SailNet Community banner
  • SailNet is a forum community dedicated to Sailing enthusiasts. Come join the discussion about sailing, modifications, classifieds, troubleshooting, repairs, reviews, maintenance, and more!

SF Bay oil spill

10K views 99 replies 22 participants last post by  sailingdog 
#1 ·
#67 ·
Yes, I read that Best Friend. Even from 12 miles up, or whatever the perspective is of the google maps satellite shot, you can tell the course was...well, at least curious.

Could it be he was trying to allign with the prevailing curents, to be parallel to the flow?

Sailaway, you'd make a helluva expert witness. At least, in a Red State. For the Defense. I jest. Sort of.

Interesting resume. My friend, the politically challenged one, says that tug boats accompany the ships to address the kinds of very steering failures you cite.

Can't have that boat swinging hard Right, in the Bay, now. That just wouldn't flow.

Re: the spill. The two hours to containment, or at least, to substantive containment, is something of a bummer:

"But it wasn't until 10:39 a.m., more than two hours after the Cosco Busan hit the bridge, that full-scale containment operations began, the Coast Guard log shows."

I admire the Coast Guard. They delivered, singularly, in NOLA. We'll see how this unfolds.

I was just wondering how much space (and this is probably a bad idea, I'll pre-empt you) 2500' of skimmer tube would take up. It almost seems like the ship, or every ship, would be in the best position to throw the first life rings overboard, So to speak. Of course, not when conditions don't enable that, and that would be most of the time. (Like the Russian sea spill)

(I mean, the horse has left the barn, and a better use of energies is working out better methodologies to reduce the occurance of this sort of thing in the first place)

I've gotta run. The FBI is at the door. They've been monitoring domestically, and boy, are they unhappy.

Remember: it's better to be right than Happy!
 
#68 · (Edited)
The tugs you cite in San Francisco were a part of my original post I lost so I'll comment now. The size tugs prevalent in the Bay are really inadequate to stopping the vessel and are of only limited effectiveness in keeping the vessel from turning.

Those tugs common run from 500-1000 SHP. Were they the big 3000SHP sea-going tugs you'll find when you make your way up Tokyo Wan they might be of more effect.

The problem with harbor manoeuvering is that ships do not operate like an automobile where you just slam on the brakes. It may be as much as five minutes from when a problem is detected until a following tug is able to generate it's full potential of stopping or turning force. And then it takes time for that force to apply itself to the ship. Radical use of force will just result in either a parted tug warp or, worse, a girded tug.

Of course, it would probably be inappropriate to note the millions of tons of liquid, bulk, and dry cargoes that are safely moved through the ports of San Francisco, Oakland, and Sacramento each year. There are probably more pedestrian accidents in San Francisco per year than there are commercial spillages of oil within the entire Bay area. Any research done into the history of shipping will reveal that it is much safer and impactfull than even fifty years ago. In those days, ships used to load bunkers in the Bay and if they over-loaded and oil spilled it was merely a cosmetic issue. No one contemplates tolerating such practises today, and even then, the practise was frowned upon. Amazingly enough the Bay has survived such ecological traumas as it will survive this one. If the ecology of the Bay is the pre-eminent concern to someone, I'd advance the notion that a closer inspection will reveal that municipal waste water and storm sewer run-off discharges are far more harmful to the Bay waters than shipping has been. One can lose one's license for the discharge of less than a gallon of oil over the side of the ship. Automobiles routinely leak such quantities of oil and fuel onto the streets of surrounding Bay communities and those spills end up in the Bay. And there are studies enough that show that nature is much more capable of withstanding a large pollution event than she is a slow, steady, and continuous influx of pollutants. I might mention the impact of recreational boater's pollution but that might be goring an ox too close to home for some.

Thanks for reading this happily written post from the right, in both senses.
 
#69 ·
rennisaint,
You got a professional's opinion, see post 61. (g) It's too soon to make a determination of cause or responsibility other than the Master is responsible, by definition, even if it wasn't his direct actions at fault. About the only mitigating circumstances for him are Acts of God, which he's going to need to save his butt.
 
#71 ·
Shipping is safer now than it was 50 years ago largely because we learn from our mistakes, among them the Valdez.

That being said, I was listening to the radio on the drive (ironically) over the Bay Bridge, and the reporter from the San Jose Mercury News (countered by a Maritime Engineer from UCB) was discussing the number of near collisions of Pestiside-and Chemical ladden cargo ships, just outside the Gate, which would be an unbelieveable disaster, by comparison.

Again, to some of my earlier points, I'd prefer that we be proactive and play Devil's Advocate, rather than accepting the Status Quo, and waiting to learn from further mistakes.

Am I indicting shipping? No. Am I saying block the Gate? No.

Critical thinking is cheap.
 
#72 ·
As hertford says, it is not the USCG's responsibility to clean up pollution and they will not write the final report on the incident either. Regarding the incident in question, for right or wrong, their primary contribution will be alcohol testing, coordination of resources, and regulatory enforcement-a far cry from what most would perceive as their duties. Do not blame the USCG, their duties are strictly prescribed by the Congress. After their SAR duties, which were not needed in this case, the only real mandate they have is to take alcohol tests of all concerned. They own no tugs, no pollution control equipment, nor are they salvage experts, or even possessor's of SF Bay pilotage documents. None of which will stop anyone with a microphone from attempting to criticize them somehow.
 
#73 · (Edited)
hertfordnc, I apologize, it was a quick rush to judgment. But, that being said, who should be out there on a moments notice? There seems to be no response procedure to this type of accident. In one of the biggest ports in the country it is unacceptable. Perhaps the Coast Guard should provide the initial response and then coordinate the command until a more suitable authority can take over. They should at least be able to say "Holy crap, there is a huge hole in this ship and a lot of oil, we need help, fast." If we(the FD) are called to assistance in the water, we are off the dock in less than ten minutes, regardless of the incident nature. I do not blame the CG for causing the spill, or not having the knowledge or procedures to handle it, but they were called first and the response was slow.

I see three things that need to happen. 1.) There needs to be procedures set up by the ports to handle a disaster in a moments notice. Maybe a barge that just sits at the dock, ready to go. A tug comes over and grabs it and begins containment. 2.) The Pilot boats or tugs should carry some sort of initial containment gear, if there is room. Otherwise, there needs to be several initial containment vessels on the Bay. 3.) someone needs to be in charge, and the public needs to be utilized. We have a program that allows civilians to help in the event of a disaster, and we do use them.

Sway- You referred to pedestrian accidents, its about one a day in SF.

One more thing hertford, I have the utmost repsect for the CG. Most of the time they run circles around us during rescues, and do things that we just cannot do. They are amazing. But, everyone makes mistakes, we make a lot more than the CG does.
 
#74 · (Edited)
re: Who is in charge; the CG is in fact the top dog. The FOSC- Federal On Scene Coordinator, more than likely the SFO Captain of the Port, is running the show.

He would be working closely with a senior rep from the state and the responsible party. They would be using the Incident Command System. At least that's how it's supposed to work. In this case the RP may have a smaller role. All the noise from the governor and the local congress person is just that, noise. The response plan is driving the train. The response plan is tested every three years or so. The 'test' would be a large scale pollution exercise, maybe involving as many as 500 people. Most of those people are probably there now.

I suspect (I may be wrong) that when Gov. Arnold said there were 250 people on scene and 200 more coming he was only talking about state people. The CG, EPA, NOAA, NTSB, DOT etc would be several hundred people and they would be there pretty quick. Then the shipper would have lots of contract people. The response probably had 1000 people on scene within the first 24 hours.

The politicians speak as if this is a complete surprise but the reality is that there is tremendous preparation. That's why you don't hear about very many oil spills since Exxon Valdez. They still happen but if everything works properly the response is quick and coordinated. There is still damage but if everyone is working together there is very little conflict. It takes conflict to make a news story. In a place like San Francisco there is certain to be conflict. If this happened in Houston the story would not last but a few days and it would hardly go national.

As for immediate response; I don't know specifically in this case but the CG does not generally dispatch boats for no good reason. There is no "quick response" to an oil spill. Not like '911' quick. My guess would be the 'delay' in dispatching the boat had to do with people and equipment- make an extra thermos of coffee you'll probably be out there for a while, bring some extra people and a video camera, etc etc. They might have been waiting for someone from the MSO to drive to the station.

As for the CG making mistakes- When? No, I am not that chauvinistic. They make lots of mistakes. But they are so hardwired to respond that a mistake that takes the form of a delay is just not likely. The VTS saw the allision coming, they knew about it as quickly as it happened. The sector and the station and the MSO probably all knew within minutes and I am certain people started moving quickly.


Can you tell I really loved my job?
 
#75 ·
Yes, I can. It always a pleasure to watch you guys work. You are right about conflict in this area. We are full of agendas, and they are all reactionary. Thanks for the explanation. If there was a mistake, regardless of who made it, it seems to be in the area of determining the size of the spill.
 
#76 ·
"If this happened in Houston the story would not last but a few days and it would hardly go national..."

Yes, but then, you'd still be in Houston. Half kidding.

The point is, this is a pretty special place, from a natural standpoint. We haven't effed it up like the East River in NY, where it's basically a write-off. Insert your polluted waterway, here.

At some point, I think, people pick the fights worth fighting. Draw the line in the...water, so to speak.

This is a 1,000 square miles of beauty, serving 7 million people. I used to windsurf the waters, every day, without reservation. It hits me, hard.

Right now, in the Bay Area, we're on the other side of the Tipping Point, that
point at which, like the East River, it no longer becomes reasonable to overcome the years of neglect.

The scary thing for some of us, is, was that this incident reminds us, we're really only one accident away from passing that Point of No Return. One screw up, generally preventable, from ruining yet another remarkable place on this earth.

About the news: I don't think one needs conflict, the human kind, to make it news. if the subject is emotional, it will stick, period. SD wildfires. Plane crash. And let's not forget KFed and Britney. :)
 
#77 · (Edited)
All of these pollution control responses take time due to the nature of the equipment involved. As hertford says, there are plans in place but the response is not the same as for life-threatening incidents.

While it would be nice to think that there is a team standing by to respond rapidly, like the FD or USCG, the magnitude of the problem does not justify that level of alert or around the clock expense that would be hefty for such infrequent accidents.

Drop a teaspoon of cooking oil in your bathtub and try to contain it! Once oil is released it spreads extremely fast. This is not any type of argument being made for not having resources and, from what I've read, the resources are present. Tanker facilities will have them on site and major ports will share resources amoung operations. Containment and then skimming, depend on very mild wind and sea conditions, something not reliably present on the Bay. Sometimes there is little that can immediately be done. When the Chevron Hawaii blew up off of Galveston in the Gulf of Mexico, oil eating microbes were released to consume the oil. Apparently they consume and break down the oil and then die for lack of diet. That's the sum total of my knowledge on them and I have no idea of their effectiveness or use in restricted waters.

Skimmers require a great deal of tankage available and then a place to discharge emulsified oil. Again, they are not going to be effective in any significant chop. Fortunately for the Bay area, Chevron should be able to take a very large amount of emulsified oil at the Richmond Long Wharf. I've butterworthed tanks there alongside and discharged the slop to shore where it is decanted to it's seperate components of oil and water. Here's to hoping their seperation/decanting tanks are low.

Also, streaming and securing miles of containment booms within an open bay is a monumental project with little certainty of success. Again, this isn't happening in the bathtub here, or even alongside a wharf or pier. It will always be highly weather dependant. Normal vessels operating within the area would be insufficient to the task of carrying sufficient gear for this operation.

And hertford is no doubt correct in stating that the reaction in Houston would be much different. The media in Houston might not be as "shocked" that there could be an oil spill in their back yard, given all the tanker traffic in the area. I fully expect an enlightened few within the San Francisco community, shocked at the discovery of how many ships transit their bay, to propose banning commercial cargo operations within such an ecologically sensitive area. In fact, one of my earlier posts told of some who wish to do just that, check out the link. This of course requires the determination that San Francisco Bay is ecologically more sensitive than the other navigable waters of the region, something that should not be too great a stretch for the average SF politician to make given their inherent prediposition to claims of uniqueness. (g)

Oops, I didn't post quick enough before the enlightened few were heard from. (a vbg)
 
#79 ·
I'm far from SF, but looked at a chart. In the middle of each of the Bay Bridge spans is a RACON. Absent a radar malfunction, how could one not know where center-span is, even in fog? Wouldn't you make your approach, then with head-up radar head straight for the RACON?

I'll wait for the eventual facts to come out, but pilots are paid extremely good money to keep a ship and her master from this kind of trouble (assuming helmsman and mate follow his orders correctly). The AIS track I saw on-line (assuming accurate) is awful.
 
#80 ·
Hey, Sail,

I read that link...the press release condemning the spill, pointing out the various National Marine Sanctuaries outside the Bay. I think I missed the call for a ban on shipping. I think I read that they were concerned about the affect shipping and future spills might have on the NMRs. That's a crazy position, I tell ya. Crazy.

But I might have missed it. I was outside for a time, tending the tofu. Or maybe, just working on the Anarchy Now sign.
 
#81 ·
But then, if you cannot transit in or near the sanctuary areas that would be, uh, a ban on shipping. Anybody have a postable chart of the area highlighting those areas so we can speak informedly about the matter?
 
#82 ·
I know it helps to paint all 7.2 million of us with that same brush, even the 28% who voted for Bush in 2004, by finding some Green party kid who has spent his life doing Marine Research and is, thus, proportionately upset, but I still didn't see, reading twice, any WMD…I mean, call for a ban in that release.

Here's a quote from the same guy from yesterday, posted elsewhere on his site:

The source is an ABC News Item:

"Environmental groups hope this spill is a wake-up call.

"It's like death by a thousand cuts. When a vessel hits the bridge and spills bunker fuel, it gets everybody's attention. But we really need to pay attention to the daily impact of these vessels," said Seaflow Executive Director Robert Ovetz, Ph.D.

But left me know when you find the call for a ban on shipping from a reputable, representative source.

After that, I'd love some proof at the connection between Iraq and 9/11.
 
#83 ·
Look what I found in the paper today:

" Some older mariners disdain electronic charts. Capt. John Denham, a retired master mariner, said the Cosco Busan pilot should have been familiar with the electronic chart in the first place and should not have relied on it.

"To conn a ship that way is ludicrous," Denham said. "It's Mickey Mouse."

However, Buckley said such views are out of date. "The advance of electronics is changing all the time," he said. "It's changed a lot over the last few years."

Which is, I think, exactly what I initially relayed:

"he's been on the bridge, many times, and all old school pilots and masters eschew GPSs..."
 
#84 ·
update

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2007/11/15/MNFETCBQT.DTL&tsp=1

and

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2007/11/15/MNF1TCHHP.DTL

While most of the beaches remain closed, the oil is almost gone. A few 1/4 inch size globules show in up further south down the coast. Mostly just beach and wildlife cleanup now.

We had a sunrise jumper off the GGB this AM. It was bittersweet as we did not find him, but the water was glassy and no signs of oil. Another beautiful day here.

Check back in a few hours for a photo of what it looks like when you sail through this stuff. I forgot my cable.
 
#85 ·
It looks like my beloved Coast Guard is taking a hit or two on this:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/11/15/MNFETCBQT.DTL

Adm Allen is my hero for how he deals with problems. Too bad for the captain who was apprently late in responding. As I used to work with the National Strike force I am a bit familiar with the trianing and resources he would have to call on. If he did handle it poorly, there was no reason to. THere is an army of people dedicated to spill reponse ready to provide whatever the Captain of the Port needs in this situation.
 
#86 ·
"I immediately notified VTS (Vessel Traffic Service) on Channel 14 (a maritime channel used by all ships) that we had contacted the fendering system," Cota said, according to Meadows. The fendering system is the protective barrier around the base of the tower.

Shortly after anchoring the damaged ship off Treasure Island, Cota said, according to Meadows, "I observed a sheen on the water and instantly reported that to VTS. Prior to my leaving the ship, no response vessels were seen.

"Once at anchor, I was relieved by Capt. Frank Hoburg, who immediately started notifying various agencies that deal with oil spills," Cota said in his statement, according to Meadows. "I proceeded to the pilot office for drug and alcohol testing. At the time I left the ship, no oil spill equipment was on location."

I looks like no one was notified untill after the ship was anchored. How long did that delay the response time??
 
#88 ·
We were out on the jet skis for a jumper on the bridge, for work. I haven't been out sailing yet. They still want the Bay clear, although I think it will reopen this weekend. Here is a picture of a boat in my marina that was out right after the spill.

 
#91 ·
South Beach YC canceled their 1st midwinter originally scheduled for this Saturday. But I think the bay will be "officially" open this weekend (perhaps with the exception of <?xml:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com
<ST1:pBerkeley.) </ST1:p</st1:City> I spent too much time polishing the hull this summer to get a single drop of oil on it - we're staying in this weekend.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top