Glasgow And Ships Of The Clyde

Oil Pipe Line

From: Ardrossan & Saltcoats Herald dated Friday 9th January 1970

A massive oil pipeline system leading through some of the main streets of Ardrossan was included in plans considered by Chevron Oil, it was revealed at the Hunterston inquiry on Wednesday.

Mr Robert P. Howell, supervisor of the electrical and mechanical division of the engineering department of the Standard Oil of California, stated this when he resumed his evidence. Last month he gave evidence for three days but following written requests by counsel for some of the objectors he returned to San Francisco to produce further details of comparative costs between alternative sites.

He said that in their original consideration of plans for an Ardrossan site it had been suggested that there should be a mono-mooring buoy out in the bay and suitable for large tankers - at that time they were thinking in terms of vessels of up to 100,000 tons - with an underwater pipeline linking it to the shore.

It was also envisaged then that the crude oil would be pumped from a jetty at Castlecraigs Point by a series of pipelines through the town to a tank farm at the north of the burgh.

Earlier, the inquiry had been told that the route of such a system would be by Princes Street, Montgomerie Street and through the existing railway sidings.

Mr Howell told Mr A.J. Mackenzie-Stuart, QC, for Ayr County Council: ?There are many disadvantages to going through a built-up area and we try to avoid it if we can. We are very reluctant to put our pipelines under paved streets?.

?Very Difficult?

He explained that Chevron had to be able to add extra lines and be able to maintain them but any route through Ardrossan would mean the pipes would have to be buried. ?It would be very difficult to add lines and very much more expensive?, he said.

?It would also represent a serious disruption of the activities of the people of Ardrossan, he added.

Mr Howell said Chevron would have been prepared to consider an underwater pipeline from the mono-mooring buoy but it was preferable to have a jetty, especially as they were planning to import crude oil from North Africa and this could cause problems in submarine pumps.

He said that since his return to California with the counsel?s requests a team of up to six engineers had worked with computers on the answers over the Christmas recess. He produced documents giving the original cost estimates of building the refinery and jetty at sites other than Portencross.

He agreed that these were much lower than the figures that had been given in evidence earlier in the inquiry. He explained: At hat time - in 1967 - we were considering a very much smaller venture in size and complexity. We conceived the role of this refinery as primarily a fuel oil refinery and we were anticipating that our refinery at Rotterdam would be our major source of refined products?.

They were only considering then provision for tankers of up to 100,000 tons, needing a draught of 75 feet.

Mr Howell also pointed out that consideration of Cloch Point had been dropped after talks with the Clyde Port Authority who considered a jetty there would be too near the main shipping lanes. Chevron?s intention at that time had been to have the jetty at Cloch Point, a tank farm near Inverkip with a connecting 15 mile pipeline to a refinery at Bishopton.

They had then looked at Wemyss Bay but had not produced a ?definite cost estimate? and then at Ardrossan.

?Ardrossan was very much more expensive than Bishopton?, he added. ?There were no advantages and great cost penalties at Ardrossan?.

Alternative Sites

Dealing with the alternative sites suggested by the objectors, he said that Nettlehill, Kilbirnie, had been rejected because it was within the restricted area around RNAD, Beith. Crofthead, Kilwinning, had not been considered because of peat moss.

Mr Howell went on to explain the results of detailed costings carried out on the various alternative sites.

He said: ?These investigations have confirmed our previous findings that Stewarton is the least undesirable of the inland sites and all the other alternative sites are less economical than Stewarton.

Although the operating costs of a refinery at Ardrossan served from a terminal at Portencross were slightly lower, the total capital cost would be about ?400,000 more than that of the Stewarton site.

Mr Howell told Mr R.S. Johnston, QC, for certain objectors, that he and his colleagues had tried their best to answer the specific queries. However, he could not go to a map and point out definite sites.

It was preferable to have the pipes between the jetty and the terminal carried overland. It was costlier and slower to lay them under streets than across agricultural land.

About a mile of pipes would have to be laid through the town if the jetty was to be sited at Castlecraigs Point.

Unofficial estimates indicate that the Hunterston inquiry which resumed at Ayr County

Hall this week will now last until the middle of February. The case for Ayr County Council is expected to be completed some time next week.

Scribe Tango