On 13th September this year we sent a 17 page letter from our legal representation, Bindmans LLP to the UK Secretary of State for Transport, the Right Honourable Chris Grayling MP, highlighting the legal issues, concerns and failings of the CFPA application to transfer crude oil in the sea off the Cromarty Sutors. We had a reply for the Maritime and Coastguard Agency on Mr Grayling’s behalf, dated 10th October and received 14th October. We have not made the contents of that reply public yet. We will start to do so now.
The reply chose not to reply to our many questions and statements but outlined the post consultation process:
- A review of the application by the MCA
- Meeting between MCA, CFPA, Intertek
- A brief meeting between the above and SNH
- Meeting between MCA and Intertek to discuss scope of further work
- A work package was agreed designed to address “the areas of concern”
There is more in the letter that we will revisit, however the main item received was an enclosure entitled “Public consultation – main issues/comments on the OTL application”. This distilled the comments received from consultation and provided Intertek’s requirements of what would be required. It seems somewhat strange that it is the CONSULTANT that appears to tell the REGULATOR what is needed. There is no parallel for this anywhere. That aside, the next few oil leaks will pass some of that information on.
Under the category of “comparisons to Nigg Oil Terminal transfer issues”, the main area of concerns they picked up were that Nigg Terminal transfer operations are safer and ballast water is treated. In their reply they tell us that “comparisons to operations at Nigg Oil Terminal are often misinformed e.g. statements that VOCs are recovered, noise level is lower, ballast water is treated and operations overall are safer are not certain. Intertek have taken advice from industry regarding the absolute and relative safety with respect to carrying out operations at anchor and at the jetty”.
If Intertek had bothered to ask the terminal owners, they would find the following facts:
- Ballast water can be treated at Nigg. In fact they employ an environmental chemist whose job is to test ballast water to ensure it meets required standard. In the operation at sea, the CFPA will “check ships logs”. Well they would never be faked would they?
- VOC’s can be and are recovered at Nigg. The cannot be recovered at sea unless the technology is onboard the ship. These are carcinogenic gases – they affect both humans and dolphins. More on this later.
- Noise is lower at Nigg terminal. Why? Because the tankers can turn off their engines while at anchor. Yes, there is still noise from the pumps however the point is that, in this at sea proposal, it is undertaken on top of the highest density of bottlenose dolphins in the firth, not to mention being significantly closer to the Moray Coastline. When undertaken at anchor the tankers MUST keep their engines running in case something goes wrong. That 24 hours a day engine noise. Dolphins don’t like noise – more on that later too. Oh yes, neither do tourists!
How can these “consultants” imply that STS is as safe (or safer) at sea? The anchorages are near a rocky coastline in shallow water, in open sea which subject to wind and wave action. Nigg Jetty has relatively deep water, and is relatively sheltered without an adjacent rocky coastline, tankers can tie up to it. The operations at sea have an “STS superintendent”, the operations at Nigg Jetty are undertaken in a rigorously safe environment supported by 40 skilled ground staff. It really does show how badly informed these consultants are.
