Barrier Reef oil spill April 4, 2010

@Diest TKO,

Diest TKO wrote:

You're a miserable waste of text spendi. You're making this personal is so petty it's ridiculous. Are you really this lonely that the only way you can get attention is by being an insufferable asshole? This is a terrible accident to happen, and it could have been avoided in my opinion.

Why don't you free up the barstool so the bartender can talk to a new patron who is actually interesting (and willing to tip).

T
K
O

Like....who reads him for crissake? Don't let these people get to you.

2 Replies

@dlowan,

You're right. Normally, I see him as a mental infant he is, but other times I feel like he's following me around to flame my posts. It just creeps me out.

T
K
O

0 Replies

@dlowan,

Quote:

who reads him for crissake?

I do. He points out a diffferent perspective with wit and literary references. if you just glance at what he writes you wont "get it".

0 Replies

Quote:

Prime Minister Kevin Rudd says it is outrageous that a Chinese coal carrier was far enough off course to slam into part of the Great Barrier Reef at the weekend.

This morning Mr Rudd flew over the coal carrier Shen Neng 1, which ran aground off Douglas Shoal, east of Rockhampton, rupturing a fuel tank and spilling oil into the ocean. ....

.... "It is outrageous that any vessel could find itself 12 kilometres off course in the Great Barrier Reef," he said.

Mr Rudd says he takes threats to the Reef extremely seriously.

"From my point of view as Prime Minister of Australia, there is no greater natural asset for Australia than the Great Barrier Reef," he said.

"I take any threat to the Great Barrier Reef fundamentally seriously.

"The practical challenge is to deal with this situation now. The practical challenge then is to bring to account those who are responsible," he said. ...

..... Earlier, Greens Leader Bob Brown inspected the ship before accusing bulk carriers of using the pristine waters of the Reef as a "coal highway".

He said authorities were turning a blind eye to the problem.

"Nothing has been done about it by the authorities," he said.

"I will be busying myself today to establish where the Australian Federal Police are in their enquires about how this disastrous situation has arisen."

Senator Brown also called for a complete review about the number and size of ships moving through the Great Barrier Reef.

International legal experts say the Chinese coal carrier may face a number of infringements, but the Federal Government is limited to the action it can take to regulate shipping lanes.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/04/06/2865124.htm?section=justin

1 Reply

@msolga,

Hope it doesn't happen again!!!

0 Replies

Just out of curiosity, where was the Chinese ship headed with its cargo of coal? Who were the greedy despoilers of the earth who were buying the coal?

By the way a 12 km navigation error on the open ocean isn't that much. True in this age of GPS there isn't much reason to be that far off, however if their GPS wasn't working such a navigation error is entirely plausible.

3 Replies

@georgeob1,

I'm not sure of where it was headed, George. But I'm sure someone else will know.

Quote:

Who were the greedy despoilers of the earth who were buying the coal?

This was never an issue. The issue was the ship being in completely the wrong place & now figuring out the extent of the damage to the Great Barrier Reef. You understand that this might be a concern?

Quote:

By the way a 12 km navigation error on the open ocean isn't that much. True in this age of GPS there isn't much reason to be that far off, however if their GPS wasn't working such a navigation error is entirely plausible.

Maybe not out on the high seas? But rather different in the area the ship was actually (wrongly) in, I'd think.

0 Replies

@georgeob1,

China I assume.

Why do you feel the need to become belligerent about this? "Greedy despoilers of the earth"? This isn't about conservation as such and whether we ought or ought not to use coal...it is about a ship sailing where it had no business to be, striking a reef, a not unexpected outcome when sailing illegally near a massive reef, waiting two hours before alerting authorities, thus making worse an already appalling incident, and through these actions threatening a world heritage place of beauty and wonder, enjoyed by millions.

What on earth is your problem about people being distressed by this.

1 Reply

@dlowan,

It's just reactionary crap. He see some liberals upset about something and understands that he is supposed to disagree with us, so he composes his post with that in mind.

I was unaware that this was something only liberals care about. Taking this topic and making it about the daily liberal-conservative left and right is shallow and belittles the actual issue here.

T
K
O

1 Reply

@Diest TKO,

I thought that.

0 Replies

@georgeob1,

Given their distance from port and esp their last turning point, 12 km off course is an incompetent distance.

0 Replies

There are many hundreds of similar accidents by ships following similar coastal routes all over the world every year. Most of them involve incompetence, equipment failure or stupidity that seems inexcusable after the fact. Despite this they continue to occur. Same goes with automobile and aircraft accidents. That this one occurred at all, and in the area in question is regrettable. However, as spendius noted, it was, in a general sense a predictable result of the commercial traffic in the region.

The waterway where this one occurred is clearly within Australia's national waters and theirs to regulate if it so chooses. Mandating pilots for a one or two day voyage is not inexpensive -- the attractiveness of various coastal ports and the added costs for goods delivered can be substantial. These costs would be ultimately paid, not by the shippers, but rather by the local consumers & sellers of the products they deliver. A cheaper solution might be radar surveillance of the coastal area to monitor coastal traffic, or even the construction of visual navigational aids to clearly demarcate channels and restricted areas. Whether any of this was in place is certainly something I don't know, and I doubt seriously if any of the other posters here know either. The essential point is that the government of Australia is quite free to establish whatever requirements it wishes on the equipment installed and condition of ships of any registry entering its ports.

Australia has a very long coastline, and cost is indeed a relevant factor. Certainly if there are frequent accidents in this region it might be worthwhile to consider just what additional preventive systems are advisable.

Frankly I find all the hand-wringing and expressions of outrage a little overdone. Do you all consider yourselves to be the victims of some conspiracy?

3 Replies

@georgeob1,

Quote:

Do you all consider yourselves to be the victims of some conspiracy?

who can say for sure, but I do know that neglect/criminal behavior by the Chinese is getting old. We should do something about it.

In the press the so called experts are saying that being this far wrong (I think it is actually 17 km) is outrageous. I have no reason to doubt this. This looks like neglect or wrong doing, which considering the Chinese record of such is good enough to justify blasting them.

1 Reply

@hawkeye10,

Oh I think either 12km or 17km is a large navigation error, particularly in a coastal waterway, where one looks for visual cues to confirm his position - and, if he is doing things properly, takes continuous visual bearings to identifiable landmarks. However it is tedious work, and confusion or misinterpretation of charts and visual sightings can and does occur. Such accidents always look stupid and even incomprehensible - after the fact : but they continue.

All of this looks different when you are on the bridge of a ship and trying to do the job yourself - a perspective that I think few of the commentators here have experienced.

1 Reply

@georgeob1,

Quote:

Oh I think either 12km or 17km is a large navigation error, particularly in a coastal waterway, where one looks for visual cues to confirm his position

one expert said that it is the equivalence of driving a car off of a road that is two miles wide.....talking about the width of the shipping lane here.

1 Reply

@georgeob1,

He was 90 km out from his departure and was 12 km off course. Depending on where he was headed to in China, this would mean he could hit Vietnam, Korea or Japan if he was allowed to travel in a straight line. Given that he had to make many turning points to get there and he had trouble with his first point, this is NOT finding fault after the fact.

Quote:

Frankly I find all the hand-wringing and expressions of outrage a little overdone.

It is the ecological equivalent of child molestation. What should outrage be saved for ?

Quote:

Do you all consider yourselves to be the victims of some conspiracy?

The error amounts to a conspiracy. He was paid bonuses. It appears he was taking a short cut and his company more than likely knew about this, but certainly members of his crew would have been aware. How many do you need for a conspiracy ?

0 Replies

@hawkeye10,

hawkeye10 wrote:

Quote:

Oh I think either 12km or 17km is a large navigation error, particularly in a coastal waterway, where one looks for visual cues to confirm his position
one expert said that it is the equivalence of driving a car off of a road that is two miles wide.....talking about the width of the shipping lane here.

Perhaps. However the reports posted here didn't specify if there indeed was a prescribed shipping lane and how wide it might be. In any event running a ship aground is usually a career ending event for any ship captain.

1 Reply

@georgeob1,

Quote:

In any event running a ship aground is usually a career ending event for any ship captain.

we are talking about China here, I am sure he is more concerned about keeping his life at this point. Just last week China executed a few government officials who got caught in corruption. The corruption is everywhere, has to be government approved, but individuals are expendable in the Chinese Empire after they have expended their usefullness....it has always been thus.

If he was just following orders it will not help him a bit, the bosses will off him if it is in their interest to do so.

0 Replies

@georgeob1,

What is your point here george? That accidents happen and this is no different?

If 2 planes fell from the sky and one was due to pilot error and the other a mechanical one, it's not odd to think that we will view these incidents in a different way. Similarly, if both planes are brought down for the same reasons, but one hits a school, we'd probably have some additional thoughts and feelings about that too.

It's perfectly reasonable to be outraged about a vessel that (1) should have been piloted, and (2) has threatened a ecosystem.

This is not the predictable result of commercial traffic. It is the predictable product of negligent operations. I'm sympathetic to accidents, but the fact that the Chinese ship stalled for two hours before notifying authorities says they know they fucked up.

T
K
O

1 Reply

This map may be worth a look at if the link works :
http://maps.google.com.au/maps?f=q&source=embed&hl=en&geocode=&q=Great+keppel+Island&sll=-25.335448,135.745076&sspn=55.392242,79.013672&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Great+Keppel+Island+Queensland&ll=-23.175714,150.956268&spn=0.37874,0.411987&z=10&iwloc=A
You need to focus around Yeppoon Queensland Australia, then go east about 90 km.

1 Reply

Barrier Reef oil spill April 4, 2010

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know