A lot of them is replacement for older tonnage that doesn’t meet the requirement for the future.
The rest will probably carry gas from the US to world markets.
Meet what requirement? Not much has changed in LNG vessels over the last 10 years.
Oh yes it has, both in containment system, boil-off gas retention and in preparing for future fuels.
Many LNG carriers on order are now being equipped with regassification system to be able to participate in that lukrative market as well.
BTW; Ships ordered today must be prepared to meet the emission limits coming in the next 20-30 years. That applies to ALL types of ships, not just LNG carrier.
PS> You don’t see many newbuilt LNG carriers with the characteristic Moss spherical tanks any more:
The GTT membrane containment system has taken over entirely:
Maybe time to get a new crystal ball, or to get better updated on what is happening in the shipping world?
1 Like
Do you know why that is? Is the mk3 truly the better mousetrap? Some say the balls are better.
There are a few ball ships built in the 1970s that are still going strong.
I don’t know much about Mk.3 mousetrap, nor what “some” say.
(Is he/she/it a reliable source of information on the subject?)
Ships built in 1970s may still be in good shape for their age, but are unlikely to be very economical, efficient, or able to meet IMO 2030 target.
Two LNG carriers built in the US in 1970s (LNG Gemini and LNG Leo) seen here in layup in Norway:
For my own curiosity, what ships are your referring to?
Well, I guess they are floating strong. Not really going anywhere. I think one is being converted to an FSRU. But I’m speaking of the made in USA ships.
I don’t have access to the data or info, but I heard on the internet that ball ships have less boil off. But ball ships cost more to build.
Sorry, I had the name of this one wrong:
Build year:1978
Builder:General Dynamics Corporation - Quincy Ma, U.s.a.
PS> They have been in layup in Norway since 2017 and in Spain from 2013 without any trading between.
The LNG Leo broke layup in Norway in 2020 as Bering Energy and was towed to El Ferrol, Spain:
She is still there:
LNG Gemini, now Gulf Energy, are still in layup at Avaldsnes in Norway:
“Ball ships”, WTF is that?
I didn’t even know ships had balls???65249
You are living proof of why Standard Maritime English should be taught in Maritime Schools everywhere, incl. in English speaking countries, as discussed in another thread:
https://forum.gcaptain.com/t/deck-nomenclature/65249
And you are living proof that one should stick to his own level of incompetence and not branch out into other areas. People that work on LNG ships regularly refer to them as “ball ships”…maybe perhaps because they have a few bigass ball (another word for sphere) shaped tanks
It may be a common expression in America but that doesn’t make it an acceptable thing in the maritime world. It is NOT used by those who work on this type of LNG Carrier:
In fact they have probably never heard the expressing “ball ship”
The majority of the LNG Carriers in the world today, both presently trading and new order are membrane type. GTT’s Membrane containment system is dominating the market at the moment:
https://gtt.fr/technologies
PS> The Moss Rosenberg type containment system has some advantages and are not entirely forgotten:
http://www.liquefiedgascarrier.com/moss-rosenberg-containment-system.html
Oh yes, before I forget; thank you for your good advise. You should do likewise.
Yes, the term “ball ship” is used by those that work on membrane type LNG vessels when referring to Moss Rosenberg Spherical type LNG carrier. Doesn’t that roll of the tongue very well, “Moss Rosenberg Spherical type LNG carrier”?
I think saying “ball ship” is easier and faster. And so do the officers of various nationalities that I’ve heard use the term…all whom were working on a Mk3 membrane type LNG ship.
And from your link: http://www.liquefiedgascarrier.com/
On the basis of Tank Types used gas carriers may be classified as below:
Type ‘A’: Constructed of plain surfaces (prismatic tanks)
Type ‘B’: Spheres
Type ‘C’: Cylindrical pressure vessels
Never heard people call a ship type A; instead they say “membrane ship”. And never heard “Type B” used; instead people call it a “ball ship”. This is non-Americans/
Most people shorten that down to; “Moss type”. Doesn’t that roll of the tongue very well?
Just curious, but what experience do you have on LNG ships.
1 Like
Does it matter? How much experience do you have on LNG ships to question my experience on LNG ships? Because, if you had any experience on LNG ships, you wouldn’t be asking me this question.
Geez, a lot of gas being blown over LNG news…
(There, I had the balls to say it…)
2 Likes
Since you have no experience, I’ll rephrase my question. How many people do you know who’ve sailed on LNG ships?
Pretty presumptuous there, eh? As stated, it appears you can’t read between the lines and haven’t worked LNG…because if you did you wouldn’t make such assertions. But for giggles, asked a few officers of varying nationalities if they knew what a “ball ship” was, and they all did. Ball ship is an alternative, possibly slang, term to call Moss Rosenberg Spherical type LNG ship.
