Talk:Buncefield fire

message: Whatever it was, it was blinking big! The pressure wave shook my house forty/fifty miles away. I was convinced it was something at Heathrow (near where I live) and was shocked when Sky News reported it was Hemel. Pcb21 Pete 07:09, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Nevermind that, the police have denied all such rumors...Thesocialistesq 08:19, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we should stick to reliable sources only, such as the BBC and Sky News. Forbsey 08:26, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Er, no they wouldn't. As soon as the July 7 explosions were known to be bombs, the police said so. Dan100 (Talk) 08:54, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Untrue. The police knew pretty much from the outset with the July 7 explosions that there were bombs in play, and did not say so until some two or three hours after the first explosions. I will dig up the relevant links if necessary. Sjc 10:49, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Further it should be noted that the Chief Constable of Hertfordshire in his press conference indicated that while he considered it to be an accident, the police were keeping an open mind on the cause of the incident.Sjc 11:18, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Agree with you Dan. I turned on the news as soon as I felt the house shake, and the only evidence of anything other accident was some very early uninformed speculation. Not surprised that all the news channels are not pursuing that angle Pcb21 Pete 09:05, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

text: I wouldn't trust that bit on the 20 tanks, BBC's not carrying it at all. And what is all this "inversion layer" business? I haven't heard that from any other source. (ah, sorry) 66.1.90.148 17:52, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: BBC 5 Live interviewed a spokeswoman from Hertfordshire CC who cited 20 tanks being ablaze. Please sig your comments if possible also :) Sjc 08:50, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: BBC News 24 have been discussing the inversion layer stuff at some length. Vashti 09:22, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Do we have an article on the explosion at the BP plant in Houston, Texas earlier this year? Pcb21 Pete 09:06, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Not AFAIK; but here is a link to BP's commenst on it Sjc 09:10, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

text: It's rather too late, sadly. Wikipedia is well-known for being a rumour mill at times like these. People love their conspiracy theories and are loathe to get rid of them - never let the facts get in the way of a good story! Thank goodness the aircrash rubbish has been excised now. Dan100 (Talk) 10:55, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Good thinking. To read some of the language that has been used on this page, there is almost a sense that people want to report the most sensationalist angles and rumours. Clearly not enough death here to fulfil most people's voyeurism ;). Pcb21 Pete 10:29, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Early comments

message: Should the title really be 2005 Hemel Hempstead fuel depot explosions?  Has there been a previous explosion in Hemel Hempstead?  I would think that a more appropriate title would be Hemel Hempstead fuel depot explosions, unless there is some policy I'm not aware of which calls for the year to be included in the title. 134.173.94.191 11:02, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think there is any explicit policy to that effect. However a comprehensive nomenclature such as this would cover the bases and disambiguate in the event of any future occurrences. Sjc 11:15, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Title 

message: The current UK met office Visible spectrum satellite image (11 Dec 2005 - 11:00 UTC) shows a huge black cloud in that area - looks like a smoke plume to me.
Obviously this will age out pretty quickly - but thought it might be of interest for now (Can't copy the image as it is Crown Copyright). Dugo 12:14, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Smoke visible on Satellite Image? 

message: In the article it claims "all 20 of the site's three million gallon capacity tanks are on fire."
This is not correct. Both the MP for Hemel Hampstead and the poilce sercvices have said that there are more exploisions expected from so far un-affected tanks and the BBC coverage has even shown the unexploded tanks.
See this arcicle where is also mention the unexploded tanks: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4517962.stm
:Check the page history; that chunk of information started out as something like "people believed all 20 three million gallon tanks are aflame", then a few word changes brought it to "...all 20 of the site's three million gallon tanks are believed to be afire". I shortened "believed to be" to "allegedly" - all the better to condense the sentence. Someone then took out "allegedly", and I (an American who happened to be up in the middle of the night near New York), among others, believed him or her. So, naturally, we let it be. I stand corrected.  —  Rickyrab | Talk 23:15, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wrong information 

message: Take care with your edits please, people. Duplication of pages is a known problem with the MediaWiki software when there is a high rate of edits on a page, as is happening here today. -- Arwel (talk) 12:42, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page duplication 

message: I can see a huge amount of smoke outside...:eek: XYaAsehShalomX 12:57, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Good thing I'm on the western side of the Atlantic.  —  Rickyrab | Talk 23:16, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bloody hell 

message: Isn't that map from the BBC website? Is it copyright? Average Earthman 14:07, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a nice map, but I'm fairly sure it's copyright too. -- Mithent 14:21, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image Sources 

message: Listening to a press conference, there's a pertinent quote from the Chief Fire Officer of the fire service in the region, who's saying that he's been informed that "[the incident] is the largest of its type in peacetime Europe." I can't find a suitable place to put it in myself, but I'm putting it on the talk page in case somebody else can see where it might go. --Sanguinus 15:23, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Fire officer also says tackling the fire will require "millions of litres of foam", and that extra foam concentrate was being brought in from elsewhere.--Sanguinus 15:29, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quote to add somewhere 

message: Should some mention be made of the Piper Alpha accident? 216.164.138.57 15:50, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: In the see also section a list of large explosions is linked to.  I don't think comparisons can be drawn at this time. -- Francs2000  17:20, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Piper Alpha]] 

message: I'm weaveing this into the article.  While Wikipedia is wonndeful, it is an encyclopedia, and people are not going to turn to it for local instructions, when they have the phone, local radio, press, TV and news web sites.  Rich   Farmbrough 22:01, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, I have removed the alert. -- Francs2000  22:09, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: All the same, it should be prudent for Wikipedia to do some impromptu market surveying and marketing every now and then, so we know what the people expect of us.  —  Rickyrab | Talk 23:19, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Alert

message: It would be good if instead of "the police said" we can say "XX Police force" of better still, "Superintendant X of Y said" Rich   Farmbrough 22:56, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You're after Hertfordshire Constabulary, which is a regrettable redlink. -Splashtalk 22:57, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: But their website is here  -- Francs2000  22:59, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

text: It's not a redlink anymore, stubs are easy to create... -- Francs2000  23:05, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. I'm not feeling stubby this evening... -Splashtalk 23:07, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Attribution 

message: This section doesn't actually provide comparable examples - the first line states "catastrophic explosion in the UK in terms of loss of life", but this explosion has 0 confirmed casualties[edit: fatalities] so far...
If there is going to be a section on comparisons surely it should be comparing something which might actually be relavent to this event? QmunkE 22:59, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not comparable in size, but it might be worth mentioning the Flixborough disaster of 1974, a fuel-air explosion at a chemical plant; smaller explosion, similar mechanism, higher deathtoll. Shimgray | talk | 17:56, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comparable explosions? 

message: Is it worth putting in the map that sits alongside this news item on the main page?  It's this one. -- Francs2000  23:33, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Huh, I added it before I saw this post. Yes, I think it probably is. Beforehand, we had a map taken from the BBC website that was very unlikely to be fair-usable. On the other hand, the pic of the black smoke cloud does pretty much do the job of locating HH and Buncefield, but only if you know the shape of the UK as a whole -Splashtalk 23:51, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: If you showed ME that map of the UK with the cloud on it and said "point to where you live" I'd probably get it wrong... Anyway it's been a pleasure editing this article today but I have a bed to get to and I'll try not to wonder if the fog outside really *is* fog... -- Francs2000  23:58, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Map 

message: Is there a commons page for photos? Have uploaded one at  but couldnt find category/page. Justinc 01:27, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Commons 

message: How can you have minor and serious casualties? Third paragraph: "the police indicated that there were in the region of 36 casualties, most of which appear to be minor, only 4 of which being deemed serious." Or is it supposed to be injuries? That whole section (3rd paragraph) will need to be fixed by someone who knows the real numbers, because at the moment it's a mess.
BBC now reporting all but two of the casualties have been released from hospital, and the two that are in there aren't in a life threatening condition. --Tphi 13:59, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Minor/Serious Casualties 

message: This line makes little sense. "There were forty three reported casualties; two were deemed serious enough to be kept in hospital, one in Watford General Hospital, with breathing difficulties, and another in Hemel Hempstead Hospital; they were not in a life-threatening condition." Casualties are dead. The only "breathing difficulty" they can have is not being able to breathe at all. --Lunar Jesters (talk) 01:32, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: No they're not. "Casualties" are people who are injured, only two of whom needed to be kept in hospital. -- Arwel (talk) 01:36, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: In the true definition, casualties are those injured or dead. However, most people like me (probably a U.S. thing) assume casualties means how many are dead. Fableheroesguild 14:26, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, it's a British article. 198.161.230.10 03:49, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Casualties" admitted to hospital? 

message: Can anyone shed some light on how this meteorological phenomenon, the inversion layer, permitted sound to travel so far? I have read the Wikipedia article on the subject, but I derived nothing more from this than the air was particularly still this December morning.
:The inversion layer forms because the low-level air temperature is colder than at altitude. As the sound wave travels out from the explosion, when it hits the warmer air at altitude it refracts and from a certain angle (like 45 degrees or such like) it undergoes total internal reflection. It can then continue bouncing between the ground and the inversion layer for quite a distance.WolfKeeper 03:58, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I've not read any mention of this fact elsewhere, and it doesn't appear to have a reference in this article. Did this really happen, or is this just speculation/first hand reporting? -Splashtalk 02:22, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

text: The weather guy on BBC News 24 said that an inversion layer was present that morning, citing the existence of low-level fog and various other features (the ground cools more quickly than high level air overnight apparently). Whilst I wouldn't trust weather persons on other channels (i.e. who are often their to look pretty or whatever :-) ), IRC BBC weather people actually have to be qualified in meteorology.WolfKeeper 03:53, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

text: AIUI "BBC weather people" aren't "BBC weather people", they're real proper meteorologists, employed by the Met Office, not the BBC.Tonywalton  | Talk 17:31, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inversion Layer? 

message: "Reports also indicated that cars in nearby streets caught fire"  I've seen some footage of blast damaged cars. Rich   Farmbrough 09:59, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm pretty sure I saw burnt out cars on the TV rather than just ones with blast damage. Jooler 20:04, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Attribution requested

message: The Herts count council page http://www.hertsdirect.org.uk/ listing the schols closed has been updated as late as 23:00 last night.  If someone counted the number of closed schools then.  I thought an approximate number was better than an out of date 193. Ig 193 was accurate, please feel free to change it back. Rich   Farmbrough 10:58, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Number of schools 

message: I heard on BBC Radio 4 earlier that the fire was burning "avtar" and that there was a strong smell of kerosene. - I think that what they actually meant was Avtur, a type of jet fuel. Ian Dunster 00:48, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Per [Buncefield Terminal Fast Facts] from Total. the storage area that was on fire was primarily used for fuels (such as petrol/gasoline and diesel) other than aviation fuel (which according to that information was stored in HOSL East, which didn't burn). At least one tank was storing aviation fuel though, it seems; the tank that caused the withdrawal of firefighters on the afternoon of Dec 12 turned out to contain this, which is why they went back. Tonywalton  | Talk 23:49, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: BBC News Report on Fuel involved

message: Can that Sky News image actually be said to be being used "for identification and critical commentary on the television ident or programme and its contents"? 198.161.230.10 03:37, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sky News Image 

message: Can someone label the fuel depot on the satellite image of the smoke?  It'd be a lot better than an explanation of how it's north-west of London, but not west, etc...  (no photo editing on my computer...) 198.161.230.10 04:11, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: How's  ] look? I've not replaced it on the page because  the original [[Image:Hemel_Hempstead_fuel_explosion_map.jpg is listed as a  featured picture candidate and I wouldn't want to replace that with my rubbish without asking! Tonywalton  | Talk 01:13, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  NOAA Image 

message: Is now about the right time to start a section on the environmental impact of the fire?  I have heard news reports saying what some of the environmental factors are likely to be but don't know how to start wording it. -- Francs2000  12:45, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I've had a look at the the Environment Agency's website.. it talks briefly.. in fact I'll just paste up the short press release from them -max rspct 13:09, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

text: One irony, of course – all that fuel was destined to be burnt in any case, in vehicle or aircraft engines. It so happens that it went in one go, and burnt inefficiently (so went to visible carbon smog rather than invisible greenouse-promoting CO2), but in a way all this "Toxic Cloud Hits Tonight" stuff (as the London Standard headline had it on 12th Dec) should really have read "Well Well This Time We Can See The Pollution". Perhaps that's why none of the experts they keep wheeling in seem too concerned - basically all that's happened in global terms is that there's been a couple of weeks' worth of pollution released in a couple of days, albeit very spectacularly. Tonywalton  | Talk 00:00, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Environmental Impact 

message: I have erected an event chart for the time that was given for the first blast at Hemel Hempstead.  Although I have not done a complete delineation of the event, it is noteworthy to comment on the fact that at 6:03 am on 11 Dec 05 in Hemel Hempstead, the celestial configuration was that of a grand square in the fixed signs of Aquarius, Taurus, Leo, and Scorpio.  Neptune, which governs gas, opposes Saturn, which governs order.  Jupiter, which rules expansiveness, opposses Mars, which rules aggression.  Both oppositions are perpendicular to each other, ensuring that each angle forms a square across the chart.  I have not put the chart on wikipedia becuase in the past certain individuals have deleted the work that I have contributed, but if you visit the astrology site that I am also a member of, you will be able to look at it.  Regards,--TracyRenee 18:15, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Event Chart 

message: This incident seems to be referred to more as "Buncefield" rather than "Hertfordshire": should the article be renamed? —Ashley Y 20:20, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The official name (and company name) of the storage depot is Hertfordshire Oil Storage Ltd., the terminal is called the Hertfordshire Oil Storage Terminal...  And User:Cyrius has already set up a redirect (remember, "redirects are cheap") from Buncefield]. Tonywalton  | Talk 00:09, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: people would likely know where Hertfordshire is, whereas Buncefield could be anywhere. Sandpiper 15:48, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name 

message: "Other safety experts spoke of a known "Weekend effect" in industry in which weekend maintenance is carried out on plant which is then reinstated in an unsafe condition."
This line is complete gibberish.Bartimaeus 22:20, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Makes sense to me. They do maintenance on a weekend (is that gibberish?) They put plant back into service (which bit of that's gibberish?) and the plant is reinstated in an unsafe condition (where's the gibberish there, please?).  If you feel the article would be better off without it, or it needs editing, do feel free to be bold} and do something about it!. Tonywalton  | Talk 23:30, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Just a major punctuation, style and grammar problem that is all. But if you want this article to look like it is written by a 5yo leave it the way it is.Bartimaeus 06:45, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for your suggestion! When you feel an article needs improvement, please feel free to make whatever changes you feel are needed.  Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the  link at the top. You don't even need to log in! (Although there are some reasons why you might like to…) The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills.  New contributors are always welcome. 86.140.96.8 08:41, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gibberish 

message: Maybe I don't understand the purpose or mission of Wikipedia, but can anyone explain why this article is here on the Wikipedia, as well as on the Wikinews? Would it not be best to leave it on Wikinews *only*? - Agent Alf
: As the articles on here appear to often be updated far quicker than the ones on Wikinews I see why it seems pointless to have both, but it seems to me that Wikinews and Wikipedia should cover the same issues/events, just in a different way.  Wikinews should put up the information, perhaps in semi-summary form, when it comes in while Wikipedia should be building up a general, organised information article about the event that people in the future can look at.  This Wikipedia article could even be created after the event as there is no rush for an encyclopedia. Once the event is over, if it isn't as important as it orginally seemed (which isn't the case here), or is of a different nature, the article in Wikipedia could even be merged or moved into another article.  This shouldn't happen too often in Wikinews as the stories should really run along as much of a chronological order as they can.  At least that's what I think.  To be honest I never really check Wikinews that often as it seems inferior to the current news articles that get created on here at present.  Hopefully that will change in time.  I'm sure someone else can point you towards some long FAQ about the subject. Jellypuzzle 12:04, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  The other key difference is that wikinews often includes eye-witness testimony of wikireporters which would (possibly incorrectly) be frowned on here.  Also, although wikinews articles are  kept, I see them as ephemeral.  Rich   Farmbrough 13:57, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Wikipedia is not paper. violet/riga (t) 14:52, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: famous disasters would certainly be an encyclopedic topic. In fact,  if there isn't such a category, there should be. Is there one on the oil fires in Iraq, Kuwait? Sandpiper 15:38, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikinews 

message: have they found out what sarted it yet???
:They are never likely to find that out - the damage to the terminal is so extensive that parts of it have been completely obliterated. -- Francs2000  22:50, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: according to the article, the fire chief said their best guess presently was a petrol vapour escape, which caught fire. Sandpiper 15:45, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  start 

message: We now have a subsection for transport disruption. The motorway was closed initially, but it reopened at some point because it was closed again the following afternoon when a tank reignited. Then it was reopened, because there was news footage of people driving past the flames. It may have been closed at other points when something particularly dangerous happened. Does anyone have the precise chronology of this? Sandpiper 15:42, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Road closures 

message: Many comments have been from people who heard or felt the blast. Did you have any perception of the direction the blast came from?
Say there was no information forthcoming from authorites or the media (unlikely, I know). Would it be feasible for the wiki community to compare notes and determine the location of the blast source?
What info would be needed? Exact times (what's the best way of establishing that?) Direction of blast source (how to tell?)
jom
The investigation claims that there was a leak from container 912 on the 11th and that both it's gauge and senors were malfunctioning at the time. Could someone please post information about when this container was last serviced, named and when it was created? Somehow I think someone BIG has been starting fires again.
KING ADSUM
:You might want to look at the Buncefield investiagation site and the Buncefield tank 'was overflowing' BBC News. I don't have time add these at present. --NHSavage 23:30, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Locating the blast source 

message: Moved from article, as this obviously needs some cross-checking, a rewrite to remove the 1st person style, and then to be properly integrated... possibly in the article about the site, as opposed to this one, about the disaster.--Myfanwy 03:50, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Personal memoir/memories, but inc. some potentially useful info 

message: Well, all the comments on this talk page seem to be very dated, so it seems now it's not a current event, there are few people interested.  Anyway, having come here via Flixborough, I notice a sentence that I'm struggling to make sense of:
"It was critical of HSE's general safety culture and showed that in the UK the severities and frequencies of explosions like that at Buncefield were unacceptably high." (my emphasis added).
Is there a 'likelihood of' missing somewhere?  As it reads, it looks like we have explosions like that in the UK every other day (the frequencies are unacceptably high?  1 such explosion in donkeys years is hardly frequent)!  I'd change it myself, but I don't know what the editor who added that part actually meant. Carre 21:37, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This article was a bit of an odd mix of opinion, facts and tenses but has been improved considerably.  I've removed the last part of the sentence as I agree it sounds odd and needs verifying - some of the grammar "severities and frequencies..." was also a bit meaningless.  If anyone has a strong objection to the last part of the final sentence being removed, they should go back the report mentioned and re-frame/cite the wording. Regards. Escaper7 08:47, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

text: It doesn't read to me that it has to be every day. If with a good system in place you expected incidents every X years but in the UK because of poor systems in place you get incidents every 1/2 X years (i.e. twice as often) that would imply the frequencies is excessively high to me. It also depends on the number of sites in the UK of course Nil Einne (talk) 20:17, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Odd sentence 

message: I have provided a citation for the statement of this being the biggest explosion in peace time europe. WilliamH 15:44, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citation 

message: : Page Moved per consensus that Buncefield should be part of the title. Suggestions that the year should also be part of the title have been addressed by creating redirects from the alternative proposed titles. Station1 (talk) 04:15, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *Support or *Oppose, then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.
* Support as nominator. MickMacNee (talk) 17:38, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

text: Any additional comments:
*The naming convention says "<year> <place> <event>".  I don't think the proposed name meets that.  In addition, the proposed name is ambiguous since I'm sure that Buncefield has had more then one fire. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:00, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

text: which is nowhere near as absolute as the limited quote would lead you to believe.A quick scan through the cited references show it's almost universally known as Buncefield, and nowhere is the name Hertfordshire Oil Storage Terminal used. Bazj (talk) 14:06, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Requested move

message: :Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *Support or *Oppose, then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.
* Support as nominator. MickMacNee (talk) 17:38, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

message: :Any additional comments:
*The naming convention says "<year> <place> <event>".  I don't think the proposed name meets that.  In addition, the proposed name is ambiguous since I'm sure that Buncefield has had more then one fire. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:00, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: which is nowhere near as absolute as the limited quote would lead you to believe.A quick scan through the cited references show it's almost universally known as Buncefield, and nowhere is the name Hertfordshire Oil Storage Terminal used. Bazj (talk) 14:06, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion

message: All references are to the Investigation Boards final report  (). 
* "On 11 December the site held over 35 million litres of petrol, diesel and aviation fuel." (vol.2 p.16) -> maximum lost
So how much of it was really lost (burned and washed into the environment)? I could not find that number anywhere, so I did a little estimating
* from the site plan (vol.1 p.22) and post-incident aerial photos at (ib., pp.17,34) I estimate that 2/3ds of the tank area were destroyed.
* I assume that the 35 million litres were distributed evenly over all tanks.
* from the photo at (ib., p.5) I assume that all tanks had roughly the same height, so tank area ~ tank volume.
That would amount to 23 million litres lost. It is probably more because the last assumption is too simplified. The largest tank alone, which was destroyed, could store 19 million litres of aviation fuel (ib., p.27). Also I wonder why according to the report the depot was filled only to 1/8th of the capacity that is listed in this this WP article?
-- Theoprakt (talk) 21:27, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Amount of fuels lost 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Buncefield fire. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110126000409/http://www.earthquakes.bgs.ac.uk:80/recent_events/world_special/alert_info.htm to http://www.earthquakes.bgs.ac.uk/recent_events/world_special/alert_info.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100410141909/http://www.hertsdirect.org:80/yrccouncil/hcc/fire/reports/buncereport to http://www.hertsdirect.org/yrccouncil/hcc/fire/reports/buncereport
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 00:22, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Buncefield fire. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090228232747/http://www.total.com:80/en/corporate-social-responsibility/Safety-1/Buncefield_9238.htm to http://www.total.com/en/corporate-social-responsibility/Safety-1/Buncefield_9238.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091130231700/http://www.fireworld.com:80/ifw_articles/hardingham.php to http://www.fireworld.com/ifw_articles/hardingham.php
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091211230551/http://www.hpa.org.uk/webw/HPAweb&HPAwebStandard/HPAweb_C/1195733722107?p=1158945066097 to http://www.hpa.org.uk/webw/HPAweb&HPAwebStandard/HPAweb_C/1195733722107?p=1158945066097
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090718211345/http://www.buncefieldinvestigation.gov.uk:80/press/b07001.htm to http://www.buncefieldinvestigation.gov.uk/press/b07001.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100304194154/http://news.sky.com:80/skynews/Home/Sky-News-Archive/Article/20080641205711 to http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/Sky-News-Archive/Article/20080641205711
*Added  tag to http://www.todayszaman.com/tz-web/?hn=27449
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090709022058/http://www.nerc.ac.uk/press/releases/2005/explosion.asp to http://www.nerc.ac.uk/press/releases/2005/explosion.asp
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110607064734/http://www.stalbans.anglican.org/The-Diocese-and-You/Bishops/Archive/Sermons-and-speeches/Buncefield-Anniversary-Service,-Sunday-10-December-2006 to http://www.stalbans.anglican.org/The-Diocese-and-You/Bishops/Archive/Sermons-and-speeches/Buncefield-Anniversary-Service,-Sunday-10-December-2006
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061002180325/http://www.buncefieldinvestigation.gov.uk/reports/initialreport.pdf to http://www.buncefieldinvestigation.gov.uk/reports/initialreport.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:37, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 10 external links on Buncefield fire. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.total.com/en/corporate-social-responsibility/Safety-1/Buncefield_9238.htm
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.fireworld.com/ifw_articles/hardingham.php
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.hpa.org.uk/webw/HPAweb%26HPAwebStandard/HPAweb_C/1195733722107?p=1158945066097
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.buncefieldinvestigation.gov.uk/press/b07001.htm
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/Sky-News-Archive/Article/20080641205711
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.stalbans.anglican.org/The-Diocese-and-You/Bishops/Archive/Sermons-and-speeches/Buncefield-Anniversary-Service%2C-Sunday-10-December-2006
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070903184905/http://www.buncefieldinvestigation.gov.uk/index.htm to http://www.buncefieldinvestigation.gov.uk/index.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060929101954/http://www.herts.police.uk/about/buncefield_incident.htm to http://www.herts.police.uk/about/buncefield_incident.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071009120606/http://www.hosl.co.uk/mediatool.cfm?page=1 to http://www.hosl.co.uk/mediatool.cfm?page=1
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081218035950/http://www.hemeltoday.co.uk/buncefieldtrial to http://www.hemeltoday.co.uk/buncefieldtrial
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:37, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Buncefield fire. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added  tag to http://www.hertsdirect.org.uk/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110609121902/http://www.hertsdirect.org/infobase/docs/pdfstore/bunmulti.pdf to http://www.hertsdirect.org/infobase/docs/pdfstore/bunmulti.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:50, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified