Concordia News: Please Post Here

[Ken711]

Despite some local interest in keeping the underwater platforms, it appears they will be removed as required in the Costa Cruises commitment to restore the underwater environment to as it was before the CC wreck.

 

My colleague Il Tirreno Francesca Gori has faced for 2 days debated the topic in his newspaper. We suggest the following text on July 4 last year in which we talk about the article and the photo of July 5 in which the island's minority council asks the Mayor Ortelli to urge the Ministry of Environment at the time inclined to remove structures from the bottom.

 

Article 4 July - GIGLIO ISLAND. The Ministry of Environment is adamant: the platforms on which it is resting on the Concordia will be dismantled once the ship has left the island. But the inhabitants of Giglio there are. And to keep those underwater structures are ready to protest. Is flawless reasoning of gigliesi. There is a study from the University La Sapienza of Rome, which explains how the platforms now have become part of the coast of Giglio Island: there they found the house colonies of fish and plants that are accustomed to the steel and concrete structures that are found in a depth of more than eighteen meters and are supported by thick pillars.

 

"What would the inhabitants of the island - says Mayor Sergio Ortelli - is the maintenance of those structures to make it possible for divers to dive where it still rests the wreck of the Concordia." A sort of boost for tourism - supporting the inhabitants of Giglio - but also a kind of place of memory not to forget those who took the sea, and unfortunately, as in the case of Russell Rebello, has not yet returned.

 

But at the request of the Ministry of Environment gigliesi decided to answer in spades. And just yesterday morning informed the mayor that once the Concordia has left the island, you begin to throw down the project of removal of the platforms. The reason is simple: there is a cause for environmental damage against Costa Cruises and Services Conference in May 2012, the ministry has required the company to restore the state of the place. In short, the costs will have to go back as it was.

 

Meanwhile Thursday, July 3 has been installed the latest tipping the rigalleggiamento of Concord, while Costa will ask the court today, the restitution of the wreck. And now that the maneuvers will begin to carry off the ship from the island, the gigliesi will have to say goodbye to the platforms. The City can not play this game because it has no jurisdiction in the matter. Leaving there platforms, environmental damage calculated by the experts of the ministry would in fact have a value less than that determined when the structures are removed. One reason for this, which could weigh a few million Euros on state coffers, but that does not go down to the inhabitants of the island.

[SomeBeach]

Another day, another meeting:

 

This morning meets the Costa Concordia Observatory

 

The appointment is for 10 o'clock this morning in Florence: the seat of the Tuscany region meets the Observatory for monitoring the removal of the Costa Concordia.

 

The agenda provides an update on the engineering design work and verifying and evaluating next steps WP8 (rigalleggiamento, refloating) and WP9 (cleaning and restoring of the seabed) .

 

We will keep you updated in the coming hours on the outcomes of the meeting.

[clive and anne]

Hi Mike

Just found this regarding Greenpeace. There doesn't seem to be any mention of "disrupting "the journey as Daily Mail reported.

They also don't mention Rainbow Warrior which I found interesting.

Hope this helps.

 

http://www.giglionews.it/2014/07/03/legambiente-e-greenpeace-seguiranno-la-concordia/

 

Best Wishes

Clive

[Mike.Minh]

Not sure why the story was quoted about the French secret service who sank a previous Rainbow Warrior. This was almost 30 years ago in relation to interfering with nuclear bomb testing. Quite a different league, really.

 

As it was mentioned here now anyway, it ain't funny in the sense of "If the French were to be involved they would just deal with it, haha." One person was killed by that attack and on the political side, the French Minister of Defence was forced to resign. This very incident is one of main reasons why Greenpeace are the size they are today.

 

So, what again was your point?

 

Nobody here has criticised the very elaborate environmental measures put in place over the long period of the CC recovery so far. But when the word Greenpeace is mentioned or their boat shows up on site, immediately almost hatred is spilled out. Why? On what basis?

[telken22]

I'd have more respect for them if they put sails on the Rainbow Warrior and sailed around rather then be hypocritical and use diesel marine fuel to claim others are causing "pollution".

 

 

 

Filled up by a BP bowser. oh the irony.

 

Me too, it's a case of 'do as I say' and not as I do.

[Ken711]

Nice to see all the sponsons finally showing completed in the latest weekly report.

 

http://www.giglionews.it/wp-content/uploads/rel_sett_osservatorio060714.pdf

 

[SomeBeach]

 

Nobody here has criticised the very elaborate environmental measures put in place over the long period of the CC recovery so far. But when the word Greenpeace is mentioned or their boat shows up on site, immediately almost hatred is spilled out. Why? On what basis?

 

Mike, if all the environmental measures hadn't been put in place then Greenpeace may have had an argument to be present. The point is all measures available were taken to prevent major damage during this process. Other plans are made for the removal and relocation of CC. These steps are being taken to protect the environment to the best of their ability to do so. So far things have been going well as tests show very little pollutants have spewed out into the sea. All of this was done not because of Greenpeace but because it is the right thing to do.

 

This is not a group of people that are repeatedly harming the environment. It's not like they plan to take CC on a tour around the sea. They are working to remove a heavily damaged ship from point A to point B.

[Uniall]

Not sure why the story was quoted about the French secret service who sank a previous Rainbow Warrior. This was almost 30 years ago in relation to interfering with nuclear bomb testing. Quite a different league, really.

 

As it was mentioned here now anyway, it ain't funny in the sense of "If the French were to be involved they would just deal with it, haha." One person was killed by that attack and on the political side, the French Minister of Defence was forced to resign. This very incident is one of main reasons why Greenpeace are the size they are today.

 

So, what again was your point?

 

Nobody here has criticised the very elaborate environmental measures put in place over the long period of the CC recovery so far. But when the word Greenpeace is mentioned or their boat shows up on site, immediately almost hatred is spilled out. Why? On what basis?

 

Greenpeace is a rogue private organization that assumes the powers of a nation-state in violation of international law.

It takes actions that are acts of piracy under interantional law.

Edited July 7, 2014 by Uniall

[Tonka's Skipper]

Greenpeace is a rogue private organization that assumes the powers of a nation-state in violation of international law.

It takes actions that are acts of piracy under interantional law.

 

 

 

THIS, right on the money!

 

I was involved in a Greenpeace attack on a ship with lumber. Greenpeace as usual had the wrong information, saying is was virgin forest wood when it was really plantation wood.

 

The leaders sat back on a side road and sent young idealistic college kids to attack, board the vessel to disrupt the work. They all ended up being arrested on minor charges, but I noted as soon as the police arrived the leaders were all in their cars driving away.

 

THEY had no concern about these college kids they sent in what was a dangerous position and possibly serious harms way.........COWARDS!

 

AKK

 

AKK

Edited July 7, 2014 by Tonka's Skipper

[Mike.Minh]

I am not here to defend Greenpeace, but I'd rather prefer criticism is done on fact basis.

 

Their current ship is a sailing ship, (to 80%, how you'd measure that, I don't know). They don't use marine (heavy) diesel but light diesel and only for aux purposes and for a diesel electric engine/motor. How else would you want to move, maybe with a cohort of rowing slaves? :-)

 

The photo of the BP bowser is from March 2013. What does it prove when you in a given harbour can't get any other supplier than BP? At any rate, would you rather want them to grow oil seeds on deck to make fuel?

 

[Clive & Anne, do you recall which day they showed up? I want to have a look on the kielmonitor webcam recordings]

Edited July 7, 2014 by Mike.Minh

[clive and anne]

Hi Mike.

You can find the info on two posts.

(1) Post 2564 at 5.12 pm 30th June.

(2) Post 2567 at 11.51pm 30th June.

Please share anything interesting you find.

Clive

[CTH]

Mike, it's on the Kielmonitor on June 30th at 3mins 34 secs.

 

Rainbow Warrior was there having a good 'nosey' for two to three hours.

[Uniall]

I am not here to defend Greenpeace, but I'd rather prefer criticism is done on fact basis.

 

Their current ship is a sailing ship, (to 80%, how you'd measure that, I don't know). They don't use marine (heavy) diesel but light diesel and only for aux purposes and for a diesel electric engine/motor. How else would you want to move, maybe with a cohort of rowing slaves? :-)

 

The photo of the BP bowser is from March 2013. What does it prove when you in a given harbour can't get any other supplier than BP? At any rate, would you rather want them to grow oil seeds on deck to make fuel?

 

[Clive & Anne, do you recall which day they showed up? I want to have a look on the kielmonitor webcam recordings]

 

Mike

 

Whether Greenpeace uses row boats, sail boats, deisel engines or elctric motors run by loooong extension cords is not the issue.

 

The moment they interfere with other boats or ships they become pirates under international law.

 

John

[Bearded Engineer]

I think the main reason so many of us are fed up with Greenpeace is that their position on the Concordia basically boiled down to "You can't move it and you can't leave it here." Perhaps they would prefer that we build a time machine and go back to before the accident and prevent it from happening.

[clive and anne]

It looks like the paperwork still isn't finished.

 

http://www.giglionews.it/2014/07/07/osservatorio-documentazione-non-ancora-completa/

 

Usual apologies for the poor translation.

[Tonka's Skipper]

I am not here to defend Greenpeace, but I'd rather prefer criticism is done on fact basis.

 

Their current ship is a sailing ship, (to 80%, how you'd measure that, I don't know). They don't use marine (heavy) diesel but light diesel and only for aux purposes and for a diesel electric engine/motor. How else would you want to move, maybe with a cohort of rowing slaves? :-)

 

The photo of the BP bowser is from March 2013. What does it prove when you in a given harbour can't get any other supplier than BP? At any rate, would you rather want them to grow oil seeds on deck to make fuel?

 

[Clive & Anne, do you recall which day they showed up? I want to have a look on the kielmonitor webcam recordings]

 

Mike,

 

I would add to Johns comments, when they endanger other lives at sea or ashore, when their political agenda is more important then human life, they are dangerous people as my experience above demonstrates.

 

They are like a rabid dog as sea.......attacking anyone they don't like or agree with, facts are unimportant.

 

As noted above their position on the Concordia is nothing more then plain silly, with the only purpose to get donations and the attention of the media.

 

These are not stories, they are facts.

 

 

AKK

[Mike.Minh]

@Tonka, I take your point, really I do, but some of the knee jerk reactions here are as bad as declaring all vegetarians as half mad and not being "real" people.

 

For the time being we have a quite thin press release, only in Italian and the fact they showed up on site.

 

Plus an absolute laughable attempt of one of the dirtiest newspapers in existence to gain more publicity by Greenpeace's appearence. Who exactly is here the attention seeker? Greenpeace didn't say what this newspaper wants us to believe. Where is fact or fiction here?

 

@John Uniall: Your point is a very academic one, call it a theoretical point of international sea law if that makes you feel better. Although, I do understand what you say much better than you probably give me credit for. They haven't interfered, they don't say they want to. I personally don't think they will.

 

But some people seem to hate them with a passion. I believe they are a bit beyond their sell-by date, but dangerous people? Estate agents are dangerous, or bankers, or maybe suicide bombers. But Greenpeace activists? Really?

Edited July 7, 2014 by Mike.Minh

[Uniall]

@Tonka, I take your point, really I do, but some of the knee jerk reactions here are as bad as declaring all vegetarians as half mad and not being "real" people.

 

For the time being we have a quite thin press release, only in Italian and the fact they showed up on site.

 

Plus an absolute laughable attempt of one of the dirtiest newspapers in existence to gain more publicity by Greenpeace's appearence. Who exactly is here the attention seeker? Greenpeace didn't say what this newspaper wants us to believe. Where is fact or fiction here?

 

@John Uniall: Your point is a very academic one, call it a theoretical point of international sea law if that makes you feel better. Although, I do understand what you say much better than you probably give me credit for. They haven't interfered, they don't say they want to. I personally don't think they will.

 

But some people seem to hate them with a passion. I believe they are a bit beyond their sell-by date, but dangerous people? Estate agents are dangerous, or bankers, or maybe suicide bombers. But Greenpeace activists? Really?

 

My point is not academic or thoretical. It is at the very core of civilization. It is the culmination of 3500 years of international law which we can trace back to the first written treaty of international law signed between the Hittite and Egytian empires. It has been these laws which protected civilization from a downward spiral into barbarism like the period known as "The Dark Ages".

 

Civilization is based upon respect for all laws enacted or adopted by the duly constituted municipal, provincial, national and international governments.

 

Greeenpeace, and their ilk, set themselves above the laws of the duly constituted governments of any and all jurisdictions. These self apppointed egomaniacal groups reserve the right to violate, by civil disobedience or violence, any law with which they disagree.

 

If the laws which they violate were enforced as written, adopted or legislated, the international community would send the navies of the world to seek out and destroy piracy worldwide, whether Somalii or Greenpeacian.

 

Unfortunately, many nations lack the guts to do the legally correct thing.

That's why I (a proud and unreconstructed Francophobe) admire and respect the way the modern French government has dealt with these international law breakers.

 

Unfortunately, most defenders of Greenpeace and their ilk make their decisions based upon "feelings".

As a rational human being, I know these decisions should be based upon "reason".

Edited July 8, 2014 by Uniall

[Tonka's Skipper]

@Tonka, I take your point, really I do, but some of the knee jerk reactions here are as bad as declaring all vegetarians as half mad and not being "real" people.

 

For the time being we have a quite thin press release, only in Italian and the fact they showed up on site.

 

Plus an absolute laughable attempt of one of the dirtiest newspapers in existence to gain more publicity by Greenpeace's appearence. Who exactly is here the attention seeker? Greenpeace didn't say what this newspaper wants us to believe. Where is fact or fiction here?

 

@John Uniall: Your point is a very academic one, call it a theoretical point of international sea law if that makes you feel better. Although, I do understand what you say much better than you probably give me credit for. They haven't interfered, they don't say they want to. I personally don't think they will.

 

But some people seem to hate them with a passion. I believe they are a bit beyond their sell-by date, but dangerous people? Estate agents are dangerous, or bankers, or maybe suicide bombers. But Greenpeace activists? Really?

 

Hi Mike,

 

I am not trying to pick on you, really I am not, but many with Maritime experience have had problems with Greenpeace in the past...........they are wreckless and dangerous, that is not theory, its fact.

 

 

I am not saying all environmental groups are *MAD DOGS*, Many are looking at making this planet better. I am only talking about Greenpeace here, and they need to be leashed up.

 

I have not even read the article, I don't need to, their past fanatical actions are more then enough to make me worry.

 

As I wrote before, they don't get their facts right and then lead young college kids with good intentions into trouble. Then when the trouble came, IE the police, the older leaders jumped in their cars and ran.

 

That is why when they show up we expect the worse.

 

AKK

Edited July 8, 2014 by Tonka's Skipper

[Bearded Engineer]

@Tonka, I take your point, really I do, but some of the knee jerk reactions here are as bad as declaring all vegetarians as half mad and not being "real" people.

 

For the time being we have a quite thin press release, only in Italian and the fact they showed up on site.

 

Plus an absolute laughable attempt of one of the dirtiest newspapers in existence to gain more publicity by Greenpeace's appearence. Who exactly is here the attention seeker? Greenpeace didn't say what this newspaper wants us to believe. Where is fact or fiction here?

 

@John Uniall: Your point is a very academic one, call it a theoretical point of international sea law if that makes you feel better. Although, I do understand what you say much better than you probably give me credit for. They haven't interfered, they don't say they want to. I personally don't think they will.

 

But some people seem to hate them with a passion. I believe they are a bit beyond their sell-by date, but dangerous people? Estate agents are dangerous, or bankers, or maybe suicide bombers. But Greenpeace activists? Really?

 

Now Vegetarians are the ones you really have to look out for. I was once waylayed by a group of militant vegetarians and forced to eat an alfalfa sprout and black bean sandwich.;)

[Mike.Minh]

Now Vegetarians are the ones you really have to look out for. I was once waylayed by a group of militant vegetarians and forced to eat an alfalfa sprout and black bean sandwich.;)

 

That experience must have scarred you for life, was that the day when you decided to wear a beard? But trust me, if you never met a veggie banker, you haven't yet seen the worst. :D

 

In the meantime, lots of vessels swirling around and a spot of cranitis has befallen the salvage team (many cranes are up). Didn't the progress report say they'd dismantle the tower crane this week?

[clive and anne]

You are correct Mike, the crane is scheduled to go either today or tomorrow.

Meanwhile Blizzard is now in the Straights of Gibraltar and due in Piombino on 12th. I don't think it is needed for the re float is it?

I wonder if the Italian Navy will provide any sort of escort for the journey.

I would love to know what arrangements are being made for the webcam coverage for the refloat. Wasn't it Reuters who provided the coverage for the parbuckle?

[CTH]

You are correct Mike, the crane is scheduled to go either today or tomorrow.

Meanwhile Blizzard is now in the Straights of Gibraltar and due in Piombino on 12th. I don't think it is needed for the re float is it?

I would love to know what arrangements are being made for the webcam coverage for the refloat. Wasn't it Reuters who provided the coverage for the parbuckle?

You're correct Clive, it was Reuters who covered the parbuckle, hopefully they will cover the lifting aswell.

 

If I'm reading the latest 7 day lookout correctly on the weekly report, they are planning on being ready this Friday (11th July) to be in a position to start the first stages of the lift, weather pending?

 

Blizzard has increased her speed very slightly, maybe she's re-aiming to arrive on Friday rather than the scheduled Saturday.

[balf]

I wonder if the Italian Navy will provide any sort of escort for the journey.

 

I think it's very likely they will, should anyway.

 

As for Greenpeace there is really no need for them to be anyway near the operation. Any sane person who has been following this epic will realise the immense care that has been taken at massive expense to do this job as well as humanly possible. They are not about to step back from this at the end of a long journey.

 

It would be interesting to know how Greenpeace would have handled the job.

 

David.

[Tonka's Skipper]

I think it's very likely they will, should anyway.

 

As for Greenpeace there is really no need for them to be anyway near the operation. Any sane person who has been following this epic will realise the immense care that has been taken at massive expense to do this job as well as humanly possible. They are not about to step back from this at the end of a long journey.

 

It would be interesting to know how Greenpeace would have handled the job.

 

David.

 

From what I have read, it seems they do not have any other plan, they just what to be able to complain about the present salvage plan.

 

This is really nothing more then a media attention getting joke and to get donations.

 

AKK