Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement

 
 
Thursday, 28th August 2008 Change Date

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.

Relief as ship-to-ship oil transfer scheme for Forth is scrapped



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:
02 February 2008
CONTROVERSIAL proposals for ship-to-ship oil transfers in the Firth of Forth were rejected yesterday in a move applauded by environmental campaigners and politicians from all parties.
Forth Ports confirmed it had refused permission for the transfers, admitting the strength of public opinion against them had been pivotal in the decision.

The proposals would have seen almost eight million tonnes of Russian crude oil pumped between tankers each year, and had raised fears of an environmentally catastrophic spill.

The announcement comes as the row continues over where control over the marine environment should rest, with the Scottish Government adamant it should have the final say. New regulations are currently being consulted on at Westminster, following a Private Members Bill by Mark Lazarowicz, the Edinburgh North and Leith MP.

The RSPB said last night it was delighted that "common sense prevailed" and called for the introduction of "specific marine legislation".

The Marine Conservation Society said it was "thrilled that the internationally important habitats" would be protected.

The application for the transfers had been made by SPT Marine Services. Ian Laws, its managing director, said the firm was "extremely disappointed" at the decision, but that there were currently no plans to appeal it.

Charles Hammond, the chief executive of Forth Ports, said the organisation had consulted heavily over the last three years with numerous interested parties and had commissioned an in-depth technical study.

The plan would have seen oil pumped between tankers anchored five miles off the coast. Local councils, residents and environmental groups had opposed the plans, fearing an oil spill. The area is home to internationally important wildlife, including breeding seabirds and wintering waterfowl.

Mr Hammond said the investigations had established that ship-to-ship transfers could be done "in certain circumstances" in the Forth without affecting the environment.

But he continued: "Commercially, as a public company, we have had to look at the project as a whole and we believe, given the uncertain scope of the project, taking account of the views of all the interested parties and looking at the number of other projects we are involved in, it's not in the interests of the company or shareholders to proceed with the application."

He said the firm had considered the level of public opposition to the scheme, and was also concerned that the scale of the project was unclear. He said it could not be established how many vessels might be involved and without such information it was unclear what level of resources would have to be committed to the project.

Mr Hammond denied that the authority had been pressured into turning down the application by the SNP administration, insisting: "This is a decision we took of our own accord."

He added that Forth Ports would not be considering applications for ship-to-ship transfers until the regulatory system had been straightened out.

Alex Salmond, the First Minister, said: "I strongly welcome the fact that Forth Ports are not going ahead with the controversial ship-to-ship transfers in the estuary."

Richard Lochhead, the cabinet secretary for rural affairs and the environment, said the announcement was "the right decision for Scotland and the right decision for Forth Ports".

He said: "I am pleased that they made this balanced judgment. I am grateful to Forth Ports for their constructive engagement with the Scottish Government and with the Scottish Parliament on this issue."

KEY FIGURES BACK MOVE

"The Fife coastline is an internationally important area, and any accident during ship-to-ship oil transfers would have put this valuable environment at risk"

Dan Barlow, acting director of WWF Scotland

"I hope that this marks the beginning of a long line of decisions to protect our wonderful natural heritage"

Erich Hoyt, Whale and Dolphin Conservation Society

"The plans meant high risks but no gain for us. No money or jobs were on the table"

Dave Berry, leader of East Lothian Council

"The meetings with ministers, the many letters and phone calls now seem very worthwhile"

John MacDougall, MP for Glenrothes

The full article contains 683 words and appears in The Scotsman newspaper.
Page 1 of 1

 
1

A Better Way,

02/02/2008 00:48:14
Would this have happened if Scotland had not Voted for a SNP Scottish Government, that consistently fights London for Scottish Rights.

I DONT THINK SO,WELL DONE TO THE SCOTTISH PEOPLE AND THE SNP. ITS TIME TO VOTE THE SCOTS WAY INSTEAD OF THE LONDON WAY.
2

CowalDude,

Alba 02/02/2008 01:33:48
We can be grateful for the efforts of the new Scottish government and the campaign of local environmentalists against a project that would have brought no benefits and massive risks to our country simply to satisfy a corrupt capitalist-facist regime in Russia
3

W Smith,

Middle East 02/02/2008 03:15:42
#1 and 2
Nonsense.

This just another example of a very left wing extreme minority dictating policy.

The 'greens' are anti-growth and anti-business and they won't stop here.

Ship to shore oil transfer via buoy has been used for decades in some countries without major oil spills and probably more of a 'risk' as the pipe linking the buoy to the shore is underwater.

Richard Lochead with his dodgy degree in Political Studies should keep his mouth shut as should hug-a-muslim Salmond.

It wouldn't be so bad if Salmond and Lochead had some oil industry experience on their CVs but these two couldn't run a corner shop.
4

Cadgers,

02/02/2008 07:18:35
#3 WSmith, methinks living in Middle East is doing your head in. You never seem to have a good word for any Snp government or supporter, or policy come to that!

This is a good result.
5

Rulesbutnotrulers,

Federation, not separation 02/02/2008 07:37:05
A good result. Would have happened what ever the government as it's a sensible safety measure.
6

Gothic Rose,

02/02/2008 09:21:57
wildlife is very pleased.
7

McNasty,

Edinburgh 02/02/2008 09:39:31
This decision should not have been in the gift of Forth Ports at all.

It is most fortunate Jack McConnell's government is history or this decision might be quite different.



8

livilion,

livingston 02/02/2008 10:31:52
3 W Smith,Middle East

>>>It wouldn't be so bad if Salmond and Lochead had some oil industry experience on their CVs<<<

From Alex Samond's CV:
Quote
"Oil Economist and latterly as Royal Bank Economist. While with the Royal Bank, he wrote and broadcast extensively for both domestic and international outlets. He also contributed regularly to oil and energy conferences. In 1983 he devised the “Royal Bank / BBC Oil Index”, which continues monthly publication to this day."

You were saying?....

This is an example of thinking what would the consequences be in the event of any oil spill in an area of great environmental sensitivity.
9

Neil,

Glasgow 02/02/2008 12:00:09
The fees for this were to be £6 million a year for us doing absloutely nothing. I suspect the "environmentalists" will not be willing to hand back £6 million of the billions in subsidies they get.

These guys would find an "ecological" reason to prevent the export of old rope if they could.
10

Geomac 1,

Kinross 02/02/2008 13:18:43
I wonder just what industry the ecomentalists will allow in Scotland?
Call centres will soon be all that's left - and then these will be transferred to India or wherever.
Better get my cave selected and surround myself with birds of prey - then beg for support from the RSPB!
11

Gothic Rose,

02/02/2008 14:31:44
If music be the food of love play on.
12

livilion,

livingston 02/02/2008 15:38:46
#10 Neil,Glasgow 02/02/2008

£6m for doing nothing eh, and how much do you reckon we were going to see of that?

How much for a clean up, say of Aberlady, and the replacement of the Forth's flora and fauna, and repair the damage to our reputation in the event that this oil ended up in the firth?

If Norway wants to transfer this oil then let it be done in her own fjords.

13

Chris,

Edinburgh 03/02/2008 00:00:43
#13: It may very well now take place >12 miles offshore, where permission is not required, and where there will be no watchful regulator ensuring that operations are conducted properly. The first you would know of a spill would be the oil coming ashore on the east coast of East Lothian. Orkney Islands Council is quite happily allowing STS transfers in Scapa Flow, and raking in the income from it, so why it is that the Greens don't expect a spill there, but they do in the Forth?
14

GM,

03/02/2008 10:31:52
IIRC this was one of the SNP's main thrusts after gaining power.

Well done to the SNP -
I should really dig out and update my old 'lists' of SNP v's Labour/Liberal performance since the May election.
15

paulr,

edinburgh 04/02/2008 08:18:42
Forth ports authority should not be a public company, it should be state owned and there to manage national resources, not to make a profit for shareholders who care only about their dividends.
16

Andy Loates,

Rotherham 04/02/2008 12:50:39
to # 8 "livilion"

W.Smith (#3) is is quite correct - Alex Salmond has NO ex[perience in the oil industry. Experience as an oil economist does not require any technical or industrial knowledge or experience within the oil industry. Rather it requires knowledge and experience of the history of the global oil economy. In other words he was an analist in an office and has no concept of how, where or under what conditions oil and its derivatives is moved from the seabed to his car exhaust.

To eveyone else crowing about how well the Scottish parliament have behaved and how Westminster would have given the project the go ahead I suggest you try being a little less militant and a little more analytical. I strongly doubt ANY would have allowed this given the strength of opinion against it.

Respects

Andy

 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
 
  

 
 


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.