I love General Average incidents and their adjustments. But is this a GA? No cargo was thrown overboard to save the ship/cargo, etc. And the ship wasn’t even lost. Only deck cargo fell overboard or was damaged onboard. So there is no General Average. Cargo underwriters must just pay the cargo owners losses. The cargo underwriters can sue the shipowner if they want. Why? And the shipowner. He has lost nothing. Only his reputation.
More on the One Apus loss and possible remedies:
Pile ‘em high, and take the chance in a percentage game.
The ONE shipping company could, or rather will, rely on its liability limitation. For instance in the case of the MSC Zoe they were in any case liable for almost € 90 million for the damage caused by the “MSC Zoe” incident. Here the liability limitation will be higher.
The liability limit of a ship depends on the size of the ship. A certain number of units is allocated per ton, expressed in Special Drawing Rights. The first 2,000 tonnes of a ship are the most heavily taxed and an ever-lower tax is charged for all subsequent tonnes. The Special Drawing Rights can be converted into an amount in euros and thus form the limit from which ONE could limit itself.
1 Like
No, it doesn’t work like that. In this case the ship is undamaged and no H&M insurance is involved. Some deck cargo was lost overboard a dark night. It is paid for by cargo underwriters/insurances as part of the freight. So no General Average. Only cargo insurances must pay for cargo lost. I doubt they will sue the shipowner and its P&I insurance for the losses, even if the ship was not seaworthy and sailing at too high speed in severe weather (which happens all the time).
Topic is why did this stupid incident occur. Answer is, IMHO, that ships get bigger, the crews get smaller and that everybody does not understand the risks involved due to changed circumstances. So this type of new incidents will occur again.
1 Like
By the look of the containers pushed over to the starboard side of the ship it was hit on the port side by an enormous wave or group of higher waves, like the MSC Zoe.
If we add to the weight of about 4 tons of a 40 foot container the average cargo weight of 6 tons we have a total of 10 tons per container. I took a modest weight of 6 tons because these are usually stored highest in the stack. The total weight lost is then 19.000 tons of cargo high above the deck. Loosing that enormous weight could be the reason that this prevented the ship to capsize. Just a thought.
Given that the Zoe threw off boxes with a 15 degree, high g roll it looks like these ULCS can lose boxes long before they reach a dangerous degree of roll.
So it looks like. It needs a better understanding of the different force which are at play assuming that the containers were correctly lashed.
When rolling, the combined effect of pitch and roll significantly increase loads on the containers and the securing system. Also the gravity kicks in when the ship is heeling. The large roll motions generate high transverse (across-the-deck) accelerations. Simultaneously, large pitch motions introduce significant vertical (normal- to-deck) accelerations on the container stacks towards the bow and stern.
Ships only capsize when they lose buoyancy forces below waterline, e.g. because of leakages of the hull or similar (free water) reducing stability. Ships do not capsize due external wave or cargo loads suddenly applied from outside. In this case deck cargo was shifted to starboard or lost, so the only effect could be increased stability but a starboard heel as shown on the photo. The ship listed >5°. The officer on watch woke up and called the Master. They ballasted the ship upright and returned to Kobe. Nobody got injured. Question remains why 1800 FEUs displaced to starboard. I think the ship was going much too fast in the weather. The officer on the watch didn’t understand the risks.
Assuming this is correct.
The update said weather at the time was reported as wind force 4 on the Beaufort Wind Scale, corresponding to 13-18 mph winds, with north-westerly seas of 5 to 6 meters and a “long high swell”.
And given this:
It is possible that the swell was a set from the 958 low pressure system? Swells that were not captured by either the forecast or the analysis?
There were other ships reporting nearby. Did they experience any like the One Apus?
3 Likes
I’m interested regarding the salvors are weighing each containers actual weight compared to what was reported/documented. At least they are looking at most angles. Most are rightly looking at speed and course, but proper loading/lashing by weights is crucial…That has been discussed on this site before. Regarding high swells from an area you are not in is entirely possible as well. Would be interested in what other vessels were reporting near them, but lack of info where they were at leaves more questions than answers.
In February 2019, ONE Helsinki Bridge loses several containers, in October 2020, ONE Aquila loses 100 containers and a month later ONE Apus loses 1900 containers.
You have to wonder if this is just bad luck or a systemic issue with this company.
3 Likes
Post #86
33°15’N, 172°35’E — at November 30, 11:32 UTC
Marked by the little black dot.
Now we will see where the real money is made. Different jurisdictions for arbitration. Legal eagles will be queuing to be involved.
The ship owner will only release the stowage plan, lashing plan, log books and other documentation and the VDR records after they have been throughly vetted by their own team.
Flag state a mildly interested spectator.
The weather routing company and stevedores in full CYA mode. The latter waving a piece of paper stating that the mate had certified that the lashing were satisfactorily fitted according to the lashing plan.
The classifications society justifying their calculations.
The loss adjusters and their legal team.
The insurers.
The cargo owners.
Court Room? They need a football stadium and their is a few available at the moment.
3 Likes
I see two of the DG’s lost were liquid ethanol. Suntory whisky?
It’s not a single company, a joint venture between “K” LIne, MOL; and NYK.
The incident took place about 30 Nov 1200 hrs UTC but there’s no sea state analysis for that time. Only 12 hrs before or after. But the seas increased significantly in that time span,
12 hrs before - about 4 meters
12 hrs later:- EDIT, looks like I read the wrong position, more like the 6 meters the ship was reporting.
…only empty bottles !
The crew has no idea where and how the content could have disappeared…
Used to work well back in the day with shopping by hatch brothers. If you can find any old timers like me who haven’t died with cirrhosis of the liver and ask them about shipping whisky from Scotland to the US before containers.
A mate of mine once observed the Master turn around to the Mate and ask him why the crowd had the same taste in overcoats as a group of them went down the gangway on their way ashore. 
1 Like
So I have a question - I see y’all saying the containers went over the starboard side, but in looking at this picture,it seems to me that the stack closest to the camera, the fourth stack and the sixth and seventh going aft went over the starboard side while the others went to port. I suspect the actual situation is more complex, but it isn’t readily apparent in the picture from that angle. I’m not sure it makes any real difference, but it might indicate a series of waves, not one single large one that brought disaster.
I realize that one stack breaking loose probably adversely affects the adjacent stacks, so the whole sequence might have been quite complicated.
1 Like
