Zuiderdam prevented from leaving port by protesters

[ski ww]

That sounds like a very interesting port of call. Just think of the stories you'll be telling after you get home. Peaceful protests are still lawful, nobody got hurt, nor was property damaged. Other then a couple of hours delay, alls well that ends well. That's why you never book an early return flight, you never know what kind of delays the ship can have.  

[chengkp75]

I've got a few questions.  First, scoboo, how do you know the Master did not raise the ship's security level to MARSEC 2?  This is not something that is announced over the PA along with the afternoon's activities.  Plus, he has wide discretion to implement security measures from the company's ISPS document listed at higher MARSEC levels, without declaring a raised MARSEC level.  Second, as despegue and others have noted, there was no actual attempt to board the vessel, so the vessel's MARSEC level was irrelevant, and the vessel's ISPS only covers security while physically onboard, or when there is an attempt to board.

 

And, I'm a bit confused why the protesters were protesting, since Kiel is bounded by two of the strictest air emission zones in the world.  I understand, from some of the comments quoted in news articles, that they are relying on the "studies" done by a German environmental group that has little scientific basis to the study, but even so, choosing Kiel is ironic.  First, all ships in EU ports must switch to low sulfur diesel fuel while in port, second, Kiel is within the Baltic ECA where all ships must either burn low sulfur diesel fuel or use an exhaust gas scrubber, and the Baltic ECA is bounded by the North Sea ECA which has exactly the same restrictions on ship's emissions and extends north almost to the Faeroe Islands and west to Ushant in France.

 

And, finally, as of 1 January 2020, less than 6 months from now, the worldwide sulfur limit for marine fuels will drop by 86% from 3.5% to 0.5%, which is likely to produce a dramatic negative impact on the oil refining industry in its capability to meet this demand, and a negative impact on world shipping (90% of world commerce, not just cruising) through higher fuel prices, but the world's maritime nations have agreed to this measure, despite any harm to the world's economy.

[*Miss G*]

Thank you for responding to my question @micmand @Germancruiser.

 

2 hours ago, ScoBoo said:

The Master - along with the public ‘safety’ personnel - stood idly by as eco-terrorists became in direct contact with our vessel. The level of inaction by the Master and public safety personnel put the passengers and crew at risk for ten hours. That’s unacceptable and irresponsible.

 

It appears you have allowed your outrage to overrule common sense.  “Idleness” would not have been a part of anyone’s action or “inaction”.  Just because you don’t see it doesn’t mean that nothing’s happening.

[Moriah]

My friends who are boarding the Z. this morning report they were told boarding was delayed by one hour.  Kudos to the Captain for making up 5 hours of the 6 hour delay and getting everyone safely to Copenhagen.  Whatever one might believe about "global warming" and pollution of the seas, etc., I cannot understand condoning the behavior of these  particular activists.  I also feel that it's easy to judge the German police and security. I am sure we don't have all the facts.  I give the benefit of the doubt, since this undoubtedly took them by surprise, and I believe many lessons will be gleaned from this event that will impact future cruise ships docking in Kiel, and elsewhere, preventing this from happening again. My intuition tells me the safety of the passengers was never at risk  - only the safety of the (IMO) fanatical activists who were putting themselves in a very dangerous situation.  This in no way excuses those activists. During this whole event I kept shaking my head saying "those idiots!"  But let's just give those actually involved a chance to learn from this and put in place what is needed to prevent a recurrence.  Meanwhile, the Z. sails on... my friends are excited to board her and get into their Neptune Suite and have a toast to HAL for the show must go on. 🙂

[GUEST080219]

31 minutes ago, chengkp75 said:

And, I'm a bit confused why the protesters were protesting, since Kiel is bounded by two of the strictest air emission zones in the world.  I understand, from some of the comments quoted in news articles, that they are relying on the "studies" done by a German environmental group that has little scientific basis to the study, but even so, choosing Kiel is ironic.  First, all ships in EU ports must switch to low sulfur diesel fuel while in port, second, Kiel is within the Baltic ECA where all ships must either burn low sulfur diesel fuel or use an exhaust gas scrubber, and the Baltic ECA is bounded by the North Sea ECA which has exactly the same restrictions on ship's emissions and extends north almost to the Faeroe Islands and west to Ushant in France.

 

And, finally, as of 1 January 2020, less than 6 months from now, the worldwide sulfur limit for marine fuels will drop by 86% from 3.5% to 0.5%, which is likely to produce a dramatic negative impact on the oil refining industry in its capability to meet this demand, and a negative impact on world shipping (90% of world commerce, not just cruising) through higher fuel prices, but the world's maritime nations have agreed to this measure, despite any harm to the world's economy.

 

Isn’t it think global act local?

But your points are a good one and what I would take away from this. Should we allow, and with enlargement and new builds of cruise terminals support, a growth of an industry that still has no short term plan for a nearly zero emission business. 

 

It always ticked me off that cruise lines proudly talk about their low whatever fuels in special areas and no one is questioning them why not use the environmental best fuel all of the time. If it is not possible due to demand or cost that would be another indicator for a not sustainable industry that has to be stopped or at least severely limited. 

[chengkp75]

1 hour ago, micm said:

 

Isn’t it think global act local?

But your points are a good one and what I would take away from this. Should we allow, and with enlargement and new builds of cruise terminals support, a growth of an industry that still has no short term plan for a nearly zero emission business. 

 

It always ticked me off that cruise lines proudly talk about their low whatever fuels in special areas and no one is questioning them why not use the environmental best fuel all of the time. If it is not possible due to demand or cost that would be another indicator for a not sustainable industry that has to be stopped or at least severely limited. 

When you look at the cruise industry alone, your points may be valid ones.  However, the cruise industry makes up about 5% of the world's ocean going tonnage, so their impact on emissions pales in comparison to other shipping.  Why are the protestors not protesting Maersk, Evergreen, and OOCL for not using the most environmentally friendly fuels at all times?  Why single out the cruise industry?  Two reasons, one is visibility (who notices container ships and tankers, as they are part of the port "scenery") as container lines don't advertise on TV, and the other is that restricting cruising will not affect the price of their consumer products that have traveled by sea to them.

 

Make no mistake, I am all for environmental stewardship, and have worked with the MARPOL regulations governing the maritime industry and all forms of waste management for the 44 years I've been going to sea, and applaud each and every possible improvement, regardless of how much more work it involves, or how much harder it makes our jobs.  But to single out the cruise industry for it's contribution to pollution is like singling out one particular brand of car that meets the same regulations as every other car in the world.

 

Does world shipping have a short term plan (or even a long term plan) for zero emissions?  The oil industry knew of the upcoming world-wide sulfur limits for years, yet it will still promote a near crisis for many refiners (and that is not even the maritime industry, but an industry that supplies the maritime).  And, the limits on sulfur will likely end up causing more oil to be burned as older refineries at which marine residual fuel is the end product after extracting all they can from crude oil, needs to be shipped to other refineries to continue the refining process, rather than selling it to be burned to carry the refined products around the world.

[ew101]

1 hour ago, chengkp75 said:

 

And, I'm a bit confused why the protesters were protesting

The pH of ocean surface waters has dropped from 8.2 in 1850 to 8.1 at the present time.  This is a log scale, (like earthquakes), so the shift is 30% since the Industrial Revolution.   An estimated 30-40% of man made carbon dioxide emissions enter the oceans, lakes and streams and some of it reacts to form carbonic acid.   The projections are ocean pH will reach 7.8 by 2100.  This will harm current beneficial sea life.  Ocean dead zones emit poisonous hydrogen sulfide gas.   The extreme form of this is called an Anoxic Event.  

 

Chengkp75 is right that sulfur emissions standards are being updated for shipping.  

 

There is a fascinating technology for reducing ship emissions - a Flettner rotor sail.  It was deployed in 1924 so even traditionalists should approve.  

 

Edited June 10, 2019 by ew101

[GUEST080219]

@chengkp75 looking at the news coverage today the plan to get attention worked. So can’t blame them. 

 

But it not all ships traffic is equal. Even though some cargo traffic is questionable, do we really need all year round products that have to get shipped around the world when they are not in season here? In general it serves a purpose for prosperity world wide. At least in theory. 

 

In contrast to that hardly any of the >800 cruise ships and their itineraries have any value. And with nearly 30 or so cruises in 11 years I am part of the problem. I like to pretend it has at least some cultural value but with the restricted port times that is just a lie. And with ships that have a ho-kart track oder laser tag on board no more needs to be said.

 

Not even talking about the $299 med cruises or 3 day Caribbean booze cruises. 

 

[jimnjake]

Carnival, who owns HA was already fined 20 million dollars for polluting and then dumped gray water into Glacier Bay NATIONAL PARK and plastic in the Bahamas. I was on this ship which was protested and I say good for those kids.

If you doubt want protestors don't dump crap in our oceans and national protected parks. 

[chengkp75]

1 hour ago, micm said:

@chengkp75 looking at the news coverage today the plan to get attention worked. So can’t blame them. 

 

But it not all ships traffic is equal. Even though some cargo traffic is questionable, do we really need all year round products that have to get shipped around the world when they are not in season here? In general it serves a purpose for prosperity world wide. At least in theory. 

 

In contrast to that hardly any of the >800 cruise ships and their itineraries have any value. And with nearly 30 or so cruises in 11 years I am part of the problem. I like to pretend it has at least some cultural value but with the restricted port times that is just a lie. And with ships that have a ho-kart track oder laser tag on board no more needs to be said.

 

Not even talking about the $299 med cruises or 3 day Caribbean booze cruises. 

 

Again, the transportation of fresh fruits and produce is only a segment of the maritime industry.  And, as I've said, 90% of the world's economy travels by sea, so a whole lot of shipping is necessary, and marine transportation of goods is by far the most economical and fuel efficient means of transportation there is today.

 

So, since cruising has "no value" other than leisure and entertainment, then every other form of leisure and entertainment should be curtailed or eliminated as well?  If we stopped manufacturing TV's and consequently stopped TV production and broadcasting, since it has "no value" it would most certainly curtail energy use and pollution world wide.  I'm being extreme, of course, but just to point out that something that has "no value" to you may have value to others.

[Floridiana]

Many good points have been made, especially by chengkp75.

I was on a luxury cruise ship that goes from port to port all over the world and the question of sustainability and pollution came up in the engine control room (tour for passengers). The engineer said that it is not easy to find low emission fuels everywhere in the world. They buy what's available.  By law, it's low emission fuel in the Baltic Sea and Antarctica.

 

 

[chengkp75]

1 hour ago, Floridiana said:

Many good points have been made, especially by chengkp75.

I was on a luxury cruise ship that goes from port to port all over the world and the question of sustainability and pollution came up in the engine control room (tour for passengers). The engineer said that it is not easy to find low emission fuels everywhere in the world. They buy what's available.  By law, it's low emission fuel in the Baltic Sea and Antarctica.

 

 

There are currently 4 ECA's (Emission Control Areas) in the world:  North America, North Sea, Baltic, and Antarctic.  There are several more proposed ones.

[catl331]

just FYI - Z'dam is next scheduled to be in Kiel again on July 4

[scubacruiserx2]

5 hours ago, G.M.T. said:

It is still lawful to protest in Germany

 

Protest yes , is kidnapping and holding a ship and people against their will lawful in Germany 

?

[Ulsteinvik]

I hope HAL keeps visiting Kiel. I think it would be a bad signal from Hal because the protestants will then celebrate this action as a success.

[Despegue]

35 minutes ago, scubacruiserx2 said:

 

Protest yes , is kidnapping and holding a ship and people against their will lawful in Germany 

?

Better check the definition of kidnapping before making such comments.

 

[scubacruiserx2]

We read this quote on the Berlin wall . Du hast gelernt was Freiheit heisst und das vergiss nie mehr . Our guide translated it You learned what freedom means and don't forget this anymore . Apparently these protestors have forgotten , never knew , or don't care what others freedom means . It means not creating a barricade to or around free people as was done in Berlin's past .

[Despegue]

4 minutes ago, scubacruiserx2 said:

We read this quote on the Berlin wall . Du hast gelernt was Freiheit heisst und das vergiss nie mehr . Our guide translated it You learned what freedom means and don't forget this anymore . Apparently these protestors have forgotten , never knew , or don't care what others freedom means . It means not creating a barricade to or around free people as was done in Berlin's past .

Comparing the Berlin wall with this small protest is not only extremely ignorant, but also insulting to those affected by the years of East German oppression.

[G.M.T.]

1 hour ago, scubacruiserx2 said:

 

Protest yes , is kidnapping and holding a ship and people against their will lawful in Germany 

?

NOONE was kidknapped and NOONE held the ship, it was delayed.

 

Fire your script writer.

[G.M.T.]

47 minutes ago, scubacruiserx2 said:

We read this quote on the Berlin wall . Du hast gelernt was Freiheit heisst und das vergiss nie mehr . Our guide translated it You learned what freedom means and don't forget this anymore . Apparently these protestors have forgotten , never knew , or don't care what others freedom means . It means not creating a barricade to or around free people as was done in Berlin's past .

In East Germany no one could protest. With the fall of the Berlin Wall ALL Germans could and still protest to their hearts content.

 

There are excerting their right under the constitution to demonstrate and protest action.

[fatcat04]

8 minutes ago, G.M.T. said:

In East Germany no one could protest. With the fall of the Berlin Wall ALL Germans could and still protest to their hearts content.

 

There are excerting their right under the constitution to demonstrate and protest action.

 So German law (or EU, I have no idea which applies in this situation) allows for the invasion and occupying of private property (hanging off the ship's lines) or restricted government owned property for the purpose of protest. Good to know. As some remarked earlier, would a protest on the tarmac of an major international airport be greeted with similar nonchalance by authorities and apparently the populace? I highly doubt it. Had they not been peaceful but had blown a hole in Zdams hull, would this lax security be viewed the same? Again, I doubt it. THIS is what concerns many of us, not the content of their message (which may have merit) or their right to lawfully protest (which I support wholeheartedly.)

[chengkp75]

1 hour ago, fatcat04 said:

 So German law (or EU, I have no idea which applies in this situation) allows for the invasion and occupying of private property (hanging off the ship's lines) or restricted government owned property for the purpose of protest. Good to know. As some remarked earlier, would a protest on the tarmac of an major international airport be greeted with similar nonchalance by authorities and apparently the populace? I highly doubt it. Had they not been peaceful but had blown a hole in Zdams hull, would this lax security be viewed the same? Again, I doubt it. THIS is what concerns many of us, not the content of their message (which may have merit) or their right to lawfully protest (which I support wholeheartedly.)

No, it doesn't, which is why the police removed the protestors.  Are you really going to escalate this to a terrorist attack?  I give the German intelligence agencies a lot more credit to have known whether this would have been a violent attack or not.  I work with ship's security every day, been to some places that would make you cringe concerning terrorist threats, flew the US flag there.  Trust me, there was nothing that those protesters could have brought in their kayaks that would have seriously damaged this ship, even all of them together, let alone threatened passenger safety.

[Copper10-8]

8 hours ago, ScoBoo said:

 

Thanks for asking!

 

HAL shares responsibility for port security and vessel security under international maritime law. The ship Master has a responsibility for security under these agreements in addition to the country maintaining the port.

 

Since these eco-terrorists began their activities around noon, the Master had four hours prior to scheduled departure to increase the security level from MARSEC 1 to an appropriate level, such as MARSEC 2 or 3, in order to protect passengers and crew. The Master has broad discretion to act on behalf of the company (HAL) in order to protect passengers and crew. The Master - along with the public ‘safety’ personnel - stood idly by as eco-terrorists became in direct contact with our vessel. The level of inaction by the Master and public safety personnel put the passengers and crew at risk for ten hours. That’s unacceptable and irresponsible.

 

 

 

The ship's master has responsibility for ship security, you are correct, but not for port/shore-side security; once again, that portion rests solely with the port authority. All that is spelled out in a DOS (Declaration of Ship Security) which is exchanged and signed off, upon arrival by the ship's security officer and his shore-side counterpart, the Kiel port authority PFSO (Port Facility Security Officer). It spells out exactly who is responsible for what while the ship is in port. Access to the ship via the gangway is the responsibility of the master through the ship's SECO. The dock outside the ship, and access to it, belongs to the port authority.

 

ZUDM's master might have raised the ship's MARSEC level to 2 or even to level 3  which would have meant, among others things, raising the gangway, closing the Marshaling area as well as any provision and water break doors, and placing so called "pirate gates" on both mooring decks, all to prevent access and a breach of security by unauthorized persons. Doing that however, would not have prevented two morons from attaching themselves to two of the fwd mooring lines. It would not have prevented that small flotilla of rubber boats with "shivering girls" inside from surrounding Zuidy's bow. The only entity that could/should have prevented that would have been the Kiel port authority, i.e. port or private security working for them. That did not occur leaving it up to the German Bundespolizei and/or Landespolizei Schleswig-Holstein to take care of business by removing these individuals which is what ultimately occurred, allowing ZUDM to depart for Copenhagen with delay.

 

Protesting/free speech for your causes is fine. Attaching yourself to and/or surrounding, by rubber boats, a ship with up to 1,916 passengers, the majority of which are flying all over the world to get home the next day, is not

[fatcat04]

Just now, chengkp75 said:

No, it doesn't, which is why the police removed the protestors.  Are you really going to escalate this to a terrorist attack?  I give the German intelligence agencies a lot more credit to have known whether this would have been a violent attack or not.  I work with ship's security every day, been to some places that would make you cringe concerning terrorist threats, flew the US flag there.  Trust me, there was nothing that those protesters could have brought in their kayaks that would have seriously damaged this ship, even all of them together, let alone threatened passenger safety.

I was not trying to escalate anything but in a world where a few zealots with box cutters on airplanes can kill thousands, I think many of us do indeed see the potential for the worst far more easily than we ever imagined we needed to or want to. Forgive me if my worries over the safety of HAL's fine officers, crew and her passengers causes me to wonder about real world possibilities. 

[scubacruiserx2]

3 minutes ago, fatcat04 said:

 So German law (or EU, I have no idea which applies in this situation) allows for the invasion and occupying of private property (hanging off the ship's lines) or restricted government owned property for the purpose of protest. Good to know. As some remarked earlier, would a protest on the tarmac of an major international airport be greeted with similar nonchalance by authorities and apparently the populace? I highly doubt it. Had they not been peaceful but had blown a hole in Zdams hull, would this lax security be viewed the same? Again, I doubt it. THIS is what concerns many of us, not the content of their message (which may have merit) or their right to lawfully protest (which I support wholeheartedly.)

 

 

Is detaining people and a ship by private citizens lawful in Germany ?