Carnival Announces Construction of 180,000 Ton Ships

[chengkp75]

I'm just curious, do you have any idea how many ports in the US are currently capable of bunkering LNG to large vessels? I've only read of one in LA but I'm not up to speed. I think there are several in the works but I have no idea how far off they are. There still seems to be concerns about regulations with bunkering LNG around safety and environmental issues.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Forums

 

For large vessels, Tote has their own facility in Jacksonville using tank trucks, and are building a barge for use in Seattle/Tacoma, but these are strictly for their own ships. Harvey Gulf has built the first real marine LNG fueling facility in Port Fourchon, LA to supply their LNG powered offshore supply vessels and the offshore industry. Fourchon is too small to handle seagoing ships.

 

Currently, four ports in North America have plans for LNG bunkering infrastructure, and are part of the LNG fueled vessel working group. Other N.A. cities that are proposed are: Seattle, Tacoma, Duluth, Sarnia (Canada), Tadoussac (Canada), somewhere on the Mississippi, and Jacksonville.

 

As of last year, there were 50 LNG powered vessels in the world, 44 of them in Norway, 3 in Asia, 2 in Europe, and 1 in the US.

 

Given the concerns cities have with LNG tankers (Boston shuts down all bridges and much of the city's traffic when one comes in), yes, I think there will be a lot of problems clearing safety and environmental concerns. There are not a lot of large scale re-liquifaction facilities around, so these will need to be built, and they can take up a bit of prime real estate.

 

Back when it was felt the US would be importing LNG from overseas, there were a couple of LNG terminals built in Port Arthur, TX, but I don't think these terminals ever received any gas from ships. One has now been given approval to change to a re-liquifaction plant (totally rebuilding the facility), so they can liquify natural gas for export on ships.

[eroller]

For large vessels, Tote has their own facility in Jacksonville using tank trucks, and are building a barge for use in Seattle/Tacoma, but these are strictly for their own ships. Harvey Gulf has built the first real marine LNG fueling facility in Port Fourchon, LA to supply their LNG powered offshore supply vessels and the offshore industry. Fourchon is too small to handle seagoing ships.

 

Currently, four ports in North America have plans for LNG bunkering infrastructure, and are part of the LNG fueled vessel working group. Other N.A. cities that are proposed are: Seattle, Tacoma, Duluth, Sarnia (Canada), Tadoussac (Canada), somewhere on the Mississippi, and Jacksonville.

 

As of last year, there were 50 LNG powered vessels in the world, 44 of them in Norway, 3 in Asia, 2 in Europe, and 1 in the US.

 

Given the concerns cities have with LNG tankers (Boston shuts down all bridges and much of the city's traffic when one comes in), yes, I think there will be a lot of problems clearing safety and environmental concerns. There are not a lot of large scale re-liquifaction facilities around, so these will need to be built, and they can take up a bit of prime real estate.

 

Back when it was felt the US would be importing LNG from overseas, there were a couple of LNG terminals built in Port Arthur, TX, but I don't think these terminals ever received any gas from ships. One has now been given approval to change to a re-liquifaction plant (totally rebuilding the facility), so they can liquify natural gas for export on ships.

 

 

 

Great info! Thanks so much.

 

Looks like the US has a ways to go in terms of building the required infrastructure and addressing safety concerns before LNG becomes mainstream.

 

It does make me wonder where these new Carnival new builds will be home ported. I guess it's also possible that Carnival might be willing to build up the LNG infrastructure themselves, but I don't know how feasible that is?

 

One other question that perhaps you know the answer to. Is the LNG bunkering infrastructure fairly portable? Could it be done from a specialized barge? The reason I ask is that many ports are divided into cargo and passenger areas. PortMiami for instance. Even if it had LNG bunkering capability it might be stationary in the cargo section of the port, making the logistics more challenging for a passenger vessel. If it could be done from a barge that would address that issue.

 

I know Aida, another Carnival Corp brand based in Germany have experimented with an LNG hybrid barge in Hamburg to power their vessels while docked in Germany. I've read it hasn't worked well due to all the safety requirements required during the process. I know this isn't bunkering a vessel but I'm guessing many of the same restrictive safety protocols would be required if you could bunker LNG from a barge, if that is even possible?

[FLSteve11]

For large vessels, Tote has their own facility in Jacksonville using tank trucks, and are building a barge for use in Seattle/Tacoma, but these are strictly for their own ships. Harvey Gulf has built the first real marine LNG fueling facility in Port Fourchon, LA to supply their LNG powered offshore supply vessels and the offshore industry. Fourchon is too small to handle seagoing ships.

 

Currently, four ports in North America have plans for LNG bunkering infrastructure, and are part of the LNG fueled vessel working group. Other N.A. cities that are proposed are: Seattle, Tacoma, Duluth, Sarnia (Canada), Tadoussac (Canada), somewhere on the Mississippi, and Jacksonville.

 

As of last year, there were 50 LNG powered vessels in the world, 44 of them in Norway, 3 in Asia, 2 in Europe, and 1 in the US.

 

Given the concerns cities have with LNG tankers (Boston shuts down all bridges and much of the city's traffic when one comes in), yes, I think there will be a lot of problems clearing safety and environmental concerns. There are not a lot of large scale re-liquifaction facilities around, so these will need to be built, and they can take up a bit of prime real estate.

 

Back when it was felt the US would be importing LNG from overseas, there were a couple of LNG terminals built in Port Arthur, TX, but I don't think these terminals ever received any gas from ships. One has now been given approval to change to a re-liquifaction plant (totally rebuilding the facility), so they can liquify natural gas for export on ships.

 

At the rate a lot of new ships are going to China/Asia on many lines, not sure we will be seeing a lot of the new builds anyway. If China builds a bunch of LNG facilities, might be years after the builds that we see them.

[chengkp75]

Great info! Thanks so much.

 

Looks like the US has a ways to go in terms of building the required infrastructure and addressing safety concerns before LNG becomes mainstream.

 

It does make me wonder where these new Carnival new builds will be home ported. I guess it's also possible that Carnival might be willing to build up the LNG infrastructure themselves, but I don't know how feasible that is?

 

One other question that perhaps you know the answer to. Is the LNG bunkering infrastructure fairly portable? Could it be done from a specialized barge? The reason I ask is that many ports are divided into cargo and passenger areas. PortMiami for instance. Even if it had LNG bunkering capability it might be stationary in the cargo section of the port, making the logistics more challenging for a passenger vessel. If it could be done from a barge that would address that issue.

 

I know Aida, another Carnival Corp brand based in Germany have experimented with an LNG hybrid barge in Hamburg to power their vessels while docked in Germany. I've read it hasn't worked well due to all the safety requirements required during the process. I know this isn't bunkering a vessel but I'm guessing many of the same restrictive safety protocols would be required if you could bunker LNG from a barge, if that is even possible?

 

Taking Tote as an example, since they are currently running the only one or two LNG powered ships in the US (container ships), but are planning on converting more of their fleet. In Jacksonville, they have a pumping skid at their dock, and can pump 4 tank trucks to the ship at a time. For their Alaska ships, they are building an LNG bunker barge, so yes to your question, it can be done both ways. Very little of marine bunkering is done from stationary facilities (usually only tankers at refinery docks), nearly all is done by barge/small tanker, so I would expect the LNG bunker market to go that way as well, since it wouldn't really pay to have the insulated and probably chilled pipelines from the liquifaction plant to the dock just sitting there waiting for the next ship, costing money to either purge the line or keep it cold to keep the LNG liquid. Barging makes far more sense.

 

As an indication of the amount of LNG required, the Becker/Aida LNG power barge supplies 7.5Mw of power for 8 hours (so just about the hotel load of the ship) from two rail tank cars of about 120m3 each. So, a 7 day cruise would need 35-40 of these rail cars, just for the hotel load, and propulsion is 3-4 times the hotel load.

[jimbo5544]

Taking Tote as an example, since they are currently running the only one or two LNG powered ships in the US (container ships), but are planning on converting more of their fleet. In Jacksonville, they have a pumping skid at their dock, and can pump 4 tank trucks to the ship at a time. For their Alaska ships, they are building an LNG bunker barge, so yes to your question, it can be done both ways. Very little of marine bunkering is done from stationary facilities (usually only tankers at refinery docks), nearly all is done by barge/small tanker, so I would expect the LNG bunker market to go that way as well, since it wouldn't really pay to have the insulated and probably chilled pipelines from the liquifaction plant to the dock just sitting there waiting for the next ship, costing money to either purge the line or keep it cold to keep the LNG liquid. Barging makes far more sense.

 

As an indication of the amount of LNG required, the Becker/Aida LNG power barge supplies 7.5Mw of power for 8 hours (so just about the hotel load of the ship) from two rail tank cars of about 120m3 each. So, a 7 day cruise would need 35-40 of these rail cars, just for the hotel load, and propulsion is 3-4 times the hotel load.

 

Based on everything you have said, and thanks again for your expertise, are you surprised that Carnival went this way based upon the sizable concerns with both storage on the ship and getting fuel to and refueling the ships? Is the 3 1/2 years (or so) enough time to build this infrastructure?

[chengkp75]

Based on everything you have said, and thanks again for your expertise, are you surprised that Carnival went this way based upon the sizable concerns with both storage on the ship and getting fuel to and refueling the ships? Is the 3 1/2 years (or so) enough time to build this infrastructure?

 

The industry estimates the demand will increase over the next 5-10 years at a very fast rate, so given Carnival's lead in fleet size, and their reluctance over scrubber technology, it doesn't surprise me that they are taking the lead, but to me it is still a gamble as it remains a bit of chicken and egg conundrum as to whether the demand will stimulate the infrastructure. I think spreading these ships out over the various brands also mitigates their risk somewhat as some ships may be based in Europe, and some in the US.

 

Can the infrastructure be built in 3-5 years? Sure. It's just like my contractor tells me: "I can build you anything you want, any way you want, it just depends on how much you want to spend" :D

[kybluecruiser]

The press release said North America based. So I don't think they are going to china. Other press releases from carnival corp has specifically said for China market. Carnival corp must have a plan in place for the LNG infrastructure before this was decided.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Forums mobile app

[eroller]

Taking Tote as an example, since they are currently running the only one or two LNG powered ships in the US (container ships), but are planning on converting more of their fleet. In Jacksonville, they have a pumping skid at their dock, and can pump 4 tank trucks to the ship at a time. For their Alaska ships, they are building an LNG bunker barge, so yes to your question, it can be done both ways. Very little of marine bunkering is done from stationary facilities (usually only tankers at refinery docks), nearly all is done by barge/small tanker, so I would expect the LNG bunker market to go that way as well, since it wouldn't really pay to have the insulated and probably chilled pipelines from the liquifaction plant to the dock just sitting there waiting for the next ship, costing money to either purge the line or keep it cold to keep the LNG liquid. Barging makes far more sense.

 

As an indication of the amount of LNG required, the Becker/Aida LNG power barge supplies 7.5Mw of power for 8 hours (so just about the hotel load of the ship) from two rail tank cars of about 120m3 each. So, a 7 day cruise would need 35-40 of these rail cars, just for the hotel load, and propulsion is 3-4 times the hotel load.

 

 

More great info thank you! You certainly answered my question about bunkering LNG from a barge.

 

Your description of just how much LNG is required to power a large ship certainly has me wondering what the range will be of these new LNG ships.

 

When I look at the tanks of VIKING GRACE (see pic), she has two fairly large tanks on her aft decks, and this is just for an overnight ferry. I believe she bunkers LNG daily or at least every other day. These new Carnival Corp ships may need enough LNG to last for 10 days or longer. The tanks must be huge and to think they will be all below decks along with all the engine machinery. Plus 5200+ passengers!

 

Well Carnival Corp has said they have found innovative ways to do all this so I'm anxious to see if they can pull it off. I do give them credit for thinking outside the box and doing something different. Other advancements were Azipods and remember when Celebrity put GTS (gas turbines) on the M-Class ships? That didn't go over so well when fuel prices skyrocketed. I believe they have all been removed, but the two on QM2 remain although rarely are they used.

 

[chengkp75]

I believe the Celebrity gas turbines are still in use when underway, but they did put a diesel in each ship for in port use, since the gas turbine is so inefficient at low load. They are still very thirsty engines, and burn diesel oil. I don't think the QM2 uses more than one turbine, and that sparingly.

 

I've seen plans for LNG container ships, and the tankage takes over at least one complete cargo hold, so it is a significant impact on revenue.

[eroller]

I believe the Celebrity gas turbines are still in use when underway, but they did put a diesel in each ship for in port use, since the gas turbine is so inefficient at low load. They are still very thirsty engines, and burn diesel oil. I don't think the QM2 uses more than one turbine, and that sparingly.

 

 

 

I've seen plans for LNG container ships, and the tankage takes over at least one complete cargo hold, so it is a significant impact on revenue.

 

 

Interesting. I thought they were removed completely on the M-Class Celebrity ships. I never see them referred to as GTS ships anymore.

 

I was just on QM2 and I'm friends with a former Bridge officer onboard who happened to be sailing. He told me the gas turbines are almost never used. Special written permission from Carnival Corp headquarters is required to fire them up. Dire circumstances only. To me it's very sad to have this great ocean liner capable of significant speed regulated to 7 and 8 day crossings. I'm glad I experienced her in the early years when she would travel at speed quite regularly. I admit I did enjoy the extra time onboard though.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Forums

[Karnyval]

Louisiana and Texas have a number of applications to export LNG so supply should be plentiful in the New Orleans to Galveston region.

 

http://energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2016/08/f33/Summary%20of%20LNG%20Export%20Applications.pdf

[chengkp75]

Louisiana and Texas have a number of applications to export LNG so supply should be plentiful in the New Orleans to Galveston region.

 

http://energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2016/08/f33/Summary%20of%20LNG%20Export%20Applications.pdf

 

I sail past those plants on a regular basis. Not sure they are set up to handle the small amounts a bunker barge would take, they are designed to load full tankers. But it is a start, and they are a couple of years from completion.

[Ex techie]

Really interesting discussion guys!

 

I just looked up the stats for the AidaPrima (125,000 GT) and the AIDAstella (71,000 GT), and the max occupancy difference is only 600pax, despite a gross tonnage difference of 54,000. (Aidastella 2700 vs. AidaPrima 3300 max occupancy)

 

When compared to other ships within the 120-130,000 GT range, the max occupancy varies between 3200 (Celebrity Silhouette, Eclipse, and Equinox) and 3800 (Celebrity Reflection), 4000 (Disney Dream and Fantasy, Carnival Dream and Breeze).

 

Do Celebrity ships have that much more of a pax to space ratio, or is the AidaPrima very low in comparison, maybe because of crew accommodation and back of house services being higher up for the LNG?

 

ex techie

Edited September 10, 2016 by Ex techie

[Ex techie]

It also appears that for European ports, on the Hyperion class ships the LNG will be supplied and transported by Shell.

There is no provision to store LNG on board the vessel. Instead road tankers will be used to transport the fuel to each of the various ports around Europe at which the vessel will call. These arrive the night before the vessel is due and, once alongside, the LNG will be pumped aboard directly from the tankers.

 

http://www.lngworldshipping.com/news/view,enter-aida-cruises-lng-flagship_43671.htm

 

Could this be how Carnival intend to refuel the next gen ships as well?

 

ex techie

[yuccaman]

If you look at the first Aida ship's article, the ship is powered by 3 conventional diesels, and one dual-fuel (diesel or LNG) engine, which will be used to power the ship in port in LNG mode. This is because many ports have been implementing pollution standards that can be quite restrictive, to the point of some ships in some ports worldwide actually shutting down their engines completely in port, and getting their house power from a port umbilical instead of the one engine usually run in port. This way they can run the LNG engine in port and meet these standards- so you are looking at a considerably more meager LNG supply than you would need if the ship was powered by LNG 24/7 for propulsion. Generating power for the ship in port is not a huge load, comparatively.

[danielundecided]

I don't know if they've released a CGI image of the ship but P&O cruises UK are also building an environmentally friendly ship at Meyer Werft, which also will be able to hold 5,200 passengers. They've released a photo on the Facebook page - the ships could be completely different but if I am right I believe it's cheaper for them to order 4 of the same ship than 3 and then 1 separate ship. I could be clutching at straws and reading too much into it for all I know.

 

EDIT: I've found out the ships will be identical. I've attached the image that P&O have released. Of course the Carnival versions won't have the Union Jack...

 

Dan

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Forums

Edited September 10, 2016 by danielundecided

[chengkp75]

It also appears that for European ports, on the Hyperion class ships the LNG will be supplied and transported by Shell.

 

 

http://www.lngworldshipping.com/news/view,enter-aida-cruises-lng-flagship_43671.htm

 

Could this be how Carnival intend to refuel the next gen ships as well?

 

ex techie

 

Well, Carnival's statements say that the ships will be 100% powered on LNG at sea, so I don't see this as what they are planning.

[Ex techie]

Well, Carnival's statements say that the ships will be 100% powered on LNG at sea, so I don't see this as what they are planning.

 

Sorry, my post was as clear as mud! lol!

 

I meant to subcontract out the refuelling by partnering with an external fuel company and let them take care of the infrastructure and getting it to port/s.

Maybe only have tanks large enough for 3/4 days then refuel at a designated port?

 

ex techie

[ducklite]

Often with CNG, the supplier builds the fueling station in exchange for a long term supply contract at set margins. I could see that being a win-win at select ports.

[chengkp75]

Sorry, my post was as clear as mud! lol!

 

I meant to subcontract out the refuelling by partnering with an external fuel company and let them take care of the infrastructure and getting it to port/s.

Maybe only have tanks large enough for 3/4 days then refuel at a designated port?

 

ex techie

 

All fueling is done via both fuel brokers who supply it, and the barging company. The ship provides no infrastructure.

[longhorn2004]

I don't know if they've released a CGI image of the ship but P&O cruises UK are also building an environmentally friendly ship at Meyer Werft, which also will be able to hold 5,200 passengers. They've released a photo on the Facebook page - the ships could be completely different but if I am right I believe it's cheaper for them to order 4 of the same ship than 3 and then 1 separate ship. I could be clutching at straws and reading too much into it for all I know.

 

EDIT: I've found out the ships will be identical. I've attached the image that P&O have released. Of course the Carnival versions won't have the Union Jack...

 

Dan

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Forums

 

It will look similar to the pics on first page. Some interesting insights or guesses into the new ships.

https://malcolmoliver.wordpress.com/2016/09/12/the-new-carnival-mega-ships-analysed/comment-page-1/

Edited September 12, 2016 by longhorn2004
pic would not post

[kybluecruiser]

I read on the interweb that msc new world class which is going to be 200,000 grt will be LNG too.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Forums mobile app

[jimbo5544]

I saw this posted. While the reference is vague, it implies they will get into the US market.

 

http://www.seatrade-cruise.com/news/news-headlines/santa-cruz-to-supply-lng-transparent-on-berth-requests-targeting-us-market.html

[longhorn2004]

My guess is that Carnival has already negotiated LNG infrastructure deals at its major ports.

[chengkp75]

I saw this posted. While the reference is vague, it implies they will get into the US market.

 

http://www.seatrade-cruise.com/news/news-headlines/santa-cruz-to-supply-lng-transparent-on-berth-requests-targeting-us-market.html

 

Not sure what this has to do with the Carnival Corp LNG ships at all, except that Costa is looking favorably at the Canaries because of the LNG, but that would be for their European itineraries.

 

I see that the Canaries are looking to increase their cruise ship bookings from the US, but they seem to me to be separate agendas.

 

I would be very surprised if these early LNG ships have enough LNG capacity to take a TA. I'm just suspicious enough to think they are going dual fuel, where they can vary the ratio of LNG to liquid fuel from one extreme to the other.