# RSPB backs oil transfer law bid (BBC News)



## SN NewsCaster (Mar 5, 2007)

Bird conservation charity RSPB welcomes calls to tighten up the law on ship-to-ship oil transfers.

More from BBC News...


----------



## James_C (Feb 17, 2005)

If the RSPB and the rest of these hysterical eedjits were to be believed then you'd think STS is a proper fly by night activity that spills oil for fun. They're also on about bringing in STS legislation. Haven't they ever heard of MARPOL, ISGOTT, not to mention Forth Ports own Oil transfer regulations etc? Probably not, but this is all about making headlines, nothing else.
Funnily enough, just upriver of the proposed STS area is Hound Point terminal. It's been in operation for 30 odd years now exporting hundreds of millions of tonnes of crude and never had an accident.


----------



## Gavin Gait (Aug 14, 2005)

I think their gripe is about the company that wants to start STS in the Firth of Forth James. The company ( can't remember its name , anyone ?? ) apparently told the Scottish Authorities that they hadn't had an oil spill during an STS and it was later shown that they had had quite a bad spill. I think trust comes into it especially with the way the Scottish politics are just now..........


----------



## Gavin Gait (Aug 14, 2005)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/edinburgh_and_east/6383337.stm


----------



## James_C (Feb 17, 2005)

Ah, but even that was a bit disingenuous. They never said they'd 'never' had a spill. All they were asked were had they had a spill within the last 10 years or so, as that was as far back as they had to demonstrate they were competent etc, as per the rules. 
That spill fell outwith the requested time period and so they were under no obligation to report it.
In any event, they had spill, a long time ago and it was minor. Shell, BP, Exxon and their ilk don't exactly have an unblemished record when it comes to pollution....

EDIT: Just seen your post Davie. In addition, that spill occurred during an underway STS operation, i.e. with the two ships sailing along together. The proposed situation for the Forth would have the transfer done at anchor - something that happens all the time in Scapa Flow.


----------



## Gavin Gait (Aug 14, 2005)

Yes Jim I saw that in the report. Personally I don't have a problem with moored alongside STS provided all the safety steps are taken to prevent a spill. Its worked up in Scapa Flow for a long long time without problems that i'm aware of.
The trouble comes with the politicians , anything to look "green" , anything to try and cause trouble.....

Personally I feel that anyone who shows the least interest in being a politician should be banned for life from ever being one lol


----------



## James_C (Feb 17, 2005)

You're no wrong Davie!


----------



## cboots (Aug 16, 2004)

As a long time member of the RSPB during the time that I lived in the UK I would like to reply to James C and crew in similar vein. Listening to eejits like you lot one might be fooled into believing that no environmental disaster ever occurred as a result of an oil spill anywhere.
CBoots


----------



## Thamesphil (Jul 22, 2005)

Boswollox! If the green brigade are to be believed, oil companies are evil and spills are commonplace. Politicians then make knee-jerk reactions to appease joe public who is fooled by this propaganda.


----------



## Tom S (Jul 22, 2006)

James_C said:


> If the RSPB and the rest of these hysterical eedjits were to be believed then you'd think STS is a proper fly by night activity that spills oil for fun. They're also on about bringing in STS legislation. Haven't they ever heard of MARPOL, ISGOTT, not to mention Forth Ports own Oil transfer regulations etc? Probably not, but this is all about making headlines, nothing else.
> Funnily enough, just upriver of the proposed STS area is Hound Point terminal. It's been in operation for 30 odd years now exporting hundreds of millions of tonnes of crude and never had an accident.


Not quite correct Jim there have been one or two spills at Hound Point especially in the early days as Harbourmaster I was called out to attend two or three,it always happened in the early hours of the morning. The response to the spills was always good,BP kept track of the spills with their computer at Hawse Pier and the Hound Point Tugs used dispersant to clean up. The Master of the vessels were always prosecuted and the ship held responsible for all costs if it was to blame. The situation improved as time went on. BP have a first clas record in the Forth
TomS


----------



## Gavin Gait (Aug 14, 2005)

Thanks for the info about Hound Point Tom. You always expect teething trouble at a new pumping station ( especially when Hound Point was first commissioned ) and I lived only a few miles down the coast from there for almost 5 years and can't remember a single incident. STS when moored alongside , as is done in Scapa flow , is just as safe as going alongside a pier to transfer oil provided all of the safety measures are in place.

Davie


----------



## Tom S (Jul 22, 2006)

Davie Tait said:


> Thanks for the info about Hound Point Tom. You always expect teething trouble at a new pumping station ( especially when Hound Point was first commissioned ) and I lived only a few miles down the coast from there for almost 5 years and can't remember a single incident. STS when moored alongside , as is done in Scapa flow , is just as safe as going alongside a pier to transfer oil provided all of the safety measures are in place.
> 
> Davie


Davie
I feel the row over STS in the Forth has really been blown out of all proportion and the Politicians have just jumped on the bandwagon. The record of STS in Scapa Flow and in other parts of the World is not in dispute,the systems used are well proven and recognised as being safe. I personally feel the area chosen for this operation was wrong,this part of the Forth is open water you are more or less at the mouth of the Estuary and as you well know the weather in this area can change really dramatically especially in an e,ly. Locals know this and that is where the original objections came from. Further upriver would be a lot more prudent but you can imagine the outcry if they tried that.
A number of years ago I did my Tanker time on the VLCC Dalma operated by Denholms we went to Lyme Bay and carried out a lightening operation with the Shell tanker Naticina the operation started off well but by mid morning the weather changed to th SW very quickly and the swell was so bad we nearly pulled the manifold off the deck.We had to diconnect very quickly and head across to the French side to complete the operation.
TomS


----------



## gdynia (Nov 3, 2005)

cboots said:


> As a long time member of the RSPB during the time that I lived in the UK I would like to reply to James C and crew in similar vein. Listening to eejits like you lot one might be fooled into believing that no environmental disaster ever occurred as a result of an oil spill anywhere.
> CBoots


Mr CBoots for one who classifies himself as a Gentleman in his profile. Do you not think its abit derogatory your remark calling 2 fellow SN members eejits when they were simply putting over their point of views. Your walking on very thin ice at present.


----------



## James_C (Feb 17, 2005)

Cboots,
Being a tankerman I'm well aware of what's involved and have taken part in countless STS operations both underway and at anchor all over the world on everything from 35,000 tonners to 310,000.
The simple fact of the matter is that if you want to continue living the simple lifestyle you do with (relatively) cheap and abundant fuel and plastics then you will simply have to put up with the occasional spill - safeguards can only go so far, and the law of averages will catch up with you at some point. Saying that, the Tanker industry (especially so in the last decade or so) has a pretty exemplary safety record, and pollution is exceptionally rare - a record far superior to the rest of the worlds fleet.
If the RSPB and their ilk can come up with reasoned argument then fair play, but they aren't and I'd be interested to know who with that organisation or its advisers has any REAL experience of what they're talking about. 
They're scaremongering - as usual.


----------



## James_C (Feb 17, 2005)

Tom,
Cheers for that. I remember that even in the 70s the Emergency Response set up was pretty good, particularly for the time with the 'Hound Bank. and the 'Fasgadair'. As Davie says, it was all pretty new back then so there's no wonders there were a few wee accidents. However, with the experience that is available now there's no reason this couldn't be conducted in a safe and efficient manner.
As regards Largo, you're right - off Burntisland would be much better, but can you image the hoo haa about that, especially with all those new houses at the old Alcan works!


----------



## non descript (Nov 18, 2005)

Tom S said:


> Not quite correct Jim there have been one or two spills at Hound Point especially in the early days as Harbourmaster I was called out to attend two or three,it always happened in the early hours of the morning. The response to the spills was always good,BP kept track of the spills with their computer at Hawse Pier and the Hound Point Tugs used dispersant to clean up. The Master of the vessels were always prosecuted and the ship held responsible for all costs if it was to blame. The situation improved as time went on. BP have a first clas record in the Forth
> TomS


Tom
Thank you for your valuable input - a most helpful and valid comment (Applause)
Mark


----------



## Tom S (Jul 22, 2006)

Thanks Mark
Its worth pointing out that in the early days of Hound Point it was the early years of the North Sea Boom and they loaded anything that carried oil,OBO,s and lets say not very high standard Tankers these are the vessels we had all the problems with. BP didnt let it go on for long they learned lessons very quickly,banned OBO,s and introduced a very stringent tanker inspection protocol where vessels were inspected before they went on the berth. Any faults discovered and they were sent packing.The BP Superintendent at the time Captain Tytheridge was very strict. Shell and Esso adopted the same procedures when Mossmoran came into operation.
TomS


----------



## cboots (Aug 16, 2004)

Ah right I am starting to understand it all now. It is quite alright for those of a certain view point to refer those of another view point, of whom it is painfully obvious from their comments they know absolutely nothing about, in the most derogatory terms. But should anyone dare to respond in like vein, oh dear no, that is breaking all the rules, that is walking on thin ice. The level of hypocrisy here is astounding.
Now to the point. I was at sea in the early part of my career, when the Oil Record Book, I think it was called, was a work of fiction. Anything and everything got dumped over the side and prosecutions were very few and were regarded by those in the industry as the result of bad luck. That has changed over the years because pollution and its dire consequences, on, amongst other things, birdlife, has become increasingly unacceptable to the general public. Legislation has been demanded and put in place by usually extremely reluctant politicians. Incidently if anyone thinks that politicians are ever eager to jump on a legislative bandwagon in the cause of the environment or wildlife then I am sorry, but I have to tell you that you simply display a total ignorance of environmental politics. If the industry is run on best possible practice, and oil spills are now history, well then, any new and tighter regulations obviously will not effect you and will actually assist you by making it impossible for less scrupulous competitors to undercut you. Progressive legislation, from the banning of slavery onwards, has always been met with resistance from those who benefit from the status quo, and the practical men of business have always assured us it was 1. unneccessary, 2. all down to political posturing, and 3. would spell the death of the economy, and the end of life as we know it. Fortunately history has produced a few men and women of sufficient courage and fortitude to ignore their guff and to press on with progress.
I am afraid that I cannot end this rather long post without replying to the old chestnut about me wanting the benefits of cheap oil. Yes I use oil and its products as do all of us in the developed world. However, I eat food but I do not give a carte blanche to the agricultural industry to do whatsoever it likes to the planet. I would also add that cheap oil is now very much a thing of the past and that is not due to increased environmental legislation.
CBoots


----------



## gdynia (Nov 3, 2005)

Mr CBoots if you think The level of hypocrisy here is astounding your more than free to leave the site. People are getting tired of your snide remarks so dont push it any further


----------



## cboots (Aug 16, 2004)

Gdynia - apart from pointing out the glaringly obvious, that I was simply replying in kind, I shall treat your above post with the contempt which it deserves.
CBoots


----------



## slick (Mar 31, 2006)

All,
On a lighter note: Remember the RSPB don't own the Birds.
Yours aye,
Slick
P.S. We used to call a transfer of F76/F44 at sea a RAS (L).


----------



## D Sutton (Dec 4, 2006)

So we start this sensible conversation with


> James c If the RSPB and the rest of these hysterical eedjits were to be believed


then we have


> As a long time member of the RSPB during the time that I lived in the UK I would like to reply to James C and crew in similar vein. Listening to eejits like you lot one might be fooled into believing that no environmental disaster ever occurred as a result of an oil spill anywhere.
> CBoots


followed by


> Mr CBoots for one who classifies himself as a Gentleman in his profile. Do you not think its abit derogatory your remark calling 2 fellow SN members eejits when they were simply putting over their point of views. Your walking on very thin ice at present. gdynia


to my mind it was james c that started the name calling and c boots replied, surely if you tolerate it from one member you can hardly castigate another.

Back to the point though, after 58 years either at sea or shipyard based my father looked back and said he was quite disgusted with some of the things that had been either pumped out or splilt at sea, mainly as a result of cost rather than best practise, he was also not a big fan of STS as no matter how much planning/safeguards you could never rely on weather/sea state.



> If the RSPB and their ilk can come up with reasoned argument then fair play, but they aren't and I'd be interested to know who with that organisation or its advisers has any REAL experience of what they're talking about. james c


On a second point my wife has worked for the RSPB for 21 years, she had experience of the clean up after Sea Empress and Braer, I would suggest that they are not a bunch of wooly jumpered beardies, they research and take proffesional advice before approaching a subject, politicians may appear to jump on the green bandwagon but its still money that talks.

Sadly being inside an industry is the worstplace to comment on it from, when I look at my own I realise just how bad it can look to the outsider, the shipping/oil industry is the same.

And finally I fear james c lost the argument with the comment



> it was all pretty new back then so there's no wonders there were a few wee accidents


you cant have it both ways James, I may have a shoe repair kit for the bullet hole.


----------



## benjidog (Oct 27, 2005)

This thread was started by the BBC Newsfeed; so this argument is something else we can blame the BBC for! 

Now we have had the traditional exchange of insults about tree-hugging, can I ask you all to please either post non-insulting comments on this topic or let it be. (Cloud) 

Regards,

Brian


----------



## quietman (Nov 7, 2006)

During my two stints on the esso cardiff lightering vlcc's in lyme bay we didnt have one spill. If the weather was bad we didn't start and if the weather deteriated to badly as it did on one occasion we stopped the procedure and resumed in better conditions. All due respect was given to the sea and all its inhabitants and users. As on this site there is room for all and due respect for views should be afforded


----------



## James_C (Feb 17, 2005)

D Sutton,
In your first quote, I was referring to those within the article, *not* an SN member. That's something I've never done (as far as I can remember) - pint of beer to who proves me wrong (only fair, innit?). 
Those 'hysterics' to whom I refere, included those amongst the various councils, local groups etc (I know, and indeed am related to some of them!). 
I live on the Firth of Forth - the river where these transfers are proposed - and so I would be directly affected by any spill and I would not advocate anything that would spoil my local environment.
With regards to your other point, we are after all talking about the here and now and not about what happened decades ago. The oil industry today bears no resemblance to what went on back then. In that regard you've taken my last comment out of context, as I was referring to what went on back in the early 70s when North Sea oil was in it's infancy, and those aforementioned incidents were indeed "wee" - all tackled with the on scene anti pollution equipment (something else that has come on leaps and bounds since). My Father and Grandfather were part of the pollution response team at Hound Point and Grangemouth in the 1970s/80s.
Braer and Sea Empress were also two completely different incidents with regards to both the cause and the aftermath, so it's not fair to introduce them to the debate. It'd be like comparing the Titanic running into an iceberg to a ship grounding on the Great Barrier Reef. 
STS today is also a completely different kettle of fish compared to the likes of those halcyon days in Lyme Bay etc. The ships are far more advanced, as are the procedures and the Emergency response, especially on the dedicated lightering tankers now in use and their (always) on scene support vessels.
I've been there, seen it and done it, as will have the men who complete the risk assessments, those who sign them off and those who will be in control of and carry out the operation - how many of the objectors can say the same? They've already made up their minds and won't be persuaded otherwise, despite having little direct and relevant experience of the industry.
As with all instances of this nature, a great deal of hysteria (there's that word again) comes with it, and more often than not any danger is blown massively out of proportion, especially with the tabloid style journalism that even the Beeb permeates these days.

Yours aye,


----------



## cboots (Aug 16, 2004)

Firstly let me acknowledge a debt of gratitude to D. Sutton for his efforts at replacing hysteria and rhetoric with fact and reasoned arguments, both of which tend to be sadly lacking in threads of this type. 
James C, as outlined in his post above, wishes us all to acknowledge his depth of experience and expertise - which I personally am perfectly happy to do - but seeks to deny any such acknowledgement to those who have the temerity to take a different view to his own. As D. Sutton mentions in his post, the RSPB are held in high esteem for their expertise and the amount of research that goes into their presentations, and that comes from many bodies who are critical of them in other respects. James C appears to be of the opinion that nothing ever goes wrong; the technology is the best there is, it is all perfectly all right, and even if it does go wrong we, the experts, will fix it. Oh that the real world were really like that. Things do go wrong and when we are looking at questions of the environment, and its non-human inhabitants, the results are often tragic. No matter how good the technology, how good the training of personnel, things break down, mistakes are made. Besides, what is state of the art today, will appear primitive in years to come; after all, the Titanic, considered by the experts to be unsinkable, was state of the art in her day. In closing I would like to point out that a major grounding on the Great Barrier Reef is a very real fear amongst those who care in Australia, and it is not a fear that is alleviated as ships get bigger, crews get smaller and focs become the norm. Our federal government, not a bunch of doof head greenies but right wing conservatives, do not appear to care a damn.
CBoots


----------



## Tom S (Jul 22, 2006)

Firstly let me say nobody is having a go at the RSPB they are a very professional charity and they do first class work,in the oil spills I have attended I have always been impressed by their dedication and the care they have given to the seabirds.
As JamesC has correctly pointed the proposed STS operation is not quite cut and dried as it appears. The Forth Estuary is a lovely place and their are many sites of SSI which have wildlife in abundance and this in turn is enjoyed by many people. When the original ides of STS was proposed many of the local Communities opposed it as they felt this would pose a direct threat to the SSI sites and many felt that the proposed location for the operation was not the best place. But they couldnt do much about it as Forth Ports had the Statutory Authority for all Marine Operations in the Estuary and once they had gone out to consultation is was up to them to give the go ahead. Now many objectors felt this was not correct that a Commercial Company who stood to financially gain from the operation should be able to make this decision Exxon Valdez is still fresh in a lot of peoples memories. Local Authorities objected quite strongly to the proposed operation but were powerless to do anything about hence their representation to the Scottish Executive and the subsequent act that followed. Forth Ports still have the power to carry out the operation but they will have to get the go ahead from the Executive before they do so. The Executive is now considering taking the problem to Westminster so that they will be given more power to control future Marine Operations.
TomS


----------



## cboots (Aug 16, 2004)

Thank you for laying out the full facts of the case above TomS though I am afraid that I cannot quite agree with you that no one was having a go at the RSPB. I think that there were quite clearly disparaging remarks made at this, and any other bodies who took a similar position. As you have outlined this is not a simple case and there are genuine concerns about what is proposed. As I do not live in the UK I was not aware of the facts of this particular case, though what you have described has many similarities to issues in Australia. My objection, and the purpose of my original post, is to the attitude of certain posters on this site to take extremely dogmatic stances on topics and to make insulting remarks on any person or body who does not agree with them.
CBoots


----------



## D Sutton (Dec 4, 2006)

James c


> In your first quote, I was referring to those within the article, *not* an SN member. That's something I've never done (as far as I can remember) - pint of beer to who proves me wrong (only fair, innit?).


 I didn't presume that you did, it just seemed a little unfair that the initial reference was in your post but c boots got castigated, I guessed it was not aimed at a SN member but that means that comments like that are aimed (without malice admittedly) at people such as my wife and her work colleagues.
The trouble with having a go at the RSPB and some other charities (dont include Greenpeace, they are not a charity but an enviromental pressure group) is that people forget why it came about, it is duty bound to question things that may have a bearing on our marine life, either birds or the food chain that sustains them, and if they didn't they would be failing in their public duty, the problem is some peoples attitude when they do, its a sure bet they are privy to far more information than people realise.
And for Dave Tait


> [Personally I feel that anyone who shows the least interest in being a politician should be banned for life from ever being one lol/QUOTE], that was Peter Cook in private eye, I read it when I was about 15 and thought it wasd Hilarious.
> 
> And finally for james c, back to the quote at the top, mines a Geene King IPA with just a little head so there is more room in the glass.


----------



## K urgess (Aug 14, 2006)

I think some of the reaction against the organisations who try to stop such schemes is the underlying thought that it's another nail in our industrial coffin.

If it's prevented from happening in the Firth of Forth it will end up being done somewhere else and that somewhere will probably not be in British waters.

One only has to look further south to the "ghost ships" to see the sort of thing that happens in these situations.


----------



## cawky (Feb 11, 2007)

Well done James


----------



## D Sutton (Dec 4, 2006)

I know what you mean Marconi, but we have to have someone questioning things, lets face it any industry is not exactly blemish free when left to its own devices.
The ghost ships is another story altogether, most enviromental groups are in favour of a quality dismantling facility where we deal with our own ships, I think the crux of some objections was the long tow across the atlantic and that the americans should deal with their own waste, Able are also caught up in the quagmire that is local planning, where you can have officers who have a negociated agreement with a company and when it gets before planning committee gets refused for the most trivial of reasons, (and boy do I know about this !) 
I do think that the media are most at fault for fostering negative attitudes as they have a habit nowadays of seeing most stories as a battle, prefering to whip up a subject and get an attention grabbing headline, I know I read stories where even the most basic and readily available facts are wrong showing a lack of integrity of the reporter.

I may summon the courage to start a thread on these lines, just remember dont shoot if you see the white flag.


----------



## K urgess (Aug 14, 2006)

Having watched television and listened to the radio yesterday I was amazed to find out that the Titanic was a product of Southampton (BBC - Tom will love that) and that in commercials on Classic FM a P&O liner will let go the bowlines (pronounced as in crossbow).
Nit picking I know but a sign of the lack of proper research by all branches of the media.
If there was an alternative that was acceptable to all of the situations mentioned I would go for it. Unfortunately most of the alternatives don't bear thinking about.


----------



## Chouan (Apr 20, 2006)

For classic BBC "Research" did anybody see their programme on the loss of the 'City of Benares' a year or 2 ago?


----------



## randcmackenzie (Aug 31, 2005)

*Sts*

This debate seems to have gone quiet, but for Tom S particularly, and with experience of many many STS operations, I'd like to add my 2 cents worth on STS in the Firth of Forth or indeed elsewhere. 

It is probable that politicians and others will exercise their caution in forbidding STS operations in the Forth. I believe they will base their decision on scanty and incorrect information and for populist reasons.

The question should not really be whether it is safe to do STS operations in the Firth of Forth, but whether it is safe to do them at all.

The operation should be judged on its record, not its geography.

There are several types of STS, some of which are listed below:
1. The classic version - two ships alongside, transferring cargo. Typically this is achieved by the larger vessel maintaining a steady heading at minimum speed. The other ship matches the speed and adjusts her heading until they come alongside, separated by Yokohama fenders, ideally on the approaching ship.
Once secured to each other, they will then seek a suitable anchorage. Normally two 10 inch hoses are used for the transfer. No tugs are required, and there will usually be a fender tender/spill standby vessel in attendance. Port dues and other expenses are minimal. This method has been practiced since the early seventies, if not before.

2. Ship to ship in tandem using either dedicated DP shuttle tankers or standard OCIMF tankers of opportunity. The favourite for F(P)SOs. For tankers of opportunity a tug is utilised to hold export tanker and FPSO apart, and may also assist with berthing. Normally a 20 or 24 inch floating hose with 16 inch tails is used.

3. Ship to Ship alongside each other on a tanker terminal. This method is usually accepted by lay councils and authorities and advocated by various terminals which have their own interests entirely at heart. Tugs are used to berth and unberth both ships, and undoubtedly both pay port dues.

4. Ship to Ship at adjoining berths on a tanker terminal – similar to 3 above.

5. Ship to Ship at 2 offshore SBMs or FPSO/SBM with connecting sub or mid sea pipeline.

6. Probably most frequent of all – bunkering operations, where bunker tankers of various sizes lie alongside ocean ships, at anchor or alongside.

At any moment these operations are going on in numerous locations world wide every day of the year.
In the North Sea, West of Shetland, all down the African Coast, in the Mid East, the Arabian Gulf, Malaysia, Thailand, Indonesia, Australia, New Zealand, the US Gulf, the Gulf of Mexico, in Russia, off Cape Horn.

An excellent standard of operation is achieved, and if it can be done safely at all these locations, and probably many others, why not in the Firth of Forth?


----------



## Ron Stringer (Mar 15, 2005)

randcmackenzie said:


> There are several types of STS, some of which are listed below:
> 1. The classic version - two ships alongside, transferring cargo. Typically this is achieved by the larger vessel maintaining a steady heading at minimum speed. The other ship matches the speed and adjusts her heading until they come alongside, separated by Yokohama fenders, ideally on the approaching ship.
> This method has been practiced since the early seventies, if not before. QUOTE]
> 
> ...


----------

