Uncategorised
For the second time we have a roll of drums as we consider an Ulstein design, this time the UT 755. It is possibly already the most prolific supply vessel ever built although it is difficult to come up with a total number constructed, and it can be assumed that every one is still in service, or laid up with the intent of being returned to service if things offshore ever get better. We know when the order for the 100th of the design was placed which was on May 23rd 2006, by Myklebusthaug Offshore with Simek in Norway, and the ship was to enter service in 2007 as Dina Supplier (Photo by Jan Plug in 2008). However things are a little more vague, at least for me, about the first vessel of the type to enter service. I have always been given to understand that the origins of the type were due to discussions between Gulf Offshore and the Ulstein design house. Gulf were looking for an economy version of the UT 705, and did not fancy the UT 706, which had always been an awkward and less popular vessel. And the result of this collaboration was said to be the Highland Piper (Photo by Peter Taylor in 2003) which started work in 1996 and is still working as Seabulk Benin. But other have suggested that the first was the Suffolk Supporter which also entered service in 1996 and was soon to become the Northern Supporter, or even the Safe Truck which was much later to become Highland Trader. But however it started the design was to prove to be extremely popular, and all later models were at least the UT 755L which added a five metre section into the working area. Since the early days the UT 755 has been built in yards all over the world, including most of those on the west coast of Norway and also in Denmark, Italy, India and China. The type incorporates a number of very popular features including the high sides to the working deck, with escape ports for the crew, and the triangular bridge. Almost universally they have been powered by two Bergen diesels developing 5450 bhp and have been provided with a couple of forward thrusters and a single thruster aft. At the beginning of the current decade some vessels designated the UT 755 LX have been built 75 metres in length with 7600 bhp available. The ships have sometimes been provided with DP2 capability and some have become ROV support vessels. Those who have followed the development of the ship type in these columns will have noted that there have up to now been very few contributions from American yards and this is illustrated by the status of the Tidewater fleet in the year the UT 755 entered service. At that time Tidewater operated over 400 vessels but the most powerful of the lot was the Dee Service a 1976 built UT 704. The Americans had some catching up to do and Tidewater’s first move was to purchase a second hand UT 755.
A CAPTAIN GOES HOME
One of our most prolific photographers is Captain Jan Plug of the Acergy Falcon. He recently wrote that for the first time since he had taken command of the ship, it was due to visit his home port of Ijmuiden and as it entered the waterway he noticed tugs lurking in the entrance. He told the pilot not to take any notice, they were probably just carrying a few photographers, and so was surprised when they escorted his ship into the harbour with their fire monitors in action, and to receive VHF messages from his wife who was on one of the tugs..
It was a charming story, not only for Jan, but for shipmasters everywhere. At least the citizens of Ijmuiden think it's an important job.
THE MSC OPERA
As I got my pencil and paper out to pen this month's News and Views, some actual news of some interest was reported on the BBC - briefly. It said that the cruise liner, MSC Opera had broken down in the Baltic and was being towed back into port by tugs. The passengers were to be repatriated and given vouchers for another voyage at another time - that is, if they wanted one.
I googled the ship's name and came up with a sort of Trip Advisor site which was doing the same thing for ships as that site does for hotels. Well, why would anyone ever actually want to go on this ship. It sounds as if the passengers would have welcomed the breakdown as a moment of fun in an otherwise completely boring situation. Of course we seafarers know what it's like to be bored at sea. It's part of the job, but at least we are paid for it. According to the website passengers faced booze at more than pub prices, duty free at higher than supermarket prices and mediocre or bad food. The high spot of the day - so they said - was bingo in the afternoons, and the Entertainment Manager is mentioned by name in several posts, because the entertainment was sub X-Factor audition level.
But so much for the fun. This ship was built in 2004 and has a passenger carrying capacity of more than 2000. News reports so far report variously that there was an engine explosion and a switchboard failure, but it matters not which it was. It was only in the autumn of last year that the Carnival Splendour suffered a complete power failure off the coast of New Mexico. Who knows why the breakdown on the MSC Opera occurred, but in February this year the Carnival Splendour was back in action and the CEO of Carnival said "The actual cause of the fire is still under investigation, but it occurred in generator No 5 causing a catastrophic failure....Most ships have built in redundancy with two engine rooms so that if one fails, the bother continues to function. Although the fire was contained in the aft engine-room, heat damaged the cable insulation and the control room switchboards, disabling both engine rooms." But why!!
AN ALLISION
It's never too late to learn is it? I was reading a report the other day about a serious contact between the bow of a ship and a jetty. It was headlined "SHIP IN ALLISION WITH WHARF". And as I write this my spell checker has underlined Allision - there, it has just done it again. I can hardly blame it. I thought that the news article had been misprinted , but on investigation found that it had been right, even though the word is not included in the New Oxford English Dictionary.
I would have called the contact between the bow of the ship and the wharf a "collision", but I would have been wrong. When two ships are in unintended contact this is a "collision". When a ship is in contact with a structure which is part of a bridge, a wharf or any other bit of the shoreline this is an "allision". Even though I now know that this is correct, I think I will continue to misuse the other word. Mainly so that other people can understand what I am on about.
THE NIGHT NAVIGATOR
I was really interested to come across an advertisement from a Canadian company for device called "The Night Navigator" which it seems is intended to be a replacement for radar. The system appears to be based on a thermal imagining camera, and I presume that the resulting images are presented on a computer screen of some sort. As far as I know, up to now there has been no rival to the radar, which has become easier to look at subsequent to the invention of the computer and its screen. And one imagines that the camera is controlled remotely from the position of the screen. This would mean that the operator would be directing the camera, or would it move automatically like the radar possibly stopping and hovering when it came across an image.
Modern thermal imaging cameras are truly amazing. I have seen a demonstration of one which is intended to be used for detecting fires in engine rooms and switchboard rooms. The camera can detect increases in heat , and so will identify the source of the fire before it breaks out. The guy demonstrating it had me place my hand on a table, and the camera could detect my print after I took it away. I suppose the thing the camera would avoid would be the need for interpretation. You could actually see an approaching vessel and hence would know from the angle whether it was on a collision course, instead of having to work it out in one way or another. The name of the company is currentcorp.
PIRATES AGAIN
It is almost neglectful for me to let a month pass without at least making some mention of the pirate business. Last month there was a two day conference at which experts in the field put forward ideas and advice. This was reported in Seaways, the journal of the Nautical Institute. It became evident that a mass of companies have been formed to assist the marine industry to deal with the problem, and there are also now couple of associations - the International Association of Maritime Security Professionals, and the Security Association for the Maritime Industry. Somehow the words "jumping on" and "bandwagon" come to mind. A presentation was also made by some-one from the Salama Fikira group, whose website says, "Our mission is to provide strategic risk management and security solutions to enable our clients to operate as well as resolve problems in the most challenging parts of Eastern Africa, the Great Lakes region, the Horn of Africa, the Gulf of Aden and the Indian Ocean." And "We will provide a consistent and dedicated service and resolve your risk issues by matching our proposed solutions with exceptional standards of delivery."
Meanwhile in the same magazine Professor Captain Edgar Gold, who always writes a lot of sense, has kept us up to date with how things are in Somalia. He says that as of 27th March there were 43 vessels, two barges and several yachts in captivity and there were 674 hostages including several children being held. He has said in the past that if this level of terrorist activity was directed at aircraft the international community would not tolerate it. A solution would be found which would not exclude armed intervention of some sort. He says that "The industry has adjusted to the costs involved and many parties other than the front line pirates are now making money out of the problem." What can I say - step forward IAMSP, SAMI - and Salama Fikira.
In the dying days of the British shipbuilding industry a couple of UK companies placed orders for a Vik Sandvik design the VS 483 PSV with Clyde shipyards. Actually it has turned out to be the dying days of British offshore ship-owners as well, but back to the ships and their reason for inclusion here. Over the years there have been a number of platform ship designs which offered protection from the weather for the crew working on the deck and the cargo contained therein, by surrounding the cargo space with tanks. Probably the first were the large platform ships owned by OSA which have been described here in earlier presentations, and these were later followed by a number of platform ships built in UK for Star Offshore. But the design had the defect of not offering the crew on the deck anywhere to run if things did not go well as cargo was being landed or lifted, and so the VS 483 design was intended to reduce this risk. The working deck was still surrounded by high sides, but there were no tanks there-in, so the crew could shelter in the protective space provided and actually move along the sides of the ship in the covered area. The first two of the class were built at the Ferguson’s yard on the Clyde for Stirling Shipping; they were the Stirling Forth and the Stirling Clyde and entered service in 1996. A further two of the type, the Stirling Spey and Stirling Tay were built at Kvaener Govan both having entered service by 1999. Sealion, another British company who managed a fleet for Greek ship-owner Gregory Callimanopolous, also built two at Kvaerner Govan in 1998; they were the Toisa Invincible and the Toisa Intrepid (Photographed entering Aberdeen by Victor Gibson in 2001). These two ships had a slightly differently designed deck area but were fundamentally the same. All were moderately powered but had a deck area approaching 1000 m2, and their terrific bulk capacity, made them useful workhorses. The fact that they were slowed down considerably by adverse weather hardly mattered. Stirling Shipping was bought by Seacor in 2001 but the parent company Harrisons (Clyde) retained the Stirling Forth and the Stirling Clyde (Photographed at Brent in 2002 by Derek Mackay), renaming them Inverforth and Inverclyde, and these two ship continued to work for Shell out of Aberdeen for some years. The other two of the class were passed on to Havila who also purchased the Inverforth. The Inverclyde was bought by Rovde AS and became the Ocean Carrier, briefly famous for crashing into a component of the Ekofisk Field in 2005, and was converted into a cable- layer in 2007. In 2016 Havila announced that it had lost the contract for Havila Faith in Brazil but the three VS 483s are still on its fleet list. The two ships which were built by Sealion are apparently still part of the Sealion fleet, although the future of the whole company is currently in doubt. It seems possible that the former Ocean Carrierhas joined a company which supplies power to under resourced areas of the globe but the details are currently difficult to come by, particularly since there is another Ocean Carrier, once the Star Offshore platform ship the Star Arcturus still in service today.
