Arctic Sea Ice

The Climate Consequences of Arctic Ocean Drilling

This is a re-post of a piece on Climate Progress that explains the whole matter from A to Z. Thanks go out to authors Kiley Korh and Howard Marano for saving me heaps of time (image shows Royal Dutch Shell drilling rig Kulluk aground off Alaska 1/2/13. Credits: U.S. Coast Guard). 

Adding Fuel to the Fire: The Climate Consequences of Arctic Ocean Drilling

Kiley Kroh and Howard Marano via CAP

In order to avoid the catastrophic consequences of climate change, enormous fossil-fuel reserves will need to remain in the ground untouched.

2012 was supposed to be a banner year for Royal Dutch Shell, as the company planned to embark on the first Arctic offshore exploratory drilling activity in decades and set itself up to make billions of dollars prospecting for oil in the far-flung region off Alaska’s North Slope. But that’s not how things turned out.

Instead, beginning with efforts to prepare for operations, the company experienced one setback after another. Shell struggled to meet the government’s safety requirements for its oil spill response equipment, experiencing multiple technical failures and permit violations. Mother Nature weighed in and kept the drilling sites choked with sea ice. Yet despite these setbacks and others, Shell received permits from the federal government in August to begin preparatory drilling, albeit not deep enough to actually strike oil in Alaska’s Beaufort and Chukchi Seas.

The coup de grace came on New Year’s Eve when Shell’s Kulluk rig ran aground near Kodiak, Alaska — a fiasco that required a 500-plus person response effort, led by the Coast Guard, working for more than a week in dangerous conditions to secure the rig. This final calamity prompted the Obama administration to launch a high-level 60-day review of Shell’s entire Arctic drilling program, and after assessing its equipment and determining that both Arctic drilling rigs were too damaged to operate in 2012, caused Shell to announce on February 27 that it would not seek to drill in the remote and challenging region in 2013.

In presenting the results of the Department of the Interior’s review on March 14, outgoing Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar admitted, “The government still has a lot to learn. The Arctic is a very difficult environment to operate in. … Shell is one of the most resource-capable companies in the world (and) they encountered a whole host of problems in trying to operate up there.” The review concluded that Shell would have to develop a “comprehensive plan” for its operations before it would be allowed to move forward. This begs the question: What exactly did the permit process consist of before all these mishaps?

Shell spent seven years and an estimated $5 billion getting ready for its chance to tap the reserves of fossil fuels thought to be stashed beneath the Arctic seabed, and the result was irrefutably a failure. Neither the oil and gas industry nor its regulators are adequately prepared for Arctic offshore drilling operations.

Furthermore, climate change is already wreaking havoc in the region, melting it at an alarming rate and setting off a domino effect that will ripple through the entire global system. The trends so plainly on display in the Arctic are merely a preview of what awaits the rest of the planet if serious action isn’t taken soon to aggressively curb our carbon emissions. If we allow corporate interests to tap the reserves of additional fossil fuels that have been exposed by the rapid onset of global climate change, we’re missing the clear message about the future of our environment on a planetary scale. Slowing the devastating steamroll of climate change requires slashing the amount of greenhouse gases we put into the atmosphere, not opening up vast new sources of carbon.

There's more, much more. Read it all at Climate Progress.

The bunny explains

It started one and a half year ago with the suspension of Arctic scientist Charles Monnett, which quickly turned out to be a Kafkaesque witch hunt. It is becoming increasingly clear that the 'investigation' was fuelled by fossil fuel, and the person that explains the whole saga best is none other than lapin extraordinaire Eli Rabett who will not let go of this carrot.

Over on Rabett Run:

It was Dr. Monnett in the Email, Leaking to Rick Steiner and PEER

Michael Tobis last month asked Eli to explain why the Department of the Interior was going after Charles Monnett.  The Kulluk is the short answer, more specifically BOEM wanting to approve Shell's drilling plans for the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas.  The leaks were used to tie Shell, BOEM and BSEE up in court, delaying the issuance of permits four years from 2008 to late 2012 and indeed, this was the only ground that at the conclusion of their farcical investigation that the DOI Inspector General cited to reprimand Monnett.

Read the rest here.

Shell drill spill?

It all sounds so simple: Arctic sea ice is retreating, so let's get over there and start some off-shore drilling! Unfortunately the Arctic isn't a friendly place, not to humans and not to oil executives.

Commenter Lodger links to this ominous news article about the Kulluk, "a $290 million offshore oil rig operated as part of Shell’s Arctic drilling efforts in summer", that has washed up at Ocean Bay on Sitkalidak Island, close to Kodiak Island's southeast shores.

All of it is worth a read, but here's the most interesting bit:

It's been a tumultuous several days for the Kulluk, which saw itself disconnected from the tug boats charged with moving the vessel from Alaska to the Lower 48 for the winter. Earlier this year, the Kulluk performed exploratory drilling in the Beaufort Sea for Shell.

For Shell, which has invested more than $4.5 billion to drill for oil and gas in Alaska’s Arctic, the latest troubles raise questions about how prepared the company -- as well as the Coast Guard -- are for problems in the far north.

The Kulluk and its tug weren't operating above the Arctic Circle when the problems started late last week. And the Coast Guard's Alaska headquarters at Kodiak are located relatively nearby the grounded Kulluk, making response efforts easier than in the Arctic, where the agency has no base. That has some Alaskans wondering what would happen if similar troubles ever occur in the much more remote and hostile Arctic Ocean.

"The implications of this very troubling incident are clear -- Shell and its contractors are no match for Alaska’s weather and sea conditions either during drilling operations or during transit," said Lois Epstein, the Arctic program director for The Wilderness Society, late Monday in a statement. "Shell’s costly drilling experiment in the Arctic Ocean needs to be stopped by the federal government or by Shell itself, given the unacceptably high risks it poses to both humans and the environment."

The tugs Aiviq and Nanuq tow the mobile drilling unit Kulluk while a Coast Guard Jayhawk helicopter lifts off from the Kulluk with a crew member aboard Saturday. The Royal Dutch Shell rig ran aground Monday, after days of problems with its towing journey in the Alaskan Gulf (source: Petty Officer 1st Class Sara Francis/U.S. Coast Guard, via NPR).

This is happening as we speak. The oil rig is grounded in "rocky" Ocean Bay, with 150,000 gallons of diesel, oil, and hydraulic fluid on board, with the following not-so-reassuring weather forecast:

Kafka, eat your heart out

This post blends in well with the previous one.

Eli Rabett has put his two little front teeth in the Charles Monnett story and is not letting go:

PEER on IG Pursuit of Dead Polar Bear

Who is this Eric May? Who made the original complaint? Inquiring auditors want to know (BTW, Monnett has the right to see the original complaint once the investigation is concluded).

and

David Brown, DOI IG Special Agent in Charge of Untruth, or the Trial of Charles M

At the end of the last interview of the Department of Interior's IG Office with Charles Monnett, David Brown, the Special Agent in Charge pin dances with Monnett's lawyer, Jeff Ruch from PEER:

Arctic scientist suspended

Following a comment in the latest SIE update comment section, I draw attention to this article on the Guardian website:

Arctic scientist who exposed climate threat to polar bear is suspended

US government conducts 'integrity inquiry' on federal biologist amid lobbying by oil firms for Arctic permits

Suzanne Goldenberg, US environment correspondent

It was seen as one of the most distressing effects of climate change ever recorded: polar bears dying of exhaustion after being stranded between melting patches of Arctic sea ice.

But now the government scientist who first warned of the threat to polar bears in a warming Arctic has been suspended and his work put under official investigation for possible scientific misconduct.

Read the rest of the article here.

I have to admit that I'm not really up-to-date when it comes to polar bear research, so I can't judge the accusation of scientific misconduct. Of course, the potential extinction of polar bears has been used by environmental organisations to keep the Arctic the pristine place that it is. And rightly so, in my opinion. I believe some organisations are a bit too eager to plunder the Arctic's mineral riches. But would they go as far as eliminating scientists in this way? I guess so, and I guess Barack 'Yes, we can' Obama is proving again he's nothing more than a puppet.

But first I'd like to know if there is any truth to these scientific misconduct charges. Does anyone here have a better overview of polar bear research?

UPDATE: In the Guardian article mention is made of a complaint filed by a group called Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility: