...Not us if there is an oil spill !
Approximately 30 percent of the world’s undiscovered natural gas and about 15 percent of its untapped oil lie in the Arctic. But the majority, 84 percent, of the estimated 90 billion barrels of oil and 47.3 trillion cubic meters of gas remain offshore. The five countries with territorial claims in the Arctic – Canada, Denmark, Norway, Russia, and the United States – have stated intentions to develop these reserves, if they haven’t begun already. Three oil and gas companies – ConocoPhillips, Norwegian multinational Statoil, and Shell Oil – have received approval to explore the US Arctic territory.
A National Research Council’s new study – funded by US federal agencies and the leading trade group for the oil industry, the American Petroleum Institute – found that energy companies currently lack Arctic oil spill response plans, as it is their responsibility to address such an event. The US government does not have infrastructure capabilities in place despite its rush to establish dominance in the region.
“The lack of infrastructure and oil spill response equipment in the U.S. Arctic is a significant liability in the event of a large oil spill,” the report states. “Building U.S. capabilities to support oil spill response will require significant investment in physical infrastructure and human capabilities, from communications and personnel to transportation systems and traffic monitoring.”
Adequate research into what awaits industry in the extreme cold of Arctic waters is also lacking, the report said. There is little understanding of how the low temperatures would affect both spilled oil and commonly-used techniques to reverse the effects of a spill, such as the spread of chemical dispersants. The report goes as far as suggesting that the only way to know is to conduct a controlled oil spill.
In an incident in 2012, involving a Shell oil-drilling rig, that has provided the starkest indication of what lies ahead for companies in the region. In a rush to avoid an upcoming tax liability about to go into effect, Shell decided to drag its top rig, the Kulluk, around 1,700 miles through frigid Arctic waters despite warnings from the tow ship’s captain. The Kulluk, reportedly carrying 150,000 gallons of fuel, eventually broke free from the towing ship floating off into an ecologically-sensitive area. The rig and its crew had to be rescued by the US Coast Guard, which recently released a report on the incident that slams Shell for “inadequate assessment and management of risks.”
“Vessels and the operations they conduct are growing more complex, and the risks that accompany these operations increase, whether in Alaskan waters or not,” wrote Joseph A. Servidio, a Coast Guard rear admiral, in the report. “The failure to adequately understand, respect, and not complacently assume past practice will address new risks, is critical both in practice and in company culture.”
These commercial interests worry advocates of ecologically-intelligent approaches to the Arctic.
“The Arctic Council should be a forum focused on protecting the Arctic environment, yet we see it more and more talking about protecting economic interests in the region,” John Deans, an Arctic campaigner with Greenpeace USA, told Mint Press.
Approximately 30 percent of the world’s undiscovered natural gas and about 15 percent of its untapped oil lie in the Arctic. But the majority, 84 percent, of the estimated 90 billion barrels of oil and 47.3 trillion cubic meters of gas remain offshore. The five countries with territorial claims in the Arctic – Canada, Denmark, Norway, Russia, and the United States – have stated intentions to develop these reserves, if they haven’t begun already. Three oil and gas companies – ConocoPhillips, Norwegian multinational Statoil, and Shell Oil – have received approval to explore the US Arctic territory.
A National Research Council’s new study – funded by US federal agencies and the leading trade group for the oil industry, the American Petroleum Institute – found that energy companies currently lack Arctic oil spill response plans, as it is their responsibility to address such an event. The US government does not have infrastructure capabilities in place despite its rush to establish dominance in the region.
“The lack of infrastructure and oil spill response equipment in the U.S. Arctic is a significant liability in the event of a large oil spill,” the report states. “Building U.S. capabilities to support oil spill response will require significant investment in physical infrastructure and human capabilities, from communications and personnel to transportation systems and traffic monitoring.”
Adequate research into what awaits industry in the extreme cold of Arctic waters is also lacking, the report said. There is little understanding of how the low temperatures would affect both spilled oil and commonly-used techniques to reverse the effects of a spill, such as the spread of chemical dispersants. The report goes as far as suggesting that the only way to know is to conduct a controlled oil spill.
In an incident in 2012, involving a Shell oil-drilling rig, that has provided the starkest indication of what lies ahead for companies in the region. In a rush to avoid an upcoming tax liability about to go into effect, Shell decided to drag its top rig, the Kulluk, around 1,700 miles through frigid Arctic waters despite warnings from the tow ship’s captain. The Kulluk, reportedly carrying 150,000 gallons of fuel, eventually broke free from the towing ship floating off into an ecologically-sensitive area. The rig and its crew had to be rescued by the US Coast Guard, which recently released a report on the incident that slams Shell for “inadequate assessment and management of risks.”
“Vessels and the operations they conduct are growing more complex, and the risks that accompany these operations increase, whether in Alaskan waters or not,” wrote Joseph A. Servidio, a Coast Guard rear admiral, in the report. “The failure to adequately understand, respect, and not complacently assume past practice will address new risks, is critical both in practice and in company culture.”
These commercial interests worry advocates of ecologically-intelligent approaches to the Arctic.
“The Arctic Council should be a forum focused on protecting the Arctic environment, yet we see it more and more talking about protecting economic interests in the region,” John Deans, an Arctic campaigner with Greenpeace USA, told Mint Press.
No comments:
Post a Comment