ANCHORAGE — Shell Oil Co. is limiting Arctic offshore drilling off Alaska in 2012 to preparation work after suffering several setbacks, but company President Marvin Odum said Monday that remains a significant accomplishment.
Royal Dutch Shell PLC announced earlier in the day that a containment dome required to be in place before drills can enter oil-bearing rock in the Chukchi and Beaufort seas was damaged Saturday during testing off Bellingham, Wash.
Environmental groups quickly blasted the company, saying the latest setback and others are evidence the oil industry cannot safely drill in the Arctic.
Odum told The Associated Press that although the company no longer plans to try to drill deep enough to reach oil this year, the company has made great strides with its exploratory wells off the Alaska coast.
“That drilling is going to be limited to top holes, but that is a tremendous step forward in terms of this multiyear exploration program in the Alaska Arctic,” he said.
The dome and Shell’s oil spill containment barge, the Arctic Challenger, are required to be positioned near the company’s drill ships before they drill into hydrocarbon zones.
Shell already faced a rapidly closing window for drilling during the open-water season — when the seas are mostly free of ice — and the damaged dome was the clinching impediment.
Odum would not speculate on the cause or extent of damage.
“There is an investigation going on right now to actually put the details behind it,” Odum said. “I’m going to wait for that report, which shouldn’t take very long.”
Shell hopes to tap into federal estimates of 26 billion barrels of recoverable oil and 130 trillion cubic feet of natural gas in U.S. Arctic waters. Odum remains optimistic.
“We’re exploring offshore Alaska for the first time in several decades, and we have two drilling ships out there and over 20 support vessels, some of which were purpose-built for the area,” he said. “We’re drilling in the Chukchi, and I expect we’ll be drilling in the Beaufort soon.”
Environmental groups strongly oppose Arctic offshore drilling, claiming oil companies have not demonstrated the ability to clean up spilled crude in ice, and that operating in one of the world’s most hostile marine environments is a risk to its polar bears, walrus and endangered whales. They pounced on the latest Shell setback.
“This series of blunders inspires anything but confidence in the oil industry’s ability to safely drill in the Arctic,” said Susan Murray, Oceana’s Pacific senior director.
A Shell drilling ship in July dragged its anchor and nearly ran aground at Dutch Harbor. Less than a day after a Shell drill ship began drilling a pilot hole Sept. 9 in the Chukchi, a 30-by-12-mile ice sheet heading toward the vessel forced it to move 30 miles south.
“These last few weeks confirm that drilling can’t be done safely for one month, much less long-term,” said Rebecca Noblin of the Center for Biological Diversity.
Odum said he understands the critics but that the containment system, which didn’t exist before Shell put it together for the Arctic, is one aspect to be solved in a multiyear exploration plan.
“If you look at the entirety of this program, you see the strength and the capacity with which Shell has moved back into the Arctic,” he said.
Shell will continue working on the containment barge and plans to have it operating in the Arctic this year, he said.
Comments (5)
Add commentGod's Way of Saying No To a Disaster
Lets review what the psychopaths at Shell wish to do:
Off shore drilling in the Arctic means:
1. No royalties for Alaska- not one dime.
2. No Severance for Alaska- not one dime.
3. Less incentive for Big Oil to drill on state leases like Prudhoe Bay- the biggest oil field in the USA- much better to go off shore and be tax free.
4. No ability to clean up an oil spill.
5. No roads along the North Slope to even get access to the oiled beaches, whales, polar bears, seals, and all the other marine mammals injured or killed.
6. No sunlight for many months out of the year making any attempt at an oil spill cleanup even more unlikely.
7. Extreme weather- like minus 100 wind chills- unlike the balmy 80 degree weather in the oil soaked Gulf of Mexico.
8. No adequate oversight with a demonstrably corrupt and incompetent MMS.
9. No Alaska politicians with brains enough to stand up to this insanity.
10. A proven record of Big Oil abuse in Alaska by buying politicians, (thanks Bill Allen, VECO) fouling Prince William Sound, (thanks Exxon) dumping toxic waste (thanks Randy Ruedrich and Doyon Drilling) firing ADEC regulators trying to do their job (thanks Tony Knowles) pipelines run to failure resulting in massive spills (thanks BP).
Why offshore?
Environmentalists and our current administration have made it so difficult to drill on land its forced the oil companies out to sea. Yes, a clean up would be a monumental task way out there. We need to be land based and get some income flowing for our broke country.
@band
It's funny when envirowackos such as aynrand begin to rant about lack of this and that when they are the actual cause of that lack. Responsible drilling on land has been all but destroyed by constant harping by environmentalists, forcing oil companies further and further way from access to resources for safety and emergencies. Then these same brain dead morons then complain that they are too far away from their safety net! But it's all part of the agenda to forestall resource development at any cost.
it's funny when wackos such
it's funny when wackos such as akjim begin to rant about envirowackos holding up production of the most profitable industry on the planet. To be the most profitable industry on the planet, hold that title and increase profits every year, means they're doing just fine. If they weren't, then their record profits every year wouldn't exist. Do you understand, jim? The oil companies don't need you to stand up for them. They have the most expensive lobbyists on earth to do that for them. I'm sure they would give you a handshake and a pat on the tush though if they knew how hard you were working for them, day in and day out.
@aynrand
"psy·cho·path
Noun:
A person suffering from chronic mental disorder with abnormal or violent social behavior."
From what I have read, Shell does not fit under the definition of psychopath. They have a clear profit motive, and are working to increase profits: quite sane in a capitalist system such as ours. They are adhering to the requirements of regulators and are quickly responding to issues encountered in the field.