http://www.adn.com/2012/04/15/2424853/inupiat-tribal-leader-wins-large.html

Cannon claims $150,000 award, continues fight to deny Shell Oil.
By LISA DEMER
Anchorage Daily News
Published: April 16th, 2012 12:56 AM
Last Modified: April 16th, 2012 12:56 AM

Her father was a Point Hope whaling captain. Her mother taught her how to butcher the bowhead and care for the meat. The family depended on the sea and land for so much.

Caroline Cannon’s lifelong connection to the Arctic Ocean pushed her to become one of the state’s most vocal opponents of offshore oil drilling.
Now, just as Shell Oil is poised to drill exploration wells off Alaska’s northern coast, her advocacy has won her a coveted environmental award.

Cannon, an Inupiat mother of nine and grandmother of 26, is one of this year’s winners of the Goldman Environmental Prize, described as the world’s biggest for grassroots environmentalists.

Cannon and the other five winners from around the world were officially announced Monday. Each will receive $150,000.

Cannon is the former president of the Native Village of Point Hope, the tribal council that has been involved in a number of lawsuits aimed at stopping oil exploration and drilling in the Arctic. She lost her spot on the village council in a close election last year but expects to get back on soon.

Point Hope, a village of about 700 people, is 330 miles southwest of Barrow on a gravel spit that forms the western-most extension of the northwest Alaska coast. The village is one of the oldest continuously occupied Inupiat areas in Alaska, according to the state Division of Community and Regional Affairs.

Cannon has spoken up against offshore drilling countless times. At a national tribal summit with President Barack Obama in 2009, she told him “we are not prepared for this.” She has sat down with environmental leaders and with Shell. She’s traded barbs with Pete Slaiby, Shell’s vice president for Alaska operations, and didn’t quiet down after he corrected some of her assertions in a letter to the editor.

“When you have something you feel strongly about, there’s no turning that light off,” Cannon said in an interview. “Meaning it’s stronger than me.”

She isn’t convinced any oil company could clean up a spill in the Arctic.

“They can say they’ve got it down pat. They’ve got the response. They have all means. Their ships will be there. They have the people trained,” Cannon said, repeating what she and other villagers have been told. But the nearest Coast Guard station is maybe 1,000 miles away. The weather can turn fierce fast and prevent help from arriving. If oil spilled, it might not be cleaned up before freezeup. The traditional ways are too dear to lose, she said.

Federal regulators have approved Shell’s oil spill response plans for both the Beaufort and Chukchi seas. Shell hopes to drill exploratory wells in both locations during this summer’s open water season using separate drilling rigs accompanied by more than a dozen other vessels that could respond in the event of a spill. The company says it is using the most advanced equipment and has invested billions in its Alaska offshore program. Interior Secretary Ken Salazar said in February that Shell will be operating under “the strongest oversight, safety requirements, and emergency response plans ever established.”

Shell declined to comment on Cannon or the recognition she’s receiving.
Court challenges by the Point Hope tribe and numerous environmental groups including Greenpeace, the Sierra Club, the Center for Biological Diversity, and the Alaska Wilderness League had stalled its efforts for years.

Cannon said her parents, Henry and Emma Nashookpuk, had a dog team that hunters used to get to caribou grounds and down to the sea ice for seals. Harvested seals were preserved in the snow head down — life-saving food for villagers and dogs, she said.

One rare year when Point Hope whaling crews didn’t land a whale, a friend in Barrow gave her muktuk that she shared with elders. “One elderly woman literally cried because that was so precious. That is who we are. That little block of muktuk that we brought to her,” Cannon said.

Villagers call the ocean “our garden and our identity,” Cannon said.
Betsy Beardsley, environmental justice director for the Alaska Wilderness League, said Cannon is a powerful speaker.

“She just has a way of painting a picture of life in the Arctic and what’s at stake,” said Beardsley, who planned to be in San Francisco for Monday’s award ceremony. “Many times people are left in tears.”

Even if Shell is able to drill this summer, Cannon’s advocacy has made a difference, Beardsley said.

Villagers are not united against oil drilling. Some see the prospect of jobs and want to give Shell a chance. Still many appreciate Cannon for being well informed, and willing to stand up to the oil company, said Peggy Frankson, the tribal council executive director.

“Shell tries to come here with all the answers but Caroline as well as others, they ask the tough questions they can’t answer,” Frankson said.

This is the 23rd year for the Goldman prize. An international jury picks the winners from nominees submitted by environmental groups and activists. The nomination process is confidential, and vetting the candidates takes months.

The other 2012 winners are: a woman from Kenya fighting a massive dam, a Russian trying to reroute a highway that would bisect a forest, a priest leading a movement against a nickel mine in the Philippines, a mother in Argentina whose infant died from pesticide poisoning organizing others against toxic agriculture chemicals, and an activist in China whose online database and map exposes factories that violate environmental regulations.

The late Richard Goldman and his wife, Rhoda, a Levi Strauss heiress, created the prize in 1990 to reward “ordinary individuals who take extraordinary actions to protect the earth and its inhabitants,” their San Francisco-based foundation says.

Reach Lisa Demer at ldemer@adn.com or 257-4390.
Read more here: http://www.adn.com/2012/04/15/2424853/inupiat-tribal-leader-wins-large.html#storylink=cpy

Special thanks to Richard Charter

http://www.nottheanswer.org/

APRIL 16TH, 2012

On June 10, the Emerald Coast Chapter was one of the first local volunteer organizations to begin a Gulf Beach Water Quality Monitoring Program in response to the minimal efforts made by state and federal agencies to monitor against the dangers of the BP oil spill.

Local surfers and swimmers have suffered from burning eyes and mouths, respiratory problems, nose bleeds and have developed toxic exposure rashes since the spill. They wanted to know what is in the water that might be causing these symptoms. The program provided opportunities for greater local public participation in Gulf beach clean-up efforts with a hands-on educational component.

Two years later, oil pollution in the Gulf continues to be is a moving target. While BP has tried to pick up tarballs or tilled them into finer pieces, most of the oil that has come to shore has been seeping into the beach sand on which we sit and play. Current government testing programs results do not provide enough information to the public to truly determine if Gulf beaches are clean enough for family or individual needs. Our monthly independent testing provided an alternate source of information that contradict agency testing results regarding the presence or absence of oil contamination on our beaches.

Below is a summary of the report’s top findings:
1. The data collected confirms that Corexit dispersant mixed with crude oil creates a discernible fluorescent signature when illuminated by 370nm wavelength (UV) light.

2. The use of Corexit as a dispersant has inhibited the microbial degradation of hydrocarbons in the crude oil and has allowed Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAH) concentration levels to consistently exhibit high toxicity levels in excess of the carcinogenic exposure level specified by NIH and OSHA.

3. Of the 32 sampling sites, mainly in Florida and Alabama, 26 had PAH concentration levels exceeding the established carcinogenic exposure limits. In only three locations, samples were found to be free of PAH contamination.

4. Seventy-one samples were collected. Twenty-three were tested for oil range organics and 16 exceeded the target clean up levels specified by the EPA. Of the 48 samples submitted for PAH tests, 90% of the samples had contamination levels in excess of the carcinogenic exposure limit.

5. Tar product remaining in the coastal zone contains PAH levels likely to be toxic (levels > 80mg/kg). Wet skin dermal contact and absorption of tar product was documented. This unknown risk for human health and safety should be further studied.

6. Carcinogenic PAH compounds from the toxic tar product that concentrates in surface layers from natural beach processes was found to be leaching into the lower layers of beach sediment. One researcher’s published scientific results concluded this could lead to the contamination of local groundwater sources.

The program uses newly developed UV light equipment to detect the tar product and reveal where it is buried in many beach areas and also where it still remains on the surface in the shoreline plunge step area. The tar product samples are then analyzed using GCMS testing methods to determine which toxins may be present and at what concentrations. By returning to locations several times over the past year and analyzing samples, we have been able to determine that the PAH concentrations in most locations are not degrading as hoped for and expected.

The “State of the Beach” oil trend study was conducted by the Surfrider Foundation Emerald Coast Chapter and University of South Florida coastal geologist Rip Kirby. The study was primarily funded by the Surfrider Foundation, grants from Patagonia, O’Neill, and the Norcross Foundation and by personal donations.

Press Release
Summary
To request the complete study, please contact Alexis Henry, Surfrider Foundation, ahenry@surfrider.org or 949.732.6413.

Recent Media coverage: http://www.tampabay.com/news/environment/water/oil-from-deepwater-horizon-spill-still-causing-damage-in-gulf-2-years/1225134
To download a variety of videos and photos, please visit the following websites:
Photos: http://www.surfrider.org/emeraldcoast/beach-report/
Videos: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=feOn-0uilKo
POSTED BY SURFRIDER FOUNDATION AT 7:00 AM 0 COMMEN

Special thanks to Richard Charter

http://www.actionnewsjax.com/content/actionlocal/story/Public-meetings-on-offshore-oil-exploration-held/K4fJxZH_S0G3rO3IbvyBXg.cspx

Action News Fox 30 WAWS Ch 47 WTEV
Monday April 16th, 2012

JACKSONVILLE, Fla. — The debate over offshore drilling heats up once again, this time in Jacksonville. Just last week, the Obama Administration announced its opening the Atlantic to seismic exploration for oil and gas. It’s the first time in 30 years that’s happened. That exploration could happen from the coast of New Jersey all the way south to Florida.

Supporters say if you don’t want to continue to pay $4 for a gallon of gas, then offshore drilling could be the answer.

However, two years after the BP oil spill in the Gulf, environmentalists say this exploration is a recipe for disaster. They say it would destroy the commercial fishing industry, and negatively affect tourism.
So, what do you think about it? Now is your chance to sound off. The first of a series of public meetings on the issue kicks off today. Both meetings happen at the Jacksonville Marriott on Salisbury Road. One meeting is at 1pm, the second meeting is at 7pm.

Special thanks to Richard Charter

http://www.nwfdailynews.com/articles/nelson-48847–.html

April 11, 2012 9:12 PM

TOM McLAUGHLIN / Daily News

View a slideshow of Nelson’s visit. »
FORT WALTON BEACH – U.S. Sen. Bill Nelson told local leaders Wednesday that he holds a special place in his heart for them for standing with him in 2009 to oppose opening Florida waters to offshore drilling “when forces were aligned and hellbent to start.”

“You understood then something that nobody else on the Gulf Coast understood,” he told a packed house at Staff restaurant. “That for our economic sustainability, our livelihoods, we rely on the Gulf of Mexico. And I wanted to come here before passage of the Restore Act and publicly thank you.”

Two years removed from 2010’s Deepwater Horizon oil spill, most people along the Gulf Coast have concluded that offshore drilling isn’t worth the risk or the impact to local military missions, Nelson said.

And he assured the crowd that recently passed U.S. House legislation to open the Eastern Gulf to oil exploration is “not going to pass the Senate.”

Speaking at the event hosted by the Greater Fort Walton Beach Chamber of Commerce, Nelson detailed recent Senate efforts to secure passage of the Restore Act.

Nelson said he and a bi-partisan coalition of Gulf Coast senators cobbled together legislation attractive enough to pass the Senate by a 76-22 vote.

He called the work to secure the vote “a bright and shining moment of bipartisanship, for a change.”

He urged those in attendance to let House members know how important passage of the act is to Northwest Florida.

The Restore Act would funnel the bulk of BP fine money to Texas, Louisiana Mississippi, Alabama and Florida – the states directly impacted by the oil spill.

Under a state agreement, the great majority of Florida’s share of the funds will come to eight counties, including Okaloosa, Santa Rosa and Walton, that suffered economically from the spill.

Nelson said passage of the Senate version of the Restore Act would guarantee Florida’s share of the money would come directly to the counties affected by the spill without being funneled through the state.

It would ensure that funds will be set aside to create a center in each of the five affected states for research on the health of the Gulf.

Nelson was asked after the meeting when he expects the Restore Act to come to a vote in the House.

“Whenever we can convince the House to vote on it,” he answered.

Nelson, a Democrat, seems to have a solid reputation in conservative Northwest Florida.
He was engaged with the region during the oil spill and received thanks from several people Wednesday for his efforts to preserve the fishing heritage in places such as Destin that have relied on the industry for decades.

“I want to thank you on behalf of the city of Destin for your work on the Restore Act,” Destin Mayor Sam Seevers told Nelson. “And also for the work you’re doing for our fisheries.”
Nelson also took time out to pay tribute to Crestview barber Mack Brooks, a recent recipient of the prestigious Florida Folk Heritage Award.

Brooks, who attended Wednesday’s get-together, pointed at Nelson and said, “I gotta tell you, he’s a fine fella.”

Nelson touched on a second topic that enjoys bipartisan support: the protection of missions at Eglin Air Force Base and other military installations in the region.

He said he remains suspicious of Air Force intentions as long as a proposal to headquarter the command of the Eglin’s 46th Test Wing at Edwards Air Force Base, Calif., lingers.

“They swear up and down on a stack of Bibles the mission isn’t going to change. But I want them to explain it to me,” Nelson said. “They’re going to have to swear to me in blood on a stack of Bibles, and if I’m not satisfied I’m going to my old friend (Defense Secretary) Leon Panetta.”

Read more: http://www.nwfdailynews.com/articles/nelson-48847–.html#ixzz1rtd48IGM
Special thanks to Richard Charter

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/apr/12/lloyds-london-warns-risks-arctic-oil-drilling?newsfeed=true

Insurance market joins environmentalists in highlighting risks of drilling in fragile region as $100bn investment is predicted

Julia Kollewe and Terry Macalister
The Guardian, Wednesday 11 April 2012

The report, by Chatham House analysts, warns: ‘Other than the direct release of pollutants Š there are multiple ways in which ecosystems could be disturbed.’ Photograph: Alamy

Lloyd’s of London, the world’s biggest insurance market, has become the first major business organisation to raise its voice about huge potential environmental damage from oil drilling in the Arctic.

The City institution estimates that $100bn (£63bn) of new investment is heading for the far north over the next decade, but believes cleaning up any oil spill in the Arctic, particularly in ice-covered areas, would present “multiple obstacles, which together constitute a unique and hard-to-manage risk”.

Richard Ward, Lloyd’s chief executive, urged companies not to “rush in [but instead to] step back and think carefully about the consequences of that action” before research was carried out and the right safety measures put in place.

The main concerns, outlined in a report drawn up with the help of the Chatham House thinktank, come as the future of the Arctic is reviewed by a House of Commons select committee and just two years after the devastating BP blowout in the Gulf of Mexico.

The far north has become a centre of commercial attention as global temperatures rise, causing ice to melt in a region that could hold up to a quarter of the world’s remaining hydrocarbon reserves.

Cairn Energy and Shell are among the oil companies that have either started or are planning new wells off the coasts of places such as Greenland and Canada, while Total – currently at the centre of a North Sea gas leak – wants to develop the Shtokman field off Russia.

Shtokman is the largest single potential offshore Arctic project, 350 miles into the Russian-controlled part of the Barents Sea, where investment could reach $50bn.

A BP joint venture is planning to spend up to $10bn on developing onshore oilfields in the Yamal-Nenets autonomous area of Russia, despite its experiences with the Macondo oil spill in the relatively benign waters of the Gulf. A series of onshore mining schemes are also planned, with Lakshmi Mittal, Britain’s richest man, wanting to develop a new opencast mine 300 miles inside the Arctic circle in a bid to extract up to £14bn of iron ore.

But the new report from Lloyd’s, written by Charles Emmerson and Glada Lahn of Chatham House, says it is “highly likely” that future economic activity in the Arctic will further disturb ecosystems already stressed by the consequences of climate change.

“Migration patterns of caribou and whales in offshore areas may be affected. Other than the direct release of pollutants into the Arctic environment, there are multiple ways in which ecosystems could be disturbed, such as the construction of pipelines and roads, noise pollution from offshore drilling, seismic survey activity or additional maritime traffic as well as through the break-up of sea ice.”

The authors point out that the Arctic is not one but several ecosystems, and is “highly sensitive to damage” that would have a long-term impact. They are calling for “baseline knowledge about the natural environment and consistent environmental monitoring”.

Pollution sources include mines, oil and gas installations, industrial sites and, in the Russian Arctic, nuclear waste from civilian and military installations, and from nuclear weapons testing on Novaya Zemlya. The report singles out a potential oil spill as the “greatest risk in terms of environmental damage, potential cost and insurance” – but says there are significant knowledge gaps in this area.

Rates of natural biodegradation of oil in the Arctic could be expected to be lower than in more temperate environments such as the Gulf of Mexico, although there is currently insufficient understanding of how oil will degrade over the long term in the Arctic. Sea ice could assist in some oil-spill response techniques, such as in-situ burning and chemical dispersant application, but this could lead to air pollution and the release of chemicals into the marine environment without knowing where moving ice will eventually carry them.

Unclear legal boundaries posed by a mosaic of regulations and governments in the Arctic are an additional challenge. The Lloyd’s report notes that there is no international liability and compensation regime for oil spills. An EU proposal under discussion would apply to offshore oil projects in the Arctic territories of Norway and Denmark, and possibly to all EU companies anywhere they operate.

Meanwhile, a taskforce is drawing up recommendations for the intergovernmental Arctic Council on an international instrument on marine oil pollution designed to speed up the process for clean-up and compensation payments, due for release next year. This may include an international liability and compensation instrument. Greenland has argued that “different national systems may lead to ambiguities and unnecessary delays in oil pollution responses and compensation payments” and that any regime must adapt as understanding of the worst-case scenario in the Arctic changes.

The Lloyd’s report says the “inadequacies” of both company and government in the event of a disaster were demonstrated after the Macondo blowout. A smaller company than BP, faced with estimated $40bn clean-up and compensation costs, might have gone bankrupt, leaving the state to foot the bill, it notes.

Lloyd’s says it is essential that there is more investment in science and research to “close knowledge gaps, reduce uncertainties and manage risks”. It calls for sizeable investment in infrastructure and surveillance to enable “safe economic activity” and argues that “full-scale exercises based on worst-case scenarios of environmental disaster should be run by companies”.

The Arctic’s vulnerable environment, unpredictable climate and lack of a precedent on which to base cost assessments have led some environmental NGOs to argue that no compensation would be worth the risk of allowing drilling to take place in pristine offshore areas. Others are campaigning for more stringent regulations and the removal of the liability cap for investors.

See Terry Macalister’s ebook Polar Opposites at www.guardian.co.uk/info/2012/mar/14/arctic-ebook

Special thanks to Richard Charter