A Rigged Argument
Equinor’s Sliepner A platform in the North Sea
Opponents to oil exploration in the Great Australian Bight ignore the existence of similar operations elsewhere in the world.
Good news for opponents of Norwegian company Equinor exploring for oil in the Great Australian Bight: a catastrophic oil spill is even less likely than we had previously explained.
Last week, the MRC pointed out that a map circulated by Greenpeace and surf websites that purported to represent a single oil spill extending from the proposed well in the Great Australian Bight to Western Australia, around Tasmania and up to central New South Wales - an area about 10 times the size of the biggest oil spill in history - was bogus.
This week we can reassure ocean lovers and surfers that Equinor, which has been operating in the North Sea for decades, will only be allowed to drill in the Bight if its precautions against a spill, and its preparations in the unlikely event that one happens anyway, are both world class.
Hysteria about this project has been whipped up by journalists and social media arguing that the Bight is a uniquely hostile place for something as foolish as an oil well, and the proposed site, in 2km of water, is dangerously deep.
It is “one of the most wind-blown, swell-hammered places you can imagine,” said Nick Carroll on Coastalwatch. The drilling would be “deep, remote and risky,” said an open letter from 28 top Australian surfers, part of a “master class in protesting,” according to Surfer magazine. “They are treating the Great Australian Bight, and subsequently the whole of Southern Australia's coastline, as a trial location for ultra deepwater drilling in exposed seas,” said a South Australian surfer in Tracks magazine.
But while the Bight is indeed more frequently exposed to larger swells than the rest of Australia's coastline, it is not as stormy as other seas where oil is already being extracted. Nor is the site unusually deep; 543 wells have been drilled in waters deeper than 2km in the United States alone.
Equinor’s environmental plan compares the conditions at its proposed well site in the Great Australian Bight to the Norwegian Sea, Barents Sea, Canada’s east coast and offshore Brazil, where Equinor has been drilling for oil for years and decades. The Bight comes fourth of the five locations for wind speed and extreme wave height. Brazil is the only location that is less stormy.
The largest wave ever recorded in the Southern Ocean, 23.8m, happened last year off New Zealand, recorded by an ocean buoy. But an even more impressive wave happened off Norway in 1995. The wave was 25.6m, and it was recorded not by a buoy but by a manmade platform, part of the gas network in the Ekofisk field, sitting on the ocean floor in 70m of water. During an intense storm on January 1 1995, the Draupner Platform recorded the wave’s height as it passed underneath. The wave is now known as the Draupner Wave and has its own Wikipedia page.
Videos of giant waves hitting oil rigs in the North Sea, adjacent to the Norwegian Sea, are almost as popular online as videos of surfers riding similar-size waves 3000km away in Portugal, and for the same reason. Both depict human ingenuity and bravery in spectacular circumstances. In one instance the activity is commercial; the other is unadulterated daredevilry. Both are compelling in their own way.
If the online comments and messages sent to the MRC since last week’s story are any guide, opposition to Equinor’s proposed project is based on a belief that a catastrophic spill is not only inevitable but its consequences will be permanent.
This ignores the obvious fact that no company embarks on a project that is destined to fail.
The Deepwater Horizon disaster in 2010 cost its owner, BP, about $60 billion in fines and clean-up costs. One of the innovations developed during the Deepwater Horizon disaster was the “capping stack”, a giant cap that is dropped over the wellhead to stop the flow. A handful of capping stacks, weighing 60-100 tonnes, have since been built and are placed around the world, ready to be deployed in the event of a large spill. In the nine years since, none has been used.
Australia’s National Offshore Petroleum Safety and Environmental Management Authority will only approve Equinor’s application to explore for oil in the Bight if its environmental plan is both state of the art and fully funded.
A spokesman for NOPSEMA told the MRC that Equinor’s plan needs to demonstrate accident mitigation strategies are the “best available”. This is mostly related to the speed with which the company can respond to a spill. Equinor’s plan includes airlifting a capping stack from Singapore should one be needed, ready to deploy within 15 days.
In the event of a spill, Equinor would be liable for all clean-up costs incurred by state or federal governments. Compensation for people and businesses affected would be covered by civil law.
But again, that assumes a spill will happen. Another theme running through the online comments and friendly messages from protesters received by the MRC this week is that corporations are evil, greedy organisations, motivated solely by profit.
The evilness of corporate executives aside, the protesters are correct. A good company is motivated solely by profit, which is why Equinor’s proposal includes the best precautions against a spill, and its plan in the event of one minimises the consequences.
This focus on maximising profits by minimising the expense of accidents, along with the prosperity and royalties that will ensue if Equinor strikes oil, should provide environmentalists with ample reason to rejoice.