Antarctic ship sinking fears - November 26, 2007
Last week the tourist ship MS Explorer sank in the Antarctic. According to shipping newspaper Lloyds List, a number of problems with the vessel were uncovered in a recent inspection. The paper says five deficiencies were discovered, including lifeboat maintenance problems, and apparently “watertight doors were described as ‘not as required’, and the fire safety measures also attracted criticism”. In Canada’s The Star, Sander Calisal, University of British Columbia professor emeritus, also questions why the ship went down.
All the passengers and crew got off safely and apparently in high sprits, declaring it all to be an adventure and even taking time out to get engaged. But there are some pretty serious questions to be answered here, not just about the Explorer but about tourism in Antarctic in general.
The NY Times has a nice piece examining the growing issues of tourism on the Earth’s last great wilderness. “There’s been kind of an explosion of tourism in Antarctica. Do we want this to become Disneyland or do we want some controls?” ask Jim Barnes, executive director environmental group Antarctic and Southern Ocean Coalition, in the paper.
The Times also raises the unclear potential environmental problems from a “submerged ship that is estimated to be holding 48,000 gallons of marine diesel fuel”. We asked the British Antarctic Survey about this. It seems we have escaped serious harm to the environment. This time...
BAS understands that Explorer was carrying marine gas oil which disperses more readily in sea water than the heavy oils that many ships sailing in Antarctica use. The ship sank in one piece and in deep water (approx 1,500m) and this may also minimise the impact if the oil is released slowly through the water column rather than being deposited more rapidly on the surface.The nearest land is approximately 45km from the site the ship sank - this is Bridgeman Island and it is known that there are penguin colonies there.
Image: Antarctic Peninsula and the Weddell Sea / Jacques Descloitres, MODIS Land Rapid Response Team, NASA/GSFC
Comments
For a vessel nearly 40 years old I think she was being well maintained by the owners. Sure there will be deficiencies and these should be corrected. But from what I see none of them could have caused or contributed to the sinking. That the ISM Code is having the desired effect is obvious, as also the fact that Flag States and Owners are taking their duties in ernest. There are lessons to be learnt and the probe will help. I think congratulations to the Captain and the Company are also due.
Posted by: IJ Arora | November 26, 2007 07:53 PM
Photographs show the ship listing in water free of ice, and then on its side in water choked with ice. How and why did the ship travel from ice free water to water choked with ice?
Posted by: Mark Holzrichter | November 26, 2007 07:56 PM
Some photo captions mention the ship struck submerged ice. Does "submerged ice" mean the part of an iceberg that was under water, or an iceberg that didn't float, or that there was ice stuck to the bottom of the ocean?
Posted by: Mark Holzrichter | November 26, 2007 08:06 PM
I have worked on about 30 antarctic cruises in the last few years and have been in a lot of ice in similar sized ships.In my opinion there is human error here. The ship should slow down in ice conditions especially at night. They use search lights to try to pick up the semi-submerged ice. Depending on the density of the ice (which is compressed snow) there may be 7-8ths underwater. Were they keeping up speed to stay on schedule? It was not an isolated piece of ice as the reports say they were in ice. The reason why the ship was photographed not in ice then a few hours later in ice is that the ice move with the wind and eventually bunches together as pack ice. This can happen very quickly. A ship running at 10knots into ice that looks small on the surface but could weigh thousands of tons will sustain the same sort of damage as though it had run onto rocks.
Posted by: Trevor potts | November 28, 2007 12:46 AM
I have been in Antarctic waters on 8 separate occasions. Many times our ship traveled through 75 ft. swells. These survivors were very fortunate that seas were calm. If the seas had been rough, I doubt that all would have been able to get off. The results could have been catastrophic.
Posted by: Jim Starkovich | November 29, 2007 05:08 AM
Concur largely with Jim and Trevor. Doesnt matter how few H&S regs are outstanding.
You are taking your life in your hands in the Southern ocean.
Posted by: Mark | December 3, 2007 10:16 PM
I traveled to Antarctica on a similar size ship almost exactly one year ago. We encountered ice similar to this on several occasions and at a very reduced speed. The seas, then, as were evidenced in the photos, were slight and is the reason there were no casualties. I have no idea why this happened but Alaska is a much more interesting destination.
Posted by: Dick Mitchell | December 4, 2007 01:05 AM