Posted on 10/08/2005 8:00:19 AM PDT by thackney
Dutch oil giant Shell is fishing for an ambitious new oil and gas development in Bristol Bay, a remote corner of Alaska that once booted out the oil companies.
The plan would involve installing offshore production platforms in the bay's fish-rich waters -- which are now off-limits to drillers -- and piping natural gas across the rugged Alaska Peninsula to a new processing plant and tanker port on the Gulf of Alaska.
...
Two to four platforms might go northwest of Nelson Lagoon, he said, producing gas that would be super chilled into liquefied natural gas, or LNG, for shipment to the West Coast via Mexico or Canada.
Shell's plan is nowhere close to reality. It would face many regulatory, geologic and business hurdles to move forward, a federal official said.
But it does demonstrate rising industry interest in a place that historically has shunned drillers. And it signals a new chance for Alaska to cash in on the great global competition to supply the energy-hungry Lower 48 with gas.
...
But the last well was sunk in 1985, and the Exxon Valdez spill in 1989 combined with record high sockeye salmon prices in those days to slam the door on drillers in Bristol Bay -- seemingly forever.
Since then, however, even Bristol Bay residents have warmed to oil and gas, mainly due to salmon prices collapsing in the face of competition from foreign, farm-raised salmon. A harvest that was worth more than $200 million at the docks in 1990 has dwindled to less than half that, causing major job and public revenue losses for local people and governments.
(Excerpt) Read more at freerepublic.com ...
The huge Bristol Bay Basin shares many of the geological features of the Cook Inlet but remains substantially unexplored – all but one of the 26 wells in the area have been drilled onshore at the edge of the basin. The Bristol Bay coast or the Aleutian Peninsula could site facilities for the export of oil or LNG.
A 1995 assessment by MMS suggested the existence of up to 0.55 billion barrels of conventionally recoverable oil, with a mean of 0.23 billion barrels in the federal offshore components of the Bristol Bay Basin. MMS estimated up to 16.03 tcf of natural gas, with a mean of 6.791 tcf.
from: Dispelling the Alaska Fear Factor, A guide to Alaska’s oil and gas basins and business environment. Petroleum News, 2005
Doesn't matter how much environmental protection and overkill occurs. Just the way they look at the world. Imagine if govt closed all churches in America; how people would react? Alot of natives look at oil development in the same manner.
Maybe you can answer this question for me. No matter how high Exxon, Chevron and the others gas is, Shell is always a few cents higher.
They would do better job of convincing me they were sincere, if they gave up their rifles, snow machines, 4 wheelers, metal boats and massed produced building materials. They look an awful lot like NIMBY's to me.
Because their marketing has been successful in convincing enough people their additives are worth the extra cost. You do understand the gasoline all comes from the same distributing bulk truck loading plant? It just gets a tiny squirt of special "Shell" additive for fuel injector cleaning and some other properties. Of course Exxon, Chevron and the other majors all have their own formula as well.
Ah, I see! Shell 'special sauce'. LOL!
Bottom line is that they still control alot of land and wield alot of power when they decide to support or oppose an issue. The out of state enviro's all too quick promote native rights; devisive when it comes to development.
Oil development has been a win win for Alaska. Imagine how heavily we would be taxed without oil revenues.
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.