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.
Related Articles:
- Cosco Busan - Bridge Resource Management
- Follow the path of the Cosco Busan
- Maritime News of the Week - gCaptain’s Top Picks
- San Francisco Bay Bridge Damage Survey - Video
- Nautical Word of the Day - Allision
- San Francisco Bay Bridge Allision
- Inside the New San Francisco Bay Bridge
Related Post
Enjoy this story? Subscribe
11 responses so far ↓
1 gCaptain.com; For Mariners | By Mariners - MyBlogLog // Nov 13, 2007 at 2:29 am
[…] john everett, paintings, Photo, razzle dazzle, richard rodriguez, Ship Design, ships, WWI Ship Types 101 - San Francisco Bay Bridge Oil Tanker Collision - 4 hours ago I have been amazed lately by the number of errors in both media reports and political […]
2 Sailor101 // Nov 13, 2007 at 6:04 am
I love the catch of the Newsome comment. I also thought it was equally convenient that he was out of town after the incident occurred. One would think that a Mayor could find a way to break off any engagement and head back to his city to oversee things.
This guy is slimy and took the opportunity instantly to gain the backing of the green people here in the bay area. Energy independence?? Try ‘DEPENDENCE’ on goods coming from China, but that wouldn’t make him as popular as saying a ‘tanker’ had a spill..
Ah well, this is SF and they just re-elected that clown.
3 Richard Rodriguez // Nov 13, 2007 at 7:20 am
Not really LMAO, next we should explain:
NUC
RAM
Constrained by Draft
Engaged in Fishing
Sailing Vessel
Power Driven Vessel
Sea Plane
WIG
4 gCaptain - Maritime News and Tools RSS Mashup // Nov 13, 2007 at 7:32 am
[…] Ship Types 101 - San Francisco Bay Bridge Oil Tanker Collision […]
5 captstash // Nov 14, 2007 at 10:20 pm
All that complaining about inaccuracies, and you made one yourself. The vessel was headed for Korea, not China!
PS: Many newer container ships have the bunker tanks located within a double hull. Don’t be surprised to see new legislation requiring that with a similar phas in to what we did for oil tankers.
6 Sailor101 // Nov 15, 2007 at 12:03 am
My intention was really to make a jab the sheer volume inbound ‘from’ China to the U.S.. I am all too aware of where the ship was bound, her crew, her owner, etc.. I live in the Bay Area and it’s been nothing but saturation!! :-\ (Of course only by local News since the rest of the country wrote us off years ago;).
7 VTS Warning to Cosco Busan Pilot | gCaptain.com // Nov 16, 2007 at 12:31 am
[…] I promised you I wouldn’t correct minor mistakes made by the media so I’ll just offer a gCaptain tshirt to the person who catches the first […]
8 Oil Tanker San Francisco - Dogpile Web Search // Nov 16, 2007 at 3:45 pm
[…] On Fuel Tank Sponsored by: Fuel-Tank.Click-Research.info/ [Found on Ads by Google] 10. Ship Types 101 - San Francisco Bay Bridge Oil Tanker Collision … I have been amazed lately by the number of errors in both media reports and political commentary […]
9 The Risks Digest Volume 24: Issue 91 // Nov 19, 2007 at 5:34 pm
[…] actually a container ship, and the fuel on board was solely for the purpose of running the ship. http://gcaptain.com/maritime/blog/ship-types-101-san-francisco-bay-bridge-oil-tanker-collision/ The Coast Guard blames the pilot and the captain, and notes that its radar resolution was […]
10 [RISKS] Risks Digest 24.91 // Nov 20, 2007 at 10:46 am
[…] actually a container ship, and the fuel on board was solely for the purpose of running the ship. http://gcaptain.com/maritime/blog/ship-types-101-san-francisco-bay-bridge-oil-tanker-collision/ The Coast Guard blames the pilot and the captain, and notes that its radar resolution was […]
11 RISKS Forum: Risks Digest 24.91 // Nov 24, 2007 at 8:24 pm
[…] [Despite many reports calling it a tanker,] The Cosco Busan was actually a container ship, and the fuel on board was solely for the purpose of running the ship. http://gcaptain.com/maritime/blog/ship-types-101-san-francisco-bay-bridge-oil-tanker-collision/ […]
Leave a Comment