"We have it in our power to decide whether the earth's living spaces survive or not" - RWE Dea talked to Prof. Antje Boetius, deep-sea research scientist and professor of geomicrobiology at Bremen University

Extreme depths and eternal darkness: Prof. Antje Boetius' research work looks into the question of how life is even possible under such circumstances and what parameters it is influenced by. This is also of interest to RWE Dea since oil and gas exploration and production operations are taking place in increasingly remote corners of the earth. team: talked to Prof. Boetius and Dr. Christian Bücker, Head of Research and Development at RWE Dea.

RWE Dea: What is it about the deep sea that fascinates you?
Boetius: It is a habitat characterised by an extreme shortage of energy. At depths below 200 metres there is no sunlight and no plant life. Yet it sparkles and twinkles quite fantastically down there and we find unbelievable creatures that have perfectly adapted to these extreme conditions.

RWE Dea: Can you tell us what such a dive is like?
Boetius: Unfortunately, manned dives in deep-sea submarines are more or less a thing of the past. Nowadays, it is mainly robots that are used because they are much more efficient. They can dive for 48 hours whereas human beings need 2½ hours before they reach the seabed, can work there for another 2½ hours and then have to return to the surface. But the trouble is that a robot is attached to a cable, which makes it inflexible. That's where a deep-sea submarine offers obvious advantages.

RWE Dea: How expensive is an expedition like that?
Boetius: A day at sea can cost up to €150,000 – and that only covers the cost of the equipment. That's why I need around €2-3 million a year for my research work.

RWE Dea: Do you bring any creatures back up to the surface?
Boetius: That's not possible with these creatures. They wouldn't survive the extreme drop in pressure. But bacteria manage to adapt and we've a whole archive full of samples of very different deep-sea bacterial colonies.

RWE Dea: Why do we still know so little about the deep sea?
Boetius: That’s because humankind cannot leave his footprint down there. We know the moon better because we can measure its surface and even walk on it. That’s not possible in the deep sea. Everything at depths between 4,000 and 11,000 metres, i.e. 60% of the earth’s surface, remains hidden to us. At the same time, the deep-sea regions account for more than 90% of the inhabited parts of the earth. The creatures living there make up 60% of all the earth's species and between 1 and 10 million different kinds of creatures live in the earth's oceans. It is this wealth of life that enthrals me. We must protect it, not least because marine diversity may well prove highly beneficial for mankind in future.

RWE Dea: Why?
Boetius: Down in the depths of the oceans there are creatures that have incorporated bacteria into their cells and that enables them to absorb methane one day and hydrogen the next. There are mussels that can simply switch from one to another. We don't know how they manage to absorb only good bacteria and no pathogens. But this could be very interesting for medical research and in developing cancer treatments, anti-allergens and antibiotics. We can use these organisms to find out what the body can remember and how.

RWE Dea: What animals live down there?
Boetius: Innumerable bacteria live in the mud of the seabed. They have totally adapted to their surroundings and can live to the ripe old age of over 500 years! Every teaspoon of ocean sediment contains 2,000 different species of microorganisms. You also find crustaceans, fish and sponges in the deep sea, but the most common creatures are sea cucumbers. They too have adapted perfectly – they have no eyes but very creative flight behaviour: some of them, when attacked, disgorge their innards to distract the enemy and then go on to recreate them.

RWE Dea: What do these creatures live on?
Boetius: So-called "sea snow" – dead algae that sink to the seabed. But as you can imagine, that isn't exactly a sumptuous meal! In a square metre of that seabed there are only as many calories as in one piece of toast. So there's an almighty fight for what food there is. And these creatures naturally lie in wait for prey. On the one hand, there are predators like the viperfish that drift through these empty spaces hunting their prey. In the deep sea though it's smarter to be slow like the blobfish, which simply digs in and waits till its prey comes past. Real oases of life are found near mud volcanoes where there are an unbelievable number of creatures of the kind we certainly don't know from the surface.

RWE Dea: Why are mud volcanoes of particular interest to you?
Boetius: Mud volcanoes are where mud, fluids and gas come up at great pressure from depths of 2,000 metres under the seabed. Bacteria make use of this source of energy, gather in greater numbers close to mud volcanoes and thus make that habitat attractive for a wide variety of creatures. That's what fascinates me. There are bacteria that live off nothing but methane. When a bit of the seabed has been churned up after a gas eruption, these methane eaters are no longer present – and the methane gas can freely escape from the seabed for up to six months. This dynamism is an extremely exciting research field.
Bücker: For us as a company mud volcanoes are also an important research field. They act as valves through which excess pressure is released and can be a major threat to the safety of our drilling operations. We were involved in a large-scale research project into mud volcanoes in the West Nile Delta. We wanted to find out where the mud volcanoes are located, where they might have got trapped in the seabed and what triggered them off. For us mud volcanoes are windows into reservoirs and we learned a lot about these volcanoes through that R&D project.

RWE Dea: To what extent is the oil and gas industry accepted in the scientific community?
Boetius: There is a long history of interaction between the scientific community and exploration for oil and gas. The origins and distribution of oil and gas are still extremely interesting questions, and scientists deliver the fundamentals. But of course there are conflicts as well because oil and gas production always involves environmental risks. The accident in the Gulf of Mexico proved that. Here, too, you need scientists to find out how much oil has escaped and where it has gone to. Scientists recently discovered huge areas of the seabed that were covered with sedimentary oil flakes. We know far too little about deep-sea ecology and cannot really gauge how much damage is caused by such accidents. But the fact is that after pollution on such a large scale the natural environment takes between 100 and 1,000 years to regenerate. You might well ask whether it's all that bad if 100 square kilometres of the sea are kaput. But what we need to understand is that some species only exist at a single spot. And that is why spatial protection concepts of the kind we have on land are needed. I personally have the greatest respect for the difficult job you're doing: on the one hand producing energy and profits, on the other hand having to assess the many risks and avoid all kinds of accidents. I think that visionary encounters between science and industry are certainly possible, and we should look for such opportunities. After all, the energy sector, consumers and research scientists – indeed all of us – have it in our power to decide whether the earth’s living spaces survive or not.

RWE Dea: Do you think that environmentally friendly oil and gas production is possible?
Boetius: Here you have to differentiate between two topics. First, the use of fossil fuels is speeding up climate change. The fact is that CO₂ is contributing to global warming. Right now we are in a transitional phase in the search for solutions for future energy sources. For the next 10-20 years fossil fuels will certainly continue to play a key role. But I'm also sure that oil and gas could be replaced faster than we think. The political pressures on the industry to develop a more environmentally friendly portfolio are increasing. The challenge we face is to find environmentally friendly technologies that also support faster growth worldwide.

Bücker: That is exactly the problem. We will have to see how much we are willing and able to pay for energy. And even if we are the prize pupils here in Germany, it is of little benefit to the global climate.

Boetius: But I still see that a lot is happening. One in three cars in California is a hybrid vehicle. And even in countries like Burma or Thailand, if people have a choice, they are choosing the ecological and not the cheaper route.
Bücker: Although Burma and Thailand cannot in any way be compared with countries like China or India in terms of size and energy consumption.

RWE Dea: CO₂ is one thing, but what about oil and gas production itself?
Boetius: Risks can never be eliminated. But I think that the CO₂ problem is, in all, more serious than the general risk of a drilling or production accident. That risk can actually be managed – though of course never in its entirety. But nobody should ever start cutting costs in the wrong places. Even though the standard of engineering expertise is extremely high, you can quickly end up with a problem if you work with an unknown number of supply firms employing numerous unskilled workers. Another problematic aspect is that the exploration activities for unconventional energy sources are on the increase. The deep sea and the Arctic are more risky simply because of the unpredictability of nature. And besides, if something happens, you can't get to those places particularly quickly.

Bücker: It is true to say that drilling 50 or 60 years ago only took place in coastal regions, whereas nowadays it is carried out at ever-greater depths. But at the same time, the oil and gas industry has made significant technological advances, and that is also true in safety terms. In recent years, the oil industry has focused more on its cooperation with supply firms and made considerable progress in this respect, particularly in Europe. All the personnel involved in such drilling operations are well qualified and given regular further training. So-called bridging documents are used to clearly distinguish the responsibilities of the various firms in order to avoid any kind of incident.

RWE Dea: Can science and industry work hand in hand? Or do you take a more critical view of the support given by industry to research and development projects?
Boetius: No, on the contrary. I would like us to remove the customary barriers between science and industry in view of the many challenges we face, particularly in securing energy supplies. Unfortunately public opinion in Germany in particular tends to believe that scientists cannot think freely if they receive grants from industry.

Bücker: That's not the case in other countries. In the USA they are proud of fundraising.

Boetius: I myself am involved in basic research and so I'm rarely approached by industry with support for my projects. But I certainly think collaboration would be possible as long as both sides are fully aware of the conditions. We scientists can discover, for example, if certain species or habitats are suffering badly from the activities of the oil and gas industry. And then we can advise the industry in optimum fashion as to what they can do better. But I do see a potential conflict in that we scientists like to make as much data as possible accessible to everybody – something industry often finds problematic.

Bücker: A huge amount has been published about the West Nile Delta project we conducted with Geomar in Kiel. And at RWE Dea nobody stood in the way of that.

Boetius: My impression is that industry has become more open in this respect. I would be interested to know how your company is preparing for the EU directives that aim to ensure that nature and the environment are protected on land and in the sea. In Germany these directives are unfortunately being implemented very sluggishly.

Bücker: Safety and environmental protection are always the top priority for us. We carry out environmental compatibility studies in the run-up to our activities. And of course the strictest possible safety rules apply to our wells and production operations. In the case of the implementation of EU directives you've criticised let's take a closer look, for example, at the EU offshore regulation. In recent years improvements have been made here in both prevention and intervention through close cooperation between numerous oil companies. But the general public is not aware of these improvements. And other EU directives such as the Flora-Fauna-Habitat Directive or the Water Framework Directive are considered and complied with in oil companies' everyday operations.

Boetius: I think one has to go much further. What the EU framework foresees is that the basic state, which we find in the deep sea for example, has to be preserved. We know that this is a complex and expensive business. For example standard observatories have to be installed so that the environmental conditions before, during and after such interventions can be observed. It is only possible to distinguish the impact of human action from natural processes by using underwater cameras and listening observatories as well as pre- and post-mapping. The cost of such monitoring surveys ought to be included in the price of a barrel of oil.

Bücker: From our company's point of view one can say that we do not wait to conduct environmental protection and safety measures until we are legally bound to do so. We comply with rules and regulations as a matter of course. And we are engaged in many different ways in environmental protection and safety, and to an extent that goes beyond any statutory requirements – with our new technologies, ongoing training for our employees or choice of subcontractors. We already conduct very extensive monitoring surveys in the areas around our production facilities. These surveys supply fundamental data, for example to the National Park authorities in the German Wadden Sea. And we also publish these surveys.

RWE Dea: One last question: What do you think of geo-engineering, i.e. active intervention in natural processes? There are plans, for example, to create artificial clouds to counteract climate change.
Boetius: I think that one should basically be allowed to think through and calculate everything. One of our most important tasks is to reduce CO₂ emissions, and the earlier something is done, the cheaper and more effective its impact will be on our climate and environment. Geo-engineering research and controlled experiments should be permitted.

Bücker: Even though we are talking about interfering with the system in a way we have not yet fully understood so side effects cannot be ruled out?

Boetius: If we are perfectly honest, we have long been involved in the biggest geo-engineering experiment of all time – the exploitation of fossil fuels.


More about Prof. Dr. Antje Boetius
Antje Boetius (46) is a deep-sea research scientist and professor of geomicrobiology at Bremen University. She has taken part in more than 40 expeditions on research vessels from Germany and other countries. In 2009 she was awarded the Leibniz Prize by the German Research Foundation for her discovery of microorganisms on the ocean bed that consume the greenhouse gas methane. Together with her father, the writer Henning Boetius, she published "The Dark Paradise: The Discovery of the Deep Sea" in 2011.