Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-06-02-Speech-1-123"
Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
---|---|
rdf:type | |
dcterms:Date | |
dcterms:Is Part Of | |
dcterms:Language | |
lpv:document identification number |
"en.20030602.8.1-123"2
|
lpv:hasSubsequent | |
lpv:speaker | |
lpv:spoken text |
". – Mr President, by and large the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy goes along with the Commission proposal and the amendments of the Committee on Regional Policy, Transport and Tourism. We had three proposed amendments. Two of them are largely accepted in Mr Piecyk's report. One concerned the question of ice-breaking ships carrying fuel in the Baltic. The other was the question of the 600 to 5 000 tonne tankers which we were concerned would not be available. We wanted a five-year waiting period to 2008. The period will be more or less five years so we will go along with that.
We were surprised at this figure of 25.7 API that was pulled out for the definition of heavy crude oil. The generally recognised international level between intermediate and heavy is 22 API. We cannot understand why that, as we proposed, was not an acceptable level. I understand the Council has also gone for this figure of 25.7, which will probably cause certain troubles, especially in the North Sea oil fields. Be that as it may.
Having said that, this will not avoid the next spillage of oil. Until we can get the IMO on board with these sorts of standards we will still get
s leaving a non-EU port, plying past the EU to a non-EU port with a non-EU flag. Those are the problems we have to face. We really must get the IMO to come to terms with these standards. Also, we must have a scheme to help with the transition from the single-hulled tankers to the double-hulled, especially in the 600 to 5 000 tonne level. A scrapping and building assistance system must be set up."@en1
|
lpv:spokenAs | |
lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples