10 ms·

Egypt demands over $1B in damages after Suez Canal blockage

122 points by seesawtron 6y ago

tsujp 6y ago
If the Ever Given really was ran aground to due a once-in-a-75-year-sandstorm then it's hardly the fault of either the captain or the port authority to predict such a freak weather occurrence. Yes the captain has ultimate authority, but the port authority also has intimate knowledge of this region, and thus the weather and it's capabilities. We can only know more there after the investigation. On the other hand, the Suez Canal has had a lot of time to even begin construction of a second canal on the southern stretch and hasn't. I'm sure now they will consider that a higher priority as if this block happened further north where there are two canal lanes this wouldn't have been as big an issue. I agree that reparations for the actual true cost of the salvage are due -- the cost of the tugboats, the dredger etc, but to pay damages on lost revenue due to a freak weather occurrence (if that was the case) and the lack of the Suez Canal to build out their infrastructure is disagreeable to say the least.
- sen 6y ago
  It's most probably just for show, as they'd have a tough time of actually finding them guilty considering the state of the canal. They'll bluster about huge damages, then "settle for an undisclosed amount" which is realistically more like just the costs of the fix itself, and maybe a bit extra for compensation.
  - madaxe_again 6y ago
    Absolutely. They see an opportunity to make some revenue, and they will. This is, in the nicest possible way, the way business is done in Egypt. You start from an absolutely outrageous position, and settle on something both parties are generally happy with. This applies from billion dollar lawsuits to buying a pack of cigarettes. Haggling is an art form there.
    - f6v 6y ago
      I got an impression that any lawsuit goes like that everywhere. A claimant asks for outrageously high compensation and settles for much less.
      - ARandomerDude 6y ago
        > This applies from billion dollar lawsuits to buying a pack of cigarettes. Haggling is an art form there.
        elcritch 6y ago
        Some sellers in markets in the region will get offended if you don’t try and haggle, even it means they’ll make 10x the profit that they’d settle for.
        manquer 6y ago
        It is not the about the money. Traders would sometimes take a hit even for a good argument. There is no fun in making 10x money that way. They want to earn it. You will find such traders in all over West Asia/arabic world like Egypt, Istanbul and as far off as delhi, not everyone is like that however, plenty will straight up cheat.
    - SergeAx 6y ago
      Do you have even anecdotal example of this behavior on industrial level, or just projecting your own touristic experience?
      - manquer 6y ago
        It has nothing to do with cultural reasons. Every lawsuit in the U.S. and other places does the exact same thing, claim very high numbers, then perhaps settle for much less.
      - madaxe_again 6y ago
        Yes - my business provided ecommerce infrastructure for a major Egyptian brand. The negotiations were... actually rather fun. It all started by phone and email, they tried to rip us off, we poked fun at their attempts, and returned in kind. Ultimately I flew out to Alexandria and after an afternoon of Very Serious Business we shook on it, and became best friends. Elsewhere, there’s always a degree of horse trading, but the focus is on getting the deal done - here, the focus was very much on doing the deal. The negotiations over terms were far more of an assessment of us than the RFQ and the pitch were, whereas with western brands, the inverse is true.
  - mastax 6y ago
    Perhaps I'm making too many assumptions, but wouldn't such a lawsuit be filed in an Egyptian court? It could be very easy to find them guilty. In the article the port authority is already holding the ship hostage for the money, and they could easily bar Evergreen from using the canal if they don't pay up. What motivation do they have to negotiate?
    - ivan_gammel 6y ago
      I doubt that the contract between the company operating the ship and the canal authority includes the settlement of disputes in Egyptian court. If it goes this way, the company may seek for compensation abroad - this will damage the reputation of Egypt and result in a very long and difficult litigations everywhere around the world. Besides that, new risks associated to this route may push shippers to look more closely to an alternative route. Northern route is much shorter, does not have vessel size limits and it becomes more easier to navigate with global warming. It's not hard to imagine ice class nuclear merchant ships carrying 30-40k TEU there in 10 years.
      - gpm 6y ago
        > nuclear merchant ships [...] in 10 years. This is very hard for me to imagine.
        nbdfml354 6y ago
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear-powered_icebreaker https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear-powered_icebreaker Imagine one of these with stuff on it.
        WJW 6y ago
        I imagine that it's not so much the "nuclear ship" part as much as it is the "nuclear merchant ship" part. Of course you can build big nuclear-powered vessels. But how many governments are willing to part with enough uranium to power such a vessel? Civilian use of nuclear material is extremely restricted and enforcement of maritime law is already something of a problem area due to how international the whole thing is.
- RantyDave 6y ago
  > it's hardly the fault of either the captain or the port authority to predict such a freak weather occurrence. Yes. It is. And to be insured against it happening. So at this stage the Egyptian authorities don't necessarily know who they are picking a fight with.
  - tsujp 6y ago
    I disagree. The captain of the ship relinquishes control to the pilots from the port authority because of their knowledge of the port at hand. If there was a sandstorm with strong winds that pushed the ship aground what could the captain do? Dismiss the pilot and gain control of an already out-of-control ship? The pilots know more about this area, so before the point of no return the captain, I'd imagine, would trust their judgement. Remember: pilots from port authority's are experts about the ports they pilot through. Also, the pilots are not meteorologists and even if they were how many times does your local weather station, or mine, or anyone else's, get the weather forecast wrong. Huge ships of this size have so much momentum that I'd imagine as a captain or a pilot or anyone else who works in the bridge concerning the ships movement has to plan dozens of minutes and kilometres in advance. Want to stop the ship? That requires about 3 Km of runway. Want to turn around? About a 2 Km radius of turn space required. That's a lot of planning. By the time the ship is definitely running aground it's too late to do anything about it and before then the best the captain can do is "umm" and "ahh" every decision the pilots are making. Yes there should be an insurance claim but it's not against the Ever Given it should be against this freak weather event much like how if a tornado blows a house down you have a claim for a natural disaster and not a claim against your local council you live in.
    - jasode 6y ago
      >The captain of the ship relinquishes control to the pilots from the port authority This isn't quite true and has to be worded carefully to explain how responsibility is assigned. The ship is not allowed permission to come into port/harbor/canal without a local pilot on board. That's very different from relinquishing control to the local pilot. The local pilot acts more like an advisor and guide for navigation but the ship's helmsman & captain still retain physical control of the ship's speed and steering. From the reports I read of this specific Ever Given incident, the local guide pilot didn't command the helmsman to speed up to 13 knots. The ship's captain is still ultimately responsible for what happens. Does that mean that even when I'm required to use the local pilot, he still can't be blamed for things going wrong?!? Yes, that's how it works. The ship has no choice of not accepting that deal if it wants access to that port. EDIT : I found a video with a chief engineer from a cargo ship explaining maritime responsibility. Deep link: https://youtu.be/ltdHRdtEHE4?t=3m14s https://youtu.be/ltdHRdtEHE4?t=3m14s
- lars_francke 6y ago
  There is an article in the latest economist about this. https://www.economist.com/middle-east-and-africa/2021/03/30/the-jam-in-the-suez-canal-highlights-egypts-taste-for-mega-projects https://www.economist.com/middle-east-and-africa/2021/03/30/... (Probably unfortunately behind a PayWall) The super short summary is that they say a further expansion is not necessary. Even the previous one wasn't needed an hasn't brought in the benefits they had hoped/promised.
  - chihuahua 6y ago
    https://archive.vn/SFJiH https://archive.vn/SFJiH
- dan-robertson 6y ago
  > The captain has ultimate authority This is a slightly complicated issue: the ship was being piloted so the person with the authority is basically the pilot (someone who’s job is to take ships through the canal but not anywhere else). The captain can order the pilot off the ship (and then take control) but not much else. And doing that in the middle of a sandstorm would probably not be so clever.
  - ericbarrett 6y ago
    I can't find the quote, but I recall one ship captain saying in the multiple decades he'd been transiting, he'd never had the Suez Canal pilots leave their crew quarters between start and finish. Seems most boats that wish to transit have to come prepared with many bribes, and be ready for multiple shakedowns: http://www.sailsafely.com/suez_canal.htm http://www.sailsafely.com/suez_canal.htm Clearly this is Egypt's authorities trying to save face and deflect blame for their failure to provide actual, competent piloting.
    - cm2187 6y ago
      I don't know that we need to assign blame. It is possible this accident was unavoidable. It is not like this is a recurring occurrence.
      - IG_Semmelweiss 6y ago
        It is possible, but not likely. I dont hear this being a once-in-a-century sandstorm. This may not be a recurring ocurrence precisely because weather-induced groundings on that zone are particularly strange, because its not an area with weather that can impair a bih ship cruising by
    - jonas21 6y ago
      The captain in this video has also transited the Suez Canal many times and talks a bit about the corruption and bribes: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ICrgh5sJa-A https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ICrgh5sJa-A
    - 6y ago
- einpoklum 6y ago
  > If the Ever Given really was ran aground to due a once-in-a-75-year-sandstorm then it's hardly the fault of either the captain or the port authority to predict such a freak weather occurrence. The second part of your sentence does not follow from the first part. If you have a large storm every with low but non-zero probability (and, actually, a higher probability than 1/(36575) given the weather conditions, let's say 1/(4075) = 1/3000) - then the parties to the agreement regarding the use of the canal need to plan for this contingency; and I assume the contract governs who has responsibility for such planning: The canal for salvages/re-floating, or the ships for being able to maintain buoyancy even in this kind of conditions. In other words: The point is not to predict the occurrence, it's to be ready for when it occurs. -- PS - I've ignored the question of insurance.
- singularity2001 6y ago
  there was a video shortly before/after the crash showing that the sandstorm was just a false rumor
- throw0101a 6y ago
  > If the Ever Given really was ran aground to due a once-in-a-75-year-sandstorm then it's hardly the fault of either the captain or the port authority to predict such a freak weather occurrence. An interesting hypothesis that I ran across (on gCaptain? blancolirio?) is that it may actually have been a wind lull that caused the issue. There was supposedly a steady cross wind in the area in question, and given the ship is 400m long and 13 storeys high, that's a lot of area. The wind seems to have been coming from the west/port-side, so the ship had rudder to port to counteract the pushing to starboard/east. When the wind dropped suddenly, the pushing-to-starboard force suddenly disappeared, and so the steering to port all of a sudden became 'unnecessary' and if it was not corrected soon enough may have been the reason why the ship steered to port and into the channel wall. Just an hypothesis though. I'm sure a sorts of folks will be looking at the sensor logs. I wonder if the Canal authority has any kind of instruments along the route to measure conditions. If not, they should consider it. Perhaps set up some "buoys" on land next to the channel that broadcast things out via AIS so pilots and captains can see things on their chart plotters.
  - toomuchtodo 6y ago
    Staggered windsocks would be pretty cheap and simple I think, just as you’d deploy at airports.
    - zaarn 6y ago
      Even with modern weather prediction technology and windsocks, it can happen that airplane encounter very unexpected wind drafts up or down during takeoff or landing. Sometimes you just have bad luck.
      - deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
  - pacificmint 6y ago
    > An interesting hypothesis that I ran across Here [1] is a link from the Financial Times that talks about the hypothesis you mention, where a combination of a lull in the wind and the bank effect pushed the bow of the ship away from the bank while pulling the stern in. [1] https://archive.is/pmUEm https://archive.is/pmUEm
- cm2187 6y ago
  Particularly if it was an employee from the canal authority at the wheel.
walrus01 6y ago
The Egyptian armed forces are in a very good position to keep the ship in the great bitter lake as long as they want, question is, what's the value of the cargo onboard?
- scaladev 6y ago
  Did you not read TFA? > the Ever Given and its some $3.5 billion worth of cargo would not be allowed to leave Egypt
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
- rovr138 6y ago
  Wow When does it become piracy?
  - goatinaboat 6y ago
    When does it become piracy? Never. The Egyptian government could simply issue itself a letter of marque. But a country impounding a ship while it is within its sovereign territory over unpaid fees would never be considered piracy anyway.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
- goatinaboat 6y ago
  what's the value of the cargo onboard? According to the article, $3.5Bn.
- tsujp 6y ago
  The estimated cargo value is $3.5 B.
- skbly7 6y ago
  Well, it is already written in the link.... > $3.5 billion worth of cargo
netdur 6y ago
Whatever been said on Egyptian TVs is mostly directed to Egyptians, as on going government propaganda, it does not reflect what will really happen for those cases.
- thendrill 6y ago
  This exactly.... The whole statement was target towards the Egyptian audiance. Standard Arabic propaganda show. Knowing how things work in Egypt. I bet the whole thing will be settled for a couple of million usd and an undisclosed amount of Marlboro packets...
  - mattmanser 6y ago
    Err, calm down in the racism. Trump, a white American, played by exactly the same rule book. Who was going to pay for his wall, do you remember? The Mexicans. Did that ever happen? Of course not. Pick any populist leader and they'll do exactly the same thing.
    - busterarm 6y ago
      The person you're commenting on grew up in Libya. When they say "Standard Arabic propaganda show", they're speaking from personal experience. Calm down with your racism accusations -- that shit's dangerous.
      - yellowapple 6y ago
        > The person you're commenting on grew up in Libya. Where are you getting this information? It doesn't seem to be present in that user's comment history (though maybe my tired eyes ain't seeing it). Ordinarily this would be called "doxxing" in any case ;)
        busterarm 6y ago
        https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26409524 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26409524 It's literally at the top of page 2. And no, that's not doxxing. It's not an identifying detail and it's something someone voluneteered about themselves. It's perfectly fine to keep people accountable to their comment history and that's not even what's happening here.
dmw_ng 6y ago
Can anyone qualified explain how this could be the shipper's fault? I understood the canal requires (extremely expensive) pilots supplied by the canal authority aboard for any passage. It's mentioned in the article: > Bernhard Schulte has said previously that two Egyptian canal pilots were aboard when the ship got stuck. Such an arrangement is customary to guide vessels through the narrow waterway, but the ship’s captain retains ultimate authority, according to experts.
- londons_explore 6y ago
  The pilots were chatting and not paying attention and the ship veered slightly off course, hit the bank, and spun around. With tens of thousands of ships making that passage each year, it was bound to happen sometime. The sandstorm is just an excuse IMO...
- vesinisa 6y ago
  Remember that Egypt is a hopelessly corrupt developing country. It doesn't really matter who is at fault. The matter would be decided by an Egyptian court where the judge will rubberstamp whatever narrative and claim the government wants to present. Remember that Egypt nationalized (stole) the canal in the first place from the UK. The only reason they were not bombed to oblivion was that it suited US goals of further humiliating former European imperial powers after WWII. Egypt operates tha canal as spoils of war and their only real concern would be if shippers begun considering the risks of relying on the Suez authorities higher than going through the Horn of Africa.
  - einpoklum 6y ago
    > nationalized (stole) Ah, still salty over European powers losing their imperial holdings? > The only reason they were not bombed to oblivion ... yeah, I guess so.
    - vesinisa 6y ago
      I am only saying that if the canal was still UK property we could probably at least rely on the courts to impartially decide who is at fault. People don't realize things don't operate the same way in 3rd world countries as they do in the West. Now the fault lies at where ever Egypt says it does. The only recourse is to hope they are lenient enough to not spook other maritime freight operators.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
ricardo81 6y ago
Not sure of the angle for claiming on "costs of stalled traffic" (is that lost revenue?), surely the brunt of that loss is on the commercial concerns of the boat operators themselves? If $1bn were the 'true costs' then clearly there are a lot of costs in running the canal over a year. It seems like the number is highly inflated, on face value. Not an expert, just an observation.
jonplackett 6y ago
> $3.5 billion cargo. Wow. Is that a lot for a ship that size or just standard? Anyone know what it was carrying?
- delusional 6y ago
  At the start of all this I read that it was (nearly) fully loaded container wise, but about half those containers might have been empty.
- thendrill 6y ago
  Pretty standard. A couple of containers filled with Cpus, Gpus or other small pricy items adds quickly up hundreds of millions of usd. The Ever Given was carrying around approx. 18 000 containers So that is an avarage price of around 150 000 usd, per container. That is equal to around 150 iphones. Or 300 ryzen 5950x cpus. Here is a reference pic to see how much volume are 150 iphones. https://images.app.goo.gl/gsykpZZcSdQqDD7A9 https://images.app.goo.gl/gsykpZZcSdQqDD7A9
  - paganel 6y ago
    Why does Google have to f.-up the back button? And then they pat themselves on the back for being on the vanguard of web development (I’m on Safari on an iPhone SE).
    - jonplackett 6y ago
      Because Google think they own the web.
    - throwawaysea 6y ago
      I am shocked to see Google use that dark pattern. I even assumed for a second that I was on some kind of fake site that appeared like Google but wasn’t actually them.
    - manquer 6y ago
      Perhaps it works better in Chrome ? (And that's their intent ?)
igitur 6y ago
The experience of Sea Witch, a yacht, in traversing the Suez Canal might give some context on this big brother version. http://www.sailsafely.com/suez_canal.htm http://www.sailsafely.com/suez_canal.htm
- freddie_mercury 6y ago
  What context does your link provide? I'm not being snarky; can you just make it explicit in your comment instead of leaving a vague comment linking to something that takes 15-20 minutes to read?
  - igitur 6y ago
    Not really. Currently watching a good cricket game. Take it or leave it.
    - varispeed 6y ago
      Is there a good resource that could make someone not knowing anything about cricket understand it to a level that watching a game would be enjoyable, without spending ages on learning what it is about?
      - brainzap 6y ago
        go to a local event I guess
      - kirubakaran 6y ago
        This should help https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tYrue4oXCbo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tYrue4oXCbo
  - andylynch 6y ago
    It’s a report on a cruiser yacht’s experience passing through the canal, which among other things concludes the level of baksheesh and Marlboros involved is excessive compared to elsewhere nearby.
dan-robertson 6y ago
Maritime insurance doesn’t usually cover some freak weather (acts of God). It is too risky for the insurer to have large amounts of their book exposed to the same event. I’m not sure if this sandstorm counts as an act of God, but $1B to Egypt for a canal blockage probably pales in comparison to the claims that might be made against late-delivery insurance. It is probably those claims which insurers are most worried about, and those claims which they want to dismiss as due to acts of God (but the cause of “ship blocking canal” feels to me even less like an act of God than “big sandstorm”)
- darkwater 6y ago
  Is this "act of God" terminology really used in, I guess, US insurances?
  - ramchip 6y ago
    It's standard terminology, yes. A quick google would lead you to: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Act_of_God https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Act_of_God
  - LudwigNagasena 6y ago
    It is used in the Anglo-American legal system.
- varispeed 6y ago
  If this is an "act of God", should they seek damages from Church instead?
  - tzs 6y ago
    People have sued God [1]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawsuits_against_God https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawsuits_against_God
  - ben509 6y ago
    The Church would then refer them to Genesis 3:6, which led to the decision in Genesis 3:16-19, as that breach of covenant by mankind is the original cause of our continuing hardship. They'd then go ahead and cite all the additional breaches of covenant.
tjbiddle 6y ago
> The average size of most vessels has increased exponentially over the last 15 years. The ability to salvage these bigger ships has not," said Peter Townsend, a marine insurance industry veteran. Well - Either you allow gigantic ships that have this risk through, and set aside cash for when shit like this eventually happens - Or you don't allow them through at all. Learn how to budget for your risk profile.
- aeternum 6y ago
  Or you just demand that ships take on the liability of passage as it seems they are. Egypt is in a pretty strong negotiating position.
Vaderv 6y ago
Damn right they should. That fcukinig indian crew really stunk up the place with their erratic route and deliberate ramming of the ship. Those people literally stink.
IAmEveryone 6y ago
Legally, this seems shaky: - The ship had, as required, two pilots on board at the time. These are agents of the canal and have ultimate authority during the passage. - the loss in fees seems far smaller, and can easily be counted by the numbers of ships that went the long way around. - I doubt the salvage operation got close to that cost. There just isn't enough equipment to lease to run up a billion in four days or so., even counting stuff that may have never arrived - Egypt still knows it's French. Force Majeur should ring a bell. That being said, I wonder if it matters? They could have the right, or at least the power, to simply refuse passage to all vessels operated by the company. Egypt is probably party to some international agreement precluding arbitrary decision in that regard for political reasons. But they'd obviously be allowed to do so for vessels not paying the regular fee. This case would seem to resemble the latter more than the former?
- sokoloff 6y ago
  I think the captain retains ultimate authority of their ship, while pilots provide (ideally expert) advisory services.

122 points by seesawtron 6y ago

If the Ever Given really was ran aground to due a once-in-a-75-year-sandstorm then it's hardly the fault of either the captain or the port authority to predict such a freak weather occurrence. Yes the captain has ultimate authority, but the port authority also has intimate knowledge of this region, and thus the weather and it's capabilities. We can only know more there after the investigation. On the other hand, the Suez Canal has had a lot of time to even begin construction of a second canal on the southern stretch and hasn't. I'm sure now they will consider that a higher priority as if this block happened further north where there are two canal lanes this wouldn't have been as big an issue. I agree that reparations for the actual true cost of the salvage are due -- the cost of the tugboats, the dredger etc, but to pay damages on lost revenue due to a freak weather occurrence (if that was the case) and the lack of the Suez Canal to build out their infrastructure is disagreeable to say the least.

sen 6y ago
It's most probably just for show, as they'd have a tough time of actually finding them guilty considering the state of the canal. They'll bluster about huge damages, then "settle for an undisclosed amount" which is realistically more like just the costs of the fix itself, and maybe a bit extra for compensation.
- madaxe_again 6y ago
  Absolutely. They see an opportunity to make some revenue, and they will. This is, in the nicest possible way, the way business is done in Egypt. You start from an absolutely outrageous position, and settle on something both parties are generally happy with. This applies from billion dollar lawsuits to buying a pack of cigarettes. Haggling is an art form there.
  - f6v 6y ago
    I got an impression that any lawsuit goes like that everywhere. A claimant asks for outrageously high compensation and settles for much less.
    - ARandomerDude 6y ago
      > This applies from billion dollar lawsuits to buying a pack of cigarettes. Haggling is an art form there.
      - elcritch 6y ago
        Some sellers in markets in the region will get offended if you don’t try and haggle, even it means they’ll make 10x the profit that they’d settle for.
        manquer 6y ago
        It is not the about the money. Traders would sometimes take a hit even for a good argument. There is no fun in making 10x money that way. They want to earn it. You will find such traders in all over West Asia/arabic world like Egypt, Istanbul and as far off as delhi, not everyone is like that however, plenty will straight up cheat.
  - SergeAx 6y ago
    Do you have even anecdotal example of this behavior on industrial level, or just projecting your own touristic experience?
    - manquer 6y ago
      It has nothing to do with cultural reasons. Every lawsuit in the U.S. and other places does the exact same thing, claim very high numbers, then perhaps settle for much less.
    - madaxe_again 6y ago
      Yes - my business provided ecommerce infrastructure for a major Egyptian brand. The negotiations were... actually rather fun. It all started by phone and email, they tried to rip us off, we poked fun at their attempts, and returned in kind. Ultimately I flew out to Alexandria and after an afternoon of Very Serious Business we shook on it, and became best friends. Elsewhere, there’s always a degree of horse trading, but the focus is on getting the deal done - here, the focus was very much on doing the deal. The negotiations over terms were far more of an assessment of us than the RFQ and the pitch were, whereas with western brands, the inverse is true.
- mastax 6y ago
  Perhaps I'm making too many assumptions, but wouldn't such a lawsuit be filed in an Egyptian court? It could be very easy to find them guilty. In the article the port authority is already holding the ship hostage for the money, and they could easily bar Evergreen from using the canal if they don't pay up. What motivation do they have to negotiate?
  - ivan_gammel 6y ago
    I doubt that the contract between the company operating the ship and the canal authority includes the settlement of disputes in Egyptian court. If it goes this way, the company may seek for compensation abroad - this will damage the reputation of Egypt and result in a very long and difficult litigations everywhere around the world. Besides that, new risks associated to this route may push shippers to look more closely to an alternative route. Northern route is much shorter, does not have vessel size limits and it becomes more easier to navigate with global warming. It's not hard to imagine ice class nuclear merchant ships carrying 30-40k TEU there in 10 years.
    - gpm 6y ago
      > nuclear merchant ships [...] in 10 years. This is very hard for me to imagine.
      - nbdfml354 6y ago
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear-powered_icebreaker https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear-powered_icebreaker Imagine one of these with stuff on it.
        WJW 6y ago
        I imagine that it's not so much the "nuclear ship" part as much as it is the "nuclear merchant ship" part. Of course you can build big nuclear-powered vessels. But how many governments are willing to part with enough uranium to power such a vessel? Civilian use of nuclear material is extremely restricted and enforcement of maritime law is already something of a problem area due to how international the whole thing is.
RantyDave 6y ago
> it's hardly the fault of either the captain or the port authority to predict such a freak weather occurrence. Yes. It is. And to be insured against it happening. So at this stage the Egyptian authorities don't necessarily know who they are picking a fight with.
- tsujp 6y ago
  I disagree. The captain of the ship relinquishes control to the pilots from the port authority because of their knowledge of the port at hand. If there was a sandstorm with strong winds that pushed the ship aground what could the captain do? Dismiss the pilot and gain control of an already out-of-control ship? The pilots know more about this area, so before the point of no return the captain, I'd imagine, would trust their judgement. Remember: pilots from port authority's are experts about the ports they pilot through. Also, the pilots are not meteorologists and even if they were how many times does your local weather station, or mine, or anyone else's, get the weather forecast wrong. Huge ships of this size have so much momentum that I'd imagine as a captain or a pilot or anyone else who works in the bridge concerning the ships movement has to plan dozens of minutes and kilometres in advance. Want to stop the ship? That requires about 3 Km of runway. Want to turn around? About a 2 Km radius of turn space required. That's a lot of planning. By the time the ship is definitely running aground it's too late to do anything about it and before then the best the captain can do is "umm" and "ahh" every decision the pilots are making. Yes there should be an insurance claim but it's not against the Ever Given it should be against this freak weather event much like how if a tornado blows a house down you have a claim for a natural disaster and not a claim against your local council you live in.
  - jasode 6y ago
    >The captain of the ship relinquishes control to the pilots from the port authority This isn't quite true and has to be worded carefully to explain how responsibility is assigned. The ship is not allowed permission to come into port/harbor/canal without a local pilot on board. That's very different from relinquishing control to the local pilot. The local pilot acts more like an advisor and guide for navigation but the ship's helmsman & captain still retain physical control of the ship's speed and steering. From the reports I read of this specific Ever Given incident, the local guide pilot didn't command the helmsman to speed up to 13 knots. The ship's captain is still ultimately responsible for what happens. Does that mean that even when I'm required to use the local pilot, he still can't be blamed for things going wrong?!? Yes, that's how it works. The ship has no choice of not accepting that deal if it wants access to that port. EDIT : I found a video with a chief engineer from a cargo ship explaining maritime responsibility. Deep link: https://youtu.be/ltdHRdtEHE4?t=3m14s https://youtu.be/ltdHRdtEHE4?t=3m14s
lars_francke 6y ago
There is an article in the latest economist about this. https://www.economist.com/middle-east-and-africa/2021/03/30/the-jam-in-the-suez-canal-highlights-egypts-taste-for-mega-projects https://www.economist.com/middle-east-and-africa/2021/03/30/... (Probably unfortunately behind a PayWall) The super short summary is that they say a further expansion is not necessary. Even the previous one wasn't needed an hasn't brought in the benefits they had hoped/promised.
- chihuahua 6y ago
  https://archive.vn/SFJiH https://archive.vn/SFJiH
dan-robertson 6y ago
> The captain has ultimate authority This is a slightly complicated issue: the ship was being piloted so the person with the authority is basically the pilot (someone who’s job is to take ships through the canal but not anywhere else). The captain can order the pilot off the ship (and then take control) but not much else. And doing that in the middle of a sandstorm would probably not be so clever.
- ericbarrett 6y ago
  I can't find the quote, but I recall one ship captain saying in the multiple decades he'd been transiting, he'd never had the Suez Canal pilots leave their crew quarters between start and finish. Seems most boats that wish to transit have to come prepared with many bribes, and be ready for multiple shakedowns: http://www.sailsafely.com/suez_canal.htm http://www.sailsafely.com/suez_canal.htm Clearly this is Egypt's authorities trying to save face and deflect blame for their failure to provide actual, competent piloting.
  - cm2187 6y ago
    I don't know that we need to assign blame. It is possible this accident was unavoidable. It is not like this is a recurring occurrence.
    - IG_Semmelweiss 6y ago
      It is possible, but not likely. I dont hear this being a once-in-a-century sandstorm. This may not be a recurring ocurrence precisely because weather-induced groundings on that zone are particularly strange, because its not an area with weather that can impair a bih ship cruising by
  - jonas21 6y ago
    The captain in this video has also transited the Suez Canal many times and talks a bit about the corruption and bribes: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ICrgh5sJa-A https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ICrgh5sJa-A
  - 6y ago
einpoklum 6y ago
> If the Ever Given really was ran aground to due a once-in-a-75-year-sandstorm then it's hardly the fault of either the captain or the port authority to predict such a freak weather occurrence. The second part of your sentence does not follow from the first part. If you have a large storm every with low but non-zero probability (and, actually, a higher probability than 1/(36575) given the weather conditions, let's say 1/(4075) = 1/3000) - then the parties to the agreement regarding the use of the canal need to plan for this contingency; and I assume the contract governs who has responsibility for such planning: The canal for salvages/re-floating, or the ships for being able to maintain buoyancy even in this kind of conditions. In other words: The point is not to predict the occurrence, it's to be ready for when it occurs. -- PS - I've ignored the question of insurance.
singularity2001 6y ago
there was a video shortly before/after the crash showing that the sandstorm was just a false rumor
throw0101a 6y ago
> If the Ever Given really was ran aground to due a once-in-a-75-year-sandstorm then it's hardly the fault of either the captain or the port authority to predict such a freak weather occurrence. An interesting hypothesis that I ran across (on gCaptain? blancolirio?) is that it may actually have been a wind lull that caused the issue. There was supposedly a steady cross wind in the area in question, and given the ship is 400m long and 13 storeys high, that's a lot of area. The wind seems to have been coming from the west/port-side, so the ship had rudder to port to counteract the pushing to starboard/east. When the wind dropped suddenly, the pushing-to-starboard force suddenly disappeared, and so the steering to port all of a sudden became 'unnecessary' and if it was not corrected soon enough may have been the reason why the ship steered to port and into the channel wall. Just an hypothesis though. I'm sure a sorts of folks will be looking at the sensor logs. I wonder if the Canal authority has any kind of instruments along the route to measure conditions. If not, they should consider it. Perhaps set up some "buoys" on land next to the channel that broadcast things out via AIS so pilots and captains can see things on their chart plotters.
- toomuchtodo 6y ago
  Staggered windsocks would be pretty cheap and simple I think, just as you’d deploy at airports.
  - zaarn 6y ago
    Even with modern weather prediction technology and windsocks, it can happen that airplane encounter very unexpected wind drafts up or down during takeoff or landing. Sometimes you just have bad luck.
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
- pacificmint 6y ago
  > An interesting hypothesis that I ran across Here [1] is a link from the Financial Times that talks about the hypothesis you mention, where a combination of a lull in the wind and the bank effect pushed the bow of the ship away from the bank while pulling the stern in. [1] https://archive.is/pmUEm https://archive.is/pmUEm
cm2187 6y ago
Particularly if it was an employee from the canal authority at the wheel.

walrus01 6y ago

The Egyptian armed forces are in a very good position to keep the ship in the great bitter lake as long as they want, question is, what's the value of the cargo onboard?

scaladev 6y ago
Did you not read TFA? > the Ever Given and its some $3.5 billion worth of cargo would not be allowed to leave Egypt
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
rovr138 6y ago
Wow When does it become piracy?
- goatinaboat 6y ago
  When does it become piracy? Never. The Egyptian government could simply issue itself a letter of marque. But a country impounding a ship while it is within its sovereign territory over unpaid fees would never be considered piracy anyway.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
goatinaboat 6y ago
what's the value of the cargo onboard? According to the article, $3.5Bn.
tsujp 6y ago
The estimated cargo value is $3.5 B.
skbly7 6y ago
Well, it is already written in the link.... > $3.5 billion worth of cargo

netdur 6y ago

Whatever been said on Egyptian TVs is mostly directed to Egyptians, as on going government propaganda, it does not reflect what will really happen for those cases.

thendrill 6y ago
This exactly.... The whole statement was target towards the Egyptian audiance. Standard Arabic propaganda show. Knowing how things work in Egypt. I bet the whole thing will be settled for a couple of million usd and an undisclosed amount of Marlboro packets...
- mattmanser 6y ago
  Err, calm down in the racism. Trump, a white American, played by exactly the same rule book. Who was going to pay for his wall, do you remember? The Mexicans. Did that ever happen? Of course not. Pick any populist leader and they'll do exactly the same thing.
  - busterarm 6y ago
    The person you're commenting on grew up in Libya. When they say "Standard Arabic propaganda show", they're speaking from personal experience. Calm down with your racism accusations -- that shit's dangerous.
    - yellowapple 6y ago
      > The person you're commenting on grew up in Libya. Where are you getting this information? It doesn't seem to be present in that user's comment history (though maybe my tired eyes ain't seeing it). Ordinarily this would be called "doxxing" in any case ;)
      - busterarm 6y ago
        https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26409524 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26409524 It's literally at the top of page 2. And no, that's not doxxing. It's not an identifying detail and it's something someone voluneteered about themselves. It's perfectly fine to keep people accountable to their comment history and that's not even what's happening here.

dmw_ng 6y ago

Can anyone qualified explain how this could be the shipper's fault? I understood the canal requires (extremely expensive) pilots supplied by the canal authority aboard for any passage. It's mentioned in the article: > Bernhard Schulte has said previously that two Egyptian canal pilots were aboard when the ship got stuck. Such an arrangement is customary to guide vessels through the narrow waterway, but the ship’s captain retains ultimate authority, according to experts.

londons_explore 6y ago
The pilots were chatting and not paying attention and the ship veered slightly off course, hit the bank, and spun around. With tens of thousands of ships making that passage each year, it was bound to happen sometime. The sandstorm is just an excuse IMO...
vesinisa 6y ago
Remember that Egypt is a hopelessly corrupt developing country. It doesn't really matter who is at fault. The matter would be decided by an Egyptian court where the judge will rubberstamp whatever narrative and claim the government wants to present. Remember that Egypt nationalized (stole) the canal in the first place from the UK. The only reason they were not bombed to oblivion was that it suited US goals of further humiliating former European imperial powers after WWII. Egypt operates tha canal as spoils of war and their only real concern would be if shippers begun considering the risks of relying on the Suez authorities higher than going through the Horn of Africa.
- einpoklum 6y ago
  > nationalized (stole) Ah, still salty over European powers losing their imperial holdings? > The only reason they were not bombed to oblivion ... yeah, I guess so.
  - vesinisa 6y ago
    I am only saying that if the canal was still UK property we could probably at least rely on the courts to impartially decide who is at fault. People don't realize things don't operate the same way in 3rd world countries as they do in the West. Now the fault lies at where ever Egypt says it does. The only recourse is to hope they are lenient enough to not spook other maritime freight operators.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

ricardo81 6y ago

Not sure of the angle for claiming on "costs of stalled traffic" (is that lost revenue?), surely the brunt of that loss is on the commercial concerns of the boat operators themselves? If $1bn were the 'true costs' then clearly there are a lot of costs in running the canal over a year. It seems like the number is highly inflated, on face value. Not an expert, just an observation.

jonplackett 6y ago

> $3.5 billion cargo. Wow. Is that a lot for a ship that size or just standard? Anyone know what it was carrying?

delusional 6y ago
At the start of all this I read that it was (nearly) fully loaded container wise, but about half those containers might have been empty.
thendrill 6y ago
Pretty standard. A couple of containers filled with Cpus, Gpus or other small pricy items adds quickly up hundreds of millions of usd. The Ever Given was carrying around approx. 18 000 containers So that is an avarage price of around 150 000 usd, per container. That is equal to around 150 iphones. Or 300 ryzen 5950x cpus. Here is a reference pic to see how much volume are 150 iphones. https://images.app.goo.gl/gsykpZZcSdQqDD7A9 https://images.app.goo.gl/gsykpZZcSdQqDD7A9
- paganel 6y ago
  Why does Google have to f.-up the back button? And then they pat themselves on the back for being on the vanguard of web development (I’m on Safari on an iPhone SE).
  - jonplackett 6y ago
    Because Google think they own the web.
  - throwawaysea 6y ago
    I am shocked to see Google use that dark pattern. I even assumed for a second that I was on some kind of fake site that appeared like Google but wasn’t actually them.
  - manquer 6y ago
    Perhaps it works better in Chrome ? (And that's their intent ?)

igitur 6y ago

The experience of Sea Witch, a yacht, in traversing the Suez Canal might give some context on this big brother version. http://www.sailsafely.com/suez_canal.htm http://www.sailsafely.com/suez_canal.htm

freddie_mercury 6y ago
What context does your link provide? I'm not being snarky; can you just make it explicit in your comment instead of leaving a vague comment linking to something that takes 15-20 minutes to read?
- igitur 6y ago
  Not really. Currently watching a good cricket game. Take it or leave it.
  - varispeed 6y ago
    Is there a good resource that could make someone not knowing anything about cricket understand it to a level that watching a game would be enjoyable, without spending ages on learning what it is about?
    - brainzap 6y ago
      go to a local event I guess
    - kirubakaran 6y ago
      This should help https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tYrue4oXCbo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tYrue4oXCbo
- andylynch 6y ago
  It’s a report on a cruiser yacht’s experience passing through the canal, which among other things concludes the level of baksheesh and Marlboros involved is excessive compared to elsewhere nearby.

dan-robertson 6y ago

Maritime insurance doesn’t usually cover some freak weather (acts of God). It is too risky for the insurer to have large amounts of their book exposed to the same event. I’m not sure if this sandstorm counts as an act of God, but $1B to Egypt for a canal blockage probably pales in comparison to the claims that might be made against late-delivery insurance. It is probably those claims which insurers are most worried about, and those claims which they want to dismiss as due to acts of God (but the cause of “ship blocking canal” feels to me even less like an act of God than “big sandstorm”)

darkwater 6y ago
Is this "act of God" terminology really used in, I guess, US insurances?
- ramchip 6y ago
  It's standard terminology, yes. A quick google would lead you to: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Act_of_God https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Act_of_God
- LudwigNagasena 6y ago
  It is used in the Anglo-American legal system.
varispeed 6y ago
If this is an "act of God", should they seek damages from Church instead?
- tzs 6y ago
  People have sued God [1]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawsuits_against_God https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawsuits_against_God
- ben509 6y ago
  The Church would then refer them to Genesis 3:6, which led to the decision in Genesis 3:16-19, as that breach of covenant by mankind is the original cause of our continuing hardship. They'd then go ahead and cite all the additional breaches of covenant.

tjbiddle 6y ago

> The average size of most vessels has increased exponentially over the last 15 years. The ability to salvage these bigger ships has not," said Peter Townsend, a marine insurance industry veteran. Well - Either you allow gigantic ships that have this risk through, and set aside cash for when shit like this eventually happens - Or you don't allow them through at all. Learn how to budget for your risk profile.

aeternum 6y ago
Or you just demand that ships take on the liability of passage as it seems they are. Egypt is in a pretty strong negotiating position.

Vaderv 6y ago

Damn right they should. That fcukinig indian crew really stunk up the place with their erratic route and deliberate ramming of the ship. Those people literally stink.

IAmEveryone 6y ago

Legally, this seems shaky: - The ship had, as required, two pilots on board at the time. These are agents of the canal and have ultimate authority during the passage. - the loss in fees seems far smaller, and can easily be counted by the numbers of ships that went the long way around. - I doubt the salvage operation got close to that cost. There just isn't enough equipment to lease to run up a billion in four days or so., even counting stuff that may have never arrived - Egypt still knows it's French. Force Majeur should ring a bell. That being said, I wonder if it matters? They could have the right, or at least the power, to simply refuse passage to all vessels operated by the company. Egypt is probably party to some international agreement precluding arbitrary decision in that regard for political reasons. But they'd obviously be allowed to do so for vessels not paying the regular fee. This case would seem to resemble the latter more than the former?

sokoloff 6y ago
I think the captain retains ultimate authority of their ship, while pilots provide (ideally expert) advisory services.