Ft. McMurray, Alberta – Ground Zero for the tar sands industry (photo: Kris Krug)

The existing Jackpine mine is already one of the largest in the area, producing 200,000 barrels of tar sands crude every day — more than three billion gallons every year — and by expanding the mine Shell hopes to add an extra 100,000 barrels per day to that figure (for a total of 300,000 bpd). By any measure the impacts to the region would be devastating: almost 50 square miles of destroyed or disturbed land in the boreal forest, a 128 billion gallon “tailings pond” for the project’s toxic waste, mining-out of eight miles of the Muskeg River. The mining operation alone would produce more carbon dioxide than half a million cars on the road every day, and that’s before you factor in the pollution created when that oil is burned.

Woodland Caribou (Photo: US Fish & Wildlife Service)

Wildlife in peril

In its submission to the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency (CEAA), Shell tried to gloss over the toll that Jackpine would take on wildlife, but its own statistical projections (not to mention common sense) show that animals would be hit hard by the huge operation: Woodland caribou, which are already suffering huge population declines due to industrial development in the boreal forest, would lose about half their habitat in the area (compared to pre-industrial numbers); wood bison would lose almost 40%, and the Canada lynx over 30%. Birds are hit even harder, with the Canada warbler losing over 60% of its habitat, the black-throated green warbler about 44%, and the barred owl 43%. Species like wolverine, moose, beaver, and black bears would find themselves cut off from about a quarter of their land in the mine area.

Canada Lynx (Photo: Juliana Luz)

We know that tar sands mining permanently damages the environment and destroys forests and wetlands with vast infrastructure, open pit mines, and toxic wastewater ponds up to three miles wide. Waterbirds mistake those tailings ponds for natural ponds. They land in the contaminated water and get coated in oil and other toxins. They often drown, die from hypothermia, or suffer from ingestion of toxins.

Tribal groups fight back

The Athabasca Chipewyan First Nation, which is already wrestling with Shell over the company’s steamroller approach to development, is challenging the project in court, pointing out the harm that traditional tribal lands will suffer and saying that Shell and the provincial government have ignored their legal obligation to consult with tribes.

“We don’t want to take Shell to court, but we feel our treaty rights need to be addressed,” Eriel Deranger, a communications coordinator for the Athabasca Chipewyan First Nation, said. “We have repeatedly asked for more meaningful consultation, and don’t believe the government has done its due diligence. We are taking this very seriously.”

For those of us in the US who have seen poorly tar sands pipeline companies treat tribes and other communities, this is a depressingly familiar refrain. But we should also recognize that Shell’s projects are directly linked to our demand for oil, and we can put a stop to mines like Jackpine by shifting to cleaner energy sources and refusing to be the middleman for Canada’s dirty fuel.

Speak up to protect wildlife and our planet’s future! Tell the White House to say NO to tar sands pipelines like Keystone XL.

For a comprehensive breakdown of the Jackpine Mine’s impacts on land, water, air, and wildlife, check out the Pembina Institute’s white paper here, or visit StopShellNow.com to find out more about how you can get involved.

Shell’s Kulluk Oil Rig, credit Tom Doyle/Flickr

Shell’s rig is not simply another rig.  It is the pioneer, intended to open a new frontier and convert an unspoiled aquatic wilderness into the next big oil rush. These waters are vital habitat for an abundance of wildlife such as ringed seals, as well as whales that travel the world’s oceans and birds that migrate across North America every year.

Shell Oil:  A Large Spill is Not “Reasonably Foreseeable.”

As a team of oil spill experts warned in a thorough report of Arctic ocean drilling the risks are being minimized and ignored now just as they have been ignored before, as we witnessed so tragically with BP’s ultra deepwater operations. In the Gulf, we had the largest spill response infrastructure in the country to support a dense concentration of long term operations.  In the remote Arctic waters, there is nothing except rough seas and sea ice that can close waters to recovery operations for long periods of time.  Shell is bringing up a single spill response barge.  It’s hard enough to cast a crab pot in these waters, let alone contain millions of barrels of spilled oil.  NWF’s Peter Lafontaine noted last summer this statement by US Coast Guard Commandant Robert Papp:

“If the company fails, if the response plan fails, the federal government must in some way be able to back it up with some resources. We had plenty of resources, from bases to communication systems to helicopters, in the Gulf of Mexico. And if this were to happen off the North Slope of Alaska, we’d have nothing.”

So we are crossing our fingers and trusting that Shell can mobilize the resources to handle a spill.  At least they are taking the risk seriously, right?  Well, no:

“A large oil spill, such as a crude release from a blowout, is extremely rare and not
considered a reasonably foreseeable impact.” — Shell Alaska Chukchi Sea Exploration Plan

Sound familiar?  Here’s what BP said in their Gulf drilling plans prior to the Deepwater Horizon blowout:

“In the event of an unanticipated blowout resulting in an oil spill, it is unlikely to
have an impact based on the industry-wide standards for using proven equipment
and technology for such responses.” –Oil Spill Response Plan for BP Deepwater Horizon Drilling

Should we trust an oil company to begin drilling in these unspoiled waters when their plans are based on the premise that a large oil spill isn’t “reasonably forseeable?” No, we know better.  But they received a green light, anyway.

Does Wildlife Matter to Government Drilling Regulators?

Bearded Seal, via Kerry Ritz/Flickr

No evidence?!  Here are some of BOEMRE’s conclusions from their own environmental assessment of what could happen in a major spill (one that significantly underestimates the potential for a long-running blow-out like we saw in the Gulf):

Assuming that all young ringed and bearded seals exposed to the oil died because of absorption (through the skin), inhalation, and/or ingestion of toxic hydrocarbons in the oil, this loss could take these marine mammal populations more than one to two generations to recover Shell (p. 131-2).

Polar bears exposed to petroleum hydrocarbons through direct contact or by ingesting oiled prey would probably not survive (p. 132)

In lagoon habitats, long-tailed duck densities suggest that when large concentrations of molting individuals are present, tens of thousands could be contacted by spilled oil. This would constitute a substantial loss to the regional population. Notable losses would also be experienced by post-breeding common eiders concentrated near barrier islands and in lagoons. A spill …would be expected to contact several other species present in substantial numbers, including the king eider, scoters, northern pintail, Pacific loon, and glaucous gull. (p. 130-1)

Oil Disasters: An Acceptable Cost of Doing Business?

Everyone knows where this story ends up…it really comes down to how often and how big the spills will be off Alaska’s northern shores, and how badly wildlife is impacted.  But the risks of a wildlife disaster are all an acceptable cost of doing business for oil companies.  After all, BP pocketed $24 billion in profits in 2011.  Deepwater Horizon was a financial blip for them, but the damages to marine life will be long-lasting.

Remember the days when Big Tobacco insisted their product was safe? For a long time, people bought in: doctors lit up, mothers smoked around their kids … just watch an episode of “Mad Men” for a visual. We eventually wised up, but Phillip Morris, R.J. Reynolds and co. spent decades denying that cigarettes cause cancer, in the face of overwhelming evidence. To put it bluntly, they lied for a living.

Meet the new boss, same as the old boss—Big Oil.

Responders could only restore a small part of the ecosystem after the Exxon Valdez spill, 800 miles south of Shell's proposed sites. Cleanup would be next to impossible that far north. (photo: ARLIS Reference)

Since the BP oil spill, the press and groups like NWF have turned the spotlight on these companies and discovered the not-so-shocking truth: Big Oil has a casual relationship with honesty. We put out a report last year that detailed how major accidents have become the norm for the petroleum industry, whose CEO’s have taken a page from the tobacco textbook and apparently think that if they lie often enough—and boldly enough—that people will believe them. The lie? “Trust us. We know what we’re doing.”

Case in point: Shell Oil Company was recently approved to drill in the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas off Alaska’s northern coast. Shell has been drooling over this area for years but has been delayed by its own corner-cutting and challenges from environmental groups. We’ve already detailed some of the problems with Arctic drilling including nightmarish weather and the potential impacts on wildlife, and last month’s major spill in the North Sea put another black mark on Shell’s record. But now, barring an unexpected reversal from the White House, the company is ready to start even though they clearly pulled their “facts” out of thin air.

Well here’s the REAL fact: Shell can’t clean up a spill in the Arctic, any more than Big Tobacco could make a “safe” cigarette. They know this. We know this. Somebody should probably tell the regulators before everything goes up in smoke.

Here’s your chance. We have until September 26 to tell the government what we think of Shell’s bogus claims, and you can submit your own comment online in less time than it takes to brush your teeth.

A polar bear keeps close to her young along the Beaufort Sea coast in Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. (photo: Susanne Miller/USFWS)

TAKE ACTION and add your voice to the thousands of other Americans who are speaking up to protect Arctic wildlife and ensure the health of our oceans.

—————————–

Click here to learn more about National Wildlife Federation’s work in the Arctic.

If your office is as quiet as mine take a minute to watch this trailer for an amazing new film on Climate Refugees, and check out the website to find a screening near you.

Click here to view the embedded video.

This week’s stories:

1. Highlight of the Week: Fuel Efficiency Rules! Or, Cleaner Trucks Good for Wildlife, Economy
2. Quote: Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA)
3. Economic Story of the Week: Think Big, Start Small
4. Editorial of the Week: GOP vs. Mother Nature
5. Drilling On Up
6. Feeling Hot Hot Hot?
7. DOE Panel Calls for Action on Fracking Impacts
8. Happening this Week

Subscribe to the Climate Capsule RSS Feed to have your weekly update delivered automatically!

Highlight of the Week

Fuel Efficiency Rules! Or, Cleaner Trucks Good for Wildlife, Economy

via Flickr/indiwench

President Obama has unveiled the first-ever fuel efficiency standards for medium and heavy duty pickup trucks, vocational trucks, and combination tractors/semis. The proposed National Heavy Duty Program will save Americans $35 billion in fuel costs, cut 98 million barrels of oil consumption annually by 2030 and clear 246 million metric tons of carbon dioxide pollution from our skies.

“These standards will provide welcome fuel savings, budget relief, and pollution reduction to those who rely on heavy trucks to move America’s goods and people, haul equipment on the job, or tow a boat to the lake,” said Larry Schweiger, president and CEO of the National Wildlife Federation.

Coming on the heels of new standards for cars and light duty trucks, the National Heavy Duty Program would cut fuel consumption across all types of trucks from 2014-2018.

The three sets of standards would cut 639 million metric tons of greenhouse gas pollution annually by 2030 – the equivalent of about 10 percent of America’s carbon footprint today. “That’s a critical step in confronting global warming, the single biggest threat facing America’s wildlife,” said Zoe Lipman, the National Wildlife Federation’s senior manager for transportation and global warming solutions. “The standards will also cut America’s oil consumption by 3.4 million barrels of oil every single day – more than we currently import from Saudi Arabia, Nigeria and Venezuela combined.”

Check out NWF’s recently released joint report on the economic benefits of fuel efficiency standards.

Back to top

Quote:

via Sen. Boxer/Flickr

“They keep trying to overturn the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, the Endangered Species Act. That’s not going to happen.”

-Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA).

Back to top

Economic Story of the Week

Think Big, Start Small

zilowatt.org

While Congress continues to squabble over energy efficient light bulbs a California nonprofit called Zilowatt is spreading energy conservation from the bottom up. The Palo Alto based organization is supplying interactive educational kits to schools this fall for outreach sponsored by the city’s utility departments.

The kits are packed with visual tools that allow students to learn at their own pace and use character superheroes Reuse, Recycle, Reduce and TIO (“Turn It Off”) to share lessons. The group’s goal is to provide materials to any school but they must first recruit a sponsor and a champion within the school to promote the program.

More on this story: NY Times

Back to top

Editorial of the Week

GOP vs. Mother Nature

(LA Times)

via Paul Fundenburg/Flickr

They loaded up the appropriations bill that funds the Interior Department and the Environmental Protection Agency with dozens of riders that would encourage deadly pollution of the air and water, set back efforts to reduce greenhouse gases and allow uranium mining near the Grand Canyon, among other things. Such riders are commonplace on annual appropriations bills, but Washington insiders say they’ve never seen such a breathtaking assault on the environment.

If there was any good news from the chaos surrounding this week’s deal to raise the federal debt ceiling, it’s that the drawn-out congressional debate over the issue distracted GOP representatives from passing this monstrosity. (More…)

Back to top

Drilling On Up

Arctic Fox, via Billy Linblom/Flickr

The Obama Administration just gave the green light to Shell Oil’s Arctic drilling exploration plan, proving once again that oil companies are held to a different standard than everyone else.

In a statement BOEMRE (the offshore regulatory agency) said that they “found no evidence that the proposed action would significantly affect the quality of the human environment.” The final outcome is contingent on a few more approvals – for safety permits and other things – but most observers believe the point is clear: the government wants drilling to happen and is working hard to make that a reality.

But just this week the British government warned that several hundred tons of oil had likely leaked into the North Sea from a Royal Dutch Shell rig, the 11th reported incident since 2009.

So what’s the big deal? A lot of folks have pointed out the obvious: there’s no way Shell or any other company could control a blowout or clean up an oil spill in these conditions.

More on this story: AP

Back to top

Feeling Hot Hot Hot?

via Mr T in DC/Flickr

New data confirms what you already knew – July was incredibly hot, one of the warmest on record. Check out the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s National Climatic Data Center recap of July 2011.

“We’ve had another unusually warm month and are on the way to another unusually hot year, but the reality is that these conditions are the new normals that we all need to get used to,” said Dr. Amanda Staudt, climate scientist with the National Wildlife Federation.

We’re on pace for the 35th consecutive year with global temperatures above the 20th century average. Some members of Congress may find the validity of climate change an inconvenient truth, but many U.S. cities are going above and beyond to mitigate it by lowering their carbon pollution and financing adaptation methods, for example, planting trees to increase shade to counter heat waves and elevating building foundations to account for projected sea level rise.

More on this story: Wildlife Promise, USA Today, NOAA’s State of the Climate

Back to top

DOE Panel Calls for Action on Fracking Impacts

Marcellus Shale, via Flickr/Marcellus Protest

The Secretary of Energy Advisory Board (SEAB) Natural Gas Subcommittee recently called for better enforcement, oversight and transparency for the natural gas industry, including full disclosure of the chemicals used in hydraulic fracturing, or ‘fracking.’

“The chemicals used to extract natural gas through fracking are often a mystery for local communities and state and federal regulators, so we applaud the panel for recommending the public disclosure of fracking chemicals,” said Kate Zimmerman, senior policy advisor on public lands for the National Wildlife Federation. “But this recommendation is just a tiny first step. Congress, the Department of Energy, the Department of the Interior and the EPA also need to move forward to close the gaping loopholes in our environmental laws the natural gas industry continues to exploit. Energy companies and government watchdogs need to balance economics and jobs with protecting wildlife, clean water, clean air and human health.”

The National Wildlife Federation is not opposed to the development of natural gas; however, any energy development must be done in an environmentally sound manner that does not place wildlife and people at risk.

More on this story: NWF Media Center

Back to top

Happening this Week

Congress is on summer recess until September 6th.

Back to top

For more global warming news on Wildlife Promise click here.

The British government warned Monday that several hundred tons of oil may have leaked into the North Sea from a Royal Dutch Shell rig.

The Department for Energy and Climate Change said it estimates that the leak from a flow line at the Gannet Alpha platform off the Scottish coast that began last week could have spilled several hundred tons of oil into the sea.

An oil rig in the North Sea (photo: flickr/Tuftronic10000)

By all accounts this isn’t another Deepwater Horizon, and (thankfully) it didn’t happen in rough winter conditions, but it illustrates just how dishonest the oil companies are about their ability to protect our oceans and marine wildlife. Several hundred tons of oil is not a dribble—it’s a lot of fuel, enough to create a slick 20 miles long. And it’s at least the 11^th reported incident at the platform since 2009, for an industry that notoriously under-reports its spills.

But go ahead, Shell, insist that this is just another “isolated incident” or a “minor accident” or whatever it is your PR folks cook up to let you sleep at night. I guess it doesn’t matter when you’re making billions in profits and have Congress on speed dial.

Walrus cows and yearlings on the ice pack (photo: US Fish & Wildlife Service)

As for the rest of us, isn’t it time to stop trusting these people? How many more spills will it take to realize that we’re being lied to by an industry that isn’t accountable to anyone? If Shell has its way, next summer they’ll be punching holes in the ocean floor north of Alaska, home to walrus, bowhead and beluga whales, polar bears and other iconic species.

Climate change is already melting the sea ice upon which so many animals and native peoples rely—do they really need another kick in the teeth?

—————————–

For a great, in-depth look at the recent history and politics of oil in the Arctic, check out Subhankar Banerjee’s essay “BPing the Arctic, Again — Fast Tracking Shell’s Dangerous Drilling.”

In a statement BOEMRE (the offshore regulatory agency) said that they “found no evidence that the proposed action would significantly affect the quality of the human environment.” The final outcome is contingent on a few more approvals – for safety permits and other things – but most observers believe the point is clear: the government wants drilling to happen and is working hard to make that a reality.

So what’s the big deal?  A lot of folks have pointed out the obvious: there’s no way Shell or any other company could control a blowout or clean up an oil spill in these conditions. They don’t (and won’t) have icebreaker ships to get to a spill. The skimmer ships and absorbent boom that BP used in the Gulf of Mexico were heartbreakingly useless, but even these measures wouldn’t work in the Arctic.

The Canadian Coast Guard ship Amundsen on an ice floe in the Beaufort Sea (photo: flickr/indigo-)

But don’t take it from me. According to US Coast Guard Commandant Robert Papp:

“If the company fails, if the response plan fails, the federal government must in some way be able to back it up with some resources. We had plenty of resources, from bases to communication systems to helicopters, in the Gulf of Mexico. And if this were to happen off the North Slope of Alaska, we’d have nothing.”

And for all of their assurances that we’ve come a long way since the Deepwater Horizon, BOEMRE still doesn’t do real-world testing of safety equipment (including blow-out preventers and capping stacks) for drilling operations in the Gulf of Mexico. So it’s ludicrous to think that they’ll do real-world testing in the Arctic, where there’s no response infrastructure in place.

Computer simulations and warehouse tests don’t cut it. Not to get cute but the only way to know if you can control a blowout in the freezing, icy, howling midnight is to, well, test equipment in freezing, icy, howling midnight.

Even so, Shell is claiming they will recover 90% of any oil that spills.  Funny thing is, BP only recovered 3% of the Deepwater Horizon oil and Exxon’s Valdez cleanup only accounted for 9%.  It would be a triumph of epic proportions to recover even 10 or 15% of a possible Arctic spill.  The reality is that Shell is lying, and the government seems to be fine with that.

But this May, with the growing oil spill, the threat of more drilling in the Arctic Circle and another Endangered Species Day upon us, it’s hard not to think about the wildlife.

One species I’m worried about this year is the Brown Pelican. Last November they were taken off the endangered species list, after recovering from the impacts of DDT. What will happen to them now that the BP oil spill is polluting their habitat?

And what about the many other species out there, that may disappear before most of us ever knew they existed?

But I don’t want to get everyone down.

Here are three things you can do to raise awareness about endangered wildlife in your community.

First, change your Facebook profile pic to a species you care about. You can download free photos you can use on Facebook here.

Second, you can share wildlife facts with us via Twitter. Just use the #speciesday hashtag, and let wildlife enthusiasts know what wildlife you care about. Need help getting started? We put together some sample tweets to pick from.

And finally, don’t forget to take action. Right now Shell Oil is getting ready to drill in the Beaufort and Chukchi seas— both important polar bear habitats. Stop them by pushing Secretary Salazar to block their leases. 

Both those seas are so far north, that Shell can only drill in the summer. If we can delay Shell Oil just one or two months, they’ll have to wait an entire year before they can try again.

Last year, NWF supporters like you pushed Secretary Salazar to finalize a proposal to create special protected habitat areas for polar bears. If we could accomplish that, I know we can protect polar bear habitat now.

>>Take action now!>>

On Endangered Species Day, it’s important to think about the many wildlife species at risk. But don’t let it get you down. Together we can make a difference.