Norway just about to start its Arctic oil drilling

Yesterday marked a new step in race against Arctic oil drilling. As a long term reader of this blog, you might have followed the blog updates on how Arctic oil drilling, more specifically in the South-East Barents Sea, is extremely destructive for all life that lives there. We know both that seismic activity can be hazardous for marine life, and we definitely know that all oil and gass found in the Arctic must stay in the ground if we are to reach the 2 degree target. 

That is why it was particularly devastating yesterday, when Statoil, regardless of all climate recommendations, still went ahead and sent up its first oil rig, Songa Enabler, to drill for oil from now and all throughout the summer. This is part of what is called the 23rd concession round, where oil licences where handed out in the South-East Barents Sea. 

In Norway, we are so fortunate to have a constitution that speaks in quite strong language about how we want our climate to be. The wording of §112 sounds like this: 

'Every person has a right to an environment that is conducive to health and to a natural environment whose productivity and diversity are maintained. Natural resources should be managed on the basis of comprehensive long-term considerations whereby this right will be safeguarded for future generations as well. 

In order to safeguard their right in accordance with the foregoing paragraph, citizens are entitled to information on the state of the natural environment and on the effects of any encroachment on nature that is planned or carried out. 

The authorities of the State shall issue specific provisions for the implementation of these principles.' 

Because of the inconsistency between these words in our constitution and what our government is actually doing, and also the fact that our chosen politicians were just as quick to sign the Paris agreement as they were to hand out new oil licences, that is the reason why several Norwegian environmental organisations, lead by Greenpeace and Nature and Youth, are now suing the Norwegian state over Arctic oil drilling. The lawsuit agains the Norwegian state now has a court date, and it is set to the 13th of November. 

These are exciting times to be an environmentalist, even though Big Oil still hasn't realised its era is coming to a close. It is neither financially nor environmentally sound to invest in fossile fuels compared to renewable. 

Luckily, there are forces both within and outside of Norway that sees this, and hopefully this will win through in the court case against Arctic oil drilling. If you want to do more, please feel free to add your name to the lawsuit, as one of the over 8 million who supports this. 

As always, thank you for reading. <3

Remember, sharing is caring, and we collectively really need to care about the Arctic, because what happens in the Arctic doesn't stay in the Arctic. 

Final results and conclusions!

3.12 Current oil spill recovery systems for oil in ice

A study done in Canada by Look North named ‘Oil Spill Detection and Modelling in Hudson and Davis Straits’ (2014) summarizes how in most oil spill models available, sea ice is not a factor, and for the studies where it is added, the risks are down-played and over-simplified. There is a good body of knowledge on how to retrieve oil in tempered water, but limited on how oil behaves in cold water. The field research on Arctic oil spill is also limited, and a knowledge gap remains connected to the challenges surrounding ice.

3.13 Oil spill surveillance in Arctic waters

The SINTEF report ‘The Utilization of Satellite Images for the Oil in Ice Experiment in the Barents Sea, May 2009’, funded by the 6 oil companies; Chevron, ConocoPhillips, Eni Agip Kco, Statoil, Shell and Total, describe how a combination of aerial and satellite surveillance has become the preferred method for monitoring off shore areas where an oil spill could occur in open waters. The aim was to test if the same conditions applied for the Barents Sea. This report was the outcome of a joint industry program with the aim to learn more about how oil behaves in ice covered waters. After several tests where oil was spilt under controlled conditions it was found that if the ice density was higher than 40%, it was impossible to trace an oil spill that had occurred under the ice with the current satellite monitoring. This caused concern as this means that it is not only no oil spill recovery system that is currently available that would be able to collect spilled oil, but an oil spill will neither be possible to spot, as the concentration of ice in the Barents Sea can be over 40% all year around, and with most of the year it is a certainty that it will be frozen near the Polar Front and the Ice Edge. 

4.0 Results and Analysis

This chapter aims at drawing conclusions from the main body of data and analyzes the findings from the case study in light of the literature review. 

4.1 Implications of Research Findings

In question 5 of the case study when I asked ‘Has anyone informed specifically about the risks of an oil spill for you who live close to the South-East Barents Sea?’ and the unanimous answer was ‘No’ could be an indicator towards that the Coastal Sámi I interviewed could have received such information from the Sámi Parliament, but this dissertation claims that even the Sámi Parliament can not have been given adequate information on this, as there are no scientific solutions on how to treat an oil spill in ice covered waters. This breaks with The United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples that Norway has signed on the ‘Principle of Free, Prior and Informed Consent’. 

4.2 Conclusions

When treating land and sea resources where indigenous communities are involved it is necessary to meet the indigenous on their terms. The ocean holds a great value to the Coastal Sámi inhabitants, both as the primary source of food, but with a strong sense of identity being connected to the continuous living near the ocean. The planned oil activity in the South-East Barents Sea will pose a threat already under safe practice, as the seismic shooting the Norwegian oil industry uses in order to locate oil wells have a negative effect on larvae and fry that are to spend the first part of their lives in these areas. Among a limited amount of research on the effects on other fish species than cod and larger sea mammals from seismic shooting, there is still not a finished mapping of the sea bottom, which makes it impossible to predict further consequences of the marine life before 2020 when the sea bottom report is estimated to be finished. Large scale oil spill recovery test were made in the Barents Sea on a joint program by 6 oil companies that own oil concessions in the Arctic to test if the methods they had developed could be used in cleaning oil from ice covered waters. The results concluded that they had learnt a great deal from the experiments, but there are still many insecurities, both regarding how the oil changes and behaves in such cold waters, but the greatest gap in knowledge remains on how to extract oil that is trapped under or between the ice. The part of the oil spill program that regarded monitoring of oil under ice concluded that a higher ice density than 40% makes it impossible to spot the oil from under the ice when satellite monitoring is used, which is the preferred method for detecting oil spills in open waters. 

4.2.1 Recommendations based on key findings

Based on the key findings from both the case study and the literature review this dissertation recommends to decision makers, in this case the state of Norway: 

1. An Arctic Legal Treaty should be drawn up specifically regarding the topic of how natural resources in and around the sea should be distributed between the Sámi population and the non-indigenous population of Norway. 
2. As the sea bottom of the Barents Sea is currently being mapped by Mareano, and this report is estimated to be finalized in 2020, this dissertation recommends that no oil license allocations are made before this process is finalized so marine habitat can be preserved and important natural values will be saved.
3. The IPCC estimates that the climate emissions needs to decrease 85% within 2050, and 40% within 2020 in order to avoid a temperature increase on more than 2 degrees celsius, and in order for Norway to achieve this, who has set out to reduced their national emissions with 20% within 2020, even Statoil's manager Helge Lund has said that it is a necessary to leave some of the oil reservoirs unexplored. This dissertation recommend that these areas are the South-East Barents Sea areas. 

4.3 Literature and methodological discussion

The literature of this dissertation was gathered in the request of highlighting as broadly as possible how Arctic oil drilling is a new policy step for Norway as an oil nation, and how prior knowledge from more southern latitudes will not be sufficient to safely drill for oil in the Arctic regions of Norway. The aim was to highlight the Coastal Sámi’s perspective on the consequences of an oil spill in their close environment. My chosen method was to contact Coastal Sámis as individual persons, not the organizations that represent them. The organizations were contacted, but only to ask if members were willing to participate. This might have been a flaw of the study, and more politically engaged members of the Sámi community could maybe have been a part of the study if they spoke on behalf of their organizations. Another methodological concern is the decision to not consult ‘experts’ from outside the Sámi community. The study could have been broadened by adding a closer perspective from academics working on issues concerning Sámi rights. Additional depth could have been gained if glaciologists and biologists who specialize in how oil affects the nature were consulted directly, and not only through academic sources. However, from the case study that was executed the answers served a great purpose of highlighting the same concerns that the scientific community raises. 

Concerns from a Coastal Sámi organization on rights to the natural resources

3.8 Concerns from a Coastal Sámi organization on rights to the natural resources

Bivdi, a Coastal Sámi interest organization for promoting and safeguarding the Coastal Sámi’s interests and rights to the sea, explains how the Coastal Sámi culture is likely to be the oldest culture in Norway, and the oldest in Sámi context. By using the coastal areas for fishing, the Coastal Sámi have gathered knowledge and rights from having done so in a very long timeframe. Their entire settlements, livestock and identity are based around the marine resources. Experience-based knowledge has throughout the ages designed an adaptable commercial activity and coastal culture. However, Bivdi has its basis in that the resources for fishing and the other marine resources and rights in the nearby areas belong to the community. These are rights that cannot be invested in, and will not be a traded good for capitalistic interest, but needs to be the foundation for a continuously viable community. During the past hundred years, the Coastal Sámi fishers have been in dialog with the authorities to report back what the situation is at sea, and what is needed for the Coastal Sámi to protect their rights. Bivdi reports that this has been experienced as a hopeless struggle where the Coastal Sámi have continuously been the losing part. This is why they claim that today the result is the long term effects of a failed fishing policy and the consequences of the marked forces, which is a dramatic reduction in resources and many rural Coastal Sámi communities have been abandoned. Their strategy as an organization includes that fishing zones are established, and where there is doubt, the rights should be given back to the local communities. The commercial activity needs to be agreeable with the joint local management, meaning experience-based knowledge will be a part of the wider management. Bivdi welcomes new technology and knowledge when this is used alongside a Coastal Sámi way of sustainable thinking. There is a need for research from a Coastal Sámi perspective, and in this fjord and coastal communities have a joint agenda not considering whether the population living there are Sámi or non-Sámi. The exploitation of the marine resources is of collective interest and by establishing an indigenous zone Bivdi exclaims how this would aid in building a stronger protective area around their resources. This would also help the social rights for Coastal Sámi that need improving including infrastructure and their livestock. 

The report ‘Our common future’ under the chapter on ‘Empowering Vulnerable Groups’ states that it is a ‘Terrible irony that as formal development reaches more deeply into rain forests, deserts, and other isolated environments, it tends to destroy the only cultures that have proved able to thrive in these environments.’ (WCED, 1987: 115) This holds true for the Sámi population of the far most northern municipalities of Norway. 

The book ‘Arctic oil and gas - Sustainability at risk?’ (2008) opens up a new angle to the Barents Sea oil reservoirs; as the non-Sámi population is not a homogeneous groups, neither are the Sámi. Within the Sámi Parliament there are members advocating that the petroleum reservoirs found on Sámi territory should rightfully go to the Sámi. This view does not indicate that the petroleum would be extracted or refined by the Sámi population, as they do not claim the sole right to the petroleum findings, but the main consideration is that as these potential oil and gas findings are located in Sámi territories it is their right that this should benefit the Sámi. The Sámi parliament got a UN resolution from the Human Rights Council declaring that indigenous rights include resources in and bellow the sea, to hand over to the Norwegian Parliament when considering the management of the petroleum found in the South-East Barents Sea. 

On Article 10 in The United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples

A potential positive consequence of the petroleum industry’s expansion in Finnmark for the Sami population is the possible employment possibilities. Meanwhile, there are some prerequisites that must be in order for this to be beneficial for the Sámi. Experiences made when the ‘Snøhvit’ field was being constructed saw that the wider community was greatly beneficial, in that already existing building firms could be part of aiding the ‘Snøhvit’ building site. There are no known documentations on how this employment affected the Sámi part of the population. It is therefore necessary to explore why the Sámi population can differ so greatly from the non-Sámi. Previous research done by Vistnes et. al. (2008) shows that education relevant for the petroleum industry tends to be lower in municipalities where the majority of the population is Sámi, or have strong Sámi connections, such as all of Finnmark. This means that the competence building that the petroleum industry promise would benefit the inhabitants of Finnmark only to a lesser degree will benefit the Sámi population. Two possible outcomes of this situation that the impact assessment report suggest is that either the Sámi could work in the parts of the petroleum that does not require higher education, or that by seeing how the petroleum industry is growing be motivated to take the necessary higher education. This however is based on the assumptions that 1. The Sámi want to work for the petroleum industry and 2. That they are not already otherwise employed or preoccupied. The indirect effects of this expansion is that the non-Sámi population might grow in cities close to Sámi settlements, and in cities with a high percentage of Sámi inhabitants such as Kirkenes and Vadsø, and this can lead to a higher demand of Sámi made products. Another possible outcome of the indirect effect is that the competition from the petroleum industry will take workers away from what have traditionally been Sámi livelihoods, leading to the diminishing of the Sámi way of life. 

During the past 30-40 years Finnmark has experienced a depopulation of 10 percent, this holds true for municipalities with a strong Sámi connection as well. In Kvalsund however, a municipality with a high population of Sámi had a decreasing population right up until the Snøhvit gas field was being built. After the constructions started the population has now been stabilized. Even though, as above stated, education relevant for the petroleum industry is scarce in Finnmark, it is still a goal that the local population contributes and benefits from the industry. For many of its inhabitants and the labour that comes from other areas of the country this means that relocation is necessary, this can even be areas where the Sámi have traditionally had their settlements. If the petroleum industry settles for a LNG onshore solution, and this is situated east in Finnmark, this can be problematic for the already small Sámi population already living there. 

The report suggests that for the Sámi part of the population that lives in the cities it is equally important as for the Sámi who rely on the primary industry, that their ways of expressing their cultural identity gets an outburst. Strong Sámi institutions for education and science can be equally important for cultural expression as the primary industry. The consequences of the petroleum industry’s expansions seem to be largely negative for the primary sector, although this is not necessarily the same for the Sámi living in the cities. 

Within the official recommendation report it is stated that the northern parts of the South-East Barents Sea flake will experience that where Arctic waters meet the warmer Atlantic water the Polar Front will manifest itself. The report also agrees that the Ice Edge and the Polar Front are the foundations for a high biological production and an important breeding area for sea birds and sea mammals, with the most important seasons being the spring and summer. Nevertheless the request of opening up the South-East Barents Sea for an all year petroleum activity comes within the same document as this biological vulnerability is stated, and without specifying further the possible effects of what happens when oil meets the Polar Front. A prerequisite for this opening at the time was that this was the furthest north Norway had ever done oil drilling, and going beyond this was not recommendable. The report was approved by the Norwegian Parliament and the official recommendation of opening it came the 19th of June 2013. Only 3 months later Norway got a new government after 8 years of a socialist-left coalition. The new government was formed by the two largest conservative parties. In Norway the formal procedure for opening up new areas for oil production is first to have an impact assessment done, while this is being produced seismic shooting can be performed to locate an eventual oil well,  and if both of these elements are in order, the Parliament gives the permission for opening the new area for oil drilling and licensing rounds are held for the oil companies to choose their areas. The former government was record holding in having opened up and given away more concession rounds than all former governments in Norwegian oil history combined (SNL). This summer on the 17th of August the new government under the Ministry of Petroleum and Energy started seismic shooting in the Svalbard zone, an area where Norway’s sovereignty is politically disputed, without having started an impact assessment. In regards of giving the Sámi population a free informed prior consent, which is their right through Article 10 in The United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) on what is happening to their territories, it can be argued that the Sámi are not informed that when an impact assessment is being done, the process of opening the area for oil production have already begun, as no area that has undergone an impact assessment in Norwegian oil history has ever been left alone afterwards. By not stating this fact, information is necessarily held back. The seismic shooting around the Svalbard zone got national attention when Greenpeace Norway alerted the public news that Svalbard and The Barents Sea North was under threat of being unofficially opened, and the environmental movement in Norway alongside concerned political parties pressured the sitting government to stop the seismic shooting one month before it was scheduled to be finished.