Royal Dutch Shell plc .com Rotating Header Image

Posts Tagged ‘Los Angeles Times’

LA TIMES EDITORIAL: OIL AND THE ARCTIC MIGHT NOT MIX

A family of polar bears on the Beaufort Sea, where Shell plans to drill for oil and gas. One of the remaining obstacles for the oil company is the plan’s potential effect on polar bears in the region. (Reuters)

August 10, 2011

Shell Oil’s proposal to drill three exploratory wells in the Beaufort Sea off Alaska’s North Slope received a conditional go-ahead last week from the Obama administration even though the Interior Department has not yet approved the company’s plan for responding to a catastrophic oil spill. That plan fails to adequately address many of the harsh realities of drilling in Arctic seas. It’s too early for any approval, conditional or otherwise.

Exploratory offshore drilling in the Arctic doesn’t present the same potential for danger as, say, BP‘s offshore rig in the Gulf of Mexico. The hazards of drilling in the Arctic are quite different and in ways worse.

Shell’s wells would be just 160 feet underwater, as opposed to the 5,000-foot depth of BP’s Deepwater Horizon well, source of the largest offshore oil spill in U.S. history. That, at least theoretically, would make the Arctic wells easier to cap. But there are other important differences. BP’s rig was located in generally calm waters that happen to contain oil-degrading bacteria. The gulf’s concentration of oil rigs also makes it a hub for Coast Guard rescue equipment and drilling expertise.

Shell’s response plan contends that it can clean up 95% of spilled oil, an unprecedented percentage even in much less hostile environments. But the skimmers and booms that are usually employed to clean up spills don’t work effectively in waters with large amounts of floating ice. Nor is there any guarantee that Shell would be able to get disaster equipment to the wells. Canada’s National Energy Board recently reported that on one day out of five, conditions in the Arctic, including the Beaufort Sea, are too harsh to send out spill-response teams. Meanwhile, the nearest Coast Guard station is 1,000 miles away, and the agency told the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation that it cannot be counted on to respond to spills off the North Slope.

Shell’s proposal must clear other hurdles before any drilling can take place. For example, the company must show other federal agencies that its activities would not harm polar bears or marine life. But the application shouldn’t have reached this point without a response plan that is realistic about the environmental dangers of seeking an energy future in the Arctic seas.

Is Arctic drilling safe? Scientists aren’t sure

June 24, 2011
Escalating oil prices and diminishing supplies around the world are focusing more attention than ever on the vast petroleum reserves under the Arctic seabed, and in the relatively pristine shoreline areas of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska.The Obama administration is moving to speed up drilling where possible, but the nagging problem with a wholesale move into the Arctic is how much we don’t know about the remote, fragile region. How much more drilling can safely be accommodated?

Can polar bears survive the twin threats of shrinking sea ice and greater ship traffic? What about fish stocks and an acidifying ocean? Bowhead whales might be able to migrate around new oil platforms, but will they be stressed out by drilling noise? And what if their food supplies are shrinking as well?

Interior Secretary Ken Salazar in March 2010 ordered up a report on what we don’t know, and need to know, about what is happening to the Arctic environment. This week, the answer finally arrived, in the form of a long-awaited new report from the U.S. Geological Survey on what science gaps need to be filled to safely carry on the march into one of the coldest and least-understood places on the planet.

“There is significant potential for oil and gas development in U.S. Arctic waters, but this is a frontier area with harsh weather conditions as well as unique fish and wildlife resources that Alaska’s indigenous people rely on for subsistence,” Salazar said in a statement accompanying the report. “To make responsible decisions, we need to understand the environmental and social consequences of development and plan accordingly. This study is helpful in assessing what we know and will help inform determinations about what we need to know to develop our Arctic energy resources in the right places in the right way.”

If you were waiting for answers, forget it. The 292-page report doesn’t have them, but it does do a decent job of laying out the questions. And they’re big, USGS analysts say.

First, the effects of climate change have to be understood and then taken into account, the report says. Already, the number of days that seismic exploration vehicles can operate on the tundra without causing environmental harm (meaning over a protective layer of ice) has shrunk from 200 to 100 over the past 30 years.

Continued projections of even more accelerated sea ice loss “will ultimately affect nearly every aspect of the Arctic environment,” the report says, because plants and animals there are so uniquely adapted to the specific extreme conditions that have been the norm until now.

“Energy activities may exacerbate those changes, unless careful analysis of risks and tradeoffs is conducted,” the report warns, though it also recognizes that less extreme weather could reduce the chances of drilling accidents and spills.

Speaking of which — only recently have federal regulators been talking frankly about the realistic possibility of a heavy-duty oil blowout and the threat that might present in a place so far from deep-water harbors and full-scale cleanup equipment, not to mention the problems of maneuvering such equipment through the ice.USGS analysts said it will be important to learn more about cleanup technologies for icy conditions, how quickly spilled oil would break down in cold Arctic climes, migration patterns of oil — a host of unknowns.

“There have been significant advances in spill-risk evaluation and response knowledge, but concern remains that key inputs to spill models (oceanographic, weather, ecological) are insufficient and that the manner in which ecological data are included is not always clear, nor quantitative,” a fact sheet that accompanies the report says.

“Significant questions exist about the scientific and technical information needed for contingency planning and prompt emergency response (response gap) in the Arctic, which are potentially complicated by a changing climate,” it says.

Other questions highlighted in the report include:

– The impact of drilling noise on marine mammals: “Large uncertainty still exists in understanding how impacts to individual animals may affect characteristics in the populations and research is needed on this topic. An inventory of seismic sound sources used in the Arctic Ocean does not exist,” it says.

– Cumulative impacts of Arctic development. “When actions are considered individually or independently, their combined consequences — or cumulative impact — may not be fully considered or evaluated. This results in misunderstanding, and failure to consider the long range impact of multiple decisions over a large area or over time.”

It may be that there never will be firm scientific answers to the uncertainties that exist on the Arctic frontier, the USGS analysts admit, and the take-home message of their report is their call for a “structured decisionmaking” process to bring various parties to the table to work through the questions.

“Opinions on development run the gamut from ‘there is already enough science’ to ‘there will never be enough science,’ the report said. “Many of the challenges emerging in Arctic oil and gas development decision making are beyond the ability of science alone to resolve. There is no ‘silver bullet.’”

For those wanting to hear more on the state of science in the Arctic, Shell Alaska, which is hoping to conduct major new exploratory drilling in the Beaufort and Chukchi seas off Alaska next year, in 2010 put together an assessment (part two is here) of what the science shows so far (much of which has been compiled by the oil industry, as it happens, during decades of early Arctic oil and gas exploration).

A coalition of conservation groups, including Audubon Alaska, Oceana, Ocean Conservancy and Pew Environment Group, in March submitted to federal regulators their own analysis showing widespread knowledge gaps that still exist.

What if an oil spill happened at an Arctic well?

Arctic waters open for ‘cautious’ leasing after 2012

Polar bear makes marathon swim 426 miles across Arctic seas

Shell adds precautions for Arctic drilling

– Kim Murphy

Map: Top, North Slope of Alaska from Point Hope to the United States–Canada border showing principal coastal communities, Outer Continental Shelf oil and gas leasing areas, and major Federal land holdings. From the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement, formerly the Minerals Management Service (2008). Side, Undiscovered oil: Assessment units of the Circum-Arctic Oil and Gas Assessment, color-coded according to the mean estimated undiscovered, technically recoverable oil resources. The open rectangle denotes the approximate location of the Alaska North Slope and Beaufort and Chukchi Seas OCS areas. Modified from Gautier and others (2009).

Shell proposes to move forward in Beaufort Sea

latimes.com

October 6, 2010 |  8:56 pm

With the BP oil well blowout in the Gulf of Mexico successfully contained, Shell Alaska announced that it has filed an application to proceed with exploratory offshore drilling in the Beaufort Sea off Alaska.

The Obama administration suspendedall offshore operations in the remote, fragile Arctic seas this year in the wake of the BP spill, but Shell officials said they have prepared a more robust oil blowout containment plan and are ready to proceed next summer with a single well 17 miles off the North Slope.

The company said it is postponing an even more controversial plan to drill in the more-distant Chukchi Sea until litigation over that proposal is resolved.

“We think we’ve got what we need in place to make a strong program even stronger,” Pete Slaiby, Shell Alaska’s vice president, said in a conference call with reporters in Anchorage.

The company has not submitted a new exploration plan, as drilling critics have sought, but has scaled back its original drilling schedule and put into place new oil spill containment equipment, including a dome that could be quickly put over a leaking well, and a beefed-up blowout preventer.

In addition, Shell said it is proposing to install a subsea panel that would allow the blowout preventer to be engaged in an emergency, even if the connection were lost between the emergency device and the surface drilling rig.

In coordination with research now underway in the Gulf of Mexico, the company is continuing to look for ways to build a containment cap that would allow any blowout to be immediately sealed. The containment dome now proposed would collect oil from any blowout and funnel it to surface vessels for collection, much like what happened for several months after the BP blowout.

“We have every reason to believe the administration will permit 2011 exploration drilling in Alaska,” Slaiby said in a statement. “The president himself endorsed our Alaska exploration program last spring. Unfortunately, the Deepwater Horizon tragedy occurred and led to a suspension of offshore activities in Alaska. Since then, Shell has taken extraordinary steps to build confidence around our 2011 program, which involves a limited number of exploration wells in shallow water with unprecedented, on-site oil spill response capability.”

But it is unclear whether the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management will approve the permit application or require additional measures.

Unlike the BP deep-water operation in the Gulf of Mexico, Shell’s proposed exploration well in the Beaufort Sea would be drilled in just 108 feet of water, with what company officials said would be much lower well pressures.

Slaiby said new studies have shown a worst-case blowout scenario of only about half the 5,500-barrel-per-day containment capacity required under Alaskan regulations, an amount well within the capability of the fleet of vessels Shell expects to have nearby, including a tanker with a storage capacity of 513,000 barrels of oil.

Conservationists have sought to halt any drilling in Arctic waters until more studies are done to measure the potential effects on species such as bowhead whales and polar bears, and the ability of the delicate, frigid Arctic environment to recover from an oil spill and expanded industrial activity.

They have advocated preparation of a full environmental impact statement before any new drilling is undertaken; the federal government, as in the Gulf of Mexico, has concluded that expected environmental impacts are not significant enough to warrant a full report.

“They really should be required to submit a whole new operation plan anew, given what we learned in the Gulf of Mexico, including that there could be a blowout from this type of [exploration] activity,” said Michael LeVine of the conservation group Oceana in Juneau, Alaska.

Marilyn Heiman, head of the Pew Environment Group’s Arctic program, said the public has never had a chance to fully review Shell’s oil spill program and has no way of independently ascertaining whether the company’s calculation of relatively low pressures within the proposed well are accurate.

“We have to just take the word from the industry of what the flow rate and the pressures are. What is the Department of Interior doing to have somebody determine that’s accurate? Look, they didn’t even know the size of the spill at the Macondo well in the Gulf of Mexico,” she said.

Conservationists say they are particularly concerned that even Shell’s beefed-up containment plan might not work if a blowout occurred late in the drilling season, when high seas, hurricane-force winds, fog and shifting ice could make it difficult for a collection ship to remain attached to a containment device below the surface.

“What do they have that really works in the Arctic Ocean?” Heiman said. “If the equipment’s icing up, they will not be able to do what the [traditional cleanup] equipment says they can do.”

–Kim Murphy

Rendering: Shell has designed a new containment dome that, in the event of a blowout, would be fitted with the aid of a remotely operated submersible over the wellhead, and spilled oil would be diverted to a containment barge on the surface. Credit: Shell Alaska

LA TIMES SOURCE ARTICLE

Former FBI chief defends flow of money to Saudi ambassador

Excerpts: Freeh said that a 1985 treaty between Britain and Saudi Arabia allowed the trade of oil for weapons. BAE signed an $86-billion contract with the Saudis under the provisions of the treaty, and the funds that flowed between Britain and the Bandar-controlled bank accounts in the U.S. may have come from the sale of Saudi oil under the terms of the contract. “We did not invent corruption,” Prince Bandar bin Sultan tells Bergman. “This has happened since Adam and Eve. . . . This is human nature.”

Click to continue reading “Former FBI chief defends flow of money to Saudi ambassador”

Controversy boils at idled refinery: Accusation against Shell Oil by union and consumer activists

Shell Oil Co. is putting the squeeze on a financially troubled Bakersfield refinery it sold in 2005 to Big West Oil, which could lead to the closing of the operation and potentially higher gasoline prices for California motorists, according to consumer activists and a union representing plant workers.

Click to continue reading “Controversy boils at idled refinery: Accusation against Shell Oil by union and consumer activists”

Appeals court rules against Arctic drilling plan

“The U.S. faces an energy supply crisis, and delays like this only extend and aggravate it. In times of shrinking global supply and ever increasing reliance on imported oil, the Alaska offshore could be a significant resource for national energy security,” Shell said in a statement.

Click to continue reading “Appeals court rules against Arctic drilling plan”

Oil and politics

Washington’s fear and confusion over high gasoline prices has come to this: Democratic Party leaders, who have dismissed Republican calls to end the federal ban on offshore oil drilling as a political stunt, have suddenly decided it may not be such a bad idea after all.

Click to continue reading “Oil and politics”

Cheney’s office tried to alter greenhouse gas testimony, former official says

WASHINGTON — Vice President Dick Cheney’s office worked to alter sworn congressional testimony provided by a federal official in order to play down the threat of global warming and head off regulation of greenhouse gas emissions, a former government official said in a new accusation Tuesday.

Click to continue reading “Cheney’s office tried to alter greenhouse gas testimony, former official says”

Levy is needed on oil profit windfalls

From The Los Angeles Times: It seems quaint to think of it now, but it was only three years ago that lawmakers in Washington were debating whether to impose a windfall profits tax on the oil industry for all oil sold above $40 a barrel.

Click to continue reading “Levy is needed on oil profit windfalls”