Sad faces at Shell?
Last month, the suits over at Shell put on their sad faces and went to the White House to ask for more time to burn through another billion or two. I tell ya, these guys are gluttons for punishment. After eight years and more than $6 billion, Shell has come up completely empty on its promise to bring a bounty of Arctic crude to market from the Chukchi Sea.
Jeff Siegel has authored an interesting article:
“Shale Oil vs. Arctic Drilling“
The extract below sets out his advice to Shell on Arctic drilling.
Last month, the suits over at Shell put on their sad faces and went to the White House to ask for more time to burn through another billion or two. I tell ya, these guys are gluttons for punishment. After eight years and more than $6 billion, Shell has come up completely empty on its promise to bring a bounty of Arctic crude to market from the Chukchi Sea. The plan to tap this Arctic flow was devised more than a decade ago — before the U.S. was swimming in shale oil and before consumption rates started falling. Certainly I don’t fault management for moving aggressively on black treasure in the Arctic. At the time, it made a lot of sense. But today, with $80 crude, a boom in domestic oil and gas production, and little chance of ever successfully producing anything more than losses in the Chukchi, Shell really should just chalk the whole adventure up to an unfortunate face-plant and move on.
Mr Siegel does not expect the Obama administration to be receptive to Shell’s overtures and suggests that even if granted an extension on its leases, that is no guarantee of success bearing in mind what could go wrong, including facing more lawsuits and equipment failures.
The TRUTH will set you FREE.
No comments:
Post a Comment