|
|
|
|
|
Brent SparBrent Spar or Brent E, was an oil storage bouy in the Brent oilfield, operated by Shell UK. With the completion of a pipeline connection to the oil terminal at Sullom Voe in Shetland, this storage facility was considered to be of no further use as of 1991. Brent Spar came to public prominence in 1995, when the British government announced its support for Shells application for disposal in deep Atlantic waters (approximately 250 km from the west coast of Scotland, at a depth of around 2.5 km). Greenpeace ran a high-profile media campaign against this decision, including calls for boycotts of Shell service stations, and its activists occupied Brent Spar for more than three weeks. In the face of public and political opposition in northern Europe (including some physical attacks and an arson attack on a service station in Germany), Shell abandoned its plans to dispose of Brent Spar at sea - whilst continuing to stand by its claim that deep sea disposal represented the most environmentally responsible solution in both health and safety and environmental terms. Greenpeaces own reputation also suffered during the campaign, when it was obliged to acknowledge that sampling errors had led to a substantial over-estimate of the oil remaining in Brent Spars storage tanks. Following Shells decision to pursue only on-shore disposal options - as favoured by Greenpeace and its supporters - Brent Spar was given temporary moorings in a Norwegian fjord. In January 1998 Shell announced its decision to re-use much of the main steel structure in the construction of a new harbour facilities near Stavanger. Technical information Built in 1976, Brent "E" was a floating oil storage facility, moored approximately 2km from the Brent "A" oil rig. It was jointly owned by Shell and Esso, and operated wholely by Shell, which gave them responsibility for decomissioning the structure. In total, the Brent Spar was 147m high and 29m in diameter, and displaced 66,000 tonnes. The draft of the platform was such that manouvering in the North Sea south of the Orkney islands was not possible. The storage tank section had a capacity of 50,000 tonnes (300,000 barrels) of crude oil. This section was built from 20mm thick steel plate, reinforced by ribs and cross-braces. As decomissioning started, it became apparent that this section had been stressed and damaged on installation. This lead to doubts on whether the facility would retain its structural integrity if it was refloated into a horizontal position. Shell's estimates of contaminants | b>Shell's estimates | | style="background:#ffdead;" | Contaminant | style="background:#ffdead;" | Quantity (kg) | | a href="/encyclopedia/PCB" title="PCB">PCBs | trace | | a href="/encyclopedia/Hydrocarbon" title="Hydrocarbon">Hydrocarbons | 50,700.0 | | a href="/encyclopedia/Aluminium" title="Aluminium">Aluminium | 28,677.0 | | a href="/encyclopedia/Arsenic" title="Arsenic">Arsenic | 0.3 | | a href="/encyclopedia/Bismuth" title="Bismuth">Bismuth | 29.0 | | a href="/encyclopedia/Cadmium" title="Cadmium">Cadmium | 16.4 | | a href="/encyclopedia/Copper" title="Copper">Copper | 13,542.9 | | a href="/encyclopedia/Indium" title="Indium">Indium | 10.2 | | a href="/encyclopedia/Lead" title="Lead">Lead | 9.5 | | a href="/encyclopedia/Mercury" title="Mercury">Mercury | 0.3 | | a href="/encyclopedia/Nickel" title="Nickel">Nickel | 7.4 | | a href="/encyclopedia/Silicon" title="Silicon">Silicon | 48.0 | | a href="/encyclopedia/Titanium" title="Titanium">Titanium | 8.8 | | a href="/encyclopedia/Zinc" title="Zinc">Zinc | 13,811.4 | | a href="/encyclopedia/limescale" title="limescale">Scale | 30,000 | Throughout the decommissioning process, Shell based its decisions on estimates of the quantities of various pollutants which it had calculated based on the operating activities of the platform, and the quantity of metal that would remain in the structure after decommissioning was completed. The scale which is mentioned is a by-product of oil production, and because of the radioactivity found in the rocks from which the oil is extracted, is considered to be low-level radioactive waste. It is dealt with on-shore on a regular basis, by workers wearing breathing masks to prevent inhalation of dust. Options for disposal Shell examined a number of options for disposing of the Brent Spar, and took two of these forward for serious consideration: Deep sea disposal The first option involved towing the decommisioned platform into deep water in the North Atlantic , positioning explosives around the waterline, then detonating them, in order to breach the hull and sink the platform. The facility would then fall to the seabed and release its contents over a restricted area. Due to the uncertainty associated with detonating explosives, a number of possible scenarios were envisaged. Firstly, the structure would fall to the seabed in one piece, releasing its contaminants slowly, and impacting the seabed for around 500m "down-current". Secondly, the structure might disintegrate as it fell through the water column. This would release contaminants in a single burst, and have an impact for 1000m "down current" of the final resting place, although this would last for a shorter time than in the first instance. Thirdly, the structure could fail catastrophically when the explosives detonated, releasing its contaminants into the surface waters. This would have an impact on sea birds and on the fishing industry in that area. The cost of this option was estimated at between 17M and 20M. On-shore dismantling The second option considered, this would have involved towing the Brent Spar into a deep-water harbour. The structure would then be decontaminated the materials used in construction would be reused. Any unusable waste could be disposed of on land. Technically, this option was more complex and presented a greater hazard to the workforce. This option would have cost 41M. There was some concern that the facility would disintegrate in shallow coastal water, having a much more economically and environmentally significant impact. Shell's reasoning Shell argued that their decision had been made on sound scientific principles and data. From a point of view of engineering complexity, disposing of the platform at sea was more simple than the on-shore dismantling option. Shell also cited the lower risk to the health and safety of the workforce which the first option presented. Environmentally, Shell considered that sinking would have only a localised impact in a remote deep sea region which had little resource value. It was considered that this option would be acceptable to the public, to the UK government and to regional authorities. Shell acknowleged that sinking the Brent Spar at sea was also the cheaper option. Having decided on a preferred method of disposal, Shell contracted Fisheries Research Services, Aberdeen (FRS) to investigate possible sites for sinking the facility. There were two stipulations to this search: firstly, that the site was within British territorial waters, and secondly, that the site be deep enough that the sunken bouy would present no hazard to shipping. FRS identified three sites, as 20km x 20km squares, which were considered suitable. These were the Maury Channel, the North Feni Ridge and the Rockall Trough. At these three sites, FRS carried out: - seabed visualisation surveys using an ROV to confirm the topography in each area
- sediment sample collection using a box core sampler to analysed for heavy metals, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), oil-related hydrocarbons and radionuclides
- investigations into particle size distribution, and total organic carbon levels of the sediment
- box core sampling to count the numbers of animals living in the sediment of the seabed
- beam trawl sampling to determine the different animals living on the seabed
The North Feni Ridge was found to include a narrow channel. The Rockall Trough area was found to be a gently sloping basin between the Anton Dohrn Seamount and the Wyville-Thomsom Ridge. The Maury Channel area was found to be a flat, gently sloping area. Infaunal communities were found to be high in diversity and low in abundance, characteristic of unimpacted sediments. These communities were thought to have a limited food supply, which is also the norm in deep water communities. The final conclusions of FRS were that abundance and diversity were greater than had been expected, especially in the North Feni Ridge area, however the limited extent of sampling precluded detailed analysis of data for the entire area. On the basis of the data which FRS gathered, there was little to choose between the three potential disposal areas. Analysis of the North Feni Ridge area may indicate that this area may have been accumulative, but that this would not preclude deep-sea disposal of the platform. Having received these conclusions, Shell opted for the North Feni Ridge site, and applied to the British government for a licence to dispose of the rig at sea. This was approved in December, 1994. Greenpeace objections Greenpeace objected to the plan to dispose of the Brent Spar at sea on a number of issues: - That there was no formal inventory of the Brent Spar's contents, so the environmental impacts could not possibly be properly assessed.
- That there is a lack of understanding of the deep sea environment, and therefore no way to predict the effects of the proposed dumping on deep sea ecosystems.
- The documents which supported Shell's licence application were "highly conjectural in nature", containing unsubstantiated assumptions, minimal data and extrapolations from unnamed studies.
- That dumping the Brent Spar at sea would create a precedent for dumping other contaminated structures in the sea and would undermine current international agreements. The environmental effects of further dumping would be cumulative.
- Dismantling of the Brent Spar was technically feasible and offshore engineering firms believe they can do it safely and effectively. The necessary facilities were already routinely in use and decommissioning of many other oil installations had already been carried out elsewhere in the world.
- To protect the environment, the principle of minimising the generation of wastes should be upheld and harmful materials always recycled, treated or contained.
Greenpeace alleged that the scientific arguments for ocean dumping were being used as a way of disguising Shell's primary aim: to cut costs. The "battle" of Brent Spar Greenpeace became aware of the plan to sink the Brent Spar at sea on February 16, 1995. Four Greenpeace activists first occupied the Brent Spar on April 30th. In total, 25 activists, photographers and journalists were involved in this stage of occupation. At this time, activists collected a sample of the contents of the Brent Spar and sent it for testing to determine the nature of the pollutants which the platform contained. Unfortunately, this sample was collected from a waste pipe, rather than from the storage tanks, leading to a large overestimate in the contents of the facility. Although Greenpeace quoted Shell's own estimate of the amount of heavy metals and other chemicals on board, they claimed there were more than 5,000 tonnes of oil on the Spar. For context, the Exxon Valdez oil spill involved around 42,000 tonnes. Greenpeace mounted an energetic media campaign that influenced public opinion against Shell's preferred option. It disputed Shell's estimates of the contaminants on the Brent Spar, saying that these were much more than initially estimated. On the 9th of May, the German government issued a formal objection to the British government, with respect to the dumping plan. On the 23rd of May, after several attempts, Shell obtained legal permission to evict the Greenpeace protesters from the Brent Spar. Towing of the platform to its final position began on the 11th of July. By this time the call for a boycott of Shell products was being heeded across much of continental northern Europe, damaging Shell's profitability as well as brand image. Chancellor Helmut Kohl protested to the British Prime Minister John Major at a G7 conference in Halifax, Nova Scotia. Support from within the oil industry was not unanimous. Although oil production companies supported Shell's position, influential companies in the offshore construction sector stood to make money from onshore dismantling if a precedent could be set, and consequently supported the Greenpeace point of view. On the 20th of June, Shell had decided that due to falling sales and a drop in share price, their position was no longer tenable, and withdrew their plan to sink the Brent Spar. They released the following statement: "Shell's position as a major European enterprise has become untenable. The Spar had gained a symbolic significance out of all proportion to its environmental impact. In consequence, Shell companies were faced with increasingly intense public criticism, mostly in Continental northern Europe. Many politicians and ministers were openly hostile and several called for consumer boycotts. There was violence against Shell service stations, accompanied by threats to Shell staff. "Firstly, the disposal plan was based on scrupulous compliance with established national and international regulatory principles and standards. Yet most of the Continental northern European governments which are parties to the Oslo and Paris Conventions, and had originally raised no objection to the plan, were now openly opposing it - not on its technical merits, but because of its symbolic significance in the light of the Greenpeace campaign. This became clear in an urgent round of further Shell consultations with European governments in mid-June. "Secondly, an important consideration which had underpinned the choice of deepwater disposal was the much greater risk to the health and safety of employees who would have carried out the alternative disposal plan. Yet actions on the Continent, and by Greenpeace activists attempting to interfere with the Spar deepwater disposal, now represented a serious safety threat." In early July, the Norwegian government gave Shell permission to mothball the Brent Spar in Erfjord. It remained here for several years while other options for disposal were considered. Aftermath | b>DNVs Inventory | | style="background:#ffdead;" | Contaminant | style="background:#ffdead;" | Shells est. (kg) | style="background:#ffdead;" | DNV est. (kg) | | a href="/encyclopedia/PCB" title="PCB">PCBs | trace | 6.5 - 8.0 | | a href="/encyclopedia/Hydrocarbon" title="Hydrocarbon">Hydrocarbons | 50,700 | 75,000 - 100,000 | | a href="/encyclopedia/Aluminium" title="Aluminium">Aluminium | 28,677 | 24,000 - 40,000 | | a href="/encyclopedia/Arsenic" title="Arsenic">Arsenic | 0.3 | 0.0 | | a href="/encyclopedia/Bismuth" title="Bismuth">Bismuth | 29.0 | 0.0 | | a href="/encyclopedia/Cadmium" title="Cadmium">Cadmium | 16.4 | 1.0-3.8 | | a href="/encyclopedia/Copper" title="Copper">Copper | 13,542.9 | 7,500 - 13,200 | | a href="/encyclopedia/Indium" title="Indium">Indium | 10.2 | 5.0 - 21.0 | | a href="/encyclopedia/Lead" title="Lead">Lead | 9.5 | 0.11 | | a href="/encyclopedia/Mercury" title="Mercury">Mercury | 0.3 | 0.4 | | a href="/encyclopedia/Nickel" title="Nickel">Nickel | 7.4 | 0.9 - 1.5 | | a href="/encyclopedia/Silicon" title="Silicon">Silicon | 48.0 | 0.0 | | a href="/encyclopedia/Titanium" title="Titanium">Titanium | 8.8 | 0.0 | | a href="/encyclopedia/Zinc" title="Zinc">Zinc | 13,811.4 | 5,200 - 8,300 | | a href="/encyclopedia/limescale" title="limescale">Scale | 30,000 | 7800 - 9400 | Having moored the Brent Spar in Erfjord, Shell commissioned the independent Norwegian consultancy Det Norske Veritas (DNV) to conduct an audit of Spar's contents and investigate Greenpeace's allegations. Greenpeace admitted that its claims that the Spar contained 5000 tonnes of oil were inaccurate and apologised to Shell on the 5th of September. This pre-empted the publication of DNVs report, which endorsed Shell's initial estimates for many pollutants. Shell received over 200 individual suggestions for what could be done with the Brent Spar. One of these was came from the Stavanger Port Authority. They were planning a quay extension at Mekjarvik, to provide new Roll-On/Roll-Off ferry facilities. It was hoped that using slices of the Spar's hull would save both money and energy that would otherwise have been spent in new steel construction. The Spar was raised vertically in the water by building a lifting cradle, placed underneath the Spar and connected by cables to jacks on board heavy barges. Jacking the cables upwards raised the Spar so that its hull could be cut into 'rings' and slid onto a barge. After cleaning, the rings were placed in the sea beside the existing quay at Mekjarvik and filled with ballast. The construction of the quay extension was completed by placing a concrete slab across the rings. The Spar's living quarters and operations module, were removed and scrapped onshore at a Norwegian landfill site. Impact of Brent Spar According to a poll of 1000 adults carried out by Opinion Leader Research on behalf of Greenpeace, as of the 26th January, 1996, a majority of the British public were aware of the Brent Spar (57%). Of these, 57% were opposed to the dumping of Brent Spar in the Atlantic, and 32% were in favour of it. Because of their decision to grant a licence for the "at-sea" disposal of the Brent Spar, and because of John Major's solid support for Shell and their policy, the British Conservative Party were strongly linked with the Brent Spar in the public mind. Shell's decision to change their plan for disposal of the facility undermined the Conservative government, and can be cited as one contributing factor leading to the landslide victory of New Labour in the 1997 general election. Although Shell had carried out an environmental impact assessment in full accordance with existing legislation, and firmly believed that their actions were in the best interests of the environment, they had severely underestimated strength of public opinion. Shell were particularly criticised for having thought of this as a "Scottish", or "UK" problem, and neglecting to think of the impact which it would have on their image in the wider world. The final cost of the Brent Spar operation to Shell was between 60M and 100M, when loss of sales were considered. Although Shell and the offshore industry consider that Brent Spar did not set a precedent for disposal of facilities in the future, signatory nations of the OSPAR conventions have since agreed that oil facilities should be disposed of onshore, so it is difficult to see how this does not set a precedent. Shell claimed that spending such an amount to protect a small area of remote, low resource value, deep sea was pointless and this money could be much more constructively spent. While this is arguably true, it is difficult to believe that had the Brent Spar been sunk, Shell would have transferred the money that was saved to their environmental budget. The overestimation of the contents of the Brent Spar damaged the credibility of Greenpeace in their wider campaigns. They were criticised in an editorial column in the scientific journal Nature (375: 708-709) for their "lack of interest in facts". Greenpeace moved to distance itself from its "5500 tonnes" claim, after the Brent Spar argument was won, and because of this has been accused of indulging in historical revisionism, after issuing statements such as "In the absence of a full inventory, Greenpeace, during our occupation, attempted to find out what was on the Brent Spar. The estimates resulting from this sampling were in no way central to the campaign...". This allegation has also been leveled at individuals, such as Lord Melchett, executive director of Greenpeace UK, who wrote in the 23rd December, 1995 edition of New Scientist magazine, "Greenpeace made mistakes too. We allowed ourselves to follow the agenda set by the Department of Trade and Industry, Shell and the media - too often getting into arguments about the potential toxicity of the Spar.". Timeline - 1976 - Brent Spar built and enters service
- September 1991 - Brent Spar ceases operations
- 1991-93 Shell examines options and carries out risk assessment and environmental impact assessment. Decides to sink Brent Spar at the North Feni Ridge.
- December 1994 - UK governent approves plans for sinking.
- April-May 1995 - Greenpeace activists occupy platform to prevent sinking. Greenpeace International organises boycott of shell products and services.
- April 30th, 1995 - Greenpeace asserts that the Brent Spar still contains 5500 tonnes of crude oil.
- May 5th, 1995 - British Government grants disposal licence to Shell UK.
- May 9th, 1995 - German Ministry of the Environment protests against disposal plan.
- June 11th, 1995 - Shell UK begins to tow Spar to deep Atlantic disposal site.
- June 14-20th, 1995 - Protesters in Germany threaten to damage 200 Shell service stations. 50 are subsequently damaged, two fire-bombed and one raked with bullets.
- June 26-30th, 1995 - Eleven states call for a moratorium on sea disposal of decommissioned offshore installations at meeting of Oslo and Paris Commissions. Opposed by Britain and Norway.
- July 7th, 1995 - Norway grants permission to moor Spar in Erfjord while Shell reconsiders options.
- July 12th 1995 - Shell uk commissions independent Norwegian consultancy Det Norske Veritas (DNV) to conduct an audit of Spar's contents and investigate Greenpeace allegations.
- September 5th, 1995 - Greenpeace admits inaccurate claims that Spar contains 5,550 tonnes of oil and apologises to Shell.
- October 18, 1995 - DNV present results of their audit, endorsing the original Spar inventory. DNV state that the amount of oil claimed by Greenpeace to be in the Spar was "grossly overestimated".
- January 29, 1998 - Shell announces Brent Spar will be disposed of on shore and used as foundations for a new ferry terminal.
- July 23, 1998 - OSPAR member states announce agreement on onshore disposal of oil facilities in the future.
- February 1999 - BBC 9 o'clock News screens interview with conservative environment minister John Selwyn-Gummer in which he accuses Greenpeace campaigners of telling lies and, as a result, had causing damage to the whole environmental movement.
- July 10, 1999 - Decommisioning is completed and the first stages of constructing the ferry terminal are started.
- November 25, 1999 - BBC formally apologises to Greenpeace over screening of Gummer allegations.
External Links
|
 |
|
| Copyright 2005-2009 OnPedia.com. All Rights Reserved |
|
|