Good one Quimby.
1 Like
Its not far from where the Benita grounded, is it? Refreshing my memory, the conditions were such that debunkering and tow-line attachment evolutions were done by helicopter, and there wasnât much environmental impact, even though the salvage ultimately failed. Was there an attempt to use helicopters this time?
yes.
There must be a lot of people scratching their heads wondering how they are going to scrap the ship.
Big ass tow wire.
They ran multiple lines of Dyneema to three AHTS to get a vessel of the beach in South Africa using a helicopter to run the lines. That could possible to get the fore part of using this method using pumps to remove ballast and compressed air where necessary.
The house and engine room may remain as a " radar conspicuous" for a few more years yet.
What went through their minds to blame bad weather when it takes 30 seconds using a search engine to find records that show the weather conditions were good.
The Panamanian flag has stepped back from its initial suggestion that the accident was likely caused by bad weather. Its latest release on the accident states that âthe ship ran aground, without the causes of the event having been determined so far, due to mechanical failure or human errorâ.
An earlier suggestion from Panamanian authorities that the newcastlemax had grounded because of bad weather on July 25 was refuted by data providers who had access to the local weather conditions on the day of the disaster.
With the aft part with the heavy machineries firmly lodged in the reef it was just a matter of time before the tides, seas and waves would force the first cracks, just before the aft part, in the hull. Remember that the lever or moment, which is distance (200 m) times force caused by water pressure, is enormous.
2 Likes
Initially it was bow first onto the reef, the bow has been sticking out of the water and looked relatively undamaged.
In period after the grounding I wonder if they kept the ship running full astern to try and keep the stern off the reef, or maybe they shut everything down and let nature take over.
Back on topic.
The Fwrd. part of Wakashio has been towed off the reef and to deep water:
And then the inevitable happen. Still only speculations though:
The crew are being questioned:
Sunil Kumar Nandeshwar, a 58-year-old Indian man, was charged with endangering safe navigation, police said. He has not yet commented.
The MV Wakashio ran aground on a coral reef, Pointe dâEsny, on 25 July while carrying 4,000 tonnes of fuel oil, causing an ecological emergency.
Pointe dâEsny is a sanctuary for rare wildlife.
- Africa Live: Updates on this and other stories
- Why the Mauritius oil spill is so serious
- Why do oil spills keep happening?
Mr Nandeshwar made an appearance in the district court in the capital Port Louis to hear the charges.
He will be held in a police cell until he returns to court on 25 August.
Police said crew members questioned as part of their investigation informed them there had been a birthday party on the ship the day it ran aground.
I doubt whether this has anything to do with the grounding except when the OOW was drunk. Did they test the crew and especially the bridge team for alcohol?
At this point my guess is alcohol was not involved.
The one puzzling detail is the report that both the captain and C/E were on the bridge yet there were missed VHF calls and obvious shortfalls in navigation.
Possibly the party was being held on the bridge? Or a part of the party? Iâve seen crews having what looked like parties on the bridge aboard anchored ships.
Hard to understand this incident without something distracting the bridge watch.
The other possibility is that the captain was called to the bridge, but what was the C/E doing up there.
A post here at an econ blog:
That post has some comments from the Splash article including this one:
â âShips do close coasts to get within cellphone range, these days, just as, thirty-odd years ago, when Mr Berlusconiâs television stations were starting to show raunchy programming, ships passing through the Mediterranean liked to get within range of Italian television, and the popularity of the radio officer improved if he were able to get and record some. And on the northern shore of the Malaysian Island known as Pulau Aur you may still find the remains of a Dutch offshore supply vessel which grounded during a New Yearâs Eve Party in the early 80s, with just an AB on the bridge.â
Here is the Splash article which was posted here that has the interesting comments:
Pulau Aur was featured in the film âSouth Pacificâ. It was use to illustrate the island Bali Hai from a distance, as it is an almost âHollywood Perfectâ tropical island with itâs conic shaped mountain and white beaches.
One of my birthday parties. That was expensive businessâŠ
Some media are saying that they were after a WiFI signal which operates on a very high 2.4 Ghz and higher frequencies with a short 10 m range. What they were after is a cell phone range which will have a considerable range depending on the antenna height ashore.
A Chief Engineer on the bridge was a rare sight unless there was pressing business of some kind so it is good to know why he was there.
5 Likes
Not only the Master but also the 1st Officer has been arrested in Mauritius:
Fwrd. part of the bulker Wakashio has been towed away. It will be sunk in deep waters off the east coast of Mauritius.
So it will be towed outside of the environment and scuttled? That the ocean remains our dumping ground is shameful.
1 Like
I mean, the front fell off. What other options are there?
2 Likes
You can see them towing it out to deeper water on marine traffic.
Just hope they have a proper weak link in the tow bridle if the bow section starts sinking before they release the tow. Worse case scenario even if they pay out the tow wire as fast as possible it might not be fast enough and the sinking bow might cause the tug to capsize.
On paper they might work out it wonât capsize, but paper calculations donât always equal reality.
If they safely release the tow they must be planning on sinking it using some kind of explosive from a airplane or naval vessel.
The bow section probably doesnât have that many pollutants in it, sinking it in in deep water probably wonât cause that much environmental damage.
1 Like
So is it not considered a prohibited discharge under MARPOL if you are discharging more than half the vessel?
If they have the ability to tow it for proper disposal (and Iâm not sure they safely could) donât they have an obligation to?