View Full Version : George Bush sending us a toxic fleet what do you think about
George Bush and his government are planning to sail a 94 fleet of “Toxic Ghost ships” from Virginia USA filled with a mixture of toxic chemicals, asbestos & oil to a wrecking yard on Teeside.
This story has been revealed by the Scottish Sunday Mail 29/6/03.
The US government plan to tow the first 13 leaking hulks this summer from the US to the UK via the Pentland Firth. Now as any Caithnessian knows the Pentland Firth is not noted for its calm and serene weather conditions, so if any of the hulks get into trouble in the Firth they are to be towed to Scapa Flow by order of the Secretary of Sates representative Robin Middleton.
The Orkney Islands Council is demanding information from the UK Government and the US Maritime Administration about these vessels.
The Irish and Icelandic governments, are also against this “ Ghost Fleet” leaving the US and crossing the Atlantic for fear of contamination. The Irish Prime Minister Berti Ahern’s Finna Fail party does not want the Ghost Fleet anywhere near its waters. Deputy Government Chief Whip Billy Kellecher says if any of the vessels were to sink off Ireland there would be an environmental disaster.
Ok the “Plus side”??? of this story is that the US are willing to pay £1 million per vessel to the breakers yard at Hartlepool and it will create 200 jobs.
My question is why are we accepting this crap from both governments I know I don’t want any more toxic waste here in the UK why take it from the US.
The Pentland Firth is one of the most beautiful places on this fragile Earth I have ever seen so again I’m asking why bring it over here
2little2late
29-Jun-03, 22:03
It really shows how soft this country is, to allow something like this to happen. We have enough problems of our own trying to avert our own toxic pollutions. This country should refuse this type of thing to happen.
Alright they are willing to pay one million dollars per vessel. What if the worst did happen
it would cost this country millions to put right. We are still suffering the after effects of the Braer disaster. Then the incident a couple of years ago in the Pentland firth. Have we not learned our lesson? The gorvenment should look at what the cosequences could be and tell George Bush "NO! NOT ON OUR DOOR STEP"
Wow... 'disaster waiting to happen' springs to mind. So what, exactly, would the plan be once any troubled ships reach Scapa Flow? Insanity!!!
It isn't like these ships haven't already been leaking all over the James River, Virginia (eight spills in the last five years) and Governor Warner (Virginia) certainly doesn't want them in his waters any longer. His view is that
One hurricane or catastrophic storm could unleash a disaster. With the help of our delegation in Washington, we must fight to rid our river of this danger.I wonder how 'catastrophic' the waters around Caithness might be considered?
What I'm unsure of is how the US have managed to bypass their own EPA regulations on shipping this stuff… or is this yet another climb down on environmental protection in the name of commercialisation???
Still, it all looks pretty…
http://www.pilotonline.com/special/ghostfleet/fleetrust.jpg
http://www.pilotonline.com/special/ghostfleet/fleetworkers.jpg
I agree with everything you have said so far.......I do not want these ships to pass near my home, and this lovely place. (Britain's best kept secret?)
But, sorry to have to correct you, Golach, the story was leaked in the John O'Groats Journal last Friday, 27/6/03.
Anonymous
30-Jun-03, 04:46
Are these ships carrying a toxic cargo? I can understand that brealers yards would be able to dispose of the "ships" , in what form is this toxic material? Cant see any reason why any cargo cannot be decanted prior to their final voyage.
Anyone aware of what the cargo is? Volumes, risk assessment been done?
Also not sure if the UK can import any toxice waste - where would it be disposed. More questions than answers, but then again the source is the Sunday Mail (I take it we are talking the Daily Record sunday edition), a rag and not noted for erudite journalism.
I have just spent the better part of three hours trawling the Internet for information on the deal between the US Maritime Administration and Able.
I have found an awful lot of information detailing the environmental disaster-in-waiting that the fleet in James River represents. I have found press reports of Governor Warner touring the fleet in a press-packed boat and declaring it a catastrophe waiting to happen. I have found the online protestation to the original plans to tow the fleet (including toxic cargo) to China for decommissioning/recycling. There are plenty of news reports of previous chemical leaks and accidental deaths on the ships.
What I cannot find is anything (other than a few press reports) about this move to tow the ships to the UK. Able’s managing director has confirmed that this is in the pipeline, but the details from the US departments involved just aren’t there. I have to say; this being reported in the Caithness Courier before being on the BBC news is something of a surprise (well done to the Courier team).
Even the good Governor of Virginia himself, so adamantly campaigning for the ships to be moved, fails to even mention the fact that they are now almost certain to be removed to the UK in his daily press briefings. Nor does he mention that the US administration has granted special dispensation for the ships to be towed abroad contrary to US EPA regulations.
The only glimmer of what might be happening can be gained by looking at the timelines. As recently as April, the US Maritime Administration was still tendering for bids to deal with the fleet. Two months later and it looks as though the contract will go to a UK firm (Able) whose own website boasts their position as a ‘One stop shop’ for waste management, and whose Teesside Environment Recycling and Reclamation Centre (TERRC) facility includes the ability to handle hazardous materials and boasts a ‘specially constructed decontamination unit [to facilitate] the removal of asbestos’.
Where, in those two months, was the time available (whilst looking at the Able bid) to also accept bids for, and contract out the work for the cleaning up of the ships prior to departure? Why wasn’t that contract mentioned by anybody (including the environmental activists so keen to see the ships moved from the James River who seem to be quite vocal in their opposition to anything to do with the ships)?
Most importantly, why would the US pay to tow the ships to the UK and THEN pay £1m per ship if all that Able are going to need to do is break up the vessels and sell them on for scrap? The £1m per ship (plus towing fee) is paying for something…
Until the full information regarding the contents and conditions of these ships is available, I don’t see how the people who might be affected by any incident involving the transport of these vessels (some of which are so decayed they can reportedly be holed by a blow from a hammer) can be expected to accept their movement through British waters. This is not, and should not be, our mess to clean up.
JJC,
I dont know whether to thank you for your information from your surfing or emigrate to somewhere away from the Atlantic and the North Sea, your info is a lot more scary than I had imagined and any of these rotting hulks make it across here.
I truly hope they dont come through the Firth.
Golach
George Brims
01-Jul-03, 01:03
Been doing a little browsing myself... Most of the dangerous material in these ships is heavy fuel oil, which is also the thing most likely to escape. Of course there are smaller amounts of other materials. PCBs were mentioned, probably in old electric transformers. What ticks me off is that the amount of money said to be needed to start dealing with the problem, by draining the heavy fuel oil prior to disposal of the ships, is $40 million. The bill for ammunition alone during the early part of the Iraq invasion was ten times that amount per week. In case it wasn't clear from the earlier posts, these are military ships, the mothball fleet. Well a bit of it, there are also a lot of ships at Oakland on the West coast. I can't believe the East coast of the USA doesn't have any breakers' yards that could deal with these ships. Oh well perhaps Hurricane Bill will tear through there this week and make it a moot point.
Margaret M.
02-Jul-03, 01:48
This was front page news in a section of the Richmond Times Dispatch here in Virginia today. "Ghost Fleet transport spurs worry" was the headline and it stated that the Sunday Mail and the Caithness Courier had reported this in a tone of alarm. Governor Warner describes these ships as "ticking time bombs of enviromental danger" and he wanted them out of the James River for fear of a huge disaster. The Maritime Administration insists that complete checks have been done to determine that the ships are "tow worthy". Seemingly, the contract with the Biritsh company is not yet finalized. Additional jobs are fine and dandy but at what cost?
It was very strange reading a Virginia newspaper and seeing the Caithness Courier mentioned. I applaud them for bringing this to everyone's attention.
Well spotted, Margaret M. The article you mention is now on the web at http://timesdispatch.com/news/vametro/MGB1ZSH7LHD.html.
Even more worrying things occur to me now that I have read the article.
According to one report I read the other day, some of these ships are so rusted and decayed that they can be holed with a hammer (a fact I mentioned before). Yet all thirteen of the ships included in this contract (‘the most decayed ships among the approximately 100 vessels’) will leave James River at the same time.
There is concern that a ‘hurricane or catastrophic storm’ would result in environmental disaster if the ships were in James River. Are we honestly expected to believe that a ‘catastrophic storm’ cannot exist in the open Atlantic? And has nobody else noticed what happens in the Pentland Firth when the tides meet?
With all thirteen ships in the same place at the same time, isn’t it feasible that if a storm hits and causes problems to one vessel the same will happen to all thirteen? How would you describe thirteen environmental catastrophes all happening in one place at one time?
Isn’t it also nice to see that the EPA granted dispensation for these vessels to be towed to the UK (despite a ban on exporting PCBs) as an ‘experiment’. Anybody else hear the words ‘Guinea pig’???
I am, I have to admit, a little confused about one thing. The vessels need to be removed from James River because they are a ‘ticking time bomb’ and pose a very real threat to the environment. MARAD have said that the ships will not be towed until certified safe for the journey. How can they be a ‘ticking time bomb’ AND entirely safe to tow across the Atlantic, through the Pentland Firth, and on to Teesside???
George Brims
02-Jul-03, 17:36
Not that I am wishing lasting harm on anyone, but it seems to me the English Channel would be a better route from Virginia to Teeside anyway. I suppose that's me being a NIMBY - Not In My (former) Back Yard. Even if the ships are brought around the North of Scotland, the Pentland Firth ought to be avoided I think, with a slightly longer route past Fair Isle, or better still away out beyond Shetland. Best of all though would be dealing with Virginia's junk in Virginia, or somewhere close.
ONE THING I KNOW FOR SURE
BRITAIN IS THE WORLDS LARGEST DUSTBIN!
SOLASTAR
I don't get you, Solastar…
Do you mean that we have a lot of problems with rubbish, or are you simply commenting on the way that certain nations seem to believe it right to dump their waste on us and our government are more interested in the short-term cash (and, of course, the prospect of increased servitude to our friends across the pond) than the long-term environmental consequences???
SHEESH..this sounds more than serious.I have always appreciated the less fouled waters of Caithness..Dounreay to one side..I trust that The Scottish Parliament in on the case together with The Regional Council..DON't let it happen lobby yer MSPs yer London MPs an' anyone else who can assist..failing all else call Greenpeace..get this STOPPED NOW.
Teessider
04-Aug-03, 21:36
For info... both US and UK governments have given this deal the ok after the regulators (the Environmen Protection Agency in the States and the Health and Safety Executive here) lifted the rules forbidding the export of PCBs and the import of asbestos respectively. The contract for these 13 ships to come to Teesside is now signed.
Our local papers are hailing it as 'good news' - obviously we should be dancing in the streets at the thought of all those lovely jobs separating the rusty steel from the hazardous waste. In practice, a lot of people are up in arms as the news spreads, and the Greens and a group called IMPACT are acting as the focus to challenge all this. Friends of the Earth are supportive, and we've got a strong link with a group in Seattle, the Basel Action Network (www.ban.org), who fear this is just one step on the way to America going back to dumping its waste ships in Asian yards (or even beaches)
We've put up a web site about it at www.impact-teesside.org/able1.htm
Congratulations to your local papers for picking up the story. But for them, I think that even now hardly anyone would know anything about it.
[mad] They are still coming
Rusting, toxic 'ghost fleet' on way to UK
John Vidal, environment editor
Wednesday September 3, 2003
The Guardian
A fleet of 13 dilapidated US ships, heavily polluted with asbestos, oil and deadly PCBs, will embark on the 4,500-mile journey from America's east coast to Teesside in the next month amid warnings from salvage experts that they risk bringing an environmental disaster in their wake.
Seven years ago Bill Clinton ruled that the US navy's "ghost fleet" of 120 decomposing hulks could not be scrapped in developing countries because their pollution and toxic loads risked the lives of shipyard workers.
But a British company has signed a $17m (£10.8m) contract to dismantle the most fragile vessels at a dockyard near Hartlepool.
AbleUK, which also stands to get two almost-complete oil tankers from the US government as part of the deal, is expected to submit detailed plans of the proposed voyage in the next few days.
Under the contract, a copy of which has been seen by the Guardian, the company is obliged to remove all 13 ships from the James river in Virginia, where they have been slowly rusting for the past 15 years, by the end of November or face a $1,350 daily fine for each vessel.
They are in such poor condition that to stand any chance of surviving the crossing, they will have to leave by the end of this month, before the onset of autumn storms in the Atlantic.
A leading US salvage expert, who has surveyed most of the ships involved in the contract, has told the Guardian that there is a risk that some of the ships will be breaking up by the time they reach Teesside.
Tim Mullane, of Virginia-based company Dominion Maritime, said: "They're leaking, and listing, and that's just sitting at anchor in a river. If they get to sea, some will definitely start to break up.
"A pollution slick will follow them all the way across the Atlantic. When they get to Teesside they will be leaking even more and be more liable to break up. Their bottoms are rotting out and they will leak at anchor.
"Some of them have hundreds of tonnes of heavy oil aboard which will leak out and pollute the river there."
At least two ships would struggle to make it 15 miles into the Atlantic, he added.
Some of the vessels are almost 60 years old. The 12,000-tonne supply ship Canisteo was launched in July 1945. Over the next 50 years the Can-o-, as she was known to her crew, was involved in the Cuban missile crisis and the Korean war.
Last night environmental campaigners condemned the deal. Friends of the Earth claimed that the AbleUK dockyard would not be fully operational and that no planning permission had been granted by the local authority. "The fear is that the boats will come over and have to wait in the river Tees in an even more dangerous state," a spokesman said.
The Irish government and the Scottish executive have also voiced concern about the pollution threat posed by the fleet as it passes through their coastal waters. The safety risks means they will not be allowed to go through the English Channel, one of the world's busiest shipping lanes, and will instead go around the northern tip of Scotland and down the North sea.
The deal may yet be scuppered. The Department of Transport's maritime and coastguard agency said it had asked for a full pollution risk assessments of these ships, a detailed passage plan showing exactly where they would go and what they would do in bad weather, and what alternatives they have in an emergency.
"We have the power to refuse them on safety grounds," a spokeswoman said.
But AbleUK moved to calm fears that the ships would pollute Teesside, insisting that it would be able to handle all 13 vessels at the same time.
"Once within the facility the basin will be drained and sealed - allowing 'dry' dismantling which, as well as being much safer for those undertaking the work, will prevent any risk of wastes from the vessels entering surrounding waters," it said on its website.
The environment agency also defended its decision to approve the deal.
"There is free trade in waste for recovery under international and EU law," a spokesman said. "To obstruct it without valid reason would put the UK in breach of that law."
In a letter to FoE's lawyer, the health and safety executive said it was legal and acceptable for asbestos to be imported into the country because of the high standards expected of AbleUK.
It also said there was no capacity in US shipyards to dispose of such polluting materials.
Robyn Boerstling, of the US maritime administration, said: "These ships are desperately in need of disposal, and a commercial decision has been made that AbleUK on Teesside offers the best option. They have to be removed due to the toxic substances control legalisation."
On Teesside, reaction to the fleet's imminent arrival was mixed. "Most people are delighted that much-needed work is coming but they do not necessarily like the idea of taking US waste," said Carol Zagrovic, a local community worker.
"When locals ask for information they're only told that it is an opportunity, or that it means work. But a lot of people are horrified, too."
George Brims
05-Sep-03, 02:37
BUT - what I hear is they plan to bring the ships through the English channel, not round the important end of the country. However the people doing the towing haven't yet checked with anyone official in the UK, so that plan may yet be erm... trying to think of a word... SCUPPERED!
The Irish government and the Scottish executive have also voiced concern about the pollution threat posed by the fleet as it passes through their coastal waters. The safety risks means they will not be allowed to go through the English Channel, one of the world's busiest shipping lanes, and will instead go around the northern tip of Scotland and down the North sea.
George,
from this extract it looks as if they are going to come through the Firth
Golach
©Amethyst
05-Sep-03, 20:32
On Yahoo last night, the news feed was that they were going to go through the English Channel. It said something about them going to come to the north of Scotland and round that way, but it was apparently changed... dunno why, it wasn't v clear. I still don't think that they should be going anywhere.
I thought Americans had everything anyways!
Is America less self-sufficient than it makes out? It's starting to seem so. (no offence to Helen or Sassy!!! lol)
There's quite a bit of confusion here. Apparently the route has yet to be approved, which is why there is such speculation.
Peter Stephenson, managing director of Able UK (the company in Teesside who won the contract to decommission these ships), is quoted in the press (Reuters, Sept 4th, 'Toxic "Ghost Fleet" to pass through Channel") as saying "The route plan is the southerly route – through the English Channel". The article goes on to say that Stephenson said the route 'had been chosen by marine experts and advisors who were the best in the business'.
In my search for a bit more information on this I came across a group of people called Impact. They are Teesside residents concerned about industry in their area. They have a page dedicated to Able (http://www.impact-teesside.org/able1.htm) which is well worth a read.
This whole situation is a real concern to me. Not just the waste itself – although God knows that is bad enough – but also the way that governmental approval (from both sides of the Atlantic) seems to have materialised so quietly and so easily, the way that big business seems to have been able to circumvent both countries environmental laws (shipping PCBs from the US is supposed to be a no-no, likewise importing Asbestos into the UK), even the way it has been reported in the press (this story has found it's way into the Buenos Aires Herald, but I've seen nothing on the BBC or ITV which could maybe alert the masses).
The English Channel is no better than the Pentland Firth. One has converging tides just waiting to play with these derelict hulks, the other is one of the busiest shipping lanes in the world. I'm biased towards Caithness, of course, but that doesn't help matters.
So how about it, people. Fancy a spot of campaigning? Bill/Niall/Colin, this is a community website. Any chance of a dedicated page? A standard letter to MPs to ask what they are doing about this situation? Perhaps a similar letter to the press (local papers/radio/BBC/ITV/etc) giving a few details and asking them to report on it (if nobody else can be bothered I'll even write them)?
There are enough people from all across Britain (and the US) who read this message board that we could, at least, give it a go. I know that if they go through the English Channel it won't have much impact on you up north, but once these thirteen ships have sailed through, what's to say the next batch (or the one after that) won't be sent around the top? It may be too late to stop this contract, but there are a lot more ships waiting to come across after this first batch has been taken care of.
©Amethyst
05-Sep-03, 22:47
But why send them to the uk at all?
Surely they can be dealt with in the USA! It would save a lot of money and worry!
It seems that although the metal from the ships can be sold as scrap, much of the chemical waste aboard will pretty much have to stay in Teesside in some form forever (or certainly for a long time).
But why send them to the uk at all?
Surely they can be dealt with in the USA! It would save a lot of money and worry!
I think it is a case of N.I.M.B.Y. Amethyst Not in my back yard and seem to be to be a US Government attitude in general
Golach
Margaret M.
17-Sep-03, 00:02
They haven't left yet and Isabel is heading right for them. The United States should be cleaning up their own mess - it's an absolute disgrace!
'Ghost fleet' ships not ready to leave
Coast Guard hasn't inspected vessels
By Kimball Payne
Daily Press
Published September 12, 2003
NEWPORT NEWS -- The company towing two James River "ghost fleet" ships to a scrapyard in the United Kingdom canceled Coast Guard inspections Thursday. The move means the former Navy vessels won't get the green light to leave their moorings until next week at the earliest.
The Caloosahatchee and the Canisteo could have started their 4,500-mile journey across the Atlantic as early as today if the Coast Guard had completed its review of the ships' strucptural integrity.
Officials with the Maritime Administration, which oversees the collection of nearly 100 vessels in the James River Reserve Fleet, said the towing schedule was not affected by a threat environmental groups raised this week to seek a federal court order blocking the transfer.
That's not the only legal complication involving the fleet that includes ships in decrepit condition and some that are merely mothballed in storage. A James City County lawyer notified federal officials this week that he too plans to sue the Maritime Administration and the Environmental Protection Agency over the ships. But his suit would seek to have the most toxic vessels in the river removed faster.
Loaded with oil, gas, asbestos, PCBs and other toxins, many of the ghost fleet ships anchored near Fort Eustis pose environmental hazards.
"We continue with our plans for the tow," said Robyn Boerst-ling, a spokesperson with the Maritime Administration in Washington. "As long as the safety and security requirements are in place."
The Maritime Administration did not know the specific reason for the holdup, and officials at Post-Service Remediation Partners - the New York-based company that is coordinating the deal with British scrap company, Able UK - were unavailable for comment.
The postponement comes, though, as Hurricane Isabel threatens to move up the Eastern Seaboard, a development that could pose hazards for the slow-moving dilapidated ships.
The Basel Action Network and the Sierra Club notified the EPA on Tuesday that they plan to seek a federal court order to block moving the obsolete ships to the U.K. for scrapping. While not the cause of the delay, the groups were happy to have extra time.
"It's good news for us," said Jim Puckett, director of the Seattle-based Basal Action Network. "It gives us time to get our ducks in a row and try and stop this."
The environmental activists said that the EPA illegally granted the waiver allowing the Maritime Administration to export the ships that are filled with toxic materials. In addition to the environmental dangers, Puckett said the tow to England would set a precedent and allow other ships to be sent to countries such as China that offer cheap labor and less stringent environmental regulations.
Joining the fray, maritime lawyer Morton Clark - who lives within sight of the fleet - sent out formal notices this week regarding his intent to sue the maritime agency and the EPA. The Kingsmill resident said he will file a citizen's suit in U.S. District Court in Norfolk in 90 days, based on the "imminent danger of substantial environmental damage" that the fleet poses.
In his legal notice, Clark said EPA regulations enacted in 1995 prohibiting the Maritime Administration from selling ships for scrap without first removing all toxic PCBs from the vessels have hampered efforts to dispose of the obsolete ships.
Clark - who said the lawsuit would be filed in his wife's name - criticized groups like the Sierra Club for opposing the transfer of the ships to England.
"All of us here on the river whether it's Newport News, Surry or James City County, should be concerned as hell about it," Clark said. "We need to move the ships away from here."
Boerstling said the Maritime Administration received the second lawsuit but declined to comment. But environmentalists acknowledged Clark's frustration.
"That doesn't surprise us," said Michael Town, director of the Sierra Club's Virginia chapter. "Our position is to get the ships off the river, we just don't want to send them out into the ocean."
Maritime agency officials stressed that the nature of the towing caused the delay and said that emergency generators and global-positioning systems for both ships were en route to Newport News to prepare the vessels for the trip to an Able UK scrap yard in Teesside, England.
"There is no set schedule and there's a lot of back and forth," Boerstling said. "It's in everybody's best interests to make sure this is done in the safest way possible."
The $17.8 million contract, which includes two Navy oil tankers that could be sold later for millions of dollars, calls for all 13 of the vessels to be removed by the end of October.
From the BBC News today they are still coming through the FIRTH
Change to 'ghost fleet' dock plans
The company planning to import and scrap part of the US 'ghost fleet' to Hartlepool has changed its plans for housing the rusting hulks when they arrive.
Able UK has now decided against seeking planning permission for a dry dock at the site.
Instead the company says it will rely on an earlier planning permission granted in 1997 to allow it to build a rock-filled embankment, or bund.
Friends of the Earth says the scheme is less environmentally safe than the original plan for a dry dock.
But Able UK managing director Peter Stephenson said building the bund has been discussed with bodies including English Nature.
He said: "Our designers are currently working on an alternative design which may submitted to Hartlepool Boroough Council in the near future."
Mr Stephenson added: "The delivery of the ships and the contract period will not be afffected at all by this process."
Fuel fears
The 13-strong fleet of cargo and military vessels is being brought 4,000 miles from Virginia, to be scrapped at a Hartlepool dockyard.
The deal is expected to create 200 jobs at Able UK's Hartlepool yard.
The plan has already been criticised by environmental groups, who are worried about the possible risks from asbestos and fuel oil.
And Friends of the Earth has now called on Hartlepool Borough Council to ensure the Able proposals do not go ahead without a full environmental impact assessment being carried out.
Campaigns director Mike Childs said: "We also look to the British, Irish, French and Belgium coastguards to prevent these boats entering European waters until those assessments are complete."
A spokesman for Hartlepool Borough Council said: "We now have to consider a lot of representations and a lot of detailed submissions. We are assessing our position."
Strong winds
The departure of the first two controversial former US Navy ships bound for Hartlepool has been delayed by Hurricane Isabel - currently heading for America's East Coast.
The ships, part of the flotilla of 13 that will be scrapped in the North East, were due to leave on Thursday but will now not sail for at least a couple of days.
The 105mph winds will delay the sailing of the first two vessels for two days.
Environmentalists want the journey stopped, claiming the ships are rusting and could leak oil and dangerous chemicals.
But Able has dismissed the fears as "scaremongering".
Story from BBC NEWS:
I have a question, looking at the state of those rusting hulks across The Atlantic, will they ever make the crossing? This is the hurricane season and we all know that as those storms abate and follow their normal track across The Atlantic the weather can be more than severe in The Northern Approaches.Are the governing powers in Canada, Greenland ,Iceland and The Irish Repuiblic not to mention the eastern seaboard of The United States prepared to see them founder in their waters with the resulting pollution?I would hope not.Whatever transpires..WE DO NOT want them here.
Anonymous
26-Sep-03, 10:06
My questions would be on these lines:
1. Who really thinks that these ships will make it to their destination in 1 piece?
2. What kind of mess will be caused if these ships do not make it?
3. Where is the debris and chaos most likely to effect?
3. What countries in the world have a team ready to deal with just this sort of situation?
4. How many billions will it take to pay this team to do the clean up work?
To me this just sounds like another opportunity for the US Administration to cause a great big mess that the rest of the world will have to pay them to clean up. These ships must be in some state that even the "experts" are not allowed to touch them in their own back yard in case of environmental disater. How nice that they find some desperate ship yard that will take on any work that will guarantee a few jobs.
If this really was GB PLC and Tony was the sales rep, he'd have been fired a long time ago for not reaching his targets. Reps that dont bring copious amounts of work to their company get the heave. It must be because he's on loan from the Bush Administration thet he gets to keep his job. Or, is Tony really in charge of MI6 and he's just going to have "bumped off", anyone who speaks against him and his erm decisions.
Was our UK rep the only one to applaud GWB's show at the recent UN gathering?
We luv you long time, only 50 million billion dollah
Margaret M.
05-Oct-03, 13:40
Well, it looks like they will be coming through the Pentland Firth. Sadly, the United States seldom cleans up its own mess - they just hand it off to someone else. It's not like the shipyards in the U.S. could not use the work - the economy is in bad shape, constant layoffs, etc., so why they choose to pay millions to another country and risk an enviromental disaster is beyond my understanding.
From the Guardian, Sept 29
>>Even a superficial inspection reveals that they are not in a fit state to enter UK waters. The United States has the capacity, skills and moral obligation to deal with these ships," he said.<<
Anonymous
05-Oct-03, 17:23
:roll: A up these ear ship have hole in em, they are being towed, we will be getting prefried fish in the chippy, i no put george blair and tony bush on one and scrap them as well :evil
Teessider
06-Oct-03, 00:56
Well, it looks like they will be coming through the Pentland Firth.
No, they're saying they'll use the English Channel now. Crazy, either way.
From the Guardian, Sept 29
>>.......The United States has the capacity, skills and moral obligation to deal with these ships," he said.<<
He might think that. I do myself. But the UK's Health and Safety Executive, which played a vital part by lifting the regulations that forbid the import of asbestos into the UK, thinks otherwise. They say that "In discussions with the US Bureau of Oceans and International Environmental and Scientific Affairs we were told that if the ships were not recycled in the UK they would then consider exporting to other countries, where the recycling would be likely to be carried out with less regard for both environment and the health and safety of workers. There were also assertions by them that there was insufficient capacity available in the US."
I'm convinced that for the US, the deal will set a precedent for resuming ship exports - and the next batch will go to Asia, no matter what the scrapping conditions.
For the shipyard, there's a lot riding on this. They don't actually have the dry dock that the contract requires - but the contract will lever in loads European and UK govt. grants to help pay for new dock gates to seal the basin. The owner's personal wealth will increase by the same amount!
For the UK government, this will provide another facility to scrap redundant Royal Navy ships. We've asked Able UK if they'd consider scrapping nuclear subs. They didn't say yes and they didn't say no.
For the local people in Hartlepool, it's a sell-out by the politicians, the business, and the 'development at all costs' quangos .
I'm sure it couldn't happen in Scotland !
What is the position of the elected representatives of Caithness and Orkney on this subject?
Good point, Rich. Bill, was this discussed/debated at all at any council meetings?
Two of them (WWII Fleet Oilers) left yesterday, by the way. They are expected to take 21 days to cross the Atlantic.
In the US (according to 'Pilot Online'), Government lawyers have admitted that 'no formal environmental impact studies had been done of the potential for damage from a serious accident or sinking of the ships' - so that's alright then?!?! :eek:
And, if you needed any further proof that this is nothing more than the US dumping their rubbish on somebody else's doorstep, U.S. Representative Jo Ann Davis is quoted as saying, "I frankly don't care if the ships are scrapped internationally or domestically. We just want them out of our back yard on the James River." !!!!
I know that it might seem like the crisis has been averted now that the route is set through the English Channel, but realistically we don’t live on a very big island and this is a dangerous precedent our ever-eager-to-please government have set… it won’t be long before more are on their way (in fact, they are due to send the next two later in the week). [mad]
©Amethyst
12-Oct-03, 21:50
I don't actually think anything we could do could have stopped the American Government sending them to us.
Just a suggestion, but...
Maybe we should concentrate more on how to cope with the damage (once it is done... and if any is done) than fretting over what might happen.
Aye?
frank ward
23-Oct-03, 11:23
There's a report on rumblings in Hartlepool on the the toxic fleet at:
http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/1874/IX.HTM
Have they started moving them yet ?
I have not seen anything on the T.V. or in the papers about this.
I don't understand the logic behind moving them so far away when they pose such a threat where they are.
Couldn't they be transported to the middle of :confused :confused the desert and buried ?
Why on earth would the UK agree to such a daft idea ?
I was in the Lake District over the weekend and the local BBC news there had a report on these ships. Yes, they have left and more are planned.
Just heard on the News today they are not going to be allowed to land at Hartlepool
Yeah, apparently the authorisation from the Environment Agency was on the assumption that Able had all the other relevant permission required – and they don’t. The Environment Agency have said that, if all the permissions and plans are put in place in the future there is no reason why the ships should not come to Able.
With the first four ships just two weeks away, I wonder what will happen now. Can they just float aimlessly around the Atlantic whilst Able get the required documents together, or will they need to find save harbour somewhere?
They may still be allowed to dock here to await the required paperwork to be sorted out. But EA has said they shouldn't set sail until this is sorted, but it sounds like they have...
http://hometown.aol.co.uk/MadPict/images/flaminblob.gifMadPict
http://hometown.aol.co.uk/MadPict/images/gruff_ext.gif
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/tees/3240121.stm
Still bad news but look at the route
Golach
Now we have Margaret Beckett (the Environment Secretary) saying that "the law requires the ships be returned to the United States". A victory, you might think?
Well, no. Apparantly there are concerns that the two ships now nearly here wouldn't be able to cope with the adverse weather during a return crossing to the US. So now WE are going to store these rust-buckets for the US - safely away from US waters...
Still, assuming that Mrs. Beckett keeps to her word, I suppose at least we won't be getting any more... hang on, that means Labour need to do what they say they will - we're doomed!!!!
Margaret M.
08-Nov-03, 02:27
Muddle and confusion is an understatement.
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.