|
══════════════════【立報】═══════════════════ |
| 教 育 專 題 深 入 報 導《2006-08-11》 |
| 本期內容 | |
| ◎國際專題：石油開採vs.環境保護 | |
| ◎漏油是阿拉斯加油管最新的災難 | |
| ◎吾思吾師 找回教師熱情與尊嚴徵文比賽 | |
| 國際專題：石油開採vs.環境保護 | |
| 策劃、編譯■唐澄暐、侯美如 | |
|
根據英國獨立報報導，僅次於石油巨擘美國艾克森美孚（Exxon Mobil），奪下全球第二大石油企業稱號的英國石油公司（British Petroleum，BP），近日因輸油管線出現新裂縫而關閉阿拉斯加油井。據悉，出問題的油管被發現時已腐蝕嚴重、幾近完全破裂，並每天有10萬桶之多的石油從裂縫洩漏，這場讓美國石油總產量失血8％的大災難並馬上引起油價上漲。 然而，除了油價上漲這等民生問題之外，阿拉斯加油管裡還隱藏了另一個雖然老套但更致命的災難：環境汙染。雖然BP在7日極力強調公司對北極圈內脆弱環境的保護，環境保護者則認為，油管的破裂絕對只代表一件事：BP在環境保護上的紀錄向來駭人聽聞，而這些秘辛唯有透過見義勇為的告密者才能為大眾所知。 自從去年BP在阿拉斯加油區捅出更大的婁子之後，BP便在該區設立油管例行檢查，也因此才萬幸地發現上週末的破裂油管。去年的油污染發生在北阿拉斯加的普拉多灣（Prudhoe Bay），石油從破洞汩汩洩出整整5天才被開上廢棄道路的工人發現，若不是臭得令人喘不過氣的濃重石油味引人注意，當時的傷害可能會更大；但這就足以讓BP揹下1989年艾克森美孚油輪漏油事件後，阿拉斯加最嚴重的漏油災害，BP近日並為該區安全問題而接受刑事調查。 而漏油事件頻傳的阿拉斯加地區也因環境生態議題而成為環境運動者捍衛的對象。雖然阿拉斯加在進入北極圈的地區只是一片渺無人跡的荒野，僅有熊、狼、馴鹿、麝香牛等上百種野生動物及百萬隻候鳥的蹤跡會出現在那裡，但保育運動者表示，該地區的苔原地質非常脆弱，一但遭受需要鑿鑽的公共建設侵入破壞，就必定造成難以挽回的後果，他們指出，事實顯示那些野生動物的確受到打擾並被迫遷徙，世界上最令人驚嘆的荒漠恐怕就此消失在地球上。除此之外，BP更大膽染指橫跨阿拉斯加極地與副極地區域的「極地國家野生動物保護區」（Arctic National Wildlife Reserve，ANWR），對此綠色團體亦是滿腔憤恨、頻頻擺出陣仗抗議。 而除了工業入侵對環境的破壞之外，石油外洩污染亦是環保份子抨擊的焦點。數據指出，在阿拉斯加北坡及西北角等搭建油管油井的地區，每年都有近5百件外洩的通報。著名的艾克森瓦拉茲（Exxon Valdez）油輪意外觸礁，將3萬5千5百噸原油流洩海中的嚴重污染事件，至今也快20年了，當地海域仍然形同一片死海，漁業永久停歇，阿拉斯加人也為此持續和艾克森美孚抗爭。 如此看來，環境問題在美國比政治辯論更重要？沒有的事，光是要維持禁止石油企業進入ANWR的禁令就已經夠困難了，尤其是在國內所有消費者都為了油價叫苦連天的時期，一想到阿拉斯加這個神聖的石油殿堂地底下還蘊藏了上億桶的石油、甚至更多量的天然氣，哪個政治家又不心動、為解決民生問題而大解禁令呢？甚至現任美國元首布希亦是以「能源安全」為由站在開放ANWR的一方，為求獨立於動盪的中東以外的穩定能源，並於上個月在國會提出新的ANWR解禁條款；看在評論者眼裡，這不外乎是在變相鼓勵石油公司積極投資，大啖這塊新開發的大餅。 美國情況如此，其他開發中國家甚至連冠冕堂皇的理由都拿不出來，就被外來石油大廠吃死。由於已開發國家通常配有較嚴苛的環境保護令，各類開發工業都有外移至環境議題重要性不比政治立場的地區。1972年草創的環保組織「地球之友」（Friends of the Earth）目前正為了蜆殼石油公司（Shell）將在俄羅斯東海岸外庫頁島大規模開發的企劃而揭竿抗議，為保護瀕臨絕種的西方白鯨在其附近的繁殖區；綠色團體也點出，現下各非洲鄉村地區如脫韁野馬般不受拘束的濫伐濫墾將來亦會是地球環境的一大危機。 如此看來，石油工業和綠色團體唯一能達成共識的僅有「只要鑿井鑽油，環境就一定受影響」這點了。因此，重點並不在於到底石油工業會不會對環境造成影響，而是石油公司願意付出多少去減輕其對地球造成的傷害；另外一個現實論點則是，開採對環境造成的影響是否值得人為修復。 於是各家公司開始讓自家的環保政策透明化，讓鄰近社區看見他們為維護大自然環境所做的付出：不少企業開始採用天然資源或清潔機、新科技，也能直接減少輸油時的汙染，像是以多管同時抽取一個油井的石油、遙控機關也是一大幫手（BP若是能早點採用想必今天也不會落至這般田地）、就連向來不承認二氧化碳排放量與溫室效應之間有連結關係的油界硬漢艾克森美孚也同意，將設置新科技精煉廠以減少其溫室氣體的產生。但環境保護者可沒那麼好打發，他們堅稱只要利益重於環保，任何石油巨頭都會做出傷害環境的決策。 現在我們知道了魚與熊掌不可兼得：沒有不傷害大自然的鑽油活動，也不可能有100％預防漏油或完善保護生態的高科技，更別提氣候變化這項變數也算在內。那麼，是時候轉向再生燃料了嗎？答案或許也不盡理想，BP目前只撥出不到總預算5％在再生燃料上，其他多數的石油公司花費的經費甚至更少，顯然風力和太陽能、或是糖及天然成分組成的生物燃料時代尚未到來；雖然工業巨頭們於此的成績不佳，再生燃料的開發與利用仍然在其他領域有進展，但少了大規模研究，這項新資源的未來之路舉步維艱。 就現況看來，專家學界、運動者與商家對於石油開採活動反應兩極：擁護者認為由於環境保護目前已是每家石油大廠的重要議程、新科技又能將鑽井對環境的傷害減到最小、另外西方環保立法嚴苛，各廠亦不敢拿公司名聲冒險，因此贊許現階段石油公司在環境議題上已做得夠好；但只要少入的漏油就足以污染大範圍面積，因此石油工業對環境嚴重的破壞是無以避免的，且相信汲營利益的石油公司終會將魔爪伸向未受殘害的處女地、並到處肆無忌憚地燃燒石油增長溫室效應，破壞全球氣候環境，反對聲浪說起話來亦是鏗鏘有力。所謂兩害相權取其輕，既然兩者不可兼得，必斟酌如何取捨才造成最少的破壞，對地球最友善。 （URL：http://news.independent.co.uk/environment/article1217565.ece） Why is this question being asked afresh? BP, formerly known as British Petroleum and now the second largest oil company in the world, is shutting down production from its giant oilfield in Alaska after finding another spill from a corroded pipeline. It is a drastic response to the discovery that several chunks of the pipeline are corroded and close to breaking open. The temporary closure of wells producing 400,000 barrels of oil a day, 8 per cent of total production for the whole of the US, has sent oil prices soaring. BP was shouting at the top of its voice yesterday about how it is prioritising the environment in this sensitive area inside the Arctic Circle. But environmentalists say the evidence of corrosion simply proves what they have been saying all along: that BP's Alaskan operations have an appalling environmental record that has only been exposed because of brave whistle-blowers inside the company. The tests on the pipeline, which discovered this latest spill at the weekend, were instigated because of a much bigger disaster earlier this year. Oil had been leaking for five days from a corroded BP pipeline between facilities at Prudhoe Bay when a worker driving a deserted stretch of road noticed a strong petroleum smell and stopped to investigate. It was the worst oil spill in Alaska since the Exxon Valdez container ship was holed in 1989, and BP is now under criminal investigation for its safety record in the region. Why is Alaska so environmentally sensitive? Alaska's Arctic region is a vast wilderness, home to hundreds of animal species including bears, wolves, caribou, musk oxen, and millions of migratory birds. Conservationists argue that the tundra is fragile and will be irreparably harmed by development of the infrastructure that is required for drilling. The wildlife of the area is already being disturbed and displaced, they say, and an awe-inspiring wilderness will eventually be lost forever. Green groups have mounted a strong campaign against plans by BP and other major oil companies to extend their drilling into the explicitly protected Arctic National Wildlife Reserve (ANWR), created to maintain a unique eco-system that span Arctic and sub- Arctic Alaska. And if the impact of development on these areas is one thing, the potential effects of oil spills is quite another. There are about 500 spills reported annually across the North Slope, the north-western tip of the state where wells and pipelines are currently located. Alaskans are still fighting Exxon for a settlement over the Exxon Valdez disaster which, they said, wiped out their livelihoods from fishing. Is the environment lobby winning the political arguments in the US? It is difficult to be hopeful that the ban on oil production in ANWR will be maintained, particularly if oil prices stay high and American consumers continue to feel the pinch of soaring petrol prices. The likelihood that there are billions of barrels of oil under the ground within the sanctuary, and even more gas, will tempt politicians looking for ways to bring down oil prices. President George Bush, who supports drilling in ANWR, has also linked the issue to "energy security", that is, the need for the US to reduce its dependence on oil from the volatile Middle East. A new Bill to remove the protections from ANWR was introduced into Congress last month. To mute criticism, it would also introduce new financial incentives for oil companies to invest in renewable fuels. What about in the rest of the world? The concern is that exploration work is now moving away from the developed world, where governments have more or less strict environmental regulations in place, to areas where such protections are much lower down the political agenda. Friends of the Earth is currently campaigning against Shell's major project at Sakhalin Island, off the east coast of Russia, which goes near breeding grounds of endangered western grey whales. And green groups say unchecked development in rural Africa could be an environmental disaster. Are oil companies doing enough to protect the environment? One thing both the oil industry and the green movement would agree on is that it is impossible to drill for oil without having an impact on the environment. The question is whether the industry is doing as much as it can to minimise that impact; the larger debate is whether the damage is a price worth paying. Undeniably, companies are telling us more about their activities. This is an era of environmental impact assessments and consultation with local communities. Most companies also have policies on the use of natural resources and clean-up operations. Advances in technology have also been able to limit damage, with multiple wells drilled from a single rig. The remote control device used by BP in the Alaskan pipelines spotted corrosion earlier than would have been possible before. Even Exxon Mobil, the bogeyman of the industry because it denies the link between carbon emissions and global warming, is committed to new technologies that reduce the greenhouse emissions of its refineries and other operations. Environmentalists, though, insist that as long as the pursuit of profit is put above protection of the environment, the oil majors will make damaging choices. Shouldn't we have switched to renewable fuels by now, anyway? The answer to whether we can drill for oil without harming the environment is already no, in the narrow sense that no system will totally prevent spills or fail to alter a natural habitat for wildlife. But it is most certainly no if climate change is included in the equation. BP is still investing barely 5 per cent of its capital budget on renewable fuels, and most oil companies are putting in even less. It is clearly not enough to speed up the development of new fuel sources such as wind and solar power, or even biofuels made from sugar and other natural ingredients. Progress is being made outside of the big companies, but it remains painfully slow. Is the oil industry doing enough to protect the environment? Yes... * Environmental protection has moved up the agenda inside every major oil company * New technologies mean that drilling can be done with minimal impact on the environment * Regulations in the West have got ever tighter and companies cannot afford to be fined or to lose their reputations No... * Small oil spills are widespread, and larger environmental disasters are inevitable * Money-hungry oil companies will develop regions that have so far remained unspoilt * Burning fossil fuels will destroy the environment through global warming |
|
| （回目錄） | |
| 漏油是阿拉斯加油管最新的災難 | |
|
30年前，阿拉斯加北司洛普的原油開始向南輸送到瓦德資港，使美國的能源生產和分配進入新紀元。一開始，這是一項在技術上極為大膽，但在政治上極為保守的計畫，直到本周由於原油漏溢，導致普拉德霍海灣油田的一段關閉為止，計畫還是這個樣子。 儘管支持工業發展的人聲稱，現在在北司洛普有更環保的探勘和鑽油方式，但輸送這些液態石油的工具已經老舊，而且批評指出，已經產生極為危險的損壞。工程單位表示，在某些地方，油管管壁因為鏽蝕，只剩下20％的厚度。 同時，自從1989年埃克森美孚公司在威廉王子灣發生嚴重事故，讓1千1百萬加侖的漏油污染1千2百英里的海岸線以來，環保、生態和法律的爭論到現在都沒有間斷。這些問題，都使得北極國家野生動物保護區（Arctic National Wildlife Refuge）能否開發鑽油的爭論變得更為迫切。 儘管阿拉斯加多數油管早就超過當初設計的25年安全壽命，且又剛發生如此嚴重的漏溢事件，英國石油的鏽蝕專家比爾‧賀吉斯仍表示，管線現在保持「絕佳狀態」。英國石油的美國總裁包柏‧馬龍表示，全長8百英里的阿拉斯加縱貫油管系統（TAPS）擁有「世界級」的鏽蝕檢測與控制程序。這條管線是由馬龍過去經營的俄耶斯加管線服務公司所運作。 但週一在阿拉斯加首府安克拉治舉辦的記者會上，英國石油承認，該公司測試TAPS普拉德霍海灣段輸送管線厚度的程序「並不適當」。「明顯地，我們已經在修正我們測試鏽蝕的程序。」英國石油阿拉斯加研究部門的史提夫‧馬紹爾表示。 這條輸油管線系統有許多環保和設計上的挑戰。管線跨越3座山脈，超過8百條大小溪流，以及3條地震活躍帶。3／4的管線穿越脆弱的永久凍土層。為了因應溫度變化和地震位移，管線刻意設計成曲折的樣式。油田和管線系統的維修任務，包括派出暱稱「聰明豬」的智能型管導缺陷探測器，沿管線檢查造成裂縫的鏽蝕。英國石油也利用超音波圖像來檢查管線狀況，周日的意外就是利用該方法發現的。馬紹爾也承認，超音波並不是絕對可靠的安全措施。 儘管普拉德霍海灣油田的生產量已經從1987年的一天2百萬桶掉到今日的一半不到，但根據阿拉斯加環保部表示，近年來，每年在油田和8百英里的管線上還是發生了約5百次大小漏油事故，多數都是小型，快速發現，可恢復的。 但在今年3月爆發了北司洛普產油史上最大的漏溢，26萬7千加侖的原油從普拉德霍海灣系統一條鏽蝕的管線漏出，經過5天才被發現。此後，美國環境保護局調查員開始試圖確認，英國石油是否因為無法防止管線鏽蝕破裂，而違反了聯邦淨水法案。如果確有其事，接著就會是刑法懲罰。 相比之下，最近一次的漏油事件漏溢量只有2百加侖。隨後的調查發現16條裂縫，英國石油也承認為「意外嚴重的鏽蝕」，並導致整個管線關閉。而該公司最近一次使用「聰明豬」，已經是14年前的事情了。「我們以前就知道這會是一個隨時間惡化的問題」，寄望在今年秋天選舉中回鍋的前阿拉斯加州州長東尼‧諾爾斯週一表示。而英國石油預計將更換16英里的管線，預計可能要花上幾個月。 同時，美國聯邦和州政府人員表示，當年埃克森在威廉王子灣的漏油事件至今仍對野生動物和棲息地造成損害。根據1991年的和解協議書，埃克森必須在10年內付出9億元作為恢復環境之用。但協議書也提到「對於未知的損害的重新出現」，條款將延長至2006年。上個月美國司法部和阿拉斯加法律部行使該條款，以向埃克森在求取9千2百萬美元，作為生物復育（藉由人為的環境改變與控制，使受污染區域成為生物活化區，提高微生物分解有機污染物的速率，達到分解破壞和去毒效果）以及其他移除大片油污技術之用。美國科學家表示，這些油汙至今還在傷害當地的鴨子、海獺、貝類和其他海洋生物。 |
|
| （回目錄） | |
| 吾思吾師 找回教師熱情與尊嚴徵文比賽 | |
送舊迎新囉！迎接新的一年，讓我們滿懷感恩的心，感謝過去教導我們、使我們智慧增長的師長，用一千字以內的短文與大家分享溫馨感人的真人實事。全教會贊助入選者稿酬每字2元，來稿請以電子檔寄young@lihpao.co-m﹐附真實姓名﹑身份字號﹑銀行帳號。本報有權刪修來稿﹐來稿者視為同意本報集結出書時﹐不另支稿酬。 |
|
| （回目錄） | |
|
參觀立報： |
http://www.lihpao.com |
|
寫信給小編e-mail： |
fiveguys@ms19.hinet.net |
|
立報地址： |
台北縣新店市光復路43號 |
| 欲詳完整內容請訂閱立報 電話：02-86676655 傳真：02-82191213 訂報：02-86676655轉214 地址：台北縣新店市復興路43號1樓 每週一至週六出報，每份10元 |