More Coastguard Cost Reductions

[chanelyacht]

I'm confused.

If it was profitable why would the commercial towing guys not get together, buy the UK ETVs and man them. Then when the CG calls up and says... 'ERM we have a wee tad of a problem... It seems there is a big ship carrying nuclear waste which is broke could you help?"
They would simply say "sure, tell the ships agent to call us and we will agree terms..."

Because commercial pressures would inevitably mean that the vessels would be "borrowed" for other nearby jobs, and in towage you can't just drop your current tow and go to the aid of something else.

Towage is brokerage based, and CG have access to the two main brokers who provide regular updates of commercial tug availability. HMCG / taxpayer never owned or operated the tugs anyway, they were a contract arrangement. The problem is you couldn't predict that profitability so commercial operators could never justify the standby.

Personally I think a couple of million a year for four vessels with the potential to save billions in cost is a reasonable overhead. It was only inter-department politics that meant the vessels couldn't have done other tasks as well - in fact, two tugs did contract survey and hydrographic work as well which covered their costs.

The decision to remove them was political, not operationally justified.

 

[JumbleDuck]

Well given the potential consequences of that assistance not being there, that'll be all of them then.

Everything worked fine until the Braer, which didn't even cause much problem, save a criminal prosecution for fraud for an old school pal of mine. The evidence suggests that there have been no serious incidents since then either, so the ETVs really don't seem to have had much purpose beyond a bit of coastguard empire building and placating the political concerns which saw Stornoway Coastguard kept and Clyde Coastguard closed.

 

[JumbleDuck]

The problem is you couldn't predict that profitability so commercial operators could never justify the standby.

You claim, though, that their profitability is now well established, so I presume commercial operators are filling the gap. Aren't they?

The decision to remove them was political, not operationally justified.

The decision to deploy them was political and, as it turned out, not operationally justified.

 

[chanelyacht]

Everything worked fine until the Braer, which didn't even cause much problem, save a criminal prosecution for fraud for an old school pal of mine. The evidence suggests that there have been no serious incidents since then either, so the ETVs really don't seem to have had much purpose beyond a bit of coastguard empire building and placating the political concerns which saw Stornoway Coastguard kept and Clyde Coastguard closed.

Wrong.

The Sea Empress was 1996, and was far more serious than Braer (1993). Ice Prince (2008) was dealt with by a French ETV, along with a wide range of other tows and escorts which didn't hit the news because a disaster was averted. That's how preventive towage works.

Where do you think the empire was built? The contract was managed by one person as part of a wider role, and was a company managed contract.

As for Clyde v Stornoway, the fact is Clyde were in a non MCA building scheduled for demolition. Yes, another location could (and in my view should) have been found, but no doubt you would have then moaned about duplication of resources.

The fact that the vast majority of other maritime nations see either state operated or contracted towage as a necessity might highlight the fact that your argument is just wrong.

I take it you don't have house insurance then?

The decision to deploy them was political and, as it turned out, not operationally justified.

Can you send me a copy of the report and enquiry you've done which proves Donaldson wrong, I'd be interested to read it.

 

[JumbleDuck]

The Sea Empress was 1996, and was far more serious than Braer (1993). Ice Prince (2008) was dealt with by a French ETV, along with a wide range of other tows and escorts which didn't hit the news because a disaster was averted. That's how preventive towage works.

Preventive towage is fine. It's the tugs in Stornoway and Shetland which we are talking about, and there is no evidence that they were ever any use.

I take it you don't have house insurance then?

No, I just expect the police and fire brigade to station people in my garden 24/7 in case anything goes wrong.

Can you send me a copy of the report and enquiry you've done which proves Donaldson wrong, I'd be interested to read it.

Time has demonstrated that, as far as Stornoway and Shetland goes, he was wrong. There is no dishonour in admitting that.

 

[chanelyacht]

Preventive towage is fine. It's the tugs in Stornoway and Shetland which we are talking about, and there is no evidence that they were ever any use.

You've just chosen to believe the evidence shown to you was not there.

No, I just expect the police and fire brigade to station people in my garden 24/7 in case anything goes wrong.

The police and fire brigade station people in areas shown to have a risk and in locations where they are able to respond to incidents. That's exactly what the tugs were.

Time has demonstrated that, as far as Stornoway and Shetland goes, he was wrong. There is no dishonour in admitting that.

Except that time has demonstrated there were a number of casualty vessels that needed assistance in order for the situation not to escalate, the assistance was given, and the situation did not escalate. So the identification of the need was quite correct.

 

[JumbleDuck]

You've just chosen to believe the evidence shown to you was not there.

You haven't shown a single case where either of the Stornoway or Shetland tugs salvaged a ship which would otherwise have become a serious environmental hazard. You have additionally claimed that the towing they did was at a profit, yet no commercial companies seem to agree. I think we need a rather stronger case before spending taxpayers' money.

The police and fire brigade station people in areas shown to have a risk and in locations where they are able to respond to incidents. That's exactly what the tugs were.

Oh right, so you're saying I don't need insurance?

Except that time has demonstrated there were a number of casualty vessels that needed assistance in order for the situation not to escalate, the assistance was given, and the situation did not escalate. So the identification of the need was quite correct.

Your argument would be enormously strengthened by a single solid example of a casualty which would certainly have resulted in a serious environmental incident without the assistance of either of the tugs. More than one example would be nice, but one will do for a start.

 

[NormanS]

Incorrect.
8 vessels were towed by the Stornoway ETV between 2005 and 2010 including HMS Astute and the 56,000 ton Yeoman Bontrup.

I'm surprised that you quote the "assistance" given by the Stornoway based tug to HMS Astute. Astute was sitting quietly aground, waiting for the rising tide, and was in no danger whatsoever. In comes the tug, like the sixth cavalry, rigs a tow, and manages to get the tow line fouled round its own propeller. It then wound itself in to the sub, and caused severe and expensive damage to the sub's planes. All this time, there were (RMAS) vessels at Kyle, less than one mile away, which could have given any assistance, if any was required.

 

[ShinyShoe]

Because commercial pressures would inevitably mean that the vessels would be "borrowed" for other nearby jobs, and in towage you can't just drop your current tow and go to the aid of something else.

On 1 hand that makes sense. On the other hand if its self funding then commercially you want the job even if it only crops up every 2 years as that's the one where you send the bill for the last two years if manning, repairs, berthing etc. So commercially you know if you deploy your ETV for another mission you might loose money. That said deploying ETV may be useful training.

Towage is brokerage based, and CG have access to the two main brokers who provide regular updates of commercial tug availability. HMCG / taxpayer never owned or operated the tugs anyway, they were a contract arrangement. The problem is you couldn't predict that profitability so commercial operators could never justify the standby.

Personally I think a couple of million a year for four vessels with the potential to save billions in cost is a reasonable overhead. It was only inter-department politics that meant the vessels couldn't have done other tasks as well - in fact, two tugs did contract survey and hydrographic work as well which covered their costs.

Don't dispute any of that but was it self funding or costing tax payer £2m? I don't disagree that if there is one major incident every year that costs £100m to clean up and can be prevented for £2m per year for 20 years that makes sense to invest. There is a balance if risk... You might only be able to prevent 1:3 major incidents. So £200m over 60 years still on clean up plus £2m x 60 years for the one prevented.

The other issue is who's paying so if the insurers are paying the £100m clean up they should be paying the £2m per year which brings us back to commercial viability...

I have no idea what the 'right' answer is.

 

[chanelyacht]

On 1 hand that makes sense. On the other hand if its self funding then commercially you want the job even if it only crops up every 2 years as that's the one where you send the bill for the last two years if manning, repairs, berthing etc. So commercially you know if you deploy your ETV for another mission you might loose money. That said deploying ETV may be useful training.


Don't dispute any of that but was it self funding or costing tax payer £2m? I don't disagree that if there is one major incident every year that costs £100m to clean up and can be prevented for £2m per year for 20 years that makes sense to invest. There is a balance if risk... You might only be able to prevent 1:3 major incidents. So £200m over 60 years still on clean up plus £2m x 60 years for the one prevented.

The other issue is who's paying so if the insurers are paying the £100m clean up they should be paying the £2m per year which brings us back to commercial viability...

I have no idea what the 'right' answer is.

Insurers pay the "billable" costs of a cleanup - beach cleaning, actual salvage costs, dispersal spraying, etc. What they don't pay is the "soft" costs - fisheries and tourism losses, reputational losses, and of course the cost to wildlife, etc.

The problem with the UK ETVs wasn't so much lack of work (despite JumbleDuck's rather strange dislike of them) but that the government wouldn't allow, for political infighting reasons, the vessels to carry out reasonable additional work - fisheries monitoring, etc. They could have been a catalyst to pull three of four departments' maritime work together, instead they became a target of those other departments (like Defra / MMO) who saw possible losses to their own empires.

If you look at UK tonnage tax, flag registry income, and the value of shipping to the economy, even if there were no cost recovery the vessels were worth having. But then perhaps every other major coastal nation who operates similar standby systems had it wrong, and we alone are right