More

Shell Arctic Permit: EPA Appeals Board Rejects Challenge

First Posted: 01/12/12 07:20 PM ET Updated: 01/13/12 11:07 AM ET

ANCHORAGE, Alaska (AP) — Royal Dutch Shell's quest to drill exploratory wells in Arctic waters has received a boost with the affirmation that its federal air permits for the Chukchi Sea were properly granted.

The EPA Appeals Board on Thursday rejected challenges to the air permits brought by Alaska Native and conservation groups.

Shell Alaska spokesman Curtis Smith said in a formal announcement that the decision means Shell, for the first time, has usable air permits that will allow its drill ship, the Noble Discoverer, to work in the outer continental shelf off Alaska's northwest coast in 2012.

"Achieving usable permits from the EPA is a very important step for Shell and one of the strongest indicators to date that we will be exploring our Beaufort and Chukchi leases in July," Smith said.

Drilling is strongly opposed by conservation groups that contend oil companies cannot clean up a spill in ice-choked waters, and that the remote Chukchi and Beaufort seas are too far from ports, major airports and other infrastructure for an effective cleanup if there's a blowout.

Earthjustice attorney Colin O'Brien, who represented groups that filed one of four air permit appeals, said it an email response to questions that the decision could be appealed in federal court, but that it was too early to speculate about potential next steps.

He said EPA took shortcuts when it issued the permits and failed to fully protect Arctic air quality as required by the Clean Air Act.

"These permits pave the way for Shell to emit thousands of tons of harmful air pollution into the pristine Arctic environment, at levels that may be harmful to nearby communities and the environment for years to come," he said. "We are disappointed that the Environmental Appeals Board decided against us and allowed EPA's permit decisions to stand.

A Shell subsidiary has applied to drill up to three exploratory wells in the Chukchi during the open water season this year and additional exploratory wells in 2013. The company hopes to use a second drill for exploratory wells in the Beaufort Sea off Alaska's north coast, and awaits a decision on the appeal of its air permit.

The Bureau of Ocean Energy Management in December approved Shell's Chukchi drilling plan with one important stipulation. The agency said Shell must still drilling into hydrocarbon zones 38 days before sea ice is projected to engulf the drill site to make sure it has time cope with a spill or a wellhead blowout. That would cut the drilling window by about one-third.

A successful appeal of previous air permits played a part of Shell's decision to cancel drilling for 2011. In that case, the appeals board concluded that analysis of the impact of nitrogen dioxide emissions on Alaska Native communities was too limited. The board remanded the permits to allow the agency to fix permit problems.

The appeal filed by Earthjustice contended that Shell's new permit was based on pollution estimates that were inherently unreliable because they are based on equipment that Shell did not identify and that the EPA never intends to test.

Shell faces other hurdles before it can send its drill ships and support vessels north. The Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement must approve Shell's oil spill response plan for the Chukchi.

Also on HuffPost:

FOLLOW HUFFPOST GREEN

ANCHORAGE, Alaska (AP) — Royal Dutch Shell's quest to drill exploratory wells in Arctic waters has received a boost with the affirmation that its federal air permits for the Chukchi Sea were properl...
ANCHORAGE, Alaska (AP) — Royal Dutch Shell's quest to drill exploratory wells in Arctic waters has received a boost with the affirmation that its federal air permits for the Chukchi Sea were properl...
Filed by James Gerken  | 
 
 
  • Comments
  • 68
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2  Next ›  Last »  (2 total)
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Micheal Johnson
03:46 PM on 01/17/2012
Perhaps people are going to have to realize that these oil people are going to get their way. Maybe the plan should be to be on site and keep these greedy sob's accountable. It looks to me as if these co's get away with the things they do -Nicaragua, Brazil - by simply doing them without anyone with a scientific background being there. We find out these things after the fact.
03:00 PM on 01/16/2012
There are many inventors, tinkerers, engineers, mechanics, and small business owners who are out there planning, developing, testing, and building energy saving, clean, non-polluting devices. Many people think that this sort of progress can be done only with government help and intervention, huge corporations, or a major university. Actually these organizations usually impede and block real ingenuity and ideas with over regulation (usually state or local government), a chain of command/board of directors as in a corporation, or political atmospheres and strings attached grants at universities. Also, the issue of “liability” with the inevitable threats of lawsuits and the requirement of team of lawyers on board just to build a new mousetrap is also an impediment to invention and creativity.
An example of what can be done through ingenuity and thinking outside the box is the revolutionary and promising Johnson motor/generator: a device that produces more energy than it consumes through the use of permanent magnets. It has been patented and already in use by some home owners who are saving 75% on their electrical bills. Blueprints are available on line. Plans are now in the works to adapt and develop a prototype for cars. This is clean, cheap energy. Think of how you can push one magnet with another. Now think of a circle of magnets with a rotor inside. Now this is real progress, but you won’t see it on the news. go to : http://freeenergynews.com/Directory/Howard_Johnson_Motor/
02:15 PM on 01/16/2012
After reading a majority of comments here what comes to mind is there are no easy or complete solutions to our energy problems. It is going to take compromise ( a rare thing these days). We have to face the fact that we will not cease our use of oil anytime soon but solar, wind and hydro can not produce the amount of power (electricity, cars ect) we need anytime soon. So what is the answer, we must continue to develope petroleum resources but also Must ramp up the alternative energy sources.the more alternative power we generate the less oil or NG we use, eventually the scales will tip to renewable sources but ( always a but) we MUST control how BOTH are implemented. If its deep water drilling then the companies have to invest in Deep Sea vehicles to be able to contend with deep eater blowouts. As for solar, wind ect change those subsidies to supplement green power conversion, solar on every roof in America, I live in Florida and we have a lot of people who only reside here a few months a year hence their roof top solar would be generating power strait in to the power grid and only draw power a few months a year. These are examples of ways to START becoming energy independent, then let the middle east learn to live without our trillions of dollars.
photo
kwaut lizard
Reductio ad Absurdum
05:46 AM on 01/17/2012
The major obstacle at the moment is the whole principle behind the American model of Capitalism. Maximum profits, reduce competition at all costs, minimize labor costs and liabilities incurred with employees, you know the drill ... This idea to maximize output with minimum obligations to the actual workforce, and the absurd notion that the stockholder is above god is counterproductive to real solution oriented problem solving. It worked very well when competition was at its highest and no single entities dominated any particular market but human-nature has shown its greedy side and monopolies are the eventual result.

The Koreans experienced this very faltering system with their chaebols, the large, conglomerate family-controlled firms of South Korea characterized by strong ties with government agencies, that dominated all economic transactions in the country from the 1950's until they were finally dismembered in 2000.

America will never recognize the necessity for breaking down these monopolies, nor the fact that they even exist. Is it a problem that will continue to dog and curtail the productivity of the once most productive and innovative country in the world. A true testament to Shakespeare's dictum that 'money corrupts absolutely'. Start learning Chinese now.
photo
artleads
Let's have a national retreat.
02:21 PM on 01/15/2012
This is not good news, but I won't get into it; instead, keeping a wary eye on Keystone XL. Stop that and we can turn our attention to the Arctic.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
westcoastsc
Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhe
11:16 AM on 01/15/2012
From the headline, you do not know if Shell won or lost. Shell is one of the worst polluters ever. What they did to Nigeria is despicable. Certainly, they are behind the unrest there after losing their cases there.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Bon1042
09:16 PM on 01/14/2012
This is why I won't bother to vote for the President's re-election, not vote for the first time in my life. Ms. Jackson, head of EPA was on w/Rachel Maddow few weeks ago re. fracking. Rachel accommodated her claims of "we're studying, crunching numbers". Crunching numbers??? talk to the residents of PA near Marcellus Shale area. You can see the other piece on this site. I feel so sorry for these people. The President is silent and oil drilling and gas drilling permits have been issued by the numbers this year and not a GD mention of it in the MS media (bec Brian Williams $13 mill slary is paid now by Rex Tillerman, CEO of Exxon-Mobil).

What difference does it make which party wins? They're all owned by the poisoners of the planet and they apparently don't give a good GD what happens to Mother Earth.
photo
BlueGreen55
Capitalism w/o Morals is like Faith w/o Works-dead
11:56 PM on 01/16/2012
While you may be correct on the surface there is still a difference. That would be that there is one party who at least frequently attempts and suggest policies that are reasonable and address the issues in a logical way. That would be the Democrats.

I hope you change your mind about voting. It may not be much but if we don't excercise this right then the moneyed interests for sure win. That is much worse than not liking specific policies in my mind. Have a great night.
photo
Mister Grumpy
An Angry American
02:51 PM on 01/14/2012
Of course there's no mention of this on any of the GOP'her leaning news channels. Because it makes the EPA appear fair and balanced. And we know the GOP doesn't recognize either of those two terms.
11:46 AM on 01/14/2012
This is the answer to the question,

Why are we fighting a war in the Middle East?

By rejecting Keystone so the Chinese can buy up the Canadian Tar Sand output, and by putting a ban on development of offshore oil leases, and by drastic cuts in offshore oil lease sales, etc The administration is increasing our dependence on foreign petroleum sources. That raises the importance of places like the Strait of Hormuz that Iran is threatening to close. Thus the reason we have deployed two carrier battle forces to put pressure on Iran.

With Iran attempting to build nuclear bombs and develop missile delivery platforms, while the administration fiddled and ignored the popular uprising after the last rigged election in Iran, we are ever closer and closer to a significant that could possibly become a global conflict.

Meanwhile, willing dupes in the administration and EPA are helping us down this dangerous route, by actions such as this very item. It is almost as if they want that outcome, a nuclear conflict in the middle east that will virtually shut down the world economy and result in the loss of potentially millions of lives.

Instead we could develop our tar sands in the US and Canada, shale oil, drill for oil, develop natural gas, develop coal gasification, all profitable for long term investments at the current prices. All that would serve to reduce the national interest in an historically unstable Middle East run by dictators and religious despots.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Foodgrade
Learn to grow banannas
06:45 PM on 01/14/2012
What a load. It's amazing the way Republicans oversimplify. What you actually said was: "Privatize profits and socialize loss". Let the subsidies flow, and look the other way, someone else will clean up the mess. Hey, it works for BP doesn't it?
09:23 AM on 01/14/2012
We spent all that money on the war in Iraq to keep middle east oil flowing. Now they want to risk polluting our environment by more drilling in the U.S. Our money would be better spent on solar, wind and water power. The energy companies spend more on public relations, to convince us that shale oil, fracking gas and coal are clean sources of energy, than they spend on research & development for new sources of energy. Remember the Exxon Valdez & BP Deepwater Horizon Gulf oil spills! "Gee, we're sorry. Trust us, we're Big Oil - Our technology is safe & clean. Shucks y'all, we could make gas cheaper if you lowered our income taxes and cut regulations. And keep them government subsidies flowing. If you must cut government spending, just take it from the middle class, unions & public service workers, the yet uneducated young people, seniors, the lazy poor, immigrants and minorities. Don't worry, some wealth will eventually trickle down to the lowliest of you poor American working slobs. Wal-Mart is hiring. By the way, if you can't get an education or a job, join the military - we're gonna need more sons to sacrifice in the next war. We'll create lots of jobs, drillin', fightin' and cleanin' stuff up. Now, if we could just get more of our friends elected in Washington. Boys, let's have a meeting during lunch at the country club, after this morning's golf outing." Capitalism - The American Way! And Jesus Loves
10:12 AM on 01/14/2012
Gee, I hope you feel better after that tirade!!!

BTW, A "Valdez" could have happened anywhere oil is transported by ship!
11:53 AM on 01/14/2012
Yes. Thanks. It's nice to be noticed. Tthere have actually been numerous oil spills that hardly made the news. I'm on Long Island, where it eventually cost $5 billion to build a projected $5 million nuclear plant that was closed before it was opened because there's no way to evacuate the Island. $5 billion buys a lot of solar cells! Next they proposed a dangerous, potentially explosive gas terminal in the environmentally sensitive waters of Long Island Sound. It's all about money & greed - the environment and us be damned!
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Foodgrade
Learn to grow banannas
06:49 PM on 01/14/2012
Wow, the loads of crap are endless. The Valdez happened because the oil companies bought off washington when people were demanding double hulls and second engines on tankers. Spills happen when good science and engineering are ignored for a profit motive and a political agenda. The BP spill happened because of a multitude of cost saving short cuts. It's the same M.O. over and over again, especially the part where the downside is socialized.
11:49 AM on 01/14/2012
yes and we all could sit in trees and learn to play the flute.
12:35 AM on 01/14/2012
I am glad there are different opinions, otherwise the other half would have nothing to whine about.
Like it or not, we need oil. We have it under our ocean floors. Go for it. Even the Mobil "disaster" somewhere of the Louisiana coast is already corrected and forgotten. Lighten up, greenies !
11:55 AM on 01/14/2012
If you look, the Russians in coordination with the Cubans are using slant drilling out in the Gulf to exploit the oil we are not willing to now go after.

Do you suppose the Russian's and their less than stellar history of fouling the environment, are a better choice in the long run to develop Oil deposits in deep water offshore drilling areas?

No, effectively the administrations actions to strangle the offshore oil development has only increased the chances of a catastrophic spill as the Russians and Cubans go after these valuable resources.

Seems the brilliant ones, did not look into the basic, Law of Unintended Consequences.
10:26 PM on 01/13/2012
Some of the mountain states are sitting on an ocean of oil. Much cheaper to drill here but appears sky high utility bills and fuel is here to stay.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Daniel Hicks
Science > Your opinion
12:18 AM on 01/14/2012
"Sky high utility bills" is right. Mostly because tapping into domestic out will take a decade or so to implement, then not impact supply by very much, and by then demand for energy for air conditioning to offset net warming of the planet might just wipe out the savings entirely. D'oh!
11:58 AM on 01/14/2012
Another scientist speaks, citing some sort of scientific data. However, one might wonder at his qualifications given the reference to Homer Simpson, ala D'oh!
photo
BlueGreen55
Capitalism w/o Morals is like Faith w/o Works-dead
12:00 AM on 01/17/2012
Yes, a mountain of oil that will need billions of gallons of water (in the form of steam) to make useable. Where is that water going to come from?
Arthur Walsh
You are not entitled to your own facts!
08:08 PM on 01/13/2012
This is a disaster waiting to happen! When one of the drilling rigs up there collapses in a level 5 storm or blows up and cannot be capped because of the location. I am just going to remind everyone that I TOLD YOU SO!!!!! Maybe then people will stop listening to the drill baby drill crowd but I usually over estimate the intelligence of the people in this country.
11:58 AM on 01/14/2012
I think I fear a nuclear war in the middle east more than an oil spill.
photo
ibsteve2u
Someone who cares - to his unending regret
07:16 PM on 01/13/2012
"The EPA Appeals Board on Thursday rejected challenges to the air permits brought by Alaska Native [Americans]...."

500 years and counting...
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Robert Fanney
Scribbler
06:04 PM on 01/13/2012
The last gasp for the world's oil companies -- fracking, deep water, polar water, and those ugly oil shales and tar sands. Next up, Arctic oil wars. Can we please just transition to solar, wind and EVs now? It's really a much better future for everyone.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
FWJames123
Well behaved women rarely make history
08:43 PM on 01/13/2012
Unfortunately there is no answer that suits everyone. There are many areas where the alternatives just don't work and as such, fossil fuels are needed.
09:45 AM on 01/14/2012
Solar power works, even in Vermont! Whether backed up part-time by public hydroelectric power or fossil fueled generator, it reduces carbon emissions. There is no reason why warm, sunny states couldn't run completely on solar, wind & water power. They could also suppy colder, cloudier states, don't cha think? The real reason we need so much oil is for tanks, planes & ships. Kind of makes Middle East wars self perpetuating, doesn't it?
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
orcinous
Obama has made things better.
07:09 AM on 01/14/2012
That's right. The change to alternatives is slow so those that are making money can continue to make money. The capitalist system is failing miserably here due to the subsidies and protection these companies receive. Build a 95 square mile solar grid and everyone gets free electricity.
12:10 PM on 01/14/2012
Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha HaHa Ha HaHa Ha HaHa Ha HaHa Ha HaHa Ha Ha!

Free energy for all us communists.

Question, who is going to pay for it, build it, and repair it?

Ha Ha HaHa Ha HaHa Ha HaHa Ha HaHa Ha HaHa Ha HaHa Ha HaHa Ha HaHa Ha HaHa Ha HaHa Ha HaHa Ha HaHa Ha HaHa Ha Ha!

I suppose the guys at the free hemp cooperative you work for?
photo
artleads
Let's have a national retreat.
02:15 PM on 01/15/2012
I was agreeing with you right up to the 95 square mile solar grid thingy. No, we don't need to destroy 95 acres of wilderness for a power grid that we (the people) don't own and that can continue to overcharge us and keep us dependent. Instead, we need solar panels on every roof. While poor people can't afford that, their panels and installation costs can be subsidized. We subsidize oil and gas now, and we can switch those subsidies to point-of-use, distributed energy throughout the nation.
05:29 PM on 01/13/2012
Geezey, sneezey; no wonder we don't have enough oil produced within our borders; the amount of commissions, environmentalists, committees, etc. are just mind-boggling. Can't this be made more simple. By the way; who in the world is paying for all of these expensive lawsuits; Saudi Arabia?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Karelle Scharff
07:32 PM on 01/13/2012
Well geez, angalmarketing2, you just answered my question. Why, in the country that used to be known for its innovations, have we not been able to figure out how to stop using fossil fuels. It's because of the idiots who insist on destroying everything so they can keep driving their 15mpg SUVs and using electric can openers. What is mind-boggling is the number of bozos who believe that the oil industry is just as safe as a bunny rabbit.
12:11 PM on 01/14/2012
The next time you use a plastic cup, fork, whatever and take your prescription medicine you will know why we need obscene amounts of oil; not just us but the entire world. Go hug a tree.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
FWJames123
Well behaved women rarely make history
08:44 PM on 01/13/2012
No, you and I are at the pump.
12:12 PM on 01/14/2012
Soooo, get an electric car, bicycle, moped or walk.
12:18 PM on 01/14/2012
Yes and we fuel up our cars in about 3 or 4 minutes and can drive for hundreds of miles in a car that, with proper maintenance can provide service for 20 yrs or longer. Utilizing an energy development and distribution system we have invested Trillions of $ in over many years.

Or you could plug in your car drive 50 to 100 miles and then plug it for 6-14 hours to drive another 50-100 miles. Traveling in a car whose battery is very energy intensive and toxic to mine, produce, manufacture, and dispose of. Whose battery will fail in less than 10 years rendering the car disposable, due to the cost of battery replacement. Increasing the effluent trash stream.

So the perception is false, that plug ins and hybrids are actually greener.