Firstly – well done to all who have signed the Scottish Parliament petition – it sailed passed 1000 signatures today, less than 4 days in. It only runs until 17th February, so if you haven’t signed, then please do so and encourage others to do the same: https://www.parliament.scot/GettingInvolved/Petitions/shiptoshiptransfers
Onto the oil leak and we couldn’t resist publishing this email from a concerned stakeholder which was sent to the Port today. Enjoy!
“Good news that the MCA has advised or required the Port to withdraw its ill thought out divisive application.
As I’ve mentioned before I’ve been professionally involved in the development and environmental assessment of large scale infrastructure projects for over 25 years. Here’s some free advice based on this experience.
As I see it, the Port has two scenarios open to it in relation to offshore Ship to Ship oil transfer within the harbour area which are;
Scenario A
The Port undertakes an objective, realistic, scientifically informed assessment of the actual costs and benefits of the STS proposal and the likelihood of ultimately being successful with a revised Application. The Port then determines that it is on a complete hiding to nothing given the appropriate assessment criteria the application, even a scaled back application, must address and satisfy as listed in the SNH letter of 9 December 2016. The Port then decides that it isn’t going to go forward with its ship to ship oil transfer license application, announces this publicly and decides that it wants to get on with a more joined up, economically sustainable long term development strategy which seeks to include rather than entirely alienate the community stakeholders around the Firth. Everyone gets back to their day jobs.
Scenario B
The Port continues to employ poor quality consultants who, in cahoots with the management, present an entirely misleading case to the Board that a revised application for one anchor point off the North Sutor actually has a chance of successfully passing the Appropriate Assessment. The Port then spends a vast amount of time and money gathering the necessary data to address the multitude of points in the SNH letter before eventually submitting an application. There then follows a process of minimal consultation with the communities around the Firth. Any public meetings are combative, with the Port failing to convince anyone of the merits of its revised application and generating significant levels of incredibly bad publicity which again goes UK wide, in turn sucking in a large amount of management and Board time to deal with the fallout.
Responding to another round of bad publicity, the Scottish Government launches an inquiry into the running of the Port of Cromarty Firth, broadening it out to other Trust Ports – which goes down extremely poorly with the other Ports. The second round of consultation with the statutory consultees produces a range of negative responses and further data requirements, which the Port and its consultants struggle and ultimately fail to address. The MCA eventually determine that the application has to be refused as the application for one anchor point still fails the Appropriate Assessment. The Port’s hope that BREXIT will save the day in relation to the Habitats Directive element is stymied by the Scottish and UK Government’s adoption of equivalent legislation in relation to the protection of key and endangered species. Facing with being stripped of its powers and handed over to Highland Council, the Board of the Port eventually asks the management to explain why so much money has been squandered on the unsuccessful application.The Port’s STS application is taught as a “how not to do it” example on an increasing number of environmental, public relations and marketing courses. Heads roll.
My advice to the Board and Bob Buskie is to choose Scenario A. Please feel free to pass this advice on.
Yours etc.”
