Jump to content

Amorella Aground


TonyMWeaver
 Share

Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, Tumnus2010 said:

Footage of her being towed off here. Unloading vehicles in Langnas before heading to the Naantalli shipyard apparently. 

I bet the insurance companies will be so pleased to see so many vessels there, all wanting a piece of the cake!

One would have assumed they negotiated a contract with the salvage company, which may be one of the reasons it took a while for her to be removed. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

She’s on the move again.  AIS destinations are showing as Turku and Naantali on Amorella and Kraft respectively, both with an ETA of around 0730 this morning local time.

(Edit:  Given that I make that only just over an hour away, that seems quite ambitious!  Unless the AIS times indicated are UTC, in which case it’s a more plausible 4 hours away).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Apparently, the place where the skipper beached Amorella was a clay bottom.  So the damage may have essentially been limited to the initial strike, and not be as bad as we thought it would be when we thought she was on a rocky reef.

Also apparently, the breach was to just one compartment.

I don’t know the area that well, but based on what I do know, it seems to me that the availability of a clay beach so close to hand in that area was very fortuitous!

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The above has got me wondering.  

When the chart was posted, and I observed the 7.4m charted depth and Colin observed that the ship was well off-course outside the shipping channel, the assumption was that she must have struck something in the area of the 7.4m depth. I also mentioned that I thought that depth ought probably to have been enough clearance (but marginal).

Well, now, I am wondering whether the  grounding might have been further out, and that the course steered to Jarso (putting her off-course out of the channel) may have been deliberate in aiming for the clay beach.  If the skipper made a decision much further out to beach the vessel, and he chose that spot because of the clay, then the passage across the 7.4m depth might have been intentional and safe in heading for that beaching spot.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Gareth said:

The above has got me wondering.  

When the chart was posted, and I observed the 7.4m charted depth and Colin observed that the ship was well off-course outside the shipping channel, the assumption was that she must have struck something in the area of the 7.4m depth. I also mentioned that I thought that depth ought probably to have been enough clearance (but marginal).

Well, now, I am wondering whether the  grounding might have been further out, and that the course steered to Jarso (putting her off-course out of the channel) may have been deliberate in aiming for the clay beach.  If the skipper made a decision much further out to beach the vessel, and he chose that spot because of the clay, then the passage across the 7.4m depth might have been intentional and safe in heading for that beaching spot.

Could easily be squat effect, it's what did for the QEII off Martha's Vineyard. She should have had a margin of 2.5 metres under her hull at the time and had a local pilot at her helm.

Amorella's draft is 6.5m give or take a centimetre, she sits slightly lower than originally built due to a couple of refits and many mariners in the area suggest the passage is closer to 7 metres in depth rather than 7.5m.

Half a metre - 18 inches, then if she did run over the ice buoy, which illustrated in Ed's link is too low in the water so evidently damaged, you then need to consider the size of the concrete block it's tethered too. Combined the two would easily fill the void between keel and seabed especially as due to squat she'd be lower approaching the obstacle in the first place.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It was reported at the time that she had hit something prior to the grounding.

What I find strange is that she was towed all the way to the yard. 'If' she hit the buoy the most likely outcome is getting the chain around one of the props (I have seen this first hand in the Ramsgate Channel, and that was a tall cardinal buoy!), yet the buoy in the report is still 'on station'. And, of course, it is unlikely to require beaching. So why was she under tow to the yard? Breach of the hull and damage to both props maybe.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is apparently no (significant) damage to the propellors, but the hull is breached in one compartment.  I don’t think it is yet known what she hit or where, but I am now of the view that it was not in the immediate vicinity of the beaching.  This beaching location was deliberately selected and steered to because of the soft nature of the sea bed there.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Gareth said:

This beaching location was deliberately selected and steered to because of the soft nature of the sea bed there.

 

Absolutely, any prudent marina would do the same. Local knowledge is always a bonus and helps speed up the decision-making process. I certainly know where not to beach the boats I work on, 'if' there is enough time to make that decision.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Danim24 said:

Absolutely, any prudent marina would do the same. Local knowledge is always a bonus and helps speed up the decision-making process. I certainly know where not to beach the boats I work on, 'if' there is enough time to make that decision.

Agreed.  My point was that I don’t think the clay beach just “happened” to be right next to where the holing happened (and the 7.4m depth was not what caused the holing).

Regarding the idea of a collision with a buoy being the cause, for me the flaw in that theory is that it would have caused visible damage above the waterline.  But there was no sign of such damage in all the images we saw of her.  On the contrary, above the waterline she looked in pristine condition from all angles.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Gareth said:

On the contrary, above the waterline she looked in pristine condition from all angles.

But were we seeing all of her hull above the normal waterline? If she had flooded compartments due to a hull breach then the point of impact (and visible damage) might have been below the surface as she settled onto the seabed. Ed. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Gareth said:

Regarding the idea of a collision with a buoy being the cause, for me the flaw in that theory is that it would have caused visible damage above the waterline.  But there was no sign of such damage in all the images we saw of her.  On the contrary, above the waterline she looked in pristine condition from all angles.

The worst damage scenario for any ship is damage along the keel which the hull / buoy / seabed sandwich would certainly do. This is why modern torpedos aim for the keel and break the ship's back rather than the side impact as far more effective. Any damage of this type is unlikely to be seen above the waterline unless significant.

Also, the hull may not be holed. An object like that could wreck havoc to any hull fitting in other ways affecting operational ability.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, cvabishop said:

Main shipping channel buoys are big heavy solid things, easily capable of holing a ship.

Around 5 ton for the buoy, 3 ton for the sinker and then weight of chain depending on length.

The incident at Ramsgate resulted in no damage to the ship's hull. Just blade damage from the chain fouling the prop.

There is some give because the buoys are afloat and there is movement in the chain.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Gareth said:

Regarding the idea of a collision with a buoy being the cause, for me the flaw in that theory is that it would have caused visible damage above the waterline.  But there was no sign of such damage in all the images we saw of her.  On the contrary, above the waterline she looked in pristine condition from all angles.

Having looked at footage of her being manoeuvred by the tugs I have to to agree, there's no yellow or black paint marks on her anywhere, there maybe something in the buoy chain being snagged by her forefoot and dragging it under causing damage below the waterline but you'd still expect to see some evidence of the initial collision - her forefoot is bright blue and is clearly visible  just under the surface

I assume that being able to beach her on a clay bottom there was also an opportunity to send down a few divers too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...