Slashdot Mirror

In this case, bauxite.

The PDF linked from the article has a FAR better explaination:

http://www.imo.org/en/MediaCen...

Ascention Island is a hunk of volcanic rock stuck in the middle of the atlantic. Does a country really get jurisdiction of 234,291 sq km (a zone roughly 500km across) out of that? I suspect someone is overstating the claim.

Something like this would probably go through the Marine Environment Protection Committee (MEPC) of the IMO (International Maritime Organization). The list of member states of the IMO does include China and Russia, as well as many other countries (including the nearest ones of significance). It has probably been discussed at the UN as well, since IMO and UN matters usually overlap. Or maybe it wasn't discussed at all, and the UK just did this unilaterally.

Such claims often come down to "does anybody care strongly about this?", and in the case of an island 1000 miles from anything and with little to offer economically, militarily, or politically, I would assume that nobody really cares that much.

Ascention Island is a hunk of volcanic rock stuck in the middle of the atlantic. Does a country really get jurisdiction of 234,291 sq km (a zone roughly 500km across) out of that? I suspect someone is overstating the claim.

Something like this would probably go through the Marine Environment Protection Committee (MEPC) of the IMO (International Maritime Organization). The list of member states of the IMO does include China and Russia, as well as many other countries (including the nearest ones of significance). It has probably been discussed at the UN as well, since IMO and UN matters usually overlap. Or maybe it wasn't discussed at all, and the UK just did this unilaterally.

Such claims often come down to "does anybody care strongly about this?", and in the case of an island 1000 miles from anything and with little to offer economically, militarily, or politically, I would assume that nobody really cares that much.

God that's a horrible piece of journalism. I'd love to find a shop owner or operator that was "barely dented" by the GFC. Yes, sulphur emissions are currently very high, there are plenty of rules on their way in to kick that habit, pulling sulfur content down from 3.5% to 0.5% then to 0.1% is the next step; it all comes down to the fuel used in large ships, which is little better than tar. Strict limits on Sulphur emissions are coming into force over the course of the next 5 years, with multiple areas being covered by these Emissions Control Areas http://www.imo.org/OurWork/Environment/PollutionPrevention/SpecialAreasUnderMARPOL/Pages/Default.aspx

I don't like to hear shipping being pointed out as an absolute evil like that. I hear people shouting that shipping emits more CO2 than aviation. Sure it does, just the same as the USA emits more CO2 than the UK. You try moving 90% of the world's goods by volume without racking up some emissions!

Presumably they did that prior to the London Dumping Convention which would prohibit using a nuke now: http://www.imo.org/home.asp?topic_id=1488

Big vessels have to carry GMDSS, which are multi-channel safety and distress systems to be used in case of fire, man overboard or piracy. They have to be able to run for hours on battery power in case of power failure and to be super reliable. An important part of the system is the Sat C terminal, such as the Sailor DT4646E, which are pretty nicely built and sturdy flat screen PCs with 640k RAM, running DOS and a terminal program for Sat C communications from flash memory. They use 3.5" disk drives -- with a proprietary connector and selling for $150. And this is precisely the less reliable part of the terminal, since the floppy is always inside the drive (for saving messages) and the heads are exposed to the salty air and have to be cleaned (and replaced) often. But the things are still running (always on) after may many years.

2.5 All ships of 500 gross tonnage and upwards shall, [...] have:
.1 a gyro compass, or other means, to determine and display their heading by shipborne non-magnetic means [...]
.2 a gyro compass heading repeater, or other means, to supply heading information visually at the emergency steering position if provided;
.3 a gyro compass bearing repeater, or other means, to take bearings [...]

Gyrocompasses are useful for many other reasons: they point to true north instead of magnetic north, which means you don't have to correct for magnetic declination (the difference between true north and magnetic north) and magnetic deviation (the difference between compass north and magnetic north, an error caused by local magnetic influences such as the steel in a ship's construction). They can also give your heading digitally, which means you can connect repeaters to it, and autopilots etc. can use its output.

From

this page:

Almost every naval vessel and merchant ship today carries at least one master gyrocompass, installed in its own gyro room. A transmission system links the master gyrocompass to "repeaters." These are used on the ship for such purposes as steering, position finding, and course recording.

Sea-faring vessels are a major contributor of greenhouse gas production due to a deficit in international laws and inherent inefficiencies at sea, such as barnacle build-up on hulls.

Sea-faring vessels are the single most efficient way of transporting goods we have. The reason they're a big contributor of greenhouse gas production is that our global economy requires that a lot of goods are transported around the world. Try transporting thousands of containers across thousands of miles by truck (please, don't actually try this, it's bad for the environment).

The IMO (wikipedia) is one of the most widely acknowledged international authorities on anything. They've made a lot of internationally respected laws, improving sea transport on many levels, including the environmental effects.

It's true that hull fouling is a problem for ships. It's also true that many (especially large) ships burn Heavy Fuel Oil (HFO), which contains a lot of pollutants (like sulfur) and isn't as clean as, say, diesel oil. It's also true that ships burn a lot of HFO, and it's true that ships further pollute the seas by dumping garbage overboard.

However, while the amounts of HFO burned by, say, the Emma Maersk, are enormous (about 300 metric tonnes per day at full operation), this is almost nothing when compared to trucks. Assuming 300mt/day at a cruise speed of 25 knots (over 45km/h), that equates to roughly 30 tonnes per 100 km. A semi-trailer truck pulling two TEU containers runs at around 30 liter per 100 km (that's around 8 mpg, anyone that can confirm this number?). This means the Emma Maersk, carrying 14000 TEU, uses 1000 times as much fuel as a truck carrying 2 TEU, which makes this ship about 7 times as fuel efficient as trucks.

And another thing: with HFO costing 300-400 dollars per metric ton, the Emma Maersk burns up about 100,000 dollars per day when running at full capacity (this almost never happens, especially now with the economic crisis, but bear with me). That's about 3 million dollars a month in fuel. The Emma Maersk is crewed by a minimum of 13 seafarers, but let's take 20 for easier calculations, since it's probably closer to reality anyway. Suppose each of those 20 people earn 10,000 dollars a month (which is a lot - maybe the Captain, Chief Officer and Chief Engineer make this much... just maybe). That means total crewing costs for this ship would be 200,000 dollars a month, with fuel costs 15 times higher. What I'm trying to say here is this: it's in the companies' best interest to improve their fuel economy. A 7% increase in fuel efficiency would save them more money than not having to pay the crew. I'm fairly certain there are no cheap and easy ways to drastically reduce fuel usage, or they would have thought of it by now.

All of this is not to say that there isn't room for improvement in the maritime transportation business, far from it. This research and other research like it can and will do great things for the shipping industry and the environment. I just didn't like how the summary made the industry the bad guy here.

P.S. If you want to read more about the IMO's actions on air pollution: go nuts.

Sea-faring vessels are a major contributor of greenhouse gas production due to a deficit in international laws and inherent inefficiencies at sea, such as barnacle build-up on hulls.

Sea-faring vessels are the single most efficient way of transporting goods we have. The reason they're a big contributor of greenhouse gas production is that our global economy requires that a lot of goods are transported around the world. Try transporting thousands of containers across thousands of miles by truck (please, don't actually try this, it's bad for the environment).

The IMO (wikipedia) is one of the most widely acknowledged international authorities on anything. They've made a lot of internationally respected laws, improving sea transport on many levels, including the environmental effects.

It's true that hull fouling is a problem for ships. It's also true that many (especially large) ships burn Heavy Fuel Oil (HFO), which contains a lot of pollutants (like sulfur) and isn't as clean as, say, diesel oil. It's also true that ships burn a lot of HFO, and it's true that ships further pollute the seas by dumping garbage overboard.

However, while the amounts of HFO burned by, say, the Emma Maersk, are enormous (about 300 metric tonnes per day at full operation), this is almost nothing when compared to trucks. Assuming 300mt/day at a cruise speed of 25 knots (over 45km/h), that equates to roughly 30 tonnes per 100 km. A semi-trailer truck pulling two TEU containers runs at around 30 liter per 100 km (that's around 8 mpg, anyone that can confirm this number?). This means the Emma Maersk, carrying 14000 TEU, uses 1000 times as much fuel as a truck carrying 2 TEU, which makes this ship about 7 times as fuel efficient as trucks.

And another thing: with HFO costing 300-400 dollars per metric ton, the Emma Maersk burns up about 100,000 dollars per day when running at full capacity (this almost never happens, especially now with the economic crisis, but bear with me). That's about 3 million dollars a month in fuel. The Emma Maersk is crewed by a minimum of 13 seafarers, but let's take 20 for easier calculations, since it's probably closer to reality anyway. Suppose each of those 20 people earn 10,000 dollars a month (which is a lot - maybe the Captain, Chief Officer and Chief Engineer make this much... just maybe). That means total crewing costs for this ship would be 200,000 dollars a month, with fuel costs 15 times higher. What I'm trying to say here is this: it's in the companies' best interest to improve their fuel economy. A 7% increase in fuel efficiency would save them more money than not having to pay the crew. I'm fairly certain there are no cheap and easy ways to drastically reduce fuel usage, or they would have thought of it by now.

All of this is not to say that there isn't room for improvement in the maritime transportation business, far from it. This research and other research like it can and will do great things for the shipping industry and the environment. I just didn't like how the summary made the industry the bad guy here.

P.S. If you want to read more about the IMO's actions on air pollution: go nuts.

The part of international law that covers this is the London Dumping Convention which prohibits this sort of thing. http://www.imo.org/Conventions/contents.asp?topic_id=258&doc_id=681

Low level radioactive waste dumping and industrial waste dumping were prohibited in 1994 and 1995 respectively. Interestingly, in the US, some "permanent" radioactive waste storage sites such as at Humboldt 3 reactor will have to be moved if there is much sea level rise as a result of global warming since disposal at sea is not allowed. Ahh the tangled webs we weave.

Well, its actually not the largest pirate nation, the largest would probably be malaysia. But its true, only too often a freightship attacked and taken over in the malacca strait or south china sea finds its way into chinese ports.

http://www.imo.org/Legal/mainframe.asp?topic_id=33 4

Real High Sea Piracy is not as rare as you might think. http://www.imo.org/Circulars/index.asp?topic_id=33 4