901–910 of 1001 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It makes you wonder if anyone has an old aircraft carrier they'd be willing to use as a battering ram. Try to hit it towards the bow to dislodge it.
And if that ram breaks you'll not just have a giant container ship stuck there, but a bloody aircraft carrier as well. :D
I don't think people are giving enough credit to how stuck the ship is. Look at some of the photos of the front of it. Look at how far out of the water it is sitting. The ship might look like that if it were totally empty, but not when it is full of containers like this. Some people saying: just drag it off of the sand. Okay! And what happens when that causes you to rip a hole into the hull of the ship? Now it's real…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Ok, I know it sounds crazy. But what if they put a correctly sized explosive(s) deep enough below and along the spine to blow and then fill the area with water, reducing the rheological load? We're talking about 100 feet underneath the canal bed, and do it with a shaped charge that'll be more optimal for the task. Just thinking about fast <1 week methods.
Works in cartoons!
In hindsight, was it a good idea to allow ships that big through the canal? In the future, could they perhaps widen the canal and disallow ships large enough to block it?
I don't think people are giving enough credit to how stuck the ship is. Look at some of the photos of the front of it. Look at how far out of the water it is sitting. The ship might look like that if it were totally empty, but not when it is full of containers like this. Some people saying: just drag it off of the sand. Okay! And what happens when that causes you to rip a hole into the hull of the ship? Now it's real…
> Some people have suggested unloading the ship. I don't think you realize the infrastructure required to unload a ship. It seems, though, that a partial unloading is being considered by a professional in the field according to quotes in an article in The Guardian [1]: However, Peter Berdowski, CEO of Boskalis, a specialist dredging company that has sent a crew to the scene, said data so far suggested “it is not real…
I'll start:
1. pull the ship out of the sand by force with a fleet of tugs which tears a hole in the ship causing an angle of loll and to subsequently keel over.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Some people have suggested unloading the ship. I don't think you realize the infrastructure required to unload a ship. It seems, though, that a partial unloading is being considered by a professional in the field according to quotes in an article in The Guardian [1]: However, Peter Berdowski, CEO of Boskalis, a specialist dredging company that has sent a crew to the scene, said data so far suggested “it is not real…
Ok, I know it sounds crazy. But what if they put a correctly sized explosive(s) deep enough below and along the spine to blow and then fill the area with water, reducing the rheological load? We're talking about 100 feet underneath the canal bed, and do it with a shaped charge that'll be more optimal for the task. Just thinking about fast <1 week methods.
Theres a reason wacky, dangerous ideas happen in the movies and not real life. The consequences of trying to look clever and failing are pretty severe.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Crazy idea : Can we roll it into the water by pulling it over high strength rollers of some sort ? It would be pretty cool to use the same technique that was use to build the pyramids.
Sane answer: No. The ship is 400 metres / 0.25 of a mile long. With containers, it weighs anywhere up to 199 thousand tons. One does not simply attach a few hundred cables, put some rollers under it, and pull with all the tractors you can find in Egypt. Also, it's already in the water. It's just turned sideways and buried the bulb (by the looks) into the canal wall.
Principle of maximal irony prediction: the ship rolls over while trying to free it and the suez gets littered with containers, takes even longer to clear it.
I wonder how much economic damage is caused every day that ship is stuck.
[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suez_Canal_Authority#:~:text=I...
This valuation is based on Lloyd's list's valuation of Suez traffic at ~$10 billion / day, but surely that would require all traffic to be permanently lost (rather than delayed) to add up to a concrete loss. Spoilage might be an issue with some cargo, plus there's other costs to delay, but I can't imagine the eventual loss will be anything close to $10 billion / day (excepting obvious large unknowns like market speculation).