Save the Arctic!
In the last 30 years, we’ve lost as much as three-quarters of the floating ice cap at the top of the world. The volume of that sea ice measured by satellites in the summer, when it reaches its smallest, has shrunk so fast that scientists say it’s now in a ‘death spiral’.
For over 800,000 years, ice has been a permanent feature of the Arctic ocean. It’s melting because of our use of dirty fossil fuel energy, and in the near future it could be ice free for the first time since humans walked the Earth. This would be not only devastating for the people, polar bears, narwhals, walruses and other species that live there - but for the rest of us too.
The ice at the top of the world reflects much of the sun’s heat back into space and keeps our whole planet cool, stabilising the weather systems that we depend on to grow our food. Protecting the ice means protecting us all.
The Arctic ice we all depend on is disappearing. Fast.
For over 800,000 years, ice has been a permanent feature of the Arctic ocean. It’s melting because of our use of dirty fossil fuel energy, and in the near future it could be ice free for the first time since humans walked the Earth. This would be not only devastating for the people, polar bears, narwhals, walruses and other species that live there - but for the rest of us too.
The ice at the top of the world reflects much of the sun’s heat back into space and keeps our whole planet cool, stabilising the weather systems that we depend on to grow our food. Protecting the ice means protecting us all.
The Arctic ice we all depend on is disappearing. Fast.
As the ice is disappearing, companies and governments
want to drill for oil in the melting waters
Shell is due to begin exploratory drilling at two offshore sites in the Alaskan Arctic in Summer 2012. If Shell is successful this summer, an Arctic oil rush will be sparked and the push to carve up the region will accelerate. Russian oil giant Gazprom is also pushing into the offshore Arctic this year.
It is time to Save the Arctic - please sign the petition - click on the picture!
It is time to Save the Arctic - please sign the petition - click on the picture!
Click on the picture to sign - petition opens in a new window. Thank you!
Sign the Petition: No Reckless Drilling in the Arctic
|
There’s no proof Shell can effectively clean up a spill in the Arctic:
|
|
Please sign the petition and tell Secretary Salazar: I stand with Ocean Conservancy against Shell’s reckless plans to drill for oil in the Arctic.
It's not too late to stop this untested and risky oil exploration in the vulnerable Arctic. Sign the petition now and take a stand for a clean and healthy ocean.
It's not too late to stop this untested and risky oil exploration in the vulnerable Arctic. Sign the petition now and take a stand for a clean and healthy ocean.
|
|
Corals found at Shell’s proposed Arctic drilling site
Blogpost by John Hocevar (Greenpeace) - August 3, 2012
Greetings from the Chukchi Sea, way up in the Arctic north of Alaska, where the team aboard the Greenpeace ship Esperanza is using a small submarine to study the seafloor in the area Shell hopes to begin drilling for oil this summer. During what we believe to be the first research submarine dives ever in the Chukchi Sea, we were surprised to discover large numbers of corals in the midst of Shell’s proposed drill site.
Shell says it knew the corals are there, telling the Washington Post that corals make up nearly 4% of the marine life at the bottom of the Chukchi. To put that in perspective, the South Florida reefs I studied for my masters thesis– and which attract divers from thousands of miles away – often have about 4% coral cover. Personally, I was definitely not expecting corals to be one of the three most commonly seen species on our dives, along with brittle stars and baskets stars.
Greetings from the Chukchi Sea, way up in the Arctic north of Alaska, where the team aboard the Greenpeace ship Esperanza is using a small submarine to study the seafloor in the area Shell hopes to begin drilling for oil this summer. During what we believe to be the first research submarine dives ever in the Chukchi Sea, we were surprised to discover large numbers of corals in the midst of Shell’s proposed drill site.
Shell says it knew the corals are there, telling the Washington Post that corals make up nearly 4% of the marine life at the bottom of the Chukchi. To put that in perspective, the South Florida reefs I studied for my masters thesis– and which attract divers from thousands of miles away – often have about 4% coral cover. Personally, I was definitely not expecting corals to be one of the three most commonly seen species on our dives, along with brittle stars and baskets stars.
Corals are slow growing, long lived, and highly vulnerable to disturbance. They provide habitat for fish and other marine life, often serving as nursery areas for larvae or juveniles. Both the United Nations and the US Government have recognized the importance of protecting corals.
All of this raises questions why there is no mention of Chukchi corals in the environmental impact statement for Shell’s drilling plans. Coral experts at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration do not appear to have been consulted. The public was not informed. You would think the Department of Interior, which oversees the permitting of offshore drilling, would have learned from the BP Horizon disaster in the Gulf of Mexico. Instead of moving beyond fiascos like the Gulf assessment which talked about walrus and other Arctic species, it appears little has changed and that environmental impact statements are still treated as little more than bureaucratic requirements to rush through on the way to rubber stamping the next item on Big Oil’s wish list.
There is still time for the Obama administration to take a deep breath and put on the brakes, instead of letting Shell rush to drill in the Arctic. We do not even fully know what is at risk, because most of the area has yet to be explored. And as we discovered firsthand, even some of what Shell does know has not been appropriately made available to the public or taken into consideration by the Department of Interior.
There is still time to save the Arctic from reckless offshore drilling.
All of this raises questions why there is no mention of Chukchi corals in the environmental impact statement for Shell’s drilling plans. Coral experts at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration do not appear to have been consulted. The public was not informed. You would think the Department of Interior, which oversees the permitting of offshore drilling, would have learned from the BP Horizon disaster in the Gulf of Mexico. Instead of moving beyond fiascos like the Gulf assessment which talked about walrus and other Arctic species, it appears little has changed and that environmental impact statements are still treated as little more than bureaucratic requirements to rush through on the way to rubber stamping the next item on Big Oil’s wish list.
There is still time for the Obama administration to take a deep breath and put on the brakes, instead of letting Shell rush to drill in the Arctic. We do not even fully know what is at risk, because most of the area has yet to be explored. And as we discovered firsthand, even some of what Shell does know has not been appropriately made available to the public or taken into consideration by the Department of Interior.
There is still time to save the Arctic from reckless offshore drilling.
July 17, 2012 - Shell’s first accident occurs
already en route to Arctic drilling
For years, environmental advocates pleaded with the U.S. government to keep Big Oil from getting its grubby little hands on the Arctic.
Thanks to pressure from industry lobbyists and politicians with pockets full of Big Oil’s money, the Obama Administration chose to ignore the scientists who said the Arctic is too fragile, and we’d have no way to clean up a spill if it happened. They ignored the environmental activists who said the BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico was proof that Big Oil lacked a safety culture, and needed more regulation and oversight to make sure people and ecosystems were protected from toxic contamination.
Instead, President Obama gave Shell the green light to start off-shore Arctic drilling in Alaska’s Beaufort and Chukchi Seas. Big Oil couldn’t wait. They loaded up their drilling ships and set sail as fast as possible ready to make all those environmentalists eat their words. But they didn’t get far.
In an embarrassing turn of events, a Shell oil drilling ship lost its mooring and ran aground in an Alaskan harbor on Saturday. Called the “Discoverer,” the ship is owned by Noble Corp, and is among a Shell fleet to soon head north for planned exploratory drilling in the Arctic waters of the Chukchi and Beaufort seas.
No damage was caused, to the harbor or the vessel, but still. If they can’t even keep the ship on course, what makes them so sure they can drill for oil in a completely foreign, frozen, deepwater environment without making a more serious mistake?
“Environmentalists say the anchorage problem is yet another reason to question Shell’s Arctic plan, particularly after the same vessel ran into a mooring problem in a severe storm in New Zealand waters last year,” reports the Daily Mail.
Source
Thanks to pressure from industry lobbyists and politicians with pockets full of Big Oil’s money, the Obama Administration chose to ignore the scientists who said the Arctic is too fragile, and we’d have no way to clean up a spill if it happened. They ignored the environmental activists who said the BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico was proof that Big Oil lacked a safety culture, and needed more regulation and oversight to make sure people and ecosystems were protected from toxic contamination.
Instead, President Obama gave Shell the green light to start off-shore Arctic drilling in Alaska’s Beaufort and Chukchi Seas. Big Oil couldn’t wait. They loaded up their drilling ships and set sail as fast as possible ready to make all those environmentalists eat their words. But they didn’t get far.
In an embarrassing turn of events, a Shell oil drilling ship lost its mooring and ran aground in an Alaskan harbor on Saturday. Called the “Discoverer,” the ship is owned by Noble Corp, and is among a Shell fleet to soon head north for planned exploratory drilling in the Arctic waters of the Chukchi and Beaufort seas.
No damage was caused, to the harbor or the vessel, but still. If they can’t even keep the ship on course, what makes them so sure they can drill for oil in a completely foreign, frozen, deepwater environment without making a more serious mistake?
“Environmentalists say the anchorage problem is yet another reason to question Shell’s Arctic plan, particularly after the same vessel ran into a mooring problem in a severe storm in New Zealand waters last year,” reports the Daily Mail.
Source
It is also a chilling reminder that, despite the most careful planning, things can go awry
"Our goal remains flawless operations," the company declared in a statement posted to its website. "Even a 'near miss' is unacceptable. While an internal investigation will determine why the Discoverer slipped anchor, we are pleased with the speed and effectiveness of the mitigation measures we had in place."
Opponents of Arctic drilling were unmoved. "For us," said Travis Nichols, a spokesman for Greenpeace, "it's a clear warning sign that Shell isn't prepared to go up there."
"Up there" is the unforgiving Chuchki and Beaufort seas, still more than 1,000 miles northeast of Dutch Harbor, along Alaska's northern coast. That's where the Noble Discoverer and its sister rig, the Kulluk -- along with dozens of support vessels -- aim to soon hunker down, between 20 and 70 miles offshore, where they will begin poking exploratory holes in the seabed in the hope of finding oil.
With visions of oil-soaked beaches and BP's flaming Deepwater Horizon rig still fresh in the minds of many Americans -- as are more than two decades of environmental impacts arising form the 1989 Exxon Valdez spill in Alaska's Prince William Sound -- opposition to Shell's Arctic ambitions has been fierce. In response, the company has pulled out all the stops in touting its experience in northern waters, including exploration wells it plumbed in the Chuchki and Beaufort the 1980s and '90s, before low oil prices prompted it to focus on the Gulf.
Shell has also argued that, unlike BP's operation in the Gulf of Mexico, which was groping in waters nearly a mile deep and drilling to depths of 18,000 feet, the Beaufort and Chuchki operations will be working in comparative shallows of 140 feet or so, and drilling to roughly 10,000 feet or less. Well pressures in the Arctic are also expected to be far lower, the company has said, making the sort of wild, unchecked gusher that BP experienced unlikely.
Meanwhile, the payoff could be substantial: Federal officials currently estimate that the shelf under the Chuchki and Beufort seas contains more than 26 billion barrels of recoverable oil, and 130 trillion cubic feet of natural gas. An economic analysis , prepared by a consultancy on behalf of Shell last year, estimated that employees in Alaska would draw some $63 billion in payroll, and another $82 billion would accrue to workers in a variety of ancillary and downline jobs across the U.S. Local, state and federal governments would draw billions in revenues, the report reckoned.
Just how reliable such projections might be is an open question, but it is certain that should Shell's gamble prove successful, other companies will follow. Towns will swell to cities, shipping corridors will expand, pipelines will be built, and historic levels of economic activity will stir to life at the nation's northern frontier.
None of this, of course, has impressed environmental advocates. Just last week, a coalition of organizations filed suit in an Alaska federal court, arguing that the Obama administration's approval of Shell's spill response plans, which the groups consider inadequate, amounted to a rubber stamp.
Previous legal challenges to Shell's plans, however, have proven unsuccessful, and Curtis Smith, a spokesman for Shell, said in an email message that the company was confident that regulators had thoroughly reviewed its oil spill response plans. "The bottom line is, regulators at the highest level have looked very closely at these plans," Smith said. "They have confidence in these plans and if they did not, we would not be on the doorstep to drilling in Alaska."
They are most certainly on the doorstep. Barring the unforeseen, it is highly likely that at some point in early August -- assuming unusually long-lingering sea ice ultimately clears -- Shell's rigs will be in position and drilling will commence.
In the meantime, Greenpeace, which is party to last week's lawsuit, is spearheading efforts to collect baseline data on the areas where Shell plans to work, dispatching a pair of manned submersibles to collect seabed samples, as well as photographs and video of the ecosystem beneath the chilly Arctic waters, before Shell's drill rigs arrive.
Whatever your thoughts on oil exploration in the Arctic, this would seem a crucial enterprise -- not least because Shell has hit other bumps in the race to begin work while the ice-free drilling window, which lasts roughly from July to October, remains open. Among these: concerns raised by the Coast Guard that its Arctic Challenger spill barge, designed to handle rough seas and ice hazards, as well as tackle any accidental spill, is not ready for prime time .
Shell officials have reportedly argued that the Arctic Challenger should be held to less rigorous standards. They requested similar dispensation from the EPA on Friday, saying the operation would be unable to meet air pollution standards set by the agency. The EPA is weighing the request.
All of this worries environmental activists, who suspect that Shell is knowingly playing a game of bait and switch, in which the company agrees to rigorous standards up front, and then slowly begins chipping away at them after its drilling fleet is en route.
But even if Shell's recalibrations are honest ones, and its missteps -- including the runaway drill rig this weekend -- forgivable, such turns do little to instill confidence among folks who worry about the future of one of the world's last undeveloped environments.
It is an ecosystem like no other, and the seas and shores skirting Alaska's North Slope teem with life -- migrating whales, walrus, seals, polar bear and a variety of seabirds. Eskimo populations in the area, meanwhile, are almost completely dependent on this fauna for survival, particularly during the long, harsh winters. And all of it is very delicately balanced.
"The Arctic ecosystem is so different from the other ecosystems that we're used to dealing with, because there are so few inputs," said Greenpeace's Travis Nichols. "In a place like the Amazon, not that you'd want to damage the Amazon, but if you do, there's so much biodiversity and so many species there that can help to correct the web. In the Arctic, if you mess one thing up, you mess up the whole thing."
One could reasonably argue that the whole thing is already being messed up by global warming, which has been causing summer sea ice to retreat to record levels. That this very phenomenon -- driven in part by our voracious appetite for fossil fuels -- is now making oil exploration and development more feasible is an irony not lost on critics.
But these forces, both economic and climatic, are proving all but impossible for clean-energy and environmental advocates to curb -- making careful monitoring of any oil boom in the Arctic all the more crucial.
For its part, Shell has taken steps to limit the ability of Greenpeace to disrupt things directly (as is its wont), securing a restraining order that requires the group to keep well clear of the oil giant's vessels in the Arctic.
Taking things further, Republican Sen. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska co-authored a pair of letters to federal officials last week, complaining about Greenpeace and asking that further protest be carefully scrutinized. In a bizarre twist, Murkowski also requested that the environmental impacts of Greenpeace's own activities be regulated.
Such is the rhetorical pitch as one of the planet's last truly pristine environments stands on the precipice of a new era of industrialization. Given its track record so far, Shell will need to work doubly hard to convince skeptics that it is can lead the way safely.
"So much effort and treasure has been expended to get to the point where twenty vessels are in Dutch Harbor ready to advance to the Chukchi and Beaufort Seas to begin drilling test wells," an editorial in The Dutch Harbor Telegraph declared after this weekend's gaffe . "Greenpeace doesn't have to say a thing. Shell has said it all."
via Huffington Post
Opponents of Arctic drilling were unmoved. "For us," said Travis Nichols, a spokesman for Greenpeace, "it's a clear warning sign that Shell isn't prepared to go up there."
"Up there" is the unforgiving Chuchki and Beaufort seas, still more than 1,000 miles northeast of Dutch Harbor, along Alaska's northern coast. That's where the Noble Discoverer and its sister rig, the Kulluk -- along with dozens of support vessels -- aim to soon hunker down, between 20 and 70 miles offshore, where they will begin poking exploratory holes in the seabed in the hope of finding oil.
With visions of oil-soaked beaches and BP's flaming Deepwater Horizon rig still fresh in the minds of many Americans -- as are more than two decades of environmental impacts arising form the 1989 Exxon Valdez spill in Alaska's Prince William Sound -- opposition to Shell's Arctic ambitions has been fierce. In response, the company has pulled out all the stops in touting its experience in northern waters, including exploration wells it plumbed in the Chuchki and Beaufort the 1980s and '90s, before low oil prices prompted it to focus on the Gulf.
Shell has also argued that, unlike BP's operation in the Gulf of Mexico, which was groping in waters nearly a mile deep and drilling to depths of 18,000 feet, the Beaufort and Chuchki operations will be working in comparative shallows of 140 feet or so, and drilling to roughly 10,000 feet or less. Well pressures in the Arctic are also expected to be far lower, the company has said, making the sort of wild, unchecked gusher that BP experienced unlikely.
Meanwhile, the payoff could be substantial: Federal officials currently estimate that the shelf under the Chuchki and Beufort seas contains more than 26 billion barrels of recoverable oil, and 130 trillion cubic feet of natural gas. An economic analysis , prepared by a consultancy on behalf of Shell last year, estimated that employees in Alaska would draw some $63 billion in payroll, and another $82 billion would accrue to workers in a variety of ancillary and downline jobs across the U.S. Local, state and federal governments would draw billions in revenues, the report reckoned.
Just how reliable such projections might be is an open question, but it is certain that should Shell's gamble prove successful, other companies will follow. Towns will swell to cities, shipping corridors will expand, pipelines will be built, and historic levels of economic activity will stir to life at the nation's northern frontier.
None of this, of course, has impressed environmental advocates. Just last week, a coalition of organizations filed suit in an Alaska federal court, arguing that the Obama administration's approval of Shell's spill response plans, which the groups consider inadequate, amounted to a rubber stamp.
Previous legal challenges to Shell's plans, however, have proven unsuccessful, and Curtis Smith, a spokesman for Shell, said in an email message that the company was confident that regulators had thoroughly reviewed its oil spill response plans. "The bottom line is, regulators at the highest level have looked very closely at these plans," Smith said. "They have confidence in these plans and if they did not, we would not be on the doorstep to drilling in Alaska."
They are most certainly on the doorstep. Barring the unforeseen, it is highly likely that at some point in early August -- assuming unusually long-lingering sea ice ultimately clears -- Shell's rigs will be in position and drilling will commence.
In the meantime, Greenpeace, which is party to last week's lawsuit, is spearheading efforts to collect baseline data on the areas where Shell plans to work, dispatching a pair of manned submersibles to collect seabed samples, as well as photographs and video of the ecosystem beneath the chilly Arctic waters, before Shell's drill rigs arrive.
Whatever your thoughts on oil exploration in the Arctic, this would seem a crucial enterprise -- not least because Shell has hit other bumps in the race to begin work while the ice-free drilling window, which lasts roughly from July to October, remains open. Among these: concerns raised by the Coast Guard that its Arctic Challenger spill barge, designed to handle rough seas and ice hazards, as well as tackle any accidental spill, is not ready for prime time .
Shell officials have reportedly argued that the Arctic Challenger should be held to less rigorous standards. They requested similar dispensation from the EPA on Friday, saying the operation would be unable to meet air pollution standards set by the agency. The EPA is weighing the request.
All of this worries environmental activists, who suspect that Shell is knowingly playing a game of bait and switch, in which the company agrees to rigorous standards up front, and then slowly begins chipping away at them after its drilling fleet is en route.
But even if Shell's recalibrations are honest ones, and its missteps -- including the runaway drill rig this weekend -- forgivable, such turns do little to instill confidence among folks who worry about the future of one of the world's last undeveloped environments.
It is an ecosystem like no other, and the seas and shores skirting Alaska's North Slope teem with life -- migrating whales, walrus, seals, polar bear and a variety of seabirds. Eskimo populations in the area, meanwhile, are almost completely dependent on this fauna for survival, particularly during the long, harsh winters. And all of it is very delicately balanced.
"The Arctic ecosystem is so different from the other ecosystems that we're used to dealing with, because there are so few inputs," said Greenpeace's Travis Nichols. "In a place like the Amazon, not that you'd want to damage the Amazon, but if you do, there's so much biodiversity and so many species there that can help to correct the web. In the Arctic, if you mess one thing up, you mess up the whole thing."
One could reasonably argue that the whole thing is already being messed up by global warming, which has been causing summer sea ice to retreat to record levels. That this very phenomenon -- driven in part by our voracious appetite for fossil fuels -- is now making oil exploration and development more feasible is an irony not lost on critics.
But these forces, both economic and climatic, are proving all but impossible for clean-energy and environmental advocates to curb -- making careful monitoring of any oil boom in the Arctic all the more crucial.
For its part, Shell has taken steps to limit the ability of Greenpeace to disrupt things directly (as is its wont), securing a restraining order that requires the group to keep well clear of the oil giant's vessels in the Arctic.
Taking things further, Republican Sen. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska co-authored a pair of letters to federal officials last week, complaining about Greenpeace and asking that further protest be carefully scrutinized. In a bizarre twist, Murkowski also requested that the environmental impacts of Greenpeace's own activities be regulated.
Such is the rhetorical pitch as one of the planet's last truly pristine environments stands on the precipice of a new era of industrialization. Given its track record so far, Shell will need to work doubly hard to convince skeptics that it is can lead the way safely.
"So much effort and treasure has been expended to get to the point where twenty vessels are in Dutch Harbor ready to advance to the Chukchi and Beaufort Seas to begin drilling test wells," an editorial in The Dutch Harbor Telegraph declared after this weekend's gaffe . "Greenpeace doesn't have to say a thing. Shell has said it all."
via Huffington Post
|
|
Remembering the Exxon Valdez oil spill 1989
On March 23, 1989 the Exxon Valdez, an oil supertanker operated by Exxon, left the port of Valdez headed for Long beach, CA with almost 54 million gallons of crude oil on board.
Shortly after midnight on March 24, 1989, the supertanker collided with Bligh Reef, a well known navigation hazard, ruptured 8 of its 11 cargo tanks and spilled 11 million gallons of crude oil into the pristine waters of Prince William Sound. The result was catastrophic.
Although the spill was radioed in shortly after the collision, Exxons response was slow. In fact, there was no recovery effort for three days while Exxon searched for clean up equipment. During that time millions of gallons of oil began to spread down the coast. Days later as the clean up effort began the oil slick was no longer containable. It eventually extended 470 miles to the southwest, contaminated hundreds of miles of coastline.
Shortly after midnight on March 24, 1989, the supertanker collided with Bligh Reef, a well known navigation hazard, ruptured 8 of its 11 cargo tanks and spilled 11 million gallons of crude oil into the pristine waters of Prince William Sound. The result was catastrophic.
Although the spill was radioed in shortly after the collision, Exxons response was slow. In fact, there was no recovery effort for three days while Exxon searched for clean up equipment. During that time millions of gallons of oil began to spread down the coast. Days later as the clean up effort began the oil slick was no longer containable. It eventually extended 470 miles to the southwest, contaminated hundreds of miles of coastline.
The Legacy of Exxon Valdez
Exxon Valdez leaked more than 40 million litres of crude oil into Alaska's pristine waterways nineteen years ago. Today, oil is still polluting the shores and bankrupted fishermen are still waiting for the $5 billion payout granted in 1994.
After a series of appeals by the company, $5 billion became $2.5. Now that the case has reached the increasingly pro-business US Supreme Court, fishermen fear they could end up with nothing. While ExxonMobil claims the area has returned to robust health, locals tell of vastly depleted fish stocks, which almost disappeared after the spill.
ExxonMobil claims the fish fell victim to a virus, a theory disputed by the fishermen, who are backed by scientific evidence: 'The fish can't disappear like they're telling the public. [Exxon's] explanation just isn't practical,' says an expert. As the legal case drags on, a fifth of the plaintiffs have died and the rest have lost hope. For them, Exxon has already won no matter what. Yet the oil giant keeps repeating that the spill was a tragic accident and that the company has acted responsibly towards the local communities. Fishermen whose livelihoods were wrecked feel cheated: 'Exxon says that everything's coming back and everything's fine-- it's a lie.'
Produced by ABC Australia - Distributed by Journeyman Pictures
After a series of appeals by the company, $5 billion became $2.5. Now that the case has reached the increasingly pro-business US Supreme Court, fishermen fear they could end up with nothing. While ExxonMobil claims the area has returned to robust health, locals tell of vastly depleted fish stocks, which almost disappeared after the spill.
ExxonMobil claims the fish fell victim to a virus, a theory disputed by the fishermen, who are backed by scientific evidence: 'The fish can't disappear like they're telling the public. [Exxon's] explanation just isn't practical,' says an expert. As the legal case drags on, a fifth of the plaintiffs have died and the rest have lost hope. For them, Exxon has already won no matter what. Yet the oil giant keeps repeating that the spill was a tragic accident and that the company has acted responsibly towards the local communities. Fishermen whose livelihoods were wrecked feel cheated: 'Exxon says that everything's coming back and everything's fine-- it's a lie.'
Produced by ABC Australia - Distributed by Journeyman Pictures
August 30, 2012
Obama ignores huge dangers in approving
arctic drilling permit for Shell
Drilling set to begin immediately risks massive spills, Polar Bears, Walruses,
Bowhead Whales
ANCHORAGE, Alaska— The Obama administration today gave Shell Oil the initial approval to begin controversial and dangerous oil drilling in the Arctic Ocean off Alaska, despite the fact that a critical oil-spill containment vessel is still awaiting certification in Bellingham, Wash. Until now, the Arctic Ocean has largely been off limits to offshore drilling. Shell Oil is expected to begin the initial phases of exploratory drilling in the Chukchi Sea as soon as it can get its drillship in place, in the heart of habitat critical to the survival of polar bears.
“By opening the Arctic to offshore oil drilling, President Obama has made a monumental mistake that puts human life, wildlife and the environment in terrible danger. The harsh and frozen conditions of the Arctic make drilling risky, and an oil spill would be impossible to clean up,” said Rebecca Noblin, Alaska director at the Center for Biological Diversity. “Scariest of all, the Obama administration is allowing Shell to go forward without even having the promised oil-spill containment equipment in place.”
Since 2007, the Center and its allies have successfully protected the Arctic Ocean from Shell's exploratory drilling plans. So far in 2012, a series of blunders and broken promises has prevented Shell from moving forward with its aggressive drilling plans. Last month the company announced that it could not comply with its air-pollution permits and asked the EPA to waive Clean Air Act requirements. Days later its drillship Noble Discoverer slipped its moorings in Dutch Harbor, Alaska, and drifted dangerously close to shore. Right now, Shell’s oil-spill containment vessel, which was supposed to be onsite for any drilling, is still stuck in Washington state.
“While opposition to Shell’s drilling plans has resulted in significant safety improvements, Arctic drilling can never really be safe. The president is putting America’s natural heritage on the line just to add to Shell’s bottom line,” Noblin said. “Make no mistake: Once we’ve ruined the Arctic for wildlife, we’ll never get it back. The unique animals that evolved over millions of years to survive in this frozen wilderness — and nowhere else — will be condemned to extinction.”
More than 1 million people have sent President Obama messages asking him to save the Arctic from drilling. The Center for Biological Diversity, staunchly opposed to offshore drilling, will continue working to protect the Arctic Ocean’s sensitive wildlife.
“Pursuing fossil fuels in the remote Arctic will destroy the life there, even as it speeds up the climate change that’s already destroying the polar bears’ home and poses enormous risks to people, too,” Noblin said.
Source: Center for Biological Diversity
The Center for Biological Diversity is a national, nonprofit conservation organization with more than 375,000 members and online activists dedicated to the protection of endangered species and wild places
“By opening the Arctic to offshore oil drilling, President Obama has made a monumental mistake that puts human life, wildlife and the environment in terrible danger. The harsh and frozen conditions of the Arctic make drilling risky, and an oil spill would be impossible to clean up,” said Rebecca Noblin, Alaska director at the Center for Biological Diversity. “Scariest of all, the Obama administration is allowing Shell to go forward without even having the promised oil-spill containment equipment in place.”
Since 2007, the Center and its allies have successfully protected the Arctic Ocean from Shell's exploratory drilling plans. So far in 2012, a series of blunders and broken promises has prevented Shell from moving forward with its aggressive drilling plans. Last month the company announced that it could not comply with its air-pollution permits and asked the EPA to waive Clean Air Act requirements. Days later its drillship Noble Discoverer slipped its moorings in Dutch Harbor, Alaska, and drifted dangerously close to shore. Right now, Shell’s oil-spill containment vessel, which was supposed to be onsite for any drilling, is still stuck in Washington state.
“While opposition to Shell’s drilling plans has resulted in significant safety improvements, Arctic drilling can never really be safe. The president is putting America’s natural heritage on the line just to add to Shell’s bottom line,” Noblin said. “Make no mistake: Once we’ve ruined the Arctic for wildlife, we’ll never get it back. The unique animals that evolved over millions of years to survive in this frozen wilderness — and nowhere else — will be condemned to extinction.”
More than 1 million people have sent President Obama messages asking him to save the Arctic from drilling. The Center for Biological Diversity, staunchly opposed to offshore drilling, will continue working to protect the Arctic Ocean’s sensitive wildlife.
“Pursuing fossil fuels in the remote Arctic will destroy the life there, even as it speeds up the climate change that’s already destroying the polar bears’ home and poses enormous risks to people, too,” Noblin said.
Source: Center for Biological Diversity
The Center for Biological Diversity is a national, nonprofit conservation organization with more than 375,000 members and online activists dedicated to the protection of endangered species and wild places
01/01/2013 - Breakaway oil rig, filled with fuel, runs aground
via New York Times - An enormous Shell Oil offshore drilling rig ran aground on an island in the Gulf of Alaska on Monday night after it broke free from tow ships in rough seas, officials said.
The rig, the Kulluk, which was used for test drilling in the Arctic last summer, is carrying about 139,000 gallons of diesel fuel and 12,000 gallons of lubricating oil and hydraulic fluid, the officials said.
The rig, the Kulluk, which was used for test drilling in the Arctic last summer, is carrying about 139,000 gallons of diesel fuel and 12,000 gallons of lubricating oil and hydraulic fluid, the officials said.
|
|
A Coast Guard helicopter flew over the rig after the grounding at 8:48 p.m. and “detected no visible sheen,” said Darci Sinclair, a spokeswoman for a unified command of officials from Shell, Alaskan state agencies and other groups that has been directing the response since the troubles with the rig began last Thursday.
Ms. Sinclair said that more overflights were planned after daybreak on Tuesday, and that the unified command would be monitoring the fuel situation as it planned further actions. “The focus will be around salvage,” she said.
The 266-foot diameter rig ran aground on the east coast of Sitkalidak Island, an uninhabited island that is separated by the Sitkalidak Strait from the far larger Kodiak Island to the west. The nearest town, Old Harbor, is across the strait on Kodiak Island; it has a population of about 200 people.
Ms. Sinclair said the coast where the Kulluk ran aground has a combination of rocky and sandy terrain.
Earlier Monday, a Shell spokesman had said that the rig had been brought under control after towlines were reconnected to two ships during a break in what had been several days of extremely rough seas and high winds.
But late Monday afternoon the line from one of the ships, the Aiviq, became separated. Then several hours later, the other ship, the Alert, was ordered to disconnect its towline, out of concern for the safety of the ship’s nine-person crew. At the time, Ms. Sinclair said, swells were as high as 35 feet and winds were gusting up to 65 miles an hour.
The Kulluk, one of two rigs that Shell used to drill test wells off the North Slope of Alaska as part of the company’s ambitious and expensive effort to open Arctic waters to oil production, was being towed by the Aiviq to a Seattle shipyard for off-season maintenance when the towline initially separated during a storm on Thursday.
The Aiviq then lost power, and other support ships and a Coast Guard cutter were brought in to help with engine repairs and to reconnect towlines to the Kulluk, which does not have its own propulsion system. The 18 workers aboard the rig were evacuated by Coast Guard helicopters on Saturday.
Over the weekend, support crews struggled in 25-foot swells to reconnect towlines, succeeding several times. But each time the lines separated again, leaving the rig in danger of drifting toward land.
The Kulluk, which was built in Japan in 1983 and upgraded over the past six years at a cost of $292 million, is designed for icy conditions in the Arctic. It can drill in up to 400 feet of water and up to 20,000 feet deep. During drilling season it carries a crew of about 140 people, Mr. Smith said.
Shell has spent six years and more than $4 billion in its effort to drill in Arctic waters, one of the last untapped oil-producing regions in the United States. But the effort has faced regulatory hurdles and opposition from American Indian and environmental groups.
Last summer, the Kulluk drilled a shallow test well in the Beaufort Sea while another rig drilled a similar hole in the Chukchi Sea to the west.
But Shell announced in September that it would be forced to delay further drilling until this year after a specialized piece of equipment designed to contain oil from a spill was damaged in a testing accident.
The episode was one of a number of setbacks for the Arctic drilling program last year.
Shell now says it hopes to drill five exploratory wells in the region during the 2013 drilling season, which begins in mid-July.
Ms. Sinclair said that more overflights were planned after daybreak on Tuesday, and that the unified command would be monitoring the fuel situation as it planned further actions. “The focus will be around salvage,” she said.
The 266-foot diameter rig ran aground on the east coast of Sitkalidak Island, an uninhabited island that is separated by the Sitkalidak Strait from the far larger Kodiak Island to the west. The nearest town, Old Harbor, is across the strait on Kodiak Island; it has a population of about 200 people.
Ms. Sinclair said the coast where the Kulluk ran aground has a combination of rocky and sandy terrain.
Earlier Monday, a Shell spokesman had said that the rig had been brought under control after towlines were reconnected to two ships during a break in what had been several days of extremely rough seas and high winds.
But late Monday afternoon the line from one of the ships, the Aiviq, became separated. Then several hours later, the other ship, the Alert, was ordered to disconnect its towline, out of concern for the safety of the ship’s nine-person crew. At the time, Ms. Sinclair said, swells were as high as 35 feet and winds were gusting up to 65 miles an hour.
The Kulluk, one of two rigs that Shell used to drill test wells off the North Slope of Alaska as part of the company’s ambitious and expensive effort to open Arctic waters to oil production, was being towed by the Aiviq to a Seattle shipyard for off-season maintenance when the towline initially separated during a storm on Thursday.
The Aiviq then lost power, and other support ships and a Coast Guard cutter were brought in to help with engine repairs and to reconnect towlines to the Kulluk, which does not have its own propulsion system. The 18 workers aboard the rig were evacuated by Coast Guard helicopters on Saturday.
Over the weekend, support crews struggled in 25-foot swells to reconnect towlines, succeeding several times. But each time the lines separated again, leaving the rig in danger of drifting toward land.
The Kulluk, which was built in Japan in 1983 and upgraded over the past six years at a cost of $292 million, is designed for icy conditions in the Arctic. It can drill in up to 400 feet of water and up to 20,000 feet deep. During drilling season it carries a crew of about 140 people, Mr. Smith said.
Shell has spent six years and more than $4 billion in its effort to drill in Arctic waters, one of the last untapped oil-producing regions in the United States. But the effort has faced regulatory hurdles and opposition from American Indian and environmental groups.
Last summer, the Kulluk drilled a shallow test well in the Beaufort Sea while another rig drilled a similar hole in the Chukchi Sea to the west.
But Shell announced in September that it would be forced to delay further drilling until this year after a specialized piece of equipment designed to contain oil from a spill was damaged in a testing accident.
The episode was one of a number of setbacks for the Arctic drilling program last year.
Shell now says it hopes to drill five exploratory wells in the region during the 2013 drilling season, which begins in mid-July.
