Green groups are celebrating the news of Shell’s disappointing drilling results off the coast of Alaska, which led the oil giant to stop its drilling program a month after it began.
After spending $7 billion and winning a prolonged fight to get permission to drill in the Arctic, Shell announced early Monday morning that it was going to stop drilling off the Alaskan coast “for the foreseeable future.” Shell was approved for drilling in the Arctic in August by the Obama administration.
That news set off a wave of cheers from environmental activists across the country who fought to keep the company from drilling in the Arctic ocean. Franz Matzner, director of the Natural Resources Defense Council’s Beyond Oil Initiative, called Shell’s cancellation of drilling “welcome news for our children’s future.”
“The writing’s been on the wall for quite some time that drilling in the Arctic simply doesn’t make sense,” he said. “It’s a uniquely challenging place to drill, and a national treasure. Over the last few months, Shell’s quixotic attempt to do so has opened the world’s eyes to just how out of step (drilling in the Arctic) is with what we need to do as responsible citizens of the world.”
Michael Brune, executive director of the Sierra Club, called it “joyous news.”
“Thankfully, our climate is now spared from the significant disruption drilling in the Arctic would cause, and the communities along the Arctic Ocean can breathe a sigh of relief that they no longer have to fear a ‘major oil spill’ from Shell,” he said.
In addition to no longer drilling in the Arctic, Brune called on President Obama to cancel the plans to lease parts of the Outer Continental Shelf in 2016 and 2017, remove the prospect of drilling for oil in the 2017-22 Outer Continental Shelf leasing plan, and permanently ban drilling in the Arctic.
League of Conservation Voters President Gene Karpinski also asked for Obama to permanently ban Arctic oil drilling and instead invest more in clean energy.
“We hope the Obama administration will take this opportunity to turn against Arctic drilling once and for all and block future efforts by Big Oil to drill in this pristine, remote and unforgiving area,” Karbinski said in a statement. “Now is the time to accelerate our transition to clean energy.”
Frequent Shell critic Sen. Edward Markey, D-Mass., said there’s no reason to continue to push for offshore drilling if that oil might be shipped to other countries. Markey is an opponent of proposed legislation to lift the United States’ 40-year ban on exporting oil, which is expected to come up for a vote in the House of Representatives this week.
He said the United States would assume all of the risk for offshore drilling while other countries would get the oil and oil companies would get all the profits.
“It makes no sense to ask American consumers to risk an oil spill so foreign nations can fill their tanks with our oil,” he said.
Friends of the Earth Climate Campaigner Marissa Knodel hoped the decision to cease drilling in the Arctic sent a message to other oil companies.
She noted Shell spent $7 billion and found some oil and gas, but not enough to make the process viable. If a company like Shell doesn’t think drilling in the Arctic is worth the cost, then other companies should avoid the area as well, she said.
“As one of the largest corporations to pursue Arctic oil and gas, Shell’s retreat from a $7 billion gamble sends an important message: Arctic drilling is too dangerous and too expensive and should be stopped altogether,” she said. “The stakes are too high for the environment, and not even Shell can cover a wager that could exacerbate climate change.”
