Why the Mauritius oil spill is so serious
bbc.com
bbc.com
https://www.lexpress.mu/article/381284/membres-dequipage-con...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Costa_Concordia_disaster#Situa...
https://www.maritime-executive.com/article/accusations-emerg...
"Before the "Wakashio" ran aground on the reef at Pointe-d'Esny on the evening of July 25, the crew was celebrating the birthday of one of its members. This was reported by three crew members of the bulk carrier to Central Criminal Investigation Department (CCID) investigators.
They also stated that the bulk carrier had approached the island to pick up a wi-fi connection. Seven others made the same statement to investigators from Mauritius Shipping. These seamen initially made a history of their voyage which started in China to Australia and then another route from China, with a stopover in Singapore, before heading for Brazil.
It was on this route that the bulk carrier crossed the territorial waters of Mauritius. The crew of about 20 consists of three Indian nationals, sixteen Filipinos and one Sri Lankan. The "Wakashio" was under the responsibility of Captain Sunil Kumar Nandeshwar, a 58-year-old Indian national. They are represented by Mr. Kushal Lobine and Mr. Irsaad Munsoor, lawyers for the insurers of the Protection and Indemnity Club."
They also declared the ship got closer to the island to get a WiFi connection.
(Maybe the article got updated)
My best guess:
Satellite internet on ships is common but still slow and expensive these days.
Background:
- ar one point I worked for three years as a system engineer with a company in the maritime radio and radar business
- even further back I have also interviewed with another that was specifically in the business of connecting ships to Internet.
I usually get comparisons to the refined gas/diesel with the whole process of the battery.
Not saying batteries are great for the environment, but we have had so many leaks during the years. Deep horizon is still leaking and where almost at 1.000.000 m3 if I recall correctly.
At least with batteries the pollution is kept more localized, which I believe is to be preferred.
Why would they dump hundreds of kilos of very expensive rare earth metals to rivers?
By weight they're mostly nickel, cobalt, aluminium and copper - all valuable materials, just not rare earths.
If the Tesla 1 million mile battery is as real as the CATL 1 million mile claimed battery, an electric car is actually going to last at least 3x that of an ICE car assuming all other components (motors, body, powertrain) is also improved.
Brakes already last longer whereas because total no of components in EV is much lower (literally like 10x less moving parts) maintenance is also much, much easier.
You need to educate yourself on how rapidly EV manufacturing, recycling and other aspects are evolving.
If they reach a point where it makes sense to buy teslas, we’re all good!
We who buy teslas (I’m not though. Out of my league) today have a responsibility in this world, IMO.
NOT because we can and buy teslas, but because we are super rich. We have to use this wealth better, set examples and improve technology and our ways of living.
That aside, you are correct though.
I’ve got way more than I need in life.
Riches should be judged differently - I have a really nice home in an somewhat expensive city, clean tap water, comparatively clean air and access to all the healthy food I can ever want. Also great healthcare and schooling, cause welfare state and all that.
Let’s start there.
I could buy a tesla if I really really wanted to, but there’s no need. I’d have to take a car loan, but most who buy a tesla do I reckon.
A car half the price suits my needs, and no loans. This means I’m comparatively super rich.
Few would argue that Tesla hasn't significantly sped up the transition towards electric cars. It's easy to fall into the trap of underestimating (or completely forgetting about) effects that are hard to quantify and/or are long-term.
What I’m saying is that we need to set examples with regards to manufacturing, recycling, waste management and resource consumption
Today we use and abuse a bit to much.
It will realize prices of stuff, meaning less overall consumption per individual, but might end up globally sustainable.
It's basically an environmental and health disaster, just shifted to poor people in China.
They tend not to include the environmental effects of oil drilling and transportation into the figures for ICE cars.
Double standards and all that.
Being an early owner of EVs I’ve had to explain my rationale many times to people, where oil spills is one part obviously.
Anyway it's off topic. Leakage from oil tanker accident is unrelated to leakage from ICEs accident. Reducing importing oil by EV would be on topic.
He's looked at risk, may be thinking of technical debt, and I've suggested Beruit.
Recommended.
> Charles Perrow’s Normal Accidents introduces the idea of complex, tightly-coupled systems and has good accounts both of the Three Mile Island and the Fermi reactor accidents. Just after we’d recorded the episode, I heard the sad news that Charles had died on November 12th. He’ll be missed.
[1] https://timharford.com/2019/11/cautionary-tales-ep-3-lala-la...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mN3SyPM9m2U
Wikipedia article:
I'm not clear why the ship was anywhere near the reef.
So they had the resources, just not the motivation at the time the ship wasn’t spilling.
You're not visualizing how much 3,000 tonnes is.
The classic drum of oil is 42 gallons and weighs 300lbs - just the oil - the actual drum itself is another 40 or so.
3,000T = 20,000 barrels.
Of course, the oil in the ship isn't barreled, it's in giant compartments.
This ship wasn't even a oil tanker...this is the actual fuel tanks of the ship itself leaking.
>Fuel has been transferred to shore by helicopter and to another ship owned by the same Japanese firm, Nagashiki Shipping.
So they had more than a week to prevent this.
https://gcaptain.com/heres-why-so-much-world-trade-passes-ma...
Instead of that we seem to be getting the more common "We're sorry" mantra.
This isn't just "one of those things" that's probabilistically inevitable, this collision was directly predictable from the AIS data for a week.
https://www.marinetraffic.com/en/ais/home/centerx:-12.0/cent...
(from the article)
I guess the jet analogy would be jet pilot flies really low so his kids can see him wave from their window.
on edit: my only source for this birthday claim is a tweet https://twitter.com/Ariel_Saramandi/status/12931545218922700... but I believe it as I am by nature a misanthrope.
The "coral ridge" that they hit is obvious in the many photos that are shown in an image search results on "aerial photo MV-Wakashio". I was surprised by the drone footage since it looks like the ship was perpendicular to the reef edge which means that the ship was heading directly at the large/populated island at near full speed but this was not the case. They were probably running parallel to the breakwater and hit this hidden anomaly in the reef and then wave action trapped the ship in this literal corner. Without tugs I don't think the ship could back out even if undamaged so I guess one outstanding question is whether a timely deployment of tug boats could have prevented the break-up of the ship.
The accident occurred at 8pm local time (16:00 UTC +4) so it was dark but the crew would have been awake. Tragic overconfidence.
Company and leadership on boat should be held liable to the greatest extent possible. Set an example to curtail this sort of reckless behavior.
Sadly this is our reality.
There are basically no repercussions at all unless people get hurt.
Even if the company itself gets fined, they'll simply declare bankruptcy, close up shop and sell their assets to a new company (often incidentally run by the same people).
Sad how relevant this still is: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=15HTd4Um1m4
C'est la vie.
They're throw some cleanup stuff at it, claim it's better and within a week will all be forgotten.
(For clarification, the oil spill in Mauritius is the fuel oil from a bulk carrier, not an oil tanker.)
I do not think this is the point the author tried to make. I read this more like "despite the minor amount of oil spilled compared to other spills, this one will hurt like a big one".
> Although previous oil spills around the world have not been in as environmentally sensitive areas, [my emphasis] they have still significantly affected marine animals and plants.
> In 2010, the Deep Water Horizon incident off the Gulf of Mexico saw nearly 400,000 tonnes of oil spill, resulting in the death of thousands of species ranging from plankton to dolphins.
> There were also other longer-term impacts on marine life including impaired reproduction, reduced growth, lesions and disease.
The article doesn't advocate that oil spills in unprotected areas are less serious, it actually highlights the fact that there are terrible consequences for wildlife regardless of whether the spill site is "protected" or not.