Home

 

Lloyds List DCN of 12^th January 2006 reports in ‘Port Phillip Bay has “lucky escape” from major oil spill’ that on 4^th January a laden oil tanker hit the bottom while sailing under pilotage through the heads inbound for Geelong. The tanker, the 114,000 dwt ‘Desh Rakshak’, owned by the Shipping Corporation of India, sustained holes in her forepeak tank and a water ballast tank on the port side. However the vessel is double hulled and none of her cargo tanks were breached. The vessel was drawing 11.6 metres, right on the limits of the shipping channel’s depth restrictions. It is understood however that rocks from the seabed have been found inside the two tanks.

 

A spokesman for Port Phillip Sea Pilots said an experienced pilot was on board the vessel at the time of the incident. As far as he could tell, the ship was on the normal navigational line and it appeared that there had been no indication at the time that the vessel had hit the bottom.

 

Blue Wedges spokesperson Jenny Warfe says evidence at the Panel Hearing was given that if 14 metre draught oil tankers are allowed to enter the Bay the risks of grounding alongside the narrow rocky sided channel will be dramatically increased – not decreased. “Deeper draught tankers, laden with even more oil, will sit lower in the water and deeper into the rocky sided channel. More of the ship’s hull will potentially be in contact with the rocky sides of the channel – up to an extra 3,000 sq. metres of underwater profile might exist on larger, deeper draught ships. Straying outside the narrow Great Ship Channel is always a possibility, and will be an even bigger risk with bigger, wider, longer, heavier and less manoeuvrable vessels. Some tankers are well over 40 metres wide, and in a 245 metre wide channel, even if only slightly off course, or “set” against the current, the bow and stern can come extremely close to the sides of the channel.” says Ms. Warfe.

 

“We also heard that the proposed channel design would not meet International standards (PIANC) Permanent International Association of Navigational Congresses. PIANC recommends a minimum of 260 metres channel width, along with a cross current of less than 2.0 knots (PIANC classifies 2.0 knots as strong current). The Heads regularly experiences cross currents of over 8 knots, E to W and W to E. It was quite clear from the Panel Hearings that the present channel deepening proposal will do nothing to improve safety at The Heads, and was likely to reduce safety margins. Logically, it would not be possible to achieve international standards for channel design at The Heads without massive destruction to the entrance to the Bay, with all of the attendant problems such as wholesale destruction of beautiful underwater scenery and habitat, a major increase of water levels in the Bay and associated flooding and erosion. Even the PoMC could not contemplate that.” said Ms. Warfe.

 

Speaking on the recent grounding at The Heads, Ms. Warfe wondered why this major incident took so long to reach the news. “The consequences of a major oil spill are appalling to contemplate. If the tanker had foundered, we could be facing a major oil pollution and environmental disaster. An even bigger tanker would be an even bigger disaster. The ship could block the Heads with mammoth salvage costs, closing both the ports of Melbourne and Geelong until removed – and where would it be put? Aside from the environmental disaster, it would be an economic disaster as well. Clearly, it’s time to think of another way around this problem. We cannot go on increasing the risks of environmental damage and economic loss by continuing to modify the environment. It’s time for us to modify our thinking instead”. says Ms. Warfe.      

 

In 1989, The Exxon Valdez spilt 34,000 tons of oil in Prince William Sound Alaska when it hit a rock, resulting in $4 billion in clean up costs and $6 billion punitive damages so far and the area is still suffering adverse environmental and economic impacts. “The PoMC claims the Channel Deepening project will save approx. $1.5 billion in transport costs over 25 years – a trifling amount compared to the adverse impacts being suffered in Alaska. The idea that we would want to risk such catastrophic consequences, merely to cater for a few larger vessels, and to save a few dollars in transport costs for international shippers is unbelievable. Let’s look at some alternatives such as moving some of the cargo by rail from existing deeper ports, or a pipeline for oil, and telling shipping companies that we will welcome ships that currently fit into our Bay” says Ms. Warfe.