Best of our wild blogs: 2 Nov 09


Brown and beastly things
from The annotated budak

Authentic fellowships
from talfryn.net

Job opportunity at Republic Polytechnic
full time or part time staff to facilitate Environmental Science modules,
from ecotax

Attempt to Manipulate and Confuse Public Thinking on Climate Change from AsiaIsGreen

The real deal
from The Lazy Lizard's Tales

A Few First Sightings @ Mandai
from Beauty of Fauna and Flora in Nature

from macritchie to bt timah this time
from isn't it a wonder, how life came to be

Unknown Bird Perched High Up On A Dead Tree
from Life's Indulgences

To be fixed
from The annotated budak

So much rubbish for these small bins at Henderson Waves
from The Lazy Lizard's Tales

Eagle-like bird spotted at Serangoon North Ave 2
from The Lazy Lizard's Tales

Little Tern hunting
from Bird Ecology Study Group

Lower Peirce - Life on the handrails
from Singapore Nature

Monkeys roam freely in Pasir Ris
from The Lazy Lizard's Tales

Monday Morgue: 2nd November 2009
from The Lazy Lizard's Tales

Latest biodiversity happenings on our shores on the NParks e-newsletter from wild shores of singapore


Read more!

Runners stuck to designated trails at nature reserve

Straits Times Forum 2 Nov 09;

I REFER to last Saturday's letter by the Nature Society (Singapore), 'Don't hold races in sensitive nature reserves'.

The society is right to highlight that our nature reserves are precious and need to be preserved. The Government's actions to preserve and conserve our nature reserves in our small city-state have been commendable, with more than 10 per cent of the country's land managed by the National Parks Board (NParks). NParks has an obligation to protect the plant and animal life in our nature reserves but, at the same time, is committed to enhancing the quality of life of Singaporeans by creating memorable recreational experiences.

It is important to note that sports and running has become a way of life for Singaporeans.

We are an active and sporting nation with a strong running community, and as runners mature in this sport, we will see more cross-overs from road to trail running. More and more Singaporeans are participating in international endurance trail races and it is necessary for Singapore, as a nation, to support and encourage our athletes to excel in this sport by providing the necessary infrastructure for them to train. This should include opening more trails to runners and organising trail races to act as a springboard to bigger higher-profile races worldwide.

Although only in our second year, the North Face 100 Singapore race is already a running event in the international calendar with runners from 42 different nationalities running in this year's race. We should not underestimate the role such an event has to play as we endeavour to build Singapore into a centre for sports in Asia.

That said, I would like to highlight the fact that the North Face 100 ultra-marathon organising committee has worked hand-in-hand with NParks to design a race that would minimise impact on our nature reserves.

The runners stuck to designated NParks trails and were flagged off in waves over a six-hour period; again, to minimise the impact a large group would have on the reserves.

We are also in the process of launching a trail maintenance programme whereby runners can be actively responsible for our trails by volunteering to repair the ground to stop soil erosion.

The North Face, as a company, and our runners are dedicated to preserving the places we explore.

Elaine Tay (Ms)
Event Director
The North Face 100 Singapore


Read more!

CLIMATE CHANGE: What Singaporeans can do

Straits Times Forum 2 Nov 09;

I REFER to last Friday's report, 'Singapore rejects emission cuts'.

Even if it is economically unfeasible to cut emissions as a small country, there is still plenty residents can do to protect the environment. I have a few suggestions:

# Eat less. Singaporeans love to eat, but do we need to eat as much as we eat now and also waste a lot of food?

# Drive less. To drive less is to be stuck less in traffic jams. This means tremendous savings in terms of fuel costs, Electronic Road Pricing (ERP) charges and unproductive hours spent in cars. Ultimately, this has the beneficial effect of cutting down on aggregate emissions too.

# Recycle more. Singapore does not yet have a recycling facility for home appliances, or a facility for battery disposal, though we are a nation of gadget lovers.

Toxicity from disposed batteries and appliances ultimately leaks into groundwater, which threatens not only the environment as a whole, but also future generations of this country.

# Use less air-conditioning. This is not only wallet-friendly but also cuts down on aggregate emissions when we collectively use less electricity.

Most of these suggestions are within the discretion of each resident. It is true that as Singapore is a small country, the consequences of environmental practices are likely negligible relative to the scale of global pollution today. But let us do our part.

Jeffrey Chan


Act now to counter looming threat
Straits Times Forum 2 Nov 09;

I REFER to Dr Andy Ho's commentary last Friday, 'Reasons for Singapore to be cool on global warming'.

Dr Ho could not be more wrong.

He calls into question the 2007 statement by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), by saying it had the support of 2,500 scientists, but noting that this number 'actually includes those who disagree with parts of it but had no say in the final text'.

The IPCC statement is very much a lowest common denominator document; most of the climate scientists who disagree with parts of it but who signed it actually consider that the threat facing humanity is worse than what the IPCC report says, not milder.

Dr Ho cites the petition by 9,029 scientists who say that global warming is not caused by human activities, but does not point out that these are scientists of all descriptions, few of whom have any background in climate studies.

There are people who cling to the arguments that global warming is not happening, or that it is not caused by human activity, but then there are also people who still cling to the idea that there is no conclusive scientific evidence that smoking increases the risk of cancer.

There is much in science that is not 100 per cent certain and powerful vested interests will make the most of that, but when evidence stacks up in support of a particular proposition, it makes sense to sit up and take notice. It also makes sense to look where the weight of expert research and opinion lies.

What will happen when rising sea levels and more violent storms devastate coastal areas where hundreds of millions of people live, as is already happening in Bangladesh and Egypt?

Come to that, how will Singaporeans themselves feel about having to pay for sea walls to protect reclaimed land in the future as protection from tidal surges, or to cope with higher daily temperatures?

Every effort must be made to counter this threat.

John Richard Gee

Singapore not part of developing world - it's a developed nation
Straits Times Forum 2 Nov 09;

I REFER to Dr Andy Ho's commentary last Friday, 'Reasons for Singapore to be cool on global warming".

The main point of the commentary seems to be that the science of climate change is not exact enough to guide policies conclusively. However, surprisingly, the rest is dedicated to a proposal to formulate policies based on exactly the type of reasoning the commentary warns against: that is, drawing bold political conclusions from climate science.

Policymakers are well aware of the uncertainties inherent in climate science, yet decide to err on the side of caution.

However, what I found surprising in the commentary was the confident claim that Singapore is not a developed country, but 'still part of the developing world'.

This is in direct contradiction to what I have learnt through the media.

As a matter of fact, the FTSE Group classifies Singapore as a developed country. This classification is designed to help decision-making by investors.

Panagiotis Karras

Legal action needed to tackle haze
Letter from Tong Jee Cheng
Today Online 1 Nov 09;

For many years our Asean government representatives have been meeting to discuss on the haze issue cause by forest fires in Indonesia. Yet every year, we still have the haze 'season'.

It has been reported again that members of Asean have agreed to hold a haze prevention forum annually to address the problem of land and forest fires. What is 'new' this time is that Singapore introduced the forum this year, to bring together heads of local governments and international non-government organizations to share best practices in preventing the haze.

Suffering citizens of Asean countries need strong legal action against erring the country and/or plantation owners, not best practices. What we want is concrete action and not just talk year after year. The governments are aware of the enormous health and economic impact of the haze and yet they let their citizens endure the haze for years.

To read that Singapore is taking the lead in the matter is an irony. It has been reported that our government will not be one of the signatories to reduce global carbon emission. One of the reasons given is that the scientific evidence of global warming due to carbon emission is not conclusive.

Is not the annual haze in Singapore evident of carbon emission causing global warming ? The temperature rises to uncomfortable levels every year during the haze season. We experience it physically. We do not need rocket science to prove it.

Climate change - what we eat more crucial than quantity
Straits Times Forum 3 Nov 09;

I REFER to Mr Jeffrey Chan's letter yesterday, 'Climate change: What Singaporeans can do'.

He suggests eating less food, and that may be a good idea for some of us. However, more important than how much we eat is what we eat. In particular, we need to reduce our meat consumption.

Last month, Lord Stern, lead author of the British government's Stern Review on the Economics of Climate Change, one of the most comprehensive on the subject, stated: 'Meat is a wasteful use of water and creates a lot of greenhouse gases. It puts enormous pressure on the world's resources. A vegetarian diet is better.'

Lord Stern, a former World Bank chief economist, likened meat eating to drink driving and forecast that as we learn about the environmental harm done by meat production, meat eating will become less socially acceptable.

The link between meat and global warming involves two overlapping factors. First, eating meat is inefficient because to produce just 1kg of meat, we must feed many kilos of plant food to the animals we later eat. This means more forests cut down to grow feed for these animals rather than food for humans. Yes, we need these forests to take in carbon dioxide.

The second meat-climate change link involves the gases released by the animals we eat as part of their digestive processes and from their manure. In particular, the gases methane and nitrous oxide contain much greater climate change power than carbon dioxide.

Fortunately, in Singapore, we have access to a wide range of meatless foods at restaurants, food centres and markets. Furthermore, many non-vegetarian restaurants and stalls are happy to prepare meatless dishes on request. Thus, every day, three times a day, we can each do our bit to reverse climate change.

Dr George Jacobs
President, Vegetarian Society (Singapore)

Related blog posts

  • Attempt to Manipulate and Confuse Public Thinking on Climate Change from AsiaIsGreen
  • Andy Ho shares his greater knowledge on climate change from Green Drinks Singapore


Read more!

Greening versus warming in Singapore

Straits Times 2 Nov 09;

SEEKING a responsible balance between economic growth and environmental protection is a challenge every nation has to address as the issue of climate change ranks ever higher in international agendas. Singapore can cite as one example of its contributions the impressive strides it has made and is planning to make in green technology and environmental sustainability. With advanced and emerging economies facing growing pressure on reducing carbon emissions ahead of the Copenhagen climate summit next month, Environment and Water Resources Minister Yaacob Ibrahim said: 'We are not obligated to set targets or reduce emissions but... we will do our part.' Prime Minister Lee

Hsien Loong reinforced this commitment when he said that Singapore was looking at doing more than what it had set out in its national blueprint to reduce carbon emissions.

And doing its part Singapore has, since attaining Independence. As National Development Minister Mah Bow Tan recalled during the first Singapore Green Building Week last week, the Government has planned land use judiciously and enforced strict pollution control to maintain air and water quality. Not to mention a garden city with an extensive canopy, designed decades ago and continually improved upon.

Take buildings, which use 31 per cent of electricity, the second biggest consumer after industry. Since 2005, when the Building and Construction Authority (BCA) began awarding the Green Mark, it has been given to more than 250 large projects that built in or retrofitted energy- and water-saving innovations. A new Green Building Council which Deputy Prime Minister Teo Chee Hean announced at the international green building conference last week will help render 80 per cent of all buildings energy-efficient and environmentally friendly by 2030.

Singapore is well placed in that its urban and tropical setting makes it an ideal laboratory for green building research and development. More international recognition came in the form of an agreement the United Nations Environment Programme signed with BCA to collaborate on building best practices in Asia. The 'zero energy' building that BCA opened demonstrates it takes less than a year to equip an existing building with solar panels and other features that enable it to generate as much electricity as it uses.

As it becomes an international centre for green technology, Singapore is taking its place on the battle front against global warming. As a small place with few resources, Singapore has to optimise what it has and keep its environment clean and green as it steps up industrialisation, Mr Mah said last week. These are green imperatives more powerful than any outside impositions to manage climate change.


Read more!

Solar Power: Green energy's bright future

Michael Richardson, Straits Times 2 Nov 09;

ASIA'S two emerging economic giants, China and India, are starting to place big bets on solar power plants as a way of generating clean and green electricity to reduce their reliance on polluting coal.

Similar bets are being made or planned in the United States, Australia, Israel and Europe. A dozen leading companies in Germany recently outlined a long-term project to invest more than US$500 billion (S$700 billion) in solar arrays in the sun-drenched deserts of North Africa and the Middle East.

If the venture goes ahead, these sun-powered plants will eventually produce about 100,000 megawatts (MW) of electricity - about the same output as 200 coal-burning power stations, or 100 nuclear plants. The consortium aims to import much of the desert output through low-loss cables, meeting 15 per cent of Europe's electricity needs by 2050.

Two different solar technologies - photovoltaic (PV) and solar thermal - are competing in this race. The outcome will have a significant impact on Singapore's photovoltaic-based programme to develop solar technologies for the tropics and tap future markets for clean energy in the Asian sun-belt, which receives about 50 per cent more solar radiation than temperate countries.

India's Gujarat state has announced it will build a 3,000 MW solar power farm in an arid zone at a cost of US$10 billion, as part of a national plan to install 20,000 MW of solar electricity generating capacity by 2020. It will use solar thermal technology, which uses the sun to heat fluids that drive steam turbines to generate electricity.

Meanwhile, China signed an understanding in September with First Solar, a US solar power developer and the world's largest PV cell manufacturer, for a 2,000 MW photovoltaic farm to be built in the desert of Inner Mongolia at a cost of US$5 billion to US$6 billion.

PV solar panels convert sunlight directly into electricity. But with current technology, only 16 per cent to 20 per cent of this energy can be turned into electricity.

First Solar has also agreed to supply two Californian utilities with 1,100 MW of electricity from three big PV farms in the desert of the south-western US.

In California alone, 35 large-scale solar power plants are being built or proposed. They have the capacity to generate 12,000 MW of electricity.

Most of these plants, and similar big solar power farms being developed in other parts of the world, use solar thermal, not PV, technology.

Instead of converting the sun's rays directly into electricity using costly semiconductor-grade silicon cells arranged in panels, solar thermal plants use relatively cheap polished metal mirrors to focus those rays onto boilers that make steam to drive turbines, or onto containers of special low-melting-point salts that will store heat overnight so that it is available to drive turbines during the hours of darkness.

Storing energy from PV panels would require a new generation of high-capacity batteries - still a research project in its infancy for the scale needed. Moreover, building a commercial-scale solar thermal plant costs significantly less than a PV farm with the same output, although First Solar's project in China may narrow this gap.

But PV has some inherent advantages. One is that solar thermal requires direct sunlight. A cloudy day will cut power output to near zero, whereas PV cells will generate at least some power until night falls.

PV cells are more flexible in the way they can be made and used. This is an advantage in urban settings. They can be attached to buildings, usually the roof, or other infrastructure to generate electricity and provide heat or cooling power, with surplus electricity sold to the grid when not needed at the generation site.

PV arrays can also provide distributed power in developing countries or remote rural areas that are not connected to a national grid.

As concerns about climate change and water shortages rise, a key advantage of PV technology is that it needs only relatively small amounts of water, mainly to wash the panels so that they work at optimum efficiency.

Many solar thermal plants need large amounts of water for cooling. This has to be drawn from scarce underground water supplies. An alternative, air cooling, uses far less water but adds about 10 per cent in costs.

To help solar power gain traction, governments have offered a range of tax incentives and subsidies.

Yet, the Singapore Government's National Energy Policy Report, published almost two years ago, concluded that solar PV was still about two or three times more expensive than Singapore's grid electricity, mainly generated from burning natural gas. However, it noted that the cost of solar PV was falling at about 5 per cent a year due to improvements in manufacturing processes and technology.

The International Energy Agency (IEA) has concluded that PV power has 'the potential to be a significant and affordable contributor to global electricity generation in the future'.

The IEA believes that solar PV plants could provide 11 per cent of global electricity generation by 2050 - cutting emissions of carbon dioxide by 233.7 billion kg a year. But to reach this target, PV power producers will have to bring generating costs down by half to reach parity with typical electricity grid prices by 2020.

As grid parity is achieved, the IEA says that self-sustaining markets need to evolve, with incentives for PV production being phased out and replaced by flexible, efficient and smart grids able to integrate, store, manage and distribute electricity from a wide range of sources.

The writer is a visiting senior research fellow at the Institute of Southeast Asian Studies.


Read more!

Indonesia activist hunts poachers of endangered wildlife

Irma Hermawati, who works for a nonprofit, seeks to stem a lucrative trade in rare animals, including orangutans and the Sumatran tiger, that is evident in teeming Indonesian markets.

John M. Glionna, LA Times 2 Nov 09;

Reporting from Jakarta, Indonesia - The monkey, shackled to an iron stake, paced a narrow strip of dirt filled with its own excrement. As people laughed and pointed, the creature bared its teeth and lunged at the end of its line. "He gets angry," said one trader at the teeming animal market here. "Like a little person."

Irma Hermawati gets angry too. The 31-year-old Javanese native is an investigator for the nonprofit group ProFauna, which lobbies on behalf of what she believes is Indonesia's most precious resource: its indigenous wildlife.

She spends her days plotting sting operations against well-organized poaching rings that extend across Indonesia. Wearing a traditional veil over her face, she also ventures undercover into Jakarta's riotous animal markets.

Hermawati is hunting the animal hunters.

Poaching has joined rampant logging and jungle deforestation as one of this developing nation's most pressing environmental problems. Indonesia has 230 animals on its endangered species list, and virtually every one of them can be bought here in the capital.

"It's alarming to see that Indonesia's list of protected species is getting longer, not shorter," she said. "People want medicine and exotic pets. If an animal is protected and therefore expensive, they think it gives them status to own it."

Each year, hundreds of thousands of animals are trapped and carted from the forest to supply an underground market that activists say reaps between $10 million and $20 million annually.

Although laws prohibit such poaching and sales, enforcement is weak and in many places nonexistent.

The hunted animals include Sumatran tigers, orangutans, cockatoos, monkeys, bats, parrots, turtles, even baby elephants, activists say. Poachers often employ crude trapping techniques that leave animals with wounds and infections that go untreated.

Cramped in crates, many animals die on the long, secretive journey to market. Some are given tranquilizers or drugs before being smuggled out of the country, where they are resold for 10 times their local value.

"The problem is real and bigger than anyone realized," said Aschta Boestani, an Indonesia expert for the Wildlife Enforcement Network of the Assn. of Southeast Asian Nations.

In addition to the many creatures are displayed and sold legally at markets in Jakarta and elsewhere, many vendors keep a secret list of species for customers willing to pay $500 for a Sumatran tiger or $2,000 for a Javan gibbon.

"You'd be surprised what's on those lists," Boestani said. "Sun bears packed off to Japan. Tigers sent to China for medicine. Pangolins shipped to Vietnam -- some of the most beautiful imperiled creatures on the planet."

Government officials admit they are fighting a losing battle. With Indonesia having little money for public education campaigns and only 12,000 rangers to cover nearly 50 million acres of dense forest, poachers often operate with impunity.

"Nobody wants to see this. People see magazine pictures of gorgeous, colorful birds and exotic animals and they ask, 'Why can't you stop this?' " said Tonny Soehartono, the former director of biodiversity conservation with the Forestry Ministry.

"It comes down to money. There is a market for these animals that draws organized-crime syndicates," he said. "The jungle is a difficult place to enforce the law."

On a recent day at Jakarta's Pramuka market, thousands of bamboo cages hung overhead -- many filled with birds supposedly protected by the government -- as customers and traders crowded into a maze of darkened merchant stalls.

One vendor sought $750 for a Balinese monkey that sat in a cramped cage, barely able to move. Nearby, two vendors demonstrated how a small wooden device inserted into the anus of a pigeon produced a whistling noise when the bird flew. Woodpeckers hammered at logs and large bats hung upside down in cages.

"Batman," the merchant said, smiling, patting the cage.

Just down the road at the sprawling Jatinegara market, a baby brown eagle indigenous to Indonesia was tied to a stick, eyeing passersby with a look that seemed a mixture of fear and fury.

Hermawati first witnessed the fate of Indonesia's wildlife on mountain hikes in East Java, when she saw exotic birds trapped in tiny cages, waiting to be scooped up by poachers.

"It was cruel," she said, "and I wanted to find out how to stop it."

She joined ProFauna in 1998 and soon relocated to Jakarta, the Indonesian capital, where she saw firsthand the extent of the urban smuggling network.

At some markets here, a deposit of just $50 can get a customer a tiger, endangered monkey or orangutan delivered in a week.

The job is dangerous. She has received death threats. Ominous visitors have shown up at her office outside Jakarta.

What keeps her going, she said, are the successful stings that land poachers in jail -- at least for the time being.

At one house in Jakarta, investigators recovered 65 types of dead animals, including the skins of two Sumatran tigers and an Indonesian honey bear, along with a stuffed peacock, all of which were being readied for market.

But her strangest case came a few years ago when months of surveillance led to the arrest of a Jakarta man who had illegally kept an orangutan as a pet in his home.

The animal was sickly and overweight and had even taken up smoking cigarettes, Hermawati said.

She has caught one smuggler carrying a baby orangutan in a computer bag. Another had stuffed a rare parakeet inside a water pipe, and still another carried a small monkey in a lunch box.

But many cases end in frustration when suspects are given light sentences and do little or no jail time. "Many people still do not take this issue seriously," she said.

"Indonesia already has so many problems with its people," Hermawati said. "They ask, 'Why should we care about animals?' "

Besides going after those who smuggle endangered species, she said, activists are working to pass animal cruelty laws in Indonesia so creatures can no longer be kept in the decrepit conditions that exist in the Jakarta markets.

ProFauna faces an uphill battle. Activists say that one Forestry Ministry officer in northern Sumatra was recently found to be moonlighting as an animal smuggler.

Still, this professional hunter lives for the chase.

"I want to catch these smugglers and traders and put them out of business for good. I want to send them to prison," she said.

"They put so many animals in cages. I want them to experience for themselves what it's like to be kept in a cage."


Read more!

Tigers wander near villages in Bengkulu, Indonesia

The Jakarta Post 1 Nov 09;

Local residents in the Bengkulu regencies of Seluma and Kaur have spotted footprints of at least three Sumatran tigers around their villages.

Begkulu nature conservation center official Jaja Mulyana told Antara on Sunday a tiger was believed to wander around Tanjung Aur and Air Bacang villages near a production forest in Kaur regency, which borders the South Bukit Barisan National Park.

Footprints of an adult tiger, believed to be female, and a cub were found in Puguk and Lubuk Resam villages near Semidang Bukit Kabu conservation area in Seluma regency.

A village chief, Sirajudin, said local residents had often spotted a tiger near their farmland recently.

Jaja said the provincial nature conservation agency would not capture the tigers despite the residents’ fear, saying the carnivores had been hunting for their preys there before their habitat was converted into resettlement areas.

Jaja called on the residents to keep their cattle from the forest.


Read more!

Activists Slam Business Focus at Coral Summit

Arti Ekawati, Jakarta Globe 1 Nov 09;

The member countries of the Coral Triangle Initiative will hold their next summit in Manila, the Philippines, on January 18-21. The summit plans, however, have drawn protests from non-governmental organizations, which claim the CTI is too business-orientated, and not focused on protecting coral reefs and coastal dwellers from the impacts of global warming.

The six member CTI last came together at the Manado Summit in May to express their concern about the need to protect coral reefs from the impact of global warming. The CTI is also aimed at heightening the awareness of coastal residents about rising sea levels and the need to protect coral reefs to support local livelihoods.

The member nations of the CTI are Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, Papua New Guinea, the Solomon Islands and East Timor.

According to the Web site of the Worldwide Fund for Nature, the next summit will be jointly organized by the Philippine government and the WWF, and will focus on business opportunities for key sectors operating in the Coral Triangle region.

The summit is also planning to discuss how to provide financial support and investment for “green” and “sustainable” businesses, and is expected to be attended by business leaders as well as policy makers.

“By inviting sectors that rely on a healthy marine environment in the Coral Triangle, as well as the tourism, communications and investment sectors, this business summit will contribute to the pursuit of sustainable business development and investment,” Manuel Gerochi, the undersecretary at the Philippine Department of Environment and Natural Resources, was quoted as saying on the WWF Web site.

However, Riza Damanik, secretary general of the Fisheries Justice Coalition (Kiara), expressed his disappointment at the focus of the summit, saying it was just another way of continuing the commercialization of the oceans.

“The Coral Triangle Business Summit will only accommodate the interests of investment and commercialization in the CTI area, which is almost 80 percent located within Indonesian territory,” Riza said on Friday in Jakarta.

The commercialization process, he continued, threatened the interests of traditional fishermen and communities, and would do nothing to help them respond to climate change.

“Local people will no longer have independence in managing their own areas,” he said, despite the fact that they had proven themselves capable of doing so in a sustainable fashion.

Riza urged the government to review its commitment to the CTI and its intentions in commercializing the Coral Triangle region.


Read more!

Leaking Timor Sea oil rig catches fire

Reuters 1 Nov 09;

SYDNEY, Nov 1 (Reuters) - An oil rig operated by a unit of top Thai energy firm PTTEP in the Timor Sea, which has been leaking for 10 weeks, caught fire on Sunday, officials said.

The West Atlas rig operated by PTTEP Australasia, a unit of PTT Exploration and Production (PTTEP) PTTE.BK, started leaking on Aug. 21 and efforts to stop the leak have failed.

PTTEP finally stopped the leak on Sunday, but as it was trying to fill the hole with heavy mud, the West Atlas rig and Montara wellhead platform caught fire, said Australian officials.

All workers were safe and were being evacuated from the rig, more than 200 km (125 miles) off the northwest Australian coast.

"Current operations are focused on reducing the intensity of the fire," said Australian Resources Minister Martin Ferguson.

"Some of the world's leading experts are working to fix the leaking well and respond to this latest problem," he said in a statement.

Ferguson said the National Offshore Petroleum Safety Authority had been called out to help fight the fire and that Geoscience Australia and the Australian Maritime Safety Authority were on standby.

The leaking rig was due to start commercial operations this month.

The Montara field could be one of the main sources of profit for PTTEP in the second half of this year as many analysts expect higher output from new oil and gas fields to boost its sales.

PTTEP plans to produce about 35,000 barrels of oil per day from the Montara field, which should boost its 2009 petroleum sales to 240,000 bpd.

Montara is the flagship in the exploration and production business for PTTEP and which is involved in about 40 oil and gas exploration and development projects in 14 countries in the Middle East, Africa and Asia.

The Australian government on Saturday released a report saying birds and marine species were at risk from the oil spill, but it said the full impact could not be immediately determined.

"This spill has been a disaster from the outset," Australian Greens Senator Rachel Siewert said on Sunday.

"Coupled with the environmental impacts of the oil entering the ocean, the potentially hazardous effects of the dispersants being used and the threat to fisheries both here and in Indonesia, now we have a fire on our hands." (Reporting by Michael Perry; Editing by Dean Yates)

Fire on leaking oil rig off Australian coast
AFP Google news 1 Nov 09;

SYDNEY — Australian authorities were Sunday ordered to help extinguish a fire which broke out on a leaking oil rig that has been pumping thousands of barrels of oil into the Timor Sea for months.

Energy Minister Martin Ferguson directed the National Offshore Petroleum Safety Authority to "extend every possible assistance" to respond to the blaze on the West Atlas rig off Australia's northwest coast.

Australia's Maritime Safety Authority will also support efforts to quell the fire on the drilling rig which has been spewing up to 400 barrels of oil into the ocean each day since August 21, he said.

"Fire broke out on the West Atlas drilling rig and the Montara wellhead platform after the West Triton successfully intercepted the leaking well this morning," Ferguson said.

"Well kill operations were under way at the time, but have now been suspended.

"Current operations are focused on reducing the intensity of the fire."

The rig's Thai-based operator, PTTEP Australasia, said specialists had finally succeeded in the first stage of plugging the well at 9:30 am (0130 GMT) after weeks of failed attempts.

"They had not actually stopped or killed the leak... and then unfortunately the fire broke out," a company spokeswoman told AFP.

PTTEP said all 113 personnel working on the West Triton rig at the isolated site some 250 kilometres (155 miles) offshore had been reported safe and non-essential staff were being evacuated. No workers have been on the West Atlas since it began leaking.

The company gave no indication of the severity of the blaze but said a fire-fighting vessel, the Nor Captain, had sprayed water onto the fire but had now moved two nautical miles off the rig.

"Seawater is also being pumped down the relief well from the West Triton rig in an effort to 'wet' the gas and help bring the fire under control," PTTEP said in a statement.

The rig's operators have been struggling for weeks to stop the leak, which environmentalists fear poses long-term risks to the area's wildlife.

"The government remains deeply concerned about this incident," Ferguson said in a statement.

"From day one our top priorities have been the safety of people and the protection of the environment. Stopping the flow of oil and gas safely and as soon as possible remains our prime objective."

On Friday, a biologist commissioned to carry out an Australian government survey of the West Atlas drilling rig found that the massive spill posed an immediate risk to dozens of marine species.

"It is possible that species that are dying or dead and lying in oil-affected water may not stay afloat for long periods of time, making it unlikely that we would find large numbers of dead animals," James Watson wrote.

The operation to stem the leak has involved PTTEP towing the West Triton rig from Singapore to the site, a process which took five weeks, to drill down some 2.6 kilometres under the seabed to the source of the emissions.

Specialists then had to intersect a casing 25 centimetres in diameter using sophisticated electro-magnetic ranging tools, before they could begin plugging the leak with heavy mud.

PTTEP has said it will meet the full costs of the Australian Maritime Safety Authority's clean-up operation but conservation groups have been critical of the response to the oil spill.

Australia oil well catches fire
BBC News 1 Nov 09;

An oil well at the centre of a massive spill in the Timor Sea off the north west coast of Australia is on fire.

The company which runs the well, PTTEP Australasia, said the fire broke out as it made another attempt to plug a leak deep underwater at the West Atlas rig.

Engineers have been struggling for more than 10 weeks to stop the leak which is spewing gas and oil at an estimated 400 barrels a day.

All workers were reported safe and were being evacuated from the installation.

A director of the company, Jose Martins, said the only way to stop the fire was to plug the leak.

"The measures which we have been able to take so far can only mitigate the fire. They will not stop the fire.

"The best way to stop the fire is to complete the well-kill and stop the flow of gas and oil at the surface from the H-1 well, cutting off the fuel source for the fire."

Australian Resources Minister Martin Ferguson said in a statement that some of the world's leading experts were working to fix the leaking well and respond to this latest problem.

Mr Ferguson said the National Offshore Petroleum Safety Authority had been called out to help fight the fire and that Geoscience Australia and the Australian Maritime Safety Authority were on standby.

But an opposition spokesman, Greg Hunt, accused Environment Minister Peter Garrett of doing nothing to stop the oil leak.

"Ten weeks of complacency, 10 weeks of drift, 10 weeks of inaction from Mr Garrett," he said.

"In the absence of action... the prime minister must step in and convene a national environmental emergency task force within the next 24 hours."


Read more!

Study claims meat creates half of all greenhouse gases

Livestock causes far more climate damage than first thought, says a new report
Martin Hickman, The Independent 1 Nov 09;

Climate change emissions from meat production are far higher than currently estimated, according to a controversial new study that will fuel the debate on whether people should eat fewer animal products to help the environment.

In a paper published by a respected US thinktank, the Worldwatch Institute, two World Bank environmental advisers claim that instead of 18 per cent of global emissions being caused by meat, the true figure is 51 per cent.

They claim that United Nation's figures have severely underestimated the greenhouse gases caused by tens of billions of cattle, sheep, pigs, poultry and other animals in three main areas: methane, land use and respiration.

Their findings – which are likely to prompt fierce debate among academics – come amid increasing from climate change experts calls for people to eat less meat.

In the 19-page report, Robert Goodland, a former lead environmental adviser to the World Bank, and Jeff Anhang, a current adviser, suggest that domesticated animals cause 32 billion tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e), more than the combined impact of industry and energy. The accepted figure is 18 per cent, taken from a landmark UN report in 2006, Livestock's Long Shadow.

"If this argument is right," write Goodland and Anhang, "it implies that replacing livestock products with better alternatives would be the best strategy for reversing climate change.

"In fact, this approach would have far more rapid effects on greenhouse gas emissions and their atmospheric concentrations than actions to replace fossil fuels with renewable energy."

Their call to move to meat substitutes accords with the views of the chairman of the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Dr Rajendra Pachauri, who has described eating less meat as "the most attractive opportunity" for making immediate changes to climate change.

Lord Stern of Brentford, author of the 2006 review into the economic consequences of global warming, added his name to the call last week, telling a newspaper interviewer: "Meat is a wasteful use of water and creates a lot of greenhouse gases. It puts enormous pressure on the world's resources."

Scientists are concerned about livestock's exhalation of methane, a potent greenhouse gas. Cows and other ruminants emit 37 per cent of the world's methane. A study by Nasa scientists published in Science on Friday found that methane has significantly more effect on climate change than previously thought: 33 times more than carbon dioxide, compared with a previous factor of 25.

According to Goodland and Anhang's paper, which has not been peer-reviewed, scientists have significantly underestimated emissions of methane expelled by livestock. They argue that the gas's impact should be calculated over 20 years, in line with its rapid effect – and the latest recommendation from the UN – rather than the 100 years favoured by Livestock's Long Shadow. This, they say, would add a further 5bn tons of CO2e to livestock emissions – 7.9 per cent of global emissions from all sources.

Similarly, they claim that official figures are wrong to ignore CO2 emitted by breathing animals on the basis that it is offset by carbon photosynthesised by their food, arguing the existence of this unnecessary animal-based CO2 amounts to 8.7bn tons of CO2e, 3.7 per cent of total emissions.

On land use, they calculate that returning the land currently used for livestock to natural vegetation and forests would remove 2.6bn tons of CO2e from the atmosphere, 4.2 per cent of greenhouse gas. They also complain that the UN underestimated the amount of livestock, putting it at 21.7bn against NGO estimates of 50bn, adding that numbers have since risen by 12 per cent.

Eating meat rather than plants also requires extra refrigeration and cooking and "expensive" treatment of human diseases arising from livestock such as swine flu, they say.

One leading expert on climate change and food, Tara Garnett, welcomed Goodland and Anhang's calculations on methane, which she said had credibility, but she questioned other aspects of their work, saying she had no reason to dispute the UN's position on CO2 caused by breathing. She also pointed out that they had changed scientific assumptions for livestock but not for other sources of methane, skewing the figures.

She said: "We are increasingly becoming aware that livestock farming at current scales is a major problem, and that they contribute significantly to greenhouse gases. But livestock farming also yields benefits – there are some areas of land that can’t be used for food crop production. Livestock manure can also contribute to soil fertility, and farm animals provide us with non food goods, such as leather and wool, which would need to be produced by another means, if it wasn’t a byproduct from animal farming.”

While looking into the paper's findings, Friends of the Earth said the report strengthened calls for the Government to act on emissions from meat production. "We already know that the meat and dairy industry causes more climate-changing emissions than all the world's transport," said Clare Oxborrow, senior food campaigner.

"These new figures need further scrutiny but, if they stack up, they provide yet more evidence of the urgent need to fix the food chain. The more damaging elements of the meat and dairy industry are effectively government-sponsored: millions of pounds of taxpayers' money is spent propping up factory farms and subsidising the import of animal feed that's been grown at the expense of forests."

Justin Kerswell, campaign manager for the vegetarian group Viva!, said: "The case for reducing consumption of meat and dairy products was already imperative based on previous UN findings. Now it appears to have been proven that the environmental devastation from livestock production is in fact staggeringly more significant – and dwarfs the contribution from the transport sector by an even greater margin.

"It is essential that attention is fully focused on the impact of livestock production by all global organisations with the power to affect policy."


Read more!

Climate change could kill 250,000 children

Climate change could kill 250,000 children next year, and the figure could rise to more than 400,000 by 2030, according to Save the Children.

Louise Gray, The Telegraph 2 Nov 09;

The charity warns that over 900 million children in the next generation will be affected by water shortages and 160 million more children will be at risk of catching malaria – one of the biggest killers of children under five – as it spreads to new parts of the world.

In a new report Save the Children claims that climate change is the biggest global health threat to children in the 21st century as droughts and floods force families to leave their homes and children to drop out of school. Starvation and economic collapse caused by natural disasters could even lead to more child trafficking and child labour.

The charity predicts that 175 million children a year – equivalent to almost three times the population of Great Britain – will suffer the consequences of natural disasters like cyclones, droughts and floods by 2030.

Midge Ure, Save the Children ambassador, said he has already seen children in East African countries dying because of droughts.

“I’ve seen how vulnerable children are to the effects of climate change. Erratic rainfall means farmers can no longer predict the weather and have lost their crops which are a vital source of food for their family," he said.

David Mepham, Save the Children’s Director of Policy, called on world leaders to agree a tough deal on tacking climate change at the UN Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen this December.

"This is not just Africa’s problem, it affects everyone," he said. "Climate change is a ticking time bomb. Global leaders need to act now to stop the needless deaths of millions of children."


Read more!

Final round for UN climate talks

Richard Black, BBC News 1 Nov 09;

The latest round of UN climate talks opens in Barcelona on Monday with major divisions remaining between countries.

The week's session is the final chance for negotiators to hammer out a text before December's Copenhagen summit

In recent weeks, UN officials have declared there is no chance of agreeing all elements of a new legally-binding UN treaty before the end of the year.

But they are still hoping to agree major elements of a treaty to supplant the Kyoto Protocol.

The main areas where big divisions remain include:

* the extent to which developed countries should cut their greenhouse gas emissions
* how much money rich nations should contribute to help poorer ones reduce their emissions and adapt to climate impacts
* how far developing countries will go in constraining the rise in their greenhouse gas emissions

UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon dampened expectations further last week by appearing to suggest that nothing legally binding might be possible in Copenhagen.

"If we can agree on four political elements, then that could be a hallmark of success on climate change," he said.

But the Danish hosts and other governments, including the UK, remain determined to secure something with legally-binding elements.

For the UK, it must contain numbers on mitigation targets and adaptation funds; and ministers have said they will not sign something they consider to be too weak.

"I think we should not sign up to a deal that is inadequate," Climate Secretary Ed Miliband said last week.

Gaps to bridge

Pledges by developed countries to cut emissions by 2020 (from 1990 levels) fall far short of the 40% that developing countries are demanding.

The US may not be in a position to pledge anything at all, with domestic legislation yet to pass through the Senate.

The EU said last week it would contribute its "fair share" of the $100bn euros ($148bn; £90bn) per year that it calculates the developing world will need by 2020 in order to curb their emissions and protect their societies and economies from climate impacts.

But it stopped short of naming an exact figure for its contribution.

Studies by UN agencies suggest more than that is needed, and that funding on this scale should begin next year, rather than in 10 years' time.

A number of developing countries, notably Indonesia, have recently pledged to reduce the rate at which their emissions will rise; but the biggest of all - China - has yet to announce by how much.

Even the legal form of a new treaty remains to be decided, with a number of developing countries insisting that it must be an extension to the Kyoto Protocol, and industrialised governments equally insistant that it must be a completely new agreement - not least because the US Senate will not ratify the Kyoto Protocol.

Negotiators will begin work with a set of "non-papers" - elements of a possible treaty that do not carry the weight of a formal draft.

The chairman of the main set of talks, Michael Zammit Cutajar, has advised negotiators to concentrate on the "critical issues... that are central to the task", with details that could bog the discussions down left to one side.


Read more!