Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2010-05-18-Speech-2-547"

PredicateValue (sorted: default)
rdf:type
dcterms:Date
dcterms:Is Part Of
dcterms:Language
lpv:document identification number
"en.20100518.36.2-547"2
lpv:hasSubsequent
lpv:speaker
lpv:spokenAs
lpv:translated text
"Madam President, the collapse of the platform off the coast of Louisiana on 22 April has caused an oil slick on an incredible scale. The latter raises three major issues. The fact that no systems were put in place in advance to stop a leak of this nature and on this scale is hard to understand, as is the absence of sufficient controls, on the part of the public authorities, over security systems required and implemented by the platform operators to avoid the risks of pollution and, ultimately, the specific risk relating to pollution by hydrocarbons of particularly sensitive and/or particularly inhabited areas. A moment ago, our fellow Member, Mr Sonik, reminded us of how disastrous such pollution would be in the Baltic Sea, for example. The North Sea has already seen at least two serious accidents on offshore platforms and is one of the regions of the world with the greatest concentration of platforms. Under these conditions, it is absolutely essential that we take stock of the situation to make sure that a similar accident is not possible off our coasts, and we are delighted, Commissioner, that an initiative of this nature has been taken. Having said that, what measures do you intend to take in the short term to improve safety and accident prevention on offshore platforms located in our territorial waters? You spoke of minimum standards, Commissioner, but that is not enough. Secondly, what control measures are in place to ensure that safety requirements are fully met? Having safety rules on paper is not enough; they have to be applied and their application actually monitored. What do you intend to do to move in this direction? Thirdly, in the event of an accident, what resources are in place to avoid coastal pollution? It is all very well having vessels and civilian forces, but what do we have at our disposal? Is it not time that we demanded that operators have specific technical equipment that could be pooled? Is it not also necessary, given the inclusion henceforth of environmental harm in EU law, to provide for an adequate system of compensation and associated financial guarantees? Finally, oil companies are operating at ever-increasing depths, making intervention very difficult when there is an accident and putting the marine environment at risk. What measures are planned for offshore oil exploitation at greater depths and, in particular, in the Far North? Finally, I will return to the question that our fellow Member, Mr Arsenis, asked just now: is it not time that we considered an extended moratorium under the same conditions as those that the United States wants to introduce? We want and we need to move away from this oil-based society. Is it not time that we did so?"@en1
lpv:videoURI

Named graphs describing this resource:

1http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/rdf/English.ttl.gz
2http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/rdf/Events_and_structure.ttl.gz
3http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/rdf/spokenAs.ttl.gz

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph