BS: Russians board Greenpeace

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.

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: 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: 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: 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 - 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 - 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: 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: 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,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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 04:06 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: 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: 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
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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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.