ALBERT

Description: Methane hydrates (hereinafter, MH), for many reasons, are widely recognized as a form of sustainable energy due to their environmentally friendly nature. MH, while burning, produce fresh water, which could in turn offer one possible solution to worldwide shortages of water. MH also maintains the capacity to change the landscape of the global energy supply. According to recent scientific evaluations, the potential global supply of MH is even higher than the total storage of traditional crude oil and conventional natural gas. However, its offshore extraction process could be linked to both catastrophic and non-catastrophic events that may contribute to global warming and climate change, cause harm to human health and life, endanger the flora and fauna, and threaten the very global environment as a whole. Therefore, from a legal viewpoint, an efficient and effective system of civil liability rules seem crucial to control the risks, and to compensate the victims to which damages may occur. This article takes into consideration China’s legal framework in assessing the risks connected to MH offshore extraction. Such a choice for examination is justified by China’s leading position for implementing the technology necessary for extracting MH. This analysis shows that China’s current legal instruments are still far from fully equipped to prevent the risks associated with the offshore extraction of MH, as well as to offer effective remedies for the victims once any damages have occurred. Therefore, more efficient measures and remedies should be considered (or even imposed) to address the specific risks of offshore methane hydrate extraction. Indeed, in the past few decades, China’s environmental protection laws and regulations have mainly focused on the environmental risks that may occur during the process of extracting conventional resources; however, they do not address methane hydrates specifically. This presents a legal challenge for environmental protection laws. The potentially catastrophic events that may occur as a result of the offshore MH extraction processes in particular present a legal challenge for environmental protection laws in China and across the globe. Thus, this article focuses on how to prevent these risks before they even occur, followed by a careful attempt to address compensation efforts for any damages caused by said catastrophes.

Description: Considering the fact that its existence is abundant while maintaining the ability to generate freshwater while burning, methane hydrates have been classified as sources of sustainable energy. China currently maintains an international role in developing technology meant to explore offshore methane hydrates buried under the mud of the seabed, their primary laboratory being the South China Sea. However, such a process does not come without its hazards and fatal consequences, ranging from the destruction of the flora and fauna, the general environment, and—the greatest hazard of all—the cost of human life. The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (hereinafter ‘UNCLOS’), being an important international legal regime and instrument, has assigned damage control during the exploration of methane hydrates, as being the responsibilities and liability of individual sovereign states and corporations. China adopted the Deep Seabed Mining Law (hereinafter the DSM Law) on 26 February 2016, which came into force on the 1 of May 2016; a regulation providing the legal framework also for the Chinese government’s role in methane hydrate exploratory activities. This article examines the role of the DSM Law and its provisions, as well as several international documents intended to prevent transboundary environmental harm from arising, as a result of offshore methane hydrate extraction. Despite the obvious risk of harm to the environment, the DSM Law has made great strides in regulating exploratory activities so as to meet the criteria of the UNCLOS. However, this article argues that neither the UNCLOS nor the DSM Law are adequately prepared to address transboundary harm triggered by the exploitation of offshore methane hydrates. In particular, the technology of such extraction is still at an experimental stage, and potential risks remain uncertain—and even untraceable—for cross-jurisdictional claims. The article intends to seek available legal instruments or models, to overhaul the incapacity within the current governing framework, and offers suggestions supporting national and international legislative efforts towards protecting the environment during methane hydrate extraction.