tb4me Posted April 5, 2012 Report Share Posted April 5, 2012 The U.S. Coast Guard says it has fired on a 50-metre-long Japanese "ghost ship" set adrift by last year's tsunami, after a Canadian fishing vessel that claimed salvage rights to the stricken ship failed to tow it to shore. It had 200 gallons of diesel and oil onboard.. This is insane, why do they treat the ocean like a garbage can? Could it not be towed to shore and disposed of correctly? http://news.sympatico.cbc.ca/home/canadian_vessel_claims_salvage_rights_to_japanese_ghost_ship/3e662396 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rod Caster Posted April 6, 2012 Report Share Posted April 6, 2012 I heard a report on the cbc that they were going to blow it up and allow the fuel to evaporate! I couldn't believe it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fisherman Posted April 6, 2012 Report Share Posted April 6, 2012 No, it's not just you, they do have a habit of leaving things in shambles. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bucktail Posted April 6, 2012 Report Share Posted April 6, 2012 Depends on the dollar, no bucks to do that then the next best thing is target practice I guess. Except it should be us using it as target practise fo when the chinese start plying thru the NW Passage since they somehow think its international waters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davey buoy Posted April 6, 2012 Report Share Posted April 6, 2012 Shoot first,ask Questions later?.No idea why they would do that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kingsalmon Posted April 6, 2012 Report Share Posted April 6, 2012 Better to blow it up a couple hundred miles off shore than to have it break up on a beach somewhere. I don't see a big problem with this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nipfisher Posted April 6, 2012 Report Share Posted April 6, 2012 The U.S. Coast Guard says a derelict Japanese ship off Alaska is on fire and listing to one side, but has not yet sunk. C'mon man. It is an old ship floating in the middle of the ocean and they can't sink it? What...are the trying to save bullets? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bigugli Posted April 6, 2012 Report Share Posted April 6, 2012 The U.S. Coast Guard says a derelict Japanese ship off Alaska is on fire and listing to one side, but has not yet sunk. C'mon man. It is an old ship floating in the middle of the ocean and they can't sink it? What...are the trying to save bullets? Using a few shells in target practice will sink it, but slowly. Certainly cheaper than guided missiles at a cost $250000 or more a piece. Of course, the USCG does not have access to that type of armament, just a bow mounted light gun Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Christopheraaron Posted April 6, 2012 Report Share Posted April 6, 2012 I heard about that this morning, have the japanese said anything about it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bigugli Posted April 6, 2012 Report Share Posted April 6, 2012 I heard about that this morning, have the japanese said anything about it? Why? Under international maritime law a derelict ship is free to whoever wants to take it under right of salvage. Further, under maritime law any derelict considered a potential hazard to navigation may be sunk or destroyed as deemed necessary. These are long accepted conventions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pigeontroller Posted April 6, 2012 Report Share Posted April 6, 2012 I had the same thought, bad for the Ocean...But consider how much oil and fuel when into the worlds oceans between 1939 and 1945... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
backbay Posted April 6, 2012 Report Share Posted April 6, 2012 8000 gallons of fuel, actually. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cram Posted April 6, 2012 Report Share Posted April 6, 2012 My guess - They let it burn on the surface to get rid of some of the fuel. It's not because they "can't" sink it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tb4me Posted April 6, 2012 Author Report Share Posted April 6, 2012 My guess - They let it burn on the surface to get rid of some of the fuel. It's not because they "can't" sink it. I agree, not that im a military professional, but it makes sence. What I dont get is, if they are out there doing target practice why not tow it back hoist it out of the water and scrap it out for scrap metal? Those diesel engines alone have to be worth a good penny. Why sink it like the ocean is a bloddy garbage basket. I dont get it at all..Couldnt somone get on board and start the beast and drive it to land? Did anyone actually try? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Terry Posted April 6, 2012 Report Share Posted April 6, 2012 yeah but why build big guns if you don't get to use them.... I find it stupid for them to sink it and after a company says they will salvage it .... ah the military might Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
uglyfish Posted April 6, 2012 Report Share Posted April 6, 2012 because the cost to go out and get it and tow it back in an try to salvage anything off it, would be far more costly then shooting it. not to mention, its been beat upon by mother nature and saltwater, which we all know is not good for steel. plus there is also the cost of disposing of the fuels one back on land, and the added cost of storage of the vessel and crew to actually strip it down and scrap it, which would take several weeks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Terry Posted April 6, 2012 Report Share Posted April 6, 2012 i think you are looking at it the wrong way the company that claimed salvage rights goes and gets it at their own cost and they employ people to tear it apart and recycle the metal, and that is a win win situation no heavy oil spreading all over the ocean no rotting shell sitting at the bottom of the ocean I see no down side to them towing it back for salvage Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aplumma Posted April 6, 2012 Report Share Posted April 6, 2012 The boat was slated for salvage in China before being washed out to sea. The Coast Guard is not a free enterprise company that looks at the profit or lack of profit for a mission they are there to remove the hazard. If the company that claimed salvage had salvaged it it would be a moot point but after finding they either didn't have the equipment or the profit to do the job they left it. So why wait to sink it as it gets closer to shore ?The impact of the fuel and other hazards out to sea are a lot less than if we wait till it gets closer to the coastline. The Coast Guard discharges very few weapons however they save many people and protect the coastlines. Art Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Posted April 6, 2012 Report Share Posted April 6, 2012 It is very interesting to see how differently americans and Canadians look at the same situation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Terry Posted April 6, 2012 Report Share Posted April 6, 2012 It is very interesting to see how differently americans and Canadians look at the same situation. 10-4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aplumma Posted April 6, 2012 Report Share Posted April 6, 2012 It isn't a Nations line of thought or a us VS them train of thought. It is a matter of what does the most harm or presents the greatest hazard. Any nations ship could be damaged by a ghost vessel and the longer it is there the greater chance of collision. Just because a vessel claimed it, does not guareentee it has the finances or the ability to bring it into salvage in a timely manner.If the vessel claims salvage rights and takes 1 month to get organized and in that time frame it drifts to shore or worse is in an accident is the company who claims salvage responsible? Taking action against a hazard in a timely manner is in the best interest of all of the ships that use that area. Art Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bigugli Posted April 7, 2012 Report Share Posted April 7, 2012 Maybe you should ask some people who actually know something about the subject. Someone with a coastguard or navy background. Maybe someone from TC. The rules are simple, A salvager takes it under control before it hits territorial waters or you sink it as an hazard to navigation before it can interfere with the coastal shipping lanes. Can't teach a lubber nuthin! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jer Posted April 7, 2012 Report Share Posted April 7, 2012 It is very interesting to see how differently americans and Canadians look at the same situation. How is this an American vs Canadian thing? I'm Canadian, and I think if the US Coast Guard deems sinking the vessel the best approach...have at her! The boat had already been claimed for salvage, but for what ever reason (probably cause they figgered it wasn't worth the money or the risk) they didn't follow up on their claim and tow it to shore. I imagine that towing a vessel of that size and unknown structural integrity has to come with some risk to life and limb. It's a rusty old hulk afterall. As someone already mentioned, when you consider the ships and planes that were sunk in the world's oceans during WWII, and the oceans survived believe it or not, one little fishing boat in 2012 is hardly significant. How many should risk their lives to bring it in, or should we wait for it to break up in a storm? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeXXington Posted April 7, 2012 Report Share Posted April 7, 2012 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Woodsman Posted April 7, 2012 Report Share Posted April 7, 2012 i think you are looking at it the wrong way the company that claimed salvage rights goes and gets it at their own cost and they employ people to tear it apart and recycle the metal, and that is a win win situation no heavy oil spreading all over the ocean no rotting shell sitting at the bottom of the ocean I see no down side to them towing it back for salvage 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
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