It’s not new but interesting. The Kulluk Grounding at Ships and Oil.
Good article about the DWHas well
very interesting site and thanks for pointing it out…
read the piece and found nothing new here but at the very ending of the article are these words
What we do know is that everyone involved in this misfortune will have learnt some lessons, and the rest of us have the opportunity of learning from their experience.
well I would say that those of us on the outside have learned volumes, but has anyone on the inside learned JACK? I guess we will have to wait and see but I would like to know the professional background of the new master of the AIVIQ? Anyone know if he is an Alaska towing veteran?
[QUOTE=c.captain;145323]very interesting site and thanks for pointing it out…
read the piece and found nothing new here but at the very ending of the article are these words[/QUOTE]
Did you read this?
And now we come to the main player in the whole event, the AIVIQ. The ship itself looks more like a wedding cake than an offshore vessel, and some might consider it to be little more than a vanity project, looking sleek on the outside but with only 208 tons bollard pull available from 21000 bhp. and virtually no freeboard aft. At the christening ceremony some-one from Chouest is quoted as saying that it began as a drawing on the back of a piece of paper. Well who would have thought it. Anyone surprised by this statement might have a look at the spec of the conventional anchor-handler ‘Olympic Hercules’ which has 270 tons bollard pull available from 23000 bhp. It was built by Ulsteins in 2002. Current heavy duty anchor-handlers built in Europe are often provided with more than 30,000 bhp.
[QUOTE=Kennebec Captain;145324]Did you read this?[/QUOTE]
yeah but not new news in anyway…AIVIQ is a terrible design for the intended purpose and it obviously came from people who had no experience with that work yet thought they already knew everything that was needed to know
there is a word for that…it is HUBRIS!
…with only 208 tons bollard pull available from 21000 bhp…
As a naval architect specializing in the design of icebreaking vessels, I must point out that Aiviq is an icebreaker with relatively high ice class (ABS A3). As a result, the overall efficiency of the propulsion system is somewhat lower than that of strictly open water vessels due to more robust construction of the components (CP propellers, rudders, shaftlines, nozzles).
Fennica and Nordica are somewhat better (230 tonnes, about 20,000 hp), but they have Aquamaster Z-drives and fixed pitch propellers instead of conventional shafts.
So we’ve already determined and you have stated yourself that it should have been a tandem tow. So with that said why would she need more bollard pull? Definitely not to pull anchors in shallow water.
Not much freeboard aft; it is an anchor handler. [ATTACH]4037[/ATTACH]
Olympic Hercules.
[QUOTE=coldduck;145345]So we’ve already determined and you have stated yourself that it should have been a tandem tow. So with that said why would she need more bollard pull? Definitely not to pull anchors in shallow water.[/QUOTE]
if she was always intended to tow the KULLUK in the winter than I would imagine as much bollard pull as possible would be wise to have even with having a tandem tow because if you lose a tug for whatever reason and the weather is like it was, you don’t want the remaining tug to become towed like AIVIQ eventually became. The pair FENNICA and NORDICA offer it all, towing, anchorhandling, icebreaking and even the ability to do subsea work. A perfect design and one Shell should have take to ECO and told them that was what they wanted and nothing less.
For what it is worth Chouest was a bit disappointed at the results of the bollard pull trials. They were expecting more along the lines of 230 tons, not the 208 that they got. Even so at 208 tons it satisfied the 200 ton requirement specified by Shell.
[QUOTE=c.captain;145351]A perfect design and one Shell should have take to ECO and told them that was what they wanted and nothing less.[/QUOTE]
Assuming Aiviq’s icebreaking capability (5 knots in 3.3-feet ice) was one of the requirements from the charterer, I would have gone for a slighty less extreme ice bow than that of Fennica and Nordica to improve the seakeeping characteristics of the new vessel.
However, what I don’t understand is why Edison Chouest went for shaftlines, CP propellers and mechanical transmission instead of diesel-electric powertrain and azimuth thrusters.
Cheaper would be my guess?
I believe it had to do with (Gary) Chouest having some bad experiences with some of the first generation azimuth drives on his ships that caused him to shy away from them even though their reliability has improved greatly since. At least that is what I was told.
[QUOTE=coldduck;145347]Not much freeboard aft; it is an anchor handler. [ATTACH]4037[/ATTACH]
Olympic Hercules.[/QUOTE]
There is a photo of the Aiviq alongside in DH taken from aft. Shows considerable more then 3 feet of freeboard. Of course actual freeboard is going to vary according to loading (fuel/ballast/cargo etc) and trim. Don’t know what the range would be in different conditions.
I would guess anchor handlers would have to watch GM closely. Is the trim adjusted to work anchors?
They were ulsteins biggest cheerleader and a warehouse full of 1650’s for a while what are you talking about
[QUOTE=Chief Seadog;145421]I believe it had to do with (Gary) Chouest having some bad experiences with some of the first generation azimuth drives on his ships that caused him to shy away from them even though their reliability has improved greatly since. At least that is what I was told.[/QUOTE]
I personally believe that since ECO does not operate vessels like the FENNICA they are ignorant that z-drives or azipods can be safety and effectively used in icecovered waters…being essentially stoopid, they only know the limited amount they know and being arrogant, don’t realize they are stoopid. Peril any Chouest people ever going out to the world to actually look at other vessels and ask others about the right way to design such a ship. AIVIQ is nothing more than the result of an inbred provincial way of operating. There is nothing that anyone at ECO needs to learn…they know EVERYTHING already!
Yet the same company is building the first US-flagged X-bow vessel…
[QUOTE=Tups;145482]Yet the same company is building the first US-flagged X-bow vessel…[/QUOTE]
trust me, that’s only because of Island Offshore’s involvement
Boy for people you loath so much you sure seem to be interested in their business. I will let Chouest know to consult you next time they want to build a boat. I’m sure they would be interested in listening to a blowhard jackass.
[QUOTE=Number360;145495]Boy for people you loath so much you sure seem to be interested in their business. I will let Chouest know to consult you next time they want to build a boat. I’m sure they would be interested in listening to a blowhard jackass.[/QUOTE]
whatever…so you don’t like me. Am I supposed to think that’s important or something?
an x now isn’t really needed for US waters. North Sea sure, GOM not as much.