Dumping empty fuel barrels in the ocean

[fryewe]

Originally Posted by svlamorocha

Have you heard about Annex V of the MARPOL treaty?

Annex V also provides...

"...Regulation 6 - Exceptions

Regulations 3, 4 and 5 of this Annex shall not apply to:

(a) the disposal of garbage from a ship necessary for the purpose of securing the safety of a ship and those on board..."

...which is the Skipper's call.

Therefore, the tossing of the drums was legal, consistent with the provisions of Marpol V.

[svlamorocha]

Originally Posted by fryewe

Annex V also provides...

"...Regulation 6 - Exceptions

Regulations 3, 4 and 5 of this Annex shall not apply to:

(a) the disposal of garbage from a ship necessary for the purpose of securing the safety of a ship and those on board..."

...which is the Skipper's call.

Therefore, the tossing of the drums was legal, consistent with the provisions of Marpol V.

I am familiar with the rules. That clause was there before the last change; they just changed the number and it is called Regulation 7 now. Frankly I do not believe the story that safety was the reason to dump those drums (or drum). I take you do, and will not argue with that.

[DumnMad]

Originally Posted by fryewe

Annex V also provides...

"...Regulation 6 - Exceptions

Regulations 3, 4 and 5 of this Annex shall not apply to:

(a) the disposal of garbage from a ship necessary for the purpose of securing the safety of a ship and those on board..."

...which is the Skipper's call.

Therefore, the tossing of the drums was legal, consistent with the provisions of Marpol V.

Thanks - seems a very sensible rule. Congatulations to all the skippers who fought for this common sense result.

In my opinion the best thing govenments could do for the environment would be to abolish employment tax and get their funds from consumption tax only. i.e. more tax on the extra fuel on board and rather than tax the labour needed to manage without.

[zboss]

Originally Posted by HughMcB

Asserting something as fact, does not a fact make.


I'm not stomping around. Or red in the face. I just think it was an unnecessary move is all. Could have been avoided. A better use of that barrel could have been found.


Sure, if you ignore reusing the barrel, or repurposing the barrel, or recycling the barrel.


No worries.

I wish it were not true but please scroll down and take a look at #5 and #7.

After the trash is burned it is considered inert. Most countries are permitted to dump this inert material at sea. This is not MARPOL. Garbage scows are permitted garbage dump vessels.

Convention on the Prevention of Marine Pollution by Dumping of Wastes and Other Matter

Please also note that it refers to steel, iron, and concrete as being "unharmful materials".

[waikikin]

Originally Posted by Kenomac

Another believer in the trash fairy.

Honestly, what do you believe happens to all your trash in the magical land down under? Specifically.... a steel drum? Do you believe all of them get shipped to the Caribbean and made into musical instruments? I don't believe China wants your steel rubbish any longer, where... does it all go?

When you take out the rubbish, does it just magically disappear and only environmentally friendly things happen to it? How can you be so sure?

As it turns out Australian steel recovery rates are between 65-90+% depending on product. Most of mine ends up as rubbish, the cans get repurposed with the label taken off & used in paint batching & unsuitable to be recycled the pails and drums end up in landfill packed with offcuts & overs but I'm an exception. There's plenty of inefficiencies in any recovery system but garbage collection is a hallmark of a civilised country, recovery is the icing, they don't call it rusty gold for nothing.. a mate had just 4 bins & ran his small crane truck for rego & fuel for a number of years just on locals filling the bins- found some great stuff in there too
One drum is a drop in the ocean, still looks pretty lousy to drop it off & they're(drumchukka?) embarrassed enough to pull the vid apparently.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qVcn...E6A4F4B86D18E1

Jeff.

[Kenomac]

Originally Posted by avb3

Yes.

They developed a 170 million dollar facility which cities from all over the world are coming to study. Edmonton stopped incinerating any garbage some 40 years ago.

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

In order to complete recycling process, there needs to be a market (buyer) for the recycled portion of the rubbish. Presently.... The market is dead world wide, not as much manufacturing happening (see the Chinese economy and developing countries), so the market is flooded with junk that nobody wants. As a result, most of it ends up in the land fill or shipped off to someone else's incinerator.... Or, dumped into the ocean.

Dig a little deeper and you'll find out I'm right on this one. Or, you can continue to blindly believe in the Trash Fairy.

[hoppy]

Originally Posted by Kenomac

Dig a little deeper and you'll find out I'm right on this one. Or, you can continue to blindly believe in the Trash Fairy.

Is this who you mean?


Governments with the support of environmentalists sink old ships to create artificial reefs for fishes. A sunken fuel drum will provide shelter and a small reef for small fish and other sea life, or at least it does at shallower depths.

I don't see the big deal in what they did even without the background story


Sent from my iPhone using Cruisers Sailing Forum

[Jon Eisberg]

Originally Posted by 44'cruisingcat

So, they couldn't carry enough fuel to get across the atlantic? I thought only catamarans motored all the time.

Nah, only some of the time...

"These neat compact fuel racks have solved the problem of additional fuel for long term cruising, on this Seawind 1250."

[zboss]

Those are really nice fuel racks!

[belizesailor]

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.

It may be out of sight and thus out of mind, but the Oceans have been suffering greatly over the last 50+ years. Just watch "Mission Blue" by Sylvia Earl...very disheartening.

[Mirage Gecko]

What I don't get here most of you are arguing if it is legal or not or where your land based rubbish goes.

You really think they cleaned and holed the drums before irresponsibly dumping them I don't .I have seen the pics of the dumping but yet to see the pics of the cleaning and holing.Dumped because of safety issues yeah right.
These people are tossers.

[HughMcB]

Originally Posted by belizesailor

It may be out of sight and thus out of mind, but the Oceans have been suffering greatly over the last 50+ years. Just watch "Mission Blue" by Sylvia Earl...very disheartening.

But hey, environment has no feelings so, whatever.

[korrigan]

Originally Posted by Mirage Gecko

What I don't get here most of you are arguing if it is legal or not or where your land based rubbish goes.

You really think they cleaned and holed the drums before irresponsibly dumping them I don't .I have seen the pics of the dumping but yet to see the pics of the cleaning and holing.Dumped because of safety issues yeah right.
These people are tossers.

It's pretty obviously a very large boat and thus owned by a rich guy.

Is this behavior at all surprising from such people? In my life experience the more money a person has the more childish, selfish, and short sighted they are. For the most part that's exactly why they were able to amass such wealth.

...

In this age it's simply not Ok to dump anything into the ocean. If you had room to pack it you have room to pack it out. Jeeze on a boat you don't even have to carry the stuff. It really doesn't matter what the law might be dumping trash at sea is not Ok especially fuel barrels.

[CarstenWL]

It's pretty obviously a very large boat and thus owned by a rich guy.

... and obviously without the rich guy (owners) onboard in this case.

Carsten

[korrigan]

Originally Posted by CarstenWL

... and obviously without the rich guy (owners) onboard in this case.

Carsten

It shouldn't matter if the owner is on board or not. Sh@t flows downhill and a persons employees will represent the attitude of the employer. The disposition of those barrels should not be in doubt or up to the whims of some 'captain'.

I love how when something goes right the 'dragon' people all like to take credit and talk about their great vision and management skills and how that's why they deserve the big bucks. In their minds if they didn't get out of bed in the morning the rest of us wouldn't know what to do and would starve to death.

But when something goes wrong, 'the owner wasn't on board', 'this doesn't represent the Amazon I know', etc... For sure the buck doesn't stop at the top it stops as far down as the top can make it stick.

Besides all one really needs to know about a boat owner is written in the interior of their yacht. A Swan 90 has an owners cabin and two guest cabins with crew quarters in the front. That's how all these large yachts are. It's simply amazing that in today's world we're talking about 100 foot sailboats and we're still saying "it sleeps six".

Now if that doesn't represent the ultimate in selfishness and over the top consumption I don't know what does. All the behaviors of everyone involved in such a venture can pretty much be predicted from that alone.