Regulation

Isle of Wight drilling: 1,740 objections but AONB says “no direct impact”

200627 Arreton launch DDTW1a

Photo: Don’t Drill the Wight

A consultation on plans to drill for oil on the Isle of Wight has closed with an estimated 1,700+ objections. But two key organisations – the Environment Agency and the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) partnership – have not objected to the scheme.

UK Oil & Gas plc is seeking planning permission to drill and test vertical and horizontal wells at a site near the village of Arreton.

Don’t Drill the Wight, which is campaigning against the application, said more objections were currently being processed and predicted there could be 2,000 by the end of this week.

A decision is expected later in the year.

“No direct impact”

The proposed site, off the A3056 Newport-Sandown Road, is 130m from the boundary of the Isle of Wight AONB.

In its response, the AONB partnership said:

“Overall … there are considered to be no direct impacts upon the AONB from the proposal.”

The partnership said it could not substantiate an objection on noise and UKOG had demonstrated “a comprehensive assessment of the landscape character of the area”. The company had also fully acknowledged the close proximity of the AONB, the partnership said.

But it added that UKOG had “somewhat downplayed” the effects of the drilling phase, with “little mention of the 37m rig, which will be in place for up to 66 weeks”.

The AONB partnership also raised concerns about climate change. It described fossil fuel developments as “a controversial subject” and advised:

“The LPA [local planning authority] will have to look very carefully at how an exploratory oil development sits within their climate change policies and what safeguards are in place with regards to any potential ground contamination, ecological impacts and noise pollution before determining the application.”

The Environment Agency said:

“We can confirm though that in relation to the planning application, the submitted environmental statement and associated hydrogeological risk assessment is acceptable and therefore we have no objection to the proposal as submitted.”

It said the proposal would need to secure environmental permits. Site operations, safeguards, detailed designs and environmental risks would be assessed in detail as part of the permit process, the EA said.

“Adverse effect” on users of public rights of way

The Isle of Wight public rights of way service said:

“The development will clearly impact upon the public’s enjoyment of the rights of way network. … there can be no argument that users will be adversely affected by the development in terms of pleasure.”

The comment called for more detail on proposed signage, risk assessments, separation of the access track and rights of way and a proposed crossing point of a bridleway.

It also noted that a recommended pre-application consultation with the Isle of Wight Bridleways Group had not happened.

The rights of way service supported earlier comments made by highway officials. They said the scheme failed to comply with local planning policy on seven counts and could not be supported. See DrillOrDrop report

The council’s tree officer advised against approving the application until there was more information on trees in a hedgerow to the west of the proposed site. The officer said:

“As a result, it is not possible to make an accurate assessment as to whether the development will have an adverse impact on the trees of the area or whether suitable precautions have been put in place to ensure an adverse impact will not occur.

“It is advised that this application is not determined positively until such information is supplied and impact is felt to be minimised to an acceptable level.”

Groundwater risks “unacceptable”

Hampshire and Isle of Wight Wildlife Trust also objected because of pollution concerns and impact on climate change. The Trust said:

“In light of the underling chalk geology and topography, we consider that the site in general is not sufficiently insulated from ground water and surface water which in turn are hydrologically-linked to our land in the River Yar and the internationally designated wildlife sites of the Solent.

“We consider that even with proposed mitigation, any residual risks of pollution to groundwater and waterbodies from the operations of the well site make the proposal unacceptable. the chalk geology of the site.”

The trust said the effects of air pollutants, particularly oxides of nitrogen, had been downplayed. On climate change it said:

“We … do not consider this proposal to be sustainable development and therefore is counter to local and national policies of climate emergency and carbon neutrality.”

The Isle of Wight Biosphere Reserve had previously objected to the application. See DrillOrDrop report

The Isle of Wight archaeological officer was satisfied that archaeology and cultural heritage had been “adequately assessed”. The officer said:

“there is high potential for below ground archaeological deposits of prehistoric period to lie within the development site. There is also potential for deposits of other periods to be present within the site.”

The officer recommended survey work before and during the work.

Historic England said “we do not wish to offer any comments”. It recommended the council consult specialist advisers. Southern Water made recommendations about a proposed sustainable urban drainage system.

“Tremendous public response”

200728 objections

Screen grab from Don’t Drill the Wight web page , 28 July 2020.

Don’t Drill the Wight said predicted the number of public objections was likely to rise.

“The public response to our campaign has been tremendous.

“At the close of today, the total objections that we have collated from the council website is 1,740 with 58 supporting. We know there are many more in the pipeline and we are hoping to hit 2000.”

The group estimated comments to the consultation were being submitted at a rate of 30-50 a day over the past few weeks and encouraged people to contribute if they had not done so already.

“Because the implication and impacts of this application are island-wide, some of our island parish and town councils have added the application onto their upcoming meeting agendas for consideration and comment.”

Links

AONB comment on Arreton

Environment Agency comment on Arreton

Island Roads comment on Arreton

Rights of Way comment on Arreton

Wildlife Trust comment on Arreton

 

45 replies »

  1. Where does Drill or drop get it’s figures from did the consultations not close on the 24 July 2020?

    The IOW planning office lists 804 objections which have come after a major campaigns by frack free, Save the White, Drill or drop & many more & are from all over the UK not just the IOW.

    That total number of objections as a percentage of the IOW population of about 142,500 people would be just over 0.5 but was from the whole of the UK not just the IOW.

    Just to make you aware not all the information from the statutory consultees or in your article was correct either.

    I’m sure it will be corrected before the application comes to committee so I’m sure there is plenty of work still to do but as I understand it as in the Weald it meets & exceeds the climate change protocols which will have a major effect on reducing carbon emissions as both projects will bring a net minus effects.

    The reality is that any environmentalists who really wanted to see a reduction in emissions would be backing this project over what would be far higher pollution levels from wind farms if they we made to scale to provide power for the UK.

    • Hi MH
      Unfortunately the council website displays each comment as a separate pdf, so opening and reading every one would be a big undertaking, which we at DrillOrDrop have not had time to do. However, as made clear in the article, the pressure group Don’t Drill the Wight have read and categorised all the responses, giving the results shown in the screen shot. As the caption shows, this was the result on 28 July.

        • If you click on the expand all the comments for that page open up & you can go through each page. You can then colapse them back to the headline as well.

        • Hi MH
          The list you refer to covers, I think, responses which have been analysed and categorised by the council. For example, there seem to be few submissions from the 29 July in the list you linked to, but more when you click View All Comments. As the piece made clear, Don’t Drill The Wight have gone through the comments and produced the figures quoted in the piece.

          • Hi Paul

            Are Drill or drop or Don’t drill the White responsible for the accuracy of reporting & articles in Drill or drop.

            Could you please advise me of the Drill or drop regulator?

              • Is that what Drill or drop call researched, accurate & independent journalism?

                I call it a farce & totally bias journalism but still does not answer the question of who Drill or drops regulator is.

                Does Drill or drop believes it can do or print what it likes true or not?

                • Drill or drop likes to portray it’s playing the high ground & scrutinizing the oil & gas industry.

                  Let’s see how Drill or drop likes some scutany of it’s own ethics or is it frightened to have a real judgement on them?

              • There other point that needs to be considered on this information is should it happen to be correct is that there is inside information being leaked from the IOW council to a group opposing a planning application on the island which would be a issue that would call into question the professional standards of council it’s members or staff.

    • Drill or Drop gets its figures by counting the objections and support. The Isle of Wight Council’s planning portal’s counting is faulty. The closing date was Friday 24 July, but comments submitted by email and letter on and before that date are still being processed, and submissions are still being accepted until the planning committee meeting to decide the outcome.

      • Tamara

        Who are you & what position do you hold to make a statement that a local authorities communication are false or fraudulent.

        If that was the case the local authority would need to remove the counter.

    • Mike New

      Below are the details from the IOW planning site.

      Drill or drop has a duty to report as it says independently but should not mislead if it has an issue with the IOW council or it’s website it should clear it up with then not misreport the facts as im sure it has it’s own regulators.
      Details
      Comments (909)
      Make a Comment
      Public Comments (903)
      Consultee Comments (6)
      Constraints (0)
      Documents (2081)
      Related Cases (1)

      • To break it down further from there website

        Total Consulted: 0
        Comments Received: 903
        Objections: 841
        Supporting: 61

        • The final figures will be available in a few days, and certainly in the planning officer’s report on the application. Perhaps we should wait until then before deciding who is right and who is wrong.

        • Not really that interested in numbers when the antis have so clearly admitted to running a campaign to produce numbers, when numbers have already been declared as irrelevant. The same was tried a long time ago at KM. So, there is already an awareness of what goes on and really didn’t need admission. But, always better to have confirmation.

          • Martin

            I think they must get a bonus based on how many replys they get to there articles.

            The more lies the better by the looks of it.

            I think they must have family members writing replys for them aswell saying the councils website counter is not working properly.

          • So people who holiday on the island can’t object while those who want to turn a quick profit can support? The country needs UKOG’s 200 barrels of oil a day after 7 years of failures?

            • Can you do better than speculation, Jono?

              You have information that they are holiday makers? You have information those who support want to turn a quick profit? You have information that 200 barrels of oil a day would be produced on IOW?

              How long did it take to get oil from the N.Sea in any quantity? (Just about as long as it is taking Tesla to make a profit!)

              Your yawn had more real content.

        • MH have you nothing better to bitch about ? Time of the month maybe or are you just worried about rejection?
          If you don’t like what gets reported here there is a simple answer, just go read LSE chat where you will feel more at home amongst the deluded .

          • Deluded jono, it takes so to know some. deluded you live in a consumable world and preach green ideologies… it’s honestly laughable!

            The worlds population is increasing with no sign of declining, energy whether invested in now or latter is going to happen, but the pure nimbyism of happy to consume it but don’t give a damn where it comes from, probably the same ideology un which you are happy to have most consumables used from sweat shops and countries with lesser health, safety and environmental concerns, unless you know what it requires to have a regulated industry abet other worlds extractions you have NO need to comment.

          • Oh, I think we know the LSE chat is the same as DoD chat, Jono. If you want to spend your time there, happy hunting. You will, over time, see a small sample of individuals and within them a high proportion with their own agendas. Do the arithmetic. Not a significant proportion of the share holders, even if they were that-which many are not.
            If you really think anyone might believe that is a representative sample, then it is you that is deluded. Do you really not look at any source of information and start off by identifying what is the reality behind it?

      • I didn’t write ‘fraudulent’, MH, I wrote ‘faulty’ because the IWC’s website counting device is faulty. Try counting the number of comments yourself, following Drill or Drop’s instructions. And by the way, the Island is not called the Isle of ‘White’. This shows how much interest you take in the Island and that the motives for your belligerence in these comments are entirely selfish – you are a UKOG shareholder. Shame on you for wanting to destroy a beautiful UNESCO Biosphere for dirty oil and threaten the world with increased global warming that will destroy it – all to make a fast buck! Which you won’t make because UKOG has never made a profit.

        • Well Tamara, if you wished to demonstrate FAULTY you have done so several times within that offering.

          Oil does NOT destroy a Biosphere There are many areas with both-such as Texas, Norway and Turkey.

          Shareholders can quite easily make a profit via a company that has not made a profit. Take a look at Tesla.

          Oil from the IOW would simply replace imported oil, so no threats to global warming, just benefits. (I grow my own roses. It means roses airlifted from Kenya are not coming to me. Does not mean I have both in my house.)

          Shareholders are not necessarily selfish. Many invest in companies for more than financial motivation. How do you think many are committed to invest in alternative energy schemes?

          If you wish to rubbish someone else regarding their knowledge, maybe better to do so with some factual comments? Otherwise, it looks as if someone is objecting to something they do not understand, whilst the majority would at least try and get to understanding before objecting. Not a good advert for a few, let alone 1740.

          • Thank you for your comments Martin & Tamara.

            While I read & understand your comments Tamara I will endeavor not to take them personally as firstly I am dyslexic (But as some may believe it does not mean that I am stupid).

            Secondly I do not believe that I am out for a fast buck with a could not care less selfish attitude as you like to put it, which put another way around I can find much selfishness in your arguments & comments. The reason that I will resist that temptation is that I can understand the emotional pressure that you feel under at present. The emotions that are being stirred up by organizations like Frack free, don’t drill the wight etc. which are muddying the waters at present & it is probably for the best that they get aired & concerns explained into reality & that any mitigation necessary is put into place to allow this project to take place & hopefully provide some peace of mind even if some become bitter when this becomes a reality.

            While my current situation of a fast buck is far from that & my investment is in the future improvement & a transition to a net zero emissions by 2050. This is government policy, This project will help enable a reduction in carbon emissions as it has a minus carbon emission effect & for all your stated green credentials you seem prepared to oppose it. (maybe you can explain why you are against reducing carbon emissions?) It will also have major benefits for the UK & IOW economies, services, jobs, communities care & infrastructure for many years to come. (Can you please explain to me my selfishness in that?).

            While I understand what you feel & what you perceive is your need to protect what (YOU) have. The IOW it is an integral part of the United Kingdom & it needs share for the benefits of all with the good & bad for a future for all UK citizens.

            The reality as with the comments from the consultees from the AONB is that the development will not have a negative impact on the IOW AONB & the visibility of the site is negligible & likewise is unlikely have any impact on the Biosphere status either & many biospheres have oil production in them.

            As far as tourism & noise is concerned you only have to look at the situation on the UK south coast by Whych farm which has at its peak produced 112,000 barrels of oil per day to see that the effects on tourism are not real & are only perceived & at Horse Hill to see the oil being produced with no audible noise apart from the the cars passing on the roads & as far as your comments on oil being dirty there is no evidence of that apart from if you would put it on your hands in its raw state. If you refer to the gas emissions in modern practice the gas is converted into electricity using gas to wire systems as a renewable energy source.

            While you seem to think that Ukog are not & will not be successful I believe the current situation to be temporary & will turn to be to my advantage as well as to the people of the IOW,UK & I look forward to UKOG being successful.

            Further to your comments one week after the official closing of the consultation, the IOW planning department has not updated the numbers further like you predicted.

            Incidentally the number of comments has only been heightened as many of the same comments have been duplicated many times from the same household with a different name. Unfortunately one factual comment will only count once no matter how many times it is repeated.

            • ‘It will also have major benefits for the UK & IOW economies, services, jobs, communities care & infrastructure for many years to come’

              A bold statement which conflicts with UKOG’s own key risk areas as can be found at company house. UKOG state,

              Exposure to political risk……Magnitude high, likelihood medium

              Permitting risk……Magnitude high, likelihood high

              Exploration risk….magnitude high, likelihood high

              Loss of key staff….magnitude high, likelihood low

              Liquidity risk…..magnitude high, likelihood medium

              The suggestion that UKOG will have major benefits for the IOW is complete nonsense when considered in context with the stated risks.

              I doubt any bookies would take your money for you to bet the company would fail.

              • Well, jP, as long as your doubts do not limit the appetite for investors to invest in UKOG, and that is not an issue currently, then the ability to find oil/gas and the price received will dictate how successful UKOG is.

                Small companies and oil/gas exploration is high risk for such businesses. You will find most investors know that already, but the fact you have just caught up says a lot. The fact that you feel readers of DoD need that information, says a lot more.

  2. Funny how the so-called industry experts opinions can be proved incorrect when these projects commence operations.
    Here on the Fylde in Lancashire the ‘experts’ said that Hydrofrac Earthquake activity would be kept below a level that would be felt by the public or cause property damage by the Gold Standard Monitors using the Traffic Light System.
    Please refer to the Drill or Drop article of
    May 29th, 2020 headlined ‘Data reveals where people reported damage from fracking earthquake’ and link within for a reality check.

    • Ahh, the old attempt at conflation!

      “Proved incorrect” and “reported damage”.

      When you have successfully proven damage resulting, Peter, then you will be able to convert your report to proven. I suspect there may be relatively few who reported who will achieve that. You may, or may not be, one of them. There has already been quite a while for that to have been achieved.

      • Totally agree with you Martin, now that’s a first!

        I would have thought that my statements about the swarms of Hydrofrac Earthquakes that rattled the Fylde in 2018 and 2019 proved conclusively that Gold Standard Monitoring by the Traffic Light System doesn’t work!

        Only agree with you though as far as the ridiculous amount of time it’s taking for Cuadrilla and/or my insurance company to agree to arrange for my home to be repaired.

        I’m still waiting for a decision by the Insurance Ombudsman on whether to REQUEST my insurance company Liverpool Victoria to repair my family home. Until then I’m obviously not going to commence legal action against those I hold responsible for the damage done.

        Equally as a colleague of mine has had the damage to his home inflicted by Cuadrilla’s attempts at test fracking operations repaired by his insurance company I’m waiting for the legal ramifications that follow to conclude before commencing mine.

    • Peter – I’ve not noticed that insurance companies have paid any claims – seems like they are as sceptical about the damage as I am. But why wouldn’t we be sceptical given that the only people to claim damage are vocal opponents of fracking

      • Simon-that is a point I have been mulling over for some months! The map of reports was showing a very wide area, within which are a very large number of homes. There was some discussion that perhaps house type or age or type of construction could be a factor. Unlikely, as that would have applied to many more.

        I could not help but think of my Bible. Perhaps certain doors received a mark to identify them? Some were saved, others not. Your comment is probably much more accurate, as I can not imagine Mr. Egan has such powers.

        Complaints from customers are managed routinely by many. I am sure these will get the same scrutiny. (And, should have by now.) My experience was within another industry, but many were found to be invalid, some found to be invalid but goodwill gestures were made, a few to be valid. If there was no moratorium, then the full picture would probably be produced and emerge, but I can’t see much reason now for that to happen.

        • Martin,

          You’re again quite about the anomaly of the missing complaints, I wondered why that would be.

          The property next door to ours suffered visible similar but less than ours. However we have walked around many nearby streets without being able to spot any other properties of any construction similarly affected.

          It also strikes us that many properties are vacant or rented in which case no reports to the BGS are likely to be reported.

          Or that with the larger earthquakes hitting over the August Bank Holiday Weekend many families will have been away from home for the weekend.

          Or maybe they just don’t know the British Geological Survey website exists!

          • A lot of maybes Peter!

            However, I think we all know that depending on what type of insurance you have, and with whom, then some payment may be automatic or it may require investigation. You makes your choices on insurance and pays your money, depending upon those choices.

      • Simon, please refer to my response to Martin. I only know of this because the person affected is in my circle but doesn’t yet want further publicity.
        There is no interest with Lancashire County Council, our local Member of Parliament or the local media (actually conglomerate owned), in following up on this for some reason!

        There is no “D’ Notice issued by the UK Government regarding the fracking industry by the way I have learnt via Freedom of Information, which quite surprised me.

  3. Interesting how openly the numbers of objections and the campaign to produce them are made public.

    Not the brightest move. More to do with self justification than any impact, as such admission will only be negative. Especially when only recently it was stated at another planning meeting that numbers of objections or supporters was not material! I suppose it falls within the same category as naming an “organization” around a fictional construct and then trying to present a factual image.

    Yes, I noticed the error as well, MH. Such will be corrected during the subsequent discussions.

    • Drill or drop can you please provide a land based contact address not just a web address are you real or just a outer space website?

  4. Good grief. Ive just read through all the comments hoping to get an informed debate from both sides and all it is is “MH” trying to badmouth any objector. Do you work for UKOG MH? I dont see any of your credentials listed here. Well. I object on the grounds that we do not need to risk drilling through the isle of wight’s fresh water drinking supply within our Biosphere all for 12 days supply of oil for the UK. What do you say to that MH? My credentials? None, other than caring about the Island and its inhabitants and my opinion for what it is (not) worth is: that I am frankly stunned and saddened that AONB says nothing to object about it

    • Hi Sarah Jane

      FYI. I am not a employee of UKOG but as I have said I do believe in what they are doing & how they are doing it. Which imo. is very professionally & with a lot of care & consideration for the island, it’s communities, its habitat & wildlife.

      I have no problems with yours or others objections where they are honest, considered & just. Unfortunately there appears to be many which are not! & what you think of me is neither here or there for me. If you had read & understood my comments above I think I have a very balanced & unselfish attitude can you say the same?

      My understanding from reading your comment is the last thing you want is a informed debate.

      You seem to be in your own little bubble & believe it is ok to take from the mainland UK & it’s taxpayers but when it comes to contributing a share you are not interested as long as the IOW & it’s residents are taken care of. (Your words, please correct me if I have misunderstood) You want it all for nothing?

      You seem to of had your first & second wake up calls as the AONB & the environment agency has no objections & the third will be that the Biosphere is not a planning issue.

      As I have said earlier I am sure that when this project goes ahead many will be sad. I hope in time despite peoples feelings that they will feel some of the benefits that it brings as this is no larger than 2 football pitches very carefully chosen to meet its objectives & the sun will still come up tomorrow.

  5. Well, Sarah Jane, what I say about it is that you are speculating. Firstly, you have no idea how much oil is there and could be extracted. Maybe very little, and then UKOG would re-instate and go away. Secondly, please let us know where on shore UK drilling for oil has caused any problem with drinking water. Loads of farms have. Should they all be eradicated or should controls be in place to prevent? Those farms use a heck of a lot of red diesel to supply your food. Only seems fair that what may be stored under the ground in UK could be harvested to help enable them to harvest.

    You might like to take a look at Stockbridge where the R. Test has continued to flow crystal clear water for many years, home to one of the best trout fisheries in the WORLD, yet has enjoyed local oil extraction for many years. You know what contaminated the R. Itchen? Pollution from a salad washing factory! Keeping the tourists fed?

    I have every sympathy-with MH!

    If people want to object-absolutely, fill your boots. But, before you decide to object find out about the subject, otherwise you might find you fall into the following category, that was quoted within another recent planning situation:

    “On the consultation”, he says, “the substance is considered from comments, not the numbers.” (Chris Bartlett.)

    I have seen a lot of numbers, but not very much substance. I do not classify speculation as substance.

  6. The original comment was in relation to the numbers of objections being reported – appearing to be falsely high.

    Having spent some time looking into this issue, I feel that some further explanation of the numbers discrepancies would be useful.

    The Isle of Wight Council’s Planning Portal has many quirks and wrinkles, especially in the way that it displays numerical information.
    Public comments can be sent in by three methods:
    1. By conventional mail – these are manually scanned by council employees and uploaded to the database WITHOUT being categorised as Supports or Objects
    2. By email – again these are manually uploaded to the database by council employees WITHOUT being categorised as Supports or Objects
    3. By direct submission online (if you register beforehand with the system) – these appear almost immediately and ARE categorised by the user on submission as it is a requirement to select an option from a Supports / Neutral / Objects menu.

    Once this is understood it is self evident that the numbers displayed on the Planning Portal are a long way from the full picture. In fact it is misleading for the council to display these numbers as it is not the full picture. However it is a fairly new system and the staff are grappling with it whilst working from home in unfamiliar circumstances so it’s perhaps understandable that not everything is shipshape.

    The scale of the discrepancy can be seen by comparing the total number of documents with the total number of comments. At time of writing there are 2,341 Documents in total but only 920 Comments totalled – a difference of 1,421. There are 50 documents related to the initial application and 13 Consultee Comments (although the counter shows just 6 of these), there’s a few subsequent bits and pieces of supporting info – let’s say 70 documents in total, giving approximately 1350 comments that have been received and uploaded but NOT CATEGORISED.

    Taking the 920 comments that have been categorised plus the apprx 1350 uncategorised = 2270 apprx total comments.

    The Don’t Drill The Wight website currently shows 2071 Objections and 64 supporting – allowing for this not having been updated today and there being a number of obvious inadvertent duplications these figures are entirely believable.

    It wouldn’t serve anyone’s interest to falsify the data as it is open to all and easy to independently check.

    Whilst the high numbers of objections are not necessarily indicative of the quality of the content, there are many well written, properly referenced and logically structured objections that will be hard to ignore. This was always going to be a contentious application and it’s good to see so many engaging with the planning process.

  7. SD

    Thank you for a objective & well explained comment regarding he IOW planning comments & how they are likely achieving these figures.

    I was not expecting UKOG to have more support comments than object comments & it is clear that feelings are running fairly high.

    Personally I support the project which I believe is a step in the right direction to help reduce carbon emissions by having a net minus carbon emission effect if it is successful. I also believe that it will be done sympathetically as the selection of the site has shown.

    I believe from many of the comment that I have read that many comments are not direct planning issues. They will of already have been considered & reported to the planning officers under UK regulations which are there to enable projects though the meeting of strict control measures that are considered safe within the defined parameters of a permit being issued.

    It is welcoming to see many of the statutory consultees with positive points while I also note that there is some work to do to resolve some of the issues raised.

    With regard to the objectors who have a personal opinion like I have from my perspective. I can understand & respect your thoughts & feelings even if I do not agree with all of them or the law does not give you the right to have things the way you want them, but those decisions are not for us to take.

Add a comment

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.