Alaska ice floe causes tanker to break off while loading and run aground.

[GroundedSailor]

Goes to show how dangerous sea ice can be to shipping.

I'm also glad to see that the double hull design for tankers is proving its worth.

However I'd like to know why when ships spills 75 gallons it makes headline news but when refineries or other land based organizations spill it is not news worthy. It should be noted that ships contribute to less than 10% of all ocean contamination worldwide


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co...rticle/2006/02/03/AR2006020300735.html

http://today.reuters.com/news/newsArtic...-ENVIRONMENT-TANKER.xml&archived=False

Rescue crews refloat grounded Alaska tanker
Fri Feb 3, 2006 3:13 PM ET

ANCHORAGE, Alaska (Reuters) - Rescue crews refloated a tanker carrying nearly 5 million gallons of oil and gasoline on Friday, one day after the vessel ran aground in Alaska's Cook Inlet and caused a small spill, a state official said.

Emergency crews emptied the tanker's ballast water to lighten the vessel and then used three tugboats to pull the double-hulled Seabulk Pride to deeper water during high tide at about 8:30 a.m. (1730 GMT), Lynda Giguere, a spokeswoman for the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation.

A fourth ship is accompanying the tanker to break ice in its path, but crews will inspect for any leaks before sending the tanker back out into the sea under it own power.

"They're not going to move it very far until they've thoroughly inspected it," said Giguere.

The 600-foot (183-meter) ship broke loose from its moorings early on Thursday morning when it was struck by an ice floe while loading at Tesoro Corp.'s refinery at Nikiski on Cook Inlet southwest of Anchorage.

The ice floe also knocked the loading arm away, causing about 75 gallons of oil to spill into Cook Inlet and another 125 gallons to spill onto the ship's deck, according to Alaskan authorities.

The vessel is owned and operated by a subsidiary of Seacor Holdings Inc. and was chartered by Tesoro.

The tanker was carrying nearly 4 million gallons of Vacuum Tower Bottom Blend, a residual, asphalt-like oil not refined at Tesoro's Nikiski facility.

It was also carrying nearly a million gallons (3.8 million liters) of bunker oil, gasoline, heavy vacuum gas oil and diesel fuel, Alaskan authorities said.

In 1989, the Exxon Valdez supertanker grounded on a reef in Alaska's Prince William Sound, spilling about 11 million gallons of crude oil.

 

[shrumpage]

It spilling 75 gallons wasn't news worth.

The fact that a ship grounded and could have spilled 5 millon gallons is.

 

[EagleKeeper]

If it was not for the Valdez, the 75 gallon spillage would not have even made the wires.

 

[Whoozyerdaddy]

Originally posted by: EagleKeeper
If it was not for the Valdez, the 75 gallon spillage would not have even made the wires.

If not for the lessons learned from the Valdez it could have been a disaster. Word is that we're now going to look at legislation requiring oil companies to provide tug escorts at the loading facilities to prevent things like this from happening again.

 

[EagleKeeper]

True - the Valdez brought the attention to needing double hulls. Having local pilots available for inbound tankes is also a good idea. Pilots/grounded fisherman will appreciate the work also.

My intention was to not trivialize the incident; but to rather indicate that while such issues happen all the time, they are ignored by the media. This would also have been ignored had the Valdez not happend.

 

[Whoozyerdaddy]

Originally posted by: EagleKeeper
True - the Valdez brought the attention to needing double hulls. Having local pilots available for inbound tankes is also a good idea. Pilots/grounded fisherman will appreciate the work also.

My intention was to not trivialize the incident; but to rather indicate that while such issues happen all the time, they are ignored by the media. This would also have been ignored had the Valdez not happend.

I wasn't picking on you. I totaly agree with you. I don't think the 75 gallons was news worthy either.

What was news worthy was the fact that an ice floe can, and in this case did, break a huge ship from its moorings and send it drifting. The point of the article is more about the "between-the-lines" potential of the event rather than the event itself.

That's how I take it anyway.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy

Originally posted by: EagleKeeper
True - the Valdez brought the attention to needing double hulls. Having local pilots available for inbound tankes is also a good idea. Pilots/grounded fisherman will appreciate the work also.

My intention was to not trivialize the incident; but to rather indicate that while such issues happen all the time, they are ignored by the media. This would also have been ignored had the Valdez not happend.

I wasn't picking on you. I totaly agree with you. I don't think the 75 gallons was news worthy either.

What was news worthy was the fact that an ice floe can, and in this case did, break a huge ship from its moorings and send it drifting. The point of the article is more about the "between-the-lines" potential of the event rather than the event itself.

That's how I take it anyway.

One article indicates the ship was untied and engines were shutdown.

The other states the ship was broken from its moorings.

It may be that the ship ties up to the loading site with much less "security" (a couple a lines attached to the platform) vs. when it actually drops anchor.

The oil spills were actually caused by the disconnect of the loading equipment from the ship; not the ship itself. It implies that the ship was actually able to prevent an additaionl spill from the break by capturing the stuff on the deck. (By accident but still an acomplishment).

The ice floe also knocked the loading arm away, causing about 75 gallons of oil to spill into Cook Inlet and another 125 gallons to spill onto the ship's deck, according to Alaskan authorities.

At a minimum; Alaska should now setup up procedures to detect/deflect such bergs in proximity to the loading platforms.

 

[Whoozyerdaddy]

Originally posted by: EagleKeeper

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy

Originally posted by: EagleKeeper
True - the Valdez brought the attention to needing double hulls. Having local pilots available for inbound tankes is also a good idea. Pilots/grounded fisherman will appreciate the work also.

My intention was to not trivialize the incident; but to rather indicate that while such issues happen all the time, they are ignored by the media. This would also have been ignored had the Valdez not happend.

I wasn't picking on you. I totaly agree with you. I don't think the 75 gallons was news worthy either.

What was news worthy was the fact that an ice floe can, and in this case did, break a huge ship from its moorings and send it drifting. The point of the article is more about the "between-the-lines" potential of the event rather than the event itself.

That's how I take it anyway.

One article indicates the ship was untied and engines were shutdown.

The other states the ship was broken from its moorings.

It may be that the ship ties up to the loading site with much less "security" (a couple a lines attached to the platform) vs. when it actually drops anchor.

The oil spills were actually caused by the disconnect of the loading equipment from the ship; not the ship itself. It implies that the ship was actually able to prevent an additaionl spill from the break by capturing the stuff on the deck. (By accident but still an acomplishment).

The ice floe also knocked the loading arm away, causing about 75 gallons of oil to spill into Cook Inlet and another 125 gallons to spill onto the ship's deck, according to Alaskan authorities.

At a minimum; Alaska should now setup up procedures to detect/deflect such bergs in proximity to the loading platforms.

Right now they are talking about having the oil companies provide tugs to all moored tankers while they are filling up.

 

[GroundedSailor]

Originally posted by: EagleKeeper

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy

Originally posted by: EagleKeeper
True - the Valdez brought the attention to needing double hulls. Having local pilots available for inbound tankes is also a good idea. Pilots/grounded fisherman will appreciate the work also.

My intention was to not trivialize the incident; but to rather indicate that while such issues happen all the time, they are ignored by the media. This would also have been ignored had the Valdez not happend.

I wasn't picking on you. I totaly agree with you. I don't think the 75 gallons was news worthy either.

What was news worthy was the fact that an ice floe can, and in this case did, break a huge ship from its moorings and send it drifting. The point of the article is more about the "between-the-lines" potential of the event rather than the event itself.

That's how I take it anyway.

One article indicates the ship was untied and engines were shutdown.

The other states the ship was broken from its moorings.

It may be that the ship ties up to the loading site with much less "security" (a couple a lines attached to the platform) vs. when it actually drops anchor.

The oil spills were actually caused by the disconnect of the loading equipment from the ship; not the ship itself. It implies that the ship was actually able to prevent an additaionl spill from the break by capturing the stuff on the deck. (By accident but still an acomplishment).

The ice floe also knocked the loading arm away, causing about 75 gallons of oil to spill into Cook Inlet and another 125 gallons to spill onto the ship's deck, according to Alaskan authorities.

At a minimum; Alaska should now setup up procedures to detect/deflect such bergs in proximity to the loading platforms.

When a ship is tied up to a terminal or pier typically 10-12 lines are used - 5- 6 at each end. This is usually more than sufficient to hold the ship. However an iceberg can apply tremendous forces on a ship.

The engines are normally shut down when alongside. It's not like a car where you can run the engines stopped. Usually when ships engines are running the propeller is turning. Even if otherwise, NO terminal will allow any transfer of oil with the ship engines in a state of readiness.

Tankers have their loading connection midway along the deck . See this picture which shows about 10 pipeline connections on each side.

Under each set of connection is a 'drip tray' which collects any oil that comes out of the pipes when the connection is opened after completion of loading or discharge. I suspect the 125 gallons that spilt on board was collected in the drip tray.

Here's a picture of a typical loading arm. The vertical pipes of the loading arm would typically have a little oil in them even if loading was stopped. That is where the 75 gallons most likely came from.

Rather than going the expensive route of keeping a tug standby - it's going to be very difficult for a tug to hold a ship against the pressure of ice and could cause more harm to the ship than good. Why don't they have a good ice watch and shut down the loading operation when a large piece of ice is getting close. They could even take the ship off the berth if it appears that dangerous.

<------- spent 24 years working as ships officer, 15 of them on oil tankers.


Edit: Pilots nearly always guide ships in and out of harbors unless the capt has a waiver for proven familiarity with the port.

 

[techs]

From what I heard the ship was a double hulled tanker. The double hulled tankers are a direct result of the Exxon Valdez. In fact the tanker companies are ahead of the law in converting to double hulls due to the bad publicity and costs associated with the Exxon Valdez.
Imagine how safe oil shipping would be if Exxon actually had to really pay to clean up Prince William Sound and consumers boycotted Exxon fro awhile.

 

[GroundedSailor]

Originally posted by: techs
From what I heard the ship was a double hulled tanker. The double hulled tankers are a direct result of the Exxon Valdez. In fact the tanker companies are ahead of the law in converting to double hulls due to the bad publicity and costs associated with the Exxon Valdez.
Imagine how safe oil shipping would be if Exxon actually had to really pay to clean up Prince William Sound and consumers boycotted Exxon fro awhile.

No. Exxon Valdez accident happened in 1989. The first double hull tanker I worked on (in 1991) was built in 1985. So that technology was existing at the time of Exxon Valdez.

What hastened the adoption of double hulls was the OPA 90 act of the US and adoption of a timetable by IMO.

Yes a lot of companies are ahead of the double hull timetable. Part of that was because US law OPA 90 required single hull tankers entering US ports to carry almost unlimited insurance for pollution liability. Some companies made commercial decisions not to trade to the US at all (my last company was one of them) and others went for double hull ships. Ironically, apart from Exxon, it was US tankers companies which were the slowest to adopt the double hull design!!!

Why do you want to boycott Exxon? After all it was an accident, not a deliberate spill, and Exxon has already paid more than 2 billion dollars.