Shell's True Face by Greenpeace Nordic

Shell’s True Face Why Shell should not have access to the Arctic

SHELLâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;S TRUE FACE

THE ARCTIC ICE IS MELTING The sea ice coverage is diminishing ever more for each passing summer since 1979. The illustration shows the 2012 sea ice minimum. The area covered by sea ice was only half the size of the historical line (the yellow line) that is the average sea ice in the period 1979 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; 2000. At the same time, it has become significantly thinner. This means that 75 per cent of the total volume of the summer sea ice has already disappeared.

SHELL’S TRUE FACE

THE HOME OF POLAR BEARS MELTS AWAY Global warming affects the Arctic to a much greater extent than other regions, partly because the sun’s rays strike this area at a sharper angle during the summer than is the case elsewhere on the planet. A few years ago, most researchers anticipated that we would not experience ice-free summers in the Arctic until the end of this century. However, the ice has melted faster than predicted, and today, many researchers estimate that Arctic summers will be free of ice within one to two decades.1 When temperatures rise, and the Arctic ice melts, this is damaging both to animals and the nearly four million people who live in the region. Take the polar bear, for example, which lives and hunts on the Arctic

ice floes. With fewer ice floes, polar bears are forced to move inland, where there are fewer hunting opportunities. This is particularly harmful to the polar bear cubs, which are at risk of dying from hunger. Walrus, narwhales, mountain hares, Arctic foxes and gyrfalcons are some of the other species unique to the Arctic environment that are feeling the pressure of climate changes. Climate changes also affect the lives of those people who have called the Arctic their home for thousands of years. In many cases, hunting and fishing is made more difficult, and traditional trades are under threat. In Alaska, many communities are disappearing entirely. However, it is not only life in the Arctic that pays

the price for the melting ice. The entire world will pay an enormous price. The ecosystem of the oceans is already under pressure, as melting ice leads to changes to ocean currents and lack of food for fish and animals in the ocean. Global sea levels will also rise. Researchers forecast an increase of 2.3 metres for every Celsius degree temperatures rise.2 At the same time, the retreat of the ice is enhancing the effect of global warming. Arctic ice essentially acts as a cooler for the entire world as the ice reflects the sun’s rays out of the atmosphere. Instead heat will be absorbed by the sea as the ice melts. And this way, the development in the Arctic will accelerate climate changes.

A climate bomb under the Arctic In an article in the esteemed journal “Nature” researchers concluded that warming of the Arctic may result in an explosive growth in the discharge of greenhouse gases. This can happen when the permafrost in the eastern part of Siberia melts, allowing the enormous layers of methane - a greenhouse gas far more powerful than CO2 - to be released into the atmosphere. This development could, according to researchers, happen very quickly, and would be toxic to the environment. Researchers estimate that the costs of this climate bomb in the form of flooding, extreme weather phenomena, effects on health and agriculture may reach $60 trillion3 globally.

SHELL’S TRUE FACE

”The development in the Arctic is moving at a very rapid pace. Every year the boundaries between climate zones are shifted some two kilometres to the north as a result of global warming, and this has a colossal impact on biodiversity. The entire climate zone known as the High Arctic is in danger of disappearing forever.” 4

Hans Meltofte, head of research on the most comprehensive report on the Arctic environment: “Arctic Biodiversity Assessment.”5

SHELL’S TRUE FACE

BIG Oil moving into the Arctic The lurking environmental catastrophe in the Arctic should be a warning sign to the world on the consequences of climate changes. Instead, the oil industry – led by Shell - chooses to see the melting ice as a business opportunity, an opportunity to extract even more of the very oil that has caused global warming to begin with. Shell, also a leader in other types of high-risk oil exploitation, has so far invested $5 billion US dollar in its Arctic program and is looking for oil in most of the cold northern territories - including Greenland.

In 2012, Shell ran into major troubles on its largest Arctic investment to date. Shell aimed to carry out several exploratory drills off the coast of Alaska, but it quickly became clear that there was no control over safety. Shell repeatedly lost control of its Kulluk drilling platform and an engine caught fire due to a flock of birds. Also its equipment had not even been approved for Arctic conditions. Shell did not complete a single drilling, as American authorities withdrew the company’s approvals, and an investigation into the many incidents and accidents is now under way. Shell has therefore decided to

put its efforts into the Russian Arctic, where regulations are not as strict and public awareness much less.

GrEENLAND In 2010, Shell purchased licenses to search for oil along the west coast of Greenland.6 Shell plans to carry out seismic analyses in late summer 2013, and after receiving the permit, the company expanded the application to include a protected ocean area, which is a feeding and breeding area for narwhals. This decision triggered anxiety among several researchers, who strongly warn against the consequences for whale stocks.

SHELL’S TRUE FACE

RuSSIA Shell has signed a contract with the Russian oil company, Gazprom.7 The two companies will together explore opportunities to drill for oil in the Chukchi Sea, the East Siberian Sea and the Pechora Sea. Gazprom has been responsible for a large number of oil spills and accidents in recent years. In 2011, one of the company’s oil platforms sank off the Siberian coast, claiming 53 lives. The accident was not mentioned in the company’s annual report.8

Alaska In 2012, Shell carried out test drills off the coast of Alaska. Shell lost control of its oil rigs on numerous occasions during this period, and around Christmas time, when one of the rigs was being transported along the North American coast, it ended up running aground during stormy weather. The accident clearly showed that the company, despite its enormous resources, is not capable of carrying out oil exploration in a responsible manner in such a demanding environment.9 Ken Salazar, then Secretary of the Interior to the United States, expressed this very clearly: “Shell screwed up,” he said, and emphasized that the company’s future authorisation to explore for oil in Alaska will be conditional of, among other things, impartial investigation on whether the company’s systems “are sufficiently bespoke for Arctic conditions.”10 The oil rig is now in Asia for repair, but Shell expects to resume the hunt for oil in Alaska as early as next year. If it is allowed to do so.

SHELL’S TRUE FACE

”I simply cannot understand why the companies have been granted permits because the technology to drill in ice does not exist, so the risk of an accident occurring is enormous and much greater than other places where we drill - not least because of the icebergs.” 11

— Sigurd Solem, Former manager of drilling operations for MAErsk

”Oil companies should not be drilling in Greenland, it is simply too dangerous and an oil slip would result in a catastrophe.” 12

— Christophe de Magerie, CEO of the world’s 6th largest oil company, Total of France

SHELL’S TRUE FACE

Arctic oil is an environmental gamble

There are many reasons why it is a bad idea to drill for oil in the Arctic. The risk of accidents happening is greater because of the extreme weather, ice and icebergs. And when an accident occur, it is almost impossible to clean up. Oil drilling in the Arctic is so risky that the British government, according to a leaked document, concludes that it is ”near impossible to make good damage caused” by a major spill.13 It is therefore not reassuring that Shell’s vice director in Alaska has said that, in his estimation, there will be oil spills in conjunction with the drillings.14

microorganisms in the water. At the same time, the area is remote, making it difficult to reach for emergency teams and to navigate in. Oil can become embedded in the ice and move in entirely different patterns from what we know from oil spills in warmer regions. The technology to remove oil from icy waters is not in place either, and a small oil spill in Norwegian waters in 2010 caused major difficulties for the clean-up crew because they were constrained to the use of low-tech tools such as buckets, shovels and brushes.

leased into Alaska’s coastal waters, taking the lives of between 100,000 and 250,000 seabirds, 2,000 sea otters and 300 seals.15 The oil spill was not one of the largest in quantitative terms, but is nonetheless considered one of the worst oil catastrophes in history. This is because of the vulnerable Arctic environment, which is particularly defenceless against oil spills. Today, 24 years later, there are still clear traces of the disaster in the area, and wildlife has not recovered to pre-spill levels.

In 1989, the Exxon Valdez tanker ran aground in the Arctic. Around 42 million litres of crude oil were re-

Oil will not, as in warmer regions, vaporise and be broken down by

”Baffin Bay and northwest Greenland and other locations with winter sea ice are locations where we just shouldn’t drill. There is simply no point in going to these locations because there is no technology to extract the oil, even if it is found there.” 16

— Kai Sørensen, former director of exploration at Statoil and retired deputy director for

SHELL’S TRUE FACE

Draw a line in the ice You can help draw a line. Together we can still stop Shell and other oil companies from drilling for oil in the Arctic. Close to 4 million people have joined a global movement telling the oil industry; Arctic is off limits. We’re working for a ban on offshore oil drilling in the Arctic and to make the area surrounding the North Pole, which is currently not owned by any country, a global sanctuary. Join us at savethearctic.org

SHELL’S TRUE FACE

sources 1) Nat Abraham, John (12. August 2013): “Global warming, arctic sea loss, and armchair scientists”. Link: hional Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (12.4.2013): “Arctic nearly free summer ice during first half of 21st century”. Link: http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2013//20130412_ arcticseaice.html 2) Potsdam institute for global climate research (15.7.2013). Link: http://www.pik-potsdam.de/news/press-releases/jedes-grad-erderwaermungkoennte-den-meeresspiegel-auf-lange-sicht-um-mehr-als-2-meter-erhoehen 3) Whiteman, Gary et al. (25.7.2013): Climate Change: Vast costs of Arctic change. Nature, 499, p. 401-403. Link: http://www.nature.com/nature/ journal/v499/n7459/full/499401a.html. 4) Politiken (3.8.2013): “Arktisk Råd kritiseres for at lade en hel klimazone dø”. Link: http://politiken.dk/klima/ECE2037944/arktisk-raad-kritiseresfor-at-lade-en-hel-klimazone-doe/ 5) Arctic Council (2013): “Arctic Biodiversity Assesment”. Link: http://www.arctic-council.org/index.php/en/environment-and-people/biodiversity/ arctic-biodiversity-assessment-aba 6) Shell (2011): “Shell in the arctic”. Link: http://s04.static-shell.com/content/dam/shell/static/future-energy/downloads/arctic/shell-in-the-arctic.pdf 7) Gazprom. Link: http://www.gazprom.com/press/news/2013/april/article159865/ 8) Gazprom (2012): “Gazprom Sustainability report 2010-2011”. Link: http://www.gazprom.com/f/posts/51/402390/sustainability-report-2011-en. pdf 9) U. S. Department of the Interior (8.3.2013): “Review of Shell’s 2012 Alaska oil and gas exploration program”. Link: http://www.doi.gov/news/ pressreleases/upload/Shell-report-3-8-13-Final.pdf. 10) LA Times (12.4.2013): “Salazar on Arctic drilling: “Shell screwed up in 2012”. Link: http://articles.latimes.com/2013/mar/14/nation/la-na-shellarctic-interior-report-20130314 11) MetroXpress (25.6.2013): Olieekspert: stop de forrykte olieboringer. Link: http://www.e-pages.dk/metroxpressdk/2686/3 12) Financial Times (25.9.2012): Total warns against oil drilling in the Arctic. Link: http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/350be724-070a-11e2-92ef00144feabdc0.html#axzz2br9HWLWS 13) UK Government emails (2011). Link: http://www.greenpeace.org/international/Global/international/publications/climate/2011/arctic%20doc2. pdf. 14) Telegraph (29.11.2012): “Shell Alaska Boss: there will be spills”. Link: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/energy/oilandgas/9712687/Shell-Alaska-boss-There-will-be-spills.html 15) Charles H Peterson et. Al (2003) Long-Term Ecosystem Response to the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill. Science 16) AG (5.6.2013) ”Undgå olieboringer i Baffinbugten”

Photo ÂŠ Nick Cobbing / Greenpeace