Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Shell VP makes case for Alaska drilling
Fuel Fix ^ | July 27, 2011 | Jennifer Dlouhy

Posted on 07/27/2011 10:42:36 AM PDT by thackney

Oil and gas drilling in federal waters near Alaska could create tens of thousands of jobs annually and send the government nearly $200 billion in revenue, a Shell Oil Co. executive is set to tell a Senate panel today.

Pete Slaiby, vice president of the company’s Alaska operations, is making his case for oil development near Alaska’s coasts before the Senate Oceans, Atmosphere, Fisheries and Coast Guard Subcommittee this morning. The panel is studying whether the U.S. should be doing more to take advantage of emerging economic opportunities in the Arctic region.

Shell is asking federal regulators for permission to drill up to five wells in both the Beaufort and Chukchi seas near Alaska during next year’s three-month drilling season. The Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement is currently vetting Shell’s proposed drilling blueprint for the Beaufort Sea, and the Environmental Protection Agency recently issued draft Clean Air Act permits that could cover the work.

But Shell has come this close before. The company has been aiming to drill in the Arctic waters near Alaska for nearly six years, since it bought offshore leases there in 2005.

Slaiby today is set to tell senators that planned drilling in the region — and the prospect of more to come — would be a big boon for the U.S. economy and national security. He argues:

•Based on estimated oil and gas reserves and a $65-per-barrel oil price, energy production could generate $197 billion in government revenue from royalties and taxes. •It would help ensure the long-term viability of the Trans-Alaska Pipeline System, “an asset of national importance” that has linked Alaskan oil production with the lower 48 for the past three decades. Because of declining oil production, the pipeline is running at a third of its capacity and is at risk of being shut down. Slaiby and other Shell executives have said they are optimistic their planned Alaskan drilling will go forward next summer. But Slaiby says the company’s five-and-a-half-year quest to drill shows that “the government’s permitting and regulatory process is not equipped to deliver.”

“To fully unlock the economic opportunities in Alaska, policy makers should support a regulatory process that is clear and efficient — one that ensures development is done in a responsible and sustainable way,” Slaiby will tell the Senate panel.

The House of Representatives passed legislation last month that would accelerate offshore drilling in the Arctic by curtailing environmental reviews of such coastal oil exploration projects.

Environmentalists who oppose Shell’s drilling plans have warned that it could be difficult to clean up any oil spilled in slushy Arctic waters. Cold, icy conditions also mean it could take far longer than in the much warmer Gulf for any spilled crude to naturally break up in the water. And they insist the risks are too great for seals, whales, walruses and polar bears that live in the region as well as the native communities that live off those resources.

TOPICS: Front Page News; News/Current Events; US: Alaska
KEYWORDS: drillheredrillnow; economy; energy; jobs; northslope; offshore; oil
The company has been aiming to drill in the Arctic waters near Alaska for nearly six years, since it bought offshore leases there in 2005.

- - - - -

More of those unused leases the democrats keep talking about. Sell the leases then deny the permits. If private business operated like the government, they would go to jail.

1 posted on 07/27/2011 10:42:47 AM PDT by thackney
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: thackney

Increasing revenues by allowing the drilling of the lease sites and putting people to work, with that resulting state of Alaska funds from purchases and state taxation goes against the agenda of the current criminal enterprise party. But I’m sure the Shell execs know this, right?

2 posted on 07/27/2011 10:59:05 AM PDT by MHGinTN (Some, believing they can't be deceived, it's nigh impossible to convince them when they're deceived.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

This is outside of the Alaskan State Waters and in Federal Waters.

The state would benefit and some taxes would apply, but not like the revenue Alaska sees from Prudhoe Bay and other State Property development.

3 posted on 07/27/2011 11:02:45 AM PDT by thackney (life is fragile, handle with prayer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: thackney
Just the fact that we would be doing SOMETHING on the OCS would be a great opportunity from the jobs it would create, money for parts purchased, some tax revenue. Would be a massive win for the people of the state of Alaska.

Godspeed Shell!
4 posted on 07/27/2011 12:20:45 PM PDT by Issaquahking
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: thackney
Anyone remember the cause and effect back then?

5 posted on 07/27/2011 3:28:37 PM PDT by Cobra64 (Common sense isn't common anymore.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794 is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson