Kukri
Well-known member
I am.
Containers lost overboard
- Thread starter Kukri
- Start date
I am.
Tomahawk
Well-known member
So .... some basic numbers.. What tonnage of is converted to or newbuild using LNG? I keep seeing articles on gCaptain about new LNG ships so it is very fashionable .
Kukri
Well-known member
There will be no conversions. The cost of building in the tanks does not pay. I’ve just seen figures suggesting that one quarter of new container ships on order are arranged either for pure methane (not many) or for “dual fuel” ( only burning methane in sea areas with stricter emissions control eg the Baltic, Channel, North Sea and so on).
Here’s a thing: remember when tankers had the bridge and accommodation amidships, thus on top of cargo oil tanks...
After some very big explosions ...
the Stanvac Japan in 1958
...the British Crown in 1966
...and the Sansinena in 1976:
this was banned.
Speculation in the cases of the British Crown and the Sansinena was that cargo gases entered the accommodation block and found a source of ignition, then flashed back into the cargo tanks.
Frank Holden will know more about the Stanvac Japan.
Anyway...
...
guess where the LNG tanks on the new methane fuelled container ships are...
Here’s a thing: remember when tankers had the bridge and accommodation amidships, thus on top of cargo oil tanks...
After some very big explosions ...
the Stanvac Japan in 1958
...the British Crown in 1966
...and the Sansinena in 1976:
this was banned.
Speculation in the cases of the British Crown and the Sansinena was that cargo gases entered the accommodation block and found a source of ignition, then flashed back into the cargo tanks.
Frank Holden will know more about the Stanvac Japan.
Anyway...
...
guess where the LNG tanks on the new methane fuelled container ships are...
Last edited:
burgundyben
Well-known member
My mate works for the Mearsk Line on Container ships. They picked up a replacement crew member in Port Said who came from Yorkshire and it was his first posting
They realised they would not get through to Alex in daylight so they anchored up ,
He was on the 2nd Dog watch and this lad was to take over from him.
As Yorkiie walked onto the bridge he looked around and asked
Are we at anchor?
To which my mate replied
'No we are a container ship'
They realised they would not get through to Alex in daylight so they anchored up ,
He was on the 2nd Dog watch and this lad was to take over from him.
As Yorkiie walked onto the bridge he looked around and asked
Are we at anchor?
To which my mate replied
'No we are a container ship'
newtothis
Well-known member
Hapag-Lloyd has converted one, formerly Sajir, which is due to enter service soon. But it is not sure if it will do the other ones in that 'LNG-ready' series due to costs. But the drive for lower NOx and carbon emissions is pushing owners to look at LNG until something better comes along, hence the increasing numbers of newbuilding orders. Not an ideal situation, given methane slip, but it is the IMO's law of unintended consequences at play.
Frank Holden
Well-known member
Hello Andrew, Was it banned or just considered a rather bad idea? Idemitsu Maru , 200k dwt mid 60s had midships bridge... as did a number of Finnish Neste tankers built more recently ...
In the pic of the Stanvac Japan you can just see on the right hand side of the pic a little bit of her centrecastle..... amazingly the 2/0 who was in the chart room at the time survived the explosion and a swim of a few miles back to the ship... even more amazingly he stayed at sea...... in tankers !!
She was tankcleaning at the time.... the report is here http://www.plimsoll.org/resources/SCCLibraries/WreckReports2002/20725.asp
My parents were on the sister - Stanvac Australia - at the time.... very grim atmosphere onboard when she arrived in Melbourne a few days later.... No more tank cleaning in the company for quite a while afterwards.
Kukri
Well-known member
Hola Frank,
I think that after the “Sansinena” explosion in 1976, the IMCO, as it then was, brought in mandatory IGS for all tankers, not only VLCCs, and required the accommodation block and wheelhouse to be aft on all new tankers. But I am still looking for chapter and verse.
I think that after the “Sansinena” explosion in 1976, the IMCO, as it then was, brought in mandatory IGS for all tankers, not only VLCCs, and required the accommodation block and wheelhouse to be aft on all new tankers. But I am still looking for chapter and verse.
Frank Holden
Well-known member
Stanvac Japan.... smart money was on a manganese alloy anode in the tank sparking when struck by something.
British Crown I think was electrical equipment in the centrecastle... Thermotank/PunkaLouvre electric motor maybe... while loading at Umm Said
Sansinena was wasted pipework on deck allowing gas to flow into accom while she was discharging... she was one of a rather unlucky trio.... Lake Palourde only one to lead a full and happy life.
Rather long thread on S/V Japan over at Ships Nostalgia.. Stanvac Japan
British Crown I think was electrical equipment in the centrecastle... Thermotank/PunkaLouvre electric motor maybe... while loading at Umm Said
Sansinena was wasted pipework on deck allowing gas to flow into accom while she was discharging... she was one of a rather unlucky trio.... Lake Palourde only one to lead a full and happy life.
Rather long thread on S/V Japan over at Ships Nostalgia.. Stanvac Japan
Last edited:
westhinder
Well-known member
Yet another case, I'm afraid, Maersk Essen loses 750 containers
Los Angeles-Bound Maersk Essen Loses Some 750 Containers Overboard – gCaptain
Los Angeles-Bound Maersk Essen Loses Some 750 Containers Overboard – gCaptain
Kukri
Well-known member
Thanks!
It looks like the usual area - the North Pacific Great Circle route.
Since this is of no interest whatsoever to yachts (why ever would anyone go near it - vile weather, icing, short daylight, useless winds even when they are not blowing F10...) I think the latest crop will sink before they do much damage.
But plainly there is a problem - probably parametric rolling.
westhinder
Well-known member
Maersk does not like bad publicity, they have pulled drone video showing the extent of the damage aboard Maersk Essen.
Maersk laat confronterende beelden van ‘Maersk Essen’ offline halen
Maersk laat confronterende beelden van ‘Maersk Essen’ offline halen
newtothis
Well-known member
Another day, another north Pacific storm, another Maersk boxship has lost some containers overboard.
Few details yet, but Maersk Eindhoven lost power north east of Japan in what looks like some nasty weather.
Few details yet, but Maersk Eindhoven lost power north east of Japan in what looks like some nasty weather.
Kukri
Well-known member
thanks!
That could be a real nasty, if they rolled in the trough when they lost power.
Frank Holden
Well-known member
If the rather dodgy photo here.. https://lloydslist.maritimeintellig...xship-loses-containers-in-north-Pacific-storm is anything to go by then I am hardly surprised... they would appear to be stacked as high as the funnel top....
I would suggest that in the not so distant future we may be seeing some restrictions on stack heights....
I would suggest that in the not so distant future we may be seeing some restrictions on stack heights....
Kukri
Well-known member
Kukri
Well-known member
Just had a non-event with one of the ships that I get to play with. A stow collapse that didn’t happen.
About to sail from Melbourne soon after lunch, stevedores all off, pilot on board, tugs ordered, all good to go, when the third mate sees something not right. Four boxes not sitting on their twistlocks. In fact they have been left mis-aligned and they have managed to chew up some lashing rods and turnbuckles as well.
Sailing postponed, stevedores back, etc as a two and a half hour delay and the terminal and the ship develop a war of words that would do credit to the America’s Cup.
Terminal says ship was short of lashing gear. Master says he arrived full, therefore by definition he had enough lashings. Terminal says crew “were not helpful”. Ship says crew busy with mooring warps. Etc.
Suspect the truth is that everyone was very busy and under strain from the sheer volume of containers. Might offer an insight. Steaming around the coast full isn’t normal.
About to sail from Melbourne soon after lunch, stevedores all off, pilot on board, tugs ordered, all good to go, when the third mate sees something not right. Four boxes not sitting on their twistlocks. In fact they have been left mis-aligned and they have managed to chew up some lashing rods and turnbuckles as well.
Sailing postponed, stevedores back, etc as a two and a half hour delay and the terminal and the ship develop a war of words that would do credit to the America’s Cup.
Terminal says ship was short of lashing gear. Master says he arrived full, therefore by definition he had enough lashings. Terminal says crew “were not helpful”. Ship says crew busy with mooring warps. Etc.
Suspect the truth is that everyone was very busy and under strain from the sheer volume of containers. Might offer an insight. Steaming around the coast full isn’t normal.
Last edited:
westhinder
Well-known member
Interesting.
if steaming around the coast full isn’t normal, what is the cause? A booming economy or relocating empty boxes, or a bit of both?
newtothis
Well-known member
I wonder how many of these recent ones ex-China (ONE Apus and the two Maersk ones) are due to stevedoring issues too. These Chinese megaports are doing record volumes but I wonder if they have the resources for it, and now with local new year hols/Covid constraints etc. things might be being done a bit too quick and dirty.
But the current case may have been vessel related. The weather looked nasty enough for an engine stop to leave it wallowing with little ability to prevent rolling. It seems now to be heading back towards Japan at normal speed, however.
Frank Holden
Well-known member
Sometimes the envelope is pushed just a little too far......
In about 1970 there was rush to build 200,000 dwt tankers but they started to go 'BANG' with unsettling regularity... the Shell 'M's going for gold in this regard.
Large OBO's were another money spinner but they also seemed to have 'BANG' issues....
I was on one... Norwegian owned British flagged Hong Kong manned ... Galbraith Wrightson the owners... I'm sure Andrew can track her down if he so chooses...
When- shortly after another Norwegian owned OBO went off with a bang and sank off West Africa while in ballast - the owners asked ...and I kid you not... what we were doing to avoid blowing up.....
As my father said... there is no such thing as a good shipowner but some are just a little bit better than the others....
In about 1970 there was rush to build 200,000 dwt tankers but they started to go 'BANG' with unsettling regularity... the Shell 'M's going for gold in this regard.
Large OBO's were another money spinner but they also seemed to have 'BANG' issues....
I was on one... Norwegian owned British flagged Hong Kong manned ... Galbraith Wrightson the owners... I'm sure Andrew can track her down if he so chooses...
When- shortly after another Norwegian owned OBO went off with a bang and sank off West Africa while in ballast - the owners asked ...and I kid you not... what we were doing to avoid blowing up.....
As my father said... there is no such thing as a good shipowner but some are just a little bit better than the others....
newtothis
Well-known member
The issue here is not size specifically; the latest boxships to go 'bang' have been relatively small ones - c.13,000 teu. A big one is 24,000 teu.