Would fuel demand be ignored?

Wednesday 24th December 2008, 12:31PM GMT.

NOW that the dust is settling over the purchase by the States of Guernsey of two fuel tankers to safeguard vital supplies to the island, a number of conclusions can be drawn. The first, highlighted on the day of the announcement, was that the Policy Council was completely correct in acting as it has done, even if not authorised to do so.

The second, which not everyone accepts, is that the incident highlights gaps in government’s

ability to act decisively in times of crisis. It is also why the council has asked Treasury and

Resources to look urgently at the rules which govern this with a view to changing them.

What has not been fully explained, however, is why no free market solution to the problem exists and why the taxpayer needs to remain the ship owner of last resort.

Securing the vessels was clearly the immediate objective and has been achieved. Yet it is difficult to comprehend that two businesses – one recently acquired by new French owners – would simply walk away from what one must assume are lucrative operations within a closed market.

While the fuel distributors here and their parent companies are not ship owners or operators, their own reluctance to act would imply a willingness to abandon millions of pounds’ worth of storage facilities, infrastructure, premises, staff and road tankers – and paying customers.

This would have been explored by the States, of course, but the overwhelming need to secure the vessels – almost at any cost – may well have provided too little time in which to test the resolve of the distributors on the point.

And if the worst had happened and the island was left without any shipments of fuel or distributors – but with all the necessary equipment in place – would private enterprise really be

disinterested in meeting consumer demand from an affluent community?

All the available evidence says that the States was correct to step in and prevent the loss of the only two ships realistically available to bring

petroleum products to St Sampson’s Harbour.

But the cost, apart from the undisclosed millions of pounds, also means significant interference in the free market.


  1. 1
    Kevin

    So Guernsey will own two ships – plus all the associated costs of running them. Maybe I missed this but what are those costs estimated to be over the life of each vessel and what is the contingency plan when these current vessels need to be replaced? It seems that there is a general acceptance of the purchase of the ships…but I remain unconvinced that in the long term this was the best way forward to safe guard fuel supplies to the Island. How about we had chartered the vessels in the medium term to buy us some time and investigate the feasibility of an offshore fuel discharge facility. If such an offshore installation were feasible it would provide a permanent fix circumventing the need for specialist vessels, the use of much larger tankers not being constrained by tidal conditions in St Sampson harbour and significantly, the tax payer not being landed with the bill of buying and running its own ships on an indefinite basis.

    Report abuse

Campaigns

Voice For Victims Voice For Victims

Voice for Victims is a campaign aimed at promoting the rights of those affected by child sexual abuse.