4 ms·

"The oil companies do not want a repeat of the mid-1990s. Back then, Shell’s plan to sink a piece of Brent equipment, called Brent Spar, in the ocean depths cau

"The oil companies do not want a repeat of the mid-1990s. Back then, Shell’s plan to sink a piece of Brent equipment, called Brent Spar, in the ocean depths caused a bruising fight with environmental groups led by Greenpeace and prompted stricter regulation."

luhn 9y ago
I don't see how that's relevant. Repurposing an old oil rig is a far cry from scuttling it.
- theoh 9y ago
  Any arrangement of an afterlife for a rig became a liability...
- cynicalbastard 9y ago
  it's relevant because the people who write the billion dollar checks don't want to bother with the risk.
mpweiher 9y ago
The irony was that after all that, Greenpeace had to finally admit that the original plan of sinking the Brent Spar was actually the most environmentally friendly option. Turns out that bacteria at the bottom of the ocean love the sludge that's so toxic on land. So a big "yay" for PR and feelings over facts. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brent_Spar#Deep_sea_disposal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brent_Spar#Deep_sea_disposal
- kevhito 9y ago
  Can you provide a citation for your claims here. The link you provided doesn't seem to back up your claim at all. Actually, it seems to contradict your claim. Also, assuming what you say is true, was this known at the time? Because that would seem to make a big difference -- opposing dumping "sludge that's so toxic on land" into an environment where you don't know the effects seems to be more than "PR and feelings", but rather caution and prudence.
  - mpweiher 9y ago
    Yes it was known at the time. The study Shell did to come up with the preferred disposal method was valid.
  - mpweiher 9y ago
    Had a hard time finding a reference, but here is something (not exactly what I wrote, which I think was from either The Economist or Die Zeit, it's been a while): "Writing in the journal Nature in June, Professor Euan Nisbet and Dr Mary Fowler of London University argued that the quantities of heavy metals in Brent Spar are minuscule compared with those found naturally in parts of our deep oceans. In so-called "black smokers", whole communities of highly specialised bacteria eke out their lives where the earth's crust vents huge amounts of superheated water and metals into the ocean depths. One estimate puts this discharge of metals worldwide at 700,000 to five million tonnes a year. Dump the Brent Spar near such a vent, argues Professor Nisbet, and its impact could not even be measured. Its contents might even give the bacteria a free meal." http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/to-dump-or-not-to-dump-on-davy-jones-1600656.html http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/to-dump-or-not-to-... Also, the amount of oil was much less than Greenpeace had stated, estimated at somewhere around 100 tons, rather than 5500 tons. And oil is something that bacteria do eat. All the articles I could find essentially state that Shell's plan was scientifically valid and posed less environmental risk than disposal on land, but didn't "feel" right. Another more detailed look: http://negotiationlab.co.uk/user_uploads/KSG%20Brent%20Spar.pdf http://negotiationlab.co.uk/user_uploads/KSG%20Brent%20Spar....

luhn 9y ago

I don't see how that's relevant. Repurposing an old oil rig is a far cry from scuttling it.

theoh 9y ago
Any arrangement of an afterlife for a rig became a liability...
cynicalbastard 9y ago
it's relevant because the people who write the billion dollar checks don't want to bother with the risk.

mpweiher 9y ago

The irony was that after all that, Greenpeace had to finally admit that the original plan of sinking the Brent Spar was actually the most environmentally friendly option. Turns out that bacteria at the bottom of the ocean love the sludge that's so toxic on land. So a big "yay" for PR and feelings over facts. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brent_Spar#Deep_sea_disposal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brent_Spar#Deep_sea_disposal

kevhito 9y ago
Can you provide a citation for your claims here. The link you provided doesn't seem to back up your claim at all. Actually, it seems to contradict your claim. Also, assuming what you say is true, was this known at the time? Because that would seem to make a big difference -- opposing dumping "sludge that's so toxic on land" into an environment where you don't know the effects seems to be more than "PR and feelings", but rather caution and prudence.
- mpweiher 9y ago
  Yes it was known at the time. The study Shell did to come up with the preferred disposal method was valid.
- mpweiher 9y ago
  Had a hard time finding a reference, but here is something (not exactly what I wrote, which I think was from either The Economist or Die Zeit, it's been a while): "Writing in the journal Nature in June, Professor Euan Nisbet and Dr Mary Fowler of London University argued that the quantities of heavy metals in Brent Spar are minuscule compared with those found naturally in parts of our deep oceans. In so-called "black smokers", whole communities of highly specialised bacteria eke out their lives where the earth's crust vents huge amounts of superheated water and metals into the ocean depths. One estimate puts this discharge of metals worldwide at 700,000 to five million tonnes a year. Dump the Brent Spar near such a vent, argues Professor Nisbet, and its impact could not even be measured. Its contents might even give the bacteria a free meal." http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/to-dump-or-not-to-dump-on-davy-jones-1600656.html http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/to-dump-or-not-to-... Also, the amount of oil was much less than Greenpeace had stated, estimated at somewhere around 100 tons, rather than 5500 tons. And oil is something that bacteria do eat. All the articles I could find essentially state that Shell's plan was scientifically valid and posed less environmental risk than disposal on land, but didn't "feel" right. Another more detailed look: http://negotiationlab.co.uk/user_uploads/KSG%20Brent%20Spar.pdf http://negotiationlab.co.uk/user_uploads/KSG%20Brent%20Spar....