Snark: to annoy or irritate

"Snark" has been in English language dictionaries since at least 1906, and Lewis Carroll used the word to describe a mythological animal in his poem, The Hunting of the Snark (1874). Most recently, the word has come to characterize snappish, sarcastic, or mean-spirited comments or actions directed at those who annoy or irritate us.

At first, this blog was just going be a place to gripe, but because it's more satisfying to take action than it is to merely complain, now most of the posts/reposts suggest ways to get involved in solving problems.


There was an error in this gadget

Friday, July 20, 2012

Reject Shell's Permit to Drill

Shell No!Weeks away from starting the first major offshore oil drilling operations in the Arctic, Shell is pulling a major bait and switch — telling the EPA it can't meet the air pollution rules the company had already agreed to in order to get a drilling permit.1
Shell has known since 2010 it would have problems meeting the rules for nitrogen oxide and ammonia emissions.2 But officials still told the EPA they could. Now Shell wants the EPA to weaken the rules at the last minute?
It's clear that Shell simply cannot be trusted. The company's request gives the EPA the option to cancel Shell's permit. That's exactly what EPA must do.
This is our last, best opportunity to block Shell from drilling in the Arctic this summer.
This bait and switch is the latest in a long list of broken promises, walk-backs and mishaps which should serve as clear signs to the Obama Administration that allowing Shell to drill in the Arctic is a recipe for disaster.
Just this weekend, Shell literally lost control of its Discoverer drilling rig, which either ran aground or very nearly did so, when its anchor broke while harbored a thousand miles south of the Arctic.3 Moderate winds are being blamed — yet these winds are mild compared to what it will encounter in the Arctic. The rig, one of the oldest in the world, had a similar anchor malfunction just last year, while it was stationed in New Zealand.
Shell is also having problems with its nearly forty-year-old oil spill recovery barge. While Shell promised the Coast Guard it would upgrade it substantially to withstand stronger weather, Shell now says those upgrades aren't necessary. The Coast Guard hasn't yet decided if it will weaken these standards for Shell.4
And of course — while we've known for some time that the Obama Administration was being hoodwinked by Shell's hopelessly inadequate oil spill response plan — now Shell has come out and admitted its initial spill response claims were overstated. Shell initially said it could "recover" 95% of oil in the case of a major spill. Now Shell is saying that what it actually meant is "encounter" 95% of the oil — whatever that means.5
Shockingly, the Department of Interior has put the probability of an oil spill in the Arctic at 40%.6
That is simply unacceptable. With Shell in the driver's seat, it's clear that it would be unwise to even bank on those unacceptably high odds.
Shell's request to EPA is a major opportunity for President Obama and the EPA to revisit the undeserved trust they have put in Shell thus far. It's time for EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson to be a hero, and draw a line to stop the next major drilling disaster in the Arctic.
With Shell hoping to start drilling as soon as the Arctic sea ice clears in the coming weeks, EPA's response could come any day. Click here to automatically add your name to the petition now:
http://act.credoaction.com/r/?r=6912368&p=shell_bait_switch&id=43536-2593817-sIPBYlx&t=10
Thank you for defending the Arctic from reckless offshore drilling.
Elijah Zarlin, Campaign Manager
CREDO Action from Working Assets

No comments:

Post a Comment

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.