Photo by jenny downing
So after I posted yesterday about the North Sea Oil Leak, two things have happened.
Firstly, Shell admitted that the size of the leak was actually more than double, at 1,300 barrels, what they had previously admitted to, and what Alex Salmond was telling the world it was.
And secondly, this morning, they have admitted that there is a second leak.
The information coming out in drips like this (unlike the oil!) does not engender any trust in Shell. They have clearly learnt nothing form the BP debacle last year.
The other thing that has been getting my goat this morning is politicians on both sides of the border, as well as spokespeople from the oil industry, telling us that it's okay because the oil will not reach the shoreline, and there's not a lot on the surface.
This spectacularly misses the point. How much oil is underneath the surface, coating the fish who are then consumed by seabirds and larger fish? How much oil is now covering the seabed, covering the wildlife who rely on that environment? How much oil does it take before the human-centric politicians and industry "experts" realise that ANY leak creates problems for the ecology of an area?
0 comments:
Post a Comment