The initial accident:
First, there is lots of speculation on some sort of electrical failure or explosion which impacted the propulsion of the vessel. I think this speculation is merely the result of passengers being told this as an excuse at the time of the accident. I think that any electrical failure or ‘loud bang’ that has been widely reported was the result of the initial grounding.

Passenger statements that I have read all seem to lack a period of time between this alleged electrical failure and the grounding. Given the lack of time, for this to have been a contributing factor, would have meant that the vessel was in such close quarters that a mere interruption in propulsion power was enough to ground the ship. That seems unlikely. Also, given the damage to the hull, it appears that the vessel was traveling in a straight line when it ran aground. So for this theory to hold true, the ship would have been about to turn, to avoid this outcropping, or the vessel would have turned into a new course and then run a straight course, that resulted in the grounding. Again, not likely.

Some statements note that they hit something that was not charted. I do not find this a credible excuse if combined with the comment of a failure in the engine room. Interesting in that the passengers have come ashore with stories of electrical problems and the crew appear to be blaming the accuracy of the charts. I suspect that the chart just might have been accurate, and the crew miscalculated the real estate that they were occupying on the chart. The grounding itself is the cause of the electrical problems. Keep in mind that these vessels are so large, that the GPS mark does not tell the whole story. What kind of position display did they have on the bridge? Did it accurately display the vessel on the chart? Lots of coverage seem to view the final resting place of the vessel as where it hit the rocks, but my understanding is that the accident happened further offshore. The stories that the Captain wanted to pass close to the island are giving the impression that the initial grounding happened at the island where in the details it appears that this happened on the way to Giglio.

I see comments regarding the damage to the hull on the port side and that the damage on the submerged starboard side must be as bad. I suspect that the exposed damage is the damage from the initial grounding. The opening in the hull is massive and in some photos you can clearly see that the inside of the ship was open to the sea. At least large enough for a person to climb through. Open enough to immediately flood that compartment. Even once the ship listed enough to put the hole above the surface, the water that came in was still inside, denying the vessel the bouncy of that compartment as well as reducing the stability of the vessel due to free surface effect. I think that if there is damage on the starboard side, that it would have been inflicted later.

Concerning the evacuation:
First, despite all the complaints of chaos and difficultly in loading and launching the lifeboats, the port side (the high side) of the vessel is draped with lifeboat falls of successfully launched boats (It appears that boat 6 is still in her cradle on the port side). The Starboard side also appears to have gotten most, if not all of their boats into the water as well, looking at the photo below. Also, photos from the harbor show both even and odd numbered boats. For the most-part, the thousands of passengers and crew were evacuated from the vessel.

There were unfortunately some deaths. From what I gather, some passengers jumped overboard and some of them died as a result. It is unclear home many decided to self-evacuate. If the number of those who jumped into the sea turns out to have been in the hundreds, than I might have to re-evaluation my opinion regarding what I consider a successful evacuation. Now it might be that passengers ended up in the water due to the chaos of the moment and demands that woman and children go first. As far as that issue goes, I wonder who started that policy. I doubt is helped the situation at all. The goal should have been to fill the boats as quickly as possible to get them launched. The progress in clearing the deck would have helped calm the situation. Alternatively, pushing the men back would have just the opposite effect. Anyway, the whole point behind evacuating the women and children first off the TITANIC was the simple sad fact that there were not enough spaces in the lifeboats for all the passengers. This was not the case here. Anyway, looking at the photo above, I see lots of people eager to get off the vessel. I do not see anyone that I can clearly identify as crew. (I’m not saying this is a problem. I’m not sure I would want to be in that crowd. I would rather be either getting passengers into boats or trying to keep the ship afloat.) Given the number of passengers, how could that not feel chaotic? Still, they managed to find the boat deck, managed to remember their life jacket from their staterooms and aren’t all there with their carry-on luggage. Also note that there is lighting on the boat deck. The rest of the ship might be dark, but there is light here.

It is interesting that there are reports that the Captain somehow managed to abandon ship hours before the last passenger. According to this timeline at the National Post, the Captain was found ashore merely 25 minutes after the first lifeboat made it ashore. That makes me wonder if he was onboard that first lifeboat.

Just how did he manage to abandon ship so quickly? If true, regardless of his involvement in contributing to the initial grounding, his absence would be a contributing factor to the confusion afterwards, and perhaps even to the loss of the vessel. Which brings me to the question:

How did the vessel end up resting on its side on the bottom?
If the vessel was holed in only one compartment, I would think that it would have been possible to keep the vessel upright and afloat. This however would have required dedicated efforts from the engineering staff and damage control crew. Just how long do you think they would keep up their efforts once the rumor spreads that the Captain already abandoned ship and was ‘safe’ ashore?

The vessel remained afloat with a list for hours after the incident. So how did it end up on its side? The lowering of the lifeboats would have helped increase the stability of the vessel. Did the initial list permit water to enter the hull from somewhere else into an otherwise secure compartment? If so, wouldn’t the pumps have been able to handle this? To be clear, I think that there was nothing that could have been done regarding the holed compartment, other than to secure it to prevent flooding of other compartments. Or was the damage so great that it spanned more than one watertight compartment? (Can someone with access to the RENA website check hull compartmentalization as well as whether this was a 1 or 2 compartment vessel)

One possibility was that the vessel went aground again near shore, putting this vessel on its side. I would have thought that if it was clear that flooding was going to sink the vessel that they would have purposefully put it aground again to save the ship and keep it upright. The crew might have thought that would have been the result in the location that they were at. The outcome might have been different had the Captain remained on his ship. Even without propulsion, he might have been able to call in tugs to better position the vessel to prevent her from going over onto her side. It could be that there was nothing that the Captain could have been able to do. Who knows, maybe the crew was better off without him. Many of us know Captains like that. But Captains like that are generally not placed in charge of better ships. At any rate, this vessel seems to have lacked leadership at the moment she needed it most.

Certainly more answers will be coming over time. My guess is that the actions of the crew will generally be seen as a contributing factor to the number of lives saved. I also suspect that the actions of the Captain and whoever was the bridge watch officer are going to figure highly in the list of causes of this accident. As I write this over Sunday, I can already see the news stories turning against the Captain. I’m thinking it will only get worse.

I’m not one for criminalization of the seafarer. However, criminal acts deserve to be punished. The Captain’s actions are going to be difficult to defend, if it turns out that he wasn’t there…

Costa Concordia cruise ship Friday night, prior to sinking. Photo: (by Sestini – Corriere della Sera) via United States Embassy in Rome

UPDATE: The captain of the cruise ship COSTA CONCORDIA has been arrested by Italian police as an investigation into Friday night’s grounding is launched.  Read: Updated: Cruise Ship Costa Concordia Sinks off Italian Coast [VIDEO, AIS Track]

Earlier: Word is out that the cruiseship COSTA CONCORDIA went aground Friday night. But aground doesn’t accurately describe the current situation, which I would describe as a sinking.

Holidaymakers from Britain, France, Italy and Germany were forced to flee the 1,500-cabin Costa Concordia in lifeboats when it hit a reef less than two hours after leaving port.

Some leapt overboard and swam to shore as the ship started to sink into the waters near the island of Giglio, off the Tuscan coast.

Francesco Paolillo, the coastguard spokesman, said that at least three bodies were retrieved from the sea and at least three more were feared dead.

Local officials are also reporting that 69 people are still unaccounted for.

By this morning, the ship was lying virtually flat off Giglio’s coast, its starboard side submerged in the water. – Telegraph, UK (Click to read the whole article)

Here are two photos from USA Today of the accident:

According to a New York Times report:

“We had to scream at the controllers to release the boats from the side,” said Mike van Dijk, a 54-year-old from Pretoria, South Africa. “We were standing in the corridors and they weren’t allowing us to get onto the boats. It was a scramble, an absolute scramble.”

The vessel “hit an obstacle” — it was not clear if it might have hit a rocky reef in the waters off Giglio — “ripping a gash 50 meters across” in the side of the ship, and started taking on water.

The cruise liner’s captain, Commander Paolillo said, then tried to steer his ship toward shallow waters, near Giglio’s small port, to make evacuation by lifeboat easier.

But after the ship started listing badly, lifeboat evacuation was no longer feasible, Commander Paolillo said.

Surely there will be more to follow regarding this incident.

News is coming out from Sea Shepherd that their high speed vessel, the BRIGITTE BARDOT (ex Gojira) has been damaged by a rogue wave:

Sea Shepherd Ship Severely Damaged by Rogue Wave
Steve Irwin Responding to Distress Call from the Brigitte Bardot

While fighting heavy seas in pursuit of the Japanese whaling fleet, the Sea Shepherd scout vessel Brigitte Bardot was struck by a rogue wave that has cracked the hull and severely damaged one of the pontoons on the vessel.

Captain Paul Watson, onboard the Sea Shepherd flagship Steve Irwin, reports that they are fighting heavy seas to reach the position of the Brigitte Bardot some 240 miles to the southeast. It is expected to take twenty hours to reach the damaged vessel.

The Brigitte Bardot is at 51 degrees 42 minutes South and 99 Degrees 21 minutes East, or 1500 miles southwest of Fremantle, Western Australia.

Brigitte Bardot Captain Jonathan Miles Renecle of South Africa was pursuing the Japanese factory ship Nisshin Maru in six meter swells when the wave slammed into the port side of the vessel cracking the hull. The crack has been getting wider as the seas continue to pound the vessel.

Captain Renecle is confident that the ship will stay afloat until the Steve Irwin arrives. The Brigitte Bardot has a crew of ten: three British, three American, one Australian, one Canadian, one Belgian and one South African.

The Sea Shepherd ship Bob Barker will continue in pursuit of the whaling fleet. The Steve Irwin will assist the Brigitte Bardot, first to see to the safety of the crew, and then to escort the vessel to Fremantle for repairs.

“This is disappointing but these are hostile seas and we have always been prepared for situations like this,” Said Captain Paul Watson from the Steve Irwin. “Right now the safety of my crew on the Brigitte Bardot is our priority and we intend to reach the crew and then do what we can to save our ship.” - Sea Shepherd Website

It seems that the vessel is in serious trouble in a very remote location. Worse, given the remote location, the only vessels available to come to the rescue is another Sea Shepherd vessel, the STEVE IRWIN. this will put two vessels out of action. However, this is much better than being down there alone.

Other than waiting to see the fate of this vessel, I guess the only thing left to say is that this vessel was completely not suited for the environment that Sea Shepherd was operating in and it was only a matter of time before it because a casualty.

Guess they must be getting great footage for the next season. I look forward to seeing if the Japanese have come up with any good countermeasures to keep the Sea Shepherds at bay. I’m guessing that they have new tactics. Otherwise they would be setting themselves up for another defeat like last season.

THE SHIPPING MAN is a novel by Matthew McCleery about the crazy world of shipowners and finance:

 

When restless New York City hedge fund manager Robert Fairchild watches the Baltic Dry Cargo Index plunge 97%, registering an all-time high and a 25-year low within the span of just six months, he decides to buy a ship.

Immediately fantasizing about naming a vessel after his wife, carrying a string of worry beads and being able to introduce himself as a “shipowner” at his upcoming college reunion, Fairchild immediately embarks on an odyssey into the most exclusive, glamorous and high stakes business in the world.

From pirates off the coast of Somalia and on Wall Street to Greek and Norwegian shipping magnates, the education of Robert Fairchild is an expensive one. In the end, he loses his hedge fund, but he gains a life – as a Shipping Man. Part fast-
paced financial thriller, part ship finance text book, The Shipping Man is 310 pages of required reading for anyone with an interest in capital formation for shipping. – Amazon

Instead of me attempting to pick a nice excerpt or two, you can read the first chapter here for free. (PDF Link).  The author, Mr. McCleery, is the President of Marine Money International. So he is writing from a position in the know. Which makes me wonder what kind of stories he wished he could have put into this book but dare no, at least not yet.

I am not one to read much these days.  Between work and an internet connection full of unlimited possibilities to waste time, if I am going to stop everything to pick up a book, that book better be damn good. That said, after reading the first chapter (see link above) I was hooked and ordered the book. I burned through the book in three days. This is part of the other problem I have with books. When they are good, I just have to read the whole thing.

It didn’t hurt that I was familiar with a number of locations mentioned in the book as well as familiar with the kinds of people portrayed in the book. This made it easy to accept what would appear to an outsider to be completely unbelievable situations. Anyone who has sailed has a couple of their own sea stories that anyone but another sailor would believe. This book seems to put together a story of a person’s venture into shipowning that truly falls into the category of sea story.

So, if you are looking for something to read or know of someone who likes sea stories or if you are a businessman who would like a little insight into the financial aspects of owning a ship, then by all means give this book a try.

One thing this book confirmed, is my investing rule to stay away from shipping line stocks. Not that the stocks are bad, just that I am not smart enough to make money buying and selling them. For those who want to give it a try, see ‘Betting on Shipping Stocks? Sometimes Ignoring the Herd Pays [MARKET ADVICE]‘, ‘Horizon Lines Shares Delisted From NYSE‘ as well as gCaptain’s finance related posts.

Have you seen me?

One of the main stories last week was the apparent dismissal (for lack of a better word) of the Superintendent of the of the US Merchant Marine Academy at Kings Point. (See: Merchant Marine Academy Superintendent Reassigned)

There are a number of rumors out there as to why this has happened, and a number of them are covered in the gCaptain Forum (See: King’s Point Superintendent Reassigned… and MARAD has NOTHING to say about it) as well as covered in the ‘USMMA at Kings Point Alumni’ group in Linkedin. (See: USMMA Superintendent Admiral Greene – KP ’78 leaving KP)

The object of this post is not to delve into the rumors, but to instead wonder just where is the Maritime Administrator in all this? I ask this because the Secretary of Transportation, Ray LaHood, visited the Academy on Tuesday, the 18th to express his support for the Academy.

The Academy however falls under the immediate supervision of the Maritime Administration and the Maritime Administrator, David Matsuda. But it was not Matsuda who visited the Academy this week. It was his boss, the Secretary of Transportation. Matsuda apparently didn’t even tag along.

From a report of the visit, the Secretary declined to provide any more details why RADM Greene was dismissed but did confirm that he had no intention of visiting the possibility of reinstating him to the position. So instead of answering questions, this latest visit to the Academy seems to make the mystery even deeper.

Fred

Well, Dr. Cartner is back again with another hard hitting commentary on the disaster that is the TWIC program.

THE maritime hobgoblin rears its head again. Work in maritime America is meted out to the worthy by the organs of state security. The Transportation Security Administration is the gatekeeper, with the detested Transportation Worker Identification Credential. If unworthy, no TWIC, no job. The TSA airport voyeurs, frotteurs and X-irradiators say who can be chosen. These are the maritime hobgoblin’s puppet-masters.

As I have written in this journal, the TWIC premise is based on a bizarre expensive fallacy and control ju-ju. John Pistole, former FBI deputy hack, is the head ju-ju man of the hobgoblin — incredible, nefarious, bizarrely self-justifying, comically combative, a pompous caricature risible if he were not dangerous. TSA managers work to transfer abuse from passengers to seafarers. The grounds are specious, questionable legally, morally scurrilous. Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano, former empress of the Arizona dunes and self-appointed maritime expert, wants to spread further the TWIC rat’s nest to anyone vaguely related to commercial transportation. Take heart, though. If denied you can likely get a TWIC — if you can afford American legal fees. No money, no TWIC; no TWIC, no job.

The TSA has posted a list of sins delaying or denying a TWIC: violent felonies, for example. Of course it does not matter that the US Coast Guard and the states screen before issuing their documents. The TSA has money to burn and contractor Lockheed Martin to tell it how. Three cases tell how the TSA-DHS hobgoblin keepers are arbitrary, capricious, and wholly self-righteous.

Case 1: An unrestricted master mariner, commanding ships of the Land of the Free for 30 years, was denied a TWIC. He had been vetted by the US Coast Guard for decades, issued continuous certificates, had nothing on the list, was entrusted with lives and ship and cargo, enforced flag state laws on board, held a naval reserve commission and security clearance. He was not born in the US. The conclusion: if a birth certificate does not meet a TSA factotum’s concept of Americanism then no TWIC, no job — no matter how unspotted or shriven.

After appeal, delay and legal fees the master got the gatepass. Now there is a new secret criterion for Americanism. One supposes that the TWIC twits feel that he should be grateful.

Case 2: Another US master was assaulted and battered by a TWIC contractor employee. He seriously erred in command judgement when he pointed out that his name was stated wrongly on the face of the TWIC. The investigation was whitewashed; the criminal complaint was “lost”.

The government issues criteria for things such as TWICs. One rule even makes sense: the name on the card must match the name on the credentials presented for the issuance. The TSA and its contractor exempt themselves from any rules for national security (read TSA and Lockheed job security). Name hyphenated? More than one middle initial? Apostrophes? Cedillas? Umlaut or accent grave? Spelled uniquely? What kind of name is that? Un-American. No TWIC. No job.

One marvels at the rodent TSA mind: The maritime hobgoblin punishes with unemployed time while the jobless and voiceless await the decisions of the polyester-suited twits. This TWIC victim was told by an arrogant DHS faceless voice: “If that is your name you do not get a TWIC.” Any fool except a DHS one can see that the TWIC issued with a TSA made-up name is false identification. What good is an unconfirmable TWIC except on its face when the database cannot be accessed by a card reader?

The foundational fallacy strikes again in this wholly corrupt programme. Where do they get these bully-boy oafs minding the hobgoblin? Answer: from the line of otherwise unemployable wannabees, poseurs and PhD-lites.

Case 3: A lorry driver vetted for commercial and hazardous materials service delivered goods to ports for 25 years with no blemish. He was denied for a three-decade-old second-order misdemeanour conviction. He had paid a fine.

How does that relate to port or national security? It does not. He cannot get a TWIC to ply his trade. He was punished as a sinner by the hobgoblin true believers for his Americo-Adamic fall from grace and the shortcomings of his soul three decades earlier. Conclusion: the TSA hive is now morally perfected — in its internal view. To quote : “The other was a softer voice, As soft as honey-dew: Quoth he, “The man hath penance done, And penance more will do.” The maritime hobgoblin’s voice is as also as soft as honey-dew: No money, no TWIC and no job — for an unworthy you.

The maritime job listings in America are an education. If you drive by a port you will one day need a TWIC, hopes the hobgoblin.

The TSA abuses the maritime industry. In each case a person otherwise qualified and with security vetting by governments could not earn a maritime wage temporarily or permanently. Each was denied by secretive desk-warmers not meeting payrolls or working productively and wrapping themselves in the American flag to cover their intellectual, moral and judgmental bankruptcy.

The question arises, always begged by the TSA: How does this panic-driven billion-dollar TWIC opera buffa increase port security? It does not. It cannot. It will not. The hypocritical pseudo-moralism is disgusting and ethically and economically wrong. It reminds one of the US Attorney General draping naked statues.

Who controls these farceurs? Clearly not Secretary Napolitano. Her underling lackey Pistole was too yellow to attend and explain himself and his failed agency to Congress last week.

Answer, Mr Pistole: How are port security – a matter of property right and trespass – and the denial of a TWIC and a wage on parochial, idiosyncratic, chauvinistic and pseudo-moralistic grounds to otherwise qualified maritime people related? Do not try. You will make a further fool of yourself, your misguided and misconceived bureau, the farcical hobgoblin for which you are shaman.

John AC Cartner is a UK solicitor, a maritime lawyer in Washington, DC, and an unrestricted Master Mariner. – Lloyds List

There were a couple comments on the last post. Please comment below your own TWIC horror stories.

Surely this is not the end of this issue.

Dr. John A. C. Cartner practices maritime law domestically and internationally. He is designated as Proctor in Admiralty by the Maritime Law Association of the U.S.. He is a member of the Canadian Maritime Law Association and other such associations internationally. He is a licensed (U.S.) and experienced shipmaster and is a chartered engineer (U.K.) in naval architecture. – Link

He is a graduate of the US Merchant Marine Academy and is the lead author of The International Law of the Shipmaster and you can find his website here (See a video interview here.). So his is clearly a voice of authority. With that said, here is a truly unvarnished view of the TWIC Program:

Identity card is US’ maritime hobgoblin

Tuesday 15 February 2011, 17:25 by John AC Cartner

The identity card for US transportation workers has been an expensive disaster in technical and civil liberty terms, and has brought no discernible security benefits

FOR a US seafarer, a Transportation Worker Identification Credential, or “TWIC Card” or just “TWIC”, is a necessary accoutrement. It gives the warm feeling that things are under control.The TWIC was imposed by the Department of Homeland Security, overseeing the Transportation Security Administration. These are the blank faces of the organs of state security that seafarers encounter.

The TWIC is an obscenely expensive, delusional and nakedly bizarre failure. It wastes billions of unaffordable dollars, and it does not demonstrably increase the security of ports, vessels or people. It should be abolished now.

Other existing and proven methods can readily be used. Those methods are run by people knowledgeable about maritime. The TWIC is all about misguided bureaucrats, technology, lobbyists and money searching for a mission.

There is full fallacy in the TWIC exercise. In philosophy it is called the foundational fallacy. One cannot rely on arguments coming from a complex foundation of facts or events. The argument must fail. Why? One cannot account for every variation in the future from the time the foundation was laid. Fatal errors unavoidably creep in and persist.

The TWIC, which is supposed to be perfected to keep theoretical terrorists from theoretical ports, will always fail.

The TSA crowd knows nothing about the industry. It administers cosy contracts with equally unknowing contractors.

Thus it came to pass that the TSA became the Monty Python of seaports. Existing and proven systems would have worked with minimal tinkering. The professional US Coast Guard should run all port security programmes. Never mind easily done record searches or common sense. But Congress listened to the lobbyists: we dullard wharf rats cannot possibly understand technology.

As American lecturer, essayist and poet, Ralph Waldo Emerson, pointed out, that the hobgoblin of little minds lies in dull and mindless routine. The TWIC is a maritime hobgoblin reified in the TSA.

The leading contractor for the TWIC was defence aeroplane manufacturer Lockheed-Martin. The aim was not to help in anti-terrorism but to bring another $1bn in revenue by selling a bill of goods for things unproven.

Lockheed understood the foundational fallacy — if a computer can do it, it will be effective and therefore good, and therefore solves the problem — with sufficient funds.

Then the geeks designing TWIC ignored federal guidelines for identification cards. The initial system was so cumbersome that it took a PhD in computer science to obtain a password for the website to register.

The inevitable cost excesses came. A tactic of every defence contractor is to buy in at low cost and then make up the losses by change orders. Lockheed held the government hostage for work done.

Then the reports of civil liberties abuses arose. Government auditing arms found TWIC a near-disaster. Recently came the strident shouting of TSA Administrator John Pistole, the FBI hack who proclaimed “We will not back down!” when the public protested at airport genital gropings. We await that tactic in ports with interest.

Clearly, neither the empress nor her king has clothes when Mr Pistole and the speechifying Secretary Janet Napolitano say all is well with the TWIC.

The technology for a TWIC card reader cannot be produced and will not be for years. Every credit card company has secure card readers. They deal in the real world of commerce, not the fear-mongering world of TSA Cassandras. They also accept reasonable risks of fraud. Why cannot the TSA and its contractor bedfellows produce a reader that works?

The security response to the need is not rocket science. The TSA clearly needs brains and not more defence technology to hide its bovine mooing and ovine bleating.

Other abuses came. If a name did not fit a form devised in 1898, the TSA made one up. Hyphens? Un-American. Two middle initials? Un-American. All this was for the enlightenment of a gate guard at 0300 hrs in the driving rain to read, vet and compare to other credentials. No match. You do not come in. TSA idiocy.

The pressure was put on. Assaults by contractor clerks were reported when applicants pointed out that the card was false identification when not conforming to credentials. Criminal complaints have been said to have been diverted for “national security”. A DHS spokesman reportedly said: “If that is your name, you do not get a TWIC.” A DHS mouthpiece telling a certificated seafarer his livelihood is endangered because of a wrong form of his name on a TWIC card? Unbridled hubris.

Then there is biometry, the supposed keystone. No one can define, measure, put it on a card or read it electronically accurately all the time to compare to the outdated databases run by the security weenies. No one has figured out how to make it comply with the international objectives for seafarer identification.

The TWIC is useless outside the US. In the US, reports are legion of airport TSA automatons rejecting it. One report says it is unacceptable for entering US Coast Guard headquarters in Washington.

The problem is not port security, it is the TWIC programme. It was and is a failure. It promises but gives nothing except false security, press releases and only attracts ridicule. One should not sleep better at night knowing John Pistole is on watch. – Lloyd’s List (Republished with permission of the author)

Feel free to voice your opinion in the comments.

As bad as the US TWIC program is, it is nothing compared to the mess that is the UN’s version of the seafarer ID, as defined in the International Labour Organisation’s Seafarers’ Identity Documents Convention (Revised) 2003. But more on that later.

Somali pirates captured Beluga Nomination in the Indian Ocean on January 22. The crew hid in a citadel on board the ship for the first 48 hours, according to Beluga. But then pirates were able to open the ceiling of the safe room and took the crew hostage. – Lloyds List

This article also points out that the crew was safe from the pirates for a full 48 hours before the space was breached. So where were the naval forces during that time? An attempt was made to re-take the ship but it was not until after the pirates had gained access to the crew.

The article does not note where in the vessel the safe room was located, but if they managed to enter it from the ceiling, I suspect that it was inside the house. This clearly now was a poor decision. Also, if you watch the video of the South Korean raid on a captured cargo ship last month, you can see that the house was peppered with bullet holes. That is another reason not to place the safe room in the house.

So take the information above and treat it as lessons learned. How safe and secure is your Citadel space?

Cross-posted on my blog here.

I am going to start with a disclaimer in that I am no Jones Act expert. That said…

Many of you have noticed that in the news coverage of the DEEPWATER HORIZON disaster are references to the Jones Act and allegations that Jones Act restrictions are hampering cleanup efforts. With this in mind, here is a simple summary of the points.

Jones Act Restrictions

The Jones Act was born as part of The Merchant Marine Act of 1920. From Wikipedia:

The Merchant Marine Act of 1920 (P.L. 66-261) is a United States Federal statute that regulates maritime commerce in U.S. waters and between U.S. ports.

Section 27, also known as the Jones Act, deals with cabotage (i.e., coastal shipping) and requires that all goods transported by water between U.S. ports be carried in U.S.-flag ships, constructed in the United States, owned by U.S. citizens, and crewed by U.S. citizens and U.S. permanent residents. The purpose of the law is to support the U.S. merchant marine industry, but agricultural interests generally oppose it because, they contend, it raises the cost of shipping their goods, making them less competitive with foreign sources. – Wikipedia

In short, US Maritime shipping has the following requirements:

• US Owned
• US Flagged
• US Built
• Crewed by Americans

So, unless your vessel meets all of the above requirements, you are not able to ship cargo between US Ports. Looking to ship US-made BMWs from Charleston to New York by sea, then you need to ship on a Jones Act complaint vessel. And given that building a ship in the US is extremely expensive, your choices are limited.

The Effect
The Jones Act effects different parts of the US in different ways. I believe that those most effected are Hawaii, Alaska, Puerto Rico and other remote US possessions like Guam. These places are almost entirely dependent on shipping.

One group that has traditionally had issues with the Jones Act has been farmers and politicians from farming states. This is because farmers are required to use US-Flag shipping to move their cargo. They claim that US-Flag ships are too expensive and make their goods uncompetitive when it comes to the export market. Then again, the farmers are forced to use US ships because they are receiving aid from the Government in the first place. So while they complain, don’t feel like you have to shed any tears for them.

Now the Jones Act is not all prohibitive.  Ships of any flag can go from one US port to another and load and discharge cargo. They just cannot discharge cargo that they loaded in another US Port. For example a foreign-built, US-Flag containership coming from Bremerhaven can load and Discharge loaded containers in New york and then proceed to Baltimore and do the same thing, provided that containers just loaded in New York are not discharged. Since moving cargo by sea is very efficient, the Government has been thinking about encouraging more of this ‘Short Sea Shipping’. Also, US Regulations permit the movement of empty containers from one US-port to another on non Jones Act vessels. Think of containers as equipment, not cargo.

The ownership requirement is a little odd. My first ship was the car carrier NOSAC RANGER; NOSAC standing for Norwegian Specialized Auto Carriers. While the owners on paper were in New Jersey, the ‘real’ owners were in Norway. Then you have MAERSK Lines of New Jersey (Denmark), Lykes Lines (Now CP ships, Canada), American President Lines (Singapore) as a couple more examples.

The one qualification that cannot be changed on a ship is the US-build requirement. If a ship was not built in a US-yard, it will most likely never operate in a Jones Act route. That said, it is always possible that part of the requirements be waived to meet shipping needs in cases where a ship that meets the requirements is not available. One big example of this is the Hawaiian Islands cruise trade. Be willing to build a US-Flag cruise ship and the Government might be willing to let you start trading using a foreign built ship. (In actual practice such deals have not worked out very well.) President Bush temporarily waived the Jones Act for a couple of weeks in the wake of Katrina.

As for the crewing requirement, just think of these jobs as being no different than train, bus and truck jobs between the same cities. It makes sense to justify reserving work moving cargo from one US port to another. Letting foreign ships and crews move cargo within the US would be like letting foreign airlines and truckers move cargo within the US. (Do not confuse this comment with the movement of NAFTA cargo from Canada and Mexico)

As it so happens, the DEEPWATER HORIZON, despite drilling off of the US Coast, was not US-Flagged. It was foreign flagged. It was US crewed and the actual drilling operations, the cause of the current crisis, were under US Government regulations and inspections, not the Flag State. Having this rig US Flag would not have effected the outcome as the US was already responsible for overseeing that drilling regulations were being followed.

The Spill
There is no doubt that this spill is massive. It is an ‘all-hands’ event. Allegations have been made that the spill cleanup has been hampered because vessels have been excluded from participating in the cleanup because they are not qualified for this work due to the Jones Act.

From what I can tell, there are two issues here. One being whether the Jones Act applies to cleanup vessels and the other being whether or not there is a shortage of vessels qualified to operate under the Jones Act.

So, does the Jones Act apply?
It certainly does. These vessels are going to have to operate in waters that are under US control. They will call US ports, go to sea and return to the US without making a foreign voyage/ calling a foreign port. I would call that domestic activity. (And do comment if you think my logic here is wrong)

Given the size of this spill, I suspect that there will be room for foreign vessels to operate in the Gulf from Mexico and from the Caribbean as part of the cleanup effort. However the impact these vessels will have on US beaches will be minimal given that they will not be able to operate close to US shores. Not that that matters though, right. They should be trying to pick up as much oil as possible no matter where it is.

So, is there a shortage of Jones Act qualified response vessels?
As mentioned earlier, it is very expensive to build a US-Flag ship. However, there are lots of smaller vessels like tugs, fishing and offshore supply vessels that can participate in the cleanup. Add to that the President’s knee-jerk reaction in killing much of the drilling in the Gulf and you now have many offshore support vessels not doing anything else who can also participate in the cleanup.

Let’s say that there is a shortage. All it takes is for the Government to lift the Jones Act for the purpose of assisting in the cleanup. Might there be some highly efficient and specialized foreign ships that would be useful in this cleanup. Sure. Do I think that the Government should assist our International friends in letting them offer up a ship or two (or ten) to the cleanup effort? Yes. I doubt that they would take any jobs away from Americans. After all, this spill is so large that there should be hundreds of vessels fighting it.  (I have no idea how many are actually employed in the cleanup)

Just this morning I read this story from The Maritime Executive which denies that the Jones Act is negatively impacting the cleanup.

Some have criticized the Jones Act, which requires the use of American vessels for transportation in domestic commerce, for hindering the Gulf clean-up. Not true, said the NIC and the Coast Guard.

“In no case has the Federal On Scene Coordinator (FOSC) or Unified Area Command declined to request assistance or accept offers of assistance of foreign vessels that meet an operational need because the Jones Act was implicated,” said a June 17 NIC Fact Sheet [Note: See the pdf fact sheet here which notes that there are already 18 foreign vessels involved in the cleanup].

The NIC Fact Sheet noted that foreign vessels from many nations are already working in the Gulf. The Jones Act only applies within three miles of shore. [Note: they might want to clarify that comment] Therefore, foreign skimmers, along with American skimmers, are already at work beyond three miles. The Deepwater Horizon spill is occurring 50 miles from shore, and the vast majority of oil is beyond 3 miles. – The Maritime Executive (Click to read the entire article)

So there you have it. I am not so sure about that comment about the Jones act only applying within 3 miles of shore. While this article was meant to be a simple summary, I think that can be called an over simplification.

Feel free to comment, criticize and clarify in the comments section.

One final note. the DEEPWATER HORIZON Response site is located here.

Release via EU NAVFOR:

On the early morning of 18 November 2009, 350 nautical miles east from the Somali coast, pirates attacked MV Maersk Alabama, a US flagged, Danish owned, 155 meter long, Container ship.

Pirates fired automatic weapons on MV Maersk Alabama who responded with fire from an embarked Vessel Protection Detachment. The crew managed to repel the attack and no casualties were reported. The vessel was previously hijacked in April 2009.

An EU NAVFOR Maritime Patrol Aircraft from Djibouti was tasked to investigate the situation and the closest EU NAVFOR naval vessel was tasked to search for the pirate attack group and neutralise the area.

The Maritime Patrol Aircraft stationed in Djibouti takes part in the EU NAVFOR mission Operation ATALANTA. The main tasks of Operation ATALANTA are to escort merchant vessels carrying food of the ‘World Food Program’ (WFP), the protection of vulnerable ships in the Gulf of Aden and Indian Ocean and to deter and disrupt piracy.

More details at CNN: Pirates foiled in their second attack on Maersk Alabama cargo ship

Original Post

The following is posted by Fred Fry:

The news story out this morning is that the US-Flag MAERSK ALABAMA has been attacked again by pirates. Surely that is news in itself. However, possibly the bigger story is news that the Maersk vessel had armed guards onboard who repelled the attackers.

Maersk Alabama attacked again – MAERSK Alabama evaded a pirate attack off the Somali Coast today, seven months after it was hijacked in nearby waters.

Pirates fired on the 1,098teu box ship with automatic weapons, but guards on the US-flagged ship returned fire and repelled the attack, a statement from EU NAVFOR said. There were no casualties.

An EU NAVFOR naval vessel is searching for the attackers.

During April’s hijacking, Maersk Alabama’s captain was held hostage before he was freed in a commando assault. Three pirates were killed in the operation.

In another incident near Somalia today, pirates have eluded a Spanish military fusillade and swum to freedom.

The pirates had held the Alakrana tuna trawler hostage for 47 days. They escaped to shore after turning over the 36 seafarer hostages, Spain’s defence ministry said.

Helicopters and other forces chased the last group of pirates to leave the trawler. At least one pirate craft was hit by fire but no casualties were reported, said the ministry of defence.

The trawler was freed yesterday after the reported payment of a $4M ransom. – Fairplay Homepage (Used with Permission)

At least in this case, having armed guards onboard did not escalate the attack. It ended it.

—————————————-