North Ness Petrol Tank & Future Development Potential

[AndDenWeMadeTea]

A bit of a mountain out of a molehill perhaps?

 

The tanks have been there fore years, but things being what they are, they wil no doubt be moved over time.;

[tomasinanorman]

I wonder how many call outs the fire brigade have had in the vicinity of the fuel depot before now... this is newsworthy because an area has been evacuated. The fuel depot is the least exciting part of this incident. In fact it's not a part of this incident....

[Willies_landy]

Just thoguht I would say what a wonderful job the Fire Brigade and the Police one in the wake of this Major Incident! It makes you fell safe knowing that they are there to look after us.

[Marvin]

The tanks at the north ness also contain avgas, or they used to anyway. There's a few hundred tonnes of flammables in there, but depot safety is really stringent.

 

Njugle,

 

I had to have a bit of a laugh at that comment. Our office looks out over the fuel depot.... at the moment the gates are standing wide open and people are always using the 'path' next to it...more often as not smoking!....lol

 

To be fair there is a camera but thats about as stringent as it gets....

 

Cheers

 

Marvin

[Njugle]

Ahem, well it's a fair cop i suppose. The yard itself is run pretty tightly, but it's surroundings are a bit random.

[Marvin]

The yard itself is run pretty tightly, but it's surroundings are a bit random.

 

Its the gates in to the compound I was speaking about...somebody has just turned up and locked them...

[trout]

The yard itself is run pretty tightly, but it's surroundings are a bit random.

 

Its the gates in to the compound I was speaking about...somebody has just turned up and locked them...

 

OOhh the power of communication via the Internet arf arf

[Wheesht]

I was wondering, I often do that, did the fire service evacuate the area they did because of the threat of the gas within the Malakoff going up or the threat to the oil storage tanks next door, or even both?

[Njugle]

A little of both I reckon Wheesht, but mainly the gas tank. The primary concern would have been shrapnel and shockwave from the tank, had it exploded. If it were believed that the fuel depot was likely to go up the exclusion zone would probably have been widened.

 

 

Mr Cluness added: “The close proximity of people working with sparks and oil tanks is dangerous and, I guess, we saw the result of that on Monday. Fortunately, no one was hurt and it all ended well.

Eh? What result? This statement implies that the fire involved the fuel depot. Do i detect a less than subtle misrepresentation of events here to form a political crow-bar?

“It gives us added impetus to try and see whether we can come to some agreement with BP to see these tanks shifted elsewhere.

 

“That site would be at the edge of the town at some stage, and it is no longer acceptable that it stays there. The same would apply to Malakoff, and hopefully, some day Malakoff will have a nice new building somewhere too.

So the industrial heart of Lerwick is to be ripped out entirely, as the Malakoff is no longer acceptable either. I'm sure the Malakoff will be delighted to hear this too. What next? The fishmarket? Perhaps Chris Hodge could be moved into it, to comply with "commercial planning guidelines."

[vailron]

funny how some folk were evacuated while others were not, chap i know lives right behind malakoff and he was not evacuated????

[Guest Anonymous]

So the industrial heart of Lerwick is to be ripped out entirely, as the Malakoff is no longer acceptable either. I'm sure the Malakoff will be delighted to hear this too. What next? The fishmarket? Perhaps Chris Hodge could be moved into it, to comply with "commercial planning guidelines.

 

Actually there are plans already in the pipeline to build a new state of the art fish market with new quaysides on the site south of the power station , the waste land area behind burgess auto stores, they have already moved all fishing related activity out to the shell base etc. you dont see fishermen ever mending nets anywhere along the pier inower .....

they will probably sell the fishmarket of and make it into flats for trendy young yuppies who work in advertising or I.T or some similar type of wanky job

[Tomblands]

Actually there are plans already in the pipeline to build a new state of the art fish market with new quaysides on the site south of the power station , the waste land area behind burgess auto stores, they have already moved all fishing related activity out to the shell base etc. you dont see fishermen ever mending nets anywhere along the pier inower .....

they will probably sell the fishmarket of and make it into flats for trendy young yuppies who work in advertising or I.T or some similar type of wanky job

 

HEY!

 

Don't file me alongside those in advertising.

[Fjool]

Agreed Tomblands. Everyone knows that those in I.T. prefer to live in basements.

[trout]

Shetland News[/url] - Gavin Morgan - 30th January"]How risky are those fuel tanks?

 

SHETLAND’S public arts agency and the local council are calling for a review of health and safety guidelines to allow the islands’ multi million pound cinema and music venue to go ahead.

 

Gwilym Gibbons: 'Try and understand the impact of HSE guidelines.'The Health and Safety Executive has said no buildings should be constructed within a 150 metre radius of fuel tanks following the 2005 Buncefield explosion, affecting plans for the venue at North Ness and other housing and business developments.

 

Now the director of Shetland Arts, Gwilym Gibbons, has called a public meeting to find out what impact the HSE guidelines, which are due to become law this summer, will have on local residents and businesses.

 

Mr Gibbons said he wanted to initiate a “review” of the procedures to allow developments in Lerwick to go ahead, and to find out how dangerous it was for people already living and working so close to the four North Ness fuel tanks.

 

“The meeting will be to try and understand the impact of the new guidance by HSE, but also what we can do to reduce risks on the site,” he said.

 

“It is about trying to work through why there appears to be a contradiction. We just want to receive some clarity here.”

Mr Gibbons said had received a letter from HSE saying that the risk to people currently working in offices or holding events in this area is “minimal”.

 

Shetland Islands Council’s planners are also seeking clarification about how the new rules will impact on Lerwick.

 

Head of planning Ian McDiarmid said: “All we want them to do is review the restrictions HSE has placed on new developments in the immediate vicinity of the North Ness site.

 

“We think there are differences between the Shetland situation and the Buncefield situation. We have asked them in the light of that, if they would review the restrictions they have imposed.”

 

Shetland’s MP Alistair Carmichael and MSP Tavish Scott will be invited to the meeting next month and it is hoped they will also pursue the issue with HSE.

 

Mr Carmichael said HSE needed to explain why it was unsafe for new buildings, but not for people already working in the area.

 

“I don’t understand the logic of the HSE position. If there is a genuine risk here then surely it is a risk for people in existing buildings.

 

“What health and safety is supposed to be about is risk assessment, not risk elimination.

 

“The inconsistency that I cannot get my head around is that if these regulations are applied rigidly would act as a barrier to new development, but are no objection to anyone living or working there.

 

“I just don’t get the sense of that. If it’s a danger, it’s a danger and is one to people however long they have been there.”

[peeriebryan]

Shetland News[/url] - Gavin Morgan - 30th January"]Head of planning Ian McDiarmid said: “All we want them to do is review the restrictions HSE has placed on new developments in the immediate vicinity of the North Ness site.

 

“We think there are differences between the Shetland situation and the Buncefield situation. We have asked them in the light of that, if they would review the restrictions they have imposed.”

The differences between the North Ness depot and Buncefield are huge in both scale and operational procedures, to the point that they are barely comparable.

 

Buncefield was one of Britains largest oil product storage facilities with around 5% of the entire UK storage capacity. Hardly proportionate to the North Ness tank (apparently the new HSE guidelines referred to only apply to petrol tanks, not diesel or heating fuel, and as far as I'm aware there is only one petrol storage tank at the North Ness).

 

The fire at Buncefield was caused by a tank overflowing, caused by sensor failures in the early hours of the morning when there was a minimum of staff on duty. The tank was filled from a pipeline which continued to pump petrol into the tank for around 40 minutes after it began to overflow. An estimated 300 additional tonnes of petrol was pumped into, and subsequently spilled from, the tank before the fire broke out. I'm not sure of how the tanker ship fills the North Ness tank or its capacity (anybody know?), but certainly nothing comparable to Buncefield.

 

Buncefeild was a major part of the UK oil pipeline network, which is largely automated/ computer controlled, compared to the North Ness which is essentially a transfer point between ship and road tankers; a realatively labour intensive process where a spill is therefore likely to be noticed.