David Knott
London
[email protected]
Early on June 23, I eagerly approached the building where Greenpeace was staging its "Denizens of the Deep" conference.
After recent stunts by the environmental crusaders, I hoped to find petroleum company officials chained to the entrance staircase, seeking revenge. I was disappointed.
Greenpeace, too, was disappointed by the conference, called to discuss whether the U.K. oil industry should develop finds in its Atlantic frontier area.
My disappointment soon vanished, as the morning's speakers detailed the astonishing variety of marine life, from seabed worms to blue whales, that inhabits the Atlantic frontier.
Greenpeace's disappointment was over oil industry's reluctance to field a representative for an afternoon debate with Greenpeace Executive Director Peter Melchett on the subject: "Should we develop the Atlantic frontier?"
Speaker wrangle
Greenpeace was referred by an oil company executive to U.K. Offshore Operators Association (Ukooa), which suggested it invite noted environmental scientist Cliff Johnston to speak for the industry.
A Greenpeace official said Johnston was invited on the understanding he would represent Ukooa. Days before the conference, said the official, Ukooa wrote to say Johnston would speak only as an independent expert.
Yet while companies declined to speak publicly, there were plenty of their officials among the delegates, mainly public affairs staff and environmental scientists, keeping a wary eye on proceedings.
Johnston gave a robust and entertaining defense of oil developments. He accused Greenpeace of excluding qualifying statements of scientists behind much of its global warming data.
"We must," said Johnston, "as a scientific community, look into the background to climate change before we rush into decisions. If you go hell-bent for banning oil and gas, you'll encourage the use of nuclear power."
Johnston recommended using gas in preference to coal and even oil, while developing renewable energy technology. As for West of Shetland oil developments, he said trawling for fish was a bigger threat to seabed life.
Heated debate
Though many in the audience disagreed with Johnston's views, he did not get the mauling oil companies seem to have feared. Melchett said new oil developments must be stopped, but the discussion was friendly.
"Climate scientists have told us energy business as usual spells disaster," said Melchett. "BP has said the debate about climate change science is now over; it's now about what we do about it.
"The role of government is to draw the line in the sand. We believe it should draw the line along the Atlantic frontier and say there should be no more new oil."
What heated debate did occur was among the biologists. Given the slightest leeway by the chair, they launched into abstruse arguments about what biodiversity actually means, what is the definition of a species, and so on.
As an undercover oil company delegate gently dozed nearby, I thought how similarly confusing it might be for a biologist listening to petroleum engineers argue about drilling muds. Maybe this is one of the problems with green issues.
Copyright 1997 Oil & Gas Journal. All Rights Reserved.
