• Welcome to BirdForum, the internet's largest birding community with thousands of members from all over the world. The forums are dedicated to wild birds, birding, binoculars and equipment and all that goes with it.

    Please register for an account to take part in the discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.
ZEISS DTI thermal imaging cameras. For more discoveries at night, and during the day.

Oil companies head for Greenland (1 Viewer)

Birdforum

Administrator
The remote oil fields of Greenland could become a new Eldorado for oil companies thanks to a spectacular rise in fossil fuel prices and uncertainty concerning future supplies, experts say.

Greenland will this week launch a new round of concessions for oil and gas exploration and officials expect record bidding.

"We have never known a level of interest for oil exploration like today, which makes us optimistic. Our dream of becoming a heavyweight energy producer could become reality one day," Joern Skov Nielsen, division head of Greenland's Bureau of Minerals and Petroleum, told AFP.

Several U.S. and European oil companies have bought seismic data collected in the Disko bay, which will be opened for exploration in the new round of concessions, said Nielsen. "That's an unmistakable sign of interest," he said.

The fjord and glacier of Ilulissat, situated in the Disko bay, were in 2004 included in Unesco's world heritage sites, and exploration in the ecologically fragile area has been a cause of concern for environmentalists.

Greenpeace and the World Wildlife Fund have both expressed concern about the effect on whales, shellfish and sea birds living in the area.

Greenland's local government has promised that the environment will be protected.

But it also points out that Disko bay oil production could provide a vital financial windfall for the 58,000 inhabitants of Greenland, mostly inuits, who won home rule from Denmark in 1979.

After six test drillings in 1976, 1977 and 1990 failed to prove the potential for profitable exploitation, record oil prices are now key to unlocking the fuel potential of Greenland, which had previously scared off investors because of the high cost of accessing reserves in waters and land which are icebound for most of the year.

Global warming

Global warming, which affects Greenland more than any other place, has also made the job of finding oil easier by reducing the thick layers of ice.

Greenlanders always have in the back of their minds that the liquid gold could one day finance their complete independence from Denmark on which they still depend for heavy subsidies to shore up their fishery-dependent economy.

Their current hopes focus on Canadian company EnCana, which in January 2005 won a license for offshore oil and gas exploration between the 62nd and 69th parallel, 250 kilometers (156 miles) west of Nuuk.

In 2008, EnCana is to start drilling in the area which is estimated to contain up to two billion of barrels of oil equivalent.

A 2001 U.S. Geological Survey found that north-eastern Greenland, facing Norway, was likely to boast spectacular reserves.

With the water just 100 to 200 meters deep, this sector is said to contain up to 110 billion barrels of oil, half of the known reserves in Saudi Arabia, the world's biggest exporter of oil.

Greenland's government is already thinking about a fifth round of concessions within three or four years, Skov Nielsen said.
 
colonelboris said:
Objectively, what's the minimum disturbance this sort of operation would produce?
(No, not a loaded question...!)

Theoretically, it could be relatively low impact. The areas under consideration are preodiminantly marine, so the North Sea model (to give an example UK birders have some proximity to) is pertinent - oil extracted to platforms of various types, and removed either directly by tanker or subsea pipeline. A central marshalling terminal might be required, particularly if pipelines are involved. Sullom Voe in Shetland is widely seen as a good example of how this can be achieved in the local environment with the minimum of impact or disturbance.

I say theoretically, because of course this all assumes that stringent best working practices are all followed, and compromises are not made at any stage of the planning, construction or operational levels.

And of course Greenland does not have a completely exemplary track record for caring for the environment. See Proact David's previous thread on this subject, and take time in particular to read the report that prompted it : WWF Greenland report, April 2005

Makes sobering reading.

Is the irony not lost on anyone else that this oil is only becoming accessible because of global warming? A damning indictment on what oil junkies we've become.

ce
 
Last edited:
Andrew said:
Where will they go after this?

We will run the planet dry then wonder what to do.

I wouldn't worry about it - we'll run out of drinking water long before the oil runs out :-C
 
London Birder said:
it's hard to know what to say ...

It is indeed -and it really makes you think. The irony of retreating ice caps facilitating oil extraction is pretty deep.

But what are we complaining about exactly? The quest for oil is driven by our massive demand for it. We all use it-in practically everything we consume, CD's ,Paint, Detergents, Weed Killer, Polyesters, Toothpaste....Who was it said this stuff is actually too valuable to put in engines?
Blaming it's environmental fall out all on the "oil companies" is just passing the buck ( I know this thread doesn't aim to do that).
I mean , who is at fault for killing off the Grauer's Gorillas-the thousands of native Africans digging out the metal Coltan in their habitat, for Cell Phone manufacture-the manufacturers of the phones-or us who buy these things in millions for mostly trivial purposes & junk them in months?
And who is consuming the cotton which is destroying freshwater ecosystems around the world?
We are responsible for all these disasters.

Greenland is an interesting country. It only got free from its Danish colonial overlords in 1979.It's economy is almost entirely reliant on Shrimp exports-& continuing subsidies from Denmark. It's 57,000 people live in very harsh conditions.And what do they find? Global warming is actually great for them.Instead of buying imported cucumbers ( $3.50 each) & carrots ( $7.50 per lb) they now find they can grow their own vegetables & fruit, and start to graze cattle again ( like the Vikings did there 600 years ago) The cod stocks are increasing again as warmer seas repel the shrimp.And on top of all this they find oil reserves which are now economically recoverable. And not just a bit of oil. The West Coast reserves are reckoned to be 110 billion barrels-half as big as Saudi's ( the world's largest producer)-three times the size of Alaska North Slope!
They must think Christmas has come-the prospect of total financial independence beckons.
Cornish Exile does well to mention Sullom Voe. The citizens of Shetland exploited oil, & it made them-for a while-the richest Local Authority in UK.
The Government of Greenland sees a similar El Dorado ahead. I don't see any difference & I don't see any moral ground on which they can be criticised by citizens of industrialised, consumer economies.They are responding to our consumer choices.

Lets hope they handle things as well as the Shetlanders did.
Anyway those pristine ice caps & glaciers are doomed already.

Colin

http://www.naplesnews.com/news/2006..._warming_threat_greenland_sees_br/?neapolitan

http://www.livingplanet.org/about_w...rests/problems/mining/coltan_mining/index.cfm

http://www.bbc.co.uk/nature/animals/features/186index.shtml

http://livingplanet.com/about_wwf/w...ton/environmental_impacts/water_use/index.cfm
 
Last edited:
Folks are critical because? I don't hear a great clamour in developed countries to return most of the country to a natural state. In the Canadian north the much of population welcomes development. They get tired of folks who already have everything preaching about conservation. Are all those stores, roads, sports stadiums, movie houses, etc. necessary? If not, why not knock them all down and put resources into returning those areas to a natural state? It's not difficult to want someone else to leave their territory pristine when it has no impact on one's own over-consumption of the land and resources.
 
cayoncreekman said:
Folks are critical because? I don't hear a great clamour in developed countries to return most of the country to a natural state. In the Canadian north the much of population welcomes development. They get tired of folks who already have everything preaching about conservation. Are all those stores, roads, sports stadiums, movie houses, etc. necessary? If not, why not knock them all down and put resources into returning those areas to a natural state? It's not difficult to want someone else to leave their territory pristine when it has no impact on one's own over-consumption of the land and resources.

Well, at risk of sounding like the sort of hypocrite you're talking about, I'd say:

• You seem to be assuming that people who object to this wouldn’t object to oil exploration in their own country – this isn’t necessarily the case, it’s not about nationality, it’s about your attitude towards the environment - everybody’s environment.

• Leaving the area pristine *would* impact on the over-consumption of resources by me - it won't be the good folk of Greenland consuming all of this oil - a lot will go to Europe, and into my car.

• a limited number of people are interested in conservation - we can’t do everything, everywhere. What's the easiest/most effective place to concentrate our efforts - conserving pristine wilderness that's already there, or buying commercial property, bulldozing it & returning it to nature, as you suggest? I’d say the former.

• We in the UK are (in a very small way) trying to return som e of the wilderness which we’ve screwed up to nature – various wildlife charities are buying up farmland and converting it to nature reserves - despite the fact that we are vastly over-populated and have about 75 times more people per square mile than Canada - so land is a very scarce resource. The general principle you suggested we adopt is being applied, albeit on much cheaper land, as that’s all the charities can afford. And I suspect that the posters above probably all give money to such charities, as I do.

• There’s also the question of the CO2 locked into this oil - it’s not just the disruption to the area by extracting it – it’s the GW implications of releasing more oil onto the market.

Adrian
 
It's just that I was thinking along the same lines as the North Sea, as Mr Exile mentioned. From what I can see, there's oil naturally seeping into the water in the area anyway, so in a way, I guess that reduces some of the concerns.
As a side point, does anyone know of the study made into the effect of oilslicks on marine environments that stated that the effect is only short-term and not as threatening as first thought? I remember reading about it somewhere. They pointed out that even the worst oilslicks left almost no trace within a few years (apart from some tar) and that wildlife numbers quickly recovered to numbers that were sustainable by the food stocks.
No, I'm not going all oil company-friendly, just an environmentalist did say on TV that oil slicks aren't as bad as all that in the long term as all the oil tankers torpedoed in WW2 didn't really affect wildlife numbers ouside of the war years and I was wondering if it's still the case today.
God, I'm going on a bit...
 
Warning! This thread is more than 18 years ago old.
It's likely that no further discussion is required, in which case we recommend starting a new thread. If however you feel your response is required you can still do so.

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top