Claire Berlinski: How Istanbul is threatened by cataclysm | News & Politics | News & Comment

FIRST POSTED NOVEMBER 24, 2008

into a liquid pipeline. In the past five years, cargo traffic through the Black Sea has risen by nearly 500 per cent; the flow of oil from the port of Novorossysk has more than doubled. Monstrous vessels full of oil, dangerous chemicals, nuclear waste and liquid gas - often skippered by drunken incompetents - have been pouring down from the Caucasus. Many of these tankers are rustbuckets that shouldn't be at sea, let alone passing right through the middle of a city of 15m people. Because of the Montreux Convention, Turkey can't ban them.

Ankara, frantic about the hazard posed by increasing energy traffic in the straits, has in recent years been pressing for the development of alternative energy routes, focusing on the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan pipeline. But the conflict between Georgia and Russia displayed the limitations of this strategy when Russian bombers targeted the area around it, immediately interrupting supplies. It is still not back to full capacity. Gas flows through the Baku-Supsa pipeline were disrupted, too. The result: More pressure on shipping lanes through the Turkish straits.

Thousands of tonnes of pollutants have gushed and spewed into the Bosphorus

The danger is not theoretical. Hundreds of accidents have already happened. Thousands of tonnes of pollutants have gushed, spewed, dribbled and exploded into the Bosphorus. In 1979, a fully-laden Romanian oil tanker caught fire after colliding with a Greek ship. The explosion burned the crews to death and rocked Istanbul like an earthquake, shattering windows, turning the sky blood-red, and spilling 94,000 tonnes of burning oil into the Sea of Marmara (that is almost four times the amount of leakage from the Exxon Valdez).

Five years later, a Greek Cypriot tanker collided with another vessel in the straits, killing 30 and spilling 20,000 tonnes of oil. The Bosphorus was aflame for five days. In 1999, a 25-year-old Russian tanker ran aground and broke up near the southwest shores of Istanbul, spilling 800 tonnes of fuel. When in 2005 a ship carrying liquid petroleum gas sank, its seven tanks floated free for two days causing city-wide panic before they were retrieved.

In 2006, only a last-minute intervention prevented an unpiloted kerosene-laden tanker from crashing into the Dolmabahce Palace. This is not a safety record to set the mind at ease, particularly as inevitably the number of collisions increase exponentially with the intensity of the traffic.

A disaster in the Bosphorus wouldn't just cripple Istanbul: it could turn off the lights in much of Europe. Even a moderate oil spill could close the straits for months of clean-up, cutting off a substantial proportion of Europe's energy supplies and causing a worldwide economic crisis. The environmental costs would be incalculable.
Most people have never heard of the Montreux Convention - but a moment's miscalculation in these foggy waters might very well make it infamous.

FIRST POSTED NOVEMBER 24, 2008

Add to:

Comments

Hide comments

This article might well be pointing to a very real danger, but "destroying the 3,000-year-old city and every living thing within a 50km radius" seems implausible. Where does this figure come from? Is it just based on the energy stored in a tanker-full of LPG?

Posted by Bob Harle at 12:57pm on November 24, 2008

Hi Bob (if I may), These are pretty well-known figures. In a Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty interview on June 23, 1999, Istanbul Technical University professor Orhan Kural, for example, said: "It is always possible to have a big accident in the Bosphorus and this would threaten all of Istanbul. There are also ships that carry LPG (liquid petroleum gas). If there is an explosion it will threaten the whole of Istanbul like an atomic bomb and it can also reach 50 kilometers in diameter. This means this is the end of Istanbul." See also Chapter 8 of "Sea Lane Security and U.S. Maritime Trade: Chokepoints as Scarce Resources," by Donna J. Nincic: "While this has never occurred, accidents or near-accidents in certain parts of the world suggest how devastating a purposeful attack could be. For example, if a ship carrying liquid petroleum gas were to explode in the Turkish Straits, scientists estimate the impact would be the same as an 11.0 earthquake on the Richter scale." Also J. Black Sea/Mediterranean Environment, Vol 12:269-304(2006), "Shipping accidents: a serious threat for marine environment" by Necmettin Akten of Istanbul University, (Engineering Faculty, Dept. of Maritime Transport and Management Engineering): "A LPG tanker of 30.000 tonnes dwcc may, in the case that cargo explosion occurs, have an effect of 11 times more than that of the atomic bombs dropped onto Hiroshima and Nagasaki." Some experts have dismissed these estimates as alarmist, but they tend to be on the Russian payroll. Best regards, Claire

Posted by Claire Berlinski at 4:30pm on November 24, 2008

Thanks for the reply, Claire. I don't want to question your research - and the main point of your article is the huge amount of damage that would be caused to Istanbul, which is clear (and alarming enough), but I don't trust some of the statements ascribed to your sources. I'm not a professor of anything but I have degrees in Physics and Marine Engineering and the figures just don't look right. For example, the Nagasaki bomb was estimated as being equivalent to 20-22000 tons of TNT so I don't see how 30000 tons of LPG could be equivalent to 220000 tons of TNT, even if it all exploded instantaneously, which it wouldn't. Bob

Posted by Bob Harle at 4:15pm on November 25, 2008

Every day, a 1.5m people commute by ferry from one side of Istanbul to the other........I don't know about anyone else but 1.5m means 1.5 million to me. Upon reflection I guess you mean 1,500 people Claire. But maybe not! There are are 10 million inhabitants in the area so maybe they are all getting on boats and creating havoc. Please clarify, I am having Dunkirk nightmares about these poor commuters.

Posted by steve big steve at 1:30am on November 26, 2008

More: ...a quick search gives the energy content of 30000 tonnes of LPG at about 150TJ, which is more than the roughly 88TJ in the Nagasaki bomb. Again , it wouldn't be released instantaneously, but yes, it would be more than enough to essentially destroy Istanbul. Not to 50Km, though! At Nagasaki, deaths at 2.5 to 5km from GZ were 11%. Even with a bomb 11 times as powerful, this would extend a circle the square root of eleven times wider, not eleven times wider.

Posted by Bob Harle at 8:28am on November 26, 2008

Oil doesn't explode, it burns. The air/gas mixture on top of the oil will explode. However all tankers are 'inerted' that is, there is no air in the tanks, the space is filled with Nitrogen. So combustion cannot occur. If a loaded tanker is holed, pollution might occur, even a fire, but not an explosion. If an empty tanker (which is not inerted but has an air/oil vapour atmosphere), has an accident then an explosion might well occur, but the ship is empty, and there is insufficient energy in the oil to cause serious damage. Once a non-inerted called San Demetrio, carrying gasoline, was bombed & strafed, so that the decks were like pepperpots with bomb and bullet holes, from which dozens of fires burned. Abandoned and reboarded, it was towed into Valletta, and thus saved Malta. LPG tankers are subject to the same physical laws as oil tankers. The LPG cannot burn in the tanks as there is no air present. If a leakage occurs, and a spark, the escaping gas will burn, in a most spectacular manner, just like a bigger version of the familiar gas stove. The Shell Oil Company conducted LPG burning tests on Maplin Sands about 20 years ago, there was some debate whether it would freeze or burn you to death. It just burnt with a clear blue flame. LPG ship Captains have told me of their shock at seeing their gas tanks strafed by jet bombers during the first Gulf War (Iran v Iraq). Also of their relief at realising that the ships didn't explode. Just big gas jets, the biggest theyÃ¢??d ever seen, but jets none the less, not explosions. Oil tanker Captains have told me the same thing. Ships stricken by lightening whilst on a loading berth resulting in an enormous plume of flame, lighting up the port, but no explosion. The above seems contrary to known facts about exploding oil tankers. But these happened before Inert Gas became universal, and most of the explosions happened during tank cleaning operations, when the oil in the tanks was minimal. To be sure there are lots of pictures of ruptured cargo tanks, but in general, that was usually the full extent of the damage. The only real example of an exploding ship destroying a port occurred in Halifax Canada in 1917. The ship was fully loaded at the time and the explosion took the town out. But the cargo was not oil or gas, it was dynamite. A full shipload. So I would respectfully suggest that the Istanbul welcomes tankers and gas carriers, upon which we all depend, but refuse to allow munitions ships.

Posted by Peter Melia at 8:23pm on November 28, 2008

May I correct Peter's post of Nov 28,2008. The ship referred to was not the San Demetrio it was the S.S. Ohio. The M.V.San Demetrio (my brother Ross was third Mate) was an oil tanker damaged and reboarded after being shelled by a German armed raider whilst in a convoy guarded by HMS Jervis Bay in November 1940. It happened mid Atlantic. The Jervis Bay episode is an adventure story of its own. The SS Ohio did in fact help save Malta as stated in Peter's post. With reference to Claire's article, the Bosphorus is an accident waiting to happen. Discussing the degree of damage is academic it could be minor or it could be catastophic. I have sailed LPG carriers through the strait many times as Captain each time it has been a scary experience. The treaty should be reviewed to insure that all ships transitting should have to employ local Turkish speaking pilots. Two ships carrying dangerous cargoes colliding off Istanbul will be spectacular.

Posted by Rob K at 7:49pm on February 19, 2009