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. 

Daily Oil Catastrophe

I recently wrote:

"The concerns I have with Arctic oil drilling are not simply concern about the possibility of an oil spill in the Arctic Ocean.  My longer term concern is that we continue to go after energy sources that exacerbate climate change and make the long term damage worse."

In response, my daughter sent me this 2010 Onion post:

Millions Of Barrels Of Oil Safely Reach Port In Major Environmental Catastrophe

PORT FOURCHON, LA—In what may be the greatest environmental disaster in the nation's history, the supertanker TI Oceania docked without incident at the Louisiana Offshore Oil Port Monday and successfully unloaded 3.1 million barrels of dangerous crude oil into the United States.
According to witnesses, the catastrophe began shortly after the tanker, which sailed unimpeded across the Gulf of Mexico, stopped safely at the harbor and made contact with oil company workers on the shore. Soon after, vast amounts of the black, toxic petroleum in the ship's hold were unloaded at an alarming rate into special storage containers on the mainland.
From there, experts confirmed, the oil will likely spread across the entire country's infrastructure and commit unforetold damage to its lakes, streams, and air.
"We're looking at a crisis of cataclysmic proportions," said Charles Hartsell, an environmental scientist at Tufts University. "In a matter of days, this oil may be refined into a lighter substance that, when burned as fuel in vehicles, homes, and businesses, will poison the earth's atmosphere on a terrifying scale." [Read the rest here.]

Why is it obvious to me that we have to get off oil as fast as possible, yet our Governor and our legislature are hell-bent on pumping as much oil as possible?  And they think giving oil companies a $600 million a year tax break (at least that's what they estimate it at) in the hopes of getting more oil drilled is a good thing.

I realize that for many people (like all the industry employees who show up to testify in favor of this sort of legislation every public hearing) self interest is a giant motivator.  And even if they truly believe that we can't live without oil and they are doing a public service, I can't help but believe that subconsciously, their oil job supported good life, influences their ability to dismiss the link between oil and global climate change.  Or to believe that we'll find some fix in the future.  

 Slavery lasted generations because people were able to create stories that hid or erased the conflict between slavery and the American ideal of equality.  We went into Vietnam and Iraq on false premises that some people still believe.  And we rush to pump oil because some of the richest companies in the world were created to do just that and they'll continue until they can't find any more oil or a more powerful force says "Stop."

And who knows?  I could be wrong and there will be a fix in the future.  But at this point the evidence* I've read points to human misery due to changing climate getting pretty bad before things get better.  Worse than living with less oil. 

*It's hard to gather together all the evidence on climate change, but for the skeptics and deniers, including those in the Alaska legislature, here are a few recent pieces on the topic:
NPR
The Economist
Union of Concerned Scientists
Skeptical Science
Media Matters - talks about the "climate denial machine"

World Climate Like An Athlete On Steroids

"'I think one of the best ways of thinking about it is imagining that the base line has shifted,' Tim Flannery, the commission’s leader, told the Australian Broadcasting Corporation. “If an athlete takes steroids, for example, their base line shifts. They’ll do fewer slow times and many more record-breaking fast times.”

'The same thing is happening with our climate system,' he said. 'As it warms up, we’re getting fewer cold days and cold events and many more record hot events.'" (NY Times "Report Blames Climate Change For Extremes in Australia")

 His evidence:

"At least 123 weather records fell during the 90-day period the report examined.  Included were milestones like the hottest summer on record, the hottest day for Australia as a whole and the hottest seven consecutive days ever recorded.  To put it into perspective, in the 102 years since Australia began gathering national records, there have been 21 days when the country averaged a high of more than 102 degrees Fahrenheit (39 Celsius) and eight of them were in 2012."

Of those who denied global climate change for years and years and now accept that it is happening, many still deny that it is human caused. Of those who acknowledge human's contribution, many believe there is nothing we can do about it except work on mitigating the effects.

The concerns I have with Arctic oil drilling are not simply concern about the possibility of an oil spill in the Arctic Ocean.  My longer term concern is that we continue to go after energy sources that exacerbate climate change and make the long term damage worse.  The $5 billion that Shell says they've already invested in Arctic drilling in Alaska would have been much better spent on developing affordable alternative energy.

But those whose aptitudes and expertise are geared toward drilling oil, and who work for multinational oil companies whose infrastructure is aimed at drilling oil, are like addicts in denial.  Their life work, not to mention their life style, are all built on the belief that they are doing the world good by supplying us with oil.  To accept the idea that they are also contributing to climate change which could lead to the submergence of island nations and low lying geography like Florida and Manhattan, is in conflict with who they are and what they do. 

And while they gained wealth and privilege through their oil work, even the enormous wealth of the oil companies cannot compensate for the damage that will come.    

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. 

"The Kulluk will remain onsite in the inner Kiliuda Bay until the conclusion of the Tanner Crab fishing season."

Immediately I thought, when I read that in the Unified Command news release email (see it below),  "How long is the Tanner Crab fishing season?"

It turns out to depend on how fast they get their limit - but according to the man in charge, probably five or six days.  

I called Mark Stichert, Shellfish Management Biologist,  Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Commercial Fisheries, Western Region.  The Western Region is Kodiak and to the west.

The season just opened at noon today, because of a gale which postponed yesterday's scheduled opening.

Mark said there were about 44 fishing vessels in the area.  The fleet was concerned that moving the Kulluk during the season there would be a strong risk of their gear being damaged.

He said crab pots had to be out of the water at night, so they are in during the day and most are collected in the late afternoon.  They call their reports into Mark's office so he can determine when to close the season. 

The season lasts until the fleet collectively get 520,000 pounds of crab.  He's not sure exactly how long that will take, but he thinks maybe five or six days.  Once the fish are delivered to the Kodiak processors, they'll check the receipts to confirm the called in reports.

So, for the next five or six days, at least, the Kulluk will stay in Kiliuda Bay. 

It was nice to talk to an official who clearly knew what he was talking about and was comfortable sharing his knowledge with a blogger. 



Here's yesterday's news update from Shell:

Update #41: Kulluk remains stable; Unified Command develops mitigation strategies for crab fishery

Jan. 14, 2013

Unified Command confirmed the following information today:

• The Kulluk remains in stable condition with no reports of a release.
• Data from the completed underwater assessment of the Kulluk continues to be analyzed.
• Unified Command has developed mitigation strategies collaboratively with the Kodiak Crab Alliance Cooperative. This will reduce potential impacts to the fishery during the upcoming crabbing season. Mitigation strategies include the following:
  • The Kulluk will remain onsite in the inner Kiliuda Bay until the conclusion of the Tanner Crab fishing season.
  • A Marine Coordinator will be onsite to coordinate the movement of response vessels. An update will be provided every four hours to the crab fishermen.
  • A claims process has been established for any crab fishermen losses that occur as a result of the Kulluk's presence in Kiliuda Bay during this year's Tanner Crab fishing season. 

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

Old Harbor Native Corporation's Chief Executive Officer is Carl Marrs

I imagine that most people, when they heard there was a Native village called Old Harbor with a couple hundred people close to where the Kulluk grounded, didn't think much about it. Some sleepy little village where people fish. Not too sophisticated. A place Shell could easily take advantage of. Their website description begins with this paragraph:

Welcome To Old Harbor Old Harbor is an Alutiiq village on Kodiak Island, Alaska approximately 40 air miles from the City of Kodiak on the southeast side of the Island. Old Harbor is one of the Island’s six Alutiiq villages and is primarily inhabited by an Alutiiq population. Old Harbor residents enjoy sharing Kodiak Island's beautiful lands with visitors and their hospitality is legendary. Visitors find residents to be warm, generous, and sincere. Today, the community of Old Harbor has a modern airstrip, a harbor for its fishing fleet and the modern amenities of water, sewer, electricity, internet and satellite services.

But if you poke around on that website you get to their company page which begins:

"Old Harbor Native Corporation (OHNC) is one of 252 Native village corporations established by Congress in 1971 under the terms of the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA). ANCSA, which was a purposeful alternative to the Lower 48 reservation system, was the first settlement of its kind between Native Americans and the federal government.  Alaska Natives were provided a corporate structure for holding land and capital, with the freedom to control their own economic and social future.
OHNC was incorporated in 1973 and originally enrolled 329 shareholders under the Act.  Today, there are approximately 335 shareholders residing primarily in Anchorage, Kodiak and Old Harbor, but some as far away as Iceland and Switzerland.
The Corporation’s Board of Directors is tasked with the dual responsibility to grow and manage the assets of the Corporation for the benefit of the shareholders, and preserve and protect the culture and traditions of the community.  A challenging task, indeed."

The Board/Staff page leads you to a link to Chief Executive Officer Carl Marrs:

Cal Marrs with fellow UA Regent Mary Hughes in Juneau

"Carl H. Marrs

Mr. Marrs joined Old Harbor Native Corporation as Chief Executive Officer August 2010.  Carl has been working with Old Harbor Native Corporation since 2005 as an advocate in Juneau and Washington DC on various projects.

Carl was born and raised in Seldovia, Alaska and is an Alutiiq from the South Central Region of Alaska.  He grew up as a commercial fisherman and attended school in Kodiak. He later spent two years in the Marine Corps before returning to commercial fishing. Carl had an extensive career at Cook Inlet Region Inc. (CIRI) working in various capacities from 1973 thru 2004.  In December 2004, Marrs stepped down as the company's president and CEO. He left behind an organization that in his tenure provided record dividend payouts to shareholders, and fulfilled its commitment to enhancing the social welfare of its people.  In addition, he previously worked successfully as owner and operator of Marrs & Company from 2005 thru 2010 which was an investment and consulting company.
Marrs was awarded an honorary degree of Public Service from Alaska Pacific University.  He volunteers his time to a number of community organizations, including Alaska Pacific University, the Boy Scouts of America, and the Boys and Girls Club. Marrs has also served on the boards of the Fiscal Policy Council of Alaska, the Alaska Railroad Corporation, Board of Directors for Key Bank of Alaska, President of the Association of ANCSA CEO’s, Board of Director of the Alaska State Council of Commerce as well as worked with the United Way of Anchorage, Alaska SeaLife Center and the Alaska Oil & Gas Association.  Marrs currently serves as a member on the Board of Regents for the University of Alaska and the Koahinic Broadcasting Corporation," 

Carl Marrs is a powerful figure in Alaskan political and business circles.  He rose through his Native Corporation ranks and has worked closely with all the most influential people in Alaska.

A 2003 Cook Inlet Region Inc. (CIRI) newsletter celebrating Marrs' 30 years service said,

Carl has a reputation as being tough, fair and direct. He has worked hard to earn this reputation, and he is recognized for his negotiating stands and his deal-making skills. A number of our business partners have said they would work with Carl again in a heartbeat because they appreciate his forthright attitude.

A major success for CIRI came from investment benefits Native Corporations  gained thanks to legislation supported by Marrs' friend Ted Stevens.

CIRI's president and chief executive Carl Marrs, who engineered an extraordinarily successful investment in wireless telecommunications, stands to reap $3.8 million, based on Friday's stock prices. Vice presidents Barbara Donatelli, Mark Kroloff, Kirk McGee and Craig Floerchinger will collect $3.3 million each.

The board of directors of the Anchorage-based Native corporation voted 14-1 in favor of the compensation plan at a November meeting, according to Marrs. The board met again Dec. 15 and approved a $314 million cash payout to shareholders based on CIRI's windfall investment in VoiceStream Wireless Corp. and its bullish growth as a company over the past decade. Most of CIRI's 7,000 shareholders received $50,000 checks last week.  (from the Peninsula Clarion)

But not everyone agreed with his approach.  The Peninsula Clarion wrote:

[Former CIRI Chief Exec] Huhndorf ran a highly public campaign in which he openly accused CIRI chief executive Carl Marrs of recklessness and lack of vision. Huhndorf promised to shine a spotlight on what he considers the Anchorage-based company's shaky financial outlook and extravagant spending by management.

The Alaska Supreme Court in a decision which found John Ellsworth guilty of fraud and wilful misconduct costing CIRI millions of dollars, wrote:

Evidence was introduced at trial to show that Carl Marrs was responsible for supervising Ellsworth's management of AIC, but the superior court determined, “Marrs never actively supervised or scrutinized ․ Ellsworth, but rather allowed him carte blanche to manage AIC.”

In any case, Carl Marrs is a man to be reckoned with and if the Kulluk is in Old Harbor territory, it's probably safe to assume that the Old Harbor Native Corporation's interests are being well looked after.  

The Kulluk Salvage Is Apparently Over

The latest Kulluk Unified Command Update says that the 

"resources contracted specifically for the salvage operation are in the process of demobilizing."

I'm learning a lot about things I knew nothing about before Shell began drilling for oil in the Arctic.  Does this mean that the salvage stage is over?  The update (#36) says they are now doing assessment. I guess that must be different from salvage.  Time to look up salvage.  From Wikipedia:

Marine salvage is the process of recovering a ship, its cargo, or other property after a shipwreck. Salvage encompasses towing, refloating a sunken or grounded vessel, or patching or repairing a ship. Today the protection of the environment from cargoes such as oil or other contaminants is often considered a high priority.
"Salvors" are seamen and engineers who carry out salvage to vessels that are not owned by themselves, and who are not members of the vessel's original crew. When salvaging large ships, they may use cranes, floating dry docks and divers to lift and repair ships for short journeys to safety towed by a tugboat. The aim of the salvage may be to repair the vessel at a harbour or dry dock, or to clear a channel for navigation. Another reason for salvage may be to prevent pollution or damage to the marine environment. Alternatively the vessel or valuable parts of the vessel or its cargo may be recovered for its resale value, or for scrap.

The International Salvage Union identifies different salvage situations from:

• Fire/Explosion
• Collision
• Grounding
• Breakdowns 

Grounding seems to be the kind of salvage operation the Kulluk had:

Grounding:   many salvage operations involve a response to vessel groundings. Some groundings occur in areas of great environmental sensitivity. The salvage team arriving at the scene must make a rapid assessment of the casualty’s condition and the potential for refloating without further hull damage and loss of cargo. In some instances, it is necessary to discharge part or all of the cargo, in order to free the ship. Much depends on the nature of the grounding site (sand, mud, rock, coral, etc), the extent to which the hull is aground, the degree of damage and a wide range of other operational factors, especially the weather. A forecast deterioration in the weather can have a major influence on the salvage strategy adopted.

Image from Unified Command Update #36

Now the Kulluk is 'safely' tucked away at Kiliuda Bay.  Blogger Phil Munger has been writing a lot about this at Progressive Alaska.  Phil knows a little more about these things than most bloggers because in a past life he's been the harbormaster at Cordova [Whittier.] Phil wondered why the Kulluk wasn't taken all the way to Kodiak.  Let me make some guesses.

• If there is a problem with leakage, they don't want to take it too far so they don't damage too  much area.  (The Update says, though, that there are no signs of leakage.)
• They can do what they are doing without being observed by very many people in Kiliuda Bay, while any reporter can fly easily to Kodiak.

That's the limit of my imagination on that question.  Here's the whole update:

DATE: January 8, 2013 1:45:00 PM AKST

For more information contact:

Unified Command
voice: (907) 433-3417

Update #36: Kulluk Remains Anchored, ROVs Arriving for Assessment

January 8, 2013
ANCHORAGE, Alaska – Unified Command confirmed the following information today:

• The Kulluk remains safely anchored in Kiliuda Bay at its assessment position. There continues to be no sign of leakage in the vicinity.
• Support vessels will remain with the Kulluk during its assessment, while other resources contracted specifically for the salvage operation are in the process of demobilizing.
• Remote-Operated Vehicles (ROVs) are arriving at the Kulluk later today to begin assessing the hull. Divers will be deployed if necessary.
• Unified Command, along with local representation from Old Harbor Native Corporation, are surveying the area to obtain GPS coordinates that will enable the recovery of lifeboats and other debris from the Kulluk. Time and weather permitting, the team today will begin collecting debris from the shoreline.

Unified Command also released the map of the Kulluk’s final tow route (shown below), which shows the revised path avoiding the cod pots in the Gulf of Alaska.