NPR

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 saw that. Reports the tanker is on fire.

Biffer wrote: Mon Mar 10, 2025 12:38 pm Just saw that. Reports the tanker is on fire.

Yep, seen one picture on Twitter where it looks a complete inferno, if that's genuine.

Looks nasty

Margin__Walker wrote: Mon Mar 10, 2025 12:39 pm

Biffer wrote: Mon Mar 10, 2025 12:38 pm Just saw that. Reports the tanker is on fire.

Yep, seen one picture on Twitter where it looks a complete inferno, if that's genuine.

Video on BBC news channel, both vessels on fire

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.

BBC reporting the tanker was at anchor, which makes the collision utterly ridiculous. The container vessel was heading from Grangemouth to the Netherlands

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.

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 1:21 pm

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.

Metro news says now the tanker had ‘jet fuel’ on board, so that’s my question answered , that will clearly burn extremely easily .

Apparently supplying the US military. Or at least that tanker is designated for the role.

Margin__Walker wrote: Mon Mar 10, 2025 1:23 pm

Yeeb wrote: Mon Mar 10, 2025 1:21 pm

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.

Metro news says now the tanker had ‘jet fuel’ on board, so that’s my question answered , that will clearly burn extremely easily .

Apparently supplying the US military. Or at least that tanker is designated for the role.

*dons tin foil hat made from Ukranian tin*

Bants on social media already about Dei and woman ship captains.

The chances of this for a US vessel are absurdly low. Some foul play must be possible.

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.

All crew from the oil tanker "accounted for" ashore. What state they are in is a different matter.

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.

Chances of an air speed collision v 16 knots / 0 knots ship speeds aren't really comparable tbf.

TedMaul wrote: Mon Mar 10, 2025 2:16 pm

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.

Chances of an air speed collision v 16 knots / 0 knots ship speeds aren't really comparable tbf.

Massive ships hit things all the time as it takes miles to turn the things. Still very much susceptible to human error.

Don't have stats to hand for large ship mishaps versus planes but really doubt planes are way out in front in probability terms.

Margin__Walker wrote: Mon Mar 10, 2025 2:27 pm

TedMaul wrote: Mon Mar 10, 2025 2:16 pm

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.

Chances of an air speed collision v 16 knots / 0 knots ship speeds aren't really comparable tbf.

Massive ships hit things all the time as it takes miles to turn the things. Still very much susceptible to human error.

Don't have stats to hand for large ship mishaps versus planes but really doubt planes are way out in front in probability terms.

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 incompetence

Margin__Walker wrote: Mon Mar 10, 2025 2:27 pm

TedMaul wrote: Mon Mar 10, 2025 2:16 pm

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.

Chances of an air speed collision v 16 knots / 0 knots ship speeds aren't really comparable tbf.

Massive ships hit things all the time as it takes miles to turn the things. Still very much susceptible to human error.

Don't have stats to hand for large ship mishaps versus planes but really doubt planes are way out in front in probability terms.

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.

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.

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.

They must have been using Starlink for navigation? Perhaps the FAA were involved? DOGE sacked half the crew? Just guessing ....

Yeeb wrote: Mon Mar 10, 2025 1:21 pm

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.

Metro news says now the tanker had ‘jet fuel’ on board, so that’s my question answered , that will clearly burn extremely easily .

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.

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.”

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.”

They're probably already all dead, but I wouldn't be eating any shellfish from the area for the next few years

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.”

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.

Blackmac wrote: Mon Mar 10, 2025 6:09 pm

Yeeb wrote: Mon Mar 10, 2025 1:21 pm

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.

Metro news says now the tanker had ‘jet fuel’ on board, so that’s my question answered , that will clearly burn extremely easily .

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.

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 off

Surprisingly the chemical tanker still has emergency power available, radar is still working and some fire water mains/monitors on deck are still operating.

59 year old man arrested in relation to gross negligence manslaughter.

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.

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!

Company responsible are claiming that it did not have Sodium Cyanide on board, just containers that had previously been used to transport or previously.

Captain was a Russian National!!.

TB63 wrote: Wed Mar 12, 2025 9:16 am Captain was a Russian National!!.

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.

TB63 wrote: Wed Mar 12, 2025 9:16 am Captain was a Russian National!!.

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.

TB63 wrote: Wed Mar 12, 2025 9:16 am Captain was a Russian National!!.

That's going to pour a huge amount of jet fuel on the conspiracy theory bonfire.

TB63 wrote: Wed Mar 12, 2025 9:16 am Captain was a Russian National!!.

Made a nice change from dragging anchors across the sea bed to something a little more direct

Yeeb wrote: Wed Mar 12, 2025 9:54 am

TB63 wrote: Wed Mar 12, 2025 9:16 am Captain was a Russian National!!.

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.

AIS shows no deviation or slowing down, they were on a regular course and just plowed into them..

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.

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.

Been a fun few days of having to explain that Russian deckies are really not that uncommon...

TB63 wrote: Thu Mar 13, 2025 1:05 am

Yeeb wrote: Wed Mar 12, 2025 9:54 am

TB63 wrote: Wed Mar 12, 2025 9:16 am Captain was a Russian National!!.

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.

AIS shows no deviation or slowing down, they were on a regular course and just plowed into them..

Alchohol
Influenced
Steering ?

Brazil wrote: Thu Mar 13, 2025 8:14 am

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.

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.

Been a fun few days of having to explain that Russian deckies are really not that uncommon...

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.

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.

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.

In Aberdeen ... just leave the doors open overnight and the remaining fuel will be gone by the morning! Job done!!!