SailNet Community - Reply to Topic

   Search Sailnet:

 forums  store  


Quick Menu
Forums           
Articles          
Galleries        
Boat Reviews  
Classifieds     
Search SailNet 
Boat Search (new)

Shop the
SailNet Store
Anchor Locker
Boatbuilding & Repair
Charts
Clothing
Electrical
Electronics
Engine
Hatches and Portlights
Interior And Galley
Maintenance
Marine Electronics
Navigation
Other Items
Plumbing and Pumps
Rigging
Safety
Sailing Hardware
Trailer & Watersports
Clearance Items

Advertise Here






Go Back   SailNet Community > Skills and Seamanship > Seamanship & Navigation > Rocks in the SF Bay
 Not a Member? 

Seamanship & Navigation Forum devoted to seamanship and navigation topics, including paper and electronic charting tools.


Thread: Rocks in the SF Bay Reply to Thread
Title:
  

By choosing to post the reply below you agree to the rules you agreed to when joining Sailnet.
Click Here to view those rules.

Message:
Trackback:
Send Trackbacks to (Separate multiple URLs with spaces) :
Post Icons
You may choose an icon for your message from the following list:
 

Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the SailNet Community forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.
Please note: After entering 3 characters a list of Usernames already in use will appear and the list will disappear once a valid Username is entered.
User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.
Password:
Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.
Email Address:

Log-in

Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.



Click here to view the posting rules you are bound to when clicking the
'Submit Reply' button below


Additional Options
Miscellaneous Options

Click here to view the posting rules you are bound to when clicking the
'Submit Reply' button below


Topic Review (Newest First)
02-16-2012 01:46 PM
dabnis
Quote:
Originally Posted by L124C View Post
I disagree. I don't mind having my "chain pulled" if it's done cleverly. This was simply a silly, witless response, with some unjustified arrogance mixed in. I'll "bite" at that every time!
I value this forum, as I have learned a lot from it. And yes...at times it can be entertaining and funny. This was certainly not one of those times!
Well, maybe next time. I spent many years on the Bay and outside, enjoy your posts.

Dabnis
02-16-2012 01:25 PM
L124C
Quote:
Originally Posted by dabnis View Post
L,

Easy, easy!! not good for your blood pressure. SF was just pulling your chain and you bit. Dabnis
I disagree. I don't mind having my "chain pulled" if it's done cleverly. This was simply a silly, witless response, with some unjustified arrogance mixed in. I'll "bite" at that every time!
I value this forum, as I have learned a lot from it. And yes...at times it can be entertaining and funny. This was certainly not one of those times!
02-15-2012 02:34 PM
dabnis
Quote:
Originally Posted by L124C View Post
"Respectfully", that is probably the most condescending, ridiculous response I have ever read in this forum! You might want to "think a little bit" about what you are saying before responding! Remove bridges and shoreline? Blow up any possible obstruction? No one has suggested any such thing in this thread! I specifically identified two potential navigational hazards for discussion. I then provided an example of an accident that occurred involving a much more obvious obstacle, to support my concern. Lastly, I have suggested that IMO the two rocks in question ARE CLEARLY in a "shipping lane" and are not "marked". I provided a chart to support my opinion. No one has specifically disputed my interpretation of the chart. If my "concept of navigation" is incorrect on that specific point, please enlighten me. Otherwise, stop stating it is not true.
So please...."think a little bit" before responding. Realize that not responding when you have nothing constructive to add to the discussion is always an option. Sometimes less is more!
L,

Easy, easy!! not good for your blood pressure. SF was just pulling your chain and you bit. Fwiw, I agree on your position. It has been done before and with today's technology it shouldn't cost that much. But, as mentioned earlier, generally it takes a disaster to get anything started. Besides some crabs might die from blasting.

Dabnis
02-15-2012 01:24 PM
L124C
The concept of navigation?

Quote:
Originally Posted by sfchallenger View Post
L124C,

Respectfully, you should think a little bit about the concept of navigation. Yes, sure, fine, blow up all the rocks, remove all the bridges, while you're at it, why not get rid of all the pesky shorelines out there, god forbid someone should run aground! Perhaps we can just melt all the polar ice-caps, ridding us of this dry-land problem once and for all. After all, wasn't WaterWorld with Kevin Costner awesome?

The point is, that even with the rocks and bridges *that are already clearly marked or outside of the shipping lanes* removed, there would still always be something for some incompetent pilot to run into. Accidents are accepted as a daily consequence of driving cars around. I'm not suggesting that every reasonable measure possible couldn't or shouldn't be taken to avoid accidents due to poor pilotage, but the idea that we should just blow up any possible obstruction, especially those outside of shipping channels is simply ludicrous. If you disagree, feel free to take your Zodiac and dynamite out and by all means, please report back on your excellent success. Tell the powers that be that you're more informed than they are and in a better position to make these judgements. I'm sure it'll be an interesting story to tell your cellmate.Thanks,
h
"Respectfully", that is probably the most condescending, ridiculous response I have ever read in this forum! You might want to "think a little bit" about what you are saying before responding! Remove bridges and shoreline? Blow up any possible obstruction? No one has suggested any such thing in this thread! I specifically identified two potential navigational hazards for discussion. I then provided an example of an accident that occurred involving a much more obvious obstacle, to support my concern. Lastly, I have suggested that IMO the two rocks in question ARE CLEARLY in a "shipping lane" and are not "marked". I provided a chart to support my opinion. No one has specifically disputed my interpretation of the chart. If my "concept of navigation" is incorrect on that specific point, please enlighten me. Otherwise, stop stating it is not true.
So please...."think a little bit" before responding. Realize that not responding when you have nothing constructive to add to the discussion is always an option. Sometimes less is more!
02-14-2012 04:42 AM
groggy the logical objections about the rocks being marked are all true, and yet it does seem like a bad idea to have rocks so near the shipping lanes (or in them depending on how you read the chart, i am no expert or pilot).

what surprises me is that i thought we, as a country, were pretty handy with bunker-busters, mining, fracking, drilling, and general large scale blowing up of stuff. i know nothing is really as easy as it seems, especially underwater, but still...
02-14-2012 03:09 AM
sfchallenger L124C,

Respectfully, you should think a little bit about the concept of navigation. Yes, sure, fine, blow up all the rocks, remove all the bridges, while you're at it, why not get rid of all the pesky shorelines out there, god forbid someone should run aground! Perhaps we can just melt all the polar ice-caps, ridding us of this dry-land problem once and for all. After all, wasn't WaterWorld with Kevin Costner awesome?

The point is, that even with the rocks and bridges *that are already clearly marked or outside of the shipping lanes* removed, there would still always be something for some incompetent pilot to run into. Accidents are accepted as a daily consequence of driving cars around. I'm not suggesting that every reasonable measure possible couldn't or shouldn't be taken to avoid accidents due to poor pilotage, but the idea that we should just blow up any possible obstruction, especially those outside of shipping channels is simply ludicrous. If you disagree, feel free to take your Zodiac and dynamite out and by all means, please report back on your excellent success. Tell the powers that be that you're more informed than they are and in a better position to make these judgements. I'm sure it'll be an interesting story to tell your cellmate.

Thanks,
h
02-14-2012 02:44 AM
L124C Just saw another report on the Cosco Busan incident. I-Team reveals exclusive audio recordings of Cosco Busan oil spill | abc7news.com
The Coast Guard officers that responded were looking for oil to the North of the ship (toward the Golden Gate and ocean). Since the accident occurred on a flood tide, the oil went South of the leaking ship. I mean, I know hindsight is 20/20, but if you are in the frigging Coast Guard, you should be able to figure out that the oil is going to go with the tide! So, the CG initially didn't even know fuel was leaking until well over an hour after the incident. Even then they estimated that only 150 gallons of fuel leaked. In fact the leak consisted of over 53,000 Gallons of bunker fuel!
The Pilot made $450,000 that year, didn't even know where the bridge was in his own bay, and simply chuckles every time he talks about hitting it (listen to the audio tapes)! In response, they bought the Pilots new laptop chart plotters (as if the two radars, GPS and a paper chart shouldn't have been enough for a Harbor Pilot to navigate with!). BTW...The ship owner paid a Ten Million Dollar Fine and Forty Four Million in clean up fees. Who pays that in the long run?
So...do I have faith that the powers that be are making the right choices regarding the rocks, or that pilots will avoid them? In a word....No!
02-08-2012 04:21 AM
L124C
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ulladh View Post
L124C
If you want the rocks removed, you have a lot of work to do.

Funding will be an appropriations bill sponsored by congresspersons in districts effected by the navigation hazard, at least one senator, and other state and local political entities.
You will also need economic and environmental impact studies; what economic return will the rock removal produce?
And expect various groups to oppose the plan in court; questioning the economic value of the work or environmental issues.
Well said. Maybe they are waiting for a vessel to hit the rocks. No EIR required in advance of that event, and then it would probably be a lot easier to fast track the project! Again...reactive, not proactive!
02-07-2012 11:37 AM
Ulladh L124C

If you want the rocks removed, you have a lot of work to do.

Funding will be an appropriations bill sponsored by congresspersons in districts effected by the navigation hazard, at least one senator, and other state and local political entities.

You will also need economic and environmental impact studies; what economic return will the rock removal produce?

And expect various groups to oppose the plan in court; questioning the economic value of the work or environmental issues.

The Army Corp will be starting the process of approval for removing a rock ledge in the Delaware shipping channel near Marcus Hook this year. Opposition groups will also be preparing court challenges.
02-06-2012 04:58 PM
dabnis
Quote:
Originally Posted by L124C View Post
It confirms that where there is a will, there is a way!
I certainly would not have guessed it would be that difficult. I would have thought they could have performed the work in increments, during various slack tides. Obviously...I'm wrong! It's also interesting that it took 119 vessels and 114 lives lost to develop the will.
Thanks for that!
Here is an original article regarding blowing up Blossom Rock. Unfortunately, because it is a copy of the original, published in 1870, it's a little difficult to read. However, I found it interesting in several respects.
BLOSSOM ROCK. - Description of the Rock and the Preparatory Work for Blasting it --A Charge of Twenty-three Tons of Powder--The Explosion. - View Article - NYTimes.com
Yes, very interesting, amazing they could do it that long ago. I would think that a barge with a drilling rig could pre drill a lot of deep holes that divers could fill at slack water with explosives. Or maybe a big dredge equipped with a large sharp cutting head could chew it away? As mentioned earlier probably nothing will be done until a big tanker gets a little off course and dumps millions of gallons of oil into the bay.

Dabnis
This thread has more than 10 replies. Click here to review the whole thread.

 
Posting Rules
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may post attachments
You may edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 11:26 PM.

Add to My Yahoo!         
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
SEO by vBSEO 3.6.1
(c) Marine.com LLC 2000-2012

The SailNet.com store is owned and operated by a company independent of the SailNet.com forum. You are now leaving the SailNet forum. Click OK to continue or Cancel to return to the SailNet forum.