This week’s news involves a bit of both. Shell Oil announced on Monday that it will be postponing the completion of its Alaskan Arctic wells until 2013. The reason behind the setback of a $4.5 billion, six-year investment? A spill containment dome — equipment required by environmental regulations — was damaged during a testing accident. It’s almost as if the environmental regulations are actually working!

“The time required to repair the dome, along with steps we have taken to protect local whaling operations and to ensure the safety of operations from ice floe movement, have led us to revise our plans for the 2012 – 2013 exploration program,” the company said in a statement. “In order to lay a strong foundation for operations in 2013, we will forgo drilling into hydrocarbon zones this year.”

While this isn’t the end of Arctic drilling, it is a wake-up call to Shell and other “Drill, Baby Drill!” advocates that are extracting oil from thousands of feet below Earth’s surface. Temperatures below freezing, icy waters and high swells make the region an especially dangerous one for offshore drilling.

Environmentalists have long opposed using the Arctic as an oil reservoir. “We think it’s crazy,” said Niel Lawrence, senior attorney for the Natural Resources Defense Council. “And the evidence is mounting that shows it’s crazy.” Greenpeace echoed those sentiments in an email: “Investors must now be asking whether investing such vast sums of money trying to exploit the fragile Arctic is really worth it.”

Other factions, unsurprisingly, are expressing different sentiments. “It’s a disappointment that this particular system is not ready yet,” said Marvin E. Odum, the president of Shell Oil.

This “disappointment” for Shell Oil may be a small bit of good news for the Pacific walrus, one of Alaska’s many victims of climate change and its receding ice.

Main photo credit: Shutterstock

The post Testing Accident Forces Shell Oil to Postpone Arctic Drilling appeared first on REVMODO.

57 pairs of mother and baby whales were recorded just during the month of July. In comparison, the previous record was 18, in 1982 and 2011, and that number included all whales sighted between late June and October. Although some of the sightings this year may have been duplicates, it’s clear that there’s a big population.

Things weren’t always so rosy for gray whales; until 1994, the Eastern North Pacific population of the species was officially considered endangered. In the Atlantic Ocean, grey whales became extinct from whaling in the mid-1800s. The western population in the Pacific is still under threat. Though whaling was internationally outlawed in 1949, with certain limited exceptions for indigenous populations in Russia and the Northwest, whales face illegal whaling and other dangers. Among the challenges are collisions with ships, noise pollution, entanglement in fishing gear, and impacts from coastal development.

In 1991, scientists recorded only one calf sighting in Alaska. Surveys were halted until 2008, when no calves were sighted. Now, there may be as many as 1000 calves, and 18,000-21,000 whales in total.

The calves are big babies: after a 12-13 month pregnancy, mother whales give birth to calves that are typically 14-16 feet long, and 2,000 pounds. They eventually grow to a length of 50 feet, and weigh about 80,000 pounds.

Image by Flickr user goingslo

The post Gray Whale Baby Boom Along Alaska Coast appeared first on REVMODO.

Yes, despite the countless assertions we will no doubt continue to hear about how Obama has brought on the demise of the oil companies, the truth is that drilling has increased by almost 60 percent under his administration.

Just yesterday, the Interior Department gave the green light for drilling in the Chukchi Sea. Though the permission comes with a few safety strings attached, environmentalists argue that “neither the company nor the government [is] prepared to handle the risks of drilling in the fragile and unforgiving region.” Neil Lawrence, a senior attorney at the Natural Resources Defense Council, compared the move to “a building inspector letting a developer start construction on a skyscraper on shaky ground before the safety plans are even complete.”

Of course, the reaction from Shell was less cautious. “Today’s announcement is extremely exciting,” said Pete Slaiby, Shell’s vice president for operations in Alaska. “We’ve been waiting for this for about six years.”

Alaskan senators Lisa Murkowski (R) and Mark Begich (D) both went on the record with their support. So are the Democrats just trying to keep climate skeptic, pro-drilling voters happy? The timing with the conclusion of the Republican National Convention was “pure coincidence.”

Main photo credit: Shutterstock

The post Obama Administration To Shell: Drill, Baby, Drill appeared first on REVMODO.

Ship emissions may not be visible in the same way car and truck emissions are, but that doesn’t mean they’re any less harmful to the environment. Most large-scale shipping vessels, including cruise ships, use massive diesel engines that introduce significant levels of emissions, including nitrogen oxides (NOx) and sulphur oxides (SOx).

In 2010, the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships, or MARPOL, introduced an amendment to the international pollution reduction treaty that would require the use of low-sulfur fuel for large marine vessels operating within 200 miles of the coast (known as the Emissions Control Area or ECA). Under the new agreement, vessels must switch to 1 percent sulfur diesel by August 2012 and 0.1 percent by 2015.

The United States belongs to MARPOL, and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has accepted the 2010 amendment. By 2020, emissions from ships operating in the ECA are expected to be reduced annually by 320,000 tons for nitrogen oxide, 90,000 tons for fine particulate matter and 920,000 for sulfur dioxide, the EPA said.

For those of us who like breathing clean air, this amendment sounds great: less secondary particulate in the air to give us respiratory problems and create smog. To members of industry in Alaska, however, the amendment is a direct attack on their profit margins, thereby putting the state’s economy in jeopardy.

“In effect,” stated Rachael Petro, President and CEO of the Alaska Chamber, “The ECA levies a shipping tax upon Alaskans without demonstrating any legitimate scientific justification or proving there will be any measurable environmental benefits of such extreme regulations.” Members of the Alaskan shipping industry say complying with the new rule would increase fuel costs by 8 percent, which would in turn make passenger tickets about $18 more expensive.

What do you think? Does the treaty amendment place an unfair burden on Alaska, or is it a reasonable price to pay for cleaner air?

Photo Credit: Alaskan Dude/Flickr

The post Alaska’s Governor Claims Cleaner Air Will Hurt Economy appeared first on REVMODO.