New deep sea drilling is not only irrational, our lawyers say it's illegal too

Posted by jamess - 2 September 2010 at 9:34am - Comments

BP's Deepwater Horizon disaster in the Gulf of Mexico

Today our lawyers sent a letter to the UK government threatening legal action over their decision to continue giving licenses for deep sea oil drilling even before we know for certain the causes of the Deepwater Horizon explosion.

We're asking the government to stop giving out these licenses for new offshore drilling and to carry out a comprehensive new environmental assessment into offshore oil. It's not just irrational to give out licenses without this new environmental assessment; we believe it's also a breach of European and UK law.

We want the UK to follow Obama's lead and introduce a moratorium on deep sea drilling. As the US Secretary of the Interior, Ken Salizar, said when introducing their moratorium: "A pause on deep sea drilling is essential and appropriate to protect communities, coasts, and wildlife from the risks that deepwater drilling currently pose… I am basing my decision on evidence that grows every day of the industry’s inability in the deepwater to contain a catastrophic blow out, respond to an oil spill, and to operate safely."

Our lawyers have a strong record. You may remember that they helped us to get the last government's nuclear and aviation policies changed.

This is just the first step in the legal process. If the government does not give us an undertaking within 14 days that it will stop the licensing and do a new environmental assessment, we plan to go to court.

Read how the story was covered in the Financial Times today.

Article tagged as: BP, climate change, deepwater horizon, go beyond oil, offshore drilling

Comments Commenting is now closed

The legal case is laid out in the letter linked in the blog. Here it is in case you missed it.

By jamess - 2 September 2010 at 1:48pm

Excellent, I wholeheartedly approve! Play them at their own game.

The great thing about you, Greenpeace, is that you are undaunted. Ok, the occupation of the oil rig didn't last as long as you wanted, but you've made the point, and all I can say is, I wish the government luck - they're going to need it!

Tell us Greenpeace supporters what we can do to help and we'll do it, we're all still here, every step of the way.

Gratitude, and inordinate respect.

XXX

By FreeSpirit - 2 September 2010 at 2:26pm

Jamess - thank you. I agree that there does need to be a re-assessing of regulations and policys in order to reduce the risk and mitigate to as low as reasonable pratical prior to any drilling. However awarding a license does not mean that they are allowed to drill as it depends on what kind of licence they have been given. If they have been given a licence to drill they have to satisfy the HSE conditions that risk be mitigated to as low as reasonably praticable.

It takes roughy 2 years for an oil company to do its initial research into the block before they decide if it wants to drill (depend on the type of license it holds). So you can be fairly sure that a deep water licences issued after April 20th 2010 drill until after April 2012 or there abouts.

This should be sufficient time for all parties to get together to review the current regulations and practices prior to any deep water drilling commencing.

As always in the oil industry, a low incident rate does not always mean a safe one. Its the times when you are not concentrating or rushed that terrible (and fatal) accidents will occur. There is no heroics in rushing things through but if it takes time to access the situation before proceeding then hopefully, with the best intentions possible, the risk can be reduced.

What Greenpeace here are after is not an altogether stop on Deep Sea drilling but more thourgh and concious review with the implication of the GOM taken into account. I see no problem with that and if something is highlighted in the review that implys greater risk than nessacary then great - risk hopefully reduced.

However, in terms of them breaking the law Uk and EU, no they havent broken any laws at all.

By 1ofamajority - 2 September 2010 at 2:56pm

Why would offshore drilling be illegal for deepwater activities? Specifically which laws here do you believe have been broken, Uk and European?

In your blog you stated a comment fro Ken Salizar" I am basing my decision on evidence that grows every day of the industry’s inability in the deepwater to contain a catastrophic blow out, respond to an oil spill, and to operate safely."

In a previous post I have explained part of a measure that the drilling procedues have been amended by the industry (in relation to Norway and Denmark) due to the GOM disaster....

As always the oil industy learns and unlike many other industries it learns fast. The disaster in the Gulf of Mexico, almost as soon as it happened, taught them that it can not rely soley on 1 piece of equipment that would shut in the well in should the worse happen.

BP got it wrong, seriously and gravely wrong but from that it and other oil companies learned that there needed to be a further 'back-up' should that equipment fail. Within a few months various drilling standards (Norway, Denmark etc) were re-done and updated to impliment this need for a second barrier. It costs more but in the long term the view that is held is that it lessens the chance of another GOM of happening. Shouldn't that be encouraged?

As you can see the industry understands that the inadequate protection (in this instance) of a blow out from the GOM has resulted in the industry implementing stricter rules in terms of barriers to prevent another GOM occuring. The industry takes very seriously the ability to reduce the risk to an absolute minimum.

One thing though that you have not highlighted and fail to do so is explain that the UK and those countries in the North Sea have a much stricter and more comprehensive drilling practice policy than the USA. What happened in GOM has already changed drilling policy in these waters.

By 1ofamajority - 2 September 2010 at 12:47pm

The legal case is laid out in the letter linked in the blog. Here it is in case you missed it.

By jamess - 2 September 2010 at 1:48pm

Excellent, I wholeheartedly approve! Play them at their own game. The great thing about you, Greenpeace, is that you are undaunted. Ok, the occupation of the oil rig didn't last as long as you wanted, but you've made the point, and all I can say is, I wish the government luck - they're going to need it! Tell us Greenpeace supporters what we can do to help and we'll do it, we're all still here, every step of the way. Gratitude, and inordinate respect. XXX

By FreeSpirit - 2 September 2010 at 2:26pm

Freespirit - Greenpeace is only highlighting the fact that the current regulations need updating and reassessed in light of the GOM disastor. They are not playing the oil industry at any game, its a case of saftey. Jamess - thank you. I agree that there does need to be a re-assessing of regulations and policys in order to reduce the risk and mitigate to as low as reasonable pratical prior to any drilling. However awarding a license does not mean that they are allowed to drill as it depends on what kind of licence they have been given. If they have been given a licence to drill they have to satisfy the HSE conditions that risk be mitigated to as low as reasonably praticable. It takes roughy 2 years for an oil company to do its initial research into the block before they decide if it wants to drill (depend on the type of license it holds). So you can be fairly sure that a deep water licences issued after April 20th 2010 drill until after April 2012 or there abouts. This should be sufficient time for all parties to get together to review the current regulations and practices prior to any deep water drilling commencing. As always in the oil industry, a low incident rate does not always mean a safe one. Its the times when you are not concentrating or rushed that terrible (and fatal) accidents will occur. There is no heroics in rushing things through but if it takes time to access the situation before proceeding then hopefully, with the best intentions possible, the risk can be reduced. What Greenpeace here are after is not an altogether stop on Deep Sea drilling but more thourgh and concious review with the implication of the GOM taken into account. I see no problem with that and if something is highlighted in the review that implys greater risk than nessacary then great - risk hopefully reduced. However, in terms of them breaking the law Uk and EU, no they havent broken any laws at all.

By 1ofamajority - 2 September 2010 at 2:56pm

Why would offshore drilling be illegal for deepwater activities? Specifically which laws here do you believe have been broken, Uk and European? In your blog you stated a comment fro Ken Salizar" I am basing my decision on evidence that grows every day of the industry’s inability in the deepwater to contain a catastrophic blow out, respond to an oil spill, and to operate safely." In a previous post I have explained part of a measure that the drilling procedues have been amended by the industry (in relation to Norway and Denmark) due to the GOM disaster.... As always the oil industy learns and unlike many other industries it learns fast. The disaster in the Gulf of Mexico, almost as soon as it happened, taught them that it can not rely soley on 1 piece of equipment that would shut in the well in should the worse happen. BP got it wrong, seriously and gravely wrong but from that it and other oil companies learned that there needed to be a further 'back-up' should that equipment fail. Within a few months various drilling standards (Norway, Denmark etc) were re-done and updated to impliment this need for a second barrier. It costs more but in the long term the view that is held is that it lessens the chance of another GOM of happening. Shouldn't that be encouraged? As you can see the industry understands that the inadequate protection (in this instance) of a blow out from the GOM has resulted in the industry implementing stricter rules in terms of barriers to prevent another GOM occuring. The industry takes very seriously the ability to reduce the risk to an absolute minimum. One thing though that you have not highlighted and fail to do so is explain that the UK and those countries in the North Sea have a much stricter and more comprehensive drilling practice policy than the USA. What happened in GOM has already changed drilling policy in these waters.

By 1ofamajority - 2 September 2010 at 12:47pm