Barrier Reef oil spill April 4, 2010

@spendius,

Not really. I was goaded into it by a rather persistent poster, whose abuntant, repeated opinions far exceeded his practical understanding and whose condescending characterizations pushed me over the edge..

As for the other threads - I don't think you have accurately described my reasons or anything I said about the folks on them. I abandoned them exactly when I abandon any thread in which I have nothing more to say and encounter only those who will not hear, but endlessly repeat the same mantras for their mutual reenforcement.

My views on some of these environmental isssues are different from those of msolga and her friends, but not as different as perhaps they imagine. In any event they read and deal with disagreement even when they are not persuaded; and are generally polite - even when scolding me for being off topic. In short suitable folks for an interesting conversation. I try not to excessively divert the conversation, but at the same time to make some points that I believe are both relevant and being golssed over. I'll leave it to them to judge whether I succeed or not.

0 Replies

@Diest TKO,

Diest, you are exhibiting a level of stupid childishness that is extraordinary even for you. Your question confounded the meaning of the words you used and had no real meaning. No question - no answer. No one here suggested the applicable standard for this or any other mishap was the performance of every conceivable additional step that might have prevented it. If that was the standard, no ship would leave port; no aircraft would takeoff; and no automobile would leave its garage. Others here had made that point quite well in responding to your earlier posts.

You haven't taken the trouble to look at the charts and the distances involved or to consider the implications of the unqualified (and ill-informed) assertions you so blithely made. Worse you dont appear to have the character to deal manfully with your errors. when they are revealed.

Piss off.

1 Reply

@georgeob1,

Quote:

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.

The fact is we simply do not know what damage has been done to the Great Barrier Reef at this time. It is an extremely sensitive environment & people have every right to feel upset at what has occurred. I think you are minimizing the seriousness of the situation, George.

And it does sound (from all the reports I've come across, anyway) that the accident could have been avoided if the ship had proceeded with more caution. Many people are still mystified at how it actually came to happen.

2 Replies

@msolga,

Yes but we in the US havent become stymied by oil spills. We have reacted to them and the quicker the better. Dispersiion of a slick is not our friend and Im sure that the Oz Coast Guard (or a similar agency) has got lots of equipment to surround , suck up, or chemically digest the slick. SInce its diesel, Its what we call a complex ester and such fuels are easy to cleave and turn into actual Nutrients for krill and microroganisms. There are several hundred "boutique" microbe and nutrient mixes on the remediation market that operate in different temperature and oxygen levels. ID be getting the cleanup done THEN go after the guilty parties by making future business opportunities subject to surcharges. We have a lightering fee in the DElware and Chesapeake BAys and out to the Baltimore Canyon and a Feedstock gasoline tax for the payment of cleanups in an insurance program that covers tanks, spills and crashes

1 Reply

@georgeob1,

Quote:

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.

Whilst this limited (if any) damage is probably true of the diesel fuel spill, it is too early to determine any degree of damage esp as it has not been refloated yet and botched salvage operations can do more harm then good.

1 Reply

@Ionus,

Quote:

esp as it has not been refloated yet and botched salvage operations can do more harm then good

They make all kinds of tampons and booms to surround spills to keep it in one area. The guys in the Coast Gurad are probably more trained in these matters than you know.

1 Reply

@farmerman,

Quote:

They make all kinds of tampons and booms to surround spills to keep it in one area. The guys in the Coast Gurad are probably more trained in these matters than you know.

I do not doubt they will take every precaution they can. I just dont see any justification to assume it is already done and was very successful. Lets wait and see because the potential for damage is still there.

0 Replies

@farmerman,

Quote:

We have reacted to them and the quicker the better.

Indeed you may well have, farmer.

The progress of the clean-up in this case particular has appeared very slow to me. (But then, not knowing much about how such spillages are "normally" dealt with, I can't really comment with any real authority. I just wish they didn't happen at all. )

I just become a little frustrated when the concerns about the Reef appear to be minimized, that's all.

I guess we will just have to wait on the "findings" to see why that ship found itself at that place at that time. Also to know what damage has been done to the Reef.

I don't believe that Australian authorities have handled the situation perfectly, either.

1 Reply

@msolga,

Not that ere perfect but we usually have agencies that are stepping over each other to get at a cleanup from a catastrophic spill. Where we screw up is to "study the ****" out of ground water spills and tank leaks. The ability to affect a cleanup in the ground is also a time dependent thing and there are only so many ways ground water contamination takes place, yet our state and Fed environmental agencies spend HUUGe amounts of time and cash to write reports sevral pounds in weight before any actual work is done.
SO, in summary, weve got our acts together in surface spills pretty much, but ground water, not so much.

1 Reply

@farmerman,

The latest available information from ABC news (the national broadcaster). Other useful links contained within the main link below. :

Quote:

Oil spill salvage faces critical two days: Garrett

Updated 1 hour 39 minutes ago'

The ship has leaked about two tonnes of oil and maritime authorities are trying to stop more seepage.

The ship has leaked about two tonnes of oil and maritime authorities are trying to stop more seepage. (Maritime Safety Queensland)

Federal Environment Minister Peter Garrett says the next two days will be critical in minimising the risk from a coal carrier stuck on the Great Barrier Reef off central Queensland.

The Chinese ship Shen Neng 1, hit Douglas Shoal at full speed east of Rockhampton on Saturday.

The ship ruptured a fuel tank when it ran aground, spilling more than two tonnes of oil into the ocean, but that has been dispersed with chemicals.

Three ships are expected to arrive at the site later today to begin transferring the remaining 950 tonnes of oil aboard the coal carrier.

Final preparations are now being made to pump out the remaining oil still on board the ship.

A boom is being put into place to catch any possible spill.

Prime Minister Kevin Rudd, Greens Leader Bob Brown and Queensland Transport Minister Rachel Nolan also flew over Douglas Shoal earlier this week.

Mr Garrett flew over the site today and says it is a sensitive operation.

"I'm very hopeful that the operation can be conducted successfully that will significantly lower the threshold of risk," he said.

It is expected to take several days to pump the oil to another ship.

Queensland Transport Minister Rachel Nolan says salvage ships are finalising preparations to transfer the oil.

"A bunker barge called the Larcom will go up very close to touching the ship and will take oil from the ship into its bunkers," she said.

"At the same time, we have set up another couple of boats which will have booms.

"If there is any oil spill, that oil will be spilt into the ocean and captured essentially in a big glove, so that it doesn't come to the shore."

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/04/08/2867383.htm

1 Reply

@georgeob1,

georgeob1 wrote:

Your question confounded the meaning of the words you used and had no real meaning.

I've focused on one word: "Competent." I've used it in it's actual dictionary meaning. I've confounded nothing.

georgeob1 wrote:

No question - no answer.

You've no balls george. If you're such the authority on this matter, you should be able to answer the question without a second thought.

I think it's interesting that you are a part of a group that investigates shipping accidents in NorCal. I'm quite surprised to learn that a ship operations make no distinctions between automated errors and operator errors. Huh. Funny.

georgeob1 wrote:

No one here suggested the applicable standard for this or any other mishap was the performance of every conceivable additional step that might have prevented it.

You're right, having a pilot would not guarantee that the ship would have been on course or would guarantee that it would not have crashed. It's not about every conceivable step, it's about a very ordinary step. Having an operator is very inside the box risk mitigation.

georgeob1 wrote:

If that was the standard, no ship would leave port; no aircraft would takeoff; and no automobile would leave its garage. Others here had made that point quite well in responding to your earlier posts.

Red herring. I'm not saying that a ship should not set out from port unless it can guarantee a perfect voyage.

I can accept accidents happen. The fact is, we can identify that the crew/management did not do all in their power here.

georgeob1 wrote:

You haven't taken the trouble to look at the charts and the distances involved or to consider the implications of the unqualified (and ill-informed) assertions you so blithely made. Worse you dont appear to have the character to deal manfully with your errors. when they are revealed.

Here's a fun game Georgey boy. You're obviously the big sailor here. I'll let you explain to us young dumb dry docked fools what the purpose of the Pilot is.

Well start here. Do you agree with Wikipedia's decription?

Wiki wrote:

A pilot is a mariner who guides ships through dangerous or congested waters, such as harbours or river mouths. However, the pilot is only an advisor, as the master remains in legal, overriding command of the vessel.
Pilotage is one of the oldest, least-known professions, and yet it is one of the most important in maritime safety. The economic and environmental risk from today's large cargo ships makes the role of the pilot essential

source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maritime_pilot

Enlighten me tug boat.

Toot Toot!
K
O

0 Replies

@msolga,

Quote:

Three ships are expected to arrive at the site later today to begin transferring the remaining 950 tonnes of oil aboard the coal carrier.

Final preparations are now being made to pump out the remaining oil still on board the ship.

A boom is being put into place to catch any possible spill.

...

It is expected to take several days to pump the oil to another ship.

Queensland Transport Minister Rachel Nolan says salvage ships are finalising preparations to transfer the oil.

"A bunker barge called the Larcom will go up very close to touching the ship and will take oil from the ship into its bunkers," she said.

"At the same time, we have set up another couple of boats which will have booms.

"If there is any oil spill, that oil will be spilt into the ocean and captured essentially in a big glove, so that it doesn't come to the shore."

Georgey Boy - Help me out. You're an expert. Perhaps you know some numbers. How much does this clean up operation cost compared to a pilot?

You're the expert and I'm not, as you've repeatedly reminded us. If hiring a pilot for operations like this is too expensive, this clean up operation must only be like the fraction of the cost of a Pilot right?

T
K
Oil spill

1 Reply

@Diest TKO,

Quote:

You're the expert and I'm not, as you've repeatedly reminded us. If hiring a pilot for operations like this is too expensive, this clean up operation must only be like the fraction of the cost of a Pilot right?

Is it your aim to only put a pilot on board those vessels that will ground themselves before they do so ?

1 Reply

@Ionus,

Why, I wouldn't let them out of port till the accident was over.

1 Reply

@roger,

Quote:

Why, I wouldn't let them out of port till the accident was over.

0 Replies

@msolga,

msolga wrote:

The fact is we simply do not know what damage has been done to the Great Barrier Reef at this time. It is an extremely sensitive environment & people have every right to feel upset at what has occurred. I think you are minimizing the seriousness of the situation, George.

And it does sound (from all the reports I've come across, anyway) that the accident could have been avoided if the ship had proceeded with more caution. Many people are still mystified at how it actually came to happen.

I don't suggest that no damage was done and I sympathize with your concern. However it is important to distinguish this spill from one that involved (say) a petroleum tanker. In the case at hand only a portion of the propulsion fuel for the ship's diesel engines was spilled - instead of a fuel cargo involving many hundreds of times the fuel volume as would have been the case with a tanker. Farmerman has done a good job compactly describing the natural breakdown of the spilled fuel and the standard procedures for spill containment and cleanup. The fact is they are very effective if they are , as he noted, applied quickly.

Nature heals itself remarkably quickly from such things. The hazard to the reefs from these spills is a miniscule fraction of what occurs naturally from starfish infestations - and far less lasting in its effects.

There's no doubt the ship's grounding was an accident that could and should have been avoided. However, that's generally true of all maritime, aircraft, or automobile accidents. It is true also for the damage done by tropical storms, earthquakes, etc. The causes are generally clear - in retrospect. However such things continue to happen. If human beings are involved, mistakes and lapses will occur. (Last year I was involved in the investigation of a Korean ship that collided with the one of the east span footings of the San Francisco Bay bridge in the fog. They had a Pilot aboard too. The details aren't very interesting, but I can tell you that both the captain and the harbor pilot lost their jobs.)

1 Reply

It appears that, from Msolgas article , the propr steps were begun and theyve been a containment and vacuum mode, with (I guess) dispersants being used to spread the oil out where it had escaped earlier in the accident. Looks like the entire risk base is about 45000 gallons, Thats the entire fule complement for the loaded collier. Its serious but not a disaster (in my mind).
I was concerned that there was a kind of inaction tha would only exacerbate the damage. APparently there is a serious cleanup being done.

SO, Im sure a maritime panel will be convened and the faults and corective and preventive measures will be discussed and planned for future spills and , more importantly, ship transgressions into environmentally sensitive areas like the Barrier Reef.

I dont see why **** like grabbing the ship and selling it at auction nd imposing fines on the company couldnt act as a deterrent .
However **** DOES INDEED HAPPEN. And just like the sad mine explosion we just suffered in West Virginia, we had initiated all kinds of new safety requiremenst after Queecreek and several other mine explosions. Apparently we didnt think of everything.

0 Replies

@georgeob1,

Quote:

There's no doubt the ship's grounding was an accident that could and should have been avoided.

Indeed, most likely it could have been avoided, George.

Which leads me to seriously consider Diest's point: the cost of pilots to assist in navigating ships through such sensitive areas, compared with the huge cost of clean-up operations. Say nothing of the (yet unknown in this case) impact on the marine environment.

To me (non-expert that I am) prevention looks a whole lot more palatable, say nothing of much less expensive than the "cure", of cleaning up after after such an accident. Two tonnes of oil into the ocean this time. What next time?

Apart from that, the presence of a pilot might well make the operators of such ships more careful, responsible, or less "accident" prone.:

Quote:

The Chinese ship Shen Neng 1, hit Douglas Shoal at full speed east of Rockhampton on Saturday.

(quote from the ABC News article I posted above)

A short cut through an exceptionally sensitive environmental area, at full speed? Hitting Douglas Shoal broad daylight?

Apart from this, obviously the Australian government needs to tighten up the rules about passage through such areas. At the moment it looks rather like anything goes.

1 Reply

This thread is a joke.

It's the chattering classes in full throttle indignation mode.

2 Replies

@spendius,

If I was at a dinner party listening to this lot I would end up on the floor in an uncontrollable tittering fit.

2 Replies

Barrier Reef oil spill April 4, 2010

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know