Nord Stream: Not Just a Pipeline

Figure 6: The Langeled Pipeline
Source: Hydro (2004: 2)
Nord Stream: Not Just a Pipeline 43
Thus, it would appear correct to claim that there is no need to worry
about the equally long Nord Stream pipeline in the Baltic Sea, and that
the current debate stems from the region’s lack of experience with such
pipelines rather than actual environmental threats. There are, however,
important differences between the North Sea and the Baltic Sea, as well
as between Langeled and Nord Stream, which make the analogy somewhat
inaccurate. First, the nature of the Baltic Sea makes it much more
sensitive to environmental impacts than the North Sea. Mati Murd (interview)
argues that ‘it is not acceptable if the company says that there are
thousands of pipes in the North Sea. Our Baltic Sea is different because it
is almost a closed ecological system. It is very shallow water, and if
something happens, it will have very long-term consequences.’ Second,
Wahlbäck (interview) underlines that even though the North Sea is also
shallow, the average depth is twice that of the Baltic Sea. And since the
North Sea has open access to the world oceans, resulting in a much
higher water turnover rate, potential accidents would have less devastating
effects here than in the Baltic. Third, that there was little environmental
debate in Norway regarding the construction of Langeled does not
automatically mean that the environmental debate in the Baltic region is
driven by paranoia. According to Truls Gulowsen in Greenpeace Norway,
the current state of affairs in Norway is a result of numerous hard fights
put up by environmentalists ever since petroleum was discovered in the
Norwegian continental shelf in the late 1960s. Gulowsen therefore advises
Baltic friends of the environment to demand as extensive efforts in the