Suez Canal blocked by container ship that got stuck

[Turtles06]

I realize this is the Panama Canal forum, but I thought folks here might be interested in this story, especially with so little traffic on the boards right now. 
 

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/03/24/world/middleeast/suez-canal-blocked-ship.html?action=click&module=Top Stories&pgtype=Homepage

[BillB48]

This end of Cruise Critic has been real quiet for awhile now!  I was texting back and forth with my buddy at the Panama Canal and as you could imagine it is stirring a great deal of interest with the ship handlers there.  I am sure they will look at what lessons can be learned.  Over the years the Suez has been able to double lane much of the route, but not where this ship went aground, so until they can free the ship, traffic is at a stop.  While Much of the Panama Canal is capable of two way traffic even the widest portions of the channel would be vulnerable to blockage by one of these longer ships.

Edited March 24, 2021 by BillB48

[Turtles06]

On 3/24/2021 at 10:23 AM, BillB48 said:

I was texting back and forth with my buddy at the Panama Canal and as you could imagine it is stirring a great deal of interest with the ship handlers there.  I am sure they will look at what lessons can be learned. 

 

No doubt!

 

Here's the latest regarding the efforts to free the Ever Given; it's fascinating, but of course very serious, since nothing has worked yet:

 

https://www.cnn.com/2021/03/25/middleeast/suez-canal-ship-blockage-intl-hnk/index.html

[Heidi13]

On 3/24/2021 at 7:23 AM, BillB48 said:

This end of Cruise Critic has been real quiet for awhile now!  I was texting back and forth with my buddy at the Panama Canal and as you could imagine it is stirring a great deal of interest with the ship handlers there.  I am sure they will look at what lessons can be learned.  Over the years the Suez has been able to double lane much of the route, but not where this ship went aground, so until they can free the ship, traffic is at a stop.  While Much of the Panama Canal is capable of two way traffic even the widest portions of the channel would be vulnerable to blockage by one of these longer ships.

 

Unlike Suez, Panama is limited by the locks, so the Ever Given and similar ULCS exceed the post-Panamax dimensions of the new locks. I believe the new max in Panama is about 13,000 TEU, while Ever Given is 20,000 TEU. Although it has been widened many times, most of Suez is still narrower than the Cut, accepting that in Suez from the lake to Bridge is now double lane.

 

In addition to the Panama Locks limiting the size of tonnage, the canal sides would also lesser the results of the current Suez incident.  As little more than a ditch through the desert, with sand on both sides, the ship has ploughed a number of feet into the bank, including the less than 45 degree angle of repose from the top bank to the bottom. Therefore, the bottom of the bulbous bow is stuck many feet into the sand, which has a significant suction factor while trying to remove the ship. The stern will also be aground as that bank also slopes at less than 45 degrees.

 

This ship will be extremely challenging to remove, which is why they have contracted with one of the world's top salvage experts. Read an interesting article yesterday, where the author suggested lightening the ship by pumping out the bunkers, water, etc, which is a most ridiculous suggestion, as once floated, the ship would turn over, due to a negative GM.

 

Since Panama doesn't have sand, upon impacting the bank, the ship would have collapsed to hopefully no further than the collision bulkhead. It may have been wedged to the shore, but would have been relatively easy to remone. Basically, I suggest that this incident, having a ship impaled across the channel, would be almost impossible to duplicate in Panama.

[BillB48]

8 hours ago, Heidi13 said:

 

Unlike Suez, Panama is limited by the locks, so the Ever Given and similar ULCS exceed the post-Panamax dimensions of the new locks. I believe the new max in Panama is about 13,000 TEU, while Ever Given is 20,000 TEU. Although it has been widened many times, most of Suez is still narrower than the Cut, accepting that in Suez from the lake to Bridge is now double lane.

 

In addition to the Panama Locks limiting the size of tonnage, the canal sides would also lesser the results of the current Suez incident.  As little more than a ditch through the desert, with sand on both sides, the ship has ploughed a number of feet into the bank, including the less than 45 degree angle of repose from the top bank to the bottom. Therefore, the bottom of the bulbous bow is stuck many feet into the sand, which has a significant suction factor while trying to remove the ship. The stern will also be aground as that bank also slopes at less than 45 degrees.

 

This ship will be extremely challenging to remove, which is why they have contracted with one of the world's top salvage experts. Read an interesting article yesterday, where the author suggested lightening the ship by pumping out the bunkers, water, etc, which is a most ridiculous suggestion, as once floated, the ship would turn over, due to a negative GM.

 

Since Panama doesn't have sand, upon impacting the bank, the ship would have collapsed to hopefully no further than the collision bulkhead. It may have been wedged to the shore, but would have been relatively easy to remone. Basically, I suggest that this incident, having a ship impaled across the channel, would be almost impossible to duplicate in Panama.

 

 

The size of the Ever Given does exceed the size of the ships transiting the Panama Canal, particularly when it comes to TEUs, however those ships are really not physically that much bigger to the ships that do  transit the PC.  The Ever Given is 1312x193 and the PC can handle ships 1200x167 (the largest so far 15000 TEUs) which is not that much smaller than the Ever Given in actual dimensions.  Probably not that much different for traffic management or handling of the ship.

 

On the Gatun Lake portion of the transit from Gamboa to Gatun Locks a large number of the reaches are at 1000' minimum for channel width, however there are some at around 800'.  In this part of the Canal two way traffic is routine.  The depths outside the channel in these areas can range from moderately deep water to rather shallow.  The bottom in these areas would be considered a soft mud/clay condition where an excursion beyond the channel probably would not result in anything catastrophic.  Gaillard Cut (Culebra nowadays for some) is of a different stripe.  The Cut has been widened over the years so it now is maintained at a minimum of 720' with some of the reaches in the Cut having a width of a little over 800'.  A 1200' ship in this part of the Canal would not have to get too out of sorts to come into contact with both banks of the Canal.  The bottom in this part of the Canal is not forgiving as in the Gatun Lake portion, it is nothing  but rock.  The Canal is very mindful of the risk of having the Cut blocked by a large ship that every ship over 95' beam is assigned a tug through the Cut.  Some pilots make the the tug up on the stern and others have the tug follow. 

 

No doubt there are some unique circumstances with the blockage caused by the Ever Given.  I don't think having ship block the Canal particularly the Cut is as remote a possibility as you suggest, the Canal has dedicated resources with the escort tugs to mediate weather, engine or steering failure that could result in channel blockage.  During my time there I have witnessed one ship hit the bank and the tugs were able to keep the vessel pinned to the bank where she sank and rested on the bottom.  Enough of the channel was kept open for traffic.

[Heidi13]

37 minutes ago, BillB48 said:

 

 

The size of the Ever Given does exceed the size of the ships transiting the Panama Canal, particularly when it comes to TEUs, however those ships are really not physically that much bigger to the ships that do  transit the PC.  The Ever Given is 1312x193 and the PC can handle ships 1200x167 (the largest so far 15000 TEUs) which is not that much smaller than the Ever Given in actual dimensions.  Probably not that much different for traffic management or handling of the ship.

 

On the Gatun Lake portion of the transit from Gamboa to Gatun Locks a large number of the reaches are at 1000' minimum for channel width, however there are some at around 800'.  In this part of the Canal two way traffic is routine.  The depths outside the channel in these areas can range from moderately deep water to rather shallow.  The bottom in these areas would be considered a soft mud/clay condition where an excursion beyond the channel probably would not result in anything catastrophic.  Gaillard Cut (Culebra nowadays for some) is of a different stripe.  The Cut has been widened over the years so it now is maintained at a minimum of 720' with some of the reaches in the Cut having a width of a little over 800'.  A 1200' ship in this part of the Canal would not have to get too out of sorts to come into contact with both banks of the Canal.  The bottom in this part of the Canal is not forgiving as in the Gatun Lake portion, it is nothing  but rock.  The Canal is very mindful of the risk of having the Cut blocked by a large ship that every ship over 95' beam is assigned a tug through the Cut.  Some pilots make the the tug up on the stern and others have the tug follow. 

 

No doubt there are some unique circumstances with the blockage caused by the Ever Given.  I don't think having ship block the Canal particularly the Cut is as remote a possibility as you suggest, the Canal has dedicated resources with the escort tugs to mediate weather, engine or steering failure that could result in channel blockage.  During my time there I have witnessed one ship hit the bank and the tugs were able to keep the vessel pinned to the bank where she sank and rested on the bottom.  Enough of the channel was kept open for traffic.

 

Since the cut is prodominently rock, with an angle of repose, which I read is about 45 degrees, a ship hitting the bank, in a similar manner to the Suez incident, will be more likely to stave in the Fore Peak and bounce off, rather than drive about 50 feet into the bank, as has happened to Ever Given. Unless the bank angle of repose is very shallow, the ship won't ride up the bank. However, bouncing could be worse than the Suez incident, as it has the potential of placing the parallel body onto the bank. If more than 2 adjacent watertight compartments are flooded, the damage stability is exceeded and the ship is liable to sink.

 

If a ship ran outside the main channel in the lakes and ran aground in the mud. Provided the stern is clear, we have techniques to break the suction of the mud/sand to assist in refloating the ship, often without tugs being required. This is made easier if the stability permits the shifting of bunkers and/or ballast. In Suez, since the stern is also aground and the wheel is probably missing a blade(s) or has bent blade(s), this manoeuvre is not possible.

 

Yes, a ship could potentially get wedged between both banks of the cut, but unlike Suez, a couple of tugs should be capable of pulling most ships off fairly quickly, not the potential of a week, or more as it could be in Suez. For an intact ship, the worst case situation would be a quick lightering, removing bunkers/ballast (if GM is OK) or removing some boxes. If the ship wasn't intact and the damage control couldn't control the flooding, then tugs would be required, as you noted.

 

Having tugs secured aft with a ship/tug line is a good risk mitigation, but when ships are in such close proximity to the shore the tug normally only reduces the impact. The tugs can break a shear, but stopping large ships take lots of skill and time/distance, even at slow speeds of 8 or 9 kts. 

[chengkp75]

I agree with Andy, having transited both canals many times, and seen the dredging/widening work done at both.  The Cut in Panama is far more of a defined channel than the Suez, and with the hard bottom, the ship would likely impact and cause hull damage, whereas in Suez, you drive up onto the sand, as Andy says.  With the more gradual slope of the sides of the Suez channel (caused by the sand's angle of repose), you will get more surface area in contact with the bottom than you would in Panama, again due to the angle of the channel side.  This larger surface area means a larger suction force between the ship and the bottom.  As Andy says, if the ship is aground in the Cut, more likely longitudinally, you can break the suction by "rocking" the ship side to side.  With both the bow and stern aground, as the Ever Given is, you have a "sagging" condition, where the middle of the ship sags below the bow and stern, causing even more suction, and also preventing any longitudinal "rocking", which is much harder to accomplish anyway.

 

I know they can't take all the liquid out of the ship, or she will roll over as Andy says, but I have heard that they have removed 9000mt of ballast.  That, along with the dredging and a forecast 18" spring high tide Monday, may just be enough to float her.  I've heard that they have freed up the rudder and propeller.  Even if a blade or two are bent, she should be able to make some revs without too much vibration.  After all, it is only 95 rpm, at full speed, and 25 or so at dead slow.

Edited March 27, 2021 by chengkp75

[Turtles06]

I just want to thank all of you experts above for the fascinating comments.  It will be interesting to see how this is all resolved. Let’s hope it’s sooner rather than later. 

 

[njhorseman]

29 minutes ago, Turtles06 said:

I just want to thank all of you experts above for the fascinating comments.  It will be interesting to see how this is all resolved. Let’s hope it’s sooner rather than later. 

 

Ditto for me. I'm always learning something from the captain and the chief . 

[Heidi13]

2 hours ago, chengkp75 said:

I agree with Andy, having transited both canals many times, and seen the dredging/widening work done at both.  The Cut in Panama is far more of a defined channel than the Suez, and with the hard bottom, the ship would likely impact and cause hull damage, whereas in Suez, you drive up onto the sand, as Andy says.  With the more gradual slope of the sides of the Suez channel (caused by the sand's angle of repose), you will get more surface area in contact with the bottom than you would in Panama, again due to the angle of the channel side.  This larger surface area means a larger suction force between the ship and the bottom.  As Andy says, if the ship is aground in the Cut, more likely longitudinally, you can break the suction by "rocking" the ship side to side.  With both the bow and stern aground, as the Ever Given is, you have a "sagging" condition, where the middle of the ship sags below the bow and stern, causing even more suction, and also preventing any longitudinal "rocking", which is much harder to accomplish anyway.

 

I know they can't take all the liquid out of the ship, or she will roll over as Andy says, but I have heard that they have removed 9000mt of ballast.  That, along with the dredging and a forecast 18" spring high tide Monday, may just be enough to float her.  I've heard that they have freed up the rudder and propeller.  Even if a blade or two are bent, she should be able to make some revs without too much vibration.  After all, it is only 95 rpm, at full speed, and 25 or so at dead slow.

 

Read today that they have a couple of tugs with bollard pulls of 200T due to arrive today or tomorrow. Coupled with the dredging around the bow, deballasting and high tides on Mon/Tues, they might be able to pull her free.

 

If that fails, they are planning to remove upwards of 600 boxes.

[CruiserBruce]

Sounds like they got her floated sometime this morning,  Egyptian time, Monday March 29. Not sure what is now required to get the Suez cleared and functioning. 

[chengkp75]

4 hours ago, CruiserBruce said:

Sounds like they got her floated sometime this morning,  Egyptian time, Monday March 29. Not sure what is now required to get the Suez cleared and functioning. 

The stern has been freed, and the ship swung about 20*, but the bow is still hard aground.  From earlier photos, it looked to me like the bow was about 2 meters out of the water, so that could require a whole lot of dredging.  A photo today shows excavators on dry land a good distance down the ship's starboard side, showing how far into the sand she is.  Sounds like they will be using hydraulic dredging (blowing high pressure water under the ship to carve away the sand).

[BillB48]

Certainly progress, still some work ahead...

 

https://gcaptain.com/huge-progress-made-in-suez-but-still-not-a-piece-of-cake-says-smit/

[BillB48]

Vesselfinder has Ever Given underway, northbound at 4 knots.

[Heidi13]

BBC reports she was freed about 13:00 GMT.

[chengkp75]

Good for them.  Don't want to be the surveyor when they dive on the bow in Great Bitter Lake.

[BillB48]

Not that this article will completely close the loop on the Ever Given's misfortune at Suez, it does provide some insight of how things are shaping up...

 

https://sputniknews.com/business/202104071082561582-suez-canal-chief-says-human-error-is-to-blame-for-ever-given-fiasco/ 

 

If you don't want to read the full article, the following pull quote sums it up... "The official added that a Suez Canal pilot was on board the ship, but stressed the blame for the accident lays solely on the captain. “The pilot gives advice, but the final decision is taken by the captain. There were no mistakes on our part and we do not bear any responsibility,” Rabie suggested."

 

I am sure most of the regular readers on this forum know at the Panama Canal, unlike at the Suez Canal where the pilot is in an advisory role, the pilot is not an advisor but assumes navigational control during the transit.

[Heidi13]

Frankly, I wouldn't pay any heed to this article or Canal Authority statements, as they are contrary to the accident investigation goals of the ISM Code. With the exception of Panama, the Master/Pilot relationship is based on, "Master's Orders & Pilot's Advice". However, the days of only the Master being accountable are long gone, as Junior Officers and Pilots are expected to voice concerns where the Master is clearly in error. Human Factors are now widely used in a number of modern Bridges, as both the Marine & Airline industries have made great progress in implementing Cockpit/Bridge Resource Management. 

 

In practice, the pilot will present a proposed passage plan to the Master & Bridge Team upon boarding, which the Master can review and question, before accepting. It is the pilot, who normally has the "Con" of the vessel, supported by the Bridge Team. Therefore, it is the pilot who provides helm orders, courses to steer, throttle settings/speeds, etc. The Master and Bridge Team monitor the ship's progress and if in doubt of any order from the pilot, shall immediately challenge them. If in any doubt as to the vessel's position, the Bridge Team shall challenge the Pilot and, if unsure over the Pilot's ability/fitness, the Master can relieve the Pilot.

 

Personally, I will await the release of the preliminary and then final Flag State Accident Report, which will have a number of interested authorities participating in the investigation. Until that is released, everything else is pure speculation and statements stating, "Blame for the accident" are contrary to the values enshrined in the ISM Code.

 

Accident investigations are to determine causes and make recommendations to prevent recurrences, NOT to asses blame.

[BillB48]

I just thought it was amusing how quick the Egyptians were proclaiming there were no mistakes on their part and lay all the blame on the ship/crew.

 

I have witnessed first hand the pilot/bridge team concept that has come to be more the norm in today's ship handling.  The Panamanian pilot and the Argentinian master  were having a robust discussion on the approach to one of the locks on the way the wind would set the ship.  There was a difference of opinion, unfortunately the discussion left English and went into some very rapid fire Spanish and I wasn't able to get the full discussion.  However the pilot turned the conn over to the master  who put on the lock approach wall.  From my experience, that would not have been the case 20-25 years ago.

 

One thing I would disagree with "the Master can relieve the pilot" while that certainly possible in the context that it could be done.  Doing so without the Canal pilot's permission would be the quickest route to an aborted transit and the ship put to anchor.  This would expose the ship's owners to a great deal more liability to continue the transit or if damage occurred.  Didn't occur frequently but I have seen a ship held for a replacement master when the current master was uncooperative.

[Heidi13]

2 minutes ago, BillB48 said:

I just thought it was amusing how quick the Egyptians were proclaiming there were no mistakes on their part and lay all the blame on the ship/crew.

 

I have witnessed first hand the pilot/bridge team concept that has come to be more the norm in today's ship handling.  The Panamanian pilot and the Argentinian master  were having a robust discussion on the approach to one of the locks on the way the wind would set the ship.  There was a difference of opinion, unfortunately the discussion left English and went into some very rapid fire Spanish and I wasn't able to get the full discussion.  However the pilot turned the conn over to the master  who put on the lock approach wall.  From my experience, that would not have been the case 20-25 years ago.

 

One thing I would disagree with "the Master can relieve the pilot" while that certainly possible in the context that it could be done.  Doing so without the Canal pilot's permission would be the quickest route to an aborted transit and the ship put to anchor.  This would expose the ship's owners to a great deal more liability to continue the transit or if damage occurred.  Didn't occur frequently but I have seen a ship held for a replacement master when the current master was uncooperative.

 

Yes, in the Canal, the Pilot has the responsibility for the ship. However, with ships with non-traditional steering/propulsion systems, the Canal pilots often hand the controls back to the Captain to manouvre the ship into the locks.

 

Even with cruise ships with traditional twin screws, twin rudders and thrusters, I have experienced the Master doing most of the actual ship handling into the locks.

 

Outside the Panama Canal, the Master can relieve the Pilots, with cause. Have experienced it a number of times and if the Master is not on the Bridge, the Senior Deck Officer has the Master's full authority. Only requirement is to immediately call the Master.

 

In many parts of the World, we would never relinquish the "Con" to the Pilot. They were provided their breakfast & bottle, being given a seat at the rear of the Bridge. While treated with respect, they took no part in the transit or docking.

[BillB48]

One of the many welcome aboard, enjoy your meal, don't forget your parting gift and see you next time stops.

[Heidi13]

4 hours ago, BillB48 said:

One of the many welcome aboard, enjoy your meal, don't forget your parting gift and see you next time stops.

 

Haha!! good summary

[Turtles06]

In case folks haven’t seen this — Egyptian authorities have seized the Ever Given, whose owner has been ordered by an Egyptian court to pay $900 million in compensation for the losses allegedly caused by the ship’s running aground.  
 

https://www.cnn.com/2021/04/13/business/ever-given-seized-compensation-bill-intl/index.html