QuoteSuez canal blocked by huge container ship after 'gust of wind'
Tugboats work to free 400-metre 'megaship' as vessels gather at either end of key trade waterway
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/ExMx0oTVoAQz63L?format=jpg&name=small)
One of the largest container ships in the world has run aground in the Suez canal after being blown off course by a "gust of wind", causing a huge jam of vessels at either end of the vital international trade artery.
The 220,000-ton, 400-metre-long Ever Given – a so-called "megaship" – became stuck near the southern end of the canal on Tuesday.
Eight tugboats were working to free the vessel, blocking a lane through which about 50 ships a day passed in 2019, according to Egyptian government statistics.
Bernhard Schulte Shipmanagement (BSM), the ship's technical manager, said it ran aground in the canal at about 05.40 GMT on Tuesday. It said an investigation was under way.
Early reports speculated the vessel suffered a loss of power, but the ship's operator, Evergreen Marine Corp, told Agence France-Presse it ran aground after being hit by a gust of wind.
Egyptian forecasters said high winds and a sandstorm hit the area on Tuesday, with winds gusting as much as 31 mph.
BSM said all crew were safe and accounted for, and there had been no reports of injuries or pollution.
A growing number of tankers were gathering near the entrance to the canal on Wednesday morning waiting to pass through. An extended blockage would have severe consequences for trade.
Asia-Europe container flows were picking up again after China's lunar new year and the alternative route via the Cape was a week slower, Tan Hua Joo, a consultant with Liner Research, told Reuters.
Lars Jensen, the chief executive at SeaIntelligence Consulting, said delays increased the risk of congestion at European ports. "When the canal reopens, this will mean that the delayed cargo will now arrive at the same time as cargo behind it which is still on track," he said.
As of Wednesday, five laden liquefied natural gas (LNG) tankers were unable to pass through the canal due to the grounded container ship, according to the data intelligence firm Kpler. Of the five, three were bound for Asia and two for Europe, said Kpler analyst Rebecca Chia.
She said that if the congestion persisted until the end of this week, it would affect the transit of 15 LNG tankers.
The Ever Given is one of a new category of ships called ultra-large container ships (ULCS), some of which are even too big for the Panama canal, which links the Atlantic and Pacific. It is carrying hundreds of containers bound for Rotterdam from China.
Pictures taken from another ship in the canal, the Maersk Denver, show the Ever Given lodged at an angle across the waterway. It dwarfs the tugs sent in by the Egyptian authorities to try to free it, and also a mechanised digger that appeared to be trying to excavate ground in order to free the bow.
Julianne Cona, who posted the picture from the Maersk Denver on Instagram, watched the drama unfold as her ship waited at anchor.
"Hopefully it won't be too long but from the looks of it that ship is super stuck," she wrote. "They had a bunch of tugs trying to pull and push it earlier but it was going nowhere ... there is a little excavator trying to dig out the bow."
The shipping monitoring site Vesselfinder.com showed the stricken ship surrounded by smaller tugs trying to free it from the banks.
The site also shows the traffic jam of other vessels at either end of the canal. The trade monitor TankerTrackers.com tweeted that there were "a lot of fully laden" tankers stuck at either end of the canal carrying Saudi, Russian, Omani and US oil.
Normally ships form convoys to traverse the Suez north and south up and down the canal. The Ever Given was part of a northbound convoy when the incident occurred, according to the shipping agent GAC.
The Suez canal is one of the most important waterways in the world and links the Mediterranean with the Red Sea and shipping lanes to Asia. It is 120 miles (190km) long, 24 metres (79ft) deep and 205 metres wide and can handle dozens of giant container ships a day. It was expanded in 2015 to enable ships to transit in both directions simultaneously, but only in part of the waterway.
Ships have been grounded in the canal before. In 2017, a Japanese ship became stuck but was refloated within hours. Away from the canal, a more serious incident occurred near the German port of Hamburg in 2016 when the massive CSCL Indian Ocean ran aground and needed 12 tugs to set it free after five days.
But Flavio Macau, a senior lecturer in supply chain management at Edith Cowan University in Western Australia, said one problem was that container ships had become much bigger in recent years.
He added: "Moving about 50 ships a day, the impacts of a stranded ship are negligible unless it takes weeks to float it. But that is very unlikely and it should be over in a couple of days, tops."
The canal's role as a cornerstone of international trade, particularly in oil, led the Egyptian president, Abdel Fatah al-Sisi, to announce an expansion of the vital waterway in 2014, a project promised as "a gift to the world".
It cost $8bn (£5.2bn at that time), after the Egyptian dictator demanded the project be completed within a year, promising Egyptian citizens that it would prove to be an "artery of prosperity". Egypt welcomed world leaders to a grand ceremony marking the reopening of the new canal channel in 2015, amid a wave of nationalist fervour about the project.
Egypt's Suez Canal Authority pledged that the expansion would double revenues from increased traffic, declaring that the canal would afford Egypt $13.23bn annually by 2023. Last year, revenues fell to $5.61bn, according to the canal authority's own figures.
QuoteEgyptian forecasters said high winds and a sandstorm hit the area on Tuesday, with winds gusting as much as 31 mph.
HOLY SHIT 30 MPH winds!!!!
I don't know much about sailoring, but it wouldn't surprise me if somebody fucked up badly...
Quote from: celedhring on March 24, 2021, 09:09:55 AM
I don't know much about sailoring, but it wouldn't surprise me if somebody fucked up badly...
No, there is no possible anyone could anticipate 30 MPH winds. Once things get that crazy, there is no real way to avoid driving your ship into the ground.
Someday, the technology might exist to deal with gusts "up to" 31 MPH, but there is no way it could be handled today.
"What happened in this case?"
"A wave hit."
"A wave? Is that typical?"
"A wave? At sea? Chance in a million!"
Yeah, I don't think that apocalyptic 30 MPH gust of wind would have been enough to create that mess. :lol:
Next they will tell us the temperatures plunged to 20C.
Quote from: celedhring on March 24, 2021, 09:09:55 AM
I don't know much about sailoring, but it wouldn't surprise me if somebody fucked up badly...
Going to speak to my dad about this. He was a captain in the merchant navy who's skippered through Suez plenty (back in the 70s and 80s) and I am looking forward to his expletive laden take on this :lol:
Quote from: Sheilbh on March 24, 2021, 09:49:30 AM
Quote from: celedhring on March 24, 2021, 09:09:55 AM
I don't know much about sailoring, but it wouldn't surprise me if somebody fucked up badly...
Going to speak to my dad about this. He was a captain in the merchant navy who's skippered through Suez plenty (back in the 70s and 80s) and I am looking forward to his expletive laden take on this :lol:
Please, share if you do :lol:
Quote from: Sheilbh on March 24, 2021, 09:49:30 AM
Quote from: celedhring on March 24, 2021, 09:09:55 AM
I don't know much about sailoring, but it wouldn't surprise me if somebody fucked up badly...
Going to speak to my dad about this. He was a captain in the merchant navy who's skippered through Suez plenty (back in the 70s and 80s) and I am looking forward to his expletive laden take on this :lol:
He will have a field day with this one. You could perhaps start with "....apparently the winds were dreadful with gusts of up to 30mph....." to ensure maximum verbal pyrotechnics :lol:
:lol:
The ship's version doesn't sound *totally* loopy to me. If you have stabilizers pushing one direction to counteract current or wind, and the wind unexpectedly veers the other direction, might that not be enough to push the ship?
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/ExNYQXZUYAIKmSr?format=jpg&name=small)
:lol:
I feel sympathetic embarrassment for people who stop at traffic lights for too long :ph34r:
Edit: Also this :lol:
https://www.vice.com/en/article/pkdjzb/cargo-ship-suez-canal-dick-pic-ever-given
Raised in a castle, dad was a captain in the merchant marine. Is Shelf a real person or a character from a boy's adventure novel?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 24, 2021, 10:09:27 AM
The ship's version doesn't sound *totally* loopy to me. If you have stabilizers pushing one direction to counteract current or wind, and the wind unexpectedly veers the other direction, might that not be enough to push the ship?
The point is that this is a situation that is not unusual - a 30 MPH gust is not at all something that one cannot plan for - and ships transit at the rate of 50/day without grounding themselves. There is now freaking way this was just some normal operating where the ship was just suddenly blown of course.
Most stories I am seeing quote a 40 knot windspeed.
"amid poor visibility caused by a dust storm and wind speeds that reached 40 knots."
Or gale force winds in other words.
Which I imagine would not be ideal hitting the side of a ship with that sort of shape.
[While I couldn't find it for the canal, the average wind speed for Suez is under 8.5 knots in March.]
Quote from: Sheilbh on March 24, 2021, 09:49:30 AM
Quote from: celedhring on March 24, 2021, 09:09:55 AM
I don't know much about sailoring, but it wouldn't surprise me if somebody fucked up badly...
Going to speak to my dad about this. He was a captain in the merchant navy who's skippered through Suez plenty (back in the 70s and 80s) and I am looking forward to his expletive laden take on this :lol:
Record it!
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 24, 2021, 10:13:21 AM
Raised in a castle, dad was a captain in the merchant marine. Is Shelf a real person or a character from a boy's adventure novel?
:P
My dad might have been - started as a deck boy in 1956 (Suez :hmm:), almost got married to a Japanese woman in the 70s, worked as a bouncer whenever he decided to stay ashore for a couple of months, kicked out of Chile for communist activism, plus a general sailor's life round the world (except South Africa) from the 50s to the 80s. Both of his brothers joined the merchant navy too, it was the standard way out of Liverpool back then.
Quote from: Sheilbh on March 24, 2021, 10:19:37 AM
a general sailor's life round the world
nudge nudge wink wink. No need to say more. wink wink nudge nudge.
I too may have some half siblings across the world
Quote from: HVC on March 24, 2021, 10:40:50 AM
I too may have some half siblings across the world
:lol: Exactly :ph34r:
Slightly terrified to do one of those DNA testing kits from Ancestry or 123 and Me :ph34r:
My dad painted houses.
And no, not in The Irishman sense of it.
It seems there's quite a traffic jam of ships building up at the entrance of the Canal.
(https://video-images.vice.com/_uncategorized/1616582787740-vessel-finder2.jpeg?resize=800:*)
Quote from: The Larch on March 24, 2021, 11:23:43 AM
It seems there's quite a traffic jam of ships building up at the entrance of the Canal.
(https://video-images.vice.com/_uncategorized/1616582787740-vessel-finder2.jpeg?resize=800:*)
Yikes. Given the per day operating cost of those ships, having them sit there is going rack up some crazy bills.
Quote from: Berkut on March 24, 2021, 11:38:35 AM
Quote from: The Larch on March 24, 2021, 11:23:43 AM
It seems there's quite a traffic jam of ships building up at the entrance of the Canal.
(https://video-images.vice.com/_uncategorized/1616582787740-vessel-finder2.jpeg?resize=800:*)
Yikes. Given the per day operating cost of those ships, having them sit there is going rack up some crazy bills.
Yeah, I wouldn't want to be the grounded ship's insurance company.
Apparently the traffic of oil tankers is so heavy in the Canal that if this causes significant delays then oil prices in the west will suffer.
:lol:
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/ExQoxPvXIAYi_yY?format=png&name=small)
I don't get it. :unsure:
I feel like they might need a few more diggers and lads on site.
Plus I fully expect that to become a meme: "me doing yoga"/"my lockdown stress levels" format.
You don't need 300 lads to repair a levee that's been nudged. Damn union organizer feather bedder.
I think the idea is to dig a bigger hole, not fix the levee.
Yeah, just trying to open up some space so the ship can get some wiggle room and try to dislodge itself.
Edit: Just to get some idea of the scale, in the first pic in the thread you can see machinery doing the same in the ship's bottom right corner:
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/ExMx0oTVoAQz63L?format=jpg&name=small)
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 24, 2021, 12:33:59 PM
You don't need 300 lads to repair a levee that's been nudged. Damn union organizer feather bedder.
Maybe - I just found the visual scale of the problem v scale of the solution quite funny :blush:
Your going to need a bigger bo....errrh excavator.
The crazy thing about these modern monster ships is how small the crews are.
Quote from: Berkut on March 24, 2021, 12:56:07 PM
The crazy thing about these modern monster ships is how small the crews are.
They give me anxiety, because of how high the containers are stacked. It always looks to me like containers should fall off any moment, or the whole thing capsizes with one big wave (in, say, 30 MPH winds :P ). :D
The ship certainly seems to have taken a somewhat rigid path en route to delivering its load:
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/50999909765_00baf5a579_o.png) (https://flic.kr/p/2kGFSn4) (https://flic.kr/p/2kGFSn4)
I laughed
Dicks on the water.
Quote from: Syt on March 24, 2021, 01:05:45 PM
Quote from: Berkut on March 24, 2021, 12:56:07 PM
The crazy thing about these modern monster ships is how small the crews are.
They give me anxiety, because of how high the containers are stacked. It always looks to me like containers should fall off any moment, or the whole thing capsizes with one big wave (in, say, 30 MPH winds :P ). :D
You mean things like this one? :P
(https://i.pinimg.com/originals/e3/36/8b/e3368bee7edfbba83e0dde377944aa40.jpg)
Now I want to play that Panamax board game.
Quote from: The Larch on March 24, 2021, 01:26:40 PM
Quote from: Syt on March 24, 2021, 01:05:45 PM
Quote from: Berkut on March 24, 2021, 12:56:07 PM
The crazy thing about these modern monster ships is how small the crews are.
They give me anxiety, because of how high the containers are stacked. It always looks to me like containers should fall off any moment, or the whole thing capsizes with one big wave (in, say, 30 MPH winds :P ). :D
You mean things like this one? :P
Yes :D
Quote from: Syt on March 24, 2021, 01:05:45 PM
They give me anxiety, because of how high the containers are stacked. It always looks to me like containers should fall off any moment, or the whole thing capsizes with one big wave (in, say, 30 MPH winds :P ). :D
I think they do in fact go overboard quite often. :hmm:
Quote from: Caliga on March 24, 2021, 06:06:17 PM
Quote from: Syt on March 24, 2021, 01:05:45 PM
They give me anxiety, because of how high the containers are stacked. It always looks to me like containers should fall off any moment, or the whole thing capsizes with one big wave (in, say, 30 MPH winds :P ). :D
I think they do in fact go overboard quite often. :hmm:
They are locked in pretty tightly, but mechanical failure is guaranteed given the numbers involved.
Quote from: grumbler on March 24, 2021, 07:50:03 PM
Quote from: Caliga on March 24, 2021, 06:06:17 PM
Quote from: Syt on March 24, 2021, 01:05:45 PM
They give me anxiety, because of how high the containers are stacked. It always looks to me like containers should fall off any moment, or the whole thing capsizes with one big wave (in, say, 30 MPH winds :P ). :D
I think they do in fact go overboard quite often. :hmm:
They are locked in pretty tightly, but mechanical failure is guaranteed given the numbers involved.
Yeah...looking at that picture above, what struck me about it was that despite the stack having basically fallen over, it doesn't actually look like the containers have fallen off, which is pretty damn impressive actually.
They're talking days to weeks now, that's gonna hurt.
Quote from: Maladict on March 25, 2021, 02:51:22 AM
They're talking days to weeks now, that's gonna hurt.
Have they considered bringing a second excavator? :P
They say they'll have to unload the ship before they can unbeach it. It already takes a few days to unload one of those, when in port, it will take much longer in the current situation...
I suppose the Cape of Good Hope is going to become trendy in the next few days.
(https://i.imgur.com/gbo8Egc.png)
Strong winds, though.
Quote from: Caliga on March 24, 2021, 06:06:17 PM
Quote from: Syt on March 24, 2021, 01:05:45 PM
They give me anxiety, because of how high the containers are stacked. It always looks to me like containers should fall off any moment, or the whole thing capsizes with one big wave (in, say, 30 MPH winds :P ). :D
I think they do in fact go overboard quite often. :hmm:
Not that often, actually. From the World Shipping Council:
QuoteUpon review of the results of the nine year period (2008-2016) surveyed, the WSC estimates that there were on average 568 containers lost at sea each year, not counting catastrophic events, and on average a total of 1,582 containers lost at sea each year including catastrophic events.
So, either 568 or 1582 depending if you include catastrophic events or not. Given the sheer amount of containers being shipped annually throughout the world that must be a tiny amount. These incidents tend to be concentrated in certain spots, though. For instance, I believe the English Channel sees a certain amount of containers lost during storms every single winter, due to it being one of the busiest areas for maritime traffic.
Quote from: Berkut on March 24, 2021, 10:17:46 PM
Quote from: grumbler on March 24, 2021, 07:50:03 PM
Quote from: Caliga on March 24, 2021, 06:06:17 PM
Quote from: Syt on March 24, 2021, 01:05:45 PM
They give me anxiety, because of how high the containers are stacked. It always looks to me like containers should fall off any moment, or the whole thing capsizes with one big wave (in, say, 30 MPH winds :P ). :D
I think they do in fact go overboard quite often. :hmm:
They are locked in pretty tightly, but mechanical failure is guaranteed given the numbers involved.
Yeah...looking at that picture above, what struck me about it was that despite the stack having basically fallen over, it doesn't actually look like the containers have fallen off, which is pretty damn impressive actually.
In that particular case it's because that picture doesn't include more of the surrounding sea, in other pics from the same series (one of them underneath this text) you can see that some containers and even what look like ship parts have already fallen to the sea.
(https://nzhistory.govt.nz/files/styles/fullsize/public/images/rena-containers.jpg?itok=8g20sgl8)
But yes, those container stacks can veer quite a lot before collapsing.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.maritimebulletin.net%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2020%2F07%2FUNIFLORIDAcontcollapse1.jpg&hash=a347bda2b42a82e2c20b81e772d4852b41029209)
(https://www.porttechnology.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/EverSmart_Web_Bay70SlowCollapse.jpg)
"Ever Smart" :lmfao:
Quote from: celedhring on March 25, 2021, 04:14:33 AM
They say they'll have to unload the ship before they can unbeach it. It already takes a few days to unload one of those, when in port, it will take much longer in the current situation...
Yeah, you can see how far the bow is up out of the water. With all that weight you're not going to dislodge it.
Quote from: Maladict on March 25, 2021, 02:51:22 AM
They're talking days to weeks now, that's gonna hurt.
Do they have a shipment of Playstations stuck in the Canal again? :P
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/hiccup-in-playstation-deliveries-prompts-game-group-warning-517551.html (https://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/hiccup-in-playstation-deliveries-prompts-game-group-warning-517551.html)
"The Ever Given, built in 2018 with a length of nearly 400 meters (a quarter mile) and a width of 59 meters (193 feet), is among the largest cargo ships in the world. It can carry some 20,000 containers at a time. It previously had been at ports in China before heading toward Rotterdam in the Netherlands."
That is fucking insane.
It gross tonnage weight is 220,000.
To put that in context, the Washington Naval Treaty of 1922 (which then kind of set the scale for battleship building) limited battleships to 35,000 tons.
An Iowa class battleship, one of the largest ever built, was about 60,000.
A Yamato, the largest battleship every built, is 70,000 tons
Size:
Ever Given: 400m long
Yamato: 256m long
Iowa: 260m long
Nimitz CVN: 330m
That is just insane. And it has a crew of 20.
The solution is clear: arm the Ever Given and build more like it for future wars.
Quote from: Habbaku on March 25, 2021, 11:12:21 AM
The solution is clear: arm the Ever Given and build more like it for future wars.
A super-dreadnought. I like it :hmm:
We cannot allow a container gap.
The Auxiliary Cruisers of this era would be quite a sight :lol:
Quote from: Berkut on March 25, 2021, 11:06:52 AM
It gross tonnage weight is 220,000.
To put that in context, the Washington Naval Treaty of 1922 (which then kind of set the scale for battleship building) limited battleships to 35,000 tons.
An Iowa class battleship, one of the largest ever built, was about 60,000.
A Yamato, the largest battleship every built, is 70,000 tons
Size:
Ever Given: 400m long
Yamato: 256m long
Iowa: 260m long
Nimitz CVN: 330m
That is just insane. And it has a crew of 20.
And that is actually not the largest container ship in operation at the moment, there's a French company (CMA CGM) that operates six 236.583 GT container ships (the Jacques Saadé class ships), with three more in construction.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/9b/CMA_CGM_Jacques_Saad%C3%A9_at_southampton.JPG/1024px-CMA_CGM_Jacques_Saad%C3%A9_at_southampton.JPG)
And powered by liquefied natural gas, apparently.
All these ships have a maximum lenth of 400 m. as that's the upper limit to be able to circulate freely by the Suez Canal, in fact. If they're longer they need special permision to be able to cross it.
Biggest Tetris game ever.
Also, basically just a big mobile platform to stack containers on.
Quote from: Oexmelin on March 25, 2021, 11:14:47 AM
We cannot allow a container gap.
seems to me that what Suez needs is just that: more gap
Quote from: Syt on March 25, 2021, 11:49:56 AM
Biggest Tetris game ever.
Also, basically just a big mobile platform to stack containers on.
Apparently being an operator for the kind of cranes in the last picture is an extremely lucrative job. :ph34r:
Quote from: The Larch on March 25, 2021, 12:00:03 PM
Apparently being an operator for the kind of cranes in the last picture is an extremely lucrative job. :ph34r:
A long time ago, maybe even 10 years ago, I read an article about crane operators in Long Beach, California striking. IIRC the average crane operator pay was 250K.
Quote from: The Larch on March 25, 2021, 12:00:03 PM
Quote from: Syt on March 25, 2021, 11:49:56 AM
Biggest Tetris game ever.
Also, basically just a big mobile platform to stack containers on.
Apparently being an operator for the kind of cranes in the last picture is an extremely lucrative job. :ph34r:
I can't find the article now, but I recall that previous to the rise of container ships, dockyard workers were a HUGE source of jobs. Container ships, and the associated mechanization of loading and unloading them, basically destroyed that entire industry.
Its kind of like being a sailor. That used to employees an insane number of people. But now the human labor hours per ton of shipped goods is some tiny, tiny fraction of what it used to be - a single massive container ship carries the cargo of god knows how many 1950s era cargo ships, and is crewed by a fifth of the crew.
The other big difference this has made is radically reduced the amount of just plain theft going on - estimates are that as much as 15-20% of all goods shipped prior to the mechanization of the worlds shipping into containers ships (which are easily secured and tracked) were lost to theft.
Quote from: Berkut on March 25, 2021, 11:06:52 AM
It gross tonnage weight is 220,000.
To put that in context, the Washington Naval Treaty of 1922 (which then kind of set the scale for battleship building) limited battleships to 35,000 tons.
An Iowa class battleship, one of the largest ever built, was about 60,000.
A Yamato, the largest battleship every built, is 70,000 tons
Size:
Ever Given: 400m long
Yamato: 256m long
Iowa: 260m long
Nimitz CVN: 330m
That is just insane. And it has a crew of 20.
and there is 11 of them.
Quote from: Sheilbh on March 24, 2021, 12:30:47 PM
I feel like they might need a few more diggers and lads on site.
Plus I fully expect that to become a meme: "me doing yoga"/"my lockdown stress levels" format.
I'm pleased to report that at least on Catalan twitter, this has indeed happened (although not very good examples so far).
Small note: before I came to Austria I thought about traveling a bit, and had the romantic notion to book passage on a cargo ship - some companies offer the service. You'd get your own cabin, and obviously wouldn't be expected to work. Caveats are that e.g. if the ship leaves port after a stop and you're not on it - tough luck. So it's not exactly a sightseeing trip.
Then I looked at the prices ... ranging between 1500 and high 3000s depending on length of trip. :lol: So that idea kinda died. :D
Quote from: Syt on March 25, 2021, 12:42:55 PM
Small note: before I came to Austria I thought about traveling a bit, and had the romantic notion to book passage on a cargo ship - some companies offer the service. You'd get your own cabin, and obviously wouldn't be expected to work. Caveats are that e.g. if the ship leaves port after a stop and you're not on it - tough luck. So it's not exactly a sightseeing trip.
Then I looked at the prices ... ranging between 1500 and high 3000s depending on length of trip. :lol: So that idea kinda died. :D
A friend of mine did it and shot a documentary about it. Not the most entertaining filmic material...
Michael Palin did that in the 1980s when he did his around the world in 80 days miniseries. It also was not that entertaining in itself, you really needed the jokes about America's trade deficit to keep it fresh.
I read the economic damage to world trade from this blockage is 400 million dollars. Per hour. :wacko:
Quote from: Berkut on March 25, 2021, 12:17:42 PM
Quote from: The Larch on March 25, 2021, 12:00:03 PM
Quote from: Syt on March 25, 2021, 11:49:56 AM
Biggest Tetris game ever.
Also, basically just a big mobile platform to stack containers on.
Apparently being an operator for the kind of cranes in the last picture is an extremely lucrative job. :ph34r:
I can't find the article now, but I recall that previous to the rise of container ships, dockyard workers were a HUGE source of jobs. Container ships, and the associated mechanization of loading and unloading them, basically destroyed that entire industry.
Wasn't that one of the themes in the 2nd season of The Wire?
Quote from: celedhring on March 25, 2021, 12:42:48 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on March 24, 2021, 12:30:47 PM
I feel like they might need a few more diggers and lads on site.
Plus I fully expect that to become a meme: "me doing yoga"/"my lockdown stress levels" format.
I'm pleased to report that at least on Catalan twitter, this has indeed happened (although not very good examples so far).
Yeah, I've seen it around already.
Different meme, but I liked it. :lol:
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/ExWdpJSUUAA6I4L?format=jpg&name=medium)
Edit: Another sign of the times, the joke Twitter accounts. :lol:
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/ExSM-RLUcAAoq80?format=jpg&name=medium)
Quote from: The Larch on March 25, 2021, 03:21:28 PM
Wasn't that one of the themes in the 2nd season of The Wire?
My favourite Wire season.
And definitely true in Liverpool. Everyone used to work on the docks (or in the merchant navy) - which has almost all gone. There's still some working docks.
Containerisation caused a huge amount of unemployment - and less opportunities for something to fall of the back of a wagon :weep:
In that season I'm the guy making the presentation about the Rotterdam systems upgrade that's going to get them all laid off. :blush:
(https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/484150492520382484/824684567360831571/164603244_4013173605371567_7367493018552069741_o.jpg)
(https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/639012822784802828/824759582122442792/photo_2021-03-25_16-38-49.png)
Admiralty lawyers around the world are salivating.
Admiralty insurers, not so much.
Quote from: celedhring on March 25, 2021, 04:14:33 AM
They say they'll have to unload the ship before they can unbeach it. It already takes a few days to unload one of those, when in port, it will take much longer in the current situation...
I suppose the Cape of Good Hope is going to become trendy in the next few days.
(https://i.imgur.com/gbo8Egc.png)
Strong winds, though.
It's indeed becoming a popular destination. :lol:
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/ExWHVFnWUAAOVFl?format=jpg&name=medium)
I guess we are lucky it comes whilst everything is way down due to corona with the shipping industry particularly wrecked. Read some interesting pieces not too long ago on perfectly serviceable ships being scrapped as it was cheaper to buy a new one in a few months than keep them going, return legs running empty, etc..,.
Could cause quite the little economic mess in normal times.
Quote from: Berkut on March 25, 2021, 11:06:52 AM
It gross tonnage weight is 220,000.
To put that in context, the Washington Naval Treaty of 1922 (which then kind of set the scale for battleship building) limited battleships to 35,000 tons.
An Iowa class battleship, one of the largest ever built, was about 60,000.
A Yamato, the largest battleship every built, is 70,000 tons
Size:
Ever Given: 400m long
Yamato: 256m long
Iowa: 260m long
Nimitz CVN: 330m
That is just insane. And it has a crew of 20.
Wikipedia says the Gerald Ford is 100k tons and 333 meters longs and it's the largest warship ever built. Crew 4539
Quote from: jimmy olsen on March 25, 2021, 09:47:50 PM
Quote from: Berkut on March 25, 2021, 11:06:52 AM
It gross tonnage weight is 220,000.
To put that in context, the Washington Naval Treaty of 1922 (which then kind of set the scale for battleship building) limited battleships to 35,000 tons.
An Iowa class battleship, one of the largest ever built, was about 60,000.
A Yamato, the largest battleship every built, is 70,000 tons
Size:
Ever Given: 400m long
Yamato: 256m long
Iowa: 260m long
Nimitz CVN: 330m
That is just insane. And it has a crew of 20.
Wikipedia says the Gerald Ford is 100k tons and 333 meters longs and it's the largest warship ever built. Crew 4539
OK, so it's 227 more inefficient than the container ship?
Quote from: Berkut on March 25, 2021, 11:06:52 AM
It gross tonnage weight is 220,000.
To put that in context, the Washington Naval Treaty of 1922 (which then kind of set the scale for battleship building) limited battleships to 35,000 tons.
An Iowa class battleship, one of the largest ever built, was about 60,000.
A Yamato, the largest battleship every built, is 70,000 tons
Size:
Ever Given: 400m long
Yamato: 256m long
Iowa: 260m long
Nimitz CVN: 330m
That is just insane. And it has a crew of 20.
If a submarine sank just one of those, the skipper would not have the record for most tonnage sunk, but they would be top 10. If it was a US submarine, it would immediately take the top spot, beating the
USS Tang's record by some 104,000 tons or so, with one ship.
Quote from: The Larch on March 25, 2021, 05:59:54 PM
Quote from: celedhring on March 25, 2021, 04:14:33 AM
They say they'll have to unload the ship before they can unbeach it. It already takes a few days to unload one of those, when in port, it will take much longer in the current situation...
I suppose the Cape of Good Hope is going to become trendy in the next few days.
Strong winds, though.
It's indeed becoming a popular destination. :lol:
(https://scontent-mad1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/165680746_10101012150568983_5061872286478556212_n.jpg?_nc_cat=109&ccb=1-3&_nc_sid=8bfeb9&_nc_ohc=uvTMPpHe6jIAX_dZ819&_nc_ht=scontent-mad1-1.xx&oh=075a4bede521ae56a5706ce78a397a48&oe=608373AA)
Could any of our (ex-)naval personnel here kindly confirm?
https://twitter.com/PulpLibrarian/status/1375392047155310592
QuotePulp Librarian
@PulpLibrarian
Fun fact: although the Ever Given is jammed athwart the Suez Canal it is NOT jammed athwartship, as this has a different technical meaning.
#TheMoreYouKnow
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/ExZfrYdWQAQiVvz?format=jpg&name=small)
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/ExZftDOXMAQhmxq?format=jpg&name=small)
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/ExZfuhEWgAA2KY8?format=jpg&name=900x900)
Quote from: celedhring on March 26, 2021, 05:45:14 AM
Quote from: The Larch on March 25, 2021, 05:59:54 PM
Quote from: celedhring on March 25, 2021, 04:14:33 AM
They say they'll have to unload the ship before they can unbeach it. It already takes a few days to unload one of those, when in port, it will take much longer in the current situation...
I suppose the Cape of Good Hope is going to become trendy in the next few days.
Strong winds, though.
It's indeed becoming a popular destination. :lol:
(https://scontent-mad1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/165680746_10101012150568983_5061872286478556212_n.jpg?_nc_cat=109&ccb=1-3&_nc_sid=8bfeb9&_nc_ohc=uvTMPpHe6jIAX_dZ819&_nc_ht=scontent-mad1-1.xx&oh=075a4bede521ae56a5706ce78a397a48&oe=608373AA)
Bartolomeu Dias and Vasco da Gama approve. :)
:lol: Portugal: vindicated.
Satellite view of the blockage and the queue building up :ph34r:
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/ExaA3JtXEAEJoG0?format=jpg&name=small)
Quote from: Syt on March 26, 2021, 05:52:05 AM
Could any of our (ex-)naval personnel here kindly confirm?
https://twitter.com/PulpLibrarian/status/1375392047155310592
QuotePulp Librarian
@PulpLibrarian
Fun fact: although the Ever Given is jammed athwart the Suez Canal it is NOT jammed athwartship, as this has a different technical meaning.
#TheMoreYouKnow
This is correct. Something that isn't on a ship cannot be athwartships. It isn't really a "technical" term, just jargon. A passageway is referred to as an "athwartships passageway" if it goes from one side of the ship to the other.
My dad's take is surprisingly nuanced.
His initial thought was to fire the captain never to return. But he then said he's been worried since when he was at sea at the size of ships going through the Suez and had a bit of sympathy because he thinks the canal administrators have always been pushing it. His thought was basically given the size of the ship and the lack of depth in the canal it wouldn't take much of a blow of wind and there's very litttle you can do to adjust course because of the lack of depth.
He wondered about the pilot though - because he's sailed ships through Panama, Kiel and Suez where you're require to have a pilot - and said this is the sort of thing the pilot should be pretty alive to.
So the 30 mph gust of wind could have been a real issue then? :hmm:
Quote from: The Larch on March 26, 2021, 08:20:28 AM
So the 30 mph gust of wind could have been a real issue then? :hmm:
Yeah - because of the size of the ship v the canal. At sea you'd do stuff with the engine to counter it (I am not an expert here), but the canal isn't deep enough to do that for a ship of that size. Argaubly the pilot should be alive to the conditions and might be able to adjust appropriately to avoid the problem but basically once you got into difficulty it'd be very tough to correct in the canal because of depth.
Quote from: Sheilbh on March 26, 2021, 08:27:13 AM
Quote from: The Larch on March 26, 2021, 08:20:28 AM
So the 30 mph gust of wind could have been a real issue then? :hmm:
Yeah - because of the size of the ship v the canal. At sea you'd do stuff with the engine to counter it (I am not an expert here), but the canal isn't deep enough to do that for a ship of that size. Argaubly the pilot should be alive to the conditions and might be able to adjust appropriately to avoid the problem but basically once you got into difficulty it'd be very tough to correct in the canal because of depth.
So I have done (another 5 minutes) research and it seems the Guardian is the "first page of results" source reporting 31mph as the wind speed - other sources are, as I noted earlier in the thread, saying 40 knot (46mph) winds and a sandstorm (which seems to have originated from the original Reuters Feed.)
While not, of course, unimpeachable or to be 100% trusted, Wikipedia's article is quoting 40 knot winds.
Quote from: Sheilbh on March 26, 2021, 08:13:52 AM
My dad's take is surprisingly nuanced.
His initial thought was to fire the captain never to return. But he then said he's been worried since when he was at sea at the size of ships going through the Suez and had a bit of sympathy because he thinks the canal administrators have always been pushing it. His thought was basically given the size of the ship and the lack of depth in the canal it wouldn't take much of a blow of wind and there's very litttle you can do to adjust course because of the lack of depth.
Yeah the cargo ships have become hyper optimized and the shipping canals not so much. :hmm:
Quote from: Agelastus on March 26, 2021, 08:36:58 AM
So I have done (another 5 minutes) research and it seems the Guardian is the "first page of results" source reporting 31mph as the wind speed - other sources are, as I noted earlier in the thread, saying 40 knot (46mph) winds and a sandstorm (which seems to have originated from the original Reuters Feed.)
While not, of course, unimpeachable or to be 100% trusted, Wikipedia's article is quoting 40 knot winds.
Yeah and I think his point was you'd have to pre-adjust, or you're kind of fucked. But his view was that would be something you'd probably hope the canal pilot would manage more than the captain because the local conditions in all the major canals will be very different from just sea sailing (which is why they all mandate a pilot).
Quote from: celedhring on March 26, 2021, 05:45:14 AM
Quote from: The Larch on March 25, 2021, 05:59:54 PM
Quote from: celedhring on March 25, 2021, 04:14:33 AM
They say they'll have to unload the ship before they can unbeach it. It already takes a few days to unload one of those, when in port, it will take much longer in the current situation...
I suppose the Cape of Good Hope is going to become trendy in the next few days.
Strong winds, though.
It's indeed becoming a popular destination. :lol:
(https://scontent-mad1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/165680746_10101012150568983_5061872286478556212_n.jpg?_nc_cat=109&ccb=1-3&_nc_sid=8bfeb9&_nc_ohc=uvTMPpHe6jIAX_dZ819&_nc_ht=scontent-mad1-1.xx&oh=075a4bede521ae56a5706ce78a397a48&oe=608373AA)
First sea shanties become trendy again, now this. :lol:
Up next: scurvy :ph34r:
Just read an evaluation on how much the ship's current cargo is worth. Almost 10 billion dollars. :wacko:
Quote from: The Larch on March 26, 2021, 09:10:57 AM
Just read an evaluation on how much the ship's current cargo is worth. Almost 10 billion dollars. :wacko:
There's a reason pirates still exist. Plenty of opportunity for them too, come to think of it :hmm:
Quote from: Maladict on March 26, 2021, 09:12:40 AM
Quote from: The Larch on March 26, 2021, 09:10:57 AM
Just read an evaluation on how much the ship's current cargo is worth. Almost 10 billion dollars. :wacko:
There's a reason pirates still exist. Plenty of opportunity for them too, come to think of it :hmm:
I don't think so though - at least not in the traditional sense.
Pirates today don't capture a ship and steal the cargo. They capture the ship and steal and ransom the crew.
I mean....wtf would you even do with a cargo that size? You could not offload it. The ship cannot be hidden, it fucking shows up on satellite!
Interesting article on how something like this was bound to happen, and how the modern shipping industry works:
QuoteI've sailed the Suez canal on a cargo ship – it's no wonder the Ever Given got stuck
Researching the global shipping industry, I saw how modern mega-vessels offer the efficiency consumers demand, at a price
However grim and difficult life these days is, I'd still prefer to be sitting on dry land in lockdown than trying to do a three-point turn on the Suez canal with a 400-metre cargo ship under my control. Wouldn't you? The grounding of the Ever Given container vessel in the Suez canal has provoked both hilarity and genuine concern. Vessels have got stuck before in the canal: at its narrowest, the "ditch in the desert", as crew on the container vessel I travelled with in 2010 told me, is only 300 metres wide. It's tight. That's why ships must wait at either end to be sent through in a slow convoy. But the Ever Given is longer than the canal is wide, and it is stuck sideways. A simple shunt off the banks will not work.
(...)
Transiting the canal saves ships more than a week and many fuel costs compared with the longer route via the Cape of Good Hope. The canal is a huge money-spinner for the Egyptian government, earning it several billion dollars a year. When I went through on Maersk Kendal in 2010, as research for a book I wrote about the shipping industry, the transit cost $300,000. That fee included 14 hours of sedate trundling down what is actually rather a dull canal, once you've had an hour or so of excitement at seeing sand and palm trees, and realise you've got 13 more hours of them to go. It also included an obligatory "Suez crew", who joined for the transit and had their own cabin, and a pilot who took control of the ship. This is standard procedure in modern shipping: ships often take on pilots in harbour areas or tricky passages because they have better local knowledge. Technically the pilot took command of the bridge, though the pilot we had was too busy eating his way through the entire menu, and dozing, to be particularly commanding. The second officer had to keep waking him up for instructions.
Although the official reason given so far for the Ever Given's plight is that it was blown sideways by wind, I do wonder. In the vast majority of maritime accidents, human error is at fault. And no wonder: seafarers, working in ever smaller crews on ever larger ships, are knackered. Most on my journey were old enough to remember when they could stop for lunch in port. Now, ships are rarely in port for more than several hours, and those are busy. As we entered the canal, transiting south with our mostly empty boxes to collect made-in-China consumables and essentials such as medicine, the second officer was operating on three nights of three hours' sleep, and would have no sleep during the transit. There is, as the Ever Given demonstrates, much to look out for during the passage.
I think of those tired workers often, when I read about crew who have been stuck on their ships for the entire pandemic, forbidden from setting foot ashore, unable to go home. Even 10 years ago, the Filipino crew I sailed with called their job "dollar for homesickness". So among the jokes and references to beached whales, I think of the crews on the 150 ships stuck behind and ahead of the Ever Given.
Over the years, ships have been getting bigger and bigger, the better to bring us 90% percent of world trade – even if most people probably think that their breakfast cereal and electronics and clothes and fish arrive by air. In fact, modern shipping is so efficient, it's cheaper to send Scottish fish to be filleted in China and back again than it would be to do the filleting at home. But that efficiency comes at a price: of ships reliant on this one waterway to get to the bounties of Asia, and of crews who spend months away from home, missing the births and birthdays of their children, to bring us what we need, and what we think we need.
Quote from: Berkut on March 26, 2021, 09:14:47 AM
I don't think so though - at least not in the traditional sense.
Pirates today don't capture a ship and steal the cargo. They capture the ship and steal and ransom the crew.
I mean....wtf would you even do with a cargo that size? You could not offload it. The ship cannot be hidden, it fucking shows up on satellite!
No they won't steal the cargo, but the ransom is more likely to be paid if the cargo (and the delay) is worth that much.
Well according to QAnon Hillary Clinton owns the boat, Monica Lewinsky was the captain and it had a cargo of trafficked children.
(https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/631185673654763551/825065754369196052/image0.png)
Quote from: Razgovory on March 26, 2021, 09:41:57 AM
Well according to QAnon Hillary Clinton owns the boat, Monica Lewinsky was the captain and it had a cargo of trafficked children.
But no pizza?
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/ExbsHILXIAkB_YO?format=jpg&name=900x900)
"from the Orient"
Now that's reporting. :cheers:
The guy can't catch a break, he's in the middle of every logistical nightmare on the globe.
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/ExbsEqjWYAMiE93?format=jpg&name=900x900)
Quote from: The Larch on March 26, 2021, 05:13:57 PM
The guy can't catch a break, he's in the middle of every logistical nightmare on the globe.
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/ExbsEqjWYAMiE93?format=jpg&name=900x900)
:lol:
Never ceases to amaze how costs will be cut so tight in stuff like number of crew and wages to save a few thousand on multi million balance sheets.
Ah the Sport's sex arse beat - Fleet Street's finest :lol:
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EYKagbhXsAARIjA?format=jpg&name=small)
Quote from: Tyr on March 26, 2021, 05:26:05 PM
Never ceases to amaze how costs will be cut so tight in stuff like number of crew and wages to save a few thousand on multi million balance sheets.
There could have been 100 crewmen on board and the result would have been the same.
The pilot fucked up. He was going too fast if the ship couldn't recover from a gust of wind before going heavily aground. If there was a sandstorm, as reported, then he fucked up even worse, because every mariner knows that you cannot go faster in limited visibility than a speed that will allow you to stop before hitting something that has just come within the range of your visibility.
It is especially critical to be forehanded when you have a ship with that kind of momentum.
I would not be surprised if it emerges that the pilots are under significant pressure to not go too slow, to keep the flow of ships (and transit fees) going at an acceptable pace. This, of course, would not obviate the responsibility of the pilot in question for going too fast. But I wouldn't be too surprised if this becomes a case study in misaligned incentives and risk management.
Quote from: Jacob on March 27, 2021, 10:51:24 AM
I would not be surprised if it emerges that the pilots are under significant pressure to not go too slow, to keep the flow of ships (and transit fees) going at an acceptable pace. This, of course, would not obviate the responsibility of the pilot in question for going too fast. But I wouldn't be too surprised if this becomes a case study in misaligned incentives and risk management.
From what I'm reading the pilots tend to not be under pressure to do anything but help themselves to free food.
There also is a speed limit of about 8 knots, to protect the embankments from erosion. So if they were going too fast it would be interesting to find out who ordered it.
Quote from: Maladict on March 27, 2021, 02:40:10 PM
From what I'm reading the pilots tend to not be under pressure to do anything but help themselves to free food.
There also is a speed limit of about 8 knots, to protect the embankments from erosion. So if they were going too fast it would be interesting to find out who ordered it.
As long as they remember to say "It's my first day" they will be okay.
Quote from: PDH on March 27, 2021, 06:44:00 PM
Quote from: Maladict on March 27, 2021, 02:40:10 PM
From what I'm reading the pilots tend to not be under pressure to do anything but help themselves to free food.
There also is a speed limit of about 8 knots, to protect the embankments from erosion. So if they were going too fast it would be interesting to find out who ordered it.
As long as they remember to say "It's my first day" they will be okay.
Incorrect, if they say anything other than "union rep" or "attorney" they are goners.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on March 27, 2021, 08:29:08 PM
Quote from: PDH on March 27, 2021, 06:44:00 PM
Quote from: Maladict on March 27, 2021, 02:40:10 PM
From what I'm reading the pilots tend to not be under pressure to do anything but help themselves to free food.
There also is a speed limit of about 8 knots, to protect the embankments from erosion. So if they were going too fast it would be interesting to find out who ordered it.
As long as they remember to say "It's my first day" they will be okay.
Incorrect, if they say anything other than "union rep" or "attorney" they are goners.
Egypt, a known respecter of unions and attorneys.
I'd not at all be surprised to learn that the Suez Canal pilots are all the brothers-in-law or nephews of the country's leaders.
(https://media.discordapp.net/attachments/719911134181720174/825649135986278400/they_working_really.jpg)
I hate this world and everyone in it.
Harsh toke.
I'm seeing more reports that costs of goods and shortages are likely to occur due to the backup of hundreds of ships delayed going through the Canal or being diverted around the Cape of Good Hope.
Fortunately for me I'm not buying anything right now. :)
Quote from: KRonn on March 28, 2021, 08:54:31 AM
I'm seeing more reports that costs of goods and shortages are likely to occur due to the backup of hundreds of ships delayed going through the Canal or being diverted around the Cape of Good Hope.
I'm seeing toilet paper mentioned a lot. Not this shit again. :rolleyes:
Quote from: Maladict on March 28, 2021, 10:48:33 AM
Quote from: KRonn on March 28, 2021, 08:54:31 AM
I'm seeing more reports that costs of goods and shortages are likely to occur due to the backup of hundreds of ships delayed going through the Canal or being diverted around the Cape of Good Hope.
I'm seeing toilet paper mentioned a lot. Not this shit again. :rolleyes:
Me too...that'll be a
crappy experience to go through again!! ;)
Quote from: grumbler on March 26, 2021, 06:00:41 PM
Quote from: Tyr on March 26, 2021, 05:26:05 PM
Never ceases to amaze how costs will be cut so tight in stuff like number of crew and wages to save a few thousand on multi million balance sheets.
There could have been 100 crewmen on board and the result would have been the same.
The pilot fucked up. He was going too fast if the ship couldn't recover from a gust of wind before going heavily aground. If there was a sandstorm, as reported, then he fucked up even worse, because every mariner knows that you cannot go faster in limited visibility than a speed that will allow you to stop before hitting something that has just come within the range of your visibility.
It is especially critical to be forehanded when you have a ship with that kind of momentum.
I am emphatically not a seaman but I do wonder if there's physically enough space in the canal to do anything at any speed for a ship the size of the Ever Given if something goes wrong.
The SCA quotes the canal as taking a maximum draught of just over 20m, a max depth of 24m and a width at 11m depth of either 205m or 225m (depending on the section of the canal.)
The Ever Given's draught at max load is 14.5m and her width 59m. Just how much of the canal is actually wide enough to take her? Assuming from the given data for the canal that a ship should have about 3.5m space between the bottom of the canal and the keel, that means the Ever Green needs the channel to be at least 18m deep.
Just how wide is the 18m channel of the Canal? Or assuming I am overestimating but that you still need at least 1-1.5m - how wide is the 16m depth channel of the Canal?
The Ever Given is already nearly 30% of the width of the 11m channel even before she starts swinging.
:cheers:
QuoteStranded Suez container ship reported freed
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-56559904
Oh good. They gave it a 50/50 chance of succeeding.
No need to go hoard toilet paper today then.
Current approximate situation of the ship. Check the amount of tugboats and support ships surrounding it, and there are even more in the area not shown in the picture.
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/ExnfB52XEAIWnBk?format=jpg&name=large)
The bow is still completely stuck, they're going to try to pull it off the clay deposit today.
Plan B is to try and blast the clay away from underneath the ship. If that fails, offloading is the only remaining solution, that could take weeks.
Quote from: Maladict on March 29, 2021, 05:17:40 AM
Plan B is to try and blast the clay away from underneath the ship. If that fails, offloading is the only remaining solution, that could take weeks.
This sounds like that news clip from when they decided the best way to get rid of a rotting beached whale in Oregon was to explode it :lol: :ph34r:
I'm pretty sure the Russians would have found a way to work nuclear explosions into this.
Quote from: Sheilbh on March 29, 2021, 05:24:01 AM
Quote from: Maladict on March 29, 2021, 05:17:40 AM
Plan B is to try and blast the clay away from underneath the ship. If that fails, offloading is the only remaining solution, that could take weeks.
This sounds like that news clip from when they decided the best way to get rid of a rotting beached whale in Oregon was to explode it :lol: :ph34r:
Blast by way of water pressure, not explosives :D
Looks like they did it. :cool:
Quote from: Sheilbh on March 29, 2021, 05:24:01 AM
Quote from: Maladict on March 29, 2021, 05:17:40 AM
Plan B is to try and blast the clay away from underneath the ship. If that fails, offloading is the only remaining solution, that could take weeks.
This sounds like that news clip from when they decided the best way to get rid of a rotting beached whale in Oregon was to explode it :lol: :ph34r:
That was the first thing I ever saw on the Internet.
As Stephen Fry put it this ship came, gave everyone a few days amusement and then didn't outstay it's welcome - amazing work as she's now off :lol:
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/ExrLuJmWgAIxpjy?format=jpg&name=900x900)
Apparently the dock cafe in Felixstowe is expecting a lot of sightseers to go down for the day when it docks like a little shipping celebrity :lol:
Quote from: Sheilbh on March 29, 2021, 03:48:23 PM
Apparently the dock cafe in Felixstowe is expecting a lot of sightseers to go down for the day when it docks like a little shipping celebrity :lol:
People want to make sure their sex arses are OK.
It seems CNN have some free tech guys hanging around and have made a steer the ship through the canal game :lol:
https://edition.cnn.com/interactive/2021/03/cnnix-steership/
It's neat. :)
I managed it on the 3rd try. :lol:
I was happily steaming along when a 50 knot wind crashed me on the shore. Decided not to try again :lol:
Well that sucks. :mad:
Quote from: The Larch on March 30, 2021, 12:08:16 PM
I managed it on the 3rd try. :lol:
Did you increase or decrease thrust when you got the warning?
And does the wind always come at the same point?
Managed it (just about) on first attempt. Speeding up when the wind hit helped.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 30, 2021, 12:19:14 PM
Quote from: The Larch on March 30, 2021, 12:08:16 PM
I managed it on the 3rd try. :lol:
Did you increase or decrease thrust when you got the warning?
And does the wind always come at the same point?
Wind is always the same.
When the warning came I sometimes increased thrust to correct path, but I had to decrease soon afterwards to avoid an overcorrection.
i just backed up and went around the cape.
Quote from: HVC on March 30, 2021, 12:41:09 PM
i just backed up and went around the cape.
Your Portuguese roots are showing. :ph34r:
Shoot, I completely forgot reverse was an option.
:lol:
Just got an email from the trade press - first claim in the High Court. I imagine every shipping/insurance firm in the world is gearing up to sue.
After all the fun of watching a big ship get stuck, we're now at the litigation stage :lol: :(
Suing who for what?
Quote from: The Brain on April 01, 2021, 10:41:40 AM
Suing who for what?
Although it won't show up in the style of cause, it'll mostly boil down to different insurance companies suing each other.
Quote from: Barrister on April 01, 2021, 10:44:03 AM
Quote from: The Brain on April 01, 2021, 10:41:40 AM
Suing who for what?
Although it won't show up in the style of cause, it'll mostly boil down to different insurance companies suing each other.
Unless the pilot happens to have a few spare billion dollars lying around ...
Quote from: Malthus on April 01, 2021, 11:35:18 AM
Quote from: Barrister on April 01, 2021, 10:44:03 AM
Quote from: The Brain on April 01, 2021, 10:41:40 AM
Suing who for what?
Although it won't show up in the style of cause, it'll mostly boil down to different insurance companies suing each other.
Unless the pilot happens to have a few spare billion dollars lying around ...
Aren't the pilots employed by the Egyption state?
And doesn't Egyptian law require that ships hire THEIR pilots?
Quote from: Berkut on April 01, 2021, 11:38:10 AM
Aren't the pilots employed by the Egyption state?
And doesn't Egyptian law require that ships hire THEIR pilots?
Yes - but all responsibility etc is with the ship and their crew.
Quote from: Barrister on April 01, 2021, 10:44:03 AM
Although it won't show up in the style of cause, it'll mostly boil down to different insurance companies suing each other.
I never pay any attention to the style of cause anyway.
Quote from: Berkut on April 01, 2021, 11:38:10 AM
Quote from: Malthus on April 01, 2021, 11:35:18 AM
Quote from: Barrister on April 01, 2021, 10:44:03 AM
Quote from: The Brain on April 01, 2021, 10:41:40 AM
Suing who for what?
Although it won't show up in the style of cause, it'll mostly boil down to different insurance companies suing each other.
Unless the pilot happens to have a few spare billion dollars lying around ...
Aren't the pilots employed by the Egyption state?
And doesn't Egyptian law require that ships hire THEIR pilots?
I believe the pilot was employed by the Suez Canal Authority, which is a state-owned company.
Now there can presumably be a lawsuit involving the Ever Given itself which won't be cheap. But I wonder what the contracts for using the Suez Canal itself are like, so whether or not all the ships that are backed up waiting to go through can have a cause of action or not.
Quote from: Sheilbh on April 01, 2021, 11:41:18 AM
Quote from: Berkut on April 01, 2021, 11:38:10 AM
Aren't the pilots employed by the Egyption state?
And doesn't Egyptian law require that ships hire THEIR pilots?
Yes - but all responsibility etc is with the ship and their crew.
Okay, so I'm admitting I haven't even so much as glanced at the cover of a book on maritime law. But is that correct in the context of the canal? My understanding is ships going through the canal have to use a pilot from the canal itself - presumably to avoid just this kind of incident.
Quote from: Barrister on April 01, 2021, 11:44:07 AM
Okay, so I'm admitting I haven't even so much as glanced at the cover of a book on maritime law. But is that correct in the context of the canal? My understanding is ships going through the canal have to use a pilot from the canal itself - presumably to avoid just this kind of incident.
Yes - I think it's part of the terms of passage for the canal.
And I can see the Egyption argument for that - they're providing access to the canal at a fixed fee and normally this doesn't happen.
It's got strong Day Today pool nightwatchman vibes: "Ive been working here for 18 years. In 1975, no one died. In 1976, no one died. In 1977, no one died. In 1978, no one died. In 1979, no one died. In 1980, someone died. In 1981, no one died. In 1982, there was the incident with a pigeon. In 1983, no one died. In 1984, no one died. In 1985, no one died. In 1986... I mean, I could go on." :lol:
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 01, 2021, 11:41:46 AM
Quote from: Barrister on April 01, 2021, 10:44:03 AM
Although it won't show up in the style of cause, it'll mostly boil down to different insurance companies suing each other.
I never pay any attention to the style of cause anyway.
:secret: The style of cause is just the name of the case, like
R v Gladue or
Donohue v Stevenson.
Quote from: Sheilbh on April 01, 2021, 11:41:18 AM
Quote from: Berkut on April 01, 2021, 11:38:10 AM
Aren't the pilots employed by the Egyption state?
And doesn't Egyptian law require that ships hire THEIR pilots?
Yes - but all responsibility etc is with the ship and their crew.
I suspect it is gonna be complicated!
- there may be contractual language between the owner of the ship and the canal authority over liability for accidents, jurisdiction, choice of law, etc. Is such a dispute subject to courts or to some sort of international arbitration?
- is there a treaty that affects how this type of accident is litigated?
- the canal is run by a state-owned company, which may or may not be immune from liability under either local Egyptian law
- some weird twists thrown in by maritime laws ...
Absolutely it'll be very fun for some shipping lawyers living their dream :lol:
Quote from: Malthus on April 01, 2021, 11:56:35 AM
Quote from: Sheilbh on April 01, 2021, 11:41:18 AM
Quote from: Berkut on April 01, 2021, 11:38:10 AM
Aren't the pilots employed by the Egyption state?
And doesn't Egyptian law require that ships hire THEIR pilots?
Yes - but all responsibility etc is with the ship and their crew.
I suspect it is gonna be complicated!
- there may be contractual language between the owner of the ship and the canal authority over liability for accidents, jurisdiction, choice of law, etc. Is such a dispute subject to courts or to some sort of international arbitration?
- is there a treaty that affects how this type of accident is litigated?
- the canal is run by a state-owned company, which may or may not be immune from liability under either local Egyptian law
- some weird twists thrown in by maritime laws ...
This.
Plus I suspect a lot of lawsuits won't involve the Ever Given or the Canal Authority at all, but rather between insureds and insurers as to whether the delay caused is covered by insurance.
Quote from: The Brain on April 01, 2021, 10:41:40 AM
Suing who for what?
Evergreen Shipping for negligence causing loss due to delayed shipping, I imagine. As well as insurance companies whose policies may or may not cover any business losses for the involved companies and may or may not be entitled to recover the payouts of their policies from other companies involved (and their insurance companies).
Quote from: Jacob on April 01, 2021, 12:40:24 PM
Quote from: The Brain on April 01, 2021, 10:41:40 AM
Suing who for what?
Evergreen Shipping for negligence causing loss due to delayed shipping, I imagine.
Does Evergreen Shipping owe a duty of care to other ships in the sea to not block the Suez Canal?
I honestly have no idea - maritime law is it's own very weird thing (down to the fact that a lot of actions are
in rem where you sue the boat itself, rather than the owner).
Quote from: Barrister on April 01, 2021, 12:42:47 PM
Does Evergreen Shipping owe a duty of care to other ships in the sea to not block the Suez Canal?
I honestly have no idea - maritime law is it's own very weird thing (down to the fact that a lot of actions are in rem where you sue the boat itself, rather than the owner).
I'm sure we'll find out.
I'm also sure that if I could make the case that my company lost $50 million due to interrupted supplies because off this incident, I'd look at who I could sue to recover damages from and/ or look to have my loss covered by insurance (and then the insurance company would look to see who they could recover that money from).
And I think it's well established that there were significant economic impacts from the disruption to shipping. And I'm quite certain that people and companies are unlikely to just eat the loses and leave it at that. Therefore, I expect, law suits will follow. It's the way of the world.
Quote from: Jacob on April 01, 2021, 12:54:30 PM
Quote from: Barrister on April 01, 2021, 12:42:47 PM
Does Evergreen Shipping owe a duty of care to other ships in the sea to not block the Suez Canal?
I honestly have no idea - maritime law is it's own very weird thing (down to the fact that a lot of actions are in rem where you sue the boat itself, rather than the owner).
I'm sure we'll find out.
I'm also sure that if I could make the case that my company lost $50 million due to interrupted supplies because off this incident, I'd look at who I could sue to recover damages from and/ or look to have my loss covered by insurance (and then the insurance company would look to see who they could recover that money from).
And I think it's well established that there were significant economic impacts from the disruption to shipping. And I'm quite certain that people and companies are unlikely to just eat the loses and leave it at that. Therefore, I expect, law suits will follow. It's the way of the world.
Sometimes the law isn't as much of an ass as you'd think though.
If you're a company whose supplied are interrupted, there's almost certainly a clause in the contract with your shipper that absolves them of responsibility if they're unable to make the shipment on time due to unforeseen circumstances (and if your company is really that worried they'd probably buy insurance). But there's no contract between this company and Evergreen, and there's almost certainly no duty of care between Evergreen and some random company in the UK that (say) isn't receiving their sex arses on time.
Force majeure!
Quote from: Jacob on April 01, 2021, 12:54:30 PM
Quote from: Barrister on April 01, 2021, 12:42:47 PM
Does Evergreen Shipping owe a duty of care to other ships in the sea to not block the Suez Canal?
I honestly have no idea - maritime law is it's own very weird thing (down to the fact that a lot of actions are in rem where you sue the boat itself, rather than the owner).
I'm sure we'll find out.
I'm also sure that if I could make the case that my company lost $50 million due to interrupted supplies because off this incident, I'd look at who I could sue to recover damages from and/ or look to have my loss covered by insurance (and then the insurance company would look to see who they could recover that money from).
And I think it's well established that there were significant economic impacts from the disruption to shipping. And I'm quite certain that people and companies are unlikely to just eat the loses and leave it at that. Therefore, I expect, law suits will follow. It's the way of the world.
I think the evaluation in reality is more like this:
1. The money lost is gone. Sunk cost.
2. Is there a case that can be litigated with enough of a chance of success to get money from someone else that it makes financial sense to pursue it? If so, pursue.
Whether or not the case actually has any factual relevance to what happened is incidental, I suspect.
Quote from: Barrister on April 01, 2021, 11:58:50 AM
Quote from: Malthus on April 01, 2021, 11:56:35 AM
Quote from: Sheilbh on April 01, 2021, 11:41:18 AM
Quote from: Berkut on April 01, 2021, 11:38:10 AM
Aren't the pilots employed by the Egyption state?
And doesn't Egyptian law require that ships hire THEIR pilots?
Yes - but all responsibility etc is with the ship and their crew.
I suspect it is gonna be complicated!
- there may be contractual language between the owner of the ship and the canal authority over liability for accidents, jurisdiction, choice of law, etc. Is such a dispute subject to courts or to some sort of international arbitration?
- is there a treaty that affects how this type of accident is litigated?
- the canal is run by a state-owned company, which may or may not be immune from liability under either local Egyptian law
- some weird twists thrown in by maritime laws ...
This.
Plus I suspect a lot of lawsuits won't involve the Ever Given or the Canal Authority at all, but rather between insureds and insurers as to whether the delay caused is covered by insurance.
True, but you can be sure that every insurer who may be on the hook for damages caused by delays will third-party every person who could potentially have been negligent and so the source of the damages. Assuming some weird quirk of maritime law doesn't prevent them.
As in "I, the insurer, say your contract of insurance does not cover economic loss caused by delays. But if it does, and I have to pay you, I will take on the claim you could have had against the canal authority and the owner of the ship (or against the ship itself), because they caused the delay".
Typical subrogation claims.
Quote from: Sheilbh on April 01, 2021, 11:41:18 AM
Quote from: Berkut on April 01, 2021, 11:38:10 AM
Aren't the pilots employed by the Egyption state?
And doesn't Egyptian law require that ships hire THEIR pilots?
Yes - but all responsibility etc is with the ship and their crew.
Unless Maritime law has changed since I was ship's crew, that's not true with respect to a pilot. When the pilot takes the conn, he takes on responsibility for the safe navigation of the ship. It's the one time the captain isn't responsible.
Quote from: grumbler on April 01, 2021, 04:06:54 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on April 01, 2021, 11:41:18 AM
Quote from: Berkut on April 01, 2021, 11:38:10 AM
Aren't the pilots employed by the Egyption state?
And doesn't Egyptian law require that ships hire THEIR pilots?
Yes - but all responsibility etc is with the ship and their crew.
Unless Maritime law has changed since I was ship's crew, that's not true with respect to a pilot. When the pilot takes the conn, he takes on responsibility for the safe navigation of the ship. It's the one time the captain isn't responsible.
It seemed odd to me that you could require the captain to take on and employ a pilot that you get to choose, not him/her, then tell them that they are required to follow that pilots instructions....but you are responsible for what happens?
Seems like a pretty bad deal.
How many pilots become hatamoto?
Quote from: grumbler on April 01, 2021, 04:06:54 PM
Unless Maritime law has changed since I was ship's crew, that's not true with respect to a pilot. When the pilot takes the conn, he takes on responsibility for the safe navigation of the ship. It's the one time the captain isn't responsible.
Yeah my understanding is it's something the shipping companies agree with the Suez canal authority, so I think it's contractual rather than under maritime law.
Quote from: Berkut on April 01, 2021, 11:06:01 PMIt seemed odd to me that you could require the captain to take on and employ a pilot that you get to choose, not him/her, then tell them that they are required to follow that pilots instructions....but you are responsible for what happens?
Seems like a pretty bad deal.
The alternative's the Cape of Good Hope and it's still super rare for a crash to happen so on balance it's probably worth it.
Quote from: Sheilbh on April 02, 2021, 07:39:08 AM
Quote from: grumbler on April 01, 2021, 04:06:54 PM
Unless Maritime law has changed since I was ship's crew, that's not true with respect to a pilot. When the pilot takes the conn, he takes on responsibility for the safe navigation of the ship. It's the one time the captain isn't responsible.
Yeah my understanding is it's something the shipping companies agree with the Suez canal authority, so I think it's contractual rather than under maritime law.
Quote from: Berkut on April 01, 2021, 11:06:01 PMIt seemed odd to me that you could require the captain to take on and employ a pilot that you get to choose, not him/her, then tell them that they are required to follow that pilots instructions....but you are responsible for what happens?
Seems like a pretty bad deal.
The alternative's the Cape of Good Hope and it's still super rare for a crash to happen so on balance it's probably worth it.
That is the business alternative - we are talking about actual legal responsibility. You can SAY "You are responsible if Berkut beats his kids!" and maybe even get talked into signing something to that effect if the alternative sucks, but that doesn't actually make you responsible.
I wonder if Al-Sisi's prestige project, the hurried one year expansion of the canal might have help create this accident?
Quote from: Berkut on April 02, 2021, 08:52:11 AM
That is the business alternative - we are talking about actual legal responsibility. You can SAY "You are responsible if Berkut beats his kids!" and maybe even get talked into signing something to that effect if the alternative sucks, but that doesn't actually make you responsible.
Egypt is a sovereign country and can have the legal structure it wants.
The company I work for had an operation in Egypt, with a local partner. The local partner breached just about every clause of the agreement, and we pulled out, which we clearly had the rights to do under the contract. The partner sued us, our attorneys assured us he had no basis to do so. Then we went to court and it turned out he was friends with or related to just about everyone at the courthouse, and we were of course just an American company. We lost the case big time and had to pay him a fortune.
Such is life.
Quote from: alfred russel on April 02, 2021, 09:45:25 AM
Quote from: Berkut on April 02, 2021, 08:52:11 AM
That is the business alternative - we are talking about actual legal responsibility. You can SAY "You are responsible if Berkut beats his kids!" and maybe even get talked into signing something to that effect if the alternative sucks, but that doesn't actually make you responsible.
Egypt is a sovereign country and can have the legal structure it wants.
Here's where it can get complicated.
I know next to nothing about maritime law, but this is an area rife with treaty obligations - Egypt is (possibly) signatory to treaties that may set some rules about how accidents are to be adjudicated, exactly to avoid the scenario where a case against Egypt has to be tried in an Egyptian court, where the outcome is that Egypt wins every case ...
... of course Egypt may ignore these obligations (if they exist), but that leaves them open to a lawsuit elsewhere, say some type of international arbitration, and to possible attachment of their assets that exist outside of Egypt.
I had to look some of this up some years ago on another, non-maritime case involving an infrastructure project in Egypt, where the foreign project partner was (justifiably) wary of being screwed in the local courts if they were ripped off by their Egyptian state-owned company partner.
The whole situation is enough to gladden the hearts of lawyers worldwide! 😀
Quote from: alfred russel on April 02, 2021, 09:45:25 AM
Quote from: Berkut on April 02, 2021, 08:52:11 AM
That is the business alternative - we are talking about actual legal responsibility. You can SAY "You are responsible if Berkut beats his kids!" and maybe even get talked into signing something to that effect if the alternative sucks, but that doesn't actually make you responsible.
Egypt is a sovereign country and can have the legal structure it wants.
How does that effect a case where non-Egyptan entities are suing each other though?
Quote from: Sheilbh on April 02, 2021, 07:39:08 AM
Quote from: grumbler on April 01, 2021, 04:06:54 PM
Unless Maritime law has changed since I was ship's crew, that's not true with respect to a pilot. When the pilot takes the conn, he takes on responsibility for the safe navigation of the ship. It's the one time the captain isn't responsible.
Yeah my understanding is it's something the shipping companies agree with the Suez canal authority, so I think it's contractual rather than under maritime law.
I suppose it is possible that, like there is in air traffic control, there is some kind of "advisory" piloting (ship-type, not air-type) that doesn't take the conn of the ship and therefor doesn't take responsibility for the safe navigation of the ship. If the Egyptian piloting requirement is, as some have suggested, just a lucrative employment opportunity fo friends and relatives of the regime, this type of piloting would make sense. I've never encountered it, but, then, haven't transited the Suez Canal.
Quote from: alfred russel on April 02, 2021, 09:45:25 AM
Quote from: Berkut on April 02, 2021, 08:52:11 AM
That is the business alternative - we are talking about actual legal responsibility. You can SAY "You are responsible if Berkut beats his kids!" and maybe even get talked into signing something to that effect if the alternative sucks, but that doesn't actually make you responsible.
Egypt is a sovereign country and can have the legal structure it wants.
But I don't even know if it would be an Egypt thing. In English law you can't exclude liability for death or injury to people, but you can contract out of most other types of liabilities including negligence (assuming you're not dealing with small businesses or consumers). In this case I'd even go further and guess that the canal operator not only excludes liability for negligence but is indeminfied for the cost of any accident in the canal. Because that makes commercial sense - the canal just get a flat fee per ship (based on weight) it's the shipping companies who'll get the upside or the benefit of not going round the Cape of Good Hope.
If the Suez canal have decent (which I'd guess they do) legal responsibility will mirror the business alternative.
The first salvoes of the legal battle have been shot.
QuoteEver Given impounded as Suez Canal Authority pursues salvage costs
Megaship that ran aground now caught in legal row between owners and Egyptian authorities reportedly seeking $900m
Two weeks after it was freed from the Suez Canal, the giant container ship Ever Given is once again stuck.
This time however, the 220,000-ton megaship is not caught in the sand, but snared in a legal row between Egyptian authorities and the ship's owners over the financial impact of the accident.
The massive ship has been impounded by a court in Ismailia, as the Suez Canal Authority pursues its Japanese owners for the cost of the salvage operation and lost transit fees for the week that the canal was blocked.
About 50 ships a day pass through the canal, and more than 442 vessels were held up by the blockage.
"The vessel is now officially impounded," Lt Gen Osama Rabie told Egypt's state-run television. "They do not want to pay anything."
There was no immediate comment from the vessel's owner, Shoei Kisen Kaisha Ltd.
Rabie did not say how much money the canal authority was seeking, but the figure was reportedly $900m (£650m). Meanwhile, prosecutors in Ismailia also opened a separate investigation into what caused the Ever Given to run aground, a judicial official said. The official spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorised to brief media.
Rabie said negotiations were still ongoing to reach a settlement on compensation.
Litigation could be complex, since the vessel is owned by a Japanese firm, operated by a Taiwanese shipper, and flagged in Panama.
The Ever Given ran aground in a single-lane stretch of the canal about 6 km (3.7 miles) north of the southern entrance, near the city of Suez on 23 March.
On 29 March, salvage teams freed the Ever Given, ending a crisis that had clogged one of the world's most vital waterways and halted billions of dollars a day in maritime commerce. The vessel has since idled in Egypt's Great Bitter Lake, just north of the site where it previously blocked the canal.
The unprecedented six-day shutdown, which raised fears of extended delays, goods shortages and rising costs for consumers, added to strain on the shipping industry already under pressure from the coronavirus pandemic.
Rabie, the canal chief, told state-run television there was no wrongdoing by the canal authority. He declined to discuss possible causes, including the ship's speed and the high winds that buffeted it during a sandstorm.
When asked whether the ship's owner was at fault, he said: "Of course, yes."
Rabie said the conclusion of the authority's investigation was expected Thursday.
Quote from: Sheilbh on April 02, 2021, 01:29:27 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on April 02, 2021, 09:45:25 AM
Quote from: Berkut on April 02, 2021, 08:52:11 AM
That is the business alternative - we are talking about actual legal responsibility. You can SAY "You are responsible if Berkut beats his kids!" and maybe even get talked into signing something to that effect if the alternative sucks, but that doesn't actually make you responsible.
Egypt is a sovereign country and can have the legal structure it wants.
But I don't even know if it would be an Egypt thing. In English law you can't exclude liability for death or injury to people, but you can contract out of most other types of liabilities including negligence (assuming you're not dealing with small businesses or consumers). In this case I'd even go further and guess that the canal operator not only excludes liability for negligence but is indeminfied for the cost of any accident in the canal. Because that makes commercial sense - the canal just get a flat fee per ship (based on weight) it's the shipping companies who'll get the upside or the benefit of not going round the Cape of Good Hope.
If the Suez canal have decent (which I'd guess they do) legal responsibility will mirror the business alternative.
The more direct response to AR is that much of this is governed by the international conventions on Maritime law. Sure a country could go its own way - but that would be foolish.
An Egyptian investigation finds that the Suez Canal Autority (and thus the Egyptian state and Egyptian treasury) is without fault, and that damages should be recovered from the owner of the ship? What a surprising turn of events.
Quote from: Jacob on April 14, 2021, 12:11:46 PM
An Egyptian investigation finds that the Suez Canal Autority (and thus the Egyptian state and Egyptian treasury) is without fault, and that damages should be recovered from the owner of the ship? What a surprising turn of events.
Ad to that the fact that the Canal Authority assigns the ships a pilot, but having a pilot that is sent by the Canal Authority doesn't change responsibilities at all. It looks like a jobs program for the nephews of the Justice Minister et al.
Quote from: Jacob on April 14, 2021, 12:11:46 PM
An Egyptian investigation finds that the Suez Canal Autority (and thus the Egyptian state and Egyptian treasury) is without fault, and that damages should be recovered from the owner of the ship? What a surprising turn of events.
Not exactly determinative of the issue ;)
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 14, 2021, 09:52:44 PM
Not exactly determinative of the issue ;)
According to whom? :lol:
It seems the Egyptians find it determinative enough that they're holding on to the ship until they're paid $900 million - at least according to what I read last.
Quote from: Jacob on April 15, 2021, 12:05:43 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 14, 2021, 09:52:44 PM
Not exactly determinative of the issue ;)
According to whom? :lol:
It seems the Egyptians find it determinative enough that they're holding on to the ship until they're paid $900 million - at least according to what I read last.
It depends on whether the ship owners can convince a court outside of Egypt that there has been a shakedown, contrary to maritime laws and treaty obligations ... and if so, can that court attach Egyptian state commercial assets outside of Egypt, to the tune of the 900 million or whatever the Egyptians are able to extort from the ship owners to let the ship go.
No doubt the whole situation will keep teams of lawyers in various nations gainfully employed for some time to come ...
I bet Egypt is going to back off after getting phone calls from the financial institutions that back maritime insurers.
Are they still blaming the only female Egyptian captain that was hundreds of miles away at the time? :unsure:
Another example of the impact on global trade/need for more resilience in supply chains:
https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2021/apr/16/garden-gnomes-running-out-in-uk-as-garden-centres-business-booms