season's drilling activities, leaving one drilling rig idle.
While the Arctic has record amounts of yet-to-be-tapped oil and natural gas resources - and with it, significant opportunities to increase U.S. energy security and create jobs - development can only be achieved if we have an effective, predictable regulatory framework in place.
Which, to date, we don't. And the outcome will not be good.
The announcements devastated Alaska's hopes of finding an alternative source of oil to help close its multibillion-dollar budget shortfall and replenish the Trans-Alaska Pipeline, a major energy artery to the lower 48 states operating at about one-quarter capacity because of declining production in onshore oil fields. And with the administration also cutting off access to the resources-rich Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) and millions of acres offshore in the Alaska Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) earlier this year, alternatives are limited.
Bogged down by red tape, delays, legal snafus, and the administration's ill-advised, one-size-fits-all regulatory approach, Alaska is seeing its economic future darken in a hurry - and so is America.
Consider this: 30 billion barrels of Alaskan oil could have fueled every domestic flight for over 120 years, and 141 trillion cubic feet of natural gas could have heated every American house for 34 years. By 2040, 63 percent of American energy will come from oil and natural gas, the Department of Energy says. That makes finding and developing fossil fuels - safely - a top priority, especially for Americans who can least afford to pay more for gas and electricity.
And with America out of the Arctic picture, far less environmentally responsible countries, like Russia and China, will be left alone to development in the Arctic.
We used to be a regulatory model for the world, one that showed others how to do great things both environmentally and economically. We certainly cannot claim to be that anymore. How did the same country that pushed for and enacted the right policies to recover from the Iran Crisis in the 1950s and the oil embargo of the 1970s fail itself?
Now that's a question only the administration can answer.
...unprecedented, convoluted, ever-changing federal regulatory process...
That is also the reason, Nuclear Power mostly stopped growing and became too expensive in the US.
Turning Arctic oil over to the Russians.
Paging Donald Trump.
Drill here, drill now. Most Americans seem to support this.
Won’t matter - at $35/bbl., or less, no one will be interested in drilling offshore Alaska, or anywhere else for that matter.
Statoil was one of our royalty payees until Chesapeake sold out to Southwestern, and Statoil broke itself up over it's percentage of oil we were being paid from our gas well
I never truly understood the whole thing ... and still don't ... but this is the first time I've seen the name Statoil in the news
As an aside ... we've received no Statoil money for a year because (they said) we were overpaid in the past ($198.00) because of false reporting (this is what they told me on the 'phone) .. and that it would be another 10 months before they'd resume payments
Apparently the wet is so low, and our percentage is so low, they're "recovering" about 10 or 15 dollars a month
Statoil is a major from Norway but have significant North American investments. I’ve posted several articles about them.
The future is tribal - mud huts, raw vegetables, devil gods and chiefs.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.