You may have heard that as of 12th November, Greenpeace UK is taking the Government to court over oil drilling e.g. granting of further licenses for exploratory deep-water drilling.
Even if you haven't heard about this, you may want to know why, so here's the condensed version.
Until the Deepwater Horizon disaster in the Gulf of Mexico, BP was at the top of the financial heap, telling investors that unconventional oil projects were the future - and the investors believed it. But no longer - BP now faces a $40bn clean-up bill. Even BP's ex-boss Tony Hayward admits the oil industry couldn't cap a leak at such depths because the equipment "simply did not exist". Why not? Because they hadn't even thought about it, let alone planned or invested. It seems the 'precautionary principle' doesn't apply to the oil industry...
Doubts were voiced by a few, but these voices were ignored by those out to make a quick buck. And the Government? Well, it said the disaster had given it "pause for thought" but still insisted that the regulatory regime was robust - and then went on to allow oil companies to start drilling in deep water off Shetland. Yes, despite all that has happened, the Government's position remains as reckless as that of the investors who bought into BP in the Gulf.
So, why are these Government decisions so poor? Well, first of all, the official report into the cause of the Gulf spill won't be published until 2011. As no-one knows what caused the explosion it means no-one knows what the risk is of it happening again. This makes a decision on whether the risks of new drilling in the UK are justified impossible.This should be a no-brainer, but apparently not...
Secondly, the Government admits that one of the mysteries of the Deepwater Horizon "appears to be the fact that the blow-out preventer was checked within two weeks of the disaster and still failed." This means that inspectors will try to ensure the safety of rigs even though similar inspections failed to prevent Deepwater Horizon and they don't know why. No-brainer #2...
The Government claims this is not a problem because it will "be vigilant". This is meaningless in itself, but is even worse when it relies on oil companies' safety claims which are staggering in their stupidity. For example, Chevron said that a spill in the UK would not affect whales and dolphins because "given their good swimming abilities, relative intelligence and nomadic behaviour, some avoidance could be expected". What? This is like saying that people can avoid bombs by running about, but was deemed acceptable evidence to give the go-ahead for drilling off Shetland. Phenomenally irresponsible on all levels.
These attitudes are why Greenpeace has launched its legal challenge - to carry on issuing licenses despite not knowing what caused Deepwater Horizon is irrational and illegal. Despite the evidence, our own Government is making the same mistake, blinding trusting oil companies' blather and hoping that it'll all be OK. This isn't good enough - the Government needs to regulate strongly and stop further drilling if we are ever going to move away from oil. The push for unconventional sources of oil such as those in deep water (as well as the Arctic and tar sands) is a clear and simple place to draw the line.
For more, have a look here.
Comments