Aberdeen harbourmaster gives insider account after deadly Solong ship crash
Port of Aberdeen's harbourmaster has detailed the complex operation to remove dangerous cargo from the Solong – the fire-ravaged container ship involved in a fatal North Sea collision that remains the focus of a major investigation.
Aberdeen's South Harbour is now acting as caretaker for the vessel, which sustained severe structural damage in the crash and the fires that followed.
Harbourmaster Benji Morrison told the port's annual general meeting that the Solong is now, 'effectively just a hull'.
The Portuguese-flagged vessel arrived under tow on March 28, following a high-impact crash with the stationary Stena Immaculate – a tanker carrying aviation fuel for the United States Air force.
The incident claimed the life of one crew member and triggered a large-scale salvage operation.
Mr Morrison gave an in-depth account of how his team scrambled to prepare for the ship's arrival with just three days' notice.
'This wasn't something I expected in my first year as harbourmaster,' he said. 'But when the SOSREP calls on a Saturday afternoon, you know it is serious.'
The Solong collided with the US-flagged Stena Immaculate on March 10. The crash caused a series of explosions and fires that ravaged the Solong for more than a week.
Tragically, 38-year-old Filipino crew member Mark Angelo Pernia lost his life in the incident. The ship's captain, Vladimir Motin of St Petersburg, Russia, has been charged with gross negligence manslaughter.
Despite the damage, 36 remaining crew members from both vessels were rescued in a tense operation.
Aberdeen was identified as the preferred port to manage the casualty drawing on recent experience handling the MV Lowlands Diamond just months earlier.
To prepare for the Solong's arrival, a specialist shore tension system had to be shipped overnight from the Netherlands and rigged quayside in time for the vessel's arrival on Friday morning.
'She was a dead ship with no mooring capability,' Mr Morrison explained. 'We had to decide how we were going to moor this vessel and how we were going to safely keep it there.
'We had to look at everything: environmental risks, emergency procedures, offloading operations, and maintaining safety for the rest of the port.
'We knew there was dangerous cargo on board, that cargo was very fire-damaged and there was a lot of damage from the fire-fighting efforts to extinguish the fire.
'There was also a lot of broken glass on the deck and we had to put a pilot onto the vessel.'
The Marine Accident Investigation branch, along with Humberside Police and Police Scotland, boarded the ship as soon as it was secured in South Harbour.
In the six weeks since, teams have removed its cargo, offloaded all fuel bunkers, and disposed of contaminated firefighting water in line with waste management regulations.
'The next stage for us now is really caretaking,' said Mr Morrison. 'We are keeping daily watch on this vessel to make sure she maintains her structural integrity and remains safe in port.'
The Solong is expected to be towed for recycling, though the final destination has not yet been confirmed.
Mr Morrison said the back-to-back handling of two casualty vessels has helped cement the Port of Aberdeen's growing reputation as a key port of refuge.
He added: 'We are very well strategically placed as being a port that can offer the UK resilience in times of conflict or national and international emergencies.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Reuters
2 hours ago
- Reuters
Israeli military says it fired shots near Gaza aid distribution site
DUBAI, June 3 (Reuters) - The Israeli military said on Tuesday it fired shots at individuals about half a kilometre from the aid distribution site of U.S.-backed GHF in Gaza. The individuals were moving towards forces in a way that "posed a threat to them", the military said.
Times
2 days ago
- Times
Hopes fade for Russia-Ukraine peace talks without Putin's conditions
Prospects for progress at a second round of Russia-Ukraine peace talks in Turkey on Monday are looking slim after President Zelensky accused Moscow of failing to take them seriously. Delegates from the two warring states are due to meet in Istanbul to discuss a potential ceasefire that would halt their three-year fight, instigated by Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022. However, Zelensky, Ukraine's leader, said in his evening address on Saturday that Kyiv had no clarity on Russia's position as Moscow had not fulfilled an agreement to hand over a memorandum outlining its conditions before the talks. 'We don't have it, Turkey doesn't have it, the United States doesn't have it, and neither do our other partners,' Zelensky said. 'At this point, it looks far from serious.' Zelensky added that rather than stepping down a road to peace, Russia was intensifying its assaults on Ukrainian territory. He urged the United States to adopt new sanctions on Moscow 'to help bring peace closer'. On Sunday, Zelensky said that Kyiv's chief demands in Istanbul would be a ceasefire, the release of more prisoners and the return of abducted Ukrainian children from Russia. He repeated his call for a personal summit with Putin and other leaders. • Russia and Ukraine held their first direct talks since 2022 in Istanbul on May 16 and agreed a '1,000 for 1,000' prisoner swap — completed last weekend — as well as pledging to produce memos on their demands for a ceasefire, and continue talks. Rustem Umerov, Ukraine's defence minister, said that Kyiv had already passed Moscow its own memo, urging Russia to follow suit and 'stop efforts to make the meeting destructive'. 'The Russians' fear of sending their 'memorandum' to Ukraine suggests that it is likely filled with unrealistic ultimatums, and they are afraid of revealing that they are stalling the peace process,' Ukraine's foreign ministry added. In response, the Kremlin said that it was Russia that had proposed the new talks in Turkey and that Kyiv is 'demanding something immediately is not constructive'. Sergei Lavrov, Russia's foreign minister, said Moscow's delegation would present its memorandum at the negotiating table in Istanbul and 'provide the necessary clarifications'. Over the weekend, President Trump's special envoy, Keith Kellogg, renewed the criticism of Moscow for failing to supply a draft to the US in advance. 'We cannot get the Russians' conditions,' he told Fox News. 'We still haven't gotten them. They promised Trump, Putin promised that he would have it in a week. A week later, they didn't show up.' Meanwhile, President Putin's agenda for ending the war includes a written pledge by Nato not to accept more Eastern European members, lifting of some sanctions, and Ukraine's neutral status, the Reuters news agency reported. Several Nato staffers and diplomats familiar with the talks told Radio Free Europe that there are no active discussions in the alliance about Moscow's demand for a written commitment not to expand further to the east, suggesting Putin's proposal would be given short shrift. Kellogg, however, said that Moscow's concern over Nato enlargement is 'fair' and Ukraine's accession to the alliance is 'not on the table'.
The Guardian
2 days ago
- The Guardian
In Australia's post-US future, we must find our own way with China
Thanks to US regional strategic primacy, Australia has been virtually immune from the threat of direct military attack since the defeat of Japan in 1945. Now that is changing. In future it will no longer be militarily impossible for China to attack Australia directly. And not just China: other major regional powers, especially India and eventually perhaps Indonesia, will have the potential to launch significant attacks on Australia. That does not mean we now face a serious threat of Chinese military attack. Today the only circumstance in which Australia could credibly find itself under attack from China would be if Australia joined the US in a war with China over Taiwan. Reports that Australia is a target of Chinese cyber and intelligence operations do not show that Beijing poses a military threat to us, any more than our cyber and intelligence operations targeting China provide evidence that we pose a military threat to them. It is harder to say whether China might become militarily aggressive towards us in future. We cannot assume that it will from its military buildup alone, because countries often expand their armed forces to defend themselves rather than to attack others. But, equally, we cannot rule out the possibility that China might decide to use armed force against Australia in decades to come. Some aspects of China's naval buildup, especially its sustained investment in aircraft carriers, which would have no useful role in a US-China war over Taiwan, suggest that it wants to be able to conduct long-range power-projection operations, which could encompass Australia. Nonetheless, it does seem unlikely. For one thing, it is a little hard to imagine what China's purpose might be in attacking Australia, given that we are not an easy country to invade. And if we get our defence policy right it should be possible for us to raise the cost to the point that it is not worth China's while. This all means that, while we should not ignore it, we should not allow the distant possibility of a Chinese military threat to dominate our thinking about China. There are many other dimensions to what is a very important, complex and ultimately inescapable relationship. It is also a relationship of a completely unfamiliar kind. Other than our two great allies, Australia has never before encountered a country as large, as powerful, as influential in our region, as important to us economically, and with close heritage connections with such a large proportion of our population, as China. Once we abandon the illusion that the US is going to manage China for us, we will realise that we have no choice but to find our own way. This will not be comfortable or easy. China is ruthless, demanding and completely transactional – though no more than other great powers. Over the past decade, in Canberra and around the country, exaggerated fears and a desire to stay in step with Washington have crowded out serious thinking about China itself and how the complex range of interests we have in our relationship with it can best be balanced. We have less deep expertise on China now than we had 30 years ago. That has to change. Our second big task is to rethink our relationship with the US. In the decades before the mid-1990s, there was an assumption that – in a Whig-view-of-history way – Australia was gradually but ineluctably emerging from dependence to independence as we left our colonial and imperial past behind and embraced our Asian future. That died away around the time John Howard became prime minister in 1996, when it seemed to many people that the future was America's, and that Australia's future was to become ever more tightly entwined with it, strategically, economically and culturally. This was the time when a US-Australia free trade agreement seemed both essential and sufficient to guarantee Australia's economic future, and when America's place as the world's dominant military power seemed unchallengeable. The economic illusions of that era were soon overtaken by the hard realities of China's rise but the strategic illusions have survived. Indeed, they were strengthened by the 'war on terror' and have been intensified again by the rising fear of China. So we clung on and stopped imagining we could do anything else. Sign up to Five Great Reads Each week our editors select five of the most interesting, entertaining and thoughtful reads published by Guardian Australia and our international colleagues. Sign up to receive it in your inbox every Saturday morning after newsletter promotion It is often said, for example, that the intelligence relationship is so close and so important to both sides as to be indissoluble. Don't bet on that. US access to Pine Gap as a location for its satellite ground station is valuable but far from essential. Our access to US intelligence under the Five Eyes arrangements is very beneficial and, in some ways, irreplaceable, in that it provides intelligence we could not get in other ways. But that does not mean we could not get by without it. We certainly could. As things get tough with Washington over the months and years ahead, there will be a temptation to try to placate Donald Trump and earn his favour by meeting his demands for increased defence spending, or by siding with the US in its economic war by cutting links with China. There may be good reasons to increase defence spending but trying to buy Trump's favour is not one of them. Likewise, that futile goal would in no way offset the many powerful arguments against joining a US-led anti-China economic coalition. There are no favours we can do Trump which will keep the US strategically engaged in Asia and committed to Australia's defence. We need to bear these cold realities clearly in mind as we think about our future relations with Washington. The first step is to recognise that the end of the alliance as we have known it for so long does not mean the end of the relationship. We have been close allies for so long that it is hard to imagine what other form our relationship might take. But with careful management, a new, beneficial post-alliance relationship can evolve, just as our relations with Britain evolved after it withdrew from Asia in the late 1960s. We continued to have close and productive defence and security links, drawing some strength from our shared history together. Singapore offers another instructive model. It is not a US ally but it has an excellent relationship with Washington, including deep defence links. We should aim for a post-alliance relationship like that with the US in the years ahead – and we should be building it now. That does not mean severing ties with Washington but it does mean changing the relationship fundamentally. Above all, it means acknowledging that the security undertakings in Anzus can no longer be the foundation of our strategic policy, or of our relationship with the US. The Canberra establishment is shocked by any suggestion that we should walk away from the Anzus commitments. They think we can and must depend on the US more than ever in today's hard new world. But that misses the vital point. It is not Australia but the US that is walking away from the commitments it made in the Anzus treaty in very different circumstances 75 years ago. That was plain enough under Joe Biden. It is crystal clear today under Trump. This is the lesson we must draw from Washington's failure to defend Ukraine, from its crumbling position in Asia and from US voters' decisive rejection of the old idea of US global leadership to which we still cling. Our best path now is to recognise this and start acting accordingly. Hugh White is emeritus professor of strategic studies at ANU. This is an edited extract of Hard New World: Our Post-American Future, published today in Quarterly Essay
