Maybe it is just more reporting, but it seems that there are more collisions recently. It will be interesting to see how this one plays out, along with the politics of who gets to investigate.
Seems incredulous that it could burn for a month. It is my understanding that it was carrying condensates, which should flash off and burn much more readily than crude or heavier distillates. As for melting, the heat sink that the ship is floating in would make that highly unlikely, but I would expect to see some seams open up from distortion and other heat related failure. Bilge pumps are certainly not functioning at this point. It's a sinker, for sure, just a matter of time.
It is better to have enough ideas for some of them to be wrong, than to be always right by having no ideas at all.
My second post was imprecise in terminology. The steel won't "melt" but the steel above the water line (the hull) or oil level (tank wall) will have a significant reduction in yield strength. The structural integrity of the ship will become compromised as the resistance to buckling requires that all of the hull be structurally sound, not just the portion low in the hull. Eventually, enough of the hull up high becomes weak and the hull will break apart.
> Sanchi was supposedly double-hulled the minimize the possibility of massive leaks after collisions, and yet we have a massive spill
> Engineering tools for tracking vessel locations as well as for detecting nearby vessels exist, so the collision should have been avoidable
> Sanchi outweighed the Chinese vessel almost 2x, but it's the one that sank
TTFN (ta ta for now)
I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert!
Apparently the way to deal with this oil slick is to light it and the fuel will readily burn off with minimal ecological impact as it had already been refined. This method isn't available for crude oil spills.
At the time of the Exxon Valdez spill, double hulls vessels were not required. Of course the argument against was driven by $$$$, but one of the arguments used against double hulls is the fire risk is greater with a double hull over a single hull. In a double hull, it is easier for the void space to fill with flammable vapors and ignite.
> Engineering tools for tracking vessel locations as well as for detecting nearby vessels exist, so the collision should have been avoidable
Agreed. There is still a lot of work to be done though. The problem with vessels this size is that the distance required to make a correction prior to collision is so large that it is easy to overlook the other vessel until it is too late.
> Sanchi outweighed the Chinese vessel almost 2x, but it's the one that sank
The collision didn't do the damage that sank the vessel. The fire did. All the smaller vessel has to do is poke a hole in an oil tanker and the oil tanker is done for.
