How on earth can the Australian government spend a billion dollars on a vessel that won't fit through the Tasman Bridge, can't be berthed properly or refuelled in Hobart and even has trouble navigating the harbour in Antarctica.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
$0/
(min cost $0)
or signup to continue reading
The 25,000-tonne icebreaker Nuyina costs $40 million a year to operate, has spent a lot of time in dry-dock since it arrived here and has to sail to Burnie for something as basic as refuelling.
The damn thing won't safely fit through the Tasman Bridge, which provides a fitting head stone for the dozen souls incarcerated forever under rubble, after a zinc laden vessel hit the bridge in 1975, killing crew and motorists when a span collapsed.
So, the ghost of the zinc carrier Lake Illawarra is a keen observer from the depths as this black comedy of errors plays out.
You can imagine those responsible for these matters are going to keep their heads down when engineers etc. are approving and certifying a giant icebreaker seaworthy, except that it struggles with transiting the bridge.
Selfs Point, just 10 minutes sailing up the Derwent River for refuelling, can't do it.
The problem is the design was changed.
It can fit under the bridge, relatively safely sailing upriver, but coming back is the problem because of wind, angles of approach and steerage.
Even the flat bottom hull width didn't change that much, but once they added winged bridges, that overhang each side so that the captain can see each side, and you see this on cruise ships, the bridge transit task became a tight fit.
And I don't think any of them want to be associated with a repeat of the 1975 bridge tragedy, and which could be twice as bad because of the size of this huge icebreaker.
The RSV Nuyina is a monster vessel.
A senate inquiry into the Antarctic Division (AAD) earlier this month heard that the average size of a polar vessel is 7000 tonnes.
A UK icebreaker is 15,000 tonnes, while Nuyina is 25,000 tonnes.
So, I'm wondering, who missed this?
Who forgot to get out the measuring tape?
Who forgot to check berthing facilities at Macquarie Wharf?
The Senate inquiry heard that the state government is looking at fuel barges to float down river from Selfs Point as an alternative to the vessel having to go to Burnie to refuel.
Selfs Point is roughly adjacent to the Northern suburb of Lutana.
Who has to pay for the alternative hasn't been decided.
You can imagine that both Antarctic Division officers and those from Tasports weren't about to fess up blame.
Reading the Senate Hansard of the October 4 and 5 hearings in Hobart I kept thinking I was watching an episode of Utopia or Yes Minister.
It was all very civil, except at one stage Tasports chief executive Anthony Donald exuded a tiny bit of frustration over the mess.
"...I remain to this day a little perplexed as to why AAD would invest such significant money in a really important vessel for Australia and not confirm arrangements and put the appropriate things in place to secure a dedicated wharf that was fit for purpose.
"We respected them in the choices that they made. But to have a vessel of that significance tie up in a lay-up berth arrangement with the inability to load and unload..."
Who picks up the tab is obvious.
Taxpayers.
If the northern approach to the Tasman Bridge presents the biggest navigational risk, then I suspect transit under the bridge will never happen.
The next best option is the refuelling barge shuttle, but I reckon there's chance of that option having its own difficulties, given how heavy these fuel barges will have to be.
So, the refuelling barge option may save us from a useless round-trip to Burnie, but by golly it looks a bit tardy.
It seemed like the problem with this state-of-the art, billion dollar polar vessel started staring them in the face but no one sought to fix it.
Surely it would have been obvious that a change in the width of this giant vessel by 10 metres, and given the navigational hazards of the bridge, they had a problem looming.
The AAD shared its dimensions and profile of the vessel with Tasports in 2015 and between then and today an A4 page of basic arithmetic got lost in the translation.
The AAD has to sign off on modifications to the wharf but said they don't have the funds for it.
The Senate inquiry was primarily about budget cuts at the Kingston-based division.
The overall problem about the bridge transit only surfaced after sea trials in the Derwent River and modelling done at the Australian Maritime College's simulator in Launceston.
Executives from both the AAD and Tasports were present to observe this risk assessment process.
They should have been paying attention.
It's a bit like launching a ship without a keel, or a dinghy taking on water because someone forgot to make sure the bung was screwed in.
What do you think? Have your say by sending a Letter to the Editor.
