DR. EICKEN: Based on your experience in Arctic development in Norway (in particular the Snohvit Field), what were some of the key pieces of environmental or scientific information that actually made development possible in Norway, if it was done?
DR. ZOLOTUKHIN: To stay secured and confident here or there or everywhere, you have to include into the discussion of important topics all real and potential stakeholders.
In Russia, for example, we cannot impose some kind of a new law without broad discussion of those items. Or we can, but it can make a lot of people -- thousands of people -- unhappy; thinking that they are not important players on this planet anymore. So it is very important to follow the rules which have been established by someone else so that you have an internal consensus. Not agreement, necessarily. There are some things you can't agree or disagree with totally, but consensus is a different word. You understand what it is the other party wants. You don't agree, but you peacefully coexist anyway. You come to a mutual consensus. All the players should participate, especially when discussing such important topics as the future of the state in terms of the environment, energy consumption, and energy savings.
I'm not here to be teaching anyone. I could sound like this guy from Russia that came here to teach you everything. But this is just my thinking. None of the groups should take preference in development. We actually, virtually, know nothing. What do we know on the global scale? We know nothing: what kind of impact development can have, may have on the environment.
In the Central European part of Russia, for example, close to the Ural Mountains, we've got one of the biggest oil fields on Earth -- Romashkin oil field -- and it's been in development for nearly 50 years already. It’s being very skillfully developed by Tatarians; the best in Russia according to international standards. There they are very concerned about the environment. The areas around the oil wells are fenced so you can see weeds and forests growing there, very peacefully coexisting. They managed to do that because they know how bad an impact development might have if done inappropriately.
Starting several years ago, they registered 1,200 earthquakes per year, every year, in the area. This is seismically not a dangerous area. This is the Russian platform; a very stable part of the country. Development of the oil field triggered small earthquakes. It's prograding somewhere and so on, in a way that cannot be controlled by man. And it's artificial; it's not natural. So it's not just a natural course of events. It's due to the development of the field.
One of the ideas is that we replace extracted oil with reinjected water, which is heavier. So if you put 100 barrels of water in place of 100 barrels of oil, there will be extra mass imposed in this area and it's heavier. The Earth starts to balance the change, not gradually but rather abruptly, and you have small quakes. Then all of a sudden you see the rivers and small lakes all disappear. Then the animals behave inappropriately; they don't sleep at night; what's going on? Who knows? Nobody knows. But whatever we do, we do with best intentions. But you know the proverb; that the best intentions pave the road to hell. This is very appropriate. We have to be really careful to be careful. Humans have matured enough now to say confidently that we know almost nothing about what kind of impact we generate on the Earth.
DR. EICKEN: How do you best involve local experts -- Arnold Brower, Sr., a very respectable whaling captain with a lot of detailed knowledge, for example -- who thinks and works differently. What's a good way to get an exchange going in a productive way?
DR. ZOLOTUKHIN: To have broader view is important. All the stakeholders should be involved, at least to be informed and to be called upon for their expertise. I have a very good example. I'll tell you a story of what might happen if you have a skewed view on something.
It was four months ago, I took a taxi from the meeting in Oslo to the airport. It was early in the morning and it was the driver and myself, and nobody else. It took us 40 minutes. Very nice driving; no people; everybody is still sleeping. We started to talk in general and then I asked this guy a question. He's a very simple guy, poorly educated, but experienced. I asked him, if you are a president of – or prime minister of Norway -- what would you change here in Norway? And it was interesting feedback. He thought for a couple of minutes, then said, “An interesting question … I would rebuild the whole system of roads in Norway.” Point finished. As a president or prime minister, he's supposed to take care of everything, but he’s got a skewed view. He knew what is wrong and what is right, but only in one direction, nothing else. So that means if a decision is taken by a group of people who have their own view on the society, then it's not just technical solutions. A solution must involve the whole state, the whole population, the whole nation. Then it won’t be a skewed view. I mean, the roads should be paved, definitely. But what about the locals? What about the environment? Everything should be taken into account.
Next Back to contents |
