Please take a moment to read this. I came across this petition by chance and find it very worrying as it may endanger the lives of people and animals who reside in that area. I have also included additional information from other websites for a better and clearer understanding of the issues surrounding oil drilling in the Arctic.

In recent years, we have seen many natural disasters – unfortunate events beyond our control that have caused much damage and resulted in great loss of life – such as the recent earthquake in Nepal. But on the other hand, there are disasters that are caused by the actions of mankind, including the Arctic oil drilling which has caused great damage to the environment in the Arctic, affecting the future of thousands of animals who live there.

In the case of unfortunate natural disasters, we should all lend our support in the aftermath… but for potential man-made disasters such as the Arctic oil drilling, we should not wait until it is too late, but take preventive measures to ensure it does not come to pass.

Please read and understand this information well so that you are aware of the severity and consequences of the Arctic oil drilling and show your support by signing the petition to end the oil harvesting.

Tsem Rinpoche

Sign the petition here: Stop Shell’s Dangerous Offshore Drilling Exploration in the Arctic

History of Arctic Oil Drilling

Prior to drilling, Native American and European settlers collected crude oil from holes in the ground and used it for various domestic purposes. Colonel Edwin Drake discovered that larger quantities could be obtained by drilling when he established the first oil well in Titusville, Pennsylvania, in the mid-nineteenth century. The search for oil then spread to other states and the richest reserves were found in Texas.

The conservation movement has its roots in the nineteenth century. In 1872, outdoor recreation enthusiasts and nature lovers convinced President Ulysses S. Grant to designate Yellowstone as the country’s first national park. The U.S. National Park Service was established in 1916 to oversee additional parks, forests, seashores, and preserves.

In 1960, President Dwight D. Eisenhower established the Arctic National Wildlife Range in northeastern Alaska as a means to preserve the area’s wildlife, native peoples, and outdoor recreation. In 1980, this area was renamed the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and doubled in acreage from 9 to 18 million acres. Under terms set by the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act, the range was declared off-limits for the production of oil and gas. However, Prudhoe Bay, located west of the ANWR, was not included in the act and in 1968, Atlantic Richfield Company (ARCO) and Humble Oil and Refining Company, now ExxonMobil, discovered significant oil reserves there.

By this time, the United States had lost its position as the leading producer of oil, which it held during the 1950s after the discovery of major oil reserves in the Gulf of Mexico. Domestic supplies could not keep up with the country’s growing needs, so the U.S. forged alliances with Saudi Arabia and other oil-rich Middle Eastern countries beginning in the 1960s. The discovery of oil in Prudhoe Bay promised reduced reliance on oil from the Middle East, an issue that gained more relevance after the 1973 – 1974 oil embargo.

Before construction on an oil-funneling pipeline could begin in the 1970s, the petroleum industry had to contend with lawsuits from Native American groups and environmental organizations, who argued that construction of the pipeline, roads, power plants, sewage treatment plants, and other necessary infrastructure would harm wildlife and the tundra.

The petroleum industry prevailed and in 1974, construction commenced on the first portion of the 800-mile long Trans-Alaska Pipeline System. The project took 2 years to complete, employed over 20,000 workers, and cost $8 billion. In 1988, production peaked at 2.1 million barrels a day, but had steadily decreased to 750,000 barrels a day by 2006.

According to the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation, about 500 oil spills occur annually along the length of the pipeline and in Prudhoe Bay. In 1978, vandals blew up part of the pipeline, resulting in 670,000 barrels of oil spilling out over the land. In 2001, someone fired a rifle at the pipeline, which caused 300,000 gallons to leak out. In 2006, a corroded portion of the pipeline resulted in a leak of 270,000 gallons of oil.

In 1989, the Exxon Valdez oil tanker spilled 11 million gallons of crude oil into Prince William Sound. The oil killed 1,000 sea otters, tens of thousands of birds, and cost over $2 billion to clean up.

[Source: http://connection.ebscohost.com/science/arctic-drilling/history-arctic-oil-drilling-us]

Sign the petition here: Stop Shell’s Dangerous Offshore Drilling Exploration in the Arctic

Summary and Findings

The topic of offshore oil and gas development in the Arctic is controversial and tends to elicit strong responses. Research by the Commission staff has revealed a broad range of views related to Arctic oil and gas. The issues explored include potential environmental impacts; economic benefits and economic beneficiaries of activities; potential impacts on Alaskan Native subsistence harvest; effectiveness of oil spill response methods in the unique weather and ice conditions of the Arctic; and industry’s ability to respond to an oil spill in the Arctic. Commission staff has found that there are many areas related to oil and gas development in the Arctic that warrant targeted research and strengthening of infrastructure on an expedited time frame. Some of these activities could be conducted concurrently with exploratory drilling by current lease holders, while others are urgent enough to require at least partial solutions before further drilling occurs. The following findings should be taken into consideration by the Department of the Interior as the Department considers whether oil and gas development in the Arctic should be allowed to move forward, and at what pace:

• The Arctic is home to a number of unique, diverse, and fragile ecosystems that are under stress from the impacts of climate change. There are currently large gaps in the ecological information available in the Arctic Ocean, including the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas. Although some research has been completed for a handful of species during certain times of the year, a better understanding of more components of the marine ecosystem throughout the entire year is needed. Without these data, it will be extremely difficult to predict and monitor the impacts of offshore oil and gas activities, or conduct damage assessments in the event of an oil spill.
• The Inupiat Eskimos of Alaska’s remote arctic and subarctic communities rely heavily on subsistence resources of the marine environment, particularly bowhead whales. Whale hunting and the customs surrounding it are also an important part of the cultural heritage of the Inupiat. Oil and gas development has the potential to directly or indirectly affect hunting success or the habitats of species important to subsistence, which in-turn would have a negative impact on native communities. However, offshore oil and gas development could also provide some level of increased economic opportunity to the communities.
• There is currently a large gap in knowledge related to oil spill response in the Arctic. Arctic conditions can be very dangerous to humans, and include extremely cold air and water temperatures, strong winds, multiple forms of ice, and fog. As a result, successful oil spill response methods from the Gulf of Mexico cannot simply be transferred to the Arctic and expected to work in exactly the same way. Although industry, government, and research institutions have partnered to conduct important research on this topic, much more information is needed related to the effectiveness and safety of Arctic oil spill response methods.
• There could be a large difference in the effectiveness of Arctic oil spill preparedness, response, and containment efforts related to exploratory drilling versus year-round oil and gas production. Exploratory drilling would likely be confined to a relatively short time period during open water conditions, which should facilitate oil spill response and containment operations. As a result, a different scale or type of information and response capabilities are needed for the two activities. There are outstanding questions regarding what both government and industry need to demonstrate in terms of information and capabilities in advance of each type of activity. An evaluation of these outstanding requirements is important to providing regulatory transparency and certainty to the industry.
• There is a large deficiency in federal capabilities related to oversight of oil spill response in the Arctic. The response to any spill in Arctic waters would be managed by the Coast Guard under the requirements of the National Contingency Plan. The distance from the nearest Coast Guard base to the Arctic is a major hurdle, even in open water and good weather conditions. Additionally, two of the three Coast Guard polar icebreakers are non-operational and have exceeded their service lives. Even though industry is required to be capable of carrying out oil spill response, the Coast Guard may not be able to provide required oil spill oversight, or search and rescue support. The Coast Guard is currently carrying out a High Latitudes Mission Analysis to understand its needs for future operations, personnel, and assets in the Arctic.
• The Arctic is shared by multiple countries, many of which are considering or conducting oil and gas exploration and development. The extreme weather conditions and infrastructure difficulties are not unique to the U.S. portion of the Arctic – they exist throughout the entire region. The damages caused by an oil spill in one part of the Arctic may not be limited to the waters of the country where it occurred. As a result, international cooperation and standards for Arctic oil and gas activities are very important. The Arctic Council has begun work in this direction, updating its voluntary Arctic Offshore Oil and Gas Operation Guidelines in 2009. The International Standards Organization is also in the process of developing international standards for Arctic offshore structures that would apply to the activities of petroleum and natural gas industries in Arctic and cold regions. These guidelines are expected to specify requirements and provide recommendations and guidance for the design, construction, transportation, installation, and removal of offshore structures in the Arctic.
• Oil from the Arctic OCS can serve as a source to replace declining production on land in Alaska. Although the level of economic stimulus provided by the activities can be debated, it is expected to have an economic benefit for the State of Alaska. If production is transported via the Trans-Alaska Pipeline (after being transported from the production site to the pipeline), it could help deal with the range of problems related to decreasing flow in the pipeline. Additional oil from the Alaska OCS will also provide energy, economic, and national security benefits to the United States. The federal government would obtain substantial revenues from any further lease sales and from royalties on any future production. Offshore Arctic oil could also help to reduce U.S. imports of oil and the country’s negative balance of trade in energy.

[Source: http://www.eoearth.org/view/article/163045/]

Sign the petition here: Stop Shell’s Dangerous Offshore Drilling Exploration in the Arctic

Shell Oil’s Arctic Drilling Accidents

July 2012 – Shell Oil’s Noble Discoverer drill ship drags anchor and nearly drifts ashore in Dutch Harbor, Alaska.

September 2012 – Caught off guard by sea ice, Shell is forced to halt drilling – just one day after it started.

September 2012 – In an initial test in Puget Sound, WA, Shell’s Arctic oil spill containment system is “crushed like a beer can.”

October 2012 – The CEO of French oil giant Total says drilling in the Arctic is too risky.

November 2012 – Noble Discoverer catches fire.

December 31, 2012 – Kulluk drilling rig breaks loose from tow lines five times in heavy storm and runs aground off Kodiak Island, Alaska.

[Source: http://www.nrdc.org/energy/shell-arctic-drilling.asp]

Sign the petition here: Stop Shell’s Dangerous Offshore Drilling Exploration in the Arctic

Environmentalists sue over Shell plan to drill in Arctic

Several environmental groups sued the United States on Tuesday to derail Royal Dutch Shell PLC’s plan to drill in the Arctic Ocean as soon as July.

The Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, an agency within the U.S. Department of the Interior, gave conditional approval in May to Shell’s resumption of fossil fuel exploration in the Arctic, which was paused after a mishap-filled 2012 season.

The decision was met with approval by some Alaska lawmakers, who believe it will bring money and jobs to the state, as well as protests from environmentalists.

The Sierra Club and nine other groups sought to overturn the government’s decision in a petition with the San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on Tuesday.

According to the petition, the plaintiffs are conservation and Alaska Native groups, the members of which “use and enjoy the affected area for recreational, aesthetic, or scientific purposes or whose members depend on the ecosystems and wildlife of the Arctic for subsistence, cultural, and traditional uses.”

Shell spokesman Curtis Smith said the company expected its plan would be challenged in court “by many of the same organizations that have historically used legal maneuvers to delay Arctic exploration.” An Interior Department spokeswoman declined to comment. The Arctic is estimated to contain about 20 percent of the world’s undiscovered oil and natural gas, but its recovery could be decades away.

Environmental groups contend that weather conditions make it impossible to safely drill in the Arctic, a region that helps regulate the global climate because of its vast layers of sea ice. In approving Shell’s plan, U.S. agencies said the company would still have to obtain additional permits and biological opinions to protect resources, wildlife and workers. Over the last month, activists staged protests over Shell’s use of Seattle’s port as a home base for at least one Arctic-bound drilling rig.

Amid the protests, the Port of Seattle commission appealed the city’s interpretation of permit requirements that pushed shipping company Foss Maritime and Shell into violation of city code. The city said in a memo it would not impose daily fines that start at $150 while it considers the appeal, a process that is expected to continue after the rigs leave for the Arctic. On Tuesday, a coalition of Alaska business owners and lawmakers urged the port in a letter to continue honoring the lease agreement, saying energy represents one-third of Alaskan jobs.

[Source: http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/06/02/us-shell-alaska-lawsuit-idUSKBN0OI2IH20150602]

Sign the petition here: Stop Shell’s Dangerous Offshore Drilling Exploration in the Arctic

Please support us so that we can continue to bring you more Dharma:

If you are in the United States, please note that your offerings and contributions are tax deductible. ~ the tsemrinpoche.com blog team