Brexit: taking it seriously

29/03/2021

Far more illustrative than the acres of (largely ill-informed or out-of-date) media copy was a short film published late yesterday evening by the Suez Canal Authority (SCA), showing the state of play and the latest plan for freeing the Ever Given.

Land-based, long reach excavators are being used to carve out a deep, semi-circular trench around the bow of the stricken ship, while the Mashhour, a specialist cutter/suction dredger, is clearing a channel starting 100 metres from the port side of the ship to within 10 metres of the stricken vessel, working at depths from a half to 15 metres.

Quite obviously, the plan is to pull the bow sideway, to the port, swinging the ship into the centre of the channel, with force being applied to the stern in the opposite direction. If successful, the Ever Given will then be floating free and can clear the area under her own power.

From observation of the video film, spoil being lifted by the excavators has the appearance and behaviour of heavily compacted clay, entirely compatible with geological reports for this section of the canal. The importance of this is indicated by the comment of Peter Berdowski, CEO of Boskalis, part of the salvage effort.

He says that, "a lot will depend on the soil under the ship", and although he is prepared to give the next rescue attempt a 50 percent chance, much will depend on the "stickiness" of the clay under the ship. Finally, it seems, soil experts have attended the site alongside officials from the SCA to advise on continuing recovery efforts.

Yesterday evening's high tide was 11.23pm local time (deduct one hour for Brexit Summer Time) and, with the expected arrival of two powerful sea tugs, a further attempt was anticipated. However, by last night, only the more powerful of the pair was on station, the Dutch-operated Alp Guard, able to exert 285 metric tons bollard pull – the standard measure of tug power.

The less powerful Italian operated Carlo Magno will arrive today, all being well. Adding its 153 tonnes certified bollard pull, the pair will be able to exert over 400 tonnes of pull, dwarfing the 65-80 tonnes so far applied with the SCA's harbour tugs.

As a result of the delay in the arrival of the second tug, yesterday's rescue attempt was abandoned. And earlier attempt on Saturday by the harbour tugs is said to have moved the ship slightly, although reports are confused as to the extent.

The next attempt is planned today, with full tide at 11.42am, local time, with the next on Tuesday at 12:08a.m local time, when the tide will be at 2.12 metres, given favourable winds.

However, Berdowski warns that the 400-plus tonnes of pulling power available is close to the maximum that can be applied. Thus, if today's attempt does not succeed, the plan to offload containers will be implemented – with the removal of some 600 being talked about. Little is being said of the stresses being imposed on the ship, and the risks attendant on unbalanced unloading, given the precarious position of the ship.

Should offloading be necessary, a crane-ship is being prepared in Alexandria and could be on station by Tuesday. Necessarily, unloading will be slow and no timeline can be given for freeing the vessel, if today's attempt fails.

Despite the importance of this incident, and its substantial effect on global trade – the UK media continue to run low-key reports, many with multiple errors. The Mirror for instance, ran the headline yesterday: "Megaship blocking Suez Canal starts to move as salvage firm boss reveals plan to clear tanker".

Pride of place goes to the Sunday Times which required three journalists and additional reporting by another to make multiple errors, starting with a reference to "a shipping container longer than the Empire State Building is tall", blocking the canal (now corrected online).

Confusing the weight of the cargo carried, at 220,000 tonnes – the displacement of the loaded ship - we were also gravely informed that the Ever Given had crashed into "the canal's thick concrete bank".

For want of factual accuracy, though we are treated to a rendition of Second Officer Ahmad Smayda's adventures, "a dashing Lebanese sailor", standing on the bridge of his vessel, looking out over the Suez Canal when, unbeknown to him, the Ever Given was about to smash into the non-existent concrete of the canal bank.

This is what I call "wallpaper journalism" in the style of Tim Shipman, political editor at the Sunday Times. Typically, he might have a prime minister gazing at the flock wallpaper, before he comes to a life or death decision. This is pretentious journalism at its most pretentious, implying a "fly on the wall" overview of events.

It also betrays a staggering arrogance - the assumption that the poor little plebs can't deal with a hard news story unless it's sugar-coated with human interest trivia, with a storyline suitable for a child's bedtime story. But this is what the Times thinks passes for "insightful analysis and thought-provoking perspectives". They throw in the delusion free of charge.

A slightly more adult perspective comes from the Guardian, picking up on the theme I introduced yesterday on whether this incident should have been predicted.

Under the headline, "Stranding of Ever Given in Suez canal was foreseen by many", the paper refers to an OECD report which, in 2015 raised concerns about the insurability of mega-ships and the costs of potential salvage in case of accidents, and even the impossibility of salvage operations of these ships under some circumstances.

It also remarks that to empty a 19,000 teu container ship in a remote location without port facilities could take as long as two years (the Ever Given is 20,000), which brings us to Kevin Whelan, Marine Claims Specialist, for the Allianz global insurance company.

Back in 2015, he was saying that the arrival of the "mega ships" had been accompanied by concerns about increasing risk, safety issues, salvage difficulties and therefore the potential for higher losses if a casualty occurs. These ships, he said, tested port and canal capacity, as well as the skills of their crews.

There are many variances and factors to consider when evaluating the cost of a potential loss scenario resulting from an incident involving such vessels, we are told. Most significantly, the average value of the contents of the containers and whether the vessel is completely laden or not, but also other influences such as shipping route/location.

In addition, he observed, if there is a salvage/removal of wreck situation, the major concern is that salvors do not have the equipment and resources to effectively deal with this. Such unchartered territory makes potential costs even more problematic to calculate.

Much of that is true of the current incident, where only now, after six days of blockage, are tugs of sufficient power arriving on the scene. That alone is a scandal which needs to be addressed.

But, with today being the "crunch" day, such considerations must wait. Now we will find whether the UK media is even capable of serious reporting.

Also published on Turbulent Times.