Another Pirate Attack...

photodog

photodog

Lord High Commander of Upper Broughton and Gunthor
Joined
8 Apr 2007
Messages
38,376
Visit site
This time on a VLCC, the Sirius Star.

Big change this time was that she was seized 450 nautical miles SE of Mombassa, so that is well off shore......

25 crew, 2 Brits, 318,000 tons, over 1000 feet long. Launched March 2008. Saudi owned.

Ship is currently under the control of the Pirates. (According to the USN at 1530hrs today.)
 
Now the gloves will be off, once they interfere with the gulf to gulf run the Americans will throw a lot of metal into that area. Very quickly followed by the RN and probably the Saudi's and other Middle Eastern navies. This will hurt the yanks and Europe if it's not stopped. Banana boats and dodgy Asian weapons cargoes are one thing, but 2 million barrels of Persian Gulf crude...

Conflicting reports on whether or not the crew are safe or not;

"Reports earlier this afternoon on Arabiya television suggesting the crew had been freed could not be confirmed. The US Navy said it understood the pirates were holding the tanker "near an anchorage point" of the town of Eyl, Somalia, which has become a haven for pirates."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/nov/17/oil-tanker-pirates

17pirates550.jpg


A response will be swift and deadly I'd say.
 
[ QUOTE ]
Big change this time was that she was seized 450 nautical miles SE of Mombassa, so that is well off shore......

[/ QUOTE ]

The Guardian says "It took place 520 miles south-east of Mombasa, Kenya," That is not just a long way offshore, but some 1,000 miles from the normal area for attacks. If that position is correct, it is near Aldabra group and closer to Madagascar, or Dar es salaam, or the Comores than Mombasa, so it seems odd to describe the position like that. I wonder if it is correct?

Also, I wonder if it's relevant that the Monsoon has just turned and the coastal waters of E Africa have changed in the last 2 weeks from being distinctly unpleasant and demanding to very benign. Sea conditions will be relatively easy for the next 6 months, that could make a big difference for anyone taking small boats in or out of small harbours and across reefs.
 
It's 'all mouth and no trousers ' as far as the US is concerned I'm afraid:

*Colin Darch, the captain of one ship that was released after a ransom was paid, told the BBC News website he would have welcomed the use of force to resolve the crisis.
"They made it plain from the start that they were only in it for the ransom money," he said, speaking from his home in Devon.
"We were told that as long we didn't sabotage the venture, we would be all right. They said they needed us in good condition to get the ransom and the owners of the boat made it clear that no money would be paid if we were harmed."
Captain Darch was in daily contact with the vessel's owners in Copenhagen to help with negotiations.
The size of the gang more than doubled to 20 when the pirates began to fear an American warship patrolling the area might try to free the hostages.

On the 12th day of captivity, the captain sent a message to the US warship telling it to attack once the vessel had been blacked out.
"We hid in a stern compartment behind watertight doors and waited, but the attack didn't happen," he says.
"After I had been freed, I asked them why and was told that it would have required authority from higher up, and that our lives were not in danger."
He believes the French have the right idea.
"Harsh action is what is needed," he says. "That's the only way to deal with the problem." *

Perhaps Afghan wedding parties and No 3 Para are easier targets ?
 
In fact the reported hijack position is not even on the map accompanying this BBC report !!


I put it roughly here:

Picture12.jpg


(You may wonder why I am so obsessed with its location! That is exactly where I was hoping to go sailing early next year!)
 
If you're trying to cover such a large area wouldn't it be better to put a few armed guards, perhaps with deck mounted machine guns, on each merchant ship rather than relying on a small number of large naval vessels?
 
There are somehting like 22,000 passages around the Horn per annum alone.... so the number of ships that would need protection is enourmous, and if we now look at the location for this attack, it appears that we are gonna half to cover 1/3 of the Indian ocean....... Armed specialist security are being embarked by some ships passing through the region.... but this hijacking appears to be a move on from the random attacks to a more intel lead directly targeted attack....

I think this is going to need a more organised and widespread action.....

1) Transit corridors through the region, so shipping is directed through narrower areas to ease patrolling....
2) Convoys, scheduled movements of warships through the transit corridors to enable merchant ships to schedule there passages when armed escort is around...
3) Q Ships.
4) Maritime exclusion zone; set up a zone from say 12 miles off shore to 100 miles off shore... anything entering the zone is considered hostile and open to attack/boarding without notice. combine with intense surveilance.
 
Not terribly bright those pirates - they wait until the oil price drops from $150 a barrel to $55 - and THEN they nick the tanker ...
 
Either way, stand by for the bleeding hearts who will undoubtedly suggest that the cure to this problem is billions in aid to the Somalis cos simply shooting them would damage their human rights
 
Well most of the pirates were previously fishermen, but as Somalia has no functioning government there is no-one to assert their fishing rights around their significant coastline, and as a result it's been overfished by visiting trawlers and their livelihood has been taken away.

Now, without a doubt it's evolved into organised crime, and it's not an excuse anyway, but it may be a reason? If that's so, then aid focussed on resolving their internal conflicts, helping establish a government, and creating a functioning economy might help solve the piracy problem, but you're probably right, better to kill them all.
 
[ QUOTE ]
Commander Jane Campbell, of the US Navy's 5th Fleet, told the BBC it had warned shipping companies that the US naval presence could "not be everywhere", adding: "For that reason we have strongly encouraged proactive self-protection measures for the companies."

[/ QUOTE ]

Wanted. Able bodied seamen with previous military training.

I wonder how long it will be before bulk oil and gas ship owners will be supplying high tech modern weaponry to crew to protect vessels and cargo.

Perhaps a few spare Saudi Apache helicopters or Fighters could be used to discourage these b******s.

/forums/images/graemlins/frown.gif
 
[ QUOTE ]

I wonder how long it will be before bulk oil and gas ship owners will be supplying high tech modern weaponry to crew to protect vessels and cargo.


[/ QUOTE ]

Never sadly, the ship and cargo are all insured for a very high sum...
 
100 million of oil aboard. ( A month ago it would have been at least double that ! ) 40 out of 80 ships attacked in the area last year were successfully hijacked and held to ransom. 1 million ransom on average.

I'm no actuary but my guess is that the premiums on a full tanker must make the thought of hiring a private hit squad quite tempting to some owners.

On the other hand if the insurers are getting say 6 figure sums for insurance premiums it would be simply good economics to spend some of that on re-insurance in the form of armed guards.

The chance of these guys getting apprehended is zero. East African countries are simply too under equipped and underpaid to do anything. Backhanders from the pirates probably mean that its a non starter even with manpower and equipment. So next month or next week there will be another hijacking and the situation will not change. Naval forces are either too busy elsewhere or not committed to counter piracy in the area.

Never is a long time!
 
[ QUOTE ]
Well most of the pirates were previously fishermen, but as Somalia has no functioning government there is no-one to assert their fishing rights around their significant coastline, and as a result it's been overfished by visiting trawlers and their livelihood has been taken away.

Now, without a doubt it's evolved into organised crime, and it's not an excuse anyway, but it may be a reason? If that's so, then aid focussed on resolving their internal conflicts, helping establish a government, and creating a functioning economy might help solve the piracy problem, but you're probably right, better to kill them all.

[/ QUOTE ]

By golly, I predicted a bleeding heart but I didnt expect one quite so fast. Its got to be a troll! /forums/images/graemlins/laugh.gif
 
[ QUOTE ]
Well most of the pirates were previously fishermen, but as Somalia has no functioning government there is no-one to assert their fishing rights around their significant coastline, and as a result it's been overfished by visiting trawlers and their livelihood has been taken away.

Now, without a doubt it's evolved into organised crime, and it's not an excuse anyway, but it may be a reason?

[/ QUOTE ]

Spot on.

I'm sure merchant ships can protect themselves with convoys and escorts so the problem can be controlled in the medium term.

In the long term the only permanent solution is an effective government of Somalia, and that's going to take outside involvement and money. I think the west would be wise to get involved and have some influence over the new regime so it would be nice if it was Western involvement & money. I guess Muslim money would be just as good from an anti-pirate POV.

I don't think anyone has opposed any action taken against pirates in the meantime (obviously not the indiscriminate killing of random Somalis and Hostages).

Indeed, this is such a strong case that in order to attempt to argue against it people have to rewrite it as "don't shoot pirates for fear of their human rights".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top