Bay bridge, meh.  Just stay the fark away from my GG.

I'm in San Francisco and not one radio or TV station is reporting this so I'm guessing it's not a big deal.

borg: I'm in San Francisco and not one radio or TV station is reporting this so I'm guessing it's not a big deal.

Tanker was empty and hull was not pierced.  Could have been a LOT worse.

Freaky to read about it on FARK and not hear it on the radio news. Lucky it was empty and neglibible damage to the bridge.

AdolfOliverPanties: borg: I'm in San Francisco and not one radio or TV station is reporting this so I'm guessing it's not a big deal.

Tanker was empty and hull was not pierced.  Could have been a LOT worse.

9/11 could have been a lot worse if "they" had nuclear bombs
be really I only saw a small news scroll on CBS-5 so far it's obviously a nothing story nobody is breaking in regular programing to over it. This is a market that breaks in for the smallest crap.

Anyone care to cite a reference that says Exxon owned this thing or had anything to do with this?

Defrakwot?!

The Overseas Reymar is a double-hull vessel, its owner said.

Empty double-hull. Nothing to see here.

SwiftFox: The Overseas Reymar is a double-hull vessel, its owner said.

Empty double-hull. Nothing to see here.

Just my post below/above...

Rufus Lee King: "CAPTAIN!!! BACK THE STARBOARD ENGINE!!!"

[s3.amazonaws.com image 448x252]

"Where's my helmet?"

You mean like a few years ago when there actually was a spill in the bay?

"empty oil tanker sideswiped a tower of the Bay Bridge, officials said.
No oil spilled into the bay"
*facepalm*, subby

wallywam1: "empty oil tanker sideswiped a tower of the Bay Bridge, officials said.
No oil spilled into the bay"
*facepalm*, subby

"Yellow Press! Yellow-press!" He exclaimed!

*small-large print plus exclamation points*

Outtaphase: Anyone care to cite a reference that says Exxon owned this thing or had anything to do with this?

You're new here, aren't you? We don't need no stinking citations.

Indubitably: Rufus Lee King: "CAPTAIN!!! BACK THE STARBOARD ENGINE!!!"

[s3.amazonaws.com image 448x252]

"Where's my Strawberries?"

ftfu

Nothing to see here. Just a little bump & grind. Float along.

Outtaphase: Anyone care to cite a reference that says Exxon owned this thing or had anything to do with this?

No, but we're having Joe Barton apologize to them, just in case.

SwiftFox: The Overseas Reymar is a double-hull vessel, its owner said.

Empty double-hull. Nothing to see here.

We should go back to single-hull tankers so the next time an avoidable ecological disaster happens we can have stuff to talk about.

fat boy: Indubitably: Rufus Lee King: "CAPTAIN!!! BACK THE STARBOARD ENGINE!!!"

[s3.amazonaws.com image 448x252]

"Where's my Strawberries?"

ftfu

I don't need *anything* fixed for me, thank you very much. Here, anyway. *)

Outtaphase: Anyone care to cite a reference that says Exxon owned this thing or had anything to do with this?

Found a few answers, none of them helps anything.

Manager & owner OSG SHIPMANAGEMENT GREECE - ATHENS, GREECE

Faraday's Child

You mean like a few years ago when there actually was a spill in the bay?

Cosco Busan.

Remember now, that the Bay Bridge sits on piers that are only about 2300 feet apart. It's very difficult to thread between these, as there is only about fifth of a mile of clearance to work with on both sides of the ship.

HEY, I SAID, NO SMOKING!

borg: AdolfOliverPanties: borg: I'm in San Francisco and not one radio or TV station is reporting this so I'm guessing it's not a big deal.

Tanker was empty and hull was not pierced. Could have been a LOT worse.

9/11 could have been a lot worse if "they" had nuclear bombs

Yeah, but at a given speed, it probably would have been a lot worse if the tanker had all the extra weight from the oil.

Did the front fall off?

Christ, not again!!

To despoil

Junebug: Christ, not again!!

Nearly simulpost, I suspect we could be friends too. Peace and Word.

OMG... OMG... OMG... OMG... OMG...



Oh wait, this is from 1989. Never Mind.

No oil spilled into the bay
No oil spilled into the bay
No oil spilled into the bay
No oil spilled into the bay

yeesh

Sid_6.7: Yeah, but at a given speed, it probably would have been a lot worse if the tanker had all the extra weight from the oil.

I don't think so. The fenders are designed to take a full on hit by large ships at normal bay traffic speeds so the bridge wasn't in any real danger. With a double hulled ship the odds of a major spill are very low short of breaking the keel in two.The last bay spill was by a single hulled tanker that had a similar accident.

studebaker hoch: Remember now, that the Bay Bridge sits on piers that are only about 2300 feet apart. It's very difficult to thread between these, as there is only about fifth of a mile of clearance to work with on both sides of the ship.

I think that is the larger point people are overlooking here. It's amazing that crew managed to squeeze that ship between those piers at all, much less with only minor damage.

San Fransisco has more than enough experience with tanker collisions and oil spills.

Standard Oil Tankers Collide

dryknife: San Fransisco has more than enough experience with tanker collisions and oil spills.

Standard Oil Tankers Collide

Thank you. I was going to come here and day that California and the bay area experience plenty of oil spills. Most of them just happen to not threaten the coastline or wildlife that much.

Brick-House: OMG... OMG... OMG... OMG... OMG...

[indianapublicmedia.org image 850x566]

Oh wait, this is from 1989. Never Mind.

Tampa Skyway is a little more accurate.

Hey Dumbmitter, Exxon no longer has a shipping fleet. But what's a little thing like facts and details?

Well, except that it wasn't an Exxon tanker, no oil spilled into the bay, and it wasn't caused by a drunken captain or a navigational error, sure they're exactly identical in every respect.

Gyrfalcon: Well, except that it wasn't an Exxon tanker, no oil spilled into the bay, and it wasn't caused by a drunken captain or a navigational error, sure they're exactly identical in every respect.

They were both in the Pacific Ocean. Stop being so technical and everything.

I think subby was a little too excited about the thought of mixing "oil" and "San Francisco" and forgot to read the first sentence of TFA.
NTTAWWT

Who needs Exxon when we have PG&E?

Another Government Employee: Brick-House: OMG... OMG... OMG... OMG... OMG...

[indianapublicmedia.org image 850x566]

Oh wait, this is from 1989. Never Mind.

Tampa Skyway is a little more accurate.

Nope The Bay Bridge 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake

bob_ross: Bay bridge, meh.  Just stay the fark away from my GG.

BLASPHEMER!!1

Tanker is likely larger than where it is based. South Pacific coral atoll of Majuro.

Oh please. There have been many guys in SF who have seen some nasty oil spills for the last 60 or so years lol.

/They will probably celebrate the "rainbow colored film" it leaves in the water as the largest gay pride flag in the world lol.

Sid_6.7: Tanker was empty and hull was not pierced. Could have been a LOT worse.

9/11 could have been a lot worse if "they" had nuclear bombs

Yeah, but at a given speed, it probably would have been a lot worse if the tanker had all the extra weight from the oil.

Okay, that's fair. I should have said something along the lines of "more likely to cause damage" or something.