7 ms·

It will be weeks before this ship is free. Fuel and oil can be pumped out but that only makes up a fraction of the total weight of the vessel. Containers can b

It will be weeks before this ship is free. Fuel and oil can be pumped out but that only makes up a fraction of the total weight of the vessel. Containers can be unloaded but again the lightest will be at the top so a significant number will need to be removed to make a big enough difference. And unloading them will be a slow process. You can maybe unload a few per hour with helicopters. There doesn't exist any infrastructure which could get to that location and lift off containers. You could build a custom crane barge but that would take at least a month to fabricate and get to the site. The easiest way to remove containers will be using cutting equipment, winches and possibly explosives. It won't be easy and will likely take several weeks to unload a significant number of containers, the ship and containers will be damaged in the process. That leaves dredging the sand under the ship. Again the infrastructure to do this rapidly doesn't exist. You can dig out the sand around the ship but there is a huge amount that the ship is resting on. It will take specialist dredging equipment to start removing this sand.

maxerickson 6y ago
The excavators make sense as the first stage of a dredging operation.
the8472 6y ago
> Again the infrastructure to do this rapidly doesn't exist. The UAE used several sand-vacuuming ships to build their artificial islands, wouldn't those do the job?
- float4 6y ago
  The dredging for that project was done by a Belgian and a Dutch company, and I don't think they left their ships and equipment there afterwards.
  - tshaddox 6y ago
    It also took many years.
  - Denvercoder9 6y ago
    That Dutch company has now been called in to fix this, though.
    - sn_master 6y ago
      That company is the same one that raised the Kursk! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uQJ6IMREvz8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uQJ6IMREvz8
      - tifadg1 6y ago
        What a fascinating watch. To think this was possible in 2001, I wonder how the capabilities have improved since.
xixixao 6y ago
Why not roll the containers off the ship - like a stone block of a pyramid? "All you need" is a ramp (or a hole in the side).
- adenozine 6y ago
  Some of the containers are upwards of 10t in weight. It's a good idea, but it's not feasible because of how slowly a ramp structure capable of holding that much could be deployed.
mark_mart 6y ago
Should we also count the effort needed to put these containers back to vessel? Same for fuel.
- Sebb767 6y ago
  No. The blockage is the problem; anything on that ship is basically irrelevant from an economical perspective. Especially when we're talking about weeks of downtime.
  - brian_cloutier 6y ago
    Who internalizes those costs though? Only the owner of the ship is allowed to harm it and the owner would like the cargo to remain undamaged. I suppose the many other entities which would like to use the canal could pay the owner enough to make damaging the ship and cargo economical? Egypt might be able to unilaterally decide to destroy the ship but I don't know how much benefit Egypt gets from keeping the canal open, they might not have a strong incentive either way. I agree with you that collectively we should be able to say the safety of the ship is unimportant compared to all the other cargo which needs to get through that canal. However, 2020 should have made it clear that we're not good at solving that kind of coordination problem.
    - NoOneNew 6y ago
      I feel like theres a lot of international and maritime laws Egypt would violate if they just decide to blow the cargo ship without consent from all parties. This would make further trade relations with anyone... sour?
      - _ph_ 6y ago
        Trade relations with the country which controls the Suez canal? I would guess no nation depending on international trade would rather have the canal free. So no one would blame Egypt, if they decided to blow up the ship. However, blowing up the ship is likely to create a even bigger mess, so that is the biggest reason that it is still there.
yoaviram 6y ago
How about sectioning off a part of the canal around the ship and pumping water in?
- ant6n 6y ago
  That sounds so crazy, it might just work. One would need to build a wall, possibly out of sand, around the ship, including blocking off the suez Canal itself at two spots. It’sa bit like that Ceasar built two rings of walls when he was besieging the Gauls but was in turn besieged by the Gaul relief army, greatly and suspencefully explained in this video: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=SU1Ej9Yqt68 https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=SU1Ej9Yqt68
quickthrower2 6y ago
How about doing nothing? Just let the canal be blocked. Go the long way. All about the journey not thw destination. Give the container owners an NFT of their missing container.
- a9h74j 6y ago
  Wait for sea-level rise to do the work. According to some, it won't be more than twelve years for 3m rise. Edward Teller: How big is Antarctica?
tim333 6y ago
They may have a shot Mar 30th - there's a high tide coming.
rocqua 6y ago
Could you replace dredging with just a whole lot of flowing water? Pump water under the hull, let the sand turn into mud, have the weight of the ship push the mud to the side. As the ship gets lower and lower, less of its weight becomes supported by the sand. The mud would still flow to the sides. You might wanna do some dredging over there to give the mud somewhere to go, and make more manouvring space. But in any case, this way you can move a whole lot of sand with very basic equipment. You can't move it far, or move it "up" but you can move it.

maxerickson 6y ago

The excavators make sense as the first stage of a dredging operation.

the8472 6y ago

> Again the infrastructure to do this rapidly doesn't exist. The UAE used several sand-vacuuming ships to build their artificial islands, wouldn't those do the job?

float4 6y ago
The dredging for that project was done by a Belgian and a Dutch company, and I don't think they left their ships and equipment there afterwards.
- tshaddox 6y ago
  It also took many years.
- Denvercoder9 6y ago
  That Dutch company has now been called in to fix this, though.
  - sn_master 6y ago
    That company is the same one that raised the Kursk! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uQJ6IMREvz8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uQJ6IMREvz8
    - tifadg1 6y ago
      What a fascinating watch. To think this was possible in 2001, I wonder how the capabilities have improved since.

xixixao 6y ago

Why not roll the containers off the ship - like a stone block of a pyramid? "All you need" is a ramp (or a hole in the side).

adenozine 6y ago
Some of the containers are upwards of 10t in weight. It's a good idea, but it's not feasible because of how slowly a ramp structure capable of holding that much could be deployed.

mark_mart 6y ago

Should we also count the effort needed to put these containers back to vessel? Same for fuel.

Sebb767 6y ago
No. The blockage is the problem; anything on that ship is basically irrelevant from an economical perspective. Especially when we're talking about weeks of downtime.
- brian_cloutier 6y ago
  Who internalizes those costs though? Only the owner of the ship is allowed to harm it and the owner would like the cargo to remain undamaged. I suppose the many other entities which would like to use the canal could pay the owner enough to make damaging the ship and cargo economical? Egypt might be able to unilaterally decide to destroy the ship but I don't know how much benefit Egypt gets from keeping the canal open, they might not have a strong incentive either way. I agree with you that collectively we should be able to say the safety of the ship is unimportant compared to all the other cargo which needs to get through that canal. However, 2020 should have made it clear that we're not good at solving that kind of coordination problem.
  - NoOneNew 6y ago
    I feel like theres a lot of international and maritime laws Egypt would violate if they just decide to blow the cargo ship without consent from all parties. This would make further trade relations with anyone... sour?
    - _ph_ 6y ago
      Trade relations with the country which controls the Suez canal? I would guess no nation depending on international trade would rather have the canal free. So no one would blame Egypt, if they decided to blow up the ship. However, blowing up the ship is likely to create a even bigger mess, so that is the biggest reason that it is still there.

yoaviram 6y ago

How about sectioning off a part of the canal around the ship and pumping water in?

ant6n 6y ago
That sounds so crazy, it might just work. One would need to build a wall, possibly out of sand, around the ship, including blocking off the suez Canal itself at two spots. It’sa bit like that Ceasar built two rings of walls when he was besieging the Gauls but was in turn besieged by the Gaul relief army, greatly and suspencefully explained in this video: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=SU1Ej9Yqt68 https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=SU1Ej9Yqt68

quickthrower2 6y ago

How about doing nothing? Just let the canal be blocked. Go the long way. All about the journey not thw destination. Give the container owners an NFT of their missing container.

a9h74j 6y ago
Wait for sea-level rise to do the work. According to some, it won't be more than twelve years for 3m rise. Edward Teller: How big is Antarctica?

tim333 6y ago

They may have a shot Mar 30th - there's a high tide coming.

rocqua 6y ago

Could you replace dredging with just a whole lot of flowing water? Pump water under the hull, let the sand turn into mud, have the weight of the ship push the mud to the side. As the ship gets lower and lower, less of its weight becomes supported by the sand. The mud would still flow to the sides. You might wanna do some dredging over there to give the mud somewhere to go, and make more manouvring space. But in any case, this way you can move a whole lot of sand with very basic equipment. You can't move it far, or move it "up" but you can move it.