OIL, GAS AND NOW POTENTIALLY 3 NEW

NUCLEAR PLANTS IN THE BALTIC AREA:

Ticking time bombs?

Text: Aage Myhre, Editor-in-Chief
aage.myhre@VilNews.com

It surprises me that the warning bells are not ringing much louder in Scandinavia and the rest of northern Europe, as I presume it now must be well known what is going on here in the Baltic region with regards to old as well as new energy installations, and potential disasters connected to them. Oil, gas and polluting elements from World War II and later have long been known concern factors. Now the situation has become further worrying by the fact that Russia has built an underwater gas pipeline from St. Petersburg to Germany, and not least that it is planned no less than three (!) new nuclear power stations very close to the Baltic Sea's southern shore.

We all remember Chernobyl 25 years ago. We all remember the terrible disasters in Japan earlier this year, in a nation that claimed to have the world’s safest nuclear installations – a claim that showed yet again that nuclear plants will never be safe enough. They are always ticking time bombs.

For the whole time nuclear plants operate they emit radiation to their surroundings, often causing illness and genetic damage to humans, animals and nature. No nuclear installation, wherever it was, has ever been really safe.

I can hardly imagine living in Vilnius any more if that means I will have to live surrounded by three nuclear plants, just kilometres away. In particular, I would be extremely worried about my children and their descendants. Living in a neighbourhood of nuclear reactors is simply not a chance I can take.

Can Europe accept that three nuclear power stations are built right here, at its very ‘epicentre’?

Nuclear technology is a high-risk technology

Human mistakes, natural disasters, material fatigue – nuclear technology is a high-risk technology, on top of which comes the danger emanating from radioactive waste that has to be safely disposed of for a million years. The only thing that is certain is that nothing is safe, which is why I think the plans in Lithuania, Belarus and Kaliningrad should be reconsidered immediately.

A recent report from the U.S. ‘Union of Concerned Scientists’, based on data from the federal Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), contains troubling news also about the state of America’s vast network of nuclear power plants.

The report, which examined serious incidents at 14 U.S. nuclear power plants from New York to California in 2010, found fault with both plant operators and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission which is supposed to oversee them.

“Many of these significant events occurred because reactor owners and even the NRC tolerated known safety problems,” the report stated.

While none of the 14 safety incidents tagged in the Union’s report as ‘near misses’ produced harm to nuclear plant employees or the public, the report terms the frequency of these incidents, which averaged more than one per month, ‘high for a mature industry’.

Nuclear waste

Another fear I have, is that there in Kaliningrad, Belarus and potentially other Baltic regions are a lot of nuclear remains after the Cold War period.

"We are sitting on a powder keg with a fuse that is burning, but we don't know how long that fuse is," said Alexander Nikitin, a former Russian navy officer, now an environmental activist who first revealed the existence of the dump at Andreeva Bay, on the Kola peninsula of north-western Russia.

The nightmare scenario, identified by Russia's Federal Nuclear Agency, raises new fears that Moscow is failing to properly manage the potentially deadly nuclear legacy of the Cold War, which has left the country with tonnes of plutonium and uranium and millions of tonnes of nuclear waste to deal with. That is for Kola, but I am afraid there also here in the Baltic area exist a number of unknown ‘powder kegs’ from those days.  

Baltic Sea oil spill may be inevitable

It is well known that the Baltic Sea has a severe water pollution problem. Nations surrounding the sea have been dumping untreated human waste, toxic materials, and metal into the sea since WWII. Countries from the former Soviet Union and the Eastern Bloc gave little regard to the possible damage done from this dumping. Specific waste being dumped into the sea includes factory waste being deposited directly into the sea or rivers which feed directly into the sea. The environmental pollution in the Baltic Sea can cause irreversible damage to the sea which is an important economical and recreational source for 80 million people around its waters.

“Regarding the Baltic Sea, the question should be asked not whether an ecological incident will ever happen [there], but rather when it will happen. Therefore, we all have to get ready for it.” This said Magnus von Schenck, manager of the Swedish project ‘Baltic Master II’, at a conference in Budapest earlier this year.

And he continued: “All Baltic States should prepare special plans aimed at dealing with seemingly inevitable ecological incidents in the Baltic Sea.” He stressed that the Baltic Sea has one of the world’s busiest cargo ship, including oil-transporting tanker traffic. According to the World Nature Fund, crude oil and oil products export volumes have doubled over nearly 15 years in the Baltic Sea, reaching 160 million tons in 2011.

“The Baltic Sea is particularly susceptible to ecological dangers, as it is a closed sea – its waters change slowly. Statistically, yearly we register 120-150 various accidents related to oil spills in the sea, resulting in spills of several hundreds tons of oil products, which makes the sea particularly vulnerable compared with other seas,” Schenck pointed out, according to The Baltic Times.

Potential environmental disasters in Klaipeda, with both LNG and oil terminal in the city?

 
There are currently 235 liquefied natural gas (LNG) tankers in operation worldwide. New LNG tankers have an average capacity of three billion cubic feet, costing approximately EUR 180 million each. LNG tankers differ from traditional oil tankers in that their cargo, liquefied natural gas, must be cooled to extremely low temperatures (-160°C) and has slightly different characteristics than oil (including a higher propensity to burn). LNG tankers might be dangerous for environments and communities claims a new movie and web page: http://timrileylaw.com/LNG_TANKERS.htm 

The Kiaules Nugara (Pig’s back) island in the southern part of the Klaipeda port area, at the border between the port and the Curonian Lagoon is the most likely place to build Lithuania’s planned LNG (Liquid Natural Gas) terminal. This means that it will regularly sail large LNG tankers through the narrow strait between Klaipeda city and Neringa (which is now designated as one of the Lithuania’s national parks). How risky can it be to get a gas terminal and such a heavy sea traffic close to the big city that Klaipeda after all is? What about the explosion and fire risk? What about emissions and other forms of pollution? Is the water, beaches and fisheries in the Curonian Lagoon at risk? May Neringa and Klaipeda city be at risk?

Riga Fertilizer Terminal - a ticking time bomb

BNN (Baltic News Service):

On July 26, 2011, Riga City Council approved establishment of a port terminal «Riga fertilizer terminal» on the island of Kundzinsala for handling and storing mineral fertilizers. Of the terminal’s capacity – 2 million tons per year, ammonium nitrate of all kinds will make up 52% or 1.05 million tons of cargo.

Ammonium nitrate, an extremely explosive and fire hazardous product, is widely used for terrorist purposes. It was also used by terrorists for the bombings in the United States, Britain, Spain, Norway, Turkey, Afghanistan, India, Middle East, Russia and other countries. It is exactly for this reason why many states have taken drastic measures to limit the amount of ammonium nitrate located in their territory. For example, Ireland, China, Colombia, Uzbekistan, Afghanistan, and the Philippines have banned using ammonium nitrate in agriculture.

However, the Riga City Council has agreed to build a terminal for handling and storing ammonium nitrate near terminals operating with petroleum products and liquefied gas. This implies about 4,000 tons of ammonium nitrate will travel by rail via the center of the capital of Latvia each day. It is impossible to guarantee safe transport of these hazardous chemicals along the entire route.

Furthermore, according to the decision of the Riga City Council, «Riga fertilizer terminal» is allowed to store 90,000 tonnes of all kinds of ammonium nitrate. No port in the entire world is allowed to store more than 5 000 tons of this product.

Initiators of the project have been using the mass media to claim that the project is going to be highly beneficial for the city. Moreover, the permission was backed by the conclusion of the State Environmental Supervision Office that the terminal will not be dangerous for the environment or the health and life of Riga residents.

Independent experts in the field of ports operations, environmental protection, life safety and terrorism express reasonable doubt on the integrity and objectivity of the Riga City Council decision. Experts give strong arguments why various stages of «Riga fertilizer terminal» construction project agreement lack transparency and formal public debate. The company has misled about the exceptional economic benefit to the city and the matter of the country handling and storing ammonium nitrate is highly questionable. Most importantly, the project conceals what mortal danger it poses to the inhabitants of Riga.

If people do not pay close attention to this disastrous decision taken on July 26, 2011, by Riga City Council, the capital of Latvia will turn into a ticking time bomb.

Shale gas: Energy security laced with possible ecological calamity

Poland and Lithuania are these days about to make their first moves towards exploration and production of shale gas. How dangerous may such exploration and production be?

Here is what http://www.lloyds.com wrote about shale gas in March 2011:

With the world’s rapid consumption of its finite fossil fuels – and the environmental effect this is having – causing growing alarm, the discovery of vast deposits of cleaner natural gas has been hailed as a potential “energy saviour”.

But the method of reaching this hard-to-extract resource has prompted accusations it damages health and the ecology, prompting a US Government investigation into whether the process is safe. 

It has long been known that enormous pools of natural gas are locked in underground rock formations, particularly shale. But with plentiful supplies of oil, gas and coal available it was largely ignored. However, dire warnings about the limited remaining stocks of these fuels and the environmental harm they cause have prompted a rethink. 

The shale gas supplies are estimated to be so large that they could satisfy America’s gas needs for the next century. The shale gas boom in America, where it is already providing 10% of the nation’s gas, has led to exploration in China, India, Australia, Indonesia and Europe. The first exploratory well was dug in the UK at the start of this year. 

There is enough existing conventional gas to last the world for another 60 years, says the International Energy Agency. But by adding in “unconventional” sources, such as shale gas, reserves could last another 250 years, although it stresses this estimate is very uncertain. 

As natural gas has only half the carbon emissions of coal, shale gas could also help in the fight against climate change, by providing a bridge between polluting oil and gas and new renewable energy sources.

Environmental worries

But there are growing concerns that developing these gas reservoirs may cause serious environmental harm. That is because the shale gas boom has been enabled by a technique called hydraulic fracturing, or “fracking”. It involves pumping huge volumes of water, sand and chemicals at high pressures deep underground to break up rock formations and allow the gas to escape into wells from where it can be piped to the surface. Most of the brew of water and cocktails used to extract the gas stays far beneath the earth, however, with uncertain long-term consequences. Campaigners are calling for the technique to be halted until further research can be carried out.  

In America, where there are now around 35,000 shale gas wells, there are growing protests over fracking. There have been cases of blowouts and gas leaks while hundreds of residents living close to gas wells in Texas, Wyoming and Pennsylvania have complained the cocktail of chemicals used in the drilling process has polluted their groundwater, causing many illnesses, while farmers blame poisoned well water for deaths and deformities among their cattle. 

Energy companies deny that fracking is to blame for contaminated water. The technique has been used for decades but has only become widespread recently since shale gas has been seen as a viable alternative to oil and coal. The drilling companies are exempt from legislation on clean water so can keep the chemicals they use a closely guarded secret.

Action being taken 

The US Congress has responded by directing the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to study the effects of fracking. In February, the EPA issued a draft plan outlining how it will investigate the issue, including proposals to take water samples from sites before, during and after fracking has taken place. The EPA expects to publish its initial report by the end of 2012, with a further in-depth study due two years later. 

But some cities have pre-empted the EPA investigation and taken unilateral action. The cities of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania and Buffalo in New York have already chosen to ban fracking in their regions. Others have called for a moratorium on the process until more is known about its potential consequences.  
Investors have also raised concerns. In 2010, 12 energy firms, including Exxon Mobil, faced shareholder resolutions at their annual meetings calling for them to introduce better safeguards against environmental damage caused by fracking. 

Some critics argue the rush to develop shale gas is diverting attention away from the need to find new, clean energy supplies. In January, the Tyndall Centre – a respected climate thinktank – published a report warning of the dangers of developing shale gas. The gas would not be used to substitute coal but, instead, is likely to be used as well as coal to meet the growing demand for energy, it said. Without a tough cap on greenhouse gases, shale gas exploitation could result in an increase – not a decrease – in overall carbon emissions. 
Its image as an energy saviour is also likely to sap investment in renewable energy sources, the report added. The Tyndall Centre concluded that the UK and Europe should halt shale gas development until more evidence is gathered in America about the potential harm fracking can cause.