The heaviest polar ice in more than a decade could postpone the start of offshore oil drilling in the Arctic Ocean until the beginning of August, a delay of up to two weeks, Shell Alaska officials said.
Unveiling a newly refurbished ice-class rig that is poised to begin drilling two exploratory wells this summer in the Beaufort Sea, Shell executives said Friday that the unusually robust sea ice would further narrow what already is a tight window for operations. The company's $4-billion program is designed to measure the extent of what could be the United States' most important new inventory of oil and gas.
Shell has pledged to end its first season of exploratory drilling by Oct. 31 in the Beaufort Sea and 38 days earlier in the more remote Chukchi Sea to remain within the relatively ice-free summer season.
Meeting with reporters and Sen. Mark Begich, D-Alaska, on board the Kulluk drilling rig in the Seattle shipyards, Shell's vice president for Alaska operations, Pete Slaiby, said the company had given up on its controversial attempt to win permission from the federal government to extend Chukchi drilling though October as well.
"Not this year. I think it's a done deal," he said.
The summer ice melt in the Arctic has often reached record levels in recent years in what many scientists believe is a sign of climate change. But this year a high pressure zone over the coast of Alaska, low winter temperatures and certain ocean currents have combined to bring unusually large amounts of ice not only to Alaska's northern coast, but farther south in the Bering Sea as well, National Weather Service officials said.
"I do think it's going to be a slow breakup this year," Kathleen Cole, sea ice program leader for the weather service, told the Los Angeles Times.
The result is that while Canadian waters in the far northern Atlantic have relatively low ice levels, Alaska is an iceberg - at least for now.
"We're seeing multiyear ice that they've not seen in such large quantities in over a decade, and it could impact our ability to start the well," Slaiby said. Of particular concern, he said, is the region of the Chukchi Sea around the company's Berger Prospect - potentially the crown jewel of the company's offshore oil inventory - which in normal years would be accessible by mid-July. This year, it may be unreachable until late July or early August.
Company officials say they need shore-fast ice to retreat at least one nautical mile from the coast of Point Barrow, the northernmost tip of the Alaskan coast, before proceeding.
"Point Barrow is the choking point for the ice. If you can get around Point Barrow, the Beaufort Sea will pretty much be open," said Eric Whatley, drilling supervisor on the Kulluk.
Although offshore drilling operators in the 1980s and 1990s might have used icebreakers to plow a path to ice-bound drilling sites, Shell has committed during its new round of operations to avoid icebreakers as a means of minimizing disturbances to wildlife, including polar bears, walrus and bowhead whales.
"You've got to work with nature in this job. You can't hurry. You might want to go, but you can't do it till the conditions are right," Slaiby said.
Shell Alaska is preparing to tow the 160-foot Kulluk derrick next month to Alaska, where it may wait in Dutch Harbor before sailing north to the Beaufort Sea, depending on weather conditions, officials said. A second drilling rig, the Noble Discoverer, will set sail for operations in the Chukchi Sea. The Discoverer, which got a more limited upgrade, will drill one or two wells in the Chukchi.
Friday's tour was to showcase the $150-million refurbishing the company has undertaken on the 29-year-old Kulluk drilling rig, recently resurrected from nearly a decade of cold storage in the Canadian Arctic.
The rig has been equipped with four new diesel engines and equipment designed to dramatically reduce potential air pollution in the pristine region. Recent tests have shown a 90 percent to 95 percent reduction in nitric oxide and nitrogen dioxide emissions and substantial reductions in particulate emissions compared with the rig's previous levels, Shell officials said.
The refurbishments also include 4,200 barrels in onboard waste storage to achieve "zero discharge" targets - meaning no wastewater, ballast water or drilling muds and cuttings will be discharged into the Arctic seas. Instead, they will be held aboard the two drill ships for permanent disposal at a certified landfill in the Lower 48 states, Slaiby said.
Shell officials said they've completed one of the most important parts of the company's oil spill response program for the Arctic, a preconstructed capping stack. That piece of equipment will be positioned offshore with the drill ships and ready to deploy in the event of a well blowout that can't be controlled by the beefed-up blowout preventers to be installed in each well.
The capping stack, modeled on the equipment that finally stopped the flow of oil in the 2010 BP spill in the Gulf of Mexico, is in Portland, Ore., and will be tested in Puget Sound near Seattle within the next few weeks, Slaiby said.
Shell still must obtain final drilling permits for both offshore leasing areas before sending down the first drill bits, but those are expected to be approved once the new emissions equipment and capping stack are tested.
Conservationists have filed lawsuits challenging air emission permits approved by the Environmental Protection Agency, and Shell has launched a pre-emptive suit in an attempt to get other potential environmental challenges aired quickly.
Explore further:
Oil drilling in Arctic nears reality as Shell emergency plan is approved
More information:
(c)2012 the Los Angeles Times
Distributed by MCT Information Services
NotParker
Caliban
This, of course, is not surprising.
What is surprising is that Shell, et al, insist on pursuing this folly of Arctic drilling. There is absolutely no way that it can be carried out or carried on without accident --and the virtual certainty of a major disaster-- precisely because of the unpredictability of weather conditions locally.
Imagine, for instance, the consequences of a rapid, unforseen thaw of these "unusually large amounts" of ice while drilling was was being carried on. Just a single mass of packice or iceberg broken free could be enough to put paid to the whole affair. Further, imagine the consequences if this were to happen just after oil/gas were reached. Imagine this during one of the area's frequent storms.
In essential terms, there is no margin of safety for drilling there.
Caliban
Said nothing of the sort. Said it was a "possibility" that it would be gone. Not surprising, given that the trend was year-over-year decline in both extent and mass.
Your second link has expired altogether. Time to update your Rapid-Response Denial Database.
Not nearly so easy as the life of a Pick'N'Click denialpuppet.
Aclimate scientist actually has to work to collect, compile, model, and interpret the results of those efforts --not just troll the web for articles to "refute" with a stockpile of irrelevant, inapplicable, and/or expired cherryclickings.
Mere noisemaking.
gregor1
supervisor of Dr. James Hansen, Director of the GISS,
slammed the computer models claiming they are not
scientific because the modelers have resisted making
their work transparent so it can not be replicated
independently.
The battle lines are not between the catastrophic warmists and the Deniers they are between the modelers and the empirical evidence. Warmists are actually empirical evidence deniers.
http://www.nal-js...tion.pdf
If the Emperor is wearing no clothes is it our fault if we laugh?
Caliban
Golly! Wow! Gee Whizz!
OK, I'll counter with an omnibus refutation, issued by John Abraham to Lord Monckton(briefly famous denialist, now fallen from favor after the lambasting he sustained in this rebuttal):
http://www.stthom...abraham/
Unlike your linked to talking points and deliberately misinterpreted graphics, Dr. Thomas actually presents the facts of the matter, and makes the case, refuting pretty much the whole passel of lies contained in your presentation along the way.
The Emperor is wearing new clothes, allright --problem is, since they were crafted by your tailors at the Petroleum Institute, Heritage Foundation, et al-- they just don't fit...the facts, that is.
Davecoolman
Waiting with baited breath!
Sarc off.
AndyG55
"So its ok for an employed Prof to post videos with hundreds of errors and personal attacks in the name of science, but when someone replies with corrections, they silently acknowledge some, ignore the rest, and crawl back in their holes, pretending that being caught lying is just a scholarly difference, and, having been humiliated, that theyve effectively held up a white flag by not replying to the detailed points, and by providing nothing in support of their own accusations. Yet, they hope no one will notice that Monckton has categorically defeated any pretense that Abrahams deserves to have the title Professor, and that the organisation called St Thomas deserves to use the word University."
You should find the qiuote and read the text to learn the reality.
pres68y
Caliban
No, you should supply the source of this quote, yourself, instead of blandly supposing that your entirely context-free quote will stand in rebuttal.
gregor1
This is a classic straw man. The argument is between science (empirical evidence) and pseudoscience (computer models). That later qualify as pseudoscience because of the lack of transparency and thus reproducibility which are basic requirements of the scientific method. "A former chief at NASA, Dr. John Theon, former
supervisor of Dr. James Hansen, Director of the GISS,
slammed the computer models claiming they are not
scientific because the modelers have resisted making
their work transparent so it can not be replicated
independently."
Pollution is bad and to be minimized but CO2 is not pollution.
NotParker
It wasn't skeptics who claimed the arctic would be ice free in xxxx.
(Where xxxx is pretty much any year in the last 5 or 10 and then such predictions are denied).
AGW cult members are the real deniers: "What, we never predicted that! We deny it. It was our evil twin."
thermodynamics
SamFar
Sinister1811
Newsflash: CO2 *is* pollution. At least, in larger quantities. You obviously know nothing about the composition of the Earth's atmosphere. Anything that is NOT natural to Earth's atmosphere and affects Climate directly could be considered pollution. Look at our closest planetary neighbour - Venus. It has a surface temperature of 400 degrees. Why do think that is? It's BECAUSE of the CO2 composition of its atmosphere. You sir, are wrong. It's common knowledge that Carbon Dioxide causes rising temperatures. Or are you completely dense?
Origin
http://www.e-catw...bushnell
Michael_Jones
P.S. Does this mean the Arctic Ice Coverage has recovered its 40% melt since the last 50 years?
NotParker
the Arctic Ocean could be nearly ice-free at the end of summer by 2012
-- Jay Zwally NASA Climate Scientist.
http://wattsupwit...by-2012/
NotParker
Ice Extent is right at the 1979-2006 average.
http://arctic-roo..._ext.png
Ice Area is fractionally below normal but still in the grey target zone.
http://arctic-roo...area.png
And remember, the graphs I show are the 1979-2006 average. The average does not include the 2007 low. If they did, 2012 would be above average.
Caliban
And again, I ask --and again, without any hope for a straight answer-- for you to point out just exactly where you see a prediction of an ice-free Arctic by 2012 in the above quote?
C'mon, NP, I know that you aren't incapable of distinguishing between "could be" and "will be". Your very own Rapid Response Denialist Database Pick'N'Click citation stands in direct refutation of your claim!
Caliban
Ben,
There are two immediately apparent problems with what you've just said:
1. Venus has an atmosphere millions of times more dense than Mars'
2. Venus receives orders of magnitude greater irradiance than Mars.
So you are arguing apples and oranges.
Just sayin'.
Terriva
TheGhostofOtto1923
http://www.brillo...gy.com/#
http://www.youtub...=related
Caliban
Caliban
I hope that Brillouin Energy is for real.
It would be a boon to all of us if BigFossil got knocked off the throne.
I have no idea where the double post came from.
NotParker
If you were standing in a desert with zero humidity and 400ppm CO2 and the sun went down, would it stay the same temperature. No. In fact it would cool
as much as 30C.
If you were standing in a jungle with 100% humidity and 400ppm CO2 and the sun went down, would it stay the same temperature. Almost. In fact it would cool very little.
CO2 is wimpy GHG.
NotParker
References?
Greenland was warmer in the 20s/30s/40s.
http://www.nature...-1.10725
NotParker
I supplied references to everything I inform people of.
Where are the references to your claims about me?
For example, I've said many times the 20s/30s/40s were warmer in Greenland than now. I've supplied at least two references.
Here is another:
"Over the past century, years in Greenland that register as abnormally warm, 1929, 1932, 1941, 1947, and 1960 are outstanding, having temperatures warmer than observed recently. Increases in GrIS melt and runoff during this past century warm period must have been significant and were probably even larger than that of the most recent last decade (1995-2006)."
http://www.arctic...nna.html
NotParker
Its good of you to finally concede that I am right.
Lurker2358
In spite of what this article says, N. Hemisphere Sea Ice area is at 3rd lowest ever, and N. Hemisphere 30% extent is at all time record low for this day of the year, and yesterday too I think.
Do not confuse one REGION in the arctic as representative of the global trend or the trend within the entire n. hemisphere.
Volume is likely at or below all time daily record lows right now, but the data usually takes a few weeks to process, so we'll see.
NotParker
Ice Extent is fractionally lower than the long term average which is the dotted line and well above every recent year.
http://arctic-roo..._ext.png
And glaciers melted more int he 20s/30s/40s so we can sume the arctic melted more then as well. But no satellites were around to confirm.
Lurker2358
1, That is the 15% extent line, not area or 30% extent.
2, That is normalized to period ending with year 2006, which is well into the present melting. Claiming it is "near normal" is bullshit, since almost every year for the past 30 years has been an average net decrease, excluding a few minor rebound years.
http://ocean.dmi....r.uk.php
That is 30% extent, but I see my eyes missed the yellow line, so there is one year which was lower, which was 2011, so I was wrong about the record thing, but this year is almost as low.
http://arctic-roo...n-arctic
Ice area is roughly tied with 2010 and 2011 on the same date.
More soot back then.
Lurker2358
In the 1800's and well into the early 1900's the majority of trains and ships used coal fired or wood fired steam engines which were only about 6 to 10% efficient, and produced tremendous amounts of soot and ash which we know about, which would have been deposited on all snow packs, sea ice, glaciers, and ice shelfs, greatly increasing the albedo and melting ice more rapidly.
Albedo change is more powerful than greenhouse effect in mid latitudes anyway.
Diesel engines did not actively compete with steam until early 1900's and did not totally replace steam engines in commercial trains and ships until around the 1940's, which is a fact of which most people are not aware.
http://www.locomo...ive.html
note the bottom paragraph.
"By the middle of the twentieth century, Diesel engines had effectively replaced steam engines." - excerpt from article.
Both melting periods were caused by man made pollution, Parker, just different.
mrtea
http://www.petrol...86.shtml
NotParker
Sulphate emissions climbed steadily until about 1980 or so.
See page 11:
http://www.certi-...ions.pdf
But I agree that the small recent warming was caused by cleaner air.
"A major clearing of the air has occurred in
the Netherlands in the past few decades.
These changes are so large that they have
become very obvious when looking at the
data of individual stations. Strong indications
can be found linking human emissions of
aerosols to the visibility changes. Coincident
with the visibility changes, large trends in
cloud cover, sunshine duration and temperature
are found, in particular during daytime
in summer, showing that these tiny particles
might have a significant influence on regional
climate."
http://www.staff....hine.pdf
NotParker
You do know that 1979 was the coldest winter in US history. The modern satellite record began at the coldest winter in US history. It would coincide with the most ice.
The Winter of 1979 averaged 27.29F in the US. 10F colder than the warmest.
The warmest period in US history also coincides with more melting in Greenland than today.
1936 was the warmest summer in US history.
More sunshine. Record temperatures on land too.