# Nine 'ghost ships' hopes dashed (BBC News)



## SN NewsCaster (Mar 5, 2007)

Plans to scrap nine former US naval vessels at a yard on Teesside are dropped, it is revealed.

More from BBC News...


----------



## K urgess (Aug 14, 2006)

So instead of being dismantled properly by a certified British contractor they'll end up at Alang.
Of course the people who vetoed it will not have a guilty conscience about the number of deaths this could cause.


----------



## James_C (Feb 17, 2005)

Well said Kris. 
The so called Enviromentalists have done themselves no favours in this case. Not only is it ecologically sound to dismantle them on Teeside, where the skills and facilities exist, it would also provide much needed jobs.
As I recall they tried to get an injunction to stop them crossing the Atlantic, saying they were unsafe. Yet as soon as they arrived here they tried to get another court order for them to be towed back to the states. In their eyes, these ship had magically become seaworthy again.
This would be funny if it wasn't so ridiculous.


----------



## Bruce Carson (Jun 14, 2005)

With the outpouring of criticism, both at home and abroad, concerning the outsourcing overseas of Government owned ships for demolition, the US has taken to contracting with domestic companies to safely dismantle the vessels within the continental United States.
It would be hoped that the ships now in the UK will be towed back home and safely broken up in the States.
Even if this does not occur, the ongoing bad publicity over this incident may at least bring about the demolition of these ships in a safe environment rather than at Alang.

Bruce C


----------



## K urgess (Aug 14, 2006)

Let's hope so, Bruce.
It's just a pity that we can't keep some sort of shipping industry going even if it is demolishing someone else's.
This probably means that any sign of shipworking facilities in this country will have disappeared beyond all hope of resurrection sooner rather than later.

Kris


----------



## Bruce Carson (Jun 14, 2005)

Kris:
Sad--any small vestiges of past glory will be dependant on Government contracts for survival.
I've been watching the ongoing saga of Fergusons, hoping that they can compete.

Bruce C


----------



## Steve Woodward (Sep 4, 2006)

So we waste yet more fuel towing these back across the Atlantic, with the attendant risks, environmentalist s ?????


----------



## cboots (Aug 16, 2004)

Thank you Bruce C. for a timely intervention when it looked like this thread was about to deginerate into yet another round of environmentalist bashing. Whilst it is indeed preferable to have dangerous goods safely disposed of using the best technology available I do not think that we can resonably assume that the US is lacking in such technology themselves. A much more likely scenario is that the US government, wishing to dodge the scrutiny of its own evironmentalist movement, decided to export the problem. However, thanks to a watchful environmentalist lobby in the UK, their problem is to be returned to them. If I were a concerned UK resident, which I am not, I'd be saying well done that lobby.
CBoots


----------



## Tony Breach (Jun 15, 2005)

So now we've lost our re-cycling as well as our manufacturing. What's the next step - a nation of call-centres for the industrious third world perhaps???


----------



## Peter Eccleson (Jan 16, 2006)

Not wishing to be labelled an 'environmentalist basher' I have to agree with Tony Breech.

Specialist industries do exist in all areas such as nuclear waste recycling, asbestos removal etc etc. I am sure that most of you would rather this be done in a 'safe' manner under strict supervision than in some third world backyard! The 'recycling' of old tonnage is a growing industry. I welcome the views of the environmentalists to want it done safely. I am a supporter of their campaigns against the recycling industry in places such a Chittagong and Alang where they clearly demonstrate a disregard for humanity and the environment . However, realistically such processes have to be done somewhere..... why not Britain? If we have the expertise then why shouldn't British industry prosper in this role?


----------



## K urgess (Aug 14, 2006)

At least the first four will be dismantled on Teeside so they won't have to send them back.
It always smacks of "not in MY backyard" and I don't see the point in denying them permission to do more than the first four if that is the case.
It may be that the deal fell through anyway because the USN was having second thoughts as Bruce says. The delays meant renegotiation and the policy for disposal had changed in the meantime.
Not environmentalist bashing per se because I can understand their concerns. Safe dismantling is all very well but what happens to the "safely" dismantled toxic waste? This seems to be where the disposal chain normally breaks down. More Landfill or incineration into the atmosphere?

Kris


----------



## Tony Breach (Jun 15, 2005)

Kris & Peter,

You are certainly going in the right direction. One would have thought that the contract for 13 ships would have enabled Able to invest in technology, methodology & equipment to have done the job in an efficient & environmentally proper manner. An added bonus would have been a properly trained an experienced labour force with the possibility of environmental certification. The result could have been a world leadership in industrial recycling. Our government apparently wishes to become the world leader in certain environmental areas & has already introduced £40 penalties for flying while at the same time spending BILLIONS of the taxpayers money & lottery earnings to encourage MILLIONS of people to fly here for the Olympics. It would be far better if the government were to encourage research into the solutions of proper recycling & the abolition of the use of non-environmentally friendly materials & superfluous packaging etc. 

Is there now a real incentive as opposed to a minimal requirement for Able & their work force to prove what can really be done in this area? Will this be another opportunity lost?

Tony


----------



## ddraigmor (Sep 13, 2006)

Tony,

Fine points. British industry is long gone down the proverbial pan so why not start to show the world that Alang doesn't have to be like it is - death, no decrease in poverty, environmental damage - and that the job can be done professionally.

We have a government dictat to 'save the environment' so yes, let's see them put their money where their mouths are and show the world it can be done and done safely.

Jonty


----------



## James_C (Feb 17, 2005)

There is one small flaw in that plan,
Britain, by tradition is historically criminally shortsighted in all matters Industrial/Historical/Cultural.
I fear it will always be so, especially whist we have a Labour Govt in power who has gone on record in saying it doesn't want Britain to "be a country of metal bashing industries".
What's the odds on a call centre on pricey flats appearing near Able soon - it' all the UK is good for these days.


----------



## Bearsie (Nov 11, 2006)

Bruce Carson said:


> With the outpouring of criticism, both at home and abroad, concerning the outsourcing overseas of Government owned ships for demolition, the US has taken to contracting with domestic companies to safely dismantle the vessels within the continental United States.
> It would be hoped that the ships now in the UK will be towed back home and safely broken up in the States.
> Even if this does not occur, the ongoing bad publicity over this incident may at least bring about the demolition of these ships in a safe environment rather than at Alang.
> 
> Bruce C


The UK yard won the bid fair and square and for much less than a comparable US yard. There may have been "an outpouring" of concern (mostly in the UK)
which amazes me since the protesters indicate that British industry is ill equipped to dismantle stuff properly....
The "outcry" in the US was paid for by a union and a shipyard, and was not surprising considering the money they want for the work ( the word highway robbery comes to mind) little to do with enviromental concerns....

As far as Alang, all toxic waste there was generated in Europe or another industrialised region of the globe. If poverty in Alang can not be brought under control even with 5000 breakers jobs how much worse will it be without?
I am sure those workers would rather be on the dole in Europe or the US than breaking ships, perhaps we should hand them visa's and buy them tickets for the trip?


----------



## Bruce Carson (Jun 14, 2005)

My goodness, Bearsie, you're really wound up today.
I wouldn't quite know how to begin answering most of these statements.

Bruce C


----------



## Peter Eccleson (Jan 16, 2006)

*Ghost ships*

Kris makes a good final point....I've been trying to find out how asbestos is 'safely disposed of' as distinct to 'safely removed'. Its all a bit complicated.

Bearsie .... whilst Alang may be dealing with toxic waste originating elsewhere in the industrialised world, they are adding to 'real' global pollution by their indiscriminate abuse of internationally recognised waste control proceeses and also, Alang is in India ... which is one of the worst of the third world industrial polluters! You could therefore conclude it is acceptable practice there so should be condemned.

5000 breakers jobs and poverty....... another thread perhaps?


----------

