Fall92 said:

---

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

---

you can only bill 0.2 for being concise like that. Law prof wanted to bill the full 1.0.

The engineering issues outlined above are the difference between millions and billions when it comes to the limitation action.

If the incident was a result of a known issue with the ships power distribution system, for example, then the owner is on for the full ride.

If it was some one-off and catastrophic failure of a critical piece of electrical equipment, then maybe not.

If it turns out this was fuel quality related, for example contaminated fuel or a bad batch of fuel that went undetected, then that favors the ship owner.

If this was a situation as described above where something got sucked into the raw water cooling system, than that also favors the shipowner here.

Some sort of human error may or may not favor the shipowner.

So the key issue here is what caused the loss of electrical power, and also what did the shipowner know and when did he know it?

Biggest problem shipowner got here is the state and federal government going full bore to try and bust the shipowner's limitation. Which as it stands right now may be limited to a 9-year old container ship with front end damage.

In other words scrap value. Pending freight here is inconsequential.

I saw a twitter post pointing to tainted fuel a couple of days ago. Now that seems to be a point of investigation.

https://www.businessinsider.com/dirty-fuel-investigated-baltimore-bridge-disaster-francis-scott-key-2024-3?op=1

If true, the cause will be old fashion greed and graft, not cyber terrorism, Ukrainian perfidy, or the global homogeneity cartel's attack on infrastructure.

What happens to the ship here?

They'll probably end up towing somewhere and scrapping it.

I can't imagine a scenario where this ship would be re-classed having hit a fixed object with that much force.

The steel hull is probably compromised beyond repair. The main engine shaft may be damaged beyond repair as well due to deflection. They'll have all kinds of unknown engineering issues due to that much force going from 7 knots to 0 knots in 1 second.

So its almost guaranteed you looking at the final voyage of the Dali in international trade.

Maybe they get it back up and running for a final voyage to a shipbreaker in Turkey, India or Bangladesh. But maybe not.

I was just about to ask you for clarification on this point since you mentioned scrap value above. That's crazy to think, but at the same time, you laid out all the points for why it is likely scrapped.

I'm assuming there's no market for a container ship with a "salvage title" to be able to run between other foreign ports that are less restrictive?

Now you may be asking yourself what happens with all the cargo?

We might expect the ship to be re-floated and towed alongside a terminal with proper cargo handling capability. Discharging that many containers to a barge or a smaller coastal freighter would be extremely dangerous and might take a month or months to complete. Plus you got stability issues when you talking about moving the many containers around.

A good number of the containers were reportedly empty. The refrigerated cargo is probably a total loss. The rest of the cargo will eventually be transshipped and eventually make to its destination.

This ship was reportedly on charter to Maersk. So it stands to reason that Maersk is the carrier with respect to some or all of the cargo. All the cargo issues will be handled between Maersk and whoever is holding the bill of lading according to that contact of carriage. General average may or may not be declared.

But any cargo issue is small peanuts in the grand scheme of things.

YellAg2004 said:

---

I was just about to ask you for clarification on this point since you mentioned scrap value above. That's crazy to think, but at the same time, you laid out all the points for why it is likely scrapped.

I'm assuming there's no market for a container ship with a "salvage title" to be able to run between other foreign ports that are less restrictive?

---

My guess is there would be no market for a container ship this size.

Biggest problem is that no classification society would sign off on it. And if no classification society signs off on it then the vessel is uninsurable. If the vessel is uninsurable it is effectively locked out of all foreign trade.

If this was a small coastal freighter , for example, we might see a scenario where it would be repaired and re-enter service in south-east Asia or Africa but this ship is far too big for that.

So we got a situation where nobody would buy and nobody would insure it. So at the end of the day we probably looking at scrap value.

Demosthenes81 said:

---

I saw a twitter post pointing to tainted fuel a couple of days ago. Now that seems to be a point of investigation.

https://www.businessinsider.com/dirty-fuel-investigated-baltimore-bridge-disaster-francis-scott-key-2024-3?op=1

If true, the cause will be old fashion greed and graft, not cyber terrorism, Ukrainian perfidy, or the global homogeneity cartel's attack on infrastructure.

---

Things could have changed in the years since I've been out, but engineers used to brag that the engines on the ships on which I worked could burn pretty much any kind of oil product for fuel without issue.

Stat Monitor Repairman said:

---

What happens to the ship here?

They'll probably end up towing somewhere and scrapping it.

I can't imagine a scenario where this ship would be re-classed having hit a fixed object with at much force.

The steel hull is probably compromised beyond repair. The main engine shaft may be damaged beyond repair as well due to deflection. They'll have all kinds of unknown engineering issues due to that much force going from 7 knots to 0 knots in 1 second.

So its almost guaranteed you looking at the final voyage of the Dali in international trade.

Maybe they get it back up and running for a final voyage to a shipbreaker in Turkey, India or Bangladesh. But maybe not.

---

One of my life goals is to be in the wheelhouse on one of those ships heading to the breakers when they drive it on to the beach. One of my coworkers knows some of the higher-ups at one so eventually I will try and finagle my way on to one.

I Like Mike said:

---

So you're saying I'm not getting my package from Temu??

---

You don't have to brag just because something finally went your way.

Quote:

---

But any cargo issue is small peanuts in the grand scheme of things.

---

My understanding is that that ship could hold just under 10,000 containers. That's a lot of peanuts, it seems to me.

YellAg2004 said:

---

I was just about to ask you for clarification on this point since you mentioned scrap value above. That's crazy to think, but at the same time, you laid out all the points for why it is likely scrapped.

I'm assuming there's no market for a container ship with a "salvage title" to be able to run between other foreign ports that are less restrictive?

---

You won't be able to get a classification society to say that the ship is seaworthy and therefore will not be able to insure the ship. I'm not even sure a cut rate class would sign off on it.

BassCowboy33 said:

---

Demosthenes81 said:

---

I saw a twitter post pointing to tainted fuel a couple of days ago. Now that seems to be a point of investigation.

https://www.businessinsider.com/dirty-fuel-investigated-baltimore-bridge-disaster-francis-scott-key-2024-3?op=1

If true, the cause will be old fashion greed and graft, not cyber terrorism, Ukrainian perfidy, or the global homogeneity cartel's attack on infrastructure.

---

Things could have changed in the years since I've been out, but engineers used to brag that the engines on the ships on which I worked could burn pretty much any kind of oil product for fuel without issue.

---

I don't doubt that they could. Also no telling what emissions standards have changed to make them more finicky.

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

But any cargo issue is small peanuts in the grand scheme of things.

---

My understanding is that that ship could hold just under 10,000 containers. That's a lot of peanuts, it seems to me.

---

Reason that's the case is that only a percentage of the containers up forward would be a total loss. Plus the refrigerated cargo also might be a total loss. A large number of containers were reportedly empty. Depending on the circumstances, Maersk might be looking at $500 a pop on containers that were lost, or perhaps $0. So looking at the big picture thats why the cargo issues are peanuts compared to the overarching issue of the limitation action.

Oh, okay. Thanks for the explanation.

Great comments from a former Maersk Chief Engineer. pic.twitter.com/NO1nIkKt18

— Sal Mercogliano (WGOW Shipping) 🚢⚓🐪🚒🏴‍☠️ (@mercoglianos) March 27, 2024

Looks like this guy is convinced it was power loss and explains how it likely happened.

Nanomachines son said:

---

Great comments from a former Maersk Chief Engineer. pic.twitter.com/NO1nIkKt18

— Sal Mercogliano (WGOW Shipping) 🚢⚓🐪🚒🏴‍☠️ (@mercoglianos) March 27, 2024

Looks like this guy is convinced it was power loss and explains how it likely happened.

---

This guy has also keyed in on the issue of whether they did something onboard the ship to knock out power.

As he points out the ship had a 3,000 kW bow thruster which draws a huge amount of power and has the potential to easily overload the system and knock out power. Also operating the anchor windlass as discussed above would also draw a good amount of power and overload the system if already operating at reduced capacity.

So was it something they did onboard the ship that knocked out power?

Either initially, or when they lost power again.

Also unknown is whether they restarted the main engine. Some folks think it was a complete dead in the water situation and they never got main propulsion back. This guy thinks they did get the main engine restarted and may have been able to back down citing the black smoke from the stack, but looking at it further that may not have been the case as initially thought. Black smoke might have been caused by the trying to restart the main engine or generators.

But as outlined above, a power overload situation isn't going to cause the engines on the electrical generators to stop completely. The engine will still be running but the electrical power output would be simply tripped offline. In that case there would be nothing to restart, it would be a matter of getting power back to the distribution system.

Point is whatever happened may be mechanical failure, electrical in nature which may or may not have been a latent issue, or human error, or a combination of the above. All this issues will be fleshed out over the next few weeks.

BassCowboy33 said:

---

Demosthenes81 said:

---

I saw a twitter post pointing to tainted fuel a couple of days ago. Now that seems to be a point of investigation.

https://www.businessinsider.com/dirty-fuel-investigated-baltimore-bridge-disaster-francis-scott-key-2024-3?op=1

If true, the cause will be old fashion greed and graft, not cyber terrorism, Ukrainian perfidy, or the global homogeneity cartel's attack on infrastructure.

---

Things could have changed in the years since I've been out, but engineers used to brag that the engines on the ships on which I worked could burn pretty much any kind of oil product for fuel without issue.

---

Burn it, sure.

Get it through the distribution system? Well…

This is a good post. The shipowner will obtain a supporting affidavit from an expert on the value of the vessel and pending freight. The former will be as low as possible to lessen the potential liability limit. This vessel is not on the bottom of the ocean but may not be a total constructive loss either. We'll see how much damage it ultimately sustained. Class will need to do a damage survey at some point before it can be moved and Underwriters will require a repair survey as well.

I am tied up today but will try to address Hawg's question on the charterer liability later.

Sea Speed said:

---

Stat Monitor Repairman said:

---

What happens to the ship here?

They'll probably end up towing somewhere and scrapping it.

I can't imagine a scenario where this ship would be re-classed having hit a fixed object with at much force.

The steel hull is probably compromised beyond repair. The main engine shaft may be damaged beyond repair as well due to deflection. They'll have all kinds of unknown engineering issues due to that much force going from 7 knots to 0 knots in 1 second.

So its almost guaranteed you looking at the final voyage of the Dali in international trade.

Maybe they get it back up and running for a final voyage to a shipbreaker in Turkey, India or Bangladesh. But maybe not.

---

One of my life goals is to be in the wheelhouse on one of those ships heading to the breakers when they drive it on to the beach. One of my coworkers knows some of the higher-ups at one so eventually I will try and finagle my way on to one.

---

My company has been involved in a few decomissionings of DoD ships that ultimately have gone to a shipbreaker down in Brownsville. They end up winching the ship slowly up an incline to cut it up, which looks cool in time lapse imagery, but lacks the fun of getting to plow it up onto the beach like they do over in Asia,

jt2hunt said:

---

Who is the ship captain?

---

Some lady named Allison.

TexasRebel said:

---

BassCowboy33 said:

---

Demosthenes81 said:

---

I saw a twitter post pointing to tainted fuel a couple of days ago. Now that seems to be a point of investigation.

https://www.businessinsider.com/dirty-fuel-investigated-baltimore-bridge-disaster-francis-scott-key-2024-3?op=1

If true, the cause will be old fashion greed and graft, not cyber terrorism, Ukrainian perfidy, or the global homogeneity cartel's attack on infrastructure.

---

Things could have changed in the years since I've been out, but engineers used to brag that the engines on the ships on which I worked could burn pretty much any kind of oil product for fuel without issue.

---

Burn it, sure.

Get it through the distribution system? Well…

---

These marine engines will generally burn whatever makes it to the fuel injector so long as it is burnable.

By the time the fuel gets to an injector its typically been purified and filtered down to a certain number of microns.

The problem here would come in with microbial growth in the fuel system that impairs flow in the filtration system. This can take many forms. In some case contamination will look like black specks like algae. In some extreme cases microbes can take on a gelatinous form looking something like rice noodles which will clog fuel filters and strainers resulting in fuel starvation. Its also conceivable for things to be running fine and a slug of contaminated fuel gets in the system causing unexpected and immediate problem. Typically the flow of fuel on both sides of filtration is being monitored, and you'd typically have some time to see a problem develop but not always.

Also microbial contamination takes some time to develop in a fuel storage tank and most of the time marine fuel is treated for this issue. If thats what happened here it would be a extreme situation. Microbial contamination can happen, but typically in fuel thats been sitting for a long time.

Theres also been cases where extremely fine particulate matter gets dissolved in fuel, makes its way through the lowest level of filtration and ends up damage fuel pumps, filters and injectors. Instead of fuel being a lubricant it acts as a liquid sandpaper destroying components with close tolerances.

Any of the above scenarios would take some time to develop and would likely be noticed before it was enough to completely shut down both generators at the exact same time.

On the fuel starvation scenario you might even be looking at something as simple as valve misalignment, somebody hitting the wrong button, or inadvertently activating some emergency feature that cuts fuel supply.

YouBet said:

---

jt2hunt said:

---

Who is the ship captain?

---

Some lady named Allison.

---

I heard she's a real wreck.

Ag with kids said:

---

YouBet said:

---

jt2hunt said:

---

Who is the ship captain?

---

Some lady named Allison.

---

I heard she's a real wreck.

---

Has an odd phobia of dolphins.

Stat Monitor Repairman said:

---

Nanomachines son said:

---

Great comments from a former Maersk Chief Engineer. pic.twitter.com/NO1nIkKt18

— Sal Mercogliano (WGOW Shipping) 🚢⚓🐪🚒🏴‍☠️ (@mercoglianos) March 27, 2024

Looks like this guy is convinced it was power loss and explains how it likely happened.

---

This guy has also keyed in on the issue of whether they did something onboard the ship to knock out power.

As he points out the ship had a 3,000 kW bow thruster which draws a huge amount of power and has the potential to easily overload the system and knock out power. Also operating the anchor windlass as discussed above would also draw a good amount of power and overload the system if already operating at reduced capacity.

So was it something they did onboard the ship that knocked out power?

Either initially, or when they lost power again.

Also unknown is whether they restarted the main engine. Some folks think it was a complete dead in the water situation and they never got main propulsion back. This guy thinks they did get the main engine restarted and may have been able to back down citing the black smoke from the stack, but looking at it further that may not have been the case as initially thought. Black smoke might have been caused by the trying to restart the main engine or generators.

But as outlined above, a power overload situation isn't going to cause the engines on the electrical generators to stop completely. The engine will still be running but the electrical power output would be simply tripped offline. In that case there would be nothing to restart, it would be a matter of getting power back to the distribution system.

Point is whatever happened may be mechanical failure, electrical in nature which may or may not have been a latent issue, or human error, or a combination of the above. All this issues will be fleshed out over the next few weeks.

---

To further hammer home this point, it is good practice to call the engine room before starting any deck machinery that generates even a slight load so that you do not black out the plant. The above is very well a likelihood.

If they have equipment that cannot be operated simultaneously without knocking out power, why not lock out the combination with relays?

TexasRebel said:

---

If they have equipment that cannot be operated simultaneously without knocking out power, why not lock out the combination with relays?

---

I think in rare instances it could black out the ship, but imo when you're energizing things it is good practice to let the people in charge of the power plant know. They could be in the middle of maintenance etc. I'm speaking in general terms, all power SHOULD be available when maneuvering, but if the bridge is trying to thrust 100% to port or starboard while and trying to go full astern immediately after they had a power failure, that will absolutely become an issue. If the engine room got one or two generators online, that probably wouldn't be enough to handle the load.

I think that they tried to do too much with too little after the initial blackout. The initial blackout is what I am very curious about.

TexasRebel said:

---

If they have equipment that cannot be operated simultaneously without knocking out power, why not lock out the combination with relays?

---

I don't think it is a binary solution like when system A is at full power, system B can't go full power that would allow a relay to be used. It is more about the total load from all systems and the available power at that time. Sea Speed summed it up pretty well. If they have all generators working and let the engine room know what they are wanting to do, it isn't hard to make it work. If they have limited generator output and make snap decisions to use multiple high energy use systems, they are going to cause a problem.

https://instagr.am/p/C5FASg0pBho

Just reminded me of time I was driving 225 on ship channel bridge. All of a sudden cars hit their brakes and started driving wrong way on bridge.

A crane wasn't lowered before they drove under and poked through and catapulted a car in the air. I just saw a plume of smoke and followed the other cars.

Are there military ships up river that can't get out?

Only historic ships