Looks like the oil slick is Spain's fault....

[GoingUp]

Why would you not let a flounding oil tanker dock and get fixed?

The Bahamas-registered single-hull Prestige tanker had already spilt an estimated 10,000 tonnes during the six days it was being towed out into stormy seas after Spanish and Portuguese authorities refused the stricken vessel entry into its ports.

Link

The clean up and resulting pollution are worse than anything that it could have done in port.... idiots....





Edit: Edited cause all of the blame should be on the spanish..... read below for more details....

 

[TallBill]

Dont they ever do maintanence on those huge ships? how does one just split in half?

 

[bizmark]

Originally posted by: Gobadgrs
Why would you not let a flounding oil tanker dock and get fixed?

[this is what I assumed was the reason, b/c it's the only thing that makes any sense to me... if this was not their reasoning, then I agree with you that they are idiots]

because what if it spilled its oil right next to the coast? It's a lot better for the oil to be released in the middle of the ocean than to have it happen right next to shore. Oil and water don't mix.... if the oil was released out in the middle of the ocean, it would float on the water, and it could be sucked up fairly effectively. This is not the case if it were to happen close to land and quickly wash up onto shore. Oil can get caught in dirt, sand, plants, everything.... cleanup becomes 10,000x worse.

 

[bizmark]

Originally posted by: bob970
Dont they ever do maintanence on those huge ships? how does one just split in half?

evidently it was last inspected in Dubai in May, and it was in dry-dock in China in May 2001. fairly complete coverage on MSNBC

 

[Shockwave]

Originally posted by: bob970
Dont they ever do maintanence on those huge ships? how does one just split in half?

Large waves, as those found in stormy seas. Large waves cause the ship to not be fully supported. In other words, you wave two waves supporting the ship, one on each end. So the middle is stressed. Then the waves move half the length of the ship, and now the front and back have no support and the middle carries all the weight, as thats where the wave is. Thus, there ends up being ALOT of stress on the ship when its loaded. After so long...Snap. There is a bit more to it, but thats the simple explanation.

 

[nagger]

Well I have to say that CNN is dead wrong on this one.

- First the Prestige was well inside Spain's waters when it went into trouble.

- The spanish didn't allow it to enter any spanish port and the Spain's Defense Minister even sugested to use F-18's to bomb the Prestige out of the water;

- The spanish didn't try to do a high-sea transfer of the oil from the Prestige to another tanker;

- The spanish used a couple of boats to push the Prestige to Portuguese waters;

- The Prestige sunk still inside spanish water's.

Where's Portugal's fault in the middle of this problem?

 

[GoingUp]

I dont have any of this info that you have, but then again where did you get it from? Link? I just read the CNN article that Portugal would let them come into port... thats all I have read about the disaster...

 

[nagger]

I'm from Portugal.

I'm getting these news off the radio, local televisions, newspapers, online publications.

I don't think that Babelfish does a good portuguese to english translation but check this piece about Spain's Defense Minister:

Link to portuguese newspaper Publico

 

[GoingUp]

The Spanish authorities had pondered the hypothesis to bomb the oil tanker "Prestige" with F-18 airplanes "to provoke the fire of the fuel or the sinking of the boat", today disclosed the minister of the Spanish Defense, Federico Trillo.

In declaration to the chain of Telecinco television, Trillo affirmed that the evolution of the events became unnecessary that this measure was adoptasse because the "deterioration and the fracture of the hoof of the boat" had finished for provoking the sinking of the oil tanker.

The Spanish minister said that the Government of Madrid had the contribution of that it said to be the best specialists in the analysis of the situation and that "the best option, given the wind that had, that it moved away the boat from the coast, was to move away to the Prestige the most possible from the coasts Gallegos".

"If ] was not wanted to bomb yesterday [ tuesday to provoke a fire was because he was very complicated and very risky, data that were not clearly that the oil would have been consumed all, that is muitíssimo", added.

Trillo said that "now more possibilities exist techniques" of that the oil that remains in the bilges of the boat "is made solid in the deep one of the sea".

The Spanish bearer said that beyond the cleanness tasks, where military participate, airplanes of the Armed sobrevoam the zone where if the "Prestige" sank to detect escapes of crude that they could "put in danger the Galician coasts and the north of the Portuguese coast" and that "until the o moment nothing was not detected".

Kingdom Joined with part of the responsibility

The Joined Kingdom reacted of sufficiently firm form to the European Commission that it suggested, according to London, that the country will have responsibility in this maritime accident and already it asked for an official contradiction on the part of Brussels.

In an official notice sent today to the AFP, the British ambassador next to the UE, Nigel Sheinwald, answered last week in a particularly serious tone to the order of information done for the European commissioner of the Transports, the Spaniard Loyola de Palacio.

In this order of information he communicated himself that the "Prestige" made diverse scales, since 1999, in the port of the British colónia of Gibraltar, without never having been inspeccionado, and complained explanations for this fact.

In accordance with the reply of Nigel Sheinwald sent yesterday to the Commission, a "intent examination" of the international registers on the movements of the ships "proves clearly" that the "Prestige" "only brought alongside an only time, in the last five years, in Gibraltar". "It was in day 13 of June of 2002 to supply itself, without exactly having fond to enter in the port".

The ambaixador still lamented the fact of the "Commission not to have verified the facts, before suggesting that Gibraltar was considered responsible" and insists that the Commission will have "to confirm public that the Kingdom Unido and Gibraltar case does not have responsibilities in this". "This declaration must have the same importance that the preceding declarations of the Commission suggesting the the opposite", assured the ambassador.

 

[GoingUp]

Originally posted by: bizmark

Originally posted by: Gobadgrs
Why would you not let a flounding oil tanker dock and get fixed?

[this is what I assumed was the reason, b/c it's the only thing that makes any sense to me... if this was not their reasoning, then I agree with you that they are idiots]

because what if it spilled its oil right next to the coast? It's a lot better for the oil to be released in the middle of the ocean than to have it happen right next to shore. Oil and water don't mix.... if the oil was released out in the middle of the ocean, it would float on the water, and it could be sucked up fairly effectively. This is not the case if it were to happen close to land and quickly wash up onto shore. Oil can get caught in dirt, sand, plants, everything.... cleanup becomes 10,000x worse.

Yea but the oil will get washed inland anyways, and its ruining the off coast fishing.... having oil leaked in a port would be a lot easier for clean up and it would minimize the damage and impact, IMHO