Environmental impacts
Order Instructions:
Will upload
SAMPLE UPDATE
Environmental impacts are the positive or negative effects that are used as symptoms to predict the environmental consequences of a policy, program, plan or project. Impacts usually help in the understanding of a projects potential benefits or harm to the immediate environment. Usually, the level or degree of the environmental impact or potential impact in relation to a project determines the cost and benefits related to the project. Halley (2009) identifies that the words impact and effects can be used hand in hand.
The impacts that are related to a project are usually measured through impact assessments to propose measures that can either adjust the impacts to acceptable levels or investigate new ways in which those impacts can be mitigated say through integration of new technological solutions. Four environmental impacts in relation to the future government project to expand the Camisea gas field of the San Martín reservoir will be discussed in this paper. They include the biological impacts of the project to human beings as well as other living things in the area, the impact of the project to the surface and ground water systems as well as the impacts to the lithosphere and atmosphere at large.
The impacts of the gas expansion project can also either is irreversible, synergistic, cumulative or positive in nature. Irreversible impacts are those that can never be changed ones they occur. Synergistic effects on the other hand are environmental impacts that arise between two or more factors or substances that produces an effect greater than the sum of their individual capacities. Mayes and Lewis (2012) define cumulative effects in environmental impact assessment as the net result of environmental impact from a number of projects and activities. Many environmental problems for example, such as increase in air pollution result from the cumulative effects of human activities or effects such as acid rain, loss of biodiversity and rapid climatic changes. Cumulative effects are therefore the combination of multiple activities.
According to Banqueri (2006), the biosphere is the zone of life on the earth as it is the combination of all ecosystems. It integrates all living things including plants and animals as well as microorganisms. In order to extract and transport natural gas from the Urubamba River area to major markets around the Americas, construction to place manmade structures such as pipelines required for the drilling of oil and gas can alter the traditional use of the land by the locals and home the local symbiotic relationships between the ecosystems. This harm could include the advent of soil erosion through the felling if trees in the forests for drilling infrastructure therefore affecting the wildlife ecosystems, their migration and breeding patterns as well as the destruction of the water catchment areas hindering the levels of both surface and underground water sources. This kind of alteration to the environment and soil structure is irreversible in nature and is therefore better prevented than cured (Thomashow, 2002).
When forests are destroyed to clear a site, the construction process also poses a threat with the erosion of minerals and harmful pollutants into streams affecting the river, lake, stream and sea ecosystems through sedimentation which as a result leads to aquatic contamination. Usually, deforestation is always a permanent exercise as nobody cuts trees and plants others. The threat of sedimentation because of deforestation is an indication to that the effects of these are synergistic in nature as the erosion of minerals from the soils also pollutes the water resources (Zelli, 2014). It is clear therefore that the individual impacts from a single factor in the examples given above may not be significant on their own as single entities but when combined with other impacts the effects become significant indicating that all these effects are not just irreversible, synergistic, cumulative or positive in nature but are intertwined and connected (Krzyzanowski, 2010).
The hydrosphere is also affected by the activities of oil and gas exploration through hydraulic fracking. In this process, various chemicals are mixed with a mixture of many gallons of water and sand and then injected into the wells with very high pressure. This fracking method however, has been seen by the locals around the Camisea field to pose threats to water, air, land, and the health of their community. Fracking sites in oil and gas extraction, according to Nagelhout (2014) have caused smog in rural areas over the years around the Camisea field and the San Martín area ecosystems in general. The locals experiences where oil and gas exploration is concerned and their value for the preservation of natural ecosystem services that they have been enjoying prior to the 1980s remain a source of concern for them to the point where it is difficult to convince them that the planned natural gas extension project in the Camisea area will have minimal negative impact. The cumulative effects of these factors to the eyes of the locals have resulted in their negative campaigns against the expansion of the project.
Documented cases of contamination of groundwater near oil and gas with fracking fluids as well as with gases, including methane and volatile organic compounds has also been noted by researchers (Ralph, 2012). Kessler (2005) also reveals that tropical regions such as Peru hold high methane concentrations increasing their probability and possibility of contamination to the environment as improperly constructed or failing wells allow gas to leak into groundwater. Cases of contamination for example have been documented in similar areas in the United States such as Ohio and Pennsylvania (Wilber, 2012).
Since drilling muds, diesel and other machinery fluid are used in the process, leaks and spills also spill at the surface creating permanent damage to the land making it unfit for use for agriculture in the future even when the natural gas deposits dry out. Since fracturing involves the use of a lot of water, the local water supplies may also be strained as a result of expansion of this project. Synergistic and cumulative effects are also bound to emerge when water becomes scarce. When water is scarce, agriculture and food production reduces and therefore the local food supply to the area also declines. A decline in the food supply results in an increase of food demand and therefore the prices of food are likely to increase in the area which will make the cost of living in the area increase. The irreversible impact of fracturing also is that most of the water used in the process is not recoverable.
Where the impact to the lithosphere is concerned, agricultural practice can also be affected by the large quantities of chemicals such as hydrochloric acid, bactericides and friction-reducing chemicals. These chemicals are usually stored in a typical well pad and if not properly managed, leakages and spillages during transport could leak into agricultural land in the area causing massive irreversible losses. The cumulative effects to the atmosphere could include the development of smog should the natural gas be burned in large quantities because of the production of several nitrogen oxides with the air. However, these factors could lead to irreversible public health conditions and illnesses for people in the area because respiratory diseases such as asthma, lung cancer, heart disease and bronchitis have been linked to the said pollutants.
The Impact Evaluation
The impact evaluation seeks to evaluate the environmental impacts associated with the processes of production, processing, transportation, storage and distribution of natural gas and oil to the Peru ecosystem. According to Gertler (2011), impact evaluation should be illustrated using the EIA operating principles of good practice such as scoping, examination of alternatives, impact analysis and mitigation. Scoping is involved with the identifying of impacts that are most important such as the benefits of the project to the local community and the mitigation of the worst possible risks that the locals are concerned about. An examination of alternatives as defined by McCabe (2003) is the establishment of the most preferred environmentally beneficial option for achieving the objectives of both parties where conserving the heritage of the area’s environment and safe and pollution free alternatives are found. Impact analysis involves the identification and the prediction of the related impacts to the most environmentally beneficial option. Impact management and mitigation involves establishing measures that are necessary to mitigate or even avoid completely the predicted adverse effects that would then be incorporated into an environmental management system (Cancilla, 2010).
Where production is concerned, the drilling of the wells and the clearing of forest for creation of the space to construct the central gathering unit that includes pipelines, liquid storage tanks, facilities will result into negative impacts such as increasing soil erosion and sedimentation, pollution of the land and air by the use of separators, pneumatic devices, chemical injection pumps, dehydrators and compressors. The processing unit will include the utilization of gas acid removal units that would help reduce the impact of acid pollution which is a positive impact. Where transportation and distribution of the natural oil and gas is concerned, pipeline networks will have to be build and many trees within the demarcated pipeline plan will have to be fell which would affect the water catchment areas and make the area prone to soil erosion. People living around these networks will also have to be evacuated and resettled for their own safety which might be an inconvenience to them. However, the presence of meter and pressure regulating stations as well as the gas facilities will ensure that general infrastructure such as electricity and roads will be built or upgraded which will speed up the development of that area. Another positive impact would be that jobs will be created as a result of the expansion of the project (Kandiyoti, 2008).
Environmental Management Plan
The environmental management plan will therefore include priorities such as demarcating sensitive lands and watersheds completely off limits to oil and gas production, curbing air pollution from drilling and production to distribution across the system by setting clean air standards that minimize methane leakage and prevention of smog-formation and cancer-causing toxic air pollution, mandating the use of drilling best practices, funding robust inspection and enforcement programs to protect the environment from pollution and setting up commissions and taskforces for the same, and making the local public or government a shareholder of the oil and gas companies ensuring that oil and gas companies post adequate bonds or other financial securities, disclosure of chemical information used in the processes, facilitating the transparency and public participation of regulatory processes associated with oil and gas development and restricting fracking through comprehensive zoning and planning (Montgomery, 2003).
Works Cited
Banqueri, Eduardo. The Biosphere Philadelphia: Chelsea House Pub., 2006.
Cancilla, Riccardo. Global Environmental Policies: Impact, Management and Effects. Hauppauge, N.Y.: Nova Science Publishers, 2010.
Gertler, Paul. Impact Evaluation in Practice Washington, D.C.: World Bank, 2011.
Halley, George T. Environmental Impact Assessments New York: Nova Science Publishers, 2009.
Kandiyoti, R. Pipelines Flowing Oil and Crude Politics London: I.B. Tauris, 2008.
Kessler, John Daniel. Studies on Oceanic Methane: Concentrations, Stable Isotope Ratios, and Natural Radiocarbon Measurements. 2005.
Krzyzanowski, Judi, and Pedro Lara Almuedo. Cumulative Impacts of Natural Resource Development and Ecosystems and Wildlife an Annotated Bibliography for British Columbia Kamloops, B.C.: FORREX Forum for Research and Extension in Natural Resources, 2010.
Mayes, Linda, and Michael Lewis the Cambridge Handbook of Environment in Human Development Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2012.
McCabe, Mary. Studies of EIA Practice in Developing Countries Geneva, Switzerland: United Nations Environment Programme, 2003.
Montgomery, Carla W. Environmental Geology. 6th ed. Boston: McGraw-Hill, 2003.
Nagelhout, Ryan. Fracking New York, NY: Gareth Stevens Publishing, 2014.
Ralph, Peter. Dirty Fracking Business Melbourne: Melbourne Books, 2012.
Thomashow, Mitchell. Bringing the Biosphere Home Learning to Perceive Global Environmental Change Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 2002
Wilber, Tom. Under the Surface: Fracking, Fortunes and the Fate of the Marcellus Shale. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 2012.
Zelli, Fariborz. Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation (REDD) in Peru: A Challenge to Social Inclusion and Multi-level Governance. Bonn: Dt. Inst. Für Entwicklungspolitik, 2014. https://www.die-gdi.de/studies/article/reducing-emissions-from-deforestation-and-forest-degradation-redd-in-peru-a-challenge-to-social-inclusion-and-multi-level-governance/
We can write this or a similar paper for you! Simply fill the order form!
