Cromarty Rising

We had the following comment left by one of our regular contributors in response to oil leak 117:

“The Torry Canyon, Braer, & Sea Empress were NOT carrying out STS. They were “en-route” to a port/terminal. For an oil tanker to dock at the Nigg Oil Terminal jetty it has to sail CLOSER to dangerous rocks than it would at the CFPA STS anchorage locations.

We have had the risk of a fully laden Oil tanker grounding on dangerous rocks since the first tanker left the Nigg Oil Terminal jetty around 1980.

Cromarty Rising has stated that they wish this to continue, when in fact there is now NO requirement for ANY oil tankers as the whole pipeline & oil field for which the oil terminal was built is being decommissioned.”

This is a fair point. However, the issue has always been that we think it is inherently more unsafe to have  oil tankers sitting side by side in the open sea, in all weather conditions risking being bashed together or hoses torn apart (as happened last year off Southwold). They are working in shallow water that may not even accommodate the draught of these ships while in the event of engine failure or catastrophic incident with no emergency towing vessel to save them, not to mention being in the middle of area receiving protection for their dolphin and bird populations. Yes the very passage of an oil tanker through the unpiloted waters of the Moray Firth is a very real risk and it is right to observe that this risk exists at Nigg as well. However, the other issue with STS at sea is that it is proposed to increase transfers by 800% over what were undertaken at Nigg. That is a very real issue, especially is you combine it with the increase in cruise ship related traffic.

Yes, there is no operational requirement to undertake oil transfers at Nigg Oil Terminal. Personally I don’t want to look at it, however, we are reasonable people. Nigg have 30 years experience undertaking the transfers relatively safely. The Cromarty Firth Port Authority, despite being the licence holder, have no experience whatsoever – they have never undertaken STS. Nigg employ 40 people – they are looking for revenue streams that will preserve their business and their existence. We don’t think that continuing STS at the jetty is unreasonable provided that there is no massive increase in traffic and that it is done safely and that those skilled jobs are retained. Contrast this with STS are where there are no new jobs created, that is why we oppose STS at sea and not at Nigg.