The oil industry is growing increasingly aware of its serious image problem. Put differently, people are becoming increasingly aware of the systematic abuses of people and nature inherent in the production and processing of petroleum.
Ecological impacts of the UK offshore industry
Here in the UK, the ecology of the North Sea has been devastated by over 30 years of oil exploitation. Now the oil companies are industrialising new, pristine areas, such as Cardigan Bay off Wales, and most significantly the North Atlantic, west and north of the Shetland Isles. These host an enormous biodiversity (including numerous cetaceans - whales, dolphins and porpoises), due to being at the interface between warm and cold water. The North Atlantic is deep water, a poorly understood ecology, recently found to contain rare cold water coral.
The ecological damage of the oil industry is not just from disasters such as the Sea Empress (Pembrokeshire, February 1996) or Braer (Shetland, January 1993) groundings; the impacts are systematic, arising from its ordinary, day-to-day operations [see box opposite]. "The oil industry is environmentally suspect through and through", according to Guy Linley-Adams, Director of Conservation at the Marine Conservation Society. "The latest official figures show a huge rise in pollution. We can but wonder what the figures concealed by the DTI and UKOOA [UK Offshore Operators Association] will show.
Revolution Against the Megamachine Shortly after the horrific Exxon Valdez oil spill in Alaska in 1989, the American journal Fifth Estate published a brilliant essay by George Bradford, "Stopping the Industrial Hydra: Revolution Against the Megamachine". This seminal work moves from an in-depth examination of the Valdez spill and of the impossibility of a true clean-up, (noting the way in which those responsible actually benefit from such disasters) to a wider exploration of petrochemical civilisation and the movements which seek to oppose it. Most pollution arises not from the spectacular disasters but from the insidious everyday workings of 'Business as Usual' - which leaves us with only one option if we seriously wish to stop that pollution. Even the most incorrigible oil-junkie would be hard-pressed to deny these points after reading this essay, such is the persuasive force of Bradford's argument. Available in pamphlet form (with commentary by a humble SDEF! serf) for 60p + 2 x 1st class stamps, from Dead Trees EF! |
In 1996 223 oil spills were reported by companies to the Department of Energy. However, reporting is voluntary, and 82 slicks were detected during 257.5 hours (just 3% of the year) of aerial surveillance by the DTI (Department of Trade and Industry), of which only 12 were reported. Discharges of oil and chemicals have various lethal and non-lethal effects on fish, birds, molluscs, and cetaceans and other mammals. These include cancers, damage to growth, to feathers, scales and skin, to respiratory systems, to livers and to immune systems, and also disturbance of reproductive, feeding and other behaviour. Environmental umbrella group Joint Link estimates that even in good conditions only 10-15% of the oil from spills is ever recovered .
The first stage in the oil production process is exploration, mainly by seismic surveying. Underwater explosions of around 250 decibels (the human pain threshold is at 140 db) are created with air guns, and underlying geology deduced from measurements on the reflected sound waves. This has a particularly disturbing effect on cetaceans, who use sound for communication and navigation, and may even be responsible for whale groundings . Fish are also displaced, which in turn affects the cetaceans and birds which feed on them. Studies have shown that the number of cod and haddock is reduced by up to 45% within 5 nautical miles of the blast . The blasts can damage tissues, including lungs, guts and ears in mammals, and swim bladders in fish.
Then, during the drilling stage, "muds" (lubricants) are pumped down, to keep the drillbit cool and to regulate the flow of oil and gas. They consist of hydrocarbons, heavy metals (including cadmium, mercury and lead) and other toxic chemicals, and also contain corrosion inhibitors, detergents and biocides. Drill cuttings (the removed rock) are dumped on the seabed (totalling over 1.5 million tonnes in the UK North Sea). These cuttings smother seabed wildlife, and significant effects on the structure of ecological communities have been observed several kilometres from platforms . Not only are the rocks surrounding oil reservoirs often radioactive, but cuttings are also contaminated with oil, "muds" and chemicals. 3,826 tonnes of oil were discharged with cuttings offshore Britain in 1996 . To get an idea of the scale of the problem here, one must remember that over 6,000 wells have been drilled in the North Sea since 1964.
Rig and pipeline installation causes further disturbance to seabed ecosystems, through dredging, filling and anchoring. Underwater structures will be treated with protective chemicals, which release toxins into the water. From the rig there are discharges due to deck drainage, cooling water from machinery and sewage, plus constant noise and light pollution (including that from gas flaring - also a major source of CO2).
Most fields contain water as well as oil and gas. This "production water", containing both oil and chemicals, receives only very simple treatment before being discharged. As fields mature, the quantity of production water increases as the oil decreases, and may constitute up to 94% of production .
The scale of chemical usage in the North Sea is not documented; however discharges of production chemicals are estimated at 6,000 tonnes per year (30% of quantity used), plus 84,000 tonnes of drilling chemicals (57%).
In September, in response to pressure from the European Commission and from campaigners on environmental impact assessments (EIAs), Energy Minister John Battle announced that he would "fast track" to bring in this year the latest European directive, which requires availability of EIAs on offshore developments for public inspection. However, there was no complaint from the industry at this, perhaps because of its severe need to be perceived as environmentally responsible. Battle went on to say that the new law would not delay offshore projects, nor raise the companies' costs: "It should all be fairly routine", he said.
Shinta Muliasari (11506070111157)
1 komentar:
In my point of view, this article discusses the oil industry and its negative impacts such as pollution, political issues, and implications for public relations. Many negative impacts revealed in the article above. In my personal opinion, this is certainly a very good article to read. However, I slightly disagree with the statement that the author states that "people are becoming increasingly aware of systematic abuse of people and nature inherent in production and processing of petroleum" Especially in Indonesia,I think there are still many people who do not care about the negative impacts of oil industry.
We as consumers of oil itself regardless of its form, whether gasoline, diesel or kerosene, after reading the above article and realized a lot of negative impacts of the oil industry, we can more wisely use the oil. Moreover, oil is a natural resource that will run out someday, and this fact makes sad remembering the progress in the field of transport also affects the rising demand for oil. And I, who three years from now will get the title of industrial engineer, I feel challenged to find ways to explore oil with a better way, so it can minimize the negative impacts.
Shinta Muliasari / 115060701111057
Posting Komentar