Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • COMMENT

Human errors are behind most oil-tanker spills

Misleading accident classifications skew research and regulation. Zheng Wan and Jihong Chen set out three priorities for scientists and industry.
  1. Zheng Wan

    1. Zheng Wan is associate professor at the College of Transport and Communications, Shanghai Maritime University, China.

    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed  Google Scholar

  2. Jihong Chen

    1. Jihong Chen is professor at the College of Transport and Communications, Shanghai Maritime University, China.

    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed  Google Scholar

In January, the oil tanker Sanchi collided with a cargo vessel in the East China Sea, 300 kilometres off Shanghai, China. The tanker caught fire, exploded and sank, killing all 32 members of its crew and spilling or burning more than 100,000 tonnes of petroleum products. In May, China’s Maritime Safety Administration gave its final verdict: both vessels had violated navigational protocols and watch-keeping codes1. Although accidents such as this are now rare, we fear that they could be set to increase.

Access options

Rent or buy this article

Prices vary by article type

from$1.95

to$39.95

Learn more

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Nature 560, 161-163 (2018)

doi: https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-018-05852-0

References

  1. China Maritime Safety Administration. Report on the Investigation of the Collision between M.T. Sanchi and M.V. CF Crystal in East China Sea on 6 January 2018 (China MSA, 2018).

  2. Vidmar, P. & Perkovič, M. Safety Sci. 105, 178-191 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Peterson, C. H. et al. Science 302, 2082-2086 (2003).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Alló, M. & Loureiro, M. L. Ecol. Econ. 86, 167-175 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Kontovas, C. A., Psaraftis, H. N. & Ventikos, N. P. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 60, 1455-1466 (2010).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Rico-Martínez, R., Snell, T. W. & Shearer, T. L. Environ. Pollut. 173, 5-10 (2013).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Eckle, P., Burgherr, P. & Michaux, E. Environ. Sci. Technol. 46, 13002-13008 (2012).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Li, K. X., Yin, J. & Fan, L. Transp. Res. A: Policy Pract. 66, 75–87 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Knudsen, O. F. & Hassler, B. Mar. Policy 35, 201-207 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Chen, J. et al. J. Clean. Prod. 180, 1-10 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Shapiro, A. Nature 541, 458-460 (2017).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Subjects

Latest on:

Nature Careers

Jobs

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing

Search

Advanced search

Quick links