Barrier Reef oil spill April 4, 2010

It's all clear to me now.

This has all just been a conspiracy on the part of Australian politicians, Australian marine authorities & the Australian media! Wink

1 Reply

@msolga,

msolga wrote:

It's all clear to me now.

This has all just been a conspiracy on the part of Australian politicians, Australian marine authorities & the Australian media!

Well, of course.

We PUSHED that reef into the ship! Moved it twelve miles and all...man that was hard work.

2 Replies

@msolga,

Quote:

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 ...

Bingo!! Give the puddy a fish.

0 Replies

@dlowan,

Quote:

Well, of course.

We PUSHED that reef into the ship! Moved it twelve miles and all...man that was hard work.

God, we're a devious bunch!

Oh I failed to mention the Australian Federal Police! They were part of it, too!

1 Reply

@msolga,

I am wondering what conditions are like for Chinese seamen?

Of course one cannot pre-judge what the court case will decide...I imagine Spendi doesn't know that is a basic tenet of Australian law too. It's likely to be an interesting case.

1 Reply

@dlowan,

Quote:

I am wondering what conditions are like for Chinese seamen?

Yes, I almost felt sorry for them after I watched that video.
It sounded like an accident caused by exhaustion & overwork.

Quote:

Of course one cannot pre-judge what the court case will decide...I imagine Spendi doesn't know that is a basic tenet of Australian law too.

The judge is probably part of the conspiracy. Wink

Seriously though, yes, it will a very interesting case.

0 Replies

@msolga,

Quote:

That's what I thought.

I don't think many of the people involved have much interest in the reef either. They are more interested in feathering their nests, watching their backs, filling up the spaces between the ads and their complexions. I've known enough Media people to be fully appraised of their general position. Mr Rudd being caught in flagrente with two prostitutes would wipe the story from the Australian consciousness.

It's a media feeding frenzy. It's a scratch on the reef.

Quote:

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?

I didn't say that. But they do all have a vested interest. Being on telly talking authoritatively with the video going at home and all the neighbours watching and them looking so good and all. I daresay there is some truth in some of the things they put out.

Quote:

Cross examination? What are you talking about?

Oh--you know--under oath and everybody involved with equally expert legal representation.

I've read every word of the thread. I don't do Ignore in any of its forms.

Quote:

honestly, I can't see any point at all in responding ...

Your honesty is belied by you having responded. It's okay by me if you don't.

1 Reply

@spendius,

I don't have anything further to say on this, Spendius. I've said all I wanted to say to you.

0 Replies

@dlowan,

Quote:

We PUSHED that reef into the ship! Moved it twelve miles and all...man that was hard work.

Obviously, from your tone, you little realise how close to the truth you are dwollie. Ionus pointed it out. The pressure on profits to keep the bargain hunter happy is what put the ship on the reef. One might easily say pushed it. The coal might have been dearer had another carrier been employed. But I suppose that you being a bargain hunter will inevitably distort your thinking and seek to absolve yourself of any responsibility especially when it can be shifted on to China.

I don't suppose you are aware that offering bargains was illegal when the Roman Catholic Church was running things and for these very reasons. It encourages all sorts of malpractice. Then agencies are set up staffed by experts: you probably know a few, to try to stop the malpractices which then get smarter and so on and so on and in the final end it costs thousands of times more than the Pope just giving an order and strictly enforcing it with a few examples to encourage the rest of us and the working week was then of the order of a few hours.

It is even possible that the cost of the ship's hire made the difference in the winning of the contract to supply coal. If coal is loaded onto a Chinese ship there is an implied acceptance of Chinese standards I should have thought and all this running around like headless chickens is designed to obfusticate the issue, or hide it altogether, for a population which believes, yes believes, everything it reads in the newspapers or sees on the news which provides it with justifications to sound caring and compassionate which, when you see how chickens are raised in order to be at bargain prices, is just a big joke.

A battery chicken here is about £3 and a proper one is about £9. The former is a sick bird.

0 Replies

@roger,

Yes there is a difference between naval and cargo vessels. For any surface ship the engine power required is proportional to something between the third and fourth power of the speed. Thus to double your speed, say from 10 to 20 Kts, requires somewhere between eight and sixteen times the power to do 10 Kts. In general the powerplant of any ship is designed to match the maximum speed requirement, and there is a severe economic penalty in having any installed capacity that is not routinely needed. The weight and volume of a powerplant is generally proportional to its maximum power.

For various hydrodynamic and economic reasons, a speed between about 15Kts and about 18Kts is generally optimal for heavily laden cargo ships. As a result of these factors they are designed precisely for that speed and generally have little excess or reserve power available. For warships, efficiency is a secondary consideration, and for tactical reasons they are generally designed for top speeds between 28Kts and about 35Kts, though their most efficient cruising speed is about 20Kts (except for nuclear powered ships which are most efficient at near top speed).

Most cargo ships do about 16Kts everywhere, and I suspect that is what the Chinese vessel that hit the reef was doing.

It is difficult for those who have not experienced it to conceive of how such a navigation error could have occurred. The fact is they do occur with some regularity, as do aircraft mishaps. Still, both occur far less frequently per unit of travel than do automobile accidents, with which we are all familiar. Many here appear to posit far more wrongful negligence that likely really occurred in this accident. The reefs are probably not visible from the surface and it is not clear (to me) how well (or poorly) the channels were marked. Errors undoubtably occurred and like all such errors they will appear inexplicable in retrospect. However, errors remain persistent facts in our daily lives.

2 Replies

@georgeob1,

Quote:

However, errors remain persistent facts in our daily lives.

As does making the maximum capital out of them when they do occur.

As Bob Dylan famously wrote-

"The riot squad are restless, they need somewhere to go."

about 50 years ago.

0 Replies

@georgeob1,

Quote:

It is difficult for those who have not experienced it to conceive of how such a navigation error could have occurred.

Not at all in this case, George. It appears to have been be a case of human error, brought on by exhaustion & lack of sleep:

Quote:

FATIGUE and a failure to reset navigation systems for a last-minute shortcut contributed to a Chinese coal ship slamming into the Great Barrier Reef, the Australian Transport Safety Bureau has found.

The bureau's preliminary findings into the grounding of the Shen Neng 1 on Douglas Shoal on Easter Saturday comes as two senior crew members were granted bail in a Gladstone court after being arrested over the incident.

The bureau's chief commissioner, Martin Dolan, said at a news conference the ship's first mate, who was in charge of the carrier at the time of the incident, had slept for just over two hours in the previous day and a half.

''He was the one principally responsible for managing the loading [of coal] in Gladstone so had a very busy time and seemed to have had about 2½ hours of broken sleep in the previous 37 hours,'' Mr Dolan said.

http://www.smh.com.au/environment/conservation/reef-ships-first-mate-had-barely-slept-20100415-shs7.html

Given that Australian authorities cannot control the unfortunate working conditions of international crews like those of the Shen Neng 1 (plus many other outside factors), can you appreciate why many in Australia are calling for improved protective measures of precious natural resources like the Great Barrier Reef from shipping mishaps? Including properly trained pilots, who are familiar with the Reef, to help navigate such ships.

Quote:

..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.....

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

3 Replies

@msolga,

Quote:

Given that Australian authorities cannot control the unfortunate working conditions of international crews like those of the Shen Neng 1

That is not true. It is well known here that before Marks & Spencers award a supply contract to any manufacturer they inspect the premises of the firm and demand certain workings are applicable which are of a high standard. The same applies to many large companies in the UK and especially American owned ones.

The Australian authorities cannot but be aware of such things and as I assume this ship was on a routine trip it looks as if they have been taking advantage of lower standards on a regular basis in order to cheapen their costs and now that it has come on top they are blaming anybody they can stick in the frame as long as it isn't themselves.

If I was advising them I would suggest avoiding any court cases and try for a negotiated settlement with the Chinese.

The conditions required here for a Goods Vehicle Operator's Licence are extremly strict and enforced by a battalion of very pedantic inspectors.

0 Replies

@msolga,

I think that this is a good warning , because, from the gas and oil journal , they report that there will be a huge amount of LNG leaving AUstralia for China beginning in 2014.
Its amazing that, in this age of Satellite navigation systems , Vessel Control sysstems, and really detailed radars , Australia could keep a closer eye on any ships traversing the reef area.

Hell, in the BAy of Fundy, we were always carrying several transponders and were pretty much in constant contact of every port and island on the way up the Bay. Same thing in the Gulf of Maine which is much busiwr than the Barrier reef area.

Ive heard that the big issue from this accident wasnt the oil spillage but was from anti-fouling paint that ablated onto the reef. Seeing how thats mostly copper salts, Im not so concerned that any damage will be really life threatening. I cant see a really thick trail of anti-fouling paint on the reef

2 Replies

@farmerman,

I know you don't like to be seen to be agreeing with me fm and I admire the genteel manner in which you have managed to do so.

0 Replies

@farmerman,

Australia's going to have to really tighten up...including pilots, I'd have thought, as we clearly cannot rely on the standards (and/or equipment?) of some countries.

1 Reply

@dlowan,

Are you suggesting dwollie that the "Australian authorities" have been relying upon the standards of other countries in blissful ignorance or have they been taking a chance?

0 Replies

@msolga,

msolga,

You cannot outlaw fatigue and human error. One can certainly beneficially investigate mishaps, whether they be events like the one at hand, or aircraft accidents, or any kindof industrial accident - such as coal mine accidents, and institute standards & awareness that may temporarily reduce their likelihood. However, such events will continue to occur.

It appears from your report that the ship had a modern navigation system but that, through human error it was not used properly in the minutes leading up to the error. How will new rules prevent such errors?

I don't think you appreciate the cost and complexity of putting pilots onboard inbound vessels some hundreds of miles at sea from their destination ports. It's hard enough doing so tens of miles outsdide of current major ports.

Australia is certainly free to create radar monitoring stations able to track vessels transiting the region and to warn ships straying into dangerous areas. That will be expensive enough. However it is something your government has long been able to do on its own without the consent of other parties. Why hasn't it done so?

Finally, you have exaggerated the actual damage to the reef.

1 Reply

@georgeob1,

Quote:

You cannot outlaw fatigue and human error.
... such events will continue to occur.

I wasn't suggesting you could, George. I was suggesting that given that such human errors (like the Shen Neng I incident )do occur, much more stringent monitoring of ships' passages (including the use of marine pilots through the Great Barrier Reef) might well be very good idea. Especially as there will be a marked increase in the number of cargo vessels using this route in the very near future.

Quote:

How will new rules prevent such errors?

Which new rules are you referring to? Most (of what I've seen in the media so far) seem to apply to increased fines after accidents (rather than prevention of accidents), more than anything else. However there are a number of other proposals being considered.

Quote:

I don't think you appreciate the cost and complexity of putting pilots onboard inbound vessels some hundreds of miles at sea from their destination ports. It's hard enough doing so tens of miles outsdide of current major ports.

What would be an approximate cost of putting a navigation pilot on board a vessel like the Shen Neng I? A rough guess even? I'd appreciate it if you could give us some idea, knowing much more about such things. I'm thinking this would have been a far less expensive option compared to the (all the combined) costs as a result of this accident? I've tried Googling for an answer about costs of pilots with no success so far.

Quote:

Australia is certainly free to create radar monitoring stations able to track vessels transiting the region and to warn ships straying into dangerous areas. That will be expensive enough. However it is something your government has long been able to do on its own without the consent of other parties. Why hasn't it done so?

Not being in nearly as an informed position as you are about these things, George, I don't know the answer to that question. But it's a valid question. It certainly sounds like a lot of tightening up of monitoring (after the event!) is required.

However, I do know that Australia's attempt to introduce compulsory pilotage in the Great Barrier Reef (& other environmentally senstive areas) was defeated at International Maritime Organisation by shipping nations in 2004. Obviously Australian thought this was in the interests of this unique & sensitive area at that time. So this is hardly a new idea. To me (with my obvious vested interest in this story. I want to protect the Reef from further damage as much as it is possible.), the International Maritime Organisation decision looks a victory for commerce over environmental concerns. (Rather like an IWC experience Wink

) So I'm wondering if protection of the Reef is entirely up to Australia & international cooperation is not possible when you don't have "the numbers" in such organizations. We are talking about living object, more than 3,000 kilometers long & visible from space. Can consensus between the conflicting interests of shipping & environmental protection ever be reached in such an organization?

Quote:

Barrier Reef at risk from failure of diplomacy
Michelle Wiese Bockmann
From: The Australian
April 10, 2010 12:00AM

AUSTRALIA is unable to mandate the use of pilots for coal-laden ships sailing through some areas of the Great Barrier Reef, after failing five years ago to have the UN agency regulating international shipping pass laws to protect the environmentally sensitive region.

"At this . . . time, the International Maritime Organisation is only able to recommend compulsory pilotage in the area," an IMO spokeswoman said yesterday.

There was no pilot on board the Chinese-owned bulk carrier Shen Neng I when it ran aground 70km east of Great Keppel Island last Saturday, after diverting from an agreed route and hitting Douglas Shoal at full speed.

International maritime law applies outside a 12-nautical mile limit, incorporating outer parts of the Great Barrier Reef, through which international ships will transport an estimated 150 million tonnes of coking coal from Queensland to Asia this year.

Australian diplomats provided extensive advice to the London-based IMO's legal committee in 2004, arguing that international maritime law should allow compulsory pilotage to be extended not only to ships transiting inner routes of the Great Barrier Reef along the Australian coast but also the Torres Strait.

Led by Singapore and supported by international shipping groups, countries vetoed compulsory pilotage for the area, saying it overrode principles of freedom of navigation in straits used for international shipping; debate ended without resolution.

The division meant that two years later the IMO's Marine Environment Protection Committee could only recommend, and not demand, that ships comply with Australian regulatory requirements on compulsory pilotage for this area.

It would be up to Australia to make fresh proposals before the IMO if the country again sought to use international law to impose the mandatory use of pilots in areas of the Great Barrier Reef, the IMO spokeswoman said.

The international shipping industry, which transports more than three billion tonnes of bulk commodities such as iron ore, coal and grains each year on a global fleet of 7500 bulk carriers, is largely self-regulated. ... <cont>

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/barrier-reef-at-risk-from-failure-of-diplomacy/story-e6frg6nf-1225852024655

Quote:

you have exaggerated the actual damage to the reef.

All of the updates on the aftermath of this accident I've provided have been from usually reliable media sources, many from the ABC, the national broadcaster. Which is not usually prone to deliberate misrepresentation of facts. Could you point out some examples where I, or the media reports, have exaggerated the damage to the Reef?

3 Replies

@msolga,

Quote:

the International Maritime Organisation decision looks a victory for commerce over environmental concerns.

The alternative is unthinkable Olga. Take my word for it. If environmental concerns, cute though they are in casual conversations, were victorious over commerce your life would be changed in ways you are not ready for.

1 Reply

Barrier Reef oil spill April 4, 2010

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know