Carnival 6,600 Passenger Mega Ship that runs on LNG!?!?!?

[chengkp75]

One would have thought that the cruise industry would have thought this thru before making these huge investments in ships that cannot get here from there.

 

Well, as I said, I believe they are "hoping" that showing a demand, someone will decide it is profitable to provide the supply. There has been a lot of talk of LNG as a marine fuel over the last few years, but there are still decided hurdles to get there. One factor is that while LNG is an economical substitute for residual fuel in the US (and lets face it, the shipping companies don't really care about reducing emissions, its all about the cost, since scrubbers can do the same thing for residual fuel) and to a degree in Europe, in the rest of the world, it does not make economic sense to switch to LNG. So, the vast majority of ships in the world will continue to use residual fuel or even diesel fuel for quite a while to come, simply due to lack of availability of LNG, and its cost. So, you are moving the pointer of demand for LNG to a smaller market, cruise ships, and some coastal vessels like ferries in Norway, making the investment in bunkering infrastructure that much harder to justify.

[jimbo5544]

I find these discussions fascinating, chief thanks for adding in

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Forums

[Purvis1231]

LOL Super Walmart of the Seas

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Forums

Walmart one of the most successful retailers in the world, Carnival the most successful cruise line, OK, I get it. Both know marketing and how to attract and keep customers.

Edited May 12, 2018 by Purvis1231
typo

[Cafedumonde]

I will not get on one of those ships, and I do not think CCL has fully thought this through. Right now any ship carrying LNG needs a police escort in US waters. How will this work with cruise ships.

[Cafedumonde]

Well, as I said, I believe they are "hoping" that showing a demand, someone will decide it is profitable to provide the supply. There has been a lot of talk of LNG as a marine fuel over the last few years, but there are still decided hurdles to get there. One factor is that while LNG is an economical substitute for residual fuel in the US (and lets face it, the shipping companies don't really care about reducing emissions, its all about the cost, since scrubbers can do the same thing for residual fuel) and to a degree in Europe, in the rest of the world, it does not make economic sense to switch to LNG. So, the vast majority of ships in the world will continue to use residual fuel or even diesel fuel for quite a while to come, simply due to lack of availability of LNG, and its cost. So, you are moving the pointer of demand for LNG to a smaller market, cruise ships, and some coastal vessels like ferries in Norway, making the investment in bunkering infrastructure that much harder to justify.

I also find your comments very interesting. Thanks

[Micahs Grandad]

Well, as I said, I believe they are "hoping" that showing a demand, someone will decide it is profitable to provide the supply. There has been a lot of talk of LNG as a marine fuel over the last few years, but there are still decided hurdles to get there. One factor is that while LNG is an economical substitute for residual fuel in the US (and lets face it, the shipping companies don't really care about reducing emissions, its all about the cost, since scrubbers can do the same thing for residual fuel) and to a degree in Europe, in the rest of the world, it does not make economic sense to switch to LNG. So, the vast majority of ships in the world will continue to use residual fuel or even diesel fuel for quite a while to come, simply due to lack of availability of LNG, and its cost. So, you are moving the pointer of demand for LNG to a smaller market, cruise ships, and some coastal vessels like ferries in Norway, making the investment in bunkering infrastructure that much harder to justify.

 

Thanks again for sharing your great knowledge. Be interesting to see where they station the ship.

 

If these ships have no place to go wonder if some heads will roll.

[tidecat]

I will not get on one of those ships, and I do not think CCL has fully thought this through. Right now any ship carrying LNG needs a police escort in US waters. How will this work with cruise ships.

 

 

All cruise ships departing from US ports currently receive an escort.

 

 

Sent from my eye phone using a three legged yak FFS

[Aquahound]

All cruise ships departing from US ports currently receive an escort.

 

That's not true. Escorts are totally random.

[steamboats]

Actually the AIDAprima and AIDAperla do not run on LNG but can operate the generators with LNG in port.

 

 

AIDAnova will be the first ship running on LNG (but dual fuel engines) and is coming in November 2018. Costa Smeralda is build on the same base structure as AIDAnova and coming in 2019.

 

 

Carnival Corp has contracted with Shell for providing the needed LNG. One of the ports in the Med is Barcelona where Carnival just opened a new terminal building (Terminal E) for their ships. Barcelona wants to provide the infrastructure to fuel the LNG ships.

 

 

steamboats

[chengkp75]

Actually the AIDAprima and AIDAperla do not run on LNG but can operate the generators with LNG in port.

 

 

AIDAnova will be the first ship running on LNG (but dual fuel engines) and is coming in November 2018. Costa Smeralda is build on the same base structure as AIDAnova and coming in 2019.

 

 

Carnival Corp has contracted with Shell for providing the needed LNG. One of the ports in the Med is Barcelona where Carnival just opened a new terminal building (Terminal E) for their ships. Barcelona wants to provide the infrastructure to fuel the LNG ships.

 

 

steamboats

 

This is the problem I see in the US. Shell has made a long term commitment to the LNG bunkering process, and has been working on the issues for a couple of years now. I have not seen anything in the industry news where any of the cruise lines have penned a partnership with a gas supplier for providing LNG bunkering services.

[chengkp75]

I will not get on one of those ships, and I do not think CCL has fully thought this through. Right now any ship carrying LNG needs a police escort in US waters. How will this work with cruise ships.

 

That's not true. Escorts are totally random.

 

As Aquahound (who works for the USCG) says, escorts are random, and subject to the budgetary constraints of the particular Captain of the Port zone.

 

As for "police" escort of LNG ships (which carry many times the amount of LNG that a cruise ship would carry), that simply is not true. First off, the USCG is the agency involved, not the local or state police. The individual port may have some language in their ISPS code requiring coordination between LEO's and the USCG, but USCG has the lead. The ships exporting LNG from the US Gulf are not escorted in any way, the ships unloading LNG at offshore terminals like those off Massachusetts are not escorted, and the decision to escort an LNG tanker really rests with where the shipment originated. Much of the gas brought into Boston comes from Yemen, so the USCG boards, inspects, and escorts the ships, and the port of Boston has required that all bridge traffic be suspended during ship transits. Other ports handle things in different ways. It is not required that all LNG ships be escorted.

 

And, as I've said, Tote Maritime has LNG fueled ships routinely running between Washington State and Alaska, and both Tote and Crowley have LNG fueled ships routinely running between Florida and Puerto Rico.

 

And contrary to what most people think, LNG is flammable, but not explosive.

[Cafedumonde]

As Aquahound (who works for the USCG) says, escorts are random, and subject to the budgetary constraints of the particular Captain of the Port zone.

 

As for "police" escort of LNG ships (which carry many times the amount of LNG that a cruise ship would carry), that simply is not true. First off, the USCG is the agency involved, not the local or state police. The individual port may have some language in their ISPS code requiring coordination between LEO's and the USCG, but USCG has the lead. The ships exporting LNG from the US Gulf are not escorted in any way, the ships unloading LNG at offshore terminals like those off Massachusetts are not escorted, and the decision to escort an LNG tanker really rests with where the shipment originated. Much of the gas brought into Boston comes from Yemen, so the USCG boards, inspects, and escorts the ships, and the port of Boston has required that all bridge traffic be suspended during ship transits. Other ports handle things in different ways. It is not required that all LNG ships be escorted.

 

And, as I've said, Tote Maritime has LNG fueled ships routinely running between Washington State and Alaska, and both Tote and Crowley have LNG fueled ships routinely running between Florida and Puerto Rico.

 

And contrary to what most people think, LNG is flammable, but not explosive.

 

Well... the point is that security around LNG ships is high. High enough for me not to want to get on one. lol. And LNG is explosive in vapor form. The worst case scenario is less dramatic on a diesel powered ship. I know LNG ships are probably fine, but I just wonder how thoroughly these companies have examined what they are doing. They all seem to have jumped headfirst and wholesale into LNG. Seems weird to me.

[jimbo5544]

That's not true. Escorts are totally random.

 

 

 

Interesting, we sailed from Baltimore on the Pride for a New Year's Eve cruise two years ago and had one for as long as I looked out (around a 9 or so). The poor mate on the front gun of the escort must have been freezing, wondered if he P'O'd somebody....

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Forums

[Harrier1961]

Huh!!? I could not decipher this post??

 

 

 

No place to fuel them.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Forums

[chengkp75]

Well... the point is that security around LNG ships is high. High enough for me not to want to get on one. lol. And LNG is explosive in vapor form. The worst case scenario is less dramatic on a diesel powered ship. I know LNG ships are probably fine, but I just wonder how thoroughly these companies have examined what they are doing. They all seem to have jumped headfirst and wholesale into LNG. Seems weird to me.

 

As you say, LNG in vapor form (called natural gas) can be explosive, as can flour dust or sawdust or diesel fumes or even residual fuel oil, if combined in the proper fuel/air ratio. The key is to keep the fuel/air ratio outside the explosive limit, and the primary way ships do this for LNG is to inert the tanks, where the atmosphere is replaced with an inert (non-combustible) gas like nitrogen. If the fuel air ratio is kept outside the LEL (low explosive limit), or the HEL (high explosive limit), then anything like natural gas, gasoline, or flour dust will not explode, and in most cases will not even ignite. LNG fueled ships have been around for over 30 years, and there has never been an explosion or even an engine room fire, to my knowledge, on any one of them. Compare that to Carnival's Splendor and Triumph, which run on marine residual fuel.

 

It is not a question of what the "companies" have looked at for using LNG as fuel, the issue has been studied by the IMO, the classification societies, and maritime safety experts for decades. Safety is not the issue for me, it is the lack of infrastructure to bring the fuel to the ships that I see as the limiting factor.

[jasong38501]

As you say, LNG in vapor form (called natural gas) can be explosive, as can flour dust or sawdust or diesel fumes or even residual fuel oil, if combined in the proper fuel/air ratio. The key is to keep the fuel/air ratio outside the explosive limit, and the primary way ships do this for LNG is to inert the tanks, where the atmosphere is replaced with an inert (non-combustible) gas like nitrogen. If the fuel air ratio is kept outside the LEL (low explosive limit), or the HEL (high explosive limit), then anything like natural gas, gasoline, or flour dust will not explode, and in most cases will not even ignite. LNG fueled ships have been around for over 30 years, and there has never been an explosion or even an engine room fire, to my knowledge, on any one of them. Compare that to Carnival's Splendor and Triumph, which run on marine residual fuel.

 

It is not a question of what the "companies" have looked at for using LNG as fuel, the issue has been studied by the IMO, the classification societies, and maritime safety experts for decades. Safety is not the issue for me, it is the lack of infrastructure to bring the fuel to the ships that I see as the limiting factor.

 

Thanks so much for your contributions. Conversations like this are what keep me coming back to these boards. I think the next few years will be very interesting to see what happens with all these ships!

[Cafedumonde]

As you say, LNG in vapor form (called natural gas) can be explosive, as can flour dust or sawdust or diesel fumes or even residual fuel oil, if combined in the proper fuel/air ratio. The key is to keep the fuel/air ratio outside the explosive limit, and the primary way ships do this for LNG is to inert the tanks, where the atmosphere is replaced with an inert (non-combustible) gas like nitrogen. If the fuel air ratio is kept outside the LEL (low explosive limit), or the HEL (high explosive limit), then anything like natural gas, gasoline, or flour dust will not explode, and in most cases will not even ignite. LNG fueled ships have been around for over 30 years, and there has never been an explosion or even an engine room fire, to my knowledge, on any one of them. Compare that to Carnival's Splendor and Triumph, which run on marine residual fuel.

 

It is not a question of what the "companies" have looked at for using LNG as fuel, the issue has been studied by the IMO, the classification societies, and maritime safety experts for decades. Safety is not the issue for me, it is the lack of infrastructure to bring the fuel to the ships that I see as the limiting factor.

 

But even though LNG has been used in ships for many years, and the industry has done a good job with marketing, it has not been used much in passenger ships. So it does surprise me that the cruise industry seems to be jumping in so absolutely. I also think the fueling issue is a safety issue as well as a capacity and logistics issue. And in the end, in a worst case senario, I still think you are better off on a diesel ship. I do, however, hear what you are saying and appreciate the discussion!

[Anton]

I remembered reading a press release last fall about the LNG fueling in North America for Carnival. Here it is: https://carnival-news.com/2017/11/08/carnival-cruise-line-signs-agreement-with-shell-to-fuel-north-americas-first-lng-powered-cruise-ships/

[chengkp75]

I remembered reading a press release last fall about the LNG fueling in North America for Carnival. Here it is: https://carnival-news.com/2017/11/08/carnival-cruise-line-signs-agreement-with-shell-to-fuel-north-americas-first-lng-powered-cruise-ships/

 

Interesting. I hadn't heard about this, but wondering where Shell is planning on loading this, and what the turn around time would be for getting to a terminal, loading, and then transiting back to the cruise ship's port. And, relying on a single source of transport, a single barge, has it's own set of problems. It will be interesting to see how this works out.

[thinfool]

Interesting. I hadn't heard about this, but wondering where Shell is planning on loading this, and what the turn around time would be for getting to a terminal, loading, and then transiting back to the cruise ship's port. And, relying on a single source of transport, a single barge, has it's own set of problems. It will be interesting to see how this works out.

 

I cannot say for sure, but Jacksonville seems to have a jump on LNG bunkering, including barges currently under construction. This would fit into the lower eastern US port comment.

 

I just googled LNG bunkering earlier today.

[chengkp75]

I cannot say for sure, but Jacksonville seems to have a jump on LNG bunkering, including barges currently under construction. This would fit into the lower eastern US port comment.

 

I just googled LNG bunkering earlier today.

 

Yes, this depends on the agreement signed between Eagle LNG and Crowley and Tote as to any exclusivity and or priority on LNG. But, as you say, it is a step forward. I did some quick figures, and while it sounds like the Eagle plant produces a lot (200,000 gal/day), that is only about 650 cubic meters/day, meaning full production capacity for 6 days would be needed to fill the Shell barge, not counting how much the Tote and Crowley ships require.

[jasong38501]

I cannot say for sure, but Jacksonville seems to have a jump on LNG bunkering, including barges currently under construction. This would fit into the lower eastern US port comment.

 

I just googled LNG bunkering earlier today.

 

And that would be conveniently located near Canaveral where they have started work on a new terminal along with an unnamed cruise partner. From the press release- "The cruise line that will be utilizing the new terminal is partnering with the port on the construction costs, and the new ships they are home-basing here are too large for any of our other terminals, except Cruise Terminal 1, the other new terminal, which is controlled by Royal Caribbean."

It will be completed in late 2019, early 2020. Around the time Carnival will need a new home for its first LNG ship. Hmmmm....

[tidecat]

I wonder if Carnival would ever add a New York-Port Canaveral-Caribbean itinerary like RCI offers; the ship could use the Port Canaveral stop to refuel. If sailing from New York in the winter isn’t feasible, the ship could reposition to Port Canaveral seasonally. It wouldn’t require Breeze or Elation to be relocated either, although if Carnival wants to “Aussify” a ship, it could give Australia four ships during the Southern Hemisphere summer (Spirit, Splendor, Miracle, and whatever Breeze displaces).

 

 

Sent from my eye phone using a three legged yak FFS

[jasong38501]

I wonder if Carnival would ever add a New York-Port Canaveral-Caribbean itinerary like RCI offers; the ship could use the Port Canaveral stop to refuel. If sailing from New York in the winter isn’t feasible, the ship could reposition to Port Canaveral seasonally. It wouldn’t require Breeze or Elation to be relocated either, although if Carnival wants to “Aussify” a ship, it could give Australia four ships during the Southern Hemisphere summer (Spirit, Splendor, Miracle, and whatever Breeze displaces).

 

 

Sent from my eye phone using a three legged yak FFS

 

Just curious if you have actually saw an announcement about Miracle moving down under of if you are just assuming it will? The math for me has never worked out that there will be a third ship down there based on the Carnival announcement about Splendor moving down there. They said the move would increase capacity by 66% in Australia. I can't make the math work if there is a third ship there even seasonally, but then again I always hated math class.

[tidecat]

Just curious if you have actually saw an announcement about Miracle moving down under of if you are just assuming it will? The math for me has never worked out that there will be a third ship down there based on the Carnival announcement about Splendor moving down there. They said the move would increase capacity by 66% in Australia. I can't make the math work if there is a third ship there even seasonally, but then again I always hated math class.

 

 

There hasn’t been an announcement yet, but Miracle is the only ship without anything open for booking beyond August 2019.

 

For there to be a 66% increase, with Splendor being over 3,000 in capacity, Australia can’t be losing a ship; otherwise the result is a much smaller increase. Both the Spirit class ships even if completely full, are less than 3,000 capacity.

 

Also, since I doubt Carnival wants to exit Alaska, Miracle for Legend is an easy switch from a technical perspective. Theoretically Miracle could winter in the Mexican Riviera, but that route is getting a significant raise already with Panorama.

 

 

Sent from my eye phone using a three legged yak FFS