| Arteis | 11 Oct 2011 9:43 p.m. PST |
Holy macarooney! This container ship has definitely had it. link The second photo of all the containers leaning over is awe-inspiring. Big oil environmental disaster, not too mention all those containers bobbing about in the water as navigation hazards. |
| pphalen | 12 Oct 2011 3:58 a.m. PST |
Why tales from work, were you the Captain? |
| Klebert L Hall | 12 Oct 2011 4:58 a.m. PST |
People use the term "disaster" too readily. This is a wreck, not a disaster. Big oil environmental disaster No, just a small one. 1700 tons of oil is really only a temporary problem, even if it all winds up in the bay, a couple years on and nobody would know w/o reading the history.
-Kle. |
| Erasmus B Dragon | 12 Oct 2011 5:55 a.m. PST |
Not a "disaster"? Is that like the distinction between a recession and a depression? |
| AndrewGPaul | 12 Oct 2011 7:37 a.m. PST |
Nobody's started stealing BMW motorcycles and packets of nappies yet? |
| Farstar | 12 Oct 2011 1:22 p.m. PST |
If the news starts invoking huge manatees, it might be a disaster. The insurance companies involved will agree, as will the families of anyone lost, and the stores etc awaiting what was in those containers. To everyone else, including the vast majority of the local wildlife, it is just a wreck. |
| Sergeant Paper | 12 Oct 2011 1:56 p.m. PST |
The big problem is going to be lifting all the containers off to refloat the hull – they will need to get someting out there that can offload the ship without grounding itself. Besides the physical difficulty, there's the question of insurance – somebody insured all those containers, probably many somebodies. This kind of thing will hurt a whole lot of people far from the reef… This is nothing, though, there are 18-thousand container vessels under construction RIGHT NOW (this one is tiny, it had less than 1400 containers aboard), and nobody has mobile cranes tall enough to offload the highest stacks on one of those monsters, even if they did they they couldn't get them out to the stranded vessel. And those behemoth loads will destroy their insurers if they are lost. |
| Terrement | 12 Oct 2011 3:11 p.m. PST |
Several scenario possibilities with this one… JJ |
| Erasmus B Dragon | 12 Oct 2011 4:06 p.m. PST |
It's going to be hard to refloat the hull with that huge crack visible in the photos. I hope nobody's Battlefront order is on it.  |
| Klebert L Hall | 14 Oct 2011 6:19 a.m. PST |
Not a "disaster"? Yes, not a disaster.
NZ had a couple big earthquakes recently – those were disasters. This shipwreck with no loss of life, minor environmental damage, and relatively puny financial loss is far from a disaster in any sense other than the broad definition – "gee, that party was a disaster".
-Kle. |
| Ron W DuBray | 14 Oct 2011 11:26 a.m. PST |
If it was 100 ships or more ships it would be a disaster, but only for the insurance companies. |
| Greyalexis | 18 Oct 2011 3:04 p.m. PST |
its a disater if your latest mini order is on it! |
| Etranger | 18 Oct 2011 8:55 p.m. PST |
I'd call it a disaster if it was in my backyard too. It's a particularly pretty and unspoilt part of the world. Or at least it was until some idiot came along…. |
| Old Slow Trot | 20 Oct 2011 6:49 a.m. PST |
As long as nobody tries to write a song about it. ;^) |
| Given up for good | 30 Oct 2011 2:32 p.m. PST |
Feel sorry for the area – not what you want. As for the cargo – some folk have had practise:
etc etc etc… |
