States oil tanker lying idle

It seems that one of the oil tankers bought by the states is lying idle

The Sarnia Liberty was not in good shape when purchased, and has had £850,000 spent on it to put it right (they kept that quiet)

But because of the lack of work the ship has not been used since, looks like another white elephant bought by our States....

nothing new there then.maybe thats why our petrol has jumped up in price again recently

That'd be about right then!!!!!!

Cynics! It's not lying idle.It's like an actor between jobs,it's RESTING!

Is that "Resting" or "RUSTING" ??






.

This has finally broken as official news. The question must be, why did the States buy TWO tankers, supposedly to guarantee fuel supplies, when one of them was not operating, and now it appears there is no charter work available because of a downturn in the shipping industry?

To make it worse, this was rushed through by the Policy Council as an emergency, so did not undergo the usual due consideration by the States. The Policy Council appear to be largely responsible - should they resign? My suggestion of a name for the new boat at the time was prophetic ( Linden's Folly). The other was Sewage Surfer - also quite topical! :-)

more wasted taxpayers money.

It is an asset and worth a lot of money. How is that bad ?

Well it could become an old 'Rust Bucket'....

kingcolemk wrote:It is an asset and worth a lot of money. How is that bad ?

If you buy an asset, spend a small fortune on repairing it, and then it lays idle not generating any income or doing any work, I'd say that's pretty bad wouldn't you?

It'll depreciate as time goes on and before too long will be worth next to nothing - hardly a call for celebrations is it?

MOTHBALLING one of the tankers bought to secure the island’s oil supplies is the best the States can do to minimise operating costs while it lies idle, according to Deputy Barry Paint.
The former St Sampson’s Harbour pilot said the Sarnia Liberty, which has not been used since the States bought it and the Sarnia Cherie for 16.9m. euros at the start of the year, was still a good investment.
‘I feel sure that within the year things will pick up again and there will be demand for fuel.
‘If the States had not bought the tankers, the island would have been left vulnerable. Now we have fuel guaranteed for at least 18 years,’ he said.
‘The tanker was bought before a massive drop in the shipping market and it is laid up because of the global recession.’
The ship has been in a dry dock since repairs to its ballast tanks costing £850,000 were completed.
Although it is ready for work, a downturn in available cargoes means its only scheduled charter is in October 2010.

I wonder just how much it is costing "us" for the dry dock charge's
I bet that is not going to be cheap....

Deputy Barry Paint is quoted in today's GP as saying that the cost of dry dock and 'laying up' is a fraction of what can be earnt when the tankers are in use / hired. He appears hopeful that this happen later this year.

Does Barry know something that we don't?

I am intrigued, are you? :scratch:



.

He like Charles Parkinson has a lot of 'hope' - shouldn't it be more concrete than that.....I hope to win the National Lottery - but hope and doing are 2 entirely different things!!!!

Yep.... Karma, as always you have hit the nail on the head!!!

Why do we taxpayers just accept that the States deputies know what is best (or so they think!!)? Are we just too trusting or just shrug and let someone else get on with it? Dunno???




.

Hold on, I don't agree with the way the tankers were bought, quick I agree with, on the quiet without transparency I don't. However isn't hindsight great and again this forum is showing signs of criticism when things go bad. Can we not just accept that a decision was made and at the time it appeared to be the right one because fuel supplies to the Island were threatened. If the tankers had not been bought this forum would have made severe comments down the line when you had to get the pushbikes and candles out cause fuel was not available. Now the fuel supply line is secure you still criticise cause the tankers are not used. For christ sake get a grip, sort out what is good for the Island. These are an expensive asset but an asset that is worth the risk. The states do waste money but on this occasion even the biggest cynic amongst you, and there are some bloody big cynics on this forum, should stop, think in a logical manner (if that is possible) and then realise that maintaining the Islands fuel line is going to be an expensive business if there are no tankers available. A Guern once told me that it is a National pastime slagging off the states, how right he was.

karma wrote:He like Charles Parkinson has a lot of 'hope' - shouldn't it be more concrete than that.....I hope to win the National Lottery - but hope and doing are 2 entirely different things!!!!

You might also "hope" that oil will float across to Guernsey unaided.

The bit of the editorial you should concentrate on is;

‘If the States had not bought the tankers, the island would have been
left vulnerable. Now we have fuel guaranteed for at least 18 years,’ he
said.

Now lets celebrate that cause it is not hope it is fact.

Dell, Why do we taxpayers just accept that the States deputies know what is
best (or so they think!!)? Are we just too trusting or just shrug and
let someone else get on with it? Dunno???
Ask that question at election time cause it is a little late expecting an answer now cause the Guernsey Public voted them in to act in this manner for the Public of Guernsey. Also a quick action was needed so why spend 6 months going to the public to get an answer, I suppose if the answer was yes from the public we could have had a thread condemning the state for wasting money on the survey to answer an obvious question.

When they (the States representatives) put themselves forward to stand for us and tell us what they are going to do to change things we don't like (so we will vote them in) - they leave themselves open to critisim when they fail to deliver.....and they fail to deliver in a lot of cases....sorry you call it 'slagging off the States' - that is your perogative - as it is mine to say I am not happy with promises made and promises not kept and money we don't have being spent (as it is we the electorate that have to pay the extra taxes) I am on a fixed pension like very many others in this 'outpricing itself fast' Island - so forgive me if I am nervous when they talk of spending millions to benefit me in one breath and losing £75 million in the next and tankers not being used in another......when you are on a pension and have lost the income you saved for to keep you in your old age and see prices rise beyond your wildest dreams - come back and tell me I am being unreasonable........

karma wrote:When they (the States representatives) put themselves forward to stand for us and tell us what they are going to do to change things we don't like (so we will vote them in) - they leave themselves open to critisim when they fail to deliver.....and they fail to deliver in a lot of cases....sorry you call it 'slagging off the States' - that is your perogative - as it is mine to say I am not happy with promises made and promises not kept and money we don't have being spent (as it is we the electorate that have to pay the extra taxes) I am on a fixed pension like very many others in this 'outpricing itself fast' Island - so forgive me if I am nervous when they talk of spending millions to benefit me in one breath and losing £75 million in the next and tankers not being used in another......when you are on a pension and have lost the income you saved for to keep you in your old age and see prices rise beyond your wildest dreams - come back and tell me I am being unreasonable........

Your are being unreasonable.
They do fail in a lot of cases, you have named some of them and I certainly do not disagree. What I do disagree with is the inability to step back and say "Yep they did the right thing, under the circumstances" but no the immediate reaction is "hey another f*** up, some things don't change"
Let's look at it another way. What would you have done? The scenario is;
There are very few tankers left in the world that can service the Island with fuel, two of them are up for sale at a reasonable price. You have to make a decision quickly, very quickly, to buy or not to buy. The result of your yes decision will cost short term but in the medium term guarantee fuel to the Island. Result of a no decision could very well lead to infrastructure collapse, damage to the tourist industry and the Finance Industry. Both industries that bring money in. Then watch what happens to your fixed pension.
What would you have done. Emigrate, you have that option most do not.
The decision was made in good faith, can't we just agree with it and admit, grudgingly that the states may have got it almost right for a change and to be fair it is not a wrong decision yet.

....just a matter of interest - what is the price per annum to the island of insuring these tankers???

I dont know, I will try and find out.

Thanks Dave

Dave, Thanks for the update. The States are poor on communication and if the facts had been communicated before and afterwards in an open manner, conspiracy theories etc would be laid to rest. I think the states could improve their communication in many areas.
I still think that the decision to buy was a sound one.

Hear hear plimmerton....

I agree that the States per se need to improve their lines of communication to keep the public better informed. Some individual Deputies are quite good, others are not heard of, except at election time!!

I think that it is time to change to Island-wide elections, as opposed to Parish elections, as Deputies do not have just a remit to their Parish, rather it is Bailiwick-wide now and the process needs to address that. Time for change IMO........



.