(MintPress) – The Obama administration has reportedly given permission to oil companies interested in Arctic oil drilling. Despite continued environmental and regulatory concerns by the environmentalist community, the rapidly receding Arctic ice has opened the possibility for more oil exploration, and what some lawmakers have called “greater energy security for the U.S.” The Royal Dutch Shell oil company is poised to be the main beneficiary should drilling proceed. However, a monumental push to turn the Arctic circle into an “international sanctuary” is underway, opposing plans to drill in the area.
Drill baby drill?
The Royal Dutch Shell oil company first obtained leases to drill in the Arctic’s Chukchi and Beaufort seas for $2.2 billion in 2005. Shell had planned to begin drilling in the summer of 2007, but faced legal challenges in U.S. courts.
Now, with greater support from the Obama administration, Shell could begin drilling 10 wells as soon as this year, with much of the proposed action planned for early 2013.
Ed Crooks, writing for the Financial Times, reports that the final permits are contingent upon Shells’ ability to prove that it has the necessary safety regulations in place to prevent an oil spill from occurring.
Crooks writes, “Those [permits] are dependent on trials of its technology for capping off a leak, and for containing and recovering any spilled oil; both of which proved difficult for BP during the gulf spill. The capping stack, intended to be put on top of a leaking well, was demonstrated successfully to the Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement, the offshore regulator, on Monday, and Shell intends to show its containment technology in action in the coming weeks.”
Interior Secretary Ken Salazar stated the Obama administration’s position regarding Arctic drilling, saying, “I believe there’s not going to be an oil spill.” The statement has done little to assuage the fears of those concerned about the safety of drilling practices.
Shell, one of the only oil companies eligible to drill should this plan go through, has had a notorious history of violating environmental regulations. Previously, Shell has faced numerous legal challenges for safety and environmental violations related to offshore drilling in the North Sea.
Indeed, an investigation by the Scottish newspaper, the Sunday Herald documents the Royal Dutch Shell company has been reprimanded for breaking environmental safety rules 25 times in the past six years. The report labels Shell as having the second-worst safety record of any company operating in the United Kingdom.
Although Shell has continued to test different capping systems, the representatives for the U.S. Coast Guard posit that there is little infrastructure in place to contain Arctic oil spills. In a July 2011 Senate hearing on Arctic drilling, Robert Papp doubted the ability of the Coast Guard to properly respond to an oil spill saying, “If a [a spill] were to happen off the North Slope of Alaska, we’d have nothing. We’re starting from ground zero today.” Papp, who is a Coast Guard Commandant continued to express doubts in a December 2011 hearing, saying the “most immediate operation need is infrastructure.”
International environmentalist groups have lined up in opposition to Arctic drilling as well. Greenpeace, a major environmental activist group has launched an online campaign calling upon world leaders to establish the Arctic as a “global sanctuary.”
Greenpeace: Save the Arctic campaign
According to their website, Greenpeace has decried the negative effects of Arctic drilling saying, “A new Arctic oil rush is starting. Shell, BP, Exxon, Gazprom, Rosneft and others want to risk a devastating Arctic oil spill for only three years’ worth of oil. The same dirty energy companies that caused the Arctic to melt in the first place are looking to profit from the disappearing ice. They want to open up a new oil frontier to get at a potential 90 billion barrels of oil. That’s a lot of money to them, but it’s only three years’ worth of oil to the world.”
Although the estimates for oil output are modest, lawmakers supporting the action believe that the drilling will provide energy security for the United States. Additionally, some contend that with dwindling oil production in the Persian Gulf, tapping even small oil reserves will steady volatile oil markets and provide domestic energy to U.S. consumers.
While little information exists on remaining Saudi Arabian oil reserves, a leaked diplomatic cable published by Wikileaks February 2011 provides remarkable insight into Saudi Arabia’s rapidly diminishing oil reserves. Sadad al-Husseini, a geologist and former head of exploration at the Saudi oil monopoly Aramco, warned Washington in the cable, telling U.S. officials that Saudi Arabia’s remaining oil reserves may be a full 40 percent lower than expected.
Providing approximately 12 percent of the world’s oil, Saudi Arabia remains the number one oil producer in the world. However, this type of robust production cannot continue indefinitely and may be ending sooner than expected.
Despite the tremendous energy demands of the United States, environmentalists and skeptics insist that any efforts to tap Arctic oil are risky, especially given the modest projected oil reserves. The Greenpeace campaign to preserve the Arctic has all collected more than 300,000 signatures from people across the world calling for a “global sanctuary” in the Arctic. Organizers have set a goal to collect 1 million signatures as a sign of public opposition to plans for oil drilling.
The BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico during 2010 has given many, including environmental activists, a reason to be concerned about future offshore drilling projects. The 2010 incident was the largest oil spill to occur in U.S. waters, with 4.9 million barrels released across the Gulf. Eleven oil rig workers were killed when the rig exploded.