LNG AS SHIP FUEL No 01 2014
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Load more
Recommended publications
-
Security & Defence European
a 7.90 D 14974 E D European & Security ES & Defence 6/2019 International Security and Defence Journal COUNTRY FOCUS: AUSTRIA ISSN 1617-7983 • Heavy Lift Helicopters • Russian Nuclear Strategy • UAS for Reconnaissance and • NATO Military Engineering CoE Surveillance www.euro-sd.com • Airborne Early Warning • • Royal Norwegian Navy • Brazilian Army • UAS Detection • Cockpit Technology • Swiss “Air2030” Programme Developments • CBRN Decontamination June 2019 • CASEVAC/MEDEVAC Aircraft • Serbian Defence Exports Politics · Armed Forces · Procurement · Technology ANYTHING. In operations, the Eurofighter Typhoon is the proven choice of Air Forces. Unparalleled reliability and a continuous capability evolution across all domains mean that the Eurofighter Typhoon will play a vital role for decades to come. Air dominance. We make it fly. airbus.com Editorial Europe Needs More Pragmatism The elections to the European Parliament in May were beset with more paradoxes than they have ever been. The strongest party which will take its seats in the plenary chambers in Brus- sels (and, as an expensive anachronism, also in Strasbourg), albeit only for a brief period, is the Brexit Party, with 29 seats, whose programme is implicit in their name. Although EU institutions across the entire continent are challenged in terms of their public acceptance, in many countries the election has been fought with a very great deal of emotion, as if the day of reckoning is dawning, on which decisions will be All or Nothing. Some have raised concerns about the prosperous “European Project”, which they see as in dire need of rescue from malevolent sceptics. Others have painted an image of the decline of the West, which would inevitably come about if Brussels were to be allowed to continue on its present course. -
Grande Cameroon
Stena Penguin 464 Oil Product Tanker Stena Rederi, Sweden 65500 2010 Stena Polaris 463 Panamax Oil Tanker CM P‐MAX VIII Ltd., Bermuda 64917 2010 Stena Progress 462 Panamax Oil Tanker CM P‐MAX VIII Ltd., Bermuda 65056 2010 Artic Char 459 Panamax Oil Tanker Skol Shipping Co., Cyprus 74999 2010 Artic Flounder 458 Panamax Oil Tanker Wessels Shipping Co., Germany 74999 2009 Olib 461 Aframax Oil Tanker Tankerska Plovidba d.d., Croatia 109000 2009 Marinor 457 Panamax Oil Tanker Wessels Shipping Co., Germany 74999 2008 Dugi Otok 460 Aframax Oil Tanker Tankerska Plovidba d.d., Croatia 109000 2008 Marika 456 Panamax Oil Tanker Wessels Shipping Co., Germany 74999 2008 Mariann 451 Panamax Oil Tanker Marinvest Shipping, Sweden 74999 2008 Mari Ugland 450 Panamax Oil Tanker Marinvest Shipping, Sweden 74999 2008 Artic Char 459 Panamax Oil Tanker Wessels Shipping Co., Germany 74999 2008 Stena Poseidon 454 Panamax Oil Tanker Concordia, Stena Group, Sweden 75000 2007 Stena Pavla 455 Panamax Oil Tanker Concordia Stena Group, Sweden 75000 2007 Donat 447 Suezmax Oil Tanker Tankerska Plovidba d.d., Croatia 108000 2007 Maribel 449 Panamax Oil Tanker Marinvest Shipping, Sweden 74000 2007 Marilee 448 Panamax Oil Tanker Marinvest Shipping, Sweden 74000 2006 Stena Poseidon 454 Panamax Oil Tanker Concordia, Stena Group, Sweden 75000 2006 Stena Progetra 445 Handymax Oil Tanker Stena Rederi, Sweden 65500 2006 Stena Progress 446 Handymax Oil Tanker Stena Rederi, Sweden 65500 2006 Stena Provence 442 Handymax Oil Tanker Stena Rederi, Sweden 65500 2005 Stena Primorsk 443 -
Beat Project
BEAT PROJECT WP 3 – Cross Border cluster development on maritime technologies/Blue Technologies for knowledge sharing Activity 3.1. Assessment of conditions for transnational cluster development_DM 3.1.2 List of Organizations European Regional Development Fund www.italy-croatia.eu/acronym CROATIANS COMPANIES ............................................................................................................................................ 3 SHIPPING (SEA) ............................................................................................................................................................... 3 SHIP AND CARGO AGENTS .............................................................................................................................................. 5 CREW AND VESSEL MANAGEMENT .............................................................................................................................. 10 MOORING, PILOT AND TUG SERVICES .......................................................................................................................... 15 PORT OPERATORS ......................................................................................................................................................... 17 CARGO CONTROL AND INSPECTION ............................................................................................................................. 19 SHIP INSPECTION ......................................................................................................................................................... -
Navigator Holdings Ltd. NOK [600 - 800] Million Senior Secured Bond Issue October 2018
Navigator Holdings Ltd. NOK [600 - 800] million Senior Secured Bond Issue October 2018 “Navigator Holdings Ltd. (NYSE:NVGS)” 1 DISCLAIMER About this Presentation We, Navigator Holdings Ltd. (“Navigator”, “Navigator Gas” or the “Company”), have prepared this presentation, together with its enclosures and appendices (collectively, the “Presentation"), to provide introductory information solely for use in connection with the contemplated offering of bonds (the “Bonds” or the “Bond Issue”) to be issued by us and expected to be initiated in October 2018 (the “Transaction”). We have retained Fearnley Securities AS (“Fearnley”) and Nordea Bank Abp, filial i Norge (“Nordea”) as managers of the Transaction (the “Managers”). This Presentation is not in itself an offer to sell or a solicitation of an offer to buy any securities. Accuracy of information and limitation of liability: Any decision to invest must only be made with careful consideration and not in reliance solely on the introductory information provided herein which does not purport to be complete. Any application to invest will be subject to a term sheet setting out the terms and conditions of the securities and an application form which any investment will be subject to. Please do not hesitate to ask us any questions which would be relevant for your consideration and which are not contained herein. We have assimilated the information contained herein from various sources and unless stated the information is a result of our own activities. We have taken reasonable care to ensure that, and to the best of our knowledge as of 22 October 2018, material information contained herein is in accordance with the facts and contains no omission likely to affect its understanding. -
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. -
Shipbuilding
Shipbuilding A promising rst half, an uncertain second one 2018 started briskly in the wake of 2017. In the rst half of the year, newbuilding orders were placed at a rate of about 10m dwt per month. However the pace dropped in the second half, as owners grappled with a rise in newbuilding prices and growing uncertainty over the IMO 2020 deadline. Regardless, newbuilding orders rose to 95.5m dwt in 2018 versus 83.1m dwt in 2017. Demand for bulkers, container carriers and specialised ships increased, while for tankers it receded, re ecting low freight rates and poor sentiment. Thanks to this additional demand, shipbuilders succeeded in raising newbuilding prices by about 10%. This enabled them to pass on some of the additional building costs resulting from higher steel prices, new regulations and increased pressure from marine suppliers, who have also been struggling since 2008. VIIKKI LNG-fuelled forest product carrier, 25,600 dwt (B.Delta 25), built in 2018 by China’s Jinling for Finland’s ESL Shipping. 5 Orders Million dwt 300 250 200 150 100 50 SHIPBUILDING SHIPBUILDING KEY POINTS OF 2018 KEY POINTS OF 2018 0 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Deliveries vs demolitions Fleet evolution Deliveries Demolitions Fleet KEY POINTS OF 2018 Summary 2017 2018 Million dwt Million dwt Million dwt Million dwt Ships 1,000 1,245 Orders 200 2,000 m dwt 83.1 95.5 180 The three Asian shipbuilding giants, representing almost 95% of the global 1,800 orderbook by deadweight, continued to ght ercely for market share. -
LNG As a FUEL What's Current & What's Next
LNG as a FUEL What’s current & What’s Next Tony Teo / Peter Bant , Det Norske Veritas (Canada) Ltd. April 2012 Agenda Existing Short Sea Shipping IMO - Update Future “GREEN” Ships What's CURRENTand What's NEXT! April 2012 © Det Norske Veritas AS. All rights reserved. 2 Background - Environment Are ships built today prepared for stricter air pollution regulations? Geiranger Fjord What's CURRENTand What's NEXT! April 2012 © Det Norske Veritas AS. All rights reserved. 3 LNG Background- DNV’s History • 1959 DNV Establishes a LNG Research Team. • 1962 Membrane cargo containment system developed and tested successfully. • 1962 First Class Society to establish Rules for Gas Carriers. • 1969 -72 Moss spherical tank design developed. • 1972 Basic design criteria for TYPE B tanks formulated in the Rules. • 1970-1976 DNV was prime contributor to the development of the IMO Gas Carrier Code. • 2001 First Class society to publish rules for Gas Fuelled Engine Installations. • 2003 First class society to publish rules for CNG carriers. • 2004 Technical guidance for offshore LNG terminals. What's CURRENTand What's NEXT! April 2012 © Det Norske Veritas AS. All rights reserved. 4 NORWAY – NOx FUND In 2000 Norway introduced a NOx TAX on emissions. In 2008 Norway introduced a NOx FUND. The FUND is financed by its members paying NOK 4 per kg NOx emitted, encouraged by the exemption from the Norwegian NOx Tax of NOK 16 per kg NOx emitted. NOx fund has granted funding to two supply vessels / three passenger ferries and one gas carrier, and fifteen (15) additional LNG fuelled vessels have been granted funding. -
Green Feeder Dual Fuel Container Vessel 1000 - Ecosmart Vessel
GREEN FEEDER DUAL FUEL CONTAINER VESSEL 1000 - ECOSMART VESSEL The first green vessel with high added value built to the highest EU environmental regulations which globally achieve the largest fuel savings ALWAYS SIGNIFICANT IN THEIR CLASS Green Feeder 2 Taking inspiration from NATURE Inspired by nature’s constant struggle to keep our planet clean and safe, we devoted ourselves to developing the first container vessel, with NG dual fueled two-stroke diesel engine; the most efficient, safe and environmentally friendly ship. Green Feeder Cont. 1000 is 12.200 mt new generation eco-friendly Coverless Feeder Container vessel www.brodosplit.hr 3 ALWAYS SIGNIFICANT IN THEIR CLASS Green Feeder ENVIRONMENTALLY FRIENDLY and more fuel efficient The Vessel design is developed targeting environmentally friendly worldwide transportation through a set of focus areas that helped us to build a green future. THE VESSEL OFFERS • low resistance; achieved by the optimization of a hull using extensive CFD analysis and model testing with the accommodation incorporated in the hull and arranged forward in the bow of the vessel • optimized fuel saving; achieved by optimized hull, rudder, fixed pitch propeller with large diameter, as well as optimized propeller speed • 45% fuel savings of NG engine comparing to Marine Diesel Oil • optimized wake distribution • reduced light ship weight through 3D FEM structural analysis • maximum cargo volume and deadweight • good sea-keeping characteristics • functionality of the bridge • social education impact; academic role -
13 Ship-Breaking.Com
Information bulletin on September 26th, 2008 ship demolition #13 June 7th to September 21st 2008 Ship-breaking.com February 2003. Lightboat, Le Havre. February 2008 © Robin des Bois From June 7th to September 21st 2008, 118 vessels have left to be demolished. The cumulative total of the demolitions will permit the recycling of more than 940,000 tons of metals. The 2008 flow of discarded vessels has not slowed down. Since the beginning of the year 276 vessels have been sent to be scrapped which represents more than 2 millions tons of metals whereas throughout 2007 289 vessels were scrapped for a total of 1.7 milion tons of metals. The average price offered by Bangladeshi and Indian ship breakers has risen to 750-800 $ per ton. The ship owners are taking advantage of these record prices by sending their old vessels to be demolished. Even the Chinese ship breaking yards have increased their price via the purchase of the container ship Provider at 570$ per ton, with prices averaging more than 500 $. However, these high prices have now decreased with the collapse of metal prices during summer and the shipyards are therefore renegotiating at lower price levels with brokers and cash buyers sometimes changing the final destination at the last minute. This was the case of the Laieta, which was supposed to leave for India for 910 $ per ton and was sold to Bangladesh at 750 $ per ton. The price differences have been particularly notable in India; the shipyards prices have returned to 600 $ per ton. From June to September, India with 60 vessels (51%) to demolish, is ahead of Bangladesh with 40 (34%), The United States 8 (7%), China 4 (4%), Turkey 2 (2%), Belgium and Mexico, 1 vessel each (1%). -
BLÜCHER Marine References
BLÜCHER Marine References Country Project Shipyard Owner Vessel Type Hull no. Year Argentina Frigate Naval Shipyard Frigate Frigate Refitting 2005 Australia Australian Customs and Austal Ships Australian Customs and Border Cape Class Patrol Boat 361 2013 Border Protection Service Protection Service Australia Australian Customs and Austal Ships Australian Customs and Border Cape Class Patrol Boat 362 2013 Border Protection Service Protection Service Australia Australian Customs and Austal Ships Australian Customs and Border Cape Class Patrol Boat 363 2013 Border Protection Service Protection Service Australia Australian Customs and Austal Ships Australian Customs and Border Cape Class Patrol Boat 364 2013 Border Protection Service Protection Service Australia Australian Customs and Austal Ships Australian Customs and Border Cape Class Patrol Boat 365 2014 Border Protection Service Protection Service Australia Australian Customs and Austal Ships Australian Customs and Border Cape Class Patrol Boat 366 2014 Border Protection Service Protection Service Australia Australian Customs and Austal Ships Australian Customs and Border Cape Class Patrol Boat 367 2014 Border Protection Service Protection Service Australia Australian Customs and Austal Ships Australian Customs and Border Cape Class Patrol Boat 368 2014 Border Protection Service Protection Service Australia Australian Defence Civmec/ASC Australian Defence OPV OPV1 2019 Australia Australian Defence - ASC Shipyard Australian Defence Air Warfare Destroyer 2012 AWD Australia Australian Defence - LHD BAE Systems Australian Defence Landing Helicpoter 2012 Dock Australia Dick Smith Tenix Dick Smith Ocean Research Ulysses Blue 2005 Vessel Australia Esso West Tuna Esso Platform 1996 Australia HMAS Arunta BAE Systems Australian Defence ANZAC Frigate ANZAC 2019 Australia Jean de la Valette - Virtu Austal Ships Virtu Ferries High Speed Ferry 248 2010 Ferries Australia RNZN Tenix RNZN Ocean Research 42826 2006 Vessel Australia Taylor Bros. -
Appendix: Case Studies of Environmental Dredging Projects Table 1
1. Introduction This section describes the sources of available data on which much of the performance standards is based. Completed dredging projects that provide information on upstream and downstream water column conditions, as well as on mass of contaminant removed, provide a basis for determining historical rates of loss and dredging-related recontamination. It was thought that dredging projects that have been completed or are currently in progress can provide practical information on resuspension issues. Information on water quality data, equipment used, monitoring techniques, etc. from these projects will give insight as how to develop the performance standards. For the resuspension standard, water column monitoring results available from other sites were used to complete an analysis of the case study data. The process used to gather relevant information from dredging sites and the information obtained are included herein. It is also important to review all information that exists for the Hudson River. Available data was used to assess the existing variability in the Hudson River water quality, and can be used to estimate the water column quality during and resulting from the dredging operation. Descriptions of the data sets available to perform this analysis are provided herein. 2. Case Studies Objective and Overview During completion of the Hudson River Feasibility Study (FS) and the associated Responsiveness Summary (RS), the GE dredging database, the USEPA website, and other online sources were investigated to identify dredging projects that were relevant and similar to that proposed for the Hudson River in size and complexity. The USEPA and State agencies were contacted to gather information for each dredging project. -
Navigator Holdings Ltd. “NVGS”
Stifel Presentation August 2017 Navigator Holdings Ltd. “NVGS” This presentation contains certain statements that may be deemed to be “forward-looking statements” within the meaning of applicable federal securities laws. Most forward-looking statements contain words that identify them as forward-looking, such as “may”, “plan”, “seek”, “will”, “expect”, “intend”, “estimate”, “anticipate”, “believe”, “project”, “opportunity”, “target”, “goal”, “growing” and “continue” or other words that relate to future events, as opposed to past or current events. All statements, other than statements of historical facts, that address activities, events or developments that Navigator Holdings Ltd. (“Navigator” or the “Company”) expects, projects, believes or anticipates will or may occur in the future, including, without limitation, acquisitions of vessels, the outlook for fleet utilization and shipping rates, general industry conditions, future operating results of the Company’s vessels, capital expenditures, expansion and growth opportunities, business strategy, ability to pay dividends and other such matters, are forward-looking statements. Although the Company believes that its expectations stated in this presentation are based on reasonable assumptions, actual results may differ any expectations or goals expressed in, or implied by, the forward-looking statements included in this presentation, possibly to a material degree. Navigator cannot assure you that the assumptions made in preparing any of the forward-looking statements will prove accurate or that any long-term financial goals will be realized. All forward-looking statements included in this presentation speak only as of the date made, and Navigator undertakes no obligation to update or revise publicly any such forward-looking statements, whether as a result of new information, future events, or otherwise.