ABSTRACT
Greenpeace was able to point to a number of questionable statements, including assumptions about the contents and their possible toxicological effects referring back to the first two objections. But Shell also included assumptions about the fate of the Spar as it sank, concluding that it would not break up in the water column, nor disintegrate catastrophically when it reached the bottom. Instead, it was suggested, it would broadly retain its integrity on the seabed so that the contaminants would be released slowly over about one thousand years and the resulting particulates would settle evenly within a very short distance. Greenpeace questioned these assumptions, as did the engineers on the Shepherd Group, who concluded that the Spar might well break up in mid-water and almost certainly on impact with the bottom. But despite the resulting rapid
release of the contaminants, the group concluded that their serious effects would be extremely local.
