Tanker hits San Francisco Bay Bridge: Coast Guard

Comments (14)
stevenmx87 wrote:

“Officials played down the incident, which occurred about 5 miles from the Golden Gate Bridge, where the San Francisco Bay opens into the Pacific Ocean.”

No.. It sounds like the exact opposite. It sounds like a non-event since something was designed well and you and the rest of the scare tactic media are trying to make something of it that it’s not!

Jan 07, 2013 8:43pm EST  --  Report as abuse
MikeEV wrote:

How do you spill oil from an empty oil tanker?

Jan 07, 2013 9:00pm EST  --  Report as abuse
MSSpahr wrote:

What, no sonar or radar on board? Amazing!

Jan 07, 2013 9:22pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Quiptogram wrote:

I’m sure every precaution is being taken, however the article leads me to ask a question or two.

First, had a full inspection of the bridge’s “bumper” system actually been completed at the time the article was written? I.e. is the system fully intact below the water line? When the Cosco ship hit, it ripped off large sheets of the heavy matting which floated out to sea barely submerged, creating serious threats to navigation. It’s been speculated that one of those escaped pieces may have caused the deaths of two fisherman in a small boat shortly afterward.

Second, let’s suppose the tanker had actually sustained some damage; perhaps left in a fragile state vulnerable to leaking. The prudent thing to do is assume it is actually going to leak. Since the ship had entered one of the most sensitive ecosystems in the US, why is it allowed to simply be anchored in the Bay where it could cause untold ecological damage? Don’t we have some kind of protective, contained lock (ala the Panama Canal) to direct damaged ships into for safe inspection before being released?

After the Cosco accident I’d like to know, as a reader, what protocols were changed for ships suffering a collision.

Appreciated the article.

Jan 07, 2013 9:26pm EST  --  Report as abuse
AllynS wrote:

I’ll try again as my first comment was not posted. The article states the spill in liters but the safely unloaded oil in barrels. Two different ships, but why not use consistent units of measure?

Jan 07, 2013 9:40pm EST  --  Report as abuse
WestHouston wrote:

California rejects their own rich oil and gas resources and so relies on foreign oil to supply their many refineries.
They could be using much safer pipelines to bring oil and gas from their own lands and offshore PROVEN reserves, paying royalties to their own landholders (individuals, counties, cities, school districts, state and federal).
But Noooooooooo! (John Belushi, circa 1975)
They want oil to come in spill prone tankers and to pay all that cash to Communists and Arab terrorist sympathizers.
You got what you wanted California:
“You have fixed the sheets and blankets. Now, take a nap”. (Rickey Ricardo, circa 1955)

Jan 07, 2013 10:22pm EST  --  Report as abuse
RamonMendoza wrote:

I think it’s time our leaders muster up the courage and finally ban bridges.

Jan 07, 2013 10:24pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Robert_A_Hahn wrote:

This reporter deserves to be fired, first for writing a sentence in which he felt it necessary to tell us that an empty oil tanker did not spill any oil, and second for gratuitously dragging in a years-old totally unrelated incident just so he could put some spilled oil in the story even though there wasn’t any. This is not reporting. It is agenda-driven journalism. Boo. Hiss.

Jan 07, 2013 10:51pm EST  --  Report as abuse
TheNewWorld wrote:

“An empty oil tanker struck a tower of the San Francisco Bay Bridge on Monday but did not appear to spill any oil into the bay, the U.S. Coast Guard and California state officials said.”

If I tip over an empty glass and water comes out, it wasn’t empty. This is a non event, must be a slow news day. Instead of looking for catastrophes where there aren’t any on a slow news day, how about writing up a positive story for a change.

Jan 08, 2013 12:15am EST  --  Report as abuse
Daklub wrote:

Couple of items to be complete and correct:
– OVERSEAS REYMAR was being guided by San Francisco bar pilot at time of incident
– M/V COSCO BUSAN is containership NOT an oil tanker [A common mistake in reporting that keeps going].

Jan 08, 2013 1:57am EST  --  Report as abuse
gbrooters wrote:

I think because of this California should ban oil tankers from all harbors, oil/gasoline transport trucks from all highways and tank cars from all railways. Isn’t that the way it works there? Didn’t they have a huge gas pipline explosion there a year or two ago?

Jan 08, 2013 10:02am EST  --  Report as abuse
jaham wrote:

Transporting oil is obviously way too dangerous…the EPA should outlaw it at once.

Jan 08, 2013 10:38am EST  --  Report as abuse
AlaskaMike wrote:

If the tanker offloaded at Martinez in the North Bay and was heading out to sea, I wonder why it was passing under the Bay Bridge. Had it anchored for a while in the South Bay for some reason? Seems an obvious question that should have been explained in the article.

Jan 08, 2013 12:46pm EST  --  Report as abuse
blueeeyes wrote:

@ M S Spahr :What, no sonar or radar on board? Amazing!

Truly AMAZING…….

Jan 08, 2013 2:32pm EST  --  Report as abuse
This discussion is now closed. We welcome comments on our articles for a limited period after their publication.