Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

geezer466

Refloating The Concordia

Recommended Posts

Personally I think it should be left and fixed in place as a monument to Italian seamanship.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/italy/10310702/Costa-Concordia-operation-could-spew-toxic-soup-of-rotting-food-and-chemicals-into-sea.html

Some reckon there will be environmental disaster if it all goes wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some reckon there will be environmental disaster if it all goes wrong.

I thought I'd read this is the first time they've tried this technique on something so big and there is no plan B.

I bet the whole ship stinks if it's full of rotten food I wonder if the local port will get a whiff when they right it?

I'm surprised it's going to be scrapped I would have thought they could have repaired it and refitted it, I'm sure it would have been a huge attraction on the cruising scene.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The chap in charge of the operation was on the radio this morning. Nothing this big attempted before. Not just raising the tonnage of the ship but also the tonnage of water inside the ship.

Said that he expected some minor failure of the kit and seemed a tad concerned about getting it off the rocks.

Frankly, I am surprised that they are trying to raise her. Would you wish to travel in that ship in future? I thought they would just scrap her and cut her up where she was. Perhaps there was no insurance money and the cost of losing the ship will bankrupt the firm.

The cost of raising her must be enormous. Then the cost of refurbishing her. Presumably both are much cheaper than building a new ship?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Heard one of the pundits on the radio saying it could break its back as it is brought upright.

Got me to thinking...Do ships have a spine? Cos the captain of that one fecking didn't......:P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The chap in charge of the operation was on the radio this morning. Nothing this big attempted before. Not just raising the tonnage of the ship but also the tonnage of water inside the ship.

Said that he expected some minor failure of the kit and seemed a tad concerned about getting it off the rocks.

Frankly, I am surprised that they are trying to raise her. Would you wish to travel in that ship in future? I thought they would just scrap her and cut her up where she was. Perhaps there was no insurance money and the cost of losing the ship will bankrupt the firm.

The cost of raising her must be enormous. Then the cost of refurbishing her. Presumably both are much cheaper than building a new ship?

It's going to be scrapped after refloating

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the reporter says if this fails, the ship could end up on the bottom of the sea....like it isnt there already????

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, and it would pose an environmental hazard if left in place.

Refloating it is a daunting project, but that doesn't mean it shouldn't be attempted.

I was just addressing the misconception that it was to be refitted ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Frankly, I am surprised that they are trying to raise her.

Me too. Floating the thing in one piece seems to me like a stupidly difficult and expensive way to go. If it were me, I'd just pack the thing with semtex, blow it to bits and then retrieve and dispose of the bits.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Me too. Floating the thing in one piece seems to me like a stupidly difficult and expensive way to go. If it were me, I'd just pack the thing with semtex, blow it to bits and then retrieve and dispose of the bits.

Not_sure_if_serious.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was being serious. Old tower blocks that are too big to demolish with a ball and chain are regularly blown up to save time and money. I seem to remember reading earlier that all the potentially toxic chemicals (principally the fuel) has already been pumped out of this ship. If so, what factors rule out blowing it up into smaller chunks and then getting rid of the smaller chunks, which presumably would prevent the need to faff around with all this underwater infrastructure? I'm not a civil or marine engineer and am guessing that a reason exists, which is why this approach has been ruled out; but I'd be interested to know what that reason is. Too close to land and thus the risk exists that flying debris from the explosion would hit people and/or structures on the island?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was being serious. Old tower blocks that are too big to demolish with a ball and chain are regularly blown up to save time and money. I seem to remember reading earlier that all the potentially toxic chemicals (principally the fuel) has already been pumped out of this ship. If so, what factors rule out blowing it up into smaller chunks and then getting rid of the smaller chunks, which presumably would prevent the need to faff around with all this underwater infrastructure? I'm not a civil or marine engineer and am guessing that a reason exists, which is why this approach has been ruled out; but I'd be interested to know what that reason is. Too close to land and thus the risk exists that flying debris from the explosion would hit people and/or structures on the island?

the ship foundered in a tourist beauty spot. i'm not sure the locals would appreciate the pollution that would result from blowing the ship apart.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the ship foundered in a tourist beauty spot. i'm not sure the locals would appreciate the pollution that would result from blowing the ship apart.

But just think of how many tourists would come to see the fireworks show.

I actually saw the wreck myself a few months ago: when I was flying to Italy the captain told us to look out the window because we were flying right over it at the time. I had thought they must have raised it before then, I'm surprised it's been sitting there so long.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Me too. Floating the thing in one piece seems to me like a stupidly difficult and expensive way to go. If it were me, I'd just pack the thing with semtex, blow it to bits and then retrieve and dispose of the bits.

You mean something like this?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was being serious. Old tower blocks that are too big to demolish with a ball and chain are regularly blown up to save time and money. I seem to remember reading earlier that all the potentially toxic chemicals (principally the fuel) has already been pumped out of this ship. If so, what factors rule out blowing it up into smaller chunks and then getting rid of the smaller chunks, which presumably would prevent the need to faff around with all this underwater infrastructure? I'm not a civil or marine engineer and am guessing that a reason exists, which is why this approach has been ruled out; but I'd be interested to know what that reason is. Too close to land and thus the risk exists that flying debris from the explosion would hit people and/or structures on the island?

Buildings:

- made of brittle ceramics so shatter easily into nice small chunks with relatively little explosive

- on land, so cheap and easy to find the pieces and transport them away

Sunken ships in the sea:

- made of metal, will not shatter so much more explosive needed, probably going to end up with all different shapes and sizes

- in the sea, so expensive and difficult to find the pieces and transport them away. Floating debris will be carried away on currents and end up on beaches. Sunken debris will need specialist divers and salvage vessels costing $XXXXX per hour for many hours.

- getting the explosive inside a sunken ship in the first place is going to be a heck of a job in itself, can't just walk up the stairs or take the lift as you would with a building

Ship in a drydock:

- salvage equipment and manpower on site and out of water so much cheaper per hour

- less environmental damage

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's the best Italian accident I have ever heard of! Better them bumping a FIAT into a bollard! Still 32 deaths! :blink: Not nice! :o

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also reported this morning that there are still bodies suspected to be in the wreck, which there will now be attempts to recover. Another factor against demolition in situ...

They will take a bit of finding after 20 Months in the sea.

The environmentalists all speak about the pollution from the food which was on board. I would have thought the marine life would have dealt with a lot of that. Apart from the stuff sealed in freezers ect.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • The Prime Minister stated that there were three Brexit options available to the UK:   206 members have voted

    1. 1. Which of the Prime Minister's options would you choose?


      • Leave with the negotiated deal
      • Remain
      • Leave with no deal

    Please sign in or register to vote in this poll. View topic


×

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.