ShipSpotting.com Forum
Shipspotters all over the world => Shipping News and information => Topic started by: portagent on August 15, 2006, 12:10:07 PM
-
A German online newspaper reports about a collision in the Indian Ocean, about 300 nm west of Nicobar Islands.
Vessels concerned:
Tanker BRIGHT ARTEMIS ( IMO 9012252), enroute from Oman to Japan with 250.000 to oil onboard and AMAR (?), IMO 7432903 (?). It is said that the tanker already lost 4.500 tons oil.
Further detailed info not yet available.
-
See press release from owner Mitsui OSK Lines HERE (http://www.mol.co.jp/pr-e/2006/e-pr-2595.html) for more details.
The tanker is a VLCC, and is estimated to have spilled 5.000 tons of oil, making it one of the biggest oil spills this year.
Best regards
Mats
Oslo
-
Thanks Shiplawyer for the link
Unusual accident no injured very important news
I believe the tanker is double hull but 5000 mt of oil went at sea......
Regards/federico
-
Hi,
The tanker is actually single hull, 261,284 dwt, built by Sasebo, Japan and delivered in August 1992 with original name "Cosmo Artemis".
Based on the information in Mitsui OSK's press release (but pending further details) it appears this accident could be one where a double hull would have prevented a spill.
Some other details:
Length Overall 324.000 Length (BP) 308.000
Length (Reg) 314.260 Breadth Moulded 56.000
Draught 19.523 Depth 29.400
Best regards
Mats
Oslo
-
Hi Mats
thanks again
yes a dh tanker with 5000 tons spillage may have
a bad impact on shipping industry
regards/fede
-
Mitsui OSK are having a bad time, Cougar Ace and now this tanker it makes you wonder whether there is a training or experience problem within the company or just bad luck?
-
mattmar wrote:
Mitsui OSK are having a bad time, Cougar Ace and now this tanker it makes you wonder whether there is a training or experience problem within the company or just bad luck?
If you read the news from the link mentioned above (http://www.mol.co.jp/pr-e/2006/e-pr-2595.html), you would see that the vessel sustained damage while performing a rescue at sea....hardly a reason to jump on a bandwagon for poor training. Maybe hard luck, but while no spill due to human error is acceptable, a little consideration of the conditions under which lifesaving is performed might creep into your sensibilities.
-
Well put Michael.
Too many are quick to pounce on hapless people working under extraordinary circumstances when a small mishap occurs.
One wonders how they would react if they were at the scene.
The amount of spillage seems relatively small given her total cargo.
MOL are certainly appearing to be doing the right thing keeping all informed.
That seems like pretty good PR to me.
Regards,
David D.
:lol:
-
I have read the press release and I wasn't making a statement or creating any bandwagon merely asking a question which stemmed form Mitsui OSK's press release which really raised more questions than it answered specifically:
Why was a 146463 ton oil tanker trying to manouevre alongside a 10208 ton ship which incidently was on fire when there were other ships around (the crew of the Amar were rescued but not by the Bright Artemis).
It is every mariner's responsibility to go to the aid of another but not if it puts your own vessel in danger, it is a fine line and an on the spot judgment call is required, that is why I posed the question bad luck or something else.
-
I think you are right; all you have done is to raise the possibility. I didn't see your remark as condemning anyone.
And if, as you suggested, you read this in conjunction with the Cougar Ace incident, there are grounds for wondering about what is going on. It seems as if the Cougar Ace problem may have been caused while the ship was changing ballast and this may well point to human error (it may also be found to be down to equipment or systems failure).
In the Bright Artemis incident, the idea of putting hundreds of thousands of highly volatile (MOL press release refers to the crude as volatile) fuel alongside a raging fire seems reckless in the least. Would it not have been more prudent to have the crew of the stricken tanker take to their boats and then recover the boats?
By the way, MOL's website declares "We will protect and promote our environment by maintaining strict. safe operation and navigation standards".
Kelvin
-
Mattmar,
I did not take your questions to be anything other than just that, questions of how or why a large tanker with a potentially volatile cargo maneuvered so close to another vessel which was burning. Condemning the captain without more information would be wrong, but raising questions is not unreasonable. Certainly the insurance and owner reps will ask many questions.
-
There is perhaps one thing that should be cleared up here, and that is this whole 'double hull' issue.
The Mitsui ship will have have segregated ballast tanks (all tankers built after 1983 have to be fitted with them), which means that her port and starboard sides will have indeed been double hulled, the only single plating being on her bottom.
Double hulls do not, by any stretch of the imagination mean a ship is safer. Indeed, evidence is now beginning to filter out that certain double hull designs have actually caused accidents.
So, unless the ship in distress managed to get UNDERNEATH the Mistui ship in question (her draft would probably be around 20m - so unlikely), then she went straight through a ballast tank and into a cargo tank.
Again, the fact that only 4500 tonnes has been spilt suggest only the upper part of one cargo tank was damaged. On a VLCC, each cargo tank (normally 15 or so in number) carries between 15-18000 tonnes of oil.
Why is everyone so hasty to decry the Master on the tanker without any evidence? He wouldn't have just forgotten his ship was a tanker, nor would he have forgotten that a ship of that size is not the easiest to manoeuvre, especially loaded.
He obviously made that decision for a reason, which I'm sure will come out in the inquiry.
Member would be wise to remember that the media are experts at supressing the truth in exchange for sensationalism, particularly in regards to oil tankers, so I naturally take any report with a pinch of salt. I urge others to do the same.