The collision was described by one source as "nearly head on"
and photos of the damaged port bow of the Kamensen seem to agree.
The damage is confined to the port side, depth of penetration
is at most 2 meters.
It looks like a glancing blow.
So why did the car carrier sink?
The damage extends back to the 1 port ballast tank.
The deepest crease is horizontal about 4 or 5 m
above the deep waterline.
The shell is parted in this crease.
Keppel says: "Work scope on MT Kaminesan entailed steel renewal works
at 1 port water ballast tank, 1 port cargo tank,
cofferdam, forepeak, bosun store and main deck."
This is a rare case where a 2 m double side
prevented a spill in a collision.
The location of the collision 01.12.9N, 103.53.5E
which is just inside the westbound lane.
So the Kaminesan was in the wrong lane.
Apparently there was a third vessel involved,
a containership callled the Mamitsa.
Several sources claim that the Kaminesen moved north
into the westbound lane to avoid the Mamitsa.
In this area, the channel for a fully loaded VLCC
is extremely narrow.
The Kaminesan was very limited in what she could do.
But CTX has not located any official investigation report
nor the results of any legal proceedings.
A loaded VLCC is simply too big for this channel.
What is required is an active traffic control system,
or at least a requirement that loaded VLCC's can transit
this choke point only in daylight.