Shen Neng 1 aground on the Great Barrier Reef.

Pages : [1] 2

Andrew Simpson
3rd April 2010, 23:32
Hi Guys, some latest news from Australia that may be of interest to someone.
http://www.smh.com.au/environment/ship-hits-reef-sparking-oil-spill-fears-20100404-rl3h.html

Hope this link connects to the paper. If not try www.smh.com.au & try links from there.
Apparently the Chinese bulker has hit one of the islands in the Great Barrier Reef. A surveyor has been flown out to assess damage. Reported small at this stage oil spill.
Regards from Andrew

SN NewsCaster
4th April 2010, 04:00
A Chinese ship runs aground off north-eastern Australia, sparking an alert of an oil leak into the Great Barrier Reef.

More from BBC News... (http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/rss/news/int/search/news%2Bsport/ship/-/2/hi/asia-pacific/8602400.stm)

tsell
4th April 2010, 08:34
This looks like another looming disaster for our beautiful coastline and islands.
Last March the Pacific Adventurer spilled 250 tonnes of fuel oil and lost 31 improperly secured containers of ammonium nitrate in Moreton Bay, creating major problems for some 60 kilometres of mainland and inshore islands' coastlines.
The latest news is that the Chinese vessel was well off course and should not have been in the area, which is part of the great Barrier Marine Park.

Taff

John N MacDonald
4th April 2010, 09:48
Maybe there's a call for compulsary pilotage between Brisbane and Cairns!

Mike S
4th April 2010, 12:32
Compulsory pilotage should be mandatory between Brisbane and Thursday Island. This incident has been inevitable.
With 98% of Australia's imports and exports being carried in foreign vessels which in many cases, as has been shown here, are not fit to be on the high seas through either their poor condition or poor manning standards, the time for pussy footing around this situation is over.
There are way too many incidents in the Reef. Australian manned ships have in the past also been involved so there is no argument. Pilots on every thing.......
Sorry.......it might cost money but that is just something that HAS to be factored in the the costs. It cannot be that expensive.
I have been up and down that stretch of water many times and as far as I am concerned, while not arduous for a professional navigator you do need to be on your toes at times.
Off course alarms? GPS alarms? Radar alarms? Mark one eyeball? Where were they all?
Unbelievable but inevitable. (Cloud)

Cisco
4th April 2010, 12:58
...and 2 pilots on each ship.... not the present 'I,m just popping down for a nap ' routine.

The 2 pilot system is what the Chileans use on the approx 1000 mile inner route through Chilean Patagonia. All the pilots are ex armada navigators... or so I have been told.

John N MacDonald
4th April 2010, 15:05
I was under the impression a pilot was compulsary from Thursday to Cairns anyway. Though 2 would be better than one. I also heard they had difficulty finding pilots for the Barrier Reef!

JeffM
5th April 2010, 02:11
Apparently the ship (according to news reports) hit the reef at full speed and there is a danger of her breaking up.
ABC reportage is here. http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/04/05/2864013.htm
THe inevitable inquiry will be interesting to find out why this ship was in an off limits area.

Mike S
5th April 2010, 02:25
This ship is way south of Cairns. She is just north of Gladstone.
Two pilots would be the way to go and as for finding people to do it. The job would be whole lot better with two pilots. At the moment they only work one pilot per ship which is too much work load for one person.
Regardless of all this it is quite obvious that with out compulsory pilotage regulations this is what is going to keep on happening.

SN NewsCaster
5th April 2010, 04:00
Australian authorities battle to stabilise a ship aground near the Great Barrier Reef, but say it may take weeks.

More from BBC News... (http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/rss/news/int/search/news%2Bsport/ship/-/2/hi/asia-pacific/8603083.stm)

tsell
5th April 2010, 06:48
The latest news report states that 'the ship is showing signs of breaking up'. Let's hope that this is just a bit of journalistic license, but as a rescue operation is predicted to take some weeks, it could well came to pass.
Our esteemed Premier Anna (Captain) Bligh says that the full force of the law would be brought to bear on the company, which could be made to pay $1 million and the ship's captain $220,000. Is she joking? The ship was 15 kilometres off the designated shipping lane.
Maritime authorities have been working on a risk analysis 'for some time' and it includes the possible mandatory use of pilots. Ms Bligh says that the grounding would now bring this issue into focus.
Can't wait to see how quickly our Government acts on this latest debacle.

Taff

John N MacDonald
5th April 2010, 10:43
$1m isn't very much to look for. They should be looking for 10 times that at least. If the Chinese won't pay up! Well by my reckoning Australia supplies most of their coal etc. Need I say any more?

non descript
5th April 2010, 14:21
From and copyright of Tradewinds - By Andy Pierce in London
Published: 09:47 GMT, 05 Apr 10

A Chinese bulker aground on the Great Barrier Reef may still break up despite the immediate danger of structural failure passing, Australian authorities say.

The 70,000-dwt Shen Neng 1 (built 1993) has suffered serious damage and salvage experts are battling to stabilise the ship.

Captain Patrick Quirk, general manager at Maritime Safety Queensland, said: "In the current conditions we are reasonably assured....there will be no catastrophic break up of the ship.

"If the weather turned bad it would be another problem."

A hydrostatic plug is preventing oil from escaping the ship’s engine room, but if the vessel is moved too soon the plug could fail, Quirk says.

"We need to assess the vessel's remaining strength before we consider any salvage options which may be available to us," he said, according to the Brisbane Times.

One tug is already in position in an effort to keep the ship in place, while a second is expected on scene shortly.

"With the action of the wind, the tide and the swell the vessel is still rubbing on the reef - it's crabbing across,” Quirk explained.

"As it does that it's obviously doing more damage to itself. One of our aims is to stabilise the vessel, which is easier said than done, but we have competent salvors onboard."

An oil slick up to 3km long has developed around the ship on Douglas Shoals. The site is well outside shipping lanes.

"We will think about laying that boom behind the vessel to be able gather up any oil that may be spilled [during the recovery operation]," Quirk said.

"One of our options we may look at is to remove...all the oil and all the oily water off the ship before attempting to refloat. It is a matter of weeks, not a week."

The Shen Neng 1 is owned by Chinese electricity generator, Shenzhen Energy, but operated by the Sino-Japanese management company, Tosco Keymax International.

As TradeWinds reported this weekend Queensland's combative premier, Anna Bligh, warned the Shen Neng 1's owners faced a fine of up to AUD 1m ($920,000) and the master a fine of AUD 220,000.

The incident has reignited controversy over whether pilotage should be compulsory for vessels navigating near the Great Barrier Reef where there have been several groundings and coral damage incidents.

ebbwjunc
5th April 2010, 16:45
my last ship MV Welsh Minstrel used to load coal at Gladstone for Japan. Where did the Shen Neng 1 load and was she southbound to come down inside the reef before heading North as we did? My last voyage from Gladstone for Japan was in 1973 the start of 1974 was the beginning of most European Company vessels not coming to Australia because of the big increase in insurance rates due to the lack of facilities for incidents just like the current one. I think it's a bloody discgrace that Australia has virtually no maritime industry whatsoever considering it is an island nation dependedent on shipping to send its products and raw materials overseas. We have some of the most short-sighted politicians and business people in the world.
ex Taff domiciled in a wonderful country, Australia.

John Campbell
5th April 2010, 17:54
This is a good report from

Bow Wave--the marine and transport e-zine.

BowAUSMEPA Urges Scheme Extension

Hot on the heels of the grounding of the Shen Neng 1 comes
this circular from Michael Julian the Executive Director of
the Australian Marine Environment Protection Association
(AUSMEPA).

Grounding of the Shen Neng 1 38 kms East of Great Keppel Island

AUSMEPA, like all other marine environmental organisations
and associations is very concerned at the grounding of the
65,000 tonne coal carrier Shen Neng 1in the pristine waters
in the southern part of the Great Barrier Reef and the
potential for environmental harm from the grounding, including
the possible break up of the vessel and the release of the
950 tonnes of bunker oil.

A spill of this magnitude of bunker oil is often far more
serious in terms of the harm it can cause the environment
than the loss of many thousands of tonnes of light crude
oil, carried as cargo in tankers.

While Australia’s National Plan to combat pollution of the
sea was quickly brought into action including aerial chemical
dispersant spraying, we are still to hear of the Salvage
Master’s plan to refloat the vessel and if necessary the
possible transfer of the bunker oil to another vessel.
This will clearly take some time to evaluate.

While a number of uninformed people are jumping to demand
extending further south the current mandatory pilotage
scheme which operates from Cairns to Torres Strait. Firstly
such a requirement would need to be justified and secondly
it would take many years to implement, including obtaining
international approval. At this stage based on many previous
studies this is not warranted in this region of the Great
Barrier Reef where navigation is not sufficiently complex
to require a pilot.

However, a much quicker solution and one which would help
prevent a grounding such as the Shen Neng 1 and one which
serious consideration should be given, is to extend the
Great Barrier Reef and Torres Strait Vessel Traffic Service,
jointly operated by the Federal and Queensland governments.
This traffic service monitors ships movements through the
Barrier Reef and has the capacity to warn ships if they
get off course. This service was enhanced following
other groundings off Cairns several years ago.

This system has proved successful in avoiding a number
of groundings in the area in which it operates. See:-

http://tinyurl.com/ychcfm8

Unfortunately the current area for this service commences
at latitude 22 Degrees South, which is roughly halfway
between Yeppoon and Mackay, up to Torres Strait, this is
about 120 kms north of where the Shen Neng 1 grounded.

AUSMEPA will closely monitor the ongoing National Plan response
to this incident as well as the investigations by various agencies.

(The ship is entered with the London P&I Club--ed)

JC

SN NewsCaster
6th April 2010, 08:40
Australia's PM Kevin Rudd says it is "outrageous" that a Chinese ship leaking oil near the Great Barrier Reef was off course.

More from BBC News... (http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/rss/news/int/search/news%2Bsport/ship/-/2/hi/asia-pacific/8604250.stm)

Andrew Craig-Bennett
6th April 2010, 11:07
First let me declare an interest - I work for Cosco.

Now I am sure that everyone here knows how to use the Equasis database and won't make the mistake that all Oz pollies seem to be making.

The SHEN NING 1 is NOT A COSCO SHIP.

Cosco bulk carriers have a BLUE funnel with the logo on it and names ending in "-SEA" if in English and "-HAI" if in Chinese (same meaning - "Sea")

The SHEN NING 1 is as correctly stated above owned by Shenzhen Energy, is managed by Toyo Keymax and is NOT ONE OF OURS.

(Mind you, neither was the COSCO BUSAN - they forgot to change the charter name when she redelivered back to Hanjin!!)

(We did manage to collide with the New Orleans Hilton, though! ;) )

Bruce Copland
6th April 2010, 12:05
Yes another grounding which is being beaten up by the media, Just cool it and see what the outcome is! So many EXPERTS with NO Experience are consulted by the avaricious media.. Whatever the outcome will be, there has to be a realisation that accidents will occur, be it aviation, road transport or shipping.

Bruce Copland
\
Master Mariner & Marine Surveyor. Qld

Andrew Craig-Bennett
6th April 2010, 12:49
Well said, Bruce. I see we've got the usual "Jail the Master" outcry, from rather too many people who should know better.

alastairrussell
7th April 2010, 09:09
Andrew

In the Australian newspaper today (in page 3) were the words in 20 mm black bolded letters:

Fatigue cited in reef grounding

In smaller print above were the words: Coal vessel was drastically off course

The article goes on to say Maritime Authorities are focusing on fatigue among senior crew members of the Shen Neng 1 as being a cause of the accident that has left the ship stranded on the Great Barrier Reef.

The Australian Transport Safety Bureau investigators are looking into the pace of the turn around of the vessel in the Queensland port.

The vessel docked in Gladstone late on Friday night loading coal overnight before departing at 1054 on Saturday with a ships pilot who left the ship at 12.59.

They said the ship continued north and was due to turn east to go through a declared channel but appears to have missed the turn.

The salvers are at the moment removing the 950 tonne of HFO from the double bottom tanks before further salvage work goes ahead.

Regards

Alastair

Billieboy
7th April 2010, 10:27
Fuel in double bottoms? in this day and age? Where did the double skin system fail?

A thousand tons of HFO can create more environmental damage than the Valdez and the Torry canyon put together; anywhere in the world; let alone on the Barrier reef!

Perhaps this will wake up the Australian marine authorities!

K urgess
7th April 2010, 11:26
Two threads on the same subject merged to keep it all together.

Mjroots
7th April 2010, 11:38
Wikipedia is on the case. Assistance in expanding / improving the articles is welcomd.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MV_Shen_Neng_1
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_Great_Barrier_Reef_oil_spill

Andrew Craig-Bennett
7th April 2010, 12:33
Wikipedia is on the case. Assistance in expanding / improving the articles is welcomd.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MV_Shen_Neng_1
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_Great_Barrier_Reef_oil_spill

Hello, I read the message you sent me on Wikipedia but I cannot see how to respond to it there so I will do so here.

You asked about "Tradewinds".

"Tradewinds" is a pale blue shipping industry newspaper which is published in Norway and is pretty much owned, if I recall correctly, by Fred Olsen, whom it is always very rude about, so good for him.

Website here:

http://www.tradewinds.no/

I am afraid that if Wikipedia is going to confine itself to web based sources that don't require a log in it is unlikely to become very worthwhile in its coverage of shipping - Equasis does not require any payment (the French taxpayer foots the bill) but it does require a login.

"Lloyds List", "Fairplay" and "Tradewinds" all require payment as they have to live and their specialist nature means that they cannot live off advertising as free sheets.

Andrew Craig-Bennett
7th April 2010, 12:38
Alastair - thanks for that reference .

Looking at the chart, it does very much look as if she failed to make the turn, and fatigue looks like the most likely culprit.

Do we have an indication of the time when she missed the a/c point? I am idly wondering whose watch it was; I can recall another case (CNCo ship)* where the Mate who had been doing cargo all day dozed off and missed the a/c point - slept through the alarm.

I assume, perhaps wrongly, that as a power station owned ship she is a regular trader - can any Australians cast light on this?

* I seem to have spent my entire career with Anna Bligh's greatest villains! ;)

SN NewsCaster
7th April 2010, 14:10
Australia prepares to pump tonnes of heavy fuel from a Chinese coal ship grounded on the Great Barrier Reef.

More from BBC News... (http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/rss/news/int/search/news%2Bsport/ship/-/2/hi/asia-pacific/8607095.stm)

non descript
7th April 2010, 14:38
This is from and copyright of today’s Lloyd’s List –Hui Ching-hoo and Colum Murphy - Wednesday 7 April 2010

SHENZHEN Energy Transport, the Chinese owner of the panamax bulk carrier Shen Neng 1, which ran aground off Australia, said the oil spillover was “under control” and that the incident did not pose a major threat to the Great Barrier Reef.

A spokesman for the company, who declined to be named, told Lloyd’s List that water had leaked into the machine room of the ship, causing the engine to break down.
A fully owned subsidiary of Shenzhen Energy Group, SET owns a fleet of three bulk carriers comprising 207,000 dwt and has six vessels, totaling 456,000 dwt, on order.
The SET spokesman confirmed the 23 crew members were still aboard the vessel.
He refused to comment on reports that the bulk carrier took a short cut from its approved routes as the investigation was still ongoing.
The spokesperson confirmed the company had appointed Tosco Keymax International Ship Management to undertake the management of the ship.
TKIM was a 60:40 Sino-Japanese joint venture, he said. The majority stakeholder in the joint venture is Tianjin Ocean Shipping Company, a fully owned subsidiary of Cosco Bulk Carrier, which is an affiliate of the Cosco Group. Cosco declined to comment.
The minority stakeholder, Japan’s Keymax group could not be reached for immediate comment. The company’s Keymax Marine affiliate lists Tianjin Ocean Shipping Company as an “overseas agency”.
TKSIM deputy general manager Zhao Zhongyuan told Lloyd’s List that the company would dispatch two employees to Australia to assess the damage of the ship by the weekend.
He said Australian maritime authorities were still retrieving the oil pollutants from the sea. The company’s staff would then carry out a loss evaluation study, Mr Zhao said the ship’s insurance would be sufficient to cover all the losses.
According to the website of the Australian Maritime Safety Authority, a TKIM-managed bulk carrier chartered by Rio Tinto was detained at Port Walcott in Western Australia for four days last February. AMSA said that there was “objective evidence that the vessel’s safety management system fails to ensure the emergency preparedness of the vessel”.

greektoon
7th April 2010, 16:00
If the cause is fatigue it won't be the first time. I have been involved in investigating at least 2 serious collisions directly attributable to this cause (where 1 of the ships in both cases has recently sailed after a busy schedule / quick turnaround).

The turnaround stated in the above article is very quick. Anyone know what the loading rate is at Gladstone

non descript
7th April 2010, 17:59
- RG Tanna Coal Terminal is about 3,500 tons per hour. .
- Barney Point Wharf is about 1,700 tons per hour..

Mjroots
7th April 2010, 20:00
Andrew, I've left you a message at Wikipedia on how to respond on Wikipedia.

dom
7th April 2010, 23:50
the news this morning at 7am claimes that the chief officer was asleep at the time

Andrew Craig-Bennett
8th April 2010, 00:33
Thanks, Dom.

That's pretty much exactly what we had worked out, between us, which is rather satisfying in an odd way.

I suspect the combination of faster turnarounds, the increased paperwork load on the Master with so many more inspections and suchlike, making him as tired as the Mate if not more so, and thus unable to help out at sea, and so on, has been setting up an accident of this sort for a while!

alastairrussell
8th April 2010, 05:56
Andrew

Your are correct on all counts. In today’s ‘Australian’ newspaper in big print are the words Watch ‘snoozing’ as ship hit the reef.

The journalist Andrew Fraser stated that she hit the reef at 5.10 PM on Saturday when the Chief Mate was on the bridge. The ship was at anchor for 9 days before berthing in Gladstone on Friday night to load 65000 tonnes of coking coal overnight. He also said that it was the chief mate’s job to oversee the loading during the night and that he also has to be on the bridge during both arrival and departure. The ship left port at 10.54 on Saturday morning and they dropped the pilot at 1300 hrs.

It should be noted that Chen Neng 1 is 17 years old and a relatively small bulk carrier (Panamax). The coal loader facilities in Gladstone and at most other Australian bulk loading ports are designed to load bulk carriers twice her size and over. If the shore facilities load at the same rate of the much larger ships, she would have been struggling to discharge her water ballast faster than they were loading the coal. This problem puts extra stress on the ships staff and could also overstress the hull of the ship if things on board do not go according to plan!

A new IMO code on loading and discharging of bulk carriers is coming into service in January 2011 and this code will take into consideration discharging and loading rates, procedures and also maybe improve the communication between ships staff and the loading organisation. It is also hoped that this code will help to stop bulk carriers sometimes putting to sea in an unsatisfactory loaded condition!

In today’s Age newspaper, Shenzhen Energy have said they are the owners of the ship and that the ship is ‘consigned’ ( their words) to a joint ownership involving Tianjin which is a subsidiary of China Ocean Shipping Company and the Japanese company Keymax

I suggest that everyone googles The Australian Maritime Safety Authority website and have a look at their excellent charts, diagrams and other information on the Shen Neng 1 grounding. I quote this from their website:

Navigation off the coast of Queensland

The Great Barrier Reef is internationally recognised as a unique marine environment. It was inscribed on the World Heritage List in 1981 and designated by the IMO as one of the world’s first Particularly Sensitive Sea Areas in 1990.

In 2003/04, AMSA and the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority worked together to develop a comprehensive zoning plan for the marine park. This identified areas where large commercial ships can and can’t transit through.

Navigating in the waters north of the Capricorn and Bunker Groups of islands, an area zoned for general use, is relatively straight forward. There is deep water and adequate sea room for any corrective action against unexpected developments.

A competent and alert watch-keeping officer should be able to navigate easily in this area.

The Shen Neng 1 lodged a sailing plan through AMSA’s Rescue Coordination Centre – Australia prior to departing from Gladstone. The ship indicated that it would be following a route traversed by ships sailing from and sailing to the port of Gladstone and within the designated shipping area.

The planned departure route took the ship north from Gladstone until an alteration of course that would take the ship through a 12 mile wide passage between North West Island and Douglas Shoal, then into the open sea to the east via the Capricorn Channel. While the sailing plan provided an indication of the intended passage of the ship, the ship has deviated from its sailing plan, entered a prohibited area and run aground on Douglas Shoal.

This area is considered not navigationally challenging and there are no ‘recommended routes’ as there is sufficient sea room to manoeuvre the ship to avoid collision, water depths of approximately 40 metres and navigational aids to assist in position fixing.


I also suggest that you google Australian Transport Safety Bureau and go into to the shipping section and put a search through on the ‘Doric Chariot’ and read the investigation report on the grounding of this ship in the Barrier Reef near Cairns in 2002. This investigation really delves into problems with fatigue and sometimes making mistakes.

Seeing that she appears to have run aground only on her starboard side, I was wondering if there was maybe enough depth to put a small 30000 tonne bulk carrier equipped with cranes and grabs on the port side to remove some of the coal.

Alastair

Andrew Craig-Bennett
8th April 2010, 08:24
Thanks, Alastair.

The first job of the salvage master is to calculate the ground reaction; having done that he can work out what he needs to do by way of tug bollard pull, ground tackle, discharge of cargo and emptying tanks (some of which may be open to the sea) to get her off.

Getting another ship alongside is tricky; let's assume the weather is kind and we have a set of Yokohamas and a couple of tugs and an owner and Master of a grab fitted handysize willing to give it a go, will her centreline cranes be able to plumb the casualty's holds?

For this reason, salvors have generally preferred to use portable gensets to drive portable conveyors and to dump the cargo overside or into barges.

We don't know the state of the DB's - some may well be tidal by now. Salvors can put compressed air on them and a bulk carrier ought to float on her tank tops.

If a tank top has failed and a hold is tidal we have a much bigger problem.

Anyway Svitzers will have all this well in hand, I'm sure. As we can all see, though, it does take time.

alastairrussell
9th April 2010, 11:00
Media Release
2010/08

ATSB investigates bulk carrier grounding
06 April 2010

The Australian Transport Safety Bureau (ATSB) is investigating the 3 April grounding of the Chinese flagged bulk carrier Shen Neng 1 at Douglas Shoal off the Queensland coast.

Shen Neng 1 was bound for China before grounding on the reef around 36 nautical miles east of Great Keppel Island. The ship has sustained damage to a number of its water ballast and fuel tanks.

The ATSB sent three marine investigators to Gladstone, Queensland on Sunday to begin the onsite phase of the investigation. The investigators have already interviewed people ashore and collected evidence. They will board the ship today to collect further evidence and interview crew members.

A preliminary ATSB investigation report will be released in around 28 days outlining the facts as known up to that time. A full report will be released after the investigation is completed.

The Australian Maritime Safety Authority (AMSA) has a casualty coordinator on board the ship and a salvor has been appointed to assess the salvage operation. Three tugs and oil spill response vessels are at the scene.

The ATSB will work closely with AMSA, Maritime Safety Queensland, and the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority while conducting the investigation.

The ATSB is the Commonwealth's no-blame transport safety investigation agency. It investigates safety occurrences in the aviation, marine and rail sectors with an emphasis on identifying safety issues and improving safety. The ATSB does not investigate for the purpose of taking administrative, regulatory or criminal action.

Media Contact: 1800 020 616

Bruce Copland
9th April 2010, 12:50
The media beat up supported by flights overhead by our esteemed politicians have continued to add more moronic suggestions on how to prevent further casualties within the confines of the GBR.

Meanwhile the salvors appear to be doing a good job and one would wish that these ill advised and technically ignorant opinions would cease.

The oil spill is now downgraded to 2 tonnes! with 975 to be transferred into suitable small carriers obtained by the the salvors. Fortunately weather is good. Now we hear talk of discharging the cargo of coal - this will be a nightmare for the salvors.

As a master mariner I cringe when I see and hear the opinions of those that the media choose to use in their quest for the culprits and to put fear into those that really do not understand at all!

For God's sake let the slvage master do his job and have the trial by jury after!

Bruce Copland

Andrew Craig-Bennett
9th April 2010, 12:58
Well said, Bruce. (I was unwise enough to try to explain things on a yottin' forum - I now wish I had never started!)

If we reckon that Oz has exported two billion tons of coal between the Doric Chariot grounding and this one, which is roughly the right figure, then we could say that the GBR has been more damaged by the two billion tons of coal that went safely past it and is now carbonic acid in the sea than by the 130,000 tons that hit it! If we guesstimate the number of voyages invoved in shifting all that coal the shipping industry comes out with rather a good safety record, I think.

ROBERT HENDERSON
9th April 2010, 13:13
Watching a BBC news report a few nights ago regarding this vessel, the reporter described it as a tanker aground on the Great Barrier reef. So I assume the coal was in liquid form.

Regards Robert

Peter B
9th April 2010, 13:16
Watching a BBC news report a few nights ago regarding this vessel, the reporter described it as a tanker aground on the Great Barrier reef. So I assume the coal was in liquid form.

Regards Robert
Nahh, 950 dwt coalfired oil tanker with plenty of bunkers....

Mike S
9th April 2010, 14:28
That report originated from the ABC here in Australia. I phoned them and gave them a serve. I may as well have opened another nice cold beer and avoided wasting my time.
I have yet to hear or read any main stream media report that gets the facts correct.
As has been said......if you want to know what is happening the AMSA site is the one to open.
The Salvage Master is the same man who was successful in re-floating the "Pasha Bulker" off Newcastle NSW. A good professional who has a proven track record. I will be interested to see how he goes about this one however it will be methodical and steady for sure. I wish him and all his helpers good fortune and fair weather.

Dennis Butler
9th April 2010, 14:56
The latest reports that I've seen is that the grounding occurred during the 1st Officer's
0400-0800LT or 1600-2000LT watch when it seems that he fell asleep, so missing a critical course alteration. But one would have thought that a conscientious Master would have been on hand...

But i guess that Certificates of (in)Competency can be purchased @ a price along Shanghai's waterfront...

Andrew Craig-Bennett
9th April 2010, 15:05
Dennis, with great respect, I wish you had not made that comment!

I manage a fleet of post-Panamax containerships under the British flag - you'll find photos of some of them, such as the "Cosco Shanghai", in the Gallery.

http://www.shipsnostalgia.com/gallery/showphoto.php/photo/224405/title/cosco-shanghai/cat/513

These are not small, simple, ships.

They are manned entirely with Chinese crews. The MCA have professed themselves extremely favourably impressed with the standard of our officers and with the training given ashore, which they inspected, and of course they audit the ships for ISM and ISPS so they do know them quite well.

I won't say that we never have casualties - we have done, and if you go to the MAIB website you will find a report of a closed preliminary investigation into the grounding of the "Cosco Hong Kong". I respectfully invite you to note the comments.

(But in any case the crew of the "Shen Neng 1" the managers office is in Tianjin, not Shanghai. ;) )

The "Shen Neng 1" seems to have grounded at 17.10 local time, having dropped the pilot at 13.00.

I have known a British ship with British and Australian officers go aground in almost identical circumstances - Mate knackered after working cargo all day missed an a/c point.

It is indeed normal practice for the Master to "spell" the Mate - the systems on a Chinese ship are really just the same as anyone else's and I too wonder why he didn't but no doubt there will be an explanation - my guess would be that he was up all night also.

Billieboy
9th April 2010, 17:20
I thougt that the a/c point had been passed some 36miles earlier. Does Dennis mean that the vessel was proceeding at a speed in excess of 20knots?

Andrew Craig-Bennett
9th April 2010, 17:28
I thougt that the a/c point had been passed some 36miles earlier. Does Dennis mean that the vessel was proceeding at a speed in excess of 20knots?

36 minutes is what I made it, Billieboy, according to my rough estimate, assuming a full away sea speed laden of 14 knots give or take a bit.

There's a chart extract on the AMSA website, which with a bit of luck might be here:

http://www.amsa.gov.au/Marine_Environment_Protection/Shen_Neng_1_Grounding/media/Shen_Neng1_Douglas_Shoal_publics.pdf

It seems she had been in the queue on demurrage for nine days and was called in under the loader on Friday evening; I suspect the Mate did not get a lot of kip. The ship's PSC record comes up very "clean" on Equasis.

Billieboy
9th April 2010, 17:43
Sorry Andrew my mistake, that's a bit more than the third mate's dinner relief too! It boild down to an Owner's standing order problem, just the simple order "Go out and anchoe for twelve hours after loading", would save $Billions.

Andrew Craig-Bennett
10th April 2010, 01:52
I think a solution must preserve the level playing field, or it will be abused.

I personally agree with Cisco - extend the compulsory pilotage area for the Barrier Reef to cover all of it, require two pilots, and extend the VTS coverage.

More generally, I am in favour of the IMO taking a proper look at seaferer fatigue and case need changing the way the minimum safe manning scale is put together.

Portway
10th April 2010, 06:26
Question.

Could Shen Neng 1. Incident be DELIBERATE. [Insurance Scam maybe] this vessel could well be reaching the end of her economic life built in 1993.

Portway Sydney Australia.

spongebob
10th April 2010, 07:06
Today's "Australian" newspaper reports that last week saw 226 ore and coal carriers waiting off Australian loading facilities for cargo and the number when going to press today was 197
The Queensland ports of Hay Point, Dalrumple Bay and Gladstone had a total of 114 vessels waiting at anchor and all these intend operating in the Barrier reef waters.
Full pilotage in these protected waterways sounds a good idea but it would involve many skilled personnel to keep up with the traffic.

Bob

John Cassels
10th April 2010, 09:27
I think a solution must preserve the level playing field, or it will be abused.

I personally agree with Cisco - extend the compulsory pilotage area for the Barrier Reef to cover all of it, require two pilots, and extend the VTS coverage.

More generally, I am in favour of the IMO taking a proper look at seaferer fatigue and case need changing the way the minimum safe manning scale is put together.

Crew fatigue is as old as the hills . 50 years ago it was the subject of debate.
Nothing was ever legislated and here we now are .. 50 years on.

Billieboy
10th April 2010, 09:42
Crew fatigue is as old as the hills . 50 years ago it was the subject of debate.
Nothing was ever legislated and here we now are .. 50 years on.

I agree JC; the problem is communication.

Today the office picks up the phone and tells the master to sail. In the old days the master would tell the office that he'd sailed as much as 24 hours after leaving the berth. Chief engineers would suddenly find a problem as the pilot was dropped, so the vessel had to anchor until an 8-12 hour job was finished.

RNW
10th April 2010, 10:32
A Brisbane shipping pilot has averted a possible disaster by bringing the out-of-control cruise liner Pacific Dawn to a stop before she reached the Gateway Bridge.

Number two, one to go.

Do you believe in things happening in 3's?(Cloud)

alastairrussell
10th April 2010, 11:52
I agree with Andrew and Cisco that the GBR compulsory pilotage areas should be extended. I would add that all pilot transfers should be carried out by helicopter. Most of the bulk carriers down to panamax size have a helicopter landing area on top of one of the hatches. This would cut down on time being wasted by having pilots hanging around on pilot launches. I am unsure what VTS coverage is exactly, but I would take a punt and say it’s the harbour authorities tracking system and allows them to control the shipping traffic, so I am in favour of that.

I disagree with Andrew with regard to his view about preserving the level playing field. ‘International Shipping has never had a level playing field’. Recent regularity moves towards introducing the very necessary LPF by both the International Maritime Organisation (IMO) and the International Association of Classification Societies (IACS) are not looking good. Michael Greys article in the march 2010 issue of the Shipping World and Shipbuilder under the title Does Regulatory Chaos Loom and then the subtitle Michael Grey ponders chaos theory has me quite concerned. I just wish I could scan it and place in this thread.

In his article he is blaming mainly the EU and the USA for the shambles, and he also has go at Australia for introducing a pollution insurance levy on all visiting ships! He says that the hostility to IMO by the EU is entrenched! He blames the chaos on the different regulations in different countries or regions controlling exhaust emissions (low sulphur HFO) and ballast water discharge. He thinks that depending on the trading pattern of a ship, the ship may have to have 4 different types of fuel on board and be fitted out with six different oily water separators and three different types of ballast water cleaning systems!!! Crazy! Crazy!! I suppose we should be happy that they are not looking into the sewage systems!

I have pasted part of a post from another thread directed to Iain. It is as follows:

In this day and age when damage to the environment costs are now taking a prominent part in the cost of a shipping failure, surely ALL International merchant ships should be designed, built, manned, operated and be maintained in compliance with one series of International shipping Standards (IACC, IMO, ISO, etc). All Standards/Codes should be written in a clear, concise and easy to read manner using the words Shall ---- Should ---- May. All international ships must be policed and made to comply with the same ISO standards. As you have said previously insurance premiums are set based on a shipping companies claim history. Surely the premium charged should also take into consideration the amount of non conformities to the relevant Standard that has been recorded against that ships name.

Any non conformities or non compliance to these International Standards found by any regularity surveyor or inspector after an inspection has to be acted on and then reported to IMO or the new Thetis system.

Andrew, with reference to your background and experience, could you explain why the Asian classification societies feel the need to form their own Association? Am I jumping the gun and going off in a tangent in my thinking (see below)? Do they feel threatened by the attitude of the EU and the USA regulators.

Pasted from a post in another thread:

I am a wee bit apprehensive when I read that all the Asian classification societies have very recently formed their own Association (ACS). Am I missing something and I have to ask is this a breakaway group that do not like the new procedures and rules as laid down by IMO and the IACS.

Portway, I have attached a post that I placed on another thread:

I am really looking forward to seeing how the Shen Neng 1 incident, investigation and salvage ends up. I see the 17 year old ship as being totally worthless, more so if the engine room DB’s are eventually damaged or if the ER gets flooded. Seemingly no one wants to time charter bulk carriers more than 15 year old and I think salvaging all the coking coal would not be an economic proposition.

Tell me, Can the salvers and the insurers just remove all the bunker fuel and the lubricating oil from the ship and just leave her there to rust away over the next 100 years? Remember the bulk carrier Signa shambles at Stockton beach.

Are they by law entitled to do this? Can the Australian maritime authorities demand that the ship be removed and who pays to have her towed offshore and sunk? The last ship that was damaged and managed to dump some of its bunkers along the barrier reef did not have enough money in the kitty or in insurance pay out to cover the clean up. The Queensland taxpayers had to chip in and I feel this is wrong, wrong!!

In view of the above, it does not help either when Michael Grey in the march 2010 Shipping World and Shipbuilder magazine has a go at the Australian maritime authorities for levying visiting ships so they can boost their pollution insurance beyond that required by the IMO convention.

Andrew, I have just heard on the news while I was typing this post that the federal police have boarded the Shen Neg 1 today to investigate why the ships tracking device appears to have been switched off!

John Cassels and Billieboy, I agree, excellent posts but I would prefer not to drop the anchor. How about going further out and then maybe go drifting or if the weather is right do a wee bit of sailing!

Alastair

RNW
10th April 2010, 11:54
Should have said, this is number two, if we hadn't had the best pilots, and tug crews anywhere in the world.
If this bridge had been damaged in any way it would have been a disaster.
The bridge is not called the gateway for nothing, as it is the link north and south through Brisbane.
Well done to the Brisbane Marine pilot, and the tug crews who must have had a shocker to deal with at very short notice.
We in Australia have to train more pilots, people who can stop disasters before they happen, people like the pilot on this vessel, who is worth much more than he is paid.

Andrew Craig-Bennett
10th April 2010, 12:25
Question.

Could Shen Neng 1. Incident be DELIBERATE. [Insurance Scam maybe] this vessel could well be reaching the end of her economic life built in 1993.

Portway Sydney Australia.

No.

Certainly the ship is nowhere near the end of her life at current freight rates and if somebody wants to scuttle a ship (I've investigated a few) there are better ways to go about it than to park her on a coral reef a couple of hours out of port.

The owners are a untility that owns power stations and they have several more ships on order.

Andrew Craig-Bennett
10th April 2010, 12:29
Crew fatigue is as old as the hills . 50 years ago it was the subject of debate.
Nothing was ever legislated and here we now are .. 50 years on.

Actually John, I find that today the UK MCA are very "hot" on hours of rest, as most emphatically are the MAIB.

By no means a perfect answer, but certainly progress of a sort in a useful direction.

Andrew Craig-Bennett
10th April 2010, 12:35
Alastair, I am truly dismayed by your news that Plod is now on board, "investigating why the AIS was off", before the salvage operation is even completed.

There goes all hope of the sort of sensible, dispassionate and competent investigation by the ATSB that surely we were all hoping for.

This has all the hallmarks of another seafarer criminalisation case, along the lines of the Full City and the Hebei Spirit.

The only class societies that we use are IACS members so I cannot offer any comment on other set ups.

The EU investigation of IACS was incredibly stupid.

John Cassels
10th April 2010, 20:00
Alistair , you are far safer anchoring. If you go further out and start drifting , then you
either show NUC signals ( which you are not entitled to ) or show nothing and cause
confusion to other traffic by not making way when there is no apparent reason for doing
so.
Far better to anchor , show the appropriate signals then other traffic can see what you
are doing ( or rather not doing).

alastairrussell
11th April 2010, 00:11
Andrew,

With Australia needing heaps of bulk carriers during the bad 'ships of shame' and 'doomed bulkies' period, our shipping authorities had their hands full dealing with the politicians, miners as well as the ships. There was a lot of commercial and political pressure placed on government surveyors in them days to ignore some defects. It was the classification societies during this period that failed to do their job properly. This problem was compounded by mainly the EU introducing there own rules which then chased their sub standard bulk carriers out to the Australian trade.

Things got that bad BHP and some of the other iron ore companies just put a total ban on loading any bulk carrier older than fifteen years! Do not blame the iron ore companies, blame the classification societies and IMO, they are the ones that classed these substandard ships and failed Australia during this period! This ban may have been lifted now, I am not sure.

Andrew, you must be aware of the problems of this period. It would have all showed up in the Iron Parkgate court case in London (it lasted 6 months). Your old legal company that you worked for then must have done a wonderful job because the scuttlebutt out here is that even though it was settled out of court, BHP won the case big time. Anyway, thanks for letting me know that it was not an Admiralty Court case.

Mind you the attitude that prevailed then is still alive and well. Have a look at the age of the P&O Cruises Australia’s liners operating out here! They spent 30 million odd dollars tarting up the accommodation of the now 24 year old Pacific Sun and then they sailed her around Australia and NZ for years with only one stabiliser fin operating! The ship was detained recently and had to go through a stability test!

The worst thing a passenger can do on a cruise ship is to be found bringing alcohol aboard bought ashore. They do not want passengers, the want young yahoo drinkers so they can sell them heaps of duty free bought booze at shore side prices! They tell me that what happens during these cruises, it is not a pretty site.

With regard to the Chen Neng 1, I am on the side of all the Australian maritime authorities and the federal police. I know from experience that when investigating major failures or accidents which you know will end up in the courts, you have to get in early to gain and protect the evidence needed for a successful prosecution. Once the salvage and oil pollution teams are on the scene and have taking over control of the grounding, surely there is room for the accident investigators and if it becomes a crime scene, the police!

John,

You are of course 100% correct. I am a wee bit thingy about using anchors and windlasses. When I was working on the waterfront in Port Kembla for a spell, the worst job I did was having to replace a 19 tonne anchor on a bulk carrier (Bent flukes) and of course replacing the windlass brakes. Everything that could go wrong, did go wrong! It was not so much the engineering side that was the problem it was dealing with all the different unions. I failed my first major test 'I failed to communicate properly' @@#$%!! I threw the towel in and went back to sea!

RNV,

70 metres! 70 metres! Surely it would have only been a controlled situation if the tugs were attached to the cruise liner and were going down the river with the ship at the time of the power failure? The incident is to be investigated by the ATSB so I look forward to having a good read.



Cruise ship Pacific Dawn almost crashes into Brisbane bridge

From: Herald Sun
April 10, 2010 4:19PM

The P&O cruise ship The Pacific Dawn Source: HWT Image Library

A SHIPPING pilot averted a possible disaster by bringing the out-of-control cruise liner Pacific Dawn to a stop before she reached Brisbane's busy Gateway Bridge.

Brisbane Marine Pilots Captain Peter Liley was at the helm of the Pacific Dawn on Saturday morning when the liner lost all power and steering just 700m away from the six-lane bridge over the Brisbane River.

Two tugboats got the Pacific Dawn under control, bringing her to a complete standstill 70m shy of the bridge, which is 1.6km long and 64.5m high.

The Pacific Dawn is 245m long and 70,310 tons with a capacity of 2020 passengers.

"I managed to stop the ship before we got to the Gateway," Capt Liley sais.

"I was piloting the ship and we lost all propulsion.

"It's unusual, but we are trained for these sorts of things.

"If it was under the Gateway we could have drifted clear, but it was before the Gateway."

Capt Liley said a ship without power was prone to drift, and there was a danger it could not be stopped before hitting the bridge's pylons.

He said the ship's captain was investigating what caused the fault, saying he believed a fuse had been affected by a saltwater leak.

"There's an investigation into what occurred," he said.

"We used two tugs to pull the ship up, and we pulled up before the Gateway."

"We waited on the chief engineer on what services he could provide, but he couldn't provide any services so we devised a plan to take the 'dead' ship back to Hamilton."

A spokesman for Carnival Australia, which operates the Pacific Dawn, said the cruise liner had suffered power problems but it was not a major fault and it would set sail again on Saturday afternoon.

"It was a temporary loss of power," the spokesman said.

"It was a controlled situation.

"The ship is OK and will set off for a South Pacific cruise today."

dom
11th April 2010, 02:59
i am led to belive that a fuse had blown in the engineroom

John Briggs
11th April 2010, 04:19
I see the Australian authorities are suddenly becoming far more vigilant after the Shen Neng grounding.
Unfortunately it seems to be the old heavy handed "throw them in jail" approach which treats ship's Masters and Officers as criminals. The AAP report attached below -


Australian Federal Police (AFP) have arrested three men in connection with a bulk carrier that entered a restricted area of the Great Barrier Reef.

The AFP says the MV Mimosa vessel entered a restricted passage in the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park (GBRMP) without permission last week.

Federal agents executed a search warrant on the Panama-flagged vessel at Bowen, in north Queensland, on Saturday after receiving information from the GBRMP Authority and Australian Maritime Safety Authority investigators.

Navigational equipment and charts were seized and three men have been arrested.

A 63-year-old South Korean man and two Vietnamese men aged 26 and 32 have been charged for allegedly entering a prohibited zone of the reef without permission on April 4.

The men will appear in Townsville Magistrates Court on Monday and face a maximum fine of $220,000.

The AFP says it will also be alleged the vessel was not registered with the Reef Vessel Tracking System and failed to provide a pre-entry report and did not respond to attempts by authorities to contact them.

The incident comes after the Chinese coal carrier Sheng Neng 1 ran aground on Douglas Shoal off the Rockhampton coastline last Saturday, spilling oil and threatening an environmental disaster for the great Barrier Reef.

Queensland Premier Anna Bligh said it would be mid to late next week before the transfer of oil from the carrier was finished and seaworthy inspections complete.

"I don't expect to see attempts to refloat the ship for another three or four days," Ms Bligh told reporters on Saturday.

On Friday, the Sheng Neng 1's owner, Shenzhen Energy Transport Co Ltd, broke its silence, apologising for the accident and promising to co-operate with authorities to minimise any environmental damage.

SN NewsCaster
11th April 2010, 07:30
Three people are charged with steering a cargo ship through a protected part of Australia's Great Barrier Reef.

More from BBC News... (http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/rss/news/int/search/news%2Bsport/ship/-/2/hi/asia-pacific/8613890.stm)

NZSCOTTY
11th April 2010, 09:23
Andrew,

With Australia needing heaps of bulk carriers during the bad 'ships of shame' and 'doomed bulkies' period, our shipping authorities had their hands full dealing with the politicians, miners as well as the ships. There was a lot of commercial and political pressure placed on government surveyors in them days to ignore some defects. It was the classification societies during this period that failed to do their job properly. This problem was compounded by mainly the EU introducing there own rules which then chased their sub standard bulk carriers out to the Australian trade.

Things got that bad BHP and some of the other iron ore companies just put a total ban on loading any bulk carrier older than fifteen years! Do not blame the iron ore companies, blame the classification societies and IMO, they are the ones that classed these substandard ships and failed Australia during this period! This ban may have been lifted now, I am not sure.

Andrew, you must be aware of the problems of this period. It would have all showed up in the Iron Parkgate court case in London (it lasted 6 months). Your old legal company that you worked for then must have done a wonderful job because the scuttlebutt out here is that even though it was settled out of court, BHP won the case big time. Anyway, thanks for letting me know that it was not an Admiralty Court case.

Mind you the attitude that prevailed then is still alive and well. Have a look at the age of the P&O Cruises Australia’s liners operating out here! They spent 30 million odd dollars tarting up the accommodation of the now 24 year old Pacific Sun and then they sailed her around Australia and NZ for years with only one stabiliser fin operating! The ship was detained recently and had to go through a stability test!

The worst thing a passenger can do on a cruise ship is to be found bringing alcohol aboard bought ashore. They do not want passengers, the want young yahoo drinkers so they can sell them heaps of duty free bought booze at shore side prices! They tell me that what happens during these cruises, it is not a pretty site.

With regard to the Chen Neng 1, I am on the side of all the Australian maritime authorities and the federal police. I know from experience that when investigating major failures or accidents which you know will end up in the courts, you have to get in early to gain and protect the evidence needed for a successful prosecution. Once the salvage and oil pollution teams are on the scene and have taking over control of the grounding, surely there is room for the accident investigators and if it becomes a crime scene, the police!

John,

You are of course 100% correct. I am a wee bit thingy about using anchors and windlasses. When I was working on the waterfront in Port Kembla for a spell, the worst job I did was having to replace a 19 tonne anchor on a bulk carrier (Bent flukes) and of course replacing the windlass brakes. Everything that could go wrong, did go wrong! It was not so much the engineering side that was the problem it was dealing with all the different unions. I failed my first major test 'I failed to communicate properly' @@#$%!! I threw the towel in and went back to sea!

RNV,

70 metres! 70 metres! Surely it would have only been a controlled situation if the tugs were attached to the cruise liner and were going down the river with the ship at the time of the power failure? The incident is to be investigated by the ATSB so I look forward to having a good read.



Cruise ship Pacific Dawn almost crashes into Brisbane bridge

From: Herald Sun
April 10, 2010 4:19PM

The P&O cruise ship The Pacific Dawn Source: HWT Image Library

A SHIPPING pilot averted a possible disaster by bringing the out-of-control cruise liner Pacific Dawn to a stop before she reached Brisbane's busy Gateway Bridge.

Brisbane Marine Pilots Captain Peter Liley was at the helm of the Pacific Dawn on Saturday morning when the liner lost all power and steering just 700m away from the six-lane bridge over the Brisbane River.

Two tugboats got the Pacific Dawn under control, bringing her to a complete standstill 70m shy of the bridge, which is 1.6km long and 64.5m high.

The Pacific Dawn is 245m long and 70,310 tons with a capacity of 2020 passengers.

"I managed to stop the ship before we got to the Gateway," Capt Liley sais.

"I was piloting the ship and we lost all propulsion.

"It's unusual, but we are trained for these sorts of things.

"If it was under the Gateway we could have drifted clear, but it was before the Gateway."

Capt Liley said a ship without power was prone to drift, and there was a danger it could not be stopped before hitting the bridge's pylons.

He said the ship's captain was investigating what caused the fault, saying he believed a fuse had been affected by a saltwater leak.

"There's an investigation into what occurred," he said.

"We used two tugs to pull the ship up, and we pulled up before the Gateway."

"We waited on the chief engineer on what services he could provide, but he couldn't provide any services so we devised a plan to take the 'dead' ship back to Hamilton."

A spokesman for Carnival Australia, which operates the Pacific Dawn, said the cruise liner had suffered power problems but it was not a major fault and it would set sail again on Saturday afternoon.

"It was a temporary loss of power," the spokesman said.

"It was a controlled situation.

"The ship is OK and will set off for a South Pacific cruise today."

Without sounding too critical there are a lot of "I's" before "we's" but maybe mis quotes. I refer to Bridge Resource Management of course!

Ray Edward Skelton
11th April 2010, 10:38
Question.

Could Shen Neng 1. Incident be DELIBERATE. [Insurance Scam maybe] this vessel could well be reaching the end of her economic life built in 1993.

Portway Sydney Australia

Shipping and reefs are a hazardous mix. The risk of a wreck mishap is further increased when there are unsupervised international masters commanding vessels of increasing size, and increasing shipping movements due to the Queensland minerals/gas export boom. A solution may be GPS,satellite and aerial tracking of all shipping within the Great Barrier Reef. With 500 shipping movements a day in the English Channel, this is how they avoid catastrophe.



"Barrier Reef....what! Barrier Reef" or "Missed it by that... much" Doesn't say much for the MASTER, does it.

The Master should be in the HOT SEAT. after all he is the person who has the overall command of the vessel the MASTER he is the person in charge.

Regards Ray E Skelton.

Billieboy
11th April 2010, 11:44
The risk of a wreck mishap is further increased when there are unsupervised international masters commanding vessels of increasing size, and increasing shipping movements due to the Queensland minerals/gas export boom. A solution may be GPS,satellite and aerial tracking of all shipping within the Great Barrier Reef. With 500 shipping movements a day in the English Channel, this is how they avoid catastrophe.
Regards Ray E Skelton.

I cannot remember a ship Master being, "Supervised", by anyone!

If GPS and all the rest were available to the OOW, then they would still NOT steer the ship if he was asleep!

As for missing the reef; a miss, is always good; a nearly missed, is always bad.

Andrew Craig-Bennett
11th April 2010, 16:06
I think this is rather a simple case and could have happened to anyone. The ship had been loading all night so the Mate was unlikely to get any sleep. It would not take much to put the Master, who alone could give him a spell or join him in the wheelhouse, in the same position. A visit by PSC would certainly do the trick. The Mate may very well not have realised how tired he was.

alastairrussell
12th April 2010, 00:26
Tonga, where did you get your loading rates from for Gladstone? I checked the port authority’s website and I come up with 6000 tonnes per hour for the RG Tanna Coal Loader and 3000 tonnes per hour for Barney Point.

If she loaded the 65000 tonnes at RG Tanner it could have taken roughly 12 hours plus to load the Shen Neng 1. This time frame fits in with her possible arrival and departure times.

In this weekends Australian newspaper there is an article by Andrew Frazer under the heading Breaking up the Bottlenecks. The increase in the queues waiting to load at Australian mineral ports due to the cyclones off the Queensland coast has been halted.

He said that on Friday last week there were a total of 197 ships waiting while in the previous week there were 226. He lists the latest queue as being:

Gladstone 22 --- Dalrymple Bay 64 --- Hay Point 28 --- Port Hedland 10 --- Cape Lamport 6 --- Dampier 14 --- Port Kembla 3 --- Newcastle 50.

He said that in the long term the two most troubled ports are Dalrymple Bay and Newcastle both which have expansion plans and both have adopted new business plans which involve closer dialogue with the mining companies !!

He said that it is not just the ports that are affected by the cyclones it’s the railway systems and some affected lines have temporary 60km/h speed restrictions until permanent repairs are carried out. These restrictions should be lifted very shortly.

Alastair

Orestes
12th April 2010, 02:31
I have read all the threads about the grounding of the Chinese bulkie with interest. There are lots of suggestions regarding pilotage in the Reef.
I was on the Gladstone to Weipa run (Bauxite Trade) for 19 years, until 2008.
Pilotage is compulsory from Cairns to Torres Straits, for all vessels over 70 m in length, and all tankers.It is also compulsory in the Whitsunday Passage.Incidentally pilotage is not compulsory in the Torres Strait which is the shallowest and trickiest part of the Reef, so work that one out!!
It has been suggested that pilotage be compulsory from Brisbane to Torres Strait!! Personally I would be insulted as a watch keeping mate to have a pilot on the bridge south of Cairns, and even in most places North of Cairns.I have sailed with pilots who had never traded through the Reef, and did not have any in depth knowledge of the area, their appointment was based on supply and demand.Some had a limited English and were hard to communicate with.Incidentally all ships that have grounded in recent years north of Cairns had a pilot on board!!
The passage through the reef is not difficult if you keep you eye on the ball, i.e. plot positions on the chart every 15 minutes(as per most masters standing orders). Use the nav aids and azimuth mirrors together with radar distances and you cannot go wrong.
I know the area where the ship grounded, and there is plenty of water between the reef where she grounded and Swains Reef to the North. I think that the watch keeping mate was not on his game and did not have a clue as to where the vessel was.He may have been asleep,but Ill bet he never plotted the ships position at regular intevals.The GBRMP,s are plainly marked on charts together with the relative notes.
AIS only shows vessels within VHF range and gives only the vessel and destination etc. AIS does not show Nav aids, and carries a warning....Not to be used for navigation.
I live in Brisbane and have followed all the media cover, and frankly most of what was written is BS. The mayor of Rockhampton said that it was one of the biggest vessels in the world!!!That will give you an idea of how thinngs got reported
I am sure all watch keeping mates who have followed this debacle will be in agreement that the mate on watch did not follow the ordinary practise of seamen, plain and simple
Thats my quids worth and I hope they manage to refloat the vessel without any damage to the environment
Orestes

Andrew Craig-Bennett
12th April 2010, 08:02
Excellent points Orestes but the reasoning behind the compulsory pilotage idea is not so much that the passages south of Cairns are difficult it is more just to have another body in the wheelhouse.

By analogy North Sea pilotage is not at all difficult but we always take a deep sea pilot because with four ports in five days in a big boxboat tiredness builds up.

What do you think of the idea of extending the VTS south of Cairns?

non descript
12th April 2010, 08:59
Tonga, where did you get your loading rates from for Gladstone? I checked the port authority’s website and I come up with 6000 tonnes per hour for the RG Tanna Coal Loader and 3000 tonnes per hour for Barney Point. ..

Alastair

I am sure you are correct and my source was out of date.
(Thumb)
Mark

allanc
12th April 2010, 12:19
Tonight there will be an an attempt to re float the ship, secure it to windward, and if the ship is OK, tow it to a safe area out of danger of the predicted heavy weather.
Let's hope all goes well!

RNW
12th April 2010, 12:34
Billieboy, you have the problem solved.
Every ship sailing from Queensland has to have a clearence from Customs to do so.
This is issued from Customs, given to the agent, who takes it down the the ship prior to sailing.
What should happen is , if we are serious is:
AMSA decides that the officers have not had enough sleep prior to departure.
The vessel is ordered to leave the berth, but cannot go to sea until it gets this clearence, and therefore has to go to anchor. 12 hrs later the clearence is issued, and the ship departs, with the Master and C/O fully awake, and able to navigate the vessel through the reef.

These ship sit at anchor for weeks on end prior to loading, would 24hrs, or even 8hrs sleep for the crew make any difference on departure, yes, I think it would, it would result fresh minds on the bridge.

Australia has to decide, do we do it with fines,( which the money grabbing pollies want) or do we solve this problem with common sence.

Have enought sleep. submit your sailing plan, and we will isue your clearance.

I think a bit of sleep, a bit of rest, will do what fines will never do, get these ships from point A to point B without hitting anything.

But I'm not a polly, so wont rake in the $$$ which is all they think about.

I just hope this vessel gets taken off the reef, and the issue of crew fatigue gets some attention.

Andrew Craig-Bennett
12th April 2010, 12:49
Billieboy, you have the problem solved.
Every ship sailing from Queensland has to have a clearence from Customs to do so.
This is issued from Customs, given to the agent, who takes it down the the ship prior to sailing.
What should happen is , if we are serious is:
AMSA decides that the officers have not had enough sleep prior to departure.
The vessel is ordered to leave the berth, but cannot go to sea until it gets this clearence, and therefore has to go to anchor. 12 hrs later the clearence is issued, and the ship departs, with the Master and C/O fully awake, and able to navigate the vessel through the reef.

These ship sit at anchor for weeks on end prior to loading, would 24hrs, or even 8hrs sleep for the crew make any difference on departure, yes, I think it would, it would result fresh minds on the bridge.

Australia has to decide, do we do it with fines,( which the money grabbing pollies want) or do we solve this problem with common sence.

Have enought sleep. submit your sailing plan, and we will isue your clearance.

I think a bit of sleep, a bit of rest, will do what fines will never do, get these ships from point A to point B without hitting anything.

But I'm not a polly, so wont rake in the $$$ which is all they think about.

I just hope this vessel gets taken off the reef, and the issue of crew fatigue gets some attention.

Very sensible idea.

Since ships are meant to be carrying hours of rest records these days, rather than someone looking the Mate in the eyes and saying "you are knackered, mate!" they could simply conclude from the hours of rest data that a spell is needed.

As was said earlier in the thread, in days of yore the Chief would "decide" that a spell at anchor was called for to firket the gronicle sprockets, but that depended on either no comms with Head Office or someone like me being in Head Office (I was extremely well "housetrained" by the late Jimmy Lough, of CNCo) and the chances of a timecharterer's "vessel operator" either understanding the point or being allowed by his supervisor to go along with it are slim outside the major oil companies (who are pretty good about this, in my experience).

Andrew Craig-Bennett
12th April 2010, 13:03
It seems she has now been refloated; good effort by the salvors, who should be getting a good Lloyd's Form award once they have got her into the "place of safety" required by the form.

SN NewsCaster
12th April 2010, 14:30
A Chinese coal ship that ran aground near the Great Barrier Reef sparking fears of an ecological disaster is refloated.

More from BBC News... (http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/rss/news/int/search/news%2Bsport/ship/-/2/hi/asia-pacific/8615524.stm)

John Cassels
12th April 2010, 19:20
Very sensible idea.

Since ships are meant to be carrying hours of rest records these days, rather than someone looking the Mate in the eyes and saying "you are knackered, mate!" they could simply conclude from the hours of rest data that a spell is needed.

As was said earlier in the thread, in days of yore the Chief would "decide" that a spell at anchor was called for to firket the gronicle sprockets, but that depended on either no comms with Head Office or someone like me being in Head Office (I was extremely well "housetrained" by the late Jimmy Lough, of CNCo) and the chances of a timecharterer's "vessel operator" either understanding the point or being allowed by his supervisor to go along with it are slim outside the major oil companies (who are pretty good about this, in my experience).

Andrew , like yourself I spent many years at sea before coming ashore as
Port captain / marine ops manager.
We may always have felt an understanding for what the personnel on board
were having to do ( and in many cases were critisised for it ) but when it
came down to it , the commercial department always came out tops and we
had to abide by their requirements no matter how much it pained us.

How many risks we took just to have one of our ships arrive asap just to
please the great God of demurrage.

Billieboy
12th April 2010, 19:37
I remember one trip to Geelong from Mena-al-Ahmadi-by-the-sea, where the Master, name now long forgotten, was dim enough to demand that the ship discharge at it's maximum rate, we sailed 19 hours from all fast! To Khor al Amaya, for Geelong. Thus we managed to have some seventy days at sea on the trot. The mates were totally knackered when we sailed the first time. We anchored off for Christmas Day and berthed Boxing day, the Loading master said that we might start cargo on the 27th, but probably the 28th!

At last someone with a bit if sense!

Andrew Craig-Bennett
12th April 2010, 19:50
Stripping not a big issue then? ;)

There's a lot to be said for a daywork Mate on a tanker.

My pet commercial horror was the old fashioned tanker time charter with the dreaded seabuoy to seabuoy speed clause - through fog, rain and driving snow not to mention heavy weather! I finally started to get that clause out in negotiating charters by pointing out that in a collision the charterer might also be to blame. Shell and Chevron to their credit agreed.

John Cassels
12th April 2010, 19:54
The charterer might also be to blame ? , come now Andrew , that would never happen.

The charterer has a trillion ways to get out of that one even iof it ever came to pass.

Andrew Craig-Bennett
12th April 2010, 19:55
The charterer might also be to blame ? , come now Andrew , that would never happen.

The charterer has a trillion ways to get out of that one even iof it ever came to pass.

I know that, you know that, but I managed to scare them into deleting the clause, which was what mattered! ;)

Andrew Craig-Bennett
12th April 2010, 20:04
I have a happy memory of explaining to a fine tanker master, who had come to us from BP, the principles of laytime as they apply to the independent tanker trading "spot", which were somewhat new to him. I knew he had seen the light when he said "So, when the Pilot gets to the bridge, that's when I start the second mate down the deck then?"

(we favoured the mate on the bridge during manoevring)

Paul J Burke
13th April 2010, 07:23
Yes, a great job by the salvors to get the Shen Neng 1 off the reef before the weather "blew up", which was expected any day.Looking at the ship on T.V. it looked like it was ready to sink!!! I wonder if more damage was done to the hull as it was dragged off ??? Also a great job done by the Pilot on Pacific Dawn in averting a disaster, when the ship lost power "at the crucial moment' when the Gateway Bridge was "looming up" in front of it !!! A great response by the tugs and tug crews as well. Cheers. Paul

SN NewsCaster
13th April 2010, 07:40
Australia says a Chinese ship which ran aground on the Great Barrier Reef causes widespread damage.

More from BBC News... (http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/rss/news/int/search/news%2Bsport/ship/-/2/hi/asia-pacific/8616880.stm)

alastairrussell
14th April 2010, 09:02
Andrew

In the LL website the heading was ‘COSCO Shipping in Ownership Reshuffle’.

Guangzhou Ocean Shipping which is an majority shareholder (50.1%) in your COSCO Shipping has sold their holding to China Ocean Shipping.

I believe China Ocean Shipping have an interest in the management of the Cheng Neng 1

Alastair

Media Alert
2010/09

Media briefing: Release of Sheng Neng 1 preliminary factual report
14 April 2010

On Thursday 15 April, the Australian Transport Safety Bureau (ATSB) will hold a media conference to accompany the release of its preliminary factual report into the grounding of the Sheng Neng 1 off the Queensland coast.

ATSB Chief Commissioner Mr Martin Dolan will discuss the findings of the preliminary report.

Where: 62 Northbourne Avenue, Canberra City ACT (ATSB Central Office)
Time: 10.30am (AEST)

The report will be available via the ATSB website (atsb.gov.au) at 10.30am on Thursday 15 April. Hard copies will also be available at the briefing. After this briefing, all media enquiries should be directed to the media phone number below.

Portway
14th April 2010, 10:18
Breaking News. Brisbane 1800 hrs 14th 2010. Shen Neng 1 Master & Chief Officer have now been charged over the grounding of their vessel By the Australian Federal Police. more as news comes to hand.



TWO senior crew members on the Chinese coal carrier that ran aground on the Great Barrier Reef over Easter have been arrested.
The Australian Federal Police (AFP) said it would be alleged in Queensland's Gladstone Court on Thursday that the Chinese men were the master and chief officer-on-watch of the Sheng Neng 1.

The arrests are the result of a criminal investigation that began after the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority referred the matter to the AFP two days after the incident.

Investigations showed that the Shen Neng 1 failed to turn at the waypoint - where a ship is meant to change course - as it was meant to.

The AFP said its officers, assisted by marine park and Australian Maritime Safety Authority officials, executed a search warrant on the vessel on Wednesday.



The ship's master, a 47-year-old man, has been charged with liability for a vessel which caused damage in the marine park, an offence carrying a maximum $55,000 fine.

A 44-year-old man has been charged with being the person in charge of a vessel which caused damage within the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park.

That offence carries a maximum penalty of three years jail and a $220,000 fine.

Extract from Brisbane Courier Mail.

Portway Sydney Australia.

SN NewsCaster
14th April 2010, 10:50
The captain and chief officer of a Chinese coal ship which ran aground on the Great Barrier Reef are arrested in Australia.

More from BBC News... (http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/rss/news/int/search/news%2Bsport/ship/-/2/hi/asia-pacific/8619343.stm)

Ray Edward Skelton
14th April 2010, 10:53
Wonderful work by all the salvage team in regard to Shen Neng 1.

Coal, just like oil fuel is transported around Australia by Road Tankers, Railway Freight Trains and Bulk Carriers. It necesserily follows that the bigger the transportation device, the bigger the possible environmental impact when something goes wrong. We regulate the Road Transport Industry and the Rail Transport Industry but the Federal Government keeps on allowing foreign shipping companies to sail rust-buckets, manned by personnel sometimes with dubious qualifications, through our pristine coastal environment. Several years ago a fully laden oil tanker, the Kirki, had its bow fall off whilst off the Western Australian coast. Only the rapid response, by Australian salvage teams involved with this vessel prevented a disaster of epic proportions. Not to forget another near disaster with the grounding of C Y Tungs Oceanic Grandeur up in the Torres Strait in 1970 just over 40 years to the day - 3 March 1970. This vessel lost many thousands of tons of its cargo and was very lucky not to have broken up. When are they ever going to learn. Federal Goverments of both persuasions have let high quality Australian Coastal Shipping fade into the distance in favour of cheap foreign imports.

Regards Ray E Skelton

Andrew Craig-Bennett
14th April 2010, 12:31
Andrew

In the LL website the heading was ‘COSCO Shipping in Ownership Reshuffle’.

Guangzhou Ocean Shipping which is an majority shareholder (50.1%) in your COSCO Shipping has sold their holding to China Ocean Shipping.

I believe China Ocean Shipping have an interest in the management of the Cheng Neng 1

Alastair



I work for China Ocean Shipping; Cosco Shipping is a Shenzhen stock exchange quoted subsidiary. The main, Hong Kong quoted company, is China Cosco Limited. (I agree its confusing, but 527 ships are enough to confuse anyone!)

The Cosco Group website is here:

http://www.cosco.com/en/index.jsp


Tosco Keymax, the Managers of the Shen Neng 1, are a joint venture between Taiwan Ocean Shipping Company (a Cosco Group subsidiary) and Keymax, a Japanese ship manager, whose website is here:

http://www.keymaxmaritime.com/index_e.html

We don't own the ship.

Bruce Copland
14th April 2010, 12:59
To All Concerened

Congratulations to Drew Shannon on his successful refloat of the Shen Neng 1. But Oh my God have you seen the footage of Greenies scraping up some dried detriment off a beach and HOPING that they can say it is oil and then blame the ship?

It is getting embarrassing to be an Australian! I wonder what the world will think. If they are getting concerned about traffic off Gladstone, why don't they have a look at the English Channel!!

During my life as a Marine Surveyor I have attended numerous strandings Yes we had problems with bureaucrats but I feel for Salvors today that heve to put up with this ridiculous and hysteric performance from Australians who are trying to justify their existence!

It is nice to be retired!


Breuce Copland. Member

Andrew Craig-Bennett
14th April 2010, 13:36
Well said, Bruce.

This is from the Courier-Mail:

THE ship that ran aground on the Barrier Reef has caused widespread damage and it could take 20 years for the reef to recover, a scientific expert says.

And toxic paint from the hull of the coal carrier that ran aground on Douglas Shoal is killing coral in protected reef waters.
Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority chief scientist David Wachenfeld says the Shen Neng 1 has gouged a channel about 3km long in the reef off Rockhampton.
He says the recovery process could take up to two decades.
"This is by far the largest ship grounding scar we have seen on the Great Barrier Reef to date," he told the ABC.
"This vessel did not make an impact in one place and rest there and then was pulled off.
"This scar is more in the region of 3km long and up to 250 metres wide."
The authority also says toxic anti-fouling paint from the hull is killing coral around Douglas Shoal where the ship ran aground in a restricted part of the marine park on April 3.
The ship was finally refloated on Monday evening and is now anchored in safe waters off Great Keppel island.
Marine park authority chairman Russell Reichelt said the clean up will be one of the biggest of its type and damage is significant.


"It didn't just go aground and stop,'' he told the ABC, adding it moved about a kilometre after running into the shoal.
He said an initial inspection had found significant scarring and coral damage, and a lot of anti-fouling paint on the reef.
"The paint that's scraped off (onto) the reef is killing corals in its vicinity,'' he said.
It could be weeks before the full extent of the damage was known, he said.
For many of the nine days the ship was stranded, footage showed a white plume around the ship - evidence that the hull was crushing coral as it moved with the wind and swell.
A team of marine scientists is at the scene of the grounding to carry out a full assessment of environmental damage.
That process is being led by the marine park authority, with help from the Queensland environment department and the Australian Institute of Marine Science.
Federal environment minister Peter Garrett said he'd asked the marine park authority for a thorough review of the site.
"Ship groundings can result in significant localised damage to habitats. Groundings such as this often leave grounding scars in the reef substrate where the coral is crushed and compacted,'' he said in a statement.
The inspection team will document damage from the point where the ship ran aground, across part of the shoal to the site where it ended up.
They will gather photographic and video evidence of the damage.
"I anticipate the assessment and monitoring of this site and the other environmental impacts of this grounding are likely to be ongoing,'' Mr Garrett said.
"The Scientific Advisory Panel I asked GBRMPA to establish earlier this month, will review the information from the environmental inspection and advise on the next steps.''
Prime Minister Kevin Rudd today thanked the salvage team for successfully re-floating the stricken Chinese vessel overnight, saying he had spoken with those coordinating the delicate operation.

“”This is - has been - a very difficult task. And could I just say on behalf of the Government how much we appreciate the professional expertise of the team of officials operating out of Gladstone and elsewhere who have successfully taken this vessel from the Great Barrier Reef to this temporary place where it’s moored,’’ he said in Lismore.

“”On top of that, could I say again, echoing the views I think of all Australians, that it is still an absolute outrage that this vessel could’ve landed on the Great Barrier Reef twelve kilometres off course. We will leave no stone unturned when it comes to finding out how that happened.’’

(Some of the more technically minded amongst us may be wondering how a laden Panamax, which presumably sailed on an even keel and which undoubtedly has a beam of 32.2 metres, managed to score a three kilometre long, 250 metre wide, trail of destruction through the reef and wind up with damage to her engine room and not, apparently, elsewhere. A Mystery of the Sea, no doubt!)

alastairrussell
14th April 2010, 13:39
Andrew

You have got me so confused, so I am thinking you must be a bloody Sea Lawyer!!!!! One minute you are working for Cosco and the next, your are working for China Ocean Shipping (group)?

I never said Cosco or the China Shipping Group owned the Sheng Neng 1. I said they managed the ship!!

Anyway, forget the above, I have just found out today, about the privately owned RightShip vetting organisation (all right so I am old,retired and now an amateur). This was apparently co-founded by my favourite shipping company BHP.

Tell what is your opinion of the RightShip organisation, do you think it’s a goer and how many stars do you think the Sheng Neng 1 should or could have been given?

Andrew, do think that the RightShip vetting system might have resulted from what BHP learnt during the long 6 month Parkgate court case in London?

regards

Alastair

James_C
14th April 2010, 13:44
(Some of the more technically minded amongst us may be wondering how a laden Panamax, which presumably sailed on an even keel and which undoubtedly has a beam of 32.2 metres, managed to score a three kilometre long, 250 metre wide, trail of destruction through the reef and wind up with damage to her engine room and not, apparently, elsewhere. A Mystery of the Sea, no doubt!)

Andrew,
Never let the facts get in the way of the usual ignorant witch-hunt!

non descript
14th April 2010, 13:52
Andrew

You have got me so confused, so I am thinking you must be a bloody Sea Lawyer!!!!! One minute you are working for Cosco and the next, your are working for China Ocean Shipping (group)?

I never said Cosco or the China Shipping Group owned the Sheng Neng 1. I said they managed the ship!!



Gentlemen

Rather like a bulk carrier in danger of hitting the Great Barrier Reef… a timely reminder to alter course is always a good thing. – So, with that in mind it might be prudent to remind folk to attack the Post and not the Poster please, as from my viewpoint, that last was a tad aggressive for no real reason.
(Thumb)
Mark

Andrew Craig-Bennett
14th April 2010, 13:52
Andrew

You have got me so confused, so I am thinking you must be a bloody Sea Lawyer!!!!! One minute you are working for Cosco and the next, your are working for China Ocean Shipping (group)?

I never said Cosco or the China Shipping Group owned the Sheng Neng 1. I said they managed the ship!!

Anyway, forget the above, I have just found out today, about the privately owned RightShip vetting organisation (all right so I am old,retired and now an amateur). This was apparently co-founded by my favourite shipping company BHP.

Tell what is your opinion of the RightShip organisation, do you think it’s a goer and how many stars do you think the Sheng Neng 1 should or could have been given?

Andrew, do think that the RightShip vetting system might have resulted from what BHP learnt during the long 6 month Parkgate court case in London?

regards

Alastair


Alastair,

Same Difference! China Ocean Shipping COmpany = COSCO ;)

I was just pointing out that through a subsidiary we have an interest in the managers. Not the same thing as managing her ourselves - I would guess that they will be using Keymax systems, not our systems, and that our role in the JV is to supply the requisite warm bodies. I would doubt if our systems would be commercially competitive in the third party ship management business. There is a similar JV between Cosco Qingdao and Wallems, which I know about, and that is certainly how that one works.

I see our HK operation are Rightship clients.

I looked the ship up on Equasis and she seems to have led fairly a trouble free existence.

non descript
14th April 2010, 13:55
Andrew,
Never let the facts get in the way of the usual ignorant witch-hunt!

Wise words and I gather as we speak the Oily Cormorant is being flown out First Class, together with its dedicated media team and make-up girl, so it can be filmed drowning is a sea of crude oil from the Coal Carrying Tanker. (LOL)

non descript
14th April 2010, 14:05
Your BHP connected friends RightShip have her down (at present) as two stars – not a huge worry to anyone, and to be fair, her record has nothing particularly bad showing up; so the witch-hunt may need to cobble together some more unconnected facts to fuel the fire and allow the crew to be burnt at the stake – using carbob-neutral wood I am sure (Jester)

PS. The last time she was “detained” was on 25/Apr/06 when she was the BESTORE, and that detention was in the Black Sea port of Constanza

Andrew Craig-Bennett
14th April 2010, 14:11
Nicely put, Tonga.

Constanza is in Marlboro Country; always has been!

James_C
14th April 2010, 14:17
Wise words and I gather as we speak the Oily Cormorant is being flown out First Class, together with its dedicated media team and make-up girl, so it can be filmed drowning is a sea of crude oil from the Coal Carrying Tanker. (LOL)

The oil covered Seagull must be on leave, it is the breeding season after all!
(Jester)

non descript
14th April 2010, 14:26
The oil covered Seagull must be on leave, it is the breeding season after all!
(Jester)

Jim,
May be; but under the Tree-Huggers’ Rules and the Paris MOU on Witch-Hunts, a Class A accident (Tanker aground with Coal on Board) requires a cormorant to be present at all times when there is filming oil slicks. It is only a Class B accident (non-tanker out of sight of land) that allows for Seagulls to be used instead. As for the “breeding season” – have you forgotten that all accidents take place in such a season and always at a place of outstanding natural beauty. (LOL)

No maritime disaster ever occurs in a place of little importance with no wild life present. (EEK)

alastairrussell
14th April 2010, 14:33
Bruce and Andrew

I agree with what you both have said. I watched the programme you both mentioned and I was angry with the beat up! Greenies seem to know how to manage or mislead the media these days. Do they do a graduate course in the UNI on this subject ?

We all know about the effects of TBT in the antifouling paint has on the shell life but I also know what HFO looks like when it hits the sea or the beach!!!.

Yes, I was held responsible for polluting New York Harbour with HFO and yes I got a letter from shipping companies head office bullocking me because the ship had been fined. But what the hell these were in the good days where I did not have to go to jail!!!

Bruce its not nice to be retired, its F______g great to be retired!!!!

Alastair

Andrew Craig-Bennett
14th April 2010, 14:38
No maritime disaster ever occurs in a place of little importance with no wild life present. (EEK)

Bang on cue - I hope I may be allowed to cite today's Lloyd's List, as this passage is in the free to view section of the website:

http://www.lloydslist.com/ll/news/shen-neng-1-master-and-chief-officer-arrested/20017767499.htm

Maritime Safety Queensland general manager Patrick Quirk said today that an initial inspection of the ship by divers “showed substantial damage to the bottom hull surrounding the engine room at the back of the ship”.

He added that small oil globules, which are thought to have come from the Shen Neng 1, had washed up on a stretch of beach along North West Island - about 10 nautical miles south east of where the vessel grounded.

Mr Quirk said: “Right now crews are on the island assessing the amount of oil that has washed ashore and beginning the clean-up effort. Early reports from the island are a very small amount of oil in globule form is on the beach.” He added that flights over the island could not detect any further oil in the water.

I'm told, by someone who has been there, that North West Island is populated chiefly by those endangered Australian species - feral chickens and feral cats.

alastairrussell
14th April 2010, 14:54
Tonga

Go back to School mate!! Two star bulk carriers are not allowed to load in Australia!!.

So why was she sent down to Gladstone?

Tell me Tonga why has her AIS been switched off before and after she ran aground? She still does not register!

Google earth now registers all the AIS Ships, yachts and boats that have got the gear onboard.

And I thought you were a RO?

Alastair

Andrew Craig-Bennett
14th April 2010, 15:20
That seems to be a question best asked of the shippers, Alastair.

Her Equasis record does not look what I would call a bad one. Look for yourself but there are no detentions at all by any MOU states, and no recent deficiencies at all.

non descript
14th April 2010, 15:25
Tonga

Go back to School mate!! Two star bulk carriers are not allowed to load in Australia!!.

So why was she sent down to Gladstone?

Tell me Tonga why has her AIS been switched off before and after she ran aground? She still does not register!

Google earth now registers all the AIS Ships, yachts and boats that have got the gear onboard.

And I thought you were a RO?

Alastair

Alastair

It is possible that not every conclusion you have reached is entirely accurate.

(Thumb)
Mark

alastairrussell
14th April 2010, 15:50
Mark

Can I ask you have you been bought off by the COSCO ?

Alastair

non descript
14th April 2010, 16:14
Mark

Can I ask you have you been bought off by the COSCO ?

Alastair

Alastair

Of course you can ask; the answer is NO.

Regards
Mark

alastairrussell
14th April 2010, 16:14
Mark

Can I ask you why you have suddenly taken a dislike to COSCO? Please tell me what I have said that you think is wrong! Ttion in SN?. I feel that I am an person so please please tell what I have said that gives you the impression that what I ansaying is what I am saying is wrong?

Alastair

Thamesphil
14th April 2010, 16:23
It is not true that the AIS was switched off as AISLive reports the last signal on 12/4/2010 18:29:11 UTC.

I have never heard of Google Earth tracking ships' AIS signals before, but if they do, it is clearly unreliable. Personally, I prefer to rely on a system that is designed specifically to track ship movements.

Brgds
Phil

non descript
14th April 2010, 16:43
Mark

Can I ask you why you have suddenly taken a dislike to COSCO? Please tell me what I have said that you think is wrong! Ttion in SN?. I feel that I am an person so please please tell what I have said that gives you the impression that what I ansaying is what I am saying is wrong?

Alastair

Alastair

As your posts now appear to me to make no sense whatsoever, maybe it is best for everyone if I leave them to one side – In case you feel I am being unduly harsh, you appear to be asking if I have been “bought off by COSCO” and then, when given the answer as a negative, you proceed to suggest I have “taken a dislike to COSCO”. As those two statements seem rather contradictory, you may possibly forgive me for not wanting to continue what is becoming something rather like nonsense.

Other Members may be able to guide you further on the various unwise conclusions you have arrived at; although I can sympathise with anyone who finds the guidelines of RightShip even more complicated than the offside rule. It is certainly not a subject for the unwary to preach about. (LOL)

Regards
Mark

Andrew Craig-Bennett
14th April 2010, 17:13
1. Why did the "back" of the ship hit the reef?
Because it didn't turn the corner.
2. Why was that?
Because it was on autopilot and the man in the wheelhouse was asleep
3. Why was that?
Because he was too tired to stay awake
4. Why was that?
Because the Australian coal industry kept him up all night
5. Why was that?
Because they were in a big hurry to load his ship
6. Why was that?
So they could make more money, of course.(Whaaa)

Santos
14th April 2010, 18:08
Alastair

As your posts now appear to me to make no sense whatsoever, maybe it is best for everyone if I leave them to one side – In case you feel I am being unduly harsh, you appear to be asking if I have been “bought off by COSCO” and then, when given the answer as a negative, you proceed to suggest I have “taken a dislike to COSCO”. As those two statements seem rather contradictory, you may possibly forgive me for not wanting to continue what is becoming something rather like nonsense.

Other Members may be able to guide you further on the various unwise conclusions you have arrived at; although I can sympathise with anyone who finds the guidelines of RightShip even more complicated than the offside rule. It is certainly not a subject for the unwary to preach about. (LOL)

Regards
Mark

Well said Sir,

I think judging by the time of day in his part of the world, other influences may perhaps be at work (EEK)

Chris.

Iain B
14th April 2010, 23:23
Tonga

Go back to School mate!! Two star bulk carriers are not allowed to load in Australia!!.

So why was she sent down to Gladstone?

Tell me Tonga why has her AIS been switched off before and after she ran aground? She still does not register!

Google earth now registers all the AIS Ships, yachts and boats that have got the gear onboard.

And I thought you were a RO?

Alastair

I had a look in Rightships and yes she is currently showing as a 2 star ship, because of the casualty. Her underlying rating is a 3 star ship and as I see it she has been reduced to 2 star as a result of this incident.

2 star ships do load in Australia. The ship would need to be physically screened by a screener and the history of whatever the reason she is a two star ship would be evaluated. This reason for the reduction to 2 star may be due to an incident or a caualty, a change of owner or manager, age related, a terminal report, a PSC detention or other PSC report, (I think they also include 5 items on the PSC report to the equivalent to a detention (I dont understand that - any PSC in China is 5 items from what I hear).

The Rightship system is OK, but for me the PSC input weighting is too significant. The quality of PSC inspections appears to be deteriorating and therefore the value of the Rightship rating can only be as good as the data input it is using. (hence my pervious posts about PSC etc.)

As underwriters we try to use Rightship but I find it of less use than we had initially hoped. It does not tell us anything that we can't see from having a proper look at the PSC record and lloyds casulty reports.

Rightship is trying to introduce the same sort of vetting criteria, systems and protocols that are usual in the tanker business. Rightship are no where near as sophisticated as the oil majors and the information input is much weaker. On the other hand it does have more transparancy and the dry bulk side of the business needs something like this.

Iain

trotterdotpom
14th April 2010, 23:27
Can I display my ignorance and ask what are "Rightship" and "PSC"?

John T.

non descript
14th April 2010, 23:31
Can I display my ignorance and ask what are "Rightship" and "PSC"?

John T.

RightShip Pty Ltd is owned equally between BHP Billiton, Rio Tinto Shipping and Cargill Ocean Transportation. The three parent companies are RightShip's only shareholders. - Their own text states:

RightShip is a ship vetting specialist, using its growing influence to promote safety and efficiency in the global maritime industry. Formed in 2001, RightShip offers the commercial shipping industry a Ship Vetting Information System that is the most comprehensive, holistic, online risk management system in the world.

The rest of it is located here (http://site.rightship.com/about.aspx)

PSC = Port State Control and is the concept whereby the Port has the Authority to inspect the ship. In their own words "Port State Control (PSC) is the inspection of foreign ships in national ports to verify that the condition of the ship and its equipment comply with the requirements of international regulations and that the ship is manned and operated in compliance with these rules....". more can be found here (http://www.parismou.org/ParisMOU/home/xp/menu.4532/default.aspx)

non descript
14th April 2010, 23:51
As hinted at earlier, there is really no quick/easy answer as to how the Star Rating works, as in a way it actually depends more on the client than on RightShip themselves; i.e. what the Stars mean to one Client, can and do mean something different to another.

To give small insight into part of the scheme:

A three, four or five-star rating means the ship is an acceptable risk.

Two stars means the user must contact RightShip for further review of the ship's risk profile.

A one-star rating indicates that RightShip would need to do more detailed investigation, including a physical inspection of the ship and/or an audit of the vessel and its management systems.

So we can see that there is no actual firm ruling that a particular number of stars has to mean a particular standard – indeed the colour of the stars is also another guide…

trotterdotpom
14th April 2010, 23:54
Thanks Tonga - more inspections! Bill Davies must be turning in his grave.

John T.

non descript
15th April 2010, 00:17
Thanks Tonga - more inspections! Bill Davies must be turning in his grave.

John T.

Yes indeed. (EEK)

So from all of this we can see that there is no actual firm ruling that a particular number of stars has to mean a particular standard – indeed the colour of the stars is also another guide…The most valid point is that RightShip is merely producing a data-base for their clients, and what the individual clients take from it, is largely their own choice – it is not written in stone as to what a star will mean to the world at large. So the broad-brush approach of saying categorically that 2 Stars = X is not a recipe for wholesale accuracy.

Having such a body is certainly a step in the right direction, but many feel that it is far from perfect and PSC Inspections can unfortunately miss as much as they catch. Maybe it is one of those things that can be seen from both sides with a degree of equal clarity, depending upon whose moral high ground one is standing on at the time. (Jester). In reality, the idea that ship can be marked down from a wonderful 5 Stars to a rather lowly 2 Stars, purely as a result of a Code 17 Deficiency, is a little worrying and can paint a rather unrealistic picture of the actual event and or quality of the ship.

Paul J Burke
15th April 2010, 01:26
The whole thing that strikes me about this grounding in broard daylight, is that no-one could have been on the bridge, or whoever was supposed to be there, was obviously sound asleep!!! How could this happen in this day and age with all the "you beaut" gear on the bridge,ie-radar G.P.S.and all the rest of it.Wouldnt there be an alarm of some sort, that would trigger if the vessel veered "miles off course'in this case, or even as it was getting closer to shallow water ??? No doubt the inquiry will 'reveal all", in fact 2 men are before the Court already "awaitng their fate". Cheers. Paul

Orestes
15th April 2010, 02:54
It is reported in today's Courier Mail in Brisbane that the old man and the mate have been arrested!! It also states that the cause of the accident was that the mate missed a waypoint!!(read my previous thread). Maybe he was asleep,but he was NOT plotting the ships position on the chart otherwise he would have seen he was standing into danger. You can say what you like about having GPS, Radars, AIS, Ecdis charts, if you dont plot the position on the chart they are of no use at all!!This was amistake of failing to carry out basic coastal navigation.
With regards to fatigue,we used to unload 73000 tonnes of Bauxite in Gladstone in 33 hours , it was all rip **** and go, in and out, and yes we got tired, however we had dead man alarms(result of the Doric chariot incident)in the wheelhouse.I was sure that I NEVER sat down whilst on watch, as I reckon that the minute you do tyou are switching off, and that actually is af act!!
It has been suggested that 2 pilots be carried Brisbane to Torres Strait. Where are these pilots going to come from. Australia has not got the seafaring manpower to fill those positions.Command and masters C1 are the usual requirements, I only know of 1 pilot who did not have command, although he had traded as mate in the Reef for years and had good local knowledge.
Like most grounding this was sheer neglect of following the usual practise of seamen, bad training,and probably mates relying on alarms and gadgets to do their job

Orestes

kazza
15th April 2010, 03:28
Some great photos, charts and other information are obtainable at:


http://www.msq.qld.gov.au/About-us/Msq-headlines/Great-Barrier-Reef-grounding/Shen-Neng-1-photos.aspx

Portway
15th April 2010, 05:14
Orestes. Can only but agree with your comments.

Mandatory use of marine pilots should be used for ALL ships leaving and entering this and other delicate areas. Other countries don't give a toss about fragile marine environments in particular the Owners, Management and some Ships Masters. We have to make sure that laws are put in place and operating procedures are adopted that will ensure the best possible maintenance of our natural resources.

Sorry for repeating these words that have been used in other comment to this saga.

Portway Sydney Australia.

I

alastairrussell
15th April 2010, 05:52
A factual 6 page preliminary investigation report of the grounding can be read in the Australian Transport Safety Bureau web site (www.atsb.gov.au). I have attached a media conference hand out


I note the following:

• The engine room is flooded !!!

• The actual loading time was 24 hours and not the overnight job as previously reported.

• The C/M had a 4 hour 45 minute break prior to going on watch but in that time he only slept for 30 minutes, why!

Alastair

Shen Neng 1 Media Conference Talking Points

Today the ATSB is releasing a preliminary factual report on the grounding
of Shen Neng 1 at Douglas Shoal at 1705 on 3 April 2010.

These are the facts as known to date by the ATSB and it should be stressed
that this is preliminary report only and that this investigation is in its very
earliest stages.

The ship had departed Gladstone that morning at 1054 with a full load of
coal bound for China. On board were also 977 tonnes of heavy fuel oil,
more than half of which was stored in double bottom fuel tanks (at the
bottom of the ship).

The master’s intention was to navigate the ship through the Great Barrier
Reef via the commonly used passage to the north of North Reef Lighthouse.

Refer to Chart Aus 426

In the time leading up to the grounding there were a
number of critical events:

At about 1330 the second mate and master decided to alter the ship’s
planned route slightly.

Refer to Chart Aus 819

Note that Douglas Shoal is not shown on this Chart

In the process of changing the planned route, the crew did not alter the
“off- track” or course alteration “waypoint” alarms set in the ship’s Global
Positioning System (GPS) receiver unit. These navigational safeguards
remained set for the original course.

At 1530 the second mate altered course to the new planned route. Shortly
thereafter he received an “off-track” alarm on the GPS and “accepted” this
alarm. (Remember that this alarm was still set up for the original route.)

At 1600 the second mate handed over the watch to the first mate. During
this process the change of the planned route was discussed as was the fact
that the GPS had not been programmed with the new course alteration
waypoint. The first mate was now alone in the wheelhouse with an ablebodied
seaman acting as look out.

It was the first mate’s first time navigating through this area.

The first mate had had a very busy time while the ship was in Gladstone
loading and he had had only 2.5 hours of broken sleep in the previous 37
hours.

Shortly after 1600, the ship moved into the area covered by chart Aus 820,
however the first mate did not change the charts on the chart table, nor did
he establish the ship’s distance from the next course alteration point.

Refer to chart Aus 820

At approximately 1630, about when the ship reached the course alteration
point, the chief engineer visited the ship’s bridge for five minutes or so to
check the main engine revs. The first mate had intended to fix the ship’s
position at this time but now decided he would do so at 1700.

At 1700 the first mate took the ship’s position coordinates from the GPS to
plot its position. It was at this stage that he took out chart Aus 820 from the
chart drawer. At this time he realised that the ship was past the amended
alteration point and was very close to Douglas Shoal.

He attempted to alter course at the last minute but this action was too late
and shortly thereafter the ship grounded at a speed of about 12 knots.
The grounding caused extensive damage to the ship’s hull including to the
double bottom ballast and fuel tanks.

In essence, a simple succession of errors on the part of a very tired crew
member had resulted in the grounding.

ATSB’s investigation is focusing on:

• Shen Neng 1’s bridge resource management practices including passage
planning, watch-keeping and passage monitoring.

• The ship and its management company’s safety management systems in
general with respect to guidance that could have prevented the grounding.

• The ship and its management company’s fatigue management systems,
including work/rest schedules and practices on board.

• Human factors issues including fatigue, distractions and situational
awareness.

• Existing protective measures in the Great Barrier Reef, including the
coastal vessel traffic service, coastal pilotage and ship routeing guidelines and recommendations.

• Initial incident response on board the ship, control and monitoring from
ashore and salvage efforts.

Our role is to have a very close look at the whole system of safeguards
which allowed this accident to occur and to identify ways the system can be
improved to prevent it happening again.

Billieboy
15th April 2010, 06:48
Seems a bit daft to me, for Australia to load a three star ship, then complain that a two star ship had been loaded!

Someone seems to have a didgit problem!

Andrew Craig-Bennett
15th April 2010, 08:02
It seems to me that any serious accident will have several causes, because for the "system" to fail several things have to go wrong.

The fact that this was the Mate's first loading of this ship may have made him more tired.

The change in the planned route.

The 2/O's not re-programming the XTE and waypoint alarms in the GPS when the planned route was altered, and his not erasing the original route.

The Chief Engineer visiting the Bridge just as the ship arrived at the a/c point.

The lookout behaving - well, like a lot of lookouts do.

Not having the next chart up (is that just me? - I think if he had had it up, or had a look at the small scale chart (was that up?) he might have been more active in fixing the position.) As it was, he let an hour go by between fixes, which very obviously wasn't enough. Was the proximity of the Reef really present to his mind? But ships that do fix their position often enough and correctly enough don't go ashore.

The Mate's failure to get his head down for more of the four hours he had off. Too tired to sleep, or a good video?

Etc.

"Bridge resource management" issues, as the ATSB have, unsurprisingly, said. Next instalment - Captain Wang's Standing Orders, I predict.

"There but for the Grace of God go I."

John Cassels
15th April 2010, 10:11
Thanks Tonga - more inspections! Bill Davies must be turning in his grave.

John T.

Can Assure you Bill is alive and well and watching all of you !.

barnsey
15th April 2010, 10:30
OK you lot here is the simple answer .....hope you all open it as its a PDF file ....

All really very simple .... Ch.Off. doing all the work as per usual dropping ballast and loading his first cargo first time in Gladstone .... V/L sails 30 odd hours later mate has an hours shut eye 2/0 changes track with permission of master but they don't put the new waypoints in the GPS, no alarms... C/O on watch 1600, misses the 1630 GPS position which was more or less around the a/c position .... ship runs aground 1700 as he puts the GPS position in the Log but not on the chart.... too late.

Yup, fatigue, Bridge resource management and so on....

Barnsey

Billieboy
15th April 2010, 11:02
So, the Master did not allow for the mate missing the a/c point, had the cours remained on 000° then there would have been nothing to hit, could be a case of the 2/O trying to get some kudos by altering ealier and saving a mile or two.

Andrew Craig-Bennett
15th April 2010, 11:44
Nowt to add to the last two points.

Being a good boy I have summarised the .pdf and sent it to our Marine Superintendent to email to our ships just to add to their pile of light reading - with a warning to dust off the Master's Standing Orders - before he flies off to the Group Safety Management Meeting tonight!

trotterdotpom
15th April 2010, 11:51
The Master and Mate appeared in court today and were bailed to appear in July sometime. That will give the Magistrate time to peruse this thread and decided on how long they'll get.

The shipping company, whoever they are, sent out a relief Master last week, so it doesn't look as though they're too optimistic.

John T.

Billieboy
15th April 2010, 11:58
Someone should supply the magistrates with a bound copy John T. Seems curt and dried to me, but then I'm an engineer!

chadburn
15th April 2010, 12:11
Can Assure you Bill is alive and well and watching all of you !.

One of his numerous identities wouldn't be Octavious would it?

alastairrussell
15th April 2010, 12:14
Billie

I suggest you go into the RightShip website and read their ‘frequently asked questions’ section.

I thought it was strange that the Shen Neng 1 lost a star the minute she hit the putty! Iain is right when he says she was a 3 star ship when she left China and now she is a 2 star because of the incident on her departure from Gladstone! See below!

Andrew,

Why do I get the feeling that BHP might have got dragged into being very interested in writing a software programme that checkouts charter ships? Do you not think it was because of what they learnt during their wee spell (6 months) in that court in London (The Parkgate Case)?

I have pasted some of the relevant Q and A.

What makes RightShip different to other systems?

- Our system is the most comprehensive available, with extensive data about over 54000 dry bulk, petroleum and liner ships.

- The only system that gives you an acceptability rating for the ship, as well as more detailed data about it.
- Assesses each ship’s suitability for a specific task.
- The fastest way to get this quality of information online.
- Easy online access via web and simple user interface.
- Low subscription rates for 24/7 access.

Are your evaluations based on physical inspections?

RightShip’s system is not based solely on vessel inspections. We have developed a risk matrix approach, that uses many sources of information to determine the vessel’s risk rating.

If the system’s evaluation indicates a higher risk, we may carry out a physical inspection to verify the ship’s condition and operation is suitable before recommending the ship to a client. If the system rates the ship as an acceptable risk, we do not normally undertake a physical inspection unless it is specifically requested.

How is the RightShip risk rating calculated?

The risk rating is determined by a computer-based algorithm. It calculates risk based on data collected under about 50 risk factors, including as the following as well as other factors: • Flag Risk (determined by statistical assessment of PSC inspection, casualty and Incident performance associated with the particular flag) • Class Risk (determined by statistical assessment of PSC inspection, casualty and Incident performance associated with the particular class society) • Number of Changes of flag, class, owner or manager • The vessel’s casualty history • The vessel’s Berth Reports • The vessel’s terminal reports • The vessel’s PSC performance (including particular attention to multiple deficiencies and/or detentions over a period of time) • The vessel’s age. These and other risk factors go towards a ‘score’, which is then combined with other factors (such as Port State Control performance) to determine the overall star rating. Ships rated as highest risk score less than 72 through the system, while ships rated as lowest risk can score anywhere over 120. Ships scoring 88 and over are likely to be rated as a satisfactory risk without further review. Please also see How does Port State Control inspection affect the rating? and What other factors affect the rating.) It’s also important to remember that data is updated every day and a rating is only valid for the particular customer, for the particular task, on the particular day and time the vet is done.

Does the system help identify “the bad guys” and the “ships of shame”?

It will show by giving a one or two star rating that a ship is unsuitable for a nominated task. (Reasons could be related, for example, to the ship’s building, age, casualty or terminal/port inspection history, its ownership, management, flag or class society.) We do see vessel casualties, or vessels ‘blacklisted’ by ports, that have earlier been rated as unacceptable by our system, and therefore avoided by our clients.

The system also rewards “good guys”. Better risk ratings go to ships whose managers and owners have good records, have been audited by us as ‘preferred suppliers’, or who have been accredited by a quality partner like Green Award.

How can an owner improve a vessel’s rating?

Owners can help ensure satisfactory performance against RightShip’s risk factors by making sure their Safety Management System has adequate procedures for the effective management, supervision and inspection of the vessel and that everyone concerned complies with regulatory requirements.
RightShip’s system has built-in incentives for specific improvements such as:
• Owners’ membership of Intercargo (adds 5 points for all fleet vessels)
• Green Award certification (adds 15 points for certified vessels).
Flags and class societies receive more points for better performance (recorded in MOU annual reports), so changing to a higher-ranked flag or class society may deliver better ratings – however, the system automatically deducts points for changes of flag or class so this option would need to be carefully considered.
Vessels may also get an improved rating after inspection. Owners should be aware that points allocated from inspections are only valid for twelve months.

What other factors affect the rating?

As well as the key scoring risk factors, the rating can also be influenced by factors including:
• Incidents Under Review
• Casualty Under Review
• Lloyds Reported Casualty
• Laid-Up or Under Repair
• Class Suspension / Withdrawal
• Not IACS Classed
• Derate (Target) Flag (designated by RightShip annually, based on poor MOU performance)
• Close-out or change by RightShip to any of the factors above, after owners have provided satisfactory information about the actions they have taken in response to these factors.

When is inspection required for dry bulk vessels?

Many vessels are vetted and approved without the need for an inspection. These are the cases in which RightShip requires a physical inspection of the ship by experienced inspectors before it will consider recommending the vessel as suitable for our customers:
• All high risk vessels (as rated by the online vetting system)
• A vessel that has recorded a detention resulting (or likely to result) in prosecution subsequent to MARPOL or SOLAS infringement
• A vessel that has had a change of owner or manager
• A vessel that has undergone major repairs or modifications
• All Cape vessels at 18 years of age (inspection has 12 month validity)
• All Panamax vessels at 18 years of age (inspection has 12 month validity)
• All Handy vessels at 25 years of age (12 month validity)
• Vessels which meet other criteria set by individual customers, or which a customer asks to be inspected.

Who is behind RightShip?

RightShip was initially created as a boutique joint venture company, operating independently but backed by the resources of major shippers BHP Billiton and Rio Tinto.

The original Ship Vetting information System (SVIS) combined the data resources and knowledge the two companies had developed over many years in their own in house expert vetting systems. The joint venture partners’ aim was to improve their own vetting processes, and at the same time raise standards across the industry so the commercial disadvantages of choosing quality ships were minimised.

Since being formed in 2001, RightShip has grown substantially to serve a global client base far beyond its parent companies. Cargill acquired a one third stake in RightShip in September 2006. RightShip’s independent management team operates and improves the system in the interests of its broad client base.

Andrew Craig-Bennett
15th April 2010, 12:22
Alastair - my recollection is the same as yours - that P&O wrote BHP a very large cheque for the "Iron Parkgate" - but I put the motives behind Rightship elsewhere and more recently.

Specifically, the loss of the "Mineral Diamond", which caused a shudder right through the maritime industry - the ship was lost without trace after loading ore in Australia and she was all of eight years old at the time - followed not long after by the bow dropping off the "Kirki" and the ensuing Ships of Shame saga.

Andrew Craig-Bennett
15th April 2010, 12:25
Someone should supply the magistrates with a bound copy John T. Seems curt and dried to me, but then I'm an engineer!

Plod had better go back aboard and handcuff the Second Mate, if they want to do a really throrough job!

Needless to say I don't see what purpose can possibly be served by criminal proceedings. I can't say "nobody stuffs a ship ashore on purpose" as I have in fact known it done, but nobody on board this ship had any intention of ending up on the Reef.

chadburn
15th April 2010, 13:01
Someone should supply the magistrates with a bound copy John T. Seems curt and dried to me, but then I'm an engineer!

Looks like the Chief might be in trouble as he may have "distracted" the W.O. when he went to the Bridge to check the engine rev's.(EEK)

trotterdotpom
15th April 2010, 13:07
One of his numerous identities wouldn't be Octavious would it?

Maybe we should start a new thread: "Where's Billy?"

John T.

John Cassels
15th April 2010, 13:38
Maybe we should start a new thread: "Where's Billy?"

John T.


As far as I am aware , he has no other identities and does not appear on this
site under an assumed name - as others (I am lead to understand) do.

On the other hand , good idea of yours. I have never been able to find out
what happened to him.
Someone must have barred him - but why ?.

non descript
15th April 2010, 13:54
I had a look in Rightships and yes she is currently showing as a 2 star ship, because of the casualty. Her underlying rating is a 3 star ship and as I see it she has been reduced to 2 star as a result of this incident.

2 star ships do load in Australia. The ship would need to be physically screened by a screener and the history of whatever the reason she is a two star ship would be evaluated. This reason for the reduction to 2 star may be due to an incident or a caualty, a change of owner or manager, age related, a terminal report, a PSC detention or other PSC report, (I think they also include 5 items on the PSC report to the equivalent to a detention (I dont understand that - any PSC in China is 5 items from what I hear).

The Rightship system is OK, but for me the PSC input weighting is too significant. The quality of PSC inspections appears to be deteriorating and therefore the value of the Rightship rating can only be as good as the data input it is using. (hence my pervious posts about PSC etc.)

As underwriters we try to use Rightship but I find it of less use than we had initially hoped. It does not tell us anything that we can't see from having a proper look at the PSC record and lloyds casulty reports.

Rightship is trying to introduce the same sort of vetting criteria, systems and protocols that are usual in the tanker business. Rightship are no where near as sophisticated as the oil majors and the information input is much weaker. On the other hand it does have more transparancy and the dry bulk side of the business needs something like this.

Iain

Iain

Thank you for these helpful and accurate observations.

The way that RightShip is set up is that they take the direct feed from a variety of sources and their system automatically responds to the event; so for example a ship that has 5 stars one morning, but just happens to go aground later in the day and becomes the focus of a Maritime Casualty Report, will automatically trigger the downgrade to 2 Stars regardless of any other factor. It then depends on who and what triggered the report as to whether she remains at this level for 30 days or 12 months.

Your second point is also appreciated; and the idea that 2 Stars = “forbidden to load in Australia” is something the unwary get sucked into believing when they have failed to grasp the point as to what RightShip is. It would be unkind to criticise anyone for jumping to an unwise conclusion, although if they then use that incorrect conclusion to launch an unjustified and rather foolish attack, that is maybe not the best use of the keyboard… (Jester)

Your assessment of the PSC is most accurate, and when it is combined with an automatic feed, we see situations where quality ships are downgraded for the quite inaccurate reasons, and sadly we also see situations where PSC Inspection unfortunately misses something crucial, and a ship that should possibly be just 1 Star, is allowed to retain her 5 stars without justification, thanks to the unsuitable inspection that concentrated on the wrong aspects at the expense of the right ones…

As you wisely conclude, it may not be perfect but it is a lot better than having nothing to police the sub-standard ships, so we should be duly grateful to those who have made a very worthwhile effort to put in place a workable system; even if the final product is often misunderstood by some folk.

(Thumb)
Mark

Billieboy
15th April 2010, 16:03
Alistair 131,seems that owners would be relieving themselves into wind, trying to keep three stars, after a two ton oil spill and a grounding, MARPOL and Lloyds casualty list in the same breath, won't improve relations with that particular data base software!

Andrew Craig-Bennett
15th April 2010, 16:37
The usual trick in those circumstances is to "sell" the ship to someone "completely unrelated" and put her under "new" but "experienced" management.

On the other hand you can just invite an inspection.

Iain B
15th April 2010, 17:16
Question.

Could Shen Neng 1. Incident be DELIBERATE. [Insurance Scam maybe] this vessel could well be reaching the end of her economic life built in 1993.

Portway Sydney Australia.

If someone thought that putting a loaded panamax on the Great Barrier Reef was a good idea for an insurance scam, they will be very dissapointed with the results. This will be very costly and very difficult for the owners and managers to deal with.

The ship still has some good earning years ahead of her and even in this market she is not near the end of her economical life.

If you want to scuttle a ship for insurance it would usually be for a H&M claim and the scenario for this sort of 'suspect incident' would be that a ship goes down with all the evidence in deep water. No cargo on board and no chance of a wreck removal or oil removal. Typically as often the best clue is that the officers on board would be ususually senior and experienced compared to most officers on other ships under the same management.

As Napoleon is supposed to have said "Never ascribe to malice that which is adequately explained by incompetence."

Iain

chadburn
15th April 2010, 17:30
From what I read of the situation I don't think the grounding was deliberate, however, I would be suprised if she was put back in service bearing mind the damage she will have sustained and her age.

non descript
15th April 2010, 17:38
....As Napoleon is supposed to have said "Never ascribe to malice that which is adequately explained by incompetence."

Iain

Very good. (Thumb)

Andrew Craig-Bennett
15th April 2010, 17:43
Someone is doing those sums right now! Depends on the engineroom damage I fancy.

I have known a ship stuffed on a reef for an insurance scam but I was the man charged with finding out what happened - we rumbled it and did not pay. I won't name the owners as they are still in business. They did not think that we would go to the lengths of tracking down their ratings in three continents - the rating's stories all matched. As Iain says, very senior officers on board for that voyage (only) insufficient victualling for the officially intended voyage, salvage tug assistance not sought (when the SMIT ROTTERDAM, no less, passed within view and called up!) and to make assurance doubly sure an engine room fire (shifts the burden of proof, see...)

John Briggs
15th April 2010, 21:13
Iain

Thank you for these helpful and accurate observations.

The way that RightShip is set up is that they take the direct feed from a variety of sources and their system automatically responds to the event; so for example a ship that has 5 stars one morning, but just happens to go aground later in the day and becomes the focus of a Maritime Casualty Report, will automatically trigger the downgrade to 2 Stars regardless of any other factor. It then depends on who and what triggered the report as to whether she remains at this level for 30 days or 12 months.

Your second point is also appreciated; and the idea that 2 Stars = “forbidden to load in Australia” is something the unwary get sucked into believing when they have failed to grasp the point as to what RightShip is. It would be unkind to criticise anyone for jumping to an unwise conclusion, although if they then use that incorrect conclusion to launch an unjustified and rather foolish attack, that is maybe not the best use of the keyboard… (Jester)

Your assessment of the PSC is most accurate, and when it is combined with an automatic feed, we see situations where quality ships are downgraded for the quite inaccurate reasons, and sadly we also see situations where PSC Inspection unfortunately misses something crucial, and a ship that should possibly be just 1 Star, is allowed to retain her 5 stars without justification, thanks to the unsuitable inspection that concentrated on the wrong aspects at the expense of the right ones…

As you wisely conclude, it may not be perfect but it is a lot better than having nothing to police the sub-standard ships, so we should be duly grateful to those who have made a very worthwhile effort to put in place a workable system; even if the final product is often misunderstood by some folk.

(Thumb)
Mark

Very well said Mark. (Thumb) I was waiting patiently for this. (Applause)

Andrew Craig-Bennett
15th April 2010, 21:43
Indeed so.

However I would like to put in a word for the MCA's PSC staff whom I have dealt with in the southeast corner of the UK.

We often find ourselves appointed as protecting agents when a Chinese ship belonging to a private owner is detained in Britain (I have seen enough of Tilbury scrap berth for this lifetime! ;))

I've not yet seen a case where I differed from the MCA surveyor.

Portway
16th April 2010, 02:50
Shen Neng 1 Fatigue and Hull Life Span



Most ships have a lifespan of a few decades before there is so much wear that refitting and repair becomes uneconomical. Shen Neng 1 fast approaching the 20 year mark.



All vessels are built with a given fatigue capacity when leaving the shipyard. This fatigue capacity is being reduced from the very first day in operation. Theoretically, this fatigue capacity reduction is evenly distributed over the projected life span of the vessel. along with Maintenance schedules and procedures etc, actual events however might not mirror theory. Peak stress loads during loading, discharging or heavy weather might accelerate the development of fatigue in the hull.



Average dynamic stress levels of 12% will result in a hull life span of 23 years. An increase of average dynamic stress levels to 18% will reduce hull life span to just 8.6 years. Sheng Neng 1 is already very close to the mark. Being just over seventeen years old and on her third owner perhaps like a car of the same age not a good investment to the average person [the engine may still run but the body is not so good].

Portway Sydney Australia.

reefrat
16th April 2010, 05:43
Re: Napoleon is supposed to have said "Never ascribe to malice that which is adequately explained by incompetence."


Or "If the choice is between a conspiracy and a cock-up,,,cock-up wins every time"

alastairrussell
16th April 2010, 08:57
Dear friends

I disagree with some of the above posts and I am thinking that a few of you might have your heads stuck in the sand. Is it not time to stop defending some of the ‘not so good’ procedures of the past and to start looking ahead into the future to improve the way things are done in the international shipping game. Surely, we all must get behind IMO and the IACS and help them to produce one set of rules, standards and codes for all International Shipping. We owe it to the seafarers.

I do not see any of you being interested in what is in the new IMO code which relates to the loading and discharging of bulk carriers and is supposed to be signed off and come into service next January. I am, and I would like to know if fatigue and working hours gets a mention? Has anyone sighted a copy?

I do also not see any of you being interested in the new IMO PSC inspection and database system that is being introduced at the same time! I am, and I would love to know what is in it.

Iain and Mark

I have read everything I can on RightShip and I see it differently from both of you. I am of the view that this computerised vetting system was introduced in Australia to stop the ‘ships of shame’ and the ban on 15 year old ships being loaded. It would also, stop the ‘iffy’ practise of having a ship blacklist.

The way I read it, Rightship wants to stop a 2 star (unacceptable ships) from being chartered and then sent in ballast to load in Australia. Is it not better that an owner of a 2 star ship improves the ship and gets his extra star before the ship is allowed to be chartered?? I like, computers and good software. I like, AutoCAD design software along with its attached Finite element analysis vetting software. I like it, when a computer with good software vets a ship! I like it even more, when it manages to do this without any human interference or human bias being introduced into the answer!

From Rightships Q and A

Does the system help identify “the bad guys” and the “ships of shame”?

It will show by giving a one or two star rating that a ship is unsuitable for a nominated task. (Reasons could be related, for example, to the ship’s building, age, casualty or terminal/port inspection history, its ownership, management, flag or class society.) We do see vessel casualties, or vessels ‘blacklisted’ by ports, that have earlier been rated as unacceptable by our system, and therefore avoided by our clients.[/I]

We have to realise that some of our Australian mineral loading ports do not have safe anchorages, major repair facilities or detention and lay up berths for the large Bulk carriers. To keep the queues of ships down to a reasonable level we have to turn the ships round quickly. We do not have the time or the facilities to inspect and hand out stars. Surely, surely, the onus has to put back on the shipowner to get his ship in a three star rating situation before it is chartered!!!.

With regards to the Chen Seng1 I remember back in the early 70’s when we loaded our panamax bulk carrier in Port Hedland in 8 hours (two loaders). It was a two team effort one loading the iron ore fines and the other pumping the ballast out. It was not a one man show! Even then, in the engine room we adjusted the change over time of the sea watches when leaving to ensure that the watch keepers got some rest.

Iain, it will be very interesting to see what happens to her. With the engine room now being flooded, it will a long tow up to the nearest economic repair facilities say in Singapore. If the DBs in the ME area are damaged, this could have affected the ME alignment! Go into the ATSB site and look up the grounding of the MV Iron Baron. She was 10 years old and they de-oiled the ship and then towed her out to sea and sunk her in 4000 metres of water with her cargo still onboard. In Australia we call it the ‘Tyranny of Distance’ and with the Chen Neng 1 only being a 3 star ship when she left China I just cannot see how she will not be a write off. Time will tell. Depending on her damage Gladstone harbour authorities may refuse her entry into their port.

Can you tell me where I can obtain any information on the new IMO PSC code along with the new the new database THETIS?


Andrew

Regarding the Parkgate case I am not really interested in the money side of it. It was the information gleamed from the long and drawn out court case that upset the shipping owners and the authorities out here. I am sorry but I the see the lessons learnt from the Parkgate mess as being one of the many reasons that would have prompted a charterer to feel the need for some charter or ship buying checking software or system.

Re The Mineral Diamond, I read the report in the ATSB website so I now have to ask you what did you think happened there? She is definitely another Derbyshire. I have looked at the Mineral Diamond so you can maybe have a wee look at the Iron Baron

I see you were not happy when the AUS police arrived onboard the Shen Neng 1. I say no worries; I promise YU we won’t do a HU on the master or the mate.

Andrew, I think you have more to fear from the new UK Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide ACT 2007. That’s the bad one, that’s the one which could put you in jail! I see it refers to the ‘controlling mind’ and this law was brought in as a result of the ‘Herald of Free Enterprise fiasco’. Maybe you should have your container boats drop off their containers on the continent and you can stay away from UK or if you can’t, try hard not to upset the UK MCA and always say nice things about them! Remember how the masters of the HOFE wrote letters to the management complaining about the loading practices by the shore side staff!


Dear friends

I have to say that this web site is supposed to be an international web site and some of you know my views and feelings about the UK shipping establishment and even the London shipowners. In reporting some of my anti British nostalgic experiences I expect to cop a bit of flack or incoming fire and in some cases I look forward to it. I tell you when my memory lets me down but please realise that everything I say is the truth as I saw it, and that I am actually holding back on telling you the real bad ones.

I try hard to be careful what I say in my posts and in doing so you can see that I do a bit of cutting and pasting and note I always acknowledge where I got it from. I leave it up to a reader of the post to read between the lines if he wishes.

Regards

Alastair

Santos
16th April 2010, 10:33
Tonga

Go back to School mate!! Two star bulk carriers are not allowed to load in Australia!!.

So why was she sent down to Gladstone?

Tell me Tonga why has her AIS been switched off before and after she ran aground? She still does not register!

Google earth now registers all the AIS Ships, yachts and boats that have got the gear onboard.

And I thought you were a RO?

Alastair

Alastair

Reading this thread I am quite frankly been appalled by this post of yours. Its rude and its wrong. Tonga is in fact a Master Mariner and I think deserves respect for that and an apology from you. You cant just appear on a Forum and then proceed to be downright rude, whilst getting your facts wrong

Personally I think an apology is in order.


Chris.

non descript
16th April 2010, 11:12
Dear friends

I disagree with some of the above posts and I am thinking that a few of you might have your heads stuck in the sand. Is it not time to stop defending some of the ‘not so good’ procedures of the past and to start looking ahead into the future to improve the way things are done in the international shipping game. Surely, we all must get behind IMO and the IACS and help them to produce one set of rules, standards and codes for all International Shipping. We owe it to the seafarers.

....
Regards

Alastair

Alastair has written well in his # 148 and his opening words “We owe it to the seafarers” is wholly correct and anything that serves to ensure the Mariners of today are better looked after than their forebears, is clearly the proper way to proceed.

Without going into a long thesis, as this has already been done, it is good to underline the need to have a genuine system of ship monitoring that actually works in practice. Without being critical of any particular body, the PSC Inspections are a big step in the right direction, as is the Ship Vetting Service from the likes of RightShip, but sadly there is still a mountain to climb. - It is indeed a little unfortunate that Shen Neng 1 decided to climb one that was underwater… (Jester)
(Thumb)
Mark

greektoon
16th April 2010, 11:20
Someone is doing those sums right now! Depends on the engineroom damage I fancy.

I have known a ship stuffed on a reef for an insurance scam but I was the man charged with finding out what happened - we rumbled it and did not pay. I won't name the owners as they are still in business. They did not think that we would go to the lengths of tracking down their ratings in three continents - the rating's stories all matched. As Iain says, very senior officers on board for that voyage (only) insufficient victualling for the officially intended voyage, salvage tug assistance not sought (when the SMIT ROTTERDAM, no less, passed within view and called up!) and to make assurance doubly sure an engine room fire (shifts the burden of proof, see...)

I think I know the case you refer to. No need to be coy, its in the public domain anyway.

Andrew Craig-Bennett
16th April 2010, 12:00
I think I know the case you refer to. No need to be coy, its in the public domain anyway.

I think you probably do. The XXX Club (my employers) did not pay and the H&M underwriters wimped out, which resulted in cargo Mareva'ing the H&M proceeds as there was no Club Letter. My late friend Peter Jones did the legwork. Delighted to see that his daughter is carrying on the business.

Ron Stringer
16th April 2010, 12:47
I like it, when a computer with good software vets a ship! I like it even more, when it manages to do this without any human interference or human bias being introduced into the answer!


Alastair,

Unfortunately (for your proposition, but fortunately for those who don't have to put our faith in unthinking machines) the computer only does what its software instructs it to do. Software is written by a human - all judgements, and actions taken are based on that human's interpretation of the opertational requirements. His/her understanding of the process are used to weight the importance of various factors involved in the decision-making.

So you have their human bias (and fallibilities) built into the decisions that the computer makes. Worse still, the computer never learns from its mistakes, but faithfully repeats them ad infinitum, until a human is instructed to re-write the software.

Billieboy
16th April 2010, 13:28
Alastair,

Unfortunately (for your proposition, but fortunately for those who don't have to put our faith in unthinking machines) the computer only does what its software instructs it to do. Software is written by a human - all judgements, and actions taken are based on that human's interpretation of the opertational requirements. His/her understanding of the process are used to weight the importance of various factors involved in the decision-making.

So you have their human bias (and fallibilities) built into the decisions that the computer makes. Worse still, the computer never learns from its mistakes, but faithfully repeats them ad infinitum, until a human is instructed to re-write the software.

I also like cad-cam and data bases, however as smart as the software may be, it doesn't flag up stress damage and cracking at bulkhead collars, nor does it measure corroded ballast tank vent pipes, and/or damaged ballast tank coatings.

Also, there is nothing on the bridge which guarantees that the, "watch-keeper", is keeping a watch!

Having seen as many bulk carriers/VLOOCs/OBOs and other rusting, floating, deathtraps, as I have; I've long wondered why reasonably intelligent seafarers go to sea in them! As for "Mountain Thistle", I have written a few words about this vessel and it's successors, (in hull numbers), elsewhere on this forum.

You see Alistair, cad-cam is all very well and good for design and theoretical loading, but the bloody computer does NOT carry out the high quality welding and weld inspection during and after construction.

Andrew Craig-Bennett
16th April 2010, 13:51
Well, I put my employers' money where my mouth was, on that one, 16 years ago.

We spent an awful lot of time and quite a lot of money on building a better bulker -30mm tank tops, abrasion resistant epoxy, intercostals, strengthened bulkheads, avoidance of stool space cracking, hydraulic rack and pinion roll up roll covers, programmable hold cleaning guns with eductors and a free fall lifeboat a decade before the IMO made them mandatory:

http://www.shipsnostalgia.com/gallery/showphoto.php/photo/77977/title/erradale/cat/510

Known to her builders as "the yellow Rolls-Royce"!

I'd be interested to know how she scored on Rightship, if anyone with access cares to check.

non descript
16th April 2010, 14:37
Well, I put my employers' money where my mouth was, on that one, 16 years ago.

We spent an awful lot of time and quite a lot of money on building a better bulker ...

I'd be interested to know how she scored on Rightship, if anyone with access cares to check.

Although it is only a guide, at the moment she has 4 Stars (and is called ERRADALE STAR which is fun)

Billieboy
16th April 2010, 14:54
Well, I put my employers' money where my mouth was, on that one, 16 years ago.

We spent an awful lot of time and quite a lot of money on building a better bulker -30mm tank tops, abrasion resistant epoxy, intercostals, strengthened bulkheads, avoidance of stool space cracking, hydraulic rack and pinion roll up roll covers, programmable hold cleaning guns with eductors and a free fall lifeboat a decade before the IMO made them mandatory:

http://www.shipsnostalgia.com/gallery/showphoto.php/photo/77977/title/erradale/cat/510

Known to her builders as "the yellow Rolls-Royce"!

I'd be interested to know how she scored on Rightship, if anyone with access cares to check.

It's appreciated Andrew, but it could have been done much earlier, not necessarily by you; but by the industry! Lower manning scale calls for ease of cleaning, as does specialised coating.

I've been out of the repair field since '94, so I'm not as familiar with the new systems as you are. The old basic rules will still apply though, a damaged coating is a potential hole, how big depends on the standard of CMS inspections and repairs.

Andrew Craig-Bennett
16th April 2010, 15:41
Although it is only a guide, at the moment she has 4 Stars (and is called ERRADALE STAR which is fun)

Thanks.

She was sold to Lou Kollakis six years ago with a five year bare boat charterback to CNCo.

She was in part a reaction against the loss of the "Mineral Diamond".

The idea was to build a bulker that would last, and which could be operated safely by a small crew over a long time; in the event I think we can say that we suceeded.

The reason we went to H&W was in part the excellence of their hull design department (I'd particularly like to mention John Bedford) and in part the refusal of Eastern yards to accept that we were serious about putting seven thousand tons of "unnecessary" steel into a ship.

Portway
17th April 2010, 01:22
Extract from the Australian Newspaper 0900Hrs 17 04 2010.


Bad weather prevented divers from doing any further investigations of the hull of the Shen Neng 1, now lying in deeper waters off Great Keppel Island. Because the rough weather is expected to continue, the salvage company that must decide the future of the ship is considering using a robotic submarine to do the inspections.

Maritime Safety Queensland general manager Patrick Quirk said there had been no leakage from the ship despite the rolling caused by the swell.

The ship is holding well and the situation is stable with no emerging issues of concern.

Portway Sydney Australia.

John Briggs
17th April 2010, 02:12
.......... I do not see any of you being interested in what is in the new IMO code which relates to the loading and discharging of bulk carriers and is supposed to be signed off and come into service next January. I am, and I would like to know if fatigue and working hours gets a mention? Has anyone sighted a copy?

I do also not see any of you being interested in the new IMO PSC inspection and database system that is being introduced at the same time! I am, and I would love to know what is in it..............



Alastair,

You can keep up to date with all these matters on the IMO web site!

alastairrussell
17th April 2010, 08:28
Bill and Ron,

When I gave up going to sea in 1985, I worked design verifying and investigating boiler and pressure vessel failures for a government OH and S department.

It was easy, all boilers and PVs in Australia had to be built, welded, tested, operated and maintained to an Australian or sometimes an overseas standard. All the Australian PV standard documents were all crossed referenced.

Way back then, we had a quite simple software programmed in GW Basic which was written to detect any non compliance in the design drawings put up for verifying and built to a particular Standard . You fed in all the data from the drawings into an old steam driven Wang computer and it beeped when it found a non compliance! It was easy!

During a failure investigation all an inspector has to do then was to collect or photograph the evidence and then detail all the non compliances to the appropriate PV standard in his investigation report. This made the inspector’s job real easy when being cross examined in the witness stand. Everything is either in compliance or is sub standard, there are no gray areas!

The international shipping industry still suffers from a wee bit of basic dishonesty and corrupt activities. We all remember back in the old days before improvements in communication came in when the master of the ship had real power. The company orders to the master then was ‘you must expedite the ship at all times’! The cost of all this expediting of his ship was just passed on into the discharge costs. I remember one of my favourite skippers delaying the ship in a USA port for 24 hours because he did not want his ship putting to sea on a black Friday. Can you imagine that happening in this day and age?

Bill, if we could end up with IMO and IACS having one set of codes, standards and regulations for all international ships. It would surely make the job of all PSC, marine and engineering surveyors a lot easier. There will be no gray areas, no local standards being used. Everything on the ship including the welding will either be in compliance or substandard to the IMO/IACS rules. If substandard welding of ship hulls becomes an issue in the future the welding standard will be changed and there could be an increase in the amount of NDT done on welding runs with all defective welding found, being gouged out and rewelded.

There have been some great developments introduced by the IT industry. You only have to look at velocity prediction programmes (VPP) being used in designing fast racing sailboats. From the VPP they have now developed new computerised design handicapping systems that are very accurate. They have stopped using biased human inputs from the hands of the club handicapper.

The IT industry is also making it harder for all criminals. I have been on a few juries and I was surprised at the amount of evidence being used that is coming in from large data bases. Out here they brought in a new law to stop money laundering for the purpose of importing illegal drugs. It was not long after that they then caught a swag of fine up standing chartered accountants! They linked them to the drug boss by looking into the telephone company’s large computerised data base of client’s phone calls!

The AU government here has spent $300,000,000 putting in new computers so that all government departments can talk to each other and cross check their records automatically. The word is out that you cannot now tell the income tax office one thing and the pension and unemployment agency another!!

Electronic systems are now doing a better job of looking after the ER than a human watch keeper so I would of course prefer a good well built UMS engine roomed ship to a watch keeping one.

Mind you, I did like doing the 4 to 8 watch and then turning too after breakfast to do a wee bit of maintenance. I was a second engineer for the majority of my time at sea and I think I fitted in well in this position. Even now I wake every morning automatically at 4 and start planning my day. It is strange my memory comes good then and I am a sharp as a tack and after that it’s all down hill during the day.

I was never comfortable when sailing as chief, maybe I was born to be on the 4 to 8 watch.

With regards to your comment about who would want to go to sea on some of these rust buckets. I see that INCO one of the last Australian owned ship management companies wants 40 qualified marine engineers, 20 deck officers and 30 ratings.

Its Chief engineers get 130 to 150 thousand dollars AU per year and the leave rate is just about one on one off (.926). They are getting a lot of applicants but none of them have the proper skill or qualifications!

Regards

Alastair

Billieboy
17th April 2010, 09:32
Alistair, I agree that standards have risen since 1980, but despite the various computer programmes being upgraded and improved on a regular basis, the information put into the computers still requires an experienced eye to be dragged through double bottoms and up stringers to under deck positions on bulkheads in tanks and holds 30-40M deep. You know yourself, that it takes a week to inspect the eight corners of every Bulkhead in a reasonably big, (200K+ dwt), ship. Time, is what the, general ship, owner never has for safety inspections!

PSC does, at last, remove most of the deathtraps, but it has taken more than twenty years to get the system running in a reasonable manner. I remember discussing PSC with some of the senior Surveyors in Rotterdam just after the system was started. With a hundred ships coming into Rotterdam every day, there were a total of five inspectors! There are a few more these days and the information is passed on from State to State; this catches the odd dodger quite easily.

boyd guard
17th April 2010, 11:19
billieboy,passed the torry canyon as they blew her up with bombs, have identical photo as in the book.

Billieboy
17th April 2010, 20:10
You were lucky not to get hit then Boyd! What a bender that would have been, on the Barrier Reef!

alastairrussell
18th April 2010, 05:17
Alastair,

You can keep up to date with all these matters on the IMO web site!

JB

Thanks for the info about the IMO website, I already have IMO in my favourites list and I do scan it now and again.

I get the feeling that they want me to purchase the codes rather than read them on their website. With me being a Scottish born Australian! I am now a wee bit of a ‘retired Meany’ and would rather spend my pennies elsewhere!!

I did check my so called International Seagoing qualifications on the IMO website and I was put out that the AMSA had me down as having ‘expired qualifications’.

I wanted to be able to operate a steam boat or launch here in Gippsland Lakes in VIC. So I contacted Marine Safety Victoria asking for a state coastal steam engineers ticket in lieu of my expired Australian Commonwealth class 1 steam and motor certificate. I was then told that they only issued tickets in lieu of a National certificate if they are valid!

I then said “what’s this National Certificate, in my day it was either a deep sea or a coastal certificate and it would cost me arm and leg in accommodation costs alone to re-validate my DEEP SEA ticket”. Ï said “It would be a lot cheaper for me to sit your exam, but in doing so it’s only fair to me that you insure that my examiner should have valid class 1 steam ticket”. There was deathly silence on the phone! I then checked if my NSW Boiler Inspector Licence was still valid and it is.

In all fairness to them and the AMSA it appears they are only complying with the IMO’s new STCW international maritime qualification system and the high cost of revalidating marine qualifications privately is an Australian problem! It looks like I will just have to carry on using my sails along with the 20 HP Yanmar diesel.

Regards

Alastair

John Briggs
18th April 2010, 05:59
I fully understand your feelings Alastair and can't argue with what you are saying.
It is worthwhile remembering that to revalidate our certificates every five years is totally free if we can prove one year sea time during the previous five years. Otherwise, as you say, it costs an arm and a leg to do the course.
It is not just an Australian problem but is supposed to be worldwide following the introduction of STCW 95 which tightened up requirements internationally. The STCW Convention is at this moment being further strengthened so that hopefully world wide standards will be improved once again.

Iain B
18th April 2010, 11:37
Shen Neng 1 Fatigue and Hull Life Span



Most ships have a lifespan of a few decades before there is so much wear that refitting and repair becomes uneconomical. Shen Neng 1 fast approaching the 20 year mark.



All vessels are built with a given fatigue capacity when leaving the shipyard. This fatigue capacity is being reduced from the very first day in operation. Theoretically, this fatigue capacity reduction is evenly distributed over the projected life span of the vessel. along with Maintenance schedules and procedures etc, actual events however might not mirror theory. Peak stress loads during loading, discharging or heavy weather might accelerate the development of fatigue in the hull.



Average dynamic stress levels of 12% will result in a hull life span of 23 years. An increase of average dynamic stress levels to 18% will reduce hull life span to just 8.6 years. Sheng Neng 1 is already very close to the mark. Being just over seventeen years old and on her third owner perhaps like a car of the same age not a good investment to the average person [the engine may still run but the body is not so good].

Portway Sydney Australia.

Portway

Material fatigue and this sort of techical question is a long way out side my knowledge and competence, but I do remember having a long meeting about it with some class society people and some academics from a large university's Naval Arch faculty.

This would be in 92? (maybe 93?) when bulk carrier losses were a very serious concern. As I recall someone had published a technical paper and this fatigue issue had been raised. I also seem to recall that the UK Govnmt were trying to sell a warship to the Indians and then they were told it had reached it's 'fatigue' end of life.

I don't remember much about the technical briefing at all (due to not understanding most of it) but I do recall a few comments "mild steel is a very forgiving material" and I do remember that the Class people were promoting the new IACS Unified Requirements and they were confident this would address any fatigue problems.

Of course there is an increasing possibility of damage or failure in an older ship, but the number and value of Hull claims on older ships (of all ship types) has imporved since the 90's. We do not see structural failures starting at 9 and 10 years old.

I would not (and could not) disagree with your technical arguments, but the in built design strength of ships and the current inspection regime seems to be achieving what we hoped for.

As Andrew suggests, ~I am sure that whether the Shen Neng 1 ends up as a Total loss will be a judgement based on an assessment of the amount of damage in the Engine room.


Iain

Iain B
18th April 2010, 12:25
Dear friends

I disagree with some of the above posts and I am thinking that a few of you might have your heads stuck in the sand. Is it not time to stop defending some of the ‘not so good’ procedures of the past and to start looking ahead into the future to improve the way things are done in the international shipping game. Surely, we all must get behind IMO and the IACS and help them to produce one set of rules, standards and codes for all International Shipping. We owe it to the seafarers.

I do not see any of you being interested in what is in the new IMO code which relates to the loading and discharging of bulk carriers and is supposed to be signed off and come into service next January. I am, and I would like to know if fatigue and working hours gets a mention? Has anyone sighted a copy?

I do also not see any of you being interested in the new IMO PSC inspection and database system that is being introduced at the same time! I am, and I would love to know what is in it.

Iain and Mark

I have read everything I can on RightShip and I see it differently from both of you. I am of the view that this computerised vetting system was introduced in Australia to stop the ‘ships of shame’ and the ban on 15 year old ships being loaded. It would also, stop the ‘iffy’ practise of having a ship blacklist.

The way I read it, Rightship wants to stop a 2 star (unacceptable ships) from being chartered and then sent in ballast to load in Australia. Is it not better that an owner of a 2 star ship improves the ship and gets his extra star before the ship is allowed to be chartered?? I like, computers and good software. I like, AutoCAD design software along with its attached Finite element analysis vetting software. I like it, when a computer with good software vets a ship! I like it even more, when it manages to do this without any human interference or human bias being introduced into the answer!


We have to realise that some of our Australian mineral loading ports do not have safe anchorages, major repair facilities or detention and lay up berths for the large Bulk carriers. To keep the queues of ships down to a reasonable level we have to turn the ships round quickly. We do not have the time or the facilities to inspect and hand out stars. Surely, surely, the onus has to put back on the shipowner to get his ship in a three star rating situation before it is chartered!!!.

With regards to the Chen Seng1 I remember back in the early 70’s when we loaded our panamax bulk carrier in Port Hedland in 8 hours (two loaders). It was a two team effort one loading the iron ore fines and the other pumping the ballast out. It was not a one man show! Even then, in the engine room we adjusted the change over time of the sea watches when leaving to ensure that the watch keepers got some rest.

Iain, it will be very interesting to see what happens to her. With the engine room now being flooded, it will a long tow up to the nearest economic repair facilities say in Singapore. If the DBs in the ME area are damaged, this could have affected the ME alignment! Go into the ATSB site and look up the grounding of the MV Iron Baron. She was 10 years old and they de-oiled the ship and then towed her out to sea and sunk her in 4000 metres of water with her cargo still onboard. In Australia we call it the ‘Tyranny of Distance’ and with the Chen Neng 1 only being a 3 star ship when she left China I just cannot see how she will not be a write off. Time will tell. Depending on her damage Gladstone harbour authorities may refuse her entry into their port.

Can you tell me where I can obtain any information on the new IMO PSC code along with the new the new database THETIS?




Dear friends



Regards

Alastair

Alastair

A few comments on some of the points made.

IMO Code on bulk carrier loading - I guess this is the BLU code? This is in force and has been for a while. There was a whole raft of new Bulk carriers regs rolled out in the mid 90's and I am sure this was one of them.

Fatigue - STCW includes rest hour requirements for watchkeepers. The new MLC convention will mean work and rest hours are regulated for all crew members.

Computers vs Humans - My problem is that the computer (including Rightship's computer) only calculate risk based on the information that is inputed. PSC inspectors are not superheroes ans some are not even basically competent. Rightship relies heavily on PSC input and considers an inspection by a corrupt inspector in certain ports to be of the same value as an inspection by a qualified and experienced inspector somewhere else. A clear inspetion will imporeve the rightship rating (an owner can bribe these people -in fact some of them expect to be bribed). Not only does he get a short and painless inspection, but he gets his star rating enhanced and the users of the system are misled.

Even in 'good' ports so called 'good' PSC inspectors are limited in what they can do and what they are allowed to do. They do not do structural inspctions, they do not go into the holds.

Shen Neng CTL - The current Rightship rating of a Panamax will have no bearing at all on a commercial / insurance decision to see if she will be CTL or not. She will have an insured value and if the cost of repair is greater than the insured value then she will be a CTL. if not she won't. I do not know what her insured value is, but Panamaxes are earning decent money. Looking at Sale & Purchase reports I would guess she has a resale value of 25 -30 million dollars. You can do a lot of repairs for 20 Million.


IMO PSC Codes
IMO encourages PSC regimes to be set up on a regional basis in an attempt to maintain some control and sanity. i.e. prevent PSC inspections in every port (should only be inspected once, when it's due, in each PSC region) and try to maintain some comon interpretations. This does not work either different inspectors in the same port see things differently.

The new system you refer to is the Paris MOU (EU) PSC region. A clever system devised by clever people using data input of variable and unreliable quality.


Iain

Andrew Craig-Bennett
18th April 2010, 14:16
When we were coming up with the Erradale I spent quite a while having fatigue in steel structures explained to me, along with related matters like stress corrosion cracking. The type of steel has an awful lot to do with it.

alastairrussell
20th April 2010, 02:19
Alastair

A few comments on some of the points made.

IMO Code on bulk carrier loading - I guess this is the BLU code? This is in force and has been for a while. There was a whole raft of new Bulk carriers regs rolled out in the mid 90's and I am sure this was one of them.

Fatigue - STCW includes rest hour requirements for watchkeepers. The new MLC convention will mean work and rest hours are regulated for all crew members.

Computers vs Humans - My problem is that the computer (including Rightship's computer) only calculate risk based on the information that is inputed. PSC inspectors are not superheroes ans some are not even basically competent. Rightship relies heavily on PSC input and considers an inspection by a corrupt inspector in certain ports to be of the same value as an inspection by a qualified and experienced inspector somewhere else. A clear inspetion will imporeve the rightship rating (an owner can bribe these people -in fact some of them expect to be bribed). Not only does he get a short and painless inspection, but he gets his star rating enhanced and the users of the system are misled.

Even in 'good' ports so called 'good' PSC inspectors are limited in what they can do and what they are allowed to do. They do not do structural inspctions, they do not go into the holds.

Shen Neng CTL - The current Rightship rating of a Panamax will have no bearing at all on a commercial / insurance decision to see if she will be CTL or not. She will have an insured value and if the cost of repair is greater than the insured value then she will be a CTL. if not she won't. I do not know what her insured value is, but Panamaxes are earning decent money. Looking at Sale & Purchase reports I would guess she has a resale value of 25 -30 million dollars. You can do a lot of repairs for 20 Million.


IMO PSC Codes
IMO encourages PSC regimes to be set up on a regional basis in an attempt to maintain some control and sanity. i.e. prevent PSC inspections in every port (should only be inspected once, when it's due, in each PSC region) and try to maintain some comon interpretations. This does not work either different inspectors in the same port see things differently.

The new system you refer to is the Paris MOU (EU) PSC region. A clever system devised by clever people using data input of variable and unreliable quality.


Iain

Iain

Thanks for all your info. With regard to the new code of practice due in January, I am confused as I have sighted conflicting information. I would like to say now, that there is a strong ‘possibility’ that your BLU book is being replaced by a new code with a different name. This new IMO code is on sale at the moment and is graded as being voluntary perhaps becoming compulsory in January 2012. But please do not take my word for it. I am confused!.

I have attached the following from the AMSA dated march 2007. The full document can be viewed in their website.

Following the dramatic increase in the number of bulk carrier incidents and the loss of their crews, the International Maritime Organization (IMO) developed and subsequently adopted a wide range of safety measures designed to improve the safety of bulk carriers.

Included in these safety measures are requirements for improving the strength and maintenance of bulk carriers, guidelines for their inspection at terminals (IMO Resolution A.866 (20)) and recommendations concerning the loading and unloading of bulk cargoes. The latter are published in the “Code of Practice for the Safe Loading and Unloading of Bulk Carriers” (Res. A.862 (20)), which was adopted by the IMO in November 1997 and amended by MSC.238(82) effective from the 1st of January 2007. The Code is important as it addresses the issue of safety of bulk carriers in ports whereas other IMO measures are primarily concerned with the safety of bulk carriers at sea. It provides a realistic and pragmatic risk management framework, and covers all solid bulk cargoes except grain. Guidance on such matters as the suitability of ships, procedures between ships and shore, cargo transfer and ballast handling is included in the Code.

The Code primarily stems from an Australian initiative at IMO. It was subsequently developed in consultation with, and the support of, Australian industry including shipowners, the mining industry represented by the Minerals Council of Australia and bulk cargo terminal operators. AMSA gratefully acknowledges the active and ongoing assistance of these parties in the development of the Code.

Amendments to SOLAS Chapter VI, which enter into force internationally on 1 July 1998, provide for a terminal representative to be appointed and makes reference to the Code. The recommendations of the Code include guidance on the functions of the terminal representative in relation to good practice and the loading and unloading of solid bulk cargoes. Most Australian terminals have staff whose duties include managing the interface with the ship and would satisfy the terminal representative requirement.

The Australian Government is committed to the preservation on the marine environment and the protection of life and property at sea. AMSA endorses the Code in the belief that it makes a valuable contribution to the attainment of this objective and recommends its use by ships, cargo interests and terminals involved in the loading or unloading of solid bulk cargoes. This can only help to achieve the aim of safe ships and clean oceans.

I had a look at the new Paris MOU PSC region website, I like it and hope it goes well. With regard to the corrupted inputs into the present PSC system that’s a different story.

The whole international shipping industry and most waterfronts have always been dishonest and corrupt and it was real bad well before the letters PSC appeared. I am not game to tell you about some of my experiences. Remember the rule, the ‘master must expedite his ship’. On the other side, I sailed with a master that refused to sign a bill unless he got his 5%, so you can imagine what his nick name was! He even put the ‘heavies’ on the old dobie lady for cut in her takings!

Do you remember when the LR localised some of their overseas offices??

I was in one bad port in Asia were the payoffs paid by the ships agents was exactly the same as the total discharge costs!

I remember when there was a major corruption clamp down in the USA waterfront during a big political corruption scandal that was going on then. The dry dock people even stopped supplying us with a TV for the officer’s lounge. What about the Australian painters and dockers union!

I honestly feel computer systems have or will reduce this problem. Everyone’s actions including the surveyors are now on public display in databases and remember too, the email documentation system used by major companies is also catching a few execs out. The cash society is on the way out.

If IMO manages to produce good competent written Codes and Standards, I am sure the software programmers will to do the same.


Alastair

Duncan112
20th April 2010, 05:08
When we were coming up with the Erradale I spent quite a while having fatigue in steel structures explained to me, along with related matters like stress corrosion cracking. The type of steel has an awful lot to do with it.

It is indeed complex, I did my thesis for my EC examination on prediction of life in a bulk carrier structure, the nub of the problem was the length of any defect that would lead to sudden structural failure and the number of stress cycles that would cause an undetected defect (weld inclusion) to propagate to this length. Until we have 100% radiographs of welds we will have the potential problem of ships structures having a finite (but unknown) life, we can take a punt at loss of integrity due to corrosion and when the stress imposed on the structure will get on the wrong side of the sn curve but not on the size of any defect that will develop into a crack. Having been on a ship that developed serious hull cracks (having only recently passed a special survey in dock) it is frightening (and what prompted me in my thesis subject)

The earlier estimate of 23 years roughly coincided with my estimates from a 1mm weld defect. The reduction in life is roughly exponential with increase in defect size.

THe stress monitoring set up on Erradale was very valuable for seeing the change in stress due to weather and course - does Andrew know if it is still in use?

Duncan

Portway
20th April 2010, 05:59
From the Morning Bulletin Rochampton Queensland. 20 04 2010.

The Shen Neng 1 is to be brought to Gladstone for the next stage of the salvage operation.

The bulk coal carrier will be brought into Gladstone to unload coal and potentially undergo repairs before being towed overseas, maritime officials have announced.

An entry to Gladstone on Thursday is probable provided weather conditions are suitable.

Maritime Safety Queensland General Manager Patrick Quirk said salvage experts had indicated the Shen Neng 1 required repairs and some cargo to be discharged prior to being towed directly to a foreign port.

“Because it was so damaged in the grounding the ship probably needs to have a significant amount of coal unloaded and potentially have some temporary repairs undertaken before it leaves Australian waters,” Mr Quirk said.

“But make no mistake, while it remains in our waters we’ll be taking every possible precaution to ensure we take care of the ship and minimise the risk of further oil discharge.”

Gladstone Ports Corporation CEO Leo Zussino was yesterday unable to comment on the move to bring the carrier here because of his position on the Australian Maritime Safety Authority.

He said, however, all relevant authorities were putting plans in place to ensure the Gladstone public was well informed of the planned exercise.

Portway Sydney Australia.

Billieboy
20th April 2010, 16:39
The main problem that I have with all these, "Rules and Safe Operational Practice", regs is that eventually scantlings will be measured to allow operation within the regs, irrespective of the age and or the corroded state of other parts of the vessel. We have already heard that PSC, "stays on the deck", and that, other than class, no-one is required to go mountaineering through the vessel.

Agreed; there are owners who ensure that their vessels are properly maintained, yet when those vessels are sold, where is the regulation, (other than special survey - a class requirement), which removes poor vessels from the trade? Let us not forget that the shipping master who signs on the crew is only required to check the load line and SOLAS certificates; the seamen's union guy just collects the dues from the seafarers.

chadburn
20th April 2010, 17:35
The practise use to be that the first owner (from new) kept them for around 7 yrs and then paper moved them to a subsidary working under F.O.C. and I would have thought that if a vessel had been involved in a serious incident it's Star rating would be zeroed until the inquiry was completed, at the moment it's just a Hulk.

Andrew Craig-Bennett
20th April 2010, 18:13
(I'm going to parade some specialised knowledge, here..;)) I suspect, reading between the lines, that there is a right royal barney going on between Shenzhen Energy Transport and Svitzers over redelivery from the Lloyd's Form. LOF requires the vessel to be delivered to her owners by the salvors in a "place of safety" and it can certainly be argued, and probably is being argued, that "at anchor of the Queensland coast" is not a "place of safety" if you are a dead ship floating on your tank tops. In the old days (1970's, in my case!) the SA surveyor (when there were such people) would have pulled a long face if asked for a certificate of seaworthiness for an ocean tow on tank tops with the cargo still aboard. So SET want the ship alongside and some at least of the cargo out. The salvors on the other hand know that every day spent adds to their costs without a corresponding increase in the salvage award, so they want to redeliver the ship as soon as possible.

Portway
21st April 2010, 04:02
From The Morning Bulletin Rockampton Queensland 1200 HRS 21 04 2010

The Shen Neng 1 coal carrier is on its way to Gladstone.

The towing of the ship from Barren Island, near Great Keppel Island, started this morning and a Department of Transport and Main Roads spokesman said “weather and port operations will determine final time of arrival.”

It is being taken back to Gladstone for repairs before it can be taken to a foreign port.

Portway Sydney Australia.

non descript
21st April 2010, 08:44
Thank you for the update (Thumb)

NoR
21st April 2010, 09:41
...was watch keeping and navigational incompetence. Nothing whatever to do with how many 'stars' the ship had or how old she was or the thickness of her scantlings. There have been a few incidents of this type, they stem from misuse (or misunderstanding ?) of the navigation system.

The problem (as I see it) with these systems is that they are too good and allow people to get away with operating in an unseamanlike fashion for 99.9% of the time and of course the 0.1% can be embarrassing.

In my day it was drummed into our heads that electronic aids such as decca, gyro and radar where just that 'aids' and not to be relied upon. Good advice then, and it still is.

Billieboy
21st April 2010, 10:12
...was watch keeping and navigational incompetence. Nothing whatever to do with how many 'stars' the ship had or how old she was or the thickness of her scantlings. There have been a few incidents of this type, they stem from misuse (or misunderstanding ?) of the navigation system.

The problem (as I see it) with these systems is that they are too good and allow people to get away with operating in an unseamanlike fashion for 99.9% of the time and of course the 0.1% can be embarrassing.

In my day it was drummed into our heads that electronic aids such as decca, gyro and radar where just that 'aids' and not to be relied upon. Good advice then, and it still is.

Aids to Navigation do NOT alter course, or wake up the watchkeeper!

NoR
21st April 2010, 10:49
Unfortunately Billieboy they do alter course..sometimes without waking the watchkeeper.

Andrew Craig-Bennett
21st April 2010, 12:32
I am not comfortable with the use of the word "incompetence", which has a fairly precise legal meaning - "unable to do the job, because of a lack of skills, training and education". We don't have any evidence from the Report of Preliminary Investigation released by the ATSB:http://atsb.gov.au/media/1371728/mo2010003_prelim.pdf that the Chief Officer was incompetent; all the indications are that he was, in fact, competent.

What we do have is abundant evidence that he was too tired to safely take charge of a navigational watch. His behaviour is absolutely typical of a man suffering the effects of severe fatigue, as set out in the IMO document on fatigue at sea, circular MSC 1014 : http://www.imo.org/includes/blastDataOnly.asp/data_id%3D2476/1014.pdf

non descript
21st April 2010, 13:19
I am not comfortable with the use of the word "incompetence", which has a fairly precise legal meaning - ..

Very wise words Andrew (Applause)

NoR
21st April 2010, 14:31
If putting a perfectly serviceable ship aground in good weather isn't evidence of incompetence then I don't know what is.

Of course we can pick the legal fly **** out of the pepper for ever although personally I wouldn't waste my time.

teb
21st April 2010, 15:07
I am not comfortable with the use of the word "incompetence", which has a fairly precise legal meaning - "unable to do the job, because of a lack of skills, training and education". We don't have any evidence from the Report of Preliminary Investigation released by the ATSB:http://atsb.gov.au/media/1371728/mo2010003_prelim.pdf that the Chief Officer was incompetent; all the indications are that he was, in fact, competent.

What we do have is abundant evidence that he was too tired to safely take charge of a navigational watch. His behaviour is absolutely typical of a man suffering the effects of severe fatigue, as set out in the IMO document on fatigue at sea, circular MSC 1014 : http://www.imo.org/includes/blastDataOnly.asp/data_id%3D2476/1014.pdf

If it is as you quote- he should not have been on duty- somone was surely negligent in allowing him to have been on duty if he was that fatigued-Teb(Ex shipmanager)

greektoon
21st April 2010, 15:32
Ban comfy chairs in wheelhouses (I aint joking).

Andrew Craig-Bennett
21st April 2010, 16:37
Put it this way - it's really excellent evidence that all was not right!

chadburn
21st April 2010, 16:40
You beat me to it greektoon and bring back open Bridges(EEK), In regards to towing her to a "Foreign Port", bring her around to Able's Scrapyard, the coal will keep the fire's of the Retired Coal Board Employee's lit for a few year's in Co. Durham(Thumb). Seriously it would appear that today's "lean manning" of ships Crew's appears to be a bit too "lean".

Nor, I agree totally, they are; Just Aid's and not the be all and end all.

Portway
22nd April 2010, 04:00
From The Observer Gladstone Queensland 1200 HRS 22 04 2010

The Shen Neng 1 will not be entering into the Gladstone port today.

Tom Hillston from Maritime Safety Queensland said the weather is clearly a factor in the decision.

"The pilots went out this morning and they did a moveability trail. That's testing the movability with the tugs and it was decided not to go ahead.

"More trails will be held later today, but the ship won't be entering the port," he said.

Mr Hillston said It's really a combination of things.

"The way the tugs are configured, the way the vessel handles and the seas.

"The pilots factor in all these things, but ultimately it comes down to a judgement call and the pilots are the people best qualified to make that call," he said.

It is expected another decision will not be made until later this evening.

Portway Sydney Australia.

NoR
22nd April 2010, 12:57
I've looked up the meaning of incompetent and the OED gives the following short definition.

1. Not sufficiently skilful to do something successfully.

2 Law not qualified to act in a particular capacity.


So it looks as if the Shen Neng 1 gang were not sufficiently skilled to do something successfully whilst being qualified in law to attempt it.

Hugh Ferguson
22nd April 2010, 13:10
In Blue Funnel and Glen Line one of the most rigorously observed directives was, that the officer keeping the first watch on leaving port was to be free of any duties for four hours prior to departure.

Andrew Craig-Bennett
22nd April 2010, 13:24
NoR - none of them were exactly first trippers. All had quite a lot of years at sea, and a fair time in the rank. So they had definitely taken a ship to sea a few dozen times before, without hitting anything.

Hugh - just so but this was the second watch, the Pilot was dropped and FAOP rung during the 2/O's watch and the Mate had indeed had four hours to get his head down before taking over from the Second. Trouble was it was not enough.

Portway
23rd April 2010, 00:13
From The Observer Gladstone Queensland 0810 HRS 23 04 2010

THE Shen Neng 1 will not be entering the Gladstone port until early May.

Thomas Hilston from Maritime Safety Queensland said the ship would not be entering the Gladstone port until the next high tide.

“The manoeuvres yesterday morning were to look at how the ship handled,” he said

“Basically they got the tugs on to see how the ship was moving and based on how the vessel was behaving the pilots have elected not to go ahead to the next stage of entering the port.

Mr Hilston said lines were breaking on the tugs the sea conditions were worse than marginal.

“The original thought was that they would continue trialling and see how it handled before tomorrow’s tide and basically the pilots have said that looking at conditions it is unlikely the ship will be able to come in.

“Now it looks like the next high tide opportunity will not be until the 3rd or 4th of May.

“The whole point is that no one should feel there is a do or die point and to be realistic about the situation,” Mr Hilston said.

Mr Hilston said the coal carrier would now remain in a safe anchorage at sea

“They have got a safe anchorage lined up outside of the Gladstone port,” he said.

“All the response vessels will stay out there until the next good tide.

“There will be further trials today, but without further changes

Portway Sydney Australia.

non descript
23rd April 2010, 00:16
THE Shen Neng 1 will not be entering the Gladstone port until early May.

Portway Sydney Australia.

Thank you for the update. (Thumb)

John N MacDonald
23rd April 2010, 10:16
Maybe do what other shipping companies do. Have an officer and seaman on watch on the bridge until they get into deeper water away from reefs etc.

Andrew Craig-Bennett
23rd April 2010, 11:02
John, could you clarify? There was a lookout on the bridge. The Master had gone off the bridge not long before. If you mean an extra officer and a second lookout/quartermaster I don't see where they are going to come from on today's manning scales. A big tanker may carry a daywork Mate but anyone who tried that on a Panamax bulker would find themselves in Carey Street pretty soon.

barnsey
23rd April 2010, 12:15
If it is as you quote- he should not have been on duty- somone was surely negligent in allowing him to have been on duty if he was that fatigued-Teb(Ex shipmanager)

The report also states that he was fatigued and as such that means the ship was unseaworthy at the start of the voyage. THAT has huge consequences regarding Insurance both on hull and cargo and the only ones who are going to win are the Lawyers.

greektoon
23rd April 2010, 12:36
If you are suffering from fatigue it can be very difficult to get some sleep, particularly if you know that you will be put on the shake after a couple of hours. I experienced this phenomenon when on a a small bulker (near continental trading) with 2 watchkeepers doing 5 on 5 off and either arriving / departing port almost daily. You just get too tired to sleep in the end.

Andrew Craig-Bennett
23rd April 2010, 12:39
I think that's what happened here. He went to his cabin and showered at 12 but he says he only got 30 minutes sleep before his alarm went.

Fatigue can be deceptive because it comes and goes; you can feel fine and half an hour later you really can hardly keep an eye open.

Billieboy
23rd April 2010, 12:45
The report also states that he was fatigued and as such that means the ship was unseaworthy at the start of the voyage. THAT has huge consequences regarding Insurance both on hull and cargo and the only ones who are going to win are the Lawyers.

Surely the harbourmaster was then at fault, under international law, in allowing an unseaworthy vessel to depart, to become a danger to all other seafarers? Also, the Pilot would have aided and abbetted the Harbourmaster!

Mike S
23rd April 2010, 13:24
It is still "Masters Orders and Pilots Advice" Billie boy me old china!
The final responsibility lies with the Master.
He should have realised that his chief officer was too tired and fatigued to take the watch and covered for him.
Pretty obvious to me.........

James_C
23rd April 2010, 13:30
Assuming he wasn't equally as tired having spent all night dealing with the now endless nonsense that is Port/Coastguard/Cargo paperwork/Intimidation, sorry immigration of course....

Andrew Craig-Bennett
23rd April 2010, 13:32
James, that's pretty much how I see it, with the proviso that the Mate may have seemed OK when he went below, and the 2/O's change of route to one where overstanding the a/c point would lead to fairly immediate danger without correcting the XTE and waypoint alarms seems at the least unfortunate and at the worst irresponsible. The Mate's failure to plot sufficiently frequently was what finally did the trick but that was a consequence of fatigue, I think. I won't be casting the first stone on that one. There but for the Grace of...

James_C
23rd April 2010, 13:36
Andrew,
I would certainly agree. There will no doubt be the usual politico/media inspired witch-hunt which will make no contribution whatsoever to solving one of the biggest problems affecting every ship and seaman out there today - excessive hours and fatigue.

Andrew Craig-Bennett
23rd April 2010, 13:41
James, I find I am off to a pow-wow with the MCA aboard the Wellington on "the human element" next Thursday; I've no doubt at all that this case will come up. We seem to have been going round in circles on this issue for the last twenty years at least.

Billieboy
23rd April 2010, 15:23
I agree with you up to a point Mike, but a government report cannot just call a vessel, "unseaworthy on leaving port", without implicating the harbour master, and/or the pilot, who must have seen that the chief officer was fatigued.

Otherwise what are they being paid for? Modern, (let's say Rotterdam), Port regulations require ANY responsible person visiting a vessel inside Harbour limits, to report any and all, "doubtful circumstances", found on board. On consideration the harbour master will take any action needed. Failure in reporting can lead to the so called responsible person being charged with neglect of duty.

greektoon
23rd April 2010, 16:39
It is still "Masters Orders and Pilots Advice" Billie boy me old china!
The final responsibility lies with the Master.
He should have realised that his chief officer was too tired and fatigued to take the watch and covered for him.
Pretty obvious to me.........

Mike, it may not have been obvious at all. Fatigue can be very insidious.

Furthermore, in this context the unseaworthiness argument is a non runner in my view.

Andrew Craig-Bennett
23rd April 2010, 17:41
Mike, it may not have been obvious at all. Fatigue can be very insidious.

Furthermore, in this context the unseaworthiness argument is a non runner in my view.

I agree with both points - the practical one and the legal one.

Of course, seaworthiness has both a seaman's meaning and a legal meaning.

The seaman's meaning is "Would I go to sea in this vessel?" The legal meaning can be quite different.

Certainly there is no issue of unseaworthiness under s.39(v) of the Marine Insurance Act and I doubt if there is one under the Hague-Visby Rules (although, if the officers had been incompetent, there might indeed be one - see the "Hong Kong Fir")

Ray Edward Skelton
24th April 2010, 05:31
Quote Mike S

It is still "Masters Orders and Pilots Advice" Billie boy me old china!
The final responsibility lies with the Master.
He should have realised that his chief officer was too tired and fatigued to take the watch and covered for him.
Pretty obvious to me.........

Quote Ray Edward Skelton
"Barrier Reef....what Barrier Reef!" or "Missed it by that... much" Doesn't say much for the MASTER, does it.

The Master should be in the HOT SEAT. after all he is the person who has the overall command of the vessel and as the MASTER he is the person in charge.

[RESPONSIBILIITY LIES WITH THE MASTER]

Part of the problem in today’s world seems to be in stepping up to the plate and accepting responsibility for your actions or in this case inaction.

Jim, in reference to your thread, the Australian media, particularly in the last 7-8 days, have more or less ignored any reference to this incident. So to say that the media were beating the story up is not quite true. It is difficult enough to find news even from local sources in Central Queensland concerning a matter that could have been devastating the Queensland coastline, the environment, the tourist industry and the economic viability of this area. And, as previously stated by various persons, the authorities and the salvers have done a wonderful job in getting this vessel into safe waters. It will be some time in the next couple of weeks before we know the final outcome.

Regards Ray Edward Skelton

Mike S
24th April 2010, 13:35
In response to remarks from Billie Boy and others I muse that we are perhaps seeing the result of years of expediency and cost saving?
I guess having been so long out of the marine world I am not up to speed on the enormous amount of paper work and rubbish that has to be dealt with. Would it not be fairer to say that the need is to make maximum duty hours mandatory?
How any one can be expected to operate anything after 18 hours plus continuous duty is beyond me and although I like every one else I have done it in practice, maybe it is now time to make this a hard and fast IMO ruling.
The bean counters have gone one step too far.
There is no way these two poor unfortunate men should be blamed for what has happened if the hours they have had to work are shown to be genuine. As for the four hours rest that was supposed to be available to the C/0 I wonder. After all that time awake 4 hours is totally inadequate.
Sadly this still does not alter the legal responsibilities of the Master however it does show that there is a far bigger problem that is the underlying cause.

John N MacDonald
24th April 2010, 15:02
Sorry Andrew. I obviously missed the bit about a lookout being on the bridge as well as the 1st mate. I'd have thought a well trained lookout might have been aware of what was happening!

chadburn
24th April 2010, 17:35
From what I read on a number of collision's/grounding's although the Lookout is listed as being on the Bridge with the W.O. because of lean manning he was usually somewhere else on "standby" either in his cabin/ messroom or in one case the Master had put him on day's. At least the little Dutch "Clog's" that use to ply the North Sea had a dog as part of the Bridge team which barked loudly when it sensed danger.
Thank's to those who are keeping us up to date on this vessel, I am interested in the eventual fate of her as I have a small wager on.

Billieboy
24th April 2010, 20:33
Mike S #209, quite right, but the problem will be the IMO getting enough people to line up on the right side, in order to get it voted through. Perhaps a thin end of the wedge could be states putting it up as a requirement, to be overseen by the harbour master of the specific ports; eventually people will get the idea, just as the got the idea of non pollution and load on top.

Andrew Craig-Bennett
24th April 2010, 21:07
Since I was once greeted, by Neil Sandes (aka Sandes of the River)of Steamships Trading, with the words "What the xxxx is a beancounter doing in a double bottom tank?" (I was about two feet deep in mud, rust and Floatkote, and denied being a beancounter, but I don't think he believed me) I feel unusually well qualified to comment!

Part of the problem here is that at very many coal and ore loading ports there is really nowhere for a laden vessel to go except to sea, and the speed of loading
is really dictated as being of necessity "fac" by the length of the queue waiting to load, and hence by the demurrage bill).

Any Master proceeding to the anchorage, dropping the Pilot and getting eight hours kip for all concerned before summoning the Pilot again and proceeding to sea will be sure of getting a "We fail to understand..." letter, or rather email, if not from his owners then most certainly from his charterers.

Gearless containerships solve the problem by firstly handing over stowage to the Terminal and secondly making extensive use of deepsea Pilots. Large tankers commonly carry a daywork Mate as Cargo Officer, and quite right too, but neither of these looks like the right solution here. A bulk loading terminal is not the servant of the ship in the way that a box terminal is, the deballasting issue is far more critical and if I were Master of a Panamax or a Cape I would be very hesitant about handing my ship's safety over to any loading terminal.

There might be a case for owners to have a cargo officer at the loadport who would join the ship on the coast. But I don't see how to legislate for this.

NoR
24th April 2010, 21:49
I guess on most ships you have a Master and three mates. It shouldn't be beyond the wit of man to ensure that the first person on watch has sufficient sleep even if it's the master.

James_C
24th April 2010, 22:19
NoR,
That's again ensuring all 4 haven't been up for inordinate amounts of time whilst alongside.
The 2nd/3rd mate will have no doubt been on sixes, with call outs for mooring/standbys on top of their 12 hours of duties. PLUS lets not forgert attendance for the ubiquitous Australian Coastguard drills/inspections, loading terminal inspections/audits and of course mandatory attendance for the Australian immigration ID parade - a requirement for all personnel on vessels arriving in Australian ports regardless of the time of day immigration choose to appear.
The working day of a vessel today with regards to the hoops/paperwork/bull wotsit that has to be jumped through is far in excess of what we were encountering even 10 years ago.

NoR
24th April 2010, 22:40
James-C

Yes the Australians are an officious lot. I remember joining a ship in Brisbane when they took my passport off me at the airport and returned it when I signed on.

Andrew Craig-Bennett
24th April 2010, 22:42
James is absolutely right.

non descript
24th April 2010, 22:59
NoR,
That's again ensuring all 4 haven't been up for inordinate amounts of time whilst alongside.
The 2nd/3rd mate will have no doubt been on sixes, with call outs for mooring/standbys on top of their 12 hours of duties. PLUS lets not forgert attendance for the ubiquitous Australian Coastguard drills/inspections, loading terminal inspections/audits and of course mandatory attendance for the Australian immigration ID parade - a requirement for all personnel on vessels arriving in Australian ports regardless of the time of day immigration choose to appear.
The working day of a vessel today with regards to the hoops/paperwork/bull wotsit that has to be jumped through is far in excess of what we were encountering even 10 years ago.

That Sir is a Five Star comment; very well put. (Thumb)

NoR
24th April 2010, 23:45
None of the above is an excuse for grounding a perfectly seaworthy vessel in good weather. Stop making excuses...there aren't any.

Andrew Craig-Bennett
25th April 2010, 00:19
Not looking for excuses, looking for explanations.

Not quite the same thing.

rcraig
25th April 2010, 01:36
There are very strict rules for hours of work for aircraft pilots and air traffic controllers. They may be exceeded in particular circumstances.

Lorry drivers in the EU are not allowed in general to exceed 4.5 hrs. without a 45 minute break, nor 9 hours in the day, again with exceptions.

Is fatigue different for merchant seamen? Would a master or mate last long if he decided to drop anchor for fatigue reasons? Assuming, of course, that it might be possible to do so in the first place, points that have already been made.

NoR
"Stop making excuses; there aren't any"......you may be right but I have not found life quite that simple in the main.

reefrat
25th April 2010, 05:32
........

Quote Ray Edward Skelton
"

Jim, in reference to your thread, the Australian media, particularly in the last 7-8 days, have more or less ignored any reference to this incident. So to say that the media were beating the story up is not quite true.
Regards Ray Edward Skelton[/QUOTE]

A media beatup is understating the case. Ill informed press comment included the statment that the vessel was using an unauthorised channell through the reef. This is not true,, MSQ reports that 30% of vessells departing Gladstone use this channel and are authorised to do so.
The media in matters maritime are an ASS

tsell
25th April 2010, 07:24
I don't know if this site has been mentioned on this thread, but I have just read a very extensive report of the grounding on www.cargolaw.com
It is an in depth chronology of events described in extensive text and high resolution pictures.
Select 'Breaking News' and enter 'Coaling on the Great Barrier Reef'.
It includes the full factual ATSB Transport Safety Report.
For those members who have not come across this site it has endless hours of reading on marine and other disasters.

Taff

Andrew Craig-Bennett
25th April 2010, 08:26
Taff, that isn't the full ATSB report - that has still to come.

What has been published is the Report of Preliminary Investigation.

NoR
25th April 2010, 09:33
There are no excuses. We all know it's difficult, because we all (well most of us) have been there. Navigation is the first priority on a ship..even when she's tied up !. Forget this at your peril. Having a couple of properly rested watchkeepers is essential, although you wouldn't think so, the way port operations are carried out.

Years ago I was mate on a two watch vessel. We were due to sail, but the master had contracted a nasty flue like cold whilst we were in port and really wasn't well, but we were going to depart regardless. Suddenly yours truly decided 'bugger this' (or something similar) and I refused to sail until the company gave us another watchkeeper. They did, with very bad grace and my card was well and truly marked. Of course it wasn't my place to do that. It was the master's job to declare himself unfit. And therein lies the rub. Most people are reluctant to declare themselves unfit, or too fatigued to work, it's seen as a sign of weakness, when in fact the converse is true.

Whilst there are no excuses for running the Shen Neng 1 aground, I do feel sorry for those involved.

Andrew Craig-Bennett
25th April 2010, 11:44
Absolutely.

Over my years in the industry I have lost count of the number of mishaps that were really down to someone, usually the Master, sometimes the Mate, conscientously struggling on with the job when he wasn't really up to it and needed rest, but it must be well over a dozen. Now I think about it, maybe three dozen.

I even used to joke that the "standard British casualty" was "Master stays in the wheelhouse throughout a long pilotage, then hits the berth after giving a wrong movement because he is falling asleep!"

Very often, as the IMO paper makes clear, over-tired people behave as if they were incompetent.

There was our Commodore, Mike P., a wholly admirable New Zealander and a first class seaman, who hit the ship ahead of him in a Baltic ice convoy (vhf on wrong channel+ poor lookout), there was the Mate of a small containership who sailed on a negative GM and then ballasted the high side , resulting in a salvage job, there was the Mate of a containership who fell asleep in the wheelhouse after working cargo all day (another salvage job), there was the Mate who signed off the tank entry form in a scrawl and went straight into an unventilated tank without actually checking (fatality)- all these I reckon were actually fatigue. I have myself stopped a tired Mate checking a void space with an explosimeter thinking it was the O2 meter. There but for the Grace of...

Yes, it's inexcusable.

tsell
26th April 2010, 01:17
Taff, that isn't the full ATSB report - that has still to come.

What has been published is the Report of Preliminary Investigation.

Correct Andrew and thanks. I should have pointed out that it was the Preliminary Report, having been presented in early April. The full report is likely to be some time away.

Taff

alastairrussell
28th April 2010, 13:21
The latest from Wikipedia

Alastair



Shen Neng 1 (simplified Chinese: 深能一号; traditional Chinese: 深能一號; pinyin: shén néng yī hào[1]) is a Chinese bulk carrier which was built in 1993 as Bestore. She was sold in 2007 and renamed Shen Neng 1. In 2010, she ran aground off Great Keppel Island, Australia spilling oil into Great Barrier Reef waters.

Contents [hide]
1 Construction
2 History
2.1 Grounding
2.2 Investigation
3 References

[edit] Construction
The ship was built by Sanoyas Hishino Meisho in 1993. She is 225.00 metres (738 ft 2 in) long overall, with a beam of 32.66 metres (107 ft 2 in) and a draught of 13.29 metres (43 ft 7 in). Her air draught is 41.68 metres (136 ft 9 in). The ship is powered by a 2-stroke Single Action 6-cylinder Sulzer 6RTA62 diesel engine driving a single screw propeller. The engine can propel her at 13.5 knots (25.0 km/h).[2]

[edit] History
Bestore was owned by Scinicariello Ship Management, Italy. She was sold for $34,000,000 in 2007,[3] and was renamed as Shen Neng 1, meaning "Shenzhen Energy" in Chinese, when sold to Cosco Shipping in 2007. Her callsign is BXAN. She is allocated the IMO Number 9040871,[4] and the MMSI Number 413461550.[5] According to the Equasis database, and an article in the shipping industry newspaper "Tradewinds", the ship is owned by Shenzhen Energy Transportation Co. Ltd, a subsidiary of Shenzhen Energy, whose logo appears on her funnel, and is managed by TOSCO‐KEYMAX International Ship Management Co. Ltd , a Sino-Japanese joint venture,[6] and carries a crew of 23.[7]

[edit] Grounding
Main article: 2010 Great Barrier Reef oil spill

Shen Neng 1 aground on the Great Barrier ReefOn 3 April 2010, Shen Neng 1 was on a voyage from Gladstone, Queensland to China with a cargo of 65,000 tonnes of coal. She ran aground 70 kilometres (38 nmi) off Great Keppel Island, Australia.[8] At the time of the grounding, Shen Neng 1 was reported to have been travelling at full speed. She was severely damaged on her port side, and a 3 kilometres (1.6 nmi) long oil slick was later reported to have been seen.[7] The ship's engine and rudder were damaged in the grounding.[9] The ship went aground 5.8 nmi (10.7 km; 6.7 mi) outside the shipping lane. [10] It is in a restricted area which forms part of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park, a World Heritage Site designated by UNESCO.[8]

As a result of the grounding, the fuel tanks of the vessel were punctured, allowing fuel oil to leak from the vessel. It is feared that the ship may break in two.[8] A salvage contract has been awarded to Svitzer, led by Drew Shannon (who was in charge of salving Pasha Bulker), which has sent tugs to the area.[9] Shen Neng 1 was refloated on 12 April 2010, after forecasts of bad weather meant that the salvage operation was brought forward. There were reports that large areas of the coral reef were damaged by the ship.[11] On 14 April, the captain and officer on watch at the time of the accident were arrested. They were charged and will appear in court on 15 April.[12]

[edit] Investigation
Two investigations have been opened into the grounding. The investigations are being conducted by the Australian Maritime Safety Authority (AMSA) and the Australian Transport Safety Bureau (ATSB).[9] Queensland Premier Anna Bligh said that the Government would be investigating why the ship was so far off route.[8] It was reported that the ship's owner could be fined $1,000,000 and Shen Neng 1's captain $220,000.[7]

The ATSB despatched three investigators to Gladstone, Queensland on 4 April to collect evidence and conduct interviews. On 6 April they boarded the ship to interview the crew members and collect further evidence. The preliminary phase of the investigation is scheduled to take 28 days. A casualty co-ordinator from the AMSA boarded the ship. Three vessels were reported as giving assistance at the scene.[13]

[edit] References
Wikinews has related news: Chinese ship leaking oil near Great Barrier Reef

1.^ E.g., a report of Radio Australia: 澳抢险人员设法减少深能一号燃油泄漏 (in Chinese)
2.^ "Shen Neng 1 (Ex: Bestore) 70,181 DWT, Bulk Carrier, Built 1993". Tradewinds. http://www.tradewinds.no/vessel?id=6BD3BD166BDE1891&aid=557151. Retrieved 22 April 2010.
3.^ "S & P Monthly Report, December 2006". Cotzias. http://www.cotzias.gr/reports/COTZIAS_2006_12_DEC.pdf. Retrieved 22 April 2010.
4.^ "SHIPS INDEX". E-ships. http://e-ships.net/index/S14.shtml. Retrieved 4 April 2010.
5.^ "Vessel information SHEN NENG 1 from China China". Digital Seas. http://www.digital-seas.com/vessel_search/vessel_details/on/bxan_shen_neng_1_q6074.html. Retrieved 4 April 2010.
6.^ "OFFICIAL: GREAT BARRIER REEF ‐CHINESE SHIP SHEN NENG 1". Shenzhen Energy Transport Co Ltd. 9 April 2010. http://www.sec.com.cn/news/detail.aspx?id=41743&TypeID=0304.
7.^ a b c "Leaking ship's owners face $1m fine". The Australian. http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/leaking-ships-owners-face-1m-fine/story-e6frg6n6-1225849636379. Retrieved 4 April 2010.
8.^ a b c d "Great Barrier Reef oil disaster fear from stricken ship". BBC News Online. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/8602400.stm. Retrieved 4 April 2010.
9.^ a b c "Stranded ship 'time bomb' to Great Barrier Reef". Alert Net (Reuters). 5 April 2010. http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/B725901.htm. Retrieved 5 April 2010.
10.^ "Grounding of the Ship Shen Neng 1". Australiam Maritime Safety Authority. 6 April 2010. http://www.amsa.gov.au/Marine_Environment_Protection/Shen_Neng_1_Grounding/media/Shen_Neng1_Douglas_Shoal_publics.pdf. Retrieved 9 April 2010.
11.^ Bryant, Nick. "China ship 'seriously damaged' Great Barrier Reef". BBC News, Sydney. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/8616880.stm. Retrieved 13 April 2010.
12.^ "Australia arrests Chinese crewmen over reef ship". New Straits Times. http://www.nst.com.my/Current_News/NST/articles/20100414182851/Article/index_html. Retrieved 14 April 2010.
13.^ "ATSB investigates bulk carrier grounding". Australian Transport Safety Bureau. http://www.atsb.gov.au/newsroom/2010/201008.aspx. Retrieved 6 April 2010.

Andrew Craig-Bennett
28th April 2010, 16:44
God give me strength! (MAD)

None of the sources cited by Wikipedia, not even the Nick Cotzias S&P report, show the buyers as Cosco Shipping Ltd, which is the Guangzhou based Shenzhen stock exchange quoted arm of Cosco. (MAD)

Cisco
28th April 2010, 16:54
Cmon Andrew, its in Wikipedia... it must be true... :)

Andrew Craig-Bennett
28th April 2010, 17:07
Actually, we are a US el cheapo supermarket chain. ;)

alastairrussell
29th April 2010, 00:39
Actually, we are a US el cheapo supermarket chain. ;)

Andrew

If I can drag you away from COSTCO for a minute, have a look the final investigation report into the following incident. It has just been placed in the Australian Transport Safety Bureau website. I like the photos of the gas venting off!

Alastair

www.atsb.gov.au

Marine Safety Investigation Report - Final

Independent investigation into the rupture of a submarine gas pipeline by the Hong Kong registered container ship APL Sydney in Port Phillip, Victoria on 13 December 2008

At 1428 on 13 December 2008 , the Hong Kong registered container ship APL Sydney's starboard anchor was let go in Melbourne anchorage. Four minutes later, the pilot left the bridge and by 1436, he had disembarked the ship. The 35 knot south-southwest wind was gusting to 48 knots. A submarine gas pipeline lay 6 cables (1.1 km) downwind.

By 1501, after dragging its anchor, the ship was outside the anchorage boundary. The master advised harbour control he intended to weigh anchor and was instructed to maintain position and wait for a pilot. At 1527, when weighing anchor was started after receiving permission from harbour control, the ship was within 50 m of the pipeline. While weighing anchor, the anchor dragged across the pipeline, snagged it at about 1544 and, subsequently, the anchor windlass failed.

At 1603, the pilot returned to the ship and, after discussions with the master and harbour control, he decided to dredge the anchor clear. At 1621, less than 1 minute after APL Sydney's main engine was run ahead, the pipeline ruptured. There were no injuries and the pipeline was isolated.

The investigation found that the rupture was the result of attempting to dredge the anchor instead of slipping it. The anchor had also been let go too close to the pipeline in the poor weather conditions. The report identifies safety issues in relation to: the port's risk management with respect to the pipeline and anchorage boundaries and its shipping control procedures; the ship's safety management system with respect to passage planning, the master's authority, crew familiarisation and the working language; the pilotage company's procedures for anchoring and mobile telephone use; and the windlass failure. Safety actions to address all the issues have been taken or proposed by the relevant parties.

Download final report [ PDF: 2.95MB]

Cisco
29th April 2010, 00:45
"The investigation found that the rupture was the result of attempting to dredge the anchor instead of slipping it. The anchor had also been let go too close to the pipeline in the poor weather conditions."

the rupture was actually due to the pilot anchoring the ship in the wrong place and then Foxtrot Oscaring before she was brought up... all that followed was mere detail...

alastairrussell
29th April 2010, 01:31
Deleted

Andrew Craig-Bennett
29th April 2010, 08:16
"The investigation found that the rupture was the result of attempting to dredge the anchor instead of slipping it. The anchor had also been let go too close to the pipeline in the poor weather conditions."

the rupture was actually due to the pilot anchoring the ship in the wrong place and then Foxtrot Oscaring before she was brought up... all that followed was mere detail...

I agree with Cisco, who knows ten times more about this than I do.

But I am intrigued by the reference to passage planning.

Portway
30th April 2010, 02:35
From The Observer Gladstone Queensland. 1035 Hrs 30 04 2010. [Extracts]

Maritime experts have pumped more oil off the Shen Neng 1 ahead of any attempt to move the vessel.

Maritime Safety Queensland General Manager Patrick Quirk said a considerable quantity of oil and oily water remained on the ship but experts were hopeful that most of it (particularly the heavy oil) could be removed.

The weather has been good and the 50m Larcom bunker barge, which can carry up to 1500 tonnes of oil, took oil and oily water off the ship.

The Chinese coal carrier is currently anchored around five nautical miles off Gladstone.

We are still watching the vessel closely and there has been no indication of any fuel escaping,

But the closer that risk is to zero the better and we want to remove as much fuel oil as possible. monitoring vessels would be in place ready to respond to any spill of oil and plans remained in place for entry into the Port of Gladstone next week, however any such entry was heavily dependent on the sea and swell conditions. Weather conditions last week meant it was just not safe to bring the ship in, Mr Quirk said.

Given we had five tow ropes snap in the attempt last week, we need very good weather to undertake this We'll know late this week if the weather is suitable for another attempt.

We've yet to make any firm decisions on options beyond that.

Portway Sydney Australia.

Kevin Davies
30th April 2010, 12:39
Cargo of coal will now be discharged from Shen Neng 1 at anchor and vessel will then be towed to China.

Andrew Craig-Bennett
30th April 2010, 12:51
Discharging a coal cargo from a gearless panamax at anchor is not an easy matter.

Billieboy
30th April 2010, 14:36
Who owns the cargo under a LOF Andrew?

greektoon
30th April 2010, 15:06
Discharging a coal cargo from a gearless panamax at anchor is not an easy matter.

Would there be any big floating cranes in the area? Possible alternative to place mobile cranes on deck but out-reach, deck loading limit and capacity may make this unworkable.

Andrew Craig-Bennett
30th April 2010, 15:57
Who owns the cargo under a LOF Andrew?

Nice question, Billieboy!

The cargo doesn't change hands as a result of the salvage; it remains the property of the holder for value in due course of the Bill of Lading - in plain language whoever buys it.

The cargo underwriters are liable for salvage claims on the cargo and the cargo insurance brokers will lodge a guarantee in a specified form, insured by the underwriters, with the Salvage Arbitration and Guarantees Branch of the Corporation of Lloyds. This guarantee ensures that the salvage award will be paid in due course and once the guarantee is lodged the salvors will give up their lien on the cargo. In the (very unlikely) event that no guarantee is lodged then the salvors can arrest the cargo and sell it though the local court.

The hull and machinery underwriters of the ship do exactly the same for the ship, and if the ship is under time charter then the time charterers own the bunkers and they must do the same for the bunkers.

This leaves the question of the freight. The freight will be at risk of ship if the cargo is "freight collect" and it will be at risk of the cargo if the cargo is "freight prepaid" and accordingly either the hull underwriters or the cargo underwriters meet freight's proportion of the award.

The salvage award is based on the values at risk as agreed or as proven and the ship and cargo pay their rateable shares according to their respective proportion of the total value.

The ship's value is taken either as the scrap value or as the sound value less the cost of permanent repairs, whichever is the larger.

If cargo is discharged in whole or in part then this expense is a GA expense on the part of cargo and if cargo is dumped that is a GA sacrifice on the part of cargo, so a General Average Adjustment must be drawn up and the sacrifice or expenditure recovered rateably from the underwriters concerned, who will provide GA Bonds in a somewhat similar manner to the salvage guarantees.

Billieboy
30th April 2010, 16:59
Thanks Andrew, very interesting, I'm sure other member will also be interested.

chadburn
30th April 2010, 17:17
Agreed, thanks, Andrew.(Thumb)

Andrew Craig-Bennett
30th April 2010, 17:39
Actually, I find the Salvage Arbitration and Guarantees Branch have rather a good website, here:

http://www.lloyds.com/Lloyds_Worldwide/Lloyds_Agents/Salvage_Arbitration_Branch/

chadburn
30th April 2010, 18:49
Alva Star and the Janra look good Andrew especially the last one colliding with a Lighthouse(EEK)

Andrew Craig-Bennett
30th April 2010, 19:12
Yes; both of those deserve a gold star from the Royal Institute of Navigation!

alastairrussell
1st May 2010, 07:22
From the Observer Newspaper (Gladstone) website 1 May 2010


THE Shen Neng 1 will not be entering the Gladstone port.

Salvage experts will not proceed to move the Chinese coal carrier into port due to ongoing forecasts of adverse weather and the accompanying safety risks to salvage crews and vessels.

Following a request, and advice from the salvors, the Australian Maritime Safety Authority (AMSA) issued a direction identifying a place of refuge for the vessel in a more a protected position.

The AMSA direction now means the ship will move to a safe and protected anchorage between the mainland and Fraser Island in the northern reaches of Hervey Bay.

While there, the coal will be unloaded onto smaller vessels prior to being towed overseas.

AMSA deputy chief executive officer Mick Kinley said the decision to move the ship to an alternative place of refuge was made following a request from the salvors and in consultation with Commonwealth and Queensland government agencies.

“The salvors will work with Maritime Safety Queensland to manage the towing of the ship from its current location to the place of refuge.

“The ship will only remain in the Hervey Bay area for the minimum time necessary to lighten it and is subject to strict safety conditions,” Mr Kinley said.

Maritime Safety Queensland general manager Patrick Quirk said the ship remained structurally sound despite damage when it grounded on Douglas Shoal.

“Unfortunately factors outside our control like the weather and the tides mean the risk of taking the ship into the Port of Gladstone is simply too great,” Mr Quirk said.

“During last week’s attempt to bring the ship into port five tow lines snapped on the attending tugs due to movement of the vessels from wind and swell.

“These tow lines are as thick as a down-pipe and every time one snaps it’s a risk to life and limb.”

Mr Quirk said he supported AMSA’s direction.

“Doing nothing with this vessel is not an option,” Mr Quirk said.

alastairrussell
3rd May 2010, 00:12
PREVENTING REEF DISASTERS

From the Gladstone Observer website by Kerri-Anne Mesner | 3rd May 2010

The Federal election is yet to be called, but it certainly seems it will be sooner rather than later.

In recent weeks, Gladstone has seen numerous Labor Party politicians fly in.
And sure enough this week was no exception, with the Liberal National Party ramping up its presence.

The one thing many people are still asking questions about is what is going to be done to protect our reef and harbour in the wake of the Shen Neng 1 coal carrier grounding incident last month.

Hence this week’s question: Besides the extension of the ReefVTS system being extended further down the coast, along with higher fines to be introduced, what other measures do you think could be enforced to ensure no further incidents like the Shen Neng 1 Douglas Shoal disaster occur in Commonwealth waters in the future?

The community is invited to submit questions to the candidates for the Federal seat of Flynn via email to
kerri-Anne.mesner@gladstoneobserver.com.au or text 0428 634 025 with the word GLAD and a space in front of the message.

Ken O’Dowd

I am extremely hopeful the current investigation will unearth whose decision it was to allow these vessels to make short-cuts through the reef in the first place. It’s all very well for Mr Rudd to suggest tightening the regulations when he cannot enforce the existing ones.

The outer route, which vessels should use when transiting the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park to and from Gladstone Harbour, begins at the eastern limit of the Torres Strait. It continues south through the Coral Sea and rejoins the coast near Sandy Cape. The Curtis Channel should then be used as a gateway to the Gladstone Harbour, not the Capricorn Channel.

The BG Group has made excellent observations in their supplementary environmental statement regarding this very issue, including:

• At least two senior officers will be on the bridge at all times, each with extensive training in bridge resource management on LNG ships

• In addition to standard licenses and certificates, BG Group requires its captains and chief officers to have a minimum 12 years’ combined sea-time experience between them on all BG Group-controlled ships

• All BG Group-controlled ships will strictly comply with the Great Barrier Marine Park Authority-approved shipping routes through the marine park, and participate in the Australian Maritime Safety Authority’s ship surveillance system, ReefVTS.

• LNG ships in the BG Group fleet feature multiple safety systems including three radar sets, multiple global positioning receivers, digital charts and updated paper charts.

The challenge now is to get coal carriers to adopt the same guidelines.

Chris Trevor

There was no better wake-up call than the recent grounding of the Shen Neng 1.

It reminded us of the fact that human beings can and do make mistakes and that when they are made in an environmentally sensitive area the impact can be devastating.

As your local Federal Member I accept on balance the recommendations of experts in this field, namely the Australian Maritime Safety Authority (AMSA).
These recommendations include extending the current coverage of ReefVTS, modernizing the penalty and offence provisions under the relevant act, enhancing navigational aids including additional buoys at both Douglas and Rock Cod Shoals and developing a range of whole of government management options.

I accept expert advice that pilotage is not necessary, and experts discounted the need for a number of reasons.

These include an unnecessary increase in cost – making our coal, cement, alumina and LNG less competitive on the open international market as well as the waters off Gladstone and Capricornia being relatively open, with thousands of vessels making safe passage through the area each year.

The ReefVTS, which I called for publicly and our government subsequently announced, does, according to AMSA, offer a cost-effective mechanism and has a proven track record of mitigating the risk of groundings in waters which are not navigationally challenging. This issue is not one for political posturing but one best left to the experts.

Andrew Craig-Bennett
3rd May 2010, 00:26
Well, I have a suggestion for them.

It seems to me that the proximate cause of the accident was fatigue of one or more officers of the Shen Neng 1.

In which case, it would be prudent to consider ways to reduce such fatigue in the future.

Since there is no practical and realistic way to change the way in which ships arrive, wait on demurrage, load and sail, might it not be a good idea if the Australian and Queensland Governments did all in their power to reduce the workload on ships officers whilst alongside?

Specifically, why not have Customs, Immigration and PSC attend on board by launch whilst each ship due to load coal or ore is at anchor, and at least 24 hours before that ship is expected to be called under the loader?

By thus reducing the paperwork and the disturbance of ships routine to that required for loading and cargo calculations, the Master should be freed up to "spell" the Mate as required.

Sensible?

Practical?

Cheap?

david_crosby
3rd May 2010, 00:33
• In addition to standard licenses and certificates, BG Group requires its captains and chief officers to have a minimum 12 years’ combined sea-time experience between them on all BG Group-controlled ships


Master + Mate = 12 yrs sea time !!!

Let's see .... 4 yrs Middy, 2 yrs 4/0, 2 yrs 3/0, 5 yrs 2/0, 13 yrs C/O = 26 yrs in BluFlu to command on the "fast track". You'd knock off 10 years from that in tramps.

How do they manage it in 7 or 8 years in these deep sea ships.