"Derelict Cruise Ship Abandoned"

Derelict Cruise Ship Abandoned

Please tell me someone else saw this article. Is leaving an empty ship to seek its own fate out at sea even legal? It seems like it might be considered by some, what scientists at MIT call, a “hazard to navigation,” but I guess no one in the canadian government was smart enough to go to MIT. Of course you all know that by MIT I don’t mean the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, but rather the Maritime Institute of Transportation, the most prestigious academy in all of Lala Land, which I sometimes believe is where the Canadian government resides.

I realize that by drifting into international waters they officially no longer have to do anything about it, but isn’t it just a little bit morally objectionable to leave an object of this size adrift in the North Atlantic, among the most important trade routes in the world? The article says “If left alone she could end up almost anywhere from the Norwegian arctic, to western Africa, or stuck in the middle of the North Atlantic gyre.” Maybe I’m way out of my element here but this just seems to me to be a little bit, well… CRAZY.

Do they even know who the legal owner is? Can another salvor have a crack at it without getting tangled in legal complications?

there is no question in my mind that any vessel taking the LYUBOV ORLOVA under tow now would have about the clearest salvage claim possible but the question is what is the ship worth because no owner or underwriter is going to step forward to pay. All you have is a fairly small tonnage vessel to sell and then you have to get her there because Canada or the US will allow the ship into any port. You literally have to go out, grab the ship and take her away. Obviously the ATLANTIC HAWK wasn’t prepared to do it.

Of course, the other problem being the time of year and the risk to trying to get hold of the vessel and then keep hold of her out there? Not much incentive for a limited payout. I guess the Navy or USCG go out there and sink the ship in the end like they did with that Japanese fishboat off of Alaska. Either that or one big storm takes care the problem with I suspect is exactly what the Canadian government is excepting to happen.

I’d still love to give it a try myself all the same just to take the ship and rebuild her and put her into expedition service again but that’s just the pirate dreamer in me!

Wheres the Foundation Franklin, Capt Harry Brushet and salvage master Capt Featherstone when you need them?

[QUOTE=“Bayrunner;97375”]Wheres the Foundation Franklin, Capt Harry Brushet and salvage master Capt Featherstone when you need them?[/QUOTE]

They are past Chebucto Head, going out on another rescue!

I am proud to be a Canadian seaman which has for prime role to promulgate and assure the safety of navigation. … ! :wink:

[QUOTE=Topsail;97394]I am proud to be a Canadian seaman which has for prime role to promulgate and assure the safety of navigation. … ! :wink:

[/QUOTE]

God save the Queen and all that, but for god’s sake go get that ship before someone gets killed!

We need those shipwreck men guys to go out and put a line on her. They’ll have her back in port in 2
Days with their 500hp “safe boat”… Lol

So is the proper spelling for our northern neighbors country C eh N eh D eh ???

The Canadians don’t recognize a regular SOS. It has to be “SOS-eh” so they get it!

The Canadian Navy will send a submarine under tow to torpedo the derelict. Hoping that the tow line will not part to add another flotsam in the North Atlantic. :wink:

Transport Canada has a very good experience in towing technology. They authorized the shit tug HELLAS to tow the ex laker CANADIAN MINER across the Cabot Strait and the North Atlantic during the hurricane season. The tow line was not compose by any nylon rope, neither a fish plate, nor any chain hawser. The steel tow line was directly attached to the MINER through the bow. The result …

Good lord, who in their right mind approved that setup

The Charlene Hunt had been up there for quite some time before getting underway. I reckon they were held up in Halifax for some time when heading to St. Johns, blew out some windows. I’d be caught dead on that thing in the North Atlantic, nevermind in Winter. Sending old pisspot US tugs (or Aiviq) international on unsuccessful ocean tows doesn’t do much to help the "brand.’

[QUOTE=Topsail;97488]Transport Canada has a very good experience in towing technology. They authorized the shit tug HELLAS to tow the ex laker CANADIAN MINER across the Cabot Strait and the North Atlantic during the hurricane season. The tow line was not compose by any nylon rope, neither a fish plate, nor any chain hawser. The steel tow line was directly attached to the MINER through the bow. The result …

[/QUOTE]

I wandered down to have a look at the Hellas when she was under arrest in Sydney NS. Tried to engage one of the crew but the watchkeeper in the wheelhouse came and sent him away and wasn’t interested in talking. Had a look at the towing winch (two drum) and one was a few wraps shorter than the other. A new thimble as well. I am not sure I would call her a shit boat . http://www.gigilinis.gr/photogallery.aspx?id=404&seoctl00_ContentPlaceHolder1_ASPxDataView1=page1 The Charlene Hunt is another story. A Halifax blogger Tugfax has been following that story. blogger.http://tugfaxblogspotcom.blogspot.ca/

On Transport Canada: Not sure WHF they are up to. Another point is there are NO dedicated Salvage tugs on the East Coast of Canada. Salvage is different work than taking a barge from A to B or handling anchors for a Rig. Just ask them guys on the Foundation Franklin. <grin>.

[QUOTE=Topsail;97485]The Canadian Navy will send a submarine under tow to torpedo the derelict. Hoping that the tow line will not part to add another flotsam in the North Atlantic. ;)[/QUOTE]

By this post I am assuming that you know all the loveliness of these gloriously sooper Canuk submarines!

[B]Canadian Submarines May Be Scrapped[/B]

First Posted: 10/27/11 CBC News has learned the Harper government is considering buying nuclear submarines to replace its problem-plagued fleet of diesel-powered subs, all of which are currently awash in red ink and out of service for major repairs.

The four second-hand subs Jean Chrétien’s Liberal government bought from the British navy in 1998 for $750 million were portrayed at the time as the military bargain of the century.

Instead, they have spent almost all of their time in naval repair yards, submerging Canadian taxpayers in an ocean of bills now totalling more than $1 billion and counting.
[B][U]
One of the subs, HMCS Chicoutimi, has been in active service of the Royal Canadian Navy exactly two days in the 13 years since it was purchased from the Brits.[/U][/B]

The Chicoutimi caught fire on its maiden voyage from the U.K. to Canada, killing one sailor and injuring a number of others.

It has been in the repair shop ever since, and isn’t expected back in service for at least another two years and $400 million more in repairs and retrofits.

National Defence said this week that one of the subs, the Victoria, could be back in service in 2012.

The other three would remain out of service until at least 2013. One may not be out of the repair shop until 2016.

By that time, the submarines will have cost taxpayers an estimated $3 billion, almost enough to have bought all new subs in the first place.

But the real problem is that by the time the whole fleet is in active service for the first time in 2016, the submarines will already be almost 30 years old with only perhaps 10 years of life left in them.

High-ranking sources tell CBC News the government is actively considering cutting its losses on the dud subs, and mothballing some if not all of them.

Defence Minister Peter MacKay is hinting they might be replaced with nuclear submarines that could patrol under the Arctic ice, something the existing diesel-electric subs cannot do.

Outside the Commons this week, MacKay told CBC News the government is anxious to have its submarine fleet fully operational as soon as possible, providing a “very important capability for the Canadian Forces.”

But asked whether the government might look at other subs, MacKay said: “Well there was a position taken some time ago to go with diesel-electric.

“But you know, in an ideal world, I know nuclear subs are what’s needed under deep water, deep ice.”

Nuclear submarines $3B each

Nuclear submarines are hugely expensive — they start around $3 billion apiece — and it is unclear where the Harper government would find that kind of money, much less how it could justify such an enormous expenditure during a period of supposed austerity.

The last time a Canadian government seriously considered nuclear subs was in the late 1980s before then prime minister Brian Mulroney sank the whole program amid a public uproar.

A decade later, the Chrétien government bought the four used diesel subs from the British navy in large part because it was seen as such a huge bargain.

Senator Art Eggleton, who was Liberal defence minister at the time, told CBC News Thursday that his government gave “absolutely no consideration” to buying nuclear submarines, although some inside the navy were pushing for them.

“We were coming out of a period of budget-cutting and nuclear submarines would have been far too expensive.”

Instead, the British navy was offering a deal Eggleton said the Canadian military couldn’t refuse — the four diesel-electric submarines mothballed after only two years in service when the Royal Navy switched to nuclear subs.

“We got them at a quarter of the cost it would have cost to build new ones,” Eggleton says. “We wouldn’t have had the money to build new ones.”

He concedes the Liberal government gave serious consideration to not having submarines at all.

“It was either buy these subs, or get out of the submarine business altogether.”

‘It makes no difference to our security’

Some defence critics think that’s exactly what the current Conservative government should be considering — scrapping the problem-plagued diesel-electric fleet rather than throwing what they see as good money after bad.

“When you look at the cost of trying to get these things seaworthy again, it just doesn’t make sense," said Steven Staples, president of the Rideau Institute on defence issues.

The Harper government has just awarded a $25-billion contract to build a new fleet of Canadian destroyers and frigates, and Staples says that should be enough.

“Once you are in a hole, the first thing that you should do is stop digging, so I think that it is time to say goodbye to the submarines right now and focus on the new surface fleet.”

Staples says the history of the diesel subs suggests Canada could get by without them.

"The fact that all four submarines are sitting tied up at a dry dock right now doesn’t mean that Canada is in any great danger. It makes no difference to our security.”

STOOPID CANADIAN SQUIDS!

According to tugfax, the CAHRLENE HUNT (at St, John’s), like the abandoned CRAIG TRANS (at Halifax), has now been reflagged in Bolivia. I bet the HUNT will end up abandoned in St. John’s. It sounds like the owners of the cruise ship and (apparently the newly purchased tug) invested next to nothing in this scrap adventure. From the outset, it appears that they just took a flyer that this junk armada might make it to the DR and produce a profit, but that their back up plan was simply disposal at sea for both the ship and the tug.

This is embarrassing for us in the USA. I can see it coming already: port state inspections of US flag tugs in Canada, that most older and still uninspected US tugs will not be able to pass.

The Canadians ought to be really embarrassed about leaving that ship adrift and afloat in the North Atlantic. That is really inexcusable. It should not be tolerated.

They already do this to an extent they come down to the US and inspect our tugs that pass through Canada to Alaska and they are not lenient by any means. I’m amazed they let that tug leave. They must not be inspecting on the east coast like the do here in the west.

[QUOTE=“rshrew;97566”]

They already do this to an extent they come down to the US and inspect our tugs that pass through Canada to Alaska and they are not lenient by any means. I’m amazed they let that tug leave. They must not be inspecting on the east coast like the do here in the west.[/QUOTE]

Interesting. Transport Canada’s are claiming they have no control.

Hmm. CHARLENE HUNT. Built 1962 at Trinity Madisonville, Louisiana.

More info here: http://www.tugboatinformation.com/tug.cfm?id=202&fs

Gotta wonder who did the “Trip in Tow” survey. . .