Klyne Tugs get contract again

[Dyflin]

(Let's hope they have improved their drug and alcohol policy!! /forums/images/graemlins/blush.gif )

UK. Klyne Tugs Lowestoft awarded MCA contract for emergency towing vessels

The Maritime and Coastguard Agency (MCA) has announced the successful renewal of the contract to supply four emergency towing vessels (ETVs) for the UK to be managed by the MCA. These are powerful and well equipped ships which are on stand-by 24 hours a day, 365 days a year to respond to shipping incidents in their area.

The successful contractor, Klyne Tugs Ltd Of Lowestoft, provides four ETVs for the MCA based at four locations, but patrolling a wider area. Two are based in the English Channel, at Falmouth and Dover to cover the South West approaches and the Dover Straits respectively.

The Anglian Monarch at Dover is jointly funded and operated with the French Government. Two are based at Stornoway and Shetland Islands.

The fleet includes newly built vessels with a typical cost of approximately 20 million pounds.

Making the announcement, John Astbury, Chief Executive, MCA said: "Letting of this renewed contract fulfils the Government's commitment to the provision of all-year round ETV cover and demonstrates the importance we place on preventing the loss of life and protecting the marine environment.

In areas of high risk these vessels will provide the first line of response to maritime accidents and the prevention of pollution."

Toby Stone, Head of Counter Pollution at the MCA said: "Removing the threat of marine pollution is the primary role for the ETV's. Each vessel has been engaged in many operations during the existing contract where a ship has been towed to a place of refuge.

These vessels are well suited to the job and the extremes of weather often seen in the sea areas in which they will work. Clearly prevention is better than cure with the aim of using these excellent vessels to prevent actual marine pollution.

The Maritime and Coastguard Agency look forward to working closely with Klyne Tugs Lowestoft and with the masters and crew of the four emergency towing vessels (ETV) for the duration of the extended contract."

The renewed contract starts from 1 October 2009 and is to run for two years.

Editors note:

The establishment of Emergency Towing Vessels (ETVs) was on to Lord Donaldson's recommendations in his report 'Safer Ships, Cleaner Seas' which the Government commissioned during the grounding of the 'Braer' Shetland in 1993.

A further study undertaken by Captain Belton RN made further recommendations concerning the most appropriate locations for the vessels. Ministers decided that the then Coastguard Agency should undertake trials of vessels initially in the Dover Strait and the Minches. Latterly, a third vessel was stationed to provide cover for the Western Approaches. The trials were completed at the end of March 1998, although a Report of trials and an associated cost benefit analysis produced by the Agency aided the Government's decision to ensure emergency cover will still be provided on a longer term basis.

Contracts were awarded in March 1998 to Klyne Tugs (Lowestoft) Ltd for an ETV to be based at Stornoway providing cover for North West Scotland.

http://www.bymnews.com/news/newsDetails.php?id=936

 

[Mirelle]

Does not look like a salvage tug; looks like an anchor handler. Comments about drug and alcohol policy well noted!

Fair enough for Klyne Tugs who have picked up a nice little earner, but look what the Germans use:

That is a salvage tug, owned by company with a track record over a century and more.

 

[Dyflin]

This is what the dutch use:

The old Smith Lloyd Singapore I think, we used to tie up alongside her a bit in Den Helder if the other berths were full. Nice but showing her age now. Interesting that the Dutch again are using ocean going tugs rather than an AHTS. The only thing for the AHTS is the manoeuverability and she can carry a lot more oil spill gear onboard. At least the Klyne boats are an improvement on the old Farstad boats that were doing the job.

Do they still build dedicated ocean going tugs?

 

[Mirelle]

Well, they certainly do in Japan; here is Nippon Salvage's current "Koyo Maru":

But the serious answer is, of course, that anyone will build a real salvage tug, complete with AHTS manoevrability, if the charter rate is right. If it is inadequate you cannot blame the tug owner for hedging his bets, but you can blame the Government-body charterer for not knowing their onions.

Hence elderly salvage tugs in Holland and Germany, and Chinese built AHTS in Britain, whilst Japan, which has a better system for most things, has a proper salvage company owned by its major marine insurers.

 

[landaftaf]

why do you think they are an improvement ? the Far Sky and the Far Turbot are/were capable vessels for towing, though were not designed primarily as a tug.

The UT719 is ok, but has all the draw backs of using an AHTS as a tug, a multipurpose vessel for a specialist task. However she is permanently rigged for towing so does not suffer all the drawbacks

More importantly, the ocean going salvage tugs were normally employed in blue or blue/brown waters, needed a good turn of speed to get to the casualty and needed a good range, but had relatively poor maneuvering capabilities -compared to a modern AHTS ........ these facets are not so important nowadays, and salvage is being done around the UK more and more in brown waters so the need for high maneuverability - to connect the tow in very short time spans, or in confined water are of paramount importance - see recent history of their successful tows
/forums/images/graemlins/cool.gif

 

[Dyflin]

I worked for Farstad for a bit and the boats on the CG job were known to be poor examples of their kind. Hence they were sold off after Farstad lost the contract.

I made the same point about manoeuvrability in an earlier post...

 

[Dyflin]

Here's what the Norwegian's are using for emergency towing:

In the Barents Sea, around Spitsbergen and Jan Mayen, brrr!

Brand new, owned by Remøy Shipping and under contract until 2015.

 

[landaftaf]

the far sky is still operating as the far sky, in fact it was towing the sedco 711 south from the shetland basin to the pierce field with the far fosnia about 2 weeks ago ..... I watched as the fosnia transfer the tow to a new tug called the 'magnus' 5 miles from the heather platform ......

the turbot was just an old design for the job.........

and the reason the farstad boats lost the charter was on price, no reflection on capability

the critical point is - that the uk c.g want brown water cover - and that the ocean going salvage tugs are no longer a good financial risk


finally, I have worked with 303's many times, - I did the north sea pipe lay with the far sky working db 1601 many yrs ago - were you on that job ?

 

[Mirelle]

Umm. I suspect this is an argument that goes nowhere, as it's impossible to prove, one way or t'ther.

(oh, let me declare an interest - SPO and HKST in 80's/90's)

I would prefer to see vessels designed for the job. If you applied offshore technology to the job of building a salvage tug you would be able to get something that combined range and free running speed with manoevrability.

Speed does matter in coastal work - two hours can make all the difference.

When I was involved with the big tugs in the 70's they usually managed to connect OK. Bugsier's Pacific for example, a very "trad" salvage tug built in 63, managed 32 salvages in four years whilst based on Brest - these were all "brown water" jobs in that parlance.

You are not snatching to a rig; you just have to connect up - heaving line, messenger, tow chain, wire, snubber, wire. The bigger problem is getting the casualty to connect properly, i.e.; heave in the gear and secure it, and a riding squad delivered to the casualty is the ideal way to do that, by chopper if weather permits, and assuming the casualty has power to her winches.

It's really a different business. Better have purpose designed kit. If we have decided to pay charter hire, as a nation, which it seems we have, then why not build the best tug for the job?

 

[landaftaf]

mmm - I thought it was a discussion/debate /forums/images/graemlins/cool.gif

the major change since the 70's and 80's is the 'modern' comms on board ships now has often taken the wherewith-all from the Master and put it onto desks ashore ....... then, Masters called for and agreed salvage terms well before today's pressurised Masters, who have been known to refuse a tow even when a couple of miles off disaster

then an ocean tug could make rich pickings, but the advent of several 'advances' in engine reliability, modern design, more educated and trained crews plus ship/shore comms, they were priced out of the market.

so for a while there were not any real salvage tugs around our coast - hence the coastguard tugs (or the best they could get for the money - the AHTS from the oil industry) arrived to fill the void

so - now with modern radio/satellite communications, ships in distress are often going into brown water, where previously they would get assistance before doing so - sometimes they are even 'sniffing the bottom' before seeking help.

finally - you are correct in saying it is an increasing problem in expecting the distressed vessel can set the towing rig up as expected ........ language and a lack of knowledge of basic seamanship is sadly wanting when it comes to the crunch

so - are AHTS up to the job ......... generally yes, 100t+ bollard pull, specialist towing kit put on board and with a high level on maneouverability means they can achieve a successful outcome in most cases.

to my mind there is nothing to be gained by building state owned specialist ocean going salvage tugs, let alone ask the question of who will man and support them

IMO of course /forums/images/graemlins/cool.gif

 

[Dyflin]

[ QUOTE ]

finally, I have worked with 303's many times, - I did the north sea pipe lay with the far sky working db 1601 many yrs ago - were you on that job ?

[/ QUOTE ]

What does that have to do with anything?

I don't see why you are arguing with me on the use of AHTS, it was me that made the point of manoeuvrability and deck capacity in the first place /forums/images/graemlins/confused.gif

 

[landaftaf]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

finally, I have worked with 303's many times, - I did the north sea pipe lay with the far sky working db 1601 many yrs ago - were you on that job ?

[/ QUOTE ]

What does that have to do with anything?

I don't see why you are arguing with me on the use of AHTS, it was me that made the point of manoeuvrability and deck capacity in the first place /forums/images/graemlins/confused.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
I worked for Farstad for a bit and the boats on the CG job were known to be poor examples of their kind. Hence they were sold off after Farstad lost the contract.

[/ QUOTE ]

firstly - I dont see disagreeing with you is an argument /forums/images/graemlins/confused.gif

secondly - the far sky is still working for farstad as an ahts

thirdly - 'modern' ahts vessels are perfectly suitable for emergency towing vessels

/forums/images/graemlins/cool.gif IMO of course, and you are perfectly entitled to disagree with my opinion /forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif

 

[Dyflin]

[ QUOTE ]


firstly - I dont see disagreeing with you is an argument /forums/images/graemlins/confused.gif

secondly - the far sky is still working for farstad as an ahts

thirdly - 'modern' ahts vessels are perfectly suitable for emergency towing vessels

/forums/images/graemlins/cool.gif IMO of course, and you are perfectly entitled to disagree with my opinion /forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

OK, last post.

1. Arguing means many different things to different people, but disagreeing and arguing a case/pov is a very gray area and really it's just semantics of words. /forums/images/graemlins/tongue.gif

2. I was thinking of the Turbot rather than the Sky when I mentioned an improvement on the new designs. I sailed with a 2/O who worked on the turbot on CG duty and said it was a horrible ship to work on. So it was second hand experience I was relying on to form an opinion.

3. As I said, I never disputed AHTS being unsuitable for emergency towing. It was simply pointed out by myself and another poster that some countries use dedicated tugs with crews that have an extended history of that type of work onboard these vessels.

I whole heartily applaud the UK government for having the courage to put their hands in their pockets and take responsibility for themselves with ETV's. When a stricken vessel requires assistance in Irish water, we send either a glorified fisheries protection vessel or a lighthouse tender whose main experience of towing is navigational aids...

 

[Mirelle]

It was I who was suggesting that, since the Government are putting their hands in their pockets, they should perhaps dig a little deeper and come up with purpose built rescue towing and emergency response vessels.

I agree that there is not a living to be made in salvage now, but that is not in issue since the Government are paying a day rate for the tugs.

I reckon that anchor handlers, whilst excellent for the job they are designed for and good for towing, are not the best answer. The ideal vessel would have a higher free running speed, would have a worthwhile firefighting capacity and would have a good supply of salvage equipment, espescially pumps, and anti pollution kit on board. Above all she would have good workboats and a good means of handling them, because she will often need to put a riding squad aboard.

I manage large containerships: the obvious risks for them are collision, fire and to a much lesser degree engine failure whilst old bulkers are much more at risk of engine problems. But in both cases, when we consider setting up a towage connection, the crews are smaller and the ships larger than twenty or thirty years back.

 

[landaftaf]

[ QUOTE ]
when we consider setting up a towage connection, the crews are smaller and the ships larger than twenty or thirty years back.

[/ QUOTE ]

because the minimum manning certificate has been passed and issued by the flag state - at the shipowners behest - without proper consideration to handling 'normal' shipboard activities.

having to rely on outside assistance proves this /forums/images/graemlins/cool.gif

 

[Mirelle]

Er....yes...

(excuse the pause whilst I work out which side I'm on, on this one!) /forums/images/graemlins/wink.gif

On the one hand, the SMC is put together by finding out how many warm bodies you need to moor up, agw, so we can't say that its inadequate for "normal" activities...

...and on the other hand a crew of 13 on a 12,000 teu containership is "by our Lady ridiculous", (but then we all know that those owners always seem to have a riding squad on board...)

...and then again, the increase in ship size means that warps cannot easily be manhandled.

To take up a salvage tug's towing connection the casualty has to grab the heaving line (OK, rocket or Kongsberg gun line, actually, these days) and haul the messenger aboard, get the messenger through the Panama fairlead (important to remember that bit!) take it to a warping drum, bring the towing pennant aboard and belay the pennant, with the towing chain in the Panama, unless the casualty is a tanker in which case, thank the Lord, we can just drop the end of the towing chain in the AKD and Bob is your parental sibling. If Bob is not, and we are not on a tanker with SBM facilities, we have to make off the pennants on the bitts, which of course never get used because we've got self tensioners, these days, and which have been known to part company with the rest of the ship as soon as the tug brings load on the connection.

Once this has been done the tug can start paying out from the towing winch and away we go.

Seems to me that the chances of this being done properly, in blowing weather, aboard a big ship, have not improved over the past 30 years!

Hence, the advantage of a getting a squad from the tug aboard whenever possible.

 

[landaftaf]

Re: Er....yes...

normal activities are those that can be considered likely, or in the case of a critical failure, expected to happen ........ like having to launch and recover a rescue craft to assit another vessel, moor and let go in port, fight a fire, contain damage/flooding, undertake an extended pilotage, steer without a gyro or an auto pilot and yes - connect a tow ............ as for ample crew sizes, the days of interdepartmental quizzes have gone /forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif about the same time as UMS was introduced

so ...... yes, too often todays manning is to too lean, and I will not even get into the aptitude and capabilities of some of the larger international seafaring nationalities ........ of course IMO /forums/images/graemlins/cool.gif

 

[Mirelle]

Re: Er....yes...

Very well put.

Once you get below point "x" - and there are many ships that are in fact below it - dealing with a critical failure becomes marginal.

We cannot say what "x" is, because ships differ, but it is obvious to all of us that things have gone way, way, too far.

I have known a VLCC with a British/ Filipino crew of 28 to launch a boat, recover the entire crew of a sinking logger in bad monsoon conditions and recover the boat. I frankly doubt if the ships I manage now, with a crew of 23 could do that. Maybe they could, but I am certain that a crew of 13 could not.

 

[Dyflin]

An interesting development in the MSC Napoli story, but which ties in with our discussions here:

Smit to salvage stranded ship Napoli
Monday 22 January 2007

Rotterdam-based marine services group Smit is to salvage the container ship MSC Napoli which got into trouble during Thursday's storm and is now stuck on a sandbank off the English coast. A spokeswoman declined to give details on Sunday but told ANP a Smit vessel was on its way to the Napoli for the towage operation.

The MSC Napoli suffered structural damage during Thursday's storms and was beached on a sandbank to stop it sinking in deep water. It is thought that up to 200 tonnes of oil may have leaked from a fuel tank. Efforts are now underway to keep the oil from reaching the shore. Some 150 of the 2,400 containers the Napoli was carrying have gone overboard

The BBC reported that that the ship had previously ran aground

 

[seanchap]

Interesting Discussion, I worked for Farstad for fifteen years, worldwide but mainly in the North Sea.
I was on The Far Sky and also The Far tubot which was previously the Tender Turbot and spent ten years at the Valhall field in Norway employed on standby duties mainly.

I have worked on both vessels and I can assure people they were more than capable for the coastguard Charter having experienced it myself.
The Turbot was excellent in her role working with pipelay barges due to her low stern and small accomodation making it easier to deck the `doughnut buoys`, however the Far sky struggled due to higher freeboard and a lot more thrust to move her larger structure.

I have recently came off the Anglian Monarch which was built in Japan with a twenty year old Design, it was like going back in time but she had good HP 14,400 and was more than capable of her role.

The vessels abilities did not come into question regarding the renewal of contracts with the Coastguard, it was purely Cost and Maybe the fact also that Klyne tugs was a British owned Company, shipping politics is strange as we all know.