8
« on: September 10, 2019, 06:17:19 PM »
The report said that originally the Maersk Chancellor was chosen to tow these two vessels to the scrap yard but because she got a contract this was changed.
Maersk chancellor was equipped with a towing winch was suitable for a double tow, Maersk Battler was not equipped with this.
The option was chosen to tow these two vessels alongside each other was simple, it was the cheapest way.
They had 3 options, tow alongside (unmanned), spool a second tow wire on the Maersk Battler to make her suitable for a double tow (expensive because a new wire for only 1 trip is expensive} or MB tows the second vessel and the second vessel connects het main wire on the third vessel but this would mean that they have to put a crew on the second vessel to pay out or pay in the wire when necessary (also expensive because they have to start up a vessel that was in lay up and heva to put a crew on her), Maersk Searcher was layed since 04-01-2016 and Maersk Shipper was layed up since 18-10-2015, I don;t know if they were manned or cold layed up.
There's oly one question that bothers me, why on earth did Maersk not hire a marine waranty surveyor (MWS) to make the final approval and deliver the tow certificate.
Were they to arrogant to hire one (we are Maersk and we know how to do it) or was it to expensive.
For sure is that a MWS would never ever approve this configuration off towing.
According to the report they bought second hand yokohama fenders for this trip, ones that were already weared and too small, new and bigger ones were too expensive.
According to me Maersk sorted out the most cheapest option to make this tow.
Also they lied about the remaining fuel/lub and hydraulic oil on board.
I personally have 25 years experience at sea and did many double tows so i know what I am talking about.
Cheers
Leon
Show Posts