North Sea Oil Tanker Collision
- Margin__Walker
- Posts: 2801
- Joined: Tue Jun 30, 2020 5:47 am
Sounds pretty serious, both from a threat to life and ecological standpoint.
Just off Spurn Point
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/cgq1pwj ... E198911A0E
Just off Spurn Point
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/cgq1pwj ... E198911A0E
- Margin__Walker
- Posts: 2801
- Joined: Tue Jun 30, 2020 5:47 am
Yep, seen one picture on Twitter where it looks a complete inferno, if that's genuine.
Video on BBC news channel, both vessels on fireMargin__Walker wrote: Mon Mar 10, 2025 12:39 pmYep, seen one picture on Twitter where it looks a complete inferno, if that's genuine.
And are there two g’s in Bugger Off?
Iirc crude oil doesn’t burn & fuel oil doesn’t burn normally unless it’s in an engine ? Wonder if it’s a damaged ship or its cargo that’s on fire & not the oil.
Bad show anyways, hope there were no deaths , but seeing as those things take miles to stop or turn it’s clear there was a pretty bad fuck up here.
Bad show anyways, hope there were no deaths , but seeing as those things take miles to stop or turn it’s clear there was a pretty bad fuck up here.
Metro news says now the tanker had ‘jet fuel’ on board, so that’s my question answered , that will clearly burn extremely easily .Yeeb wrote: Mon Mar 10, 2025 12:44 pm Iirc crude oil doesn’t burn & fuel oil doesn’t burn normally unless it’s in an engine ? Wonder if it’s a damaged ship or its cargo that’s on fire & not the oil.
Bad show anyways, hope there were no deaths , but seeing as those things take miles to stop or turn it’s clear there was a pretty bad fuck up here.
- Margin__Walker
- Posts: 2801
- Joined: Tue Jun 30, 2020 5:47 am
Apparently supplying the US military. Or at least that tanker is designated for the role.Yeeb wrote: Mon Mar 10, 2025 1:21 pmMetro news says now the tanker had ‘jet fuel’ on board, so that’s my question answered , that will clearly burn extremely easily .Yeeb wrote: Mon Mar 10, 2025 12:44 pm Iirc crude oil doesn’t burn & fuel oil doesn’t burn normally unless it’s in an engine ? Wonder if it’s a damaged ship or its cargo that’s on fire & not the oil.
Bad show anyways, hope there were no deaths , but seeing as those things take miles to stop or turn it’s clear there was a pretty bad fuck up here.
*dons tin foil hat made from Ukranian tin*Margin__Walker wrote: Mon Mar 10, 2025 1:23 pmApparently supplying the US military. Or at least that tanker is designated for the role.Yeeb wrote: Mon Mar 10, 2025 1:21 pmMetro news says now the tanker had ‘jet fuel’ on board, so that’s my question answered , that will clearly burn extremely easily .Yeeb wrote: Mon Mar 10, 2025 12:44 pm Iirc crude oil doesn’t burn & fuel oil doesn’t burn normally unless it’s in an engine ? Wonder if it’s a damaged ship or its cargo that’s on fire & not the oil.
Bad show anyways, hope there were no deaths , but seeing as those things take miles to stop or turn it’s clear there was a pretty bad fuck up here.
- Margin__Walker
- Posts: 2801
- Joined: Tue Jun 30, 2020 5:47 am
Chances of individual plane crashes are extremely low. They happen though and are usually nothing to do with foul play
It's possible, but that's a low possibility of a low possibility.
It's possible, but that's a low possibility of a low possibility.
- Hal Jordan
- Posts: 4574
- Joined: Tue Jun 30, 2020 12:48 pm
- Location: Sector 2814
All crew from the oil tanker "accounted for" ashore. What state they are in is a different matter.
Chances of an air speed collision v 16 knots / 0 knots ship speeds aren't really comparable tbf.Margin__Walker wrote: Mon Mar 10, 2025 2:12 pm Chances of individual plane crashes are extremely low. They happen though and are usually nothing to do with foul play
It's possible, but that's a low possibility of a low possibility.
- Margin__Walker
- Posts: 2801
- Joined: Tue Jun 30, 2020 5:47 am
Massive ships hit things all the time as it takes miles to turn the things. Still very much susceptible to human error.TedMaul wrote: Mon Mar 10, 2025 2:16 pmChances of an air speed collision v 16 knots / 0 knots ship speeds aren't really comparable tbf.Margin__Walker wrote: Mon Mar 10, 2025 2:12 pm Chances of individual plane crashes are extremely low. They happen though and are usually nothing to do with foul play
It's possible, but that's a low possibility of a low possibility.
Don't have stats to hand for large ship mishaps versus planes but really doubt planes are way out in front in probability terms.
- fishfoodie
- Posts: 8727
- Joined: Mon Jun 29, 2020 8:25 pm
Well the US Carrier Truman had a collision with another ship only a few weeks ago, so it happens on even the most advanced ships, but it still requires almost unimaginable incompetenceMargin__Walker wrote: Mon Mar 10, 2025 2:27 pmMassive ships hit things all the time as it takes miles to turn the things. Still very much susceptible to human error.TedMaul wrote: Mon Mar 10, 2025 2:16 pmChances of an air speed collision v 16 knots / 0 knots ship speeds aren't really comparable tbf.Margin__Walker wrote: Mon Mar 10, 2025 2:12 pm Chances of individual plane crashes are extremely low. They happen though and are usually nothing to do with foul play
It's possible, but that's a low possibility of a low possibility.
Don't have stats to hand for large ship mishaps versus planes but really doubt planes are way out in front in probability terms.
- Guy Smiley
- Posts: 6635
- Joined: Mon Jun 29, 2020 7:52 pm
I'm a layman like most here with regard to this but you have to take into account the kinetic energy involved. Easy enough to imagine a lot of energy with airspeed in the hundreds of km/h, it's a visual thing. It's harder to see when you're talking about sheer mass in the thousands of tonnes moving relatively slowly... then there's tidal currents, wind and / or possible power failure.Margin__Walker wrote: Mon Mar 10, 2025 2:27 pmMassive ships hit things all the time as it takes miles to turn the things. Still very much susceptible to human error.TedMaul wrote: Mon Mar 10, 2025 2:16 pmChances of an air speed collision v 16 knots / 0 knots ship speeds aren't really comparable tbf.Margin__Walker wrote: Mon Mar 10, 2025 2:12 pm Chances of individual plane crashes are extremely low. They happen though and are usually nothing to do with foul play
It's possible, but that's a low possibility of a low possibility.
Don't have stats to hand for large ship mishaps versus planes but really doubt planes are way out in front in probability terms.
We all saw that container ship hit the bridge in the States just a few weeks back. Those big babies have a serious amount of inertia working against them when it comes to shifting course.
- Guy Smiley
- Posts: 6635
- Joined: Mon Jun 29, 2020 7:52 pm
You tube clip from a shipping nerd channel here... the cargo ship has left harbour and followed a track heading straight to Rotterdam, apparently following a track it has used before. Looks like she was on autopilot and the watch simply didn't... watch.
And quickly which might help the environmental impact. As young engineers we used to stick our arms in it and set in on fire . It would burn out so quick it didn't touch you. Always a fun way to scare the fuck out of new arrivals.Yeeb wrote: Mon Mar 10, 2025 1:21 pmMetro news says now the tanker had ‘jet fuel’ on board, so that’s my question answered , that will clearly burn extremely easily .Yeeb wrote: Mon Mar 10, 2025 12:44 pm Iirc crude oil doesn’t burn & fuel oil doesn’t burn normally unless it’s in an engine ? Wonder if it’s a damaged ship or its cargo that’s on fire & not the oil.
Bad show anyways, hope there were no deaths , but seeing as those things take miles to stop or turn it’s clear there was a pretty bad fuck up here.
The cargo vessel is being reported by the BBC as having fifteen containers of sodium cyanide on board.
And although jet fuel is non persistent, it’s also toxic to a lot of marine species. Again from the bbc,
And although jet fuel is non persistent, it’s also toxic to a lot of marine species. Again from the bbc,
Alastair Grant, emeritus professor of ecology at the University of East Anglia, warns the environmental impacts could be severe: “Jet fuel is approximately 50 times more toxic to aquatic life than diesel oil, which in turn is more toxic than crude oil.”
And are there two g’s in Bugger Off?
- fishfoodie
- Posts: 8727
- Joined: Mon Jun 29, 2020 8:25 pm
They're probably already all dead, but I wouldn't be eating any shellfish from the area for the next few yearsBiffer wrote: Mon Mar 10, 2025 8:51 pm The cargo vessel is being reported by the BBC as having fifteen containers of sodium cyanide on board.
And although jet fuel is non persistent, it’s also toxic to a lot of marine species. Again from the bbc,
Alastair Grant, emeritus professor of ecology at the University of East Anglia, warns the environmental impacts could be severe: “Jet fuel is approximately 50 times more toxic to aquatic life than diesel oil, which in turn is more toxic than crude oil.”



There are some sizable seabird colonies down that way too, which this would have a massive impact on, but it'll also depend on which way the currents take it.Biffer wrote: Mon Mar 10, 2025 8:51 pm The cargo vessel is being reported by the BBC as having fifteen containers of sodium cyanide on board.
And although jet fuel is non persistent, it’s also toxic to a lot of marine species. Again from the bbc,
Alastair Grant, emeritus professor of ecology at the University of East Anglia, warns the environmental impacts could be severe: “Jet fuel is approximately 50 times more toxic to aquatic life than diesel oil, which in turn is more toxic than crude oil.”
As bantz goes, that’s pretty cool. I hated chemistry at school, but burning aprons , ties, melting peoples bags or pens with the old Bunsen was always entertaining - by the time my gcse came around, my apron barely covered torso as I’d burnt the bottom 30cm offBlackmac wrote: Mon Mar 10, 2025 6:09 pmAnd quickly which might help the environmental impact. As young engineers we used to stick our arms in it and set in on fire . It would burn out so quick it didn't touch you. Always a fun way to scare the fuck out of new arrivals.Yeeb wrote: Mon Mar 10, 2025 1:21 pmMetro news says now the tanker had ‘jet fuel’ on board, so that’s my question answered , that will clearly burn extremely easily .Yeeb wrote: Mon Mar 10, 2025 12:44 pm Iirc crude oil doesn’t burn & fuel oil doesn’t burn normally unless it’s in an engine ? Wonder if it’s a damaged ship or its cargo that’s on fire & not the oil.
Bad show anyways, hope there were no deaths , but seeing as those things take miles to stop or turn it’s clear there was a pretty bad fuck up here.
Meanwhile the cargo ship has floated off into the North Sea and is believed likely to sink. Wonder if it has any Lego on board, bits are still washing up in Cornwall from the 90s!shaggy wrote: Tue Mar 11, 2025 9:14 am Surprisingly the chemical tanker still has emergency power available, radar is still working and some fire water mains/monitors on deck are still operating.
Company responsible are claiming that it did not have Sodium Cyanide on board, just containers that had previously been used to transport or previously.
In a shock to no one.
Might be why the USA thought that helping Ukraine out might not be such a bad idea. Even if they only turn the taps on a bit, and who knows what Trump might demand by the afternoon.
Give a man a fire and he'll be warm for a day. Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.
Probs just pissed on vodka then and left it on autopilot whilst he went for a shit. Some bloke on the stationary tanker said it didn’t seem as if anyone was on the bridge at all as there was no horn or flare or attempt at change direction once visual contact was made.
- tabascoboy
- Posts: 6803
- Joined: Tue Jun 30, 2020 8:22 am
- Location: 曇りの街
Made a nice change from dragging anchors across the sea bed to something a little more direct

AIS shows no deviation or slowing down, they were on a regular course and just plowed into them..Yeeb wrote: Wed Mar 12, 2025 9:54 amProbs just pissed on vodka then and left it on autopilot whilst he went for a shit. Some bloke on the stationary tanker said it didn’t seem as if anyone was on the bridge at all as there was no horn or flare or attempt at change direction once visual contact was made.
I love watching little children running and screaming, playing hide and seek in the playground.
They don't know I'm using blanks..
They don't know I'm using blanks..
Notwithstading that it'll probably end up a total constructive loss due to the damage amidships, the tanker looks in better condition of the two, with it looking like the cargo spilled onto the box ship and burned it out.shaggy wrote: Tue Mar 11, 2025 9:14 am Surprisingly the chemical tanker still has emergency power available, radar is still working and some fire water mains/monitors on deck are still operating.
Been a fun few days of having to explain that Russian deckies are really not that uncommon...
AlchoholTB63 wrote: Thu Mar 13, 2025 1:05 amAIS shows no deviation or slowing down, they were on a regular course and just plowed into them..Yeeb wrote: Wed Mar 12, 2025 9:54 amProbs just pissed on vodka then and left it on autopilot whilst he went for a shit. Some bloke on the stationary tanker said it didn’t seem as if anyone was on the bridge at all as there was no horn or flare or attempt at change direction once visual contact was made.
Influenced
Steering ?
I keep having to explain to people that a ships crew may and do contain both Russian and Ukrainian people despite the war. They find this unbelievable.Brazil wrote: Thu Mar 13, 2025 8:14 amNotwithstading that it'll probably end up a total constructive loss due to the damage amidships, the tanker looks in better condition of the two, with it looking like the cargo spilled onto the box ship and burned it out.shaggy wrote: Tue Mar 11, 2025 9:14 am Surprisingly the chemical tanker still has emergency power available, radar is still working and some fire water mains/monitors on deck are still operating.
Been a fun few days of having to explain that Russian deckies are really not that uncommon...
The cargo ship has been docked in Aberdeen for salvage assessment. Good news that it didn’t sink.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c9wp9k875r8o
Salvage operations ongoing on the tanker and its stable. Presumably there’s some very careful removal of the remaining fuel to be done.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c9wp9k875r8o
Salvage operations ongoing on the tanker and its stable. Presumably there’s some very careful removal of the remaining fuel to be done.
And are there two g’s in Bugger Off?
In Aberdeen ... just leave the doors open overnight and the remaining fuel will be gone by the morning! Job done!!!Biffer wrote: Fri Mar 28, 2025 8:54 am The cargo ship has been docked in Aberdeen for salvage assessment. Good news that it didn’t sink.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c9wp9k875r8o
Salvage operations ongoing on the tanker and its stable. Presumably there’s some very careful removal of the remaining fuel to be done.