Tauranga oil spill

Forums › Off topic › Tauranga oil spill

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | ... | 11

272 posts

Ultimate Geek

Trusted

#532132 11-Oct-2011 22:13

gzt: 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.

For additional information on the dispersant used:

http://www.nalco.com/applications/corexit-technology.htm

Michael Skyrme - Instrumentation & Controls

John2010

532 posts

Ultimate Geek

#532165 12-Oct-2011 00:14

davemc:

...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...

I won't comment on most of your post as it seems that you really do not have much exposure to shipping nor an understanding of salvage. Mike has addressed a few points.

But I will comment on the above quote which is essentially rubbish, especially in this case. The vessel went aground early 5th and salvors were already appointed and their first staff on board the vessel sometime before mid afternoon the next day so there was no delay whatsoever.

As I understand it the owners of the vessel are Costamare Shipping Company which is one of the world's largest owners of container vessels offered for charter (including to A.P. Moller-Maersk a few of whose vessels are seen in NZ - I think probably the most frequently seen operator here) and the charterer is Mediterranean Shipping Company which is one of the largest operators of container ships in the world (probably second largest).

Such prominent companies have every reason to act promptly on this and it appears that they have (my understanding is that salvage is owner's responsibility, but I do not know the facts on that in this particular case).

John2010

532 posts

Ultimate Geek

#532169 12-Oct-2011 00:39

MikeSkyrme:
gzt: 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.

For additional information on the dispersant used:

http://www.nalco.com/applications/corexit-technology.htm

And the MSDS can be found at www.mrk.org/corexit_9500_uscueg.539287.pdf.

It seems that the facts are quite different to that being promulagated by the fringe mobs. I have also seen it promulgated that corexit 9500 is banned in the UK, it seems this also is not the case.

robbyp

1199 posts

Uber Geek

#532173 12-Oct-2011 01:10

John2010: The vessel went aground early 5th and salvors were already appointed and their first staff on board the vessel sometime before mid afternoon the next day so there was no delay whatsoever.

I don't think anyone was talking about a delay in that sort of thing, which can be done very quickly. For example when you crash you car, you get onto the insurance company straight away, and it gets towed and asscessed pretty quickly, often within the day

.I think people are talking about the actual delay in getting things actually done to resolve the problem. eg. the delays in putting pontoons around the spill to contain it, and getting a barge out to it to take oil off the ship etc, and getting something out to it to actually take the containers off.From what I heard on TV, they had to spend a lot of time arranging somewhere to dump the oil that they got out of the ship. I believe that should have been sorted as part of the contingency plans, and shouldn't have caused any delay.

TheUngeek

924 posts

Ultimate Geek
Inactive user

#532207 12-Oct-2011 08:55

If you read back in this thread you will see that it's just not as simple as sailing out to it and unloading and pumping some oil off it.

TheUngeek

924 posts

Ultimate Geek
Inactive user

#532208 12-Oct-2011 08:55

If you read back in this thread you will see that it's just not as simple as sailing out to it and unloading and pumping some oil off it.

TheUngeek

924 posts

Ultimate Geek
Inactive user

#532209 12-Oct-2011 08:55

If you read back in this thread you will see that it's just not as simple as sailing out to it and unloading and pumping some oil off it.

Equinox IT

Cloud spending continues to surge globally, but most organisations haven’t made the changes necessary to maximise the value and cost-efficiency benefits of their cloud investments. Download the whitepaper From Overspend to Advantage now.

Dingbatt

6754 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#532211 12-Oct-2011 09:07

TheUngeek: If you read back in this thread you will see that it's just not as simple as sailing out to it and unloading and pumping some oil off it.

+1

As someone who has worked in Emergency Management I am tired of the car accident analogy. If you want an automotive analogy it's more like an articulated truck and trailer running off the road, over a cliff and landing in a swamp. You can see it, may be able to walk up to it, but recovering it and its cargo will take time and specialised equipment.

Don't get me wrong, this is a major disaster, but it's too easy for people to decide with 5% of the information (gleaned mainly from a superlative laden media) that things aren't happening quickly enough.

“We’ve arranged a society based on science and technology, in which nobody understands anything about science technology. Carl Sagan 1996

bener

272 posts

Ultimate Geek

Trusted

#532244 12-Oct-2011 10:02

This is a worry, whether it be shameless self-publicity or stupidity/stubbornness on behalf of Maritime NZ is the question.

" [FROM NZ HERALD]
It emerged yesterday that on the day the Rena struck the reef, Maritime NZ declined an offer of two inflatable barges which could pump up to 100 tonnes of oil at a time.

The offer was made by Ronald Winstone, of Lancer Industries, who said the two barges would have easily emptied the ship of toxic oil in the four days of clear weather after the Rena ran aground.

"It would have taken them 17 trips to pump all the fuel off the ship and three or four days wouldn't have been unrealistic for that to have happened.

"It doesn't make sense why they didn't start pumping the oil earlier when they had the equipment to do it."

A Maritime NZ spokesman said Mr Winstone's offer was logged with its operations division, and "if they needed it they would have followed it up".
"

Maybe the offer was made, but the circumstances (safety issues etc.) meant that the barges could not be used. Maybe someone stuffed up and though "we've got it, she'll be right".

Either way, seems odd.

jeffnz

2870 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#532247 12-Oct-2011 10:03

isn't human nature wonderful, when something like this happens the knives come out and a lot of people look for someone to blame before knowing all the facts.

Maybe its a way of calming rising anxiety levels by making themselves think they are helping when generally they aren't

Just my opinion :)

Galaxy S10

Garmin Fenix 5

bener

272 posts

Ultimate Geek

Trusted

#532252 12-Oct-2011 10:13

I don't think I was looking for anyone to blame, I just wanted to know why the offer was not accepted in the first place. As you can see from my previous post I figure there was a reason, I was just pointing out a fact.

I also make no assumption that this was directed at my post only...

People need to ask questions at times like this. It keeps debate open and keeps the issue in the forefront. If people were not vocal about the issue nothing would be done to make sure matters are improved in case of a 'next time'.

But I also have to agree, there is not much gained by pointing fingers from the comfort of our homes and offices, apart from maybe a better understanding of the situation the debate continues.

John2010

532 posts

Ultimate Geek

#532301 12-Oct-2011 12:18

bener: I don't think I was looking for anyone to blame, I just wanted to know why the offer was not accepted in the first place.

Probably because it was just another of the many useless or inappropriate offers that have been received. Don't know why anyone has to explain themselves over that.

If you think explanations are due just send an email to Svitzer Salvage who have been responsible for the salvage (they have a web site with contact details) asking for details of all the offers of assistance that have been received and point out that you expect an explanation of the reasons why each has been declined

.

If you did not think explanation were due then I don't know why you asked the question except, as you say, to make noise.

bener

272 posts

Ultimate Geek

Trusted

#532334 12-Oct-2011 13:30

John2010: If you think explanations are due just send an email to Svitzer Salvage who have been responsible for the salvage (they have a web site with contact details) asking for details of all the offers of assistance that have been received and point out that you expect an explanation of the reasons why each has been declined .

If you did not think explanation were due then I don't know why you asked the question except, as you say, to make noise.

Ha, you make a good point sir, I am looking at their site now, although I didn't think that Svitzer Salvage were the first point of call for the oil spill containment - Maritime NZ and our Environment Minister seem to be taking the lead on that issue.

I was more hoping someone else would jump in with some more information - it's amazing what you get on these forums with a quick question. Admittedly, yes, mostly just noise!

MikeSkyrme

272 posts

Ultimate Geek

Trusted

#532346 12-Oct-2011 14:07

bener: This is a worry, whether it be shameless self-publicity or stupidity/stubbornness on behalf of Maritime NZ is the question.

" [FROM NZ HERALD]
It emerged yesterday that on the day the Rena struck the reef, Maritime NZ declined an offer of two inflatable barges which could pump up to 100 tonnes of oil at a time.

The offer was made by Ronald Winstone, of Lancer Industries, who said the two barges would have easily emptied the ship of toxic oil in the four days of clear weather after the Rena ran aground.

"It would have taken them 17 trips to pump all the fuel off the ship and three or four days wouldn't have been unrealistic for that to have happened.

"It doesn't make sense why they didn't start pumping the oil earlier when they had the equipment to do it."

A Maritime NZ spokesman said Mr Winstone's offer was logged with its operations division, and "if they needed it they would have followed it up".
"

Maybe the offer was made, but the circumstances (safety issues etc.) meant that the barges could not be used. Maybe someone stuffed up and though "we've got it, she'll be right".

Either way, seems odd.

Without knowing the details of the rubber inflatable barges, it is not easy to say why they were not used.

However, imagine the public outcry if the barges had ruptured on the reef, whilst full of fuel oil...

I imagine Maritime NZ were unable to use the equipment due to insurance issues (yes, lame I know) and due to the fact that the vessels were probably not designed for the task they were offered up for.

Anyway, the oil is not the big issue now..... Now the issue is large shipping containers, floating around the ocean at only a couple of meters below sea level....

Michael Skyrme - Instrumentation & Controls

John2010

532 posts

Ultimate Geek

#532357 12-Oct-2011 14:17

bener:
John2010: If you think explanations are due just send an email to Svitzer Salvage who have been responsible for the salvage (they have a web site with contact details) asking for details of all the offers of assistance that have been received and point out that you expect an explanation of the reasons why each has been declined . If you did not think explanation were due then I don't know why you asked the question except, as you say, to make noise.

Ha, you make a good point sir, I am looking at their site now, although I didn't think that Svitzer Salvage were the first point of call for the oil spill containment - Maritime NZ and our Environment Minister seem to be taking the lead on that issue.

The salvor will almost certainly be responsible for getting the oil off the ship and it was getting the oil off the ship that is what you quoted from the NZ Herald link the barges were offered for.

However, if in your mind the barges you referred to were just for cleaning up oil already leaked from the ship (but that is not what you quoted) then the answer to your original question is easy. The 100 tonne (approx. 100 cu.m which is not much at all, say 5mx5mx4m volume wise) capacity of oily water inflatable barges claimed to have been offered would be toys for that job - 2 more capable aluminium motorised barges have been used for that and have been shown on TV. They are both mussel harvesters from Coromandel (last I knew) one being approx 22m long and the other 29m so are already fitted with lifting gear, large flat work areas for gear, etc.

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | ... | 11