Shell is one of the most environmentally friendly energy companies in the world.

I would like to see the full penalty of the law brought down on these thugs for damaging property and putting Americans in danger.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/124712294@…

@4, I always think of Greenpeace as the day-protesting gig for the masked members of the ELF.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_…

Most consumers place cheap, abundant energy, regardless of source, about all other considerations and reflect that by purchasing fossil fuels for energy instead of more expensive renewable alternatives. Most consumers in America also vote. Hence, you see elected officials supporting public policies that allow the continued availability of fossil fuels, to keep voters/consumers happy. Pogo was right, "We have met the enemy and he is us."

Unless there are massive taxpayer subsidies (stolen from middle class taxpayers) it isn't profitable to drill this unless oil is priced at $100 a barrel.

Ever.

@5 "Most consumers in America also vote."

Really? Most eligible voters don't vote. Just 36.4 percent of eligible voters turned out in 2014.

And with regard to this issue, why should they bother? Which major party opposes arctic off shore drilling?

Yo, Syd. Ha-Ha

@7. "If you choose not to choose, you still have made a choice." - Getty Lee, Rush. So those who don't vote, choose the status quo. They have decided that the cost of being educated about the issue and voting to alter public policy is of greater personal cost to them then the cost of enduring the consequences of the current public policy.

Also democracy does not the majority in a society. It represents the majority of people who participated. Everyone else is de-facto agreeing to whatever the majority of people who actually vote decide on.

If citizens cared about the issue as much as you think, then they would vote, and they would produce a candidate or party that would choose differently on this issue.

Drilling in the Canadian, Russian, or U.S. Arctic can't without the affirmative choice by consumers of cheap, abundant, petroleum over more expensive and poorer performing alternatives and electorates acquiescing to the public policy choices of elected officials (e.g. "choosing not to choose").

Shell YES!

Dear GreenPeace ............./´¯/)........... (\¯`\
............/....//........... ...\\....\
.........../....//............ ....\\....\
...../´¯/..../´¯\.........../¯ `\....\¯`\
.././.../..../..../.|_......_| .\....\....\...\.\..
(.(....(....(..../.)..)..(..(. \....)....)....).)
.\................\/.../....\. ..\/................/
..\................. /........\................../
....\..............(.......... ..)................/
......\.............\......... ../............./

@3 My grandfather's last name was Braunstein. He was a radio announcer during World War II, Jewish, and changed his name to Brownstone so no one would know.

@9 "If citizens cared about the issue as much as you think, then they would vote, and they would produce a candidate or party that would choose differently on this issue."

Yes, of course. So tell me, in 2016, which party should a citizen who cares about arctic off shore drilling vote for? The party of our current President Hopey-Changey, whose Bureau of Ocean Energy Management approved Shell's exploration plan for the Chukchi Sea this summer? Or the party of Jeb Bush?

@1:

Thugs? I think you misread which party has felony convictions.

Misguided and underinformed? Sure. But it's not thuggery.

@12. The fact that a alternative to the party of "hopey-changy" or the party of "Jeb Bush", or a candidate with a different view on the subject within either party, is exactly the point. If this polled as one of the top five issues of concern to voters in who they would pick, then a candidate would emerge to capitalize on that and use traction with those voters to try and capture the Oval Office. The fact that this isn't happening is indicative of the electorate's relative embrace of the status quo on this issue.

A large plurality of voters were concerned about the deficit and entitlement reform at one juncture. Many of them were also low-participation voters or first-time voters. Yet a candidate emerged as an alternative to the "Depublican and Remocrat" orthodoxy on the issue and got something like 14% of the vote, depriving Bush Sr. of the Presidency and Clinton of a popular majority (even as he was elected with the a strong majority of the electoral college). His name was Ross Perot. No like champion on artic oil drilling has emerged, which tells me there is not that deep a well of voters to tap into on this differing issue.

@14: "The fact that a alternative to the party of 'hopey-changy' or the party of 'Jeb Bush', or a candidate with a different view on the subject within either party, is exactly the point."

That point doesn't really make any sense, when you try to parse the sentence.

@14, again: "If this polled as one of the top five issues of concern to voters in who they would pick, then a candidate would emerge to capitalize on that and use traction with those voters to try and capture the Oval Office."

Sort of like how Barack Obama capitalized on widespread disgust with the Bush administration to capture the Oval Office, then gave us the third and fourth terms of the Bush administration. Yikes.

Thanks, Obama!

Thanks, Greenpeace and Rising Tide!