Kavi Ugl Posted December 24, 2011 Report Share Posted December 24, 2011 Whats a few millions between the Council? No heads will roll, or people sacked, just millions to try and sort out a sows ear, all the amazing savings they have made they can afford it. This is half the problem - nobody is ever accountable at the SIC. Who specified and sanctioned the design?, and how could they get it so badly wrong?. My fear is the vessels are fundamentally flawed and beyond fixing but I guess time will tell..... Oh, and I'll need somebody to tell what a skeg is!. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shetlandpeat Posted December 24, 2011 Report Share Posted December 24, 2011 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skeg Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HatMan Posted December 25, 2011 Report Share Posted December 25, 2011 http://shipbuildingtribune.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/Voith-Delivers-Complete-Propulsion-System-for-70-Ton-Bollard-Pull-Tug.jpg pic of the skeg, on a voith tractor tug. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HatMan Posted May 15, 2012 Report Share Posted May 15, 2012 Rats & sinking ships. Is there imminent danger of excrement and fans? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest posiedon Posted May 15, 2012 Report Share Posted May 15, 2012 Rats & sinking ships. Is there imminent danger of excrement and fans?Some idea of what you speak about would be helpful, are you referring to something that was posted last December? Or what? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MuckleJoannie Posted May 15, 2012 Report Share Posted May 15, 2012 This may be connected http://www.shetnews.co.uk/news/4123-sic-ports-chief-joins-bp.html CAPTAIN Roger Moore, Shetland Islands Council’s harbourmaster, is swapping the public for the private sector by moving to join oil company BP at Sullom Voe Terminal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hairyian Posted May 15, 2012 Report Share Posted May 15, 2012 Rats & sinking ships. Is there imminent danger of excrement and fans? ..... "that person no longer works here. So, we will just have to draw line under it and move on! " But what happens next will be a real challenge for SIC and probably facinating to watch. Will the job be deemed to be necessary by 'the committee'?If so, what will be the qualifications necessary?Will anyone with wit be interested? And what of the 'tugs' - still awaiting the summary of what went wrong in December ? SIC say it can't be rushed ! They say the MAIB would not rush, which is true. But it would have to be a very obvious and dangerous situation for vessels to be kept tied up for five months whilst they investigated. Look at the recent Super Puma crash. Operator, I would say rightly, grounds their fleet whilst they investiagte a very serious inident.Within a week the problem has been identified and measures taken, and the aircraft are flying again. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghostrider Posted September 6, 2012 Report Share Posted September 6, 2012 http://www.shetlandtimes.co.uk/2012/09/06/sic-puts-aside-1-million-to-repair-sullom-voe-tugs Another £1.065 Million. That would be a good help towards the "savings" the SIC are trying to make. How in hell did ships that do a slalom when steered straight ever gets signed for in the first place. Can the signatory be sued? Of course not, what the hell am I thinking, this is the SIC where no-one is ever held accountable for anything. Apart from that I'm saying nothing, as anything I would say would just cause the Mods work. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paulb Posted September 6, 2012 Report Share Posted September 6, 2012 reject them as not fit for purpose and sue the ship builders. why should the customer pay for a design fault. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scooper Posted September 6, 2012 Report Share Posted September 6, 2012 reject them as not fit for purpose and sue the ship builders. why should the customer pay for a design fault.The yard built what the councl ordered so i dont think its the builders blame...Why could they not just have got a bog standard tugs which have been proven all over the world...They did exactly the same with the first Foula ferry and tried to blame the Millars yard..!!!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hairyian Posted September 6, 2012 Report Share Posted September 6, 2012 reject them as not fit for purpose and sue the ship builders. why should the customer pay for a design fault. The question 'who specified / designed them', is one that does not appear to have been answered. The fact that no legal action is even contemplated makes me think.1. SIC got what they asked for.2. Signed to say they had received what they asked for. Leaving SIC to to pay for their own made mess. Interesting to hear tonight that the 'Ship Yard that built them no longer exists'. Thus making making any claim against the ship yard an even more remote possibility. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paulb Posted September 6, 2012 Report Share Posted September 6, 2012 you must be joking they can't be that stupid. why am i saying that its the SIC Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghostrider Posted September 6, 2012 Report Share Posted September 6, 2012 Doesn't the council have insurance for this kind of thing? Most folk outlaying £14 Million on a new build would be looking to have their ass covered in the event it all went pear shaped in one way or the other. I suppose someone may have "forgotten" to arrange such cover, or maybe the corporate arrogance of the outfit was such that it was decided "it could never happen to us, we don't need cover". There again, there's always the possibility that their track record of cocking-up is such that no insurer will touch them with a 40ft freshly disinfected barge pole. Gotta hand it to the old council who retired in May on this one though, whatever went wrong pretty much all happened on their shift, yet they successfully got it buried long enough that they were long since disappeared in to the sunset before things started to heat up, leaving it to the new lot to take the flack and try and salvage the pieces. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pete-builder Posted September 6, 2012 Report Share Posted September 6, 2012 Seems to me SIC should have paid with barclaycard ,they might have got a refund . Tho on a more serious note as an outsider looking in it seems SIC have made many a mess of things over the years Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tangie Posted September 6, 2012 Report Share Posted September 6, 2012 hairyian says "leaving the SIC to payfor their own made mess" yes, but with our money. The tugs were widely reported as having cost about £7 million each, I do not know if it is correct but I was assured by one of the crew that there was a lease purchase deal, so the real cost was around £10 million each???[/i] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.