Design started by Herbert engineering in SF.
I’m interested to see the equipment packet but understand there is some level of cooperation with Daewoo Ship Engineering
Or GD Quincy.
Actually the tanks were made in Carolina somewhere and barged up. So what’s the mystery? The vessel becomes the cardboard holder in a six pack of thermos bottles scenario.
1 Like
The readers know my viewpoint. They know the MARAD report that points out the salary disparity and challenge. They know I support the Jones Act, vociferously. And they know that this is more than a mariner forum, it’s a marine industry forum. Would you care to defend why you—who can’t possibly be a professional mariner, professional being the watchword—deserve five times what any other sailor does?
They, make that WE professional mariners know two things about you thanks to this thread:
-
You are NOT a mariner professional or otherwise
-
You think we American professional mariners are overpaid.
Don’t deflect… You brought it up so defend your position… exactly how much of a pay cut should we professional mariners take? Define how much we professional mariners should lower our standard of living so you assholes pushing paper behind a desk can fatten your bottom line… Come on, put a number on it. Don’t back down now… You’re the one who came on a professional MARINER forum (protip: if you get confused what forum you’re trolling in, it’s written there at the top of your screen) and spouted off at the mouth about how overpaid we are… Own it… What’s your number?
@ombugge, you bring up good points in the post this was taken from:
I think the program if passed would add a surcharge/export tax/tariff (whatever you want to call it) to all exported cargos of $x per barrel of crude and $y per 1000 m3 of gas (or a % based add on more likely). That money would go to fund the program.
Yes the market will react and new equilibrium prices will result. Just like there’s a Brent oil rate and a WTI rate now, there will be a new price for US exported oil and gas.
I think the huge balls were made in South Carolina?!? I remember seeing a video of it…massive facility. Back when we actually could build and do things in America before the bureaucrats and bean counters took over.
I believe the NNS ships had the prismatic tanks (as did the Avondale ones?). The spherical tanks were on the ones built in Quincy Mass. Talk about when we built things.
They were contracted with spherical tanks, but switched to Technigaz Mark I (page 26):
Any LNG tanker built today and intended for international trade will have to be of a competitive size, designed and built with the latest and best of propulsion system, containment system and equipment to reduce boil-off during the voyage.
What was built in the 1970s and 80s has little interest. (Nor have LNG bunker barges)
The earliest Gas tankers (LPG carriers) were converted cargo ships of WWII vintage:
https://skipshistorie.net/Oslo/OSL359OLorentzen/Tekster/OSL35919500100000%20EDVARD%20GRIEG.htm
Even earlier conversion was the Nathalie N. Warren, in 1947, This ship was used to carry LPG from GOM to NYC:
The first purpose built Liquid Gas tanker was the the Danish Rasmus Tholstrup, built in Sweden in 1953:
The very first used to carry LNG across oceans was the Methane Pioneer, (converted from a C1 in 1958) She entered service in 1959:
Here is all you need to know about LNG Carriers past and present:
1 Like
I agree.
However, it’s not that difficult to establish that the sweet spot today appears to be around 170000 m³ of net cargo capacity with Q-Maxes and Q-Flexes being notable exceptions. While most LNG carriers built today have membrane-based cargo containment systems (NO96 or Mark III), a small number of Moss-type (nearly) spherical tanks are still being built in Japan. For ships currently under construction, most have WinGD X72 or MAN G70ME-GI series direct-driven low-speed dual-fuel diesels driving one or two shafts. Boil-off is handled with subcoolers, reliquefaction plants and the like.
No-one’s appears to be making great leaps in technology so you don’t have to reinvent the wheel. In fact, you don’t necessarily even have to invent a significantly more efficient wheel if your ass is already covered with the Jones Act. Just pick the solutions that are more or less industry standards today and design a “good enough” ship around them.
On the other hand, you don’t have to make a carbon copy of the South Korean off-the-shelf LNGC designs. Perhaps your edge could be in thinking just a little bit outside of the box?
2 Likes
Agree, but neither should you make a carbon copy of the LNG carriers built in the 1970s at NNS.
But bearing in mind that the Owners, Charterers and cargo owners may not have the same idea as yours.
Tell the truth now Tupsis, were you one of the authors of that paper? I got you pegged as the Syd Harris fellow. Thanks for the link, great info.
I don’t think anyone is seriously planning that. While a US shipyard could get a little bit of head start by employing someone who was involved in those older projects, when it comes to actually building a modern LNGC with today’s cargo containment system the learning curve is more or less the same for each of the serious contenders.
Still, I can’t help but think that even in this age of French membrane technology there are still yards that practice the ancient art of ball-fondling. If the USCG suddenly ruled that the CCS would be considered as a “Jones Act component” and the insulation elements would have to be sourced domestically, perhaps it just be easier to set up a shop building spherical tanks by the shipyard.
On the other hand, I disagree with your earlier remark “nor have LNG bunker barges” because with one an US shipyard has demonstrated an ability to erect a Mark III Flex membrane tank. While it’s just one step in the steep flight of stairs to building a modern LNGC, it’s definitely not the first nor the smallest step.
Unfortunately that’s true - it’s very difficult to push a new idea, even a good one, to such a mature market. The only times you get to do that is with projects like Yamal LNG where the old just doesn’t cut it.
No, I am not. I just happened to discover it while researching another topic.
If the ships are for the export trade, not domestic, Jones Act is not a consideration. (But then it is no need to build in the US either)
That’s true. However, I’m not sure how “transportable” those CCS components are if you were to order them overseas.
It’s crazy that we had them and it is literally an act of congress to get them back in the US fleet.
Here’s a IHS Sea-web lookup for US-built LNG carriers, including dead ships.
edit: I looked up all ships listed as “laid-up” in the above list and could only find three: two in Norway and one in Malaysia.
Maybe it will come with the LNG bunkering barges, but where are the LNG ATBs for coastal trade? The the New England states refused pipelines to bring natural gas to their backyard, so they end up buying LNG from overseas when it could be shipped from Philly or the Gulf.
They are American build? I have passed them a lot, they been laid-up in Karmsundet a long time.
Can take some pictures next time and share.
Yeah. The General Dynamics-built Bering Energy (ex-LNG Leo) and Gulf Energy (ex-LNG Gemini) are laid up in Karmsund. Looks like they have been there at least since early 2017:
http://www.shipspotting.com/gallery/photo.php?lid=2620417
http://www.shipspotting.com/gallery/photo.php?lid=3098266