DOCSLIB.ORG

LNG Plant and Storage Facility

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
LNG Plant and Storage Facility MAYOR AND COUNCIL AGENDA CODE: WS DATE SUBMITTED: March 25, 2005 DATE TO GO BEFORE COUNCIL: March 28, 2005 SUBMITTED BY: Stuart Eisenberg STAFF MEMBER: Darsey Nicklasson SUBJECT: Proposed Liquefied Natural Gas Plant and Storage Facility at Chillum near West Hyattsville Metro RECOMMENDATION: To discuss and to develop a policy statement in the form of a resolution that can be shared and jointly signed by the area Municipalities and Civic Associations. SPECIFIC ACTION TO BE TAKEN: To adopt a Resolution of Opposition to the proposed location of the Washington Gas Light LNG Plant and Storage Facility. BACKGROUND: Washington Gas Light Company is requesting the Prince George’s County Planning board to approve a minor change to a special exception (SE-245) for a natural gas storage tank facility located at 2130 Chillum Road. The location is within the West Hyattsville Metro Transit District Overlay Zone (TDOZ) and adjacent to the Northwest Branch and stream valley park. Washington Gas is proposing to reinstate the currently decommissioned site as a liquefied natural gas (LNG) plant and storage facility to meet projected customer demand in the developing tier. The site was decommissioned in 1999. The proposed storage tank is approximately 144 feet in diameter and 153 feet tall and will be located in the footprint of one of the prior gas holding tanks. Additional piping and gas processing equipment will be required. CH-IV is the engineering firm out of Benville, MD that is designing the proposed facility and is expected to oversee its construction. The proposed facility would be located within 1,500 feet of the Metro station and within 2,000 feet distance of the homes of 3,000 residents. If the special exception is approved, Washington Gas proposes to begin construction in November 2006. It will take three (3) years to complete the project. Washington Gas has not made any community outreach efforts other than community meetings hosted by County Councilman Will Campos. A public meeting was hosted at the Hyattsville Municipal meeting on Wednesday, March 16th and at the Chillum Community Center on Thursday, March 24th. STAFF COMMENT: Recommend that the Mayor and Council adopt a resolution of opposition to the proposed location of the Washington Gas Light LNG Plant and Storage Facility and their request for a minor change to the special exception. Washington Gas is proposing to change the use of the facility not just the footprint of the site. Previously it was a natural gas storage facility, but it was decommissioned in 1999 and has not been used as such since. The proposed installation of the LNG is a different and therefore should be classified as a new use of the site. The proposal for the installation of the LNG does not complement other land uses in the area. The land uses surrounding the West Hyattsville Metro Station should be transit-oriented which calls for a higher density use in order to better utilize the metro to meet residents’ transportation needs. Furthermore, staff recommends the development of a community outreach effort, in coordination with other civic organizations, to inform residents of the proposal, impacts on our community, organize a campaign to sign residents as Persons of Record, write to elected officials and speak at upcoming public meetings and hearing. FUNCTION AND OBJECTIVES: Improve the safety and quality of life for all residents SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION: Title 49 – Transportation, Chapter I, Part 193 – Liquefied Natural Gas Facilities: Federal Safety Standards, Statement of Qualifications – CH-IV, International, Safety History of International LNG Operations. Washington Gas special exception application, Statement of Justification and site plans are available for viewing upon request. BUDGET IMPACT: None * CODE: WS = Work Session CM = Council Meeting Draft Resolution of Opposition We, the undersigned Municipalities and Civic Associations, on behalf of the residents we represent, wish to declare and resolve to all County, State, and Federal authorities, lawmakers, regulators, planners, transit authorities and utility operators in the Washington Metropolitan region that we oppose the placement of any Liquefied Natural Gas Storage Plant and Re- gasification facility or Peak-shaving facility within, adjacent, or in proximity to densely- populated residential neighborhoods, important commuter transit stations, transit-oriented development planning areas, or previously-planned-for residential developments of an urban design orientation. Whereas the Washington Gas and Light Company has proposed and applied for a “minor change” to its Special Exception and a permit to build a Liquefied Natural Gas Storage Plant and Re-gasification Peak-shaving facility for its Chillum, Maryland property, and Whereas the proposed change in use from the previous storage of Natural Gas, to the proposed use as a Liquefied Natural Gas Storage Plant and Re-gasification Peak-shaving facility is a use change that is a “major change” and substantial, hazardous, and industrial in nature, and Whereas the site is located within a densely populated and long established residential neighborhood where approximately 3000 people currently reside within 2000 feet of the proposed facility, and Whereas, the site is located within 1500 feet of the West Hyattsville Metro Station and within the proposed Transit District Overlay Zone and is a critical property in the Transit District Development Plan of the West Hyattsville Metro Station, and is not a compatible land use, and Whereas the Washington Gas and Light Company did not forthrightly and openly participate in any public forum, discussion, or regional planning processes that openly and frankly discussed the implications of siting a Liquefied Natural Gas Storage Plant and Re-gasification Peak- shaving facility in Prince Georges County in a timely fashion that would allow for the County to develop model guidelines for the Master Planning of such a facility, despite opportunities to do so, and Whereas the Washington Gas and Light Company has no organizational experience in the management and maintenance of a Liquefied Natural Gas Storage Plant and Re-gasification Peak-shaving facility, and Whereas there is a widespread consensus that valid Environmental Justice issues relating to the placement of this facility need to be a foremost concern amongst lawmakers and regulators who are considering the permitting of this facility, because the projected service capacity increase is targeted to serve growth in areas of Prince Georges County that are located in the Developing Tier and not in this economically challenged and under-performing Inner Beltway community in the Developed Tier, and Whereas this proposed use will have a severe and negative effect upon the local economy and proposed private development projects and investments currently under discussion for properties in the vicinity, We the undersigned, request that the following actions be taken to preserve the health, safety, and welfare of residents in Prince George’s County, and the economic viability of our communities: That a State and County legislative moratorium be immediately enacted to prevent the permitting of this or any LNG facility of its kind in the County until such time as facilities such as this can be properly studied and guidelines for siting them can be developed by MNCPP-C and incorporated into the Master Planning process of the County, and That the full Environmental Justice policy dimensions of this proposed location for the facility be addressed by the Prince George’s County Council, and other relevant agencies, and That the application for a permit to build the proposed facility at this location be denied for the aforementioned reasons, and That the County Council, acting as the District Council, request economic impact reports be drafted by independent analysts, at the applicants’ expense, in light of the applicant’s foreknowledge of the planning and redevelopments efforts underway for the adjoining Metro- owned properties within the Transit District Development Plan. Draft prepared by Council Pres. S.Eisenberg From http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/waisidx_02/49cfr193_02.html To access files go to site and link to applicable standard Title 49--Transportation CHAPTER I--RESEARCH AND SPECIAL PROGRAMS ADMINISTRATION, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION PART 193--LIQUEFIED NATURAL GAS FACILITIES: FEDERAL SAFETY STANDARDS 193.2001 Scope of part. 193.2005 Applicability. 193.2007 Definitions. 193.2009 Rules of regulatory construction. 193.2011 Reporting. 193.2013 Incorporation by reference. 193.2017 Plans and procedures. 193.2019 Mobile and temporary LNG facilities. 193.2051 Scope. 193.2057 Thermal radiation protection. 193.2059 Flammable vapor-gas dispersion protection. 193.2067 Wind forces. 193.2101 Scope. 193.2119 Records 193.2155 Structural requirements. 193.2161 Dikes, general. 193.2167 Covered systems. 193.2173 Water removal. 193.2181 Impoundment capacity: LNG storage tanks. 193.2187 Nonmetallic membrane liner. 193.2301 Scope. 193.2303 Construction acceptance. 193.2304 Corrosion control overview. 193.2321 Nondestructive tests. 193.2401 Scope. 193.2441 Control center. 193.2445 Sources of power. 193.2501 Scope. 193.2503 Operating procedures. 193.2505 Cooldown. 193.2507 Monitoring operations. 193.2509 Emergency procedures. 193.2511 Personnel safety. 193.2513 Transfer procedures. 193.2515 Investigations of failures. 193.2517 Purging. 193.2519 Communication systems. 193.2521 Operating records. 193.2601 Scope. 193.2603 General.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Potential for Terrorist Nuclear Attack Using Oil Tankers
    Order Code RS21997 December 7, 2004 CRS Report for Congress Received through the CRS Web Port and Maritime Security: Potential for Terrorist Nuclear Attack Using Oil Tankers Jonathan Medalia Specialist in National Defense Foreign Affairs, Defense, and Trade Division Summary While much attention has been focused on threats to maritime security posed by cargo container ships, terrorists could also attempt to use oil tankers to stage an attack. If they were able to place an atomic bomb in a tanker and detonate it in a U.S. port, they would cause massive destruction and might halt crude oil shipments worldwide for some time. Detecting a bomb in a tanker would be difficult. Congress may consider various options to address this threat. This report will be updated as needed. Introduction The terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, heightened interest in port and maritime security.1 Much of this interest has focused on cargo container ships because of concern that terrorists could use containers to transport weapons into the United States, yet only a small fraction of the millions of cargo containers entering the country each year is inspected. Some observers fear that a container-borne atomic bomb detonated in a U.S. port could wreak economic as well as physical havoc. Robert Bonner, the head of Customs and Border Protection (CBP) within the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), has argued that such an attack would lead to a halt to container traffic worldwide for some time, bringing the world economy to its knees. Stephen Flynn, a retired Coast Guard commander and an expert on maritime security at the Council on Foreign Relations, holds a similar view.2 While container ships accounted for 30.5% of vessel calls to U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Liquefied Natural Gas (Lng)
    Working Document of the NPC North American Resource Development Study Made Available September 15, 2011 Paper #1-10 LIQUEFIED NATURAL GAS (LNG) Prepared for the Resource & Supply Task Group On September 15, 2011, The National Petroleum Council (NPC) in approving its report, Prudent Development: Realizing the Potential of North America’s Abundant Natural Gas and Oil Resources, also approved the making available of certain materials used in the study process, including detailed, specific subject matter papers prepared or used by the study’s Task Groups and/or Subgroups. These Topic and White Papers were working documents that were part of the analyses that led to development of the summary results presented in the report’s Executive Summary and Chapters. These Topic and White Papers represent the views and conclusions of the authors. The National Petroleum Council has not endorsed or approved the statements and conclusions contained in these documents, but approved the publication of these materials as part of the study process. The NPC believes that these papers will be of interest to the readers of the report and will help them better understand the results. These materials are being made available in the interest of transparency. The attached paper is one of 57 such working documents used in the study analyses. Also included is a roster of the Task Group for which this paper was developed or submitted. Appendix C of the final NPC report provides a complete list of the 57 Topic and White Papers and an abstract for each. The full papers can be viewed and downloaded from the report section of the NPC website (www.npc.org).
    [Show full text]
  • Disposal of Dredged Material and Other Waste on the Continental Shelf and Slope John L
    Disposal of Dredged Material and Other Waste on the Continental Shelf and Slope John L. Chin and Allan Ota Summary and Introduction The history of waste disposal in the Gulf of the Farallones (fig. 1) is directly linked with the history of human settlement in the San Francisco Bay region. The California Gold Rush of 1849 triggered a massive influx of people and rapid, chaotic development in the bay region. Vast quantities of contaminated sediment and water from mining in the Sierra Nevada were carried by rivers into San Francisco Bay, and some was carried by currents through the Golden Gate and into the gulf. The burgeoning region’s inhabitants also contributed to the waste that flowed or was dumped into the bay. Eventually, waste began to be dumped directly into the gulf. Hundreds of millions of tons of waste has been dumped into the Gulf of the Farallones. Since the 1940’s, this has included sediment (sand and mud) dredged from shipping channels, waste from oil refineries and fruit canneries, acids from steel production, surplus munitions and ships from World War II, other unwanted vessels, and barrels of low-level radioactive waste (fig. 1). Because of navigational errors and inadequate record keeping, the location of most waste dumped in the gulf is poorly known. Between 1946 and 1970 approximately 47,800 containers of low-level radioactive waste were dumped into the gulf south and west of the Farallon Islands. From 1958 to 1969, the U.S. military disposed of chemical and conventional munitions at several sites in the gulf, mostly by scuttling World War II era cargo vessels.
    [Show full text]
  • T2 Tanker “Scotts Bluff”
    National Park Service Scotts Bluff U.S. Department of the Interior Scotts Bluff National Monument Nebraska T2 Tanker “Scotts Bluff” T2 Tanker The S.S. Scotts Bluff T2-SE-A1 tanker was the 67th out of the 153 T2 tankers built at the Kaiser Com- Scotts Bluff pany’s Swan Island Shipyards in Portland, Oregon. The tanker was named after the historic Scotts Bluff National Monument, a landmark on the Oregon Trail. The Scotts Bluff was completed in June 1944 and launched on October 5,1944. At the time, the Scotts Bluff was built in a record of 39 days. T2-SE-A1 By the winter of 1940-1941, the Nazis controlled all of the coast of Europe. German aircraft and Tankers submarines seemed likely to strangle Britain by destroying its shipping. Though U.S. ships were for- bidden to enter the cambat area by the Neutrality Act of 1939, President Franklin Roosevelt wanted to aid Britain while simultaneously strengthening the defense of the Western Hemisphere. He an- nounced his intention to create an emergency shipbuilding program by building 200 standard-type cargo ships, later known as “Liberty Ships”. The T2 tanker, Scotts Bluff, was one of the 481 T2-SE-A1 tankers built at four different shipyards. The T2 tanker was an oil tanker constructed and produced in large number in the United States dur- ing World War II. These were the largest “Navy Oilers” at the time and were constructed between 1940 and 1945. During that time, the average production time from” laying of the keel” to “fitting out” was 70 days.
    [Show full text]
  • Assessment of Shipping's Efficiency Using Satellite AIS Data
    UCL ENERGY INSTITUTE Assessment of Shipping’s Efficiency Using Satellite AIS data Tristan Smith, Eoin O’Keeffe, Lucy Aldous and Paolo Agnolucci Prepared for the International Council on Clean Transportation March 2013 CONTENTS CONTENTS ................................................................................................................................................................. i LIST OF FIGURES ................................................................................................................................................... iii LIST OF TABLES ...................................................................................................................................................... v ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS .................................................................................................................................... vi EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ....................................................................................................................................... 1 OBJECTIVE ........................................................................................................................................................... 1 METHOD .............................................................................................................................................................. 1 FURTHER WORK .................................................................................................................................................. 2 INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • LNG Review October 2018 - Recent Issues and Events - Hiroshi Hashimoto∗
    IEEJ: November 2018© IEEJ2018 LNG Review October 2018 - Recent issues and events - Hiroshi Hashimoto∗ Introduction Northeast Asia's overall LNG prices were the highest in October 2018 since 2014 and are expected to stay in high levels for the next couple of months as the JCC (Japan's average crude oil import price) came near to USD 80 / bbl in October. On the other hand, although spot LNG prices in the region stayed above the levels in the last four years in October 2018, they began to stabilize due to slightly warmer weather and higher storage levels in the markets ahead of winter. According to the two countries' custom statistics, during the first ten months of 2018, China imported 72.06 million tonnes of natural gas (including pipeline gas supply and LNG), a 33% increase over the same period in 2017, compared to 69.26 million tonnes or a tiny decrease by Japan. Meanwhile Korea increased LNG imports by 18%, or 5.46 million tonnes year-on-year in the ten- month period in 2018. During the month of October, the Ichthys LNG project in Australia started exporting LNG. Thanks to increases demand in Asia, the world is expected to trade 310 million tonnes of LNG in the year. There were notable discussions on flexibility and security in the LNG market in the month. A hybrid approach that ties term-contract LNG prices to multiple indices was the most favoured by attendees at the annual LNG Producer- Consumer Conference in Nagoya Japan. Japan's and the European Commission's expert group proposed wording for LNG contracts to enhance flexibility and leads to a more liquid market.
    [Show full text]
  • Shipping US Crude Oil by Water: Vessel Flag Requirements and Safety Issues
    Shipping U.S. Crude Oil by Water: Vessel Flag Requirements and Safety Issues John Frittelli Specialist in Transportation Policy July 21, 2014 Congressional Research Service 7-5700 www.crs.gov R43653 Shipping U.S. Crude Oil by Water: Vessel Flag Requirements and Safety Issues Summary New sources of crude oil from North Dakota, Texas, and western Canada have induced new routes for shipping crude oil to U.S. and Canadian refineries. While pipelines have traditionally been the preferred method of moving crude overland, they either are not available or have insufficient capacity to move all the crude from these locations. While rail has picked up some of this cargo, barges, and to a lesser extent tankers, also are moving increasing amounts of crude in domestic trade. The rather sudden shift in transportation patterns raises concerns about the safety and efficiency of oil tankers and barges. The United States now imports less oil than five years ago by oceangoing tankers, while more oil is moving domestically by river and coastal barges. However, the Coast Guard still lacks a safety inspection regime for barges similar to that which has long existed for ships. The possibility of imposing an hours-of-service limit for barge crews as part of this regime is controversial. Congress called for a barge safety inspection regime a decade ago, but the related rulemaking is not complete. The Coast Guard’s progress in revamping its Marine Safety Office is a related issue that Congress has examined in the past. The majority of U.S. refineries are located near navigable waters to take advantage of economical waterborne transport for both import and export.
    [Show full text]
  • Prevalence of Heavy Fuel Oil and Black Carbon in Arctic Shipping, 2015 to 2025
    Prevalence of heavy fuel oil and black carbon in Arctic shipping, 2015 to 2025 BRYAN COMER, NAYA OLMER, XIAOLI MAO, BISWAJOY ROY, DAN RUTHERFORD MAY 2017 www.theicct.org [email protected] BEIJING | BERLIN | BRUSSELS | SAN FRANCISCO | WASHINGTON ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The authors thank James J. Winebrake for his critical review and advice, along with our colleagues Joe Schultz, Jen Fela, and Fanta Kamakaté for their review and support. The authors would like to acknowledge exactEarth for providing satellite Automatic Identification System data and for data processing support. The authors sincerely thank the ClimateWorks Foundation for funding this study. For additional information: International Council on Clean Transportation 1225 I Street NW, Suite 900, Washington DC 20005 [email protected] | www.theicct.org | @TheICCT © 2017 International Council on Clean Transportation TABLE OF CONTENTS Executive Summary ................................................................................................................. iv 1. Introduction and Background ............................................................................................1 1.1 Heavy fuel oil ................................................................................................................................... 2 1.2 Black carbon .................................................................................................................................... 3 1.3 Policy context ..................................................................................................................................4
    [Show full text]
  • Millennium Class Tanker Structural Design – from Owner Experience to Shipyard Launching Ways
    Millennium Class Tanker Structural Design – From Owner Experience to Shipyard Launching Ways James Read1, Arne Stenseng2, Rod Hulla3 and Darold Poulin4 ABSTRACT Three 125,000 DWT double hull tankers are currently under construction for ARCO Marine, Inc. at Litton Avondale Industries in New Orleans, LA. These Millennium Class tankers are being built to transport crude oil from Valdez, AK to Cherry Point, WA. The design satisfies the requirements of OPA 90 and incorporates a unique structural design philosophy intended to enhance the structural performance of the vessel. This paper will illustrate how the Owner’s experience with previous vessels in Gulf of Alaska trade is reflected in the structural design of the new ships. The human elements of safety, inspection and maintenance are discussed and the influence of these factors on the structural arrangement is highlighted. In concert with these human factors are structural design improvements that have been implemented to specifically address fatigue and stress cracking with the intent of reducing repair requirements. These topics are presented in a discussion that follows the structural design from concept, through design and analysis and into the construction of the vessels. Lessons learned throughout the process are presented. 1 ARCO Marine, Inc., Long Beach, California 2 MCA Engineers, Inc., Costa Mesa, California 3 John J. McMullen and Associates, New York, New York 4 Litton-Avondale Industries, Avondale, Louisiana 1 FOREWORD vessels was quickly dismissed. Cargo capacity lost in retrofitting an inner hull to an exiting 120,000 DWT The goal of this paper is to broadly illustrate the vessel was impractical. It was also understood that the process by which the structure for the Millennium Class outer hull, while in good structural condition, would tankers was conceived, designed and constructed.
    [Show full text]
  • United States Flag Privately-Owned Merchant Fleet
    U.S. Department of Transportation Maritime Administration ‐ Office of Policy and Plans 02/04/2019 United States Flag Privately‐Owned Merchant Fleet Oceangoing, Self‐Propelled, Vessels of 1,000 Gross Tons and Above that Carry Cargo from Port to Port Summary of Changes from 2016 Onward e r e g e g n t r e l n a i p o e e a me u t s mb y T g P A a a A Ch T B U n u T S S A r T Ch W I f N G r J l a N i p V o l i D a M V e pe e O h e M Ch p e s O t S Y y s a M T I e D V IN Jan‐16 9680853 PERLA DEL CARIBE Container ship 36912 45000 2016 Totem Ocean Trailer Express N N N Y Y Vessel flagged into U.S. Flag Fleet IN Jan‐16 9448334 SLNC GOODWILL Tanker 30241 50326 2009 Nord Goodwill LLC NNNNY Vessel flagged into U.S. Flag Fleet Vessel Operator changed from Handytankers K/S OPERATOR Jan‐16 9255244 MAERSK MICHIGAN Tanker 28517 47047 2003 Maersk Line A/S NNY NY to Maersk Line A/S OUT Feb‐16 8919922 COURAGE Ro‐Ro 52288 29213 1991 American Roll‐On Roll‐Off Y Y N N Y Vessel flagged out of U.S. Flag Fleet IN Feb‐16 9782493 COASTAL STANDARD General Cargo 2451 2565 2016 Coastal Transportation Inc. N N N Y Y Vessel flagged into U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Tanker Technology: Limitations of Double Hulls
    (A37851) TANKER US Coast Guard TECHNOLOGY : LIMITATIONS OF DOUBLE HULLS photo A Report by Living Oceans Society www.livingoceans.org photo: Natalia Bratslavsky limitations (A37851) o f d o u b l e - h u l l ta n k e r s Acknowledgements This report was made possible through the generous support of the Tar Sands Campaign Fund of Tides Foundation. Living Oceans Society would also like to thank Dave Shannon for his many valuable 2 contributions and insights into the writing of this report. Living Oceans Society Box 320 Sointula, BC V0N 3E0 Canada 250 973 6580 [email protected] www.livingoceans.org © 2011 Living Oceans Society Terhune, K. (2011). Tanker Technology: limitations of double hulls. A Report by Living Oceans Society. Sointula, BC: Living Oceans Society. (A37851) Contents Executive Summary . 4 Sole owner responsibility . 12 Introduction . 5 Corrosion . 12 Background . 6 Protective coatings . 14 Double hull design . 6 Fatigue cracks . 14 Regulation . 7 Inspection . 15 Oil Pollution Act of 1990 . 7 Human Factors . 16 International Convention for the Double-Hull Tanker Spills . 17 Prevention of Pollution from Ships . 7 Bunga Kelana 3 . 17 Oil Pollution Prevention Regulations . 7 Eagle Otome . 17 Limitations of Double Hulls . 8 Krymsk . 17 Design and construction issues . 8 Conclusion . 18 Lack of experience . 8 Glossary . 19 Factory techniques . 8 Bibliography . 21 Limited warranty . 8 Appendix A . 23 Weakened class rules . 9 Double-Hull, Double-Bottom and Use of high tensile steel . 10 Double-Sided Spills . 23 Operational issues . 10 Higher stress levels . 10 Cargo leaks . 10 Gas detection . 11 Intact stability . 12 Mud build-up .
    [Show full text]
  • U.S. Department of Transportation Maritime Administration
    U.S. Department of Transportation Maritime Administration MERCHANT FLEETS OF THE WORLD PRIVATELY-OWNED, OCEANGOING MERCHANT VESSELS OF 1,000 GROSS TONS AND OVER AS OF JANUARY 1, 2016 *Includes Government-owned ships (U.S. and Foreign-Flag) Please refer to the Data Notes provided on the MARAD Data & Statistics Page for more information Source: IHS Markit Lloyds Maritime Database Files Grand Total Container Dry Bulk General Cargo LNG/LPG Passenger Ro-Ro Tanker Registry Number of Ships GT DWT Number of Ships GT DWT Number of Ships GT DWT Number of Ships GT DWT Number of Ships GT DWT Number of Ships GT DWT Number of Ships GT DWT Number of Ships GT DWT United States of America 337 9,400,648 10,616,525 69 2,848,323 3,101,484 47 974,120 1,893,394 21 294,276 288,986 83 436,546 94,661 63 2,567,241 1,419,010 54 2,280,142 3,818,990 Privately-Owned Merchant Fleet 167 6,648,597 7,782,930 63 2,744,436 2,998,326 6 158,936 260,045 17 153,008 179,042 28 1,339,124 577,233 53 2,253,093 3,768,284 Jones Act Eligible 90 3,250,891 4,562,872 23 656,309 696,122 3 72,502 107,031 7 14,319 10,604 9 373,251 177,462 48 2,134,510 3,571,653 Non Jones-Act Eligible 77 3,397,706 3,220,058 40 2,088,127 2,302,204 3 86,434 153,014 10 138,689 168,438 19 965,873 399,771 5 118,583 196,631 Great Lakes Trading 41 815,184 1,633,349 41 815,184 1,633,349 Passenger/Ferry 83 436,546 94,661 83 436,546 94,661 Ready Reserve Fleet 46 1,500,321 1,105,585 6 103,887 103,158 4 141,268 109,944 35 1,228,117 841,777 1 27,049 50,706 FOREIGN REGISTRIES Grand Total Container Dry Bulk General Cargo
    [Show full text]