Shell In Seattle, Power, Americans For Prosperity Leading Opposition to Medicaid Expansion [Reposted*]

A What Do I Know? reader in Seattle sent this picture he took Thursday from the ferry of Shell's oil rig. (But I was in Denali Thursday so I just got the picture.)

Think about people used to power, used to getting their way.  People in positions of authority in large organizations that have the money to convince the weak to agree and to destroy those who would stand up against them.

The large oil companies are used to getting their way, whether it's in places like Africa or Asia where they can buy government leaders or US states where they can do the same.  In Alaska, Conoco-Phillips put one of their lawyer/lobbyists into the governorship and two more of their employees into the legislature.  They are so used to getting their way, they  pay no attention to those who disagree with them - including the Democratic minority.

Think about the people who are currently keeping the Alaska Republican leaders from agreeing to expand Medicaid, despite the overwhelming support for its expansion.  NPR had a piece on five states
that have been dealing with Medicaid expansion - Florida, Wyoming, Utah, Montana, and Alaska.  In all these places the Koch Brothers' supported Americans for Prosperity (AFP) has spent a lot of money in opposition to Medicaid expansion. 

Montana's a slightly different case from the others.  Legislators got angry at AFP for going behind their backs and connecting directly with constituents. 

In Alaska, it seems they've gone directly to Chenault and Meyers, the heads of the state house and senate respectively.  Because they're saying no to everyone else and refusing to make any concessions.  As I said, if you get used to power, you think you can do whatever you want. 

Salon has an article on how Americans for Prosperity "blew up" the Tennessee Medicaid expansion bill.



Context:

Forbes puts David Koch's wealth at $42.7 billion.  They also put Charles Koch at the same amount.  I wasn't sure if that amount was combined or individual.  Bloomberg, though, puts them jointly at $100 billion. 

To get a sense of things, suppose your net worth was $100,000.  If you spent the same percentage of your wealth as the Koch brothers it would be something like:

Koch brothers spend $1 million.
You spend $1.

You spend $200 on a candidate.
The Koch brothers would spend $200 million.

This is why people like Tom Hayden were talking about economic democracy back in the 1970s.  Because without a reasonably level playing field, we lose democracy.

As we see in the Medicaid fight.  And the way Shell can tell Seattle to go to hell, we'll put our oil rigs wherever we damn well please.  

* I'm reposting because Feedburner didn't catch this one to blogrolls. Apologies to those who came here earlier.  I'm trying to figure out a good way to signal you, so you don't come back to a post you've already seen. 

Blogger Overload - Things I Haven't Posted From Erin's Law To Shell Arctic Drilling

There is a bunch of posts still listed as drafts in my blog index of posts.  Some will never see the light of day because there are more important things, they've been partly incorporated in other posts, or they are old and the topic's been covered enough elsewhere.

The battle between living and blogging is sometimes easy and sometimes hard.  Ideally, the blog captures bits and pieces of life as I live it.  But my kids have said the grandchildren are off limits for the blog, so reflections on their growing language skills ("The rocket's at my house") and other motor skills (crawling up and down the wheel chair ramp at my mom's house) don't get chronicled here, though I think they are significant, not just for me, but for the world.  This point was made today by someone who spent about ten minutes on an older post about infants learning sign language. 

Some posts are partly or largely written.  Others are just notes.  Here are some examples.

Obergefell
What signs from the Supreme Court hearing on Obergefell are worth attending to get a sense of what their decision might be and the implications for the future?

Shell Arctic Drilling
I did a fair amount of reporting on Shell's previous Arctic drilling plans  (for example) and the later fiasco with Kulluk.  You might look at the link on the plans.  Those were last time.  I've looked quickly at parts of the new ones.  My issue then was that they were more PR than actual operational plans of what to do.  This time it seems there is more detail, but still a lot missing.  For example, there's this sort of reassuring language, that reminds me a lot of the reassuring (but incorrect) language they had in 2013.

"Operational Monitoring:
Operational monitoring is conducted to minimize the potential of penetrating an overpressure
zone resulting in a loss of hydrostatic overbalance.

1. 1)  Flow checks are conducted with the pumps off to confirm the static mud weight over balances pore pressure.
   
2. 2)  Frequent pit drills and mock well control drills are planned and conducted.
   
3. 3)  Drilling Contractor / Shell Staff have relevant and current Well Control Certificates.
   
4. 4)  Shell requires its operational staff to attend and pass its internal Advanced Well Control Training.
   
5. 5)  Real Time monitoring of the well and operational parameters is conducted by the Real Time Operations Center that is staffed by a team of experts. Any anomalous signals or indications are immediately relayed to the rig.
   

This extra set of monitoring provides a secondary team of individuals to monitor the wells status and minimize the potential for loss of situation awareness by the drilling team" [from page 2/6 Well Control Plan which is in a zip file linked at Appendices and Attachments on this page at this Bureau of Oceans and Environment Management (BOEM) page. ]

"loss of situational awareness' was a big red flag for me.  Here's a post I did on that phrase back in 2010:  Euphemism Alert!! What the hell is "Lack of Situational Awareness"?

I understand that there's an art to giving an overview, and I have yet to probe deep enough in all the documents to find out if there are more operational details than this. 

For instance,
1)   how often the flow checks are conducted and where the results of those tests go and how quickly and how quickly do government regulators see them? 
2)  What does 'frequent'?  I'd like to see some numbers - once a week, once a month (I don't know what's reasonable) - and records kept and reported that they happened and what was learned from each drill and what improvements were made based on the drill. 
3/4) should be expanded somewhere to list the job titles of the "Shell staff" and "operational staff" and the names of the people in those positions with a list of the specific certificates they have, when they got them,  plus links to what the training includes and what the certificate guarantees the staff know and can perform. 
5) how about a list of the 'team of experts' including their name and expertise and how their expertise is determined.

It's in Shell's interest that all this rhetoric is backed up, but I know these things are written to get approval.  I'd like to know that BOEM is getting more detail than this.  BUT, it may be in there somewhere, I just haven't had the time to read it all and then find the people I can ask my questions of.  So, these posts are still unwritten. 

Then there's this somewhat disturbing prospect:

The estimated total duration from the initial mooring to well kill pumping through a relief well would be approximately 28 days for a Burger blowout (Table 1). In the event of a blowout, the secondary rig if located at the Burger Prospect, will cease drilling, suspend the well so that it cannot flow, recover its BOP stack and moorings, and transit to the relief well drill site. In this case, the estimated duration of flow prior to drilling a relief well to intersection with the original wellbore and killing the flow is approximately 34 days (six days to mobilize and moor and 28 days to kill the well). If the secondary rig is located in Dutch Harbor, the rig will transit from Dutch Harbor to the relief well drill site. The rig will initiate relief well drilling operations upon arrival and mooring and will remain at the site through plugging operations on both the relief well and the blowout well. The max additional time required will be to unmoor in Dutch Harbor, transit to relief well site, and moor is an estimated 10 days (10 days to mobilize and moor and 28 days to kill the well).  [emphasis added] [Page 2-5 from
Revised Outer Continental Shelf Lease Exploration PlanChukchi Sea, AlaskaBurger Prospect:Posey Area Blocks 6714, 67626764, 6812, 6912, 6915Chukchi Sea Lease Sale 193]

I don't know what sort of damage can happen in 28 days, and I need to check.  But I suspect it won't be pretty. 

But I also know that Shell has huge incentives for everything to go right.  Not only are accidents costly to them in lost time and equipment, they are disastrous in terms of public opinion and the future obstacles that result.  So Shell surely wants things to go well, wants to get oil as quickly as they can with no mishaps.  I don't question their intentions to have no serious problems.  The question is their ability to carry it out.

They have a lot of smart people, but many of them are smart in a narrow area of knowledge.  But I have lots of reading to do, and questions to ask before I tackle this for real.  And I may or may not get there.  

Erin's Law
This bill still hasn't been passed.  I've emailed the representatives who voted against it (only Rep. Tammy Wilson has responded) and I've got what the ADN says their reasons for opposing it are.  But I need to get a bit more information.

Others

Tanaina preschool followup, mayoral election reflections, left over press club conference thoughts, the university searches for a president and Fairbanks chancellor, and it goes on. 
And then there are a dozen posts in my head that haven't gotten into writing even.

And it's essentially summer in Alaska and Denali calls for a visit before the buses are taking the tourists in.

Seattle's Politicians, Unlike Alaska's, Don't Fawn Over Shell And Arctic Drilling

The Stranger has an article that says Seattle Mayor (and the city council is also on board):

". . .  directed the Seattle Department of Planning and Development to investigate the Port of Seattle's decision to make Seattle the homeport for Shell's Arctic drilling fleet.

"Any project of this apparent significance to our industrial lands must go through the appropriate review," Murray said in a statement. 'It's important that the public and surrounding businesses are informed of all the possible impacts of this lease—both economic and environmental—and that these impacts are sufficiently disclosed and evaluated. This is why I’m directing DPD to conduct a thorough review of the Terminal 5 proposal and determine if the anticipated activities at the terminal involving the Shell drilling fleet require new permits before it can proceed.'"

Did you get that?  'It's important that the public and surrounding businesses are informed of all the possible impacts of this lease."  Our former governor was doing everything he could, along with his then Attorney General/Commissioner of Natural Resources, now Senator Sullivan, to prevent local communities from knowing and having a say about anything. 

Some politicians, it seems, think beyond the short term possible job bump, to the bigger issues. 

Are we now going to start hearing about Seattle overreach from some of our Alaskan politicians? 

Thanks S, for the link. 

The Dangerous Machine And Other Distractions

I'm trying to be faithful to my blog, and I have a list of unfinished posts, but I also have other distractions in my life.  As we left Seattle I stopped to empty my pockets right before going through security next to the "Dangerous Machine" credited to Cappy Thompson, Dick Weiss, and James Lobb of Pottery Northwest.

Dangerous Machine - Cappy Thompson, Dick Weiss, James Lobb 

Cappy Thompson created the stained glass window at the south end of Seatac and Dick Weiss has a big one at the north end.

Which leads to another project - organizing my photos so I can find old ones, because somewhere I have a picture of the north stained glass window.  Can you tell I liked the dangerous machine?  It enlarges a little bit if you click on it.  And I still have to learn photoshop's tricks for getting rid of the reflected lights.  The tips I've read are fairly tedious and time consuming.  The best one is use a polarized filter when you take the picture - but that's not an option (to my knowledge) with my Powershot.  I did play a little with the background.

Other Distractions

I'm preparing to teach the capstone class for the public administration MPA this spring.  It's the class where the students find organizations in the community who could use them on some sort of organizational/management analysis project that will allow them to apply the things they've learned in all their other classes.

I'm going through last year's blog posts to see if there is anything good enough to submit to the Alaska Press Club's contest.  Last year's submissions got lost and they sent me my application fee back.  I had good stuff in 2013 - I was still finishing up the redistricting board and I'd covered the Kulluk press conferences.  2014 doesn't have anything quite that substantial.

from the book

And I'm working on a book for my granddaughter's 2nd birthday.  That still has a ways to go and the birthday is coming up soon.


Today I was at the Citizens Climate Lobby meeting and we heard from Shell Oil's climate change advisor, David Hone, who called in from London. (Here's a link to his blog.)  He basically said that Shell knows that climate change is an issue facing earth and is already factoring in a carbon fee into their financial planning.  He said they know there will be action to limit carbon and they prefer a straightforward fee or a cap and trade (their preference) approach to regulation.  These approaches, he claimed, would be equitable for all carbon producers.  (I'm still thinking about that, since one of the maxims I've picked up in my life is that every change has winners and losers.  Is his claim limited enough so that 'carbon producers' would be the 'losers' and the winners would be in other sectors?  Still thinking that through.)  I felt good because the momentum for a carbon fee has grown hugely since I joined CCL a few years ago and CCL has been a key player in changing the political climate for a carbon fee.  One of the stats that I heard that struck me was that CCL local chapters now cover - and I can't find the exact number in my notes - 80 or 90 percent of congressional districts.  That's a key number because the whole strategy of CCL is to have members of congress lobbied by their own constituents.

There had been some protests, we were told on the conference call, to having the Shell guy there.  But the response was that we have to be willing to talk to everyone as human to human if we're going to get things done.  He's message, to a degree, overlaps ours.  But I also blogged the Kulluk fiasco last year and I know that the Shell spokespersons told us as little as they thought they could get away with and in some cases outright lied - such as whether they left Dutch Harbor when they did to avoid paying a tax.

Then I caught a ride over to the library to pick up a book I had on hold (No Land's Man by Aasif Mandvi).  Anchorage legislators were holding a community meeting in the Assembly chambers so I stuck my head in and listened to a teacher talk about the new teacher evaluation system ASD is using after opting out of No Child Left Behind.  She was an award winning teacher who got very emotional as she explained that the new system made it impossible for a teacher to be rated highly.  But she didn't go into enough detail for me, so I followed her out and asked her for more detail.  I've got that on video and so that makes one more post in my line up of unfinished posts.

And then I enjoyed the warm (for Anchorage) 38˚F (according to a bank message board) sunny weather as I walked home.

You Get What You Pay For

I'm paralyzed - there are so many things to write about I don't know where to start. I'll  never catch up.   But the genius of being an unpaid blogger is that if I don't post today, my readers can't cut my pay. 

Here are some things I'm not ready to post about:

Kid's Count Report - headline on the email:

No Child Left Behind—Except 73 Percent of Alaska’s 4^th Graders

Shocking New Numbers Rank Alaska 45^th in Nation for 4^th Grade Reading Proficiency; Show Troubling Racial Disparities in Learning Outcomes

Ervin Kaplan, artist

• Some art exhibit pics still from LA.  Here are the museum custodians playing tic tac toe on the Mondrian at jna gallery in Santa Monica.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
• Thoughts on the ADN's new sections on Science, Technology, Health; some of their headlines;  and the end of the Ear and what Amanda Coyne has done with its reincarnation, or as Hollis French might say, "pourquoi?"
  
• Book club meeting on Tom Kizzia's Pilgrim's Wilderness. 
  
• The Coast Guard's Kulluk report which seems to support the frustration this blog had with their press releases last year which tended to say how great Shell was doing and withhold everything else. 
• Impact of the Koch "dump Begich" campaign.
  
   
• Easternization and Confucius Meets Feminism -  followup from the Philosophy conference last weekend.

Or how nice a day it is today and why I should go out and enjoy the sun and snow and ice free surfaces (including in front of my house, but not yet everywhere.)

Shell Could Learn From This Kulik - Four Russians Make It Around the World In Inflatable Catamaran

While Shell Oil has had a lot of trouble with its oil rig the Kulluk, four Russians on the Kulik expedition have managed to navigate around the world an inflatable craft of their own design.

The Phuket News reports they arrived back in Phuket after five years.

The team, under skipper Anatoly Kulik,59, left Phuket in February 2008. They sailed some 60,000 kilometres, made landfall in 38 countries and spent a total of 13 months at sea.

Kulik himself, a master of boat-borne water sports, a “Distinguished Traveler of Russia” (an award from the Russian Sports Federation), and a member of the Russian Geographical Society (RGS). Responsibilities on the expedition: team leader, ship’s captain and cook;

Evgeny Kovalevsky, 56, twice Russian champion and silver prize-winner in boat-borne water sports, also a Distinguished Travelerand member of the RGS, the crew’s “chief diplomat” (responsible for establishing rapport with local authorities and the community), interpreter, videographer and photographer;

Evgeny Tashkin, another champion in boat-borne water sports, acting as video and camera operator, chronicler of the voyage and in charge of Internet connectivity; and

Stanislav Beryozkin, Russian champion in long-distance sailing, the expedition’s navigator and communications chief. . .

Stanislav Beryozkin, Russian champion in long-distance sailing, the expedition’s navigator and communications chief.
- See more at: http://www.thephuketnews.com/foursome-back-in-phuket-after-record-odyssey-38258.php#sthash.suilP5S1.dpuf

Comfort was never at a premium. Accommodation was in a 12-square-metre tent-like structure erected above the hulls, which also served as a miniature kitchen, and a warehouse for boxes of supplies, drinking water tanks, communication equipment and everything necessary for a long voyage.

Read the whole article here.

The video is short and in Russian, but some things transcend language. 

You Thrilled To The Kulluk's Saga, Now See Those Responsible Live, In Concert Person

[The Message in brief:  Go to this hearing just to see the key folks involved in drilling oil in the Alaskan Arctic.  Go see that these are just human beings and look them in the eye.  The more people who actually go and see them, the more people who will listen when they are back in the news saying, "No problem, just a minor mishap that isn't unexpected in situations like this."  Besides, other meetings I've been to on oil issues have usually had a high percentage of oil related employees.  There needs to be some balance.

Wednesday, March 27, 2013, Library Room 307, 10-12

UAA faculty?  Get your students to go see this.  Go yourself.  There are lots of classes that have a connection to Arctic oil drilling.   And your students know how to park on campus.]



I try to keep the an open, if skeptical, mind in this blog, but Shell Oil's attempts to look transparent while saying as little as they could get away with concerning the Kulluk and Noble Explorer oil rigs makes it hard.

I got an email last week from Senator Begich's office that started with:

"Alaska Field Hearing on Increased Arctic Maritime Activity Representatives from Shell Oil, Department of Interior, and Coast Guard to Attend"

It then went on:

"U.S. Sen. Mark Begich, chairman of the Senate Subcommittee on Oceans, Atmosphere, Fisheries and Coast Guard, announced that he will hold a hearing in Alaska on Arctic shipping safety and reviewing the lessons learned from the 2012 offshore drilling season. The hearing will be on March 27, 2013 from 10:00 a.m.—12:00 p.m. at the University of Alaska Anchorage (UAA) Consortium Library in Room 307."

You ever try to find a parking place - even if you have the top of the line UAA parking sticker - near the library at 10 am?   Who's off work from 10am-noon on a weekday?  I bet there will be some oil company employees in the audience. 

“Reviewing Shell’s maritime activities and the government’s oversight of these operations is the next logical step in responsible development and preparation for increased Arctic activities,” said Sen. Begich.  “There are always lessons to be learned and as Chairman of the Oceans subcommittee, I will continue to do everything I can to make sure that the U.S. is ready to fully take advantage of opportunities – from increased shipping to development and revenue sharing -  in an evolving Arctic.”

How much are they going to say?  Who's going to be asking the questions?  Sounds like this is aimed at saying, "Kulluk and Noble Explorer?  No problem.  You learn through your mistakes.  Oil drilling, full speed ahead."  And that idea is corroborated further in the press release: 

Sen. Begich has been a vocal supporter of Arctic development, including OCS drilling, the need for infrastructure development to support increased Arctic drilling, and a strengthened Coast Guard presence in the Arctic. He has repeatedly pressed the Obama administration to expedite the permitting process and as a result, Shell Oil became the first producer in 20 years to initiate drilling operations in the Chukchi and Beaufort Seas off Alaska’s northern coast.

So, why am I posting this then?  Because it's a chance to see the crew who has been responsible for the never-ending mishaps that seem to have gotten Shell North American VP fired recently:

"The executive in charge of Shell’s troubled Arctic drilling program is stepping down.

David Lawrence was Shell’s vice president for North American exploration. He’s been with the company for almost 30 years. Now, a spokesman says he’s leaving “by mutual consent.”

Shell won’t say whether Lawrence’s departure has anything to do with the 2012 drilling season. But it’s only been a week since the Department of the Interior released its review of Shell’s Arctic program. Interior’s investigators said Shell wasn’t fully prepared for the logistical challenges it faced in the Arctic.

Lawrence made headlines a year ago when he told a Dow Jones reporter that drilling in the Beaufort and Chukchi seas would be “relatively easy.” He said the oil Shell is pursuing in the Alaskan Arctic is located in shallow, low-pressure areas that were simpler to access than other deposits." (from KTOO)

So who will be there?  The list is below.  Most will be there in the flesh, though a few will visit via video-conferencing.  Nothing wrong with that, but you can't mingle and talk to them during the breaks.  

Department of Interior (DOI) representatives will participate in the meeting and will provide an overview of DOI’s high-level review of Shell’s 2012 offshore drilling program in the Arctic Ocean.  Shell executives and representatives from the U.S. Coast Guard will testify as well.

Witness List:

The Honorable Tommy P. Beaudreau, Acting Assistant Secretary - Land and Minerals Management, US Department of the Interior (via video teleconference)

Rear Admiral Thomas P. Ostebo, Commander, Seventeenth District, U.S. Coast Guard

Mr. Pete E. Slaiby, Vice President, Exploration and Production, Shell Alaska

Ms. Helen Brohl, Executive Director, US Committee on the Marine Transportation System* (via video teleconference)

Mr. Ed Page, Executive Director, Marine Exchange of Alaska**

Ms. Eleanor Huffines, Manager, U.S. Arctic Campaign***, Pew Charitable Trusts

Mr. Matt Ganley, Vice President, Bering Straits Native Corp.

               

* What's the Committee on the Marine Trasporportation Systems you ask.  From the CMTS website:

The CMTS is a Federal Cabinet-level, inter-departmental committee chaired by the Secretary of Transportation.
The purpose of the CMTS is to create a partnership of Federal departments and agencies with responsibility for the Marine Transportation System (MTS). The job of the CMTS is to ensure the development and implementation of national MTS policies that are consistent with national needs and to report to the President its views and recommendations for improving the MTS.
The MTS is essential to the American economy; it supports millions of American jobs, facilitates trade, moves people and goods, and provides a safe, secure, cost-effective, and energy-efficient transportation alternative. But because much of the system’s infrastructure is aging and constrained by capacity limitations, the CMTS is working to ensure that the MTS continues to meet the present and future needs of our nation... keep reading »

** Or the Marine Exchange of Alaska?

The Marine Exchange of Alaska (MXAK) provides services that aid safe, secure, efficient and environmentally responsible maritime operations.
Marine Exchange of Alaska
1000 Harbor Way
Suite 204
Juneau, AK 99801
907-463-2607 tel

***I can find a Pew Trust Arctic Program, but not campaign.

So folks, GO!  Check out this meeting.  Get a sense of the people involved.  Don't worry about parking - take a bus - 2, 3, 11, 45, and a bunch of others go by there. Here's a link to the People Mover's tools for finding the right bus.  There's a bus stop right near the library.  [The meeting is free too.]

Just Go, get a sense of the players.  I'll be listening online from LA.  When I get the online link, I'll post it here. 

Shell Cancels 2013 Arctic Drilling

 In case you didn't hear, from Shell's statement today:

Shell announces pause in Alaska drilling programme

27 Feb 2013

Royal Dutch Shell plc (“Shell”) today announced it will pause its exploration drilling activity for 2013 in Alaska’s Beaufort and Chukchi Seas to prepare equipment and plans for a resumption of activity at a later stage.

“We’ve made progress in Alaska, but this is a long-term programme that we are pursuing in a safe and measured way,” said  Marvin Odum, Director, Upstream Americas.  “Our decision to pause in 2013 will give us time to ensure the readiness of all our equipment and people following the drilling season in 2012.”
Alaska holds important energy resources. At the same time, securing access to those resources requires special expertise, technology and an in depth understanding of the environmental and societal sensitivities unique to the region. Shell is one of the leaders in an industry move into offshore Arctic exploration. The company continues to use its extensive experience in Arctic and sub-Arctic environments to prepare for safe activities in Alaska.
Alaska remains an area with high potential for Shell over the long term, and the company is committed to drill there again in the future. If exploration proves successful, resources there would take years to develop.
Shell completed top-hole drilling on two wells in 2012 in the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas, marking the industry’s return to offshore drilling in the Alaskan Arctic after more than a decade. This drilling was completed safely, with no serious injuries or environmental impact.  After the drilling season ended, however, one of Shell’s drilling rigs, the Kulluk, was damaged in a maritime incident related to strong weather conditions. The Kulluk and the second drilling rig, the Noble Discoverer, will be towed to locations in Asia for maintenance and repairs.
“Shell remains committed to building an Arctic exploration program that provides confidence to stakeholders and regulators, and meets the high standards the company applies to its operations around the world,” said Odum. “We continue to believe that a measured and responsible pace, especially in the exploration phase, fits best in this remote area.

Many people were speculating that with the two Arctic oil rigs on the way to Asia for repairs, it wasn't likely they would be drilling summer of 2013. 


From the NY Times piece on this:

The Interior Department, the Coast Guard and the Justice Department are reviewing Shell’s operations, which have included groundings, environmental and safety violations, weather delays, the collapse of its spill-containment equipment and other failures. . .

“This is not a surprise, as Shell has had numerous serious problems in getting to and from the Arctic, as well as problems operating in the Arctic,” said Lois N. Epstein, Arctic program director for the Wilderness Society and a member of the Interior Department panel reviewing Shell’s operations.

“Shell’s managers have not been straight with the American public, and possibly even with its own investors, on how difficult its Arctic Ocean operations have been this past year,” she said. [Whole article here]

Kulluk Unified Command Final Update #45

I learned about the official announcement that the Kulluk and the Noble Discoverer - the two oil rigs that Shell had working in the Arctic last year - were being sent to Asia for extensive work from the New York Times and the Anchorage Daily News, but NOT from an email from the Kulluk Unified Command.  The Unified Command's last Update, number 44, was posted January 30.  So  I decided to write my own Update #45.  

"Update #45: Kulluk continues to remain stable – engineering analysis complete

Unified Command continues to oversee preparations for the next steps in the Kulluk embarrassment. Multiple entities remain involved including: the U.S. Coast Guard, Shell, the State of Alaska, Smit Salvage and Det Norske Veritas, and, as little as we can get away with, the media.

• Unified Command’s priority continues to be the safety of all personnel, the environment, and Shell's bottom line.
• Close coordination with the communities of Kodiak, Old Harbor, and any others we can buy off is ongoing.
• Old Harbor Native Corporation, in collaboration with Unified Command, continues to develop plans to access the shoreline and surrounding area with a lucrative contract from Shell to clean up life boat debris in return for their public praise of Shell's efforts.
• The UC has received the final engineering analysis report on the damage to the Kulluk, but we will not release this to the public unless required to by the courts.  However, we are pleased to announce that we are rewarding the tireless efforts of the crew of the Kulluk and also the Noble Discoverer, whose problems we were much more successful in keeping out of the media,  with a North Pacific cruise to Asia aboard the two rigs.  While there, out of sight from the media, in order to further enhance the already completely reliable, state of the art Arctic safety features of the rigs, we will have 350 of the world's best naval architects and ship builders design even more incredible safety features."

When I wrote this, yesterday afternoon there was no real Update #45 from the Unified Command.  When the really big news came out Monday, that both rigs - the Kulluk along with Noble Corp's Noble Discoverer, on contract to Shell and sitting more quietly in Seward - are headed to Asia for repairs, the Unified Command was silent.   Nothing on the website.  No emails to people on the list as I would have expected like the first 44 updates.  

But no, the press release came from Shell Alaska.  Real reporters, like the ADN's Lisa Demer, know these things, but amateurs like me were left in the dark when the announcement came out. 

So as I was going back to the websites for screenshots of their old announcements for my snarky Update #45 post  to show that there is no mention of this latest move, two days after it got international attention, I found a real Update #45, dated 5pm yesterday (Wednesday.)


As you read through the REAL Update #45, you'll see that in some ways, I'm beginning to get the hang of writing these things. Partly it's because they keep repeating themselves. 

The new info I see includes:

1.  The Unified Command is shutting down.

Propsed Kulluk Route from Kodiak to Dutch Harbor from Fact Sheet

2.  The Kulluk is going to Dutch Harbor - a ten day trip - "where a purpose-built dock for the Kulluk’s conical shape is situated" before being 'dry-towed' to Asia.


The rest I think was already out in the world Monday. 

As you read it, note how upbeat the update is.  "The Kulluk's in great shape. Oh by the way there was a bit of damage, but nothing you wouldn't expect from spending a couple of weeks on the rocks in pounding Aleutian surf. " Also note the difference in language in the quote from the Coast Guard's Paul Mehler and Shell's Sean Churchfield. 


The REAL Update:

DATE: February 13, 2013 5:30:00 PM AKST

For more information contact:

Unified Command Joint Information Center at (907) 433-3417

Update #45: Kulluk Response Unified Command to stand down

Feb. 13, 2013

ANCHORAGE, Alaska – The Unified Command met its objectives for the Kulluk response and will stand down Wednesday afternoon.

“Agency representatives will return to their normal roles and responsibilities," said Capt. Paul Mehler III, the Coast Guard Federal On-Scene Coordinator. “The Coast Guard will continue to monitor the activities involved in prepping the Kulluk for movement and I will lift the Captain of the Port order once all the requirements have been met."

“Our objectives for the duration of this response have been to ensure the safety of all responders involved, protect the environment, and prepare the Kulluk for its next port. Thanks to the hard work and professionalism of all those involved in this extraordinary effort, we have achieved these goals,” said Sean Churchfield, Shell Incident Commander. “I want to thank all of the individuals involved in the recovery effort for their dedication to ensuring a successful outcome.”

After weeks of thorough assessment, analysis and on board activity, Shell confirmed that the Kulluk is safe to tow out of Kiliuda Bay. This decision is based on independent review by Det Norske Veritas (DNV) validating that the Kulluk’s structural integrity and stability, post grounding, is sound for towing. Shell has received DNV Class Certification* and Flag State approval** for the Kulluk. As part of the preparations for the tow, an independent warranty surveyor will approve the towing vessels and equipment arrangements and witness the connection of the tugs to the Kulluk. (To learn more, read the fact sheet.)

The vessel will be towed to Dutch Harbor where a purpose-built dock for the Kulluk’s conical shape is situated. This will allow for heightened safety as the Kulluk is prepared for a dry-tow transit to Asia, where it will undergo repairs.  The Kulluk will be towed by  three ocean-going tugs to Dutch Harbor and accompanied by the response vessel Nanuq.  The transit time is approximately 10 days.

The completion of the damage assessment revealed that the inner hull of the Kulluk was not breached and that all fuel tanks remain intact.  The outer hull did receive damage as expected with a vessel being aground during adverse weather.  In addition, the Kulluk encountered water damage to its superstructure which resulted in damage to technical equipment and a breach of windows and hatches. Over the past few weeks, all damaged windows and hatches on the Kulluk’s main deck have been secured, and where necessary, temporary steel structures have been put in place to ensure that the vessel is weather tight and prepared for the tow.

Plans continue for the clean-up of the lifeboat debris on Sitkalidak Island. Shell is working with the Old Harbor Native Corporation who will be overseeing the teams working to clear related debris from the area, but due to the extreme challenges of the terrain, this activity will continue for some time so it can be carried out safely.

“The State determined that the command objectives established on day one have been achieved and therefore that it is appropriate to stand down the Unified Command. The State will continue to work with Shell, Coast Guard and stakeholders to ensure that the debris on our Kodiak beaches is recovered,” said State On-scene Coordinator Steve Russell. “We will also be available to those with questions or concerns about this response.”

“Throughout this response, our federal, state, local and tribal partners have remained dedicated to ensuring the safety of Alaska’s maritime communities and environment,” said Mehler.

During the peak of the response, more than 750 dedicated and hard-working individuals from all over the world worked to bring the recovery to a safe conclusion.

For inquiries regarding the Kulluk, please contact the Shell U.S. media line: 713-241-4544. Inquiries to the Coast Guard should be directed to Petty Officer 1st Class David Mosley at 907-271-2660. Inquires to the State of Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation should be directed to State On-scene Coordinator Steve Russell at 907-262-3401.

*Note:  I'm not completely sure what DNV Class Certification means.  Here's a description from DNV's website:

All ships being assigned class with DNV will be given a class notation consisting of a construction symbol, a main character of class, service area restriction notations and main ship type notations, as applicable. Class notations cover mandatory and optional requirements. Class notations may be given a supplemental symbol. The supplement is used to identify special requirements or limitations related to the class notation.
All class notations are listed and categorised in the DNV Rules for Classification of Ships, part 1, chapter 2 and the DNV Rules for High Speed, Light Craft and Naval Surface Craft, part 1, chapter 1. To purchase the Rules, please go to our webshop. [The webshop link didn't work, but here's a link to all their rules.]

I do not know anything about this other than what I'm reading.  But it would be interesting to see whether Shell's certification has a supplement identifying "special requirements or limitations."

Here's a bit more from their Rules for Classification of Ships - January 2013.

DNV is a global provider of knowledge for managing risk. Today, safe and responsible business conduct is both a license to operate and a competitive advantage. Our core competence is to identify, assess, and advise on risk management. From our leading position in certification, classification, verification, and training, we develop and apply standards and best practices. This helps our customers safely and responsibly improve their business performance. DNV is an independent organisation with dedicated risk professionals in more than 100 countries, with the purpose of safeguarding life, property and the environment.
The Rules lay down technical and procedural requirements related to obtaining and retaining a Class Certificate. It is used as a contractual document and includes both requirements and acceptance criteria.

**I'm not sure what Flag Ship Approval means.  Or what it looks like.  I found a document from the US Coast Guard that may be related (or not):  DNV RULES FOR CLASSIFICATION OF SHIPS AND INTERNATIONAL CONVENTIONS

Latest Kulluk Update

There was a new Update today.  It's been almost two weeks since the last one.  Here it is:

DATE: January 30, 2013 9:20:00 AM AKST

For more information contact:

Unified Command Joint Information Center at (907) 433-3417

Update #44: Kulluk remains stable – engineering analysis continues

Jan. 30, 2013

Unified Command continues to oversee preparations for the next steps in the Kulluk response. Multiple entities remain involved including: the U.S. Coast Guard, Shell, the State of Alaska, Smit Salvage and Det Norske Veritas.

• Unified Command’s priority continues to be the safety of all personnel and the environment.
• Tow equipment has been secured and is currently in Kodiak.
• The Kulluk’s openings on the main deck (i.e., windows and hatches) have been secured and in some cases temporary steel structures have been added to close the openings to make the vessel water- and weather-tight for potential tow operations.  A few remain open to allow for ongoing operations.
• Close coordination with the communities of Kodiak and Old Harbor is ongoing.
• Old Harbor Native Corporation, in collaboration with Unified Command, continues to develop plans to access the shoreline and surrounding area to clean up life boat debris.
• The UC has received confirmation from naval architects that the damage sustained by the grounding poses no threat to the stability or integrity of the Kulluk while anchored in Kiliuda Bay. The next step is an analysis of this data to determine the best course of action to relocate the Kulluk for permanent repairs. The UC will not speculate on this next step until the DNV and USCG give their recommendations for safely relocating the Kulluk.    

Does this debunk Phil's post from yesterday?  I don't know.  What questions does it raise?

•  The Kulluk’s openings on the main deck (i.e., windows and hatches) have been secured and in some cases temporary steel structures have been added to close the openings to make the vessel water- and weather-tight for potential tow operations.  A few remain open to allow for ongoing operations.

I guess this means that the  "openings on the main deck (i.e. windows and hatches)" were damaged enough that they couldn't just fix them.  They had to add 'temporary steel structures.'   Assuming that their use of 'i.e.' is correct, then windows and hatches are the only openings that have been secured this way.  (See Grammar Monster for difference between i.e. and e.g.)

• Tow equipment has been secured and is currently in Kodiak.

Is this in addition to all the tow equipment that was already on hand and that got the Kulluk from its original grounding spot to Kiliuda Bay?  

• Close coordination with the communities of Kodiak and Old Harbor is ongoing.
• Old Harbor Native Corporation, in collaboration with Unified Command, continues to develop plans to access the shoreline and surrounding area to clean up life boat debris.

Basically this is a "we're doing good things" statement without giving any details.  What have they given Kodiak and Old Harbor in exchange for their cooperation?  We know that the Executive Director of Old Harbor Native Corporation, Carl Marrs, wrote a glowing op ed piece for Shell.  But we don't know what Shell promised in exchange.  I understand that Shell might react to this with frustration.  "We're doing everything that we should be doing and the bloggers still complain."  But since we have no idea what it is you are specifically  doing, we can only speculate.  And if our speculation is on the negative end, it's only because we assume that if you had good things to say, you'd tell us.

You do say that you are collaborating with Old Harbor Native Corporation on clean up plans.  What exactly does 'collaborating' mean?  How many jobs for how many dollars per hour will the Corporation members get?  For how long?  What else have you given or promised to give them?  I realize that you don't plan to tell us.  And so we are left to raise questions and to speculate until we get more specific answers.  If everything you were doing were praiseworthy, you'd tell us.  Like the recent story about your helping the Food Bank on Kodiak.

• The UC has received confirmation from naval architects that the damage sustained by the grounding poses no threat to the stability or integrity of the Kulluk while anchored in Kiliuda Bay. The next step is an analysis of this data to determine the best course of action to relocate the Kulluk for permanent repairs. The UC will not speculate on this next step until the DNV* and USCG give their recommendations for safely relocating the Kulluk.   

So long as the Kulluk sits anchored in Kiliuda Bay, it will be ok.  What about when it gets moved out of the Bay?

I understand that you are doing analysis, but according to UPDATE #43, you were finished with the data collection at least by January 18, twelve days ago.  I would have assumed that the data analysis would have started then.  Surely, by now you must know what your likely options are.  What are you trying to protect by not sharing what's going on?  Shell stock prices?  Letting your competition know?  (Surely they talk to the salvagers and know what's happening.)  Preventing those with interests and concerns from mobilizing with the information?

Am I being unduly harsh on Shell here?  Look, I'm one little blogger asking questions of one of the largest multi-national corporations in the world.  And Shell isn't being responsive at all, using the Unified Command and the Coast Guard to refuse to answer very reasonable questions about their operations in Alaska.  I know that they did horrendous things in Nigeria in the 1990's.  There's enough evidence that they've gotten some standing - however temporary - in a US Court.   I don't know  what they've learned from that situation.  But my suspicion is that they will do whatever they can get away with - less where laws and the justice system are stricter, more where they are not.  And even where they are good, Shell's enormous wealth can buy them the best lawyers available.  So, no, I don't think I'm being harsh.



*DNV = I gave a little background of Det Norse Veritas here.

Bloggers, Media Ethics/Standards, And The Kulluk

Bloggers are still writing their own rules about how to go about reporting the news.  Traditional journalists used to have strict rules about confirming what they write. There seems to be a spiraling down of such standards these days though. 

This all comes up because a fellow Alaska blogger posted Monday that Shell's oil rig Kulluk is significantly damaged and may be sent to Asia for repairs.  This would be a pretty big story if it turns out to be true.  There's been no hint of something like this from the Unified Command, which has been silent for over a week now.  I don't have enough knowledge about oil rigs and shipping to read between the lines of their reports that say "the Kulluk is stable and no oil was released."  Nor do I know how significant seawater leakage is.  But the Unified Command's minimalist updates have raised the question: 

What are they hiding?  

So, what should bloggers do when people on the scene give them information that isn't available through the formal channels but hard to verify further?  And what should other bloggers do when they see such stories?

Those aren't rhetorical questions.  I ask questions like that of myself a lot.  Blogs and Twitter and Facebook have tempted traditional media sources into reporting some events without traditional fact checking.  The race to be first to report has a pull, similar to taunts that get teenage boys to do things they oughtn't.

But I've also seen a positive side to alternative media reporting events that haven't been 100% confirmed. 

Individual bloggers don't have the clout or resources that a traditional newsroom has.  (A lot of current traditional newsrooms don't either any more.)  I see a phenomenon happening.  Bloggers each add a little information to the public debate.  Individually, they don't have enough information, but collectively they get important information out into the open.  As long as they give information on how they got the information so others can assess it and they qualify it appropriately, it's ok if it isn't always 100% accurate.  My personal preference is that bloggers consider the impacts of tentative information on the people it's about so they don't unnecessarily do damage.   It's like the traditional newsroom conversations about what to post, except it is publicly available. 

I'm torn about what my proper role is here.  Do I point out Phil's story to others - since it is out there and surely Shell knows about it and - according to Phil's post - wouldn't comment?  Will this needlessly spread rumor that may ultimately prove to be false?  Will it lead others to find other contacts who can help verify what Phil reports?

If it is true, does it matter if it's posted today or waits until Shell is ready to tell the world? I'm guessing that the sooner we know things the more questions there will be and that seeking answers before the corpse is removed will reveal more of what happened.  

A further wrinkle in this for me is that Phil cites this blog's concerns about how sparing Shell and the Unified Command have been with information.  Will pointing out the post be seen as blowing my own horn?  People will see what they want to see, so I can't worry about that.  Phil and I are not working together on this stuff and I didn't know about his post until I saw it posted.

The real questions seem to  me to be:
How newsworthy is this if it's true? 
How well did Phil document the story?

The answer to the first is: very.  To answer the second I asked myself how a traditional newsroom would handle this?  That isn't necessarily the standard that unpaid individual bloggers should have to follow, but it is at least a standard to think about it. 

So I looked up journalistic sourcing online and found that Reuters has an online journalism guide which clearly states that everything must be sourced. 

You must source every statement in every story unless it is an established fact or is information clearly in the public domain, such as court documents or in instances when the reporter, photographer or camera operator was on the scene. Good sources and well-defined sourcing help to protect the integrity of the file from overt outside pressures and manipulation and such hazards as hoaxes.

If an event is not contentious it may be legitimate to begin a story with a paragraph that does not contain a source, as long as the sourcing is clearly given high in the story.

 I take most of this as a given for this blog and Phil does source his allegations.

Reuters goes on to talk about where to place the source.

Newsbreaks should be sourced within the first two paragraphs. You should generally lead your story on the news, not the source, except in the following cases:

• If a story is inflammatory or is an allegation, give the source first. Write, for example: “Gallic leader Vercingetorix accused Emperor Julius Caesar of genocide”. Do not write: “Roman Emperor Julius Caesar has committed genocide, Gallic leader Vercingetorix said."
• If the source of a story is a major figure you would also usually put the source at the start. The same is true if the source is a weak one. For example, the secretary of a CEO who confirms that the executive was on his private jet when it crashed. If responsibility for a statement is clear, do not repeat sourcing unnecessarily.
• If there is an element of doubt in a pick-up, you would normally put the source first e.g. “A leading Manchuk newspaper reported on Friday that the President Mabee Iznogud was on the verge of resigning.”

Phil's post leads with the sources:

"I have now received word from two anonymous sources on Kodiak Island that it appears damage assessment of the Shell Oil drill rig Kulluk is far worse than has been thus far disclosed by the Unified Command."

But when can we use with anonymous sources?   Reuters addresses that:

The weakest sources are those whose names we cannot publish. Reuters uses anonymous sources when we believe they are providing accurate, reliable and newsworthy information that we could not obtain any other way. We should not use anonymous sources when sources we can name are readily available for the same information.

When I first saw Phil's story, I emailed him asking pretty much those questions:  how reliable are these sources?  Phil seems to think they know what they are talking about, but others interested in this aren't ready to go public with it.  He also lists the official sources that he has contacted and who have not responded to his queries. 

I myself contacted the Unified Command a week ago and got a form reply saying that they won't add information to the public updates.  (Someone did manage to let AP know that Shell was helping the Food Bank get food to remote Kodiak villages, so it appears that news that helps Shell's image is shared.  So perhaps news that isn't shared will do them harm.)

Unnamed sources must have direct knowledge of the information they are giving us, or must represent an authority with direct knowledge. Remember that reliability declines the further away the source is from the event, and tougher questions must be asked by reporters and supervisors on the validity of such information.

I don't know if the sources had direct knowledge or not.  But I understood that two separate sources gave him the same information.

Responsibility for reporting what an anonymous source says resides solely with Reuters and the reporter. There is no liability or potential reputational damage to the source, making this the least watertight form of sourcing. We should convey to readers as clearly as possible why we believe the source is reliable, and what steps we have taken to ensure we are not being manipulated. This is done most effectively by the way we describe the source. The more removed the source is from a subject, the less reliable the source is likely to be. Reporters and editors should question the validity of information from a source remote from the action. 

Any media's reputation is based on its credibility.  So to maintain that credibility you want to be sure you report only what you can confirm.  But do you ever take risks because a story is really important to publish?

Be as specific as possible. Negotiate hard with your source to agree a description that is sufficiently precise to enable readers to trust the reliability of our anonymous sourcing.
“A source” or “sources”, “observers” or “quarters” with no further description is vague and unacceptable. So is the use of “informed sources” or “reliable sources”. Would we quote an uninformed or unreliable source?
When reporting a corporate deal, describe the source as specifically as possible. Use “a company executive/banker/lawyer close to the transaction” to convey the fact that your source is directly involved in the deal, but “a source close to the transaction” is also acceptable if the source is unwilling to be identified more specifically. “Banking sources”, “industry sources” and “financial sources” can imply that the source may not have first-hand information and is therefore less authoritative. Always be as specific as possible.
Stories based on anonymous sources require particularly rigorous cross-checking. We should normally have two or three sources for such information.

My sense is that Phil's sources believe they risk retaliation if they are identified which is why they are not named.  He has two different sources.

Stories based on a single, anonymous source should be the exception and require approval by an immediate supervisor – a bureau chief, head of reporting unit in a large centre, or editor in charge.

This is a luxury that bloggers don't have.  And in this case there are two sources.

Bloggers aren't bound by Reuters' rules.  But I do think that Phil has clarified where he's gotten the information.  He used terms like "appears to be"  and "supposedly" to qualify the allegations.  He reports his unsuccessful efforts to get information from Shell and from the Coast Guard. 

I think this story is important enough for other bloggers and for mainstream media to start checking on it and if they find other sources to support Phil's story they should be sharing what they know with the world. 

Shell has assured the US government and the world that they are well experienced in Arctic drilling and that there will be no serious problems that they are unprepared for.  Yet there's been a series of embarrassments with their oil rigs in the last year.  In this case, the rig broke loose from the tug which lost power very close to the last Coast Guard base on the way north.  If they had hit a storm in the Bering Sea and lost the rig there, the story would have been much worse than this will turn out to be.  Shell has been doing its best to minimize the information that gets out to the world.  Journalists have an obligation to get independent information so that Shell isn't in charge of packaging the story of what happened.

Another Five Days or More Until Kulluk Can Be Moved

I posted about Shell's pledge to not move Kulluk until after the Tanner Crab Season which was dated January 16.  I haven't gotten an update from the Kulluk Unified Command since January 18. Today is the 26th.  So that's over a week.  And since I'm not in Anchorage, I thought maybe something got by me.  The Tanner Crab season should have been over by now based on what Mark Stichert, the Shellfish Management Biologist for the Alaska Department of Conservation, in Kodiak told me.

(Shell had said that they wouldn't move the oil rig until after the Tanner Crab season closed.)

So, I called Mark back on Friday (January 25) to find out if it had closed.

He said the season is still open at Kiliuda Bay.  There'd been some bad weather and the ships crabbing are small (40-60 foot) and go in during bad weather.  He said they were down to about 26 boats from the 44 that started.  There was still 140,000 pounds of crab (of the original 520,000 lbs) to be caught before the season would be closed.  

I asked him about a 660,000 pound figure I'd seen on a couple of websites (Island Seafoods and Deckboss).  Mark responded that there were more than one Tanner fishery and that was the combined target.

He said very clearly where it would be open and closed, but my notes aren't consistent so I'm not 100% sure.  My understanding is that the inshore quota has been reached, but not the offshore quota.  But parts of Kiliuda Bay are still open.

How much longer before the season closes (and Shell can move the Kulluk based on their pledge to not move it until the season closes)?

Could be five more days, could be longer.  They've been getting about 30,000 pounds a day, which would be about five days, but it depends on weather and how many boats keep fishing.

So, if someone wanted to keep the Kulluk there, maybe they could call most of the boats in and not get the quota for a while.  I didn't think of that when I was talking to Mark.  What happens if they don't reach the quota?  Is there a time when he closes it even if the quota isn't met?

The Unified Command Totally Unresponse To My Query

In a post Sunday, I went  went line-by-line through two Kulluk Unified Command Updates (#s 42 and 43) pointing out the ambiguities, the self-congratulations, the repetitions,  and general lack of forthcomingness.

But I held up posting it.  I decided I should at least submit some questions and give them a chance to answer.   I went to their page and filled out their comment/question form. (There's no phone number or email address on the Kulluk Unified Command page.)  After I got their response, I posted the previous post.

So, here's what I asked:

"Following up on Update #43.

You write:  "The damage discovered on the Kulluk is consistent with what is expected from a vessel of this type being on hard ground."

Can you tell me:
1.  What do you include in "vessel of this type"?  I assume off shore oil rigs.  Is that correct?
2.  How many vessels of this type have been 'on hard ground'?
3.  Can you give me the vessel names and dates?
4.  Specifically what damage "is expected from a vessel of this type being on hard ground"?
5.  You say the damage on the Kulluk is what is to be expected.  If you know that, then you must know what damage the Kulluk has.  Can you please detail that damage?

Thanks.

And here is the speedy answer back:

The following inquiry was submitted to Kulluk Tow Incident | Coast Guard,
Shell, Kodiak Borough, Alaska DEC, Noble on 01/19/13 08:49 (1117123):
From : Deb Sawyer
Date : 01/19/13 10:45

Thank you for contacting Unified Command. The information provided in the
most recent update includes all the details that have been released to
date. The report continues to be reviewed. Unified Command will not
comment on the damage assessment until the report is finalized. 

Deb Sawyer

 If you read my questions carefully, you'll see that four out of five of them have nothing to do with the results of the report or the damages of the Kulluk.  They are about past events about other incidents that have nothing to do with the Kulluk, except the previous update referenced them.


It's not just me thinking this.  Here are some other responses:

• Salvagers tight-lipped on recovery of Kulluk drilling rig that ran aground - Associated Press Headline at  The Oregonian  (Variations on this picked up at various others like The SeattlePI ,    The Olympian and the Albany, NY TimesUnion.)
• Unified Command Mum About Kulluk's Future   - Headline from KUCB Unalaska
• 'Unified Command' Tight-Lipped About Kulluk - Headline KMXT Kodiak
• After Kulluk Hull Damage Assessment, Shell Mum on Damage Extent – State of Alaska Could Care Less - Alaska blogger "Edward Teller" at Firedoglake 

But they aren't just mum about damage extent.  They are mum about everything.  At least at the news briefings there was a chance to ask questions to real people.  But the last one, to my knowledge, was January 5.  

Kulluk Unified Command Continues To Give Pseudo Updates

 I got one email Thursday and another Friday from the Kulluk Unified Command.  It's amazing how they can make the grounding of an oil drilling platform into a Shell celebratory event.  And how they can put out update after update and continue to say absolutely nothing of substance.  

Let's take a look at the last two updates.  To make this as clear as possible, I'm going to use italics for when I'm speaking.  The regular font will be for the Unified Command's Updates and the citations from elsewhere.

DATE: January 17, 2013 4:40:00 PM AKST

For more information contact:

Unified Command Joint Information Center at (907) 433-3417

Update #42: Assessment of data continues for final report

Jan. 17, 2013

Unified Command confirmed the following information today:

What does that mean that they confirmed this information?  To whom?  Are they saying,  Yes this is true?   They've been saying much of this all along.  Or does it mean they confirmed it for themselves, that this is, in fact, true?  

These updates are so terse that they tell us nothing of any substance.  Perhaps they mean something to people in the salvage business, but the words are ambiguous enough, that the general public really can't make a lot of sense out of this.  But then, maybe that is the intention. 

• The Kulluk remains in stable condition with no reports of a release.

A release?  Oil release is what I think they mean.  But what they tell us later suggests they might also mean "no release of a report."

• Multiple entities are involved in the assessment of data, including Unified Command, Shell, Smit Salvage and Det Norske Veritas (DNV). Unified Command will not comment on the assessment until the report is finalized.

Smit Salvage is a Dutch firm and was a sponsor of a Salvage and Wreck Removal Conference in London in December 2012.  Their sponsor descriptions says:

SMIT Salvage is part of Royal Boskalis Westminster N.V. which is a leading global services provider active in the dredging, maritime infrastructure and maritime services sectors. The company provides creative and innovative all-round solutions to infrastructural challenges in the maritime, coastal and delta regions of the world with the construction and maintenance of ports and waterways, land reclamation, coastal defense and riverbank protection. Boskalis offers a wide variety of marine services through SMIT including harbour towage, salvage, subsea, transport and heavy lift services. It also has strategic partnerships in the Americas, Middle East and Far East for harbour towage and terminal services. Including its share in partnerships, Boskalis employs approximately 14,000 people in around 75 countries across six continents and avails over  a versatile fleet of over 1,100 marine units that SMIT Salvage can call upon in case of emergency response,  wreck removal or environmental projects.

Det Norske Veritas' website tells us:

DNV (Det Norske Veritas) is an independent foundation with the purpose of safeguarding life, property, and the environment. Our history goes back to 1864, when the foundation was established in Norway to inspect and evaluate the technical condition of Norwegian merchant vessels.  .  .

They divide their activities into three operating companies.  The first seems most relevant here:

• DNV Maritime and Oil & Gas provides classification, verification, risk management and technical advisory services to the global maritime and oil and gas industries

So, if this were actually a new update with the intent of informing the world, through the media, it might tell us what roles these two companies are playing in the assessment.  But no.  All we know is that they are somehow involved.   

Another thing they said up there, before we forget it:

. . .  will not comment on the assessment until the report is finalized.

And why won't they comment on the report yet?  What exactly are they checking?  Is this a standard inspection of a wreck?  What does a standard wreck inspection entail?  Can't they at least tell us that much?  I guess not.

I was able to find something related to this - Oil Companies International Marine Forum's (OCIMF) Ship Inspection Report Programme (SIRE). There you can find protocols (Vessel Inspection Questionnaires)  for what I guess are regular inspections of Oil Tankers, Combination Carriers, Shuttle Tankers, Chemical Tankers and Gas Tankers.

Presumably there's something similar for damage assessment inspections of wrecked oil drilling rigs and other vessels in a similar category. There's lots and lots Shell could tell us about the inspection now, without causing any liability issues.  But instead, they say they won't comment.

• Future plans for the Kulluk will be determined once the report is finalized.

Note the word plan here.  It's a word that Shell uses in its own way.  Here it has an 's' at the end.  Presumably this means 'we'll decide what to do when the report is complete.'  But one would think that they might have some options already set out.  Like, if A then we might keep the Kulluk here a little longer.  If B then we will move the Kulluk to Seattle.  If C . . .  You get the idea.   If they were serious about keeping the public informed, they would be telling us some of these options and the contingencies that would cause them to choose one option or another. Maybe they don't want to alarm us with the possibilities.

• There are more than 250 people in the Kodiak area responding to the incident.

250 people.  Is that a lot for an operation like this?  How many are working for Shell?  How many are employees of Smit and DNV?  How many are Coast Guard personnel?  How many are locals from the Old Harbor Native Corporation?  And who else is there?  What are they all doing?  How many are doing technical oil rig rescue related work?  How many are support who provide food and shelter and other things necessary to support the technical folks?  Are they all paid or are there some volunteers?  Does this include the attorneys that approve the Updates to make sure they don't say anything that could hurt them when this goes to court or a Congressional hearing?  

• Unified Command’s priorities continue to be the safety of all personnel and the environment.

We get this line in just about every update.  What level priority is keeping our liability as low as possible?  What priority is making this rescue look as good as possible so it doesn't hurt our future oil drilling in the Arctic?  What priority is Shell's bottom line?  



Here's Friday's Update.  When they report on how responsive to the public they were, they're going to say we had 48+X updates which we made on an almost daily basis.  

I hope that someone looks at the updates or looks at this post to see that these updates told the public almost zilch except what a great job Shell was doing.  

DATE: January 18, 2013 5:49:00 PM AKST

For more information contact:

Unified Command Joint Information Center at (907) 433-3417

Update #43: Kulluk stable as damage assessment data review continues

I'm sure the fact that the Kulluk is stable is important.  But what exactly does it mean?  There are no changes?  The water isn't rocking the Kulluk.  It's not getting worse?  I'm pretty sure it has nothing to do with horses. 

Jan. 18, 2013

The data gathering phase of the Kulluk assessment has been completed. Unified Command confirmed the following information today:

• There were a total of 12 divers and one ROV (remotely operated vehicle) used during the assessment process in Kiliuda Bay. The divers operated during daylight hours and functioned as data gatherers.

This is something.  We now know what 12 of the 250 people they reported (in Update #42) working on this are doing.  What about the others?

• No one was injured while performing the assessment.

We're glad to hear this.  Really.  But the Kulluk is in a protected harbor now and they keep telling us that everything is stable and that they have zillions of the best people in the world working on this.  Is there something you aren't telling us about how dangerous this is?  Is that why you keep telling us that no one was injured?  How many people are injured and die in the typical rescue of this sort?  

I'm not so sure we can say that public awareness has not been injured by the lack of information coming out of these updates.  
 

• Multiple entities are involved in the review of data, including: the U.S. Coast Guard, Shell, Smit Salvage and Det Norske Veritas. These reports involve precise calculations; it is important to ensure the accuracy of any reports in order to develop the next steps for the Kulluk. At this time there is no firm date for completion of the damage assessment report.

First, you gave us this list of who was involved in the last report.  The only change is that in Update #43 (this one) U.S. Coast Guard replaces Unified Command.  But that's a wording change, not a substantive change.

Second, duh.  We assume that precise calculations are involved.  Is this supposed to impress people with how professional you are? [Sorry, I seem to have shifted from the third to second person here.]  Please don't insult us.  Maybe you could tell us some of the kinds of things data were collected on?  What are the measurements you took and what will they tell you?  Or are we too ignorant to understand any of this?  Or are you afraid we might understand?

OK, there's no firm date for the completion of the damage assessment report.  Can you give us a ballpark estimate?  Will it be a day or two?  A week or two?  A month or two?  Was the talk about not moving the Kulluk until after the Tanner Crab Season ends just fluff to make us think you cared, when you knew you weren't going to move the Kulluk before then anyway?

• Once the damage report is completed, the Kulluk and any plans to move the vessel will be evaluated before it is moved to its next location.

"Any plans to move the vessel will be evaluated."  This could be interpreted in several different ways.  One would be that there might not be any plans.  We're just going to abandon the Kulluk in Kiliuda Bay.  Maybe you'll tell us how sinking abandoned oil drilling rigs makes a great habitat for tanner crabs.  

But I really don't think that is what you meant.  But that 'any' in the sentence is like a wildcard.  Like,  'if there are any plans.'  I know, I'm being obnoxious here, but you give us so little to work with that it's like trying to parse the new releases from the Chinese Communist Party.  What exactly might each word mean?  Why don't you just tell us?  Maybe we need to get Will Shortz working on this. 

I guess you mean, before we move the vessel we will look at each of the alternative plans carefully, but we're sure as hell not going to share any of that with you.

• Water did enter some spaces of the vessel through damaged hatches. However, the water has been captured and is being safely stored in a compartment.

Translation:  Something bad happened,  but all you need to know is that we fixed it and everything is fine. Aren't we great?

• The damage discovered on the Kulluk is consistent with what is expected from a vessel of this type being on hard ground. The fuel tanks are intact.

How much do you pay these guys to write this stuff?  "The damage. . . is consistent with what is expected from a vessel of this type being on hard ground."  

That's like saying, about a head on collision, "The damage is consistent with this sort of collision" without telling us that the cars were totaled and everyone was killed.   

Is this a way to avoid telling us the damage, a way that makes us think this is just a normal oil rig on the rocks situation, nothing to worry about?   How many oil rigs end up on hard ground? I can't find any others by googling. And what damage is expected when that happens?  You obviously know what damage happened or you wouldn't be able to say it is 'the level expected.'  So why not just tell us instead of making us try to find out what is normal for this sort of accident?

• Points of entry for water into the Kulluk are being sealed (i.e., windows and hatches). Additionally, tow brackets are being added for preparation for the next move.

Like with all these releases, you artfully skip over the damage and tell us how nicely you are taking care of things.  But you do actually tell us something - that water got in where it shouldn't and there will be a next move - though that it isn't something we didn't already assume.

• Unified Command’s priorities continue to be the safety of all personnel and the environment.

This ending line is getting so standard on these updates it's like "Sincerely Yours" at the end of a letter.  It means nothing.



Do I sound a bit cynical here?  I know, you're probably saying that I should ask these questions directly to the Unified Command and give them a chance to answer.  

Well, I did that before posting this.  I'll share the query - I just focused on one sentence of the update - and their response in a later post.   

One more thing:  While I'm focusing on Shell here, the US Coast Guard is part of the Unified Command that is releasing these updates.  The Coast Guard should be insisting that more information be released to the public.  They are now becoming complicit in this information blockade.