Re:Dismantling a Million Tons of North Sea Oil Rigs
by mpweiher on Tuesday June 13, 2017 @04:05PM
(#14548121)
Had a hard time finding a reference, but here is something (not exactly what I wrote, which I think was from either The Economist or Die Zeit, it's been a while):
"Writing in the journal Nature in June, Professor Euan Nisbet and Dr Mary Fowler of London University argued that the quantities of heavy metals in Brent Spar are minuscule compared with those found naturally in parts of our deep oceans. In so-called "black smokers", whole communities of highly specialised bacteria eke out their lives where the earth's crust vents huge amounts of superheated water and metals into the ocean depths. One estimate puts this discharge of metals worldwide at 700,000 to five million tonnes a year.
Dump the Brent Spar near such a vent, argues Professor Nisbet, and its impact could not even be measured. Its contents might even give the bacteria a free meal."
Also, the amount of oil was much less than Greenpeace had stated, estimated at somewhere around 100 tons, rather than 5500 tons. And oil is something that bacteria do eat.
All the articles I could find essentially state that Shell's plan was scientifically valid and posed less environmental risk than disposal on land, but didn't "feel" right.
"Writing in the journal Nature in June, Professor Euan Nisbet and Dr Mary Fowler of London University argued that the quantities of heavy metals in Brent Spar are minuscule compared with those found naturally in parts of our deep oceans. In so-called "black smokers", whole communities of highly specialised bacteria eke out their lives where the earth's crust vents huge amounts of superheated water and metals into the ocean depths. One estimate puts this discharge of metals worldwide at 700,000 to five million tonnes a year.
Dump the Brent Spar near such a vent, argues Professor Nisbet, and its impact could not even be measured. Its contents might even give the bacteria a free meal."
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/to-dump-or-not-to-...
Also, the amount of oil was much less than Greenpeace had stated, estimated at somewhere around 100 tons, rather than 5500 tons. And oil is something that bacteria do eat.
All the articles I could find essentially state that Shell's plan was scientifically valid and posed less environmental risk than disposal on land, but didn't "feel" right.
Another more detailed look: http://negotiationlab.co.uk/user_uploads/KSG%20Brent%20Spar....