Page 2 of 2 [ 24 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2

Fnord
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 May 2008
Age: 64
Gender: Male
Posts: 50,540
Location: Stendec

29 Mar 2021, 10:54 am

goldfish21 wrote:
Even the Saudis are selling off shares in their oil company - the world's most profitable company.. and you don't do that if you think it's going to remain so over the long term.

$ is better spent building solar farms and wind/river/tidal power plants than pipelines or other oil shipping routes.
But if they let the Suez Canal fill with sand, then their supply of hand-crafted 24ct toilets will have to be shipped around the Horn of Africa!

:wink: Oh, the humanity!


_________________
 Link to Official List of Trump's Atrocities 

45OFFICE = TRE45ON
Lock Him Up!


naturalplastic
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Aug 2010
Age: 66
Gender: Male
Posts: 26,849
Location: temperate zone

29 Mar 2021, 12:34 pm

Fnord wrote:
goldfish21 wrote:
Fnord wrote:
I have a silly idea ... why not run some dredging machinery through the canal every month or so to keep it deep?
Pretty sure it's plenty deep in the middle where ships are supposed to travel.. but how can the shores be expected to be sheer drops and just as deep? Problem is that wind kicked a 400m long vessel sideways. If the canal is to be large enough for a ship like that to make a loop right around, well, it'd have to be WAY wider.. probably a whole lot simpler to just limit the length of ships to 350m or whatever. OR just deal with a one-in-a-Million situation like this should it ever occur again.
Did the builders just dig a long ditch through the sandy desert and hope it would not fill in again?

Did they not line the trench with concrete walls to hold back the dirt and provide a water-tight channel?

Woulda done nothing to prevent it.

The ship did not get stuck in the bottom. It veared off course and rammed into both shores of the land around the canal.



Fnord
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 May 2008
Age: 64
Gender: Male
Posts: 50,540
Location: Stendec

29 Mar 2021, 12:44 pm

naturalplastic wrote:
Fnord wrote:
goldfish21 wrote:
Fnord wrote:
I have a silly idea ... why not run some dredging machinery through the canal every month or so to keep it deep?
Pretty sure it's plenty deep in the middle where ships are supposed to travel.. but how can the shores be expected to be sheer drops and just as deep? Problem is that wind kicked a 400m long vessel sideways. If the canal is to be large enough for a ship like that to make a loop right around, well, it'd have to be WAY wider.. probably a whole lot simpler to just limit the length of ships to 350m or whatever. OR just deal with a one-in-a-Million situation like this should it ever occur again.
Did the builders just dig a long ditch through the sandy desert and hope it would not fill in again?  Did they not line the trench with concrete walls to hold back the dirt and provide a water-tight channel?
Woulda done nothing to prevent it.  The ship did not get stuck in the bottom.  It veered off course and rammed into both shores of the land around the canal.
Yes, it rammed into the sloping shores.  If the sides had been vertical and free of sand, would that have made any difference?  We may never know.

Maybe if those who run the canal would issue "Full stop and drop anchor" orders whenever there are high winds and/or low visibility, there would be fewer groundings ... ?  Again, we may never know.


_________________
 Link to Official List of Trump's Atrocities 

45OFFICE = TRE45ON
Lock Him Up!


GGPViper
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Sep 2009
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,880

29 Mar 2021, 3:37 pm

*grumpy old man voice*

Goddamn kids! Stop fiddlin' with those shipping containers and get back to work!

Back when I was young in the 30's (1730's) we carried shipping containers filled with oversized tungsten anvils on our own backs across the scorching hot desert Egyptian desert during a freezing blizzard!

We didn't get no breaks, water or fancy TV coverage, either. And we got all our food from eating the dead!

... degenerates, freeloaders, mooches ... *mumbles*



naturalplastic
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Aug 2010
Age: 66
Gender: Male
Posts: 26,849
Location: temperate zone

29 Mar 2021, 6:14 pm

Fnord wrote:
naturalplastic wrote:
Fnord wrote:
goldfish21 wrote:
Fnord wrote:
I have a silly idea ... why not run some dredging machinery through the canal every month or so to keep it deep?
Pretty sure it's plenty deep in the middle where ships are supposed to travel.. but how can the shores be expected to be sheer drops and just as deep? Problem is that wind kicked a 400m long vessel sideways. If the canal is to be large enough for a ship like that to make a loop right around, well, it'd have to be WAY wider.. probably a whole lot simpler to just limit the length of ships to 350m or whatever. OR just deal with a one-in-a-Million situation like this should it ever occur again.
Did the builders just dig a long ditch through the sandy desert and hope it would not fill in again?  Did they not line the trench with concrete walls to hold back the dirt and provide a water-tight channel?
Woulda done nothing to prevent it.  The ship did not get stuck in the bottom.  It veered off course and rammed into both shores of the land around the canal.
Yes, it rammed into the sloping shores.  If the sides had been vertical and free of sand, would that have made any difference?  We may never know.

Maybe if those who run the canal would issue "Full stop and drop anchor" orders whenever there are high winds and/or low visibility, there would be fewer groundings ... ?  Again, we may never know.


Doubt veritical walls would make a difference. The ship would have breached the concrete walls, caused them to collapse, causing the shores behind the walls to landslide into the water around both ends of the ship resulting in the same situation. It would have been unfeasible to build the whole length of the Suez that way anyway. Its not the Panama Canal - with locks- and therefore narrow ship sized channels. Its a wide mostly sea level water way.

But a warning system that kicks in during a sandstorm does seem to be needed- stop every ship simultaneous, both so they dont run aground, and so they dont rear end each other while blinded.



Fnord
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 May 2008
Age: 64
Gender: Male
Posts: 50,540
Location: Stendec

29 Mar 2021, 6:23 pm

We are into speculative territory now.

If the walls are thick enough, a ship traveling only a few knots (~ 5 mph) might not breach the walls.

However, the ship itself may be so badly damaged that it would sink and clog up the canal anyway.

Again, we may never know.


_________________
 Link to Official List of Trump's Atrocities 

45OFFICE = TRE45ON
Lock Him Up!


kitesandtrainsandcats
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 May 2016
Age: 58
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,232
Location: Missouri

29 Mar 2021, 7:08 pm

naturalplastic wrote:
But a warning system that kicks in during a sandstorm does seem to be needed- stop every ship simultaneous, both so they dont run aground, and so they dont rear end each other while blinded.


That might be a less wise idea than it sounds: a ship is a free-floating object in a fluid medium & the gale-force sandstorm winds would push it downwind, whichever direction that happens to be, since unlike a car on the road with the friction of rubber tires on the road surface to keep the car from blowing downwind, there is nothing which will keep a ship from being blown downwind.

Here, read this, (I lived in VA Beach in 1980s) https://www.pilotonline.com/news/articl ... 68cd1.html

A thought might come, "well then the ships should drop their anchors", and that will merely result in the ship being blown downwind of the point where the anchor sits on the bottom.
And this too is relevant to link above so I will now quote from link abov

Quote:
The wind at the Chesapeake Bay Bridge-Tunnel wafted from the southwest at 16 mph Tuesday evening. Just a few minutes later, the wind whirled and whipped from the north, and was gusting as high as 64 mph by 7:42 p.m. as a front rolled through.

A 751-foot cargo ship bobbed in the lower Chesapeake Bay just east of the bridge. The bulk carrier Ornak was anchored while it waited to go into port to pick up wheat.

Around 8:30 p.m., its anchor started dragging. The ship lurched south toward the coast. Its 22-member Polish crew started its engines and tried to turn the vessel. The wind, sustained at nearly 50 mph, was too much. They dropped a second anchor and called the Coast Guard.

It was too late.

The ship ran aground a few hundred yards from where it had originally anchored. It sat there on the bay's silty bottom near the 2800 block of Shore Drive on Wednesday morning. In just 15-1/2 feet of water, it showed no sign of budging.


And then there is a thing called steerageway, and a specific variation of it named bare steerageway - look them up.

And then there is a water current flow through the Suez Canal - remember, it has no locks, and there is a tidal flow along with that, so stopped ships would be moved by the current flow.


_________________
"There are a thousand things that can happen when you go light a rocket engine, and only one of them is good."
Tom Mueller of SpaceX, in Air and Space, Jan. 2011


jimmy m
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 Jun 2018
Age: 73
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,832
Location: Indiana

04 Apr 2021, 7:40 pm

Egypt’s first female captain falsely blamed for blocking Suez Canal

Egypt’s first female ship captain says she was wrongly blamed for the Suez Canal debacle — which occurred while she was on a different vessel hundreds of miles away. Marwa Elselehdar, 29, was at sea as the first mate in command of the Aida IV in Alexandria when the massive Ever Given container ship became accidentally stuck in the waterway, the BBC reported.

Image

But online rumors and fake news headlines spread that she was behind the maritime disaster, which held up the major shipping route for nearly a week before the Ever Given was freed.

The rumors about her involvement appeared to be driven by a screenshot of a doctored Arab News headline. "This fake article was in English, so it spread in other countries," Elselehdar told the BBC. "I tried so hard to negate what was in the article because it was affecting my reputation and all the efforts I exerted to be where I am now."


_________________
Author of Practical Preparations for a Coronavirus Pandemic.
A very unique plan. As Dr. Paul Thompson wrote, "This is the very best paper on the virus I have ever seen."