Update on Poole Harbour oil leak: compensation, clean-up, produced water and wildlife

Poole Harbour. Source: Google Maps

Perenco will pay for damage, minister tells peers

The Environment minister, Lord Benyon, today described the Poole Harbour oil leak as a “significant spill”. He said Perenco, the oil company whose pipeline leaked, would be held responsible for any damage.

He told peers that the booms that had been put in place in the affected part of the harbour would not contain all the pollutant. He said the faulty pipeline had been sealed and would be replaced.

“We will monitor the company [Perenco] doing that, which owns this very large facility, and make sure that the polluter is responsible for the damage caused.

“There is a very clear line of process for compensation, which is that the polluter should pay. We will assist anyone who feels they have a legitimate case to make in following that process through. However, at this stage it is unclear whether there are significant losses.”

Lord Benyon. Photo: Parliamentlive TV

Lord Benyon was asked whether Perenco would compensate the agencies working on the clean-up for their time.

The minister replied: “undoubtedly an enormous amount of taxpayers’ money” is being spent. He said he would find out what precedent there was for compensating the agencies.

Asked how peers could “be sure that the polluter will actually pay”, Lord Beynon said:

“We are working very closely with the company here to get to the bottom of what caused this and make sure it does not happen again.”

Link to Hansard report

Clean-up latest

Poole Harbour Commissioners (PHC), which is leading the clean-up, said this evening the operation had now covered almost 100km of shoreline.

It had recovered about 14,000 litres of oil and water mix and about 1,500kg of oil sediment, PHC said.

The latest statement said the response to the leak was continuing 24 hours a day.

It advised the shellfish industry not to market shellfish harvested from Sunday 26 March onwards from Poole Harbour. It said this advice would remain until further assessment had been made and advice received from the Food Standards Agency and the Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science.

People are still advised to avoid using Poole Harbour for recreation, including bathing and hand gathering of shellfish.

What water?

The 11,000 gallon (200 barrel) leak from pipeline from the Wytch Farm oilfield was reported to be a mixture of 15% oil and 85% water.

DrillOrDrop asked Perenco about the source of the water. A spokesperson told us:

“My understanding is that it’s produced water”.

Produced water (also called formation water) is naturally-occurring liquid that is extracted from rock formations along with gas and oil.

The composition varies widely between wells and over time.

It is often salty and contains dissolved solids at too high a level to be reused easily. In oil fields, produced water often contains oil and suspended solids, as well as chemicals used in the production process.

Some produced water contains heavy metals and traces of naturally-occurring radioactive material, bacteria and dissolved organic compounds. Treatment of produced water can be very expensive.

A government statement on Monday (27 March 2023) referred to the produced water as saline solution.

DrillOrDrop asked the Environment Agency, Poole Harbour Commissioners and Perenco about the composition of the produced water in the leak and the hazards to people and the environment. None answered our questions.

Most oilfields have facilities to deal with the oil, produced water and gases.

We asked Perenco about the destination of the liquids that leaked from the pipeline.

The company’s spokesperson told us that the liquids were “on their way from the well to Wytch Farm”.

Wytch Farm has a gathering station where fluids from wells across the field are combined. The liquids are separated into produced water, oil and gas.

The produced water is disposed of by reinjecting back into the reservoir. This also helps to maintain the pressure of the oil reservoir, allowing more oil to be extracted.

An Environment Agency document from 2020 shows that Wytch Farm had 70 production wells and 37 reinjection wells.

Official data shows that in 2022, Wytch Farm extracted 664,613m3 of oil and 16,755,699m3 of produced water. This suggests that the proportion of water in the total liquids extracted from the oil field is very high. Known as the water cut, this appears to be about 96% for Wytch Farm.

The data shows also that the volumes of produced water and reinjected water are about the same.

Oil reaches Brownsea Island

The National Trust told the Guardian it remained “seriously concerned” after oil washed up on the shore of Brownsea Island, an internationally-important wetland and marine conservation zone in Poole Harbour.

The organisation said:

“A thin film of oil was located on parts of the west and north shores of Brownsea Island earlier today. This was dealt with immediately by the authorities, and we continue to support however we can.

“We remain seriously concerned about the impacts of the spill on wildlife populations and the varied habitats they depend on. We’re carefully monitoring the situation.”

“Disaster” for seahorses

The Seahorse Trust described the oil leak as a “massive disaster” for seahorses. It said the ecological impact was likely to be long-term and the matter “should not be taken lightly”.

Neil Garrick-Maidment, executive director of the Seahorse Trust, told BBC News:

“There is an east-west drift with the current so, if the oil is coming out of Poole Harbour, it is going to drift west into Studland Bay, which is internationally the most important site for spiny seahorses for breeding.

“This oil leak is, to be honest, a massive disaster.

“We don’t know really to what extent it has caused damage yet but like all oil leaks, once the oil settles down on to the seabed it forms these little pebble things and then every time there is a storm it just re-pollutes basically, it flushes it back up again and you get more pollution.”

Contaminated birds

By this morning, about 20 birds had been found to be affected by the leak, Lord Benyon told peers.

The RSPB told Heart South News that the oil leak could be a “time bomb” of toxic chemicals that could become trapped in underwater mud.

The organisation manages more than 250 ha of nature reserve on the Arne peninsular, on the western shore of Poole Harbour.

It said oiled birds appeared to be feeding, flying and behaving normally. But it said:

“the only way for them to clean is by preening, and we have yet to see what the impacts of that may be once they digest the substance on their feathers, so we are continuing to monitor the situation closely.”

A pair of osprey began nesting today in the area. Paul Morton, of Birds of Poole Harbour, said the ospreys hunt in the harbour about 95% of the time in the spring and summer.

Migrating fish

The Game & Wildlife Conservation Trust (GWCT) said the leak coincided with the start of the sea-bound migration of young Atlantic salmon and sea trout from the river Frome and Piddle, which flow directly into Poole Harbour.

The young fish hatch from eggs laid by adults in the rivers, where they spend 1-3 years before migrating to sea from March to May.

Dr Rasmus Lauridsen, head of fisheries research at GWCT said:

“This is the worst possible time for migratory salmonids. We are currently catching them in numbers through our smolt trap so we know that they are passing through Poole harbour at the moment.”

Dorset Wildlife Trust said it was “deeply concerned” about the effects on wildlife. The trust’s chief executive, Brian Blesse, said:

“Poole Harbour is a bass nursery and an important area for molluscs which feed by filtering seawater and may be particularly badly affected, as well as resident seals and two species of seahorse that breed in the harbour.”

Fossil fuels and climate

Dorset Climate Action Network described the environmental impact of the leak as “unacceptable”. One of its coordinators, Sandra Reeve, said:

“This really shines a light on the impacts of fossil fuel extraction at a time when we need to move swiftly away from such a damaging industry.

“We call on the regulators and planners who licence the operations at Wytch Farm to call time on it as soon as the current licences run out, or terminate them sooner if that’s possible. This area is vitally important for wildlife and this couldn’t have come at a worse time – at the start of the bird  breeding season.”

On Monday, opponents of fossil fuels gathered at Poole Quay in a demonstration organised by Extinction Rebellion.

30 replies »

  1. This is beyond criminal, it only takes one accident to show how dangerous those hidden wells in the woods are. I had a tear for the seahorses 🥲

    • Thank you Ruth Hayhurst and DrillorDrop for this expanded research. The extent of the environmental disaster begins to emerge. Far worse than it has been speculated by some so far.

  2. Or far less than speculated by some, so far. Any extent of the “environmental disaster” currently is speculation. What is established reference the environment is that 2 birds were caught and cleaned earlier in the week, and now there have been reports of around 20 with some smudges on their plumage, although it is unclear whether they required catching and cleaning. Some were reported as feeding and behaving normally, so one would have to assume from that they were probably not deemed to require cleaning.

    I watched last night a report that stated, from the RSPB, that although they were still assessing the situation they had not observed any contamination in the area they were most concerned about. There would be a full, wider examination with a gang of volunteers this weekend. The boom put in place appears to have contained much of the leak which is now being recovered so what might leave the harbour and get round to Studland Bay does appear to be decreasing in respect of probability.
    There are currently very strong winds blowing from the SW and forecast to increase, so any surface liquid will be directed by that as well as the tides.

    Perenco did seem more inclined to comment to other journalists, and there was a linked report they took their responsibilities seriously and would make sure they took whatever steps required to rectify the situation. No steps were detailed, but I would suggest until they establish what is required after the initial clean-up they would be daft to join the speculation.

    • As you (unexpectedly) correctly say , the “extent of the “environmental disaster” currently is speculation. “
      What is not speculation is that FFs are responsible for yet another environmental disaster.

      • Yes, it is, 1720-that’s a FACT.

        However, you are free to add any actual facts about the situation in Poole Harbour.

        Reference Paul’s comments about the sewage issue along the south coast, with Poole referenced, there are huge increases in water bills arriving next month. Whether they will be sufficient to eradicate the problem or just manage the very large growth in population along this coast remains to be seen. Water supply is scheduled to require a big investment so maybe sewage is only going to get a slice of what it needs.

        • Is this a FACT or even fact like your fact that global warming is not anthropogenic. As you have undoubtedly grasped, Martin, ‘facts’ can be invented.
          Elsewhere you claim an identicity between ‘facts’ and the truth, an identicity which sadly no longer pertains.
          [Edited by moderator]

          • Poor one, 1720. Martin has never claimed what you suggest. That is a FACT. Martin has claimed that not all climate change is anthropogenic. That is a FACT. Martin has claimed that a big part of the anthropogenic impact is nothing to do with fossil fuels. That is FACT. Martin has supplied many examples of that. That is FACT.

            I note you are unable to grasp that, but that is your FACT, not mine.

            Where it does not pertain, 1720, is from your keyboard. It didn’t to start with, you were corrected and accepted the correction, and now slip back into the old habit. If you didn’t know the full definition to start with, that is okay, but then to have the definition explained to you for you to subsequently ignore just shows a problem you have with learning from your own mistakes.

            Perhaps if you kept to debating what is actually stated rather than invent something to plonk out a ready made bit of fiction, then you would look less like a wandering activist and more like someone with a genuine interest in the subject.

            “Environmental disaster” is not established as a FACT either. It is understandable SPECULATION, and obviously at this stage is what some are stating as a fear. It is still not a FACT, even if repeated, and time will tell-as someone recently posted. Time will tell whether that is FACT, it has not yet. Maybe more concentration upon the English language might help posters towards what are facts?

            • Integrity, Martin. Remember. Of course you do, but if you keep announcing fiction is fact, enough will follow you eventually – but perhaps not on DorD. (Usual list of historical and actual precedents for this behaviour- a clear attempt to redefine fact and truth.)
              Aug. 27 2022
“Here comes the question again, rephrased to preempt intentional evasion. Do you accept that scientists and mathematicians have between them proved that global over-heating is anthropogenic? Do you accept that fossil fuels have played by far the largest part in this process? I’m guessing, only guessing of course, that your answer is ‘No’.”
              Martin’s answer:
“ Yes, my answer is no. The numbers of people now on the planet have played the largest part.

              Your posting above – “ Martin has claimed that a big part of the anthropogenic impact is nothing to do with fossil fuels. That is FACT. ”

              I think I can rest my case again.

              • Exactly 1720. Are you trying to suggest a big part of anthropogenic impact is not disconnected from man’s use of fossil fuel?? Well, if you are 1720, then you are just ignoring the science, which you advocate shouldn’t be done. I have pointed you towards the outputs of methane recorded. Much of that methane is absolutely nothing to do with fossil fuel use, and much of it nothing to do with man either. You can easily check. You can easily consider what 7B people do compared to far less, starting with respiration and going from there. The amount of rice required by such numbers may be along the road you travel, together with a lot of other aspects of consumption.

                [Edited by moderator]

                Let me help you with the bl***ing obvious. Climate change has been occurring on this planet for a very long time, before the time of man. Humanity came along and climate change continued, even whilst numbers of humans was low and use of fossil fuel low. Maybe Darwin can help you there? Humanity grew in numbers and consumption of everything he/she wanted to consume and then started to use fossil fuel. Fossil fuels then started to play a part. They had nothing to do with dinosaurs thriving and then dying out, neither did man.

  3. From BOPH yesterday:

    “Finally, although our trip around the harbour this morning was only a few hours in total, the good news is that we saw little initial evidence of birds that have been impacted by the oil spill. The Brownsea team did report 15 stained/discoloured birds on the lagoon this morning, so there certainly has been some contact made. The harbour-wide survey we’re conducting on Sunday afternoon will hopefully begin to build a better picture of the true scale of this issue.”

    Lots of speculation at this stage, the BOPH WEBS survey on Sunday should provide evidence of the size of the impacts on birds at least.

    For those concerned about Poole Harbour wildlife and pollution in general, the following links provide some background to the pollution pressures the area already faces in addition to the recent Perenco spill. Perenco is a French privately owned family company:





  4. And I fear that today’s Government strategy report presages the mother of all environmental disasters as it licenses FF exploration, development and utilisation without any certainty that the resultant damage can be mitigated or eradicated.

    • You mean the nuclear power, 1720? Well, sorry but that is what results when the wind doesn’t blow and “we” don’t have gas and oil to fall back upon. I still fail to see how energy costs will be low with a big chunk of nuclear, and a lot to be spent on decommissioning systems, but I hope to be pleasantly surprised.

      However, I trust the CCS is accelerated and can be achieved cost effectively. UK actually does have a pretty good resource that many countries do not have, if it works-thanks to the oil and gas industry. Therefore, pushing on with that seems pretty sensible. I only hope that Drax can be persuaded to join in.

      The mother of environmental disasters reference oil for the UK was the Torrey Canyon! Oh, dear, that should get some obscure remarks.

      • Regarding the term ‘environmental disaster’ [another diacritic trigger?] in Poole Harbour due to the Perenco ‘reservoir fluid’ leak, one only need to read the comments by those involved in the clean-up, in the extensive report by Ruth Hayhurst and Drill Or Drop above – and the description has changed to – ‘produced water’ also called ‘formation water’

        So just for those who love Perenco [Perencophiles? A French privately owned company as is reported by Paul Tresto]-

        Voyez-vous des spéculations dans le rapport Drill or Drop là-bas? Non? Il n’y a pas eu non plus de spéculation de ma part. Je rapporte les faits et la vérité au fur et à mesure que l’information est produite, comme ci-dessus. Tout comme à chaque fois où je l’ai fait sur tous les sujets auparavant, et j’ai prouvé que la spéculation proposée était tout à fait inadéquate aux faits tels que proposés. Les tentatives de spéculation et de déni, de sophisme et d’obscurcissement peuvent être vues pour ce qu’elles sont. Tentatives simplement frénétiques d’opinion dogmatique et de négationnisme, de misanthropie et de xénophobie.
        Par conséquent, le terme « catastrophe environnementale », basé uniquement sur les citations ci-dessus, est une déclaration parfaitement correcte à faire. Puisque les mots « massif », « inacceptable », « environnemental » et « catastrophe » sont tous là. Si nécessaire, je les écrirai tous et citerai les sources dans toute communication.

        Translation –

        Do you see any speculation in the Drill or Drop report there at all? No? Nor has there been any speculation on my part. I report the facts and the truth as information is produced, as above. Just as in all the times I did so on every subject previously, and proved the proffered speculation to be utterly inadequate to the facts as proposed. Attempts at speculation and denial, sophistry and obfuscation can be seen for what they are. Merely frantic attempts at dogmatic opinion and denialism, misanthropy and xenophobia.

        Therefore, the term ‘environmental disaster’, based upon purely those quotes above, is a perfectly correct statement to make. Since the words ‘massive’ ‘unacceptable’ ‘environmental’ ‘disaster’ are all there. If necessary, I will write all of those and quote the sources in any communication.

        I could have written this all in French, just for Perenco, but, being British and having lived here all my life with my family, parents, and grandparents, the ‘silent minority’ can read, but never reply. [which [wytch?] corrects yet another speculatory misrepresentation of the truth, by, ‘who’?]

        There – No misrepresentation, no denial, no fabrication, no misanthropy and no xenophobia, and fortunately, no wyccafarmaphile, [love of wytch farm] or even wyccafarmaphobia [fear of wytch farm]. Not even a ‘weaphobia’ [figure that out for yourselves]

        [Company name corrected at poster’s request]

        • By the way. I could have written ‘Percer ou déposer’ [which is actually quite a pleasant site title, don’t you think?] for ‘Drill or Drop’, but I thought it’s better to show the real English title. I know how some get confused with new words.

          • [Text regarding spelling of company name removed]


            “The Seahorse Trust described the oil leak as a “massive disaster” for seahorses. It said the ecological impact was likely to be long-term and the matter “should not be taken lightly”.

            “The RSPB told Heart South News that the oil leak could be a “time bomb” of toxic chemicals that could become trapped in underwater mud.”

            “Poole Harbour is a bass nursery and an important area for molluscs which feed by filtering seawater and may be particularly badly affected, as well as resident seals and two species of seahorse that breed in the harbour.”

            • The Seahorse Trust continued to state “we don’t know really”, in addition to “likely.” Then there was “could” and then “may” from other organizations. Looks like speculation to me.

              Somewhere missing is any concept of probability, which is changing every day, even before the path to reality has been attempted. Understandable, but like the confusion with forecasts, they are not fact until time tells. I hope for the best, others may want to hope for the worst but do please excuse me if I then take no notice regarding their claims to be concerned about the environment. I do not include the organizations in that, they may have other, understandable considerations.

              I also have to wonder why locals are also so excited about off shore wind turbines along this stretch of coast. But, not in a positive way. Now, I note the good residents of IOW are somewhat excited about solar farms. Then, there are those excited about new interconnectors. What is left?

              • I wondered at the sensitivity about the ‘Perenco’ facility at Wytch Farm in Poole Harbour regarding the ‘reservoir fluid’/‘produced water’/‘formation water’ leak?
                So I put on my best French accent and suit and did a little research.
                And this is what I found, all translated into English on the websites too. So in the best interests of all concerned, with no need for ‘very touchy today’, or other misrepresented insinuations, are the results. And I wasn’t even researching that hard, either. Not such a ‘funny old world after all’.

                Souvenez-vous de toutes les larmes sur la République démocratique du Congo et les conditions horribles dans lesquelles les enfants et les adultes en esclavage sont forcés de creuser pour trouver du cobalt en RDC. Vraiment horrible, dégoûtant et devrait être arrêté aujourd’hui. Mais il y a une autre histoire, qui est gardée très silencieuse. Et de quelle entreprise s’agit-il?

                Translation –
                Remember all the tears about the Democratic Republic of Congo, and the horrific conditions in which children and adults in slavery are still forced to dig for Cobalt in the DRC. Truly criminal, horrific, and disgusting and should be stopped today. But there is another story, one that is kept very quiet about in that very same Democratic Republic of Congo. And guess which company does it involve?
                No? Then look at this –
                ‘Toxic fumes and leaks – Perenco’s polluting oil business in Democratic Republic of Congo’ – *’ – https://www.investigate-europe.eu/en/2022/perenco-democratic-republic-congo-pollution/ – ‘*
                ‘By Investigate Europe
                Investigation: Perenco Files
                Perenco Files
                9 November 2022
                By Leïla Miñano, Maxence Peigné, Mathias Destal, Geoffrey Livolsi, Dorian Cabrol, Alexandre Brutelle, Baron Nkoy, Lea Szulewicz and Alexandra Lucas Coelho’

                ‘Energy giant Perenco is allegedly responsible for 167 pollution incidents and huge methane emissions, new analysis by Investigate Europe, EIF and Disclose can reveal. The Franco-British group is the country’s only oil producer, operating right next to a protected mangrove area. In 2021, Perenco’s flaring had an estimated carbon footprint equivalent to 21 million Congolese.’
                ‘The usually secretive oil giant Perenco decided to give the press a tour of its Congolese operations in the coastal town of Moanda last October. In his worker’s helmet and blue uniform, country director Arthur Gueriot had prepared his lines. “This is a sustainable operation,” he said.’
                That isn’t the only one, either –
                ‘Perenco’s environmental consultancy buried evidence of Amazon tribe’ – *’ – https://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/may/16/perenco-consultancy-amazon-tribe – ‘*
                ‘Accused of pollution and shrouded in secrecy – why oil company Perenco is worth investigating’ – *’ – https://www.investigate-europe.eu/en/2022/why-oil-company-perenco-is-worth-investigating/ – ‘*
                8 November 2022
                By Leïla Miñano, Maxence Peigné, Manuel Rico, Geoffrey Livolsi and Mathias Destal
                ‘Oil spill at largest onshore oilfield in Western Europe was a disaster waiting to happen’ – *’ – https://www.thecanary.co/uk/2023/03/28/perenco-oil-spill-at-largest-onshore-oilfield-in-western-europe-was-a-disaster-waiting-to-happen/ – ‘*

                Was any of that reported by the fellow speculators? No? Not so speculative, perhaps, after all.

                • Hmm, there’s a problem in the DRC-for the EVs!

                  Sustainable energy? “Renewable” children?

                  Much of the rest is “allegedly”-which actually is speculation. (The act of declaring something to be the case, without proof. Lot of it about but little proof.) So, very speculative actually, no perhaps about it. [Edited by moderator] Pretty poor level of reporting if the allegations could not be verified.

                  Those interested in what the English language provides, then look at the words.

                  This fellow poster is not so interested in speculation, especially when it is clearly defined as speculation.

                  My local hospitals are all pretty sturdy, still, even though there is need for some more expansion. Two new ones to be built. Probably be less sturdy than one Victorian one to be replaced, but a lot easier to keep clean and heated. All currently being argued about by vested interests, but is planned and will happen-at some time. Probably not so quickly as it might, as loads of money has been spent on energy support payments. Mind you, just had the pleasure of a Green candidate for the local elections on my doorstep. Wanted to point out that he was divorced from the Party’s politics/policies and was only interested in local issues-except he had obviously decided not to go forward as an Independent and was reported in local press addressing an XR rally! So, more words that don’t actually hold much value when considered.

                • Good to see someone has researched Perenco at last. Perhaps we should be questioning the government process whereby companies are granted operating licences?

                  Since the big North Sea fields have depleted the majors have sold up and left because they can no longer make money and they have assessed the risks of continuing as being outwith their risk and commercial criteria. This can be seen throughout the north sea. Companies we have never heard of are suddenly acquiring fields at the latter stages of their life and extending their commercial life because their OPEX is much lower. The government likes this because the tax take continues longer. However the risk of an incident is increased and the ability of smaller companies to deal with these issues is significantly reduced vs the majors. Wytch Farm is probably the only onshore UK example ; BP sold out for good reasons.


                • Oh, mon cher Dieu! Quant au spéculateur xénophobe de Wytch. [Encore un autre déclencheur diacritique?] N’est-il pas vrai que l’industrie des combustibles fossiles doit spéculer pour s’accumuler? Ce qui est en fait ce sur quoi repose toute l’activité d’exploration de combustibles fossiles! C’est embarrassant, n’est-ce pas?

                  En anglais –

                  Oh, My Dear God! As to the xenophobic Wytch finder speculator. [yet another diacritic trigger?]
                  Isn’t it the case that the fossil fuel industry has to speculate in order to accumulate? Which in fact is what the entire fossil fuel exploration business is based upon! That’s embarrassing, isn’t it?

                • What emerges from the investigation into the worldwide activities of ‘Perenco’, particularly at Wytch Farm in Poole Harbour, and as demonstrated also in the Democratic Republic of Congo.

                  It’s that ‘Perenco’s business is based upon buying out old deteriorating fossil fuel operations that are no longer extracting enough profitable oil and gas, without spending a fortune on renewing the infrastructure. And then far from improving the deteriorating infrastructure, to continue to extract whatever is possible, by simply patching up some of the worst infrastructure, and running the rest until it predictably catastrophically fails, and keeping quiet about it.

                  With the resulting ‘patch and go’ of the outdated, deteriorating infrastructure, ‘Wytch’ was already doomed to catastrophically fail and inevitably pollute Poole Harbour, as was ‘speculated’ in the links above. [there is that ‘diacritic trigger’ word again]. The irony of that, is that it occurred at the absolutely worst time in the early spring for the migrating wildlife, the tourist industry, and the livelihood, the health and the fertility of the residents, who’s lives, health and futures depend upon Poole Harbour not being forbidden for food, recreation, the natural migrating wildlife, and Poole Harbour’s reputation at such a sensitive time of the year.

                  As is clearly demonstrated in Poole Harbour, whereas you mention, the BP owned Wytch Farm operation was already failing and expensive to repair following the expensive operation due to numerous leaks, accidents and incompetence under BP following their own failure of the ‘Deep Water Horizon’ catastrophic disaster and environmental disaster, including wildlife and the human fatalities in the Gulf of Mexico.

                  So, ‘Perenco’ then arrived to buy out the elderly leaky operation from ‘BP’ at Wytch Farm in Poole Harbour, and run it further into the ground until it fails, so miserably as has been proven by this latest event. How many more leaks and failures will follow from the provably deteriorating infrastructure?

                  As the links above indicate, that has been ‘Perenco’s operating modality from the start, and as was also mentioned in the links, the ‘Oil spill at the largest onshore oilfield in Western Europe was an ‘[environmental] disaster waiting to happen’ – *’ – https://www.thecanary.co/uk/2023/03/28/perenco-oil-spill-at-largest-onshore-oilfield-in-western-europe-was-a-disaster-waiting-to-happen/ – ‘*

                  In the last few days, it has been shown that the floating barriers were totally inadequate for the purpose, and unable to withstand the recent rough weather. [looking at the photos reported earlier, that was already obvious]. Now the oil slick has reached ‘Brownsea Island’ [an unfortunately prescient name] and further into the bay and into the strong tidal race channel.

                  Qui aurait « spéculé » sur ce qui allait se produire? Oh oui, beaucoup l’ont fait.

                  Who would have ‘speculated’ that was going to happen? Oh yes, many did.

                  [Word removed at poster’s request]

                • [Text removed as dealt with}

                  … for Paul Seaman, the moderator of DrillorDrop. Which is something I’ve noticed previously. Its that some writers somehow force a text to follow one single path Which doesnt allow single replies to individual comments, but everythng has to follow what is already above it, no matter what you do? The only way to comment then has to follow how many other comments have come between. Which prevents a direct reply.
                  What method of writing enables that to operate? And how can it be overcome, or dismissed as being prohibitive to a healthy series of specific comments? What is your advice Paul Seaman as moderator when that occurs, and why is it allowed and for what purpose, other than obfuscation and interference with the correct placing of comments? That has already been noticed by one person and caused an unneccesary confusion.

                • Replying to: YYLee at 15:11 3/4/23

                  Hi YYLee

                  Thanks for your post.

                  Unfortunately, the layout of comments is one of the weak spots in WordPress.org. Clicking the Reply button next to a comment may, as you point out, lead to your comment appearing way down the discussion and far away from the comment you were aiming to reply to.

                  The only suggestion I have when posting in a busy comment queue is to put at the top: “Replying to” followed by the name of the poster and the time of posting for the comment you are replying to.

                  We’re unable to change the comments system on this site, but do grumble about it on user surveys.

  5. Thank you, Ruth – It was as if the TV News this evening (30th March) were reading from your report. xx

  6. The only “obscure remarks” from this quarter, Martin, lament once again your inability to follow a coherent comment with a coherent comment of your own.
    Are we happy to press on with FF exploitation regardless of the inevitable consequences, placing all our bets on the deus ex machina – CCS?

    [Text amended at poster’s request]

    • [Edited by moderator]

      The consequences of FF exploitation are not inevitable. That is an incoherent statement not supported by science. CCS is just one avenue. The consequences of not exploiting are inevitable for many markets. Current food prices offer a glimpse into that window.
      All “our” bets are not being placed in that area. That is an incoherent statement also, when USA has recently announced $369B and the EU then trying to outbid, and UK about to follow piecemeal to keep jobs in the UK, probably with the car industry towards the top, after the £6B subsidy to Drax Biomass. £200B on new nuclear is a pretty large bet also.

      I am afraid your “clarity”, when read, are still pretty obscure remarks.

  7. Interesting that you are acquiring an interest in language, Martin, (March 31. 4.03)
    (“ Much of the rest is “allegedly”-which actually is speculation.” – followed by Martin’s dictionary study.)
    Keep working on it.
    Trump alleged that the election had been stolen from him. Was he speculating? Or was he trying to deceive?

    • Don’t know about Trump 1720, but I suspect his understanding of FACT was equally limited as some observed on this site!

      Speculating or trying to deceive? Well, there are sources, such as Reset, that would suggest the latter in some cases.

      In Trump’s case, perhaps he was just copying Mrs. Clinton? But that is me speculating.

      The tangled web they weave in order to deceive is the usual modus operandi, isn’t it, 1720?

      I have always had an interest in language, 1720, so your assumption is incorrect. Not to be pretentious but to be effective. I would have been pretty awful at negotiation if I had not. People have always tried it on with language, and I have even observed a recent similar trend with body language. Some even try it on with arithmetic. Customers had a tendency to speculate/fabricate I offered a deal that was great for them and rubbish for me if I was not aware of language, and arithmetic. It is now one of those imprinted mechanisms my little grey cells have retained, like speed reading and immediately spotting a problem-(from a lot of proof reading). I also used to be able to mentally accurately calculate the time it would take me to drive long distances, but I do notice that one seems to have become eroded and would need a sat. nav. to do it for me now. The other two seem to be sticking. Sorry.

  8. Well, after all the speculation, and some attempts at deception, the survey has completed over the weekend, at Poole Harbour.

    The outcome?

    No reports of significant harm to wildlife.

    Obviously more monitoring required over time but it would appear that what was being hoped for in certain quarters has not been noted on the ground. Good for the wildlife and maybe confirms that UK standards and preparation are not as bad as some would suggest.

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 )

Facebook photo

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

Connecting to %s