Barrier Reef oil spill April 4, 2010

...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 Great Barrier Reef is the world's largest reef system[1][2] composed of over 2,900 individual reefs[3] 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).[4][5] The reef is located in the Coral Sea, off the coast of Queensland in northeast Australia.

The Great Barrier Reef can be seen from outer space and is the world's biggest single structure made by living organisms.[6] This reef structure is composed of and built by billions of tiny organisms, known as coral polyps.[7] This reef supports a wide diversity of life, and was selected as a World Heritage Site in 1981.[1][2]

That has been posited as a major cause of corruption in public life in the US....as people want to make big bucks while they hold a post

(my last word on pilots, unless the subject comes up in further news updates)

OK

So what I now understand is that marine pilots are very expensive in the US compared to the only other example I know of, Germany. (Thank you, Walter.)

And that there is nepotism in this industry in the US, especially. (I just Googled "nepotism + marine navigation pilots" & came up with little, mainly some US examples.)

Whether expense & nepotism are largely the US experience, compared to other countries, I'm not sure. If it is pretty much the US experience, then it does not automatically follow that this would be the case in Australia.

I am none the wiser about the cost of marine pilots compared to the cost of cleaning up after "accidents" in any particular area, though by the sounds of things, this would be considerably more expensive in the US, than say, Germany. But never mind, I'll leave it at this. Not to worry.

I was very clear that the cost of providing pilots on the barrier reef, often hundreds of miles from their destination or point of departure ports, would be prohibitive mainly due to the distance from destination/point of departure and the time & cost consumed in getting pilots to/from the ships they ride. The length of the barrier reef and the widely separated ports it separartes from the open ocean makes this a profoundly different problem than that associated with most ports

I believe that is because you selectively read and assimilate information (on this subject at least) in a way that appears designed mainly to maintain your prejudices and fixed beliefs.

I was very clear that the cost of providing pilots on the barrier reef

However, I will silently await the action you forecast by the government of Australia to require marine pilots around & within the barrier reef by ships of all nations. I believe it will be a very long time coming.

yes, of course, that's exactly what I mean.

My understanding of this issue comes from constant monitoring of the respectable Australian media

Quote:

I was very clear that the cost of providing pilots on the barrier reef

I don't believe you were at all, George. But you can continue believe that if you want.
Further, I don't believe you've even considered the special circumstances of the Great Barrier Reef in your responses. Most of what you've had to say has been about problems & costs associated with marine pilots in the US, which with all due respects, has little relevance to the situation in Great Barrier Reef .

That given this situation the ecological concern for the reef takes a stand-by seat to "economic concerns."

I said that " I believe that you exaggerate the damage to the reefs".

I was and am very clear that marking channels and installing some radar monitoring stations for traffic through them would be a far less costly and at least equally as effective a solution as pilots.

I was very clear that the cost of providing pilots on the barrier reef

I do not believe that ecological concerns should necessarily trump competing economic or human interests on every issue.

I doubt seriously that Australia will undertake to deploy and require pilots and, in the unlikely event that it does, believe that Singapore and other maritime nations will again object to an imposed regulation on innocent passage through recognized channels.

It appears to me that the competing economic interests in this case are all Australian: the desire to export coal and other commodities and import goods to the cities along the eastern coast. These are issues you will have to resolve for yourselves.

Ships to be tracked on reef
MARK DAVIS
April 19, 2010/the AGE


SHIPS travelling along the Great Barrier Reef's southern fringes will be tracked by maritime authorities to reduce the risk of another incident like the grounding of the Chinese bulk ore carrier Shen Neng 1.

Federal Transport Minister Anthony Albanese announced yesterday that ships in the southern part of the reef marine park would have to regularly report their location and route to authorities. This would be backed up by radio and satellite tracking of ships to improve safety and further protect one of the country's most precious environmental assets, he said.

The new rules effectively extend requirements that apply to ships in the northern part of the reef park to a large area that runs roughly from Mackay to Bundaberg and extends more than 100 kilometres east of the Queensland coastline.

Mr Albanese said the rules, which had been recommended by the Australian Maritime Safety Authority, will come into effect from July next year.

The delay was to allow maritime authorities to set up infrastructure. The rules need to be approved by the International Maritime Organisation, as they apply to areas outside Australia's territorial waters.

Great Barrier Reef at Risk as Coal-Ship Traffic May Jump 67%
By James Paton/Bloonberg.com



April 9 (Bloomberg) -- The corals, whales and giant clams of Australia’s Great Barrier Reef are in the path of a “coal highway” to China that may see shipments jump 67 percent by 2016, increasing the threat of an ecological disaster after a coal carrier ran aground last week.

Trade at Gladstone port in Queensland may rise to about 140 million tons, mostly coal, in six years from 84 million tons in the year ending in June, Gladstone Ports Corp. Chief Executive Officer Leo Zussino said in an interview. The port was the loading point for the Shen Neng 1, which hit a sand bank on April 3 at full speed carrying 68,000 metric tons of coal and 975 tons of fuel oil.

“It’s only a matter of time before a serious oil spill occurs unless we have a better system for regulating the traffic,” said Peter Harrison, a professor at Southern Cross University in New South Wales who has studied the impact of oil pollution on coral reefs for three decades. “It’s a difficult place to navigate.”

The reef, as much as 65 kilometers wide, is a breeding ground for humpback whales and is host to the world’s largest collection of corals, more than 1,500 species of tropical fish and more than 200 kinds of sea birds. Australia may tighten up monitoring of vessels travelling through the reef and require more pilots to guide ships, Prime Minister Kevin Rudd said.

Gladstone is one of 10 major ports near the World Heritage listed site, according to the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority. Bob Brown, the senator who heads the Australian Greens party, said this week companies are “making a coal highway” out of the reef.

Gas Boom

About 1,500 ships are expected to pass through Gladstone this year, said an official at the port, who declined to be named because of company policy.

Gladstone will also be the port of departure for liquefied natural gas vessels starting in 2014. LNG vessels leaving the harbor in the year ending June 2016 will carry about 10 million tons of LNG, mostly to Asia, according to the port operator. BG Group Plc, Santos Ltd. and Origin Energy Ltd. are among companies planning to build LNG terminals at Gladstone. ...<cont>