Tankers in The Minch

[[32511]]

I had an idea in the back of my mind that tankers were not allowed in the Minch.
Am I right?
At the moment there's 105,656 tonnes of Sarpen on passage, according to the AIS. Are they OK if in ballast?

 

[NorthUp]

The 'deep water route' out west of the islands is optional - Captain's decision which way to go, laden or otherwise.
Anything over (I think) 10,000 tons reports to the CG at various points through the Minch, but its a paper exercise now there is not a tug on standby anymore.

 

[[32511]]

Ah, thanks.

 

[A1Sailor]

The 'deep water route' out west of the islands is optional - Captain's decision which way to go, laden or otherwise.
Anything over (I think) 10,000 tons reports to the CG at various points through the Minch, but its a paper exercise now there is not a tug on standby anymore.

When & why was the tug withdrawn? Was it after it crippled the Astute? Surprised the tanker route wasn't changed when the tug was withdrawn, although the west coast of Harris is arguably nicer than the Minch!

 

[NorthUp]

Over a year ago..

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-highlands-islands-17436225

 

[bikedaft]

thought tankers were only supposed to use inside route in poor weather?

tho this is based on media reports. is there anything on the charts?

 

[bikedaft]

This exchange seems to suggest that laden tankers should stay to west of hebrides, but cannot find any specific guidance?

http://www.theyworkforyou.com/sp/?id=2004-02-12.5850.1

 

[TimBennet]

This exchange seems to suggest that laden tankers should stay to west of hebrides, but cannot find any specific guidance?

http://www.theyworkforyou.com/sp/?id=2004-02-12.5850.1

Thant's what it says on the charts.

 

[cryan]

When & why was the tug withdrawn? Was it after it crippled the Astute? Surprised the tanker route wasn't changed when the tug was withdrawn, although the west coast of Harris is arguably nicer than the Minch!

Lol, I think if the washing was hung out to dry it would become clear that the Tug did precisely no damage to the Astute and that all damage was courtesy of RN arrogance. The damage described did not match the operation carried out. Having spent some five years involved with towage of warships and sea trial support there is quite literally nothing that would surprise me when it came to incidents involving the RN. I have been brought within seconds of a watery grave on several occasions due to the incompetence of RN officers when manoeuvring in close quarters and on one of the occasions the clown had the nerve to complain that his new paint was marked despite nearly killing four men!

 

[A1Sailor]

Lol, I think if the washing was hung out to dry it would become clear that the Tug did precisely no damage to the Astute and that all damage was courtesy of RN arrogance. The damage described did not match the operation carried out. Having spent some five years involved with towage of warships and sea trial support there is quite literally nothing that would surprise me when it came to incidents involving the RN. I have been brought within seconds of a watery grave on several occasions due to the incompetence of RN officers when manoeuvring in close quarters and on one of the occasions the clown had the nerve to complain that his new paint was marked despite nearly killing four men!

Indeed - I wasn't there.

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/captain-calamity-commander-who-grounded-1110227
An RN cover up!

 

[cryan]

Indeed - I wasn't there.

Neither was I but some things in the report didn 't ring true and with the experiences I've had with the RN I would be very dubious.

 

[maxi77]

The problem is that the Minches are considered to be an international seaway and as such the flag state cannot control who takes passage. Mind you the good old USA would station a coastguard cutter at either end and invite any tankers to take the outside passage, The tug was withdrawn to save money, another benefit of the union

 

[AntarcticPilot]

The problem is that the Minches are considered to be an international seaway and as such the flag state cannot control who takes passage. Mind you the good old USA would station a coastguard cutter at either end and invite any tankers to take the outside passage, The tug was withdrawn to save money, another benefit of the union

Sorry, this is not correct. The Minches are "Internal Waters" according to http://www.ukho.gov.uk/ProductsandServices/Services/Documents/UK Territorial Sea Limits.pdf, which cites the "Territorial Sea Act" of 1987, as amended by subsequent orders in council (which are also cited). Internal waters are by international law entirely subject to the law of the country with jurisdiction over them - for the Minch, that's the UK. They aren't even (strictly speaking) subject to "innocent passage" let outs - that applies to territorial waters, but not to internal waters. The UK happens to traditionally have a fairly liberal attitude to "innocent passage" through internal waters, but that could change - especially if there was a major tanker accident!

The UK certainly has the legal power to ban passage of vessels through the Minch; whether it would be sensible to use it is another matter.

 

[maxi77]

Sorry, this is not correct. The Minches are "Internal Waters" according to http://www.ukho.gov.uk/ProductsandServices/Services/Documents/UK Territorial Sea Limits.pdf, which cites the "Territorial Sea Act" of 1987, as amended by subsequent orders in council (which are also cited). Internal waters are by international law entirely subject to the law of the country with jurisdiction over them - for the Minch, that's the UK. They aren't even (strictly speaking) subject to "innocent passage" let outs - that applies to territorial waters, but not to internal waters. The UK happens to traditionally have a fairly liberal attitude to "innocent passage" through internal waters, but that could change - especially if there was a major tanker accident!

The UK certainly has the legal power to ban passage of vessels through the Minch; whether it would be sensible to use it is another matter.

Sorry no the Minches is the maritime equivalent of a right of way and HMG does accept that there is a right of innocent passage through the Minches under international law.

 

[AntarcticPilot]

Sorry no the Minches is the maritime equivalent of a right of way and HMG does accept that there is a right of innocent passage through the Minches under international law.

But the point is that under international law there is no rationale for allowing innocent passage, and the UK would be within its rights to revoke it. In internal waters, national law prevails, not international. The UK may currently permit innocent passage through the Minch, but it doesn't have to.

 

[ffiill]

If there were an "incident" I think there would be plenty of us up here ready to form a lynching party!

 

[maxi77]

But the point is that under international law there is no rationale for allowing innocent passage, and the UK would be within its rights to revoke it. In internal waters, national law prevails, not international. The UK may currently permit innocent passage through the Minch, but it doesn't have to.

Sorry no the UK accepted the opportunity provided by a change in territorial waters designation which allowed them to include the Minches as national waters but in doing so had to accept the right of innocent passage

 

[AntarcticPilot]

Sorry no the UK accepted the opportunity provided by a change in territorial waters designation which allowed them to include the Minches as national waters but in doing so had to accept the right of innocent passage

I'm not doubting you, but which convention is that under? Under all the usual rules, the Minch would be Internal Waters without any need for a special agreement; it is narrow enough not to need special treatment, unlike causes celebre like Lancaster Sound, where the USA and Canada for a long time disputed whether it was international or internal waters. I guess it may be a trade-off to do with the status of Rockall, but AFAIK, the status of the territorial waters round Rockall is still disputed, especially whether the UK can use it in defining the "baseline" for the EEZ.

Seriously, I ask because I'm interested - I happen to have had some involvement in this kind of issue in the Southern Ocean round South Georgia. I am sure you are right, but I am surprised as I can't see a need for the UK to make such an agreement, and usually the Foreign Office are very keen on international agreements not giving things away that they don't have to!

For the benefit of others, perhaps I should point out that there are several possibilities for jurisdiction over sea water - it may be international waters, an exclusive economic zone, territorial waters or internal waters. From a navigational POV, the first two are equivalent - an EEZ only covers fishing and mineral exploitation. Internal waters are equivalent in legal status (from an international POV) to rivers and other enclosed bodies of water, and are fully subject to the law of the country concerned. The majority of us sail in internal or territorial waters; I'd guess that the majority sail in internal waters!

 

[Sybarite]

When & why was the tug withdrawn? Was it after it crippled the Astute? Surprised the tanker route wasn't changed when the tug was withdrawn, although the west coast of Harris is arguably nicer than the Minch!

Was that at about the same time that they withdrew the salvage tug from the Straits of Dover?

 

[Romeo]

IIRC the Tug was put there only following the Braer grounding in Shetland in 1993. No doubt it will be put back following the next big oil spill in Scottish Waters, but not before.