Saturday, November 20, 2010

REQUIRED READING: Should Shell Drill in the Arctic Ocean? PopMech Asks Alaska Coast Guard Commander Christopher Colvin

Rear Admiral Christopher Colvin is the Commander of the 17th Coast Guard District, overseeing Alaskan waters. Among his previous duties, Adm. Colvin coordinated the Coast Guard responses to Hurricane Katrina in 2005 and Gustav in 2009.

Rear Admiral Christopher Colvin is the Commander of the 17th Coast Guard District, overseeing Alaskan waters.

Royal Dutch Shell has started running ads in the New York Times, the Washington Post and other newspapers to build support for its application to drill for oil and gas in the Beaufort Sea off Alaska's north coast in 2011. The company is asking the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement for the go-ahead on a scaled-down version of its plan to drill in the Arctic Ocean this past summer—a plan suspended by regulators after the Deepwater Horizon spill in the Gulf of Mexico.

If the drilling does go forward, one man watching closely will be Rear Admiral Christopher Colvin, who has commanded the U.S. Coast Guard in Alaska since July 2009. Adm. Colvin oversees 44,000 miles of coastline, more than is found in the other 49 states combined. Popular Mechanics spoke with Adm. Colvin about the potential risks of drilling in the Arctic Ocean and how oil companies and the Coast Guard could respond to a hypothetical oil spill. The fact that "there's water where there used to be ice," Adm. Colvin has said, is transforming the economic and strategic role the region plays. "Geopolitically, the Arctic is the most exciting issue of our generation," he told Popular Mechanics, "and we don't know the final outcome."






November 19, 2010 6:30 AM

Q

Opponents of Shell's plan for off-shore drilling have a daunting list of concerns, starting with the months of darkness and severe weather in the Arctic Ocean. Should the United States allow drilling up there?

A
Shell is talking about exploratory drilling in the summer months in very shallow water. From our perspective, that's been done successfully throughout the world. In fact, there are a whole bunch of wells in the Chukchi that were drilled in the 1980s, and several in the Beaufort. You could even make the argument that in the Arctic in the summertime, you have more daylight to work with.

Where we have a concern is later on, if they get into production drilling and it becomes year-round. We believe we need additional information, research and science for year-round drilling, to know how you could possibly clean up an oil spill in the ice.
Q

If Shell were to drill next summer, it would take its own oil-spill response vessels to the Beaufort Sea. Would the Coast Guard also be standing by on the scene?

A
No, not necessarily. It's important to understand what Congress did with OPA 90 [the Oil Pollution Act of 1990]. The backbone of it is that the industry will clean up its own oil spills—with oversight from Coast Guard experts, but industry is responsible for doing the cleanup, providing the equipment and paying for it. So Shell would take the equipment up there that would be necessary should the worst happen. We strongly encourage the focus to be on prevention, though. We do not want oil to be released in the Arctic, or anywhere, frankly.
Q

Longer-term, can year-round oil production be practiced safely in the Arctic Ocean? What resources would be needed to ensure safety?

A
We don't know, and that's the problem. We have one study that I'm aware of—called the SINTEF study, done in Norway—in which they put oil in the water in an ice environment, and they found some interesting things. There are only three ways that I know of that you can clean up oil. One is through the use of dispersants, one is through the use of in situ burn and one is through mechanical means. They found that in situ burn worked pretty well in the ice environment. They found that dispersants worked better than expected, and they found, as expected, that mechanical methods are very difficult. Now, there's a lot of research being done, and who knows what innovation may be used in the future? But right now, I don't think we're ready for production drilling in the Arctic.
Q

In the Gulf of Mexico, there are bacteria that have turned out to be extremely effective at eating oil. Does that kind of biological activity take place in the Arctic Ocean?

A
There are some studies that show there are bacteria up here that eat oil—not as aggressively, perhaps, as what you find in the Gulf of Mexico. Of course, in the Gulf the massive use of dispersants was ultimately what broke down the oil. If there's any silver lining to Deepwater Horizon, from Alaska's perspective, we believe there will be a lot of good science accomplished. The use of dispersants, for example: whether that or the oil is worse for wildlife. Things like that need better clarity.
Q

The Arctic Ocean and Bering Sea will likely see increases in navigation as summer ice recedes. Have you already seen that begin?

A
Number one, there's only one way in and out of the Arctic Ocean for over half the world, and that's the Bering Strait. On the Atlantic side, there are a lot of ways in and out of the Arctic Ocean. But on the Pacific side of the world, there's only one, and it's a fairly narrow strait—one that can be predicted to have significant maritime traffic in the future. Russia, in particular, is working hard to establish a viable maritime transportation route above Russia. Last year, we saw a ship with industrial supplies transit above Russia. This year we saw two large ships with iron ore and one, called the Baltica, over 1000 feet long, that carried 70,000 metric tons of gas condensate all the way from northern Europe across the top of Russia, through the Bering Strait, to an Asian port. Next year, the Russians plan to have about a half-dozen of those transit above Russia.
Q

Will the north coast of Russia become a major trade route? And how about the Northwest Passage, above Canada?

A
The [route's] savings are remarkable. If you want to take a ship from Murmansk in northern Europe and send it across Russia and down to Asia, it's about a 7000-mile transit. If you go the other way, through the Suez Canal, it's about a 12,000-mile transit. So, it's about a 40 percent savings in distance and cost and fuel. Of course, there aren't pirates or terrorists or other problems above Russia that you would have elsewhere.

Russia wants to establish that route during the summer months, and there will be a tariff for transiting up there. That's where they'll benefit. The Northwest Passage with Canada is a more challenging route. It has a lot of narrow passages and rocks. We've not yet seen that insurance companies—really for either side, but certainly through the Northwest Passage—are willing to insure merchant ships.

We have had cruise ships up there. Two German cruise ships go through every year, and they've been transiting through without much trouble. Last summer, for the first time we're aware of, those two ships were transiting in different directions above Canada through the Northwest Passage, and at the same time a ship carrying industrial parts was transiting above Russia. Usually, that huge ice pack covering the Arctic Ocean blows around from one side to the other and obstructs navigation. It's diminished so much that they were able to transit both sides simultaneously—last year and this year, too.

If you go up to Point Barrow and talk to the hunters and elders up there, they'll tell you that what they're seeing is change like they've never seen in their memory. And what they mean by their memory is their oral history, going back a thousand years. So it's pretty fascinating.
Q

How does all that change the Coast Guard's role?

A
The sovereignty issue is what concerns me. In some way it's akin to owning property. If you don't use it all the time, you can lose title to some of that property. We need to demonstrate our control at least over the exclusive economic zone above Alaska. We need persistent presence up there, certainly during the open-water months when you have increased human activity, but I'd like to see it year-round. If we signed the Law of the Sea, we could enlarge our exclusive economic zone north of Alaska for an extended continental shelf claim on the Northwind Ridge of the Chukchi Plateau. The areas probably have oil in them. But without being a signatory to the Law of the Sea, we cannot make an extended continental shelf claim. We absolutely need to sign it and should have done so a long time ago. We adhere to it and the President has signed it, but the Senate has yet to ratify it. That's been endorsed by all of DOD [the Department of Defense] and the Coast Guard, too.
Q

What does a "persistent presence" in the Arctic Ocean mean, exactly?

A
Number one, we need to know what is going on up there. We need situational awareness. Right now, we do one overflight when the water is open every two weeks. That's all we can afford. We take [a plane] away from fisheries patrol in the Bering Sea and send it up to the Arctic. One flight every two weeks doesn't do much for situational awareness. I need a flight every day. I need ships up there operating helicopters to demonstrate presence and control over those waters. As an example, the United States recently banned commercial fishing in the Arctic Ocean. How do we enforce that if we don't have resources up there?

You know, we're going to have a cruise ship sink up there one day; it's a pretty severe environment.
Q

If a ship were to get into trouble, how would the Coast Guard mount a rescue? Would pilots have to take off from the Kodiak Coast Guard base in southern Alaska?

A
Yes. It's about 1000 miles away. We can launch a C-130 out of Kodiak, and that's what we would do. Last spring, a Russian ice camp had drifted into our search-and-rescue coordination zone, about 650 miles north of Point Barrow. It was rapidly disintegrating. We made about three flights up there to make sure they were okay. Meanwhile, though, a Russian nuclear-powered icebreaker was sent out of Murmansk to rescue those folks before the ice camp completely broke apart.

If a ship sank, I could send a C-130 up there that would arrive in several hours, but we can't do much with a C-130. We can drop a life raft. You know the big H-60 helicopters, which are the ones that can hoist people to rescue them? They would take two days to get up there. That's not going to be a very timely rescue.
Q

The United States only has three icebreakers, and two of them are out of service at the moment. Is that a concern?

A
The quick status is that we have the Healy, the Polar Sea and the Polar Star. The Healy is as big as the other two, but it's a medium icebreaker. It can break about three meters of ice, and it's laid out purely for science with the National Science Foundation. It's a good ship; it does good work up there. The other two are real, honest-to-goodness polar icebreakers. They can break 20, 25 feet of ice—multiyear ice. A few years back, the National Science Foundation was given the maintenance and operations budget for the two polar icebreakers to do with as they saw fit. And of course, their mission statement is to get the most science done. So they laid up thePolar Star and decided to keep the other one just for emergency operations, and they decided to lease foreign icebreakers—Russian, Canadian and so on—and put as many scientists as they could on those. That's great for getting a lot of science done, but it doesn't do a lot for enhancing and maintaining sovereignty of the United States. We need to be able to put U.S. scientists aboard U.S. icebreakers operating in the U.S. Arctic.

SIDEBAR - Could the USCG Kodiak 1000nm south of the Arctic be in time to perform a successful Arctic Rescue?  Doubtful - rescue success is critically measured in response time - you decide.  In the alternative - you alone must be better self-prepared and trained - count on yourself until help arrives - it could be hours of a will to survive... cold Arctic waters will take its toll... the USCG must establish an Arctic Jayhawk helicopter crew based at Nome during summer open navigation season - its not IF - its WHEN - its what the Coast Guard does - ALWAYS READY - 
Semper Paratus



VIDEO LINK: 


A Coast Guard 60 Jayhawk helicopter pulled four shipwrecked fishermen from the 43 degree waters of Alaska’s Bering Sea late on Wednesday afternoon. The men were found in a life raft about 100 miles west of Adak, on the far end of the remote Aluetian Island chain. 


Their boat, the 93-foot Katmai, begun taking on water in the stern compartments late Tuesday night, as the ship was on its way back to the port of Dutch Harbor after fishing for cod. At 1:08 a.m. on Wednesday, the Coast Guard picked up a signal from the ship’s Emergency Position-Indicating Radio Beacon, or EPIRB. There were 11 people on board. As of Friday afternoon, five bodies had been recovered, one by the Coast Guard and four by Good Samaritan fishing vessels.

To pull the survivors from the icy swells, the four-man 60 crew lowered their “rescue swimmer” into the water in the helo’s rectangular rescue basket. The metal basket is attached by a cable to a hoist on the outside of the helicopter [see video]. The swimmer, who wears a dry suit, mask, snorkel, and fins, swam to the life raft, then pulled each survivor away from the raft to help him into the basket. At the swimmer’s signal, the helo’s flight mechanic operated the hoist to pull each survivor up in the basket, all the while feeding “conning” commands to the pilots, who hover the 65-foot machine approximately 60 feet above the waves.

On Friday, the search continued for the remaining two crew members, with a Coast Guard helicopter, a C-130 airplane, and a 213-foot Coast Guard cutter all completing computerized search patterns. After three days in the frigid seas, however, the odds of finding more survivors seemed minuscule.

The incident is reminiscent of the loss of the 187-foot fishing vessel Alaska Ranger, which sank in March with 47 people on board (see Inside the Coast Guard's Most Extreme Rescue). Like the Katmai, the Ranger began taking on water in a stern compartment in the early morning hours and sunk shortly thereafter. Twenty fishermen from the Alaska Ranger were successfully airlifted by Coast Guard, while twenty-two were rescued by Good Samaritan vessels. Five members of the crew perished in the Bering Sea.







No comments:

Post a Comment