quote:

---

Originally posted by Ernst:
one has to assess the impact the vessel has on the environment - during operation (e.g. exhaust gases, noise, number of persons that are going ashore) and in case of an accident. (concerning an oil spill it makes a difference what fuel the ship uses)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by LeBarryboat:

What's fascinating about the story of this ship sinking, is that the passengers were friends of Al Gore, they were environmentalists, and on a cruise to Antarctica to see first-hand the effects of global warming. Because of the ship sinking, their presence there has damaged the environment and the fragile conditions in Antarctica, therefore contributing to further global warming effects.

---

Barry, I am afraid to ask where you got your information but it is wrong.

The owner of the ship may be a supporter of Gore's ideas but I have seen no evidence that the passengers were "friends of Al Gore". More likely they were simply 100 people who decided to go on an ill-advised trip on a 38 year old ship that probably should no longer have been sailing in those waters.

[ 11-29-2007: Message edited by: joe at travelpage ]

The dirt being dished out by trash media outlets regarding the so called friendship with Al Gore & a ship load of eco-warriors appears to have come from reporters' over imagination of reports on Gap's site, here and here.

Pam

[ 11-29-2007: Message edited by: PamM ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marlowe:
Readers will note how many of the largest ships cruising the Antarctic have no ice class at all! Criminal in my book.

---

Thank you Marlowe, a very interesting report to digest. I agree that to have no ice class at all seems somehow 'asking for it', as the unexpected can always happen. Some preparation [read ice class] is better than nothing, but quite what is the difference between a 1C and 1A really? If completely submerged invisible ice, not picked up by radar/sonar, is hit, would whatever class of strenghtening a vessel has really make any difference? [omitting real ice breakers].

I note that HAL specifically carry an 'Ice Pilot' experienced in icy waters, during their sojourns of the region, do other lines as well?

Regarding Fram, she is 1B not 1C [according to Shippax].

quote:

---

Originally posted by PamM:
[...]Some preparation [read ice class] is better than nothing, but quite what is the difference between a 1C and 1A really? If completely submerged invisible ice, not picked up by radar/sonar, is hit, would whatever class of strenghtening a vessel has really make any difference? [omitting real ice breakers].[...]

---

Regarding the differences between the various ice class ratings, all those shown (IA*, IA, IB, IC & II) are intended for ships operating in pack ice as what is experienced in the Baltic Sea winter and do not take into account cruising in waters with bergs, bergy bits, growlers, etc... Strengthening for pack ice involves principally a stonger prow, heavier and closer frame spacing and thinker plates (mainly at the waterline called an "ice belt"). The rules also mandate propellers be of a hardened material (stainless steel vs. bronze) and higher shaft horsepower. As written about earlier, vessels intended to “break” pack ice have a different set of rules and class notations based on ice thickness and speed of operation. No vessel is designed to operate specifically in “glacial” ice.

What does any of these measures mean for a ship steaming in the vicinity of bergs and growlers? Not as much as you would like, but it is better than nothing. A stronger built hull will always help and never hurt. I do believe that like with Titanic, a slower speed and better lookout might have been all that was required to prevent the hull of Explorer being breached. I have sailed in ice before (but not the Antarctic) and being able to see all the small bergs and growlers is hard especially in a 4' to 5' sea. Remember at virtually all the mass of ice is submerged. At night or in dim light (like a low overcast sky) makes it even more difficult. Because they are so low, they provide almost no radar echo. Does forward looking sonar help? Not much for targets at the surface because of the turbulence.

Does carrying an "ice pilot" help? Yes, they do understand the conditions better than masters who do not have all the years in the South. That said, they are mainly pilots for conning a ship in the pack. With regards to steaming in opening water strewn with mostly submerged ice, I again say that only low speed and eyeballs are the best way to assist a strengthened hull. I have not found an exact reference to the exact conditions at the time of when the Explorer was holed but the early photos show a pretty low sea state and very broken pack coverage. Had this happened in the middle of a gale and been a larger hole then events might have been much different.

It is not that very large ships might be somehow much more likely to suffer a hull breach that a smaller one, but their great mass coupled with a relatively very thin hull makes them more vulnerable to being opened up. Do they have lots of extra subdivision? They do and can have plenty of adjacent compartments flooded and not sink, but this does not mean that a ship will not be disabled as a result. Passengers still have to be taken off and throw into the mix a gale or not enough rescue vessels and suddenly things turn a bit dodgy very quickly.

regards, Michael

ps...the "published" version of the list is now at http://docs.google.com/Doc?docid=dfks63q_1d26gm8&hl=en which will be updated soon. Please send it your corrections.

[ 11-29-2007: Message edited by: Marlowe ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by joe at travelpage:

Barry, I am afraid to ask where you got your information but it is wrong.

The owner of the ship may be a supporter of Gore's ideas but I have seen no evidence that the passengers were "friends of Al Gore".

---

Joe, I haven't posted many messages lately as you can see. My information comes directly from the
GAP Adventures website and some other resources I happen to have. I know some people here get annoyed by what I have to say, however, there is a great deal of truth in what I wrote. Perhaps "friends of Al Gore" was a bit exagerated, but it is obvious from the GAP Adventures website, the ideals of the CEO, and the nature of that particular itinerary, and those who paid a huge amount of money to go to Antarctica are well traveled adventure-seeking "eco-friendly" people...not that there's anything wrong with being eco-friendly. So are you annoyed by the truth? These were not just your ordinary passengers on that cruise, I wouldn't say "eco-warriors" but chances are the majority of those passengers support Al Gore's hypothesis. The media of course doesn't say a lot about this, because it's an unfortunate incident where the CEO used poor judgement sending this vessel to Antarctica, and the fact that he speaks regularly at eco or green conferences, and now has left a giant carbon footprint in that region is kind of a black eye for the environmentalist movement. Joe, I don't see anything wrong or annoying about mentioning this, because the media certainly will not.

[ 11-29-2007: Message edited by: joe at travelpage ]

In all seriouness, good for you! Our hackle crop was in poor shape duriing your absence.

As a political observation, as a moderate Democrat, I have found it interesting that so many "on the right" can effortlessly extend their championship of mainstream Republican causes, to attacks on (or at least criticism of) those who advocate constraints on man-made acitivities contributing to global warming. Just watch the guests on the rightwing talk shows and you will see what I mean.

I see the issues (as my Brit boss used to say) "as different as chalk and cheese."

But the right regularly characterizes "environmentalists" as "greenies" and "tree huggers" and essentially as "evil people," who are opposed to "the American Way" and so on with similar claptrap. Somehow "to oppose countering global warming" has become yet another litmus test for the right. I just don't get it.

[ 11-29-2007: Message edited by: Cambodge ]

[ 11-29-2007: Message edited by: Ernst ]

Frankly, "any" cruising causes a great negative carbon tradeoff since the travel "does not" absolutely need to happen. It is pleasure and not transportation (which by extension then includes taking the airplane to the ship and the car to the airport, ad infinitum). Ultimately the entire cruise ship industry needs to be brought into this topic and that does not belong here.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cambodge:
But the right regularly characterizes "environmentalists" as "greenies" and "tree huggers" and essentially as "evil people," who are opposed to "the American Way" and so on with similar claptrap. Somehow "to oppose countering global warming" has become yet another litmus test for the right. I just don't get it.

---

[ 11-29-2007: Message edited by: dougnewman ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ernst:
Maybe because Explorer had a red hull which is commonly know as an irrefutable proof for a ship to be a socialist vessel?

---

Look at the G.A.P. webpage: Explorer news - message from Bruce Poon Tip, CEO
G.A.P ADVENTURES

There you can read:

[...] I was amazed at the first interview with the BBC by Gillian Plant. Gillian commented, "the passengers were enjoying the best experience of their lives." That was received with cheers here as we worked tirelessly through the night to deliver on our promise to get you all home safely. People like Gillian inspire us to achieve great things. [...]

[...]Most passengers have now left Punta Arenas with the balance leaving tomorrow. A number of passengers have chosen to continue in their travels, others have decided to return home, and some are rebooking Antarctic tours out of Ushuaia.
Our passengers are true adventure travellers.[...]

Personally, I find that extremely disgusting.

I understand that this was exciting for the passengers and being evacuated form a sinking ship is that a story to tell - and luckily they can tell that story. No doubt about that. I also understand that Mr. Bruce Poon Tip wants to pay tribute to the passenger going through all this misery with patience and discipline. So far so good.

BUT to depict this accident as 'adventure' or to comment on the evacuation from a sinking ship as 'enjoyable' or 'best experience of a life' is despicable.

This is far to serious.

It is disrespectful towards all involved in the rescue operation to downplay the danger the passenger were in for hours. We are all grateful that everything went fine but there was a lot of luck involved in this operation and the 'enjoyable, best experience of a life' could have very easily ended as disaster. Also, this 'adventure' came at a rather high price for the Antarctic environment leaving a shipwreck behind. Certainly nothing to boast about.

It seems as if the rescue operation was indeed a great success but beside that it is very, very hard for me to see the great things that supposedly were achieved giving that a ship went down.

[ 11-29-2007: Message edited by: Ernst ]

[ 11-29-2007: Message edited by: dougnewman ]

Below is the full text of his positively gushing thank you message to everybody involved in the Great Grand Adventure (with my own slight additions to same for dramatic effect...)

quote:

---

November 29, 2007

We are pleased to advise that all our passengers have been repatriated. Except for those crew assisting in the investigation, the crew have also been repatriated.

We have been flooded with prayers and warm wishes from every part of the world for our passengers and crew. There are so many people to thank. And I want to make sure it is done publicly and from the bottom of my heart and everyone else's here at G.A.P Adventures. It really took a village and there are so many people that without a second thought joined us in our mission to get everyone home safe. It was a raw display of human kindness and a deep compassion to help their fellow man. (No, this is what humans do when fellow humans are in danger or distress...render aid)

First of all, I have to thank our crew aboard the M/S Explorer. What can I say except you proved once again why people joined us over and over on the Explorer. (How many years has GAP owned the ship?) While investigations are ongoing, I can only say that the success of the evacuation was mainly due to your decision making, execution of emergency procedures and commitment to safety and the well being of our travellers. (Hmm...perhaps good weather, a slow rate of sinking & nearby rescue vessels might have helped just maybe a little?)

I also have to thank Hurtigruten and the M/S Nordnorge for responding to our distress signal. And then agreeing to take in our passengers without question or hesitation. (sorry to burst your bubble, but it is a long established law of seafaring to render all necessary aid to all souls from any vessel in distress) The call we received in our office prior to our boarding was one of great concern and understanding that, even though we didn't know each other, we would be partners in this rescue. We spoke as if we had known each other for years and came to quick solutions to everything that needed to be done. With that comes a special thanks to Tomas Holik at Hurtigruten in Buenos Aires who in the initial hours was invaluable to us. (nice you mentioned Mr. Holik by name because I am left with the feeling that if you didn't have his guidance, things might not have gone nearly so swimmingly!)

We would also like to thank IAATO (International Association of Antarctica Tour Operators) and all the other ships that responded and made their way to our site. Denise Landau of IAATO was of special note for her constant concern, support and willingness to do whatever we needed in a time of crisis. She was, on behalf of IAATO, a wealth of information and constant companion in our time of need.

The Chilean Government, Navy, Base Commander in King George Island, and Uruguayan Base Commander and Government were all of great help to us. They always remained cooperative, professional and with a true desire for a positive outcome. They welcomed our people on the ground in Punta Arenas and gave us all the support we needed to be successful. (Like they wouldn't have!)

I save the best (soapiest lather) for last, however, and that is to thank our travellers aboard the M/S Explorer. For your courage, tenacity and spirit of adventure. I was amazed at the first interview with the BBC by Gillian Plant. Gillian commented, "the passengers were enjoying the best experience of their lives." That was received with cheers here as we worked tirelessly through the night to deliver on our promise to get you all home safely. People like Gillian inspire us to achieve great things. So, I want to thank you again for staying with us and allowing us to shine in an emergency situation. (Oh what a different song you would be singing today Mr. Poon-Tip, if ten or twenty of your supremely adventurous passengers had succumbed to hypothermia!)

Amongst the G.A.P Adventures people there are just too many people to mention. Everyone counted, and everyone stepped up as I knew they would when the company called. The Explorer leaves us still with a mountain to climb, however. The work is not done...but only just beginning. I implore everyone to bind together and continue to show our commitment to excellence. I am proud not only of what we have accomplished as a team but proud to be leading all of you. It is my honour. (ie. don't none of you leave me alone to also go down with this sunken ship!)

I would also like to thank all of our travellers for their support and kind words. For your continued dedication and the trust you bestow upon us. This is something that we never take for granted. We could not possibly respond to all of the emails, so please accept this as a universal thank you for being behind us and sending positive energy our way.

The Explorer left us in very dramatic fashion. She couldn't just go quietly in the night but instead, was hanging on and danced her way out of commission. She made everyone watch for just a minute to remember her history as she hung on long enough to allow all of her passengers to disembark to safety. I would expect nothing less from her. (Explorer was a nothing more than a self propelled steel structure...the ship didn't do a bloody thing to save anybody...FOOL! YOU ARE DAMNED LUCKY THE SHIP ROLLED OVER SO SLOWLY! period!). The Explorer has been a big part of our history as a company and represented the true spirit of what makes our company special. We thank everyone who has been part of making it happen over the years. (Can you believe this loon! Would somebody get a mop and bucket to clean up after this guy?

Peace, (Love, Dove!)

Bruce Poon Tip

---

If this isn't the most bloody ridiculous load of bilge I ever have read in all my days! Not one mention of providence and great good fortune or to thank God almighty for delivering all 154 souls in the EXPLORER to safety! Instead this peacock B. Poon Tip (I won't begin to comment on his "most esteemed" name) comes out like it is the bloody Academy Awards ceremony for maritime disasters...thanking all the "little people" for making the "Grand Adventure" possible! "Danced her way out"....MY EYE! Somebody take this Marcel Proust wannabe out back and dispatch him with his own quill pen post haste!

I also have to take my next opportunity to take a dig at LeBarryBoat...don't go throwing any stones at us Socialist Lefties. With a user name like yours one might think you were a "Frogged Legged Fellow Traveller" and perish the thought of THAT! I like my club just as it is, thank you very much!

[ 11-30-2007: Message edited by: Marlowe ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cambodge:

But the right regularly characterizes "environmentalists" as "greenies" and "tree huggers" and essentially as "evil people," who are opposed to "the American Way" and so on with similar claptrap.

[ 11-29-2007: Message edited by: Cambodge ]

---

How did this become a political topic?

Well back to the Explorer. That person almost sound happy that their ship sunk! He sound so proud that their ship didn't just quickly sink, no it went out with a bang. How wonderful. I wish I could have been there to experience the "fun and adventure".

How deep is the water where she sunk? Does anyone know? Is it possible to salvage her?

[ 11-30-2007: Message edited by: Cunard Fan ]

Here are three fascinating papers I found on the issue of the safety of passenger ships in Antarctica presented this past spring at the UN’s Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting.

Safety Issues Relating to Passenger Vessels in Antarctic Waters

Tourist Vessels flagged to non Parties; Implications for the effectiveness of the Antarctic Treaty System

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cunard Fan:
I hate this whole stupid war between "left" and "right", it divides us as a nation and causes to much hate between people who should be united.
[ 11-30-2007: Message edited by: Cunard Fan ]

---

The information which I have received says that the mv Explorer has sunk in 4,921 feet of water.

This would be too deep for her to be recovered and her hull examined.

Even if the money were somehow made available, being where the ship lies, there is lack of suitable equipment anywhere close by. By the time a work class ROV were delivered to Ushuaia and mobilized aboard a suitable DP support vessel (perhaps one of the reseach ships already in Antarctica for the season might be available) the season would be over.