[QUOTE=coldduck;147135]Kinda surprised the Russians didn’t snatch her up for their arctic drilling program.[/QUOTE]
It wouldn’t be the first time a vessel comes back from the scrapyard, sometimes with a new IMO number and everything…
According to the old tankerman lore, when a vessel was beached to a scrapyard in Asia, the last task of the engine crew was to run the main engine at full power without lubrication until it seized. I don’t know if it’s true, though…
[QUOTE=tugsailor;147074]I do not understand why a DP drillship cannot operate in 300 feet of water. That makes no sense to me. Is there a real reason, or just some theoretical objection?[/QUOTE]
Watch circle due to riser angle gets too small
Beacon array doesnt work etc.
Thanks. That makes sense. What is generally considered to be the minimum working depth for a DP drillship?
[QUOTE=Tups;147101]
edit: I’m not sure if you’re familiar with this design, but it fixes some of the problems Kulluk had in open water by having an “open” skirt and two separate operational drafts:
https://afdelingen.kiviniria.net/media-afdelingen/DOM100000166/Activiteiten_2012/arctic_battle/KIVI_NIRIA_-Arctic_Battle-8_March_2012-Design_of_Arctic_Mobile_Offshore_Drilling_Unit-Huisman-_Alexei_Bereznitski.pdf[/QUOTE]
I also picked that up quite some time ago but wonder if that design made it any further than the drawing board or design tables? Another (similar) thing that seems to be in the making is this:
Given SEVAN’s ties to Seadrill and their connection with North Atlantic Drilling and them being good pals now with Rosneft we might as well see this sort of MODU popping up in Putin land!
That kind of projects rarely move beyond certain point (conceptual design and scale model testing) unless there’s a customer and contract for the drilling unit. There are no ice-capable rigs under construction at the moment.
[QUOTE=Tups;147212]That kind of projects rarely move beyond certain point (conceptual design and scale model testing) unless there’s a customer and contract for the drilling unit. There are no ice-capable rigs under construction at the moment.[/QUOTE]
I recently met someone who claimed that ENSCO already has “round” ice class rigs under construction in anticipation of drilling in Alaska.
[QUOTE=tugsailor;147215]I recently met someone who claimed that ENSCO already has “round” ice class rigs under construction in anticipation of drilling in Alaska.[/QUOTE]
I seriously doubt this. While concept level projects can easily be kept confidential, it’s typically very difficult if not even practically impossible to keep the actual construction a secret especially when at the same time you have to market the billion dollar investment to potential customers. One would expect the company that builds the first Arctic rig since the 80s to advertise it in every possible publication and conference.
On the other hand, no-one still has any idea what kind of icebreakers (if any) Edison Chouest is building at the moment, so perhaps someone somewhere out there is building an ice-capable rig without the rest of the industry knowing…
Your point is well taken. It was described to me as a round ice class rig capable of working in Alaska, and elsewhere. It was not described as an “Arctic” rig. It may or may not be true. I suspect that it may be more in the planning stage, rather than the actual construction stage.
If Chouest were building more icebreakers in the US, I doubt that they could, or would want to, keep that a secret.
While it was widely known that they were building Aiviq, the actual specifications were not made public before the vessel was launched. Now we know that Edison Chouest is at least planning on building two icebreakers, but nothing more:
The building program also includes two new icebreakers Arctic service, which are being designed. The boats will mark the fifth and sixth ice-breaking vessels in the company’s fleet, making Chouest the largest designer, builder, owner and operator of ice-breaking vessels in the U.S., the company says.
http://www.dailycomet.com/article/20130709/HURBLOG/130709623?p=1&tc=pg
Sure, they also said “During the next two to three years…” in July 2013, so it’s probable that they haven’t even started constructing the vessels.
I guess companies involved in the offshore business are like that, especially when they are building on their own shipyards. I’m just more used to the way e.g. Arctech publishes detailed datasheets of the vessels that are under construction.
With all due respect the Aiviq was built to the specifications spelt out by Shell. The same goes for the other 2 Chouest has on the drawing board. As long as it passes review by the required regulatory bodies, i.e., USCG and ABS it is not the “public’s” business. That is unless the public wishes to chip in and pay for them.
[QUOTE=Chief Seadog;147249]With all due respect the Aiviq was built to the specifications spelt out by Shell. The same goes for the other 2 Chouest has on the drawing board. As long as it passes review by the required regulatory bodies, i.e., USCG and ABS it is not the “public’s” business. That is unless the public wishes to chip in and pay for them.[/QUOTE]
That’s probably true. If they do not intend to offer the vessel for charter in the open market, there is no need for others to know any specific details in advance or even after that - I guess that’s why there’s no information about Aiviq on Edison Chouest’s website either. Of course, once the vessel has been delivered, there will be a public database entry at ABS’s website.
In my case, it’s personal as well as professional interest. I try to keep track on all icebreaking vessels in the world so that if someone brings them up in a discussion, I’ll have an idea about what they are like and what they can do instead of just “it’s an icebreaker”. I also try to write an article about every major icebreaking vessel to Wikipedia.
[QUOTE=Chief Seadog;147249]With all due respect the Aiviq was built to the specifications spelt out by Shell. The same goes for the other 2 Chouest has on the drawing board. As long as it passes review by the required regulatory bodies, i.e., USCG and ABS it is not the “public’s” business. That is unless the public wishes to chip in and pay for them.[/QUOTE]
The USCG is a government agency that represents the public’s business. Most information about a vessel that is sent to the USCG becomes a public record. When a company like Shell applies to the government for drilling permits that require icebreaking support vessels, the regulators have a right to ask for the specs in order to make any assessment of the adequacy of those icebreakers. Those become public records. Once the owner submits the specs, Greenpeace or whomever came make a FOIA (Freedom of Information Act) request and get copies of those documents. Oh yes, there are certain exceptions to FOIA for ongoing deliberative processes, trade secrets, security, and so on, but in general, a vessel owner that wants government agency approvals to use that vessel on the public’s waters, it is putting the vessel’s specs out in the public domain. With all due respect, it is the public’s business.
My (limited) experience with Chouest is that just because it’s built for a customer it’s not necessarily the customer’s design. Look at the c-tractors…chouest built a few variations of them for the navy then built yet another version for Cheniere and whoever else in Sabine. Very similar design with similar equipment. Also bucking a lot of industry trends by avoiding the best equipment available in certain cases. I doubt cheniere just happened to show up with that design by coincidence. Point is I seriously think shell said we want xyz in a boat, chouest came up with what they wanted to build with those factors and were given the go ahead.
[QUOTE=z-drive;147260]My (limited) experience with Chouest is that just because it’s built for a customer it’s not necessarily the customer’s design. Look at the c-tractors…chouest built a few variations of them for the navy then built yet another version for Cheniere and whoever else in Sabine. Very similar design with similar equipment. Also bucking a lot of industry trends by avoiding the best equipment available in certain cases. I doubt cheniere just happened to show up with that design by coincidence. Point is I seriously think shell said we want xyz in a boat, chouest came up with what they wanted to build with those factors and were given the go ahead.[/QUOTE]
With regards to the Aiviq, you are somewhat correct in that Chouest came up with the design but Shell was very involved with the specifications and plan review. Shell had someone in the yard during most of the Aiviq’s construction tracking progress and attending whatever meetings were held.
[QUOTE=Chief Seadog;147332]Shell had someone in the yard during most of the Aiviq’s construction tracking progress and attending whatever meetings were held.[/QUOTE]
you’re WRONG! Shell in fact had two persons at North American Shipbuilding while AIVIQ was being built
Get your eyes checked cap I only see one and a half
[QUOTE=z-drive;147340]Get your eyes checked cap I only see one and a half[/QUOTE]
actually appears to be about one and a turd…
and the turd was the one who approved the overall design of the huge Blue Whale as well as the arrangement of the fuel oil vents…
the big clown was there to just pick boogers and flick them around the table during production meetings…