The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > License to spill > Comments

License to spill : Comments

By Gilly Llewellyn, published 4/11/2009

The lack of information from the company responsible for one of Australia's worst oil spills and from government is breathtaking.

  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. All
Too simplistic.

I am sure the company could have done without the publicity and financial losses.

Whilst the world has such a ravenous demand for oil and gas compamies will step in to supply it.

Most of us would like to see these pristine areas retained as was but it is not going to happen. Finding a satisfactory mix is the best we can hope for.

No matter what the cause plugging a deep ocean well can not be done with Blu Tak. It is a marvel of engineering that it can be done at all.

It does horrify me to see the pollution from this disaster as does the burning of the Amazon rain forests, ugly open pit mining and many other equally destructive enterprises to service our needs and wants.

We are all to blame to some degree.

Shaggy Dog
Posted by Shaggy Dog, Wednesday, 4 November 2009 8:14:14 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
What we do know is that in the three days that WWF was in the area it encountered hundreds of animals in contact with the spill. Some of these included 202 spinner dolphins, 72 sea snakes, 176 sooty terns and two species of turtles. We also know that bird deaths have been reported.

Given that the leak has now been plugged, and the volatile oil has mostly evaporated and / or been collected, what damage has been done to the environment? What animals have perished? It appears that the WWF did not see any.

Given that company was very clear in its communications about what was needed to fix the problem, up front about what was happenning, did not try and dodge liability, has spent 180m to fix the leak, has lost the rig and 10wks production, and is going to co operate fully in the enquiry, I don't see the need for outrage.

What more would Gilly like done that is not being done already? Other than abandoning the oil rigs entirely.
Posted by Shadow Minister, Wednesday, 4 November 2009 1:27:25 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Shadow Minister: "what damage has been done to the environment?"

There is some evidence it has effected the fisheries badly in the short term. If previous spills are any guide, the oil settling on the bottom will have negative long term impacts on bottom dwelling species.

But I am nit picking. There is more than enough pain to go around without this sort of grandstanding. The direct cleanup costs have cost the company around $200M, not counting lost production, a burnt out oil rig and whatever compensation they get sued for. The government has come under sustained attack through no fault of their own. (That is a pleasant change I guess). The loss of prestige to the industry over the repeated failures to fix the problem has been humiliating.

No one wanted this to happen. I imagine they still don't have much of an idea as to why it happened. The pain will be remembered for a long, long time and everyone will be doing their absolute damnedest to ensure it doesn't happen again. Gilly Llewellyn's article is just an exercise in bayoneting the wounded.
Posted by rstuart, Wednesday, 4 November 2009 2:36:41 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
On the other hand it does sound a bit iffy given that a lot of seismic activity happens adjacent to this area .
I think the Big Boy's might have decided to send an amateur in rather than be sued themselves for mucking up 'A significant Nature area adjacent to where Whales go to Birth' . Why bugger up a good balance sheet , minimal cost old rig that hasn't seen paint for 30 yrs and a few unemployed riggers total all up a million? We could sue but what would we get 30 bags of oily Barnacles .
Posted by ShazBaz001, Wednesday, 4 November 2009 3:44:14 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Next time you see a cost comparison between oil and newer clean technologies...keep in mind that these sorts of costs are not factored in.
The true "cost" to fisheries and nature will never be known...but you can be sure that profits are never left to chance. Like the banks, private profits (unlimited!), public costs (hidden and not accounted for).
Stuff happens, but the secrecy is of concern, as is the media being complicit with the government and industry...as usual.
(Come on Packer, start charging for internet content. We need you to become irrelevant asap!)
Posted by Ozandy, Friday, 6 November 2009 12:38:54 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy