Rumor I heard and I will state rumor is that they wanted to keep going and and were able to steer the rig some. The alert wanted to hang on and drag it towards a better beach but for safety they had to let it go.
A new article on gcaptain news this morning indicates that as a result of Shell’s arctic misadventures, that ConocoPhillips and
Shell have both cancelled plans to drill in 2014. The other oil majors have backed off as well. Shell’s incompetence has killed arctic drilling for the foreseeable future.
[QUOTE=“DredgeBoyThrottleJocky;111359”]
What was wrong with “Alert”. What specifics can’t you share, and why not?[/QUOTE]
Its an investigation. He is technically a witness. There are stern punishments for violating the rules of evidence. He is not the president or the attorney general…
[QUOTE=“tugsailor;111393”]A new article on gcaptain news this morning indicates that as a result of Shell’s arctic misadventures, that ConocoPhillips and
Shell have both cancelled plans to drill in 2014. The other oil majors have backed off as well. Shell’s incompetence has killed arctic drilling for the foreseeable future.[/QUOTE]
Any surprise here?
[QUOTE=tugsailor;111393]A new article on gcaptain news this morning indicates that as a result of Shell’s arctic misadventures, that ConocoPhillips and
Shell have both cancelled plans to drill in 2014. The other oil majors have backed off as well. Shell’s incompetence has killed arctic drilling for the foreseeable future.[/QUOTE]
Well, Shell’s piss poor performance in 2012 didn’t help the cause but simple economics also make the extreme cost of trying to develop the Arctic very dubious at present. Here’s the full report from Reuters as posted in the news section:
[B]Energy Executives Tune Out The Call Of The Wild Arctic[/B]
By Reuters On May 31, 2013 By Balazs Koranyi
NY-AALESUND, Norway, – The high Arctic, once the irresistible frontier for oil and gas exploration, is quickly losing its appeal as energy firms grow fearful of the financial and public relations risk of working in the pristine icy wilderness.
The Arctic may hold 13 percent of the world’s undiscovered oil and 30 percent of its gas, but a series of blunders and failures there are making executives fight shy of such a sensitive area and turn their attention back to more conventional resources and the shale revolution.
The turning point likely came on New Year’s eve, when Royal Dutch Shell’s drillship ran aground in rough waters off Alaska, setting off a public relations storm that inflicted much pain on the firm, made more acute by how little it had to show for the $4.5 billion it has spent on the Arctic since 2005.
Shell promptly cancelled plans to drill off Alaska in 2013, and signals about its going back in 2014 are fading.
“The whole Arctic, especially the American Arctic, was set back because of Shell’s issue,” Choo Chiau Beng, the Chief Executive of Keppel, the world’s biggest rig maker, told Reuters in the world’s northernmost settlement.
The accident caused little damage and no spill, but it was a big lesson for firms looking for Arctic resources.
“The interest to develop oil and gas is very high, but nevertheless there is more and more concern about the environment and the risk part of it,” said Harald Norvik, a board member at ConocoPhillips and a former CEO of Statoil, a pioneer in the Arctic.
“We have been focusing on areas in the Arctic. Now we put our priorities into other areas, like Tanzania, Argentina and Texas. That is the logical development,” he said.
And companies simply cannot ignore the public debate about the potential environmental cost of work in the Arctic.
“The reality is that going forward, the obvious demonstration of climate change in the Arctic will affect policymakers and boardrooms for years to come, and I see that more clearly now than five years ago or three years ago,” Norvik said.
Glaciers near the world’s northernmost settlement, Ny-Aalesund, on Norway’s Svalbard islands, have been melting fast as the impact of climate change is amplified in the Arctic.
Shell is not alone in its difficulties. Cairn Energy has spent $1.2 billion drilling off Greenland and found nothing, while Gazprom has called off its huge Shtokman natural gas project because high costs made the project unviable.
And ConocoPhillips, which was working with Keppel to develop a landmark ice-class Arctic rig, has put the project on hold, and has shelved plans to drill in the Chukchi Sea next year.
SHALE
“Nobody’s coming for ice-class rigs,” Keppel’s Choo said. “Shale oil productivity is still being pushed … and there’s a lot of areas that are underexplored, like Mexico, which probably has as much oil and gas as the U.S. Gulf.”
“These are relatively low-cost areas that can be tapped.”
Shale oil is still relatively expensive but competes well on cost with deepwater projects, while shale gas, which has made the United States gas independent in just a few years, will likely conquer other countries as well.
“There are cheaper resources elsewhere with a higher probability of success; shale is taking market share away because it’s lower risk and lower cost,” said James Rogers, the CEO of Duke Energy, the biggest electricity distributor in the United States.
Norvik agrees: “It’s not very low price, but it’s competitive with deepwater and less risky,” he said. “It will be developed at a much higher speed than we’re talking about right now. It will come into play in Russia, China, South Africa, Argentina and all over.”
Shale oil, and to a greater extent gas, has made energy in the United States relatively cheap, reducing Washington’s need and appetite for supporting exploration off Alaska.
For all that, Arctic oil and gas is not dead.
Russia is still moving ahead, with Novatek and Total, on a 16.5 million tonne per year Yamal LNG facility on Siberia’s northern coast. It is considered a moderately challenging project where the real difficulty will be all-year-round transportation on an ice-heavy sea route.
And ExxonMobil recently agreed with Rosneft to jointly explore 150 million acres off Russia’s northern coast.
“I think Russia can move faster than any other country because Russia has a vested interest to develop its northern parts,” Keppel’s Choo said.
Norway is also working in the Arctic, though its relatively warm and ice-free Barents Sea makes it less difficult.
“There are many Arctics, with many characteristics; it’s not just a single region,” Runi Hansen, Statoil’s Arctic chief said. “For Statoil, the priorities haven’t changed, but elsewhere there have been setbacks, and some expectations were very high.”
Given the size of the resource in the area oil firms are bound eventually to come back.
“If it can be developed safely, then there is no reason it should not be developed,” Duke’s Rogers said. (Editing by Will Waterman)
There is no question that the whole shale oil/gas boom of the past 5 years has fundamentally changed the landscape when it comes to where the majors are going to find new reserves and with costs to operate in the Arctic likely being 3 to 5 times higher than operating in North Dakota how can you blame them? Even the cost to go into the deepwater GoM might not be so attractive if you can get all the energy you need from land ops but the GoM remains one of the most attractive provinces given the size of the finds lately in the lower tertiary fields and the favorable political climate however natural gas must be a dead issue as far as offshore is concerned. Oil is still worth much more per BTU.
So, even without the Shell clown circus of 2012, the whole Arctic boom may have been stillborn in the short term. Of course, Shell now has to figure out what to do with the AIVIQ and KULLUK since both have little to do anywhere other than the Arctic. I suspect that they will go back in a couple of years but much more quietly and less ambitious. Hopefully without the tent and three rings either!
I read that article before. Did I miss where it said that Shell has actually canceled the 2014 season???
No, they just say that Shell is not publicly discussing 2014 at present and that lack of talk is being heard loudly in the industry when compared to the Shell of the past.
Shell promptly cancelled plans to drill off Alaska in 2013, and signals about its going back in 2014 are fading.
[QUOTE=c.captain;111400]No, they just say that Shell is not publicly discussing 2014 at present and that lack of talk is being heard loudly in the industry when compared to the Shell of the past.[/QUOTE]
The Aiviq was built to ultra-deepwater specifications, but with a ice classed hull. They are now heading to Brazil from what I have been told, or soon to be.
Thanks, that’s what I thought i read. Just was wondering if it was in another article somewhere or my reading skills have started to fade.
As BMCS said, I cant share specific details as its all part of an ongoing investigation.
I still have a question. The master of the towing vessel Aiviq testified that the towing master made towing decisions. Exactly how does that work? Is the towing master/captain in command while towing and the regular non-towing master/captain in command when not towing? Please don’t tell me this was another one of those OSVs with 4 captains and now there is a towing captain.
[QUOTE=tengineer;111469]I still have a question. The master of the towing vessel Aiviq testified that the towing master made towing decisions. Exactly how does that work? Is the towing master/captain in command whwhoile towing and the regular non-towing master/captain in command when not towing? Please don’t tell me this was another one of those OSVs with 4 captains and now there is a towing captain.[/QUOTE]
I suspect the “towing master” was something akin to an “ice pilot”. They are giving commands during the operation but the master holds ultimate responsibility. Now my question is if Skogland has a MOTV endorsement? Bad for ECO if he doesn’t!
[QUOTE=tengineer;111469]I still have a question. The master of the towing vessel Aiviq testified that the towing master made towing decisions. Exactly how does that work? Is the towing master/captain in command while towing and the regular non-towing master/captain in command when not towing? Please don’t tell me this was another one of those OSVs with 4 captains and now there is a towing captain.[/QUOTE]
When I was still working on tugs and doing rig moves over a decade ago now, we alwyas had a tow master or rig master. We usually had 2 most of the time even 3 tugs on the tow, one tug usually the one with the most H.P. was always desiginated the lead boat. The captain on the lead boat made most of the decision as to the route, how ever the tow master would help when you got to location giving directions to the tugs.
Example all tugs might pull one or two anchors, then one would attach his tow line to the rig to hold it while the other tugs finished pulling the anchors, then all the tugs would make up tow and off to the new location. The reverse woulld happen when you get to a new location, the tow master would consult with the lead boat as to current, wind speed, and such. Then they would make a plan to get the rig as close to the location desired as possible, the the tugs one by one would drop the tow wire and start setting anchors, the rig master or tow master was in charge of this operation, not necessarly the voyage, other than making recomandation. Even on the tows I made across the Atlantic, we always had a tow master, to help advise, but the master on the lead boat always had the final say when at sea. Atleast that is how it used to be.
This was a unique tow however because they were not going from one drilling location to another, they were going from a dock to a shipyard, and only using one tug so other then planning a route or advising on the customers wishes to stay in helo range I can’t imigane what a tow master or rig master was needed for.
BTW there is only one company in the GOM that has the first through fourth captians on a boat. Most every other company has a senior master, with relief captain to fill in when he is not around.
[QUOTE=c.captain;111471]I suspect the “towing master” was something akin to an “ice pilot”. They are giving commands during the operation but the master holds ultimate responsibility. Now my question is if Skogland has a MOTV endorsement? Bad for ECO if he doesn’t![/QUOTE]
Ah, so who says you need a towing endorsement? The USCG? I’m pretty sure he had one though.
[QUOTE=tengineer;111469]I still have a question. The master of the towing vessel Aiviq testified that the towing master made towing decisions. Exactly how does that work? Is the towing master/captain in command while towing and the regular non-towing master/captain in command when not towing? Please don’t tell me this was another one of those OSVs with 4 captains and now there is a towing captain.[/QUOTE]
The master is in command of his vessel period. I WOULD NEVER testify that anyone is making any decision, only giving information so I can make my own. That is pretty much how it works. He knows that.
[QUOTE=anchorman;111478]Ah, so who says you need a towing endorsement? The USCG? I’m pretty sure he had one though.[/QUOTE]
do you not need a towing endorsement on an AHTS in the Gulf?
[QUOTE=anchorman;111479]The master is in command of his vessel period. I WOULD NEVER testify that anyone is making any decision, only giving information so I can make my own. That is pretty much how it works. He knows that.[/QUOTE]
Thanks. I kind of thought that but his sworn testimony really gave me pause. My thoughts were this; this guy has to be one of the best in the towing business or else he would not be in charge of one of the most watched operations in recent history. So,as a competent, highly trained master why would he testify under oath that his understanding was that the “towing master” was in charge? That being the case the gentleman is either not as competent as one would think or is committing perjury.
Greenpeace is loving this crap. I swear these arrogant oil companies and their minions are their own worst enemy. Some of this stuff couldn’t be made up in an environmentalist’s most wishful dream.
[QUOTE=c.captain;111480]do you not need a towing endorsement on an AHTS in the Gulf?[/QUOTE]
Nope, but all have it anyway. There is not one remark on any issued paperwork from the USCG that the vessel is a towing vessel. Although, you have the class certificate with towing notation, nothing on that certificate drives licensing.
[QUOTE=“anchorman;111482”]
Nope, but all have it anyway. There is not one remark on any issued paperwork from the USCG that the vessel is a towing vessel. Although, you have the class certificate with towing notation, nothing on that certificate drives licensing.[/QUOTE]
How can someone get a towing license from working on an AHTS if the USCG doesn’t consider them towing vessels?
[QUOTE=tengineer;111481]Thanks. I kind of thought that but his sworn testimony really gave me pause. My thoughts were this; this guy has to be one of the best in the towing business or else he would not be in charge of one of the most watched operations in recent history. So,as a competent, highly trained master why would he testify under oath that his understanding was that the “towing master” was in charge? That being the case the gentleman is either not as competent as one would think or is committing perjury.
Greenpeace is loving this crap. I swear these arrogant oil companies and their minions are their own worst enemy. Some of this stuff couldn’t be made up in an environmentalist’s most wishful dream.[/QUOTE]
I have the same thoughts myself. Having worked with the man, I know him to be one of the most competent that I have worked with. So, I actually do not know WHY that statement was made by him. I talked to him right after this crap happened, and he only said it should have been me there…and that I owe him one. I can see being “under advisement” of the towing master, but to make a statement such as that, someone else being “in charge” of your vessel, that is not true. Especially, by a tow master on the rig.