@dlowan,
Quote:
I doubt it's intentional. Maybe negligence, or they were up to some kind of no good., or crap equipment?
running aground was certainly not intentional, but being in that general location may well have been. The Chinese almost always take the shortest route between where they are and where they want to go, legality and safety are not much of a factor. There is currently a little dust up over how the Chinese bribed you Australians for mining rights, they care zero about you or your laws.
Quote:or they were up to some kind of no good
I kinda doubt that. They were on there way home having loaded up in Gladstone. It'd be a risk to keep drugs or illegals on board for all the time in port.
@dadpad,
Quote:Sheng neng 1 is a chinese owned vessel. I have No data on the nationality of the crew and i suspect neither do you.
So there is no problem with the things I mentioned. The problem in general can only be addressed by addressing the specifics of this problem. Take your hand off it fool.
@dadpad,
Quote:The incident again sparked media debate about the need for pilots on the large freighters which traverse the waters of the inner reef.
No doubt a expert like you has complete and total knowledge of how many ships are travelling the length of the reef and how many pilot-days this would involve in a year. If it is such a good idea why are you the only one supporting it ? Clearly you know more about the problem than anyone else. Try not to say anything more foolish than you already have, dickhead.
Quote:"This ship has acted illegally going into these restricted areas (of the marine park)," she told reporters in Brisbane.
"The Commonwealth government is now investigating how this happened and I hope, frankly, they throw the book at them."
She said the shipping company could be fined $1 million and the ship's captain $250,000.
MSQ said the vessel was owned by Shenzhen Energy, a subsidiary of the Cosco Group - China's largest shipping company.
Comment is being sought from the company.
Ms Bligh said the boom should be in place around the ship, on Douglas Shoal 70km east of Great Keppel Island, by late Monday or early Tuesday.
http://www.smh.com.au/environment/boom-will-limit-any-further-oil-spill-bligh-20100405-rmn6.html
$1 million is chump change for a ship owner, which is probably partly why this ship was where it was...they dont care.
@hawkeye10,
Quote:which is probably partly why this ship was where it was...they dont care.
Exactly my point. In too many cases, the ships owners dont care, the flag sponsoring the vessel doesnt care, the crew dont care, and the captain gets bonuses for being on time. How is any of this conducive to responsible conduct ?
@Ionus,
you could look it up, but I think they spend near $100,ooo a day in fuel, an $1 million charge is nothing, all they need to do is save 10 days time before they get caught to break even,
@hawkeye10,
Quote:To illustrate the effect of the rising fuel costs, consider the following example of a large modern container vessel used in the Trans-Pacific trade with an actual, maximum container capacity of 7,750 TEUs (twenty foot equivalents) or 3,875 FEUs (forty foot equivalents).1 With the cost of bunker fuel at $552 per ton, with fuel consumption at 217 tons per day, a single 28-day round trip voyage for this one vessel would produce a fuel bill of $3,353,952.
http://www.worldshipping.org/pdf/WSC_fuel_statement_final.pdf
not a collier (coal ship) but prob close in enconomics....so 120K a day in fuel, plus fixed costs and employee pay, I figure a company only needs to save 6-7 days in transit to make a $1 million fine be a good deal. Of course government will act like they are all tough and law and order, but the truth is that owners probably dont care about governments and their fines.
I hesitate to ask, but maybe The Front Fell Off.
If the ship breaks open the salt water will leach out the worst of the pollutants but on the bright side the coal will be "clean" when and if it is recovered. What will happen if 65,000 tons of coal and 950 tons of deisel oil wash on the reef ?
Some areas of the world have compulsory reporting. Is this a compulsory reporting area and if it isnt why isnt it ?
Pilots are rather impractical. Ships also travel the length of the reef rather than just in and out. Given the number of harbours, assuming an average of 7,000 ships travelling an average of 3 days where they might endanger the reef, we have 21,000 pilot days and 14,ooo pilot nights required. This amounts to 35,000 x 12 hrs or 420,000 pilot hrs. the cost of training, maintenance of buildings and overheads, support staff, flights to return to base, it would be hard to do this for under $50/hr. This amounts to $21 million per year. Minimum. Plus set up costs of things like buildings and ferry craft.
What about the beaches south of the reef ? What about the Kimberleys ? What about the mangroves in the Gulf ? etc etc.
Far simpler and cheaper to make it mandatory for compulsory GPS position reporting with locator beacons. This would also help in the event of a rescue. Over 100 large ships sink every year and 10,000 containers are lost overboard.
@Ionus,
me thinks you are WAY low on that $21 million figure.
Quote:They contend that in 2008 inflated costs resulted in $50 million being paid to fewer than 100 pilots. A typical pilot may make $368,000 a year. In addition, the pilots are paid much more than ship captains
http://www.allbusiness.com/transportation/transportation-infrastructure-harbors-ports/14128911-1.html
Maybe a half billion dollars....if you economize???
@hawkeye10,
Quote:me thinks you are WAY low on that $21 million figure.
I am happy to concede that it is understated, I didnt want some smart arse ignoring the big picture and quibbling over costing. It was deliberately undercosted.
@Ionus,
I don't think that pilots are impractical - working with GPS and (e.g.) radar guides is something for smaller ships, with bridge personal who have a sound standing knowledge of that estuary.
At least that how it works in Europe.
@Walter Hinteler,
We are looking at a coastline 4-5 times that of the continental USA with a 15th of the population. I would hate to pay for it.
Sonovabitch.
I hate **** like this for multiple reasons. First and certainly foremost, the environment impact is enraging. Secondly, the pure incompetence...
FFFFFFffffffffuuuuuu
T
K
O
@Diest TKO,
It's the incessant demand for cheap fuel that is the cause. Accidents are bound to happen with that.
Do you demand a constant supply of cheap fuel TK?
You're scapegoating.