Response to Shell's claims

What to make of Shell’s response to Greenpeace supporters about Arctic oil

Background - 15 March, 2012
Shell’s communication team has begun responding to the hundreds of thousands of people around the world who have taken action with Greenpeace to stop the company from drilling in the Arctic. Unsurprisingly, Shell makes some incredible statements that shouldn’t be left unchallenged. Here they are:

Shell Claim:

"Affordable energy is vital for everyone and at present hydrocarbons are the only way to produce this energy in sufficient quantity."

Greenpeace Response:

We entirely agree that generating affordable, clean energy is vital for all of us, but drilling for more oil isn’t the answer. Only a company like Shell would try and persuade you otherwise, but it doesn’t mean they’re right.

There are many options to supply future demand besides drilling at the ends of the earth for the dregs at the bottom of the oil barrel. Ramping up energy efficiency and driving down oil demand with high-tech solutions like cleaner vehicles, whilst maximising the take up of clean, secure and affordable green energy, will go a long way to meeting our power needs in the coming years and help tackle global climate change.

Nor is more oil the most affordable option. It’s actually much cheaper to save fuel than to buy fuel. Experts tell us that as the price of oil gets higher, low-carbon alternatives like plug-in hybrid cars become much more cost-effective. Add in to the mix the huge economic risks of drilling for oil in the Arctic and estimates that drilling there may only be possible if the oil price hits an astronomical $300 a barrel, and it’s clear that getting off oil as quickly as we can is the best way to secure our future energy supply and protect the climate.

Shell Claim:

"The Arctic contains vast resources of oil and natural gas that could help to meet rising global energy demand."

Greenpeace Response:

The US Geological Survey has estimated that the entire Arctic could contain up to 90 billion barrels of oil, but it is important to stress two key words: estimated and could. There might be that much, there could be a lot less. At the moment no one knows how much really exists or whether it’s technically possible or affordable to extract it.

But what we do know is that at current global consumption rates, 90 billion barrels would only provide just three years’ worth of oil. Shell is seriously suggesting we wreck the planet’s last great wilderness for a three year fix.

To effectively tackle climate change we have to get off oil, but companies like Shell refuse to believe that demand could ever fall. This is simply untrue. The International Energy Agency admits that demand for oil in countries like the USA is now falling, while the industry itself has said they will never sell more petrol than in 2007. At the same time Deutsche Bank believes that "this is the end of the 20th Century of Oil," suggesting that global improvements in efficiency and demand reduction will "spell the end of the oil age."

If we were to adopt the International Energy Agency’s more ambitious scenarios for future energy supply, which aim at reducing greenhouse gas emissions to keep global temperature rise under two degrees, oil demand could be cut by almost 60billion barrels compared to Shell’s business-as-usual strategy. In other words, if we cut demand to protect the climate we wouldn’t need to go drilling in places like the Arctic.

Shell Claim:

"Shell has operated in Arctic and subarctic conditions for decades, giving us the technical experience and know-how to explore for and produce oil and gas in a responsible way."

Greenpeace Response:

The amount of wells Shell has successfully drilled in the Arctic is actually very limited, certainly compared to the huge number of holes it has sunk elsewhere, but more importantly, Shell’s know-how and technical experience is open to serious debate.

The company admits in the face of the "immense" challenges posed by the freezing Arctic its response technology is so limited that "all physical removal tactics will cease" in the poor weather common off Alaska. The US Geological Survey says that "there is no comprehensive method for clean-up of spilled oil in sea ice," while the US Coast Guard is adamant is almost no infrastructure exists in Alaska to support the response needed to cap a leak.

Its much-vaunted capping and containment device for the Arctic has not even been built yet, while the company admits, incredibly, that it will not bother to test the device in ice-bound Arctic conditions before deployment. The responsible rationale for this is that "we will not be working in ice so testing the system in those specific conditions will not be useful or practical."

Shell Claim:

"We are using advanced technology to limit our impact on the environment, strengthen our ability to respond to oil spills, and make operating in ice safer."

Greenpeace Response:

The claim that Shell is operating a cutting-edge, environmentally responsible operation in the Arctic is nonsense. The simple truth is that Shell doesn’t have an oil spill response plan for the Arctic. It has a negligence plan.

The company will use two antique drilling vessels in Alaska this year, one of which has a history of performance problems, the other having been moth-balled for over a decade. At the same time, the central piece of Shell’s oil spill response plan, a giant containment device to fit over a broken well, exists in design form only, whilst the company is also using "advanced" techniques like training Dachshunds to try and hunt oil leaking under ice.

In addition, Shell is now challenging the decision of the US Bureau of Ocean Energy Management to shorten the drilling window in Alaska by 38 days this year. It will do this because the ruling “essentially takes away one-third of the time we would be able to drill, which means the elimination of one well from our three-well exploration plan. This would have a significant effect…we believe the restriction is unwarranted.” These are hardly the actions of a company looking to make operating in ice safer.

Shell Claim:

"We work to build strong relationships with local communities. We learn from them and at the same time work to address their concerns and help them share the benefits of developing energy resources."

Greenpeace Response:

The Arctic is being affected by climate change faster than any other part of the planet. Scientists are now saying that sea ice is entering into what they call a “death spiral” and that the North Pole could be ice-free within years. Shell’s plan to drill for more of the oil that is causing the climate to warm in the first place is completely at odds with our international obligations to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and some local Indigenous peoples are deeply opposed to the company’s plans. For instance, Alaskan NGO Raising Environmental Destruction on Indigenous Lands (REDOIL) is part of a coalition taking the US government to court over the granting of air permits for Shell’s drilling rigs this year.

Elsewhere, Alaskan residents have been outspoken about the risks posed to their local environment by offshore oil. At a meeting in Kotzebue, Ukallaysaaq Tom Okleasik, Planning Director at the Northwest Arctic Borough, said that "everything shown is kind of a cartoon. It's not been physically built. It's never been tested in the ice conditions." Qaiyaan Su'esu'e, who lives in Barrow, said that "there is no proven method to clean up a spill. There is no coast guard up in Barrow, we have no road system. It baffles me to think that Shell can come to our communities and promise that they can clean up 95%." Lincoln Saito added that "this country has amazing extremes in it. When you see a blizzard blowing at 60 to 80 mph for 20 hours straight, it's amazing. Quick response…you can't even get a plane here. You can't even get a helicopter."

Shell Claim:

"We know too that specific challenges in the Arctic require comprehensive science research programmes."

Greenpeace Response:

There remain major gaps in our basic scientific understanding of the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas, and despite what Shell claim, almost no research has been done from which to gauge the potential impact of an oil spill.

Alaska has over 40,000 miles of coastline – more than the rest of the US combined – and an oil spill would have a catastrophic impact on local wildlife and fishing. The region is a vital habitat for species such as polar bears, muskoxen, bearded and ribbon seals, bowhead and blue whales, and fish including Arctic char, halibut and salmon shark, while Alaska is home to birds such as the king eider, gyrfalcon, bald eagle and trumpeter swan. Serious impacts from the 1989 Exxon Valdez spill into the Gulf of Alaska continue to plague marine and coastal environments over two decades since the tanker ran aground on Bligh Reef. Twenty-three years on from the spill, which released over 250,000 barrels of oil into Prince William Sound, pockets of oil remain in sediment under gravel beaches. Populations of sea otters, whose numbers were cut in half, have yet to fully recover and some marine mammal species, with toxins incorporated into their blubber, are nearing local extinction. Numbers of killer whales were reduced by 40% and their survival in Prince William Sound remains uncertain.

Shell Claim:

"Please continue to be interested in the Arctic because in the complexity of the debate on climate change and ecosystem protection the more people who are interested the better."

Greenpeace Response:

Whilst the Arctic fundamentally changes before our eyes and companies rush in to exploit more of the oil that is causing it to melt at unprecedented levels, it is unacceptable for Shell to talk about wanting to protect this unique ecosystem.

Fine words butter no parsnips. If it really cared about the Frozen North, or the global climate, Shell would agree to get out the Arctic and scrap its drilling plans off Alaska. Such an agreement has not been forthcoming. Instead the company relies on expensive gala events and glossy magazines talking about its "Inspire Antarctica Expedition" to help raise awareness about climate change and the importance of protecting our environments, to add an entirely unwarranted veneer of respectability to its thoroughly reckless plans for the Arctic.

We won’t let them get away with it.

Categories
Tags