The EU is planning to create a Black Sea Maritime Safety Hub.
It’s important because of the adversarial maritime climate there. The Black Sea is used by Ukraine, Russia, Turkey, and other nations as a port to the world. It’s busy, and there is danger of interference or attacks due to the war in Ukraine.
“The EU is committed to help turn the Black Sea into a mine-free sea basin through enhanced cooperation with its member states, the Black Sea partners, like-minded countries, and partner organizations,” it declares.
The plan does not propose a specific location for the hub but outlines a role in building maritime situational awareness through monitoring efforts. It would include a focus on submarine cables and offshore assets including gas and wind energy infrastructure. It would also focus on the dangers created by the shadow fleet of tankers involved in the Russian oil trade.
These are all useful functions for international trade in the area. Kudos to the EU for stepping up.
Some people think carbon capture onboard is going to be important in meeting emissions goals for ships. There is some entrepreneurship, and some interest by large oil producers and purveyors.
However, many problems remain to be solved. There is essentially no ‘supply chain’ to handle the liquefied carbon product the ships produce onboard from running the carbon capture equipment. Liquid CO2 has a market, but ports are not set up to move it from the ships to storage nor to distribute it into commercial channels.
And it’s not yet clear how much emissions reduction there will be when conventional fuel is burned on ships but the carbon is captured.
Nevertheless, there is activity in this segment. This article explains what’s happening in one case, based on info from classification society DNV.
There are also several links to resources about carbon capture for ship engines.
I’m quite skeptical of carbon capture. It’s nominally a good thing. But the cost of the storage may be large. And how much captured carbon can we reuse?
If the oil companies are back of it, how can it be all good? What are the pitfalls?
The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) Office of Marine Safety released a report on the Dali bridge ‘allision’ (not a collision) that destroyed the Francis Scott Key Bridge in Baltimore MD USA.
We all read with amazement at the destruction of this major bridge, which carries much East Coast auto and truck traffic between New York-Philadelphia and Washington DC. The cost to repair it is estimated at well over a billion dollars.
What caused the accident? The ship owner, ship operator, captain, and many insurance providers will be anxious to find out who can be held financially responsible— who is to blame.
The report indicates there was prior knowledge before the voyage of a loose cable connection which could have been responsible for the ship’s major 440V power system blacking out. That could be a cause of the accident since it would include the steering system and engines.
The team performing the investigation had a wide variety of members including the shipbuilder, classification society, flag-state port authorities, shipowner, and ship managers.
It may take a year to get the final report out. So no decisions are possible for quite a while.
It seems like a potential for a loose cable is something that should have been taken care of immediately if discovered. The accident occurred on 26 March. Why was it not discovered and fixed in prior inspections? I believe fixing it would have been time-consuming, causing quite a bit of lost steaming time. Were prior inspections not rigorous enough to disclose such problems? Or were the possibilities simply ignored? Maybe the lawyers will find out! See the second article below. And the US government is getting into the act (third article).
With the bridge repair costs so high, the stakes are large.
Supply Chain and Logistics 