jt2hunt said:
Who is the ship captain?
Sorry, been waiting for the chance to use this
jt2hunt said:
Who is the ship captain?
you can only bill 0.2 for being concise like that. Law prof wanted to bill the full 1.0.Fall92 said:
What he should have said is there's a presumption of fault in an allision.
My guess is there would be no market for a container ship this size.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?
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.
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.
I Like Mike said:
So you're saying I'm not getting my package from Temu??
My understanding is that that ship could hold just under 10,000 containers. That's a lot of peanuts, it seems to me.Quote:
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?
I don't doubt that they could. Also no telling what emissions standards have changed to make them more finicky.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.
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.aggiehawg said:My understanding is that that ship could hold just under 10,000 containers. That's a lot of peanuts, it seems to me.Quote:
But any cargo issue is small peanuts in the grand scheme of things.
Great comments from a former Maersk Chief Engineer. pic.twitter.com/NO1nIkKt18
— Sal Mercogliano (WGOW Shipping) 🚢⚓🐪🚒🏴☠️ (@mercoglianos) March 27, 2024
This guy has also keyed in on the issue of whether they did something onboard the ship to knock out power.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.
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.
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,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.
jt2hunt said:
Who is the ship captain?
These marine engines will generally burn whatever makes it to the fuel injector so long as it is burnable.TexasRebel said:Burn it, sure.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.
Get it through the distribution system? Well…
I heard she's a real wreck.YouBet said:jt2hunt said:
Who is the ship captain?
Some lady named Allison.
Ag with kids said:I heard she's a real wreck.YouBet said:jt2hunt said:
Who is the ship captain?
Some lady named Allison.
Stat Monitor Repairman said:This guy has also keyed in on the issue of whether they did something onboard the ship to knock out power.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.
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.
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.TexasRebel said:
If they have equipment that cannot be operated simultaneously without knocking out power, why not lock out the combination with relays?