BS: Tanker sunk off Spain - Exxon Valdez 2?

Subject: RE: BS: Tanker sunk off Spain - Exxon Valdez 2?
From: Gareth
Date: 21 Nov 02 - 03:32 PM

Errr ! Kendal, only sealed compartments will crush. Where there are vents, such as on the bilges, cargo tanks, fuel tanks, engine room etc., the presure will be in equilibrium.

Perhaps your thinking of the crush depth of a submarine, when the intergrity of the hull is overwhelmed by the weight of water.

Virtually all parts of a cargo ship have some ventalation on them to eliminate condensation ( a major factor in corrosion ) and to allow for air pressure changes caused by atmospheric or tempreture changes.

On the other hand the force of the hull hitting the sea bed might fracture parts of the framing and plating. the machinery in the engine and pump rooms may be torn from the mountings by inertial forces when she strikes, This can destroy plating.

Gareth.

Subject: RE: BS: Tanker sunk off Spain - Exxon Valdez 2?
From: kendall
Date: 20 Nov 02 - 08:56 PM

The pressure at that depth will crush the hull like an egg shell.

Subject: RE: BS: Tanker sunk off Spain - Exxon Valdez x 2?
From: Genie
Date: 20 Nov 02 - 11:01 AM

Try "Exxon Valdez 2 squared" or at least "Exxon Valdez x 2!"

Subject: RE: BS: Tanker sunk off Spain - Exxon Valdez 2?
From: Bobert
Date: 20 Nov 02 - 10:57 AM

Now, I'll be the first that we haven't had any off shore oil spills inWes Ginny and I'll also admit that occasionally my thinkerator gets a tad fuzzy and I'll also admit that it's too late in the case but, hey, why couldn't they have just lit the oil up out there at sea and let it burn rather than spill? Heck, it was all gonna get burned anyway.

Bad idea?

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Tanker sunk off Spain - Exxon Valdez 2?
From: Gareth
Date: 20 Nov 02 - 10:45 AM

If it goes deep enough, there should not be to much leakage.

Gareth.

Subject: RE: BS: Tanker sunk off Spain - Exxon Valdez 2?
From: kendall
Date: 20 Nov 02 - 09:58 AM

Now that the republicans are in charge, all this will be fixed. They will put aside their profit motive and do what is right.

Subject: RE: BS: Tanker sunk off Spain - Exxon Valdez 2?
From: Schantieman
Date: 20 Nov 02 - 09:36 AM

There was a report on the TV news last night in which they showed Prince William Sound 13 years on. Salmon, seals etc. Nature, as they pointed out, has remarkable powers of recovery. However, they only had to turn over a stone to find a patch of (presumably bituminised) oil underneath. It's been absorbed into some of the porous rocks, I guess, and will last as long as they do - forever, virtually.

But none of this is an excuse. The ship was clearly unsuitable - single hulled - and single screw as well. I know this is standard practice on tankers (you'll never guess why - to save money) but it seems reprehensible to me. EVERYTHING should be duplicated in an ocean-going vessel. There must have been something seriously wrong with either the design or the condition of the hull to split open in a storm. Ships ought to be able to withstand what the sea can dish out!

And then, if it had been towed close inshore or even into a harbour, then the spillage would have been contained - or at least containable - and less coastline affected. Notwithstanding my previous post (before I was in full possession of the facts!) I am convinced now that this would have been the best option - especially for Spain!

When are we going to stop buggering up this world? It's the only one we've got!

Steve

>:-(

Subject: RE: BS: Tanker sunk off Spain - Exxon Valdez 2?
From: Grab
Date: 20 Nov 02 - 08:38 AM

It's fuel oil, Gareth.

Scotland got off fairly lightly with the Braer - they lucked into just the right sea conditions at just the right time. Galicia doesn't seem to be so lucky - this stuff is coming ashore already.

Graham.

Subject: RE: BS: Tanker sunk off Spain - Exxon Valdez 2?
From: Gareth
Date: 19 Nov 02 - 02:51 PM

Not having regular access to Lloyds List these days, can anybody be more precise as to what grade of oil was on the tanker. If she loaded at Latvia the odds are it would be a lighter distilate, such as Gas Oil or light bunker (fuel oil) If by chance its a heavey distilate the most expedient thing would be to send her deep, fast. The lighter elements would disperse naturally and the residue would congeal, like a heavey tar, and stay with the wreck. On the other hand when the "Braer" went ashore on the Orkneys her cargo of Light Crude dispersed naturally through the action of wind and wave. Obvious reactions are not neccessarilly the correct ones.

The actions of the Spanish Authorities in arresting the master, are not calculated to help. What master is going to risk a Mayday, or request for assistance off the Spanish Coast when he will be refused a port of refuge, and risks jail.

Unfortunately the owners will not serve any jail sentance for him.

In the past the Spanish Navy has been a little trigger happy with derelict ships. I recall one file that passed my desk some years ago, a coaster containing chemicals adrift and damaged off Barcellona in the Mediteranean was sunk by gunfire - The Dons sent the bill for the 5" Bricks to the insurers, it was not paid, and somewhere off Barcellona there is a chemical timebomb waiting to decay.

On Wolfgang's point, a Bahamas Flag of convenience is not the worst by a long way. They do have some inspection standards. That being said the sea can be cruel, and there is a whole list of well found and maintained ships lost in heavy weather - From the "Edmund Fitzgerald" downwards - "Munchen", "Neptune Saphire" the list goes on, with the fate of thier crews small paragraphs in Lloyds List.

Gareth

Subject: RE: BS: Tanker sunk off Spain - Exxon Valdez 2?
From: Wolfgang
Date: 19 Nov 02 - 02:00 PM

Everything like you would expect from a bad film: Greek owner, flag of Bahamas, and the Britsh are blamed by the Spanish (Gibraltar angle).

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Tanker sunk off Spain - Exxon Valdez 2?
From: Mudlark
Date: 19 Nov 02 - 01:52 PM

A sickening story...twice the oil contained in Valdez, and allowed to sink in 2mile deep waters where currents will carry released oil thousands of miles, rather than an attempt to contain spill in shallower water.

Subject: RE: BS: Tanker sunk off Spain - Exxon Valdez 2?
From: Schantieman
Date: 19 Nov 02 - 12:35 PM

Seems they wouldn't have got it into a dock - to contain the spillage - in time, before it broke up anyway. Towing it would have helped it break up.

Agree in principle though - people should be willing to sort out the problems that arise! Maybe if they'd taken it in as soon as it was in trouble, they could have contained the oil. As it is, there's going to be a big clean-up job and goodnes-knows how many dead animals.

Just another episode in the dependence-on-oil saga.

Grrr!

Steve

Subject: BS: Tanker sunk off Spain - Exxon Valdez 2?
From: Grab
Date: 19 Nov 02 - 12:27 PM

An oil tanker carrying 70,000 metric tons of fuel oil has just sunk off the Spanish coast. Another environmental disaster from an antiquated single-hulled oil tanker.

The irony though is that although the tanker was known to be in serious difficulties and leaking after a storm, neither Spain nor Portugal would let the tanker into their ports for repair - instead the Spanish just towed it offshore and left it:-

Spain has underlined its determination to ensure that the vessel is moved at least 190 kilometres (120 miles) from the coast and does not want it to enter a Spanish port.

"Where it goes after that is not our responsibility", an interior ministry spokesman in La Coruna told the Associated Press.

Possibly not the best decision ever made...

BBC stories here and here.

Graham.