Lack of local infrastructure to undertake oil exploration will prove devastating, environmentalists say – there is one road, no rail system and limited air facilities

This article is more than 5 years old

This article is more than 5 years old

Environmental groups and experts hit out at the US government on Tuesday following its announcement that the Anglo-Dutch oil giant Shell would be allowed to resume offshore exploration and drilling in the Arctic’s American waters.

Unforgiving conditions in the Arctic’s icy waters not only make the chances of a spill likely, the complete lack of infrastructure in place to deal with a potential disaster means the consequences of the move could be calamitous, environmental activists and experts say.

US taxpayers subsidising world's biggest fossil fuel companies Read more

According to a study published in February by the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, the same regulatory governmental agency that yesterday issued its approval of Shell’s Chukchi Sea exploration plan, the chances of one or more oil spills occurring as a result of drilling in the Arctic over the next 77 years are 75%.



In open water or broken ice, the same study says that between 44% and 62% of crude oil resulting from a spill would stay put – neither dispersing nor evaporating – after 30 days.

“Yesterday’s announcement is inconsistent with the federal government’s commitment for stewardship of the Arctic Ocean, it is inconsistent with President Obama’s commitment to combat climate change, and it is a clear prioritization of Shell’s needs ahead of the protection of one of our most important natural resources,” said Michael LeVine, Oceana’s Pacific senior counsel.

LeVine said a spill would have “catastrophic effects on the area’s wildlife and devastate one of the last intact marine ecosystems in the world”.

Michael Conathan, the director of ocean policy at the Center for American Progress, said yesterday’s decision was “wrong” and “didn’t make sense”.

Conathan said very little had changed since 2012 when Shell was forced to bring its Arctic explorations to a temporary halt after a series of serious mishaps, including the failure of one of its key safety equipment pieces.

Shell appeared to compromise safety regulations further late in 2012 when it sought to hurriedly tow a drilling rig it had been using through stormy weather, running it aground. A damning report by the US coast guard following the incident suggested the company had acted in order to avoid paying Alaskan taxes.

Conathan said there was currently a serious lack of “understanding, information and capacity” to safely undertake oil exploration in the area, pointing out that current local infrastructure included a single road, no rail system at all and limited airport facilities.

“If there is oil in the Arctic, it will have been there for the past millions of years. This means it will still be there in 50 or 100 years,” LeVine with Oceana said, speaking on a call from Juneau in Alaska.

“We should wait until we have figured out ways in which companies can operate safely.”

Conathan, of the Center for American Progress, said the other elephant in the room beyond the devastating effects of an oil spill no one is equipped to deal with is climate change.

“The reason why the Arctic is even accessible at all is because of the decline in Arctic sea ice,” he said.

Scientists have predicted ice-free summers in the Arctic as early as 2040.

“Producing fossil fuels [like oil] and then burning them at a greater rate will only accelerate the feedback loop,” Conathan said.