These wouldn’t have even been put into the works if Gary didn’t have something set up as far as contracts go.
A lot of people here are always criticizing the GoM companies for the same old style of boats and not getting with the times. So let’s be happy for ECO! I don’t work for them, but I am glad that they are building that vessel. I can only imagine that a vessel of that size (X bow or NOT!) will be utilize for wold wide work and not only GoM work.
[QUOTE=PR-9;125203]A lot of people here are always criticizing the GoM companies for the same old style of boats and not getting with the times. So let’s be happy for ECO! I don’t work for them, but I am glad that they are building that vessel. I can only imagine that a vessel of that size (X bow or NOT!) will be utilize for wold wide work and not only GoM work.[/QUOTE]
Yes I have to agree, I don’t work for Mista Gary and don’t want to. However with maybe the exception of MSC, ECO is probably the largest single employer of U.S. mariners in the entire country. Not something I will ever make fun of. I wish them the best of luck, and hope they keep building, they provide a lot of jobs for all of our fellow mariners.
[QUOTE=ChiefRob;125208]Yes I have to agree, I don’t work for Mista Gary and don’t want to. However with maybe the exception of MSC, ECO is probably the largest single employer of U.S. mariners in the entire country. Not something I will ever make fun of. I wish them the best of luck, and hope they keep building, they provide a lot of jobs for all of our fellow mariners.[/QUOTE]
still all good and I too congratulate ECO for their announcement yet I still am not sold one bit on the whole X-Box design. Is it really so great even in the North Sea let alone the GoM? It obviously costs more to build than a conventional bow vessel so is that added price worth it? What about operational considerations such as simply tying one of the damned things up at a dock somewhere? If there is some great inherent advantage to the design then someone please enlighten me?
A higher day rate?
As far as tying up they’ll simply have to train some deckhands in the art of seamanship, something as foreign as the majority of the construction boats to most deckhands I have worked with in the oil patch.
[QUOTE=rshrew;125210]A higher day rate?[/QUOTE]
That, I fear, is all too true…
Eurofy the stoopid thing and suddenly it is “better” than an ordinary vessel which frankly, makes its money not moving! Subsea vessels are basically stationary work platforms which transit in and out of a port on occasion.
.
[QUOTE=“Traitor Yankee;125222”]
As far as tying up they’ll simply have to train some deckhands in the art of seamanship, something as foreign as the majority of the construction boats to most deckhands I have worked with in the oil patch.[/QUOTE]
What does that mean?
[QUOTE=RubberRhib888;125242]What does that mean?[/QUOTE]
It means getting a GODDAMNED heaving line to the dock on the first throw!
Never can imagine a GoM AB being able to do that through some little port when they can’t from an open deck!
I guess you haven’t seen the nice fold down platforms they have for mooring operations?
I mean saying things like “whatcu mean put the line over the bit, no one does that” etc etc and so on and so forth.
The main purpose of the X-Bow is to reduce pitching accelerations (at the cost of amplitude, though) and avoid excess speed loss during transit due to head-on waves. Both are “nice to have” features, but if you’re not doing much transit in heavy seas (namely North Sea conditions) and/or don’t care about crew comfort, you could probably do fine with a normal bow. Or, you could pick another design office and use their wave-piercing* bow types with minimum flare and “wet” forward deck. Like this or this or this or this or this…
Anyway, if you are really going to operate in harsh conditions, you are better off with one of the above than a traditional bow.
(* it should be noted that the X-Bow is not advertised as a wave-piercing bow)
Once a few deckhands fall off of them they would be taken away for safety.
[QUOTE=Tups;125255]The main purpose of the X-Bow is to reduce pitching accelerations (at the cost of amplitude, though) and avoid excess speed loss during transit due to head-on waves. Both are “nice to have” features, but if you’re not doing much transit in heavy seas (namely North Sea conditions) and/or don’t care about crew comfort, you could probably do fine with a normal bow. Or, you could pick another design office and use their wave-piercing* bow types with minimum flare and “wet” forward deck. Like this or this or this or this or this…
Anyway, if you are really going to operate in harsh conditions, you are better off with one of the above than a traditional bow.
(* it should be noted that the X-Bow is not advertised as a wave-piercing bow)[/QUOTE]
In my experience, many subsea vessels hold better stern or work most of the time stern into weather to so frankly should be double ended or have a rounded stern. Regarding the X-Bow, one big loss is with deck footprint to support extra structure especially helipads. Look where the pad is on ECO’s new vessels!
weird looking boat I say, say
My vessel does a lot of floatel work with stern into the wind and sea, really sucks when the flat counter smacks hard and the ship starts shuddering. Rounded stern design would be a good improvement. On the issue of helideck, I don’t see issue with it above bridgedeck. The helideck over bow design with the struts adds a lot to the superstructure sail area in a bad squalls. We experienced this last spring in GOM with 120kts in a micro burst.
[QUOTE=Capt. Lee;125047]I heard that ECO is going to build her in the Houma, LA yard.[/QUOTE]
Capt Lee, you are correct. Being built in Houma.
So if Mister Gary wants to build so big and right in his neighborhood, why doesn’t he buy Avondale?
Bobby Jindal and the State of Louisiana would shower him with financial help if he could keep the yard in operation even if it had half the workforce that Northrup Grumman had.