You do know that there's already a Shell drilling rig in your photo, don't you? The only new parts to this equation are Foss leasing another space and Greenpeace spoon feeding a credulous writer.

All the while we waste digital ink, energy and political capital on trying to fix a human consumption problem on the supply...

I didn't work for the war on drugs, why will it work for oil?

To further expand @1 comments. The oil rig in the photo isn't at T5, it's at the Vigor shipyard on Harbor Island. In fact T5 isn't even in this picture, it is to the left off camera.

@3:
Yes - I wish the recently-arrived/motivated activists would see that Foss has been doing this work for many, many years, and we're talking about doing the exact same work in a newly-leased space. There are many reasons to oppose Arctic drilling, but "ZOMG Shell rigs are in Seattle" is not news, and this history helps provide context for how this process played out before Greenpeace started looking for publicity.

Sure, Yo, Foss has worked on an oil rig for SHELL before. The Kuluk, in 2012. And where is it now? It sank on its way to the Arctic. That's how safe these operations are.

So, @5, what exactly is the point of all this? Is it that this is a new use of our Port, or is it the safety issues with the Shell fleet, or is it the ecology of Puget Sound, or is it the ecology of the Arctic waters, or is it keeping oil in the ground to shore up other energy sources, or is it keeping oil in the ground to prevent further carbon emissions, or is it any of the above so long as it makes you feel like you *did something*?

We have been servicing rigs here, processing oil, and more, for decades. Oil is not new to Puget Sound. If you want to draw an arbitrary line at the current issue with Shell, then fine. But don't pretend that it's a reaction to some new phenomenon.

I forgot to add the claim that it's all about open meetings at the Port.

@5:

And further, the Kulluk ran aground on its way to Seattle, not on its way to the Arctic, and never sank, nor leaked. It has since been scrapped.

It's very fashionable nowadays to throw heroes of yesteryear under the bus because "they were white" and had "white privilege" and "white perspectives." It's a stupid, frankly racist attitude to dismiss THE pioneer of conservation (Muir) just because he was a 19th century white guy with 19th century white guy ideas. The postmodern crowd can pat itself on the back for destroying the image of the most important environmental crusader because his skin wasn't the right color and he lived in a different era. I also think there is something patronizing to Latinos to assume they can't admire and identify with Muir just because he's Scottish-American. I would expect this kind of nonsense from a Mudede post.....

Have to say the second to last paragraph is weak. If you want to make the argument you will have to make it yourself. The latimes link does not measure up or create as strong an argument as you would like and pointing out things like 'Thomas Jefferson had slaves!' has been a bit cliche for I'd say at least decades. To move this train of thought over to conservation and wind up with John Muir in your cross hairs after making the jump from Teddy Roosevelt is missing the forest for the trees. He is a product of the 19th century, oh no!

If you want to throw a jab in, make it simple like 'Joel is so stale he has to keep reusing the same references he probably doesn't fully understand over and over'

Sheesh, are you really trying to to argue this guy might be bad because he supports conservation? Maybe point out how drilling in the arctic is the opposite of supporting conservation.