Cromarty Rising

It has been brought to our attention that when the Highland Councillors returned from their break this week, they all had a letter waiting from them from the CFPA. You can read it HERE. Interestingly, it is the nearly the very same letter received by a Nairn resident, supposedly from Chairman of the board, Douglas Russell after he wrote to him expressing concerns. It was signed on behalf of Mr Russell – good to see that he actually took the time to think about a personal response. That aside there are a number of issues to raise regarding this letter.

1. We think highlighting “uncertainty about the future of Nigg Oil Terminal” is unfair. We want to see those existing jobs at Nigg saved – the operators of Nigg want to find a plan that works for them – this includes STS – this was the subject of a press release a couple of months ago and has been confirmed to us. The uncertainty comes from the CFPA’s plan to do their own STS – if successful then they will severely undercut Nigg and effectively finish that business stream for them. We don’t think this is fair, especially when the CFPA are supposed to look after the firth for all stakeholders.
2. To talk about protecting local jobs is clearly false – as outlined in point 1. This plan will put local jobs at risk. Did you know that the new oil transfer licence does NOT include transfers at Nigg oil terminal? Would anyone care to ask the CFPA why? The CFPA have said previously that the money from STS will be used to fund the interest payments on the loans required to be taken out for the expansion of the their cruise ship facilities – we understand this will include a “reception centre” which will include a shopping complex. How will that help Invergordon high street and the wider Highland economy? The passengers won’t be able to get off the ships without having their wallets emptied.
3. Yes, the introduction of the 2010 STS regulations required consideration of the Habitats Directive (also the Birds Directive – the CFPA seem to have forgotten that). To suggest that this somehow “maintains the highest level of protection for the UK’s unique flora and fauna” is clearly a ludicrous statement when this extremely risky activity is being undertaken in the middle of the dolphin breeding and feeding grounds – described thus by Prof Paul Thompson: “If you were trying to find a place in Europe that posed the maximum risk to a protected dolphin population, this would probably be it…” Does that sound like the highest level of protection?
4. To highlight the number of safe transfers at Nigg Oil Terminal over the last 30 years completely masks the point – it is because these transfers are now going to be done in the open sea, near a rocky coast in relatively shallow water, in the middle of areas important for dolphins and birds and without the support of the staff and facilities at Nigg that we have grave concerns as to this proposal. The guys at Nigg have 30 years experience carrying this procedure out at their terminal. The CFPA has no experience whatsoever in undertaking this at sea (or at Nigg for that matter).
5. If the CFPA really shared the environmental concerns of the local community they would drop this plan immediately and come up with a better alternative – such as working with the owners of Nigg to use that facility.
6. If the CFPA had listened to the feedback provided during the consultation process they would drop this plan – 24 community councils now oppose this plan! If the CFPA had put in a half-way competent application in the first place the MCA wouldn’t be insisting on this extra work.
7. We note the Port’s offer to provide further information, so if any Highland Councillors would like further information that is based on the truth and not spin, then Cromarty Rising would be more than happy to brief them. We would also strongly suggest you speak to your constituents before making a decision on this.

We will be providing our own information to Highland Councillors in due course.