Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Environmentalists mount fresh challenge against Shell’s Arctic drilling plans {Alaska offshore}
Fuel Fix ^ | November 29, 2011 | Jennifer A. Dlouhy

Posted on 11/29/2011 2:00:22 PM PST by thackney

Environmentalists have opened a new front in their campaign to block Shell’s planned drilling in Arctic waters near Alaska, by challenging the government’s decision to issue the company essential air pollution permits for some of the work.

At issue are Clean Air Act permits the Environmental Protection Agency issued last month for Shell Oil Co.’s Kulluk drillship and support vessels, which the firm plans to use while working on exploratory wells in the Chukchi and Beaufort seas starting next summer.

Ten Alaskan and environmental groups appealed those permits before the EPA’s administrative Environmental Appeals Board on Monday. That builds on a similar appeal of the Clean Air Act permits issued for Shell’s Noble Discoverer that was filed in October.

The latest challenge was mounted by Earthjustice, representing another nine groups, including the Center for Biological Diversity, the Sierra Club and the Alaska Wilderness League.

The group highlights the risks associated with drilling for oil — and cleaning up any spills — in slushy, remote Arctic waters.

“Drilling for oil in the remote and often dangerous waters of the Arctic Ocean, where 20 foot swells and hurricane force winds accompany months-long winter darkness, is being approved despite an acknowledged lack of basic science and preparedness,” the coalition said in a statement. “Were drilling to result in an oil spill, cleanup could be nearly impossible.”

Shell is proposing to drill four wells in the Beaufort Sea and six in the nearby Chukchi Sea over the next two years, beginning when ice clears next summer.

Shell spokeswoman Kelly op de Weegh said the company is confident that its Kulluk air permit will be upheld, since it has already been subjected to a “thorough technical analysis.”

“Each approval in this permitting process is critical before Shell can begin exploratory, shallow water drilling next summer in Alaska,” op de Weegh said. “We have dedicated $4 billion and 5-years to studying, planning, and equipping a world-class drilling and contingency program. If we couldn’t explore these domestic resources safely and responsibly, we wouldn’t be there.”

Shell has previously cited its plans for tackling any spills and safeguards that it is planning to trim the risks of any accidents, including the use of redundant emergency equipment at the wellheads.

Federal regulators at the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management have already approved the company’s broad blueprint for the Beaufort Sea drilling, and are currently reviewing the firm’s Chukchi Sea plan. A federal task force also is evaluating the company’s oil spill response plans for the region.

Separately, environmentalists are challenging the Bureau’s approval of the Beaufort Sea exploration plan in federal court.

The air pollution permits have proven a vulnerable target in the past for Arctic drilling foes. For instance, last year, the Environmental Appeals Board tossed out permits as invalid and faulted the EPA for issuing them without fully reviewing potential emissions from a drill ship and support vessel. But EPA officials told lawmakers this year they are hopeful the new permits don’t suffer from the same problems and will withstand scrutiny.

TOPICS: News/Current Events; US: Alaska
KEYWORDS: energy; epa; northslope; offshore; oil

1 posted on 11/29/2011 2:00:33 PM PST by thackney
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

Shell's Arctic-class drill ship, the Kulluk, is shown as it is towed near Alaska. Shell is moving the Kulluk drilling unit from Dutch Harbor, Alaska, to a Seattle shipyard for ongoing maintenance and planned, technical upgrades. (Photo courtesy of Shell Oil Co.)

2 posted on 11/29/2011 2:01:58 PM PST by thackney (life is fragile, handle with prayer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: thackney

These wacko “environmentalists” would want to take fire away from stone age man!

3 posted on 11/29/2011 2:02:59 PM PST by mountainlion (I am voting for Sarah after getting screwed again by the DC Thugs.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: thackney

Nobama must have approved it because Shell is not an American company.

4 posted on 11/29/2011 2:03:37 PM PST by DallasDeb (usafa06mom)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


5 posted on 11/29/2011 2:05:20 PM PST by D-fendr (Deus non alligatur sacramentis sed nos alligamur.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: thackney
Would be interesting to know who is funding the “environmental groups”
6 posted on 11/29/2011 2:11:36 PM PST by opentalk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: thackney

Why do “environmentalists” have standing for any court action that doesn’t directly involve them, but US citizens and even presidential candidates don’t have “standing” to question The Naked Emperor’s Constitutional qualifications?

Has any company questioned the envirowhackos “standing” in any court case? I think that should be the primary question after the various courts have ruled about “standing” in so many of Jugear’s qualifications cases.

7 posted on 11/29/2011 2:28:01 PM PST by hadit2here ("Most men would rather die than think. Many do." - Bertrand Russell)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: hadit2here

Everyone should check out’s a bill that NEEDS to pass the HOUSE and SENATE and put the kibbutz on attorneys filing claims for environmental reasons that are groundless....and WE HAVING TO PAY FOR IT. We are being eaten alive by the “environmentalists”.....Call/email your reps

8 posted on 11/29/2011 2:47:24 PM PST by goodnesswins (Being Thankful I was born in the great U S of A!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: goodnesswins

Are internment camps out of the question?

9 posted on 11/29/2011 3:50:39 PM PST by Recon Dad ("The most important rule in a gunfight is: Always win and cheat if necessary.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: thackney

The “objections of Environmentalists” has become a “pro forma” hurdle for any new project, regardless of location, industry or purpose ! No matter what a government entity or business, or even a competing “environmental group” decides to undertake there will always be the inevitible delaying/cost enhancing court dancing of the radical fringe of “Gia Worshippers” !

Their often sensless protests reminds me of King Henry the VIII’s demand, “Who will rid me of this troublesome priest ?” ! >PS

10 posted on 11/29/2011 3:55:51 PM PST by PiperShade
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794 is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson