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

#41 MuckleJoannie

MuckleJoannie

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 3168 posts

Posted 30 August 2017 - 10:12 PM

Speaking seriously that price doesn't surprise me. The boat is only two years old and there will be a hell of a lot of equipment packed into it.



#42 Frances144

Frances144

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 3720 posts

Posted 30 August 2017 - 10:28 PM

Thank you, Mucklejoanie. You are helping me see this in perspective. OH said it must have the mother of all engines for the power needed too.

Out of interest, how much did the ferry cost?

#43 MuckleJoannie

MuckleJoannie

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 3168 posts

Posted 31 August 2017 - 10:13 PM

According to Wikipedia the Hrossey and Hjaltland cost £35 million each in 2002. From memory the new Yell ferries Daggri and Dagalien that the SIC got about the same time cost about £10 million each.



#44 Ghostrider

Ghostrider

    1crankymofo

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 8646 posts

Posted 01 September 2017 - 01:20 AM

The two Spanish built turkeys they got new and sold on after spending god knows how much on to supposedly give them the stability they were supposed to have in the first place, were delivered in '11 on a contract valued at £14 Million for the two, so six years on and only at a couple of years old, £7 Million is probably a reasonable going rate.

 

When sold the Spanish turkeys allegedly "didn't make a loss on their purchase price" when their earnings were also factored in alongside the sale prices, so presumably they got a sizeable chunk back at sale - How much though doesn't seem to have ever been revealed/reported in the press, so, there's creative accounting to be taken in to consideration.

 

Even if they only sold for £4-5 Million each, they were then 5 years old and with a lifetime of troubled history in baggage, so for a comparable boat at 2 years old with (hopefully) a historical clean bill of health, you probably can't knock £7 Million. Still a serious chunk of change for a bathtub carrying a mutha of self powered winch around, but there you go.


  • George. likes this

#45 ll

ll

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 200 posts

Posted 01 September 2017 - 07:56 AM

The council should not be having to buy any equipment from tugs, port radar systems or gas plants to service the oil industry as they are not experienced in these areas and should be concentrating on the core services they are required to provide. Best to franchise for out the whole port operation and any equipment they own to get a guaranteed risk free income. Jobs would be retained by the leasing company and if there are cut backs in staff, probably means the SIC were making a haulix of it, again
  • Ghostrider, brecken and George. like this

#46 Ghostrider

Ghostrider

    1crankymofo

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 8646 posts

Posted 01 September 2017 - 01:08 PM

^ Exactly. The Council should only have a core staff and minimal equipment investment on their books across the board for everything, not just the oil industry.

 

The Foula Ferry is the perfect example of why this should be done - Under an outside contractor it costs little more than half of what it did under the Council, and there halve been no complaints from service users, only praise as far as I'm aware.

 

There's no reason to think a similar outcome wouldn't be achieved across the board - As things stand we're paying through the nose twice for a mediocre return, just think of how much more bang we'd be getting for our buck (or how much less we'd pay) if putting everything out to tender/franchise resulted in only a 10% saving/improvement across the board.

 

It was one thing for the council to own and operate a lot of things 50+ years ago, as it would have been difficult to find private enterprise capable of doing the same jobs, but times have moved on dramatically. There are now several local companies big enough to tender for numerous Council services, and transport links further afield allowing off isle outfits to be able to realistically service ones as well.


  • brecken likes this

#47 brecken

brecken

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 23 posts

Posted 01 September 2017 - 03:50 PM

^ Exactly. The Council should only have a core staff and minimal equipment investment on their books across the board for everything, not just the oil industry.

 

The Foula Ferry is the perfect example of why this should be done - Under an outside contractor it costs little more than half of what it did under the Council, and there halve been no complaints from service users, only praise as far as I'm aware.

 

There's no reason to think a similar outcome wouldn't be achieved across the board - As things stand we're paying through the nose twice for a mediocre return, just think of how much more bang we'd be getting for our buck (or how much less we'd pay) if putting everything out to tender/franchise resulted in only a 10% saving/improvement across the board.

 

It was one thing for the council to own and operate a lot of things 50+ years ago, as it would have been difficult to find private enterprise capable of doing the same jobs, but times have moved on dramatically. There are now several local companies big enough to tender for numerous Council services, and transport links further afield allowing off isle outfits to be able to realistically service ones as well.

I would have thought a private firm would provide a considerably superior service and saved considerably more than 10% with the SIC having the additional cost of all those extra Directors and Executive Managers and other freeloaders with fabricated titles sitting on their ar*es on fat salaries and matching expenses doing f*ck-all, unless of course when they’re adding to their never ending list of c*ck-ups due to their incompetence, all too common with this council management team and costing an additional fortune we don’t have, heaven knows what they’re going to do when the cookie jar is empty and the public are fed up throwing money into a dark hole, time for a radical long-overdue management overhaul and a new leader too clear the deadbeats and put an end to the arrogance and headless chicken management approach the SIC has adopted of late!



#48 MuckleJoannie

MuckleJoannie

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 3168 posts

Posted 01 September 2017 - 10:20 PM

There once was a private firm providing tugs at Sullom Voe called Shetland Towage but a downturn in oil traffic meant it ceased to be profitable in the early 2000's.



#49 Ghostrider

Ghostrider

    1crankymofo

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 8646 posts

Posted 01 September 2017 - 10:50 PM

^ Correct me if I'm wrong, but was not the biggest millstone arond the neck of Shetland Towage's success/proftability the fact the company was wholly owned by the SIC. Effictively, while a "private firm" on paper and as a legal entity, in practice it was simply one of their "arms lenght companies" which allowed them to participate in commercial operations they, as a local authority could not legally do - and was run by the same people, policies and practices as the SIC ran everything else they did.

 

A bit like CalMac and the Western Isles ferry operations are run today, if you like. Client and contractor both run by the same people, servicing contracts for themselves - basically a paper exercise to remain legal, and not an exercise in best value/profitability/good business.


Edited by Ghostrider, 01 September 2017 - 10:53 PM.


#50 ll

ll

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 200 posts

Posted 01 September 2017 - 11:30 PM

http://www.shetlandt...shetland-towage