TL: OIL DEVELOPMENT: RUSSIAN ROULETTE WITH THE ENVIRONMENT? [oil exploration in the Barents Sea] SO: Greenpeace International (GP) DT: 1992 Keywords: greenpeace factsheets oceans offshore oil exploration drilling arctic scandinavia gp norway russia ussr / The Barents Sea is one of the world's richest. Its wealth lies not in the diversity of species, but in the many individuals found in the few species that are there. Many of these species are valued by humans, and, though once very abundant, have been drastically reduced by human harvesting during several hundreds of years, particularly the past few decades. This has altered the ecological balance in the area, and resulted in the system being vulnerable to other influences. Now a new activity has started in the Barents Sea which could be its killer in the long run: this is oil development. WHAT ARE THE PROBLEMS WITH OIL DEVELOPMENT. Oil extraction, transport and development is, contrary to what many believe, not just a threat to the environment from large accidents, but also during "normal" operations. This is due to the effects of the continual release of damaging chemicals and oil into the ocean. Furthermore, the products themselves, when used, are changed into gases such as carbon dioxide which are responsible for alterations to the global climate. DISCHARGES UNDER NORMAL OPERATIONS. Threats from discharges made during normal operations have usually been over-shadowed by the large accidents, which is understandable. Routine operations, however, may discharge more toxic chemicals than major spills. In the North Sea, research by scientists from the University of Oslo has shown that the effects of hydrocarbons (ie oil particles) on the marine environment can be found up to 5 kilometers from the platform. The Third North Sea Conference in March 1990 asked the Paris Commission to look into new limits for hydrocarbons in the production water, due to new research pointing out effects under the current limit of 40 parts per million. The tragic thing is that the evidence must be on the table before industry and government accept that discharges of hydrocarbons, eg; PAH's (Poly Aromatic Hydrocarbons), many carcinogenic, must be stopped. Hydrocarbons are the problem that have been best documented, but what about chemical use and waste from the oil industry? In modern oil development operations great quantities of unnatural and poisonous chemicals are used, most of them without any control at all. Accurate research on what escapes from the platforms has not been done, and not even rough research is undertaken. In the past few years the oil companies have recently been required to explain what they use. The data is at best very insufficient, and does not allow a quantitative estimate of chemical releases to the environment to be made. How many tons of material containing poisonous chemicals escape from a modern platform can only be estimated. Many of them will have negative effects on animals and plant life. ACCIDENTAL DISCHARGES In most cases, oil development projects undergo environmental impact assessment analyses, but environmental threats are rarely given as much consideration as economic factors. Oil departments are as a rule very powerful, and environmental assessments may be made to fulfil legal requirements, not because of their importance. In the Norwegian side of the Barents Sea, exploratory drilling was begun before the impact assessment analyses were finished. All statistics point to an accident in oil activities occurring sooner or later. What are the consequences? An accident as a rule leads to several sorts of problems. The largest is of course the great quantity of oil released into the environment. But fire on a platform, can lead to other problems. The Piper Alpha rig which burned in the North Sea in 1989 contained (amongst other toxins), eight tons of PCB's, extremely dangerous environmental toxins. Animal life in the Arctic already contains levels of PCB's in their organs several times higher than specially set limits for hazardous waste. What about clean-up operations? When cleaning-up, a number of chemicals, bacteria and bacterial fertilisers are used. In the Barents Sea, these could have damaging effects on the environment by themselves, and could be much more damaging even than the oil itself. Dispersants mixed with oil, for example, may be more toxic than oil on its own. TRANSPORT There are also environmental problems resulting from the transport of oil. Oil is constantly released as a matter of course by vessels by in their normal manner of operating, which becomes concentrated in areas of high vessel activity such as ports and refineries. Accidents occur, as the Exxon Valdez and, more recently, the sinking of the Haven in the Mediterranean have so tragically shown. The consequences of such local catastrophes can persist for decades, and could be especially severe in such a vulnerable environment as the Barents Sea. SPECIAL PROBLEMS WITH OIL DEVELOPMENT IN THE NORTHERN REGION The Barents Sea and the rest of the Arctic not only have specially created problems because of the short, rich food chain, but other problems which are relevant are the long periods of winter darkness, the cold, ice and concentrated animal populations. The period of darkness is in fact a large problem. It is much more difficult to control and clean-up an oil spill in the dark than in daylight. In fact it is almost impossible. An example that should be mentioned was a diesel spill of 80 000 liters, which escaped in a fjord at Svalbard about 10 years ago, and was never found! This occurred in the dark period during the winter. In the summer, with strong sunlight 24 hours a day, other problems can be evident. Many decomposition processes will occur with the aid of the sun. But under this action there can also be new toxins produced. Other problems are the cold and ice. This creates problems with technical equipment which breaks down from cycles of freezing and thawing. The cold climate of the Barents Sea will cause great technical problems and with that, greater possibilities for faults and accidents. The extent of this problem is uncertain, but there is no doubt that it would complicate activities. There is a bigger problem with an oil spill in ice. In spring the very important blooming of plankton along the ice edge, and under the surface of the ice occurs. This bloom forms the basis of the entire food chain, for all other species are dependent, directly or indirectly, upon phytoplankton. Oil can be pulled along the surface of the sea, under the ice. If the oil is spilled at the time of the phytoplankton bloom, and flows to the ice edge, it could destroy the basis of the food chain for the entire region. An oil spill in autumn or winter could also be very destructive, due to the storage of the oil under and in the ice until the ice melts in the spring. In the Barents Sea some populations of birds and animals can be found in single colonies in large quantities. An oil spill which hits a population has the distinct possibility of wiping out the entire population. This is not just applicable for birds, but plankton on the ice edge, juvenile fish, seals, walrus' etc. The potential for a catastrophe with closely packed populations is much greater. IGNORING THE RULES Many people are under the impression that the oil industry operates under strict rules and supervision of the government. That may be true on paper, but the reality is different. In mid- April 1991, the Norwegian State Pollution Authority (S.P.A.) inspected the British Petroleum platform "Gyda" in the North Sea. They discovered a total of 13 violations of the operating permit, including a lack of established routines to control discharges, a poor knowledge of the terms of their operating permit, and illegal discharges. Ingrid Bjortveit, the section director of the S.P.A. commented that "It was alarming to find such bad conditions in a large and professional organisation like BP," and, after the inspection, had reason to doubt if the information supplied by BP about "Gyda" was correct. The discharge reports of the operator are normally very important in judging the environmental situation in the area. The S.P.A. has demanded that BP correct all the findings, and further follow-up and possible responses are under consideration. CONCLUSIONS The oil industry is a fundamentally dirty, destructive and dangerous one. Oil extraction utilises a range of chemicals and creates wastes which inevitably spill into the marine environment. Oil transport also causes operational discharges and major disasters when tankers crash or oil rigs uncontrollably leak. The utilisation of oil products leads to pollution which is now known to be changing our atmosphere as well as having more widely appreciated effects on our health. The Barents Sea is as imperiled by the oil industry as any other sea, and, because of its extreme climate, oil spills and other discharges may be more likely to occur than elsewhere. The development of the oil industry in the Barents Sea is a tremendous gamble- at stake is the sea and our future.