Petroleumworld`s
Opinion Forum:
viewpoints on issues in energy & international
politics.
Saturday's
Lagniappe
The
Big Question: Is it possible to drill
for oil without devastating the environment?
Hickerphoto.com
Alaska pipeline
By
Stephen Foley
Why is this question being asked afresh?
BP,
formerly known as British Petroleum and now the second largest
oil company in the world, is shutting down production from its
giant oilfield in Alaska after finding another spill from a
corroded pipeline.
It
is a drastic response to the discovery that several chunks of
the pipeline are corroded and close to breaking open. The temporary
closure of wells producing 400,000 barrels of oil a day, 8 per
cent of total production for the whole of the US, has sent oil
prices soaring.
BP
was shouting at the top of its voice yesterday about how it
is prioritising the environment in this sensitive area inside
the Arctic Circle. But environmentalists say the evidence of
corrosion simply proves what they have been saying all along:
that BP's Alaskan operations have an appalling environmental
record that has only been exposed because of brave whistle-blowers
inside the company.
The
tests on the pipeline, which discovered this latest spill at
the weekend, were instigated because of a much bigger disaster
earlier this year. Oil had been leaking for five days from a
corroded BP pipeline between facilities at Prudhoe Bay when
a worker driving a deserted stretch of road noticed a strong
petroleum smell and stopped to investigate. It was the worst
oil spill in Alaska since the Exxon Valdez container ship was
holed in 1989, and BP is now under criminal investigation for
its safety record in the region.
Why
is Alaska so environmentally sensitive?
Alaska's
Arctic region is a vast wilderness, home to hundreds of animal
species including bears, wolves, caribou, musk oxen, and millions
of migratory birds. Conservationists argue that the tundra is
fragile and will be irreparably harmed by development of the
infrastructure that is required for drilling. The wildlife of
the area is already being disturbed and displaced, they say,
and an awe-inspiring wilderness will eventually be lost forever.
Green
groups have mounted a strong campaign against plans by BP and
other major oil companies to extend their drilling into the
explicitly protected Arctic National Wildlife Reserve (ANWR),
created to maintain a unique eco-system that span Arctic and
sub- Arctic Alaska.
And
if the impact of development on these areas is one thing, the
potential effects of oil spills is quite another. There are
about 500 spills reported annually across the North Slope, the
north-western tip of the state where wells and pipelines are
currently located.
Alaskans
are still fighting Exxon for a settlement over the Exxon Valdez
disaster which, they said, wiped out their livelihoods from
fishing.
Is
the environment lobby winning the political arguments in the
US?
It
is difficult to be hopeful that the ban on oil production in
ANWR will be maintained, particularly if oil prices stay high
and American consumers continue to feel the pinch of soaring
petrol prices. The likelihood that there are billions of barrels
of oil under the ground within the sanctuary, and even more
gas, will tempt politicians looking for ways to bring down oil
prices.
President
George Bush, who supports drilling in ANWR, has also linked
the issue to "energy security", that is, the need
for the US to reduce its dependence on oil from the volatile
Middle East. A new Bill to remove the protections from ANWR
was introduced into Congress last month. To mute criticism,
it would also introduce new financial incentives for oil companies
to invest in renewable fuels.
What
about in the rest of the world?
The
concern is that exploration work is now moving away from the
developed world, where governments have more or less strict
environmental regulations in place, to areas where such protections
are much lower down the political agenda. Friends of the Earth
is currently campaigning against Shell's major project at Sakhalin
Island, off the east coast of Russia, which goes near breeding
grounds of endangered western grey whales. And green groups
say unchecked development in rural Africa could be an environmental
disaster.
Are
oil companies doing enough to protect the environment?
One
thing both the oil industry and the green movement would agree
on is that it is impossible to drill for oil without having
an impact on the environment. The question is whether the industry
is doing as much as it can to minimise that impact; the larger
debate is whether the damage is a price worth paying.
Undeniably,
companies are telling us more about their activities. This is
an era of environmental impact assessments and consultation
with local communities. Most companies also have policies on
the use of natural resources and clean-up operations. Advances
in technology have also been able to limit damage, with multiple
wells drilled from a single rig. The remote control device used
by BP in the Alaskan pipelines spotted corrosion earlier than
would have been possible before. Even Exxon Mobil, the bogeyman
of the industry because it denies the link between carbon emissions
and global warming, is committed to new technologies that reduce
the greenhouse emissions of its refineries and other operations.
Environmentalists,
though, insist that as long as the pursuit of profit is put
above protection of the environment, the oil majors will make
damaging choices.
Shouldn't
we have switched to renewable fuels by now, anyway?
The
answer to whether we can drill for oil without harming the environment
is already no, in the narrow sense that no system will totally
prevent spills or fail to alter a natural habitat for wildlife.
But it is most certainly no if climate change is included in
the equation. BP is still investing barely 5 per cent of its
capital budget on renewable fuels, and most oil companies are
putting in even less. It is clearly not enough to speed up the
development of new fuel sources such as wind and solar power,
or even biofuels made from sugar and other natural ingredients.
Progress is being made outside of the big companies, but it
remains painfully slow.
Is
the oil industry doing enough to protect the environment?
Yes...
*
Environmental protection has moved up the agenda inside every
major oil company
*
New technologies mean that drilling can be done with minimal
impact on the environment
*
Regulations in the West have got ever tighter and companies
cannot afford to be fined or to lose their reputations
No...
*
Small oil spills are widespread, and larger environmental disasters
are inevitable
*
Money-hungry oil companies will develop regions that have so
far remained unspoilt
*
Burning fossil fuels will destroy the environment through global
warming
Why
is this question being asked afresh?
BP,
formerly known as British Petroleum and now the second largest
oil company in the world, is shutting down production from its
giant oilfield in Alaska after finding another spill from a
corroded pipeline.
It
is a drastic response to the discovery that several chunks of
the pipeline are corroded and close to breaking open. The temporary
closure of wells producing 400,000 barrels of oil a day, 8 per
cent of total production for the whole of the US, has sent oil
prices soaring.
BP
was shouting at the top of its voice yesterday about how it
is prioritising the environment in this sensitive area inside
the Arctic Circle. But environmentalists say the evidence of
corrosion simply proves what they have been saying all along:
that BP's Alaskan operations have an appalling environmental
record that has only been exposed because of brave whistle-blowers
inside the company.
The
tests on the pipeline, which discovered this latest spill at
the weekend, were instigated because of a much bigger disaster
earlier this year. Oil had been leaking for five days from a
corroded BP pipeline between facilities at Prudhoe Bay when
a worker driving a deserted stretch of road noticed a strong
petroleum smell and stopped to investigate. It was the worst
oil spill in Alaska since the Exxon Valdez container ship was
holed in 1989, and BP is now under criminal investigation for
its safety record in the region.
Why
is Alaska so environmentally sensitive?
Alaska's
Arctic region is a vast wilderness, home to hundreds of animal
species including bears, wolves, caribou, musk oxen, and millions
of migratory birds. Conservationists argue that the tundra is
fragile and will be irreparably harmed by development of the
infrastructure that is required for drilling. The wildlife of
the area is already being disturbed and displaced, they say,
and an awe-inspiring wilderness will eventually be lost forever.
Green
groups have mounted a strong campaign against plans by BP and
other major oil companies to extend their drilling into the
explicitly protected Arctic National Wildlife Reserve (ANWR),
created to maintain a unique eco-system that span Arctic and
sub- Arctic Alaska.
And
if the impact of development on these areas is one thing, the
potential effects of oil spills is quite another. There are
about 500 spills reported annually across the North Slope, the
north-western tip of the state where wells and pipelines are
currently located.
Alaskans
are still fighting Exxon for a settlement over the Exxon Valdez
disaster which, they said, wiped out their livelihoods from
fishing.
Is
the environment lobby winning the political arguments in the
US?
It
is difficult to be hopeful that the ban on oil production in
ANWR will be maintained, particularly if oil prices stay high
and American consumers continue to feel the pinch of soaring
petrol prices. The likelihood that there are billions of barrels
of oil under the ground within the sanctuary, and even more
gas, will tempt politicians looking for ways to bring down oil
prices.
President
George Bush, who supports drilling in ANWR, has also linked
the issue to "energy security", that is, the need
for the US to reduce its dependence on oil from the volatile
Middle East. A new Bill to remove the protections from ANWR
was introduced into Congress last month. To mute criticism,
it would also introduce new financial incentives for oil companies
to invest in renewable fuels.
What
about in the rest of the world?
The
concern is that exploration work is now moving away from the
developed world, where governments have more or less strict
environmental regulations in place, to areas where such protections
are much lower down the political agenda. Friends of the Earth
is currently campaigning against Shell's major project at Sakhalin
Island, off the east coast of Russia, which goes near breeding
grounds of endangered western grey whales. And green groups
say unchecked development in rural Africa could be an environmental
disaster.
Are
oil companies doing enough to protect the environment?
One
thing both the oil industry and the green movement would agree
on is that it is impossible to drill for oil without having
an impact on the environment. The question is whether the industry
is doing as much as it can to minimise that impact; the larger
debate is whether the damage is a price worth paying.
Undeniably,
companies are telling us more about their activities. This is
an era of environmental impact assessments and consultation
with local communities. Most companies also have policies on
the use of natural resources and clean-up operations. Advances
in technology have also been able to limit damage, with multiple
wells drilled from a single rig. The remote control device used
by BP in the Alaskan pipelines spotted corrosion earlier than
would have been possible before. Even Exxon Mobil, the bogeyman
of the industry because it denies the link between carbon emissions
and global warming, is committed to new technologies that reduce
the greenhouse emissions of its refineries and other operations.
Environmentalists,
though, insist that as long as the pursuit of profit is put
above protection of the environment, the oil majors will make
damaging choices.
Shouldn't
we have switched to renewable fuels by now, anyway?
The
answer to whether we can drill for oil without harming the environment
is already no, in the narrow sense that no system will totally
prevent spills or fail to alter a natural habitat for wildlife.
But it is most certainly no if climate change is included in
the equation. BP is still investing barely 5 per cent of its
capital budget on renewable fuels, and most oil companies are
putting in even less. It is clearly not enough to speed up the
development of new fuel sources such as wind and solar power,
or even biofuels made from sugar and other natural ingredients.
Progress is being made outside of the big companies, but it
remains painfully slow.
Is
the oil industry doing enough to protect the environment?
Yes...
*
Environmental protection has moved up the agenda inside every
major oil company
*
New technologies mean that drilling can be done with minimal
impact on the environment
*
Regulations in the West have got ever tighter and companies
cannot afford to be fined or to lose their reputations
No...
*
Small oil spills are widespread, and larger environmental disasters
are inevitable
*
Money-hungry oil companies will develop regions that have so
far remained unspoilt
*
Burning fossil fuels will destroy the environment through global
warming “
