Report: Carbon Capture More Costly than Renewables and Will Increase Climate Pollution

Media release - April 15, 2015

Even making assumptions sympathetic to CCS, it is the most expensive option for attempting to reduce emissions

Washington, DC – A new Greenpeace USA report, Carbon Capture Scam (CCS): How a False Climate Solution Bolsters Big Oil, shows that carbon capture and sequestration is significantly more expensive than renewable energy for attempting to reduce carbon pollution. The report also details how CCS proposals maintain our dependence on fossil fuels and exacerbate climate pollution. Carbon capture could actually increase the overall climate pollution associated with fossil fuels, by promoting increased extraction, combustion, and fugitive emissions.

The Greenpeace analysis uses US Energy Information Administration (EIA) cost projections for CCS and renewable energy to calculate relative costs of reducing carbon pollution. Even using EIA’s optimistic assumptions about CCS effectiveness and costs, the report shows that CCS would still cost almost 40% more per kilogram of avoided carbon dioxide than solar photovoltaic, 125% more than wind and 260% more than geothermal. It calculates that in 2019, based on EIA cost estimates, carbon capture and sequestration would cost 18 cents to avoid the emission of each kilogram of carbon dioxide per unit of electricity, while solar photovoltaics cost 13 cents, wind costs 8 cents, and geothermal costs 5 cents.

“The truth is that carbon capture and sequestration is not worth the investment – sequestration is a gamble while carbon capture does nothing but prop up the oil industry,” said Greenpeace Legislative Representative Kyle Ash. “Its price tag is further evidence that our focus should be on moving toward affordable renewable energy, not wasting time with false solutions.”

CCS has been pushed as part of the Obama administration’s “all of the above” energy strategy that has helped maintain our dependence on fossil fuels. EPA's proposed carbon rule requires that new coal plants capture CO2, and emphasizes the CO2 be used to augment oil extraction. Oil rigs then pump the carbon dioxide underground so the oil expands and more is forced up the well. Rather than actually storing carbon, it comes right back up the well with the oil. Every major power plant CCS project in the United States intends to sell the scrubbed carbon to the oil extraction industry.

“There’s a reason that the oil industry is supportive of CO2 capture technology – it makes them more money and maintains our dependence on fossil fuels,” continued Ash. “It’s a win-win for coal and oil. The coal industry gets to greenwash its image, and the oil industry benefits from the captured carbon that’s harnessed for increasing oil extraction. This scandalous collusion between coal and oil also includes the Obama administration, which is wasting billions in taxpayer dollars on carbon capture while working to expand the extraction of coal, oil and gas.”

Even if permanent storage was the ultimate goal for the carbon, it has proven to be a dangerous and difficult task. The locations that have been identified as having the greatest potential for carbon sequestration are in the same spots as fracking and shale gas reserves. Earthquakes as a result of fracking threaten the feasibility of those projects. Additionally, CO2 can lead to “downhole communication,” or “frack hits,” in which case the CO2 injected into one hole just comes out another. When it comes to sequestering carbon permanently underground without the complications of oil and gas extraction, the science remains dubious. A recent MIT study found that the majority of CO2 injected into saline aquifers, the type of geology believed to have the greatest storage potential after exhausted oil wells, could make its way back to the surface.

Greenpeace’s 2014 Energy [R]evolution analysis shows that there is a path to an economy reliant on renewable energy without additional breakthrough technologies or reliance on false solutions like nuclear and CCS. Over the past 15 years, Greenpeace’s Energy [R]evolution analysis has more accurately predicted renewable energy growth than most, including the EIA, International Energy Agency, and others.

To view the entire Carbon Capture Scam (CCS): How a False Climate Solution Bolsters Big Oil report, click here: http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/en/carbon-capture/

To view Greenpeace’s 2014 Energy [R]evolution analysis, click here: http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/en/media-center/reports/energy-revolution-2014/

Who Founded Greenpeace? Not Patrick Moore.

by Greg Laden, Science Blogs, June 27, 2014

12 men set of from Vancouver on the Phyllis Cormack, here the name is covered over with Greenpeace, to protest against nuclear bomb testing in Amchitka by the USA. Here are some of the crew on the bow, in the middle John Cormack with dog. Accession #: 1.71.001.01

Who are the founders of Greenpeace? Not Patrick Moore.

Patrick Moore is a Hippie for Hire. He makes the claim that he co-founded Greenpeace, and charges a fee to show up at conferences or other venues, or sit on boards, to provide a story that anti-environmentalists, global warming deniers, and others, like to hear. The part where he takes your money to lie, as far as I can tell, is true. The part about how he co-founded Greenpeace is apparently not true.

Here’s what Greenpeace has to say about Patrick Moore:

Patrick Moore. Did Patrick Moore found Greenpeace? Greenpeace says no. They have evidence. So no, he probably did not.

Patrick Moore, a paid spokesman for the nuclear industry, the logging industry, and genetic engineering industry, frequently cites a long-ago affiliation with Greenpeace to gain legitimacy in the media. Media outlets often either state or imply that Mr. Moore still represents Greenpeace, or fail to mention that he is a paid lobbyist and not an independent source…

For more than 20 years, Mr. Moore has been a paid spokesman for a variety of polluting industries, including the timber, mining, chemical and the aquaculture industries. Most of these industries hired Mr. Moore only after becoming the focus of a Greenpeace campaign to improve their environmental performance. Mr. Moore has now worked for polluters for far longer than he ever worked for Greenpeace.

Most importantly, given Patrick Moore’s insistence that he is a founder of Greenpeace, is this statement by the organization:

Patrick Moore Did Not Found Greenpeace

Patrick Moore frequently portrays himself as a founder or co-founder of Greenpeace, and many news outlets have repeated this characterization. Although Mr. Moore played a significant role in Greenpeace Canada for several years, he did not found Greenpeace. Phil Cotes, Irving Stowe, and Jim Bohlen founded Greenpeace in 1970. Patrick Moore applied for a berth on the Phyllis Cormack in March, 1971 after the organization had already been in existence for a year.

Greenpeace even kept a copy of the letter Patrick Moore sent to them asking for a birth on a boat to engage in a nuclear protest, dated to long after the founding of Greenpeace. Here it is:

How could Patrick Moore have founded Greenpeace if he wrote this letter?

Media Matters addressed the question “Who is Patrick Moore?” and “Who Founded Greenpeace?” and “Did Patrick Moore Found Greenpeace?” here. In that piece they discuss Patrick Moore’s anti-science and anti-environment stand on climate change. They note:

Moore has repeatedly claimed that he left Greenpeace because their policies shifted to the radical left, saying for instance in his testimony, “I had to leave as Greenpeace took a sharp turn to the political left, and began to adopt policies that I could not accept from my scientific perspective.” But Greenpeace has a different view of the situation, saying “what Moore really saw was an opportunity for financial gain. Since then he has gone from defender of the planet to a paid representative of corporate polluters.” [U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, 2/25/14; Greenpeace, 10/10/08]

This refers in part to the Greenpeace Statement on Patrick Moore:

Patrick Moore often misrepresents himself in the media as an environmental “expert” or even an “environmentalist,” while offering anti-environmental opinions on a wide range of issues and taking a distinctly anti-environmental stance. He also exploits long-gone ties with Greenpeace to sell himself as a speaker and pro-corporate spokesperson, usually taking positions that Greenpeace opposes.

While it is true that Patrick Moore was a member of Greenpeace in the 1970s, in 1986 he abruptly turned his back on the very issues he once passionately defended. He claims he “saw the light” but what Moore really saw was an opportunity for financial gain. Since then he has gone from defender of the planet to a paid representative of corporate polluters.

Patrick Moore promotes such anti-environmental positions as clearcut logging, nuclear power, farmed salmon, PVC (vinyl) production, genetically engineered crops, and mining. Clients for his consulting services are a veritable Who’s Who of companies that Greenpeace has exposed for environmental misdeeds, including Monsanto, Weyerhaeuser, and BHP Minerals.

And so on.

So, on answer to the question “Who Founded Greenpeace?” one accurate and truthful answer is “Not Patrick Moore.” In answer to the questions “Did Patrick Moore found Greenpeace?” or “Is Patrick Moore a co-founder of Greenpeace?” the answer is “no” to both.

http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2014/06/27/who-founded-greenpeace-not-patrick-moore/

Greenpeace pranks Shell again! "Arctic oil? Shell no!"

by eeff, Daily Kos, December 29, 2013

Shell was the sponsor of the Belgian Grand Prix. So Greenpeace made plans to get under Shell's skin.

During the pre-race show Greenpeace unfurled a pre-race banner that read, "Arctic Oil? Shell no!"

GreenpeacePR Moment during the Belgian Grand Prix

Greenpeace continued its publicity war against Shell with a pretty magnificent prank at a Formula One race sponsored by the oil company.

The environmentalists snuck into the site of the Shell Belgian Grand Prix and planted two remote-controlled banners bearing a logo for SaveTheArctic.org, a Greenpeace website created to mobilize public support against Shell's plans to study Arctic drilling.

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/...

Then during the Trophy Presentation with the German National Anthem playing in the background they had another one up their sleeve.

The video Shell doesn't want you to see from Greenpeace on Vimeo.

There is an ad of 10 seconds in this one.

TAGS

Link:  http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/12/29/1265862/-Greenpeace-Pranks-Shell

Al Jazeera: Greenpeace activists to face additional Russian charges of resisting law officers

from the Associated Press via Al Jazeera America, November 7, 2013

Some of the activists will face additional charges of resisting law officers, which carries a maximum 5-year sentence

Greenpeace activists hold flags reading 'Free the Arctic 30' as they go past the Kremlin by boat to protest the detention of the 'Arctic 30', a group of Greenpeace activists. 

VASILY MAXIMOV/AFP/Getty Images

Russian is to press additional charges against several Greenpeace activists who were arrested for a protest at the country's first offshore Arctic oil rig, investigators said Thursday.

Russia is currently facing international criticism over the arrest and subsequent treatment of the 30 people on board the Greenpeace ship Arctic Sunrise when activists tried to scale the Gazprom-owned Prirazlomnaya oil platform.

Russian investigators initially charged all 30 with piracy but said last month they were changing the charge to hooliganism, cutting the maximum jail sentence they face to 7 years from 15 years.

But Vladimir Markin, a spokesman for a state investigative team which reports directly to Russian President Vladimir Putin, said some of the activists, in addition to being charged with hooliganism, will face charges of resisting law officers, which would carry a maximum five year-prison sentence.

"A few boats approached the platform, and with the aid of special equipment, they tried to climb up the platform. They completely ignored the authorities' orders. Furthermore, if you recall, they rammed the coastguard ship," Markin said in an interview on Internet news site gazeta.ru.

Greenpeace has always said its protest was entirely peaceful.

Markin's comments came after British Prime Minister David Cameron gave an interview on Thursday urging Putin to help free the Greenpeace activists, saying the action taken against them was "excessive.”

Cameron said he welcomed a decision to reduce the charges against the protesters to hooliganism from piracy, but still felt the action went too far.

"They are not hooligans, they are protesters," Cameron told the BBC, according to a transcript released by his spokesman.

"I totally understand that countries have to have some quite tough rules to stop people invading oil platforms, but I have appealed to Vladimir Putin to try to de-escalate this and make sure that these people can go home."

Rights violated

Russian authorities have held the 28 activists and two freelance journalists, as well as the Dutch-registered Arctic Sunrise, in the Arctic city of Murmansk.

Greenpeace said last week officials were preparing to move the prisoners to St Petersburg, where families and lawyers will have easier access to the prisoners after having spent well over a month in jail.

The Netherlands has asked the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea in Hamburg to order Russia to release the ship and all those detained.

Russia has said it does not recognise the case, accusing the activists and their ship of posing a security threat.

A Dutch government representative said Russia had "violated the human rights" of the activists who tried to climb onto Russia's first offshore Arctic oil rig in September, detaining them for seven weeks "without grounds."

After the protest, Russian coastguard officers boarded and seized control of the ship and towed it to Murmansk. Russia has rejected Greenpeace's assertions that the ship had been in international waters when it was seized.

Strains between the Netherlands and Russia over the Greenpeace protest are in danger of overshadowing the arrival of Dutch King Willem-Alexander and Queen Maxima to Moscow on Friday to mark 400 years of diplomatic ties between the two countries.

Greenpeace activists said their protest was aimed at raising awareness about the risks that Arctic offshore oil drilling posed to thousands of kilometres of coastal areas.

The head of Greenpeace Kumi Naidoo offered on Wednesday to move to Russia and stand as security for the release on bail of the 30.

http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2013/11/7/greenpeace-activiststofaceadditionalrussiancharges.html

Hundreds of Protests in 36 Countries Demand Release of Arctic 30 by Russia

EcoWatch |October 18, 2013 | Comments1

 44 246Share0 1 12 363

Today, as the Arctic 30 face their 30th day of imprisonment in Russia, nearly 10,000 people are taking to the streets at more than 100 events in 36 countries to call for their immediate release, according to a Greenpeace press release.

Last night, the grounds of the Greenpeace office in Murmansk, Russia, were broken into. CCTV footage, released today by Greenpeace International, shows six men in balaclavas scaling a fence and entering the grounds. A mock cage—which was to be used to highlight the injustice of the Arctic 30s' imprisonment during a solidarity protest in the city—was stolen.



As global solidarity activities kicked off, bail hearings began for four more activists: Faiza Oulahsen of the Netherlands, Anne Mie Roer Jensen of Denmark, Alexandre Paul of Canada and Alexandra Harris of the UK. Bail requests for both Paul and Harris were denied; the other cases are ongoing.

“Alex is a caring, sensitive person, who cares for the environmental future of the planet,” Harris’ mother said today. “She was on board the Arctic Sunrise as part of a peaceful protest, in international waters, in the radio room doing her job and we hope and pray that the Russian authorities will let our daughter come home to us soon.”

In September, 28 activists, a freelance photographer and a freelance videographer, were charged with piracy by the Russian authorities following a peaceful protest against Arctic oil drilling at a Gazprom oil platform in the Pechora Sea. Gazprom plans to start production in the first quarter of 2014, in an area that contains three nature reserves protected by Russian law. If convicted of the charges of piracy, the offense carries a maximum 15 year jail term. The Arctic 30 could be detained until Nov. 24 while  authorities investigate the allegations against them.

This morning, according to Greenpeace, the non-executive Chairman of Shell told media in Finland that the Finnish activist imprisoned in Russia, Sini Saarela, should be released. This is significant because Shell has a close business relationship with Gazprom in the Russian Arctic, “This message should be coming from Shell’s CEO Peter Voser,” said Jim Footner of Greenpeace. ”He should break his company’s ties with Gazprom and do everything he can to ensure the Arctic 30 are freed.”

Global protests today include:

• A protest at the base of Mount Everest with activists from Greenpeace East Asia. 
• In Mexico City, protesters are visiting Mahatma Gandhi’s monument and will build a prison cell around it.
• In the Netherlands, people are erecting a giant cage in the centre of Groningen, the hometown of one imprisoned activist and the sister city of Murmansk, Russia.
• In Bangkok, people are gathering in Wat Phra Kaeo, one of the most iconic temples of Thailand, where volunteers shaped the words Free the Arctic 30 using flower bouquets. 
• In Bangalore, people are gathering in Freedom Park, where a prison once stood.
• In Germany, a 30-hour vigil is taking place with more than 100 people, on top of the ongoing solidarity vigil in front of the Russian embassy in Berlin that started on Sept. 19.
• A 24-hour sit-in vigil is happening in the central square of Naples, Italy, the home city of one of the Arctic 30 detainees.

Yesterday, eleven Nobel Peace Prize laureates have written a letter to Russian President Vladimir Putin offering their support to the Arctic 30. They write in their letter:

Arctic oil drilling is a dangerous, high-risk enterprise. An oil spill under these icy waters would have a catastrophic impact on one of the most pristine, unique and beautiful landscapes on Earth. The impact of a spill on communities living in the Arctic, and on already vulnerable animal species, would be devastating and long lasting. The risks of such an accident are ever present, and the oil industry’s response plans remain wholly inadequate. Equally important is the contribution of Arctic oil drilling to climate change. Climate change in the Arctic and elsewhere threatens all of us, but it is the world’s most vulnerable who are paying the price for developed countries’ failure to act.

The Nobel Peace Prize laureates who sent the letter are:

• South African Bishop Desmond Tutu
• Northern Irish peace campaigner Betty Williams
• Former President of Costa Rica, Oscar Arias Sanchez
• U.S. peace campaigner Jody Williams
• Liberian peace campaigner Leymah Gbowee
• Yemeni peace campaigner Tawakkol Karman
• Guatemalan social reformist Rigoberta Menchu Tum
• Northern Irish peace activist Mairead Maguire
• Iranian lawyer and former judge Shirin Ebadi
• Former President of East Timor Jose Ramos Horta
• Argentine community organizer Adolpho Perez Esquivel

In a letter to a journalist, published today in the Dutch newspaper Volkskrant, Oulahsen writes of being held “in a dirty cell, alone, isolated from the rest,” only able to “catch a glimpse of other Russian prisoners in the corridor.”

“Once in a while a rat crawls across the floor,” she said. “I’ve lost weight and am not sleeping too well, but I am still holding my head high.”

She complains of having been denied the right to call home and not receiving most of the books and letters people are sending her. “I crave letters from my family, friends and colleagues,” Oulahsen continued. She also says the highlight of her day is the exercise hour, when she “walks around in a dark concrete space of about five by five meters, where you’re lucky if you can see the sky through the cracks in the rotten and leaky roof.”

“It is now 30 days since our ship was seized and our 30 friends and colleagues were detained,” Greenpeace International Executive Director Kumi Naidoo said.

“They now face a charge of piracy—an absurd charge that carries a maximum 15 year jail sentence.”

“The Arctic 30 were standing up for all of us, defending a fragile environment and a climate in crisis and now we must stand with them. Their detention is an attack against every single person who has ever been willing to raise their voice to demand a better future for themselves and their children. Now these 30 people are prisoners of conscience and we are all responsible for their fate.”

“Greenpeace does not think it is above the law, but those 30 brave men and women are not pirates and this charge is a clear attempt to deter peaceful protest,” Naidoo continued. “We are here today to show our solidarity with the Arctic 30 and defend the right to peaceful protest. We call for their immediate release.”

http://ecowatch.com/2013/10/18/hundreds-protests-36-countries-demand-release-arctic-30/

Behind Russia vs. Greenpeace Furor, Unreported Oil Pollution of the Arctic

About 4 million barrels of spilled oil, as much as BP's Gulf of Mexico spill, is flowing into the Arctic Ocean every year, Greenpeace says.

By Zahra Hirji, InsideClimate News

Oct 16, 2013

A Russian Coast guard officer points a knife at a Greenpeace activist as protesters attempt to climb the Prirazlomnaya oil platform in the Arctic Ocean's Pechora Sea. Credit: Greenpeace

An environmental organization with a $350 million war chest, a giant protest vessel, 28 activists and a rubber raft have succeeded in drawingRussian President Vladimir V. Putin into a very public global dispute.

Attention is now focused on the Greenpeace activists—who were arrested last month by Coast Guard agents for trying to hang a protest banner on an Arctic Ocean oil platform—and whether they will languish in prison for up to 15 years each on dubious piracy charges.

"They are obviously not pirates," Putin said in a speech to the International Arctic Forum last month. Yet Russian authorities so far seem to be throwing the book at the activists as international outrage grows to secure their freedom. Protests have been held at Russian consulates in about a half dozen cities worldwide to release the activists.

While the unfolding drama is now focused on issues of civil disobedience and human rights, underneath the uproar is a tangle of issues around Arctic drilling that Greenpeace has been campaigning to address for many years. And now it has secured the world's attention and a chance to spark a discussion—and the stakes are high.

Earlier this year in a report called Point of No Return, the confrontational organization identified oil drilling in Arctic waters as one of the biggest climate threats being ignored by the world's governments. 

"Oil companies plan to take advantage of melting sea ice ... to produce up to 8 million barrels a day of oil and gas," Greenpeace said in the report. "The drilling would add 520 million tons of CO2 a year to global emissions by 2020."

That Greenpeace would target Russia's Prirazlomnoye oil platform—which this fall is expected be the world's first offshore Arctic well—should not come as a surprise. And it is equally unsurprising that Russia, currently the world's biggest oil producer, would react so sharply to protect its oil interests and the flagship project of its multibillion-dollar quest to drill, especially as the United States is overtaking Russia as the No. 1 energy producer.

"This is probably the strongest reaction we've gotten from a government since the French government blew up one of our ships [in 1985 in an anti-nuclear protest]," said Philip Radford, executive director of Greenpeace USA.

Hidden from view so far, however, has been the environmental damage the Arctic is already suffering at the hands of the Russian oil industry, a degradation that would likely get worse if the oil boom there continues without better regulation, according to Greenpeace and other Russian environmentalists and scientists. 

Every year, according to Greenpeace, about 30 million barrels of oil products leak from wells and pipelines in Russia. An estimated four million barrels of that, roughly the size of BP's Gulf of Mexico spill, flows straight into the Arctic Ocean through tributaries.

The precise impact of these spills on the fragile Arctic environment and its people is unknown but is likely substantial, Greenpeace says. For them the leaks—and the alleged lack of adequate means to deal with them—are an example of an inadequate safety culture in the country's oil industry. And they're causing deep concern about Russia's aggressive push to start drilling for oil in open Arctic waters.

"Russia will not be ready for effective monitoring, supervising and working in the Arctic Ocean," said Vladimir Chuprov, a Russian citizen and the head of energy for Greenpeace Russia in Moscow, the country's main energy industry watchdog. Chuprov has been monitoring oil spills for the past decade.

Poor Record

While Russia produces 12 percent of the world's oil, it is responsible for roughlyhalf the world's oil spills, according to Greenpeace Russia figures. Broken down, the numbers reveal that some 30 million barrels of petroleum leak from 20,000 inland spills each year.

Official government records paint a different picture. Russian environmental officials say there are only hundreds of inland spills a year. Among other omissions, however, those figures don't include spills that dump less than 56 barrels, because companies aren't required to report those incidents.

The two Russian oil companies that already received government approval to drill the Arctic have notorious records for oil accidents and spills.

The Prirazlomnoye platform in the Arctic's Pechora Sea that Greenpeace targeted is owned and operated by Gazprom Neft Shelf LLC, a subsidiary of the state-run energy giant OAO Gazprom. Gazprom Neft was responsible for the country's worst offshore oil disaster in December 2011, when a floating rig sank in the Sea of Okhotsk, killing 53 workers. According to the company's 2012 sustainability report, the company reported 2,626 pipeline ruptures that year and 3,257 ruptures in 2011. 

http://insideclimatenews.org/news/20131016/behind-russia-vs-greenpeace-furor-unreported-oil-pollution-arctic

• 1
 
• 2
 
• 3
 
• 4
 
• NEXT PAGE »

On Russia's controversial Arctic oil rig Prirazlomnaya

by Daniel Sandford, BBC News, Prirazlomnaya oil rig, Russia, October 7, 2013

The BBC's Daniel Sandford reports from onboard the Prirazlomnaya oil platform which was targeted by Greenpeace activists.

Remote and buffeted by icy waves, the Prirazlomnaya oil rig in the Arctic is the focus of a bitter dispute between Greenpeace and the Russian government - now an international court case.

The journey to the rig starts in Arkhangelsk, one of Russia's historic northern ports. From there it is a two-and-a-half hour flight in an old Soviet propeller plane - an Antonov 26-100 - to the tiny settlement of Verandey, where the oil companies have built a small airstrip by the shore of the Arctic Ocean.

From Verandey to the offshore oil platform is a half-hour helicopter ride, if the weather is good. But there was low cloud the first day we were there, so there were no helicopters and we spent the night in oil-workers' accommodation before trying again the next morning.

When we made the flight the helicopter was an old Mi-8, but the safety equipment was good. We were all given survival suits for the journey, just as you would find in the North Sea.

Soon we left the flat swampland behind and were out over the Pechora Sea.

Spill risk

The Prirazlomnaya rig, when it comes into sight, is a sturdy structure set about 20m (66ft)-deep on the seabed. The visible part of the platform - the "topside" - sits on a massive concrete and steel structure. The weight of this box is what keeps it in position.

Gazprom, the Russian state-owned company which operates the rig, says that this base is so heavy that it cannot be moved, even by thick ice. The company insists that drilling here is no different just because it is in the Arctic. It says there are many rigs - off Sakhalin Island in the far east for example - which have to cope with frozen seas.

But environmental campaigners - and not only Greenpeace - insist that the Arctic is different. They say the nature here is unique. The polar bears, walruses, narwhals that live there have nowhere else to go. They warn that the Arctic Ocean only has two narrow entrances - one by Iceland and the other by Alaska. That means there is little mixing with other seas, so any oil spill would not disperse. Then there is the cold.

Igor Chestin, chief executive of the environmental group WWF Russia, warns that because of the low temperatures an oil spill in the Arctic could be catastrophic.

"If you look at oil spills which happen in tropical waters, normally within a few years you don't find the oil anymore," he said, "because there are bacteria which actually absorb the oil and the oil disappears.

"But if you look at the northern environment, and for example the famous Exxon Valdez accident near Alaska, you still find the oil there. It's still poisoning the environment 24 years after the accident happened. It's still there. It didn't disappear - there are no micro-organisms which can absorb the oil."

He says that an oil spill that might disperse in three years in warmer waters might take 100 years to disperse in the Arctic.

"Not a single oil company currently has the technology to deal with an oil spill under the ice. Some of them know how to collect oil from the surface of the water, or from the surface of the ice, which is like land. But under the ice? There are no technologies which can deal with that, and that means that the oil can spread over the place."

The wellhead is encased inside the rig, protected from the harsh weather

Fire hoses

In response Gazprom claim they have done everything they can to prevent a spill. The shallow waters mean the wellhead is actually inside the rig. They have a sophisticated cut-off system on the hoses which will offload the oil into tankers. It detects any movement by the tanker, if it is pulled away by ice for example. If there is too much movement it stops the flow of oil.

Gazprom also insists that it could cope with a spill under the ice. It says two icebreakers are near the rig at all times, which could smash the pack ice and allow modern skimmers to clean up the oil.

The workers on the Prirazlomnaya have been targeted by Greenpeace two years in a row. This year they were ready. The chief of the platform, Artur Akopov, showed us his defences - the fire hoses that his crew used to spray the activists who were trying to tie themselves onto the rig.

It was used to deter the activists, and to make the side of the platform more slippery, and so more difficult to climb, he said.

The campaigners had put his oil rig and the environment at risk, he claimed.

"By coming so close Greenpeace could have damaged the base of the platform. When they threw up their equipment they could easily have hit somebody. Or they might have ruptured one of the pressurised pipes and caused a diesel spill."

That is something Greenpeace categorically deny. They used inflatable boats, and lightweight ropes.

Dutch challenge

When the activists started climbing the platform, the Gazprom staff on the rig called their headquarters in Moscow. Artur Akopov said this was part of a pre-agreed response plan to any protest action. Within hours the FSB arrived. They are responsible for Russia's international security and borders, and are one of the successor agencies to the Soviet KGB.

The FSB officers, who wore face masks, pulled the activists off the rig, pointed guns at them, and opened fire into the water, as can be seen on video released to the media by the FSB themselves.

Given the changes in how Russia has dealt with activists in the last two years, perhaps Greenpeace should have expected a strong response.

The Pussy Riot punk protest case last year put everyone on notice that long prison sentences are now a possibility.

The 30 Greenpeace activists, six of them British, are now in jail in Murmansk on charges of "piracy as part of an organised group". The Netherlands - where the Greenpeace ship Arctic Sunrise is registered - has challenged the arrests. It is using the Convention on the Law of the Sea to argue that the activists were illegally detained and should be released.

"Do you think they were pirates or protesters?" I asked Artur Akopov.

"That's for the court to decide" he said.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-24427153