Update: Incident Involving the Containership MOL Comfort
TOKYO-Mitsui O.S.K. Lines, Ltd. (MOL; President: Koichi Muto) reports that the containership MOL Comfortcould not continue sailing under its own power because the hull suffered a crack amidships while under way on the Indian Ocean. The vessel was fractured in two parts, fore and aft.
At about noon JST on Tuesday, June 18 (07:00 local time), the fore part of the hull is drifting around 13'00"N 60'40"E, and the aft part is about 19 miles southwest from that point. At present, both parts of the ship are laden with containers and drifting in an east-northeast direction. We are also arranging tugboats to tow both parts.
There are no indications as yet of a major oil leak near the site.
Details of onboard containers of the MOL Comfort that might be lost overboard or damaged during the incident are being confirmed.
UPDATE: The MRCC in Mumbai has just tweeted saying that the sections are still afloat and are being monitored by the MV Sanderling Ace, another MOL managed vessel.
MOL Comfort Breaks In Two Off Yemen, Still Afloat [UPDATE]
UPDATE: The MRCC in Mumbai has just tweeted saying that the sections are still afloat and are being monitored.
A massive container vessel which snapped into two and sank off Yemen on Monday. Indian Coast Guard (ICG) Mumbai, coordinated operations to help rescue 26 sailors from the vessel. The tragedy occurred around 200 nautical miles from Yemen, and around 840 nautical miles west of Mumbai.
A Singapore-bound merchant vessel from Jeddah split into two around 840 nautical miles off the coast here today causing oil spill even as all the crew members were rescued, Coast Guard officials said.
'Mol Comfort', the 316-m-long vessel was carrying 4,500 containers from Saudi Arabia, they said.
"The vessel hull broke into two off the Mumbai coast and the crew members were rescued from the ship in two life rafts and a life boat," a Coast Guard official said.
The cause behind the incident was yet to be ascertained. It was also not known what the ship was transporting.
The Coast Guard coordinated the rescue operation and all the 26 members of the crew--- 12 Russians and 14 Filipinos-- were rescued.
The officials said that the Maritime Rescue Coordination Centre, Mumbai diverted three ships - MV Hanjin Bejing, MV Zim India and MV Yantian Express, which were travelling nearby, for the rescue operation.
The rescued crew members are being sent to Colombo, they said.
MOL Comfort sank due to yet unclear causes, en route from Singapore to Jeddah and then to North Europe, leaving behind hundreds of drifting containers and a tremendous aftershock hitting liner sector and all of the maritime industry. Just the scale of the consequences is hard, even impossible, to estimate, not to mention consequences themselves. For all my knowledge, this is the first case in liner sector, when modern ocean-going liner container ship (built in Japan!) sank in the ocean after breaking in two, like a poorly built and managed bulk carrier or over aged coaster. Nothing like this ever happened, and nobody believed it’s possible, even theoretically. It just couldn’t happen, but still, here it is.
At present stage, even the weirdest theories of the cause of the disaster cannot be ignored, something like explosion or several explosions, or whatever else one may fantasize. I for one, would exclude only one version – MOL Comfort surely wasn’t sunk by Somalia pirates.
Putting aside exotic versions, most probable causes which come into mind are some basic design and building faults; serious disbalance of the loaded containers weight due to false cargo weight declarations and faulty cargo plan; faulty ballasting of the vessel. Most probably, if that’s the case, the sinking was caused not by just one of the abovementioned factors, but by their combination, and triggered by rough weather.
If it will be found, that there were several factors involved, then, the questions arise which require sound and unequivocal answers.
1. Are there some basic faults rooted deep inside ocean-going container ships design, construction and management, or was the disaster the result of a combination of negative factors.
2. If it’s a combination of negative factors, what is the probability of such a combination, is it negligibly small, or the odds of another accident are alarmingly high.
3. What’s the cost of lowering those odds, and how will it affect liner business and freight.
The questions of insurance and cargo loss coverage for shippers, especially minor ones, is very important, too.
Let’s not forget another risk quite a number of experts are already worried over – the risk of major fire on a giant ocean-going container ship.
One thing is clear, though. The liner sector, first of all majors, will do whatever it takes to hide unfavorable factors and especially, basic faults, if there are any. The awesome container transportation mechanism they created may not stand serious modifications, called by safety needs.
Voytenko Mikhail
June 18 13
MOL Comfort sank due to yet unclear causes, en route from Singapore to Jeddah and then to North Europe, leaving behind hundreds of drifting containers and a tremendous aftershock hitting liner sector and all of the maritime industry. Just the scale of the consequences is hard, even impossible, to estimate, not to mention consequences themselves. For all my knowledge, this is the first case in liner sector, when modern ocean-going liner container ship (built in Japan!) sank in the ocean after breaking in two, like a poorly built and managed bulk carrier or over aged coaster. Nothing like this ever happened, and nobody believed it’s possible, even theoretically. It just couldn’t happen, but still, here it is.
At present stage, even the weirdest theories of the cause of the disaster cannot be ignored, something like explosion or several explosions, or whatever else one may fantasize. I for one, would exclude only one version – MOL Comfort surely wasn’t sunk by Somalia pirates.
Putting aside exotic versions, most probable causes which come into mind are some basic design and building faults; serious disbalance of the loaded containers weight due to false cargo weight declarations and faulty cargo plan; faulty ballasting of the vessel. Most probably, if that’s the case, the sinking was caused not by just one of the abovementioned factors, but by their combination, and triggered by rough weather.
If it will be found, that there were several factors involved, then, the questions arise which require sound and unequivocal answers.
1. Are there some basic faults rooted deep inside ocean-going container ships design, construction and management, or was the disaster the result of a combination of negative factors.
2. If it’s a combination of negative factors, what is the probability of such a combination, is it negligibly small, or the odds of another accident are alarmingly high.
3. What’s the cost of lowering those odds, and how will it affect liner business and freight.
The questions of insurance and cargo loss coverage for shippers, especially minor ones, is very important, too.
Let’s not forget another risk quite a number of experts are already worried over – the risk of major fire on a giant ocean-going container ship.
One thing is clear, though. The liner sector, first of all majors, will do whatever it takes to hide unfavorable factors and especially, basic faults, if there are any. The awesome container transportation mechanism they created may not stand serious modifications, called by safety needs.
Voytenko Mikhail
June 18 13
A Catastrophic Structural Failure
From a naval architecture standpoint, this is a puzzling situation. Ships are designed to handle long period and large waves that crest on the bow and stern and have a trough amidships. This creates a sagging situation that puts extreme tension on the keel and compression at deck level. The opposite, “hogging” situation occurs when the crest of the wave moves to the center of the ship and the trough of the waves are at bow and stern.
The repeat flexing of the ship in these perfectly timed waves is likely what caused the loss of this vessel. In the photo above, a perfect example of hogging is shown, where the bow and the stern are both lying in the troughs of two waves.
It should not have happened however. Ships are built to handle this situation and engineering rules are followed to ensure the transverse “section modulus” of the vessel is sufficient to handle these extreme stresses imposed by nature. There are other possibilities however…
The loading of the containers on board may have exacerbated the situation. Although the loading of the containers appears even in the photo, the weight distribution of the containers may not have been even. Had heavier containers been loaded on the bow and stern and lighter ones in the center of the ship, the vessel may have been placed in a hogging situation before she even set sail. It’s speculation of course to say one way or another, but assuming that she met class requirements, it’s one possible explanation for what happened.