CHANGE MY LOCATION
Local
Multimedia News
Cosco Busan owners pay $80M to leave
SEE THE LATEST ON THIS STORY
Related Topics: SAN FRANCISCO
)
The cargo ship that struck the San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge and caused a 58,000-gallon oil spill, shipped out Thursday after owners paid an $80 million surety bond. The Cosco Busan is shown in the Bay on Nov. 13.
The $79.5 million bond was posted with the U.S. government early this week and represents the value of the vessel, according to the Department of Fish and Game. It does not, however, put a cap of the damages that may be recovered for the impacts of the spill.
"Our investigation into the incident continues and will not be impeded by the vessel leaving the area," said Fish and Game Acting Director John McCamman. "While there is no basis for the sate to retain the ship, we have the full support of Gov. Schwarzenegger in determining the cause of this tragic incident and holding the responsible party accountable for the short- and long-term damages to the wildlife and habitat resources impacted by the spill."
The Cosco Busan met the state law that requires vessels to have a $300 million insurance policy. Additionally, claims for damages regarding oil spills in California may be made directly to the responsible party's
representatives without the need for formal litigation, according to Fish and Game.
The ship today had departed for Korea after receiving repairs to its damaged hull.
— Bay City News
Comments from Examiner Readers
6:17 AM MST on Sat., Dec. 29, 2007 re: "Cosco Busan owners pay $80M to leave"
Report as inappropriate
6:12 AM MST on Sat., Dec. 29, 2007
re: "Tests show Bay water is clean"
Report as inappropriate
11:56 PM MST on Thu., Dec. 20, 2007
re: "Cosco Busan owners pay $80M to leave"
Report as inappropriate
1:23 PM MST on Thu., Dec. 20, 2007
re: "Group turns oil into food for ’shrooms"
Report as inappropriate
10:30 AM MST on Tue., Dec. 11, 2007
re: "Bay spill lawsuits pour in"
Report as inappropriate
1:50 PM MST on Tue., Dec. 4, 2007
re: "Supervisor slams response to oil spill"
Report as inappropriate
12:40 PM MST on Tue., Dec. 4, 2007
re: "Supervisor slams response to oil spill"
Report as inappropriate
12:00 PM MST on Tue., Dec. 4, 2007
re: "Supervisor slams response to oil spill"
Report as inappropriate
9:34 PM MST on Thu., Nov. 29, 2007
re: "Waters now safe, fishing to resume"
Report as inappropriate
9:32 AM MST on Thu., Nov. 29, 2007
re: "Bay Bridge bumper bits lost"
Report as inappropriate
11:34 AM MST on Mon., Nov. 26, 2007
re: "Birds death toll continues climb following oil spill"
Report as inappropriate
Examiner Reader said:
Examiner Reader said: The ship's destination was QINQDAO (Tsingtao), China, not Korea as reported above. 7 agree | 6 disagree Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree How does one disagree with a statement of provable fact?
153 agree | 143 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
"Additionally, state officials said that tests conducted by a California Department of Fish and Game biologist last week that found what seemed to be oil found in local herring fisheries were “inclusive,” according to Lt. Rob Roberts of the Department of Fish and Game’s Office of Spill Prevention and Response." Perhaps "inconclusive" was intended
130 agree | 107 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
The ship's destination was QINQDAO (Tsingtao), China, not Korea as reported above.
163 agree | 166 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
The Coast Guard did not turn away the Fire Department boat that came to investigate. That is false. The Coast Guard did, inform them of the 100 yard safey zoen around the Cosco Busan after the incident occurred. The statement implies that the Coast Guard is covering up this incident, which is ridiculous.
197 agree | 151 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
Hey, SFoff, I live in SF and yes my county did fail miserably in their response. I just wonder if Dennis Herrera is really going to believe that he will get 25K for each day of the spill from Captain Cota.
141 agree | 145 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
SFoff said:
Dear Examiner reader (first grade level, apparently)12:40pm. There was no mention of S.F. being the only county affected by the spill. The article was from a San Francisco Newspaper, regarding San Francisco's response to the oil spill. Not very obscure. It's all clear in context. Nobody was wondering why SF. "was not kept in the loop". He is questioning why S.F. did not enter the loop of it's own accord, considering how much "training and partnership" had been established. Are we supposed to be happy with our particular cities response because your county also failed miserably to do anything in time to prevent this problem? And BTW, S.F. is not the center of the Universe, just the Solar System, but thanks for the exaggeration!
162 agree | 172 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
... and San Francisco was the only city, the only county affected by this spill. It seems that SF is to self-centered in this incident, wondering why it was not kept in teh loop. It seems that many other cities and counties were affected by this incident. way to go SF. Show you true colors. If ross Mirkirami wants to be mayor in 2012 then he should just come out and proclaim that San Francisco is in fact, the center of the universe. Then he will get my vote
164 agree | 150 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
Seems strange that we would be knocking ourselves up for something we had little control over and had misleading info about. One would think you can rely on the Coast Guard to provide accurate info, since this IS their jurisdiction, but to get the info wrong hours later and even when others are pointing out that it's a LARGE spill (and to ignore this emergency) seems unconscionable. This, to me, should be about the ship crashing into the bridge tower and the bungled response of the Coast Guard, their effect on the greater Bay Area and effective preventive measures.
163 agree | 146 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
Its my understanding two-thirds of the 58,000 gallons of oil is unaccounted for and will remain so. The water quality of San Francisco Bay was questionable before this event. Some sort of blanket statement regarding the "safeness" of the bay water seems a bit dubious to me.
322 agree | 171 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
Having said that black made it harder to find the missing pieces of plastic lumber, they're going to use black again for the replacement?!! Foolish.
396 agree | 141 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
Very self indulgent of you to equate an oil spill dead birds and your situation. Get over it already.
250 agree | 190 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree