Using leaks to prevent spills?

Posted by jamess - 10 December 2010 at 5:44pm - Comments
Chevron's projection of a possible oil spill at its Lagavulin drill site in the
by. Credit: Greenpeace
Chevron's projection of a possible oil spill at its Lagavulin drill site in the North Sea

From Chevron to Shell, Nigeria to the North Sea, the slippery mask of big oil was briefly removed this week.

On Tuesday we learned from a leaked internal company report that Transocean – the operators of BP’s Deepwater Horizon rig – had a partial “blow-out” on one of its North Sea rigs only months before the Gulf of Mexico catastrophe. Fortunately, the blow-out preventer worked on the Sedco 711 rig, the same ‘preventer’ that was to fail on 20 April this year, triggering the world’s worst oil spill.

Then came Wednesday, when we saw confidential correspondence between Chevron and the government that showed the company admitting that an oil spill at their drill site near the Shetland Islands could spread as far as Greenland and the Norfolk coast.

If that weren’t shocking enough, Chevron went on to admit that their computers kept crashing when trying to model a spill longer than 14 days. Rather than fix it, they shrug their shoulders, saying “no useable information” could be gained from a full run of the software.

Maybe this apparent culture of secrecy at companies like Chevron is more of a PR strategy, since as soon as they open their mouths the clangers drop out. Last time they were asked about the effects on whales and dolphins of a spill off Shetland they replied it was “likely” any impact would be limited, “given [the dolphins’ and whales’] good swimming abilities, relative intelligence and nomadic behaviour”.

And then yesterday. Documents released by Wikileaks show that another oil giant - this time Shell - continues to disregard people and planet. Shell has wormed its way into the heart of Nigerian politics, infiltrating every government department in an attempt to get its way. 

Ann Picard, Shell’s vice-president for sub-Saharan Africa (who cuts a friendly portrait on the company website) boasted to a US ambassador that “Shell had seconded people to all the relevant ministries and that Shell consequently had access to everything that was being done in those ministries”.

This comes 15 years after Ken Saro-Wiwa, the environmental activist and long-time anti-Shell activist, was hanged by the Nigerian government. His crime? Peacefully resisting the toxification of his country’s politics by foreign oil companies. It seems that little has changed.

Shell’s dark shadow extends well beyond Nigeria.   Recently we learned of their secret plan to cosy up to BBC editors in a bid to mislead the UK public over the type of company it really is.

Shell’s strategy to “occupy new ground” involved working with pliant critics while isolating those it couldn’t turn. One thing they got right was to put Greenpeace in the latter category, recognising that we will always stand up to companies like Shell or BP, no matter how many times they change their shiny logos.

The uncomfortable fact is that none of what we learned this week would be in the public domain if oil companies had their way. They want to continue to operate in an unaccountable bubble, shielded by armies of slick PR companies, heavy-duty lawyers and pliant politicians.

That can’t happen. We don’t want to wait for another Deepwater Horizon so we can conclude that BP and Transocean are “breathtakingly inept”, as a co-chair of the White House oil spill commission said on Wednesday. We know that already - the challenge is to stop them driving their needles into more and more remote and fragile parts of the Earth in the first place.

This week of transparency has made the situation even clearer. Big oil wrecks the climate, risks the environment and tramples on human rights. Now it falls to us to decide whether we’ll let these companies continue with ‘business as usual’ or whether we can push them, our politicians, and ultimately ourselves, and make a commitment to start weaning the world off oil.

Ref the first paragraph... was it the *same* blowout preventer? Or
just a blowout preventer, which exist on probably every well in the
world?

The part of this article that I most agree with is part of the last sentance.  "Now
it falls to us to decide whether we’ll let...continue with
‘business as usual’ or whether we can...our politicians, and
ultimately ourselves, and make a commitment to start weaning the world off oil.

This
is the key.  In a free market, companies will exist to provide whatever
society demands.  They obviously have to be held accountable for
compliance with the regulatory system that society (us, our governments,
experts) puts in place to control the activities but oil companies are
not going to wean themselves of oil unless the rest of society reduces
its demands by finding alternatives, or decides that the benefit we each
receive from the hydrocarbon and associated industries, which we use on
a daily basis, is not worth the risk of the activities required to
provide it. 

Hi Chris,

It wasn't the exact same BOP but just wanted to highlight how close we came to a disaster in UK waters.

You're right we have to look at oil use from the demand side - reducing our consumption of it through more efficient green technologies. It's also true that companies will be regulated by the laws that society/government introduce.

Where it gets murky - as in the case with Nigeria above - is when those companies are strong lobbyists within the corridors of power. That's when the political route for helping go beyond oil gets much more difficult.

And it's certainly not constrained to Nigeria - in the EU we have strong oil and car manufacturers lobbies which make it difficult to secure the legislation we need.

So while it's important we look at our own oil consumption, that has to come combined with a challenge to oil interested groups on other fronts too.

Thanks for your comment - James

We really need to find better alternatives to oil. If we don't, there will be too many of these disasters and all the aquatic life will be killed. There is an entire ecosystem at stake here.

chris, your a bellend.

Follow Greenpeace UK