News

To clarify the report total Loss of one 17,224dwt Bulk Carrier, M.V. Beagle III

SEQ_NO
1
Date of announcement
2014/03/21
Time of announcement
18:32:05
Subject
To clarify the report total Loss of one 17,224dwt Bulk Carrier, M.V. Beagle III
Date of events
2014/03/21
To which item it meets
article 2 paragraph 49
Statement
1.Date of occurrence of the event: 2014/03/21 2.Company name: Beagle Marine S.A. 3.Relationship to the Company (please enter ”head office” or ”subsidiaries”): Subsidiary 4.Reciprocal shareholding ratios: Wholly-owned 5.Name of the reporting media: Please see the other matters as below 6.Content of the report: Please see the other matters as below 7.Cause of occurrence: Please see the other matters as below 8.Countermeasures: Announcment 9.Any other matters that need to be specified: Regarding the collision and total loss accident of MV Beagle III against MV Pegasus Prime, the Yomiuri News in Japan published a story on 20 Mar. The news story stated that the collision was caused by a sudden alteration of course to the starboard side by Beagle III and that the accident could have been avoided if both vessels maintained the direction. However, we believe the story did not consider maritime practice and international conventions. Hence we hereby provide some clarification to the misleading story. Due to the momentum of sailing, IMO has published COLREGs to prevent collision at sea. The convention requires that all vessels shall take measures when risk of collision presents and alter course to the starboard side. The Yomiuri story assumed that collision could be averted if course was maintained. But that is not in compliance to international regulations. Also, the story cited the analysis of a professor at Tokyo University of Marine Science and Technology that the vessel would pass by a 200m distance if courses had been maintained. However, 200m is actually a very short distance, just slightly longer than the vessel. A change in sea or wind condition could potentially cause the vessels to collide hence it shall not justify the maintenance of course. Further, the accident happened at around 3am when the visibility is limited. In that regard, proper measures of collision prevention should clearly be taken. From the record of AIS, our Beagle III altered the course from 200 to 270 degree true course 6 minutes before the collision, which is in compliance to the international conventions. On the other hand, Pegasus Prime had not taken any action to alter her course until 1 minute before the collision. And she mistakenly altered her course to portside from 45 to 345 degree true course, which made her sail towards the portside red lights of Beagle III. As a result, the bow of Pegasus Prime twice contacted with the portside side plate of Beagle III and caused the sinking of our vessel. From the lack of preventive measures and wrongful course taken by Pegasus Prime, it is probably that a gross negligence was present if not machinery failure. Furthermore, MV Pegasus Prime did not assist the rescue operation after the accident which already caused 2 deaths and 8 missing. It is a clear breach of SOLAS convention. The Yomiuri story mistakenly described our measures to avert collision as “sudden change of course for unknown reasons”. It is a misunderstanding on marine practice and it failed to point out the illegal actions of MV Pegasus Prime. As a professional shipping company, we would like to provide clarifications on the facts of the accident. We are currently working with the lawyers to pursue civil and criminal liability of the counterparty. All loss of property and relevant liability are properly insured. There is not significant impact on the financial and operational soundness of our company.