FENNICA is at Magone Marine in Dutch Harbor with a “small hull breach.”
Would someone in Dutch please post pictures?
This whole operation is cursed they should stop while they’re ahead.
They’re screwed if she’ll needs to be taken into dry dock for repairs.
Vigor in Seward may be able to lift her?
As I recall, the Seward synchro lift has a 5000 ton capacity. Anyone know FENNICA’s lightship displacement? Anyway, in the time it would take to get to Seward, they could be most of the way to Seattle.
Magone can do an underwater repair right there in Dutch Harbor. It’s only a 1/2" gash and Magone is very good at doing that sort of work.
Don’t know if class would accept an underwater repair or not.
If it’s not too deep some list and trim action and/or getting the ship light might get the damage out of the water.
[QUOTE=tugsailor;165140]As I recall, the Seward synchro lift has a 5000 ton capacity. Anyone know FENNICA’s lightship displacement? Anyway, in the time it would take to get to Seward, they could be most of the way to Seattle.
Magone can do an underwater repair right there in Dutch Harbor. It’s only a 1/2" gash and Magone is very good at doing that sort of work.[/QUOTE]
7935 T lightship tonnage.
[QUOTE=Jamesbrown;165151]7935 T lightship tonnage.[/QUOTE]
Tonnage most certainly [U]is not[/U] the same as displacement. Tonnage is used to calculate taxes, whereas displacement and lightship refer to actual weights.
Lightship as documented by the owner is 7935 Metric Tons.
http://www.arctia.fi/files/laivaesittelyt/FENNICA_LAIVAKORTTI.pdf
Any update on opinions as to how the gash got there in the first place?
[QUOTE=Day Sailor;165160]Any update on opinions as to how the gash got there in the first place?[/QUOTE]
Theories go from WWII debris to giant anchors on the seafloor. But no one really knows what for now.
NOAA will have a vessel resailing the track of Fennica to see what they can find.
[QUOTE=Drill Bill;165161]Theories go from WWII debris to giant anchors on the seafloor. But no one really knows what for now.
NOAA will have a vessel resailing the track of Fennica to see what they can find.
Fairweather will find it whatever it was.
Interesting quote from that article:
Marquardt said it’s unfortunate Shell might be blamed for the accident by critics who don’t support drilling in the U.S. Arctic Ocean, though the company was following proper procedures with a longtime marine pilot handling the vessel.
I suppose I’m one of the people most would put in that category, thing is, that’s not the reason for concern. I don’t blame shell, but I do see this as another mark against the drilling program. Shit happens in the maritime world, I know it, you know it. Shit happens with a a vengeance in the Arctic. It’s poorly charted, weather goes to hell in a hurry, and few people have much extensive knowledge. When things go bad up there there’s no easy fix. When you consider there’s no guaranteed way to 100% prevent a spill, and the fact that we have no need for that oil to start with there’s already no reason this should have been approved. Throw in the difficulties that would be faced with cleanup, especially if a spill got in the ice or made landfall, and we have a huge mess on our hands.
That’s a lot of risk to take when only the shareholders of Royal Dutch Shell stand to benefit.
The ADN article mentions that the pilot took the Fennica east of Hog Island. In that case she would have been leaving Unalaska Bay not Dutch Harbor. The chart 16528 is here
Particulars show the Fennica draws about 28 feet, minimum depth inside Hog Island is 42 feet. Depending on the tide max UKC would have about 14 feet. If the pilot strayed a little bit there are also a couple 32 and 33 foot spots. That would be 4 or 5 foot UKC. Not much if there was any swell or if she was trimmed or loaded deeper.
When i was up there a few weeks ago, Nordica and Fennica were swapping places at the delta western dock, and holding station in summer bay. Is the gash down low, or closer to the waterline (maybe the crease came from a hard landing at a dock? )
According to this article, the holed tank is “Port No. 4” ballast tank which is a double bottom tank.
[QUOTE=Kennebec Captain;165192]The ADN article mentions that the pilot took the Fennica east of Hog Island. In that case she would have been leaving Unalaska Bay not Dutch Harbor. The chart 16528 is here
Particulars show the Fennica draws about 28 feet, minimum depth inside Hog Island is 42 feet. Depending on the tide max UKC would have about 14 feet. If the pilot strayed a little bit there are also a couple 32 and 33 foot spots. That would be 4 or 5 foot UKC. Not much if there was any swell or if she was trimmed or loaded deeper.[/QUOTE]
yeah, that’s correct. Looking at the track she sailed she did leave from a bit S-SE of Hog Island and then after her U-turn some time later she went into the port of Dutch Harbor. Looking closer on that chart you mentioned I see it shows an area called ‘abandoned cable area’. Maybe there’s a bit more abandoned things there than just cables then …
[QUOTE=Nav_Arch;165155]Tonnage most certainly [U]is not[/U] the same as displacement. Tonnage is used to calculate taxes, whereas displacement and lightship refer to actual weights.
Lightship as documented by the owner is 7935 Metric Tons.
http://www.arctia.fi/files/laivaesittelyt/FENNICA_LAIVAKORTTI.pdf[/QUOTE]
How is this a “useful post”?
The question asked about the capacity of the Seward synchrolift and the response was 5000 tons. That is how many tons it can lift. Someone else stated the lightship tonnage which is displacement or actual weight of the ship “… complete in all respects, but without consumables, stores, cargo, crew and effects, and without any liquids on board except that machinery and system fluids, such as lubricants and hydraulics, are at their normal operating levels” is 7935 tonnes.
Since the term “lightship” was used by everyone it should be obvious to even a NA that the people posting know the difference between tonnage definitions. Geez, what a way to make a first post … read the preceding posts first Mr. Nav_Arch
[QUOTE=Tups;165205]According to this article, the holed tank is “Port No. 4” ballast tank which is a double bottom tank.[/QUOTE]
This story is calling it a crack or a fracture. in the hull.
The first story posted said that the damage was discovered while leaving port. The ADN story said the damage [U]occurred[/U] while leaving port. That may have been an assumption on the reporters part. This third story is saying that the crew discoved water entering the ballast tank and that divers found the damage.
I wonder why the crew checked the ballast sounding? Did they think they hit something?
Not yet clear when the damage occurred.
Arctia Offshore reported the following:
Fennica was sailing on Unalaska Bay when she had an underwater hull damage by currently unknown reason.
When a leak in one of her ballast tanks was spotted, the vessel immediately returned to Dutch Harbor.
Considering that they have sent a hydrographic survey vessel to look for something in the seafloor, I’m assuming they are fairly certain that the damage is caused by an external factor such as allision with an underwater obstacle and not, say, fatigue damage or a bad weld. Of course, it could be that the damage has occurred earlier but it wasn’t until now that it started leaking. Of course, that can be ruled out by looking at the level of corrosion around the damage.
[QUOTE=Tups;165212]Arctia Offshore reported the following:
Considering that they have sent a hydrographic survey vessel to look for something in the seafloor, I’m assuming they are fairly certain that the damage is caused by an external factor such as allision with an underwater obstacle and not, say, fatigue damage or a bad weld. Of course, it could be that the damage has occurred earlier but it wasn’t until now that it started leaking. Of course, that can be ruled out by looking at the level of corrosion around the damage.[/QUOTE]
I have been warned to stay in well traveled areas and not to “test the charts” in Alaskan waters. On the other hand there’s the “if there was anything there someone would have hit it already” theory.
We will likely get more info soon. Doesn’t seem likely that depths east of Hog Island are much different then what’s marked on the charts but maybe there is not much traffic there. Not very familar west of Dutch.
EDIT: Looking at the chart again, the source of the chart soundings in that area is “B4 1900 - 1939 NOS Surveys partial bottom coverage”
That would indicate a requirment for increased UKC
[QUOTE=Kennebec Captain;165213]…
EDIT: Looking at the chart again, the source of the chart soundings in that area is “B4 1900 - 1939 NOS Surveys partial bottom coverage”
That would indicate a requirment for increased UKC[/QUOTE]
If so, you would think that a local pilot would be aware of that and not ‘test the charts’, no?