Originally posted by Watson Island Norway Fan: Back to this Tug-Barge site for a minute: Every permutation of their wording sounds more and more contrived. Makes you wonder who's putting them up to all this??
You may find these two posts from another forum interesting. Note the author also.
I looked at those links.....looks like tug-barge knows about as much as we do. How come nobody wants to disclose who the owner is? Like we can't figure out that it might be a scrap merchant?
DEPARTED MALAYSIA MAY 5TH UNDER TOW FOR DUBAI AT PRESENT
THE SHIP LEFT MALAYSIA OVER A WEEK AGO AND THE QUESTION NOW IS WHETHER OR NOT A BUYER COMES TO SAVE HER BEFORE IT'S TOO LATE.
THE VESSEL CAN STILL BE PURCHASED FOR USD24 MILLION
translation,
"potential buyers: give the present owners twice the money they paid for the ship....NOW........or...else....they'll just have to wait and see if they have to sell her for LESS than their purchase price when the Indian Supreme Court rules on July 8!!"
Ahoy Alex79818: You hit the nail right on the head. I bet you didn't even need to use BabelFish for that translation. It's pretty darn blatent, isn't it?
What would Tug-Barge say if somebody simply called them out on this?
"Yo, Tug-man. What's with this BS about DUBAI?" Everyone from BBC to CNN is reporting that the destination is ALANG. If the destination really was DUBAI (as they say in their ad) then there would be no need to step in and "save her (from destruction) before it's too late". As far as I know, there are no ship breakers in U.A.E.
Project DUBAI: Transforming S/S NORWAY into Hotel S/S FRANCE !!!
Posts: 265 | Location: Chapel Hill, NC, USA | Registered: February 06, 2006
Google News....about 52mins ago....the Gujarat Pollution Control Board (GPCB) decided today to ban the Norway altogether until 'experts' make an analysis. Sounds like the Norway is going to follow in the wake of the 'Clem'. I'll take this as good news.
Very strange information coming out of Tug Barge. As Watson Island points out ,if there are no scrappers in Dubai, Tug Barge have not explained why the ship is going there. Presumembly someone must have said "Can you tow my Blue Lady to Dubai please, Oh and on the way if someone else wants to buy it that's ok" Finally does anyone think there is any chance that even the thick skinned Star might be starting to get a bit p****d off with all this bad PR.I bet they wish they had fixed it now.
Finally does anyone think there is any chance that even the thick skinned Star might be starting to get a bit t****d off with all this bad PR.I bet they wish they had fixed it now.
You know, I've noticed that MOST of the articles refering to the ship as "toxic" or "poison" conveniently leave out the part about STAR or NCL being the real dirtybags here. Maybe we need to raise more awareness on THAT issue? I guess the press won't help us there, they seem pretty sympathetic to the Colin Veitches of the world.
Hey MICK, good point. There's a really large shipyard and drydock in Dubai, right?
btw: I'm guessing this is a MOOT point now, but according to Google Earth, DubaiWorld is 9.22 miles INLAND. Hahahahahaha
Project DUBAI: Transforming S/S NORWAY into Hotel S/S FRANCE !!!
Posts: 265 | Location: Chapel Hill, NC, USA | Registered: February 06, 2006
It seems they have been extending Dubai Creek inland see link below, but the Norway's not the sort of pleasure cruiser I think they had in mind when they started the job!
Aloha peterwalker45, Thanks for sharing that fascinating link. Boy, those guys in Dubai don't mess around, do they? Need some new waterfront property in the middle of the desert? No problem, we'll dig a big ol' CREEK to connect with the ocean. It'll only cost 54,000 Hummer fill-ups.
Project DUBAI: Transforming S/S NORWAY into Hotel S/S FRANCE !!!
Posts: 265 | Location: Chapel Hill, NC, USA | Registered: February 06, 2006
By decision VII/26, adopted at its seventh meeting, the Conference of the Parties to the Basel Convention requested the Open-ended Working Group to consider the practical, legal and technical aspects of the dismantling of ships in the context of achieving a practical approach to the issue of ship dismantling, to report on developments and to present any proposals, as appropriate, to the Conference of the Parties at its eighth meeting on a legally binding solution, taking into consideration the work of the International Maritime Organization and the work of the joint working group. 2. The Conference of the Parties also invited the International Maritime Organization(IMO)to continue to consider the establishment in its regulations of mandatory requirements, including a reporting system for ships destined for dismantling, that ensure an equivalent level of control as established under the Basel Convention and to continue work aimed at the establishment of mandatory requirements to ensure the environmentally sound management of ships dismantling, which might include pre-decontamination within its scope.
At its fifty-second session, which was held in October 2004, the Marine Environment Protection Committee agreed that certain sections of the IMO guidelines on ship recycling might be given mandatory effect and had developed an initial list of the elements of the guidelines for which a mandatory scheme might be considered the most suitable option for their implementation. A new IMO instrument that would provide legally binding and globally applicable ship-recycling regulations might be developed, it was said, but further work was needed before a specific proposal could be put forth. A draft schematic to describe a contemplated reporting system for ships destined for recycling had been developed, and MEPC had approved guidelines for the development of the ship-recycling plan.
My point is, there are no specific guidelines from the IMO and the MEPA. there's no definition or set of laws and regulations stating what an Environmentally Sound Management (ESM) is today.
Today, that's left to sovereign states to enact.
And that's a major problem with the Basil Convention. Developed nations, specifically the EU, forcing their sovereign laws onto undeveloped nations in the name of science.
Here's an interesting article about the EU Precaution-Based Standards, called Enlighten Environmentalism or Disguised Protectionis?
Briefly: This study discloses how the activities of economically and socially vital developing country industries, such as chemical manufacturing, ship-breaking, e-waste recycling and recovery and their many related downstream industries are threatened by overly stringent EU regulations and overly broad EU interpretations of MEA provisions. For example, the Precautionary Principle has been invoked unilaterally as justification for: 1) adopting a broad non-consensus-based interpretation of the Basel Conventions definition of hazardous waste; 2) imposing the Conventions not yet effective Ban Amendment; 3) applying the revised EU Waste Shipment Regulation; and 4) proposing the EUs REACH Regulation. Each of these measures are global in scope and place onerous and often insurmountable financial and administrative burdens upon small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) which comprise local cottage or informal sector industries that serve as a major source of employment and social stability within developing countries.
My point is, there are no specific guidelines from the IMO and the MEPA. there's no definition or set of laws and regulations stating what an Environmentally Sound Management (ESM) is today.
Today, that's left to sovereign states to enact.
This is true, but we are not at the waste processing stage yet. In other words, the practical/legal/technical aspects of dismantling are of no matter at this stage because SSBL is currently "stuck" in a stage previous to that, Import, which is also governed by Basel.
The implementation of the statutes governing what is or isn't toxic waste, for importing & exporting purposes, are not guidelines of an advisory nature, unlike ESM.
Insofar as the transboundary movement of waste before any ESM issues come to light at a shipbreaking facility, Basel clearly defines a vessel containing toxic waste chemicals as being toxic waste itself. The import of such waste into a non-OECD country, such as India, is flat-out illegal. Wether or not the owner or the governments involved care in another issue.
The loophole that affects her at this time is her owner's ability to state an intended port of destination (say....United Arab Emirates), obtain Malaysian export and UAE import certificates in accordance with Basel...and when halfway there decide *whoops! made a mistake, going to India instead*.
What it truly comes down to in this case is the Indian Supreme Court. Will they abide by Basel and their own rules, even at the cost of a veritable shot in the arm for the Gujarat steel recycling industry?
Mick, Thanks for the link. That IS an impressive set up in Dubai. If only SS Norway could actually get there and be FIXED!!!
What a stark contrast in supposed destinations: DUBAI OHSAS 18001-1999 Safety Assured, ISO 9001-2000 Quality Assured ALANG Barefoot steel workers being exposed to asbestos, PCB's, and heavy metals with absolutely NO PROTECTIVE GEAR.
Project DUBAI: Transforming S/S NORWAY into Hotel S/S FRANCE !!!
Posts: 265 | Location: Chapel Hill, NC, USA | Registered: February 06, 2006
I have been following the discussions from the very beginning. Suggest you log onto Yahoo.com, click the news tab and search for "ss norway" . Some very current info from the other side of the world.
Keeping the Faith.
Posts: 8 | Location: South Central PA | Registered: May 16, 2006
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Norway Deck #164: I have been following the discussions from the very beginning. Suggest you log onto Yahoo.com, click the news tab and search for "ss norway" . Some very current info from the other side of the world. QUOTE] This article in particular sheds some light on some of the garbled info (Dubai?) we've been hearing in the past 3-or-4 weeks: Ship of Contention I'll try to paraphrase, but as it wraps up, the article intimates that the typical modus operandi of ship owners is to transfer the ownership several times during the final voyages of the vessel and change its name in the hope of evading detection. False destination and pretensions of repair are commonly used to confuse authorities. (Sound Familiar?)
The author also points out that responsible ship owners (re: NOT Star/NCL) would inform the authorities that the ship will be removed from commercial operation, provide an inventory of hazardous materials onboard and follow required procedures for safe and environment-friendly disposal.
So, I guess that's how the game is played, eh?
Posts: 265 | Location: Chapel Hill, NC, USA | Registered: February 06, 2006
Sunday's paper reports The Gujarat Pollution Control Board (GPCB),(the same guys that are stopping Norway from entering Indian waters til the Indian Supreme Court expert panel rules) are putting the pressure like never before on polluters by imposing sentences including jail time and fines:
Either they really mean to clean up the place and protect workers, or they just timed this anouncement to raise the price of their "cooperation" with the scrapper. I.E: Notice the SS Norway reference at the bottom of the article.
Posts: 14 | Location: Chicago, IL | Registered: May 07, 2006
