11
   

Barrier Reef oil spill April 4, 2010

 
 
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Tue 6 Apr, 2010 01:41 am
@Ionus,
not so much, we need a map of the ship channel, where this ship was, and to know where it was going. I have to assume that someone has put one on the web, but I have not been able to find it. I am confident that when this turns up that the location will be such that it appears this captain was taking a short cut.
dadpad
 
  1  
Reply Tue 6 Apr, 2010 01:48 am
Quote:
I am confident that when this turns up that the location will be such that it appears this captain was taking a short cut.

Read an artical that said as much today.
I'm on dial up so i wont go looking but from memory the artical said the route The ship was on would have shaved as much as 6/7 km.
try this artical:
go to <//theage.com.au>
search: water plug stems tide.
0 Replies
 
Ionus
 
  1  
Reply Tue 6 Apr, 2010 02:19 am
@hawkeye10,
What I got from the map was he hit the first reef he came across. After he would have turned northerly and there is an even greater reef to avoid.
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  3  
Reply Tue 6 Apr, 2010 12:50 pm
@Diest TKO,
I have the impression that your willingness to speak authoritatively and judgmentally about these matters significantly exceeds your experience and knowledge of the underlying situation and the facts involved. It turns out that Australia has imposed no requirement for a pilot in these waters, though it certainly has the power to do so. Accidents, whether involving ships, aircraft or for that matter automobiles only rarely result from only one defect or error. There are usually several links in the chain that lead to the mishap, any one or two of which if absent would likely have prevented it. The assignment of cause is usually complex and often defies the categorical clarity you appear to demand. Finally the fuel spill is relatively small, and in those warm waters the breakdown of the hydrocarbons is fairly rapid.
hawkeye10
 
  3  
Reply Tue 6 Apr, 2010 12:58 pm
@georgeob1,
Quote:
Inner Route

On 1 October 1991 a compulsory pilotage district was declared for the Inner Route of the Great Barrier Reef between Cape York (Lat 10(41'S) and Cairns (Lat 16(40'S). All vessels of 70 metres or more in overall length (or oil tankers, gas carriers and chemical tankers irrespective of length) transiting this district are required to use the services of a licensed pilot.

Hydrographers Passage

On 1 October 1991 a compulsory pilotage district was declared for Hydrographers Passage. All vessels 70 metres (or oil tankers, gas carriers and chemical tankers irrespective of length) or more in length are required to use the services of a licensed pilot.

Torres Strait & Great North East Channel

Under IMO resolution MEPC.133(53), a pilot, licensed by the Australian Maritime Safety Authority (AMSA), is required to be carried by all vessels of 70 metres or more in overall length, and all loaded oil tankers, chemical tankers and liquefied gas carriers regardless of length, when passing through Torres Strait and the Great North East Channel.

http://www.reefpilots.com.au/html/routes_restrictions.html#compulsory

Quote:
It turns out that Australia has imposed no requirement for a pilot in these waters
it all depends on the definiton of "these" I guess
hawkeye10
 
  2  
Reply Tue 6 Apr, 2010 01:13 pm
@hawkeye10,
Quote:
When bulk coal carrier Shen Neng 1 ran aground on a shoal in Great Barrier Reef waters on Saturday it did not have a marine pilot aboard to guide it through.

The vessel grounded on a reef 15 kilometres from the shipping channel it was supposed to traverse.

The incident has again sparked debate over whether pilots should be compulsory on vessels traversing the passage between the outer reef and the Queensland coastline.

It's a debate that has gone on for decades.

A near-identical incident in 2000 saw a Malaysian-flagged container ship run aground on Sudbury Reef off Cairns.

On November 2, 2000 the Bunga Teratai Satu ploughed into Sudbury Reef at full speed, its bow penetrating 100 metres onto the coral.

The ship was refloated, without spilling fuel or cargo, on November 14, 2000.

The incident again sparked media debate about the need for pilots on the large freighters which traverse the waters of the inner reef.

The official report into the grounding, by the Australian Transport Safety Bureau, noted that "a detailed study of pilotage in the inner route of the Great Barrier Reef is currently being undertaken jointly by AMSA and the Queensland Department of Transport".

Media reports at the time quoted the Marine Pilots Association, which said the question of reef pilotage had been reviewed three times since 1993, with no positive result.

AAP is seeking comment from the Marine Pilots Association in relation to the latest grounding of the Shen Neng 1, currently aground off central Queensland and leaking oil.

Traffic in reef waters is expected to expand greatly in coming years, with contracts signed for the export of $60 billion worth of liquified natural gas, and huge export deals for coal signed or in the pipeline.
http://www.smh.com.au/environment/reef-pilot-controversy-has-long-history-20100404-rlg2.html

the Austrailians might want to get a handle on this transport problem before they sign any more export contracts. They yak a lot about how important the health of the reef zone is, but their actions seem to indicate that they care more about paychecks. I was not aware that Australia was so hard up.
Walter Hinteler
 
  3  
Reply Tue 6 Apr, 2010 01:30 pm
Regarding those 12 km - I fully agree with what George said and don't suggest that such an error could have happened under his command nor I'd ever done so.

The problem might be .... that the captain of the Chinese ship only had Chinese charts of that area in his board. (And more detailed only for the actual coastal approach/ports.)

I've talked to a lot of pilots, and what they told me about the charts some ships had when navigating in the German Bight ...

But that was before GPS was used.

However, if someone only relies on GPS and doesn't si, simultaneously use 'antique' navigation, and if the GPS for some reasons doesn't work properly ...

What George said. (But contrary to his opinion, I do consider the amount of oil to be a great danger for the environment.)
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Tue 6 Apr, 2010 01:49 pm
@hawkeye10,
They're all hard up hawk. Look at Rupert Murdoch. You can tell from the Murdoch media how far it will go to get money. In principle it's not much different from street performers. A flasher cap that's all. There's Germaine Greer who some people think screwed up a generation of women to get money. And Barry Humphries dressed up as a posh madwoman.

The reef is something to chat about on social occasions. It's an ideal subject for showing off one's concern for the environment which is widely known to be admirable.

There's something odd about it when planes are guided into Heathrow at the rate of one a minute. Maybe faster.
0 Replies
 
Diest TKO
 
  1  
Reply Tue 6 Apr, 2010 02:51 pm
@georgeob1,
Rolling Eyes

George, I'm aware that Australia requires no pilot. Having a pilot is still the competent thing to do. Common sense here.

T
K
O
msolga
 
  1  
Reply Tue 6 Apr, 2010 03:04 pm
@Walter Hinteler,
With all due respects Walter, they would have seen the Queensland coast from that ship, right maps or wrong maps. And if the captain wasn't even aware of the Great Barrier Reef being so close to the Qld coast, then how on earth did he come to be in charge of such a vessel?
msolga
 
  1  
Reply Tue 6 Apr, 2010 03:17 pm
@msolga,
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/1b/GreatBarrierReef-EO.JPG/230px-GreatBarrierReef-EO.JPG
Satellite image of part of the Great Barrier Reef adjacent to the Queensland coastal areas of Airlie Beach and Mackay.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Barrier_Reef
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Tue 6 Apr, 2010 03:27 pm
@msolga,
Quote:
Another key threat faced by the Great Barrier Reef is pollution and declining water quality. The rivers of north eastern Australia pollute the Reef during tropical flood events. Over 90% of this pollution comes from farm runoff. Farm run-off is polluted by overgrazing, excessive fertiliser use and pesticide use.


I should imagine far more damaging than one ship on one occasion.

Cheap food again. Stick it to the captain and take the attention off yourselves.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  2  
Reply Tue 6 Apr, 2010 03:37 pm
@msolga,
msolga wrote:

With all due respects Walter, they would have seen the Queensland coast from that ship, right maps or wrong maps.


Well, I've never been there. Might well be that you see so far in the southern hemisphere on sea.

msolga wrote:
And if the captain wasn't even aware of the Great Barrier Reef being so close to the Qld coast, then how on earth did he come to be in charge of such a vessel?


I don't think that it's a question of knowing how close something to some other place is - it's more the question to know where my ship is.

(When I was asked 'Where are we?' I always put my finger on a point on the chart ... and then made the correct position Wink . But as said, 6 nautical miles isn't that much, generally, however in such an estuary ... )
msolga
 
  1  
Reply Tue 6 Apr, 2010 04:02 pm
@Walter Hinteler,
Maybe mandatory geography lessons for those in charge of such potentially damaging vessels? And a legal requirement for up to date charts & maps, perhaps? Wink

That vessel simply should not have been where it was.
0 Replies
 
msolga
 
  1  
Reply Tue 6 Apr, 2010 04:19 pm
Latest update on the salvage operation from ABC News online:

Quote:

Authorities prepare to salvage oil spill ship
Updated 1 hour 24 minutes ago

http://www.abc.net.au/reslib/201004/r543448_3169505.jpg
The ship has leaked about two tonnes of oil and maritime authorities are trying to stop more seepage. (Maritime Safety Queensland)

A ship equipped to deal with oil spills will arrive this morning at the site where a bulk coal carrier ran aground in the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park off central Queensland.

The Chinese coal carrier, Shen Neng 1, hit the Douglas Shoal east of Rockhampton at the weekend, rupturing its fuel tank and leaking four tonnes of oil.

The ship is laden with more than 60,000 tonnes of coal and almost 1,000 tonnes of fuel oil.

Today's salvage operation will involve removing the remainder of the ship's oil.

Authorities say chemical dispersants have broken up the spill and it is unlikely the stricken ship will break up.

Tugboats are being used to stabilise the ship and maritime authorities will decide today when to remove the oil, which must go before any attempt is made to move the vessel.

Dutch-based company Svitzer is handling the salvage operation and has flown in three planeloads of specialist equipment, including heavy duty pumps and compressors.

'Risky exercise'

Officials hope the fuel transfer will begin either this afternoon or tomorrow while the weather is good, but Queensland Premier Anna Bligh has warned it will be a complex and risky exercise.

Ms Bligh says it could be one of the most difficult salvage operations in Australia's history.

"We have to prepare for the possibility that more oil may well escape," she said.

"That means that we have in cooperation with the councils along this shoreline a comprehensive civilian response should we have any further oil come out of the vessel and on to any of the shores."...<cont>


http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/04/07/2865734.htm?site=news
dlowan
 
  2  
Reply Tue 6 Apr, 2010 04:27 pm
@Diest TKO,
Diest TKO wrote:

Rolling Eyes

George, I'm aware that Australia requires no pilot. Having a pilot is still the competent thing to do. Common sense here.

T
K
O


Absolutely.

I think Queensland will likely be pressured to make pilots mandatory for this route. I assume they have not done so yet because of the cost, and because most ships seem to have competent enough masters to manage to navigate correctly.
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Tue 6 Apr, 2010 04:30 pm
@msolga,
Think of the invoices. It sounds like "dip yer bread in" time to me. With PR.
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Tue 6 Apr, 2010 06:12 pm
@Diest TKO,
Glad to learn that Diest is so experienced in maneuvering large ships. A man of many accomplishments to be sure.

I generally used a pilot only on the first two or three entrances into an unfamiliar port or one where the tug boat captains and port control folks spoke a language I didn't understand. After that they were basically a fifth wheel ... and very expensive ... about $15,000 for a three hour gig (and that was a few years ago). Now I'm a commissioner on the Pilot review board for the San Francisco Bay. We review mishaps and evaluate screwups by the Pilots. It's a nice racket they have.
Ionus
 
  2  
Reply Tue 6 Apr, 2010 06:42 pm
@msolga,
Quote:
they would have seen the Queensland coast from that ship
The queensland coast was 90km away. How do you propose he saw it ? The captain knew where the queensland coast was because he had just left it. Also the smoke/dust haze would have been viisble from where he was. I think it will turn out that he turned into a short cut too early with the wrong tide.
0 Replies
 
Diest TKO
 
  0  
Reply Tue 6 Apr, 2010 07:54 pm
@georgeob1,
georgeob1 wrote:

Glad to learn that Diest is so experienced in maneuvering large ships. A man of many accomplishments to be sure.

I generally used a pilot only on the first two or three entrances into an unfamiliar port or one where the tug boat captains and port control folks spoke a language I didn't understand. After that they were basically a fifth wheel ... and very expensive ... about $15,000 for a three hour gig (and that was a few years ago). Now I'm a commissioner on the Pilot review board for the San Francisco Bay. We review mishaps and evaluate screwups by the Pilots. It's a nice racket they have.

Red Herring.

When navigating shallow waters in a ship with very valuable company/national resources and multiple personnel at risk of injury, it is either competent to have a pilot or it isn't.

Yes or No?

Does the laws of the waters determine what makes competent operational procedures?

I may not have to wear a helmet on motorcycle in some states because of the law, but wearing the helmet is still the competent thing to do.

T
K
O
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 05/05/2024 at 04:42:56