FluidFlow wrote:-
IMO they assumed a sudden release of fuel which gave a different expectation so rejected this on an (incorrect?) assumption then also because it didn't fit in with their (inconsistent) modelling.
That seems to be the reason for rejecting the Pollution Spot, though they have offered that it may be as a result of a fuel dump (or implied that). My reaction is that any fuel dump wouldn't have left the evidence the radar produced, and would probably have not been detected. For kerosene to have accumulated on the surface in a similar fashion to that in the radar image, it would be as a result of a sustained leakage on the surface or subsurface.
mm43