BS: Russians board Greenpeace

Subject: BS: Russians board Greenpeace
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 20 Sep 13 - 02:48 AM

Greenpeace are protesting the reckless exploitation of oil under Arctic Ocean.
Armed Russian commandos boarded their vessel and are holding the crew prisoner.
They seem to be taking the ship to Murmansk.
Knowing how angry some Mudcatters get about such "piracy" I thought I should start a thread.

Subject: RE: BS: Russians board Greenpeace
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 20 Sep 13 - 02:53 AM

E mail sent to members.



Hi Keith,

At least 15 armed Russian Coast Guards have just illegally boarded and taken over our ship the Arctic Sunrise.

They immediately seized every crew member except three people who locked themselves inside the radio room as the guards tried to break in. We had a satellite phone link to them and they were speaking to international media, trying to stay there for as long as they could.

As far as we know, everyone else is being held under armed guard.

Please send an urgent email to the Russian Ambassador in London and demand the Russian Coast Guard release our crew immediately.

The ship had been part of a peaceful protest against energy giant Gazprom which is poised to drill for the first oil to come out of the icy waters of the Arctic.Yesterday there were guns pointed at the protesters, shots fired and two other crew members were arrested as they protested Gazprom's Arctic drilling.

The Arctic Sunrise was circling Gazprom's Prirazlomnaya platform inside international waters and outside the jurisdiction of Russian authorities, making the boarding of the ship unlawful.

Subject: RE: BS: Russians board Greenpeace
From: Rob Naylor
Date: 20 Sep 13 - 04:14 AM

Hmmm, maybe I'm getting my information from a biased source, but what I've been told is that the vessel was circling WITHIN the Safety Exclusion Zone around the platform and ignored requests to move outsize said Safety Zone.

Russian Federation Law gives Russia jurisdiction over the "Northern Route" seas OUTSIDE the normal national waters limit and into international waters from the viewpoint of pollution and environmental protection.

The Arctic Sunrise is a SINGLE engine vessel and was NOT sailing in company of a Guard Boat or Safety Vessel which could take it under tow if its engine failed, in order to pull it away from the platform.

Therefore, from the Russian point of view, the movements of the vessel posed an environmental threat falling within the jurisdiction of the Russian Federation which justified its boarding.

Subject: RE: BS: Russians board Greenpeace
From: GUEST,iain
Date: 20 Sep 13 - 04:30 AM

I am curious to know what makes the exploitation of oil in the Arctic become any more reckless than exploiting oil reserves anywhere else.
Greenpeace seem quite happy to burn up gallons of the stuff chasing around in their boat increasing the demand for it.

Subject: RE: BS: Russians board Greenpeace
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 20 Sep 13 - 05:46 AM

Any company attempting to turn the most hostile drilling environment on Earth into an oil patch instantly puts in peril everything that makes the Arctic so unique. An oil spill could devastate endangered species like polar bears and bowhead whales, destroy habitat for millions of migratory birds, and jeopardize the subsistence-based Inupiat culture.

Ever since BP spilled 4 million barrels of crude into the Gulf of Mexico in 2010, it has struggled to mop up the environmental and economic disaster that ensued. With year-round warm water, relatively calm weather, abundant daylight, and close proximity to one of the world's densest concentrations of oil industry infrastructure, the Gulf affords luxuries that don't exist in the Arctic.

It's another world up there. Arctic weather is even nastier than the weather at the site of the Kulluk's grounding. Gales howl across the Arctic Ocean. Total darkness envelops it half the year. Ice floes lock in the entire region six months a year, making navigation almost impossible. (The USCG has only a few icebreaker-class vessels in its entire fleet.)

And this unforgiving ocean wilderness is located more than 1,000 miles from the nearest Coast Guard base.

In the event of a spill – which, given the oil industry's 100-year track record, is practically certain – the Arctic's extreme environment would render containment measures useless.

According to a study commissioned by Canada's National Energy Board and based on 20 years of Beaufort Sea data, three of the most widely-used oil spill containment methods – burning spilled oil in-situ, deploying booms and skimmers, and aerial application of dispersants – would be impossible due to bad weather or sea ice 20-84 percent of the brief, June-to-November open-water season.

Subject: RE: BS: Russians board Greenpeace
From: gnu
Date: 20 Sep 13 - 07:53 AM

"Ever since BP spilled 4 million barrels of crude into the Gulf of Mexico in 2010..." I thought it was considerably more?

I just can't see that using plantform drilling way up north in pack ice zones is acceptable. Offshore drilling is bad enough as it is anywhere.

Subject: RE: BS: Russians board Greenpeace
From: gnu
Date: 20 Sep 13 - 07:55 AM

4.9M bbls

Edmonton Journal (19 hours ago)

NEW ORLEANS - A former Halliburton manager was charged Thursday with destroying evidence following BP's 2010 oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, a case that coincides with a guilty plea to a related charge by the Houston-based oilfield services company.

Anthony Badalamenti, who had been the cementing technology director for Halliburton Energy Services Inc., was charged in federal court with instructing two other employees to delete data during a post-spill review of the cement job on BP's blown-out well.

Halliburton was BP PLC's cement contractor on the drilling rig that exploded in the Gulf in April 2010, killing 11 workers and triggering the largest offshore oil spill in U.S. history.

Badalamenti, 61, of Katy, Texas, is charged in a bill of information, which typically signals that a defendant is co-operating with prosecutors. His attorney, Tai H. Park, declined to comment. Badalamenti is scheduled to be arraigned on Sept. 30.

Also on Thursday, a federal judge accepted a plea agreement that calls for Halliburton to pay a $200,000 fine for a misdemeanour stemming from Badalamenti's alleged conduct.

U.S. District Judge Jane Triche Milazzo said she believes the plea agreement is reasonable and agreed with prosecutors and the company that it "adequately reflects the seriousness of the offence."

Attorney General Eric Holder said in a statement that Halliburton's guilty plea and the charge against Badalamenti "mark the latest steps forward in the Justice Department's efforts to achieve justice on behalf of all those affected by the Deepwater Horizon explosion, oil spill, and environmental disaster."

The plea deal has its critics, however. Allison Fisher, an outreach director for the Public Citizen non-profit advocacy group, called it a "travesty."

"Rather than rubber stamp the plea agreement," she said in a statement, "the court should have rejected the bargain-basement deal because it fails to hold the corporation accountable for its criminal acts and will not deter future corporate crime."

Unlike BP and rig owner Transocean Ltd., Halliburton was not charged with a crime related to the causes of the disaster. The fine Halliburton agreed to pay is the statutory maximum for the misdemeanour charge of unauthorized destruction of evidence.

The deal announced in July also calls for Halliburton to be on probation for three years and to make a $55 million contribution to the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation, but that payment was not a condition of the deal.

The company said in a statement that closing the case was a good move for the company and that prosecutors have described its co-operation in the case as "exceptional," as well as "forthright, extensive and ongoing since the outset of the investigation."

Marc Mukasey, a lawyer who represented Halliburton at Thursday's hearing, said the company wouldn't comment on the charge against Badalamenti.

Although Halliburton's plea deal resolves the criminal case, the company still faces hefty civil penalties for its role in the disaster.

A federal judge is presiding over a trial designed to identify the causes of BP's well blowout and assign percentages of fault to BP and its contractors. The second phase of the trial — focusing on BP's efforts to plug the well and determining how much oil spilled into the Gulf — is scheduled to start on Sept. 30.

BP resolved a Justice Department criminal probe of its role in the Deepwater Horizon disaster when it pleaded guilty in January to manslaughter charges for the deaths of the rig workers and agreed to pay a record $4 billion in penalties. Transocean pleaded guilty in February to a misdemeanour charge of violating the Clean Water Act and agreed to pay $400 million in criminal penalties.

Prosecutors said that in May 2010, Badalamenti directed a senior program manager to run computer simulations on centralizers, which are used to keep the casing centred in the wellbore. The results indicated there was little difference between using six or 21 centralizers. The data could have supported BP's decision to use the lower number.

Badalamenti is accused of instructing the program manager to delete the results. The program manager "felt uncomfortable" about the instruction but complied, according to prosecutors.

A different Halliburton employee also deleted data from a separate round of simulations at the direction of Badalamenti, who was acting without the authorization of the company, prosecutors said.

Halliburton notified investigators from a Justice Department task force about the deletion of data. Efforts to recover the data weren't successful.

Badalamenti isn't the first individual charged with a crime stemming from the Deepwater Horizon disaster.

BP well site leaders Robert Kaluza and Donald Vidrine await a trial next year on manslaughter charges stemming from the rig workers' deaths. Prosecutors claim they botched a key safety test and disregarded abnormally high pressure readings that were glaring signs of trouble before the well blowout.

Former BP executive David Rainey is charged with concealing information from Congress about the amount of oil that was spewing from the blown-out well in 2010. Former BP engineer Kurt Mix is charged with deleting text messages and voicemails about the company's response to the spill.

Subject: RE: BS: Russians board Greenpeace
From: GUEST
Date: 20 Sep 13 - 08:20 AM

Clearly,you dont mess with Putin.

Subject: RE: BS: Russians board Greenpeace
From: Greg F.
Date: 20 Sep 13 - 09:02 AM

So now Russia joins the club of all the other nations that have boarded & will continue to board Greenpeace vessels.

Big deal.

Subject: RE: BS: Russians board Greenpeace
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 20 Sep 13 - 09:55 AM

France sunk one, killing crew members.

Subject: RE: BS: Russians board Greenpeace
From: GUEST,Iain
Date: 20 Sep 13 - 11:14 AM

It seems to me if you burn said resource in order to protest agaainst said resource then your credibility is totally lost.

Subject: RE: BS: Russians board Greenpeace
From: dick greenhaus
Date: 20 Sep 13 - 02:41 PM

Weren't Greenpeace members repelled by the Russians while attempting to board the Russian vessel before the Russians boarded the Greenpeace ship?

Subject: RE: BS: Russians board Greenpeace
From: selby
Date: 20 Sep 13 - 03:11 PM

Potin is in a bullish mood after getting his way in Syria. Where does Greenpeace think they rate in Putin's world very very insignificant I would suggest, so do not be disappointed if the greenpeace boat has an accident.
Keith

Subject: RE: BS: Russians board Greenpeace
From: Greg F.
Date: 20 Sep 13 - 04:00 PM

When are Greenpeace going to start protesting the reckless exploitation of undersea oil off the coast of California? Or for that matter, off the coast of Scotland?

Subject: RE: BS: Russians board Greenpeace
From: Greg F.
Date: 20 Sep 13 - 04:02 PM

What do French fries topped with brown gravy and cheese curds have to do with it?

Subject: RE: BS: Russians board Greenpeace
From: Mrrzy
Date: 21 Sep 13 - 01:02 PM

The French blew one up, rather.

Also what BP did to the Gulf wasn't a spill, which means a contained amount was released instead of held. It was a breach of the ocean floor with unknown and possibly unlimited from the human lifespan standpoint possibility.

I would like to see what the Russians are saying in the international media. I shall have to go see.

Subject: RE: BS: Russians board Greenpeace
From: Mrrzy
Date: 21 Sep 13 - 01:03 PM

Et j'adore la poutine!

Subject: RE: BS: Russians board Greenpeace
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 21 Sep 13 - 03:04 PM

The drilling platform is in the Pechora Sea, on the portion of the shelf claimed by Russia (Norwegian claims lie just to the west).

Under Russian law, the ship can be towed to a convenient salvage location and dismantled.
An equivalent location on the Canadian Arctic shelf would be the Beaufort Sea.

Subject: RE: BS: Russians board Greenpeace
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 21 Sep 13 - 03:21 PM

The Norwegian state oil company has exploration and drilling blocks just to the west in the Barents-Pechora region of the Arctic coast.

Not well-known to North Americans, The Norwegian state oil company, Statoil, has billions in funds gained from their offshore drilling, and could afford to buy a British or American major with pocket change.

Any Norwegians aboard the Greenpeace vessel? Somehow I doubt it. Would Greenpeace activists be any more welcome aboard one of their platforms?

Subject: RE: BS: Russians board Greenpeace
From: gnu
Date: 21 Sep 13 - 05:45 PM

Good point Q. And, as for all the misdirection in the news, yes, the Greenies attacked the Russian platform. I disagree with what they are doing but I also disagree with what them there Greenies are doing and I think the Russians have every right to defend thmeselves. Should the drilling even be allowed? No. Do you go about protesting that by attacking a Ruskie drilling platform? No.Does anyone really think that boarding another vessel at sea by force is even CLOSE to a good idea? News coverage? Yup. Bad news coverage? Fer sure.

Subject: RE: BS: Russians board Greenpeace
From: selby
Date: 21 Sep 13 - 06:12 PM

Greenpeace, know and capitalise on the saying "There is no such thing as bad publicity" some of the acts they commit at sea is piracy. When the big boy hits back they do not like it. I also believe should the drilling be allowed? no, but greenpeaces' way is not my way
Keith

Subject: RE: BS: Russians board Greenpeace
From: bobad
Date: 21 Sep 13 - 06:23 PM

Moi aussi, j'adore la putain.

Subject: RE: BS: Russians board Greenpeace
From: Stringsinger
Date: 21 Sep 13 - 07:57 PM

Because of the Russian ship, The Potempkin, Russia has had a stormy relationship with Greenpeace who tried to stop the slaughter of whales.

Putin is hardly the harbinger of freedom and civil rights after his disgraceful condemnation of LGBT people. He reacted like a dictator to the Pussy Riot pranks and still carries the redolence of the KGB.

Greenpeace is calling attention to the problem of whale slaughter and environmental issues and though some may not approve of its techniques, no one else aside from Bill McKibben
and the KPL resistance is doing much. Greenpeace is bringing two issues into focus,
1. the environment and habitat for animals and 2. the repressive means that Putin uses to hammer opponents.

Subject: RE: BS: Russians board Greenpeace
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 22 Sep 13 - 03:42 AM

Yes.
Greenpeace are the good guys.
Who do you think will invest the most in avoiding pollution, Norway or Gazprom?

Subject: RE: BS: Russians board Greenpeace
From: Megan L
Date: 22 Sep 13 - 04:10 AM

An old farmer here once said to me whether you look in a field and see a pile of shit or good manure depends on which side of the farm gate you are standing.

Subject: RE: BS: Russians board Greenpeace
From: Rapparee
Date: 22 Sep 13 - 11:48 AM

Hang ALL pirates! String 'em up and then gibbet them between two tides! Leave 'em up to teach other would-be pirates and mutineers a good lesson! Teach 'em like we taught Edward Teach and William Kydd! (Unless they're good lookin' women.)

Subject: RE: BS: Russians board Greenpeace
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 22 Sep 13 - 01:00 PM

A little stretch in a Siberian prison might teach them piracy doesn't pay.

bobad 21 Sept 13- moi aussi!

Canadian Arctic Offshore Status-

Some Canadian offshore rights in the Arctic Beaufort Sea (9000 square kilometers) have been sold to the small British Company, Franklin, which does not have the resources or the expertise to carry out any drilling. They are free to sell these rights to all comers, however.

Over 5 billions bbls of oil and 53 trillion cubic feet of gas are the potential, based on preliminary drilling that has taken place.

Chevron, BP and Exxon-Mobil have committed hundreds of millions to explore and develop their parcels in the Beaufort Sea.

The Arctic Ocean region soon will be a major producer of petroleum.

Subject: RE: BS: Russians board Greenpeace
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 22 Sep 13 - 02:25 PM

Canada-
At present, licenses for part of offshore Yukon are under a work prohibition order.
Map of areas under license, and significant discovery licenses, etc.
From Northern Oil and Gas Annual Report-
www.aadnc-aandc.gc.ca

Subject: RE: BS: Russians board Greenpeace
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 23 Sep 13 - 05:32 AM

Greenpeace are not pirates.
Non violent, peaceful protest is all that they do and have ever done.
There was no justification for threatening them with guns and knives.

Subject: RE: BS: Russians board Greenpeace
From: Greg F.
Date: 23 Sep 13 - 10:08 AM

Get a clue, Keith. You're heading off into never-never land again.

Subject: RE: BS: Russians board Greenpeace
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 23 Sep 13 - 09:13 PM

The Russians are towing the pirates and their vessel to Murmansk.

Probably no more news releases until port is reached.

Subject: RE: BS: Russians board Greenpeace
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 24 Sep 13 - 03:07 AM

Greenpeace are not pirates.
They do not steal, take hostages or pillage.
They make only peaceful protest against environmental destruction.
I am with them.

Subject: RE: BS: Russians board Greenpeace
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 24 Sep 13 - 12:32 PM

Greenpeace pirates endanger crews at sea, boarding vessels and interfering with commerce.
They are not recognized by legitimate conservation groups.

The closest comparable groups are Al Qaeda sponsored.

Subject: RE: BS: Russians board Greenpeace
From: selby
Date: 24 Sep 13 - 12:38 PM

Part of a BBC report
Article 227 of Russia's penal code defines piracy as "an attack on a ship at sea or on a river, with the aim of seizing someone else's property, using violence or the threat of violence". It can be punished with a jail term of up to 15 years, depending on the gravity of the offence, and a fine of up to 500,000 roubles (£10,000; $15,000).

The full report
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-24222392

You can decide for your self if they are or are not pirates but it seems the Russians have decided

Subject: RE: BS: Russians board Greenpeace
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 24 Sep 13 - 03:12 PM

No threat of violence from Greenpeace.
They do not interfere with commerce.
Just whaling and reckless oil exploitation.

Subject: RE: BS: Russians board Greenpeace
From: Greg F.
Date: 24 Sep 13 - 06:52 PM

Well, Keith, I guess you're an equal opportunity apologist. Branching out fom the radical Zionists are we?

Subject: RE: BS: Russians board Greenpeace
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 24 Sep 13 - 07:53 PM

Wikipedia has a definition of commerce that includes "commerce is an environment that affects the business prospects of an economy or nation-state.
The drilling platforms of the oil companies contribute to business prospects of nation-states, (in this instance Russia) hence interfering with their lawful activity is interference with commerce.

Subject: RE: BS: Russians board Greenpeace
From: GUEST,Iain
Date: 24 Sep 13 - 11:28 PM

As someone who has spent decades on offshore platforms I can tell you that if a bunch of idiots tried to board without permission I would be extremely grateful to anyone that hauled their ar***s off to jail.
I suspect if the same tactics were tried in the north sea it would be seen as a potential terrorist attack and the response would be far more forceful.
I have no argument with greenpeace spreading their message but if their means of transmittal puts others at risk and breaks international law they deserve everything that they get.

Subject: RE: BS: Russians board Greenpeace
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 25 Sep 13 - 02:54 AM

Environmentalists believe that the legitimate commerce of extracting oil from under the Arctic is likely to cause a catastrophe, so yes Greenpeace is trying to disrupt it by peaceful protest.

Whaling was legitimate commerce too, but I am glad that Greenpeace went out to disrupt the killing and raise awareness of what was going on.

Likewise atmospheric nuclear testing.

Likewise the potential destruction of the precarious Arctic ecosystems.
And for what?

Subject: RE: BS: Russians board Greenpeace
From: GUEST,Iain
Date: 25 Sep 13 - 03:42 AM

There is nothing peaceful about a bunch of anarchist crazies trying to board an oil rig.Their unplanned actions could well disrupt critical operations and cause loss of life.

Subject: RE: BS: Russians board Greenpeace
From: selby
Date: 25 Sep 13 - 05:17 AM

I have worked at a facility that these people wanted to close down, where they mounted "attacks" to protect the environment, but caused more environmental damage by their ill thought out logic
They only see and believe what they are indoctrinated with, every body is an a***hole apart from them, they put people with a legitimate right to work at risk. These include dangers of plant conditions, verbal abuse, spitting, kicking, etc. Until there is a camera around and then they sit ever so quite and shout victim. Pretty TV pictures of them, but away from the cameras not vert nice people I am afraid.
Keith

Subject: RE: BS: Russians board Greenpeace
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 25 Sep 13 - 05:41 AM

Peaceful protest is quite clearly defined in UK law. You can stand in the way of a truck which is servicing the activity you are protesting against and try to verbally persuade the driver not to cross your line.

You cannot open the truck door and try to enter, nor can you lay hands on the driver.

Directly analogous to the difference between getting between the whale and the harpoon gun, or attempting to board a vssel or rig.

So, that Greenpeace action was beyond what is permissible under the mantle of peaceful protest, whether it qualifies as piracy or not.

Greenpeace have, I'm afraid, picked on the wrong people, who are not likely to be bothered by world opinion, and not known for any leniency toward foreign transgressors.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Russians board Greenpeace
From: Rob Naylor
Date: 25 Sep 13 - 10:47 AM

Keith: They do not interfere with commerce.
Just whaling and reckless oil exploitation.

As I said in my first post near the top of this thread:

Greenpeace took a *single engined*, *single-screwed* vessel inside the Safety Exclusion Zone of an offshore structure, with no guard-boat or tug standing by to pull them off in case of engine failure. THIS is reckless....in the extreme! Imagine an engine failure when it was doing say 8 knots towards the platform, inside the zone. Reckless doesn't even begin to cut it, IMO. The Master should lose his certificate for that, even if he's not jailed.

Subject: RE: BS: Russians board Greenpeace
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 25 Sep 13 - 12:30 PM

Remarks by Putin suggest that piracy charges will not be brought against the crazies. He should reconsider.

Subject: RE: BS: Russians board Greenpeace
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 25 Sep 13 - 01:08 PM

Piracy charges would not stand.

Subject: RE: BS: Russians board Greenpeace
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 25 Sep 13 - 03:54 PM

Who knows what stands in Russian jurisprudence?

Subject: RE: BS: Russians board Greenpeace
From: GUEST
Date: 26 Sep 13 - 01:33 AM

Activists now held in various pretrial detention centers around Murmansk.The regional investigators are being overseen by Moscow based colleagues. An anonymous official commented "This means it is being taken very seriously"(Borneo Post today)

Subject: RE: BS: Russians board Greenpeace
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 26 Sep 13 - 02:51 AM

Putin said they were not pirates.

Subject: RE: BS: Russians board Greenpeace
From: Rob Naylor
Date: 26 Sep 13 - 05:08 AM

But they were still BLOODY reckless, taking a single engine/screw vessel within the SEZ of a structure, and deserve prosecuting.

Subject: RE: BS: Russians board Greenpeace
From: GUEST
Date: 26 Sep 13 - 05:23 AM

President Putin may well be right not to call them pirates-How about eco-terrorists instead.

Subject: RE: BS: Russians board Greenpeace
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 26 Sep 13 - 06:03 AM

Non-violent terrorists are the best kind.

Subject: RE: BS: Russians board Greenpeace
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 26 Sep 13 - 03:27 PM

Boarding vessels and property without permission is looking for violence.
Putin's comments were too soft.

Subject: RE: BS: Russians board Greenpeace
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 26 Sep 13 - 03:37 PM

Looking for violence?
Yes, but not offering any.
Just prepared to receive it in the cause of averting an environmental disaster.

Subject: RE: BS: Russians board Greenpeace
From: GUEST,Iain
Date: 27 Sep 13 - 06:18 AM

A bunch of self righteous, tunnel visioned, treehuggers deliberately taking an icebreaker into an exclusion zone are very likely to be the cause of an environmental disaster if allowed to continue their reckless operations. None of those aboard should ever be allowed to have any semblance of control of any vessel again. At the very least they should all be charged with the premeditated endangering of life at sea.

Subject: RE: BS: Russians board Greenpeace
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 27 Sep 13 - 07:39 AM

Another bunch of self righteous, tunnel visioned, treehuggers

Arctic oil rush will ruin ecosystem, warns Lloyd's of LondonInsurance market joins environmentalists in highlighting risks of drilling in fragile region as $100bn investment is predicted
The Guardian, Thursday 12 April 2012
Arctic oil rush will ruin ecosystem, warns Lloyd's of LondonInsurance market joins

Subject: RE: BS: Russians board Greenpeace
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 27 Sep 13 - 07:43 AM

But regardless how safe we make offshore drilling in the Arctic, there will still be a significant risk of a major oil spill, and policy makers and industry need to be honest about this. People will make mistakes, and equipment will fail. It's not a question of 'if' a major spill will occur, but 'when and where.'

A major spill will travel with currents, in and under sea ice during ice season, and it would be virtually impossible to contain or recover. Even with robust oil spill response capability, in most scenarios far less than 10 per cent will be recovered, and a major spill could easily become a transnational event.

A large spill would undoubtedly cause extensive acute mortality in plankton, fish, birds, and marine mammals. As well, there would be significant chronic, sub-lethal injury to organisms - physiological damage, altered feeding behavior and reproduction, genetic injury, etc. - that would reduce the overall viability of populations.

There could be a permanent reduction in certain populations, and for threatened or endangered species, a major spill could tip them into extinction. With low temperatures and slow degradation rates, oil spilled in the Arctic would persist for decades. And a major oil spill in the Arctic Ocean could severely damage subsistence harvest opportunities, and forever change the lives of coastal peoples.

Put simply, oil drilling in the Arctic Ocean cannot be done without risk and serious impact. There will be chronic degradation, and there will be spills. So the policy question is whether we wish to expose the Arctic Ocean and its people to such risk.

http://www.theecologist.org/blogs_and_comments/commentators/other_comments/1096998/why_arctic_ocean_oil_drilling_is_a_risky_choi

Subject: RE: BS: Russians board Greenpeace
From: GUEST,Iain
Date: 27 Sep 13 - 08:03 AM

The Norne field is practically inside the arctic circle, as is Skarve. I do not recollect greenpeace cluttering up the area when these actually came on stream. I think the rationale for protest is some years behind the reality.

Subject: RE: BS: Russians board Greenpeace
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 27 Sep 13 - 08:30 AM

The new fields are deep inside, and the risks comensurately greater.

Subject: RE: BS: Russians board Greenpeace
From: GUEST,Iain
Date: 27 Sep 13 - 08:39 AM

Keith,
      I admire your tenacity and occasionally the eloquence of your argument. However the very act of living is a case study of risk and the management of risk.
      Without a continuous search for new sources of oil the price would rise alarmingly and the knock on effects would be horrific.
As yet there is no substitute and the modern world requires abundant energy. I think recent events have demonstrated that the nuclear option
also has significant risk of a far higher magnitude than a periodic oil spill and can have a multi-generational impact.
      If all the treehuggers had to walk to find a tree then I suspect their protests would diminish to insignificance.

Subject: RE: BS: Russians board Greenpeace
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 27 Sep 13 - 09:32 AM

Thanks Iain.
I accept that we are dependent on oil for the very surival of our civilisation, such as it is.
I accept that there is no viable alternative remotely in sight.

If this field were undiscovered, that would not be the end.
We could afford to leave the oil in the ground a bit longer in the hope that technology of extraction becomes safer, or an alternative source of energy becomes available.
It is not yet a last resort.

Subject: RE: BS: Russians board Greenpeace
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 27 Sep 13 - 03:44 PM

A Russian judge has detained 15 Greenpeace activists for two months pending a piracy investigation.
No decision has been taken yet on the other 15.

Subject: RE: BS: Russians board Greenpeace
From: Ed T
Date: 27 Sep 13 - 04:18 PM

I don't think there is an oil company nor a country in the world that would accept "anyone" (regardless of the cause) attempting to board a oil installation without prior authorization. Anyone foolish to do it, should expect prosecution - if they are lucky enough to not be "fired on" in the attempt by the well armed and trained security personnel that normally don't fool around..

Subject: RE: BS: Russians board Greenpeace
From: Ed T
Date: 27 Sep 13 - 04:45 PM

There is an interesting PDF presentation on oil spill research/options at the site below (I got to it through Google, but I suspect it is complex to link to it):

Oil Spill Countermeasures in Ice-infested Waters Kenneth Lee
www.arcus.org/files/meetings/279/287/.../thurs10401450lee.pdf
Oil Spill Countermeasures in Ice-infested Waters. Kenneth Lee. Centre for offshore Oil, Gas and Energy Research. Fisheries & Oceans Canada.

An interesting article on oil spills and ice:

Economist article 2012

Subject: RE: BS: Russians board Greenpeace
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 29 Sep 13 - 09:55 AM

Greenpeace Email to members.

"The criminal activity I am blamed for is called journalism. I will keep doing it." - Denis Sinyakov, freelance photographer aboard the Arctic Sunrise when it was seized 8 days ago.

Hi Keith,

I was shocked to see pictures of Denis behind bars in the Russian courtroom yesterday. I'm a freelance photographer too and I was about to replace him when the ship reached the next port. But now Denis is being held in jail for another 2 months, without charge.

Yesterday, the Arctic 30 appeared before a court in Murmansk, Russia. No charges were laid, but all 30 are still being detained. 22 people are being held for two months as Russian authorities pursue an investigation around piracy charges. Eight people are being held for three days awaiting a new hearing.

The Russian authorities are punishing those who have risked their liberty to highlight the madness of Arctic oil, while protecting the fossil fuel industry. It should be the other way around.

Join me in central London, October 5, as part of worldwide event to free the Arctic 30. Sign up to get an SMS or email with more details of the time and place.

I am relieved to see people all around the world speaking out in support my friends. Russian newspapers are blanking out images on their webpages to draw attention to it. Together we've sent over half a million messages to Russian embassies worldwide. We've made global headlines. Now we need to show our determination on the street.

Today I went to the Russian embassy in London with my young son (pictured). I met his mother onboard the Arctic Sunrise four years ago. We all visited the ship again just a few months back. Some of the crew are like part of our family now: people like Haussy (the ship's electrician from New Zealand), 'Big John' (outboard mechanic from Tonga), and Paul (first mate from Canada). It's upsetting to think I was saying goodbye to them on the quayside in Norway only last month. Now they are facing up to two months in a Russian jail without charge.

Nick Cobbing and son at the Russian Embassy

I could have been behind bars in that courtroom yesterday. But instead I can stand with my brave colleagues and show them that they're not alone. Join me in standing up for the Arctic 30 on October 5. We must show the world that blatant intimidation will not succeed.

I'll do anything I can to get these guys home as soon as possible. Thanks for being there with me.

Nick Cobbing
Freelance Photographer and part of the Greenpeace community

Subject: RE: BS: Russians board Greenpeace
From: Greg F.
Date: 29 Sep 13 - 10:50 AM

And of course a propaganda release from Greenpeace is a reliable source, right Keith? Just like the Zionist propagandists, I presume?

Subject: RE: BS: Russians board Greenpeace
From: GUEST,Ed T
Date: 29 Sep 13 - 11:45 AM

Greenpeace, and similar pressure groups, frequently bring journalists on operations who are either very biased toward their cause, or who are card carrying members - and just happen also to be journalists.

I am sympathetic when actual journalists who are "embedded" in a story - to provide an "objective" perspective of happenings to the public- get detained. However, do not have similar sympathy for those who call themselves "journalists" who are part of a PR portion of an operation for the group and are not present to produce "an objective" journalistic perspective on events.


I don't know what the case is here - but the email makes me suspicious that the journalists presence on board may have been part of a PR effort associated with the Greenpeace operation.

Subject: RE: BS: Russians board Greenpeace
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 29 Sep 13 - 12:12 PM

"Freelance and part of the greenpeace community." In other words part of their anarchist activities.

Subject: RE: BS: Russians board Greenpeace
From: selby
Date: 29 Sep 13 - 12:25 PM

Thread creep?
Good on Keith for sticking to his believes. I am aware that this thread is not representative of the world. At the moment on this thread, as an organisation Greenpeace is not connecting with as many people as it probably should.This forum has a wide base of opinions, yet apart from Keith's lone voice no support for them.
Keith

Subject: RE: BS: Russians board Greenpeace
From: GUEST,Ed T
Date: 29 Sep 13 - 12:59 PM

Lacking support for ill conceived PR exploits of Greenpeace, or the organization itself, does not mean that folks do not care or have concern for the environment. IMO, of course.

Subject: RE: BS: Russians board Greenpeace
From: Greg F.
Date: 29 Sep 13 - 01:29 PM

Some of what Greenpeace does I have supported and will continue to do so.

I will also continue to call their major screw-ups major screw-ups.

Subject: RE: BS: Russians board Greenpeace
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 30 Sep 13 - 10:25 AM

""At the moment on this thread, as an organisation Greenpeace is not connecting with as many people as it probably should.This forum has a wide base of opinions, yet apart from Keith's lone voice no support for them.""

I was asked, two days ago, to sign a petition for the release of the Grenpeace activists.

I refused, without hesitation or regret!

If the same group asks me to sign a petition against the drilling, I will sign it, but I will not support the illegal activities of what has deteriorated into a floating holiday camp for thugs looking for a fight.

Anybody who saw the aftermath of Piper Alpha, should know the dangers inherent in any attempt to board an offshore oil rig, and violating the safety exclusion zone is an offence in itself.

I hope that the punishment will deter any such mindless and dangerous actions in the future.

At the least I hope that Greenpeace will be persuaded to weed out the gung ho idiots and return to the days when they put at risk only their own lives.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Russians board Greenpeace
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 30 Sep 13 - 03:11 PM

Oh dear. I agree to some extent with Keith. The report on global warming makes it quite clear. We need to diminish fossil fuel use.

Subject: RE: BS: Russians board Greenpeace
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 01 Oct 13 - 04:29 AM

Don, Piper Alpha was not caused by a couple of peaceful demonstrators climbing up a rope.

The Arctic Sunrise is not "a floating holiday camp for thugs looking for a fight."

They climbed up the Shard in London a few weeks ago.
No damage.
No fight.
Just raising awareness of what is being done to our world for the sake of profit and greed.

Subject: RE: BS: Russians board Greenpeace
From: Rob Naylor
Date: 01 Oct 13 - 05:26 AM

No, Piper Alpha was not caused by that. But as I keep pointing out, and as you keep ignoring, the Arctic Sunrise is a single-engine, single screw vessel that approached well within the Safety Exclusion Zone of an offshore structure without the protection of either a tug or guardboat. It continued to remain within the Zone despite repeated requests to move away.

Whatever your feelings about arctic exploration, this act in itself is extremely reckless and dangerous and would have resulted in the arrest of the vessel in virtually any jurisdiction in the world. An engine or drive-train failure COULD have resulted in a collision with the platform and widespread destruction with injuries and possible deaths.

These Safety Exclusion Zones are there for a reason, implicitly bound up with safety and environmental protection and for an organisation that purports to be concerned about the environment to do this I find almost incomprehensible.

Subject: RE: BS: Russians board Greenpeace
From: Teribus
Date: 01 Oct 13 - 05:52 AM

Cannot see what all the fuss is about wrt "Arctic" exploration and particularly this installation - it stands in water that is only 19 metres deep FFS - tell me what monster "iceberg" is ever going to threaten it - when fully built it will be an island made of steel weighing something like 350,000 tons, the sea around it will freeze, the water under that ice will still flow - the oil produced will be stored inside compartments making up the supporting structure of this 350,000 ton steel island unless a bunch of clowns in a single engined, single screw vessel ram and puncture the three or four steel compartments separating the produced oil from the environment there is no way on earth that the produced oil will ever come into contact with the seawater surrounding this installation.

Normal means of exporting product from this installation will be via a submarine pipeline to a Single Point Mooring where 195,000 shuttle tankers will take the product to a shore terminal for refining, the SPM is located in water that is "ice-free" ( Convoys during the Second World War sailed to Murmansk and Archangel in the USSR throughout the year because??? - They were free of ice).

Greenpeace and the Brent Spar protests - Utterly ridiculous and all their arguments and claims about potential environmental damage proved to be complete and utter codswallop that cost loads of jobs and tons of money. They were ultimately goaded into stating that their claims had been in error but without one single word of apology for the inconvenience and hardship their lies had wrought on perfectly innocent people.

Subject: RE: BS: Russians board Greenpeace
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 01 Oct 13 - 08:50 AM

Any serious oil spill in the ice of the Arctic, the "new frontier" for oil exploration, is likely to be an uncontrollable environmental disaster despoiling vast areas of the world's most untouched ecosystem, one of the world's leading polar scientists has told The Independent.

Oil from an undersea leak will not only be very hard to deal with in Arctic conditions, it will interact with the surface sea ice and become absorbed in it, and will be transported by it for as much as 1,000 miles across the ocean, according to Peter Wadhams, Professor of ocean physics at the University of Cambridge.

"If there is serious oil spill under ice in the Arctic it will be very hard, if not impossible to stop it becoming an environmental catastrophe," he said. "It will be very much harder to deal with than a major spill in open water."

"A spill in the Arctic would essentially make dealing with something like Deepwater Horizon look almost straightforward," said Ben Ayliffe, polar campaigner for Greenpeace.

"There are problems with ice encroachment, the remoteness of the Arctic, darkness, extreme weather, deep water, high seas, freezing conditions and icebergs. Basically it would mean that responding to a Gulf of Mexico-style spill off somewhere like Greenland would be impossible."

Professor Wadhams, who was the first civilian scientist to travel under the Arctic ice in a submarine, in 1971, and who has made five more under-ice trips, is spotlighting an even greater level of concern with his knowledge of how oil and ice interact – with potentially calamitous consequences.

It stems from large-scale experiments he took part in off the coast of Canada in the 1970s, in which substantial quantities of oil were deliberately released into the frozen sea, to see how it behaved. "What we found, and one of the great difficulties, is that spilled oil becomes encapsulated in the ice and is then transported around the Arctic by it," he said.

"The oil is caught underneath the ice, so you can't get at immediately to clean it up or burn it off. You don't know exactly where it is, and then it gets encapsulated in the new ice which grows underneath, so you then have a kind of oil sandwich inside the pack ice.

"And that's being transported around the Arctic and isn't released until spring, when it may be several hundred or even a thousand miles from the source of the spill, so you can have a huge area of the Arctic becoming polluted by oil without initially it being clear where that oil is."

He added: "Once it is released in springtime, it's very toxic, because the encapsulation in the ice preserves the oil from weathering, so that instead of the lighter fraction evaporating and the heavier fraction becoming just tar balls, you have fresh oil being released exactly where the ice is melting, usually round the edge of the pack ice where you've got a lot of migratory birds.

"Not great for the environment. In fact, I think the appropriate word would be 'terrible'."
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/oil-exploration-under-arctic-ice-could-cause-uncontrollable-natural-disaster-2349788.ht

Subject: RE: BS: Russians board Greenpeace
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 01 Oct 13 - 10:29 AM

I understand that the principal Greenpeace vessel never came any closer to the platform than 500 metres so it was outside the exclusion zone. If that is so while the individual protesters were liable to arrest while they were on the platform, the seizure of the Greenpeace vessel was itself an act of piracy.

I am open to establishment of the actual facts. Keith, you do a lot of googling. Can you clearly state the known facts?

Subject: RE: BS: Russians board Greenpeace
From: Greg F.
Date: 01 Oct 13 - 11:18 AM

Keith, you do a lot of googling. Can you clearly state the known facts?

Never has done; why would he start now?

Subject: RE: BS: Russians board Greenpeace
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 01 Oct 13 - 02:52 PM

Terribus states the facts of the case.

Not only were the actions of the Greenpeace activists dangerous but they haven't a hope in hell of discouraging Russia from drilling in their own shallow offshore waters. It will still be many years before petroleum is displaced in the chemical (esp. plastics) and fuel industries.

The Russian steel island is of interest to the oil industry as a whole.
Imperial Oil pioneered in the research and construction of "ice islands" (gravel and ice) for drilling in shallow Arctic waters (Beaufort Sea Canadian offshore) back in the 1960s. Their exploratory wells were drilled successfully. The Beaufort Sea has been leased to a large extent and development is in the near future.

The Russian offshore, on the other side of the Arctic Basin from the Beaufort, is expected to be a large source of gas and petroleum for Russian and European industry.

Subject: RE: BS: Russians board Greenpeace
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 01 Oct 13 - 05:56 PM

Activists caused no danger to the oil platform but were protesting peacefully against Arctic oil drilling

'Earlier, the crew has repeatedly taken provocative actions that pose a threat to maritime security of ships engaged in work on the development of the continental shelf in the Russian sector of the Arctic.' (RU)

Our activists are fully trained to conduct this kind of protest peacefully and safely. They did nothing to endanger the platform or Gazprom's workers and they carried nothing more than banners and ropes. A similar protest at the same rig passed off without incident in 2012.

The real threat to the fragile Arctic environment is the giant Prirazlomnaya oil platform, which is operating hundreds of miles away from emergency vessels but right next to the habitats of polar bears, walruses and other wildlife.

International law — specifically, Article 60(5) of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea — allows the declaration of a safety zone of no more than 500m around an offshore installation. The Arctic Sunrise at no point came closer than 500m to the Prirazlomnaya. The Arctic Sunrise was also outside the excessive 3 nautical mile exclusion zone claimed by Russia, except on one occasion when it briefly entered to retrieve the safety pod that would otherwise have posed a possible navigational hazard.

The inflatable boats used during the action did come closer than 500m to conduct peaceful protest. There was no safety risk — the Prirazlomnaya sits on a big steel and concrete box designed to withstand impacts of ice floes. Indeed, it is visited daily by far larger support vessels such as a hotel ship that houses part of its workforce.

The Arctic Sunrise was in international waters not in territorial waters

'The FSB has rejected the environmental campaign group's assertion that the ship was in international waters when it was seized.' (EN)

At the time of the boarding, the Arctic Sunrise was circling Gazprom's Prirazlomnaya platform at the three nautical mile limit, inside international waters. Coordinates confirm that the ship was inside of Russia's Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ), making this an illegal boarding by the Russian Coast Guard.

Legally speaking, the EEZ is similar to the high seas. Foreign vessels have a right to freedom of navigation there - they can enter without permission and go anywhere they want.

The ship's coordinates at the time of arrest were 69 19.86'N 057 16.56'E, showing that the vessel was clearly outside of Russia's territorial waters. This is 34 nautical miles from the Russian coast. These coordinates were received from ship's security alert system and here are the coordinates from the ship's Automatic Identification System (AIS).

Subject: RE: BS: Russians board Greenpeace
From: Greg F.
Date: 01 Oct 13 - 06:40 PM

More of your & others' opinions, Keith. Facts were requested.

Subject: RE: BS: Russians board Greenpeace
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 01 Oct 13 - 08:21 PM

In Sept. 2010, Russia and Norway signed an agreement covering their portions of the continental shelf, specifically forming a mutual zone in the Barents Sea area.
The Russians have a 200 mile exclusive economic zone under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (1997), covering its Arctic Shelf. Canada, Norway and all maritime nations are signatories.
The coordinates given by K A are well within the Russian economic zone, and in that regard are meaningless. The Russians have rights to explore or lease within their 200 mile exclusive economic zone.

The Russians are claiming shelf rights well beyond the 200 mile boundary, but this is disputed; in any case this extended claim has no bearing on the area considered here. The UN CLOS has asked Russia to submit more data in support of their extended claim.

Subject: RE: BS: Russians board Greenpeace
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 02 Oct 13 - 02:55 AM

Not meaningless Q.
Vessels are allowed passage within economic zones.

The objections here have been on grounds of safety.
The vessel kept outside the 3k exclusion zone except for one incursion to recover a floating object.
At no time was it within the 500m zone.

Greg.
Is "fact" another word you struggle to define?
I have produced the fact that at least one eminent and independent polar scientist has hard scientific evidence that any spill would be catastrophic to fragile habitats, the fact that the vessel carries a tracker so its position is verifiable at all times, and that it never got close to the platform.

Subject: RE: BS: Russians board Greenpeace
From: Teribus
Date: 02 Oct 13 - 03:42 AM

"The vessel kept outside the 3k exclusion zone except for one incursion to recover a floating object."

And exclusion means?

Routine for approach of any vessel to any offshore field installation

- Report your ETA on departure from port
- Halt your vessel or contact the OIM whilst your vessel is outside the 3000m zone and seek permission to enter the field. This is done because whilst in transit you have got no idea what is going on in the field or on the installation itself - if they are testing or ceiling wells and radio transmissions are restricted or radio silence is in force they will advise you when you report your departure, or if circumstances change during transit to field their onshore base will advise you.
- At 500m out seek permission to enter the Platform Safety Zone. Normally before entering the 500m Safety Zone you will check all position reference systems and positioning systems for your vessel for the prevailing weather and sea conditions. Only vessels equipped with certain dynamic positioning systems are allowed to enter this zone. DP consequence classifications are listed as DP-I (most basic - OSV's delivering supplies); DP-II (100% redundancy for all systems); DP-III (200% redundancy for all systems - required for operations where the vessel is connected to or working on existing subsea infrastructure)

The approach and entry of the Greenpeace vessel was irresponsible and potentially dangerous and the Master of the Greenpeace vessel should have been well aware of that.

Subject: RE: BS: Russians board Greenpeace
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 02 Oct 13 - 04:04 AM

It did not enter the 500m zone.

Subject: RE: BS: Russians board Greenpeace
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 02 Oct 13 - 04:24 AM

In this clip, a soldier in a pitching inflatable fires a burst on full automatic into the sea right by another pitching inflatable where the crew stand with hands raised.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mc_dEgzzla4

Subject: RE: BS: Russians board Greenpeace
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 02 Oct 13 - 06:24 AM

""The report on global warming makes it quite clear. We need to diminish fossil fuel use.""

I agree with that Richard, but not with the methods used and the disruption and danger caused.

There is a reason for the level of security involved in managing dangerous environments such as oil rigs, where a moment's distraction or inattention can result in a disastrous fire.

I don't think there is any denying that their actions produced just such distraction and had they boarded the rig, could have constituted a serious danger to all aboard.

Hence my reference to Piper Alpha, which has been misrepresented by the forum's most prolific supporter of dodgy causes.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Russians board Greenpeace
From: Teribus
Date: 02 Oct 13 - 07:48 AM

3000 metres is the Exclusion zone

500 metres is the Safety Zone

Subject: RE: BS: Russians board Greenpeace
From: GUEST
Date: 02 Oct 13 - 11:07 AM

Now charged with piracy which can carry 15 years of prison!

Subject: RE: BS: Russians board Greenpeace
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 02 Oct 13 - 01:40 PM

The Russians say the vessel violated the 500 metre exclusion zone and was carrying equipment whose purpose was unclear.

Two Canadians aboard the vessel were Paul Ruzycki and Alexandre Paul.

Subject: RE: BS: Russians board Greenpeace
From: GUEST,Ed T
Date: 02 Oct 13 - 03:52 PM

I believe under international marine law, an offshore rig is an installation when exploring and only is considered a ship when moving from one location. Piracy laws only apply when the vessel is acting as a ship. However, I believe that force can be applied in international waters when it is "reasonable" to believe that actions may be taken by another vessel that threatens the safety or security of the structure or crew. I suspect that it is possible that the actions of Greenpeace could be considered in that league, as in other previous protests, they have broached the security of similar structures.

Below is a section from a oil rig security site I found- but lost the site to post as a source:

""Civil protest
Civil protest also poses a security threat to offshore oil and gas installations. Interferences with offshore operations can be caused by non-violent environmental activists, indigenous activists, labor activists, striking workers, and anti-government protesters. There have been at least ten security incidents where operations of offshore oil and gas installations were affected by the actions of protesters and activists. Greenpeace activists have caused interferences with operations of offshore installations on several occasions including an attempt to board an oil rig about 170 nautical miles off the coast of Massachusetts in the United States on 25 July 1981, the unauthorized boarding and occupation of Shell's Brent Spar floating offshore oil storage facility in the North Sea on 30 April 1995, an unauthorized boarding of the Stena Don offshore drilling rig off the coast of Greenland on 31 August 2010, interference with operations of the Stena Carron drillship in the waters off the Shetland Islands north-east of mainland Britain in the UK on 21 September 2010, and the unauthorized boarding of Leiv Eiriksson offshore drilling rig in Turkish waters. There have been other offshore security incidents caused by civil protest such as an unauthorized boarding of Parabe offshore oil production platform by protesters in Nigeria on 25 May 1998, and the seizure of offshore installations by striking oil workers off the coast of Nigeria in April 2003.""


Did Greenpeace not notice that Russia invaded another country a few years ago (Georgia) - which means thay haven't tended to "dither" when annoyed or "taken on".

Subject: RE: BS: Russians board Greenpeace
From: GUEST,Ed t
Date: 02 Oct 13 - 04:06 PM

I suspect the ship stayed outside the security zone, while Greenpeace activists went inside with inflatables to try and scale the rig. That in itself would bring the ship into the operation.

While Greenpeace indicates inflatables pose no threat, keep in mind that inflatables are often used off Africa by pirates. A security zone is to be respected, regardless of the type of vessel. Don't forget, one can be arrested and charged for trying to reppel or climb a sky scraper, regardless of the reason for doing it.



Threat' to Oil Rig Staff?

Subject: RE: BS: Russians board Greenpeace
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 02 Oct 13 - 04:13 PM

That is what Greenpeace do.
Peaceful protest to raise awareness.
They expect arrest but not guns.

Subject: RE: BS: Russians board Greenpeace
From: GUEST,Ed T
Date: 02 Oct 13 - 04:56 PM

I respect the environment, and environmental causes (including this one) and "peaceful protest", where those involved follow the law - and are accountable when and "if" the law is "skirted" - "minus the crap and double talk". If caught, stand strong and be held accountable for your actions. Crap talk and crap PR weakens the environmental cause, rather than strengthens it in many quarters, IMO.

Of course the intent of Greenpeace was to breach the security zone, that's what they do to get media attention (no one can doubt that). Of course the Russians, concerned for operation-related PR and rig security would try and "do what they do" to stop them, that is a given for Greenpeace, with no surprises.

Folks who climb or repel skyscrapers do not try and "weasel" out of their actions, once they are clearly caught.I respect folks for "owning up" - not weaseling out".

Subject: RE: BS: Russians board Greenpeace
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 02 Oct 13 - 05:18 PM

I'm really only interested in the geographical facts and the international law.

It seems that the Arctic Warrior was within the EEZ - which it is allowed to navigate - but once only and that for cause, and the protocols even if accurately cited are legally irrelevant.

At no time did the Arctic Warrior enter the safety zone - only vessels that could not constitute an impact hazard to the rig.

Are those the facts? Please let me know and I may move on to consider the law.

Subject: RE: BS: Russians board Greenpeace
From: Teribus
Date: 03 Oct 13 - 02:35 AM

Was the Greenpeace vessel inside the 3000 metre exclusion zone? If it was inside this zone without express permission then it is in violation of maritime rules and national rules governing offshore installations.

No vessel irrespective of size can be inside the 500 metre Safety Zone of any installation without the express permission of the OIM of that installation.

Subject: RE: BS: Russians board Greenpeace
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 03 Oct 13 - 03:02 AM

It entered the 3000m zone once, briefly, to remove a floating object that was a potential hazard.
It never breached the 500m safety zone, so was never unsafe.

The demonstration involved breaking rules but not safety protocols.

Subject: RE: BS: Russians board Greenpeace
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 03 Oct 13 - 03:24 AM

Rules, Teribus? Or laws. There is a difference. If laws, whose?

Subject: RE: BS: Russians board Greenpeace
From: Teribus
Date: 03 Oct 13 - 04:27 AM

I ask you once again what does the term exclusion zone mean to you? To me it means that you ensure that you stay out of it unless you absolutely have to, in which case you call on VHF Channel 16 and get permission to enter it stating your reasons for doing so.

The number of times is irrelevant.

The reason for entering is irrelevant.

Rules, Guidelines, Laws - all exist - for example the greatest difference between offshore operations in the North Sea exist between the operations on the UKCS and the NCS - In the UK a mixture of "Guidelines" and Laws are used, in the Norwegian Sector Rules are enforced, all of them introduced as Law by Royal Decree at the request of the Norwegian Petroleum Directorate.

I would imagine that in Russian waters fairly strict laws will govern what rules are to be enforced. Innocent right of passage is governed and guaranteed under International Maritime Law - but innocent right of passage means a ship in transit through territorial waters or through the waters established by a country as being inside their EEZ, that ship has no right to linger and cause trouble.

In the case of the unauthorised inflatables attempting to get people aboard the installation as shown in the clip linked in Keith A of Hertford's post of 02 Oct 13 - 04:24 AM - they would constitute a threat and a safety violation in any OIM's book on any offshore installation anywhere in the world.

Subject: RE: BS: Russians board Greenpeace
From: Teribus
Date: 03 Oct 13 - 04:56 AM

Bit of confusion in terms here:

Exclusive ECONOMIC Zone - 200 nautical miles out from shore

The Exclusion Zone being talked about wrt the offshore installation is a zone extending 3,000 metres out from the installation or field if the field is in production and there are a number of installations making up that operating offshore oil field

The Safety Zone round a Platform extends 500 metres out from that particular installation - the safety they are primarily referring to is the safety of the installation itself or of existing installed subsea infrastructure. As supplies and equipment are loaded and unloaded in this zone specific areas are designated for these crane operations and all seabed infrastructure within the 500 metre Safety Zone is designed to withstand and is protected against snagging and dropped objects. Inside the 500 metre zone the OIM of the installation is legally responsible for the safety of all equipment and personnel, that is why it requires his say so to enter - now a bunch of clowns bouncing about in inflatable craft who have got no right or authorisation to be there, hell bent on doing God knows what most certainly would constitute a safety hazard in my eyes if I were the OIM.

Subject: RE: BS: Russians board Greenpeace
From: GUEST,Iain
Date: 03 Oct 13 - 05:18 AM

The how, why, if and buts are largely superfluous now. The crazies are about to be dealt with by a Russian judge. And the quality of mercy will no doubt be severely strained.
I have no objection to peaceful protest by anyone, but as soon as others become endangered by recklessness and stupidity, the protesters have to take their punishment.

Subject: RE: BS: Russians board Greenpeace
From: GUEST,Ed T
Date: 03 Oct 13 - 10:27 AM

Link to IMO Maritime security provisions, as a resource.


Maritime security

Subject: RE: BS: Russians board Greenpeace
From: GUEST,roderick warner
Date: 03 Oct 13 - 07:51 PM

'That is what Greenpeace do.
Peaceful protest to raise awareness.
They expect arrest but not guns.'

Wonder what the old phrase: 'Never educate a mug' is in Russian?

Subject: RE: BS: Russians board Greenpeace
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 04 Oct 13 - 03:02 AM

now a bunch of clowns bouncing about in inflatable craft who have got no right or authorisation to be there, hell bent on doing God knows what most certainly would constitute a safety hazard in my eyes if I were the OIM.

Especially if they were heavily armed and firing bursts on full auto!

Subject: RE: BS: Russians board Greenpeace
From: Teribus
Date: 04 Oct 13 - 05:01 AM

Very true Keith, but they were authorised to be there, and no shots would have been fired at all had the other clowns in inflatables complied with what they were quite rightly told to do.

Lesson learned very early on in life - If you are doing something that you know you shouldn't be doing and somebody with a gun turns up to tell you to cease and desist - it is normally the sensible thing to comply with that request - if you don't and you subsequently get shot then you only have yourself to blame.

The Greenpeace vessel should not have been where it was, the inflatables from the Greenpeace ship should not have been where they were - the personnel on both are now finding out what happens when you kick over the traces in Russian waters - Strikes me as being slightly ignorant and arrogant that anyone can think of going into someone else's backyard to deliberately disrupt perfectly legal operations and cause trouble and then expect them to dance to your tune and play according to your rules. What they did was dangerous and irresponsible - all they have to do now is pick up the tab for it.

Subject: RE: BS: Russians board Greenpeace
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 04 Oct 13 - 05:16 AM

Strikes me as being slightly ignorant and arrogant that anyone can think of going into someone else's backyard to deliberately disrupt perfectly legal operations and cause trouble and then expect them to dance to your tune and play according to your rules.

They expected no such thing.
They used the same tactics to defeat the perfectly legal operation of killing whales.
I am glad the whales are now protected and hope the uniquely fragile Arctic ecology will be too.

Subject: RE: BS: Russians board Greenpeace
From: Teribus
Date: 04 Oct 13 - 07:43 AM

They took their chances there too - fortunately their disregard for safety at sea did not result in loss of life but so easily could have done - they were lucky. The other difference there was also that they were always operating in international waters. Also would like to point out that they did not succeed in stopping Whaling.

In this latest instance they are inside Russian waters and under an obligation to obey both international rules in force and the national regulations, the latter taking precedence.

Subject: RE: BS: Russians board Greenpeace
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 13 Mar 14 - 08:09 AM

Members of the European Parliament have passed a resolution to promote the protection of the Arctic environment. This is huge step forward for Greenpeace campaign.

The resolution calls for a conservation area in the waters around the North Pole. It also stresses the need for an agreement in the Arctic Council to prevent pollution from oil drilling (something which, astonishingly, the council currently doesn't have) and calls for a ban on industrial fishing.

Just two years ago, nobody was demanding a protected sanctuary around the North Pole.

Subject: RE: BS: Russians board Greenpeace
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 13 Mar 14 - 01:25 PM

The ENVI, a committee, of the European Parliament, voted to present the amendments. There will be no vote in the Parliament until the next Plenary Session.

The EU has no legislative competence in the Arctic. Norway has rejected the proposal.

Canada, Russia, USA, are not members; with Norway they will be the big players in Arctic development. The European Parliament will have no influence on them.

Subject: RE: BS: Russians board Greenpeace
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 14 Mar 14 - 07:10 AM

Limited significance then Q.
Thanks for the perspective.

It does show that the campaign has moved into international politics and no longer just pressure group stunts.