Activists and pod captured by Danish navy, but this isn't over

Posted by bens - 2 June 2011 at 9:30am - Comments

Danish navy arrest Greenpeace activists and capture the Arctic pod

Climbers working with the Danish navy have just broken into our pod suspended from the Cairn Energy oil rig here in the Arctic seas off Greenland and arrested the two Greenpeace climbers inside.

Hannah and Luke had been suspended beneath the belly of the gigantic Leiv Eiriksson in the Arctic survival pod 25 meters above the sea for almost a hundred hours.

Although they’ve now been arrested and their occupation ended, we’ve vowed to continue the campaign to kick the oil companies out of the Arctic.

You can see how the last minutes of their marathon protest unfolded in the live feed they maintained for the duration of their vigil.

Together they stopped that rig from drilling for four days, which is four days in which a Deepwater Horizon-style blow-out couldn’t happen and this beautiful fragile environment was safe from the Leiv Eiriksson.

During this time the story of Hannah and Luke in their pod spread across the world gaining huge support for our campaign to keep the Arctic free of risky oil drilling. Before she scaled the rig and hung the pod with Luke, I remember Hannah was especially struck by the fact that 88% of Greenland’s exports come from the island’s fisheries. Greenland’s economy would be decimated by a spill.

Hannah and Luke are in jail now but that won’t stop us opposing the madness of drilling for oil in a region where a spill would be almost impossible to clean up. This isn’t over. We’ll keep on pushing till the oil companies get out of the Arctic.

Here on the Esperanza we remain near the rig, just outside a 500m exclusion zone declared by a Danish warship that’s been on the scene since Sunday. And the other Greenpeace ship Arctic Sunrise is near by.

It’s night now – but it’s not dark. The lights of the rig are burning brightly, and our thoughts are with Hannah and Luke, wherever it is they’ve been taken.

Article tagged as: arctcic, cairn, climate, deepwater drilling, go beyond oil, iceberg alley, leiv eiriksson, oil drilling, pod

Comments Commenting is now closed

I ken you wont post this but I'll go ahead anyway. Greenpeace has been spreading miss information for years on many subjects. This is just another. greenland needs an oil industry, the world needs oil and I notice greenpeace needs oil. The major oil companies are investing heavily in renewable energy, I do not see Greenpeace doing this or giving credit for it. Cairn Energy who I have never worked for are investing huge ammounts of cash to explore to help Greenland, Help the rest of us with providing oil free from Middle East issues. Cairn do not want a spill and they have dedicated professionals & environmental experts helping them. They are working under the same legislation we use in the UKCS to make sue the rig and operation conform to all the safety standards, unlike BP in the GofM. Why does GP not assist oil companies until we can find a way to do without oil. I wonder what sort of face GP puts on every time they call in for oil for the ships, aircraft, cars, lorries, vans, etc. I guess helping oil companies is not as lucrative a business that fleacing the public of cash.

By Brian Brown - 2 June 2011 at 9:58am

@BrianBrown - we publish whatever you write, as long as it's not offensive.

The Arctic ice is disappearing faster than ever before, we've lost 75% of it in the last 30 years. The North Pole could be ice-free any year now. We also learned this week that global emissions are at their highest ever. Going drilling for oil in places that have been uncovered because of that ice melt doesn't seem wrong to you? Surely we should be putting our efforts into other cleaner energies that don't destroy the Arctic.

If you're so confident of Cairn's ability to deal with spills why don't you ask them to publish their spill response plan?

By jamess - 2 June 2011 at 10:27am

3 people agree

Incedentially Brian, when the Greenland ice sheet melts, there won't be any Greenland.

By Barry D - 2 June 2011 at 10:47am

Well done Luke and Hannah! That's 4 days off Cairn's tight schedule. Good work. It's bad enough that these reckless oil prospecters are pumping oil out of the ground elsewhere in the world, exacerbating climate change like pouring oil on a fire. But to do it in the Arctic, one of the world's most fragile ecosystems, where a spill would be impossible to clean up, where it would wipe out local wildlife and local people's livelihoods from fishing - then that's beyond criminal in my book. I think it's Bill Gammell that should be behind bars, not the two of you.

By Neil Jones - 2 June 2011 at 11:22am

2 people agree

Brian, that's all well and good and true any efforts Cairn Energy are making should be congratulated. However, anything good they are doing is currently being overshadowed by what is happening now. If they published their response plan, people would feel a lot more comfortable. By not doing so, Cairn just look like they haven't even considered one!! The only reason they would keep this quite is for this reason. How they can believe they can (and should) continue to drill in such a fragile environment with no action plan should the worst happen is selfish, greedy and inconsiderate. Regardless of the politics surrounding and the World's relience on oil.

By EmilyBUK - 2 June 2011 at 12:01pm

1 person agrees

Considering GP's actions so far, why should Cairn help them by publishing their response plan? If they did it would enable GP to sabotage all and any equipment associated with the plan - thus halting drilling.

By Daithesci - 2 June 2011 at 12:59pm

Oil companies are being short term profiteers in trying to extract fossil oil, and hence destabilising our climate. Well done Greenpeace. It'll make them think about defossilisation.

By Mr. Wright - 2 June 2011 at 1:02pm

1 person agrees

Lost 75% of the ice? Why lie when the facts are easily checkable?;

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.anomaly.arctic.png

http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/seaice/extent/AMSRE_Sea_Ice_Extent_L.png

By Daithesci - 2 June 2011 at 1:11pm

Brian, I agree with you fully. GP has sent two
ships into the arctic to pursue the Leiv Eiriksson, but for what?
To delay a drilling program by a total of what two days, brilliant! If carbon emissions
are such an issue then maybe GP should consider the carbon cost of the two
ships verses the actual result, delaying an inevitable and socially valuable project
for a total of two days.

Congratulations Greenpeace
another wanton display of wasted time, money, and resources.

By Will D - 2 June 2011 at 1:16pm

In Greenland as I understand there is a strict "zero social impact" policy as well as an adherance to strict Norsok standards. These are much tighter standards than those used in the Gulf of Mexico.

I do not work for Cairn Energy, nor have any involvement in the project, but I have worked on the Leiv Eiriksson (for a different oil company) in the past.

I am fairly confident that Cairn will have the following to prevent a blow out:

(A) Pore Pressure experts constantly monitoring drilling parameters

(B) Working BOPs - with dual shear rams (DW Horizon had one only), or possibly a 'super shear'. I remember an issue with the BOPs on the LE before, there was a flat battery in one of the pods, theoretically a minor issue, however this was changed out (which took approx 10 days) with no question.

(D) Use of a LWD Sonic tool to refine pore pressure model while drilling.

(E) Contigency Wireline MDT formation pressure tools or MWD formation pressure tools to verify the pore pressure in real time or post drilling if required.

(F) A second rig on standby so if a relief well needs to be drilled it can be completed before the sea ice closes in for the winter - this is the key point - any well control situation would have to be dealt with prior to the sea icing up for the winter and my understanding is that the well completion times accounts for this (about 30 days a well?).

Greenland want Cairn Energy to explore for oil as this will give them the grounds to break away from dependancy from Denmark.

If there are any further questions please ask, I'd be happy to answer or can pass onto my colleagues if I can't answer them.

By Tommmm - 2 June 2011 at 2:12pm

@Daithesci volume, not area/extent. Watch 1:53 into this BBC Newsnight piece for an explanation. Hope that helps.

By jamess - 2 June 2011 at 3:44pm

Hope Hannah and Luke are ok. Why anyone still condones drilling for oil almost anywhere is beyond me. This summer, next summer – within the next few years, there will be no ice in the Arctic. We have yet to see what that will mean for the deep ocean currents, for the Gulf stream that's keeping much of Europe's climate temperate. But what we're already seeing is the worst and most intense storms occurring all over the planet. How much more does it take for EVERYONE to wake up and realise that we're on the brink?

Why waste more resources on extracting unsustainable forms of energy? Why not investing more in truly sustainable forms of energy generation? Solar. Wind. Wave. Geothermal. Hydro. They're all waiting to be developed, improved, rolled out. I'd be proud to have a wind turbine in my backyard!

By Margret - 2 June 2011 at 4:46pm

1 person agrees

God bless you Hannah and Luke, my thoughts are with you and you are in my prayers. This has shown what GREED we are up against. Thank you all at GP I and Mother Earth need you to keep fighting on.

By Jude53 - 2 June 2011 at 5:34pm

The biggest problem with stopping oil exploration is the impact it will have on people living below the poverty line in the developing world. Preventing oil exploration will decrease the availability of oil and therefore the price will go up. As the oil price increases so does the cost of food.

During the last oil peak (up to $150) many millions of people across the developing world, in particular the urban poor were plunged into food poverty, hundreds of thousands died across the world. In the last year there has been a 45.9% increase in food around the world (and a 44.3% increase in WTI oil) (Ref: Economist 28th May 2011 pg 97), this has been causing food and fuel poverty across sub Saharan Africa and this month there have been food riots in Nairobi and Addis Ababa.

Yes we need to be more resource conscious, yes we need to cut our standards of living in the developed world, but we cannot allow people to unnecessarily starve to death in the developing world due our ignorance and lack of knowledge about the technologies of offshore drilling.

Personally, I’m not particularly bothered about the opulent lifestyles of the latte drinking organic food filled developed world. It’s the billion or so at the other end that need energy to survive, and like it or hate it, at the moment oil is the only realistic source of this energy.

Drill ahead in a safe and controlled manner.

By RigWorker - 2 June 2011 at 7:52pm

@Tommmm I am fairly confident that Cairn will have the following to prevent a blow out:

As you've worked on the rig I reckon you're someone who knows what you're talking about, so actually 'I am fairly confident' doesn't really inspire me with confidence. Cairn are a small company and if there is a significant accident (accidents always happen, and the unexpected remains unexpected) then they simply don't have the reources to deal with a big spill. Look at how BP struggled, with a wholedifferent magnitude of resources (inc 1000's of ships) available.

My instinct would be that if something serious went wrong, Cairn would seek safety in bankruptcy proceedings, leaving the people of Greenland well and truly screwed.

Ref: Daithesci - what can I say, but don't feed the trolls. Especially when they've shown their true colous on many other posts.

And finally the big issue here remains climate change. If we, as human civilisation, go to the last frontiers to plunder every drop of oil we can lay our hands on, then we will suffer, as a civilisation, the catastrophic effects of runaway climate change. Encouraging the big oil companies to invest in renewables should be at the centre of government policy. Deterring reckless wildcat companies from irresponsible deep sea drilling in the arctic should be everyone's responsibility.

Greenpeace doesn't have the resources to rebuild out energy production base, but it does have some influence to pressure governents and busness's to do the right thing,

By candleflame99 - 2 June 2011 at 7:54pm

1 person agrees

I am confident that Cairn are taking all steps to prevent a spill, they have also (according to the media) put up a multi billion dollar bond, plus they won't be able to self-insure (like BP) so they will have insurance which will cover in the event that they went bankrupt.

I don't think you should categorise the Deepwater Horizon style incident as an accident, this was a terrible incident, but based on what I have seen (media reports), my personal opinion is that it was BP's fault - a combination of poor engineering, poor QAQC of subcontractors work, poor wellsite management and the poor safety attitude in the USA.

Why not target West Africa where the safety standards are even more lax than they are in the GoM? Theres plenty of deepwater drilling off of Ghana, Cote D'Ivoire, etc and they have actually found oil and have production facilities running, unlike Cairn in Greenland.

By Tommmm - 2 June 2011 at 8:35pm

Jamess, you've answered the points made by Brian Brown and Daithesci by referring them to a Newsnight article.

With all due respect to Kirsty Wark, she and her reporter chums aren't exactly scientists - most reporters look for the "disaster angle" in any story even if there isn't one because disasters make good telly.

If we're talking about arctic ice disappearing, why not consider instead, for example, the views of
Professor Syun-Ichi Akasofu to give some balance to Kirsty's scoop. Who he, you ask? He's the Founding Director of the International Arctic Research Centre, so you might expect him to know a little about this topic.

Unfortunately for the doom-mongers, he presents a balanced argument that climate change both up and down within wider bounds than has been seen thus far is an entirely natural phenomenon which has occurred since the dawn of time - we're talking billions of years here, not selectively choosing short periods of thirty years which may happen to suit a particular purpose - selectively chosen periods are irrelevant and misleading in the wider scheme of things.

Have a look at his paper, "Two Natural Components of the Recent Climate Change: (1) The Recovery from the Little Ice Age (A Possible Cause of Global Warming) and (2) The Multi-decadal Oscillation (The Recent Halting of the Warming)" which is available at http://people.iarc.uaf.edu/~sakasofu/little_ice_age.php . The paper posits that this century's increases are simply a natural rebound from the freeze in the Little Ice Age.

You'll see also from his comments on the rest of that site that he is modest enough to understand that in a multi-disciplinary field such as climatology, where no one person can be an overall expert, he cannot be certain. This contrasts admirably with the almost religious fanaticism of those who insist that there is only one truth, without having done any more research than watching that irresponsible Al Gore movie.

When you understand also that the IPCC is an essentially political body which has been justifiably criticised for stretching the truth, and that a paper* commissioned by the IPPR is of the view that,"to help address the chaotic nature of the climate change discourse in the UK today, interested agencies now need to treat the argument as having been won, at least for popular communications. This means simply behaving as if climate change exists and is real, and that individual actions are effective. The ‘facts’ need to be treated as being so taken-for-granted that they need not be spoken.", you'll understand why showing me a Newsnight item doesn't really cut it in the argument stakes.

*http://www.ippr.org.uk/publicationsandreports/publication.asp?id=485

By apcs99 - 2 June 2011 at 9:02pm

The facts are that Cairn would not have been allowed to commence drilling operations without approval from the Danish authorities, who have regulatory requirements very similar to the UK and Norway.

That approval would be based upon Cairn's submission of an Oil Spill Plan which addresses what Cairn would do in the event an oil spill occurred. Only when the Danish authorities are satisfied that this plan adequately addresses all potential incidents that might reasonably occur would they approve the plan and grant the permit to drill.

Do not kid yourselves that this has not been reviewed by people who know what they are talking about. They are smart people who realise the scrutiny they would be under if something did go wrong.

Cairn have gone to the unprecedented length of having two drilling rigs contracted to work in the area. This means that if there was a requirement to drill a relief well, there would be a rig in place, capable of doing the job. At $500k+ per day, this is an expensive insurance policy which Cairn consider a neccessity - or the Danes do, whatever - the second rig is in place.

Ask yourselves this - what is happening in the Falklands right now? One rig is drilling various prospects for various small companies. If something goes badly wrong there, it will take two months to even get a rig to the location for a relief well.

IMHO Cairn are being a very responsible explorer. They do have an oil spill plan - if they choose not to give it to Greenpeace, that's their choice. Why should they? Greenpeace do not understand the complexities of well control, oil spill response or drilling operations, preferring to wave the propaganda blanket which is so biased that reasonable debate could not ever be entered into. Giving them the document would only lead to further spin which would be of no benefit to Cairn, but really of no benefit to those of us who appreciate a well-reasoned debate.

No doubt this post will be berated by the spin-merchants at Greenpeace, but no surprises there. Having read this section thoroughly, the lack of in depth knowledge is obvious. Empty vessels make most noise.

By Bonzo the Magnificent - 2 June 2011 at 11:45pm

The facts are that Cairn would not have been allowed to commence drilling operations without approval from the Danish authorities, who have regulatory requirements very similar to the UK and Norway.

Do not kid yourselves that this has not been reviewed by people who know what they are talking about. They are smart people who realise the scrutiny they would be under if something did go wrong.

By Bonzo the Magnificent - 2 June 2011 at 11:45pm

I am in agreement with
Tommmmmm, everyone is currently throwing up the DWH incident as being the
reason against deep water drilling, without a mention of the hundreds of deep
water drilling operations that have been completed in a safe, and
environmentally conscious manner. The DWH was the culmination of many, many
issues. A perfect storm if you will.

What was the largest oil spill
related disaster prior to this, the Exxon Valdez, an environmental disaster
caused by a tanker, not a drilling project. If consideration is taken into how
many deep water wells are drilled against how many have any issues will show
this to be an incredibly infrequent occurrence, and that is before you factor
in all of the extra safety measures that have resulted from the DWH disaster.

No
exploration company wants to cause any negative environmental impact. All
consideration is taken in well design, and planning to insure that all
operations are conducted responsibly. And if anyone doubts this they must take
a long hard look at the events that unfolded after DWH, BP suffered terribly
for a dreadful mistake that resulted in working men not returning home to their
families, and an environmental disaster that cost people their livelihoods, damaged
multiple ecosystems, cost billions, and will haunt them forever.

By Will D - 2 June 2011 at 11:54pm

@jamess

No spring in Greenland.
Can you tell me why there is still winter in Greenland today on 3 June 2011?

By Knud Seblon - 3 June 2011 at 8:24am

@Tommmm Now I am a Chemical Engineer by trade / background (although I've left the industry) and one thing that is certain is that accidents / disasters (call them what you will) always happen, and the more expected accidents / disasters are by their nature unexpected.

As an engineer it is our role to cost such accidents, to look at the probabilities, and to balance mitigation of the probability of those accidents against the cost of that accident. To be blunt if one costs a human life at £2million, and it would cost significantly more than £2million to institute processes to prevent the loss of that life, that as an engineer it doesn't make sense to do so.

In the case of deep water arctic drilling, one is so far beyond the frontier that it is impossible to calculate the risks, to institute a realistic spill response plan, and/or to actually prevent such accidents. If a significant accident does happen, there is every probability that one can do nothing to stop the spill. As an engineer if I can't stop it, then the risk is next to infinite, which means I can't cost it, which leads to the conclusion that I shouldn't be doing it in the first place.

In laymans terms its simply a bloody stupid place to drill for oil.

To the climate skeptics, please go away and come back when you've aquired enough knowledge of science and engineering to have a qualified debate. To the folk who are interested in where the few qualified 'climate skeptics' get ther funds from, try sourcewatch; http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Syun_Akasofu

30 seconds research suggests the post about about Syun Akasofu, not only misrepresents his views (which I disagree with), but is also riddled with inaccuracies. I'm also suspicious of any 'scientists' who is associated with a lobbying group with a history of presenting the Tobacco industries case that smoking doesn't cause lung cancer.

By candleflame99 - 3 June 2011 at 8:50am

3 people agree

The focus for many of these people countering the argument that we
need to look beyond oil for our energy, seems to be that it is unlikely
that there be a spill in the Arctic; I don't know about you but UNLIKELY
for me, just isn't good enough.

The consequences of a spill in the Arctic similar to that seen in the Gulf of Mexico last year, it has
been proven, would be catastrophic and unthinkably damaging to the very
fragile ecosystem that exists there.The very fact that this threat
exists and given the publicity surrounding deepwater drilling and the
safety of such practices; the fact that Cairn Energy have the gall to
think they don't need to tell people what their plans are if there is a
spill. Personally I suspect the plan laid out by the big "high-ups" in
Cairn Energy is very simple indeed; "Go Bankrupt" and that's the reason
why they won't let anybody see.

By Connelly90 - 3 June 2011 at 3:30pm

@candleflame99 I think the £2m costing thing is old engineering and certainly not how well engineering is completed in modern day drilling engineering.

@Connelly90 I've already explained that Cairn will have insurance that will cover them for a blow out so the just "Go Bankrupt" thing is rubbish. It is extremely unlikely that a blow out will happen, and if a blowout were to happen to end up with a DW Horizon style spill and disaster is next to impossible.

By Tommmm - 3 June 2011 at 4:54pm

@Tommmm

'...if a blowout were to happen to end up with a DW Horizon style spill and disaster is next to impossible.'

Quite a statement, I think you're going to have to explain that one..

BP clearly didn't think the unthinkable. Having seen that one happen and its subsequent consequences, 'you'll have to take our word for it' style assurances just don't cut it.

Accidents happen and when it's nuclear plants, oil refineries and rigs, particularly in pristine, hostile environments it's fair to ask what the response plan is.

(I know it's been said already but anyone excusing Cairns secrecy about their alleged response plan by saying that Greenpeace 'would sabotage it' doesn't know the first thing about Greenpeace).

By KD - 3 June 2011 at 7:33pm

@Tommmm

'...if a blowout were to happen to end up with a DW Horizon style spill and disaster is next to impossible.'

Quite a statement, I think you're going to have to explain that one..

BP clearly didn't think the unthinkable. Having seen that one happen and its subsequent consequences, 'you'll have to take our word for it' style assurances just don't cut it.

Accidents happen and when it's nuclear plants, oil refineries and rigs, particularly in pristine, hostile environments it's fair to ask what the response plan is.

(I know it's been said already but anyone excusing Cairns secrecy about their alleged response plan by saying that Greenpeace 'would sabotage it' doesn't know the first thing about Greenpeace).

By KD - 3 June 2011 at 7:33pm

Normal
0

false
false
false

EN-GB
X-NONE
X-NONE

MicrosoftInternetExplorer4

Just to counter the Climate Change deniers that seem to have
hijacked this comments section, do you not think that the vast majority of
people on this website support the aims of Greenpeace? If you do not agree with
the aims of Greenpeace I am sure there are better forums for your minority
viewpoint.

Greenpeace are doing a brilliant job highlighting the damage
Cairn is trying to inflict on the Arctic and good luck to Hannah and Luke.

By Aaron Walters - 3 June 2011 at 8:32pm

1 person agrees

Brian Brown,

I'm interested to hear your argument, but you just sound silly talking about GreenPeace (which is a voluntary organisation) 'fleecing the public' because it's more lucrative than working with oil companies! pretty pointless thing to say when they don't keep any of the money.

Do you honestly really believe oil companies are PRIORITISING exploring alternatives to oil?
I'm not saying they don't invest anything in good programs here and there, but when you're a massive, massive company deep water drilling for oil, you're kinda obliged to have something you can at least argue you're doing that's helpful to the planet or society, and I've been unable to find anything amazing they're really doing.

For those who don't believe in climate change- why have we had a record number of record hot days?

By Luke Flegg - 4 June 2011 at 4:18pm

Luke yeah brilliant one, 'record number of hot days' since records began. I forgot that the climate has only EVER changed over the last 400 years. Thats real Science!

By Will D - 6 June 2011 at 5:13pm

KD if you had any idea what so ever about well
design you might just understand how unlikely this is. You surely must realise
that engineers, professional engineers have looked at these plans, and let’s be
honest have a much more valuable opinion on this matter.

By Will D - 6 June 2011 at 5:18pm

If the BP oil spill did not happen, then this would not be such a major, intense issue. It's only now, after that devastation, that the world can see what will happen IF the unthinkable becomes reality again.

Oil is not the only thing that affects the lives of the third world. There are so many greedy influential people in the world which has led to this extreme global inequality.

Greenpeace are doing an amazing job! Thank you for doing what billions of people would want to be done.

By hope* - 7 June 2011 at 7:31pm