Norwegian Frigate Collision, Trident Juncture

Not a good area to build an oil terminal then...?
Fair point...............but is anywhere a "good area" to build an Oil terminal? (Hull maybe?)

Mongstad is just around the corner from Sture, with Kolsnes just down the road.

The UK has a Valero Oil refinery built in a National Park. (Milford Haven (Sea Empress))The Park being there long before the refinery.

The point being that it has to go somewhere. Also, in comparison to Mongstad just round the corner. Sture is a ghost town(refinery)
 
Any ideas from the collective wisdom and knowledge of Arrse as to next steps?
I assume the frigate cannot be left in situ because of the risk of access by third parties to the technology and munitions aboard, and due to the environmental impact of the sinking. I also assume, perhaps incorrectly, that the removal of both from a wreck in the situation of the Helge Ingstad is bloody difficult?
 
Last edited:
Any ideas from the collective wisdom and knowledge of Arrse as to next steps?
I assume the frigate cannot be left in situ because of the risk of access by third parties to the technology and munitions aboard, and to the environmental impact. I also assume, perhaps incorrectly, that the removal of both from a wreck in the situation of the Helge Ingstad is bloody difficult?
Difficult but it can be done

SMIT Salvage | Towage
 
I've had beer!
Any ideas from the collective wisdom and knowledge of Arrse as to next steps?
I assume the frigate cannot be left in situ because of the risk of access by third parties to the technology and munitions aboard, and to the environmental impact. I also assume, perhaps incorrectly, that the removal of both from a wreck in the situation of the Helge Ingstad is bloody difficult?
Word on the street is that the ship will in fact be left in "situ", a monument too those who perished on Trident Juncture. "The battle of Hjeltefjord" has already passed into legend. Being compared too and in some Messes surpassed that of, "The Battle of Jubilee". His majesty King Harald V, has already authorised a clasp too their service medal. His Majesties exact words being " **** it! Hvis briterne kan gjøre det så hvorfor kan vi ikke?"

"SK"
 
Any ideas from the collective wisdom and knowledge of Arrse as to next steps?
I assume the frigate cannot be left in situ because of the risk of access by third parties to the technology and munitions aboard, and due to the environmental impact of the sinking. I also assume, perhaps incorrectly, that the removal of both from a wreck in the situation of the Helge Ingstad is bloody difficult?
I'm not a salvage expert, but I believe that one of the next steps will be to get the remaining oil out of the frigate to ensure that it doesn't leak during subsequent salvage efforts. I don't know if they need get the munitions out right away, or if they do that after salvage.

I suspect that this won't be the first ship that has had to be salvaged after being run aground and sunk, so there are likely salvage companies available with experience at that part of it.

While the loss of the frigate was not good from Norway's point of view, I would like to point out that if the tanker had run aground on the rocks while attempting to evade the frigate and leaked oil through a seriously damaged hull the overall situation may have been far worse in terms of environmental damage and possibly even a temporary shut down of the oil terminal and resulting loss of revenue.

I'm not going to predict the outcome of the investigation here, but in previous maritime accidents that I have read about the final report seemed to be rather more complex than is the case with a simple road traffic accident. There tended to be plenty of blame to go around for everyone and recommendations on how people should do better in future. I won't be surprised if that turns out to be the case here as well.
 
I'm not a salvage expert, but I believe that one of the next steps will be to get the remaining oil out of the frigate to ensure that it doesn't leak during subsequent salvage efforts. I don't know if they need get the munitions out right away, or if they do that after salvage.

I suspect that this won't be the first ship that has had to be salvaged after being run aground and sunk, so there are likely salvage companies available with experience at that part of it.

While the loss of the frigate was not good from Norway's point of view, I would like to point out that if the tanker had run aground on the rocks while attempting to evade the frigate and leaked oil through a seriously damaged hull the overall situation may have been far worse in terms of environmental damage and possibly even a temporary shut down of the oil terminal and resulting loss of revenue.

I'm not going to predict the outcome of the investigation here, but in previous maritime accidents that I have read about the final report seemed to be rather more complex than is the case with a simple road traffic accident. There tended to be plenty of blame to go around for everyone and recommendations on how people should do better in future. I won't be surprised if that turns out to be the case here as well.
Agreed re. all that but particularly about the outcome of the investigation(s); events such as this are very interesting but those involved are humans and we make mistakes, assumptions, get tired, place too much confidence in our systems, etc. Hopefully the investigation focuses on prevention of future incidents and not on throwing people under a bus.
 

seaweed

LE
Book Reviewer
What seems to be missing so far is a picture of the damage to the merch and whereabouts on her hull.
 
What seems to be missing so far is a picture of the damage to the merch and whereabouts on her hull.
Page 5 Post 87:



HULL: The tanker "Sola TS" has marked damage to the anchor cluster on the starboard side (left side of the picture) and a hole in the skid side just behind, after the collision with KNM "Helge Ingstad". Otherwise, the tanker was relatively undamaged from the collision. Photo: Helge MikalsenRead all
 
recovery operation in full swing. Recovery vessel now waitng at Hanøytangen. Not showing on Marinetraffic though.
 
Page 5 Post 87:



HULL: The tanker "Sola TS" has marked damage to the anchor cluster on the starboard side (left side of the picture) and a hole in the skid side just behind, after the collision with KNM "Helge Ingstad". Otherwise, the tanker was relatively undamaged from the collision. Photo: Helge MikalsenRead all
Assuming from that that she was laden/sitting much lower in the water when the collision happened?

Thank God for double hulls, is all I can say.
 
Are they going to paint a frigate "kill" silhouette on the tanker if the Norgies have to scrap the warship? :)
 

seaweed

LE
Book Reviewer
Green to green or red to red,
Perfect safety, go ahead.

Didn't seem to work this time.
 
From this Norwegian news site, a (somewhat clunky) auto-translation of an article re. the planned recovery of the wreck, planned to take place not before week 49 of the year, and which will take three weeks to complete, the article says.

Forsvaret: – Tar tre uker å heve fregatten Helge Ingstad

'The plan is to gradually lift the vessel and transfer it to a submersible barge. The play is then begged to Haakonsvern for the vessel to be reviewed to take out equipment and assess the level of damage, the Armed Forces said.

It is the Trondheim company BOA Management AS, which has been commissioned to lift the accident. They will collaborate with several subcontractors with special expertise in the field of expertise.

Because the ship is not naturally stable due to the bottom conditions, according to the Armed Forces, there is still a risk that the frigate may slip into even deeper water, and it is constantly working to ensure that the vessel stays stable.'
 
There are however a few of problems with your hypothesis:

  1. There was no attempt to cut across the bow of the tanker. The two vessels were on almost reciprocal courses, the frigate perhaps fine on the tankers port bow
  2. You suggest all the navigation lights on the tanker were right aft and she would have 250m of unlit ship in front. You ignore the fact that a vessel like this would have a forward masthead light in the fore part of the vessel.
  3. If, as you suggest, the frigate had tried to sail between the 2 mast light on the tanker, which would be very unlikely given their respective courses, then the damage to the tanker would be on the main body of the hull, probably on her port side. The damage to the frigate would likely be on or around her bow. The damage to the tanker is actually on the bell mouth to the starboard anchor. The damage to the frigate is actually on her starboard quarter.
  4. You appear to be very disdainful of "grey funnel" skippers yet seem prepared to accept as gospel the analysis of a "former T23 skipper".
  5. It's complete bollocks
The forward mast light is easy as feck to loose in a busy anchorage at night, a busy anchorage with a lit up oil terminal as its background

To quote my tame T23 driver…

COLREG 8(e)

If necessary to avoid collision or allow more time to assess the situation, a vessel shall slacken her speed or take all way off by stopping or reversing her means of propulsion.


Game set and match, Frigate banged quite literally to rights : the Frigate did not reduce speed or crash stop even when warned she was on a collision course with the tanker. All there in gloriously maintained 17 knots technicolour on the radar tapes as she sailed into the tankers path.
 

Latest Threads

Top