Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement

 
 
Saturday, 19th July 2008

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 Edinburgh Evening News site.

Subscribe

Registered Article !

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

'Forth Ports made a tactical withdrawal'



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

THE news that Forth Ports is abandoning its plans to apply for permission to transfer oil from ship to ship in the Firth of Forth will be regarded as a victory by environment campaigners. But given there is no assurance that the plans have been dropped in perpetuity, it is a pragmatic and tactical withdrawal to avoid legislation which could have outlawed it for good.
A decision to proceed at this time would almost certainly have led to the scheme being scrutinised by the Scottish Parliament with a strong probability of new laws which would make the transfers impossible in the future.

The idea of putting forw
ard special legislation to create marine conservation areas was first mooted by the Greens when Forth Ports announced its proposals last year. Had the parliament not considered such action, the private company could effectively have been judge and jury on the proposal as they control the estuary and have almost complete say over its civil use.

But city MP Mark Lazarowicz upped the stakes when he announced he was planning to introduce a Private Members Bill at Westminster to prevent ship to ship transfers taking place.

It is surely no coincidence that within days of Mr Lazarowicz agreeing to drop his Bill, having had an assurance from Shipping Minister Jim Fitzpatrick that he planned to introduce legislation covering this, Forth Ports announced it was not planning to proceed.

Of course Forth Ports stood to gain financially from allowing 7.8 million tonnes of Russian crude oil a year to be pumped between tankers anchored four miles off the coast. But after environmentalists voiced their concern that the company would balance its view in favour of potential earnings against the possibility of a major oil spillage, politicians immediately questioned whether the company was in the best position to make a fair judgement on the process.

Forth Ports says today that having carried out a thorough assessment of the risks using both internal and external advisors it believes such an operation is feasible, although they concede that the highest standard of safety measures would be required if the shoreline was to be protected.

With legislation still possible they may yet have to present their evidence in detail, and be prepared for the closest scrutiny from a Green lobby that is suspicious of anything which involves major businesses.

But from today's announcement it seems that even they acknowledge that unless circumstances dramatically change, any chance of the transfers going ahead, safely or not, may be sunk by a tidal wave of political opinion.



The full article contains 432 words and appears in Edinburgh Evening News newspaper.
Page 1 of 1

 
1

Arthur X,

The Bass Rock 01/02/2008 12:21:13
Well done the Greens. No-one else had seemingly noticed the disaster waiting to happen in the Forth. Lazarowicz has come late to this, but should also be congratulated for his assistance.

Can we now ensure that companies like Forth Ports aren't effectively allowed to regulate themselves in future?
2

Unimpressed one,

01/02/2008 12:43:25
Is that the same greens who think that our climate is headed for disaster then? The ones who thought we were all heading for a new ice age? Or how about the ones who think GM crops will doom us all? SARs, bird flu, YK2, acid rain, DDT, BSE, lead in petrol.......
3

Burd Tina,

01/02/2008 16:09:29
2
I live on the shores of the Firth of Forth. Marine conservation areas will prevent the possibility of toxic oil spillage. You don't agree with the Greens on some matters? Neither do I. So what?
4

Chris,

01/02/2008 16:45:53
#3: If the tranfers take place 12 miles+ offshore, as some numptie of a politician suggested, then the first you will know about it is when the oil comes ashore. However, ship-to-ship transfers, conducted under the eye of a watchful regulator (such as happens in Scapa Flow), have a good track record. This may yet prove to be an own goal for the Greens, Lazarowicz and many others who apparently couldn't see the wood for the trees. (I know I'm mixing metaphors, alex patterson's teacher).

 

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.