You are browsing the archive for Arctic oil drilling.

Oil and Ice: The Risks of Drilling in Alaska’s Arctic Ocean

9:18 am in Uncategorized by EdwardTeller

The above video was produced recently by the Center for American Progress.

On Tuesday, Anchorage’s KTUU TV ran a story that tried to update viewers on the “progress” of Shell Oil’s attempt to start drilling in the Chukchi and Beaufort Seas this season.  Here’s a link to the story, with video.

In the article, there is a contrast between the realism of Rebeccs Noblin, Director of the Anchorage office of the Center for Biological Diversity, and the forced optimism of Shell Oil’s local Alaska Vice President, Pete Slaiby:

Shell Oil could be gambling big with its latest move. Its Kulluk drilling ship left Dutch Harbor on Monday, heading to the Arctic on an uncertain journey. Shell says its second ship, the Noble Discoverer, should also leave Dutch Harbor sometime this week. 

Despite this, federal permits are not yet in hand to drill individual wells — and an oil spill response barge, the Arctic Challenger, sits in a Bellingham, Washington shipyard. Drilling cannot begin until it’s stationed in the Arctic. 

Finally, Shell says, all of the pieces are coming together. It expects the Coast Guard and the American Bureau of Shipping to complete its final tests and inspections of the Challenger within the next few days.  

“This is no shot in the dark,” says Pete Slaiby, vice president of Shell Alaska. “These things have been planned for six years.”  

From Arctic ice that stubbornly refused to retreat, to a mishap in which the Nobel Discovery lost its mooring in Dutch Harbor, Shell has had a number of setbacks this summer — not to mention a recent scolding from the United States Interior Secretary, who says Shell’s delays this season are the company’s own fault.  

“People are saying, ‘Are you frustrated?’ Actually I get that question too much. The answer is ‘Really no,’” says Slaiby. “Because we really know we are going to work through these remaining issues.” 

Actually, Shell is very concerned.

When I visited the work site of the renovations and modifications of the Arctic Challenger at dockside in Bellingham, Washington, on August 8th, I got the distinct feeling of job site paranoia:

I thanked him [Superior's job site manager] for the best information anyone has yet given me, and requested a tour of the project. He flatly told me “No,” and I was not allowed to take any photographs of the vessel. He assured me that Shell Oil will be contacting me soon with more information.  

The ambience of the work place there reminded me very much of projects in the past where I have worked that are seriously behind schedule and nervous of potential outcomes. 

I was followed by private police until I left Bellingham.

Since the 8th of August, nothing having to do with the Arctic Challenger project has broken in favor of speeding things up.

At the time, I was probably the only person to publicly claim that Shell might not get it together in time to even drill a single hole this season.  Since then, there have been others coming to similar conclusions.

Here’s what you get if you google “Arctic Challenger delays.”

As the Center for Biological Diversity’s Noblin told KTUU yesterday:

“Shell’s really jumping the gun, moving its ships into the Arctic,” says Rebecca Noblin, director of the Center’s Anchorage office. 

“Ideally you wouldn’t be drilling in these kind of harsh conditions without being absolutely certain that you have your ducks in a row, and we just don’t have that here.”

Washington State Department of Ecology Shames Shell Oil: Clean Up Your Oil Spill Cleanup Barge

11:14 am in Uncategorized by EdwardTeller

Arctic Challenger at Dock in Bellingham

I.  As the pressure mounts on hapless contractor Superior Energy Services to finish work on Shell Oil’s forlorn hope to achieve a 2012 Arctic oil drilling season, the barge and renovation project have been spilling oil and hydraulic fluids into Bellingham Bay, where the work is being done:

The containment vessel designed to capture oil in the event of a spill during exploratory drilling off the coast of Alaska has itself been responsible for four minor illegal fluid discharges during the last three weeks, the Coast Guard confirmed Monday.

The discharges all involved hydraulic fluid and were generally limited to about a quart each time, all of which was contained and cleaned up. The fine was just $250. But the discharges signal Shell Exploration’s continuing problems with the vessel, the Arctic Challenger, whose trouble-plagued retrofit in Bellingham, Wash., has delayed the launch of the first major offshore oil drilling in the U.S. Arctic in 20 years.

Not only has the contractor been fined, the Washington State Department of Ecology seems to be taking the spills more seriously than any similar Alaska agency would.  I’m reprinting the entire Department of Ecology bulletin here, as it may prove to be more important than now realized:

BELLINGHAM – The Washington Department of Ecology (Ecology) is requiring improved protection for Bellingham Bay during work on the oil-containment barge Arctic Challenger.

Superior Energy Services is building an oil-containment system on a barge at the Bellingham Shipping Terminal, 629 Cornwall Ave. Shell will use the barge at offshore drilling sites in the Alaskan Arctic. In the event of an oil spill, the barge is designed to lower a large dome over the leaking oil, capture it, and pump it onto the barge.

Since July 24, 2012, the construction project has resulted in three hydraulic oil spills, about a quart each, from the barge, and a diesel fuel spill, estimated at less than 20 gallons, from a work boat to Whatcom Waterway.

On Thursday, Aug. 9, Ecology issued a notice of correction, requiring Superior to take specific steps to prevent further hydraulic spills including:

  • Plugging deck drains to prevent leaks from going over the side into the water.
  • Locking equipment so that it can’t be used until the lock is removed.
  • Using barriers to block and capture spray leaking from pressurized hydraulic systems.
  • Monitoring hydraulic systems during startup.
  • Requiring additional supervision and oversight.
  • Having spill response equipment and materials immediately available.

Superior has 24 hours from the time it receives Ecology’s notice to employ the corrective measures, and seven days to provide a report to Ecology that describes how the company is prepared to respond to spills.

Ecology continues to investigate the spills and is considering additional enforcement actions.

In addition to the notice of correction and potential enforcement, Ecology is requiring lead construction contractor Greenberry Industrial to conduct its operation as if it was covered under an industrial stormwater discharge permit. The project was scheduled to be completed in July. Because it can take up to two months to obtain permit coverage, Ecology used its discretion to allow Superior to continue working as long as it meets permit requirements.

“Small spills lead to bigger spills,” said Dale Jensen, manager of Ecology’s Spill Prevention, Preparedness and Response program. “Our hope is that the companies that are gearing up for oil work in Alaska and spilling here will learn from our work with them and ensure spills of all sizes are prevented everywhere they work.” [Emphases added]

II. Since my visit last week to the Bellingham dock where the Arctic Challenger is being modified, from which I was followed by two private security cars, until I left Bellingham, two articles detailing more about Shell’s 2012 drilling plans have been published.

First, I wrote here on Tuesday August 14th about the current status of the drilling support fleet, where they are and what they are or are not doing.

Second, Alex De Marban has written a very detailed article for The Alaska Dispatch on the history of the Arctic Challenger.  De Marban cites my work, without providing any links:

The media has zeroed in on the slow progress. Everyone from Alaska blogger Phil Munger, who said he was on a tug that once helped tow the Challenger, to the nation’s largest papers are asking questions. The Los Angeles Times recently zeroed in on a minor fine stemming from small discharges into the water during the vessel’s retrofit at the shipyard in Bellingham.

“It’s not a project we can rush, and since it’s a first of its kind vessel, there are always going to be delays related to construction,” Smith said in an email to Alaska Dispatch. “Unfortunately, these delays are impacting our drilling season. But make no mistake this vessel is rock solid and capable.”

In an email, Smith refused to answer why Shell chose this particular vessel to play such a pivotal role. But a review of the Arctic Challenger reveals a colorful history, from its glory days in Alaska’s Arctic to idle times at dock, with birds calling the barge home.

De Marban goes on to follow the Arctic Challenger, from design, to its use in the Arctic Ocean and Bering Sea as an icebreaker, to its Cinderella years of neglect, in Long Beach, California, and Coos Bay, Oregon, to its recent resurrection as the key piece of equipment in Shell’s plans to drill for oil off of the Alaskan coast.  De Marban cites Crowley Maritime’s Bruce Harland, who appears to be somewhat familiar with the Arctic Challenger‘s Crowley work history, as praising the vessel’s utility:

Harland, the Anchorage-based vice president with Crowley, said he didn’t know what modifications Superior is making to the vessel, but it had a very capable life as an icebreaker when his company operated it.

“It’s just been a dependable piece of equipment,” he said.

As far as Harland knows, the ship’s return to the Arctic as part of Shell’s oil drilling operations would be its first duty since the late 1990s. And he expects the Challenger’s reliability to continue with its second life in the Arctic.

Requests to Superior Energy and Shell seeking more information about the overhaul went unanswered.

Harland’s opinion is at odds with my remembrance of the vessel’s reputation in the early 1980s, based on my having worked with several crewmen who had worked on tugs pushing the Arctic Challenger through the ice in the late 1970s.  However, the AC has been modified so that it can no longer be pushed through the ice.  It will be towed by an ice breaking tug.

Since I wrote here about the rapidly declining probability of Shell being able to even have a 2012 drilling season in the Beaufort or Chukchi Seas, nobody has taken a chance on predicting there will be one this year.  It looks to me like Shell will have a good ten more months to work the wrinkles out of their systems, and – hopefully – spill no more oil from their oil spill prevention and cleanup barge.

De Marban’s article links to a video animation of Superior Energy Service’s contemplated use of their Arctic Containment device.  Here is the link – it is the second video down, titled Marine Technical Services’ Arctic Containment Animation.

Compare that to Shell’s 2010 concept, which was pre-BP Gulf blowout:

 

Does Shell’s Arctic Drilling Plan Adequately Address Arctic Summer Storms? Of Course Not

12:40 pm in Uncategorized by EdwardTeller

Arctic Summer Storm 08:08:2012

Arctic climate scientists have been closely watching the development of weather anomalies associated with diminishing sea ice in the larger Arctic Basin.  A good place to keep track of what are known as Arctic Summer Storms is the web site, Arctic Sea Ice Blog.    As climate science blogs go, this one’s commenting community seems to be top notch, with a few contrarians or anti-alarmists to spice things up.

That the potential for devastation from Arctic Summer Storms is growing might easily be shown by the alarming graph posted below, prepared by the blog:

ISIS sea ice change 2005-2012

Essentially, Arctic Summer Storms are byproducts of decreasing sea ice during the summer.  They have the capacity of further reducing sea ice coverage rather rapidly, which might then lead to potential for more storms – a sort of cascade of unprecedented weather events.

It has been postulated that we may eventually have what might be called “Arcticanes,” very large summer storms in the Arctic that could prove devastating to coastal communities, ecological niches and structures at sea, such as oil or gas platforms.

Although Shell Oil’s plans for test drilling and production drilling off of Alaska’s Arctic coasts assess some problems, no planning has been put forth regarding Arcticanes.  Probably, in part, because they exist more in potential so far, rather than as historical example.

We may not have long to wait, though.

One important realization from growing awareness of such climate events as Arctic Summer Storms is the obvious fact that the models and structures used by governments to assess impacts of Arctic developments fail to include much recent science on newly discovered or postulated climate-controlled variables into these development plans and scenarios.  With the current gridlock in Washington DC pointing more toward rolling back sensible regulatory regimes than toward updating approaches to standards, we can expect disasters to precede solutions.

As recently as late last week, U.S. Coast Guard Commandant Robert Papa stated, “[f]or right now, we are well prepared, because like we always do traditionally, we have multi-mission assets that we can deploy, that are very capable, and that are sufficient for the level of human activity that’s going on this summer and perhaps for the next three or four summers.”

But the USCG and other U.S. government agencies seem to lack the imagination, vision and cautionary perspective to broadly understand how different things are rapidly becoming in the far, far North.

Chances of Shell Oil Drilling in Arctic in 2012 Diminishing by the Hour – Updated

12:06 pm in Uncategorized by EdwardTeller

Shell Oil has already reduced the number of possible exploratory wells to be drilled this season in the Arctic’s Beaufort and Chukchi Seas from eight to three, or possibly two – one in the Beaufort and one in the Chukchi.  Although they have deployed two drilling rigs into the Arctic this season, the drilling itself cannot start until the oil spill containment equipment on the barge Arctic Challenger is on site.

As of Monday, here is a short version of the current status of the Arctic Challenger‘s re-design and testing, in and near Bellingham, Washington:

Coast Guard officials say they’re waiting for Shell to finish nearly 200 items on the barge before they can be inspected. Those include things like electrical and firefighting equipment.

Another 200 items remain to be documented before the Coast Guard will declare the barge seaworthy. Then, after another federal agency tests the Challenger’s oil-vacuuming system, the barge can be towed to the Arctic. Shell says that journey will take two weeks or more.

Shell had planned to begin drilling in July. But delays in construction of the barge have forced the world’s largest oil company to cut back its Arctic drilling plans. Shell only has permission to drill in the brief Arctic summer.

Bowhead whaling season begins in late August. Given the five-week time frame described in the article quoted above, the barge cannot arrive on site until at least the first or second week of September.

Under agreements with Alaska Native bowhead whaling skippers and their organizations, Shell may drill in the Chukchi after the season begins, because the proposed drill holes are far from where the whales are usually hunted.  This is not the case in the Beaufort.  If only one whaling captain objects to Shell’s 2012 Beaufort plans, they will have to suspend or not start drilling.

A photograph surfaced today, showing an interesting construction detail on the stern of the Arctic Challenger.  First off, here is a screen shot from Google Earth I made of the Arctic Challenger, moored in Coos Bay Oregon, before Shell bought it and started modifications:

Arctic Challenger in Coos Bay - early 2012

Read the rest of this entry →

At Dr. Monnett’s “Crackpot Probe” Yesterday, Obama Administration Witch Hunters Show Up Their Own Lies

2:31 pm in Uncategorized by EdwardTeller

Polar Bear

On Tuesday, the Obama administration’s inquisition against a leading Arctic scientist continued.

Back on July 19th, one of the country’s foremost experts on Arctic and Alaska habitats, Charles Monett, PhD, was suspended from his job as a wildlife biologist with the U.S. Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement (BOEM), the successor agency to the discredited Minerals Management Services.  Here’s how Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER) described his situation in a July 28th press release:

Dr. Charles Monnett, PhD, a wildlife biologist with the U.S. Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement (BOEM), coordinates a significant portion of all BOEM extramural research and a majority of BOEM research on Arctic wildlife and ecology.  The Interior Inspector General (IG) is apparently investigating a 2006 note authored by Dr. Monnett and a colleague published in the peer-reviewed journal Polar Biology which reported sightings of drowned polar bears in open waters following a storm.  This seven-page paper, which had undergone internal peer review, management review and outside peer review coordinated by journal editors, galvanized scientific and public appreciation for the profound effects that climate change may already be having in the Arctic.

Although the IG probe has been going on for months, Dr. Monnett was suddenly suspended on July 18, 2011, due to the IG’s “on-going inquiry.”  He has not been informed of any specific charge or question relating to the scientific integrity of his work, nor is it clear why the IG has mounted a multi-month investigation of a five-year-old journal article.  IG interview transcripts do reveal, however, that –

  • The probe is being conducted by criminal investigators with no scientific training or background, who, based upon their questions, have little grasp of the scientific issues they are investigating;
  • They have rifled through all of Dr. Monnett’s e-mails and seized his papers and equipment, impeding his ability to work even before he was ordered to stay home; and
  • The investigators are seeking a link to former Vice President Al Gore, who referenced the polar bear paper in his book and movie, An Inconvenient Truth.

“Ever since this paper was published, Dr. Monnett has been subjected to escalating official harassment, culminating in his recent virtual house arrest,” stated PEER Executive Director Jeff Ruch, noting the huge economic stakes for oil companies seeking to open Arctic waters in suppressing scientific research.

The next day, reacting to the PEER release, the Obama administration’s Director of the Bureau of Ocean Energy, Management, Regulation and Enforcement, Michael R. Bromwich, issued a written denial regarding the focus of the investigation:

We are limited in what we can say about a pending investigation, but I can assure you that the decision had nothing to do with his scientific work, or anything relating to a five-year old journal article, as advocacy groups and the news media have incorrectly speculated. Nor is this a “witch hunt” to suppress the work of our many scientists and discourage them from speaking the truth. Quite the contrary. In this case, it was the result of new information on a separate subject brought to our attention very recently.

That same day,  BOEMRE spokeswoman Melissa Schwartz sent an email to the Alaska Dispatch, which said little and much, at the same time:

Although I cannot speak further regarding the Office of the Inspector General’s investigation, I feel it’s important to correct the inaccurate narrative that has been given to you (and is reported in your most recent article). This additional piece can only be attributed to a “source familiar with the administrative action,” given the nature of the ongoing investigation. I do not anticipate being able to further communicate on this ongoing issue, but will keep your contact info in case anything changes:

The agency placed Mr. Monnett on administrative leave for reasons having nothing to do with scientific integrity, his 2006 journal article, or issues related to permitting, as has been alleged. Any suggestions or speculation to the contrary are wrong.

In the meantime, the national environmental organizations, Greenpeace US and the Center for Biological Diversity sent a letter to Interior Secretary Ken Salazar and White House Office of Science and Technology Policy Director, John Holdren, questioning the methods and focus of the investigation of Monnett.

On August 8th, Sen. James Imhofe, a relentless critic of science and its active practitioners, insinuated himself into the matter:

Separately Tuesday, U.S. Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla., wrote the acting director of the Interior Department’s inspector general’s office, seeking clarification on the purpose of the investigation into Monnett.

Inhofe, the ranking member of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, said Monnett’s work has been cited by witnesses before his committee and provided “the foundation” for the government’s decision in 2008 to list the bear as a threatened species, the first with its survival at risk due to global warming.

“As a result, critical habitat for the polar bear was designated, which added additional layers of onerous regulations to oil and gas development in 187,000 square miles of land in Alaska,” he said, adding that accusations against Monnett’s work “could be serious and have far reaching consequences.”

On Tuesday, Dr. Monnett was questioned for three hours.  Although the Interior IG and other government sources had denied in early August that the focus is either on Monnett’s peer-reviewed 2006 paper, or on how the University of Alberta contract was reviewed or let, that seemed to be the focus of the questions directed at the scientist:

Today’s interview between the Interior Department Office of Inspector General (IG) and a suspended Arctic scientist reveals that his 2006 peer-reviewed journal article on drowned polar bears remains the focus of the inquiry, according to Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER).   A new allegation surfaced that one of Interior’s top Arctic scientists, Dr. Charles Monnett, improperly steered a polar bear study to the University of Alberta, even though his agency had already approved it as a sole source contract.

The multi-month IG investigation is still ongoing but today’s interview with Dr. Monnett showed –

  • The IG is still focused on the scientific merit of a seven-page note authored by Dr. Monnett and a colleague published in the peer-reviewed journal Polar Biology in 2006 which reported sightings of drowned polar bears in open waters following a storm;
  • The IG had questions about Dr. Monnett’s role during procurement of a research study titled “Populations and Sources of Recruitment in Polar Bears” conducted by the Canadian University of Alberta but Dr. Monnett acted under the direction of agency contracting and procurement staff.  When pressed, the IG refused to answer how these transactions justified an unsuccessful referral to the Justice Department for prosecution; and
  • The IG took credit for prompting  the Bureau of Ocean Energy, Management, Regulation and Enforcement (BOEM, the Interior unit where Dr. Monnett works) to issue a stop work order on the University of Alberta study but that stop work order was rescinded by the agency two weeks later and the study is ongoing.

PEER Executive Director, Jeff Ruch, (PEER is representing  Dr. Monnett) stated:

With each interview, it becomes more outrageous that government funds are being spent on this crackpot probe while paying Dr. Monnett’s salary to sit at home.  The [University of Alberta] study is a prime example of cost effective science in the public interest.  It was sole source to the Canadians because the Canadians were paying half the cost and were already doing much of the research.

It has also emerged that the government’s attention to the U of A contract is misdirected, as the contract was discussed long before the Polar bear sighting and paper had happened (more on this later).  At this time, the hold on the U of A contract has been lifted.

So far, the president’s inquisitors are not answering questions directed toward them about yesterday’s interrogation:

BOEMRE officials declined comment on Tuesday.

and:

A bureau spokeswoman declined comment.

Some, including this writer, have speculated that the attention brought down on Dr. Monnett is directly related to the Obama administration’s campaign to open the Arctic coast off Alaska to oil drilling, particularly by Shell, which has been granted exploratory permits since Monnett’s case came to public attention. If that is the case, it would not be the first time Dr. Monnett’s work has been the target of an oil giant.  Over 20 years ago, Exxon attacked him in the wake of the Exxon Valdez oil spill:

Half the otters rescued from the Exxon Valdez oil spill died after they were released, suggesting the whole project was a bad idea, according to a study to be released at an Anchorage symposium this week.

An abstract of a paper by Charles Monnett and others studying the spill for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service says only 23 of 45 otters implanted with radio devices are known to be alive. The others are missing or confirmed dead. One radio broke.

Missing otters are almost certainly dead because the ottertracking program is very reliable, Monnett said last month. The death rate is far more than would normally be expected.

“These data suggest that, despite the tremendous amount of money and energy that was directed toward the treatment and care of these animals, many or all of the sea otters that were released from the (rehabilitation) centers were not “rehabilitated,’ ” Monnett wrote in the abstract.

“We recommend that future policies focus on preventing otters from becoming oiled, rather than attempting to treat them after oiling has occurred,” the abstract said.

But Randall Davis, an Exxon-hired scientist who ran the otter rescue, said Monnett is wrong to assume missing otters are dead. He said about half Monnett’s otters counted as dead are only missing.

Also, Davis said the results from the radio tag study may not reflect the fate of all the otters released. He said the surgery of implanting the transmitters may have contributed to their demise.

But Monnett said his team of five workers has logged 1,000 hours in aircraft looking for the missing otters from Sitka to Homer. He assumes the otters are dead and drifted to sea or sank. The radios don’t transmit when covered with only 2 inches of salt water.

Monnett’s conclusion, “we recommend that future policies focus on preventing otters from becoming oiled, rather than attempting to treat them after oiling has occurred,” based on prevention of oil spills, rather than mitigating their negative impact, goes counter to speeding up Shell’s permitting process.

This week, Alaska saw Interior Secretary Salazar here, to announce big Arctic development plans:

Salazar joined Alaska Sen. Mark Begich and Rhode Island Sen. Jack Reed for a meeting with Alaska business people and said the president’s feeling toward Arctic offshore drilling is “Let’s take a look at what’s up there and see what it is we can develop.”

But any Arctic oil development must be done carefully, he said. Salazar said the Arctic lacks needed infrastructure for responding to potential offshore oil spills and cited painful lessons from the Deepwater Horizon spill in the Gulf of Mexico last year.

“Not the mightiest companies with multibillion-dollar pockets were able to do what needed to be done in a timely basis, and the representations of preparation simply turned out not to be true from the oil companies that had a legal obligation to shut down that kind of an oil spill. …,” Salazar told Alaska reporters. “When you look at the Arctic itself, we recognize that there are different realities — the ocean is a much shallower ocean, conditions are very different than we had in the Gulf of Mexico. (But) there are challenges that are unique to the Arctic.”

Salazar said a step toward a solution is “having an agency within the United States government and Interior, the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management and Regulation, that can in fact do its job.”

On July 13th, Obama signed an executive order to “create a new federal working group tasked with having agencies better coordinate Alaska oil and gas permitting and other regulatory oversight. The White House said the working group, which is overseen by Deputy Interior Secretary David Hayes, is designed to simplify oil and gas decision-making in Alaska by bringing together federal agencies to collaborate as they evaluate permits and environmental reviews.”

Six days later, Dr. Monnett was suspended.

The only Alaska Natives Salazar has been scheduled to meet here seem to be proponents of “Drill, Baby Drill!!”  Native groups have sided with Greenpeace US and the Center for Biological Diversity in their attempt to obtain correspondence between Shell and BOEMRE, or other government agencies, through the Freedom of Information Act.  At Tuesday’s press availability with Salazar and Sen. Begich, the question of the investigation of Dr. Charles Monnett does not appear to have been breached.

How convenient.  The reporters seem to be keeping their heads down.  Now if only those pesky scientists would learn those same traits.

With Obama’s Giordano Bruno-ization of Dr. Charles Monnett in Alaska, We See the Merging of the War on Science and the War on Whistleblowers

11:54 am in Uncategorized by EdwardTeller

Giordano Bruno by Jastrow

Two more organizations, neither from Alaska, have joined Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility in search of more transparency in the Obama administration’s pursuit of Anchorage-based Polar bear expert, Dr. Charles Monnett.  Greenpeace US and the Center for Biological Diversity sent a letter on Thursday to Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar, and White House Office of Science & Technology Policy Director, Dr. John Holdren, raising their grave concerns that Dr. Monnett is being pursued as part of a political agenda.  They have also filed Freedom of Information Act requests in the matter, according to a Friday article by Jill Burke, in the Alaska Dispatch:

The groups are using the Freedom of Information Act to look into whether any correspondence exists between BOEMRE and Shell regarding Monnett or his research.

Some have speculated that Dr. Monnett is being sidelined and hounded as a warning to others to keep their heads down, as the Obama administration prepares the way to open the Chukchi and Beaufort Seas to oil development.  As if on cue, late Thursday this was announced:

Shell cleared a major hurdle Thursday in its effort to begin a two-year drilling program in the Arctic Ocean next summer, receiving a conditional exploration permit from the federal agency that oversees offshore oil development.

The company said it was buoyed by the morning announcement from the Interior Department’s Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement, just as Interior Secretary Ken Salazar was preparing for an Alaska visit next week at the invitation of Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska.

That congressional tour, which will also include Sen. Jack Reed, D-R.I., chairman of the Interior Appropriations Subcommittee, will focus on energy issues.

The exploration permit covers an overall program that would drill four wells over two years in Camden Bay of the Beaufort Sea, due north of the coastal plain of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

The letter from Greenpeace US and the Center for Biological Diversity raises the spectre of Obama’s deepening and all but relentless pursuit of whistleblowers, which has been quite well documented, particularly by Salon‘s Glenn Greenwald, and The New Yorker‘s Jane Meyer.  Here’s Greewald, writing about Mayer’s most recent revelations:

Thomas Drake is a hero who deserves a Medal of Freedom Honor.  Instead, the Obama administration seeks to imprison him for decades while steadfastly protecting from prosecution — or judicial review of any kind — the high-level government officials who systematically broke the law.  Put another way — from the last paragraph of Mayer’s article:

Mark Klein, the former A.T. & T. employee who exposed the telecom-company wiretaps, is also dismayed by the Drake case. “I think it’s outrageous,” he says. “The Bush people have been let off. The telecom companies got immunity. The only people Obama has prosecuted are the whistle-blowers.”

And that’s to say nothing of the full-scale immunity also given thus far to Goldman Sachs, Bank of America, Merrill, and the mortgage fraudsters who have essentially stolen people’s homes.  About what motivates Obama’s conduct — his virtually complete reversal from the campaign pledges — Drake offers this speculation:

“I actually had hopes for Obama,” he said.  He had not only expected the President to roll back the prosecutions launched by the Bush Administration; he had thought that Bush Administration officials would be investigated for overstepping the law in the “war on terror.”

But power is incredibly destructive,” Drake said. “It’s a weird, pathological thing. I also think the intelligence community coöpted Obama, because he’s rather naïve about national security. He’s accepted the fear and secrecy. We’re in a scary space in this country.”

On Twitter this morning, The American Prospect‘s Adam Serwer said of the New Yorker article:  ”Jane Mayer does to warrantless wiretapping what she did to torture.”  That’s true, but one could just as accurately say that Mayer does to the Obama administration what she did to the Bush administration:  expose its most rotted attributes.

Here is the Greenpeace-Center for Biological Diversity letter in its entirety (original is PDF – posted with permission):

August 4, 2011

Mr. Ken Salazar Secretary of the Interior
U.S. Department of the Interior
1849 C Street, NW
Washington, DC 20240

Dr. John P. Holdren, Director Office of Science & Technology Policy
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Ave., NW
Washington, DC 20500

Dear Secretary Salazar and Dr. Holdren,

The protection of scientific independence and integrity is crucial to the creation of sound national policy, especially with respect to environmental and natural resource issues. We therefore fully support the spirit and letter of the President’s Executive Order regarding scientific integrity, and it is with this memorandum in mind that we write you about the recent suspension of a senior scientist at the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement, Dr. Charles Monnett.

Dr. Monnett is responsible for undertaking and coordinating a broad slate of research into the distribution of marine mammals, including polar bears. This crucial long-term research has been approved by MMS/BOEMRE in part to produce baseline data against which to judge the potential impacts of proposed oil drilling in the waters off Alaska.

Prior to being placed on administrative leave, Dr. Monnett was subjected to an interrogation by criminal investigators from the Department of Interior Inspector General (IG) relating to his observations of drowned polar bears and the publication of those observations in a peer-reviewed scientific journal. Based on the transcript of that interview, it appears that Dr. Monnett is himself being subjected to precisely the type of political interference in his work that the Executive Order and scientific integrity policy are designed to prevent. This apparent interference is originating not only from the IG, which has sent agents with no scientific training to ask decidedly unscientific questions about bizarre allegations relating to the polar bear paper, but also, as it emerged during the interview, from BOEMRE managers themselves.

Following clear evidence of misconduct within the BOEMRE’s predecessor agency, the Minerals Management Service, it was hoped that this reorganized agency, under Michael Bromwich’s leadership, would reform its working practices and usher in a new era of respect for independent scientific research. However, this incident indicates that the agency remains rife with problems and seems determined to restrict scientists from engaging in or disseminating research that provides critical information on the potential impacts of oil drilling in a rapidly changing Arctic.

This makes us question whether Mr. Bromwich, the agency and more broadly the Department of Interior are able to uphold the tenets of the Presidential Executive Order on scientific integrity or indeed the DOI’s own Science Integrity Policy, issued in September 2010.

We are gravely concerned by the allegations of political interference with Dr. Monnett’s work and other scientific research at BOEMRE, as well as by the conduct of the investigation against Dr. Monnett. This incident will chill other agency scientists’ ability to carry out and communicate their research.

We thus request your assurance that these critically important issues will receive an immediate, full, and open review by both the Department of Interior and the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy.

We look forward to your response and thoughts on this matter.

Yours sincerely,

Kert Davies Research Director
Greenpeace US
702 H St NW
Washington D.C. 20001

Kassie Siegel Senior Counsel
Climate Law Institute Director
Center for Biological Diversity
P.O. Box 549
Joshua Tree, CA 92252

Although their concerns center on lack of implementation of newly announced reforms in the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement, which is the successor of the totally discredited similar office in the now-defunct Minerals Management Service, and of possible “political interference” in scientific work, those of us familiar with the patterns exhibited previously by Obama can probably read much between the very carefully written lines of the joint request.

Who would have thought that Obama could make the fundamentalist Bush’s war on science seem so pale in comparison?

[Editor's note: The original photograph, Giordano Bruno (and friend) by Fernando W, was replaced due to copyright restrictions.]