OT Key Bridge collapse - seems surreal

[Alistair]

Originally Posted by Mr. Pink

...to say that this isn't a clear sign that our infrastructure is in a bad way...

A massive transport ship center-punching the main support is worst-case scenario. Same ship failure is going to take out damn near any bridge.

Which isn't to say we don't have infrastructure problems. We do. But this one incident isn't proof (or disproof) of a failure to maintain bridges/roads/etc.

[C40_guy]

Originally Posted by buddybikes

Require more tugs in harbors, heard it is the ships job to hire tugs

(note I love tugs, drive by 4 beauties when heading to grocery)

Tugs are like the Surly Long Haul Trucker in the bike world.

I'm fascinated by them too...all engine and grunt. Get to see them going back and forth on the Cape Cod Canal all the time, mostly moving barges.

[rice rocket]

Originally Posted by benb

Personally I don't ensure any thousand foot cargo ships so not real worried about the rates going up. Maybe it hits our pocketbooks in slightly higher prices on foreign cars or iPhones or something.

There is a bridge in Florida that was destroyed in 1980 in a similar accident and the replacement bridge has protective pylons to try and reduce damage.. it'll be interesting if the replacement in Baltimore gets something like that.

You can debate loss ratios, risk pools and exposure ad nauseum, in the end, we pay money in to one of a small handful of companies, when losses go up, guess where the bulk of their revenue comes from? The shareholders won't stand for decreased profits!

[reuben]

Originally Posted by AngryScientist

Everyone love's to rag on insurance companies, but they are the one's who will take it in the tail feathers with this one.

Probably a reinsurance company, but yes.

Originally Posted by MikeD

Makes one wonder if bridges couldn't be better protected against ship collisions.

That would be very difficult to do, if not outright impossible. While the velocity (speed) is low, especially in a harbor, a loaded ship like that has a huge mass, making any change in direction a long term proposition. This is true whether it's a container ship, dry bulk carrier, oil tanker, or any similar vessel, especially when loaded. Could tugs have helped? I dunno, it's not an area in which I have any expertise.

The ship reportedly lost power, although a video shows the lights on when it struck the pilings. But who knows when they came back on, or if it was just the deck that had power and not the engines. The maritime track shows the ship sailing quite straight until it veered slightly to starboard just before the collision. The fact that it was moving straight most of the time doesn't necessarily mean that it had power, given its momentum and the minimal wind. But a ship that size with containers stacked on deck is essentially one big sail, so even a small wind could have had an effect. We'll have to wait for the analysis to come out.

Tracker:
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/lXmPCq-o6uQ

Long ago in a career far away, I inspected highways and bridges - new, repair, and annual maintenance inspections. While I don't recall inspecting the Key Bridge, I did inspect the Chesapeake Bay Bridge, the bridges in Beckley WV, and others. The structural engineering is nothing short of amazing when you see how they're built and how they move.

I can also say that when you're danging 700 feet in the air and see hawks soaring below you, looking for breakfast, that you kinda wonder what the heck you're doing there.

Fun facts:

1) The paint on the sleeves that hold the suspension cables of the Chesapeake Bay Bridge have crushed walnuts mixed in (or at least they used to). This improves your chance of walking up and down them without slipping. There are dozens of cables in those sleeves. In the new bridge, each cable is separately anchored inside the four concrete towers which come up to deck level. Redundancy is good.

2) I only inspected the Chesapeake Bay Bridge one year, and the day we went up to the top of the towers above the bridge it was overcast and drizzly, but the guys who had done it for several years said that on a clear day they could see the jets on the runways down at Reagan National Airport in DC.

3) The boats they put in the water below us weren't for safety. They were for body recovery. If I recall correctly, the main bridge decks top out at about 380 feet, so if you jump from there (and people have committed suicide this way) you're highly unlikely to survive the fall. And if you're at the top of the towers, well, you'll have a few more seconds to think about it. At Beckley, there was no such need, as the gorge is quite steep and V shaped, and there's little more than a creek at the bottom if it hasn't been raining much recently

4) The road spans of the bridges in Beckley are about the same height from the bottom of the gorge as the top of the towers of the Chesapeake Bay Bridge - 700+ feet. This is why the annual bungee jumping, hang gliding, etc., are done there.

[verticaldoug]

Originally Posted by saab2000

As mentioned above, it’ll be hard to hold anyone truly accountable because of the tentacles of ownership and operations being tangled and deliberately opaque.

This is not true. The ownership only appears opaque but you can always get to the UBO. Someone is always holding the bag, it just takes time and legal fees as you often need to get a disclosure order from courts to get the documents. Those documents often lead to another company where you repeat the process. But eventually, you get to the end. It can take a few years and a few million dollars in legal fees. ACRA is the insurance agent here, and they have an obligation to know the UBO of Grace Ocean. Grace Ocean will have an obligation to know the UBO of Synergy Marine Group and finally for Synergy Marine Group, Maersk is a listed company and through material adverse disclosure rules, they will have to discuss the accident and which entity of theirs is involved to equity and bond holders.. There should also be about 4+ types of insurance for this. Insurance for the hulls and machinery, insurance for the crew, insurance for cargo, and charter liability insurance. Maersk may also have a separate catastrophe policy. Lots of policies here. This is big money and people do not risk big money. Since Maersk is involved, I would be shocked if everything is not spelled out in the charter contract.


The opaqueness just prevents noisy reporters from reporting, but for those with real skin in the game, they know.

update- Grace Ocean if a subsidiary of the Japanese trading company Mitsu & Co. Insurance is Britannia Protection and Indemnity Club. They in turn have a reinsurance policy with AXA XL which thru a few layers can max out at $2.1 billion. The key now will be determining liability to see who bears the insurance cost. Some of this could be Port of Baltimore with their Harbor Pilots onboard. But both Mitsui and Maersk have deep pockets on top of this.

This was a New Panamax container ship. There is no rinky dink here.

[saab2000]

Originally Posted by verticaldoug

This is not true. The ownership only appears opaque but you can always get to the UBO. Someone is always holding the bag, it just takes time and legal fees as you often need to get a disclosure order from courts to get the documents. Those documents often lead to another company where you repeat the process. But eventually, you get to the end. It can take a few years and a few million dollars in legal fees. ACRA is the insurance agent here, and they have an obligation to know the UBO of Grace Ocean. Grace Ocean will have an obligation to know the UBO of Synergy Marine Group and finally for Synergy Marine Group, Maersk is a listed company and through material adverse disclosure rules, they will have to discuss the accident and which entity of theirs is involved to equity and bond holders.. There should also be about 4+ types of insurance for this. Insurance for the hulls and machinery, insurance for the crew, insurance for cargo, and charter liability insurance. Maersk may also have a separate catastrophe policy. Lots of policies here. This is big money and people do not risk big money. Since Maersk is involved, I would be shocked if everything is not spelled out in the charter contract.


The opaqueness just prevents noisy reporters from reporting, but for those with real skin in the game, they know.

update- Grace Ocean if a subsidiary of the Japanese trading company Mitsu & Co. Insurance is Britannia Protection and Indemnity Club. They in turn have a reinsurance policy with AXA XL which thru a few layers can max out at $2.1 billion. The key now will be determining liability to see who bears the insurance cost. Some of this could be Port of Baltimore with their Harbor Pilots onboard. But both Mitsui and Maersk have deep pockets on top of this.

This was a New Panamax container ship. There is no rinky dink here.

I hope you’re right. This won’t maintain headlines for too long.

[AngryScientist]

Yea, that's bad. Having worked in the maritime business and even on a container ship for some time, I can envision a few scenarios that may have led to this tragedy. A worst nightmare for sure. Let's hope for the best for everyone involved.

[crcycle]

Unreal. I lived in Tampa when our Skyway Bridge collapsed similarly killing 35. My prayers go out to the family and rescue personnel in Baltimore.

[azrider]

Originally Posted by AngryScientist

Yea, that's bad. Having worked in the maritime business and even on a container ship for some time, I can envision a few scenarios that may have led to this tragedy. A worst nightmare for sure. Let's hope for the best for everyone involved.

Woah that's pretty cool you've worked on one of those big boys before. In your opinion, do you think a Tug boat would have been able to prevent something like this? Would a ship that big require two ?

Did a quick google search and saw rates around $3000 an hour for an escort. Small price to pay when you consider alternative.....

[benb]

A ship that big might require a whole bunch of tugs.

But the tugs would provide redundancy. One tug going bad wouldn't send the ship into the bridge.

And the tugs are likely easier to inspect and police for safety and no one is going to fly the cheapest crew possible over from who knows where to pilot the tug.

[buddybikes]

Originally Posted by benb

A ship that big might require a whole bunch of tugs.

But the tugs would provide redundancy. One tug going bad wouldn't send the ship into the bridge.

And the tugs are likely easier to inspect and police for safety and no one is going to fly the cheapest crew possible over from who knows where to pilot the tug.

We have tugs stationed in port of Providence https://www.mcallistertowing.com/por...tes/providence

Think they will be getting more business...