Stuck
Sometimes there’s such a thing as too big.
Dredgers, tugboats and even a backhoe failed to free a giant cargo ship wedged in Egypt’s Suez Canal on Thursday as the number of stacked-up vessels unable to pass through the vital waterway climbed to 150 and losses to global shipping mounted.
The skyscraper-sized Ever Given, carrying cargo between Asia and Europe, ran aground Tuesday in the narrow, man-made canal dividing continental Africa from the Sinai Peninsula. Even with the aid of high tides, authorities have been unable to push the Panama-flagged container vessel aside, and they are looking for new ideas to free it.
If a container ship is extra big then you can put more containers on it and the ship becomes extra heavy. Really really really heavy.
As efforts to free it resumed at daylight Thursday, an Egyptian canal authority official said workers hoped to avoid offloading containers from the vessel as it would take days to do so and extend the closure.
So for now the ship goes on being veryveryvery heavy.
So far, dredgers have tried to clear silt around the massive ship. Tug boats nudged the vessel alongside it, trying to gain momentum. From the shore, at least one backhoe dug into the canal’s sandy banks, suggesting the bow of the ship had plowed into it. However, satellite photos taken Thursday by Planet Labs Inc. and analyzed by The Associated Press showed the vessel still stuck in the same location.
I can see container ships heading south toward Elliott Bay and north away from Elliott Bay from here. (Not at this moment. There’s one small tug dashing south, and that’s all.)
The Suez Canal Authority said one idea the team discussed was scraping the bottom of the canal around the ship.
Boskalis chairman Peter Berdowski on Wednesday described the ship as “a very heavy whale on the beach.”
“The ship, with the weight it now has, can’t really be pulled free. You can forget it,” he told the Dutch current affairs program “Nieuwsuur.”
Too big.
Just saw a photo of the backhoe digging by the ship. The backhoe looks like a small toy.
We’ve come a long way from a mule who’s name is Sal, and from Fulton’s Folly. And since we live in a world that seems to assume bigger is always better, I’m afraid we won’t learn our lesson from this.
Some things just don’t need analogies. How is this more illuminating than “git big ship stuck in a canal”?
I read somewhere that the CO2 emissions of one of these behemoths equals the emissions from private cars in the United States? So, in addition to forcing one to drive a supremely and ridiculously UGLY and pathetic appliance car, the Prius ain’t doing much for global climate change????
One good use of extremely large container ships is to transport extremely large things, too large to ship by land or air. Things like rocket boosters could in theory be shipped in one piece by sea. There was some discussion of this point following the Challenger disaster.
As to emissions there’s no real reason you can’t put nuclear reactors on the damn things like I’m pretty sure they do with aircraft carriers.
Sackbut, I agree in that I think there are uses for them, but did no one anticipate that this could happen? No one thought that really really really big ships could get stuck in a canal and block traffic? We seem to create problems we haven’t yet developed solutions for because we refuse to see that there is a potential problem needing a solution.
WooHOO!, a discussion about ships, something this old salt can contribute to. Carbon footprint wise, it’s hard to compete with these giants on an emissions per cargo ton carried level. They are extremely efficient which is why there has been a move to larger and larger ships – fewer sailors and lowered fuel costs per ton. Remember, the construction and operating costs of these ships pencils out in a global marketplace. It’s part of the reason you can buy less expensive goods manufactured overseas.
If you want to rail against emissions, it’s better to go after interstate trucking in the USA. Compared to rail transport, semis double the carbon footprint per ton carried. They also suck when following too closely during rush hour.
As for nuclear power, only one civilian transport has ever been nuclear powered under a US flag – the Savannah. Why? Construction costs and maintenance are at least 50-100% higher. There are restrictions on access to ports. Even the profligate US Navy can only afford nuclear power for carriers and subs because the mission effectiveness value is felt to justify the cost, but only just. Most other navies build less expensive non-nuclear subs but since the USN tactical doctrine involves forward deployment, diesel-electric (Or AIP) subs are less effective in that role.
And of course if something goes wrong – well, if a diesel engine leaks fuel it can be bad – if a reactor does, they call it a meltdown…
Really interesting article linked via this tweet.
Also, to be technically correct (which we all know is the best kind of correct), that’s an excavator in the photo, not a back hoe.
Also, totally agree with Pliny on this.
[…] a comment by Pliny on […]
Prius “supremely and ridiculously UGLY and pathetic appliance car”? Hmph. We’re on our second Prius, and the only thing I miss is having a stick shift.
At last, something I can comment on! I served as a Deck Officer on containerships (usually known as ‘boxboats’) for several years.
Evergreen, as a shipping line, was, and still is, regarded as a menace on the high seas. I saw an Evergreen ship run aground just outside Port Suez about twenty years ago, amongst other mishaps. The Evergreen ships were blatant in their recklessness: cutting across shipping lanes, ignoring the ‘Rules of the Road’ and even cutting through prohibited areas to save time. Sometimes we wondered if there was anyone on watch on the bridge…several times we had to alter course to avoid collisions, even when we had right of way or arrived at the pilot station on our allotted time (they would literally barge their way in).
The Suez Canal is very narrow in parts and sometimes it didn’t help that the pilots would speed up or slow down depending how much they were bribed (normally US Dollars, whiskey or Marlboros) by the Master of the vessel. They would openly demand this just for turning up on the bridge. Refusal to give them anything would delay passage or bring in other serious problems. I joke not, the pilots frequently left the bridge for twenty minutes and prayed, often during manoeuvres into the lakes, anchorages or passing points. The boxboats are very high sided even when not fully loaded (‘windage’) which can make them difficult to keep on a course at low speed (steerage was lost at about 5-6knots). However, in this case I think the blame lies solely with the canal pilot. If moving too slowly,in strong winds, (which I have experienced there) the ship would have started swinging off course. Speeding up would have brought it back on track. Having been through it over twenty times, its nickname of Sewage Canal is rightly earned. As for the corruption of the other authorities…we all nicknamed Misr (Egypt) as Misery.
As for alternative power supply, Pliny is right. Nukes need specialists and lots of them, and armed guards (cargo ships go to virtually every nation with a seaport, including PROC, Iran and other unfriendlies. Commercial ships are normally built cheap for a 25 year life, and then get scrapped. There were funnel emission scrubbers on my company’s ships. These big ships can run for about a month without refuelling, at 24knots or more. Cargo ships are usually in a rush, operating at full tilt between ports. We could get through 3000+ tonnes of fuel a month. We normally had a crew of about 20. So in terms of efficiency, very, very cost-effective.
Interesting and informative, thank you!
[…] a comment by Freeminder on […]
What a Maroon: I am a car nerd/car snob. You can ignore my juvenile kvetching on this topic! :)
I know the Prius is an engineering marvel. But MEIN GOTT, the latest generation looks like they took n old Pontiac Aztec, handed the design drawings to an impaired anime cartoonist and said “We need something…snazzzzzzzyyyyyy.”
Thanks everyone who chimed in on the efficiency question. I always learn something here!
Brian M, I agree with you WaM that the Prius is a good car, but I agree with you that the Prius and the Nissan Leaf have both been designed by someone with no talent even the brief that they shouldn’t look like ‘normal’ cars. They succeeded, for a very specific definition of success. Contrast that with say the forthcoming Audi Eton GT, which looks utterly like the design language of an A7, while still being a little different. It doesn’t have to be a luxury brand thing, good design can be for every day brands as well.
Apologies for mangling that first sentence, I’m sure everyone can mentally edit it.
Ah, I should’ve known I was dealing with car nerds, one of the banes of my existence. :)
Yes, a Prius is ugly, but as far as I’m concerned, most cars are ugly, and even if they come off the lot looking decent, that rarely lasts. The only car I ever came close to loving was our ’97 green Passat diesel with the moonroof and a stick shift, but even then I was happiest when I could park it and get out.
In short, cars suck.
My god, Nissan called their electric car the Leaf!? FFS! “Geoff” would have been better.