There's probably more to this story than meets the eye, and we can only begin to guess at what sort of behind the scenes negotiations take place between the Saudis, the pirates and the oil, shipping and insurance companies, but apparently it is quite easily to hijack such a ship.
It is also apparently normal for a ransome to be paid for return of ship and crew, but isn't this just inviting more attacks? If a relatively small, poorly equipped gang of pirates can hijack a ship several hundred miles out at sea, surely it can't be too difficult for anybody else* to take control of it again, now that we all know exactly where it is?
Yes, it would be a tragedy if the crew members came to harm, and if they did, seamen's wages might increase in future, but if NATO or the Saudis managed to wipe out the entire gang of pirates as a warning to others, that would surely reduce the likelihood of future attacks and hence reduce insurance costs by an equal and opposite amount.
Just sayin', is all.
* Whether that is NATO, the Saudis, mercenaries acting on behalf of the shipping or insurance company, or indeed yet another gang of pirates is neither here nor.
Import the Third World
1 hour ago
5 comments:
What has puzzled me is if this is so common why haven't they organised convoys for protection? The US, which is desperate for the oil, has a Fleet stationed in the area. I'd have though a couple of Frigates from them and Nato to shepherd tankers through the dangerous areas would have been the first response.
It said on the news that NATO has only twelve warships in the area, which is not enough for half a million square miles of ocean and hundreds of ship movements. But yes, things will have to be coordinated better in future.
I'm afraid piracy upon the high seas is a far larger problem than most people realise (or the media tells us about).
Take a look at the International Maritime Bureau's Live Piracy Map
Currently the hijacked Tanker is reported with these details: 15.11.2008: 0723 UTC: Posn: 04:41S - 048:43E, off southern Somalia. Armed pirates attacked and hijacked a tanker underway. Further details are awaited.
Interestingly, in the same area only hours before, a Container Ship was also attacked (unsucessfully): 14.11.2008: 2134 UTC: Posn: 04:25.6S - 048:58.5E, off southern Somalia. Pirates heavily armed with automatic weapons and RPG in two speedboats chased and fired upon a container ship underway. Master increased speed, took evasive manoeuvres and crew activated fire hoses. Pirates aborted the attempted attack at 2256 UTC. Ship sustained damages due to gunshots and RPG fire. No injuries to crew.
I'd wager they were the same guys... and they certainly came 'tooled up'.
Having said that, there's no way the authorities are going to let them get away with this one. If the two attacks above are connected, its possible the tanker wasn't the principle target and no doubt the hijackers will be wondering if they've taken on too much this time? If so, a clear threat of force might persuade them to give this one up.
Do oil tankers have yard-arms?
this has been brewing on the quiet for 5 years
there is only one answer and it is the traditional one: no quarter
(the Sultanate of Muscat [plus, since the 1950's, Oman] has been the UK's 2nd longest continual ally - Portugal the oldest - because ports were needed on the Barbary Coast to police the India route against pirates. The Royal Navy prevailed in the same waters in the 18th Century and it can do so again)
Post a Comment