TheJournal.ie uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Click here to find out more »
Dublin: 12 °C Sunday 19 May, 2013

Why we should be concerned about oil drilling in the Arctic

A land grab for oil and gas reserves is happening in the Arctic states – but the scenario of an oil leak there could be catastrophic for everyone.

Christophe de Margerie of Total Oil decided this week that he did not want to take the chance of a spill in the Arctic.
Christophe de Margerie of Total Oil decided this week that he did not want to take the chance of a spill in the Arctic.
Image: AP Photo/Christophe Ena

EARLIER THIS WEEK Christophe de Margerie CEO of the French oil giant Total announced that the company would not be drilling for oil in the Arctic as an oil spill “would cause too much damage to the company”.

Unlike other oil executives who are desperate to get the black gold flowing up north, de Margerie has clearly not forgotten the Deep Horizon blowout. In April of 2010 an explosion on the BP rig Deep Horizon killed 11 men, caused unprecedented damage to the ecosystem around the Gulf of Mexico, and was a public relations disaster for BP.

It is quite a drastic step taken by the Frenchman – one for which his shareholders may not thank him in the short term – but if the coastline of western Europe is hit by an oil spill in the next few years he can justifiably say, “I told you so”.

Should a blowout occur in the Arctic region, oil would likely be deposited into the North Atlantic Current of the Gulf Stream which runs right up the northwest side of Ireland. How likely is a blowout? According to a study carried out in the UK for the House of Commons it may be one of the “unavoidable impacts” of Arctic drilling.

What is not in doubt is that over the next 15 years the Arctic will overtake the Middle East as the world’s biggest oil and gas producing region. Under the UN’s Law of the Sea, the five Arctic States of America, Canada, Russia, Greenland (Denmark) and Norway each have an exclusive economic zone which stretches 200 nautical miles from their respective shorelines and gives them rights to any resources in the sea area and under the seabed.

“Now haggling”

Russia has the longest Arctic shoreline and therefore holds rights to the largest area, with the other four dividing the remainder between them. A massive area of the Arctic Ocean is outside of this 200 NM boundary and is therefore an area of international waters that belongs to no particular country. Russia, America and Canada are now haggling over their entitlement to the unclaimed far north, a region where conditions are so severe that Russia and America used it as nuclear dumping ground for years, both content that the waste would not be disturbed for centuries to come.

China is now also looking for rights in the international waters too, claiming to be a “near Arctic state”. China will undoubtedly have an interest in the estimated 160 billion barrels of crude oil, 1.65 trillion cubic feet of natural gas and 883 million barrels of liquid gas around the Arctic, but what will be of perhaps even greater interest to the oriental giant is the so-called Northern Sea Route. This channel is the shortest possible route between China and Europe/America and will save China, the world’s largest exporter, a fortune when it becomes a dependable summer shipping channel by the end of the decade. Beijing to Hamburg via the Northern Sea Route is 6,400km shorter than China’s current passage to Europe through the Malacca Strait and the Suez Canal. The channel, which passes through the North Sea, will also become a major route for three oil tankers heading eastwards.

Separate to the Arctic States is the Arctic Council which includes the five states as well as Iceland, Sweden and Finland. There is also a mix of observer states such as the UK, France and Japan. The Council is an intergovernmental body which ensures that the Arctic States all get on with each other and that the indigenous people are fairly represented. It is here, at the Arctic Council, that countries have the ability to question the safety of oil drilling and make sure that inherent risks of oil production are minimised.

“Who will clean it up?”

This is the place where you would expect to find Phil Hogan asking some very basic questions such as – if oil pollutes the Irish coast as a consequence of an Arctic blowout – who will clean it up?

To date the drilling in the Arctic has been exploratory. Despite the newfound accessibility to the region drilling is still both very difficult and expensive. Engineers are finding that most wells will be in relatively shallow waters of between 40 to 500 metres of water. However the melting pack ice is unreliable, and there are fears about the potential damage that could be caused to rigs by massive icebergs breaking off the Petermann Glacier. Earlier this year a satellite picked up an iceberg floating south of Greenland which had an above-waterline surface area that was twice the size of Manhattan Island.

There will of course be an opportune time for the oil companies to tap the oil and gas. The longer oil stays in the ground the more valuable it will become and a sudden surge in availability would see a drop in oil prices, not something that the oil companies want. However, there are signs that the oil companies are reading themselves to get things rolling.

Shell made significant efforts, $4.7 billion worth, to tap wells. Their efforts were hampered by the US Coast Guard who has concerns over how an emergency response would be conducted in the area. Shell were also hindered by Greenpeace and the oil giant are in the process of suing the organisation with the intention of securing the right to fine them $1 million every time they protest within 500 metres of Shell property.

“Seven months before ice melts to allow rescue units access to leak”

Should an oil spill occur in the Arctic Ocean the US Coast Guard would be the principle authority in coordinating a response within the area. The biggest concern around a spill is accessibility. Should a disaster similar to the Deep Horizon spill occur during the frozen winter, it may be up to seven months before the ice melts away allowing rescue units get to the leak. When they do get there, facilities such as deep sea ports and airports are scarce. As the commandant of the Coast Guard Robert Papp points out he would be responsible for “feeding and housing 4,000 people, there would need to be a hospital near the location, all sorts of facilities would need to be in place. At the moment they do not exist”.

Oil spills are never a good thing, but the Arctic is the last place on earth, bar possibly the Antarctic, that you want an oil spill to occur. Unfortunately oil companies have no clear idea how to prevent spills or a definite plan of action when one does occur.

Since the Deep Horizon blowout there have been 19 separate incidents which have polluted the world’s oceans with 215,000 tonnes of crude oil. With the level of drilling expected in the Arctic over the next 10 years it is likely that a blowout will occur at some point. Despite the oil executives’ rush the oil is not going anywhere and what is vital at this stage is that oil companies put in place watertight safety and clean up plans before they start drilling, and that governments, including Ireland, are entirely satisfied that there is no risk to the environment.

Eoin Lynch tweets at @Eoinlyncho

Read more articles by Eoin Lynch>

Read next:

Comments (38 Comments)

  • These oil barons are creaming it. Have been for years with little or no regard for sea life.

    Reply
  • Bring on Tony Stark’s arc reactor…

    Reply
  • http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:%C3%86E/Paul_Pantone

    the poor fella created an engine that can run on 80% water and 20 alternative fuels, emitting zero emmissions, sounds great!! but the poor guy got done on two charges of security fraud and now is indefinitely detained in utah state mental facility,

    the lesson is, don’t feck with the oil industry..

    Reply
  • Just goes to show the length that oil companies will go to in order to get that black stuff. If we put a fraction of that effort into sustainable energy forms we would have no worries about the future of this planet. Hydrogen or electricity from fossil or nuclear are completely unsustainable. Hydrogen from renewables on the other hand are completely sustainable. Nuclear is the biggest fake of all time, the industry is subsidised to the hilt and never pay for the Chernobyl Fukushima type accidents. The fuel will run out in less time than natural gas. It’s a pity they seem to spend a lot of time running down renewables, they should instead spend a few months with the clean up crews in Fukushima in Japan to give themselves a bit of perspective on the future of our planet.

    Reply
  • Mjhint 06/10/12 #

    William correct. Gas hydrogen or electricity will only power personal vehicles. Diesel power is so advanced now it will be hard for the rest to keep up so the oil companies are going to go looking for oil everywhere. New diesel engines are now cleaner than gas or electric. If they continue to find oil thats the power unit into the next century. Its the reputation of these oil companies that is the biggest worry.

    Reply
  • What about the land grab closer to home? Clear felling trees to build seven acre concrete well pads every square kilometre over twelve counties in the north west and the south west of the country if our government hands out exploration licences for fracking.

    Reply
    • Fracking gas in the US has brought down the price of gas to such a level that its undermining ( apt pun) renewable energy projects. The short term price gain is got by not paying for the damage from pollution that is caused by the fracking process and the burning of the gas.

      Reply
  • We need petrol for our cars.

    Green Party were voted out in this country remember!

    Reply
    • Gas, hydrogen and electric. There are quite a few alternative technologies to oil-powered vehicles. The problem is that nobody wants to make them because there is no market. Even BMW with their new range of electrics believe they won’t make any money on them.

      Reply
    • Very short sighted…. Lets drill and destroy this planet before we come up with another plan.

      Why not look into geothermal in Iceland

      Reply
    • Jason, electricity is made from fossil fuels in Ireland and to make hydrogen you need electricity. If we had a few nuclear power stations we could make cheap electricity without using fossil fuels and hydrogen to power cars. But Christy Moore, the well known nuclear scientist, put everyone off that idea, during a time when by his own admission he was an alcoholic. Don’t you love the Irish? Our energy policy is decided by musicians.

      Reply
    • Nope, William

      Its decided by the oil giants and their grip on the market, which drives a policy of maximising consumption as every time your cylinder fires in a traffic jam with four empty seats in your overpowered mechanical charger another cent accumulates in their turnover-coffers. Phukk the pollution and waste, smell the luvly lucre.

      If it was run by musicians it couldn’t be quite as wasteful. Most of those I know share small engined cars that are usually efficiently loaded(its an income thang, low income drives intelligent economic use of resources).
      Car pooling would probably catch on, reducing those wasteful jams and allowing easier transits with less stress.
      But then less stress might feed into a positive feedback loop creating more thinking and less need for retail therapy and tranquiliser consumption..not good for our econometricians parameters of carcinogenic ‘growth’.
      Why do you think Plato barred poets and their ilk from his republic?They are bad for the stupid economy. As is thinking in general. Which may explain your economic success.
      I won’t dwell on the record of the nuclear industry for ‘scientific’ objectivity and prudent reflection…Fukushima?

      Reply
    • Damien, this discussion is really dead. Your comment about musicians is invalid because as soon as they can afford it they buy BMWs and Mercs the same as anyone else.

      Fukushima was not a nuclear accident; it was a massive earthquake and Tsunami. No one died or will die as a consequent of the release of some radiation. Furthermore radiation is NOT that dangerous, especially at low doses.
      I highly recommend this book: Radiation and Reason: The Impact of Science on a Culture of Fear, see here in Amazon http://tinyurl.com/c4hpfgk

      Reply
    • @William
      So what’s a smart lad like you doing in a dead discussion like this?Displaying your capacity for self-contradictory double-think?
      I simply used your trite dismissal as an intro to the waste of the consumptive economics of the real controllers of our energy policies. Stop shifting the goalposts.
      My reply to your lobbying spin for the nuclear industry referred to their famed prudence and reponsibility…in siting a string of reactors on the coast that gave us the word tsunami. Bright boyos.
      How many Sellafield rebrands does it take to airbrush a Windscale?
      I’ll start believing a word favouring this industry the day they denounce the use of their products for weaponry. It wasn’t on the one o’clock news again today. Tell the deformed kids in Fallujah how its good for their bone-marrow.

      Mr Burns and Homer come to mind. Parody is NOT 100% fiction.

      Reply
    • The reason I replied to your post was I got an email that you had posted. It didn’t require a lot of smarts. There will be no “deformed kids” as a result of Fukushima. If you have evidence to the contrary, post it. Read the book I recommended, it will educate you on the actual dangers, or should I say lack of danger, from low doses of radiation. You badly need some factual information to counteract the rubbish you read on the web. The rest of your post is about as useful as a wet toilet roll.

      Reply
    • ‘..it didn’t require a lot of smarts..’ explains your post better than I could.

      Low dosage, eh?Like Hiroshima?I don’t read New Scientist on the net, I use the library copies. For an advocate of science you have a lot of narrow presumptious conviction, hardly conducive to heuristic objectivity.
      As stated, I’ll read your recommended tome when I hear the PA system announce the industry’s denouncement of its products for instruments of mass civilian incineration. Fair enough?

      Solution to your ‘wet toilet roll’ problem. Cut out the onanistics.

      Reply
    • No come back on my rebuttal of your point about musicians. Do I take it you now understand that you were wrong?
      Read the book, it has a very good table showing no increased deaths from radiation in Hiroshima for those exposed to less than 100 millisieverts of radiation. In fact there was almost no increased Cancer risk for survivors of the bombs. Pity those facts get in the way of your beliefs.

      Try to skip the garbage sentences and stick to information, facts and referrals and you might learn something.

      Reply
    • Very clever, William..
      ..except it was me that refuted your inane and facetious assertion that our energy policy was dictated by musicians, not the other way round.
      Where did they train you?
      Dimona?You are redolent of hasbara jesuitical sophistry.

      Never mind the paltry issue of nuclear arsenals and proliferation(Dimona’s masters not being signatories to such trivialities).

      Lovely table…beautiful grain..puts me in mind of the legendary Norwegian Blue..you will remember the Norwegian Blue, William…eloped with the Dodo in the end…

      ..shame really..seems the poor sucker forgot to look at what was going on under the table.

      Reply
    • Damien, I clearly showed that the failure to build a nuclear power station when we were close to doing so, which would have been the most dramatic change to our energy policy, was because of a misguided “green” movement, lead by a musician, Christy Moore (I joked about him being a nuclear scientist btw). If the alcoholic (by his own admission) Christy and his band of guitar pluckers hadn’t opposed that plan we would not have the problems with CO2 emissions that we have today.

      I also pointed out that your logic was clearly false in trying to insinuate that musicians would be good at energy policy on the basis that they drive small cars. They only drive small cars when they are poor, the same as everyone else. When they are rich they fly their own gas guzzling planes. I wonder how many air miles Christy has used up?

      As to the rest of the mindless drivel in your last post, I can only assume you’re smoking something very strong.

      Reply
    • Yes, William..

      You’ve obviously shown yourself how clever you are. I can see you are convinced.

      Your final ignorant assumption shows all the scientific perspicacity the readership have come to expect of you.

      Kind of you to reveal how reliable your bibliographical sources are and how free of tendentious conjecture and spin they must be.

      Saves us all the trouble of wasting time on you. Consider your self self-flagged.

      Reply
    • So you refuse to admit your point about musicians was illogical? Still no reference to anything that will support your nonsensical statement about “deformed kids”.

      It’s hard to separate any meaning from the pompous BS you use but if you want a reference to Moore’s alcoholism, read here http://tinyurl.com/c3ymb7l where there is this quote, “He (referring to Moore) once told me he’d reached the stage where he “had to drink to exist, drink to work, drink to think, drink to talk, drink to drink”.”

      Here’s another article you can read on radiation and how its effects tend to be exaggerated. I found particularly funny that the Japanese banned children from drinking water in Tokyo after Fukushima because it had 200Bq per Litre of radiation when the children’s mother would be 50Bq per Litre :)

      Try and skip the BS and for once give us some referenced facts to support your infantile rants.

      Reply
    • You really do need a refresher course in marketing, William.

      Angry snarls put the potential client base off. You are positively glowing(can’t quite measure the sieverts at this range).

      So does distorting their input. If poor oul Christy had too listen to the likes of your bufallo dung I’m not surprised he took to the bottle.
      You’ve already blown both feet off for credibility…but keep on digging. They seem to have landed in your mouth so all is not yet lost.
      When you hear a clang on your shovel(Christy says to tell you don’t forget your shovel, William)you’ll know you’ve hit Ayre’s Rock. Ask the Aboriginals what they think of the nuclear industry(last time I was talking to them they were not too happy).
      But thanks for all the diversion onto your hobby horse. Makes a change from the topic, eh?

      We’ll fill you in later. After your next clanger.

      Reply
    • More meaningless BS Damien.

      Have you read either of the two posts I gave you? If you can understand them, can you tell me where they are wrong because they contradict your claims?

      The last time I checked being an Aboriginal wasn’t as good as being a nuclear scientist when it came to understanding radiation. It’s a bit like quoting the opinion of the mother’s of Autistic children when talking about the MMR vaccines.

      Any evidence to support the “deformed children” claim? Can I suggest David Icke’s site or maybe closer to home Jim Corr’s?

      Reply
    • Don’t you read my replies, William?

      I’ve already stated several times I won’t be buying any of your porkers wrapped in finest silken pokes. You’ve PROVED yourself abusive, disingenuous and sophist in your presentations.

      I guess Aboriginal peoples are pretty useless at dropping nuclear fairydust on impoverished villages generally. Not clever like you eh?
      As for the effects of radiation, its far too soon to call the long term outcomes. Much as you might like it for your own ends, that is NOT a green light to experiment at will.
      There are list of studies easily available, I stick with the precautionary principle. You obviously do not. So go play in Chernobyl, but I’m not dressed for that gig.
      You are a most annoying little boy. I haven’t time to play with you now.

      Go play in the traffic.

      Reply
    • Still not a shred of evidence to support your man-in-the-street conspiracy theory claims. It’s not too soon to tell about radiation; Hiroshima was nearly 70 years ago and the survivors have been studied very carefully and under a certain dose, which is far higher than current “safety levels” they didn’t get any more cancer than the general population. In fact far more survivors would have died from cancer from smoking then from the bomb. Sobering thought. The evidence from Chernobyl is exactly the same. But hey, the lizards running the world are fooling us right?

      Reply
    • If you dropped your diversionary trolling and actually read what was written instead of erecting straw arguments for puerile demolition you’d maybe notice I will hear the case for nuclear power when the lizards who control the industry dissociate themselves from the weapons sector.

      Allow me remind you again the topic is OIL DRILLING IN THE ARCTIC.

      My original post was to refute your idiotic statement that musicians dictate our energy policy. I still contend it is the oil majors, who are on the record for corrupting democratic process across the globe and instigating imperial resource wars which will terminate in a nuclear wargasm if Stranglovian apologists like yourself persist in their monocular fixations.

      Yopur contempt for ‘the man in the street’ echoes your earlier racist dismissal of the Aboriginal peoples.

      Reply
    • See again you can’t think logically. I clearly pointed out the error of your logic in claiming being an Aboriginal was an advantage to knowing how radiation works. I even gave you another example, the mothers who claim to know more about the causes of Autism than doctors and scientists because their children have it. But all you can do when you are shown to be wrong is more pompous sounding nonsense. (I do apologise for leaving out “sounding” up to now)

      Do you not agree that Christy Moore was the leader of a movement that demonstrated and held a piss up at Carensore Point and that the consequence of this was that the chicken livered politicians bottled a decision that would have made us far less dependent on fossil fuels? If that’s not running our Energy policy what is? The politicians weren’t running things Christy and his band of boozy dope smoking hippies were. The same dope smoking hippies that are now complaining about Climate Change and who are still in denial about the benefits of nuclear power. But the-man-in-the-street’s opinion is as good as a scientist’s isn’t in? At least it is in your knowledge-is-relative world of the brain dead.

      Still waiting on you to direct us to some evidence that Fukushima will deform children. There were no deformities after Chernobyl which released far more radiation.

      Maybe you should live in the US where 50% of the men-in-the-street think the world is less than 10,000 years old.

      Reply
    • Back to the actual TOPIC seeing as you don’t seem to have mastered basic English.

      http://www.indeependent.co.uk/news/worls/americas/secret-papers-how-shell-targeted-nigeria-oil-protests-1704812.html

      I think any reader who has waded through your attempted blizzard of disinformation and decoy will recognise who, besides those you abuse, with your vicious personal smears, ‘decides our energy policy’.

      I wouldn’t trust you to pass me a glass of water, William. I spent a few years in marketing, I know the difference between an ulterior agenda presentation and an honest explication of evidence.

      But do keep on digging…it helps the case of those of us who do trust science, but not all those claiming scientific credence.

      Need I remind any reader not yet convinced that you earlier accused me of smoking drugs, when I don’t even smoke tobacco.
      There are several words for such tactics. I’m not sure you have sufficient understanding to bother wasting them on you.

      Reply
  • Is Pat Rabbite double jobbing. Ha !Thought we wouldn’t regognise him with the Groucho moustache

    Reply
  • They have buses running on hydrogen in Hamburg. “Hydrogen is supplied in gaseous at the Oberbaumbrücke site – half is produced on-site through electrolysis, the other half is delivered. The limited space posed a particular challenge, resulting in the first-ever two-storey production building.
    In the second stage, from 2013 the hydrogen station will have a delivery capacity of 750 kg of hydrogen per day, sufficient for filling the tanks of about 20 buses and several cars. Buses will refuel at 350 bar at the hydrogen filling station. In addition to 350-bar refuelling, cars can also fill up at 700 bar.

    “Green” hydrogen is produced at the station, using renewable electricity. To guarantee such production, a corresponding amount of green electricity certificates will be purchased.”
    http://chic-project.eu/cities/phase-0-cities/hamburg/hamburgs-hydrogen-buses-in-operation

    Reply

Add New Comment