Disaster Brazil Wants to Abandon a 34,000-Ton Ship at Sea. It Would be an Environmental Disaster

Article Archive

Brazil Wants to Abandon a 34,000-Ton Ship at Sea. It Would be an Environmental Disaster​

BY CIARA NUGENT

Somewhere in the South Atlantic ocean right now, a 34,000-ton, 870-ft. aircraft carrier is floating aimlessly on the waves. The vessel, caught in an international dispute over its toxic contents, is about to become one of the biggest pieces of trash in the ocean.

The São Paulo, as the ship is known, has been stuck in limbo for five months. Brazil’s navy sold the 60-year-old vessel—the largest in its fleet—for scrap to a Turkish shipyard in 2021, and in August 2022, it set off for Turkey from a naval base in Rio de Janeiro. But while it was on the move, Turkey rescinded its permission to enter, saying Brazil hadn’t been able to prove that the São Paulo was free of asbestos—a toxic mineral used in the construction of many 20th century ships. So, the boat turned around.

Brazil doesn’t want it back, though. In September, a port on the coast of Pernambuco state blocked the ship from docking. The port argued there was too big a risk that the ship would be abandoned, leaving port authorities to pick up the tab for moving it and dealing with the asbestos. That left the São Paulo circling off the Brazilian coast, until Jan. 20, when Brazil’s navy announced that it had pushed the ship out to international waters, where it remains. The navy says it had to do so because the aging ship, which incurred damage to its hull during its odyssey, could have run aground or sank on the Brazilian coast, threatening other boats and coastal wildlife.

It appears the navy’s solution is to abandon the São Paulo at sea. Military sources told Brazil’s Folha de São Paulo newspaper on Saturday that sinking the vessel—using explosives—is the only way to put an end to the controversy surrounding it.

The ship’s saga is set to become an extreme case of vessel abandonment—a problem that plagues marine conservationists and coastal communities around the world. Ocean watchdogs say sinking a boat as big and old as the São Paulo would be an environmental disaster; according to the Basel Action Network (BAN), an NGO, the ship contains thousands of metric tons of asbestos and other toxic substances in its electrical wiring, paints, and fuel stores.

Abandoning it at sea would constitute “gross negligence” and violate three separate international environmental conventions, says Jim Puckett, BAN’s executive director. “We’re talking about a ship containing both hazardous materials and valuable materials—it’s supposed to be brought into the territory of Brazil and managed in an environmentally sound way,” Puckett says. “You can’t just sink it.”

Approached for comment, the Brazilian navy directed TIME to its official announcements, which say only that the navy will not allow the São Paulo to return to Brazil. They do not address where it will go instead.

It’s not uncommon for boats to be abandoned. Because they are expensive to maintain and to dispose of properly, tens of thousands of unwanted vessels—normally much smaller than an aircraft carrier—are left in harbors, on beaches, or at sea every year. In Nigeria, thousands of wrecked cargo ships and commercial fishing vessels litter the coast, destroying beach ecosystems, worsening coastal erosion, and making waterways dangerous to pass for local communities. In Venice, around2,000 abandoned small recreational boats are clogging up a local wetland. In the U.S., the Government Accountability Office estimates that from 2013 to 2016, there were 5,600 boats abandoned in U.S. waters—likely a very lowball estimate, according to Nancy Wallace, director of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s marine debris program.

The problem is, what’s left onboard those boats doesn’t stay onboard. “Anytime there’s a vessel that’s left at sea, the first thing to think about is toxic chemicals, which can be very impactful to wildlife,” Wallace says. Abandoned boats of any size can cause oil spills and leach paint chemicals and microplastics into the water, while debris such as nets can come loose, trapping fish.

Older vessels also often contain so-called PCBs, a group of highly carcinogenic chemicals that were often used in electrical wiring before the 1970s and were globally banned under the 2001 Stockholm convention. When dumped in the ocean, scientists say PCBs work their way up the marine food chain, affecting everything from small crustaceans to orcas. BAN estimates that the São Paulo, which was built in France in the 1960s, contains around 300 metric tons of PCBs, based on analysis of its sister ship, the Clemencau. The NGO says leaving the vessel at sea would violate both the Stockholm convention and the 1996 London Protocol.

In Brazil, the face of the ship abandonment problem is Guanabara Bay in Rio de Janeiro state, where some 200 vessels, including cargo ships and oil tankers, have been left to rot by owners caught up in financial or legal troubles. Local NGOs say the resulting oil and chemical pollution has dramatically reduced native mangrove, tortoise, and dolphin populations, and has hurt the livelihoods of local fishermen. The bay made national headlines in November, when a storm caused a 660-ft. cargo ship to come loose from its moorings and crash into the Rio-Niteroi—Latin America’s longest over-water bridge.

Removing such vessels is a major headache for governments. Hauling them out can cost anywhere from $8,000 (the per-boat cost for 14 recreational boats recently lifted out of the water in South Carolina) to $1.8 million (the cost for removing an 83-ft. fishing boat in Saipan in 2021, which had been degrading a nearby coral reef in the Northern Mariana Islands for six years after a 2015 storm left it too damaged for its owners to repair.)

But, thankfully, it is highly unusual for a ship as large as the São Paulo to be deliberately abandoned. That’s because large boats like cruise ships, container ships, and aircraft carriers contain vast amounts of high-quality valuable metals, especially steel, which can be salvaged and resold. (Recycling is also beneficial for the environment, since manufacturing new steel is extremely carbon-intensive.)

Puckett, from BAN, says the idea of sinking the São Paulo doesn’t make financial sense for Brazil. “It’s got millions of dollars worth of steel to be recycled, which far outweighs the cost of managing those hazardous materials,” he says. “I’ve never seen such a valuable ship being deliberately sunk.”

BAN is calling on Brazil’s new leftist President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva to step in. To comply with international treaties, including the Basel Convention restricting the export of toxic waste, Puckett says the navy must tow the São Paulo into a naval base, repair the damage to the hull, and then offer the recycling contract to new shipyards in Europe, which can safely remove the asbestos before dismantling the ship.

Lula’s government has privately expressed concerns about the environmental impact of abandoning the ship, according to Folha de São Paulo, the Brazilian newspaper. But it is unwilling to start a conflict with the navy because Lula’s relationship with the armed forces is under severe strain following recent civilian calls for a military coup. So, with little sign of an about-face from the navy, it looks like the São Paulo is heading for a toxic watery grave.
 
The ship’s saga is set to become an extreme case of vessel abandonment—a problem that plagues marine conservationists and coastal communities around the world. Ocean watchdogs say sinking a boat as big and old as the São Paulo would be an environmental disaster; according to the Basel Action Network (BAN), an NGO, the ship contains thousands of metric tons of asbestos and other toxic substances in its electrical wiring, paints, and fuel stores.

This part comes to mind:
"So what do you do to protect the environment in a case like this?"
"Well, the ship was towed outside the environment."
"Into another environment?"
"Nono, it's been towed beyond the environment. It's not in the environment"
 
One ship load of asbestos won't do jack to the environment.

In the 60's, the US Navy loaded dozens of mothballed Liberty ships with surplus WWII munitions (including mustard gas) that were growing too old to safely store (and some other unwanted materials no trash dump would take, including, hilariously, a large lot of contaminated cake mix ) 250 miles off the coast of Florida, whereupon they were sunk.

Several of them EXPLODED shortly after sinking, (probably from water pressure at even moderate depth setting off the explosives) leading to huge slicks of oil and debris bobbing to the surface.....

This practice continued into the 70's, and the fact the ships tended to keep exploding was seen as a positive - it let the intelligence community calibrate their equipment for detecting illegal nuclear tests by measuring the propagation of underwater shock waves from those explosions.

One rusty old carrier is a drop in the bucket compared to the shit they used to throw in the ocean as a matter of proper disposal.... it will not be a "disaster" in any way shape or form. It'll be far from ideal, but, enough with the constant doompilling. Enviro-ninnies need to toughen up and accept an "L" here or there, the idea is to keep this stuff from being the industry practice, but, when something goes tits-up and there's no way to economically recover it? Let it sink, and next time you sell an old warship hulk, write a better contract so that the buyer can't renege on the deal without paying more than they agreed to just take it in the first place.
 
Last edited:
In the 60's, the US Navy loaded dozens of Liberty ships with surplus WWII munitions (including mustard gas) that were growing too old to safely store (and some other unwanted materials no trash dump would take, including, hilariously, a large lot of contaminated cake mix ) 250 miles off the coast of Florida, whereupon they were sunk.

In the 1940s, the US Navy sank even more ships than that. The Japanese Navy sank a few as well.
 
I remember seeing a thing about a sort of "ship graveyard" in South East Asia where entire villages based their economy around dismantling/recycling shit like this.
Why can't they have it?
Because India and Bangladesh cracked down somewhat on some aspects of that. Safe disposal is a bitch, and one of the reasons that the US navy no longer can sell ships for scrap value, but instead pays people to scrap them.
 
Kind of surprised some cartel hasn't already gone to claim it for themselves already.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Male Idiot
Put a bike lock on it and give it a few nights, it will be gone before you know it. Or claim it has a bit of oil left inside of it and it will have muricans all over it by the weekend, they might pollute the sea with McDonalds and KFC wrappings all over the place and the ship thingie will be blown to smithereens though. On second thought, stick with the bike lock and let the favelas have their fun.
 
Kind of surprised some cartel hasn't already gone to claim it for themselves already.
That alone makes me think that the ship must be a real piece of worthless junk. Or that the article is telling half truths as per usual with journos, and it's it's loaded with something more toxic than asbestos. Something so toxic that don't even narcos want to deal with it.
The other option is that bolsonaro really wanted to get rid of *something* and euros noticed it, forced their bitch Turkey to drop it and really want Brazil to *take it back*, and not even Lula (who is undoing everything that bolsonaro did) would take it back. Whatever, the article doesnt make sense. It's clear that is not about asbestos or anything faggy like "ocean conservation".
 
In the 1940s, the US Navy sank even more ships than that. The Japanese Navy sank a few as well.
Well, these were PLANNED sinkings, in fact, there was a cutesy little name for the whole program: Operation CHASE

Which was an acronym for, I'm not making this up, Cut Holes And Sink Em'

So what you're saying is...free aircraft carrier to anyone that wants it?
Sure, if you want a partially-stripped-out ex-French Carrier (Sao Paulo was originally MN Foch) that was laid down in 1954........ and then sold to Brazil in 2000..... whereupon she never saw service for more than 3 consecutive months until some manner of mechanical problem put her back in the dock.....
 
Back