URGENT: Japanese tanker explodes near Strait of Hormuz

A picture of the ship, could someone upload to ATS media? please?

The location of the explosion, near a lifeboat at the rear starboard side of the ship, suggested the blast was unlikely to have been caused by oil on the tanker, Mitsui OSK was quoted as saying by the transport ministry. "In addition, a crew member saw light on the horizon just before the explosion, so (Mitsui OSK) believes there is a possibility it was caused by an outside attack," the ministry said in a statement.

www.guardian.co.uk... plosion-oman

Not likely oil or engines etc. That is why they are continuing with that line, they do not believe it was an accident.

reply to post by silent thunder


I'm guessing they will wait for the Report. When ANYTHING like this happens to a Vessel, there is an Investigation into it, as per ISPS regulations. And there are PLENTY of Indians that get injured on board Vessels each day. I know this, because of my job, and the amount of times I have had to take them to the Doctors/Hospital.

In my honest opinion, I am willing to make an educated guess that it was an accident. I'm not ruling out any other type of action from a rogue state, but trust me, the amount of accidents that occur on vessels on a daily basis that don't make the news is astounding. I am honestly suprised how Shipping Companies keep them quiet. Although they are that common, that it's not really worth reporting unless there is something interesting to report about it.

But thats just my opinion from what I know of the Industry, having literally been around ships my whole life. My dad worked for Caltex before I was born, and I was walking on Oil Tankers at the age of 5 (this was well before the Industry was so tightly regulated), and for the last 11 years I have been working withing the Industry. So I hear and see a HELL of alot more things that get reported.

reply to post by harryhaller


[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/7519cb26ca0c.jpg[/atsimg]



Seems some want to stir trouble when its not needed. I am calling BS on this too. Tensions are being pushed to the limit, I think to push someone into doing something that could start a war of many.

What a wonderful world we live in today

At this time, it doesn't appear that this is a big enough incident to have started anything. However, any incidents in that area are going to set everyone on edge. In addition, it is very interesting to watch for who is reporting this early and how. From what I've seen, both Bloomberg and the WSJ have in the past month been reporting stories of the more drum beating nature against Iran. Just saying.

But Indians and nobody would believe Iran responsible for an attack on a merchant navy ship. Not even the MSM have alluded to it. They'd rather say it's an earthquake.

reply to post by TerribleTeam2


Thanks for your professional opinion. It's good to have somebody participating in this with your background.

So, assuming for the moment it may have been an accident, do you think it will cause any problems with the oil flow out of the Hormuz area?

reply to post by harryhaller


Still, Vapour could have been ignited. Even though the Oil is sealed in watertight tanks, Gaseous Vapour can still escape. They even have venting procedures because of this. I have actually spent time working on an Oil Tanker, and I know very well what it is like.

All it takes is for 1 of the crew to be smoking in the wrong place, and it can cause an explosion. That's why you see on the Superstructure/Bridge, painted in 5 foot high letters and in bright paint "NO SMOKING". There are limited areas on an Oil Tanker where you can actually smoke. Usually, it is in the Cargo Control Room, and the Crew Mess. And these areas are actually Insulated because of the amount of electrical items in them.

As I said before people, I wouldn't jump the gun before making a judgement call.

a flash of light on the horizon
no info on surface contacts

I believe this to be a small cruise missile.
A torpedo would have hit below the water line
and exploded the tanker's oil.

This attack was a warning
not intended to destroy the ship.

Since there was no info on surface vessels
this is most likely a submarine.

How many Navies have submarines that fire
cruise missiles?

It's a short list

another thing bothered me about this incident
was just how fast all this info got out.
Kinda reminded me of 9/11 when they
dropped Bin Laden in America's lap
in less than a couple hrs after the towers
fell. And need I remind everyone about
the BBC news report of Bldg 7 coming
down when it was still standing in the
background as if scripted. This sounds
scripted too.

It can be an accident of course. The problem now lies more in the earthquake story.
How can you come up with that kind of explanation if you're not trying to cover something ?
Why not simply say you know for sure there was no attack, the strait is safe and you're waiting for the ship to figure out what happened ?

reply to post by TerribleTeam2


OK, i see you found that image before me too, thanks

Well yes, i know diddly about ships, won't pretend otherwise. But even at a petrol station, or a similar place, the entire structure is designed against this sort of thing.

I want photos. It's either a vapour thing, which i imagine would create a large burnt area above decks, or it's a freakin hole in the side.

If you're on a boat, ok an oil tanker, and there's an explosion, what protocols must be followed?

reply to post by silent thunder


I'm guessing not much change at all mate. There are so many Vessels at Anchorage, just waiting to pick up a Charter, that, there will ALWAYS be another vessel waiting. As of a few months ago, there were roughly 8500 Vessels at Anchorage at various places around the world. Thats how bad the Economy had hit Shipping Companies. And there could have possibly been even more at Anchorage. You tend to see things slow down when there is a problem with Ullage (space left in tanks) in the Refineries. If there isn't enough Ullage, then things tend to slow down a bit until they have more space.

reply to post by boondock-saint


A cruise missile would of certainly been seen in the air, especially following a flash from the shore. The damage would of been much greater too, obviously depending on the warhead used.

is it just me or does any one else want to see an image of the damage to the ship? i think a lot could be gained from seeing the area. i.e. is the metal bent in or out. and other things such as that.

thank you good day night depending on your location in this universe.

reply to post by harryhaller
Except Iran! They mined the Persian Gulf in 1988.

Who cleaned it up? US Navy minesweepers including the USS Inflict(MSO 456), which I had the pleasure of being aboard for a few weeks.

Source:




[edit on 28-7-2010 by butcherguy]

Originally posted by boondock-saint
another thing bothered me about this incident
was just how fast all this info got out.
Kinda reminded me of 9/11 when they
dropped Bin Laden in America's lap
in less than a couple hrs after the towers
fell. And need I remind everyone about
the BBC news report of Bldg 7 coming
down when it was still standing in the
background as if scripted. This sounds
scripted too.

But wait a miunte...the first media mention of this was a few hours ago, as far as I can tell, and the incident itself happened soemthing like 12 hours earlier, right? Seems to be an unusually *slow* release of news IMHO.

Or am I confused here?

reply to post by harryhaller


Depends who is running the show, if it was me it would be "Abandon Ship!" then again if it was BP it would be "Nothing to see here, move along"

If Iran was going to sink a ship in the Straits of Hormuz, which incidentally would have drastic effects on the worlds economies, plausable deniability would be better indicated if they blew up a ship of a country that were friendly to them, rather than one of their enemies.

Just wanted to throw that out there.

reply to post by harryhaller


Depends on what kind of Vessel, and the situation. It also depends on how bad/big the explosion is. But basically, if there is an Emergency, all crew are to proceed to their designated action stations. From there, the Captain will take Command (remember, when at sea, not all crew are on Watch. There is a process of minimum 1 Officer of the Watch, and 1 Rating of the Watch), and he will get reports from all Team Leaders, and then decide from there whether the crew are to proceed to the lifeboats for Evacuation, or whether they stay and fight the fire, and keep the Vessel running.

It is part of ISPS regulations that EVERY Vessel operating has to have Emergency Procedures in place. If they don't, then the Vessel is either blacklisted (which means they won't be able to return to that Port/Country), or they won't even be able to leave where they are until all problems are rectified.

I have read the posts here about the possibility
of a vapor explosion, while some have credence
I would assume the Capt. of this vessel would
have been knowledgeable enough about his ship
to know if the explosion happened in an area
that was hazardous to this vapor and we haven't
seen that in any of the articles thus far.