Sneaky oil drillers - let's stop them

Posted by jamess - 4 February 2011 at 6:42pm - Comments

by. Credit: Greenpeace

Hess' own projection of a possible spill. Terrifying.

The oil companies are at it again: they're trying to drill another deep water well off the Shetland Islands. Let's stop them.

A few months ago we mobilised together to stop Chevron drilling the first deep water oil well in UK waters after the Gulf of Mexico disaster.

We succeeded in delaying the drilling for over a week, and are currently in the middle of legal battle with the government over its plan to allow more new drill permits. The news now is that another US oil company, Hess, wants to work with Chevron to drill at another site in the deep waters off the Shetland Islands, called Cambo 4.

There’s a public consultation open for the next few days - you can help stop the drilling.

You probably remember Anais and Victor scrambling up the anchor chain of the Stena Carron, Chevron’s massive drill ship, followed by the occupation of the chain with the legendary yellow pod. You might even remember our last-ditch efforts to stop the Stena Carron reaching the drill site, jumping in front of the moving ship. Sixteen hours bobbing in front of the steel behemoth has certainly left its impressions on me.

The thousands of emails that you sent to energy secretary Chris Huhne were a huge morale boost for those of us on the Esperanza and also told the government that we don’t want dangerous deepwater drilling in UK waters. Certainly not until we’ve learned the lessons of the Gulf of Mexico.

There’s little doubt in my mind that the government now knows how much pressure we can bring, which is why they’ve done their best to hide the public consultation notice (which they’re legally obliged to publish) in the corner of page 42 of the Independent on 14 January this year (see pic on the right). They also allow people to read the Hess report on the potential environmental impacts of the new well in the Aberdeen and Lerwick public libraries (only between 10am to 4pm on workdays, mind).

Well, they didn’t manage to hide it from us and we’ve dug out the details for you. You can submit your own views on this drilling license to the government and make this consultation truly public.

If there’s a shred of doubt in your mind about the importance of this, take a look at Hess’ own modelling of a possible spill scenario, which has oil choking the coastlines of Ireland, Scotland and reaching as far south as the Norfolk coast. Not to mention spreading as far as Iceland, Germany and even the far north of Norway.

Hess admits that, in a worse-case scenario, a spill at Cambo 4 would be as large as that of the Deepwater Horizon in the Gulf of Mexico. Yet the area around the proposed drill site is home to over 20 species of dolphin and whales, many of which are under threat of extinction. The 48 species of seabird from fulmars to razorbills as well as the otters that live in the area could all be caught up in a spill.

And that’s before we consider the global consequences of continuing to burn oil, from climate refugees to a rapidly melting Arctic.

So please take a minute to make your own submission to the consultation (we’ve even created one for you if you’re in a rush) and tell everyone you know about it. Let’s stop this drilling.

Article tagged as: chevron, go beyond oil, hess, oil, oil spill, shetland

Comments Commenting is now closed

This destructive drilling needs to be stopped.

By Judy Coleman - 5 February 2011 at 2:26am

1 person agrees

At least they're being subtle about it, there's nothing worse than an oil company showing off about how many oil rigs they have before blowing them up, I <3 BP :)

By My name - 5 February 2011 at 11:00am

What experts do Greenpeace have on deepwater drilling? Until we have alternative to oil we still require.

As long as this is managed correctly and properly Risk Assessed this will pose no risk to the Environment. Greenpeace should consider working along side the Oil companies involved here rather than mindless acts of what could be called vandalism..

By Barry Valentine - 5 February 2011 at 6:23pm

What experts do Greenpeace have on deepwater drilling? Until we have alternative to oil we still require to drill.

By Barry Valentine - 5 February 2011 at 6:23pm

With reference to comment:

'As long as this is managed correctly and properly Risk Assessed this will pose no risk to the Environment'.

Of course!! The oil industry has such an impeccable record on this score doesn't it!

I think not!!

By Gardiner - 6 February 2011 at 9:25pm

Putting it in perspective - the UK could be responsible for future global catastrophe

UK's total oil reserves remaining (2007 data) is projected to be:
780 million tonnes = 780 000 000 000 kilograms = 0.780 gigatonnes

(http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200809/cmselect/cmenergy/memo...)

DECC estimates 17% of this is to be found West of the Shetlands:
i.e. 132.6 million tonnes = 132 600 000 000 kg = 0.1326 gigatonnes

(https://www.og.decc.gov.uk/UKpromote/wos_task.htm).

According to the Carbon Trust, each kg of oil, if burnt, will release about 3229 kg of CO2e per tonne (3.22 tonnes)

http://www.carbontrust.co.uk/cut-carbon-reduce-costs/calculate/carbon-fo....

That means, it would release around:

426.9 million tonnes of Co2 = 426 900 000 000 kg = 0.4269 gigatonnes of CO2e!

To put that in perspective....

Have you heard of the "gigatonne gap"? This is the amount more the world needs to reduce by 2020 to avoid catastrophic climate change. (http://www.wwf.org.uk/wwf_articles.cfm?unewsid=4272).

The UK (Chris Huhne) would be almost half responsible for over-riding this amount and putting the whole world on course for catastrophe.

By lana707 - 7 February 2011 at 3:15am

What is your article about? The risk assessment carried out by Hess? the lack of publicity of the public consultation? or the implications of a major crude oil spill?

The picture you have in the title, showing pleasant green lands being attacked by a mass of nasty black oil could be a little misleading:

Reading through the Hess risk assessment, the chances of a spill of any kind of hydrocarbon (using data from the last 15 years) have been 0.001. These spills include anything, deisel from a boat, crude from the well, someone farting...
More important is the frequency of size with only 0.6% of these spills being greater than 25t.
Most important still is the likelyhood of a crude spill of over 25t. The facts: 1 spill per 2228 days.
And the likelyhood of an uncontrolled well blow out...? 0.00004. And from a exploratory drill ship...? never happened.
So, I am not arguing that it will never happen or that it could never happen, I am just arguing that your picture should have the sub title: Chances of this happening < 0.00004.

It's easy to scare people into submission. It is harder, but more enlightening to give them the facts and let them decide.

By orved - 7 February 2011 at 3:23pm

The oil industry is so greedy all they care about is money not the enviroment. if we can stop these greedy companies then the world will become a more healthier enviroment and will alow nature to carry on.

By Phoebebroek - 7 February 2011 at 7:57pm

Any big industry has its moments in the spotlight that turn out to be bad news. BP. Exxon. Doesn't mean you should stop all operations elsewhere. That being said, the petroleum industry is the biggest in the world, and will remain in the pole position for another 50+ years. The EU has very strict rules so I wouldn't worry, just keep your eye on them, ask for more transparency that would be a better initiative.

And I think people under estimate what petroleum has done for the world.

By Anon - 8 February 2011 at 12:53am

Regardless of the chances of oil spills, Oil is still a finite resource of which people are constantly fighting and being murdered over(Iraq etc), and is still a large part of pollution(aside from meat farms etc).

Therefore even if the chances of a spill are tiny, it doesn't justify the wars, it doesn't justify the pollution, and it doesn't justify the fact that people are making millions while people who are native to the area of which the resources are being pirated, are suffering either directly or indirectly, it doesn't matter either way.

Just another capitalist money making scheme to further someone's pocket while no-one else benefits, no matter how they pretty-print the stats.

~Canis.

By Canis Lupus - 8 February 2011 at 2:04pm

The comments that have been posted after mine highlight the reasons behind the lack of traction of goups like Greenpeace.
You need to structure your thoughs a little more rather than moan at everything that pops into your head: is your point that oil is polluting? If so is this in production or use? Do you want people to use less oil, or simply make it safer to extract and use?
Or is your point that profit is being made from oil? If it is regarding profit, are you saying that no one should profit from oil (or any other industry/effort)? or just that the profits are disproportional to the industry? What would be an acceptable level? Who are you to decide?
While all you lot are thinking up your questions and jumbling up your misgivings and jealousies, others are getting on with things. Not because theyre capitalists, but because they want to achieve and develop and better themselves.
STOP MOANING - START DOING. Get a job at Hess, or Chevron and work with them and for them at getting things better, and improving safety, at paying fair compensation to local populations, at reinvesting more of their profits etc. Or is that too much like hard work? Easier to moan on a website..?Morons.

By orved - 8 February 2011 at 3:27pm

Haha the irony in that statement is fantastic.

"Easier to moan on a website..?Morons."

Grow up and get a job like the rest of us, seen as you're also moaning on a website, and most definitely a moron. :)

By Canis Lupus - 8 February 2011 at 3:33pm

Clean your loupe Chumpy.
I aint the one bitching about about how everyone is making more money than me.

I'm even moaning. I'm telling you put up or shut up.

By orved - 8 February 2011 at 3:50pm

Work for Hess or BP? Like you do by any chance? Stop trying to argue your quasi-philosophical b.s to abate your guilty feelings. You seem incredibly well informed for a layman and I suspect you secretly feel that you are guilty of screwing over indigenous peoples and ruining the environment for the sake of your self. I think, rather than arguing whether we want to regularise BPs practices we all threw our car keys away we'd be fine. In general sir, you are the worst person on this entire website if not the planet. I'll save the unnecessary name calling and pull a moral high ground - I doubt you'd be familiar with that.

By GP Fundraiser #1 - 8 February 2011 at 4:08pm

Sorry GP, wrong again. Not connected to the oil industry at all, apart from filling up with a tank of unleaded every other week, and loathing the cost.
I am glad that I seem well informed, I simply bothered to read the evidence in the report that was posted in the article.
In fact, I share many of your concerns (although maybe not to the same paranoid extent): safety, environment and local population impact...
And this is why many at GP will never be taken seriously: you make too many assumptions about people, you like to fit them into stereotypes, and you dont deal with detail.
Up your game, and those who already have upped theirs might take note of you at last.

By orved - 8 February 2011 at 4:22pm

Stereotyping? You just branded all of greenpeace as paranoid and that all of them express the exact same views and beliefs trollolol
Arnt you ironic little guy xD

By Canis Lupus - 8 February 2011 at 4:30pm

"And this is why many at GP will never be taken seriously"

spot the word all in there.

By orved - 8 February 2011 at 4:49pm

Thanks for all the comments. On whether getting a job with Hess or Chevron is the answer, we've already seen how all the smart kids are looking beyond dirty energy industries for employment.

Regarding oil drilling, the fundamental point here is that we have the choice. This idea that drilling in deeper, more dangerous, more exploitative places is inevitable is ridiculous. We have the ability to decide when risks to our local environment and our global climate are too high and therefore put our efforts elsewhere.

It's true that moving onto cleaner, greener energies will take time (and create lots more jobs by the way), but the point is that we can choose.

My question to all those who stick their heads down and say "let's keep on drilling" is this: when do you want to stop? When we've needlessly destroyed local habitats and driven up global temperatures? When the execs at BP tell you it's time? Or when you - for the sake of your kids and our shared planet - realise we have to mobilise around the alternatives.

We all have incredible power to change the world we live in. The only thing that gets in the way is that pervasive myth that we can't change anything.

That's why that challenge of "stop moaning, do something" etc rings so hollow. It's the people who make up this Greenpeace network who are the ones who 'do'. Maybe some of the doubters out there should try joining.

By jamess - 8 February 2011 at 4:54pm

Good idea to work with the oil companies and the government to put forward ideas about allowing the companies to drill but give them ideas about protecting the environment and making them aware of future costs by encouraging them to invest in research and sustainable energies and controlling their greed.

By KatieDudill - 8 February 2011 at 9:09pm

I doubt, orved, that you share any of GP's concerns. What GP reports is based on scientific evidence, not paranoia. They do not make assumptions about people and fit them into stereotypes. Yes, oil companies like to achieve, develop and better themselves, but they should do that by concentrating their efforts on developing clean, renewable energy like wind and solar power. Morons, my foot.

By Karen Uyeno - 9 February 2011 at 12:55am

It really infuriates me when companies like this employ such sneaky tactics. Thanks for pointing it out.

Also, totaly agree with Karen Uyeno above; if they truly wanted to better themselves then they would be investing the funds they waste trying to find harder and harder to reach oil into renewable energy.

By Connelly90 - 9 February 2011 at 6:31pm

Orved, you suggest that the risk of any sizeable leak is minimal. The fact is..... there shouldn't be any risk of a leak at all!

History, particularly in last 10-20 years, has shown the oil industry to be responsible for various disasters which have reaped environmental and ecological misery beyond question. We only have to look at 2010 for a classic. Any benefit of drilling must be outweighed by the risk of what we have to lose no matter how small that risk maybe.

If we are to develop any form of sustainable stewardship of our current natural resources now is really the time to be challenging are overindulgent dependance on oil. We simply cannot carry on with the present status quo.

Furthermore, 2-3 years ago I wasn't really a hugh follower of the green movement per se. But things change. For me and yes, my layman views, is that the oil industry is one of greed and exploitation and helps to fuel the western community's love of all things glittery and materialistic. It has become quite ugly!

By Gardiner - 9 February 2011 at 10:55pm

To Connelly90,

I totally agree with you.

By Karen Uyeno - 11 February 2011 at 3:05am

Shame GP can't run it's servers on hot air - there's plenty here to keep it going. Get the fluffy cuddly blinkers off and get real about global energy demand and what that means. Stopping current sources of energy only pushes that problem somewhere else in the world - but maybe poorer people don't matter so much to you. The real campaign target should be government investment in genuine breakthrough technology - fusion research for example. Everything else is just twiddling the tone controls.

By JffRlyr - 13 February 2011 at 2:57pm

No but GP could run their servers.on cow manure as HP has proven. Haha

By Canis Lupus - 13 February 2011 at 3:03pm

To be honest I agree with orved he speaks the truth. I do agree that green energy is the way forward and the future but not for several decades. At this moment in time we cannot survive in this world without oil. You are all just fear mongering little people who have nothing better to do. All you pathetic people do is moan and its true. As for actual greenpeace activists I have huge respect for you but seriously when you have to resort to crude vandalism it really is pathetic. I mean what do you want us to do, go and wrestle Oil drillers and whalers? Now just think what if...zebras ruled the world.

By Marcoose and Mikhail - 14 February 2011 at 12:07pm

A couple of points that are constantly brought up by pro-oil commenters: -

1 - We depend on oil

Of course we do. The investments made by oil and car companies over the years is not something they are willing to move away from. It has quite happily made them huge profit, regardless of the cost to people and the environment, and they are quite happy to continue this profit.

The issue is the lack of investment made by these companies in clean technology, despite their promises and claims to the contrary.

For example, BP recently changed their name to "Beyond Petroleum" when only around 5% (if i remember correctly) of their investments are in renewable energy (this includes wind, solar, tidal and bio-fuels) and the rest in oil. Obviously, a green image is easier to pay for than a green company.

The fact then that there is only a finite amount, and we are having to go to methods such as deep-sea drilling, especially in places like Greenland, is unavoidable.

2 - Deep sea drilling is safe

Yes there are tiny percentages that this type of spill will happen - doesn't mean it won't. As we have seen with the Gulf of Mexico, Exxon Valdez and huge amounts spilt in the Niger Delta. Simply saying the chances are low is quite obviously a bad argument.

Tidal, wind and solar power has been proven to be extremely safe. Anyone link to any life-taking, environment-wrecking disasters with regards to these types of energy?

In summary, wouldn't it be great if we had transport systems that didn't rely on an expensive, finite and dangerous fuel?

Wouldn't it be great if we could source this power locally, and the solutions worked as good as and better than our current systems?

Of course! Who wouldn't agree.

What do we need to do to come to these solutions? Invest as much money as is currently invested into oil, coal and nuclear power into renewable energy and transport/heating.

Simple as that. Every new development in these industries are made by small start-ups, which are threatening these huge corporations - that is why there is such a backlash. Especially in the red-tops.

Anyone else for a reasonable debate?

By Matt Harris - 14 February 2011 at 7:45pm

Sorry everyone - I'm Back!

Lets get one thing clear, because someone presents points that are not in line with GP, doesnt make them "pro-oil". The situation is not black and white.
People use oil - these firms are simply fulfilling demand. Demand to make your plastic i-phones and laptops and power your car or make the rubber in your bike tyres, and make your cool north face jackets, and transport your food and fuel your plane to your gap year in peru or africa and on and on. ITS IN EVERYTHING YOU TOUCH! You need it, they supply it.
Just like finance. Everyone loves to hate a bank. But you all want a mortgage, and an isa, and credit to buy you car or sofa, and pay with a debit card, and have a credit card and a direct debit and go abroad and get currency easily, and buy stuff online. and your i-phone has parts from china and usa and europe that are paid in different currencies and shipped (using oi!) on and on... Again, its in everything you touch. You need it They supply it.

The important thing is to make people understand what they are doing, what lies behind their demands, not shout at the consequences.

And to those who argue that oil companies are not spending enough on renewables, this is for a reason: THEY ARE OIL COMPANIES! the clue is in the name! Supply and demand will determine the long term developments. But for as long as we all demand these things, someone will supply them.

(Matt Harris, be careful not to confuse deep sea drilling (Deep Water Horizon) with shipping disaster (Exxon Valdez). While they were both environmental catastrophies, they had different causes.)

By orved - 15 February 2011 at 10:57am

@ Matt Harris - up for reasonable deabate eh? Sounds good.

1) BP has never changed it's name to "Beyond Petroleum" - do your research.

2) You perpetuate a common fallacy. Why on earth would you expect the current international oil companies to be the right vehicles for investing in alternative energy? What they have the knowledge and skills to do (and always need to be developing to do better, cleaner and safer) is meet the 50% of global energy demand that, whatever success we have with alternative energy sources, will need to come from reservoired fluid hydrocarbons for the next 50 Years or so. That they are willing to invest in alternative energy at all is a bonus, and shows an intent to future diversification.

But you don't acquire those skills instantly, and any new technology has to overcome it's own issues of commercial acceptance, scaling up of production, and - oh my - not everyone is keen about the impact of wind farms, or tidal power, or transmission routes for electricity across the Cairngorms etc... "green" energy appears to have environmental and social issues too!

Success with displacement technologies rarely come from older industries - not because they are unwilling - but because they don't have the different skills and capabilities required. If you don't think the oil companies are doing enough, and there is a market you can sell into - get off your posterior and start your own company! Shouldn't be difficult to overtake some of those nasty oil companies who are currently some of the largest producers of alternative energy supplies even when they allegedly don't really want to do it. Looks like a very odd sort of backlash to me.

3) Alternatives "proven safe"? You think so? Then why the debate about the impact of the Severn Barrage? Impact of hydroelectric dam construction in China anyone? (and no sneaky saying that's just lower Chinese standards - push the world away from hydrocarbons and there'll be more where that came from!). There are no easy choices - compromise is inevitable. The trick will be to balance wisely.

...and all the while the GP publicity machine rolls on with lots of garish messages and scant regard for any evidence based reasonable debate. So I'm not holding my breath....

By JffRlyr - 15 February 2011 at 11:39am

orved - Fair point "pro-oil" isn't a tag should put on people, but please don't make the assumption I am a "gap yah" student whose activity and knowledge on environmental issues is limited to liking an anti-BP group on facebook.

Though I am confused as what your opinions are on how long we should be relying on oil and is the current investment into alternative solutions enough? What do you think should be done for our future?

Surely you'd agree that more needs to be done to invest in alternatives, and the technology needed, purely on the basis that we are relying on a finite amount of resources? And again, yes we do rely on oil - obviously not just for transport. This has been said quite a few times.

Do you think this is a good thing? What solutions are you proposing? Exxon Valdez spill, apologies. Still an oil disaster though, and another way that oil can be spilt after drilling for it.

My mistake, BP doesn't stand for "Beyond Petroleum", it's just their tagline adopted 10 years ago that they use underneath their green logo.

These companies are touting their green image but not backing it up. Yes they are oil companies, but they should be moving to cleaner technologies for their sake and ours. Investment and government support/subsidy for newer, cleaner tech is not anywhere near it should be and is instead going to an industry that has had and will continue to have a devastating impact on our planet.

People constantly argue against what Greenpeace do when it comes to oil, but just to say that we rely on oil and shouldn't be protesting it - without proposing their suggestions for what should be done.

What do you guys suggest should happen in terms of investment and research in the next 50 years for our fuel and power future? Bearing in mind that thinking only in terms of what is the cheapest and fastest for the next few years will have impact on our environment and therefore economy in the near future.

Any links to any disasters from green tech? No. Of course renewable energy isn't perfect, it's not like we expect to put up a solar panel made of recycled paper and it fuel our homes completely free and green for the rest of our lives. It's that these solutions are cleaner, safer and do not rely on finite sources. The severn dam wasn't built after the conclusion that it would have an impact on the local habitat. Key point here, it wasn't built.

These solutions aren't perfect, but this is why time and money is needed to put these ideas into fruition. On the other hand, after reasoned debate the severn dam is turned down, yet the government has given the OK so far for this new drilling despite what happened with a similar rig in the Gulf of Mexico.

In summary, instead of just bashing Greenpeace at every turn (is there a personal or business agenda you guys have?) why not reason why we are pushing against oil and for better solutions, or actually give your ideas?

By Matt Harris - 15 February 2011 at 3:13pm

Slight pause there while I took the opportnity to do some research of my own. In this case going to the source material for the map at the head of this picture so helpfully entitled "Hess' own projection of a possible spill - terrifying".

Funny what you learn when you do that. That outline, so thoughtfully crayoned in black to help make the "terrifying" point, is actually the 0% probability boundary for the worst scenario they modelled. The probability of oil arriving at any given point inside that boundary varies enormously (depending on wind and current directions, sea state, weather etc - just as you would expect if you THOUGHT about it). The area with 100% probability of oil impact in that scenario is a small fraction of the total area - do go check the analysis.

But lets not let the absence of a bit of accurately quoted and portrayed objective, scientific analysis spoil a good scare story, eh? Where would be the fun in that?

Reasonable debate? I wish.....

By JffRlyr - 15 February 2011 at 10:09pm

Thanks for the comments. A little polite reminder: please don't get abusive, it doesn't help the discussion and your comments will be deleted.

Nobody here is arguing that oil is not central to our current way of life. The question is where do you want to go from here. We're saying that continuing along this route of ever-riskier drilling and continuing to burn fossil fuels is dangerous to the local environment and catastrophic for the global climate.

Of course demand is key to addressing the problem, and we campaign on that too. We've long been pressuring governments for strong emissions targets on vehicles across Europe, which will reduce oil demand.

So to those of you criticising this campaign, what are your ideas about oil, do we need to get off it? If so, how? Are you worried about a six-degree rise in global temperatures? If so, what do you suggest doing about it?

We're campaigning for solutions to these problems, but it seems that many people here don't see the problems.

Few more follow-up points to comments above:

Matt Harris was right, BP went through a very high profile rebranding exercise to show themselves as 'green', despite putting negligible resources into clean energy. That's why we ran our own rebranding competition last year, to expose their hypocrisy.

On the map itself, don't forget that's the company's projection of a worst-case scenario spill. It was shocking enough for the Times to publish it on page three. And what makes those of you trust the company's own projections so much anyway? Chevron doubled their spill projection following the Gulf of Mexico disaster. If they change them at the stroke of a pen, shouldn't that alone make you concerned?

Matt Harris' point about changing the investment environment around clean energy is key. It seems that JffRlyr is agreeing when you say the change won't come from the oil companies. Not least if fossil fuel companies enjoy government subsidies that are more than ten times higher those of renewable energy industry.

For more info on our go beyond oil campaign:

http://gobeyondoil.org/now.php
http://gobeyondoil.org/now_oil.php
http://gobeyondoil.org/now_invest.php
http://gobeyondoil.org/now_govt.php
(and many more links at that site..)

By jamess - 18 February 2011 at 12:36pm

To Markoose and Mikhail,

If you think orved is right and that we have to depend on oil for the next couple of decades, I don't think you've received the right kind of education in sustainability and the environment. The truth is, we can't live with oil any longer, both due to oil spills and the emissions due to transportation. The right kinds of energy for planet earth are the renewable ones, such as wind and solar.

By Karen Uyeno - 20 February 2011 at 3:50am

To Matt Harris, 14 February 2011 at 6:45am,

I totally agree with you.

By Karen Uyeno - 20 February 2011 at 4:34am

Can someone please delete the last six comments of mine? Thank you.

By Karen Uyeno - 20 February 2011 at 4:41am

@JffRlyr,

We already have the technology for wind and solar energy. It's already here. All we have to do is sell it to the U.S. government and the other governments on earth, as well as the people living on it.

By Karen Uyeno - 20 February 2011 at 4:51am

@Matt Harris,

I'm for solar and wind energy and electric cars.

By Karen Uyeno - 21 February 2011 at 6:06am

If you haven't seen it already, the High Court has given the green light to our legal challenge over deep water drilling in UK waters http://www.greenpeace.org.uk/blog/climate/we-get-green-light-high-court-...

By jamess - 28 February 2011 at 11:20am

Humanity is dependent upon coal and hydrocarbons to fuel its energy needs, no question. How did this start? Back in the 19th century (1800 - 1899) and before, most oil was derived through hunting cetaceans. It was only when governments introduced tax breaks for 'mineral oil' that hydrocarbons became commercially viable - and the inexorable rise to world domination for what have now become the oil giants commenced. It is unlikely that there will be significant progress in the mass adoption of renewable energy sources until governments do the same thing 'now'; by offering tax breaks to make renewable energy more attractive than hydrocarbons (cf. GP comment above about the tax breaks hydrocarbons still receive). Similarly, reflecting the fact that a majority of humans, especially in the West, consume hydrocarbons in so many ways thereby creating massive demand (cf. Matt Harris) where is the research into what will be used to replace the hydrocarbons that are used in all those products (and many more besides).

I do not want to suggest that there is no risk, but the existing climate of the Northern European Continental Shelf (where all the UK drilling happens) alone will ensure that the worst case (zero % probability of occurring) cannot occur. Oil (and anything else that is not alive) is totally dependant on currents and wind to get about - it is statistically possible (with a zero % probability) and physically impossible for the pattern shown on the map to become reality. Currents and wind simply do not originate above a single point (particularly to the West of Shetlands) and spread out in all directions at the same time.

Finally, focussing on stopping drilling, in the light of an unfair tax regime (and in the face of the relentless consumerism displayed by most humans if given the chance to partake) rather misses the real danger as far as climate is concerned ... read on.

The following is a radically summarised version of some solid research:

Looking at the geological record, especially with regard to total carbon input to the atmosphere, the last time the curve looked remotely like it looks today is at the end of the Palaeocene moving into the Eocene (55 million years ago) when the non-human world reached the Palaeocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum. Possibly related to a massive injection of magma from the Iceland plume that headed east, causing massive uplift of the sea-floor as it passed, resultant erosion liberated enormous amounts of carbon into the atmosphere, precipitating catastrophic global warming. Many marine organisms (some planktonic forms more so than at the end of the Cretaceous) and many species of mammals went extinct (although ancestors of other mamals present today (including us) diversified and later thrived).

We are way up the same curve now (coal is a worse offender than oil) for carbon injection into the atmosphere.

Getting carbon out of the atmosphere now (in parallel with reducing humanity's dependence on fossil fuel) is way more urgent than stopping the drilling of another oil well.

By I know what I know - 7 March 2011 at 4:57pm

i think this is an outrage! what sneaky little oil seekers! we need this oil for global national rebellious purposes.

By ANON BLAD - 14 March 2011 at 12:04pm

@ANON BLAD, wrong. The UK (and the rest of the western world) does not need this oil for global national rebellious purposes. We need clean, renewable energy for times like these when there are uprisings in the middle east and other oil producing nations.

By Karen Uyeno - 15 March 2011 at 2:32pm