More containers in the sea...with some statistics at last...

M

Mirelle

N/A
Joined
30 Nov 2002
Messages
4,531
Visit site
I hope "Lloyd's List" won't mind me quoting extracts from their cover story today:

"Nearly 250 containers were lost overboard from modern ships over the past fortnight, with CMA CGM vessels involved in the two latest incidents.

"The 5,762 teu CMA CGM Verdi arrived in Southampton with container stacks toppling over and other boxes hanging dangerously over the side after losing many more into the sea in the Cape Finisterre area on Saturday. The French line said that 77 40ft containers had been swept off the ship in rough weather and 55 were damaged.

"This latest accident occurred a day after the 8,488 teu 2005-built CMA CGM Otelloarrived in Le Havre with crushed containers on its decks after a similar incident in which 50 containers were lost in the Bay of Biscay, and 30 were damaged.

"All the containers were loaded with consumer goods and no hazardous cargo was lost, CMA CGM said.

"The P&O Nedlloyd Mondriaan, chartered to Maersk Line, had suffered two separate casualties over the past fortnight, first losing 58 containers off the Dutch coast and then 50 mostly empty boxes in the Bay of Biscay late last week.

"Both companies said they were investigating the incidents but could provide no further explanation at this stage.

"The UK’s Maritime and Coastguard Agency would have inspected the CMA CGM Verdi before it sailed this morning after 72 hours at Southampton.

"Despite such events and its own intense loss prevention initiatives, leading container fleet insurer Through Transport Club has advised against reading too much into the latest reports.

"It estimates that worldwide the average number of boxes that fall from ships is around 2,500 out of a container inventory of at least 15m teu. This works out at around 0.006% of the number transported each year, said the mutual. TT Club experts questioned whether the rate had increased over the last 30 years of intense containerisation.

"While welcoming any investigation into the number of containers that fall and their impact — most would be likely to burst open on hitting the water, rather than ride the waves and cause new havoc — the insurer says this should not be used as a way of further regulating the industry."


There may be an element of "they would say that, wouldn't they" about the TT Club figures, but at least they are figures, from an organisation with a world wide presence.
 
Maybe they will all end up swirling around in the saragosso sea.Should be a heavy fine for shippers if their boats turn up without freight,its not their sea to bligthly go about pollutuing it,noe if was nice teak planks or a cargo of self tailing winches,it could be overlooked!
 
Surely something needs top be done here, don't you think?

Soon there could be a tragic accident involving one these things in home waters?

They float just beneath the surface usually, so radar can't pick them up, forward looking depthfinder/sonar may work, but possibly not be of much use at 0300 on a bad night, as you fly along at 7kts.

I know its something that will probably never happen, but couldn't the shipping lines be held financially accountable for the lost containers, the fines imposed could fund a salvage operation to find some of the lost containers, and if not bring them in, then at least make sure they sink?

I know its a long shot, and totally impractical, but just letting these hazards float around the seven seas is IMHO showing disregard for other water users.
 
I just think that all containers should be designed so that they will fill with water and sink if lost overboard. All it takes is a small hole at each corner, to allow air out with a one way valve to stop rain or spray ingress in normal use. This would prevent an air pocket keeping them floating just at the surface. A very simple design of valve could be arranged so that if the container falls into the sea, the water pressure will push the valves at the bottom of the container inwards, to let water in, whilst the air escapes at the top. Some cargoes would have enough bouyancy in themselves to keep the container afloat, but I think they would be a minority.
 
I think somebody answered this one the other day and said that they do sink unless they have bouyant cargo inside which is trapped and therefore keeps them afloat.
 
I once was told, not sure if this is 100% true though, that handling fees for ships in harbour are based on cargo held in the hold.

As a result, container ships are designed to stock up on deck to reduce handling fees, thereby increasing the likelihood of lost containers!

This arrangement I was advised is an old international treaty, which will be a massive task to change.

As I said, not sure if it is true. However, if it is, what a crazy world we live in. The fix is simply change the charging rules.
 
There is also a design of ship that has large steel supports to hold the containers, and doesn't just rely on bolting them together. Of course, this means that the supports take up room in the ship, and reduce the number of containers that can be carried. It also increased load/unload time as all containers had ro be lifted to the top of the stack and dropped down, regardless of what level they were on.

So I think only one or two of these were built.
 
There's a very simple solution: require that all containers travelling by sea have negative buoyancy or are so designed as to attain it within 1 hour of immersion.

It won't happen because it would mean fewer containers per ship and fewer fridges or whatever per container. It might if a container sank a cruise liner with major loss of life, but not until afterwards.
 
Yep money talks, and some less scrupulous Shipping lines might not care because:

A) a sunken yacht is small fry to them
B) how on earth can anyone prove whos container a boat hit? So in theory no-one can be held liable.

I'm sure Shipping lines do find container losses regretable, but most likely down to profit margins and customer refunds, rather than the danger to navigation.

I wonder what the effect would be of a cruise liner hitting a container at full pelt? Are we talking about major/ship threatening damage?
 
My understanding is that most containers will fill and sink. the ones that do no sink are the refrigerated conatiners. Because they have a lot of foam insulation they retain enough positive buoyancy to float, just below the surface.

So with this in mind, no mater how much water is in the container it will not sink.
 
Quoting Mirelle from another thread
[ QUOTE ]
Reefer (refrigerated) containers are heavy and will sink, despite the insulation, as frozen food is very heavy stuff.


[/ QUOTE ]
 
[ QUOTE ]
I once was told, not sure if this is 100% true though, that handling fees for ships in harbour are based on cargo held in the hold. As a result, container ships are designed to stock up on deck to reduce handling fees, thereby increasing the likelihood of lost containers!

[/ QUOTE ]

Urban myth If they did this, the ship would turn over due to CofG shift.. Loading a container ship is a complex task requiring knowledge of the weights of each container and the effect of its position on the righting moment of the ship.
 
Not sure that I was suggesting they would take this to the extreme of making the ships unstable. Whether the container is itself contained wouldn't seem to much any difference of CoG. More that the design of these ships doesn't seem to be focussed on the security of the container.

As you say, it may be urban myth. However, the maths of not securing these things properly doesn't seem to add up when the only other considerations are build cost and loading delays.
 
[ QUOTE ]
Reefer (refrigerated) containers are heavy and will sink, despite the insulation, as frozen food is very heavy stuff.



[/ QUOTE ]


Ah yes, but they only tend to go one way loaded (at least on major food tradelanes NZ/SA etc.) - if they do manage to backload them it is normally with nice clean light consumer goods shipped at a discount. But I think most of them still tend to spend half their time travelling empty.

That said they do have a lot more metal (cooling machinery) in them than the standard dry box, so maybe that cancels out the extra buoyancy????
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top