Offshore Oil Drilling in the Arctic

Theres a bright side to climate change and the melting of the Arctic, oil and gas
industries love to point out. In US-owned Arctic waters alone, there is an estimated 30 billion
barrels of undiscovered oil, not to mention numerous reservoirs of natural gas (National). And
with the absence of Arctic sea ice for longer and longer periods each year, it will only become
easier to access these plentiful natural resources, or so the oil industry likes to report. The truth
of the matter is that Arctic oil drilling is a very risky business, complicated by weather,
temperature, and ice, with potentially devastating consequences to the environment if a mishap
occurs, even without throwing in the added factors of melting sea ice and climate change. Royal
Dutch Shell, to which the US is currently leasing permits allowing offshore drilling in the Arctic,
claims they are well prepared to handle the challenges of drilling in such an inhospitable
environment, and are able to do so safely and with minimal environmental impact. But scientists
are adamant to the contrary, claiming a lack of sufficient data on Arctic conditions as well as a
lack of resources makes it impossible to guarantee environmental or human safety. And a future
increase in drilling activity only increases the chances of an oil spill occurring, an especially
harmful event given the unique conditions of the Arctic. The Arctic Ocean holds great potential
for offshore oil drilling and numerous benefits exist from doing so, but coupled with these
benefits are also immense risks. Currently, too much uncertainty exists around drilling in the
Arctic to completely ensure the safety of the environment and the workers involved, and until
these issues can be satisfactorily resolved, drilling in the Arctic Ocean should not be attempted.
Shell has had a long history in the Arctic, starting in 1918, as the companys webpage on
Arctic drilling proudly proclaims. US interests in the region have existed just as long, but drilling
offshore did not begin in Alaskan Arctic waters until the 1980s, with oil first being discovered in
1983. During this decade, 20 exploratory wells were drilled, mainly in the Beaufort Sea. To date,
35 exploratory wells have been drilled, 30 of which are located in the Beaufort and five in the
Chukchi (National). Throughout this time, Shell has played a leading role in exploratory offshore
Arctic drilling, and owns many of the drilling leases in the area. In 2005, Shell bid $44 million
on lease sales in the Beaufort, and in 2008 paid almost $2.2 billion for leases in the Chukchi
(Shell). Litigation delayed drilling for the next three years, but in 2011 the Bureau of Ocean and
Energy Management (BOEM) approved Shells 2012 Exploration Plans, and the following year
the Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement allowed them to begin drilling (National).
Shell was only able to drill two surface holes due to problems with their dome containment
device, as well as an oil spill response barge, the Arctic Challenger, not being ready on time. At
the end of the drilling season in December of 2012, Shell began towing their drill rig, the Kulluk,
out of Alaskan waters to avoid a hefty fine, departing in rough, stormy conditions that led to the
eventual separation of the drill rig from the towing ship. The Kulluk ran aground on December
31
st
as a result of inadequate assessment and management of risks, as the Coast Guard stated in
their report (United). Public outcry soon followed the event, especially among environmental
groups. Alex Taurel, the deputy legislative director for the League of Conservation Voters, saw
the mishap as a huge failure on the part of Shell, remarking: "We can't trust Shell or any other oil
company to operate in such an environmentally challenging and sensitive area like the Arctic
Ocean." (Lavelle). But the oil industry was quick to assert that Arctic drilling remains a safe
endeavor. Randall Luthi, the President of the National Ocean Industries Association (NOIA),
commented that drilling in US waters could still be achieved safely and that the incident should
not be a stumbling block for further development in the region (ORourke). Shell briefly
resumed drilling activities early in 2013, but then halted, and according to their most recent
announcement on January 30
th
, 2014, drilling activities still remain postponed (National).
Despite the numerous setbacks experienced by Shell, future oil drilling and exploration in the
region is already guaranteed, with plans in the works for oil and gas leasing activity in the near
future. The Department of the Interior approved a program in 2012 that outlines regulatory
actions to be taken in offshore areas from 2012 to 2017. Referred to as the Five Year Program,
this includes lease sales for exploratory oil drilling scheduled for 2016 in the Chukchi Sea and
Cook Inlet, with more lease sales scheduled for 2017 in the Beaufort Sea (ORourke). With
Arctic oil drilling a guaranteed event in the coming years, it is important to consider the
numerous hazards and impediments that could threaten drilling operations and workers in such a
harsh environment.
The Arctic Oceans weather and conditions are very unique and hard to predict, causing
challenges to shipping and offshore drilling activities, especially when considering the
aberrations wrought by climate change. To begin with, temperatures in the Arctic are extremely
cold, and for three months out of the yearfrom November to Januaryno daylight reaches the
region at all. Without correct precautions, this alone could pose serious threats to worker safety
and operations. Weather patterns in the Arctic could also present significant safety concerns,
especially if incorrectly measured. Not only have more extreme wind events caused by climate
change been recorded in recent years within the Arctic Circle, but also wind fields over offshore
areas are not always well-captured by coastal station data. (National). Offshore oilrigs are often
located miles out at sea, and having correct wind and weather data is a very important factor in
securing worker safety. Heavy fog is also a commonplace occurrence in the spring, reducing
visibility and further impeding safety. The loss of Arctic sea ice also creates problems, as more
open ocean allows for increased wave size and storm surge frequency (National). Ice loss is also
thought to create altered characteristics of Arctic cyclones, making them harder to predict and
hindering drilling operations (ORourke). Currents are another factor to consider. High-
frequency radar systems were used to map surface ocean currents in the Chukchi Sea, indicating
the existence of complex flow patterns that can reverse direction in a matter of hours and can
vary significantly in both magnitude and direction. (National). And as melting sea ice opens up
ever-widening expanses of open water, Arctic current patterns are even more likely to shift in
unexpected directions. These erratic currents pose potential problems for ships bringing supplies
to and from drill sites, and could also cause issues for both ships and the drilling platform itself
as the rapid change of currents brings in unexpected ice floes. But not all the risks involved in
offshore oil drilling lie at sea. Climate change creates impediments for onshore facilities as well,
as melting permafrost softens the ground and causes coastline erosion. Onshore infrastructure,
like pipelines, is necessary to store and transport the oil produced from a well, but the melt of
permafrost can make these structures very unstable and increases the chances of a spill or other
accident. Another concern scientists have noted is that due to coastline erosion, Arctic shoreline
and hydrographic data are mostly obsolete. (National). This is hazardous for all ships traversing
the region, which includes those potentially involved with drilling operations or the bringing of
drilling supplies. A diverse variety of challenges are presented by Arctic weather and conditions,
making the region a unique environment for offshore oil drilling and a potentially risky area for
workers. But Shell believes they are more than up for the challenge, again citing their long
history in the Arctic and Alaska, their experience with rough seas and difficult weather at
previous exploratory drilling locations, and the fact that they are funding numerous scientific
programs to collect more data on the region to better understand Arctic conditions, including the
study of currents and wind patterns (Shell). Shell, indeed, does have much experience drilling in
harsh conditions, with working wells already established in Russia and Norway that, while not
within the Arctic Circle, are still located in frigid and difficult settings. But neither past
experience within Alaska nor their current feats in other countries are necessarily indicative of
success in the Arctic in the future, as climate change causes significant and unpredictable
changes to Arctic conditions. In order to be able to fully guarantee worker and environmental
safety, Shell will not only have to update existing technology in the Arctic in order to obtain
accurate data, but will have to constantly conduct new studies in order to understand the
constantly changingand increasingly extremeconditions of the Arctic.
While Arctic weather and conditions alone cause substantial threats, the greatest risk to
offshore drilling lies in sea ice and ice floes. Sea ice is unpredictable, hard to forecast, and
conditions can change dramatically within hours depending on winds and ocean currents. Many
scientists predict that the Arctic will be ice-free in late summer as soon as 2030, but even this
does not guarantee that ice will not hinder oil drilling. The National Research Council notes that:
Even in summer, ice can intrude on drilling locations and shipping routes and that summer ice
conditions are highly variable and largely dictated by wind patterns. (National). Ice extent is
especially variable in the early fall, when ice-free regions can become ice-covered in a matter of
days (National). This extreme variability becomes especially hazardous considering the
difficulties currently faced in monitoring sea ice conditions. Mapping sea ice extent in detail is
particularly tricky, since pools of meltwater on the ices surface often confuse satellite sensors
and newly formed sea ice is difficult to distinguish (Eicken). Ice thickness is another factor that
is completely impossible to monitor via satellite (National). Considering climate change, this
could be a rather severe problem since ice is projected to be thinner, more fragile, and more
regionally variable in the future, creating many potential safety concerns (ORourke). Larger
expanses of open water in the Arctic also creates bigger waves which break up the edge of the
pack ice, and even the usually stable land-fast ice can be broken up by storms and set adrift
(National). Combine this with the Arctics unpredictable currents, and potentially dangerous ice
floes become nearly impossible to forecast. Shell is well aware of the many threats presented by
sea ice, and has adapted much of their equipment accordingly. As their website notes: Shell has
adapted its platforms for example by modifying their shape or reinforcing the legs and tested
their strength to be able to withstand the intense pressures caused by floating ice sheets in the
Arctic (Shell). Drilling rigs, such as the Kulluk that ran aground, are also built with reinforced
ice-class hull[s], and pipelines are reinforced with extra steel (Shell). To counter the dangers of
ice floes, Shell uses icebreakers and ice strengthened vessels to protect our drilling equipment.
If needed icebreakers break the ice around the drillships into smaller pieces to reduce the forces
it exerts, and thereby keeping our operations safe. (Shell). But even though Shell possesses
reinforced equipment suitable for the Arctic, being able to predict sea ice and ice floe movement
is still an important consideration in conducting safe drilling. Shell claims that they are already
more than capable of handling the ice. Their ice-monitoring center in Anchorage, as their website
states, combines radar images from ships and satellites to provide a continuous real-time picture
of sea ice cover and movement. (Shell). But as previously outlined above, satellite monitoring
of sea ice can be faulty and does not include important information such as ice thickness, nor
does it lend itself to making predictions of future sea ice movement. Many scientists claim that
better mapping as well as forecasting of sea ice is necessary to ensure the safety of both drilling
and shipping operations. The National Research Council reports that while summer sea ice can
be accurately mapped in near real-time, ice mapping is unstandardized across different
organizations, leading to confusion. The Council stresses the need to resolve this issue, also
noting that a form of accurate ice movement prediction is also needed. (National). Professor
Hajo Eicken of the University of Alaska Fairbanks fully agrees. He notes the challenges involved
in predicting ice movement in present-day conditions, since predictive models are based off the
assumption that the ice involved is thick and old. We know little about the physical processes
that govern the current mix of young (first year) and old ice, Eicken relates (Eicken). Shell may
have the equipment to handle icy conditions, but the inability to predict sea ice movement could
greatly endanger workers and drilling operations.
Another factor to consider when weighing the risks of Arctic oil drilling is the potentially
devastating harm to the environment that could be caused if an oil spill were to happen in the
region. While rare, the chances of an oil spill occurring in the Arctic will only rise with increased
drilling and shipping, and even under the most stringent control systems, some oil spills and
other accidents are likely to occur from equipment failure or human error. (ORourke). The
potential impact of a spill depends heavily on the time of year, location, and ice conditions. In
the fall when new ice forms, oil spilled under growing first-year ice will become encapsulated
in a layer of new ice within 12-48 hours, and cleanup would not be possible until the ice melts
in the spring (National). In the worst-case scenario, a blowout in the late fall or winter could lead
to copious amounts of oil being released under the ice and inaccessible to responders (Schmidt).
But even a small spill can be extremely challenging, since icy Arctic conditions allow for little
natural dispersion or evaporation, cause increased rates of emulsification, and the oil can be very
persistent in the environment (National). Harm is also increased by the lack of adequate response
resources in the area. As noted by the former Commander of the 17th Coast Guard District in
Alaska, we are not prepared for a major oil spill [over 100,000 gallons] in the Arctic
environment. (ORourke). The Coast Guard has only one forward operating base within the
Arctic Circle at Barrow, Alaska, and the majority of response supplies would have to be flown in
from Anchorage or assembled from a multitude of caches throughout the region. The delay
caused in the acquisition of such supplies, including essential equipment like dispersants and
skimmers, would lead to additional oil being released into the environment before containment
and mitigation could begin. Predicting the environmental outcome of a spill is also difficult since
the effects of oil spills in the Arctic are largely unknown and there is little data on baseline
environmental conditions with which to compare recovery levels to (National). While the exact
effects are unclear, past oil spills suggest that the potential impacts of a spill are likely to be
severe for Arctic species and ecosystems. (ORourke). But at the same time, certain factors of
Arctic drilling actually lend themselves to reducing spills. For example, Arctic waters are
relatively shallow and drilling operations occur only at about 150ft below sea level (ORourke).
This means there is less pressure on the drilling equipment and the equipment is also more
accessible in the case of an emergency. Shell is quick to reassure that they have many methods
for preventing spills and that spill prevention is a top priority. Shell implements detection sensors
that warn of possible leaks, uses blowout preventers, and has response ships on standby during
drilling operations (Shell). Most likely to dissuade public fears after the Deepwater Horizon
blowout in 2010, Shell also adds: In the unlikely event that [these measures] fail, we can also
drill a relief well alongside that can pump in cement or heavy mud to cut off the flow. (Shell).
Shell also reports they are investing in research programs to better understand oil behavior in
Arctic conditions, and are prepared to respond to a spill within 60 minutes, 24 hours a day.
(Shell). Even with such reassurances, many scientists argue that more needs to be understood of
Arctic conditions, ecosystems, and oil behavior in order to successfully respond to a spill. The
US Geological Survey calls for a large-scale synthesis of data and information in order to
safely develop oil and gas in the region (ORourke). And the National Research Council also
recommends a peer-reviewed, collaborative, and long-term research program to study the effects
of Arctic oil spills, while also advocating for a strengthened Coast Guard presence and resources
(National). Until more research is done and adequate oil spill response can be completely
guaranteed, the threats to the environment remain too great and offshore oil drilling in the Arctic
should not proceed.
In the coming years many changes to the Arctic environment are predicted, both from
climate change and an increasing human presence in the region. Offshore oil drilling is one of
those changes, an activity that without the correct precautions could cause significant harm to the
environment and the workers involved. Arctic weather, currents, conditions, and even the
melting of permafrost can threaten drilling operations, and current records of these conditions are
sometimes inaccurate and often outdated. Sea ice presents another serious issue since it can vary
so dramatically depending on winds, currents, and the time of year. Climate change only
increases this variability, causing the ice to behave in even more erratic ways and making ice
movement predictions extremely difficult, if not impossible. The risk of an oil spill also poses a
substantial threat to the environment, since oil spill response is complicated by hazardous Arctic
conditions as well as a lack of information, data, and adequate resources with which to aid
response efforts. Shell has taken many steps in order to prepare drilling operations for the unique
conditions of the Arctic, including scientific studies of the region and reinforced drilling
equipment. But others claim that Shell has not yet done enough, and much more needs to be
understood before drilling can be performed safely. Henry Huntington, science director with the
Pew Environment Group's Arctic Program in Eagle River, Alaska, puts it best, calling for a
sound, comprehensive, strategic plan for getting the information decision-makers need.
(Schmidt). Until the necessary information can be gathered on Arctic conditionsfrom sea ice
forecasting to the effects of oil spills upon the environmentoffshore oil drilling in the Arctic
presents too many risks and should not be attempted.








































References

Eicken, H. (2013). Ocean science: Arctic sea ice needs better forecasts. Nature 497: 431-
433. Web.
This paper describes the challenges of predicting sea ice changes and why it is important
to be able to do so, an issue very relevant for ship navigation and also possibly the transport of
supplies/oil to and from wells.

Lavelle, M. (2014). Coast Guard Blames Shell Risk-Taking in Kulluk Rig Accident.
National Geographic Daily News. Web.
Used for a quote to explain environmentalists sentiments about oil drilling in the Arctic.

National Research Council. (2014). Responding to Oil Spills in the U.S. Arctic Marine
Environment. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. Web.
Contains a plethora of information on what needs to be known/what resources need to be
updated to successfully be able to respond to spills, and the challenges of an oil spill in such a
location.

ORourke, R. (2014). Changes in the Arctic: Background and Issues for Congress.
Congressional Research Service. Web.
This report discusses sea ice, shipping, drilling, Shells Arctic leases, the Arctics adverse
weather and conditions, challenges to oil spill response, and more.

Schmidt, C. (2011). Despite Data Gaps, U.S. Moves Closer to Drilling in Arctic Ocean.
Science 333: 812-813. Web.
Provides a general overview of some of the problems of drilling in the arctic brought up
by scientists, including the possibility of well blowouts, and Shells response to how they will
deal with them.

Shell in the Arctic. (2014). Retrieved from www.shell.com/global/future-
energy/arctic.html
Information on Shells current plans for drilling in the Arctic and Shells claims for how
they will mitigate oil spills and minimize risk.

United States Coast Guard. (2012). Report of Investigation into the Circumstances
Surrounding the Multiple Related Marine Casualties and Grounding of the Modu Kulluk.
Retrieved from www.uscg.mil/d17/SectorAnchorage/
Details the events and errors that led to the grounding of the Kulluk.