One of the issues raised in the initial consultation was the differences in the process between Nigg terminal and anchorages at sea. Intertek’s response was to say:
“The comparison to operations at Nigg Oil Terminal are often mis-informed e.g. statements that VOCs recovery, noise level is lower, ballast water is treated and operations are overall safer are not certain. Intertek has taken advise from industry regarding the absolute and relative safety with respect to carrying out operations at anchor and the jetty.”
Well, that explains everything doesn’t?
Facts:
- Nigg oil terminal can and does recover VOC’s
- Tankers can and do turn off their engines while tied up at the jetty
- One tankers are tied up at the jetty, tugs are no longer required while they remain berthed. It is the powerful engines of the tugs that probably make the most noise.
- At sea – the tugs will be required to stand by regardless and tankers will not be able to turn off their engine in case they slip anchor.
- Ballast water can be stored and treated at Nigg – it is tested before discharge and indeed there is a chemist employed there whose job it is to do just that – there will be no testing of ballast water at sea.
Does anyone really think that a couple of large vessels in the open sea, in shallow water, that are constantly at risk of collision, working day and night with no shore support and no recovery of carcinogenic gases is in any way safer than being tied up at a jetty with support from 40 shore staff? Who exactly did Intertek take advice from? Are they going to publish that?
