DMW
New member
What a disaster for such a beautiful area - I spent a week sailing the Rias in September and thought it one of the best locations I've seen. Great sailing, lovely people, fabulous sea food. My sympathies are with the Galicians.
Spanish oil spill
- Thread starter DMW
- Start date
ccscott49
Active member
Has it hit the shore yet in any amouints? Bluidy captains!! I agree with you a beautiful part of the world.
ROSSCO
New member
she broke in 2 this morning - a terrible event but I cant help wondering if it could have been avoided if the spaniards had taken her into La corunna and lightered the oil off there, instead of taking the 'not in my back yard' attitude and insisting on getting her offshore with the inevitable consequences of her breaking up. They seem so quick to want to blame everyone, except themselves.They have been having a go at us Brits because they say the cargo was destined for Gibraltar. In fact the cargo was going to Singapore but as is customary in the business she was given ' Gibraltar for orders'.Prior to arrival at Gibraltar she would have been given further instructions to sail to Singapore.
Twister_Ken
Well-known member
Haven't really kept up to speed with this story. Was she a real ol' rust bucket - accident waiting to happen sort of thing - or a well-found ship that got unlucky, or was it bad driving?
Trevethan
New member
12:15 19Nov2002 UPDATE 3-Oil tanker off Spain breaks up, stern sinks
(Recasts with rear section sinking, adds Portuguese ministers paragraphs 9, 14-16)
By Adrian Croft
LA CORUNA, Spain, Nov 19 (Reuters) - A tanker carrying 70,000 tonnes of fuel oil split in two off northwest Spain on Tuesday and the stern section sank, spilling oil and threatening the coast and its rich fisheries with an environmental disaster.
Salvage crews were battling to keep afloat the battered bow section of the Prestige, which was wallowing in the Atlantic about 130 miles off the coast of Spain and Portugal in waters 3,600 metres (11,880 feet) deep.
Spanish officials said the Bahamian-flagged Prestige spilled 5,000 to 6,000 tonnes of its load when the vessel broke apart, adding to the 5,000 tonne spill that had left a 17 km (10 mile) oil slick in its wake as it was pulled out to sea.
The oil has blackened the rugged coastline, thrown 1,000 Spanish fishermen out of work and coated sea birds with tar.
The ship, chartered by the Swiss-based Russian oil trader Crown Resources, was carrying twice as much oil as the Exxon Valdez was when it ran aground in Alaska in 1989, causing a spill that devastated a stretch of pristine wilderness.
"The aft part of the ship has sunk ... The front part is still floating but it will sink," said Lars Walder, a spokesman for the Dutch company Smit Salvage, whose tugs had been towing the elderly single-hulled ship further out to sea.
"A lot of oil went down with this part...We hope the majority will go down with the ship. Most of the containers are intact," Walder said.
Given the winds and currents, the oil slick was expected to drift toward the shore of Spain's Galicia region for at least the next 48 hours, a spokesman for Portugal's Hydrographic Institute said.
Asked if he feared an ecological catastrophe, Portuguese Environment Minister Isaltino Morais said, "Naturally."
No European port had been willing to take in the stricken vessel, whose hull cracked in stormy weather last Wednesday. Salvage tugs were taking it further out to sea in an attempt to limit damage to the craggy coast of Galicia, where seafood delicacies and summer tourism are vital to the local economy.
Environmentalists blasted the Spanish government's response to the disaster as timid and said their worst fears could be realised.
"If it sinks there will be a time bomb at the bottom of the sea," said Maria Jose Caballero, head of the coastal protection project for Greenpeace in Spain. "We have been saying that they need to extract the fuel oil to avoid an ecological tragedy of major proportions."
PORTUGAL BRACES FOR BLACK TIDE
Portugal braced for the possibility that oil could foul its hundreds of kilometres (miles) of Atlantic beaches and its rich fishing grounds.
Interviewed on independent SIC TV, Morais said the government had set up a crisis team headed by the defence ministry and including representatives of the agriculture and environment ministries.
Portugal has a navy corvette and an air force patrol plane monitoring the tanker.
Defence Minister Paulo Portas told a news conference late on Monday that the Prestige was a problem that the European Union needed to solve. "Portugal wants a policy of cooperation carried out among states to minimise the damage and avoid an ecological catastrophe," he said.
Spanish Prime Minister Jose Maria Aznar said on Monday that Spain would take action under international law to ensure that those responsible for the disaster paid for the cleanup.
He blamed the British colony of Gibraltar on the southern coast of Spain, where the tanker stopped in June.
The ship's plight caused a row between Britain and Spain, which said London was partly to blame for not ensuring the elderly ship was inspected when it stopped at the disputed colony of Gibraltar in June.
Greece's merchant marine ministry said it had not inspected the tanker when it docked at Kalamata in June because it was in transit.
Under EU law, member states' ports have to inspect 25 percent of ships that call. The rules will be tightened next July so that inspections focus on older ships like the Prestige.
(Additional reporting by Ian Simpson and Martin Roberts in Lisbon, Madrid editorial team and Maria Petrakis in Athens)
((Madrid Newsroom, +34 91 585 2151, fax +34 91 435 9666, madrid.newsroom@reuters.com))
Tuesday, 19 November 2002 12:15:35
RTRS [nL1932591 ] {C}
ENDS
(Recasts with rear section sinking, adds Portuguese ministers paragraphs 9, 14-16)
By Adrian Croft
LA CORUNA, Spain, Nov 19 (Reuters) - A tanker carrying 70,000 tonnes of fuel oil split in two off northwest Spain on Tuesday and the stern section sank, spilling oil and threatening the coast and its rich fisheries with an environmental disaster.
Salvage crews were battling to keep afloat the battered bow section of the Prestige, which was wallowing in the Atlantic about 130 miles off the coast of Spain and Portugal in waters 3,600 metres (11,880 feet) deep.
Spanish officials said the Bahamian-flagged Prestige spilled 5,000 to 6,000 tonnes of its load when the vessel broke apart, adding to the 5,000 tonne spill that had left a 17 km (10 mile) oil slick in its wake as it was pulled out to sea.
The oil has blackened the rugged coastline, thrown 1,000 Spanish fishermen out of work and coated sea birds with tar.
The ship, chartered by the Swiss-based Russian oil trader Crown Resources, was carrying twice as much oil as the Exxon Valdez was when it ran aground in Alaska in 1989, causing a spill that devastated a stretch of pristine wilderness.
"The aft part of the ship has sunk ... The front part is still floating but it will sink," said Lars Walder, a spokesman for the Dutch company Smit Salvage, whose tugs had been towing the elderly single-hulled ship further out to sea.
"A lot of oil went down with this part...We hope the majority will go down with the ship. Most of the containers are intact," Walder said.
Given the winds and currents, the oil slick was expected to drift toward the shore of Spain's Galicia region for at least the next 48 hours, a spokesman for Portugal's Hydrographic Institute said.
Asked if he feared an ecological catastrophe, Portuguese Environment Minister Isaltino Morais said, "Naturally."
No European port had been willing to take in the stricken vessel, whose hull cracked in stormy weather last Wednesday. Salvage tugs were taking it further out to sea in an attempt to limit damage to the craggy coast of Galicia, where seafood delicacies and summer tourism are vital to the local economy.
Environmentalists blasted the Spanish government's response to the disaster as timid and said their worst fears could be realised.
"If it sinks there will be a time bomb at the bottom of the sea," said Maria Jose Caballero, head of the coastal protection project for Greenpeace in Spain. "We have been saying that they need to extract the fuel oil to avoid an ecological tragedy of major proportions."
PORTUGAL BRACES FOR BLACK TIDE
Portugal braced for the possibility that oil could foul its hundreds of kilometres (miles) of Atlantic beaches and its rich fishing grounds.
Interviewed on independent SIC TV, Morais said the government had set up a crisis team headed by the defence ministry and including representatives of the agriculture and environment ministries.
Portugal has a navy corvette and an air force patrol plane monitoring the tanker.
Defence Minister Paulo Portas told a news conference late on Monday that the Prestige was a problem that the European Union needed to solve. "Portugal wants a policy of cooperation carried out among states to minimise the damage and avoid an ecological catastrophe," he said.
Spanish Prime Minister Jose Maria Aznar said on Monday that Spain would take action under international law to ensure that those responsible for the disaster paid for the cleanup.
He blamed the British colony of Gibraltar on the southern coast of Spain, where the tanker stopped in June.
The ship's plight caused a row between Britain and Spain, which said London was partly to blame for not ensuring the elderly ship was inspected when it stopped at the disputed colony of Gibraltar in June.
Greece's merchant marine ministry said it had not inspected the tanker when it docked at Kalamata in June because it was in transit.
Under EU law, member states' ports have to inspect 25 percent of ships that call. The rules will be tightened next July so that inspections focus on older ships like the Prestige.
(Additional reporting by Ian Simpson and Martin Roberts in Lisbon, Madrid editorial team and Maria Petrakis in Athens)
((Madrid Newsroom, +34 91 585 2151, fax +34 91 435 9666, madrid.newsroom@reuters.com))
Tuesday, 19 November 2002 12:15:35
RTRS [nL1932591 ] {C}
ENDS
G
Guest
Guest
Calm down everyone. These 'worst ever ecological disasters' have a habit of turning out less seriously than the scare statements of Greenpeace ('time bomb on the sea bed' - oh dear, not again?), BBC, politicians blaming each other and all the usual suspects.
Best solution is probably to sink her, though oil laden tankers are difficult because oil mostly lighter than salt water. Anyway who has the guts to make a firm decision?
Best solution is probably to sink her, though oil laden tankers are difficult because oil mostly lighter than salt water. Anyway who has the guts to make a firm decision?
ccscott49
Active member
I don't think anybody here is panicing, but it will still bugger up a large area of coastline, even the 5-6k tonnes of oil spilled so far, luckily it appears to be fuel oil, (from what is being said) which will not cause as much damage as crude would. So as for "Tarred birds" I think they might well be wrong, but it's still not a very nice thing to happen. By the way, you in the oil business then or enviromental cleanup business, just asking so as to know, then you'll be able to advise us. As for Greenpeace, well I for one support them, but this is not the place to go into that! They overeacted to the pollution from windscale totally didn't they! Of course the Spanish are going to blame Gibraltar, why not! Great press!
qsiv
New member
Seems she may not have been a paragon of virtue - 26 years old and if I recall Bahamian flag and Latvian crew.
It could though be a number of other causes such as bad loading, and dont forget the weather was truly awful. Only the week before spain had closed all it's ports on that coast as it was too rough to enter or leave.
It could though be a number of other causes such as bad loading, and dont forget the weather was truly awful. Only the week before spain had closed all it's ports on that coast as it was too rough to enter or leave.
ROSSCO
New member
she was carrying straight run fuel oil - this is very heavy stuff and unlike crude oil will expand its mass several times when mixed with water- the advantage is it will congeal and form 'tar balls at best- at worst a horrible glutenous sludge'- so think we will see lots of oiled birds- the best hope is it will solidify and stay intact in the wreck-In a disaster like the 'braer' off shetlands where it was light crude oil, most of the crude evaporated,with minimal enviromental impact, this will not happen with fuel oil.
Escapeii
Member
After the 'Erika' incident a couple of years ago French tv is full of it.
Yes it has reached the shore and it is messing up a lot of sea birds and of course the Spanish have had a go at blaming Gibraltar.
French tv showed a plot of the course taken the vessel once it was under tow. For the past three or four days it has been towed up and down the coast. Maybe the weather was forcing their hand, but it looked like once they had got the vessel in tow no one had a clue what to do with it.
Yes it has reached the shore and it is messing up a lot of sea birds and of course the Spanish have had a go at blaming Gibraltar.
French tv showed a plot of the course taken the vessel once it was under tow. For the past three or four days it has been towed up and down the coast. Maybe the weather was forcing their hand, but it looked like once they had got the vessel in tow no one had a clue what to do with it.
zefender
Active member
Re: Not serious then?
Thousands of people have, for the moment, lost their livelihoods. Thousands of birds have already died or will do so. A truly beautiful coastline is ruined for months and probably years. An area with plenty of dolphins and whales will doubtless soon see dead specimens arrive choked on the beaches.
I'd call that serious....and I wish more people listened to Greenpeace's warnings. Just how many of these incidents does it take before people take a more cautious view and impose proper restrictions on these kind of cargoes? I wonder what would have been the reaction if this incident happened in the Solent.
Thousands of people have, for the moment, lost their livelihoods. Thousands of birds have already died or will do so. A truly beautiful coastline is ruined for months and probably years. An area with plenty of dolphins and whales will doubtless soon see dead specimens arrive choked on the beaches.
I'd call that serious....and I wish more people listened to Greenpeace's warnings. Just how many of these incidents does it take before people take a more cautious view and impose proper restrictions on these kind of cargoes? I wonder what would have been the reaction if this incident happened in the Solent.
Mirelle
N/A
Small oilspill. Not many cheques.
No, not serious. The clue is in the BBC's wording; "a loss of oil twice as severe as the Exxon Valdez". This is spin speak. The Valdez lost only 35,000 tons of oil, a third of a Torrey Canyon and a sixth of an Amoco Cadiz. The Valdez spilled hers in an area which recovers very slowly, which is not the case in NW Spain.
The compensation bandwagon is already rolling and the insurers will soon be writing the cheques.
Now let's ask the real questions:
1. Why, two years after the very similar Erika incident, is fuel oil still moving round Europe in old bangers, despite howls of rage and promises of action by the EU and member states?
2. Why does this type of incident not happen in SE Asia or Australasia?
3. Why was the ship denied a port of refuge and towed out into the winter North Atlantic, even after the Castor episode last year?
I'll answer 1 and 2 and leave the Spaniards to stew in their own juice, which they richly deserve to after their attempt to bring Gibraltar into issue, on 3.
European port dues are set to shigh by greedy Governments that it is not ecomomical to move these cargoes as parcels on large modern tankers, as is done in the Pacific Rim countries, so the European dirty oil trade is a last refuge for old bangers. No action has been taken on this, and none will be.
By the way, if any Spaniards are reading this, "Gibraltar for orders" means "steam towards the entrance to the Med and await further instructions, because we are trading the cargo on the water and the buyer's identity is not yet known", it does not mean "go to Gibraltar and discharge your cargo!" any more than any of the square riggers which sailed for "Falmouth for orders" ever discharged their cargoes there.
No, not serious. The clue is in the BBC's wording; "a loss of oil twice as severe as the Exxon Valdez". This is spin speak. The Valdez lost only 35,000 tons of oil, a third of a Torrey Canyon and a sixth of an Amoco Cadiz. The Valdez spilled hers in an area which recovers very slowly, which is not the case in NW Spain.
The compensation bandwagon is already rolling and the insurers will soon be writing the cheques.
Now let's ask the real questions:
1. Why, two years after the very similar Erika incident, is fuel oil still moving round Europe in old bangers, despite howls of rage and promises of action by the EU and member states?
2. Why does this type of incident not happen in SE Asia or Australasia?
3. Why was the ship denied a port of refuge and towed out into the winter North Atlantic, even after the Castor episode last year?
I'll answer 1 and 2 and leave the Spaniards to stew in their own juice, which they richly deserve to after their attempt to bring Gibraltar into issue, on 3.
European port dues are set to shigh by greedy Governments that it is not ecomomical to move these cargoes as parcels on large modern tankers, as is done in the Pacific Rim countries, so the European dirty oil trade is a last refuge for old bangers. No action has been taken on this, and none will be.
By the way, if any Spaniards are reading this, "Gibraltar for orders" means "steam towards the entrance to the Med and await further instructions, because we are trading the cargo on the water and the buyer's identity is not yet known", it does not mean "go to Gibraltar and discharge your cargo!" any more than any of the square riggers which sailed for "Falmouth for orders" ever discharged their cargoes there.
zefender
Active member
Re: \"Only 35,000 tons of oil\"
Oh that's OK then is it? And what exactly do we mean by an area 'recovering' - sort of spread over a bigger area so nobody would know?
Agree about rusty old hulks needing to be banned. Is it 2010 when single hulls will be phased out? In the meantime, doubtless we can expect two or three more of these non-serious incidents..
Oh that's OK then is it? And what exactly do we mean by an area 'recovering' - sort of spread over a bigger area so nobody would know?
Agree about rusty old hulks needing to be banned. Is it 2010 when single hulls will be phased out? In the meantime, doubtless we can expect two or three more of these non-serious incidents..
Twister_Ken
Well-known member
Not 2010, but 2015 apparently
Of course, they'll have all sunk by then.
Of course, they'll have all sunk by then.
Chris_Robb
Well-known member
Re: double skinned
International Maritime Organisation does not believe that single skin is the problem. It is age and/or lack of maintenance and inspection.
A double skinned ship is marginally stronger, until the outside skin is ruptured - then the remaining part is considerably weaker. - according to IMO article.
Was hoping to put the boat in the Rias next year - but if covered in oil.......
International Maritime Organisation does not believe that single skin is the problem. It is age and/or lack of maintenance and inspection.
A double skinned ship is marginally stronger, until the outside skin is ruptured - then the remaining part is considerably weaker. - according to IMO article.
Was hoping to put the boat in the Rias next year - but if covered in oil.......
Trevethan
New member
Re: \"Only 35,000 tons of oil\"
Not trying to belittle the accident but,
The area is liklely to recover quicker than that in Alaska because the climate or more benign and the flora and fauna is generally more robust and fast growing than many arctic species.
The problem with Greenpeace is that they over dramatise or exaggerate on a habitual basis in order to get their point across and get a soundbuite or two on the evening news.
I was covering Norwegian oil news during the Brent Spar disposal debacle and Greenpeace were on TV most nights in the papers daily and I am sure their fundraisers did great business.
The oil company wanted to sink the think very deep in the Atlantic. They said it contained a few hundred tonnes of oil and residue - which would have been taken care of by bugs in the environment (I don't remember ever seeing anyone say it had been doesed with Soltron you see ;-) )
Greenpeace made a huge song and dance about this - they needed a cause celebre for that year and there weren't any baby seals being clubbed so they picked on this issue.
They boarded the thing, risked lives, cost the oil companies lots of money and generally caused a nuisance. They said they had measured tens of thousands of tonnes of residue in the structure and suggested sinking it would contaminate the North Atlantic for years.
In the end, to curb any more bad press, they dragged the thing back to Norway. Not sure if it has been taken apart yet, so instead of slowly breaking down 4 miles under the water it wound up in a pristine fjord.
WHen the oil company retested the amount of contaminant on board they found it was close to their original estimates and nowhere near the hyped figures Greenpeace had touted. When questioned about this Greenpeace effectively dodged saying they did what they had to and the oil companies had leaned a lesson. They then announced their next campaign target (not sure what, but was sure very emotive and likely involved baby mammals and dodging around in RIBS.
While I have a great respect for the environment and try and do my bit - energy efficient, recycling, don't use car when public transport/liftshare available, use big flappy saily things to push boat along rather than guzzling engines, boat made of environmentally friendly stuff, not horrid toxic chemical based resins and grp (!) , groups like Greenpeace will not win my support while they make such wholesale use of spin, rather than presenting a wholesale workable solution to our environmental problems.
Here endeth the lecture!
Not trying to belittle the accident but,
The area is liklely to recover quicker than that in Alaska because the climate or more benign and the flora and fauna is generally more robust and fast growing than many arctic species.
The problem with Greenpeace is that they over dramatise or exaggerate on a habitual basis in order to get their point across and get a soundbuite or two on the evening news.
I was covering Norwegian oil news during the Brent Spar disposal debacle and Greenpeace were on TV most nights in the papers daily and I am sure their fundraisers did great business.
The oil company wanted to sink the think very deep in the Atlantic. They said it contained a few hundred tonnes of oil and residue - which would have been taken care of by bugs in the environment (I don't remember ever seeing anyone say it had been doesed with Soltron you see ;-) )
Greenpeace made a huge song and dance about this - they needed a cause celebre for that year and there weren't any baby seals being clubbed so they picked on this issue.
They boarded the thing, risked lives, cost the oil companies lots of money and generally caused a nuisance. They said they had measured tens of thousands of tonnes of residue in the structure and suggested sinking it would contaminate the North Atlantic for years.
In the end, to curb any more bad press, they dragged the thing back to Norway. Not sure if it has been taken apart yet, so instead of slowly breaking down 4 miles under the water it wound up in a pristine fjord.
WHen the oil company retested the amount of contaminant on board they found it was close to their original estimates and nowhere near the hyped figures Greenpeace had touted. When questioned about this Greenpeace effectively dodged saying they did what they had to and the oil companies had leaned a lesson. They then announced their next campaign target (not sure what, but was sure very emotive and likely involved baby mammals and dodging around in RIBS.
While I have a great respect for the environment and try and do my bit - energy efficient, recycling, don't use car when public transport/liftshare available, use big flappy saily things to push boat along rather than guzzling engines, boat made of environmentally friendly stuff, not horrid toxic chemical based resins and grp (!) , groups like Greenpeace will not win my support while they make such wholesale use of spin, rather than presenting a wholesale workable solution to our environmental problems.
Here endeth the lecture!
G
Guest
Guest
To answer some questions below
I've just listed to the 1300 news
Greek owned ship
Bahamanian flag
Latvian crew
Swiss owned oil en route from Latvia to Singapore.
What I can't understand is - what was she doing off La Coruna - I was always told that Singapore was over China way.
Any ideas
Geoff W
I've just listed to the 1300 news
Greek owned ship
Bahamanian flag
Latvian crew
Swiss owned oil en route from Latvia to Singapore.
What I can't understand is - what was she doing off La Coruna - I was always told that Singapore was over China way.
Any ideas
Geoff W
NigeCh
New member
To tangle the web further
Crown appears to work out of London under Russian paymasters. Documented 'Gibraltar for orders' means that the final destination is not known as it appears that this ship whilst on passage was in the process of being sold to another party .... The facts are confused .... Let's hope that daft Loyola can get her act together. The only sense in this is the Smit statement (not BBC) that said that politicians refused to listen to any form of scientific arguement and made the decision to tow Prestige both out to sea and to the south to dump the problem on the Portugese.
Smit maintains that this disaster was entirely caused by politicians after the first alert raised by Prestige.
Crown appears to work out of London under Russian paymasters. Documented 'Gibraltar for orders' means that the final destination is not known as it appears that this ship whilst on passage was in the process of being sold to another party .... The facts are confused .... Let's hope that daft Loyola can get her act together. The only sense in this is the Smit statement (not BBC) that said that politicians refused to listen to any form of scientific arguement and made the decision to tow Prestige both out to sea and to the south to dump the problem on the Portugese.
Smit maintains that this disaster was entirely caused by politicians after the first alert raised by Prestige.