Court Backs Shell's Arctic Offshore Drilling Plans
- Animals
- Audubon News
- Climate Change
- Endangered Species
- Energy
- Nature
- Oil Spill
- Policy
- Technology
- Wildlife
05/14/2010

Sea ice in the Chukchi Sea. Photo: NOAA, Igor Lavrenov
Yesterday a federal appeals court rejected lawsuits that aimed to stop Shell Oil from conducting exploratory offshore drilling in Alaska waters slated to begin this summer.
Native American and conservation groups—including Audubon, Oceana, and Earthjustice—charged that the federal Minerals Management Service didn’t adequately consider the potential threats of exploratory drilling to wildlife or the risk of a large oil spill in the Arctic Ocean. After a week of oral arguments in Portland, Oregon, the three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals rejected those claims, removing one of the final barriers before Shell can move forward with drilling.
“Today’s court ruling confirms that the legal authorities and regulatory agencies that govern offshore oil development are dysfunctional and incapable of assuring meaningful protection of our oceans and the coastal communities that depend on ocean resources,” Eric Myers, Audubon Alaska policy director, told Audubon.
“In both the Gulf of Mexico and in the Arctic, the oil industry has dismissed the threat of a large oil spill,” he added. “For its part, the Minerals Management Service has not treated the prospect of a major spill any more seriously nor has there been any meaningful requirement that the oil industry be prepared to respond to a major spill. The result is what you see today—an enormous oil slick destroying wildlife and livelihoods on a scale beyond comprehension.”
This summer Shell plans to use its 514-foot long drilling ship to drill three exploratory wells in the Chukchi Sea and two in the Beaufort. In 2008, the same year President Bush and Congress lifted the decades-long offshore drilling moratorium, the company paid $2.1 billion for exploration rights in the Chukchi.
The seas are home to polar bears, endangered North Pacific right whales, walruses, and other wildlife already at risk from climate change. Drilling could further imperil the creatures that depend on the seas, conservation groups say. “There’s no proven method for cleaning up an oil spill in broken ice,” Marilyn Heiman, director of Pew’s US Arctic Program, told Audubon recently.
Pete Slaiby, Shell Alaska vice president, told the AP that the court decision demonstrates that the company has submitted robust, safe plans for exploration in the Beaufort and Chukchi seas. He said Shell faces several other hurdles before it can drill. "In light of the recent spill in the Gulf of Mexico, we are working hard to identify additional measures that could be incorporated into the program to make it even stronger," he said in an e-mail. "That said, this decision is a very large step in the right direction for us."
But conservation groups point out that BP wasn’t prepared to handle the spill in the Gulf of Mexico, and that a similar accident in the Arctic would be even more challenging to tackle. “If a similar blowout occurred in remote Arctic waters, in mixed ice and harsh weather conditions, effective response would be impossible,” says Myers. “The oil industry’s repeated public assurances regarding response capabilities in the Arctic simply do not withstand serious scrutiny.”
Eleven of the groups pushing to prevent Shell from drilling in the Arctic said in a joint statement that “the court was evaluating a decision made before the disaster in the Gulf of Mexico happened. We believe that the new issues this incident has brought to light offer even more evidence that Shell must not proceed with plans for exploratory drilling in the Arctic’s Chukchi and Beaufort seas this summer.”
The project could still be delayed, as The New York Times explains:
| Last week, Interior Secretary Ken Salazar ordered a halt to all new offshore projects while his department reviewed safety measures for the work in light of the spill in the Gulf of Mexico. As part of the review, the minerals service asked Shell to explain ways it could improve its ability to prevent and respond to a spill. Shell is supposed to respond by Tuesday. The Interior Department report is to be submitted to the White House by May 28. |


Alaska - Drilling
It is a "risk" to do any drilling off of Alaska. In addition to being an invasion to the wild and open lands, it is an invasion to the animals and wildlife that were there before us and deserve to live on and deserve to live in their natural habitat.
We need to allow Alaska to stay as wild as much as possible.
Drilling there would come with the possibility of risk, as well. Things can go badly and sometimes do (we know that from horrifying and repeated accidents). It just is not worth it. Any possible risk factor is too large. There needs to be a Zero Tolerance for doing anything to or in our environment that could and may cause further damage. Damage to the planet, to the environment, to humans, and to all living creatures.
Many of the world's most precious sealife and wildlife live in Alaska. To put them in the possible path of any potential danger, even if only a "remote" chance, is absolutely inhumane to them as well as to the balance of our highly integrated world of nature.
We need to forever use sound judgement before making these kinds of decisions and realize that economy and monetary profits should not and cannot be the driving source behind mankind's choices.
This earth is precious. It can only take so much abuse. And believe me,
technology and bad choices have wreaked havoc. The hundreds and thousands of extinct or near-to-extinct or endangered species of horrific.
We have lost forever, so many species. Done. Gone. Never to return.
It is time to put an END to all this madness.
The Alaskan drilling supporters can argue th at it is almost safe, or almost error proof. However there is always that very small possibility of error or mishap. The incredibly massive, huge and long-lasting devastation that is possible if something were to go wrong, makes taking the risk out of the question. As we know, when a mishap takes place, the deadly and longlasting results are irreversible and incredibly longterm.
High tech industry has already close to ruined the stability of this precious planet, everyone's island home. Dutifully evaluating energy consumption and finding green alternatives is what must be done. Non-environmentally friendly operations must relinguish their power and cooperate in changing their methods to earth-friendly ones. They must be willing to change with the times and consider the earth at large and human and animal life quality and be flexible to those concerns.
Already wildlife is at risk
Already wildlife is at risk in Arctic Ocean because of global warming and if oil spill occurs, it could be disastrous. The claims of Shell, well it's just another oil company after all...they mean business. I don't like Shell as a company since they have ruined the lives of one place where they had built their plant and that plant has troubled the lives of their residents...Shell had promised them but never fulfilled.
I am telling this from a documentary I saw...it was really saddening.
Commercial Real Estate