News

The Kerala High Court was informed on Aug 11, that the wreck of the 'MSC Elsa 3' contained hazardous materials and therefore, may have to be removed under Section 356J of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1958, and provisions of the Nairobi Convention on the Removal of Wrecks. The submission was made before the Division Bench of Justice Raja Vijayaraghavan V. and Justice K.V. Jayakumar, which was hearing a batch of public interest litigations. The hazardous materials were including calcium carbide, rubber chemical anti-oxidants, and plastic nurdles, which could affect the marine environment if they are released. The Union government has also informed the High Court that it has sought the help of the Navy to inspect the condition of the containers. The Union Ministry of Shipping's position was that the ship itself should be removed from the sea. A letter was written to the shipping company requesting this. A year later, the shipping company's response explained that the ship or its contents were not a threat and that the ship did not need to be removed from the sea, the reply filed by the central government explained in the affidavit. The Shipping Ministry and the Director General of Shipping filed the affidavit in response to public interest litigations filed by Congress leader T.N. Prathapan, seeking compensation for fishermen affected by the shipwreck. The court will consider the matter next week. The affidavit also states that even if the Navy was willing, the underwater inspection would not be carried out until the monsoon season was over. The ship was not currently a threat to navigation. The responsibility for removing hazardous materials from the ship was with the shipping company. The affidavit also stated that the study report conducted by the C.S.I.R.-National Institute of Oceanography should also be taken into account to understand the environmental impacts. The affidavit was filed by Captain Tapesh Ghosh, a nautical surveyor in the Marine Mercantile Department.

A 406MHz distress beacon was detected for the 'St. Joseph & Peter' with five crew members on board on Oct 26, 2026, in pos. 27-25.33 N 092-38.67 W, approximately 154 nautical miles southest of Galveston, Texas. The vessel had lost all propulsion and generators. Ships able to assist, were asked to contact the USCG RCC New Orleans. The ship has since been located, and some reports indicated that it also had regained propulsion.

Seagrass in the waterintake of the propulsion system disabled the 'Halunder Jet' in the port of Heligoland on Oct 27, 2026. The catamaran was unable to depart from the isand on the evening. The 188 passengers were left stranded on the island until the 'Helgoland' of the Cassen Eils company stepped in to assist and brought them back to Cuxhaven. The 'Halunder Jet' made it back on Oct 28, and the scheduled crossing in that day was suspended.

On the afternoon of Oct 27, the CCS of Salvamento Maritimo in Tenerife was notified from the Civil Guard regarding a possible cayuco 10 nautical miles south of El Hierro. The 'Salvamar Navia' was mobilised to investigate and located a cayuco, which was subsequently escorted to La Restinga. After disembarking, 139 people were confirmed, including nine minors.

Experts from the Lloyd Yard Bremerhaven were on board both the 'Mein Schiff 3' and 'MSC Victorine' to assess the extent of the damage. Reportedly, the cruise ship was to be moved to Lloyd Werft on Oct 30, but would not be drydocked. The initial plan was apparently to repair only the most serious damages and make the ship seaworthy again. Shorter cruises with a reduced number of passengers should then be possible. The 'MSC Victorine' was to be moved to a different shipyard quay for repairs. The container ship departed on Oct 28 at midday with the assistance of tugs, turned around a little further north, and was moored alongside the quay with her damaged side facing the dock. It was likely that the intention was to recover containers or to use shore-based cranes to access the damaged areas. Regarding the cause of the allision, it looked like the wind that was prevailing at the time of departure was taken into account correctly, considering that the actual departure went smoothly. The cruise ship pulled away cleanly from the pier and immediately gained speed to maintain sufficient rudder power and control against the wind. However, shortly after departure, a very strong gust apparently hit, and it was no longer possible to counteract it, neither with the ship's own power nor with the additional tugs. As the gust was significantly stronger than anticipated, while still maneuvering relatively slowly and at close range to other vessels, there was no way to react. The question was whether it was foreseeable that such an extreme gust would occur. What was particularly unfavourable was that it was a very strong westerly storm, and the Strom Quay runs almost directly north-south. There were no sailing bans on the Weser River due to the wind conditions.