Listen to this PodcastMore 60-Second Earth
-
The Best Science Writing Online 2012
Showcasing more than fifty of the most provocative, original, and significant online essays from 2011, The Best Science Writing Online 2012 will change the way...
Read More »
An Arctic storm tore a drilling rig loose from its tow ship and forced it aground near Alaska's Kodiak Island this week. Just a few months ago, the rig and another began preliminary drilling of the first offshore oil wells in the Arctic.
Shell's efforts to drill in the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas have been plagued by problems. But that's just part of the cost of doing energy business in this new era. Consider drilling rig operator Transocean, which agreed to pay the U.S. government $1.4 billion this week for its part in the disastrous three-month long blowout in the Gulf of Mexico in 2010.
Meanwhile, the thirst for oil drives the mining of tar sands in Alberta and the flooding of old wells with steam or CO2 in California and Texas. And, of course, there's the accelerating accumulation of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere from all that fossil fuel burning.
The resulting climate change is part of what makes drilling for oil offshore in the unfreezing Arctic possible, just as it has opened once mythical shipping routes such as the Northwest and Northeast Passages. That’s a positive feedback loop with negative consequences.
—David Biello
[The above text is a transcript of this podcast.]
See what we're tweeting about
9 Comments
Add CommentWhat's the point? Oil exploration technology has continually advanced ever since the first well was drilled. It will continue to do so despite any worries about global warming. Why? They can produce oil for less than they can sell it, and consumers think it's worth it.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere is a point. To paraphrase what President Carter explained during his term; If we just use less, we won't need more.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisExploring, drilling, fracking, or wastefully pumping fresh water into old wells so we can burn the last drops of oil, and gas, is an exercise in futility, driven by greed.
Oil should be taxed about 2$/litre
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhy do you not run for congress on that platform or do you think it should be imposed by an all knowing all powerful committee not answerable to anyone? Know where that has been tried before?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCarlyle - the nutters are the ones who think our economy can continue to depend on oil extraction as if there has been no change over the past decade. Really, a person can go off grid and live like normal - comfortably, with electricity and heat to spare, the only difference being your dependency is reduced. It takes time to achieve though, and if you wait until your job is off-shored and your pension fund fails (as it quietly has for many people over the past few years - you read the news and realize our banking system is under severe stress don't you?) it will be impossible to accomplish.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisUse your time wisely, you are much more dependent than you think. You think the banking establishment will look after your pension - you should educate yourself about the LIBOR scandal - the largest banks have robbed you blind of your yield and have pocketed tens of billions of retiree's money, and will get to keep the money after paying for the slap on the wrist they will receive. How about gov oversight to protect your retirement, or Fed reserve policy to... well, we won't go there, but the preppers (really, I'm not sure this is a clearly defined group, its more like some draw comfort on ridiculing the growing awareness in others that things are not as they used to be) are doing something to lesson their dependance on others, they seem saner and saner to me over time, the crazies are the ones who keep insisting everything is ok, we only need to close our eyes.
Amen
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI do not know anyone who says everything is O.K. What I say is we should be moving to nuclear power in a big way to preserve our fossil fuels. That does not mean we can cease searching for or producing fossil fuels however.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf you think the situation is desperate, what do you advocate? Try running analuminium refinery on alternative energy or an arc furnace or glass or cement manufacture. Or do you think we should do without these things?
Thank you for visiting our site and for being part of scientific conversations in the new year. We especially thank those of you who have posted constructive comments that have advanced the dialogue on topics directly related to the content posted. We remove name-calling comments, hostile comments, ad hominem comments, and comments that gratuitously mention politics, as you might have noticed on this story. Overall, if you are consistently making the comments section a less enjoyable place to be, your account and your comments may be removed.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCarlyle, it's easier said than done. Nuclear power plants require huge amounts of fresh water to keep the core's tempertaure down. This means that they need to be placed next to fresh water sources and when the water is let out again in to the source the temperature is much higher and this can cause harm to the flora and fauna of the source.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe future is going to be dependent on a mix of fossil fuels and renewable energy sources. Like the KSA Oil minister Ahmed Zaki Yamani had famously said: “Just as the Stone Age did not end for lack of stones, the Oil Age will not end for lack of oil".
The bigger challenge today is not E&P or refining, it's improving the efficiency of these operations and more importantly of our power grids.