REU, Alm.del - 2014-15 (1. samling) - Bilag 316: Henvendelse af 19/5-15 om Scandinavian Star

Retsudvalget 2014-15 (1. samling)
REU Alm.del Bilag 316
Offentligt

Oslo Tingsrett.

C.J Hambros plass 4

0164 Oslo

[email protected]

Det Norske Storting

Stortinget

0026 Oslo

[email protected]

Retsudvalget

Folketinget, Christiansborg

1240 København K

[email protected]

Oslo Politi

Spesialenheten

[email protected]

The fire on board Scandinavian Star 7-8

of April 1990 –

Questions regarding the report “Brannsakkyndig uttalelse

til Oslo Tingrett vedrørende brannen ombord på

Scandinavian Star 7. april 1990” daterad 150114

(Referanse 14-157832ENE-OTIR/01 med påtegningsark

1302785849427 /14-1 /BSK013) and the ongoing

investigation

In the following we are directing numerous and relevant questions about

the abovementioned report as well as the ongoing investigation.

The report

›

Why haven´t the investigators analyzed the actual “travelling” fire with

a model of the entire ship? In what way does this very narrow investi-

gation provide facts for and support any relevant conclusions regard-

ing if a natural spread of fire, concerning the whole course of time and

encompassing a large part of the ship, is possible or not?

Why haven´t the investigators taken into account the total mass of

steel, which is approx. 22 000 tons, in their energy balance calcula-

tions (“lumped heat capacity”) instead of the stated 300 tons of steel?

Doesn´t this have a great impact on the time dependent steel tem-

perature and the pyrolysis of flammable materials, which in turn has a

great influence on whether a natural fire spread after fire no. 2 was at

all possible or not?

›

REU, Alm.del - 2014-15 (1. samling) - Bilag 316: Henvendelse af 19/5-15 om Scandinavian Star

›

Why isn´t it stated in the so-called global temperature analysis to

what extent the investigators have included the cooling boundary ef-

fects from the entire surrounding steel structures, internal water tanks

(ballast and fresh water) and contact surfaces with seawater both in-

ternally and externally etc.?

Why haven´t the investigators clearly reported which RHR (time de-

pendent rate of heat release) has been used in the calculations?

In what way has the investigators verified the value of 0.5 in connec-

tion with calculations of the energy quantities transferred to the steel?

Isn´t it a well-known and scientifically based fact that heat transfer oc-

curs in three ways: conduction, convection and thermal radiation?

Isn´t it also a well-known and scientifically based fact that for each of

these, just a fraction of the energy is transferred to the steel, and the

rest disappears through ventilation, heating of other materials (and

the air), as well as heat loss to the outside?

Why haven´t the investigators taken into account the actual and fluc-

tuating positions of the fire doors, as stated by the fire ground com-

mander and his crew, during the calculated fire scenario?

If the “travelling” fire is a result of a natural fire spread, as the report

states, how come there are areas, through which the heat in the steel

structure must pass to get to another and later fire affected area,

which clearly are not affected by or involved in any stages of the fire

(fire no. 1 through 6)? Did these areas not contain any combustible

material?

Isn´t it possible that the traces of hydraulic oil found on the hydraulic

pipe is due to the fact that the actual evidence is a picture taken after

the salvage operation is completed, hence a temporary hydraulic

hose could have been connected to enable the salvation crew to low-

er and lift the mezzanine car deck, after the hydraulic fire and before

the picture was taken? If the answer to the previous question is yes,

isn´t it then possible that the hydraulic pipe was manually sabotaged

(bent open) resulting in the actual pipe being bent parallel to the deck

and with the exact same damage to the coupling as a thermally in-

duced expansion/retraction would result in? If the answers to the pre-

vious questions are yes, isn´t it then possible that the hydraulic oil

was intentionally used to accelerate the fire in this area?

›

REU, Alm.del - 2014-15 (1. samling) - Bilag 316: Henvendelse af 19/5-15 om Scandinavian Star

The ongoing investigation

›

Why is the ongoing investigation continuously derailed by attempts to

focus on the fire scenarios? Both fire no. 1 and fire no. 2 were indis-

putably arson. Shouldn´t, for this reason, it be extremely important to

focus the investigation on

who

did start these fires and

why,

in order

to have them held responsible for killing 159 human beings of which

27 were children?

Why was liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) stored under unsafe condi-

tions when it should have been stored in the designated and locked

storage area? There were about 20-25 bottles of LPG located very

close to the start of the main fire, who put them there and why?

Why and by who was the ventilation system, supplying car deck,

started during the fire? Isn´t it a fact that this system has the sole pur-

pose of extracting exhaust fumes from the vehicles during embarka-

tion and debarkation and that it can only be manually activated from a

control panel located in a locked control room on car deck?

Why isn´t the possibility of committed insurance fraud carefully inves-

tigated? Isn´t it a proven fact that the ship had a complex ownership

history and very unclear ownership conditions when the fire took

place? Isn´t it also a fact that the relevant company/owners have had

several suspicious fires in the past? Shouldn´t all of the involved and

concerned countries authorities be involved in this matter to turn eve-

ry stone concerning this catastrophic fire? Isn´t it also a fact that the

ship was insured for 24 million USD when the actual worth of the ship

was in fact approx. 5 million USD? Isn´t it a matter of simple logic

reasoning that this last fact alone arouses some justified suspicion?

Why haven´t you included the presence of huge amounts of water

(approx. 14 000 m³) in the engine room in the investigation, and es-

pecially, wherefrom this water came, given that there had not yet

been any firefighting operations initiated which could lead to the water

having entered the engine room, when the first response team from

Gothenburg FD arrived?

Who tried to obstruct the firefighting operations and why? Isn´t that

something that must be closely investigated to clarify whether it was

part of an elaborate insurance fraud or not?

The main fire did start in a long corridor at the bottom of a stair, this

door was kept open with a 4 x 4 inch wooden beam with an approx.

length of one meter, according to the witness Major Johan T Nordset,

who shortly before the fire had been in the car to retrieve things. Who

did place this wooden beam in this position?

›

REU, Alm.del - 2014-15 (1. samling) - Bilag 316: Henvendelse af 19/5-15 om Scandinavian Star

The questions raised are in our opinion very relevant and important in the

process of bringing some light onto this tragic event. As of today, there is

only one known and established fact and that is the fact that both fire no.

1 and fire no. 2 were indisputably arson killing 159 people.

Based on this it is our clear opinion that a full and objective investigation is

the only way for any democratically oriented nation to handle this in the

best interest of their citizens.

Malmoe, Sweden, 18th of May 2015

Pierre Palmberg

Fire Protection Engineer

Henrik Georgsson

Fire Protection Engineer

Lars Schiøtt Sørensen

Fire researcher, M.Sc., Ph.D.