Singapore is last I read today for repairs. Have no idea how reliable that info or publisher of the article is, but sounded possible.She did get some damage however minor some may say, but it wasn’t from rocks. Stress on the hull is my feel on that subject. We will see soon enough.
Having operated ships for almost 50 years I am an expert of fixing hull leaks from the inside without dry docking. Example: you have contacted something and there is a leak in the flat, steel hull bottom plate structure. Your ship is sinking! What to do do? Easy, you temporarily reduce the inflow of water one way or other and weld a frame of flat bars around the leak with a plate on top. Then you fill the space between the flat bars and the plate with cement and … a “cement box” is created, that is stronger than the hull + the leak is eliminated. Much easier than to mess around from outside under water.
Oh wow! Is there anything you can’t do?!
If you have contacted a coral reef and got stuck, remember to knock away any coral head that protrude through the bottom plate before placing the cement box.
Easy peasy, one way or the other, right. With a big hole, but even with a small puncture, this could prove to be a bit problematic. Water is hard to stop, except if you could drape a tarpaulin over the hole from the outside.
I agree. But if you don’t stop the leak with a cement box, the cargo and equipment will be damaged, and you will sink.
I do not concur, a ship with one hole will not sink these days. I thought that you were savvy with ships. For modern ships this will not happen providing that only one cargo hold has a hole, as they are designed to survive such an eventuality. The science behind the design is complicated but simply put, the ability of a ship to survive flooding depends on the number of subdivisions in its cargo spaces. I sailed on tankers with up to 32 cargo tanks. That takes a while to sink…
Anyway, EG has passed the canal and is now heading somewhere. I think she is part loaded, i.e. not in ballast, and will head for some container hub somewhere to get rid of the boxes. ETA 17 September Qingdao, China.
Your points noted with thanks. As I do not consider myself competent to discuss all the meanders of an ancient GA rules , hence i will limit myself to share what I have read and collected/saved on the issue of GA in case of CMA CGM Libra.
One must admit it is a fascinating case. The case is not closed yet as it is flying to Supreme Court and I am quite anxious to see the final verdict/ result. However allow me to quote : York Antwerp Rules
Rights to contribution in general average shall not be affected, though the event which gave rise to the sacrifice or expenditure may have been due to the fault of one of the parties to the common maritime adventure, but this shall not prejudice any remedies or defences which may be open against or to that party in respect of such fault. END QUOTE .
The rule seems to be convenient venue not to limit GA liability by the consignee but to, may be ,recover it , if certain circumstances are met. I may be wrong of course. My apologies for sharing the relevant material so late.
CMA CGM LIBRA MR. JUSTICE TEARE.pdf (556.3 KB)
CMA CGM LIBRA negligence or incompetence.pdf (190.6 KB)
It seems EG is slow speeding back to China ETA Qingdao 18 September. At the same time I am told that freight rates are sky high … so I cannot understand the situation. I am still curious how much owners paid to get out of the Suez Canal. Any ideas?