FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Greenpeace welcomes scientists' report on Brent Spar

London--22 May 1996--Greenpeace today welcomed the report by international scientists brought together by UK Energy Minister Tim Eggar. The scientists rejected the "case by case" cornerstone of the UK Government's policy on decommissioning oil and gas installations, recommending that the Government take into account the cumulative impacts of all disposals of waste at sea.

The "Scientific Group on Decommissioning" was set up by UK Energy Minister Mr Tim Eggar in November 1995. The scientists were asked to look into the environmental implications of deep sea disposal of the Brent Spar oil installation, following Greenpeace's successful campaign to stop Shell dumping it in the North East Atlantic.

Working under the auspices of the Natural Environment Research Council (NERC) and chaired by Professor John Shepherd of Southampton Oceanography Centre, the scientists concluded:-

* The UK Government should not assess each installation purely on a "case by case" basis. It should also take into account the cumulative impacts of all disposals of waste at sea.

• The decision making process before licensing the dumping of the Brent Spar should have included factors such as the need to conserve energy and resources by reducing, re-using and recycling waste. Other factors such as public acceptability should also be taken into account in future.
• Any problems with disposing of the Brent Spar on shore are no more difficult than have already been overcome with other installations.

Greenpeace said today's report gave a strong backing to the decision made by the Oslo Paris Commission (1) last year to agree a moratorium on the disposal at sea of decommissioned offshore installations. The UK and Norwegian Governments have expressed reservations to the moratorium.

"Greenpeace believes that this group of scientists have given a very strong message that the OSPAR moratorium should be turned into a ban as soon as possible," said Wallace.

Please contact Cindy Baxter Greenpeace Communications ++44 171 833 0600

NOTES TO EDITORS

[1] OSCOM Decision 95/1. This was by the Parties to the Oslo Convention decided at a meeting in June 1995: "to agree on a moratorium on the disposal at sea of decommissioned offshore installations until the Oslo Commission or a Commission in its succession has adopted a Decision on the disposal of offshore installations with a view to banning the disposal of such installations at sea."

[2] NERC report on decommissioning: the main findings

The Committee was set up by the Natural Environment Research Council at the request of Mr T Eggar, the Energy Minister at the Department of Trade and Industry following the controversy surrounding the attempt to dispose of the Brent Spar in the deep Atlantic in the Summer of 1995.

• Both cumulative and case by case impacts of the disposal of off-shore oil installations should be assessed, because continued disposals with small individual impact might give rise, by small increments, to an unacceptably large overall impact.
• Some means should be sought to take public acceptability into account in evaluating future marine environmental impact assessments.
• Nothing in this report should be taken as promoting the deep sea disposal of decommissioned off-shore structures, or of any other wastes.
• Any decision to proceed, or not to proceed, with dumping oil structures or other wastes in the ocean involves social, economic, ethical, and aesthetic considerations which are outside the competence of the group, and judgements in which the technical assessment of the environmental impact is only one factor, and not necessarily the most important one.
• From an engineering point of view the difficulties and hazards of onshore disposal are no more than have already been encountered and successfully overcome for other installations.
• Many factors should influence a decision on whether disposal of off-shore structures as waste is an appropriate course of action. These should have included such general considerations as the need to conserve energy and natural resources by reducing, re-using and re- cycling potential waste whenever practicable.
• The disposal site chosen for the Brent Spar was not necessarily unsuitable, but it is unlikely that the site was the most suitable which could be found within the criteria used.
• The deep sea environment can be surprisingly biologically rich, but our level of certainty regarding the environment, and hence our predictive ability with regard to environmental impacts, is much lower (in the deep sea) than for inshore areas on the continental shelf.
• Natural and man-made analogues provide good parallels to many aspects of the disposal of a structure such as the Brent Spar but the local impact of shipwrecks has hardly yet been studied, and considerably more work must be done if the local impact is to be assessed in detail.
• If deep sea disposal were to be considered, further study in depth of the risks, hazards, engineering procedures, and financial assessments will need to be made before an unequivocal conclusion for deep sea disposal as against other viable disposal means, can be reached.
• Much of the relevant documentation concerning the deep sea disposal of the Brent Spar was confidential until very recently. This prevented assessment by a wider community of the case being made.