On the North Sea oil spill
So, it turns out that the Shell oil leak is anything but contained. After three days of telling no one that there was a leak in the North Sea, Shell finally fessed up. Eventually, they admitted it was the biggest in more than a decade, but claimed to have it under control. Now, it appears that there is a second leak.
Now, we know that it is around 200 tonnes of oil. And that’s a lot. It’s also at a bad time of year for sea life – as RSPB have been telling us, there are thousands of young birds in that area of sea, the damage could be huge. But we don’t know much more yet about what damage has been done, and if history of these things tells us anything, we shouldn’t take Shell at their word on the scale of this.
Shell are currently wanting to expand their operations. They are pushing up into pristine Arctic waters, and drilling in wildernesses the world over. If they can’t even keep platforms in the ‘safe’ North Sea – their home turf – in order, and if they are so willing to cover up what spills there are until it becomes clear that someone will notice, why should we ever trust them to drill in more dangerous, and more pristine environments?
Similarly, the governments of both Scotland and the UK have serious questions to answer. Alex Salmond immediate went on telly two days ago to tell viewers that it was a ‘very limited’ spill. Well, he was wrong. Why did he think it was limited? Where was he getting his information? Did he just believe Shell? If so, that’s astonishingly naïve, given the company’s record with the truth. Or is it just that, rather than holding the company to account, he is desperate to suck up to them?
And at Westminster, who are responsible ultimately for much of the regulation of the North Sea, who was it the Chris Huhne – the relevant minister – got to review the regulations last year? Well, according to the Platform report ‘off the deep end’ (available here), it was Oil and Gas UK – the main trade association of the UK offshore oil industry. That’s right: Lib Dem minister Chris Huhne decided that the best way to review the regulation of the offshore oil industry was to ask the industry to review itself.
So, should we be surprised that this leak has happened? No. But it is clear evidence that we can’t trust these companies to expand. And it does remind us how much our governing parties – including Lib Dems and the SNP, are willing to do for big oil companies. Of course, we desperately need to stop expanding anyway, our future relies on it. But leaks like this are a reminder, if we needed one, of quite how filthy this industry is.
I’m glad to have learned about this incident thru your post. I just hope that the companies would be more socially responsible especially when their business is affecting the environment.
these companies are only interested in making money… after all, being environmentally responsible, isn’t going to add to their profits…
Hi Adam – Shell are not alone in their push up into Arctic waters. Good old Greenpeace activists have been hassling Edinburgh-based Cairn Energy recently. A gagging order was issued after activists occupied their head office but Greenpeace New Zealand have some nice pictures – http://www.greenpeace.org/new-zealand/en/news/blog/breaking-cairn-obtains-legal-interdict-twitte/blog/35821/
Cairn Energy are drilling exploration wells in the Arctic but refused to publish their oil spill response plan. Not that it would have alleviated my fears – anyone can have a plan. It’s whether it works which counts and the Deepwater Horizon certainly reminded us that behind the glossy spin lies reality.
There are 3 choices for oil – leave it in the ground or extract it and burn/use it or try to extract it but, whoops, we’ve accidently dumped a load into the sea. It’s OK though, it’s a bit choppy out here… it seems to be dispersing naturally.
Sadly, the only non-polluting option requires us to really get our heads around how hard oil will be to replace. It’s not just that renewables mostly provide electricity and our globalised systems require liquid fuel. Net energy returns from all the forms of energy we use have to be considered and the shortfall we see if we actually look is leading to a lot of denial about what’s possible. What’s possible technically is not the same as what we can actually do and sustain into the future.
Before rushing to meet ‘current’ demands with renewables, we should ask ourselves why we need so much energy in the first place and figure out what can we do better with far less energy (interesting article here http://www.energybulletin.net/print/58533) because much less energy is what we’ll have in the future. Energy will be more expensive and the economy is shrinking. If you can’t afford access to energy, you’ll have to live without the services that energy would have provided. The day the main political parties wake up to this will be a turning point.