Disaster fears as tanker splits (Off of the Coast of Spain portugal )

CNN ^ | Tuesday, November 19, 2002 Posted: 1442 GMT | CNN

[Former Fetus]

This hurts a lot of people

This hurts a lot of hard working, low class people, working poor if you wish. My prayers are with the fishermen and their families, as their livelihoods are destroyed. I don't have no faith in the Spanish government. Those people (the fishermen) will have a hard row to hoe. When I think of them, I get very upset at the environmentalists fussing about the birds caught in the slick. Sad? certainly, but we must set our priorities in order.

[alli133]

This disaster only adds to the drastic need for the United States to embark on a Manhattan-like project to switch our oil based economy to a hydrogen based one. We could lead the world in the conversion and keep valuable dollars at home and not in the coffers of feudal middle eastern countries. The europeans will probably beat us at this important conversion.

[pgobrien]

At least we know these birds won't be hungry....for as we all know.... the "Oily bird get the Worm"

[NormsRevenge]

A double hull would never do this..

Tue Nov 19,10:35 AM ET

The Bahamas-registered Prestige oil tanker is seen broken in two some 150 miles off Spain's coast in the Atlantic Ocean Tuesday Nov. 19, 2002. The stricken tanker carrying 20 million gallons, of oil split in two Tuesday and its back end sank threatening an environmental disaster off the northwest coast of Spain and Portugal. (AP Photo/EFE, Pool)

[Vets_Husband_and_Wife]

Thanks for the picture. And yes, I agree that a double hulled tanker would not have broken in two like that tanker did.

The picture brings the reality of this tragedy to light. Thanks for posting it!

FRegards, Vets

[Cinnamon Girl]

THIS IS THE KIND OF IDIOCY THAT MAKES "BIG OIL" LOOK LIKE "BIG OIL." It is totally ridiculous that such a piece of garbage tanker was carrying 20 million gallons of crude. Idiots. It makes me so mad. My cousins work in the fishing industry in Alaska and everyone in their town had to be employed to clean the oil off the little animals and the shore after Exxon's imbicilic oil crash.

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

Now that is a picture!

[FreePaul]

Do you have any information that "Big Oil" was involved in this in any way? The article doesn't mention the origin or owner of the oil. There is mention of loading fuel in Latvia and a lot of organizations are named but none that I can associate with "Big Oil".

[FreePaul]

...whoever is responsible should be punished.

At the risk of being accused of plagarism I believe that it is the irresponsible who should be punished. All we have to do is find out who they are. The ship driver? The ship owner? The ship builder? The owner of the oil? The company who produced the oil? The people who were going to get cheaper oil? This could go on and on.

[WaveThatFlag]

Well, it starts with the Spanish decision to blame the Brits. The Spanish say the ship was headed to Gibralter. The Brits say the ship was bound from Latvia to Singapore. Gibralter was a waypoint. This is plausible because if you are going through Suez, you obviously have to pass Gibralter. The tanker is Greek-owned. Spain is irritated that Britian still has a colony on the Iberian penninsula, realizes that they are mostly to blame for towing a damaged tanker out into a storm rather than into a port where it could be repaired. The rest of the EU, led by Germany and France is happy to endorse any finding that is anti-British. This whole dirty business makes it hard for me to feel as sorry for the Sapnish as I'd like.

[Former Fetus]

The following is from the Spanish newspaper "El Pais" (www.elpais.es). They are not blaming Bush yet, but it may not be long. After reading this kind of junk a pop window tried to ask me for an $80 subscription if I wanted to continue... I was lucky that my fist crashed an inch away from the mouse!! Translation follows.

Propongo que le pidan consejo a Bush. Lo primero que se le ocurriría es prohibir el petroleo. Pero alguien le chivaría al oído que el petroleo es lo que les da de comer. Luego se le ocurriría prohibir el mar, pero entonces le dirían que como iba a transportar el petróleo, y que a ver donde metían los portaaviones. Entonces pensaría que lo mejor sería prohibir el pescado, pero entonces tendrían que retirar de los McDonald's el McFish. Finalmente y tras un arduo esfuerzo llegaría a la conclusión de que la solución es atacar iraq, que tienen mucho petroleo, que es el origen de este mal.

I suggest that they ask Bush for advice. The first think he would think of, would be to forbid oil. But someone would whisper in his ear that oil is what feeds them. Then he would think of forbidding the ocean, but they would ask him how was he going to transport the oil, and where would he keep the aircraft carriers. He would think then that the best thing would be to forbid fish, but they would have to discontinue Mc Fish sandwiches at Mc Donald's. Finally, and after a great effort, he would come to the conclussion that the solution was to attack Iraq, because it has a lot of oil, which is the origin of this problem.

I tried to send my comment to the paper, but they would not accept it.

[Eva]

So, who is the responsible company? They tell us who the charter company is but not who owns the oil. The owner of the cargo is the responsible party.

Also, I don't think that there is any mandate for double hulled tankers anywhere but in the US waters.

[dfc62]

These were banned from US waters by the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 Actually the final ban doesn't come into force until 2015.

[Eric in the Ozarks]

You are correct. (a veteran of OPA-90)

[Diverdogz]

Well, I think we can all agree that OPA90 is a set of environmental regulations that will prevent some disasters.

[Eric in the Ozarks]

OPA drove the majors out of the lake and ocean transportation and refueling business. Now, financially weak companies (like the owner of the Prestige) are running the show. When an accident happens, they're hard to find.

[rustbucket]

Cargo Ships that carry Oil or other dangerous materials, need to be double hulled, period.

An argument can be made against double hull tankers. I've heard it said that the space between the hulls can get filled with explosive gases, raising the risk of catastrophy. Perhaps filling the space with some sort of foam could solve that problem.

Double hull tankers may cut the risk, but they don't eliminate it. There was a large spill involving a double hull tanker about 8-10 years ago in Europe.