Box boat aground in Suez Canal

I thought you were referring to this:

Trust the British tabloid press to highlight the salient issues at hand.

I have tried to calculate some parameters of the grounding with the little information that is available. It certainly isn’t highly accurate but it gives an impression.

I calculated the length of the sliding path diagonally up the slope with the distance to the shoreline from the point of the first bottom contact and the measured angle of 40° of the ship with the shore line. The stopping distance was 78.4 meters. The stopping time is 78.4 m/6.17 m/s = 12.7 sec. Deceleration is -6.17/12.7 = -0.486 m/sec².

The grounding caused a sagging condition, rather large because both ends were grounded. The above photo shows the changed trim. There is a considerable bow lift, maybe a couple of meters, but that is hard to tell.

The ground pressure causes a virtual weight loss of the same magnitude and has an effect on the draft, trim, list and stability. It also creates a virtual rise of the ship’s center of gravity.


The operators of the Ever Given are exploring the possibility of transferring its 18,000 cargo-filled containers to other vessels as it remains stuck in legal limbo, according to a report by The Wall Street Journal. Customers are asking when their boxes will be delivered after the ship’s seizure, and the prospect of moving the containers to other ships and delivering them to the clients in Europe is now on the table.

But any efforts to remove the thousands of containers from the Ever Given could become a massive physical and logistical challenge and nightmare, possibly requiring officials to move the vessel, which is anchored in the canal’s Great Bitter lake, to the nearby city of Port Said. The question remains whether the Egyptians will allow this as it can mean that their grip on the vessel lessens.

It’s nothing a 40 footer full of Marlboros and bars of soap can’t fix.


$ 225 million in compensation is more than enough to cover the damage allegedly suffered by the Suez Canal Authority (SCA) as a result of the “Ever Given” stranding nearly a month ago.

This states the British shipping newspaper Lloyd’s List, which is agitated by the fact that the canal authority has been holding the ship and crew hostage for weeks. The fact that the Egyptians presented a claim more than four times as high, 916 million, is evidence of ill will, according to the British newspaper. That amount includes a "salvage bonus" of 300 million, a phenomenon nonexistent in the maritime sector.

The paper comes to 225 million based on the channel's daily sales, averaging 15 million a day plus salvage costs, which are likely to reach several tens of millions. In principle, these are entirely for the account of the insurer of the shipping company because the SCA excludes any liability in its general terms and conditions.

"A post to apologize for the inconvenience is reasonable. Add it all up and there is nothing that would not more than cover 225 million, "Lloyds List said. She goes on to say that “seafarers are people, not bargaining goods.” The SCA did announce at the end of last week that two Indian crew members may disembark due to “urgent personal circumstances”.

2 posts were split to a new topic: Ever Given Grounding: combined 2D and 3D reconstruction of the incident

Maybe from now on there will be a new routing code, ARESC - Any Route Except Suez Canal.
If they are butt hurt over a “loss” of one billion, let’s see how they respond to losing a month of transits.


In theory correct, and wish that would happen. Shipowners would not agree to extra expenses and time lost not using Suez Canal.

I mentioned earlier the same. Owners should make one front against this malafide Egyptian revenue model. I think that threatening to do so is sufficient to stop this blackmailing act because they are totally dependent on the income from the transits through the canal. Let it backfire.

Again , I agree Dutchie. They have the operators over a barrel. $$$ going the other way.

This is where insurers can have a huge impact. Put a big enough surcharge on a Suez passage and shippers will think twice about exposing themselves to Egyptian extortion.

1 Like

So, the insurers take money away from the crooked Egyptians. All the while ship operators take it on the chin no matter which route they take. Go the short way and pay Egypt and insurers, or go the long way and still pay with time and expenses. It’s a no win situation. They own the canal and will exploit that fact to the fullest.

1 Like

Do try and pay attention.

Except for time sensitive cargoes, (are dildos bound for Amsterdam a time sensitive product?) the cape route saves a great deal of money. Given that many ships are still slow steaming there are probably enough potential canal avoiders to put a serious hurt on the Egyptian economy.

Egypt is taking advantage of the “just in time” supply chain. Nothing wrong with that but when advantage becomes extortion it highlights the need for change. We need either a second canal or a rethink of the real costs of supply chain vulnerabilities.

Your suggestion to raise insurance rates …helps who?

If transiting the Suez Canal is deemed an “Extraordinary Risk” for these VLCS. One might expect insurance rates to go up for them because they (the insurance companies) will be the ones expected to pay.

A surcharge is for a specific risk event, location, or period.

If the ship uses the canal they will pay a surcharge for that transit, their “rate” does not increase. If they go the long way then they don’t pay a surcharge. No ship operator is forced by Egypt to use the canal.

If the cargo owners don’t want to pay the surcharge then their cargo goes the long way around. No one is forced to buy additional insurance, they can freely choose the routing and the risk.

It probably wouldn’t take many ships or very long to put an end to Egyptian extortion. Let them eat sand.


The burden of paying for a quicker passage would fall on the shippers choosing to transit the canal when carrying high end or perishable goods. Slightly higher premiums for them while the not so highly valued cargo could take the low road. If enough shippers join the club, it might provide the Egyptians with an opportunity for self examination.

1 Like

Yep, you got it! I don’t have a problem with the underwriters making a few more bucks if it means the SCA loses its ass because of the higher freight rates. Like I said, maybe it’s time to reconsider the costs vs benefits of the just in time supply chain.

Are the sex shops of Amsterdam the product of containerization? I think they probably did a lot more business when stickships ruled the waterfront and no one cared if it took a month to get there from Japan or wherever dildo production is cheapest.

Handy tool to calculate SCA tolls:

1 Like