[QUOTE=Tups;123777]This is of course what is going to happen in the long run. What puzzles me is that while everyone seems to be complaining about foreign ships taking their jobs, there have been no newbuilding orders for suitable ice-strengthened tonnage in the US since Aiviq. Of course 2017 is still far away and there’s all that uncertainty surrounding Arctic drilling in general, but if the ships are not ready by that time, there might be another Jones Act waiver simply because the domestic companies can’t do the job. On the other hand, we don’t know what’s happening behind the scenes - perhaps new ships are already on the drawing board, just awaiting a customer willing to charter them…[/QUOTE]
I would well imagine that Shell being the only company now with any plans for working in the Arctic going forward and with the boom happening in the Dakotas and the GoM, Alaska is suddenly not a place where too many companies are focusing their energies for newbuilds. Shell has to stay the course but I see them not being willing to sign on more AIVIQs anytime soon but things can change course fast if the prices started to climb due to a change in the world political situation such as Iran and Israel having a dust up. Still, the Arctic is a place where even drilling today doesn’t mean production tomorrow or even in 5 years. Up until the summer of 2012, I was hoping for a huge boom in Alaska over the next ten years but not anymore. Things sure have changed ever since.
The sum total of all this is after the debacle of 2012 and the tremendous booms happening closer to the major markets, Alaska and the Arctic suddenly is not the place to plan one’s future. Maybe after 2020 but not in the short term.
[QUOTE=rshrew;123784]Didn’t tidewater just build 2 ice hulled PSV’s in the Great Lakes?[/QUOTE]
an iceclassed hull does not make for an Arctic capable vessel unless finished for work in that environment. The BULLY drillships are a perfect example of that.
Ice class denotes the level of structural strengthening in the hull of the vessel that protects it against ice-induced loads. However, in most cases the classification societies have no requirements for the actual icebreaking capability of the vessel - if I recall correctly, the Russian Maritime Register of Shipping is the only classification society that has tied operational capability to ice classes (e.g. Icebreaker6 is required to be able to continuously break 3.3 ft level ice while the hull strength must be adequate to withstand contact with 5 ft ice). So, it’s possible to build a ship that has a very high ice class (= strong hull) but cannot, in practice, operate in ice due to low engine power, unsuitable propulsion system, high ice resistance due to hull lines etc.
As for Tidewater, you’re apparently referring to these vessels. There’s some additional information on slide 3 of this PowerPoint presentation. They have obviously paid attention to winterization and other aspects related to low ambient and sea temperatures, so perhaps those ships could be used for supply operations in Alaska despite their low ice class (PC7). However, with that propulsion system and hull form they’ll have to rely on icebreaker escort if and when the seas freeze.
I got a dear friend on the inside of that Turdwater project. The first vessel the Dean E Taylor was supposed to have been in Fourchon weeks ago. They have had one problem after another. Apparently no one checked to see if the yard had ever built an OSV. So they’ve had to change lots of things on the boat. They’ve had to haul it back out if the water 3 times. The last time to weld the z drives in place because the ice proofing made it so the mating surfaces wouldn’t seal. They were just sitting at the dock with globs of oil bubbling up all around the boat. The current issue is the Siemens PMS kills the power while maneuvering. They’ve had every euro trash computer whizz fly over and each one has failed to fix the problem. If they take those boats up there they will step on their dicks just like Chouest did.
Last March, when I wrote a cover story about the Kulluk grounding, I referred to Shell’s public boast that it was “Arctic Ready” and questioned whether it was “Gulf of Alaska Ready.”
Given that Edison Chouest’s purpose-built tug, the 22,000-hp Aiviq, couldn’t handle the big conical rig during an intense storm in the Gulf of Alaska, and given that Shell didn’t even have a second tug to support the tow during a winter crossing of the Gulf of Alaska, the answer to the second question is no, they weren’t ready.
In the aftermath of the grounding, Shell quickly abandoned plans for drilling its Arctic leases in 2013 as both the Kulluk and the Noble Discoverer, a companion drillship, had to be sent to Asian shipyards for extensive repairs.
Now comes word from Shell that the repairs to the Kulluk are too expensive and it will not be returning to Alaska next year, if ever. Shell also announced that it would at least temporarily abandon drilling efforts in the Beaufort Sea, where the Kulluk had drilled a top hole in 2012. Shell will now concentrate on its leases in the Chukchi Sea, where the Noble Discoverer also drilled a top hole in 2012.
But before that can happen, Shell must comply with new rules for Arctic drilling that are still being developed following 2012’s debacle. Shell is also waiting the see what the Coast Guard says about the Kulluk grounding in a report that is expected to be released in early in 2014. The report could have a significant impact on Shell’s future plans for Arctic exploration.
Nevertheless, Shell continues to dream of tapping vast amounts of offshore oil in the Arctic. During a recent media teleconference, Shell’s Chief Financial Officer Simon Henry told reporters that Alaska remains “the most attractive single opportunity for the future.”
Exactly when that future will unfold remains uncertain. I’ll be surprised if we see any Arctic oil from Alaska anytime soon.
Well, the nuclear-powered icebreakers are a breed of their own and the Russians have a definite need for such large escort icebreakers as the Northern Sea Route is now open to commercial traffic. However, most Russian icebreakers are strictly single-purpose vessels designed to escort or tow merchant ships through ice-infested waters and maybe, just maybe take some tourists to the North Pole. Comparing them to Arctic offshore vessels is a typical case of “apples and oranges”.
In addition to the new 60 MW nuclear icebreaker, they are also building the largest diesel-powered icebreaker to replace some of those built in the 1970s:
Anyway, the funny thing is that the Russians are aggressively rebuilding their already extensive and highly capable icebreaker fleet while both the US and Canada are struggling to maintain their museum fleet afloat. Canada recently postponed the construction of the new polar icebreaker by several years, resulting in 55-million-dollar additional expenses to keep one of the museum pieces in service until the replacement is ready, and the US isn’t even that far in its heavy polar icebreaker replacement program.
Well just got word the M/V Dean E Taylor is passing through Quebec as we speak. ETA to Fourchon is around week of Thanksgiving. Can’t wait to see this abortion to hit town.
Royal Dutch Shell, which abandoned this year’s offshore Alaska drilling program after a series of setbacks in 2012, has submitted a stripped-down exploration plan to U.S. authorities in a move that aims to keep its options open to drill in summer 2014.
“Shell submitted revisions to its previously approved Plan of Exploration Wednesday, Nov. 6 to the Department of Interior; this process is required to keep the company’s 2014 exploration options viable,” the company said in a statement.
“The plan details Shell’s exploration program for multiple wells in the Chukchi Sea.”
Shell’s 2012 plan included drilling in the Beaufort Sea as well. Both seas are off Alaska’s remote northern coast and are inaccessible for drilling in the winter.
The Chukchi is the more westerly of the two. Finance director Simon Henry said last week any new drilling program would be focused on the Chukchi only.
Shell’s Arctic campaign was beset by accidents and a rising tide of environmental protests and regulatory scrutiny in 2012.
Problems came to a head at the end of that year when the Kulluk, a rig that had been drilling in the Beaufort Sea, came loose from a vessel towing it south for the winter and ran aground near Kodiak Island.
Henry said last week that the Kulluk, one of a handful of specialized Arctic drilling rigs worldwide, would not be returning to the Beaufort Sea and Shell had commissioned a replacement.
Shell has spent about $5 billion on the search for oil in Alaska’s Arctic seas since it won licences to drill there in 2005.
Analysts say the allure of Alaska’s offshore and other Arctic seas for oil drillers remains strong given the complications of politics and violence they face in other parts of the world.
Drilling in the cold, remote waters is technologically difficult and expensive, but dwindling reserves elsewhere have forced oil firms to look deeper offshore.
The seas are shallow and are estimated to contain 13 percent of the world’s undiscovered oil and 30 percent of its gas.
“We will continue to take a methodical approach to this exploration phase and will only proceed if the program meets the conditions necessary to proceed safely and responsibly,” the company said.
This is what amazes me, honestly who is making these decisions. I know I saw were a few pictures of her on the lift ship, but how if she is so heavily damaged why wasn’t she just taken to a breakers yard? All I can think of is some genius in PR going “Fuck guys, they have pictures of it on the beach, GET RID OF THE FUCKING THING”. With the way things have been managed that seems to be the mindset. If only the disco got a few feet closer, maybe they would have dumped it as well!
They might have discovered some additional damage during the docking. Replacing the damaged bottom structures is one thing, but if there’s additional damage, repairing everything might not be economically feasible anymore. It’s the same as rolling your car and finding out at the shop that the engine is damaged as well.
What puzzles me the most that even with all this Arctic exploration going on, no-one’s building new ice-capable drilling rigs. Even the Stena DrillMax Ice, which some people claim to be the best thing ever invented for Arctic drilling, can’t really operate in these conditions because of its hull form. You need something like this and, of course, an ice management fleet.
[QUOTE=Traitor Yankee;124058]This is what amazes me, honestly who is making these decisions. I know I saw were a few pictures of her on the lift ship, but how if she is so heavily damaged why wasn’t she just taken to a breakers yard? All I can think of is some genius in PR going “Fuck guys, they have pictures of it on the beach, GET RID OF THE FUCKING THING”. With the way things have been managed that seems to be the mindset. If only the disco got a few feet closer, maybe they would have dumped it as well![/QUOTE]
Pretty funny tat they ould dump Kulluk. I thought I once heard they were putting a team together in Singapore to deal with a ‘recovery project’ of that rig. Why would they spend time, people & money on that if they would get rid of it in the end? Doesn’t make much sense …
[QUOTE=Drill Bill;124089]Doesn’t make much sense …[/QUOTE]
When an expensive project is terminated, it rarely makes sense at first even to the people working on the project. I just hope Shell is making the right choice because if they decide to scrap the Kulluk, we are left with no ice-capable floating drilling rigs. Even without any new exploration programs in the Arctic, I’m a bit concerned about losing that capability.
Interesting article here: seems like the feds are pushing back the timeline for the awaited offshore drilling rules… and also the Arctic oil standards. Curious what that would mean in practice but surely Shell wouldn’t escape any new regulations before starting their new drilling window in 2014, would they? Or would they?
