Navy releases sonar images showing Dali resting on floor of Patapsco River
Vložit
- čas přidán 8. 09. 2024
- The Navy released sonar images Tuesday morning of the Dali, the cargo ship that slammed into the bridge, resting on the bottom of the Patapsco River.
It's always incredible how in the end no one wants to take responsibility for what happened.
If the ship's owner and operator does not want to pay, ban them from US ports.
why should they when Obiden is giving them a free pass
The person piloting the ship out of the harbor was an American employed by the port.
Banning someone from entering the US is racist... or at least that's what I've been told.
@@jeffreymiller6847Because an 1851 law says they might. What have you done to get that law overturned?
look up the titanic law. it's a weasel law from the titanic disaster that they will get around it. they won't pay anything.
“Our ship broke down and we crashed into the bridge that no one else has ever hit, but it’s not our fault”😅😂
Better research that .. other people hit it
So why does the shipping company think they don’t have any financial responsibility for what they caused? The ship is probably owned by a multinational corporation worth millions if not billions. They should be assessed a major part of the repair cost. It was negligent practice or policy that was responsible for the inability of the ship to navigate the passage.
It was being chartered by Maersk (who has an office in Baltimore) and responsibility for the ship was on the 2 American pilots who assumed control and responsibility when the ship left the dock. They failed to properly assess the ship, and failed to utilize the secondary (aft) steering gear during a power outage.
The US economy does better when a $10 million/day loss is stopped immediately, instead of drug out for years or decades by the insurance companies.
@@tom-dznuts Operating the ship falls on the pilots, yes, but MAINTAINING the ship is on the owner. Pilots board the ships when they are already underway, and they are not inspecting the powerplants when they are only in charge of them for a few miles of water. The fact they dropped the anchor to slow the ship down, is proof they did everything that they could to stop that ship but they have a lot of momentum and even when moving slowly like they were, they take a long time to stop.
@@ImpendingJoker pilots do not board the ship while underway while leaving the dock. They board hours before, inspect the ship, and are the sole authority in authorizing the ship to leave. They are responsible for navigating the ship safely and confirming it’s in good condition to sail through US waters under their de facto command.
They failed to navigate the ship safely with either of the helms. Momentum is heavy, which is why there’s always redundant steering for ships… and they failed to do much to prevent this.
Most of it's getting paid by insurance companies... billions in payouts
The shipping company thinks that they’re limited to the value of the shipping cargo. Because that’s what Maritime law is.
There is probably structural damage to the remaining supports due to the impact of the ship that hit the bridge and twisting of bridge and falling.
I doubt if there's any structural damage to the other pylons because the bridge rested on top of them. And it was already verified the remaining parts that were standing are structurally sound
Does it really matter if the structural damage to the remaining supports? You’re going to build a new bridge with 60-year-old approaches? They’re just gonna tear the whole thing down.
@@neilkurzman4907 If any remaining structure of bridge falls on ships passing underneath - then YES!
@@tonytrotta9322
I’m going to assume that anything that they’re allowing ships to pass under has been inspected by engineers.
@@neilkurzman4907 Are these the same Inspector Engineers that agree with navigating ships under a bridge of concrete risers in water without any concrete protectors for those pedestals. All bridges with pedestal concrete risers in water or land requires concrete protectors with steel to prevent ships from hitting them.
How in the world can the ships opener say they are not responsible?
Maritime law is a funny thing.
because they weren't the ones operating this ship at the time. The American pilot was.
@@tom-dznuts I had not heard that…thanks!
We're about to learn a whole lot more about maritime law than we ever knew possible. It can get really weird.
@@tom-dznuts Pilots require a PROPERLY FUNCTIONING SHIP to do their Job, which the Dali WAS NOT; SHort-Bus.
Justbto clarify the image starting @1:20 shows a composite that overlays what's visible above the water line (in red) and the sonar imagery (in multiple colors) we can see the hull is resting at the bottom. Same for the one that start @1:24 and 1:31 both of them show metal debris above and below the water line
The hull is likely pinned there by the weight of the bridge structure resting across its bow.
Same way a known criminial pleads not guilty in a courtroom. In this case, denial of responsibility is the first step taken to deflect guilt and save their money
It would be interesting to see just what caused the Dali to go DIW in her channel approach in the first place. Being one of the busiest ports in the U.S., it's inconceivable to me how the bridge engineers failed to place robust bulwarks to protect the bridge supports in the first place.
The divers are guided by voice. "What those 3D surveys demonstrated for us is that the wreckage on the bottom of the 50-foot channel is far more extensive than than we could've imagined," said Col. Estee Pinchasin, with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. (wiki)
Dali is a Neopanamax container ship with an overall length of 299.92 metres (984 ft), beam of 48.2 metres (158 ft 2 in), moulded depth of 24.8 metres (81 ft 4 in), and summer draft of 15.03 metres (49 ft 4 in). (CBS news)
Do the math - if the water is 50 feet deep and the ship needs 49feet and 4 inches to float
how much clearence is there?
So if the bridge falls on the ship and pushes it down more than 4 inches then it gets stuck.
Seems to me not enough clearance was designed. Ship has too much draft or channel is not deep enough. Does that math sound right to you ?
The cost of the damages should be limited only to the damage to the Dali??? To hell with that!!! The malfunctioning Dali is what caused all this mess!!!
For a 2:44 clip saying it's about sonar images, it only contains 23 seconds, of about three mostly still images.
There are skilled people getting after the work, and there are people at their keyboards whining and crying about everything else. Which one are you?
Stop whining.
@@kerryburns-k8i Get to work.
"NOT THE DALI'S FAULT? Now I have heard it all.
It is the default on any at the start insurance claim. Your car’s insurance policy may well list it in as. Do not admit liability.
"The Federal government is footing the bill for the clean up".... News Flash..this just in folks, the federal government is YOU the American People not some unnamed fed bureau, You get to pay for the bridge and clean up.......gee thanks joe,.... Did ya EVER think of making the shipping company pay?....................no............probably not.
As they shoot, since the federal government is the one that mandated and provided the pilot who was responsible for this...
Something that virtually all taxpayers forget...especially when they want to sue their town council, state government, or whomever....it is their own pockets that money will be coming out of.
The government will recover the money from the insurance company. That will take years. Meanwhile not having a bridge and an open channel is costing us about $10,000,000 per day. People fail to realize that the economy of a major city isn't some abstraction. YOUR CUSTOMERS rely on that. YOUR INVESTMENTS rely on that.
@@MEdGrant This is a much better use of tax dollars than many. We are sending billions to Gaza, billions to Ukraine, this will be a fraction of those costs and it will benefit actual Americans.
Ultimately the ship owners and their insurance will pay for this. But insurance and legal liability are complex, particularly for maritime incidents. For example, the money owed and insurance liability regarding the Suez Canal incident is still in the process of being resolved. The Federal government is putting up funds for for this which it will recoup because we can’t wait years to remove the debris and begin the process of building a new bridge.
Obviously this was operator error. Either poor maintenance and quality control. Do they not check all their systems before they depart? They should have insurance to cover the cleanup. Something on board was faulty. Was the crew properly trained?
A bridge shouldn't be susceptible to a boat collision in the first place. Probably better maintained bridges in the deserts of Iraq and Afghanistan. Baltimore is a dump ran by thieves.
On the Maritime law, the maximum that they may have to pay is the value of the ship in the cargo. We don’t know what went wrong with the ship to determine if anyone was negligent enough to be responsible. And if they did, you’d be limited to the value of the insurance.
@@neilkurzman4907 Why would it be limited to the amount of insurance? That is the limit of the insurance company's liability, not the limit of the shipping company's liability.
@@MyFiddlePlayer
First limit of any claim is the limit of companies insurance, and their assets.
It’s also limited by the law. And the law may say the limit is the value of the shipp and cargo
The other question is why didn't the bridge 🌉 have those bumpers separate from the the bridge 🌉 pillars to protect the pillars from these kinds of damage.
They did have them, but they were too small to Stop & Shop of the size. Because they didn’t exist when the bridge was designed. They weren’t added over the years because Americans are cheap and don’t want to pay for infrastructure improvements. They don’t want the government taking the money out of their pockets.
It did. They just were designed for ships of the year the bridge was constructed, and hadn't really been updated for modern cargo vessels.
Ship's owner is falling back on maritime law. We'll see how that works out. Hell, there's a chance that liability could be apportioned out to the people that owned the cargo on board.
liability will be shared in multiple ways i presume
The federal government isn't footing the bill for anything. The taxpayers are.
As always
Correct - As Margaret Thatcher said - "There is no such thing as government money - only tax payers money"
Sunk? I didn't even know it had a hole in it!!! *Norm MacDonald voice
The sonar pics we see are of the "Bridge" resting on the floor,,,NOT the SHIP
Resting on bottom because there's a bridge on top of it.
Love how news twists the facts. One place said the crew had to stay on board so it the ship starts to sink they can take action, yet another said they are touching the ground and therefore can't sink.
What do you think will happen as they remove the bridge that's on top of the ship?
They are still on the ship because they still have jobs to do, and yes, it is resting on the bottom. Both statements can be true.
If you had 100 tons of steel resting on you,,,,,You`d be resting on the floor too
The ship may be resting on the bottom, but the hull is still buoyant and watertight. When they say they are worried about the ship sinking, they mean they are worried about it filling with water and loosing buoyancy.
@@potblack6043 If the ship is resting on the floor,,,It really dont have too far to go if it sinks
It's the ships company's fault for damage if not who ever is responsible for making sure the ships inspections
WHAT?? The government is just allowing this shipping company to tell it what they want to be liable for? They should absolutely be liable for the bridge--if the ship suffered a malfunction due to poor maintenance or flaws, SOMEBODY, either the shipbuilders or the shipping company, needs to be held responsible! Making taxpayers PAY TWICE, both for the economic hardship of having commuter routes severed AND the taxes for restoring the bridge, is FUCKING UNACCEPTABLE. I will sign my name to EVERYTHING to make those companies pay, even to bankrupt them if that's what it takes.
Biden jumped at the opportunity to launder some more money.
No, silly, that's what the company is claiming, not what anyone's agreed to. What, you expected any company to say, "We're so sorry & we'll pay for it all." No company would do that, there's going to be a bunch of back-&-forth & insurance claims & no doubt a hearing to determine if anyone is at fault, if so, who, how much. So calm down & next time listen before you go street-rat crazy. Your blood pressure will thank you. Take care.
It will be decided in court. There are legal precedents limiting responsibility. They are at fault but the cost of an entire bridge rebuild is not something most companies can cover.
It will becided in court following International marine law
@@alisont.6940 Well, companies should consider that in their business model, and reconsider buying ships enormous enough to demolish huge bridges. Greed is what made these ships as enormous as they are, and greed is behind this accident. There is zero doubt of this.
I hope the new bridge gets new RR tracks.
FJB 🤣🤣🤣
@@hughjassol-0-
Biden said he crossed that bridge many times by train and by car.
What do you mean it doesn't have rail lines going to it?
Biden probably was a passenger on the Lusitania too.
You put a smile on the face of an old man with a poor memory.
That way Joey will get home faster. FJB
The owners of the M/V Dali should be held accountable for all damages because the ship regardless of cause hit and destroyed the bridge
So you’re saying, the law doesn’t matter. We should just make up things as we go.
The ship owner and captain and first mate should all be 100% accountable for this disaster. They know the routes, maintenance, repairs, and function of the ship. They knew there was going to be an issue before even going into the bay.
The American pilot who was in charge of navigating the ship at the time should be too!
@@tom-dznuts You cannot navigate something that does not run due to engine failure.
@@rtqii you’ve clearly never been in a canoe…
@@tom-dznuts Well phuq! If they had just stuck a paddle in the water!
@@tom-dznuts A canoe is not a cargo ship, vessels at sea require power in order to navigate.
Oh my gosh.....the ship's insurer is absolutely responsible for paying for EVERYTHING. This ship caused this disaster.......PERIOD.
Not arguing with the statement but isn't the port pilot the one controlling the ship into port?
@@pilot7u5h36 The ship lost power. The ship owner is responsible for that. The pilot was along for the ride at that point.
@@rael5469 Ah. Ok. Thanks.
Insurance is not responsible for anything above insurance coverage limit
@@dmitripogosian5084 Then the Port of Baltimore can sue the owner for the rest. The owner can get the money from where ever he wants.....he's gonna pay.
The owners should be held 100% liable
Amazing to see that shit move through, Mike.
Wonder if they ever considered cutting larger portions and use floats to move those bigger chunks to a safe shallow place to further cut them up? If you take tooth pick size chunks its going to take a while.
Looks like that’s already happening.
You do realize when you cut through that steel. If it’s under stress it’s going to move. And the piece that you need to cut could be stuck under a different part of the bridge.
Yes, they realize they need to cut it up into smaller pieces, it’s just not that easy
@@neilkurzman4907 So, having experience in underwater salvage, it's understood that some pieces of the bridge may be under tension within the string which may not be obvious. It's comparable to removing a tree that has fallen on the roof of a house. But, adding buoyancy during recovery most often reduces that stress, its a matter of physics.
@@davecooper3238 A buddy of mine who still does underwater recovery, says they're taking it a teaspoon at a time. But, it looks like they are making progress. I would've thought it might had been easier to remove the ship first...
@@jondear772
Could retention or compression or torque for that matter. But it could mean cutting a piece of steel can cause the entire pile to move.
That would be dangerous for the crew cutting it
According to some experts,there are redundant emergency systems in place to accommodate a loss of power issue.Question is,was the present crew trained or knowledgeable in the application of these safety measures and if so,would activating these systems have been able to bring the ship under control.I trust these questions to eventually be answered by investigators.
The ships owner should pay whatever is right. Not the U.S. taxpayers.
The ship owner will be some obscure offshore company that only owns this ship and not a dollar more. Good luck with that.
the owner hired ambulance chasers already
rooms have floors, rivers and rocks have beds
Ocean floor?
Life is precious. We dont enjoy life. We work... run all day... trying to become that BIGGER more SUCCESSFUL person.... WE MISS OUT ON THE REAL MEANING OF LIFE.
🚧 those workers 👷 just doing their jobs..... HUMANS.... FIND YOUR PURPOSE!!!!!!
Resting on the bottom, I didn’t even know that the Dali Llama was dead!!
These shipping companies should pay, not taxpayers. Look how Egypt handles wrecks in the Suez Canal a d copy their approach.
How are they handling that? You can't post links on youtube, your post is just getting banned, but what are they doing to hold the companies accountable in Egypt?
@@nigratruoGood question.
Egypt handled it by saying we’re going to keep the ship in the cargo. The ship and the cargo in this case is a drop in the bucket.
Thanks for video sharing
God BLESS everyone
Barakallah fiikum 😂😂
Yeah thats not going to fly
43 mil for disaster that will easily hit 3 billion
The ship's owner is in for a helluva shock
Why the owner? The person/group that was in charge of navigating this ship should be liable.
@@tom-dznuts The pilot who was on board is not responsible for the poor condition of the power plant which failed.
@@tom-dznuts
Its same as with an airline or trucker company
Even though their employee was at the wheel
They are still liable
The bridge cost is 3 part
Removal cost
Replacement cost
economic cost
The ship owner will have to pay all 3 and if gross negligence pays a factor, then criminal cost as well
@@verdebusterAP the US mandates that THEIR pilot navigate a ship. The pilot mandated to be taken aboard and command the ship is at fault for failing to maintain control.
Just like with a truck, if you don’t stop in time and hit something, it’s the person in control’s fault.
@@rtqii but he was responsible for the navigation of the ship and stopping it if there is an issue. He navigated it into a (albeit poorly constructed) bridge. A rudder has nothing to do with an engine and it has multiple redundancies. He failed to maintain control of the ship he was responsible for safely bringing out of the port.
Is there no insurances on the ship for accidents?
I love how there's people in the comments complaining about the feds covering the bill as if it's not their job. Like yeah, sure, I agree with y'all and think the company should pay for it. But all of the legal battles over the amount and how much they're responsible for will take years, so what do you expect Baltimore to do? Sit around with their hands under their butts for half a decade until the company has to pay 40mil? Then what, just remove as much of the bridge as 40mil can get you because "I don't want taxes to fix a bridge originally funded by taxes."
The bridge needs to be removed and rebuilt NOW, which means SOMEONE has to pay for all of this initially. So why not the one group in the country with the power and money to actually make it happen? Think for a second, people.
well, hello dali!
with all the extra weight from the bridge and other debris I am sure it is resting on the floor of the river.
You can save 15% or more by switching your car insurance to boat coverage - Geico, probably
Doesn't ships carry insurance like cars? Only way to be held personally responsible is if there was criminal intent. Shit happens, that's what insurance is for. If there is no insurance, then yes, the owners are responsible.
Probably underinsured in this case. Wouldn’t be least bit surprised
The American in charge at the time should be responsible.
In most cases they're self insured because no actual insurance company's will issue policies due to high risk
There will be layers of insurance and reinsurance. Billions of dollars in payouts coming.
I think you might be responsible for the damage, if you maintain and operate one of the largest vehicles in the world like it a fucked-out 1987 plymouth horizon. You know, it is worn out and the engine cuts out 10 or 15 times until it warms up
This is the first I heard that it sank. All the photos show it on the water... I'm confused.
it ran aground. They need to unload it to get it buoyant enough to move.
@@normal_media thanks so much!
44 million was a mistake. That wouldn't even buy the engines on the ship. They probably meant 400 million
They are going to have to clear the debris off of the ship, and then move the ship out of the way to make any progress, they're going to have to use explosives if they want to make any time in clearing the channel.
How can the Dali be “resting on the river bed”, when you can clearly see it resting aground with part of the bridge laying across its bow?
What!?? Dali resting on the river bed??? Weird
I never even heard that it was sinking, let alone already sunk. It's like a Twilight Zone News flash.
The draught of the Dali is 49 ft. The channel is 50 ft according to press conference and the Maryland governor this morning. Therefore it stands to reason with the added mass of broken bridge on its bow it is now “GROUNDED” . Not sunk. “ resting on the riverbed” is simplistic. Certainly the sensational approach of most media reports is irritating.
@@hxhdfjifzirstc894 - It did not sink. The weight of the steel has pushed the bow of the ship down and it is now touching the river bottom. This is in part due to the fact that the bow is slightly out of the shipping channel and and the water begins to get shallower immediately at the edge of the channel. The majority of the ship is still in the shipping channel and is floating.
And why cant they pay ?
There are billions of dollars of insurance so they are just punting it to them.
The owner of the ship Dali is responsible because issues with the electrical systems onboard the ship and it's not the first time this ship has been in an accident and to me it's neglect.
The dali is not resting on the channel floor! What is wrong with you people. The channel is deep enough for the Dali
It's no longer in the channel.
The bow is just outside the channel and the weight of the steel has pushed the bow down into the river bottom. The majority of the ship is still on the channel and is floating. That said, the channel is deep enough for the Dali to move through it, but the clearance between the river bottom and the bottom of the ship is only a couple feet. The channel is dredged to 50’. The Dali’s draught when fully loaded is about 48’.
The ship owners are dictating the terms for reimbursement?
Low tide
did it sink ?
Wait when did Dali go down
WTH! Why does the ship owner feel no liability for damages caused from this accident. #SMH 🤬
I know that this is long ago and far far away but whose fault is it the boat hit the bridge? The shipping company is probably responsible for the damage to the bridge. Call Lloyds of London they should pay for everything.
Sickens me that the TAXPAYERS, who by the way, HAVE NOTHING to do with this, are footing the bill. Ship, owner, operator and pilots should be paying for all of it.
Well once they cut all the metal off the ships hull, I bet they can send divers to close all the hatches, and they can probably refloat the ship. Then they can investigate exactly what went wrong, and tell the company what they will be doing from here on.
Marine insurance will eventually pay for this. It will just take time.
2- 4 Billion dollors...As time goes on that price tag will multiply as more people want a piece of the growing pie .
The sad reality is this is the cost of capitalism and an international commerce system. Insurance should be the ultimate payer for the cleanup however, not the government.
As broken as the court system is right now, the company will argue that it is not the fault of the ship, but due to special relativity from Einstein, the ship did not move but the bridge crashed into it and damaged it badly, the government has to pay for everything because of it. Brilliant! /S
If we were allowed to do our jobs we would have brought those workers home to their families.
Very minimal protection (Dolphins) installed at the base of the bridge supports. Lack of Tug boats to assist guidance of ships entering and leaving the port. The resulting collapse is placed clearly on faulty measures and faulty harbor regulation. The Sonar picture DOES NOT SHOW THE SHIP, DALI, RESTING ON THE BOTTOM OF THE CHANNEL. Come on, wjz.
if it was truly a mechanical failure that caused this , and the ship was prone to failures according to reports , then the company should be responsible for 100% of the cost to take care of the victims families , the clean up of the bridge and the construction of the new bridge. If they go out of business well take batter care of your ships and this wouldnt happen. The tax payers of the US should NOT bear the burden of this. Is it not bad enough we are floating the bill for the wars over seas.
BS......SUE THE OWNER OF THE SHIP!!!
The ship's owners and the company that operates it should pay all expenses. The crew should be tried under maritime law (USCG inland regulations) and sentenced to 10+ years in prison if convicted. The bar pilots, no doubt, are looking at an early retirement and a tarnished record. I would imagine if they knew what the crew knew about the condition of that ship, it would have stayed in port.
Namaste All,
What Going On With Shipping CZcams Channel by Sal Mercogliano and with his guest William Boyle, was very interesting Video and thank you for these on-going updates, good information is always welcome too.
Will the bottom of the channel have to be dredged and the bottom profile reshaped, maybe even the channel bottom depth increase too, that is across the whole width of the waterway too?
That after all the bridge wretches and debris has been removed, or believed to have been removed, as no bridge wretches and debris can be left as underwater obstacles and danger to deep draft large vessels.
Though will the Bridge Pier's or Column's old underwater large and massive reinforced concrete and steel foundation, have to be removed now too, or will they just be cleaned up and left hidden somewhere underwater?
or be cut off at the waterline with navigation warning lights and buoy's place around them, to warning passing vessels where they are under the water?
Also will what is left of this bridge, still standing the reinforce concrete pier's and Columns, plus roadway decking and the remaining bridge spans, have to face demolition work being carried out on them too, or just removed and taken down at some point too.
So a whole new bridge can be built, that is if a new bridge is to be built at this same location at all?
Or if the old bridge could be replaced by a new bridge, at a different location down the channel say?
Or the Old bridge maybe being replaced by an underwater road and rail tunnel, that goes under the water channel bottom,?
Or in fact an underwater tunnel is placed inside a dredged and dugout underwater trench, which crossing the water channel from North to South shorelines instead?
CZcams Video; czcams.com/video/l-DAZqTZCb8/video.html,
William Doyle on Baltimore, CEO Dredging Contractors of America & Former Port Director.
By What is Going on With Shipping?
Date; 2 Apr 2024.
Who wants to bet that company is going to pay less than $44 million?
If you're not gonna be responsible for your ship, get your ship out of here and don't come back. Maybe the governmental pay if I have a car accident. These people are ridiculous. We are not a bank. Take care of it yourself your ship did it?
Well there you have it,,,,,,I am a small business with limited ins,,,so you fix your own bridge
How are they gonna say it's not their fault and pay.. they crashed they hit an object that don't move ..
Common sense should tell the industry that the day of these monster ships is over! It's too much downside to their existance! Any time one gets into trouble, it's such a disaster and expense to try to sort it all out.
So what are you going to have in Walmarts ?
So what about the gas pipeline that runs under the bridge??
The Dali’s owners should be FULLY RESPONSIBLE for ALL financial damages!!! Our government should NOT allow one penny of US taxpayer’s money to go to this! You know damn well that if a U.S. vessel caused damage to any foreign country, we would be held accountable!
Yep, let us recall everybody trying to open the channel, and wait for money ....
@@dmitripogosian5084 … I meant in the long term, not immediately. I fully understand that we have to do what needs to be done short term. I’m just saying that we should be fully reimbursed by the ship’s owners since they are negligent. I didn’t think I had to spell it out but I guess I do.
Why the hell did Brandon say that the government meaning us taxpayers would foot the freaking bill anyway?
If they don't wanna pay for _their_ mistake, they should be barred from all US ports. Let other shipping companies have the business.
You'd think they'd pull an American move and file for bankruptcy protection. Some people would call that smart business.
The ship and the ships insurance carrier should be on the hook it's their property which caused the accident especially if it's confirmed this ship had past incidents involving power failure electrical issues or engine issues
impound the ship AND sue for damages!
It should be clear that the ship hit the bridge. The bridge did not hit the ship. The shipping company that owns the Dali should be responsible for any damages caused by THEIR ship. In most states if you are driving your car and hit a telephone pole or other structure you would be held responsible for any damages. This should work the same way. The bridge did not fall because it was defective, it fell because it was hit by a defective ship. The ship it totally the responsibility of the shipping company that owns it. US taxpayers should not be footing the majority of the cleanup bill for this.
There's limitation on direct responsibility due to maritime law. After that it goes to the billions of insurance coverage to pay out.
shipping company that owns, the one that operates or the one on which behalf it operates ? in which proportion ?
The owner of the ship should be responsible for all damages, and if that means it bankrupts them, so be it.
The United States government shouldn't be responsible to pay for damages , since it wasn't our ship
US govt is paying first to fix the problem. They will still get money from the insurance companies later in the process once they go through the negotiation process for payouts.
if yiu bankrupt somebody it does not mean you get the money
Yeah but where is the shipping companies, insurance,. Aren't they paying for a new bridge 😮
yeah billions in insurance, but it's going to take a while for it to be negotiated. Lots of payouts.
Why is the Dali resting on the bottom?
Because she is already off the channel where it was deep
Because the channel is 50’ deep, the ship’s draught is 48’, the bow is partially outside the channel where the water is shallower, and the bow has hundreds of of tons of steel laying across it and pushing it down.
Oh wow they have a tug boat.
Big L for Americans paying for someone else destroying our infrastructure.
A 50 years old bridge? what could possibly go wrong..
Golden Gate is nearing 100
50 is not very old for a bridge.
@@tom-dznuts you are in denial
@@user-mk6sm4um7e another Marylander in denial
@@boricubapr in denial that bridges are built to last 100+ years? You do know (probably not) that the Brooklyn Bridge is over 150 years old and doesn't need to be replaced, right?
Maybe before anybodys gets on this comment section screaming about who's gonna pay, and who's not, spend 5 minutes reading up on maritime law, damages, and liability....
Concordia was way worse and alot harder to accomplish. These people are crazy!!! 🤪
Are you talking about the Costa Concordia??
She’s carrying a lot of extra weight
A river DOES NOT have a floor... whats wrong with you people?
Probably not completely worked up on the interchangeably of “bed” and “floors” when it comes to hydrography.
BS unlimited ! These people can say any stupidity in the world and we have to accept it.
It's a barge, so...
Leave it there.
Now, I'm really confused. Don't we keep seeing pictures of Dali cargo ship on the surface? Googling "Dali cargo ship sinking?" doesn't share anything. What's that boat at 2:03 if not the Dali? The video of the crash, doesn't show another ship going down. What's up with all that?
The bow of the boat is touching bottom and the rest is floating in deeper water. If things go wrong in the salvage and the ship is rocked sideways from bridge debris being cut away it could take on water or even the load lost overboard making it even more difficult.
CZcams channel, "What's Going On In Shipping", did a video recently that explains how the marine insurance works. It is very convoluted, & nothing like automobile insurance at all.
@@dougtheslug6435 Okay, that's what I was wondering - but the sonar image confused. At 1:24 I'd imagined that second image was trusses on top of the ship, which made zero sense. Also from the surface images guess it seems the ship is riding higher than it actually must be.
Thank you, it's always nice when the facts slide back into an orderly form.
Although it's surprising how shallow that river must be around those piers. Live and learn.
@peter, in the sonar images, yellow is below water, red is above water.
The river is very shallow. There is nowhere to sink. In the deepest part of the channel Dali had like 10 feet under her bottom to the river bed. And Dali is on a side of channel now
No this is on the company that owns the boat. Not the American taxpayers fault.