Suez blocked.

[penfold]

Given there's some evidence the grounding was down to poor met surveillance by the SCA there's a lot of brassneck involved.

 

[Biggles Wader]

Given there's some evidence the grounding was down to poor met surveillance by the SCA there's a lot of brassneck involved.

Blame will be aportioned according to the accepted rules. The SCA, Egypt, is always in the right and their customers are always wrong-----and liable for any payment that Egypt, sorry, the SCA decides. In this case they even have a captive ship, cargo and possibly the crew to hold to ransome and threats aimed at other ships owned or operated by the relevant company. Does Egypt hold all the cards?

 

[penfold]

Egypt will be leant on if they try and hold the crew for ransom, they're a client state of the US and adults are running the US again. The ship is a thing and things can be dickered over, business is business.

 

[Allan]

It's an interesting situation, travel by ships from west of India, is longer without Suez but cheaper. For the oil states longer and maybe a little cheaper but not much. If it becomes a stand off between the box boat companies and Egypt, my money's on the box boaters, just! Will the companies work together? Probably not! An interesting time ahead!
Allan

 

[Kukri]

I think the point at issue may be the wording and the amount of the Letter of Undertaking to be given to the SCA by the UK P&I Club in exchange for the release of the ship and her cargo.

Anyone can see that the SCA’s losses amount to:
1. The lost canal dues from the ships that went round the Cape.
2. The overtime cost of getting the delayed ships through, double quick.
3. About six days’ interest on the canal dues of the ships that were delayed.
4. If the SCA are not claiming in the salvage case, their costs of mobilisation of two dredgers and some tugs (but they will do better to claim salvage).
5. Any cost of making good the hole in the bank (probably nil).
6. Interest on 1-5.
7. Costs.

This isn’t going to get much beyond fifty million dollars, and nowhere near a billion.

 

[Stemar]

This isn’t going to get much beyond fifty million dollars, and nowhere near a billion.

Didn't you forget the Marlborough factor?

 

[chrishscorp]

Egypt seizes Ever Given over owner’s ‘refusal to pay £655m compensation’

Not bad for a week and a bits work for a bloke with a poxy little digger

On a serious note if they get away with charging that sort of sum of money then I do wonder if the really big boats will go the longer way round in future

 

[dunedin]

Egypt seizes Ever Given over owner’s ‘refusal to pay £655m compensation’

Not bad for a week and a bits work for a bloke with a poxy little digger

On a serious note if they get away with charging that sort of sum of money then I do wonder if the really big boats will go the longer way round in future

And who was actually doing the steering / direction at the time- the captain or the canal pilot?

 

[Kukri]

A question that might be asked is:

“Who thought it was a good idea to set off up the Canal in a thirty knot crosswind gusting to forty, without a steering tug, when the two ships* ahead of the “Ever Given” both took tugs, and a gas carrier, which would have had tugs at both ends, chose to wait for better weather, and why was the “Ever Given” making 13.6 knots? Could that have been for rudder authority?”

*“Al-Nasiryah,”UASC, 14,000 TEU container ship
*“Cosco Galaxy”, Cosco Container Line, 20,000 TEU container ship

 

[Bilgediver]

Is it possible the vessel's steerage was affected by uneven depth across the width of the canal. I know of at least 1 ship that had a Woopsie back in 1965 and suffered a similar event which at the time was unexplained. The ship started to weave and finished bow into the bank. The helmsman complained of the ship not responding to the helm. Rudder indicator suggested it was working. I tried to link to where this event is discussed but it seems google doesn't have the key to the lock. On this occasion the ship appears to have got free with little or no damage. I am pretty sure the Marine Traffic App suggested Ever Given was weaving at increasing amplitude prior to the incidence . . It always amazes me the detail some of the enthusiasts find on the web when investigating aircraft incidents. It is surprising what information is in the public domain . Mind you they are still looking for
MH 370 .

I believe Ever Given was would have been carrying considerable helm to maintain course so anything else thrown into the mix in such restricted waters would be a major problem.

 

[RivalRedwing]

$300 million for loss of reputation..... oh brother!

 

[newtothis]

$300 million for loss of reputation..... oh brother!

Or to quote one maritime lawyer.... "They're taking the piss."

 

[newtothis]

Is it possible the vessel's steerage was affected by uneven depth across the width of the canal. I know of at least 1 ship that had a Woopsie back in 1965 and suffered a similar event which at the time was unexplained. The ship started to weave and finished bow into the bank. The helmsman complained of the ship not responding to the helm. Rudder indicator suggested it was working. I tried to link to where this event is discussed but it seems google doesn't have the key to the lock. On this occasion the ship appears to have got free with little or no damage. I am pretty sure the Marine Traffic App suggested Ever Given was weaving at increasing amplitude prior to the incidence . . It always amazes me the detail some of the enthusiasts find on the web when investigating aircraft incidents. It is surprising what information is in the public domain . Mind you they are still looking for
MH 370 .

I believe Ever Given was would have been carrying considerable helm to maintain course so anything else thrown into the mix in such restricted waters would be a major problem.

From listening to some experts this week, I understand that there was a current running from the Red Sea that would also have affected steerage, hence Ever Given going over the canal speed limit.
One also calculated that the windage on the freeboard and container stacks was equivalent to the bollard pull of four harbour tugs.
Another thing they agreed on was that it was more likely events, dear boy, than any incompetence in the pilots or master.
Which, as Kukri pointed out, begs the question of why it was allowed through unassisted.

 

[penfold]

Perhaps there may be moves to make tugs mandatory above a certain wind strength, at least for the stupidly big ones.

 

[newtothis]

Perhaps there may be moves to make tugs mandatory above a certain wind strength, at least for the stupidly big ones.

"Stupidly big" is the reason the device you typed that on was transported half way around the world for about 0.05% of the final retail cost. Be careful what you wish for.

 

[penfold]

Given how much they pay the tug crews it would add very little to the price. Cheaper than digging a 2nd ditch the full length for sure.

 

[Bilgediver]

Perhaps there may be moves to make tugs mandatory above a certain wind strength, at least for the stupidly big ones.

Is the canal wide enough to give the tugs a good lead in those conditions ? Do the passenger ships ever have to resort to thruster assist?

 

[chrishscorp]

"Stupidly big" is the reason the device you typed that on was transported half way around the world for about 0.05% of the final retail cost. Be careful what you wish for.

Absolutely.

The point is though these boats are getting bigger, perhaps the time has come when over a certain length ie the width of the deep channel they will need to be tugged so it cant be blocked again, or you go round the Cape. I really cant see the insurance companys being up for that sort of bill every time one hits the putty and the odds of that happening must increase everytime somebody else builds another 15,000 -20,000 TEU boat, perhaps they will just put a big excess on the policy for a Suez passage

 

[newtothis]

Absolutely.

The point is though these boats are getting bigger, perhaps the time has come when over a certain length ie the width of the deep channel they will need to be tugged so it cant be blocked again, or you go round the Cape. I really cant see the insurance companys being up for that sort of bill every time one hits the putty and the odds of that happening must increase everytime somebody else builds another 15,000 -20,000 TEU boat, perhaps they will just put a big excess on the policy for a Suez passage

The argument that the ships are getting better is slightly spurious, and largely derived from carrier willy waving. The first of the modern "big" boxships was Emma Maersk, which was launched in 2006. It was about 1 m shorter and 1 m narrower across the beam than Ever Given.
The scantlings haven't changed that much, but they have worked out ways to theoretically put more containers on each ship so you can, for a short time, bask in the glory of getting the "world's largest containership" headlines.
The 24,000 teu ships now in service are very nearly the same dimensions as the 16,000 teu Emma Maersk, just a bit wider to take an extra row of containers.
These things go through the canal nearly every day without incident. Except in rare weather events there is no need to add tugs.
I don't think we'll see a wholesale change in the way things are done; more likely a slightly more conservative approach to weather parameters, but no one is going to take the long route or insist on tugs for every transit.

 

[Concerto]

There has been plenty written about the impounding of Ever Given, but I cannot remember reading on this thread about the damage to her. Well this comment is encouraging.

"‘The vessel’s classification society, the American Bureau of Shipping (ABS), completed their surveys on 4 April 2021 and issued a certificate of fitness to allow the vessel to move from Great Bitter Lake to Port Said where she will then undergo re-inspection before completing her voyage to Rotterdam. " Ever Given's insurers 'disappointed' as ship is seized - Marine Industry News