Delaware River Spill
 

The local paper here in NJ reports that the skipper and pilot on the tanker
that leaked up to 470 K gallons of heavy crude into the Delaware had
apparently done everything right on their trip up the river. They seem to
have stayed right in the channel all the way to the refinery docks, where a
pair of tugs took over to nudge the 700 foot tanker alongside. Then, in
some yet unexplained fashion, a hole was torn into the single-hulled vessel
and the leaks began.

The last sentence in the article reads: "One culprit [that may have caused
the gash in the hull] could be an 11 ton propeller that fell off and Army
Corps dredge on April."

Well, I'd certainly look into that possibility, fellas.
--
Good luck and good sailing.
s/v Kerry Deare of Barnegat
http://kerrydeare.home.comcast.net/

The mess is quickly moving up as well as down the river as well as into
the Schulykill River due to tide. Too bad that the spilll is now
entering a National Wildlife Refuge .... and the geese and ducks a
'in'. .... This is going to be a ****ty mess that will take months to
clean up. I passed the site the other day when the stong NW wind was
pushing it all toward NJ .... 35+kt. and the river was just a shiney
slimey millpond because of the slick.


In article , Armond Perretta
wrote:

The local paper here in NJ reports that the skipper and pilot on the tanker
that leaked up to 470 K gallons of heavy crude into the Delaware had
apparently done everything right on their trip up the river. They seem to
have stayed right in the channel all the way to the refinery docks, where a
pair of tugs took over to nudge the 700 foot tanker alongside. Then, in
some yet unexplained fashion, a hole was torn into the single-hulled vessel
and the leaks began.

The last sentence in the article reads: "One culprit [that may have caused
the gash in the hull] could be an 11 ton propeller that fell off and Army
Corps dredge on April."

Well, I'd certainly look into that possibility, fellas.

Rich Hampel wrote:
The mess is quickly moving up as well as down the river as well as
into the Schulykill River due to tide. Too bad that the spilll is
now entering a National Wildlife Refuge .... and the geese and
ducks a 'in'. .... This is going to be a ****ty mess that will
take months to clean up. I passed the site the other day when the
stong NW wind was pushing it all toward NJ .... 35+kt. and the
river was just a shiney slimey millpond because of the slick.

Until about 3 years ago I had been wintering in Riverside NJ (about 10 or so
miles above Philadelphia). Lately we have wintered down on Barnegat so I
will probably not suffer directly from this mess. However it is a sad fact
that in one way or another all of us, including the birds, are in for a
bashing that appears to result from a Corps of Engineers SNAFU.

Hey, what else is new?

--
Good luck and good sailing.
s/v Kerry Deare of Barnegat
http://kerrydeare.home.comcast.net/

Funny, the media around here (Baltimore) last reported the spill
as 10K gallons.

Doug
s/v CAllista

"Armond Perretta" wrote in message
...

The local paper here in NJ reports that the skipper and pilot on the
tanker
that leaked up to 470 K gallons of heavy crude into the Delaware had
apparently done everything right on their trip up the river. They seem to
have stayed right in the channel all the way to the refinery docks, where
a
pair of tugs took over to nudge the 700 foot tanker alongside. Then, in
some yet unexplained fashion, a hole was torn into the single-hulled
vessel
and the leaks began.

The last sentence in the article reads: "One culprit [that may have caused
the gash in the hull] could be an 11 ton propeller that fell off and Army
Corps dredge on April."

Well, I'd certainly look into that possibility, fellas.
--
Good luck and good sailing.
s/v Kerry Deare of Barnegat
http://kerrydeare.home.comcast.net/

This must be the same newsource that occasionally reports that the city
of Baltimore erroneously dumped a 'few' gallons of raw sewage into the
Patapsco River,etc. ... when in reality its usually hundreds of
thousands of gallons ... so thick you can almost walk on it.

In article , Steven
Shelikoff wrote:

On Mon, 6 Dec 2004 22:01:36 -0500, "Doug Dotson"
wrote:

Funny, the media around here (Baltimore) last reported the spill
as 10K gallons.

You must not have very good media in Baltimore. The very first reported
estimate was 30k gallons. Now that they've measured what was lost from
the ship it's more than 10 times that.

Steve

I've never heard of the City Of Baltimore dumping, but there are numerous
other small towns that have been caught doing it. We have a treatment plant
just up the creek from us that has been known to leak a bit :) Never seen
anything on the Patapsco that comes close to being able to walk on. The
biggie lately is Queentown on Queenstown Creek that had been dumping
for along time.

Doug
s/v Callista

"Rich Hampel" wrote in message
...
This must be the same newsource that occasionally reports that the city
of Baltimore erroneously dumped a 'few' gallons of raw sewage into the
Patapsco River,etc. ... when in reality its usually hundreds of
thousands of gallons ... so thick you can almost walk on it.

In article , Steven
Shelikoff wrote:

On Mon, 6 Dec 2004 22:01:36 -0500, "Doug Dotson"
wrote:

Funny, the media around here (Baltimore) last reported the spill
as 10K gallons.

You must not have very good media in Baltimore. The very first reported
estimate was 30k gallons. Now that they've measured what was lost from
the ship it's more than 10 times that.

Steve

In article ,
"Doug Dotson" wrote:

Funny, the media around here (Baltimore) last reported the spill
as 10K gallons.

Doug
s/v CAllista

Most oil spills are extremely had to quantify without a good handle
on just exactly how much was missing from the source. All the USCG
guys I have ever talked to about this issue, say they error on the
LARGE side, just to be safe, when doing the original reporting.
Big Mountain turns into small molehill, on the back pages of the NEWS
when the final number do actually come out..........


Me

NYC media are reporting that the exact spillage isn't known because the
tanker is listing so badly the gauges can't be read, so they don't know
how much is still in the tanks.