• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Black Sea catastrophe

Checkmite

Skepticifimisticalationist
Checkmite
Joined
Jun 7, 2002
Messages
29,007
Location
Gulf Coast
Link

Apparently, major storms have sunk five ships and grounded several more in the Black Sea region. One Russian oil tanker was split in half by the storm, spilling 560,000 gallons of fuel-oil into the Black Sea. The spill threatens the coasts of Russia and the Ukraine in that region.

I was earlier thinking over the recent anniversary of the sinking of the SS Edmund Fitzgerald on Lake Superior 32 years ago, when I happened to catch this headline. A curious coincidence.
 
Joshua Korosi said:
Link

Apparently, major storms have sunk five ships and grounded several more in the Black Sea region. One Russian oil tanker was split in half by the storm, spilling 560,000 gallons of fuel-oil into the Black Sea. The spill threatens the coasts of Russia and the Ukraine in that region.

I was earlier thinking over the recent anniversary of the sinking of the SS Edmund Fitzgerald on Lake Superior 32 years ago, when I happened to catch this headline. A curious coincidence.
Click to expand...
If you'd do me a favor, please don't think about any hurricane or tornado in Southern Texas. You are free to think about blizzards, though.

Thanks in advance. :)

As to the news story . . . :(

DR
 
Last edited:
In relation to this story, I was wondering: given that there were warnings of this storm, how is it that these ships have been allowed to leave harbour? Is there no legal means to stop that kind of reckless behaviour? After all, that would be very much in the public interest, especially in the case of oil tankers.
 
brumsen said:
In relation to this story, I was wondering: given that there were warnings of this storm, how is it that these ships have been allowed to leave harbour? Is there no legal means to stop that kind of reckless behaviour? After all, that would be very much in the public interest, especially in the case of oil tankers.
Click to expand...
Bubble wrap the world, while you are at it, OK?

DR
 
brumsen said:
You're not being serious. I was. And I gave an argument, too. What is it that you didn't get about that?
Click to expand...
Your position ignores, it seems to me, the standard hazards of operating ships at sea. Weather is variable, and storms are sometimes more severe, and sometimes less severe, than forecast. You seem to think that a regulation will fix that. Please don't confirm a Belgian stereotype I have tried very, very hard to reject.

DR
 
Last edited:
Darth Rotor said:
Your position ignores, it seems to me, the standard hazards of operating ships at sea. Weather is variable, and storms are sometimes more severe, and sometimes less severe, than forecast. You seem to think that a regulation will fix that. Please don't confirm a Belgian stereotype I have tried very, very hard to reject.

DR
Click to expand...
Of course weather is variable. However, I am pretty sure that if we kept ships with dangerous loads in harbour when there is a warning for very severe weather, the economic benefits would outweigh the costs. Sort of like the precautionary principle: even if you're sometimes wrong about the threat that an activity poses, it is still rational to take a certain level of precaution.

BTW, not being Belgian, how could I confirm such a stereotype?
(I'd be curious to know, more explicitly, what it is that you are talking about)
 
brumsen said:
Of course weather is variable. However, I am pretty sure that if we kept ships with dangerous loads in harbour when there is a warning for very severe weather, the economic benefits would outweigh the costs. Sort of like the precautionary principle: even if you're sometimes wrong about the threat that an activity poses, it is still rational to take a certain level of precaution.

BTW, not being Belgian, how could I confirm such a stereotype?
(I'd be curious to know, more explicitly, what it is that you are talking about)
Click to expand...
You seem to assume that no such precautions, measures, are in place, anywhere. Can you clearly provide support for that idea?

I am guessing on the Belgian thinking, sorry, brumsen for some reason said "Belgian" to me, and your location "Belgium" supported it. My bad. Belgium certainly attracts folks from all over.

DR
 
Last edited:
Darth Rotor said:
You seem to assume that no such precautions, measures, are in place, anywhere. Can you clearly provide support for that idea?
Click to expand...
I wasn't quite assuming that - so you'll forgive me for not being able to support such a claim. I just reasoned that IN THIS CASE it was kind of odd that - at least according to what I had been reading - these ships, with dangerous cargo, left harbour while there were clear warnings of very severe weather.

I am guessing on the Belgian thinking
Click to expand...
Being a fairly recent immigrant I had hoped you would help me get more clarity here;)
A bit odd, nonetheless, that you first moan about some Belgian stereotype and then do not want to say what that stereotype is?!
 
brumsen said:
I wasn't quite assuming that - so you'll forgive me for not being able to support such a claim. I just reasoned that IN THIS CASE it was kind of odd that - at least according to what I had been reading - these ships, with dangerous cargo, left harbour while there were clear warnings of very severe weather.


Being a fairly recent immigrant I had hoped you would help me get more clarity here;)
A bit odd, nonetheless, that you first moan about some Belgian stereotype and then do not want to say what that stereotype is?!
Click to expand...
The stereotype I refer to on Belgians: the worlds most infuriating bureaucrats, who think that rules solve problems. It's a bit of an exaggeration, needless to say.

DR
 
Last edited:
Well, I read a little more and the oil tanker was apparently designed for rivers. So certainly not stormy sea conditions.
In other words, there most likely are rules which were violated. So I guess I just wondered at the incredibly lax enforcement of such rules.

Belgians infuriating bureaucrats? nah... I've seen worse. Anyway, that's just the bureaucrats; the rest of Belgium has as its motto "if one only did what one was allowed to do according to the rules, then one could do very little... so.... (insert your favorite rule-breaking here)"
 
brumsen said:
Well, I read a little more and the oil tanker was apparently designed for rivers. So certainly not stormy sea conditions.
Click to expand...
Ah, thanks, that's different. Seems to add starch to your worry that someone made a gross, rather than small, error in risk assessment.
In other words, there most likely are rules which were violated. So I guess I just wondered at the incredibly lax enforcement of such rules.
Click to expand...
It happens, eh?
Belgians infuriating bureaucrats? nah... I've seen worse.
Click to expand...
Sure you have. Italians. :D

:duck:

(I really love Italians, please, don't be too harsh over that joke.)

DR
 
If I read the story correctly the ship was anchored. Not enough information to know if there was a dock able to tie it up to. But that is generally not a good idea anyway.

Normal procedures are (for US Navy ships anyway) to get out to sea in time to ride the storms out. Generally speaking ships (mainly talking big ships here) are much safer riding those waves than getting pushed into near-by things by them.

My question is why the ships were so close to shore. Appears another ship was run aground also. Again, being further out to sea may have saved it.

I didn't see in the story where it said the oil ship was designed for river use. I did see that it "was carrying fuel oil from the southern Russian city of Samara on the Volga River to an oil terminal in Ukraine". While that would imply it was able to travel on rivers, any ship should be able to travel on any river that is deep and wide enough for it. Submarines aren't "designed" to travel on rivers, but 6 out of my 10 FBM patrols began and ended with trips up or down a river.

I've got to run for a bit, but I'll try to learn a bit more about this when I get back.
 
brumsen said:
I wasn't quite assuming that - so you'll forgive me for not being able to support such a claim. I just reasoned that IN THIS CASE it was kind of odd that - at least according to what I had been reading - these ships, with dangerous cargo, left harbour while there were clear warnings of very severe weather.
Click to expand...

Sailing tradion going back centuries: captain's decision, captain's responsibility.
 
Yikes, is there something about the Russians that they just don't take to water very well?

I mean, they lose subs left and right, and now this. Not to mention the battle of Tsushima.
 
I've done a bit of looking about for more details. So far the most informative article I've found, if factual, is from the Christian Science Monitor.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/1113/p04s04-woeu.html

"Maxim Stepanenko, a regional prosecutor, told Vesti 24 that captains had been warned Saturday about the stormy conditions. He said the sunken oil tanker — designed during Soviet times to transport oil on rivers — was not built to withstand a fierce storm. "

This part confuses me. Not the details of the ship. That part, if true, would help explain why it sank. It's the "told Vesti 24" part. Either I missed where it's explained, or there is no other mention of who/what "Vesti 24" is.

It does sound like the oil tanker was actually designed for working on rivers though, so that part is cleared up at least :)

From the map on the above link, it looks like a fairly narrow strait. It's hard to find information about exactly where the ships were (inside the strait/outside?). If they where actually inside the strait, it's easy to understand why they were damaged/sunk as they were.

Anyway, I haven't found enough details, and I'm tired of looking, to figure out where each damaged/sank ship was, and why they chose to stay in or around the strait, rather than head out to the Black Sea in an attempt to avoid or ride out the storm. I assume (shudder) that the warning was given last Saturday, unless it's an international date line trick, and the warning actually came tomorrow :eek:

Sad for those that died or lost loved ones in this tragedy. Not happy about what happened to the environment either.
 
fishbob said:
Sailing tradion going back centuries: captain's decision, captain's responsibility.
Click to expand...
Wouldn't be the first tradition to be regulated against for good reasons.
Moreover, centuries ago there weren't any oiltankers, were there?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom