The Sinking of MS Estonia: Case Re-Opened

[Andy_Ross]

See how they coped with Ehime Maru:

Wiki

The problem with Estonia has nothing to do with the depth of water or the size of the ship. It is a point blank refusal by the Swedish government to even consider it.

Estonia is 150 meters long and is more than 15,000 grt Ehime Maru is less than 50 meters long and has a grt of only 700 tons.

Can you see a difference

Plus it wasn't raised it was moved to shallower water.

 

[Andy_Ross]

The objection has nothing at all to do with size or logistics. Rockwater diving company who were outsourced to assess whether the wreck could be salvaged and the bodies recovered reported back to the Swedish government that it was feasible.

Rockwater are not a salvage company.

They are a Support company for petroleum and natural gas extraction, they are divers.

How were they proposing to raise it?

 

[Andy_Ross]

He is the person credited with it.

You told us he did it.

 

[Andy_Ross]

Hummel and the German Group of Experts hold that the vessel was not seaworthy and that the JAIC failed to investigate whether the bow visor had been properly maintained. You can even sea footage that shows a red mattress near the car ramp, as the crew had taken to the practice of trying to stop leaks of seawater by means of stuffing blankets along the ramp edges as the visor didn't align properly. The atlantic lock at the bottom of the visor had and additional bolt-type locking mechanism and the crew were in the practice of having to use a hammer to get it to bolt.
.

there you go, that supports the bow visor having problems and coming off in the storm.

Didn't you say the ship's builders were certain it couldn't have been a problem with the bow visor because they are the best of the best shipyard or something?

 

[Reformed Offlian]

Yes, the Norwegian company offered to do it at not-for-profit for SEK250,000 (=€30K, £25K, USD40K) and was turned down flat.

Okay, but that's just naming a price. My questions was: did they put together an actual *proposal*? That's what one would need to determine whether what they had in mind was actually doable, at the price they were offering.

There are valid reasons why they might not have done that (being told up front there was little interest would be one of them), and there are valid reasons we might not know if they did, but without a proposal to review, one can't assess the claim that the job was really doable.

 

[Andy_Ross]

Yes, the Norwegian company offered to do it at not-for-profit for SEK250,000 (=€30K, £25K, USD40K) and was turned down flat.

Dutch firm, Smit Tak said Dec 1994 it would be salvageable, with the easily accessible human remains first, with the rest brought up with the ship.

The company that salvaged M/V Derbyshire and Lucona, Blue Water Recoveries also said it was possible by use of slings across the vessel via floating derrick barges in a controlled way.

Rockwater, hired by the Swedish government also confirmed it could be salvaged.

The Swedish government never put it out to tender.

Derbyshire was not salvaged.

Bluewater Recoveries have never raised a ship, they are involved with researching and locating wrecks to recover valuable cargo, they are involved with 'treasure hunting'.

Rockwater are just a diving support company, they do not salvage.

Smit Tak are a salvage company.
Their two best known jobs were the Kursk and the MV Tricolor.
They have a technique involving a carbide-encrusted cutting cable used to slice a wreck into small sections of around 3000 tons that can be lifted.
They could not have raised the Estonia in anything but small pieces. It took over a year to recover the Tricolor in nine sections.

None of these companies put in a detailed proposal.

 

[Andy_Ross]

You have the timeline? Don't keep it to yourself! Tell us the chronology of what happened.

How big do you think these 'charges' were?
Why would charges placed to cut the bolts on the bow visor throw people out of bed?

 

[erwinl]

Derbyshire was not salvaged.

Bluewater Recoveries have never raised a ship, they are involved with researching and locating wrecks to recover valuable cargo, they are involved with 'treasure hunting'.

Rockwater are just a diving support company, they do not salvage.

Smit Tak are a salvage company.
Their two best known jobs were the Kursk and the MV Tricolor.
They have a technique involving a carbide-encrusted cutting cable used to slice a wreck into small sections of around 3000 tons that can be lifted.
They could not have raised the Estonia in anything but small pieces. It took over a year to recover the Tricolor in nine sections.

None of these companies put in a detailed proposal.

I saw that too, about the Derbyshire and directly went 'Huh? What salvage?'

 

[erwinl]

How big do you think these 'charges' were?
Why would charges placed to cut the bolts on the bow visor throw people out of bed?

Indeed.

If the purpose of the charges was, that they would have dislodged the visor, but not in a way it would be too obvious that it was explosives, they cannot have been very large.

They're not like in Hollywood where people got blown across the room by the force of explosives.
In fact. If the explosive is powerful enough, or you are close enough, for your body to be flown across the room, there will not be very much left, that can be described as 'a body'.

 

[Steve]

How big do you think these 'charges' were?
Why would charges placed to cut the bolts on the bow visor throw people out of bed?

Well, incompetence of course. "They" made the charges way, way larger than they needed to be. And placed in entirely the wrong location as evidenced by the unexploded charge visible in the photograph of the wreck.

Or maybe the charges were correct but it was the collision with the submarine that threw people out of bed.

Or maybe there were no charges, but the stuff being secretly transported by the Russians accidentally blew up and knocked off the bow visor. Followed immediately by a collision with a Swedish submarine.

In any case it is a good thing that the submarine, that was never seen again, was there to immediately whisk away those 9 missing crew members. Who were properly dressed for the conditions and were actually the secret Russian agents who set the charges in the first place.

I could go on.....

 

[Andy_Ross]

I saw that too, about the Derbyshire and directly went 'Huh? What salvage?'

Also Locuna was not salvaged. It was located 4200 meters down. it was surveyed by ROV.

Blue Water Recoveries is the company name that David Mearns uses for his deep water search activities. He locates wrecks and is involved in surveying them and recovering artifacts and valuable cargo. He doesn't salvageships.

 

[erwinl]

Also Locuna was not salvaged. It was located 4200 meters down. it was surveyed by ROV.

Blue Water Recoveries is the company name that David Mearns uses for his deep water search activities. He locates wrecks and is involved in surveying them and recovering artifacts and valuable cargo. He doesn't salvageships.

The Lucona was and is still, an unknown ship to me, but I did know about the Derbyshire.
I do try to only comment about things where I have some confidence that I will say something intelligent. *

Will check the Lcona out afterwards though.

* Still get some things wrong though. But oh well. Life is for learning.

 

[carlitos]

Yeah I covered that upthread. It may have gotten lost. It's apparent from the magnitude of the numbers Vixen was quoting what actual physical property was intended. But the point is to hold Vixen accountable for the understanding that's insinuated. Or the lack of it, as the case may be. If you don't know what a quotation of velocity means in the context of an explosion and you mistake it for a force, you're probably just mindlessly regurgitating something. That becomes amusing when Vixen attempts to claim the skeptics here are ignorant and scientifically illiterate.

Thanks.

 

[JayUtah]

Absolute rubbish.

Another bluffed brush-off. I've given you specific, detailed reasons why I think he's wrong. Address them or admit you can't. You yourself admitted you aren't an expert in these matters, so your selective acceptance of other people's demonstrable expertise must have a different explanation. You saw a documentary and you've swallowed its premise uncritically. That's all that's happened here.

Amdahl was asked for his informal professional opinion, being an expert in his field and he gave it.

He's still wrong, and the reasons why he's still wrong are still unaddressed by you. Either address the reasons or admit that you cannot. Simply insinuating he can't be wrong because he's an expert has worn thin. He's not the only person who is qualified to evaluate damage to structures and to speculate intelligently about what might have caused them. If you can't deal with the details of such an evaluation, then you're not competent to be arguing the matter in this way.

Or do you believe that there should be a law as in China or Russia that one must not question anything the government decrees? Perhaps clapped in chains in the gulag archipelago for daring to express your considered opinion on a matter.

I think that wins the prize for the most overdramatized straw man. No, of course I don't believe Prof. Amdahl should be sent to the gulag. I do believe, however, that he has erred in his evaluation of the damage to Estonia, and I've given the reasons why I believe he is in error. And I'm professionally qualified to do so.

He gave an informal opinion after being primed by a documentarian who admitted later he had a particular story to tell and so selectively presented the professor with some, but not all the evidence he had discovered. If the damage is not due to a collision, but rather to static stresses, as was clearly the other damage Evertsson found, then it might lie outside the professor's expertise. Or at best it might have primed him to think along different lines and expand his consideration of potential causes.

 

[JayUtah]

Everything in science has to be looked at in context.

So now you're an expert in science? I thought your training was in forensic accounting.

So if the damage from, say a car wreck, is consistent with two vehicles colliding whilst merging on a motorway, of course that damage could have been done a thousand and one other ways, but is still compatible with having been caused by the collision as the car emerged onto the motor way.

But if all you're presented with is a car that has been damaged, and you have little if any idea what its history was, saying that damage is merely consistent with some scenario doesn't prove that was the scenario that caused the damage. Sure, there are prima facie estimates of probability (not "calculations") that may be instructive, but those are ultimately unprobative.

What we do is calculate the probability that it was caused by random chance...

No, that's not how accidents are investigated. If you're through pontificating about subjects you clearly know nothing about, perhaps you'd like to tell us what other mechanical processes are consistent with twinning in metals. Since you seem to know so much about the subject. No, I'm not talking about shot peening. Come on, show us you're the expert in metallurgy you seem to want us to think you are. Show us you're the expert in forensic engineering that you waffle between asserting and disclaiming.

 

[JayUtah]

Yes, the Norwegian company offered to do it at not-for-profit for SEK250,000 (=€30K, £25K, USD40K) and was turned down flat.

What's the name of the Norwegian company? Was it the same one that collaborated with Evertsson on making his film? A mere $40,000 to raise a 15,000 grt vessel is not just not-for-profit; it doesn't even come close to covering the expenses of such an operation. As such it's not really a credible offer.

 

[Andy_Ross]

Day rates for a DSV for saturation diving starts at around $20k a day.

 

[lobosrul5]

What's the name of the Norwegian company? Was it the same one that collaborated with Evertsson on making his film? A mere $40,000 to raise a 15,000 grt vessel is not just not-for-profit; it doesn't even come close to covering the expenses of such an operation. As such it's not really a credible offer.

Almost certainly Vixen found some source that a company offered to do something involving the Estonia and equated that with salvaging the ship.

 

[JayUtah]

Almost certainly Vixen found some source that a company offered to do something involving the Estonia and equated that with salvaging the ship.

Sure, it matters what is meant by "salvage." To raise the ship, even just to tow it to shallower waters as in the case of Ehime Maru, is a tens-of-millions proposition. To simply dive on the wreck and recover human remains and other valuables from accessible areas is still at least another zero beyond $40,000. I have no problem with a company doing something pro bono. But why such a pittance? Why just not donate the entire effort for free?

If someone offers you a brand new Mercedes for $1, you're likely to think there's some sort of catch. It's not a credible offer, if everything's on the level. Therefore if you're unable to discover what the catch might be, the safe bet is to reject the offer in case you might be embroiled in something you didn't intend. While that's the safe bet, you're still vulnerable to criticism like, "Hey, that guy passed up a $1 luxury car!"

And unnamed "Norwegian dive company" collaborated with Evertsson on his film. Coincidentally there's an unnamed "Norwegian dive company" offering a salvage deal that's simply too good to pass up -- a $1 Mercedes of an offer. One wonders whether the offer was tendered for no reason other than to create suspicion when it was naturally rejected. "They passed up a killer deal to have the wreck salvaged; there must be something nefarious going on."

 

[lobosrul5]

Sure, it matters what is meant by "salvage." To raise the ship, even just to tow it to shallower waters as in the case of Ehime Maru, is a tens-of-millions proposition. To simply dive on the wreck and recover human remains and other valuables from accessible areas is still at least another zero beyond $40,000. I have no problem with a company doing something pro bono. But why such a pittance? Why just not donate the entire effort for free?

If someone offers you a brand new Mercedes for $1, you're likely to think there's some sort of catch. It's not a credible offer, if everything's on the level. Therefore if you're unable to discover what the catch might be, the safe bet is to reject the offer in case you might be embroiled in something you didn't intend. While that's the safe bet, you're still vulnerable to criticism like, "Hey, that guy passed up a $1 luxury car!"

And unnamed "Norwegian dive company" collaborated with Evertsson on his film. Coincidentally there's an unnamed "Norwegian dive company" offering a salvage deal that's simply too good to pass up -- a $1 Mercedes of an offer. One wonders whether the offer was tendered for no reason other than to create suspicion when it was naturally rejected. "They passed up a killer deal to have the wreck salvaged; there must be something nefarious going on."

Yes, good points. For example, I had the windows in my house replaced last year. If I had gotten a bid for below cost of what I could even buy the windows myself, I would've been highly suspicious. Ie they're gonna take my deposit and I'll never hear from them again.