Whitefish Point oil slick 1985

[Jared]

The OHA does not cover side scan or down imaging transducers. It is a legal loophole. Plus the bow lies 600ft from the border. If you hug the border with a 100khz fish there is nothing the Canadian law can do. Nevertheless I'm not big into the Fitz as she takes away from other tragic wrecks and dominates any wreck discussion. I respect the wishes of the families and will leave her alone.

I can see if I can post the newer images of the wreckage later on as I do not have them on this device.

[Diver Dan]

The illegal salvage probably refers to the recovery of pellets and/or other small items when the GLSHS folks had the mini-sub down there. There is a recording of their conversations in the sub showing they knew they were violating their permit, but they did it anyway. I believe this is at least partly the reason for Tom Farnquist's departure from the organization, and it brought on the Canadian rule prohibiting scanning the wreck without prior permission.

See the following, showing that the scans Jared references may well have been illegal:

The Ontario Heritage Act protects the site of the wreck. Section 48 of the Act prohibits diving on the wreck, or operating any submersible vehicle or towed survey equipment (including sonar or cameras) within 500 meters of the wreck. See: http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/html/statutes/english/ elaws_statutes_90o18_e.htm#BK82 . (Click on No. 48).

The following is a link to the Ontario regulation designating the Edmund Fitzgerald wreck site as a Marine Archaeological Site: http://www.canlii.org/on/laws/regu/2006 ... whole.html .

[hugh3]

Will the down scan images be available?

[Jared]

No the side scan picture in question had their fish far too high in the water column which prevented the beam from reflecting correctly. Spar deck does show up on the down imaging. My friends were over the wreckage about a month and a half ago and did some sonar work around her.

What's this about illegal salvage?

[Guest]

Seems to me the last time they did a scan of the Fritz, the spar deck on the forward end was collapsed and gone.

That was due to the violent destruction during the sinking, the mid section literally collapsed into itself, leaving the apparently intact areas of cargo deck and hull in a very precarious condition. The stern section hull is known to be structurally sound, despite being upside down and the deckhouses crushed under it.

The larger problem may be getting to the fuel tank, if the fuel tank is really a separate container located inside the middle of the hull and not part of it. It seems that's how the coal bunker was originally built, but it's not clear to me how the fuel oil tank was constructed after it was added during the conversion to oil.

[Guest]

Why under salvage, does that state this for the Fitzgerald?

Salvaged: Yes, partially and illegally

[hugh3]

Seems to me the last time they did a scan of the Fritz, the spar deck on the forward end was collapsed and gone.

[Jared]

Because of her depth, I would theorize that deterioration will be very slow. We are talking 150-200 years before any major structural changes begin to happen. As long as the environment remains the same with no major currents or water quality changes. Steel flakes off like dead skin and her paint is still providing a degree or protection. If it wasn't for zebra mussels, the Bradley would be in better shape.

[Guest]

It seems to me that at some point in the future this will be a problem as corrosion eventually works its way into the vessel's fuel tanks. I would assume it would likely result in a slow discharge or series of discharges unless a major part of the structure would suddenly give way. How does the coldness and depth of the water affect rusting of metal?

On a side point, while visiting the whaleback Meteor at Superior for the first time earlier this year, I was surprised that it still had a large amount of bunker fuel onboard.

[Mr Link]

Yes NOAA did a study of shipwrecks in or near US waters that was released in 2013. The Edmund Fitzgerald was ranked the third highest potential environmental risk, behind the tank barge Argo (since re mediated) and the Prins Willem V.

Summary of shipwreck concerns: https://sanctuaries.noaa.gov/protect/ppw/

Report on the Fitzgerald:https://permanent.access.gpo.gov/gpo590 ... gerald.pdf

[Jared]

I know the Fitz was #1 on the greatest ecological disasters waiting to happen list. I think the report said that between 150,000 to 200,000 gallons lie on the wreck. And no bunker C will flow if it's container opens or ruptures. We had 1000 gallons of bunker C in the Barbara Lynn that made a mess when she was salvaged in Lake Huron after 20 years on the bottom. A diver removed the cap to the tank and she spewed that nasty crap all over the place before the cap could be resecured. That was at 220ft so I would assume that would occur at 530ft also.

[Guest]

I remember reading about an oil slick that came ashore on Whitefish Point in 1985. At the time there was some speculation that it may have come from the Edmund Fitzgerald but I was wondering if its origin was ever determined. I always thought it more likely came from a passing vessel.

Regardless, has there ever been any estimate done as to how much fuel oil, lubricants, etc. were onboard the Fitzgerald when it sank. I don't know how much of a possible spill disaster bunker C fuel would be as I believe it is very thick and needs to be heated to flow.