# Tank ship prestige



## surveychile (Jan 22, 2008)

Insurer Ordered to Pay $1 Billion Over 2002 Prestige Oil Spill. http://gcaptain.com/insurer-ordered-to-pay-1-billion-over-2002-prestige-oil-spill

A Spanish court has ordered a British P&I insurer to pay a whopping $1 billion fine over the 2002 Prestige oil spill. 

The single-hulled oil tanker Prestige broke in half and sank off the northwestern coast of Spain after being denied a port of refuge after a tank was damaged in a storm. The wreck is estimated to have spilled some 63,000 tonnes of oil, fouling Spain’s Galicia coast and closing some of the country’s richest fisheries. The incident is considered one of Europe’s worst-ever environmental disasters.

A Spanish court on Wednesday ordered the London Steam-Ship Owners’ Mutual Insurance Association, aka the London Club, which insured the ship, to pay up to $1 billion in damages.

The London Club said it was aware of the judgment and “remains concerned at the direction that the Spanish court has taken generally.”

The Prestige’s captain, Apostolos Mangouras, was initially clear of criminal wrongdoing, but in January 2016, Spain’s Supreme Court overruled and convicted him of recklessness resulting in catastrophic environmental damage. Mangouras was sentenced to two years in prison, and the ruling opened the door to damage claims against him and the insurer.

The total damage bill has been estimated at over 4 billion euros.

Regards

Tomi.


----------



## Varley (Oct 1, 2006)

And the only sanction against the Spanish "receiver of wrecks" (or whatever that is in Spanish) for deliberately sending the vessel to her demise and only with the utmost of good fortune, not her entire crew, was to lose his job.

Iniquitous.


----------



## Split (Jun 25, 2006)

Varley said:


> And the only sanction against the Spanish "receiver of wrecks" (or whatever that is in Spanish) for deliberately sending the vessel to her demise and only with the utmost of good fortune, not her entire crew, was to lose his job.
> 
> Iniquitous.


Do not forget that the Minister in charge of this incident at government level was none other that the current President, Mariano Rajoy. I don't know what it was but he must have done something right!

This was a very old tanker, run by the kind of company that does run this type of vessel and, I'm afraid that the Master needed the job.

He. and the ship, were in the wrong place at the wrong time, I'm afraid. I can't say that I blame the port authorities for not wanting Prestige in a Spanish port. She was an accident waiting to happen and her sister ship was, I believe,scrapped for the same problem, a weakness at that part of her hull.


----------



## Varley (Oct 1, 2006)

I thought my own fascist qualifications were quite well advanced however not even I would consider it defensible at any level to leave an entire crew to drown even if every man jack of them had been mass murderers (although that would have received my more sympathetic ear). That was with out any doubt whatsoever the most likely outcome of refusing her refuge. The least risk of polluting the coast (apparently more important than the lives of the crew) would have been to give her refuge in La Corunna.

Don't get into trouble off the Spanish coast. It might be you seeking refuge. I'd look to the British further down the coast if I were you.


----------



## Split (Jun 25, 2006)

Varley said:


> I thought my own fascist qualifications were quite well advanced however not even I would consider it defensible at any level to leave an entire crew to drown even if every man jack of them had been mass murderers (although that would have received my more sympathetic ear). That was with out any doubt whatsoever the most likely outcome of refusing her refuge. The least risk of polluting the coast (apparently more important than the lives of the crew) would have been to give her refuge in La Corunna.
> 
> Don't get into trouble off the Spanish coast. It might be you seeking refuge. I'd look to the British further down the coast if I were you.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prestige_oil_spill

I believe that the crew was rescued by Spain. Prestige was, also, refused access to French and Portuguese ports. That ship caused enough mess as it is.

As for Spanish lack of concern for seafarers, I consider that remark to be grossly unfair.

Spain, with the Italians, are saving thousands of souls every month in the Med. UK, with the largest navy has not deemed it its responsability to help out, there, even though it has a past naval history in that area.


----------



## NoR (Mar 24, 2008)

Refusing port of refuge to a vessel in distress is an act of such stupidity that it's hard to fathom.

The pollution damage amounted to €4bn. How much less would it have been had the ship been allowed shelter ?


----------



## Andrew Price (Aug 9, 2005)

Surely when the Spanish Government assumed command & control of the *PRESTIGE,* they became fully responsible for what subsequently happened to her.
The* PRESTIGE* is recorded as being only four (4) miles from a port of refuge when the Spanish Government ordered her to head back out in to the Atlantic and out of their territory, despite another large Atlantic Storm coming in. 
The Spanish Government appeared to be quite happy for her to sink in French or Portuguese territory but not their own.
This incident appears to be have been transformed from a relatively minor incident into a massive one by Spanish political stupidity and gross incompetence.
The incident started on the 13th. November, had a salvage team inboard by next day but it was not until the 19th that she split in two, capsized and sank.
The Casualty Report by the Bahamas Maritime Authority (the Flag Authority) makes interesting reading
Apparently even the Salvage Team on board wanted and considered it safe to go to a nearby Port Of Refuge, but the Spanish Government refused for reasons I cannot find.
The Casualty Report in conclusion makes several Recommendations, in particular the one below which seems to criticize the actions of the Spanish Government though couched in predicably moderate diplomatic language.

*5.3.3 The issue of Places of Refuge is a matter of international discussion at the present time. In considering such matters, the importance of the following has been highlighted by the incident to the Prestige:

• The effect of not granting a ship entry to a place of refuge:
- on the rest of the coastline and amenities in the surrounding area.
- on other countries.
- on the ship*

The port of La Coruna is a deep water port quite capable of acting as a Port Of Refuge in these cir***stances. 
It is also quite close to the location of the initial incident and housed a major oil terminal quite capable of taking tankers larger than the PRESTIGE. I actually sailed into there on fully loaded, 90,000 dwt tankers when I served with SANKO.

This latest judicial decision by the Spanish Supreme Court appears to be perverted, turning upside down the decision of the Gallacian High Court and flying in the face of the facts.

This judgement gives the appearance of being just an appeasement and exoneration of its political rulers rather than a proper and balanced legal decision.

Andy PRICE


----------



## Split (Jun 25, 2006)

NoR said:


> Refusing port of refuge to a vessel in distress is an act of such stupidity that it's hard to fathom.
> 
> The pollution damage amounted to €4bn. How much less would it have been had the ship been allowed shelter ?


Who knew that at the time? 

The act of stupidity is in allowing theses vessels to sail on the seas. World legislation is extremely lax in these cir***atances. Europe's coasts are teeming with all kinds of shipping and her coastlines must be protected.

Why did the Master prior to Capt Mangouras resign, rather than sail in her again?

This site has members who believe that the seafaring comunity has to be defended, right or wrong. 

Perhaps, I've been ashore too long.


----------



## NoR (Mar 24, 2008)

Split said:


> Who knew that at the time?
> 
> The act of stupidity is in allowing theses vessels to sail on the seas. World legislation is extremely lax in these cir***atances. Europe's coasts are teeming with all kinds of shipping and her coastlines must be protected.
> 
> ...


So you just allow vessels to sink and pollute in the open sea rather than get them to a place where the damage might be contained. Granted that things need to be tightened up but that isn't the point. The Spanish Authorities in effect assumed control of the situation when they denied the vessel refuge and they should be liable for the damage.
I don't blame the master. If it hadn't been him it would have been someone else. I blame the classification society and the system that allows unseaworthy vessels to trade legally.


----------



## Split (Jun 25, 2006)

NoR said:


> So you just allow vessels to sink and pollute in the open sea rather than get them to a place where the damage might be contained. Granted that things need to be tightened up but that isn't the point. The Spanish Authorities in effect assumed control of the situation when they denied the vessel refuge and they should be liable for the damage.
> I don't blame the master. If it hadn't been him it would have been someone else. I blame the classification society and the system that allows unseaworthy vessels to trade legally.


One of the most used conditional words, ever since time memoriable, is "might", along with "should", "could" , "if" and the rest. You used it.

The Port Captain had a decision to take. An experienced shipmaster was lowered onto the Prestige by helicopter. His report helped to make that decision.

Court decisions taken decades after the event do not take into account the stress that the persons involved had to undergo at the time. 

Big business and politics is at the bottom of all this, as always, but there has to be someone on the spot to take the blame. Normally, he considers that decision to be the right one, at the time.

The age of the ship, the resignation of the previous master, the age of the new master. Let's face the question. What was a 78 year old shipmaster doing on a rusty, old, tanker? Did he need the money? would any of the shipowners that we worked for have employed a man that age? I know the latter answer, in my case.

Something smells bad and it is not the fish in La Coruña.


----------



## NoR (Mar 24, 2008)

The fact is that the ship was in a parlous condition, something that the Spanish authorities should have realised. Therefore to avoid the risk of serious pollution something should have been done. But it wasn't and guess what ? I guess the Spaniards thought they'd turn it into someone else's problem.


----------



## Varley (Oct 1, 2006)

This discussion is not about why the ship was in difficulties only that she was and that those who should have promptly responded with all succor available for both crew, for their lives, and the ship, against the pollution, instead turned her away. The outcome, inevitable and obvious. Had it been tested in court those responsible would have surely been found grossly negligent and therefore criminal.

No one is saying the ship should have been at sea and it is clear regulations had been deliberately falsified or negligently adhered-to in her inspection, certification and certainly management ashore and perhaps also afloat. But that is not this discussion. Nor is the determination of how honestly those regulations had been bypassed, which is yet another.


----------



## Split (Jun 25, 2006)

NoR said:


> The fact is that the ship was in a parlous condition, something that the Spanish authorities should have realised. Therefore to avoid the risk of serious pollution something should have been done. But it wasn't and guess what ? I guess the Spaniards thought they'd turn it into someone else's problem.


Something like the Italian and Spanish problem of picking up boat people in the Med? Or, to stay on the subject, the ship charterers and insurers of the cargo?

In other words, human nature up to its dirty tricks, again.


----------



## 5036 (Jan 23, 2006)

Varley said:


> This discussion is not about why the ship was in difficulties only that she was and that those who should have promptly responded with all succor available for both crew, for their lives, and the ship, against the pollution, instead turned her away. The outcome, inevitable and obvious. Had it been tested in court those responsible would have surely been found grossly negligent and therefore criminal.
> 
> No one is saying the ship should have been at sea and it is clear regulations had been deliberately falsified or negligently adhered-to in her inspection, certification and certainly management ashore and perhaps also afloat. But that is not this discussion. Nor is the determination of how honestly those regulations had been bypassed, which is yet another.


Spot on Varley. The past is history, we have to deal with the present.


----------



## Split (Jun 25, 2006)

If ships are allowed to sail in an unseaworthy state, then the country, where she was loaded, must be responsible for the damage. Try to get the money from Russia or China, but don't put the blame on--in this case-- Spain.She took the crew off. for Heaven's sake, but from the posts I am reading, no one seems to take that into account. The pollution in the Atlantic was not Spain's fault. No one can be sure whether that ship's cargo could have been contained if she had gone into port.

Some are going to say that it did not happen but what if this *had* happened in the North Sea or the Channel? 
I feel very strongly that people should be held responsible for their actions because we live in a very dangerous world. 

With that said I, for one, am giving it a rest.


----------



## 5036 (Jan 23, 2006)

Split said:


> If ships are allowed to sail in an unseaworthy state, then the country, where she was loaded, must be responsible for the damage. Try to get the money from Russia or China, but don't put the blame on--in this case-- Spain.She took the crew off. for Heaven's sake, but from the posts I am reading, no one seems to take that into account. The pollution in the Atlantic was not Spain's fault. No one can be sure whether that ship's cargo could have been contained if she had gone into port.
> 
> Some are going to say that it did not happen but what if this *had* happened in the North Sea or the Channel?
> I feel very strongly that people should be held responsible for their actions because we live in a very dangerous world.
> ...


But you have to deal with the situation as you find it. The reality was that the ship could have been docked, condemned and dealt with, instead it became a major pollution event. Had the Prestige come into a UK port, I feel pretty certain it would have been chained to the quay.


----------



## Varley (Oct 1, 2006)

Give it rest!?

If the matter is allowed to rest the worthless will remain happy in blaming the master and leaving it at that. It will happen again with only 'minor cases' where a magic pipe or adeliberately pumped pint of oil impugns only the vessel and her crew will receive any form of justice. Where the littoral state has sinned, and in this case sinned venally, the state will ensure, through those courts they control, a blemishless avoidance of their desserts. Others states will follow suit until 'someone' brings one of them to book.

Of course it is not only the Spanish at fault. Several later examples, post Napoli which was an exemplary salvage, suggest that NIBYism is now a fairly universal state policy. The crew are unlikely to be white men so let them go hang. And if, perchance, they are then hang 'em anyway.


----------



## Day Sailor (Nov 9, 2014)

Will this be appealed to a higher court, a European court, not a Spanish court because it is obvious there is no justice in the Spanish judiciary?


----------



## Varley (Oct 1, 2006)

ont kno w would behave any better these days, D..S. Flamminia was left in the Western approaches without safe passage. The only saving grace is that was liitle risk to seafarers after the initial casualty.


----------



## NoR (Mar 24, 2008)

Varley said:


> ".....post Napoli which was an exemplary salvage........".


Err no it wasn't. For some daft reason they attempted to tow the wreck all the way to Portland. Why ?? What's at Portland.
Fortunately when the vessel began to sink it was somewhere it could be grounded. The authorities then failed to secure the site which led to wholesale pillaging.
If the Napoli had been taken to a nearer port of refuge the expensive debacle that took place probably wouldn't have happened.
The UK used to be supremely competent in practical matter (most of the time anyway). Now we're run by a bunch of paper pushers, H&S 'experts' and compliance auditors.


----------



## Varley (Oct 1, 2006)

NoR said:


> Err no it wasn't.
> 
> Interesting I am sure that Robin Middleton will have answers for your questions. I will ask him when I next bump into him.
> 
> His presentation on the salvage (taken in video as well and delivered with the presentation) is very impressive.


----------



## twogrumpy (Apr 23, 2007)

Back in the 70's a cargo? ship manged to run aground near La Coruna, part of the cargo was insecticide which polluted much of the coastline destroying a large part of the fishing industry.

A short while later a decidedly sick oil tanker carrying a number of survivors from another vessel sought refuge in the port.
Understanding the locals concerns about the previous chemical spill, they were decidedly unhappy to have a fully laden sick tanker on their doorstep, however they did kindly allow us in.

Their attitude was understandable due to the interest being shown by the press in their aircraft buzzing us on the way in.


----------

