Greenpeace ship damages reef in Tubbataha

[KOMPRESSOR]

I haven't captained a vessel in ages, but I thought there were bow mounted side scanning sonar pods in use. Thanks for the clarification, Rick.

I know they use something like this when fishing for herring in the North Sea. It can definitely "see" foreward.

 

[Wayward Son]

i thought Gp were generally liked? guess i was wrong

Not by me.

 

[Goose75]

cool here in the Philippines we are quite misinformed about gp, here they are generally liked and well regarded. most of our info on gp comes from cnn

US news outlets rarely present unbaised opinions. They are busnesses that require sensationalism to keep a strong viewership. Organizations like GP create high profits for the news outlets are not likely to be marginalized by the press regardless of what the general public thinks. You have to treat the US news outlets like a marketing department that is selling a product.

 

[archman]

I agree with Rick that the fines would have been a lot heavier if it had been anyone else's ship, and I agree with (what I see as) the consensus here that they should have had better navigation skills.

It was a small patch of reef (like a 10X17m square) and this isn't the U.S. or Europe. Fines are partially judged on an ability to pay, and in a place like the Phillipines, few people do. And anyway, it's amazing what the functional value of $11,600 is in some places. A reef restoration operation of similar scope in the Florida Keys would likely cost over 10 times as much, probably more.

Although I doubt the money will go towards restoration. More likely it'll get funneled into the marine park operating budget, which is more appropriate.

I mean, they had just been studying the reef. It seems to me that they should have had a pretty good idea where it was at. Didn't the captain of the RWII have any clue where the zodiacs were dropping the divers? Were they ferrying divers over a mile to the reef, or were they dropping them closer? But maybe the reef they were studying was nowhere near the reef they hit.

According to a more detailed news release, the boat was merely visiting the area as part of a lengthy Asia-Pacific campaign promoting alternative energies. They had some divers qualified to survey coral health, so they made a few sorties to look at the reefs. It was not a heavy duty research study, more like a quick peek.

It is difficult to paint any organization as truly black or white. Greenpeace is no exception. They are well known for doing good deeds, at least occasionally. Just this summer, their MV Esperanza went out to study Lophelia reefs off Scotland. This was extremely useful for the deepwater science community.
http://www.greenpeace.org.uk/oceans/deepsea/samsexpedition.cfm

Oh, I found a good pic of the Rainbow Warrior II. As you can see, it's rather more like a sailboat with an engine. Hence it being termed a "motor-assisted schooner". Boats like this are not normally put into close proximity of navigational hazards, and I doubt the crew of this vessel thought any differently.
http://www.greenpeace.org.uk/oceans/oceans.cfm?ucidparam=20050526143426

 

[Ben_ca]

snipped

 

[Ben_ca]

Any more local insight? What are the local papers saying?

 

[dpbishop]

"What I find interesting is the general point of view that in Greenpeace's case, running aground was a mistake. Had it been a "regular" commercial vessel Greenpeace and all the rest would be alleging criminal negligence, if not evil intent."

Old maritime saying:' When a boat strikes a charted object it is rarely the fault of the charted object."

 

[Double_D]

Maybe it's just my military point of view, but everyone on the planet lives in an "equal opportunity" environment. That is to say that everyone's equally worthless until given the opportunity to prove otherwise. Greenpeace made a mistake. They took responsibility, and they will pay for it. I'm remembering the post-toastying the US Navy has taken in recent years over the Japanese fishing boat and other incidents. They made a mistake. They took responsibility, and they paid for it. If the pendelum swings, let it cut both ways. There will never be any fairness or sense of proportion between two extremes in the court of public opinion. Sorry about that.

Political rumblings aside (and I'm far from left-leaning), the loser here was the reef. It will regrow (eventually) and life will return to normal. In twenty years folks will be hard pressed to remember this even happened or exactly when.

Let's go diving.

 

[archman]

"What I find interesting is the general point of view that in Greenpeace's case, running aground was a mistake. Had it been a "regular" commercial vessel Greenpeace and all the rest would be alleging criminal negligence, if not evil intent."

I believe what separates an accident from evil intent is the er, intent. Which obviously is not the case.

As for criminal negligience, that's for the marine park to decide. They appear to have already done so. I would expect that for them to allege negligience, they'd have to submit proof of such negligience. There is no mention of that. I seriously doubt Greenpeace is in cahoots with the park managers for purposes of downgrading the scope of a quite moderate grounding incident. Or that anyone else is downgrading the seriousness of the incident. For that part of the world, the punishment appears to be fitting the crime. No foul.

 

[WarmWaterDiver]

I don't understand your post regarding intent.

I've never skippered a vessel, but I have some experience in marine transport. How many commercial vessels intend to run aground? I'd think that would run contrary to basic economics of operating the vessel, as well as environmental concerns. An oil spill from a grounded tanker does no good for the folks who were supposed to receive that oil and provide energy to their customers, and it does those customers no good either. For the Exxon Valdez, driving while intoxicated is not a good idea whether ashore or asea - the Amtrak wrecks that started US DOT substance abuse testing attest to that as well. There were passenger fatalities, something that didn't occur on the Exxon Valdez.

If it's a commercial fishing vessel that somehow benefits from running aground, I'd agree that would be something to put under your intent category - I don't know enough about commercial fishing operations to know if such can be the case.