Kombucha’ShroomPerson what a horrible fucking screen name. And welcome to the SDMB! 
Every case is different. However, there are moves afoot as a result of a previous similar casualty to put in place some form of protocol in relation to places of refuge for stricken ships.
Neurotik your post is notably dumbass. The value of the ship and oil are the smallest value in the whole equation. The point is not to help the ship and cargo owners, it is to stop a total environmental disaster.
Others have said that the ports who could have given refuge are blameless. Maybe, maybe not. It’s a classic NIMBY (not in my backyard) problem.
A ship develops a crack. At this stage it’s not (or is not badly) leaking oil. They ask for refuge. The Port says “rack off, you’re not making a mess here!” As a result, the ship breaks up and not just that port but a whole coastline gets oiled.
In the last year or so, an incident occurred where a vessel was floating about, badly cracked, off the coast of Portugal for weeks in heavy weather because no one would give it refuge. The salvors were sure that it would not break up, and that if they could get it to sheltered waters they could stabilise it. They ended up having to tow the damn thing into the Med, and eventually Greece (a ship friendly nation) allowed it refuge and everything turned out OK, exactly as the salvors said it would.
I don’t know too much about the details of the “Prestige” incident, and how it developed, but if there was a window of opportunity within which the whole mess could have been stablised if some kind and brave port could have given refuge, but instead every port just said “NIMBY!” there are going to be a few people from the shipping community who are going to be saying “I told you so”.
I should add that I am not seeking to apologise for dodgy shipowners whose ships break up. They clearly bear the brunt of the blame. I just think there are other issues involved as well.
Chandeleur I don’t think that providing refuge would necessarily have been a major problem. Again I don’t know how the situation developed, or what places of refuge where nearby, but this wasn’t a very big ship. 42820 gross registered tonnes. Unlikely to have a draft much over about 12m, which is not at all exceptional.
And yes, a place offering a port of refuge might get thoroughly oiled. Is that better than a whole coastline?
Bear in mind that this thing is going down in 3.5km of water. It ain’t going to be recoverable, it ain’t going to be possible to pump out the tanks at that depth, and the thing is going to sit down there rusting away, belching out oil every now and again for decades.
My experience of the oil pollution game is that the best solution to a particular problem is often counter-intuitive, and often involves initial pain for long term gain. But there is usually so much politics and NIMBY-ism surrounding the matter that bad decisions are made.
Yes and no, Coldy.
Panama has a reasonable reputation. Belize, Granada and Bahamas have very bad reputations. However, to suggest they are to blame is not really correct. The above have the worst reputations probably as an effect, not a cause. By which I mean that they are cheap, and the effect of that is that they attract cheap owners, but that is not really the cause of the dodgy ship problem. All flags (FOC or not) require that ships flying their flag conform to the standards of a recognised “Classification Society”
A classification society is an organisation that inspects ships and confirms that they conform to certain standards of maintenance and construction. Insurers will only insure vessels that are “in class” with a Society.
The “Prestige” was in class, with a reputable classification society. Which society I hear you 'Mericans ask? None other than the "American Bureau of Shipping". So if that society had not certified that this vessel was OK, it would not have been able to maintain Bahamian flag, and would not have been able to get insurance (and it was insured) and it would not have been able to sail.
Unfortunately, classification societies have lately expanded rapidly, and moved away from their old established network of first world trained marine surveyors, and started employing locals from nations where bribery and corruption are a way of life. This has created predictable problems.
But given that all nations (including England, the US, and Australia who have some of the highest standards anywhere) rely on classification societies for ship inspection standards, so the current problems with classification are not unique to FOC’s.
As Chandeleur has stated, many responsible nations are now relying more and more on their own port-state control inspections to weed out the rust buckets. The problem is, many ships reach a certain age where they are falling apart and dodgy shipowners know which nations are lax in their port state control. So they trade such ships in a pattern that avoids PSC. But again I would emphasise, this is not a problem with FOC’s as such. Even if there were no FOC’s there would still be shipowners who would do this.
I note for example that the “Prestige” was inspected regularly in 1999, but has not had a PSC inspection since. It was last inspected in September 1999 in Rotterdam (interestingly enough, Coldy). Nothing since. If it had traded regularly to first world nations, it would have had PSC inspections since then. So it’s probably been on a third world trading pattern.
The problem is, you can do what you like with ships that come to your shores, but you can’t stop the dodgy ones sailing past your shores.
Finally, slagging off all FOC’s is unfair. Panama is not too bad. Liberia is pretty good. The Liberian flag is basically operated from New York. Except for pure matters of form, it has nothing to do with Liberia. I’d rather be on a Liberian ship than an Indian (non-FOC)ship.
How so, asshole? Please explain where I said that the oil and the ship were the most important part. Learn to read.
That’d be here (my emphasis):
It seems that in one way, at least, my pessimism is unfounded. I’ve just seen this article which says that at the extreme depth of 3500m, the oil will solidify due to cold and shouldn’t rise to the surface. One good thing.
It would also appear that my suspicions may be well founded and that there was a window of opportunity within which a port of refuge might have saved greater problems.
“at the extreme depth of 3500m, the oil will solidify due to cold and shouldn’t rise to the surface.”
[QUOTE]
Not quite true. It is the case that heavy fuel oil has a flow point of 8-9°C, and that the temperature of the north Atlantic at the depth is 4-5°C all year round. However, this does not mean that the oil will solidify, but that it will become very, very viscous. Since the oil containers are likely to have been breached by the extreme pressure at that depth, it will probably escape very slowly in small amounts-in this it is likely that the Spanish government will have to deal with very small amounts of oil being washed up over a long period of time, possibly over decades.
Even so, the Spanish have been lucky-to have only 7,000 tonnes of oil out of a possible 77,000 wash up is a blessing, relatively speaking.
Becuse: Liquid oil does not burn. Oil vapors burn. Hence the need in your automobile for a Fuel injector/ Carborator. Ya gotta get that oxygen mixed in for Mr. Combustion to be interested.
Burning the oil vapors would result in eventual removal of the oil, but it is tricky, the oil is not vaporizing fast: it is in a cold medium, and sunlight evaporation doesn’t work as well on oil molecules. Add to this teh fact that keeping a fire lit on top of an Ocean isn’t the easiest thing in the world.
It can be done, and in some case was done in the past. But there’s other methods that result in less airborne hazard when they can be applied.
So we have a bunch of people who do not know the first thing about ships or the sea and they think they have better judgment than the authorities involved? Fucking idiots. You should learn to inform yourselves. ** Chandeleur**, is only person in this thread who has any knowledge says it was the right decision.
In any case, the idiocy of the premise that Spain was motivated by selfishness is apparent. The options considered all carried risk for the coast of Spain and they chose the one which seemed to carry the least risk. They were not transferring the risk to anyone else so what is your point? That to avoid minor damage to their coast they inflicted major damage to their coast? Does that make any sense? huh?
And anyone who says a disabled tanker can easily be taken into port with a gale blowing is an industrial strength idiot. Even for seaworthy vessels entering port in bad weather is possibly one of the most dangerous operations and they are most often safer standing out to sea until the bad weather abates.
Taking that ship any closer to land under those conditions would almost certainly result in both the ship and the oil on the rocks. In fact, not long ago there was a huge vessel under construction tied up in port there and in a gale the cables parted and the vessel drifted until it hit a bridge, totally destroying it. So it is not like the port was so protected. But, even if it was, trying to tow the tanker into port in bad weather is doomed to failure.
BTW, Greenpeace and other environmental groups have criticized allowing these old, single hulled tankers to sail but I have not heard any accusations from them regarding the rescue and salvage operations.
All options were considered, including bombing the tanker in an effort to burn the crude oil, but it was determined it would not work. Anyone here who claims it was a bad decision should justify their credentials. On what basis are you qualified to issue an opinion on such a complex matter? Do you really think you are capable of assessing the risks and chances of success of the different options which were considered?
I don’t know who you are talking about precisely sailor but your broadside seems to be aimed at everyone, so I guess that includes me.
Credentials? I have worked in maritime law for my whole legal career, specializing in casualties and in particular oil pollution incidents for that whole time. I have given guest lectures on the subject. I have attended more oil spills and other casualties than you have had hot dinners. I regularly update with courses and seminars on the topic. The last time I attended a lecture on pollution minimization in shipping casualties (given by the expert for the Australiasion region) would be, oh, nearly a month ago. I had lunch last week with the guy responsible for shipping casualty response for my state, (which includes coastline of a length similar to that of the whole of Europe) .
A major part of my work consists of the type of high pressure negotiations that occur when there is a clash between salvors, shipowners, environmental groups, politicians and port interests.
This statement is naive. The implication is that “the authorities” are all knowingly wise. Typically, there will be a number of authorities involved in such a casualty. They will all have their own priorities, their own patch to protect. The result is often far from wise.
I was involved in a situation recently where a ship lost its main engine and was drifting towards the Great Barrier Reef. The only tugs that could definitely make it to the ship and keep it clear of the reef in time were in a particular port that I won’t name. The Harbour Master of that port would not release the tugs to assist because it would stuff up his scheduled ship movements the next day!. Luckily the ship got its ME restarted.
Oh yeah, those “authorities”. Anyone who thinks they know better than them is an idiot, hey sailor?
Maybe, maybe not. Maybe they chose the risk that avoided any particular guy making a decision that would put his balls on the line. Maybe they chose a decision that would avoid any problems on any one authority’s “patch”.
Maybe they made the best overall decision. But it can’t be assumed.
No it does not make any sense. Yes, my point is exactly that thei overall outcome may have been as you say. Not that they may have done this on purpose, but that this may well have been the overall effect of their decisions.
As I understand it, the salvors (Smit Tak) wanted to seek refuge. Salvors no more about this game than anyone. In a situation like this, they are going to get paid mostly for avoiding pollution. They were very well motivated to do only what they thought possible. Let’s turn this around and ask, sailor are you qualified to criticise the experts employed by the largest salvors in the world? How well qualified are you to be calling them industrial strength idiots?
Obviously, salvors “know” more. They may “no” more also, but that’s not what I meant.
I am not taking any position except that it is up to those making accusations to prove them. So far I have seen no proof, only accusations. Yes, the decision may have been mistaken but that would have to be proven. If the decision was a deliberate one rather than a mistake, that would have to be proven too. But so far only baseless accusations. Where are any expert cites supporting that view? I have not seen one. Please give me sound reasoning showing the decision was wrong and support it with cites from experts.
Its also of note to point out that the Prestige is a Single Hull. These types of tankers are due to be banned.
In 2015.
It is true that it was a single hulled vessel but I do not think this is the direct cause of the accident as the tanker did not run aground or hit anything. It just broke up in heavy seas. A single hulled vessel of sturdier build would not have broken up. In any case this is not the point of the OP which is pointing fingers at the Spanish authorities.
Because of its geographical position Spain has suffered a disproportionate number of such accidents and has been calling for shortening the period allowing single hulled vessels. That part of the Spanish coast is known as the “coast of death” due to the many shipwrecks since time immemorial.
At any rate, the point is I’d like to see some proof that:
A- The decision to tow out to sea was the wrong one to make
AND
B- it was done out of selfishness or greed or self interest and not that is was just the wrong decision now that it is seen in hindsight.
Maybe it’s just the Irish cynacism in me, but whenever I face a decision, it’s simple. What’s the worst thing that can happen if I chose “A”. What’s the worst if I choose “B”. It’s an oversimplification of a complex matter, but I’d guess it pretty much came down to that for the parties involved. Here’s a laden tanker, built in 1976, with a ruptured hull, in a gale. Am I gonna let into my port? What’s the worst that can happen? I understand that the salvors are professionals, but will they bear the brunt of the hurt if this all goes terribly wrong? Plus, who’s really gonna lose here if it goes kaput in my harbor? Lot’s of folk who ply those waters for a variety of reasons. The third party claims would be unbelievable, among the the other diasters we’ll have. Plus, what happens if this things sinks in the channel? Big trouble on top of big trouble, there.
Now, what’s the worst that could happen if we send her out to sea? The problems would be similiar, but in my mind, less. Plus, the options of dealing with the spill, I would guess, are increased. (Although I don’t claim any expertise on cleanups, aside from basic entry level schooling). Are the dispersant, submersant, biological, burning options available if it’s all in the harbor?
Again, I think it’s the right call. Why risk catastrophic damage to your port? I don’t think any Captain of the Port would have acted any different. Interestingly, we pulled up the files on Prestige in my office today, presumably for some local media interest; probably a “Could it happen here” piece. And sure enough, Princhester, ABS classed. That’s some good insight as to the problems with local hiring of class surveyors. There is much to learn in this job.
On a side note, Princhester, while I was at a school for Port Operations, we watched an hour long Australian TV piece on the PSC issues, which covered a brief history of how we got to where we are, after showing a string of disasters near NW Australian waters. You have anything to do with that by chance?
Dammit the hamsters just ate a long post.
Chandeleur your post highlights exactly the type of problem I am talking about. The Port Captain figures that if he lets the vessel in, the worst (but probably very unlikely) case scenario is a blocked port and massive loss and him getting hung drawn and quartered by his superiors. The best case scenario if he lets the vessel in is that he averts a coastline-wide catastrophe. But he is unlikely to get any credit for that, because the greater public will not appreciate what he did (they won’t have the information to realise what could have happened) and even on a best case scenario, his port is likely to suffer some oiling, and he will get blamed by the locals for that.
If he says no, then he is probably only one of a number of Port Captains saying no, so he won’t get blamed for that. And if the whole coastline gets oiled, it won’t be his fault.
So he says no. It’s the right call for him. It’s the right call for every other port captain as well. Is it the right call for the whole of Spain? Maybe. Maybe not. No one is necessarily looking at the big picture.
Double hull v single hull. An interesting debate. I’m not sure that I can be bothered typing out again the long post I did on that subject. However, I will summarise by saying that double hulls sound very good to the layman, but many experts I have spoken to about them have real concerns. They are a greater explosion risk because of the un-inertable void space in the double hull. They only tend to avert spills in minor groundings which aren’t usually the cause of major spills anyway. And most of all, there is a real fear that they are too rigid. Rigid and the sea don’t go together too well.
At the moment, the double hull fleet is very young. As the fleet ages, there is a real chance that we will see double hulls breaking their backs even more suddenly and disastrously than the single hull fleet, because of lack of flexibility. Too early to tell, but certainly those journalists that I’ve heard implying that the “Prestige’s” lack of a double hull is the cause of the problem are talking through their arse.
No Chandeleur, though I think I’ve seen the same video. Mostly about the “Kirki”? The one where “the front fell off” (as one journalist so memorably put it!)?
To say the reason the vessel did not enter a port was the narrow interest and decision of that port is simply not true as the matter was handled at the very highest levels of the Spanish government. You can be sure that if they decided that the best course of action was to enter port, the port authorities would have nothing to say and would bear no responsibility for the consequences.
I agree that double hulls are not the panacea some claim, but that would be another thread.
The last incident where Spain would not give refuge was in relation to the “Castor”. Very similiar circumstances. That time, the vessel hung together and so all ended well. I suspect that what happened in this case was that the Spanish authorities said “we got away with it in relation to the Castor, we’ll get away with it again.” They didn’t.
“So he says no. It’s the right call for him. It’s the right call for every other port captain as well. Is it the right call for the whole of Spain? Maybe. Maybe not. No one is necessarily looking at the big picture.”
But don’t these port captains have to answer to some ministry or department that put them there? Even in the generally decentralized (federal) United States, water transport is a national responsibility, to wit the Coast Guard. A department of the Spanish central government would HAVE to consider the whole of Spain, if for no other reason than public/political backlash.
In short, could a port captain in such a case be ordered by a higher authority to allow the vessel in? (Maybe he can’t. I don’t know. I’m just raising the issue.)
The Kirki. Yup, that’s the one. Good piece, that video.
Anyway, this is risk management; acceptable vs un-acceptable risk. Throw in the heated public perception issues, reputations and the political fallout and it gets real interesting. However, I wasn’t trying to illustrate the political football/perception side of it, but rather the risk management side. The possibility that this ship could break up during an attempt to bring it to port is a very real one. My biggest concerns during this are: How bad is the damage/is it leaking oil already?; How old is it? What is its history? What’s the weather like/forecasted? etc, etc. Then I gotta ask- Is this risk worth it? I’m not kidding myself here, I realize that perceptions, reputations and political fallout are thrown into the mix, but I believe that first and foremost, the thoughts are of risk management and whether the risk is greater trying to bring it in, or tow it out. Again, what’s the worst that could happen here, not because I may hang because of it, but because it’s a very real possibility that the worst may indeed emerge.
Again, I don’t have all the facts on this case, but I gotta believe that the only way anyone would attempt to salvage a ship inport, is only under the most ideal conditions with little risk, otherwise it’s just simply not worth it. I’m guessing that the most ideal conditions weren’t even close to presenting themselves with the Prestige (age, history, weather, existing damage, port conditions, etc)
Also, what of the pollution response options if it goes bad: Inport vs out to sea?
We only know the results of the course of action taken. They have problems to deal with, no doubt. This could have been much, much worse. And, it is possible that it could have been better, but the right decision as I see it was made.
John Bredin: I can’t speak intelligently on the procedures of port captains for anywhere in the world, but the US. Here, the Captain of the Port is a Coast Guard officer, usually either a Commander or a Captain (O5, O6). They, like everyone else, answers to somebody if necessary; they are but military officers. US COTP’s will answer to thier immediates at the district level at which an Admiral is in charge, who in turn answers to the the Area command (3 star Admiral) who answers to the Commandant. Obvisously, the Comdt answers to the politicians in Washington, and so it goes. However, that being said, noone knows the business of port operations quite like that COTP; they are the subject matter specialists, and as such, thier opinion on any matter regarding thier port will most likely carry much weight.
So, could a COPT be ordered to allow a vessel into port? I don’t see why not. I’ll be willing to bet, however, that he’ll want his objections to such an order (if any) noted in the smooth log.