E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSThere were no immediate signs of a fuel spill from a storm-battered drilling rig that ran aground in Alaska on Monday, but environmentalists have seized on the accident as proof Arctic Ocean oil operations are too risky.
A nighttime Coast Guard helicopter flyover detected no sheen on the water off along the rocky coast of uninhabited Sitkalidak Island, just off the southeastern shore of Kodiak Island, said a spokeswoman for Shell, which owns the 28,000-ton Kulluk.
More flights during the day on Tuesday are needed to determine if the Kulluk spilled any of its 150,000 gallons of diesel fuel or caused other environmental problems.
The mishap late Monday, the culmination a high-seas drama that started unfolding last week, alarmed critics of Shell’s offshore drilling program in Alaska.
“Oil companies keep saying they can conquer the Arctic, but the Arctic keeps disagreeing with the oil companies,” Rep. Ed Markey, D-Mass., a member of the Natural Resources Committee, said in a statement.
In Arctic battle, Shell starts preliminary drilling
Lois Epstein, Arctic program director for The Wilderness Society, told Reuters that either the federal government or Shell should shut down the $4.5 billion drilling program “given the unacceptably high risks it poses to both humans and the environment.”
Shell officials said they were confident a spill would be avoided.
“The unique design of the Kulluk means the diesel fuel tanks are isolated in the center of the vessel and encased in very heavy steel,” Susan Childs, the oil giant’s on-scene coordinator, told The Associated Press.
“When the weather subsides and it is safe to do so, we will dispatch crews to the location and begin a complete assessment.”
Complete US coverage on NBCNews.com
The Kulluk, built in 1983 and given a $292 million upgrade for its Arctic mission, was being towed to Seattle for the off-season when the crisis began.
Shell’s towing ship, the Aiviq, lost its connection to the rig because of a busted shackle and then suffered engine failure. A Coast Guard cutter that raced to the rescue wound up with a broken propeller.
With extreme weather moving in, the Coast Guard evacuated all 18 of the Kulluk’s crew members on Saturday.
On Monday, the repaired Aiviq reconnected with the Kulluk and was towing it north when disaster struck again: the line broke, leaving only a tug, the Alert, attached.
“Once the Aiviq lost its tow, we knew the Alert could not manage the Kulluk on its own, as far as towing,” Coast Guard Commander Shane Montoya said at a Monday night news conference.
Instead, the tug guided the Kulluk toward a low-impact spot and then disconnected with 30 minutes to spare before the inevitable grounding, to protect its own crew of nine.
With winds gusting to 70 mph and the seas cresting at 35 feet, the Kulluk then ran around about 9 p.m. Alaska time.
“We are now entering into the salvage and possible spill-response phase of this event,” Montoya said at a news conference a few hours later.
More content from NBCNews.com:
- New laws target sex offenders with Santa suits, and more
- Adam Lanza's body claimed by father for burial
- YOLO, fiscal cliff: 12 words that must be banned
- Video: Two teens, 12-year-old charged in fatal carjacking
- Officers' 'gut feeling' tracks down missing LA toddler
Follow US news from NBCNews.com on Twitter and Facebook
Leave a Comment:
Oh, great - here we go again.
Another excuse to raise gas prices again.
Guess Shell doesn't check the weather forecast before moving drilling ships. We will pay the price and shell till declare it a total loss on their taxes.
Cathy V.
My words exactly.
Big Oil is unable to "calm the seas", but there are many who think they are able to "walk on water".
Want to read some interesting statistics about Shell and other big oil company taxation vs. your own??? Just search "Shell oil company taxation" in google or another search engine.
..AND then factor in the fact that these are the same companies still receive tax breaks....
.....then that should heat up this board a bit I will wager!!
Sigh. Just wait. they won't learn from this and next time it won't be just the drilling ship without oil flowing. There is no way they should be allowed to drill there. Sigh.
Parts fail, things break. When it happens in the high arctic, very bad things can happen.
There is no safe way to extract oil from arctic waters.
Drill in Alaska!!
Oh the tree huggers say no. Le sigh.
OBX1234
Or you can look here to see how much the top corporations pay as well as their effective tax rate- http://www.forbes.com/2010/04/01/ge-exxon-walmart-business-washington-corporate-taxes_slide.html
The idea that oil companies get tax "breaks" is a joke. While some oil companies do take advantage of various loopholes that may allow them one time savings, on a year to year basis they pay a MUCH higher rate than anyone else. The average tax rate for oil companies averages between 44-51%. The National corporate tax rate is 35%. So please do explain how paying 9-16% ABOVE the tax rate is considered a "tax break"????? The reality is they jack up the rates far above what anyone else pays and then the politicians cut a little off the top so the republicans can say they are for cheaper energy and so the democrats can rile up their base. The idea that big oil gets "tax breaks" is a myth meant to con the sheeple in both parties.
"...alarmed environmentalists and many Alaska Natives..."
Which ones? The ones who needed an icebreakered oil delivery last winter?
The sad part, is that if the ship wasn't owned by an oil company, it would probably be a non-story. Alaskan waters, particularly from Kodiak west are extremely treacherous, particularly this time of year. Ships run aground out there all the time.
@ram-762581
And who exactly is going to stop them? And even if we did pass laws to prevent US companies form doing it who exactly is going to stop other countries from drilling in such environments?? I'm sure if we politely asked the Russians to stop drilling in the arctic they would gladly oblige.
Bill-numbers, that's why it is not very smart to put drilling rigs there.
It would be even less of a story if NBC called it what it is .... a barge. Ships are self propelled.
Denver Bill 2- spot on. I had the opportunity to eyeball the Kulluk up close and personal last year as part of a routine worksite safety compliance inspection, and the idea of sending men out on an unpowered barge that big, with no means of getting out of harm's way, strikes me as being fairly insane.
Ed287- "There is no safe way to extract oil from arctic waters." There are risks associated with drilling anywhere, but in the Arctic those hazards are multiplied many times over. Some posters on this thread have been to Alaskan waters (I never have), and can state from personal knowledge that there's a world of difference between drilling off the Aleutians or Norton Sound versus drilling fifty miles off Baton Rouge, LA.
Lastly- how much is all of this going to cost the taxpayers?
The cost is going to be a tremendous loss to all the surounding area environment!
Imagine an oil spill under the Ice pack areas? Get them the hell Out of there!
Sierra,
This is off of Kodiak which is located way south off the canadian coast line. Please check a map before you cry out an alarmist statement as you just did. This are is not Ice Packed as you described
But the part that I don't get in this story is "it broke away from one of it's tow lines". How many tow lines and why couldn't the other tow boats save it?
Shell get out the checkbook this will cost you.
Just let's hope that there will be no oil spill this time.
Vince, didn't read the article did you It was a drill ship not a tanker and maybe they couldn't help it because of oh maybe THE 35' SEAS AND 60 MPH WINDS
It'll cost them? just wait til you go to the pump and you'll see who's paying for it.
Yes, Russ. The storms there pack those kind of winds and the seas get rough. This time maybe no oil...next time may be different.
Russ,
155,000 gallons of fuel oil will make a hell of a mess that can't be cleaned up this winter.
They should have headed south long ago, but Shell pushed the limits of arctic weather too far.
Pushing the envelope, trying to stay on schedule. Another fast tracker saying to management we can do it.
@ Russ.. Still not enough info. Not anchor lines but TOW lines. What did it break away from if it had broke away from one of it's tow lines?
That ship still had it engines and must to be towed at the same time.
If this ship was being towed I am wondering of the condition of ship. Is it sea worthy. I hope the US Coast Guard gives this vessel an inspection with a fine tooth comb.
I just read another story about this grounding. It was better written. Never mine.
Vince, Dav1, Russ- I've been aboard the Kulluk. Have you ever seen a Navy destroyer (DDG)? Picture about four of those and you have an idea of the size of this thing. No engines aboard- position thrusters, probably (I wasn't there to look at the engineering plant, regrettably), but Russ pointed out that the weather there isn't something to take the kids fishing in. Safety equipment probably meets Coast Guard requirements, but if it were my employees going out on something like that- scratch that. If I was responsible, that floating bucket o' bolts isn't going anywhere, except maybe the Sea of Cortez.
get a bigger rope next time
Another story hyped by NBC to sensationalize the news. So a ship ran aground and it has fuel in it. Does it really matter that it is owned by a oil company and it has hardware to drill oil wells.
A large container ship coming from china has just as much fuel and who knows what dangerous to the environment cargo in the containers. Could even be oil drilling equipment in the containers.
NBC just stirring up trouble again rather than just reporting the news.
@ John98241 - The essence of journalism is the who, what, where, when, how, why of an event. If NBC isn't supposed to tell us who owns the ship and what is inside it, what are they supposed to tell us?
Furthermore, these facts are very important. If you are an investor, the fact that Shell has run into some type of issue with respect to developing oil and gas reserves in the Arctic might cause you to alter your valuation of Shell stock. On the other hand, if you are an environmentalist, the fact that Shell can't keep its bazillion-dollar equipment off the rocks might provide you with further arguments regarding the wisdom of drilling for oil and gas in the Arctic.
It takes a very special kind of idiot to voluntarily keep coming back to a site you hate so much when all you have to do is... are you ready for this?... not come here anymore! Write it down. Learn it. Live it.
John would like some news sanitized for his reading pleasure.
Maybe john-98241 would like to tell us HOW this should have been reported.
Actually it does matter and yes, we did want to know about this. If you don't want to, john, please just leave. How about you just not come read any more if you hate it here so much? How is saying a drilling ship ran aground in an environmentally fragile area not reasonable news unless you have an agenda that is unrelated to the story or work for the company involved?
Yes, it matters greatly that it belongs to them and what is on board. You don't think it's important who cares? Don't read the story. I guess you think, "some ship ran aground in an unnamed location but none of the details matter so we don't tell you even though we have the information" would be better journalism? Geez.
RI Mom and others - John doesn't want the news sanitized. Ships run aground every single day on this planet. Every single day. How often does that make the news? Only when an oil company happens to own one. That, my friends, is selective journalism. There is no more danger of fuel spillage from this boat than there is from any other grounded vessel. There is nothing about this story that makes it anymore newsworthy than any other grounding. But suddenly this interest to write articles on a boat owned by an oil company...you can't deny the publishing of this story seems a little agenda-driven...
Container ships don't sail into shallow waters in the high arctic, where the fuel oil cannot be cleaned up. Container ships are also under their own power and can handle seas much rougher than any towing operation can.
It is foolish to have remained where they were instead of heading south a month ago.
@-god
Right because "smart people" know the best way to go through life is to just ignore everything you don't like and hope it all turns out for the best. Good plan "genius".
4.5
I disagree.
Shell IS NEWSWORTHY....especially to the folks who live in their drilling areas.
Let me remind you:
http://www.adn.com/2012/07/14/2542598/shell-drill-ship-drifts-near-shore.html
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/01/01/drilling-ship-runs-aground-off-alaska/1802071/
Tax money to clean up after Shell
Tim -
You are close to being right.
"The list of shipwrecks in 2012 includes all ships sunk, foundered, grounded, or otherwise lost during 2012." (Google it). There were 61 ships listed.
The media tends to report oil company shipping and crusie ships.
Anyone recall reading about the 61 ships?
Agreed. The facts are that a barge ran aground. The fuel on board is used to run the drilling rig, not the vessel.
This vessel was more of a barge than a ship in-that whatever propeller drives it has are for positioning rather than propulsion. It carried diesel, considered a light oil, and is far less harmful than the bulk of the fuel in a Container Ship,since the Container Ship burns straight crude oil once it crosses into international waters.
For those that form their opinions prior to informing themselves (can you say liberals?) crude oil is far more difficult to clean up than light oil.
i think the point is that pretty much everyone who was concerned that drilling in the artic was a bad idea just got a lil' justification.
well well.... English is NOT my mother tongue, but when I read : "The grounding of the Kulluk, a conical, Arctic-class drill ship weighing nearly 28,000 gross tons, is a blow to Shell's $4.5 billion offshore program in Alaska." ... I wonder... a... conical ship ???... may be the people of Reuters meant "an ICONIC, Arctic-class drill ship..."... please, tell me !!! ???
:-)
They meant "conical". The Kulluk is a round drilling platform with a central drilling tower. The hull of the ship is bowl shaped.
They must've meant comical, who ever heard of a round ship?
Vessels designed to function in the ice, do not have hull shapes designed for open water. Ice breaker hulls use the weight of the fluids inside the hull pumped back and forth to break the ice. The idea basically is the hull slides up on the ice, fluid is pumped forward, and the weight crushes the ice underneath. A rounded hull design also allows for a "more" stable work platform. Icing destabilizes vessels and they may capsize as a result. A rounded hull design counters this instability. A drilling rig is hardly a racing yacht.
Steve, yes of course you and Stupified are right, all one has to do is watch the video to see it's a mobile drilling platform, and neither iconic nor comical.
It's New Year's Day... I'm guessing the captain's had a few, just as with Exxon Valdez?
Perhaps if you would actually read the article you wouldn't have to "guess".
It's not a ship in that sense of the word, it's more like a giant round drilling platform. I don't think that they have any type of engine systems.
If your worried about a oil spill...quit driving, using your computer, using electricity. Face it your are the problem, demanding gas at the pumps for the lowest price so companies have to go on the cheap to get the resource you refuse to live without.
We're all very impressed with you, willing to pay the highest prices. That will absolutely guarantee 100% security, because we all know the oil companies will spend every extra penny on safety.
You're an idiot, because that's not how the works works, but we still admire your zeal.
I don't know how the "works works" but the price of gasoline is like any other commodity. The market drives the price. If gas won't sell at $4.00/gallon the price will come down to a point at which it will sell.
You don't like having to spend $100 to fill the tank on your full-size pickup/Tahoe/Suburban/Durango/Jeep/Explorer, etc., etc., etc.? TRADE IT IN! Get a Prius or something. Until then, shut up, dumbass.
Oh, by the way. A single ship sinking, owned by a single oil company, is NOT going to affect gas prices. You know what does? You and your desire for it (gas).
Yes, 24, I do worry about a spill and it isn't any of your business to tell me if I am allowed to do that or not. I don't have a problem paying more for gas...makes sense to me...and I drive a small, gas efficient car only when necessary. Not perfect, but best I can do. But anyone who says not to worry about an oil spill must live in some weird bubble or just not care. They happen on top of all the other awful things that happen.
And a single ship with oil in it that sinks DOES affect the place it sinks, all the creatures there, and much more. I personally am not talking about prices.
ram-762581
So did you miss the part of the article that said there was no known spill or did you just skip reading it altogether so you could jump down to the comment section without hesitation?
The oil companies don't need a 100 million in profits
a year either..You would think there would be a couple backup
tug boats ready with storms and 35 foot waves..Just sayin
Fritz Marchant
And who gets to decide how much money YOU "need" to make a year??
And how exactly do you get these "backups" into place during storms and 35 foot high waves? ...Just sayin'
The companies we work for determine what we make.
Given the conditions, having backup at least present may have made a difference. In such situations, redundancy makes sense.
Hey Fritz -
I've heard that rant before about the oil companies and their profits. You do recognize that they are a publicly traded company, right?
Their stock is owned by 401k holders and union pension funds (NEA, IWA, UAW, etc.) in addition to the "evil 1% ers."
I am overwhelmed by the incompetence Shell has demonstrated thus far. This is the second time they've had a ship run aground up there. They have no realistic stated or approved plan for a spill. If they finally start production the results will, without a doubt, be breathtaking. This is the scariest bunch of screw-ups since BP.
Perhaps Shell should hire you as a consultant, old wolf. What ARE they thinking?
Do you work for them, jet?
Problem is that lobo is right that they are unprepared for spills and you can be nasty all you want, but it won't change facts.
It's all about profits,..cutting on safety..whether underground
or on the high seas..what can they get away with..
if there's a problem ...throw money at it..
With the publicity ..they'll prevail..long term
I don't think jumping on an individual oil company every time there is an issue solves anything. I find it unsettling that offshore drilling is allowed at all. To make matters worse, we force these companies to be so far off shore, that human hands cannot even fix an unforeseen (hah) problem like BP dealt with recently.
To your point, this is the second time in the same place. What will it look like next time?
Good point. It isn't one company...it's the whole process offshore that is the problem.
That's where the oil is..off shore
Sure there's oil on land..far more oil off shore
Far more oceans than land..
My question is where are the Einsteins of Today?
75 years ago cars weighing 2Tons were proven to go 150 miles per gallon
those brains were murdered & the ideas were bought & hidden
by those that profit from fuel consumption
To me it shows how tough it is to work in those conditions. There really must not be much new oil to find if they are willing to drill for oil in such hostile places and the associated high costs.
There is a difference between "oil to find" and "oil to retrieve." There is cost involved, and it is not equally distributed.
If anyone thinks the production from these new wells will go to the U.S. for the purpose of lowering our dependence on foreign oil you're barking up the wrong tree. It will be sold on the open market to the highest bidder, which is spelled C H I N A, just as the Canadian tar sands oil piped to Texas will be turned into other products to be exported to China.
The name of the game is maximum profits; the energy needs of our own country are of no importance to the big energy companies.
Meanwhile, China subsidizes its factories that produce alternative means of energy production, such as solar cells and windmills, for the purpose of undercutting the U.S. and other nations on the world market. The situation is easy to understand if you dismiss the lies, disinformation and misinformation coming from our politicians, energy company executives and their ignorant, shortsighted supporters.
How do we go about changing that attitude?
Well said, Sichuan.
I think Shell is a Dutch company.. maybe they can get a little boy to put his finger in the hull if it starts to leak.
Sichuan
ALL oil is sold on the open market regardless of its source. More oil on the global market means lower prices for everyone.
Setting aside oil for just us won't save us a single dime A- it removes oil from the market, reducing supply and raising the cost of the 40% of the oil we consume but don't produce, B- it pisses off every other country by raising their cost with the obvious result being those countries sticking it to us in other ways. For example just exactly what do you think would happen if every other country decided not to share their oil with us if we aren't going to share ours with them. Do you actually think we'd be paying less at the pump rather than double what we pay now?
I'd suggest you get a clue how global markets work before you make a fool of yourself bitching about things that you obviously don't understand.
Nice try slick. The oil that is to be drilled in the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas will be piped to the Trans-Alaskan oil pipeline. From there it will go to Valdez to be shipped to Refineries on the West Coast like has been going on for the last 35+years. If you don't know, learn.
Damn, onermailliw, you shouldn't mess up the rants by bringing facts into the discussion!
And this is why we cant drill our way to energy independence without trashing everything around us....
This is how many oil spills have occurred since the Deepwater Horizon in 2010. After each accident we are told that they have better technology and can do it safer and will spare no expense to insure that another accident will threaten our environment. 23 accidents in less than two years and we still get the same promises while another environmentally sensitive area is threatened. Empty promises from empty headed people.
Deepwater Horizon "United States, Gulf of Mexico April 2010 – 15 July 2010
2010 ExxonMobil oil spill "Nigeria, Niger Delta May 2010
MT Bunga Kelana 3 "Singapore, Singapore Strait May 2010
Trans-Alaska Pipeline spill "United States, Anchorage, Alaska May 2010
Red Butte Creek oil spill "United States, Salt Lake City, Utah June 2010 – 12 June 2010
Jebel al-Zayt oil spill "Egypt, Red Sea June 2010 – 23 June 2010
Xingang Port oil spill "China, Yellow Sea July 2010 – 21 July 2010
Talmadge Creek oil spill "United States, Kalamazoo River, Calhoun County, Michigan July 2010
Barataria Bay oil spill "United States, Barataria Bay, Gulf of Mexico July 2010 – 1 August 2010
Mumbai oil spill/ MV MSC Chitraand MV Khalijia 3"India, Mumbai, Arabian Sea August 2010 – 9 August 2010
Fiume Santo power station "Italy, Sardinia, Porto Torres January 2011
Mumbai-Uran pipeline spill "India, Mumbai, Arabian Sea January 2011
2011 Little Buffalo Oil Spill "Canada, Alberta April 2011
Bohai Bay oil spill "China, Bohai Bay June 2011 – 19 June 2011
2011 Yellowstone River oil spill "United States, Billings, Montana, Yellowstone River July 2011
North Sea oil spill "United Kingdom, North Sea, August 2011 – 13 August 2011
Campos Basin oil spill "Brazil, Campos Basin, November 2011 – 15 November 2011
TK Bremen
Nigeria oil spill "Nigeria, Bonga Field December 2011
Sundre, Alberta oil spill "Canada, Sundre June 2012
Arthur Kill storage tank spill (Hurricane Sandy) "United States, New Jersey, Sewaren October 2012
Taylor Energy wells
Platform 23051 "United States, Gulf of Mexico September 2004 to present (3021 days)
Rena oil spill "New Zealand, Tauranga, Bay of Plenty October 2011 to present (446 days)
"France, Brittany, Erdeven December 2011
seven oil spills in the US and two in Canada, so tell me again how the Keystone Pipeline will not harm the environment?
Thank you, Saturnsrim! And you made your point without name-calling--
Why can't commentators here add their ideas or disagree civilly without calling each other despicable names? So middle school, folks
Take a cue from Saturnsrim, come armed with facts and try his/her class act, instead!
Dee -
I second your recommendations, but don't expect much to come of it. Newsvine is chock-full of geniuses who have expert knowledge of all topics, but cannot type a sentence without using "idiot" - or worse.
I guess it makes them feel all superior and warm and fuzzy.
On the plus side what few fish will be left when they are done drilling and destroying the environment, will be fry ready without adding oil.
Wait, don't tell me............the captain was drunk.
Shell has been leading the lower gas prices and then all the other big oil companies follow. Well, now as consumers we will be paying more at the pump for their stupidity. You wait until the worst possible weather in Alaska to move the rig, what oil executive will be falling on his sword for this one? Opening the Alaskan preserve to more oil exploration? Think not, until these companies can take care of maintaing the sites and equipment they already own.
35 foot seas,looks like they will be recovering a "SHELL" of a ship when they pick up the pieces :P
Well, Ms. Sarah Palin..."drill baby drill" unfortunately it is becoming more and more "spill baby spill" Wonder what the beautiful state of Alaska will look like in fifty years.
I guess this means that gas prices will now go up by 80 cents or so.
Drill baby dill,spill baby spill! You betcha!
Who needs a clean environment it's so overrated! Besides the Raptures coming soon! You betcha!
Makes a lot of sense to be drilling off the Alaskan coast. This is part of the ring of fire in the Pacific. Real brainiacs who really show that they don't give a crap about the environment. This is all with the blessings of our wonderful EPA. Excuse me, I have to to go throw up - again....
c'mon ....drill.....baby.......just.......one........more.......time.......just....one......more........hol - - - - - - -
How often should the Coast Guard be involved in incidents of possible bad judgement by companies? How much is saved by companies by not providing backup plans knowing the Coast Guard,supported by taxpayers, will be able to provide support? Is the Coast Guard paid back for any of their expenses? Remember the Valdez, they had dropped some of their required backup systems to help with possible leaks.
How often should the Coast Guard be involved?
It is kind of what they were chartered to do - you know, saving lives and all that.
As a former CGman in the 60's I can tell one and all that the CG not only has it's set duties but responds to a plethora of stuff on behalf of industry, the taxpayers and yes even the idiots on the high seas. Whenever money and profit are involved you can be sure that industry is pushing the edge of the envelope and the CG gets to play nursemaid to their foulups The CG is probably the most misunderstood service and the best bang for the taxpayer's buck ever. Thousands upon thousands of people owe their existence and their property to the brave women and men of the CG.