USA Shipyards for building LNG Ships?

Professional Mariner Forum
21

Yes cause people totally go for the higher hanging fruit if they got their fruit already… solid incentive building…[quote=“Hawespiper, post:20, topic:54914”]
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.
[/quote]

They’re qualified before achieving the higher level Liquefied Gas quals but surely a professional mariner doesn’t need to be told that freight is the lower level, dangerous liquids next and liquefied after that?? Maybe you do?

They aren’t since you dispense with one while insisting on the other. Hey—I’m beginning to sense a theme on your intuition!

Well you see, moron, tax laws are complex and I did allow some wiggle room there since the matter seems to have meant so much. So back to the main point—you’re good with provisions that insist on anyone enjoying benefits of protectionist US laws for US mariner job wages paying full US taxes regardless of foreign employment? I just want to make sure you’re not avoiding the topic.

Oh, you’re one of those guys who thinks the shipyards should fold for the benefit of mariners instead of leveraging. Well, my record of posts is clear on this as you claim yours is—insisting on shipbuilding provisions of Jones Act or any similar protectionist laws is of major benefit to the US and far outstrips the mariner provisions so it’s both in my opinion. Sorry you hate the communities who build vessels. But they deserve jobs too.

22

I remember reading an article in the Maritime Reporter or other such magizines about the Double Eagle tankers. A captain was remarking on the high quality work of the yard with the welds ground smooth on the hull. As soon as I read that I knew Newport News would lose their ass on those ships. Grinding welds smooth may be the norm on navy ships but not commercial tankers. They hadn’t changed their shipbuilding mindset to commercial operations.

1 Like
23

Please cite where I said US shipyards need to be ‘dispensed’. I already said what their role in this program should be.

Regarding taxes for expats:

Hey, you brought it up (despite knowing absolutely nothing about it apparently which is strange)

That’s different than what you originally asked, but yes that’s fine too. Now you’re involving changing the tax code… I’m not sure there are as many expat seaman as you believe.

Not avoiding it now, not avoiding then.

Nope

Nope

If you go back and follow the flow of the posts it’s really funny to see your lack of willingness (or ability?) to stay focused and on any one topic or train of thought. This is exasperated by attempting to put words in my mouth and/or attribute things to me which have no basis in anything I’ve posted.

James Brown: The Godfather of Troll strikes again.

24

Hey OP, just thought I’d circle back to the point and offer some opinions now that the thread has proceeded in the usual gCaptain way…

So, your first question—what shipyard? None in the US at the moment, the few that could build the hulls required to be useful would have to get help to build the containment and related systems. Not an insurmountable obstacle, but not something in hand.

This is why aspirational legislation such as Rep Garamendi is necessary, and why he specifies being ‘built’ in the US. The point is to ensure that when a market for a US resource comes around, you milk it for the best general benefits for the US people.

Having seen the thread of discussion you would by now be familiar with one challenge to such efforts. A select group of beneficiaries for protections under US law would be glad to sacrifice others’ benefits to safeguard their own. Understandable, but everyone has to make up their own minds on that. For myself, I support the widest benefits for Americans, instead of advocating that it’s hopeless to go for anything but the most narrow benefits that go to a couple dozen mariners so law makers should only seek the ‘lowest hanging fruit’, I’m interested in the hundreds of shipyard and related jobs. They tend to have more benefits to America. The mariners who don’t have those aspirational jobs don’t have them now, could seek them since US mariners can sail under foreign flag so nothing lost by waiting and insisting on the build provisions.

25

@Steveisme:

Best of luck to you in your endeavor to contact your congressman on this important issue. Due to the extreme costs associated with this program, I feel the best way to enter it is incrementally. This can be done by starting with a mandate that some/all of the ships that carry US LNG be US flagged and crewed. Also mandate that the ships undergo their mandatory shipyard periods in US yards. This type of certainty of work would allow the shipyards to justify the enormous capital expenditure needed to get themselves ready to handle LNG carriers. Additionally this would give the shipyards work. Eventually if the program proves successful and enough support in Congress is there for expanding it to include requiring US built ships, then that can and should be pursued.

Going all in from the beginning trying to mandate US built ships which would probably be 500 to 700 million dollars each is a sure way to ensure nothing happens.

26

Hey, Steve, me again, so just want to point out that this guy said:

And I agree, and so does Rep Garamendi, and co sponsors. But ‘incremental’ as they approach it is to reognize the challenges in shipbuilding and make small requests to get a share for shipbuilding, vice mariner job pork that doesn’t benefit the US meaningfully. That’s why they shoot for 10 and 15 percent on crude and LNG. They know it takes development of the manufacture of these ships, and getting a toehold helps overcome initial developement costs—trust me, no one would bother to spend on manufacture and shipbuilding if all they had to do was hire a few US mariners.

“WASHINGTON, DC—Today, Congressman John Garamendi (D-CA.) and U.S. Senator Roger Wicker (R-MS.) reintroduced the “Energizing American Shipbuilding Act” (H.R.3829). This bipartisan legislation seeks to recapitalize America’s strategic domestic shipbuilding and maritime industries by requiring that increasing percentages of liquefied natural gas (LNG) and crude oil exports be transported on U.S.-built, flagged, and crewed vessels.

House Original Cosponsors (H.R.3829 ): Sean Patrick Maloney (D-NY), Brian K. Fitzpatrick (R-PA) , Jefferson Van Drew (D-NY), Robert J. Wittman (R-VA) , Mark Pocan, (D-WI), Duncan Hunter (R-CA) , Grace F. Napolitano (D-CA), Peter T. King (R-NY) , Nanette Diaz Barragán (D-CA), Julia Brownley (D-CA), Rick Larsen (D-WA), Alan S. Lowenthal (D-CA), Jared F. Golden (D-ME), Bonnie Watson Coleman (D-NJ), Joe Courtney (D-CT), Donald Norcross (D-NJ), Elaine G. Luria (D-VA)

The bill would require that vessels built in the United States transport 15 percent of total seaborne LNG exports by 2041 and 10 percent of total seaborne crude oil exports by 2033. If enacted, the bill is expected to spur the construction of dozens of ships, supporting thousands of good-paying jobs in American shipyards, as well as the domestic vessel component manufacturing and maritime industries. According to an estimate from the Shipbuilders Council of America, the bill would result in the construction of more than 40 ships: approximately 28 LNG carriers by 2041 and 12 oil tankers by 2033.

“Rising U.S. exports of America’s strategic LNG and crude oil present a unique opportunity to create new middle-class jobs by strengthening our nation’s crucial domestic shipbuilding, advanced manufacturing, and maritime industries—which are key to national security and our ability to project American military power abroad,” said Congressman Garamendi (D-CA).”

Btw and this is important Steve—are you a professional mariner? If not, your opinion is not important according to my troll. I’m shoreside so this means I care about communities and shoreside jobs (and mariners) vice folks who only care about mariners and mariner opinions. I don’t feel too bad about it either.

1 Like
27

Jesus guys. Get a room
28

All that sounds good and if they can get it, go for it.

Please follow up when that first $500M+ contact is signed.

29

Will do buddy.

30

The motto of the yard:
“We Shall Build Good Ships Here; At A Profit If We Can, At A Loss If We Must, But Always Good Ships.” Collis Potter Huntington.

And they certainly took a loss on Double Eagle. That was supposed to be the launch back into the commercial sector.

31

Also when you have time, can you expand on your thoughts regarding

Seeing as how:

I think the readers of this professional mariner forum would be interested to hear your viewpoint.

32

From the BRS group, Shipping and Shipbuilding Markets, 2020 review…

It specified that all of the 49 LNG carriers ordered in 2019, GTT containment system on all 49 so at least there is one expert in the field in regards to the technology on the containment… Also thought you might want to see the prices abroad for such vessel and turn around since they have been delivering approx. 50 of these per year since 2000.

"observed in 2019 with a size around 174,000 cbm, a
propulsion based on the XDF and a membrane cargo
containment system based on GTT ‘s technology.
Additionally, The majority of the new LNG carriers ordered
in 2019 will be fitted with a re-liquefaction plant or a
subcooling system.

Shipbuilding market status
Competition is fierce amongst the 4 remaining yards
able to propose LNG carriers. The ongoing takeover
of DSME by HHI is expected to be endorsed over the
coming months and the strategy put in place for the
LNG Shipbuilding segment might have an impact on
the competition.
Depending on specific requirements, the average
contractual price of one LNG carrier ordered in Korea is
around $190 million. This price level was observed for a
contract signed in mid-2019 and a delivery by 3Q 2022.
At the beginning of 2019, prices were expected to rise to
over $200 million, levels last observed in 2013-14.
Chinese yards are keen to propose similar prices
with delivery up to 36 months after signature of
the shipbuilding contract. For the time being, Korean
shipbuilders can produce up to 45 LNG carriers per year.
This constitutes a clear competitive edge compared to
China which only has the capacity to build up to 6 LNG
carriers per year, even if this capacity is expected to
double going forward"

2 Likes
33

OK so US Owners are going to order LNG and Crude tankers to carry part of the US export of LNG and Crude oil for delivery to foreign.buyers at foreign ports?

These ships will be built at US yards to foreign designs, with foreign machinery and major equipment (Incl.imported cargo pumps, containment system and sundry other items not available from US suppliers)
The cost per vessel is likely to be 2-3 times what such ships cost when built at foreign yards.
They are to be manned by all US officers and crews, also at higher costs than equally qualified foreigners.

This will add to the cost per m.t, of US crude oil and Cu.m. of LNG delivered to the world market. Who will pay for the extra cost of transport, the US exporters or the foreign buyers?

Besides; other nations may insist on their import and export be carried on ships flying their flag, especially if the origin/destination is in the US.
This will affect world trade, since long established trading practices. agreements and treaties will be null and void.

World trade as we know it will change for ever, all at the expense of consumers in the US and abroad. (Or do you expect the US taxpayers to bear the burden through subsidies?)

It is not going to happen, so find another way of securing work for shipyard workers and mariners in the US. (Green technology, like offshore wind comes to mind)

34

I had to read up about that. After that I doubt NNSY will bother taking a risk with commercial ships.

35

Newport News may have built Good Ships but they weren’t smart about doing it. The Double Eagle tankers were a Newport News design so they went about redesigning the wheel thinking their wheel would be better than other wheels being made. In this case it ended up being 2 designs, Double Eagle International (for the Eletson contract) and Double Eagle Domestic (for the Van Ommeren contract). They were different enough to require significant design changes driving cost higher.

1 Like
36

That sign was taken down in the early 70’s when Tenneco took over Newport News shipyard (when they still did a fair amount of commercial work!)

38

Noting that it’s been quite a while since Newport News built LNG carriers, it’d be almost the same as asking Avondale to build them (if they were still in business)…

39

Still there.

image
image800×511 223 KB

40

I stand corrected. My apologies. Where is that plaque now?

41

Philly Shipyard will be busy for a while:


The shares of Philly Shipyard ASA is going up on the Oslo Exchange.

PS> Wonder where they got the design and equipment packet from?: