Salvage crews examine Shell’s Kulluk drill ship in January 2013 after it ran aground off Alaska. (Picture: Tim Aubry/AFP/Getty Pictures)
The Arctic is the ultimate frontier of the oil period. Overused oil fields across the planet are dwindling, tempting power companies to faucet the highest of the planet regardless of its hostile surroundings. An estimated 13 % of Earth’s undiscovered oil lies beneath the Arctic, totaling about 90 billion barrels. At our present price of consumption, that will be sufficient to fulfill worldwide demand for about three years.
Russia broke the ice, so to talk, in 2013 with its Prirazlomnaya undertaking, the world’s first stationary oil-drilling platform within the Arctic Ocean. Oil firms are additionally vying to drill in Arctic waters off Canada, Greenland and Norway, though fickle oil costs have dampened some enthusiasm currently.
Within the U.S., Royal Dutch Shell has has spent practically $6 billion since 2005 on leases, permits and lawsuits in its quest for Alaska’s oil-rich Beaufort and Chukchi seas. That quest suffered a string of setbacks in 2012 — most notably when its Kulluk drilling rig ran aground off Kodiak Island — however Shell hasn’t given up. And this week, U.S. regulators rewarded Shell’s dedication by granting the company conditional approval to start drilling within the Chukchi Sea.
That marks “a significant victory for the petroleum business and a devastating blow to environmentalists,” as the New York Times put it. Why would oil rigs be “devastating” in such a distant a part of the world? Listed here are 5 of the largest issues about making an attempt to extract oil from the Arctic Ocean:
An grownup bowhead whale and calf swim by way of sea ice within the Arctic Ocean. (Picture: Corey Accardo/NOAA)
1. The noise.
Even when nothing goes incorrect — which historical past suggests is unlikely — quite a bit can go incorrect.
“[T]right here shall be unavoidable impacts from every part of oil growth within the Arctic Ocean — seismic exploration, exploration drilling, manufacturing platforms, pipelines, terminals and tankers,” writes conservation biologist Rick Steiner, a former marine researcher on the College of Alaska who now runs a sustainability consulting undertaking referred to as Oasis Earth.
“The acoustic disturbance to marine mammals from offshore oil growth is of explicit concern, as underwater noise can have an effect on communication, migration, feeding, mating and different necessary features in whales, seals and walrus,” he provides. “As properly, noise can have an effect on chook and fish migration, feeding and copy, and may displace populations from important habitat areas.”
Discontinuous sea ice floats on the Chukchi Sea in September 2013. (Picture: Tom Cronin/USGS)
2. The remoteness.
Bear in mind how exhausting it was to wrangle the Gulf of Mexico’s Deepwater Horizon oil spill 5 years in the past? It took a number of months, though it occurred simply 40 miles off a extra closely populated and industrialized U.S. coast. The response effort concerned mobilizing an armada of vessels, crews and tools, to not point out coordinating how and when it might all be used.
Now think about if the spill had occurred off Alaska as an alternative of Louisiana. Even getting the mandatory ships and equipment to the spill website can be a herculean activity. Shell has an official security plan in case of a spill — together with an area inventory of tugboats, helicopters and cleanup tools — however because the Deepwater Horizon illustrated, fail-safes like blowout preventers can fail and pre-spill plans can fall woefully quick.
Soften ponds sit atop sea ice within the Chukchi Sea off Alaska’s northwestern coast. (Picture: NASA)
three. The ocean ice.
Even when response crews do mobilize to wash up an Arctic Ocean oil spill, their choices shall be restricted. Because the World Wildlife Fund points out, “there isn’t a confirmed efficient methodology for holding and cleansing up an oil spill in icy water.” Dispersants helped break up the Deepwater Horizon spill in 2010, however additionally they proved harmful in their very own proper, with a 2012 study suggesting they made the oil 52 instances extra poisonous to wildlife. On prime of its distant location, the Chukchi Sea is frequented by chunks of sea ice for a lot of the 12 months. That may make navigation troublesome, to not point out oil-spill cleanup.
“A significant spill within the Arctic would journey with currents, in and beneath sea ice throughout ice season,” Steiner writes, “and it might be nearly not possible to include or recuperate.”
Alaska’s Prince William Sound continues to be recovering from the 1989 Exxon Valdez oil spill. (Picture: Chris Wilkins/AFP/Getty Pictures)
four. The gradual ecological restoration.
As dangerous because the 2010 Deepwater Horizon spill was, no less than it occurred in a big, heat gulf populated by microbes that may eat oil. The Arctic Ocean, then again, has low temperatures and restricted daylight, making an oil spill extra more likely to fester — as seen after the Exxon Valdez spill in 1989.
“A big spill would undoubtedly trigger in depth acute mortality in plankton, fish, birds and marine mammals,” based on Steiner. “[T]right here can be vital persistent, sub-lethal damage to organisms — physiological harm, altered feeding conduct and copy, genetic damage, and so forth. — that would cut back the general viability of populations. There may very well be a everlasting discount in sure populations, and for threatened or endangered species, a spill may tip them into extinction. With low temperatures and gradual degradation charges, oil would persist within the Arctic surroundings for many years.”
Fuel flaring can produce particulate matter that is dangerous for Arctic ice in addition to human well being. (Picture: Ken Doerr/Flickr)
5. The emissions.
Along with 90 billion barrels of oil, the Arctic could maintain as a lot as 1.7 trillion cubic ft of pure fuel — about 30 % of the planet’s undiscovered provide. Pure fuel is more durable to move than oil, requiring both pipelines or amenities that convert it to liquefied pure fuel (LNG), at which level it may be shipped by tankers. That sort of infrastructure is sparse within the Arctic, so offshore rigs may be extra more likely to burn off the additional pure fuel on-site, a course of referred to as flaring. That is higher than letting the fuel escape, since methane is a potent greenhouse fuel, however flaring can produce different pollution like black carbon, which causes snow and ice to soften extra rapidly by absorbing extra warmth.
Flaring also can trigger extra direct issues, says Rosemary Ahtuangaruak, an environmental justice advisor for the Alaska Wilderness League in Barrow, Alaska. Ahtuangaruak started working in Barrow as a group well being aide in 1986, when a increase in onshore oil drilling — and fuel flaring — was related to a spike in well being issues. “One of many issues we noticed immediately have been the respiratory sicknesses,” she tells MNN. “On nights when there have been many pure fuel flares, I used to be solely getting a pair hours of sleep due to all of the sufferers coming into the clinic.”
Oil drilling additionally introduced advantages like working water and higher medical care, Ahtuangaruak says, however the inflow of sufferers satisfied her the negatives outweighed the positives. And on prime of that, oil booms have an extended affiliation with social issues like crime, she notes. “Our nationwide power coverage shouldn’t price the well being and security of people that reside the place the oil and fuel growth goes to happen.”
After all, any new oil or fuel drilling additionally poses a wider public-health drawback: local weather change. Each barrel of oil faraway from the Arctic Ocean will presumably be burned, releasing carbon dioxide that may spend centuries trapping photo voltaic warmth within the environment. Burning the Arctic Ocean’s oil may launch a further 15.8 billion tons of CO2 into the environment, which is equal to all U.S. transportation emissions over a nine-year interval. It might elevate world CO2 ranges by 7.44 elements per million (ppm), practically 10 % of the worldwide rise in atmospheric CO2 over the previous 50 years.
Earth’s air already has extra CO2 than ever earlier than in human historical past — lately reaching 400 ppm for the primary time because the Pliocene Epoch — and it is rising at an unprecedented tempo. Not solely would Arctic Ocean drilling launch extra CO2, however any new long-term dedication to fossil fuels slows down the inevitable transition to climate-friendly renewable energy.
“Society faces a elementary alternative with the Arctic,” Steiner writes. “Let’s hope we select correctly.”
Associated on MNN: