WATCHING THE WORLD VOICE OF EXPERIENCE JOINS TANKER DEBATE

Two major oil spills in the past 2 months, followed late last month by a collision between two tankers off Sumatra, have provided environmentalists with awesome ammunition to use against the petroleum industry. The Greenpeace environmental group responded to the Braer tanker spill by calling for a government ban on tankers' use of coastal narrows and a ban on oil exploration off environmentally sensitive coasts.

Feb. 2, 1993

3 min read

The Greenpeace environmental group responded to the Braer tanker spill by calling for a government ban on tankers' use of coastal narrows and a ban on oil exploration off environmentally sensitive coasts.

Greepeace also said it was leaked an internal British Petroleum Co. plc memo that revealed top managers advised their staff after the Braer spill, "Let's keep our heads down." Few in the oil industry would blame BP for caution.

Shell International Marine Ltd., by contrast, stuck its head up and made its opinions known (see story, p. 18). Perhaps Shell decided the greens' viewpoint had received an unfair share of column inches in the press.

DEBATE

Shell sent its ideas on preventing oil tanker spills to members of the European Parliament (EP), European Commission (EC), and industry bodies.

By chance, tanker spill prevention was on the agenda at the EP in Strasbourg Jan 21., just 2 days after EP received Shell's report. EP's proposals differed widely from Shell's, however.

The parliament's first proposal was that tankers more than 15 years old should be banned from EC ports.

Shell said reliability of tankers is less a function of age than of maintenance. "A well maintained 20 year old tanker is safer than a poorly maintained 5 year old tanker."

DEADLINE

The parliament suggested a date should be set for banning ships without double hulls from EC waters. The International Maritime Organization already has a policy to limit the life of today's single hull tankers and requires new tankers to have double hulls.

"Initial indications are that this controversial.policy has reduced ordering of new tonnage," Shell said. "It is not yet clear whether the policy will contribute to protecting the environment."

Shell also said there is little evidence to suggest that large ships have more accidents than small ones or that the extent of environmental damage is related to ship size. The number of major spills is related to the number of ships, so restricting ship size would mean more oil spills, not less.

The EC can move quickly to pass legislation. It will be revealing to see whether the EC listens to the voice of experience, as represented by companies like Shell, before deciding on prescriptive measures.