Barrier Reef oil spill April 4, 2010

@msolga,

AP - Australian police arrested a Chinese ship captain and senior officer Wednesday and charged them with damaging the Great Barrier Reef

0 Replies

@msolga,

For vessels like this one "full speed" isn't much higher than normal cruising speed ( i.e. 21Kts vs. about 16Kts.). I suspect the ship was doing about 16Kts when it hit the reef.

Strange, there's been no reports of requiring pilots on such transits.

4 Replies

@georgeob1,

Off topic George, but is there a really a big difference when dealing with naval ships?

3 Replies

@roger,

I would ignore that George. It is too stupid to merit your attention I should have thought.

1 Reply

@spendius,

Possibly, that is why I addressed the question to George. There is a reasonable certainty that he can decide for himself what to ignore. That, and the probability that he would know the answer.

0 Replies

@georgeob1,

Quote:

Strange, there's been no reports of requiring pilots on such transits.

But there have been , George. I've seen quite a few, though not all posted here.

(Off the top of my head. Not enough time this morning to locate ... ) check out the Radio National interview I posted above.

The Greens (political party) have constantly called for them, too. Before they were even mentioned on this thread.

0 Replies

@roger,

I think - but I've only been as a guest on one - that naval cargo ships behave at sea the same as commercial ones.

War ships generally have more engine power.

Another difference is how commercial captains act and re-act compared to their civil colleagues - here, it depends which 'corner' you asked this question Wink

1 Reply

@georgeob1,

Quote:

For vessels like this one "full speed" isn't much higher than normal cruising speed ( i.e. 21Kts vs. about 16Kts.). I suspect the ship was doing about 16Kts when it hit the reef.

I think there is actual reference to the actual speed here here, George. (somewhere amongst the many updates I've posted)

But, though acknowledging I'm no authority on this sort of thing, wouldn't it have been easier to slow down & stop the ship (if it was traveling more slowly through the "short cut") once it was realized it was off course? Apparently most of the damage to the reef was done to the reef after the ship had already hit, but continued to travel ...

1 Reply

@msolga,

(Oops to the wording. Sorry, I'm posting in a hurry as I prepare to go to work.)

0 Replies

@Walter Hinteler,

Ah, warships vs naval cargo ships. I should have clarified my question. Still, is there an implication that warships cruise significantly below their top speed? With your naval experience, I am happy to ask you as well. I could also ask Spendi, but I wasn't looking for opinion.

1 Reply

@roger,

Quote:

I could also ask Spendi, but I wasn't looking for opinion.

I wasn't giving an opinion. George is the Captain. I'm the guy in the outer office who prevent the kerfuffle disturbing his deliberations.

0 Replies

@spendius,

Quote:

Potential fines would be factored into operating costs I should think. Hence into the price of the goods carried.

And this is why we shop for a bargain.

Quote:

Was the mishap within Australia's jurisdiction?

Definitely.

Quote:

Has negligence been proved?

The commanders of the ship have been charged and it is for a court to decide.

Quote:

How is damage to a reef quantified?

By expert opinion.

Quote:

Why have the previous fines been so low?

Good question.

Quote:

Is Ms Bligh a political opportunist jumping aboard a hysterical bandwagon?

Politicians pray every night before going to sleep for hysteria. It solves so many other problems.

0 Replies

@georgeob1,

Quote:

Strange, there's been no reports of requiring pilots on such transits.

As I said, there definitely have been, George.
And more today.
An extract from today's AGE editorial.:

(Some other interesting issues of concern raised, too. A bit of Googling required, I think, to fully comprehend, the role & the impact of the International Maritime Organisation on attempts to protect areas like the Great Barrier Reef. ...)

Quote:

...The incident has exposed the limitations of current rules and procedures. The Shen Neng 1 was taking a route commonly used by ships to save time and money, but had strayed 12 kilometres off an authorised shipping lane. Every month dozens of ships regularly take such legal, but more hazardous, short cuts. They are not required to use a pilot to guide them, nor are they subject to close tracking and direction, as is the case in the northern reef zone.

The Chinese owner of the ship has said it will cover all fines and clean-up costs, but such damage to the World Heritage Area is effectively irreparable. In addition to its inherent environmental value, the reef generates about $5 billion in annual tourism income. As Prime Minister Kevin Rudd said last week: ''There is no greater natural asset for Australia than the Great Barrier Reef.'' He pledged a review of measures to protect the reef, as all sides of politics called for greater use of marine pilots and better surveillance of ships.

While the federal and Queensland governments have indicated they favour an extension of a tracking system that enables vessels to be contacted as soon as they divert from shipping lanes, this requires international agreement. It is not simply an Australian decision. In 2004, Australia failed in a bid to win support at the International Maritime Organisation for mandatory use of pilots in this area of the reef.

International shipping interests may again block such a move, but Australian governments cannot leave it at that. Port authorities are currently not required to monitor the routes taken by cargo vessels, even through sensitive reef waters. At the very least, monitoring must be improved so the alert can be raised when vessels stray off course. ...

http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/editorial/great-barrier-reef-faces-rising-risk-of-disaster-20100414-sdzg.html

0 Replies

I wonder how automtic guidance systems are on ships such as the Neng sheng 1.
An artical i read today refered to the ship "failing to turn at a way point" this seems to indicate a gps guidance system. the is lead me to think "auto pilot. Either the waypoint was no tentered correctly or steerage failed some how. Wither way the watch officer should have been aware of the "failure to turn".

0 Replies

Video:
Chinese crew 'sleep-deprived' (01:19)
A report by the Australian Transport Safety Bureau says simple errors caused the Great Barrier Reef shipping accident. (Pardon the film advertisement at the start):

http://media.theage.com.au/chinese-crew-sleepdeprived-1327663.html?from=newsbox

1 Reply

There's a lot of speculation going on here.

One matter that there is no need to speculate about is how many similar trips had been made previously by this ship, or similar ships, carrying Australian coal to China. The records will be there to see.

1 Reply

@spendius,

Exactly what "speculation" are you referring to, Spendius?
Could you be specific?

I'm surprised you haven't posted yet about your concerns about much more expensive coal coal might now be to import to China! Wink

In all your (many) posts to this thread I can't recall you once actually addressing the main focus of this thread: the damage done to the Great Barrier Reef as a result of this shipping incident. You've talked just about everything else: materialism, insurance costs, devious Australian politicians, the cost of flying over the reef to survey the damage ... etc, etc, etc ..

Can I ask you a serious question? What exactly is you interest in this topic? Do you have any interest at all in the Great Barrier Reef ?

1 Reply

@msolga,

I wouldn't be bloody surprised.

0 Replies

@msolga,

No--I have not the slightest interest in the reef. I think it will survive this damage quite naturally. Reefs, according to Darwin and others are created as mountain tops sink below the waves.

Quote:

The Great Barrier Reef is the world's largest reef system composed of over 2,900 individual reefs and 900 islands stretching for over 2,600 kilometres (1,600 mi) over an area of approximately 344,400 square kilometres (133,000 sq mi).

I can't see how such a natural feature is going to be seriously damaged by this collision and I am habituated to expect that what damage there is will have been exaggerated by the various interested parties. In the context it is a scratch.

I am interested in how the "various interested parties" wind us all up for their own reasons, power or money, because we poor bloody workers are the only ones who do the paying. I am interested in how we are parted from our money by the weaving of the winds by people who never answer any questions as you have failed to answer mine.

I consider matters, in cases like this, which are not tested under cross examination, to be speculation.

The only way to avoid accidents like this one is to stop the shipping of these commodities. If the shipping continues there will be other accidents and thus those who favour the continuation of the shipping might be said to have helped to cause them. The world's seas are littered with wrecks. Reefs have been damaged on a global scale.

The thing to do is sweep it up and get on with life.

We have just gone through a period of cleaning up our MP's expenses claims and the clean up has cost five or ten times what the dubious claims amounted to and has left MPs looking for new loopholes to enable them to continue thieving. Which they will easily find.

I don't trust Media or the people who manipulate it.

1 Reply

@spendius,

Quote:

No--I have not the slightest interest in the reef.

That's what I thought.

It's interesting then, that you are such an expert on this matter.

Quote:

I can't see how such a natural feature is going to be seriously damaged by this collision and I am habituated to expect that what damage there is will have been exaggerated by the various interested parties.

So the Australian Federal Police, the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority and the Australian Maritime Safety Authority all have vested interests, or are all lying? So they're all wrong & you're right?

Quote:

I consider matters, in cases like this, which are not tested under cross examination, to be speculation.

Cross examination? What are you talking about? There have been an extensive investigations by all of the Australian authorities I just mentioned .. the ship operators had appeared in court & have indicated, prior to this, that they are willing to pay for the damage in full. Have you read any of the updates that have been posted here at all?

As for the rest of what you've posted (including the cleaning up of your PMs expense claims & "sweeping up & getting on with life"), honestly, I can't see any point at all in responding ...

2 Replies

Barrier Reef oil spill April 4, 2010

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know