Transcript The Green Movement and Science

"The oil industry and the
Arctic environment:
The Green movement and science”
John S. Gray
Marine Biodiversity Research Program
University of Oslo
Is the Arctic marine ecosystem robust
or vulnerable to environmental
disturbances?
Vulnerability and Robustness
Vulnerability IMO definition - the area is highly
susceptible to degradation by natural events
or the activities of people.
Robustness = Resilience - the speed at which a
community returns to its former state after a
disturbance
Resistance – the ability of the community to
avoid displacement by a stressor
Resilience of marine systems to oil spills
Resilience of barnacles: “Torrey
Canyon” oil spill 1968 (Southward & Southward 1978)
Algae after “Torrey Canyon” oil spill
(Southward & Southward, 1978)
Effects of “Torrey Canyon” spill




Were largely due to use of clean up chemical
detergents, which were toxic.
Oil left alone had limited effects
Effects on exposed rocky shores lasted from
3 - 10 years depending on exposure
Sheltered bays took longer to recover.
The Exxon Valdez oil spill
(Petersen et al Science 2003 302 2082-6)
Resilience of seabird populations
Razorbills in UK over time
Fulmars in UK over time
Aftenposten 18.12.2005
Aftenposten 19.12.2005

”Researchers have a lack of knowledge
concerning why the populations are so
reduced. Earlier the focus was on less fish in
the sea. In the past few years the increasing
Sea Eagle population has been blamed. Now
the Green NGOs fear that oil-related activities
in the North will be the final nail in the coffin
for Guillemots and other seabirds that are
under threat.”
Guillemots and long-term changes:
Skomer Island UK (Votier et al. 2005)
Summary on trends in seabirds
(Source JNCC UK 2005)
“It should be noted that seabird populations are quite
resilient to occasional years of poor breeding success –
they are long-lived and can afford a few years of nonbreeding in their lifetime. However, if the food shortages
that occurred in 2004 and other recent years were to
become sustained, then breeding populations will start
to decline, as has already been seen in the kittiwake.”
Effects of oil-spills



Oil-spills never cover the whole coast;
unaffected areas provide centres for
colonisation of affected areas
Effects last 3-5 years in exposed areas and
up to 10 or more years in sheltered areas
Despite oil spills and the oil industry sea-bird
populations around UK are increasing
Resilience of Barents Sea ecosystem
Temperature and salinity variations in Barents Sea
Data from IMR Økosystem Barentshavet
Variations in ice Barents Sea
Data from IMR Økosystem Barentshavet
Zooplankton and capelin stock Barents Sea
Data from IMR Økosystem Barentshavet
Modelling 0-group Cod Barents Sea
Data from IMR Økosystem Barentshavet
Norwegian Arctic Cod
Source IMR 2005
Conclusions on resilience of Barents
Sea



The physical environment is highly variable
on decadal time scales
The components of the ecosystem have
adapted to such variability
Yet fishing has a greater impact on fish
stocks (and almost certainly benthic habitats
and fauna) than natural environmental effects
The Green movement decided a decade
or more ago not to debate with
scientists, but to go straight to
legislators and management


The result is they can make statements and
claims which have not been substantiated by
scientific data and analyses.
Science now plays a ”back-seat” in
environmental debates
Bellona’s claims (Aftenposten 03.04.2006)
1.
2.
3.
”Arctic food-chains are short and
therefore, vulnerable since key
organisms can be killed.
The number of marine species decreases
from the equator to the poles.
Degradation of oil in the Atrctic is much
slower than in temperate regions.”
Are Arctic food-chains short?

Pomeroy 2001 ”The famous phytoplanktonzooplankton-fish food chain is not the whole
story even in upwelling systems…..more than
half the fixed carbon and enery flux is through
picoplankton.”

In the Bering Sea: ”Stable carbon studies
confirms a food web consisting primarily of 5
trophic levels”
(From Determination of Trophic Relationships Within a High Arctic Marine Food
Web Using Delta-13 C and Delta-15 N Analysis Hobson, KA; Welch, HE Marine
Ecology Progress Series. 84, p 9-18, 1992).
Food web
Bouvet Island
Jacob et al 2006 Polar
Biol. 29:106-113
Biodiversity of Norwegian
continental shelf (Ellingsen & Gray J. Anim Ecol. 2001)
The number of species in soft sediments does
not decrease along the Norwegian shelf.
Degradation of oil is NOT slower in
the Arctic

”Under more favorable environmental conditions
(temperatures >0°C, effective chemical dispersion,
oil release, spring microalgal bloom), …… half-life
times of dissolved petroleum PAH ranged from 1.5–
1.7 days (naphthalene) to 2.4–7.5 days
(dimethylphenanthrenes), depending on the
contamination level.”
R. Siron, É. Pelletier and C. Brochu Environmental factors influencing the
biodegradation of petroleum hydrocarbons in cold seawater Archives of
Environmental Contamination and Toxicology Volume 28, Pages: 406 416
Acute oil discharges on Norwegian
continental shelf
But what were the effects of the
accidents on life in the Barents Sea?
No effects at all have been
reported, either in international
journals or in national Norwegian
reports
An apology?: Aftenposten 01.06.2006
Maria Fossheim, Bellona

”Bellona has in relation to the Barents Sea tried to
illustrate the biological systems in the ocean in an
easy to understand and general manner. Professors
Gray and Ugland have in contrast pointed out some
discrepancies to our generalisations. I am quite
aware of the microbial systems are a part of the
biology of the Arctic environment, but we believe
that Aftenposten’s readers first and foremost do not
think of bacteria and single celled protists when
discussing the Barentshavet and it’s
robustness/vulnerability ”
Aftenposten 01.06.2006
Maria Fossheim, Bellona



”1. In general Arctic food chains are shorter and
simpler than those of the tropics (with the
exception of the microbial loop) ,
2. In general there are more species in the tropics
than the Arctic (with the exception of animals that
live in sediments on the seabed),
3. Degradation goes more slowly in Arctic regions
(but a study from Alaska shows that dangerous
components in oil are degraded just as fast at 0
°C).” In fact the data were from Canada, the St
Lawrence estuary!
Natur og Ungdom and WWF Norge ”The North Sea
is a catastrophe due to the oil industry”: Is it?
From http://www.statistics.gov.uk
Lack of knowledge of Barents Sea
systems




Much has been made in the Norwegian press
of the claims for holes in our knowledge
The report authored by Norwegian Polar
Institute and Institute of Marine Research has
not one single reference to international
research papers.
Instead 8 papers are listed ALL from the
Norwegian grey literature
The document is therefore not based on
peer-reviewed science
Production water – “a huge problem”
Havforskningsinstitutt
Report on Institute of Marine
Research’s webpage
Conclusions
•
•
“The simulations show that there is no
significant risk of reproductive effects on
the population levels of cod, saithe and
haddock in the North Sea as a result of
alkyl phenol discharges in produced
water.
In our judgement the overall
assumptions made for the assessment
seems sound and reasonable.”
Risk analysis for Barents Sea
The risks of acute pollution in the BarentsSea
and Lofoten, (DnV)


Based on a qualitative evaluation….ship traffic
represents a much greater risk with respect to
acute oil discharges than the petroleum industry,
both with respect to the activities today and
those planned for 2020.
The combined risk levels for the two sectors
combined relatively speaking are low compared
to the risks other regions further South on the
Norwegian coast are exposed.
Oil Pollution: the sources
(from UN’s GESAMP report)

Transportation accidents
Oil rigs and refineries
Industrial waste
Run-off
Atmospheric inputs
Natural inputs
0.555 million t y-1
0.180 million t y-1
0.900 million t y-1
0.160 million t y-1
0.300 million t y-1
0.250 million t y-1

Total
2.345 million t y-1





What are the goals and threats in the
“forvaltningsplan for Barentshavet?”
Goal: To protect the biological environment of the
Barents Sea for future generations
Threats (in order of importance):
1. Climate change
2. Fisheries (over-fishing and
bottom trawling)
3. Long-distance transported
contaminants
4. Oil transport
5. Oil and gas exploration and
extraction
What does the forvaltningsplan for
Barentshavet actually say?
Section 5.3.3 side 63
”Altogether the threats posed to the seabed of
the Barents Sea due to the petroleum
industry are minimal.”
What does the forvaltningsplan for
Barentshavet actually say?
5.6.3 The combined effects on bottom fauna
”From today’s knowledge it has been
suggested that 30-50% of the known
Norwegian cold-water coral reefs along the
coast are damaged or destroyed, most
probably from bottom trawling.”
Trawl marks in Oslofjord
Trawling: Before
Trawling: After
Trawling: Before
Trawling: After
Aftenposten 12.06.2006


Headline ”The seabed is destroyed”
”The seabed of Tromsøflaket is almost
”ploughed up” by trawlers. The
researchers who were expecting to map a
virgin and vulnerable seabed are
surprised.” – ”It was difficult to find 100
meter of the seabed without tracks of trawls”
says biologist Pål Buhl-Mortensen ved
Havforskningsinstituttet.”
What are the risks to the Barents Sea?
Threat to ecosystem
Probability of effect
Fishing and especially trawling
0.90
Russian oil-tanker or cruise-ship
grounding
0.09
Oil and gas exploration and production
0.01
Conclusion
If the goal is to protect marine life and
the Barents Sea ecosystem then
control the major threat: the FISHING
INDUSTRY.
Risks of possible damage caused by
oil exploration, in contrast, are minimal
The End