 Fury erupted today as Able UK bosses revealed that legal fights over the controversial "ghost ships" could scupper a £165m oil rig deal and 500 jobs for Teesside. Environmentalists who are putting the massive oil rig deal at risk were today subjected to a withering attack by local MPs. And Able boss Peter Stephenson vowed to fight to the last to save the construction deal and insisted he would appeal against a High Court ruling made yesterday. Mr Justice Sullivan had ruled in favour of three Hartlepool residents who said planning permission given to Able UK in 1997 to work on "marine structures" did not cover the ghost ships work. The judge will give his full ruling on Thursday. But MPs today blasted the latest court ruling and the campaigners behind the legal challenge. Ashok Kumar, MP for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland, said those opposing the ghost ships deal were a "rag bag of mad men and women who obviously don't appreciate what this work means to our area". "They should be ashamed of themselves. "This was an opportunity to provide work for Teesside... to provide work for the area... an opportunity for us." Instead of celebrating their victory, added Dr Kumar, those responsible for destroying the job prospects of the area "should be hanging their heads in shame". Stockton North MP Frank Cook described the court's judgment as "preposterous". He said: "It seems a bloody daft decision and to my mind Able UK should appeal." He was especially outraged at reported comments from environmental protester Ben Marley, a student who said the chemical industry was not the kind of industry wanted on Teesside. "How does he clean his teeth or scrub his back?" demanded Mr Cook. "The number of chemicals we use goes beyond measure and he says we don't want chemicals on Teesside. Well where does he want them? Is he going to put them at the North Pole? "What is he studying at college? I'd like to get someone to wind up his alarm clock so he wakes up to reality." Mr Justice Sullivan had said yesterday: "In my judgment as a matter of ordinary English one describes a ship as a ship as one describes a spade as a spade and not a garden structure," said the judge. "A ship is no more a marine structure than a car is a highway structure, a narrow boat a canal structure or a steam locomotive a railway structure." Today Peter Stephenson, MD of Able UK, said when the judge has given his ruling he will appeal and he vowed not to lose the other big money deal. "It's really going to be quite a challenge to save that deal but I'm hopeful we can," he said. "I couldn't believe the judge's decision. What gets me is that when we submitted our original application we were told to simplify it to cover all the work we wanted to do." An ecologist present at talks when "marine structures" was put into Able's permissions said he was baffled by the judge's decision. "What Hartlepool Council were trying to do was legalise, as best as possible, what Peter Stephenson wanted to do at Graythorp," said Industry, Nature and Conservation Association officer Geoff Barber, who was conservation officer for English Nature in 1997. "That's why we looked for an all-encompassing phrase. Initially Mr Stephenson gave us a list of all the things he wanted to do. Rather than take things on and off the list we agreed this term - and I would say it was designed to include ships. That makes me think the ruling rather strange." Ben Marley, one of the three green protesters who brought the court action, said: "This is proof you can take on big business and win. We are hoping this victory removes an element of the apathy people have towards the petro-chemical industry on Teesside. "I think this is a brilliant day for Hartlepool's future and I hope it will be a step forward in the efforts to make Teesside not have to rely on industries which are environmentally harmful." A Hartlepool Council spokesman said it fought the High Court case after taking independent legal advice. "We have now got to work closely with Able UK and the other regulatory bodies to assess the practical implications of today's decision." | 
