6.30am AEDT Sunday 05 January 2014
US Coast Guard ice breaker to assist ships beset in ice in Antarctica
The Australian Maritime Safety Authority’s Rescue Coordination Centre (RCC Australia) has requested the US Coast Guard’s Polar Star icebreaker to assist the vessels MV Akademik Shokalskiy and Xue Long which are beset by ice in Commonwealth Bay.
The US Coast Guard has accepted this request and will make Polar Star available to assist.
The Polar Star has been en route to Antarctica since 3 December, 2013 – weeks prior to the MV Akademik Shokalskiy being beset by ice in Commonwealth Bay. The intended mission of the Polar Star is to clear a navigable shipping channel in McMurdo Sound to the National Science Foundation’s Scientific Research Station. Resupply ships use the channel to bring food, fuel and other goods to the station. The Polar Star will go on to undertake its mission once the search and rescue incident is resolved.
RCC Australia identified the Polar Star as a vessel capable of assisting the beset vessels following MV Akademik Shokalskiy being beset by ice overnight on 24 December, 2013. RCC Australia has been in discussion with the US Coast Guard this week to ascertain if the Polar Star was able to assist once it reaches Antarctica.
The request for the Polar Star to assist the beset vessels was made by RCC Australia to the US Coast Guard on 3 January, 2014. The US Coast Guard officially accepted this request and released the Polar Star to RCC Australia for search and rescue tasking at 8.30am on 4 January, 2014.
The Polar Star will leave Sydney today after taking on supplies prior to its voyage to Antarctica.
It is anticipated it will take approximately seven (7) days for the Polar Star to reach Commonwealth Bay, dependent on weather and ice conditions.
At 122 metres, the Polar Star is one of the largest ships in the US Coast Guard fleet. It has a range of 16,000 nautical miles at 18 knots. The Polar Star has a crew of 140 people.
The Polar Star is able to continuously break ice up to 1.8 metres (6ft) while travelling at three (3) knots and can break ice over six (21ft) metres thick.
RCC Australia will be in regular contact with the relevant US Coast Guard RCC at Alameda, California, and the Captain of the Polar Star during its journey to Antarctica.
Media Enquiries: 1300 624 633
www.amsa.gov.au/media
Related:
The ‘Clitanic’ Hot Sheet – News from the #SpiritofMawson fiasco
“Dave Kellems says: You will hear people talk about the Russian Nuke Ice Breakers. The only trouble is they can not leave the cold water of the Arctic. It has to do with the cooling systems for the Nuke Reactors.”
That is false. Nuke power plants can run just fine in tropical seas. Russia isn’t about to send one any time soon because doing so would be hilariously expensive, not because they can’t.
How do you think all the Nuke-powered aircraft carriers, submarines, etc operate anywhere they please? Cooling them is not a problem.
Why are we bailing out these silly “global warming” twits? They’re hoisted on their own pitards, where they belong. Man-made global warming is a fraud and hoax. These silly fools were down there trying to foist more lies on the rest of us. They suffer from Brain Freeze!
If it was up to me they would be wintering over……
I have a better idea!!! Let the darn boat sit there for 3 months and thaw out!!!
I can’t count and I can’t spell, either. The proper English term for Turney’s media fellow travelers is of course “presstitutes”, not “presstitudes”.
And another WUWT reader previously described the expeditioneers as “scientourists”.
Get a load of this. ? “”””” What if the POLAR STAR”” gets stuck ?? Then HELL freezes over
What if ?????
bruce ryan says:
January 4, 2014 at 4:40 pm
…One part of me hopes it is using some environmentally benign fuel,
I hear it is a renewable bio-fuel.
Whale oil.
JerryL says:
January 4, 2014 at 1:56 pm
Jerry, this is interesting–
>>>The Russians have nuclear icebreakers that are not permitted in the Antarctic due to International agreements….<<<
You mean that an international agreement requires ships with a huge rate of consumption of carbon-based fuel rather than clean-burning nuclear fuel in these times of global warming? What is the rationale for that? I'm guessing that the agreements date to an earlier time when the participants felt that it was PC for them to strike a blow against anything nuclear. So old obsessions now clash with newer ones.
bruce ryan says:
January 4, 2014 at 4:40 pm
…One part of me hopes it is using some environmentally benign fuel,
I hear it is a renewable bio-fuel.
Whale oil.
It’s actually DFM (NATO F-76) or JP-5 depending on where they fuelled.
Never say the USA doesn’t do anything for anyone. You’re welcome.
You’re welcome—USA.
@R. de Haan
Yes, the Drudge link is great. It brings readers here who have not been following the development of the Turney expedition fiasco closely or at all. More taxpayers and voters.
James Strom says:
January 4, 2014 at 5:07 pm
JerryL says:
January 4, 2014 at 1:56 pm
Jerry, this is interesting–
>>>The Russians have nuclear icebreakers that are not permitted in the Antarctic due to International agreements….<<<
You mean that an international agreement requires ships with a huge rate of consumption of carbon-based fuel rather than clean-burning nuclear fuel in these times of global warming? What is the rationale for that? I'm guessing that the agreements date to an earlier time when the participants felt that it was PC for them to strike a blow against anything nuclear. So old obsessions now clash with newer ones.
James, the agreement has been in place for a long long time. Just like the agreement to pack out the trash that is generated. Not too many years ago, the scientific bases were becoming large landfills and hazardous waste superfund sites. The countries that have permanent bases came together to restore Antarctica to a pristine environment.
The more foreign involvement the better ,it just makes it that much more difficult for the ecolunatics to get away with the pseudo scientific drivel they have been spouting for the last 30 years.
Dennis Beeson says:
January 4, 2014 at 5:10 pm
Get a load of this. ? “”””” What if the POLAR STAR”” gets stuck ?? Then HELL freezes over
What if ?????
…the only way the Polar Star gets stuck is if the commander in chief orders it, in another attempt to embarrass the USA. A traitor in the white house.
OMG !!!! “””. ObombaBound “””
Let all the global warming fanatics freeze to death. Why should we spend our money rescuing them?
Mr. Lion says:
January 4, 2014 at 4:59 pm
It´s winter in the Arctic & Russia needs her nuke icebreakers.
A retired USCG admiral tows the CACA line but otherwise makes good points:
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2014/01/140103-antarctica-ship-icebreakers-science-ice-trapped/
I share your doubts about the cooling problem. US nuke surface ships & subs routinely traverse the tropics. Some are based in Hawaii, plus visit Guam & Diego Garcia (7 degrees S).
Why is the US paying for this? Why should taxpayers bail out Russian and Chinese ships? Australia is closer to this situation. If it doesn’t have a capable ship, it should get one. In the meantime, the US government better bill all parties involved!
Is the ice breaker solar powered? If not, it should be mothballed! 😉
James Strom says:
January 4, 2014 at 5:07 pm
I stand corrected thanks to a later comment. According to Wikipedia the Russian nukes can’t sail through warm waters due to their cooling requirements, so they’re stuck in the Arctic.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear-powered_icebreaker
Who else has taken the lead to save other countries from whatever problems occur around the world for the last 70 years? Only the the USA.
James Strom says:
January 4, 2014 at 5:26 pm
James Strom says:
January 4, 2014 at 5:07 pm
I stand corrected thanks to a later comment. According to Wikipedia the Russian nukes can’t sail through warm waters due to their cooling requirements, so they’re stuck in the Arctic.
Consider the amount of ice laiden shoreline that the Russions need to keep open. The priority is north.
highflight56433 says:
January 4, 2014 at 5:17 pm
True, that.
Only way Polar Star gets stuck is if ordered to do so. She´s a real icebreaker, not just ïce-capable¨.
She & her sister have been to Antarctica before & back. They can maintain three knots (5.6 km/h; 3.5 mph) in 6-foot (1.8 m) ice. Given their excess of power, they´re also fast in open water. Thank God she was already en route to the region.
[SNIP we don’t need a discussion about “race” in this thread, off-topic, pointless, ugly – Anthony]
Did the original ship get it’s “global warming” research data?
James Strom says:
January 4, 2014 at 5:26 pm
Please note ¨citation needed¨. I´m dubious. Maybe their cooling system requires frigid water, but I´d be surprised.
This might be an excuse for not sending them south, as US icebreakers do.