"Acceptable" risks. That is the term used by Repsol to refer to the danger involved in its oil activity. But "acceptable" to whom? Obviously, to the company, for sure. And maybe also for ...
"Acceptable" risks. That is the term used by Repsol to refer to the danger involved in its oil activity. But "acceptable" to whom? Obviously, to the company, for sure. And maybe also for Spain. Even for Gran Canaria, where many businessmen are already dreaming of the businesses they could do if oil is extracted off the coast of Lanzarote and Fuerteventura. But the question is inevitable: why do the people of Lanzarote or Majorca have to take those risks?
From the company, which has changed its strategy and last week was touring the islands to defend the benefits of its project, they compare it to flying in an airplane: "We all know that there may be an airplane that has an accident, but they are risks that are acceptable to most of us," one of Repsol's managers told La Voz. In addition, he insisted with that example, when talking about the preventive measures that are taken in the event of possible incidents. "It's like when you're on a plane and you have to put on your life jacket or mask in the event of a problem."
With this example they intended to send a message of tranquility, but the truth is that it can have many interpretations. Unfortunately, the Canary Islands knows very closely what an air tragedy is, and we do not have to go too far, since the wounds of the Spanair accident are still open. It is true, it is not usual for it to happen, and most of the Canarians have to use air transport regularly. But they do it to cover a need, in this case to travel. However, what need do they have to assume the risks of oil?
In short, what Repsol is telling us is that they are going to put us on a plane for 20 or 30 years, which is the time they estimate that the oil extraction phase could last. And during those two or three decades, will these two islands have to have life jackets and masks on hand, just in case?
Maybe nothing will happen, it's true. But it is also true that spills are something much more common than the company wants to admit. Not all of them are catastrophes, but any small spill would be "unacceptable" for two islands that live on tourism and are also biosphere reserves. But of course, Repsol has a very different dimension of what is acceptable and what is not.
According to them, the last spill they had in Tarragona, a little over a year ago, "was only 30 or 40 barrels" of oil. Translated into Christian, between 4,470 and 6,360 liters spilled into the sea. A year earlier, they had another spill on the same platform. According to them, "seven or eight barrels", "very specific and minor things". "Like with the car, if you drop a spot of oil in the garage." But what kind of car do these people have?
It was not their only reference to cars in the visit that two representatives of the company made to La Voz de Lanzarote. After talking about the last spill in Tarragona, they assured that the director of Repsol had visited the area shortly after, announcing that they would replace the existing structure to install a "Ferrari of the platforms". And what would they bring here, a Ferrari, or a 600? How many spills are necessary to get the "high end"?
In Argentina, the answer is clear. When responding to the news published by this media, that Repsol caused almost 7,000 spills in five years, they tried to minimize the data, clarifying that the vast majority of these spills were in this South American country. And their "excuse" is that there they are associated with a local company. Come on, as if it were not with them, despite the fact that they still have more than 50 percent of that company. What do they work with in Argentina, with carts?
Of course, while they admit that they do not operate the same in all countries, they also do not miss the opportunity to use the discourse of fear of Morocco. They do not reach the "if we do not take it out, they are going to take it out", because they are technicians and they know that this is a fallacy (we are talking about different areas and oil pockets), but they do let it drop that prospecting is being carried out throughout the Moroccan coast. An argument that was already used eight years ago, when the prospecting off the coast of Lanzarote was stopped, and so far not a single liter of oil has come out of the Moroccan area. And even if it really existed and they simply have not found it yet, what justifies that? How are they going to do it, are we going to multiply the risk, doing it here too and much closer?
Of course, compared to the strategy of silence that they had been using until now, it is appreciated that two company officials came to the island and answered the questions of this media for almost two hours. The talk served to clear up doubts and to confirm what was already intuited. That is, that there are risks, no matter how much José Manuel Soria said otherwise; and that in terms of the hypothetical benefits, in any case, they would be seen in several years, when the extraction phase began, and they would mainly reach the port of Gran Canaria and certain companies in the capital islands. But above all, that meeting served to finish convincing us. Yes, of a resounding NO.
