Talk:Sanchi oil tanker collision

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Article name[edit]

I am proposing renaming the article to avoid having a "name-noun" ("Sanchi oil tanker") in the article name. By all means correct me if I am wrong (as a non-native English speaker), but it just doesn't sound proper even though even some news articles refer to ships in that way. Yet, we never see anyone talking about "Trump president" or "Elizabeth queen". A quick look at past maritine incident articles seem to favor "incident of name" naming convention. Tupsumato (talk) 14:00, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You are quite right, Tupsumato, in my opinion. However as there have been no collisions involving any other Sanchi, we can avoid the problem with just name+event, Sanchi collision. Compare Exxon Valdez oil spill, Costa Concordia disaster, Moby Prince disaster, Torrey Canyon oil spill. Davidships (talk) 19:28, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think in the example cases the name+event ended up being widely used to describe the incident, especially in case of oil spills where the consequence was more significant than the initial impact to the vessel. We can wait for a while and then see how the media has reported this indicent (e.g. do they emphasize "collision", "sinking" or "oil spill"). Tupsumato (talk) 11:19, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the article should be moved; however, it also seems that perhaps the other ship's name should be mentioned in the title. CapitalSasha ~ talk 02:04, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The other ship and its crew survived, and its cargo did not cause an environmental disaster, as the cargo of the Sanchi is expected to do. Adding the name of the CF Crystal to the title will make it unwieldy and is unnecessary. General Ization Talk 02:16, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Fair point, but "Sanchi collision" sounds strange to the ear -- generally a collision should involve more than one thing. So if we want just one ship named, probably "Sanchi disaster" or "Sinking of the Sanchi" would be more appropriate. CapitalSasha ~ talk 02:57, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
An example of mentioning two names is USS Fitzgerald and MV ACX Crystal collision. The article title is rather unwieldy, but in that case the other ship's name was mentioned a lot in the articles as well. However, CF Crystal has all but sailed into obscurity while everyone's attention has been on Sanchi. Tupsumato (talk) 11:19, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cargo?[edit]

Yes, Keivan.f, I did click on Light crude oil thanks, and I even read some of it. So why does the next section tell us it was carrying condensate. These don't appear to be the same products at all. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:59, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Martinevans123, on the Persian Wikipedia it is said that the tanker was carrying petroleum and condensate, and as you may know light crude oil is in fact liquid petroleum. I guess you have contributed enough to this article to know what the sources exactly say. Do the English sources mention both of these products? Keivan.fTalk 18:37, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm surprised we're using Persian sources if English ones are available, as there may be a risk something will be lost or changed in translation. But I'm even more surprised that the article seems to be making contradictory claims. Are those two terms synonymous? Or were there two types of cargo in the one ship? The article doesn't really make that clear, does it? The main article, MV Sanchi, mentions only natural-gas condensate. I'm confused. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:51, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm confused too as I'm not sure how many types of cargo were in that ship as you said. We have to check the English sources one more time and correct this error as soon as possible. Keivan.fTalk 19:22, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
SCMP says "ultra light crude", BBC just says "oil" and Platts says "condensate" and "ultra-light crude" apparently inter-changeably. But this later BBC report says clearly "136,000 tonnes of condensate, which is an ultra-light version of crude oil". So I think we need to clarify. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:56, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've seen no source that states that there were two different cargos on the Sanchi. Natural-gas condensate does not at present make it abundantly clear, but the elements are in the first sentence "Natural-gas condensate is a low-density mixture of hydrocarbon liquids that are present as gaseous components in the raw natural gas produced from many natural gas fields." My understanding of that is that while it may be gaseous in its natural state in its underground reservoir under higher pressure and higher temperatures, when it is extracted it becomes a liquid at surface temperatures and normal atmospheric pressure. So it is "crude" because it is in its unrefined natural state, and "oil" because it is a liquid, not a gas; while not synonymous, both are applicable (or at least "condensate" is one kind of light crude oil). The challenge is in finding the clear reliable sources to explain that. Davidships (talk) 20:07, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, some kind of useful explanation like that, perhaps in a footnote, might solve the problem. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:10, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well, right now an IP has changed the structure of the lead paragraph and the "light crude oil" to "natural-gas condensate" which, perhaps, is incorrect as the ship was carrying the product in its liquid form, thus we should find the right phrase to make it clear what the cargo actually was. Keivan.fTalk 20:54, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No that's ok, as David has pointed out above, "condensate" means it's liquid. At least the article is now consistent. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:05, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ive put a separate sentence with a link to a useful section in Petroleum#Composition, with two of the existing press references which refer to the two names as clearly the same cargo. Davidships (talk) 21:44, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Map[edit]

The addition of a map is welcome, but I think that it would be better to have one that showed the key places, wiithout the whole of the China land mass. After all, the collision and the subsequent sinking took place in international waters (in the EEZs of China and Japan respectively) and not "in China". I think that the map at East China Sea, could be a good base, though a slightly different one shifted further to the north to show more of Korea and less of the irrelevant area to the south would be better. This should enable us to show the locations of collision and sinking as well as the two refence points of Shanghai and Amami (as shown here, for example). Davidships (talk) 23:01, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I quite agree. That map is dominated by the Northeast China Plain and I really don't see how that is relevant or useful. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:21, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sanchi oil tanker collision is located in Ryukyu Islands
Collision
Collision
Shanghai
Shanghai
Sinking
Sinking
Okinawa
Okinawa
class=notpageimage|
East China Sea

First time try at a map - something more like this is what I had in miind, but perhaps using this as a better base (it shows Japan and Korea better): [1] Davidships (talk) 19:34, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A huge improvement. Looks very clear and useful. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:20, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That's kind. But I do think that the alternative East China Sea map that I linked just above would be better as it locates all this in relation also to Japan and Korea- which is where the oil slick is expected to end up in due course. But I couldn't see how technically to use that one.Davidships (talk) 22:53, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not just trying to be kind; it really is much better. But I also agree with your proposal re East China Sea map. Obviously the oils slick will affect a much larger area. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:01, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

CF Crystal[edit]

Though this section is about the 'Sanchi, how come not even a quick word on the fate of the other vessel that the Sanchi collided with? Just curious. 2600:8800:786:A300:C23F:D5FF:FEC4:D51D (talk) 07:51, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What would you add? Just curious. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:22, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@2600: The third para under 'Collision' is all about CF Crystal and has been there since 10 Jan (before the article split). Not much more that can be said about it in relation to the collision at present. No doubt there will be more when the formal enquiries into the tragedy begin to produce results and are reported. Davidships (talk) 22:12, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
In addition, I added a closing sentence to the lead mentioning that CF Crystal and its crew survived and made port in China. General Ization Talk 02:13, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

When I FIRST read the article/entry within a day or two of its creation, there was almost nothing about what happened to the CF Crystal.

At the time I created this section and made my comment, there was nothing in the article/entry about the ship or its crew members surviving the collision, nor anything about the Crystal being taken into port.

THAT'S what I would have added. 2600:8800:786:A300:C23F:D5FF:FEC4:D51D (talk) 07:47, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Exact location[edit]

What are the exact locations of collision and sinking? Reference News in article are telling different locations of the collision(1)(2)(3) and it is hard to find an reference source specifying the location of sinking. Jtm71 (talk) 02:54, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reuters posted an information page today. Jtm71 (talk) 12:36, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What happened?[edit]

Are there any details yet of what actually happened? Where was the Sanchi struck? What damage did the Crystal sustain? Martin of Sheffield (talk) 09:53, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've only seen one or two blog articles so far - which may or may not be right. We have to wait. Davidships (talk) 14:46, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Clarify fate of crew[edit]

 Fixed We may not yet know all the facts, but the present phrasing seems misleading:

it sank [8 days after the collision] with the loss of all 32 crew members

This links the loss of crew to the sinking, which raises the question why 32 people were left to die more than a week after the accident with no rescue. The truth may be that some or all died the day of the accident. At a minimum, the present uncertainty should be better acknowledged rather than implying that they all died when the ship sank. 72.208.150.248 (talk) 16:40, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The smoke fumes were extremely poisonous. It's likely they all were dead within an hour of the collision. I reworded the lead a little to separate the sinking from the deaths so that it does not look like they are related. --Marc Kupper|talk 07:47, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Vessel specifications need double-checking[edit]

I was surprised that both vessels were listed in the article as being exactly 41,073 gross tons.

  • [2] says the Sanchi is 85,462 GT which I assume is the gross tons line. That source also has "Structural design type: Monohull ship" while the Wikipedia article says it's a double-hulled vessel.
  • [3] says the CF Crystal is 42618.35 tonnes though I don't know if a "gross tonne" is the same as a "gross ton." That same page has regulation ITC 41073 (Registered) Gross Tonnage and regulation SUEZ 42618.35 Gross Tonnage.

I suspect we need a subject matter expert that understands the various "tons" numbers and which we should use. I did not to see if other possibly sources list the hull as a monohull or double hull. --Marc Kupper|talk 07:59, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The gross tonnage has been corrected to 85,462 as per DNV GL Vessel Register. I believe the editor who added the info simply copied the wrong figure from the main ship article. However, monohull refers to the ship not being a catamaran or a trimaran, not to the double hull which is a standard feature on tankers of this size and age. IHS Sea-web database entry describes the ship as "Statcode5:A13A2TV; Ship Type Group:Tanker-Suezmax; Hull Type:Double Hull (Marpol); Hull Material:Steel; Hull Connections:Welded; Decks:1 dk; Bulbous bow". The article is correct in this regard.
As for CF Crystal, typically we have only included the "international" (ITC) gross tonnage in the articles (which in this case is 41,073; confirmed from Sea-web and Equasis). Suez and Panama tonnages are (may be; I'm not a specialist) calculated differently and are not always available for other ships. Thus, in my opinion they just add clutter to the short description of "the other ship" without providing much additional information.
Tupsumato (talk) 08:53, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sanchi_oil_tanker_collision&oldid=1213150194"