[] TL: Briefing Notes SOLO in Arctic SO: Paul Horsman, Greenpeace International Oil Campaigner (GP) DT: October 25, 1993 Keywords: Norway oil arctic europe energy oceans drilling gas shell toxics / 1. NORWAY, OIL AND THE ARCTIC INTRODUCTION The Norwegian Continental Shelf encompasses an estimated 1.1 million square kilometres, of which 40 per cent has been opened for oil and gas exploration [1]. Clearly Norway places great importance on oil and gas sales for its economy. The Norwegian Government appears to be committed to increasing drilling. This is indicated by the recent abolition of a measure allowing it to increase its stake in blocks that prove commercially viable. In the past this measure dissuaded many oil companies from exploring in Norwegian waters [2]. The Norwegian Continental Shelf also embraces one of the world's most sensitive ecosystems - the Arctic. This not only contains productive seas, spectacular wildlife and pristine areas but also plays a key role in stabilising the global climate. RESERVES The Norwegian Continental Shelf has proven petroleum reserves in the region of 6.13 btoe (billion tonnes of oil equivalent), and are divided as follows [3]: 86 per cent in the North Sea 10 per cent in the Norwegian Sea 4 per cent in the Barents Sea Norway's recoverable oil reserves are far higher than previously expected and it has been speculated that the country could maintain an output of 2 mpd (million barrels per day) for the next 45 years [4]. In addition, if gas production is increased from the current 25 billion cubic metres to 65 billion cubic metres by the year 2000, known gas reserves would last another 80 years [5]. OIL AND GAS CONTRIBUTION TO NORWEGIAN ECONOMY 1992 signalled the highest revenues ever earned from the sale of Norwegian crude oil and natural gas with the export value of petroleum sales of 102 billion NOK (16 billion US$) [6]. This represents just over 30 per cent of the total Norwegian export value. The share of the Norwegian GNP made up by production and pipeline transportation of petroleum was 14 per cent in 1992 [7]. THE NORWEGIAN ARCTIC - THE BARENTS SEA A total of 16 licences (18 blocks) have been awarded in the Barents Sea since 1980. In these blocks, a number of minor and medium-sized reserves have been discovered. The total proven recoverable reserves in the Barents Sea are estimated at about 257 billion cubic metres of gas and 7 million cubic metres of oil [8]. According to the Norwegian Ministry of Industry and Energy, oil companies have conducted various studies, viewing the Barents Sea as technically feasible for the development of gas fields [REF NEEDED]. However, at present oil companies are hesitant because the reserves discovered so far are not believed to be large enough. Water depths, difficult sea-bed conditions as well as the need for onshore terminals will require large investments. In short, the commercial viability of the discoveries so far has been viewed by the oil companies as unworthy of serious interest [10]. However, the Norwegian Government is keen to develop the Barents Sea and is currently undertaking impact analyses for four new areas on the Norwegian Continental Shelf including a programme in the northern part of the Barents Sea which is currently off-limits. This programme is due for completion in 1995 [11]. The Norwegian Ministry of Industry and Energy is keen for even small discoveries to be exploited indicating Norway's commitment to exploit the Barents Sea thoroughly [REF?] However, no wells drilled in the Barents Sea have so far yielded enough hydrocarbons to be deemed economically viable for the oil industry [12]. But with the advances in technology, such as 3D seismics, it will only be a matter of time before interest is again aroused and exploration considered viable. THE 14TH LICENSING ROUND The awards for the 14th Licensing Round of offshore exploration were announced on September 2 1993 and comprised 17 production licences and 31 blocks or parts of blocks. Eleven licences were distributed in the North Sea, four in the Norwegian Sea and two in the Barents Sea [13]. According to a Statoil representative, speaking at a Financial Times North Sea Oil and Gas Conference, it is likely that Norway could see another three offshore licensing rounds before the year 2000 [14], thus condemning the Arctic to further exploitation and pollution. There are a range of oil companies with Norwegian oil interests including: Agip, Amoco, BP, Conoco, Deminex, Elf, Esso, Fina, Mobil, Phillips, Shell, Statoil and Total [15]. REFERENCES [1]. Financial Times, 12 August 1993, pp22, Norway digs deeper for North Sea riches, Karen Fossli. [2]. Aberdeen Press & Journal, 17 March 1993, pp2, Enthusiasm over Norway oil-gas licensing round, Jeremy Cresswell. [3]. Norwegian Petroleum Activity Fact Sheet 93, Ministry of Industry and Energy, Oslo, pp 8. [4]. Aberdeen Press & Journal, 24 February 1993, pp5, Norway has oil for estimated 45 years. [5]. See Note 4. [6]. See Note 3 pp 14. [7]. See Note 3 pp 8. [8]. See Note 3 pp 10. [9]. Press release: 14th Round of Licensing Participation, 2 September 1993, Ministry of Industry and Energy, Oslo. [10]. Lloyds List, 8 July 1992, pp2, Norway sees fine future for drilling, Christopher Hopson. [11] See Note 3 pp 37 [12] Lloyd's List, 29 October 1992, CNWM highlights Barents potential, Christopher Hopson [13]. See Note 9. [14]. See Note 12. [15] See Note 3 pp 115. 2. OIL IN THE ARCTIC Oil poses two main threats to the Arctic environment. There are direct threats from pollution and the destruction of habitats which are inherent in oil exploration, production, and transportation. These include threats of a catastrophic accident such as a blowout during production or a spill during transportation, and threats due simply to routine operations such as the dumping of oil-contaminated cuttings from drilling rigs, and both physical and sonic disturbance during seismic exploration. These threats are greatly compounded because of the extreme fragility of the Arctic ecosystem. OIL AND THE THREAT TO THE CLIMATE The carbon dioxide (CO2) produced when oil, gas and coal is burned is a greenhouse gas - it traps heat in the atmosphere which affects the climate. For thousands of years before the mass burning of oil, gas and coal began there were only around 580 billion tonnes of carbon in atmospheric CO2. Since World War Two, this has increased to more than 750 billion tonnes, and the ongoing burning of oil, coal and gas adds over 6 billion tonnes of carbon each year [1]. Since 1988, more than 300 of the world's top climate scientists have been working under the auspices of the Intergovernment Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) to improve our understanding of the human-induced 'greenhouse effect'. In their 1990 Report, the IPCC stated they were certain that the build-up of concentrations of greenhouse gases from human activities such as burning fossil fuels will increase the heat trapping ability of the atmosphere and lead to human-induced climate change [2]. Thus the threat of climate change has been acknowledged by scientists and politicians and it has been agreed that in order to avoid a catastrophic climate change emissions of CO2 should be reduced by 60 to 80 percent. Having signed the Framework Convention on Climate Change, the World's governments have commited themselves to curbing CO2 emissions to a level which does not threaten ecosystems. For its part the EC is commited to stabilising CO2 emissions at 1990 levels by the year 2000. This is a ceiling beyond which CO2 emissions should not rise subsequently. However, the oil and gas extracted from the entire North East Atlantic, including the Norwegian Arctic is predominantly used in Europe, hence further exploration of oil and gas will increase Europe's emissions of greenhouse gases. Hence in order to reduce emissions it is imperative that all further exploration in this area is stopped. The threat to the climate is extremely significant and the Arctic area is particularly crucial. Greenpeace is concerned at the moves of oil companies into this fragile area which represents a direct threat to this ecosystem through habitat destruction and pollution. Furthermore, as a carbon sink and a reservoir of greenhouse gases, and through its role in heat exchange and global ocean circulation systems, the Arctic plays a key role in helping to stabilise the world's climate. Climate change is expected to be extreme in the polar regions. The predicted warming will be up to three times more extreme than the global average, primarily due to reduced ice and snow cover [3]. These changes present a threat to the stability of both terrestrial and marine arctic ecosystems. Initially, warmer winters could result in increased precipitation, and thus more snow, although the snow-free season would be extended by several weeks. Sea ice is likely to be reduced in area and thickness and some areas will no longer experience summer ice. The Arctic ice cap reflects some of the sun's radiation back into space. Higher temperatures will result in a partial melting of the polar sea ice and an increased influx of freshwater from rivers emptying into the Arctic ocean and its marginal seas. This could affect both the reflective capacity of the Arctic and the biological production capacity of the fertile sea-ice edges. The whole arctic marine food web, from ice- dependent algae, through cod and seal populations to polar bears, will be adversely affected [4]. Polar bears would be at particular risk if the ice retreats, because they depend on seals caught on the ice. Canadian Wildlife Service biologist, Ian Stirling, who has studied polar bears for 20 years, professes "if the sea ice melts, they will simply disappear... The bears are already at the limit of what they can endure." [5]. These bears in Russia have already shown signs of stress due to the loss of sea ice. Most years, Wrangle Island in the Arctic Ocean, is at least partially surrounded by sea ice. In 1990 (the hottest year in recorded climate history), the ice disappeared, and by October there was no pack ice within 2000 km of the island. Several hundred polar bears were stranded on the island and forced to scavenge from the remains of dead walruses and to hunt among the walrus colonies also stranded on the island [6]. The rich communities of microscopic phytoplankton in the seas around the Arctic take in CO2 from the atmosphere. As the ice melted, these communities - already at risk from ozone depletion - would decrease as the salt content of the seawater dropped because of the melting ice. This would result in less CO2 being taken in and consequently increase global warming. Higher temperatures will also result in a gradual thawing of the tundra which would release stored carbon dioxide and methane and contribute further to the atmospheric concentration of greenhouse gases [7]. Even without the natural releases of greenhouse gases the rate of increase in global average temperatures is predicted to be beyond the ability of most animals and plants to adapt [8]. Diluting the seawater around the Arctic could also change ocean current circulation. In the north Atlantic, the dense salt water sinks; this sinking is a major driving force behind the global ocean current system, which itself has implications for the changing climate. The sinking water also takes heat and CO2 from the atmosphere. Hence the Arctic, in the grip of global warming, could turn off this regulatory system, with unforeseeable but undoubtedly catastrophic affects on the global climate. There is clear evidence that average global temperatures have increased by between 0.3 and 0.6 degrees C during the last hundred years. For example, over the last 20 years in northwest Ontario, air and lake temperatures have increased by 2 degrees C, and the length of the ice-free season has increased by 3 weeks. Sea levels have also risen, on average by between 10 cm and 20 cm. Small mountain glaciers have been melting. Satellite studies have shown the extent of ice in the Arctic ocean declined by about 2 percent between 1978 and 1987. UK research suggests a 15 percent loss of volume of sea ice over an area of 300,000 sq km between 1976 and 1987 [9]. There are many worrying indicators around the world that the climate is already responding to the effects of our uncontrolled emissions of greenhouse gases, and that human- induced climate change is already being felt. Given the emerging climate crisis the continuous input ofB CO2 from burning fossil fuels is very worrying. Even more worrying is the estimation that the total amount of carbon in discovered and yet-to-be-discovered oil and gas deposits is estimated to be in excess of 1,000 billion tonnes [10] - which is many times more than we can afford to burn if we are to avoid catastrophic climate change. Urgent action is needed to reduce our consumption of fossil fuels and move towards energy systems based on energy efficiency and renewable energy supplies. If we do not, we endanger not only the vulnerable Arctic ecosystem but the global ecosystem and the human communities which rely on the climate and ecosystems for survival. CONCLUSION Oil is poisoning the planet, whether through its immediate effects on seabirds, the accumulation of carcinogens in the food chain, or through rising levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Today, ever more people are coming to see oil in these terms. Greenpeace believes the threat is too great for any of us to continue the massive burning of fossil fuels. The CO2 level in the atmosphere is now higher than it has ever been during the last 160,000 years. The science clearly indicates tremendous destructive changes are in store for the planet. Having surveyed the recent extreme climate events, Greenpeace concludes that climate change has already started [11]. We must urgently begin to replace fossil fuels with energy- efficiency and renewable energy. For oil companies and governments this means that they must stop looking for new oil and gas fields. Instead of investing in exploration they should re-invest these resources in the research and development of renewable energy sources and increasing efficient energy use. Hence Greenpeace demands: An end to all exploration and development of new oil and gas reserves; The redirection of the huge investments in oil and gas development towards energy efficiency and renewable energy projects to meet future energy needs without contributing to climate change; A committment from Governments and the oil and gas industry to entirely phase out oil and gas production. Greenpeace realises the scope of what we are asking but, as recent independent studies have shown we are not bound to rely on fossil fuels, and it is well within present capabilities to change to a non-fossil fuels energy supplies [12]. We also realise the scope of what will happen to this planet if these demands are not met. REFERENCES AND NOTES: [1] Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Climate Change: the IPCC Scientific Assessment. Cambridge University Press. 1990 & 1992. [2] See Note 1. The IPCC summary of the world's climate models leads to a predicted temperature rise of almost 1 degree C by 2030 and approaching 3 degrees C by 2100, giving an average rate of temperature increase of almost 0.3 degrees C per decade. The record of the effects of past relatively-rapid rates of change on ecosystems, particularly at the end of the last ice age, suggest that sustained rates higher than 0.1 degrees C per decade are unsustainable without ecological trauma: "...the single most important lesson, assuming that no steps are taken to curb greenhouse-gas emissions, is that the climate changes forecast for the next century will give rise to warmer climates than have been experienced on Earth for at least several million years, and that these climate changes will take place more than an order of magnitude faster than the most rapid climate changes of the recent geological past..." (See Huntley, B. in "Global Warming: the Greenpeace Report", Oxford University Press, 1990). [3] Stockholm Environment Institute, "Responding to Climate Change: Tools for Policy Development", October 1990. According to this, another authoritative international scientific study, allowing temperatures to build higher than 2 degrees C above pre- industrial is to run the gauntlet of a threshold beyond which "risks of grave danger to ecosystems, and of non-linear responses, are expected to increase rapidly." So far this century, according to the IPCC, global avreage temperatures have already risen 0.3 to 0.6 degrees C above the pre-industrial average. [4] Emerging Impacts of Climate Change? How lucky do you feel? Greenpeace International. 1993. [5] An early warning of warming. Los Angeles Times February 8 1993. [6] "Ursus ubiquitous", BBC Wildlife, December 1992 [7] W.C. Oechel et al, "Recent change of Arctic tundra ecosystems from a net carbon dioxide sink to a source," Nature, 361, p. 520-523, February 1993. [8] SEI as note 2, Huntley as note 2. [9] As note 4. [10] J. Leggett, "Global warming: the worst case," Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, June 1992, p. 29-33. See details herein on a survey of climate scientists' opinions over the worst-case analysis. Common estimates suggest that there are more than 200 billion tonnes of carbon in proven and estimated oil deposits, some 1,000 in all gas deposits, and some 9,000 in coal deposits. [11] As note 4. [12] M. Lazarus et al, 1993 Towards a Fossil Free Energy Future - the Next Energy Transition. A Technical Analysis for Greenpeace International by the Stockholm Environment Institute - Boston Center. 3. OIL AND THE MARINE ENVIRONMENT Oil is mainly transported at sea as crude oil and the toxicity of crude depends on its chemical composition. Prudhoe Bay crude oil for example contains 24% aromatic compounds and is relatively toxic compared to Louisiana crude which is 16.5% aromatic. The largest quantity of oil enters the seas each year not as dramatic spills but as the result of routine discharges from oil operations, particularly transport, and from municipal industrial wastes. Those routine discharges from both offshore and land cause about half a million metric tonnes of chronic marine pollution each year. The most obvious immediate consequences of a marine spill are usually dead and dying birds. Oil has been identified as the major cause of death of most seabird species in the south-east and north-east North Sea and Channel. Heavy oiling causes the airspaces between feathers to be eliminated; buoyancy is lost and usually the birds drown. Oil interferes with the ability of feathers to repel water and their insulating capacity is destroyed. Hypothermia can rapidly result - especially in colder regions. The toxicity of oil adds to these physical problems. Birds (even those flying overhead) may inhale the volatile compounds or ingest compounds while preening, or via contaminated food. Ingestion of oil damages vital organs and, in birds, can cause death by kidney or heart failure. Seabirds spend much of their time feeding or resting in surface waters and so have a high likelihood of encountering oil. While they are generally found below rather than above the waves, much the same can be said of marine mammals. The marine mammals which seem to be immediately most vulnerable are those which rely on fur for insulation, such as sea otters and polar bears, some seals and seal pups. Whales and dolphins depend on fat (blubber) for insulation but may be affected via oil fouling (interference with swimming), blocking of blow hole and digestive tract, interference with baleen (filter) feeding, damage to eyes and skin and poisoning via ingestion or inhalation. Cetaceans have been seen swimming and feeding in oil slicks. Such direct contact with oil would mean the animals were breathing in volatile fumes which are known, for a range of species, to cause inflammation, haemorrhage and congestion of lungs. Compounds such as benzene and toluene may accumulate in the brain, liver and other tissues causing symptoms ranging from hallucinations to coma and death. Marine mammals and birds may also be impacted by oil-induced changes to their prey and habitats. It is known for example that bivalve molluscs (such as oysters) tend to accumulate high concentrations of petroleum hydrocarbons. Animals which rely on these bivalves - such as sea otters and walruses -have a high risk of ingesting high concentrations. On the seabed, oil can change the animal community structure with sensitive species being replaced by a lower diversity of more opportunistic species. How such changes affect fishery productivity and top predators has been little studied. Oil can persist for decades in fine-grained sediments. In the water the plankton community structure may be altered - affecting fisheries productivity and, in turn, birds and mammals. Oil's highly toxic components, including carcinogenic polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), degrade extremely slowly in cold water, hence the impacts of any oil spill, whether routine or accidental would be compounded. The ecological impacts of a blowout under ice, in particular, could be extremely severe, yet that would be a real risk if Arctic oil development went ahead. Many animals in the Arctic are already showing alarming amounts of toxins, including chlorinated hydrocarbons, in their tissues. The development of the Arctic as an oil province would only make their situation worse. The exploration and extraction phases of the activity of the oil industry also pose little understood threats to marine wildlife and habitats. Oil rigs discharge production water and drilling cuttings, for example, and seismic testing has disturbing implications for marine mammals. As the search for oil extends ever further, could associated pollution and disturbance drive marine animals out of areas of essential habitat? BIBLIOGRAPHY 1. Furness, R.W. 1993. An assessment of human hazards to seabirds in the North Sea. World Wide Fund for Nature. 87 pages. 2. Hazard. 1988. Beluga whale, Delphinapterus leucas. In : Selected Marine Mammals of Alaska (Editor : Lentfer, J.W.) Marine Mammal Commission, Washington D.C. NMFS PB88-178462. 3. Howarth, R.W. 1989. Determining the ecological effects of oil pollution in marine ecosystems : pg 69-97 in : Levin, B.A. et al (eds). Ecotoxicology : Problems and approaches. Springer -Verlag, N.Y. 4. Howarth, R.W. and Marino, R. 1991. Oil in the Oceans. A review prepared by Cornell University for Greenpeace. 5. IWC 1990. Report of the ad hoc working groups on the effect of oil spills on cetaceans. Report International Whaling Commission 40:179. 6. Johnston, P. and McCrea, I. 1992. Death in Small Doses - The effects of organochlorines on aquatic ecosystems. Greenpeace International, Netherlands. 28 pages. 7. National Academy of Sciences. 1985. Oil in the sea : inputs, fates and effects. National Academy Press, Washington D.C. 8. Wursig, B. 1990. Cetaceans and oil : Ecologic perspectives, Chapter 5 In : Geraci, J.R. and St. Aubin, D. (eds). Sea Mammals and Oil : Confronting The Risks. Academic Press Inc. ROYAL DUTCH/SHELL "I would like us to see our commitment to environmental excellence make us the model others wish to emulate, not because of what we say but because of what we do." [1] The Royal Dutch Shell/Shell Group of Companies grew out of an alliance in 1907 between Royal Dutch Petroleum Co and The "Shell" Transport & Trading Co Ltd - the two companies merged while retaining their separate identities. The Royal Dutch/Shell Group (or "Shell" as it is more commonly known) is involved in upstream (exploration, extraction) and downstream (oil transport, refining, storage, distribution, sales) oil and gas activities, coal, minerals, energy transportation and a wide range of technology-related ventures, including biotechnology. FINANCE Shell has operations in over 100 countries [2] and is the largest private producer of crude oil in the world. Shell has an unprecedented geographical spread of income sources with interests in over 3,000 companies around the world [3], and is one of the world's leading chemical companies [4]. According to the Fortune 500, Shell is the world's most profitable company [5]. In 1992 Shell's sales were estimated at US$ 96 billion [6]. Based on this figures, Shell's sales are greater than the GNP of most countries. EXPLORATION AND PRODUCTION In 1992 Shell spent 41 per cent of its capital expenditure on exploration and production [7], an increase of 6 per cent from 1990 [8]. Since most of the `easy and cheap' oil has been extracted, Shell - like many other major oil companies - are intensifying the search for hydrocarbons and investing in technology to enhance recovery in areas once considered off-limits. Shell is engaged in oil and gas exploration and production in around 50 countries thus, responsible for 6 per cent of the world's oil and gas production [9]. SHELL AND THE ENVIRONMENT "We have no reason to be ashamed of our environmental performance, although there have been lapses and there is plenty of room for improvement." [10] o Shell claims to have been conducting Environmental Impact Assessments (EIA) for "many years" in order to account or pre- empt any environmental impact from the beginning of a particular project. According to Shell's own literature, if any damage is caused as a result of its operations, the area will be restored where possible when operations have ended [11]. Owing to the sensitivity of the Arctic and its ecosystem, it must be asked what criteria Shell used to press on with offshore oil and gas exploration in one of the most sensitive regions in the world. o Shell claims to have "led the way" in minimising pollution from all sources including reducing oil pollution from offshore production [12], yet according to 1989 toxic release figures, available from the USA, Shell reported the release of 174,995,141 lbs of toxic chemicals (most of which were acutely toxic, and some were chemical suspected of causing cancer and birth defects) [13]. o The threat of climate change as a result of the human-enhanced greenhouse effect is viewed by Shell as a possibility. Although the Company recognises climate change as "one of the most difficult challenges facing the world today" [14], like most oil companies, its response is to deny its own responsibilities. A Shell briefing paper, entitled "Climate of Uncertainty" states the following [15]: "The word that best sums up the current debate over the possibility of an increasing `greenhouse effect' is uncertainty. It is unlikely that any clear link between carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases, and any global warming, could be proved, or disproved, for another decade." Despite the above, in 1989 Shell announced that due to the threat of sea level rise caused by global warming, it would be increasing the height of its giant Troll platform (on the Norwegian Continental Shelf) by one metre [16]. The decision was estimated to increase costs of the 2 billion project by 10-20 million [17] It seems that Shell takes the threat of sea level rise as a result of climate change seriously enough where interruptions to its operations are likely. REFERENCES [1]. Letter from the senior managing director of the Royal Dutch/Shell Group of Companies to the chief executive of every Shell company, 1990, "Shell and the Environment", 1992, pp5. [2]. Royal Dutch/Shell, 1992, The Shell Review, p57. [3]. As note 2. [4]. As note 2 p2. [5]. Fortune's Global 500, Fortune, 26 July 1992. [6]. The "Shell" Transport and Trading Company plc, Annual Report 1992, p54. [7]. As note 4. [8]. As note 4. [9]. As note 2 p17. [10]. As note 1 p1. [11]. Shell and the Environment, 1992, p5. [12]. As note 11. [13]. All definitions are derived from ICF Incorporated, "SARA Section 313 Roadmaps System Version 2.10" (Washington DC, US Environmental Protection Agency, 1989), Council on Enconomic Priorities, November 1991. [14]. As note 11 p7. [15]. Shell briefing paper: "Climate of Uncertainty" - undated. [16]. The Times, 1989, Shell to Raise Offshore Gas Platform to Offset Anticipated Rise in Sea Level, 7 September, pp3; Reuter News Service, 1990, North Sea Platform Raised to Offset Global Warming, Oslo, 1 February. [17]. As note 16. ----------