Talk:Oil tanker/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3

Merge from double hulled tanker

I support the proposed merge from double hulled tanker. The subject is already addressed more extensively in this article. Viv Hamilton 10:36, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I oppose the propose merge from double hulled tanker. Reason being: there are tankers that have double hulls that are not oil or petroleum tankers. For example, chemical tankers or product tankers or parcel tankers. Also, there are double hulled vessels that are not tankers - for example, the Pacific Pintail is a nuclear carrier - it's double hulled but carries nuclear material, not oil cheers Jimmec 09:09, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

About cost

the article says : "the cost of tanker transport amounts to only two or three U.S. cents per gallon". Hmmm. I think new and better data is needed. First, it does not say for what distance? 1000, 5000, 10000 km? I guess the cost is more or less linear with the distance. Second, the source quoted for the figure is from year 2001. Oil was at 20$ or so by this time. Transporting oil uses oil, so logically, the cost (well, the fuel fraction of the cost) have increased considerably. --Raminagrobis fr (talk) 14:52, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

On your first point, distance is already implicitly taken into account. On the second point, I agree: newer statistics are always desirable, but not always available. Off the top of my head, I'd say bunker fuel costs are in the neighborhood of 20% of operating costs. Multiply that part of the cost by 5x and the total cost doubles. So, the final transportation cost would be 4 to 6 cents per gallon. For better or worse, though, we have to wait for someone else to do the math before we can put it in Wikipedia. Cheers. HausTalk 11:19, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Somebody deleted my factoid that one supertanker can supply all the oil consumed by Spain and England in one day. Why? That's not right. Raylopez99 (talk) 15:09, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Oil tanker/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
    I did a copyedit and think I got most of the MoS errors. My only concern is that there are multiple instances of ton—not specifying if they are long or short. Is it possible to shorten the see also section by incorporating several of the links into the text? "size categories" should not be under the "history" main section.
  •  Done Instances of ton—not specifying if they are long or short (Note that DWT is defined as metric tons in paragraph 2.)
    • few thousand tonnes of deadweight (metric ton per WP:ENGVAR)
    • 2 billion tons of oil
    • 242 tons of kerosene
    • capable of carrying 750 tons of refined oil
    • Karl Hagelin, 4,600-ton kerosene
    • at 14,500 deadweight tons, Maumee
    • totalling 3.2 million tons dwt,
    • The 16,613 DWT T2-SE-A1
    • from 326.1 million DWT in 1970 to 960.0 million DWT in 2005
    • metric tonnes of oil (metric ton per WP:ENGVAR)
    • moved 6,487 billion ton-miles of oil
    • ton-miles of carriage per ton of deadweight.
    • less than 7 tons per spill
    • losses of over 700 tons
  •  Done Shorten "See also" section
  1. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
    There are many places were each sentence has a ref, where one for the paragraph would suffice. Otherwise, there are several online references that do not use {{cite web}}—these should be converted to ensure comprehensive and consistent content.
  •  Done"Size categories" shouldn't be under the "history" section
  •  Done Several online references that do not use {{cite web}}
    • 18. ^ iHaystack, The Life and Letters of Walter H. Page, Volume II
    • 19. ^ Tsakiris, T. (2004): Energy Security Policy as Economic Statecraft: A Concise Historical Overview of the Last 100 Years
    • 20. ^ Jack Devanney (2006): The Tankship Tromedy, The Impending Disasters in Tankers, CTX Press, Tavernier, Florida, p. 17-18
    • 43. ^ Energy Statistics > Oil > Consumption by country
    • 69. ^ Heiwaco, The Coulombi Egg Tanker, accessed September 12, 2008
    • 70. ^ Jack Devanney (2006): The Tankship Tromedy, The Impending Disasters in Tankers, CTX Press, Tavernier, Florida, ISBN 0977647900
    • 92. ^ a b c d e f g Fred. Olsen Productions (2005). "Company Profile". Fred. Olsen Productions.
    • 95.^ "Frequently asked questions about the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill". State of Alaska.
    • 97. ^ a b Cumulative Spill Data and Graphics
    • 98. ^ a b c d International Tanker Owners Pollution Federation Statistics
  1. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
    I would like to see one subsection on rates (including worldscale), ownership and the cycles of the industry, climaxing with the great wealths made in the course of months (and lost again the next year). I also removed the table under "pollution" because I felt it was diverging too much from the core of the topic (remember summary style).
  •  In progress New section, to include:
    • freight rates
    • oil tanker ownership
    • business cycles, profit/loss
  1. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  2. It is stable.
    No edit wars etc.:
  3. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  4. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:
    A well written and interesting article. There are a few minor things I would like addressed as noted above, and the article will pass. Good luck, and don't hesitate to speak up if you have any comments or questions. Arsenikk (talk) 18:55, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the thoughtful feedback. At first glance, everything seems doable, and I hope to have a fair chunk done tonight. The only lurking concern I have is about availability of statistics for ownership, rates, and cycles. My recollection is that UNCTAD doesn't distinguish oil tankers from chemical tankers, but I'll look into it again tonight. Thanks again! HausTalk 19:54, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
I have a textbook somewhere (though perhaps back home) that has at least a chapter on rates, and talks about all the expansions areas I mentioned (Martin Stopford: Maritime Economics)—just ask if you want help finding references for this, and I will be glad to help. Arsenikk (talk) 20:25, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Review of Maritime Transport 2007 has got a lot of statistics, although not all distinguish between the different tankers. BoH (talk) 18:37, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Since the review this article, sections have been completely added or rewritten. While all the new parts are viable and encyclopedic information, I feel the article has become very long. My initial suggestion is to at least create history of oil tankers, and perhaps also create a separate sub-article about design (where even more details could be elaborated). Both sections could consequently be reduced somewhat (especially the history section). For instance, I am concerned that the Coulumbi-Egg tanker is getting too much attention, for a design that is not being used.
There has been no editing for four days now, and if the authors believe they have improved the material according to the review, I would ask them to comment here so I can read through the article again. But there is still no mention of freight rates; one section on this and one on the business more in general would be necessary to pass GA. Arsenikk (talk) 19:00, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the feedback. My intention is to break superfluous material off into history of oil tankers and oil tanker designs. The section on freight rates/business cycles is in development, and within a couple of hours of being ready at User:Haus/9. I'm concerned that BoH will take exception to the movement of material he contributed, but, as I've indicated elsewhere, I agree that it fails to meet the GA criteria. HausTalk 21:30, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
I don't mind parts being transferred to a seperate history article; I did it that way on the Dutch Wikipedia. However, I don't believe that the Coulumbi-Egg tanker is getting too much attention. The reason that it is not build is actually something very interesting; not the best design was chosen, but the design that had the best PR. BoH (talk) 12:38, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
(↔ outdent) O.K., I think I've addressed all of Arsenikk's items — thanks for bearing with me. I've also moved the bulk of the new material into Architecture of the oil tanker and History of the oil tanker. I'd request that no more significant additions of material are made while the article is in good article review. For convenience, here's the diff from Arsenikk's last edit. Cheers. HausTalk 17:16, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
That will pass the article as Good—congratulations! Remember to nominate the two new articles you created for DYK. Arsenikk (talk) 17:44, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Barrels 'only carried one way'

What the heck does this mean? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.62.12.53 (talk) 14:57, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

If I could carry them that way, I wouldn't need talcum powder. Reworded. HausTalk 15:15, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Megagrams

Absolutely no-one except an anonymous editor used megagrams as the unit for weighing tankers! Dbfirs 12:07, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Supertanker

Please, do not redirect Supertanker to this article. It makes a hell in iw. Not all supertankers must be necessarily oil tankers and not all oil tankers are obviously supertankers. Make a special article for Supertanker. It does not have to be a long one. Thank you very much! Miraceti (talk) 13:20, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Engine pollution

Besides the possible pollution from spills, the gasoline engines also cause pollution (always). This, escpecially as they often run on less-refined oil, this btw is also the case with other large vessels. Add section info and add the same info in the other large vessel articles (container ships, bulk carriers, ...) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.182.175.116 (talk) 13:58, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Miscellaneous

In the Ore-Bulk-oil Carried section, the link labeled "ballast voyages" linkes to sailing ballast, which does nothing to explain what a ballast voyage is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.96.89.173 (talk) 18:08, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

How long does it take to fill one up ?

I'm curious as to how long, say for a small, or a medium, or large one. And come to think of it, how long it takes to empty her too. Days or weeks or months ? Thanks ? --Jerome Potts (talk) 02:02, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

There are several variables. Loading is generally quicker than unloading, because it uses shore-based pumps which can be arbitrarily large. Unloading is almost always done by shipboard pumps. Also, more viscous products (i.e. crude oil) are harder and slower to pump. For example, one can expect that loading crude in Alaska is slower than in the Arabian Gulf, because colder product is more viscous. One thing that is very variable is how many lines are being used. If you're pumping through three 12-inch hoses, it will be approximately three times as fast as pumping through one 12-inch hose. Another variable is "static head", roughly the pressure you are pumping against. If you're pumping 5 miles uphill to a full tank, its slower than 500 yards to an empty tank. All that said, a discharge of product (like gasoline) on a 30,000 DWT tanker might take 8-12 hours and a load would might take about 6 hours. I've personally never has a discharge take more than 24-hours. Cheers. HausTalk 02:35, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
Thanks a bunch. But lucky me, i am wondering about the handling of crude oil. So thanks for the detail on the factors that affect the operation, but perhaps we can look at it from another angle : how long do ship operators usually expect, and tolerate, a loading (of crude) to last ? For, say, a VLCC. Perhaps there is a rule of thumb somewhere, or an average ? --Jerome Potts (talk) 04:24, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
Your question got me curious, so I sent an e-mail in to an old VLCC skipper. I expect he'll say, on average, around a day. In reality, the charterer and the port look at all the variables and come up with an estimation. After an hour of moving cargo, the chief officer and port PIC compare their measured flow rates and amend the schedule. The flow rates and ETC are generally re-calculated hourly after that. If the port, the operator, or the charterer is responsible for the cargo operation taking longer than it should, monetary damages can be assessed. Anyway, when I get a response to the e-mail, I'll post it here. Cheers. HausTalk 05:07, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
Thanks ! This is definitely interesting. --Jerome Potts (talk) 23:22, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
The answer I got was "almost never more than 24 hours for a discharge." Keep in mind, though, there are probably a few terminals somewhere out there with bad conditions/design/technology where it takes longer, but a VLCC would be more likely to run between hi-tech ports. Cheers. HausTalk 00:15, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
Thanks again. What i am after is an idea of time for a fill-up from an offshore rig ; this has been helpful. --Jerome Potts (talk) 18:21, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Ligthering grain?

I have never heard of grain being carried on a tanker going for scrap as it would need far too much work to get the tanks clean enough for grain, far too much work to load the grain and far too much work to discharge the grain.

The picture looks like a gang of tank cleaners leaving the vessel — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thinfourth (talk • contribs) 17:22, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

You're right in that it was a tremendous amount of work on both ends of the trip. See File:Lightering-grain-from-tanker.JPG. HausTalk 03:41, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

How big are oil tankers?

In a very good oil tanker article, the very basic question of how big they are, was not answered. Talking LDT (light ton displacement) or empty weight displacement. I.e., manufactured weight.

72.34.126.89 (talk) 22:21, 22 July 2012 (UTC) mjfin 7/22/12

Irony?

The worldwide consumption of fuel was so great that it justified the introduction of the (oil)supertanker, yet it is (was) the most efficient means of motorized freight transport. It is difficult to find a link with a clear comparison.... still looking.

“….Overall, reported energy consumption levels for water are among the lowest of any transport mode: nothing carries more ton-km for fewer kJ than a fully loaded supertanker at its optimum cruise speed. But, lightly loaded small ships are not much more energy efficient than the other surface modes….” [ ENERGY USE IN THE TRANSPORT SECTOR Julie Fraser Shiva Swaminathan Louis S. Thompson (www.tgaassoc.com/documents/energy-text&figures-dec2007.pdf)]

Pete318 (talk) 17:42, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Cost of transport of oil — distance?

Re efficiency the introduction says "Tankers move approximately 2,000,000,000 metric tons (2.2×109 short tons) of oil every year.[4][5] Second only to pipelines in terms of efficiency,[5] the average cost of oil transport by tanker amounts to only two or three United States cents per 1 US gallon (3.8 L).[5]"

Question: "2-3¢ per gallon" — over what distance? a nautical mile?

I haven't noticed repeated authority cites before (#5). I get the point but it seems confusing versus normal footnotes.

Doug123w (talk) 12:51, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Oil tanker. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 17:05, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Oil tanker. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 18:57, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Oil_tanker/Archive_3&oldid=1065771155"