gCaptain.com

Click Photo For Details

Bloomberg News tells us:

South Korea’s coast guard sent boats to contain the country’s biggest oil spill in more than a decade after a Hong Kong-registered supertanker collided with a barge.

About 81,000 barrels of crude oil was spilt after a crane on the barge crashed into the Hebei Spirit at 7:15 a.m. local time, Jeong Seon Mun, deputy director of the maritime safety information center at South Korea’s Ministry of Maritime Affairs & Fisheries, said. The ship was anchored 5 miles (8 kilometers) northwest of the Taean peninsula at the time.

The leak is almost a third of the 37,000 tons spilled into Prince William Sound, Alaska, by the Exxon Valdez in 1989, according to data on the International Tanker Owners Pollution Federation’s Web site. The Taean Coast Guard deployed 12 patrol boats and 3 accident control vessels, Jeong said today.

“Oil is still spilling,” Jeong said by telephone in Seoul. “The police face difficulty in carrying out the operation because high waves make it hard to contain the spill.” Continue Reading…

I have been amazed lately by the number of errors in both media reports and political commentary related to the the container ship Cosco Busan that allided with San Francisco’s Bay Bridge. We first reported on the confusion between the words allision and collision but that debate is mostly semantic. The errors have grown as the debate has reached a national audience.

The most troubling mistake is reports that infer or flatly state the vessel is a tanker. This mistake has been made numerous times as can be seen by doing a simple google news search for the incorrect term but most seriously in USA Today’s, America’s most widely distributed newspaper, headline (page A6 of November 12th’s edition): “Coast Guard: Tanker crew tested for substances.”

The media is not the only “informed” party making this mistake. The San Francisco Chronicle reports on a statement by San Francisc’s mayor:

Newsom saw the disaster as an even larger statement on the weakness of America’s dependence on oil.

“We can do better than large oil tankers coming in and out of the bay of San Francisco, and move to a more energy independent future,” he said at Crissy Field. “We’ll continue to have these kinds of disasters inevitably if we continue to have more tankers come in and out to feed our addiction.”

So for those in the media or with a passing interest here is a picture of an Oil Tanker and the Cosco Busan:

Tanker

Container Ship

The major difference between the two is: a tanker transports liquids and a container ship transports containers filled with solids (i.e. toys, home furnishings, industrial supplies…). So before the flood of emails arrive… if the ship that hit the San Francisco Bay Bridge was not transporting any liquids why did it have 58,000 gallons aboard? The answer is… for the same reason your car carries 24 gallons of gasoline.

The fuel spilled in the bay was all to be used by the ship’s enormous engines during the long transit back to China. Had this ship been an oil tanker the spill could have been as large as the one caused by the oil tanker Exxon Valdez… then again probably not since the oil in those ships are now required to be protected by a double hull.

Breaking weather news from Russia. Bloomberg tells us;

An oil spill from a tanker that sank in a storm in waters between Russia and Ukraine threatens an “environmental catastrophe,” said Vladimir Slivyak, head of the Moscow-based Ecodefense group.

The Volgoneft-139 leaked 1,300 tons of fuel oil into the Kerch Strait linking the Black Sea and Sea of Azov, a Russian Transport Ministry spokeswoman, who declined to be identified, said in Moscow. Four other ships sank in yesterday’s storm that produced six-meter (20-foot) waves, state broadcaster Russia Today reported. Two sailors are dead and 23 are missing, it said.

“The effect will be very serious for the whole marine ecosystem, including fish, because of the high toxicity of oil products,” Slivyak said by telephone in Moscow yesterday. It will take several months to remove the oil on the surface, while the oil that sank will be “very hard” to clear, he added. Continue Reading…

1,300 tons converts to approximately 560,000 gallons of fuel oil or 10 times that which was spilt last week by the Cosco Busan in San Francisco Bay. No specifics yet but maybe Robin Storm can enlighten us.

CNN has some impressive video as well: LINK

In covering the recent San Francisco Bay Bridge incident I have noticed most (but not all) of the news articles have made a small error in terminology. In describing the incident where the Cosco Busan hit the Bay Bridge many prominent news organizations referred to event as a collision when in fact it was an allision.

For clarification: A vessel collides with another moving vessel…. A vessel allides with a fixed object (unless it is submerged) and is presumed at fault.

Marine Dictionary - Allision

For those interested in learning more about the incident here are some good links;

• San Francisco Bay Bridge - gCaptain coverage
• Ooops! Container Ship Collides with SF Bay Bridge
• Bridge Left Undamaged
• Chief Engineer Underestimates Environmental Impact
• Two Coasts - Two Allisions | MAREX
• Official Coast Guard Cosco Busan Updates (right column)
• Shipping firms to pay for oil spill
• San Francisco Shuts Beaches After Ship Spills Fuel
  

For future articles stay tuned with our Maritime News Discoverer’s Upcoming Links

Here is a photo of the environmental damage;

Kurt Rogers / San Francisco Chronicle

Update: [Continue Reading →]

In the latest criminal proceedings related to Marine Pollution and the use of “Magic Pipes” the Chief Engineer aboard an American-flagged car-carrier ship was convicted of one count of conspiracy and two counts of making false statements. Marine Link has the report:

At trial, it was proven that the M/V Tanabata had a removable bypass pipe or “magic pipe” that was used to discharge oily waste without the use of an oily-water separator, a required pollution control devise. The discharges were, however, falsely recorded as having been processed through the separator in the ship’s oil record book, a required log regularly inspected by the U.S. Coast Guard. An engineer testified that the defendant referred to the bypass pipe as the “illegal pipe.” It was also shown during trial that the pipe was hidden when the ship was in port so that it would not be discovered by the Coast Guard.

Sentencing has been set for Jan. 10, 2008, before Judge William N. Nickerson. Humphries faces a maximum of five years in prison and a $250,000 fine for each count.

The M/V Tanabata was operated by Pacific Gulf Marine, Inc. (PGM). PGM pleaded guilty and was sentenced on Jan. 27, 2007, to charges of making illegal discharges of oil-contaminated waste from each of four ships managed by the company. After learning of the investigation, PGM conducted and voluntarily disclosed the results of an internal investigation and cooperated with investigators and prosecutors. PGM was sentenced to pay a $1 million criminal fine and $500,000 in community service payments and to serve three years probation under the terms of an Environmental Compliance Program subject to court approval.

Continue Reading for the full article

Looking for Chief Engineer Jobs.

We rarely reproduce press releases… but it’s Sunday and not your usual release. Seaways, the Nautical Institute’s monthly magazine, has a story this month on ideas to prevent oil discharges aboard ships. They point some fingers and expose some truths while, in some mariner’s opinions, over analyzing others. Here’s the summary;

The NI has identified a number of potential pitfalls in ensuring compliance, and these include poor equipment and maintenance, procedural problems and out dated practices, through to ill equipped port facilities.

In addition, owners need to convince those onboard that they are truly serious about tackling pollution. Companies cannot simply pay lip service to the rules, and tangible action is needed to guard against complacency, to mitigate the risks of mistakes, and to guard against errors of judgment. With the risk of enormous financial penalties and with jail time a real possibility, owners who simply relax and assume all is in order can get a real shock when things go wrong.

However, not all the problems stem from equipment or procedures, and the NI regretfully recognizes the age-old “can do” attitude of many seafarers can be damaging. In too many instances there appears the problems of falsified records, and of a continued willingness to do what is thought best by an individual, even when that flies in the face of the Safety Management System (SMS).

According to Captain Gale, “Environmental crimes are sadly tarnishing the image of shipping. It is vital to remember that responsibility always rests with the owner, and it is not simply enough to put systems onto the ship – these need to be supported and made to work, to ensure the actions of those onboard are always the right actions”.

Download the article –> Pollution Prevention; The Role Of Shipmasters