Upload
wchaitan
View
30
Download
2
Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
Crisis Management Case
Citation preview
Introduction to Brent Spar
• Brent Spar Case• Disposal Proposal• Green Peace
Warwick Business School
Brent Spar
Brent Spar co-owned by Shell UK and Esso (50:50)
Loading and storage buoy for crude oil in the North Sea, 200 km northeastof the Shetland Islands (British waters)
463 feet high, and weighting about 14,500 tons
Served from 1979 until 1991, ready for disposal
3
Proposal for Disposal
For Brent Spar, two shortlisted options were identified: Horizontal on-shore dismantling
○ Cost: £41 million○ Environmental risk since the buoy might break in shallow costal
waters Deep water disposal
○ Cost: £12 million○ Low environmental risk since no flipping is necessary
Several independent studies confirmed the low risk of deep waterdisposal
Shell UK proposed deep water disposal as Best Practical EnvironmentalOption (BPEO), this met UK government approval. The Europeangovernments were informed and there was no official protest.
4
Founded in Vancouver in 1971, Greenpeace has grown into the world’slargest environmental group, with its biggest section in Germany where itenjoys high acceptance and popularity.
Greenpeace was informed about potential deep water disposal of BrentSpar and started stunt protesting.
Shell UK abandoned the plan for deep water disposal under the pressurefrom the public.
Later study confirmed that the original proposal by Shell UK was the rightdecision in terms of environmental implication.
5
Timeline
Made with Office Timeline 2010
Jan1991 Sep May
1992Jan1993 Sep May
1994Jan1995 Sep May
1996Jan1997 Sep
Shell announces re-use as Norwegianferry quay29/1/98
Abandonment Plan submitted toUK Government1/12/94
Independent AberdeenUniversity Study1/2/94
Ceases Operating9/91
Decommissioningstudies
30/4/95 - 23/5/95
14/6/95 - 20/6/95
Greenpeaceactivists on Spar
Germanpublic protests
Shell analyses alternative proposals 30/6/95 - 29/1/98
6
Timeline (01/05/95 – 18/10/95)
Made with Office Timeline 2010 www.officetimeline.com
May1995 Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct
Greenpeaceadmits inaccurateclaims5/9/95
UK scientists reiterate support11/9/95
Independent auditresults endorse Shellcompetence18/10/95
20/6/95UK scientific debate supportsShell30/6/95
Norway grants storagepermission7/7/95
Shell UK commissionsindependant Norwegian audit12/7/95
Spar towed to disposal site11/6/95
Chancellor Kohl protests at G715/6/95
Northen Europeangovernments indicateopposition
GermanMinistry of theEnvironmentprotests9/5/95
IndependentUK scientistsstatesupport13/5/95
UK Governmentannounces approvaland contacts 12nations1/5/95UK Governmentgrants disposallicence5/5/95
7
Brent Spar Stakeholders
8
Brent SparStakeholders
UK Government••
Protect environmentPublic sentiment
German Government• Public sentiment
UK Universities• Research disposal
methods
Shell•••
Decommissioning option is viableComplies with regulationsSupported with research
General Public••
•
Trust in GreenpeaceEnvironmentallyconsciousAnti oil company moral
Greenpeace••
•••
Environmental protectionLook for high profile, highlyvisible targetsMedia attentionPublic supportIncrease in donations
Uncertainty
Low
• Brand damage orpublic outrage
High
• Technologybreakthrough
• Brent decommissioning location• Regulation change
Low
Control
Combining outcomes into scenariosHigh
• Government Regulation ondecommissioning at Sea
• Unable to sway public opinion
14
Cost
to organization
Crisis IdentificationBegins
Time
Phases
Anticipation Uncontrolled Controlled Reputation Restoration
Anticipation••
Threat of the activistsLack of understanding of activistperspective
• Decommissioning plan wasdecentralised and notcommunicated to the relevant
Identification• Focused on technical issues losing
sight of the important issue – publicopinion & global brand protection
••
Flawed communication strategyMixed communication
Post-Crisis••
Increase Stakeholder involvementImprove media &Communications strategy
• Amended corporate values toinclude the learning
• Spar was used to build a quay
Crisis ManagementUnanticipated Crisis
Anticipated Crisis
ContinuingReputational
Impact