Shell Is Pulling Out of the Alaskan Arctic. So What Does That Mean for Seattle and Terminal 5?

Comments

1
This is great news. Hey Shell, check out solar power - I hear there's some sunlight to be found if you look carefully enough.
2
Now for a new round of protests; between Shell and it's stock holders for $7 billion wasted on a highly risky endeavor.
3
It means we won. And that the ROI on Arctic fossil fuels was never that good.

Now go buy some solar wind and mini hydro. Mix it with renewable local biofuels. Add a dash of energy sipping 787s and turboprop planes and stir with high speed passenger and freight trains in America.

It smells like ... Victory!
4
This is just awesome.
5
So was there really no actual gas or oil up there in the Arctic, or is that just Shell's face-saving way of saying they've caved to public pressure? Shell's version of "It's not you, it's me"?
6
@5: Their tests in the Chukchi Sea more or less told them that the cost of more exploratory work was not likely to be profitable. I would imagine that was more of an impetus since the protests did nothing to slow down oil consumption, demand for oil, or the financial benefits to drilling for oil.
7
The kayakers are to thank for this. Shell would love to go after the oil that's up there, but they can't because 20 kayakers held signs.
8
@5... You're exactly right. They called an all-hands-on-deck board meeting and the image of kayaktivists paddling around and using the Shell name in a dis-respectful manner caused them to bury the evidence of trillions of dollars worth of oil and instead scrap the company's investment. Better to eat the loss but retain your corporate image as a leader in green technology investment.
9
ITOLJASO! The low price of oil is making destructive oil exploration hopelessly unprofitable. The protesters did absolutely no good at all but you'll hear endlessly from people who probably didn't actually get off of their butts and protest about what a great victory this is for "direct action" nonsense.
We can continue to make progress through energy conservation by passing a steep gas tax increase to pay for infrastructure, transit, and maintenance, and to move school buses off of the education budget and on to the transportation budget to help with the crisis in education funding. This means kicking a few Republicans out of the Washington State Senate and maintaining the Democratic majority in the house. Much harder than having a protest but something that will actually work.
10
They'll be back eventually.
11
@9: Did you know that gas tax revenue is falling because more people are using public transportation, biking, or using electric or hybrid vehicles?

I suggest you champion the ultimate liberal fantasy of planting microchips in all humans and taxing them for the carbon footprint that way.
12
The people of Seattle didn't stand up to anything. A few politicians tried to get political points and a few hounded people floated around on kayaks. What gets me is the amount of time our local politicians spent on the issue. We have homeless problems, traffic problems that cause pollution, education issues, and a million other Seattle issue that the Mayor and the city council ignore while they play politician with our taxpayer dollars.
13
A couple of coincidences to note: I find it extremely odd that with geothermal technology, satellite imaging for oil deposits (that has been around and surely advanced since 2009), not to mention the other technological advances in petrolium production and geological accuracy, that Shell is all of a sudden not finding anything. The sign off for licensing and permits was handled awfully quick by the adminstration and legislature in an effort to get it up there, not to mention the physical process and hazards to get that behemoth up there, was also expedited with the speed of lightning, relative to how usual business is handled in DC. Im still trying to figure out why the big rush in the first place if you weren't even positive of profitabilty - well - before spending shareholder money? Does that make good business sense to anyone? Something smells a bit hinky in Holbolken and anyone would be crazy to believe any of it until the platform returns back from whence it came.
14
At $45 a barrel it's not profitable to start a new well anywhere, let alone the remote and more expensive offshore areas of the Arctic. The US has a glut of crude oil due to the fracking process developed in the Bakken oil fields and the ban on the export of domestic crude oil from the US. It is basic supply and demand. We have an over supply of crude and less of a demand due to more efficient use. It has nothing to due with plastic kayaks but I see groups claiming victory over their battles with the giants like Don Quixote over his wind mills.
15
Wonderful news that Shell is withdrawing from drilling in the Arctic. HOWEVER---Shell STILL insists on expanding its oil-by-rail agenda through Washington State---mainly along the Columbia River, and the March Point and Cherry Point refineries in Anacortes and Ferndale. This remaining ploy by Shell is extremely unsafe to communities bisected by the BNSF tracks and this must be stopped (does the community of Lac Megantic, Quebec---or what's left of it---ring a bell?).
I'll believe Shell and BP, BNSF, Peabody Coal, SSA Marine, ad nauseum when they really, truly, and honestly DO admit that climate change is man made, and finally, after billions wasted by their shamefully gluttonous profit-lusting denial, make efforts to repair the damage done.
16
@ 10. Yes they will be back. As soon as the price of oil rises to the point Shell can afford to spend on exploration. And Terminal 5 will yet again be made available to the highest bidder. Cash is king.