11
   

Barrier Reef oil spill April 4, 2010

 
 
spendius
 
  0  
Reply Mon 12 Apr, 2010 03:25 am
@msolga,
Quote:
Queensland will increase its penalties for ships causing oil spills five-fold, threatening offenders with fines of up to $10 million.


Negligence will have to be proved first surely. And where the ship is registered will be a factor too. Negligence might be the fault of marine traffic control onshore. With radar as it is it seems odd that the danger to this ship wasn't spotted in time.

The increase in threatened fines will cause an increase in insurance premiums which are eventually paid by the end-user of all goods carried. Which is us.

It is surprising that the Herald didn't see fit to insert the words "the owners of" in between "for" and "ships". Or "The government of" before "Queensland". I know that I'm being a bit pedantic but journals of the record have a responsibility to the language and to clear thinking.
Ionus
 
  1  
Reply Mon 12 Apr, 2010 05:35 am
@spendius,
Quote:
Negligence might be the fault of marine traffic control onshore.
the Port Authorities you are used to with radar and reporting and pilots is mostly non-existent here.

Quote:
With radar as it is it seems odd that the danger to this ship wasn't spotted in time.
The only radar that might have existed would have been on the ship. It wouldnt have detected the reef unless it stuck out high above the tide.

spendius
 
  1  
Reply Mon 12 Apr, 2010 06:31 am
@Ionus,
Quote:
the Port Authorities you are used to with radar and reporting and pilots is mostly non-existent here.


Blimey!! No wonder Fitzroy ran The Beagle aground in King George's Sound on the Swan River.

Could an invasion of the Northern Territories take place without anybody knowing?
Ionus
 
  1  
Reply Mon 12 Apr, 2010 07:32 am
@spendius,
Quote:
Could an invasion of the Northern Territories take place without anybody knowing?
It could take place without anyone caring, esp if it was on a Grand Final weekend. It was awfully embarrasing when Darwin blew away in cyclone Tracy one xmas eve (1974) and no-one knew till well into the next morning so we now have preventative measures in place to communicate with cities constantly rather than have someone walk to Canberra to tell everyone. Ham radio operators made the first contact after Tracy.

We have an over-the-horizon radar called Jindalee that can be jammed but it then raises the question as to why someone would jam it. We have F-18's slightly to the rear so they cant get taken out in a preemptive strike .
There is also a move to station the Aust army in the north, at about brigade strength in Darwin to acclimatise and familiarise themselves with the north.
0 Replies
 
msolga
 
  1  
Reply Mon 12 Apr, 2010 06:41 pm
You might be interested in hearing this discussion, which was broadcast on Radio National (Oz) on Saturday morning. I found it quite informative. :

Quote:

Oil spills: the aftermaths

The high seas drama on the Great Barrier Beef is continuing...

Salvage crews are still undertaking the delicate task of pumping fuel off the stricken coal carrier Shen Neng 1 which hit the Douglas Shoal"and the headlines"six days ago. Then, the precision task of re-floating the vessel will get underway.

So (yet again) oil spills"their effects on the marine environment, how to mop up after them and why they happen"are firmly in our collective consciousness. .....<cont>


Guests:

Michael Kingsford
Head, School of Marine and Tropical Biology, James Cook University

Dr Edward Owens
Oil spill clean up expert, Polaris Applied Sciences

http://www.abc.net.au/rn/saturdayextra/stories/2010/2868463.htm
0 Replies
 
roger
 
  1  
Reply Mon 12 Apr, 2010 06:51 pm
@spendius,
I can't see the nation of registery having to do with liability. Same with insurance premiums. Insurance doesn't usually cover fines, unless marine insurance is a whole different area. Matter of fact, if high fines have any tendency to reduce accidents, they might result in lower premiums.
Ionus
 
  0  
Reply Mon 12 Apr, 2010 08:07 pm
@roger,
Quote:
I can't see the nation of registery having to do with liability.
You are right, it doesnt, but it is easier to register a floating death trap in a nation that is poor and has abundant corruption.

Quote:
if high fines have any tendency to reduce accidents, they might result in lower premiums.
Good point.

Take that, Spendy !! Very Happy Very Happy
0 Replies
 
msolga
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 Apr, 2010 02:04 am
Quote:

Shen Neng 1 causes 'kilometres of damage' to reef
Updated 1 hour 30 minutes ago
http://www.abc.net.au/reslib/201004/r547649_3220202.jpg
The Chinese coal-carrier has been towed to safe anchorage off Great Keppel Island. (ABC News)

The Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority (GBRMPA) says a Chinese coal carrier has caused kilometres of damage to the reef off central Queensland.

The Shen Neng 1 has been refloated and moved from Douglas Shoal, where it was grounded for 10 days.

GBRMPA spokesman David Wachenfeld says the damage is worse than expected and stretches for three kilometres.

"This is by far the largest ship grounding scar we have seen on the Great Barrier Reef to date," he said.

Australian Marine Conservation Society (AMCS) spokesman David Kindleysides says the damage is significant.

"This is not like a little scratch on the surface of the Barrier Reef," he said.


World Wildlife Fund (WWF) spokesman Richard Leck says it will have long term effects.

"Obviously when a reef has had this amount of impact, it does change the structure of the reef," he said.

GBRMPA says it will spend the next week assessing the damage.

'Not leaking oil'

However Queensland Premier Anna Bligh had some good news for Parliament about the Shen Neng 1.

"Reports from the salvors are good in that the vessel is not taking on any water and is not leaking any oil," she said.

Aerial checks will continue while the coal carrier is at anchor off Great Keppel Island.

Transport Department director general Dave Stewart says a structural assessment will be carried out before they decide on what to do next.

"It could be that given the shelter she's got there with the island that they repair her in situ," he said.

"But we are certainly looking at other options of bringing her back into port."

No timeframe for the assessment has been set.


http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/04/13/2871776.htm?section=justin
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 Apr, 2010 02:09 am
@msolga,
let me guess.....the fact that they had been running into the reef for KM's means that they had to know that they were hitting it (engine power vs speed), but they did not care....right?
msolga
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 Apr, 2010 02:17 am
@hawkeye10,
I have no idea if they cared or not.

But you'd assume they would have known they were hitting it. AND they were traveling at full speed at the time.



0 Replies
 
dadpad
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 Apr, 2010 04:18 am
@hawkeye10,
A ship of that size carrying 35K tonnes of coal would take (I imagine) several kilometers to stop. Coral reefs are not solid objects.
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 Apr, 2010 05:27 am
Quote:
Shen Neng 1 was built in 1993, meaning "Depth Power" in Chinese. Her callsign is BXAN. She is allocated the IMO Number 9040871, and the MMSI Number 413461550. According to the Equasis database, and an article in the shipping industry newspaper "Tradewinds", the ship is owned by Shenzhen Energy Transportation Co. Ltd, a subsidiary of Shenzhen Energy, whose logo appears on her funnel, and is managed by TOSCO‐KEYMAX International Ship Management Co. Ltd , a Sino-Japanese joint venture, and carries a crew of 23.
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 Apr, 2010 07:02 am
@spendius,
Quote:
Take that, Spendy !!


I'm assuming liability means it is paid rather than owed. Or claimed.

Potential fines would be factored into operating costs I should think. Hence into the price of the goods carried.

Motor insurance premiums are geared to levels of court awards.

Was the mishap within Australia's jurisdiction? Has negligence been proved?

How is damage to a reef quantified? What would Ms Bligh's proposed increase in fines apply to? Why have the previous fines been so low? The risk hasn't changed. Is Ms Bligh a political opportunist jumping aboard a hysterical bandwagon?
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 Apr, 2010 06:26 pm
Quote:
The Chinese coal ship that ran on to Australia’s Great Barrier Reef last week has damaged a two-mile (three kilometer) stretch of the World Heritage Area that could take years to repair, the chairman of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority said Tuesday.

Chairman Russell Reichelt told CNN affiliate ABC News in Australia that toxic anti-fouling paint had been scraped off the Shen Neng 1 as it ran across the coral reef. The paint contains biocides that prevent barnacles and other marine organisms from attaching to the hulls of ships.

"The paint that's been scraped off onto the reef is killing corals in its vicinity or they're showing signs of almost immediate mortality from being close to the anti-fouling," Reichelt told ABC News
http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2010/04/13/ships-paint-bringing-instant-death-to-great-barrier-reef/?hpt=C2
0 Replies
 
msolga
 
  1  
Reply Wed 14 Apr, 2010 01:11 am
Quote:
Three kilometres of Great Barrier Reef damage, 20 years to mend
TOM ARUP
April 14, 2010/the AGE


http://images.theage.com.au/2010/04/14/1323747/Sheng1-600x400.jpg
The Shen Neng 1 on April 5. Photo: Wolter Peeters

IT COULD take 20 years or more for the Great Barrier Reef to recover from three kilometres of destruction caused by the grounding of a Chinese coal ship, authorities have revealed.

The Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority says the damage to the reef is significant, with large parts of Douglas Shoal "completely flattened" and marine life "pulverised".

The refloated Shen Neng 1 has been moved to an area behind Great Keppel Island to protect it from incoming bad weather. It is expected to remain there for three or four days while divers check the condition of the hull.

http://images.theage.com.au/2010/04/14/1323477/Shengneng3-200x0.jpg
Damage to the Great Barrier Reef caused by the Sheng Neng 1.

In a briefing yesterday, the marine park authority's chief scientist, Dr David Wachenfeld, said the main concern for the shoal now was that toxic paint scraped off the vessel's hull could be killing coral and other marine life.

Over the next few days authorities will chemically test samples of the anti-fouling paint, used to stop barnacles growing on ship hulls, to see if it contains heavy metals.

If it does, Dr Wachenfeld said the toxic paint would stop coral and marine life recolonising and would extend the recovery time of the damaged reef well beyond the estimated 20 years. The paint has been observed spread across all damaged areas.

The Shen Neng 1 smashed into Douglas Shoal at full speed on Easter Saturday, initially flattening an area 100 metres long and 30 metres wide.

But the damage was later exacerbated as the ship scraped across a large area of the shoal, pushed by wind and tides. All up, an area of destruction three kilometres long and up to 250 metres wide has emerged.

"There is more damage to this reef than I have ever seen in any previous Great Barrier Reef groundings," Dr Wachenfeld said.


Dr Wachenfeld added that at several places across the the shoal the sea bed " which is made up of coral, sea vegetation and rubble " had been "completely flattened" by the weight of the ship's hull, which is roughly 100 tonnes.

"There would be all sorts of crabs, sponges, snails, sea cucumbers and so on that would have been pulverised under the ship but they're not going to leave behind any observable trace," he said
.

Studies of the environmental effects of the grounding will continue over the coming weeks, and an Australian Institute of Marine Science ship carrying scientific survey equipment is now on its way to the shoal. Several investigations are also under way to determine how the massive coal ship strayed from a narrow shipping route between two marine parks in the Great Barrier Reef and ran aground on Douglas Shoal.

The Marine Park Authority has referred the incident to the Australian Federal Police.

The vessel's operators " who have volunteered to pay clean-up costs " face fines of up to $1.1 million for the incident.


http://www.theage.com.au/environment/three-kilometres-of-great-barrier-reef-damage-20-years-to-mend-20100413-s7p8.html
msolga
 
  1  
Reply Wed 14 Apr, 2010 02:53 am
@msolga,
Just in:
Quote:
Coal ship crew charged over reef grounding
Updated 19 minutes ago/ABC NEWS online
http://www.abc.net.au/reslib/201004/r543438_3169295.jpg
The Shen Neng 1 which ran aground on a shoal near Gladstone almost two weeks ago.

Australian Federal Police (AFP) have arrested two men in connection with the grounding of the Shen Neng 1 coal carrier on Douglas Shoal in the Great Barrier Reef.

It will be alleged the men were the master and the chief officer on watch when the ship ran aground on Easter Saturday, damaging kilometres of the reef and spilling more than two tonnes of oil into the ocean.

The master of the vessel, a 47-year-old Chinese man, has been charged with liability for a vessel causing damage in a marine park. The maximum penalty for the charge is a $55,000 fine.

Another Chinese man, aged 44, has been charged with being the person in charge of a vessel within the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park, causing damage to the marine park.

The maximum penalty for that offence is three years' jail and/or a $220,000 fine.

The arrests follow a joint investigation conducted by the AFP, the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority and the Australian Maritime Safety Authority.

Investigations showed the Shen Neng 1 failed to turn at a waypoint required by the intended course of the ship. A waypoint is a location at which a ship is to alter course.


The men will appear in a Gladstone court tomorrow.


http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/04/14/2872945.htm
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Wed 14 Apr, 2010 03:27 am
@msolga,
Be interesting.
msolga
 
  1  
Reply Wed 14 Apr, 2010 03:30 am
@dlowan,
The court case, Deb?
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Wed 14 Apr, 2010 03:33 am
@msolga,
Yep.

They sure managed to **** up a lot of reef for one ship.
msolga
 
  1  
Reply Wed 14 Apr, 2010 03:37 am
@dlowan,
Indeed.

I imagine it would've matters a lot if they weren't taking their short-cut at full speed!
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 05/05/2024 at 08:15:38