Are Costs Being Put Before Environment in Scottish Ship Oil Transfer Plans?

authordefault
on

A proposal is expected this autumn for tankers in the north east of Scotland to transfer up to nine million tonnes of crude oil per year between ships at openย sea.

But the chosen waters, Cromarty Firth, hold special conservation status as the area is the UKโ€™s only breeding site left for the rare bottlenose dolphin, as well as being home to porpoise, seals and an array ofย birdlife.

And campaigners are asking questions about government transparency and cost cutting measures after investigations raised concerns about the way a first application was handled byย government.

The transfer of crude oil between tankers is a routine part of the oil industry and, in the Moray Firth, the wider inlet which Cromarty sits in, ship-to-ship (STS) oil transfers have safely been done at the nearby Nigg Oil Terminal jetty for over 30ย years.

But the local port authority now wants tankers to transfer their oil in the open waters of the firth itself, right where the protected species live andย breed.

Conservation groups including WWF and RSPB have argued that the controversial plans pose an environmental risk to the area through oil spills andย pollution.

The plans were made public by an initial application in 2015, and staunch opposition from local campaigners, the scientific community and environmental groups are likely to have contributed to it being rejected by the UKย government.

As a second application is expected to be made in October this year, all eyes are on the new proposal to see whether anything hasย changed.

Applicationย Controversy

Due to its risky nature, the transfer of crude oil requires a special license which can only be issued by the UK government following a formal consultation procedure. But there are questions about whether the Scottish government correctly followed this process when handling the Cromarty firthย proposal.

In December 2015 the Cromarty Firth Port Authority (CFPA), which already overseas oil transfers at port, submitted a new license application proposing to shift the site of oil transfer directly to โ€œanchoragesโ€ in the openย sea.

But when the Cromarty residents found out about the application, local former engineer Duncan Bowers said they were โ€œhorrifiedโ€ due to the clear environmental risks for an area of such high ecologicalย value.

โ€œWhen it came to moving the STS transfer from the perfectly viable jetty to doing it at anchorages exactly where the bottlenose dolphins are, then people said no, weโ€™re not having this โ€“ in very simple terms,โ€ saidย Bowers.

Following an initial meetup of 125 concerned locals โ€“ a large number in a town of only 700 โ€“ the Cromarty Rising campaign group was formed to fight the STS license. It has been a vocal opponent ever since, backed by NGOs and with public objections from several members of the Scottish parliament. An online petition coordinated by campaign group 38 Degrees calling for the proposals to be scrapped gained over 100,000ย signatures.

Dr Sam Collin of the Scottish Wildlife Trust said at the time: โ€œThe need for further ship-to-ship oil transfers within the Cromarty Firth has not been fully explained nor has the choice of the proposed site been justified through any analysis of alternativeย locations.โ€

But investigations by Cromarty Rising since the first application was rejected have raised doubts whether the Scottish government took its responsibility to protect the environment seriously enough, and whether it has a conflict ofย interest.

The issue is significant as it questions the Scottish governmentโ€™s role as a public adjudicator on an application which is still in process and has clear risks involved which need to be properlyย assessed.

The process for an STS license application is complex. First it must be submitted to the Maritime and Coastguard Agency (MCA), an executive agency of the UK government, before the consultation process begins and interested parties can submit theirย views.

In the case of applications made in Scotland, the Scottish government responds to the consultation through its own department for maritime affairs, Marine Scotland. This is where Scottish government experts can submit their views on the environmental risks associated with anย application.


Internal email from Marine Scotland Science acknowledging the STS application and noting that it will respond to theย consultation.

But the Scottish government made no formal consultation response to the 2015 STS license application, and has said it was not approached forย one.

Unlike a UK planning application which has strict transparency rules to allow for scrutiny, the MCA licensing procedure is not carried out in public. Cromarty Rising have raised concerns over this transparency issue and documents related to the application were obtained by the group through freedom of informationย requests.

These show that internal emails within the Scottish government were sent in early 2016 advising Marine Scotland, the official maritime experts, not to respond to theย consultation.


Internal Marine Scotland email saying that a consultation response has been drafted, but that the Head of Ports and Harbours has advised it not toย respond.

Internal Marine Scotland email establishing public position that the Scottish government was not approached forย consultation.

Cromarty Rising have argued that this means the Scottish government blocked its own scientific opinion on the application being submitted toย Westminster.

The Scottish government deny the allegations and have stood firm on their original position that they were not formally consulted on the CFPA application. Cromarty Rising have questioned the veracity of its public statements and questioned why it would have blocked its own scientistโ€™s views beingย given.

Any conflict of interest, if proven, would likely still be an issue going forward as the second application will be processed thisย year.

Financialย Interests

The motivation behind the CFPA application appears to beย largely financial โ€” it seems the port authority could save considerable money by moving the transfers further out toย sea.

Tanker visits to the Nigg jetty where oil transfers currently take place have decreased from 55 in 2010 to just one in 2016. The CFPA says this has lost them an estimated ยฃ577,000 per year inย revenue.

The decline in revenues places a pressure on reducing costs. As the jetty itself is owned by the oil company Repsol Sinopec, any fees paid for oil transfers at the jetty is split between Repsol Sinopec and the CFPA. Moving the process out to sea means Repsol Sinopec are cutย out.

โ€œIf they go to these anchorages, the CFPA get everything, they donโ€™t have to share with anyone,โ€ saidย Bowers.

Added to the increase in revenues for the CFPA that open sea oil transfers would bring, the laxer environmental regulatory regime thatโ€™s currently in place for tankers operating at sea would decrease the overall costs of the transfer process. Campaigners fear this could mean cost cutting coming at the expense of theย environment.

โ€œSo if the license goes ahead, all of your cost base plummets while your profits go up,โ€ saidย Bowers.

Environmentalย Impacts

Any money made from the license being approved would likely be at the sacrifice of environmentalย welfare.

Conservation groups have argued that open sea oil transfers will increase the impact of pollutant emissions from the tankerโ€™s activity and would increase noiseย pollution.

Objections to the original application were brought forward by six conservation groups, including RSPB Scotland and WWF Scotland, saying that the CFPAโ€™s original application lacked appropriate modelling for the risk of oil spills and for contingency measures if theyย happen.

Director of WWF Scotland Lank Bank said: โ€œShip-to-ship oil transfers are an unnecessary risk to Scotland’s important marine wildlife, where even a small leak could prove devastating for some species. Unless it can be shown how the marine environment will be protected, these proposals should beย shelved.โ€

But further documents obtained by Cromarty Rising show that the MCA, upon rejecting the CFPAโ€™s original 2015 license application, replied with an explanatory document setting out the โ€œrefinement and further workโ€ that would be needed for a subsequent application to beย successful.

As everyone waits for the details of the new proposal to be released in October, Bowers said: โ€œThe government can be very helpful in getting you aย license.โ€

Photo: James West via Flickr | CCย 2.0

Get Weekly News Updates

Related Posts

on

A 1961 oil and gas well is the suspected source of a geyser eruption in the region where Permian wastewater disposal is causing a flurry of earthquakes.

A 1961 oil and gas well is the suspected source of a geyser eruption in the region where Permian wastewater disposal is causing a flurry of earthquakes.
on

Tech firms like Amazon and Google โ€˜have enormous responsibilityโ€™ for driving fossil fuel expansions, climate expert argues.

Tech firms like Amazon and Google โ€˜have enormous responsibilityโ€™ for driving fossil fuel expansions, climate expert argues.
on

The Tory candidate is running her campaign from the home of a prominent anti-green activist.

The Tory candidate is running her campaign from the home of a prominent anti-green activist.
on

Peter Thiel, JD Vanceโ€™s former boss, also expresses confusion on climate, supporting expanded fossil fuel use while appearing unclear on the consequences.

Peter Thiel, JD Vanceโ€™s former boss, also expresses confusion on climate, supporting expanded fossil fuel use while appearing unclear on the consequences.