“Sonic Sea,” which will air Thursday on Discovery Channel, will
take you down beneath the ocean waves, where sounds take on new
meaning, some with dangerous implications.
Humans spend most of their time in air, a medium that transmits
light so well that we have no trouble seeing the shapes of objects
in a room or mountains many miles away. In the same way, water is
the right medium for sound, which shapes the world of marine
mammals and other species that live under water.
The hour-long documentary film reveals how humpback whales use
low-frequency sounds to communicate with other whales across an
entire ocean and how killer whales use high-frequency sound to
locate their prey in dark waters.
Michael Jasny
“The whales see the ocean through sound, so their mind’s eye is
their mind’s ear,” says Michael Jasny of the Natural Resources
Defense Council, an environment group that produced the film with
the help of the production company Imaginary Forces.
“Sonic Sea” opens with Ken Balcomb, dean of killer whale
research in Puget Sound, telling the story of how he learned about
16 beaked whales that had beached themselves in the Bahamas, where
he was doing research in 2001.
“Animals that I had grown to know over a 10-year period were now
dead,” Ken says during the movie, recalling the horrifying day when
one whale after another was discovered dead or dying. “They were
trying to get away. I was driven to find out why.”
Ken Balcomb
Thanks to Ken’s presence during that stranding incident, experts
were able to prove that Navy sonar could be deadly. It took two
years for Navy officials to overcome their denial.
As I watched the film, I wondered if people would identify with
the idea that hearing to marine mammals is like sight to humans.
Would people see how much humans have invaded the underwater world
with noise from ship traffic, oil exploration, military training
and shoreline construction?
“I listen to the world, and to me song is life,” said Chris
Clark, a bioacoustics expert at Cornell Lab of Ornithology,. “It is
the essence of who we are, and it joins us all. The problem is, in
the ocean, we are injecting enormous amounts of noise, so much so
that we are acoustically bleaching the ocean. All the singing
voices of the planet are lost in that cloud of noise.”
Chris Clark
This type of human invasion is different from wiping out habitat
as new construction changes the land, but the effect can be equally
devastating to some species.
In September of 2001, a group of researchers on the East Coast
were collecting fecal samples from right whales to check for stress
hormones. Stress levels were running high among the whales, except
for a few days when the levels dropped dramatically. That happened
right after Sept. 11, when ship traffic in the area was shut down
following the bombing of the World Trade Center. It still isn’t
clear what that constant stress is doing to the animals, but it
can’t be good. See
Duke University press release.
The good news, the film tells us, is that ships can be made
quieter, with an important side benefit: Quieter ships are more
efficient, which makes them cheaper to operate. Ships can also
reduce noise by going slower, saving on fuel. Beyond shipping,
people can find ways to operate in the ocean with less sonic harm
to sea life.
The Navy’s viewpoint, as represented in the film, appears to be
a more enlightened approach that I have seen until now. Of course,
protecting Navy ships against enemy attacks is the priority, but
the need to accommodate marine life seems to be recognized to a
greater degree.
“It comes down to what we value,” Clark said. “We value a living
ocean. We are putting the ocean at risk. And if you put the ocean
at risk, you are putting all of us at risk.”
The first video on this page is the trailer to “Sonic Sea” as
provided by the producers of the film. The second is the trailer
provided by Discovery Channel.
Bremerton remains a solid contender in the fifth National
Mayor’s Water Pledge Challenge, which encourages people to become
involved in water conservation.
At the beginning of this month, Bremerton started out in the
contest ranked first among cities of similar size across the United
States. Since then, the city has dropped to second, behind Andover,
Minn. To get back into first place, a fair number of residents in
Bremerton and the surrounding area will need to take the pledge for
water conservation before the end of the month.
The pledge involves answering a series of questions about one’s
willingness to save water, electricity and other natural resources.
To enter, go to www.mywaterpledge.com. When
finished with the questionnaire, one can enter a contest to receive
some nice prizes.
In 2013 and 2014, Bremerton came in first in the competition
among cities of similar size. In 2012 and 2015, Bremerton came in
third. In all four years so far, Bremerton has ranked first among
similarly sized cities in Washington state.
“Water is Bremerton’s remarkable resource,” Mayor Patty Lent
said in a
news release (PDF 139 kb). “I encourage all Bremerton residents
to pledge to learn more about their water and energy use at home.
This challenge, which runs through April, is an exciting
opportunity to learn about water wise habits as we engage in a
friendly competition with other cities across the nation to create
a more sustainable environment.”
Seattle, which is ranked fifth among cities its size, is the
only other city in Washington state to rank in the top 10. Olympia
is 12th for its size. Port Townsend is 17th. Port Orchard is 74th.
Poulsbo is 94th. Bainbridge Island is higher than 500th.
The water pledge, which is available until the end of April, is
sponsored by the Wyland
Foundation.
Researchers have listed more than 100 “biologically important
areas” for whales and dolphins living in U.S. waters, all reported
in a special issue of the journal
Aquatic Mammals (PDF 22.9 mb).
The BIAs may provide useful information, but they are not marine
protected areas, and they have no direct regulatory effect, said
Sofie Van Parijs, a researcher at NOAA’s Northeast Fisheries
Science Center and guest editor of the special report.
“They represent the best available information about the times
and areas in which species are likely to be engaged in biologically
important activities,” Van Parijs said in a news
release. “We encourage anyone planning an activity in the ocean
to look at this information and take it into consideration to
understand and reduce adverse impacts on marine species.”
Project managers can use information in the report for offshore
energy development, military testing and training, shipping,
fishing, tourism, and coastal construction. Underwater noise,
generated by most human activities in or on the water, can affect
large areas of whale territory.
Separate articles were written about seven regions of the
country, with three of them in Alaskan waters. The lead author for
the
West Coast regional report (PDF 4.5 mb) is John Calambokidis of
Cascadia Research Collective in Olympia.
The West Coast report identified 29 BIAs covering areas
important for blue whales, gray whales, humpback whales and harbor
porpoises in Washington, Oregon and California. BIAs for blue
whales and humpback whales are “based on high concentration areas
of feeding animals observed from small boat surveys, ship surveys
and opportunistic sources,” the report says.
BIAs for gray whales focus on their migratory corridor from
Mexico to Alaska, along with primary feeding areas for a small
resident population known as the Pacific Coast Feeding Group, or
PCFG. This group, believed to be genetically distinct from the
migratory whales, spend most of their time between Northern
California and Canada’s Vancouver Island.
The BIAs for gray whales in Washington are around the northwest
tip of Washington, including Neah Bay; in Saratoga Passage east of
Whidbey Island; and around Grays Harbor on the coast.
The PCFG could be a key factor in determining whether the Makah
Tribe of Neah Bay is granted a permit to hunt for gray whales in
Washington state waters and limiting potential limits on any hunts
approved. It was interesting that the BIA report came out at almost
the same time as an environmental impact statement on the Makah
whaling proposal.
The impact statement evaluates alternatives for whaling,
including a tribal proposal to hunt up to five whales a year but no
more than 24 whales in six years. Various alternatives include
plans to limit hunting seasons to reduce the risk of killing a
whale from the Pacific Coast Feeding Group and to cease hunting if
a quota of these whales is reached.
“This is the first step in a public process of considering this
request that could eventually lead to authorization for the tribe
to hunt gray whales,” said Donna Darm, NOAA’s associate deputy
regional administrator, in a
press release. “This is the public’s opportunity to look at the
alternatives we’ve developed, and let us know if we have fully and
completely analyzed the impacts.”
For details on this issue, including the EIS and instructions
for commenting on the document, check out NOAA’s website on the
Makah Whale Hunt.
Returning to the study of biologically important areas, no BIAs
were established for endangered fin whales, because of
discrepancies between sightings and expected feeding areas and
uncertainty about their population structure.
The BIA assessment did not cover minke whales, killer whales,
beaked whales and sperm whales but the authors recommend that
future work cover those animals as well as looking into special
breeding areas for all the whales.
A future BIA for killer whales could have some connection to an
ongoing analysis by NOAA, which recently announced that it needs
more information about Southern Resident killer whales before
expanding their critical habitat under the Endangered Species Act.
See
Water Ways from Feb. 24.
In the overall report, BIAs can be established if they have any
of the following characteristics:
Reproductive areas – Areas and times within
which a particular species selectively mates, gives birth or is
found with neonates or calves,
Feeding areas – Areas and times within which
aggregations of a particular species preferentially feed. These
either may be persistent in space and time or associated with
ephemeral features that are less predictable but are located within
a larger area that can be delineated,
Migratory corridors – Areas and times within
which a substantial portion of a species is known to migrate; the
corridor is spatially restricted.
Small and resident population – Areas and
times within which small and resident populations occupy a limited
geographic extent.
I admit it seems kind of quaint, but I look forward to turning
out all the lights in my house once a year and sitting in the dark.
It’s a time to contemplate all our marvels of technology while
considering the needs of many people around the world.
Earth Hour is coming up on Saturday beginning at 8:30 p.m. The
question of the hour: What can we each do to make things
better?
If you get the chance, bring your family and/or friends
together. You can go out to dinner or do other things before or
after the designated hour, but for 60 minutes let your thoughts
wander to other places in the world.
For me, that kind of reflection is enough for the moment, but
the Earth Hour
website talks about inspiring people to join environmental
projects across the globe. By reviewing the website, Earth Hour can
become a time of learning about worthwhile causes. Listen to Jason
Priestly and others in the video player on this page.
If you want to make a difference, check out the five-step
program for creating an Earth Hour event. Maybe think about
doing something over the next year and sharing it on the Earth Hour
website in 2015.
What I like about Earth Hour is that it unites people from
around the world, if only for an hour. For those who wish to take a
leadership role, Earth Hour is one place to start. As founder Andy
Ridley says in a
news release:
“What makes Earth Hour different is that it empowers people to
take charge and use their power to make a difference. The movement
inspires a mixture of collective and individual action, so anyone
can do their part.”
Earth Hour begins each year in New Zealand, the first place the
clock strikes 8:30 on the designated Saturday night.
Famous landmarks involved in the lights-out event include the
Empire State Building, New York; Tower Bridge, London; Edinburgh
Castle, Scotland; Brandenburg Gate, Berlin; the Eiffel Tower,
Paris; the Kremlin, Moscow; and the Bosphorus Bridge connecting
Europe to Asia.
I’m posting this “Amusing Monday” entry two days early, because
today is officially World Water
Day, as declared by the United Nations.
Photo by Murli
Menon.
Copyright World Water Day, used with
permission
I guess the timing is not that important. After all, I don’t
expect anyone to go out and march in a World Water Day parade, or
fire off water pistols in celebration, or even drink water in
excess and then sleep in the next morning. But if you are inclined
to celebrate, you may as well celebrate the essential value of
water.
The picture of the white tiger, called “Water Preserves the
Earth,” is said to demonstrate that all creatures need water, yet
the tiger realizes that this water is polluted and hesitates to
drink it.
Photo by Joseph
Galea
Copyright World Water Day, used with
permission
The second photo, called “Water Gives Energy,” illustrates the
hope of a future when all children have access to a safe supply of
water.
A multi-million-dollar tidal energy project in Admiralty Inlet,
north of the Kitsap Peninsula, has been approved by the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission.
Tidal turbines for
Admiralty Inlet are to be provided by OpenHydro.
Graphic courtesy of OpenHydro
The Snohomish County Public Utility District, which was granted
a license for the double-tidal-turbine pilot project, says it will
be the first “grid-connected array of large-scale tidal energy
turbines in the world.” The twin turbines are designed to produce
600 kilowatts of electricity, enough to power several hundred
homes.
“Anyone who has spent time on the waters of Puget Sound
understands the power inherent in the tides,” PUD General Manager
Steve Klein said in a news
release. “In granting this license, the FERC acknowledges the
vigilant efforts of the PUD and its partners to test the viability
of a new reliable source of clean energy while at the same time
ensuring the protection of the environment and existing uses.”
The federal commission acknowledged concerns for fish and
wildlife brought forth by area tribes, whale-watch operators and
environmental groups. But the pilot project has precautionary
measures built in, according to the commission’s
order (PDF 503 kb) issued yesterday:
“For these new technologies, where the environmental effects are
not well understood, the risks of adverse environmental impacts can
be minimized through monitoring and safeguard plans that ensure the
protection of the public and the environment.
“The goal of the pilot project approach is to allow developers
to test new hydrokinetic technologies, determine appropriate sites
for these technologies, and study a technology’s environmental and
other effects without compromising the commission’s oversight of a
project or limiting agency and stakeholder input…
“A pilot project should be: (1) small; (2) short term; (3)
located in non-sensitive areas based on the commission’s review of
the record; (4) removable and able to be shut down on short notice;
(5) removed, with the site restored, before the end of the license
term (unless a new license is granted); and (6) initiated by a
draft application in a form sufficient to support environmental
analysis.”
Among tribes that fish in the area, the Suquamish Tribe raised
concerns about the likelihood of underwater turbines violating
tribal treaty rights to fish. The turbines have the potential for
killing or injuring fish, according to the tribes, and they could
become a point of entanglement for fishing nets and anchor
lines.
Tidal turbine location in
Admiralty Inlet
“Though we respect the tribes’ perspective and concerns, we
disagree that licensing this project will adversely affect their
treaty rights,” the commission stated in its order. The license
contains no restrictions on fishing, and it requires measures to
protect the fish.
Suquamish Tribal Chairman Leonard Forsman said tribal officials
have not had time to review the license conditions in detail but
will do so over the coming days. He said he would consult with
legal and technical advisers before laying out possible actions for
consideration by the tribal council.
Michael Harris, executive director of the Pacific Whale Watch
Association and a board member for Orca Conservancy, said he was
disappointed that more people have not recognized the problems that
can be created by these turbines — especially in Admiralty Inlet, a
primary route for killer whales and many other species.
The turbines will create unusually loud and potentially painful
underwater noise, Harris said. This installation is being developed
at a time when researchers are coming to understand that noise can
disrupt the behavior of killer whales and other marine mammals.
The turbines themselves have open blades that can injure any
curious animal getting too close, he noted. And if the turbines
become a serious threat, someone must swim down and mechanically
stop the blades from turning, something that could take four
days.
“I’m not against green energy,” Harris said when I talked to him
this morning. “But let’s not put blinders on. I would like to see
these turbines located in another spot. Why not Deception
Pass?”
Harris said it is critical for people to pay close attention to
the pilot project if it goes forward. Everyone should be prepared
to stop the experiment if it proves costly to sea life.
The order by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission maintains
that conditions of approval will protect killer whales and other
marine mammals:
“The Near Turbine Monitoring and Mitigation Plan requires
detection of fish and should provide observation of nearby killer
whales. Those observations combined with the hydrophone monitoring
required under the Marine Mammal Protection and Mitigation Plan
will allow detection and observation of killer whales if they come
near the turbines.
“The adaptive management provisions of the Marine Mammal
Protection and Mitigation Plan will also allow adjustments to
project operation if potential harm to killer whales is detected
or, in the very unlikely event, a whale is injured….
“This license also contains noise-related requirements that will
ensure the project does not have detrimental effects on killer
whale behavior. The Acoustic Monitoring and Mitigation Plan of this
license requires that if the sound level from turbine operation
exceeds 120 dB at a distance greater than 750 meters from the
turbine … the licensee shall engage the turbine brake until
modifications to turbine operations or configuration can be made to
reduce the sound level.”
According to several Internet sources, 120 dB is what someone
might hear standing near a chainsaw or jack hammer. That level is
considered close to the human threshold for pain.
In the Admiralty Inlet area, at least 13 local species are
listed as threatened or endangered under the Endangered Species
Act.
One plant: golden paintbrush, threatened
One bird: marbled murrelet, threatened
Two marine mammals: Southern Resident killer whales,
endangered, and North Pacific humpback whale, endangered
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries
Service have concluded that none of the species would be in
jeopardy of extinction because of the pilot project.
Experts have concluded that marine mammals, including killer
whales, could be subjected to Level B harassment (behavioral
shifts) as a result of noise from the turbines. That would be in
violation of the Marine Mammal Protection Act without incidental
take authorization. That means the Snohomish PUD must undergo
consultations with the National Marine Fisheries Service and
possibly change its plans before moving forward.
The PUD chose Admiralty Inlet for its swift currents, easy
access and rocky seabed with little sediment or vegetation. A
cable-control building for connecting to the power grid will be
located on Whidbey Island near Fort Casey State Park. The turbines
will be located in about 150 feet of water about a half-mile from
shore.
The turbines are manufactured by OpenHydro of Dublin, Ireland.
Each turbine measures about 18 feet in diameter, with a 414-ton
total weight.
According to the PUD, these turbines have been used in
ecologically sensitive areas in other parts of the world. One
location is Scotland’s Orkney Islands, which features a diverse and
productive ecosystem that is home to numerous species of fish,
dolphins, seals, porpoises, whales and migrating turtles.
The pilot project has been supported with about $13 million in
grants from the U.S. Department of Energy and Bonneville Power
Administration along with federal appropriations.
Partners in various aspects of the project include the
University of Washington, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory,
Sound & Sea Technology and the National Renewable Energy
Laboratory.
The
House Sustainable Energy and Environment Coalition, a group of
45 Democratic U.S. representatives, have called for an
investigation into the recent grounding of Shell’s oil-drilling rig
in the Gulf of Alaska. The coalition issued this statement:
“The recent grounding of Shell’s Kulluk oil rig amplifies the
risks of drilling in the Arctic. This is the latest in a series of
alarming blunders, including the near grounding of another of
Shell’s Arctic drilling rigs, the 47-year-old Noble Discoverer, in
Dutch Harbor and the failure of its blowout containment dome, the
Arctic Challenger, in lake-like conditions. SEEC Members believe
these serious incidents warrant thorough investigation.”
The Seattle Times reviews the situation in a Friday
story, and a blog entry by NPR’s Bill Chappell provides an update on
today’s towing effort.
—–
UPDATE, Sept. 20, 2012
Shell has given up plans to drill for oil in the Alaskan Arctic
this year, after its oil-spill-containment dome was damaged during
exercises off the Washington Coast. See the story by Sean Cockerham
in the
Anchorage Daily News.
Meanwhile, the Washington Department of Ecology has ordered two
companies working on an oil-containment system in Bellingham to
apply for stormwater permits. Ecology determined in May that
permits were needed but decided to let things go, because work was
supposed to be completed by the end of July. Now it appears that
work will continue under other contracts. See Ecology news
release.
In Great Britain, the Environmental Audit Committee of the U.K.
Parliament has released a report questioning Arctic drilling in the
face of what is known about the risks.
Among her comments on
Parliament’s website, Committee Chairwoman Joan Walley, MP,
stated:
“The oil companies should come clean and admit that dealing with
an oil spill in the icy extremes of the Arctic would be
exceptionally difficult.
“The infrastructure to mount a big clean-up operation is simply
not in place, and conventional oil spill response techniques have
not been proven to work in such severe conditions.”
—–
UPDATE, Sept. 11, 2012
Shell Oil stopped drilling in Alaska’s Chukchi Sea yesterday,
one day after drilling began, when the winds shifted and sea ice
began moving toward the drilling vessel. Both Shell officials and
opponents of Arctic drilling acknowledged that the challenge of sea
ice is a major issue in Arctic drilling, which Shell intends to
resume soon. Dan Joling of the
Associated Press has the story with additions by Anchorage
Daily News staff.
—–
Shell Oil Co. will be allowed to begin initial drilling and
other preparatory work in the Alaskan Arctic while waiting for its
oil-containment barge to arrive in the Chukchi Sea, Secretary of
Interior Ken Salazar said yesterday in an announcement that took
many people by surprise.
The Arctic Challenger,
shown in this Aug. 15 photo, is undergoing renovation in Bellingham
before heading to the Alaskan Arctic.
AP Photo/Bellingham Herald, Russ
Kendall
As we have discussed before in
“Water Ways,” Shell Oil is still trying to start its drilling
this year before the sea ice moves in. The oil-containment barge
Arctic Challenger is still undergoing renovation in Bellingham but
could be leaving within a week.
Salazar told reporters in a press conference that the drilling
can go down 1,400 feet but will not reach oil deposits. Shell will
be allowed to excavate for a 40-foot-deep “cellar” in the seabed to
install the required blowout preventer.
“Under the drilling permit issued Thursday for the ‘Burger A
well,’ Shell says it first will drill a pilot hole, 1,300 feet deep
but just 8 1/2 inches in diameter, to reveal physical obstructions,
gas pockets or anything else that didn’t show up in seismic studies
and shallow hazard surveys already done.
“A bigger hole will be drilled part way down, and steel
conductor pipe will be encased in cement. Using a tool weighing
several tons, crews will excavate a mud-line cellar 40 feet deep to
hold the blowout preventer. Shell says the cellar will be deep
enough to prevent scouring from ice, one of the issues raised by
environmentalists.
“A 20-inch-diameter hole then will be drilled down to 1,300 or
1,400 feet, and workers will install casing, again surrounded in
cement, to add structure to the well. Drillers can either go deeper
from there, or cap the well for later work.”
Rick Steiner, a retired University of Alaska professor and PEER
board member, requested the cap test data under the Freedom of
Information Act but says the government failed to respond as
required by law. Steiner’s comment:
“The Department of Interior and Shell say that the capping stack
tests were rigorous and proved the equipment will work to stop a
wellhead blowout. But the public deserves to see the test results
to judge whether the testing was indeed rigorous, and whether the
capping stack actually works. That DOI is delaying release of the
results, and Shell is poised to begin drilling its first Arctic
Ocean wells within days, underscores the urgency here. This is why
we needed to sue to obtain the results.”
The Government
Accountability Office (GAO) has criticized the Interior
Department for not fully documenting its own oversight processes.
The GAO also warned that “environmental and logistical risks” of
drilling in the Arctic are not the same as for the Gulf of Mexico,
where many safety refinements have been made.
PEER’s attorney Kathryn Douglass made this point:
“Given its track record, Interior cannot just say ‘Trust us, we
have this covered.’ Complete transparency on this paramount issue
is essential for public confidence that the federal government is
not again accommodating oil companies at the expense of protecting
irreplaceable public resources.”
The oil-containment barge Arctic Challenger has had its own
challenges lately, including an enforcement order from the Washington Department of
Ecology following three small spills of hydraulic oil.
I thought the quote attributed to Dale Jensen, manager of
Ecology’s Spill Prevention Program, was somewhat intriguing:
“Small spills lead to bigger spills. Our hope is that the
companies that are gearing up for oil work in Alaska and spilling
here will learn from our work with them and ensure spills of all
sizes are prevented everywhere they work.”
Arctic drilling may be delayed until next year, because Shell’s
oil-containment vessel is still not ready, according to Secretary
of Interior Ken Salazar.
“I will hold their feet to the fire in terms of making sure that
we are doing everything we can to abide by the standards and
regulations we have set, and to make sure that the environment and
the Arctic seas are protected,” Salazar said during a press
conference in Anchorage.
A shell spokesman expressed hope that the drilling would still
begin this fall.
The Greenpeace ship Esperanza is not sitting around waiting for
Shell to begin its drilling in the Alaskan Arctic. Greenpeace
biologists have reported the presence of a soft coral at the drill
site. I’m not sure how significant this is, but Julie Eilperin of
the
Washington Post has the story. Greenpeace
has the photo.
—–
The U.S. Department of Interior released a five-year plan for
oil and gas leases yesterday, as two Shell exploratory rigs headed
out of Puget Sound on their way to the Alaskan Arctic.
The Shell drilling vessels Kulluk and Noble Discoverer were
headed for Alaska’s Dutch Harbor, where they will wait until the
ice clears in Beaufort and Chukchi seas. See
Vigor’s news release about alterations made to the two
rigs.
In a
news release with links to the plans, David J. Hayes, deputy
secretary of the Interior, said :
“We are committed to moving forward with leasing offshore
Alaska, and scheduling those sales later in the program allows for
further development of scientific information on the oil and gas
resource potential in these areas and further study of potential
impacts to the environment. We must reconcile energy resource
development with the sensitive habitats, unique conditions and
important other uses, including subsistence hunting and fishing,
that are present in Alaska waters.”
—–
UPDATE, June 27
This week, the Obama administration will announce a five-year
program for offshore oil-leasing. It will include targeted areas
for exploration and drilling in Alaska’s Arctic, Secretary of
Interior Ken Salazar said yesterday.
Salazar said permits to allow Shell to conduct exploratory
drilling in the Arctic, as we have discussed in this blog, are
likely to be issued soon.
Associated Press writer Dan Joling does a nice job explaining
Salazar’s comments. See
Seattle Post-Intelligencer.
—–
UPDATE, June 22
The Greenpeace ship Esperanza has arrived in Alaskan waters. Photo
posted on Twitter.
—–
UPDATE, June 12, 3 p.m.
The Greenpeace ship Esperanza has left Seattle on its way to the
Arctic, according to ongoing reports on Twitter. As
of 3 p.m., the ship is just crossing the Edmonds-Kingston ferry
lanes.
—–
UPDATE, June 12, 2:30 p.m.
I’ve added maps of the two drilling areas at the bottom of this
post.
—–
After anchoring for nearly a week in South Kitsap’s Yukon
Harbor, the Greenpeace ship Esperanza on Friday moved over to
Seattle, where it now waits for Shell’s oil-drilling rigs to shove
off for Alaska.
The Greenpeace ship
Esperanza was anchored in Yukon Harbor for nearly a week.
Photo by Tom Warren
Shell obtained an
injunction (PDF 32 kb) against Greenpeace in hopes of
preventing environmental activists from boarding its oil rig and
unfurling banners or causing more serious damage.
“After obtaining multiple approvals from various federal
agencies, and after completing preparations that have been years
and billions of dollars in the making, Shell intends to lawfully,
safely, and responsibly carry out an exploration drilling program
on its leases in the Chukchi Sea and Beaufort Sea in the summer of
2012.
“Greenpeace intends to prevent Shell from doing so, and has
initiated tortious and illegal actions to accomplish this
publically-stated intent. Greenpeace’s past and present actions
establish that Greenpeace can and will engage in dangerous and
illegal activities that place human life, property, and the
environment at risk, all in an effort to impose its will and to
capitalize on publicity generated by its antics.”
Greenpeace says its goal is to shadow the oil rigs and document
the activities from miniature submarines to help the public
understand the dangers that drilling poses to the fragile Arctic
ecosystem.
See Kitsap Sun, June 4.
For environmentalists, the biggest question is: How did this
drilling ever get approval? Why did a Democratic president allow
Shell to get all the permits necessary to explore for oil in the
Arctic, after strong opposition through the years succeeded in
keeping drilling rigs out of the Arctic.
Shell was strategic in its approach, as described in a
well-researched story by John M. Broder and Clifford Krauss for the
New York Times:
“Beyond the usual full-court lobbying effort, Shell abandoned
its oil industry brethren and joined advocates pushing for a strong
response to climate change.
“Ultimately, Shell won the backing of a president it had viewed
warily during the 2008 campaign. While he signaled conditional
support for the proposal years ago, Mr. Obama came under pressure
from rising gasoline prices and the assiduous lobbying of a
freshman Democratic senator from Alaska eager to show he could make
things happen in Washington.
“The move also provides the president a measure of political
cover. ‘Alaska tends to be a litmus test for the energy debate,’
said Amy Myers Jaffe, director of energy policy research at Rice
University. ‘When Romney says the president is anti-drilling and
causes high gas prices, Obama can turn around and say, “I approved
drilling in Alaska.”’”
By
executive order, Obama set up a special interagency commission
to oversee “the safe and responsible development of onshore and
offshore energy resources and associated infrastructure in
Alaska.”
Obama’s steady pressure in favor of drilling in the Arctic
(“It’s not deep water, right?”) eventually overcame concerns within
his own administration, despite warnings from the commission
investigating the BP oil-spill disaster in the Gulf of Mexico.
According to the NY Times article:
“The commission’s final report said that for Arctic drilling to
be done safely, ‘both industry and government will have to
demonstrate standards and a level of performance higher than they
have ever achieved before.’ …
“The government strengthened its Arctic research programs to
better understand the impact of increased industrial activity in
the northern ocean. Those and other concessions seemed to placate
officials at the permitting agencies, who were navigating between
their regulatory duties and the president’s obvious desire to
drill.
“Shell’s permits came in a rush.
Interior approved exploration in both seas by last December.
Response plans were endorsed in February and March of this year.
The EPA’s appeals board cleared the final air permits at the end of
March — just as the whaling season got under way. NOAA came through
with a
marine mammal permit in early May.”
As far as I can tell, Shell is waiting only for its final
drilling permits from the Department of Interior and for the ice to
clear in the Chukchi and Beaufort seas.
Shell's oil-drilling rig
Kulluk prepares to head for Alaska. This photo was taken last year
on its way into Seattle.
AP file photo, 2011
As Shell’s oil rigs prepare to pull out of Seattle, Alaska’s
governor and the state’s two U.S. senators recently visited Seattle
to take a look at Shell’s oil rigs on the eve of the historic
drilling activity, as reported by Jennifer A. Dlouhy of the
Houston Chronicle.
Dlouhy quoted Sen. Lisa Murkowski, a Republican, as expressing
confidence in Shell’s ability to drill safely: “I think they know
as well as anybody that there is no margin for cutting
corners.”
The article also included environmental concerns about an oil
spill in the fragile Arctic ecosystem, which could be worse than
the Exxon Valdez in Prince Williams Sound, where oil is still
showing up 23 years after a multibillion-dollar cleanup.
“If there is a spill in the Arctic, the oil and damage will
almost certainly degrade slower and last longer,” Richard Steiner,
former marine conservation professor at the University of Alaska
was quoted as saying.
A new story out this morning in
Macleans magazine includes an interview with Peter Voser, chief
executive officer of Royal Dutch Shell, who touches briefly on this
summer’s drilling in the Arctic:
For those who missed it,
this week’s “Amusing Monday” came early on Thursday, when a
fake video was posted on YouTube claiming to show a party being
held to celebrate the sendoff of oil rigs to the Alaskan
Arctic.
It seems like a funny and creative stunt, even knowing that it
had nothing to do with Shell. But I do believe that it damages the
credibility of those involved, especially those who had some
credibility to begin with.
Greenpeace bloggers played an important role in trying to
convince people that the video was real. Here’s a portion of the
post by Guy Usher:
“So I just spoke with one of our experienced oil campaigners at
Greenpeace International and did a little digging, to find out a
little more about the guests at Shell’s swanky event.
“The Chief Engineer of the Kulluk (who was the guest of honor)
worked for Mitsui. You know what else Mitsui built? The Deepwater
Horizon. And they paid a $90 million fine for the BP oil spill.
“The late husband of the woman who got sprayed in the face
worked for Sedco. That’s Sedco as in Transocean-Sedco (or, as of
2003, just Transocean)—which owned the Deepwater Horizon.”
Well, the woman who played the wet, offended woman was actually
Dorli Rainey, an 84-year-old activist who gained national attention
when she was pepper-sprayed at an Occupy Seattle rally.
The video above provides a behind-the-scenes look at what it
took to create the hoax along with a little political
commentary.
Greenpeace bloggers have now revealed a few details of the Shell
party spoof, which received a lot of attention on the Internet.
See JTurner’s blog.
I still think it’s a funny video, even knowing it is fake. But
there may some additional fallout for Greenpeace: Anyone who didn’t
question statements by Greenpeace before must now be on guard
against fraudulent claims by the environmental group, especially
when the information comes from Greenpeace bloggers.
—–
They almost got me.
Word on the street this morning was that Logan Price of Occupy
Wall Street had wrangled his way into a party last night at the
Space Needle involving people connected with Shell oil-drilling
operations. Price had a video showing people celebrating the launch
of two oil rigs about to leave Seattle for the Alaskan Arctic.
This is in connection with the
story I wrote Monday about the Greenpeace ship Esperanza.
On a serving table at the party was a model of an oil rig that
was supposed to dispense drinks. Check out the video below.
Quite a few people took the bait and quickly blogged about this
ironic video, posting comments such as this one by Tree Hugger, “If
Shell can’t even handle a three-foot replica of a rig that pumps
booze, how is the company going to fare in the Arctic deep?”
Many other bloggers climbed on board and passed on the video
with similar comments, including a blogger for the Seattle P-I.
Soon the video spiraled up in the view count.
I was about to post a blog item with my comment, “Didn’t the
Shell p.r. types think about the irony if something were to go
wrong with the little ‘drilling rig’? Well, you know, Murphy’s Law
and all that.”
But I paused to call someone at Shell for a comment and reached
company spokeswoman Kayla Macke, who sent me this comment by
email:
“Thanks for the call. Please see our response below: Recently
groups that oppose Shell’s plans in offshore Alaska have posted a
fraudulent video that appears to show Shell employees at an event
at the Seattle Space Needle. Shell did not host, nor participate in
an event at the Space Needle and the video does not involve Shell
or any of its employees. We continue to focus on a safe exploration
season in 2012.”
So was the video a hoax or was Shell just covering up an
embarrassing situation? I needed to find out, so I began making
more calls and placing more emails to get hold of anyone connected
with the Seattle “event.”
Meanwhile,
Greenpeace blogger Guy Usher reported that had he contacted
some experienced campaigners in Greenpeace International who
identified two people in the video. I’m trying to contact Usher to
see if he still believes the video is real.
Most bloggers have now reversed their initial comments and
reported their belief that the video is a hoax, especially after
seeing the evidence compiled by Adrian Chen of
Gawker.com.:
“The main proof that this is a hoax comes from the website of
Wainwright & Shore, “a
full service, integrated marketing public relations and interactive
firm” supposedly based in Houston, Texas. Wainwright & Shore boasts
“The company donates more than 300 hours of pro bono services to
non-profit clients each year.”
“But according to the whois
records, the domain was registered just last month. And the
clincher: The domain name server is Mayfirst.org, a lefty-radical
hosting company which was also used by notorious pranksters the Yes
Men to host a fake Bank of America website
back in April.”
The latest development, according to a
blog on “Ad Age,” is that someone is sending out fake press
releases saying Shell plans to sue those responsible for the
video.
While this video may be kind of fun for most of us, I guess it
could create problems for Shell.
I was planning to post this as an “Amusing Monday” next week,
but I’m not sure at the moment whether the video will remain
available if YouTube is pressured to take it down, so I decided to
post Monday’s blog entry a few days early.
