40 containers dumped at mouth of Juan de Fuca

[Cheechako]

Originally Posted by Sailmonkey

I can’t imagine a ships master nor an underwriter allowing a voyage without following basic guidelines for container securement. There are literally volumes written about securing containers.

https://www.containerhandbuch.de/chb..._01_03_02.html

Yet: "The World Shipping Council's 2020 report estimates that an average of 1,382 containers are lost at sea each year. "

[senormechanico]

We have a big storm coming as well.


https://cliffmass.blogspot.com/


The Storm's Future is Now Known


The models have converged to a consistent solution, the storm is beginning to "bomb", and I can now provide a forecast with some confidence.
This will be the strongest Northwest storm on record, but its strength will collapse as it approaches the coast of Vancouver Island. More quickly than any storm in my experience.
And there will be strong winds over land, but not from the south, but from the east, as air is pulled westward by the immense, powerful storm offshore.
Let me begin by showing you the latest water vapor satellite image over the eastern Pacific (below), with the dark areas indicating dry conditions.
This is a very potent storm, with massive clouds and extreme darkening, which indicates strong sinking behind the low center (you can see the moisture curling up). Such sinking is a sign of vigor.

Both the American (GFS) and European Center (ECMWF) models indicate very rapid intensification over the next 24h, with the storm catching down to around 943 hPa (see below for 8 AM Sunday). This is a "bomb" cyclone, with the pressure dropping more than 24 hPa in 24 hours.

There has never been a storm this strong in the nearshore waters of our region.

The closest was 950 hPA in 1981.
Both U.S. and European modeling systems predict massive swell/waves approaching the West Coast from this monster storm, reaching 30 feet on Sunday evening!

[TrentePieds]

Further to what Sailmonkey had to say:

Ship's crews are generally responsible for fighting fire aboard ship.

Imagine a ship with containers stacked 12 wide across the deck, 30 along the deck and 6 tiers deep. Imagine spontaneous combustion of the cargo in a container 5 in from the side 14 in from forward and in the 4th tier down. What can a crew of, say, 16 men possibly do against such a fire?

It looks as if that is the sort of situation the JRCC is faced with here. I imagine that Zin Kinston was directed to Constance Bank Anchorage because it is within about 4 or 5 miles of the fireboats at Victoria and CFB Esquimalt, as well as within reach for US emergency vessels.

One possibility is a floating crane to pick containers of Kingston, weather permitting, and place them on "flatbed" barges of which we have many thanks to the forest industry in this province.

The chemical said to be on fire is, Ms.Google informs me, injurious to fish, being strongly caustic, but ultimately a "quick fix" would be simply to jettison the containers in question. I gather the chemical in question is highly soluble in water and the tides in the Strait of JdF might therefore be relied on to dilute the local solution very quickly.

It'll be most illuminating to see just how the JRCC does deal with this.

TrentePieds

[wingssail]

Originally Posted by Sailmonkey

I can’t imagine a ships master nor an underwriter allowing a voyage without following basic guidelines for container securement. There are literally volumes written about securing containers.

https://www.containerhandbuch.de/chb..._01_03_02.html

The reasons that underwriters and ship's masters allow current inadequate levels of the securing of containers is that the risk of losing them is very low. Only a small percentage of containers are lost and there are no claims made against the ship by any sailor who hits one, so the insurable losses are limited to the cost of the containers themselves and the cost of the goods inside, presumably a very small insurance premium has to be paid.

So if the basic guidelines are a little lax, so what, there is no accountability for the consequences.

Shrugging one's shoulders and saying "S**T happens" is a totally cavalier and reprehensible attitude. You wouldn't say that about goods which fall off a truck and cause traffic accidents.

Putting a financial penalty on it would cause a change in that attitude.

[davefromoregon]

How is it determined which court will have jurisdiction in this or any given case? In this case, American or Canadian?

[JPA Cate]

Will the storm mentioned in Post 17 have any effect on the fire fighting plans for the Zim Kingston?

[Stu Jackson]

Originally Posted by Uncle Bob

>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>


Still the fact remains that extreme weather often cannot be accurately predicted, not now and probably not in the foreseeable future.

Uhm, can I not predict that there WILL be extreme weather that the western end of the Strait of Juan de Fuca in October to February, yearly?

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by JPA Cate

Will the storm mentioned in Post 17 have any effect on the fire fighting plans for the Zim Kingston?

There is a storm warning for that area.

https://weather.gc.ca/marine/forecas...2&siteID=07003

[Uncle Bob]

Originally Posted by Stu Jackson

Uhm, can I not predict that there WILL be extreme weather that the western end of the Strait of Juan de Fuca in October to February, yearly?

Hardly accurately.

[boatpoker]

Originally Posted by Uncle Bob

Where to start? Firstly goods are shipped all around the world using containers, not just from china and not just "cheap".
Penalising a ship operator because the ship is not strong enough to withstand any possible conditions it may encounter in its life is just beyond ridiculous, as it would be to demand that motor vehicles be built to withstand any possible accident.
Extreme weather regularly causes maritime losses and damage, has done for generations and will do for ever more.
Shipping is just like any other business, an operator endeavours to avoid and mitigate problems but sometimes s**t happens, always has and always will. Doesn't make it right but it is the reality. Would I be happy if I hit a stray container?, no of course not nor would I wish it on anyone but large financial imposts do little to mitigate the problem. To my mind the suggestion put forward by another poster that the port be closed to a problem ship operator is more likely to achieve a desirable outcome.
Still the fact remains that extreme weather often cannot be accurately predicted, not now and probably not in the foreseeable future.

if you "lose" your car on the highway, you are still responsible for it's removal.
lose"

[TrentePieds]

Hard to say, Ann.

Constance Bank is at the SE entrance to SJdF which runs roughly SE/NW. At present the wind in the area is SE20 gusting to SE40. Not pleasant, but in my opinion manageable for hardnosed, professional mariners. Our mariners cope with it all the time in the autumn and winter. The wind is forecast to hold in the SE with a fair bit of south in it until 28 Oct when it will veer (really? But that what is sez) to NW. So the wind will be going either up the straits or down the straits.

The fetch when the wind is SE is quite short and waves won't be great, but in 20knots over a flooding tide would certainly be enough make TP give a bumpy ride. When the wind is NW the fetch is effectively all the way from Japan and waves coming down the funnel of the strait can be nasty as they become constrained.

Constance Bank is shallow enuff that biggish waves will feel bottom. Kingston is big enuff that she won't be much bothered, but local fireboats from Victoria and Esquimalt are not likely to like it. Offloading to barges would be a trial, though we have "log barges" that can carry hundreds of enormous logs on deck and take them aboard by means of large bulkhead mounted cranes that I think might have a reach long enuff to take containers off Kingston's deck. I can also see a scenario of using "Skycrane" helicopters used in the logging industry to lift containers off Kingston. They can certainly carry the weight, and their pilots are accustomed to working in rough conditions. The cans could be set ashore temporarily at CFB Esquimalt 4 miles by air from Kingston's present position.

So let's see how imaginative the JRCC is gonna get :-)!

TP

[Jim Cate]

Offloading to barges would be a trial, though we have "log barges" that can carry hundreds of enormous logs on deck and take them aboard by means of large bulkhead mounted cranes that I think might have a reach long enuff to take containers off Kingston's deck.

I'm ignorant of the exact means of securing the stacks, but is it not required that crew on board is needed to release the securing mechanisms? If the stack is ablaze, that might be unpleasant work.

And storm force winds will likely interfere with the streams of firefighting water projected from the fireboats, to say nothing of their safety.

A nasty situation...

Jim

[TrentePieds]

Yes, Jim, you are right that in the ordinary course of events the Ship's Company would be responsible for securing and un-securing the containers on deck, usually under the supervision, but not the command, of the Supercargo (the local representative of the owner of the cargo)

The book referenced by Sailmonkey is in English and gives very explicit explanations and drawings of how it should be done. The book is published by the German Insurance Association as therefore must be assumed to have some credibility.

In circumstances such as these the ship's owner and the owner of the cargo will probably be grateful to hand over effective command of the remediation effort to the Joint Rescue Coordination Committee. The JRCC consist of representatives of the Canadian Coast Guard (CCG), the Royal Canadian Airforce (RCAF) and the sundry civilian Search and Rescue Units (SRUs). I dare say that the Ship's Company would be expected (and permitted) to participate in the work only under the command of appropriate JRSS personnel. The "Super" would probably be involved in an advisory capacity.

Zim Kingston's burden is 4,253 TEU (Twenty foot Equivalent Units) sez Marine Traffic.com. My guestimate in a former post of 12 x 30 x 5 = 1,800 60-foot "cans" was therefore reasonably accurate. Her actual capacity is just over 1,400 60-foot cans. That's a lot of containers to have to handle to find the ones with the fire in them!

Reuter's reported about an hour ago that the fire has now been reduced to mere smoldering by means of cooling the affected containers and their neighbours with water spray. I don't know whether from Kingston's own equipment or from attending fireboats and other vessels.

All in all, it seems that appropriate action was taken by all concerned :-)

If those containers had contained ammonium nitrate rather than potassium amyl xanthate, I expect the outcome would have been quite different!

TP

[GordMay]

The first priority of the response to the M/V Zim Kingston was to stabilize the fire and that has been achieved today. Depending on weather tomorrow, hazardous materials firefighters will board the ship to fight any remaining fires and ensure the fire is out. Emergency tow vessels, tugs and the Canadian Coast Guard will be on the radio and on the water overnight tonight to monitor the situation, ensure the five crew members on the ship are safe, and that the ship remains secured. Further updates will be provided tomorrow.

CCG on facebook ➥ https://www.facebook.com/CanadianCoastGuard

Video shows fireboat ➥ https://www.facebook.com/CanadianCoa...3716009059372/

[JPA Cate]

Three posts removed for off topic/political, two of which quoted deleted posts.