Image by Shell
In this week’s readers’ Q&A session, Peter Voser, the chief executive of Shell, answers your questions.
In the first of two posts, he addresses when and how the next oil price shock might happen, the future of the North Sea and why Shell left the Falklands.
In the second post, published above, he discusses the future of natural gas, the controversial process of “fracking” and why biofuels are the answer to powering transport.
Next in the hotseat is Chris Huhne, the UK energy secretary, who will be answering your questions on electricity market reform next Thursday, December 23rd. Send in your questions for consideration by the end of today – Friday, December 17th – to firstname.lastname@example.org.
But for now, over to Peter:
I blogged on Friday about how one of the Wikileaked (can we use that as a verb yet?) cables showed ExxonMobil’s scepticism about Falklands oil. The memo said:
ExxonMobil International Chairman Brad Corson told us he does not believe there is enough oil on the Falkland Islands Continental Shelf to be profitable, citing Shell’s earlier oil exploration attempts which they abandoned.
At the time shares in the major companies drilling for oil in the area were unchanged – after all, it didn’t sound like Corson knew anything nobody else did.
Yesterday Desire Petroleum’s shares jumped more than a quarter, which can only mean one thing: oil in the Falklands.
As The Times reported (£):
In an announcement that could exacerbate tensions over the islands’ sovereignty with Argentina, Desire said that its offshore Rachel North well had been drilled to a depth of more than 3 kilometres and discovered a 57-metre thick belt of oil interspersed with layers of sand and shale.
The Falkland oilers fanclub aren’t giving up even though Desire Petroleum has suffered another setback.
On Tuesday, the company said it had been forced to plug and abandon the sidetrack well at the Rachel prospect because of technical issues.