Dumping empty fuel barrels in the ocean

[DeepFrz]

Tut tut...how crude (pun intended) of them...

How many barrels of crude did the Deepwater Horizon drilling rig cause to be spilled into the Gulf of Mexico? Exxon Valdez? How about the approx. 2 dozen large ships that sink every year? Or the ship that pumped out bunker fuel in Vancouver harbour earlier this year? Or the 100s of thousands of barrels of nuclear, munitions and chemical waste that have been dumped into the oceans by your government and mine? Or the toxic mining wastes that leach into the oceans from almost every country in the world.

A couple of empty barrels thrown overboard mean nothing.

[MYTraveler]

First world problem.

[svlamorocha]

Originally Posted by Stumble

Cooking oil is a little tricky and can be discharged under some circumstances.

Please help me understand all the nonsense in the new MARPOL Annex V revised in 2011.

According to my read of the docs, it is illegal to discharge cooking oil, paper, rags, glass, metal, bottles, crockery and similar refuse anywhere.

Have I missed something or are you relying on that yoru country has not yet adopted this nonsense?

See:
http://www.lr.org/en/_images/213-358...155-244756.pdf

http://www.imo.org/en/OurWork/Enviro...%2007-2013.pdf

http://www.imo.org/en/OurWork/Enviro...0Annex%20V.pdf

I look forward to some wisdom...

[ozskipper]

I hope they run into an oil drum some time!

[fryewe]

What a waste!!! Lash a couple barrels alongside and you got that second hull.

[zboss]

What exactly is the definition of "discharge".

Since marpol placard placement rule specifies that it be placed in the machinery spaces of the vessel, it may be reasonable to assume that "discharge" implies discharge of material from the INSIDE of the vessel to the outside of the vessel, such as through a bilge pump but does not necessarily mean from the deck of a vessel.

If the drum of fuel never entered the vessel then are they still in violation of marpol outside of US waters?

I looked up the web version of the definition of "discharge" and it says:

"allow (a liquid, gas, or other substance) to flow out from where it has been confined". If it is still confined in a container then it has not been discharged.

[avb3]

Originally Posted by zboss

What exactly is the definition of "discharge".

Since marpol placard placement rule specifies that it be placed in the machinery spaces of the vessel, it may be reasonable to assume that "discharge" implies discharge of material from the INSIDE of the vessel to the outside of the vessel, such as through a bilge pump but does not necessarily mean from the deck of a vessel.

If the drum of fuel never entered the vessel then are they still in violation of marpol outside of US waters?

I looked up the web version of the definition of "discharge" and it says:

"allow (a liquid, gas, or other substance) to flow out from where it has been confined". If it is still confined in a container then it has not been discharged.

Whether they are or are not, and if there are US registered boat they are, it is immoral to be doing that.

First of all, you're creating a possible hazard for other boats and ships, and second of all there IS a discharge of pollution. For some to say that it's only a little bit and don't get your panties in a wad about it is being somewhat disingenuous if you have any concern about the environment. And if you don't have a concern about the environment, why not?

Sent from my SM-T230NU using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

[neilpride]

Originally Posted by Jon Eisberg

Yeah, and one would think a "Superyacht" would be able to sail across the pond without having to carry 55 gallon drums of diesel on deck, no?

At any rate, sometimes "Karma's a bitch..."

;-)

(Although, this occurred prior to the crossing in the vid)

LoL I remember this boat, she spend years at Prickly bay boatyard due insurance claims and repairs,,, as you say that Karma bitch...

[ozskipper]

I am in no way justifying what they did.... But....<ducking for cover>

...its curious how millions of tons of shipping was lost in ww2, primarily in the Atlantic and pacific oceans. Millions of tons of oil flowed from those ships at the time. Its amazing how mother nature has tidied all that back up again. (Plastics, well thats another story). Before the flamers fire up I am not justifying what these aholes did. Rather, just making an observation.

[Doug Brown]

Before tossing it over the side, you need to put several holes in it - top, bottom and sides. A fire axe that has both a blade AND a point is the one to carry. The pointed end easily penetrates steel drums and makes a good size hole. In less than a minute you can have 6 holes in the drum, and the drum will then sink very rapidly.

I had three 55-gallon drums filled with motor oil break loose on the aft deck of a ship in a storm. They had gashes in them (letting the oil escape - both overboard and on deck) from smashing into bits and cleats. The aft deck was like a skating ring from the oil, plus there was the danger of a crew member getting hit or crushed by the loose 400-lb drums.

We carried oversize containment plastic drums that a steel 55-gallon drum would fit in, but there was no way we were going to be able to get them into it because of the seas (25-ft, ship rolling 20 to 20) and the oily decks. I made the decision to fire axe the drums and roll them over the side and told the Captain what I was up to. He said OK, and over they went in 5,000-ft of water - International water, the nearest land being over 700-miles away.

Sometimes you do what you have to do to save the ship and prevent injuries to the crew.

While this is a few years back (maybe 10-years), the MARPOL regs use to list a permissible amount of a petrol chemical that could be legally discharged over the side. It was based on a"floating sheen thickness" per a 1-square foot column of water. While it was an incredibly small amount for a water column only one foot thick, when you where in 5,000-ft of water your "water column" was now pretty huge and you could dump/pump a lot over the side and still be legal.

We never did this, but in an emergency - like we had - you could put a lot of petrol chemicals into the water and still be in compliance with MARPOL regs.

We did report what and where we had done the drum dumping to the USCG and their basic reply was "Not in US waters, we don't care". We did make a log entry, and that was pretty much the end of it.

Biggest lesson learned is don't let the engineering staff store oil drums (or fuel) up on deck!!!

Carrying drums lashed onto the aft end of a yacht is really begging for trouble if the weather picks up. The lashings usually come loose just enough for the drums to start to move, and once that happens it is all downhill. There is a good chance that more than just oil drums will be headed towards the bottom of the sea (like the boat too), so really think about what could happen before you do it.

[Rustic Charm]

Originally Posted by DeepFrz

Tut tut...how crude (pun intended) of them...

How many barrels of crude did the Deepwater Horizon drilling rig cause to be spilled into the Gulf of Mexico? Exxon Valdez? How about the approx. 2 dozen large ships that sink every year? Or the ship that pumped out bunker fuel in Vancouver harbour earlier this year? Or the 100s of thousands of barrels of nuclear, munitions and chemical waste that have been dumped into the oceans by your government and mine? Or the toxic mining wastes that leach into the oceans from almost every country in the world.

A couple of empty barrels thrown overboard mean nothing.

It means one hell of a lot.

Your comment justifies someone dumping their McDonald wrappers out their car window. If you want to see what that looks like then visit India or many other cities around the world that don't care about rubbish.

I know there will always be some sailors who really don't give a sod about the environment their sailing in, but we always need to ensure the louder voice is heard and those who believe it's ok to dump rubbish are shamed into learning the harm they do.

[Rustic Charm]

Originally Posted by ozskipper

I am in no way justifying what they did.... But....<ducking for cover>

...its curious how millions of tons of shipping was lost in ww2, primarily in the Atlantic and pacific oceans. Millions of tons of oil flowed from those ships at the time. Its amazing how mother nature has tidied all that back up again. (Plastics, well thats another story). Before the flamers fire up I am not justifying what these aholes did. Rather, just making an observation.

Your right, it is very fortunate. But, don't think that nothing has happened. The oil leaking slowly from battle ships sunk in Pearl Harbour are a serious problem.

I think when it comes down to it, the amount of ships that sank during world war 2 were not significantly an impact on the environment. In 1995 or 96 we had the Iron Barron hit a reef in my local river head and caused the worst oil spill in Australian history. Today, I can't find any evidence of it at all. Little Penguins and Shear Waters took quite a while to build stocks up again.

But then, the largest ship carries very little compared to what a drilling rig can spew out when they go wrong. And that big oil rig that blew up and spewed oil continues to have a devistating effect on the environment, tourism, fishing, jobs.

[monte]

yes how and why is this possibly not a direct violation of MARPOL?

All other garbage including plastics, synthetic ropes, fishing gear, plastic garbage bags, incinerator ashes, clinkers, cooking oil, floating dunnage, lining and packing materials, paper, rags, glass, metal, bottles, crockery and similar refuse Discharge prohibited

[PortClydeMe]

Originally Posted by DeepFrz

Tut tut...how crude (pun intended) of them...

How many barrels of crude did the Deepwater Horizon drilling rig cause to be spilled into the Gulf of Mexico? Exxon Valdez? How about the approx. 2 dozen large ships that sink every year? Or the ship that pumped out bunker fuel in Vancouver harbour earlier this year? Or the 100s of thousands of barrels of nuclear, munitions and chemical waste that have been dumped into the oceans by your government and mine? Or the toxic mining wastes that leach into the oceans from almost every country in the world.

A couple of empty barrels thrown overboard mean nothing.

In complete agreement.

Was flying low into Manilla, Philippines one day and saw a huge (kilometer long) garbage dump that used to be a bay or inlet long ago. Stunning. Reminded me of their TV ads, "It's more fun in the Philippines!"

Don't know about fun, but it's much easier to get rid of your trash. I can hear them now, "Recycling?, What's that?"

Good day for a swim!

Ps; Looks like those boys have now taken down the video. Shame! I wanted to see it.

[zboss]

Originally Posted by avb3

Whether they are or are not, and if there are US registered boat they are, it is immoral to be doing that.

First of all, you're creating a possible hazard for other boats and ships, and second of all there IS a discharge of pollution. For some to say that it's only a little bit and don't get your panties in a wad about it is being somewhat disingenuous if you have any concern about the environment. And if you don't have a concern about the environment, why not?

Sent from my SM-T230NU using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

Do I believe in leaving a clean wake? Yes. Would I do this myself? No.

However, I don't believe it's immoral and I'm not going to duck for cover.

Also, I'm tired of people screaming about ABYC rule X or MARPOL rule Y without actually carefully reading what those rules say. Mostly its just people screaming about what they WISH the rules said. There is a reason why the oil rule is set at particular PPM. There is a reason the lawyers chose the word "discharge" vs. "release". Its incumbent upon an enforcement authority to test the water to see if that PPM has been exceeded.

So, no, there is a good chance they have not broken the law.

If they made a reasonable attempt to clean out the residue, such as using an absorbent rag, and punched holes so it sank, then they have taken care of the two primary concerns. So, in my eyes, it's not really immoral either. Do you guys really retain all the leftover oil from your cooking and not allow it to be washed into the sea down you sink drain? Come on, tell the truth.

Everyone wants to bitch about the oil in the water but no one wants to put up giant oil absorber floats all around marinas or on storm water drains from the streets.