» Monday, December 12, 2005

Fuel Depot Fire

Asked if there would be a statement in the House about the fuel depot explosion, the PMOS said it was possible, but it was still being considered.

Asked if an emergency committee had been set up, the PMOS replied that the Deputy Prime Minister had visited the emergency services co-ordination centre in the area yesterday, Mr. Prescott was satisfied that everything that needed to be done was being carried out. The important message this morning was that the oil industry and the DTI would continue to work together to overcome any distribution issues, and there would be no long-term shortage of fuel as a result of the fire. It was important to recognise that Brunstfield was a distribution terminal, and not a refinery, so there was not change in the UK’s output as a result of the fire.

Asked to clarify "long-term", the PMOS replied in this instance, it meant no more than a matter of days. There might be short-term local problems, but nothing that people should panic about in any way.

Briefing took place at 11:00 | Search for related news


  1. Bruntsfield! halfwit,I thought it impossible to put this fire out, the Brigades have done very, very well.

    Comment by Colonel Mad — 13 Dec 2005 on 7:40 pm | Link
  2. I vaguely recall reading that the local fire authority did not have enough foam held locally to fight more than one or two tanks and that they did not have a fully qualified foam fire fighter on the staff.

    If so, no wonder it took so long to put it out.

    Came as a surprise, I suppose, the need for foam in an area where 5% of the nation’s fuel is stored. Clever, also, the building of such a place over a water source. Neat too, the way the tanks are so close together, saves on the cost of land. Even brighter that they allowed those houses and businesses to be built so close – saves commuting time, I suppose. Convenient also, the closeness of one of the nation’s major arteries, pity that fire creates heat and smoke and it forced its totally unforseable closure.

    But the brave firemen risked their lives putting it out. Nothing British about creating heroes to conceal disasters, oh no. But heroes they were, so let’s forget the incompetence of the emergency planners, the local planners, the house builders and the budget trimming politicians and businessmen who allowed this disaster to occur and focus on the heroes.

    Lucky it didn’t blow during the working day and that no fire fighter lost his life as a result of this huge multi-faceted cock-up.

    Comment by Mr Pooter — 15 Dec 2005 on 12:17 pm | Link
  3. Lol! Not much faith in yer fellow man there, Charles?! Absolutely right though; and of course only this government could be quite so complimentary of men who have not yet done their job.

    Personally I like the way the insurance company(s) involved came out even before the blaze was out and said they had it covered, no prob. I wonder if the same goes for local homeowners? I also wonder WHY they were so quick off the mark; usually you’d have to wait for the results of an inquiry.

    One thing I really don’t like about this whole thing is the fact that, if what the insurance companies say is true, the oil companies involved stand to make their money twice. At least. Once from the insurance payout, and again from the knock-on effect of raised prices. Even if this accident only causes the price of gas to rise by 1 penny, how many millions does that translate to for the oil companies themselves?

    And notice how, even before they’d put the blaze out, we were also being told there’d be no clues. How convenient. I wonder if the heat at the heart of this inferno approached the supposed 1100 degrees C which was (according to the 9/11 commission) sufficient to bring down the twin towers. Because there were plenty clues left over from that "fire"; even a passport! Same with the 7/7 false-flag attacks; once again there was evidence aplenty at the scene (ok; they’d found that even before they’d found the site of the explosions, but let’s not quibble!)

    As an side; notice how, after the first "suicide bombings" in the history of Europe, this government refuses a public enquiry. Why. Because it’ll be a distraction! From what? Well, it’ll distract the police and emergency services from doing whatever it is they do. Like chasing Brazilians around London and shooting them, presumably.

    If anyone ever needed evidence of a government complicit in attacking it’s own people, it’s the sight of that government refusing to publicly investigate events which had such a profound effect on the public itself. The criminality is staggering.

    Incidentally and apropos of nothing; there are apparently now only 5 countries left in the world that do not have a Rothschild controlled central bank. Those are Iran, North Korea, Sudan, Cuba, and Libya. The 6th and 7th were Iraq and Afghanistan.

    Comment by PapaLazzzaru — 15 Dec 2005 on 1:39 pm | Link
  4. You’ve lost me there, PapaL.

    Do you think the Rothschilds had a hand in it? Seems unlikely that people sensible enough not to have anything to do with the countries you mention would have even heard of Himel Hampstead.

    More likely some pillock put off changing a washer on an oil valve widget so he could nip home early. Perhaps we should spend six years and \xA310m on a public enquiry headed up by Lord Birt to discover this and then we could all disbelieve it? But the dissolving, false flag, plane (CIA?) piloted by a woman with a Brazilian sounds oddly plausible.

    Comment by Mr Pooter — 15 Dec 2005 on 4:05 pm | Link
  5. Nah; at least not directly! I did say "apropos of nothing"; just a little factoid someone unearthed recently. An interesting factoid, nonetheless; it gives credence to claims that world events are (and have long been) orchestrated by a small cabal of wealthy people. Believe it or not as you wish; there’s evidence for, and even more against (as you’d expect).

    And I’m not suggesting that the Buncefield fire was anything other than an accident; what I am saying is that unusually the insurance companies came out and said they’d cover the damage even before we knew any details. And IF it ever turned out to be anything other than an accident I’d be less than totally surprised; after all, the oil companies can only win out of incidents like these. Don’t believe me? Look at prices over the past 5 years.

    Equally, I wasn’t suggesting that there should be an inquiry about the Buncefield fire; I was talking about the lack of enquiry into the 7/7 bombings. I thought that was apparent by the reference to "Suicide bombers". I’d have posted the majority of these comments on the thread about the government refusing a public enquiry – except all our gutless, sacless journalists failed to ask about it and so there isn’t one.

    Comment by PapaLazzzaru — 15 Dec 2005 on 6:40 pm | Link

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Post a public comment

(You must give an email address, but it will not be displayed to the public.)
(You may give your website, and it will be displayed to the public.)


This is not a way of contacting the Prime Minister. If you would like to contact the Prime Minister, go to the 10 Downing Street official site.

Privacy note: Shortly after posting, your name and comment will be displayed on the site. This means that people searching for your name on the Internet will be able to find and read your comment.

Downing Street Says...

The unofficial site which lets you comment on the UK Prime Minister's official briefings. About us...


December 2005
Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun
« Nov   Jan »

Supported by


Disruptive Proactivity

Recent Briefings



Syndicate (RSS/XML)



Contact Sam Smith.

This site is powered by WordPress. Theme by Jag Singh