The containership crash that knocked out a Baltimore bridge has ground one of America's largest coal-export hubs to a halt. Authorities say all vessel traffic has been suspended in and out of the area until further notice, effectively closing what federal analysts say is the country's second-largest exit point for coal shipments.

Traders exported about 22.9 million metric tons of the commodity from Baltimore last year, according to ship-tracking firm Kpler, sending much of the heat- and power-generation fuel to buyers in India, China and Europe. The total represented more than 27% of all U.S. seaborne coal exports.

The fallout of Tuesday's accident is already rippling through the market. Consol Energy, which operates a key export terminal in Baltimore, said it is working with officials to get its facility back online. "However, at this moment, we do not have a definitive timeline of when vessel access or normal operations will resume," the company said in a statement.

Baltimore Bridge Collapse Knocks Coal-Export Hub Offline (wsj.com)

I'd bet a dollar that the entire state of Maryland absolutely hates coal!

Yes, thank you. I am a maritime law attorney so I will tell you that you are confusing a bar to recovery by an injured party (Robins Dry Dock) with a defense of the vessel owner (limitation of liability act).

Edit- read East River v. Delavel while you're at it.

They had four generators onboard the ship plus an emergency generator. Stands to reason that they might have had three generators running at the time of the incident. Two in parallel powering the ship and presumably one auxiliary generator powering reefer containers.

For some unknown reason both ships service generators went offline at the same time. We don't know whether the problem was electrical or mechanical in nature.

We'd have to assume that this is what caused the main engine to shut down due to the complete loss of electrical power.

The emergency generator likely came online within 45-seconds of losing power. But it clear from the black smoke coming out of the stack that they might have been trying to restart the main engine, generators or both.

Highest probability is some type of serious problem with the main electrical distribution system.

Lesser probability would be some type of issue that affected both main generators at the same time.

What could that be?

Some sort of major disruption to the raw water cooling system is a possibility. Some debris covers the raw water intake, gets sucked into the raw water intake, or clogs sea strainers causing the generators to shut down automatically due to no cooling water. Disruption of raw water supply is certainly a scenario that would cause multiple systems to fail at the same time including the main engine.

Microbial contamination of diesel fuel is another scenario that could conceivably shut both generators down at the same time. Something like that may be less likely because presumably they were running generators off that same fuel during the two days in port. Again, if they took on diesel recently or switched to a different fuel tank would be relevant here.

So we'll see what they come up with on that front.

Stat Monitor Repairman said:

---

They had four generators onboard the ship plus an emergency generator. Stands to reason that they might have had three generators running at the time of the incident. Two in parallel powering the ship and presumably one auxiliary generator powering reefer containers.

For some unknown reason both ships service generators went offline at the same time. We don't know whether the problem was electrical or mechanical in nature.

We'd have to assume that this is what caused the main engine to shut down due to the complete loss of electrical power.

The emergency generator likely came online within 45-seconds of losing power. But it clear from the black smoke coming out of the stack that they might have been trying to restart the main engine, generators or both.

Highest probability is some type of serious problem with the main electrical distribution system.

Lesser probability would be some type of issue that affected both main generators at the same time.

What could that be?

Some sort of major disruption to the raw water cooling system is a possibility. Some debris covers the raw water intake, gets sucked into the raw water intake, or clogs sea strainers causing the generators to shut down automatically due to no cooling water. Disruption of raw water supply is certainly a scenario that would cause multiple systems to fail at the same time including the main engine.

Microbial contamination of diesel fuel is another scenario that could conceivably shut both generators down at the same time. Something like that may be less likely because presumably they were running generators off that same fuel during the two days in port. Again, if they took on diesel recently or switched to a different fuel tank would be relevant here.

So we'll see what they come up with on that front.

---

I was working a very new containership back in 2007. We went dead in the water on two separate occasions, both while we were out at sea. Luckily, the weather was beautiful both times. So, while the engine room was frantically trying to keep us on schedule, the deck department had a nice little mini-vacation on the E-deck pool.

agent-maroon said:

---

Maybe, maybe not. Do they realize that coal burned in India & China doesn't produce greenhouse gases like if it were burned here in the USA?

/s

---

That bridge design might want to looked at, it sure came down easy.

Stat Monitor Repairman said:

---

They had four generators onboard the ship plus an emergency generator. Stands to reason that they might have had three generators running at the time of the incident. Two in parallel powering the ship and presumably one auxiliary generator powering reefer containers.

For some unknown reason both ships service generators went offline at the same time. We don't know whether the problem was electrical or mechanical in nature.

We'd have to assume that this is what caused the main engine to shut down due to the complete loss of electrical power.

The emergency generator likely came online within 45-seconds of losing power. But it clear from the black smoke coming out of the stack that they might have been trying to restart the main engine, generators or both.

Highest probability is some type of serious problem with the main electrical distribution system.

Lesser probability would be some type of issue that affected both main generators at the same time.

What could that be?

Some sort of major disruption to the raw water cooling system is a possibility. Some debris covers the raw water intake, gets sucked into the raw water intake, or clogs sea strainers causing the generators to shut down automatically due to no cooling water. Disruption of raw water supply is certainly a scenario that would cause multiple systems to fail at the same time including the main engine.

Microbial contamination of diesel fuel is another scenario that could conceivably shut both generators down at the same time. Something like that may be less likely because presumably they were running generators off that same fuel during the two days in port. Again, if they took on diesel recently or switched to a different fuel tank would be relevant here.

So we'll see what they come up with on that front.

---

I thought you were a stat monitor repairman? You seem to know some stuff about ships.

Logos Stick said:

---

Stat Monitor Repairman said:

---

They had four generators onboard the ship plus an emergency generator. Stands to reason that they might have had three generators running at the time of the incident. Two in parallel powering the ship and presumably one auxiliary generator powering reefer containers.

For some unknown reason both ships service generators went offline at the same time. We don't know whether the problem was electrical or mechanical in nature.

We'd have to assume that this is what caused the main engine to shut down due to the complete loss of electrical power.

The emergency generator likely came online within 45-seconds of losing power. But it clear from the black smoke coming out of the stack that they might have been trying to restart the main engine, generators or both.

Highest probability is some type of serious problem with the main electrical distribution system.

Lesser probability would be some type of issue that affected both main generators at the same time.

What could that be?

Some sort of major disruption to the raw water cooling system is a possibility. Some debris covers the raw water intake, gets sucked into the raw water intake, or clogs sea strainers causing the generators to shut down automatically due to no cooling water. Disruption of raw water supply is certainly a scenario that would cause multiple systems to fail at the same time including the main engine.

Microbial contamination of diesel fuel is another scenario that could conceivably shut both generators down at the same time. Something like that may be less likely because presumably they were running generators off that same fuel during the two days in port. Again, if they took on diesel recently or switched to a different fuel tank would be relevant here.

So we'll see what they come up with on that front.

---

I thought you were a stat monitor repairman? You seem to know some stuff about ships.

---

Cut n paste.

Any word on what they will name the new bridge? Freddy Gray Memorial Bridge? Marilyn Mosby way? Black Lives Matter Arch across the Bay? Tupac Shakur (he actually lived there for a couple years)?

Nope. Stat has shown time and again he is intimately familiar with ships.

BCG Disciple said:

---

---

Ok, I laughed

Quote:

---

You run a motorized Empire State Building into a support pillar of any bridge at 6 knots, that bridge will collapse faster than the Cowboys in the playoffs.

---

Username... does NOT check out

Fall92 said:

---

Yes, thank you. I am a maritime law attorney so I will tell you that you are confusing a bar to recovery by an injured party (Robins Dry Dock) with a defense of the vessel owner (limitation of liability act).

Edit- read East River v. Delavel while you're at it.

---

You must have enjoyed Torts. I swear half the early cases are maritime. The rest are coal holes and trains

BassCowboy33 said:

---

Kozmozag said:

---

That bridge design might want to looked at, it sure came down easy.

---

that bridge will collapse faster than the Cowboys in the playoffs.

---

C'mon, the bridge held up better than that!

Ha, it was my best class. And you're correct- maritime and railroad cases litter the early precedential law.

Pretty good article on the limitation of liability and insurance issues I keep trying to raise. It will come down to the "privity and knowledge" of the owner with respect to any equipment/maintenance issues.

https://gcaptain.com/titanic-era-law-could-cap-shipowner-liability-in-baltimore/?subscriber=true&goal=0_f50174ef03-35e6a66430-169869201&mc_cid=35e6a66430&mc_eid=d8b791ae64

Fall92 said:

---

Pretty good article on the limitation of liability and insurance issues I keep trying to raise. It will come down to the "privity and knowledge" of the owner with respect to any equipment/maintenance issues.

https://gcaptain.com/titanic-era-law-could-cap-shipowner-liability-in-baltimore/?subscriber=true&goal=0_f50174ef03-35e6a66430-169869201&mc_cid=35e6a66430&mc_eid=d8b791ae64

---

Quote:

---

Damages claims are likely to fall on the ship owner and not the agency that operates the bridge, since stationary objects aren't typically at fault if a moving vessel hits them, said Michael Sturley, a maritime law expert at the University of Texas at Austin's School of Law.

---

Well...thank you Capt Obvious from tu.

What he should have said is there's a presumption of fault in an allision.

Ag with kids said:

---

---

My tin foil reading says this was a"probe" . Testing our weaknesses, much like the Ohio train derail, and fires at food processing plants. Singularly, no one pays attention and the enemy is fixing to hit us on all fronts .

BassCowboy33 said:

---

that bridge will collapse faster than the Cowboys in the playoffs.

---

truth!

agent-maroon said:

---

Quote:

---

You run a motorized Empire State Building into a support pillar of any bridge at 6 knots, that bridge will collapse faster than the Cowboys in the playoffs.

---

Username... does NOT check out

---

If you can't laugh at yourself, what's the point?

Fall92 said:

---

What he should have said is there's a presumption of fault in an allision.

---

Well of course. But you never know when a stationary object will just jump right out in front of the vessel.

You say that but what if it's a submerged object or unlit bridge? These are the things that keep maritime lawyers in business.

Fall92 said:

---

You say that but what if it's a submerged object or unlit bridge? These are the things that keep maritime lawyers in business.

---

Yea, like seafarers claiming they are hurt and trying to get that payday.

Fall92 said:

---

You say that but what if it's a submerged object or unlit bridge? These are the things that keep maritime lawyers in business.

---

Since you are the expert can you address what if any liability Maersk (as the charterer of this ship) owe to their customers with goods aboard those containers?

TIA.

Who is the ship captain?