Troubled Northwest Passage Found

Even before the US decided it would be one of only three countries not bound by the goals for green- house gas emissions established in the 2015 Paris climate accord, the planet warmed to open a Northwest Passage through the Arctic Ocean. For example, cruise ships now travel from Alaska to New York without icebreaker assistance.

     Still, there is no guarantee that ships won't be grounded in a storm or that oil, natural gas, and mineral exploration in newly accessible waters won't accidentally endanger whales and migrating birds. Clean up in the cold Arctic where it is dark much of the year is an impossible task. Even without an incident, increased shipping activity introduces the new and unknown impact of underwater noise, dirty water, sewage discharge, and invasive species in the Arctic. With Russia now training military troops in Siberia, there also is a chance of aggression from the far North.

     Sunlight that the Arctic's ice used to reflect now helps quicken sea ice melt, at the rate of 10% per decade, and raises sea levels to threaten inhabitants of islands and coastal cities worldwide. As the disappearance of sea ice forced polar bears onto land, villagers along the Bering Straight needed to form polar bear patrols to protect students walking to school. Residents in the entire Alaskan village of Shishmaret had to relocate when their home began falling into the water. They will not be the only ones faced with the need to move to new homes.

     The reduced difference between temperatures in the Arctic and those in more temperate southern zones causes the fast moving air current, known as the jet stream, to weaken and make extreme weather changes of drought, heat, snow, and floods more likely in North America, Europe, and Asia.

     In 1996, representatives of Canada, Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Finland, Iceland, Russia, and the United States formed an Arctic Council for scientific and environmental study of the Arctic. This advisory body has not shown the leadership needed to outline a vision for the Arctic. Instead, the UN's International Maritime Organization stepped up to provide a Polar Code of environmental regulations for polar shipping. And under President Obama, the US on its own initiative prohibited oil and gas drilling in the Chukchi Sea and most of the Beaufort Sea. Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has declared a five year moratorium on offshore oil development in Canada's Arctic waters.

     Private companies are developing their own polar vision to generate geothermal steam energy from water heated in pipes by molten magma from Iceland's volcanoes. Buying into the possibilities of an expensive 20-year project to send clean, renewable volcanic energy from the Krafla Magma Testbed through North Atlantic underwater cables to power turbines in the UK, Netherlands, and/or Denmark are Iceland's Landsvirkjun, Norway's Statoil, Canada's Falco Resources, and US-based Sandia National Laboratories. Iceland's residents have received reassurances that drilling in the Krafla site will not trigger a volcanic eruption.

(For an earlier discussion of developments in the Arctic, go to the post, "North Pole Flag.")

   

   

The Lure of Shale Oil Independence

With oil trading at over $70 a barrel, demand up, and questions about supply from Iran and elsewhere, interest in fracking has rebounded in September, 2018. Soft oil and gas prices in 2015 and 2016 had dampened enthusiasm for investments in shale oil. BHP Billiton, the Australian-based metals and energy company, took a $4.9 billion write-off in January, 2016, on its shale oil investment in the United States. In the short and medium term, BHP saw shale too expensive to compete with traditional oil and gas production.  BHP expected its shale investments to be profitable in the long run, however. As soon as crude edged toward $70 a barrel in early August, 2018, BHP sold its US shale holdings to BP for $10.5 billion.

     What if there is a shale oil deposit under your home? Fracking, which blasts oil and natural gas out of shale rock, has caused countries to ignore serious consequences. (See the earlier post, "North Pole Flag.")

      President Obama favored energy renewables over fracking. At the moment, wind and solar technologies need fossil fuel backups for windless, cloudy days and nighttime, but Bill Gates, who just announced his intention to invest a billion dollars in clean energy, said government investment in innovations research will lead to even more private investment in technologies that will overcome the need for fuels that contribute to greenhouse gases.

     While ignoring private property rights is just one of the problems associated with fracking, or hydraulic fracturing, protesters in England drew attention to the need to consider this fracking drawback by erecting a satiric sign outside the country home of British Prime Minister, David Cameron, this month. The sign apologized for the inconvenience caused by setting up fracking operations under his home without permission.

     With its economy dependent on income from oil and natural gas, Russia is said to be funding anti-fracking groups. While this may or may not be true, there are legitimate reasons for concern about the fracking process. To  release trapped oil and natural gas, at high pressure, companies pump fluid composed of 99% water and sand and 1% chemicals into dense rock formations thousands of feet below ground. Companies, such as Royal Dutch Shell, which has a contract with China's Sinopec Corp. to exploit shale gas deposits in the Sechuan Basin and Ordos, try to reassure people that the wells they drill are far below drinking water supplies and that they isolate water supplies from fracking fluids by inserting concrete and steel barriers into their wells. Considering the shortage of clean water in eight of the 20 countries with the largest shale gas resources, it does not seem wise to base the safety of water supplies on company assurances.

     Although Algeria, for example, is believed to have the world's third or fourth largest recoverable shale gas reserves, protesters are more concerned about potential damage to the delicate aquifer system that furnishes water for people, animals, and crops not only in Algeria, but also in Libya and Tunisia. Fear that Halliburton's $70 billion hydraulic fracking project would pollute ground water and disturb the environment set off a violent protest in Ain Salah, a rural Algerian town in the Sahara Desert. Early in 2015, demonstrations spread to at least three other towns and Algiers. Deep well drilling to increase the amount of water needed for fracking can have an impact on local water sources and a cumulative effect that causes water levels to drop in lakes farther away. Flowback of the water and chemicals used in fracking plus the radioactive materials picked up deep in the earth is stored in plastic-lined open pits at drilling sites. While some of this toxic stew is trucked away and treated to remove toxins, the rest is released into streams and rivers that pollute drinkable water.

    Since companies are not required to disclose what chemicals they are using, there is no way to test the effect they have underground. I am reminded of the birds on an island in the North Pacific Ocean who are dying because of eating debris from humans over 1,250 miles away. Although bottle caps, cigarette lighters, and razor blades thrown into the ocean disappear, they can do plenty of harm.

     The sand drilling companies blast into shale helps hold cracks open to let oil and natural gas flow to the wellhead. Mining this sand brings noise, truck and rail traffic, and fine silica dust pollution to the population in areas where often there are no nonmetallic mining laws to regulate the hours, trucking routes, and other aspects of sand mining operations. People living near (a half mile away or closer) a sand mine have developed asthma and needed to use an inhaler. They cannot open their windows and have to install air filtration systems in their homes. Since signing a contract with a sand mining company can make a landowner wealthy, individuals have an incentive to ignore the disappearing hills, lung damage, and other consequences that can come with sand mining. Product manufacturers and commodity producers, however, that are having shipping delay problems because they are competing for rail capacity with frac sand are beginning to complain.

    Also, sand mines can use between 420,000 and two million gallons of water a day. To remove impurities from the sand, the chemical, polyacrylamide, which has traces of a known carcinogen, can enter surface and ground water at a mine site from wastewater ponds.

     The Food and Water Watch organization, which began sponsoring a Global Frackdown three years ago, opposes UN efforts to include fracking in its Sustainable Energy for All Initiative. The many problems associated with fracking do not justify including the process in the same category as renewable wind and solar energy sources. The organization, Americans Against Fracking, which pulls together groups working to ban fracking helped New York ban the process after a two-year investigation concluded that fracking could not be done safely. A bill now pending in the U.S. Congress would ban fracking on public lands, where it already has begun in Pennsylvania's Allegheny National Forest, and Virginia has agreed to allow it in the George Washington National Forest.

     Finally, there is concern about the possibility that fracking can cause earthquakes, such as the small ones geologists discovered in Ohio in April, 2014. Clearly, there is a need for tough permit requirements, when a fault already exists near drilling operations.

     As more and more people around the world rely on industrial jobs and demand heat, air conditioning, and cars, care for the environment will come up against pressure to find new sources of oil and natural gas. What projects will students develop to help adults see the unseen effects of dangerous extraction methods?