Ship hit Astrolabe Reef, Tauranga

[Guest]

Anyone in for a deal?

[PaulR 3]

Must of had a BUY NOW as I can't find it listed to put my $1.50 Autobid in.

[Guest]

As bad is it is, I reckon in 6 months time it will be a distant memory

Don't get me wrong, it is having a massive effect on Tauranga and it's people, and I feel for those who are financially affected.

But

I believe it's like a car crash. Devastating effect on the immediate future, with much anguish and heartache.

This will last till the Oil has stopped escaping and the containers are all accounted for. 4 weeks?

Then man will come and clean up what it can (another 4 weeks), and then nature will take care of the rest.

I am not trying to make light of the situation, but just looking on the positive side.

Feel free to call me a dick, but please wait 6 months.

 

Here is a sensible link to oil spills and their management.

 

“Whether out of fear, ignorance, or apathy, government and industry partners in response seem to have failed to inform the public effectively about the realities of oil spill response:

· Spills will continue to happen.

· Oil will come ashore.

· Aggressive shoreline cleanup in sensitive areas may be the worst response option.

· Doing minimal clean up may be preferable.

 

http://robinperry.org/FromTorreyCanyontoToday.aspx

 

There is nothing the 'environmentalists' love more than a disaster. It allows them to feel important as they condemn big industry. The truth is that this is really an ecological 'disaster' of small proportions, ugly as it may be. I'm sure those who are being directly affected by this mess will not agree with me and I do have a lot sympathy for their plight.

 

The 'eco-friendly' wind generators, that the greens are so keen on, are killing thousands more birds than any oil spills ever will, but then that is not something hysterical reporters will gush about on the news.

[Guest]

The trouble is you never know who to believe. That bird thing was a new one to me so I googled it

Man-made structure/technology

 

 

Associated bird deaths per year (U.S.)

 

Feral and domestic cats

 

 

Hundreds of millions [source]

 

Power lines

 

 

130 million -- 174 million [source]

 

Windows (residential and commercial)

 

 

100 million -- 1 billion [source]

 

Pesticides

 

 

70 million [source]

 

Automobiles

 

 

60 million -- 80 million [source]

 

Lighted communication towers

 

 

40 million -- 50 million [source]

 

Wind turbines

 

 

10,000 -- 40,000 [source]

[Chewing Gum 17]

Aside from the mess what is a bit scary is how those containers are floating around the place.

I would have thought they would sink quicker than that.

The doors I think don't have watertight seals but I guess if they are full of timber they will float forever.

What is also of concern is that they fell off the ship so readily even though they had extra securing measures.

I guess the jarring on the rocks could be part of the reason.

I would have thought the list of the deck would not be a lot greater than experienced in a storm at sea.

Some of those containers were stacked seven high !!

 

I have never previously seen a floating container - has anyone else ?

[Guest]

Yes, but they didn't survive to tell anyone about it.

[Guest]

Yes, but they didn't survive to tell anyone about it.

 

Mornin' Squidly. David I DO hope that was just a joke (c/w - tounge in cheek) especially for those that view 'forums' to 'quote' what is said in here as 'gospil' Carefully there my friend.

 

? here. Why can't all the yachties - in all the forums - around the world get together & lobby our gvnmnts to ensure that all shipping is FULLY covered by insurance for when these disasters happen??

 

Collectively we (in the millions) should have a better voice than the - 'worlds greens' who really are only having an ego-titty-fitty when it comes to a balanced programe to protect the worlds oceans. IMHO - or am I just wasting my time?

 

Good thing that the 'toy-proa' is out of the water!! Ciao, james

[Guest]

Quick and simple way to protect most Hulls will be to get some big cheap trailter Tarps from Wharehouse or Supercheap and simple slid under Hull and up the otherside and let the Tarp get coated in oil. Anyone wanting a repaint shopuld just let it coat the Hull and go for Insurance

 

Another option might be to hang weights on the tarps and fix the top edge to the lifelines.

[Guest]

If you are thinking of sueing me it was a joke.

[Grinna 2]

I may be mistaken, but I seem to recall a story about a family whose yacht struck a semi-submerged container in the middle of the night and sank within a few minutes. As they were climbing into the liferaft they recorded the numbers and markings on the container and later on after the family were found and rescued they attempted to get some answers from the shipping company using the numbers they had recorded.

 

My recollection is that the official response was that there was no such container with those numbers and markings listed on any manifest and complete denial of any such container or anything linking the company to the sinking.

[cam 0]

I recall years ago (10-15?) there was quite a bit of discussion about the 1000's of containers lost at sea every year (in storms typically), and how denial from the shipping companies was a big part of the problem.

 

One view at the time was there would soon be a GPS locator on each container. Not so much that they could always be recovered, but also so they could be tracked, and potentially sunk using explosives to break up (where the cargo caused them to otherwise float forever)

 

I presume it didn't happen due to the cost. Perhaps no-one pushed enough as only a small group of yachties are the victims. It would take legislation for anyone to spend money if they don't have to.

[203 0]

just a question ,not sure if anyones asked it yet, but,

wouldnt they be better off to let it build up on the beach, and then get ride of it all rather than going to the beaches each day and picking up tiny bits of the oil... seems like a waste of time doing it each day only for more to build up

[Guest]

If they get a real sunny day the oil will warm up, thin and then melt into the sand becoming a nitemear to clean up. Grab it while it's cooler and sitting on top.

 

Had a chat to one of the 1st First Responders aboard this arvo. She's fecked and they were pretty sure of that from day 1. There were fish swimming around inside it on the 1st day. The front bottom is torn wide open. There were also stress marks which had them pretty sure she would do just what she is, snapping. It appears that from the 1st day it's been a minimise damage exercise knot a boat recovery exercise. He also said a lot of stuff was happening right from the get go and the media are just grabbing at anything then turning it into a story, rightly or wrongly.

[wheels 543]

There is on average, 10,000 containers lost at Sea each year. There are millions of containers World Wide. It would cost a fortune to GPS them.

[Guest]

The new ones are made to sink, why bother with gps?

[wheels 543]

They only sink if the stuff inside them is heavy enough to allow it to sink. Some containers will float around just a fraction above the surface, but not easy to see.

[johnMi 2]

There is on average, 10,000 containers lost at Sea each year. There are millions of containers World Wide. It would cost a fortune to GPS them.

I disagree Wheels, the cost would only be $200-$500 per container. Only a very small portion of the cost of a container. I think the biggest issue would be having the unit in a position on the container that it can always be 'in range', but no doubt this could be overcome.

 

The new ones are made to sink, why bother with gps?

But surely KM, only if the contents don't cause the containers to have positive buoyancy.

 

But don't worry, that's far too good a solution for governments to take this on board.

[wheels 543]

I disagree Wheels, the cost would only be $200-$500 per container. Only a very small portion of the cost of a container.

Not a small cost when the number of containers are in the Millions. And not when the Cost does not benifit the container owner. Once the container is in the water, it is usually not recoverable. So the Freight forwarding companies are not interested. Ships don't get sunk by them, so the Shipping companies are not interested. And even though many containers end up in the water, not a lot of small boats hit them either, so Insurance companies would not be interested in the investment. So in reality, there is no one that would stand to gain anything from the level of investment needed.

[Guest]

Good point, floaty contents won't help.

 

Go ask for a million gps's and you'll be talking less than a hundy each easily. But GPS them to buggery and still no one is gonna go 500nm out to sea to recover them. At best the worlds military could use them as target practice.

 

I also doubt they lose masses of 1000's a year. If they did the insurance premiums I pay would be far far higher. As insurances go to get cover for 'transiting goods' is nothing, less than a 1/2 a good night at a YC bar per year. I suspect that number is more myth than reality. Maybe back in the day but these days I doubt it.

[wheels 543]

It is possible KM. It is not so much an Urban myth, as I think it is depending on who is wanting to report what to represent something that support them. There are certainly a lot of organsiations that are saying it is as high as 10,000, but one study by someone else suggest less than 1000. Anyway, this below is from VeroMarine and is very interesting reading and I suggest maybe closer to actual numbers.

The question of whether shipping containers sink or float is often debated in maritime circles. Another question is often posed - is this happening more or less frequently today?

WHAT are the chances of a ship hitting a container lost on the high seas? Despite widespread fears about the danger to both small and large vessels from lost boxes, the answer appears to be: negligible. The number of containers lost overboard is said to be a tiny percentage of those transported, and of those that do go adrift, most inevitably sink within a short time. So say experts at the Through Transport Club, who insure 15 of the top 20 container lines for their container losses, in addition to many other carriers.

At any given time, between 5 million and 6 million boxes are in transit. The TT Club calculates that the total number lost over the side is probably less than 2,000 per year. This means that less than 0.005% of the containers shipped each year end afloat in the ocean. Most dry cargo containers are steel boxes weighing between two tonnes and four tonnes, and are constructed to be weather-proof, rather than watertight. If empty they sink as a result of water ingress. If full, they may float for a while: air trapped in the cargo may hold a box on the surface until the cargo becomes waterlogged.

Sink or Swim?

This question was posed some time ago in another TT Club claims publication, and various correspondents replied with their theories.

The deadweight of conventional ships used to be calculated as the number of tons (of 2240lb) a vessel can transport of cargo, stores and bunker fuel. It is the difference between the number of tons of water a vessel displaces ‘light’ and the number of tons of water a vessel displaces when submerged to her waterline.

A similar calculation can be done for a shipping container. One correspondent provided an answer as follows. By multiplying the container length by its breadth and depth, and dividing by 80, the deadweight of the box would be established. Thus a 20’ box would have to exceed 16 tons before it sank, and a 40’ box would have to exceed 32 tons. If containers are watertight (which in our experience is rarely true!) then most 40’ containers would float.

In metric terms, a 20’ box has a volume of just over 38 cubic metres, and a 40’ box a volume of 77 cubic metres. The density of seawater is 1.025 which increases the volumes (or displacement values) to just over 39 and 79 cubic metres respectively. The forces required to push the box under the water, or to sink it, must therefore exceed the volume of water to be displaced. A 20’ box is allowed a maximum gross weight of 24,000 kg and a 40’ box a maximum of 30,480 kilos. It therefore seems that if either size of container is watertight and not overloaded (another brave assumption!) then it will float.

Containers are rarely watertight. Most have small openings and distortions. However, if 11 kg of seawater per hour entered a 20’ container, it would take some 57 days it to sink; and some 183 days for a 40’ container! These times may be considerably shortened by the in-water deterioration of seals, but this does indicate that floating containers can remain a hazard to shipping for some time.

Our information is that most containers do in fact sink. This may be due to the effects of poor maintenance, the fact that a container is a fragile object not intended to fend off a boarding sea, the initial distortions as the container breaks free, the subsequent impact with the ocean and the battering of loose cargo. Nevertheless, on this last point, one of NZ’s largest imports by volume is empty containers to bear away our primary exports.

In rough weather, boxes may be smashed up by the waves. With up to 20 tonnes of cargo moving inside, the containers soon tend to lose their structural integrity. Refrigerated boxes and tank containers create the greatest threat, because of their inherent buoyancy, but because of their high value, from $25,000 to $70,000 each it makes it worthwhile for companies to build in tracking devices. Such containers may in any case be easier to spot with the naked eye or by radar.

The Through Transport Club suspects that the humble container is being unfairly blamed for many accidents. There are many hazards floating around in the oceans, from fallen trees to other material carried to the sea by rivers, and even sleeping whales, as mariners have testified for generations.

The TT Club's Claims Department is sceptical of allegations that relatively minor damage can be caused by floating containers. Any collision with a container that was lying dead in the water was likely to do serious damage to a lightly built vessel. The potential to improve lashing and securing systems was limited. They believe that there has been constant improvement for 30 years, and there is only so much further the technology can advance. The Club is working with tracking specialist Tri-Mex International on the feasibility of monitoring systems, but at this stage it is seen as uneconomic and too big a task to tag 8m containers. Changes in ship design may help, but the latest vessels are being built with conventional stowage.

 

Is it happening more frequently?

Early container ships were built with their deckhouse at the forward end of the ship, with containers often in stacks two or three high. The early concept was to protect the containers from boarding seas and to aid navigational control. Whilst both these aspects remain current, as time passed, competition became keener, ships became faster, bigger and more costly. Due to arrangement and cost considerations, a design with a forward deckhouse was replaced with one utilising a substantial breakwater or just omitted. During the 1970s cargo container vessels were built to accommodate stacks six high, which is close to the level of weight compression of the lower units. Current designs are seeing vessels with up to three-quarters of their containers on deck.

The effects of such high deck loadings are numerous. Ship stability is compromised in difficult sea conditions. Bridge visibility is lessened, increasing the likelihood of collisions. Ships are difficult to manoeuvre at low speeds, again heightening collision risks. Container stacks are exposed to storm weather and seas. Lashing arrangements have reduced effectiveness. Low freeboards allow deck edge immersion at low levels of vessel heel.

Unfortunately, when a container or containers are lost overboard, there is rarely a news release and the fact is seldom publicised by the shipping company. The loss is only revealed to those in a need to know situation i.e. the shipowner, the exporter and importer, and the insurer.

The position in NZ

The Marine Committee of the NZ Insurance Council (http://www.icnz.org.nz) has been researching issues surrounding the dangers of lost shipping containers in New Zealand waters, particularly to smaller craft and modern fast passenger ferries. It is known that a significant number of lost containers in New Zealand waters are not reported. Some containers remain afloat, often below the surface, long enough to be a real hazard to shipping.

The Committee has raised this issue in 2000 with the International Marine Organisation (IMO) and with New Zealand’s Ministry of Transport, and is calling for some form of mandatory reporting.