The oil catastrophe in the Gulf of Mexico could delay the effort to explore for oil and gas in shallow water off the northwest coast of Alaska, even though Shell has most of its permits in hand.

The company says it has not been told to stop its summer exploration program, but it’s hard to imagine the federal government will rush the final authorization the company needs while a nightmare unfolds.

The political pressure against new offshore development will gain momentum as the disaster continues. It will be as hard to stop as the oil spurting out of the ocean floor.

To give Shell its final blessing now, Obama administration officials would have to convince themselves that there is no chance they are creating  a “Brownie, you’re doing a heck of a job” moment for the president. 

While the oil industry and proponents of drilling argue that development in 200 feet of water in the Chukchi and Beaufort seas is a different world than the Gulf of Mexico, where the water is a mile deep,  those debating points are not going to win hearts and minds when anger rules.

The Alaska plan will be linked in the national political debate to oil-covered animals on the coast of Louisiana. In terms of public perception, this disaster is going to be worse than the Exxon Valdez, and not just because 11 people died in the explosion and 17 were injured.

The ruptured tanker did its damage in one strike against the rocks. In this case, the industry and government stand by, apparently helpless, while the ruptured well spews oil for days, weeks or months.

As long as gasoline is available for cars, facts and figures about the history of offshore drilling will not be the decisive elements.

For Alaska, there could be long-term consequences. The campaign to use the 50th anniversary of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge  as a reason to push for a wilderness designation on the coastal plain, thought to be the best onshore oil prospect in the United States, will be boosted by this disaster.

The long-term future of the trans-Alaska pipeline depends upon offshore oil development and that future is going to be more uncertain now. This doesn’t mean that Shell will never drill, but it will face more scrutiny than before.

In a 2007 document titled “Shell’s Beaufort Sea Exploratory Drilling Program Oil Spill Response,” the company detailed its plans to ensure safety and minimize the risks of spills in the Arctic.

Future publications about the risks from offshore development will have to change because of the BP disaster.  It may be an extremely rare event, but so was the Exxon Valdez. Mentioning the safety record of all the other tankers that traveled Alaska waters without spilling  a drop didn’t help the oil industry in 1989, just as the statistics on offshore safety won’t control the public debate today.

“As reported by the National Academy of Sciences (2003), only 1 percent of the oil discharges in North American waters are related to the extraction of petroleum; and only a fraction of this is from drilling operations,” Shell said in its report on safety precautions for the Arctic waters.

“Shell has an excellent record in the Gulf of Mexico for drilling operations. For example, in 2006 the total spill volume was 1.4 barrels, including all reportable spills down to drops of oil capable of producing mere sheens on the water. In 2005, the total spill volume from Shell’s facilities was 329 barrels of which 325 barrels were related to a single Hurricane Katrina-related incident.”

The company went on to say that about 900 new wells are drilled in the Gulf of Mexico each year and there had been no major spills from U.S. exploration or production platforms since 1973. 

While much is uncertain, it’s safe to say that we already can see one lasting consequence of the spill for Alaska: The industry can no longer highlight operations in the Gulf of Mexico as evidence that there is little to worry about.