Search Results for: St John Ship Building

Eastern delivers Z-Tech 2400 escort tug

AUGUST 23, 2016 — Eastern Shipbuilding Group, Inc. reports that its Nelson Street shipyard has delivered the escort tug Oceanus to Suderman & Young Towing. The vessel is the third in of

Green technologies: The road to faster adoption

Leading shipowners and operators, gas suppliers, ports, class societies, and technologists gathered last month in London to announce a new cross-industry initiative aimed at accelerating the adoption of Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) as a marine fuel. The initiative hopes to address the issues of LNG bunkering infrastructure, regulatory concerns, and the higher initial capital investment costs in building LNG-fueled vessels.

Called SEA/LNG, the initiative brings together participants from Carnival Corporation & plc, DNV GL, ENGIE, ENN, GE, GTT, Lloyd’s Register, Mitsubishi Corporation, NYK Line, Port of Rotterdam, Qatargas, Shell, TOTE Inc. and Wärtsilä.

The goal of the initiative explains TOTE Inc. Executive Vice President Peter Keller, who is serving as SEA\LNG’s Chairman, is to address “market barriers and help transform the use of LNG as a marine fuel into a global reality.”

When it comes to using LNG as a marine fuel, TOTE is all in. It’s committed about $500 million in capital investments to have its entire fleet to burn LNG. The U.S.-flag operator has built two 3,100 TEU LNG-fuelled containerships now in operation between the Port of Jacksonville, FL, and San Juan, PR, and is converting the two ORCA Class Roll-on/Roll-Off ships in its fleet to burn LNG. The first of those two is being converted at Singapore’s Keppel Shipyard this fall.

TOTE is not alone in adding dual-fuel and LNG-Ready tonnage to its oceangoing fleet in the U.S. Harvey Gulf International Marine, Crowley Maritime Corp., Matson Navigation, Kinder Morgan, and SEA VISTA/SEACOR all have vessels in operation or under construction that burn or could eventually burn LNG as a marine fuel. In all, there are 29 vessels that are designed or could be converted to burn LNG as shown in the accompanying table. This does not include inland and coastal vessels such as towboats or ferries.

The U.S. Maritime Administration, for example, is supporting the conversion of a towboat to burn LNG as fuel.

The use of LNG as a marine fuel has increased with Emission Control Areas (ECAs) coming into force in Northern Europe and North America under MARPOL Annex VI. LNG is relatively clean burning, containing virtually no sulfur content and it produces lower NOx and particulate matter in the combustion process than fuel oil and marine diesel oil.

A long-time, well-known proponent of LNG as a marine fuel, John Hatley, PE, Gas Initiatives Wärtsilä North America, sees gas as a compelling solution for box feeders, RO/RO vessels, ferries and cruise ships, product tankers, Great Lakes vessels, and ATBs on short coastal voyages that enter into ECAs.

LNG is therefore able to offer a fuel solution compliant with both current and anticipated future regulations.

The larger effect from Annex VI will come when the requirement to reduce sulfur content of marine fuels to 0.5% on a global basis effective 2020 or 2025 depending on the outcome of an IMO low sulfur fuel availability study to be completed in 2018. The issue for ship owners and operators is how to find alternatives to economically meet the low sulfur fuel mandate about to be imposed by MARPOL Annex VI.

However, while LNG is a competitive fuel relative to current alternatives, LNG infrastructure is needed in ports around the world to enable quick, safe and cost effective bunkering. In the U.S., the first LNG bunker transport barge with GTT Mark III Flex tank technology is under construction at Conrad Orange shipyard in Orange, TX, and expected to be delivered in early 2017. LNG bunkering infrastructure is far more advanced in Europe.

“Everybody is calling for alternatives to reduce environmental impacts says Philip Olivier, CEO of ENGIE Global LNG. “That’s why we have joined forces to actively promote LNG as a key fuel in maritime transport. LNG has the potential to take a 10% market share of global bunker demand by 2030. ENGIE will contribute to achieving this target.”

Tom Strang, Senior Vice President, Maritime Affairs, Carnival Corporation & plc, says, “By working together proactively across the whole marine LNG value chain we can make the transition to a lower emission marine sector a reality.”

Lauran Wetemans Shell’s general manager downstream LNG agrees. “To make the transition to LNG as a fuel happen it needs close collaboration with key players across the full value chain,” says, Wetemans. “SEA/LNG aims to promote the benefits and potential of LNG fuel, and create a level playing field for LNG with other fuels. It will complement the work being done by other organizations like the Society for Gas as a Marine Fuel.”

Leo Karistios, Gas Technology Lead, Lloyd’s Register, points out, “LNG fuelled shipping has mainly been for the visionaries and, until now, concentrated in specialist ship sectors: short sea shipping and ferries, mainly sailing between two fixed ports. We want to help drive the expansion of LNG as a marine fuel of choice, with not just more short sea and local ships burning gas, but also the deep sea trades.”

Timo Koponen, Vice President, Flow & Gas Solutions, Wärtsilä Marine Solutions, says his company will contribute “its vast experience and know-how in gas driven propulsion systems and the entire gas value chain” to the initiative. “By working together, we plan to overcome the challenges and speed the general acceptance of LNG. Having been a pioneer in the use of LNG as a marine fuel, and a developer of major technologies facilitating the adoption of LNG fuel, it is natural that Wärtsilä supports wholeheartedly the aims of the SEA/LNG coalition.”

Developing bulk carrier concept
Wärtsilä is also involved with an effort with class society ABS, Arista Shipping, Deltamarin, and GTT in the Project Forward joint development project (JDP) to develop a dry bulk carrier concept that employs LNG as fuel.

The goal is to develop a Kamsarmax bulk carrier design to be the first of this type suitable for worldwide services powered by LNG in compliance with the IMO’s Energy Efficiency Design Index 2025 standards, NOx Tier III and MARPOL Annex VI SOx emission levels. This landmark design will be the first LNG-fueled cargo ship capable of full-range operations.

“The long-term potential for LNG as a marine fuel is tremendous,” says ABS Vice President of Global Gas Solutions Patrick Janssens. “We see the near-term opportunities for larger vessels on fixed and known trade routes, but more opportunities will emerge as concepts mature and bunkering infrastructure expands. Environmental stewardship will continue to be a concern, and owners will be evaluating alternative fuel choices.”

“Project Forward represents a milestone for the shipping industry in bringing to the market a practical, achievable design for what are the workhorses of the shipping fleet,” says Arista Shipping Principal Alexander P. Panagopulos. “Our mission is to develop the next generation of energy efficient and environmentally friendly dry bulk cargo ships to be sustainable worldwide beyond 2030. It marks a number of ‘firsts’ and draws together the experience of a team of leaders in their field to make LNG powered shipping a reality on the high seas.”

Technical challenges in developing this design were considerable, as there is a need to carry a large volume of LNG (2,500 m3) – which corresponds to full-range operation and 40 days – in a type of ship where available space is limited and cargo space is at a premium.

ABS will provide Approval in Principle (AIP) for the concept, which is based on the highly optimized Deltamarin B.Delta 82 design, utilizing a GTT membrane LNG fuel tank. This design also could be applied to other bulk carrier sizes and serve as the basis for an LNG-fueled tanker. The concept features a Wärtsilä four-stroke, medium-speed engine without auxiliary generators, the first time this configuration has been applied to a vessel of this type, significantly simplifying the vessel’s engine room arrangement and contributing to lower capital expenditure.

Read more from our Green Technology & Sustainable Shipping section in our Digital Edition.

Threats grow, but so do Navy ship costs

Even before it was formally submitted as the Annual Long-Range Plan for Construction of Naval Vessels for Fiscal Year 2016, a draft of the Navy’s latest shipbuilding plan was floating around Washington and being seen by defense commentators as likely to have a short shelf life. The plan holds to the Navy’s goal of reaching a 308-ship battle force over the next five years. But an ongoing Force Structure Assessment (FSA) is under way that will likely see that number raised, the U.S. Naval Institute quotes naval analyst Bryan Clark of the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments as saying. Clark, a former special assistant to past Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Jonathan Greenert, told USNI News that the plan is “very provisional until the Navy comes up with a new set of force structure requirements.” He added that Congress is “already weighing in with additional ships they want to build, and the new administration is going to obviously have things they want to do differently.”

The draft is an updated version of the plan submitted last year and continues to be based on the 2012 Force Structure Assessment (FSA) “to meet strategy and presence requirements and maintain a healthy industrial base.”

The problem with this is that the world has gotten a lot more dangerous since the 2012 FSA was compiled. Among other things, Vladimir Putin has invaded and annexed Crimea and subsequently pulled out various ploys from the Soviet era Cold War play book and China has been building whole new Spratley islands and sticking airstrips on them, essentially creating large (if stationary) aircraft carriers. Turn on the BBC World Service News any day and you’ll be able to add to the list.

The upshot is that the next FSA is likely to produce a need for a larger submarine fleet and more cruiser/destroyer-type vessels (CRUDES) than envisaged in the 2012 FSA.

Meantime, the draft shipbuilding plan says that since the 2012 FSA was completed there have been some minor adjustments in the Navy’s forward deployed posture, warfighting prioritization, and structure that have seen the 2012 FSA objective for 306 ships increased to 308 as a result of these changes. Here’s what they consist of:  Fleet ballistic missile submarines: 12; Nuclear-powered aircraft carriers: 11; Nuclear-powered attack submarines: 48; Nuclear-powered cruise missile submarines* 0;  Large, multi-mission, surface combatants: 88; Small, multi-role, surface combatants: 52; Amphibious Warfare ships: 34;Combat logistics force ships: 29; Support vessels: 34.

While all this is aimed at producing pretty much the fleet seen as needed in the 2012 FSA, it seems evident that the next FSA will actually result in a requirement for a larger battle force.

LAWMAKERS SEEK MORE SHIPS
The FY 2017 Defense Authorization Act is now churning through the Congressional hopper and legislators are intent on getting ahead of the curve.

But you don’t always get what you ask for—and when it comes to Navy shipbuilding and Congress sometimes it will be just a bit different, even when it’s more.

The House last month authorized $20.6 billion for shipbuilding, $2.3 billion above the President’s budget. As we’ll discuss later, how it wants to find the money is controversial and sets things up for resolution by a House-Senate conference and possibly even a veto.

Seapower and Projection Forces Subcommittee Chairman Rep. Randy Forbes, (R-VA) says that between the shipbuilding account and the National Sea-Based Deterrence Fund (set up in the FY 2015 act as a holding fund dedicated to the Ohio replacement ballistic missile submarine program), that $20.6 billion is the highest level of shipbuilding funding, accounting for inflation, since President Reagan was in office.

In addition to shifting the amount requested by the President for the Ohio replacement into the NSBDF, the House measure expands the authorities in the NSBDF to include “continuous production” of Ohio class replacement submarines, allowing the Navy to procure components such as missile tubes at substantially lower cost.

Additionally, the measure:

  • Preserves the 10th aircraft carrier air wing;
  • Authorizes the construction an amphibious assault ship, LHA (8);
  • Authorizes the refueling and complex overhaul (RCOH) of five aircraft carriers;
  • Retains 11 cruisers in the fleet that the Navy proposed to induct into long-term modernization;
  • Prohibits the retirement of mine countermeasures ships until replacement capability is fielded;
  • Funds an additional amphibious ship to address the shortfall against the Marine Corps’ requirements;
  • Funds another destroyer to better support Navy operations in a contested environment;
  • Funds advanced procurement for CVN-81 to support a move to four-year centered carrier construction and to create economies with CVN-80;
  • Authorizes the construction of a National Security Multi-Mission Vessel; and
  • Funds another LCS, taking the FY 2017 total to three.

The House measure also includes an amendment by Rep. Bradley Byrne (R-AL) that would prevent any funds from being used to “select only a single contractor for the construction of the Littoral Combat Ship or any successor frigate class ship program” until the Secretary of the Navy certifies a number of requirements to Congress—effectively delaying progress on the Navy’s down select from two LCS variants to one until the next administration takes office.

SENATE VERSION STILL IN WORKS
Right now, the Senate Armed Services Committee’s version of the Act was coming up for consideration by the full Senate. As drafted, it contains a number of similarities to the House version, with one major difference being the future of the LCS.

Among other items on the committee’s list:

  • $5 billion to procure two Virginia-class nuclear attack submarines and provide for advance procurement of future Virginia-class submarines;
  • $1.6 billion to procure the next amphibious assault ship, including incremental funding authority for FY 2017 and FY 2018;
  • $1.5 billion to fully support the Ohio-class submarine replacement program.
  • $3.3 billion for the procurement of two Arleigh Burke-class destroyers, including a $50 million increase for incremental funding of a fiscal year 2016 destroyer;
  • $75 million for the development and procurement of the amphibious ship replacement, known as LX(R); and
  • $199 million in Chief of Naval Operations and Commandant of the Marine Corps unfunded priorities, including: a ballistic missile defense destroyer upgrade, surface electronic warfare improvement program block 3 installation, and a surveillance towed array, and F-35B spares.

In provisions relating to the Ford-class Aircraft Carrier, the Senate Arms Service Committee version directs a review of the ships’ Advanced Arresting Gear (AAG) program and meantime prohibits future AAG procurement funding, saying, the acquisition “unit cost of this troubled program has breached critical cost growth thresholds, warranting a reassessment of the program and a consideration of alternatives.”

It limits funds until the Navy establishes lower end cost targets of $11 billion and $12 billion for the USS John F. Kennedy

(CVN-79) and USS Enterprise (CVN-80), respectively.

There’s no good news for LCS fans in the Senate. Its bill prohibits revisions to or deviations from the current LCS acquisition strategy, which includes procurement of both LCS designs in 2017, a down-select to a single variant no later than 2019, and a reduction in the inventory objective to 40 ships.

It also reduces authorization for the LCS by $28 million “due to unjustified unit cost growth” and cuts $59 million for LCS mission packages.

What’s more, it prohibits the use of funds to enter into or prepare to enter into a sole-source contract for a Joint High Speed Vessel (JHSV) or Expeditionary Fast Transport (EPF).

“In the last two years, funds were appropriated for two of these ships that Navy did not request and were not authorized by the NDAA,” says the committee. “This provision is a necessary safeguard to prevent wasteful earmarks.”

The Senate measure directs the Secretary of the Navy to report to Congress on how the Navy will transition the Ohio-class replacement submarine program from cost-plus to fixed-price contracts as soon as possible.

Picking up on a March 2016 GAO report that said the Navy should reconsider its approach to warranties for correcting construction defects, the Senate Armed Services Committee draft “directs the Secretary of the Navy to structure contract terms such that shipbuilders do not earn profit for correcting construction deficiencies following delivery that are determined to be their responsibility.”

The Senate version authorizes an extension to a Jones Act waiver pertaining to the procurement of dry docks, which would be necessary to build Navy ships.

The Senate Armed Services Committee measure also would slow the Navy’s efforts to take existing ships out of service. The measure would: 1. Prohibit funds from being used to inactivate guided missile cruisers or dock landing ships or place ships in these classes into an extended modernization period, unless prescribed criteria are met; and 2. Prohibit funds from being used to inactivate existing mine countermeasures systems until equivalent or better capabilities are fielded.

PAYING FOR IT ALL
While the levels of both House and Senate Armed Services Committees’ total defense budget proposals are line with the Administration’s total, the House version only does so with a bit of smoke and mirrors: it funds the Pentagon’s Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO) only until April 20, saying “The Chairman’s expectation is that a new President will assess the national security landscape and submit a supplemental budget request—as is traditional in the first year of a new administration.”

Calling that move “budget gimmickry,” Secretary of Defense Ash Carter said, in a speech delivered May 17, that “it raids war funds in a time of war, when we have men and women deployed in operations in Afghanistan, Iraq and Syria. It also threatens the budget stability that undergirds all of the reforms, investments and initiatives that the Pentagon has been working on. And it threatens the readiness of the force—an actual contrast to the narrative its proponents propound.”

Secretary Carter noted that the passage of last fall’s Bipartisan Budget Act “gave us some much needed stability to plan and build for the future, after years of gridlock and turbulence.”

“That budget deal set the size of our budget,” he continued, “and with this degree of certainty, we focused on its shape and building the FY 2017 budget we’ve submitted and I’ve described—changing that shape in fundamental but carefully considered ways to adjust to a new strategic year end to seize opportunities for the future.

“But the budget stability that was supposed to last for two years is already under threat after only six months with a proposal to underfund DOD’s overseas warfighting accounts by $18 billion and spend that money on programmatic items we didn’t request. This approach is deeply troubling.

“If a final version of the NDAA reaches the President this year and includes a raid on war funding that risks stability and gambles with war funding, jeopardizes readiness and rejects key judgments in the department,” said Secretary Carter, “ I’ll be compelled to recommend that he veto the bill. I’m hopeful, however, that we can work with Congress to achieve a better solution. Our warfighters deserve nothing less because our mission is a deadly serious one.”

  • News

John Parrott named President of Foss Maritime

JUNE 17, 2016 — Seattle based Foss Maritime Company reports that Chief Operating Officer John Parrott will take over the role of President, assuming responsibility for the day-to-day operations of the company

  • News

Shipping magnate Angelicoussis big spender at Posidonia

JUNE 15, 2016—Billionaire Greek shipping magnate John Angelicoussis was the biggest spender at the recently concluded Posidonia 2016 Exhibition in Athens. Angelicoussis, owner of Angelicoussis Shipping Group, which includes Anagel Maritime Services,

Foss christens second Arctic Class tug

JUNE 7, 2016 — Foss Maritime reports that the second of three state-of-the-art Arctic Class tugs, the Denise Foss, was recently christened at the Foss Waterway Seaport in Tacoma, WA. Built at

Eastern delivers Z-Tech escort tug

JUNE 3, 2016 — Delivered by Eastern Shipbuilding Group, Panama City, FL  last month, the Zyana K is the second in a series of Robert Allan, Ltd. (RAL) designed Z-Tech 2400 class

Frontline gets $603 million for ship shopping

MAY 31 2016 — John Fredriksen’s Frontline Ltd. today reported unaudited results for the quarter ended March 31, 2016 that saw net income reach $78.9 million, or $0.50 per share. It also