99
anchorage going to our wharf to load. There is no need for such a vessel proceeding to the wharf round Stonecutters Island. Of course once laden she would leave the wharf by that route.
-Rule 17-
but
We most respectfully protest against the requirement of a "Boom". The position of the wharf and the entire absence of any regular traffic inside Stonecutters renders a collision almost an impossibility. In all the rivers in England tank steamers are allowed to lay alongside wharves without booms. It is required in the Suez Canal, there the extreme narrowness of the waterway justifies it. At the same time we may mention that in the Suez Canal this boom is provided by the Suez Canal Company and not by the owners of the tanker.
-Rule 18-
no remarks.
-Rule 19-
This rule if not revised would be a serious impediment to our work. We propose that it should read: "Whilst any such ship is discharging or loading Oil at the said wharf, the wharf shall not be used for any other purpose."
As before pointed out no tanks or petroleum compartments are ever open while discharging and the pipeline can be so protected that it will sustain no injury from the working of other cargo on the wharf.
-Rule 20-
No remarks except to suggest the addition of the word "working" before the word "24 hours".
-Rule 21-
There is no objection to this rule if it is made to read: not more than one tank steamer. Tank junks, cargo boats etc. should be allowed alongside to any reasonable number.
-Rule 22-
Wants modification in view of our preliminary remarks to allow of a
99
anchorage going to our wharf to load. There is no need for such
a vessel proceeding to the wharf round Stonecutters Island. Of course once laden she would leave the wharf by that route.
-Rule 17-
but
We most respectfully protest against the requirement of a "Boom". The position of the wharf and the entire absence of any regular tra- fic inside Stonecutters renders a collision almost an impossibility: In all the rivers in England tank steamers are allowed to lay along- side wharves without boons. It is required in the Suez Canal, there the extreme narrowness of the waterway justifies it. At the same time we may mention that in the Suez Canal this boom is pre- vided by the Suez Canal Company and not by the owners of the tank-
steamer.
-Rule 18-
no remarks.
-Rule 19-
This rule if not revised would be a serious impediment to our work: We propose that it should read: "Whilst any such ship is discharging or loading Oil at the said wharf, the wharf shall not be used for
any other purpose."
As before pointed out no tanks or petroleum compartments are ever open while discharging and the pipeline can be so protected that it will sustain no injury from the working of other cargo on
the wharf.
}
-Rule 20-
No remarks except to suggest the addition of the word "working" before
the word "24 hours".
-Rule 21-
There is no objection to this rule if it is made to read: not more than one tank steamer. Tankjunks, cargoboats etc should be allowed alongside to any reasoable number.
-Rule 22-
Wants modification in view of our preliminary remarks to allow of a
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.