ShipSpotting.com
Login: Lost Password? SIGN UP
Ship Photo Search
Advanced Search
Pages: [1] 2
  Print  
Author Topic: S Korean cargo ship Stellar Daisy vanishes in South Atlantic  (Read 4315 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
leucat

Offline Offline

Posts: 1


View Profile
« on: April 02, 2017, 08:46:13 pm »

Source:
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-39467269
Report to moderator   Logged
victor radio74
Home away from home
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 158


View Profile
« Reply #1 on: April 03, 2017, 11:59:32 am »

Thanks Leucat for bringing this topic to the forum where it should be and no on the photo comments
Report to moderator   Logged
lappino
Home away from home
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 187


View Profile
« Reply #2 on: April 03, 2017, 01:23:40 pm »

Two quick points*:

1. message from the ship stated that the vessel was taking on water and listing quickly - this in not a liquefaction scenario;

2. normal iron ore poses no risk of liquefaction.

This is another "MOL Comfort": water ingress due to structural failure, first detected by bilge alarm going off.

*trying to appear smart when having very little information...
Report to moderator   Logged
coasterwatcher
Just popping in

Offline Offline

Posts: 18


View Profile
« Reply #3 on: April 03, 2017, 04:11:13 pm »

normal iron ore

What is "normal iron ore", please?  Huh
Report to moderator   Logged
Captain Ted
Top Poster
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8,929



View Profile WWW
« Reply #4 on: April 03, 2017, 04:48:17 pm »

Normal iron ore is just plain normal mined ore

DRI : Driect Reduced Iron is also called sponge iron and can be subject to liquification while iron ore
itself is not
Report to moderator   Logged

NOW!!!,,,if we could get rid of the sailors,,how safe shipping would be !!!!!!!!
coasterwatcher
Just popping in

Offline Offline

Posts: 18


View Profile
« Reply #5 on: April 03, 2017, 06:34:19 pm »

Normal iron ore is just plain normal mined ore

DRI : Driect Reduced Iron is also called sponge iron and can be subject to liquification while iron ore
itself is not

I feel that this is an over-simplification. Are we talking about iron ore fines, of which over 1000 million tonnes are shipped by sea annually, mainly from Brazil and Australia to China? These fines belong to Group A in the International Maritime Solid Bulk Cargoes (IMSBC) Code. This classification means that they may liquefy if shipped at a moisture content in excess of their TML (Transportable Moisture Limit). That was the reason for my original question which asked what was meant by "normal iron ore".
Report to moderator   Logged
Lemschout
Just popping in

Offline Offline

Posts: 2


View Profile
« Reply #6 on: April 03, 2017, 07:16:10 pm »

The website of Equasis reports that the ship has been inspected on 10 October 2013 in Pohang and a single deficiency was recorded "Structural Condition: Ballast, fuel and other tanks". No detention but several 'follow up' inspection in the following years, no mention they were related to this deficiency.
Report to moderator   Logged
coasterwatcher
Just popping in

Offline Offline

Posts: 18


View Profile
« Reply #7 on: April 04, 2017, 07:59:04 am »

In a post beneath a photograph of this vessel, a Brazilian port captain comments thus: "IRON ORE PELLETS ' OR SINTER FEED, and this are NOT DANGEROUS" (sic).

This is simply not correct.Iron ore fines can be VERY dangerous in some circumstances.

Railway wagons and stockpiles may be open to the elements.
Loading may take place in unsuitable weather conditions.
Local surveyors may not be fully conversant with sampling requirements.
Testing the cargo may use an unsuitable method (there are 3 currently in use).
Sampling laboratories may favour the shipper.

To say that iron ore pellets (fines) are not dangerous is simply incorrect. They are listed in Group A of the mandatory International Maritime Solid Bulk Cargoes (IMSBC) Code. The dangers of these cargoes have been repeatedly stated in publications of the Nautical Institute, most recently in the current (April 1917) edition of "Seaways", the NI journal. Furthermore, I refer to the charter party clause from the West of England P&I Club.

http://www.westpandi.com/Publications/News/Archive/IMSBC-Code---Group-A-Cargoes---Charter-Party-Clause/

How can anyone be in doubt about the potential problems? To cloud the issue by referring to "normal iron ore" etc is unhelpful.

At the moment, we simply do not know why the STELLAR DAISY sank. But please do not let us minimise the dangers of the liquefaction of cargoes of iron ore fines.
Report to moderator   Logged
lappino
Home away from home
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 187


View Profile
« Reply #8 on: April 04, 2017, 09:03:45 am »


...

At the moment, we simply do not know why the STELLAR DAISY sank. But please do not let us minimise the dangers of the liquefaction of cargoes of iron ore fines.

Exactly, we do not know the cause.

So, we need to know the actual cargo properties in order to advance any theory; liquefaction dangers are very real and deadly, but we just don't know yet if they're applicable in this case.
Report to moderator   Logged
Lemschout
Just popping in

Offline Offline

Posts: 2


View Profile
« Reply #9 on: April 04, 2017, 06:28:32 pm »


...

At the moment, we simply do not know why the STELLAR DAISY sank. But please do not let us minimise the dangers of the liquefaction of cargoes of iron ore fines.
Exactly, we do not know the cause.
So, we need to know the actual cargo properties in order to advance any theory; liquefaction dangers are very real and deadly, but we just don't know yet if they're applicable in this case.

Correct, if the liquefaction is found to be the real cause, the cargo surveyors in Brazil will face difficult times. If not it will be class, the Korean register since at least 2009.
Found this on 'Maritime Herald' : «The survivors mentioned cracks on the main deck, through which water was flooding in. According to their suggestions, the very large ore carrier Stellar Daisy suffered structural hull damages and cracks, which caused the fast sinking and the large number of missing people.»

Let's hope there will be serious inquiry, but can it be expected from the flag state, the Marshall islands?
Report to moderator   Logged
IACSman
Home away from home
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 171


View Profile
« Reply #10 on: April 05, 2017, 09:11:03 am »

Marshall-Island perform casualty investigations as most Flag states who wishes to be taken seriously. At a glance on their web-site, there is published a number of reports, including the report on "Deepwater Horizon". As with all reports and investigations, different People will have different view on the findings and conclusions made. It will of course take months, perhaps years, before the report on this ore carrier will be ready for review...
Report to moderator   Logged

It's not a requirement to be crazy to be a seaman, but it helps
Tuomas Romu
Home away from home
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 294


View Profile
« Reply #11 on: April 05, 2017, 01:25:21 pm »

I'm a bit sceptical that cargo liqufaction would sink a vessel originally designed to carry liquid cargo...
Report to moderator   Logged
Captain Ted
Top Poster
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8,929



View Profile WWW
« Reply #12 on: April 05, 2017, 03:04:48 pm »

@ Tuomas,hmm I would think, under liquification of ore cargo it is not meant that it runs around like water. The moist of the cargo rises to the top of the cargo, which means that the top layers can move rather easy but the lower layers not. (make a test with sand and water in a bowl and move it, water will rise to the top, only when it stays resting the water sinks in) )This effect would trigger at hard rolling an easy shifting of the top layers of the cargo but not the lower layers and therefore a list would not disappear right away again as the vessel through the weight of the shifted cargo to one side would not roll back to the other side as far and ergo not moving the cargo back and subsequently increases the list to the side where the list is greater and keep listing the vessel more and more until it capsizes.  At least I picture it that way.
Report to moderator   Logged

NOW!!!,,,if we could get rid of the sailors,,how safe shipping would be !!!!!!!!
Mats
Top Poster
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 785


View Profile
« Reply #13 on: April 06, 2017, 11:46:05 am »

I don't see how an ore carrier like this could capsize due to liquefaction. These vessels have cargo in centre tanks only, and huge wing tanks for ballast and (when she was a tanker) oil. Ships that capsize due to liquefaction do so because the liquefied cargo stretches from one side of the ship to another, like in normal bulkers with holds stretching the width of the ship. That's not possible in an ore carrier and can be ruled out.
Report to moderator   Logged
Captain Ted
Top Poster
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8,929



View Profile WWW
« Reply #14 on: April 06, 2017, 11:55:38 am »

@ Mats,, nobody says that it did so far as I see/read it,, the issue came up in the beginning and the following posts are more about how and what is liquification then the issue that this ship sank because of it. Pretty much sure already not because of it as the two survivors stated cracks in decks and taking on water if I am not mistaken.
Report to moderator   Logged

NOW!!!,,,if we could get rid of the sailors,,how safe shipping would be !!!!!!!!
Pages: [1] 2
  Print  
 
Jump to:  


Powered by SMF 1.1.11 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines LLC
Page created in 0.051 seconds with 19 queries.
Copyright © 2010 All rights reserved