Environmental Coaliton challenges Obama administration OK of Shell Oil's Arctic Ocean drilling plan

[Better Believe It]

NEWS RELEASE

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
September 29, 2011

CONTACT: Environmental Groups

Holly Harris, Earthjustice [phone]
Emilie Surrusco, Alaska Wilderness League [phone]
Rebecca Noblin, Center for Biological Diversity [phone]
Caitlin Leutwiler, Defenders of Wildlife [phone]
James Turner, Greenpeace [phone]
Taldi Walter, National Audubon Society [phone]
Suzanne Struglinski, Natural Resources Defense Council [phone]
Pamela A. Miller, Northern Alaska Environmental Center [phone], x24
Dr. Chris Krenz, Oceana [phone]
Shawna Larson, Pacific Environment [phone]
Virginia Cramer, Sierra Club [phone], x102
Nicole Whittington-Evans, The Wilderness Society [phone]


Arctic Shell Game: No Spill Plan, No Problem – Feds Say Just Drill
Broad coalition challenges federal approval of Shell Oil’s plan to drill in the Beaufort Sea


WASHINGTON - September 29 - A coalition of Alaska Native and conservation groups head to court today to challenge the Obama administration’s decision to allow offshore oil drilling by Shell Oil in the Beaufort Sea in America’s Arctic Ocean.

After the devastating Deepwater Horizon spill, the Obama administration wisely delayed plans by Shell Oil to drill in the Arctic Ocean. But this August, the administration reversed course and approved the first part of the most aggressive Arctic drilling proposal in the history of the country by approving Shell’s plans to start drilling in the Beaufort Sea as early as the summer of 2012.

Earthjustice, on behalf of the Native Village of Point Hope, Alaska Wilderness League, Center for Biological Diversity, Defenders of Wildlife, Greenpeace, National Audubon Society, Natural Resources Defense Council, Northern Alaska Environmental Center, Oceana, Pacific Environment, REDOIL, Sierra Club, and The Wilderness Society initiated litigation in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals challenging the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation, and Enforcement’s (BOEMRE) decision to allow oil drilling in the Beaufort Sea.

“Allowing Shell to drill when it has no credible plan to cleanup an oil spill in the Arctic’s icy waters, and instead simply assumes it can clean up 95 percent of oil spilled isn’t just unrealistic, it’s insulting and irresponsible,” said Earthjustice attorney Holly Harris.

A spill in the Arctic Ocean would devastate polar bears, bowhead whales and other marine mammals and would severely affect Native subsistence communities which have thrived in this region for generations.

“Approving Shell drilling in the Beaufort Sea is irresponsible and risks disaster. We have a right to life, to physical integrity, to security, and the right to enjoy the benefits of our culture. For this, we will fight, and this is why we have gone to court today. Our culture can never be bought or repaired with money. It is priceless,” said Caroline Cannon, President of the Native Village of Point Hope.

The most recent oil spill drill in the Beaufort Sea (which took place more than 10 years ago) described mechanical cleanup in icy conditions as a “failure.” Nothing has changed since that drill. A recent report to the Canadian government concluded cleanup would be impossible 44 to 84 percent of the time during the short summer drilling season and completely impossible the other seven to eight months of the year.

U.S. Coast Guard officials have repeatedly explained that the resources to clean up an oil spill in the waters of the Arctic Ocean simply don’t exist. This summer, Commandant Admiral Robert Papp told Congress that the federal government has “zero” spill response capability in the Arctic.

Further, as a recent report by the USGS makes clear, basic scientific information about nearly every aspect of the Arctic Ocean ecosystem is missing. This lack of data makes it impossible to adequately assess the risks and impacts of drilling to wildlife and people in the Arctic and, as a result, makes it impossible to make informed, science-based decisions.

“Any oil company that wants to drill in the Arctic Ocean must demonstrate an ability to clean up oil spilled in these icy waters with proven technology,” said Cindy Shogan, Executive Director, Alaska Wilderness League. “Shell’s current oil spill plan is full of inadequacies and falsehoods. Shame on the Obama administration for allowing politics to trump science by approving such an unrealistic plan to drill in the Beaufort Sea.”

“Given the risk of a catastrophic oil spill, the Obama administration should not allow Shell to play Russian roulette with the future of polar bears, Pacific walrus and the entire Arctic ecosystem,” said Rebecca Noblin, Alaska Director for Center for Biological Diversity. “If polar bears, walrus and other imperiled species are going to survive in a rapidly-melting Arctic, we need to protect their critical habitat, not sacrifice it to oil companies.”

“Both Shell and the federal government are proceeding as if the Deepwater Horizon oil disaster – the worst environmental catastrophe this country has ever seen – simply didn’t happen,” said Sierra Weaver, attorney for Defenders of Wildlife. “Pretending there’s no risk associated with drilling, especially in the fragile waters of the Arctic, is not only irresponsible, it’s unacceptable.”

“If you liked the Deepwater Horizon oil spill, you will love Shell’s plan for Alaska,” said Mike Daulton, Vice President of Government Relations, National Audubon Society. “Shell has never demonstrated the ability to effectively clean up a large oil spill in the Arctic Ocean. In addition to the usual problems handling a major spill, Alaska has huge ocean waves, gale force winds and widespread sea ice. A major oil spill in Alaska would be Deepwater Horizon meets the Titanic.”

“Water and oil may not mix but ice and oil is even worse,” said Chuck Clusen, NRDC’s director of national parks and Alaska projects. “Any drilling in Camden Bay-- right off the shore of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge-- is unacceptable. A proper process or technology does not exist that could appropriately protect or clean up this sea. A spill could spoil the barrier islands of the Refuge threatening many species of wildlife, poison the migratory route of the endangered bowhead whale and kill other marine mammals such as polar bears, walrus and ice seals and substantially damage the very sensitive ecology of the Beaufort Sea for what could be many years.”

“Major spills from Shell’s oil drilling could devastate nearby coasts, including our nation’s treasured Arctic National Wildlife Refuge about a dozen miles away,” said Pamela A. Miller, Arctic Program Director, Northern Alaska Environmental Center in Fairbanks, Alaska. “Toxic pollution and noisy disturbance from exploration wells would harm wildlife using these estuary waters and the surrounding coasts so vital to polar bears, migratory birds, caribou, Alaska Native subsistence, and recreation. Our preeminent wilderness refuge deserves better care than the offshore agency has shown.”

“It is unfortunate that we have been forced to go to court to make our voices for science and preparedness heard,” said Dr. Chris Krenz, Arctic Project Manager for Oceana, “We remain hopeful that the government will stop making piecemeal decisions that lead to controversy and litigation and instead commit to a holistic look at the Arctic Ocean and a vision that will move us forward.”

“Arctic Indigenous Peoples are on the front line of climate change and Shell’s approved exploration plans to drill in the Beaufort Sea will only amplify the already devastating impacts of climate change,” said Shawna Larson, Alaska Program Director for Pacific Environment. “The risk of major oil spills and the fact that there is no way to clean up an oil spill in the Arctic further threatens Arctic Indigenous Peoples traditional foods, future generations, human health and the environment. The approval of this plan calls into question the U.S. government’s legal trust responsibility to Alaska’s Indigenous Peoples.”

“The holes in Shell’s plan, notably the lack of a workable oil spill response plan, leave the fragile natural systems of the Arctic and the livelihoods of native communities at risk. Smarter transportation choices, not dangerous drilling plans, are what we should be pushing forward,” said Dan Ritzman, Sierra Club Alaska Program Director.

“Approving oil drilling in the remote and icy waters of the Arctic Ocean at this time is reckless,” said Nicole Whittington-Evans, Alaska regional director with The Wilderness Society. “This region is home to endangered and threatened polar bears, bowhead whales, seals, fish and birds. Alaska Natives in the region rely on these resources. Shell has no proven technologies to clean up an oil spill in these waters. Scientists agree, and so do we, that we need a better understanding of the impacts of an oil spill and the ability to respond effectively before we take the risk to drill.”
.
###

http://www.commondreams.org/newswire/2011/09/29-4


So Shell Oil and other big oil firms need to drill in order to increase U.S. oil exports to nations which will decrease U.S. dependency on imported oil! Well, that makes absolute sense now, doesn't it? BBI



U.S. Oil Exports Reach Record Highs; That’s Right…Exports
September 5, 2011

Funny how politician after politician keeps talking about the necessity to drill for more oil in the U.S., be it in Alaska or in the Gulf of Mexico or on public lands—considering that America has been breaking records this year for exports of petroleum.

According to the U.S. Department of Energy, American exports of crude oil and refined petroleum products are higher than they’ve ever been. In April of this year, oil companies sold nearly three million barrels overseas—which was double the amount sold four years earlier (April 2007).

Meanwhile, U.S. and Canadian oil firms are lobbying the Obama administration to approve the construction of the controversial 1,661-mile transcontinental Keystone XL pipeline that would carry tar sands oil from Canada to Texas refineries. This development would mean more export profits for oil companies, as some of the oil sands would be refined for overseas use.



http://www.allgov.com/Controversies/ViewNews/US_Oil_Exports_Reach_Record_Highs__Thats_Right__Exports_110905


-------------------------------------------



U.S. Awash in Oil and Lies, Report Charges
By Stephen Leahy
September 2, 2011

With four times as many oil rigs pumping domestic oil today than eight years ago and declining domestic demand, the United States is awash in oil.

The country's oil industry is primarily interested in who will pay the most on the global marketplace. They call that "energy security" when it suits, but in reality it is "oil company security" through maximising profits, say energy experts like Steve Kretzman of Oil Change International, an NGO that researches the links between oil, gas and coal companies and governments.

The only reason U.S. citizens may be forced to endure a risky, Canadian-owned oil pipeline called Keystone XL is so oil companies with billion-dollar profits can get the dirty oil from Canada's tar sands down to the Gulf of Mexico to export to Europe, Latin America or Asia, according to a new report by Oil Change International released Wednesday.

"Keystone XL will not lessen U.S. dependence on foreign oil, but rather transport Canadian oil to American refineries for export to overseas markets," concludes the report, titled "Exporting Energy Security".

http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=104972

[FBaggins]

1. "Oil Exports Reach Record Highs; That’s Right…Exports"

Is that piece actually trying to pretend that this means that we have more than we need and there's no point in importing oil or increasing production?

It sure reads that way, but such a point would be entirely illogical since we import FAR more than that figure.

There are valid environmental concerns related to the Canadian tar sands or drilling in the Arctic... but "we export the stuff so we much have more than we need" is not a valid argument.

[Better Believe It]

2. So if domestically produce oil were used here rather than exported that would not decrease imports?

Is that your point?

If 2 and half million barrels of U.S. produced oil were not exported and were used here that would not have any impact at all on the amound of foreign oil imported. It would remain the same.

I don't understand how that logic works.

Something like this?

More U.S oil production means more exports which means less imports of oil.

[FBaggins]

3. It wouldn't decrease imports, but it would raise prices.

The reason that we export AND import is that when you need oil in the mid-west, it's cheaper to ship oil from Alaska to Japan and import it from Canada to the mid-west than it is to try to transport it from Alaska to the mid-west. Sure you could reduce those imports by paying the extra money to get the Alaska oil down there... but why would you (absent a war or other import disruption)?

That's just an example. I have no idea whether it's actually the case... but the model fits. There are lots of refineries along the Gulf coast... but you can't sail a tanker all the way around South America to get American oil there... and I don't think you can pump it from California. So you import it from Venezuela.

Oil is fungible. All that really matters is how much we consume vs how much we produce.

[Better Believe It]

5. So the big oil companies would need to raise prices they charge us if they used domestic oil.

Oh I think the oil companies and speculators already fix prices so it wouldn't make much if any difference.

That sounds more like the "model" and excuse they would use to justify exporting domestic oil.

I don't think imported oil from U.S. companies and others operating in the Middle East would be that much "cheaper" than using oil produced in Texas or Alaska.

[FBaggins]

6. Sorry. You're thinking of the oil industry as a single block

It isn't. It's a group of companies that each have their own profit motivation. If a refiner buys a barrel of oil for delivery at a given spot, they don't specifcy where it comes from (remember, this is a commodity). The selling company delivers the product from wherever it's cheapest.

You may "think" that iw wouldn't be that much cheaper... but why on earth do you think they do it if that's true? The simple fact is that we DO export millions of barrels, and it is not because we produce more than we need.

[Metta]

4. I'd be surprised if Obama ever learns. He seems to be just another corporate shill.

Who inherits the suffering he's caused as his inevitable karma.