{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.027362276541408246, 'fraction_numerical': 0.010580080262677856, 'mean_word_length': 5.0131578947368425, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
The Brent Spar saga.

The Brent Spar Saga What do you do with a floating piece of garbage that is 150 meters tall and 30 meters wide? That's the question which became the subject of a dramatic debate between the owners of the Brent Spar, a 65,000-ton decommissioned oil platform and the environmental activist group, Greenpeace. After three years of studies, British permit procedures, and meetings with Scottish fishermen and environmental groups, Royal Dutch Shell, owner of the Brent Spar, came up with its two most feasible plans: horizontal dismantling, an on-shore disposal technique that would require the buoy to be turned onto its side, loaded onto a ship, and taken to a coastal area for decontamination and disassembly; and deep-sea disposal, a cheaper and technically simpler option of towing the buoy to a site in the North Atlantic and sinking it. Citing the expense, occupational health risks, technical difficulty, and possibility of accidental contamination of shallow estuarine waters during horizontal dismantling, Shell U opted for deep-sea disposal. The chosen location was a mile-and-ahalf-deep ocean trench, 150 miles northwest of the Outer Hebrides, an island group off the northwest coast of Scotland. After more than a year of study, Greenpeace raised objections to Shell's plan, pointing out that, based on Shell's own reports, the Brent Spar still held 100 tons of sludge, possibly containing cadmium, lead, arsenic, oil, and PCBs; 30 tons of radioactive waste in the form of scaly deposits within the pumping system; and corrosionreducing anodes made of zinc. Shell insisted that all the oil was drained in 1991, and that it had removed 100 tons of waste from the oil rig, including lubricating oil, batteries containing cadmium and lead, and light bulbs containing mercury, and made plans to go ahead with the sinking. After a several-week occupation of the rig platform in April, Battle on Greenpeace claimed to have video Spar, an ( footage and laboratory tests documenting the presence of oil and hydrocarbon-containing water in three of the six storage tanks, and oil in another, evidence that there might be as much as 5,000 tons of oil still aboard. Additional waste, including radioactive deposits, was not accessible for sampling. Greenpeace also criticized Shell's chemical manifest, which was based solely on estimates of quantities without recent empirical evidence. According to Shell's reports, the sinking of the buoy would cause no significant effects on animal life in the area, and wastes would be contained in the immediate area. Greenpeace asserted that it would be difficult to estimate the environmental impact because toxicological data about the response of deep-sea organisms to environ-