Brazil Wants to Abandon a 34,000-Ton Ship at Sea.

penfold

Well-known member
Joined
25 Aug 2003
Messages
7,729
Location
On the Clyde
Visit site
The Beirut explosion was caused by a number of factors, but I genuinely don't think any of them can be traced back to the IMO. Things like that tend to happen in corrupt countries that have had no effective government in decades, but I don't think it is up to IMO to be checking or enforcing (it has no enforcement powers) what conditions cargoes are stored in member countries.
I'd also dispute that it is in thrall to 'scumbag shipowners'. Like all UN organisations, it is simply the collective will of its member nations.
No consequences have fallen on the owner of the ship carrying the fertiliser, who abandoned it and its crew when it became too difficult/expensive to fix it. If it wasn't in thrall to scumbag owners it might have regulated emissions in a way likely to work, be readily regulated and done so long before it actually happened, not the way that's cheapest. Ditto ballast water, bilge water, manning, etc. The ease with which scumbag owners abandon ships, escape the consequences of wrecks and avoid paying crew is all within the IMO's remit.
 

lustyd

Well-known member
Joined
27 Jul 2010
Messages
12,489
Visit site
She ended up being dismantled in Hartlepool. What that says about Hartlepool compared to India, I’ll leave you to decide
Firstly, I wasn't talking about boats. I thought that was obvious. Secondly, dismantling isn't the same as responsible disposal.
 

newtothis

Well-known member
Joined
28 May 2012
Messages
1,492
Visit site
No consequences have fallen on the owner of the ship carrying the fertiliser, who abandoned it and its crew when it became too difficult/expensive to fix it. If it wasn't in thrall to scumbag owners it might have regulated emissions in a way likely to work, be readily regulated and done so long before it actually happened, not the way that's cheapest. Ditto ballast water, bilge water, manning, etc. The ease with which scumbag owners abandon ships, escape the consequences of wrecks and avoid paying crew is all within the IMO's remit.

What exactly is the IMO to do about a business going bankrupt? The IMO executive is very keen to reduce emissions, ballast water, ballast and bilge water. It has done a lot in recent years in all of these areas.
But again, IMO is only as good as its member states. It is not some supranational organisation that can impose its own law on the sector or in member states. Any rules it comes up with need to be adopted, ratified and implented. Enforcement after implementation comes from member states. In the parts of shipping that I know about, there are rules that have been through the whole process, and yet are only really adhered to in some parts of the world, while others turn a blind eye. If the UN can't stop Russia invading Ukraine, it's hardly fair to expect IMO to enforce VGM in Vietnam.
 

Frank Holden

Well-known member
Joined
23 Nov 2009
Messages
1,128
Location
Cruising in the Golfo Corcovado
Visit site
For reference the light displacement of this ship is about 24,000 tons. The price for scrap is currently over $500 usd per ton Demolition Market - Go Shipping
That is a lot of $$$$. OK warships are more expensive than big bulkers and tankers to scrap but the Saudis have presumeably done their sums.

PS The have been and still are breaking old USN ships in Brownsville that are full of asbestos, dunno why they can't do this one.
International Shipbreaking Gains EU Ship Recycling Accreditation – Port of Brownsville
Former Carrier Kitty Hawk Arrives in Brownsville for Scrapping - USNI News
 
Last edited:

rotrax

Well-known member
Joined
17 Dec 2010
Messages
15,909
Location
South Oxon and Littlehampton.
Visit site
Top