11
   

Barrier Reef oil spill April 4, 2010

 
 
msolga
 
  1  
Reply Tue 6 Apr, 2010 08:08 pm
Your right about the distance from the coastline. I got that wrong. Confusion after reading differing reports about the exact location of the Shen Neng ... some describing the position as "off the east coast of Great Keppel Island", others referring to Douglas Shoals, which is 70 km from Great Keppell Island. Quite a difference between the two!
georgeob1
 
  0  
Reply Tue 6 Apr, 2010 08:15 pm
@Diest TKO,
Diest TKO wrote:

[Red Herring.
You don't know enough about the subject to make such a judgment.

Diest TKO wrote:

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?
Not sure I uberstand your meaning here. Competent? I'll assume you mean "legally required" The answer to that one is it depends on the port; the waterway and the laws of the nation (or state or Province, etc involved. Evidently in the case at hand there was no such requirement. If the ship's captain knows the area well there is no reason to believe the presence of a pilot will improve the situation in any way. Indeed sometimes a pilot is a positive distraction who detracts from the safety of the oiperation: I have had such experiences.

Diest TKO wrote:

Does the laws of the waters determine what makes competent operational procedures?
The law of the sea or maratime law specifies requirements for running lights, the required colors and locations; certain standard "rules of the road" for passing or crossing vessels; certain standard radio frequencies for communication; and a table of audio and visual signals for vesseld in close proximnity. There are also rules for basic equipment (compass; ships whistle; and safety equipment; etc. The laws don't establish detailed procedures for running a ship or how the bridge team is staffed or organized.

Diest TKO wrote:

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.
One is certainly safer with a helmet. However wearing a helmet does not make one a competent motorcycle driver.
msolga
 
  1  
Reply Tue 6 Apr, 2010 08:17 pm
@msolga,
Oops. I meant you're right ...

(Hate it when I make silly mistakes like that!)
Ionus
 
  1  
Reply Tue 6 Apr, 2010 08:22 pm
@msolga,
If that is the only type of mistake you make, I will leave you far behind in quantity and quality of mistakes. Very Happy
0 Replies
 
msolga
 
  1  
Reply Tue 6 Apr, 2010 08:35 pm
I thought it might be interesting to see how the local (Queensland) press is covering this situation. This report is from the Courier Mail. :

Quote:

Shen Neng 1 had 12 mile-wide safe shipping channel with 40m-deep water - but it still managed to hit Great Barrier Reef

http://resources2.news.com.au/images/2010/04/07/1225850/885306-cm-amsa-map-of-shen-neng-1-course.jpg

THE Shen Neng 1 ran aground in waters which were "not navigationally challenging" - hitting a reef at the edge of a 12 mile-wide, 40m-deep channel, it emerged today.

As salvage crews worked to offload oil from the Chinese bulk carrier and free it from the Great Barrier Reef at Douglas Shoal, north of Gladstone, the Australian Maritime Safety Authority revealed that the vessel's sailing plans showed it had always intended to travel through the 'short cut' where it ran aground.

But exactly how the vessel ended up stuck on the reef remains a mystery - the channel between North West Island and Douglas Shoal is 12 nautical miles wide and the water there is 40m deep.

AMSA said in a statement there were also navigation aids in the area which was not considered " navigationally challenging".

The AMSA statement said there were no ‘recommended routes’ in the area "as there is sufficient sea room to manoeuvre the ship to avoid collision, water depths of approximately 40 metres and navigational aids to assist in

Maps released by AMSA show that while many ships take the safer, more northern route before heading out to the open ocean, the 12 mile-wide passage between North West Island and Douglas Shoal is also frequently used.

An AMSA spokesperson said the crew had planned to head through the less-popular route under the shoal but steered off course 5.8 nautical miles, running aground.

Maritime Safety Queensland general manager Patrick Quirk said yesterday the route was not ``best practice’’ and a more northern route, over the top of the shoal, increased ``risk allowances’’ significantly.

Prime Minister Kevin Rudd said today the Federal Government will consider expanding the use of marine pilots and vessel tracking systems in the wake of the Shen Neng 1 disaster.

Mr Rudd, who surveyed the stricken coal carrier from the air yesterday, said this morning the Government was prepared to toughen shipping requirements.

``If we need to also look at other measures for the future including a wider use of pilotage and the wider use of the vessel tracking system that applies in the northern parts of the Reef, then we will,'' he told Townsville radio.

The Greens have called for marine pilots to be mandatory aboard vessels travelling through the Great Barrier Reef.

Currently, vessels only require pilots when travelling through State Government waters, not Commonwealth-controlled zones.

Mr Rudd said the Government will be demanding answers on how the coal carrier strayed off course in the protected area and became grounded.

``This is absolutely outrageous how this could've happened,'' he said today.

``Here you have this massive boat, this massive ship, 12 kilometres off course, broad daylight, in the middle of the Great Barrier Reef. So well be demanding some answers on this one.''


http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/shen-neng-1-had-12-mile-wide-safe-shipping-channel-but-still-hit-great-barrier-reef/story-e6freon6-1225850869386
0 Replies
 
Diest TKO
 
  0  
Reply Tue 6 Apr, 2010 08:36 pm
@georgeob1,
georgeob1 wrote:
Not sure I uberstand [awesome sic] your meaning here. Competent? I'll assume you mean "legally required"

I do not mean legally required. I mean competent, as in fit.

Quote:
Diest TKO wrote:

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.
One is certainly safer with a helmet. However wearing a helmet does not make one a competent motorcycle driver.
Putting a helmet on bad rider won't make them competent, but a rider taking the helmet off as soon as they cross a state line (into a state without helmet laws), does no demonstrate motorcycle competency.

Make no mistake about this. Wearing a helmet (and appropriate gear) is a part of being a competent motorcycle operator. The law makes no difference here.

Answer my question: Is it competent to not have an operator when you run the risk of collision is very present? Yes or No?

T
K
O
Ionus
 
  2  
Reply Tue 6 Apr, 2010 09:22 pm
@Diest TKO,
Do you have any idea what a captain's role on a ship is ? A pilot is there to assist, not take over a ship. It belongs to the captain.

Quote:
Is it competent to not have an operator when you run the risk of collision is very present?
Stop rigging questions. The error could have been avoided by a sunday lake sailor. Most fun day sail boat operators would have known where they were.
Diest TKO
 
  1  
Reply Wed 7 Apr, 2010 12:22 am
@Ionus,
I'll put things more simply, since you're trying so hard to make this hard.

Why would you NOT want to have a pilot?

T
K
O
Ionus
 
  1  
Reply Wed 7 Apr, 2010 12:25 am
@Diest TKO,
I addressed this issue before. Are you new to the thread ? There is a thing called risk assessment. If you pay more for the management of the risk than the risk would cost then you accept the risk.
Diest TKO
 
  0  
Reply Wed 7 Apr, 2010 01:35 am
@Ionus,
Ionus wrote:

I addressed this issue before. Are you new to the thread ? There is a thing called risk assessment. If you pay more for the management of the risk than the risk would cost then you accept the risk.

I'm familiar with risk management. It has nothing to do with competency.

So you'd want no pilot because it's cheaper. So monetary concerns trump all here? Hmmm... That's funny, because if this tanker had really split open, the clean up cost would have more than easily paid for several several several pilots.

T
K
O
Ionus
 
  1  
Reply Wed 7 Apr, 2010 02:25 am
@Diest TKO,
Quote:
I'm familiar with risk management. It has nothing to do with competency.
It has everything to do with competency. Maybe you are not as familiar as you think you are.
Quote:
So monetary concerns trump all here?
Get off your high horse ! It is a trading vessel of course money trumps everything. Why dont we just ban everybody and everything from the reef ?
Quote:
because if this tanker had really split open, the clean up cost would have more than easily paid for several several several pilots.
It is not a tanker. It is a collier. It wouldnt have paid for as many pilots as you think. There are other ways to improve safety.
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Wed 7 Apr, 2010 02:41 pm
@Diest TKO,
Diest, you are making an ass of yourself and increasingly resorting to silly semantical issues to justify a position that is neither clear, nor sensible, and asserting understanding that is clearly beyond your experience.

Cost is indeed a factor in risk reduction. We see the resulting tradeoffs every day in the construction of buildings, vehicles, aircraft and countless other things.

The presence of a Pilot does not ensure that a navigation error will not occur. Indeed it can add a distraction to an otherwise competent bridge team managing the ship's movements. Judging by the chart posted above, the channel in question presented no unusual challenges. If pilots were required everywhere under such conditions, many thousands of new pilots would be required worldwide, and the cost of shipping would increase substantially.

None of us really knows what happened in this instance and what caused the result that occurred. Until the facts are established, you are merely blowing wind. I work part time on investigations of maratime accidents in northern California and sit in judgement of the harbor pilots who may be involved. I have also captained large vessels at sea. Unlike you, I know what I am writing about.
dadpad
 
  3  
Reply Wed 7 Apr, 2010 03:47 pm
The cost of pilots is only one part of the equasion. Even small oil spills in this area can have a damaging effect on coral reefs and attendant marine life. losses to tourism could well mount into millions even if the damage is limited because of the knock on effect of mass media coverage. People who may have been considering a trip to the great barrier reef put off their trip because they percieve that the "reef" is covered with oil. the fact that this is confined to a small area does not enter their heads.
Yes the damage is quite limited. Any damage to coral will take years to recover. When there is another spill in another area we say the same thing - "its only a little bit, doesnt matter"
All these little bits add up.

It seems many ships have been using this "short cut". this would seem to point to incompetance or failure of automated systems on board the Sheng Neng 1.
I'll be interested to see the outcome of investigations
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Wed 7 Apr, 2010 04:20 pm
@dadpad,
Well, that's entirely up to the government of Australia. The fact is that the relatively small oil spill will be rapidly dispersed on the surface (it floats) and in those warm waters will break down into simpler compounds fairly rapidly.
spendius
 
  0  
Reply Wed 7 Apr, 2010 04:47 pm
@georgeob1,
And another fact is that the pollution from the land caused by the incessant demand for cheap food is much more damaging and another fact is that this pointless wittering about an incident with one ship, out of many, is distracting attention away from it as it is, of course, intended to do.

Thus everybody gets their cheap food and also gets to sit on the moral high ground at the same time. The captain of the ship is a godsend to the silly fuckers. He deserves a knighthood.
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Wed 7 Apr, 2010 05:14 pm
@georgeob1,
George-- I am beginning to suspect that your presence on this moronic thread is that it provides you with another opportunity to inform us all that you have been a captain of a large ship. Again. And that the reason you are not prepared to fight for your religious beliefs on the threads where you might do is that they don't lend themselves to such facilities.

You have said that your absence from the threads attacking your religious beliefs is due to the morons who inhabit them.

This thread suggests that the presence of morons is not your real reason.

farmerman
 
  2  
Reply Wed 7 Apr, 2010 05:48 pm
@georgeob1,
Im wondering why they havent been reporting on the cleanup efforts? I certainly hope that someone in the ACG is out there with the goods to do the enhanced cleaqnup. I remember once when Owens Corning had a huge tank rupture occur in the Wilmington NC channel . It occured just before the 4th of July weekend and there were contrctors, USCG with booms, tampons and bacterial "soup" to conduct a cleanup. They managed to have the area almost pristine in less than 2 weeks. The papaers were initially condemning and then, as the cleanup progressed, the media became the biggest champions of " bug enhanced remediation"
msolga
 
  1  
Reply Wed 7 Apr, 2010 06:24 pm
I visited the Courier-Mail (Queensland) news site just now, to see what could information could be found on the clean-up. Not much, really. I'll check on the other online main Oz news sites later.

Video from the Courier-Mail this morning:
http://player.video.news.com.au/couriermail/#1462786194
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  2  
Reply Wed 7 Apr, 2010 07:54 pm
@farmerman,
Don't know for sure. However the area in question is fairly far from any major cities, and the grounding occurred far enough offshore to create a serious logistics problem for the cleanup - certainly more difficult than one occuring near a major port. I agree that quick response to contain & absorb the surface spill and add the right bugs to the remaining soup can be extraordinarily effective in a short time. There appears to be more hand wringing and somewhat hysterical fault finding than sober assessment of the facts here.
0 Replies
 
Diest TKO
 
  0  
Reply Wed 7 Apr, 2010 08:02 pm
@georgeob1,
You've failed to answer my question. I've no intention to beg, so I'll assume you have no interest in answering it.

You either don't know the answer in all your ship piloting experience, or you know the answer and it's implication on your argument.

Either way, defending the choice that lead to this as if it was the right choice is stupid. Argue from your authority as a large ship pilot all you like, at the end of the day, the accident happened, and those involved cannot claim they did everything to avoid it.

I don't need to drive a tug boat to know that either.

T
K
O
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 05/18/2024 at 12:15:56