Pirates capture a Saudi tanker

[belfastuniguy 18]

Pirates capture Saudi oil tanker

The Sirius Star made its maiden voyage in March of this year

Pirates have seized a giant Saudi-owned oil tanker in the Indian Ocean off the Kenyan coast and are steering it towards Somalia, the US Navy reports.

The US-bound tanker was captured on Saturday some 450 nautical miles (830km) south-east of Mombasa, and is now approaching the Somali port of Eyl.

The Sirius Star is carrying its full load of 2m barrels - more than one-quarter of Saudi Arabia's daily output.

Its international crew of 25, including two Britons, is said to be safe.

Lt Nathan Christensen, a spokesman for the US Navy's 5th Fleet, said the attack was "unprecedented".

Life in Somalia's pirate town From cutlass to AK-47

According to the Navy, the ship is "nearing an anchorage point" at Eyl, a port often used by pirates based in Somalia's Puntland region.

War-torn Somalia has not had an effective government since 1991.

A BBC correspondent in Mombasa reports that this is the third tanker to have been hijacked in the region.

News of the attack raised crude oil prices on global markets following an earlier slump, Reuters news agency reported.

The capture of the tanker appears to mark a worrying new development, both in terms of the size of the ship and the fact it was attacked so far from the African coast.

Attacks on shipping off the Horn of Africa and Kenya by mainly Somali pirates seeking ransoms prompted foreign navies to send warships to the area this year.

A number of vessels and their crews have been held captive for months, including the Ukrainian freighter MV Faina, seized in September.

'Crew safe'

The supertanker was heading for the US via the Cape of Good Hope at the southern tip of Africa, Reuters reports.

THE SIRIUS STAR Nearly the length of a US aircraft carrier Weighs more than three times as much as a carrier when loaded Can carry 2 million barrels of oil - more than 25% of Saudi Arabia's daily output Is third tanker, and biggest vessel, to be hijacked in the region Life in Somalia's pirate town

The route around the Cape of Good Hope is a main thoroughfare for fully-laden supertankers from the Gulf, the world's biggest oil-exporting region.

With a capacity of 318,000 dead weight tonnes, the ship is 330m (1,080ft) long and is classed as a Very Large Crude Carrier.

It is about as long as a US aircraft carrier and, when loaded, weighs more than three times as much.

"It's the largest ship that we've seen pirated," said Lt Christensen.

The South Korean-built Sirius Star, owned by the Saudi company Aramco, made its maiden voyage in March 2008.

The ship's operator, Vela International, said that all of the crew were reported to be safe.

"Vela response teams have been mobilised and are working to ensure the safe release of crew members and the vessel," it added.

Confirming that two Britons were aboard the tanker, the UK Foreign Office said it could not give any details of their role on the ship.

"We are seeking more information on the incident," a spokesman said.

The other crew are said to be from Croatia, the Philippines, Poland and Saudi Arabia.

Captive vessels

Figures from the International Maritime Bureau show that attacks in the area - the Gulf of Aden and the Indian Ocean off the African coast - have made up one-third of all piracy incidents worldwide in 2008.

In the first nine months of the year 63 incidents were reported.

As of 30 September, 12 vessels remained captive and under negotiation with more than 250 crew being held hostage.

Pirates remain active and regularly strike in the region. In the past week alone:

• A Russian warship in the Gulf of Aden drove off pirates who tried to capture the Saudi Arabian merchant ship Rabih

• Pirates hijacked a Japanese cargo ship off Somalia

• A Chinese fishing boat was seized off the Kenyan coast

• A Turkish ship transporting chemicals to India was hijacked off Yemen

• The UK's Royal Navy shot dead two suspected pirates attacking a Danish cargo-ship off the coast of Yemenquote>

[panthersimcity4 162]

Of course the only reason why the government will get involved is to get the oil. God forbid a rich oil tycoon should lose money...

[fukuda 351]

They also captured a japanese ship the other day

[Explodingsims 3]

I think what Panther said just about sums it up.

[duack 14]

so long as the crew isnt harmed then its a good thing that impoverished people are getting the oil instead of greedy caltex and shell.

[fukuda 351]

Lol, the Robin Hood myth.... They don't really share with poor people the money they get hijacking ships...

[belfastuniguy 18]

Originally posted by: duack so long as the crew isnt harmed then its a good thing that impoverished people are getting the oil instead of greedy caltex and shell.quote>

Oh my....deluded much.

These hijackers are using any ransom money or gains to continue to support the war on-going in Somalia and the backing of Islamic terrorism the region.

Please do most of us  favour and read into the issues more.

[Easy Bakes 253]

A number of vessels and their crews have been held captive for months, including the Ukrainian freighter MV Faina, seized in September. quote>

That one was carrying Tanks and grenade launchers.

The UK's Royal Navy shot dead two suspected pirates attacking a Danish cargo-ship off the coast of Yemenquote>

Thats what they should to to all of them.

[duack 14]

Well this is actually all ive read on the topicand it didnt really say anything about war

[Duke87 1,070]

Originally posted by: duack so long as the crew isnt harmed then its a good thing that impoverished people are getting the oil instead of greedy caltex and shell.quote>

This coming from the same person who was trumpeting bush as a genius and saying the environment doesn't matter in that other thread.

Originally posted by: belfastuniguy These hijackers are using any ransom money or gains to continue to support the war on-going in Somalia and the backing of Islamic terrorism the region. quote>

True. They don't want the oil. They want the ransom money. They'll give the oil back once they get it.

Besides, ultimately it wouldn't be "Caltex and Shell" getting the oil, anyway. It would be individual consumers of things like gasoline and.. basically anything, since everything is probably at some point transported by something that runs on an oil distillate. Sure, big oil companies would be involved, but it would hurt you and I just as much as anyone.

On another note, I don't like the phrase "Islamic Terrorism". It's a complete oxymoron and is misleading and misrepresenting. Terrorism is very un-Islamic. Putting the word "Islamic" in front of it implies that it's done within the bounds and rules of Islam, which it of course is not.

[belfastuniguy 18]

On another note, I don't like the phrase "Islamic Terrorism". It's a complete oxymoron and is misleading and misrepresenting. Terrorism is very un-Islamic. Putting the word "Islamic" in front of it implies that it's done within the bounds and rules of Islam, which it of course is not.quote>

Its being done in the name of Islam and the terrorists are Muslim, hence Islamic terrorists. I'm fully aware not all Muslims have such goals or ideas, however fact remain these people are using that religion as a basis for a lot of their actions.

[Duke87 1,070]

Muslims typically don't like that phrase, either. They feel as though using "Islamic" to describe it amounts to saying it's justifiable under Islam.

Yes, strictly speaking "Islamic" can be taken to just mean "having to do with Islam". But to Muslims it usually means "done properly according to Islam". And even otherwise, it carries that connotation.

I'd much prefer to just call it "Terrorism". Why does it matter where their justification for it comes from? That changes nothing. It's all the same evil business whether you invoke Allah or the flying spaghetti monster for it.

[belfastuniguy 18]

I'm not going to argue about it, the use Islam as an excuse for their actions and while it may contravene the peaceful and non-fundamental facets of the religion itself, they themselves use Islamic terrorist. So I'll refer to them as Islamic terrorists.

[Easy Bakes 253]

That cargo was woth 120 million dollars. You would think that would justify some sort of defenceive measures for these ships. I mean they pretty much attack from speedboats and climb up the side to overcome an unarmed crew. Am i the only one who would put some security personell on board?

[WC_EEND 9]

my geography teacher recently said there was no such thing as pirates anymore

[Explodingsims 3]

Originally posted by: belfastuniguy I'm not going to argue about it, the use Islam as an excuse for their actions and while it may contravene the peaceful and non-fundamental facets of the religion itself, they themselves use Islamic terrorist. So I'll refer to them as Islamic terrorists. quote>

To derail this thread a bit, I'm going to have to agree with Duke. There's no reason to isolate these terrorists because they happen to be Islam. Your statement that they use Islam as an excuse doesn't hold up either, everyone has an excuse for blowing something up, IE Christians who blow up Abortion Clinics, or people who want to prove their power, or people who are just plain insane.

So, there's no need to isolate this group as "Islamic" Terrorists, they're just terrorists. 

Now, you could call them "Islamic Extremists" as that is what they really are.

[Duke87 1,070]

Some armed security on board would help, certainly. And "armed" would have to mean with automatic weapons, not just puny little handguns.

But then again, that might cause issues with where the ship can go. Some ports might not take so kindly to a civilian ship with people carrying Kalashnikovs on board docking there. In some countries that stuff is illegal for civilian possession so it probably wouldn't be able to dock anywhere there at all. No ship delivering oil to the UK would be able to do it, for instance.

And it's also a valid concern that terrorists would infiltrate those security forces and then go run around and shoot up a bunch of people with their guns after coming into port in Newark or Long Beach.

So there are good reasons why you don't see that happening.

[BIWDC 2,296]

Originally posted by: WC_EEND my geography teacher recently said there was no such thing as pirates anymore quote>

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Yeah a lot of people think that but it's clearly incorrect.

[tepodon 29]

Actually the gulf of Aden and the Somalian coast is not a major route for oil tankers, thus pirates off this coast do not affects oil prices in the west. What primarily travels through this region are cargo ships,

To add some more, these pirates are not being driven by any ideology, although they may argue, their primary reason for piracy on the high seas are for economic reasons. Using the capture of vessels off the Somali coast they gain massive amounts of ransom money, which are usually paid in full due to the sovereignty rights of Somalia, and the inability of the Somali government to crack down on piracy within its own waters.

So far there have been 26 captured ships this year alone. I think that Somalia's sovereignty should be infringed in this matter, and China should back down on vetoing international measures to crack down on other areas involving piracy. However, going to war off the matter is extremely thought provoking. If there is to be some kind of armed conflict within Somalia and its waters to rid the area of pirates, would become a conflict ultimately sponsored by shipping companies. This would ultimately become a second Gulf War I, where we enter, destroy infrastructure, but allow the weak government to continue. If there was to be major international interventions, it should be total, accompanied by aid. A complete overhaul of the Somali government and most of all its civil infrastructure, creating some kind of alternative for the people instead of piracy. But of course this would be too costly, and no one would want to do it.

[aking88 7]

Originally posted by: duack so long as the crew isnt harmed then its a good thing that impoverished people are getting the oil instead of greedy caltex and shell.quote>

Are you really that naive? Do you think these pirates are the kind of people that will improve the situation there?

Honest hard working people lose out on these crimes and often have their lifes threatened.

[belfastuniguy 18]

Somalia's sovereignty should be infringed in this matterquote>

Somalia hasn't had a government since 1991 or there abouts. No one really there to argue about sovereignty. I'm pretty sure most nations wouldn't complain too much either.

[hamsterTK 93]

But then again, that might cause issues with where the ship can go. Some ports might not take so kindly to a civilian ship with people carrying Kalashnikovs on board docking there. In some countries that stuff is illegal for civilian possession so it probably wouldn't be able to dock anywhere there at all. No ship delivering oil to the UK would be able to do it, for instance.

quote>

There could be some kind of treaty arranging for UN peacekeeper type soldiers on large ships sailing through pirate-infested waters.

[A Nonny Moose 8,263]

Originally posted by: hamsterTK

There could be some kind of treaty arranging for UN peacekeeper type soldiers on large ships sailing through pirate-infested waters.

quote>

I don't think the UN should be involved.  All large ships are registered in some country.  That country should defend its territory.  A ship at sea is the national territory of the flag is flies.

If a country could be taken to the international court by ship owners who were victims of piracy on the high seas for damages and property loss, perhaps "flags of convenience" would cease to be so convenient.

At one time, I was the owner of a vessel registered under the Canada Shipping Act, and I proudly flew the Maple Leaf according to flag regulations.  However, I would never have taken my vessel into Caribbean waters except in a large flotilla accompanied by a warship.

Maybe it is time for shepherded convoys again, eh?

[Easy Bakes 253]

Originally posted by: N_O_Body

Originally posted by: hamsterTK

There could be some kind of treaty arranging for UN peacekeeper type soldiers on large ships sailing through pirate-infested waters.

quote>

I don't think the UN should be involved.  All large ships are registered in some country.  That country should defend its territory.  A ship at sea is the national territory of the flag is flies.

If a country could be taken to the international court by ship owners who were victims of piracy on the high seas for damages and property loss, perhaps "flags of convenience" would cease to be so convenient.

At one time, I was the owner of a vessel registered under the Canada Shipping Act, and I proudly flew the Maple Leaf according to flag regulations.  However, I would never have taken my vessel into Caribbean waters except in a large flotilla accompanied by a warship.

Maybe it is time for shepherded convoys again, eh?quote>

 

Just put a couple of these on the ship

http://www.casr.ca/bg-navy-rchmg-project.htm

[jj88 24]

The UN doesn't necessarily have to do the patrolling, it could just be forces from the countrys' of the ships that sail there

[Barbarossa 51]

.

  Edited September 8, 2012 by Barbarossa  

[saltandsauce 0]

terrible isn't it?

people holding people to ransom over oil [said OPEC]

[Muck308 55]

I don't know if the UN should get involved, but this affects many nations. We have a ship that's from Liberia, managed by Saudis, and the crew is compiled of Poles, Britons, a Croatian, and... some other nationals. Now it is held captive in Somalia. This could very well be an international incident... Oh wait, it already is. As far as preventative measures go, I say stick with what works. 1 crew member, or actually 4 I guess since a tanker is so big, need to be on the look-out for pirates at all times. Although I suppose you could get away with two lookouts. 1 on the bridge and the other on the stern. It boggles my mind that pirates from small speed boats could even infiltrate the ship. When it's loaded with cargo, the deck sinks closer to water level, but even still it seems inprobable. Nonetheless the buccos have gotten on board, from what I heard they used grappling hooks. Ridiculous. But is arming the crew the answer? You can't have everyone toting weapons, it just isn't realistic. Besides, if you have a weapon, the other guy will just go get a bigger one. I despise thieves. They are the lowest of the low. Get a haircut and get a real job!

[Yoman3 5]

There is actually a fleet in the area, named Combined Task Force 150 compsing mostly NATO ships. The Russian navy also has one Frigate in the area. But the Task force is as always constrained by RoEs, meaning they can't fire on the pirates until they commit a hostile act, but that hostile act would be taking hostages and the ship, and you can't fire on the ship at that point

[Muck308 55]

Catch 22 eh? Did you hear that an Indian Naval ship just destroyed a pirate mother ship? Lemme find the article...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/nov/19/somalia-pirates