3 ms·

I think it's a combination of net cost, net energy, speed of development, infrastructure required to transport it efficiently to refineries, and the prohibitive

I think it's a combination of net cost, net energy, speed of development, infrastructure required to transport it efficiently to refineries, and the prohibitive cost of drilling safely. PR is a concern, but not much more than PR in any other spill. The largest problem is spill damages will cost an order of magnitude more to prevent/stop/clean because the arctic is so remote and all effort there is less efficient. PR is not the only cost of the Deepwater Horizon. BP also paid a significant fraction of their market cap to clean up the wide-reaching effects of the spill. There are behavioral costs. Everyone knows _which_ major oil company was to blame for letting a drunk ship captain navigate the Valdez oil tanker. I was in grade school at the time and I still remember the images of birds, fish, and other wildlife caked in oil slowly dying and the name of the oil company was forever etched into my mind next to those images. The Arctic is some of the most inhospitable weather in the world. Everything costs more to develop, transport, and maintain there. The seasonal weather prevents ships from making the trip there without an ice breaker escort (or more than one if the ice breaker is stranded on ice). The energy required to perform much of the work (keeping machines above freezing temperatures, keeping oil/gas warm to transport in pipelines) isn't insignificant. Oil platforms may need to be re-engineered to withstand the weather and floating ice sheets. The costs associated with drilling are high until the drillers find the largest pockets. It's also worth noting that Royal Dutch Shell is among the only major oil companies that actively and openly admits that climate change is an issue, that people are at least partly to blame, and that the oil/energy companies have a responsibility to both factor in the risk factors as well as work on mitigating the contributions of oil/gas to climate change.[1] [1] http://www.shell.com/global/environment-society/environment/climate-change.html http://www.shell.com/global/environment-society/environment/...

greeneggs 11y ago
> The largest problem is spill damages will cost an order of magnitude more to prevent/stop/clean because the arctic is so remote and all effort there is less efficient. Actually, I'd guess that an offshore Arctic oil spill could be much cheaper. There aren't any capabilities to clean one up, so they wouldn't. (For example, in the 2010 BP spill: "In summer 2010, approximately 47,000 people and 7,000 vessels were involved in the project." [1] Even with ideal weather, nothing close to that would be possible in the Arctic.) [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deepwater_Horizon_oil_spill#Containment.2C_collection_and_use_of_dispersants https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deepwater_Horizon_oil_spill#Co...
- saryant 11y ago
  This is 100% not true. Shell's Arctic response plan was approved by various regulatory agencies and was deemed adequate. In situ burning, dispersants, mechanical recovery. Note that 10,000 people were on the ground cleaning up Valdez and that sort of disaster is as easily mitigated as a spill from a well (can't really cap a ship). There's no reason to believe Shell couldn't mobilize as many or more. (warning, pdf download) http://www.shell.us/about-us/projects-and-locations/shell-in-alaska/oil-spill-prevention-and-response/_jcr_content/par/textimage_0.file/1434017610329/2bd0855b76990dc91a41dc3b368c07f2/alaska-oil-spillresponsebrochure.pdf http://www.shell.us/about-us/projects-and-locations/shell-in... I couldn't find a link to the full plan but it's on the internet somewhere.
afarrell 11y ago
Chevron (US) seems to agree that Climate change is man-made, though they aren't nearly so direct about it and certainly don't express support for a carbon tax. http://www.chevron.com/globalissues/climatechange/ http://www.chevron.com/globalissues/climatechange/ Exxon (US) seems to take it as a given that human-emitted greenhouse gasses cause climate change and emphasizes the need to avoid needless cost in solutions. They explicitly support a carbon tax, offset by lowering other taxes: http://corporate.exxonmobil.com/en/current-issues/climate-policy/climate-policy-principles/overview http://corporate.exxonmobil.com/en/current-issues/climate-po... BP states that human GHG emissions cause climate change and supports putting a price on carbon, but one that is equal across sources. http://www.bp.com/en/global/corporate/sustainability/the-energy-future/climate-change.html http://www.bp.com/en/global/corporate/sustainability/the-ene... Total (France) touts some of initiatives for addressing carbon emissions but http://www.total.com/en/society-environment/environment/combating-climate-change http://www.total.com/en/society-environment/environment/comb... They also talk here about the role of methane flaring in greenhouse gas emissions http://www.total.com/en/media/news/press-releases/total-commits-three-major-international-initiatives-combat-climate-change http://www.total.com/en/media/news/press-releases/total-comm... I don't read French, so cant summarize their main page. ConocoPhillips also recognizes human-emitted GHCs as the cause of climate change. http://www.conocophillips.com/sustainable-development/our-approach/living-by-our-principles/positions/Pages/climate-change.aspx http://www.conocophillips.com/sustainable-development/our-ap... I've got to run, can someone else do Statoil, Rosneft, Petrobras, etc?
- sea2summit 11y ago
  It should be noted, from the dates of these policy papers, that they are only a year old.
Amezarak 11y ago
> BP also paid a significant fraction of their market cap to clean up the wide-reaching effects of the spill. Some money did go to environmental cleanup. But a large proportion of it is going to pet projects. Two especially egregious projects in my home state are a plan for gigabit Internet and to dam one of the largest undammed rivers in the US to create two recreational lakes with a waterpark in the middle of nowhere. Not BP's fault, of course - you can lay that firmly at the feet of local businesses, the well-connected, and local governments. Still, when you see "BP paid out $X for the oil spill", remember that a lot of that had nothing to do with restoration.

greeneggs 11y ago

> The largest problem is spill damages will cost an order of magnitude more to prevent/stop/clean because the arctic is so remote and all effort there is less efficient. Actually, I'd guess that an offshore Arctic oil spill could be much cheaper. There aren't any capabilities to clean one up, so they wouldn't. (For example, in the 2010 BP spill: "In summer 2010, approximately 47,000 people and 7,000 vessels were involved in the project." [1] Even with ideal weather, nothing close to that would be possible in the Arctic.) [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deepwater_Horizon_oil_spill#Containment.2C_collection_and_use_of_dispersants https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deepwater_Horizon_oil_spill#Co...

saryant 11y ago
This is 100% not true. Shell's Arctic response plan was approved by various regulatory agencies and was deemed adequate. In situ burning, dispersants, mechanical recovery. Note that 10,000 people were on the ground cleaning up Valdez and that sort of disaster is as easily mitigated as a spill from a well (can't really cap a ship). There's no reason to believe Shell couldn't mobilize as many or more. (warning, pdf download) http://www.shell.us/about-us/projects-and-locations/shell-in-alaska/oil-spill-prevention-and-response/_jcr_content/par/textimage_0.file/1434017610329/2bd0855b76990dc91a41dc3b368c07f2/alaska-oil-spillresponsebrochure.pdf http://www.shell.us/about-us/projects-and-locations/shell-in... I couldn't find a link to the full plan but it's on the internet somewhere.

afarrell 11y ago

Chevron (US) seems to agree that Climate change is man-made, though they aren't nearly so direct about it and certainly don't express support for a carbon tax. http://www.chevron.com/globalissues/climatechange/ http://www.chevron.com/globalissues/climatechange/ Exxon (US) seems to take it as a given that human-emitted greenhouse gasses cause climate change and emphasizes the need to avoid needless cost in solutions. They explicitly support a carbon tax, offset by lowering other taxes: http://corporate.exxonmobil.com/en/current-issues/climate-policy/climate-policy-principles/overview http://corporate.exxonmobil.com/en/current-issues/climate-po... BP states that human GHG emissions cause climate change and supports putting a price on carbon, but one that is equal across sources. http://www.bp.com/en/global/corporate/sustainability/the-energy-future/climate-change.html http://www.bp.com/en/global/corporate/sustainability/the-ene... Total (France) touts some of initiatives for addressing carbon emissions but http://www.total.com/en/society-environment/environment/combating-climate-change http://www.total.com/en/society-environment/environment/comb... They also talk here about the role of methane flaring in greenhouse gas emissions http://www.total.com/en/media/news/press-releases/total-commits-three-major-international-initiatives-combat-climate-change http://www.total.com/en/media/news/press-releases/total-comm... I don't read French, so cant summarize their main page. ConocoPhillips also recognizes human-emitted GHCs as the cause of climate change. http://www.conocophillips.com/sustainable-development/our-approach/living-by-our-principles/positions/Pages/climate-change.aspx http://www.conocophillips.com/sustainable-development/our-ap... I've got to run, can someone else do Statoil, Rosneft, Petrobras, etc?

sea2summit 11y ago
It should be noted, from the dates of these policy papers, that they are only a year old.

Amezarak 11y ago

> BP also paid a significant fraction of their market cap to clean up the wide-reaching effects of the spill. Some money did go to environmental cleanup. But a large proportion of it is going to pet projects. Two especially egregious projects in my home state are a plan for gigabit Internet and to dam one of the largest undammed rivers in the US to create two recreational lakes with a waterpark in the middle of nowhere. Not BP's fault, of course - you can lay that firmly at the feet of local businesses, the well-connected, and local governments. Still, when you see "BP paid out $X for the oil spill", remember that a lot of that had nothing to do with restoration.