UKC

Watching Crude Britannia last night (thoroughly recommend it, excellent use of the licence fee!)

Does anyone know what Greenpeace expected Shell to do with Brent Spar? Or what else they could have done with it.

There was obviously a cost/risk/environmental trade off as regards what to do - but was there anyway Shell could have got rid of it in a 'good way'? It mentioned that it was filled with toxic sludge, so if it was brought to shore and dismantled (perhaps recycling the metal etc) what would have happened to that?!

You have to pick you battles, and I don't see any point in protesting unless you can provide an alternative solution.

In reply to ClimberEd:

So you think Greenpeace proposed no alternative?

In reply to Donald M:

No - I don't know anything about it other than what I watched last night (I have vague memories from my youth) - hence I am asking.

(and yes I can google, but UKC is more fun)

In reply to Donald M: Not as bad as the russian navy though, leaving submarines full of radioactive fuel and warheads all over the place.

In reply to ClimberEd:

Read up on it then.

In reply to gjw5670:

Hmm, what about the Royal Navy? Although de-fueled there are rusting hulks in various locations.

Where did they leave the warheads? Never read that on Bellona.

In reply to Donald M:

You're helpful!

In reply to ClimberEd:
Didn't see the programme, or its conclusions, but my understanding is that Shell were persuaded by the Greenpeace proposals for decomissioning and dismantling Brent Spar, and abandoned deep sea disposal.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/218527.stm

In reply to ClimberEd: its now a ferry terminal/dock in Norway. It wasnt just Greenpeace, Shell had half of europe boycotting their petrol stations

In reply to ClimberEd:

So let me get this straight, you are an environmentalist but have no idea about the strategy proposed by the biggest environmental organisation in relation to one of the highest profile cases of recent years and come onto a climbing forum as your cant be arsed to find out for yourself?

In reply to Donald M: Exactly, deep sea disposal is quite common. Greenpeace damaged themselves over Brent Spar, they were poorly advised on the science. Taking such a vocal standpoint they should have at least got the science spot on.

I'm not saying deep sea disposal is right, but Brent Spar was never going to be a 'precedent', like GP suggested.

I also think it was a political fight, the environmental impact of sinking the Brent Spar in deep water would have been minor and concentrated in a small area (providing they got the sinking right) there are far more important issues to get pent up by and the arson attacks etc just alienated green peace more than anything.

I think the Nature article on the subject was correct.

In reply to Fawksey:

Yes it was cut up and sections reused although subsequent investigations revealved nothing like the levels of heavy metals on board. That said though the dumping at sea option would have set a precedent.

In reply to Donald M:

No, I can be arsed to find out for myself and will, as well as discussing with oil&gas colleagues but for the purpose of this mornings activities I am chatting on UKC.

And oil rig infrastructure disposal is not part of my remit - personally I'd rather have it at the bottom of the atlantic than sitting at a dock in Norway though.

In reply to ClimberEd:

It's not sitting in a dock in Norway, it no longer exists although parts were re-used. Like I say read up on it so you know what you are talking about. I am no expert either but about 30secs of effort reveals a lot of info.

In reply to ClimberEd:
The programme said it was cut up and ended up as part of a harbour so it was *recycled.
Greenpeace 1 Shell 0 - the protestors picked their battle well.

Given that there must be several milions tonnes of WW2 losses in the Atlantic Brent Spar wasn't going to make a difference but it was probably a good precedent to set that sea shouldn't be used for dumping ground for old oil installations.

* no idea of relative evironmental merits of dumping & building quay from scratch versus incorporating brent spar into quay. I'm sure the Shell way would have been better for Shell shareholders.

In reply to Donald M:

Why?

'The soltion to pollution is dilution..'

This is a very common view, not always right at all, but deep sea dumping has been quite common.

In reply to Donald M:

Some of it now makes a quay - that I approve of!

In reply to md@r:
I'm sure the Shell way would have been better for Shell shareholders.

That is a different discussion altogether. Directors are legally responsible to maximise shareholder value - so of course that will drive all decisions

In reply to ClimberEd:

It may be an urban myth, but I heard that the quay had since been used by whaling boats...

In reply to IainRUK:

Have always found it slightly bizarre that in the N Sea, offshore installations are allowed to put any amount of oil into the sea (in their produced water), as long as the concentration is below 30ppm.

So - 100,000 barrels/day at 29ppm - OK.
100 barrels/day at 31ppm - Not OK.

Yet clearly the first one is putting almost 1000 times more oil into the sea.

CAVEAT - rules may have changed, it certainly was like that up to 5 or so years ago anyway

In reply to DougG: I've worked at a few rig sites sampling, sometimes they refuse us access and even from a mile or so away we can see the oil on the surface. Often the grabs come up just full or crude/lumpy oily waste.

Out of sight out of mind though.

In reply to DougG:

The irony.

Am watching the 2nd half of the programme now - and all is becoming clear.....

I still think Greenpeace should be a bit more proactive about alternative solutions rather than just protesting 'don't do that'

(am sure somewhere they are, but that side of things needs more exposure)

In reply to DougG:

Did'nt see the program, but Greenpeace acknowledged post the event that the Shell proposal would have been the most environmentally friendly and apologised for being stupid.

In reply to IainRUK:

I used to do inspections (offshore) of the sampling systems used to determine the ppm concentrations. We were the Regulator so they had to give us access. It was (still is I think) 2 samples/day, and they could choose when they took them.

It's in the process of changing though - think they are moving to on-line analysers now. Be a lot harder to frig the results.

In reply to ClimberEd:

??????? Did they just say "dont do that" or does this programme say that?

In reply to Donald M:

AFAIK - they simply wanted it recycled etc.

But that is kind of my point - they may well propose alternative solutions, but they need to be more active about drawing attention to them.

In reply to Donald M:


They proposed several alternatives, all of which were absolutely laughable and amounted to little more than having the buoy kissed better by little lambs and ethnically diverse peace kittens. Not very suprising since just about everything they thought they new about the platform was wrong and they had to apologise to Shell about it later.

The eventual method of disposal was Shell's idea and had been presented before Greenpeace were even aware there was an issue. The idea to recycle it as a part of a ferry terminal was their idea too in conjunction with the port authority.

Oh and just to add: if you think that Shell or their shareholders give a toss about the difference between a £41 million scrappage cost and £20 million, you don't know anything about Shell.

In reply to JimR:

No, totally incorrect: http://www.greenpeace.org/international/about/history/the-brent-spar

In reply to niggle: It was a watershed case though because it made Shell value the way the public see them. As Doug says oil companies churn out oil into the sea, noone knows so they don't care, but they are now far more astute in being seen to be caring..

In reply to Donald M: If Greenpeace said so it must be true...

In reply to niggle:

No, Greenpeace proposed onshore disposal which is what happened in the end.

Dismantling of the Brent Spar was technically feasible and offshore engineering firms believed they could do it safely and effectively. The necessary facilities were already routinely in use and decommissioning of many other oil installations had already been carried out elsewhere in the world.

It was Shell who came up with the solution as you say, and rightly so as it was their responsibility.

In reply to IainRUK:

Of course, and obviously this thead had started on a well informed and thought out stance, oh shit, no it was actually heresay and people not bothering to check what actually happened - again!

If one thing is true about UKC more than any other internet forum I have seen is the speed at which people adopt entrenched positions without bothering to find out any information themselves.

In reply to DougG:

For info, rules have changed.

Oil to sea in produced water is now accounted for on a mass basis to get around the issue you noted above. There's is also a concentration limit too.

In reply to Donald M:

Which is pretty much what Green peace did..

I'm not sure but I thought the eventual disposal did have environmental concerns..

In reply to IainRUK:


Seen to be caring is right.

Forecourt sales are a very, very small part of Shell's business in fact they could lose the lot and not even blink.

In reply to Donald M:


They "proposed" it 4 years after Shell's own invesigation had presented it as one of two options.

So in fact they didn't propose it at all. Be honest, they just parrotted what Shell had been saying for years then pretended they'd come up with it themselves, didn't they?

In reply to Donald M:

Oi - this thread was started as a question!

In reply to IainRUK:

Obviously it has environmental concerns, it was which was the best option.

In reply to Dolbert:


That's good. Cheers.

In reply to Donald M:


You'd perhaps get a bit more respect for your views, if you were factually accurate and did'nt try to rewrite history. Greenpeace lost loads of credibility over this issue and had to work hard to regain it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brent_Spar_oil_rig

In reply to JimR:

Correct but they didnt say that deep sea disposal was the most envirnomentally friendly option which is what you said. Unless of course I am missing where they did say this.

What they did say was that they got it wrong on the amount of contamination onboard. That is a totally separate issue from how the thing was disposed of.

In reply to Donald M:


Actually it's not. The amount of toxic material on board is largely what determined the strategies being presented. Because Greenpeace got their estimates wildly wrong and made such ludicrous claims about them, they were unable to corrrectly assess which option was best.

Shell of course had the correct information and made the correct decision.

In reply to Donald M:


No it's not. When deciding whether or not to dump it or anything else at sea, the level of contamination that would result is one of the main factors to be considered.

In reply to Donald M:

Greenpeace's way of setting the public on fire was by overstating the amount of contamination on board. If they had'nt no one would have given a tinker's cuss .. therefore the whole public outcry was engineered by a lie ..

In reply to DougG:

Yes but Jim's point was that Greenpeace said later that Shell's preferred option was actually better. I cant find any evidence that this is true and a lot that it is untrue.

Simply put, if Greenpeace later said that dumping at sea was preferrable can anyone provide evidence of this. I dont think they did say this at all.

In reply to JimR:

Right, but again a separate point, like I say, Greenpeace have never come out and said that at-sea disposal was preferrable.

In reply to Donald M:

Green peace are totally against any dumping at sea. They never would have said that. Yet many of scientists do believe that dumping at sea may be an option. We have to dump things somewhere. Dumping at sea has occured for many years.

I presume you've heard of Beaufort's trench?

The problem with dumping at sea is there were many cowboy operaters and waste was dumped as soon as they were out of sight.

In reply to IainRUK:

Yes and I recognise that. All I am saying is that Jim's point was this Greenpeace acknowledged post the event that the Shell proposal would have been the most environmentally friendly and apologised for being stupid and it is not true. End of, I am not saying they got it right wrong or anything else. Just that they have never said that Shell's proposal was the best. They didnt say that. The did however get it wrong on the contamination.

In reply to ClimberEd:

I wonder why it's up to GP to come up with a good solution - surely it's shell's responsibility to act appropriately & GP's job to stop them doing 'bad' things.

I guess nowadays you can't just build things without thought to what happens at the end of it's life.

In reply to Donald M:

Greenpeace's whole argument was that the content of Spar as calculated by Shell was grossly miscalculated and that dumping would result in catastrophic environmental impact. There was little or no environmental impact associted with the storage rig itself.
If Shell's figures were correct, there would be little or no environmental deep sea impact whereas there potentially could be significant impact on environmentally sensitive coastal areas during onshore disposal.
Based on Greenpeace's acknowledgement that its figures were wrong and Shell's were correct then its whole premise and argument vanished.
Greenpeace then tried to salvage the situation post event and regain the high ground by claiming that it was battling on the whole deep sea dumping issue .. but that's not where it started from... and I've always double checked every claim they've made since.

In reply to ClimberEd: There is an arguement that the "dumping" of large structures, rig, ships, etc. Can be of benifit in that they create artificial reefs for sea life to colonise and be safe in. Obviously there's a certain amount of de-comissioning that nee to be done first to remove toxic substances and the like.

In reply to DogWipe:


Yes, in fact the Brent Spar was found to have rare coral growing on it - which of course was destroyed by the on-shore disposal process. Good work Greenpeace.

In reply to JimR:

Yes but again, without labouring the point (I hope!), they still maintain that dumping at sea is/was not the best option. In fact they see the Brent Spar as having set the precedent of better disposal methods.

What they said afterwards is that they got the science wrong and Shell were right (ref contamination onboard) but that it should still not have been dumped at sea. This is not what you initially said but I am sure I have laboured this to make myself understood.

In reply to ClimberEd:

So you would adopt an "out of sight out of mind" philosophy - that's a very environmentally responsible attitude indeed.


Slugain

In reply to Donald M:

You are over labouring a non point because GP changed their argument and whether or not the Greenpeace website now says they agreed or not, at the time, environmentalists did agree, that on the basis of the correct facts, deep water disposal was a non issue.

They got their facts wrong, had they got them right they would'nt have taken up the issue.

They then tried to get out of the hole they'd dug by saying that they were campaigning against deep water disposal generally rather than release of toxic materials from Brent Spar. BUT that was an escape strategy rather than their initial campaign.

My take is that a GP volunteer with more crusading enthusiasm than intelligence screwed up big time and started the ball rolling, Shell has/had large company reaction inertia and failed to react quick enough to display factual proof and the whole situation just escalated.

End of story ... lessons to learn .. check and double check facts

In reply to JimR:

No I am not labouring of a non-point. I am simply saying your statement was incorrect. It was then and is now. You now expanded your point and I agree with what you say but your initial statement that GP subsequently came out and agreed with Shell's disposal proposal is untrue. That is a fact.

In reply to Donald M:


On what basis do you say that my statement was incorrect? Prove it!

I actually heard a Greenpeace person say that on R4 at the time, but I can't prove it .. and if you're using the GP website to say my statement is untrue then you're a bit naive ...

In reply to JimR:

You said this:

Greenpeace acknowledged post the event that the Shell proposal would have been the most environmentally friendly and apologised for being stupid.

The Shell proposal was to dump the Brent Spar at sea. Greenpeace have never agreed with this. They have also never said that dumping at sea was the most environmentally friendly.

The got it wrong on the contents of the BP as you rightly say. That is not the same as agreeding with dumping it at sea.

That is why I say your statement is wrong.

In reply to ClimberEd:

Statement from the Greenpeace Website

Towards the end of the campaign, in the absence of official figures, Greenpeace released its own estimate of the amount of oil left on the Brent Spar. However, we quickly realised that our improvised measurements had been taken from the wrong part of the Spar, resulting in a significant overestimation of the amount of oil left in the storage tanks. As soon as it became aware of the error, Greenpeace proactively apologised. Although almost unreported at the time, the estimate subsequently became notorious and a persistent media myth was born - that Greenpeace had 'got it wrong' over the entire Brent Spar issue.

But the amount of oil left on the Brent Spar was never central to the campaign. The prime issue was, from the very beginning, the need for the offshore industry to take proper environmental responsibility for its obsolete platforms and other wastes, rather than using the oceans as a dumping ground.

In reply to Slugain Howff:

Sorry but that is rubbish. Greenpeace are masters at using the press. had they wanted the apology known they could have got it out. I'm sorry but they have re-written the brent spar history.

In reply to Slugain Howff:

"But the amount of oil left on the Brent Spar was never central to the campaign. The prime issue was, from the very beginning, the need for the offshore industry to take proper environmental responsibility for its obsolete platforms and other wastes, rather than using the oceans as a dumping ground."

If the contaminents inside the storage buoy were not an issue, why would they be opposed to dumping it at sea, give that in the absence of toxic chemicals, dumping actually has well-documented benefits and is now actively encouraged in many areas?

In reply to Slugain Howff: Got to agree with others that that is just Greenpeace covering up.

Quite an interesting even the Brent Spar campaign - it is used on the environmental science course that I have been doing as an example of the power of the green groups when they have got it wrong.

I don't think there is too much doubt that Greenpeace lost a lot of credibility over Brent Spar.

Solution by dilution is not a great way of doing things, but it depends on the amounts of pollutants to start with ie diluting low contaminated materials is not too much of an issue.

In reply to Niggle, MJH and Iain

Please don't shoot the messenger - I was only posting the "official" line from Greenpeace.

In reply to Slugain Howff: I'm not, sorry if it comes across that way, I'm just very wary of anything on the greenpeace site. Their argument that the media didn't broadcast their apology wide enough is laughable, the one thing GP do well is use the media.

In reply to niggle:

Because as stated, but apparently not read by your kind self, that might have set a further precedent for dumping at sea.

In reply to Donald M: The precedent already existed for dumping at sea and it was long standing - the only real issue was the contamination levels.

In reply to MJH:

Hence "further" and I dont think the precedent was/is set. Most North Sea installations are not dumped at sea.

In reply to Donald M:


Then why are large numbers of obselete vessels being deliberately sunk to provide reef habitats in endangered areas?

In reply to niggle:

Please read. "North Sea installations".

In reply to Donald M: The fact it was a specific type of installation is completely irrelevant as far as the environment is concerned - the environmental consideration is what are the contaminants and at what level.

The precedent argument is quite frankly extremely weak.

In reply to MJH:


The main problem is that it just says we shouldn't do something, not why we shouldn't do it.

In reply to niggle:

interesting here:

http://www.parliament.uk/post/pn065.pdf

quote
"But underlying the whole debate are fundamental differences
in the way in which the role of the sea is
perceived in different countries. UK policy has been to
see the sea as part of the overall environment to be
protected and managed, but ever since the start of the
Oslo Convention, it has been clear that some other
countries consistently see the sea as a medium to be
specially protected - if necessary to the point that its use
for certain types of waste disposal should be barred
altogether (e.g. for dumping of radioactive waste) or
used only as an option of last resort. Thus, while the
UK’s approach to the decommissioning and disposal of
oil and gas installations is consistent with international
standards which allow for the possibility of deep-sea
disposal where this is the BPEO, recent events show
how far the scientific basis of BPEO is being challenged
by a philosophical opposition to sea disposal and calls
for a reassessment of the whole decision-making process."

In reply to Donald M:

It is.

Pharmaceutical waste, large structures, munitions, ships, sewage, refuse, chemicals.. all have been dumped at sea. On trawlers we were always careful about fishing the ground between Ireland and Scotland, bringing up munitions which were meant to be dumped in the Beaufort trench was a real danger.

In reply to ClimberEd: Interesting discussion. The Brent Spar case is used by the Open University in its Environmental degree course and concentrates on how the media is involved in environmental confrontation.

Shell were not going to budge until Greenpeace started to win the public relations battle, petrol forecourts all over europe were boycotted and Shell did care about their image. Afterwards when it was seen that Greenpeaces figures where inaccurate the media who had championed the environmental activists side pretty much turned on Greenpeace.

As an aside is there an edit button so that niggles comments can be deleted? It was like having a six year old walking around banging a drum and blowing a kazoo while adults were trying to talk.

In reply to Fawksey:

LOL, going to use that in a new thread.

In reply to Fawksey:

That was why it was an important case. However they damaged themselves seriously by jumping up and down stamping their feet without checking their facts. Their attempts to continue to reqrite the history refusing to accept fault is the kind of arrogance they are always attacking the big companies for.

However they did not prevent a precedent being set.

In reply to IainRUK: I think they were successful at least in opening it all up for discussion.

I dont think any damage to their reputation was lasting.

They prevented it being dumped at sea, what precedent didnt they prevent?

In reply to Fawksey: dumping at sea..

In reply to Fawksey: As I said yesterday, dumping at sea has been routine practice for years. Look at the Beaufort Trench. Google the term and you'll get loads.

In reply to IainRUK: Iain try not to come over too condesending : )

Ive been on dives off north Wales where ammunition and morphine have been all over the place.

Just because dumping at sea has been routine practice for years doesnt mean its best practice.

Weve dumped sewage at sea for years.

In reply to Fawksey: I know, it's just there was no precedent. Sewage, garbage, ships, munitions, pharmaceutical waste, all have been dumped at sea for years.

In reply to IainRUK: maybe they meant setting a precedent in the disposal of redundant north sea oil installations?

Dont you think its rather a mute point?

Why cant we use the precautionary principle? Lets not dump at sea, weve been dumping in the atmosphere for long enough and look where thats getting us.

In reply to Fawksey: No, because that was what greenpeace used to justify their stance, that this wasn't just about the Brent Spar. Claiming such a specific precedent is nonsense. I could claim I'm the fastest 27 year old person from nant peris ever to do the Paddy Buckley Round. The fact is Deep sea dumping of structures, munitions, sewage and pharmaceutical waste has occured for 20 years prior to Brent Spar.

We can't use the precautionary principle, we have waste, we NEED to dispose of the waste, the options are terrestrial, atmosphere, marine, space.. we have considered all, done most, some top scientists think disposal of heavy metal waste is safer in the deep sea than it is on land, because those environments have natural high heavy metal loads.

We used the PP in Biosecurity Science, we used it to block trade. A great tool to hide behind, because there is always the unknown. Will it infect this group of organisms..will it be eaten by this...etc

In reply to ClimberEd:

At the risk of agreeing with Niggle (how the hell did that happen?) the only flaw with dropping it in the Atlantic was that it wasted the opportunity to create an artificial reef in the North Sea. A lot could be achieved by collapsing installations in situ (after a clean-up of the worst toxins) and then enforcing a no-fish zone for a mile each side.

In light of the statement on Crude Britannia that the seabed installations are allowed to remain in place, perhaps a version of this is already in place but kept non-visible to ensure GP don't get totally counter-productive on their ass again?

In reply to psd: To a point, but in some areas you don't want to creat reefs. That's altering the habitat. Increasing diversity, biomass isn't always a positive.

In the context of the Brent Spar being the first of 400 such installations that would require decommissioning it looks like a precedent setter to me.

I cant see whats wrong with highlighting an issue that Shell and the government of the day were intending to deal with by mainly applying financial criteria.

In regard to Greenpeaces inaccurate measurements of the amount of waste still on the installation, Two government initiated reports by the National Environmental Research Council, 1996, 1998 acknowledged that assumptions and errors were made by all parties.

The real significance about the Spar is corporate responsibility. Im not allowed to take my old car and shove it in the village pond in the middle of the night and I dont see why Shell should.

In reply to Fawksey:

But the military do..how many ships have been scuttled out at sea? Many packed with chemical weapons, mustard gas canisters..

All I'm saying is deep sea disposal of waste had been occuring for a long time prior to Brent Spar. OK you can narrow it down to this time it was a rig, but large ships have been sunk for decades..

In reply to Fawksey:

As it stands at the moment the larger concrete and steel structures in the North Sea, about 10% of the 470 total, don't fall into the category of those which must be removed. Basically because there is no viable means of doing so.

In reply to Dolbert:

correct - i'm sitting on a (ex) Shell platform in the north sea right now and we do not 'churn oil into the sea' as stated elsewhere on this thread.

In reply to jaswa:

If you are sitting on one of the Brents I'm currently looking over at you from Gullfaks.

In reply to IainRUK:
Times have changed, after (because of?) Brent Spar it's difficult to imagine a european country dumping ships etc at sea. The govt (military) wouldn't get away with dumping conventional or chemical munitions at sea now. The odd RN ship might be sanitised and scuttled as an artificial reef but otherwise they're broken up and not even on third world beaches.

I'm not even sure if the military still sink hulks at sea for weapons testing.

Ships will continue to sink as long as there's ships in the sea.

In reply to IainRUK:

and long may it continue with your repulsive attitude..

In reply to subalpine: You really are one of lifes f*ckwits. All I said there was a VALID argument. I didn't say it was right, it's just not clear cut. Look at the f*cking science then come back..

In reply to IainRUK: haha , thought that would get you swearing and resorting to hard science again
science doesn't amount to a hill of beans without ethics and morality..

In reply to md@r:

Dumping at ships at sea still occurs, as you say they now use the excuse of dive wrecks or artificial reefs, however (big however) there is now stringent practices to adhere to.

You are right though dumping at sea has been tightened. But we still produce waste. It's an area to research. They heavy metal vent area hypothesis (which IIRC was discussed in Nature) has some persuasive arguments but there were other scientists who thought they were being too risky.

Whether that was in response to BS I'm not sure. Over the last 20 years we've seen a move towards protecting our oceans in general, although overfishing is still the dominant threat.

All I was saying orginally, was dumping contaminated waste was not a precedent. Even in the Deep Sea areas. Not that it still occurs, just the argument used to justify Greenpeace's stance was wrong. I'm not sure GP were wrong overall, I just hate 'science' being used poorly. I've seen it all levels but none worse in than Government organisations that I've worked for. Some of the reports released tried to blind people with poor science. Yet as soon as something is quoted in an official report it becomes fact because, sadly, a large proportion of people believe what they read unquestionably.

In reply to subalpine: Look at the science I've discussed. You insulted me from an anonymous position, I wasn't giving you the credit to argue back with facts and opinions like I did with mdr.

Your knowledge on this area is poor.

In reply to IainRUK:

i'd prefer a fair impartial science than the biased claptrap you spout sometimes..
ps your demographic ideas are also crap..

In reply to subalpine: Well I'm the one with the job offer to work with the world leaders in demographic resesrch...

Where is your impartial science. How have I been biased?? I've not come out in favour or against, well if anything I've come out against, I just question greenpeace's history.

You come out with your rubbish yet provide no arguments, just insults..from an anonymous position too. Brilliant, one of lifes cowards too.

In reply to IainRUK:
i'm not surprised- how did you get into that from lobsters?

In reply to subalpine: Well I'm the one with the job offer to work with the world leaders in demographic resesrch...

Where is your impartial science. How have I been biased?? I've not come out in favour or against, well if anything I've come out against dumping at sea, I just question greenpeace's history. All I've said is the precedent was set, not that it was right, and that there are arguments for dumping. I never said I agreed with such arguments.

You come out with your rubbish yet provide no arguments, just insults..from an anonymous position too. Brilliant, one of lifes cowards too.

In reply to subalpine: Long story, lobsters > clams > long lived organisms > mortality estimates > demography in a nut shell. Basically there is a theory (hugely contraversial) that ageing is not inevitable, immortality is possible under the laws of evolution and only a few species have been proposed as candidates, one of which I work in..

In reply to IainRUK:

i think you'll find you started it- hope they will see though your suspect population agenda..

In reply to subalpine: What is my 'agenda'. I think you'll find I have no agenda. I just think rapid population decrease is dangerous but I never said a decrease full stop was dangerous.

In reply to IainRUK:

aint gonna happen..
what a waste of money..

In reply to subalpine:

Erm, it is happening in other countries....

In reply to subalpine:

Here. End of discussion..

http://www.overpopulation.org/older.html

"Europe's population is expected to decrease from 728 million now to 658 million by 2050, due to declining birth rates. June 8, 2000 ENN/AP "

In reply to IainRUK:

good news- too many peeps whatever you say
ever thought of thinking global, rather that your self-centred interests??

In reply to subalpine: Superb. Self centred? Look at the times scales. Talking about falling birth rates now...I'm 30...come on do the Maths...

Just superb, you really aren't that smart...try to understand the timescales demographers work on.

In reply to IainRUK: the maths predicts an alarming number of people on this earth in a few generations- perhaps you need to do the math?

In reply to subalpine: Go on one more time..

I know, but Europe isn't the problem. Population growth here has stabilised. How will the resulting economic instability in Europe assist in fighting limited resources in the African and Indian regions?

Let me guess..no answer..another insult..another shallow 'just is/just does' answer..

In reply to IainRUK: insults - pot kettle- lol
money money money will sort us out- just great <hands iain another phd>

In reply to IainRUK: give me some more of your hard science baby...

In reply to IainRUK:
How will the resulting economic instability in Europe assist in fighting limited resources in the African and Indian regions?
dunno mate, what's the answer?

In reply to Slugain Howff: North Cormorant