PaddleWise by thread

From: David Flory <daflory_at_verizon.net>
subject: Re: [Paddlewise] Rogue Waves
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 2009 17:04:15 -0500
Check out this URL, the Eropean Space Agency site, for an article on  
"rogue waves" and a couple of pictures. Any wave that washes over the  
deck of a super tanker is "rogue" in my book and I wouldn't want to be  
anywhere near it.

<http://www.esa.int/esaCP/SEMOKQL26WD_index_0.html>

Fair winds and happy bytes, Dave Flory, Flower Mound, TX, U.S.A.
--
Speak softly, study Aikido, & you won't need to carry a big stick!
***************************************************************************
PaddleWise Paddling Mailing List - Any opinions or suggestions expressed
here are solely those of the writer(s). You must assume the entire
responsibility for reliance upon them. All postings copyright the author.
Submissions:     PaddleWise_at_PaddleWise.net
Subscriptions:   PaddleWise-request_at_PaddleWise.net
Website:         http://www.paddlewise.net/
***************************************************************************
From: Craig Jungers <crjungers_at_gmail.com>
subject: Re: [Paddlewise] Rogue Waves
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 2009 08:24:30 -0700
On Mon, Aug 31, 2009 at 3:04 PM, David Flory <daflory_at_verizon.net> wrote:

> Check out this URL, the Eropean Space Agency site, for an article on "rogue
> waves" and a couple of pictures. Any wave that washes over the deck of a
> super tanker is "rogue" in my book and I wouldn't want to be anywhere near
> it.
>
> <http://www.esa.int/esaCP/SEMOKQL26WD_index_0.html>
>
>
> Great article. Thanks for the posting. I had seen that opening photo before
and thought that the wave was running counter to the prevailling sea; but
its difficult to tell.

As far as waves washing over a super tanker, that's a lot more common than
you would think.

Caveat: the following is a sea story.. it's true but just a story...

My tanker - not a "supertanker" but still 700-feet long - had dropped off
its pilot and was underway for San Francisco. The Captain and I were both on
the bridge and it was about 9 or 10pm. Weather was not that good with wind
speeds of 50kn from the south to southeast with 25ft seas but until we got
out of Prince William Sound we reallly had no idea of what it was "outside".
Two more fully-laden tankers were following us with an Arco ship right
behind us.

Prior to the Exxon Valdez incident once a tanker left Port Valdez it was not
allowed to return. If the weather was too bad to leave the relatively
protected waters of the Sound the routine was for the tanker to circle in a
holding pattern around Prince William Sound. Now PWS is a pretty large place
but 2 or 3 tankers going in circles in 50-kt winds can make it seem awfully
small so it was routine for Captains to simply get out and deal with
whatever was out there. This resulted in some terrible damage to ships, loss
of several crew members (including a Ch. Mate and a Bos'n one stormy night)
and diversions of course amounting to a thousand miles. No one wanted to
risk a collision between laden supertankers inside the waters of PWS.

I expect that this weighed heavily on the mind of the Captain as we
approached Cape Hinchinbrooke. At this point we would have to make a
30-degree turn to port for a course to San Francisco and since that was the
direction from which the wind was blowing and the seas were traveling we
weren't sure we could make that turn.

Sure enough... when the time came we put the helm hard over to port and
could not get the ship to turn. So the Captain decided to do a maneuver
called "wearing ship" in which you go around in a full circle in the other
direction to build momentum in the turn and come out on course. This worked
but it was a nasty turn because for some portion we were in the trough of
the waves. And remember that two more tankers were right behind us. Also
remember that this was all done in complete darkness.

When we finally got onto course we were not going very fast and it was nasty
rough. The Captain looked over at me (both of us were standing together on
the port side of the helmsman's position but forward against the windows)
and wondered out loud to me what it looked like out there and walked back to
turn on the king post lights to illuminate the deck.

This particular tanker had a raised bow then a lower deck running aft to
where the quarters and the bridge were. Two large towers were located along
the centerline of the deck and these had huge lights which would light up
the entire ship. When these lights came on all we could see were the lights
themselves and the forward raised bow structure. Everything else was white
water with waves washing over us on a regular basis. This sight, along with
the shuddering and shaking of the ship as it pounded into the head sea, was
somewhat disturbing and the Captain turned off the lights and said to me, "I
think we'll go back."

We told the following ships - neither of which had managed to get as far as
Cape Hinchinbrooke yet - of our intention to return to PWS because
conditions outside were too risky. Both Captains agreed that they, too,
would stay inside the Sound. At this point Port Valdez came on to inform us
that we all had been cleared to return inside the Port to tie up to the
docks and wait for the storm to abate.

I was stunned. I had made a lot of trips in and out of the Sound and had
spent time at anchor (empty) and time in that "holding pattern" but I had
never heard of any fully loaded tanker being allowed back into Port Valdez;
much less three of them.
So we all picked up pilots at the Narrows and returned to the Port to spend
a relatively peaceful night tied up to the facilities docks. Within 16 hours
the storm had passed, we had daylight, and we all left for a routine trip
down the coast.

I've always suspected that the Port authorities were not comfortable with
three supertankers going around in circles inside PWS; especially in light
of the Exxon Valdez incident which had been only a short time before. (I
believe that the Valdez was still stuck on Bligh Reef at the time but I'm
not sure; these trips do tend to blur together after a few years.) Just
imagine the damage if two of those tankers collided or even if one of them
lost power inside the Sound.

I don't know for sure, but I also suspect that Alyeska (operators of the oil
facilities) may have picked up the pilotage fees for the return and
subsequent second departure of these tankers. They were already in
significant trouble over not maintaining oil-spill recovery equipment (it
had been moved to Seattle) as required by their contract with the State of
Alaska.

It seems common sense to bring the tankers back but you have to understand
that moving ships into and out of Port Valdez is not a simple matter. The
entrance - the Narrows - have some significant current (with a speed limit
of 6 kn for tankers) and then one has to have tugs, line handlers, etc. all
available on the docks. But the Exxon Valdez changed all that... at least
for a while.

Craig Jungers
Moses Lake, WA
www.nwkayaking.net
***************************************************************************
PaddleWise Paddling Mailing List - Any opinions or suggestions expressed
here are solely those of the writer(s). You must assume the entire
responsibility for reliance upon them. All postings copyright the author.
Submissions:     PaddleWise_at_PaddleWise.net
Subscriptions:   PaddleWise-request_at_PaddleWise.net
Website:         http://www.paddlewise.net/
***************************************************************************

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thu Aug 21 2025 - 16:33:52 PDT