With gas prices over 4 dollars a gallon why is Obama forcing Shell to abandon drilling in the North Pole?

Things haven’t gone well for Shell of late and there have been a series of accidents and near misses on it’s ships, rigs and equipment and this has led the Obama administration to question whether Shell have the skills, experience and equipment needed to drill in the Arctic. As a result, the US government this week has ordered two further reviews into Shell’s recent activities and it’s competency to drill in the Arctic. It now looks likely that the company will not be granted the permits it needs to drill this season.

Unfortunately, the harsh reality is that the world needs oil, without it everything grinds to a halt. Until we make real progress with alternative fuels we are completely reliant on one of the most expensive, harmful and damaging of all the major fuel types. At the moment we are several decades away from a point where we could be reliant on alternative fuel sources such as renewables or fusion for electricity and hydrogen fuel-cells or biofuels for transportation.

Until we reach that point we have to keep on extracting oil, coal and gas. It’s worth noting that Shell, like the other oil companies, are operating in the Arctic as defined by the location of the Arctic Circle, they’re not in the Arctic as being the place where the North Pole is. It’s still a pristine wilderness, just not quite what many people think of when they imagine the Arctic.

Overall, I’d much prefer that they don’t drill there, but with known reserves being depleted then I can’t see any viable alternative at present.

Any kind of disturbance in the Artic is bad since it is a refuge for marine species from other anthropogenic disturbances (hunting, fishing etc). Drilling creates noise pollution even if not a drop of any chemical is spilled in the process (which is unlikely). I think there should be regions protected from any disturbance, and other regions should be open to exploitation.

However if the disturbance COULD impact on protected regions (through air or water pollution) then it shouldn't go ahead. And Jim Z has provided the final piece of evidence needed to show that he is either a liar or completely uninterested in current science in the field he claims to work in. There is no way there are no detectable impacts now only 2.5 years after the disaster when there were such significant effects observed in the months after the disaster.

Have to assume he is talking only about the oil and not the effects on ecosystems? Which is a strawman argument anyway, how long the oil is in the environment is not the issue, it is the long term impact on the ecosystem itself.

I cant really gove you an answer,but what I can give you is a way to a solution, that is you have to find the anglde that you relate to or peaks your interest. A good paper is one that people get drawn into because it reaches them ln some way.As for me WW11 to me, I think of the holocaust and the effect it had on the survivors, their families and those who stood by and did nothing until it was too late.