# North Sea Oil Spill



## John Campbell (Aug 30, 2005)

The recent spill at the Gannet Offshore Installation is bad news for shell - I have found an interesting set of statistics on recent World Oil spills
http://www.bnet.com/blog/clean-energy/oil-spills-8216round-the-world-the-2011-edition/6123

JC


----------



## Blackal (Jan 29, 2008)

I was interested to see the RSPB spokesman complaining about the cliff-top birds (including the young ones who were already struggling with flight) who would be affected.

I sincerely doubt if they (or their parents) would be flying out to the Gannet spill in search of food - but he felt he had to have a bleet about something.........

On the subject of spills - I can remember in the late '80s/early '90s where supply vessels used to be able to navigate to Claymore by following the slick.............. 

Al


----------



## Don Matheson (Mar 13, 2007)

Shell are trying to keep this under the covers and dont want it talked about to much. Yesterday they announced that only 100 tons had escaped and the leak was now down to about a barrel an hour. Today they mention that 200 tons had been released, I believe the 100 tons difference is slightly more than one barrel per hour.

Al we were stopped from spraying Correxit in the North Sea as the white oil dispersant was easier to spot from a chopper than the oil slick was.

Don


----------



## D Sutton (Dec 4, 2006)

Blackal said:


> I was interested to see the RSPB spokesman complaining about the cliff-top birds (including the young ones who were already struggling with flight) who would be affected.
> 
> *I sincerely doubt if they (or their parents) would be flying out to the Gannet spill in search of food - but he felt he had to have a bleet about something.........*
> On the subject of spills - I can remember in the late '80s/early '90s where supply vessels used to be able to navigate to Claymore by following the slick..............
> ...


Shell spill 200tons of oil into the sea (but only admit 100 initially) but the RSPB are "Bleeting" about sea birds, Where do you think seabirds search for food, Duh!!
Some people are just plain Thick!


----------



## Don Matheson (Mar 13, 2007)

I do believe Al was meaning that the Gannet Platform is around 150 miles from the coast, I think she is one and a quarter hours by helicopter. That is a long long way for a bird to fly just to feed her kids, as she has to fly back with her shopping!

I did notice that Shell on monday said there was no marine life of any kind at the Gannet but today mentioned that One of the leaks was difficult to get to because of the marine growth around if.

Don


----------



## Blackal (Jan 29, 2008)

exactly what I meant, Don......


RSPB Spokesman felt he had to bleet about something - without appreciating that the Gannet leak posed as much a threat to penguins as to gulls on Scottish cliffs

Thick?

Al


----------



## D Sutton (Dec 4, 2006)

Don Matheson said:


> I do believe Al was meaning that the Gannet Platform is around 150 miles from the coast, I think she is one and a quarter hours by helicopter. That is a long long way for a bird to fly just to feed her kids, as she has to fly back with her shopping!
> 
> I did notice that Shell on monday said there was no marine life of any kind at the Gannet but today mentioned that One of the leaks was difficult to get to because of the marine growth around if.
> 
> Don


I see where you are coming from Don, but with feeding marine birds that distance is nothing, the Gannet itself for example will search for food either right on its doorstep or a round trip of 600 miles, Razorbill and guillemot are closer to the coast line maybe only travelling out to about 40 - 50 miles, Shell have not exactly been on the ball about how much has leaked and Somehow I don't see the oil staying put. 
Fish have been known to swim, probably an alien concept to some on here, so it is not an unlikely scenario that the seabirds may come into contact with a contaminated foodsource.
So I don't think that describing an organisation spokesman as "bleeting" is correct.

There are a few on here that think that the "good ole days" of chucking any old sh1t into the sea were a positive thing and should continue without interference.(Cloud)


----------



## Blackal (Jan 29, 2008)

Well I stand corrected........ On the feeding radius of some seabirds.

I'm pretty sure I'm not 'just plain thick'. But I'm grateful to D Sutton for the insight into his character.

Al


----------



## pilot (Jan 8, 2006)

Think North Sea Crude's a light crude and evaporates fairly quickly? ( Was Master on North Sea off shore loaders and of course must stress No first hand experience!) Rgds.


----------



## Don Matheson (Mar 13, 2007)

Scottish Government sent an aircraft up today to photograph slicks record its course and check on seabird damage in the area. Full report will not be made public till tomorrow. Present report is that there is no sign of any seabirds in the area but I will post on tomorrows report.
As Pilot says NS oil is a fairly light crude and does move and evaporate (well break up at least) very quickly. For evidence of this check the oil after the Braer disaster in the Shetlands.

D Sutton, thanks for your info on the feeding range of our birds, it may surprise you to know that a diving bird has been photographed at over 300 ft. by a camera on a drilling rig. Nothing to do with our thread but I was amazed when I saw the film..
Dont think there was much need that some members may think an "Alien Concept" that fish swim! Quite a few members on here have worked both on ships and rigs and some may even have forgotten more about oil and fish and birds than you will ever learn. For example you have no concept of what your "target" Al does for a living so please dont start to wind people up and call names in a thread thats about an oil spill.

Don


----------



## Pat McCardle (Jun 12, 2005)

D Sutton, thanks for your info on the feeding range of our birds, it may surprise you to know that a diving bird has been photographed at over 300 ft. by a camera on a drilling rig. Nothing to do with our thread but I was amazed when I saw the film..


That was a Fulmar.(Fly)


----------



## Don Matheson (Mar 13, 2007)

Thanks Pat, it was an amazing bit of film, but the camera had to be there, where else have Fulmars got to that we dont know about. Had the camera been at 200 ft, that would have been what they filmed and still been amazed.

Don


----------



## D Sutton (Dec 4, 2006)

Don Matheson said:


> Dont think there was much need that some members may think an "Alien Concept" that fish swim! Quite a few members on here have worked both on ships and rigs and some may even have forgotten more about oil and fish and birds than you will ever learn. For example you have no concept of what your "target" Al does for a living so please dont start to wind people up and call names in a thread thats about an oil spill.
> 
> Don


I take your points onboard but it does wind me up when I read comments such as "bleating" there was no need for it.

You do have to wonder if the Fulmar was thinking "am I going the right way?"


----------



## Don Matheson (Mar 13, 2007)

D Sutton I know exactly what you mean. When we had the disaster in the Gulf, we had every sort of rubbish from people with no idea what the oil industry does, right or wrong to sort out problems. That was a major problem, this is not really so severe but bad enough.
Shell report this morning that they have a done a lot of the concrete mat work and will be doing more today and are expecting to close the troubling valve very soon. 
With luck and allowing that nothing goes wrong the spill should be over soon, but Shell do not say how they relate the valve to the leak and they still have to fix the leak.

Don


----------

