Two oil tankers hit in Gulf of Oman

[Flash]

"Just one of the world’s larger container ships can emit about as much pollution as 50 million cars. Further, the 15 largest ships in the world emit as much nitrogen oxide and sulphur oxide as the world’s 760 million cars."

That needs a little context, especially since those ships use heavy fuel oil as their fuel and that is becoming increasingly restricted by countries around the world. That reason is part of several responses I found online, to include one that also did some basic math on ships vs cars:

"A single RO/RO can carry an average of 8,000 cars, trucks and other equipment. Let’s take an average RO/RO shipping 8,000 cars from Hong Kong to Los Angeles. This is a distance of about 7,286 miles....The RO/RO however only requires 510 Metric Tonnes of fuel to move all of those vehicles and itself from Hong Kong to Los Angeles. This means the ship only used 7.8% of the total fuel required by all those vehicles for the same distance."

 

[Griz882]

That needs a little context, especially since those ships use heavy fuel oil as their fuel and that is becoming increasingly restricted by countries around the world. That reason is part of several responses I found online, to include one that also did some basic math on ships vs cars:

"A single RO/RO can carry an average of 8,000 cars, trucks and other equipment. Let’s take an average RO/RO shipping 8,000 cars from Hong Kong to Los Angeles. This is a distance of about 7,286 miles....The RO/RO however only requires 510 Metric Tonnes of fuel to move all of those vehicles and itself from Hong Kong to Los Angeles. This means the ship only used 7.8% of the total fuel required by all those vehicles for the same distance."

I won't defend the statement's accuracy or context. In class I used it as a starting point for further discussion.

 

[Brett327]

The widespread use of nuclear propulsion in commercial vessels seems extremely unlikely.

 

[Flash]

I won't defend the statement's accuracy or context. In class I used it as a starting point for further discussion.

Flawed facts for a flawed argument.

The widespread use of nuclear propulsion in commercial vessels seems extremely unlikely.

It isn't economical for a myriad of reasons, and business is usually wary of things that cost more money for some odd reason.

 

[Griz882]

Flawed facts for a flawed argument.

Here we don’t agree. The facts aren’t necessarily flawed, you simply don’t like the context. Moreover, you quote an article that discusses RORO operations (smaller ships) when the other discusses bulk operations. You can’t compare ships to cars (because no car can carry that many tons of cargo) but you can compare cargo to cargo. Lastly, I don’t teach maritime engineering or architecture...I teach history and nuclear power once had a place in the maritime industry. The introductory point isn’t remotely flawed, just your understanding of it.

 

[Griz882]

The widespread use of nuclear propulsion in commercial vessels seems extremely unlikely.

Highly unlikely which typically was the end point of the discussion in most classes.

 

[Flash]

So you start out by saying this:

"a large modern container vessel used in Trans-Pacific trade, with a maximum container capacity of 7,750 TEUs (twenty foot equivalents) or 3,875 FEUs (forty foot equivalents) using a cost of bunker fuel at $552 per ton, and with fuel consumption of 217 tons per day, a single 28-day round trip voyage for this one vessel would produce a fuel bill of $3,353,952.

"Just one of the world’s larger container ships can emit about as much pollution as 50 million cars. Further, the 15 largest ships in the world emit as much nitrogen oxide and sulphur oxide as the world’s 760 million cars."

Then this:

I won't defend the statement's accuracy or context. In class I used it as a starting point for further discussion.

But I misunderstand your 'introductory' point?

Here we don’t agree. The facts aren’t necessarily flawed, you simply don’t like the context. Moreover, you quote an article that discusses RORO operations (smaller ships) when the other discusses bulk operations. You can’t compare ships to cars (because no car can carry that many tons of cargo) but you can compare cargo to cargo. Lastly, I don’t teach maritime engineering or architecture...I teach history and nuclear power once had a place in the maritime industry. The introductory point isn’t remotely flawed, just your understanding of it.

 

[Griz882]

The point about fuel burn/pollution is a “devil’s advocate” introduction for a discussion about the history of nuclear power in the merchant fleet that typically leads to the conclusion that Brett came up with. It is a modern version of the sail vs steam debate. I’m not a merchant-nuke advocate, I simply used the information to spark discussion.

 

[Randy Daytona]

I dug this out of some notes for a class I once taught...

"Ocean shipping is the most energy efficient forms of freight transportation. Recent estimates show that moving goods by ocean container can be 17 times more fuel-efficient than transporting the same goods by air, and 10 times more efficient than transporting goods by road."

BUT...

"a large modern container vessel used in Trans-Pacific trade, with a maximum container capacity of 7,750 TEUs (twenty foot equivalents) or 3,875 FEUs (forty foot equivalents) using a cost of bunker fuel at $552 per ton, and with fuel consumption of 217 tons per day, a single 28-day round trip voyage for this one vessel would produce a fuel bill of $3,353,952.

THERE'S MORE...

"Just one of the world’s larger container ships can emit about as much pollution as 50 million cars. Further, the 15 largest ships in the world emit as much nitrogen oxide and sulphur oxide as the world’s 760 million cars."

All of this was a draw to a discussion on the history of non-military nuclear powered ships.

Bunker fuel is supposed to switch over to low sulfur next year.

While restrictions on sulfur emissions in shipping are not new -- emission control areas have long existed in certain regions -- the transition to IMO 2020 is daunting, with the majority of bunker demand having to switch to 0.5% sulfur from 3.5%.
https://www.spglobal.com/platts/en/...try-eyes-clean-fuel-switch-in-october-sources

As for the attack itself, the WSJ is reporting that it could take KSA substantially longer than first reported to get back to capacity.
Aramco’s Repairs Could Take Months Longer Than Company Anticipates, Contractors Say
https://www.wsj.com/articles/aramco...mpany-anticipates-contractors-say-11569180194

 

[Randy Daytona]

I work in the Natural Gas world, North East Trader, I don't see this happening without significantly disrupting the global markets...all commodity markets.

Naturally, if the price of crude rises producers will drill more wells, or turn on their mothballed wells, to take advantage of the increased margins.



Article discussing this exact thing.

Any thoughts on what Daniel Yergin was stating today?

Historic day for world #oil with EU import ban and #pricecap on #Russia oil. Marks the end of global oil market of the last three decades and beginning of the partitioned world oil market.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1599775991890870277

 

[Griz882]

Any thoughts on what Daniel Yergin was stating today?

Historic day for world #oil with EU import ban and #pricecap on #Russia oil. Marks the end of global oil market of the last three decades and beginning of the partitioned world oil market.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1599775991890870277

It is an interesting take. If he is right and the oil market does fracture to regional markets partitioned off from each other then the entire energy sector will see substantial changes (and economic impacts).