By Bruce Fegen

A MAJOR oil spill during ship-to-ship transfer operations in the Firth of Forth would cripple Fife’s £340 million a year tourist industry, an influential business leader claimed yesterday.

David Chalmers, vice chairman of the East of Scotland region of the Federation of Small Business, said that many of the organisation’s members were involved in tourism.

They were very concerned at the proposals, which would see millions of tonnes of Russian crude oil transferred to huge tankers before being shipped to the US and the Far East.

He accused Forth Ports of “a major conflict of interest” by being the regulating authority for the estuary while at the same time standing to make a healthy profit from any such operation.

“This is a shocking situation we find ourselves in and I don’t know how Forth Ports are allowed to get away with it,” said Mr Chalmers.

He cast serious doubts on the authority’s estimate that between 70 and 100 full-time jobs would be created by the project.

He continued, “The Fife tourism economy is worth about £341 million a year. I am told that Forth Ports stand to make £30 million and that the local economy stands to benefit by £4 million.

“So, basically, for 10% of the income from tourism, everything is to be put at risk.

“If there is a major oil spill, the media coverage it would receive nationally would completely wipe out Fife’s tourist attractions. Everything from the Forth Bridges right round to St Andrews could be affected.

“And depending on the weather and tides, the other side of the estuary could be hit as well. We could be looking at up to a billion pounds being put at risk so that Forth Ports can make a few million.

“It’s all very well for them to say that even the chances of a small spill are minimal, but burst pipes do happen.

“Because of the pressures involved, several tonnes of oil could be spilled, even if things were shut down within a few seconds.

“This could have extremely serious consequences for the environment. It’s not something which can be cleared up in a couple of weeks—it took years to clean up after the Braer disaster.

“I am very worried about what could happen to the Fife environment and my members. They are the ones who will suffer if something goes wrong,” said Mr Chalmers.

He said he had decided to speak out after the Marine Coastguard Agency confirmed that it intended to approve the oil spill contingency plan drawn up by Forth Ports, subject to certain amendments.

The agency can only approve or amend such a plan—it has no power to reject it, or to throw out the transfer proposal itself.

Mr Chalmers, who lives in Kinghorn, is also concerned about the potential for accidents caused by possible language difficulties.

“I regularly listen to the shipping band covering the Firth of Forth and it’s often clear that there are communication problems. I shudder to think how this might affect, say, the Russian skipper of a tanker and the Indian captain of a huge crude carrier as they came alongside each other.”

He recently contacted his MP Gordon Brown, who passed on his and other concerns to Transport Secretary Douglas Alexander.

In his reply, the Minister points out that while he has responsibility for the Marine Coastguard Agency, he has no role as decision-maker with regards to approving or amending an oil spill contingency plan.

“My locus in these matters is therefore considerably less wide than your constituents’ letters suggest,” said Mr Alexander.

Interestingly, he states that under the UK’s Habitats Regulations, there is provision to license activities that could disturb a European Protected Species, or damage or destroy breeding sites or resting places.”

The Secretary of State points out, “As this is for a devolved purpose, it is the responsibility of the Scottish Executive to determine whether a licence would be required for ship-to-ship transfers in the Firth of Forth.”