Rather more important that ghastly reality tv show - oil slick on British shore.

[Callisto]

Doubtful any of the 'celeb' obsessed mad people that currently inhabit MN will be interested, but a major ecological disaster could be about to happen at Lyme Bay. There is an oil slick plus some very nasty chemicals in drums. For those interested read all about it here.

Batters - well done you. I get hacked off with people saying to me oh you dont watch that do you - this comes from people who come out with things like "do you think Tracy will get let off?" and Im thinking Tracy in Accounts??? No, Tracy in Corrie.

I know Gingerbear, I wondered the same thing too. It is all about flags of convenience I think - will try and find more info if I get a sec. The toxic chemicals are sulphuric acid and pesticides as well as perfume and other stuff. None of which is great dumped into the oceans.

agree with gingerbear. Why the hell was it back on the seas? makes me

I saw on the news that people had been nicking bmw motorbikes from the beach. I agree about putting an old ship back onto the sea

how very judgmental and unpleasant callisto

Now this is interesting. So, this ship was not fit to sail? Was that captain unfit to lead this ship? Or was this an unforseeable act of nature.

I know of a ship which capsized carrying a band spanking new platform from Korea to Offshore Angola in 2001. The ship ran aground about a mile offshore Singapore. Within four minute it went down. A couple of people couldn't get out fast enough and went down with it. The oil company ordered another platform just like the first one. As far as I know that platform is still in the water. Within hours the captains quarters were looted and it appears pirates are well and truly not a thing of the past.

Anyway, these things happen. Who is to blame is an interesting dabate. In the case of the above it was said that the map was wrong and the captain could not have know he was about to run aground. In fact, the catain was sleeping and his number 2 was guiding the ship.

Oops, sorry, it was in 1999, not 2001.

So sad about this. Lovely area - we visit it a long in the summer.

nothing natural about 200 and possibly a lot more] tonnes of oil washing up on the coast though.

and Callisto is right in a way - this thread and any about the environment will never get that many replies.

Personally, I think the efforts made eto clean it up are more important than the fact that the ship almost sank in the storm. Is this company acting responsibly... and who is the company?

There are a few accusations below that it is irresponsible to put a repaired ship back in the water. But, why? Do you think ships can't be adequately repaired? Do you feel that way about cars, too? If you get into a fender bender do you write it off or get quotes for the repair work? I don't think anyone on this thread has enough information to pass judgement on whether this ship was structually fit for travel in channel. Did it split along the repairs? Was there extensive corrosion? etc.

I think it is down to structural integrity. If a car is in an accident and the chassis is affected in anyway it is written off immediately as no longer road worthy. There is a question mark over the ship as it ran into a coral reef at full speed which may have caused the 'chassis' (I have no idea of the way ships are built) to warp so it is more likely to sink.

Presumably, this ought to be and was checked. It might be that the repair wasn't adequate, but it might be something else too. I'm just saying we on this thread don't have enough information and aren't qualified to determine this anyway.

I watched this with horror on the news...but don't know what I can actually say to discuss it, apart from 'isn't it awful'.

Which it is. And I very much hope the hazardous stuff can be retrieved before damage is done.

MrsMistake- nothing that posh, Dh was too stingy to pay for parking ticket so we sat in the car park at the tram station LOl

............

Seaton's alright, I mean- I grew up in bridgwater.

but it didn't 'just' sink did it? it suffered damage during the storms .. although you would imagine there would have to be a pre-existing weakness for this to have an effect .. after all these are international cargo transporters, bad weather must be expected on the high seas surely?

Do you think that whoever insures these tankers will only do so after an engineer's confirmation that it is fit ... like with a car

They are presently saying 'minimal damage .. only 3 seabirds found with oil damage'

That is exactly it Twiglett. Ships can and are repaired but there is no international standard so it was probably patched up to the minimum amount so it floated and off it went.

Flags of convenience are explained in Wikipedia as "a flag of one country, flown by a ship owned by a citizen of another country. The ship owner can thereby often avoid taxes and make registration easier; the country providing the flag charges money for that service".

I posted this on the other thread about the Napoli but I think this is a good and relevant point (from BBC website):

Why would the shipping company care? It isn't their cargo, and surely the damage to the ship will cost them a lot more than the loss of cargo. So I don't really see the incentive.

Also, we are still assuming that the repair is what failed. Do we actually know that thisis what happened? WE do know that the oil has leaked from the engine room. So,presumable, there a leak there? Is that where the previous repair was made? Dod the repair fail? We don't know any of this -- or at least I don't. Perhaps there was an explosion in the engine room, it blew a hole in the vessel, and out leaked the oil, and in came the water hence sinking the ship. It's possible. And, if it happened, it might have nothing to do with the repair.

I'm not saying it wasn't the repair, I' just saying we do not know so let's not jump to conclusions.