Union blames 2015 Houston Ship Channel collision on fuel

[Omaha Steve]

Source: Seattle Times-AP

HOUSTON (AP) — A union says fuel issues likely caused a 2015 collision between two vessels that led to a chemical spill in the Houston Ship Channel, home to one of the world’s largest petrochemical complexes.

The Houston Chronicle (http://bit.ly/28ITgjV ) reports that the Houston Pilots Association is challenging a federal review that blamed pilot errors for the accident, which partially closed the 50-mile channel for four days.

The National Transportation Safety Board urged Houston officials to emphasize better communication and bridge management. Officials also cited heavy fog when the Conti Peridot struck a chemical tanker.

Union officials say the accident was most likely caused by a switch to ultralow-sulphur fuel oil, leading the Conti Peridot to unexpectedly lose power seconds before the accident.


FILE – This March 11, 2015, file photo, shows the damaged hull of the Carla Maersk, a chemical tanker in the Houston Ship Channel after a collision March 9 with another vessel. A union has cited fuel issues as a likely cause of the 2015 collision between the two vessels leading to a chemical spill, challenging a federal review that blamed pilot errors. (Billy Smith II/Houston Chronicle via AP, File)

(Subscription required) Information from: Houston Chronicle, http://www.houstonchronicle.com

Read more: http://www.seattletimes.com/business/union-blames-2015-houston-ship-channel-collision-on-fuel/

[snooper2]

1. excuses excuses...

[tonyt53]

2. Man (the manufacturer) engines are used in a very high number of ships

Those engines are huge monsters. BUT, they will operate on all quality levels of fuel. The fuel bunkers of a ship, being under the water level, actually draw in so much moisture than many ships utilize centrifuges to separate the fuel from the water as it moves to the engine. Ships without centrifuges use other types of water separation devices, but still end up with high water content fuel entering the engines. The fuel cited is still a far better quality fuel than most ship fuels. Lame excuse.