# Tankers anchored off Suffolk coast



## Nick Balls (Apr 5, 2008)

Is this cause for concern? 
We now have a lot of loaded tankers off the suffolk coast: see: (A similar situation.)
www.thisissouthdevon.co.uk/news/Concern-oil-tankers-Bay/article-888304-detail/article.html

Now Look today at : www.marinetraffic.com/ais/default.aspx?centerx=-5&centery=40&zoom=3&level1=140 and zoom in on Lowestoft. 

At present the Libyan Galaxy (105,000T) Is sat at anchor in around 16Mts depth whilst drawing 13Mts very very close inshore and even closer to the offshore sand banks of this area. The area has some very strong tides and while the Chart designates the area as an anchorage I don't feel it was ever intended for this type of ship. 

As a mariner and one who lives close by I feel this is just plain crazy !
What do you think?


----------



## billyboy (Jul 6, 2005)

Tell ther Government to allow them in to discharge their load Nick!
The Government keeps them at sea to create a shortage to justify the increase in price.
They did this back in the early 80's...Remember?...It was then that a Mr Roy Llewellyn overturned the Government. By displayuing the hard evidence and facts in Parliament.. 3 MP's resigned on the spot and an election was called for


----------



## non descript (Nov 18, 2005)

billyboy said:


> ...The Government keeps them at sea to create a shortage to justify the increase in price...


 Ummm, Whilst I am all for blaming the Government for most things and generally one can be wholly justified in charging them with all of the sins of the world, I might stop short of laying this charge at their feet; the idea that they are the ones arranging to stockpile crude is maybe a step too far (EEK) – Mind you, on recent performance, maybe Gordon Brown will be on U-Tube later to explain that _*Great Britain Plc *_has a massive futures position in crude and has an FFA desk which is on course to wipe out the National Debt…. (Jester)


----------



## John Gurton (Apr 10, 2006)

Hmmm, the ships AIS transmitter is giving 8.5 mtrs draft. Mountains and molehills !


----------



## cboots (Aug 16, 2004)

billyboy said:


> Tell ther Government to allow them in to discharge their load Nick!
> The Government keeps them at sea to create a shortage to justify the increase in price.
> They did this back in the early 80's...Remember?...It was then that a Mr Roy Llewellyn overturned the Government. By displayuing the hard evidence and facts in Parliament.. 3 MP's resigned on the spot and an election was called for


This assertion has been made somewhere before on this site, perhaps by your good self Billy Boy, and I am really fascinated by it. There were two British general elections in the nineteen eighties, both won quite comfortably by the government of Mrs Thatcher - yes the reign of terror was at its height! Could you be a little more specific and tell us which election you are referring to. Whilst not wishing to be pedantic it should be pointed out that British MPs cannot simply resign; a minister can resign from the government but an elected member cannot resign from the House.
CBoots


----------



## Nick Balls (Apr 5, 2008)

In reply to No 4 .john ..........I still read that the AIS shows 13Mts Draft ! Where did you get the 8.5 Mt figure.

My point really is that I don't think I would park my ship in such a spot !!! 
I am familiar with the area and have also worked (Albeit a few years ago) on tankers of this size.
Would you trust a single (probably Chinese made ) anchor chain to prevent disaster. This close in and being "up tide" of some very infamous banks would give very very little time to react to any emergency. Some of you will well remember the "London Valour" disaster on Genoa breakwater . On this coast we also well remember the "Elini V" accident (Collision) where a mere 5000T of oil got spilt. 
I can see no justification of why this master has placed his ship in such a spot. Look at the AIS the other tankers are in a much better position. 
This Anchorage (Where this vessel is) is not suitable for such a large vessel.
Folks it is only a matter of time before we have some kind of mishap !


----------



## John Gurton (Apr 10, 2006)

Nick, suffice to say I can get the live AIS signal from the vessel which still gives 8.5m draught. The AIS history shows she was in Ymuiden from 17th till 21st, then anchored off there till 30th. Perhaps her proximity to Lowestoft has an operational connection. I do see there are 4 loaded VLCC's anchored some 16 miles out, is this a preferred area for such vessels on the spot market ?
She is very new having just come out of Hyundai's Ulsan yard in November, also a diesel engine compared with the disabled steam engine that the London Valour had. I do agree that there are quite a few incompetent crews around nowadays as I come across them regularly. If the forecast was bad for the coming week I would also question his positioning. When I was master I too would anchor reasonably close to coasts for various reasons after weighing up the hazards. They call it Risk Assessment nowadays and it is present on so many ships as part of their ISM, I would feel sure that the owners are well aware of her position as I type.


----------



## James_C (Feb 17, 2005)

He's probably that far inshore to ensure a decent TV and Mobile signal.


----------



## trucker (Oct 6, 2008)

*tickets*

give them all parking tickets and tell them to p--s off .i am sure this will solve the parking [anchorage] problem.(K)as post 8 mentions ,it could be the old men are football fanatics, and don,t want to miss the newcastle v liverpool game tomorrow,on the tele.


----------



## Nick Balls (Apr 5, 2008)

Right John interesting about the draft. A little dicky bird tells me she is this close because of a transfer taking place from Lowestoft. I am well aware of ISM and Risk assessments having only given up seafaring last year. My own risk assessment for this ship would be "Don't Anchor" These banks are very dangerous and there close proximity would put me off. I was taught that "if you were thinking about it , you should do it" . I would be thinking that there was potentially a good risk of an anchor not holding . ( As in the Valour case) Whilst he could get going pretty quick ( diesel) This is no place for such a large vessel, the tide flows here close inshore at a pretty spectacular rate and I could see no reason why you would not want to give yourself a bit of extra time . 
As I say on this coast its only a matter of time before we see another "incident"


----------



## Martyn (May 16, 2007)

http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/support_services/article6216589.ece

Live map http://www.marinetraffic.com/ais/default.aspx?centerx=4.254&centery=51.929&zoom=13


----------



## John Gurton (Apr 10, 2006)

Never mind the tankers Nick, I see you've got the Zhen Hua 6 anchored off up there. These converted tankers to heavy lift ships tend to be underpowered for the cargoes they carry. All that windage area of the cranes they haul around. last winter saw one run amok in Felixstowe and another aground off Scheveningen. Salvage tugs are on alert when these ships are around !


----------



## Nick Balls (Apr 5, 2008)

Yes John she is not to badly placed actually. The tide tends to run parallel to the banks so she as a little more room than the ship mention before. He has now moved off to a more acceptable position. 
I don't really understand who is taking responsibility for any of these vessels when they place themselves in such vulnerable spots . the Harbours here have very small defined area's so it is quite clearly outside their juristrisction. The MCA are obviously fully aware of the vessels but I suspect they really don't want to get to involved (When things are going well). What a contrast to many countries !!!!!! 
Reading MIAB reports and the like I see there is a large increase in incidents with anchored vessels and I am really not surprised. I too have lost an anchor myself fairly recently ...One of those new type jobs from the far east !!! The Third mate was rather slow in reacting and while we had plenty of room, it was an extremely good learning curve for all concerned!!


----------



## SN NewsCaster (Mar 5, 2007)

*Ships shelter from economic storm (BBC News)*

Vessels moored in Cornwall act as economic barometer

More from BBC News...


----------



## Nick Balls (Apr 5, 2008)

The wind has been blowing hard from the east for a couple of days. One large vessel "Libyan Galaxy" is still at anchor immediately to windward of one of the most dangerous parts of the East Anglican coast !!! Ye gods!!!!! someone has more faith than I in a single anchor chain! The MCA is also obviously not in the least concerned ! Pretty basic stuff chaps , did that in orals back in 1974, learnt from experience what it means to lose an anchor , saw how fast a ship can drag . What else can you say ! I have serious concerns seeing this!


----------



## Nick Balls (Apr 5, 2008)

Have a look at this :http://www.marinetraffic.com/ais/default.aspx?centerx=-5&centery=40&zoom=3&level1=140 
Now zoom in on these tankers........The grey marker is 'Wave Sentinel'(Cable Ship)The tanker close by ' Front Opalia' (Drawing 20Mts) .......Those of you who know this neck of the woods will know there are an awful lot of undersea cables in this precise area.
Woops? Do I spot a bit of a mishap ? This whole lot should be shifted away from our coast. The Other week most of these ships stayed put when a severe eastly gale was blowing........ A real demonstration of bad seamanship it was a total lee shore !!!


----------



## RayJordandpo (Feb 23, 2006)

I worked out of Great Yarmouth on tugs and supply boats. As Nick says that stretch of coast can be very dangerous. There are numerous sand banks, the tides and undercurrents are strong and unpredictable. I certainly would feel uneasy with that fully laden vessel anchored in such a place unless of course it has a good reason to be there. Regarding the draught on the AIS, it only transmits the reading that it is manually entered unless they have got them now with built in draught sensors. I'm not saying that anyone has indeed entered a wrong draught but you can put in whatever figure you like.


----------



## Dave Woods (Apr 9, 2006)

Nick Balls said:


> Have a look at this :http://www.marinetraffic.com/ais/default.aspx?centerx=-5&centery=40&zoom=3&level1=140
> Now zoom in on these tankers........The grey marker is 'Wave Sentinel'(Cable Ship)The tanker close by ' Front Opalia' (Drawing 20Mts) .......Those of you who know this neck of the woods will know there are an awful lot of undersea cables in this precise area.
> Woops? Do I spot a bit of a mishap ? This whole lot should be shifted away from our coast. The Other week most of these ships stayed put when a severe eastly gale was blowing........ A real demonstration of bad seamanship it was a total lee shore !!!


I see the Wave Sentinel is working on a cable in 40 metres of water.


----------



## Nick Balls (Apr 5, 2008)

Yes that's right Dave, If you look at the arrangement of all the ships at anchor you will see there is a 'gap' corresponding to an area of the seabed covered in cables . The 'Front Opalia' looked to be pretty close to this lot !!! 
The concern on this coast as mentioned by Ray is it's very dangerous nature. Local inshore fishermen are also unable to fish properly in this whole area. Having worked off this coast and also (at one time) worked on large tankers ,I am extremly sceptical as to the safety of utilising this part of the sea as a tanker holding ground........... Let us hope and pray that yarmouth Coastguard have an eagle eye on things


----------

