"Well, that was dramatic" - watching our activists from the ship

Well done Greenpeace in stopping this illegal operation; the decimation of the rain forest is of concern to us all.

I quote:

'SMART's credibility took a blow last month when auditors Control Union Certification and BSI Group, authors of the independent verification report, complained that it had misrepresented elements of their findings.

The company had trumpeted their report as evidence that Greenpeace's allegations were false, but the auditors said the probe's "key findings" included that it had violated Indonesian law on forest management.'

Greenpeace should continue targeting these illegal operations and stop iterferring with completely legal operations such as trhe current drilling in Greenland.

Quote from 'Sim':

"We stopped this rig drilling for oil for two days, but in the end the Arctic weather beat us. Last night was freezing and now the sea below us is churning and the wind is roaring. It’s time to come down, but we’re proud we slowed the mad rush for Arctic oil, if only for a couple of days."

As pointed out in many previous threads you did not achieve anything more than a short pause of a few hours.

What a waste of money, time and effort. Oh yes, and fuel of course.

You acheived nothing, this has been an absolute PR disaster for Greenpeace with the vast majority being against your totally reckless, childish and pointless actions.

Come on Greenpeace a bit more honesty please.

25-30 kt winds.. 2.5 m seas. if you guys had day jobs I would advise you not to quit them.. You certianly dont make very good sailors..

The lust for oil is impossible to quell regardless of cost. Who cares about a few Louisiana fishermen? Lives cut short from air pollution?

I like to share the translation of Pieter van der Heyden's inscription on his 1558 Avaritia (Greed) engraving: "Scraping Avarice sees neither honor nor courtesy, shame nor divine admonition".

They don't think they're doing anything wrong - the people want oil, we give 'em oil. The people want tobacco, we grow it. The people want asbestos, we mine it. The people want power, we dig up coal and burn it. Why change? Blind and shameless to the death.

There is a few points in your artical which is comprehensivley incorrect....

"We’d stopped it drilling for oil here, while the other rig being operated by Cairn, the Stena Forth, was also closed down due to our actions."

Atcually you havent stopped anyone from drilling there, only delayed it for a few days. Drilling now continues. The Stena Forth closed down only for a few hours to evaluate the situation out of its own saftey procedures and once they realised that it was safe to do so, continued with their operations. Its safetly 101.

"four ordinary blokes from four different countries were able to come up here and put their bodies in the way of the Arctic oil rush, and they stopped it."

No, they just delayed 1 rig for a few days, thats hardly an oil rush. Again they didnt stop only DELAYED.

"our guys obsess about safety, it’s a thing to behold, and is at odds with the image our opponents like to paint.

DITTO. The oil industry in even more safety concious, so much so that you can be kicked off a rig for not holding the handrail whilst asending/decending the stair case!

Also if you were so concered about saftey then you would not have broken several safety protocals before embarking on your little mission. Your concern about safety is only when it suits you not the wider picture. Unlike those guys on the rig they stopped for YOUR safety, yours! They could have quiet easily hosed down your protesters but they didnt as they were concerned about YOUR safety. At what point were you concered about the safety of the people on the rig? The Danish army again concered about your safety, what about the safety of the army if one of your men fell into the sea? None what so ever.

"we’re proud we slowed the mad rush for Arctic oil, if only for a couple of days. "

Delayed, you have delayed it. The oil down there isnt going anywhere you have only delayed 1 rig, 1 rig from carrying out its operation by a day or 2. Once Cairn has finished others will come but you are deluded to this its going to be a massive rush. Give Greenlanders some credit they realise what is at stake here if they allow any Tom Dick or Harry to drill in these waters. They are going to take it very slowly and the moment problems arise they will lift the ability to drill.

"to call on their governments to fight climate change"

If you can prove what is man-made and what is natural climate change then possibly I might change my mind but no-one has done yet. The climate changes naturally just like the wind. Prove what our natural clime is supposed to be (I have a feeling though you cant).

"ban dangerous deep sea drilling"

One well out of over 3,000 in the near vacinity of the macando well have been drilled. That does not include other countries around the world that have been drilling tens of thousands of deep water wells for years without major incident. What you need to realise is that this 1 well has changed drilling practices. We didnt stop drilling when Piper Alpha happened, we learned and from that learnings became safer and improved the technology to ensure it didnt happen again. The industry is doing this again to ensure GOM doesnt happen again.

"protect the world's fragile environments"

Thats what UNSCO is for. Thats what national parks are for. In this area that they are drilling it has neither UNSCO nor national park status.

"cowboy oil companies like Cairn Energy"

Oh come on, you know as well as I do Cairn Energy is not a cowboy outfit, thats just being insulting for no reason.

I think mister reality check 121 is a lobbiest who's solemnly writing comments to reduce credibility and create doubts. He seems to have the appropriate correct answer to everything but tell me mr ...what are you going to tell your kids when they are eating another loaded with lead fish or want to go for a swim in a fish deprived but full of oil and dispersant ocean, or eat fruits sprayed with a cocktail of chemicals or wash themselves with a nice mixture of petrochemical cosmetics or eat a steak flavoured with e-colli...do you have your answer ready to that???

RealityCheck121 is just asking questions relating to the operation to ensure that Greenpeace did what it did in the safest manner possible to those on the oil rig?

Stopping operations of an oil rig at critical times is very very risky and puts peoples lives at risk, including the 4 Greenpeace protesters.

He is asking questions to ensure un-due risk was not taken and what information they had/have that would prove they knew what they were doing was not endangering lives and the oil rig.

If greenpeace did this in such a manner as to cause a fatal incident you would not think RealityCheck121 questions would be without foundation to the point you many have found yourself agreeing with them.

Thankfully though no-one was hurt and that is the main point.

...and yet more fact-less rhetoric.

And in response to your statement;

'History has come to admire those who challenged the cast iron beliefs of that time and so doing so, changed history in the process. These are the people who pushed frontiers, who left the old world behind them.'

Let me take you back to 1997 when Greenpeace last tried to 'change history':

From your own archives-

OCCUPATION OF STENA DEE OIL PLATFORM IN
ATLANTIC FRONTIER

Forty eight hours after commencing its occupation of the Stena Dee oil drilling platform in the North East Atlantic, Greenpeace has issued a challenge to BP.

BP, the company managing the Foinaven oil field for which the Stena Dee was headed, has been offered a solution to the occupation. In a letter to the company's Chief Executive John Browne, Greenpeace said, "If you will agree to 'call off' the Stena Dee and return her to port, and not take any steps to further facilitate the production of oil from Petrojarl Foinaven, our activists will disembark. Otherwise we reserve the right to take whatever non-violent direct action is necessary, in the interests of the climate, to make production of oil from the Foinaven field impossible, pending the 1st September meeting."

On September 1st John Browne has a meeting with Greenpeace's Executive Director Peter Melchett, the agenda for this meeting, as defined in today's letter is, "...to accept the carbon logic (the amount of fossil fuel which can be burnt without causing irreparable climate change) and your industry's role in it, leading to the inevitable need for a fossil
fuel phase out."

Meanwhile the occupation continues with two activists remaining chained onto the platform. Earlier this afternoon the Stena Dee began moving again so Greenpeace placed four swimmers and the MV Greenpeace one third of a mile ahead of the platform, directly in its path. This forced the
vessel to change course and halted its progress towards Foinaven.'

Oh well. at least you lasted 9 days that time but you soon ran away when threatened with a $1.4m lawsuit for breaking the law. The operation continued unhindered and all your legal challenges were thrown out of every court you tried to get support in.

You achieved nothing. Zero. Nada. Zip. Not a sausage.

So 13 years down the line (during which time Foinavon field has been producing oil safely and efficiently without incident) you try the same old tired tactic of invading a rig illegally in an attempt to drum up media attention.

Change history? Don't make me laugh!!!!

The words of a true mediator.

I have enjoyed reading your informed, even wise, postings.

I had not heard of the rig explosion in Mexico until now, I just hope that everone is found safe.

"...suddenly become opinion when it conflicts with personal beliefs"

I am not concerned about your personal beliefs (and please I really mean that with the upmost sincerity and respect) that is entirely your business and yours alone. What I am concerned about is the facts. Cold hard dirty little rotten facts.

So far the facts have been, for use of a better word, manipulated. Data has not been porperly peer reviewed as is normal in the scientific community and snippets of inaccurate information have been fed to us the public in such a way as to create an almost hysteria like response. I hate the media, I hate the spin that is placed on things. I want truthful accurate information not spin, not manipulated and certainly not media fed. I am not saying that climate change is not happening, im saying there isnt enough facts about climate change to say one thing or another. If we can not even differientate between what is natural and what is not natural then how can we possibly make an informed choice?

"Not that the Gulf of Mexico is a national park or a UNSCO [sic] heritage site but the spill is directly affecting the Dry Tortugas National Park in Florida, to name but one in the Gulf area. Funny how pollution tends to ignore the arbitrary boundaries we draw on our maps."

Thats exactly my point Strangecharm. If these waters were so fragile they would be designated such status but they havent. Greenland has one national park on the complete opposite side of the island so if a spill were to occur, the chances of it reaching there would be nil.

As you have quite rightly stated pollution (sea-based) does not conform to our pencil scribbled boundries instead it follows oceanic currents. Both of the major oceanic currents that border each side of Greenland flow down and away from the country. If a spill were to occur it will more than likely flow towards the area near iceland. Im not saying that it wont hit land but the chances are the impact would not be as great as what occured in the GOM. In the GOM the movement of the oil spill was due to oceanic currents pushing and moving around the area relentlessy towards the coastline. This has been well documented.

"The oil industry in even more safety concious, so much so that you can be kicked off a rig for not holding the handrail whilst asending/decending the stair case!"
This would be the same industry practising "safety 101" which cuts corners to save money, resulting in the Deepwater Horizon explosion?

Cutting corners is never a good idea but there always is an element of cost involved in any industry, even Grennpeace. BP's track record in cutting cost has been well documented in the past decade even here in the UK including Shell's and its not pretty at all. But be honest We dont know the real reason behind why the DWH it blew up until they conclude the investigation. part of it may be down to cost cutting but to draw conclusions at this early stage before the investigation has been concluded is rash.

"With the cost of running an oil rig (I've heard £500,000 a day - is that correct?) with no actual oil yet discovered, wouldn't those few hours or days add up to a really big bill? Not to mention the winter season beginning shortly which will force drilling to stop? I do hope Cairn don't now try and rush the job before the ice sets in. Wasn't that what happened in the Gulf, rushing the job to save money and meet deadlines?"

Yeh roughly £500,000 a day for a high profile operation but I suspect it might be nearer £750,000 factoring in those ice-breaking boats they have also. The bills can add up quite a huge amount over only the drilling period usually around £20-30million, but some have even been as costly as £50million just to drill a well with no gaurentee of success. No oil has yet been discovered but gas has which indicates some form of hydrocarbon system is there.

If the drilling was stopped for 2 whole days the bill to greenpeace should Cairn persue it would be around £2-3million, donated money that im sure would be better spent else where.

What we dont really know is the stage of progress on the rig at the time of the staged protests. For all we know they might have been ahead of the estimated time schedual. In the offshore world, 2 days of lost time is nothing. They wont rush to continue on with the programm to make up the time, they will drill at a pace which is safe to do so. That is the key word, SAFE. As safe as possible for the environment and for the people. Now yo may start thinking well safets option is to leave it where it is, that I can not disagree with but the need is there to extract it. Supply and demand is what makes the world go round unfortunatly.

Im not to sure what happened in the Gulf, no-one really is as yet but the attitude in the Gulf is well lets say go, go go which is entirely at odds with the attitude in Norway, Denamrk etc. Cairn will not be gun-ho on this well, too much is at stake to make mistakes. They will take their time and if they have to secure an unfinished well as of the winter ice then they will and return the next year. The oil isnt going anywere!

"Whoops, there's been a major spill in China since then, and I'm just reading reports of another rig explosion in the Gulf. And those are just the ones which get reported. Bet spills Nigeria and Indonesia don't make the 10 o'clock news. Better learn quickly"

To clarify, the recent spill in China was an oil depot similar to the BP Texas fire a few years ago, this was not from an oil rig. You can not compare Greenland to that. It like comparing comapring falling over off you bike to being hit by a truck, both got wheels but so completely different. Now we all know China's safety record isnt exactly what you would call comprehensive. If you want to cut corners to maximise profit, well China is the country to go to! I would not work in China as I value my and others safety above all else, same goes for working in the GOM, just would never do it.

And yes Nigeria, wow thats a whole different ball game altogether. Im not even going to comment as it could take several days. ;-)

I suppose I am sexist in assuing that RealityCheck121 is a male, but really I have no clue about his sex and to be honest I dont really care.

Im not playing a game of good cop bad cop, im trying as best I can to get facts out into the public. Real facts. Im not trying to change peoples opinion that is your personal business and I have not right to suggest otherwise. Just like other people im trying to spead some actual truths not assumed truths. These truths come from and I admit deep knowledge of the industry. I am not advocating I am a voice of it as I most certainly am not, far for it in fact. Im doing my best to be pragmatic, factual and most of all not insulting.

What I am trying to do is correct misconceptions with that knowledge just as other have corrected micsonceptions regarding the lifestyles of Greenpeace supporters etc etc.

What I am most concered about is that the bigger picture is not being looked at and that is simply population. More people more needs/wants/demands etc etc. more pollution more oil more extreme drilling more of everything! I have no idea on how this should be tackled but it is a graver concern to this planet than drilling in Greenland.

But if you want frank and factual discussion I am more than willing to listen.

I don't think we need to lead the world to more'save' oil extraction. Definitely not in more remote and challenging regions. Drilling in Greenland in the Arctic is exactly the kind of thing we should all worry about! Yes, more people, more pollution, more oil and that drives everything to the edges of the world and the last barrels will be almost fought over. The damage or natural depletion they never seem to take into account. This is exactly what this whole activity is about.
If you are fully supporters of safety and necessity of oil rigs, than that is your right. It is our right to think otherwise too. Maybe realitycheck should stop attacking everybody who puts a positive comment online, no matter what his/her reasons are and leave them to, just like him/herself, the right and freedom to leave an opinion...

In response to a few of the comments above, birds-of-a-feather is a phrase that springs to mind. I do know someone who works off shore, and he appears to have a negative attitude towards environmentalists.

It seems to me that if you work for a certain industry, then I guess you would share its ethos to a greater or lesser extent.

As for health and safety on rigs, its a well documented fact that in the early days of North sea exploration, such issues were pushed aside. The profit motive ruled supreme.

Realitycheck's presence here serves no other purpose but in trying to undermine Greenpeace. But it won't work. S/he is nothing more than background noise in a forum that wholeheartedly supports the actions that have taken place.

If Greenpeace has made mistakes in the past, then the lessons learned have turned the organisation into one of the most effective on the planet. What lessons have the oil industry learnt? Well I'll leave that open to interpretation.

I completely take on board everything you say and have no argument with the points you put across. As a former employee with citizens advice I'm used to investigating an issue before giving guidance to a client. I am therefore used to looking out across a legal landscape. The fact is that some aspects of the current legal structure within the UK is based on exactly the type of activities that Greenpeace participates in. Indeed previous campaigns have resulted in a change in law. So whether you belong to a union or whether you were a suffragette, the common denominator is challenging authority and seeking change, even if it means going beyond the law. And, believe it or not, even a lawyer wouldn't disagree with this!

For your information, Article 5 of the UN Convention on the Continental Shelf cites this:

1. The exploration of the continental shelf and the exploitation of its natural resources must not result in any unjustifiable interference with navigation, fishing or the conservation of the living resources of the sea, nor result in any interference with fundamental oceanographic or other scientific research carried out with the intention of open publication. 2. Subject to the provisions of paragraphs 1 and 6 of this article, the coastal State is entitled to construct and maintain or operate on the continental shelf installations and other devices necessary for its exploration and the exploitation of its natural resources, and to establish safety zones around such installations and devices and to take in those zones measures necessary for their protection.
3. The safety zones referred to in paragraph 2 of this article may extend to a distance of 500 metres around the installations and other devices which have been erected, measured from each point of their outer edge. Ships of all nationalities must respect these safety zones.
4. Such installations and devices, though under the jurisdiction of the coastal State, do not possess the status of islands. They have no territorial sea of their own, and their presence does not affect the delimitation of the territorial sea of the coastal State.

Well done Greenpeace in stopping this illegal operation; the decimation of the rain forest is of concern to us all. I quote: 'SMART's credibility took a blow last month when auditors Control Union Certification and BSI Group, authors of the independent verification report, complained that it had misrepresented elements of their findings. The company had trumpeted their report as evidence that Greenpeace's allegations were false, but the auditors said the probe's "key findings" included that it had violated Indonesian law on forest management.' Greenpeace should continue targeting these illegal operations and stop iterferring with completely legal operations such as trhe current drilling in Greenland.

Quote from 'Sim': "We stopped this rig drilling for oil for two days, but in the end the Arctic weather beat us. Last night was freezing and now the sea below us is churning and the wind is roaring. It’s time to come down, but we’re proud we slowed the mad rush for Arctic oil, if only for a couple of days." As pointed out in many previous threads you did not achieve anything more than a short pause of a few hours. What a waste of money, time and effort. Oh yes, and fuel of course. You acheived nothing, this has been an absolute PR disaster for Greenpeace with the vast majority being against your totally reckless, childish and pointless actions. Come on Greenpeace a bit more honesty please.

25-30 kt winds.. 2.5 m seas. if you guys had day jobs I would advise you not to quit them.. You certianly dont make very good sailors..

The lust for oil is impossible to quell regardless of cost. Who cares about a few Louisiana fishermen? Lives cut short from air pollution? I like to share the translation of Pieter van der Heyden's inscription on his 1558 Avaritia (Greed) engraving: "Scraping Avarice sees neither honor nor courtesy, shame nor divine admonition". They don't think they're doing anything wrong - the people want oil, we give 'em oil. The people want tobacco, we grow it. The people want asbestos, we mine it. The people want power, we dig up coal and burn it. Why change? Blind and shameless to the death.

There is a few points in your artical which is comprehensivley incorrect.... "We’d stopped it drilling for oil here, while the other rig being operated by Cairn, the Stena Forth, was also closed down due to our actions." Atcually you havent stopped anyone from drilling there, only delayed it for a few days. Drilling now continues. The Stena Forth closed down only for a few hours to evaluate the situation out of its own saftey procedures and once they realised that it was safe to do so, continued with their operations. Its safetly 101. "four ordinary blokes from four different countries were able to come up here and put their bodies in the way of the Arctic oil rush, and they stopped it." No, they just delayed 1 rig for a few days, thats hardly an oil rush. Again they didnt stop only DELAYED. "our guys obsess about safety, it’s a thing to behold, and is at odds with the image our opponents like to paint. DITTO. The oil industry in even more safety concious, so much so that you can be kicked off a rig for not holding the handrail whilst asending/decending the stair case! Also if you were so concered about saftey then you would not have broken several safety protocals before embarking on your little mission. Your concern about safety is only when it suits you not the wider picture. Unlike those guys on the rig they stopped for YOUR safety, yours! They could have quiet easily hosed down your protesters but they didnt as they were concerned about YOUR safety. At what point were you concered about the safety of the people on the rig? The Danish army again concered about your safety, what about the safety of the army if one of your men fell into the sea? None what so ever. "we’re proud we slowed the mad rush for Arctic oil, if only for a couple of days. " Delayed, you have delayed it. The oil down there isnt going anywhere you have only delayed 1 rig, 1 rig from carrying out its operation by a day or 2. Once Cairn has finished others will come but you are deluded to this its going to be a massive rush. Give Greenlanders some credit they realise what is at stake here if they allow any Tom Dick or Harry to drill in these waters. They are going to take it very slowly and the moment problems arise they will lift the ability to drill. "to call on their governments to fight climate change" If you can prove what is man-made and what is natural climate change then possibly I might change my mind but no-one has done yet. The climate changes naturally just like the wind. Prove what our natural clime is supposed to be (I have a feeling though you cant). "ban dangerous deep sea drilling" One well out of over 3,000 in the near vacinity of the macando well have been drilled. That does not include other countries around the world that have been drilling tens of thousands of deep water wells for years without major incident. What you need to realise is that this 1 well has changed drilling practices. We didnt stop drilling when Piper Alpha happened, we learned and from that learnings became safer and improved the technology to ensure it didnt happen again. The industry is doing this again to ensure GOM doesnt happen again. "protect the world's fragile environments" Thats what UNSCO is for. Thats what national parks are for. In this area that they are drilling it has neither UNSCO nor national park status. "cowboy oil companies like Cairn Energy" Oh come on, you know as well as I do Cairn Energy is not a cowboy outfit, thats just being insulting for no reason.

I think mister reality check 121 is a lobbiest who's solemnly writing comments to reduce credibility and create doubts. He seems to have the appropriate correct answer to everything but tell me mr ...what are you going to tell your kids when they are eating another loaded with lead fish or want to go for a swim in a fish deprived but full of oil and dispersant ocean, or eat fruits sprayed with a cocktail of chemicals or wash themselves with a nice mixture of petrochemical cosmetics or eat a steak flavoured with e-colli...do you have your answer ready to that???

RealityCheck121 is just asking questions relating to the operation to ensure that Greenpeace did what it did in the safest manner possible to those on the oil rig? Stopping operations of an oil rig at critical times is very very risky and puts peoples lives at risk, including the 4 Greenpeace protesters. He is asking questions to ensure un-due risk was not taken and what information they had/have that would prove they knew what they were doing was not endangering lives and the oil rig. If greenpeace did this in such a manner as to cause a fatal incident you would not think RealityCheck121 questions would be without foundation to the point you many have found yourself agreeing with them. Thankfully though no-one was hurt and that is the main point.

...and yet more fact-less rhetoric. And in response to your statement; 'History has come to admire those who challenged the cast iron beliefs of that time and so doing so, changed history in the process. These are the people who pushed frontiers, who left the old world behind them.' Let me take you back to 1997 when Greenpeace last tried to 'change history': From your own archives- OCCUPATION OF STENA DEE OIL PLATFORM IN ATLANTIC FRONTIER Forty eight hours after commencing its occupation of the Stena Dee oil drilling platform in the North East Atlantic, Greenpeace has issued a challenge to BP. BP, the company managing the Foinaven oil field for which the Stena Dee was headed, has been offered a solution to the occupation. In a letter to the company's Chief Executive John Browne, Greenpeace said, "If you will agree to 'call off' the Stena Dee and return her to port, and not take any steps to further facilitate the production of oil from Petrojarl Foinaven, our activists will disembark. Otherwise we reserve the right to take whatever non-violent direct action is necessary, in the interests of the climate, to make production of oil from the Foinaven field impossible, pending the 1st September meeting." On September 1st John Browne has a meeting with Greenpeace's Executive Director Peter Melchett, the agenda for this meeting, as defined in today's letter is, "...to accept the carbon logic (the amount of fossil fuel which can be burnt without causing irreparable climate change) and your industry's role in it, leading to the inevitable need for a fossil fuel phase out." Meanwhile the occupation continues with two activists remaining chained onto the platform. Earlier this afternoon the Stena Dee began moving again so Greenpeace placed four swimmers and the MV Greenpeace one third of a mile ahead of the platform, directly in its path. This forced the vessel to change course and halted its progress towards Foinaven.' Oh well. at least you lasted 9 days that time but you soon ran away when threatened with a $1.4m lawsuit for breaking the law. The operation continued unhindered and all your legal challenges were thrown out of every court you tried to get support in. You achieved nothing. Zero. Nada. Zip. Not a sausage. So 13 years down the line (during which time Foinavon field has been producing oil safely and efficiently without incident) you try the same old tired tactic of invading a rig illegally in an attempt to drum up media attention. Change history? Don't make me laugh!!!!

The words of a true mediator. I have enjoyed reading your informed, even wise, postings.

I had not heard of the rig explosion in Mexico until now, I just hope that everone is found safe. "...suddenly become opinion when it conflicts with personal beliefs" I am not concerned about your personal beliefs (and please I really mean that with the upmost sincerity and respect) that is entirely your business and yours alone. What I am concerned about is the facts. Cold hard dirty little rotten facts. So far the facts have been, for use of a better word, manipulated. Data has not been porperly peer reviewed as is normal in the scientific community and snippets of inaccurate information have been fed to us the public in such a way as to create an almost hysteria like response. I hate the media, I hate the spin that is placed on things. I want truthful accurate information not spin, not manipulated and certainly not media fed. I am not saying that climate change is not happening, im saying there isnt enough facts about climate change to say one thing or another. If we can not even differientate between what is natural and what is not natural then how can we possibly make an informed choice? "Not that the Gulf of Mexico is a national park or a UNSCO [sic] heritage site but the spill is directly affecting the Dry Tortugas National Park in Florida, to name but one in the Gulf area. Funny how pollution tends to ignore the arbitrary boundaries we draw on our maps." Thats exactly my point Strangecharm. If these waters were so fragile they would be designated such status but they havent. Greenland has one national park on the complete opposite side of the island so if a spill were to occur, the chances of it reaching there would be nil. As you have quite rightly stated pollution (sea-based) does not conform to our pencil scribbled boundries instead it follows oceanic currents. Both of the major oceanic currents that border each side of Greenland flow down and away from the country. If a spill were to occur it will more than likely flow towards the area near iceland. Im not saying that it wont hit land but the chances are the impact would not be as great as what occured in the GOM. In the GOM the movement of the oil spill was due to oceanic currents pushing and moving around the area relentlessy towards the coastline. This has been well documented. "The oil industry in even more safety concious, so much so that you can be kicked off a rig for not holding the handrail whilst asending/decending the stair case!" This would be the same industry practising "safety 101" which cuts corners to save money, resulting in the Deepwater Horizon explosion? Cutting corners is never a good idea but there always is an element of cost involved in any industry, even Grennpeace. BP's track record in cutting cost has been well documented in the past decade even here in the UK including Shell's and its not pretty at all. But be honest We dont know the real reason behind why the DWH it blew up until they conclude the investigation. part of it may be down to cost cutting but to draw conclusions at this early stage before the investigation has been concluded is rash. "With the cost of running an oil rig (I've heard £500,000 a day - is that correct?) with no actual oil yet discovered, wouldn't those few hours or days add up to a really big bill? Not to mention the winter season beginning shortly which will force drilling to stop? I do hope Cairn don't now try and rush the job before the ice sets in. Wasn't that what happened in the Gulf, rushing the job to save money and meet deadlines?" Yeh roughly £500,000 a day for a high profile operation but I suspect it might be nearer £750,000 factoring in those ice-breaking boats they have also. The bills can add up quite a huge amount over only the drilling period usually around £20-30million, but some have even been as costly as £50million just to drill a well with no gaurentee of success. No oil has yet been discovered but gas has which indicates some form of hydrocarbon system is there. If the drilling was stopped for 2 whole days the bill to greenpeace should Cairn persue it would be around £2-3million, donated money that im sure would be better spent else where. What we dont really know is the stage of progress on the rig at the time of the staged protests. For all we know they might have been ahead of the estimated time schedual. In the offshore world, 2 days of lost time is nothing. They wont rush to continue on with the programm to make up the time, they will drill at a pace which is safe to do so. That is the key word, SAFE. As safe as possible for the environment and for the people. Now yo may start thinking well safets option is to leave it where it is, that I can not disagree with but the need is there to extract it. Supply and demand is what makes the world go round unfortunatly. Im not to sure what happened in the Gulf, no-one really is as yet but the attitude in the Gulf is well lets say go, go go which is entirely at odds with the attitude in Norway, Denamrk etc. Cairn will not be gun-ho on this well, too much is at stake to make mistakes. They will take their time and if they have to secure an unfinished well as of the winter ice then they will and return the next year. The oil isnt going anywere! "Whoops, there's been a major spill in China since then, and I'm just reading reports of another rig explosion in the Gulf. And those are just the ones which get reported. Bet spills Nigeria and Indonesia don't make the 10 o'clock news. Better learn quickly" To clarify, the recent spill in China was an oil depot similar to the BP Texas fire a few years ago, this was not from an oil rig. You can not compare Greenland to that. It like comparing comapring falling over off you bike to being hit by a truck, both got wheels but so completely different. Now we all know China's safety record isnt exactly what you would call comprehensive. If you want to cut corners to maximise profit, well China is the country to go to! I would not work in China as I value my and others safety above all else, same goes for working in the GOM, just would never do it. And yes Nigeria, wow thats a whole different ball game altogether. Im not even going to comment as it could take several days. ;-)

I suppose I am sexist in assuing that RealityCheck121 is a male, but really I have no clue about his sex and to be honest I dont really care. Im not playing a game of good cop bad cop, im trying as best I can to get facts out into the public. Real facts. Im not trying to change peoples opinion that is your personal business and I have not right to suggest otherwise. Just like other people im trying to spead some actual truths not assumed truths. These truths come from and I admit deep knowledge of the industry. I am not advocating I am a voice of it as I most certainly am not, far for it in fact. Im doing my best to be pragmatic, factual and most of all not insulting. What I am trying to do is correct misconceptions with that knowledge just as other have corrected micsonceptions regarding the lifestyles of Greenpeace supporters etc etc. What I am most concered about is that the bigger picture is not being looked at and that is simply population. More people more needs/wants/demands etc etc. more pollution more oil more extreme drilling more of everything! I have no idea on how this should be tackled but it is a graver concern to this planet than drilling in Greenland. But if you want frank and factual discussion I am more than willing to listen.