

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.


Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.

British Petroleum's disastrous oil spill at the Deepwater Horizon rig in the Gulf of Mexico killed 11 people and left the region reeling from pollution. (Photo: EP12oh/Flickr/cc)
When pitching a proposal to drill for oil in the Great Australian Bight of the southern coast of Australia in 2016, according to newly revealed documents, oil giant BP attempted to allay regulators' concerns by claiming that any future oil spill would actually be a 'welcome boost' to the local economy.
In documents Climate Home News obtained through freedom of information laws, BP told the National Offshore Petroleum Safety and Environmental Management Authority (NOPSEMA) that any cleanup efforts undertaken after a potential oil spill would be beneficial to coastal cities.
"In most instances, the increased activity associated with cleanup operations will be a welcome boost to local economies," the company wrote.
Oil spills, it claimed, were "socially acceptable" with "no unresolved stakeholder concerns."
NOPSEMA vehemently disagreed with BP's assessment, saying the company had not considered the potential impact of drilling's sound pollution on whales and dolphins as well as the danger a potential spill would hold for those species and others. Offshore drilling would also have negative effects on the area's tourism industry, the regulators said.
The exchange came six years after BP's destructive Deepwater Horizon disaster in the Gulf of Mexico, which sent an estimated 200 million gallons of oil gushing into the marine ecosystem and unleashed untold damage on coastal communities and wildlife throughout the region.
In the Climate Home News report on BP's lies regarding the effects of oil spills, the company's spokesperson said the correspondence with NOPSEMA didn't "represent the final views of BP or the regulator" and noted that BP hadn't gone forward with the proposal to drill in the Bight.
"There is no way to drill for oil safely in the Bight." --Nathaniel Pelle, Greenpeace
The Norwegian company Statoil took over BP's exploration plans in 2017, with drilling expected to begin next year--prompting new outcry from green campaigners.
"Statoil must meet the same standards required of BP: its shareholders, not least the Norwegian government, need to know the company cannot reasonably meet the cost of keeping Australia's southern ocean and coastlines safe from an oil spill which could take months to cap. Statoil should drop its plans," Australian Green Party politician Bob Brown told Climate Home News.
"We will only undertake drilling activity if we can do it safely," a spokesperson for the company told the outlet. But critics pointed to previous oil-drilling disasters, saying safe offshore drilling would not be possible.
"There is no way to drill for oil safely in the Bight," Nathaniel Pelle, a senior campaigner at Greenpeace, told the Sydney Morning Herald.
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It's never been this bad out there. And it's never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed, the threats we face are intensifying. We need your support now more than ever. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Will you donate now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
When pitching a proposal to drill for oil in the Great Australian Bight of the southern coast of Australia in 2016, according to newly revealed documents, oil giant BP attempted to allay regulators' concerns by claiming that any future oil spill would actually be a 'welcome boost' to the local economy.
In documents Climate Home News obtained through freedom of information laws, BP told the National Offshore Petroleum Safety and Environmental Management Authority (NOPSEMA) that any cleanup efforts undertaken after a potential oil spill would be beneficial to coastal cities.
"In most instances, the increased activity associated with cleanup operations will be a welcome boost to local economies," the company wrote.
Oil spills, it claimed, were "socially acceptable" with "no unresolved stakeholder concerns."
NOPSEMA vehemently disagreed with BP's assessment, saying the company had not considered the potential impact of drilling's sound pollution on whales and dolphins as well as the danger a potential spill would hold for those species and others. Offshore drilling would also have negative effects on the area's tourism industry, the regulators said.
The exchange came six years after BP's destructive Deepwater Horizon disaster in the Gulf of Mexico, which sent an estimated 200 million gallons of oil gushing into the marine ecosystem and unleashed untold damage on coastal communities and wildlife throughout the region.
In the Climate Home News report on BP's lies regarding the effects of oil spills, the company's spokesperson said the correspondence with NOPSEMA didn't "represent the final views of BP or the regulator" and noted that BP hadn't gone forward with the proposal to drill in the Bight.
"There is no way to drill for oil safely in the Bight." --Nathaniel Pelle, Greenpeace
The Norwegian company Statoil took over BP's exploration plans in 2017, with drilling expected to begin next year--prompting new outcry from green campaigners.
"Statoil must meet the same standards required of BP: its shareholders, not least the Norwegian government, need to know the company cannot reasonably meet the cost of keeping Australia's southern ocean and coastlines safe from an oil spill which could take months to cap. Statoil should drop its plans," Australian Green Party politician Bob Brown told Climate Home News.
"We will only undertake drilling activity if we can do it safely," a spokesperson for the company told the outlet. But critics pointed to previous oil-drilling disasters, saying safe offshore drilling would not be possible.
"There is no way to drill for oil safely in the Bight," Nathaniel Pelle, a senior campaigner at Greenpeace, told the Sydney Morning Herald.
When pitching a proposal to drill for oil in the Great Australian Bight of the southern coast of Australia in 2016, according to newly revealed documents, oil giant BP attempted to allay regulators' concerns by claiming that any future oil spill would actually be a 'welcome boost' to the local economy.
In documents Climate Home News obtained through freedom of information laws, BP told the National Offshore Petroleum Safety and Environmental Management Authority (NOPSEMA) that any cleanup efforts undertaken after a potential oil spill would be beneficial to coastal cities.
"In most instances, the increased activity associated with cleanup operations will be a welcome boost to local economies," the company wrote.
Oil spills, it claimed, were "socially acceptable" with "no unresolved stakeholder concerns."
NOPSEMA vehemently disagreed with BP's assessment, saying the company had not considered the potential impact of drilling's sound pollution on whales and dolphins as well as the danger a potential spill would hold for those species and others. Offshore drilling would also have negative effects on the area's tourism industry, the regulators said.
The exchange came six years after BP's destructive Deepwater Horizon disaster in the Gulf of Mexico, which sent an estimated 200 million gallons of oil gushing into the marine ecosystem and unleashed untold damage on coastal communities and wildlife throughout the region.
In the Climate Home News report on BP's lies regarding the effects of oil spills, the company's spokesperson said the correspondence with NOPSEMA didn't "represent the final views of BP or the regulator" and noted that BP hadn't gone forward with the proposal to drill in the Bight.
"There is no way to drill for oil safely in the Bight." --Nathaniel Pelle, Greenpeace
The Norwegian company Statoil took over BP's exploration plans in 2017, with drilling expected to begin next year--prompting new outcry from green campaigners.
"Statoil must meet the same standards required of BP: its shareholders, not least the Norwegian government, need to know the company cannot reasonably meet the cost of keeping Australia's southern ocean and coastlines safe from an oil spill which could take months to cap. Statoil should drop its plans," Australian Green Party politician Bob Brown told Climate Home News.
"We will only undertake drilling activity if we can do it safely," a spokesperson for the company told the outlet. But critics pointed to previous oil-drilling disasters, saying safe offshore drilling would not be possible.
"There is no way to drill for oil safely in the Bight," Nathaniel Pelle, a senior campaigner at Greenpeace, told the Sydney Morning Herald.