Sentences with phrase «high drilling costs»

Not exact matches

«The cost of actually doing deep - sea drilling, the cost of doing fracking in North Dakota, the cost of tar sands, the cost of Arctic drilling is way, way, way higher than anyone admits,» Shah said.

American shale drillers using the same technology have flooded their domestic market in recent years, pushing out higher - cost Canadian supply.

For the past two years, OPEC's pump - at - will policies have flooded the market with cheap supply, causing economic pain for producers with higher cash costs, including those involved in fracking, the Canadian oil sands and deepwater drilling.

That will trigger more drilling to upgrade the core high - grade resource, as well as updated metallurgical work, while Valor has also started taking steps to advance what is already a good understanding of other key input costs.

The socioeconomic section of the SGEIS faced a huge amount of criticism when it was released because it concentrated on positive economic impacts while not giving any estimates of costs incurred to municipalities or the state or any treatment of the socioeconomic stresses seen in other areas where wide - spread drilling has occurred, such as higher rents, noise, higher crime rates, increased traffic, and loss of jobs in other sectors.

Asahiko Taira, a JAMSTEC executive director, says that with their high fixed costs, «reductions will come out of pure research - related money,» though they will try to minimize the impact on the drill ship Chikyu, Japan's contribution to the Integrated Ocean Drilling Program.

This is a fairly high deload frequency, but necessary given that both the mile and a typical CrossFit metcon will work similar energy pathways.Note the lack of running drills - given the nature of a mile, the rate of return (cost / benefit) for drills tends to be lower for relatively inexperienced athletes than it does for sprints or extreme distance.

This means that drillers, miners, pharma, and biotech could all see slowdowns in government approval for their products, which means lost revenues and higher costs.

Feeling rising pressure in the campaign over high gas prices (and the looming specter of extraordinary home heating costs this fall), he shifted his stance to considering some new offshore drilling if it was part of a comprehensive energy agreement including big investments and incentives for nonpolluting energy technologies.

During a segment on Shell's drilling expedition in the Arctic, Burnett suggested that «more drilling» in the U.S. is a solution to high gas prices in California and across the nation, saying: «One way to bring down costs, of course, would be more drilling and that is a highly political topic.»

Offshore wind is about twice as expensive as onshore wind due to the higher cost of materials, more expensive drilling methods, and more complex maintenance.

Reduce dependency on (imported) fossil fuels (balance of payments, reliance on potentially unfriendly or unstable nations as suppliers, high cost at the pump, all problems as seen from US viewpoint): — encourage nuclear power generation (cut red tape)-- encourage energy savings and improved efficiency projects (tax breaks)-- encourage basic research into new (non fossil fuel) resources (subsidies)-- encourage imports from friendly neighbor, Canada (Keystone pipeline)-- encourage local oil and gas exploration («drill, baby, drill»)-- encourage «clean coal» projects (tax incentives)-- set goal to become energy independent within ten years

Pressure came from environmental activists, indigenous leaders and key institutional investors, including APG Asset Management and Dutch asset management firm Robeco, who all questioned the high risk, high cost of Arctic drilling.

The quick reaction time by some of the high - cost producers, notably the American shale oil drillers, is why one of the world's foremost oilmen, Sadad Al - Husseini, the former executive vice-president of Saudi Aramco, the world's biggest oil and gas company, is becoming bullish on oil even as Brent prices sink to the low $ 60s.

• Support for energy innovation today comes from those concerned about the high (and rising) economic costs, not to mention the foreign entanglements created by America's dependence on oil; the need for greater energy access in poor countries; diseases and deaths caused by air pollution, oil and gas drilling, and coal mining and waste; and the potential for America to manufacture and export new energy technologies at a profit.

In the 1990s, the DOE paid for higher - than - normal horizontal drilling and fracking costs to successfully test the technology.

Sure, yesterday's rosy predictions about shale gas could bear out in terms of years, but the high cost of shale drilling, the rapid rate of well depletion, and increased gas exports will translate into higher domestic prices.

A few weeks ago I wrote about a TV ad which the McCain campaign was running which, in short, said that 1) drilling for oil in offshore areas which are currently off limits is the solution to reducing high gasoline costs in the United States, and 2) that Barack Obama is the sole reason these areas are off limits.

We estimate that an extended moratorium, which we now expect to continue because of Obama political calculus, will cost up to 200,000 higher - paying jobs in the oil drilling and oil service business and that the employment multiplier of 4.7 will put the total job loss at nearly 1 million permanent employment shrinkage occurring over the next few years.

Furthermore, the analysis raises questions about the economic viability of many fracking projects, stating, «Despite impressive production growth, it is not yet clear that these plays are commercial at current prices because of the high capital cost of land and drilling and completion.

A few weeks ago I wrote about a TV ad which the McCain campaign was running which, in short, said that 1) drilling for oil in offshore areas which are currently off limits is the solution to reducing high gasoline costs

While drilling for oil is lucrative for companies and a boon to the Texas economy, it comes at a high cost.

The Court of Appeal (CA) has disagreed with the High Court's controversial first instance decision and found that a claim for spread costs was in fact successfully excluded by a consequential loss exclusion clause incorporated into a drilling contract.