[HN Gopher] Egypt demands over $1B in damages after Suez Canal b...
___________________________________________________________________
Egypt demands over $1B in damages after Suez Canal blockage
Author : seesawtron
Score : 106 points
Date : 2021-04-04 10:01 UTC (13 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.trtworld.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.trtworld.com)
| tsujp wrote:
| If the Ever Given really was ran aground to due a once-
| in-a-75-year-sandstorm then it's hardly the fault of either the
| captain or the port authority to predict such a freak weather
| occurrence. Yes the captain has ultimate authority, but the port
| authority also has intimate knowledge of this region, and thus
| the weather and it's capabilities. We can only know more there
| after the investigation.
|
| On the other hand, the Suez Canal has had a lot of time to even
| begin construction of a second canal on the southern stretch and
| hasn't. I'm sure now they will consider that a higher priority as
| if this block happened further north where there are two canal
| lanes this wouldn't have been as big an issue.
|
| I agree that reparations for the actual true cost of the salvage
| are due -- the cost of the tugboats, the dredger etc, but to pay
| damages on lost revenue due to a freak weather occurrence (if
| that was the case) and the lack of the Suez Canal to build out
| their infrastructure is disagreeable to say the least.
| throw0101a wrote:
| > _If the Ever Given really was ran aground to due a once-
| in-a-75-year-sandstorm then it 's hardly the fault of either
| the captain or the port authority to predict such a freak
| weather occurrence._
|
| An interesting hypothesis that I ran across (on _gCaptain_?
| _blancolirio_?) is that it may actually have been a wind _lull_
| that caused the issue.
|
| There was supposedly a steady cross wind in the area in
| question, and given the ship is 400m long and 13 storeys high,
| that's a lot of area. The wind seems to have been coming from
| the west/port-side, so the ship had rudder to port to
| counteract the pushing to starboard/east.
|
| When the wind dropped suddenly, the pushing-to-starboard force
| suddenly disappeared, and so the steering to port all of a
| sudden became 'unnecessary' and if it was not corrected soon
| enough may have been the reason why the ship steered to port
| and into the channel wall.
|
| Just an hypothesis though.
|
| I'm sure a sorts of folks will be looking at the sensor logs.
|
| I wonder if the Canal authority has any kind of instruments
| along the route to measure conditions. If not, they should
| consider it. Perhaps set up some "buoys" on land next to the
| channel that broadcast things out via AIS so pilots and
| captains can see things on their chart plotters.
| toomuchtodo wrote:
| Staggered windsocks would be pretty cheap and simple I think,
| just as you'd deploy at airports.
| zaarn wrote:
| Even with modern weather prediction technology and
| windsocks, it can happen that airplane encounter very
| unexpected wind drafts up or down during takeoff or
| landing. Sometimes you just have bad luck.
| [deleted]
| cm2187 wrote:
| Particularly if it was an employee from the canal authority at
| the wheel.
| sen wrote:
| It's most probably just for show, as they'd have a tough time
| of actually finding them guilty considering the state of the
| canal. They'll bluster about huge damages, then "settle for an
| undisclosed amount" which is realistically more like just the
| costs of the fix itself, and maybe a bit extra for
| compensation.
| madaxe_again wrote:
| Absolutely. They see an opportunity to make some revenue, and
| they will. This is, in the nicest possible way, the way
| business is done in Egypt. You start from an absolutely
| outrageous position, and settle on something both parties are
| generally happy with. This applies from billion dollar
| lawsuits to buying a pack of cigarettes. Haggling is an art
| form there.
| SergeAx wrote:
| Do you have even anecdotal example of this behavior on
| industrial level, or just projecting your own touristic
| experience?
| manquer wrote:
| It has nothing to do with cultural reasons. Every lawsuit
| in the U.S. and other places does the exact same thing,
| claim very high numbers, then perhaps settle for much
| less.
| f6v wrote:
| I got an impression that any lawsuit goes like that
| everywhere. A claimant asks for outrageously high
| compensation and settles for much less.
| ARandomerDude wrote:
| > This applies from billion dollar lawsuits to buying a
| pack of cigarettes. Haggling is an art form there.
| elcritch wrote:
| Some sellers in markets in the region will get offended
| if you don't try and haggle, even it means they'll make
| 10x the profit that they'd settle for.
| manquer wrote:
| It is not the about the money.
|
| Traders would sometimes take a hit even for a good
| argument. There is no fun in making 10x money that way.
| They want to _earn_ it.
|
| You will find such traders in all over West Asia/arabic
| world like Egypt, Istanbul and as far off as delhi, not
| everyone is like that however, plenty will straight up
| cheat.
| mastax wrote:
| Perhaps I'm making too many assumptions, but wouldn't such a
| lawsuit be filed in an Egyptian court? It could be very easy
| to find them guilty. In the article the port authority is
| already holding the ship hostage for the money, and they
| could easily bar Evergreen from using the canal if they don't
| pay up. What motivation do they have to negotiate?
| ivan_gammel wrote:
| I doubt that the contract between the company operating the
| ship and the canal authority includes the settlement of
| disputes in Egyptian court. If it goes this way, the
| company may seek for compensation abroad - this will damage
| the reputation of Egypt and result in a very long and
| difficult litigations everywhere around the world.
|
| Besides that, new risks associated to this route may push
| shippers to look more closely to an alternative route.
| Northern route is much shorter, does not have vessel size
| limits and it becomes more easier to navigate with global
| warming. It's not hard to imagine ice class nuclear
| merchant ships carrying 30-40k TEU there in 10 years.
| gpm wrote:
| > nuclear merchant ships [...] in 10 years.
|
| This is very hard for me to imagine.
| ivan_gammel wrote:
| They already exist:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sevmorput
|
| The only question is if it is economically viable at
| current level of technology.
| nbdfml354 wrote:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear-powered_icebreaker
|
| Imagine one of these with stuff on it.
| WJW wrote:
| I imagine that it's not so much the "nuclear ship" part
| as much as it is the "nuclear merchant ship" part. Of
| course you can build big nuclear-powered vessels. But how
| many governments are willing to part with enough uranium
| to power such a vessel? Civilian use of nuclear material
| is extremely restricted and enforcement of maritime law
| is already something of a problem area due to how
| international the whole thing is.
| ivan_gammel wrote:
| Well, Russia already operates such fleet and generally
| considers it as the only feasible way to go with Northern
| route - to break ice you need a lot of power. I'm pretty
| sure China won't see a problem with admitting such
| vessels in their ports or even operating some on their
| own. With Northern route it's the only way to go in next
| 50 years, while Arctic is still fully freezing.
| posterboy wrote:
| They do have contracts and Terms of Service when there's a
| six figure number involved just to cross the channel. How
| the contracts are judged could indeed be a matter of
| jurisdiction, but the terms wont be nice to begin with.
|
| At one billion I reckon its a matter of foreign relation so
| they won't be ripped off in a dark back alley.
|
| And in return they receive protection from other claimants,
| who will have to bear their own risks no doubt.
|
| Especially if it was force majeure as the GP implied.
| RantyDave wrote:
| > it's hardly the fault of either the captain or the port
| authority to predict such a freak weather occurrence.
|
| Yes. It is. And to be insured against it happening. So at this
| stage the Egyptian authorities don't necessarily know who they
| are picking a fight _with_.
| phamilton wrote:
| It depends on whether there is a sufficient force majeure
| clause in the contract.
| tsujp wrote:
| I disagree. The captain of the ship relinquishes control to
| the pilots from the port authority because of their knowledge
| of the port at hand.
|
| If there was a sandstorm with strong winds that pushed the
| ship aground what could the captain do? Dismiss the pilot and
| gain control of an already out-of-control ship? The pilots
| know more about this area, so before the point of no return
| the captain, I'd imagine, would trust their judgement.
| Remember: pilots from port authority's are experts about the
| ports they pilot through.
|
| Also, the pilots are not meteorologists and even if they were
| how many times does your local weather station, or mine, or
| anyone else's, get the weather forecast wrong.
|
| Huge ships of this size have so much momentum that I'd
| imagine as a captain or a pilot or anyone else who works in
| the bridge concerning the ships movement has to plan dozens
| of minutes and kilometres in advance. Want to stop the ship?
| That requires about 3 Km of runway. Want to turn around?
| About a 2 Km radius of turn space required. That's a lot of
| planning. By the time the ship is definitely running aground
| it's too late to do anything about it and before then the
| best the captain can do is "umm" and "ahh" every decision the
| pilots are making.
|
| Yes there should be an insurance claim but it's not against
| the Ever Given it should be against this freak weather event
| much like how if a tornado blows a house down you have a
| claim for a natural disaster and not a claim against your
| local council you live in.
| avereveard wrote:
| > I disagree. The captain of the ship relinquishes control
| to the pilots from the port authority because of their
| knowledge of the port at hand.
|
| I thought these where on board in advisory, hands-off-
| controls roles only.
|
| So the real fight will happen around the cabin logs and
| recordings, to whether the ship pilot followed all the
| advisor pilots demands or not, and even then it is going a
| long, complicate mess to pin down responsabilities.
|
| But the log will eventually surface and these will be super
| interesting.
| manquer wrote:
| Ships afaik do not have as evolved FDR type systems to
| record interactions between people they way planes do.
|
| Besides such interactions do not _need_ to be conducted
| on the bridge at all.
|
| Lot more likely the insurance company will negotiate for
| actual salvage plus some compensation to the government,
| plus few palms will be greased.
| jasode wrote:
| _> The captain of the ship relinquishes control to the
| pilots from the port authority_
|
| This isn't quite true and has to be worded carefully to
| explain how responsibility is assigned.
|
| The ship is not _allowed permission_ to come into port
| /harbor/canal without a local pilot on board. That's very
| different from _relinquishing control to the local pilot_.
|
| The local pilot acts more like an _advisor and guide_ for
| navigation but the ship 's helmsman & captain _still retain
| physical control_ of the ship 's speed and steering.
|
| From the reports I read of this specific Ever Given
| incident, the local guide pilot didn't command the helmsman
| to speed up to 13 knots. The ship's captain is still
| ultimately responsible for what happens.
|
| Does that mean that even when I'm required to use the local
| pilot, he still can't be blamed for things going wrong?!?
| Yes, that's how it works. The ship has no choice of not
| accepting that deal if it wants access to that port.
|
| EDIT : I found a video with a chief engineer from a cargo
| ship explaining maritime responsibility. Deep link:
| https://youtu.be/ltdHRdtEHE4?t=3m14s
| ClumsyPilot wrote:
| Thats sounds to me like this: if you want drive though my
| land, I am driving, but if i hit anyone you go to jail.
|
| I dont know much about ships, but thanksfully on land law
| doesnt work that wY
| manquer wrote:
| Think of pilots like the air traffic controller in a
| airport
|
| The pilots don't drive anything. they are only supposed
| to advice on local geography and weather etc.
|
| Most experienced captains will basically ignore them and
| keep them in their cabins for the journey in crossing the
| suez.
|
| The system is inherited from hundreds of years maritime
| practice, back in those days pilots were essential to
| maneuver through local complexities in geography and
| weather, and were bribed for better service/smuggling
| etc.
|
| Giving bribes in ports is very old practice even the US
| navy got into hot water recently in Asia for it.
| manojlds wrote:
| Isn't that Suez specific. Panama doesn't work this way
| (and given the complexity, can't work this way)
| vladd wrote:
| >> He said in a phone interview with a pro-government TV talk
| show that the amount takes into account the salvage
| operation, costs of stalled traffic, and lost transit fees
| for the week that the Ever Given had blocked the Suez Canal.
| <<
|
| It makes no sense for the lost transit fees to be paid by the
| insurance companies as most vessels waited the 6-day period
| and then got to traverse the canal with some days in delay
| (so Egypt still got that money).
|
| In the end the claim seems exaggerate and might be indicative
| of Egypt's lack of focus on long term relations. It's one
| thing to pay 500'000 USD for a passage, but if I know that I
| have a 0.05% probability of paying 1 billion dollars (which
| is another 500'000 USD expected payout on average) then
| surrounding Africa without any fees is all of a sudden a lot
| more attractive.
| throw0101a wrote:
| > _It makes no sense for the lost transit fees to be paid
| by the insurance companies as most vessels waited the 6-day
| period and then got to traverse the canal with some days in
| delay (so Egypt still got that money)._
|
| Except during those six days no ships went through, and so
| no revenues were collect. That is, Egypt could have gotten
| _more_ revenue if no ships were delayed--and remember some
| ships started going around Cape Horn in South Africa.
|
| It's about the 'opportunity cost' of the blockage.
| dotancohen wrote:
| > It's about the 'opportunity cost' of the blockage.
|
| It should be noted in context that the Suez canal
| occasionally closes preemptively when high winds are
| expected or experienced.
| kshacker wrote:
| So is the opportunity cost 6 days of outage or maybe 0.2
| days since most of the traffic was just delayed rather
| than Re-routed?
|
| Also I am not a lawyer, but if I were one, I would wonder
| if there have been previous outages like this and how has
| that cost been recovered? And how many times has the
| canal delayed the ships anyways and not paid them?
|
| Also would the canal pay from this money the ships that
| were delayed as they were also an affected party.
|
| The game can be played from multiple sides.
| vbezhenar wrote:
| Having company with minimal balance and ready to go
| bankrupt if necessary is a lot more attractive.
| jwalton wrote:
| The number may have been chosen for legal reasons. Here in
| Ontario, we have no fault insurance, but if you're in an
| accident with another car from out-of-province, and you
| caused the accident, you/your insurance will be sued for
| $10M. It'll always be $10M, because that's the maximum that
| can be awarded; if you did $3000 in damage and they ask for
| $3000, then $3000 is the most they can get, but if they ask
| for $3000 in damages and $9,997,000 in punitive damages...
| they'll probably still get $3000, but they might more, so
| why not?
| throw0101a wrote:
| > _Here in Ontario, we have no fault insurance_ [...]
|
| I really wish it was named something else, because it
| causes all sorts of confusion:
|
| > _A common misconception about no-fault insurance is
| that insurance companies won 't determine who is at fault
| after an accident. However, this isn't the case.
| According to the Ontario Insurance Act, in every accident
| with multiple drivers, insurance companies must always
| assign a percentage of fault to each driver involved.
| Other provinces have similar laws._
|
| > _No-fault insurance simply means your insurance company
| will handle your claim and pay your damages regardless of
| who is determined to be at fault for causing the
| collision. The other person's insurance company will do
| the same._
|
| * https://www.insurancehotline.com/resources/no-fault-
| insuranc...
|
| There are legislated rules on determining fault in the
| most common cases:
|
| * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontario_Fault_Determinati
| on_Ru...
| singularity2001 wrote:
| there was a video shortly before/after the crash showing that
| the sandstorm was just a false rumor
| lars_francke wrote:
| There is an article in the latest economist about this.
| https://www.economist.com/middle-east-and-africa/2021/03/30/...
|
| (Probably unfortunately behind a PayWall)
|
| The super short summary is that they say a further expansion is
| not necessary. Even the previous one wasn't needed an hasn't
| brought in the benefits they had hoped/promised.
| chihuahua wrote:
| https://archive.vn/SFJiH
| dan-robertson wrote:
| > The captain has ultimate authority
|
| This is a slightly complicated issue: the ship was being
| piloted so the person with the authority is basically the pilot
| (someone who's job is to take ships through the canal but not
| anywhere else). The captain can order the pilot off the ship
| (and then take control) but not much else. And doing that in
| the middle of a sandstorm would probably not be so clever.
| ericbarrett wrote:
| I can't find the quote, but I recall one ship captain saying
| in the multiple decades he'd been transiting, he'd never had
| the Suez Canal pilots leave their crew quarters between start
| and finish.
|
| Seems most boats that wish to transit have to come prepared
| with many bribes, and be ready for multiple shakedowns:
| http://www.sailsafely.com/suez_canal.htm
|
| Clearly this is Egypt's authorities trying to save face and
| deflect blame for their failure to provide actual, competent
| piloting.
| jonas21 wrote:
| The captain in this video has also transited the Suez Canal
| many times and talks a bit about the corruption and bribes:
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ICrgh5sJa-A
| dan-robertson wrote:
| Yeah I guess that may well be the case. I was going based
| on the way things traditionally worked for a pilot taking a
| ship into harbour.
| cm2187 wrote:
| I don't know that we need to assign blame. It is possible
| this accident was unavoidable. It is not like this is a
| recurring occurrence.
| IG_Semmelweiss wrote:
| It is possible, but not likely.
|
| I dont hear this being a once-in-a-century sandstorm.
|
| This may not be a recurring ocurrence precisely because
| weather-induced groundings on that zone are particularly
| strange, because its not an area with weather that can
| impair a bih ship cruising by
| einpoklum wrote:
| > If the Ever Given really was ran aground to due a once-
| in-a-75-year-sandstorm then it's hardly the fault of either the
| captain or the port authority to predict such a freak weather
| occurrence.
|
| The second part of your sentence does not follow from the first
| part. If you have a large storm every with low but non-zero
| probability (and, actually, a higher probability than 1/(365
| _75) given the weather conditions, let 's say 1/(40_75) =
| 1/3000) - then the parties to the agreement regarding the use
| of the canal need to plan for this contingency; and I assume
| the contract governs who has responsibility for such planning:
| The canal for salvages/re-floating, or the ships for being able
| to maintain buoyancy even in this kind of conditions.
|
| In other words: The point is not to predict the occurrence,
| it's to be ready for when it occurs.
|
| --
|
| PS - I've ignored the question of insurance.
| walrus01 wrote:
| The Egyptian armed forces are in a very good position to keep the
| ship in the great bitter lake as long as they want, question is,
| what's the value of the cargo onboard?
| scaladev wrote:
| Did you not read TFA?
|
| > the Ever Given and its some $3.5 billion worth of cargo would
| not be allowed to leave Egypt
| [deleted]
| rovr138 wrote:
| Wow
|
| When does it become piracy?
| goatinaboat wrote:
| _When does it become piracy?_
|
| Never. The Egyptian government could simply issue itself a
| letter of marque. But a country impounding a ship while it is
| within its sovereign territory over unpaid fees would never
| be considered piracy anyway.
| [deleted]
| goatinaboat wrote:
| _what 's the value of the cargo onboard?_
|
| According to the article, $3.5Bn.
| tsujp wrote:
| The estimated cargo value is $3.5 B.
| skbly7 wrote:
| Well, it is already written in the link....
|
| > $3.5 billion worth of cargo
| netdur wrote:
| Whatever been said on Egyptian TVs is mostly directed to
| Egyptians, as on going government propaganda, it does not reflect
| what will really happen for those cases.
| thendrill wrote:
| This exactly....
|
| The whole statement was target towards the Egyptian audiance.
| Standard Arabic propaganda show.
|
| Knowing how things work in Egypt. I bet the whole thing will be
| settled for a couple of million usd and an undisclosed amount
| of Marlboro packets...
| mucholove wrote:
| The comment may seem flippant--yet, having been a boarding
| clerk on a vessel ship captains would often offer cigarettes
| and scotch to save themselves some trouble.
| busterarm wrote:
| Indeed.
|
| They have a bunch of angry pilots on their hands because
| they spent a whole week not able to collect any bribes.
| mattmanser wrote:
| Err, calm down in the racism. Trump, a white American, played
| by exactly the same rule book.
|
| Who was going to pay for his wall, do you remember? The
| Mexicans. Did that ever happen? Of course not.
|
| Pick any populist leader and they'll do exactly the same
| thing.
| thendrill wrote:
| I am arabic. I grew up in Libya.
|
| I have crossed arbic borders many times. Bribery is
| basically standard operating procedure.
|
| Bottom line is Egypt will say many things just to "save
| face".
|
| So off personal experience I wager that the settlement will
| be off the books...
|
| If it is proven true it is not racist.
|
| https://eu-asia.essca.fr/the-marlboro-canal-or-the-
| standardi...
|
| Edit: just to one more thing... Yes Egypt is in theory in
| control of the Suez canal. But legaly they are just an
| operator operating under colonial rule. They never fully
| nationalized the Suze after the 57 wars.
| mattmanser wrote:
| Ok, sorry for saying that. It was wrong of me to assume a
| comment like that came from a European or American and
| was driven by bias and I apologise for doing so.
|
| My wider point was that it's just politicians being
| politicans and happens everywhere, whether it's in Egypt,
| the UK, France, America, Brazil, China, the US, or Libya.
| Few governments ever want to admit weakness.
|
| As for still being a colonial property, that ship sailed
| when we humiliatingly were forced to end the Suez war,
| and pretty much marked the end of the UK as a super-
| power. It's never going to be in UK hands again.
| COGlory wrote:
| Thank you for the apology, it does the entire community
| here good when people take responsibility for all their
| comments, not just the popular ones.
| truetraveller wrote:
| +1 on the apology.
| thendrill wrote:
| That is true. And no worries about apologies.
|
| In the end someone said that what we all do in the
| comment section is basically a self monologue, I do the
| same, and the more I realize that more nicer we would be
| in textual discord ;)
|
| You are correct, politicians will be politicians. Problem
| is that arabic politicians are so driven by archaic
| traditional means like bloodlines and honor, that
| sometimes I wonder if it is as obvious for a person with
| non-arabic background as it is for a everyone else.
|
| The problem with arabic governments is that they are,
| firsty, not really democratic, no matter what is being
| said. Second, alot of governence revolves around
| tradional and party relegious norms. Watch an Arabic
| debate on TV about homesexuality...
|
| And third. They last for a very short time in comparison
| to the countries in power over them (France, GB, US)
|
| There is alot of social and relational ties that end up
| being very important for people in power. In turn this
| translate to alot of "actions" that are easily seen as
| just a show from an Arabic perspective.
|
| The problem for me arises of how far from what is said
| the final result would be, because most of it will be
| dictated by bribery in internal dealings.
| carlhjerpe wrote:
| It doesn't matter where someone comes from when
| commenting on the internet, you chose to assume racist
| intentions.
|
| > Please respond to the strongest plausible
| interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one
| that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith. - HN
| Guidelines
| [deleted]
| [deleted]
| busterarm wrote:
| The person you're commenting on grew up in Libya.
|
| When they say "Standard Arabic propaganda show", they're
| speaking from personal experience. Calm down with your
| racism accusations -- that shit's dangerous.
| yellowapple wrote:
| > The person you're commenting on grew up in Libya.
|
| Where are you getting this information? It doesn't seem
| to be present in that user's comment history (though
| maybe my tired eyes ain't seeing it).
|
| Ordinarily this would be called "doxxing" in any case ;)
| busterarm wrote:
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26409524
|
| It's literally at the top of page 2.
|
| And no, that's not doxxing. It's not an identifying
| detail and it's something someone voluneteered about
| themselves.
|
| It's perfectly fine to keep people accountable to their
| comment history and that's not even what's happening
| here.
| yellowapple wrote:
| Ah, didn't see that there were more pages. I guess I need
| some sleep.
| thendrill wrote:
| Overruled.
|
| Not doxing because I have previously posted it on a
| public comment related to my Public Id.
| dmw_ng wrote:
| Can anyone qualified explain how this could be the shipper's
| fault? I understood the canal requires (extremely expensive)
| pilots supplied by the canal authority aboard for any passage.
| It's mentioned in the article:
|
| > Bernhard Schulte has said previously that two Egyptian canal
| pilots were aboard when the ship got stuck. Such an arrangement
| is customary to guide vessels through the narrow waterway, but
| the ship's captain retains ultimate authority, according to
| experts.
| londons_explore wrote:
| The pilots were chatting and not paying attention and the ship
| veered slightly off course, hit the bank, and spun around.
|
| With tens of thousands of ships making that passage each year,
| it was bound to happen sometime.
|
| The sandstorm is just an excuse IMO...
| vesinisa wrote:
| Remember that Egypt is a hopelessly corrupt developing country.
| It doesn't really matter who is at fault. The matter would be
| decided by an Egyptian court where the judge will rubberstamp
| whatever narrative and claim the government wants to present.
|
| Remember that Egypt nationalized (stole) the canal in the first
| place from the UK. The only reason they were not bombed to
| oblivion was that it suited US goals of further humiliating
| former European imperial powers after WWII. Egypt operates tha
| canal as spoils of war and their only real concern would be if
| shippers begun considering the risks of relying on the Suez
| authorities higher than going through the Horn of Africa.
| einpoklum wrote:
| > nationalized (stole)
|
| Ah, still salty over European powers losing their imperial
| holdings?
|
| > The only reason they were not bombed to oblivion
|
| ... yeah, I guess so.
| vesinisa wrote:
| I am only saying that if the canal was still UK property we
| could probably at least rely on the courts to impartially
| decide who is at fault. People don't realize things don't
| operate the same way in 3rd world countries as they do in
| the West.
|
| Now the fault lies at where ever Egypt says it does. The
| only recourse is to hope they are lenient enough to not
| spook other maritime freight operators.
| IAmEveryone wrote:
| I doubt Suez Canal disputes are adjudicated by some local
| court out in the the desert. It's either some special
| tribunal with at least some internationally recognised
| expertise. Or, most likely, a binding arbitration
| committee at Loyd's of London.
| ignoramous wrote:
| > _I am only saying that if the canal was still UK
| property we could probably at least rely on the courts to
| impartially decide who is at fault. People don 't realize
| things don't operate the same way in 3rd world countries
| as they do in the West._
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julian_Assange#Imprisonment
| _an...
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killing_of_George_Floyd
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guantanamo_Bay_detention_ca
| mp
|
| ...
| IAmEveryone wrote:
| Hey now! As a European, we've gone through a lot of grief
| due to Britain's wish to feel special. Let's try being
| consistent, at least:
|
| the British are salty over losing an Empire. They're also
| the only ones where that term is appropriate.
|
| The French are fine since they got to keep Camus and
| Couscous.
|
| The Belgians never did any colonialising, brutal or
| otherwise. No, sir. Nothing to see here. If you insist
| otherwise, yours must be a Heart of Darkness.
|
| The Germans are sorry about that Genocide, as well.
| Banana699 wrote:
| The only reason Egypt was not bombed into oblivion is that
| the colonial powers tried a weak ass illegal move in 1956
| that spectacularly and humiliatingly failed, after
| triumphantly killing a bunch of civilians off course.
|
| I'm not a fan of Arab governments but this comment reads like
| an angsty 14-year-old nostalgic for the empire they learned
| about in school.
| paganel wrote:
| Not sure that a neo-colonialist viewpoint such as yours
| brings anything constructive to the discussion.
| joshuaissac wrote:
| > Egypt nationalized (stole) the canal
|
| Nasser paid full compensation for shareholders based on the
| share price of the company on the Paris Stock Exchange, as he
| had said he would before the nationalisation.[1] So this was
| not much different to the nationalisation of companies in the
| UK that had been happening around the same period,[2] or to
| the compulsory sales that happen even now in the US.[3]
|
| > only reason they were not bombed to oblivion was that it
| suited US goals
|
| There was also the Soviet threat against the UK and its
| allies in the war.
|
| 1. https://www.irishtimes.com/news/suez-affair-highlighted-
| brit...
|
| 2. https://www.bbc.co.uk/bitesize/guides/zsd68mn/revision/6
|
| 3. https://www.wsj.com/articles/trump-orders-chinese-firm-to-
| se...
| [deleted]
| [deleted]
| ricardo81 wrote:
| Not sure of the angle for claiming on "costs of stalled traffic"
| (is that lost revenue?), surely the brunt of that loss is on the
| commercial concerns of the boat operators themselves?
|
| If $1bn were the 'true costs' then clearly there are a lot of
| costs in running the canal over a year. It seems like the number
| is highly inflated, on face value. Not an expert, just an
| observation.
| Vaderv wrote:
| Damn right they should. That fcukinig indian crew really stunk up
| the place with their erratic route and deliberate ramming of the
| ship. Those people literally stink.
| jonplackett wrote:
| > $3.5 billion cargo.
|
| Wow. Is that a lot for a ship that size or just standard? Anyone
| know what it was carrying?
| delusional wrote:
| At the start of all this I read that it was (nearly) fully
| loaded container wise, but about half those containers might
| have been empty.
| thendrill wrote:
| Pretty standard.
|
| A couple of containers filled with Cpus, Gpus or other small
| pricy items adds quickly up hundreds of millions of usd.
|
| The Ever Given was carrying around approx. 18 000 containers
|
| So that is an avarage price of around 150 000 usd, per
| container. That is equal to around 150 iphones. Or 300 ryzen
| 5950x cpus.
|
| Here is a reference pic to see how much volume are 150 iphones.
|
| https://images.app.goo.gl/gsykpZZcSdQqDD7A9
| paganel wrote:
| Why does Google have to f.-up the back button? And then they
| pat themselves on the back for being on the vanguard of web
| development (I'm on Safari on an iPhone SE).
| throwawaysea wrote:
| I am shocked to see Google use that dark pattern. I even
| assumed for a second that I was on some kind of fake site
| that appeared like Google but wasn't actually them.
| jonplackett wrote:
| Because Google think they own the web.
| manquer wrote:
| Perhaps it works better in Chrome ? (And that's their
| intent ?)
| dmw_ng wrote:
| > The Ever Given was carrying around approx. 18 000
| containers
|
| This is a mind-boggling number, I didn't realize those ships
| carried so much load. Insurance premiums must be crazy
| thendrill wrote:
| It IS mind boggling. Just the engine on these ships is the
| size of a 3 story building.
|
| Passage fees on the Suez can run up to half a million usd
| for a ship this size.
| igitur wrote:
| The experience of Sea Witch, a yacht, in traversing the Suez
| Canal might give some context on this big brother version.
|
| http://www.sailsafely.com/suez_canal.htm
| freddie_mercury wrote:
| What context does your link provide?
|
| I'm not being snarky; can you just make it explicit in your
| comment instead of leaving a vague comment linking to something
| that takes 15-20 minutes to read?
| igitur wrote:
| Not really. Currently watching a good cricket game. Take it
| or leave it.
| varispeed wrote:
| Is there a good resource that could make someone not
| knowing anything about cricket understand it to a level
| that watching a game would be enjoyable, without spending
| ages on learning what it is about?
| kirubakaran wrote:
| This should help
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tYrue4oXCbo
| brainzap wrote:
| go to a local event I guess
| andylynch wrote:
| It's a report on a cruiser yacht's experience passing through
| the canal, which among other things concludes the level of
| baksheesh and Marlboros involved is excessive compared to
| elsewhere nearby.
| IAmEveryone wrote:
| Legally, this seems shaky:
|
| - The ship had, as required, two pilots on board at the time.
| These are agents of the canal and have ultimate authority during
| the passage.
|
| - the loss in fees seems far smaller, and can easily be counted
| by the numbers of ships that went the long way around.
|
| - I doubt the salvage operation got close to that cost. There
| just isn't enough equipment to lease to run up a billion in four
| days or so., even counting stuff that may have never arrived
|
| - Egypt still knows it's French. Force Majeur should ring a bell.
|
| That being said, I wonder if it matters? They could have the
| right, or at least the power, to simply refuse passage to all
| vessels operated by the company. Egypt is probably party to some
| international agreement precluding arbitrary decision in that
| regard for political reasons. But they'd obviously be allowed to
| do so for vessels not paying the regular fee. This case would
| seem to resemble the latter more than the former?
| sokoloff wrote:
| I think the captain retains ultimate authority of their ship,
| while pilots provide (ideally expert) advisory services.
| dan-robertson wrote:
| Maritime insurance doesn't usually cover some freak weather (acts
| of God). It is too risky for the insurer to have large amounts of
| their book exposed to the same event. I'm not sure if this
| sandstorm counts as an act of God, but $1B to Egypt for a canal
| blockage probably pales in comparison to the claims that might be
| made against late-delivery insurance. It is probably those claims
| which insurers are most worried about, and those claims which
| they want to dismiss as due to acts of God (but the cause of
| "ship blocking canal" feels to me even less like an act of God
| than "big sandstorm")
| varispeed wrote:
| If this is an "act of God", should they seek damages from
| Church instead?
| tzs wrote:
| People have sued God [1].
|
| [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawsuits_against_God
| ben509 wrote:
| The Church would then refer them to Genesis 3:6, which led to
| the decision in Genesis 3:16-19, as that breach of covenant
| by mankind is the original cause of our continuing hardship.
| They'd then go ahead and cite all the additional breaches of
| covenant.
| darkwater wrote:
| Is this "act of God" terminology really used in, I guess, US
| insurances?
| LudwigNagasena wrote:
| It is used in the Anglo-American legal system.
| ramchip wrote:
| It's standard terminology, yes. A quick google would lead you
| to: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Act_of_God
| tjbiddle wrote:
| > The average size of most vessels has increased exponentially
| over the last 15 years. The ability to salvage these bigger ships
| has not," said Peter Townsend, a marine insurance industry
| veteran.
|
| Well - Either you allow gigantic ships that have this risk
| through, and set aside cash for when shit like this eventually
| happens - Or you don't allow them through at all. Learn how to
| budget for your risk profile.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-04-04 23:01 UTC)