The Glasgow Herald reports today:
"Campaigners against ship to ship oil transfers at the mouth of the environmentally sensitive Cromarty Firth are taking their fight to Holyrood.
The Cromarty Rising group is now seeking to persuade MSPs to outlaw the controversial activity in areas of high conservation value across Scotland.
The group, which is leading the opposition to the Cromarty Firth Port Authority's application to transfer up to nine million tonnes of crude oil a year between tankers lying at anchor in open water, has made a submission to the Scottish Parliament's petitions committee." More details in the Herald here.
Any Gurnites concerned about the Cromarty Firth Port Authority's application for ship to ship oil transfers in the Moray Firth who may wish to travel to the demonstration can find details here.
Keep up to date with the campaign by bookmarking the Cromarty Rising Oil Leaks page here.
Also follow Cromarty Rising on Facebook here.
Who to write to and other suggestions on how to keep informed and get involved here.
Jacqui Ross of Cromarty Rising explains why the group are opposed to the application for ship to ship oil transfers in the Moray Firth in the video below
Jacqui Ross of Cromarty Rising explains why the group are opposed to the application for ship to ship oil transfers in the Moray Firth in the video below
Of course we need to insist on the highest of environmental protection for this, or any other industrial process in the Highlands. However if the people of the Highlands are to be able to make a good living and provide decent services we can ill afford to oppose industrial activity on the basis that it may cause environmental challenges. I fear that there are those who would wish to turn the Highlands into a giant theme park where the main employment opportunities are in the entertainment and tourist industries, mainly for the benefit of foreign visitors.
ReplyDeleteLooks like this initiative will actually cost 40 jobs at the jetty in Nigg where it has been happily going on for some considerable time anon with the highest of environmental protection.
ReplyDeleteHave a browse over on the Cromarty Rising site for more info.
It is sad that jobs are at risk at Nigg but it is dishonest to use the pretence of environmental concerns as an issue to try to save them. S2S transfers are a more efficient method of transferring oil than requiring a docking arrangement. As long as it is safe and secure Scotland will need to use it to keep our oil production competitive.
ReplyDeleteCould be anon but this is the wrong place even if that is the case. Have a browse of some of the research done by Cromarty Rising and there is a school of thought that says it wont be Scotland's oil coming in either. http://www.cromartyrising.com/2017/01/01/oil-leak-33-time-to-protest/
ReplyDeleteAnon at 1.22 am is misguided. So is the Anon who posted the original comment at 5.07 am. Are they in fact the same person?
ReplyDeleteTaking the misconceptions in the order they appeared:
"... we can ill afford to oppose industrial activity on the basis that it may cause environmental challenges." Ship-to-ship (S2S) oil transfers are not industrial activity. They generate no investment in infrastructure. They create no employment. S2S is simply a tanker-parking facility for which the Port of Cromarty Firth wants to collect parking fees. S2S in the Moray Firth will reduce or eliminate the use of Nigg jetty, thus losing local jobs and undermining the business of other port users. And there is no "maybe" about the environmental impact: research and empirical evidence (eg on seabed disturbance, VOC emissions, ballast discharge and noise) shows that the detrimental consequences are substantial even if STS happens normally.
"S2S transfers are a more efficient method.... than a docking arrangement". Simply not true. Yes, perhaps cheaper for the tanker operators and oil-cargo owners because the fees are lower. But riskier (because more susceptible to weather in the open sea and because anchoring is less stable than sheltered dockside or jetty-mooring); more likely to pollute (because S2S does not utilise ballast storage/processing nor VOC-emission management - both facilities which are provided at Nigg jetty); and directly damaging to local eco-systems (dolphins, inshore fish etc).
" ....Scotland will need to use it to keep our oil production competitive" Totally misguided and misleading. This has nothing to do with Scotland's or North Sea oil, most of which is loaded into tankers offshore or from pipelines and land-based terminals. The S2S facility is primarily to tranship oil cargoes from small tankers (such as those from Baltic ports) into large ones which then ship the oil worldwide. Insofar as there may be a need for S2S transfers in and around Scotland, there are in any case perfectly satisfactory locations already available - not just at Nigg jetty, but also at Scapa Flow and Sullom Voe. And there is a designated S2S zone off Norfolk at Southwold. So there is no need for an additional S2S location and especially not in an area as sensitive as the Moray Firth.