What Shipyard can build these vessels?
Congressman Garamendi had introduced legislation for American flagged and built LNG vessels, but only 25% of the fleet over 5 years to transport U.S. LNG.
He lives just Downriver from me so I thought I’d revisit his legislation with him.If that would work. An aside he does not live in the district that he represents (Rep. 3)but because he’s in the same zip code that qualified him for office.
NASSCO and Philly, although the latter is a bit narrow at 150 ft.
What about containment systems?
Flip a coin between NO96 and Mark III?
Would these fall under JONES ACT?
if They can score a licensing agreement from GTT after training and audit, right?
Noting that the LNG bunkering barge Clean Jacksonville is Jones Act compliant, there must be a way to either get a foreign-sourced CCS approved or find Mark III Flex the components within the US.
Construction, as @Jamesbrown pointed out, is just a matter of training and audit. A modern US shipyard should be able to get that done. It could also help with the future LNG-powered ships which are gradually moving from independent to membrane-type fuel tanks.
US built would qualify as Jones Act but this is not necessary for this trade (US gas transported abroad).
If your think you would have any pull will your congressman, I’d focus on getting a requirement that foreign built ships reflag and crew with Americans first. That can be done with the stroke of a pen.
Launching a US built LNG carrier is a multiple years long process which is unlikely to be achieved for economic reasons.
1 Like
Doesn’t look like it takes too long:
And if it’s about exploiting the export value of a US resource, should be used to benefit more than mariners—who could sail foreign LNG tankers if they wanted. Shipyards need love too.
I was just asking Tupsis because it didn’t seem likely that either yard he mentioned had built anything beyond whatever they used in the LNG fueled ships.
Well, there’s always the first time…
Of course, another option would be to establish a production line for spherical tanks.
The 50000 DWT tankers built by Philly Shipyard was of Hyundai design, with the machinery also supplied by them:
Originally ordered by Philly Tankers Inc, a whole owned subsidiary of Philly Shipyard.
Sold to Kinder Morgan while under construction
https://www.ship-technology.com/projects/apt-eco-class-product-tankers/ .
The similar tankers built by NASSCO was from a design & equipment packet by Daewoo:
Of course building tankers for ordinary liquid cargoes are a lot simpler than to built LNG tankers, but should not be impossible as long as the US yards have established contact with foreign designers and suppliers of machinery and other equipment needed for this type of vessels (Size limitations taken into consideration)
PS> Plenty of suitable size LNG tankers available for outright sale (or BB Charter) on the open market. (Some for resale, directly from yards in S. Korea and China)
From your article:
March 2014-Class approval
July 2015-Start cutting steel
August 2018-Delivery
As I stated,
And this is for a 2,200m3 non self propelled barge. Think the timeline for a 125-175,000 m3 ocean going ship might be a little longer than that?
And cost? Forget about it.
I’m on record on this forum as one who believes the shipyards absolutely need to be kept afloat for purposes of national security. Building LNG tankers is not an avenue to try to attain that goal in my opinion.
1 Like
Newport News Shipyard built a batch of LNG ships way back when. Whether they would build one or not with all of their navy work is a different story.
These ships wouldn’t have to be Jones Act ships, so as said above: re-flags of current ships is an option.
As far as this, the legislation should have provisions that require all US flagged LNG carriers that come in under this hypothetical program do their 2.5, 5, and 10 year SY periods in the US yards.
1 Like
Thank you for the greater review of the legislation. The make work portion (ship building) might very well be a greater benefit to the economy. We are or should be on a “wartime footing” so if the mindset is there like Henry Kaiser’s yard kick them out in under 30 days.
Guess you didn’t read this part:
‘The construction of the membrane tank was the “most straightforward item,” meeting budget and schedule. The membrane tank containment system was completed 20 months prior to delivery.’
Yes, constructing in America is expensive. That’s why protections required by law are needed to force investment, like the original Jones Act.
Cost of US mariners is five times foreign, a cost they’ll incur forever, what good is that investment? It doesn’t lead to shipyards capable of new technology to be used beyond the protections. Why on earth would Congress implement laws that would basically allow a company to pay a bunch of mariners living in the Philippines as expats tax free wages working foreign? What benefit for the rest of US?
Technical repairs to containment in shipyards unqualified to do them, besides normal cost differential? Yeah, do some research on MSP reflagged vesse drydock requirements. Didn’t work there either.
Wow… Where to begin because as usual, you are alllll over the place.
I read the entire article. Class approval to delivery was 4+ years. 4+ years is greater than 1 year. Greater than 1 year is often referred to as multi-year. And this was for a tiny barge.
It won’t force investment. Trying to force a company to build a 500-700M ship will guarantee this program never gets off the ground.
It provides jobs for US mariners which is one of the purposes of the Jones Act which is why
Congress would implement such laws. Really? This needs to be explained on a professional maritime forum?
Oh how I wish you were correct. Unfortunately, you are not. Since you didn’t bother to research this yourself before talking out of your ass, I’m not going to waste my time explaining why you’re wrong to you.
Why would they be qualified to do them? They have no potential work in this area currently. I’m sure they could get up to speed if they knew work of that type would be coming their way.
Stick to gathering golf stats… You’re much more proficient at that.
Typical uninformed BS…
Launching any US vessel appears to be—but the unique aspects of LNG — containment systems and related auxiliaries - didn’t necessarily overburden the process. But any amount of time extra burden and in the case of the article a new type of vessel for which no previous class rules existed — you think there were membrane barge rules??? Don’t bother doing research… the point is why should anyone make a legal protection for the national benefits—not just some mariners in a market of no national benefit like national security benefits the Jones Act does for moving freight and fuel for national security - for which LNG is not a concern.
For benefit of national security, and the more important benefit of a national shipbuilding capability. Jones Act accomplishes both objectives.
That benefit overpaying a pool of mariners less than 100 persons who might not even pay US taxes? One hopes they are not that dumb, but you make me suspect it’s possible…
.[quote=“Hawespiper, post:17, topic:54914”]
Oh how I wish you were correct. Unfortunately, you are not. Since you didn’t bother to research this yourself before talking out of your ass, I’m not going to waste my time explaining why you’re wrong to you.
[/quote]
So you’d support a provision that ensures any mariner who might enjoy employment as a provision of this act is a US citizen resident property owner of one of the fifty states? I’m cool if that’s the case, no research needed. You see, if you’re stupid you craft laws to accomplish objectives without addressing the possible aspects that undercut the full benefits. If you want to craft good legislation, you make sure the loopholes are non existent.
Golf? You like golf? So weird you’d bring that up to avoid the topic of the thread and drag it off track… hey, you know who else likes golf and stupidity? Yeah, yeah you do.
Newport News swore they would never build another commercial ship in the late 1990’s after the Double Eagle fiasco.
Never said it did. My advice to the OP is that if he thinks he has pull with his congressman then go for the low hanging fruit first. I thought this would be intuitive to a ‘professional mariner’ such as yourself, but apparently not.
Mariners qualified to work LNG ships would also be qualified to operate ships of other cargos more central to the purpose of the Jones Act. I thought this would be intuitive to a ‘professional mariner’ such as yourself, but apparently not.
They are of equal importance. What good is the ability to build ships if you don’t have the people to man them? I thought this would be intuitive to a ‘professional mariner’ such as yourself, but apparently not.
Yes it does. Not in debate.
So we’re overpaid now… Whose interests are you promoting on this site exactly?
Whoops… You’re wavering… First it was ‘who don’t pay taxes’ now it’s ‘might not pay taxes’… How about you go look this topic up prior to continuing to embarrass yourself.
I’d support just about any provision (including that one) that would bring many new hulls under US flag and man them with US mariners. The fact that you don’t makes you the enemy of the ACTUAL professional mariners on this forum.