Nov. 1--On Aug. 21 this year, a blowout ripped through an oil drilling rig operating in Australian water, more than 100 miles offshore. The rig had to be evacuated as the blowout sent crude oil spewing into the ocean. Two months later, the blowout was still raging, pumping 300 to 400 barrels of oil a day into the water. Three attempts to drill a relief well had failed and a fourth is still in progress.

It took three weeks just to get a specialized rig to the site and begin drilling the first relief well, according to The New York Times. The new well has to intercept the well that's leaking -- an effort Australian observers have said is like trying to find a needle in a haystack while blindfolded.

A month after the blowout, the Times reported that the resulting oil slick was 25 miles wide and 85 miles long. Since then the spilled oil has reached Indonesian water, according to the Jakarta Post.

Early on authorities used airplanes to hit the spill with chemical dispersants. That has helped keep oil from reaching Australia's shores, but it is still a toxic hazard to marine life on the open sea. At least two well-known reefs may be hit.

The Australian spill hasn't gotten a lot of attention in the U.S. media; it's literally half a world away. But the incident has been noticed in Florida, where offshore drilling proposals have provoked a vigorous debate.

According to coverage by the Tampa Tribune, offshore drilling proponents say Australia allowed a drilling technique that carries a higher risk of spills and is not permissible in U.S. federal water. Opponents counter that the cause of the blowout is not yet known and dispute the inference by drilling supporters that "It can't happen here."

In Alaska the federal government is working to issue oil and gas leases in Arctic water. The environmental impact statement for the Chukchi Sea leasing says the odds of a large oil spill during development could be as high as 50-50.

Can a spill in that hostile Arctic environment, with jumbled, flowing ice, high winds, strong tides, and long winter darkness, be cleaned up?

Shell Alaska executive Pete Slaiby says yes. In a newspaper commentary earlier this year, he said tests showed that using a combination of mechanical collection, chemical dispersants and burning the oil in place will work.

Environmentalists dispute the claim.

Any spill in Alaska's Arctic will be far more challenging to handle than the Australian spill or the Exxon Valdez spill, which occurred in calm conditions in ice-free water, before fouling 1,200 miles of Alaska coastline.

Shell's Slaiby says the industry has a good record in the North American Arctic. "There has never been an oil spill caused by a blowout from offshore exploration and production in Alaska or Canada," he wrote.

The blowout was Australia's first offshore spill since 1984, according to an Australian industry spokesman cited in the New York Times article. Still it is troubling.

Australia is not a Third World nation, so desperate for money that it skimps on environmental standards. The rig involved is only a few years old, not some creaky wreck that belongs on the scrap heap. The blowout and spill occurred in warm, semi-tropical water, not an area choked with ice for most of the year.

The New York Times article about the blowout was entitled "As Oil Enriches Australia, Spill Is Seen as a Warning."

BOTTOM LINE: Australia's experience is a cautionary tale for Alaska.

-----

To see more of the Anchorage Daily News, or to subscribe to the newspaper, go to http://www.adn.com.

Copyright (c) 2009, Anchorage Daily News, Alaska

Distributed by McClatchy-Tribune Information Services.

For reprints, email tmsreprints@permissionsgroup.com, call 800-374-7985 or 847-635-6550, send a fax to 847-635-6968, or write to The Permissions Group Inc., 1247 Milwaukee Ave., Suite 303, Glenview, IL 60025, USA.

NYT,

A service of YellowBrix, Inc.