Glasgow And Ships Of The Clyde

Marine Consultant's Doubt Clyde Yards

From "The Ardrossan & Saltcoats Herald" dated Friday 23rd January 1970

MARINE CONSULTANT?S DOUBT CLYDE YARDS

The very earliest a Clyde shipyard could start work on a 250,000 ton oil carrier would be 1974, it was claimed at the Hunterston inquiry on Wednesday.

Captain John W. Ross, a marine consultant at present retained by the British Transport Docks Board and former Chief Marine Superintendent of the British Petroleum Group, said that at the present there was no Clyde yard capable of building such a tanker and to provide the necessary facilities would cost considerable capital investment.

He said: ?The whole set up in a building yard would have to be changed. The only Clyde yard capable of building such a tanker and to provide the necessary facilities would cost considerable capital investment?.

He said: ?The whole set up in a building yard would have to be changed. The only Clyde yard who could alter their situation to meet such an order has a full order book until the end of 1971. With the delivery dates needed by Chevron this yard would be quite out of it?.

He went on: ?I am aware of the fact that Scott-Lithgow have declared that they will build ships of this size?.

In the meantime, this yard was ?totally committed? until the end of next year and the switch to bigger tankers would require the redesigning and dredging of the yard.

This, he claimed, could not be started until the present orders were completed and he believed it would be at least 1974 before they could start on the construction of a 250,000 ton vessel.
Mr Weir suggested that the present Chevron Fleet would be able to service Portencross and there was no reason why the orders could not be placed with a Clyde yard later.

Replied Captain Ross; ?The cost of redesigning the yard is so colossal that it would need an order of 15-20 of these ships before they would be prepared to capitalise the yard on that figure?.

DISAGREED

Having made a study of the Wemyss Point area, he said he disagreed with a Chevron executive who had told the inquiry earlier that a 1600 foot jetty would be required there to take such large tankers.

?Wemyss Point would be an ideal site for such a jetty?, he added, ?and attractive because it gives sufficient depth of water. At the moment, I feel a jetty of 800 to 900 feet would be required.

It is a more sheltered area than Portencross. Even 500 feet would take one into deep water at Wemyss Point?. He also considered there would be sufficient room to locate two terminals there.

Captain Ross felt that previous witnesses at the inquiry had underestimated the degree of
exposure of a jetty at Hunterston to the prevailing winds.

Ardine Point would also be suitable from a marine point of view for a deep water terminal although it might not be so commercially. The depths of water there were more than sufficient for any tanker, he claimed.

It would be as easy for a berth to function satisfactorily off Ardrossan as at Portencross and there would be more deep water manoeuvrability at the former. He was not, he stated expressing a preference for Ardrossan.

He disagreed with experts from the Clyde Port Authority and Chevron who had told the inquiry earlier that any jetty at Ardrossan without a breakwater would be unacceptable. He felt such a breakwater would be a hazard.

WISE PRECAUTION

Replying to Mr A. J. Mackenzie-Stuart, QC, for Ayr County Council, Captain Ross
Admitted it was ?a wise precaution? by Chevron to look for facilities for ships of over 300,000 tons.

He said four super tankers should be able to bring in all the necessary crude oil required for the refinery. Even allowing for considerable re shipping of the finished products such a terminal would not be over occupied. Although it might be put to some other use as well, he would suggest it should be also used by ore carriers.

Scribe Tango