# SF Bay oil spill



## GySgt (Jun 11, 2007)

http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/index?section=local&id=5750652

I am far from a dolphin lovin tree hugger, but sh**. No sailing for a couple of weeks till it all floats out.


----------



## TSOJOURNER (Dec 16, 1999)

yeah, i feel for you guys that totally sux! remember, i'm right next door, hopefully it will just mysteriously disappear.


----------



## sailhog (Dec 11, 2006)

Was it petroleum or petroleum jelly that spilled? 

GySgt, I like that Churchill quote. Years ago I had a chance to visit Chartwell. Apparently he had all manner of livestock there -- ducks, pigs, goats, sheep, dairy cows. There were little barns with conical-shaped roofs dating back to the Middle Ages there. Louis Carrol (sp), the guy who wrote Jabberwocky and Alice in Wonderland, lived down the street. Crazy place. You're right. Pigs are very sexy. Very, very, very sexy. Very sexy. MmmmMmmmm...


----------



## GySgt (Jun 11, 2007)

sailhog said:


> Was it petroleum or petroleum jelly that spilled?
> 
> GySgt, I like that Churchill quote. Years ago I had a chance to visit Chartwell. Apparently he had all manner of livestock there -- ducks, pigs, goats, sheep, dairy cows. There were little barns with conical-shaped roofs dating back to the Middle Ages there. Louis Carrol (sp), the guy who wrote Jabberwocky and Alice in Wonderland, lived down the street. Crazy place. You're right. Pigs are very sexy. Very, very, very sexy. Very sexy. MmmmMmmmm...


LOL, you are one sick Pirate, but I agree, gotta love those pigs.

It was fuel oil, the thick tar like stuff that used to be in it's fuel tank before he peeled the hull like a can opener. The pilot left the boat right after like the cheese eating surrender monkey he is. It took the CG 22 hours to hunt him down.

CG says the pilot was tested with in 2 hours, which is different than initial news reports


----------



## sailhog (Dec 11, 2006)

What nationality was he?


----------



## GySgt (Jun 11, 2007)

US I believe. The Captain gives control of his vessel about 10 miles out golden gate to a "certified" pilot, and only the rent-a-pilot can navigate the bay. When they go under that bridge there is only about 100 ft on each side with some nasty currents at times.


----------



## sailingdog (Mar 19, 2006)

Unfortunately, it wasn't crude... IIRC, it was bunker oil, which is heavier than normal light crude, and some of it may sink, and coat the bay's bottom, killing a wide swath of life on the seafloor.


----------



## sailaway21 (Sep 4, 2006)

According to the report I read the USCG tested the pilot as well as the crew for alcohol within two hours of the incident. The pilot has a degree of responsibility, but the ultimate responsibility lies with the Master.

There are various grades of fuel oil burned in ship's diesel engines. HFO or heavy fuel oil is generally burned at sea. It may be blended with IFO or intermediate fuel oil for manoeuvering the engine, or IFO alone may be used in those evolutions. Both products are heated within the side tanks they are carried in, in container ships. At ambient temperature they are unpumpable and are not the diesel fuel most mariners are familiar with.

Contact with ambient conditions may cause certain paraffin fractions ot congeal and possibly sink, but most of the oil will float although will have the dark heavy appearance of crude oil, which it is not.

The key to dealing with such incidents is the availability of containment systems. While bunkering (taking on fuel oil for main engines or boilers) in Europoort we experienced the bunker barge's hose rupturing, discharging a couple hundred barrels (42 gal) of HFO into the harbor. Within the hour the spill tug and floating containment booms were alongside and the oil was vacuumed up to the extent we sailed within six hours. Europoort does not have the tidal considerations of SF Bay and the incident occured alonside a sheltered wharf.

There may well be proceedings against the pilot's license, but the Master and company are screwed. Whether the Master will retain his license will be dependant upon the issueing nation's maritime board. It's quite possible the license is Liberian or Panamanian issued and he'll retain it. It's much more likely the pilot will be terminated by the SF Bay Pilot's Assosciation than that the CG will suspend or revoke his license. The pilot is on board as an "advisor" even though his presence is required by law. The responsibility for the vessel remains with the Master, and ultimately the company.

Be prepared for much wringing of hands and wild accusations flying about. A cursory examination of the data will reveal that merchant ship operations, particularly out of the very busy Middle harbor Terminal at Oakland, are very safe. Not far away, the Chevron refinery located at the Richmond Long Wharf, averages about one 70,000 ton tanker per day discharging millions of barrels of Alaskan residium per day without incident. Most residents, and fewer reporters, have any conception of the sheer volume of ships and cargo that move through the port daily, and quite safely. In terms of maritime accidents this one was rather minor, although the effects of wind and tide will make it seem much worse. One account I read headlined with "dead duck" found. No doubt an exhaustive accounting will be forthcoming.

An update on the plans of the Looney Left to seperate citizens and shippers from their future monies can be found below. Be prepared for suggestions ranging all the way up to eliminating commercial traffic. The last thing that will be suggested, and the one with the ability to prevent the most future damage, is an expansion of spill containment and clean-up resources. It's much easier to blame the evil corporate ship owners.

Note that your tax payer funded USCG resources are allocated to the rapid response of CG personnel to ensure the ship's baker was sober. Just an outgrowth of the Valdez incident which increased the bureaucracy while doing little to address maritime safety in practise. Being California, I fully expect this to assume proportions last seen with the Torrey Canyon grounding!

http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2007/11/08/18459201.php


----------



## sailaway21 (Sep 4, 2006)

Dog,
Us tankermen will eagerly await your dissertation on how HFO ( actually IFO) is "heavier" than the crude oil it is refined from. (g)


----------



## sailingdog (Mar 19, 2006)

Sailaway-

From what I was told... bunker oil is heavier than light crude because it is what is leftover after the lighter, more desirable, components of crude oil are taken away in the distillation process. It is almost asphalt or tar-like in appearance and has the consistency of honey or thick corn syrup at 50˚F. As it ages, it becomes heavier, as the remaining volatiles evaporate off. It is used in some large marine diesel power plants, as well as steam generating power plants.


----------



## sailaway21 (Sep 4, 2006)

Light crude has nothing to do with it's specific gravity per se. Light crude is low sulpher crude as found in the middle east. Heavy crude is high sulpher crude as found in Alaska and the US Gulf. 

The consistency you describe is correct for HFO, much less so for IFO, the oil in question. You are correct in that there are many fractions remaining in these "diesel" fuels, although they are "lighter" than the residium aforementioned commonly burned in Californian power plants. Nevertheless, they are a somewhat refined product and will produce much less bottom damage via sinkage than actual crude would. A bit of a Hobbeson's choice admittedly. Most of the spillage will remain on the surface where it will emulsify. The lighter fractions you mention will have already been removed at the refining process, for the most part, as they are the more valuable constituents of crude oil. The 'heavier" fractions are removed and used in shore side power plants. On the west coast, that level of refining is accomplished in Alaska. Further refining of Alaskan crude is accomplished almost solely within the US Gulf. Californian refining is almost exclusively set up for Arabian light sweet crude oil, a little known fact. SoCal sailors will testify to the ubiquitous lightering operations off the Channel islands; the importing of Arabian crude.


----------



## k1vsk (Jul 16, 2001)

Whether bunker oil sinks in largely dependent on temp and salinity moreso than anything else notwithstanding the currents which can exert physical forces in any direction. 
Funny - most people think in terms of the Exxon Valdez; been a while since I heard anyone reference the Torry Canyon.
Not sure many of us would argue the value of funding the CG's spill response resources. They may not be cost-effective but it certainly beats the oil company's spill cooperatives resources and capability.


----------



## SEMIJim (Jun 9, 2007)

GySgt said:


> http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/index?section=local&id=5750652
> 
> I am far from a dolphin lovin tree hugger, but sh**. No sailing for a couple of weeks till it all floats out.


While I feel your pain (imagine: Up to six months for some of us here in the Great Lakes): Screw that. You _will_ sail in the Bay again. The oil _will_ clean off your hulls. No, the potential disaster here is the potential impact on the wildlife and the environment .

Jim


----------



## Giulietta (Nov 14, 2006)

Hey...wanna discuss Oil burning...I'm the man..right SA????


----------



## bestfriend (Sep 26, 2006)

You should see the boat down the dock from me. He sailed through it, poor bastard. I'll get a photo to post tomorrow. Whatever it is, it floats. Wait till you see.

Gunny, No sailing OR surfing. I am going nuts gardening!


----------



## Giulietta (Nov 14, 2006)

STOP whining....will ya....

This bastard sank off the coast of Portugal and Spain in galicia in 2002, it was one of the biggest oil spillages in the World, and the bastard is still leaking hundreds of kilos every day...people forget easy....20 Million gallons man....67.000 TONS!!!!!!!! TAR HE WAS CARRYING TAR!!!!

Bet you guys didn't even heard about it...

See here

The bastard

THE BASTARD AGAIN

And we had no one to help clean, it was the fisherman with nets rolled in sticks that picked up...even today, 5 years after, fishing ios dead and forbidden in Galicia...hundreds unemplyed...

Go to google and type: tanker galicia sank...


----------



## nolatom (Jun 29, 2005)

The master relies on the local pilot for advice (and the pilot is actually giving the helm and engine orders) as to where the obstructions (such as bridge piers) are, and aren't. The Master's license is subject to the flag state who issued it, meaning whichever country licensed him. The pilot carries two certificates: A Coast Guard license for coastwise US-flag ships, and a state of Calif. pilot license or commission for foreign-flag ships (which this container ship was). So it's up to the state. In some states, these are independent commissions, and in others, it's the pilots themselves. The Coast Guard can't take any action against either the state commission nor the Coast Guard-issued license of a pilot who was piloting a non-US flag ship, as here.

Regardless, you may see a movement to require engine fuel bunker tanks to be "double-skinned", similar to the cargo tanks on oil tankers. Though the damage in the photos looks as though it was deep enough to pentrate to the second skin, if that was the construction on this ship.


----------



## GySgt (Jun 11, 2007)

SEMIJim said:


> While I feel your pain (imagine: Up to six months for some of us here in the Great Lakes): Screw that. You _will_ sail in the Bay again. The oil _will_ clean off your hulls. No, the potential disaster here is the potential impact on the wildlife and the environment .
> 
> Jim


I agree Jim, I am not by definition an enviromentalist, but it is sad to see all the life covered with oil and the impact it will have.


----------



## sailaway21 (Sep 4, 2006)

I agree Gunny. It is sad. Fortunately nature is far more durable and resourceful than our meager efforts. I was in SF in 1975 when the SS Idaho had a spill while in the Bethlehem yard's dry dock of all things. It was similar in scope to the one you're seeing now. The vast majority of work was done by nature. The vast majority of human effort consisted of driving around photographing it and pontificating. If we spent a mere portion of the amount we waste on bureaucracy and report filing on containment and skimmers we could actually do something really proactive towards limiting the effects of any future accidents.


----------



## k1vsk (Jul 16, 2001)

sailaway21 said:


> I agree Gunny. It is sad. Fortunately nature is far more durable and resourceful than our meager efforts. I was in SF in 1975 when the SS Idaho had a spill while in the Bethlehem yard's dry dock of all things. It was similar in scope to the one you're seeing now. The vast majority of work was done by nature. The vast majority of human effort consisted of driving around photographing it and pontificating. If we spent a mere portion of the amount we waste on bureaucracy and report filing on containment and skimmers we could actually do something really proactive towards limiting the effects of any future accidents.


The amount we spend on spill prevention and preparedness is relatively small and has been decreasing yearly since 1991. The reality is that once the oil hits the water, it's too late for most anything we try to clean it up. Even the best skimmers and booms are only marginally effective. Knowing this fact, the bureaucracy has finally suceeded in requiring double bottoms beginning in 2009 not that this would have prevented this particular accident.
The point being that as long as people continue to want to drive around in our big BMWs and MBs, there will be oil spills.


----------



## Valiente (Jun 16, 2006)

Giulietta said:


> Bet you guys didn't even heard about it...


_Prestige_? Hell, yes, I heard about it. Tankers leak on occasion, but it's pretty rare for one to split in half. There was a nasty one off Scotland that began with the letter "B", I think, that ended up being worse than Exxon Valdez, as well.

The sinking of _Prestige _has contributed to my general respect for that whole coast from Ushant to Vigo...some very nasty weather goes into that pocket.


----------



## sailaway21 (Sep 4, 2006)

I'm curious where k1vsk would spend additional monies on "spill prevention".

In my experience, if oil is spilled the single largest factor in limiting the spread of the slick and removal of it, within port areas, is the ready availability of containment and skimmers. Oil cooperates by remaining on the surface where it is fairly easily removed. Compared to some other cargoes shipped, oil is containable and removable. Polyvinylchloride and methylisocyanate would lead my hit parade for substances I'd like to see remain contained.


----------



## geary126 (Jul 11, 2006)

I'm going to apologize in advance, but some of this is getting my ire up. 

As I sit here, living about three miles from the Oakland terminal where that ship is located, my boat is covered in oil. Crissie Field, where I used to go windsurfing daily, is an Effing Disaster.

I'm tired of the Liberal Bashing. Hell, yes. Let's follow Cheney and Company, and have Hands off business, because God Knows, they do a HELLUVA job being proactive, policing themselves. Whether we're talking shipping, or emissions, or Haliburton, or Blackwater, or Detroit, I am sick of this constant, full-court defense, this constant aversion to looking at things from the other side. At even considering options. 

Hell no. It's long live the status quo. Oversight is lunacy. The Press asking questions, unpatriotic. Wrap yourself in the flag, make everything about 9/11, because apparently, only the GOP cares about Protecting America. What a joke, were it not such an insult. 

I love this ahole who is our vp. "Conservation may be a personal virtue, but it has no place in our national energy policy." This is like the only knucklehead who can't figure out that energy independence would actually improve our national security. Of course, this is also the fine national defense team who squandered all the good will we built up on 9/12. Who blw off Bin Laden, to get us into Iraq. With no plans for the aftermath, and half the troops needed. 

That kind of National Security, I do not need. 

Back to the tree-hugging. To clear up some facts: the channel is over 2,000 feet wide. The ship, I think, is 130 feet wide. 

I have a friend who's in the know, can't say where he works, says he's been on the bridge, many times, and all old school pilots and masters eschew GPSs (as it's more of a technological assumption....it thinks you are here, which means, the objects in front of you must be here...)

Radar is relied upon, but the containers on deck block the signal, preventing their effective use to between 3 and 9 miles. Not super useful, then. 

The XO is placed on the bow, and reports back via radio. In dense fog, given the momentum, by the time they saw they were off course, they were doomed. Visibility was about 500' 

That boat should never have left the dock. The Pilot blew it. 

As did the coast guard, for opening their mouths with any facts, when it was almost certain that they would be wrong. I read it was 26 hours until the Pilot was screened. Perhaps that is wrong. 

This mess was predictable. We get hundreds of ships a week in the bay. We should have the infrastructure in place to do a better job, when the inevitable struck.

I'm pissed. In 100 years, we've managed to really screw up this planet. I'm chagrinned to have to leave this, for my son.

btw, this isn't a Nimby thing. I'm disgusted with the US response to New Orleans. Disgusted.


----------



## bestfriend (Sep 26, 2006)

I crossed the bridge that fateful wednesday morning. It wasn't even that bad of a fog. I wouldn't have sailed it without radar, but you could still see 300 to 500 yards. You would have to be a blind idiot to hit the bridge. Have you noticed that it is still sitting there, fully loaded, no containment around it last I looked.


----------



## LakeTravisP26 (Mar 30, 2007)

G126

Sorry about your boat. Yes, there should be a better infrastructure in place to cope with such events. I hope you feel better after the rant.

However, in your rant, are you saying that this is the fault of Cheney? Come on. You point out the short comings of practices of Masters and Pilots in local waters. Must have somehow been Don Rumsfeld’s fault be cause he was in charge of the CG? Why was the ship allowed to leave? Can the harbor Master stop traffic or does that come from the Office of the Vice President? 

About New Orleans, what disgusts you? The problem in the situation in New Orleans was primarily the fault of the lack of proper response from the local and state government. Evacuation is a local responsibility. School buses that could have moved people sat and flooded. Louisiana is the most corrupt state in the country. Back when we had an independent US oil business, I worked in it. The standing joke was “it is good that La was not a foreign country as we would be subject to the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act doing business there.” The legacy of Huey Long and Edwin Edwards live on in William Jefferson and many others. 

The problems of prevention with more substantial sea walls go back many years over many administrations. 

Same with energy independence. Many years of neglect on both sides. We need a balanced program that includes drilling in Alaska. Florida and costal California, nuclear power and development of alternative power sources as well as conservation. (BTW, Texas (home of Halliburton) passed California in wind power generation this year.)

I do hope you feel better and the bay is back to somewhat normal soon. I was sailing there last month and loved it. Big change from my usual lake meanderings. 

Oh, I case you have not noticed, not much news is coming in from Iraq these days. Hard to report on a lack of violence?


----------



## sailaway21 (Sep 4, 2006)

I failed to log in and thus wasted a post on the subject of large vessel navigation in restricted waters. I share geary's disappointment in the events transpired. I would encourage him to await the issueance of the NTSB report on the events. We do not know at all what transpired. We will know when the NTSB issues the authoritative report.

In brief, since i lost the long version, your knowledge of GPS and radar use appears to be limited. Be assured that the pilot's and the Master's was not. GPS is wholly inappropriate for navigation in such circumstances while radar is an excellent and indispensable tool to the mariner.

Consider the fact that there are any number of factors, all of which might be out of direct control of the pilot or master that could have resulted in this allision. and once something the approximate size of the Trans-America building experiences one of those things the end result of it contacting an immovable object is going to be considerable. if I get the energy and the point continues to need addressing I'll describe what may be necessary to pilot a large ship through SF Bay, having done it a few times myself. (g)

Until the NTSB actually issues it's report nothing truly definitive will be known and so it makes as much sense to blame Dick Cheney as it does to believe anything else. (g)


----------



## k1vsk (Jul 16, 2001)

sailaway21 said:


> I'm curious where k1vsk would spend additional monies on "spill prevention".
> 
> In my experience, if oil is spilled the single largest factor in limiting the spread of the slick and removal of it, within port areas, is the ready availability of containment and skimmers. Oil cooperates by remaining on the surface where it is fairly easily removed. Compared to some other cargoes shipped, oil is containable and removable. Polyvinylchloride and methylisocyanate would lead my hit parade for substances I'd like to see remain contained.


Are you sure you're not confusing prevention with cleanup - what part of what I said do you disagree with?
At best, containment and cleanup is generally only marginally effective under good weather and other conditions.


----------



## sailingdog (Mar 19, 2006)

well said Geary.


----------



## sailaway21 (Sep 4, 2006)

Lordy Dog! What part of what geary said was well said? The political rant or the marine navigation portion?

k1vsk,
I was inarticulately asking for what measures regarding prevention that you seemed to feel were lacking funding or effort. Did I misunderstand you?


----------



## bestfriend (Sep 26, 2006)

What the hell are you guys arguing about? Accountability, funding, birds???? What gives? This was obvious human error, just plain and simple. Several people all doing anything but what they were supposed to be doing all at the same time. No money, training, electronics, or administration is going to fix that. End of story.


----------



## sailaway21 (Sep 4, 2006)

And since we don't have hardly any of the facts in yet we cannot even determine whose human error was involved. Now THAT was well said, BF!


----------



## camaraderie (May 22, 2002)

Geary..sorry about you boat and the oil but that was one of the most ridiculous rants I've ever seen. Now it's conservatives fault that an oil tanker hit the bridge in the most liberal city in America? Bet it all was a conspiracy too!


----------



## SEMIJim (Jun 9, 2007)

camaraderie said:


> Geary..sorry about you boat and the oil but that was one of the most ridiculous rants I've ever seen. Now it's conservatives fault that an oil tanker hit the bridge in the most liberal city in America? Bet it all was a conspiracy too!


Gotta go with camaraderie and a couple of the others on this on, Geary. While I agree with many of your points, I hardly see what they have to do with what will in all likelihood turn out to have been a screw-up.

Sorry about he mess on your boat. It'll clean off, I assume? Btw: Your "liberal" credentials would've been more believable if your first complaint had been over the death and destruction perpetrated by this disaster on the local flora and fauna, rather than the effect on your boat.

For those of you arguing "use less oil": A lofty goal, to be sure, and another with which I agree, but we'll still import most of it. It's cheaper than pumping our own out of the ground where we can, and more acceptable to the NIMBY environmentalists here in the U.S. who don't want us drilling in potentially more profitable areas.

Jim


----------



## Fstbttms (Feb 25, 2003)

LakeTravisP26 said:


> However, in your rant, are you saying that this is the fault of Cheney?





sailaway21 said:


> it makes as much sense to blame Dick Cheney as it does to believe anything else. (g)





camaraderie said:


> Now it's conservatives fault that an oil tanker hit the bridge...





SEMIJim said:


> Gotta go with camaraderie and a couple of the others on this on, Geary. While I agree with many of your points, I hardly see what they have to do with what will in all likelihood turn out to have been a screw-up.


Jeezus kee-rhyst! Are you people illiterate? Sombody post a quote where Geary126 actually blames Evil Dick (or anybody from the conservative side of things) for the SF oil spill. You can't. Why? Because it never happened!


----------



## freddy4888 (Nov 16, 2006)

I wonder how many of our liberal friends here on sailnet drive gas hog SUV's


----------



## Fstbttms (Feb 25, 2003)

freddy4888 said:


> I wonder how many of our liberal friends here on sailnet drive gas hog SUV's


What the fu*k does that have to do with this discussion?


----------



## freddy4888 (Nov 16, 2006)

Fastbtms if you can't figure out that our dependence on oil is related to our refusal to try to conserve our need for it. Our use of oil also directly relates to how many oil tankers are running around the oceans and ports thus relates to the increased probability of accidents like the one in SF Bay.


----------



## nolatom (Jun 29, 2005)

How did the discussion of this incident become one about oil tankers and oil companies? This was a container ship. It carries containers. It has (had) fuel tanks for the engine, and punctured one. Logic would have you criticizing cargo, or trade generally.


----------



## Fstbttms (Feb 25, 2003)

freddy4888 said:


> Fastbtms if you can't figure out that our dependence on oil is related to our refusal to try to conserve our need for it. Our use of oil also directly relates to how many oil tankers are running around the oceans and ports thus relates to the increased probability of accidents like the one in SF Bay.


I understand it fine. But lets turn this discussion into one about what kind of car somebody chooses to drive. 'Cause that's really relevant here.


----------



## sailingdog (Mar 19, 2006)

BTW, I know that Detroit was offered technology to make 30-35 MPG vehicles forty years ago, and they turned it down. Some of the same technology used in the vehicle they were offered 40 years ago has recently shown up in Hybrid vehicles, like the Toyota Prius. I know because one of the Toyota Prius advertising series got canceled due to a false claim... they said they had the first dual-power source transmission, but were late by only 35 years or so.


----------



## xort (Aug 4, 2006)

The cause of the Exxon Valdeez wreck was drinking of alcohol. The dems pushed and campaigned on a repeal of prohibition. So, the Exxon Valdeez disaster was caused by the democrats & FDR.


----------



## sailaway21 (Sep 4, 2006)

It is unfortunate that geary's misguided rant, both politically misguided and technologically uninformed, has distracted the thread from it's intended topic. Perhaps I should have said misplaced political rant, rather than misguided. After all, I've never seen Dick Cheney and Darth Vader in the same room together. (g)


----------



## freddy4888 (Nov 16, 2006)

I guess the type of vehicle we drive is less relevant then blaming this event on Dick Cheney and George Bush. Let me spell it out for you, our refusal to conserve oil in this country is relevant to oil spills, so the next time some liberal wants to blame Dick Cheney maybe he should place some of the blame on the person staring back at him in the mirror every morning.


----------



## sailaway21 (Sep 4, 2006)

Off topic is for off topic. This is Gen Discussion and the discussion was about an allision. Does anybody know what an allision is by the way? (winner get's free BB-Q lunch with CD)


----------



## sailingdog (Mar 19, 2006)

Sailaway-

An allision is when a boat hits a fixed stationary object, like a bridge piling, rather than a boat, which would be a collision.


----------



## Fstbttms (Feb 25, 2003)

freddy4888 said:


> I guess the type of vehicle we drive is less relevant then blaming this event on Dick Cheney and George Bush.


Again I say, please quote where _ANYBODY_ in this thread blamed Dick Cheney or The Shrub for this event. *IT DID NOT HAPPEN! *But in typical Neo Con fashion, if you repeat the lie often enough, it becomes truth, I guess.


----------



## camaraderie (May 22, 2002)

FST...in post #23 Geary states:
As I sit here, living about three miles from the Oakland terminal where that ship is located, my boat is covered in oil. Crissie Field, where I used to go windsurfing daily, is an Effing Disaster.

I'm tired of the Liberal Bashing. Hell, yes. Let's follow Cheney and Company, and have Hands off business, because God Knows, they do a HELLUVA job being proactive, policing themselves. Whether we're talking shipping, or emissions, or Haliburton, or Blackwater, or Detroit, I am sick of this constant, full-court defense, this constant aversion to looking at things from the other side. 
**************
He IS blaming the policies of Cheney et al. for the propensity of such accidents happening. Saying in effect...if we were all liberals, and greenies, things like this would not happen.


----------



## bestfriend (Sep 26, 2006)

http://www.latimes.com/news/printed...7987700.story?coll=la-headlines-pe-california

and now this:

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601085&sid=aLRNumNFUxoM&refer=europe


----------



## Fstbttms (Feb 25, 2003)

nolatom said:


> How did the discussion of this incident become one about oil tankers and oil companies? This was a container ship. It carries containers. It has (had) fuel tanks for the engine, and punctured one. Logic would have you criticizing cargo, or trade generally.


In this thread, logic went by the board some time ago.


----------



## Fstbttms (Feb 25, 2003)

camaraderie said:


> He IS blaming the policies of Cheney et al. for the propensity of such accidents happening. Saying in effect...if we were all liberals, and greenies, things like this would not happen.


I disagree. I think Geary's rant is about the anti-liberal tone in this thread (and on this forum in general.) Yes, he does talk in a general way about how the current administration does business but I think it's a real stretch to say that in his diatribe he holds them to blame for oil spill. The only person Geary specifically lays any blame on for the incident in question is the harbor pilot.

Maybe Geary126 will actually chime in here and clarify his position. Who knows, maybe I'm wrong. It wouldn't be the first time.


----------



## SEMIJim (Jun 9, 2007)

Fstbttms said:


> Jeezus kee-rhyst! Are you people illiterate?


Aren't all who disagree with "liberal" dogma illiterate inbred ******** that drive pickup trucks with rifle racks in the back? Oh, and to keep things at least vaguely on-topic: They all own stink-boats, too, I bet!



Fstbttms said:


> Sombody post a quote where Geary126 actually blames Evil Dick (or anybody from the conservative side of things) for the SF oil spill. You can't. Why? Because it never happened!


Here is a new word for you: _Context_. You can find its definition in any relatively complete, current dictionary. _Context_ is the reason that geary126 is presumed to be blaming so-called "conservatives," indirectly, for the recent SF Bay incident.

I would explain, but I believe you should get it after looking up the word "context." If, after this pointer, you _still_ don't see it, I suggest perhaps you're a "conservative" (see above). 

Jim


----------



## geary126 (Jul 11, 2006)

*Bring it on, says GW.*

Guys,

First of all, I started the last post with an apology. That's humility, something completely alien to the current administration. And god knows how well that approach has gone over on the world stage.

Second, my rant, and Cam, I'm surprised that you lifted my paragraph as "proof" of my linking Cheney to the oil spill, had nothing to do with that. As others pointed out, it had to do with the tendency, from the GOP, or at least, from their current representatives on Penn. Ave., to insist that regulatory guidelines should not play a part in the market, that businesses and/or the Market will regulate themselves.

I'll paste the quote below, again. Look at the sentences on either side of the Cheney and co line. This, Jim, would be a fair application of Context. Fair and balanced, but not in a Fox news sort of way.

If you want to back out and link my Cheney quote to a post I made in 2006 about Holding Tanks just because it backs your argument, you just go right ahead. My comment was limited to the context of, if I may use term correctly, of businesses that aren't always the best at policing / taking the initiative themselves: You know, like the companies that said seatbelts are too costly. Or, Gas economy means unsafe cars. The market doesn't exist for Hybrids. Cigarettes are fine for you. Emissions and/or pollution doesn't matter, as we're all living longer. New trees are better than Old Growth. Enron. The home loan market. Blackwater. How much time have you got?

This, in my estimation, affects many, many aspects of our society. I cited shipping, emissions, Haliburton, Blackwater, and Detroit. Not that I'm in favor of regulations, per se. I'm in favor of oversight. Of critical thinking. Of somebody playing Devil's Advocate, once in a while. Of people asking some tough questions, like, does it make sense that a civilian Defense Secretary, one without a day of combat experience, is shaving down recommended troop figures, going against the advice of career military officers (among them, the joint chiefs)?

Or, in this context, are the systems (electronic or human) in place to make sure this doesn't happen every week, as seems to be the case? Or, when it happens, are the systems in place to mitigate the mess?

(And yes, on a larger level, it wouldn't kill me if we could reduce our dependence on foreign oil, which would at least lessen the tanker traffic.)

In honesty, my broadening of the War, so to speak, was also in part to reading characterizations, unqualified, of "plans of the Looney Left to separate citizens and shippers from their future monies..." and "dolphin loving tree huggers..."

Here was my paragraph, once more.

"Let's follow Cheney and Company, and have Hands off business, because God Knows, they do a HELLUVA job being proactive, policing themselves. Whether we're talking shipping, or emissions, or Haliburton, or Blackwater, or Detroit, I am sick of this constant, full-court defense, this constant aversion to looking at things from the other side. At even considering options."

This was, in fact, a generalization. I knew it would bring on the heat. It's probably off-topic, somewhat. But I believe it in my heart. Has our government been proactive on emissions? No. California is suing the federal government over Greenhouse gases, as we speak. Have we signed Kyoto? No. Has anyone in the Bush administration shown any leadership on conservation or the environment? No. Have they even considered their options on ___________ (insert any topic here)?

Did any of you notice my direct quote of Cheney, scoffing at the notion of conservation? No. Did anyone support my point that energy independence would enhance our national security? Hell no.

That would be CRAZY. That would require disagreeing with a Vice President, whose conduct must never be beyond reproach.

My larger point, and yes, I covered a few, is that I am disgusted with the way we've all treated the earth these last 150 years. This was a reaction to 1) the bay spill, 2) the Galicia spill, which we all should be ashamed for not knowing like the Kennedy assassination 3) New Orleans, my wife's home town, site of my wedding and 20 + visits. Also site of my Red Cross efforts following Katrina. So, yeah, I don't need a lecture on NOLA.

[BTW, Naggin is an idiot, devoid of courage, but read the Time magazine article, august 13, 2007. "How a perfect storm of big-money politics, shoddy engineering and environmental ignorance is setting up the City for another catastrophe...

Re: Federal Response. in 1906, 2/3 of the tents in the US army arrived in San Francisco in 3 days. Congress convened at 4 am. And an entire battalion of US army soldiers arrived by train less than one day after the quake. IN 1906. Now, tell me, please, that the Federal Government lived up to your expectations. ]

I'm not a tree hugger, I eat plenty of meat, and drive two cars that only get 25 mpg. I've also worked for a Republican, Pete McCloskey, who had the guts to stand up to Richard Nixon, and buck the conventional thinking, because he knew that Nixon was selling the country down the river.

I've voted Republican before, and I might again, but only for those individuals who walk away from the status quo because "that's our platform" or "that's what we did before." I should mention, my criticism isn't limited to Republicans. Plenty of Democrats, starting with Ray Naggin, are contemptible.

Politically, I want people of integrity to make the tough calls. Had I been Bush, I would have levied a use and/or gas tax, so that everyone at home felt an emotional connection to the Actual War on Terror, which predated this mess in Iraq. Alternatively, pushing people to conserve, or, better, incenting people to conserve, could have also been part of that same "we're in this together" effort, while simultaneously helping us on our quest for energy independence. Anybody remember the civilian efforts of WWII?

Speaking of integrity. How about delivering support to New Orleans that actually lived up to the Jackson Square rhetoric? Mission Accomplished, II,

Let's get back to the incident at hand:

Some of you busted me for mentioning the boat first. That was to provide geographical context, there's that word again, to say, I'm close the center of action. The next sentence was more telling, "Crissie Field, where I used to go windsurfing daily, is an Effing Disaster," as were the comments about my chagrin about leaving this planet this way for my son, but whatever. If you guys think I'm driven by the quality of the gel coat, fine. (it sucks now, but did before 

My comments about the GPS and Radar were relayed to me by a shipping manager at the Port of Oakland. This guy is a top racer, btw, but relative to this context, he's also got about 20 years of direct shipping experience.

More importantly, he's also got years of experience with dozens, perhaps hundreds of Container Ship Captains, which provides, at least to me, some breadth of experience, rather than just one man's opinion.

So my friend was the one who relayed to me that the tug boat captains on the Bay said the visibility was about 500 feet.

Technically, since everybody is parsing every phrase, they said, "less than a cable." That's 608'.

Given this visibility (or lack thereof), I asked him, knowing full well that ship this size requires enormous room to adjust course, I said, so I guess they use instruments...like GPS. [My thinking, not knowing shipping, was that if an airplane pilot can fly on instruments at 500 kts, so must the maritime pilot...]

My friend went on to say that these guys, meaning pilots / masters, especially the old school guys, did not tend to trust their advanced instruments, especially GPS, but that while Radar was trusted, the forward signal, close to the ship, was frequently impacted by the pile of Containers ten high. [the ten high is my term, not his] ]

The bottom line: the executive officer is sent to the bow, a trusted pair of eyes. Which is pretty much useless when visibility is 500'.

Sailaway, I'm sure you're the authority of authorities, although I would be interested to find out if your experience includes that of identically sized container ships. And, while I don't profess to be a GPS or Radar expert, 1) I was only relaying what I had heard, and 2) I seem to have found something in some UK Maritime regulations related to something called Shadow Sectors. I'm sure you'll tell me when I'm wrong, but this seems to bear out the notion that a radar signal could be impacted by the superstructure of a ship, including that of the containers:

Siting of radar installation
24.-(1) The antenna unit of the radar installation shall be sited so that satisfactory overall performance is achieved in relation to:

(a) the avoidance of shadow sectors;

http://www.england-legislation.hmso.gov.uk/si/si1993/Uksi_19930069_en_6.htm

Even when or if I'm wrong, and I might very well be, my line of questioning was, again, from a relative lay person, brought about by wondering how anybody could possibly navigate down a narrow channel with limited visibility and maneuverability.

But that wasn't rhetorical. The answer, according to the tug pilots who were working that day, is that this guy is a "Cowboy" and they never should have left the dock.

All this, from my friend. The Republican.

Last point: speaking of oversight: ship ownership is deliberately cloaked in foreign holding companies, with more layers than an onion, to deliberately limit liability. Never mind that.

On the positive side, we spent about a week up in B.C., this summer, and it's nice and close. So, there's still a way to show my son what North America used to look like, before we all messed it up.

And, yes, folks, to pre-empt all you Love it or Leave it types, if I could get a job up there and move, I sure as hell would.

Sailaway, I'll look for your Christmas card.


----------



## camaraderie (May 22, 2002)

Geary...I started reading your post and was getting ready to apologize for mis-characterizing your meaning re: Cheney. Then I read further and despite your denials I find I was right after all. 
I am not going to take the time on this page to pick apart your arguments since this thread is not about that. But I do think I got the meaning of your post right the first time!

*On to more important things...like getting your quotes right!* Cheney never said "Conservation may be a personal virtue, but it has no place in our national energy policy."
What he said was: *Conservation may be a sign of personal virtue but it is not a sufficient basis for a sound, comprehensive energy policy. *Do you get the difference or is it an inconvenient truth you'd rather not deal with? It is even more inconvenient if you take the full context of his statement where it is clear that he values conservation efforts but sees them as inadequate by themselves. Here's the full text of the interview with Jim Lehrer and all the other right wing lackeys over at PBS: http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/white_house/july-dec01/cheney_7-18.html
Why not use this quote from the same interview? "*You've got to address supply; you've got to address conservation; you've got to address environmental concerns and efficiency*. You've got to deal with infrastructure and pipelines and transmission lines; power plants and refineries, all of these different issues come into play in terms of making certain we've got an abundant supply of affordable energy for the country."

I have no opinion on the allision since the full story is not in but whoever was responsible should pay for the full cost of cleanup and then some. We republicans do believe in personal and corporate accountability...even when those elected to office on both sides of the aisle do not.


----------



## bestfriend (Sep 26, 2006)

*Back On Topic*

Gunny, I took a leisurely drive up the I-80 today (inside joke). It was strange to see NO sailboats, or boats of any kind on the Bay today, a holiday usually packed. If it wasn't for the bumper to bumper traffic on the freeway, I would think it was the "day after tomorrow".


----------



## geary126 (Jul 11, 2006)

I was quoting from memory, and apologize for any slight to the esteemed Vice President, whose record on conservation (really on everything) speaks for itself. 

Say, does anybody know which of the conservation experts he's had in those closed door meetings on Energy Policy, at the White House? Oh. Me neither.

He won't release the records.


----------



## geary126 (Jul 11, 2006)

"We republicans do believe in personal and corporate accountability...even when those elected to office on both sides of the aisle do not."

This is a good line, Cam, really, but I think my point is, like National Security, personal and corporate accountability shouldn't be the providence of one party. 

And I don't think you meant it that way. And I think you overlooked my various paragraphs indicting Democrats and praising Republicans.

All, from a member of the Looney Left.


----------



## GySgt (Jun 11, 2007)

bestfriend said:


> Gunny, I took a leisurely drive up the I-80 today (inside joke). It was strange to see NO sailboats, or boats of any kind on the Bay today, a holiday usually packed. If it wasn't for the bumper to bumper traffic on the freeway, I would think it was the "day after tomorrow".


BF,
Yep dropped by West Marine in Alameda, and saw the same thing. I am believing it will clear up soon so I can get back out. I don't know how an oil spill and not being able to sail turned into the VP's energy views, but this is SailNet.


----------



## geary126 (Jul 11, 2006)

I'm sorry. I could take Dolphin Hugger Or Looney Left, but not both.


----------



## geary126 (Jul 11, 2006)

BTW Cam, that second quote of Cheney's was good, but my memory of the quote (albeit slightly off) came with his speech to the AP, which took place prior to the News Hour interview. That earlier speech, with its Production Is Key bent, seemingly left Jim Lehrer with the exact impression I had.

But Jim had an opportunity to follow up. Funny. Dick doesn't take my calls!

Here's the earlier speech:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2001-05-01-cheney-usat.htm


----------



## camaraderie (May 22, 2002)

Yeah but I figured if Jim Leher supplied the quote for Cheney's further comment you'd believe the quote. In any event the quote is the same in both articles. Rather than spin it...I invite anyone to read the actual speech from which it is clear that Cheney believes in a multipronged approach to energy independence. I know that anyone promoting needing MORE energy in our economy for the future can't be "green" but the point is well made here...with realism rather than pie in the sky hopes. Oh yeah...the speech was in 2001...we are in worse shape now due to obstructionism.
http://canada.usembassy.gov/content...bsection1=energy&document=cheney_energy043001


----------



## sailaway21 (Sep 4, 2006)

geary,
Politics belongs over in Off-topic and so I'll leave the political elements out of this discussion. That doesn't mean I do not have a boat-load of rebuttals to your positions, I'm just not airing them here. Let's talk about some technical aspects you raised.

GPS navigation. GPS navigation is wholly inappropriate for piloting a vessel whether in fog or clear weather. Piloting can be understood to mean the vessel is being navigated within either sight of land or close proximity to, and relying on geographic landmarks for position fixing. Depth of water available is a factor as well.

Piloting means that you are close to afixed objects that can ruin your day. To use a GPS in such a situation means that one is willing to risk exponential increases in navigational errors. If we can assume the chart is correct, we then take a GPS fix that must be taken in the same co-ordiante system as the chart is layed out in, and transfer it to the chart by LOP's consisting of a parallel and a meridian. I'll not even get into the possible errors in the GPS receiver itself. In a piloting situation, any error of significance in this process is the difference between safe passage and being a museum on the beach. Each and every GPS fix must be plotted to have any idea of where the vessel is located, the Lat/Long itself provide no intuitive sense of position. If you add in a chartplotter to the GPS the possible incidence of error expands further.

Piloting with reference to geographic landmarks often involves taking bearings and utilizing ranges. The bearings on a merchant ship are taken via gyro stabilized repeater compasses on the bridge wing, although a pelorus is suitable to the task as well. Two bearings, one off a lighthouse, one off a watertank, and we know exactly where the ship is at when we plot them. Even if the bearings are relative bearings, taken by pelorus, we still know exactly where the ship is at when plotted. The Lat/Long scale becomes irrelevant. We can take bearings off of radar as well, although they are less accurate due to the nature of radar propagation. Much more commonly, using radar, we will take a distance off measurement. Two of these, their arcs scribed on the chart, are very accurate. Radar ranging is far more accurate than it's bearing resolution. One visual bearing coupled with a radar range makes for a nice fix as well. A range is when two visual geographic objects are in line. There is only one bearing thjat will result in their alignment. If you visually observe, say the lighthouse and watertank, in line you must be on that same bearing from either on your chart. Using ranges has the added advantage that, as you see the objects seperate from in line, you intuitively know that you are setting one way or the other. Manmade ranges for transitting ship channels are quite common. They are erected so that, when in line, you are in the center of the channel. At that point, you do not need reference to the chart, nor even to know what the actual bearing is-you're in the channel. And If you just happen to be abeam and close aboard to buoy No. 7 at that point in time, you know within tens of feet where you're at-all without reference to the chart, other than being somewhat familiar with it and the layout of the channel. We do similar exercises with the radar and prominent objects, the shore line, and lines of buoys in restricted visibility.

The nature of harbor piloting, versus offshore piloting, is that we do not generally plot positions on the chart-there is no time or need to do so. We do keep a log of where we are at though, usually in the bell book. It would have an entry stating we were abeam of buoy 7 at XXxxhrs-ZT. Since we're in the channel, which is narrow, we can even plot our position later if required. You may begin to see how GPS is inadequate to the task. From a boater's standpoint, one would not attempt to dock one's boat with GPS. Manoeuvering a large ship, or any ship, in confined waters is a similar task.

Radar. Radar is the best navigation tool we have next to the Mk 1, Mod 0 Precision Eyeball. Most of us would perhaps take it, for piloting, over a compass if such a choice had to be made. Radar presents what the eye is accustomed to seeing visually and cartographically. We therefore intuitively understand the picture we are seeing-it's the same one we see laid out on the chart table except we are the focal point of it on the CRT. Ideally coupled with the fathometer, which every ship has, we can navigate our way across most ports in zero visibility. Whether we choose to do so is dependant on a myriad of factors, none of the exclusive ones have i heard yet regarding the incident in question.

The radar CRT will display the shore, bridges, and buoyed channel quite well. It is true that objects at sea level will not be displayed inside of approximately 3/4 of a mile. That capability is unimportant to our use of radar in piloting. Certain VLCC's and ULCC's will use a specilized radar for docking, which is a very short range radar and not germane to this discussion. The only reason I mention it is because, if you hit a wharf with the side of a ULCC at anything even approaching a knot you'll punch a hole in her skin and likely spill oil. You dock one half a million tons of ship and cargo VERY gently. Lesser ships suffer proportionately less damage but I've had a hole punched in my hull during a thoroughly routine docking evolution, by a mispositioned 50 ton shackle alongside.

The 3/4 mile that I am calling a blind spot alongside is unimportant because anything within that range you are either going to hit or you are clear of. We do not use radar, going up a channel, to tell us the distance off of a buoy 100' to starboard. We use it to observe the buoys ahead and to make sure we are within them, ie.. lined up correctly. Once we are lined up within the buoys we are going to tend to stay lined up, unless we are set down by wind or current. So we monitor the radar for the vessel's set if we cannot see it visually. We will often "crab" our way up a channel. The channel may run due north and we may be steering 15 degrees east or west of that to make a course good of north. Radar is extremely good at aiding us in this. the radar doesn't care which way the bow is pointing-it's there to tell us how we're moving relative to those fixed objects we're navigating by.

In fog, the pilot would be using one radar, set to whichever scale he deems appropriate. In the Bay, probably six mile with some switching down to 3 mile or up to twelve to check inbound traffic. The other radar would most likely be manned by the mate on watch or, perhaps, the Master. The Chief Mate would probably be on the bow standing by the anchors as well as a lookout. He is in the best position for lookout and has the best ability to hear fog signals.

Radar propagation on container ships. The bridge deck of your average container ship is anywhere from 75-100' above the water. The radar scanners are likely another fifty feet above that. The containers generally reach a height of ten feet below the bridge deck, if that. And they are stacked to lesser heights as you go forward on the ship. I know of no ship that carries containers ten high. The highest I've ever stowed was five high, but I've observed six high. In any event, anything over four high can only be an empty container due to stress and racking considerations on the stack. They don't stack containers ten high in the yard, let alone on deck. The bridge windows are never obscured and certainly not the radar antenna. there may be obscuration forward due to the length of the ship, but we've already discussed how if something makes it to within that 3/4 mile area you're going to have trouble missing it. Think of how you drive your car. If you only looked no fruther than fifty feet over your hood you'd soon hit something, and you routinely park it without being able to see either directly in front of it or behind it. It's not a perfect analogy, but I think it works.

Shiphandling. And this is really the fundamental issue, fog or not. When you are handling a vessel 800' LOA running around 50,000 tons, probably drawing something less than 40 feet there is a lot of inertia. SF Bay is noted for it's tidal currents and wind. Container ships have a large sail area. Even their freeboard is much greater than a freighter or a tanker's, and then you've got the deck carried containers above that. In SF Bay and other ports there is such a thing as going too slow. The ship's rudder is only effective with the whheel throwing water over it, until sufficient headway is achieved. There are many area within the Bay where you cannot stop, unless adequate holding ground for the anchor and scope to swing are available. The Bay bridge is such an area. The current's there are significant. If the ship is stopped, or allowed to drift, she is going to drift into something fairly quickly under the influence of wind or current. Some places in the world you enter port at speeds of ten knots or better. Guam has a nasty current running off the entrance to port and if you try to ease her in you're not going to make it. You cannot expect to do 2 knots with a 7 knot cross current and expect to enter a narrow channel or breakwater. If you've a reliable motor you might drop your sails and just drift for a bit while under the Bay bridge. I think you'll be amazed at how fast either the wind or current set you down. I do not think that the experience will truly let you appreciate how much more magnified the effects are on an ocean-going ship of any size.

Now we know that the Cosco Busan side-swiped the bridge. We do not know why. Perhaps there was a main engine failure. Perhaps there was a disabled sailboat in the channel with no radar reflector. As far as the Chief Mate on the bow goes, when I was up there I used to call back to the bridge and say, "I got my end through". The Mate could perceive all to be normal and look back only to see the stern setting down on a bridge support. Suffice it to say that with wind and current it is quite common that the ship is aligned in such a way as to pass under the center span of the bridge and that anything that stops propulsion or manoeuverability is going to result in a certain allision. In the case of a disabled boat off the bow, the choice would be to either run it under or go full astern. Going full astern is going to agressively walk the ship's stern to port, long before the way begins to come off of her. The Master will be powerless to stop that as long as he is operating astern propulsion. The bow thruster will be ineffective at anything much over two knots and marginally effective between one to two knots.

Again we do not know what transpired. We won't know until the NTSB issues it's report. The NTSB has expertise and resources the USCG can only dream about. If there was a structural failure of a main engine bed bolt and the engine shifted a millimeter or two causing improper propeller to rudder entrance velocity, they'll find it. (that was the most ridiculous ex. i could come up with on short notice!)

What do I know about these things? I'm a licensed Master Mariner, Steam or Motor, Any Gross Tons, Upon Oceans. (and that's as big as licenses go) One of my classmates from the USMMA climbed down a ladder onto a fireboat in lower New York Harbor off of the Seawitch after a $2.50 pin broke on the Witch's steering gear, sending the rudder hard over. She allided with the anchored Esso Brussels, which erupted in flames, and they both drifted completely ablaze out under the Verrazano Narrows Bridge. There was considerable loss of life on the Esso Brussels, the Seawitch was a constructive total loss at less than five years of age-her hulk may still lay in Brooklyn, and it was the worst maritime disaster in New York since the capsizing of the Normandy.

My first ship out of San Francisco was the SS President Madison on her voyage 17. She's probably represented next to your shaving mug by now. She was a 698 foot, 25,000SHP, container ship capable of an easy twenty five knots sea speed. Home port? Oakland. Middle Harbor Container Terminal.

I was on board the Chevron Hawaii, (which was later struck and destroyed by lightning off Galveston under Arco flagging), in the berth next to the State's Lines ship Idaho when she had an oil spill while in the Bethlehem shipyard dry-dock in San Francisco. There was oil spotted off the Farallons within a day.

The last true container ship I sailed was the M/V American California of the United States Line. At the time, one of 12 of the largest container ships ever built at 998' LOA capable of lifting over 7000 teu's and driven by a 30,000SHP diesel.

I'll limit my resume to a few "similar" ships for the sake of all concerned. I have sailed in virtually every type of commercial ship extant and more than a few extinct.

One of my classmates from the USMMA is a senior pilot with the San Francisco Bay Pilots.

I'd really typed this up much more completely and probably coherently but lost the post through sheer stupdity on my part. I hadn't intended to do so again, either. I don't know who your expert source of information is but if he's just on the yard end of things and doesn't have a light green, or perhaps even a light blue, colored sheet of paper issued by the USCG suitable for hanging in the wheelhouse of an ocean-going ship he's relying on information he has no tools with which to evaluate.

If I've been unclear about anything, and I'm sure I have, I am willing to respond further to reasonable questions. I would suggest that when you set your course toward's making a totally irrelevant political point that might even tangentially involve matters dealing with ships that you better endeavor to find out what you're talking about first. And since you knew that you were making a blatant political attack, as evidenced by your initial apology for the nonsense to come, which is really no excuse, i would suggest that you consider the Off Topic thread which is designed for irrational b.s. political posts. I ought to know, I've posted a good number of them. (g) And, I'd be more than willing to settle your hash on politics over there. I can predictably be found at the "I'm an ass and full of crap" thread, which will come as no surprise to you I'm sure.


----------



## Fstbttms (Feb 25, 2003)

There is an excellent discussion about the "allision" and resulting oil spill going on over at Sailing Anarchy:

http://www.sailinganarchy.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=63146&st=0


----------



## bestfriend (Sep 26, 2006)

"Shortly before the container ship that spilled 58,000 gallons of oil into San Francisco Bay hit a Bay Bridge tower, the Coast Guard warned the pilot in charge of the ship about his course - but the pilot immediately radioed back that the ship's instruments showed he was on the correct heading, the pilot's attorney said Friday.

The Vessel Traffic Service, a Coast Guard facility on Yerba Buena Island that monitors all commercial ship traffic on the bay, told pilot John Cota by radio as the container ship Cosco Busan approached the bridge Wednesday morning that "your heading is (compass) bearing 235; what are your intentions?" attorney John Meadows said.

Meadows said Cota's navigation aids showed he was on a different heading, so he told the Vessel Traffic Service dispatcher, "I'm heading directly for the center of the span," Meadows said.

The distance between the two towers is 2,210 feet, and the ship is 131 feet wide. It was foggy; the National Weather Service had issued a dense fog advisory for the bay.

The Coast Guard, which is in charge of the investigation into the accident, has not said what might have led to the disaster. Experts have advanced several possible explanations, including error by the pilot, error by other crew members or officers, and mechanical or instrument failure on the Cosco Busan.

At least one of the ship's officers was required to be on the navigating bridge, and a seaman would have been actually steering the ship. Under international law, all commands to the helm and to the officers are in English. The ship's officers and helmsmen are required to understand English.

A Coast Guard log of the incident, a copy of which was made available to The Chronicle, shows that investigators brought Chinese interpreters to the vessel to "reinterview" the crew after the accident, implying that there could have been a language problem just before the ship hit the tower. Darrell Wilson, a spokesman for the ship, said the crew is Chinese, but the "ship's master and all its officers speak English."

The 65,131-ton ship hit the second tower west of Yerba Buena Island at 8:30 a.m., causing a gash more than 100 feet long in the ship's hull and releasing 58,000 gallons of fuel into the bay. The resulting oil slick has spread as far north as Tomales Bay, fouling or killing more than 100 birds.

It was the first time a commercial ship had hit the bridge and is the worst oil spill in the bay since 1996.

Immediately after the accident, Capt. Peter McIsaac, president of the San Francisco Bar Pilots, boarded a boat and headed for the Cosco Busan, then just off Treasure Island. He said oil was pouring out of a gash in the ship.

"I've never seen oil going into the water like that," he said.

However, McIsaac said, "I thought the Coast Guard response was timely."

The Coast Guard log shows that the first official notification came at 8:30 a.m., when the Vessel Traffic Service called local Coast Guard headquarters to report the incident. Half an hour later, a Coast Guard patrol boat showed up at the scene, and by 9:50 a.m. the first environmental response team had arrived in the area to begin skimming operations.

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.

"That feels like a long time to me," said Warner Chabot, a vice president of Ocean Conservancy, a national environmental group. "What you do in the first two hours is more important than what you do in the next two weeks."

Meadows said Cota gave a statement to Coast Guard investigators Thursday.

According to Meadows, Cota said in his statement that he had promptly notified the Vessel Traffic Service of what had happened after the accident.

"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."

The Coast Guard said Thursday that alcohol tests on Cota and the crew of the Cosco Busan were negative. The ship, which is chartered to Hanjin Shipping, was scheduled to move to Hanjin's dock at the Port of Oakland on Friday night, Wilson said. The ship's crew probably will stay on the ship, Wilson said. It was not clear when or where repairs to the ship would be made."



Holy smokes! It took the CG a half hour to go less than a mile? The station is right there!!!!!!!!


----------



## bestfriend (Sep 26, 2006)

Here is the AIS of the ship hitting the bridge.

http://www.boatingsf.com/busan.php

Photos of the spill:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/object/article?f=/c/a/2007/11/12/MNSPILLGALLERY1.DTL&o=0

I gotta get down to my marina tomorrow.

"By that time we had spent almost eight hours out there conducting oil spill recovery operations, putting skimmers and boom in place," Allen said. "And when we found out that it was much larger than the 140 gallons and failed to transmit that to local authorities, that was the problem.

"But the response went exactly according to plan."

I believe he is referring to the response for the 140 gallon spill.


----------



## rennisaint (Oct 25, 2007)

With the caveat that I am as ignorant as a rock when it comes to anything to do with container ships, from looking at the AIS data it looks like someone cocked up hard. I'd love to get a professional pilots opinion though.


----------



## bestfriend (Sep 26, 2006)




----------



## geary126 (Jul 11, 2006)

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!


----------



## sailaway21 (Sep 4, 2006)

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.


----------



## sailaway21 (Sep 4, 2006)

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.


----------



## hertfordnc (Sep 10, 2007)

bestfriend said:


> "
> 
> Holy smokes! It took the CG a half hour to go less than a mile? The station is right there!!!!!!!!


Careful about dogin' my beloved Coast Guard. Yes, the sation is right there and had there been people in the water or other actual danger they'd have been there a whole lot quicker. However the SAR station is not a pollution response unit. THat would be the Captain of the Port Office or MSO or whatever they call it since the last renaming.

In any case, it was established that there was no imedate danger and I suspect the minutes immediately following were a blurr of calls to the Strike Team, the National Strike Force Coordination Center, whoever is on the list to deploy boom locally, (contractors identified in the ports response plan).
The boat at the station would have no immediate role until the other elements came on line.

For the most part the Coast Guard does not actualy clean up oil. Rather they manage the response of the preople who do.

It is a rare thing that the Coast Guard actually takes a hit on reponse time but the accusation is made whenever the response is not what someone thinks it should be.

Semper Paratus


----------



## geary126 (Jul 11, 2006)

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.


----------



## sailaway21 (Sep 4, 2006)

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.


----------



## bestfriend (Sep 26, 2006)

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.


----------



## hertfordnc (Sep 10, 2007)

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?


----------



## bestfriend (Sep 26, 2006)

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.


----------



## geary126 (Jul 11, 2006)

"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.


----------



## sailaway21 (Sep 4, 2006)

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)


----------



## bestfriend (Sep 26, 2006)

Take into consideration that one of the most often used, ironic, responses, in this, one of the most liberal places on Earth, is, "Hey, you can't do that here!"


----------



## nolatom (Jun 29, 2005)

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.


----------



## geary126 (Jul 11, 2006)

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.


----------



## sailaway21 (Sep 4, 2006)

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?


----------



## geary126 (Jul 11, 2006)

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.


----------



## geary126 (Jul 11, 2006)

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..."


----------



## bestfriend (Sep 26, 2006)

*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.


----------



## hertfordnc (Sep 10, 2007)

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.


----------



## timebandit (Sep 18, 2002)

"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??


----------



## geary126 (Jul 11, 2006)

Hey, Best Friend.

I take it you got hammered, when you went sailing? I sort of got mixed message from your post. "no signs of oil," vs. wait til you see the pics of my boat.

I've been debating going out this weekend, but think I'll wait.


----------



## bestfriend (Sep 26, 2006)

geary126 said:


> Hey, Best Friend.
> 
> I take it you got hammered, when you went sailing? I sort of got mixed message from your post. "no signs of oil," vs. wait til you see the pics of my boat.
> 
> I've been debating going out this weekend, but think I'll wait.


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.


----------



## GySgt (Jun 11, 2007)

Looks like they have it opened back up. 58 degrees, sunny, and 13knots of wind. I hate when work gets in the way of my fun


----------



## geary126 (Jul 11, 2006)

man, that is nasty. I need to use sunglasses, because of that varnish, however. Looks great! 

Where's your boat?


----------



## GeorgeB (Dec 30, 2004)

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







<ST1Berkeley.) </ST1</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.


----------



## geary126 (Jul 11, 2006)

Where do you guys find the "open" or "closed" info? I've looked at the YC sites, and haven't found anything.


----------



## sailaway21 (Sep 4, 2006)

geary,
Unless there is something of new interest to the overall picture, this will be my final post on the subject of the allision.

I endeavored previously to illuminate some areas you seem to be lacking education in. Apparently, you are impervious to my powers of suggestion. Let me make it plain. You do not know what the hell you are talking about.

Your fixation with GPS is a perfect example of the above. For your further edification, I'd make you aware of the fact that, when sitting for pilotage you have to draw a chart of the area you'll be piloting in. Anotherwords, you're expected to know the pilotage waters as if you were blindfolded. And that's before you even acheive significant experience on those waters. Marine navigation did not begin with the invention of GPS and your apparent idea that someone properly belongs back in the chart room plotting GPS coordinates on a chart while navigating within SF Bay reveals both a lack of knowledge in navigation and piloting, but shiphandling as well.

I'm sure you're a fine fellow, but it won't be long before someone asks you how you make it across the GG Bridge without your GPS in your automobile. You don't need a GPS underneath the bridge anymore than you do on the bridge.

If you're sitting around with Dennis Connor talking sailing do you enlighten him on those points of dinghy sailing you're sure he's lacking in, that you've discovered from your friends on SF Bay? The next time you care to make some authoritative reference to the piloting of ships upon SF Bay, or the high seas, do yourself and us the courtesy of citing a Master Mariner with an Ocean license of "Any Gross Tons", ie...someone who might have a clue. I'm sorry, but you don't.


----------



## bestfriend (Sep 26, 2006)

Is this the AFOC thread? I seem to be lost. And I thought the Bay was closed to trolling.

Geary, I am just going by what I see at the Marina. The signs are still up to "please refrain from boating". Theres little to no wind anyway, and the fog is due back tomorrow. Time to head south to go surfing.


----------



## thekeip (Aug 8, 2007)

Oh, this is great...Please DO go on.
hk


----------



## sailaway21 (Sep 4, 2006)

The SF Bay pilot has been charged with two misdemeanors in federal court for violations of the Clean Water Act. These, in my opinion, likely won't go very far until the NTSB report is completed. An interesting perspective on the matter was found here:Cosco Busan - Bridge Resource Management | gCaptain.com


----------



## sailaway21 (Sep 4, 2006)

k1vsk said:


> The amount we spend on spill prevention and preparedness is relatively small and has been decreasing yearly since 1991. The reality is that once the oil hits the water, it's too late for most anything we try to clean it up. Even the best skimmers and booms are only marginally effective. Knowing this fact, the bureaucracy has finally suceeded in requiring double bottoms beginning in 2009 not that this would have prevented this particular accident.
> The point being that as long as people continue to want to drive around in our big BMWs and MBs, there will be oil spills.


This letter from a Bay pilot might be what k1vsk is referring to, although ineptitide seems to be the issue over equipment.
Discover Maritime News - A San Francisco Pilot's Comment to MAREX Article


----------



## sailingdog (Mar 19, 2006)

Sway-

Thanks for the updates.


----------



## sailaway21 (Sep 4, 2006)

Dog,
I think you'll enjoy that gCaptain link as well. A veritable treasure-trove of information on matters maritime.


----------



## sailingdog (Mar 19, 2006)

Yup... bookmarked it already.


----------

