ShipSpotting.com
Login: Lost Password? SIGN UP
Ship Photo Search
Advanced Search
Pages: [1] 2
  Print  
Author Topic: Why do they rename a ship for its final voyage to wrecking yard??  (Read 8958 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Derell Licht
Just can't stay away
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 81



View Profile
« on: April 26, 2014, 08:45:13 pm »

Actually, I don't think they *always* do that, but I read about it often enough that it seems to be somewhat common.  The most recent was the Ship Formerly Known As Exxon Valdez, renamed Oriental Nicety (!!) for her final voyage.  Seems odd to me...
Report to moderator   Logged

Not all those who wander are lost...
Tuomas Romu
Home away from home
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 317


View Profile
« Reply #1 on: April 26, 2014, 08:59:48 pm »

I would assume that when a ship is sold for scrap, the seller may sometimes forbid using the former name for some reason, for example because he does not want others to make a connection between the company and the "dirty" scrapping business. I would assume that funnel marks are sometimes painted over for the same reason.

Usually, the renaming is carried out by painting over part of the ship's former name. For this reason, ex-Exxon Valdez's last renaming seems a bit strange.
Report to moderator   Logged
SteKrueBe
Home away from home
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 223



View Profile
« Reply #2 on: April 26, 2014, 10:24:03 pm »

Actually, I don't think they *always* do that, but I read about it often enough that it seems to be somewhat common.  The most recent was the Ship Formerly Known As Exxon Valdez, renamed Oriental Nicety (!!) for her final voyage.  Seems odd to me...

Hi Derell! The "Exxon Valdez" was renamed "Exxon Mediterranean", "SeaRiver Mediterranean", "Mediterranean", "Dong Fang Ocean" and "Oriental Nicety" before beeing renamd "Oriental N" for her last voyage to the breakers. Apart of that i agree with Tuomas - it's mainly to avoid unwanted publicity.
Brgds,
Stefan
   
   
   
   
   
Report to moderator   Logged
Anton Heuff
Home away from home
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 298



View Profile WWW
« Reply #3 on: April 27, 2014, 09:36:12 pm »

There are a number of reasons. The practical one is that ships which embark on their last voyage have to be reclassified, usually after a long period of lay-up. The buyer, seller or intermediate will choose a flag of convenience for the mere formality of reclassification, and a renaming will be part of the procedure.

I can't see the 'shame factor' as a reason to give a ship destined for recycling a pseudonym. Ships which are sold for recycling are old, unless they are recently declared a total loss. Old ships were sold so many times that only ship lovers will be aware of her pedigree, and the public at large won't give a hoot, nor do the owners of rustbuckets.

Regards, Anton

Report to moderator   Logged

[color=000000]Anton Heuff[/color]
Robert Smith
Top Poster
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,695



View Profile
« Reply #4 on: April 27, 2014, 10:02:11 pm »

Anton, you have probably not read the reports Greenpeace wrote on the subject of recycling. Naming and shaming of owners is a major factor in their quest to have ships dismantled in a way which is less damaging to people and the environment.

Owners like Maersk habitually change names when they sell ships to be scrapped.
Many vessels are no old rustbuckets but comparatively new and have often just completed their last commercial voyage. A skeleton crew and a FOC is a cheap way to take them to the beaches of Alang or Chittagong. Scrapping is done under very poor working conditions and in a way which is damaging to the environment. But most owners don't care.


 Wink
Rob.
« Last Edit: April 27, 2014, 10:12:27 pm by Robert Smith » Report to moderator   Logged
Anton Heuff
Home away from home
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 298



View Profile WWW
« Reply #5 on: April 28, 2014, 12:51:31 am »

Robert,

I'am aware of this issue, and was under the impression that Greenpeace, thanks to its naming of names, had achieved some degree of success when in 2009 IMO adopted the Convention for the Safe and Environmentally Sound Recycling of Ships. But no, apparently Maersk feel strong enough to ignore pressure from outside, IMO included. However, on second thought: a large number of the light-blue ships are not owned by Maersk. Could it be that the renamings before their final voyage has to do with the expiry of a charter and redelivery to the owners (like Offen, Rickmers et al in Germany)?

And yes, I overlooked the fact that in the past decade whole fleets of young tankers and bulkers were sold for recycling.

All the best, Anton
Report to moderator   Logged

[color=000000]Anton Heuff[/color]
Derell Licht
Just can't stay away
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 81



View Profile
« Reply #6 on: April 28, 2014, 01:01:39 am »

And frankly, knowing Greenpeace, I doubt that a last-minute name change would throw them off the scent; they would gleefully jump on the "Ship Formerly Known As XXX" bandwagon, if it gives them another flag to wave.

In the case of the former Exxon Valdez, she had been renamed so many times that none of these issues were even relevant, I don't think; there were dozens of articles about her finally meeting her end, name-changes none-withstanding.

Perhaps Anton's theories are valid, though I'm not even sure *they* add up to 100%; when I sell my car, it keeps its license plate - even if I'm selling it to a wrecking yard!  It serves as a convenient handle so that everyone agrees they are talking about the same object.  I don't yet see the reason why end-of-life shipping works so differently.
Report to moderator   Logged

Not all those who wander are lost...
Tony des Landes
Top Poster
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,603



View Profile
« Reply #7 on: April 28, 2014, 03:52:50 am »

I wonder also if another reason could be that if anything happened while the vessel was on the way to the breakers and something happened (as does from time to time), then there would be no obvious associtaion with the original owners, who no longer own it anyway, and therefore no bad publicity.
Report to moderator   Logged

...
Humberman1
Just popping in

Offline Offline

Posts: 17


View Profile
« Reply #8 on: April 28, 2014, 06:33:28 am »

Most ships sold by the larger shipping companies are not sold direct to ship breakers but via cash buyers. Once the shipping company has sold a vessel to a cash buyer they would want the named changed, especially those with corporate nomenclature. The cash buyer is likely to choose an FOC like Comoros, Kitts & Nevis or Togo to get the best deal on registration fees and various certificates.

Cheers
Report to moderator   Logged
Phil English
Top Poster
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3,489


View Profile
« Reply #9 on: April 28, 2014, 08:18:30 am »

It's nothing sinister and Humberman is correct. It's simply a clause in the sales contract between seller and cash buyer. It's the cash buyer that changes the name, not the shipping company selling the ship, nor the shipbreaker.

Brgds
Phil
Report to moderator   Logged
ozzy76
Just can't stay away
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 76


View Profile
« Reply #10 on: April 28, 2014, 12:32:55 pm »

 The case of the Exxon Valdez is not really relevant.
She was converted to a Bulk Carrier and sailed as such before scrapping.
So, it wasn't just a case of changing the name for scrapping.
Report to moderator   Logged
Derell Licht
Just can't stay away
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 81



View Profile
« Reply #11 on: April 28, 2014, 04:25:57 pm »

Cool thoughts!!  Thanks for all the insights, everyone!
Report to moderator   Logged

Not all those who wander are lost...
Paul Bradshaw
Just can't stay away
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 149



View Profile
« Reply #12 on: April 30, 2014, 11:01:27 pm »

The latest numbers I heard out of one yard (if you call a beach a yard) was eight deaths per month. Shear greed! Companies complain about the cost of a domestic operation to justify moving their business to a depressed or oppressed labour force, but the cost of their products remains the same?Huh Shear greed at the expense of others. Some much greater than others...
Report to moderator   Logged
Malim Sahib
Just can't stay away
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 139

Merchant Seaman.


View Profile
« Reply #13 on: April 30, 2014, 11:25:44 pm »

It may be greed, but we are all equally guilty of it. If we were serious about improving workers conditions in the developing world we would either boycott products made there or buy the same products but made in our own countries (at vastly greater expense).
As long as we want relatively cheap products, whether that be Nike trainers, clothing, TV's or suchlike then foreign workers will suffer - the shipbreaking industry is therefore no different, breaking up a ship on Gadani is effectively purchasing a cheap product.
« Last Edit: May 01, 2014, 12:45:23 am by James_C » Report to moderator   Logged
Paul Bradshaw
Just can't stay away
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 149



View Profile
« Reply #14 on: May 01, 2014, 01:56:44 am »

You hit the nail on the head James. I personally try to source what I can as locally as possible. Food, householed items, clothing, etc. For what I need which is not available locally I try to find a source which practices similar values in business. We are all part of the problem but I feel I can be part of the balance needed for sustainment. 
Report to moderator   Logged
Pages: [1] 2
  Print  
 
Jump to:  


Powered by SMF 1.1.11 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines LLC
Page created in 0.047 seconds with 18 queries.
Copyright © 2010 All rights reserved