Shell @ Terminal 5: Pivotal week begins with federal approval of Arctic offshore-drilling plan; City Council resolution passage

| Environment | Port of Seattle | West Seattle news

(Monday midday image from Port Angeles Chamber of Commerce webcam, republished with permission)
ORIGINAL REPORT, 12:18 PM: In our update last night on the events surrounding the plan for Shell to bring its Arctic-offshore-drilling rigs (including Polar Pioneer, above, still in Port Angeles) to Terminal 5 in West Seattle, we described this as a “pivotal week.” And since that update last night, it’s become even more so: This morning, the federal government issued its approval for Shell’s revised plan to drill six wells in the Chukchi Sea this summer – read the announcement here. This comes just before the City Council is scheduled to vote during its 2 pm meeting today on this resolution expressing opposition to Arctic offshore drilling and asking the Port of Seattle to reconsider its lease with Foss bringing Shell vessels to T-5. (The Port Commission‘s meeting on lease-related issues is at 1 pm tomorrow.) Representing a coalition of anti-drilling groups, Earthjustice has reacted by saying, “The project Interior approved today is bigger, dirtier, and louder than any previous plan, calling for more sound disturbances and harassment of whales and seals, more water and air pollution, and more vessels and helicopters. It also runs the risk of a catastrophic oil spill that could not be cleaned in Arctic waters.”

3:33 PM UPDATE: The City Council passed the aforementioned resolution unanimously. City Councilmember Mike O’Brien said it’s not possible to just abruptly stop using oil, but “a just transition” must be worked on; Councilmember Kshama Sawant, whose amendment to the resolution also won unanimous approval, said that while the jobs created by the drilling-related work are important, the more important issue is that of oil executives’ profits – she accused them of “hoodwinking” people into thinking it’s the environment vs. jobs. And Councilmember Nick Licata said the environment is “changing rapidly” and a resolution like this is a “small step” toward action to try to slow that rate of change. The comment period before their deliberation and vote included Alaskan Natives who had come from areas close to the prospective drilling zone to express their support for Shell.

Craig May 11, 2015 (1:19 pm)

YAY GOVERNMENT! FOR AND BY THE PEOPLE! WHOO HOO GO SHELL! PILLAGE THE EARTH FOR MORE PROFITS WHILE SCREWING EARTH & HER INHABITANTS! THANKS OBAMA.

Rick May 11, 2015 (2:40 pm)

once your life is totally petroleum free i might not notice your caps

anonyme May 11, 2015 (4:08 pm)

Agree with Craig. This is obscene. I was on the fence about the rig being parked here, but now I hope there is some SERIOUS MONKEYWRENCHING to take place.

lincolnparkdude May 11, 2015 (4:39 pm)

I agree with Rick, let those of us with no carbon footprint cast the first stone.
I don’t give a rip about shell but I certainly don’t like the smell of what the Mayor is trying to do.

Ray May 11, 2015 (4:48 pm)

You mean the same kind of money that filters billions in taxpayer dollars and subsidies and tens of billions on corporate dollars to Boeing and its suppliers, which utilize enormous amounts of petroleum in the movement of and manufacturing of airplanes, which are themselves huge users of petroleum as aviation fuel.

Before you picket other businesses and call for their eradication, why not focus on those here at home that cause great damage as well from their reliance on petroleum.

I will hold m,y breath waiting for your agreement….

anonyme May 11, 2015 (5:13 pm)

I agree about Boeing and the airline industry, and I think this pro-petroleum outcry is a misguided diversionary tactic. Hardly any of us can live petroleum-free in a world where Big Oil has a stranglehold on government and alternatives to petroleum are routinely squashed. however, the primary concern in this case is over ARCTIC DRILLING (ALL CAPS) not whether every other business on the planet has gone petro-free. Nice try, though.

Ray May 11, 2015 (6:13 pm)

But what I am arguing is that it is impossible to move off of oil for OUR (Seattle’s) industries. There will NEVER be solar powered jumbo jets. Not possible/feasible given battery utilization/weights/distances/etc.

ALL of our industries are heavily reliant on oil to even exist:
1. Aviation – manufacturing/support/SeaTac. Cannot and will not exist without petroleum.
2. Port of Seattle/PoTacoma – same thing with boats/shipping, including rail lines. Cannot and will not ever be non-petroleum.
3. Manufacturing (e.g., Boeing, Paccar, etc). Heavily uses petroleum in the movements of parts, in the manufacture of, and used by customers of all of these heavy machines.
4. Ag business – need petroleum for growing crops, and moving them to their destinations
5. Forestry – Has to be petroleum based due to havy machinery, drills, saws, etc. Also, limited light in forest canopies or when logging on a side of the mountain not facing the sun (or in winter months).

I could keep going on with many more examples. Yes it makes sense to purse alternative forms of energy to SUBSIDIZE and partially replace petroleum, but do not delude yourself that we will ever substantially be able to ween ourselves off of it. All of our industries here in WA rely on petroleum to such an extent we will not be able to substantially decrease their usage in our lifetimes. It may happen eventually, but nowhere in the next 20-30 years.

Plus, with us (Seattle/WA) being such a high user of oil/oil products, it is hypocritical to call out those companies that produce it.

Why not focus time and effort on actually enforcing safety and other regulations on the oil companies, hold them truly economically and legally liable to damages. Plus by having them here in our backyard, we can run roughshod on them to make sure they are in line.

onion May 11, 2015 (6:48 pm)

I have mixed feelings about this whole situation. On the one hand, I don’t see a need (other than profit) to do more drilling in northern Alaska.
On the other hand, I see that the current exploration plans have been carefully vetted and approved by the administration or President Obama and Sally Jewell, the former head of REI who is now the Secretary of the Interior. I ask whether a plan that has been vetted by moderate democrats needs to be derailed by screwing up operations at the Port of Seattle and at the expense of jobs for local longshoremen.

ChefJoe May 11, 2015 (7:10 pm)

The Port can collect up to $95 million a year via their tax levy authority. They’re currently collecting $73 million and some of that is going to projects like the viaduct.

I fully expect that us taxpayers will be making the port whole when Foss decides to shift more operations to a real working waterfront like Tacoma.

GG1225 May 11, 2015 (7:53 pm)

Hey, I’ve got an idea. Let’s quit using petroleum and go back to whaling! Talk about green. You can catch and chase them by sail and oar!

G May 11, 2015 (8:17 pm)

The federal government and some states, in particular California, have doled billions in subsidies for alternative energy. California has huge wind turbine and solar farms that would not be possible without subsidies. I’m a block away from a busy Tesla delivery center here in Van Nuys and there are lots of Tesla’s and Prius’ on the road. I think we’re past the “who killed the electric car” paranoia.

Joke May 11, 2015 (10:32 pm)

@G. Electric cars are “Coal-burning salmon killers”

Vanessa May 12, 2015 (7:34 am)

If that big monster rig doesn’t dock here, isn’t it just going to dock somewhere else?

G May 12, 2015 (9:23 am)

Joke,

True, a lot of the electricity that powers electric cars is produced by coal-burning plants. The ironic thing is that it took a modern society powered by “dirty” but inexpensive energy – relatively speaking – to create the wealth necessary to create expensive “clean” energy. In any case, alternative energy is big business now and is hardly a case of big bad corporations squelching the poor little guy.