Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement


Forth ship-to-ship oil transfer firm admits 35,000-gallon spill

Premium Article !

Your account has been frozen. For your available options click the below button.

Options

Premium Article !

To read this article in full you must have registered and have a Premium Content Subscription with the The Scotsman site.

Subscribe

Registered Article !

To read this article in full you must be registered with the site.

Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image

Published Date: 22 February 2007
THE company wanting to carry out controversial ship-to-ship oil transfers in the Firth of Forth yesterday admitted one of its ships was involved in an accident in which 35,000 gallons of fuel were spilled into the Gulf of Mexico.
After being challenged by the Scottish Green Party, SPT Marine Services said there had been a "navigational incident" between two vessels manoeuvring into position for a transfer in 1995, and 850 barrels of oil were spilled into the sea. Beaches on t
he southern coast of the United States were polluted as a result.

The Green Party, which fears a spill in the Forth could harm sealife such as killer whales and dolphins, accused Sunderland-based SPT of misleading the Scottish Parliament by saying it had an "excellent" safety record and had spilled only four barrels of oil in ten years carrying out the procedure.

A spokesman for SPT said: "Ship-to-ship (STS) transfer has an excellent safety record.

"There was an incident in 1995 which we sincerely regret resulted in a spill of 850 barrels in the US Gulf. The spill was not directly attributable to STS, but was a navigational incident between two vessels under way and preparing for an STS operation.

"For the proposals on the Forth, all vessels will be double hull vessels and the operations will be conducted at anchor and not under way."

It added that a review after the accident had resulted in new procedures and "further stringent safety precautions".

Mark Ruskell, the Green Party's environment spokesman, said: "I'm shocked and disappointed that this company appears to have tried to hoodwink parliament. It was misleading.

"It's effectively withholding information."



The full article contains 290 words and appears in The Scotsman newspaper.
Page 1 of 1

 
1

Peter Cherbi,

Edinburgh 22/02/2007 02:43:27

Lets see some admissions on which members of the House of Lords are secretly lobbying for this to go ahead ... *hint* those with interests in the oil sector ?

2

Navvy,

22/02/2007 04:14:44

Forth Ports lied over an incident at Hound Point in 1981 and their pilots and tugs displayed ignorance of their own waters and their inability to read a chart.

Do not trust them

3

Sinnerman,

Another Planet 22/02/2007 05:48:58

Talk about accidents waiting to happen.

4

SouthernSkye,

Currently Köln 22/02/2007 07:10:37

#1 Lords? I was under the impression it was MSP members who decided upon this?

5

yorkshireman,

glasgow 22/02/2007 07:23:38

It goes on all the time in Lyme bay (South Coast of england). If conducted properly its a safe operation. Do I detect a bit of NIMBY going on here?

6

Gnasher,

22/02/2007 07:52:17

There's only one solution - ban the oil industry and all oil operations from Scotland. It's the only way we can be safe and sure.

7

Ted,

22/02/2007 08:34:08

I dunno, they pretended they were safe and lied to Parliament. Why not take a chance?

8

bill-alba,

fife 22/02/2007 08:42:22

yorkshireman...Have u no been following the debate..its about the danger to the coast and wildlife in a european and scottish special scientific area..

9

AJ,

Fife 22/02/2007 09:21:45

We need guarantees on safety! If the firm have a chequered history with regards pollution, they can sling their hook!!!!

btw,

a recent addition to the diversity of wildlife in the area - a pair of otters were spotted at the mouth of the river Leven. Do we really want to ruin the enviroment, again?? The Fife coast is just recovering from hundreds of years of dumping and polluting by the various industries that have existed there. I feel it's time for conservation, not devastation!

10

Helmslee,

Edinburgh 22/02/2007 11:22:27

Why stop at banning STS - why not all ships, they all pose the same risk. Perhaps we can then ban cars, pleasure craft, jet skiis and you never know a canoe may leave behind a shard of plastic or a swimmer who has not bathed before entering the water my introduce some oily body matter. Or maybe we should just send all our woes upto Scappa Flow as we ain't needing any of this filth down here.

11

IanW,

Germany 22/02/2007 11:25:00

I am curious about those who accuse the company of lying. In the article it says that in the last 10 years they have only lost 4 barrels due to STS operations.

The incident in Mexico took place in 1995 whic is by my reckoning more than 10 years ago.

Further it is clearly stated that the incident was not directly related to the STS operation.

Where/how then has the company at any time lied to anyone?

People should not confuse lying with being 'economical with the truth'. The may not have given all the information they could have of any incidents they were ever involved with but when giving information they did not lie.

12

Stewarty,

22/02/2007 12:55:16

SouthernSkye #4
MSP's will not have the final say on this - and this was confirmed by Bridget's Boy at FNQ's half an hour ago.

The final say will rest - wait for it - with Forth Ports, based on information supplied by Scottish Natural Heritage. Forth Ports is therefore the arbiter as to whether it goes ahead, and being a plc, will doubtless be anxious to swell its coffers to satisfy its legal duty to its shareholders.

Does anyone want a wager as to what Forth Ports' decision will be? I'll put my mortgage on this ill-founded scheme proceeding.

13

BobF,

23/02/2007 20:53:58

I suggest SPT take their STI down the coast closer to thier home base in Sunderland.
As for the double hulled ships, well they are designed to withstand certain damage criteria, just once, fate will find a way to breach the criteria and the Forth estuary will be a mess of thick oily sludge.

But it's not the ship hulls that are most likely to be damaged it's the other parts in use, such as pipelines and valves under pressure and mechanical stress, and possibly poorly trained crews working long hours.

Then there is the weather, someone will take a chance one day with a bad weather forecast because of business deadlines and go ahead with a transfer. Then at some point during the transfer weather conditions worsen, stresses and pressures on equipment go beyond safety limits, ...you can guess the rest!


 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
 
  

 
 

Featured Advertising



Sister Newspapers:
Press Complaints Commission

This website and its associated newspaper adheres to the Press Complaints Commission’s Code of Practice. If you have a complaint about editorial content which relates to inaccuracy or intrusion, then contact the Editor by clicking here.

If you remain dissatisfied with the response provided then you can contact the PCC by clicking here.