No, not really

The cargo ship stranded off the Royal national park south of Sydney carries about 1,000 tonnes of heavy fuel oil and could cause an environmental disaster if it runs aground, experts say.

It’ll be an environmental pain in the arse, yes. It’s not desirable either. But disaster? Seriously folk, get a grip.

12 thoughts on “No, not really”

  1. When a great many famous spillages (Amoco Cadiz, Deepwater Horizon, Torrey Canyon etc were between 30 million and 300 million gallons calling a mere 1,000 gallons a potential environmental disaster shows the same level of imbecility as the UK “fracking tremor” threshold which is comparable to someone bouncing a tennis ball.

  2. Thank your, my mistake.

    Even at 263 gallons to a tonne that still only comes to between 0.1% and 1% of the ones I mentioned.

  3. I’m reminded of past so-called ecological disasters. Wasn’t it the Alaskan one that “devastated a delicate & vulnerable ecology for all time”, five years later there were no signs it had ever occurred?

  4. BiS, didn’t they also discover that the areas left to recover on their own did so quicker and better than the ones where the environmentalists rushed in to ‘help’?

  5. Where to start with this one? She’s afloat, and under tow so not “stranded” as such. “Turbo engine blower”? You don’t have to know anything about ships to know that it’s a turbo blower. And I notice that since container ships got huge they no longer refer to any large ship as a “Supertanker” they’re all container ships now, while in fact this one is a general bulk carrier. Any cursory check of one of the many ship tracking sites would tell you everything you want to know about her in seconds. I was in the Merchant Navy for 49 years and this sort of report really boils my urine.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *