Somali Pirates Seize Largest Ship Yet

[Admiral Valdemar]

I agree that the company that owns the tanker will be happy to pay the ransom and this will only embolden the pirates. Imagine what sort of gear they can buy w/ $250M. I keep waiting for Voluntaryist to chime in on one of these threads so we can talk about how wonderful this Somalian "free-market" is and how it isn't run by warlords.

The company, Vela, is owned by Aramco. Aramco being owned by the Saudi Govt. means they're indirectly negotiating here. It should be interesting seeing what precedent this sets.

[Inquisitus]

I read on a forum elsewhere (I'll have to find the link) that most maritime insurance policies prohibit firearms on ships.

I think if anybody will pay for security on vessels, it would probably be the insurance companies. They would have to account for not just the muscles, but 3rd party liability, disability payments for the muscle and crews, etc.

If the insurance companies wait for the world's navies to clean the pirates out, they don't have to invest in hardening the ships they insure. They allow one time payments in the short term, but not in the longer term.

[FSTargetDrone]

With them stealing supertankers now, I wonder how long it'll take before someone's ballsy enough to storm an actual warship.

If they were even to attempt something like this, I imagine they would need a bit more than boats, small arms and RPG launchers.

But why bother with a warship? I don't see how they could use it for themselves it in any significant way other than getting ransom for it and the crew. And attacking a warship with the intent to capture it seems a lot less useful than capturing a tanker full of oil, as far as getting a ransom is concerned. So far, not too much has happened with these incidents as far as serious retaliation by the rest of the world. Attacking a warship seems like it would be suicidal.

[Dartzap]

Apparently the Somali pirates the RN nicked earlier in the week have been handed over to Kenya for trial.

[Siege]

If this is going to play out like the other hijackings, the ransom paid probably won't be anywhere near $250 million. For example, in September, two Malaysian tankers were released for $4 million, in August a Danish cargo ship was released after $1.5 million was paid, etc. And the ransom demanded for that Ukrainan freighter loaded with military hardware is 'only' $20 million.

Now granted, those were all smaller vessels not loaded with so valuable a cargo, so the ransom for the supertanker might be (considerably) higher, but I doubt even Saudi sheiks are willing to shell out anywhere near a quarter of a billion for the release of the vessel.

[Solauren]

Not when for $250,000,000 they can probably afford to send in mercanries to 'clean out' the town and seize the vessel back.

[CaptHawkeye]

I'm not sure how relevant a tactic it is with modern shipping, but to prevent or at least seriously dimish hijackings, why not bring back the convoy system? You wouldn't even need to arm the tankers. Just organizing them into groups of varying size and then escorting with something as small as Frigate could get the job done. It's not like guys are operating legions of U-Boats.

[Lonestar]

"Just-in-time" economics may prohibit that.

[PeZook]

"Just-in-time" economics may prohibit that.

Normal economics do it just fine on their own ; During WWII, most of the economic damage to Britain was done by instituting the convoy system, rather than the 0.5% of total Allied shipping sunk by u-boats.

I'm afraid that the only way to end piracy in those waters is to actively hunt the pirates and kill them, destroy their bases and ruthlessly take back any captured ship, whatever their owners say. Unfortunately, if this happens (and it won't in the near future) hostages and civilians will die in the crossfire.

[TC Pilot]

But why bother with a warship?

Oh, I'm not saying that it's the soundest idea for these guys to do, it's just that when piracy gets this bad, you're eventually going to have someone bad enough to attempt it. I'm not positive, but I think it was Bartholomew 'Black Bart' Roberts who decided to attack a man-o-war and hang the VIPs it was carrying just for the fun of it.

[Thanas]

But why bother with a warship?

Oh, I'm not saying that it's the soundest idea for these guys to do, it's just that when piracy gets this bad, you're eventually going to have someone bad enough to attempt it. I'm not positive, but I think it was Bartholomew 'Black Bart' Roberts who decided to attack a man-o-war and hang the VIPs it was carrying just for the fun of it.

No, that wasn't Roberts.

[Ryan Thunder]

Normal economics do it just fine on their own ; During WWII, most of the economic damage to Britain was done by instituting the convoy system, rather than the 0.5% of total Allied shipping sunk by u-boats.

Sorry, but what exactly is so cripplingly bad about a convoy system?

All I can think of is that the convoy would have to assemble...

[tim31]

Do you know who it was and would you care to share the information?

[Samuel]

Normal economics do it just fine on their own ; During WWII, most of the economic damage to Britain was done by instituting the convoy system, rather than the 0.5% of total Allied shipping sunk by u-boats.

Sorry, but what exactly is so cripplingly bad about a convoy system?

All I can think of is that the convoy would have to assemble...

Because they all arrive at the same time and the docks can't accomedate them all? So you have the docks being jam packed and them quiet while you have ships offshore just waiting for their turn. The State of California lost millions due to the longshoreman stike- I'm sure this would have a similar effect.

[FSTargetDrone]

Take the long way home.

It seems a Norwegian shipping company has decided the risk of traveling in the area is too great:

Norwegian firm takes long way to avoid pirates

(CNN) -- A Norwegian shipping firm has ordered its vessels to avoid the waters off the Horn of Africa and criticized governments for failing to curb a wave of piracy after Somalia-based hijackers seized their largest prize to date.

The decision by the maritime company Odfjell SE means its 90-plus ships will take the additional time and expense to sail around the southern tip of Africa instead of going through the Suez Canal, a shortcut for mariners for nearly a century and a half.

"It is a huge step, but what we have seen is that the piracy activity in the area has increased," the company's president, Terje Storeng, told CNN. "We have thought about the crew on board the ships and we don't want them to be exposed to this risk of being hijacked any longer."

Storeng said in a statement the company will still sail through the Gulf of Aden only if explicitly committed to doing so by existing contracts.

The Gulf of Aden, which lies between the Horn of Africa and the Arabian peninsula, is the gateway to the southern Red Sea, which is linked to the Mediterranean by the Suez Canal. Going around the Cape of Good Hope would add thousands of kilometers to a voyage from the Middle East to Europe or North America. Map of the new route »

The announcement followed Monday's news that the 300,000-metric-ton oil tanker Sirius Star was captured by pirates in the Indian Ocean over the weekend. The hijacking took place more than 720 km (450 miles) off the Kenyan port of Mombasa, well south of the zone patrolled by international warships in an effort to clamp down on the pirates.

"This is the furthest out to sea that we've seen any attack, so it's concerning to us," Lt. Nathan Christensen, a U.S. Navy spokesman in Bahrain, told CNN. "The pirates are certainly expanding their ability to attack ships out to sea."

The 330-meter (1,080-foot) ship, owned by a subsidiary of the Saudi Aramco oil company, was headed for an anchorage off the Somali coast early Tuesday. The pirates typically hold the crews hostage and attempt to extract a ransom from the owners of the vessels.

The hijacking of the Sirius Star, which launched earlier this year, is part of a recent upsurge of attacks off east Africa, according to the International Maritime Bureau.

The attacks are spreading farther north to the Gulf of Aden and farther south off the Kenyan coast, said Noel Choong, who heads the bureau's Piracy Reporting Center, which monitors attacks around the world from its base in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.

"The risks are low and the returns are extremely high for these pirates," Choong told CNN. Pirates know that their chances of getting killed or captured during a hijacking are very low, he said.

The IMB issued a warning November 14 about the possibility of attacks south of Somalia, Choong said. The next day, pirates hijacked the Sirius Star.

The oil tanker, known in the industry as a "very large crude carrier," was following the route around the Cape of Good Hope when it was attacked because it was too big to go through the Suez with a full load, said Arthur Bowring, managing director of the Hong Kong Shipowners Association.

"These pirates seem to be incredibly well-equipped and very well armed and very well informed about shipping," Bowring told CNN. "They would appear to be able to go anywhere to get these tankers."

The Sirius Star is the largest vessel ever to be attacked by pirates, Choong said. It is carrying a crew of 25, from Croatia, Britain, the Philippines, Poland, and Saudi Arabia.

Odfjell's president said the detour around the cape will take between six and 12 days longer than going through the Suez. Storeng would not say how much extra the deviation would cost, though he said Odfjell would ask its customers to contribute to the extra cost.

"On the other hand, we will not pay the duties to pass the Suez Canal," he said. "That's quite an expensive canal passage. The duties there are quite heavy."

Odfjell operates a fleet of chemical carriers, and similar ships have been among those hijacked in recent months. In its statement, the Norwegian company said it was "frustrated" by what it called the "limited interest" shown in securing the high seas.

"The efforts that are being made do not seem to put an effective end to what can best be described as ruthless, high-level organized crime," Storeng said.

Storeng said the company has suffered one attack, about a month ago in the same area, but the captain and crew managed to deflect the pirates by using the ship's firefighting system.

He said Odfjell prefers to travel with escort vessels instead of hiring private on-board security.

"We feel that taking on board a ship armed people, and having the risk of shooting at the chemical tankers with explosive cargos on board, is not a good idea," he told CNN. "We don't want to have a big blow-up. We prefer to have escort of naval ships as compared to having people on board to protect us with guns. We don't feel that is a good option."

But the U.S.-led naval mission that patrols the Horn of Africa said successful attacks have decreased in recent weeks. Russian and British warships have fended off pirate attacks on commercial shipping in the past week, authorities in those countries have reported.

Some experts say the area is too vast to be successfully patrolled by government or military ships, and that pirates take advantage of it.

-- CNN's David McKenzie in Nairobi, Kenya, and Caroline Faraj in Dubai, United Arab Emirates, contributed to this report.

Incidentally:

Storeng said the company has suffered one attack, about a month ago in the same area, but the captain and crew managed to deflect the pirates by using the ship's firefighting system.

It would be interesting to see how they did that! Maybe they squirted at the would-be boarders with fire hoses.

[tim31]

I daresay they did. Firehoses throw out enough pressure to knock someone on their arse, although being a tanker, they're probably more equipped to fight oil fires.

[FSTargetDrone]

I daresay they did. Firehoses throw out enough pressure to knock someone on their arse, although being a tanker, they're probably more equipped to fight oil fires.

Perhaps there was fire-suppressing foam involved.

[erik_t]

I daresay they did. Firehoses throw out enough pressure to knock someone on their arse, although being a tanker, they're probably more equipped to fight oil fires.

That's exactly what they did. The firefighting system on any sizable vessel is more than capable of repelling a dozen or two boarders, and the low velocity is almost advantageous since you can "fire" from behind cover. The problem, as stated before, is keeping watch. The pirates are by far the most successful when they catch a crew unawares. It seems to me like this would be hard to do, what with navigational radars and such, but reality disagrees with me.

[Jim Raynor]

Wow, and I thought stealing T-72 tanks was ridiculous.

Now I admit I'm not an expert on the situation there, but it does seem ridiculous that the pirate scum of Somalia can hijack increasingly large and valuable targets, while operating out of *known* ports and havens. If it can be done then I'd really like it if an international fleet were to sail in there and put a stop to this bullshit.

I just had a thought....

there is no government in Somolia.

It's possible that a a group now has 33 tanks and a shitload of fuel. And are negotiating the ransom for the same and have no intention of delivering.

That's a small army and the means to fund it.

Could someone be setting up for a attempt to take control of the region?

Not going to happen, but I have to say that that's a pretty cool idea for a novel or movie.

[TC Pilot]

No, that wasn't Roberts.

Hmm, if it wasn't Roberts, then it was Rackham, or I've just unwittingly making this up.

[thejester]

Wait, you're not thinking of The Secret of the Unicorn, are you?

[TC Pilot]

No, in truth. And I'd never even heard of that until now.

[Ryan Thunder]

Normal economics do it just fine on their own ; During WWII, most of the economic damage to Britain was done by instituting the convoy system, rather than the 0.5% of total Allied shipping sunk by u-boats.

Sorry, but what exactly is so cripplingly bad about a convoy system?

All I can think of is that the convoy would have to assemble...

Because they all arrive at the same time and the docks can't accomedate them all? So you have the docks being jam packed and them quiet while you have ships offshore just waiting for their turn. The State of California lost millions due to the longshoreman stike- I'm sure this would have a similar effect.

Wouldn't simply using appropriately smaller convoys solve this issue?

[Phantasee]

Wow, and I thought stealing T-72 tanks was ridiculous.

Now I admit I'm not an expert on the situation there, but it does seem ridiculous that the pirate scum of Somalia can hijack increasingly large and valuable targets, while operating out of *known* ports and havens. If it can be done then I'd really like it if an international fleet were to sail in there and put a stop to this bullshit.

I just had a thought....

there is no government in Somolia.

It's possible that a a group now has 33 tanks and a shitload of fuel. And are negotiating the ransom for the same and have no intention of delivering.

That's a small army and the means to fund it.

Could someone be setting up for a attempt to take control of the region?

Not going to happen, but I have to say that that's a pretty cool idea for a novel or movie.

I almost thought he was going on about a possible plot for the next James Bond film or Tom Clancy novel.

[CJvR]

Tremble Pirates!

The day of reconing is approaching, the Swedes are coming and we have lingon berrys!!!

(Provided we are able to find enough crew for two small corvettes with only a 5 month advance notice - we might have to wait for 10 months just to make sure.)