Is nowhere remote any longer?
Many moons past, young and carefree, I fancied myself something of a rock climber. Along with my pal Mike I would scramble around the gritty Derbyshire peaks near our home in the north of England. Having achieved what we fondly thought was an advanced level of proficiency, able to handle the "v-diff" sections, we set our sights on the fabled Langdale Pikes of Cumbria. These were climbs of a somewhat higher level, not only of extended difficulty but of actual height, with several teeth-grinding exposures over great drops.
Our first foray, once we had negotiated the bar** of the Old Dungeon Ghyll [4] - the climbers' pub - was a substantial climb to the top of the nearest pike. I recall we took hours over the attempt and I remember standing petrified before a move around an overhanging corner to a hold that I could not see, but was assured was there!
Mike (that's him in the picture, on Langdale) led the final pitch and, groaning with the effort, pulled himself over the edge to come face to face with ... two gentle ladies who, having arrived at the peak via the easy back route, were having afternoon tea and enjoying the lovely view!
We were both shattered to discover that the remote and hazardous Pike was not restricted to fearless adventurers such as us.
I was reminded of this incident recently when reading of the sad loss of the M/V Explorer near the South Shetland Islands at position 62° 23’ 32’’ S, 57° 16’ 09’’ W. In another age (say, when Sir Ernest Shackleton was engaged upon the voyage that the Explorer was tracking), this remote region would offer the sailor no refuge other than what he could devise for himself.
When the Explorer foundered her passengers and crew were promptly picked up by a passing cruise ship, the Norwegian M/V Nordnorge.
A "passing cruise ship" ... just exactly what is the liklihood of such a rescue in the normal course of events? Quite likely, or so it seems, since at least three vessels, M/V National Geographic Endeavour, M/V Nordnorge, and M/V Antarctic Dream, were close to M/V Explorer at approximately 40 miles away. A tad busier than in Sir Ernest’s day.
The M/V Explorer is described variously as having a "double-hull", that is a hull within a hull, or second skin, or perhaps as simply having additional sheathing on her bottom; ice hardening, in effect. Whichever, contact with an unknown submerged object was sufficient to punch a hole in the hull resulting in early loss of power and hence the inability to pump.
Environmental concerns are top of mind; the ship was carrying MGO (Marine Gas Oil) fuel, estimated to be a quantity of approximately 190 cbm. She sank in approximately 500m of open water and thus the impact may well be insignificant. Interestingly, there is a suggestion (from the owners) that the vessel may just be floating upside-down, since there are no confirmed reports from anyone actually seeing the vessel sink! The images we did see showed Explorer rolling over on her side, not flipping end for end in the classic end dive. To date, there have been no reports sighting a semi-submerged hull. The likely destination, if the hull is still floating, would be Elephant Island.
According to the International Association of Antarctica Tour Operators (IAATO), 80 Antarctica-bound outfitters are voluntary members of the organization, with 70 vessels listed. G.A.P.Adventures, the owner-operator of the Explorer is a member, as is Lindblad Expeditions, owner of the Nordnorge. [1]
The volume of tourist passenger traffic to the region is significant: in 2006-2007, member vessels of the IAATO carried over 37,000 passengers to the region, along with 22,000 staff and crew. In 2001, the association calculated visitors in the range of 15,000 and estimated the growth to 2005-2006 of 20,000 plus 6,000 on large cruise ships. They did indicate that their figures represented a guess.
What of the large cruise ships? The Golden Princess, a 689-foot cruise ship that can carry 2,425 passengers and run by California-based Princess Cruises, is the largest tourist vessel to have operated in Antarctic waters and did visit Antarctic waters this season, but passengers did not leave the vessel to go on land or on the ice shelf.
IAATO issued a paper at its last meeting recommending treaty members bar large cruise ships, but there has yet to be any action.
Four more cruises in 2008 and 2009 are scheduled for the Star Princess, a ship of similar size to the Golden Princess. Neither of these large ships is ice-strengthened; the company does not regard this as necessary as they operate only in open water in the summer months. This begs the question: what did Explorer hit? The reports suggest the hole was "fist-sized", perhaps not what one would expect as a result of collision with submerged ice. Perhaps it was a man-made object ... a shipping container, for instance? We know from race reports how many of those are circling the world's currents, just awash and lethal to small vessels.
Whatever the cause, a ship is lost in a sensitive area of the globe, but fortunately with no loss of life or injury, other than to a number of pocketbooks. Ought there to be restrictions placed on large cruise vessels in sensitive regions? Where would one start? Anyone who has sailed the Caribbean in the past few years is well aware of the wall-to-wall ships lining the harbours of that lovely region, shuttling in and out of small ports like tramcars at rush hour. The Antarctic, and the Arctic to a lesser extent, is essentially unregulated, a result of the Antarctic Treaty System.
In a recent paper by the the Antarctic and Southern Ocean Coalition [3], the group stated:
"Antarctic tourism has been growing, expanding and diversifying at a rapid pace for well over a decade, yet the Antarctic Treaty System lacks of a comprehensive policy for tourism in Antarctica. ASOC believes that there is an urgent need for Antarctic Treaty Consultative Parties to establish sensible operating rules before a catastrophe occurs."
"Steps to be considered include banning ships exceeding a certain size and carrying more than a certain number of people or a certain amount of fuel on board, establishing ice-strengthening standards for vessels which go into Antarctic waters, and reviewing how existing regulations are complied with, particularly with regard to Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) to assess whether the actual or potential impacts of tourism are sufficiently taken into consideration, including not only the impact of routine operations but also impacts of potential contingencies."
The Explorer incident was hardly an isolated occurrence; there was the grounding of the Nord Kapp at Deception Island, 31 January 2007. This accident resulted in the spillage of marine diesel into the marine environment and resulting environmental damage. There were no victims. As well, there was the grounding of the Luybov Orlova at Deception Island, 15 November 2006. It is believed that the rescue call was made 15 hours after the vessel grounded, at which time no MAYDAY call was raised. There was potential for the situation to have worsened. The Luybov Orlova was towed off the sandbank, taking 3 hours to complete.
(As it happens, the Luybov Orlova was the ship from which the above photo of the Explorer was taken last year by my good friend Mike Preston - yes, my climbing buddy!)
** The “hiker’s bar” is considerably more upscale than it was in our climbing days!
