• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Chinese coal ship in danger of breaking apart on Great Barrier Rief

Status
Not open for further replies.

Tieno

Member
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article7087194.ece

schipbarrierreef.jpg.275.jpg


A Chinese coal ship aground on Australia's Great Barrier Reef is leaking oil and in danger of breaking apart, raising fears of serious environmental damage to the world's largest coral reef.

The Chen Neng 1, carrying 65,000 tons of coal to China from the Australian port of Gladstone, ran aground 43 miles (70km) off the east coast of Great Keppel Island tourist resort in northeast Australia late on Saturday. Early today it was found that the hull had been breached, increasing concerns of a major oil spill.

Aircraft that flew over the ship early this morning reported that patches of oil were visible up to two and a half miles (four km) from the stricken ship early this morning.

Maritime Safety Queensland said there had been no major loss from the ship's 950 ton store of oil, but said a fuel tank with 150 tonnes of heavy oil had been breached and the oil spill was being treated as a "serious problem."

RELATED LINKS
Oil leak leaves 'massive marine disaster'
Oil spill disaster on Australian beaches
MSQ general manager Captain Patrick Quirk said: ‘‘We could expect the continued leakage of oil is probably the best case we could expect.

"At one stage last night, we thought the ship was close to breaking up. We are still very concerned about the ship," Mr Quirk told reporters.

Anna Bligh, the Premier of Queensland, said the carrier was in danger of breaking apart and a police launch was standing by to evacuate the 23-strong crew if necessary.

However there were concerns a salvage operation to retrieve the ship could spill more oil, which would reach the mainland coast within two days.

"We are now very worried we might see further oil discharged from this ship," said Ms Bligh. Local emergency crews were on standby to clean any oil that reached mainland beaches, she said.

It emerged today that the 755 foot (230 metre) vessel should not have been in the area where it ran aground.

Ms Bligh said the vessel hit the reef at full speed in a restricted zone of the reef, nine miles (15 km) outside the shipping lane.

Its presence outside the shipping channel would be subject to a probing inquiry, she said.

Aircraft have been spraying chemical oil dispersant to two small patches of oil about two and a hal miles (four km) from the stricken ship.

The spill is within the southern end of the Great Barrier Reef but it will not be known for some days whether it is large enough to have a damaging impact on the reef.

Federal Environment Minister Peter Garrett said it was too early to say whether there would be any lasting effect. "We don't have advice at present as to whether the oil is going to threaten any part of the ecology of the reef," he said.

"The government is very conscious of the importance of the Great Barrier Reef environment and ensuring that impacts on its ecology are effectively managed," Mr Garrett said in a statement.

Conservationists said the fact that there was no legal requirement to have marine pilots on board ships in the area to guide them safely through the 1500 mile long (2500 km) reef system put it in grave danger.

Capricorn Conservation Council spokesman Ian Herbert said he feared the latest incident was "a sign of things to come".

"We are outraged that no marine pilot is required on ships between Gladstone and Cairns," he said.

It is the third potentially major oil spill off Australia's coast in a year. Last March, 40 miles (60 im) of Queensland's southeast coast were declared a disaster area after 42 tonnes of oil spilled into the ocean from the MV Pacific Adventurer during a cyclone.

In October, scientists who surveyed the effects of a damaged oil rig 125 miles (200km) off the coast of West Australia described it as an environmental disaster and compared its long-term effects to those of the Exxon Valdez spill near Alaska in 1989.
 

Dead Man

Member
LOL Peter Garret
"We don't have advice at present as to whether the oil is going to threaten any part of the ecology of the reef," he said.

That's not what you would have said before you became a politician! :lol

Hope it doesn't do too much damage.
 

mAcOdIn

Member
Wii said:
You'd think they'd notice a leak way before they reached the GBR...
Divert that mofo!
Eh? Surely it happened the other way around and hitting the GBR caused the leak....

Edit: Beaten ^^

Edit 2: Even used fucking ellipses.
 

sinxtanx

Member
uuuuuggggghhhhhh the destruction of nature is taking so long
this is a good step on the way though
but I really think we should nuke the rain forests soon

made you look :p
 

Dascu

Member
You'd think big ships like this would be forced to go around important biological areas like the GBR.
 
D

Deleted member 1235

Unconfirmed Member
oh you stupid cocks.

in related news, I have a dive vacation on the great barrier reef in 3 1/2 weeks.
 

Dead Man

Member
Pandaman said:
what? ruining a lucrative hunt for a struggling fishery in one of the countries poorest provinces would suck.
Still not sure if serious...

Is my sarcasm detector broken? Do you actually think it would be worse to have a spill in Labrador (for financial reasons) than a spill on the Great Barrier Rief(tm)?

Edit: I'm not saying a spill anywhere would be good, obviously a spill in Labrador would suck.
 

Shanadeus

Banned
Good greef.

And the destruction of the Great Barrier Reef is one of the worst crimes we've committed towards our planet.
 

Barrett2

Member
I don't like to use the phrase "raping the Earth" too often, but this is like an Onion article. Goddamn, China!
 

Pandaman

Everything is moe to me
idahoblue said:
Still not sure if serious...

Is my sarcasm detector broken? Do you actually think it would be worse to have a spill in Labrador (for financial reasons) than a spill on the Great Barrier Rief(tm)?
well yea. in both cases you're endangering fragile recovering ocean populations and in one you're including human loss on top of that ecological harm.

human loss+natural disaster>natural disaster.
 

Dead Man

Member
Pandaman said:
well yea. in both cases you're endangering fragile recovering ocean populations and in one you're including human loss on top of that ecological harm.

human loss+natural disaster>natural disaster.
Hmmm.... interesting that you think there would be no human loss if the GBR were fucked. Also, I would argue the scale of the natural disaster needs to be taken into account. If the whole reef (extremely unlikley given the size of the GBR) was destroyed, I would say that would be worse than some fishermen being out of work.
 

Pandaman

Everything is moe to me
idahoblue said:
Hmmm.... interesting that you think there would be no human loss if the GBR were fucked. Also, I would argue the scale of the natural disaster needs to be taken into account. If the whole reef (extremely unlikley given the size of the GBR) was destroyed, I would say that would be worse than some fishermen being out of work.
and if, say, the grand banks was destroyed, there'd be a wee bit more to it than some fishermen being out of work.
 

Jex

Member
That's some serious shit there, really one of the worst places to crash your giant tanker.
 
Pandaman said:
well yea. in both cases you're endangering fragile recovering ocean populations and in one you're including human loss on top of that ecological harm.

human loss+natural disaster>natural disaster.
Two million people visit the Great Barrier Reef each year which generates around $4-5 billion in revenue from tourism. Fishing provides over 2000 people with jobs and brings in around $1 billion a year.

Knowing this how can you sit there and claim that there is no human loss from a tragedy occurring at or around the Great Barrier Reef?
 

Pandaman

Everything is moe to me
SimpleDesign said:
Two million people visit the Great Barrier Reef each year which generates around $4-5 billion in revenue from tourism. Fishing provides over 2000 people with jobs and brings in around $1 billion a year.

Knowing this how can you sit there and claim that there is no human loss from a tragedy occurring at or around the Great Barrier Reef?

I don't recall ever making that claim, champ. i really feel for the poor tourist guide divers. terrible lose there. its a shame they couldn't apply their trade in any number of other tourist hotspots, no they're landlocked to poverty. there's some good irony there.
 

Apath

Member
Snaku said:
I don't know what the bitch was crying about, she kept sacrificing her mounts like crazy. First her dragon, then her horse (which caught on fire didn't it?), and then that giant wolf mother thing.
 

demon

I don't mean to alarm you but you have dogs on your face
Monty Mole said:
Yeah, if only there was a medley of nuclear chemicals on board instead.
In what scenario would we be transporting thousands of tons of uranium on shipping vessels across the ocean on a daily basis?
 

DonMigs85

Member
The rest of the world should really start giving the Chinese government and industry the evil eye.
They cruelly kill and eat just about any animal, try to get away with vile chemicals in their milk and other foods, pay their factory workers subhuman wages, the list goes on...
Their fishing boats often invade Philippine and Vietnamese waters as well and poach fish and other marine life.
 

Furoba

Member
DonMigs85 said:
The rest of the world should really start giving the Chinese government and industry the evil eye.
They cruelly kill and eat just about any animal, try to get away with vile chemicals in their milk and other foods, pay their factory workers subhuman wages, the list goes on...
Their fishing boats often invade Philippine and Vietnamese waters as well and poach fish and other marine life.

But but those are internal affairs, you can't criticise those!

(tbh, the world is pretty much a globalised village, by buying stuff you also more or less condone the whole production and distribution process/countries involved with it) .
 

Nerevar

they call me "Man Gravy".
DonMigs85 said:
The rest of the world should really start giving the Chinese government and industry the evil eye.
They cruelly kill and eat just about any animal, try to get away with vile chemicals in their milk and other foods, pay their factory workers subhuman wages, the list goes on...
Their fishing boats often invade Philippine and Vietnamese waters as well and poach fish and other marine life.

who cares? They make cheap shit and buy all our debt. Let the good times roll! </America>
 
Napoleonthechimp said:
Thanks China!


Australia may have to share the blame in this. I presume this is a ship filled with coal that Australia is selling to China. Australia may need to adjust their standards for ships, captains, or something to make these problems less likely.

It is not like China has the best record on environmental issues and Australia damn well knows it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom