ETVs gone in a fortnight

[Nick]

Obviously the OP thinks letting drifting tankers go aground and break up is the best course of action, so no need for the ETVs.

Errm, no, Nick, Ian's not saying that at all; I think he is suggesting that there are situations where the stuff can disperse without the use of Fairy Liquid and all the damage that that can cause. I don't think it was he who was looking for an argument, just making an observation based on the case of the Braer.

It was the grounding of the Braer which prompted the Donaldson Report and the setting up of the ETVs . . .

[Telo]

Perhaps so, but that does not invalidate Ian's point that in some conditions dispersal agents can do more damage.

[Nick]

Perhaps so, but that does not invalidate Ian's point that in some conditions dispersal agents can do more damage.

Ian's point was made in the context of a thread where one of the main points of discussion was whether or not the ETVs represented value for money. The implication was clearly that we cannot use the costs of previous disasters in any actuarial calculation to ascertain this as the actions were - in his opinion - incorrect and the costs therefore over-inflated.

I regard this as a spurious and very dangerous 'argument', the sort of irelevant sidetrack/smokescreen that career politicians engaged in the business of wrecking our society love to get into. I would therefore question his motive in bringing it up. If it is purely for the sake of argument then I don't consider it necessary or helpful - unless of course Ian supports the decision to scrap the tugs, in whnich case he should just come out and say so.

I am sure Ian is quite capable of defending himself.

[ubergeekian]

Perhaps so, but that does not invalidate Ian's point that in some conditions dispersal agents can do more damage.

Ian's point was made in the context of a thread where one of the main points of discussion was whether or not the ETVs represented value for money. The implication was clearly that we cannot use the costs of previous disasters in any actuarial calculation to ascertain this as the actions were - in his opinion - incorrect and the costs therefore over-inflated.

Yes, that was my point. There are two main costs arising from oil spills (or other accidents): the direct costs of the spill and the indirect ones of the cleanup operation. The former are reasonably straightforward to assess: number of fish dead in fish farms, number of tourist bookings lost, reduction in shellfish catches and so on.

The latter are harder because they depend on human decisions about how much of what sort of cleanup to do. Traditionally this has involved the use of dispersants at sea and deep steam cleaning of beaches and shores. This is extremely expensive and also very harmful indeed to the environment. In many cases it is better just to leave good ol' mother nature to sort things out for herself, as she did after the Braer disaster.

However, that is NOT to say that we should encourage oil tankers to stoat willy-nilly, into any part of the coast that gets in their way. Clearly we shouldn't.

I regard this as a spurious and very dangerous 'argument', the sort of irelevant sidetrack/smokescreen that career politicians engaged in the business of wrecking our society love to get into. I would therefore question his motive in bringing it up. If it is purely for the sake of argument then I don't consider it necessary or helpful - unless of course Ian supports the decision to scrap the tugs, in whnich case he should just come out and say so.

I am sure Ian is quite capable of defending himself.

I'm not quite sure what I have done to deserve that little lot. The introduction, location and maintenance of the ETVs depended on various assumptions about the likelihood, type, size and cost of marine accidents. It does not seem unreasonable to revisit these assumptions from time to time to see if money is being sensibly spent.

As scientific knowledge of the affects both of spills and of clean ups accumulate the cost-benefit analyses of the system change. What's wrong with taking that into account?

[Nick]

As scientific knowledge of the affects both of spills and of clean ups accumulate the cost-benefit analyses of the system change. What's wrong with taking that into account?

The ETVs were introduced specifically as a consequence of the Braer incident, so Donaldson obviously thought the sums worked out. Fortunately for Shetland, the Gulfaks crude the Braer was carrying was not a typical North Sea oil. Gulfaks crude is lighter and more easily biodegradable than other North Sea crude oils, and this, in combination with some of the worst storms seen in Shetland (naturally dispersing the oil by wave action and evaporation), prevented the event becoming an even bigger disaster. This was fortuitous, and cannot and should not be seen as typical. Rather, it is the sort of bean-counting cherry picking non-fact that will be seized on by those desperate to justify the madness that scrapping these tugs represents.

Although the costs of the Braer cleanup were relatively low US$61 million was paid out in fishery-related damages, mostly as a result of a fisheries closure for salmon. While such claims may eventually be paid by the energy/shipping companies they typically take many years or even decades of battling thrugh the courts, by which time it is too late for the businesses or individuals concerned, and so ther is knock-on economic harm that is not included in the figures.

The costs of a spill can never be predicted precisely but they have the potential to be enormous. Human life and the environment are in any event difficult things to put a price on, although lawyers and accountants will always do it. Governments desperate to scrape a few pounds from the budget are not to be trusted when it comes to making these assessments, and I don't really think you should be encouraging them. £8 million is a tiny amount, and in any event there is a plausible argument for scrapping the two ETVs based on the South Coast as there are commercial alternatives there, so we are perhaps only talking about £4 million.

That's why I don't like your attempt to introduce what I see as a somewhat spurious 'cost-benefit analysis' into the discussion, and why I may have been a tad robust in my response.

[ubergeekian]

As scientific knowledge of the affects both of spills and of clean ups accumulate the cost-benefit analyses of the system change. What's wrong with taking that into account?

The ETVs were introduced specifically as a consequence of the Braer incident, so Donaldson obviously thought the sums worked out.

I am quite happy to accept that they did, at the time. But we now have better information about how often these sorts of incidents are likely to occur, how much damage they are likely to do and how much the costs are likely to be.

£8 million is a tiny amount, and in any event there is a plausible argument for scrapping the two ETVs based on the South Coast as there are commercial alternatives there, so we are perhaps only talking about £4 million.

That's why I don't like your attempt to introduce what I see as a somewhat spurious 'cost-benefit analysis' into the discussion, and why I may have been a tad robust in my response.

Hang on a mo. You're the one who introduced a cost-benefit analysis in the first place by quoting putative clean up costs. If you are going to use such an argument, the figures might as well be accurate, no?

Would you be as opposed to cost benefit analysis if it showed that having more tugs was a sensible idea?

The ETVs are positioned so that (if I recall correctly) everywhere on the West Coast is within 12 hours steaming of one of them. Which is all fine, as long as any accident can wait for twelve hours, and as long as collisions between two tankers never happen and as long as storms are never big enough to affect two vessels simultaneously.

[Nick]

Would you be as opposed to cost benefit analysis if it showed that having more tugs was a sensible idea?

The ETVs are positioned so that (if I recall correctly) everywhere on the West Coast is within 12 hours steaming of one of them. Which is all fine, as long as any accident can wait for twelve hours, and as long as collisions between two tankers never happen and as long as storms are never big enough to affect two vessels simultaneously.

The whole rationale behind scrapping them is that ship owners should pay for commercial towage when they get into trouble.

There are two aspects to this which are worrying. Firstly ship owners are likely to delay calling for help as long as possible whereas a government funded service is more likely to be proactive (witness the current Minch escorting duties carried out).

Secondly, there are not and are never likely to be suitable vessels in some areas - most notably the Minch and Shetland. Further down the W.Coast (Clyde, Belfast, Liverpool etc) I would imagine that there are suitable vessels available at most times.

I am arguing very specifically for the retention of the Stornoway and Shetland tugs. Falmouth and Dover can look out for themselves. Spain has fourteen ETVs, Germany operates eight, Norway has seven, France has five - that is up to them. The desireability of more tugs can be debated elsewhere. For Scotland, £4m per annum is a reasonable insurance premium IMO based on what we know of past, current and future costs - to ordinary people and the environment as well as to the economy.

[ubergeekian]

The whole rationale behind scrapping them is that ship owners should pay for commercial towage when they get into trouble.

And that the need for them has not been anywhere near as high as was expected/feared when they were put into place. How many serious (ie with a real capacity for significant pollution) incidents have they been involved in over the past twenty years?

I'm absolutely in favour of spending public money sensibly for environmental protection. By the same token I am against diverting public money from sensible protection to pay for unnecessary or outdated schemes.

Having read various Shetland sources on the tug situation there, I am mildly surprised that there is nothing substantial already based there. Perhaps the MCGA could give one of the ETVs to SIC to use as a Sullom Voe tug as well?

[Nick]

The whole rationale behind scrapping them is that ship owners should pay for commercial towage when they get into trouble.

And that the need for them has not been anywhere near as high as was expected/feared when they were put into place.

My house has not burned down in the last 28 years, but I have not been tempted to cancel my buildings insurance.

[ubergeekian]

My house has not burned down in the last 28 years, but I have not been tempted to cancel my buildings insurance.

I got cheaper breakdown insurance this year by foregoing car rental and hotel accommodation benefits. The likelihood of my needing them just didn't justify the extra cost.

[Arghiro]

C'mon UG, stop feeeding the

& Nick, why not go start a fight on YBW?

[Nick]

C'mon UG, stop feeeding the

& Nick, why not go start a fight on YBW?

Right, so lets get this straight shall we you wizened old sea monkey . . .

I'm a troll because I start a thread reminding people we are about to lose the only insurance we have against a major maritime disaster in the Minch . . . and then a week after the last post you bring the thread back to life with an utterly pointless and provocative post that contributes nothing to the discussion. Hmmmmm.

[aquaplane]

Not wishing to wind anyone up, and still catching up after a week away, I'll stop typing.

Oh yes, some folk don't post so reglar. OK so I didn't stop typing.

[Nick]

Not wishing to wind anyone up, and still catching up after a week away, I'll stop typing.

Oh yes, some folk don't post so reglar. OK so I didn't stop typing.

Why did you stop typing exactly?

Sorry to hear about your week in Tayvallich - the weather wasn't kind.

[aquaplane]

We did have a nice picknick on Tuesday, in the Disco, on the road to Easdale, looking out to Pladda, thinking "I'm glad I'm sat here and not out in that lot". It may have been not so bad in a bigger boat but not for us.
We had a nice run out though.