Any knucklehead can sit on the shoreline and watch the 99.9999999% of freighters and fishing boats transit the west side. Guess they all dont like to risk a little bit…bunch of pu$$ies…
As far as Hog Island, yes that problem has been identified. What lurks along the Arctic coastline, any alternative route offering shelter if needed or new ground the company finds suitable for pax/supply transfer is, at this time, all going to take place based on numbers on a chart. My point is that even in better charted Alaskan waters, there remains uncharted rocks and soundings inconsistent with what is recorded on these charts.
[QUOTE=z-drive;165453]Why this many years into this operation are there not US vessels performing these duties for shell rather than a foreign vessel? Not Aiviq, but a capable vessel with a capable crew?
I can see the first year but no reason a vessel couldn’t have been built by now.[/QUOTE]
Has anyone heard anything of those two polar class AHTS vessels Edison Chouest is supposedly building? According to the gCaptain article, the first vessel will be delivered in Q4/2016.
http://gcaptain.com/edison-chouest-build-polar-anchor-handler-rolls-royce-wins-propulsion-contract
I would assume that vessel operators have been reluctant to build such expensive and specialized ships because the future of oil production in the Arctic is still somewhat uncertain. If Shell succeeds, Jones Act compliant vessels are definitely needed and, since the current waiver expires in 2017, companies with polar class hulls already in the water are in the best position to bid for contracts. However, if Shell fails, those ships would need to find work elsewhere in the Arctic as they are not competitive against purpose-built open water ships. This has been proven time and again with Fennica and Nordica - the charter for Shell in Alaska is probably the first time they are making money out of their “summer jobs”.
What happened, relying on a pilot that turned out to be bad, is as obvious as it is unfortunate, but let’s not extrapolate it too far forward.
This was Not really a Shell operations screw up.
Shell can still have a successful drilling season, with or without FENNICA. Let’s hope they do.
…[QUOTE=tugsailor;165477]What happened, relying on a pilot that turned out to be bad, is as obvious as it is unfortunate, but let’s not extrapolate it too far forward.
This was Not really a Shell operations screw up.
Shell can still have a successful drilling season, with or without FENNICA. Let’s hope they do.[/QUOTE]
Within limits charterers can exert as much or as little control over the vessels they are paying for as they wish. Some charterers only care about the conditon of the cargo and that notice of readiness is tended on time. However others can control up to the point they can have masters and chiefs fired. They also can audit the vessel to check that approved procedures are in place and documented properly.
When I was under charter to MSC they didn’t dig too deep but if you had problems they would find out what they were and what you were doing to correct.
We got a glimpse into Shell’s operation when they gave the Aiviq / Kullluk a voyage plan that was a cut and paste job of the tow done that summer. Also when the surveryor told Shell that the Gulf of Alaska had up to 10 meters seas in winter and said the tow was a no-go Shell simply hired another surveyor. That’s not a company that pays attention to marine operations.
The case of the Fennica is a tough one if in fact it was the pilot, however an audit of their navigation process might have turned up problems.
A requirement of a UKC of 50% of draft is not unusual. That would have have been 7 fathoms for the Fennica. That would just have fallen short in this case because of the tide. A no-go area might have kept them further from that 5+ fathom spot.
Of course there is limit to what can be done. A requirement that they stay outside (or take extra precautions when inside) the 10 fathom curve near navigation hazards for routine voyages if safe operatons permit seems like an overreach but it would have kept them safe.
Marking those shoals off as a no-go area prior to the pilots arrival might have trigged a stronger reaction from the captain when the pilot proposed that route.
This is a NOAA site but it’s taken from Bowditchregarding soundings.
Shoal areas often are given a blue tint.
On chart 16528 the areas with blue tint are considered a “shoal area” which of course contains shoals. The shoal the FENNICA struck is charted contrary to what the pilots are saying and the media is repeating.
Again from Bowditch:
The limits of shoal water indicated on the chart may be in error, and nearby areas of undetected shallow water may not be included on the chart. Given this possibility, areas where shoal water is known to exist should be avoided. If the navigator must enter an area containing shoals, he must exercise extreme caution in avoiding shallow areas which may have escaped detection. By constructing a “safety range” around known shoals and ensuring his vessel does not approach the shoal any closer than the safety range, the navigator can increase his chances of successfully navigating through shoal water. Constant use of the echo sounder is also important.
If the FENNICA had a good reasons to navigate in shoal waters likely we’d of heard it already. They could have left that anchorage while avoiding shoal waters.
there we have it. Fennica out of the game. For a while at least.
Shell-contracted icebreaker to get repairs in Oregon
Posted on July 13, 2015 | By Jennifer A. Dlouhy
WASHINGTON — A damaged icebreaker that is critical to Shell’s Arctic drilling campaign will head to Portland, Oregon, for repairs, the company said Monday.
The decision to stitch up a meter-long gash in the MSV Fennica at a Vigor Industrial shipyard in Oregon, rather than on site in Dutch Harbor, Alaska, is another setback for Shell, which is still hoping to launch drilling in the Chukchi Sea later this month.
“While we believe interim repairs could be made in Dutch Harbor, our preference is to pursue a conservative course and send it to a shipyard where a permanent fix can be performed,” Shell spokesman Curtis Smith said. “We do not anticipate any impact on our season, as we don’t expect to require the vessel until August.”
A hole was discovered in the hull of the Fennica on July 3, soon after it departed the Alaska port of Dutch Harbor for the Chukchi Sea.
The Finnish vessel, owned by Arctia Offshore, is one of two icebreakers in Shell’s Arctic fleet, but the Fennica is unique in that it holds a capping stack designed to fit over a damaged well in an emergency.
When similar containment equipment was damaged and unable to safeguard Shell’s 2012 Arctic drilling operations, federal regulators allowed the company to do initial work on its planned wells and bore roughly 1,300-foot “top holes” at the sites, But Shell was barred from penetrating deeper, into zones that could hold oil and gas.
The company is seeking to follow a similar path this year, since the Fennica repair could sideline it for several weeks. Just the trip to Portland — and back to Dutch Harbor — could take eight to 10 days.
If regulators agree, Shell would be able to build the foundation of one of its planned Chukchi Sea wells, beginning by excavating a 20-foot by 40-foot hole in the seabed to accommodate a critical emergency device known as the blowout preventer.
Although Shell has contracted the Fennica for its Arctic drilling program this summer, the icebreaker is expected to go back to work in ice-clogged waters near Helsinki later this year. That mission may have factored in the decision by Arctia, maritime classification society Det Norske Veritas and Shell to pursue permanent repairs with specialized steel in a dry dock, instead of a swifter, but temporary, patch in Dutch Harbor.
http://fuelfix.com/blog/2015/07/13/shell-contracted-icebreaker-to-get-repairs-in-oregon/#33766101=0
Friendly reminder to reach out to your congressman. NOAA only has two survey vessels on the west coast, both nearing 50 years of service and both getting limited sea days. [I]Fairweather[/I] and [I]Rainier[/I] are working hard to get full multibeam coverage in as many of the high traffic and predicated high traffic areas as they can but they’re no [I]Surveyor[/I] they’re limited in how long they can stay out and how much they can accomplish and they’re at the end of their lives.
While you’re asking congress what their plan for continued survey is you can also ask them why a Dutch company is taking a huge safety gamble while drilling in our oil field and using foreign crews and foreign ships. I can’t seem to find any clear guidance on who in the US benefits from this at all. Plenty of negative impacts though.
[QUOTE=SgiobairOg;165557]Friendly reminder to reach out to your congressman. NOAA only has two survey vessels on the west coast, both nearing 50 years of service and both getting limited sea days. [I]Fairweather[/I] and [I]Rainier[/I] are working hard to get full multibeam coverage in as many of the high traffic and predicated high traffic areas as they can but they’re no [I]Surveyor[/I] they’re limited in how long they can stay out and how much they can accomplish and they’re at the end of their lives.
While you’re asking congress what their plan for continued survey is you can also ask them why a Dutch company is taking a huge safety gamble while drilling in our oil field and using foreign crews and foreign ships. I can’t seem to find any clear guidance on who in the US benefits from this at all. Plenty of negative impacts though.[/QUOTE]
I agree the drilling in the Arctic has a poor risk/reward ratio.
It’s also intresting that we need to spend taxpayer money to survey so foreign vessels with foreign crew can take shortcuts saving 30 minutes of a 1000 mile voyage.
[QUOTE=SgiobairOg;165557]Friendly reminder to reach out to your congressman. NOAA only has two survey vessels on the west coast, both nearing 50 years of service and both getting limited sea days. [I]Fairweather[/I] and [I]Rainier[/I] are working hard to get full multibeam coverage in as many of the high traffic and predicated high traffic areas as they can but they’re no [I]Surveyor[/I] they’re limited in how long they can stay out and how much they can accomplish and they’re at the end of their lives.
While you’re asking congress what their plan for continued survey is you can also ask them why a Dutch company is taking a huge safety gamble while drilling in our oil field and using foreign crews and foreign ships. I can’t seem to find any clear guidance on who in the US benefits from this at all. Plenty of negative impacts though.[/QUOTE]
The fisheries ships can also perform survey work, but they have their limitations. Doing survey work also takes away from fisheries work which has to be done at certain times and locations depending on the species being monitored. There really is a need for a next generation survey ship and I have heard nothing about plans for one. That’s scary. Almost as scary as Shell running around up there.
Hats off to the Fairweather. My friends there tell me they’ve found and mapped a good number of underwater obstructions and artifacts that will be added to the updated charts.
As far as who benefits? Always follow the money, and you’ll learn who benefits.
[QUOTE=Kennebec Captain;165562]I agree the drilling in the Arctic has a poor risk/reward ratio.
It’s also intresting that we need to spend taxpayer money to survey so foreign vessels with foreign crew can take shortcuts saving 30 minutes of a 1000 mile voyage.[/QUOTE]
not to mention all the (maybe slightly exaggerated) security & protection services Shell’s fleet receives from the US Coast Guard. All taxpayers money.
Unless they got hired by Shell for private security services.
[QUOTE=Kennebec Captain;165562]I agree the drilling in the Arctic has a poor risk/reward ratio.
It’s also intresting that we need to spend taxpayer money to survey so foreign vessels with foreign crew can take shortcuts saving 30 minutes of a 1000 mile voyage.[/QUOTE]
Yes, I agree…I have a visceral objection to both my tax dollars and the efforts of my colleagues going toward the enrichment of a foreign entity. It just strikes me as plain damned wrong. Seems to me that we are helping foreign entities pillage our resources. Would any foreign nation give us this kind of leeway? I doubt it.
Shall we just bend over and get it over with?
I write my congress critter from time to time about various matters concerning our industry. Perhaps it’s time for another letter.
-
-
- Updated - - -
-
[QUOTE=Drill Bill;165605]not to mention all the (maybe slightly exaggerated) security & protection services Shell’s fleet receives from the US Coast Guard. All taxpayers money.
Unless they got hired by Shell for private security services.[/QUOTE]
It’s loathsome. No gov entity should be serving foreign concerns. The more I think of this, the angrier I get and the more I want to leave you know who. The US should not be for sale to the highest (or lowest) bidder.
The very reason Trump is scoring points. Washington DC is for sale, has been and will continue to be.
I do not feel good about the agency performing mapping for the express benefit of Royal Dutch Shell. And what it boils down to, is that this is mapping for Shell. No, we would not return to an area to map unless there is heavy duty political pressure- you can wager on that one!
This is not a slam to my friends and colleagues on FA. They do good work.
Time to write another letter to my congress critter.
My opinion only; not that of any other individual or organization.
Following the link provided by Drill Bill at #71 I see they still don’t know what the FENNICA hit.
The ship carrying the capping stack got a lesson in the hazards of the Arctic just outside Dutch Harbor July 3, when its hull was cracked. Presumably, the Finnish-owned icebreaker Fennica hit an uncharted object. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration was surveying nearby and was able to check out the Fennica’s route. NOAA found areas that were shallower than charted, but senior Arctic advisor Dave Kennedy says it’s still not clear what the Fennica hit.
“They’re still analyzing the data but the preliminary report is there is nothing obvious that they could find that would indicate something that should have been an obstacle there,” Kennedy said.
A Shell spokesman says the Fennica will be repaired temporarily in Dutch Harbor then set out for Oregon for permanent repair. Shell says the mishap won’t delay the Chukchi Sea operation because the capping stack isn’t needed until August.
What’s up with that I wonder? I assume they are using multi-beam survey equipment.
[QUOTE=Kennebec Captain;165622]Following the link provided by Drill Bill at #71 I see they still don’t know what the FENNICA hit.
What’s up with that I wonder? I assume they are using multi-beam survey equipment.[/QUOTE]
Now even former USCG Adm. Papp seems to have an opinion about it:
[I]Admiral Robert Papp, a former head of the Coast Guard, says the Fennica might have hit something like an underwater spire, a natural structure he says would be hard for surveyors to spot.[/I]
The AIS data came from SkyTruth. Their Facebook page is here. Seems like they are saying that some of the AIS tracks we are looking at are from trips on previous days.
On Friday we worked with Oceana to help them track the movements of the Fennica, Shell’s icebreaker that suffered a 3-foot-long gash in the hull and had to return to port on July 3. Oceana argues that Fennica was cutting corners (literally) by running through a relatively shallow channel on the east side of Hog Island, rather than using deeper waters on the west side of the island.
We’re curious about two brief excursions to the north, made by the Fennica on June 29 and July2, that repeatedly took it through these relatively shallow waters. We’d love to know why they made these short out-and-back trips. AIS data courtesy exactEarth/Shipview.
I can’t make sense of the tracks and you can’t zoom in. Don’t know if the AIS tracks are correct or not. I’d like to see better AIS info. Why are the pilots claiming the vessel was in 42 feet of water?
Not sure what type of equipment would miss a spire, but twenty years ago I could see a buoy, it’s chain attached to the bottom, a lost seven x king crab pot, a sunken scalloper and mast in Sitka harbor, all channels and pinnacles ahead and full circle around the vessel with a Wesmar 260SS. In Manuel mode I could follow a whale from the surface on a vertical dive until he was 300 feet plus. There, I’m done.
[QUOTE=lm1883;165637]Calling it poor seamanship is a pretty good stretch. Looking at the chart there was ample charted clearance for the vessel and this route and practice were customary for the pilots. It turns out there is an unknown obstruction that they were unlucky enough to find. Anyone one of us could wind up in that boat. If you were making an approach to Harbor X and your vessel grounded on an uncharted object would you accept any assertion from owner/office/USCG that you were negligent and lacked the ability to navigate? I think not.
The draft was 27 feet. The sounding on the chart looked like 35 feet+ (6 fathoms) + 3’ of tide. How much more under keel clearance is needed? If the Fennica had not touched an unknown object I doubt anyone would be armchair quarterbacking her route.
They had a bad day with a lot of people watching, it could happen to any of us. Let’s see what they find, then make a judgement.[/QUOTE]
If a vessel hits bottom it’s all about if it’s “testing the chart” or not. If the area is well surveyed, and/or has lots of heavy deep draft vessel traffic llittle fault would be found assuming normal UKC was being used for the conditons
However testing the charts, especialy for no good reason, in Alaska (and many other places in the world) is poor seamanship.
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.”
I think the number of large vessel that transit there is very low, there is no reason to as there is plenty of water a couple miles to the west and with less navigaion hazards to boot.
If the pilot had local knowledge and knew that the depths there were accurate then perhaps it could be argued that going through there to save a mile or two is worthwhile but in fact the pilots don’t know how much water is there.
From the AIS track the Fennica either ran over or very close to the 3.5 fm spot found by Fairweather’s survery boat. Evidently the pilots do not know what depths are that side of Hog island and are relying entirely upon the charts.
Nobody that runs in Alaska regularly will be a bit suprised by this find. Alaskan charts based on old surveys in light traffic areas cannot be trusted.
I believe it is more local knowledge to understand that chart data is unreliable in Alaska and the Pilot should have known better. Hence poor seamanship.