Following a year of widespread protests, the proposal to allow ship-to-ship (STS) transfer of heavy crude oil in the Firth of Forth is still pending, and is now being subjected to a new level of scrutiny. 

At the head of the protests has been CHE fellow Abbie Marland who has helped organize a postcard campaign to put pressure on the Department of Transport and has also been involved in writing regular letters to the local press in East Lothian to keep the issue in the public eye. Opposition to the plan has come from communities, local authorities, environmental agencies and politicians.

The proposal, by a commercial shipping firm, would involve transferring eight million tonnes of heavy crude oil, shuttled from the Russian Baltic by a fleet of small tankers, to Ultra Large Crude Carriers at swinging anchorage four miles off the Fife coast adjacent to Methil.

Abbie says that such an operation is of a quite unprecedented scale and nature, with no statutory legislative framework in place. The whole of the Forth is a Special Protection Area and contains numerous protected and designated wildlife sites, and supports an economy highly dependent upon tourism, fishing and amenity.

The readers of the East Lothian Courier have been treated to Abbie’s dissection of the UK Department of Transport's attempts to avoid the substantive issues involved in the debate, including her comprehensive demolition of comments made in parliament last year by junior Transport Minister Stephen Twigg. Among other points, he emphasized the local benefits that ship to ship transfers brought.

Abbie told readers of the Courier: “Unlike Scapa Flow, where the STS operations are under the control of the local authority, there will be NO direct benefit to the local economy of the Forth bid, since this is a private corporate deal between Forth Ports and the oil company, Melbourne Marine Services.

“It should also be added that of the two remaining UK sites with permission for STS, one was vetoed by the local authority on safety grounds, and the other has very minor capacity. The Firth of Forth has not been designated as suitable for STS transfer of oil.”

Abbie cites the view from the local authorities and environment agencies that accumulated routine pollution and any major accidental oil spill would have a devastating impact on the area. She adds that there are also major issues over the whole decision-making process, relating to accountable governance, responsibility and sustainable development.

She said: “Any operation such as the STS bid must have an appropriate Oil Spill Contingency Plan (OSCP) approved by the Maritime & Coastguard Agency. Under pressure from all communities around the area, and in recognition of the recent ruling by the European Court of Justice that the UK had been in breach of the Habitats Directive in another case, the Department for Transport has announced a 12-week public consultation to establish whether the OSCP will adversely affect the integrity of the designated protected sites of the Firth of Forth.”

The consultation is awaiting launch by the MCA, but has already attracted criticism for being fundamentally flawed. As Abbie points out: “There are existing mechanisms within both Westminster and Holyrood to halt absurd and dangerous plans such as this STS bid. Let them be used. The public consultation is confined to technical detail relating to the OSCP, and cannot address the underlying permitting principle or core context - which most respondees would wish to examine. Furthermore, it has no legislative stature, and does not constitute any part of the decision-making process. It is therefore a pointless - and presumably vastly expensive - PR exercise.”