SHIP-TO-SHIP FORTH OIL TRANSFERS
On Friday 10th June, I attended the seminar called by Fife Council regarding the commercial application by Melbourne Marine Services for ship-to-ship (STS) cargo transfer operations in the Firth of Forth. This proposal involves a fleet of tankers shuttling up to 8 million tonnes annually of heavy crude oil from the Russian Baltic to "mother" ships at swinging anchorage just off the Fife coast at Methil. These massive carriers would then depart overseas.
The meeting was attended by Fife, East Lothian and Edinburgh Councils, Forth Ports Authority, the Maritime and Coastguard Agency (MCA), local and national politicians and expert agencies. A handful of local Fife stakeholders (such as fishermen and community council representatives) were also present - but not from East Lothian or Edinburgh, so it has been suggested that I write to other local coastal community councils outlining the main issues.
From the available reports and the seminar presentations, it appears plain that there would be no direct financial or employment benefit to the Forth, set against an unacceptably high level of risk to the marine environment, fishing and tourism industries from accidental or routine oil spillage and other impacts. The bid is essentially a for-profit company-driven exercise to exploit the current lack of STS regulation in our coastal waters, and is not part of any overarching management strategy. Unlike Westminster, the Scottish Executive has recently decided to ignore calls for a Marine Act, and the plans for Particularly Sensitive Sea Areas (PSSAs) are still in draft.
The whole of the Forth is a Special Protection Area, and of course Aberlady Bay is a Ramsar site of international significance. However, there are no guarantees in place for compensation to offset massive costs of any clean-up operations, and the infrastructure for permanent coastal protection against heavy crude oil simply does not exist. Indeed, serious doubt was expressed as to whether it would even be possible to respond effectively to a worst case scenario, given the vulnerable nature of this narrow tidal estuary and the properties of the oil, which could hit our beaches within 2 hours. It is the heaviest grade of crude, thick and viscous – extremely difficult to clean up, and very persistent in the environment. Neither East Lothian nor Fife Council have the financial resources to protect our coast against such damage, unless the bid went ahead on the principle of the POTENTIAL Polluter Pays (which is not on offer).
Obviously, if we accept that intercontinental transport of oil is necessary, then we must adopt a pragmatic approach to planning the most appropriate, safe and sustainable method of achieving this goal. However, the application to use the Forth meets NONE of these criteria. Furthermore, there is no operational framework amongst North Sea nations because of the protocols involved with international maritime law. The view of the representative from KIMO (an international environmental organisation which advises North Sea and North East Atlantic local authorities), was that to approve this particular application would be unwise and ill-timed in the continued absence of strict regulation and enforcement of legislation.
There is already a deep water facility for STS of oil in Scapa Flow, which operates successfully and safely, welcomes extra capacity and over which Orkney Council has full control. In crucial contrast, the Forth proposal would NOT be under the jurisdiction of our local authorities, and the legislation to regulate STS still remains at draft Bill stage in Westminster, despite many years of concern. Indeed, although the bid must be approved by the MCA and Forth Ports Authority (to whom, incidentally, all STS fees accrue), the ultimate decision will rest with the Secretary of State for Transport, Alastair Darling.
This is a huge issue of wide public concern, and will directly affect our coastal communities, but Forth Ports and MCA are not obliged to consult with anyone other than statutory agencies. Fife Council has already robustly and unanimously rejected the application, and East Lothian Council also registered their opposition at a full meeting of Council on Tuesday June 21st. Edinburgh Council will vote on the STS proposal on AUGUST 9TH. It may well be wise for all coastal Community Councils to consider the issues, and to make their views known to their local authority as a matter of priority - and if necessary, to the Secretary of State. No final decision has yet been taken, and there is still time for additional voices to be heard.
With best wishes
Abbie Marland
Centre for Human Ecology, Edinburgh
Longniddry Biodiversity Group
(These notes do not necessarily reflect the views of the LBG or CHE)
26/07/05
Contact details:
Easter Cottage
Coates
Longniddry
East Lothian
EH32 0PL
Tel 01620 824 685
Email abbie.marland@che.ac.uk
Ship to ship Forth oil transfers
-
Bob Jefferson
- Posts: 6212
- Joined: 11 Dec 2004, 21:16
- Location: Planet Porty
- Contact:
Ship to ship Forth oil transfers
I'm sure that many of you will find this as worrying as I did:
-
Bob Jefferson
- Posts: 6212
- Joined: 11 Dec 2004, 21:16
- Location: Planet Porty
- Contact:
The following motion was passed unaminously by the Council Executive this morning:
Council Executive 9 August 2005
Item 25 Proposed Ship to Shore Oil Transfer
1 This council opposes this proposal on the grounds that it increases the risk of pollution in the Firth of Forth and has the potential for serious consequences should a spill occur.
2 The executive agrees to communicate its views to the Maritime and Coastguard Agency and to the secretary of State for Transport and other Edinburgh MPs and MSPs.
Moved Cllr R Cairns
Seconded
-
Bob Jefferson
- Posts: 6212
- Joined: 11 Dec 2004, 21:16
- Location: Planet Porty
- Contact:
And here is a copy of the report under consideration:
Proposed Ship to Ship Oil Transfer in Firth of Forth
Proposed Ship to Ship Oil Transfer in Firth of Forth
More worrying
Did those of you who objected to the Ship to Ship Transfer of Oil in the Forth get the following copy letter? It seems that, as Susan Deacon says in her cover letter to CEC Corporate Services, policy responsibility rests with The Maritime and Coastguard Agency - hence Susan Deacon has passed on correspondence to Gavin Strang MP. It seems this is not once and for all sorted out, so we shouldn't go to sleep about this issue. Rhona Brankin claims that Ship to ship Transfers of oil have an excellent safety record - but what about all the concerns we have raised about what if a spill does occur - it would be an environmental disaster, not to mention the impact on those who live here and we seem to be having no say in this, if it is a reserved matter. What do you all think?
I suggest people email Gavin Strang to ask him what he is going to do about this but it also seems Forth Ports and Scottish Executive have some role in this decision too, albeit a secondary one. I would suggest email Gavin Strang, Susan Deacon and anyone else you can think of to raise this. Email:
strangg@parliament.uk, susan.deacon.msp@scottish.parliament.uk, rhona.brankin.msp@scottish.parliament.uk, maureen.child@edinburgh.gov.uk, lawrence.marshall@edinburgh.gov.uk (the latter two because their Wards border the Forth and also because perhaps they were at the meeting of S Exec with Councils mentioned in Letter 2 - and isn't Lawrence on or even Chair of some sort of Committee dealing with the Forth?anyone know?)
Letter 1 - from Susan Deacon to Henry Scullion, Corporate Services, City of Edinburgh Council - "Thank you for sending me a copy of the CEC's opposition to the above proposal. I am very much aware that there has been considerable concern from the local authorities and have raised this issue with the Scottish Executive. I am enclosing a copy of a letter from the Deputy Minister for Environment and Rural Development, Rhona Brankin MSP which was sent to Mr John Lindsay, Chief Exec of East Lothian Council. I trust this clarifies the position of the Scottish Exec. Given that policy responsibility rests with The Maritime and Coastguard Agency, I have also passed on all correspondence relating to this issue to Gavin Strang MP for his interest"
Letter 2 - from Rhona Brankin MSP to Mr John Lindsay, East Lothian Council - here comes the very worrying bit!
"Thank you for your letter of 1 July to Ross Finnie MSP, regarding the proposal for the Ship to Ship transfer of oil between tankers moored at designated anchorages in the Firth of Forth.
"As you are aware formal approval to this proposal by Melbourne Marine Services Ltd (MMS) falls under merchant shipping legislation, which is reserved to the UK Government, and policy responsibility rests with the Maritime and Coastguard Agency (MCA) of the Department for Transport (DfT). Formal approval to such proposals ultimately falls to the Secretary of State for Transport. I note that you have also written to the UK Minister for Transport and in the expectation that he will address the issues you raise in relation to reserved matters I will confine my comments to matters falling within the responsibilities of the Scottish Executive.
"The S Exec is a statutory consultee in this process and I can confirm that a number of factual comments have been provided to the authors of the various documents that require to be submitted to and approved by the MCA before Forth Ports, as responsible harbour authority, can permit transfer operations to proceed. As a result the Executive is in regular contact with the DfT and MCA on the proposals. I note that your Council is also aware that the Scottish Natural Heritage (SNH) has highlighted particular environmental sensitivities in the proposed transfer area and recommended that the MCA should undertake an 'appropriate assessment' of the implications of the proposal, as required under the Habitats Regulations. Once this assessment has been undertaken SNH will be in a position to give further consideration to this proposal.
"You seek the support of the Scottish Executive in opposing the proposal from MMS. While the Executive can well understand your concerns, such operations should perhaps be viewed against a history of STS Transfer operations having a good safety record worldwide. Broadly similar STS Transfer operations have been undertaken within Scapa Flow since 1974, and in recent years at the Sullom Voe and Nigg Oil Terminals, as well as at a couple of locations off the southern coastline of England since the 1960's. It is understood that all such transfers have been undertaken without any oil spills arising. Against this background the Executive looks to the MCA to ensure that the developer takes full account of the relevant guidance in preparing the necessary documentation in support of this proposal.
"The Executive will continue to maintain contact with the MCA on this matter in order to assist wherever possible. In this regard and you should already be aware that the MCA has called a meeting of statutory consultees to be held during the afternoon of 25 July in the Scott Exec building at Victoria Quay. I understand that your Council has been invited to attend, as well as Fife Council, Forth Ports, SNH, SEPA and SEERAD. I hope that the meeting will be constructive and that the concerns raised by your Council and Fife Council will be satisfactorily addressed."
Rhona Brankin
Scary stuff - it seems there is to be no benefits plus lots of dangers (there may or may not have been any or many spillages but a spillage would be a disaster) to our coastline if this goes ahead - as far as I can see....so why are the S exec so positive about it seemingly from their letter??
I suggest people email Gavin Strang to ask him what he is going to do about this but it also seems Forth Ports and Scottish Executive have some role in this decision too, albeit a secondary one. I would suggest email Gavin Strang, Susan Deacon and anyone else you can think of to raise this. Email:
strangg@parliament.uk, susan.deacon.msp@scottish.parliament.uk, rhona.brankin.msp@scottish.parliament.uk, maureen.child@edinburgh.gov.uk, lawrence.marshall@edinburgh.gov.uk (the latter two because their Wards border the Forth and also because perhaps they were at the meeting of S Exec with Councils mentioned in Letter 2 - and isn't Lawrence on or even Chair of some sort of Committee dealing with the Forth?anyone know?)
Letter 1 - from Susan Deacon to Henry Scullion, Corporate Services, City of Edinburgh Council - "Thank you for sending me a copy of the CEC's opposition to the above proposal. I am very much aware that there has been considerable concern from the local authorities and have raised this issue with the Scottish Executive. I am enclosing a copy of a letter from the Deputy Minister for Environment and Rural Development, Rhona Brankin MSP which was sent to Mr John Lindsay, Chief Exec of East Lothian Council. I trust this clarifies the position of the Scottish Exec. Given that policy responsibility rests with The Maritime and Coastguard Agency, I have also passed on all correspondence relating to this issue to Gavin Strang MP for his interest"
Letter 2 - from Rhona Brankin MSP to Mr John Lindsay, East Lothian Council - here comes the very worrying bit!
"Thank you for your letter of 1 July to Ross Finnie MSP, regarding the proposal for the Ship to Ship transfer of oil between tankers moored at designated anchorages in the Firth of Forth.
"As you are aware formal approval to this proposal by Melbourne Marine Services Ltd (MMS) falls under merchant shipping legislation, which is reserved to the UK Government, and policy responsibility rests with the Maritime and Coastguard Agency (MCA) of the Department for Transport (DfT). Formal approval to such proposals ultimately falls to the Secretary of State for Transport. I note that you have also written to the UK Minister for Transport and in the expectation that he will address the issues you raise in relation to reserved matters I will confine my comments to matters falling within the responsibilities of the Scottish Executive.
"The S Exec is a statutory consultee in this process and I can confirm that a number of factual comments have been provided to the authors of the various documents that require to be submitted to and approved by the MCA before Forth Ports, as responsible harbour authority, can permit transfer operations to proceed. As a result the Executive is in regular contact with the DfT and MCA on the proposals. I note that your Council is also aware that the Scottish Natural Heritage (SNH) has highlighted particular environmental sensitivities in the proposed transfer area and recommended that the MCA should undertake an 'appropriate assessment' of the implications of the proposal, as required under the Habitats Regulations. Once this assessment has been undertaken SNH will be in a position to give further consideration to this proposal.
"You seek the support of the Scottish Executive in opposing the proposal from MMS. While the Executive can well understand your concerns, such operations should perhaps be viewed against a history of STS Transfer operations having a good safety record worldwide. Broadly similar STS Transfer operations have been undertaken within Scapa Flow since 1974, and in recent years at the Sullom Voe and Nigg Oil Terminals, as well as at a couple of locations off the southern coastline of England since the 1960's. It is understood that all such transfers have been undertaken without any oil spills arising. Against this background the Executive looks to the MCA to ensure that the developer takes full account of the relevant guidance in preparing the necessary documentation in support of this proposal.
"The Executive will continue to maintain contact with the MCA on this matter in order to assist wherever possible. In this regard and you should already be aware that the MCA has called a meeting of statutory consultees to be held during the afternoon of 25 July in the Scott Exec building at Victoria Quay. I understand that your Council has been invited to attend, as well as Fife Council, Forth Ports, SNH, SEPA and SEERAD. I hope that the meeting will be constructive and that the concerns raised by your Council and Fife Council will be satisfactorily addressed."
Rhona Brankin
Scary stuff - it seems there is to be no benefits plus lots of dangers (there may or may not have been any or many spillages but a spillage would be a disaster) to our coastline if this goes ahead - as far as I can see....so why are the S exec so positive about it seemingly from their letter??
-
Lawrence Marshall
- Posts: 49
- Joined: 12 Nov 2003, 22:34
- Location: Portobello & City Chambers
Folk might be interested to read the report by the Director of Environmental and Consumer Services to the Council Executive of 9th August 2005 setting out the City of Edinburgh Council's firm opposition to the proposal to transfer oil ship-to-ship in the Forth. This formed the Council's response to the Maritime and Coastguard Agency. The report can be viewed at http://cpol.edinburgh.gov.uk/getdoc_ext.asp?DocId=68295
I hope this is of help.
Lawrence
I hope this is of help.
Lawrence
-
Bob Jefferson
- Posts: 6212
- Joined: 11 Dec 2004, 21:16
- Location: Planet Porty
- Contact:
Ship to Ship Oil Transfers
Glad to see the Green Party taking this issue up strongly - it seems the decision does not get taken in Scottish Parliament but as my earlier posting pointed out, in the quote from Rhona Brankin, "falls under merchant shipping legislation, which is reserved to the UK Government, and policy responsibility rests with the Maritime and Coastguard Agency (MCA) of the Department for Transport (DfT). Formal approval to such proposals ultimately falls to the Secretary of State for Transport. "
Hence the need to email Alistair Darling, Sec of State for Transport, if you feel strongly about this. I don't have his email address - anyone able to find it please?
I would also suggest you email Gavin Strang and Susan Deacon and Rhona Brankin, - see above posting - with copies to Maureen Child and Lawrence Marshall. The Scottish Executive is a statutory consultee so it is important what they are saying in their response to the Consultation - and it is worrying that Rhona Brankin is pointing to the good safety record, apparently, of such operations (see earlier posting above). This belies the fact that it would only take one major spill (or a series of regular minor spillages) to be a disaster for our coastlines, which are one of the few free healthy opportunities for all who live here to enjoy healthy recreation,and disastrous for local wildlife, tourism, economies related to tourism etc.
Email them and ask them to pass on your comments to Alistair Darling:
strangg@parliament.uk, susan.deacon.msp@scottish.parliament.uk, rhona.brankin.msp@scottish.parliament.uk, maureen.child@edinburgh.gov.uk, lawrence.marshall@edinburgh.gov.uk
If you are still in doubt, read this extract from the Scottish Green Party's Press Release on this subject:
"There are only three areas in the UK deemed suitable for such operations following the post-Braer disaster Donaldson report, and the Firth of Forth isn't one of them. The Greens say that the Forth plan, by Melbourne Marine Services Ltd, is to save the oil companies one day's shipping time as it transfers Russian oil into 'Ultra Large Crude Carriers' en route to the United States and the Far East. Greens say that given the USA's poor response to the challenge of climate change and the profligate use of cheap fuel throughout that country, the Americans should at least pay the price for oil being delivered safely.
A fully laden 'Ultra Large Crude Carrier' is expected to generate £120 million in revenue for the transporting company, and the fees to Forth Ports Authority per transfer will be considerable. It is estimated that there will be 105 of them per year. By contrast there is no direct economic or social benefit to the local economies of the Firth communities, and elected representatives of local councils have stated categorically that the risk is unacceptable. "
Carla
Hence the need to email Alistair Darling, Sec of State for Transport, if you feel strongly about this. I don't have his email address - anyone able to find it please?
I would also suggest you email Gavin Strang and Susan Deacon and Rhona Brankin, - see above posting - with copies to Maureen Child and Lawrence Marshall. The Scottish Executive is a statutory consultee so it is important what they are saying in their response to the Consultation - and it is worrying that Rhona Brankin is pointing to the good safety record, apparently, of such operations (see earlier posting above). This belies the fact that it would only take one major spill (or a series of regular minor spillages) to be a disaster for our coastlines, which are one of the few free healthy opportunities for all who live here to enjoy healthy recreation,and disastrous for local wildlife, tourism, economies related to tourism etc.
Email them and ask them to pass on your comments to Alistair Darling:
strangg@parliament.uk, susan.deacon.msp@scottish.parliament.uk, rhona.brankin.msp@scottish.parliament.uk, maureen.child@edinburgh.gov.uk, lawrence.marshall@edinburgh.gov.uk
If you are still in doubt, read this extract from the Scottish Green Party's Press Release on this subject:
"There are only three areas in the UK deemed suitable for such operations following the post-Braer disaster Donaldson report, and the Firth of Forth isn't one of them. The Greens say that the Forth plan, by Melbourne Marine Services Ltd, is to save the oil companies one day's shipping time as it transfers Russian oil into 'Ultra Large Crude Carriers' en route to the United States and the Far East. Greens say that given the USA's poor response to the challenge of climate change and the profligate use of cheap fuel throughout that country, the Americans should at least pay the price for oil being delivered safely.
A fully laden 'Ultra Large Crude Carrier' is expected to generate £120 million in revenue for the transporting company, and the fees to Forth Ports Authority per transfer will be considerable. It is estimated that there will be 105 of them per year. By contrast there is no direct economic or social benefit to the local economies of the Firth communities, and elected representatives of local councils have stated categorically that the risk is unacceptable. "
Carla
-
Peter McColl
- Posts: 1
- Joined: 04 Oct 2005, 13:54
If you want to contact the relevant people about this, here are some of the relevant addresses:
Secretary of State for Transport (Westminster) Alastair Darling's email is: darlinga@parliament.uk, his postal address is 15A Stafford St, Edinburgh, EH3 7BU.
Rhona Brankin's (Deputy minister for Environment and Rural Development) email is either MinisterforEnvironmentandRuralDevelopment@scotland.gsi.gov.uk, or rhona.brankin.msp@scottish.parliament.uk, and her postal address is Rhona Brankin, Deputy Minister for Environment and Rural Development, Scottish Executive Environment and Rural Affairs Department, Pentland House, 47 Robb's Loan, Edinburgh EH14 1TY.
The email for the constituency MSP, Susan Deacon is susan.deacon.msp@scottish.parliament.uk, and the constituency MP, Gavin Strang is available at gillana@parliament.uk.
Best,
Peter
Secretary of State for Transport (Westminster) Alastair Darling's email is: darlinga@parliament.uk, his postal address is 15A Stafford St, Edinburgh, EH3 7BU.
Rhona Brankin's (Deputy minister for Environment and Rural Development) email is either MinisterforEnvironmentandRuralDevelopment@scotland.gsi.gov.uk, or rhona.brankin.msp@scottish.parliament.uk, and her postal address is Rhona Brankin, Deputy Minister for Environment and Rural Development, Scottish Executive Environment and Rural Affairs Department, Pentland House, 47 Robb's Loan, Edinburgh EH14 1TY.
The email for the constituency MSP, Susan Deacon is susan.deacon.msp@scottish.parliament.uk, and the constituency MP, Gavin Strang is available at gillana@parliament.uk.
Best,
Peter
-
Bob Jefferson
- Posts: 6212
- Joined: 11 Dec 2004, 21:16
- Location: Planet Porty
- Contact:
A statement from Ann Henderson, Parliamentary Assistant, on behalf of Susan Deacon MSP:
Susan and other Members have been working closely with Edinburgh City Council and East Lothian Council on the whole issue. Strong representations have been made to the Scottish Executive. However, responsibility for the decision rests with the UK Government, and Susan has also been working with Gavin Strang MP and Ann Moffat MP in taking this up with Alistair Darling MP, Minister of Transport (UK).
Forth oil fiasco
‘Damning' EU ruling halts Forth oil planBy Rob Edwards, Environment Editor - From the Sunday Herald 30 Oct 2005
"CONTROVERSIAL plans to pump millions of tonnes of Russian crude oil between ships in the Firth of Forth could be scuppered by a tough new environmental ruling from the European Court of Justice.
The Department for Transport in London has delayed a decision on the plans while it investigates the court ruling, which condemns both the UK government and the Scottish Executive for failing to implement laws to protect wildlife.
Giving the go-ahead to massive ship-to-ship oil transfers near the Fife coast without a proper assessment of the environmental risks could breach European law, say critics, and would expose the government to a costly legal challenge." ......for full article go to
see http://www.sundayherald.com/52523
But don't stop emailing Alistair Darling, Susan Deacon, Gavin Strang about this - it would be outrageous if this gets the go ahead - as one Green MSP said later in the article "This judgment is a damning criticism of the UK government and Executive's half-hearted approach to the protection of our coastal environment," said Mark Ruskell, Green MSP for Mid Scotland and Fife and environment spokesman for the party in Scotland.
"Their carelessness puts the livelihoods of hundreds of people and the future of local economies in the Firth area in serious jeopardy," he said. "Ship-to-ship oil transfers will heighten this risk considerably."
Ruskell claimed the ruling clearly put the legality of the ship-to-ship oil transfers in doubt. He called on the transport secretary and Edinburgh MP, Alistair Darling, to "kill off the proposal now, or face breaking the law and paying the penalty. "There is, quite simply, far too much at stake and far too great a risk. Companies will simply have to accept the inconvenience of coming into port to transfer oil," he added.
Carla
"CONTROVERSIAL plans to pump millions of tonnes of Russian crude oil between ships in the Firth of Forth could be scuppered by a tough new environmental ruling from the European Court of Justice.
The Department for Transport in London has delayed a decision on the plans while it investigates the court ruling, which condemns both the UK government and the Scottish Executive for failing to implement laws to protect wildlife.
Giving the go-ahead to massive ship-to-ship oil transfers near the Fife coast without a proper assessment of the environmental risks could breach European law, say critics, and would expose the government to a costly legal challenge." ......for full article go to
see http://www.sundayherald.com/52523
But don't stop emailing Alistair Darling, Susan Deacon, Gavin Strang about this - it would be outrageous if this gets the go ahead - as one Green MSP said later in the article "This judgment is a damning criticism of the UK government and Executive's half-hearted approach to the protection of our coastal environment," said Mark Ruskell, Green MSP for Mid Scotland and Fife and environment spokesman for the party in Scotland.
"Their carelessness puts the livelihoods of hundreds of people and the future of local economies in the Firth area in serious jeopardy," he said. "Ship-to-ship oil transfers will heighten this risk considerably."
Ruskell claimed the ruling clearly put the legality of the ship-to-ship oil transfers in doubt. He called on the transport secretary and Edinburgh MP, Alistair Darling, to "kill off the proposal now, or face breaking the law and paying the penalty. "There is, quite simply, far too much at stake and far too great a risk. Companies will simply have to accept the inconvenience of coming into port to transfer oil," he added.
Carla
-
Bob Jefferson
- Posts: 6212
- Joined: 11 Dec 2004, 21:16
- Location: Planet Porty
- Contact:
From Christine May MSP:
Fife MSPs once more raised concerns about the proposals for ship to ship transfer in the Firth of Forth with Ministers in the Scottish Parliament. Following the welcome news that the European Court has ruled that the Habitats Directive does apply to this application local MSP Christine May contacted the minister to ask for an urgent meeting to discuss the implications of the ruling and the possibility that the consultation process might be re-opened. During Ministers' Questions in the Parliament, Mrs May asked the Deputy Minister for Environment and Rural Development:
'The minister is aware of the fact that the anchorages that are proposed for the project lie off Methil, in my constituency. However, the implications for all members with Firth of Forth constituencies are considerable. We now have the welcome ruling from the European Court of Justice on the application of the habitats directive, which I understand may mean the reopening of some of the consultation processes. Will she assure me that, if it does so, the consultation process on environmental matters will be open and will include consideration of alternative sites? '
Ms Brankin said:
'I will take advice, having had a discussion with officials following the meeting with DEFRA. I will also continue to take advice from SNH about the implications of the recent ruling of the European Court of Justice on the habitats directive.
Earlier, the Minister had told Green MSP Mark Ruskell:
'The Scottish Executive is considering the implications of the ECJ ruling and my officials are today meeting officials from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to discuss how to implement the ruling. The Scottish Executive is also fully committed to implementing the habitats directive, and SNH is advising on appropriate assessment of the proposal for ship-to-ship transfer of oil in the Firth of Forth.
Further discussions will take place with the UK Government, if appropriate, in respect of our devolved responsibility for environmental protection. I advise the member that I have already agreed to meet Christine May and that I am happy to meet any other members who have an interest in the issue.'
Speaking later, Mrs May said:
'The environmental protection issue is one on which we all share concerns about this application. That matter is one for the Scottish Executive, and I am very pleased to hear the Minister's assurance that her officials are in dialogue with Officials in London. For my part, I will meet with the Minister as soon as possible. I will also continue to work with local MP John McDougall who is raising local concerns with the Minister for Transport Stephen Ladyman MP.'
She added:
'I am also very pleased to hear that Fife Council is seeking legal opinion on the application and the effects of the European Court ruling.'
-
Cleopas
If you see any ships engaging in this activity in the water ... may I suggest a couple of shells fired from the likes of a Howitzer MKII to get your point across that this activity is not welcome? Or turn your pleasure craft into a kamikaze-style boat loaded with enough fertiliser to make them see your point.
Okay, these suggestions may appear extreme to some, but do you want to see the golden sands of your beach turned into an oily-sludge that kills your natural resources and wild life???
No contest for me ... where's my ancestral assegai?
Okay, these suggestions may appear extreme to some, but do you want to see the golden sands of your beach turned into an oily-sludge that kills your natural resources and wild life???
No contest for me ... where's my ancestral assegai?
http://news.scotsman.com/edinburgh.cfm?id=1391012006
Looks like the cooncil is rolling over to get its tummy tickled on this now.
I think its a pity they wont at least lend some support to the likes of Fife and East Lothian Council.
Looks like the cooncil is rolling over to get its tummy tickled on this now.
I think its a pity they wont at least lend some support to the likes of Fife and East Lothian Council.
Storm gathering over Forth oil transfers move
Although an exercise involving the theoretical spill of 150m3 doesn't really have much relevance to the potential problem. 150m3 is tiny.
Although an exercise involving the theoretical spill of 150m3 doesn't really have much relevance to the potential problem. 150m3 is tiny.
-
Bob Jefferson
- Posts: 6212
- Joined: 11 Dec 2004, 21:16
- Location: Planet Porty
- Contact:
From the Scottish Green Party:
Surfers Against Slicks
Surfers Against Slicks
Surfers Against Sewage are joining the Scottish Green Party to stage two public rallies against ship-to-ship oil transfers. They will take place on Saturday 24 March at North Berwick beach (east beach), 11am-noon, then again at Portobello Beach (meet outside Dalriada pub), same day, 3 to 4pm.
The events are aimed at highlighting the high level of public opposition to proposals by SPT Marine and Forth Ports to transfer large amounts of crude oil from ship to ship in the Firth of Forth. Since the Donaldson report, commissioned after the 1993 Braer disaster in Shetland, there are only three sites in the UK considered suitable for ship-to-ship oil transfers - the Firth of Forth isn't one of them.
Forth local authorities (Edinburgh, East Lothian, Fife), environmental NGOs, community councils and many individuals and businesses now oppose the oil transfers project. The Scottish Green Party has campaigned against it since it was first mooted in 2004, arguing that the habitats and species of the Firth, and the numerous businesses that depend on the local environment, should not be put at risk of a potentially huge devastating oil spill.
The press release pasted below gives some more information.
SURFERS AGAINST SEWAGE JOIN GREENS' ANTI-OIL TRANSFERS CAMPAIGN
Surfers Against Sewage is to throw its weight behind the Scottish Green Party-led campaign to stop ship to ship oil transfers in the Firth of Forth.
The Cornwall-based group is renowned for high-profile grassroots action for clean, safe recreational waters, free from sewage effluents, toxic chemicals, marine litter and nuclear waste. (1) Later this month, water sports enthusiasts will join local business representatives, Green MSPs and members of the coastal communities on local beaches to highlight the threat the oil transfers pose to the local economy and environment. (2)
SAS are mobilising supporters from across Scotland to gather along with Scottish Greens, leisure and tourism business representatives, and concerned residents. Members of the public will be asked to sign a petition in the form of a surfboard. At a later date, this will be presented to Forth Ports, the company set to gain financially from the transfers, but also tasked with safeguarding the marine environment and giving the final go ahead to the plans.
Robin Harper, Green Lothians MSP and party co-leader, will be speaking at the event. He said, "Portobello beach is an invaluable community asset, treasured by families, water sports enthusiasts and local residents. The prospect of a potentially devastating oil spill would ruin the local economy and leave the environment scarred for years to come. Ministers can and should change the law to ensure that elected politicians, not a private company, have the final say - I'd urge anyone concerned with the plans to join us for the rally to ensure their voice is heard."
Richard Hardy, SAS Campaigns Director, said:
"The Firth of Forth is an exceptional marine environment and is highly valued by its many recreational water users who use the water all year round. It is therefore vital that its future is safeguarded against potential dangers such as ship to ship oil transfers. SAS believe the Scottish Executive urgently needs to step in and take control of the decision making process to ensure the health of the Forth is not undermined by potentially lucrative contracts for Forth Ports."
Sam Christopherson, Surf Instructor at Dunbar Coast to Coast Surf School, said, "As a surfer for 15 years on East Lothian coastline, I have seen amazing improvements in our local beaches and water quality, so much so that I even had the pleasure of surfing with dolphins three times last year. Ship to ship oil transfers are a huge risk to the local community - for Forth Ports to even consider this is just crazy."
Surfers Against Sewage ran a successful campaign in the late 1990s that forced an upgrade of Seafield Sewage Works to improve the treatment of water before it is pumped out to sea.
The momentum against the transfers continues to build. Last month, Green revealed that SPT Marine was responsible for spilling around 35,000 gallons of oil - but the company failed to disclose the information when providing official evidence to Parliament, but instead claimed to have an "excellent" record on ship to ship oil transfers. (3)
ENDS
Notes
1. See www.sas.org.uk
Richard Hardy on tel: 01872 555951 or 07711 767548
2. The Surfers Against Slicks events will take place on Saturday 24 March at North Berwick beach (east beach), 11am-noon, then again at Portobello Beach (meet outside Dalriada pub), same day, 3 to 4pm.
3. See Forth oil transfer company 'misleads' parliament on oil spill record
The Scottish Executive can't step in and take control of the decision making process.
The issue falls under the remit of the Maritime & Coastguard Agency and the Department of Transport at Westminster. As things stand it's a reserved matter and isn't even directly regulated.
The Scottish Executive can do precious little.
The issue falls under the remit of the Maritime & Coastguard Agency and the Department of Transport at Westminster. As things stand it's a reserved matter and isn't even directly regulated.
The Scottish Executive can do precious little.
Campaigners happy with Forth oil swap decision
Although it's not obvious why since the Scottish Exec still can't stop the transfers.
Executive assumes power to delay oil transfers
Although it's not obvious why since the Scottish Exec still can't stop the transfers.
Executive assumes power to delay oil transfers
Environment minister Richard Lochhead made it clear that there was only so much the Scottish Executive and the Scottish Parliament could do.
“The power to regulate or stop ship-to-ship oil cargo transfer lies very clearly in Section 130 of the Merchant Shipping Act—a UK Act
“That power can protect sensitive sites from hazards arising from transfers.
“I believe that those powers need to be transferred to Scottish ministers, but in terms of this case today, we can rightly call on the Westminster Government to exercise those powers now.
Mr Lochhead said, “By passing them (the new regulations) we will no longer be vulnerable to hazardous activities that fall within the powers of this parliament…
…However, as I have said, even with these regulations, the power to stop this proposal for ship to ship transfer in the Forth lies with Westminster.
“Ministers are to be congratulated for finding a way through the legislative spaghetti they have inherited, but only the Westminster Government can transfer the powers from Forth Ports to Scottish ministers so that they can decide on these matters.
-
mr magnolia
- Posts: 972
- Joined: 11 Jul 2004, 22:07
- Location: close to the edge
- Contact: