Climate Change Increases Arctic Oil Exploitation Costs.

*sigh*

Oil companies are finding that climate change in the Arctic is messing up their plans to get at all that sweet money.

Kasper says all this will add to the cost of drilling oil in the Arctic. Companies will have to spend money to assess how future changes may impact their operations, and then potentially spend additional money to deal with them.

But there is a silver lining.

Still, along with all these challenges, researcher Andy Mahoney points out that the warming climate may also create new opportunities. He says the increasing retreat of sea ice around the Arctic is opening up possible new areas for oil exploration and drilling.

source

originally posted by: Phage

Still, along with all these challenges, researcher Andy Mahoney points out that the warming climate may also create new opportunities. He says the increasing retreat of sea ice around the Arctic is opening up possible new areas for oil exploration and drilling.

Hey if life gives you lemons make lemonade.

a reply to: Phage

I say good. Leave it alone.

And of course the source of the source works for:

This report comes from Alaska's Energy Desk, a public media collaboration focused on energy and the environment.

Who has their page here:

www.alaskapublic.org...

Who seems to be funded by PBS/NPR?

If you can't believe NPR, who can you believe? Right?

a reply to: Fools

No. It comes from Hilcorp. The oil company.

According to plans Hilcorp shared with a federal agency in 2015, the company originally thought it could build the gravel island in one year. But in an email, the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) confirmed that due to “historically abnormal ice conditions in the Arctic,” Hilcorp amended its plans. Now, the company is telling the agency it could take two years to build the gravel island.

Hilcorp declined to comment.

www.alaskapublic.org...

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Fools

No. It comes from Hilcorp. The oil company.

According to plans Hilcorp shared with a federal agency in 2015, the company originally thought it could build the gravel island in one year. But in an email, the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) confirmed that due to “historically abnormal ice conditions in the Arctic,” Hilcorp amended its plans. Now, the company is telling the agency it could take two years to build the gravel island.

Hilcorp declined to comment.

www.alaskapublic.org...

That is a very ambiguous description of their "problem" that they declined to comment on. Great try, but I will pass.

a reply to: Fools

Yeah, it could mean abnormally high amounts of ice.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Fools

Yeah, it could mean abnormally high amounts of ice.

It could, but we do not know either way in this instance so once again, thanks I will pass.

a reply to: Fools

They wouldn't even be at the arctic looking for oil if it wasn't for the ice leaving. Those guys always find something to complain about when they go over budget.

a reply to: Phage

I wish that all of the people who are so opposed to oil put thier money where their mouth is.

Just ban anything made from oil products.

You know, like the device you are using to post right now.

ETA: Ironically, I am posting this on my phone while on a wellsite in North Dakota.
😀

a reply to: Lumenari

Just ban anything made from oil.

Not feasible. But cutting back on the combustion of oil is.

You know, like the device you are using to post right now.

That carbon isn't in the atmosphere.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Fools

Graphs, I love graphs. I have more graphs!

wattsupwiththat.com...

Check them out. Doesn't seem that it is that below the average. And even so, what is the point of your belief system here? Should all oil exploration be stopped? What do you want anyone to do about it? Is oil exploration destroying the planet? Do you have a replacement?

I get so tired of this argument. I live in a world where problems get fixed or they don't. If there is no viable replacement for oil, please put a cork in it until something that can replace it 100% with any amount of less damage to the environment and then I will be gun ho for that. Until then just stop it. There is nothing you or any amount of plurality among "scientist" can do to SAVE US from the big bad oil companies.

Maybe the Georgia Guidestones are more in step with our future if people continue to believe all this doom and gloom rubbish about humanities near demise which will happen any minute now - of which I have been reminded of almost every day since I started to read periodicals in the mid 1970's.

I mean "science" since then is more depressing and annoying than the book of revelation. And the "end is neigh" camp is out every day, everywhere, all the time preaching the "science is settled" gospel. Yawn, I want to hear solutions, real solutions. Telling people they are gunna die all the time is not a solution.

a reply to: Fools

Check them out.

Yup. Shows Arctic sea ice has been declining. That means the Arctic is getting warmer. I think.

Should all oil exploration be stopped?

I don't think it should be encouraged.

Do you have a replacement?

I think the development of alternatives should be encouraged as well as efforts to reduce amounts of energy used.

Yawn, I want to hear solutions, real solutions.

When the government sticks its head up its ass and refuses to look at reality, it is not helping to look for solutions. It is looking out for oil interests, who of course need all the help they can get.

So there is climate change if the oil companies will need to justify additional expenses. Time to lobby for a tax break.

a reply to: Phage

About that silver lining: AEO 2018 — Hydrocarbon Production Growth Estimates

Maybe there are non-trivial production gains to be captured, but I’d wager whatever increased production becomes available doesn’t off set the increased production costs realized, resulting from the same source (climate change).


It was mentioned in the linked source that modeling was being carried out to understand ocean waves, erosion, and other factors involved with an environment experiencing retreating sea ice...

Kasper says those changes could mean that companies have to plan for increasing erosion around their pipelines, or higher wave conditions. "If you increase the waves, you're talking about [needing] bigger boats," he says. "Bigger boats, you have to start thinking about dredging, because it's pretty shallow up there."

Wonder if those pipelines will be insured.

Weatherproofi ng Climate Change — AIG’s 2012 Call to Action

If you were reading between the lines, you could come away believing profit-maximizing entities are on to something. They’re not hip to propaganda, they’re all-in on the future bottom line, yes?

At any rate, it’s gonna be decades before hydrocarbons are replaced as the number source of transportation fuel, so expect to have whatever cost incurred to be passed on to the consumer.

Did I mention that the world’s largest extractors of hydrocarbons have been on this train for some time? Chevron and Climate Change Based Decision-making

*The AIG brief, I’ve shared a couple times, is from 2012 and might be considered fake news, depending on the statute of limitations regarding trustworthiness.

originally posted by: roadgravel
So there is climate change if the oil companies will need to justify additional expenses. Time to lobby for a tax break.

Not exactly. You can't make this stuff up.

ExxonMobil, the largest investor-owned oil company in the world, announced last week that it will spend $1 million over two years to lobby for a US carbon tax.

The proposal Exxon wants to enact is one that would shield the company from lawsuits while also preventing further climate change regulations.

www.vox.com...

a reply to: Phage

Very agreeable. Thank you. Related would be the sunspot issue. I am more prone to think the sun drives these fluxuations more so if we see cooling it should be seen as that instead of some political volleyball.

a reply to: Fools

If we are indeed heading into a Grand Solar Minimum it might result in some slowing of the warming. While it lasts.

But solar activity has been on the decline for 60 years or so while temperatures have been on the rise, so cooling may be wishful thinking.

ExxonMobil, the largest investor-owned oil company in the world, announced last week that it will spend $1 million over two years to lobby for a US carbon tax.

Why let some politicians get an extra one million in bribes. Just give it to them.