http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/Components/Art/COVER/041210/STG_HZ_TankerDisaster_615a.jpg

As I understand it the problem is the fuel on board - which was transferred to interior tanks when the vessel began to flounder. I've also read it was "bunker oil" which I'm sure ain't the same bunker oil we're all familiar with :huh:

Huh -?


Is there more to this story?

Please explain.


Thanks

Originally posted by Carl
Huh -?


Is there more to this story?

Please explain.


Thanks

There was a downed rescue chopper yesterday trying to rescue the remaining crew of this tanker that lost it's engine off the Aleutians. They recovered some of the personnel alive. Sea conditions prevented a successful tow by tugs and the CG. Tow lines repeatedlt parted and anchors were lost. The tanker was drifting close to shore and was expected to breakup on shore.

This pic looks like it may have broken on structure just off shore


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6684005/

"Bunker oil" is usually used to refer to #6 fuel oil. It's heavy, tar-like stuff that has to be heated in order to be pumped. It's probably the next worst thing after pure crude to clean up after a spill.

What Mike said . . .

Just looked into it some more too. Seems they shut the bunker oil heaters off after the transfer to internal tanks. Lets hope it helps . . . hopefully something's been learned since he Valdez.

There has got to be a way to balance the need for this type of transportation and protecting the environments thru which they travel.

Being my business her is my comments...

Tanker Disaster??????????. Someone screwed that headline up. That is no tanker. That is a bulk ship. For hauling cargo like grain, sugar, salt,,,you get the picture. With its own cranes for offloading.

The oil leaking is its own bunker fuel. Like Mike P said it is heavy #6. It is crap, the cheapest stuff going...usually. Must be heated to 230 or so degree before it will burn. Could be burning an IFO-intermediate fuel oil but probably not.

We refer the ships fuel to bunker weather it is Heavy, medium or light fuels. This term stems from the days of coal bunkering ships. The term was held on to all these years.

Gloucester2....Don't quite understand you comment on something having to be done for this type of tranportation. Do you suggest a bridge and train to China???

Saddens me the loss of life. The helo CG guys got some "bigs ones" flying in some of the bad weather that they do.

20' seas I read somewhere and 500,000 gallons of oil...

"2.5 mile slick and growing" said CNN

WTF!!!!!

In relation to a tank ship, 500,000 Gallons isn't that bad of a spill. That's only 12,000 barrels. That ship looks like it is maybe 45,000 GT. If it were a tanker that broke in 2 it would have been able to hold say 300,000 barrels or 12.5 millions gallons. That ship probably holds no more than 20,000 Barrels of bunkers. So it could have been worse by many times over.

i still feel like puking...


:yak6:

Beamie - my comment was directed at making the shipping safer and more reliable to minimize (I know it can't be eliminated) the risk of oil spills. Advances in technology (double hulls, etc) should get us there.

It's all good :D

Double hulls on tankers are required in U.S. waters as a result of the Exxon Valdez grounding (Oil Pollution Act of 1990). 99.9% of all of these spills you hear about are not from American ships, they're foriegn flag ships. I haven't followed the story, but I'd bet this one is not an American ship. Some of these ships I wouldn't set foot on if they were tied to the dock, but they're sailing them all over the world. That's the real problem here. The US flagged ships generally have well trained crews, and are well maintained. Unfortunately there's less and less U.S. flagged ships out there every year. Quality and safety in cost $$$, most companies look for the cheapest way to get the product from point A to point B.

Glouscester2,

I know what you mean. And it does get better every year. Much safer to the environment after the Oil Pollution Act of 1990.

One thing though. Your comment on double hull. Understand one thing. Double hulls are designed for one thing. Hauling bulk oil in tankers. Most all ships have double 'bottoms'. But like the ship in the picture this is were we carry our bunkers...

So you see when hauling cargo oil it has to be in a double hull ship and the deadline is sometime in 2006. But "bunkers" the fuel that the ship burns can in fact be carried in the double bottom space. Some tanks - SW Ballast and some are bunkers.

When a double hull tanker grounds there will still be fuel in the water. Like I said some of the double bottome tanks will be ballast and some will be bunkers. You'll spill your bunker but not your cargo fuel. The ship needs someplace to put all its fuel. If they couldn't put it there it would take up too much space elsewhere and we like to get that weight down low. The regs change all the time and it gets very confusing.

Jon

Oh,

One more thing, you'll love this one.....

If the ship is Government owned. Like a Navy, CG or a Gov owned Merchant ship. The Double Hull Regs don't apply......go figure.

Originally posted by beamie
Oh,

One more thing, you'll love this one.....

If the ship is Government owned. Like a Navy, CG or a Gov owned Merchant ship. The Double Hull Regs don't apply......go figure.

That's great! The merchants are regulated to death, but not the gov.
We only put clean ballast in our double hull as I recall. It's been 10 years though and I can't remember what I had for dinner yesterday!:rolleyes:
Double hulls will help, but in the Exxon accident, I don't think it would have prevented oil from getting into the water.
A writer (can't remember who (see above)) once compared the hull of a supertanker to a gallon of oil in a ziplock bag. Good analogy I thought. Double hull = 2 baggies!?

Adam,

Really all depends on how the ship is configured. A "modern" supertanker/VLCC/ULCC may infact have the room/settlers/storage elsewhere not to have to use doublebottoms for fuel. Ballast tanks and fuel tanks are absolutely segregated, in the "old" days they weren't. But as you know most ships just like that one pictures is where they keep thier fuel.

The Government owned reserve fllet still regualted just as much as the privately owned but some things they have thier own little book. Like Pollution control.

My whole purpose for mentioning this is to let the guys know that double hulls will not end every spill. They will just help the situation.

It won't hurt to change our energy policies

Bet the guys on this helo thought it was a problem