HC Deb 16 October 1995 vol 264 cc37-9W
Mr. Ainger

To ask the President of the Board of Trade if his Department received copies of the reports produced by Smit Engineering and Heeremac prior to the decision to approve the sea dumping of Brent Spar. [36447]

Mr. Eggar

The reports submitted by Shell to my Department are listed in the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) on 4 July 1995,Official Report, columns 152–54. They included studies by McDermott Engineering (Europe) Ltd. and Heerema Engineering Services (UK) Ltd. These studies addressed the fulls cope of work necessary for onshore disposal and showed the cost of that option to be significantly higher than the preliminary assessment by Smit Engineering. The McDermott and Heerema studies contributed to the decision that deep-sea disposal was the best practicable environmental option for the Brent Spar.

Mr. Ainger

To ask the President of the Board of Trade what research his Department has commissioned into the cumulative environmental impact of sea dumping 50 to 60 production facilities prior to the decision to approve the sea dumping of Brent Spar. [36448]

Mr. Eggar

I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mrs. Fyfe) on 18 July 1995,Official Report, column 1215.

Mr. Ainger

To ask the President of the Board of Trade (1) what research his or any other Government Department had commissioned and received on the environmental impact of sea dumping Brent Spar on the deep ocean ecosystems prior to approving the sea dumping of Brent Spar; [36449]

(2) what was the conclusion of the AURIS report on the proposed sea dumping of Brent Spar relating to the possibility of the Brent Spar breaking up immediately after or during the sea dumping operation; [36451]

(3) what research drew his Department to the conclusion that the contents of the Brent Spar would disperse slowly over thousands of years. [36450]

Mr. Eggar

The Brent Spar Impact Hypothesis by Rudall Blanchard Associates Ltd. dated December 1994 succeeded earlier work carried out by Aberdeen university. The later study concluded that the most likely scenario was that the structure would remain largely intact after its impact with the seabed and would corrode very slowly, probably over the next 4,000 years, in the deep waters of the north-east Atlantic. Government scientists also considered the possibility that the Spar would break up during its descent. or on impact with the seabed. They concluded that, in any of those scenarios, the consequences in terms of risk to the food chain, human health and potential environmental impact would have been insignificant.

Mr. Ainger

To ask the President of the Board of Trade (1) if the samples taken from the contents of the Brent Spar were analysed before the decision to approve the sea dumping of Brent Spar was made; on what date they were analysed; and when the results were notified to his Department; [36455]

(2) what samples were taken from the contents of the Brent Spar by his Department, the Ministry of Fisheries and Food or Aberdeen university prior to the decision to approve the sea dumping of Brent Spar. [36454]

Mr. Eggar

Independent surveys were carried out which enabled Shell to assess the contents of the Spar and to satisfy Government that deep-sea disposal was the best practicable environmental option. The Norwegian certifying authority, Det Norske Veritas, has been commissioned to undertake a further independent assessment of the structure and contents of the Spar. I understand that the results of that study will be available on 18 October.

Mr. Ainger

To ask the President of the Board of Trade if his Department was aware of a memorandum dated 6 December 1993 from W. McMinn, an official of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, on the toxicity of the waste water in Brent Spar and recommending the prohibition of discharge prior to the decision to approve sea dumping of Brent Spar. [36452]

Mr. Eggar

My Department was not aware of the internal MAFF memorandum prior to the decision. Comments made in that memorandum about the discharge of the contents of the storage tanks were made in the context of removing the oily sludge and ballast water as part of an onshore dismantling option and dumping them in shallow coastal waters. That was totally different to the disposal of the entire structure in over 2,200 m of water in the north-east Atlantic. MAFF issued a statement on 20 June 1995 which it made clear that the concerns expressed in the leaked paper did not apply to deep-sea disposal of the Brent Spar.