BLACKGOLD IN GHANA, LET US PONDER, WHILE WE CELEBRATE.
It is heartwarming to hear about the almost household news that Ghana, in collaboration with other international development partners are all set to engage in off shore crude oil exploration and production in commercial quantities by the year 2010. As Ghanaians the mere fact that our country and her development partners will have the capacity to produce crude oil in commercial quantities brings us high sense of expectation and accomplishment. However, I wish to caution that in our haste to celebrate the good fortunes that come with oil exploration and production, we should not in any way attempt to exaggerate the benefits of crude oil production, at the expense of the cumulative cost and adverse effects that it will bring to the environment, and eventually to our people now, and in the future. That is the more reason why there is the need for objective, in-depth, and nonpartisan cost-benefits analyses of the whole exercise by our governments, public and private stakeholders, and the entire civil society. To read more about the overview of drilling, transportation, storage accidents, and environmental impact of offshore crude oil exploration, click http://atoessel-1blogspot.com/
Oil and gas accidents:
Accidents inevitably accompany offshore development. They are the sources of environmental pollution at all stages of oil and gas production. The causes, scale, and severity of the accidents' consequences are extremely variable. They depend on a concrete combination of many natural, technical, and technological factors. To a certain extent, each accidental situation develops in accordance with its unique scenario. The most typical causes of accidents include equipment failure, personnel mistakes, and extreme natural impacts (seismic activity, ice fields, hurricanes, and so on). Their main hazard is connected with the spills and blowouts of oil, gas, and numerous other chemical substances and compounds. The environmental consequences of accidental episodes are especially severe, sometimes dramatic, when they happen near the shore, in shallow waters, or in areas with slow water circulation.
Drilling Accidents: Drilling accidents are usually associated with unexpected blowouts of liquid and gaseous hydrocarbons from the well as a result of encountering zones with abnormally high pressure. No other situations but tanker oil spills can compete with drilling accidents in frequency and severity. Broadly speaking, two major categories of drilling accidents should be distinguished. One of them covers catastrophic situations involving intense and prolonged hydrocarbon gushing. These occur when the pressure in the drilling zone is so high that usual technological methods of well muffling do not help. Lean holes have to be drilled to stop the blowout. The abnormally high pressure is most often encountered during exploratory drilling in new fields. The probability of such extreme situations is relatively low. Some oil experts estimate it at 1 incident for 10,000 wells [Sakhalin-1, 1994]. The need to drill lean holes emerges, on average, in 3% of accidental episodes.
The other group of accidental situations includes regular, routine episodes of hydrocarbon spills and blowouts during drilling operations. These accidents can be controlled rather effectively (in several hours or days) by shutting in the well with the help of the blowout preventers and by changing the density of the drilling fluid. Accidents of this kind are not so impressive as rare catastrophic blowouts. Usually, they do not attract any special attention. At the same time, their ecological hazard and associated environmental risk can be rather considerable, primarily due to their regularity leading, ultimately, to chronic impacts on the marine environment.
Transportation and storage accidents (Tanker Transportation): Oil extracted on the continental shelf accounts for a considerable part (probably at least 50%) of annual volumes of oil transported by tankers (the latter constitute over 1 billion tons). On some fields, the shuttle tankers are the main way of delivering hydrocarbons to the onshore terminals. The main causes of tanker accidents that lead to large oil spills include running aground and into shore reefs, collisions with other vessels, and fires and explosions of the cargo. According to official data [IMO, 1990], the amount of oil spilled during tanker accidents in 1989 and in 1990 were 114,000 and 45,000 tons, respectively. At the same time, the total volume of oil pollution caused by marine oil transportation was 500,000 tons a year.
Significantly, both large drilling accidents and large tanker catastrophes occur relatively rarely. The frequencies of such incidents as well as the oil volumes released in large spills differ from year to year. The history of tanker accidents has been thoroughly described by both the scientific literature and the media. Analyzing the statistics and circumstances of such events indicates that they can hardly be avoided. Although the rate of tanker accidents has been declining over the past two decades, we should be prepared to deal with them in the future. While speaking about the history of tanker transportation, we want to mention a sequence of large supertanker accidents starting with the catastrophic grounding of the tanker Torrey Canyon in the English Channel in 1967. The spill of 95,000 tons of oil caused heavy pollution of the French and British shores with serious ecological and fisheries consequences. This accident was followed by a number of other tanker accidents, including Amoco Cadiz (1978, 220,000 tons of oil spilled), Exxon Valdez (1989, 40,000 tons of oil spilled), and Braer (1993, 85,000 tons of oil spilled). Each of these episodes developed in accordance with its unique scenario. In all the situations, though, the levels of oil pollution reached lethal limits for marine fauna, mainly for birds and mammals. The consequences included much more damage than just ecological disturbances in the sea and on the shore. Chapter 7 will discuss this in more details.
In some cases, the tanker accidents occurred right in the zone of the oil field development. One of them happened in 1978 in the Shetland basin. The tanker Esso Bernica was holed during the mooring, and 1,100 tons of heavy oil fuel spilled into the coastal zone causing serious damage to nature and the local population. One of the most dramatic situations developed in 1989 in the shallow waters of Prince William Sound near the Alaskan southern shore. The oil tanker Exxon Valdez ran aground and spilled over 40,000 tons of crude oil. As the oil spread along the coastline, it covered sea animals, birds, and plants. It turned hundreds of miles of this area (unique for its cleanness and biological resources) into an area of ecological disaster.
This relatively recent episode in the history of the offshore oil and gas industry causes an alarming association in the mind of a Russian reader. The Exxon Valdez catastrophe happened approximately at the same latitudes where the grand projects of the oil and gas developments on the Russian Arctic shelf have already been started (the shelves of the Barents and Kara Seas in vicinity of the White Sea). The association gets even stronger if we take into account that considerable amounts of hydrocarbons extracted here are going to be transported by the tanker fleet. This will include tanker shuttles (including the ice types), large tankers with dead weight up to 120,000 tons, and supertankers. Each of these vessels is going to make hundreds of trips a year. This regular transportation activity is going to take place with the rest of the traffic in the area of the oil field developments and in addition to the general intense shipping and fishing in this Arctic basin. All of these factors considerably increase the probability of accidental situations occurring in the region. We must remember the high productivity and high vulnerability of the Arctic marine ecosystems. This region contains unique natural resources that are comparable to the rich resources of the Alaskan shelf. This primary background information and general statistics about large tanker accidents (about 2% a year) allow us to conclude, without any calculations and modeling that the risk of transportation accidents occurring on the Arctic shelves is going to be high. The consequences of these accidents can be catastrophic. Moreover, the environmental damage of possible accidents can exceed everything that has happened before in such cases, including the accidents on the Alaskan shelf.
Very dangerous situations can emerge in case of a gas tanker accident. Gas carriers are going to be used together with oil tankers in the Barents Sea as well as on the eastern shelf of Sakhalin to transport liquefied natural gas. Gas tanker accidents, although less probable than the accidents with oil tankers, can cause so-called flameless explosions. It happens due to the rapid evaporation of the liquefied gas on the sea surface and formation of pieces of ice and gas clouds followed by combustion and explosions. Such explosions can destroy everything alive in areas of up to 400 km2. At last, the tragic apotheosis of possible outcomes is an accident involving a tanker that is transporting methanol - a rather toxic substance that is completely soluble in water. In case of an accident of such a vessel with a freight-carrying capacity of 35,000 tons, for example in the coastal zone of the Western Murman, the area of lethal impact to marine organisms will be from dozens and hundreds to thousands of square kilometers. In fact, it could cover the whole fisheries regions [Borisov et al., 1994].
Storage: Underwater reservoirs for storing liquid hydrocarbons (oil, oil-water mixtures, and gas condensate) are a necessary element of many oil and gas developments. They are often used when tankers instead of pipelines are the main means of hydrocarbon transportation. Underwater storage tanks with capacities of up to 50,000 m3 either are built near the platform foundations or are anchored in the semi submerged position in the area of developments and near the onshore terminals. Sometimes, the anchored tankers are used for this purpose as well. Of course, a risk exists of damaging the underwater storage tanks and releasing their content, especially during tanker loading operations and under severe weather conditions. However, no summarizing quantitative assessments and statistics of such events are available. After the spill of 1,200 tons of crude oil in 1988 from an underwater storage tank during a storm in the North Sea, some countries introduced restrictions on installing such structures near the shore [Cairns, 1992]. The most dangerous are the accidents involving underwater storage tanks that contain toxic agents, for example methanol. Such accidents are possible in the area of Shtokmanovskoe field developments in the Barents Sea where over 3,000 tons of methanol products are planned to be stored underwater.
Pipelines: Complex and extensive systems of underwater pipelines have a total length of thousands of kilometers. They carry oil, gas, condensate, and their mixtures. These pipelines are among the main factors of environmental risk during offshore oil developments, along with tanker transportation and drilling operations. The causes of pipeline damage can differ greatly. They range from material defects and pipe corrosion to ground erosion, tectonic movements on the bottom, and encountering ship anchors and bottom trawls. Statistical data show that the average probability of accidents occurring on the underwater main pipelines of North America and Western Europe are, respectively, 9.3x10-4 and 6.4x10-4. The main causes of these accidents are material and welding defects [Sakhalin-1, 1994].
Depending on the cause and nature of the damage (cracks, ruptures, and others), a pipeline can become either a source of small and long-term leakage or an abrupt (even explosive) blowout of hydrocarbons near the bottom. The dissolution, dilution, and transferring of the liquid and gaseous products in the marine environment can be accompanied in some cases by ice and gas hydrates formation. The intensity and scale of toxic impacts on the marine biota in the accident zone can be, of course, very different, depending on a combination of many factors. Modern technology of pipeline construction and exploitation under different natural conditions, including the extreme ones, achieved indisputable successes. However, pipeline oil and gas transportation does not eliminate the possibility of serious accidents and consequences.
It is important to take into consideration that in a number of cases, the accidental oil and gas spills and blowouts on the on land main pipelines can pose danger to the coastal marine ecosystems. This can happen when on land pipeline accidents take place near big rivers or in locations of their crossing. Any pollution of river waters eventually affects the sea zone near the river mouth. Such a situation happened at the end of 1994 in the Usinsk area, Russia. An on land pipeline rupture led to the spill of more than 100,000 tons of oil with the danger of heavy pollution of the Basin of Pechora River. The potential hazard of such situations can be even higher during oil and gas development on Sakhalin. The main pipelines are supposed to be laid along the entire eastern coast of the island, right across the main spawning rivers where reproduction of the unique populations of Sakhalin salmon takes place. To find more information on Environmental Impact of the Offshore Oil and Gas Industry go to www.offshore-environment.com/synopsis.html. Credit to (Stanislav Patin, translation by Elena Cascio) based on "Environmental Impact of the Offshore Oil and Gas Industry".
By Ato Essel.
Thursday, April 9, 2009
Wednesday, April 8, 2009
Balancing Law enforcement and Individual liberties
Balancing Law Enforcement and Individual Liberties; the
Case of the exclusionary rule.
The forth amendment to the United States Constitution states that “the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized”. The exclusionary rule is meant to enforce the above constitutional protection.
The above constitutional provision outlines certain fundamental rights and liberties which are inherent to all citizens regardless of their individual orientations and peculiarities. In view of this, there can be no conclusive discussion on the exclusionary rule without making reference to the tenets of the forth amendment which constitute the pivot around which the exclusionary rule rotates. While the larger society is kept in check by the police and other law enforcement agencies, the exclusionary rule can be said to provide the mechanism with which to police the police. This is because human as they are, police officers and for that matter, all law enforcement officers are bound to commit blunders which need to be remedied.
The exclusionary rule is a legal framework which is intended to serve as checks and balances against police officers who illegally gather evidence in violation of the Forth Amendment to the American constitution.
According to Judge Calabresi, the exclusionary rule, among other things serves as an indicator with which an individual can identify various persuasions of American politicians. To him, Liberals view the exclusionary rule as the backbone for the protection of civil rights and liberties as enshrined in the Forth Amendment. On the other hand, Conservatives regard the exclusionary rule as a major stumbling block to the fight against crime and argue that it serves as an escape route for criminals to avoid punishment (Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy Vol. 26 page 112).
Notwithstanding the above generalizations, the exclusionary rule is in fact, a constitutional framework which seeks to provide the necessary protection and remedies to individuals who fall victims to police misconduct and violations during the evidence gathering processes of criminal investigations. It is a rule of exclusion which forbids law enforcement professionals from presenting evidence obtained in violation of the constitution during criminal trials (Worrall 2004, page 54).
In his analysis, Judge Calabresi points out that in spite of the good intentions of the framers of the exclusionary rule, it has not live up to its expectations because it does not provide any direct punishment to offending police officers, neither does it give adequate incentive for people to report police misconduct. This according to the Judge is mainly due to Judges over reliance on precedents, the rapid expansion of the reasonable search doctrine, and the tendency for Juries to identify with the police during Tort suits, and not the criminal whose rights have been violated by the police (Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy Vol. 26 pages 112 -114). He therefore proposes other alternatives to the exclusionary rule.
One of the prominent alternatives proposed by Judge Calabresi is the “after trial hearing” session to determine whether the evidence used by police during the original trial was obtained legally or not. So that if it is found that the evidence was illegally obtained, then the sentence will be proportionately reduced to reflect the degree of violation by the police. Furthermore, he proposes direct punitive measures such as civil law suits, criminal prosecution, civil and internal reviews against police officers who are found to be liable for misconduct or violated the Forth Amendment rights of convicted persons during their investigations.
Contrary to Judge Calabresi’s propositions, Professor Kamisar argues that, in spite of the seemingly ineffectiveness of the exclusionary rule, it has stood the test of time because there have been several attempts to replace it and yet none of such attempts has succeeded. According to him, the absence of the exclusionary rule will open the floodlights for police officers to violate the forth amendment rights of accused persons with impunity. He also refuted the suggestion for the after trial hearing which is intended to establish violation of a convicted person’s rights in order to determine the length of sentence to be imposed. He pointed out that conviction of a person is one thing, and length of the sentence is a different thing altogether. Therefore, once an individual is convicted of a crime, the sentence becomes secondary and so a reduction of a sentence as a result of police misconduct does not necessary serve as an incentive to the convict. He also asserted that there is, and there can be no direct punishment of the individual police officer after the convict has been thrown into jail as a result of a police officer’s illegal acts (Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy vol. 26 pages 135 – 137).
Despite his sharp criticisms, Professor Kamisar however agrees with Judge Calabresi that the basic principles of the exclusionary rule is to serve as checks and balances against police violation of the forth amendment and also to provide necessary remedies to those whose rights are violated. They also agree that by the very nature of their work, Judges and for that matter, Juries are somewhat restrained from enforcing the exclusionary rule to the latter against police officers who are deemed as “friends of the courts” by virtue of their complimentary role to the judicial system. In my view, the point of contention is the process of implementation of the exclusionary rule. While Judge Calabresi proposes an “after trial hearing” and direct punishment approach, Professor Kamisar suggests sticking to the exclusionary rule and simultaneously experimenting with other alternatives carefully and slowly for a period of time in order to enable policy makers have ample time before a firm decision is taken to replace the exclusionary rule. Considering the two opinions, there is therefore the need to secure a workable compromise for the common good.
Individuals’ security, liberties, freedom from unlawful interferences, privacy, and protection against official excesses are all wrap up in the forth amendment to the constitution. However, in an ever growing sophisticated society like the United States of America, there is also the need for law enforcement professionals and their affiliated agencies to protect and defend the lives and liberties of all citizens against criminals. At the same time, they have to maintain a balance between law, order, individual liberties, and generally peaceful coexistence at all times. For the police to achieve all these there is bound to be a collision between law enforcement and citizens’ rights and liberties and so the exclusionary rule, while it may not be perfect, is a necessary tool to address any excesses to ensure a workable balance between liberty, law, and order.
Case of the exclusionary rule.
The forth amendment to the United States Constitution states that “the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized”. The exclusionary rule is meant to enforce the above constitutional protection.
The above constitutional provision outlines certain fundamental rights and liberties which are inherent to all citizens regardless of their individual orientations and peculiarities. In view of this, there can be no conclusive discussion on the exclusionary rule without making reference to the tenets of the forth amendment which constitute the pivot around which the exclusionary rule rotates. While the larger society is kept in check by the police and other law enforcement agencies, the exclusionary rule can be said to provide the mechanism with which to police the police. This is because human as they are, police officers and for that matter, all law enforcement officers are bound to commit blunders which need to be remedied.
The exclusionary rule is a legal framework which is intended to serve as checks and balances against police officers who illegally gather evidence in violation of the Forth Amendment to the American constitution.
According to Judge Calabresi, the exclusionary rule, among other things serves as an indicator with which an individual can identify various persuasions of American politicians. To him, Liberals view the exclusionary rule as the backbone for the protection of civil rights and liberties as enshrined in the Forth Amendment. On the other hand, Conservatives regard the exclusionary rule as a major stumbling block to the fight against crime and argue that it serves as an escape route for criminals to avoid punishment (Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy Vol. 26 page 112).
Notwithstanding the above generalizations, the exclusionary rule is in fact, a constitutional framework which seeks to provide the necessary protection and remedies to individuals who fall victims to police misconduct and violations during the evidence gathering processes of criminal investigations. It is a rule of exclusion which forbids law enforcement professionals from presenting evidence obtained in violation of the constitution during criminal trials (Worrall 2004, page 54).
In his analysis, Judge Calabresi points out that in spite of the good intentions of the framers of the exclusionary rule, it has not live up to its expectations because it does not provide any direct punishment to offending police officers, neither does it give adequate incentive for people to report police misconduct. This according to the Judge is mainly due to Judges over reliance on precedents, the rapid expansion of the reasonable search doctrine, and the tendency for Juries to identify with the police during Tort suits, and not the criminal whose rights have been violated by the police (Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy Vol. 26 pages 112 -114). He therefore proposes other alternatives to the exclusionary rule.
One of the prominent alternatives proposed by Judge Calabresi is the “after trial hearing” session to determine whether the evidence used by police during the original trial was obtained legally or not. So that if it is found that the evidence was illegally obtained, then the sentence will be proportionately reduced to reflect the degree of violation by the police. Furthermore, he proposes direct punitive measures such as civil law suits, criminal prosecution, civil and internal reviews against police officers who are found to be liable for misconduct or violated the Forth Amendment rights of convicted persons during their investigations.
Contrary to Judge Calabresi’s propositions, Professor Kamisar argues that, in spite of the seemingly ineffectiveness of the exclusionary rule, it has stood the test of time because there have been several attempts to replace it and yet none of such attempts has succeeded. According to him, the absence of the exclusionary rule will open the floodlights for police officers to violate the forth amendment rights of accused persons with impunity. He also refuted the suggestion for the after trial hearing which is intended to establish violation of a convicted person’s rights in order to determine the length of sentence to be imposed. He pointed out that conviction of a person is one thing, and length of the sentence is a different thing altogether. Therefore, once an individual is convicted of a crime, the sentence becomes secondary and so a reduction of a sentence as a result of police misconduct does not necessary serve as an incentive to the convict. He also asserted that there is, and there can be no direct punishment of the individual police officer after the convict has been thrown into jail as a result of a police officer’s illegal acts (Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy vol. 26 pages 135 – 137).
Despite his sharp criticisms, Professor Kamisar however agrees with Judge Calabresi that the basic principles of the exclusionary rule is to serve as checks and balances against police violation of the forth amendment and also to provide necessary remedies to those whose rights are violated. They also agree that by the very nature of their work, Judges and for that matter, Juries are somewhat restrained from enforcing the exclusionary rule to the latter against police officers who are deemed as “friends of the courts” by virtue of their complimentary role to the judicial system. In my view, the point of contention is the process of implementation of the exclusionary rule. While Judge Calabresi proposes an “after trial hearing” and direct punishment approach, Professor Kamisar suggests sticking to the exclusionary rule and simultaneously experimenting with other alternatives carefully and slowly for a period of time in order to enable policy makers have ample time before a firm decision is taken to replace the exclusionary rule. Considering the two opinions, there is therefore the need to secure a workable compromise for the common good.
Individuals’ security, liberties, freedom from unlawful interferences, privacy, and protection against official excesses are all wrap up in the forth amendment to the constitution. However, in an ever growing sophisticated society like the United States of America, there is also the need for law enforcement professionals and their affiliated agencies to protect and defend the lives and liberties of all citizens against criminals. At the same time, they have to maintain a balance between law, order, individual liberties, and generally peaceful coexistence at all times. For the police to achieve all these there is bound to be a collision between law enforcement and citizens’ rights and liberties and so the exclusionary rule, while it may not be perfect, is a necessary tool to address any excesses to ensure a workable balance between liberty, law, and order.
Environmental issues and concerns deserve adequate attention and pragmatic solutions from the federal, states, and local stakeholders, and the time to act is now. The consequencies for inaction and finger pointing are disastrous and posterity will not forgive our generation if we fail to act and act swiftly. Time is running out, and procastination is not an option. The time to act is now. Go green, go natural, for the sake of all.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
