Connect with us

Environment

Greenpeace versus Gazprom in the Arctic Region

Published

on

Have you ever seen a boxing match? Usually every contact sport is a bloody one. Foreign affairs and diplomacy can be placed under the umbrella of contact sports. Every day we hear about huge geopolitical battles between corporations, governments, NGOs and individuals from all over the world. So, in the red corner we have Gazprom, a huge Russian state-owned corporation and in the blue corner we have Greenpeace. According to their website, Greenpeace is an independent campaigning organisation which uses non-violent, creative confrontation to expose global environmental problems and to force the solutions which are essential to a green and peaceful future.

In order to understand the nature of this conflict we need to answer to the following question: why did Greenpeace decide to target Gazprom Prirazlomnaya oil platform? The Arctic region is very rich in natural resources. According to Ernst&Young, this region accounts for 20% of the undiscovered and recoverable oil and natural gas resources. According to a document from the United States Geological Survey in the entire region there are more than 90 billion barrels of oil and 1.6 trillion cubic feet of natural gas.

Prirazlomnaya oil platform is going to extract oil from the Arctic region. This is a harsh environment and an oil spill could be catastrophic for the entire area. In tropical and, generally speaking, in warmer waters, the impact of an oil spill is mitigated by small organisms which absorb the oil, but in the Arctic region this process is not possible. 24 years ago, there was an oil spill near Alaska known as Exxon Valdez accident. Even today the environment is still damaged by that terrible moment.

Greenpeace arctic ocean

Image by: Bert Kommerij

Greenpeace decided to target the oil platform because the risks are too high for the environment. The Prirazlomnaya oil field contains 70 million tons of oil reserves and the production per year is estimated around 6.6 million tons. The Prirazlomnaya oil platform is a massive facility and according Gazprom it can resist even a torpedo strike.

On 18th September, the Arctic Sunrise (one of Greenpeace ships) was involved in a protest at Gazprom’s oil platform which is the first to produce oil from ice filled Arctic seas. There were 28 activists and one freelance videographer and one freelance photographer involved in this protest. They were detained by the FSB (Russian Federal Service) and charged with piracy. From the international criminal law perspective and even from the Russian penal code the Russian coast guard was not entitled to board the Arctic Sunrise in international waters. One week later, Vladimir Putin says that ”Greenpeace activists are not obviously pirates.”

On 27th September a Russian court ordered that 22 activists will be held in custody for 3 months and the rest of them for 3 days and after that, the Russian court decided to held in custody the entire crew for a longer period of time. All of them were officially charged with piracy at the beginning of October. They face a maximum 15 year prison sentence.

Thousands of people from 48 countries engaged in a huge solidarity movement called Free The Arctic 30. More than 1 million of support letters were sent to Russian embassies around the world. Governments and teachers reacted and condemned the behavior and the unsubstantiated allegations of piracy. Recently, the Russian committee investigating the Arctic Sunrise and the activists said that they discovered narcotic substances, like morphine, among the confiscated items from the Arctic Sunrise. Now the allegations can be modified.(Russia Today) Serghei Lavrov, Russia’s foreign minister said that third parties should not interfere between Russia and Greenpeace. This is a not a reasonable request because there are 18 nationalities among the 30 activists.

The control over the Arctic waters is very important for Russia. Arctic territory is and will be disputed by Canada, Russia, Greenland and the US, but we must have in mind that this area is very rich in natural resources. Russia reopened an old military base and 30 ships were deployed around the region including a nuclear cruiser. At the end of the day we can say that the confrontation between Greenpeace and Russia is another geopolitical battle for the future, for the control of the Arctic waters and land. The judicial system in Russia has a bad reputation and there are many examples from the past: the protest group Pussy Riot or the fallen oligarch Khodorkovsky. Artur Akopov a senior official from Gazprom said that the actions of the Arctic Sunrise crew could have threatened the environment and the oil platform – the same oil platform that can withstand a torpedo strike.

One can’t help but wonder how this confrontation will end and which instruments can be used to put some pressure on the Russian government or even on Gazprom in order not to over-step their boundaries. And is it right for a Russian court decide the fate of the activists by itself? We’ll just have to wait and see.

Use your ← → (arrow) keys to browse

Continue Reading
Comments

Environment

Nuclear Power and Other Power Sources: How Do They Stack Up?

Published

on

Most everyone dreads the idea of nuclear war because of the abject devastation it would inflict on planet Earth. Yet few connect the dots between nuclear weapons and nuclear power — the same energy that makes atomic bombs and nuclear missiles so threatening is also harnessed to power electrical grids and other forms of infrastructure. When properly contained, nuclear power is the cleanest and most abundant energy source available. With all the concern over climate change and environmental degradation, it begs a huge question: why is the United States of America not generating more — much more — nuclear energy?

Capital Investment vs. Production Costs

Looking at it from one angle, a larger nuclear energy capacity is a no-brainer. Making electricity from nuclear sources is cheaper than using coal, gas or petroleum, i.e. fossil fuels. On average, using 2011 cash value, electricity cost 21.56, 3.23 and 4.51 cents per kilowatt-hour from petroleum, coal and natural gas, respectively. Nuclear power came in at 2.10 cents per kW according to data received by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC). Yet these simple ongoing production costs fail to tell the full story.

To up the power generating capacity of nuclear sources, additional plants are necessary. Some argue that the savings in electricity production means the nuclear utilities pay for themselves. What, though, are they paying for…and how long until the payoff? Engineering and constructing a nuclear power plant is very expensive. In fact, 74 percent of the cost of nuclear-sourced electricity is in the capital costs of creating the physical facility and technology for that purpose. Some estimates range drom six-billion to nine-billion dollars. Others estimate over $5,300 per kW before it begins paying for itself…in 20 to 30 years. These figures make the prospect cost-prohibitive to many decision makers in government and business.

Plentiful Energy at Low Costs without Nuclear Power

Were we living back during the oil shocks and embargoes of the 1970s, the urgency factor would be much higher concerning nuclear power in the US. The abundance of discoveries and advancement of technology have made fossil fuels more available at modest prices. Coal and petroleum are each low compared to their peaks. With the advent of hydraulic fracturing, or “fracking,” natural gas is ever more accessible and affordable. Though people may worry about the environmental effects of burning these substances, they are likely to continue usage to maintain a decent househild cash flow.

Still, even the renewable alternatives to traditional fuels are dropping in price. In terms of sheer volume, wind turbines and solar panels — for instance — have yet to match the output of fossil fuels, much less the overwhelming energy yield of nuclear. Nevertheless, their contribution to production in the United States is growing while their financial outlays are shrinking. Added to the two aforementioned renewable sources, hydro-electric power, biomass and geothermal each come in under 10 cents per kW. According to Forbes magazine, this makes them highly competitive with oil and gas financially.

Lack of Knowledge

The absence of urgency mentioned above relates to a third factor about why Americans are not expanding their nuclear production capacity. Generations have passed that are not well-informed about the potential and reality of nuclear power. A dangerous accident at Pennsylvania’s Three-Mile Island facility in the 1970s scared public officials and policy makers into backing off of a pro-nuclear agenda. The improvements and replication found in today’s safety protocols have been ineffective in re-booting a national conversation. Granted, the United States operates 97 nuclear reactors, more than any other country. Yet only four more are under design and/or construction compared to 20 for China.

Furthermore, France relies on nuclear for three-quarters of its electricity; several eastern European nations, half; South Korea, in excess of 30 percent; while the U.S. can claim around 20 percent. Clearly, the public knowledge regarding how clean and abundant atomic energy is meager; awareness of past accidents — including the Fukushima Daiichi and Chernobyl meltdowns of recent decades were, by contrast, reported widely by media outlets.

Advocates of nuclear power have work to do to bring Americans on board. Otherwise, dirtier, cheaper sources will continue to reign.

Prev postNext post
Use your ← → (arrow) keys to browse

Continue Reading

Environment

Francisco Reynés: “We have to consider gas as the energy source with the most potential in the future”

Published

on

Natural Gas

Francisco Reynés, executive chairman of Naturgy (formerly Gas Natural Fenosa), has talked about the role of gas in the world as the energy source with the greatest potential in the future, at the 6TH IEF-IGU Ministerial Gas Forum celebrated in Barcelona, Spain.

 Francisco Reynés has explained that the world “needs to talk about the different uses of natural gas and the gas technologies and innovations towards a sustainable energy future. We have to address the role of gas in the world as a future energy source, not only as a transition source of energy”.

 “The uses of gas are, as we all know, well beyond those of power generation. Gas provides sources for non-energy uses, such as petrochemicals or fertilizers, which have no clear substitute”, he added.

 About this possibility, Francisco Reynés has explained that “all of this will benefit and service the economic growth and development of the countries and economies around the globe. It is, indeed, a joint effort which we must all face with the utmost priority and the maximum care”.

Reynés has also insisted on the cooperation between governments, producers and even consumers to strengthen the security of gas supply on international markets. “The challenge for the future is how energy systems will evolve to meet greenhouse gas emission goals, and more stringent fuel quality standards while at the same time they respond to growing demand for affordable access to reliable energy services”, he concluded.

The 6th IEF-IGU Ministerial Gas Forum aims to sharpen a collective focus on energy policies, market trends, and technology options that enable the gas industry to deliver inclusive growth and successful transformations for a secure, inclusive and sustainable energy future. Energy and climate policies, gas technologies and innovations as well as market fundamentals are ever more co-dependent but also vary across geographies.

Use your ← → (arrow) keys to browse

Continue Reading

Environment

You can’t fight nature, but you can be ready for whatever she throws at you

Published

on

tsunami

The human race has got used to being in control of its surroundings, and yet we will never be able to truly prevent some of the most devastating catastrophes that our planet can throw our way. Yet we still strive to protect all the things we have built and worked hard for, and technology is helping us to do that on a day to day basis.

Tsunamis are a reality and we need to be prepared for them

Despite all the advances in our technology, we have not yet found ourselves able to avert the most fatal of natural disasters. The fact remains that our planet is far larger than we can possibly control and despite being considerably safer than several million years ago in the early days of the Earth’s life, it still has the capacity to be volatile and terrifying.

Some of the  most devastating tsunamis in recent history have taken place in the last 60 years, with catastrophic loss of life and billions needed in humanitarian aid and reconstruction. The effects will last a lifetime for many areas as they try to recover and rebuild.

It is impossible to forget the Tohoku earthquake and subsequent tsunami in 2011. The consequences were absolutely devastating.

Striking Japan on the 11th March the earthquake reached an eye watering 9.0 magnitude, and generated a 33 feet high wall of water travelling as far as 6 miles inland. Some reports even record waves as high as 133 feet, with a 97-foot wave smashing into the city of Ofunato.

Around 25,000 people were killed or reported missing, and 125,000 buildings damaged or destroyed. But more worryingly the Fukushima I Nuclear Power Plant was also struck causing a nuclear meltdown. The disaster is recorded at the highest level of International Nuclear Event Scale. The impact of this event is still being fully understood, and radiation from the plant has been detected as much as 200 miles away, with many areas remaining uninhabitable and will be for many years to come.

The loss of human life can be staggering due to a tsunami that hits with no warning. Take for example the Boxing Day Tsunami of 2004 in the Indian Ocean. An unbelievable death toll of 230,000 was recorded across 14 countries including Indonesia, Sri Lanka, India and Thailand. The earthquake under the ocean was recorded at 9.3 magnitude, generating waves up to 93 feet high. Some waves hit land within 15 minutes, but some took as much as 7 hours.

Even those with time to evacuate were hard hit, mostly due to the complete lack of a tsunami warning system which meant very densely populated coastal areas being taken by surprise.

Early warnings save lives

By comparison, although damage to buildings and general destruction was widespread, the 2009 Samoa earthquake and tsunami saw a considerable lower death toll.

With an earthquake of 8.1 magnitude and waves reaching 45 feet high, that travelled up to a mile inland there were 189 casualties recorded. The loss of life would have been far higher if it wasn’t for the Pacific Tsunami Warning Centre which gave people time to evacuate and reach higher ground.

There are several ways in which a tsunami can be detected. From recognition of symptoms, an earthquake can be quite hard to miss, to technological warnings from tsunami detection and forecasting. These are based on a combination of data collected by environmental sensors and using that data for tsunami modelling.

For example monitoring seismic activity and the magnitude of an earthquake can give an excellent warning of tsunami potential. However, it cannot be taken in isolation.  For larger earthquakes it is easier to underestimate the size of the quake, and therefore miscalculate the tsunami potential.

Rapid sea level monitoring will give the best warning

When managing the data collected, those carrying out the analysis have a hard decision. Declare a tsunami imminent, and risk a costly unnecessary evacuation, or make the decision to issue the warning to the public so that emergency plans can be activated.

They also need to be able to indicate clearly from the modelling how large the waves will be and when they will strike. Importantly they need to know when the danger will be over so that people can return safely to the evacuated areas.

The issue is that  tsunami detection and forecasting requires near-real-time observations from both coastal sea level instruments and open-ocean sensors. Fundamental gaps in coverage still exist, especially in open-water. This puts at risk the ability to give warning, and the ability to learn more about the behaviour of tsunamis after the fact which will further refine the accuracy of the modelling in the future. More coverage is needed, and the durability of the equipment a key factor.

New technology paramount for the detection of tsunamis

The installation of new tsunami buoys is without doubt the next step for addressing the coverage issue, and these buoys need to be smart with built in Tsunami Early Detection and Warning System. It needs to be able to detect an event and send that information to be centrally analysed.

Pressure sensors deployed in a water depth up to 7,000 meters can detect height variations on the water surface, and in order to resist the effect of the harsh elements and environments must be of the highest quality. It is now possible to obtain floats manufactured with a closed-cell polyethylene foam sheet that prevents water absorption.

In  terms of positioning and communication, all can be managed through GPS, and redundancy in place for communications via satellite, with a reaction time of less than one minute and powered by a double solar power system. These buoys are so durable they can provide much better confidence that there will be no failure of service in remote locations.

They are able to transmit a NOAA Tsunami Warning System compatible message and monitor the sea level column changes to within 1mm. This kind of monitoring will be paramount for buying enough time for evacuation and prevent the loss of life seen previously.

Use your ← → (arrow) keys to browse

Continue Reading

Trending