Wednesday, January 30, 2013

Shell Alaska Refuses to Rule Out Moving the Kulluk to Asia on Floating Drydock

My picture of the Kulluk in Vigor's Seattle drydock,
behind the SBX platform - August 3, 2011
Dan Joling of the Associated Press, in response to today's posting of the Unified Command's Update #44, which really didn't say much, posed questions to Shell's Kevin Hardy, based on my information earlier in the week from anonymous informants:
ANCHORAGE, Alaska (AP) — The united command overseeing the salvage of the Royal Dutch Shell PLC drill barge says the vessel's damage poses no threat to its stability while it's anchored off an Alaska island.  
But spokesman Kevin Hardy said Wednesday he could not answer whether hull damage will make the Kulluk unsuitable for towing, whether it could be moved by heavy lift ship rather than by towing, or whether it will be moved for repairs to an Asia shipyard rather than a Pacific Northwest shipyard. 
"The evaluation continues," Hardy said in regard to hull damage. "When there's something to report, I presume, that will be reported as appropriate." He referred other questions to Shell. Spokesman Curtis Smith said he did not have new information to pass on. Details of future actions will depend on the outcome of ongoing assessments and permissions.
"I'm not going to speculate on potential next steps," he said.
Alaska blogger Steve Aufrecht wrote a blog entry based on ideas he had to consider, based on my same post Joling got his information from.  As some longtime readers here may know, Steve was one of the people who inspired me to begin my own blog.  I sometimes refer to him as my ethicist.

Steve looked at my earlier post in regard to whether or not its use of anonymous informants went out of bounds of what he described as journalism.  He begins with this:
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?
Steve's entire post is well worth reading.  Later, he responded to the Unified Command release #44, asking if it had "debunked" my post.  He didn't think it had.  He's beginning to distrust Shell's narrative as a responsible Alaskan corporate citizen:
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.
Another question we should be asking is "Why is the Noble Discoverer still berthed in Seward?

6 comments:

Anonymous said...



...if it's not your dog whistle you're blowin,

it's your own horn.

Anonymous said...

Shell also hasn't mentioned anything in response to the people who 'reported' the "same information' three weeks ago.

Those people reporting the same information you claim to be breaking reported that information three weeks ago.

Recognizing that wouldn't allow you to preen and pretend.

Philip Munger said...

"Those people reporting the same information you claim to be breaking reported that information three weeks ago."

--- please provide a link to the info from three weeks ago you allege."

About to change comment policy here regarding you.

Anonymous said...

What, you haven't already done your due diligence to see if someone else hadn't already beaten you to your so-called exclusive?

You really should do that before you go to print and try taking possession of some claim.

If you follow forums that deal with offshore oil work and tug and barge work you'd have read licensed seamen discussing exactly what you claim in your so-called 'exclusive'. And they were discussing those options three weeks ago in real time right before and after the Kulluk was going aground. Discussion right out of the box was that the Kulluk would be put on a heavy lift vessel and taken either to Vigor or Korea.

You have the Google I suspect, one would think you'd have had a look see, see if someone else already was discussing what you claim as an exclusive. It's a journalism thing, Munger, not that I'd expect you to give ethical journalism any consideration. Point of fact, you stated you have no intention of adhering to any journalistic ethic, you'd claimed to have no need to practice any ethical journalism.

You want to change your commenting policy to exclude the possibility of your being called to account for your hackery?

Changing your comment policy won't address your hackery. It won't address your misrepresentations, nor your false narratives.

Your hackery isn't a result of your comment policy, that's no way to address your hackery.

Anonymous said...

What, you haven't already done your due diligence to see if someone else hadn't already beaten you to your so-called exclusive?

You really should do that before you go to print and try taking possession of some claim.

If you follow forums that deal with offshore oil work and tug and barge work you'd have read licensed seamen discussing exactly what you claim in your so-called 'exclusive'. And they were discussing those options three weeks ago in real time right before and after the Kulluk was going aground. Discussion right out of the box was that the Kulluk would be put on a heavy lift vessel and taken either to Vigor or Korea.

You have the Google I suspect, one would think you'd have had a look see, see if someone else already was discussing what you claim as an exclusive. It's a journalism thing, Munger, not that I'd expect you to give ethical journalism any consideration. Point of fact, you stated you have no intention of adhering to any journalistic ethic, you'd claimed to have no need to practice any ethical journalism.

You want to change your commenting policy to exclude the possibility of your being called to account for your hackery?

Changing your comment policy won't address your hackery. It won't address your misrepresentations, nor your false narratives.

Your hackery isn't a result of your comment policy, that's no way to address your hackery.

Philip Munger said...

Anonymous from near Soldotna:

You're banned from PA until you provide proof of the following allegations you have made here:

1) That I had anything to do with the creation of my Wikipedia article

2) That "Discussion right out of the box [anywhere on a forum] was that the Kulluk would be put on a heavy lift vessel and taken either to Vigor or Korea."

3) That I have "lifted" or "stolen" anyone's writing without attribution.

----

Until then, your derisive comments will no longer appear here.