Mid Kame landslip on proposed windfarm site

The view from the road through the Lang Kames. Photo: Ian Tinkler
The view from the road through the Lang Kames. Photo: Ian Tinkler

A landslip near the site of a proposed road serving the Viking windfarm north of Sandwater has prompted concern from the project’s opponent.

Those behind the project were not worried by the landslip but one critic, Ian Tinkler, walked the top of Mid Kame ridge and examined the source of the landslip.

He says it stemmed from a peaty pond on top of the ridge, or watershed. After recent heavy rainfall – which Mr Tinkler said was nothing remarkable for the time of year – it apparently burst its banks.

Mr Tinkler said this was exactly where Viking Energy planned a road going the entire length of the ridge from end to end, and called the area “mighty unstable”.

He estimated the size of the landslip was about 60 metres across at the top and the peat about 1.5 to 2.5 metres deep.

He said: “Chunks [of peat] about the size of a Transit van were displaced downhill, each one would easily destroy a house. There was no evidence of disturbance of the ground by vehicles, just a natural slip.

“The watershed of hills is very unstable, there may well be slips to come on both sides of hill. This would have certainly taken a Viking Energy access track with it.”

The top of Mid Kame where the landslip occurred. Photo: Ian Tinkler
The top of Mid Kame where the landslip occurred. Photo: Ian Tinkler

He maintained that the slip would have taken any track, or turbine base, down to bedrock. And he questioned if the peat slide happened naturally, what would happen if 20-tonne vehicles drove on it.

Sustainable Shetland vice-chairman James Mackenzie said the Mid Kame was supposed to have 11 wind turbines on it, but peatland ecologist Dr Olivia Bragg had pointed out to Viking Energy, while advising them on road routes, that in her opinion the area was particularly at risk from landslips.

However, Mr Mackenzie said that other assessments had rated landslips as an insignificant hazard.

He said: “The methods used for assessing stability are limited, and measure ‘shear strength’ within the body of the peat, but most peat slides have been lifting off from what’s underneath, so assessments are not the whole story.”

The situation could be exacerbated by engineering works, particularly in the construction phase, he said, and the landslip was “right where the road would need to be”. The possibility of landslips was “very worrying”, as some of the roads would be up to 10 metres wide.

In response, Viking Energy project manager Aaron Priest said the peat slip “would not affect Viking’s plans”, but the company did not wish to expand on this.

One specialist Richard Birnie of LandForm Research, who had once done work for Viking Energy, said that such a “bog burst” could happen again – it had happened recently at Channerwick and Uradale.

The former research scientist with the Macaulay Instititute, specialising in peatland management, said that Viking Energy’s peatland management plan would have to include “general improvement of the peatland condition” in order to prevent peat slides, as blanket bog was known to be “mechanically weak”.

The peat could be stabilised by reducing grazing and blocking erosion gullies, and peat could be prevented from dislodging by draining water away from critical sites.

Mr Mackenzie added: “If there were no risk posed by the windfarm and its infrastructure, why then was a peat stability assessment a requirement of the environmental impact assessment?

“Anybody that thinks that the scale of engineering works won’t have an impact on the hydrology and structure of peat in the vicinity is turning a blind eye to the inevitable.

“You only have to look at what happened at Derrybrien in Ireland for an example of a very bad case scenario.

“Although careful design, good site management and environmental control can help prevent disasters, what worries me is that the assessments done for Viking Energy conclude that overall there is little to be worried about regarding peat stability, while the frequency of peat slides recently, within the windfarm area, indicate otherwise.

“Also it is now acknowledged by peatland experts that there is much yet to be learned about such phenomena as peat pipes and how they affect stability, and also the method of assessment may not be appropriate as it was developed for mineral soils.”


Add Your Comment
  • Gareth Fair

    • October 31st, 2015 13:32

    Landslips are not the only risk for this project.
    The study produced in 2014 for the Scottish Government below makes for interesting reading.
    This gives a good idea of the huge risks that are being taken on as well as the funding issues.
    There is a summary of the issues on P64 of 82.


    I’d be interested to see the risk register and continued business justification for this project. Are these available?

  • Mary Young

    • October 31st, 2015 15:03

    I draw your attention to a post on Wind Energy’s Absurd’s facebook page today which contains links to Scottish Wind Assessment Reports on the Derrybrien catastrophe and the subsequent environmental disaster at the Braes of Doune in Stirlingshire.

    The Irish disaster was not heeded in Scotland and it would appear that there is still complacency about the effects of turbine construction on blanket bog.

    The relevant links are: https://www.facebook.com/WindEnergysAbsurd/ : http://www.swap.org.uk/index.asp?pageid=86474 – The relevant reports are The Politics of Peat & Scandal on the Braes

  • David Spence

    • October 31st, 2015 18:10

    Landslides, huge Carbon Footprint, ever increasing costs…………….

    I most definitely believe, as do many other people, there should be a public enquiry into the reasons and justification for the Shetland Charitable Trust to be involved in such a money drainage scheme as the Viking Energy Project.

    The present staff of the VEP must be laughing all the way to the bank by fooling those people in the SCT into thinking this was great for the islands in terms of Shetland producing its own energy (to which Shetland will not benefit, in terms of cheaper energy, at all if this scheme ever gets off the ground) and bringing in millions to the economy of the islands.

    If one is to believe the figures being thrown around, one should seriously question the viability of the VEP if the return for the SCT works out to be between 1% and 2% as an investment.

    However, if the VEP does not get off the ground due to ever increasing costs, who is going to responsible for paying back the £11 million VEP has already sucked out of the SCT?


Add Your Comment

Please note, it is the policy of The Shetland Times to publish comments and letters from named individuals only. Both forename and surname are required.

Comments are moderated. Contributors must observe normal standards of decency and tolerance for the opinions of others.

The views expressed are those of contributors and not of The Shetland Times.

The Shetland Times reserves the right to decline or remove any contribution without notice or stating reason.

Comments are limited to 200 words but please email longer articles or letters to editorial@shetlandtimes.co.uk for consideration and include a daytime telephone number and your address. If emailing information in confidence please put "Not for publication" in both the subject line and at the top of the main message.

200 words left

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.


Get Latest News in Your Inbox

Join the The Shetland Times mailing list to get one daily email update at midday on what's happening in Shetland.