Rising temperatures mean the vast Arctic Ocean, which used to be frozen over for much of the year, is now an open shipping line for more than half the year. Credit: public domain

By Joe Hitchon
WASHINGTON, Feb 6 2013 (IPS)

Environmentalists are warning that a meeting of environment ministers that took place Monday in Sweden has agreed on a weak and inadequate response plan in case of an oil spill in the Arctic Ocean.

According to Greenpeace, an environment watchdog, a leaked copy of the document suggests that the eight member states that make up a group dubbed the Arctic Council have failed to agree on the technical details necessary for dealing with a large-scale disaster, even while it opens the way for increased drilling and oil exploration in the Arctic.

“We are unimpressed by what we’ve seen from this totally inadequate document,” Ben Ayliffe, a Greenpeace campaigner based in Washington, told IPS. “It does nothing to prepare governments for dealing with disasters or for protecting the Arctic from disasters.”

According to the United Nations’ global climate office, Arctic sea ice reached its lowest level on record in 2012. That process, which overwhelming scientific data attributes to human-induced climate change, has created a virtual gold rush to the Arctic.

Rising temperatures mean the vast Arctic Ocean, which used to be frozen over for much of the year, is now an open shipping lane for more than half the year, on average. This has resulted in a scramble to lay claim to Arctic territory, which is estimated by the U.S. Geological Survey to contain 22 percent of the world’s undiscovered energy resources.

However, environmentalists are concerned that no mechanisms are in place to prevent or respond to an environmental disaster.

According to Richard Steiner, a biologist and expert on oil spills based in Alaska, this past summer, a record 46 merchant ships transited through what is known as the Northern Sea Route, a 10-fold increase from just two years ago. “There has been an extraordinary increase in shipping across the Arctic Ocean, mainly with very hazardous petroleum products on board,” Steiner told IPS.

He also warns that an increase in offshore oil and gas drilling potential in the Arctic demands robust laws. Yet, he says, the Arctic Council agreement has no technical performance standards, enforcement mechanisms or operational guidelines.

“They are charging forward with this Arctic offshore oil drilling development and shipping without the proper safeguards in place, and it’s really tragic,” Steiner said. “I’m afraid they are going to wait for a big spill disaster before putting the right systems in place.”

He added that this is what happened with the Exxon Valdez case, when an oil tanker ran aground in Alaska in 1989.

“I’m afraid this is what’s going to happen in the Arctic, too,” he continues. “Despite the lessons learned … very little has changed as far as prevention policy is concerned.”

No proven capacity

The Arctic Council, established in 1996, is made up of states with territory in the Arctic, and comprises Canada, Denmark (including Greenland), Finland, Iceland, Norway, Russia, Sweden and the United States. The new oil spill treaty will be formally voted upon by members in May, and would become the second binding agreement reached by the Arctic Council since a search-and-rescue agreement was signed in 2011.

Yet Ayliffe says the document doesn’t adequately deal with the complex issues involved with a potential spill.

“It’s a nightmare scenario,” Ayliffe says. “The technical difficulties of responding to a disaster a mile beneath the ice make the kind of operation that BP had to do in the Gulf impossible in the Arctic.”

Despite earlier assurances by the Arctic Council that any agreement would include specific environmental protections, including oil spill recovery and prevention strategies, Ayliffe says the agreement “fails to outline any essential response equipment, methods for capping wells, or cleaning up oil-affected habitat and wildlife, relying instead on vague statements of steps Arctic nations should take within available resources.”

The document contains ambiguous language regarding oil spills, only asking countries to take “appropriate steps” to deal with a spill, without specifying clear demands or requirements. It also lacks guidelines relating to the liability of oil companies in case of a disaster or guidelines on how to adequately deal with a spill.

“No oil company has ever proven it can respond to an oil spill in ice, and the agreement offers nothing in regard to how a company would stop or clean up a Deepwater Horizon-style disaster,” Ayliffe said, referring to the massive 2010 spill in the Gulf of Mexico, when nearly five million barrels of oil spewed from a blown oil well in the sea floor for nearly three months.

“We are hoping that, because of the outrage that has been caused by this document, before the May vote there will be time to fill some of the holes.”

By mid-September, the Royal Dutch Shell Oil (Shell) group hopes to begin exploratory oil drilling in the Arctic Ocean off the coast of northern Alaska, provided it can secure federal permission from the U.S. government and overcome other logistical obstacles. But a prominent environmental group warns that drilling will do “irreparable damage” to the area.

The Natural Resources Defence Council (NRDC) published a reportMonday urging the U.S. government to oppose Shell’s drilling, citing concern, along with other green groups, about Shell’s inability to clean up and prevent oil spills.

The oil drilling ship Noble Discoverer on April 5, 2012 in the Port of Seattle before its trip to Alaska for the summer Arctic drilling season. Credit: James Brooks/CC by 2.0

Pro-Shell groups and the Republican party criticise these organisations, however. They argue that oil found in the Arctic Ocean will lead to cheaper energy resources for more than a decade for the United States.

Shell has admitted that it cannot effectively clean up oil spills, and that its response barge, Arctic Challenger, may not be able to endure an Arctic storm.

Greenpeace Lead Arctic Campaigner Jackie Dragon was harsh in her criticism of Shell’s proposed venture.

“Shell can’t keep its drill rig under control in a protected harbor, so what will happen when it faces 20-foot swells and sea ice while drilling in the Arctic?” asked Dragon. “The company has admitted its drill rig can’t meet the standards required to avoid polluting Arctic air” and has “broken promises about its oil spill response plan and Arctic storm preparedness”.

“Shell cannot be trusted, and President Obama should not let its Arctic drilling program move forward,” said Dragon.

Shell, on the other hand, is hoping to make the most of a fast-shrinking summer drilling timeline. If the company begins drilling now, it will have to stop by October at the latest, before the advent of the sea ice.

But the U.S. government and Shell are currently embroiled in negotiations, even as environmental groups hope that after the 2010 BP oil disaster in the Gulf of Mexico and a damning inspection that showed Arctic Challenger to be lacking in the electrical, piping and fire departments, Shell will not be granted permission for the summer drilling.

The NRDC report outlined  eight primary reasons why Shell should not be drilling for oil in the Arctic Ocean.

First and foremost is that the oil industry has a deplorable track record for oil spills that are never effectively cleaned up. One need not look far for examples. The British Petroleum, Gulf Coast oil disaster in 2010 is a vivid reminder of how wrong an oil spill can go, and how far-reaching its effects are.

Lawrence Neil, a spokesperson for the NRDC, pointed out that oil production is statistically almost guaranteed to lead to spills. Furthermore, “there is still no proven way to keep a drilling rig on location in the shifting pack ice of an Arctic winter,” so drilling in the Arctic presents even greater risks than those of a normal spill.

Marine noise created by production will have adverse impacts on marine mammals, added Neil. In addition, production will “create huge pressure for a pipeline to carry the oil (that could) lead to bisecting extraordinary wild lands and vital wildlife habitat.”

“The history of development shows that the camel’s nose is a real phenomenon:  the more you spoil pristine places, the less resistance there is to additional development,” he told IPS.

The lack of rapid response and infrastructure in the area is further cause for alarm for green groups, as well as the fact that an oil spill or even disturbance within the area could lead to the migration of wildlife. Among the species that would be threatened are endangered bowhead whales, female polar bears and birds, all of which depend on the icy ecosystem for survival.

But if Shell finds oil, a barrage of oil and energy companies will descend upon this pristine area. The NRDC report outlines many more drawbacks to the proposed drilling, including a rise in greenhouse gases.

Still, not everyone believes that the risks outweigh the gains.

If oil is found in this icy tundra, dependence on foreign oil could drastically decrease. Republicans say that an oil discovery in the region would create thousands of jobs and provide a much needed boost to the lagging U.S. economy.

Lobbyists and politicians are pushing for an extension the deadline for summer drilling, and Senator Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) is at the forefront. She is also a senior official at the Energy and Natural Resources Committee.

But Lawrence and other green group activists claim that the risks outweigh any political gain.

For Lawrence, it’s simple. “There are certainly more direct ways to reduce dependence on foreign oil than drilling our last pristine ocean,” he pointed out.

“Arctic drilling is a huge investment, including an investment of federal resources to regulate, police, and provide emergency services; every such investment detracts from – and undercuts – investment in sources of energy that don’t contribute to the risk of catastrophic climate change,” he concluded.

Ice ridges in the Beaufort Sea off the northern coast of Alaska, where Shell is planning to open exploratory wells. Credit: NOAA

By Ethan Freedman
WASHINGTON, Jul 31 2012 (IPS)

Many environmental groups are concerned over a possible extension of drilling expeditions in the Arctic, as oil companies, including Royal Dutch Shell, are set to begin drilling in the region as early as this week.

Shell is planning to open three exploratory wells in Alaska: One in the Chukchi Sea off the state’s northwestern coast, and two in the Beaufort Sea off the northern coast, after delays in production caused by a myriad of factors, including warm weather and production lapses.

An extension of a drilling window would allow the company to drill in the Arctic past the previously agreed-upon deadline of Sep. 24 in the Chukchi Sea, and the end of October in the Beaufort Sea.

Some environmental activists, however, say that the extension of the drilling window is no more than an attempt to make up for lost time.

“It would be really disturbing attempt to move the goal posts,” Travis Nichols, a media officer at Greenpeace, said to IPS. “They haven’t been able to get their fleet in order. They want to change the rules to get the administration to cater to their needs.”

The Shell project in the Arctic, originally slated to start this month, has faced numerous setbacks in its operations.

In June, a Shell drilling-rig, named the Noble Discoverer, did not meet Environmental Protection Agency emission standards, because its generator engines contained higher-than-allowed amounts of nitrous oxide and ammonia.

Earlier this month, the ship, anchored in Alaska’s Dutch Harbor, drifted off its moorings and came within 100 feet of reaching the shore.

“They clearly cannot ensure safety in the Arctic,” Dan Howells, deputy campaigns director at Greenpeace, said in a statement. According to Howells, by extending the drilling window, it “is inviting major catastrophe in one of the most delicate ecosystems on Earth.”

In February, despite opposition by environmentalists, the Interior Department’s Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement (BSEE), the governmental agency in charge of offshore oil and gas drilling, approved Shell’s plans for responding to oil spills — one of the major hurdles on the way to getting full approval of offshore drilling.

“Alaska’s energy resources — onshore and offshore, conventional and renewable — hold great promise and economic opportunity for the people of Alaska and across the nation,” Ken Salazar, the U.S. Interior Secretary, explained in a statement.

“In the Arctic frontier, cautious exploration — under the strongest oversight, safety requirements and emergency response plans ever established — can help us expand our understanding of the area and its resources, and support our goal of continuing to increase safe and responsible domestic oil and gas production,” he continued.

Shell had received permission from the George W. Bush administration to drill in the Arctic, but the final permits had not been approved by the Barack Obama administration until recently.

In response to the approval, a coalition of about a dozen environmental groups, including the Natural Resources Defense Council, the Sierra Club and Oceana, filed suit against the Interior Department, challenging its approval of Shell’s oil spill response plans.

Oil and Water

Greenpeace, an environmental activist group, has been one of the strongest critics of Shell’s arctic drilling expedition, and have aggressively protested against prolonged arctic drilling.

They have notably used social media to lampoon the oil company — including by creating a faux website, a fake Twitter handle and a game called “Angry Bergs”, as a satirical jab at Shell.

Lisa Murkowski, the Republican Senator from Alaska, has lambasted protest efforts by Greenpeace, including Greenpeace’s usage of a “protest fleet”, which would be used for “obtain(ing) core samples and other natural material form the seabed”.

“Greenpeace is pledging to impede planned exploratory drilling operations in arctic waters off the north coast of Alaska this summer,” she said in a letter to James Watson, director of the BSEE.

“Allowing intrusions by any group to disrupt or threaten federally-permitted operations is a direct threat to … safe operations … and puts in jeopardy those workers and our environment,” she wrote.

Shell has not been the only oil company trying to extract resources from the Arctic region.

The U.S. oil company ConocoPhillips and the Norwegian oil company Statoil have also won the rights to explore fields in the U.S. portion of the Arctic. ExxonMobil, the world’s biggest energy company, struck a deal with Russia to explore its portion of the Arctic.

The drilling in the Arctic has been delayed in part due to the unusually warm weather in the Arctic.

According to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, a U.S. government agency dealing with environmental issues, the Arctic lost a record amount of sea ice in June — a total of 1.1 million square miles — due to the weather.

Shell, the most profitable European oil company, has already invested and spent 4.5 billion dollars in the Arctic since 2005, predominantly for leases, permits and equipment.

The potential financial and ecological risks in undertaking such an operation, however, might be outweighed by the potential profit for oil companies.

According to estimates by the U.S. Geological Survey, the Arctic Ocean holds 12 percent of the world’s undiscovered oil, up to 177 billion barrels. The ocean is also estimated to hold up to 25 percent of the world’s undiscovered gas, up to 3.4 trillion barrels.

Nevertheless, other oil companies are shying away from perceived hazards in the region.

Last week, BP announced last week that it was abandoning efforts on a 1.5-billion-dollar project in the Arctic — one that had been ongoing for 14 years — stating that the project “does not meet (its) test” for proper safety standards.

The Obama administration has said that no new drilling leases will be issued for the Arctic until 2016, in order to accommodate further research on the region.

The Arctic experience, however, has not deterred Shell from further oil expeditions.

On Jul. 27, Shell signed a deal with the China National Offshore Oil Corporation to allow for gas and oil exploration in both China and West Africa. It is Shell’s first venture into Chinese waters in nearly 10 years.