I emailed Glenn Inwood yesterday. He is a spokesman for the Japanese whalers in the Antarctic whose mother ship the Nisshin Maru had to be evacuated last week after a fire broke out.
Greenpeace has been concerned the stricken ship could end up an ecological disaster with 1.3 million litres of fuel potentially leaking into the ocean.
I asked Mr Inwood for an update on the situation and he emailed me this morning:
Dear Jennifer,
Over the week, the crew first dealt with electrical and mechanical checks, replacing wiring that was burnt out, getting the engines going. The engines are apparently in good shape, able to function and ready to go.
After that, they looked at navigational and safety aspects of the vessel, such as checking the two radars, rudder control, autopilot navigation, etcetera.
As of yesterday, I understand they were unfreezing pipes, getting the desalinator going, getting freshwater back into the system, and cleaning out living quarters that were flooded from fighting the fire.
We have benefited from excellently calm Antarctic weather. As we have assured media, if conditions deteriorate and the vessel needs to be moved from where she is, then of course that will be done. While they were repairing engine, etcetera, they also hooked up a tow just in case it was required.
The crew has worked day and night tirelessly to get the vessel ready for sailing. It’s been a very trying time for them. Not only have they lost a colleague, they are receiving those reports from Greenpeace and Chris Carter and that’s making it more difficult for them. I hope to have good news for you soon.
Best regards,
Glenn Inwood
According to Radio New Zealand the ship was moving under its own power this afternoon taking a short test run.
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
Lucky and just in time as the waters were starting to freeze over and weather could change quickly. But would a sensible person be quick to declare moving 4 nautical miles at 12 knots a sign of engines being in good condition and all shipshape so break out the sake?
Funny, that report on the radio new zealand site is actually news relayed by Greenpeace who have been assisting communications. So why not go direct to the source then? http://weblog.greenpeace.org/oceandefenders/
What does Glenn mean by \”receiving those reports from Greenpeace … and that\’s making it more difficult for them\”? It appears that the people on board the vessel and Greenpeace have formed a good relationship that Glenn wants to hide. Glenn has made some other funny claims, suggesting the NM would keep on whaling (!?!) and that its winch was fine when they NM crew had said otherwise. Glenn also reckoned that after the NM had drifted a while (ie if it couldn\’t get under power) then the whaling fleet vessels would be adequate to tow the NM despite them not being built for towing or having good maneouverability to tow a stricken vessel around ice floes (esp. if weather turned for the worst) and them not being ice-class vessels and the Ross sea starting to ice over. The GP Esperanza however meets all of those requirements (it\’s an ice-class tug) and GP has been co-operative and helpful. They were conscious of the dangers of the NM drifting back and forth within some miles of packed ice, carrying so much fuel and chems near the penguin colony, and with the risk of weather change. I get the impression that Glenn would take credit for the calm weather.
Despite the PR, it appears that Greenpeace have given the ICR a great hand, sending their helicopter around and giving ice reports to the whaling fleet, staying in close range in case the NM needed a tow from a proper ice-class tug. They might still yet. NZ has been quite forceful in asking the ICR to get the NM towed by GP rather than drift so close to land. The ICR\’s management of this situation has lacked transparency and been stupidly risky. We\’ll all be relieved if the NM continiues under its own power, mishap averted. Pity the poor crew on the NM who\’ve also had to cope with the PR interference and govt job.
Whales aside, do we need an ecological disaster like valdez before tightening up regulations about (commercial back & forth) shipping activities and fuels and chemicals carried so close to Antartica and so near an important penguin colony? Why have not the ICR subjected their vessels to an EIS like GP vessel has? It\’s really thumbing your nose at all conventions, safe maritime practice and commonsense to carry out such high traffic activities, unprepared, so far from help, without adequate ice class vessels and without having performed an environmental check. And no wonder as they probably couldn\’t pass an EIS with all those chemicals on board.
But unbelievably, the refueling ship is a SINGLE HULLED vessel (!!!!) and it\’s not ice class (ie not reinforced). What kind of morons are running that clown show? Complete and utter disregard for the environment.
As has been pointed out by Pixie, this is not at all good that the Japanese refueling tanker is single hulled and operating in sensitive environment.
But as it is now , it is not something illegal. All tankers built after 1996 are double hulled and there is an IMO plan to phase out most single hulled vessels before 2015. The plan might as well be accelerated in the wake of the Erika and Prestige catastrophies off shore France and Spain in 1998 and 2002.
But why did the wake up call come only this year and not already after the Prestige disaster 2002?
“But why did the wake up call come only this year and not already after the Prestige disaster”
2002?
Coz we either a) don’t learn, b) don’t care, or c) both.
“What kind of morons are running that clown show?”
Greenpeace? some kind of board I believe, none of which are answerable for their decisions in reality ..
” So why not go direct to the source then? http://weblog.greenpeace.org/oceandefenders/“
ROFLMFAO .. which is co-ordinated / arranged by ( IMO ) some fat assed desk jockey, who, when challenged on the ´information on the “source” Forums, changes the forum post and hopes that nobody notice´s ( when everyone else changes their posts, it´s noted ..) Yes, dear… a true mine of an unimpeachable source … damn, that was funny pinxi …
” The ICR\’s management of this situation has lacked transparency and been stupidly risky.”
I await GP´s transparency Pinxi, as in the Non disclosure agreement Aussie GP´rs have to sign .. no? … why am I surprised? …
As for Spin… now that GP´s anti whaling film show has gone down the toilet for this year – the ALARMIST FACTOIDS are fairly zoooooming out of the office windows in Amsterdam and Stockholm ( not to mention the converted FIRE FIGHTING Ship in the SO of course ) oops I did …
and I really will not mention “Ammonia based refrigeration and air-conditioning rather than climate changing and ozone depleting Freon gas ” onboard the Esperanza ´cos its quite a nasty chemical to be having on a ship is´nt it?..
oh bugger ….
We don\’t learn. It\’s always after the event eh? And the proponents of the activity downplay the risks and discount the effects. Anyone to question it is a socialist greenie nazi. After exxon valdez they declared it properly cleaned up 2 years later, but 18 years later the oil continues to pose far-ranging problems for fish and the environment. They thought at most it would be broken down in a decade but nearly 18 years later it\’s still there. Weatherig at 3-4% per year, hence persisting for decades.
NEWSFLASH for the pro-whalers, you have your principles in common with Greenpeace. They support whaling too and respect cultural rights to eat whale. They just don\’t support the Japanese approach to whaling in Sth ocean sanctuary. Hope this doesn\’t make you a blubbering mess. Just when you think youre poles apart you realise you\’re actually a Greenpeace supporter!! Wear your badge with pride. Hooray for unison, venison & whale meat. Hooray for whales.
Those evil GP vegos, they\’re probably all aneamic and starving for some whale meat. That\’s the real reason they wanted to give the NM a tow. Was it the whales\’ cremation, their fat that then fuelled the fire? Fat fires are nasty things as are fires at sea. Showing again how irresponsible and unprepared the ICR was: storing flammable fuels exposed to fire risks (the NM had an engine fire before, not unexpected) that\’s hard to contain. Negligent careless clowns. Glenn get some professional corporate relations and legal experts in to assess the ICR duty of care.
Youre playing dumb again George. Jennifers link to the NZ news said \”The crew of Greenpeace ship [[Esperanza]] say the stricken Japanese whaler [[Nisshin Maru]] has moved under its own power in the Antarctic on Saturday afternoon\”.. hence straight to the source = GP you dumbie. But sure you go ahead and act all cocky now that they appear to have got engines going and got a lucky break from the weather.
But to properly defend the ICR\’s lack of care you need to address these points:
– no EIS
– not ice-class
– lack of pre-emptive risk management
– lack of preparation for handling mishaps
– hoping for good weather
– single hulled refuelling vessel down there! Are they tight on funds?
– lack of transparency in the problem and irresponsible approach to damage mitigation
– ignoring international advice and conventions
– drifting near to Antartica and putting penguin colony at risk while ignoring offers of assistance from a legally registered well-behaving ice-class tug that was providing real help via helicopter reccies and weather advice and communication relays
– wanting to continue whaling with a damaged vessel in a sensitive area
– no assistance vessel, tug or clean up crew nearby
– carrying out dangerous high-traffic activities with the known risks (includinig extra risks from SS threats) in such a sensitive environment with a swash-buckling attitude to safe maritime standards and environmental standards
Ann, yes, nothing illegal with a single hulled tanker at present, but the move toward double-hulled tankers is for good reason… in safe shipping routes even.
Operating a single-hulled fuel transport vessel in ice conditions, in a sanctuary, is just an invitation for disaster, don\’t you think?
” NEWSFLASH for the pro-whalers, you have your principles in common with Greenpeace. They support whaling too and respect cultural rights to eat whale. They just don\’t support the Japanese approach to whaling in Sth ocean sanctuary”
I´m sure the Japanese, the Norwegians and the Icelanders are soooo glad that GP support whaling Pinx … not one of your more informed statements – Joking or not … how do they say it .. ummmmm duuuuuuhhh..
no EIS – is one legally required?
not ice-class – neither are many of the Cruise ships – google ” MS Nordkapp antartica ” in google news and report back pinx and tell me why Greenpeace made not a single mention of all those oil and nasty chemicals onboard and they even had a leak… when you are done with that Pinxi, lets discuss ALÀRMIST FACTOIDS and hypocrisy and SPIN shall we? … bugger off
lack of pre-emptive risk management = whut? lack? thats why they managed to bring a accident ( the fire ) under control then is it? they had no training did they? no pre-emptive risk management? Bugger off pinx
lack of preparation for handling mishaps = why the ship burned out and sank .. oh it´´s still floating? the fire is out? its under way under its own power? no leaks? BOP
hoping for good weather = All seamen / seawomen hope for good weather ..BOP
single hulled refuelling vessel down there! Are they tight on funds? = Is it illegal pinxi? No? who else? The logic of it is another matter – as is GP´s Spin on the matter BOP
lack of transparency in the problem and irresponsible approach to damage mitigation..
GP is transparent? wow – Oz and NZ too? wow .. perhaps if both of the countries had simply said – come here and or we will tow you without grasping at political green points by saying we will impound your cargo, perhaps things may have been different? No? #Ok then, let Oz and NZ take the Japanese to court and enforce regulations in AAT. No? ´cos we might lose our claim to AAT in an international court? might set a legal precedent? ( ie .. we lose ) BOP
ignoring international advice and conventions..
ROFLMFAO …
drifting near to Antartica and putting penguin colony at risk while ignoring offers of assistance from a legally registered well-behaving ice-class tug that was providing real help via helicopter reccies and weather advice and communication relays –
Which one would that be? the Esperanza fire fighting ship? Well behaved? you mean the well behaved rammmer of last year? BOP
wanting to continue whaling with a damaged vessel in a sensitive area …
How extensive is the damage? do you know? Does GP know? answer = no …
no assistance vessel, tug or clean up crew nearby-
You mean the Esperanza tug is not nearby? oh. thats right, its not a tug is it? BOP
carrying out dangerous high-traffic activities with the known risks (includinig extra risks from SS threats) in such a sensitive environment with a swash-buckling attitude to safe maritime standards and environmental standards
Whut? Dangerous high traffic activities? the SO is a highly trafficed area is it? Only from NGO film crew support vessels it seems …
Any more Pinx? if not, please BOP
George you distort and deliberately skew in your gooseneck rantings. For eg: Did I say EIS is compulsory or did I talk of commonsense and good standards? Traffic referred to traffic of the whaling vessels plus activists who they knew would be there and must therefore factor into their risk management plans. They got very close to land and then drifted closer. They\’ve had an engine fire on the NM before yet what extra safeguard precautions were there considering the remoteness of their operations and their payload and the value of that environment?
Should they be there conducting fake research for nationalistic reasons – they ought to be applying best standard and best maritime practice. What commercial shipping companies would so stupid to take such environmental and PR risks? High profile shipping companies regularly send ships to graveyard before their life is up, and build better ships eg double hulled. They\’re very cautious and PR conscious but the ICR seem to be in a bubble or immune due to Japans economic influence. You just carry with distorting my points as you see fit but you still haven\’t addressed the key points.
On cruise ships & ice & grounding risks – hell yeah we need good safety standards. You simply backed up my point, thanks. You wanted to argue against high traffic but it\’s increasing, possibly concentrating in some areas and this has been raised before as there\’s a lack of emergency response capability within cooeee. Do we need another valdez or a titanic before we get proper standards and risk mngt in place?
You will continue to yell and carry on ad nauseum as we all know but don\’t confuse your own verbosity and silly games with intelligent rebuttal. Tell us considering the ICR\’s activities how they have anywhere near approached observed best practice or decent industry standards considering the risks and the highly sensitive and important environment they operate in. If they are conducting scientific research then why are they showing such callous disregard and lack of duty of care for the threats to the environment from their activities?
and george, what do you mean the Esperanza isn\’t a tug? Originally it was a fire fighting tug (jsut what the NM\’s Dr ordered, eh). Once a tug, still a tug. You having a bit of the old tug tug yourself eh?
From the GP blog
” Hi David, we thought we’d lost you.
Now, don’t be casting aspersions – you know well that comments to the blog do not necessarily reflect the views of Greenpeace. You’re a shining example of that yourself! People visiting this blog, and reading your comments, aren’t going to start thinking that Greenpeace supports whaling now, are they?
Posted by: Dave on the Esperanza at February 23, 2007 4:31 AM ”
Ummmm did´nt Pinxi just claim that GP supported Whaling? Looks like the Esperanza disagrees with you pinxi, –
It was a fire fighting ship ( 1 of 14 ) and later a supply vessel – a tug it is not by any stretch – want to see a pic of it? go here
http://whalephoto.com/2007/displayimage-529.html
Look like a tug to you? obviously ….
I´ve been onboard it – a fully equipped tug / towing vessel it is not no matter what GP claim
Pinxi…
I am still waiting for your comments on how Greenpeace made a hell of a stink about the MS Nordkapp grounding and leaking oil in a pristine environment ….. oh, they made no comment ? did they even know? …
As usual Pinxi – the point flew right in your left ear, twittered around in the enourmous empty cavern between your ears, and out your right ear …
that quote is bereft, were you trying to make a point?
And NOW youre trying to qualify … from not a tug to not a fully equipped tug. Lame.
tug tug tug George McTug
George McTug if you want GP to broaden their mandate then I suggest you up your donation. Im not following your white fluffy rabbit. If thats the best job you can do of defending the ICRs neglect of their duty of care and absence of commonsense and total departure from best practice then we know you don\’t give anymore of a tug about the environment than do they.
Pinxi sweets..
I used the word tug in reply to your claim it was atug … as you may not have noticed, I referred to it as a fire fighting vessel ..
You are the one claiming it is a tug – whether it is fully equipped / not equipped does not matter to you does it?
Pop test : when is a fire fighting vessel a tug ?
a.) When Greenpeace says it is
b. ) When Pinxi says it is
C.) When ALARMIST FACTOIDS are flying thick and Fast
or
D.)When it´s a supply ship
E.) When it´s a Fire fighting ship
F.) When it actually has papers as a TUG ..
I await your quote from Lyoyd´s listings Pinxi … go on – what is the Esperanza listed as ? Have a look ? go on .. go on
Is it a tug? go on – tell us – no shyness Pinx
The only fluffy white rabbit here is the one living in the cavern between your ears pinx
Pixie,
I really support the phasing out of single hulled tankers as just around my corner is the Baltic Sea with maybe the world’s biggest transfer of oil from Russia to big ports in Europe and the Far East.
Now we are talking about big tankers or super tankers many of them single hulled. 100 000 and 150 000 tons tankers.
Unfortunately, the industry as well as the ICR will probably not phase them out as long as they are sea worthy… realise this. Methink life expectancy of a tanker is about 25 years…
Unfortunately, me too think it is the usual spin of GP and you.
In a short statement the dangers to the Antarctica are described in three ” symbols”.
– the whales
-the penguins
– comparison to the Exxon Valdez accident
Well, it might be good as most people know about this issues…
But , the drawback first with this towing away the NM was it didn’t eliminate the danger, just moving it away a bit …. maybe the threat to the penguins had decreased but what about other pelagic seabirds , cetaceans, fish and sea bottoms???
And why has not GP and SS highlighted this refuelling vessel issue the previous years???
Fianl comment for today – too much to do to waste any more time on Pinxi´s
Good point anne …
And why has not GP and SS highlighted this refuelling vessel issue the previous years???
Easy anne , the Esperanza tug has not always been there – thats why ;op and never mind Watsons thugs threatening to release all that oil and chemicals by ramming ….
What a farce …
George trying to backtrack from \”oh. thats right, its not a tug is it? BOP\”.
It may not sit comfortable that GP offered help but they were helpful and cooperative and a useful tool for mitigating risks.
Ann take note, did you look at how close the NM drifted to grounding theats? Consider that in view of chagne of weather risks and the ice increasing which it was. What if there had have been another fire, etc etc. Big risks compounded by poor risk management. The Esperanza hung around but what if it wasn\’t there just in case it was needed? As a tug vessel (safer towing ability and better ship maneouvourability, an important issue when towing a stricken ship past ice floes) it was better placed to help in an emergency.
Also note that its not just an issue of single hulls at sea as you are discussing but its an issue of non ice class single hulls (and with large fuel loads) spending extended time in sensitive areas (a unique sanctuary) among ice, not just waves and a long way from help too (not on a major shipping route). Re; moving it away not changing much… you don\’t get it.. moving it away from the gulf of the Ross sea in which it was drifting back and forth with a grounding/striking risk. It got close to packed ice/land. Had it been dragged out further and had it have sunk.. well that would have been less a risk because that type of heavy fuel just solidifies (has to be kept warm under operating circumstanced) and would have stayed in tanks at bottom than if the fuel was released as a surface leak, distributed and washed up. So yes in close proximity but you need to better understand the nature of the risks before you accuse spin.
Anne
The Esperanza :
Specifications
Port of registry: Amsterdam, Netherlands
Former Name: Echo Fighter
Date of charter: 2000
Number of berths: 33
Inflatable boats: 2 large rigid hull and 4 small inflatables
Helicopter capable: Yes
Type of ship: expedition/research
Call sign: PD 6464
Built: 1984 Poland Gdansk
Gross tonnage: 2076 BRT
Length o.a: 72.3m
Breadth: 14.3m
Draught: 4.7m
Maximum speed: 14 knots
Main engines: 5.876 BHP, 2*2.938 BHP Sulzer V12
Here´s a view of the rear deck
http://archive.greenpeace.org/earthsummit/esperanza/ship/tour/16.htm
See any Tug equipment there? Heavy winches? specialised equipment? No?
Pinxi seems to think that a proper tug just throws a line onboard and ties it off .. do you pinxi? tell us – what is your personal experience of a Deepsea tug boat, how it looks, what its equipped with etc .. us poor deckhands would benefit from your vast maritime experience captn pugwash
No pinxi, as usual, you fell for the media crap – and confused ( ignored maybe ) the fact that the current skipper of the Esperanza has tugboat experience ( 10 years or so I believe ) and voila – the Esperanza is transformed into a deepsea tug … what a wallette
Tell me Pinxi – what do you know about maritime salvage regulations? That would have been fun – GP getting salvage fees from the ships worth and the value of the cargo …. actually, the NM skipper should have offered the Espy standard lloyds salvage terms … would have been hilarious to see them try and get out of that one …
Found that tugboat yet Pinxi ?
My earliest memory of going on a tug was at about 4 years old as I managed to injure myself quite nicely. Ive been on plenty of tugs, yachts, cats, ferries, tinnies, a barge, cruise ships, houseboats, frigates, a supply ship, trawlers, ro-ros and container vessels since. But who cares? You’re ignoring the main question on the ICR’s lack of care or commonsense precautions (see next para) and you’re ignoring the most important point on the tug aspect which is which of the vessels that was immediately near to the NM was the safest to tow it? With different conditions it could have washed on shore in a day and there was no “propa tug” nearby. Seeing you’re so indignant and abusive because you’re an expert at tugging, tell us, which vessel in the immediate vicinity was best to tow the NM and why? You raise a point about specialised equipment, highlighting yet again how risky and unprepared are the reckless whaling activities of the ICR fleet so distant from salvage or clean up assistance. Give us your tug tug opinion: if the NM needed a tug tug through ice and especially if weather had worsened, and no propa tug was avaiable which of the ICR vessels or the GP vessel shoulda given it a tug tug?
Seeing so youre so desperate to defend the ICR: Tell us considering the ICR\’s activities how they have showed due care considering the risks and the highly sensitive and important environment they operate in. If they are conducting scientific research then why are they showing such callous disregard and lack of duty of care for the threats to the environment from their activities?
How can they be so stupid as to operate so recklessly? Oh you’ll just reply with more abuse won’t you? OK you can have the last word (especially cos you’ll still fail to address the material points about the ICR’s reckless endangerment, they stand alone quite disgracefully).
Captn pugwash –
You still don´t get it so you?
I could care less how the ICR defends itself – What I am doing is pointing out how you have swallowed media crap hook line and sinker …
you still cannot admit that the Esperanza is not a tug you
you still cannot tell me why a cruise ship grounding and leaking into the SO environement recieves ZERO publicity / attention from GP and all of a sudden a disabled whaling ship which is a GP target does …
Selective environmental hazards anyone? Based on publicity value? No?… why am I not surprised ..
All you are doing is harping on about what MAY have happened if all went pear shaped – did it? no? and do you really think the NM would have refused help if they felt the situation was critical? or even approaching it? Please tell me you are not that naive…
No Pinxi – you are merely regurgitating ALARMIST FACTOID bullcrap ala your usual modus operandi
Who cares ? I´d damn well care if I was being towed thats for sure … obviously you´re happy with a bit of string Pugwash …
over and out
The Arctic Sunrise is the vessel that some think rammed the whaling ship, not the Esperanza.
“All you are doing is harping on about what MAY have happened if all went pear shaped – did it? no?”
No it didn’t happen George. And as it is sufficiently far enough away from you, it doesn’t seem like you would have cared if it had. The anti-activists/pro-whalers/pro-Japanese are probably sitting pretty feeling mighty chuffed, like you seem to be. However, it could have happened and as the area is considered by some a Sanctuary, it shows a huge lack of respect for what other countries regard as areas of significance.
It should be a huge wake up call, but all I can see here is ignorance and point scoring. You of all people George, who spends time in polar environments amongst wildlife, should be able to sit back and say that it was a very close call and better measures should be put in place to prevent damage to a sensitive ecosystem. Instead, all you have done is hurl abuse, rant about GP and basically pat the Japanese on the back. There are lessons to be learnt by all sides. As I said before, it comes down to people not caring and/or learning, and that has been demonstrated here.
Hi Libby,
Lets see Libby … have you any comment on GP using the situation to their PR benefit ? Noting that the Nordkapp incident was not high on GP´s agenda was it …? An actual grounding and leak and not a peep from GP .. thats my beef Libby … sanctimonious cynical PR bullcrap using a ´potential ´ hazardous situation for PR purposes because it suited their anti whaling aims …
It´s not the first time ships have been in trouble near antartica and it will not be the last .. but it is possibly the first time GP have been so blatantly cynical in that area as far as I can remember..
As for patting the japanese on the back – they of course have been putting up with NGO rammings, interference and associated crap for long enough .. did you really expect them to inform GP of how extensive the damage is / was? or of their contingency plans? you´re not that naive Libby …
I´m damn sure they would have asked the Espy for help if they thought it was neccessary – they did not though did they? what does that suggest to you?..
George. You distort comments and change your story as you go along (from the vessel isnt a tug to it isnt a fully equipped tug to ooh ooh look at photo distraction) to chase your own white bunnies. Youre losing control a la motty because you realise how weak your position is because the ICRs position, transparency and risk management was weak, but fortunately for all the weather didn’t worsen and luckily they got the NM going. But you haven’t shown any concern for the state of Antartic.
— You want to argue as though there was a guaranteed happy outcome anyway, all exactly to plan, when really they got lucky.
— You accidentally make points that support my points (about increasing traffic in that area, need for safer standards and better precautions).
— You can’t handle the fact that GP and Esperanza were cooperating with the NM crew and relaying communications for them, obeying the law, being supported by NZ, helping the NM crew and the best chance for a tug tow. You certaintly can’t prove the contrary and Glenn’s stories have been inconsisent (eg reporting the engines were working earlier when all that had happened was they managed to get them to turn over – a big diff, esp if you know anything about diesels). Relax your paradigm buddy, it’s not the 1st time enemies have assisted each other under dire circumstances.
Youre still trying to dodge the important questions and ranting along tangents instead. Whats the point of your tug tug screaming episodes? The NM could have washed on shore in a day and fully equiped assistance was far away. You failed to tell us which of the vessels in the vicinity (not days and days away) was safest to tow the NM out of icy waters that were starting to freeze up so close to shore. The ice class vessel that was built as a tug, or …?
The ICR shouldn’t be conducting pseudo scientific research there, close to grounding threats, in a manner that actually endangers that sensitive environment. Their actions are already suss. But without observing best practice in maritime operations considering the local risks and remoteness, they are faiing to execute a reasonable duty of care. Do yuo want a disaster before anything is done to avert a disaster?
George you reckon you care about the pristine Antartica? In your opinion, are the operations and precautions taken by the ICR whaling exercise adequate to avoid damage and mitigate damage to that area? They must be for you to defend them so furiously. Please focus on the main issues and show us if and how you care, if you think their response was adequate and whether you think they should improve their safety precautions next time. This is not about GP although you’re trying to make it so. This is not about GP.
Pixie,
You got to remember this is a propaganda war between two extremes, the ICR and GP. As in a real war much info is left out, some ” misinformations” are made , a little spinning here and there and censoring of the juiciest parts. Both parties are guilty of this and I hope the public realise this.
You seem to have some info on which fuel the Japanese fleet are using. Care to share that info, so we can discuss the toxicity aspects of different kinds of fuels re wildlife, and if it is better to leak near the shore or having a ticking timebomb on the sea bottom.
Re GP spin. OK, you obviously have read their weblog. Honestly, do you believe that Japan will end high seas whaling on this years IWC meeting , if pressure is put on Japan by the UK and the US?
Ann,
“You got to remember this is a propaganda war between two extremes, the ICR and GP. As in a real war much info is left out…Both parties are guilty of this and I hope the public realise this.’
You are dead right there Ann. Both parties have PR campaigns to make themselves look good and the others bad. They are both using the whales and environment to further their causes in that respect. I hope that not only the public realises it but everyone here too, although with Jennifer posting this from Glenn Inwood, I have my doubts.
George,
“Not usually, no – lets just say I´ve had it up to here with Pugwash´s happy horsedoody …”
No excuse. She may have been getting frustrated by what she considers your “happy horsedoody” too, but I skim over posts that have name calling in them and possibly others do too.
“I´m damn sure they would have asked the Espy for help if they thought it was neccessary – they did not though did they? what does that suggest to you?..”
It suggests nothing to me because I am not damn sure like you are.
Some comments from the above thread deleted, some comments from the above thread edited. Just a reminder personal attacks and use of bad language doesn’t usually help your argument. Also please limit comments to 2-3 per 24 hour period unless you have new information to add.
George McC,
You mentioned above a “Non disclosure agreement Aussie GP´rs have to sign.” Can you tell me how I can get a copy of this?
All I’ve been able to find that’s even close is Greenpeace’ Code of Ethics for employees, which states basically that it’s unethical for an employee to use GP money or property for any purpose *other than* providing benefits to GP.
Interesting that the sole ethical duty of employees of an environmental organization is to benefit the organization. Reads like a corporate document to me. It’s at
http://www.greenpeace.org/raw/content/usa/press/reports/greenpeace-code-of-ethics.pdf
The Code of Ethics mentions confidentiality, but it doesn’t strike me as a true non-disclosure agreement. Could you share a link with us?
Regarding earlier comment at this thread about me not using the Greenpeace website as a source of information on what is happening on a Japanese ship at the Antarctic.
Well who would honestly consider them a reliable source of information on this issue!
I’ll continue to use Google News (and many other news sources) and interestingly Google News don’t appear to source their news directly from Greenpeace… looking for an intermediary like Radio New Zealand.
But Greenpeace do appear to be expert at getting their messages out through the mainstream media.
Anyway, the strickened ship was Japanese, and this is the latest news from them:
MEDIA RELEASE
24 February 2007
JAPANESE WHALE RESEARCH VESSEL NISSHIN MARU IN WORKING ORDER
The Japanese whale research vessel, Nisshin Maru today successfully recovered full power following a fire that damaged the ship and took the life of a crew member.
The Director General of the Institute of Cetacean Research, Dr Hiroshi Hatanaka, said that crew had worked tirelessly day and night to restore the vessel to working order since the February 15 fire. He said they had worked professionally and responsibly, checking all electrical and mechanical systems, safety aspects and all requirements for making a vessel fully seaworthy, taking advantage of fine and calm Antarctic weather, to get the vessel going again.
“The Nisshin Maru had to pass all the necessary requirements the skipper needed to be done before she could depart the Ross Sea, and we need some more time for adjustment and testing of the Nisshin Maru’s equipment. It has been our goal to get the Nisshin Maru underway as soon as possible, but in a way that ensured the safety of everyone involved.”
“The decision to remain in the same position while the vessel was repaired was made with the safety of the crew and scientists in mind,” Dr Hatanaka said.
He reiterated that the weather was excellent and there was never any indication that the Antarctic environment was in any way under threat from the accident, despite regular accusations to the contrary from Greenpeace and the New Zealand Conservation Minister, Chris Carter.
“Minister Carter’s continued claims that ‘toxic’ chemicals could leak from the ship and Greenpeace’s wild and slanted accusations that the damage was too great to fix, that the vessel needed an immediate tow by them, or that the engines were too damaged to work were all false then and remain false now. The crew acted very responsibly and are to be congratulated for their efforts in ensuring an excellent outcome.”
Dr Hatanaka said the ICR made regular public statements that the Nisshin Maru would have been moved if it was required. “It was quite unfortunate that both Greenpeace and Minister Carter did not sincerely take this into account while, as a result, instilling the worst of fears into people. We have received a great many messages of support from the public and we are grateful for that.”
Pictures of the Nisshin Maru on the move can be found here:
http://www.icrwhale.org/gpandsea-img.htm. And video can be viewed here:
http://www.icrwhale.org/gpandsea.htm.
Yes yes spin on both sides, we know that but who of yuo claims to take a fair assessement of all evidence? Its silly to attack me for referencing GP\’s claims considering that I did that in response to Jennifer\’s quote from NZ radio which said itself the source was GP! What information is coming from the NM crew or is all via a professional spin Dr? We wouldn\’t have both sides to average if GP wasn\’t there. (That\’s an imporant role of citizen organisations: providing information. Communist systems try to repress independent sources of information.) We don\’t have any contrary evidence to refute GP\’s claims but Glenns claims have been inconsistent even if you only consider what has happened with the NM. He said the engines were working some time before they actually did move under their own power. He said they would continue whaling, etc.
Im frustrated by the glossing over of the lack of adequate precaution and the potential threats to the Antartica area (not just whales). Other than the initial explosion and life lost, there was no broader mishap but why was that? Was it due to good management or good luck? Some people are trying the usual by turning it into a GP bashing and greenie bashing party.
But let us lift our gaze: is there anything here for us to learn? Is there a need to improve safety standards for ship activities in this area? Are there special considerations to respect? Do we need a major environmental or human (eg grounded cruise ships) before realising that we have inadequate precautions?
Ann I think it\’s called bunker oil. (I made incorrect reference to diesels above as that\’s more my exposure and they likely had diesel on board for other peripheral engines) but its standard practice that ships have to preheat this very heavy oil. They probably had furnace oil and others too. Ideally of course you don\’t want a spill, nor the ship to sink. But the risk is greater if you let it flounder within a kind of gulf in the Ross sea ie hemmed in by packed ice and land when the water is starting to freeze over, weather can be unpredictable and you don\’t have a proper tow vessel.
Does anyone have clear information to contradict a claim that the NM drifted uncomfortably close to packed ice/shore? One important point about towing is to move it away from a grounding threat and reduce the chance of it nearing shore if the weather took a turn for the worst. Another is in bad weather at sea a ship that can\’t power is at risk of breaking up.
If you want a similar comparison of what can happen, look up the Selendang Ayu. It drifted for days while they tried to repair the engine. They didn\’t request help until the weather turned. Initially it was a long way from shore (much further than the NM). A suitable tug got there but the ship had grounded, then it broke up, spilt its fuel and payload. Is there a need for preventative action and better standards (eg double hulled ice class) to minimise the chance of such an event in the Antartica?
Suprise me by addressing the important points. Or… the usual denialists just wanting to attack GP rather than ask a genuine question of if this situation and the risks are acceptable and what should be done to avoid and mitigate a disaster.
But Jennifer you used a GP source, it was just 2nd hand! It\’s ok if it comes via chinese whispers (and Japanese whispers) but not if direct? Crazy.
Ok they got off lucky: the weather stayed calm and the engines got repaired in the nick of time. But next time? Any lessons in this experience?
(over)
Pinxi,
That’s about 13 comments from you at this thread in less than 24 hours. What about letting others have a bit of a go?
The issue of the suitablity of single versus double hulled vessels for the Antaractic is interesting, but what about sending me a short piece for a new thread?
Ann, I noted at an earlier thread on this issue that you suggested to Libby you would send me something for a new thread on whaling?
You’re joking arent you Jennifer?!! You deleted and edited a comment from me which referred to something YOU allowed on your blog at an earlier thread from someone else! No editing of the original comment by Ian Mott, calling me a dweeb and bimbo (now that’s an achievement in itself being both) as well as a scrubber, which translates into ugly slut. No need trying YET AGAIN to tell me you didn’t see Ian’s comment, as it is your blog and you have made the rules which you so actively (and selectively) enforce. More like when someone whose views you don’t agree with is trashed you decide to leave it there for all to see, but if it were one of your cronies, now that would be cause for the editing wouldn’t it? What was that about showing some respect? Surely it goes both ways.
Libby,
I see no reason for you to repeat bad language. As I have previously emailed you … let me know of comments that contain abuse language and they they will be deleted. But instead, you repeat them at new threads?
>It’s been a very trying time for them. Not only have they lost a colleague, they are receiving those reports from Greenpeace and Chris Carter and that’s making it more difficult for them.
What this implies is that it’s all about saving face. There would be no denying the crew is mourning the loss of their fellow crewman. However, does Inwood really expect us to believe that they care what GP and Chris Carter are saying? Really, when they cruelly kill whales in an area Australia and others consider a Sanctuary? What was that about spin?
This is not about GP, it is about a ship having a fatal accident in a sensitive area. The weather has been kind to the crew, the ICR and Kyodo Senpaku. Obviously the meat-packing area is back on line, otherwise they would be headed home. That is the ship’s primary function. After all you have to be able to process and store the steaks you are making the money from. Priorities. And if it upsets GP, Chris Carter, or anyone else, they couldn’t give a toss. Period.
As we have already seen comentaries about the positive effect global warming will have on The Great Barrier Reef, it is hardly surprising that any adverse effect this incident may have had in the Ross Sea is also greeted with apathy or denial.
Jennifer, the comments were repeated here in a light-hearted manner, which George seemed to join in with. If you are the blog keeper, you should manage the bad language, as you should be already aware of what is being written. All I am asking is for you to be consistent and stop showing cronyism.
Libby,
I’ve just done a search on the word “dweeb” at this site … as per your earlier comment. It seems to be a favourite of Lukes with Ian repeating from him and you repeating from Ian.
I’ve no idea what a dweeb is.
As regards the word, “slut” … twice now you have introduced into it into this thread (the first comment, since deleted by me). My dictionary defines “slut” as “a slovenly and promiscuous woman”. I’m not sure why you keep using the word.
Readers, my sincerest apologies for this to-ing and fro-ing.
“I was voicing an opinion, Libby, and you apparently have a problem with that. Being regarded as “unpleasent” by some boorish little dweeb on a mission from captain planet can only be regarded as a badge of honour.
If the facts confirm that this is unrelated to the SS action then I will gladly stand corrected. But that will be determined by some sort of inquest, that will also look at issues of stress and fatigue in respect of human error. It will not be resolved by some blog scrubber with her hackles raised. Take a bath, bimbo.”
http://www.jennifermarohasy.com/blog/archives/001892.html#comments
Dweeb:
http://www.google.com.au/search?q=define%3Adweeb&btnG=Search&hl=en
Scrubber:
http://www.funtrivia.com/en/subtopics/More-Aussie-Lingo-103402.html
But this one I really like!
http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=en&q=dweeb+bimbo&meta=
You can even Google for me. Thanks Ian and Jennifer!
Still no idea why I keep using the word? That’s OK, I’ll accept it is my fault and move right along now….
For the record, Libby previously described me as “sick”, but I personally have no problem seeing that repeated over and over and over. That’s all I wanted to add to this thread.
Hi Jennifer,
I’m working on a guest posts on the consequences, benefits and animal welfare and eco-friendliness of the utilization of wild animals vs. livestock.
This in response to the FAO report on the impact of livestock on climate change, biodiversity etc.
Might be a good and lively discussion that certainly will deal with whaling as well.
The post will be ready on Tuesday/ Wednesday. Hopefully you will like it !
David,
If you had followed the discussion it would have suggested I could find mirth in what was written about me (although those comments are now gone). Since the issue of deleting the comments came up, I have objected to the subjectivity exhibited, not necessarily the content. I’m sure you have been called worse, but you seem to exhibit the same subjectivity.
Libby
“which George seemed to join in with”
Note to self – don´t give libby compliments in future…
cya
First up pinxie says MV Esperanza was a tug. Wrong, it was a Russian firefighter. Never a tug.
Now back to the ‘duty of care’ that pinksy likes to blow hard on.
You could always withdraw the “sick” comment, Libby. Just a thought.
Pixie,
” well that would have been less a risk because that type of heavy fuel just solidifies (has to be kept warm under operating circumstanced) and would have stayed in tanks at bottom than if the fuel was released as a surface leak, distributed and washed up. So yes in close proximity but you need to better understand the nature of the risks before you accuse spin”
Well, I’m not very satisfied with your explanation nor with this claim that towing away the NM would eliminate the danger to the Sanctuary and the Antarctica environment.
It seems like heavy fuel oil is the main reason for death of seabirds and smaller organisms.
If the NM sunk futher off shore it would have started to leak in the near future. You really don’t believe that the tanks wouldn’t rust???
This would have caused chronic pollution for the sea ecosystem .
Basically crude oil is less toxic than lighter fuel oils but they make the birds more smeared in oil. Lighter fuel oils often are invisible so you are cheated and can’t see visible smeared birds.
But the main reason why I don’t want a ticking time bomb on the sea bottom is that it will cause harm to the whole ecosystem and not just smear pinguins.
It the danger to the NM was really big, IMO only pumping over oil from the NM tanks would have made the situation for the ecosystem less worse.
George,
Did you read my response to your comment before it was deleted??
David,
You could always tone down some of your comments which prompted me to come out with what I did. Deal?
” George,
Did you read my response to your comment before it was deleted??”
Nope .. u know my email tho 😉
Schiller,
http://www.greenpeace.org/australia/take-action/act-locally/campaign/local-groups/how-to-join
Specifically :
“After your application form is processed, you will be asked to attend an information evening so that you can assess whether local groups suits you. If it does, the next step is to sign a confidentiality agreement and attend a one-day training in non-violent direct action. Then you’re ready to take action!”
An Oz friend showed me her copy – it´s an NDA basically – and its not limited to Oz either I am told
Ann its up to you if you want to do more research yourself into heavy bunker oil and temperature and sea effects (not a time bomb, it wouldn’t suddenly explode) but my core point was that you dont want a sunken ship with fuel on board NOR a surface leak. (The latter is potentially worse than the former as solidified oil doesn’t suddenly explode, but we dont want either, hence we want the drifting ship as far away as possible from grounding risks). What exactly don’t you understand about towing it away from a grounding risk? To repeat a point you’ve ignored or overlooked twice: leaving it floundering so close to shore ie near packed ice and land that could damage the ship and cause it to release oil, or even to break up, is risky. Do you care for that environment or not? It’s not about GP. Look what happened with the Selendang Ayu. It was much further from land the NM. Otherwise similar: this could have happened.
rog google “esperanza tug”. Now cough up some evidence for your claim it was NEVER a TUG.
Jennifer if you want me to comment less then please encourage other commenters to read and do their best to comprehend before directing ignorant reactionary half informed questions at me.
No Pixie, we don’t want any grounding incident , I totally agree with you on this…
OK, in short , my point was this. If there was a damage to NM and the possibility that the tanks would leak, IMO a towing in stormy waters would have put an additional pressure/ stress to the tanks and hull and the ship might break in two or something else hypothetical…
Despite how much we dislike whaling, it seems like the right decision was made by the Japanese…. oh, please don’t crucify me now 😉
George,
Mine was not a derogatory comment but an attempt at humour. Your compliment was received. Sorry it got lost in the reply deletion.
I’ve never had to sign any forms when on the GP ships except for customs etc, and never heard of any of the regular crew having to do so.
I imagine that nobody here would wish for the Nisshin Maru to sink in Antarctica. Contrary to some of the commentors, even Sea Shepherd did not want to *sink* the Nisshin Maru in Antarctica – just to inflict sufficent obstruction/damage (e.g. above waterline) that they could not safely continue to operate. Other whaling vessels that SS have sunk have (mostly?) been in port.
Ann, it strikes me that you are missing an important point… the NM being in (relatively) close proximity of land and ice, substantially increased its risk of damage leading to environmental impact, especially if the weather had become unfavourable – referring to the Selendang Ayu incident mentioned by Pinxie… help from a tug (yes, an actual designated tug) arrived, but the foul weather prevented rescue of the vessel, leading to its grounding and breaking in half.
The whaling fleet were taking a substantial risk in an environmentally sensitive area, surrounded by land and ice, by refusing assistance – things could have been very different with a simple change in weather. The Selendang Ayu had a properly equipped tug attempt to rescue it, failing because the rescue call had been left too late. Whether one believes that the Esperanza is or isn’t a tug, by most (all?) accounts it was the *most* suitable available vessel for towing the NM out of danger.
The whaling fleet were not responsibly managing the risks, they were saving face. They were extremely lucky that the weather remained favourable.
Libby and George,
I have either signed anything during my time in GP … but I know they are very strict in Amsterdam… the office in Stockholm might have been a bit careless.
I have been told to be careful with secret information though…mainly about dates of actions etc. . they must be top secret…
google “esperanza tug”.
and you will get two hits, one of which is the panama canal tug esperanza
Google Esperanza tug ( without the “” ) and you will have a pile (51k plus ) of hits – the first two pages of which are media repeating the same misinformation ( I did not bother looking further than that as GP themselves don´t claim it is a tugboat either )
Still looking for a tug are we? ..
My last post on the tug matter … have the last word fluffy
“it seems like the right decision was made by the Japanese…. oh, please don’t crucify me now ;)”
In all honesty Ann I don’t think any of us can say something like this. As Mitch points out, the wind and seas were fine by the grace of God, but had the weather suddenly turned bad, like it is known to do down there, it may have been the wrong decision. Hindsight and luck are marvellous things.
” Where Greenpeace was once open and honest, now the outside image is so hysterically managed that the three-page-long staff contract threatens large internal fines if anyone should dare reveal anything without authorisation. Recently the exchange of opinion and information between Greenpeace staff is being progressively curbed, as access to internal internet message boards is denied, limited and monitored….”
This is a good read actually by a former Rainbow Warrior captain.
http://www.ecoearth.info/shared/reader/welcome.aspx?Linkid=47205
OK, a sincere thanks to all for this discussion…
“repeating the same misinformation” (whose misinfo?)
“GP themselves don´t claim it is a tugboat either”
Hmmm Gp never said it was originally a soviet tug with firefighting capabilities?
Another logical inconsistency and unsupported claim from George. GP spreads misinformation but GP haven’t said it’s a tug. Yes they have. George is tangled in his own tow line again.
Seeing that everything GP says is a lie, and no matter how often you try to bring the conversation to the material consideration of maintaining a pristine environment in the Antartica, George McTug brings it back to GP. Ok seeing you & friends think that everything GP says is rubbish, what are we to make of their recent claims that the NM is sailing under its own power? That must be crap like the rest of their claims. Or do we only rubbish inconvenient claims and accept the convenient ones? Not one post here has provided any evidence or substantiated claims to refute any of the points made by GP. There was a blog standard set, remember, accept in good faith unless proven ohterwise. Again: this is NOT about GP.
Really, who gives a toss about the environment down there? Libby does and Anne does too although she got sidetracked in criticising GP. But who thinks we should be critically examining this mishap for lessons and better standards to avert future disasters? Glenn meanwhile still wants the NM to hang around down there for the rest of the season to give the impression that nothing is wrong. Ha ha, spin spin, idiots dance.
Let me get this straight. Greenfarce and Sea Shonkherd spend months planning and weeks attempting to ram, bump and other wise interfere with the whaling ships and only realise that damaged ships can leak oil after an on-board mishap. Then it is all the fault of the Japanese for placing their ship in jeopardy.
Never mind that 500 odd tonnes of oil is only about 0.25 of 1% of the volume released by the Exon Valdez (and from which full recovery has taken place) and that the prospect of being ice bound was an event survived by numerous smaller wooden ships in the past.
But anything for a beat up and an extrapolation to wild, entirely imaginary extremes, eh folks.
I guess that must be the way the world looks when viewed from inside one’s own rectum!
Frankly, I think the Japanese should hang a few oil blivets over the side next time the inflatables show up. They would make really good shock absorbers and give some great footage if someone tries their shipboard can opener.
Pixie, Mitch and Libby,
Well, another post from me , hope you don’t mind….
This was the scenario that I wanted to describe.
Look what happened to the Prestige when they tried to tow it futher offshore with tugboats:
http://www.chemgapedia.de/vsengine/printvlu/vsc/en/ch/16/uc/vlus/prestigeoilspill.vlu.html
Check for the case study!
I find it quite endearing to see Mitch argue for Sea Shepherd’s virtue, saying they only wanted to inflict enough damage on the Nissin Maru “that they could not safely continue to operate.”
Seems to me that wanting to make a ship not operate safely would tend to lead precisely to the various catastrophes the green chatter-bots love to warn about.
That’s usual behavior for activists. They like to play the role of arsonist and firefighter, or in this case, pirate and benefactor.
Greenpeace is looking for a sailor. Apparently, one of them jumped ship–though, presumably, not in Antarctic waters.
I note with interest that the employer is nominally ‘Stichting Marine Services,’ but applicants are asked to apply to Greenpeace directly.
This is a common corporate liability dodge; plausible deniability, i.e., it was someone else’s employee. Greenpeace still picks the employee, though.
I don’t see anything here about “caring for the environment,” but then, the Greenpeace “Code of Ethics” demands that employees serve Greenpeace alone, to the exclusion of everything else.
Who is surprised? Below is the link and the text. Anne and Pinxi might shed light on this.
http://www.greenpeace.org/international/about/jobs/stichting-marine-services-engi
Stichting Marine Services Engineer, First, Second or Third
Stichting Marine Services (SMS) operates the Greenpeace fleet, providing ships, and ship crews. SMS uses three vessels: The Rainbow Warrior, The Arctic Sunrise, and The Esperanza.
Worldwide
International
Closing Date: 31 December 2007
Engineer
(First, Second and Third)
Male or female
Required certificates / STCW 95
Basic safety Training
Proficiency in survival crafts
Advanced fire fighting for seafarers
Certificate of competency and its endorsement
Medical first aid
Maintenance of electrical and electronic engineering certificate (first engineers)
Candidates must be fluent in English and able to work with crew of varying cultural backgrounds, genders and beliefs. Excellent communication skills and team working skills go without saying. Applicants must have strong interest in environmental issues. Contact information
* If you would like to be involved in an organisation that can make a change for the better, and you fulfil the requirements, send your c.v. motivation letter and copies of your certificates by e-mail to marine.recruitment@int.greenpeace.org
Or alternatively send your application letter and all relevant supplements to, Stichting Marine Services, Crew Department, Ottho Heldringstraat 5, 1066 AZ Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Stinky says google “esperenza tug”
2x answers;
1. …From left to right, clockwise: the Balaban I (target ship), coast guard vessel, Greenpeace vessel Esperanza, tug boat, Greenpeace inflatable. …
2. …but dressed in scrumptious, and with an byronic countenance; upon which I negotiated to myself, Esperanza tug all may be projective. …
Conclusion; sloppy homework by Piggsie has led to a litter of untruthful statements and false accusations by herself.
Might help if you stayed in school and could spell.
http://www.heatherk.com/images/PanamaCanalTugs/TugEsperanza/TugEsperanza.htm
“I don’t see anything here about “caring for the environment,” but then, the Greenpeace “Code of Ethics” demands that employees serve Greenpeace alone, to the exclusion of everything else.”
I don’t find this unusual Schiller. Where I work I am to work for this company and no other. I don’t think Greenpeace or many other organisations can ensure that their employees uphold the company’s mottos outside of work hours, therefore they can not enforce their employees to “care for the environment”. Whilst the employees are on the vessels they uphold Greenpeace’s standards. It’s pretty simple really.
You are digging to find something to back up your negative claims about Greenpeace Schiller.
When I am on board I have been asked by Greenpeace International to do work for them. The occasion I was paid, it was by Stichting Marine Services, as I had worked on the actual ship, not in one of the GP offices. I am not asked to uphold anything except safety and follow the chores and husbandry that everyone else does on board. Having also been engaged to a Greenpeace engineer Schiller I can assure you that the GP crew (and I am not talking about the ‘visitors’ such as campaigners)are all regular and highly qualified people, from all walks of life.
Libby,
You should be proud to agree that Greenpeace is a self-serving organization which serves nothing but itself.
You are now ranked with all the other multinationals in the world.
Greenpeace turns over nearly $us200 million per year and consistently clears five percent in profits.
Now play nice. But you won’t. Sony and Apple don’t play nice, either.
Greenpeace is embedded in the corporate game, with all the rake-offs and shenanigans common to the breed.
If I could merely have the interest income from Greenpeace’ deposits in Zurich, I could live like a king.
Hey Luke
for many reasons (length, propulsion) the tug Esperanza is not the MV Esperanza
http://www.greenpeace.org/mediterranean/about/ships/the-mv-esperanza
Give it up!
Very funny thread.
Luke turns up to the defence of serial liar Pinxie with a link to an unrelated ship with a slap at the posters who got it right suggesting they go back to school.
In my experience greenies are always devoid of integrity and resort to overt misrepresentation and when that fails they will just tantrum. Dont expect a retraction from these guys.
Thanks to Mr Inwood for the original peice.
Paul,
The reason these people insist on ad homs is because they’re religionists. They deeply (“deep ecology”) believe in who is saved and who is damned.
They actually don’t care about facts, they care about defending “the faith,” and they merely want to be known as faithful defenders.
It is appropriate to despair of reasoning with them. They have nothing to prove to you, but merely to themselves, that they have kept the faith.
Disputing with them is still good exercise for Normals.
No you’re wrong the MV Esperanza is the actual vessel in question. It’s a tug – that’s the point. Are you all thick.
This exploded my theory that Luke was a factualist.
Pleeaze Lukey,
I have been onboard the Espy….it certainly don’t look like a tug…she has towing capacities but it is NOT a tug…
It is like a car that can tow another car …but it is not a breakdown lorry….
Tugs use different forms of propulsion, Kurt nozzles, plus multiple rudders for greater direction and can usually go as fast in reverse as forward. They are normally short, squat and slow but have great power. Definitely no fancy accomodation, games room, etc
GP Esperanza is faster and 3x as long as Lukes tug.
What a moron, Luke. The Greenfarce vessel is 72 metres long while the tug is only 98 feet, or 30 metres. But any link will do for a propagandist.
Luke’s credibility? ZIPPO. If you keep on tugging you’ll go blind.
Rabid green is not religion, it is a mental disability produced by lifestyle choices. Greenfarce is a multinational company that owes it’s substantial earnings to the provision of palliative treatment of sufferers world wide.
They don’t actually want to solve the issues that apparently beset them because they are addicted to the treatment. It is treatable but not without their prior recognition of the problem.
A couple of links for those interested.
http://www.greenpeace.org/international/about/ships/the-esperanza
http://www.northship.com.pl/ref_technical.htm
Sorry to rain on the parade, but the Oriental bluebird IS double-hulled.
That’s the point – don’t you ning-nongs get it?
Jennifer, perhaps you could ask Mr. Inwood to send you the page I was seeking, viz:
http://www.icrwhale.org/gpandsea-footage.htm
It would make a good thread.
He might even have authored it, so could respond.
Came across this piece from Bjork:
http://icelandfilmfestival.is/media/kvikmyndir/dr9_pressbook.pdf
Lessons:
1. Ignore the question of which of the ships near the NM was safest to tow the NM.
2. Pretend there was never a risk of grounding or damage from ice. Pretend the weather could not possibly have worsened. Therefore pretend there was no need to think about let alone prepare a towline with the safest available tow vessel in case it was needed if the grounding risk intensified.
3. Don\’t ask yourself whether better safety standards and commonsense precautions are warranted to prevent similar future mishaps polluting Antartica.
– Ignore all of the above and just abuse on your pet topics.
– Accuse people of lying without providing any justification.
– Accuse the \’other\’ side of swallowing propaganda while not justifying your own points or accusations.
– Deliberately distort posts to argue petty nonsense so you can avoid the material points 1-3 above.
– It\’s actually all about trees, irrigation, GM and unlimited pollutiong in other people\’s backyards.
– Don\’t mention the war.
– Huh? What\’s it got to do with whales?
http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/whalers-look-set-to-end-hunt/2007/02/26/1172338516573.html
Good to see a mature response from Inwood!
Pixie,
Methink we must ask ourself how good it really is to have ALL uneccessay ships farting ( excuse me) around in the sensitive environment in the Antarctica, be it GP, SS , cruise ships or whatever.
We can tolerate various research vessels but do not want any tourism down there either.
Trying to be somewhat objective here. As a matter of fact Pixie, do you remember the GP Rainbow Warrior smashing into a sensitive coral reef or without assistance that is required by port authorities sailed into the Baltic harbour Tallinn?
Maybe it is unrealistic but I personally think it would be a good idea to designate a big part of the Antarctica as a Marine reserve or a MPA ( Marine Park Area), with a non fisheries zone…this would of course mean no whaling as well…
I realise the Japanese wouldn’t stop whaling , and a thought of mine is , maybe they should stick only to North Pacific whaling and permitted a limited coastal whaling quota????
Another point, the GP ships are hardly environmentally friendly, according to themselves…
From the other side of the planet.
There is going to be a big whales survey and counting this summer in the North Atlanic, the biggest ever, to estimate if the whale’s populations have increased.
The countries involved are Norway, Russia, Canada, Iceland, Greenland and the Faroe Islands.
It is worth to notice that Russia will allow a survey now in its territory. Earlier they have denied the Norwegians access to Northeast Barents Sea.
Maybe George has more info on this survey?
Travis, thanks for the link…
The problem with establishing a nature reserve etc is that one must first have uncontested ownership of the area in question. And that is something we do not have. Australia, New Zealand, The UK, France and Norway have made claims to owning parts of Antarctica but these claims have not been fully recognised by the rest of the world.
Apart from a few permanent bases manned by non-permanent residents, there are no substantial economic or social links between the claimant nations and their so-called territories.
The Russians and other nations have bases on land claimed by other claimants. And there appears to be no form of rental or other arrangement that could infer some sort of recognised ownership.
And more importantly, the reason why Australia or New Zealand have not taken the Japanese to court over their activities in the so-called sanctuary is the fact that this territorial claim would need to be resolved before the legitimacy of the claimed EEZ could be examined.
And the simple facts are that the Fed Minister for Environment appears to have advice that makes him reluctant to chance his hand. And for good reason.
Why should Russia, China, India, Japan, Korea or Indonesia respect a claim to territory that has only minimal substance? A claim that is manifest primarily by the fact that we are not there?
People are fast to forget that last year Greenpeace rammed the nose of their other vessel into the Nisshin Maru.
Whether one likes it or not, this is most certainly the way the Japanese see it. If anyone wants to argue, fine, but it’s entirely obvious to anyone who watches the video why the Japanese feel agrieved. And that’s not to mention incidents in previous years.
For Greenpeace then to turn around and demand to be allowed to tow the same vessel out of the Antarctic was never going to be taken seriously by the Japanese.
Were Greenpeace serious about protecting the Antarctic environment they would acknowledge that they have been guilty in the past of failing to act in the best interests of the Antarctic environment. They are too bleeding self-righteous to do so however.
If Greenpeace wants to be taken seriously by the “people playing politics behind a desk in Tokyo” they have to distance themselves from their past indiscretions, and show some humility. Getting your Rainbow Warrior blown up by French secret agents doesn’t make your shit pure.
Today on TVNZ, an NZ Minister cricitised GP for a “shameless act of self-interest” (if I remember the words correctly), in relation to a domestic publicity stunt in NZ. While 80% of respondents to a previous poll said that they thought ramming whaling vessels was acceptable, more than 60% of people thought GP’s domestic stunt had gone too far.
This should wake Greenpeace up to the reality – people in New Zealand etc may be against whaling, but they aren’t in favour of Greenpeace’s immature behaviour.
HSI has apparently been able to progress their case against the ICR.
Either way it’s only going to embarrass the Australian government, and the Japanese will continue their whaling programme in the Antarctic. This February has been a tough month first with Sea Shepherd’s act of terrorism, then the fire and death of Makita-san, but ultimately in the long term, these matters will be seen as hurdles to overcome, rather than reasons to modify Japan’s policy. The government will I believe subsidise a new research base vessel when the Nisshin Maru is retired (which I don’t think will be this year or the next), because the policy requires it.
Jennifer, Libby and Travis,
This is a bit off topic, but you have all asked me about my guest post on climate change, biodiversity, animal welfare issues and the utilization of wild animals.
I have a draft post that I however feel compelled not to post right now because it was based as well upon the harvest of moose in Sweden.
I have heard all my life from different authorities and NGOs that the hunt, which is one of the world’s biggest is sustainable. However, yesteday a report was released that showed the moose population had decreased with 50%.
With these new numbers I feel that right now it is not the right moment to post my guest post.
However, we can discuss this topic( now again!):
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,21288035-1702,00.html
>entirely obvious to anyone who watches the video why the Japanese feel agrieved.
Wasn’t there a video made of JFK’s assassination?
>too bleeding self-righteous/show some humility
Describes the Japanese perfectly.
>Getting your Rainbow Warrior blown up by French secret agents doesn’t make your shit pure.
Careful David. Someone was killed in that incident, just like your over-mentioned NM crewman, only Makita-san was killed in a workplace accident, whereas the GP photographer was murdered. If you wish to draw distinctions between the two deaths, you are lower than I thought.
Tugs and Fire Fighting vessels.
Could the Esperanza tow the NM.
The Esperanza has an installed power of 5876 HP. (At 1 ton /100 HP this gives 58 tons).
The NM is 8000 tons. 2500 HP will move the vessel at 10+ knots. This leaves 3000+ HP to move the tug itself which is a 2000 ton vessel. In short the Esperanza would have no problems towing the NM.
The Esperanza is a deep sea vessel, as distinct from a sheltered water vessel (harbours and estuaries), so is eminently suitable for extreme weather work at sea.
The Main deck drawing for this boat is shown on the greenpeace site. It shows the deck open at the stern. This allows unobstructed leads for the towing ropes over the aft deck with the rope handling winches in place.
Fire fighting is usualy added to tugs as there is a surplus of power while in fire fighting mode. The vessel is usually stationary while fire fighting which requires little engine power for propulsion or towing. Fire fighting requires significant amount of power (1000’s of HP)
> But would a sensible person be quick to declare moving 4 nautical miles at 12 knots a sign of engines being in good condition and all shipshape so break out the sake?
The speed of the Esperanza on the greenpeace site is stated at 14 Knots. So 12 Knots for the NM is a clear indication of a recovered situation.
Thanks Ian for the input…
I do realise the problems with this issue and that many countries don’t recognise other nations sovereignity over the territories and problems with enforcement of law etc.
Despite this I hope more and more nations will realise the enormous benefits with Marine reserves and Marine Protection Areas as well for future fisheries.
Fish stocks will recover and bigger fish will migrate out of the protected areas and benefit fisheries. I have seen really encouraging studies on this.
I am also thinking about Marine reserves and MPAs beyound national jurisdiction.
Travis,
Please don’t address comments to me when you wish to have an argument with yourself. I’m not going to be suckered into your childishness no matter how hard you try to put words into my mouth.
To quote Jennifer: “Last year Greenpeace’s little ship tug the Arctic Sunrise rammed the Nisshin Maru, the mother-ship for the Japanese whaling fleet in the Antarctic. Remember the photographs?”
And David@tokyo: “People are fast to forget that last year Greenpeace rammed the nose of their other vessel into the Nisshin Maru”
Here are the photos(from ICR):
http://www.icrwhale.org/gpandsea-img-2.htm
http://www.icrwhale.org/gpandsea-img-3.htm
They depict, as a pair, the approach of Arctic Sunrise prior to, and immediately after the collision. Both pictures are taken from the same position on Nisshin-maru. (easily verified from GP video).
Image-2 simply shows Arctic Sunrise off the starboard rail, and if the Nisshin-maru were “apparently near stationary”, impact would have been made here.
Image-3 was taken about five seconds later. We’re now looking at the starboard side of Arctic Sunrise. (The camera has not moved). The loose forestay of Arctic Sunrise is captured by the camera, ripped from the stem of AS by NM’s fender.(refer GP video)
Maximise the screen and zoom in on AS’s waterline.
There is a curiouser trail of bubbles from some outlet on AS.
There is also cavitation happening, not helped by AS’s stern lifted out of the water.
There is also the signature of an impact having been sustained by the hull of Arctic Sunrise… a propagating wave, much like a pebble raises when thrown into water. This establishes the photo to some small period of time after impact.
Move forward along the waterline and you can follow a trailing line in the water. It is attached to the rail of AS. How to explain this?
Segue to the thread at hand. Would Glenn Inwood like to confirm the survey status of Oriental Bluebird? There is conflicting information out there.
Pragmatic,
“Would Glenn Inwood like to confirm the survey status of Oriental Bluebird? There is conflicting information out there.”
You mean if the Orienat Bluebird is single hulled or double hulled?
The right source to find out this is through the Lloyd’s ship register. However, you need a username and password for this. Methink my password is no longer valid.
My personal bet is that the Oriental Bluebird is double hulled . Not much fuss about this issue from GPs side. They have however published the OB is single hulled in a press release.
Yes Ann, Glenn Inwood must have this information. Last year, when Oriental Bluebird appeared on the scene, I looked around various Registers, but as you say, detail is scarce. I read somewhere that as Oriental Bluebird is a dual function vessel, it had to be double-hulled. Refrigerated cargo and bunker fuel don’t mix. Can’t find it.
There is information on the US coastguard site regarding approvals to enter American ports. The library here is shutting now, so I can’t dwell.
Pragmatic,
Only double hulled ships are allowed in the US waters and ports…
David,
You do it to yourself hypocrite.
The Oriental Bluebird is a a single hulled ship registered in Panama.
The Esperanza is of Shiptype Yacht,
Research Vessel Yacht Svc: research …. Rsch: Environmental Registered in the Netherlands according to Lloyds
Anne ..
The Survey is TNASS
http://www.nammco.no/Nammco/Mainpage/News/trans_north_atlantic_sightings_survey_-_tnass.html
Regarding access to the russian zone – they just denied access to 2 ships on an ecosystem survey again http://www.imr.no/aktuelt/pressemeldinger/2007/russisk_nei_igjen
So access this summer is unlikely … you never know though
Hi George,
Thanks for the info…. yeah, Lloyd’s ships register is THE register.
since this blog is about arguing, ranting and complaining 😉 I must once again ask why I have not heard much about this the Oriental Bluebird single hull issue. Actually not before Pixie mentioned it…
From GPs weblog I have only read that one webbie asked if it was wise to refuel inside the Sanctuary. That was all, but maybe I have missed some info???
OK, maybe you Aussies don’t agree with this , but Norwegian GP spokesman Truls Gulowsen once stated that whaling takes away focus from more important environmental issues. What do you feel about this statement?
In this case I think media and NGOs have neglected to focus on that the refuelling ship is single hulled….it should have been a golden opportunity for NGOs in this case to focus on it now… unfortunately the single hull issue only pops up when a tanker already is leaking…
More media attention please on this topic!!!!
With some qualifications single hulled vessels may not enter US waters after 2010
It is quite complex;
http://www.imo.org/Newsroom/mainframe.asp?topic_id=758&doc_id=3341
Rog, we don’t want to read any complicated stuff, only one liners;)
But the ban in the US seems to mean that the single hulled ships are not carried away for ship breaking. Unfortunately.
“Given that it is almost impossible to transform a single-hull oil tanker into a double hull tanker and that the age limits specified are close to the end of the commercial life of a vessel, both the American system and the MARPOL Convention are leading to the phasing-out of single-hull oil tankers. Nevertheless, the differences between the American system and the international system will mean that, as from 2005, single hull oil tankers banned from US waters on account of their age will begin to operate in other parts of the world, including the EU, and will increase the risk of pollution in the areas concerned.”
So lets see if I get this straight ..
The Japanese are neglectful / negligent etc for bringing a single hulled tanker ( its actually been coverted from fisheries work but thats another story ) into the Southern Ocean Environment.
Sea Shepherd are heroes of the environment when trying to hole / damage said single hulled vessel in the Southern Ocean Environment.
Greenpeace are also heroes when ramming the NM ( or the other way around if you want to view it that way )
The NM being the ship that they recently condemned for being full of toxic icky sticky stuff…
SO why are GP and SS near any of these ships at all and risking navigational error / accidents?
Oh I forgot .. they´re the good guys in the white hats .. maybe thats why its ok .. Ummm right …
funny old world …
No George, it is the standard double standard of the flesh crawling hypocrite, Neanderthalis verde.
Do three cones and it all makes sense, just make sure you don’t drink the bong water.
Like Ian did the 1970s. Don’t you hate lectures from reformed users.
This site:
http://www.e-vrp.com/Vessel_Details.asp?VesselID=35269&PlanNum=2414
…,gives details on Oriental Bluebird, including
.Date of approval: 4/5/2006
. Expiry Date: 7/12/2011
Yes, Ann, whaling is most certainly a distraction, especially in Australia. It has all the Halmarks of a bunch of Howler monkeys who go to their boundary every morning and spend an hour each day howling abuse and bashing limbs etc at their neighbouring clan. And once satisfied, they calmly go about their daily routine at peace with each other.
Any other similarities with Howlers, like Pinxie’s backside, is purely coincidental.
Pragmatic,
This is REALLY interesting.
I have been working with tracing pirate vessels (IUU vessels) for Greenpeace and the register they think is the most accurate is the Lloyd’s one.
However, I know the owner’s of pirate ships change their name and company many times per month to make it almost impossible to trace them and they even paint over the ship’s name and numbers on open sea. This is of course highly illegal .
In this shipping business much is very corrupt, and I really don’t know what is true…
My suggestion is: post a comment to Greenpeace Oceans Defenders and ask them straight on if the Oriental Bluestar is double or single hulled….give them both the Lloyd’s info and yours.
Their respons is interesting and we can continue to discuss…
Pragmatic,
To make it even more confusing and a thingy that shouldn’t be mixed up with the single / double hull issue is that many ships have DOUBLE BOTTOMS and are SINGLE HULLED…I know the media is sometimes confused by this….
Here’s confirmation that the unfortunate fire incident on the Nisshin Maru won’t change Japan’s policy:
http://mdn.mainichi-msn.co.jp/national/news/20070227p2a00m0na030000c.html
Just the quotes:
“This incident clearly shows how irresponsible the Japanese government is” — Junichi Sato
“We must continue to collect proper and appropriate data,” he said. “We must try not to allow this to have an impact”
“The reason we didn’t accept the kind offer from Greenpeace is simple — we just didn’t need the help”
“Nothing happened to the Antarctic environment. I don’t care about Greenpeace’s claims based on false and misleading information” — Hideki Moronuki
Ann, I see no reason why glenn Inwood shouldn’t be able to respond. Jennifer provides a conduit into ICR. This thread is an example.
There is another consideration when looking at photographs such as those from ICR, on the “Ramming”.
As I said, the two photos were taken on the one camera.
The first image shows the bow of Arctic Sunrise occupying much of the frame. The focal length of the lens was set around “normal”, such that the acceptance-angle was approx. 60degrees.
The second image (post collision) is a much wider-angle shot. (perhaps 90 degrees)
In order to interpret such images and not be fooled, you have to view a printed image at such a distance that duplicates that angle.
I’m sitting at a 15inch screen, so 60 degrees across the diagonal makes for a viewing distance of about 14 inches. For 90 degrees it is about 7 inches ???
In order to SEE, and understand, and therefore interpret an image, is not easy.
IMAX works by placing the audience at that point.
George McC might be able to elaborate. I notice a photo of his here.
The various videos from ICR and from Greenpeace must be looked at with this in mind. The ICR videos in particular must be viewed so close to the screen (6 inches) as to be impossible to watch.
If you’ve got this far, here’s the answer to our troubles:
http://blog.modernmechanix.com/2006/08/14/electrocuting-whales-and-machine-gunning-sea-lions/
Scroll down!
Pragmatic,
Hopefully Mr Inwood will give us the info….
Re the ramming , no comments from me anymore on this issue, frankly I have no clue.
It is all about angles, cutting, spinning and twisting IMO…
But as an old Greenpeace activist , my experience of GP was they were not violent, not the people in the Nordic office anyway… yeah, they are a bunch of hippies and punkrockers…but violent, I dunno…
Greenpeace has gone into excruciating detail in defense of their actions regarding the boat collision.
At the end of the day the lay observer can watch the video footage (both that from the ICR and that from Greenpeace) and consider whether the Arctic Sunrise had no way of avoiding the collision, as they seem to be trying to assure their supporters.
By the way, the ICR has some new press releases out today. No more research this austral season.
“But as an old Greenpeace activist , my experience of GP was they were not violent, not the people in the Nordic office anyway… yeah, they are a bunch of hippies and punkrockers…but violent, I dunno…”
I don’t know if you ever met Arne Sorensen Ann, but as I’ve said before, he is a very sensible and cautious skipper with decades of ice experience. Regardless of who he was working for, I find it hard to believe he would do anything like what he is being accussed of. He simply is too obsessed with safety.
The suggestion that the Nisshin Maru captain would deliberately ram a Greenpeace vessel (right bang on it’s nose too – great shot if it was intentional) is likely not plausible to most. The crew of the Kyodo Senpaku vessels are there to support the ICR’s research, conducted in accordance with the ICRW, an international agreement signed by nations including Australia and New Zealand.
As I noted, Greenpeace has been ardent in their claims of innocence. But they have suggested no plausible motive. The Nisshin Maru crew have nothing to gain by ramming other vessels. Indeed, the less fuss with which they can go about their business, the better. Greenpeace’s only suggestion is that “they did it to try to make us look bad”. Given the way the same Greenpeace vessel illegally entered St. Kitts last June, one could reasonably suggest that Greenpeace make themselves look bad enough without any assistance from those that they attempt to portray as villains. Further evidence this week, when Greenpeace activists in NZ committed another act resulting in them being criticised as having “gone too far” in a “shameless act of self interest” (NZ Minister of Energy).
My personal view (and I know Greenpeace fans will disagree) is that Greenpeace is an organization that is completely out of control. The only consolation? Sea Shepherd is far far worse.
Hi Libby and David,
I have already been through much of discussions on Greenpeace with George in previous threads…as I said my experience is only from the Nordic office and there are many, many different lines, opinions on direct actions among GP people.
Some wants a tougher line , some staff want to ban all direct actions….
To Libby,
I have met Arne once on the Arctic Sunrise in Stockholm… he had rumour to be one of the best captains in the world that navigated in icy conditions….
Well, Libby and David, personally I will leave this ramming incident behind me…
David,
As I see it, Greenpeace’s weakness is their actions, which often are totally useless and (IMO I would not describe the Nordic GP actions as violent but as annoying.)
People who oppose Greenpeace very often support their goals( who wants overfishing, pollution etc??) but protest against the methods.
Ann,
It’s certainly true that I wouldn’t have half as much to say about Greenpeace were they not giving me so much to complain about.
Oppose whaling? Fine. I write letters to NZ’s Chris Carter about it – he replies. Despite my criticisms, I find opportunities to praise the Minister, and I let him know about it.
Greenpeace? They run flash PR campaigns in the Antarctic that never achieve anything. JARPA -> 300 minkes -> 400 minkes -> 850 minkes, 10 fin -> next season 850 minkes, 50 fin, 50 humpbacks (I wonder whether this is feasible or not on a regular basis, but that’s their plan). Not that Greenpeace’s protests have caused the increases – they would have happened anyway. Just like Iceland starting whaling again, and Norway increasing their quotas. But Greenpeace gains nothing – at least in terms of their stated objectives. Why give your opponents so much ammo? This is why Greenpeace’s opponents think they are in it for the money and preservation of the Greenpeace corporate brand. “Saving whales” is surely what is supposed to matter, yet Greenpeace’s results have been abissmal. Sea Shepherd haven’t been successful either, due to their incompetence. Perhaps a Greenpeace / Sea Shepherd alliance could be more successful in terms of “saving whales”, but it would be a PR nightmare… assuming that most Aussies and Kiwis have principles that is… but given indications of support for Sea Shepherd’s ramming activities, I suppose I should doubt this.
Paul Watson at it again:
http://www.seashepherd.org/editorials/editorial_070227_1.html
The Nihon Keizai Shinbun (big econonics daily in Japan that publishes the Nikkei 225 index) is reporting that the research has been cancelled for the first time in 20 years, noting that (apparently) investigations in relation to a possible connection between Sea Shepherd’s obstruction and the fire are being undertaken.
If they are going to make a scapegoat out of Sea Shepherd it won’t be too hard with all the video footage of Sea Shepherd’s misdeeds.
I’ve found this reference to the web-page that I asked Jennifer about:
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO0601/S00035.htm
It was a time of torrid abuse by those with invested interests, and some just wanting to put the boot in.
David@tokyo in particular, has ridiculed the professionalism and seamanship of Arne Sorensen, the skipper of Arctic Sunrise at that time. Greenpeace did not adequately defend Arne, which speaks of itself. No more mention was made of, or by Arne on the weblog. No appreciative farewell! Even the definitive explanation given by Greenpeace is lacking in necessary detail.
Please to remember that Jennifer and David@Tokyo have instigated this.
Arctic Sunrise DID NOT turn abruptly to Port. Look again at the image(post collision), originally posted by Jennifer; and above, by myself. That trail of spume/bubbles tells a story. The Arctic Sunrise went into reverse, and continued on for the length of that trail, finally stopping and retreating. That line is straight and shows NO DEVIATION in course.
Greenpeace tells us that Arctic Sunrise was proceeding at DEAD SLOW prior to the stand-off.(abt. 3knots) That is just sufficient speed to maintain a heading and course. After being put into reverse a vessel loses helm control. Arctic Sunrise was certainly in no position to “attack” Nisshin-maru. It displaces some 950tonne.
It’s worth another look at the Greenpeace video; this time just listen! Yes listen! You should have noticed that the portside window on the Arctic Sunrise was open. It may help if you use headphones and listen to just the right audio channel.(closest to window) What I hear is not jubilation, but much consternation, urgency, and some choice expletives. Shortly after this, as Greenpeace reported, the bridge was soaked by water.
There is too much else to bore you with now, but I will defend Arne Sorensen’s reputation, even as long as those who would deride him persist.
Nicely put Pragmatic.
Greenpeace purportedly visits the Antarctic to engage in “peaceful protest” against the whaling activity, which is acknowledged by the international community to be legal (albeit controversial).
To my mind, Greenpeace’s behaviour is more consistent with that of an organization looking to actively obstruct a legal activity, as opposed to protesting against it in a peaceful manner.
The IMO Maritime Safety Committee’s Sub-Committee on Safety of Navigation has agreed to create a “code of conduct”, following events in the Antartic during the previous JARPA season.
In light of all the available evidence, I personally will be very surprised if the actions of Greenpeace last season turn out to be within the bounds described by the upcoming code of conduct for protesters.
Pragmatic and others …
Irespective of who rammed who, and in view of the hulabaloo over a potential toxic disaster ( the NM ) being adrift in the Ross sea / SO this year, ( jumped on gleefully by NGO´s ).. and the OB last year I´d like to hear what you think of NGO ships acting irresponsibly by using potentially dangerous navigation and tactics ( Propellor foul lines ) in said area against said ship(s)..
Look at ALL the videos -not just the ramming incidents … and if you would care to tell me that such navigation / acts are not dangerous, especially in view of the claims made by NGO´s as to the potential for an ecological disaster in a pristine environment re the NM recently .. then please go ahead – I´d love to read your justification
George,
I must say that I’m surprised that so many supporters want the ships sink …not only will the whales be hurt as well by the leaking oil from tanks and engine rooms but there exist actually other living beings too…
And oil in cold water will take LONG time to degrade in comparison to oil break down in warmer waters.
Hopefully, it is only about ignorance….
the silence is deafening …
In the meantime George, check out David@tokyo’s blog. I chanced upon it yesterday. The more things change, the more they remain the same.
I’ve just been looking at the picture of MY(em-wye)Esperanza on your site:
http://whalephoto.com/2007/displayimage-529.html
It illustrates well the problem we confront in interpreting images and video.
You present it as part of your argument, but that is not my interest.
The dock looks to be no more than 10 metres wide and you’re standing about 8 metres from Esperanza. At that distance, to fit-it-all-in requires nothing more than to hit the zoom button and voila! The problem arises when I look at your effort.
As it comes up on my screen, it is 9 inches across the diagonal. In order to regain a “normal” perspective, I have to (in the library) get up close to the screen; about 3 inches. Of course my eyes can’t accomodate to that. If you have a large TV(100cm) with computer interface you will be able to view it at a comfortable distance(0.5metre). Only then do you “understand” the image.
Do the same with the ICR video and examine it frame by frame (particularly the opening moments of GPAS1?- from the bridge) The Arctic Sunrise appears to continuously change shape as it “attacks” Nisshin-maru. That railing in the foreground must look such that you could reach down and grasp it.
Another task; look at the opening scene in the Greenpeace video, just a couple of seconds worth; taken from the Billy-G, nearing the bow of Oriental Bluebird. Tell me what you see.
You infer Greenpeace and SeaShepherd are NGOs??
pragmatic,
You seem to have gotten very bogged down into details.
Step back. Take a look at the big picture.
What does Greenpeace go to the Antarctic for? “Peaceful protest”?
It is the very detail that derails your arguments David. I have no problem with the BIG PICTURE, it’s the BIG SHTICK that gets in the way. I noticed whilst at your blog a comment to the effect that Japanese media coverage of recent events in the Southern Ocean was minimal to the point of “Cover-up”. This was from Y/H who largely concurs with your views.
George, my idea of an NGO is obviously different to your’s. To me an NGO is created to deliver a service on behalf of Government. It is not any organization that just happens to be non-govt.
Back in a couple of days.
MY Esperanza?
Interesting that you own it Pragmatic – I though Stichting whatsit did ..
I´m still waiting for you to tell me ” that such navigation / acts are not dangerous, especially in view of the claims made by NGO´s as to the potential for an ecological disaster in a pristine environment re the NM recently ”
Why is the Espy even near the ship?
As for your 3 inches blather – you´re not seriously trying to teach me how to suck eggs are you? lol…
If you seriously want to go that route – tell me about focal distance, contrast ratio of Monitors, Resolution of images and depth of field, once you´ve done all that,( there´s more ) you can explain to readers what that has to do with a ship navigating dangerously near another ship claimed to be an envronmental hazard in a pristine environment …
pragmatic,
I’m glad you have no problem with the big picture, as that will mean you surely have no qualms about addressing the big picture question:
“Peaceful protest”?
View the video again, and rather than focus on the final seconds at which point the risks of collision had already heightened significantly, consider all the evidence – including footage from 50 seconds prior to the collision.
Was the course of the Greenpeace vessel that of a vessel engaged in “peaceful protest”, or “negligence” or “mischief making”? Would a vessel engaged in “peaceful protest” sail the course it did from those 50 seconds prior to the point of impact, or would it have taken every reasonable action to prevent the increasing chance of a collision putting human life and property at risk in the Antarctic, while it had the chance?
George is asking similar questions – I’m sure he’s looking forward to your answers as much as I am.
As for Y/H-san, he’s welcome to his opinion – which he made quite early on in the piece. He also appears to think SSCS may have been involved with the Nisshin Maru fire – I see no evidence of that (at this stage).
Regardless of what Y/H-san thinks, a government “cover-up” to my mind is not one in which Ministry of Agriculture officials answer media questions in relation to it during press conferences on (at least) 2/15, 2/16, 2/19, 2/20 and 2/23. Of course, you are welcome to differ on this point as well.
“NGO is created to deliver a service on behalf of Government”
???
Wow. Unelected groups acting on behalf of government… that line of thinking leads me to think that you and I aren’t going to agree on much.
“what that has to do with a ship navigating dangerously near another ship claimed to be an envronmental hazard in a pristine environment ”
Not only that – a ship engaged in legal activity as well.
Who let the pack dogs out?
David : “a ship engaged in legal activity as well.”
Greenpeace’s direct actions involve as well actions against activities which are legal…then the actions are called civil disobedience.
According to Greenpeace they are carried out in the spirit of Gandhi and Rosa Parker.
Greenpeace’s motivation is ” the enemies actions are always more criminal than ours so that is why they are justified”.
Ann,
I take comfort in the fact that the only people who are fooled by Greenpeace’s self-interested justifications are those who are already devoted to the cause. Unless the majority of people in the world lose their brains I think everything will work out fine in the end 🙂
A bit off topic but the Arctic Sunrise is still held by the Ministry of Defence in the UK having broken bylaws while blocking the UK’s nuclear submarine base for an entire day.
Back to the Greenpeace’s statement that their unlawful actions are justified because the enemies actions are even more criminal…
Who is the judge?
Lou Sanson, chief executive of Antarctica New Zealand, the government agency responsible for that nation’s operations on the frozen continent, said tactics like Sea Shepherd’s increase the risk of damaging the Antarctic environment.
http://www.dispatch.com/news-story.php?story=dispatch/2007/03/04/20070304-B1-02.html
Ann,
Thanks for that about the Arctic Sunrise – I was wondering what had happened to it. Funny how things pan out when you are just “peacefully protesting”.
Alas it is the twenty-first century and I am but a human being.
This is what Greenpeace put to the IWC, meeting at Saint Kitts.
http://oceans.greenpeace.org/en/our-oceans/whaling/antarctic-whaling/ramming#video
That is largely my interpretation of the incident, except the Arctic Sunrise zodiacs are wrongly placed. The Billy G moved in front of the bow of the hove-to Oriental Bluebird , and the other zodiac can be seen at various times passing to the rear of AS and taking up station behind.
Also, the nisshin-Maru continued to port and crossed in front of OB, remaining on a port turn until pictured by SeaShepherd(still very much at a distance).
As the Greenpeace submission stated, the Nisshin-Maru flouted COLRegs. She did this by giving one short blast of her horn(which indicates an intention/obligation to turn to port).
This signal came, not coincident with the signal from Arctic Sunrise, which was proceeding with a DANGER signal(five short blasts); but at a time so as to interrupt the AS warning.
Nisshin-Maru was required under COLRegs to repeat the warning from AS, and, as the Give-way vessel to take ALL measures to avoid collision.
That, David, is the big picture.
I am sorry that George does not share my interest in all things rectilinear. It is the psychology of perception that is under challenge here. Have you not wondered why the sun/moon looks so large when setting/rising? Why the artists impression of the NEXT BIG THING (Luxury Appartment) looks so innocuous; and yet when built is an eyesore?
Australians will know of the famous Latham handshake. Just another example of forced- perspective, but to the hoi-polloi, it was damning.
About the first scene on the Greenpeace video of the ramming(all of four seconds) I wonder if anyone hears what I hear?
Pragmatic,
I think you are avoiding the real question here.
Why are the ships navigating so closely to each other especially when we know that the both ships and captains have been involved in a similar incident some years ago?
How are these ships manoeuvrability and their stopping distances?
Indeed, aren’t the ships playing Russian roulette with the environment???
Ho hum
I´ll repeat myself here with emphasis :
Pragmatic and others …
IRRESPECTIVE OF WHO RAMMED WHO, and in view of the hulabaloo over a POTENTAIL TOXIC DISASTER( the NM ) being adrift in the Ross sea / SO this year, ( jumped on gleefully by NGO´s ).. and the OB last year I´d like to hear what YOU think of NGO ships acting irresponsibly by using POTENTIALLY DANGEROUS NAVIGATION and TACTICS ( Propellor foul lines ) in said area against said ship(s)..
Look at ALL the videos -not just the ramming incidents … and IF YOU WOULD CARE TO TELL me that such navigation / acts are not dangerous, ESPECIALLY IN VIEW OF THE CLAIMS MADE by NGO´s as to the potential for an ecological disaster in a pristine environment re the NM recently .. then please go ahead – I`D LOVE TO READ YOUR JUSTIFICATION
Look up dissembly, people.
Ann, It is the captain of the nisshin-Maru who must answer that charge.
Pragmatic,
Which part of ” Irrespective of who rammed who ” Don´t you understand?
Must admit that I loved this bit from your link :
“It appears that the Nisshin Maru may have carried out this manoeuver deliberately, with pre-placed camera operators, to obtain footage which could fool a viewer into believing that the factory ship was an innocent victim, when the opposite is true.”
Did that come from Shane “there´s a whaling spy under every bed ” Rattenbury ?? If so, he may have a point – just because he may be paranoid does not mean they are NOT out to get him… :op
I find it hilarious that GP is claiming something that they themselves have been doing for years – setting up a photo/video Op…
Kudos to the Japanese for using two large ships and being so fiendishly clever as to set it up just to embarass GP …
Excuse me whilst I roll around on the floor laughing by butt off at that gem
Missed this bit :
“Greenpeace is well known for its core principle of peaceful protest and adheres to that in all its activities including its campaign against commercial whaling ”
Look up “villduen” and “Kato” people…
pragmatic,
Again, refering to Greenpeace’s own diagram of the incident, why was the Arctic Sunrise sailing a course that would see them cut infront of the Oriental Bluebird and Nisshin Maru? What possible reason could they have for sailing such a course, if they were truly just “protesting peacefully”?
Perhaps you have some contacts with the Greenpeace people. Feel free to let them know that I have some ideas for them on how to conduct their protests in a more peaceful manner. I’m sure they aren’t opposed to advice on how they can ensure the safety of their crew, given that they have now been involved in several such incidents, right?
The Safety of Navigation sub-committee of the IMO’s MSC will also have some ideas on this for GP to consider in a few months time.
The Esperanza to head to Japan.
Will the Japanese visit and welcome the Esperanza?
GP will invite officials from the Fisheries Agency of Japan and the ICR onto the Esperanza.
http://news.scotsman.com/latest_international.cfm?id=376402007
George and David are experts Pragmatic. EXPERTS. Just give in to their unrivalled knowledge and expertise, not to mention their refined charm. Shit, what we we do without these guys?
I came to this “debate” in order to defend a man against the idle chatter that largely refuses to die.
I have no entre nous with Greenpeace. I rely on just the evidence available to all.
Thank you David@, you at least attend to the incident in a constructive way.
Your nom de plume itself illustrates the course of events. If you write “@”, instead of just typing “@”, your initial loop will enclose the OB and NM, engaged in transfer.
The tail of “@” precisely describes the course of NM, as she casts off from OB; turning to port to engage Arctic Sunrise; and continuing on to be as shown in the SeaShepherd photos.
To return to the episode in question. Greenpeace says that AS was travelling at some 1-2 knots. A boat needs to have headway in order to retain helm. Arctic Sunrise was of no danger to the hove-to Oriental Bluebird. AS was more intent on collecting back it’s precocious exterior decorators when Nisshin-Maru appeared. One zodiac, the Billy G, went around the bow of OB, and the other one scooted away to take up behind AS. GPAS2 shows all of this. GPAS2 also shows a figure right up at the stem of AS. If you follow that figure, s/he moves to the port rail, finally to retreat in the last moments. Does this really look like a vessel intent on ramming the NM ??
Perhaps you do not realize there is a 5(five)seconds gap in the GPAS2 video at this crucial time. The evidence for this is in watching that figure move to the rear.
This thread is overstretched and inexorably being covered in sand. If Jennifer should like to create a fresh purview, together with that page from the ICR that I sought, then it’s fine by me.
Pragmatic,
This is my last comment on this thread as it is in the backyard now…
We have been discussing this topic quite much earlier with the usual whale’s people .
Anyway, I heard from the Greenpeace Oceans people prior to the IWC meeting that it would be impossible for the Japanese to prove that the Arctic Sunrise was guilty of the ramming .
We also know that Japan dropped the case against Greenpeace that GP should be expelled from the IWC. Isn’t that correct David?
But these high seas confrontations are dangerous and totally meaningsless IMO, and I know even people inside GP think so.
And people outside Greenpeace don’t like their methods either.
When I was in Greenpeace I talked in schools about whaling issues. Once when I was discussing whaling with a class of future marine biologists, they were totally against Greenpeace’s methods in Southern Oceans and elsewhere ,even if they were anti whaling. They couldn’t understand that an environmental organisation supported illegal activities. And this was from persons who in the future might have an influence on our country’s whaling policy.
PS Pragmatic, my tongue was in my cheek.
Pragmatic ..
once more … Irregardless of who rammed who ..
Why are the Espy / AS anywhere near ships loaded with Oil and other nasty icky sticky stuff in the first place? Why are they increasing the risk of any sort of navigational error / accident by conductiong manouvers at close quarters? ..
You can harp on about who rammed who all you like – it does not matter a whit ..
By navigating at close quarters to other ships – such ships denounced by GP and other NGO´s as ” full of toxic substances” GP and other NGO´s are increasing the risk of a possible accident / error …
For then to then jump gleefully on the disablement of the NM and other ships and subsequent possible threat to the SO environment for PR purposes.. smacks of the worst possible hypocrisy
But I´m damn sure you see it differently so just leave it at that
as for wps .. another anonymous troll—> prat in the blogosphere
I’ve been blessed by the charm and wit of the almighty George.
Lets see ..
wps ..contributions to this thread :
Ad hominem´s = 3
Discussion of the subject = 0
Troll = wps
hows that for expertise dimwit? ;p
But George, I want to bask in the glory of you and David. I read through this weblog and found you both contributed so much and had so much knowledge. You are both extremely polite too compared to the cretinous others. I just wish the others could see that. No one should question you both like they do.
WPS,
You’re boorish… make some noise about the whales , otherwise you can bugger off!
Ann, I don’t believe you run this weblog and as for boorish, it is better than bending to peer pressure or being indecisive. No point in making noises about the whales here. That is my whole point. That was why my reply to Pragmatic, who appears to be a newcomer but has been bullied. Those like David and George seem to run the whale debate, ably assisted by yes-people like yourself.
WPS,
This post of yours was much better,in the previous ones you were just repeating yourself, that was what I meant! And I’m glad for all discussions on whaling…
Re Pragmatic, no, I really don’t think he has been bullied, on the contrary, methink his comments have been appreciated by all, even by the whaleaters…
Once again , I must make clear my position on whaling.
I’m against a resumption of commercial whaling, but let’s be realistic and understand that the whaling countries will not abandon whaling in the near future.
I can accept a very small hunt by Icelanders of minke whales, I don’t think we should make such fuss about whaling 50-60 minkes, if they are meant for local consumption. In the same way I don’t see much problems with a small Norwegian hunt in northern communities as well.
Why can the international anti whaling community accept Greenland whaling but not Icelandic whaling?
I have some grueful IWC data from the aboriginal whale hunt in Russia, with TTD of 9 hours. I got information that the Norwegians wanted to help the Russians with better killing methods, but we never discuss these topics.
Re the Japanese hunt. Yes, I think it is a bit different compared to the Norwegian and Icelandic whale hunting. I don’t think they should whale in a Sanctuary, and especially not in a territory that might belong to Australia.
WPS,
You might be right… maybe the differnces in opinions are too big, to make sensibel discussions.
But do you see some point in Icelanders saying ” by killing a whale, we save some other animals?”
And have you seen real animal abuse, such as factory farming?
Thank you Ann. Yes, I have seen both factory farming and laboratory research abuse of animals. There is also sports hunting. No abuse of any species is acceptable wouldn’t you agree? I think it is refreshing when others such as Pragmatic come in and put different ideas across, and no, I don’t know Pragmatic.
A bit off topic ,but some good news from the world’s most northern paper.
“A juvenile blue whale was spotted last autumn by a whale safari boat. The skipper stated since 1979 more and more blue whales have been spotted in Svalbard/Spitzbergen as well as other whales”
An Internet poll conducted by the same paper , stated that about 93% of the population was against a hunt of polar bears.
Hi Anne..
Here´s a photo of one of them here ( there were 3 )
http://www.jennifermarohasy.com/blog/archives/001659.html#comments
All three can be seen here on the first 3 pages
http://www.whalephoto.com/2007/thumbnails-7.html
I should first of all point out a “mistake”. I did say that ONE short blast of the horn indicates an intention/obligation to turn to PORT. It actually means the opposite; a turn to starboard.
There is another major gap in the GPAS2 video. It is of about 22 seconds duration, and comes when Arctic Sunrise is still ahead of the Nisshin-Maru bridge. A zodiac is seen moving to the rear.
That camera-man is on the portside bridge rail. He then crosses through the bridge to the starboard side, is seen in conversation with a person in blue, and thence begins to film the GPAS1 video.
GPAS2 meanwhile, continues with video from another camera-man stationed near the Call-Sign banner. If you allow that the Public Address warning has continued without break, then some 22 seconds have elapsed.
A further gap occurs when Arctic Sunrise rounds the stern of Nisshin-Maru.(Or as I would have it, Nisshin-Maru sideswipes and pushes Arctic Sunrise out of it’s way.) The camera-man crosses to the port side and after about 13 seconds, Arctic Sunrise is seen, left far behind.
That last scrap of video is important because it reveals the wake of NM as she abruptly turned to port. A nice bit of chicanery if you please.
Has no-one listened to the first four seconds of the Greenpeace video? A hint: turn the volume DOWN.
praggers,
Well done! It seems that you have finally convinced yourself that the Nisshin Maru ruthlessly rammed the Arctic Sunrise which was merely involved in “peaceful protest”, as opposed to childish reckless / negligent mischief making in the pristine Antarctic environment, also potentially putting human life at risk. Thank goodness for that. Greenpeace’s spotless reputation remains intact (apart for all those other damming incidents and unfortunate laspses related to ALARMIST AND ARMAGGEDONIST FACTOIDS)!
My simple question remains unanswered – was the Arctic Sunrise’s behavior consistent with the purported Greenpeace principle of “peaceful protest”?
David, it’s more important to me, that you reappraise your own view on the matter. I can only report what I see, and have done so here.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but did not “the Ramming” occur outside the Australian declared sanctuary? The Japanese vessels cannot be said to be FISHING VESSELS in the accepted sense, so any interaction between protesters and the fleet is not subject to any such proscription. In point of fact, Greenpeace has as much right to be defending the whales as Japan thinks it does in killing whales. If that means some chagrin, then so be it.
Japan’s actions in the Antarctic are legal from the perspective of the relevant international agreements.
The only people who seem to dispute this point are
1) Australia’s Labor opposition party, looking to find their way into office (they will not take Japan to the ICJ if they get there)
2) Sea Shepherd, who selectively interpret a range of international agreements as they please
Greenpeace’s actions thus amount to attempting to interfere with and interrupt what is widely regarded as legal activity on the high seas, and increasing risk to human life and the environment in the process.
Greenpeace would not be so widely criticised and condemned were they to hold themselves to better standards of behaviour. Again, I predict that the new IMO guidelines should prove instructive for Greenpeace’s “direct action” devisors.
Gee Pragmatic, you have come a long way. David is now referring to you in his school yard language – ‘Praggers’!
Some of us here see your points of view Pragmatic and appreciate the efforts you have gone to, but others are only interested in forcing their points of view down the throats of those who see different to them, which means resorting to school yard antics and coming up with the same lame arguments over and over again. Of course the fact that say, fin whales, are listed as endangered and this is widely recognised (even by other pro-whaling organisations) makes Japan’s legal activities in a whale sanctuary OK, doesn’t it? But then David has an answer to everything, much like the expert someone previously pinned him as!
Travis,
Your nonsense requires no answers.
Both school boy and school teacher – impressive!
I don’t know if anyone is still hanging around this thread now ?
But Pragmatic did post this gruesome video from the dolphin hunt in Japan and I checked out what a Greenpeace moderator on the GP forum stated about this slaughter.
This moron said the killing method was now banned( ????) . Is it true? I would like to know how they kill dolphins! She continued they are killed in an humane way and it takes only some seconds to kill a dolphin.
Not a single GP supporter has opposed this moderators views. I think this is very spineless!
A Japan correspondent said:
“The fishermen drive the dolphins into a bay and close it with nets, Duits observes. The next day the dolphins are caught, one by one. Fishermen drive a long metal pin into the neck of each dolphin, and within seconds they are dead. Until recently their throats were slit, but Japanese authorities have banned that method, he says. It sometimes took minutes for the dolphins to suffer and die. ”
I just wonder why the officials won’t let some NGOs together with some vets witness the slaughter , if it is done in a ” humane” way?
That would end all rumours??? And how old is Pragmatic’s video?