Drilling critics warn of spill in Arctic Ocean

[Judi Lynn]

Drilling critics warn of spill in Arctic Ocean
By DAN JOLING
The Associated Press
Sunday, May 16, 2010; 4:00 PM

ANCHORAGE, Alaska -- Inupiat Eskimo whale hunter George Kingik follows news accounts of the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. He cringes when he imagines crude fouling his backyard, Alaska's Chukchi Sea.

"They're not ready for the Arctic," Kingik said from his home in Point Hope, 700 miles northwest of Anchorage. "It's completely different up here."

Shell Oil two years ago spent $2.1 billion for leases in the Chukchi, the arm of the Arctic Ocean that the United States shares with Russia, and the home to one of America's two polar bear populations.

The federal Minerals Management Service estimated the sale area contained 15 billion barrels of conventionally recoverable oil and 77 trillion cubic feet of conventionally recoverable natural gas. Shell is poised to begin exploratory drilling this summer on leases as far as 140 miles off shore.

Alaska Native groups and environmentalists are hoping a judge or the Obama administration will intervene.

More:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/05/16/AR2010051602056.html

[Blue_In_AK]

1. While Shell does have a far better safety record than BP,

and this drilling wouldn't be nearly as deep as BP in the Gulf, it's idiotic to think that drilling off the North Coast of Alaska, which is frozen much of the year, would be impervious to accidents. Can you imagine trying to contain and clean a spill that's trapped under several feet of ice?

[FBaggins]

2. Not until recently

BP actually had a pretty good record prior to last month. I understand that there were some environmentally conscious mutual funds that would invest in no other oil company.

Can you imagine trying to contain and clean a spill that's trapped under several feet of ice?

Could actually be easier in some ways. The oil floats to the surface and pools against the underside of the ice. You stick a straw through the thinnest point and suck it out.

[Blue_In_AK]

3. You must be talking about a different BP than I am.

They have a terrible safety record on Alaska's North Slope, with a long history of corroding pipes and spills, and in many ways are as responsible for the EXXON VALDEZ disaster as Exxon was. See this bit by Greg Palast written in 1999. http://www.gregpalast.com/ten-years-after-but-who-was-to-blame-2/

<snip>


Alaska's oil is BP oil. The company owns and controls a majority of the Alaska Pipeline system, the consortium called 'Alyeska'. Exxon is a junior partner, and four others are just along for the ride. Captain Woodle, technician Blake, and vice-president Polasek, all worked for BP's Alyeska.

When it comes to oil spills, the name of the game is 'containment' because, radar or not, some day, some tanker somewhere will hit the rocks. It was the failure to contain the spreading oil from Exxon Valdez that destroyed over 1,000 miles of coastline.

Quite naturally, British Petroleum has never rushed to have its name associated with Alyeska's destructive recklessness. After all, the disaster is always referred to by the name of the tanker. Who's name was on the side of the that tanker? Answer: Exxon. BP has rarely been fingered.

But we now know that BP's London headquarters learned of the alleged falsification of reports to the US government years before the spill. In September 1984, independent oil shipper Charles Hamel of Washington DC, shaken by evidence he received from Alyeska employees, hopped on the first available Concorde at his own expense to warn BP executives in London about scandalous goings-on at Valdez.

Furthermore, the port commander, Captain Woodle, swears he personally delivered his damning list of missing equipment and personnel directly into the hands of BP's Alaska chief, George Nelson.

<snip>

And here's this from just last December: http://www.adn.com/2009/12/03/1040254/new-north-slope-spill-bps-second.html

In the midst of cleaning up a major North Slope oil spill with an unusual twist, BP has reported another spill involving a different pipeline.

Officials estimated Wednesday's spill at more than 7,000 gallons of what's known as produced water, the water pumped with oil from wells and then separated from crude at processing centers. BP Exploration (Alaska) Inc. discovered the spill at about 1:40 p.m. Wednesday and reported it to the state Department of Environmental Conservation about an hour later.

A cause has not been determined.

The spill is the second since Sunday involving pipelines managed by BP. The Sunday oil spill still is being cleaned up as well. Officials say they have not pinpointed a cause or estimated the size of that spill.



Read more: http://www.adn.com/2009/12/03/1040254/new-north-slope-spill-bps-second.html#ixzz0o81gtQ7o

And, of course, the accidents in Texas.

BP wants everyone to think they're all "Beyond Petroleum" and environmentally friendly -- the little green and yellow flower thingy is supposed to convey that message -- but their record in Alaska and elsewhere hasn't been all that good.

You might want to listen to the first hour of Shannyn Moore's show Friday wherein she discussed with Chuck Hamel and Mike Mason BP's safety record on the North Slope. http://shannynmoore.podbean.com/2010/05/14/51410-hour-1/

[Statistical]

4. No it just means all the other ones are far worse.

Prior to this most recent spill Sierra Club regarded BP as one the "best" (like saying best mass murderer) oil company and Shell just middle of the pack

http://www.sierraclub.org/sierra/pickyourpoison/

Shell has a rather crappy history (as do all the majors)

In 2008 Shell got caught classifying oil sands projects as "sustainable energy" to make themselves look more green. On the oil sands topic Shell is one the largest players in oil sands business.

Human rights violations in Nigeria anyone? Shell supported militants because they promised to keep the oil flowing.

Shell fined for contaminating groundwater (and covering it up) in both UK and US.

Shell caught lying and falsifying safety data in North Seas offshore oil projects.

1998 shell refinery explosion and in 2008 a disaster was avoided by pure like at Merseyside Refinery.

Shell has some of the poorest condition and more dangerous rigs still in operator. As of May 2010 they still hadn't brought more than a fraction of them up to code.

Shell has an occpational death rate far higher than any other major oil company.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Dutch_Shell_safety_concerns
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Dutch_Shell_environmental_issues

All this points to a company who doesn't give a flying crap about safety or spills. The idea that Shell is better than BP is a joke. All the majors are like peas in a pod.

[Blue_In_AK]

5. Well, then you've really proved my point.

THERE SHOULD BE NO DRILLING IN THE CHUKCHI OR BEAUFORT SEAS ... PERIOD.