Floating inferno: Some queries

Friday 28th May, 2021

It is feared that the ill-fated container ship X-Press Pearl, which turned into a floating inferno while at anchorage near Colombo, may break up, spewing out a large amount of oil. Some of its debris is already polluting beaches in the Negombo area. Its cargo in 1,486 freight containers included 25 tons of nitric acid, which caused the fire.

The poor packaging of the chemicals onboard X-Press Pearl has found to be the cause of the disastrous fire. It is hoped that the international environmental organisations will call for punitive action against those whose irresponsible action has caused the disaster. Thankfully, Sri Lanka succeeded in rescuing all crew members of the burning ship.

Everything possible must be done to rescue a distressed vessel, but that is a task to be carried out cautiously. Initial reports, quoting Tim Hartnoll, the executive chairman of Ex-Press Feeders, which operates X-Press Pearl, said two ports in the region—Hazira (India) and Hamad (Qatar)—had denied the vessel entry because it had a leaking acid container. Media reports indicate that at that stage, the vessel was not in danger of having explosions onboard, and the container at issue should have been removed. Perhaps, the disaster could have been averted if the two ports had helped the ship. However, denying these reports, X-Press Feeders has, subsequently, said the vessel underwent discharge and loading operations in thee aforesaid ports, which, however, turned down applications for offloading the leaking nitric acid container on the grounds that there were no ‘specialist facilities or expertise’ immediately available to handle it. X-Press Feeders and its boss are making somewhat contradictory statements, but the fact remains that the ship failed to have the leaking container unloaded in time.

Having thus been left to its fate, X-Press Pearl was faced with the danger of meeting a fiery end. Why was it allowed to make its way towards Colombo? The Sri Lankan authorities that granted permission must have been aware of the danger the vessel posed, and why did they ignore the possibility of a disaster? Going by the X-Press Pearl operator’s version, one wonders why the officials of the Colombo Port thought they were equal to the task of dealing with the leaking acid container unlike their counterparts at Hazira and Hamad; does the Colombo Port have ‘specialist facilities and expertise’ to carry out such a task?

The Sri Lankan authorities may have taken the situation lightly as they were cocky, having successfully put out a blaze on a super tanker off Hambantota, last year––of course, with foreign assistance, Or, were they driven by their yen for dollars as the rescue of a fire-stricken ship is a financially rewarding exercise? These are some of the many questions that need answers. Perhaps, the Sri Lankan port officials thought that as the country had allowed tourists from some Covid-19 hotspots in the world to come here even for quarantine purposes, despite the danger they posed to the country, there was no harm in allowing a distressed ship carrying a chemical cargo about to catch fire to reach Colombo. After all, hundreds of containers full of hazardous foreign waster have found their way into the Colombo Port over the years.

The X-Press Pearl disaster has brought to light how poorly equipped Sri Lanka is where its firefighting capabilities are concerned though it considers itself a maritime hub. Those who permitted X-Press Pearl to be anchored off Colombo should have been aware of the country’s limitations as regards firefighting. Shouldn’t the Colombo Port concentrate on acquiring necessary capabilities to respond to emergencies more effectively and improve its services instead of selling or leasing its terminals to foreigners?