Sometimes the BBC surprises me – this time not in a good way. Upon reading the 13th of April article “North Sea oil spills exceed safe level – activists” I was left wondering how such “articles” make it past editing and fact checking? (North Sea oil spills exceed safe level – activists – BBC News). Not unsurprisingly, the article was subsequently withdrawn (24th April) and we await a “counter” BBC article as to these “activists” (noted as being UPLIFT – assume this is www.upliftuk.org?) and their interpretation of data.
It also beggars belief as to why the BBC’s various editors and managers (that are funded by public monies via the licence fee) didn’t seem to contact (for example) one or more of various regulators and government bodies to at least sense-check these claims that the BBC so readily published under the (what some might claim was misleading) tile “North Sea oil spills exceed safe level” (BBC’s headline). It is clear why campaigning groups do not do similar, given letting the facts get in the way of a good protest would seem counter-productive to their cause(s).
Everyone is entitled to an opinion – that does not mean that the BBC should publish such opinion(s) with the inference of being fact. In my experience, many of the energy sector professionals I worked with during my time in this sector would happily sit down for a sensible and rational discussion with anyone willing to do so. It is a shame that many of those who choose to be activists, would probably also choose not to listen nor proactively engage.
“It is difficult to free fools from the chains they revere.” – Voltaire
It shouldn’t have taken “concerns” from OPRED (Offshore Petroleum Regulator for Environment and Decommissioning – Offshore Petroleum Regulator for Environment and Decommissioning – GOV.UK (www.gov.uk)) to have the article withdrawn. When things like this article get widely published by the BBC, then it makes a good case for “Defund the BBC” campaigner Rebecca Ryan (www.express.co.uk/news/uk/1607998).
It should not be up to those who fund the BBC (the UK public) to have to remind them as to the vast amounts of monies wasted on “disproving” widely published false claims that (for whatever reason) gain public acceptance. Those with an agenda (other than the truth) tend to gain acceptance of falsities by the fact it was published by the BBC, and thus gains the inference of credibility. How much credibility does the BBC have when it publishes such “articles” into the public (national and international) domain?
I would offer to the BBC by way of example (sadly, among many examples one could give) the damage media reporting of Lancet MMR autism fraud led by Andrew Wakefield (Andrew Wakefield – Wikipedia that mistakenly linked the MMR vaccine to autism) did and continues to do. The vast sums of monies (and time) spent over the years refuting this 1998 “study” could have instead been utilised on actual progressive medical studies and public health (rather than refuting baseless nonsense).
Even today we live with the legacy of people among us that refuse to take vaccines (as a result of the wide press coverage of the Wakefield led “report”) and thus put public health at risk (Quantifying the effect of Wakefield et al. (1998) on scepticism about MMR vaccine safety in the U.S. | PLOS ONE). Such people often hold this Wakefield led study up as fact, even though it has been widely discredited, and is as believable as Trump’s hair.
I would not expect it unreasonable to assume that many in society simply read the headlines and not the following content past the first few paragraphs (if even that). Case in point being a 2013 article from the very same BBC (Long shadow cast by MMR scare – BBC News) under the headline “Long shadow cast by MMR scare”. I would expect few read past the first line of this article that says (quote):
“It is 15 years since Dr Andrew Wakefield published research suggesting a possible link between the MMR vaccine and autism. “
It is simply too late in the article to be stating in the second paragraph that “Although both he and his research have been discredited, the MMR scare still casts a long shadow.” I challenge that few read that far!
People often only see the headlines. It would be a good question as to why Fergus Walsh (BBC medical correspondent at the time) didn’t choose to write the opening line as “It is 15 years since the “discredited Andrew Wakefield published fraudulent research” suggesting a possible link…..”.. or words to a similar effect?
I would challenge the BBC that this would have been the more responsible way to have reported anything in relation to Andrew Wakefield…. Else it further fuels the “Anti-Vaxers” fires. Such people only want to see the headlines that support their viewpoint. There was no “MMR scare” as such…. rather, baseless scaremongering by Andrew Wakefield. Similar words… vastly different meaning.
Same for the above mentioned “North Sea oil spills exceed safe level” article that has been “temporarily withdrawn” even though this title remains in plain sight. It is worth referencing the 800+ comments that were in response to this article – and remain an interesting read in their own right!
One particular comment stood out for me:
DavidD (whoever DavidD is??)
15:53 13 Apr
“Walking along Aberdeen beach yesterday there was a lot of black oil marks left by the tide. This is not an unusual occurrence and nothing appears to be done about it.”
When considering that comment… One of closest oil field to Aberdeen is the Forties Oil field, some 100+ miles east of Aberdeen (www.offshore-technology.com/projects/forties-oil-field-north-sea/ ). What makes “DavidD” believe these are oil marks? Whilst is it possible that any one of the numbers of supply ships outside of Aberdeen harbour may/might have discharged oil into the sea (as a refined oil product), the chances of this being oil from an offshore facility is extremely unlikely.
As highlighted in the many comments to the above mentioned BBC North Sea article, ANY release from an offshore oil facility would have caused a PON1 (PON 1– a Petroleum Operations Notice 1 PON1_Guidance_Notes_-_Rev_0_-_September_2021.pdf (publishing.service.gov.uk) ).
I would challenge DavidD to provide some evidence that these were “oily marks”. As someone who lived in Aberdeen for many years, worked offshore, and was a regular to the Aberdeen beach area and Balmedie with my son – I don’t recall ever seeing crude oil deposits on any of the various Aberdeenshire beaches.
If (as DavidD claims) “this is not an unusual occurrence” then could DaveD or any of the tens of thousands of people who visit Aberdeen’s beach areas, please take a photo of these “regular” oil marks and take a sample to confirm this is in fact oil and not just black sand?
I noted that both Aberdeen beach and Balmedie beach have naturally occurring black sand. These are clearly not “black oil marks”.
Had the BBC spoken to DavidD and not campaigning group Uplift, then perhaps this article might have been tiled “North Sea oil regularly washes up on Aberdeen beaches and the authorities fail to act – alleges DavidD”. Perhaps the more responsible article tile should/would be prefaced with “campaigning group ****** alleges ……..” rather than this being sub-lined?
I would echo the sentiment of many of those comments associated with this BBC article from persons claiming to be offshore workers (I have no way to validate if they were, are, or have been offshore workers) in that during my 10+ years working in upstream Oil and Gas, oil spills were taken extremely seriously. I only have experience of there being concerted efforts to avoid such spills.
Controlled and Monitored OIW (Oil in Water) discharges from Oil and Gas production were allowed when in accordance with the UK Oil and Gas offshore environmental legislation that is available for all to read (Oil and gas: offshore environmental legislation – GOV.UK (www.gov.uk)). I would challenge any of the environmental “stop oil” groups to prove that these discharges are harmful to the environment.
I did not see that the masses of sea life growing on and about the Miller platform (that I spent many years associated with as the Process TA and Decommissioning Lead) had any issues with it. I would challenge that over-fishing and trawling has had a far more detrimental (direct) impact to the North Sea environment than oil and gas OIW discharges to sea.
Provocative titled media reports and seemingly poorly fact checked articles such as “North Sea oil spills” are what misinformed “environmental” groups and “activists” can seize upon as justification for their protests. It is worth noting that such “protests” come with significant cost associated beyond the direct disruption they cause. Take for example that the “Just Stop Oil” protests that cost the police in the UK £3.5 million in one month (according to the Met) Just Stop Oil protests cost police £3.5m in month, says Met – BBC News
This is money from public funds and these actions put further costs upon the public -not to mention the disruption also caused. Rather than providing more click-bait for such “activist” groups, then why don’t organisations such as the BBC investigate how such organisations are funded and where these monies come from? (www.inews.co.uk/news/environment/just-stop-oil-who-funds-funding-climate-protest-group-explained-what-want.).
Whilst bringing down democracy and capitalism would seemingly be the result of compliance with such groups demands (and coincidentally aligned with the wishes of Vladimir Putin); such actions wouldn’t be of much use to making the transition from hydrocarbons to renewables. The trillions of pounds/euros/US dollars needed to make this transition will need to come from somewhere (www.irena.org/News/pressreleases/2023/Mar/Investment-Needs-of-USD-35-trillion-by-2030-for-Successful-Energy-Transition… And that “somewhere” will need to be mostly private companies – the very same companies that many of the climate change protesters seek to most disrupt and cause financial damage towards.
Perhaps climate change protesters and activists might want to be part of helping this transition rather than obstructing the companies (who for the most part are) driving this transition (www.mckinsey.com/industries/electric-power-and-natural-gas/our-insights/how-oil-and-gas-companies-can-be-successful-in-renewable-power)?
We simply don’t produce enough “renewable energy” to power the very industry needed to obtain the materials for sustaining the growth of renewable energy installations. Just stopping oil would most likely also “just stop” the transition to renewables.
Anyone who has recently transited into Belgium recently would be well aware of the masses of wind farms in operation. Offshore wind farms can also be seen when looking out from those previously mentioned Aberdeen beaches. These “renewable energy” installations aren’t free and take resources/monies to manufacture and install.
The concrete needed also comes with a significant carbon footprint (concrete represents in total 4-8% global greenhouse emissions – if Wiki is correct) as does mining most of the metals and minerals used throughout the process. Such protesters and activists should web search “Rare earth mining” to see the scale of the cost (www.sciencenews.org/article/rare-earth-mining-renewable-energy-future – :~:text=Rare earths are mined by,that might leak into groundwater. ) of such.
In the rush to embrace nuclear energy, the future legacy of doing so seemed not to have been given the priority that it should have (at the time). We seem to have made many of the same mistakes in the drive for renewable energy given the current lifespan (25 years or less) of this infrastructure and end-of-life recyclability for technologies such as solar panels, wind turbines, etc. and the batteries needed to store the resultant electricity.
We also need to look at the sustainability and recyclability of all components needed to produce and maintain this infrastructure. The irony here is that current “renewable energy” infrastructure is not actually (yet) renewable at all. In many places, the damage caused by the mining and processing of rare-earth metals cannot be undone and is not reversible nor “renewable”. I am yet to see “Just stop rare earth mining” activists. Perhaps we should?
