Tweet
Above is a drawing I made thirty years ago today.
It was drawn in Chatham Strait in Southeast Alaska, as the Crowley Maritime tugboat Sea Giant towed the Arctic Challenger from Elliot Bay in Seattle to Prudhoe Bay. At the time, I was working as a deck hand on the Sea Giant. Below is a drawing I made then of the Sea Giant.
The Arctic Challenger was built in 1977, to perform as an icebreaking barge during the Sealift operations that saw the construction of the Prudhoe Bay oil production facilities and infrastructure. Crowley Maritime’s history page notes:
In the late 1970s Crowley added to its fleet the Arctic Challenger, a 310-by-105-foot icebreaker barge
The Arctic Challenger could haul freight, but its main purpose was to plow through the ice between Wainwright and Prudhoe Bay, should ice conditions warrant that.
Near the bow there was a tall tower from which the “Ice Captain” was supposed to be able to spot leads in the ice, along with the help of spotter aircraft. In the stern there were two notches. They were designed to fit the bows of two 7,000 HP-class Crowley tugs.
Although the Arctic Challenger was not needed as an icebreaker in 1982, it had been tried in that role earlier, and was found to be poorly designed. It didn’t draw a lot of water – 4.1 feet empty – so, after having been broken by the bows, ice would creep along underneath the hull and ultimately foul the props and rudders of the propelling tugs. Not good when you’re 3,000 miles from Seattle.
Crew members of towing tugs had been injured over the five years since the barge’s completion, and it was not considered to be a “good luck” barge in fleet scuttlebutt. It never really found a niche after the Sealifts were over. It languished, being shuttled from Seattle to the Gulf of Mexico to Coos Bay, Oregon, where it stayed for a long time.
A 2008 blog entry by an Oregon blogger erroneously stated that the Arctic Challenger was “being scrapped out.” I think the boat then being scrapped was an old Bering Sea trawler of the same name, but the blog entry gave a good picture of the barge:
KTOO radio recently published a photo that may be confusing or inaccurate. It shows a vessel which is not the Arctic Challenger overshadowing a barge which may be the Arctic Challenger under reconstruction in Bellingham, Washington:
Here is an artist’s conception of what it might look like if and when they finish revamping this loser dockside queen:
Essentially, what you see here is a storage shed with really thick walls at the waterline. It has never been powered, and none of the new articles about construction delays mention it as being anything more than a barge. So, as an oil spill response vehicle, it is useless unless configured with its tugboat power.
Unless the problems associated with the hull shape have been addressed, what we will probably see when Shell Oil inevitably spills oil in the Chukchi or Beaufort Seas will be a crew urged on by their bosses to go faster, cramming ice under the barge and into the power sources of the tug, fouling and bending the running gear.
Unless the problems associated with the hull shape have been addressed, the vessel should not be certified by the Coast Guard for Shell’s contemplated use.
I don’t think any of the reporters who have covered the Arctic Challenger have looked very closely at the hulk’s history, or interviewed anyone who has ever worked the rig in any of its previous incarnations.
8 Comments
Thanks ET for informing us about this relic of a tub. I have to laugh as i think of all the floating conversions i have seen over the years. Think though this could be a new shopping mall for Kotzebue.
Thanks for trying to clear up the confused reporting, Edward, but now I’m even more confused.
My memory is broken, but I’d earlier left a petition from Earth Justice on one of hotflashcarol’s posts (forget which, of course, lol) to not allow the EPA to grant Shell’s waiver request for poisoning further because Shell has plans ‘for the drill rig Arctic Challenger’ to drill in Arctic waters. I could easily be wrong… or is it for drilling *and* storage. But my stars; all of it’s so dnagerous. Just imagine a spill in winter, or near winter.
Fingers do the walking; sorry. It was the Noble Discoverer, not even close.
But Shell’s request to the EPA seems way worse:
“In addition to seeking permission to violate the terms of its air permit, Shell has said that it will not recover most spilled oil, but only “encounter” it. It argued with the Coast Guard about building its response barge strong enough to withstand Arctic storms. And last week, it lost control of its drillship in Dutch Harbor, Alaska.”
Lemme guess — they figure that since it’s in Alaska, most Americans will never find out, much less care, so they can get away with it?
Meanwhile, have you tried a fractini?
Thanks for the update, ET. As the disaster in the Gulf of Mexico proved, the oil companies don’t actually have to be physically prepared for an oil spill, neither do they actually have to have a real working plan to control and mop up an oil spill. They are allowed to do a lot of hand waving to make the problems disappear. We don’t have any leadership now or projected that will make any impact on the sorry state of affairs.
I’m constantly amazed at how ignorant the people of this nation are. Can they comprehend what an oil spill would be like in the Arctic in winter? Even one 1/100th the size of Deepwater Horizon in the Gulf? While its not completely dark 6 months of the year (contrary to popular misconception), near Prudhoe Bay there’s about 2-3 hours of civil twilight at solstice in Dec and the sun is below the horizon from about mid Nov to Mid Jan. So the limited amount of daylight is an issue. Now let’s compound things by adding in low temperatures. Having worked in the Arctic and Antarctic, I know first hand the constraints extreme cold places on workers and equipment. Work in that environment is not the same as at midlatitudes.
Consider the ice and water temperature. Cold water will increase oil viscosity compared to similar oil in the Gulf for example. It will adhere to ice either on its bottom or sides. This will make corralling oil very difficult. When the ice melts there will be a release of more oil. The affects of wildlife will be nothing short of disasterous.
Finally – what spill response resources exist? Are they enough? Consider the effort expended for the Deepwater horizon. Even 1/100th of that effort places tremondous strain on logistics (how do you get people, supplies up there in time) and limited equipment. How do you get heavy ships and barges up there in the winter? Even with reduction in arctic ice that we’ve seen (topic for another Discussion – WeatherDem does a good job on this), you can’t bring a flotilla of vessels to the site overnight in winter because of time and distance – there would have to be some icebreaking. BTW, the US Icebreaker fleet is woefully inadequate for the task. How many icebreakers does the US have. In Antarctica, National Science Foundation had to contract with Russia for an icebreaker last year and this year – there was no US icebreaker available. I have to laugh looking at that puny ship and think it will somehow contain and clean up a major spill.
Folks, if a major spill occurs (and the risk increases with increased drilling) we are looking at a catastrophe of unimagined proportions. Better to put money in a massive upscaling in PV solar power and storage systems (for night and cloudy weather) in my opinion. From a back of the envelope calculation a 100 sq mile area could provide ~12% of the US annual consumption. Think how many 1000s of square miles of roof tops and open space there are in the US. Let’s take tax breaks from oil, gas, coal, and nuclear and use that money for a major scale up of solar power and transition of as many devices to electricity as possible. A “Manahattan” project of energy transition and transformation if you will. Think of the overall reduction in demand for oil, gas, coal, and nuclear with associated reductions in environmental damage. My $0.02 worth.
BTW – Nice artwork ET. Wish I could draw like that. I can’t even draw a straight line and was even kicked out of Art class in 8th grade – bad grades. How do you get a D in art? Thank goodness for science – my calling. LOL
Wanted to come back to worker efficiency in cold climates. National Science Foundation used a factor of 2.16 for estimated task duration in cold of Antarctica such as for the new South Pole station construction. So for example if a task outside in warmer climates takes 8 hours. At South Pole they would us about 17.25 hours. Granted the altitude was also a factor (pressure altitude is over 10,000 feet most of the year) so one can argue over the validity of that factor at sea level. Still, time required for a given task is higher in colder climates if for nothing else than dealing with bulky heavier clothes – That’s a fact Jack!