Shell has already confirmed that the leakage occurred at the Gannet Alpha platform located about 180 kilometres east of the Scottish city of Aberdeen. From the very outset the affected area was 31 kilometres (≈19 miles) long and 4,3 kilometres (≈2,7 miles) wide. However the company’s employees only became aware of the leakage when according to their own words they noticed an “oil sheen” on the surface of the sea. Several sources indicate that the spill was discovered as early as August 10: as of that day the company shut down the oil inflow to the pipeline, reducing the pressure on it. However it was only on Monday, August 12 that Shell made an official statement.
Although the company is still unable to give an accurate assessment of the scale of the disaster, Shell maintains that “the situation is under control”. The platform pumps off nearly 13 000 of barrels a day and the Shell authorities believe that 12 up to 120 barrels may have poured out into the sea.
The British government considers the size of the spill to be “significant”: about 1300 barrels (200 tons) of oil have been leaked to the sea.
On the morning, 16 of August, the Guardian published the information that a second oil patch had appeared on the surface of the sea. The Guardian quoted the technical director of the Alpha Ganner platform Glen Kayley as saying: “Yes, there does exist a second oil slick but it is insignificant in size. It was caused by a leak of two barrels of oil a day”.
Greenpeace UK made the following comment on the situation: “It's too early to tell how serious this spill is. The North Sea is supposed to be ultra-safe — we are told spills can't happen there. Shell is looking to move into the Arctic where an oil spill would all but impossible to clean up. Events in the North Sea should give the company pause for thought. If Shell can’t promptly react to the emergency in the North Sea, all the more it will not be able to handle an accident in the Arctic".
Meanwhile Gazprpom and Shell have already signed a protocol on global strategic cooperation which makes provisions for a joint hydro carbonic development of the West Siberia and the Russian East. Taking into account Shell’s rather light-minded approach to the accident in the North Sea, Gazprom should think about possible complexities which may arise from its cooperation with Shell.
Despite Shell and other companys’s negative experience, Gazprom is developing the Arctic shelf actively – and with a lot of violations. In the next few days the first offshore platform in the Russian Arctic is scheduled to be towed and installed — the plan criticized by Russian ecologists.
Their collective statement which opposes the installation of the “Prirazlomnaya” platform by one of the Gazprom’s subsidiaries also goes into details to explain why the project is dangerous and impracticable.
“There is an alternative to the Arctic oil and gas” — Head of Greenpeace Russia's Energy Program, Vladimir Churpov said — “The question is, what use will be made of trillions of rubbles including the taxpayers’ money: either they will be spent on risky, economically nonviable projects in the Arctic, or they will be put into financing the innovative upgrade of industry in the developed areas, where it is possible to obtain the same volume of hydro carbonates and to economise with the risk smaller than in the Arctic.”