This was effectively the preamble for an oil and gas rush, which kicked of with Cairn Energy. Now Shell is preparing for a major thrust into the Arctic.
This is how Shell is promoting it's excursion into the Arctic: 'At Shell, we believe Alaska has significant untapped potential and will play an increasingly important role in meeting the energy challenge in the future. It holds great opportunity that comes with great responsibility.
Our experience working in rigorous and challenging conditions in the Arctic means that we are qualified to do the job right -- to explore for offshore oil and gas in Alaska in a very safe and careful way.'
Our 'experience'? What experience? In another section of their website they have this to say: 'No oil company has ever operated in an environment as extreme as the Arctic, let alone with heritage equipment—yet that's exactly the sort of challenge that makes the Arctic so appealing to many of us at Shell.'(!)
Appealing to Shell huh? I take it the shareholders and investors are just as enthusiastic as they see the Kulluk being brought out of retirement? And have they picked up on the phrase 'heritage equipment'?
Lets take a closer look at Shell's 'heritage equipment'.
The Kulluk and Shell's other drill vessel the Noble Discoverer are both the subject of an appeal against air permits granted by the EPA.
Meanwhile the Noble Discoverer has itself been involved in a bizarre incident in which it apparently ran aground after slipping its anchor. As Huffpost put it: 'for a company embarking on what is arguably among the most watched and most contentious oil and gas ventures in recent memory, the image of shore-based personnel scurrying toward a drifting and uncontrolled rig is embarrassing at best, and inauspicious at worst.' What do you think?:
And - as reported by Thinkprogress - the charade doesn't stop there: 'In the event of an offshore oil spill in the Arctic, Shell has previously admitted it can only “encounter” most of the oil in the frigid, pristine waters — not clean it up. However, it may lack the resources to do even that.
As Shell’s fleet sails north to prepare offshore drilling in Arctic waters, Shell’s oil spill recovery barge, the Arctic Challenger, remains docked in northern Washington after failing to receive Coast Guard certification.' In essence, what this means is that health & safety on board the ship is virtually non existent and its ability to withstand Arctic weather conditions is highly compromised. Adding to this is 'a report from the Center for American Progress, [which states that] the lack of infrastructure in Northern Alaska necessary to respond to a spill is staggering. The nearest major port is over 1,000 miles away from the drill sites and “there are no roads whatsoever connecting communities along the North Slope of Alaska.”
And all this before any exploration has even taken place.
'Shell fuelled human rights abuses in Nigeria by paying huge contracts to armed militants. Counting the Cost implicates Shell in cases of serious violence in Nigeria’s oil-rich Niger Delta region from 2000 to 2010. The report uncovers how Shell’s routine payments to armed militants exacerbated conflicts, in one case leading to the destruction of Rumuekpe town where it is estimated that at least 60 people were killed. Shell continues to rely on Nigerian government forces who have perpetrated systematic human rights abuses against local residents, including unlawful killings, torture and cruel, inhumane and degrading treatment.'
This also includes the execution of Ken Saro-Wiwa in 1995, which was linked to Shell and - as detailed in the Guardian - confirmed by a series of leaked cables to Wikileaks.
So does Shell actually have a reputation? Well I guess you could ask the same question of a tobacco company. And just like tobacco companies, oil companies serve consumers who are dependant on their product. This is why they operate in the manner that they do. It's part and parcel of their obligation to shareholders and investors. It's all about the bottom line - profit and the corporate legal structure which defines who they are. Everything else is simply an externality - as the clip from The Corporation explains (below).
Thus the evidence is weighted in favour of the argument that Shell will treat the Arctic no differently from any other arena it has operated in. Shells preparation so far underlines this. And their oil spill response plan - which has been described by Greenpeace as a 'dogs dinner' - is just as farcical as what we have witnessed so far.
So moving back to the original emphasis of this section with regards to investments. Given the behaviour of companies like Shell - and lets face it, Shell shares a commonality of behaviour traits with most other fossil fuel companies - I would take the position that any long term investment in these companies would be suicidal.
Shell is a company that moves in a linear manner, which means that it's too big, inflexible and stuck in rut to change direction even if it wanted to. As soon as fossil fuel dependency starts to break down, this is when the possibility of the carbon bubble bursting begins to rear its head.
And who's Shell gonna call when that happens? Yes that's right. The tax payer, you and me, just like the banks. Imagine too-big-to-fail oil companies - or does that not bear thinking about... .
So in conclusion, if Shell's practise in the Arctic demonstrates the same staggering complacency as their preparation to date, then the Arctic ecosystem is under great peril. And Shell's track record only serves to underline this (and if you run through the contents of Shell's website, you could be forgiven for thinking that it was written up by a Hollywood screenplay writer).
But don't just take my word for it. Lloyds of London recently released the report Arctic Opening: Opportunity and Risk in the High North. The report, highlighted by the Guardian raises familiar alarm bells.
We've already had one disaster in the far North. We don't need any more.
Comments