"Save the Arctic|Stop Arctic Drilling!" (Greenpeace)
"Shell in the Arctic - Shell Global" (Shell)
The exploitation of resources in the polar regions is another way in which humanity is impacting upon these areas. However, this is a complex issue, with political, social and economic implications. As such, I thought it would be interesting to examine Arctic drilling by looking at the views of both Greenpeace and Shell, provided in these top two search results.
 |
| A Greenpeace protester at the Statoil drilling rig. Source: greenpeaceblogs.org |
The Greenpeace website starts with a petition, which currently has 6,140,421 signatures, which includes a request for a ban on oil drilling in Arctic waters.
While oil drilling has multiple implications for the Arctic environment, the focus here is on the risk of an oil spillage. Greenpeace describes Shell and Gazprom as "reckless companies" who are "risking a devastating oil spill for only three years' worth of oil". They also argue that an oil spill is an inevitable consequence of drilling, and therefore "not a question of if - but when". Of particular concern is that oil could leach undetected into surrounding ice, causing damage before the problem is found and rectified.
Switching to the Shell website, the company seems acutely aware of this concern. I must admit, I was expecting their headline to be a justification of oil drilling in the Arctic, perhaps followed by a list of its benefits. Instead, the focus seems to be on responding to the issues raised by organisations such as Greenpeace.
Under "Oil Spill Prevention and Response", Shell discuss the ways in which they are mitigating the risk of an oil spill, for example by employing technologies which can detect a drop in pipe-line pressure. They also state that they are "ready to respond to a spill within 60 minutes, 24 hours a day". Furthermore, they provide information about a research programme aimed at investigating potential ways of cleaning-up after an oil spill, carried out with SINTEF - a Norwegian research institute.
The website also has a link to a page entitled 'Protecting Biodiversity', which gives information regarding efforts to investigate the impact of oil drilling on the Arctic ecosystem. Here they highlight their collaborations with the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) and Wetlands International. Another page, 'Respecting our Neighbours', discusses the benefits of oil drilling to local people, for example through increased job opportunities.
So Who's Right?
In this post I've provided a quick summary of some of the points made on the Greenpeace and Shell websites...I'd be really interested to see what your view is on the topic! Of course, when forming an opinion, it is necessary to examine a whole range of sources - including neutral ones.
This entry has proved pretty timely, with Chevron Canada announcing only yesterday that it is withdrawing plans to explore the Beaufort Sea (CBC News, 2014). While this is for economic reasons, it obviously came as good news to organisations such as Greenpeace...
I'll leave you with a spoof image of Shell's 'Let's Go' advertising campaign, which encapsulates the general feeling towards Arctic drilling that is held by many people...
While oil drilling has multiple implications for the Arctic environment, the focus here is on the risk of an oil spillage. Greenpeace describes Shell and Gazprom as "reckless companies" who are "risking a devastating oil spill for only three years' worth of oil". They also argue that an oil spill is an inevitable consequence of drilling, and therefore "not a question of if - but when". Of particular concern is that oil could leach undetected into surrounding ice, causing damage before the problem is found and rectified.
Shell
 |
| Shell's 'Let's Go' advertising campaign. Source: www.shell.com |
Under "Oil Spill Prevention and Response", Shell discuss the ways in which they are mitigating the risk of an oil spill, for example by employing technologies which can detect a drop in pipe-line pressure. They also state that they are "ready to respond to a spill within 60 minutes, 24 hours a day". Furthermore, they provide information about a research programme aimed at investigating potential ways of cleaning-up after an oil spill, carried out with SINTEF - a Norwegian research institute.
The website also has a link to a page entitled 'Protecting Biodiversity', which gives information regarding efforts to investigate the impact of oil drilling on the Arctic ecosystem. Here they highlight their collaborations with the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) and Wetlands International. Another page, 'Respecting our Neighbours', discusses the benefits of oil drilling to local people, for example through increased job opportunities.
So Who's Right?
In this post I've provided a quick summary of some of the points made on the Greenpeace and Shell websites...I'd be really interested to see what your view is on the topic! Of course, when forming an opinion, it is necessary to examine a whole range of sources - including neutral ones.
This entry has proved pretty timely, with Chevron Canada announcing only yesterday that it is withdrawing plans to explore the Beaufort Sea (CBC News, 2014). While this is for economic reasons, it obviously came as good news to organisations such as Greenpeace...
I'll leave you with a spoof image of Shell's 'Let's Go' advertising campaign, which encapsulates the general feeling towards Arctic drilling that is held by many people...
 |
| One of many parodies of Shell's 'Let's Go' advertising campaign. Source:www.treehugger.com |
Like many 'green' issues, this is a complex problem and the 'right' answer will depend on whether you approach the question as a human, and therefore will potentially benefit from the exploitation of the Arctic resources, or as a non-human species who stands to lose out. However, this is clearly not a problem limited to this example, nor to just humans. Billions of times each day one species chooses to act in a way that promotes their well-being at the detriment of another species: for example a tree growing and blocking out light for the plants below, or a pride of lions eating a few zebra. This is just nature, I guess the problem is that humans have developed technology that allow these decisions to have such huge impact compared to the much more limited impact of the examples above.
ReplyDeleteYou mention that Greenpeace believe there is only 3 years of oil in the Arctic. How certain are they of this - I'd read that many countries are trying to lay claim to the Arctic region because of the potential for vast amounts of oil and gas. Are there other natural resources that companies might try and mine or drill for in the coming years?
Chris makes a relatively even-handed point (and the original blog post did well to present both sides of the argument - although I notice there was no parody of the Greenpeace adverts...) but I do think it's a valid argument to suggest that humans have act differently from trees or lions or anything else.
DeleteIt's amazing that we've developed technologies to help promote our well-being, but the higher levels of intelligence that we've relied upon to make this progress comes with a state of conscious responsibility that we must uphold. We're fully aware of the consequences of "selfish gene" actions in a way that other lifeforms are not, and I think this means we have a duty to protect the environment in which we live.
Thank you both for your comments - they raise a good point. As humans we are conscious of our actions, and aware of their consequences for other organisms. Of course, a lion may be 'aware' that eating a zebra will not be great for the well-being of the zebra (we begin to enter philosophical territory there!), but these actions are - as you say - on a small-scale compared to what we're talking about here. Human activity has the potential to cause long-term change, on a global scale. The example that immediately springs to mind is anthropogenic climate change, but it's also relevant when talking about resource exploitation. In answer to your first question, Chris, some sources do indeed suggest that there are more than three years' worth of oil in the Arctic...According to the US Government, we use roughly 30 billion barrels of oil a year. In 2009, the US Geological Survey estimated that the Arctic may hold approximately 160 billion barrels. Prior to this, an estimation of 90 billion barrels was made, which obviously does equate to three years (when assuming the Arctic is the only source). But you're right in thinking that estimates are now greater than this...Just goes to show that you need to research all sides of a story... In terms of your second question, the simple answer is 'yes'. Tungsten, coal, diamonds, uranium, copper and nickel (to name a few) can all be found in the Arctic. Furthermore, gold-mining began here as long-ago as the early 1800s! I'm sure that mining activities in the Arctic will only become more common, as resources are depleted elsewhere.
DeleteThese will tell you a bit more: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-14728856; http://arctic.ru/natural-resources; http://www.arcticphoto.co.uk/oilgas.asp