Ship Types 101 – San Francisco Bay Bridge Oil Tanker Collision

Published: November 12th, 2007 by John | SocialTwist Tell-a-Friend

Enjoying the blog?


We welcome you to take the next step and join the community of gCaptain readers by sharing thoughts and opinions on the forum. Click HERE to get started today!



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

Oil Tanker

Container Ship

Container Ship Cosco Busan

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 Posts:


This blog is sponsored by:




About The Author
Captain John Konrad is co-founder of Unofficial Networks and Editor In Chief of this blog. He is a USCG licensed Master Mariner of Unlimited Tonnage and, since graduating from SUNY Maritime College, has sailed a variety of ships from ports around the world. John currently lives in Morro Bay, California with his wife and two children.
Full Profile: John

Categories: Container Ship · Engines · Environment · MARPOL Incidents · San Francisco · Tankers · marpol

Tags: · , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,





  • Risk
    actually a negligence make by someone.
  • Sailor101
    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;).
  • captstash
    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.
  • Not really LMAO, next we should explain:

    NUC
    RAM
    Constrained by Draft
    Engaged in Fishing
    Sailing Vessel
    Power Driven Vessel
    Sea Plane
    WIG
  • Sailor101
    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.
blog comments powered by Disqus