.
:
?. '
…
V£
«…m
«
?
$ËILLSBIf—GEad
«« "‘
-”%î ’?7
.
;
«
_
.
_
.
_:
_
.
.
-
.
wma: www-www
'"‘fw«..««
,
{ mon AWæ"M au meme.
…
-
rom: - æws - … — mu
nw__m u mm» mm …: mu mmW ms mpm
,
‘
'
«W
?
o
.
,
'
Giant Tankers—Gmni Problems
_Ï«f'
'
The loss of the tanker was attributed to negligence on the ”partof its captain
in later maritime hearings [2], but the environmental problems caused by the
95,000 tons of crude oil released from its hulk are part of a worldwide pattern
that cannot be understood on the basis of human inattention in one isolated
case. The reasons for the rising tide of pollution at sea and in fresh water are
more closely related to the underlying trends and aSsumptions that motivate
our current approaches to the transport of material on water, the manufac—
ture of goods, and the disposal of wastes. There were two major incentives for
the development of the modern supertanker. One was that the larger the
tanker—up to a point—the lower the construction costs per ton of tanker
carrying capacity and the lower the operating cost. The other stimulus was
that these ships could bypass the Suez Canal, risky in polically troubled
and still show cdnsiderable prot because of the large volume of oil
they carried [3].
The commitment to _construct giant tankers was originally made primarily
on economic grounds, with no serious assessment of the possible environmen—
tal hazards. Now, engineering problems and the risk of mammoth oil spls
haveb00sted annual insurance premiums to as much as $1 million for each
ship, ,or,m0re than four timesthe rate originally anticipated— by shippers[4}.
Despite this sharp reduction in their protability, some 200 of the bigships
»
recent years. The vessels are technology’s answer
.“
'
69
:
?. '
…
V£
«…m
«
?
$ËILLSBIf—GEad
«« "‘
-”%î ’?7
.
;
«
_
.
_
.
_:
_
.
.
-
.
wma: www-www
'"‘fw«..««
,
{ mon AWæ"M au meme.
…
-
rom: - æws - … — mu
nw__m u mm» mm …: mu mmW ms mpm
,
‘
'
«W
?
o
.
,
'
Giant Tankers—Gmni Problems
_Ï«f'
'
The loss of the tanker was attributed to negligence on the ”partof its captain
in later maritime hearings [2], but the environmental problems caused by the
95,000 tons of crude oil released from its hulk are part of a worldwide pattern
that cannot be understood on the basis of human inattention in one isolated
case. The reasons for the rising tide of pollution at sea and in fresh water are
more closely related to the underlying trends and aSsumptions that motivate
our current approaches to the transport of material on water, the manufac—
ture of goods, and the disposal of wastes. There were two major incentives for
the development of the modern supertanker. One was that the larger the
tanker—up to a point—the lower the construction costs per ton of tanker
carrying capacity and the lower the operating cost. The other stimulus was
that these ships could bypass the Suez Canal, risky in polically troubled
and still show cdnsiderable prot because of the large volume of oil
they carried [3].
The commitment to _construct giant tankers was originally made primarily
on economic grounds, with no serious assessment of the possible environmen—
tal hazards. Now, engineering problems and the risk of mammoth oil spls
haveb00sted annual insurance premiums to as much as $1 million for each
ship, ,or,m0re than four timesthe rate originally anticipated— by shippers[4}.
Despite this sharp reduction in their protability, some 200 of the bigships
»
recent years. The vessels are technology’s answer
.“
'
69