ShipSpotting.com Forum

Shipspotters all over the world => Shipping News and information => Topic started by: Kelvin Davies on January 18, 2007, 11:46:46 am



Title: MSC Napoli Sinking
Post by: Kelvin Davies on January 18, 2007, 11:46:46 am
The BBC have just announced in the 11:30 news that the MSC Napoli is sinking south of the Lizard.
The crew are at this time abandoning ship and a rescue operation is under way


Title: Re: MSC Napoli Sinking
Post by: Kelvin Davies on January 18, 2007, 11:51:51 am
An update from the BBC has said the ship has a hole in her side.
The Royal navy and French rescue services are attending and all the crew have left the ship.


Title: Re: MSC Napoli Sinking
Post by: 2nd-mate on January 18, 2007, 12:06:35 pm
From the BBC site:
Rescue as ship sinks off Lizard  
A British container ship is sinking in the Channel 40 miles south of the Lizard in Cornwall.
All 26 crew of the MSC Napoli are abandoning ship and as yet there are no reports of injuries. Falmouth Coastguard is co-ordinating the rescue.

A Maritime and Coastguard Agency tug, the Anglian Princess, plus a helicopter from RNAS Culdrose, are heading towards the vessel.

The French are also involved in the rescue effort.
 

regrds

2nd-mate


Title: Re: MSC Napoli Sinking
Post by: DanSTN on January 18, 2007, 12:13:02 pm
If she sinks am I correct in thinking that she is the first post-panamax container ship to be totally lost?


Title: Re: MSC Napoli Sinking
Post by: Chris Hunsicker on January 18, 2007, 12:19:46 pm
British and French mount rescue after ship sinks
18/01/2007 12:01
LONDON (Reuters) - British and French rescue services have rushed to pick up 26 sailors forced to abandon their container ship after it began sinking in stormy seas in the Channel, the coastguard said.
The MSC Napoli was on the French side of the Channel when "somehow she became holed on the starboard side and was taking water", a Falmouth coastguard spokesman said.
One French and two British helicopters and one British and one French tug were en route to the scene in up to nine metre high waves.

Reuters


Title: Re: MSC Napoli Sinking
Post by: 2nd-mate on January 18, 2007, 12:31:46 pm
BBC Link

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/cornwall/6274625.stm

regards 2nd-mate


Title: Re: MSC Napoli Sinking
Post by: Phil English on January 18, 2007, 01:05:17 pm
At 4,427 teu she's really a baby post-panamax. Most recent panamaxes have a higher teu capacity. But, yes, strictly speaking she will be the first one totally lost.

Phil


Title: Re: MSC Napoli Sinking
Post by: Glenn Kasner on January 18, 2007, 01:43:21 pm
I see she went down slap bang in the middle of the channel (49 deg 20'N   004 deg 34'W ) - thats going to cause mayhem when some of those boxes come to the surface. They tend to "float" just below or almost at water level until they eventually break open and sink.
Glad i'm not on the bridge of anything in that area.


Title: Re: MSC Napoli Sinking
Post by: Ian G Hardie on January 18, 2007, 01:54:30 pm
Hi
 I managed to photograph the MSC NAPOLI in Felixstowe on Sunday 14/01 MSC NAPOLI (http://www.shipspotting.com/modules/myalbum/photo.php?lid=339833&cid=4 )
Glad to see the crew were rescued

Regards
dumpieship


Title: Re: MSC Napoli Sinking
Post by: Pierre Yves Gasnier on January 18, 2007, 02:07:26 pm
CGM NORMANDIE was the world's largest container ship at date of launching in 1991.
BRGDS
Pierre-yves


Title: Re: MSC Napoli Sinking
Post by: Phil English on January 18, 2007, 03:04:05 pm
Latest information according to Tradewinds is that she has NOT sunk. She is abandoned, listing and drifting a a "fair speed". All crew members believed safe.


Title: Re: MSC Napoli Sinking
Post by: Yannick GUÉRIN on January 18, 2007, 03:19:21 pm
The crew is safe and as far as we know, here in Brest, MSC Napoli has not sunk. The big concern now is about the 2000 containers et what's inside.


Title: Re: MSC Napoli Sinking
Post by: rgr004 on January 18, 2007, 03:27:26 pm
Photo of the vessel taken by French Navy :

http://www.premar-atlantique.gouv.fr/actualite/communiques/2007/1/18.html

roland


Title: Re: MSC Napoli Sinking
Post by: Charles HT on January 18, 2007, 03:46:45 pm
Do we have confirmed reports of vessel sinking?, or is their operations underway to save her?


Title: Re: MSC Napoli Sinking
Post by: Scotsman on January 18, 2007, 04:06:50 pm
By the photo published by the French Maritime guys, she seems to be afloat............and what about the 40 odd
containers the press talks about - she must be
carrying hundreds of them !


Title: Re: MSC Napoli Sinking
Post by: Phil English on January 18, 2007, 04:11:23 pm
Charlie,

If you read my last posting and the one from Yannick, you will see that she has not yet sunk.

Phil


Title: Re: MSC Napoli Sinking
Post by: Charles HT on January 18, 2007, 04:21:55 pm
Phil,

Thanks. I had looked at the MCA web page and other similar ones and as u said reports are she is still afloat.

Regards

Charles


Title: Re: MSC Napoli Sinking
Post by: Yannick GUÉRIN on January 18, 2007, 05:04:13 pm
The number of 40 is of coursea mistake. According to the French Navy, in  its message at 15.46 today, MSC Napoli is carryng 2 394 containers.


Title: Re: MSC Napoli Sinking
Post by: Ben Backstay on January 18, 2007, 05:44:22 pm
This forum has produced some very good sources giving the latest available information concerning MSC Napoli. However I am dismayed at the number of people who base their information on the early UK media reports that the ship has sunk and is only carrying around 40 containers. It goes to show that the UK media just does not understand anything about ships and they never will. It also proves that you should not believe everything you hear or read about in the media. At least the BBC lunch time news had it as a headline story, but with ITV it almost didn't mention it at all.
The other factor is that the ship is registered in London. Yet another case of the media ignoring the sad plight of the British merchant navy (even though this ship is using the red duster as a flag of convenience!)
Keep up the good news links, it's the only way of keeping up with the situation.


Title: Re: MSC Napoli Sinking
Post by: Caille Pierre-Alfred on January 18, 2007, 06:59:42 pm
The container ships transports 2.394 containers, that is to say 41.773 tons, 1.684 tons are dangereous products classified because of the OMI (categories: explosive, gas, flammable liquid, flammable solid, oxidants, toxic materials and corrodents). Moreover, at the time of its departure of Antwerp, the MCS Napoli had on board 3645 m3 of fuel (3498 m3 of heavy fuel and 147 m3 of gas oil).
A trace of pollution of 5 kilometers out of 100 meters was located with the back of the ship by Falcon 50 of the national navy. The MSC Napoli was taken tows some by the tug boat of intervention Abeille Bourbon to 18h20.
Pictures gallery here :
http://www.premar-atlantique.gouv.fr/galeries/MSC-Napoli

Le porte-conteneurs transporte 2 394 conteneurs, soit 41 773 tonnes, dont 1 684 tonnes sont des produits classés dangereux par l'OMI (catégories : explosif, gaz, liquide inflammable, solide inflammable, oxydants, matériaux toxiques et corrosifs). En outre, lors de son départ d'Anvers, le MCS Napoli avait à bord 3645 m3 de combustible (3498 m3 de fuel lourd et 147 m3 de gasoil).Une trace de pollution de 5 kilomètres sur 100 mètres a été repérée à l'arrière du navire par un Falcon 50 de la marine nationale.
Le MSC Napoli a été pris en remorque par le remorqueur d'intervention Abeille Bourbon à 18h20.
Gallerie de photos : http://www.premar-atlantique.gouv.fr/galeries/MSC-Napoli

Source : http://www.premar-atlantique.gouv.fr/actualite/communiques/2007/1/18-2.html

Pierre-Alfred Caille
www.ships.be


Title: Re: MSC Napoli Sinking
Post by: Ian G Hardie on January 18, 2007, 11:34:05 pm
Hi
 Watched the BBC 10 o'clock news was not impressed with the coverage they were talking about the MSC NAPOLI whilst showing the lifeboat and an orange hulled tanker as though this was the ship in trouble they also refered to her as the NAPOLI.
I belive that the press coverage of news involving any form of transport, apart from cars, is diabolicle and it is treated as a side issue.

Am I being to pickie?

Regards
dumpieship


Title: Re: MSC Napoli Sinking
Post by: Ship's Cat on January 18, 2007, 11:52:53 pm
No you're not being picky, mainstream media coverage of shipping incidents is appalling. Ships are usually either 'ferries' or 'tankers' or the generic 'freighter' (closer to the mark, I admit). I guess we're lucky the beeb actually stretched to the term 'container ship' and got the class of vessel correct.
I saw the orange tanker and thought 'Well, that ain't it, can't they get anything right?!'.

Btw, I photographed MSC Napoli passing Terneuzen in 2005 and the photo's on my website.

What's the latest news?


Title: Re: MSC Napoli Sinking
Post by: DanSTN on January 19, 2007, 12:09:15 am
Coverage on Sky News was even worse. They described the ship as a 'tanker' and showed pictures of a nearby Ro-Ro vessel that they clearly assumed was the vessel in trouble. It is quite amazing how the media can get it so wrong sometimes.


Title: Re: MSC Napoli Sinking
Post by: Magogman on January 19, 2007, 12:25:38 am
This thread has become a bit confusing to me, partly because I have been working all day away from the computer and partly because I am in the U.S. 5 hours different in time and partly because I am a little dense!

What is the latest status of the MSC Napoli?
sunk?
being towed to port?
floundering?
etc?

many thanks for your update!


Title: Re: MSC Napoli Sinking
Post by: Andrew McAlpine on January 19, 2007, 12:58:32 am
Hi,
    the latest is she is bing towed to le havre, however the french authorities are still worried she may break in two due to the large split in the hull.

Hope this helps to clear things up!!

rgds
Andrew   :-D


Title: Re: MSC Napoli Sinking
Post by: Magogman on January 19, 2007, 01:36:53 am
Thanks Andrew for the info.  I appreciate it.  And thanks to those that have posted or reposted photos of the ship.  I follow that fleet closely from a great distance so appreciate the above.


Title: Re: MSC Napoli Sinking
Post by: Yannick GUÉRIN on January 19, 2007, 05:53:07 pm
If you want to see impressive pictures of the salvage of the crew, go to this link :

http://www.ouest-france.fr/dossiers/galerie_napoli.asp


Title: Re: MSC Napoli Sinking
Post by: Alan Smillie on January 19, 2007, 09:54:50 pm
MSC Napoli now off Torquay with tugs Abeille Bourbon, Abeille Liberte and Anglian Princess.


Title: Re: MSC Napoli Sinking
Post by: Miguel Nóia on January 19, 2007, 10:07:37 pm
The last information is that the MSC Napoli and the tugs are expected at the middle of the night on Lyme Bay according to the news at http://www.premar-atlantique.gouv.fr/actualite/communiques/2007/1/19-4.html .
Also in http://aisfree.aislive.com/Influx.aspx?Map=Lyme%20Bay all the tugs can be also seen.
Regards
Miguel Nóia


Title: Re: MSC Napoli Sinking
Post by: Kent Malo on January 19, 2007, 11:54:56 pm
The two Abeille tugs Bourbon and Liberte are now at a heading of 135, S E at about 2.5 knots, they were on a course of 095 but have changed course in the past half hour, still no Idea where they are heading.


Title: Re: MSC Napoli Sinking
Post by: Kent Malo on January 20, 2007, 02:41:33 am
The tow is about 13.5 naut. miles East of the closest land, there are just about stopped and were heading 090 at N50.25.501-W003.04.626, their speed keeps fluctuating, as well as their heading.


Title: Re: MSC Napoli Sinking
Post by: ralf_03 on January 20, 2007, 11:18:12 am
Dear all,

First of all I want ot thank you for all the information you posted here in the forum.
After all crew members have returned safely now my attention is turned to the cargo of the vessel.
My problem is, that I work in Munich, cut off from all nautical information. Therefore I am absolutely addicted to you and your news posted here in the forum.
I will sleep not well again before I receive the news, that MSC Napoli arrived at a save place and the chances to recover most of the containers are good.
For this reason I ask you to post the latest news and also the latest pictures here in the forum as soon as you get them.

Thank you again for your support and I wish you a nice weekend.
Ralf


Title: Re: MSC Napoli Sinking
Post by: Kent Malo on January 20, 2007, 12:09:35 pm
The tow of the MSC Napoli has arrived some 1.5 Naut miles off the coast between Branscombe, and Sidmouth, England, I don't know what the condition of MSC Napoli is at this time, they were joined last evening by the French SAR vessel Argonaute,anyone who might reside in that area may be able to get photos or gives us an update, I can only see what is on my AIS, names and dots of vessels, plus their coordinates, lat, lon, headings, speed, and type of vessel, etc.


Title: Re: MSC Napoli Sinking
Post by: Chris Hunsicker on January 20, 2007, 12:35:52 pm
BBC News 12:35hrs MSC Napoli going to be beach near Brancombe


Title: Re: MSC Napoli Sinking
Post by: Caille Pierre-Alfred on January 20, 2007, 12:44:52 pm
DECISION TAKEN TO BEACH CONTAINER VESSEL

The weather overnight has been very poor with 45 knots of wind and a 5 metre swell.

The MSC NAPOLI has suffered serious structural failure. The large cracks on both sides of the ship have worsened during the night. The stern of the ship is gradually settling lower in the water and deteriorating.

The forecast is for South West wind veering Westerly 6 to gale 8, occasionally severe gale 9.

Risk assessments have been carried out and continually updated. The priority is to gain as much shelter as possible and keep the vessel in one piece. Therefore the decision has been made to beach the vessel and ballast it down east of Sidmouth.

The environmental sensitivities in the Lyme Bay area have been fully assessed as part of the operational planning process. The process involved an Environment Group which included representatives from local and national environment regulators. The beaching location was selected based on minimising the impact of any spillage and enabling salvage work to remove the vessel and cargo to take place.

The local authorities and environmental groups have been notified and all agencies are working together to ensure that there is no pollution from the vessel until such time as the salvage operation can remove containers and pollutants contained within it.


Source :
http://www.mcga.gov.uk/c4mca/mcga-newsroom/mcga-press-releases.htm?id=D6D229E16CC62098&m=1&y=2007


Title: Re: MSC Napoli Sinking
Post by: Kent Malo on January 20, 2007, 01:02:03 pm
The British SAR vessel Anglian Princess, has left the group towing the MSC Napoli, Anglian Princess is heading ESE with a heading of 113, at 13.7 knots,  Caille reported from a news report, MSC Napoli will be beached, and I assumed that was going to be the plan, I don't know if there are port facilities at either these two communities of Sidmouth and Branscombe, that can handle a vessel of this size.


Title: Re: MSC Napoli Sinking
Post by: atoz on January 20, 2007, 01:21:28 pm
I watch this type of casualty from time to time. Usually there are good reports on www.dolphin-maritime.com I checked there but guess since it is the weekend they will probably update next week.
Ciao


Title: Re: MSC Napoli Sinking
Post by: AtlanticX on January 20, 2007, 02:30:39 pm
As previously posted, the MCGA report says she is going to be beached. Branscombe and Sidmouth are small villages with no port facilities. Indeed in this area the nearest port capable of accomodating a vessel of this size would either be Plymouth to the west or Southampton to the east.

I guess that they plan to offload some/all of the cargo to another vessel from the beached Napoli. The most recent MCGA report talks of structural problems so presumably the fear is she will break her back, hence the beaching.

Latest from the BBC: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/devon/6282247.stm

AX


Title: Re: MSC Napoli Sinking
Post by: Adrian Buchan on January 20, 2007, 03:48:59 pm
The MSC Napoli is now aground  1 mile off the Dorset coast at  Branscombe in Lyme Bay. They attempted to tow the vessel to Portland harbour last night, but the stern started to break away in the gale and they were forced to beach the ship. Unfortunatly she is beached in a very exposed location and is likely to break up in the next storm. Smit's are going to try and remove the cargo of 2.300 plus containers, let's hope that the weather holds for them!


Title: Re: MSC Napoli Sinking
Post by: crumblecru on January 20, 2007, 04:24:25 pm
Im not a shipping person at all but will add this as we live about 2 miles from Branscombe and saw the ship dancing around Lyme Bay this morning.  The tugs were obviously dealing with a problem (about 11 am) and the cargo was shifting.  We took a couple of photographs which have been sent to the BBC

Branscombe is about as tiny a village as you can get and the roads in and out of it are narrow and treacherous, Sidmouth is a seaside town with about 14,000 people - we have no facilities at all round here for dealing with such a large ship - that's why it was on its way to Portland.  The bay is on the World Heritage Jurassic Coast and is home to some rare corals - pink sea fans and is a fishing area (boats from the next village - Beer - work every day).

We are all really worried about possible pollution.


Title: Re: MSC Napoli Sinking
Post by: Adrian Buchan on January 20, 2007, 05:04:27 pm
We are all very worried here in Lyme Bay, this has got to be the biggest shipping disaster we have ever had.
The MSC Napoli is now aground off the coast at Branscombe and is exposed to gales from every direction except the North.  Even though Smit's the best in the world are salvaging the cargo, its obviously going to take some time and what happens then? From what I can see the ship appears to have broken its back and the stern section is in danger of breaking off. The ship could go to Portland harbour which used to be a Naval base, but its properly on the limit for a ship that size and as far as I know it has not got the facilities to repair a ship that size.
Falmouth Docks is the obvious choice as it has the facilities to repair large ships, but its unlikely to survive the trip. Indeed is it economical to repair it? The ship is 16 years old and its almost in 2 pieces! who would want to sail on a ship that almost broke up in heavy seas and would Lloyds insure it again?
I rather fear its going to break up were it stands. :-?


Title: Re: MSC Napoli Sinking
Post by: Ship's Cat on January 20, 2007, 07:06:43 pm
I'm no expert, just a lay person, but I think the likelihood of that ship getting off the beach in one piece may be remote. Even if she does, chances are she'll have a one way trip to the breakers afterwards and she has, by all appearances, broken her back and at 16 she'll be beyond repair.


Title: Re: MSC Napoli Sinking
Post by: Kent Malo on January 20, 2007, 08:06:40 pm
I believe Shipimages has the right Idea for this vessel, she will not be worth of rebuilding, 16 years old is not a long life for a ship, maybe lack of proper maintenance, bad ballasting, does contribute to some extent the demises of some vessels, my opinion only, lets hope she does not break up before all containers are removed, simular the the CP Valour in Portugal, although this latter vessel was towed off her grounding perch, only after all containers were removed and parts of the vessel broken up, hopefully conditions at Branscombe will allow for this to happen there. Unfortunately, MSC Napoli will be there for time before all this will take place, much to chagrin of the townspeople, who have reason to worry.


Title: Re: MSC Napoli Sinking
Post by: Kent Malo on January 20, 2007, 09:30:00 pm
The BBC has more on the MSC Napoli arriving at Branscombe Bay.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/


Title: Re: MSC Napoli Sinking
Post by: jnrawdon on January 20, 2007, 10:31:59 pm
I imagine they are going to do an APL Panama job, she grounded on a lee shore in a very exposed position with a full load of containers, at Ensenada, Mexico. The containers were all unloaded, the ship refloated and returned to her owners by Titan Marine, now part of Crowley. They have a page on it here:
http://www.titansalvage.com/aboutus/gallery/gallery69.html


Title: MSC Napoli Sinking
Post by: FWE on January 20, 2007, 10:49:28 pm
The MSC Napoli appears to be on the brink of similar fate to the MSC Carla (http://www.containershipping.nl/casualties.html )which broke up in the Atlantic with both in loaded condition in heavy weather. Are there any common factors ? eg lengthening ? speed in conditions ? loading ? other stress ?

This is not a Derbyshire (ex Liverpool Bridge) and Kowloon Bridge (ex English Bridge) type of link but question is if it is coincidence or a factor apart from weather itself ?


Title: Re: MSC Napoli Sinking
Post by: Richard Matterson on January 20, 2007, 11:00:08 pm
The main difference between the APL Panama and MSC Napoli was that the APL Panama didn't have structural failure.  I suspect that if they don't work quickly there won't be much to remove if you get another storm like the current one.


Title: Re: MSC Napoli Sinking
Post by: Bearsie on January 20, 2007, 11:16:19 pm
The current difficulties are clearly caused by the hull cracks just in front of the bridge.
Why they developed is another question, the ship was stranded with a full load high and dry on a reef for 60 days about 6 years ago. One would have to know if she has sisterships and if they have problems.
I would assume that she was built using high strength steel, which while light and strong is also brittle and more prone to corrosion, compared to mild steel.
As an aside there is a german shipping company "Egon Oldendorff" that will only buy ships build with mild steel...
The bad weather alone certainly is not the main factor or we would have broken ships all over the place.
There was a series of british ships (all with the suffix "Bridge") a while back that all developed cracks at frame 68 within 6 years of being build.
I assume those are the ones you are referring to?

As far as repairing her? that's a simple equation of market value and what would have to be repaired.
Splicing in a few feet of hull certainly would be cheaper than a new ship and most certainly faster.
A
Quote

FWE wrote:
The MSC Napoli appears to be on the brink of similar fate to the MSC Carla (http://www.containershipping.nl/casualties.html )which broke up in the Atlantic with both in loaded condition in heavy weather. Are there any common factors ? eg lengthening ? speed in conditions ? loading ? stress ?

This is not a Derbyshire and Kowloon Bridge type of link but question is if it is coincidence or a common factor apart from weather itself ?


Title: Re: MSC Napoli Sinking
Post by: Adrian Buchan on January 20, 2007, 11:17:24 pm
The BBC website has a picture which shows a slit in the Hull on the starboard side, just in front of the Bridge superstructure which is over two meters wide, running from the deck level and going vertically down to the waterline. They say that it is the same on the port side which means that there must be a large gap were the deck joins the bridge section and there can't be much holding the stern on.


Title: Re: MSC Napoli Sinking
Post by: FWE on January 20, 2007, 11:37:24 pm
Yes the common factor between the break up of the MSC Carla and the MSC Napoli may relate to stuctural alterations or repairs (if any) relating to earlier incidents, the lengthening of the MSC Carla was considered as an issue in that break up, and the previous stranding of MSC Napoli may well be an issue in this one. Anyone know what speed the MSC Napoli was trying to make before the incident ? Earlier claims concerning the MSC Carla (see http://www.containershipping.nl/casualties.html ) were also of stresses from maintaining speed in heavy weather. Is this to be the achilles heel of large fast containerships that the stresses imposed by weather etc are not easily recognised until it is too late ?

I thank you for your helpful reply and information re the previous grounding in loaded condition of same MSC Napoli.


Title: Re: MSC Napoli Sinking
Post by: Jim Croucher on January 20, 2007, 11:58:59 pm
Tonight's TV news reports state that up to 50 containers have been lost overboard, but this is a small percentage of the potential loss. However for obvious reasons I'd prefer to hear this from a more reliable source. No doubt the vessel will be listing heavily once firmly aground and bad weather will knock a few boxes off especially with the reduced freeboard. They say she is listing to 35 degrees. Fingers crossed for a successful salvage - I know many of you will appreciate the risks involved with such an operation far better than I. There's one hell of a lot at stake here besides the vessel and her cargo - think environment, politics etc..etc.. I agree that pictures of casualties are extremely interesting but I think I speak on behalf of most people involved in the industry when I say "fingers crossed".....

Jim C


Title: Re: MSC Napoli Sinking
Post by: johnseaton on January 21, 2007, 01:41:42 am
hi i am at the site of the wear she sat on the sand rgs john seaton devon uk ps i got pics of it to i take more ea day


Title: Re: MSC Napoli Sinking
Post by: johnseaton on January 21, 2007, 01:47:52 am
i am here at site i got pic of this ship sat on sand will take pic ea day rgs john seaton devon uk


Title: Re: MSC Napoli Sinking
Post by: Jim Croucher on January 21, 2007, 08:33:45 am
Latest press release from the MCGA.....

http://www.mcga.gov.uk/c4mca/mcga-newsroom/mcga-press-releases.htm?id=7E93C1785D5C985C&m=1&y=2007 (http://www.mcga.gov.uk/c4mca/mcga-newsroom/mcga-press-releases.htm?id=7E93C1785D5C985C&m=1&y=2007)

Jim C


Title: Re: MSC Napoli Sinking
Post by: Alan Smillie on January 21, 2007, 09:47:28 am
UKs "Sky News" are giving regular live updates of the MSC Napoli condition, on site they say it is listing over 30º and could turn over very soon.


Title: Re: MSC Napoli Sinking
Post by: Jim Croucher on January 21, 2007, 09:48:09 am
Two good pictures of her on the Prefecture Maritime website...

http://www.premar-manche.gouv.fr/services/actualites/communiques/e-docs/00/00/24/88/document_communique.php?PHPSESSID=8e4d355c9ea1895fefb3d032c9b67aad (http://www.premar-manche.gouv.fr/services/actualites/communiques/e-docs/00/00/24/88/document_communique.php?PHPSESSID=8e4d355c9ea1895fefb3d032c9b67aad)

Jim C


Title: Re: MSC Napoli Sinking
Post by: Mats on January 21, 2007, 10:08:26 am
Brand new video from Sky News HERE (http://news.sky.com/skynews/video/videoplayer/0,,30000-ship_live0830,00.html).

Looks horrible. Hope they can take of the fuel oil and save the cargo before she rolls over.

Mats
Oslo


Title: Re: MSC Napoli Sinking
Post by: Captain M on January 21, 2007, 10:54:18 am
Any sailor will tell you - 2,000+ flimsy boxes and 3,000 tonnes of heavy fuel oil have no chance of surviving the Western English Channel in January.  

This is a major incident.

I certainly will not be taking a beach holiday in Devon this year.


Title: Re: MSC Napoli Sinking
Post by: crumblecru on January 21, 2007, 11:54:36 am
Apparently the vessel is currently listing to 35 degrees and at least two toxic containers have gone overboard - one with battery acid and one with perfume chemicals.  There is an oil slick 5 miles wide heading towards Lyme Regis and there are already reports of sea birds covered in oil.


Title: Re: MSC Napoli Sinking
Post by: weta on January 21, 2007, 02:39:06 pm
The BBC has published a number of images taken by local residents, one of which shows beached containers.

BBC NEWS (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_pictures/6284377.stm)


Title: Re: MSC Napoli Sinking
Post by: irrelevant on January 21, 2007, 02:42:07 pm
Just wanted to put in a small bit of news that's not bad. The company I work for has a container on MSC Napoli in transit to a customer. It is one of the containers of 'hazardous chemicals'. It is not toxic. It is 3000 kilos of liquid tobacco flavouring (licorice, IIRC). It is classified as a HazMat because it is flammable. It is flammable because the major component of the compound is ethanol (grain alcohol). The flavouring is in 30 kilo carboys (individually tightly-sealed) that are shrinkwrapped onto pallets in groups of 14. The void space in the container would contain airbags.

I would have to assume that ours is not the only relatively benign HazMat among her cargo....


Title: Re: MSC Napoli Sinking
Post by: Bearsie on January 21, 2007, 02:55:32 pm
A lot of harmless items become legally "Hazmat" if there is more then a certain quantity in one pile, its great fun in trucking....
And it allows the news casters to scare the beejesus out of the public at almost no expense  :-o


Title: Re: MSC Napoli Sinking
Post by: weta on January 21, 2007, 03:08:56 pm
These are three of the best photos I've seen so far covering the disaster.

Photo 1 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/leonneal/364489440/in/photostream/) - Photo 2 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/leonneal/364489395/in/photostream/) - Photo 3 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/leonneal/364489490/in/photostream/)


Title: Re: MSC Napoli Sinking
Post by: Morten on January 21, 2007, 04:55:00 pm
Hey everybody... Just thought I'd give my two cents on this:

First off, there must be a chief mate out there who will have some serious explaining to do!
I have sailed on one of Maersks S-class vessels (Columbine Mærsk) where we crossed the northern pacific and experienced 60 kn winds and 12-15 meter waves. Ofcause warping could be seen in the engineers passage but nothing excessive! These ships have been built to cope with 2-3 meters of warping throughout the length of the ship! If it is loaded correctly, any containership of this size should be able to withstand a wind force 10-11!
They probably hadn't loaded the ship correctly resulting in a massive shear force which can break the back of any ship! The short version: This is probably down to the ohh so common thing in shipping accidents, The human factor! Elseway, the ship wouldn't have cracked in that way!

Also, regarding the "HazMat" containers, the containers that are being refered to are probably the IMDG-cargo, and since the news stations have allready showed their ignorance when it comes to ships, they probably translated that into containers containing marine pollutants. That isn't the case! Most IMDG cargo is harmless to the environment. I have sailed with DC-containers that contained cotton wool or seat belt pretentioning charges. Not exactly substances that is a menace to the environment! Ofcause there might be some MP (marine pollutant) containers among the cargo, but chances are that there is no more than 8-10 of those onboard. The main concern with the lost containers should be whether any of them are drifting towards the traffic lanes interruptuing traffic in the channel!
But from an environmental point of view, the fuel oil is a far greater danger to the surroundings than the container-cargo, but then again, the tanks are spread throughout the ship, so the risk of spilling all of the oil is almost non existent!

Anyway, good to hear that the whole crew was rescued!

Just my 2 cents

Morten


Title: Re: MSC Napoli Sinking
Post by: maz_atenza on January 21, 2007, 05:59:11 pm
Guys theres something really wrong here.
I'm a sailor and also a containership planner,
look at the picture 9 on the following link

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_pictures/6284377.stm

Theres no way that the ship would lose whole Deck stacks like that if the twistlocks and the lashing bars are properly done.

I personally think that the base lock on the hatch cover were not lock properly and most probably the lashing done wrong as well.

Reports today are stating that the vessel lost already more than 150 units!!! unbelievable !!!

Some will say ,yah but you know that was real bad weather... look at the pictures here  

http://www.horta.uac.pt/projectos/cp_valour/index.html

This is weeks and month of bad weather and the Valour has lost only a small amount of units overboard.

MSC are also know to load their vessel to critical stress and stability without to much of a second taught for the crew and vessel.

Anyway like Morten said,
A lot of explaining to do for the Chief officer and the Captain of this vessel...
and in the end they will be blame no matter what they will find in the investigation.

The only real concerned is over now, THE CREW IS SAFE!!
Pollution will probably be minimal. A lot of ppw ahead for the insurers.

Have a good one.
M@z


Title: Re: MSC Napoli Sinking
Post by: neillt on January 21, 2007, 07:11:43 pm
Was this ship heading to Liverpool?


Title: Re: MSC Napoli Sinking
Post by: portagent on January 21, 2007, 07:14:49 pm
... no, she was on the way to Sines, Portugal.


Title: Re: MSC Napoli Sinking
Post by: neillt on January 21, 2007, 07:19:05 pm
Thanks,

Just look at a web site which said she was due in Liverpool

http://www.aisliverpool.org.uk/currentmap.php?map=livbay


Title: Re: MSC Napoli Sinking
Post by: Kelvin Davies on January 21, 2007, 07:31:56 pm
I think you are wrong about the container lashings etc.
I have been to the beach today to see the scene and most of the containers have washed up on the beach in complete stacks (3 or 4 containers high). They are mostly still locked together.
However, I saw one stack which had a piece of ship still fixed to it. What I mean by this is the steel frame that the first container is fixed to.
Also, the weather has literally ripped many containers to pieces; there is one container with a lump of steel torn out of the steel beam at the bottom of the container. It looks as if a big dog took a bite out of it.
Also on the beach are pieces of thin or sheet steel that look as if a giant had picked up some steel sheets and torn them into pieces.
As I drove away, I was intrigued to hear the BBC news talk about "salvage efforts; oil and sea birds covered in oil being washed up on the beach etc". Not when I was there!
There were some containers floating 400 to 500 metres off shore and 5 or 6 tugs sitting around and some of them were a mile or so from the wreck.
I saw a couple of coastguard people heading off along the beach but this was the beach where I had been taking photographs 5 minutes earlier and there was no oil or sea birds.
At the other, eastern, end of the beach, I guess one container must have carried food of some sort as the sea birds there were having a great time diving and eating something!
By the way; if anyone owns a shipment in container number MSCU7820820, I know where it is! I shall post a phot of it later.
Kelvin


Title: Re: MSC Napoli Sinking
Post by: FWE on January 21, 2007, 08:06:45 pm
In summary these are similar conditions to earlier break up of the MSC Carla in heavy weather, noting also that the MSC Napoli had hull stress from a previous hard grounding.


Title: Re: MSC Napoli Sinking
Post by: marapito on January 21, 2007, 08:11:45 pm
77+ hi-res pics of MSC Napoli disaster

http://www.flickr.com/search/?s=rec&w=all&q=Napoli+ship&m=text


Title: Re: MSC Napoli Sinking
Post by: Adrian Buchan on January 21, 2007, 08:14:40 pm
The French tug Abeille Bourbon has now left the scene and has just cleared Start Point and appears to be heading towards France at 11.3 Knots. The Anglian Princess is just entering Portland harbour. The is no sign yet of any salvage vessels arriving to remove the containers.


Title: Re: MSC Napoli Sinking
Post by: sailorT on January 21, 2007, 09:47:19 pm
Quote

neillt wrote:
Thanks,

Just look at a web site which said she was due in Liverpool

http://www.aisliverpool.org.uk/currentmap.php?map=livbay



no, she was heading to Sines, Portugal. The ship that is alive and well in Liverpool is the CSCL Napoli.


Title: Re: MSC Napoli Sinking
Post by: weta on January 21, 2007, 10:15:32 pm
Is it true that the ship ran aground before, got repaired in Vietnam, and renamed the MSC Napoli?


Title: Re: MSC Napoli Sinking
Post by: FWE on January 21, 2007, 10:25:39 pm
Yes that incident also involved engine room flooding as now indicating cracking in same area.


Title: Re: MSC Napoli Sinking
Post by: rgr004 on January 21, 2007, 11:04:15 pm
CMA CGM Normandie ran aground on 27th March 2001 in the Malacca strait. The cause was human mistake while overtaking another vessel. She ran aground at 21 knots and was very close to be declared a total loss.
Repairs included a lot of double bottom renewal. She has been carrying a lot of containers since and is classed by a leading classification society. This ship is obviously "unlucky".


Title: Re: MSC Napoli Sinking
Post by: weta on January 21, 2007, 11:30:41 pm
Thank you for answering my question.


Title: Re: MSC Napoli Sinking
Post by: maz_atenza on January 21, 2007, 11:58:33 pm
CMA-CGM Normandie
   
 
In short
Name: CMA-CGM Normandie
Date: 27 March 2001
Location: Singapore
   
Accident area: strait of Malacca, with 6 miles from Singapour
Ship type: container carrier
Flag: French
Reason for spill: grounding
Last update: April 2006



On 27 March 2001, the container carrier the CMA-CGM Normandie was travelling from Malaysia to Indonesia at 22 knots, with a cargo of 3,312 containers (31,364 tonnes) onboard, when she hit a coral reef in the Strait of Malacca, 6 miles from Singapore. Ballast plating and roofs were torn. Two holds were completely flooded. The stern of the ship faced water leaks through cable channels, particularly in the machine compartment.

The cause of the accident lies essentially on the fact the CMA-CGM Normandie strayed from its path to the right-hand side of the channel to pass slower ships. The Singaporean maritime control centre tried for nearly two hours to make contact with the ship, in order to indicate it was heading in the wrong direction. The two French officers, including the commanding officer, were on the bridge, and therefore did not hear the call.

The ship was not refloated until 22 April, more than 60 days after the accident. Fortunately, there was no noticeable pollution. For more details about the accident, see “le Marin” from 5 October 2001 and “le Journal de la Marine Marchande” from 12 October 2001.


Title: Re: MSC Napoli Sinking
Post by: maz_atenza on January 22, 2007, 12:08:34 am
The 62277 DWT MSC NAPOLI (IMO 9000601) The MSC
NAPOLI is built in 1992 at the Samsung yard in South Korea under yard number 1082 as the CGM NORMANDIE,
renamed during 1995 in NEDLLOYD NORMANDIE until 2001 when she was renamed again in CMA CGM
NORMANDIE until November 2004 when she was renamed in MSC NAPOLI, the vessel measures a length of 275
mtr and a width of 37.1 mtr, the registered owner at present is Societe Anonyme Monegasque d'Administration
Maritime et Aerienne (SAMAMA) in Monaco and the vessel is flying the British flag.


Title: Re: MSC Napoli Sinking
Post by: maz_atenza on January 22, 2007, 12:35:48 am
http://news.yahoo.com/photo/070121/photos_wl/2007_01_21t120823_450x299_uk_britain_ship

multiple 4 and 5 high stack on the beach ....


Title: Re: MSC Napoli Sinking
Post by: Tim Twichell on January 22, 2007, 06:49:26 am
Smit is on the way. They will deal with her just fine. If they can't nobody can. My guess is that she will be salved and removed in a timely manner... Lets just wait and see.


Smit to salvage stranded ship Napoli
Monday 22 January 2007

Rotterdam-based marine services group Smit is to salvage the container ship MSC Napoli which got into trouble during Thursday's storm and is now stuck on a sandbank off the English coast. A spokeswoman declined to give details on Sunday but told ANP a Smit vessel was on its way to the Napoli for the towage operation.

The MSC Napoli suffered structural damage during Thursday's storms and was beached on a sandbank to stop it sinking in deep water. It is thought that up to 200 tonnes of oil may have leaked from a fuel tank. Efforts are now underway to keep the oil from reaching the shore. Some 150 of the 2,400 containers the Napoli was carrying have gone overboard

The BBC reported that that the ship had previously ran aground


Title: Re: MSC Napoli Sinking
Post by: Richard Matterson on January 22, 2007, 10:46:16 am
Ah... why spoil a good story with the truth, television news here in Australia just reported on a mammoth oil spill leaking from a tanker packed with hazardous chemicals that had run aground in the channel - at least the pictures where of the MSC Napoli.


Title: Re: MSC Napoli Sinking
Post by: Aleksi & Tane Lindström on January 22, 2007, 11:18:29 am
Matt, the same phenomenon here, one paper told she is a tanker and is carrying a cargo of oil and so on and of course the press is all mad about the hazardous cargo, which a crew member was just a normal cargo on a container ship... the press, the press! Battery acid isn't a problem when it mixes with sea water.

Brgds,
Aleksi


Title: Re: MSC Napoli Sinking
Post by: Adrian Buchan on January 22, 2007, 11:34:23 am
It will be interesting to see how Smit's are going to tow away this vessel without the stern falling off. They are going to need a long period of fine weather to get the fuel and cargo off so that they can tow it away. If the South and SW. gales return she won't last long were she is now.
 A fisherman tells me this morning that there are many containers floating around in Lyme Bay and they are concerned about how many are sunk on the seabed in what is a prime fishing ground.
There is also another worry, Brixham is a pilot station for embarking and disembarking North Sea pilots, we have fast container ships arriving here constantly to pick up and drop pilots, the possibility of containers floating just below the surface is obviously going to be a hazard to them at night.


Title: Re: MSC Napoli Sinking
Post by: Kelvin Davies on January 22, 2007, 12:42:52 pm
When I was down at Branscombe yesterday morning, I could see a couple of containers a few hundred yards off the shore with about 2 feet showing above the water.
As the reports are all saying about 200 broke free and I could see about 20 on shore at Branscombe, there must be a nightmare below the water in that area with containers all at different levels.
I am waiting to see what they will do to remove or recover the stuff on the beach as it is going to be extremely difficult to get a big wagon and lifting gear down those little lanes.


Title: Re: MSC Napoli Sinking
Post by: TREBOATS on January 22, 2007, 02:20:39 pm
Very early images taken on the first day during the helicopter rescue and on display at the following web site

http://www.premar-atlantique.gouv.fr/galeries

Is a photo down port side which shows that the hull is already out of aline sagging aft of the accomodation structure. How come it took so long for the rest of the world to wake up to this? A Salvage surveyor friend in South Africa mentioned on the afternoon of the incident that she looked ready for "the big break". On same web site is another photo showing empty port side davits and there is a clear mark in line with bridge front. Later shown to one of the fracture points.

The bulk of her fuel oil is in the wing tanks and not thought to be leaking at present.

MSC Napoli's previous grounding


Stranded on Helen Mar Reef, in lat. 01 07.12N., long. 103 46.36E. on 27/3/01. Refloated 22/4/01 and towed to Tanjung Pelapas. Drydocked at Singapore for inspection. Towed into shipyard at Nha Trang 6/6/01 for repairs. Sailed 22/10/01.

Vessel grounded at full speed causing severe damage to bow area, forepeak and forward ballast tanks were breached and duct keel totally flooded. Five holds were damaged. Part of the cargo of containers was unloaded onto barges prior to refloating and bunkers were removed. Further containers were unloaded at Tanjung Pelapas and the remainder at Singapore. Repairs at the Hyundai Vinashin Shipyard in Vietnam involved some 3,000 tonnes of steel renewal. This was MSC Napoli's previous grounding when named CMA CGM Normandie.

So that was no small incident. Her Management company dont have too good a reputation I hear.


Title: Re: MSC Napoli Sinking
Post by: maz_atenza on January 22, 2007, 02:38:52 pm
From lloydslist.com

Containers

Voice of authority
Monday 22 January 2007

IN A maritime emergency, decision-making is paramount, while some leadership doesn’t come amiss. It is not a process which benefits from the time-consuming input of committees, while it is infinitely better for the end result if politicians, local and national are kept away from the action. A sinking ship is a technical problem that demands professional answers.

The MSC Napoli incident is arguably the biggest maritime emergency requiring the intervention of the Secretary of State’s Representative in the six years since Robin Middleton was appointed. But it is also the incident which illustrates more than any other why such a role can be justified, and why the concept of the SOSREP has worked.

This was a fast-moving situation with a very large ship which had been abandoned. There was little inkling of the structural situation inside the hull of the vessel, although the vessel was settling by the stern indicating that the water from the flooded engineroom was penetrating aft. The stresses on a badly damaged hull were clearly increasing.

Decisions had to be made; first, to tow the damaged ship to Lyme Bay, where there was shelter, a sandy bottom and at least a hope of stabilising the situation. Secondly, when the situation worsened. to beach the vessel.

It was the job of the SOSREP to make these decisions; this was precisely why his appointment would have been made in 1999, after the decision making processes in marine emergency had been found wanting in the Sea Empress grounding.

It is immensely tempting to consider an alternative scenario; of intergovernmental arguments between France and the UK, of crisis committees heavily populated by politicians, "experts" bidden to attend. Fierce representations from local prefectures and politicians pointing out the dire consequences of pollution on their coast, upon the upcoming elections.

Loud political grandstanding about "flags of convenience". A storm of protest from the environmentalists, demanding that the ship be towed out to sea, away - anywhere- other than their back yard. Do we recognise such a scenario from the Erika, Prestige or Castor casualties?

It could still go pear shaped. Nobody could possibly underestimate the salvage problems of unloading, patching, and refloating such a severely damaged hull. A containership is difficult to make watertight and a nightmare to unload in an open, weather-bound location.

But throughout the developing situation we can be assured that professionals are making the right decisions and that there will be honesty and transparency demonstrated to media questions by the SOSREP, who tells it how it is, without embellishments or nuance.

What of the owners of the ship or its charterers, who, by contrast, have been keeping their heads remarkably low during this time of trial? Neither the Ofer-owned Zodiac, (which operates the ship under the Red Ensign) or Mediterranean Shipping Company for that matter, have a history of media friendliness, and tend to forget that when there is a ship in peril, or the environment at risk, issues of commercial confidence disappear and media and public interest are entirely legitimate.

Maybe they too should take some lessons, about the importance of doing things right, and being seen to do them, from the SOSREP. There has been endless discussion about the "image" of the industry, and the need to deal with its reputation for secrecy and a general lack of transparency. It is when things go badly wrong that a true test of a reputation is provided.

 2007 Informa plc. All rights Reserved. Lloyd's is the registered trademark of the Society incorporated by the Lloyd's Act 1871 by the name of Lloyd's


Title: Re: MSC Napoli Sinking
Post by: irrelevant on January 22, 2007, 04:26:34 pm
Quote
Theres no way that the ship would lose whole Deck stacks like that if the twistlocks and the lashing bars are properly done.

I personally think that the base lock on the hatch cover were not lock properly and most probably the lashing done wrong as well.

Reports today are stating that the vessel lost already more than 150 units!!! unbelievable !!!

It looks like these containers have come loose from the starboard quarter, where the sea is breaking over the weather deck. There are a couple of pics among the many linked above that show this quite clearly. The bottom layer or two of cans would be underwater part of the time, and their bouyancy together with the force of the breaking seas would gradually weaken and eventually cause to fail the connections holding them to the ship. This is not cans popping off one or two at a time, this is whole stacks of them ripping loose together.


Title: Re: MSC Napoli Sinking
Post by: Ship's Cat on January 22, 2007, 05:07:06 pm
There are oiled birds beginning to show up along the Devon and Dorset coasts now. The latest can be found on the Portland Bird Observatory's website: http://www.portlandbirdobs.btinternet.co.uk/aa_latestnews.htm

Ok, not all of it is from MSC Napoli, some oiled birds were reported a few days before, presumably from some unscrupulous halfwit washing his tanks at sea, but it is not too presumptious to think that a significant number of these birds are victims of the MSC Napoli accident.


Title: Re: MSC Napoli Sinking
Post by: Chris Allport on January 22, 2007, 05:08:28 pm
What an excellent editoial from Lloyds List (perhaps a few other coastal administrationsw will take note), however I am surprised at them for not first checking both Zodiac Maritime and MSC websites before publishing their comments. Even if rather concise, Zodiac issued press releases on both 18th and 21st echoing their action and concerns - which one would expect from from a well managed and quality operator. Needless to say that MSC was silent.


Title: Re: MSC Napoli Sinking
Post by: Yannick GUÉRIN on January 22, 2007, 05:55:11 pm
What is stange in that wreckage is that most of the means being used to prevent oil pollution are given by the French autohrities : the tug Abeille Liberté, the supply ship Argonaute are staying near by the Napoli. Another suplly ship Elan left Cherbourg and arrived in Lyme Bay this afternoon. Whera are the English means ? And so far, the European Maritime Safety Agency hasn't yet made any comment.


Title: Re: MSC Napoli Sinking
Post by: Ben on January 22, 2007, 06:00:06 pm
Looks like the people are enjoying those containers on the beach:

Free motobike:
http://www.spiegel.de/img/0,1020,782877,00.jpg
http://www.spiegel.de/img/0,1020,782894,00.jpg

Free trainers: http://farm1.static.flickr.com/159/365340441_cbc05e42af_o.jpg

Free Deodrent: http://www.spiegel.de/img/0,1020,783380,00.jpg

Free wine: http://www.spiegel.de/img/0,1020,783062,00.jpg

Overview:http://farm1.static.flickr.com/155/366049504_79d0d56687_o.jpg


Title: Re: MSC Napoli Sinking
Post by: TREBOATS on January 22, 2007, 06:10:09 pm
Llyods editorial makes to justify the interdepartmental co-ordination system established for just such an emergency and I think it makes the point well. However it does not answer what I think is a fundimental question which is why did they continue to tow a vessel towards Portland, the hull of which I beleive was obviously very seriously compromised.

The new head of the Maritime & Coastguard Agency has NO marine experiance what so ever, he managed a charity prior to his recent appointment. So I fear that  the leadership mentioned in the Lloyds article may be a little thin at the top, hence the lack of strong decision making lower down the ladder.

I acknowledge that 20 20 hindsight is a wonderful thing and there is a long way to go with this particular salvage operation. The damage is already being done and at least 12 if not 24 hours were lost heading towards Portland.


Title: Re: MSC Napoli Sinking
Post by: Guest on January 22, 2007, 06:51:00 pm
Hi Ben

Great stuff - evidently it is all above the law provided the "finders" report their finds to the Receiver of Wrecks  :-D

Regards

Steve Ellwood


Title: Re: MSC Napoli Sinking
Post by: Royston Ford on January 22, 2007, 06:58:06 pm
Quote
why did they continue to tow a vessel towards Portland, the hull of which I beleive was obviously very seriously compromised


Because the primary objective in any salvage operation is to make every possible effort to recover the ship and its cargo to a port of refuge where the hull and its contents might be saved in their entirety. For as long as there was a chance that the hull might remain viable then it had to head for a safe berth whilst remaining close to shore in sheltered waters. Losing the entire venture in deep (but not deep enough) water was the worst possible outcome. Where do you imagine the hull should have been directed to?

Quote
The new head of the Maritime & Coastguard Agency has NO marine experiance what so ever, he managed a charity prior to his recent appointment. So I fear that the leadership mentioned in the Lloyds article may be a little thin at the top, hence the lack of strong decision making lower down the ladder.


The head of the MCA has no authority whatever in these situations so it doesn't really matter about his background. The post of SOSREP (Robin Middleton) was created (with near god-like powers) to ensure that critical decisions such as this are removed from the politically appointed grace and favour agency heads.

Quote
The damage is already being done and at least 12 if not 24 hours were lost heading towards Portland.


Best efforts were made to reach a port of refuge. When it became apparent that this was not possible the hull was beached in shallow, sheltered waters (Lyme Bay) where everything in and on the ship can be recovered/contained with relative ease. Even in the worst case scenario, any environmental damage is contained in one place, but given that the structures of what are now the two sections of the ship are intact then the risk of serious pollution is rather slight.

Looking at the wider picture, what is your objection or complaint exactly?


Title: Re: MSC Napoli Sinking
Post by: maz_atenza on January 22, 2007, 07:01:17 pm
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2329857611772670036&q=MSC+Napoli


Title: Re: MSC Napoli Sinking
Post by: Stuart Scott on January 22, 2007, 07:45:07 pm
My virgin posting - here goes...

As a BMW rider as well as a Shipspotter, I loved the photos of the BMW bikes being 'liberated' on the beach. Wonder if there'll be a warranty on them!

On a more serious note, General Average may have been a major factor in beaching MSC Napoli. My understanding is that if the beaching was voluntary and successful, then the cargo interests (shippers) and their underwriters are forced to contribute to the salvage operation in a proportion to the value of the cargoes. This siginificantly widens the net in terms of who pays for the entire operation.

I'd appreciate any maritime lawyers on the list commenting about how/if General Average may be applied here?

Stuart Scott
Melbourne, Australia


Title: Re: MSC Napoli Sinking
Post by: Royston Ford on January 22, 2007, 08:06:48 pm
Quote
I'd appreciate any maritime lawyers on the list commenting about how/if General Average may be applied here?


I'm not a laywer but a Marine Surveyor and former broker at Lloyds. Have worked on recent casualties including "Pelican 1", "Hanjin Pennsylvania" and "Hyundai Fortune".

At the moment GA has not been declared to the best of my knowledge but that is unlikely to remain the case. A lawyer's input would be welcome here.

I doubt that any of the losses so far sustained will count as GA sacrifice. It's not as if we have a viable hull which the owner opted to ground (and sustain damage to it and some cargo) in order to save the majority interest. The ship's back was broken on 18 January and at the time salvors beached it the hull was about to separate and the entire venture would have been lost. Lawyers acting for cargo interests would undoubtedly argue that the owner sacrificed nothing and that all the damages arise in Particular Average.

We also need to remember that for a GA claim (by the owner) to succeed, the ship must have been in seaworthy condition at the commencement of the voyage...when it left the last port of call. This ship was subject to a full speed grounding in the past requiring about 3,000mt of steel replacement. Put in that context its current predicament is reminiscent of "MSC Carla" and it it may be argued that a structural weakness from those repairs (possibly compounded by cargo loading stresses) amount to "un-seaworthiness".

Time will tell...


Title: Re: MSC Napoli Sinking
Post by: Royston Ford on January 22, 2007, 08:10:50 pm
Quote
I loved the photos of the BMW bikes being 'liberated' on the beach


The peasants coaming the beach are nothing more than common criminals. Devon & Cornwall constabulary need to get their act together and Zodiac Maritime, MSC and Salvors might want to consider assisting a police closure of the beaches by providing private security staff.


Title: Re: MSC Napoli Sinking
Post by: Ben on January 22, 2007, 11:07:03 pm
I think in a way its stealing yet ,provided the people report their finds to the Receiver of Wrecks is what i heard on the news also.

How does this work? I dont see how somebody can claim property thats not theres?


Title: Re: MSC Napoli Sinking
Post by: Adrian Buchan on January 22, 2007, 11:23:25 pm
Friday evening they were towing the MSC Napoli across the channel to Start Point and up the coast to Brixham. By Midnight they were 12 miles East of Berry Head and it seemed obvious that they were going to ride out the gale in the shelter of the land off of Torbay.
Somebody seemed to change their mind just after midnight and the convoy turned at right angles and headed across Lyme Bay in the approaching gale. When I got up on Saturday morning the convoy was in the middle of Lyme Bay and was heading for the beach at Branscombe.


Title: Re: MSC Napoli Sinking
Post by: Christian on January 23, 2007, 09:44:44 am
I just saw the report on euronews

and the containers failed in the water and "swimed" to coast. People opened the containers and took the things out.


Title: Re: MSC Napoli Sinking
Post by: crumblecru on January 23, 2007, 12:28:12 pm
I know nothing about shipping but why wasn't it towed to Falmouth?


Title: Re: MSC Napoli Sinking
Post by: Phil English on January 23, 2007, 01:20:23 pm
I think the original intention was to tow her to a safe berth (Portland). Whilst Falmouth approaches and anchorages are very deep water, I'm not sure it has a berth capable of handling a ship of this size.

Phil


Title: Re: MSC Napoli Sinking
Post by: maz_atenza on January 23, 2007, 02:03:15 pm
anything new today? more pics?
Tks


Title: Re: MSC Napoli Sinking
Post by: TREBOATS on January 23, 2007, 02:29:22 pm
Plenty of deep water and shelter from the SW in the anchorage but not deep enough inside on the berths, hence the decision to head towards Portland as thay thought that they would get her on a discharge berth!


Title: Re: MSC Napoli Sinking
Post by: vtr on January 23, 2007, 02:30:42 pm
With reference to the question "why wasn't the ship towed to Falmouth?"

I'm no ship expert/engineer but I do have a background in heavy engineering & my current job is working at sea as a skipper, so hear are my comments based on 'my' experience & knowledge.

Looking at the various photo's of the ship shortly after she was abandoned it appears as if the stern of the vessel was sagging, as if her back had broken. The conditions at the time of the incident were SW severe gale 9 with swells/waves averaging 20ft - 30ft & occasionally 40ft - 60ft (according to the pilots of Rescue 193 & 194). If the vessel had been towed to Falmouth then it would have had to have been towed across, or at angle, to the swell. Anyone who's been to sea will know that when a vessel travels across a swell/wave at an angle the vessel corkscrews (rolling & pitching at the same time). Considering the structural damage at the time, the continuous movement of the stern in relation to the rest of the ship when traversing the swell/waves at an angle would quite likely have resulted in the stern breaking off completely. If this were to happen there would be a real possibility of the vessel being completely lost & an environmental problem of a larger scale than there currently is.
Attempting to tow the vessel with a following sea/swell was the favourable option to minimise the 'corkscrew' effect & hopefully get to a safe haven to begin discharging the cargo, fuels & assess the structure of the vessel &/or salvage.
Taking the vessel to France wasn't really an option. The north Brittany coastline, although would have afforded some shelter from the wind & sea, is mainly rocky & shelves off into deep water quite quickly, meaning an emergency beaching couldn't be made. The nearest port that could take a vessel of such a size as the Napoli is Brest which would mean having to tow the vessel into the weather & around Ushant. Doing so with the vessel in such a state would almost surely guaranteed it's loss.

On a different note, as usual the media has been making more of the story than is necessary. Yesterday each news bulletin was becoming more sensational, & at one point I did wonder if the next bulletin would be announcing there was a bomb on board & Bin Laden had been the 1st mate!!! :-?  :-D


Title: MSC Napoli Sinking
Post by: FWE on January 23, 2007, 02:46:14 pm
There appeared no need for the receiver of wrecks to stand by and watch cargo being taken off the beach by opportunists. The protocol of notification was irrelevant  as the receiver was actually at the site and aware of both the wreck and the cargo on the beach and so could have claimed posession which if done would mean taking of cargo was theft. Failure to do this and protect the cargo then opens up the receiver of wrecks to claims from the cargo owners themeselves. The apparent looting of cargo while officials watched provides a poor image of our country.

I agree with the earlier poster that the intentional grounding may count in the owners favour under general average as there is argument that that action and additional damage caused to the ship by grounding and any subseqent events incouding salvage operations and pollution claims etc was as a result of a general average sacrifice to save the ship and cargo. Notwithstanding this failure to take this action the ship may have been lost however, intentionally or not the action appears to benefit the owners and their insurers when claims are settled.  

Are the owners and managers avoiding the press as in terms of a public relations exercise the shipping industry needs to actively represent itself else the public perception of it will be poor.


Title: Re: MSC Napoli Sinking
Post by: gareth on January 23, 2007, 04:53:39 pm
I have to say when the ship was off the North-West corner of Alderney, en route North to Lyme Bay, I wondered why they didn't head for Cherbourg.  This was just as close, would have kept the wind and sea astern, would have provided lots of shelter from any wind, and would have still provided the opportunity to beach in the (shallow) Eastern end of the outer harbour.


Title: Re: MSC Napoli Sinking
Post by: RVM on January 23, 2007, 05:01:42 pm
I think there are two different subjects here: General or Particular Average and the Salvage Contract and subsequent security.   Under the Lloyd's Form the master (or the person entering in to the LOF) signs on behalf of the ship, cargo, bunkers, stores and freight at risk (if any).  Though there are occasions when the ship wants one salvor and the cargo another.   In the present case there maybe several salvors, either joint or with some acting as sub contractors.,

Presumably the ship was beached by the French tugs as she was in imminent danger of sinking; whether she was beached in the best place will be decided later.   I don't know what contract was agreed by the French, or for that matter Smit, or whoever is to remove the oil and the cargo.

It would appear that the ship is in danger of becoming a CTL and, if it does become one, the P&I Club will have to pick up the tab.   The salvors can earn their remuneration in two ways: saving property and preventing, or reducing, pollution.

Regarding the Receiver of Wreck, when I first came into the industry (when Noah was a lad) the Receiver of Wreck was a local customs officer and he, and in those days it generally was a he,  often went to the site to minimise losses due to wrecking.

Apologies for any typos - my eyes are dim!


Title: Re: MSC Napoli Sinking
Post by: Clarence Vautier on January 23, 2007, 05:24:18 pm
any idea the name of the tug company that are standing by to pump of the fuel, I work for Secunda Internon the national and news it look like one of our supply ships.


Title: Re: MSC Napoli Sinking
Post by: maz_atenza on January 23, 2007, 05:40:12 pm
see pictures over here

http://www.premar-atlantique.gouv.fr/galeries/MSC-Napoli


Title: Re: MSC Napoli Sinking
Post by: Ben on January 23, 2007, 06:03:30 pm
Great set of photos on that site!


Title: Re: MSC Napoli Sinking
Post by: Richie2012 on January 23, 2007, 06:08:03 pm
the ships at its side at the moment are Union Beaver, Anglian princess, Argonaute and the tanker forth fisher


Title: Re: MSC Napoli Sinking
Post by: Jandaco on January 23, 2007, 07:03:56 pm
I heard today from an Auxiliary coastguard who was at the scene  yesterday that the original damage to the Napoli was caused by a collision with a cantainer has anyone else heard about this?


Title: Re: MSC Napoli Sinking
Post by: maz_atenza on January 23, 2007, 07:27:57 pm
from Lloydslist again:

Regulation

Napoli hailed as 'model' for places of refuge directive
By Justin Stares in Brussels - Tuesday 23 January 2007

 
The MSC Napoli is the perfect example of the need for the European Commission’s proposed directive on places of refuge, Fotis Karamitsos said yesterday.

The efficiency with which the UK Secretary of State Representative dealt with the damaged container ship should be seen as a model for the rest of the EU, the commission’s top maritime official told the European parliament.

“The decision taken by an independent authority on the UK Sosrep model is used in the places of refuge proposal,” Mr Karamitsos said. Beaching the Napoli rather than towing it to port as originally planned had “diminished the risk of catastrophe,” the parliament’s transport committee heared.

Most of those who spoke in committee were supportive of the comission’s draft directive, which attempts to impose Sosrep-type independent authorities throughout Europe. But the proposal is being resisted in national capitals, where politicians are wary of creating bodies outside of their control.

Dirk Sterckx, the Euro MP appointed rapporteur for the directive, said the Napoli was “proof that this is the way to go.” Europe could not risk decisions on where and if a vessel should be given refuge being “influenced by local or regional elections,” he said. He compared the Napoli case to the Prestige pollution disaster, which is thought to have been made much worse due to a decision by Spanish politicians to send the stricken tanker out to sea rather than bring it into port.

The Belgian MEP reminded the committee that Sosrep operations could not be interrupted by a British politician, even a minister, while they were taking place.

Mr Karamitsos used the Napoli and a recent maritime disaster in the strait of Messina to argue in favour of other directives within the commission’s ’Erika 3’ package of maritime safety legislation.

The potential for a chemical spill from the Napoli showed the need for ratification of international conventions such as the Hazardous and Noxious Substances convention, as well as the need for increased levels of liability for shipowners, he said. The Messina incident was proof that the Athens convention needed expanding to domestic traffic, as the commission is proposing.

An Italian MEP said the Messina crash took place after the strait’s traffic management system had been turned off, as reportedly happened every night after 5.30pm.

Separately, MEPs joked in public about the scavangers who have taken goods including BMW motorbikes from beached Napoli containers. One British MEP offered to sell colleagues one such bike after the committee meeting.

“It’s first come, first served,” said committee chairman Paolo Costa.


Title: Re: MSC Napoli Sinking
Post by: maz_atenza on January 23, 2007, 07:28:27 pm
and another one..

Containers

Salvage cost could hit $20m
By Sandra Speares - Tuesday 23 January 2007

 
 

SALVING the MSC Napoli could cost $15 to $20m should the vessel break up, according to salvage experts.

While potential costs are difficult to estimate at this stage of the operation, experts yesterday suggested to Lloyd’s List that the salvage operation has the potential to turn into a multi-million dollar operation.

At present, the salvage effort is concentrated on removing the ship’s bunkers after which

work will begin on removing containers on board in preparation for an attempt to tow the vessel into port.

The decisive factor affecting operations remains weather conditions which were yesterday considered to be favourable for the salvage operation, according to a statement by the vessel’s operators Zodiac.

The salvors have signed a Lloyd’s Open Form with a Special Compensation P&I Club Clause, which can be invoked by the salvor at any time during the operation.

According to an industry specialist, the advantage of using Scopic in a salvage situation is insurance interests are all represented by the Special Casualty Representative. This limits the number of surveyors inspecting the vessel as well as making the command and control of the salvage operation a simpler matter for Secretary of State’s Representative Robin Middleton, particularly in cases where there is a pollution risk.

At present, Zodiac says that the ship’s main fuel tanks have not been breached and there are booms around the vessel to prevent the spread of any pollution.

The International Tanker Owners Pollution Federation, which advises on clean-up operations, is in attendance.

In the event of the ship breaking up, the use of Scopic offers a relatively seemless transition to wreck removal.

As far as the responsibilities of the ship’s insurers are concerned, cover for the salvage operation lies with the property insurers. If the ship becomes a wreck, then the removal is payable by the ship’s P&I club.

Salvage experts say it is difficult to put a price tag on how much would be payable for the salvage operation. Taking the ship under tow to a port, or — if it is declared a constructive total loss — sinking the ship in deep water represent the most cost effective solutions.

If the event of the ship having to be cut up and removed in pieces, costs could run to many millions of dollars involving the use of specialist cutting equipment which relatively few companies can mobilise quickly.

A spokeswoman for CMA CGM said recently that salvage work for the Rokia Delmas, which ran aground close to La Rochelle last October suffered because no heavy industrial equipment necessary for the removal was currently available on the French Atlantic coast

MSC Napoli has been in trouble ever since it developed cracks in its hull on Thursday last week, while negotiating the English Channel in storm conditions. The crew of 26 were airlifted off the unit in a joint French-British operation.

The ship was then taken under tow, with the original intention of bringing it to the sheltered waters of Lyme Bay.

However, faced with serious structural failure in 45 knots of wind and a five metre swell on Saturday night, the MCA decided on a beaching instead.


Title: Re: MSC Napoli Sinking
Post by: maz_atenza on January 23, 2007, 07:37:50 pm
and the last one...

Containers

Salvors battle against pollution threat from beached MSC Napoli
Questions raised over standard of crew and ship certification, writes David Osler - Tuesday 23 January 2007

OPERATIONS to pump bunkers off grounded boxship MSC Napoliare due to begin today, after the vessel was deliberately beached at the weekend.

Salvors Smit hope to have the receiving tanker Forth Fisher in place alongside the UK-flagged vessel this morning so that the work can commence.

The vessel’s operator, Zodiac Maritime Agencies, said yesterday they did not know the loss status of the ship.

The vessel is listing at 25 degrees during high water, reducing to 18 degrees during low water, but is in stable condition with no fundamental change to its structure, the MCA said yesterday.

A salvage team has, meanwhile, secured the unit with a starboard ground anchor and has accessed the number 6 port tank.

A spokesman for the ship’s classification society, Det Norske Veritas, said that DNV is “still in the process of fact finding” and that it would be “too early to speculate about the causes of the structural damage”.

Maritime union Nautilus UK, however, said the Napoli incident highlighted its concerns about the influx of foreign-owned, and largely foreign-crewed, ships transferred to the British register in recent years.

The union is demanding a “full and fast” investigation, taking in such issues as training and qualifications of the mixed nationality crew, quality of the checks on ships coming to the UK flag and operational history of the MSC Napoli.

Some 103 containers — some with toxic and hazardous material — have fallen off the deck.

Most contain goods such as car spares or new motorbikes. But a small number are carrying battery acid, pesticides and other chemicals that potentially threaten marine life.

Several boxes have opened after repeatedly smashing into waves and rocks, spilling debris onto the beach.

Whether any more will be lost depends on weather conditions, particularly the wind.

A few hundred people yesterday roamed the beach to help themselves to the goods.

Rather than stop them, police handed out leaflets advising them of their duty to report any finds to the Receiver of Wreck within 28 days.

Zodiac has appointed a private security company to guard beached containers, and recovery actions are also due to commence today.

The pollution risk was yesterday broadly under control, with booms around the ship, and salvors set to commence removal on the arrival of Forth Fisher.

Some 3,500 tonnes of bunkers will have to be heated, so as to reach a viscosity that will allow it to be pumped onto attending vessels.

No major tanks seem to have been breached.

The operation could take anything up to a week, according to an MCA spokesman.

However, there has been some spillage, thought to be around 200 tonnes, made up mostly of waste oils from the flooded engine spaces.

A sheen has spread to about five miles out, but is breaking up and dissipating naturally.

Although there are so far no confirmed reports of oil on beaches, there have been isolated reports of two oily seabirds discovered nearby.

The next priority will be to bring in a crane barge and a standard barge to remove some of around 2,100 containers still on board.

MSC Napoli has been in trouble ever since it developed cracks in its hull on Thursday last week, while negotiating the English Channel in storm conditions. The crew of 26 were airlifted off the unit in a joint French-British operation.

The ship was then taken under tow, with the original intention of bringing it to the sheltered waters of Lyme Bay.

However, faced with serious structural failure in 45 knots of wind and a five metre swell on Saturday night, the MCA decided on a beaching instead.


Title: Re: MSC Napoli Sinking
Post by: maz_atenza on January 23, 2007, 07:38:50 pm
rumors say GA been declared already..will wait and see


Title: Re: MSC Napoli Sinking
Post by: Input_2007 on January 23, 2007, 07:45:47 pm
Might as well remove this too :-(


Title: Re: MSC Napoli Sinking
Post by: Bjoern Eddy Engelbrethsen on January 23, 2007, 07:48:54 pm
Hello all shiplovers.
Saw on Norwegian news (NRK and TV2) today, and some earlier days that thy say that the ship in the channel is named NAPOLI. Sent an irritated mail to both newschannels today and told them that the ship is named MSC NAPOLI!!!.

Not a big case, but as a newschannel I expect them both to use the correct name on a newsobject. Even if it's a ship!!

I will wait and see!! Maybe change at next news??


Title: Re: MSC Napoli Sinking
Post by: Ship's Cat on January 23, 2007, 08:03:57 pm
It's the same on UK news. Our local radio station keeps calling the ship 'Napoli' - I end up shouting 'MSC NAPOLI - give the poor thing her proper name!!' at the set...


Title: Re: MSC Napoli Sinking
Post by: Input_2007 on January 23, 2007, 08:16:36 pm
Might as well remove this too :-(


Title: Re: MSC Napoli Sinking
Post by: Input_2007 on January 23, 2007, 08:34:55 pm
Might as well remove this too :-(


Title: Re: MSC Napoli Sinking
Post by: marapito on January 23, 2007, 08:42:37 pm
It now seems likely that the MSC Napoli, largest container ship in the world when launched in 1991, will be left on the beach and cut up where she lies - a task that could take up to a year to complete. As the Dutch salvors and other experts are now onboard and presumably have carried out a thorough inspection this could perhaps indicate that the vessel is far more seriously damaged than first thought.


Title: Re: MSC Napoli Sinking
Post by: Input_2007 on January 23, 2007, 08:42:57 pm
Might as well remove this too :-(


Title: Re: MSC Napoli Sinking
Post by: ralf_03 on January 23, 2007, 09:04:44 pm
In Reply to Input_2007 posted on  2007/1/23 15:16

I have only a question instead of an answer for you:

What should foreign insurers do against pilferage, if the police is doing nothing against it ? Should the Insurers send armed forces ? In my opinion it is the responsibility of the authority to protect foreign property and to arrest the criminals.
The insurers have to wait, because a salvage team is officialy   assigned and is not allowed to send their own salvage teams.
To your question about the costs for cleaning: This should be born by the insurers of the vessel / carrier. But I do not know, if GA is declared and the costs will be allocated to all  parties concerned.
For further questions do not hesitate to ask again.

Ralf


Title: Re: MSC Napoli Sinking
Post by: portagent on January 23, 2007, 09:37:47 pm
... same on all German TV stations. All reporting about "Napoli" only. Maybe they think MSC stands for MotorShipContainer  :-D


Title: Re: MSC Napoli Sinking
Post by: Gaël PINSON on January 23, 2007, 09:52:50 pm
Regarding the current situation, cargo insurers can't do anything. They just have to wait and to see what happens.
In an all risks coverage, the assureds will be reimbursed for their losses (insurance value) and cargo insurers will put a claim against the carrier.
In addition to the "damage claim", cargo insurers will have to born their part in the General Average which will be probably declared by the owners.
Regarding the hull side, hull underwriters will have to pay the Constructive Total Loss (probably). In addition, they will have to pay their share in the general average.
Regarding the cleaning, it will probably paid by the P&I club (London P&I).
If any queries about these subject, do not hesitate


Title: Re: MSC Napoli Sinking
Post by: marapito on January 23, 2007, 11:30:32 pm
Historical Asides

After the the Second World War the Flotto Lauro line of Naples ventured into the emigrant market, with the converted freighters Ravello, Olimpia and Napoli.  In 1987 the Mediterranean Shipping Company also of Naples acquired the vessels of Achille Lauro, who had inherited his first ships in 1912.

MSC Monterey, a 55 year-old MSC cruise ship still in service, was originally built for the United States Maritime Commission in 1952 as the Pine Tree Mariner; a C-4 cargo vessel (together with a sister ship Mariposa). Since then the ship has had a long life and several owners. In 1956 it was sold to the Matson Navigation Company of San Francisco, and rebuilt as a 14,799 ton passenger ship, for voyages to Australia and New Zealand. In 1989, MSC Monterey was acquired by StarLauro Crociere, passing to MSC in 1995.


Title: Re: MSC Napoli Sinking
Post by: maz_atenza on January 24, 2007, 12:58:42 am
personal edit


Title: Re: MSC Napoli Sinking
Post by: Tim Twichell on January 24, 2007, 01:46:19 am
In Reply to marapito's post:


Why would you say it is likely to be cut up on the beaching area?? I have not seen any sign that would be the case here...yet. If the ship is able to be unloaded, I beleve that Smit will attempt to tow her off in one piece. Unless ther weather pounds her to pieces that is outcome I supect will occur. Vessels in far worse shape than this one have been taken into port in one piece... many hundreds of times. Her back is not broken yet, and when lightend she will be fairly decent to handle I beleve. Somehow people always assume the worst...The Hyundai Fortune comes to mind.Quite a few posts here had her sunk, blown to bits, hopeless etc. Well the vessel is saved and in port for sale thanks to Wijsmullers experts. Have some faith in these Dutch salvors, they are the very best in the world and have been for nearly 200 years.


Title: Re: MSC Napoli Sinking
Post by: marapito on January 24, 2007, 02:28:07 am
In reply to TimT

Reported in a news item relayed on

http://www.shipsnostalgia.com/showthread.php?t=9645

Estimated costs of salvage are in the region of US$15-20 million.  The back half is the valuable bit.


Title: Re: MSC Napoli Sinking
Post by: maz_atenza on January 24, 2007, 03:13:19 am
see my post on page 12

SALVING the MSC Napoli could cost $15 to $20m should the vessel break up, according to salvage experts.


Title: Re: MSC Napoli Sinking
Post by: Input_2007 on January 24, 2007, 03:58:17 am
Might as well remove this too :-(


Title: Re: MSC Napoli Sinking
Post by: Input_2007 on January 24, 2007, 06:43:03 am
Might as well remove this too :-(


Title: Re: MSC Napoli - WHY
Post by: TREBOATS on January 24, 2007, 08:13:40 am
rjford - Dont know whats happened but did send you a reply with points I was trying to make and but seems to have got lost?

Anyway things have moved on and we are now faced with the ship being on the beach for a year they suggest. Seems the structural damage was greater than anticipated!

Principle question WHY


WHY does a ship of this age fail this question seems to have been lost.


Title: Re: MSC Napoli Sinking
Post by: Input_2007 on January 24, 2007, 08:32:23 am
Might as well remove this too :-(


Title: Re: MSC Napoli Sinking
Post by: Ship's Cat on January 24, 2007, 09:34:07 am
The posts along the lines of 'Mediterranean Sinking Company' etc, were irrelevant to the subject and also inappropriate, so they were removed. I don't want to cause offence to you, but all sorts of people read these forums and we have to be careful what we put.


Title: Re: MSC Napoli Sinking
Post by: Ian G Hardie on January 24, 2007, 10:04:24 am
Hi
 Follow the link to MSC press releases MSC NAPOLI latest news (http://www.mscgva.ch/)


Title: Re: MSC Napoli Sinking
Post by: Royston Ford on January 24, 2007, 10:16:19 am
Quote
Why would you say it is likely to be cut up on the beaching area??


I'm not sure that she will be cut up where she lays but it is a very distinct possiblity.

Quote
Her back is not broken yet


I think you will find that her back is broken. The images from 18 January showed longitudinal cracks rising up the hull at the same points port and starboard. The steel at the head of the cracks was clearly in compression and the hull was visibly sagging over the damaged area (you can see the sagging on the gunwales). All clear indications of there being nothing holding the ship together at that point on the keel. As I said before, I think there was a valiant effort to drag her to a port with following seas and weather (the most stable condition for a hull in that state) but it proved ultimately impossible.

Quote
Vessels in far worse shape than this one have been taken into port in one piece... many hundreds of times


Errm, I don't believe that's correct.

Quote
The Hyundai Fortune comes to mind.Quite a few posts here had her sunk, blown to bits, hopeless etc. Well the vessel is saved and in port for sale thanks to Wijsmullers experts


I worked on Hyundai Fortune in Salalah, Oman last March/April. Wijsmuller did an amazing job on the fire-fighting and salvage operation. But the ship suffered fires and explosions that damaged the hull but not the keel, there is a very important distinction. The structures that give the ship its strength were not damaged (although possibly weakened by heat) on "HF" so the ship remained of value to anyone prepared to spend the money necessary to repair the hull and replace the power and drive train.

If it were possible to refloat the vessel (or the sections of it) then the consideration has to be how much would that cost and would you be able to tow it/them to a place where they could be scrapped safely and economically. Trust me, this vessel will not be repaired - if it were technically possible, which I doubt, no insurer on earth would touch it with a bargepole.

There is nowhere in the vicinity that could handle the scrapping process so all in all it may well be cheaper to cut her in situ and take her away section by section on barges.


Title: Re: MSC Napoli - WHY
Post by: Royston Ford on January 24, 2007, 10:24:28 am
Quote
WHY does a ship of this age fail this question seems to have been lost.


That really is the 6,000 dollar question. We can't conclude anything until the investigations are complete but I can't help comparing this incident to "MSC Carla". That ship was lengthened - taken into dry dock, cut in two and new cells inserted before she was stitched up again. Lo and behold she broke in two at one of the joints.

"MSC Napoli", under another name, went through a full speed grounding, languished on a reef for 60 days and was then put back together with about 3,000mt of steel replacement (that's a big repair by the way). See a pattern developing?

I've worked alongside class surveyors who have on occasion looked at repairs (permanent or temporary) which seem counter-intuitive in their nature yet all the engineering calculations, inspections and tests reveal nothing on paper which would give grounds for objection so the are *forced* to sign off on them.

I'm not saying that this incident is directy linked to the repairs from the last grounding, just that the possibility is well worthy of consideration.


Title: Re: MSC Napoli - WHY
Post by: FWE on January 24, 2007, 11:43:59 am
The similarities in history and fate of the MSC Napoli and the earlier MSC Carla are striking. In addition to structural issues attempt to maintain service speed in heavy weather conditions was alleged but denied in the case of the MSC Carla. If the MSC Napoli was already behind schedule after delays in Europe due to weather conditions and facing further weather delays there is an inherent(ie not neccessarily explicit) pressure on masters to maximise speed to maintain schedules and berth bookings etc. Is there any indication of the speed of the ship prior to the incident as associated stress may also be a factor, so this can be discounted ?.

The prior week in the discharge and loading cycle in Europe had also seen extreme weather conditions causing delays with ports closed due to weather and negative tidal surges causing extremely low tides. In addition to the effect of these delays there is a possibility (though remote) that the ship had then grounded on a berth and incurred hull stress.


Title: Re: MSC Napoli Sinking
Post by: Input_2007 on January 24, 2007, 11:46:04 am
Might as well remove this too :-(


Title: Re: MSC Napoli - WHY
Post by: Input_2007 on January 24, 2007, 11:50:57 am
Might as well remove this too :-(


Title: Re: MSC Napoli - WHY
Post by: Adrian Buchan on January 24, 2007, 03:21:36 pm
There are a lot of things about the MSC Napoli disaster that need answering.
The ship was abandoned 50 miles South of the Lizard in a severe SW. gale, why was it not towed to Falmouth were they have the facilities to handle a ship of this size? it would have had the wind on its port quarter.
Having towed it to France with the wind on its starboard bow why was it not docked there as originally planed ?  who made the decision to tow it from France to Portland harbour ?

An Friday afternoon the ship was 45 miles NW of Guernsey, heading North for Start Point, by midnight it was 12 miles East of Berry Head, it seemed obvious at the time that the French tug Captain was planning to ride out the approaching gale in the lee of the land to the East of Torbay.
At around midnight with the wind freshening from the SW someone appears to have ordered the convoy to proceed direct to Portland instead of sheltering off of Torbay, I have still to hear an explanation for this.
Sometime during the night the condition of the MSC Napoli deteriorated and by early morning she was in the middle of Lyme Bay on her way to be grounded off of Branscombe beach.

The powers that be seem to be trying to bury this by making a big fuss about all the people making off with BMW motorbikes and car parts. The locals are more concerned about the effect that this will have on the holiday trade and the fishing industry, not to mention the 1000 odd oiled sea birds that we have at the moment.
They say that it will take a week to pump out all the oil, with a bit of luck the weather will hold that long for them to complete the task. But they will be very lucky, if not almost impossible to remove all the cargo before the ship breaks up in the next SW gale. We will then have containers all over the place and the local police just do not have enough resources to police the situation when that happens


Title: Re: MSC Napoli Sinking
Post by: maz_atenza on January 24, 2007, 04:17:48 pm
Quote

Input_2007 wrote:
 Well to be honest its the more lengthier and serious posts I was concerned about the disappearance of not the one's thrown in as albeit warped humour. By the way, I am slightly offended as the original post along the lines you are refering to is still here for people to read and add to, which was not by me.


I appologyze for my previous post that I just removed,
with the time differance I didnt see all the commotion that this post created.

Regards
Maz


Title: Re: MSC Napoli - WHY
Post by: Royston Ford on January 24, 2007, 05:58:41 pm
Quote
There are a lot of things about the MSC Napoli disaster that need answering


Quote
why was it not towed to Falmouth were they have the facilities to handle a ship of this size? it would have had the wind on its port quarter


I think the navigational issues and the interaction of the prevailing weather and the sea in the broken-backed hull have been amply addressed in earlier posts. The only condition in which the hull could have survived was with following seas and winds. She probably would have broken up on coming to port to enter Falmouth. That's why, it seems, she was taken in a straight line toward Portland where there is a deep water berth and little other activity for a great dirty wreck to disrupt.

The largest berth at Falmouth is 230m with 8m draught. Not nearly enough for MSC Napoli without considering the depth of water on the approach and the problems manoeuvring a powerless vessel of that size.

Then ask how would the good people of Falmouth feel if the ship broke up in port or on the approaches and shut the entire marine operation there for a very long time indeed. And then ask about the pollution...


Title: Re: MSC Napoli
Post by: gareth on January 24, 2007, 06:49:43 pm
I agree Falmouth was not feasible.  Aside from the beam sea, by the time she was taken in tow I think the ship had drifted in the gales considerably further to the East from the location of the original incident.  By then other ports were nearer and more sheltered than Falmouth.

I still maintain Cherbourg would have been the best bet.  Massive deep water entrance, and massive outer harbour to provide shelter from any wind for however long is now necessary for salvage operation.  Depth may have been an issue, but the Western entrance and the navigaiton channel in the outer harbour carry around 11-12 metres plus height of tide - it's possible that wasn't enough in the semi-sunken state.  But on the tide she would probably have got in and could have been beeched in the outer harbour outside and to the north of the navigation channel in 8 or 9 metres.

If depth wasn't the problem I can only assume the French didn't want to run the risk of the ship sinking somewhere that effectively put the port out of action.


Title: Re: MSC Napoli Sinking
Post by: Tim Twichell on January 24, 2007, 08:08:08 pm
Well accroding to the press release the goal at present is too tow her off in one piece, I am not a salvage expert or even a ship expert, but after years of being interested in marine salvage operations and reading, collecting, books, video, photos and being involved in a few inland and Great Lakes salvage operations, "I work for a firm that clears railroad wrecks and does other industrial emergency and heavy rigging and crane work" I have come to greatly respect the ability of the large salvage firms to pull off near miracles. As far as the vessels back being broken you  have more knowledge than me, I would have assumed that perhaps the keel is weak and partly broken but that enough strength could still be available to be able to tow off the light ship safely. I do agree that the vessel is most likely junk, but I also think if they can get to a yard or scrapping area it wouild be a better political solution to this incident. I guess only time will tell what the outcome will be. Thanks to all on this site for the fantastic photos and information available for ship and marine operation lovers like myself!! it's great stuff. Tim Twichell USA.


Title: Re: MSC Napoli Sinking
Post by: marapito on January 24, 2007, 09:18:14 pm
Photographs at http://www.skipsfarts-forum.net/read.php?TID=3361&page=1
 clearly indicate hogging (a broken back) at the time the crew were rescued.

This ship was apparently the first post panamax container vessel.  At 898 x 120 feet and 81,841 tons [D.W.T], would she be the second largest vessel ever to be lost by disaster - since the Seawise University [ex Queen Elizabeth] burnt at Hong Kong?


Title: Re: MSC Napoli
Post by: Royston Ford on January 24, 2007, 09:37:31 pm
Quote
still maintain Cherbourg would have been the best bet


You may well be right, Gareth, which raises an interesting question. SOSREP (presently Robin Middleton) has absolute jurisidiction to take and implement any decision concerning a casualty in UK waters. I really think this incident has so far been a complete vindication of the government's creation of that post. Can you imagine if his decisions had to be approved by every local authority or port captain that might be affected by the outcome...the "Prestige" all over again.

It begs the question, should we have an EU equivalent of SOSREP with powers that override national governments? Maybe Cherbourg would have been the best option, but can you imagine the French agreeing to it?

Hmmm? I wonder...


Title: Re: MSC Napoli
Post by: FWE on January 24, 2007, 10:16:22 pm
I agree and it will be interesting to learn if Cherbourg was asked and if so the response.


Title: Re: MSC Napoli
Post by: Stuart Scott on January 24, 2007, 10:44:49 pm
I'm interested in the location of the structural failure, at the break of the accommodation and engineroom. Container vessels are not highly stressed vessels - sumultaneous discharge and reloading of cells and bays don't put the same stresses into the hull as say a bulk carrier.

Assuming she has heated bunker tanks (or a void space) in the area of the failure, I'm speculating is that the shell plating has corroded/thinned here. I had recent experience with a tanker I was managing going through 3rd Special Survey ultrasonic thickness, and significant steel diminution found in the hull shell plating and deck around enginerom side bunker tanks.

Void spaces around the engineroom are hot, hunid and not easy to inspect. I'm not taking a shot at MSC, Zodiac or Class. Its just a reality that internal breakdown of coatings and corrosion is far more insidious than external corrosion.

I'm sure Class and the MCA will be taking sections of the hull plating in way of the crack as soon as the bunkers have been removed.


Title: Re: MSC Napoli
Post by: maz_atenza on January 24, 2007, 11:25:18 pm
2 video

http://normandie.france3.fr/info/27626902-fr.php


Title: Re: MSC Napoli
Post by: maz_atenza on January 24, 2007, 11:25:57 pm
anyone seen new pictures from today?


Title: Re: MSC Napoli
Post by: maz_atenza on January 25, 2007, 12:24:47 am
article from 2001

MA CGM NORMANDIE (France)
London, Mar 30 — Salvors have yet to be appointed for m container vessel CMA CGM
Normandie that has run aground in the Singapore Strait. All measures are in the process
of being taken to enable the vessel to be refloated and repaired, CMA CGM said in
statement. There were no injuries among the 22 French and Romanian crew members
and no sign of pollution but there were some fears for the vessel which was taking in
water. CMA CGM Normandie, which was recently returned to the French group by P&O
Nedlloyd, was en route from Port Klang to Jakarta. She was not due to call at Singapore.
She is one of nine vessels deployed on CMA CGMs 63-day North China Express service
and was due to continue on to northern China and Korea to deliver before returning
towards Europe. The company added that it would be using other vessels to ensure that
its service to Europe was not disrupted, as well as to safeguard the 1,950 containers still
on board.u] She ran aground on the Helen Mar Reef in the Indonesian part of the Singapore
Strait at 2300 Tuesday and is believed to have hit the reef at considerable force. Sources
indicate the forward part of the bow is completely out of the water. A number of salvors
are understood to be bidding for the job including, Smit International, Wijsmuller, Semco
and Kasel Salvage. Helen Mar Reef rises 2.6 metres out of the water at low tide. However,
at the time the vessel hit the reef it would have been fully submerged.
[/u]CMA CGM said
yesterday that it was making preparations to refloat the vessel after having lightened her
through the use of floating cranes to take off the 1,200 full boxes of the total 1,950 on
board. A spokesman at the groups Marseilles headquarters said that no salvage company
had yet been chosen for the operation but that there was no immediate risk to the vessel.
The weather was expected to be calm for the next three or four days, giving the
company's crisis unit the time to prepare the operation without undue pressure. He said
that, once she had been refloated, the vessel would be sent to nearby Singapore for
repair. Meanwhile, the company is looking to charter another vessel to maintain the Far
East-Europe leg of CMA CGM Normandie's itinerary. The replacement vessel will be
required to be present in Inchon or Busan in two weeks. What counts for us is to be able
to continue to call at all loading ports at the date we had planned, the spokesman said.
(See issue of Mar 30.)
London, Mar 29 — Following received from The Maritime and Port Port Authority of
Singapore, timed 2045, UTC: M container vessel CMA CGM Normandie is still aground in
the same position. No pollution reported. Rescue authorities are trying to communicate
with the vessel to determine her plans for tug assistance.


Title: Re: MSC Napoli
Post by: Stuart Scott on January 25, 2007, 03:07:02 am
I have attached a link to the Gallery of Transport Loss (hosted by Countryman and McDaniel, USA). They have put up a feature on the 'MSC Napoli' from initial flooding to today, and update the site daily.

http://www.cargolaw.com/2007nightmare_msc.napoli.html

Enjoy...


Title: Re: MSC Napoli
Post by: maz_atenza on January 25, 2007, 03:30:04 am
The MCA said it could be a year before the vessel and its contents were removed.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/6295907.stm


Title: Re: MSC Napoli
Post by: Charles McAllister on January 25, 2007, 05:27:59 am
sscott,

You make a good point.  Internal corrosion can be a major problem, aggravated by the fact that inspection is difficult.  I did some work on Mansol 19, a trawler converted to ROV support, in Malta in 1998.  I was told the conversion took twice as long as planned because the 2nd surveyor entered all tanks and discovered hull plating that had corroded severely.  Quite a lot of plating had to be replaced. Externally, all looked good, but part of the hull had been badly weakened by internal corrosion.


Title: Re: MSC Napoli
Post by: rgr004 on January 25, 2007, 08:43:42 am
HFO Bunker are usually found in double bottom tanks, not in side tanks, which on container ships are usually dedicated for ballast water.

Trust class surveyors use electronic devices to measure steel thickness.

Someone has mentioned that containship hulls are not highly stressed, well I am not sure about this comment. When stowage plans are provided to vessel, chief officer job is to check for torsion, bending, shearing moments, stack loads, etc, in the vessel computer program.

Roland


Title: Re: MSC Napoli
Post by: spotti on January 25, 2007, 10:26:26 am
Stressed containership hulls.
The hull section behind the superstructure of this type of containerships must be subject to a considerable stress factor due to the limited buoyancy. Even if all containers loaded here would be empties each 40 feet container adds
approx. 4 tons. Add to this the constant change in hull
buoyancy when the ship is working in heavy swells/high waves. Plus/minus buoyancy of this hull section under such conditions could be (only guesswork)100-200 tons, - 2-4 times each minute.
Any professionals around who would like to elaborate on this issue?
Could be interesting to have a look at the loading plan for the aft section of the ship.


Title: Re: MSC Napoli
Post by: rgr004 on January 25, 2007, 11:48:10 am
Spotti,

Nowadays design for new buildings includes calculation of static and dynamic loads, same goes for stress on lashing gears with loadstar programs or similar.

Roland


Title: Re: MSC Napoli
Post by: bm1 on January 25, 2007, 02:55:17 pm
I cant think of any other ships of this kind whjere the back has just broklen like this.   the msc carla was a very different case because the extra modules added and the suggestion the welding should have been checkd better. the msc napoli had no sister ship so its diffitcult to tell fi thjs was a design fault with this one ship oir something that woudl affect other boxships. there has beena lot of talk about fatigue but i for one would like to here of any other ships of this size which ahve just broken apart. it was only a scale 9 storm and she should have survived no problems. was it rust at the back or a bad repair. does anyone actuakkly know if the accient in 2001 could really have caused any real damage that was not repaired and made the ship more likely to crack. the damage was at the front and the new crack at the back but coiuld the structure of the ship been damaged.


Title: Re: MSC Napoli
Post by: FWE on January 25, 2007, 03:39:23 pm
It appears from the interesting contributions above that is unlikely that any one factor is to blame but a combination of weather, speed, loading, fatigue, earlier repairs which will need to be investigated at a subsequent enquiry for which various records need to be secured.

The handling of the incident also needs to be assessed later as to whether Cherbourg were asked to take the ship, and whether the receiver of wrecks could have secured the area, and if containers left on board should be further secured to prevent loss in further storms, if those lost adequately tracked to prevent them becoming a hazard to navigation etc.... This story appears only at the first chapter and is likely to run long after the wreck is cleared.


Title: Re: MSC Napoli
Post by: rgr004 on January 25, 2007, 04:08:27 pm
Photos of the 2001 grounding can be viewed at :

http://www.marine-marchande.net/Jourlejour/4501-4600/75-cmacgmNormandie.jpg

As it can be seen, the more damaged part of the vessel was the forward area. It appears that the stern part suffered from some flooding because of trunk keel leakages. Holds 2 and 3 were flooded.

The builder of CGM Normandie has built many large similar container ships.  

Roland


Title: Re: MSC Napoli
Post by: maz_atenza on January 25, 2007, 05:05:10 pm
Napoli incident forces South Africa to slash production
Thursday 25 January 2007

VOLKSWAGEN South Africa has said it was cutting back on production after losing car parts from the stricken MSC Napoli, according to a Reuters report.

The vessel was to unload almost half of its 2,400 containers at South African ports in Cape Town, Port Elizabeth and Durban, said Mike Vanhear, Johannesburg’s manager for MSC.

The total value of the cargo was still to be calculated, he said.

Volkswagen South Africa said it would shut production at its South African plant every Friday for at least the next four weeks after vehicle parts needed for four car models -- the City Golf, Polo, Golf and Jetta -- were lost, a company spokeswoman said.

The reduced production would affect about two thirds of Volkswagen’s 6,500 domestic workforce, the spokeswoman said.

She declined to say whether the change would affect sales.

"We will review the situation on an ongoing basis," she said.

Also in the beached containers were dozens of oak barrels on their way to South African wineries, said Dalene Steyn, market manager of Wines of South Africa.

The shipment loss comes as vineyards prepare to harvest grapes by early February and could disrupt production of some top quality wines, Steyn said.

"Some producers will be affected, yes definitely," she said.

South African steel maker Columbus Stainless has confirmed that at least 1,000 tonnes of nickel was on the ship.

BMW South Africa said it had 39 motorbikes and back-up vehicle parts on board.

Some of the containers were also carrying the belongings of people emigrating to South Africa, officials said.


Title: Re: MSC Napoli
Post by: compass on January 25, 2007, 05:18:06 pm
Pls note Zodiac's statement 24.01.07:

STATEMENT
MSC NAPOLI

STATEMENT 5
14.30 hrs (UK)
Wednesday, January 24, 2007

Zodiac Maritime Agencies Ltd of London, managers of the container vessel MSC Napoli, report that pumping of fuel from the vessel commenced yesterday (Tuesday, January 23) at 14.30 hrs. The fuel is being transferred from the beached vessel to a small tanker, the Forth Fisher. This vessel was mobilised from Falmouth by SMIT Salvage, the salvage contractor for this operation.

In addition, two barges will arrive on scene later in the week to undertake the discharge of containers from the MSC Napoli. The large barge Bigfoot, equipped with two cranes (500 tonnes lift capacity and 250 tonnes lift capacity), will depart Rotterdam this afternoon. Bigfoot is expected to arrive off Branscombe during late Friday or early Saturday morning. Its role is to lift off containers and place them on board the second barge, arriving from Rouen tonight. This barge will land the containers.  

It is intended that the discharge operation will commence during the weekend. The programme for discharging the containers will be shaped by two priorities: to recover 161 containers designed for carriage of chemicals and, secondly, lighten the vessel, to reduce stresses on the hull and so prevent further deterioration.  

The latest report from the salvage team confirms that the vessel’s main fuel tanks are intact. There is an oil sheen around the vessel and the vessel remains boomed as a precautionary measure. The fuel transfer to the Forth Fisher is likely to take 1-2 weeks, subject to weather conditions.

The team working on MSC Napoli are using the salvage vessel Union Beaver as a floating base.  This operation is proceeding with the ultimate aim of achieving a refloating. However, it will be some time before it becomes clear as to whether this is achievable.

The MSC Napoli was carrying 2,394 containers of which 103 were lost from the vessel – most during the violent storm of last week. Work continues to recover the containers and 70 have now been accounted for (50 recovered from the beach and 20 located in shallow water and awaiting recovery). A total of 33 containers have yet to be accounted for.

Weather conditions at the scene remain favourable for the salvage operation, with winds from the north. The vessel is located in a relatively sheltered position.


Title: Re: MSC Napoli
Post by: compass on January 25, 2007, 05:21:02 pm
and today's Zodiac Statement:

STATEMENT
MSC NAPOLI

STATEMENT 6
11.00 hrs (UK)
Thursday, January 25, 2007

Zodiac Maritime Agencies Ltd of London, managers of the container vessel MSC Napoli, report that rapid progress is being made in pumping fuel from the vessel.  Around one-third of the fuel has been removed so far. Pumping continues on a round-the-clock basis. By 08.00 hrs today (January 25) 1,150 tonnes had been transferred to the lightering tanker Forth Fisher. Pumping began at 14.30 hrs Tuesday (January 23).

All the fuel on board the MSC Napoli will be pumped to the Forth Fisher. This vessel was mobilised from Falmouth by SMIT Salvage, the salvage contractor for this operation.

MSC Napoli has four main fuel tanks and two smaller tanks. The oil transfer began from fuel tank No. 6, portside. Pumping began yesterday from a second tank (fuel tank No. 5, portside).

Due to the vessel’s list, the two main starboard fuel tanks are under water and more difficult to reach. For this reason a special “hot-tap” system will be used to penetrate the submerged tanks and recover the oil. It is now expected that at least another week will be required to recover all the fuel.

Meanwhile, barges are assembling to undertake the discharge of containers from the MSC Napoli. The large barge Bigfoot, equipped with two cranes (500 tonnes lift capacity and 250 tonnes lift capacity), departed Rotterdam yesterday afternoon (Wednesday, January 24) and is expected to arrive off Branscombe during Friday. Its role is to lift off containers and place them on board the second barge, Boa Barge 21, which has arrived from Rouen. This barge will land the containers at Portland.  

It is intended that the discharge operation will commence during Saturday. There are two priorities: to recover containers designed for carriage of chemicals and, secondly, to lighten the vessel and so reduce stresses on the hull and prevent further deterioration.  The discharge operation will commence at the stern, with the big barge moored to form the cross of a “T” with the MSC Napoli. This will position the barge well clear of the Forth Fisher, which is moored to the portside.

The salvage team reports that the vessel’s main fuel tanks remain intact. There is an oil sheen around the vessel and it remains boomed as a precautionary measure.

The personnel working on MSC Napoli are using the salvage vessel Union Beaver as a floating base.  The salvage operation is proceeding with the ultimate aim of achieving a refloating. However, it will be some time before it becomes clear as to whether this is possible.

Temporary repairs are under way on board the vessel. The team is using special resin to fill cracks and pumps are being used to remove water from cargo holds 3 and 4. More pumps have been mobilised, to reinforce this effort.

The MSC Napoli was carrying 2,394 containers, of which 103 were lost – most during last week’s violent storm. Work continues to recover the containers and 70 have now been accounted for: 50 on the beach and 20 located in shallow water and awaiting recovery. A total of 33 containers have yet to be accounted for. A vessel equipped with sidescan sonar is engaged in a search for these containers.

Weather conditions at the scene remain favourable, with a high pressure system expected to persist until Saturday at least. Winds are light and from the north and north west. The vessel is located in a relatively sheltered position. The longer term weather outlook is fair.


Title: Re: MSC Napoli
Post by: Andrea Citterico on January 25, 2007, 05:21:15 pm
I read all your posts, with interest. I am not an expert, but, for me the big problem comes now, for me it will be difficult try to unload and to tow the ship like APL PANAMA, dew to different beach and sea meteo condition, as a see from pictures beach is cliffs sorrounded, and for this reason i think is not possible to carry in place cranes an trucks as they do in Mexico. I think also that depthis also too low to try to move containers on another ship, is it right? and if they do all operations with helicopters time and costs will be very high.


Title: Re: MSC Napoli
Post by: compass on January 25, 2007, 05:43:36 pm
Here some information from Mediterranean Shipping Company (MSC):

Sent: Monday 22 January 2007 18:40

Subject: FW: MSC NAPOLI Q/A.
 
 
The following Q & A have been prepared to hopefully clarify certain key issues concerning this incident.
 
We should also stress that MSC as charterers are co-operating fully with vessel owners, salvors and the MCA in the provision of information in relation to the cargo in order to assist in assessing the situation and determining the most appropriate course of action.
 
Q: Whose vessel is this?
A:  MSC Napoli belongs to Zodiac Maritime Agencies in London.
 
Q: Who manages this vessel?
A: MSC Napoli is managed by Zodiac Maritime Agencies in London.
 
Q: What caused this accident?
A: Not known yet. A full investigation is underway by Zodiac Maritime to identify the reason(s) for this accident.
 
Q: Have all the crew from the vessel been rescued?
A: We confirm that all 26 crew of MSC Napoli were successfully rescued.
 
Q: Where is the vessel registered?  
A: United Kingdom
 
Q: Who are the charterers of this vessel?
A: This vessel is on time charter to Mediterranean Shipping Company.  
 
Q: Which salvage company is being used?  
A: SMIT, the world's leading marine salvor is heading the salvage operation.  
 
Q: What is the status of the bunker fuel on board?
A:  Approximately 3,500 tons of heavy fuel oil remains on board and salvors have focussed on transferring this as a priority.    
 
Q: How many containers were on board at the time of the accident and how many of these were dangerous containers?  
A: There was a total of 2,323 containers on board of which 158 are classed as dangerous containers.      
 
Q: How many containers have been lost?
A: Apparently approximately 40 containers have been lost overboard.We do not yet know which specific containers are involved.
 
Q:What is the status of the remaining cargo?
A: Unclear at the moment. We are advised that all salvage efforts are being made to off load containers into barges.
 
Q: What is the extent of the environmental damage so far?
A:  According the BBC report this afternoon so far "environmental damage is minimal".Three oil covered birds have been found and some containers and their contents have been washed ashore.
 
Q: Why was the ship deliberately beached off Branscombe in Devon?
A: The ship was being towed to Portland harbour in Dorset but the UK coastguard (MCA) decided to beach the vessel because of its structural damage.  
 
Q: What measures have been taken to minimise further environmental damage from this incident?
A:  A boom of 1,000 metres has been deployed around the vessel to minimise any potential further fuel oil damage.
 
Q: Who are the MCA?
A: They are the UK Maritime and Coastguard Agency and they are at present together with the salvors and the Owners of the vessel directing the salvage operation.
 
Q: Who else had cargo on board the vessel?
A:  Apart form MSC, Hapag Lloyd, Lloyd Triestino and Senator Lines had cargo on board.All Lines have co-operated fully with the authorities to provide full cargo details to assist the salvage process.
 
Q: Will a General Average be declared ?      
A: This is up to the owners Zodiac Maritime to determine.
 
Lawrence Matthews
MSC Geneva


Title: Re: MSC Napoli
Post by: compass on January 25, 2007, 06:42:23 pm
Basura - have a look at the post just before yours namely Zodiac Statement No.6.

They explain that the discharge of the containers will be on barges by means of cranes fitted on barges.


Title: Re: MSC Napoli
Post by: Andrea Citterico on January 25, 2007, 06:50:00 pm
Opss. I missed point N.6 sorry!


Title: Re: MSC Napoli
Post by: spotti on January 25, 2007, 07:44:32 pm
Thanks, Roland, for your reply earlier today.

More flooded engine rooms. What happened to MSC Denisse?.
In a magazine she is pictured with the following text: "The 1,416TEU stricken MSC Denisse, built in 1978, drifting with a flooded engine room, 40 miles south-east of Christmas Island in February 2005" ?


Title: Re: MSC Napoli - WHY
Post by: TREBOATS on January 25, 2007, 07:52:46 pm
Sorry to disagree but Falmouth DOES NOT have the facilities to handle a ship of this draft. In the bay yes, but not alongside and nor do we have a gently shelving seabed as at Branscombe. Its not a case of NIMBY 'cos the work etc would be very welcome.


Title: Re: MSC Napoli
Post by: Clarence Vautier on January 25, 2007, 09:23:01 pm
What is the different is General Average and Particular Average?


Title: Re: MSC Napoli
Post by: Bruce Sutherland on January 25, 2007, 10:30:47 pm
Does anyone know the names of the crane barges on thier way from Holland that this article refers to:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6297767.stm


Title: Re: MSC Napoli
Post by: compass on January 25, 2007, 10:33:06 pm
reply to carroll's query:

General average

An ocean marine loss that occurs through the voluntary sacrifice of a part of the vessel or cargo, or an expenditure, to safeguard the vessel and its remaining cargo from a common peril. If the sacrifice is successful, all interests at risk contribute to the loss borne by owner of the sacrificed property based on their respective saved values. A party can insure their portion of such a loss under an ocean marine policy.

==========

Particular average

A method of loss allocation in the event that a portion of cargo, hull or freight is jettisoned at sea in order to save the remainder. The loss is borne entirely by the individual who owns the property that is damaged or sacrificed. The loss must be less than total and not subject to the provisions of general average. Some ocean marine policy forms provide limited coverage for a particular average loss.


Title: Re: MSC Napoli
Post by: compass on January 25, 2007, 10:35:32 pm
reply to BruceS query:

The large barge Bigfoot, equipped with two cranes (500 tonnes lift capacity and 250 tonnes lift capacity), departed Rotterdam yesterday afternoon (Wednesday, January 24) and is expected to arrive off Branscombe during Friday. Its role is to lift off containers and place them on board the second barge, Boa Barge 21, which has arrived from Rouen. This barge will land the containers at Portland.


Title: Re: MSC Napoli
Post by: Royston Ford on January 25, 2007, 11:09:38 pm
Quote
Particular average


Know you meant well Compass but t'internet is not reliable so discoveries on the ether can't be put forward as actual knowledge.

The definition you found of General Average is correct, but the one for Particular Average is not. PA is any loss not defined as one occuring in GA. if...

Quote
hull or freight is jettisoned at sea in order to save the remainder


Then that is a deliberate sacrifice and the loss arises in General Average.

A container which happens to fall overboard by accident would be a loss arising in particular average. Thus, the 103 boxes shed from MSC Napoli are all PA losses.

In the case of a fire then the cargo burned presents PA claims but cargo soaked by fire fighting water is a General Average loss. Any cargo however wetted by seawater ingress on the same ship would be a PA loss. Sometimes difficult to separate them.


Title: Re: MSC Napoli
Post by: Bruce Sutherland on January 25, 2007, 11:14:02 pm
Thanks.


Title: Re: MSC Napoli
Post by: marapito on January 26, 2007, 12:19:11 am
Quoted from http://www.flickr.com/photos/christchurch/368545982/

"The crane-equiped heavy-lift barge Bigfoot departed from Rotterdam on Wednesday, January 24 and is expected to arrive off Branscombe Beach by Friday, 26th. Its role is to lift off containers and place them on board the Norwegian deck cargo barge 'Boa Barge 21'. This barge will land the containers at Portland. It is intended that this operation will commence during Saturday 27th. and begin at the Napoli's stern, with the 'Bigfoot' moored to form the cross of a “T” with the sunken ship. This will position the barge well clear of the 3,365 ton Falmouth tanker 'Forth Fisher', which is moored to the Port side of the container ship.

With accommodation for 28, the 856 ton 'Union Beaver' is acting as a floating base for salvage personnel. The salvage operation is proceeding with the intention of achieving a refloating. However, it could be some time before it becomes clear as to whether this is possible. Temporary repairs are under way on board the vessel. The salvage team is using special resin to fill cracks and pumps are being used to remove water from cargo holds 3 and 4."


Title: Re: MSC Napoli
Post by: compass on January 26, 2007, 12:36:36 pm
Today's Zodiac Statement:

UPDATE
MSC NAPOLI

STATEMENT 7
11.30 hrs (UK)
Friday, January 26, 2007

Zodiac Maritime Agencies Ltd of London, managers of the container vessel MSC Napoli, report that over one-third of the vessel’s fuel has now been removed. Pumping continues round-the-clock. By 05.00 hrs today (January 26) 1,470 tonnes had been transferred to the lightering tanker Forth Fisher.  

MSC Napoli has four main fuel tanks and two smaller tanks. The oil removal currently focuses on fuel tanks No. 6 and No. 5, portside. Due to the vessel’s list, the two main starboard fuel tanks are under water and will be more difficult to reach. For this reason a special “hot-tap” system has been prepared, to penetrate the submerged tanks and recover the oil. At least another week will be required to recover all fuel.

Meanwhile, preparations are well advanced to begin the discharge of containers from the MSC Napoli during the weekend. The large cargo discharge barge Bigfoot, equipped with two cranes (500 tonnes lift capacity and 250 tonnes lift capacity), is expected to arrive off Branscombe during this evening. Its role is to lift off containers and place them on board the second barge, Boa Barge 21, which is already on site. This “shuttle barge” will land the discharged containers at Portland.  

There are two priorities for container discharge: to recover those containers designed for carriage of chemicals and, secondly, to lighten the vessel and so reduce stresses on the hull.  The discharge operation will commence at the stern, with the big barge moored to form the cross of a “T” with the MSC Napoli. This will position the barge well clear of the Forth Fisher, which is moored to the portside.

The salvage team confirms that the vessel’s main fuel tanks remain intact. There is a limited release of oil from the vessel’s engineroom and it remains boomed as a precautionary measure. The total oil loss is estimated at around 60-100 tonnes, with oiling sporadic and light and limited to a 4 mile stretch of shoreline. This oil is being removed manually.

Offshore, the personnel working on MSC Napoli are using the salvage vessel Union Beaver as a floating base.  Temporary repairs are under way on board MSC Napoli. The salvage team is using special resin to fill cracks and pumps are being used to remove water from cargo holds 3 and 4.

The MSC Napoli was carrying 2,394 containers, of which 103 were lost – most during last week’s violent storm. Work continues to recover the containers and 56 have now been accounted for. A vessel equipped with sidescan sonar continues to search for the remaining containers.

Weather conditions at the scene remain favourable, with a high pressure system expected to persist until Monday at least. Winds are light and from the north and north west. The vessel is located in a relatively sheltered position.


Title: Re: MSC Napoli
Post by: maz_atenza on January 26, 2007, 04:23:12 pm
Shipbuilding & Repair

Optimising engineering
Friday 26 January 2007

THE first and second generation containerships, it has been asserted, were somewhat “over- engineered”, a fact borne out by their extraordinary longevity and the fact that they steamed further and faster than any ship before them, without either structural problems or corrosion.

True, they tended to be run by the “descendants” of ace liner companies, which had a long history of careful maintenance, after breaking the hearts of shipbuilders for the strength and steel they demanded in the ships they bought.

The revelation, after the structural failure that overcame the MSC Napoli last week, that fatigue cracking is far from rare in modern containerships, begs a number of questions about their strength and resistance.

Will more up-to-date containerships have anything like the productive life of their massively strong predecessors?

It is, we suspect, unlikely, that just as tankers and bulk carriers experienced increased structural problems because of the amount of steel that was “optimised” out of them by better computer-aided design, containerships will be any different.

Moreover, in a highly competitive sector, the liner operators have been under pressure to ensure that their capital and operating costs are as low as possible, and the sort of attitudes that encouraged the first generation owners to build ships like battleships were just not on. They would henceforth build to class rules, and the same sort of competition that built up between societies over standards would apply in this sector as in any other.

Presumably the societies, with their common rules for tankers and bulk carriers, will eventually extend the same philosophy to containerships, but there is a perception that some modern containerships may well be too lightly built for their own long-term good.

From the point of view of a reputable owner, it would appear wholly unacceptable that fatigue cracking in vital structure should be considered “normal” by designers or shipbuilders.

These are very hard run ships, and they, not to mention the people who will entrust their goods to them, deserve better. It seems to be all wrong that, just as ships are getting bigger, they are flimsier and unlikely to last as long.

And why should their officers, who have a pretty demanding job anyway, lack the confidence they ought to have in a ship’s structure. They should not be forced to grovel around in the tanks trying to discover the first signs of a fatigue crack.

We have rather bypassed the containership fleet in the discussions about more “robust” ships , largely because they did have an excellent record of performance and productivity.

But this is not a problem that can be laid at the door of the shipbuilders, or designers, or classification societies, but the industry as a whole.

It is the industry which ends up with the ships it is prepared to pay for. If somebody wants 30 years out of a 25 knot cargo liner, then they are going to have to pay for an adequate steel thickness, integrated into the structure where it matters.

Forget over-engineering, think whole-life adequacy and a bit more in reserve for those big waves that are rather more frequent than we had been led to believe.

Storm in a port
It will be sad indeed if xenophobia triumphs over the issue of UK port ownership, with questions being asked in the Commons with a view to some sort of protection against rapacious foreign interests buying “strategic” infrastructure, like ports.

In that UK, port companies and their expert cargo handling professionals have a very good record in running ports all over the world, the politicians should be reminded that this is very much a two-way process.

At the same time, perhaps there might be an element of reciprocity about the process, with a special case for prohibition being considered in the case of countries that unfairly prohibit foreign ownership of terminals.

The case of DP Ports and the hysteria across the Atlantic, comes immediately to mind.

Lloyd’s List


Title: Re: MSC Napoli
Post by: steer on January 26, 2007, 04:47:57 pm
Quote
A container which happens to fall overboard by accident would be a loss arising in particular average. Thus, the 103 boxes shed from MSC Napoli are all PA losses.


...unless the containers fell overboard as a direct result of the deliberate grounding of the vessel (which was for common safety of ship & cargo). In which case an argument exists for the consequential damage of containers cargo which went overboard to fall under GA.


Title: MSC Napoli
Post by: FWE on January 27, 2007, 05:39:16 pm
For reference the current part of the operation as concerns removing bunkers and containers by to a barge appears similar to the recent one with the grounding and hull damage incident of the mv Rokia Delmas see http://www.premar-atlantique.gouv.fr/galeries/Rokia-Delmas/06BST385N04_SELECTION2 showing that in detail and hopefully successful.


Title: Re: MSC Napoli
Post by: maz_atenza on January 28, 2007, 05:53:15 am
http://www.a2mediagroup.com/pdf.php?a=12406

Was Msc Napoli Seaworthy And Fit To Fly The British Flag?
The Marine Conservation Society (MCS) is questioning the seaworthiness of
MSC Napoli, and whether it was fit to be British Registered after it ran onto a
coral reef in SE Asia at full speed in 2001?
The vessel had four months of repair in a Vietnamese shipyard and had over 3,000 tons of metal welded to it,
but was this sufficient?"If the vessel had been properly constructed and maintained it should not have suffered
structural defects despite the storm conditions last week so something has gone wrong in either the design,
repair or maintenance of this vessel" said Melissa Moore, Senior Policy Officer, Marine Conservation Society
"Most likely this is due to its previous damage which was either not properly repaired, or was so substantial
the vessel was irreparable." MCS is unsure how long the vessel has been registered in Britain but we question
whether the Classification Society inspected the vessel properly. While it may have looked superficially
sound, it seems surprising a surveyor would have found it fit for service. While no one claims these systems
are 100% effective, there are clearly some insufficiencies in our systems if such an incident was not
prevented? Yesterday, MSC Napoli was shored by the Maritime and Coastguard Agency3 near to Sidmouth in
Lyme Bay as the safest option after the vessel suffered serious structural failure and began to break up. Over
50 containers have been lost overboard as the vessel listed in heavy seas. The environmental implications of
the incident are four fold. Firstly, the pollution implications for marine life in Lyme Bay due to the loss of
fuel. A boom has been placed to contain loss of fuel and attempts are being made to remove 1500 tons of
bunker fuel today, but it is not clear how much is on board. Secondly, the pollution implications of the 158
containers that are listed as containing hazardous substances according to the International Maritime
Dangerous Goods Code, though most of these should hopefully be within the hold. These products consist of
industrial and agricultural chemicals (pesticides and insecticides). Thirdly, the hazard to shipping of the
containers that are lost overboard. And fourthly the marine litter implications of the items in the containers as
they break up. There are 2,394 containers on board and 50 have been lost overboard to date. "Shipping
incidents such as this need to serve as a reminder to the shipping industry, government and the IMO that
working together to advance the Clean Ship approach to shipping is vital" says Melissa Moore, Senior Policy
Officer at the Marine Conservation Society. The Clean Ship approach calls for the use of best available
technology to reduce emissions and increase streamlining. It also necessitates large margins of safety e.g.
vessels should be more structurally sound than it is anticipated that it will ever need to be, to reduce the
likelihood of incidents such as MSC Napoli. The Marine Accident Investigation Branch is investigating this
incident as the vessel is registered within the UK. Questions the Marine Conservation Society would like the
MAIB to answer include: - Whether MSC Napoli was seaworthy - When the Maritime and Coastguard
Agency last inspected this vessel - What are the flaws in the classification society registration mechanism that
enabled such a vessel to be British registered. - Whether the British registry should be further reviewed to
prevent this type of incident. - Whether South West England has sufficient maritime salvage equipment to
prevent waiting days for equipment from the contracted salvors, Smit International from the Netherlands. -
Should UK harbours still charge less for containers stacked on deck than those in the hold? Often there is
room in the hold but higher port dues encourage containers to be stacked on deck. This makes loading and
unloading easier too, but at what environmental cost? - Are transponders now attached to containers, and if not
why not?
Following an inspection by salvors it has now been confirmed that the oil released from the beached 'MSC
Napoli' has come from the engine spaces at the time of beaching and that no fresh oil has been spotted in the
water. The sheen of used oils is now extending for about 3 to 4 miles before dissipating.
Following an aerial inspection from the Coastguard Helicopter 'Whiskey Bravo' earlier today it has also been
confirmed that the number of containers lost was 103 and not 200 as earlier suspected. The location of 76
containers of those 103 has now been identified.
A barge has also now been chartered in Rotterdam and is currently being fitted with two very large cranes
(500 and 400 ton)
The contents and stowage positions of 98% of the cargo manifest has now also been identified.
Page 1
Was Msc Napoli Seaworthy And Fit To Fly The British Flag?
The 'MSC Napoli' remains in stable condition and there has been no fundamental change to the structure. The
vessel continues to have a list of 25 degrees during high water reducing to 18 degrees during low water.
Hundreds of Containers Lost from MSC NapoliThe ship's owners have appointed a private security company
to guard the beached containers. The owners have also appointed a contractor to corral and remove
those spilled containers, and that contractor will mobilise to site later today and recovery will begin on
Tuesday.
Salvage equipment has been now been transferred onto the vessel so that pumping arrangements can be
configured at first light tomorrow morning.
During the day the salvors have been assessing the situation regarding the vessel and are still planning for the
recovery of the oils remaining onboard to begin tomorrow.
Over flights will also continue by MCA surveillance aircraft,
The River Axe and the River Brid have protection booms have been deployed and additional protective
equipment is being deployed to the likely affected sites.
Opportunists salvage BMW motorbikes from shipping containers washed up on the beach at Branscombe,
Devon, following the beaching of the cargo ship MSC Napoli. Photograph: Leon Neal/AFP/Getty Images
The MCA are also warning members of the public to stay away from any containers they see and that it is vital
to report any sightings to Portland Coastguard on 01305 760439. The BBC reported that that the ship had
previously ran aground off Singapore in 2001. Related News: Grave concerns over beached ship 


Title: Re: MSC Napoli - crew interview
Post by: TREBOATS on January 28, 2007, 01:44:03 pm
It seems that this one is starting to unravel and the  information is leaking out.

Focus: Disaster at sea

When the Napoli foundered off the Devon coast the calamity was blamed on a storm. But was she seaworthy in the first place? Jack Grimston and Brendan Montague report

 
It was 10.30am when Forbes Duthie heard a loud bang, but it seemed like nothing out of the ordinary for a big ship in a storm. So the 20-year–old cadet from near Inverness lay in his bunk a little longer, then went for a shower. A few minutes later Duthie was in no doubt about what had happened to the MSC Napoli. A Turkish crewmate came rushing up the steps shouting at him to pull on his lifejacket as the ship was breaking up and the captain had ordered everyone off.

The noise that had woken Duthie was the opening of jagged vertical cracks on either side of the hull of the 63,000- ton container ship. The boat had effectively snapped and seawater was gushing into the engine room faster than the pumps could cope, immobilising the vessel and leaving it at the mercy of the storm. At the entrance to the boat deck, the cadet took his place among his 25 crewmates and waited to board the ship’s lifeboat, a fully enclosed, ridged-hulled capsule that hung on winches buffeted by the force nine gale. Once all were aboard, Captain Valentin Velev, the Napoli’s Bulgarian skipper, ordered its launch and the small craft slammed down into the raging sea. “There were 26 people in there,” said Duthie. “There were people saying ‘give us air’. There was lots of vomiting from all the crew, including myself.” The following two hours were the most terrifying of the young cadet’s life. Unable to see out from the lifeboat, the men could do little but pray as 40ft waves tossed and battered their cramped and filthy craft. They then had to be winched, one by one, into Royal Navy helicopters flying close to the limit of their capabilities in the storm. “The relief for me came as soon as I was in the helicopter,” said Duthie. “But my parents had heard the ship was sunk and there was a rescue operation to find any survivors. It must have been a terrible experience but they won’t talk about it. There were tears when I called, they were over the moon.” The storm that took the 16- year-old Napoli was the worst in Britain for nearly a decade, killing 13 people across the country. The ship was saved from sinking only when an Anglo-French rescue mission towed it onto a sandbank off Devon. Yet the images that went round the world were not of the relieved crew and the pilots who had risked their lives to save them, but of hundreds of scavengers picking through the Napoli’s scattered cargo at Branscombe on the Devon coast. They made off with everything from BMW motorbikes and oak wine barrels to oil-coated packs of Ferrero Rocher chocolates. An unseemly episode, certainly, but the fate of the Napoli also raises troubling questions about the sea worthiness and regulation of the 8,000 container ships that plough the world’s oceans — vessels on which globalisation and the boom in intercontinental trade depends. “It is hard to see how a ship could suffer this type of structural failure if she was in a seaworthy condition,” said Andrew Nicholas, a partner with the London law firm Clyde & Co. It is representing a consortium of insurers who are preparing to sue the ship’s owners for allegedly running an unseaworthy vessel. How could a ship that was only middle-aged by freighter standards simply snap in what was a bad but not exceptional storm?

THE key to the Napoli’s fate almost certainly lies in its battered history. In March 2001, the Korean–built vessel, which for a short time was the biggest freight ship in the world, had just left Port Klang in Malaysia when it slammed into a reef while trying to overtake a coaster in the Malacca Straits. It took more than two months to refloat the vessel, which was then called the CMA-CGM Normandie. It was laid up for four months at a Vietnamese shipyard, where about a third of the underside was stripped out and replaced.

Soon after the repairs, a long-term charter on the ship was taken by the Geneva-based Mediterranean Shipping Company (MSC), set up in 1970 by Gianluigi Aponte, a sea captain from Sorrento on the bay of Naples. Aponte built his company into one of the biggest freight transporters in the world by buying up long-term charters on second-hand ships. The tactic has enabled him to bid successfully in what is a fiercely competitive market. The only other container ship believed to have been lost after snapping at sea was another of Aponte’s vessels, the MSC Carla. It had buckled in two (known as hogging) on top of a wave in the north Atlantic during a storm in 1997. It later emerged that before MSC took it on, Carla had had major reconstruction. It had been cut in half and had a new mid-section welded in to lengthen it. Yet according to the paperwork, the Napoli was up to scratch — its most recent inspection had been conducted in Antwerp just five days before it broke open off the Devon coast en route to South Africa, via Portugal. The year before it had undergone a “class renewal survey”, the toughest a ship can experience, which includes ultrasound testing on the strength of its steel. Again no structural problems were found. The inspectors may have found no evidence of problems, but the possibility that the previous crash had caused long-term damage that lurked undetected is at the centre of the British inquiry. A source close to the investigation, who has been on board the Napoli several times since it was grounded, said one of the first things the team would do would be “to check the quality of those repairs and re-examine the damage”. THE loss of the Napoli has come as more of a shock than a surprise to the industry. Of the 8,000 container ships, known as “box boats”, at sea, the biggest is more than twice the size of the Napoli. But with traffic growing at more than 10% a year, the Asian shipyards that knock them out are struggling to keep up, meaning existing vessels are under pressure to travel further and faster. The strains may now be starting to show.
“These ships are really worked hard and they thunder through the seas,” said John David, a former sea captain who works as a technical consultant. “They are fairly robust, but it wouldn’t take that much for them to develop fatigue.” Further questions are being raised over the role of the British authorities in the disaster.

Dead-man’s Bay was the name Thomas Hardy gave Lyme Bay in his fictional Wessex. The 50-mile curve of water along the Devon and Dorset coast is the graveyard of at least 200 wrecks. But when the wind is blowing from the southwest, as it was when the Napoli came to grief on January 18, the bay can serve as a shelter. This weekend a row was growing over whether it had been right to beach the ship off a coastline recognised by Unesco as a world heritage site. Environmentalists complained of being ignored. “We told them ‘nowhere in Lyme Bay, it’s too important’,” said Julian Wardlaw, who represents a consortium of environmental groups and councils. As the beachcombers melted away last week, more public-spirited residents began to clean up. Billy Bragg, the singer, who lives near Chesil Beach, 20 miles across the bay from Branscombe, helped to organise one group. “The beach became strewn with debris on Monday at high tide,” said Bragg. “It was covered with confectionery litter. Can you imagine six miles of oil-coated Mars bars and Ferrero Rocher?” The loss of the Napoli may have been a rarity, but if similar accidents are to be averted in the future it is not just inspections, building techniques and emergency planning procedures that need to be improved. Critics believe the opaque and secretive shipping industry must also be reformed. The ship sailed under Britain’s red ensign but was chartered by MSC, a Swiss-based shipping line. The owner is listed as Metvale, a shell company with an office in London and registered at a PO box address in the British Virgin Islands. Metvale is owned by a Monaco-registered holding company. Zodiac, the firm that manages the ship, declined to provide contact details for the owner while MSC declined to answer questions about it, beyond saying it was “way off the mark” to suggest its ships were anything but first rate. A spokesman said whether the vessel was seaworthy was a “technical” question that should be put to the owner. Technical, maybe, but not academic. Duthie and his 25 crewmates came close to losing their lives on the Napoli and the salvage and clean-up will take months. While waiting to board the lifeboat, Duthie leant over the safety rails to see what the problem was. “There was one big gash and two smaller ones on my side . . . the steel had bent outwards,” he said. “It happened to both sides at the same time.” The back quarter of the 904ft container ship had simply slumped and was in danger of breaking off. “This ship was 16 years old, she had a difficult life and underwent extensive repairs,” said Allan Graveson, senior national secretary at Nautilus, the shipping union. “This was entirely predictable


Title: Re: MSC Napoli - Middeletons Bible
Post by: TREBOATS on January 28, 2007, 02:10:38 pm
Intersting reading and explains a lot behind his thinking

PLACES OF REFUGE
In the
UNITED KINGDOM
 



1.    UK OVERVIEW

1.1. Places and Ports of Refuge

Providing shelter for a casualty is in fact part of every port state’s obligations.  Thus the requirement to offer a place of refuge is not by any means a new burden on maritime states.

That EU Member Coastal States should be required to take measures to receive ships in distress in Ports of Refuge has been clearly raised through the ERIKA II package, and through incidents such as the CASTOR and PRESTIGE incidents.

In any situation the primary overriding considerations are those of safety and risk to human life, both of those on board a casualty and of those who may find themselves near enough to be affected by it.

It is with the safety of innocent people in mind that we all recognise that in most cases it would be preferable for incidents to be dealt with at sea.  However we must also recognise that the search for calmer waters may inevitably require a casualty to move into a sheltered bay, port or roadstead.

In my opinion everywhere should be regarded as being a potential place or port of refuge.  Some places have more to offer than others do but, in extremis, everywhere may have something to offer.

There are certain aspects of any place that can enhance its attractiveness as a place of refuge such as:

·   The degree of shelter from prevailing weather

·   The absence of hazards to navigation

·   The presence of gently shelving, soft sand, beaches

·   The availability of handling facilities such as wharves, jetties, tugs and repair services.

Similarly there can be factors, which militate against such use.  A particular location may have a high sensitivity to pollution from certain combinations of ship and cargo.  For instance in the case of crude oil pollution, greater damage will be sustained by a salt-water marsh than by rocks exposed to the scouring effects of the ocean.

The concept of a MEHRA indicates that some areas have indeed been identified as being such locations.  However even a MEHRA should be regarded as being a place of refuge for some ships when lives are at risk or when the pollution potential is minimal.


1.2. Generic Site Analysis and Incident-specific Information

I believe there can be no pre-conceived ranking of places and ports of refuge set in stone.  This is because of the transient and varied nature of each incident and the time parameters affecting the value of a location as a place of refuge - not least the location of the incident and the wind direction i.e. incident-specific conditions will dictate the parameters of available locations.

The “agony of the moment” choice of a place of refuge will be more robust if it can be demonstrated that the decision is supported by a system of formal assessment.  Thus two forms of assessment become necessary:

1.   Pre-event generic analysis of locations which could lend themselves to become a place of refuge for ships.  The MCA undertake such assessments as part of the UK’s response to OPRC planning.

2.   Event-specific analysis of data relating to an incident as and when it occurs.  Depending upon the nature of the incident this analysis may have to be made in very short time indeed.  In other cases time may permit longer and more detailed considerations to be made.  In any case such considerations should be part of the incident’s “worst case scenario” planning.  

On the day the event specific information is “plugged into” the generic analysis that has had careful review beforehand.  The emphasis should be, as ever, on preparedness in the interests of minimising adverse consequences.


1.3. Interstate Co-operation

Finding places of refuge may require co-operation between coastal states with adjacent Pollution Control Zones because marine pollution does not respect these boundaries.  It would be folly for neighbouring states not to share information on places of refuge.  Who knows, it may be in the interests of both States for a ship seeking refuge in the Pollution Control Zone of one State to be given access to a place of refuge in the jurisdiction of another State, if that were a better location.

Therefore the UK agrees that coastal states should agree a common basis for the generic analyses so that, when event specific information is included, the best place of refuge can be offered to a ship in difficulty, recognising that it may lie in the jurisdiction of another State.


2.  A SYSTEM THAT WORKS      

The UK system for addressing the issue of places and ports of safety is to use the powers of intervention and direction invested in the SOSREP working with the MCA’s Counter Pollution and Response Branch.  The system has now responded to hundreds of cases and has addressed a number of serious incidents requiring casualties to be sent to places of refuge.  It is tried and tested and has been found to work.

The UK system incorporates a number of strengths and advantages including:

·   24 hour support from the state’s SAR response and MRCCs :  The system is embedded into the UK SAR response and utilises the whole resources of Her Majesty’s Coast Guard to alert and assist it.

·   A SOSREP:  This is a person who is able to make crucial decisions in very short time (on his own responsibility).

·   Officers of the MCA and Counter Pollution and Response Branch:  The system includes officers of the CP&RB and Duty Counter Pollution & Salvage Officers who handle the day-to-day issues like preparedness (OPRC Plans etc) and auditing facilities.  They also provide Duty Officers on a 24 x 7 basis to sift, monitor and handle all incidents reported by the Coast Guard.

·   A tested National Contingency Plan:  The NCP has now been tested during incidents and in major exercises and provides a flexible yet formalised system of approach to marine emergencies.  All participants know their roles and what is expected of them.

·   Involvement of independent experts:  The MCA and the SOSREP maintain lists of recognised experts in all aspects of salvage and pollution response.  Each of these individuals has pre-agreed to a call-off contract for their services.  This means that when expertise is required an expert can be contacted without delay and the best possible advice becomes available.

·   Environmental input:  Regional Environment Groups have been established by the MCA across the country.  Each of these groups includes the major environmental regulators and local agencies.  They are on 24 hours call and the system ensures that best environmental advice is available at short notice.  Most of these Groups have now been involved in sufficient incidents to be aware of how the system works in emergencies.  

·   Support from Harbour Masters:  Many UK Harbour Masters have now been involved with our response system.  The feedback both to the authorities and to other professional Harbour Masters and Harbour Authorities has been positive and we have found a welcome willingness to help and work with the system.
 3.  THE POWERS OF SOSREP

3.1.  Harbour Authorities and Harbour Masters

In addition to powers to intervene and direct shipping and those in charge of ships the SOSREP has extensive powers to direct harbour authorities and harbour masters.  This situation occurs where a ship is in harbour waters, or has been directed into them.

Effectively the directions can require the person to who they are given to take, or refrain from taking, any action of any kind whatsoever.

3.2.  Persons in Control of Coastal Land or Premises

The SOSREP can now issue Directions to persons in control of private facilities (Marine Safety Act 2003 came into effect during September).

These are for the purposes of removing or reducing a risk to safety or of pollution following an “accident”.

The Direction can require such persons to grant access or facilities in relation to any ship or anything which is, or was, on the ship including any people.  

The Directions may include:

·   Permitting persons to land.
·   Making facilities available for undertaking repairs or other works.
·   Making facilities available for the landing, storage and disposal of cargo or of other things.

3.3.  Action in Lieu of a Direction

Where the SOSREP is entitled to give a direction, or has given one, which hasn’t or isn’t likely to achieve the desired result, the SOSREP can take such action as appears necessary to achieve the purpose for which a Direction was, or could have been, given.

E.g.   -  Boarding and taking control of a vessel
-  Make arrangements for a vessel’s destruction
-  Enter land and make use of facilities

3.4.  Security for persons receiving Directions (Costs and expenses)

Any person, other than the owner of the ship, to whom a Direction is given, is entitled to recover the costs of his compliance with the Direction from the owner of the ship.  In respect of the expenses incurred by persons in control of land it is also stated that the costs of compliance with Directions are recoverable from the owner of the ship.

There is also provision for the Secretary of State to make payments to such people and to recover those payments directly from the owner of the ship.

UK law makes it clear that where unreasonable loss or damage is caused by complying with Directions which were not reasonable necessary, or which are out of all proportion to the good achieved by the Direction – application may be made to the Secretary of State for compensation.


4.  INFORMATION

4.1.  Information on Ports and Harbours.

Counter Pollution and Salvage Officers (CPSOs) of the MCA have regional responsibilities for the Ports, harbours and coastline within their area.  Their operational role includes assisting harbour with OPRC planning and approving monitoring and auditing formal contingency plans.  Through this process they become familiar with the Harbour Masters and port facilities.  This information is captured and held on file by the MCA.

The present tranche of OPRC plans are now approaching the time of renewal and the CPSOs will be working with the harbour authorities to include further information on places of refuge within ports.

4.2.  Information on other locations with particular suitability.

The MCA employs scientists who maintain detailed knowledge of the UK coastline and areas with particular environmental sensitivity.  This information can quickly be overlaid onto an incident to enable appropriate risk assessments to be made.

The Agency also has information on places with particular aspects which could be of use during certain types of incident e.g. no local resident population; deep water etc.

                  
5.  CASE STUDIES

5.1.  DOLE AMERICA:  Private wharf owner refused access to dry-dock services.

The MV DOLE AMERICA struck the Nab Tower in the Solent Approaches and sank with a cargo of fruit.

After re-floating this vessel needed dry-docking facilities to enable jury repairs to be affected to the vessel and in particular to a 13m gash in the way of holds 1 & 2 below the waterline.

Although the dry-dock was empty at the time there was a major ship refurbishment contract due in one week’s time.  Access to the dock was granted at first but later refused even as the casualty had covered over half of the passage from the site of re-floating, under tow and supported by sheerlegs, towards it.

The refusal was not lifted and the vessel had to make a further dangerous journey (still supported by the sheerlegs) to another repair facility.

5.2.  Small general cargo vessel off Shetland:  Refused entry by the SOSREP because of value of fish farm stocks.

During a severe storm this small cargo vessel was swept by a wave and the cargo of fishmeal was displaced.  The vessel took on a severe list (35 degrees) and the crew were lifted off by CG helicopter.  However a second vessel appeared as the weather began to moderate and managed to get a line onto the casualty.  They requested haven in a nearby sheltered loch.  

The loch in question however was populated by a large number of salmon farms containing aggregated stock of around £15 million.

The vessel itself only contained the cargo of fishmeal and MDO fuel; there was no risk to life and no significant risk to the environment if it sank on the open sea.  The cost of contaminating the fish stocks with the MDO on the other hand was a real one and haven was refused on grounds of comparative value.

The vessel did subsequently enter the loch when its stability was assured and the weather had moderated further.


5.3.  M/T MAGNITUDE:  Granted entry to Milford Haven laden with 90,000 tonnes of HFO and a split in side of vessel.

Six days after the M/T PRESTIGE (70,000 tonnes HFO) sank we dealt with this vessel which was awaiting entry to the Haven to discharge.  At daybreak the crew found themselves in the centre of an oil slick which was issuing from a visible crack in the side of the vessel.  

Whilst the casualty transferred cargo from the tanks near the crack the SOSREP made contact with the Milford Haven Harbour Master who also held a meeting with his local environment Group to explain the situation.  It was agreed that, despite the risk of pollution from the vessel by HFO, bringing the vessel into the port presented the least risk of pollution to the greater environment.

The vessel was finally brought into the port, boomed and discharged successfully with little or no pollution.

Since then the decision to allow the vessel to enter the Haven has been reviewed by the port authority and the Harbour Master has been instructed to refuse entry to a future vessel in similar circumstances.  

Milford Haven have very good reason to feel the need for protection from legal action ensuing from pollution within their port and would insist that the Government took full responsibility for the risk in this sort of event by requiring a direction to admit the vessel.


5.4.  AB BILBAO:  Dangerous cargo – given shelter offshore and later brought into port for temporary repairs.
The AB BILBAO was making passage down the North Sea towards the Dover Strait into a south-west gale when an explosion blew off the first section of her single hatch-cover.  This exposed her cargo of 3,300 tonnes of fero-silicone to sea and rain.  The datasheets for the cargo showed that the presence of moisture would cause emissions of the gasses hydrogen, acetylene, arsine and phosphine.

The vessel was instructed to take shelter from the south-west winds offshore in the Margate Roads.  It was realised that the vessel could not lie in this position for any length of time however as the weather was forecast to strengthen to force ten from the south-east.  The problem was how to evaluate the real risk posed by the wet cargo.

The response team led by the SOSREP set about locating an expert source of information about the behaviour of the cargo.  Eventually two sources of information were found – one of whom worked for the owners and the other as independent advisor to the SOSREP.

The risk was evaluated as low in real terms and the casualty was brought into the Medway Ports under Direction and there given temporary repairs without landing the cargo.

At one time there was a considerable body of environmental advise which indicated that major parts of the south east UK and parts of Holland should be evacuated.  It was the impartiality and value of the independent expert advice that enabled the frontline parties involved to properly evaluate the real risk posed by the situation and take meaningful decisions.
 
5.5.  MV WESTER TILL:  7,300 gt general cargo/container vessel on fire, IMO classified substances, suddenly diverted into a port of refuge

During the evening pallets of rolled paper on fire and stowed in the after hold beneath a deck cargo of containers was discovered as the vessel headed down the Channel from Antwerp.  Attempts to extinguish the fire with CO2 were unsuccessful and a shore based fire fighting team and a salvage crew were transferred onto the casualty.  It was known that there were quantities of cargo described as flammable liquids, corrosives, poisonous toxins and miscellaneous IMO classified items on board some of which were close to the site of the fire.

By the early hours of the morning the fire was considered to be smouldering and under control.  Arrangements were made to bring the vessel into the port of Southampton so that cargo could be removed and water from shore-based fire appliances used to ensure the fire was out.  All available fire appliances were tasked to the quayside at Southampton.

During the passage fire fighters entered the hold every 30 minutes to quench small flames and keep control of the fire.  At around 10:50 the Salvage Master on board the casualty reported the fire had reasserted itself and was spreading rapidly – it could not be fought with the onboard resources and he needed to bring the vessel alongside at the earliest possible moment.

Within ten minutes all arrangements had been made to divert the vessel into the Portsmouth naval dockyard and alongside.  Within 45 minutes of the fire report the vessel was manoeuvring alongside and the shore-based fire appliances from Southampton were making arrangements to fight the fire.

Because of the time constraints in this case the risk assessment had to be rough and ready and the co-operation of the Queen’s Harbour Master at Portsmouth was vital – it was a case of independent responders each trusting in the others professionalism and working to what became a common objective – to extinguish the fire before it gained sufficient hold to disperse the known pollutants on board the casualty.
 

 

Robin Middleton
Secretary of State’s Representative
Maritime Salvage and Intervention


Title: Re: MSC Napoli
Post by: Timsen on January 28, 2007, 08:08:09 pm
All news on the incident can be found here:
http://www.mcga.gov.uk/c4mca/mcga-newsroom/incident.htm


Title: Re: MSC Napoli
Post by: compass on January 28, 2007, 08:44:49 pm
Follow this link to a YouTube movie showing a helicopter in the original rescue operation, filmed from the first ship on the scene: M/S Birka Carrier, who guided the helicopters to the lifeboat.
It gives you quite a good idea of the actual state of the sea at the time.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZHvRa2K7q-Y


Title: Re: MSC Napoli Sinking
Post by: Haz on January 28, 2007, 09:51:51 pm
Hi Phil,
The MSC Napoli is not going to sink. (You've probably already realised this, it's late news now!).
Close one? Not sure.
But anyway, ya know the fact that it was going to be taken to Portland, then Sidmouth, now and finally Branscombe (near SIDMOUTH), why didn't they just take it to Falmouth,
just wondering if you know.
Thanks,
Haz.

Quote

phil wrote:
At 4,427 teu she's really a baby post-panamax. Most recent panamaxes have a higher teu capacity. But, yes, strictly speaking she will be the first one totally lost.

Phil


Title: Re: MSC Napoli Sinking
Post by: Brian Cawkwell on January 28, 2007, 09:59:50 pm
Haz

If you read the thread many people have gave reason why she did not go to Falmouth:-

1)Berths at falmouth not big enough

2)water very deep if the ship was to sink

3)also the weather I think was a factor (there could be more)

But like I said it has all been very well explained in the whole thread.

I would like to commend some of the excellent contributions from fellow members.

once again WELL DONE

Cawky


Title: Re: MSC Napoli Sinking
Post by: compass on January 29, 2007, 08:06:43 am
Zodiac statement:

UPDATE
MSC NAPOLI

STATEMENT 9
11.00 hrs (UK)
Sunday, January 28, 2007

Zodiac Maritime Agencies Ltd of London, managers of the container vessel MSC Napoli, report that operations will commence today to discharge containers from the vessel. The large crane barge Bigfoot 1 has been moored alongside MSC Napoli. The salvage team will lighten the beached ship by removing containers. These containers are to be landed at Portland by a second, “shuttle” barge, the Boa Barge 21.

Simultaneously, excellent progress is being made by SMIT in progressing the ship-to-ship transfer of fuel from MSC Napoli. Two of the main fuel tanks (Nos. 5 and 6 on the portside) were emptied at 15.30 hrs yesterday, following the transfer of 1,830 tonnes of fuel to the tanker Forth Fisher. Half of the fuel oil on board MSC Napoli has now been removed.

MSC Napoli has four main fuel tanks and two smaller tanks. Due to the vessel’s starboard list (which has reduced to 16 deg. at High Water and 13 deg. at Low Water), the two main starboard fuel tanks are submerged. During Saturday a team of salvage divers worked to secure discharge hoses to these tanks. It is hoped that pumping from fuel tank Nos. 5 and 6 starboard will begin today and that the ship-to- ship transfer will continue to progress rapidly during the coming week. The weather outlook remains favourable for at least the next few days.

The removal of containers will be progressed in such a way as to reduce stresses on MSC Napoli’s hull.  Initially, the discharge operation will concentrate on containers at the stern of the ship. The big barge is moored to form the cross of a “T” with MSC Napoli’s stern, well clear of the tanker Forth Fisher - which is moored to the portside.

There has been a limited leakage of oil from the vessel’s flooded engineroom and several holds. Special skimmers are being used to remove this oil. Pumps are also working in these spaces.
The MSC Napoli was carrying 2,318 containers, of which 103 were lost. Work continues to recover containers. A total of 57 have now been accounted for. A vessel equipped with sidescan sonar is tasked with searching for the outstanding containers.


Title: Re: MSC Napoli Sinking
Post by: ralf_03 on January 29, 2007, 11:53:21 am
Dear all,

Do you have any updated news about container removal ? Did they already started. Is anybody of you on-site ?

Would be nice to get the latest news and also some pictures of it.

Greetings
Ralf


Title: Re: MSC Napoli Sinking
Post by: 2nd-mate on January 29, 2007, 12:20:42 pm
Hi Ralf,

SMIT already start the salvage, their is a picture on a dutch news siter, see the link!

http://www.rtl.nl/(/financien/rtlz/nieuws/)/components/actueel/rtlnieuws/2007/01_januari/29/buitenland/0129_0545_Smit_berging_Napoli_containers.xml

regards

2nd-mate


Title: Re: MSC Napoli Sinking
Post by: luna on January 29, 2007, 03:25:23 pm
has general average been declared? Will it? I just want a simple yes or no, haha. There's been so much discussion, I just want to know if it has or hasn't.


Title: Re: MSC Napoli Sinking
Post by: compass on January 29, 2007, 04:54:19 pm
Here are a few photos from the Zodiac website:

http://www.zodiac-maritime.com/zodiac/jsp/public/MSC%20Napoli%201.jpg

http://www.zodiac-maritime.com/zodiac/jsp/public/MSC%20Napoli%202.jpg

http://www.zodiac-maritime.com/zodiac/jsp/public/MSC%20Napoli%203.jpg


Title: Re: MSC Napoli Sinking
Post by: albert van emden on January 29, 2007, 05:01:12 pm
Another update on situation today at the Sky News link:
http://news.sky.com/skynews/video/videoplayer/0,,31200-ship_290107_1330,00.html


Title: Re: MSC Napoli Sinking
Post by: albert van emden on January 30, 2007, 12:05:20 pm
Fishing vessel SEA SEEKER colliding with barge PONT MENAI
See BBC news link below:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/dorset/6312293.stm


Title: Re: MSC Napoli Sinking
Post by: Peterwiles on January 30, 2007, 02:47:10 pm
The SEA SEEKER is now moored in Lyme Regis harbour. The visible damage is to its bow.

There are two pictures at: http://photos.yahoo.com/lymescapes

plus a photo of the MSC Napoli taken 29/01/07


Title: Re: MSC Napoli Sinking
Post by: normanbanks on January 30, 2007, 04:42:50 pm
if you want some great photos of the msc Napoli, go to
2007nightmare:m/vmscnapoli
bestregards my friend!!


Title: Re: MSC Napoli Sinking
Post by: maz_atenza on January 30, 2007, 05:19:12 pm
Quote

normanbank wrote:
if you want some great photos of the msc Napoli, go to
2007nightmare:m/vmscnapoli
bestregards my friend!!


can you give us the url address?
Thanks


Title: Re: MSC Napoli Sinking
Post by: bhedi on January 30, 2007, 06:08:36 pm
Please check the report at
http://www.cargolaw.com/2007nightmare_msc.napoli.html


Title: Re: MSC Napoli Sinking
Post by: maz_atenza on January 30, 2007, 06:24:07 pm
again another long but excellent article from Lloyds List

Containers

Sizing up container risk is a matter of perspective
By Michael Grey - Monday 29 January 2007

ONE of the problems of age is that one is constantly being confounded by the passage of time. I recall, at the time Associated Container Transportation was building its “1st Generation” containerships, writing an article suggesting that building a 1,500 teu ship was “putting too many eggs into one basket”.

Such wealth locked into a single huge hull, I argued with great conviction, was surely a liability too far, should such a massive ship be subject to the perils of the sea.

I had a former shipmate, ashore in the container trades, who used to remind me of this deathless piece of prose, as the size of containership crept remorselessly upwards.

Fortunately, he retired about the time of the first post-panamax monsters, so I have been allowed to forget this embarrassing forecast, what with Emma Maersk appearing in this newspaper practically every day of the week flaunting its huge blue hull around the world.

Containerships, despite destroying the languid way of life I had enjoyed for so long, have undoubtedly been one of the massive success stories of transportation times.

They have set standards of productivity not even thought of in the years when our lovely liners spent more than half their year tied up in port.

A well-run containership reminds me of that advertisement for long life batteries, with the little rabbit drumming away long after lesser types have sunk into silence. Not only are containerships long lived; they keep on running, fast and well, for thirty years or more.

I don’t know what mileage the first OCL “Bay” boats or their ACT rivals had racked up, when they finally steamed away for scrap, but I would dare to suggest that no ship before them had ever steamed so far at such a service speed.

It is something that should be celebrated rather more, when naval architects get together, to exaggerate their successes, over a few pints.

Containerships will be getting something of a bad press at present, what with the MSC Napoli sitting with a drunken list in the middle of Lyme Bay shedding boxes full of salt stained motor bikes and enormous balls of wool with every high tide.

The local gendarmerie, who are trying hard to keep souvenir-hunters at bay on the grounds that the flotsam may be dangerous, ought perhaps to be a little more pragmatic.

Beachcombers take the rough with the smooth, but can cut up very rough when their beach is banned to them and will start to raise Cain with the local authority.

The next thing will be local revolutionaries seeking to prevent the Secretary of State’s Representative from bringing ships into the refuge of Lyme Bay.

You have to keep in with the locals, even if it means doshing them the odd barrel of wine or a slightly salty BMW motorbike.

A forty footer could make a very commodious beach hut, painted up, and with a verandah in front.

I suspect that the loss of this ship (which will be in no fit state even if they get it off) will raise once again these old arguments of size and vulnerability.

It may be a matter of perception rather than reality — you cannot deny the excellent record in service of these hard-running ships, but as with very big tankers, when it all goes pear-shaped, there is an awful mess.

And one cannot deny the fact that the salvage of containerships is something of a challenge for professional salvors.

If they had their own gear, it would be something, but these big box boats make a career of their helplessness and utter dependence on terminal cranes.

With a tanker you can pump the cargo out. On one famous occasion, with a grounded capesize on the Channel Isles, the salvors used the sea to make slurry of the iron ore cargo and pumped that over the side to save the ship.

But containerships are full of boxes that scarcely lend themselves to any easy means of disposal.

Much was made of the use of heavy helicopters in the case of some recent boxship strandings, but the fact is that most containers and all but an empty forty footer, are just too heavy for even the biggest whirlybird.

In the salvage off the beach at Ensenada last year, the helicopter might have been the biggest in the world, but it required to fly with only just enough fuel aboard to make it to the ship and back to lift a box ashore. Most had to be emptied by hand.

With the vessel in Lyme Bay, the list won’t help, either.

Containerships bend a bit, too. Some years ago I saw a video taken by an officer on one of the Atlantic Container Line ships in heavy weather and the movement of the deck load as the ship flexed, and of the cars in the garage, was really quite astonishing. You would think the ship was made of rubber.

They need this elasticity, naval architects point out, but when a great long hull is exposed to a prolonged “bend”, half-supported on the sea bottom in a tidal situation, it probably cannot do much for the long-term integrity of the structure.

Whatever let the water into the machinery space of the MSC Napoli and started the incident, we sometimes need these reminders of the frightening power of the sea, and the fact that even very large ships remain vulnerable.

You feel that there is an over-confidence bordering on hubris, whether we are talking about “Malaccamax” containerships or gigantic passengerships, where the financial case is so overwhelming that one feels that other issues are just pushed to the “it couldn’t possibly happen” category.

But prolonged exposure to the sea tells us that if things can go wrong in the far wild seas, they probably will. And because of this we need to weight the confident forecasts of the money men with certain practical cautions.

“Hold on Grey!” you might interject at this juncture, going on to suggest that I am merely repeating the ridiculous “too many eggs in one basket scenario” of that seriously flawed 1970 article. Have I not learned the lesson that progress is not assisted by too much caution?

Perhaps this is the case, except that you also have to keep a sense of perspective.

The biggest containerships in the world, when all is said and done, are still propelled by a single gigantic diesel apiece, fuelled by oil that is indistinguishable from refinery waste.

Surely that is a reason for some small cautions on the part of the underwriter, or indeed the shippers of enormously expensive goods, which they hope will enjoy an incident-free passage.

There will be a solitary watchkeeper, plugged into a whole lot of very sophisticated integrated equipment, monitoring the progress of these projectiles as they rush across the seas, driven by their remorseless schedules.

Does not the vulnerability of this situation enter into one’s thinking?

Accidents do happen. This is, after all, the second desperate adventure for the poor old MSC Napoli which, from the pictures kindly sent to this newspaper by a French friend, tried very hard to bodily leap a coral reef in south east Asia some six years ago.

There has been all manner of concern expressed about the fire risks from the enormous quantities of basic chemicals being hauled around our globalised world in containers.

Half of it, by all accounts, is somewhat loosely described and unaccompanied by earnest injunctions about stowing “away from boilers”.

I suppose all of these tremulous caveats descend into a single doubt about whether we as an industry are professional enough to reduce these enormous risks to an acceptable level.

The people who drive the biggest of these containerships, like the folk striding around the space-age bridges of 100,000gt passengerships, may be the creme de la creme, but they are not always masters of their own destiny.

They share the same sea, often the same separation zone, with spaced out people with matchsticks holding their eyes open, or people whose first inclination on seeing another echo forward of the beam, is to start bleating into the VHF.

They depend on some shipping clerk with his mind in neutral not booking a container full of high explosives, as one in which stowage is immaterial, knowing that nobody will have the time or inclination to check their shoddy work.

We are all human beings after all, capable of missing a line of welds in a shipyard, or failing to spot a propagating fatigue crack, omitting to put the right tension on a bolt, or shutting a vital valve.

Nobody’s perfect, yet there is the assumption that we are. And in this climate of imperfection we are urged by the money men to throw caution to the winds and build bigger, faster, more lightly constructed ships, operating them to schedules which take not a jot of notice of the prevailing weather.

But perhaps it is all a matter of statistics, and these show us convincingly that most containers get to their destinations without being looted by Dorset beach bums or blown to bits by igniting chemicals.

Statistically big passengerships are about the safest there are, thank goodness.

It is the exceptions that not only prove the rule, but bring the terror of the regulators down upon the industry after an accident, especially if it is found that size, in some way, has contributed to the chaos. And that’s the size of it.


Title: MSC Napoli Sinking
Post by: FWE on January 31, 2007, 07:16:38 pm
Lloyds List article suggests that we are in an era when ships are designed, operated and maintained by accountants.


Title: Re: MSC Napoli Sinking
Post by: Caille Pierre-Alfred on January 31, 2007, 07:39:07 pm
Nice pictures here ...
http://www.flickr.com/photos/danbryan_photography/

Pierre-Alfred Caille
www.ships.be


Title: Re: MSC Napoli Sinking
Post by: Marek Gono on January 31, 2007, 10:19:46 pm
Ehm... I don't want to be too offensive, but what is this article all about? I'm struggling to catch the point and mainly the informative value.
(is there any? somewhere they regard this kind of speech to as "talking about t!at").


Title: Re: MSC Napoli Sinking
Post by: JMS on February 01, 2007, 09:26:57 am
The point is, IMO, that huge container ships present a huge insurance risk that needs to be hedged by having a tougher ship structure and redundant systems.

The point is made that huge ships have proven to be "safe" but that statistics are composed of the usual but also of the unexpected and that when accidents like this happen, it causes tremendous waves in the industry and the public at large.


Title: Re: MSC Napoli Sinking
Post by: compass on February 02, 2007, 04:05:17 pm
Today's update from Zodiac:

UPDATE
MSC NAPOLI

STATEMENT 11
12.00 hrs (UK)
Friday, February 2, 2007


Zodiac Maritime Agencies Ltd of London, managers of the container vessel MSC Napoli, report that a total of 128 containers have been discharged from the vessel so far. Containers discharged by the crane barge Bigfoot 1 continue to be landed at Portland by the shuttle vessel Boa Barge 21. The discharge of MSC Napoli’s deck containers is expected to take around four weeks.

Meanwhile, the SMIT salvage team is close to completing the removal of fuel from MSC Napoli. Pumping now concentrates on Tank No. 6 starboard, the last of the ship’s four main fuel tanks. By 08.00 hrs today, 3,212 tonnes of fuel had been transferred from the ship to the tanker Forth Fisher. This represents over 80% of the total contents of the fuel tanks (3,600 tonnes) with completion of pumping from tank no. 6 starboard during the weekend, the remaining fuel in the engineroom service and settling tanks will be removed (total amount of around 400 tonnes).

The weather outlook at the scene remains favourable, with the good conditions forecast to persist until Tuesday at least.


Title: Re: MSC Napoli Sinking
Post by: compass on February 02, 2007, 08:47:05 pm
Here some further photos from the Zodiac website:

http://www.zodiac-maritime.com/zodiac/jsp/public/MSC%20Napoli%204.jpg

http://www.zodiac-maritime.com/zodiac/jsp/public/MSC%20Napoli%205.jpg


Title: Re: MSC Napoli Sinking
Post by: Alan Smillie on February 02, 2007, 09:27:53 pm
For those who might be interested the vessels still on location and being used on this salvage operation are as follows :-

Argonaute, imo-9269518 AHT/Supply
Anglian Princess, imo-9242766 Coastguard tug/supplyship
Pasvik, imo-8418590 AHT/Supply with the barge “Bigfoot”
Captain Michalis, imo-7530028 AHT with the barge “Boa Barge 21”
Union Beaver, imo-8918564 Salvage vessel
Smit Bronco, imo-9345491 Multi purpose pusher tug
Forth Fisher, imo-9118159 Oil Products Tanker.

Seen using LMIU AIS.

Would be interesting to hear from others on the location that might be able to send in any interesting photos or information to shipspotting as the operation progresses.

Cheers, Alan.


Title: Re: MSC Napoli Sinking
Post by: Tim Twichell on February 03, 2007, 02:10:31 am
Alan, some massive close ups of the whole operation are here on the British Coastguard site....Click the photos on pages and you will get huge images.The close ups are provided by Smit themselves.Very dramatic images, shows the dangerous and difficult job of working on that vessel handling those containers.

https://mcanet.mcga.gov.uk/press/ (https://mcanet.mcga.gov.uk/press/)


Title: Re: MSC Napoli Sinking
Post by: Alan Smillie on February 03, 2007, 11:09:19 am
Hi Tim,
Thanks for that link, nice shots there, at least i will be able to check out how the jobs going there, they seem to be getting on quite well just hope the weather keeps good for them.
Cheers, Alan.


Title: Re: MSC Napoli Sinking
Post by: Richard57 on February 06, 2007, 06:13:06 pm
The news releases seem to have dried up from normal sources.

Anyway this photoset from Flickr shows that they have now cleared the stern of containers and appear to now be working on those ahead of the superstructure.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/friedgold/ (http://www.flickr.com/photos/friedgold/)


Title: Re: MSC Napoli Sinking
Post by: Timsen on February 07, 2007, 08:24:17 am
Latest news regarding the salvage works always on
http://www.mcga.gov.uk/c4mca/mcga-newsroom/incident.htm


Title: Re: MSC Napoli Sinking
Post by: mallo on February 07, 2007, 08:14:54 pm
Hi all
This is my first post…… hope its OK
Some new news MCA now reporting that Bigfoot now back in Portland for at least next 72 hours to shelter from weather.

http://www.mcga.gov.uk/c4mca/mcga-newsroom/mcga-press-releases.htm?id=24EDE4444A80CC06&m=2&y=2007

Thanks for all the information, have been following with interest
Best wishes to all


Title: Re: MSC Napoli Sinking
Post by: Mike on February 07, 2007, 09:01:44 pm
Hello Tim
The mcanet site does have some good pictures, but I wish they would date them instead of having to trawl through them or am I missing something!
Does anyone know if she is actualy afloat? as she seems to be going down not up as the containers are coming off, or maybe I am missing the latest pic,s.
I hope they salvage her after all this effort but no one mentions the foul winter weather to come, if she breaks her back altogether then thats that.
Mind I know in the past many salvors have tried to break the ship in two as they can salvage her better but loose the "prize" of the complete salvage.
let's see and hope for the best.
Mike :pint:


Title: Re: MSC Napoli Sinking
Post by: gareth on February 07, 2007, 09:52:36 pm
No she is not afloat, she is sitting firmly on the bottom, though I understand there is still a degree or buoyancy at the forward end.  South-Easterly gale forecast tonight, this is not good news and is why the barge is back in port.  Coastguard predicting more containers will be lost and it won't be good for the ship either.

On a different note, and apparently (but actually not) changing the subject, if you live in the uk you may be aware that last Saturday a yacht capsized and sank after losing its keel.  3 rescued but 1 person was lost.  The incident happened about 7 miles south of Start Point in calm conditions.  Incident is being investigated by the MAIB and can only speculate about why a yacht would lose its keel in light winds and calm seas.  But it has just occurred to me.........I wonder if she hit a submerged container from MSC Napoli.


Title: MSC Napoli Sinking - Transponders ?
Post by: FWE on February 08, 2007, 01:25:48 pm
I see it is acknowledged that more containers may be lost overboard if weather worsens as expected. I hope that the salvors also take the opportunity to secure them further to help prevent this and also put transponders on them in case that occurs to enable them to be tracked and avoid hazard to other shipping and the environment dependant on their content.


Title: Re: MSC Napoli Sinking
Post by: Mike on February 08, 2007, 08:08:52 pm
Hello Gareth
Yacht keels do not just happen to "drop off",any good skipper would have some prior warning as the boat would not handle correctly.
Having owned various boats over the years to loose a keel off a yacht takes some doing and you are correct, hitting a submerged object could well of been the cause of this tragic loss.
The only other reason is poor mainternance but to be sailing a yacht in the English channel I will give the boat owner more credit and assume she was seaworthy.
Hitting a 40'submerged container will put a big hole in most things and to  capsize the yacht sounds more of a large hole beeing ripped open when the keel was hit/lost.
Containers have a nasty habit of floating "just submerged" as some air gets trapped and I for one hope they find all of them from the Napoli as anything that floats "also travels" with the tide!.
Mike :-)


Title: Re: MSC Napoli Sinking
Post by: irrelevant on February 10, 2007, 02:38:11 pm
Cargo holds 5-7 are fully flooded, and cargo hold 4 is flooded 4-5 tiers high. That is a lot of water inside her. Not much reserve bouyancy there, I reckon!

I have this info from our insurance underwriter. We have a container on board that is in one of the flooded holds.


Title: Re: MSC Napoli Sinking
Post by: jnrawdon on February 11, 2007, 12:34:55 am
I agree that Yacht keels do not generally "drop off" but it is not unknown, I remember Simon le Bon's maxi, Drum, who's keel dropped off followed very quickly by a capsize in the 1980's:
http://www.drumreunion.co.uk/history.html


Title: Re: MSC Napoli Sinking
Post by: Royston Ford on February 13, 2007, 08:19:58 pm
Quote
Cargo holds 5-7 are fully flooded, and cargo hold 4 is flooded 4-5 tiers high. That is a lot of water inside her. Not much reserve bouyancy there, I reckon!


Your cargo insurer needs to use a decent surveyor who can give him up to date information . All holds are completely flooded with the exception of number 1 (which has next to nothing in it anyway).


Title: Re: MSC Napoli Sinking
Post by: irrelevant on February 16, 2007, 02:24:55 pm
Quote
Your cargo insurer needs to use a decent surveyor who can give him up to date information


Once we learned that our cargo was submerged, our need for up to date information became more a matter of pure curiosity. Our interest now is focused on filing a claim. The status of our cargo is extremely unlikely to improve, and cannot possibly worsen ;-)


Title: Re: MSC Napoli Sinking
Post by: Richard57 on February 17, 2007, 09:22:46 am
http://www.mcga.gov.uk/c4mca/mcga-newsroom/incident.htm (http://www.mcga.gov.uk/c4mca/mcga-newsroom/incident.htm)

Latest Information 16th February 2007

At approximately 3.30pm yesterday  the MSC Napoli lost a further ten  containers during bad weather.including a set of three linked 40ft containers, two 20ft linked containers and two 40ft linked containers.

There were no dangerous goods amongst the cargo lost, the containers contained a variety of goods including electrical appliances, king Edward potatoes, engine parts and used office supplies.

There have been no significant changes to the vessel overnight.

The crane barge, Bigfoot lifted 60 containers to the shuttle barge yesterday, which took them to Portland Port and is now back on site.


Title: Re: MSC Napoli Sinking
Post by: DanBryan on February 18, 2007, 08:55:17 am
You can see photos of this here, including the clean up of these containers which is already in full swing.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/danbryan_photography/sets/72157594492046928/

I intend to photograph the Msc Napoli every week until its gone. If you require images for an editorial or you would like to buy prints of Msc Napoli, send me an email to dan.bryan@virgin.net

Cheers
Dan


Title: Re: MSC Napoli Sinking
Post by: spotti on March 18, 2007, 09:18:54 pm
Any news or photos of the salvage operation?

Best regards
Niels


Title: Re: MSC Napoli Sinking
Post by: Timsen on March 20, 2007, 08:30:35 am
An actual photo is right on casualties on this webite. Regular updates are on www.dorsetforyou.com (latest update: Mar 13), see also the feature on www.cargolaw.com or the British Coastguard Sita.


Title: Re: MSC Napoli Sinking
Post by: Kier Shackleton Gigeroff on March 20, 2007, 01:19:28 pm
This info has probably already been posted but due to the large number of replies I did not read them all.
This info was copied from equasis (http://www.equasis.org)

IMO number: 9000601
Name of ship :   MSC NAPOLI
Call Sign :   VQBX7
Gross tonnage :   53409
Type of ship :   Container Ship
Year of build :   1991
Flag :   United Kingdom

Kier


Title: Re: MSC Napoli Sinking
Post by: spotti on March 21, 2007, 08:40:01 pm
Thanks to Timsen and Kier for the information.

Niels


Title: Re: MSC Napoli Sinking
Post by: Richard57 on April 11, 2007, 11:27:11 am
Good progress it seems:

http://www.dorsetforyou.com/index.jsp?articleid=365329

MSC Napoli - Situation update 27/03/07
Seaward
The Environment Group assigned to the recovery of the MSC Napoli has confirmed that operations to remove containers from the vessel is now well over half way. 43% of the original 2,318 containers are left, and the removal is going well.

853 containers have been removed from the deck; so far 353 containers have been removed from below deck - this operation is continuing; 88 containers have been recovered from the sea and the shoreline; 26 containers are submerged (some located, some remain un-located, but the containers have been identified so contents are known to the authorities); there are 998 containers remaining below deck.

The crane barge, Big Foot, which is removing the containers from the vessel, now needs to be modified to enable it to lift heavier containers with a longer reach. Many of the containers are now heavier having become waterlogged. The removal operation will be suspended in the next few days to allow for the necessary modifications to Big Foot.

Clean containers (checked and processed) have been transferred onward from Portland Port on the MSC Grace to Le Havre, the nearest large container port that can accommodate the cargo.

The MSC Napoli remains stable with no change to its condition.

The skimming of oil from the engine room and Number 6 Hold continues.

The Centre for Fisheries and Aquaculture Science and the Environment Agency are studying water samples taken from the vessel's hold.

Portland Port recovery teams continue to process the latest arrival of containers from the MSC Napoli.

Divers were unable to work over the weekend due to the height of the swell.

The sonar vessels are continuing their explorations to locate submerged containers.

The authorities have issued an invitation to tender for the removal of the wreck, with a closing date of the 4th April.

http://www.dorsetforyou.com/index.jsp?articleid=365329 (http://www.dorsetforyou.com/index.jsp?articleid=365329)