Brent Spar Should Pave Way For Permanent Ban on Dumping

["greenbase" <greenbas@gb.greenpeace.org>]

BRENT SPAR SHOULD PAVE THE WAY FOR PERMANENT BAN ON DUMPING ALL 
OFFSHORE INSTALLATIONS

London/Amsterdam 29 January, 1998 -- Greenpeace welcomed today's
anouncement by Shell that it will not dump the Brent Spar at
sea, but criticised the company for taking two years and
spending millions of pounds to come up with its conclusion. 

"Shell has taken over two years to accept what the European
public told it in 1995.  You don't dump - you re-use or recycle. 
Shell should accept dumping at sea is wrong in principle 
and unnecessary in practice", said Greenpeace Brent Spar
campaign director Chris Rose. In its statement today Shell said
that the on-shore disposal option will help in "saving money,
energy and greenhouse gas emissions in construction".  "This
completely vindicates Greenpeace's campaign against the Brent
Spar", said Rose.

Greenpeace believes the way is now clear for a permanent ban on
the dumping of decommissioned  offshore installations in the
ocean. There are up to 600 such installations to be
decommissioned in European Union and Norwegian waters alone,
many of which are still being considered as candidates for ocean
dumping by the UK and Norwegian Governments (1). 

Earlier this  week, the European Commission re-iterated its view
that offshore installations which are no longer in use should be
brought to land for recyling and safe disposal. Furthermore the
EC confirmed that it was taking up the Greenpeace initiative of
looking into an integrated removal strategy and the development
of sustainable onshore disposal options.

Greenpeace campaigned against the ocean dumping of the Brent
Spar in 1995, succeeding on 20 June 1995 in preventing the
installation from being dumped.  Shortly afterwards the Oslo-
Paris commision (OSPAR) responsible for preventing marine
pollution in the North East Atlantic announced a moratorium on
the dumping at sea of such installations (2). 

Since then, a number of studies have confirmed the viability of
land-based alternatives and supported Greenpeace's case against
dumping (3).  A study commissioned by Shell itself showed that
dumping the Spar at sea was the least environmentally-friendly
option (4). 

"This is the beginning of the end of the Brent Spar affair,"
said Greenpeace political advisor Remi Parmentier. "There is not
one credible argument for dumping oil installations in the
ocean. We expect all governments to turn the OSPAR moratorium
into a permanent ban when OSPAR meets in Lisbon this summer." -

ends-

Greenpeace on the Internet at http://www.greenpeace.org
Notes to correspondents:
(1) In negotiations within OSPAR the UK and Norwegian government
have proposed that all installations, in greater than 75 meters
of water and which have a substructure weighing more than 4000
tons are still considered for ocean umping. The map available
from Greenpeace shows all 22 concrete and 63 steel installations
meeting these specifications. 

(2) As early as 9 June, 1995, the Environment Ministers of
countries bordering the North Sea agreed (notwithstanding
reservations from the UK and Norwegian ministers at the time)
that "even if the offshore installations are emtpied of noxious
and hazardous materials, they might still if dumped or left at
sea, pose a threat to the marines environment". OSPAR Decision
95/1 reads "To agree on a moratorium on the disposal at sea of
decommissioned offshore nstallations 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". 

(3) For example the UK Government Natural Environmental Research
Council study confirmed in 1996 that there could be cumulative
impacts from dumping, not apparent in one-off studies of
individual installations. 

(4)  "DNV Technical Report-Assessment of the Proposed Options
for Disposal of Brent Spar-Shell E&P," Oct.1997.