• m/v Ever Given

  • For topics on Class I and II passenger and freight operations more general in nature and not specifically related to a specific railroad with its own forum.
For topics on Class I and II passenger and freight operations more general in nature and not specifically related to a specific railroad with its own forum.

Moderator: Jeff Smith

  by JayBee
The higher speed of 13 knots was likely chosen to get more push from the rudder to keep the bow of the ship from hitting the bank. It wasn't enough. The MV Ever Given should have been built like Maersk's 3M class of ULCVs with two engines, two propellers, and two rudders. This would have "Ever Given" the ship more control over yaw in a crosswind. :wink:
  by west point
It also had bow thrusters.
  by eolesen
I'm told bow thrusters are really only effective at lower speeds i.e. below 5kts.

At higher speeds, some say bow thrusters have the opposite effect and create a pressure differential just like an aircraft wing (e.g. starboard thrusters running @ > 5 kts winds up creating lower pressure on the starboard side, higher pressure on the port side, resulting in the ship moving to starboard....

If it comes out that they were at 13kts and using the bow thrusters, that should close the book on whether that theory is correct or not. ;)
  by kitchin
https://gcaptain.com/suez-canal-authori ... ion-claim/
The lawyers are saying don't panic about the seizure, it's all negotiation. Two aspects are the ship itself and the cargo. The law on cargo follows 7th century Byzantine law, in that cargo owners have to pay for some of the damage. Insurance and other contracts factor in of course. Only certain courts worldwide are even competent to untangle such stuff. The articles say London, and by happenstance I know federal court in Norfolk specializes in this for U.S. cases.

I would guess Egypt has competing pressures in local politics, commercial reputation, and money. Same factors, different mix, for the other parties.
  by Gilbert B Norman
Mr. Kitchin, the key from the Reuters material you shared, I believe is this statement:
One maritime lawyer said that normally the ship owner would provide an agreed security that would allow the vessel and crew to continue on their way with a court setting a final award later. “Of course in this case, they are hoping for cash now,” he said.
That "tub", really is nothing more that an overgrown barge; how anyone could have emotional attachment, starting with use of the feminine gender, escapes me (lest we forget, I served some ten years as a Fairfield Navy Cadet). But whatever, it represents a factor in the movements of goods in international trade - and those factors are presently scarce.

If the vessel IS deemed seaworthy (certainly marine surveyors by now have "looked it over"), and I have not seen any reports "one way or the other", the doctrine set forth within the quote should apply. But that is a part of the world where "if I think something is mine, I grab it, and let's see what you are going to do about it" is the rule of the day.
  by kitchin
Egypt's wasn't the first move in this case. I forget whom, but it filed in legal suit in London I think.
  by Gilbert B Norman
This Bloomberg article sets forth the conditions prevalent within the maritime shipping industry today.

Fair Use:
Containers piled high on giant vessels carrying everything from car tires to smartphones are toppling over at an alarming rate, sending millions of dollars of cargo sinking to the bottom of the ocean as pressure to speed deliveries raises the risk of safety errors.

The shipping industry is seeing the biggest spike in lost containers in seven years. More than 3,000 boxes dropped into the sea last year, and more than 1,000 have fallen overboard so far in 2021. The accidents are disrupting supply chains for hundreds of U.S. retailers and manufacturers such as Amazon and Tesla.

There are a host of reasons for the sudden rise in accidents. Weather is getting more unpredictable, while ships are growing bigger, allowing for containers to be stacked higher than ever before. But greatly exacerbating the situation is a surge in e-commerce after consumer demand exploded during the pandemic, increasing the urgency for shipping lines to deliver products as quickly as possible.
Possibly these factors are why the m/v Ever Given was "speeding" in the Canal (13 in a 9). No doubt that these vessels all dubbed "UL" (ultra large) do not help "the cause" of safe maritime operations.

Meantime, m/v Ever Given sits at anchor in Great Bitter Lake while the matter of the Civil Seizure is litigated. How say a "Free Ever Given" demonstration. Hey, they have 'em for whatever the issues are surrounding musical artist Brittney Spears.
  by Gilbert B Norman
Predictably, I guess, "the plot thickens":

https://www.businessinsider.com/ever-gi ... age-2021-5

Fair Use:
The vessel has been held in an artificial lake along the canal until its insurers and Egyptian authorities come to an agreement. Its crew members have since been given permission to go home.

A recording from the ship that was granted to the court also showed disagreements between SCA pilots and its control centre over whether the ship should pass through the canal, Reuters reported.

Lawyers representing Shoei Kisen Kaisha said the ship should have been chaperoned by at least two tug boats, "but this didn't happen."

The Japanese company is seeking $100,000 in initial compensation for losses linked to the ship's detainment
Well, at least the crew is "outta there"; but in the meantime, any perishable cargo aboard has since "perished", the remaining cargo has been held from market, and the shipowners have been deprived of the opportunity to determine if their vessel remains seaworthy, and if so, the voyages that could have been completed and the revenue earned from them.

To keep this topic rail related, let's throw in the adverse effect upon revenue that various European rail freight operators (private concerns operating over State owned ROW's) and if the vessel (I simply can't refer to such a "barge" in the feminine gender) were to call on the East Coast after its intended port of Rotterdam, that which Chessie and Topper have lost.

But as has been noted here, Admiralty Law is very complex and much of which has never been formally delineated in Code. Therefore, much of it is which side can outlawyer the other. I think you'll find the number or firms worldwide that hold expertise in such are quite few in number.

Addendum: reporting from Reuters:

https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-ea ... 021-05-23/