Well….Shell Oil Tries but Fails to contain spill
Oil continues to seep into the North Sea after a Royal Dutch Shell platform flow line in the seabed burst. The incident is a troubling example of what can happen when Shell fails to contain an oil spill. An estimated 54,600 gallons of oil have leaked into the water, according to Thomson Reuters wire service. The spill, announced by the company on Friday, is in the central North Sea, about 112 miles east of Aberdeen, Scotland. This spill occurred just days after the United States’ Department of the Interior tentatively approved Shell’s request to drill four experimental wells in the U.S. Arctic’s Beaufort Sea in 2012. Oceana is appalled and concerned that this event in the North Sea is a foreshadowing of things to come in the U.S. Arctic.
“The oil gushing in the North Sea is an urgent reminder why DOI needs to carefully examine Shell’s lack of ability to contain and clean up oil spills, said Susan Murray, Oceana Pacific Senior Director. Shell is claiming to be able to clean up 95 percent of a spill in the Arctic Ocean, but more than 300 square miles of sheen on the surface of the North Sea today put more than reasonable doubt on that assertion.”
“This incident is just a snapshot of what could happen in Alaska’s Arctic. While this could be disastrous for the North Sea, it’s not even a worst case spill.” said Jacqueline Savitz, Oceana senior climate and energy campaign director. “A blowout like the one in the gulf would be impossible to clean up in the Arctic and could be the end of the story for critical marine animals,” Savitz added.
Shell North Sea Oil Spill Fails to Contain Raises Serious Questions About Arctic Drilling
A Shell oil spill in the North Sea raised new concerns about whether the oil industry could safely respond to a similar accident in the Arctic.
In August 2011, oil continued leaking into the North Sea after a flow line connected to a Royal Dutch Shell platform ruptured on the seabed. The spill occurred roughly 112 miles east of Aberdeen, Scotland.
At the time, estimates indicated that about 54,600 gallons of oil had entered the water.
However, the environmental concern extended far beyond the North Sea. The incident happened as Shell was pursuing plans to drill exploratory wells in the Beaufort Sea off Alaska.
Shell Failed, Struggled to Contain the Spill
Shell reported a large oil sheen stretching across the surface of the North Sea. The affected area extended roughly 20 miles long and 2.5 miles wide.
That raised an obvious question.
If Shell struggled to quickly contain a spill in the relatively accessible North Sea, how would the company respond to a major accident in the remote Arctic?
Environmental organization Oceana argued that the spill exposed serious weaknesses in Shell’s emergency response capabilities.
The Arctic presents far more difficult conditions. Extreme weather can disrupt cleanup operations. Sea ice can limit access. Moreover, ports, equipment, ships and emergency infrastructure remain far more limited than in heavily developed offshore drilling regions.
Arctic Oil Spill Cleanup Remains Extremely Difficult
Oil companies often rely on mechanical equipment such as skimmers and containment booms to recover oil from the surface.
However, those technologies have major limitations.
Wind, waves, currents and ice can dramatically reduce their effectiveness. In addition, response crews may face long travel distances before they even reach an Arctic spill.
Consequently, environmental groups questioned claims that operators could recover extremely high percentages of spilled oil.
Past disasters demonstrated the difficulty.
The Exxon Valdez spill in Alaska and the Deepwater Horizon disaster in the Gulf of Mexico both required massive cleanup operations. Yet only a fraction of the spilled oil was physically recovered.
Therefore, a major Arctic spill could become even harder to control.
The Arctic Creates a Different Level of Risk
The Arctic ecosystem also remains particularly vulnerable to oil pollution.
Marine mammals, seabirds, fish and other wildlife depend on fragile food webs. Meanwhile, many Indigenous communities depend on healthy marine ecosystems for food, culture and traditional subsistence activities.
Cold temperatures can also slow the natural breakdown of petroleum.
As a result, oil contamination may remain in the environment for long periods.
Furthermore, emergency response teams would have fewer nearby facilities, roads, ports and staging areas compared with more developed offshore drilling regions.
That makes prevention even more important.
Shell Spill Became a Warning About Arctic Expansion
The North Sea accident served as more than another offshore spill.
It became a test of the broader argument surrounding Arctic drilling.
Oil companies argued that technology, planning and emergency response systems could reduce the risks. However, environmental organizations warned that even sophisticated equipment could fail under real-world conditions.
The Shell spill strengthened that concern.
If operators cannot guarantee rapid containment in established offshore oil fields, regulators must carefully evaluate promises about operating safely in far more hostile environments.
Offshore Drilling Requires Stronger Safeguards
Oil development will always involve some level of risk. However, companies must demonstrate that they can prevent spills and respond effectively when equipment fails.
That means stronger monitoring.
It means reliable shutoff systems.
It also means realistic worst-case spill planning instead of assuming every response system will work perfectly.
Furthermore, regulators must require companies to prove that cleanup equipment can function under the actual conditions where drilling will occur.
That standard becomes especially important in Arctic waters.
Conclusion
The 2011 Shell North Sea spill provided an important warning about the risks of expanding offshore drilling into increasingly remote environments.
The spill itself was serious. However, the larger issue involved preparedness.
The Arctic offers little room for error.
Extreme weather, sea ice, limited infrastructure and sensitive ecosystems can transform an offshore accident into a long-term environmental disaster.
Therefore, regulators should demand strong prevention systems, realistic emergency plans and proven cleanup capabilities before approving drilling in high-risk regions.
When oil companies move into more difficult environments, safety standards should become stronger — not weaker.
Sources:
Sources
- UK Government — Gannet Oil Spill: Written Ministerial Statement
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/gannet-oil-spill-written-ministerial-statement-by-the-rt-hon-chris-huhne-mp
The UK government reported that Shell’s Gannet F pipeline released approximately 218 tonnes of oil between August 10 and August 19, 2011. - UK Government — Statement on Oil Leak at the Gannet Alpha Platform
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/statement-on-oil-leak-from-pipeline-at-the-gannet-alpha-platform
Officials described the spill as substantial in the context of the UK Continental Shelf and monitored Shell’s efforts to stop the leak. - NOAA — Preventing and Preparing for Oil Spills in the Arctic
https://response.restoration.noaa.gov/about/media/preventing-and-preparing-oil-spills-arctic.html
NOAA explains why Arctic spill response is especially difficult because of remoteness, limited infrastructure, cold temperatures, ice and short operating windows.
Shell ’s claim that the company can recover 95 percent of any oil spilled in the Arctic relies on, using mechanical recovery tools in the water, which have failed during past drills. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2dL3RGwpBaI Oil recovery rates for the Exxon Valdez were closer to 8 percent; and for Deepwater Horizon, were around 10 percent, with help from the Coast Guard. Meanwhile, Admiral Robert Papp of the Coast Guard stated earlier this month that for the Arctic ,the Coast Guard has “zero to operate with at present.”.
