5 important lessons not learnt from Deepwater Horizon

Posted by jamie — 20 April 2012 at 4:54pm - Comments
The stricken Deepwater Horizon oil rig in the Gulf of Mexico

The second anniversary of the Deepwater Horizon disaster is upon us - and looking at the lessons the oil industry got from it, you’d think it never happened. Here are the most important points governments and oil companies didn’t learn.

1) Apparently the oil industry still knows best
Remember all the congressional hearings, recommendations, pledges to do better in the future that immediately followed Deepwater Horizon? It all amounted to essentially nothing. The US Congress has not adopted a single piece of legislation (not one!) to put stricter controls over oil companies to limit the ever-increasing risks they are taking to drill for more oil. Despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary, governments still seem to think that the oil industry knows best and can police itself.

2) Oil spill plans are not foolproof
Remember the surprising tidbits found in BP’s oil spill response plan after the fact? Like how walruses were some of the local wildlife that might be impacted? Well, Shell’s oil spill response plan for their Arctic drilling operations has just breezed through the approval process, and while they did seem to have at least proofread it, it’s not much better: it currently relies on technology that hasn’t been built yet, admits it won’t be able to clean up oil in thick ice and ignores the risks of a Deepwater Horizon-style blowout late in the drilling season, just before ice starts to return.

3) It takes a lot of capacity to clean up an oil spill
Over 6,000 vessels and tens of thousands of people were needed to respond to the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. Shell is planning to drill in Alaska this summer and has named just nine ships in their oil spill response plan for the Chukchi Sea. Alaska is far more remote than the Gulf, less populated, and the US Coast Guard admitted that there was “no way we could deploy several thousand people as we did in the Deepwater Horizon.”

4) Out of sight does not mean out of the ocean
Life in the Gulf of Mexico has beensignificantly hit by oil in the past two years. While beaches may look clean, the story at the bottom of the ocean is different.  A similar spill in the Arctic would be devastating for local wildlife and Indigenous communities.

5) We need to quit oil
It’s almost a tick-box: after every oil disaster in history, there have been inevitable promises, wide op-eds in newspapers, and consensus that the world can’t stay addicted to oil (other tick-boxes include: saying that everyone will be justly compensated, that nothing like this will happen again because security norms will be reinforced, and finding someone else to blame). Yet, nothing happens. We have technology today to reduce our oil consumption, we know how to spark an energy revolution, but we are held back by those who profit from dirty energy.

Join us.

HI i AGREE 100 % NOT ONLY MAKIN A BIG F**K UP WITH IT , BUT THEY ARE TAKING THE BLOODY FOR THE CORE OF OUR WORLD , ENUF,S ENUF,.I WISH I COULD HELP MORE ...ONE WORLD ONE LOVE ..X

 

It's not just this. With all the fracking and nuclear development going on in the UK, that's mixing earthquakes and nuclear reactors. We learnt all too chaotically from Fukushima that these two things are a bad mix.

The modern world is not all it's cracked up to be. The existance of life on Earth in a billion years time could rely on the current young generation. That's the scale of it. Oil will not last for that long, but just screw up the planet. Shale gas is the same, so eventually there will need to be a replacement. Why bother in the first place - we have got nowhere. Nuclear power plants don't last very long, and the nuclear radiation cannot be completely stopped, as gamma radiation is, in theory, infinitely penetrating. Again, not good.

There needs to be some kind of revolution against oil, and that has to involve people. Not enough people care. Mention "sustainability" to some random person and they will yawn. And that's because some versions of sustainability is rather boring. Everything that doesn't involve the cold, hard truth. Tell them the truth and they will care. We need change, and we need it to happen NOW.

 

  We now have dead Dolphins and other sea creatures on the beach at Lime --Peru, the                scientists have a theory that the sea is getting warmer and the creatures that theae dolphins    and others feed on have moved further out.  Sounds like another cover up attempt as they never  saved any of these dead fish for Scientific study !!!

  I have a better explanation of this and that being that Nuclear Waste has found it's way there,    because, Peru claims to have no nuclear power stations in operation, although Argentina has  plenty  and  can't get rid of it's waste, so they would have to put it somewhere and where better  than the Sea and hope that another Oil spill appears to create a diversion.  

 

 Sorry but for the above read Lima and not Lime

  Some would call it a ''Conspiracy Theory'' like all, the others,but I find it strange to say the least    that the Sea life on the Ocean Bed, off the Gulf of Mexico is simiar to the Children of Falluja, in  that  they have the same terrible abnormalities on birth.

  Then when we look at the evil deeds of our Military Generals under orders from their Politicians   where they would destroy whole Countries and even send their own Troops in to situations      where they would knowingly be killed or if lucky captured like at st.Valery during the Second  World War to save the Troops on Dunkirk towards they would hope the ultimate Victory!!! .

   I believe that the same methods and reasoning are being used today to cover up the dumping  of Nuclear Waste on the Gulf of Mexico prior to the ''Deep Water Horizon'' disaster and Oil Spill.

   This Mystery to me get's stronger when we hear of the Postponement of the Trial of the    Engineer in charge on that Day and how the Authorities were afraid of him running away.

   The Nuclear Industry is determined that the World accepts Nuclear Power Stations as the    Way forward while it will indeed be a step back for Mankind because there will be more World  Wars caused by the Military gaining access to the Plutonium. .

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.

 

 

    The best way forward is the Renewables like Wind--Waves--Water Turbines and Solar.

There are some idiots around.

Autumn Sunshine, the UK doesn't suffer from these Earthquakes so there is no mix between Nuclear and Earthquakes here. If you dont want oil I take it you don't want:

Plastics used in: bags, Laptops, tvs, cars, bottles, packets etc etc

Fuel so no more planes, cars, boats, gas for cooking. (Dont get me wrong there's electric car and what not but power from the powerstation to power them, oh yeah, oil, gas, coal or nuclear powerstations)

If you at greenpeace spend your money on creating planes, boats and cars that can travel a decent distance and then put them into production at a reasonable price then everyone would be keen on getting one but until you do the world needs fossil fuels.

Over time we will start to find new ways to produce energy but it costs huge amounts of money and will have to be a gradual process of design.

Countries DON'T dump nuclear waste in the water because if they did you would be finding much more then a dead bloody dolphin!

About Jamie

I'm one of the editors of the website, and I do a lot of work on the Get Active section, as well as doing web stuff for the forests campaign. I've worked for Greenpeace since 2006 and, coming from a background as a freelance writer and web producer, it's been something of an education to be part of a direct action organisation. I'm from Cumbria originally but now I live in north London - I came to study here and somehow have never left.

My personal mumblings can be found @shrinkydinky.

Follow Greenpeace UK