Seems like a weird argument. So oil spills in unprotected areas are less serious because nature there is already impacted in other ways? Won't make any difference to the animals and plants in the end.
> So oil spills in unprotected areas are less serious because
I do not think this is the point the author tried to make.
I read this more like "despite the minor amount of oil spilled compared to other spills, this one will hurt like a big one".
I think you've misinterpreted the article, and that's not what is being said:
> Although previous oil spills around the world have not been in as environmentally sensitive areas, [my emphasis] they have still significantly affected marine animals and plants.
> In 2010, the Deep Water Horizon incident off the Gulf of Mexico saw nearly 400,000 tonnes of oil spill, resulting in the death of thousands of species ranging from plankton to dolphins.
> There were also other longer-term impacts on marine life including impaired reproduction, reduced growth, lesions and disease.
The article doesn't advocate that oil spills in unprotected areas are less serious, it actually highlights the fact that there are terrible consequences for wildlife regardless of whether the spill site is "protected" or not.
There doesn't seem to be details about the cause of the collision as yet. However for a candid look at the grim reality of the maritime industry, and how these kinds of disasters are far too common, I highly recommend The Outlaw Ocean by Ian Urbina. The human trafficking elements are particularly disturbing.
The port explosion in Beirut would make a perfect new chapter in Normal Accidents. I’m guessing the cause of the MV Wakashio accident will turn out to be a simple failure rather than a complex and unexpected failure mode (Perrow’s “normal”).
Economist Tim Harford has been running a small and occasional podcast series, Cautionary Tales. It opened with an episode discussing Perrow, produced immediately before, and releasing just after, Perrow's death last November.
He's looked at risk, may be thinking of technical debt, and I've suggested Beruit.
Thanks :-) Cautionary Tales Ep 3 – LaLa Land: Galileo’s Warning [1] has the following in the shownotes:
> Charles Perrow’s Normal Accidents introduces the idea of complex, tightly-coupled systems and has good accounts both of the Three Mile Island and the Fermi reactor accidents. Just after we’d recorded the episode, I heard the sad news that Charles had died on November 12th. He’ll be missed.
I think this is probably to cut distances and save on fuel and time. The reefs' safety is completely disregarded it seems. But we should know that already, these companies don't care much about the environment, they only do when they have to make large payouts to fix the damages.
Ships are in the vicinity of Mauritius because "Mauritius and the nearby island of Reunion lie on the shortest straight-line route between the Strait of Malacca, which links the ports of Asia to the Indian Ocean, and the southern tip of Africa." Mauritius seems not to have "put in place a safety zone". These seem at least part of the picture.
Not to minimize it, but you seem to be only thinking about this one instance of a sunk tanker, and not the thousands and thousands of ships that do this on a regular basis with no problem. These low probability risks, and countless others like them, are part of a tapestry of a probabilistic horror show that supports our everyday way of life.
We are you assuming he/she is thinking in that manner? Some things you cannot put a price tag on. Getting oil cheaply from point a to point b is nice, but if all it takes is one major and uncontained spill to forever kill one of the few remaining large coral reefs...
Exactly. I didn't mean it personally. It's human nature. Best we can do is recognize it. Or maybe, ignore it. I guess it depends on what you want in life...
Satellite footage shows that the ship deviated significantly from its shipping lane, and this was observable from the AIS data for several days. The problem is nobody sends alerts from that data, even though there are several websites that scrape it. [0]
This isn't just "one of those things" that's probabilistically inevitable, this collision was directly predictable from the AIS data for a week.
Rough seas, and Mauritius doesn't have the resources. The rest of the world is distracted by Covid19. It also seems like the country only requested help from France a few days ago. Yes, it's sad.
I'm not clear why the ship was anywhere near the reef.
This later video seems to indicate they don’t have much in the way of resources. I see guys in small fishing boats and a single helicopter dropping two drums at a time.
That particular video was published before the ship started leaking, and has a jarring soundtrack choice (John Williams, the Flying Theme from E.T.). People should check out the other videos in the channel to get a sense of how things have changed.
The footage makes it look like the ship ran directly into the island/reef and later buckled (the “crack”) midship as the stern partially sunk. Something must have seriously gone wrong with the navigation system. I’m assuming the accident happened at night; the noise inside the ship as it ground into the reef must have been horrendous.
With so many seafarers not being let on shore(and not having wifi on board), not being relieved, and working months past the end of their contracts, it's only a matter of time before there are more accidents.
Until evidence points otherwise, this is just another spill in a long series of marine ecology disasters and blame should not be allowed to be placed on the coronavirus situation.
Wasn't the Beirut disaster linked to a situation about seafarers basically stuck on the ship and the boat had a leak in it and just all kinds of stuff going wrong? People on boats are treated horribly.
I can't view the Japanese link but the French article mentions nothing about connecting to the internet, or "WI-FI". Wouldn't a ship have satellite internet?
"Before the "Wakashio" ran aground on the reef at Pointe-d'Esny on the evening of July 25, the crew was celebrating the birthday of one of its members. This was reported by three crew members of the bulk carrier to Central Criminal Investigation Department (CCID) investigators.
They also stated that the bulk carrier had approached the island to pick up a wi-fi connection. Seven others made the same statement to investigators from Mauritius Shipping. These seamen initially made a history of their voyage which started in China to Australia and then another route from China, with a stopover in Singapore, before heading for Brazil.
It was on this route that the bulk carrier crossed the territorial waters of Mauritius. The crew of about 20 consists of three Indian nationals, sixteen Filipinos and one Sri Lankan. The "Wakashio" was under the responsibility of Captain Sunil Kumar Nandeshwar, a 58-year-old Indian national. They are represented by Mr. Kushal Lobine and Mr. Irsaad Munsoor, lawyers for the insurers of the Protection and Indemnity Club."
They almost certainly mean cellular connection, not wifi. Apparently it is quite common for ships to get closer to shore for this reason. All crew members have cellphones; satellite internet connectivity on the other hand is vastly more expensive and access among crew is limited for that reason (and even then typically justifiable only for business purposes).
I can confirm that the Japanese article does indeed say that the ship went closer to land so that it could connect to Wi-Fi. Not sure how common satellite internet is on ships of this kind.
Shouldn't be surprising in retrospect. Nobody enjoys losing a tanker. When one is lost, it's because someone made a terrible mistake. The only mystery is which specific mistake.
Since it's not happening in our backyard, I doubt the majority will care. We'll keep buying our precious cars, voting against green and nuclear, and continue our way of life unabated.
Tangential but something that have been buging me for a while - these type events are not enough brought in to the equation when EVs are compared to ICEs.
I usually get comparisons to the refined gas/diesel with the whole process of the battery.
Not saying batteries are great for the environment, but we have had so many leaks during the years. Deep horizon is still leaking and where almost at 1.000.000 m3 if I recall correctly.
At least with batteries the pollution is kept more localized, which I believe is to be preferred.
The Anti-EV crowd tends to include everything starting from the diet of the mine workers digging up the metals needed from the batteries into the emissions of the EV.
They tend not to include the environmental effects of oil drilling and transportation into the figures for ICE cars.
By that time these countries all have a stable power supply for EV, and we together enforce an improved recycling technology & policy.
If they reach a point where it makes sense to buy teslas, we’re all good!
We who buy teslas (I’m not though. Out of my league) today have a responsibility in this world, IMO.
NOT because we can and buy teslas, but because we are super rich.
We have to use this wealth better, set examples and improve technology and our ways of living.
This was not meant about me as an individual, but...
I’ve got way more than I need in life.
Riches should be judged differently - I have a really nice home in an somewhat expensive city, clean tap water, comparatively clean air and access to all the healthy food I can ever want. Also great healthcare and schooling, cause welfare state and all that.
Let’s start there.
I could buy a tesla if I really really wanted to, but there’s no need. I’d have to take a car loan, but most who buy a tesla do I reckon.
A car half the price suits my needs, and no loans.
This means I’m comparatively super rich.
If the people who could afford Teslas had not bought them, Tesla would have failed as a car company. VW and others would then not be interested in electrification today, and the environment would have been a lot worse off in the long run.
Few would argue that Tesla hasn't significantly sped up the transition towards electric cars. It's easy to fall into the trap of underestimating (or completely forgetting about) effects that are hard to quantify and/or are long-term.
I think "dump them in the river" was a metaphor for "seriously damage the environment in order to extract the valuable bits" which is what we currently see with most waste processing.
Used EV batteries will probably be a backbone for gridscale batteries and quite valuable. Nobody is going to dump them anywhere. Even after they're through in their grid role they're still full of expensive metals. A recycling industry is bound to pop up.
Recycling for Battery EVs is going to be a much more thriving industry as the designers are taking care of these things. Also i believe mining the batteries for the constituents will always be valuable.
If the Tesla 1 million mile battery is as real as the CATL 1 million mile claimed battery, an electric car is actually going to last at least 3x that of an ICE car assuming all other components (motors, body, powertrain) is also improved.
Brakes already last longer whereas because total no of components in EV is much lower (literally like 10x less moving parts) maintenance is also much, much easier.
You need to educate yourself on how rapidly EV manufacturing, recycling and other aspects are evolving.
> an electric car is actually going to last at least 3x that of an ICE car assuming all other components (motors, body, powertrain) is also improved
That's an absurd assumption. Why would you assume an electric car will improve the lifespan of the body by 3x? Why would non-EV's not also improve the lifespan of the body by 3x?
> Brakes already last longer whereas because total no of components in EV is much lower (literally like 10x less moving parts)
How are the number of components in an EV related to how long the brakes last? There's no connection. In fact, brakes in an EV have _more_ moving parts than most non-EV's because they are regenerative whereas most non-EV's are not.
> You need to educate yourself
Pot, meet kettle. Here's a hint: reading popsci on the crapper is not educating yourself.
I look forward to it. Lithium batteries are quite 'meh' compared to other battery technologies using carcinogenic materials, or combustion technology which leaks many nasty liquids.
There are basically no repercussions at all unless people get hurt.
Even if the company itself gets fined, they'll simply declare bankruptcy, close up shop and sell their assets to a new company (often incidentally run by the same people).
I would propose that companies which can have such major consequences on the environment must put a sum of money in some kind of Escrow, and it gets released for purposes of cleaning up the mess.
Not so easy. Powering large ships for the ranges needed for global trade without using fuel oil is currently an unsolved problem. There's a small EV cargo boat with a range of only 50 miles. Battery density and ship efficiency needs to be greatly improved before we can replace the engines and fuel tanks in cargo ships.
(For clarification, the oil spill in Mauritius is the fuel oil from a bulk carrier, not an oil tanker.)
There are various concepts for wind propulsion but even the most optimistic think they’ll only provide some of the energy needed. Some kind of EV/wind hybrid might be the answer but battery size is still a major issue.
They couldn’t get the CEO to make a statement? A 2 minute rail delay gets an immediate apology from the CEO in Japanese companies - I guess destroying another country’s beauty and livelihood doesn’t warrant that.
I rewatched the Drone footage [1] js2 linked to and I think I made the same logical error that the captain/crew did; I mistook the breakwater as the edge of the reef and missed the slightly deeper ridge that juts out perpendicular to the island/lagoon.
The "coral ridge" that they hit is obvious in the many photos that are shown in an image search results on "aerial photo MV-Wakashio". I was surprised by the drone footage since it looks like the ship was perpendicular to the reef edge which means that the ship was heading directly at the large/populated island at near full speed but this was not the case. They were probably running parallel to the breakwater and hit this hidden anomaly in the reef and then wave action trapped the ship in this literal corner. Without tugs I don't think the ship could back out even if undamaged so I guess one outstanding question is whether a timely deployment of tug boats could have prevented the break-up of the ship.
The accident occurred at 8pm local time (16:00 UTC +4) so it was dark but the crew would have been awake. Tragic overconfidence.
It's past time to move off fossil fuels. Join the EV revolution and let's use the technology and engineering of the past to carry us to a future where we can look back at the ancient relics of Industrialization V1 and wonder how we were so primitive.
107 comments
[ 2.8 ms ] story [ 178 ms ] threadI do not think this is the point the author tried to make. I read this more like "despite the minor amount of oil spilled compared to other spills, this one will hurt like a big one".
> Although previous oil spills around the world have not been in as environmentally sensitive areas, [my emphasis] they have still significantly affected marine animals and plants.
> In 2010, the Deep Water Horizon incident off the Gulf of Mexico saw nearly 400,000 tonnes of oil spill, resulting in the death of thousands of species ranging from plankton to dolphins.
> There were also other longer-term impacts on marine life including impaired reproduction, reduced growth, lesions and disease.
The article doesn't advocate that oil spills in unprotected areas are less serious, it actually highlights the fact that there are terrible consequences for wildlife regardless of whether the spill site is "protected" or not.
He's looked at risk, may be thinking of technical debt, and I've suggested Beruit.
Recommended.
> Charles Perrow’s Normal Accidents introduces the idea of complex, tightly-coupled systems and has good accounts both of the Three Mile Island and the Fermi reactor accidents. Just after we’d recorded the episode, I heard the sad news that Charles had died on November 12th. He’ll be missed.
[1] https://timharford.com/2019/11/cautionary-tales-ep-3-lala-la...
Instead of that we seem to be getting the more common "We're sorry" mantra.
https://gcaptain.com/heres-why-so-much-world-trade-passes-ma...
This isn't just "one of those things" that's probabilistically inevitable, this collision was directly predictable from the AIS data for a week.
https://www.marinetraffic.com/en/ais/home/centerx:-12.0/cent...
(from the article)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mN3SyPM9m2U
Wikipedia article:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MV_Wakashio_oil_spill
I'm not clear why the ship was anywhere near the reef.
So they had the resources, just not the motivation at the time the ship wasn’t spilling.
You're not visualizing how much 3,000 tonnes is.
The classic drum of oil is 42 gallons and weighs 300lbs - just the oil - the actual drum itself is another 40 or so.
3,000T = 20,000 barrels.
Of course, the oil in the ship isn't barreled, it's in giant compartments.
This ship wasn't even a oil tanker...this is the actual fuel tanks of the ship itself leaking.
https://youtu.be/CKICk5LY2xg
>Fuel has been transferred to shore by helicopter and to another ship owned by the same Japanese firm, Nagashiki Shipping.
So they had more than a week to prevent this.
I guess the jet analogy would be jet pilot flies really low so his kids can see him wave from their window.
on edit: my only source for this birthday claim is a tweet https://twitter.com/Ariel_Saramandi/status/12931545218922700... but I believe it as I am by nature a misanthrope.
https://www.lexpress.mu/article/381284/membres-dequipage-con...
https://www.news24.jp/articles/2020/08/14/10699738.html
"Before the "Wakashio" ran aground on the reef at Pointe-d'Esny on the evening of July 25, the crew was celebrating the birthday of one of its members. This was reported by three crew members of the bulk carrier to Central Criminal Investigation Department (CCID) investigators.
They also stated that the bulk carrier had approached the island to pick up a wi-fi connection. Seven others made the same statement to investigators from Mauritius Shipping. These seamen initially made a history of their voyage which started in China to Australia and then another route from China, with a stopover in Singapore, before heading for Brazil.
It was on this route that the bulk carrier crossed the territorial waters of Mauritius. The crew of about 20 consists of three Indian nationals, sixteen Filipinos and one Sri Lankan. The "Wakashio" was under the responsibility of Captain Sunil Kumar Nandeshwar, a 58-year-old Indian national. They are represented by Mr. Kushal Lobine and Mr. Irsaad Munsoor, lawyers for the insurers of the Protection and Indemnity Club."
They also declared the ship got closer to the island to get a WiFi connection.
(Maybe the article got updated)
My best guess:
Satellite internet on ships is common but still slow and expensive these days.
Background:
- ar one point I worked for three years as a system engineer with a company in the maritime radio and radar business
- even further back I have also interviewed with another that was specifically in the business of connecting ships to Internet.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Costa_Concordia_disaster#Situa...
https://www.maritime-executive.com/article/accusations-emerg...
C'est la vie.
I usually get comparisons to the refined gas/diesel with the whole process of the battery.
Not saying batteries are great for the environment, but we have had so many leaks during the years. Deep horizon is still leaking and where almost at 1.000.000 m3 if I recall correctly.
At least with batteries the pollution is kept more localized, which I believe is to be preferred.
Being an early owner of EVs I’ve had to explain my rationale many times to people, where oil spills is one part obviously.
They tend not to include the environmental effects of oil drilling and transportation into the figures for ICE cars.
Double standards and all that.
Anyway it's off topic. Leakage from oil tanker accident is unrelated to leakage from ICEs accident. Reducing importing oil by EV would be on topic.
If they reach a point where it makes sense to buy teslas, we’re all good!
We who buy teslas (I’m not though. Out of my league) today have a responsibility in this world, IMO.
NOT because we can and buy teslas, but because we are super rich. We have to use this wealth better, set examples and improve technology and our ways of living.
That aside, you are correct though.
I’ve got way more than I need in life.
Riches should be judged differently - I have a really nice home in an somewhat expensive city, clean tap water, comparatively clean air and access to all the healthy food I can ever want. Also great healthcare and schooling, cause welfare state and all that.
Let’s start there.
I could buy a tesla if I really really wanted to, but there’s no need. I’d have to take a car loan, but most who buy a tesla do I reckon.
A car half the price suits my needs, and no loans. This means I’m comparatively super rich.
Few would argue that Tesla hasn't significantly sped up the transition towards electric cars. It's easy to fall into the trap of underestimating (or completely forgetting about) effects that are hard to quantify and/or are long-term.
What I’m saying is that we need to set examples with regards to manufacturing, recycling, waste management and resource consumption
Today we use and abuse a bit to much.
It will realize prices of stuff, meaning less overall consumption per individual, but might end up globally sustainable.
Why would they dump hundreds of kilos of very expensive rare earth metals to rivers?
By weight they're mostly nickel, cobalt, aluminium and copper - all valuable materials, just not rare earths.
It's basically an environmental and health disaster, just shifted to poor people in China.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronic_waste_in_Guiyu
If the Tesla 1 million mile battery is as real as the CATL 1 million mile claimed battery, an electric car is actually going to last at least 3x that of an ICE car assuming all other components (motors, body, powertrain) is also improved.
Brakes already last longer whereas because total no of components in EV is much lower (literally like 10x less moving parts) maintenance is also much, much easier.
You need to educate yourself on how rapidly EV manufacturing, recycling and other aspects are evolving.
That's an absurd assumption. Why would you assume an electric car will improve the lifespan of the body by 3x? Why would non-EV's not also improve the lifespan of the body by 3x?
> Brakes already last longer whereas because total no of components in EV is much lower (literally like 10x less moving parts)
How are the number of components in an EV related to how long the brakes last? There's no connection. In fact, brakes in an EV have _more_ moving parts than most non-EV's because they are regenerative whereas most non-EV's are not.
> You need to educate yourself
Pot, meet kettle. Here's a hint: reading popsci on the crapper is not educating yourself.
They're throw some cleanup stuff at it, claim it's better and within a week will all be forgotten.
Company and leadership on boat should be held liable to the greatest extent possible. Set an example to curtail this sort of reckless behavior.
Sadly this is our reality.
There are basically no repercussions at all unless people get hurt.
Even if the company itself gets fined, they'll simply declare bankruptcy, close up shop and sell their assets to a new company (often incidentally run by the same people).
Sad how relevant this still is: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=15HTd4Um1m4
(For clarification, the oil spill in Mauritius is the fuel oil from a bulk carrier, not an oil tanker.)
The "coral ridge" that they hit is obvious in the many photos that are shown in an image search results on "aerial photo MV-Wakashio". I was surprised by the drone footage since it looks like the ship was perpendicular to the reef edge which means that the ship was heading directly at the large/populated island at near full speed but this was not the case. They were probably running parallel to the breakwater and hit this hidden anomaly in the reef and then wave action trapped the ship in this literal corner. Without tugs I don't think the ship could back out even if undamaged so I guess one outstanding question is whether a timely deployment of tug boats could have prevented the break-up of the ship.
The accident occurred at 8pm local time (16:00 UTC +4) so it was dark but the crew would have been awake. Tragic overconfidence.
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mN3SyPM9m2U