Posts

Feds Give Shell Permission to Drill for Oil in Alaska for First Time in 20 Years

<> on July 9, 2015 in Shishmaref, Alaska.The federal government on Monday gave Royal Dutch Shell the final permit it needs to drill for oil in the Arctic Ocean off Alaska’s northwest coast for the first time in more than two decades.

The Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement announced that it approved the permit to drill below the ocean floor after the oil giant brought in a required piece of equipment to stop a possible well blowout.

The agency previously allowed Shell to begin drilling only the top sections of two wells in the Chukchi Sea because the key equipment, called a capping stack, was stuck on a vessel that needed repair in Portland, Oregon.

Since the vessel arrived last week, Shell is free to drill into oil-bearing rock, estimated at 8,000 feet below the ocean floor, for the first time since its last exploratory well was drilled in 1991.

“Activities conducted offshore Alaska are being held to the highest safety, environmental protection, and emergency response standards,” agency Director Brian Salerno said in a statement Monday. “We will continue to monitor their work around the clock to ensure the utmost safety and environmental stewardship.” (Read more from “Feds Give Shell Permission to Drill for Oil in Alaska for First Time in 20 Years” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Armstrong Announces Significant Discoveries on Alaska’s North Slope

Photo Credit: Pennenergy Two Nanushuk wells were tested this year, including the Qugruk 8 (Q-8) vertical well, which tested a small portion of the net pay zone and flowed 30 degree API gravity crude at rates of up to 2,160 barrels of oil per day (BOPD). The Qugruk 301 (Q-301), two miles north of Q-8, tested a 2,000 foot horizontal lateral. The well flowed at tubing constrained rates as high as 4,600 BOPD with minimal bottom hole pressure drawdown.

In the East Alpine field, two new penetrations were completed in the Alpine Formation, adding to the previous two penetrations. Three of these wells have encountered oil productive Alpine sand in excess of 95 feet thick at a depth of 6500 feet with porosities ranging from 15% to 25%. Well control and seismic data indicates the oil pool covers an area in excess of 15,000 acres . . .

The activity to date since the beginning of exploration has resulted in the discovery of several oil fields on the North Slope of Alaska. All 16 wells (including sidetracks) drilled by the consortium have found hydrocarbons, most with multiple pay zones. In the Nanushuk reservoir, the consortium has drilled seven appraisal wells to date and has proven an oil pool that covers more than 25,000 acres, at a depth of 4,100 feet, with an oil column of 650+ feet, and up to 150 feet of net pay with an average porosity of 22%. (Read more from “Armstrong Announces Significant Discoveries on Alaska’s North Slope” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Shareholders Trying to Push Big Oil Investors to Act on “Climate Change”

Photo Credit: Bloomberg Investor resolutions urging corporate leaders to be more environmentally friendly in how they run their businesses are being rolled out at a record pace this year for the energy industry.

Just don’t expect them to pass.

Proposals meant to nudge Exxon Mobil Corp. and Chevron Corp. into nominating directors with environmental expertise, setting greenhouse gas targets, and compiling reports on minimizing fracking risks are among seven such resolutions being voted on Wednesday when the two biggest U.S. oil companies hold their shareholder meetings.

Institutional investors who control the biggest blocks of stock believe the proposals aren’t needed because the companies already are motivated to minimize damage, said Vincent Piazza, a Bloomberg Intelligence analyst. Supporters as diverse as the Sisters of St. Francis of Philadelphia and the As You Sow Foundation say that just having them on the ballot can spur important dialog that can advance their movement.

“Success doesn’t mean you have to get 50 percent of the vote,” said Timothy Smith, a senior vice president at Boston-based Walden Asset Management who supports the proposals. “The goal is to start a dialog, and that moves things forward.” (Read more from “Big Oil Investors Give Cold Shoulder to Climate Changes`” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

With 50 Billion Barrels Awaiting the Drill Bit, Alaska’s New Governor Wants to Slash the Time Between Lease Acquisition and Drill Rotation

bill_walker_official_portrait_600-200x300Oil production is the economic locomotive of Alaska, funding about 90 percent of the state’s general fund revenue. The oil industry accounts for one-third of Alaska jobs and about one-half of the overall economy, according to Alaska’s Resource Development Council. When oil production expands or contracts, Alaska’s economy follows.

Oil & Gas 360® had an opportunity to speak with Alaska Governor Bill Walker about some of the state’s energy development and budget issues, particularly in light of the current oil price downturn. Walker, 64, is Alaska’s second native-born governor. He paid for college working on the construction of the Trans-Alaska pipeline. Walker was sworn in as Alaska’s 11th chief executive on Dec. 1, 2014.

OAG360: Governor, you have discussed in your ‘State of the Budget’ talk that about 90% of Alaska’s general fund comes from oil revenue, driven by oil price and production. Could you talk about the current oil price slide that we’re going through and the effect that it’s having on Alaska?

GOV. WALKER: Well, it’s significant. It virtually cuts our revenues nearly in half, and it is rather sudden. We’ve certainly been through this before. There’s been a period since the start-up of the Trans-Alaska oil pipeline in the late seventy’s where we’ve seen the downturn in the in the oil prices, so it’s not new to us. We have to adjust for it so that’s what we’re doing. (Read more from “With 50 Billion Barrels Awaiting the Drill Bit, Alaska’s New Governor Wants to Slash the Time Between Lease Acquisition and Drill Rotation” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Alaska Lawmaker Pushes Back on Washington State over Arctic Drilling Concerns

KUCB-Kulluk3-5-13If officials in Washington state wind up not allowing Royal Dutch Shell to base its Arctic drilling fleet in Seattle over environmental concerns, members of the Alaska Legislature suggest another business decision for its neighbor to the south.

A resolution, from Alaska House Speaker Mike Chenault, a Republican, suggests public officials in Washington consider closing the Boeing production plant if they are truly concerned with carbon dioxide emissions from commercial activity.

Environmental groups are challenging the Port of Seattle’s decision to lease one of its terminals as a home port for an Arctic oil-drilling fleet. The groups say the port broke state law in signing a lease with Foss Maritime Co. Foss’ client is Royal Dutch Shell PLC. (Read more from “Alaska Lawmaker Pushes Back on Washington State over Arctic Drilling Concerns” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Alaska’s Deadliest Hemorrhage

The crash in world oil prices has sent Alaska state financial officials reeling. After years of high oil revenue, nearly unrestrained government growth, and unrepentant “bring home the bacon” pork spending, Alaska now finds itself with a whopping fiscal year deficit expected to exceed $3.5 Billion. If you divide this amongst Alaska’s tiny 738,000 population, this financial bloodletting amounts to a staggering $4,742 per individual Alaskan, $18,970 for a household of four, or $28,455 for a household of six.

For years Alaska has grown our state bureaucracies on autopilot by mathematical formula (around 6-9% per year) into cash draining behemoths. We now employ over 24,000 state employees- many of which to help protect Alaskans from themselves.

Our legislature also writes huge annual checks to literally hundreds of state funded non-profits for myriads of diverse social causes or even to entertain us, such as the Alaska State Fair. If you want to get a good laugh at some of the more humorous titled non-profits getting state funding just from just one state agency- Alaska’s Department of Health and Human Services, download their FY2014 report. I caution you not to try to print it out because it is 302 pages long and you may run out of ink, or paper, or patience trying.

Perhaps the worst example of legislative largess is found in the Capital Budget (I call it Alaska’s pork budget which may be a little harsh considering some of it is good). This is the part of the budget where new roads and bridges are funded. Who can argue with that right? This has however devolved into a catch-all category where legislators fund micro “pork” projects at every level in their voting districts- from sewer pipes, to extra fire engines and police cars, to senior center vans. These can be argued as good things to fund from a social viewpoint, but shouldn’t local governments fund local projects with local tax dollars and not rely on the state legislature to bridge the gap between their bronze-plated haves and gold-plated wants?

Last but not least is the profligacy of local entities continually voting to sell bonds for capital improvement projects such as roads and schools where the state is on the hook for paying back 70% of the bond debt back while the local entity only pays back the remaining 30%. Alaskan bond debt is now a crushing $40,714 per Alaskan– the highest in the nation.

At this hemorrhage rate, the legislature has only about three years’ worth of savings left in the financial blood bank before it turns anemic and must adopt new revenue sources such as a state income tax, a state sales tax, new oil taxes, or a raid on the PFD. All are being actively discussed for implementation as early as 2017. We need not go limping down this gray government-bricked road.

The University of Alaska Institute for Social and Economic Research (ISER) has calculated a maximum annual sustainable budget amount of $4.5 Billion (unrestricted general fund that is currently around $6.1B or $6.3B if you add the $262 Million annual PERS/TERS retirement contribution to make yearly comparisons). This is the amount we can spend annually nearly into perpetuity without having to implement ANY new taxes or raid the PFD.

With oil trading at $60 per barrel, Alaska will only generate about $2B in oil revenue. In this scenario Alaska will generate more income from our savings invested in financial instruments than from oil. However, if the Alaska legislature continues to plow through our savings like a Valdez snowplow in January on Thompson Pass, we will have no investment income left and therefore the sustainable budget number will also plummet to around $2B. It is absolutely essential therefore to reduce the state budget from $6.3B to $4.5B. If I were governor, I would rip the Band-Aid off in one year by vetoing any budget that came in a penny over $4.5B (this number does not include federal grant money which is additional). However since I am not governor, the current plan is to reduce our state budget to $4.5B over a three year period to help reduce price shocks in the economy. The goal then is to reduce state spending to $5.5B this year, then $5.0 the second year, and $4.5B the third year and thereafter. Many grassroots politicos are putting the entire political weight of their organizations behind this plan. Big-spending scoffers will likely find us funding their opponent during the next political primary.

Many legislators from both political parties would rather increase revenue rather than cut spending owing to the intense lobby pain being inflicted on them by special interest groups (who are also the largest campaign donors). The big-government ideological phrase now echoing through the legislative halls in Juneau is, “You cannot cut your way to prosperity.” Really? Imagine yourself as a CEO at the helm of a large corporation that was losing fistfuls of cash because of having too many redundant employees on their books that used that phrase to their investors. The board would fire the CEO immediately. Historically, states like Texas that have had the most prosperous economies in the nation have also governed themselves in the most businesslike manner by attempting to keep their bureaucracies small, budget balanced, and taxes low. Those that have tried to overtax and spend their economies into a Utopian existence like California always seem to be in financial trouble and have high unemployment. You cannot spend your way to prosperity either.


Having too many state bureaucrats living off the private sector reduces Alaska’s prosperity in three fundamental ways. First, public pay and benefit costs must be born on the shoulders of the private sector. Secondly, the state loses out on the potential economic growth from state employees that could be otherwise similarly employed in the private sector. Thirdly and not insignificantly, too many red-tape producing bureaucrats can slow new economic activity to a crawl as potential new natural resource developers are dragged through a veritable glacial mud steam of regulations, fees and permits.

Alaska’s economic future now rests in the strong hands of State Representative Mark Neuman (R-Big Lake). He is Co-Chair of the powerful House Finance Committee and in charge of Alaska’s massive Operating Budget (the Capital Budget is assumed to be nearly zero during this financial crises). Rep. Neuman told me he has a goal to reduce the Operating Budget by $600-700M which would put Alaska on the recovery trajectory. However, he is facing enormous opposition from special interest groups to keep spending levels near their historic highs.

Quite frankly, the special interest voices being heard in Juneau for continued levels of spending can be much louder than their district grassroots voices for spending restraint. The Roman Senate had a famous saying of vox populi, vox Dei or “the voice of the people is the voice of God.” Though somewhat blasphemous for a person of faith like myself, I am convinced that many legislators informally poll their districts daily by the volume of daily phone calls, emails, and faxes they receive as their district vox populi. If you the grassroots are silent on this issue, than the budget will likely follow the voices of the special interests and your family will soon be facing a state income tax, a state sales tax, an industry stifling rise of oil taxes, or the raiding of your PFD- or possibly all at once.

Keep Alaska financially solvent and a good place to do business and raise a family. Contact Rep. Neuman today to encourage him and his staff along with your local legislators. Crimson red now paints the Alaskan skyline. Whether it is on the east or western horizon is up to you. Contact Rep. Mark Neuman at 907-465-2679 or [email protected] to give him encouragement along with your local representatives. Remember, our elected legislators work for us, not the other way around.

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Feds Dump on Alaska Again, Impose New Billion Dollar Regulatory Costs on Arctic Drilling

As Americans hurried home to avoid last weekend’s snowstorm, the Obama administration unveiled new regulations that, for the first time, propose strict mandates on drilling for oil in the Arctic Ocean.

The administration’s proposed Arctic offshore drilling rule will cost $1.2 billion — the most expensive provision being a requirement that oil companies keep backup rigs ready to dig relief wells if there’s a spill. The rule comes as the Obama administration has been making parts of the Arctic Ocean off-limits to oil drilling.

The oil industry has criticized the rule, saying that while it brings some certainty, it is costly and could stymie U.S. drilling in the Arctic at a time when countries like Russia, Canada and Norway continue to drill or plan on drilling more.

“Is America ready to be a leader in the Arctic for generations to come and what do we want our legacy to be?” Randall Luthi, president of the National Ocean Industries Association, said. “Will we continue to lag behind other countries such as Russia, Canada and Norway, all countries that have drilled or plan to explore Arctic waters?”

“Rules that take years to make tend not to reflect the best and newest technology being developed and used by industry on a daily basis,” Luthi said. (Read more about the arctic drilling HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Obama’s Drilling Ban in Alaska Definitely Not About Saving Polar Bears

Photo Credit: Daily Caller Obama’s latest anti-fossil-fuels directive is to move off-limits to exploration and drilling some 12 million acres in Alaska’s Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. This is one of the most oil-rich regions in the world. The area to be removed from drilling is larger than the combined land area of Connecticut and Massachusetts. Alaska’s economy is already softening because of low oil prices; now he tosses the state’s drowning economy an anchor.

Obama says his motivation is to keep this land environmentally undisturbed and to protect wildlife — as if he were a modern-day Theodore Roosevelt–style preservationist. “Alaska’s National Wildlife Refuge is an incredible place — pristine, undisturbed,” Obama says. “It supports caribou and polar bears, all manner of marine life, countless species of birds and fish, and for centuries it supported many Alaska Native communities. But it’s very fragile.”

Well, no, not really. Think of a football field, and then think of placing a postcard on that field. This is roughly the size of the development footprint required to drill in these wilderness lands, compared with the entire Alaskan landmass. Thanks to horizontal drilling, the footprint from oil and gas production is getting smaller all the time. Drilling will hardly alter the majesty of the mountains or the forest lands.

[T]he impact on Alaska’s wildlife and natural beauty has been almost nonexistent. A study delivered in 2002 to the American Society of Civil Engineers found that “the ecosystems affected by the operation of TAPS and associated activity for almost 25 years are healthy.” Today the size of the caribou herd in Alaska is estimated at about 325,000 — four times the number before the pipeline was built. . .

So what’s really going on here? This latest White House move isn’t about saving polar bears. It’s about a radical climate-change agenda to stop all domestic oil and gas drilling and coal mining, wherever and whenever possible. The middle-class Americans who will lose jobs or pay more for gas at the pump are collateral damage. (Read more about the drilling ban in Alaska HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Time to Lift the Antiquated Ban on Crude Exports

Photo: Charlie Neuman/U-T San Diego

Photo: Charlie Neuman/U-T San Diego

Gasoline prices continue to drop across the country with the national average falling to $2.50 per gallon.

Are low prices good or bad for the prospects for lifting the ban to export crude oil? The reality is it shouldn’t matter because energy free trade will benefit the United States in both the near term and the long run. That’s why Congress should lift the ban regardless.

One of the primary concerns among skeptics of lifting the crude export ban is the effect that increased oil exports might have on domestic gas prices.

Several studies have projected that lifting the ban would actually decrease gas prices both in the United States and globally. Because oil is a globally traded commodity and refiners are equipped to handle different qualities of crude oil, an open market for shipping crude would better match global refining capabilities. Despite the fact that all signs point to lower fuel prices in the U.S., the skepticism remains.

The federal ban on exporting crude oil has been in place since the 1970s to fight potential fuel shortages caused by the Organization of Arab Petroleum Exporting Countries (OAPEC) oil embargo. Rep. Joe Barton, R–Texas, recently introduced a bill to lift the still-in-place ban on crude oil exports.

Read more from this story HERE.

We Are Never Going to Run Out of Oil

Mideast Bahrain Oil PricesIn a chilling 2010 column, Paul Krugman declared: “peak oil has arrived.”

So it’s really not surprising that the national average for a gallon of gas has fallen to $2.77 this week – in 10 states it was under $2.60 – and analysts predict we’re going to dip below the two-dollar mark soon. U.S. oil is down to $75 a barrel, a drop of more than $30 from the 52-week high.

Meanwhile, the Institute for Energy Research estimates that we have enough natural gas in the U.S. to meet electricity needs for around 575 years at current fuel demand and to fuel homes heated by natural gas for 857 years or so – because we have more gas than Russia, Iran, Qatar and Saudi Arabia combined.

With prices returning to ordinary levels and a few centuries’ worth of fossil fuels on tap, this is a good time to remind ourselves that nearly every warning the left has peddled about an impending energy crisis over the past 30 to 40 years has turned out to be wrong. And none of them are more wrong than the Malthusian idea that says we’re running out of oil.

Each time there’s a temporary spike in gas prices, science-centric liberals allow themselves a purely ideological indulgence, claiming – as Krugman, Paul Ehrlich, John Holdren and countless others have – that we’re rapidly approaching a point when producers will hit the maximum rate of extraction of petroleum. Peak oil. With emerging demand, fossil fuels will become prohibitive. And unless we have our in solar panels in order, Armageddon is near.

Read more from this story HERE.