Two Quick Points on Energy
By Vladimir Posted in Energy | Environment | Pollution — Comments (11) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
1) When you move oil around the world in boats, you're going to spill some. If you spill some, you're probably going to spill a lot. Pipelines are what God intended to move oil around; pipeline spills are never very big (unless, of course, you're a centrally-planned government like the Soviet Union that cared not one whit for the environment, or economics, for that matter).
2) Journalists always report oil spill volumes in gallons, the better to sensationalize them. Production volumes and import amounts are reported in barrels (1 barrel = 42 U.S. gallons). Prospective discoveries, however, are measured in terms of how many weeks/months/years of Total U.S. Consumption they represent, so that they always sound inconsequential.
Article: Total Receives Fine in France's Worst Oil Spill
[Total, S.A. is a French integrated oil giant.]
H/T www.ocsbbs.com
Off to the reeducation camps with you.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
1. When you ship oil around the world in 23 year old rusty tankers through a storm, you are going to spill some.
2. But it doesn't matter if you do, because 9 years later you may get a slap on the wrist. The 285 Million dollar fine sounds big, until you read further down and see that it only reduced their reported NET PROFIT for 3Q 2007 from 4.64 Billion to around 4.35 Billion.
As far as drilling in the U.S. in concerned, I read an article about how oil companies can't be bothered to develop the approved land already assigned to them in Alaska:
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601102&sid=aKjhno9q94jE&refer=u...
First of all, these are French courts, fining a French company.
Exxon, an American company, got fined, what, $4 to $5 billion with several billion$ in liability not yet settled for the Exxon Valdez spill. So we can conclude that American courts are more punitive than French courts.
"When you ship oil around the world in 23 year old rusty tankers through a storm, you are going to spill some." All of the big marine oil spills you can name since 1975 are from tankers, resulting from the unwillingness of folks like you to drill offshore. Not all of those tankers are 23 years old and rusty.
Interesting link you provided; the Point Thompson field that Alaska is trying to take away from a consortium of American majors is a gas field, not an oil field. The whole problem there is, without a gas pipeline to export the gas to the lower 48, the field can't be produced without tremendous waste (and release of greenhouse gases).
The irony is, that gas is needed to help justify the pipeline that is currently being considered. And at $800 million spent to date, it's not like the companies have been twiddling their thumbs.
Jeez, I don't like being put in the position of defending ExxonMobil, BP, ConocoPhillips and Chevron, but I certainly sympathize with their position in this case.
From your link:
The undeveloped Point Thomson field, located 50 miles east of Prudhoe Bay on Alaska's North Slope, is estimated to hold 300 million barrels of oil and 8 trillion cubic feet of natural gas. [that ratio of gas to oil makes it a gas filed. -- ed]
In November 2006, the Alaska Department of Natural Resources ended the companies' leases after deciding they had taken too long to develop the field. Exxon Mobil and the other companies sued to regain the leases, alleging the state was trying to force them to put the field into production before it was economically viable.
The companies said in court filings that they spent more than $800 million since the 1970s to develop Point Thomson.
Gleason's ruling comes as Alaska's oil production is declining and state leaders are trying to encourage new developments. Point Thomson has also been considered a linchpin in tapping Alaska's North Slope natural gas reserves, estimated to be North America's largest. The state has said the field's gas is needed for a natural gas pipeline that would cost an estimated $30 billion.
Exxon Mobil has been the field's unit operator, holding 52 percent of the leases. Other leaseholders include BP with a 29 percent stake, Chevron Corp. with 14 percent, and ConocoPhillips with less than 3 percent.
There is more stupidity than hydrogen in the universe, and it has a longer shelf life. - Frank Zappa
I am not now, nor have I ever been against drilling offshore. Stop attributing positions to me that you WANT me to have, instead of the ones I actually have.
Also, there is a lot of natural gas in that field, however, there are also 300 Million barrels of oil! And at $100/barrel, you would think that they would PUMP IT. We consume about 20 Million barrels/day, so this obviously won't get us very far in our quest for energy independence.
The POINT here is that they are not aggressively pursuing known and approved oil reserves. This is one article that I found by accident. How much other oil is sitting around not being used?
The rest of your comment is pure cart before the horse language. You are free to sympathize with them if you want while someone else builds that pipeline, and makes the profits.
...but Point Thomson is a gas condensate field which abuts ANWR. So, yeah, it's remote.
"Gas condensate" means the hydrocarbons exist in the gas phase in the ground. The liquid oil condenses from the gas as it comes to the surface. There is no way to produce the oil without also producing the gas; oil is a by-product.
Apparently the owners had considered a "gas cycling" project, which would involve producing "rich" gas, separating the liquids, and reinjecting the "lean" gas in other wells to maintain pressure in the reservoir.
Obviously, it would involve a lot of money, at considerable risk, to develop and operate such a field, located in one of the most inhospitable and remote places on the planet. Exxon and its partners would only do it if there were reasonable prospects of a decent return. That's the way capitalism works.
In the meantime, Alaska has increased its take from mineral production, making it harder to justify developing a high cost field.
Exxon et al are not evil people. They are in the business of extracting oil and gas whereever they can & make a profit. They are not in the business of merely sitting on oil reserves.
Oil tanker spills aren't even the largest source oil discharged into the oceans. Most people forget that shipping runs on diesel thats cheap and poorly monitored. So anytime a rustbucket cracks up or just gets a little leaky in the fuel bunkers you have an on going spill. Multiply that by all the worlds shipping you get a staggering figure.
Of course sailors are a romantic lot whereas Oil executives are greedy people screwing the common man.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
By far the majority of the oil in the marine environment is "non-anthropogenic" in origin -- natural oil seeps.
There is more stupidity than hydrogen in the universe, and it has a longer shelf life. - Frank Zappa
I was looking only at discharges from shipping.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
What do you think the useful life of a commercial vessel is? Do you think they get them on 3 year 36,000 mile leases then just hop down to the dealer and trade it in on something in a different color when the lease comes up?
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
We are always worried about the environmental impact of drilling in the U.S. but never seem to worry about the environment in other countries. Are the environments of Venezuela, Nigeria, and the Middle East more desolate than ANWAR? What about the greater potential for damage because of the greater distances traveled? Who do you think has better environmental oversight, third world dictatorships or the U.S. with freedom of the press?