Damaged bulker Ruby can finally unload volatile cargo, at UK's Gt Yarmouth port
Malta-flagged MV Ruby, the crippled bulk carrier with 20,000 tonnes of Russian ammonium nitrate aboard, has ...
An op-ed piece from Splash24/7 on the need for ports to begin drawing up plans for ultra-large container vessels (ULCVs) should they become a casualty. Among the sources in Hamburg that The Loadstar has spoken with, there is a consensus that both the port and China Shipping were lucky the Indian Ocean Elbe grounding incident wasn’t far worse. It was still bad enough, with estimates that it cost the Chinese carrier $20m, with 12 of Rotterdam’s largest tugs brought in to ...
Comment on this article
Jim Walsh
March 25, 2016 at 4:58 amBigger is better for who? For the cargo owner? Ports? Canals? Consumers? For the environment? With the price of bunkers more than halved mega ships can now bypass the Suez canal, save thousands of dollars on fuel and take a few days longer to reach port. With massive ships come greater risks – fire fighting, salvage, pollution response. How do we respond. Who covers the costs of preparation and response? Sustainable? More feeder ships moving from the hub ports to transship those boxes to end user ports. More emissions per VGM certified container. Ports creating ever larger footprints to benefit who? All stakeholders need to be at the table to ensure sustainable innovation and progress.