# CAPTAIN OF PRESTIGE FOUND “NOT GUILTY” (news item)



## Klaatu83 (Jan 22, 2009)

Finally found not guilty after only 11 years! If only the Spanish authorities had allowed the captain to bring his ship in to drydock none of this would ever have happened. 

CAPTAIN OF PRESTIGE FOUND “NOT GUILTY”

The captain of the ill-fated tanker ship PRESTIGE was acquitted on Nov. 13 of charges of “environmental crime” in what is widely considered one of the world’s worst maritime disasters: an oil spill that blackened hundreds of miles of coastline in Spain, Portugal 
and France in 2002. Captain Apostolos Mangouras was, however, convicted of a lesser charge of disobeying orders from officials in Spain after the vessel began to sink.

During the course of the incident, approximately 80 per cent of the tanker’s 77,000 tons of fuel oil spilled off Spain’s northeast coast. Officials in France, Portugal and Spain refused the captain’s plea to dock the vessel and the ship subsequently split in half. Mangouras was sentenced to nine months in jail but prison time is unlikely because of his age and the fact that he has no criminal record. If convicted of environmental crime, he would have faced up to 12 years in prison.


----------



## Ron Stringer (Mar 15, 2005)

And the Spanish shore authorities that refused the vessel a safe haven or to give it assistance were also cleared of any responsibility for the outcome.


----------



## Derek Roger (Feb 19, 2005)

Shocking . Derek


----------



## ben27 (Dec 27, 2012)

good day klaatu83.sm.today 04:07re:captain of prestige found "not guilty"(news item)so much for spanish justice.better late than never.thanks for posting.regards ben27


----------



## Varley (Oct 1, 2006)

Disgusting. Why on earth should he have obeyed instructions from the dangerous nimbys who attempted to murder him in the first place!

Maybe the foreign office should include the topic while the **** Ambassador visiting for other offences this week.


----------



## Split (Jun 25, 2006)

Ron Stringer said:


> And the Spanish shore authorities that refused the vessel a safe haven or to give it assistance were also cleared of any responsibility for the outcome.


This was a difficult decision to have to make. Allowing the ship into port in such a condition was political dynamite and you can imagine that if there had been a disaster after the ship had entered port the whole world would have been asking what the authorities were thinking of.

Someone was to blame, though. How about the owners and insurers. Where do they come in?

Perhaps, we should be asking what, after eleven years, has been done to ensure that such a disaster never happens again
' I have not been following this case but I am willing to bet that the answer is "not much, if anything"

The Costa Concordia navigated close to shore, just to show off, to put it bluntly. She could have been a loaded tanker.


----------



## Split (Jun 25, 2006)

Varley said:


> Disgusting. Why on earth should he have obeyed instructions from the dangerous nimbys who attempted to murder him in the first place!
> 
> Maybe the foreign office should include the topic while the **** Ambassador visiting for other offences this week.


By "****", you must mean the Spanish Ambassador, no doubt.


----------



## Varley (Oct 1, 2006)

If you know why ask?

The decision was only difficult in the same way as deliberately running over a pedestrian in an attempt to get home in time to placate the wife.

The outcome was so obviously likely to result in the loss of the vessel and, consequently, loss of life that gross negligence would clearly apply. Death caused by gross negligence - murder. Likely loss of life was clearly put against some smaller risk of loss of livelihood. And lost!


----------



## Klaatu83 (Jan 22, 2009)

Split said:


> Allowing the ship into port in such a condition was political dynamite and you can imagine that if there had been a disaster after the ship had entered port the whole world would have been asking what the authorities were thinking of.
> 
> So, instead of facing the outcry from spilling a small amount of oil while bringing the stricken ship into port for the necessary repairs, the authorities decided to play it politically safe, and by so doing precipitated one of the worst environmental disasters in European history. By compelling that ship to remain out at sea, in the condition she was in, the political authorities made the outcome inevitable, and there wasn't a thing the ship's captain could have done to have changed that.


----------



## Varley (Oct 1, 2006)

Klaatu83 said:


> Split said:
> 
> 
> > Allowing the ship into port in such a condition was political dynamite and you can imagine that if there had been a disaster after the ship had entered port the whole world would have been asking what the authorities were thinking of.
> ...


----------



## Split (Jun 25, 2006)

It seems to me to be the same old story of an eleven year old post mortum.

If I had been Port Captain at the time I would have been trying to make the right decision and I do not blame him from taking the one he did.

The crew was got off--what more can one ask?

I have a Master's certificate, although I left the sea as Chief Officer. I have a lot of experience with old tanker tonnage. I will say quite clearly that, for a start. you would not see me on board a tanker in that condition, under a flag of convenience. I question not the Master's ability, but I would like to know more of his cv. because, at that age, I suggest that he was scraping the barrel in looking for a job. 

Many might think that that is a distasteful thing to write and it is more a criticism of the company that he was working for.

"Prestige" was a floatiing disaster waiting to happen and similar ones have, and are, taking place worldwide. The transport of dangerous cargos and the ships carrying them should receive much more attention thin it does. What happened to "Prestige" was the end of the incident and the end result is where the blame goes, mainly because of press coverage.


----------



## Varley (Oct 1, 2006)

It's been eleven years in the hope that the world would forget this hateful assault on the Merchant Seafarer. Not me!


----------



## Jose Manuel Ortega (May 12, 2013)

*Loaded tanker in DD ?*

Klaatu83
" If only the Spanish authorities had allowed the captain to bring his ship in to drydock none of this would ever have happened. "


The Prestige draft was 18 meters, maybe 19. Fully loaded. I did in my sealife 17 DD as Captain and Ch Officer, 10 of them VLCC. Can you tell me where and how is possible to bring the ship in DD.

If you go into localizatodo.com/mapa/ , zooming to La Coruña harbour, you can see that The Prestige could not pass the breakwater. Thick in Cartas Nauticas on the middle left and you can see the chart


----------



## Split (Jun 25, 2006)

When I was a mate in a major oil company, in the fift¡es, I cleaned tanks off Palermo, prior to drydock. It was prohibited to clean tanks in the North Sea, except for one small patch, just a few miles square and the captain had to make certain we were in it, so that I could clean there, before drydock in the Tyne. I have cleaned tanks on our way to Patning, just north of the Barrier Reef and I have changed from black oil to white, in the Atlantic, before loading in Baton Rouge.

I am a dinosaur, just as is Capt Mangouras. The crew may not have known, but he knew the condition of that ship when he took over, or he is as naive as his cabin boy. He knew, because a previous master complained about her condition to the point that he had to resign and he only had to read the ABS report on the three sister ships that were scrapped several years before. The Prestige broke her back exactly at the point that ABS said was the vulnerable part.

We are not at the same point in time as we were sixty years ago These shipowners with their twentyfive year old tankers and crews--- who need a job under most cir***stances, as long as it is legal and who turn a blind eye, in case they get fired--- must go.

The world is changing and people are conscious of the way that their birthright and quality of life is being destroyed by immoral moneymakers, who don't give a damn about anything, except dividends and make sure that they, themselves live somewhere else.

I am not sure whether I sympathise with Mangouras, or not. I would like to know more about this man, who was a shipmaster for 44 years and, still, taking jobs with this type of shipowner and ship.

Something does not ring true, to me. 3,000,000 Euros bail. The London P&I club posted that. Why? Who has been paying for his subsistance for the last 11 years?

These are some questions that do not reflect on Captain Mangouras ability as a seaman, which is proven, but they are one of many that need answers.

As far as Spain is concerned, I, still, believe that they were doing what they could and did not realise that they might make matters worse. If that ship was allowed into a Spanish port, she could have wrecked on a rock and be there for years. Costa Concordia has been on that Italian Island for close to two years, already. Thank God, she is not a tanker with 70,000 tons of crude.

Now, in the previous post, Josè Manuel Ortega raises the question of draft, so that is another question to be answered.


----------



## doyll (Mar 9, 2007)

Jose Manuel Ortega said:


> Klaatu83
> " If only the Spanish authorities had allowed the captain to bring his ship in to drydock none of this would ever have happened. "
> 
> 
> The Prestige draft was 18 meters, maybe 19. Fully loaded. I did in my sealife 17 DD as Captain and Ch Officer, 10 of them VLCC. Can you tell me where and how is possible to bring the ship in DD.


Prestige draft was 14 meters and a hull depth of 18.7 meters.

Getting her into protected waters, even if she would not go into port, would probably have alleviated the problem. Her oil could have than been pumped into other ships/barges with minimal environmental damage contained in one location instead of the whole coast. (Thumb)


----------



## O.M.Bugge (Apr 1, 2009)

Something similar happened with a burning Container ship not so long a go, did it not. She was towed around in the Atlantic for several weeks because no UK or other near ports would allow her even close, since there were contaminated water in one or more of her holds. No danger of oil leaks and she was eventually towed through the English Channel to Germany without an incident.

There is even a law stating that ships in distress MUST be granted Port of Refuge. Was a lesson been learnt from the Prestige?? I don't think so. Whenever there is the even a hint that pollution has occured, or even can occur, the solution is to arrest the Captain, just in case he may have caused his problem deliberately.


----------



## Jose Manuel Ortega (May 12, 2013)

*Prestige draft*

Prestige draft was 14 meters on leaving loading port and when underway. When off Finisterre, suddenly in 10 minutes, she got 30 degrees list by stbd side due a collapse in the bulkheads of center cargo tanks with ballast tanks. Captain then ballasted port ballast tanks to minime the list. It is very easy to calculate the draft. Particulars of the vessel are available in several places in internet.

The attached picture is after ballasting port ballast tanks

I am not going to discuss anything about the best solution to minimize the tremendous damage caused, endless matter.


----------



## doyll (Mar 9, 2007)

Indeed O.M.Bugge, the MV MSC Flaminia. 

And before that MSC Napoli was refused by France as well as Falmouth, Cornwall and Plymouth, Devon. She ended up being beached in Lyme Bay at Branscombe. 6 months later refloated, but immediately beached again. Stern was then removed with shaped charges and bow was towed to Harland and Wolff shipyard where it was broken up and salvaged. Stern was broke up and salvaged where it was beached. 

Jose Manuel Ortega
Picture appears to have more than .7m of hull above water. 

Everyone denied safe harbor for Prestige and end result is everyone got oiled... and all these years later they still haven't learned the lesson.


----------



## Split (Jun 25, 2006)

doyll said:


> Indeed O.M.Bugge, the MV MSC Flaminia.
> 
> And before that MSC Napoli was refused by France as well as Falmouth, Cornwall and Plymouth, Devon. She ended up being beached in Lyme Bay at Branscombe. 6 months later refloated, but immediately beached again. Stern was then removed with shaped charges and bow was towed to Harland and Wolff shipyard where it was broken up and salvaged. Stern was broke up and salvaged where it was beached.
> 
> ...


There is an opinion, here, that it would have been better to allow Prestige into harbour. There was no certainty of that at the time-- The wrong decision was taken---in hindsight---

My Word, if I could change some of the things that I have done. The problem is that I do not know what would have been the result of those changes and neither does anyone else.


----------



## Jose Manuel Ortega (May 12, 2013)

1 meter more or less doesn´t make any difference.

Today is the day that I do not know what would be my decisión in case I have to decide.

The Longitudinal bulkhead of 3 CT with 3 STB collapsed together with 2 STB with 3 STB.
The sagging created after ballasting port ballast tanks went over 150 %. I have clear that the vessel with part in two. ¿ how long ?. My opinión is that will take place in question of few days if the vessel is in a sheltered bay.
Two places where can go: Ares Bay, at the entrance of La Coruña harbour, open to the west/northwest and Corcubion bay, open to southwest/west. In both places it is recomended to leave anchorage when the weather is forcé 6 or more.
What to do. No way to go into La Coruña harbour. Concentrate in one bay the whole ---- ?. Which one?. 
No one died. In two years the whole coast was clean and fishermen could work.


----------



## Jose Manuel Ortega (May 12, 2013)

Another one


----------



## doyll (Mar 9, 2007)

Ships in distress need to be allowed into the nearest capable port. No more playing political games and tactics trying to avoid having to deal with the problems. 

On an individual level it's like seeing someone injured in an accident or collapsing on the street and not assisting them.. just on a much bigger scale.


----------



## Split (Jun 25, 2006)

doyll said:


> Ships in distress need to be allowed into the nearest capable port. No more playing political games and tactics trying to avoid having to deal with the problems.
> 
> On an individual level it's like seeing someone injured in an accident or collapsing on the street and not assisting them.. just on a much bigger scale.


It has not changed. This instance seems to involve the saving of the ship and much of its cargo. In days before, the effort used to involve saving the crew and the ship sank or wrecked, to be left to its plight. 

All the crew, here, were saved without loss of life. The main object has been achieved, in my opinion.

If the same thoughts occurred to the port authorities as those of JM Ortega, I can see why she was not given permission to enter.

It does not seem to be a very popular line of thinking but it is what I believe.


----------



## doyll (Mar 9, 2007)

For me and many others it's not about saving the ship and cargo. 
It's about saving the environment from the pollution these ships release when they breakup and sink. 
The hazardous cargo on container ships.. and the obvious dangers of tankers.


----------



## paulm (Oct 22, 2007)

For me and many others it's not about saving the ship and cargo. 
It's about saving the environment from the pollution these ships release when they breakup and sink. 
The hazardous cargo on container ships.. and the obvious dangers of tankers.
Last edited by doyll : Today at 18:21.

Are you per chance suggesting that the environment should take precedence over the crew.

Paulm.


----------



## doyll (Mar 9, 2007)

paulm said:


> Are you per chance suggesting that the environment should take precedence over the crew.
> 
> Paulm.


Not at all. 

I never in any way even hinted at such thoughts. 

Why would you even think such? Thread is about environmental disaster and good captain of same being accused of causing it.. and how the countries that refused to allow the Prestige into port and avoid the disaster. No mention of anything about the crew.

All I've saying is countries need to provide ports for ships needing repairs to be brought into when in distress, not bounced around the ocean trying to find a port they can enter. often doing extensive damage to the environment. The higher the potential for serious environmental damage the quicker they need to be in port. 

the only crews at may be put at risk are the tugs going out in sever storm conditions to get the ship invoved. All of the ships we've been talking about had salvage tugs with crews with them. (LOL)


----------



## FILIPVS (Apr 20, 2011)

Meanwhile mass media is talking about Prestige ten years later of the accident, loaded chemical tanker *MARITIME MAISE* still remains afloat after a collision on 29 December 2013, and today 60 days later the ship is still waiting for a port of refuge!!! And no media is talking about it.

*Chemical tanker carrying toxic cargo threatens to break*

_*"The chemical tanker ' Maritime Maisie ' fiercely battered off the coast of Busan in South Korea is threatening to go to break . Reported that classification society Lloyd 's Register .
The " Maritime Maisie ' on 29 Decmeber 2013 collided with the car carrier ' Gravity Highway ' , which was engaged in ' sea trials . The chemical tanker was severely damaged and caught fire . The fire raged for three weeks . Fire and swell to four meters high, have greatly weakened the ship and Lloyd 's Register now fears that the ship will break .
' The maximum bending moment exceeds the estimated resistance limits of the ship , " says the rating agency that since the accident, is working closely with the Singapore ship manager MSI Ship Management . " Worsening weather or a long ocean tow will bring the ship in danger of breaking ."

"The ship is in dire need of a safe shelter ," says the club . But as so often in such accidents is no one keen to receive the ship. In this case, Japan and South Korea refuse shelter. Tugs keep the ship at sea .

The Maritime Maise had during the collision 30,000 tons of acrylonitrile on board , a chemical used in the manufacture of plastic and is toxic and flammable . An estimated 4,000 tons of it all ended up in the sea or air or burns . When breaking the ship would be with another 26,000 tons at sea ."*_


----------

