ASMAA - 1ST DEBATE - OIL IN ALGARVE - YES OR NO?

All rights reserved.

ASMAA

© 2014 – ASMAA – Algarve Surf and Marine Activities Association© 2014 – ASMAA – Algarve Surf and Marine Activities Association All rights reserved.

OIL AND GAS IN THE ALGARVE1ST DEBATE

YES OR NO?A LOOK AT BOTH

SIDES OF THE COIN


ASMAA

© 2014 – ASMAA – Algarve Surf and Marine Activities Association

Should ANY Oil and Gas Company be Allowed to Drill Offshore?

Round I

DEBATE


ASMAA


CONTEXT

DEBATE CONTEXT

• We propose that governments with oil and gas reserves off their coastline should pass laws that prevent new contracts for offshore drilling being given, and that companies should no longer be permitted to drill for oil and gas in offshore fields.

• Taking into account:

• The various spills that the industry has caused in the past, and the fact that there are always leaks in pipes and equipment.

• The fact that we’ve seen some of the worst environmental disasters in our life in the past few years alone, we really need to look at the sector and ask:

Is it worth risking our renewable resources in the search for the last few drops of non-

renewables fossil fuel resources?


ASMAA


DOES OFFSHORE DRILLING POSE ENVIRONMENTAL RISKS?

DEBATE QUESTION

Analysis of BP’s Golf of Mexico disaster and Exxon Valdez in 1989 in Alaska.


ASMAA


YES because …


• If anything was learnt from the BP and the Exxon disasters was the heavy price that the environment paid. In the Exxon case over 250,000 birds died; over 2500 sea otters and thousands of other marine animals. In the BP case there was without a doubt massive impact on the local wildlife with many dead birds, fish and local ecosystems.

• Offshore drilling destroys marine ecosystems and reduces fishing stocks, etc.

• There are major long-term impacts on surviving species. Its been shown that as a result of spills and the cocktail of cleaning-up chemicals, that many of the species have lower heterozygosity (allele variation in species) … why is this important? Because if there is a change such as a new disease, this could affect its chance of survival.

• Many of these species play an important part in feeding the population, the loss of marine ecosystems means that the local population will loose a vital source of food and fisherman will loose a vital source of income.

BOTTOM LINE:

There is massive risks for the environment both in the short-term as well as long-term, and as a result offshore drilling should not be allowed to continue. Offshore drilling could lead to the extinction of various species.


ASMAA


NO because …• Modern technology used in new rigs has dramatically reduced the risk of possible

accidents such as those of BP and Exxon.• Exxon accident was caused by highly irresponsible practices: over-tired workers, lack

of maintenance, lack of equipment upgrades, etc.• Exxon is old news – its 20 years old. Safety measures and drilling equipment have

improved and risks of an accident are much lower today.• The second example, namely, BP, it is also not a reflection of the whole industry. BP

has a terrible safety track record. Many of the accidents could have been prevented. BP has many safety regulation violations. It has been fined over 750 times for safety violations while for example Exxon-Mobil has had some hefty fines as well in the past five years alone.

• Both cases used showcases that the cause was not offshore drilling parse but the highly irresponsible practices of the operating companies.

BOTTOM LINE:

If offshore drilling is performed according to the safety measures regulated by law, the practice has very small danger, if any at all.



ASMAA


ASMAA’S MODERATOR

DEBATE

• Although we could accept that the industry if it followed the safety regulations and laws properly, could operate with minimal impact on our environment, the problem is that most oil and gas companies first responsibility is to bottom-line profits and shareholder distribution.

• This means that the real focus is on cost savings. • With this strategy comes major risk that safety is the first thing to be compromised.

E.g. Purchasing sub-standard equipment, appointing the cheapest contractor, cutting maintenance costs, opting for breakdown maintenance rather than preemptive maintenance programs, etc.

• When companies have operations in countries where corruption is rife, then companies do tend to really buck the safety system, putting not only the environment but local livelihoods and even lives at risk.

BOTTOM LINE:

We stand by our opinion that oil and gas companies should not drill in offshore waters.



ASMAA


CAN OFFSHORE DRILLING CRIPPLE LOCAL ECONOMIES?

DEBATE QUESTION


ASMAA


YES because …


• Fishermen will be prevented from fishing in concession areas where drilling operations take place. Another issue, is that it can indeed cripple a local economy when there is an accidental spill, as it will prevent people from fishing.

• An oil or gas spill will affect wildlife and ecosystems, thus reducing food stocks. Fishing is important as it not only provides income to fishermen, but has also a ripple effect on restaurants and tourism.

• For example in the Golf of Mexico, local restaurants were forced to close, with many facing bankruptcy – they had no fish to serve their clients. As a result the local economy has been crippled with many people unable to earn to support even their basic needs.

• Fish numbers are not only affected for a short-period of time, in fact it takes years for it to recover if it recovers at all.

• Although BP was forced to pay compensation, the fact is that they have spent more time in court fighting it while local people lost their livelihoods and has had no compensation. Very few people can survive without money for long …

BOTTOM LINE:

Offshore drilling should be banned because it can have a serious long-term effect on local economies, especially one that is

dependent on fishing and tourism.


ASMAA


NO because …• The flaw in this argument is that it assumes that a disaster of large scale will

necessarily occur.• Large scale accidents are rare and preventable.• The periods in which disasters do not occur, offshore drilling can contribute to the

economy outweighing the times when an accident does happens.• In addition offshore drilling is very profitable for many reasons. Firstly, locally

produced oil and gas will reduce the price of oil for the nation, which can bring huge savings to the nation. Secondly, offshore drilling jobs are very highly paying with starting salaries in the region of 2000 to 3000 Euros.

• Thirdly a country can collect large amounts of revenue in taxes, license payments and royalties from oil and gas drilling companies. Residents also benefit from higher paying jobs which has a positive impact on a countries economy.

• In the case where an accident does happen, then strict regulations will ensure that the oil and gas company takes responsibility for all damages its operations have caused and is forced to make amends for the problem it caused.

BOTTOM LINE:

Fishing industries and businesses dependent on clean shores and beaches have nothing to fear as a spill is highly unlikely.



ASMAA


ASMAA’S MODERATOR

DEBATE

• If all things were equal and the oil and gas companies really complied with local and international legislation and best practices; signed fair and transparent contracts with a country’ government. Played a transparent game, so that the local population knows the facts, then the risks of negative impacts can indeed be reduced.

• But unfortunately this is not standard practice of oil and gas companies – as everything that they do is normally shrouded in secrecy.

• They tend to talk in very general terms of the profitability of oil and gas drilling; job creation, not to mention the illusion of wealth for local communities and countries.

• But the reality is that unless a country has direct control over the gas and oil drilling process, then the benefits are typically only for a few well positioned local people (often in senior government positions) and companies with strong links to decision makers. Lets also not forget the oil and gas companies themselves - as most hold offshore (tax havens) bank accounts and offshore management control companies.

• And when these operations are in countries where corruption is rife, then companies do tend to really milk the system to gain maximum benefits for themselves and their pals.

BOTTOM LINE:

We stand by our opinion that oil and gas companies should not drill in offshore waters and that

they actions can indeed cripple local economies



ASMAA


CAN THE AMOUNT OF OIL OR GAS IN OFFSHORE DEPOSITS FROM AN ECONOMIC / ENERGY PERSPECIVE BE OFFSET IN OTHER WAYS?

DEBATE QUESTION


ASMAA


YES because …


• It is clear that mining offshore oil and gas is at the very least very undesirable, not to mention unnecessary.

• The energy that mining offshore oil and gas deposits can provide pales in comparison with other options.

• The energy loss from fossil fuels could be offset by alternative energy sources, reduction of waste, etc.

• We can invest in energy saving programs. For example reduce consumption of energy in food preparation, in plastics, in traveling short distances, correct insulation in properties, etc.

• Oil and gas reserves in a deposit are of a finite nature, once its gone its gone. We should be using alternatives like wind, sun and wave energy for example!

BOTTOM LINE:

We do not need offshore oil and gas drilling in order to meet our energy needs in the short, medium and long-term. We should look at alternatives instead.

Focus more on saving energy in our day-to-day processes.


ASMAA


NO because …• Even if offshore deposits are limited in size, they are still big. For example the

deposits in the Golf of Mexico accounts for 30% of US oil and gas, and in the Algarve it looks like they are 20 times bigger than the Poseidon’s fields in the Golf of Cadiz.

• Drilling is not the only section that benefits. In the US alone over 60000 people are employed in the offshore oil industry. They get very good salaries.

• There are many countries involved in offshore drilling – Angola, Norway, Nigeria, Scotland, Russia, etc. so why should it stop?

BOTTOM LINE:

Nothing can be offset to oil and gas drilling, it remains a profitable solution to meet our energy needs.



ASMAA


ASMAA’S MODERATOR• The fact is that the oil and gas industry makes billions of dollars in profits every year,

and its not in their interest to rock the boat. They have a niche market … and as long as they can get the support of governments via intensive lobbying, nothing will change.

• The oil and gas companies rely on an existing supportive infrastructure, and as their bottom line is maximizing profits for shareholders in the shortest possible timeframe it is not in their interest to change.

BOTTOM LINE:

We stand by our opinion that oil and gas companies should not drill in offshore waters and that

they actions can indeed cripple local economies



ASMAA


SHOULD WE INVEST IN RENEWABLE ENERGY SOURCES INSTEAD?

DEBATE QUESTION


ASMAA


YES because …

SHOULD WE INVEST IN RENEWEABLE ENERGY RESOURCES INSTEAD?

• Offshore oil and gas deposits are falling, and its only a question of time before they are totally exhausted. Its time that we STOP our reliance on oil and gas, and move seriously into alternatives.

• It is stupid to be wasting so much time and resources (like our current energy) to scout ocean floors for the last drop of oil and gas. All that money could be better applied and invested in other resources such as solar, wind or tidal power, which will leave a much small environmental footprint, and millions of dollars in damages.

• For people that are not just “money” focused, the alternatives will last far longer and with less impact. In fact, there’s no reason, other than greed to prevent the smooth transition from fossil fuels to alternatives.

• Renewable energy resources are a key factor to reduce CO2 emissions. Renewable resources especially wind and solar power have proven themselves to be effective sources of energy. If for example just 1% of our deserts were covered by solar panels it would create enough energy to power the whole world.

• In the area of aviation for example there’s a test plane that can fly continuously for 24 hours. Its only a matter of time before all airplanes can follow suit.

• BOTTOM LINE:

With the scientific development of renewables it makes sense to continue to invest in these resources. Oil companies are not really

interested in the development of green energy programs.


ASMAA


NO because …

DEBATE

• Yes we accept that renewable energy is a nice way to meet our energy demands, but the fact is that they are far from producing the energy we require to meet the world needs.

• People with other views – promoters of alternative energy – have to accept that we need energy now and in the short to medium term, and offshore drilling is a very reasonable and viable way of obtaining it.

• It will be a miracle if we could get the entire world to switch from using oil to solar, wind or tidal energy. Its impossible to happen. The cost of solar, wind and wave power are high. In the case of solar, it will have limited output in countries with low sun. It creates pollution as it is made of toxic metals; its unstable – 60% of insufficiency and hard to attain for the whole population of the entire world.

• In the case of tidal power, the energy drawbacks are many, including not being as dependable as oil.

• BOTTOM LINE:

Renewable energy, although being the energy source of the future, it is not yet feasible.



ASMAA


ASMAA’S MODERATOR• We agree that more investment should be directed to renewable energy. Especially

when a country is joining the energy race in the last laps of the oil industry. • We cannot really see any justification for not doing so.• We also agree that renewable energy itself has some environmental impact, but the

damage footprint is much smaller than the footprint of oil and gas.• We also believe that the big energy users are not the general population of the

world. Instead in all countries the major energy users are large corporations, the military industrial complex, factories, etc. … the industrialized process consumes most of the energy produced. Education should focus on educating board directors and managers of these companies on how to reduce their organizations environmental footprint.

• Companies need to be totally responsible and to be held accountable for their use of energy.

• CSR programs needs to integrate real benefits for mankind and planet and not just be a marketing and branding tool. Companies need to engage with the communities were they operate and not hide behind call centers and gatekeepers.

BOTTOM LINE:

We stand by our opinion that we should indeed invest more – we need toshift the investment focus from oil and gas to renewables.



ASMAA


ARE OIL SPILLS AND GAS LEAKS INEVITABLE?

DEBATE QUESTION


ASMAA


YES because …

ARE OIL SPILLS AND GAS LEAKS INNEVITABLE?

• The promoters of oil and gas often say that this happens in 30 year intervals and are a result of “irresponsible” companies operations. That couldn’t be further from reality. The facts are that blowouts, oil spills and gas leaks are frequent and industry-wide.

• If one looks at BP’s reputation in the Golf of Mexico disaster, we see that there are two trends – one that says BP is to blame and the other that says its contractors are to blame. What both cases indicate is that the WHOLE industry is at fault and it is not limited to just one or two operators.

• For example, Norway, far from demonstrating the safety of drilling with suitable precautions, shows instead the impossibility of eliminating risk. Gulfaks C was “out of control” in 2010 and there was a real risk of a blowout. Norway’s government realized they had been just lucky not to have suffered a similar fate as the Golf of Mexico. They then banned offshore drilling while they reviewed their regulations. Statoil accepted a 30-million kroner ($5.1-million) fine imposed in 2013 by a public prosecutor for Rogaland County, Norway, in connection with a May 2010 well-control problem at its Gullfaks C platform in the North Sea.

• BOTTOM LINE:

Deepwater drilling is at the forefront of technological boundaries and the risks can never be eliminated. Oil spills and Gas leaks will occur if

offshore drilling continues, and in the process pollute our oceans, and impact negatively on local livelihoods.


ASMAA


NO because …

DEBATE

• We cannot keep on using the BP or Exxon as examples. These are just two examples. The fact is that out of more than 17000 wells drilled in the world in the last five years only 2 had notable accidents.

• We maintain that it is not a rampant case as the opposition to oil and gas tries to assert.

• We also do not believe that Norway’s strict preventive measures do not demonstrate “the impossibility of eliminating risk”, it just shows how a well regulated government acts. In addition, Gulfaks C had an advanced blowout preventer that was effectively used. That was not the case in the Golf of Mexico.

• Norway ONLY banned new offshore drilling.

• BOTTOM LINE:

If we stop doing things because we can’t eliminate all possibility of risk, we might as well stop doing everything including using computers because

they can blow up, or stop eating fish because we can choke on a fishbone.



ASMAA


ASMAA’S MODERATOR• We acknowledge that oil spills and gas leaks are inevitable, and not as the industry

would like us to believe – only sporadic occurrences.• For example, Greenpeace has started a site for whistleblowers for the oil and gas

industry. If you just Google “whistleblowers in oil and gas industry”, you see thousands of references about what goes on in the industry regarding safety and its impacts on people and the environment.

• In the Guardian online, an investigative journalist quoting a whistleblower says ” Workers in the North Sea oil industry are under pressure to keep quiet about accidents as companies are desperate to avoid losing money”.

“One whistleblower, says he will lose his job if his identity becomes known, said workers know there is an unwritten and unspoken code that workers do not report accidents, as their employers do not want to halt operations.”

“The corporations lose money if they have to stop drilling for any period of time. He spoke out as documents obtained by the Guardian named the companies responsible for more than 100 serious oil and gas spills in the North Sea over a two-year period.”

BOTTOM LINE:

When cost cuttings and profits are the main focus of most if not all oil and gas companies, and corruption is rife, then yes, oil spills and gas leaks are

inevitable. They are part of the territory … although the industry strongly deny it.



ASMAA


IS IT JUST DELLAYING AND WORSENING THE INNEVITABLE?

DEBATE QUESTION


ASMAA


YES because …


• What will keeping the offshore drilling industry do? It will just add a few years to oil and gas production, which will end in +- another 4 decades.

• It will just increase global dependence on oil and gas, when we should be doing all we can to encourage nations to start moving to more long-term resources, ones that provides for a sustainable future.

• Currently the sector is trying to stop a shortage by depleting these resources as fast as they can. You have to agree that this is a very short-sighted strategy.

• Sometimes decisions must be taken for the benefit and for the good of all of us and not let just the few who want some more money in their kitty.

• Getting out of our addition to oil and gas sooner while we still have some resources left as a fall-back if needed is a wise move.

• Using the funding which would otherwise go to offshore drilling will speed development of renewables, it is a poor strategy to not do so.

• BOTTOM LINE:

While we acknowledge that we have currently a great dependence on oil and gas, we feel this simply should not be accepted but actively discouraged. A

ban on offshore drilling would be a way for the world to wean itself of oil and gas.


ASMAA


NO because …

DEBATE

• The world is nowhere near to replace fossil fuels with renewable energies.

• Studies and polls show that even for people with average incomes in developed countries, the price is the biggest problem.

• Another problem is access to available land and other resources, let alone the fact that the technologies are still developing. This makes it less practical for the whole world to adopt renewable energies as its source of energy.

• Until these drawbacks are at least halfway resolved, it will be a futile decision to ban offshore drilling.

• We also do not believe that offshore drilling diverts funds from renewable energy development because offshore drilling is profitable and provides governments and companies with more money that can be used for other things.

• It is hard for millions of people to make ends meet because of the high price of oil. If all oil companies world wide stopped today, the energy price would go through the roof and would have a serious impact on the poor in LED countries.

• BOTTOM LINE:

The world is not yet ready to switch from fossil fuels to renewable resources. Encouraging the ban on offshore drilling is the same as asking the hundreds

of millions of financially vulnerable to suffer or even to die.



ASMAA


ASMAA’S MODERATOR• It is always interesting to us, how the oil and gas lobbies always focus on the plight of

the poor in LED countries as a major stumbling block to shift from oil to renewables, while at the same time fuelling major conflict in these same areas. Perfect example is the Nigerian Delta and the Middle East.

• Focusing on the retail price of renewable energies as being high, we are of the opinion that it is kept artificially high through market manipulation driven by greed and as a barrier to enter.

• We also of the opinion that until the oil and gas industry has gained total control of renewables, the industry will fight it tooth and nail.

BOTTOM LINE:

We stand by our opinion that we should indeed invest more – we need toshift the investment focus from oil and gas to renewables.



ASMAA


Summary of First Debate


ASMAA


• In this first round of debates we have outlined the problems that offshore drilling can pose, both from an economic as well as from an environmental context, arguing that safety measures are insufficient to prevent oil spills and gas leaks, meaning that the risks are to high to be acceptable.

• We are not convinced that the “acoustic switch” that the opposition parties suggested would for example prevent Norway from suffering any oil spills or gas leaks. The opposition itself highlighted that it is unknown whether such a device would indeed work.

• We continued by outlining practical alternatives to offshore drilling, such as other sources of oil being increasing the focus and investment in renewable energies. Finally, we re-emphasized why it is important to ban offshore drilling now rather than simply wait until offshore deposits run out.

• We believe that we have made a case and a convincing argument in favor of a ban on offshore drilling.

• Some of our arguments depend on the claim that banning offshore drilling will increase investment in renewable resources, something the opposition deny.

• We believe that profits from offshore drilling for the most part remains as profits in the companies and governments rather than being reinvested in alternative energies development. A ban on drilling will indeed speed-up the transition to renewables.

• Meaning that renewable supplies would be developed sooner rather than later.

• We also made a point that solar power is now cheaper than nuclear and nearing the cost of oil and gas.

SUMMARY


ASMAA


We therefore believe that as well as being desirable, a ban on offshore drilling is very feasible and should therefore be

implemented.

CONCLUSION


ASMAA


We will not have a society if we destroy the environment …

Margaret Mead


ASMAA


IF LIKE US, YOU BELIEVE THAT ITS TIME TO MOVE AWAY FROM

FOSSIL FUELS …

THEN JOIN US

SOLUTIONS ACT - PARTICIPA


ASMAA


GET INVOLVED … PARTICIPA• There are many ways that you can get involved in the campaign.

• Here are three things that YOU can do TODAY to get you started:

1. Write to your local and national newspapers

2. If you have a local radio - contact them

3. Lobby local, regional and national decision makers



ASMAA


• Organise a I Say NO to Oil and Gas in Algarve talk in your town - at your community centre, workplace, college, school, local cafe, local club, etc – we can come and speak about the campaign to your invited audience

• Distribute Flyers and Posters in your community, collect signatures• Join the protests and days of solidarity • Organise an information stall in your town • Get other civic organisations in your area to collaborate with ASMAA on

this campaign • Organise a music night/ fundraiser for I Say NO to Oil and Gas in the

Algarve • Get a I Say NO to Oil and Gas in the Algarve stickers for your

windows and car • Share the campaign info with your family and friends via E-mail, on

Facebook, Linkedin and Twitter • Sign the petition online and share it with your friends and family • Buy a campaign T-Shirt. • Donate to the I Say NO to Oil and Gas in the Algarve campaign fund



ASMAA


“A small group of thoughtful people could change the world. Indeed, it is the

only thing that ever has …”

Margaret Mead

ACT - PARTICIPA


ASMAA


ACT - PARTICIPA


ASMAA


AND YOU?E TU?

ACT - PARTICIPA


ASMAA


THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME.MUITO OBRIGADA


ASMAA


[email protected]

Petition link – SAY NO TO OIL AND GAS EXPLORATION IN ALGARVEhttp://tinyurl.com/nxqqrg2

Join us on Facebook:https://www.facebook.com/groups/asmaaalgarve/


ASMAA


End of presentation

Business

ASMAA - 1ST DEBATE - OIL IN ALGARVE - YES OR NO?