Terry Posted April 7, 2012 Report Posted April 7, 2012 Only one down side to it Terry. MONEY The Canadian fisherman that claimed the salvage rights on inspection relinquished them do to the condition of the ship which would not allow him to make a profit. He estimated it cost him $10,000 in fuel just to take his boat out to check the vessel. I seen him interviewed on TV. yeah, I saw that after the fact....still it seems to be the earth friendly way to do it...
Rod Caster Posted April 7, 2012 Report Posted April 7, 2012 Ah they just continue to use the oceans as a crapper. How is a boat with that much fuel just abandoned? Who the hell owns it, what is their insurance policy and make them pay for some of the salvage. An empty ship, sure, let 'er sink, but that's a lot of fuel to just dissipate. I think people often mistake the word dissipate with disapear. It doesn't just go away for christ sake. We pay crazy taxes and levies to cover "green" projects and make an effort to enviro friendly, and then in one fell swoop, 300,000 litres of fuel are sent to the air. We are talking out of two holes here. Its a joke and makes me completely hate solar power projects and other apparently meaningless green projects. Let's all evaporate a gallon of gas today... What difference does it make? Oh ya, you'd get fined! But a giant flippin tanker.. Target practice. Christ!
Terry Posted April 7, 2012 Report Posted April 7, 2012 (edited) yeah well as long as they don't start dumping their garbage in the ocean we should be fine Edited April 7, 2012 by Terry
Jer Posted April 8, 2012 Report Posted April 8, 2012 Ah they just continue to use the oceans as a crapper. How is a boat with that much fuel just abandoned? Who the hell owns it, what is their insurance policy and make them pay for some of the salvage. An empty ship, sure, let 'er sink, but that's a lot of fuel to just dissipate. I think people often mistake the word dissipate with disapear. It doesn't just go away for christ sake. We pay crazy taxes and levies to cover "green" projects and make an effort to enviro friendly, and then in one fell swoop, 300,000 litres of fuel are sent to the air. We are talking out of two holes here. Its a joke and makes me completely hate solar power projects and other apparently meaningless green projects. Let's all evaporate a gallon of gas today... What difference does it make? Oh ya, you'd get fined! But a giant flippin tanker.. Target practice. Christ! Didja even read the story? The ship wasn't abandoned...it was swept out to sea during last year's Japanese tsunami. I think they had more important things to worry about at the time...like thousands missing and killed, nuclear meltdown, total distruction... The ship hade the capacity to carry 2000 gallons of fuel (nobody knows how much was actually aboard)...Where do you get the 300,000 litres from? It was a fishing trawler, not an oil tanker. Most of us probably do evaporate (read burn) at least a gallon of fuel a day. We don't get fined, just taxed up the wazoo on it. But you're right about Dalton's "Green Energy" plan, totally meaningless except for driving up hydro rates.
OhioFisherman Posted April 8, 2012 Report Posted April 8, 2012 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Navy_reserve_fleets https://www.google.com/search?q=us+ghost+fleet&hl=en&client=firefox-a&hs=kSY&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&channel=s&prmd=imvns&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=vo-BT-n8GYnh0QGAt72SCA&ved=0CD4QsAQ&biw=931&bih=512 It does seem a waste?
Woodsman Posted April 8, 2012 Report Posted April 8, 2012 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Navy_reserve_fleets https://www.google.com/search?q=us+ghost+fleet&hl=en&client=firefox-a&hs=kSY&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&channel=s&prmd=imvns&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=vo-BT-n8GYnh0QGAt72SCA&ved=0CD4QsAQ&biw=931&bih=512 It does seem a waste? What does this have to do with an outdated, worn out fishing trawler scheduled for scraping that was washed out to sea during a tsunami. The ships you referred to are in far better shape & mothballed.
OhioFisherman Posted April 8, 2012 Report Posted April 8, 2012 Actually a lot of those ship will be cut up for scrap iron, LOL just as soon a China needs it! There are also a lot of old commercial ships sitting around, it is more cost effective to run the newer ones. They had a program on TV here about some of the expense involved with our Military gear. The US military spends more fighting corrosion on their gear than the entire military budget of Canada. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suisun_Bay_Reserve_Fleet http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Defense_Reserve_Fleet They have to remove hazardous materials from our ships before they are scrapped, I guess it is still ok to sink other peoples.
Woodsman Posted April 8, 2012 Report Posted April 8, 2012 They have to remove hazardous materials from our ships before they are scrapped, I guess it is still ok to sink other peoples. Then you'd have no problem if the US spent their taxpayers money cleaning up & scraping that ship.
SirCranksalot Posted April 8, 2012 Report Posted April 8, 2012 It is very interesting to see how differently americans and Canadians look at the same situation. When in doubt Americans blow things up!
lew Posted April 9, 2012 Report Posted April 9, 2012 (edited) To me personally, I always find it kinda sad to see a good ship sunk or scrapped, specially if it's one I've had a connection with. HMCS Annapolis was built back in the early 60's and I had the pleasure of serving aboard her in 1966. She was a very high tech ship back in the day and spent over 30 years in service. Alot of ships from different countries are completely cleaned of all hazardous materials and sunk to become artificial reefs for both fish and skuba divers. Several old Canadian ships have already been sunk and Annapolis is still waiting her turn. This is Annapolis back in all her glory. And sadly this is how she looks today, totally stripped down and waiting to be sunk. Another beautiful ship from the early 60's that served Canada well for many years was HMCS Provider. She was a tanker that supplied fuel to the fleet while at sea and I served aboard her in 1964. This is Provider fueling a pair of destroyers at sea. And another of her fueling an aircraft carrier When her years of service were completed she was sadly sold to a scrap dealer in Turkey but was at least given a good send-off when she left harbour for the last time behind an ocean going tug. And here she is in Turkey just before the torches were put to her. Edited April 9, 2012 by lew
BITEME Posted April 9, 2012 Report Posted April 9, 2012 (edited) The ship was originally slated to be decommissioned in Japan the owner gave up all rights to the boat. Prior to sinking the vessel a fishing boat tried to tow it in under salvage rights. Unable to tow the fishing boat it was in the best interest to sink the boat. 1. Better to sink in far of shore where most of the fuel will dissipate 2. It was a hazard to navigation no lights, no driver and going into a high traffice area. 3. Towing it in would cost lots of tax dollars then you still have to pay for the disposal of the ship Using it for target practice was just for fun, we really should have sent our navy they need the practice.Ships sink every day all over the world, this one should have sunk in Japan but it wanted it see Canada first This is a very untrue statement we are world renowned at what we do ....offensive!! Edited April 9, 2012 by BITEME.Esq
bigugli Posted April 9, 2012 Report Posted April 9, 2012 This is a very untrue statement we are world renowned at what we do ....offensive!! Likes I said before, You can't teach a lubber nuttin.
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now