Why wasn’t the 261 men on board the barge in Bombay High not evacuated disregarding the cyclone warnings – BusinessLine

The accommodation barge P305 that broke from its anchor in heavy winds and high waves brought by cyclone Tauktae and sank off the coast of Mumbai on Monday evening with scores of bodies yet to be recovered has sent shock waves among the maritime fraternity.

Why wasn’t the 261 men on board the barge, all working for ONGC’s platforms and rigs in the region, not evacuated to safe harbour disregarding the cyclone warnings that were given at least seven days before it lashed the western coast, is the question uppermost in the minds of those who have spent years in the industry.

Going by the version of Rahman Shaikh, the chief engineer of the barge, its captain Balwinder Singh underestimated the velocity of the approaching cyclonic storm and decided to stay put without evacuating those on board.

The Indian Navy, the Indian Coast Guard and other ships and crafts in the vicinity deserve fulsome praise for rising to the occasion and lend a helping hand in one of the biggest search and rescue operations in such a calamity, saving many lives.

But, the same cannot be said of the barge owner, operator and even the charterer – Afcons Infrastructure – a unit of the Shapoorji Pallonji Group, that was working for ONGC in its Mumbai High oilfields.

The callousness of the barge’s captain in taking a quick call to evacuate his crew was compounded by revelations that many of the life rafts on board that are used to take crew to safety in emergencies were punctured.

While the government has set up a panel to go into the root cause of the mishap, shipping industry experts feel that the probe should be extended to not just the barge owner/operator but also to the charterer.

“The buck should not stop with the owners and operators of the barge,” said an industry source.

Absent of quality systems, training

The shipping industry has raised concerns over issues such as lack of quality systems and training, poor quality of staff working for contractors and ships, all emanating from the L1 system of finalising work contracts in such a key industry where safety of personnel is paramount.

The mishap has also cast doubts on the entity that certified the barge for sea worthiness and the conditions of certification. Did ONGC put measures in place to ensure the safety of workers employed by the contractor or was it left to the contractor alone?

Was there any financial incentive for the contractor to not move the personnel and the barge to safety? Was compensation for movement of personnel in an emergency, part of the contract? Were the personnel trained for their own survival such as launching life rafts, did the barge have enough survival equipment?

“Regrettably, we seem to learn only after precious lives are lost,” said a second industry executive.

Enquiry

The probe should cover an audit of all advisories given by ONGC to their assets during past cyclones, including assets chartered by the state-run oil and gas firm to prevent such mishaps in future. Otherwise, it will lead to continuance of the existing state of affairs.

ONGC has not been made answerable by any of the regulatory agencies for accidents in the past. The company is seen as “too big an entity” to take on.

Those who lost their lives in the mishap may not come under the definition of crew under the Merchant Shipping Act. They may not even have Unions representing their interests.