Shortly before Thanksgiving in 2010, the leaders of the commission President Obama had appointed to investigate the Deepwater Horizon oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico sat down in the Oval Office to brief him. After listening to their findings about the BP accident and the safety of deepwater drilling, Obama abruptly asked, ?Where are you coming out on the offshore Arctic?.?
William K Reilly, a former chief of the Environmental Protection Agency and a commission co-chairman, was startled, as was Carol M Browner, the president?s top adviser at the time on energy and climate change. Although a proposal by Shell to drill in the Arctic had been a source of dissension, it was not a major focus of the panel?s work.
Obama?s preoccupation with the Arctic proposal, even as the nation was still reeling from the BP spill, was the first hint that Shell?s audacious plan to drill in waters previously considered untouchable had gone from improbable to inevitable.
Barring a successful last-minute legal challenge by environmental groups, Shell will begin drilling test wells off the coast of northern Alaska in July, opening a new frontier in domestic oil exploration and accelerating a global rush to tap the untold resources beneath the frozen ocean. It is a moment of major promise and considerable danger.
Industry experts and national security officials view the Alaskan Arctic as the last great domestic oil prospect, one that over time could bring the country a giant step closer to cutting its dependence on foreign oil. But many Alaska Natives and environmental advocates say drilling threatens wildlife and pristine shorelines, and perpetuates the nation?s reliance on dirty fossil fuels.
In blessing Shell?s move into the Arctic, Obama continues his efforts to balance business and environmental interests, seemingly project by project. He pleased environmentalists by delaying the Keystone XL pipeline from Canada and by adopting tough air standards for power plants, yet he has also delighted business concerns by rejecting an ozone standard deemed too costly to the economy. And now, Obama is writing a new chapter in the nation?s unfolding energy transformation.
?We never would have expected a Democratic president ? let alone one seeking to be ?transformative? ? to open up the Arctic Ocean for drilling,? said Michael Brune, executive director of the Sierra Club.
Shell?s Arctic quest has consumed seven years and $4 billion over two presidential administrations, overcoming a raft of environmental concerns, the opposition of a wily and unpredictable Inupiat Eskimo leader and the fallout from the BP disaster. To do so, it mounted a relentless, two-front campaign. After initial missteps in wooing Alaska Natives, Shell deployed a personable executive named Pete Slaiby, who travelled to remote villages and chewed raw whale meat while listening to local concerns.
The company?s efforts in Washington were even more strategic. Beyond the usual full-court lobbying effort, Shell abandoned its oil industry brethren and joined advocates pushing for a strong response to climate change.
Ultimately, Shell won the backing of a president it had viewed warily during the 2008 campaign. While he signalled conditional support for the proposal years ago, Obama came under pressure from rising gasoline prices and the assiduous lobbying of a freshman Democratic senator from Alaska eager to show he could make things happen in Washington.
