G
Guest
Guest
Copy of my mail sent ....
Date: Sat, 17 Apr 2004 21:07:48 +0300
To: david.jamieson@dft.gsi.gov.uk
From: Solent-life <nluther@solent-life.co.uk>
Subject: "Red Diesel" Concession for Marine Use
Excerpt of your Communication on the net ..... :This excerpt has been made available on the net in our discussions reference the Govt's wish to remove Red Diesel Concession from Marine Users.
"A comparison between petrol and diesel in marine use inevitably revolves around power/weight ratios of engines, and the safety issues of fuel stored onboard and unintentional ignition. Petrol is used most commonly for high speed applications. The use of petrol outboards for high speed boating and the associated sports of water skiing, paragliding, and petrol inboard motors for jet ski are particularly well known. Where lower power/weight ratios are acceptable and where greater reliability is necessary, diesel engines are preferred, and indeed are the only practical option.
Particular requirements in the EU Directive on Recreational Craft acknowledge difficulties in the stowage of fuels having a flash point below 55 deg C, requiring that tanks are not part of the hull, are insulated from the engine compartment, and are protected from all other sources of ignition. As you will appreciate, this places petrol at a disadvantage, limiting its use significantly. Petrol engines are also inherently ill-equipped for anything more than use in relatively calm conditions due to the limitation of the ignition system.
Despite the removal of the "Red" status of diesel, the relative benefits of diesel as a marine fuel are considered to outweigh the increase in basic cost. Diesel remains cheaper than petrol; is less volatile; can be stored in integral hull tanks; and the vapour, although pungent, is much less dangerous than that of petrol. Diesel is also relatively more environmentally friendly than petrol."
Dear Sir,
The above excerpt illustrates the complete non-answer to the original question as to reasons for removal of Red Diesel Tax concession for Marine Use.
Fact : Petrol Engines are used in many situations on marine craft - rough and calm seas, without problems. It is the overall running costs of Petrol engines makes them unattractive to a large number of marine users.
Fact : Petrol engines are not reserved only for high speed applications, in fact you will find many low speed applications especially on inland waters.
The removal of the Low Tax concession on diesel for marine use cannot be justified in any way that can be seen - other than that of perceived financial gain to the treasury. If the situation was to be set that Commercial Users still received the concession and leisure users were to lose it - how can it be administered ? At present most fuel is at at same points for both types of user and I am sure that the Proprietors will be extremely reluctant to install a second system to dispense non-red diesel alongside existing. How can he distinguish between the two classes when there are commercial 'Yachts' that surely would be eligible under possible commercial reasoning.
So far the Yachting industry has declined seriously over the years and benefit has passed overseas. This action will add another 'nail' in the coffin of UK Boating Industry ..... please note that UK Diesel manufacturers are still regarded as Quality and suppliers to well known company's - re-branded.
The strange part is - a lot of your comment makes sense - but is totally out of context with the subject. Yes Diesel is more safe than Petrol. But I would argue about Diesel being more environmentally friendly - it is more persistent than Petrol which vaporizes away easily.
Finally - at what level will the tax be raised to - if it happens ? a) Marine users are not using the roads, are not causing environmental damage to roadsides etc. that require levels of revenue to repair / maintain. Therefore Road Diesel levels of duty are unjustifiable. b) Marine User already pay Harbour Dues, Mooring Fees, Crown Estate Levies etc. etc. which go to the upkeep and maintenance of the marine surroundings - therefore why pay again.
A sensible and to the point reply would be appreciated, instead of skirting the issue and commenting on irrelevant issues.
(Please note a copy of this communication will be placed on the same forum the above excerpt was received from.)
Yours
Nigel C. Luther
<hr width=100% size=1>Nigel ... and of course Yahoo groups :
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/gps-navigator/
Date: Sat, 17 Apr 2004 21:07:48 +0300
To: david.jamieson@dft.gsi.gov.uk
From: Solent-life <nluther@solent-life.co.uk>
Subject: "Red Diesel" Concession for Marine Use
Excerpt of your Communication on the net ..... :This excerpt has been made available on the net in our discussions reference the Govt's wish to remove Red Diesel Concession from Marine Users.
"A comparison between petrol and diesel in marine use inevitably revolves around power/weight ratios of engines, and the safety issues of fuel stored onboard and unintentional ignition. Petrol is used most commonly for high speed applications. The use of petrol outboards for high speed boating and the associated sports of water skiing, paragliding, and petrol inboard motors for jet ski are particularly well known. Where lower power/weight ratios are acceptable and where greater reliability is necessary, diesel engines are preferred, and indeed are the only practical option.
Particular requirements in the EU Directive on Recreational Craft acknowledge difficulties in the stowage of fuels having a flash point below 55 deg C, requiring that tanks are not part of the hull, are insulated from the engine compartment, and are protected from all other sources of ignition. As you will appreciate, this places petrol at a disadvantage, limiting its use significantly. Petrol engines are also inherently ill-equipped for anything more than use in relatively calm conditions due to the limitation of the ignition system.
Despite the removal of the "Red" status of diesel, the relative benefits of diesel as a marine fuel are considered to outweigh the increase in basic cost. Diesel remains cheaper than petrol; is less volatile; can be stored in integral hull tanks; and the vapour, although pungent, is much less dangerous than that of petrol. Diesel is also relatively more environmentally friendly than petrol."
Dear Sir,
The above excerpt illustrates the complete non-answer to the original question as to reasons for removal of Red Diesel Tax concession for Marine Use.
Fact : Petrol Engines are used in many situations on marine craft - rough and calm seas, without problems. It is the overall running costs of Petrol engines makes them unattractive to a large number of marine users.
Fact : Petrol engines are not reserved only for high speed applications, in fact you will find many low speed applications especially on inland waters.
The removal of the Low Tax concession on diesel for marine use cannot be justified in any way that can be seen - other than that of perceived financial gain to the treasury. If the situation was to be set that Commercial Users still received the concession and leisure users were to lose it - how can it be administered ? At present most fuel is at at same points for both types of user and I am sure that the Proprietors will be extremely reluctant to install a second system to dispense non-red diesel alongside existing. How can he distinguish between the two classes when there are commercial 'Yachts' that surely would be eligible under possible commercial reasoning.
So far the Yachting industry has declined seriously over the years and benefit has passed overseas. This action will add another 'nail' in the coffin of UK Boating Industry ..... please note that UK Diesel manufacturers are still regarded as Quality and suppliers to well known company's - re-branded.
The strange part is - a lot of your comment makes sense - but is totally out of context with the subject. Yes Diesel is more safe than Petrol. But I would argue about Diesel being more environmentally friendly - it is more persistent than Petrol which vaporizes away easily.
Finally - at what level will the tax be raised to - if it happens ? a) Marine users are not using the roads, are not causing environmental damage to roadsides etc. that require levels of revenue to repair / maintain. Therefore Road Diesel levels of duty are unjustifiable. b) Marine User already pay Harbour Dues, Mooring Fees, Crown Estate Levies etc. etc. which go to the upkeep and maintenance of the marine surroundings - therefore why pay again.
A sensible and to the point reply would be appreciated, instead of skirting the issue and commenting on irrelevant issues.
(Please note a copy of this communication will be placed on the same forum the above excerpt was received from.)
Yours
Nigel C. Luther
<hr width=100% size=1>Nigel ... and of course Yahoo groups :
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/gps-navigator/
