The nation might sense the anguish of those whose lives lie in the path of the Gulf Coast disaster, but thanks to the Exxon Valdez, Alaskans know that hollow ache firsthand. We can only hope our loss isn't a harbinger of what awaits the people and wildlife of the Gulf. Their misfortune, though, might have spared Alaskans a new disaster.
Royal Dutch Shell was poised to begin drilling exploratory wells July 1 in the turbulent, ultra-remote Bering and Chukchi Seas off our northern shore. However, the Obama administration stepped forward and announced a moratorium on all new offshore drilling plans, including Shell's -- a correct move in the face of an ongoing environmental crisis caused by repeated, institutional failures of both government and industry.
Both the past and the current nightmare offer stark reminders of the staggering costs of catastrophic oil spills in coastal environments. Though the Gulf of Mexico and the Arctic Ocean seem worlds apart, there were ominous similarities between BP's Deepwater Horizon debacle and Shell's drilling plans. "Both (the Arctic seas and the deep waters of the Gulf) are extreme environments in which the industry has very little engineering experience," says Jeffrey Short, Pacific Science director of Oceana and one of the world's leading experts on oil spills. "They're pushing the boundaries of exploration deeper and farther, and the odds of something going catastrophically wrong are greatly escalated."
Adding to the uncertainty and danger were those notoriously lax permitting processes. In granting permits to both BP's and Shell's exploration operations, the federal Minerals Management Service did not even analyze the effects of a catastrophic blowout, which relieved BP and Shell from producing adequate contingency plans for such high-magnitude spills. Even so, Shell, like BP, fought for less regulation.
However extreme the deep waters of the Gulf of Mexico may be, the Chukchi and Beaufort seas could pose even greater difficulties. Even summer weather can mean 20-foot seas and gale-force winds. Fog may settle in for weeks, and ice conditions can change overnight. In the event of a major spill, mountains of emergency gear and personnel would travel huge distances over narrow logistical corridors (weather permitting) and be met by a shortage of everything from boats capable of towing boom to lodging. Shell's spill contingency plan indicated a severe lack of resources for dealing with anything beyond a moderate spill under ideal conditions -- a doubtful scenario. There is no proven technology for containing, let alone cleaning up, a blowout or catastrophic spill in shifting ice.
In the wake of the Gulf disaster, Shell has beefed up plans aimed at spill prevention. It has voluntarily added a pre-built coffer dam, more frequent testing and a remote-triggered "hot stab" device for controlling blowouts. "I have complete confidence in the technical integrity of our well plans," wrote Shell President Marvin Odum in a recent letter to the MMS. These reassurances echo hollow off the oiled waters far to the south. While Shell should be commended for these additions, it has done little to bolster its ability to control a large arctic spill -- an indication that it just hasn't absorbed the lesson of the Gulf: the need for an effective, plug-and-play fallback plan in the event of a disaster.
"If the Exxon Valdez and the Gulf teach us anything," says Alaska marine scientist Rick Steiner, "it's that people make mistakes, and equipment fails. There will be spills."
In fact, the MMS estimated a 40 percent likelihood of a major spill over the 30-year projected life of Lease Sale 193, the area Shell intends to develop -- hardly gambler's odds.
In the end, the success of President Obama's bold move to suspend new offshore drilling depends on what his administration accomplishes during this hiatus. A resumption of business as usual is not an option. A supporting web of redundant safety measures, major investment in advanced spill response technology, fundamental reform of offshore leasing, and a renewed commitment toward safe drilling by both government regulators and industry are required. The time for action is now.
Alaska writer Nick Jans is a member of USA Today's board of editorial contributors. A version of this commentary first appeared in USA Today.
By NICK JANS