Save The Arctic

Last week, global oil and gas company, Shell, attempted to send one of the world’s oldest drillships - the Noble Discoverer - to commence oil drilling operations in the Arctic, one of Earth’s most pristine and fragile environments. Instead of seeing the disappearing ice caps as a dire warning of climate change, oil companies see this as an opportunity - previously inaccessible oil reserves are now easier to get to. As our fossil fuels are rapidly depleting, companies that rely heavily on them - such as Shell - are on the verge of collapse, and will probably do anything to drag out their inevitable demise until the bitter, oily end.

Shell’s actions are likely to signal the start of an oil rush in the Arctic, as every oil tycoon on the planet is going to be clamouring to get their hands on what little remains. But in an environment as fragile and also as treacherous as the Arctic, drilling for oil poses a significant environmental risk. Shell insists that in the case of an oil spill, they will be able to recover 90% of the spill; a stupidly optimistic figure to say the least! The Deepwater Horizon incident in the Gulf of Mexico a few years back was only able to recover 17%, and that’s in conditions far less dangerous and complex than an Arctic oil spill would face.

For a start, the Arctic is one of the harshest climates on the planet, and an oil spill would be near on impossible to clean up on the ice. Furthermore, it would be far more difficult to drill relief wells in the event of a spill as the Arctic winter would cut suitable drilling conditions dramatically - an oil spill could rage unhindered beneath the ice for two years, causing immeasurable damage to the local ecology, let alone the knock on effect this would have on the global environment. Additionally, Shell has named only nine ships in their oil response plan; 6,000 ships were used to skim oil in the Deepwater Horizon incident. So 6,000 ships only recovered 17% of the oil spilt, but Shell estimates that 9 ships will be able to recover 90% in the event of an oil spill in conditions that will render clean-up operations near-on impossible. Call me insane, but I don’t share their confidence in their recovery plan,and would go so far as to say these are made up figures to justify the risks!

That’s why, just before the Noble Discoverer set sail for Alaska on the 24th February, a band of seven Greenpeace protesters - including Xena the Warrior Princess (aka actress Lucy Lawless) - boarded the ship and occupied the drill tower to stage a peaceful protest. Promoting their activism via Twitter and Greenpeace’s blog, the team were able to gather over 133,000 signatures in protest against Shell in under four days - after which the seven of them were arrested and charged with burglary (despite not actually stealing anything - aside from Shell’s pride, of course!). Their admirable stand to protect the environment in the face of certain legal action has continued to inspire environmental activists the world over, with now 200,000 signatures and counting.
You can read their daily blogs from over the four days on the drill tower here;
Day 1, Day 2, Day 3, Day 4 and the final piece.
You can also join the campaign to help save the Arctic by visiting www.greenpeace.org/savethearctic

But the fight to save the Arctic is far from over...


Since then, Shell have launched a series of preemptive law suits against over a dozen environmental organisations that are likely to challenge their drilling operation, as well as a restraining order against Greenpeace. It’s almost as if Shell know they’re in the wrong...!

But let’s presume for a second that Shell’s prospective oil recovery estimate is accurate (it isn’t), that the chances of an oil spill are incredibly unlikely (they’re not), and that climate change isn’t a very real threat (it is); how long can the human race sustain itself on fossil fuels? Planet Earth is a small and finite world, with only a limited amount of resources available. It may not be today, and it probably won’t be tomorrow, but it can’t be denied - in the very near future, we will have run out of fossil fuels. And with major financial support still backing the oil industry, whilst greener energy research receives very little funding comparatively, what will happen when those fuels have been depleted?

The problem here lies in the perpetual growth of the economy, and the constant demand of an ever increasing populace - companies such as Shell are fixated on the short term profit rather than the long term effects. In the short term; oil oil oil, money money money, teeheehee. In the long term; ice caps melt, sea levels rise, and the very resource that they once used for fortune has now run out, causing their profits to plummet and the eventual liquidation of the company. What money they have left after their collapse will be of little solace when they're sat on their rooftops trying to escape the flooding!

This is the other thing about Shell’s intentions. The Arctic could yield the equivalent of up to 90 billion barrels of oil - sure sounds like a lot, doesn’t it? In fact, it’s not, and this would only satisfy the world’s oil demand for three years. They are willing to send rusting, derelict old vessels to drill for oil in a highly treacherous climate, with inadequate oil spill response plans for a mere three years worth of oil, despite the incredibly high chance of causing irreparable damage to the Arctic ecosystem. Doesn’t really sound worth the risk to me; but what do I know, I just care about the planet, I’m not some ludicrously wealthy oil tycoon!

But even if there weren’t any environmental risks - which obviously there are huge risks here - isn’t it about time we started to rely more on renewable energy sources than continuing to burn up these destructive fuels? The research has been done, and we have an array of viable alternatives to fossil fuels, but there isn’t enough financial support behind these alternatives to make them mainstream. Solar panels are exceedingly expensive, and unless you have a good £20,000 to spare you probably won’t be relying on energy from the giant ball of fusion power at the heart of the solar system - but why are these solar panels so expensive? They derive their energy from solar rays that are shining on the planet anyway, and do not drain anything from the sun whatsoever. Oil, on the other hand, is not easily accessible, is in ever decreasing supply and pollutes the atmosphere. Far more effort goes into acquiring oil than it does to absorb energy from solar rays, or from wind farms! Both alternatives rely on something that can never be depleted, produce incredibly low carbon emissions, and have very little impact on the environment, and yet oil is still our main provider of energy despite it’s inevitable cost to both the companies and the planet.

But why? The only explanation I can come to is profit. If we’re dependent on a costly and limited resource, they can keep on charging us until the whole things blows up in their financially fixated faces. If we all lived on energy drawn from the sun or the wind, it would be a lot more difficult to charge us for it.

Maybe if companies such as Shell - and on a larger scale, our governments - could take their eyes off of the short term profits of the ever dwindling oil market, we could all move towards more environmentally friendly and renewable energy sources. Not only will this benefit humanity in the long run, but it will also help protect this world’s fragile ecology.

The Arctic remains one of Earth’s last pristine environments, and we need to draw the line to protect it and prevent companies like Shell from ruining it just to line their pockets.

Demand Shell stop their plans to put the fragile Arctic and its biodiversity at risk. Visit www.greenpeace.org/savethearctic.