Printable Version of Topic Click here to view this topic in its original format

Celtic Radio Community > The Celts > Today's disaster

Posted by: Welsh Guy 19-Nov-2002, 07:06 PM

I don't know how much the US media covers things in the outside world, but I would like you all to spare a moment for the people of Galicia, one of the oldest Celtic Nations in Europe. Today a 24 year old single hull Tanker called the "Prestige" carrying 70,000Tons of oil split in two off the coast of Galicia in Northern Spain and has devastated the wildlife and fishing communities of the area. This is a bigger tragedy than the "Exon Valdise" off Alaska and will take many years to heal. These tankers have been outlawed by the European Commision, though they allowed for a five year phasing out period. The result is that oil companies, greedy for profits, have been maximising their use of these "rust buckets" while they can. Galicia is one of the most ecologically sensitive coastlines in Europe and as a Celtic Nation (related to Wales and Cornwall) I would like to extend our deepest sympathy to our cousins.

Posted by: free2Bme 19-Nov-2002, 10:23 PM

How terribly sad! Thanks for the info - unfortunately our American news is all gobbled up by the War on Terrorism. The oil companies sound like a bunch of ecocolgical terrorists!

Posted by: Macfive 19-Nov-2002, 10:54 PM

I've seen alot of news coverage on this terrible tragedy on the big news sites such as msnbc and cnn. Our sympathy to Galicia and our hopes that this mess can be cleaned up. I know alot of new technology has been developed to clean up these spills, but not on this level. Hopefully those big internal tanks have not broken apart. Has anyone heard if they have. The last I heard was they may be on the bottom of the floor and depending on the tempertures may solidify - but I am sure that is the best scenerio.....

Posted by: Catriona 20-Nov-2002, 05:03 AM

According to the BBC News this morning, the hulk lies 3 miles down and they are not sure whether or not the unbreached storage areas will remain secure.  Work is ongoing to ascertain what to do next.

Posted by: Cabbagehome 21-Nov-2002, 04:39 AM

This is a  terrible tragedy, that was so unnessary. Why do companys force us to be so dependent on OIL. There are so many better way to get energy. All of our prayers, go out to Galicia, and everyone working to clean this up.

Posted by: Falachaidh 30-Nov-2002, 03:29 PM

How aweful! My heart goes out and thoughts of a thorough recovery. Man definately takes too much away from nature.

Posted by: Catriona 01-Dec-2002, 04:51 PM

The BBC carried a report first thing this morning that another, worse, spill was coming ashore from the ship... There are demonstrations today at Santiago de Campostela...  Those poor people rely on the sea for a living...  For two weeks they have been unable to put to sea.  It now looks as thought it is even worse than first thought.

Posted by: scottish2 01-Dec-2002, 06:00 PM

I personally feel it's time the people of the world united and demand not ask but demand that their government (yes US Included) make tougher environmental laws to help prevent this in the future and if they refuse hold them accountable for every single action that their inaction caused! I mean a lot of this is preventable. FOr instance why not push that by 2010 at the latest automakers produce only electric cars or at least hybrid and 5-10 years later full electric or something less polluting. This alone if done the world around would get rid of a lot of gas usage hence less oil would be needed and also less pollution from auto exhust!

Posted by: Catriona 02-Dec-2002, 02:48 AM

It's the USA that, consistently, drags its feet in conservation matters.  Look how many times recently they have refused to ratify agreements made by all other major countries. I recently read somewhere that the USA consumes over 70 per cent of the world's oil..... 70 per cent.....   that's mind-blowing.  Perhaps a price hike to the levels in Europe might make Americans think twice about still going for bigger and better cars, off-roaders, and what we call 'people carriers'...   small van-type cars that carry 7 or 8 people.... Cynics say that the US' stance on Iraq is as much to do with securing oil interests as anything to do with terrorism.

Posted by: scottish2 02-Dec-2002, 05:25 AM

But as I said why bother with Oil why do we need to coddle the oil companies. What are we afraid of what that a few people might lose their job. Hey we have to look out for ourselves first before corporations that help destroy our fragile ecosystem and the internal combustion engine is a dinosaur that doesn't know it's obsolete. Am going to post this speech that Steven Seagal gave at the end of the movie "On Deadly Ground" While I don't know the validity of teh speech in actual terms I do feel it is probably close to being accurate even for a movie. Quote The Message of the film "On Deadly Ground" made in a speech by Steven Seagal How many of you out there have heard of alternative engines? Engines that can run on anything from alcohol to garbage and water? Or carburetors that can get hundreds of miles to the gallon? Or electric or magnetic engines that can practically run for ever? You don't know about them because if they were to come into use, they'd put the oil companies out of business. The concept of the internal combustion engine has been obsolete for fifty years. But because of the oil cartels and corrupt government regulations we, and the rest of the world, have been forced to use gasoline for over one hundred years. Big business is primarily responsible for destroying the water we drink, the air that we breathe and the food we eat. They have no care for the world they destroy. Only for the money they make in the process. How many oil spills can we endure? Millions and millions of gallons of oil are now destroying the oceans and the many forms of life it supports. Among these is plankton, which supplies 60 to 90 percent of the earth's oxygen, which supports the entire marine eco-system which forms the basis of our planet's food supplies. But the plankton is dying. I thought well, let's go to some remote state or country, anywhere on earth. But in doing a little research I realized these people brought their toxic waste all over the world. They basically control the legislation, and in fact they control the law. The law says that no company can be fined over $25,000 a day. For a company making $10 million a day by dumping lethal toxic waste into the ocean it's only good business to continue doing this. They influence the media so that they can control our minds. They make it a crime to speak out for ourselves. And if we do so, we're called conspiracy nuts. We're laughed at. We're all angry because we're all being chemically and genetically damaged, and we don't even realize it. Unfortunately this will affect our children. We go to work each day and right under our noses we see our car and the car in front of us spewing noxious and poisonous gasses that are cumulative poisons. These poisons kill us slowly, even when we see no effect. How many of us would have believed if we were told twenty years ago that on a certain day we wouldn't be able to see fifty feet in front of us? That we wouldn't be able to take a deep breath because the air would be a mass of poisonous gas? That we wouldn't be able to drink out of our faucets, that we'd have to buy water out of bottles? The most common and God given rights have been taken away from us. Unfortunately the reality of our lives is so grim nobody wants to hear it. Now I have been asked what we can do. I think we need a responsible body of people that can actually represent us rather than big business. This body of people must not allow the introduction of anything into our environment that is not absolutely biodegradable or able to be chemically neutralized upon production. And finally, as long as there is profit to be made from the polluting our earth, companies and individuals will continue to do what they want. We have to force these companies to operate safely and responsibly, with all our best interests in mind, so that when they don't we can take back our resources and our hearts and our minds to do what's right.

Posted by: Catriona 02-Dec-2002, 05:54 AM

Sorry to appear ignorant.... but who is Steven Seagal? In lots of European we use a system of gas driven buses and/or trams.  I try, whenever possible to use public transport and not a car.  Many, many Europeans do likewise!  It's time that, as you say, the people in America learn that they cannot be the most conspicuous consumers of oil.....    It pollutes the planet! I think that if more US citizens believed like you do, that polluting the planet is wrong, then surely legislators in your country would start to see that ratifying Treaties that the rest of the world hold to be necessary is the only way forward?

Posted by: scottish2 02-Dec-2002, 08:35 AM

Steven Seagal is a martial Artist/actor similar to Chuck Norris or Jean Claude Van Dam. In this case Seagals movie had an environmental storyline to it. Based on oil and similar issues in Alaska where the movie was set it. As for the us government changing this that's almost laughable that it will even happen. With Bush at the helm he's determined to oppose any such environmentally freidnly laws and congress isn't much better they sell their sopuls to the highest bidder meaning if the corporations pay more they'll back the corps everytime. And as for getting people behind an innitative to protect the environment that's like trying to wake a sleeping giant almost impossible though we're trying we just have to get folks to get some courage to stand up to the government and demand for better laws that protect the environment because once that's gone it might never come back and surly not in our lifetimes and that goes got the child who was born this very second even he/she won't see the environment recover in his/her lifetime if it continues the way it is.

Posted by: Catriona 02-Dec-2002, 04:22 PM

Oh.... I've honestly never seen a movie made by any of the three men you have mentioned .... all that gung-ho posturing is not to my taste     Isn't Sylvester Stallone a similar type of actor? I think it's sad that the US govt is so slack on environmental issues.....   As the world's most powerful economy, they should be LEADING the way, not putting obstacles in the way of environmentally sound policies for the world...

Posted by: scottish2 02-Dec-2002, 04:50 PM

Well shrub (Bush Jr.) didn't even bother attending the latest symposium on the environment held in South Africa recently' But then again he could care less about the environment. Lets see just some of Bush's agendas He's proposed opening a wildlife refuge so we can get more oil. He's proposed logging to help supposedly prevent forest fires. I mean come on what are we suppose to do cut every tree down in the world because it MIGHT create a forest fire. This is but two issues I am aware of am sure more exist because of his nature. The love of environmentally unfriendly practices such as oil.

Posted by: scottish2 02-Dec-2002, 07:34 PM

ARe you as tired of oil usage as I am? Have a look at what Green Peace is doing to help the situation and join in helping to Save the Earth!   http://www.greenpeace.org/international_en/features/details?features%5fid=70689

Posted by: free2Bme 02-Dec-2002, 09:39 PM

Scottish2 you seem to forget that Shrub and Big Daddy are Texas Oil Tycoons - where do you think they got their wealth in the first place? They were millionaires long before they became politicians. They are in office for the sole purpose of protecting their financial investments - not for serving the public interest! BTW, oil is used for more than just automobile fuel - every piece of plastic in the USA is also made from oil. Think of a product packed inside a plastic bottle, encased in a plastic shrinkwrap, that is sealed inside a box with more shrink wrap, then after you buy it you carry it home in a plastic bag! Some people think that plastic is environmentally friendly because you haven't cut any trees down to make it - but it is manufactured from a non-renewable energy source!

Posted by: scottish2 02-Dec-2002, 09:55 PM

No I know shrub and Big daddy get their money from oil that's why I closed with Quote This is but two issues I am aware of am sure more exist because of his nature. The love of environmentally unfriendly practices such as oil. And there are always packing alternatives we just have to force corporations to be environmentally friendly corporations or else we boycott their products. But I mentioned autos because that is the main source for usage between gas and oil used in the internal combustion engine.

Posted by: Catriona 03-Dec-2002, 03:17 AM

I know that petroleum oil is used for more than just cars....  but cars are a big contributor to the pollutants which are poisoning our world. Re packaging.  We have had a strong movement in the UK for the past 10 years or so, to minimise the packaging used on products....  It has not been welcomed by everyone, but a number of major manufacturers HAVE reduced the amount of packaging on their goods...  and any reduction can only help the planet. Every household I know have recycling bins - paper, glass etc.  The UK has major bottle banks at every supermarket, it just becomes second nature to take all your empty glass bottles with you when you go shopping.  The USA needs to become more ecologically aware.  Not just single people like Scottish2 - but your central government and local government, too.

Posted by: scottish2 03-Dec-2002, 06:09 AM

I know some communities in the US do have a recycling program but many (too many in my opinion) still don't have anything or if they do it's like my community where the individual has to goto the rfecycling area and dump off their recyclables. And I get so Piss ed off when I see things like I did the other day. This lady in front of my at the dump (our dump and recycling area are same general area) anyways she had this huge clear garbage bag loaded with PLastic bottles all in one bag I though oh what a nice lady she's got all that plastic and is recycling it. I spoke 2 seconds too early she dumped the whole bag into the garbage dumpster. I mean why bother to even separate it if you're going to do that but she did it. Needless to say I let her have it I asked her why she was so lazy she couldn't walk the few extra feet and dump it in the correct bin so it would be recycled she just gave me this weird funny look got back in her gas guzzler and drove off. People like that just iinfurierate me that is majority of the reason we have so many problem in this country (US) because too many (way to many in my opinion) would prefer the easy way out instead of standing up to something be it recycling or be it standing up to government corruption. Come on America WAKE UP this ain't the country of GOLDEN streets.

Posted by: scottish2 03-Dec-2002, 07:06 AM

This is what I mean about Shrub. ALso if you want to read this off the LA Times website it's free but you have to register, otherwise the article is below. http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-ed-forest3dec03,0,3426291.story Quote December 3, 2002 EDITORIAL Selling Out the Forests The Bush administration's assault on environmental protection reaches an appalling new high -- or low -- with the U.S. Forest Service's proposal to essentially gut 20-year-old management planning rules for deciding the most appropriate uses of the nation's 192 million acres of national forest. The proposal, to become effective in 90 days, will "better harmonize the environmental, social and economic benefits" of the forests, the Forest Service said in a press release. That's bureaucratic gibberish for eroding safeguards under the National Environmental Policy Act that protect fish and wildlife. This will be done by reducing the public's participation in the planning process and its ability to appeal bad decisions to the courts. The Forest Service even has the gall to claim that the new rule will emphasize modern scientific knowledge, but environmental scientists say it actually will reduce the role of scientists in the planning process. The plan offers more "flexibility" to forest managers, the Forest Service says. That means forest managers can designate areas for future logging without studying the impact on wildlife, watersheds and public recreation throughout the forest. The loggers, who consider the present system slow and cumbersome, support the change. The Forest Service says there's no need to do an environmental study during the forestwide planning process. The study can be done when individual projects, such as a timber sale, are undertaken. But that change sidesteps the major purpose of the National Forest Management Act of 1976, which directs the Forest Service to develop a management plan for each of the 175 forests and grasslands. The plans are the means of determining the most appropriate uses of various parts of the forests over a 15-year period and studying the relative impact of those uses on the rest of the forest. In California, population pressures have brought about a greater recognition of the need for recreational uses of the forests, including hiking, backpacking, hunting, fishing and backcountry skiing, and for reduced logging. The current rules require the Forest Service to conduct a formal environmental impact study whenever the management plans are revised or significantly amended. The planners must consider alternatives. Through a hearing and comment process, the public has a chance to balance one against the other and offer support or opposition. The new rule allows forest managers to exempt forest plans from such environmental studies. There would be only one choice, that of the forest manager. No longer would the plans have to give first priority to protection of the forest environment or maintain legal protection for wildlife. The Forest Service says it's not changing national goals for protecting the forests. If that's so, there's no point in junking the present rules. They are complex, but they work.

Posted by: MDF3530 04-Dec-2002, 01:16 PM

The Republicans, including the Bushes, rely on P.T. Barnum's theory of the amazing birth rate of simpletons when it comes to politics. They know that military actions are easy ways to delay public abuse for having a weak economy. I fell for it back in 1991. Then I saw how inept the elder Bush was at ramrodding his domestic policies through Congress.

Posted by: scottish2 04-Dec-2002, 08:45 PM

In my view it's the entire government not just the republicrates. The entire government believes "there's a sucker born every minute".

Posted by: Aon_Daonna 05-Dec-2002, 12:28 PM

www.firstfoot.com http://www.firstfoot.com

Posted by: MDF3530 08-Dec-2002, 05:47 PM

Quote (scottish2 @ Dec. 04 2002,8:45) In my view it's the entire government not just the republicrates. The entire government believes "there's a sucker born every minute". I stand corrected.

Posted by: scottish2 08-Dec-2002, 05:58 PM

Well not sure if you followed our breif politics forum but I don't mind voicing my dislove for the US Government. I just wished more people would stand up for themselves.

Posted by: Macfive 08-Dec-2002, 09:05 PM

Quote (Catriona @ Dec. 03 2002,04:17) The USA needs to become more ecologically aware.  Not just single people like Scottish2 - but your central government and local government, too. Ok, I've been away from the forum for a while, but I will jump right in! I know it is easy to bash the U.S. for consuming more than its fair share of oil, but alot of good has come from the technology generated by the economy for the past 10 years. A top priority of the current administration is developing a viable fusion reactor within 35 years. So what is fusion you may ask? It is what powers the sun, it is what will save humunity from polluting the earth. There is no nuclear radiation or waste generated from a fusion reactor. Of course, there are many scientific milestones that will have to be passed in order to build a fusion reactor, but we know from theory it is possible. It is physics and it will work. Once the fusion problem is solved we will have a virtually unending supply of energy and fosil fuels will become a thing of the past.

Posted by: scottish2 08-Dec-2002, 09:30 PM

Bush he's so funny. Throws a bone one way while tearing it away someplace else. If he's really worried about the Environment he'd stop proposing idiotic proposals like cutting down the forests to prevent forest fires or drilling for oil instead of finding viable alternatives that are more environmentally friendly.

Posted by: Cabbagehome 09-Dec-2002, 12:10 PM

Quote (scottish2 @ Dec. 04 2002,9:45) In my view it's the entire government not just the republicrates. The entire government believes "there's a sucker born every minute". OK! It is a government, by the people, for the people, of the people. The is not bad It is the politicians, that think they are the GOVERNMENT. It is wrong thinking on the part of the cititizans, that let's them get away with it.   Why do cival servants think they are doing us a favor, every time we call on them to do their job, for us? Now they are having a fit, because Bush says no pay raise for them.

Posted by: scottish2 09-Dec-2002, 12:28 PM

Well again my view only but anyone who thinks this is anywherer near a Constitutional government needs to reread the Constitution because it is far from it' Specifically read Article 1 Section 8 and then ask yourself where congress gets the power for a good majority of the programs they run now a day. Providing for the general welfare isn't an autjhorization to force people into a Social insecurity program. But specifically read section 8 as that lays forth congresses VERY VERY limited powers! Not clearly how small their jurisdiction is also right near the end of Section 8 http://www.archives.gov/exhibit_hall/charters_of_freedom/constitution/constitution_transcription.html

Posted by: free2Bme 09-Dec-2002, 01:28 PM

I saw a bumper sticker recently that sums it all up for me: I LOVE my COUNTRY, It's the GOVERNMENT I HATE!

Posted by: scottish2 09-Dec-2002, 03:02 PM

Yeah have seen that many times and it's something I live by. I do hate the US Government but they do not make up America! IN fact was listening to a recent tax protest and in it they quoted one of the fouding fathers in which they said "Discent is the highest form of patriotism." Because that means you're willing to stand up and protect what this country stands for not what the government would wish you to believe it stands for.

Posted by: MDF3530 09-Dec-2002, 05:19 PM

Quote (free2Bme @ Dec. 09 2002,1:28) I saw a bumper sticker recently that sums it all up for me: I LOVE my COUNTRY, It's the GOVERNMENT I HATE! I've seen that one. The best political bumper sticker I've seen though was "A WORKING MAN VOTING FOR BUSH WOULD BE LIKE A CHICKEN VOTING FOR COLONEL SANDERS. I thought that was hilarious.

Posted by: scottish2 09-Dec-2002, 05:55 PM

LOL that's also a good one.

Posted by: MDF3530 10-Dec-2002, 05:23 PM

Thanks, Scottish2.

Posted by: scottish2 10-Dec-2002, 06:39 PM

Yeah it's fun ot make fun of the government.

Posted by: Cabbagehome 11-Dec-2002, 08:56 AM

the best trueism is "I love my country! I fear my goverment".  I think all the public servants (includes the politiacians) should have to make a report, showing what good they did, in order to get paid. More people should get involved in the Washingon Watch. Hey, why can they say what our children need to learn. Were are those school vouchers, we were promised? Our local schools should teach, what the people, who pay for them say. Not some dribble, from some feel good, think tank professor that has no value to the kids ablity to read, etc. Where do teachers, get off being unfireable. If they don't produce, sack them.

Posted by: scottish2 11-Dec-2002, 09:23 AM

Question should be why is the Federal Government even involved in Education? Here is Article 1 Section 8 of the US Constitution can you show me anywhere where in these very limited powers congress has been given the authority to control education? I will tend to wager you can't at least not without stretching the Section/Clause to mean more then it says. Clause 8 (Note clause not section. CLauses are subparts of sections. Just wanted to clarify that being it is section 8 clause 8 I am refering to.) is the closest you will find and even this doesn't relate to education but to science in the essense of advancing technologies and that sort of stuff but doesn't include schooling or education. http://www.archives.gov/exhibit_hall/charters_of_freedom/constitution/constitution_transcription.html Quote Section. 8. The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States; To borrow Money on the credit of the United States; To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes; To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States; To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures; To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States; To establish Post Offices and post Roads; To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries; To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court; To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations; To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water; To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years; To provide and maintain a Navy; To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces; To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions; To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress; To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;--And To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

Posted by: MDF3530 11-Dec-2002, 03:59 PM

Quote (scottish2 @ Dec. 10 2002,6:39) Yeah it's fun to make fun of the government. I know, Thistle . BTW, I corrected your spelling.

Posted by: scottish2 11-Dec-2002, 04:58 PM

Yeah that's the problem when I start typing about the gubermint (not a typo   )

Posted by: maggiemahone1 12-Dec-2002, 08:03 AM

Quote (Macfive @ Dec. 08 2002,10:05) Quote (Catriona @ Dec. 03 2002,04:17) The USA needs to become more ecologically aware.  Not just single people like Scottish2 - but your central government and local government, too. Ok, I've been away from the forum for a while, but I will jump right in! I know it is easy to bash the U.S. for consuming more than its fair share of oil, but alot of good has come from the technology generated by the economy for the past 10 years. A top priority of the current administration is developing a viable fusion reactor within 35 years. So what is fusion you may ask? It is what powers the sun, it is what will save humunity from polluting the earth. There is no nuclear radiation or waste generated from a fusion reactor. Of course, there are many scientific milestones that will have to be passed in order to build a fusion reactor, but we know from theory it is possible. It is physics and it will work. Once the fusion problem is solved we will have a virtually unending supply of energy and fosil fuels will become a thing of the past. I found this article at Ancestry.com... Clipping of the day...From the Fayetteville Daily Democrat (Fayetteville, Arkansas)  11 December 1922: Lack of coal drives people to new interest in the scientists' promise that some day we'll tap the heat of the sun.  But no sooner do we start looking into that source of supply than we find the sun's got a huge hole in it, growing bigger. maggiemahone1

Posted by: scottish2 27-Dec-2002, 09:32 AM

Have been meaning to post this and it got lost in the hoiliday mails http://www.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/europe/12/16/channel.wreck/index.html The 2 ships involved Quote DOVER, England (CNN) -- A cargo ship has run into the sunken Tricolor, the vessel that sank in the English Channel in one of the world's busiest shipping lanes. The Nicola, a 3,000 tonne ship registered in the Dutch Antilles, struck the Norwegian vessel, which sank off Dunkirk on Saturday after a collision with another vessel in thick fog. The Nicola was stuck on top of The Tricola for several hours before being pulled free by two tugboats on Monday morning, . A French Maritime Authority spokesman said The Nicola was not believed to have suffered serious damage. It is currently anchored nearby. The Tricolor, a Norwegian-registered car carrier, was carrying £30 million ($47.7m) worth of luxury cars when it sank in the English Channel in the early hours of Saturday following a collision with another vessel in fog. Although all of its crew escaped unharmed, the tanker -- and its cargo of almost 3,000 BMWs, Volvos and Saabs -- lay just below the surface. A team of eight and a vessel from salvage company Smit Tak are in position about 20 miles east of the Kent coast to check the Tricolor for oil leaks. High winds and strong sea currents prevented divers from going down to the wreck to assess damage on Sunday. The 95 metre-long Nicola, which was built two years ago and had seven people on board, hit the Tricolor at about 2 a.m. as it travelled from La Coruna in northern Spain to Rotterdam. It is not known what the ship is carrying.   The damage to the Kariba illustrates the force of the collision   French coastguards are dealing with the Tricolor as it is lying on its side in French waters. The French warship Geranium, sent from Cherbourg, was alongside the Tricolor to alert other ships to the wreck. A single buoy marked the spot. When weather improves, three or four buoys will be placed around the wreck. The Tricolor was carrying the cars from Zeebrugge, in Belgium, to Southampton, England. In a statement, Per Ronnevig, spokesman for shipping firm Wilhelmsen Lines, which owned the carrier, said as well as the cars, the Tricolor was also transporting 77 other cargo units, which mainly consisted of tractors and crane parts. The vessel was estimated to be worth £25.1 million ($39.9). Ronnevig said the the cargo would probably have to be written off. He said: "I think we must consider it lost. She probably capsized when she went down. It means that all the cars are probably lying in pieces down there." The Tricolor sank after colliding with the container ship Kariba, which was said to be severely damaged. The 175-metre, 20,829-ton cargo vessel Kariba was carrying containers and was on its way from Antwerp, in Belgium, to Le Havre, in France. After the incident it limped back to Antwerp for damage inspection. Investigators are due to question the crew of both vessels.

Powered by Invision Power Board (https://www.invisionboard.com)
© Invision Power Services (https://www.invisionpower.com)