Watching the World Risky weapon in Brent Spar debate

July 15, 1996
With David Knott from London [email protected] Driving home from work July 3, I heard on the radio news that Shell had decided to dump Brent spar oil "platform" at sea after all. One of my newspapers the next day told me that plans for deepsea disposal of Brent spar oil "platform" have drawn closer following a new analysis. Another told me the gigantic Brent spar "platform" could be turned into an offshore casino, floating wind generator, or submerged fish farm.

Driving home from work July 3, I heard on the radio news that Shell had decided to dump Brent spar oil "platform" at sea after all.

One of my newspapers the next day told me that plans for deepsea disposal of Brent spar oil "platform" have drawn closer following a new analysis.

Another told me the gigantic Brent spar "platform" could be turned into an offshore casino, floating wind generator, or submerged fish farm.

These reports puzzled me, because I had attended the same briefing as the radio and newspaper reporters July 3 but heard a different message.

Shell U.K. Exploration & Production held the press conference to report new evidence that offshore dismantling of the derelict Brent spar loading buoy, for later disposal onshore, was riskier than previously thought.

The study showed that buoyancy aids of some sort are likely to be needed, if the 137 m high steel and concrete spar is to be dismantled without it breaking apart under the strain of deballasting.

Suggestions

Eric Faulds, Shell Expro's decommissioning manager, said the company had received more than 100 ideas of how to dispose of or reuse the spar.

"Many were fascinating," said Faulds, "but not practical. Many people making suggestions hadn't appreciated how large Brent spar is."

One suggestion was refurbishing the spar as a floating hotel. "This would pose a few problems because it would have to be far from shore, because the spar would need to be in water 150 m deep."

Another idea was to convert the spar into a casino for operation outside the reach of U.K. tax authorities. "The government is unlikely to approve a tax dodging scheme."

Wind and wave power schemes were also popular, "But these may not be feasible. There were also many suggestions for artificial reefs and fish farms, and these are being pursued by a Norwegian contractor."

Heinz Rothermund, managing director of Shell Expro, said, "It is possible an uncontroversial solution will emerge. But we may need to balance the safety risk with environmental risk.

"In the meantime we want to share information and obtain feedback. Anyone is welcome to join the debate."

Further debate

Rothermund said a conference will be held, possibly in October, to debate the short listed disposal plans, one of which will be submitted to government.

This conference and a series of planned seminars will be open to a wide cross section of people from oil industry officials to environmental pressure group representatives.

Rothermund admitted debating disposal of Brent spar may ultimately cost more than the planned dumping (OGJ, Mar. 20, 1995, p. 33).

Alan Goldsmith, director of corporate affairs at Shell U.K., said, "We are not counting the cost. We will spend whatever is necessary to get our message across."

Shell Expro did not tell the press Brent spar will have to be dumped at sea. Nor did the company rule it out completely. The company is not yet in any position to say one way or the other.

If anything, the press conference proved that communication is a potentially expensive weapon in the Brent spar debate. The reports arising from the briefing show it is also a weapon with a nasty kick.

Copyright 1996 Oil & Gas Journal. All Rights Reserved.