Tauranga oil spill

Forums › Off topic › Tauranga oil spill

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | ... | 11

532 posts

Ultimate Geek

#531208 9-Oct-2011 17:29

So many questions, so many answers including for some of them "What are you smoking"

.

There is no site of the type you ask about as far as I know. It would all be uniformed conjecture, rumours and misinformation so I'm not sure what value it would bring apart from giving the chattering ones somewhere to chat.

Will, limit myself to the "Awanuia" - I don't know who is calling it a barge (the media maybe) but it is indeed a sea tanker, not a motorised barge and advising that you can get an idea of some of the vessels at the site from the AIS data at www.marinetraffic.com and, for example, the "Awanuia" can be seen there.

EDIT: Meant to say the "Rena" is not the 30 whatever years old that you say - was built in 1990. Makes a better story though for the media if they say it old, most readers wouldn't know.

gzt

17134 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#531227 9-Oct-2011 18:57

John2010: You won't get anything worthwhile from the media apart from a story of some sort - some have even demonstrated their ignorance by calling naval architects "navy engineers" .

I can only agree with that. Most media outlets seem to have perfected the art of standing around in front of something and pointing at it while making enough noise to hold the viewers attention.

John2010: I take from your willingness to claim that assessment of the situation seems to have taken too long that you have the knowledge to make that claim

Not at all. My only claim is regarding my perception of the situation:

Gzt: The perception of many people onshore (including me) is that the response has been slow. And with the media initially talking about owners and insurers assessing the situation before seeing any action, many are suspecting the speed of the initial response was dictated by the speed of wheels turning in a corporate bureaucracy - with the responsible government agencies (MNZ I guess) largely taking a 'wait and see' position on the outcome initially when they could have been more proactive.

You have not addressed either of these perceptions directly*

Unless of course - you are claiming the situation has been attended to in the best possible way and there is no scope for process improvement (whatsoever) to achieve better outcomes.

John2010: So, just for that matter alone, what did you think was a reasonable timescale for the damage survey, determination of the vessel's status on the reef (hogging, sagging, etc), recovery of the ship's design, the structural analysis of the vessel in the damaged and aground state, and the development of an unloading plan from those things?

One key question many people have is how long did it actually take to get this started between the owner, insurer, and contracting the appropriate party to make this assessment, assembling the required design documentation and anything else required to get that assessment actually under way.

*Not that you are expected to of course : ) it was a very interesting contribution to the discussion.

gzt

17134 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#531228 9-Oct-2011 19:00

davemc: A few questions I have...

Excellent!!!! That should keep several newsrooms busy for a while

Klipspringer

2385 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#531355 10-Oct-2011 08:06

Authorities dragging their feet yet again. Another huge disaster slowely unravelling here!

josephhinvest

1543 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#531371 10-Oct-2011 09:04

BraaiGuy: Authorities dragging their feet yet again. Another huge disaster slowely unravelling here!

I think most of us would agree that is our perception of how it has happened, it just seems like it has taken a long time for action. To be a fly on the wall would have been very interesting.

Linuxluver

5828 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Subscriber

#531397 10-Oct-2011 10:01

gzt: I'm probably going over stuff that some of you guys already know, but anyway,

This may be part of the problem:

The response flowchart from the PDF: http://anony.ws/di-XKJP.jpg [Can't insert this inline for some reason, maybe exceeded size?]

In summary the flow chart says if the owner of the vessel is 'able to respond' - do nothing.

Regardless of the capacity of the national unit, this seems utterly inadequate.

[Edit: layout]

Totally agree.

_____________________________________________________________________

I've been on Geekzone over 16 years..... Time flies....

gzt

17134 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#531478 10-Oct-2011 12:43

Bugger. Oil arrives on Mt Maunganui beach.

I guess that looks like the heavy fuel oil discussed earlier?

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10757900

Quic Broadband

Move to New Zealand's best fibre broadband service (affiliate link). Free setup code: R587125ERQ6VE. Note that to use Quic Broadband you must be comfortable with configuring your own router.

gzt

17134 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#531485 10-Oct-2011 13:05

From the Herald: "The chemical Corexit 9500, used to tackle BP's disastrous spill in the Gulf of Mexico last year, is being sprayed to break up the black oil. But it is not clear whether it is working, and international experts are measuring the results"

There have been some concerns expressed about the effectiveness and toxicity of Corexit dispersants:

Wired Magazine on the BP disaster: "Not only did Corexit do a worse job of dispersing oil, but it was three times as lethal to silverfish used as a benchmark organism in toxicity testing and more than twice as lethal to shrimp, another benchmark organism and an important part of Gulf fisheries"

http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2010/05/gulf-dispersants/

And a couple of far more critical articles with links and technical details:

http://www.desmogblog.com/bp-oil-dispersant-corexit-contained-cancer-causing-agents
http://beforeitsnews.com/story/77/214/Why_Is_BP_Using_Highly_Toxic_Corexit_Oil_Dispersant.html

I make no warranty claims for the second two articles, but they do have pointers to govt and regulatory sources among others.

davemc

38 posts

Geek

#532000 11-Oct-2011 16:34

Spots of oil the size of side plates down much of high tide mark on the beach south of Mt Maunganui. General smell of oil on the beach. Thousands of 20c size pieces on the water line and recent wave washes. Some white paper overall official cleaners. A few people also helping. All they need is a rubber glove, spade and bucket. That's all the official guys are using. Plastic lined jumbo bins have been spaced down the beach for loading bags into. This spill is going to use a heap more plastic bags. The oil is so sticky it's easy to scoop up into a bag or bucket. Quite a few dead puffer fish, not oiled, but dead.

Surf on the beach is very heavy, breaking up the oil into smaller, harder to clean up bits.

Awanuia has a 10" gash in a flange or similar, sitting at dock for repair.

Spoke to a Navy crewman coming off duty. First part of evacuation of crew this morning was by helicopter. Then the thick fog closed in, and the rest had to be taken off by Navy small boarding boats. Only the junior crew members are Phillipino. Officers are a mix of German, Indian, Australian and others. Crew are very obviously in a huge amount of trouble, and are very worried. They have also been very busy. One could question their ability to keep assisting with the salvage. They should be swapped out.

Ship is no longer visible from shore, due to the thick fog.

Ship is making a huge amount of noise as she grinds on the reef in the swell. Also the containers are sliding around and banging in the heavy seas., making more noise.

There is a huge amount of sticky oil in the water around the ship, masses of it. Far, far more than has washed up on the beach already.

The really serious issue is that no boats can get close because of the thick sticky goo. It fouls all the water intakes, and lines them with tar, blocking them. This causes engines and pumps to overheat and fail. This is a problem for all support vessels, big and small. Fouled engines have to be completely stripped, putting them out of action for days or weeks, Some of the Navy boarding boats are a real mess, but they had to go in to get the crew off. They had to weave around the slick from 1/2km away from the wreck. Perhaps deck mounted self contained generators could provide motive power? Difficult though.

Very un-nerving getting close in a small boat because the ship and it's containers tower so high above the boats, the creaking and groaning, the threat that a container may fall off and squish something.

There does not appear to be any suitable high reach, heavy crane ships in port. The Katherine etc are all log ships, and are loading and leaving on their normal business.

So it's all looking fairly grim.

John2010

532 posts

Ultimate Geek

#532015 11-Oct-2011 17:05

davemc: ...There does not appear to be any suitable high reach, heavy crane ships in port...

...nor in NZ - One is at sea en route.

Interesting post, thanks.

mattwnz

20163 posts

Uber Geek

#532021 11-Oct-2011 17:13

davemc: So it's all looking fairly grim.

I think that is an understandment. It is already NZs worst maritime environmental disaster.

Apparently oil is now gushing out, and the cleanup could take many months (I suspect that is sugar coating it)

When it is the top news story on the BBC website, you know that it is bad.

I do question NZs contingency for this sort of thing. We export and import using ships, so surely we should have the tools to deal with this sort of thing on hand, as it would only be a matter of when, not if, this sort of thing occurs. The fact that the ship that was setup to remove oil only removed a small amount of oil before needing repairs is not good.

John2010

532 posts

Ultimate Geek

#532029 11-Oct-2011 17:36

mattwnz:
...I do question NZs contingency for this sort of thing. We export and import using ships, so surely we should have the tools to deal with this sort of thing on hand, as it would only be a matter of when, not if, this sort of thing occurs...

OK, what tools, if you question what is available then you must have some understanding of the requirements as contingency for all the possible accident types?

mattwnz

20163 posts

Uber Geek

#532039 11-Oct-2011 17:49

John2010:
mattwnz:
? ...I do question NZs contingency for this sort of thing. We export and import using ships, so surely we should have the tools to deal with this sort of thing on hand, as it would only be a matter of when, not if, this sort of thing occurs...

OK, what tools, if you question what is available then you must have some understanding of the requirements as contingency for all the possible accident types?

Thats what they pay the experts for, to handle contingencies, and have plans in place for a ship breaking up and leaking oil. I guess it is called risk analysis, and they probably have statistics of the probability of this sort of problem occuring, and the cost benefit ratio of investing in equipment that may never be used etc etc.
The problem is that any problem like this occurring is basically beyond NZs control. You are replying solely on these companies operating these ships, so the lowest common denominator must be taken into account when managing risk
The number one thing they needed to do while the weather was still good, was to get something out there to suck the oil off the ship. They also need to get the containers contain the chemicals off. This has been like watching a slow motion car crash.
I am also not saying they have done a bad job since this has happened, as I am sure they have done the best they can , and perception looking in from the outside is often different from what is really happening behind the scenes.

davemc

38 posts

Geek

#532098 11-Oct-2011 20:57

Many marine incidents will involve fuel and oil.

We already have the MPRS, Marine Pollution Response Service, a division of Maritime NZ, based in Te Atatu.

They just need a bit more gear and training.

As previous posters have pointed out, shipping companies will cut corners, and we need to cater for the lowest common denominator, those companies that make no provision for their own disasters. Companies will always try to externalise their costs, to maximise their profits. It is the constant battle between private benefit and public cost.

Moving oil needs pumps, generators, heaters, compressors, pipes, hoses, lines, booms, bags, connectors and barges. This equipment isn't a mystery, it's used every day by oil supply industry. It's just that none of it is sitting around idle, ready for rapid transport, remote deployment. It's some of this gear we need to own, train on and keep in reserve. It needs to be large enough to pump the volume typically carried by ships using our coast, in a reasonable time frame, in adverse conditions.

We do this with Fire Service, Urban Search & Rescue, Ambulance, SPCA, Police, Army. It's like we need a dedicated emergency service for our environment.

There is a cost to this, and typically it would be user pays, a small levy on each container or ship movement.

Port Companies would also be logical owners of some more capability. They have the greatest vested interest in ensuring shipping is safe and reliable, and have the land, location, tugboat, financial, supply chain, manpower, credibility and experience resources to provision this sort of emergency equipment. Perhaps there needs to be a minimum performance standard for marine response held by ports, much as airports have to have well provisioned crash rescue crews and equipment.

A national standard in emergency oil handling would also be very desirable, so everybodies connectors, pipes and procedures integrate quickly and effectively together, and so multiple units or systems can be connected in series or parallel to scale up or out. A standard is relatively cheap for the Govt to implement, and provides a lot of benefits for all users.

Hopefully this sort of stuff is carefully thought through in the coming weeks. Unfortunately the current pro business Government isn't keen on any further curbs to companies, or further compliance costs on industry. This leads to greater costs borne by us all and the environment. The economy is a wholly owned subsidiary of the environment, not the other way round.

Lets hope our future planning learns from our current response.

MikeSkyrme

272 posts

Ultimate Geek

Trusted

#532127 11-Oct-2011 22:07

davemc: Many marine incidents will involve fuel and oil.

We already have the MPRS, Marine Pollution Response Service, a division of Maritime NZ, based in Te Atatu.

They just need a bit more gear and training.

As previous posters have pointed out, shipping companies will cut corners, and we need to cater for the lowest common denominator, those companies that make no provision for their own disasters. Companies will always try to externalise their costs, to maximise their profits. It is the constant battle between private benefit and public cost.

Moving oil needs pumps, generators, heaters, compressors, pipes, hoses, lines, booms, bags, connectors and barges. This equipment isn't a mystery, it's used every day by oil supply industry. It's just that none of it is sitting around idle, ready for rapid transport, remote deployment. It's some of this gear we need to own, train on and keep in reserve. It needs to be large enough to pump the volume typically carried by ships using our coast, in a reasonable time frame, in adverse conditions.

We do this with Fire Service, Urban Search & Rescue, Ambulance, SPCA, Police, Army. It's like we need a dedicated emergency service for our environment.

There is a cost to this, and typically it would be user pays, a small levy on each container or ship movement.

Port Companies would also be logical owners of some more capability. They have the greatest vested interest in ensuring shipping is safe and reliable, and have the land, location, tugboat, financial, supply chain, manpower, credibility and experience resources to provision this sort of emergency equipment. Perhaps there needs to be a minimum performance standard for marine response held by ports, much as airports have to have well provisioned crash rescue crews and equipment.

A national standard in emergency oil handling would also be very desirable, so everybodies connectors, pipes and procedures integrate quickly and effectively together, and so multiple units or systems can be connected in series or parallel to scale up or out. A standard is relatively cheap for the Govt to implement, and provides a lot of benefits for all users.

Hopefully this sort of stuff is carefully thought through in the coming weeks. Unfortunately the current pro business Government isn't keen on any further curbs to companies, or further compliance costs on industry. This leads to greater costs borne by us all and the environment. The economy is a wholly owned subsidiary of the environment, not the other way round.

Lets hope our future planning learns from our current response.

Catering to the lowest common denominator sets a bit of a precedent, essentially it is like saying "don't worry about meeting the specifications that have already been set, because we will fill in the gaps for you".

I think the problem here is that a corner was cut somewhere, yes, I know it simplifies the situation a bit, but at the end of the day it will most likely come down to either human error or equipment failure. A rigorous RCA needs to be convened as soon as the salvage teams have the problem under control.

Whilst some of your ideas are excellent, there are enormous logistical (read cost) challenges involved.

Would every port company need to have the same equipment or would it be a shared resource?

National standards will not really work, as shipping companies operate under a completely different set of standards that say an onshore refinery operate under. Don't forget, this is not an oil tanker which would operate within a fairly strict set of for example, API standards, this is a container ship built to maritime standards.

I am also not sure what the government could do. Rewriting standards generally does not work (New Zealand Building Code, early 1990's) as the knee jerk reactions that are catered for within the new standards often overlook other important standards.

IMHO, the agencies that are responsible for ensuring compliance to specifications is met are the ones that need to think about what more they can do.

Disclaimer: I am employed by a multinational oil and gas E & P company.

Michael Skyrme - Instrumentation & Controls

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | ... | 11