Costa Concordia Disaster - What happened?

Professional Mariner Forum
684

[QUOTE=Heiwa;66365] it is better to pump out water than pump in air :rolleyes:… but anyway!"
[/QUOTE]

Since it appears you know more about the condition of the hull than the salvors, perhaps you should go over there and set them straight.

You can pass the hours on the flight by reading some case studies of ship salvage where low pressure air was used to keep the ship afloat after as much hull repair as possible was performed. I suggest you fly the long way around unless you are a speed reader as well as a salvage expert.

685

Burong,

I have the latest Lloyd’s List Australia dated 29.3.12 which discusses the insurance issues and I will summarise in dot points;

[B][I]“Costa Concordia loss could cost London market US$800m”.
[/I][/B]
[ul]
[li][I]Independent investment and broking firm Numis compares the incident to the “Deepwater Horizon”, expecting CC to make an insurance loss of US$600~US$800m.[/I][/li][li][I]With Carnival’s account spread thinly across the London market, Numis said it would be surprised if any single player held more than 5%~10% 0f the risk. Most of the London stocks are likely to have some exposure.[/I][/li][li][I]More significantly, we think the psychological impact of seeing the unthinkable happen will trigger a significant change in risk assessment by underwriters as was the case with “Deepwater Horizon”.[/I][/li][li][I]The cruise ship is insured under a global insurance program, arranged via broker Aon.[/I][/li][li][I]The hull and machinery underwriters will pay for the loss of the vessel, whether the underwriters class it as a total loss, a constructive total loss or a repair.[/I][/li][li][I]As a total loss or a constructive total loss, the P&I cover would meet the cost of removing the wreck as this would be a liability issue.[/I][/li][li][I]In terms of P&I cover, it is understood that Carnival will pay the first US$10m.[/I][/li][li][I]Clubs Standard and Steamship will share the next US$8m then the claim will move to the international group pool where all clubs will contribute to the next US$60m.[/I][/li][li][I]At that point the claim will move to IG’s excess of loss contract, leaving the London market to deal with whatever is left.[/I][/li][/ul]AP.

686

[QUOTE=Heiwa;66365]CC will be salvaged! :o :o

“[I]The method used to refloat the 114,000 tonne Costa will involve sealing up the holes in the structure of the hull, as well as the huge gash and sealing off sections into airtight compartments[/I]. [B](Hm, the vessel weighs only 50 000 tons! :rolleyes: … and let’s make the compartments watertight, FGS!!:p)[/B]
[I]From there huge pontoons and cranes will be brought in, while pipelines are fixed to the Costa and air will be pumped into the compartments to give it buoyancy before it is straightened and then towed away to a dock, most likely its home port of Genoa where it was launched in 2006[/I]. [B](Hm, the ship was not built/launched at Genoa and it is better to pump out water than pump in air :rolleyes:… but anyway![/B]).”

So the show will go on and new mistakes will be done by new, young bright people![/QUOTE]

Heiwa

I saw the Daily Wail article over the weekend but decided that their claims are not to be trusted. Apparently Costa Cruises intend to name the chosen salvors during mid-April 2012 and they are not prepared to release any details of the planned salvage arrangements until the salvors have been named.

My guess is that the salvors have probably now been chosen but that until both sides have signed the salvage contract, nothing can be taken to be certain. None of the journos working for The Wail know anything about how to salvage a ship so my feeling is that their claims might be nothing more than journalistic fiction - like so many of the other newspaper reports about this tragedy.

Also, as soon as anything is known for certain, Lloyds List will probably be the first to publish the real proposed details with their own comments about feasibility or otherwise.

I noted your comment that tourists will always be interested to look at the wreck of the ship. For now, I think you are right - but the wreck is still white and it still looks like a cruise ship. Once it starts to rust and rot, it will look dreadful and I think tourists will lose interest in the spectacle at that stage? Also, it wouldn’t do Costa’s corporate image any good to have the rusting hulk of one of their ships anywhere where a potential passenger might see the thing, surely?

687

[QUOTE=AustralianPilot;66380]Burong,

I have the latest Lloyd’s List Australia dated 29.3.12 which discusses the insurance issues and I will summarise in dot points;

[B][I]“Costa Concordia loss could cost London market US$800m”.
[/I][/B]
[ul]
[li][I]Independent investment and broking firm Numis compares the incident to the “Deepwater Horizon”, expecting CC to make an insurance loss of US$600~US$800m.[/I] [/li][li][I]With Carnival’s account spread thinly across the London market, Numis said it would be surprised if any single player held more than 5%~10% 0f the risk. Most of the London stocks are likely to have some exposure.[/I] [/li][li][I]More significantly, we think the psychological impact of seeing the unthinkable happen will trigger a significant change in risk assessment by underwriters as was the case with “Deepwater Horizon”.[/I] [/li][li][I]The cruise ship is insured under a global insurance program, arranged via broker Aon.[/I] [/li][li][I]The hull and machinery underwriters will pay for the loss of the vessel, whether the underwriters class it as a total loss, a constructive total loss or a repair.[/I] [/li][li][I]As a total loss or a constructive total loss, the P&I cover would meet the cost of removing the wreck as this would be a liability issue.[/I] [/li][li][I]In terms of P&I cover, it is understood that Carnival will pay the first US$10m.[/I] [/li][li][I]Clubs Standard and Steamship will share the next US$8m then the claim will move to the international group pool where all clubs will contribute to the next US$60m.[/I] [/li][li][I]At that point the claim will move to IG’s excess of loss contract, leaving the London market to deal with whatever is left.[/I] [/li][/ul]
AP.[/QUOTE]

Thank you, AP

It sounds to me as if there won’t be any litigation about paying out for the loss of Costa Concordia - unless something goes catastrophically wrong during the salvage operation, I suppose.

Presumably the salvage operation will be heavily insured and re-insured in its own right, anyway, I would guess? I think the people in charge of the Marine Heritage side of things would probably insist on specific insurance for the salvage operation, just in case it all goes wrong and damages the Marine Heritage site.

According to the various reports, Costa Concordia’s keel is only 8 feet away from the edge of the underwater “cliff.” It is not as if she is just lying on her side on a flat beach where it wouldn’t matter that much if she slipped. Added to which, the wreck seems to be very precariously balanced and some of the divers etc are reported to have said that the ship’s shape is already beginning to hog, even without any extreme weather. Hence I am suspicious of the Daily Mail’s glib claims about the alleged salvage plans. .

I note that Lloyds List Australia are saying that the Costa Concordia incident is likely to alter the way that risks are assessed in future. I think that goes back to what you said at the very beginning - you said that this one event is likely to be a “watershed” in the whole way that the regulators, insurers and others will deal with cruise ships in years to come.

688

[QUOTE=Burong;66382]Thank you, AP

It sounds to me as if there won’t be any litigation about paying out for the loss of Costa Concordia - unless something goes catastrophically wrong during the salvage operation, I suppose.

Presumably the salvage operation will be heavily insured and re-insured in its own right, anyway, I would guess? I think the people in charge of the Marine Heritage side of things would probably insist on specific insurance for the salvage operation, just in case it all goes wrong and damages the Marine Heritage site.

According to the various reports, Costa Concordia’s keel is only 8 feet away from the edge of the underwater “cliff.” It is not as if she is just lying on her side on a flat beach where it wouldn’t matter that much if she slipped. Added to which, the wreck seems to be very precariously balanced and some of the divers etc are reported to have said that the ship’s shape is already beginning to hog, even without any extreme weather. Hence I am suspicious of the Daily Mail’s glib claims about the alleged salvage plans. .

I note that Lloyds List Australia are saying that the Costa Concordia incident is likely to alter the way that risks are assessed in future. I think that goes back to what you said at the very beginning - you said that this one event is likely to be a “watershed” in the whole way that the regulators, insurers and others will deal with cruise ships in years to come.[/QUOTE]

Burong,

I take you back to Cappy 208’s contribution #669.

A Panamax bulk carrier “Pasha Bulker” grounded on the East Coast of Australia during a fierce east coast low in June 2007. She ended totally upright on a flat reef with gently shoaling depths to seaward. A fairly straightforward “text book” salvage…as easy as any salvage can be. The means of removing her employed big tugs, kedge anchors, multi-purchase tackle, high tides and good weather. She incurred significant machinery, bottom and side plate damage, has been repaired and is now back in service.

I believe that the salvage of the CC will re-write the text books. The complexity is enormous. One can only assume that the salvage will be a “fluid” (no pun intended) approach as the problems no doubt raise their heads. Solve one problem and here comes another…

I have the utmost respect and admiration for all recognised Salvage Masters and teams. They are extremely talented professionals in a very limited number.

As news comes to light, via LLA, I shall share with the boards. The integrity of their reports is first class.

AP.

689

[QUOTE=Steamer;66379]Since it appears you know more about the condition of the hull than the salvors, perhaps you should go over there and set them straight.

You can pass the hours on the flight by reading some case studies of ship salvage where low pressure air was used to keep the ship afloat after as much hull repair as possible was performed. I suggest you fly the long way around unless you are a speed reader as well as a salvage expert.[/QUOTE]

In my humble opinion it is much better to pump water out of the hull than to pump air into the hull to refloat the vessel. :slight_smile:

I live not far from the wreck and follow the show with interest. :smiley:

If I were the underwriter I would not pay a cent as the ship was not insured against the risks when sailing 1 meter from shore! :rolleyes:

690

[QUOTE=Heiwa;66399]In my humble opinion it is much better to pump water out of the hull than to pump air into the hull to refloat the vessel. :slight_smile:

I live not far from the wreck and follow the show with interest. :smiley:

If I were the underwriter I would not pay a cent as the ship was not insured against the risks when sailing 1 meter from shore! :rolleyes:[/QUOTE]

We are all entitled to our opinion although it is not unreasonable, for thread contributors, to expect that any opinion you offer is substantiated by informed comment.

I am therefore respectfully asking you why[B][I] “it is much better to pump water out of the hull than to pump air into the hull to refloat the vessel”?

[/I][/B]Assuming that your comment(s), in this instance, relate directly to the salvage of “Costa Concordia”.

AP.

691

[QUOTE=AustralianPilot;66402]I am therefore respectfully asking you why"it is much better to pump water out of the hull than to pump air into the hull to refloat the vessel"?AP.[/QUOTE]By pumping out water from the hull you reduce its weight until the buoyancy of the hull exceeds the weight and the hull floats as per Archimedes.:stuck_out_tongue: By pumping air into the water filled hull will not produce anything but bubbles!

692

[QUOTE=Heiwa;66411] By pumping air into the hull will not produce anything but bubbles![/QUOTE]

Those bubbles are produced when there is no more water to force out the holes that would otherwise deliver a never ending supply to the de-watering pumps.

693

My own humble comment is that we cannot rely on the Daily Mail’s description of the proposed salvage plans. So far, I have not seen anything definitive about what the plans are going to be.

I have read a report that quotes an Italian newspaper as saying that the “Marine Heritage site” people are insisting that the wreck must be removed in one piece rather than trying to cut it up in situ. Reportedly, the “Marine Heritage site” people believe that if they try to cut up the wreck where she is, it will cause extensive debris and other ecological damage all round this very sensitive area. If that is indeed what they are saying, I guess I can understand their argument.

FWIW, I think Australian Pilot is probably right in saying that the salvors might have an overall objective to remove the wreck as a single, whole item but that the actual operation to do this would probably cause endless problems along the way that would just have to be solved, one by one, as they crop up. All of the salvage bidders seem to have estimated that it will take between 10 and 24 months to remove the wreck completely, so none of them imagine that it will be possible to do the job quickly.

Again, this makes me suspicious of the glib claims made by the Daily Mail’s journalists. Even if they have had sight of the draft salvage contract, would they really understand the details of what is proposed?

So my own feeling (even though it is not worth anything much) is that we don’t want to get hung up on the details suggested by the Daily Mail. The reality probably won’t resemble any of their claims.

694

[QUOTE=Heiwa;66411]By pumping out water from the hull you reduce its weight until the buoyancy of the hull exceeds the weight and the hull floats as per Archimedes.:stuck_out_tongue: By pumping air into the hull will not produce anything but bubbles![/QUOTE]

If that is the best you have got, inclusive of the emoticon, then my suspicions have been confirmed.

End of discussion.

695

Channel 4 aired a TV documentary the other night about Costa Concordia and other passenger ships that have been lost. The programme is now available via the Internet and the link is below:

http://www.channel4.com/programmes/disasters-at-sea-why-ships-sink/4od

I do not know whether it will be possible to view the programme unless one is in the UK. I don’t know what Channel 4’s licensing arrangements are for the cyber-footprint of their TV programmes.

Most of the programme is the usual uninformed drivel, imho, but some of it is interesting. The programme makers claim that Costa Concordia has a double-thickness hull but that the double hull does not go all the way up to her waterline. They say that the initial allision took place in an area about 10 feet below the waterline but above the line where the double-thickness hull ends. They suggest that in future, passenger ships are likely to be required to have double-thickness hulls that extend to the waterline.

My own query is do they really need to alter the rules about the construction of these ships? Why don’t they simply insist that the ships must stay within the deep water channels unless there is a local Pilot on board?

696

Oooohhhhhh, burn…

697

[QUOTE=AustralianPilot;66417]If that is the best you have got, inclusive of the emoticon, then my suspicions have been confirmed.

End of discussion.[/QUOTE]

You know filling ship hulls with water make them sink! Removing, pumping out, the water make ships float again.
Removing air from hulls doesn’t sink ships, so pumping hulls full of air will not make them float again.
That’s the best I can contribute after 40+ years in shipping. Sorry to disappoint you!

698

[QUOTE=Heiwa;66432]
That’s the best I can contribute after 40+ years in shipping. Sorry to disappoint you![/QUOTE]

No need to apolgogise, we all need a little comic relief now and then.

Disappointment is the result of a failure to meet expectations and in that area you have not failed. I can’t speak for others but your grasp of salvage is about what I expected based on your comments so I am not disappointed, just amused.

699

[QUOTE=Steamer;66433]No need to apolgogise, we all need a little comic relief now and then.

Disappointment is the result of a failure to meet expectations and in that area you have not failed. I can’t speak for others but your grasp of salvage is about what I expected based on your comments so I am not disappointed, just amused.[/QUOTE]

Yes, you are sick and crazy … and I do not feel sorry for your mother. Try to focus on the topic. What happened to CC. Can you contribute to it?

700

[QUOTE=Burong;66418]Channel 4 aired a TV documentary the other night about Costa Concordia and other passenger ships that have been lost. The programme is now available via the Internet and the link is below:

http://www.channel4.com/programmes/disasters-at-sea-why-ships-sink/4od

I do not know whether it will be possible to view the programme unless one is in the UK. I don’t know what Channel 4’s licensing arrangements are for the cyber-footprint of their TV programmes.

Most of the programme is the usual uninformed drivel, imho, but some of it is interesting. The programme makers claim that Costa Concordia has a double-thickness hull but that the double hull does not go all the way up to her waterline. They say that the initial allision took place in an area about 10 feet below the waterline but above the line where the double-thickness hull ends. They suggest that in future, passenger ships are likely to be required to have double-thickness hulls that extend to the waterline.

My own query is do they really need to alter the rules about the construction of these ships? Why don’t they simply insist that the ships must stay within the deep water channels unless there is a local Pilot on board?[/QUOTE]

Burong,

This link will give you an idea on modern cruise vessel watertight/fireproof bulkhead layout in addition to other relevant information. If you scroll right you will find a key to identify the different areas.

http://dvo.free.fr/techdatas.htm

Double hulled vessels also have their own problems with regard to reduced stability (raising of the centre of gravity), maintenance issues with corrosion between the two skins and in the event of this significant allision on CC, it is highly likely that the inner shell would have been bilged. Of course…any changes to construction regulations will take a great deal of time and not protect existing tonnage.

AP.

701

Why don’t you read steamers rebuttal to your condescending comments before getting nasty. You appear to have completely missed it.

702

[QUOTE=Capt. Phoenix;66477]Why don’t you read steamers rebuttal to your condescending comments before getting nasty. You appear to have completely missed it.[/QUOTE]

I was just pointing out that it is better to pump out water of the [B]hull[/B] of a sunk ship to get it floating than to pump air into it. Do you know what a [B]hull[/B] is?

Some definitions:

[B]Hull [/B]- watertight and subdivided parts of vessel on which it floats and which provides [I]buoyancy[/I] and stability, i.e. all compartments below the [B]bulkhead deck[/B].

[B]Reserve buoyancy[/B] – volume of hull between assigned waterline and [B]bulkhead deck[/B].

[B]Bulkhead deck[/B] - top of hull.

[B]Superstructure[/B] - weather tight compartments on bulkhead deck, which provide buoyancy and contribute to stability when submerged in rolling, heaving and pitching.

[B]Weather tight[/B] - all openings in a superstructure can be closed to prevent water ingress due to rolling, pitching and green water, etc.

[B]Deck house[/B] - non weather tight compartments which do not provide any buoyancy and do not contribute to any stability.

[B]Capsize[/B] is sudden loss of stability (GZ<0) causing the vessel to turn upside down, unless it is stopped by an outside support, e.g. the sea floor or a quay.

As CC is only partly sunk, i.e. parts of hull, superstructure and deck house are visible, you only have to get the bulkhead deck (see above) above water and then pump out the water of undamaged and temporarily repaired compartments and … voilà - the vessel floats. Evidently you have to check the stability while pumping out water so that the vessel will not capsize (again). Pumping air into the ship will not help as the air escapes, e.g. through the bulkhead deck … [I]unless the ship is completely upside down on bottom of the sea[/I], then, and only then, pumping air into the undamaged hull will make it float up - upside down - when the volume of the compressed air bubble (inside the hull) provides buoyancy in excess of the weight of the ship!

Why a completely capsized ship, floating upside down on the surface of the sea, cannot sink I have explained at http://heiwaco.tripod.com/chalmers1.htm

703

Come on, doesn’t anyone watch Myth Busters!?! Everyone knows you have to use ping pong balls!