Forth tanker crisis looms as experts warn there will be spillages

THEY'RE known as the "motherships".

Weighing in at 500,000 tonnes and the length of three football pitches, they are the largest vessels to sail the seas.

Such tankers could soon be a regular sight in the Firth of Forth, making stops to allow Russian crude oil to be pumped on board.

There are many objectors to the scheme. They are big and small but have one thing in common - they cannot stop it going ahead.

Even the Scottish Executive is powerless to act against Forth Ports, which is considering whether to allow 7.8 million tonnes of Russian crude oil to be transferred from ship to ship each year.

Critics have raised concerns about the wisdom of allowing such activities in one of Britain's most important areas for marine life and waterfowl.

The Firth of Forth is home to dolphins, porpoises, seals and minke, fin, pilot and killer whales. It is also an internationally important breeding colony for up to 400,000 seabirds, including puffins, gannets and guillemots that arrive each year to nest.

Everyone agrees a major spillage on the Forth would be an environmental disaster.

Even the company behind the proposal to transfer oil between tankers about four miles off Methil, Fife, can identify little advantage to the wider Scottish economy: SPT Marine Services of Sunderland, formerly called Melbourne Marine Services, estimates the business would create only 15 new jobs.

Under the proposals, up to 105 supertankers would enter the Forth each year.

Forth Ports, which controls all shipping movements in the estuary, stands to make about £6 million from the operations if they go ahead - a position which critics claim should exclude it from being the decision maker.

But due to the way the harbour authorities were privatised by the Tories, it is the only body which can make the ultimate decision to approve or reject the transfer plan.

Working with the guidance of Scottish Natural Heritage, the company is in the process of assessing any potential impact the proposals would have on protected species in the Forth. But unless they flag up potential environmental risks, the Executive will have no chance to get involved in the process.

It was described last night as a "conflict of interest" and there were demands for new legislation to ensure ministers have their say in every such application.

Mark Ruskell, the Green MSP, said: "Publicly accountable ministers should make the final decision on ship-to-ship transfers, and not a private company. The big issue is about why and how government has allowed a private company to be put in this situation - why has Forth Ports been given a statutory environmental regulatory role?

"Assessing the potential impact on killer whales, grey seals, Bass Rock and the Isle of May really shouldn't be their role."

Most of the proposed transfers are expected to involve Russian export-blend crude oil, pumped from small tankers originating from ports in the Baltic into "ultra large crude carriers" for onward transport.

However, Russian export-blend crude is very dense and thick - and particularly persistent in the event of a spillage.

Mr Ruskell said that, if there was political will, it would be possible to have "subordinate legislation" in place by the end of this year establishing a licensing regime that would give the final say to the Executive on all ship-to-ship transfers.

He added: "There is no way that such a dangerous and unnecessary activity should be allowed to go ahead in the Forth."

The Maritime and Coastguard Agency (MCA) has already approved plans for transfers in the Forth, leaving the decision with Forth Ports.

Officials with KIMO - the local authorities' international environmental organisation which represents more than 6.5 million people in nine countries - have expressed great concern over the proposals.

Angus Nicolson, a Western Isles councillor and the group's international president, said: "This is a disaster waiting to happen - and one that is going to happen sooner or later."

He questioned allowing Forth Ports to have the final say over the matter. "It means you've got the gamekeeper and poacher being the same person, and they're not exactly going to turn themselves in," he said.

Mike Rumney, environment convener with Fife Council, said his local authority - along with Edinburgh and East Lothian - would seek a judicial review if Forth Ports claimed there was no risk to wildlife and approved the plans.

He did not believe the firm's contingency plan for an oil spill - which has already been approved by the MCA - was "adequate".

Due to their size and mass, supertankers have very poor manoeuvrability - their stopping distance is typically measured in miles. When operating close to the shoreline, they are vulnerable to running aground, experts say.

Last month, it emerged that a vessel owned by SPT had been involved in a 1995 collision in the Gulf of Mexico in which 35,000 gallons of oil was spilled. The revelation came despite assurances from the firm that it had an "excellent" safety record.

Darrell Echols, the chief science and resources manager at Padre Island National Seashore in Texas, where much of the oil washed up, warned: "If you do ship-to-ship oil transfers, there will be oil leakages.

"When you have two vessels sitting side by side in the ocean transferring one to another, the risk is very high. It might just be a gallon of diesel, or five gallons of crude, but there will be spillages, I can guarantee you that. If someone thinks you are never going to have spills in that environment, they are not aware of the reality. You just hope you never have to deal with a large spill."

Ian Laws, a director with SPT Marine, was unable to comment last night.

A spokesman for Forth Ports said: "Forth Ports is not setting a timeline on this. It's going through the appropriate assessment and that will take as long as it takes."

A spokesman for the Executive said: "The Executive will examine whether there is a need to make improvements to legislation under the habitats directive in relation to ship-to-ship operations."

Ecosystem devastated after collision

ELEVEN days after two tankers collided, sending 35,000 gallons of crude oil spilling into the Gulf of Mexico, balls of tar began washing up over several hundred miles of the Texas coastline.

The pristine white sands of Padre Island National Seashore - the world's longest undeveloped stretch of barrier island and home to dolphins, pelicans and endangered loggerhead turtles - were soon covered with oil and tar. Dozens of birds were killed and the delicate ecosystem was devastated.

SPT Marine - which owned one of the tankers and now wants permission for ship-to-ship oil transfers in the Firth of Forth - settled out of court four years after the Skaubay collided with the Berge Banker in 1999. Over £725,000 in compensation was paid to Texas.

Concerns remain over Shell's record in North Sea

SHELL, the oil giant, was served with ten improvement notices relating to its offshore operations last year by the government's Health and Safety Executive (HSE) - the highest of any of the North Sea's main operators, it emerged yesterday.

The HSE said the number of notices reflected continuing concerns over Shell's need to improve its performance, two years after it was fined a record £900,000 for safety failings which led to a massive gas escape in 2003 on the giant Brent Bravo installation in which two men died.

It was revealed yesterday that one of the improvement notices served on Shell last year concerned the maintenance of oil export pipework related to a platform in the Brent field.

A spokesman for the HSE said: "The number of notices we have served on Shell reflects the fact that we have had concerns about their performance offshore. We will continue, wherever our inspectors judge it appropriate, to serve notices requiring improvements to be made, or stop activities we think give rise to unnecessary risk."

The spokesman said the situation involving Shell was far from unique and some 12,000 improvement notices were served every year in the various industries regulated by the agency.

A spokeswoman for Shell declined to comment, but a company source said none of the notices concerned platform-critical equipment.