11
   

Barrier Reef oil spill April 4, 2010

 
 
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Sun 4 Apr, 2010 09:20 pm
@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.
0 Replies
 
dadpad
 
  0  
Reply Sun 4 Apr, 2010 09:20 pm
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.
0 Replies
 
Ionus
 
  -1  
Reply Sun 4 Apr, 2010 10:20 pm
@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.
0 Replies
 
Ionus
 
  -1  
Reply Sun 4 Apr, 2010 10:24 pm
@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.
0 Replies
 
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Sun 4 Apr, 2010 10:47 pm
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.
Ionus
 
  1  
Reply Sun 4 Apr, 2010 10:57 pm
@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 ?
hawkeye10
 
  2  
Reply Sun 4 Apr, 2010 11:19 pm
@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
 
  1  
Reply Sun 4 Apr, 2010 11:54 pm
@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.
0 Replies
 
dadpad
 
  1  
Reply Mon 5 Apr, 2010 12:05 am
Quote:
In 2007 the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority estimated more than 6000 ships more than 50 metres long passed through the area each year. That is likely to have risen considerably during the resources boom. More than 1200 vessels a year pass through Gladstone alone.
http://www.smh.com.au/environment/shipping-crackdown-urged-to-protect-reef-from-disaster-20100404-rlry.html
0 Replies
 
msolga
 
  0  
Reply Mon 5 Apr, 2010 12:39 am
Quote:
(Queensland state Premier) Ms Bligh says she has been talking to Maritime Safety over the spill and says aerial dispersant spray has helped break up some of the oil.

But she says she cannot believe the ship was so far off course and sailing through a restricted area of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park.

She says charges could be laid against the shipping company owners as well as the ship's captain.

"This ship is in Australian waters and the investigation will be undertaken by Commonwealth authorities," she said.

"I think the book should be thrown at this organisation. This is a very delicate part of one of the most precious marine environments on earth and there are safe, authorised shipping channels and that's where this ship should have been.

"This is an extremely unusual event."


Ms Bligh says the salvage could take weeks.

"It's possible that this could be one of the most complex and difficult salvage operations we've seen, certainly in Queensland maritime history, and possibly Australia," she said.


http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/04/05/2864207.htm
roger
 
  0  
Reply Mon 5 Apr, 2010 01:02 am
I hesitate to ask, but maybe The Front Fell Off.
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Mon 5 Apr, 2010 01:08 am
Quote:
However, Nicholson said the ship's captain had a 10-mile-wide channel to navigate through in an area where pilots aren't needed -- a relatively wide open section of sea, 70 kilometers (43 miles) off shore and away from the larger mass of coral most people associate with the Great Barrier Reef.

"He got 15 nautical miles (17.3 miles) off course, which is just outrageous," said Nicholson, who likened it to a car veering off a 2-mile wide road.

"We have thousands of boats moving in that same space every year and nothing has ever happened like this," he said
http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/asiapcf/04/04/australia.chinese.ship/index.html?hpt=T2

0 Replies
 
dadpad
 
  1  
Reply Mon 5 Apr, 2010 01:59 am
@roger,
roger wrote:

I hesitate to ask, but maybe The Front Fell Off.

Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing
0 Replies
 
Ionus
 
  0  
Reply Mon 5 Apr, 2010 04:18 am
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.
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Mon 5 Apr, 2010 04:55 am
@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???
Ionus
 
  1  
Reply Mon 5 Apr, 2010 05:01 am
@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.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Mon 5 Apr, 2010 05:12 am
@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.
Ionus
 
  1  
Reply Mon 5 Apr, 2010 05:17 am
@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.
Diest TKO
 
  1  
Reply Mon 5 Apr, 2010 07:25 am
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
spendius
 
  -2  
Reply Mon 5 Apr, 2010 07:41 am
@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.
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 05/07/2024 at 01:58:10