Oil company Royal Dutch Shell has begun the massive task of cleaning up
nearly 90,000 gallons of crude oil that leaked from a company oil
derrick roughly 90 miles off the state’s coast, the Associated Press reported Friday. The poorest residents of coastal communities and Native Americans were likely to feel the brunt of this.
This Saturday, hundreds of environmental activists turned out in Seattle to celebrate a day-long festival called the “Paddle in Seattle” and protest Royal Dutch Shell’s plans to increase drilling activities in the Arctic Ocean.
Africans will forever celebrate brave environmentalist Ken Saro Wiwa and lament his loss in the hands of the corrupt Sani Abacha regime in complicity with Royal Dutch/Shell’s oilfields in Nigeria. Africa is a digital and nuclear waste dumping ground. Most people are unaware that the initial catalyst for Somali piracy was a form of resistance by some Somali fishermen and by members of the defunct Somali navy to illegal nuclear waste dumping in the shores of Somalia, before it degenerated into criminal activity.
What a good news on a Monday! Shell has abandoned all plans of drilling in the Arctic for now, as the results from their exploratory drill was disappointing and did not lead to the results they were hoping for.
I have written about offshore drilling a few weeks ago, so I happily welcome this news. If you’ve missed my posts:
Q: Let’s turn to the Ukraine? You have been planning to drill for shale gas in eastern Ukraine near recent fighting. How much of that is in areas controlled by Russian separatists?
It is very much in that general region. That venture is very much in the Donetsk and Slavyansk areas. I’m not sure whether they are smack in the middle of the conflict or on the borders. The contours have changed. One thing I know is we can’t operate there. We have declared force majeure. As it happened, we had taken a pause to evaluate the drilling results. So this is just suspended. I don’t know what is going to happen. I guess nobody knows what is going to happen. When it all has stabilized and returned to normal, which I truly hope will happen soon, we’ll take an inventory of what the situation is. There’s no production. We had drilled and fractured the first well. It is very early exploration.
weird how conflicts arise virtually everywhere oil companies spend money
The oil industry is far and away the most profitable industry in the world. Six of the ten largest corporations in the world are oil companies. They are, in order, ExxonMobil, Royal Dutch Shell (Shell), BP, Chevron, ConocoPhillips, and Total.
It’s all about the money. When germany was bombarded, factories that were build with money that was lend by american banksters, were not attacked. Who would be so stupid to destroy his investment in nazi germany??
THIS DOCUMENTATION IS WORTH WATCHING IT IF YOU WANT TO UNDERSTAND THE PAST AND THE FUTURE.
Shell Oil Abandons Controversial Drilling Off Alaska’s Shore
Back in May, a flotilla of protesters took to Puget Sound to demonstrate against Shell Oil. The Royal Dutch Shell rig in the background of this picture (credit: David Ryder/Getty Images) was one of two vessels set to drill for oil off of Alaska’s coast.
Now, Shell says it is halting its efforts to drill for oil of Alaska “for the foreseeable future.”
“Shell was able to drill just one exploratory well this summer, off Alaska’s northern coast. And the results were disappointing. In a statement the company reported that it had ‘found indications of oil and gas’ — but not enough to continue exploration at the site.
"The company said the decision to end offshore exploration in Alaska reflected those results and the project’s high costs — but also what it called a 'challenging and unpredictable federal regulatory environment.’
Royal Dutch Shell’s efforts to drill in the U.S. Arctic have been plagued by mistakes and problems. Yet after years of failure, Shell recently requested that the Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement (BSEE) retroactively suspend its leases.
If BSEE grants the request, the deadline for Shell’s leases would be extended by five years – giving Shell the opportunity to prolong the Arctic’s exposure to drilling danger for free.
In 1984, I became committed to protecting our planet’s oceans after my family and I moved to Santa Monica Canyon, about ten blocks from the Pacific. At the time I was starring on the show “Cheers” and was taking a walk with my daughters on the beach when we came to a sign that read: “Water polluted, no swimming.” I didn’t know how to explain to them why the beach was closed. That was my call to do whatever I could to protect our oceans.
Shell already has a dangerous track record, and if it’s allowed five more years to drill on the leases in question, the Arctic’s polar bears, ice seals, belugas and many other iconic inhabitants will be thrust further in harm’s way. The oil industry cannot adequately contain or clean a spill in the Arctic Ocean, and a single accident could cause serious harm to the sensitive ocean environment and the communities and wildlife that depend on it.
Shell is the only oil company still actively exploring drilling in the U.S. Arctic Ocean. If BSEE denies Shell’s request for an extension, it will deal a major blow to Shell’s efforts.
Polar bears and hundreds of other majestic creatures depend on a healthy Arctic Ocean for survival, but their habitat is at risk. If the federal government continues to allow Shell to explore and drill in this wild and wonderful environment, we can be sure that spills will follow.
Just because Shell has spent a lot of money trying doesn’t mean the government should bend the rules to accommodate them or any other company.
Shell is asking investors to bet against the world taking action on climate change or in renewables displacing fossil fuels, says influential economist Nick Stern.
Speaking at a Guardian debate on divestment last night, Lord Stern said Shell and other hydrocarbon companies were getting it wrong on the potential of renewables technology and that people will insist on policies to hold global warming to 2C.
“They do not believe the world will be wise enough to follow policies that can hold the world to 2C and are asking us to bet against the world … telling us that we won’t do what we’ve set out to do and that it is a safe bet to bet that we won’t.
“We have to try to show them that they are wrong and that we can get the world’s people to insist that we must follow those policies. We must try to build pressure to try to make that 2C assumption correct and the forecast of the energy companies wrong.”
Stern’s intervention comes after Shell CEO Ben van Beurden told the Guardian that his company would continue to look for new reserves of oil and did not believe its assets were overvalued or unusable as a result of current or reasonably foreseeable future legislation concerning carbon. He also said renewables would become important for Shell post-2050.
I’m not sure whether this article is addressing a lot of noise from a group of environmentalists, or whether Shell’s corporate strategy is based on a failure by our earthly leaders to limit carbon emissions to the worrisome 2°C threshold. If the former, then let the noise ride itself out. If the latter, then Shell is planning to sell a commodity (fossil fuel) at non-sustainable levels, knowing what the consequences are.
I read parts of the strategic plan, and I think it’s more of a strategic plan under various scenarios than a determination to continue to extract and sell petroleum products. Regardless, you decide. Here’s a few excerpts:
An analysis of Shell’s New Lens planning document points to an acceptance that world temperatures will rise to a level that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change argues would have a severe and widespread impact.
The Shell document says: “Both our (oceans and mountains) scenarios and the IEA New Policies scenario (and our base case energy demand and outlook) do not limit emissions to be consistent with the back-calculated 450 parts per million (Co2 in the atmosphere) 2 degrees C.”
It adds: “We also do not see governments taking steps now that are consistent with 2 degrees C scenario.”