



ROYAL Dutch Shell’s plans for exploratory drilling in the US Arctic this summer will involve the harassment of whales and seals by the thousands, an application document filed by Shell to the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) reveals.

Most notably, Shell estimates its Arctic activities will expose over 2,500 bowhead whales, over 2,500 gray whales and over 50,000 ringed seals to continuous sounds and pulsed sounds, deemed damaging enough to constitute harassment.

By Shell’s own estimate, 13% of the overall population of bowhead whales – listed under the US Endangered Species Act – are potentially harassed. The number of grey whales to be affected constitutes 13% of the overall population, while those of ringed seals is 16%.

The Marine Mammal Protection Act allows for the “taking” or “harassment” of marine mammals, so long as the number is small and the impact on the species is negligible. But environmental groups argue the numbers to be affected by the Shell plans are neither.

For whales, one of the biggest causes for concern is their hearing. Exploratory drilling, seismic testing and ice-breaking activities may expose whales to damaging sounds.

“If the noises happen and whales are caught within that zone, it can cause hearing damage,” said Christopher Krenz, a scientist and Arctic campaign manager with Oceana. “These whales talk to each other. Scientists think that it is very important for cows and calves to call out to each other as they migrate.” With damaged hearing, bowhead whales would stop making such calls, something that could be lethal in the short or long term.

“Whales communicate through acoustic signals,” said Tim Donaghy, a senior research specialist with Greenpeace. “A deaf whale is a dead whale,” he added, referring to a study by Oceana from 2013.

Shell has argued it will monitor areas where loud and potentially damaging activities will be taking place and halt activities if whales are spotted within close vicinity. It has also argued that most of the whales will avoid the areas, therefore limiting any potential impact.

Modified migration patterns may not necessarily be a reassuring development. “We have got to look at it from the context of the normal behaviour of these animals,” Donaghy said. “If they avoid their preferred areas for feeding or breeding, that means fewer animals may be born and fewer may survive.”

Krenz said the cumulative impact of exploratory drilling, seismic testing and ice-breaking activities in the US Arctic on marine mammals, though not yet fully known, should be taken into account by the Fisheries Service. He warned that the governmental agency had “not been on the side of caution” when it came to issuing permits in the past.

Arnold Brower Jr, executive director of the Alaska Eskimo Whaling Commission, said subsistence whale hunting was important for Arctic communities. “We don’t have agricultural farming. We rely heavily on marine mammals, this is our homegrown renewable resource.”

Above all, the possibility of an oil spill had been of main concern, he said. “We really desire to see reassurance that this will not happen.”

The application for incidental harassment authorisation for the non-lethal taking of whales and seals is one of the last permits Shell still needs to obtain before being formally allowed back into the Arctic. On May 11, the Obama administration gave the effective go-ahead when the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management approved Shell’s Exploration Plan for the Chuckchi Sea. Environmental groups described the move as reckless, and one that would likely lead to ecological disaster.

According to a government study, the likelihood of one or more spills occurring in the Arctic over the next 77 years if drilling for oil were to take place is as high as 75%. A dozen organisations have filed a lawsuit challenging the approval of Shell’s Arctic exploration plan. If the authorisation for harassment is rejected by the Fisheries Service, Shell will not be allowed into the Arctic this summer. — Guardian News & Media



