Clyde Estuary - Leisure Vessel Charge for Use

[awol]

I notice this comes in the wake of the Finnart terminal being wound down.

How's this for a conspiracy theory? Ineos lose their court case against Peel Ports re parking a tanker at Finnart and using it as a storage tank to buy crude cheap and sell when price is up. Being pissed off at having to pay "conservancy" on that tanker Ineos take the hump and close Grangemouth so no more huge tankers sailing up the Clyde. Peel Ports needing to recover lost revenue look around for an easy target. Just 'cos I'm paranoid doesn't mean they are not out to get me!

 

[SaltIre]

Thread drift, but the tanker Australis has been moored at Finnart since March 2019. Anybody know the story?
MarineTraffic: Global Ship Tracking Intelligence | AIS Marine Traffic

 

[[193211]]

How's this for a conspiracy theory? Ineos lose their court case against Peel Ports re parking a tanker at Finnart and using it as a storage tank to buy crude cheap and sell when price is up. Being pissed off at having to pay "conservancy" on that tanker Ineos take the hump and close Grangemouth so no more huge tankers sailing up the Clyde. Peel Ports needing to recover lost revenue look around for an easy target. Just 'cos I'm paranoid doesn't mean they are not out to get me!

Point taken but I still want my 5% on the Netflix rights.

 

[dgadee]

How's this for a conspiracy theory? Ineos lose their court case against Peel Ports re parking a tanker at Finnart and using it as a storage tank to buy crude cheap and sell when price is up. Being pissed off at having to pay "conservancy" on that tanker Ineos take the hump and close Grangemouth so no more huge tankers sailing up the Clyde. Peel Ports needing to recover lost revenue look around for an easy target. Just 'cos I'm paranoid doesn't mean they are not out to get me!

But the Forth has terminals to Grangemouth. How does that fit in?

 

[awol]

But the Forth has terminals to Grangemouth. How does that fit in?

Maybe Ineos is fed up paying the Canadian Fund owners of Forth Ports as well?

 

[dgadee]

Maybe Ineos is fed up paying the Canadian Fund owners of Forth Ports as well?

You should have had a career as a conspiracy theorist. You are very good at it.

 

[awol]

You should have had a career as a conspiracy theorist. You are very good at it.

I didn't realise that was a career path I could follow. There was only the National Enquirer in the colonies, no internet and a much simpler world.
As for Peel Ports, I am more inclined towards believing simple greed because they can.

 

[ylop]

But the Forth has terminals to Grangemouth. How does that fit in?

They can receive oil at either side, Finnart saves anything coming from the west the time of going round the top of Scotland and back. Finished fuel will still be coming in to the forth to put into big tanks and then move for onward distribution.

 

[Biggles Wader]

I thought Grangemouth was being closed down

 

[ylop]

I thought Grangemouth was being closed down

The refinery is closing, so will no longer receive crude oil tankers (either at Finnart or the Forth) but it will remain as a massive tank farm and distribution hub so refined fuel will arrive from other refineries and be offloaded. The other thing many people don’t appreciate as they drive past grangemouth is that it doesn’t just refine oil into fuel but also makes various chemicals - that bit of the business runs pretty independently already (it has separate ownership) and will remain (for now at least).

Even after grangemouth closes you will still see crude oil tankers in the forth - because that is where many of them go to collect oil from the North Sea. Its piped down the forth and then loaded on ships. Ironically less and less of that oil has been used at Grangemouth. Whilst we probably all think oil and fuel is a path to riches, the refining and petrol distribution end of the business is very competitive.

 

[Skylark]

Do the Clyde marinas have a voice on this issue?

 

[scottie]

Do the Clyde marinas have a voice on this issue?

Probably not but along with others should have

 

[dgadee]

Do the Clyde marinas have a voice on this issue?

They could refuse to participate. That would make collection problematic. Where would Peel Ports lawfully get the data from otherwise?

 

[awol]

Probably not but along with others should have

As I understand it, Peel Ports had a "consultation" with Clyde marina managers and it was from there that the pamphlet leaked into the public domain.
As a PR exercise it turned into a disaster but that doesn't mean those who feel concerned shouldn't continue to agitate and press for curtailment of such draconian rights.

They could refuse to participate. That would make collection problematic. Where would Peel Ports lawfully get the data from otherwise?

The rights granted to Clyde Ports back in 1965 and now exercised by Peel Ports allows release of that information on demand. One suggestion was that the marinas could charge for the information - £100+VAT per name was mentioned!

 

[Skylark]

I’ve been a Clyde berth holder for 5+ years but I live well south of the border. What’s your view of me contacting my marina manager to let him know of my displeasure?

 

[dgadee]

1965 was before the original Data Protection Act. Would be interesting to see how it was worded in 1965.

 

[dunedin]

I’ve been a Clyde berth holder for 5+ years but I live well south of the border. What’s your view of me contacting my marina manager to let him know of my displeasure?

No.harm in you doing so. But I suspect the marina operator is equally concerned, and through British Marine Scotland possibly flagging concerns already.

 

[st599]

Hopefully better implemented than Langstone. Pop round in to Southsea marina for an overnight and you owe the harbour board and extra £18.20. The marina don't tell you, there's no signage, and you need to know which website to pay on to avoid a fee in the post

 

[awol]

I’ve been a Clyde berth holder for 5+ years but I live well south of the border. What’s your view of me contacting my marina manager to let him know of my displeasure?

A bit pointless I would think. An approach to politicians - Ian Murray at Wesrminster, your own MP, Fiona Hyslop MSP heid bummer of transport at Holyrood and anyone else on your mailing list.

 

[Bodach na mara]

1965 was before the original Data Protection Act. Would be interesting to see how it was worded in 1965.

I'm currently trying to get through the 100+ pages of that document and it is hard going. I have not come across any mention of rights to demand information yet I agree that the GDPR legislation should prevent the release of address information. When these Regulations were introduced most organisations needed to find someone that would monitor the storage of information and ensure that it was not accessible to outside agencies without the express permission of the provider of the information. In my own work I was told by the jumped-up prat that was the Data Protection Officer that I couldn't record student information on a word processor or spreadsheet but could devise blanks that could be completed by hand!

The 1965 document is completely focused on shipping and lists various vessels that are controlled, including floating docks! It requires that the launch of any vessel within the area defined by the Order be notified to and approved by the Clyde Port Authority. I must confess that I have never done this before launching any of my sailing dinghies, keel boats or rowing boats in the last 60 years. The new proposed rules are intended to apply to any vessel longer than 6 metres, thus fours and eights (rowing shells) from the Royal West of Scotland Amateur Boat Club will be charged. But the users of wet-bikes and stand-up paddle boards will be exempt. One other snippet; vessels belonging to the RN or to the Royal Family are exempt but Police boats and Lifeboats are not.