The dream islands of tomorrow

Press, 2 August 1985, Page 17

The dream islands of tomorrow

By

HUGH PEARMAN,

of the

London “Observer”

A major dream of science fiction writers — communities of manmade islands dotted round the world — may soon become reality. Already scientists and engineers have produced early versions which they believe herald a radical industrial solution to population and pollution problems. They say that man-made sea dwellings should be used as sites for offshore coal, gas, and oil drilling as fish farms; for housing nuclear power stations; and as “service stations” in the English Channel. Japan, which suffers from serious overcrowding, has used artificial islands as sites for oil terminals and airports. But progress has not always been smooth, as is shown by the fate of one island off Alaskan The

island of Mukluk stands as a memorial to the vast expense and uncertainty of the oil business. Mulkluk — the name is an Eskomo word meaning boot — is a dead “cert” that went wrong. BP’s American subsidiary, Sohio, built the island in the Beaufort Sea in 1983 to drill for oil. The geological surveys had been extremely favourable — and a North Sea-type exploratory rig was out of the question because of the ice. Sohio undertook a massive civil engineering exercise to extract gravel from a river delta during

the brief Arctic summer and ship it in barges to the site. There the gravel was dumped — 1,250,000 cubic yards of it — forming an island 106 metres across. Drilling began, and the teams struck, not oil, but water. In oilman’s terms, it was dry. In the words of a BP spokesman; “It was the most expensive dry hole in history.” The final cost of Mukluk was about $275 million. Although it stands deserted and useless today, the same technique is being used elsewhere in Alaska — with more caution.

In Britain, national expertise in North Sea oil platforms — and the nation’s love of seaside piers — has led to one of the more extraordinary proposals for a crossChannel link. The Euroroute consortium plans a crossing that is part bridge, part tunnel. At the points of intersection are two large concrete islands, creating in effect colossal piers on both French and English sides. The islands would be made of prefabricated components in deepwater harbours, towed out, and sunk in position. The largest part is a drum, 259 metres across, containing a spiral ramp taking cars from the bridge down to the immersedtube tunnel beneath the Channel shipping lanes.

The two “Channel islands” would also eclipse Mukluk in cost, at $4Bl million to $550 million apiece out of the total Euroroute Channel link cost of $12.9 billion. They are now in fierce competition with the other Channel link proposal — now generally regarded as the leading contender — the conventional twinbored rail shuttle tunnels of the Channel Tunnel Group, estimated to cost $5.5 billion. C.T.G. fans point out that the bored tunnels of their scheme would create no navigation hazards. Euroroute responds that its islands would be outside the internationally agreed navigation channels in the world’s busiest shipping lane. A decision is likely early next year. ,