I would like to thank all commentators for their fantastic and informative comments , although have expected a bit more. The clip below demonstrates a very typical proces of building the hype in social and other media basis some scanty and sometimes twisted and/or corrupted information orininating quite often form legit and reliable source. It is then picked up by spin doctors or lobbysts, who add some disturbing and exciting element and/or spice to the story.
39000 US gallons seems too innocent figure to rise “AWARENESS|” or to highlight the “DANGERS” but 8% of total capacity laced with adverse weather is a different story.
And then the public pics it up, laden to 99% capacity with armchair experts , then even politicians with main “sewage” stream media leading the parade and the net result of this is quite easy to predict.
I do not have to explain how it ended for unfortunate master of Habei Spirit years ago. The clip below shows more or less the mechanism of the rising hysteria as 39000 us gallons are already forgotten and the 8% IS THE KEY!!!.
It beats me how the author of this 8% useful tip established beyond any doubt the fuel tank capacities of this particular vessel. i know from practical experience at least 3 sources and what ship to shore reporting requirements are regarding ROB , wether to local Agents , Charterers , Owners and/or other interested in the voyage Clients. And as far as I recall , never my Chengs added to ROB the content of FO daily tank for reporting purposes unless of course we got some serious issue when all tank soundings were required.
Have looked up many forums and have not found even single one word regarding CARB which is the Californian thing and a source of many headaches for masters & chengs who donot visit WCUSA on a regular basis. And it is well known , that fuel switches were , are and will be the causes of M/E troubles even when Gard, Swedish Club, Skuld , American Club and the whole gang of other PandI| Clubs and the whole USCG combined deliver a milion page instructions/advise/guidance/procedure how to avoid them. Does 120 mil of usd contaminated FO in Spore ring the bell??. Well it should.
And then surprisingly questions are asked , why criminaslisation of masters , chief engineers and seafarers in general is on the rise ??? To be continued. Cheers.
It’s one thing to lose the main engine, it’s another for the crew not to be able to restart it so it must have been something more serious than what typically happens.
As for ROB, I get 140 tons. San Francisco to Seattle is listed as 807 miles.
Don’t know the consumption. It’s a small ship so assume 12 miles / ton which is about 70 tons required. That seems like cutting it close.
Without knowing about which tanks ect. I’d think they’d made is a little further but that’s just a guess.
EDIT: Here’s a company press release.
The vessel is currently anchored in San Francisco Bay under repair. Once repaired, inspected, and clearance received from Coast Guard, the vessel will resume its voyage to the next port of call.
The Wan Hai 176 has a capacity of 1708 TEU, 2016-built, Singapore-flagged, 17,907 gt Wan Hai 176 is owned by Wan Hai Lines Singapore Pte Ltd of Singapore. It is managed by Wan Hai Lines Ltd of Taipei City, Taiwan. ISM manager is Wallem Management Singapore. It is entered with Gard on behalf of Wan Hai Lines (Singapore) Pte Ltd
.
Her voyage originated in Ninbao, China and she was on her way from Oakland to Seattle She had abt. 800 containers (not specified TEU/FEU ratio) onboard and reported abt. 39000 Gls. of fuel ROB at the time of incident. (whether US or UK Gls. not stated)
39000 gal (US) = 147615 L. = 147.6 Cbm.
39000 gal (UK) = 177294 L. = 177.3 Cbm.
If we assume 5% “un-pumpable” she would have had either approx.140 Cbm. or 168 Cbm. “usable” fuel ROB when the engine stopped.
Since we don’t know her daily consumption I’m not going to get into speculation whether that was negligible low or “just enough”.
Almost certainly U.S. The ship would have been using tons or cubic meters for units. The conversion to gallons is for the general public because the news media almost always uses units the public is familiar with.
With regards to @spowiednick comment about fuel change over, that is definitely within the realm of possibility. Many years ago, while coming into Rotterdam we started changing over from HFO to DO. During the process one of the ME fuel pumps seized…then another. We were faced with 2 options; 1) shut the engine down or 2) go back to HFO and hope the higher temperature would give more clearance along with the better lubricity of HFO to unstick the pumps. That 6-cylinder RND did not like running on 4 cylinders. We opted for going back to HFO and lucky for us, it worked.
Only issue with a fuel change over is that they were halfway to the CARB line and if my memory serves correct sulphur content in the ECA is now 0.1% as well.
Just to clarify. My initial post is abt magic 8% and not about the suspected causes of her predicament. It will be revealed soon I guess.
But if I am asked what I think and/or suspect has happened my answer will be :
a) Due to her small size and encountered weather conditions my first suspect is M/E lub oil system shutdown as mentioned by the USCG regarding El Faro , what was manifested by their letter to Owners /Operators and promulgated by various Pand I Clubs a couple of years back. I have that letter on my disk and once I find it I will share it . See also recent case with Viking Sky- same story.
b) Fuel change over procedure screw up - by crew or related to contamination . However such changeover is not allowed before leaving CARB area by state environmental authority and USCG. And there is a risk of foul play being discovered in next port by relevant authorities wishing to check With low fuel levels at hand, cooking the books and records may be very risky.
c) Mentioned in other forums fuel sediment intervention due to violent ships movements is highly unlikely at the particular moment in time as she was consuming still form her tank containing either DO or MGO containing required 0.1 % Sulf.
d) any other mechanical/electrical cause ,completely not related to mentioned items a,b,c. .
The issue of Spore contamination was mentioned to indicate the possibility of contamination and not to suggest , that t was contaminated . The problems with distillate fuels are well known to engineers and are described at length in various P&I clubs publications .
Last but not least I am completely unprepared and unfit to discuss engineering problems.
But fuel and other consumables reserves for the voyage is part of voyage planning , as many have found , that insufficiency in this respect including food may lead some to declare the ship as unseaworthy .Cheers.
Ok, let’s straighten this discussion out with some facts…
Main Engine- 6RTFlex 58T-E, SOFC @ 75% Load is about 1.725 mt/h. Econ speed- probably about 1.2 to 1.375 mt/h at approx 65% load- let’s just assume 31-34 mt/d. Similar vessels have a max fuel tank capacity of about 1400 MT.
Now on prevailing conditions… The west coast of the US- seaway in particular is characterized (generally) as having long rolling swells which generally run north-south.
a) Main Engine Lube Oil system failure? highly unlikely.
b) Fuel Changeover? Another highly unlikely- as most of us know the ECA limits for the US Coasts are 200 nm. Unless of course they were operating outside of the emission control regs- The west coast states monitor this regularly- however, the company was recently cited for CARB violations and given a hefty fine- don’t think they would violate the emission control regs.
c) Sediment ? Possibly,.
Now let’s be realistic- a vessel in long rolling swells, down to below 10% fuel. Fouling of the main engine fuel system or water in the fuel I would venture with possible resultant damage to the main engine fuel pumps… But then again- we were not aboard were we? Useless Conjecture therefore.
Wait until the incident report surfaces. By the way- You have marine engineering experience? By what engineering and/or scientific basis do you arrive at your conclusions?
What kind of fuel system is this? Stirred up storage tanks lead to engine pump problems? Transfer pump strainers and filters if fitted. Settling tank drains. Purifier strainers, purifiers. Day tank drains. Service pumps and strainers. Final filters if fitted. Would all be in between the sediment and engine. Yes we are firmly in conjecture zone.
I’m not an engineer but I don’t see how this is necessarily an issue, It’s not as if the fuel is in a single tank down to under 10%.
For one it’s standard practice to pump each tank till suction is lost so using fuel from an almost mt tank is a problem that could happen at any ROB once the first tank is mt.
For another that last tank could possibly have almost 140 tons of fuel in it.
What kind of fuel system ? Here’s a couple of downloads. Ok, having been C/E on numerous vessels going to shipyard (both steam and motor vessels) “Burning down to minimum” is always problematic.
As indicated by the reported ROB (if it is in fact correct) indicates they are burning to the minimum.
The long swells will stir things up nicely- especially at low ROB’s- I have experienced this first hand- more than once. A “normally functional” fuel supply/ fuel circ systems have become quite problematic after prolonged periods of rolling in swells- with all kinds of fouling in the supply and circ pump suction strainers- again, I have experienced this first hand.
One my last liner service PCC we had a Moatti 5 micron self cleaning fuel filter before the engine supply, fitted with a bypass filter. The sediment and other foreign matter would breakout from the Day Tank during periods of heavy rolling- this is even right after mucking after a shipyard trip- and be a nightmare until things calmed down. If the engineers bypassed any of these deices to keep the main engine in operation- then voila- the possible results are not good…
On the issue what is likely or unlikely , highly unlikely or impossible regarding Main Engine Lube Oil system failure some commentators who provided otherwise excellent comments are kindly requested to examine the following :
Considering above very few examples occurring during quite a resent past and being a tip of the iceberg , that gained publicity via main " sewage" stream media , consider how many “unreported” similar events take place. I had one or two on similar sized vessel and did not call CNN and/or gCaptain to share the news and flood FB with such revelation .
Having said that, and considering above , when preparing Risk Assessment would You consider above event as :
highly unlikely
unlikely
likely
very likely
highly likely
To those enthusiasts claiming that NA-ECA and CARB is the same thing because in both , the requirement is to burn 0.1% sulphur content fuel i do strongly suggest to get familiar with the following ;
and get practical experience in crossing both inbound and outbound from LA from/to the other side of the ocean.
This experience should include subsequent visit of local PSC /EPA authorities , verifying compliance of your foreign flag vessel with relevant regulations and/or required procedures. Otherwise your enthusiasm will sooner or later be converted into heavy monetary fine , what your principals will surely not appreciate. Cheers
Wan Hai 176 has left San Francisco and is continuing it’s merry way towards Seattle, currently steaming north at 12.5kts off Oregon. Don’t know if we’ll hear too much more about this one but I’ll ask around.
