Royal Dutch Shell plc .com Rotating Header Image

Posts from ‘May, 2010’

Shell pledges $2B to cut gas flaring in Nigeria

LAGOS, Nigeria — Royal Dutch Shell PLC says it will spend more than $2 billion in the coming years to cut down on gas flaring in Nigeria’s oil-rich delta.

Shell announced Wednesday that its project would involve 26 flow stations in the Niger Delta, in areas where the oil major had seen its work stopped by funding shortages or security concerns.

Shell says its Nigerian subsidiary already spent more than $3 billion to install such equipment at 32 flow stations.

Gas flaring is the burning of natural gas that is produced along with crude oil. Environmentalists describe it as one of the largest sources of greenhouse gases, which cause global warming.

Copyright © 2010 The Associated Press.

SOURCE ARTICLE

Gulf of Mexico oil spill won’t stop Shell drilling in Alaska

DAILY TELEGRAPH

Royal Dutch Shell intends to push on with its plans for deepwater drilling off the coast of Alaska this summer, despite political hostility caused by BP’s catastrophic spill in US waters.

By Rowena Mason, City Reporter (Energy)
Published: 6:33AM BST 19 May 2010

The Deepwater Horizon oil rig on fire in the Gulf of Mexico last month Photo: AP

President Barack Obama has requested extra safety assurances about Shell’s plans and halted new exploration in some areas, after the explosion at BP’s well in the Gulf of Mexico three weeks ago.

But Shell yesterday told investors at its annual meeting in the Hague that it plans to press ahead.

“We won’t drill in Alaska if we can’t do so safely and responsibly,” said Peter Voser. chief executive. “The characteristics of the fields are different to those in the Gulf of Mexico – less deep and there is less pressure. We intend to drill this summer if allowed.”

He added that growing demand for oil will mean deepwater drilling remains a necessity as the population of the developing world soars.

Last year Shell suffered an investor rebellion against high executive pay, with 60pc voting against the remuneration report. This time, just 2pc of shareholders objected, after the company overhauled its policies.

Only 6pc of investors backed a special resolution asking the company to review its investment in extracting oil from Canadian tar sands – which uses processes that emit a higher amount of carbon dioxide than conventional drilling. The group of “ethical investors” behind the motion, including the Co-operative Asset Managers, said they did not consider their highly-publicised campaign a defeat since it had raised awareness about environmental and cost concerns.

The annual meeting was instead dominated by questions about Shell’s environmental record in Nigeria, where green groups claim it has not addressed local concerns about water pollution, oil leaks, pipeline sabotage and gas flaring. Malcolm Brinded, director for upstream, said Shell “hopes” to end the controversial practice of burning excess gas during oil extraction but would not put a date on when this would happen. He said there was no evidence that flaring causes health issues, but acknowledged its high carbon emissions.

Amnesty International, the human rights body, mounted a high-profile newspaper advertising campaign against Shell’s pollution record, although the newspaper pulled it at the last minute citing legal concerns.

SOURCE ARTICLE

Shell seeks to drill in Arctic seas this summer

guardian.co.uk home

• Shell ignores calls for moratorium on drilling
• Company says world needs 27bn barrel resource

Tim Webb: Tuesday 18 May 2010 19.13 BST

Shell yesterday pushed ahead with plans to drill in the Arctic Sea this summer, defying calls for a moratorium on offshore exploration in the pristine wilderness following the Gulf of Mexico disaster.

California’s governor, Arnold Schwarzenegger, this month scrapped plans to allow offshore drilling in the state for the first time in more than 40 years and environmentalists have called for a halt in the Arctic after President Obama opened up the area to drilling for the first time last month.

However, Shell today refiled its drilling programme with the US authorities after being required to review its safety procedures following the Gulf spill and awaits final permits.

The industry will drill the first-ever large wells in the Chukchi and Beaufort seas in the Arctic, which are estimated to hold 27bn barrels of oil and gas.

Shell chief executive Peter Voser told shareholders at the company’s annual meeting that it would only drill there if it thought it could be done “safely and responsibly”.

“The characteristics of the offshore fields are different to those in the Gulf of Mexico – we go less deep so there is less pressure,” he said. “The world needs these fossil resources in the longer term.” Voser said Shell had spent $2bn (£1.38bn) to secure the permits.

Shell also managed to beat off a sizeable rebellion over its controversial oil sands operations in Canada. Nevertheless, one in 10 shareholders either voted for or abstained on a resolution calling for Shell to carry out a full public audit of the environmental and financial impact of the operations.

The Shell board, which was criticised for placing the resolution at the end of the six-hour meeting’s agenda, had urged shareholders to vote against it.

Oil sands projects result in three times as many carbon emissions as conventional oil production and also require vast amounts of water to process. They are also very expensive, requiring oil prices of at least $70 a barrel to be economic.

The coalition of investors who had tabled the special resolution, led by investment charity FairPensions and Co-operative Asset Management, say that oil sands are not financially viable as environmental regulations will grow, adding to production and possible clean-up costs. They also argue that high oil prices are not sustainable because they will encourage the world to use alternative forms of energy instead.

After the resolution was tabled, Shell responded by publishing a report in March pulling together information already in the public domain about the operations, which will almost double production in several years.

Proceedings were marginally enlivened when one environmental investor who was asking a question broke out in song: “A world running for profit takes us to the edge, stop now think ahead.”

GUARDIAN ARTICLE

Anti-Shell adverts and articles pulled just before publication

EXTRACT: “It is fair to conclude that Shell is allergic to criticism, and has no qualms about ruthlessly using its financial muscle to manipulate the news media, brainwash shareholders, greenwash motorists and censor critics who wish to point out the inconvenient truth.”

By John Donovan

Interesting to note the controversy over the last minute decision by the Financial Times against publishing a powerful anti-Shell advert by Amnesty International, who must be left wondering whether Shell brought some influence to bear?

I was left in the same position after The Sunday Times in 2007, aborted a half page article about us and our unique relationship with Shell.

At 11am on a Saturday morning, 3 February 2007, I received a phone call from a Sunday Times journalist, Steven Swinford. He read out the entire article to check on accuracy, particularly in respect of quotes attributed to me. Our involvement in the Sakhalin2 affair was described as the “ultimate revenge” costing Shell £11 billion UK pounds ($22 billion USD).

This estimate was based on a Shell admission announced at the beginning of February 2007, that the change of ownership of Sakhalin2 had resulted in a loss of 400,000 boe from its reserves (calculated at that time at $56 dollars per barrel).

However, the article was not published.

I thought no more of it until shortly thereafter a “major advertising feature” was published in The Sunday Times focused on the “partnership” between Ferrari and Shell. My suspicions were now aroused.

Following a subsequent Subject Access Request to Shell under the Data Protection Act, I was shocked to read a Shell internal email containing the following passage:-

“…the Sunday Times has picked up the Sakhalin/drilling leaked e-mail story from Donovan’s website, They are responding with agree Os and As that have been used previously with the Guardian, but are first trying to kill the story by pointing out that is old news – slim chance that this will work.”

Coincidentally I received a letter today 18 May 2010, from a senior lawyer at Times Newspapers Limited relating to the same matters involving another DPA application, which has been given “much thought” – including a discussion with the Managing Editor of The Sunday Times. I was assured by Steven Swinford at the time that he had no knowledge that the article was killed and I accepted his word without reservation (and still do).

Also in 2007, Shell media got into a flap about an article/email I sent to Bill O’Reilly at Fox News, entitled “Shell’s treachery in Iran”.  Shell readied its lawyers and spin masters on that occasion and set up a counter-measures team.

Shell abandoned its own “censorship free” Internet discussion forum – TellShell” – after we exposed secret censorship of postings critical of Shell.

Shell then tried to persuade us to censor our own posting on our own website criticizing Jeroen van der Veer in relation to Shell’s Sakhalin surrender.

We are also aware from former Shell International HSE Group Auditor Bill Campbell, of the disgraceful pressure that Shell applied to Upstreamonline to suppress an article about North Sea oil platform safety issues.

It is fair to conclude that Shell is allergic to criticism, and has no qualms about ruthlessly using its financial muscle to manipulate the news media, brainwash shareholders, greenwash motorists and censor critics who wish to point out the inconvenient truth.

Why did the Financial Times pull an anti-Shell advert?

guardian.co.uk home

A late decision by the Financial Times to refuse to publish an advert hostile to the oil company Shell has outraged the UK branch of Amnesty International.

amnesty advertThe paper left it until the last possible moment to pull the hard-hitting ad, which was due to appear today to coincide with Shell’s annual meeting in London. The ad, shown here, accuses Shell of an appalling human rights record in Nigeria. Next to a wine glass overflowing with oil, it reads: “While Shell toasts $9.8bn profits, the people of the Niger Delta are having to drink polluted water. They’re also having to grow crops in polluted soil. To catch fish in polluted rivers. And to raise children in polluted homes. So if you’ve got shares in Shell, ask the board to explain themselves when they raise their glasses at today’s agm. Cheers.”

Amnesty, writing about the FT’s decision on its website, claims that “numerous oil spills, which have not been adequately cleaned up, have left local communities [in Nigeria] with little option but to drink polluted water, eat contaminated fish, farm on spoiled land, and breathe in air that stinks of oil and gas.”

Tim Hancock, Amnesty International UK’s campaigns director, is quoted as saying:

The decision by the Financial Times is extremely disappointing. We gave them written reassurances that we would take full responsibility for the comments and opinions stated in the advertisement.

Both The Metro and the Evening Standard had no problems with running the ad.

But an FT spokesman, quoted by Press Gazette, said: “Editorially, the FT was more than willing to run the advertisement for Amnesty. Unfortunately, whilst Amnesty gave us written assurances that they would take full responsibility for the comments and opinions stated in the advertisement, it became apparent that Amnesty’s lawyers had not had a proper opportunity to advise Amnesty on those opinions. As a result, from a legal perspective we were unable to rely on Amnesty’s assurances.”

Amnesty’s Hancock explained that the funds to pay for the advertisements came from more than 2,000 individuals online. “I am sure these supporters will share with us our sense of deep disappointment,” he said.

Amnesty International also today launched an online video focusing on Shell’s practice of gas flaring (the burning of gas produced as part of oil extraction) in the same region.

Index on Censorship also weighed in on Amnesty’s behalf. A blog entry on its website refers to “sources” who say the paper “variously claimed that it was wary of libel claims and that the ad might be in poor taste, as some readers might mistake the oil in the glass for blood.”

The blogger, Padraig Reidy, writes: “It’s extremely unlikely that Shell would sue. The company is quite keen on promoting its social credentials, and even a successful trip to court would more than likely involve an unpleasant trawl through the unfortunate effects of the oil industry.”

He then asks: “Was it a commercial decision? Again, who knows? Big oil companies tend not to be so thin-skinned that they would pull money from a prestige publication such as the FT merely because it had carried a critical advert.”

And he concludes: “It is genuinely quite hard to think of a good reason for the FT to pull this ad.”

I think I agree too. The explanation from the FT spokesman is less than transparent. Now, what was the paper’s old promotional slogan? No FT, No Comment. Perhaps a new one would read: No FT ad, No Knowledge.

SOURCE ARTICLE

Amnesty ‘disappointed’ by FT’s decision to pull ad targeting Shell

Posted: 18 May 2010

Financial Times’ late call thwarts Amnesty’s campaign

Amnesty International UK expressed its immense disappointment today at the Financial Times’ decision to pull a new hard-hitting advertisement at the last possible moment. The ad was due to appear today as Shell held its London AGM.

The advertisement focused on the appalling human rights record of Shell in Nigeria. It compared the company’s $9.8bn profits with the consequences of pollution caused by the oil giant for the people of the Niger Delta.

Numerous oil spills, which have not been adequately cleaned up, have left local communities with little option but to drink polluted water, eat contaminated fish, farm on spoiled land, and breathe in air that stinks of oil and gas.

Tim Hancock, Amnesty International UK’s campaigns director, said:

“The decision by the Financial Times is extremely disappointing. We gave them written reassurances that we would take full responsibility for the comments and opinions stated in the advertisement.

“Both The Metro and The Evening Standard had no problems with running the ad.”

Tim Hancock added:

“The money to pay for the advertisements came entirely from more than 2,000 individuals online, who we’d asked to fund an ad campaign targeting Shell’s AGM – and it really caught their imagination. And I am sure these supporters will share with us our sense of deep disappointment.”

Amnesty International also today launched a new hard-hitting online video focusing on Shell’s illegal practice of gas flaring (the burning of gas produced as part of oil extraction) in the same region. Gas flaring is only serving to add to environmental impact on the people of the Niger Delta.

Note to editors:
Copies of the advertisement, the film and stills of the film are available from the Amnesty press office.

SOURCE ARTICLE

Shell Corrib Gas Controversy: Call for Investigation into boat sinking

“A fisherman who is vehemently opposed to the Corrib Gas project claimed yesterday that his 40ft trawler was deliberately sunk by men armed with handguns who sneaked aboard the vessel off Erris Head in the early hours of yesterday morning.”

Wednesday, May 12, 2010

Kilcommon group calling for investigation into boat sinking
BY MARIAN HARRISON

POBAL Chill Chomáin wants a “proper and independent investigation” into the sinking of the Iona Isle boat prior to offshore pipe-laying for the Corrib gas project last summer.

The calls come just a week after a human rights report on the Corrib saga recommended that a thorough investigation be held into an alleged assault on well-known protestor Willie Corduff.

Pat O’Donnell’s boat was sunk off Erris Head in a bizarre incident that has become the subject of counter-allegations from pro and anti gas groups. In a statement at the time, Mr O’Donnell claimed that four masked men, two of whom were armed, boarded his boat while he was laying lobster pots.

The men sunk the boat, leaving Mr O’Donnell and his crewman, Martin McDonnell, clinging to a life raft. Mr O’Donnell is currently serving a seven-month custodial sentence in Castlerea Prison for obstructing gardaí during protests.

SOURCE ARTICLE

RELATED ARTICLE

Friday June 12 2009

Irish Independent

Shell denies plot to sink anti-Corrib man’s boat

By Tom Shiel and Brian McDonald

A fisherman who is vehemently opposed to the Corrib Gas project claimed yesterday that his 40ft trawler was deliberately sunk by men armed with handguns who sneaked aboard the vessel off Erris Head in the early hours of yesterday morning.

Gardai say they are investigating the claims of crab fisherman Patrick O’Donnell.

They are also investigating an incident which occurred at the same time in which up to 14 people in kayaks attempted to approach a Shell-contracted dredger in Glengad Bay.


Shell E&P Ireland denied yesterday that any of its workers were involved in the sinking of the Iona Isle — registered to Mr O’Donnell’s son, Jonathan.

Mr O’Donnell said that he and his crewman Martin McDonnell were at sea, off Erris Head, at around 2am when the Iona Isle was boarded.

He added: “I was in the wheelhouse when four men wearing diving gear . . . came on board. Two of them had handguns. Some of the men went into the engine room where they must have burst a plank. I could feel the boat getting heavy. I knew we were sinking.”

Mr O’Donnell said the intruders left in an inflatable rib while he and his colleague abandoned their sinking vessel.

A statement issued by the Erris Community Groups, Pobal Chill Chomain and Pobal Le Cheile, said: “This outrage involved the forced boarding of his fishing boat by masked intruders, the false imprisonment of Pat O’Donnell and his fellow fisherman Martin McDonnell, and the use of force.”

In a statement emphatically rejecting any suggestion of involvement by its employees in the sinking of the Iona Isle, Shell E&P Ireland claimed that a number of malicious allegations had been made against the corporation and its security contractors in recent weeks.

Shell Makes Reassurances on Drilling

THE NEW YORK TIMES

By WILLIAM YARDLEY

Published: May 18, 2010

Responding to a federal request to increase safety measures for its plans to drill for oil in the Arctic Ocean, Shell Oil on Monday vowed an “unprecedented” response in the event of an oil spill, including staging a pre-made dome in Alaska for use in trying to contain any leaking well.

As the Obama Administration reviews the safety and environmental risks of offshore oil drilling after the spill in the Gulf of Mexico, the fate of the pending Shell project in Alaska looms more urgently. Shell has received initial permits and hopes to begin exploratory drilling this summer. Yet the project, which would be the first offshore drilling in Alaska in many years, still requires final permits and could be delayed.

Environmentalists and Native Alaskan groups that have long worked to stop the project have seized on the Gulf spill to emphasize risks in the Alaska project. The drill sites, far out in the Chukchi and Beaufort seas, are in some of the most remote and frigid waters of North America, with ice forming much of the year, endangered whales and other animals living in the area and little onshore support in the event of a spill.

In a letter sent to the head of the Minerals Management Service, S. Elizabeth Birnbaum, Shell’s president, Marvin E. Odum, said Shell the dome it would have ready would “take into consideration issues with hydrate formation.” In the Gulf spill, a huge box built to try to contain the leaking well proved ineffective after it became clogged with gas hydrates — crystal structures that form when gas and water mix.

Shell also said it would be ready to apply dispersal agents below water “at the source of any oil flow” after “all necessary permits are acquired.”

The company also said it would work to prevent a spill from happening, including refining how it drills, increasing the frequency of inspections of its blowout preventer to 7 days from 14 – the blowout preventer failed in the Gulf spill – and adding a remote underwater vehicle nearby that would be capable of working on the blowout preventer.

Marilyn Heiman, the U.S. Arctic program director for the Pew Environment Group, said in a statement, “Basic questions remain about Shell’s ability to respond to any significant sized oil spill in Arctic waters” and she called for Minerals Management to “suspend offshore lease operations in the Arctic until these issues are addressed. It would be irresponsible to move forward.”

NYT ARTICLE

Delegation united in support of Shell’s Arctic drilling

CHUKCHI: Shell says it is taking new steps to safeguard exploration.

By ELIZABETH BLUEMINK
ebluemink@adn.com

Published: May 17th, 2010 11:16 PM
Last Modified: May 17th, 2010 11:16 PM

Their testimonial to opening a controversial new oil frontier in Arctic waters came as Shell filed new assurances with federal regulators that the company has adopted new safeguards in the wake of the Gulf of Mexico spill.

The three-member congressional delegation had a rare convergence in Anchorage on Monday at a downtown Chamber of Commerce lunch.

Sens. Lisa Murkowski and Mark Begich and Congressman Don Young took turns during the lunch — which drew a crowd numbering in the hundreds — to share their opinions about national and Alaska energy issues.

The lawmakers spent a lot of their time talking about matters that had nothing to do with Shell’s controversial drilling plans for the Beaufort and Chukchi seas or the massive oil leak from a Gulf of Mexico oil well. For example, they criticized the federal Environmental Protection Agency’s attempt to regulate greenhouse-gas emissions and the Fish & Wildlife Service’s plan to study the possibility of designating the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge’s coastal plain as wilderness, making it off-limits to oil companies.

But they did speak at some length about Shell’s project, which they all favor. They emphasized that offshore and onshore drilling in the United States is necessary, despite the anxiety created by the big Gulf oil leak.

“To consume, we must produce from our own land,” said Begich, calling it a moral obligation.Young said the media is making the Gulf leak out to be a disaster but he doesn’t believe that it has reached that level.

“It’s a tragedy,” he said of the spill. He has proposed legislation to aid Gulf fishermen impacted by the spill. He said he doesn’t believe the congressional hearings on the spill are producing much useful information so far.

“Congress is probably the worst place you can go to get facts,” he said, eliciting ripples of laughter from the room.

Young and Murkowski, both Republicans, and a staffer for Begich, a Democrat, said on Monday that they expect the Obama administration’s demand for more information from Shell about its drilling safeguards will not actually halt the Dutch company’s drilling this summer.

Shell executives sent a five-page letter to the head of the federal Minerals Management Service on Friday describing the company’s drilling practices, how it plans to prevent an oil spill, and how it would act if a spill does occur in federal waters off Alaska’s northern coast.

The letter listed new safeguards the company plans in light of the Gulf of Mexico spill. The letter said some of the nine additional measures haven’t been fully vetted yet. One thing the company said it will do: Test its major underwater well-control equipment, called a blowout preventer, every seven days instead of every 14.

Environmentalists who are trying to block Shell’s Arctic drilling said Monday they still don’t think the company’s spill response plan can handle a major spill.

The oil spill plan “does not show that they can manage a response on the scale of BP’s ongoing Gulf disaster let alone a smaller spill,” according to a statement from the Pew Environment Group, which noted on Monday that so far the Gulf spill has required 13,000 people and 520 vessels.

In its letter to the MMS, Shell called its oil spill plan “unprecedented.” Using its oil-spill response ship, barges and other personnel and equipment, the company says it can begin cleaning up an oil spill an hour after it happens.

Disaster Plans Lacking at Deep Rigs

THE WALL STREET JOURNAL

by Ben Casselman and Guy Chazen, Wall Street Journal

May 17th, 2010

[DeepwaterJmp2] Associated PressThe Deepwater Horizon oil rig burns in the Gulf of Mexico on April 21.

A huge jolt convulsed an oil rig in the Gulf of Mexico. The pipe down to the well on the ocean floor, more than a mile below, snapped in two. Workers battled a toxic spill.

That was 2003—seven years before last month’s Deepwater Horizon disaster, which killed 11 people and sent crude spewing into the sea. And in 2004, managers of BP PLC, the oil giant involved in both incidents, warned in a trade journal that the company wasn’t prepared for the long-term, round-the-clock task of dealing with a deep-sea spill.

It still isn’t, as Deepwater Horizon demonstrates and as BP’s chief executive, Tony Hayward said recently. It’s “probably true” that BP didn’t do enough planning in advance of the disaster, Mr. Hayward said. There are some capabilities, he said, “that we could have available to deploy instantly, rather than creating as we go.”

It’s a problem that spans the industry, whose major players include Chevron Corp, Royal Dutch Shell and Petróleo Brasileiro SA. Without adequately planning for trouble, the oil business has focused on developing experimental equipment and techniques to drill in ever deeper waters, according to a Wall Street Journal examination of previous deepwater accidents. As drillers pushed the boundaries, regulators didn’t always mandate preparation for disaster recovery or perform independent monitoring.

The brief, roughly two-decade history of deepwater drilling has seen serious problems: fires, equipment failures, wells that collapsed, platforms that nearly sank. Since last July, one brand-new deepwater rig—among the 40 or so operating in at least 1,000 feet of water in the Gulf—was swept by fire. Another lost power and started to drift, threatening to detach from the wellhead. Poor maintenance at a third deepwater well led to a serious gas leak, according to regulatory records.

By some measures, offshore drilling has become safer in recent years. Industry backers argue that major accidents are rare. The rate of serious injuries in U.S. waters fell 71% between 1998 and 2008, and the number of serious oil spills has also been falling once hurricanes are taken into account. Moreover, deepwater drilling is by some measures safer than drilling in shallower waters, where rigs are often older and operated by smaller companies.

Still, drilling for oil at depths no human could survive presents special risks when something does go wrong. The water pressure is crushing, the seabed temperature is almost freezing, the underground conditions explosive. The rapid push into deeper water means that some projects rely on technology that hasn’t been used before.

“It’s like outer space, in terms of the complexity of the operating environment,” said Robin West, who helped oversee offshore-drilling policy under President Ronald Reagan and is now chairman of PFC Energy, a consulting firm.

In 2008, Chevron was plagued with accidents while using the Discoverer Deep Seas rig in more than 7,000 feet of water in the Gulf. There was a fire, then a leak deep under the sea. Finally the cement and steel casing inside the well collapsed, allowing drilling fluid to flow out of control. Workers stopped the flow only by permanently plugging the well.

Chevron says the well was “safely and permanently” abandoned after the problems. “One of Chevron’s core values is the safety of our employees, contractors and neighbors,” Chevron spokesman Kurt Glaubitz said. “It is fundamental to how we operate.”

BP has led the charge into the deepest, most challenging environments. Last week Mr. Hayward, the CEO, said, “It’s clear that we will find things we can do differently.”

As companies have moved farther offshore, drilling has gotten increasingly expensive. BP was paying nearly $500,000 a day to lease the Deepwater Horizon from Transocean Ltd. and paid roughly that much again for other equipment and services.

One of the most serious safety hazards on rigs are “blowouts,” the uncontrolled flows of oil and natural gas like the one that brought down the Deepwater Horizon. They remain relatively rare, but no more so than in the 1960s, when equipment was much more primitive.

That’s in part because, even as the gear used to fight blowouts has improved, the industry has steadily pushed into deeper waters.

“While drilling as a whole may be advancing to keep up with these environments, some parts lag behind,” Texas A&M professors Samuel Noynaert and Jerome Schubert wrote in a 2005 paper published in an industry journal. “An area that has seen this stagnation and resulting call for change has been blowout control in deep and ultra-deep waters.”

The professors declined to comment for this article.

Serious accidents like the Deepwater Horizon have been rare, but not unheard of. In 2001, an oil-and-gas-production platform off Brazil’s coast exploded and ultimately sank, killing 11 people.

Offshore drilling is almost as old as the oil industry itself. In the 1890s, companies began prospecting for oil from piers extending off the beach near Santa Barbara, Calif. In 1947, Kerr McGee Corp. (which was later acquired by Anandarko Petroleum Corp.) drilled the first well out of sight of land, in the Gulf of Mexico.

In the past decade or so, what had been a steady march into deeper water turned into a sprint, as easier-to-find oil fields dwindled. In 1996, Royal Dutch Shell broke new ground with its Mars platform, which floated in 3,000 feet of water. A decade later, wells in 5,000 feet of water—almost a mile deep—were so common as to be considered relatively routine. Several rigs working today can drill in water as much as 12,000 feet deep, more than two miles above the ocean floor.

DeepwaterJmp3 Associated Press

Petrobras’ P-36 platform offshore Brazil in the process of sinking after explosions in 2001

Shell says it has operated in the Gulf for five decades without “a significant offshore well incident or platform spill in the deep water Gulf of Mexico.”

Drilling in deeper water doesn’t change the fundamental process, but it makes virtually everything harder. Rigs must be bigger so they can hold more drilling pipe to stretch vast distances. The pipes themselves must be stronger to withstand ocean currents. Equipment on the sea floor must be sturdier to face extreme pressures at depth.

Drill bits must be tougher so they don’t melt in the 400-degree temperatures they encounter deep in the earth. And it is harder for drillers to exert just the right amount of pressure down the well bore, enough to keep oil and gas from spurting upwards—a blowout—but not so much that they crack open the rocks beneath the surface, which could also lead to a blowout.

The use of untested techniques has raised alarm bells among some engineers. In a paper published in a trade journal last year, three industry engineers in Denmark noted that many deepwater projects are “dependent on prototype and novel technologies.” They said, “there is significant uncertainty related to the performance of these systems,” because they haven’t been tested in real-world settings.

They couldn’t be reached for comment.

BP discovered that in 1999 at its Thunder Horse offshore oil field in the Gulf of Mexico, where managers say hundreds of pieces of equipment had to be created from scratch.

Not all the brand-new systems worked. Thunder Horse had a near disaster in 2005, when a faulty control system opened valves and allowed water to flood into the hull of a drilling platform there. The multibillion-dollar platform almost sank. BP spent months fixing equipment damaged in the flood.

And in 2006, as Thunder Horse was getting close to completion, workers discovered a leak in one of the huge sets of valves on the seafloor that control the flow of oil and gas from the wells. An investigation found minute cracks in a protective coating on some of the pipes, allowing corrosion that could, ultimately, have led to breakage of the pipes. BP had to pull the equipment back to the surface for repairs, delaying the project for months and raising the costs.

Equipment failure was also to blame in the case of the Discoverer Enterprise, the rig that ran into trouble in 2003 when the “riser,” the pipe down to the seafloor, snapped in two. That left the Enterprise floating free, with no immediate way to control the well sitting on the sea floor more than a mile below. That well, investigators later concluded, had the potential to spew more oil in one week than was spilled in 1989 by the Exxon Valdez, which ranks as one of the worst U.S. oil spills to date.

In a 2004 article in a trade journal, two BP managers evaluated the company’s response to the Discoverer Enterprise incident. Their conclusion: Although the company’s initial reaction was strong, it had “less focus” on the longer term and wasn’t prepared for the nearly two weeks of round-the-clock response even the fairly small spill required.

A BP spokesman said it follows a “tried-and-tested approach to incident management.”

Catastrophe was averted in the Discoverer Enterprise case because, unlike at the Deepwater Horizon, the well’s “dead-man switch” was triggered when the riser broke. A powerful contraption known as a blowout preventer sheared off the pipe and sealed off the well. Some 2,450 barrels of drilling fluid inside the riser spilled into the Gulf, but the well itself was secure.

Today, the Discoverer Enterprise is located at the site where the Deepwater Horizon sank, sucking up oil from the still-leaking well through a special tube.

Drilling companies have pushed the limits of technology in blowout preventers, also known as BOPs. Multiple technical papers have called into question whether the shears are powerful enough to cut through the tough steel used in modern drilling pipe at the deepest wells. A 2004 study commissioned by federal regulators found that only three of 14 newly built rigs had shears powerful enough to cut through pipe at the equipment’s maximum water depth.

“This grim snapshot illustrates the lack of preparedness in the industry to shear and seal a well with the last line of defense against a blowout,” the study said.

Andy Radford, a policy adviser for the American Petroleum Institute, said the group recommends that all blowout preventers be equipped with shears powerful enough to cut through the pipe being used.

Some subsequent studies, including a 2007 paper co-authored by a BP engineer, have echoed those concerns. “The use of higher strength, higher toughness drill pipe … has in some cases exceeded the capacity of some BOP shear rams to successfully and or reliably shear drill pipe,” the 2007 paper said.

When things go wrong in deep water, the problems are harder to solve. “If we can touch the wellhead, we have a really super high chance of making the flow stop,” said Daniel Eby, vice president of Cudd Well Control, a contractor that helps oil companies stop out-of-control wells. “The problem comes when you can’t touch it. And when you put that wellhead in 5,000 feet of water, we can’t touch it.”

The current crisis is widely expected to send insurance costs higher for deepwater drilling. Lloyd & Partners Ltd., a London broker, recently said it would cut back the amount of pollution insurance it offers to oil companies by a third. In general, rates have risen for all drilling rigs in recent years due to hurricane damage and other issues, but haven’t been consistently higher for deepwater rigs than for those in shallower water.

Government regulators have long known that the deepwater presents special challenges. After the 2003 accident on the Discoverer Enterprise, researchers from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration conducted a study looking at how to tell where oil from an undersea spill would reach the surface, and how to better coordinate with workers respondomg to a spill.

The Minerals Management Service, the government agency that oversees offshore drilling, in recent years moved away from requiring specific safety measures in offshore drilling and instead set broad performance goals that it was up to the industry to meet.

MMS declined to make an official available for an interview for this article. In a statement, the agency said it’s reviewing its oversight in light of the disaster.

In joint MMS-Coast Guard hearings into the Deepwater Horizon accident, Michael Saucier, an MMS official, testified that the agency “highly encouraged,” but didn’t require, companies to have back-up systems to trigger blowout preventers in case of an emergency.

“Highly encourage? How does that translate to enforcement?” Coast Guard Capt. Hung Nguyen, who is co-chairing the investigation, asked at the hearings.

“There is no enforcement,” Mr. Saucier replied.

Coast Guard Lt. Cmdr. Michael Odom, who oversees Coast Guard inspections (the Coast Guard inspects oil-company vessels above the water, while the MMS oversees drilling) testified that current regulations for offshore drilling may be out-of-date. He said many regulations were written years ago, and focused on near-shore drilling operations.

“The pace of technology has definitely outrun the regulations,” Mr. Odom said at the hearing.