Shell fails to find enough Arctic oil, Seattle responds

In the Arctic, it was greeted with disappointment. In Seattle, it was greeted with a high five.

Council Member Kshama Sawant and fellow Council Member Mike O’Brien celebrated at the start of Monday’s council briefing after news that Shell abandoned its search for oil in the Arctic.

“I imagine there will be a lot of celebrating going on,” O’Brien told KIRO Radio.

The news put a “big smile on my face,” he said.

“I’m just grateful they are making this decision before any tragedy happens up there,” O’Brien said. “We’ve known all along the economics of what they were attempting to do, the risk versus reward, was way out of balance.”

Shell’s presence in the Puget Sound caused a string of protests in early spring from a variety of groups, many environmental, who argued that Arctic drilling is too dangerous for the wildlife, violates indigenous rights, and ultimately contributes to the climate change threatening current and future generations.

Shell’s exploration for Arctic oil came with a price tag of more than $7 billion. Geologists have estimated that nearly a quarter of the world’s undiscovered gas is in that region. If significant amounts of oil were discovered in the Arctic, it would take approximately 10 years for it to reach markets around the world.

But the findings were disappointing for the international oil company. Its 28 vessel search team drilled 6,800 feet down, approximately 80 miles from the Alaskan shore in the Chukchi Sea. Search crews did find oil, but not enough to make the cost of exploration and bringing it to market worth the effort.

But while Shell didn’t find enough oil this time, it still holds a belief that there could be profitable wells in the region.

It’s something that Sawant noted during the council briefing.

“Shell has decided to do this because it’s not economic for them … They are also saying that if oil prices rise again, they will try again because it will make economic sense,” she said.

“They have already spent $7 billion of our economy’s wealth on this,” Sawant added. “I would ask everybody to imagine how differently $7 billion could be used if we spent it on renewable energy.”

Marvin Odum with Shell’s operations in America said that despite the company’s exit this season, the area remains valuable.

“Shell continues to see important exploration potential in the basin, and the area is likely to ultimately be of strategic importance to Alaska and the U.S.,” Odum said in a statement. “However, this is a clearly disappointing exploration outcome for this part of the basin.”

Related:Shell foots bill to clean up Seattle protesters’ barge anchors, cables

It’s one small victory for O’Brien, who has been vocal about his opposition to Shell’s Arctic exploration for oil. In fact, he was among the many kayaktivists who met Shell’s rigs in Elliott Bay. He said that those actions, as he understands them as a citizen and not a council member, were to highlight the futility of Arctic drilling.

“We also wanted to make clear that as participants in our society, the people of our region were not going to tolerate what they were trying to do,” he said, noting that the bad press could have played a small role in the overall decision to stop the drilling.

“I want to believe it had a role to play. When you add up all the costs and risk including the negative public relations they are getting out of it, I would like to believe it played a piece of the role in their decision,” O’Brien said.

Related:Shell Arctic oil fleet coming to town in direct defiance of Seattle mayor

Another decision has been looming over Seattle ever since Shell’s visit. The city expects to have word from its hearing examiner about the lease Shell has with the Port of Seattle to store some of its fleet at its Elliott Bay facility. The city contested the port’s lease with Shell, arguing that it violated the intended use of the facility and ran afoul of local regulations. A decision on the standing of that lease has been expected for months.

O’Brien said that decision is expected within a couple of weeks, but at this point, it may not affect anyone if Shell halts its Arctic activity.

“That decision is coming, but it may be moot at this point if they’re sending the oil ships back to [Asia],” O’Brien said. “It may be that those issues here, with the Port of Seattle and the City of Seattle, move to the back burner if it’s not really relevant anymore.”

O’Brien further said that Shell’s recent discovery, or lack thereof, only echoes the disappointing results previous oil companies have garnered. And while the results could be viewed as a victory for anti-Shell activists, the overall fight isn’t over. O’Brien notes that other petroleum-based projects remain, such as the Keystone XL pipeline.

“There are a number of these major fossil fuel deals that are in the works and any one of them alone would really tip the balance to make it impossible for us to prevent catastrophic climate change,” O’Brien said. “We need to win on all those fronts. I think we are winning. I think this is step to energize folks to really rally against these last holdouts in the oil industry so we all can come together to focus on better sources of energy.”

“Our city, our community, and our society is significantly reliant upon fossil fuels and we need to make a rapid transition to alternatives,” he said, pointing to Seattle’s commitment to become carbon neutral by 2050.

O’Brien hopes that Shell’s energy will go towards alternatives to oil.

“I believe in the next five to 10 years we will see a massive transition from oil-based transportation systems to electric-based transportation systems. And I would like to see Seattle be at the leading edge of that; where everyone in the city is buying electric vehicles, using our carbon neutral electric utility to fuel the transportation grid,” he said.

The Associated Press contributed to this article.