# Oil Transfers



## jimmys (Jan 5, 2007)

I see SPT marine services are having some problems with their safety record in the submission to the Scottish Parliament for ship to ship oil transfers in the Firth of Forth.
What a surprise, there has been previous pollution. They just forgot to tell anyone about it.
I wonder if they have forgot anything else ????.


best regards
jimmys


----------



## Orcadian (Jan 27, 2006)

It happened away back in 1996. I think you will find that ship to ship transfers have a record that is much better than ships discharging into shore based installations. The tree huggers are trying to dig up any sort of dirt to prevent anyone doing STS in the Firth of Forth. STS operations have been carried out in Scapa Flow for over 26 years and not one drop has been spilled.


----------



## Binnacle (Jul 22, 2005)

Scapa Flow is an uniquely formed naturely harbour, among the finest in the UK, however the same cannot be claimed for the Forth estuary. Oil interests were welcomed into the Flow to fill the employment vacuum experienced since WW2, no such vacuum exists around the Forth. The Scottish Parliament has an obligation to take into account the concerns of those, you refer to as "tree huggers", which I presume means those living on the Forth coastline. Those who consider STS operations too risky in the Forth have wide horizons and are aware of the damage sustained by the release of 10.8 million gals of black crude oil in Prince William Sound and impending criminal charges over the oil spill in Prudhoe Bay. Scapa is indeed fortunate that similar experiences of human failure, have not, as yet, been experienced.


----------



## HENNEGANOL (Apr 22, 2006)

Are we to assume that all the people who are concerned about the transfer of oil, heat their homes with coal, use candles for lighting and use horse transport?

Oil and oil products play a major role in our lives today and indeed everyday and in so doing make our lives so much more comfortable. The public at large tend to forget this until something goes wrong, as indeed has happened now with the contaminated unleaded petrol crisis. The cars affected are those in which Lambda sensors are fitted in order to limit the emissions and so protect the environment. Older cars, which are not fitted with these sensors, will not be affected. 

I remember speaking to a boat owner in Neyland Marina, who was complaining about wax deposits on his boat which he claimed were being deposited from the nearby Gulf Oil refinery. He was quite upset when I pointed out to him that this was part of the cost that he had to pay in order to run both his boat and car on fossil fuels.

Accidents will always happen, sadly even more so in this day and age due to the fact that a “degree in nonsense” gained at some obscure university, carries more weight than common sense learned the hard way at the cutting edge. The important thing is to learn by our mistakes, to think positively and ensure in so far as we can that it never happens again.

I am convinced that if the "Professional Seafarers" involved in the Sea Empress oil spill in Milfordhaven had been allowed to use their own judgment instead of being over ruled by the bureaucrats, it would never have been as big a disaster as it turned out to be. Whilst admitting that it was misjudgement on the part of a professional which resulted in the incident occurring in the first place, it was compounded by the mistakes which followed.

Sadly we live in a very selfish and mercenary age where the NIMBYs, feel that they have a right to campaign against anything which may affect their own comfortable life styles and never give a thought to the damage they cause to the environment whilst jetting off on holiday or racing down the haven in their speed boats.

As time progresses we will be faced with new challenges, let us face them in a positive manner aided by the lessons that were learned from earlier mistakes and not blighted with prejudice!

Gerry.


----------



## randcmackenzie (Aug 31, 2005)

"are aware of the damage sustained by the release of 10.8 million gals of black crude oil in Prince William Sound and impending criminal charges over the oil spill in Prudhoe Bay"

Neither of the above were STS operations - what's the relevance?


----------



## Binnacle (Jul 22, 2005)

randcmackenzie said:


> "are aware of the damage sustained by the release of 10.8 million gals of black crude oil in Prince William Sound and impending criminal charges over the oil spill in Prudhoe Bay"
> 
> Neither of the above were STS operations - what's the relevance?


The common denominator is Pollution. Regardless whether due to human error,
mechanical failure or legally termed Act of God or STS operation. I am simply expressing my opinion that a more sheltered locus would be prudent.


----------



## Orcadian (Jan 27, 2006)

At the moment they do STS of South Wold and there is no real control over that they have guidelines but the Government want to have it all done within harbour areas and then they can have more control over it. There is a M Notice in draft form that has been in circulation for a number of years now about the control and regulation of STS operations. When it will come into force I have no idea.
"Binnacle" it shows that you have no idea what goes on around here, as there is not an employment vacuum here as you say and in fact I would argue that there is more unemployment around the Forth estuary than here by a quite a large margin. 
STS operations in themselves do not create much in the way of employment especially if done within a port as the tugs and pilots and the shore staff are already employed there. If STS operations are carried out in a controlled manner as they are in most places then the risk to the environment is very small and within acceptable limits. The 2 incidents that you mention have nothing whatsoever to do with STS and I think that it is true to say that the clean up operation caused more damage to the environment than the oil did especially in Price William Sound.
As I see it the biggest problem is that everybody wants a share of the cake so to speak. In the case of the Forth Estuary there are 7 or 8 local councils and none of them are directly going to benefit, sure they will be benefit indirectly but it will be Forth Ports that will be the biggest winners.


----------



## Tom S (Jul 22, 2006)

Sure Forth Ports stands to gain commercially they are after all commercial company and have to look after the interests of their shareholders. But it is not so cut and dried as that as well as being a commercial company Forth Ports are also the Statutory Authority for the River Forth so in this case they have to look at both sides of proposal and believe me they are not going to go ahead with the operation if the risk assessment shows flaws in the operation.The people involved in Forth Ports are all professionals and they wont give their go ahead until they know it is safe to do so. I know them well I worked with them.
TomS


----------



## Orcadian (Jan 27, 2006)

I was not suggesting that the Froth Ports were anything other that professional and I am sure that they will have done the risk assesments and will make a judgement based on that. The problem as i see it is that there are so many Local Councils that border the Forth estuary that it makes it difficult to please them all.


----------



## Tom S (Jul 22, 2006)

Orcadian
I agree with you, I feel politics have blown the proposal for the STS operation out of all proportion. I think SPT Marine made the wrong approach and should have involved the Local Authorities earlier. My own experience of dealing with the Councils is that they are very short on Marine Knowledge and usually have to rely on Consultants to advise them, But if you take them onboard early enough and keep them properly advised and listen and take onboard their concerns then they will usually work with you. As can be seen in yesterdays Scotsman it has now become a political issue as the elections get closer. 
TomS


----------



## Binnacle (Jul 22, 2005)

*MSPs Getting Involved*



Orcadian said:


> I was not suggesting that the Froth Ports were anything other that professional and I am sure that they will have done the risk assesments and will make a judgement based on that. The problem as i see it is that there are so many Local Councils that border the Forth estuary that it makes it difficult to please them all.


http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/edinburgh_and_east/6234710.stm


----------



## muldonaich (Nov 19, 2005)

my own feeling is this decision should be left to a group of master mariners and all politcians kept out of it i think its the only answer .


----------



## Gavin Gait (Aug 14, 2005)

I think the big problem is that the Forth is recognised as a wildlife sanctuary by the EU and if there was any spill at all it would cost the Scottish tax payers millions in EU fines. A properly run STS operation would be safe and have enough safety measures in place to eliminate or minimise any risk of a spill but it cannot be completely avoided as accidents can and do happen.

Davie


----------



## Binnacle (Jul 22, 2005)

*New Powers For MSPs*

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/edinburgh_and_east/6247402.stm


----------

