Jump to content

  • Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter Log In with LinkedIn Log In with Google      Sign In   
  • Create Account

Photo

New Sullom Voe tugs


  • Please log in to reply
49 replies to this topic

#21 MuckleJoannie

MuckleJoannie

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 3168 posts

Posted 15 May 2012 - 09:15 PM

This may be connected

http://www.shetnews....f-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.



#22 hairyian

hairyian

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 508 posts

Posted 15 May 2012 - 09:22 PM

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.

#23 Ghostrider

Ghostrider

    1crankymofo

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 8648 posts

Posted 06 September 2012 - 05:44 PM

http://www.shetlandt...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.

#24 paulb

paulb

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 4805 posts

Posted 06 September 2012 - 06:19 PM

reject them as not fit for purpose and sue the ship builders. why should the customer pay for a design fault.

#25 scooper

scooper

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 52 posts

Posted 06 September 2012 - 06:48 PM

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..!!!!!

#26 hairyian

hairyian

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 508 posts

Posted 06 September 2012 - 06:53 PM

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.

#27 paulb

paulb

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 4805 posts

Posted 06 September 2012 - 07:16 PM

you must be joking they can't be that stupid. why am i saying that its the SIC

#28 Ghostrider

Ghostrider

    1crankymofo

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 8648 posts

Posted 06 September 2012 - 07:25 PM

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.

#29 pete-builder

pete-builder

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 11 posts

Posted 06 September 2012 - 08:39 PM

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

#30 tangie

tangie

    Newbie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 7 posts

Posted 06 September 2012 - 08:48 PM

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]

#31 marlin13

marlin13

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 207 posts

Posted 06 September 2012 - 09:42 PM

Not only should they be renamed tangy and zesty like the lemons they are, but it has been alleged that one of them burned more fuel lying at the pier than one of the old Tirrick class tugs did in a week and that included 5 tanker movements ie using main engines not just gennys. What price fae da scrappy??

#32 ll

ll

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 200 posts

Posted 07 September 2012 - 08:36 AM

Given their past performances, any other outcome would be more surprising.

Probably the best outcome would be to try and franchise out tugs, pilot services and ferries to get services running more efficient and at less cost.

If you look at the Bigga at Scalloway, she is surrounded for the second year in succession by a fleet of up to 20 vans and trucks for week after week. If you didn't know any better, you would think the crews carried out no work other than the absolute minimum.

Most merchant vessels carry out painting and work as they go so annual overhauls can be completed in less time.

With one tanker a week at Sullom most weeks, do the tug crews paint their boats?

#33 hairyian

hairyian

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 508 posts

Posted 07 September 2012 - 06:19 PM

....

Probably the best outcome would be to try and franchise out tugs, pilot services and ferries to get services running more efficient and at less cost....


In times of financial hardship and ever reducing income at Sullom Voe, some really hard decisions may be in the offing.

Sullom Voe has pretty much always set the Gold Standard for safe port operations. Almost no cost was spared in doing so. Simple rule was whatever it costs and charge the tankers.

I remember a number of years ago questioning the increasing costs and what would happen when the number of ships declined. The answer, slightly tongue in cheek, was that if there was only one ship a year then that ship would have to pay the entire cost.

OK, so we are not quite at the one ship a year figure, but the number of ships is a tiny fraction of the hey day. Total ships in week is often less than was seen in a day in times past.

Most of the Sullom Voe marine operations today would be totally unattractive to commercial operators on a commission basis.
Remember taking the tugs 'in house' from a commercial operator was to save money on this very point.

Sullom Voe still has excellent facilities, but there is not the volume of oil throughput to sustain it to the standard we have become accustomed.
There always seems to be jam tomorrow, Atlantic oil just round the corner.
The big question is how do we keep it going in the mean time ?
Once shut, it is improbable that it would re-open.
There is no more 'bounty' money to be had, so attracting more oil will only benefit Shetland by way of commercial port operations.

Offshore loading / shuttle tankers / pipelines are all in the frame these days and anyone that thinks local oil producers can be held to ransom are very mistaken.

#34 ll

ll

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 200 posts

Posted 09 September 2016 - 08:01 PM

After convincing everyone that they needed the new tugs at Sullom and having six tugs for a while, are they now going to work with just 3 tugs?



#35 Ghostrider

Ghostrider

    1crankymofo

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 8648 posts

Posted 29 August 2017 - 02:15 PM

Buy, sell, buy, sell....FFS, you couldn't make this up, and once again "officials" are presenting proposals to the Council for approval on impossible timelines that end in either accept as is/reject decisions. No time to discuss issues or amend proposals....its rubber stamp it as we tell you to, or forget it completely. Is it any wonder a piss up in a brewery our council cannot run.

 

Proposal put before committee today (29th), supposedly to go before tomorrow's (30th) full meeting for ratification, on an issue that deadlines on 20th Sept. They've had the boat since April, the decision to hire it was taken before that, where have the desk-bound sailors been in getting the discussion on hire vs. buy put on meeting agendas between then and now?

 

http://www.shetnews....on-tug-purchase



#36 Frances144

Frances144

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 3722 posts

Posted 29 August 2017 - 09:38 PM

How can a tug cost over seven million pounds?

Isn't that a lot of money for a boat of that size? What am I missing?

http://www.shetnews....on-tug-purchase

#37 quattro

quattro

    Newbie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 9 posts

Posted 29 August 2017 - 10:36 PM

Midder Wit !
  • beachcaster likes this

#38 Frances144

Frances144

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 3722 posts

Posted 30 August 2017 - 04:38 AM

I don't understand.

#39 RileyBKing

RileyBKing

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 140 posts

Posted 30 August 2017 - 08:20 AM

So they can sell it in a couple of years for £4 million and claim they have made a profit (again!)  because it's more than the written down value in the books?


  • Frances144 likes this

#40 Frances144

Frances144

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 3722 posts

Posted 30 August 2017 - 03:05 PM

thank you