Shell could abandon Arctic after this season


#101

one big shoe drops on ECO…no surprise that Shell killed the deal to build more icebreakers for the Alaskan srctic. Gotta have cost them big to exit that one!

[B]Jobs lost at Chouest[/B]

By JEAN-PAUL ARGUELLO Staff Writer

Shell Oil’s decision to withdraw from exploration in Alaska has already had an effect on a major local shipbuilder, which has ordered layoffs and is expecting more.

Edison Chouest Offshore has already begun cutting the workforce at its LAShip operation in Houma, Senior Vice President Roger White confirmed in a telephone interview, due to cancellation of a Royal Dutch Shell order for two icebreakers that were being built at the Houma shipyard.

White said the loss of that contract, along with the oil and gas industry’s overall continued downsizing, are to blame.

“Shell has deserted their Alaskan program, and as a result they don’t have any future need for the vessels they had on contract with us,” White said.

White said that he didn’t know how many shipyard workers are being laid off at the LAShip location, but he said it’s not just the company’s shipyards that are experiencing layoffs. Their service fleet is enduring them, too.

Shell announced on Sept. 28 that they are abandoning the Burger J exploration well in Alaska’s Chukchi Sea.

“Shell has found indications of oil and gas in the Burger J well, but these are not sufficient to warrant further exploration in the Burger prospect,” a statement from the oil giant reads. “The well will be sealed and abandoned in accordance with U.S. regulations.”

Shell had $1.1 billion in contractual commitments, according to the release.

Terrebonne Parish President Michel Claudet said he and other parish administrators had heard rumors that Chouest’s LAShip operation on the Navigational Canal was experiencing “mass layoffs” and that he’d tasked two of his administrators to call Edison Chouest to verify them, but were told that wasn’t true.

“I knew they were building the icebreakers. I know they’ve drawn down some employment since the beginning of the year. I’ve been talking because rumors about layoffs have been going on [last] week and I have nothing confirmed…,” Marketing Manager for Terrebonne Parish, Katherine Gilbert-Theriot, said. “…My contact has nothing they could enlighten me to at the moment.”

One LAShip employee laid off last week confirmed that he lost his job and is moving back to a different state, but did not wish to be identified.

The employee, who was working on the icebreaker project, said he was offered no severance package.

Attempts to communicate with other Chouest workers through an employee Facebook page were not successful as of press time on late Monday afternoon.

“We’re not the only ones in this predicament,” White said. “Discharging a person, laying someone off, is a very, very difficult thing to do. We’re a family company. We think a major asset is our people. Anybody can buy iron, but the people, the workers, our skillsets are so important to us. But at some point in time, it’s just business. You have to keep the lights burning and you have to stay open so we can hire them back and this is all part of that process.”

Multiple calls and e-mails to Lonnie Thibodeaux, director of communications for Edison Chouest Offshore, were not returned.

but what is going to happen to the AIVIQ now?


#102

[QUOTE=c.captain;172169]one big shoe drops on ECO…no surprise that Shell killed the deal to build more icebreakers for the Alaskan srctic. Gotta have cost them big to exit that one!

but what is going to happen to the AIVIQ now?[/QUOTE]

Don’t you mean

moribund blue whale

Who cares, its a great time to go down to the chateaux on the bayoux and look for work.


#103

[QUOTE=z-drive;172171]Who cares, its a great time to go down to the chateaux on the bayoux and look for work.[/QUOTE]

I just laugh and laugh and laugh! I loathe Massa Gary with a passion and love to see him lose (although I can well imagine he will extract flesh from Shell over this)

Too bad for mariners but they should know that they are making a deal with the devil when they sign on with “the Don”


#104

While it’s certainly cheaper to cancel a ship than finish one that has no need anymore, I’d be surprised if they just scrapped what they have already put together. Considering that the keel was laid already last year and they have contracts with Caterpillar (engines) and Rolls-Royce (propulsion), it should be pretty far.


#105

[QUOTE=Tups;172181]While it’s certainly cheaper to cancel a ship than finish one that has no need anymore, I’d be surprised if they just scrapped what they have already put together. Considering that the keel was laid already last year and they have contracts with Caterpillar (engines) and Rolls-Royce (propulsion), it should be pretty far.[/QUOTE]

The Russians are active in ice prone areas of the Caspian and in the Far East. If these vessels are designed, built and equipped to international high standard there may be a market for them there??


#106

[QUOTE=ombugge;172209]The Russians are active in ice prone areas of the Caspian and in the Far East. If these vessels are designed, built and equipped to international high standard there may be a market for them there??[/QUOTE]

I can see a few problem with your idea, namely:

  • the ships cannot be taken to the Caspian Sea and the activity has all but ceased in the high Arctic, leaving only Sakhalin where they AFAIK don’t need AHTS vessels at the moment;
  • the sanctions against the Russian offshore industry due to the war in Ukraine, preventing US-flagged ships from working in the oil fields;
  • current Russian nationalism and industrial protectionism, resulting in something not unlike Jones Act in the US; and
  • competition from either considerably more advanced (Vitus Bering type) or considerably cheaper (Aleut type) offshore icebreakers.

#107

[QUOTE=Tups;172221]I can see a few problem with your idea, namely:

  • the ships cannot be taken to the Caspian Sea and the activity has all but ceased in the high Arctic, leaving only Sakhalin where they AFAIK don’t need AHTS vessels at the moment;
  • the sanctions against the Russian offshore industry due to the war in Ukraine, preventing US-flagged ships from working in the oil fields;
  • current Russian nationalism and industrial protectionism, resulting in something not unlike Jones Act in the US; and
  • competition from either considerably more advanced (Vitus Bering type) or considerably cheaper (Aleut type) offshore icebreakers.[/QUOTE]

Three Malaysian owned newbuilt ice braking OSVs, two AHTS built in China and 1 AHT/Rescue/Oilrec. vessel built in Singapore is now on their way on a HLV to the Black Sea. They will transit to the Caspian sea via the Volga-Don Canal and will be working in the shallow Russian part of the Caspian on a 15 year contract.
There are several foreign owned Offshore vessels working in the Russian Far East in support of oil and gas exploration and production by Russian and American Oilcos. (Off Sakhalin and in the Sea of Okhotsk) Yes, they are mainly manned by Russians, but not exclusively, and not required to be Russian flagged and built. Not comparable to the Jones Act.

Activity in the high arctic on the European side of Russia is subdued, manly because of low oil prices. The embargo may have some effect, but that is mainly because the Europeans are also part of the embargo. There are not much American involvement anyhow.
As for competition from more advanced boat, that is what i meant when I said; “designed, equipped and built to high international standard”.
I assume that if there is no market in North America, these vessel will be for sale to highest bidder and for use under foreign flag??

PS> I just looked up the size of the Aiviq and I agree, these vessels will be FAR to big to go to the Caspian.


#108

Thanks for clarifying. I admit I don’t always have up-to-date information about the operational side. However, especially in the Arctic projects the Russians always remember to stress the fact that they are going to need hundreds of ships in the future and those ships should be built in Russian shipyards such as Zvezda. However, for now companies like Sovcomflot are building offshore icebreakers outside Russia, but that may change in the future.


#109

[QUOTE=Tups;172228]Thanks for clarifying. I admit I don’t always have up-to-date information about the operational side. However, especially in the Arctic projects the Russians always remember to stress the fact that they are going to need hundreds of ships [U]in the future and those ships should be built in Russian shipyards[/U] such as Zvezda. However, for now companies like Sovcomflot are building offshore icebreakers outside Russia, but that may change in the future.[/QUOTE]
It probably will as soon as Russian yards are able to compete on quality and price with other yard. It may happen sooner if the embargo by the European and US is kept up. US yards are not a competitor, even if they were allowed to, however.
Even in the Soviet days ships were built outside the USSR, mainly in Poland and East Germany, but Icebreakers and Drilling rigs were built in Finland and OSVs in Norway and Germany, incl. Ice Class ones.


#110

While Rosneft just today announced that their order for Zvezda would be about 180-200 vessels, I haven’t heard of any encouraging news from the new shipyard in the Far East where they’re going to start for example the serial production of Vitus Bering -type icebreaking supply vessels for Sakhalin and the Arctic projects. It appears that once there’s enough money involved with the project, some of it is bound to go “missing”…

edit: turns out I was mistaken - it’s 180-200 [B]anchors[/B] that Rosneft was talking about, not vessels. However, the articles I found did not specify what kind of anchors they are. Work for a certain American AHTS vessel…? :wink:


#111

[QUOTE=c.captain;172169]one big shoe drops on ECO…no surprise that Shell killed the deal to build more icebreakers for the Alaskan srctic. Gotta have cost them big to exit that one!

but what is going to happen to the AIVIQ now?[/QUOTE]

More than likely go to the GOM and be an anchor boat. Now that Alaska is not going to happen, the economics of paying for the transit makes more sense.


#112

I couldn’t find a better thread to tell you this, but I finally located something I’ve been looking for a while. That is, of course, the SSDC, which is cold stacked off Herschel Island.

That thing was old already when Kulluk was built. Had Shell decided not to quit drilling off Alaska, they could have used that instead of Polar Pioneer… :smiley:


#113

[QUOTE=Tups;172363]I couldn’t find a better thread to tell you this, but I finally located something I’ve been looking for a while. That is, of course, the SSDC, which is cold stacked off Herschel Island.

That thing was old already when Kulluk was built. Had Shell decided not to quit drilling off Alaska, they could have used that instead of Polar Pioneer… :D[/QUOTE]

holy crap … that stuff looks made out of cardboard & wood!


#114

[QUOTE=Drill Bill;172364]holy crap … that stuff looks made out of cardboard & wood![/QUOTE]

I admit, after having been cold stacked for ten years, it could use a new layer of paint. However, structurally the concrete-reinforced steel hull is probably still quite robust - after all, it’s designed for direct ice contact. However, it would be interesting to know what it looks like inside after all this time…


#115

[QUOTE=Tups;172248]
edit: turns out I was mistaken - it’s 180-200 [B]anchors[/B] that Rosneft was talking about, not vessels. However, the articles I found did not specify what kind of anchors they are. Work for a certain American AHTS vessel…? ;)[/QUOTE]

seems he was talking about … helicopters! :wink:

[I]The JV of Finmeccanica, Rosneft and Helicopters of Russia (Rostec Group) involved in the production of shipboard helicopters is certainly a good example, considering that in the framework of this project [B]the anchor order of only Rosneft will be up to 180-200 helicopters[/B]. I wish there were more such examples.[/I]

http://www.rosneft.com/attach/0/02/91/doc_22102015_1_1.pdf

      • Updated - - -

[QUOTE=Tups;172248]
edit: turns out I was mistaken - it’s 180-200 [B]anchors[/B] that Rosneft was talking about, not vessels. However, the articles I found did not specify what kind of anchors they are. Work for a certain American AHTS vessel…? ;)[/QUOTE]

seems he was talking about … helicopters! :wink:

[I]The JV of Finmeccanica, Rosneft and Helicopters of Russia (Rostec Group) involved in the production of shipboard helicopters is certainly a good example, considering that in the framework of this project [B]the anchor order of only Rosneft will be up to 180-200 helicopters[/B]. I wish there were more such examples.[/I]

http://www.rosneft.com/attach/0/02/91/doc_22102015_1_1.pdf


#116

I guess I should finally sign up for those Russian language classes… :smiley:

Thanks for clarifying.


#117

BONG! a very heavy shoe drops on Shell this morning…

[B]Low Oil Prices Take a Toll on Royal Dutch Shell
[/B]

By STANLEY REEDOCT. 29, 2015

LONDON — Lower petroleum prices are shaking up the plans and bottom lines of the world’s biggest oil companies, and Royal Dutch Shell is the latest to show the effects.

On Thursday, the company reported a loss of $7.4 billion for the third quarter, in contrast to a profit of $4.5 billion in the quarter a year earlier. Adjusted for inventory changes and one-time items, a more closely watched measurement, earnings fell 70 percent to $1.8 billion.

The company took about $7.9 billion in write-offs for operations including its recently halted exploration venture off Alaska and a canceled heavy-oil project in Canada.

Like others in the oil industry, the company, based in The Hague, is grappling with its biggest challenges in decades. Not only must Shell and other companies adapt to the deep and potentially protracted slump in oil and gas prices, but they are also searching for an adequate response to global concerns about the role that petroleum fuels play in climate change.

Shell’s earnings from oil and gas extraction were pulled down by petroleum prices that in the third quarter averaged about 50 percent below what they were a year earlier. The company is beginning to take large write-offs as it cancels projects that no longer make economic sense in the current price environment. Shell also wrote off an additional $3.7 billion, including $2.3 billion on North American shale gas properties, because of downward revisions of the long-term outlook for the prices of gas and oil, the company said.

Ben van Beurden, who became Shell’s chief executive in 2014, has been reviewing the company’s investment plans and shelving some of its riskier and more costly efforts.

On Tuesday, for example, Shell said it was halting construction of an expensive oil sands project called Carmon Creek in the Canadian province of Alberta.

Carmon Creek was intended to produce 80,000 barrels of oil a day, a substantial amount, by heating heavy oil underground and pumping it out, a process that requires large amounts of capital upfront but then usually produces oil for decades. Shell said it would take a $2 billion write-down on the project.

“We are making changes to Shell’s portfolio mix by reviewing our longer-term upstream options worldwide, and managing affordability and exposure in the current world of lower oil prices,” Mr. van Beurden said in a statement on Tuesday. “This is forcing tough choices at Shell.”

Analysts say that Mr. van Beurden is trying to clean up mistakes by his predecessors and that doing so could allow Shell to focus on its strengths in liquefied natural gas and deepwater oil projects.

“Getting out of previous strategic missteps (Alaska, shale, more oil sands) via the impairments is a necessary evil,” Oswald Clint, an analyst at Sanford C. Bernstein in London, wrote in a note to clients on Thursday.

Late last month, Shell ended its expensive and ultimately fruitless nine-year effort to explore for oil in the Alaskan Arctic, a $7 billion investment that Shell had pursued despite strong opposition from environmental activists. The company had long insisted that the offshore promise of Alaska made it worthwhile to bear the disapproval of environmental groups and to incur the huge costs of operating in the difficult Arctic environment.

In a conference call with journalists on Thursday, Mr. van Beurden said the well that Shell drilled in the Chukchi Sea this summer was “a dry hole” and “a major disappointment,” but that it was “very conclusive” and made further expensive drilling unnecessary. He added the company was “demobilizing” its fleet of drill ships and support vessels there and winding down the operation.

Mr. van Beurden also criticized the licensing process in the United States, saying that the American authorities “should simplify and modify the permitting process” if they have the ambition to further develop oil in the area. On Thursday, Shell said it was taking $2.6 billion in write-offs for Alaska.

But the biggest problem for Shell, like other oil companies, is making money from what traditionally has been the core business: finding, producing and selling oil and gas. Even without the big write-offs, Shell’s exploration and production unit lost $425 million for the quarter, compared with a profit of $4.3 billion a year earlier.

Simon Henry, Shell’s chief financial officer, said on Thursday in the conference call that the company’s break-even price for oil was about $60 a barrel. Prices for Brent crude have been hovering around $48 a barrel.

Mr. van Beurden also said that Shell would continue to move ahead with plans to acquire the British oil and gas producer the BG Group, and that he expected the transaction to close in early 2016.

Some investors have criticized the original price of $70 billion as too high, but Mr. Henry noted that because 70 percent of the price would be paid in Shell shares, which have fallen in value, there is “a natural hedge.”

Like its British rival BP, which reported a big dent in profit this week, Shell is being helped by its marketing, refining and petrochemicals units, where profits for the quarter were up sharply, to $2.6 billion from $1.8 billion a year earlier.

Other big producers are also feeling the downdraft of lower petroleum prices. The Italian company Eni said on Thursday that its adjusted operating profit fell by 75 percent to 750 million euros, or $828 million.

Some companies are proving more resilient than others. The French company Total reported on Thursday that its adjusted net income for the quarter fell by a more modest 23 percent to $2.8 billion, largely because of a strong performance at its refining and chemicals units.

Such a terrible price to pay for so much hubris and incompetence…very reminiscent of the US’s debacle in Iraq!


#118

here is a very good article from Workboat on Shell’s arctic debacle

[B]Shellacking[/B]

The battle in Seattle is over. The “kayactivists” and other environmentalists are celebrating Royal Dutch Shell’s decision in September to shelve its Arctic operations “for the foreseeable future.”

By Bruce Buls, Correspondent

11/1/2015

For months, the Sierra Club, Greenpeace and others had staged large-scale rallies in both Seattle and Portland, Ore., against Shell and its plans to drill for oil in the Arctic Ocean. Some demonstrations involved dozens of kayakers crowding as close as possible to the Polar Pioneer when Transocean’s huge semisubmersible drilling rig was docked at the Port of Seattle’s Terminal 5 in May and June. Greenpeace protestors also dangled from a bridge over the Willamette River in Portland to block the transit of a Shell offshore support vessel, the Fennica, as it headed back to Alaska following emergency drydocking to repair a gashed hull at the Vigor shipyard in July.

The battlefield also included city hall, the commission chambers at the Port of Seattle, and King County Superior Court. In February, the port granted a two-year, $13 million lease to Foss Maritime with the understanding that Foss would use the vacant terminal to temporarily homeport Shell’s leased fleet, including the drilling rig. When the environmental community learned of the lease, they complained that the deal had been done behind closed doors without appropriate public input. So they sued the port for not having the correct environmental impact analysis. They claimed that the terminal is licensed for cargo and that using it as a staging facility for Shell’s drilling rigs and support vessels shouldn’t be allowed under existing permits.

The attempt to derail the lease lost. A Superior Court judge ruled in July that the port did not need a new environmental review for its lease with Foss. Now Foss has a fully vetted lease for Terminal 5, but its anchor tenant won’t be returning anytime soon. Foss hasn’t disclosed what it will use the terminal for, but in a letter submitted to the city in April, the company stated that its services to Shell Offshore would be “a fraction of the activity Foss expects and hopes to conduct at Terminal 5.”

ECONOMIC SETBACK

For Vigor Industrial, whose Seattle shipyard is adjacent to Terminal 5, the company was disappointed by Shell’s decision.

“This will have a meaningful, negative effect on our long-term business, from Oregon to Washington to Alaska, should the current decision continue for the long run,” said Frank Foti, CEO of Vigor Industrial. Vigor’s Seattle and Portland yards had both handled a variety of jobs associated with Shell’s Arctic program, including work on Shell’s drilling rigs in 2012.

“It’s extremely disappointing,” said Keith Whittemore, former president of Kvichak Marine and current executive vice president at Vigor. “Shell’s program of exploration and production of oil would bring a huge economic boost to the states of the West Coast and Alaska.”

Some of that economic boost had already been quantified. In September, an economic impact study commissioned by Shell and the Alaska State Chamber of Commerce said that between 2006 and 2014 Shell’s total economic input for the Puget Sound region was $282.4 million (including direct, indirect and induced spending). The report also found that in 2015 Shell’s economic impact in Puget Sound was $158.3 million and projected another $153.8 million in 2016. The McDowell Group, a research and consulting firm with offices in Anchorage and Juneau, produced the report.

“One day we’re reading the McDowell report,” said Whittemore, “and going, ‘Boy we forgot how good this is,’ and talking about other parts of it, to finding out the next day that Shell is pulling out. There will be some places where this will be very hard.”

One of those places is Alaska, where revenue from oil and gas has been a mainstay for the state for many years. And with production from Prudhoe Bay in decline and pipeline volume down to about 25% of capacity, the state is anxious to develop other sources, including offshore Arctic.

For many residents on Alaska’s Arctic coastline, Shell’s decision is especially unfortunate.

Rex A. Rock, president and CEO of the Arctic Slope Regional Corp. in Barrow, said in a statement released the day after Shell’s announcement that the news was “deeply disappointing.”

“This is a major blow for Alaska,” he wrote, “and leaves in question the viability of our state’s economy. Closer to home on the North Slope, we are looking for solutions on how we continue to sustain our local economies to support our communities. Absent any responsible resource development onshore and offshore, we are facing a fiscal crisis beyond measure.”

The private company is owned by and represents the business interests of its 12,000 Iñupiat Eskimo shareholders that reside in several Alaska villages.

In its announcement that it would cease continued exploration in the Arctic, Shell stated that federal regulations were part of the reason the company pulled the plug.

“This decision reflects both the Burger J well result, the high costs associated with the project, and the challenging and unpredictable federal regulatory environment in offshore Alaska,” a Sept. 28 company statement said.

While many observers were surprised that the Obama administration had given Shell the green light to pursue oil and gas exploration in the Arctic, the government’s approval reflected the administration’s “all of the above” philosophy for domestic energy production. Even so, the administration and its agencies responsible for regulating Arctic oil exploration insisted on standards and procedures that were much more stringent than those for other areas, such as the Gulf of Mexico.

HIGH COSTS

“A big issue was cost,” said Richard Sanchez, an oil service industry analyst with IHS Petrodata in Houston. “Shell was required to have two drill rigs up there to drill one well, so the rig cost was double. The same job in the Gulf would have been done with one drillship and three or maybe four support vessels. In 2015, Shell had about 27 support vessels in the Arctic, including several boats from Harvey Gulf and Edison Chouest.”

For other Gulf of Mexico operators, he said, the question now is how many and what kind of vessels will be coming back to the Gulf. “We are already suffering from a saturated OSV market here in the Gulf,” he said.

Sanchez also said that Shell had been hoping to make a major discovery in order to add to its reserves. “Simply making a large discovery on lots they own would have had been a huge windfall for them in terms of letting them put whatever huge reserves they found on their books. The majors are losing access to the major oil fields, so booking new reserves in very important to them.”

In addition to Shell’s other problems with market conditions and the regulatory environment, Sanchez didn’t totally discount the effect of the anti-Shell protests. “Shell does care about perception and has been positioning itself as a greener company, which may be part of the reason it teamed up with Harvey Gulf for deployment of its LNG supply vessels.”

Sanchez also pointed out that environmental opposition really ramped up following the grounding of the Kulluk in the Gulf of Alaska in December 2012. “The problems with the Kulluk and the Aiviq [Edison Chouest’s purpose-built anchor handler that was towing the Kulluk before it broke loose and grounded] was a public relations disaster. That really galvanized the opposition.”

So did numerous other Shell stumbles, including serious problems with the Noble Discoverer, the drillship that was involved in both the 2012 and 2015 campaigns. After a series of environmental and safety violations in 2012, the rig’s owner and operator, Noble Drilling, plead guilty to eight felony offenses and paid $12.2 million in fines.

And as the 2015 Arctic drilling season was beginning, another vessel in Shell’s fleet, the Fennica, ran into an uncharted rock and tore a gash in its hull. Drilling into the carbon zone was delayed until the Fennica was repaired in Portland and returned with the capping stack that was part of its support mission.

Shell still retains its leases in the Arctic and most industry observers anticipate extensions that leave the door open to future exploration. According to the U.S. Geological Survey, the Arctic holds an estimated 22% of the world’s undiscovered oil and natural gas, and other Arctic nations, particularly Russia and Norway, have been nibbling at it. At the moment, the only active Arctic development is Russia’s Prirazlomnoye field, which started production in late 2013. Eni Norge in Norway has its Goliat field in the Barents Sea, but the project has been delayed by cost overruns. And Norway’s Statoil announced earlier this year that it will put its Arctic projects on the back burner.

For now, the fight over Shell’s Arctic exploration is over in Washington state — and Washington, D.C. — but the controversy surrounding Arctic development is sure to continue.

Shell’s 2015 Arctic Fleet

Anchor Handlers

Aiviq — 361’x80’
Tor Viking — 274’x59’
Ross Chouest — 256’x54’

Barges

American Trader — 382’x105’
Arctic Challenger — 316’x105’
Arctic Endeavor — 205’x90’
Klamath — 333’x76’
Tuuq — 400’x100’

Drilling Units

Noble Discoverer — 514’x71’
Polar Pioneer — 279’x233’

Ice Management

Fennica — 380’x85’
Nordica — 380’x85’

Landing Craft/Crewboats

King-C — 85’x20’
Unalaq — 150’x50’

Offshore Supply

Harvey Champion — 300’x64’
Harvey Explorer — 240’x56’
Harvey Sisuaq — 292’x64’
Harvey Spirit — 280’x60’
Harvey Supporter — 300’x64’

Oil Spill Response

Nanuq — 301’x60’
Bear Cub 1 — 40’x16’
Bear Cub 2 — 40’x16’

Tankers

Marika — 685’x97’
Minerva Antarctica — 747’x131’

Tugs

Benjamin Foss — 73’x26’
Montana — 112’x35’
Ocean Wave — 146’x46’
Ocean Wind — 146’x46’

Source: Shell, WorkBoat


#119

Funny how everyone from Seattle to Alaska was ride or die on that “to hell with shell” campaign. Most of those same loud voices also had their hands out and couldn’t wait for their cut in increased business and tax revenues. Including you scooter, I’m sure you had an Orca gig lined up monitoring how sea otter mating habits have changed due to increased drilling.


#120

[QUOTE=Fraqrat;173012]Funny how everyone from Seattle to Alaska was ride or die on that “to hell with shell” campaign. Most of those same loud voices also had their hands out and couldn’t wait for their cut in increased business and tax revenues. Including you scooter, I’m sure you had an Orca gig lined up monitoring how sea otter mating habits have changed due to increased drilling.[/QUOTE]
Very true on all counts. No surprise to see our fearless Commander in Chief finally axe Keystone Pipeline today. Fortunately we have all those rail cars to safely transport that oil down to the Gulf. Maybe they will get some magic locomotives that don’t emit greenhouse gases to pull the cars too.