This article is within the scope of WikiProject Energy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Energy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EnergyWikipedia:WikiProject EnergyTemplate:WikiProject Energyenergy articles
Hello, In the last paragraph of Future Plans for Beatrice Oil Field there are some issues. Aside from no source the last "very long run-on sentence" creates concerns. The addition of the (take a deep breath) "Special Area of Conservation" does not seem relevant with the added "...the proposed wind farm is outside this area the companies involved are working to ensure that the wildlife will not be impact in any way not just in the operating of the wind farm but also in the building phase."
The Inner Moray Firth is introduced as a designated "Special Protection Area" also containing a "Special Area of Conservation".
wind farm is outside this area
the companies involved are working to ensure that the wildlife will not be impact(ed) in any way not just in the operating of the wind farm but also in the building phase.
The last being unsourced is too vague and even off topic. "The companies", possibly meaning Talisman Energy and Scottish and Southern Energy by name, also includes "(and others)" that could include all subcontractors, boats including tugs, barges hired by the contractors, and subcontractors, as well as all personnel. Any over site of the SPA or SAC would be non-existent or minimal being "outside the area". This plugs that "everyone involved" has "all things concerning wildlife" at heart. That would almost never be the case because companies usually build things to make money and staying inside the lines of safety and conservation is why oversight is needed. Unless the contractors hired some conservation entity to oversee the project (would need sourcing) then the entire paragraph becomes propaganda. If that were so (specialists hired) and sourced it would become more important than the tossing in of the "conservation areas" that are "outside" the construction zone. An exception possibly being any protected areas ships and boats might have to traverse. Making assertions that "everybody" involved has area wildlife or the area ecology at heart is misleading. It becomes a conservation plug to the contractors.
"IF" a tug pushing a barge strikes a whale, and it was not noticed by anyone other than the crew, would they report it? Wow! Unless the captain or crew were whale lovers likely not because reporting is encouraged but not required. A whale (porpoises, Leatherback turtles seen in the area, etc...) could be killed or injured (maybe beached) and this would impact wildlife. There have been sightings of Minke, Bottlenose, Pilot and Killer whales in the area.
My point is that a statement, that appears as to benefit the companies involved so includes the whole paragraph, goes off-course without some actual tie-in, becoming company propaganda. Yes, before someone possibly interjects (just fix it), I could correct it but that would minimize that adding such content here and elsewhere should be watched. If I was more incline to just article edit counts I would have been running a couple of bots by now and showing a hundred thousand edits. The local involved editors probably know more about the "subject" so they can likely deal with it better and my inclination to remove the paragraph might not be best. Hopefully article improvement will result. Otr500 (talk) 13:11, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
