Norway - Latest News

[electricron]

I know exactly what you mean. It gets worse if you get Peter's DVD, "On the Road to Alang." Compelling stuff! I'm hooked now too! Jana

 

Whereas I get lots of information about ships from the maritime matters web site, I believe they push that book and video too much. Although I believe their ulimate motive is trying to improve ship building and ship breaking yard working conditions, "sometimes" I feel all they wish to do is sell more copies of that book and video.

 

While up in arms over the state of the Norway editorially, they are at the same time pushing the book and video. Imagine the funds they could generate from a video or book of the breakup of the Norway. Maybe I am "sometimes" over sensitive.

 

All machinery are designed for a certain life expectancy. Late in life expectancy, machinery maintenance costs rise. At some point in time, O&M costs exceed the profitability of running the machine.

 

The Norway's hull is reported as being in good shape, but can the same be said for all its machinery and pipes? The last few years the Norway was in operation, there were many reports of machinery breakdowns.

 

You can still buy antique cars. You can still run antique cars. But keeping antique cars running isn't easy or cheap.

 

While we all would like to see the Norway sail on forever, the time does come when ships maintnenace costs becomes too high. Many of the ships being scrapped at Alang are far newer than the Norway.

[Globaliser]

I just thought that it was important, current news.

Much as I love the Norway, and much as I hate seeing adults descending into name-calling slanging matches (as opposed to vigorous debate about the issues), the beaching of the Norway is not important news. Other than to people with a particular interest in the history of cruise lines, or who feel a personal connection to the ship, it's an event which is merely a footnote to a cruising story which came to an end several years ago and failed to come back to life. It's good that we have one or two threads running on the story, but it really is a specialist interest story that is understandably not at the forefront of CC's field.

[LuvBNatC]

Yes the explosion exposed the asbestos and made it airborne. So that at least some of it would have to be removed. Almost anyplace it would become a hotel would require the removal of both asbestos and lead paint-another hazard.

 

I'm not an engineer, but it's reasonable to assume that some asbestos was probably released into the air by the explosion. However, if the ship has to be totally decontaminated before being used again, how did NCL get away with using it as a training ship for NCLA in Germany for a year or two? Were they allowed to deliberately expose all those new crew members to asbestos?

 

I don't think the Norway was ever particularly cheap or easy to maintain if you talked to the people who did it. From 1991-95 I knew a chief officer, and even back then he would tell me about almost daily breakdowns, 99.9% of which the passengers never knew about. He said most of the problems originated in the interfaces between the original French equipment and the new stuff added in the conversion, and that the French equipment was the most reliable. When I heard about the explosion, my first thought was, "What cheap junk did they put on the boiler to have caused THAT to happen?"

 

By the way, the latest I've read is that the Norway is almost fully afloat at high tide and her hull has not been significantly damaged. She's not totally beached, but anchored at Alang. If the Indian Supreme Court rules that Star has to take her back, she could be refloated with a strong high tide.

 

If this Dubai group is for real, it's hoped that if Star is forced to take possession of the ship again, the prospect of selling her for another commercial purpose will seem more attractive now than paying the exhorbitant cost of decontaminating her for scrapping. It might also get Star off the hook with the German and Malaysian governments for allegedly misleading them about Star's intentions to scrap her.

[smeyer418]

I'm not an engineer, but it's reasonable to assume that some asbestos was probably released into the air by the explosion. However, if the ship has to be totally decontaminated before being used again, how did NCL get away with using it as a training ship for NCLA in Germany for a year or two? Were they allowed to deliberately expose all those new crew members to asbestos?...

 

 

The release was in the engine room and the surrounding areas. This is a big ship so that the crew could be trained and billeted in other areas, that were not contaminated The power could easily have been secured from the dock.

[unforgiven]

The release was in the engine room and the surrounding areas. This is a big ship so that the crew could be trained and billeted in other areas, that were not contaminated The power could easily have been secured from the dock.

 

 

Not that this is a big deal but the Norway was making it's own power in Germany with it's gensets. These where located in the forward engine room. It was very obvious that they where running from the smoke from the forward funnel in pictures. Of course the explosion happened in the aft engine room, so it was very possible it was sealed off to some degree.

[Almagetty]

Fascinating information about the boilers and the asbestos containment! I am always amazed by the knowledge of some of my felow CC'ers!

 

It might be pollyanaish of me, but I'm still hoping that the old girl pulls it off and is somehow, against all odds, re-floated and set off on a new adventure.

 

After all, she is only about two years older than me. The way I figure it, my boilers should be exploding any day now . . . :eek: . My beaching and scrapping can't be far behind! :confused: If she beats the odds, the scenario looks a lot better for me and others in my shoes!! :D

[Mbee119394]

it looks like we'll have to wait until the court makes another decision as there is nothing going on with the ship at this time. It looks like they are actually taking their time this time with the inspection so it could be awhile before more news is heard.

[Mark]

Winco

 

Nice posting...I have said bascially the same things previously in this thread...don't give up hope...by the way, I have 9 cruises with NCL and 2 were on the Norway

 

Mark:cool:

[electricron]

You will learn of the whole ugly story on how NCL/Star Cruises has lied, deceived, broken international laws, whatever it takes to get the Norway scraped, while all the while there is a very serrious movement to preserve her as a floating hotel in Dubai UAE. The HOT WATER that the company is now in could well lead to their collapse. I wouldn't be booking a NCL cruise in a year from now, as you could well be S.O.L.. You may ask, is it that serrious ! You bet it is. The company is facing serrious charges in Germany, Malasia, and now India. If nobody wanted to save the ship, that would be one thing, but when there is a viable alternative to preserve the ship for many more years, as there is with Project Dubai, for NCL / Star Cruises to continue to demand the Norway is scraped, is wrong, stupid and vindictive.

 

It's an ugly story, but has NCL/Star Cruise really lied, and broken international laws? While it is true there is a group who wish to refurbish the Norway into a floating hotel, she will not be be preserved as the Norway or France, but changed into a hotel.

 

Here's a timeline of the Norway since the boiler explosion:

 

May 25, 2003: A boiler room explosion occurs on the Norway while docked in Miami. Eventually eight of her crew died.

June 27, 2003: The Norway departs Miami under tow.

July 21, 2003: Norway laid up at Lloyd Werft in Bremerhaven, Germany, until the process of evaluating repair bids has been completed. The delivery timeframe for the new replacement boiler is now estimated to be between seven and twelve months. NCL now estimates that the earliest the ship could return to service is in the spring of 2004.

September 25, 2003: Rumours of an agreement to use her as an hotel and attraction in Amsterdam were circulated in the Dutch press.

March 17, 2004: NCL announces the Norway would not return to the North American cruise market. NCL has decided not to re-engine the ship due to the expense.

July 26, 2004: Hamburg and Munich-based investors and consultants are reportedly in talks with the Hamburg city authorities about using the laid-up Norway as a floating hotel, leisure centre and casino. Similar plans by a Bremen state-owned tourist company were dropped when Lloyd Werft warned of the high maintenance costs. Hamburg is said to be competing with Amsterdam, Holland and Le Havre, France for the ship.

September 14, 2004: The French press is buzzing this week with stories of a possible deal to bring the Norway to the Port of Honfeur as an hotel. A group of investors, have been working on the plan for several months. Negotiations over the possible sale continue with competition from another bidder from Holland.

May 8, 2005: Norway is rumoured to be leaving Bremerhaven next week under tow to Singapore. Pending approval from various authorities, plans are underway for her conversion to a casino and hotel ship at an amusement resort island near the Singapore cruise terminal. If the work goes ahead, it will be done at the Sembawang Shipyard in Singapore. If approvals do not materialize, an alternative plan will see the ship operate very slow speed casino cruises on her two undamaged boilers, most likely from Singapore.

May 25, 2005: The Norway leaves Bremerhaven, Germany under tow for Port Klang, Malaysia.

August 10, 2005: Norway arrives under tow at Port Klang, Malaysia.

December 28, 2005: Sources report a sale of Norway to Bangladeshi breakers.

January 20, 2006: Rumours abound that Star Cruises has cancelled the recent sale of Norway to Bangladeshi scrappers.

April 27, 2006: Indian breakers have bought the Norway, still anchored off Port Klang, Malaysia, from her Bangladeshi owner who in turn purchased the ship from Star Cruises.

May 5, 2006: Norway is towed away from Port Klang, Malaysia, destination appears to be Alang, India.

June 14, 2006: Norway arrives at Fujairah, UAE for repair and supplies to one of her tugs, Seaways 5.

June 17, 2006: Norway leaves Fujairah, UAE under tow, headed towards Alang.

June 28, 2006: Dubai investors bid to save historic cruise liner.

June 30, 2006: Norway arrives at Pipavav Port, some 65 km south west of Alang for India's Supreme Court ordered inspection.

August 1, 2006: India's Supreme Court Technical Committee grants the Gujarat Maritime Board permission to beach the Norway.

August 15, 2006: Norway was beached at Alang.

 

So, how many potential investor groups passed on saving the Norway?

 

Two groups from Germany, Bremen and Hamburg. Two groups from France, Le Havre and Honfeur. At least one group from Holland, Amsterdam. And one group from Signapore. While the Dubai group is also interested in converting the Norway into a tourist attraction and a hotel, they showed interest in the Norway long after the sale to scrappers. Per the timeline, scrappers bought the Norway in December 2005, the Dubai investor group expressed interests in June 2006, six months later.

 

It's not like NCL/Star Cruises did not try to find a potential buyer before selling the Norway to scrappers. When the Norway left Germany, the casino for Signapore deal could have been in negotiations. I've seen no proof that suggests otherwise. When the Norway left Malaysia for India, was it a violation of the Basel Treaty? Are Malaysia or India considered developed, or developing countries under the Basel Treaty? It's only illegal per the Basel Treaty to export hazardous wastes from developed to developing countries, not from developing to developing countries, or developed to developed countries.

 

I don't see any proof of NCL/Star Cruises lies at that web site, just assumptions that could be true or false. If the Signapore deal was still on the table, the Norway's departure from Germany was legal. And so is the Norway's departure from Malaysia.

 

Assumptions, or gut feelings, by web masters are often wrong.

[Planer's Edge]

There you go again Electricron interjecting facts and logic. ;)

 

PE

[mbisson]

I'm starting to wish they'd just take that ship out and nuke it!

 

I thought NCL/Star had been the owner of the Norway, but I must've been wrong. If they had been the owner, it seems they should've had the right sell (or not to sell) to just about anyone they wish (outside of any environemental concerns that is ;) ). But since so many think they shouldn't have that right (environmental concerns or not) I gotta conclude they must not've been the owner.

 

jmo

-Monte

[unforgiven]

I thought NCL/Star had been the owner of the Norway, but I must've been wrong. If they had been the owner, it seems they should've had the right sell (or not to sell) to just about anyone they wish (outside of any environemental concerns that is ;) ).

 

-Monte

 

 

you said there in-lies the problem

[electricron]

you said there in-lies the problem

 

What problem? I guess you meant the Basel Convention and the international transportation of waste products.

 

Read this link carefully. http://www.basel.int/ships/docs/08e.pdf

 

Excerpts:

2.4 However, while the principle of ship recycling may be sound, the working practices and environmental standards in the yards often leave much to be desired. While ultimate responsibility for conditions in the yards has to lie with the countries in which they are situated, there is a corresponding responsibility on the shipping industry to do what it can to minimise potential problems in the yards.

 

3.2 For the present, the organisations involved in the development of this Code of Practice will encourage all shipping companies to:

i) Initiate and complete a programme to identify and record, as far as is practicable, on each of their existing ships, any potentially hazardous materials (see Annex 1) inherent in their construction or used in their equipment and machinery. Such a record should be passed to any subsequent owners of the vessel; Done by NCL/Star

 

ii) Make every effort to minimise the amount of potentially hazardous materials on board the ship, including those carried as stores; Done by NCL/Star

 

iii) Ensure that the ship reaches the recycling yard with the minimum quantities of fuel, diesel, lubricating , hydraulic and other oils and chemicals consistent with the safe operation of the vessel; Done by NCL/Star

 

iv) Deliver the ship to the recycling yard in a gas-free condition, with all tanks, except the necessary fuel tanks for the final voyage, cleaned and certified to full hot work and entry standards; Done by NCL/Star

 

v) Make every effort to ensure that an arrival inventory is prepared of asbestos, oils, toxic substances, ozone-depleting substances and all other potentially hazardous materials, including those inherent in the structure of the vessel or used as coatings on the vessel, those contained in machinery, pipelines or cylinders or carried as stores, or accumulations of operational residues, to be handed over, against receipt, to the recycling yard (a recommended inventory form is attached at Annex 2); Done by NCL/Star

 

vi) Ensure that any compartments on the ship which may contain an oxygen-deficient atmosphere are clearly marked as such, and that the yard is duly notified of these and other hazardous enclosed spaces and how to test them; Done by NC:L/Star

 

vii) Take measures to facilitate the controlled drainage, by the recycling yard, of potentially harmful liquids from the ship. Done by NCL/Star

 

NCL/Star Cruise hasn't broken any International Laws with the sell of the Norway to India recyclers. The shipping company, in this case NCL/Star Cruises, has responsibilities accoording to the Convention, which they have met. They aren't required according to the Convention to eliminate all abestos and hazardous chemicals aboard the Norway, only to make an inventory of them and minimize it as much as practical.

[LuvBNatC]

:confused: Electricron, unless you have been a crew member on the Norway since it was towed to Bremerhaven, or you're some bigwig with NCL/Star with the inside scoop, how can you possibly know that all of these technical details were "done?" Where is your information coming from?

 

And if NCL/Star were so meticulously truthful in their handling and disclosure of all the hazardous materials, why did Bangladesh do a 180 and reject the ship for scrapping after she arrived there? And why does there seem to be a very good possibility that India's Supreme Court will be doing the same?

[unforgiven]

So electricron you feel NCL/star did everything in their power to "ii) Make every effort to minimise the amount of potentially hazardous materials on board the ship"

 

If you really feel they did this your definition and my definition are two separate things.

[electricron]

:confused: Electricron, unless you have been a crew member on the Norway since it was towed to Bremerhaven, or you're some bigwig with NCL/Star with the inside scoop, how can you possibly know that all of these technical details were "done?" Where is your information coming from?

 

And if NCL/Star were so meticulously truthful in their handling and disclosure of all the hazardous materials, why did Bangladesh do a 180 and reject the ship for scrapping after she arrived there? And why does there seem to be a very good possibility that India's Supreme Court will be doing the same?

 

What makes you think the India Supreme Court will? NCL/Star Cruises, from what I read, reporting having over 1000 tons of abestos aboard, the India Committee reported the same amount, when they sold the Norway to Bridgend Shipping, a Liberian company. Bridgeend Shipping is holding a promissory note for $19.3 million from the consortium of Indian breakers, Haryana Steel, in payment for the liner. I doubt Bridgeend Shipping has the financial resources to decontimate the Norway in Liberia. I doubt Liberia has as much or more capacity to do so than India.

The shipbreaking industry of India needs ships. It's up to India's scrapyards to meet International standards of disposing hazardous wastes if they wish to remain in business. It's the India's courts responsibility to see that they do. If the Norway can't be broken up there, technically and legally, no ship should. I doubt the India Supreme Court will make a ruling that would kill an industry.

 

As for Bangladesh, they banned the Norway after they read how much abestos was aboard. Where do you think they got that information from?

[LuvBNatC]

I've been keeping a pretty close eye on this situation since the explosion, and I haven't seen anywhere that NCL/Star ever publicized the fact the the Norway is laden with asbestos. I suspect that Bangladesh found out about it in spite of NCL/Star, not thanks to them.

 

Call me crazy, but it would make perfect sense for the Indian Supreme Court to follow Bangladesh's example and turn the ship away, particularly since the attempt to beach her defied the Court's initial order only to allow her safe anchorage off shore. I believe the environmentalists are actually being heard, and exposing ill-equipped workers to deadly materials for the sake of keeping the scrappers in the black may not happen with the Norway in India.

 

I also believe that if India forces Star to take the ship back, the prospect of selling her for commercial use will seem MUCH more attractive. And IF the Dubai group exists, preserving her there makes sense. They have built whole islands in fanciful shapes out of nothing. Dredging a 35+ ft. trench long and deep enough for Norway's draft would be no big deal to them.

 

Until I see see the fat lady singing out on deck wielding a blow torch, I'm not giving up hope.

 

Karen

[electricron]

I've been keeping a pretty close eye on this situation since the explosion, and I haven't seen anywhere that NCL/Star ever publicized the fact the the Norway is laden with asbestos. I suspect that Bangladesh found out about it in spite of NCL/Star, not thanks to them.

 

Call me crazy, but it would make perfect sense for the Indian Supreme Court to follow Bangladesh's example and turn the ship away, particularly since the attempt to beach her defied the Court's initial order only to allow her safe anchorage off shore. I believe the environmentalists are actually being heard, and exposing ill-equipped workers to deadly materials for the sake of keeping the scrappers in the black may not happen with the Norway in India.

 

I also believe that if India forces Star to take the ship back, the prospect of selling her for commercial use will seem MUCH more attractive. And IF the Dubai group exists, preserving her there makes sense. They have built whole islands in fanciful shapes out of nothing. Dredging a 35+ ft. trench long and deep enough for Norway's draft would be no big deal to them.

 

Until I see see the fat lady singing out on deck wielding a blow torch, I'm not giving up hope.

 

Karen

 

They might be, but they can't force NCL/Star Cruises to take the Norway back. But they could force Bridgeend Shipping to do so. NCL/Star Criuise hasn't been the owners of the Norway for some time now.

As I wrote before, it's Bridgeend Shipping holding the $19.3 million promissory note from Haryana Steel. NCL/Star Cruises already has its money from the sale to Bridgeend Shipping.

[electricron]

So electricron you feel NCL/star did everything in their power to "ii) Make every effort to minimise the amount of potentially hazardous materials on board the ship"

 

If you really feel they did this your definition and my definition are two separate things.

 

Yes. Removing pipe insulation and structural walls is more a part of the shipbreakers job description than it is a maintenance job description.

 

Why pay to partially breakup a ship elsewhere? Remember, one has to be practical about what job gets done where. Besides, it's Bridgeend Shipping responsibility to do so, not NCL/Star Cruises.

[shoreguy]

Until I see see the fat lady singing out on deck wielding a blow torch, I'm not giving up hope.

 

Karen

 

I loved the Norway some of my very best memories. But lets face it the fat lady has already sung. The best you can hope for is the courts force the ship to be dragged off the beach and at cost of millions and have asbestos removed somewhere else before she is humiliated again as she dragged onto a beach.

 

This debate reminds me of people who will not let relatives pass with a little dignity. Demanding extraordinary measures even when hope is gone.

[LuvBNatC]

Since scrapping came up once the ship left Germany, the Norway's true owners have been shadowy. Anyone can set up a company as a front for anything.

 

I admit that I have NO proof on who actually "holds the deed" to the ship (if ships even have deeds), but from everything I've read, Star does still seem to pull the strings in all negotiations about the next step.

 

If anyone is out of the loop at this point, it seems to be NCL. They transferred the Norway to Star and off their books.

 

My personal theory is that Star's single-minded determination to scrap the ship is to keep the cause of the explosion from ever being learned. Did the NTSB ever issue a final report? If the media ever got wind that NCL routinely skimps on maintenance (since they already have admitted to illegal dumping), with all the jitters other lines' recent disasters have raised about cruise ship safety, it could have significant impact on NCL's reputation and bookings.

 

Karen

[shoreguy]

Since scrapping came up once the ship left Germany, the Norway's true owners have been shadowy. Anyone can set up a company as a front for anything.

 

I admit that I have NO proof on who actually "holds the deed" to the ship (if ships even have deeds), but from everything I've read, Star does still seem to pull the strings in all negotiations about the next step.

 

If anyone is out of the loop at this point, it seems to be NCL. They transferred the Norway to Star and off their books.

 

My personal theory is that Star's single-minded determination to scrap the ship is to keep the cause of the explosion from ever being learned. Did the NTSB ever issue a final report? If the media ever got wind that NCL routinely skimps on maintenance (since they already have admitted to illegal dumping), with all the jitters other lines' recent disasters have raised about cruise ship safety, it could have significant impact on NCL's reputation and bookings.

 

Karen

 

OMG - the conspiracy theory - how many shooters do you think were in Dallas

[Planer's Edge]

OMG - the conspiracy theory - how many shooters do you think were in Dallas

 

Come on now Jim, you know there were three.:rolleyes:

 

And NCL's whole plan was to go thru all of these gyrations with the Norway so they could secretly asbestos poison as many Indian workers as possible. OR in the very least let the "breakers" hold on to her for a while dreaming of all the scrap steel profits to be made and then at the last minute unbeach her so she can accidentally sink so NCL could collect the insurance.:eek:

 

PE<---can dream up as many conspiracy theories as anyone...:cool:

[dwrist]

Come on now Jim' date=' you know there were three.

 

And NCL's whole plan was to go thru all of these gyrations with the Norway so they could secretly asbestos poison as many Indian workers as possible. OR in the very least let the "breakers" hold on to her for a while dreaming of all the scrap steel profits to be made and then at the last minute unbeach her so she can accidentally sink so NCL could collect the insurance.

 

PE<---can dream up as many conspiracy theories as anyone...[/quote']

 

...and then be raised and made into a floating hotel in the Far East...:rolleyes: :eek: :D

[electricron]

Come on now Jim' date=' you know there were three.:rolleyes:

And NCL's whole plan was to go thru all of these gyrations with the Norway so they could secretly asbestos poison as many Indian workers as possible. OR in the very least let the "breakers" hold on to her for a while dreaming of all the scrap steel profits to be made and then at the last minute unbeach her so she can accidentally sink so NCL could collect the insurance.:eek:

PE<---can dream up as many conspiracy theories as anyone...:cool:[/quote']

 

Secretly? These gyratrions happen on all ships, as this has been the way ships have been sold for decades. Please read:

 

http://www.basel.int/ships/docs/08e.pdf

 

Excerpts:

2.5 A vessel may be sold and bought several times during its economic life. When a ship operator decides to sell a vessel which, for whatever reason, no longer meets his requirements, he will seek a buyer for his asset and appoint an agent, a “broker”, to act on his behalf. “Brokers” specialise in matching the seller with prospective buyers and facilitating communication and negotiations between them.

2.6 For many shipowners, the sale of a ship for whatever reason brings with it considerable commercial risk. If the market falls between the time that the contract is concluded and the delivery of the vessel, the shipowner will be concerned that the end buyer will look very closely at the terms of the contract to find reason to cancel the contract and/or to renegotiate at a lower price. Many shipowners, and their appointed brokers, prefer to avoid this commercial risk by selling to an intermediate buyer who is a specialist in the business and has knowledge and contacts not typically possessed by shipowners, for whom selling a ship is an infrequent activity. The middle buyer will then sell the ship on to the end buyer, perhaps via a broker acting on behalf of a recycling company. In such circumstances, the decision on which recycling company to select rests with the middle buyer rather than the shipowner.

2.7 Generally, potential buyers also appoint brokers, who may be acting on behalf of clients who are seeking vessels to operate in further trading, or on behalf of recycling yards who are seeking to purchase vessels with a potentially high residual “scrap” value. The seller’s broker will be seeking the best return for his client. The sale and purchase of the vessel is generally conducted between the brokers. This may happen several times during the life of the vessel. A shipping company seldom deals directly, or even indirectly, with a recycling yard and, therefore, usually has little opportunity to influence its selection.

2.8 Some brokers, however, specialise in obtaining vessels for recycling. Once a vessel is obtained, these brokers will usually offer the vessel for sale for recycling, sometimes “as is” (in relation to its current geographical and physical condition), to one or more cash buyers, usually via another broker, with the contract stipulating the general area of delivery. The cash buyer will select the actual yard, normally at a later date, and his role in obtaining details of the vessels purchased, and passing these details to the recycling yard, is, therefore, vital.

 

This has been standard practice for decades. It's not something new NCL/Star Cruises invented in the last few years.

 

By the way, the US Coast Guard and NTSB wouldn't allow the Norway to leave Miami until they had finished their investigations. Any physical evidence they wanted was avialable for them to acquire. The Norway left Miami with the full blessing of both these Federal agencies. It wasn't smuggled out under a cloud of darkness.