[QUOTE=Drill Bill;165218]If so, you would think that a local pilot would be aware of that and not ‘test the charts’, no?[/QUOTE]
Depends on the specifics, if it was local practice to transit the area with a 10 foot UKC (depending on tide and swell) AND the vessel didn’t stray from the track I’d think not too much blame on the pilot or crew. If they strayed off track and neither the pilot or crew noticed the pilot would be at fault as would be the crew but the crew to a lesser degree.
It’s sometimes tough for the crew if they don’t know the pilots or the area Having a formal voyage plan with UKCs for the track and no-go areas helps, but easier said then done.
The U.S. Coast Guard announced Thursday that hydrographic surveyors discovered a previously uncharted shoal in the area where a key ice-handling ship for Shell’s Arctic drilling program was gouged last Friday.
But the Coast Guard is not yet saying exactly what gashed the Fennica’s hull.
The ship was headed to the Chukchi Sea drilling grounds to assist in the company’s controversial efforts to seek oil there, but was forced to return to Dutch Harbor after the crew realized the ship had been damaged and found a leak in the ballast tank.
Coast Guard investigators are not saying the shoal is the cause of the gouging, said Petty Officer Shawn Eggert, a USCG spokesman.
“They are not putting two and two together yet to determine what’s the cause of the fracture,” he said.
Shell said the breach in the 380-foot-long Finnish vessel – tasked with deploying the capping stack designed to stop an oil spill – is about 39 inches long and about 2 inches wide.
Eggert said a notice has been sent to mariners about the shoal. The area was hydrographically surveyed Wednesday by a small boat from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration survey vessel Fairweather, coincidentally docked in Dutch Harbor on a break from surveying in Western Alaska.
The Coast Guard called the Alaska Marine Pilots group based in Dutch Harbor late Wednesday to provide some information about the shoal, said Rick Entenmann, president of the group’s Western Alaska region.
A sea depth that was supposed to be about 45 feet in that area is now 21 feet shallower than previously thought, he said.
“It’s a frightening realization,” he said.
Ships commonly traverse the area east of Hog Island near Dutch Harbor without incident, he said.
He just watched one traveling “dead center” over the spot where the damage is believed to have occurred. But it was a fishing vessel probably drawing about 12 feet of water, so it was able to clear the hurdle no problem, he said.
The Fennica’s draft is listed at 27 feet.
The shoal may have been overlooked in past surveys in part because surveying technology and techniques weren’t as good as they are today, Entenmann said.
“It’s amazing we haven’t had this done before but sometimes it takes an incident for them to say let’s check other areas,” he said.
What exactly caused the tear is unknown, said Entenmann.
“It could have been a sharp rock, an anchor with barnacles on it, who knows,” he said.
Shell has filed a repair plan that the Coast Guard must approve, Eggert said. A review of that plan is underway.
Dan Magone, of ship repair company Resolve-Magone Marine Services in Dutch Harbor, where the Fennica now awaits repairs, said the gash is an easy fix.
It’s a common problem for ships in the area, he said.
“It’s a minor deal. It’s only major because of the oversight and bureaucracy involved. It would have already been gone from here if not for that,” he said.
Alaska Charts Dangerously Outdated According To NOAA
August 4, 2012 by gCaptain
“Much of Alaska’s coastal area has never had full bottom surveys to measure water depths,” according to Cmdr. James Crocker, commanding officer of the NOAA Ship Fairweather upon embarking on a 30-day survey mission to the Arctic this week. “A tanker, carrying millions of gallons of oil, should not be asked to rely on measurements gathered in the 19th century. Unfortunately, that’s exactly what navigators have to do.”
The Fairweather survey of sea lanes that were last measured by Captain James Cook in 1778 will collect much needed information about changes to the coastline but mariners hoping to use the new information might have to wait. According to NOAA the survey will not result in immediate chart updates rather, it will “collect needed information to determine NOAA’s future charting projects”.
Considering the size of the job at hand, over 2,000 nautical miles of bitterly cold shoreline, one might ask if a single NOAA ship is enough to handle the task…
[B]
According to Phil Parsons, a mariner working out of Dutch Harbor, “Shared pencil mark lines shared by some fishing boat captains are considered more accurate than many of NOAA’s regional charts. Working near the coast is especially dangerous up north.”[/B]
Many of today’s Alaskan coastal nautical charts, created by NOAA’s Office of Coast Survey, use sporadic depth readings reported by private vessels, some decades or centuries old. Those vessels lacked the ability to report their exact positions to enable them to gather data accurate enough to ensure quality measurements.
NOAA Ship Fairweather is part of the NOAA fleet of ships and aircraft operated, managed and maintained by NOAA’s Office of Marine and Aviation Operations, which includes both civilians and the commissioned officers of the NOAA Corps, one of the seven uniformed services of the United States. The ship is homeported in Ketchikan, Alaska.
Looks like they ran over a charted 5 1/4 fathom spot 30.5 feet when drawing 28 feet?
The MSV Fennica (Tom Doyle/Flickr)
WASHINGTON — New marine tracking data shows a Shell-contracted icebreaker may have crossed through shallow waters that offered little clearance between the vessel’s bottom and the ocean floor before a 3-foot hole was discovered in its hull.
The Automatic Identification System data — location information captured every minute from the MSV Fennica — shows its July 3 route away from the Alaska Port of Dutch Harbor before a leak identified by a marine pilot and other crew onboard the icebreaker forced it to turn back.
When that AIS tracking data is overlaid over navigational charts of the area — which date back decades — it appears the Fennica crossed through waters with charted depths of as little as 31.5 feet. While an additional 3 feet may have been gained by high tide at the time, that would give the Fennica potentially scant clearance over some of the rocky shoal in those waters, because it drafts at the Fennica’s recorded draft is 27 feet, giving it potentially scant clearance over some of the rocky shoal.
It appears likely the Fennica was gouged when it traveled near a previously uncharted rocky shoal that was documented by a government survey ship on Wednesday and the subject of an alert to mariners a day later.
But conservation group Oceana, which conducted the analysis, said it suggests Shell’s contracted icebreaker still took a riskier path instead of a deeper alternative route around nearby Hog Island, as it trekked toward proposed drilling sites in the Arctic Ocean.
“There are safer, more precautionary ways for them to go,” said Chris Krenz, a senior scientist and Arctic campaign manager for the group. “The Fennica could have easily traveled along a much safer route instead of going over a shallow, rocky shoal in an area that (already) is not well charted.”
“This is risk-prone behavior, not risk-averse behavior,” Krenz said.
Krenz said it revived memories of the Dec. 31, 2012 grounding of the Kulluk, a Shell-owned drilling rig that ran aground on a rocky Alaska island after the company tried towing it across the stormy Gulf of Alaska. After investigations, the Coast Guard and National Transportation Safety Board rapped Shell for failing to adequately assess the risks of the tow job.
More granular ship position detail was not immediately available Friday from Shell or Arctia, the Finnish company that owns the Fennica.
But a Shell spokesman on Monday said the Fennica’s planned route kept it in charted depths of at least 42 feet.
And Rick Entenmann, president of the Alaska Marine Pilots’ Western Alaska region, said the Fennica’s path kept it in charted depths of 7 1/2 to 10 fathoms of water — roughly 45 to 60 feet.
“The vessel would have had at least 10 feet under the keel,” Entenmann said. “Plus, we had a 3-foot tide.”
The Fennica is one of two ice-management vessels in Shell’s Arctic fleet.
Arctia and Shell are developing a repair plan that must be approved by the classification society Det Norske Veritas. The Coast Guard can review and offer its input into the repair plan.
The work could be done at the Fennica’s current location, in Dutch Harbor. The founder of a local repair company has suggested that the work is relatively straightforward.
But if more extensive work is needed, it could require moving the Fennica to a dry dock, a potentially time-consuming operation.
Shell has asked regulators for permission to drill two wells at its Burger prospect in the Chukchi Sea, about 70 miles off Alaska’s coastline. The Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement is reviewing the company’s applications for permits to drill. Other key federal approvals have already been issued.
Here is the AIS data over the chart.
I can’t think why they couldn’t have run around the the west side of the island, pleanty of water.
Doesn’t take much longer. Why risk it with those charts. That area was surveyed by NOS “partial” bottom coverage from 1900-1939. I know a lot of boats use that side, and I’m not sure how long they’ve been in and out of Captain’s Bay, but that doesn’t seem smart to me.
I don’t understand that AIS track. Did they run over that ridge three times?
Looks like the orginal survey missed a high spot on the ridge. But the track also passes close to a 3 1/4 fathom spot as well. What was the point of doing that? Looks like they got screwed by the pilot but they never should have agreed to the plan if they even had one.
If this is their A game they’re fucked up. I don’t think Shell knows how to run a tight program.
This guy is blowing smoke too.
The Coast Guard called the Alaska Marine Pilots group based in Dutch Harbor late Wednesday to provide some information about the shoal, said Rick Entenmann, president of the group’s Western Alaska region.
A sea depth that was supposed to be about 45 feet in that area is now 21 feet shallower than previously thought, he said.
Its not a 24 foot error, just looks like the orginal survey missed one of the high points on that ridge. That’s to be expected in those old surverys.
Been through both sides of Hog Island many times. The chart is deffinitely not 100% accurate, as with the rest of Alaska. Not sure why they would take the risker east side over the west just to save 30 minutes. Really surprised the pilot chose that route…
I doubt very many oil field vessels have sonar, but it would be an invaluable tool for transits in unfamiliar and poorly marked areas. Underwater channels and pinnacles are easy to see with sonar. Have used a scan from beam to beam with the tilt at 0 - 10 degrees - increasing range with increased depth. Navigation with gps and by sonar in the Arctic and most of Alaska is exactly a perfect fit for covering new ground. Most installations will come with an instructor for new users.
They were pretty lucky that the Aquamasters were not damaged when the vessel went over that shoal. There’s only one spare unit, it’s on the other side of the world, and it cannot be changed underwater…
I don’t understand why these large vessels are so fixated with the east side of Hog Island. This is also where the NOBLE DISCOVERER dragged anchor and ended up aground. It’s a blow hole with plenty of foul ground and planes landing and taking off close overhead. Why go in there.
Why would they travel that far and long to work in such a remote region and not take such a key spare unit with them from Finland?? Doesn’t sound like the thorough northern planning and preps we know from the Finnish.
[QUOTE=tugsailor;165334]I don’t understand why these large vessels are so fixated with the east side of Hog Island. This is also where the NOBLE DISCOVERER dragged anchor and ended up aground. It’s a blow hole with plenty of foul ground and planes landing and taking off close overhead. Why go in there.
The pilot really screwed up.[/QUOTE]
Likely the reason they’re going back in that dog hole and the reason they are transiting over that poorly charted reef with the kelp beds is because they are relying on the advice of the pilots. If that’s the case then the pilots are giving bad advice.
Many pilots believe it’s ok to stick a big ship in some little rocky bottom dog-hole with no room if you just run out a couple more shots. It’s bullshit but they all seem to believe it. I posted about it here.
If you want to play around on big ships with high stakes and thin margins the old eyeball and intuition are not sufficient.
39" huh? I guess it’s possible a guy could be on watch down there and miss feeling it but jeez!! isn’t the steel on those things thicker than most ships? the #4 ballast tank is outboard so their first indication of problem was probably a list as I doubt even the newest ships have TLI in a ballast tank and whos looking at that anyway?
I’m sure NOAA’s other ‘beer barge’ will make a great job of it though it may be a while b4 we have usable info.
[QUOTE=commtuna;165329]Been through both sides of Hog Island many times. The chart is deffinitely not 100% accurate, as with the rest of Alaska. Not sure why they would take the risker east side over the west just to save 30 minutes. Really surprised the pilot chose that route…[/QUOTE]
Don’t recall ever going through there but I agree.
There is a limit to how much information will fit on the chart and a lot of thought has gone into what to put on and what to leave off based on hundereds of years of experience. The fact that chart markers see fit to put the source diagram on should tell us something. A larger margin of error is required to transit areas using older surverys unless the navigator has reliable local knowledge.
Another point is the crew has to be able to protect the vessel from bad pilots. It’s just another hazard that has to be dealt with.
Don’t know what the practice is on this type of vessel but they should have had a track-line laid out and evaluated for UKC, nearby hazards etc. Lots of hot-shit pilots out there that don’t have time for it and think it’s all nonsense however.
I was involved in a conversation with one of the ex-skippers of the Miller Freeman about their grounding way back when. They were headed into Three Saints Bay (SE Kodiak Is.) with the centerboard down. They ran over a pinnacle that comes off the headland just to the NW of Black Pt (if I remember the details correctly). I can’t remember why they had the centerboard down (adds about 9’), but he said something about how he chose to go over the pinnacle cause he knew the shallowest spots were the most accurate soundings. For some reason that stuck in my head, and I couldn’t quite understand his reasoning. He was a legacy hydro-sailor. Anyway, in the end they fucked up the centerboard big time.
[QUOTE=Drill Bill;165341]Why would they travel that far and long to work in such a remote region and not take such a key spare unit with them from Finland?? Doesn’t sound like the thorough northern planning and preps we know from the Finnish.[/QUOTE]
Those units weigh 177 tons each and there are no provisions to change them anywhere but in a dry dock. If they ran aground so hard that the propulsion units would require replacement, the damage would be so extensive that replacing one propulsion unit would be the least of their problems…
yes which makes sense in many cases but on some boats it’s not practical. It all depends how deep in the hull the drives are and how heavy they are in relation to the rest of the boat. Boats like yours are definitely advantaged by having that capability.