Iraqi mines increase risks for oil tankers in the Persian Gulf

March 25, 2003
Insurance rates for oil tankers trading in the Persian Gulf could see a steep rise following reports of extensive mine-laying by Iraqi naval forces, on top of other perceived risks in the region, according to underwriters based in London.

By an OGJ Correspondent
NICOSIA, Mar. 25 -- Insurance rates for oil tankers trading in the Persian Gulf could see a steep rise following reports of extensive mine-laying by Iraqi naval forces, on top of other perceived risks in the region, according to underwriters based in London.

"Reports of mining will actively focus the attention of insurance underwriters," Angus Wilson, a specialist in war and hull coverage for Ascot Underwriters, told OGJ Online. "Rates would doubtless go up, depending on the accuracy of the information," he said.

Iraqi mines confirmed
UK Defense Minister Geoff Hoon confirmed the presence of mines in Iraqi waters during a press conference Monday in London. To open the port of Umm Qasr, Hoon said it would be necessary to sweep the Khawr Abd 'Allah (KAA) waterway for mines.

"Owing to the extent of Iraqi mine-laying," he said, "this may take a number of days."

Hoon did not detail the extent to which Iraqi forces had laid mines or the time it might take to clear them. But he left no doubt that mining had been undertaken, and that it poses a danger to shipping.

"I am not going to allow ships into a dangerous port area whilst there is still fighting going on, nor are we going to take ships into a waterway that has been heavily mined," he said.

Australian victory
Hoon's comments followed a report by Australian naval officials confirming the discovery of mines and other weapons aboard several Iraqi vessels that were stopped and searched by coalition naval vessels in the region.

Commander of Australian Forces in the Middle East Brigadier Maurie McNarn said Australian forces discovered 139 sea-mines both on vessels and in warehouses, but it wasn't known if any mines had been deployed in the water.

McNarn said it had to be "assumed" that Iraqi forces succeeded in laying at least some mines in the KAA, which leads to the port of Umm Qasr and Iraq's second largest city of Basra.

"We know we intercepted a certain number of mines on the tugs, which was a particularly good catch by the Australian sailors that did that," he told reporters. "We have also have found some mines in the warehouse.

"However, we have also found other boats in the Umm Qasr area, which would indicate that they may have laid mines. That is all we can account for," said McNarn. "You have to work on the worst case. That mine clearance operation is running now up the KAA . . . until we go through that in painful detail, we won't know."

Sailors from Australia's HMAS Kanimbla, inspecting a large rusty barge linked to an old Iraqi tug, quickly uncovered a false floor in the almost sinking barge and discovered row upon row of sea mines set up on rails for automatic laying.

Effective mines
The types of mines captured by coalition forces are the Manta seabed influence mine and the LUGM-145 buoyant contact mine. The Iraqis used both these mine types extensively in the 1991 Persian Gulf War and were responsible for damaging at least two US Navy ships, the USS Tripoli and the USS Princeton.

The Manta mine is a sophisticated weapon that is laid on the ocean floor and is set off by a ship's magnetic, acoustic, or pressure signature, while the LUGM 145 is a conventional sea mine that is moored on a chain or drifts on the surface. It ignites upon contact with a ship.

The USS Princeton activated a $10,000 Italian-made Manta mine, which caused $24 million in damages, while the USS Tripoli struck a $1,500 Iraqi-made LUGM-145 contact mine, causing nearly $3.5 million in damages.

Charts and intelligence captured from Iraq after the 1990-91 Gulf War showed that the minefield where the ships were hit was among six laid in a 150-mile arc from Faylaka Island to the Saudi-Kuwaiti border. Within that arc, there were four additional mine-lines, representing a total of more than 1,000 mines laid over a 5-month period.

Coalition experts have so far implied that the danger from Iraqi mine-laying is restricted to the coastal waters of Iraq. But US Navy intelligence reports after the last Gulf War suggest the danger is more widespread.

"The Iraqi leadership undoubtedly recognized the effectiveness of Iranian mining during the Persian Gulf war, and it may mine GCC ports, shipping lanes, or operating areas of US naval forces if hostilities erupt," one report said.

Another report, while dismissing the Iraqi navy as a "minimal threat" to the US Navy, said that Iraq can nonetheless "covertly deploy a variety of bottom-influence and moored-contact mines that would create a hazard to all shipping in the gulf."

Covert attack
The Iraqis are following a covert approach in their efforts to lay mines in the gulf. They are using dhows, wooden cargo vessels traditional in gulf waters, in their efforts to lay mines. Last week, a flotilla of dhows sailed into the Persian Gulf in what a US admiral said might be a bid to sneak out explosives to attack US or British warships.

Rear Adm. John Kelly said Iraq forced about 50 dhows to leave southern Iraq overnight, an unusually high number aimed at overwhelming the capabilities of coalition forces to check them. "If he (Iraqi President Saddam Hussein) flushes enough out, he may successfully be able to get one by that either has mines or explosives on it," Kelly said.

Commander Rodney Craig, a naval expert with the International Institute for Strategic Studies in London, confirmed the essence of that report, saying the Iraqis would not need sophisticated mine-laying equipment to create a sizeable hazard to shipping.

"No specialist ships are required," Commander Craig told OGJ Online. "Dhows and tugs are enough. Nor is it necessary to lay very many mines. All you need is one out there. One mine can sink a ship, and that can block an entire waterway."

The mining of just one ship would cause underwriters to hedge their bets.

"The frequency of loss tends to be small," said Ascot's Wilson. "But the loss of one ship, such as the tanker Limburg off Yemen last year, can have a significant impact on an underwriter's books. The loss will be paid, but the underwriter will be out of pocket."