This html article is produced from an uncorrected text file through optical character recognition. Prior to 1940 articles all text has been corrected, but from 1940 to the present most still remain uncorrected. Artifacts of the scans are misspellings, out-of-context footnotes and sidebars, and other inconsistencies. Adjacent to each text file is a PDF of the article, which accurately and fully conveys the content as it appeared in the issue. The uncorrected text files have been included to enhance the searchability of our content, on our site and in search engines, for our membership, the research community and media organizations. We are working now to provide clean text files for the entire collection.
The handwriting is on the bulkhead—the Very Large Crude Oil Carriers (VLCCs) are going to get larger and the present shortage of VLCC-capable ports will worsen. An immediate solution, and one which merits further intensive study by both governmental and academic bodies, is the offshore, single-buoy mooring (SBAI) terminal system, such as the one, below, which is now in operation off Singapore.
In I960, the largest tanker ever built in the United States was the 71,282-ton Princess Sophie. At that time, the average ship under construction or on order was only 37,800 tons.
In these past 12 years, we have seen a dramatic increase in vessel size, with vessels building up to 477,000 tons (in 1972), and average very large crude oil carriers (VLCCs) of 220,000 tons (in 1972). In the United States, there are no port facilities for these great ships and but very few elsewhere in the world.
As part of his program to restore our merchant fleet to a vigorous competitive position on the high seas,
on 1 July 1972, President Nixon announced the awarding of contracts, totalling $659,200,000, for five U. S. shipyards to construct 16 new merchant ships. The contracts include three 265,000-ton tankers (costing $210.2 million) to be built by Bethlehem Steel Corporation’s Sparrows Point, Maryland, yard for Maritime Fruit Carriers—Boston Tankers, Inc., a Massachusetts company; and three 225,000-ton tankers at $171.9 million to be built for Seatrain Lines, Inc., of Weehawken, New Jersey, by its shipbuilding subsidiary, Seatrain Shipbuilding Corporation, Brooklyn, New York.
57
Vital factors attendant to this announcement are:
► These VLCCs are the largest ever to be constructed in the United States.
► They will receive a government subsidy of 43%.
► When commissioned, they will be crewed by U. S. citizens, be in U. S. Registry, and fly the U. S. ensign.
► There are no ports in the United States capable of receiving vessels of these tonnages (full load draft of up to 68 feet).
► These VLCCs will be ready for sea in 1975-76, and with the mounting congressional pressures to have at least 50% of crude oil imports to the United States carried in U. S. flag tankers, it is entirely conceivable that these ships will be in the U. S. trades.
► With the completion of the Trans-Alaskan Pipeline, Alaskan crude may also be carried in U. S.-flag VLCCs from Valdez, Alaska, to West Coast refineries and to a Panama Isthmus trans-shipment point.
Bearing on this subject is another pertinent (worldwide) statistic provided by the authoritative E. A. Gibson, Ferguson Wild Shipbrokers, Limited, summary report, "Very Large Crude Carriers in Excess of 175,000 tons—31 December 1971.’’ It follows:
"The 200,000-219,999 ton VLCC remains the most popular vessel in the current fleet with 197 vessels of 22,668,796 tons.
"On order, the most popular size of vessel appears in the 260,000-280,000 ton group with 92 vessels having a total of 24,476,720 tons.
"The number of vessels over 300,000 tons on order has increased from 10 to 35 during 1971.
"The order book increased by 18.3% in 1971, despite some gloomy forecasts for the future three to four years supply/demand situation. Indeed, 1971 saw a trend towards larger vessels as new buildings previously ordered in the 240,000-280,000 ton range were increased to 310,000 tons.
"For the record, 1971 saw the delivery of the largest vessel in the world with the completion of the Nisseki Marti. She will deliver Persian Gulf crude to the central terminal station at Kure, Japan. She has a draft of 89 feet in full load.”
In summary, as of 31 December 1971, there were 233 VLCCs of over 175,000 tons in service and 342 on the order books. It is also to be noted that the 477,000-ton Globtik Tokyo, (full load draft—85 feet) now being constructed in Kure, will be launched in October 1972. She will be joined by three similar ships. And, on 12 August 1972, Lloyd’s List reported that Societe Maritime Shell, the French subsidiary of the Royal Dutch Shell Group, had placed an order for two VLCCs of about 533,000 tons. These vessels will ply
between the Persian Gulf and Western Europe, will measure 415 meters X 63 meters, and will operate on a loaded draft of 28.5 meters.
It is important to note that Ravi Tikkoo, Chairman of Globtik, has opined that the next step in oil tanker size would be either 750,000 tons or one-million- tonners. To substantiate this point, on 10 November 1972, it was announced that Aristotle Onassis is planning to construct a 1,000,000-ton VLCC in order to provide safe and economic transportation of oil to meet the growing world demand for this commodity. Mr. Onassis states that it will be approximately four years before the final design stages for this vessel can be reached.
The handwriting is on the bulkhead—the "Big Boys {the VLCCs) are here;" and there is a stark scarcity of port facilities throughout the world, particularly in the United States, to accommodate them.
It is frustrating to note that, in spite of the literally tons of evidence underscoring: the special growth in tanker size, the absence of adequate port facilities to handle the VLCCs, and mounting energy demands, the problem continues to be studied. In one case, Texas A&M has undertaken a costly and time-consuming study to determine the feasibility of establishing an offshore superport in the Texas Gulf Coast region. In another case, the Los Angeles Harbor Board is presently having a study made to examine the feasibility of constructing an offshore terminal (single buoy mooring) as opposed to construction of an in-port conventional tanker breasting pier. The existing controlling depth in Los Angeles Harbor is 50 feet, presently capable of safely handling tankers (fully laden) of up to only 75,000 tons.
In late April 1972, at hearings before the Senate Interior Committee, Senator Henry M. Jackson (Dem., Wash.), Chairman of the Committee, noted that "harbor limitations prevent supertankers from servicing the continental United States directly.” This is a reiteration of absolute fact that has been discussed, studied, assessed, presented, and otherwise verbally proliferated for the past 12 years.
To carry projected crude imports to the United States by 1985, the Maritime Administration (MarAd) estimates it will take more than 2,600 tankers of 47,000 tons (the average size now in service). To haul the same volume with VLCCs, would save $1.5 billion a year, by MarAd reckoning, at the same time reducing projected ship arrivals in U. S. ports from 345 daily to only nine.
Moreover, to compound the issue, (save for the vocal ecologists and environmentalists) a federal interagency study group, headed by the President’s Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) is looking into the desira-
Offshore Tanker Terminals: Study in Depth 59
bility of permitting supertankers into U. S. ports at all.
Gordon J. F. MacDonald, a member of CEQ, told the Committee: "We are trying to assess the potential environmental effects of a technology new to the United States waters.” MacDonald predicted that his Committee "as a result of studies now underway by five universities, would have—at year’s end—available information that can form the basis for future in-depth discussion of policy options.”
In the meantime, the Corps of Engineers pursues regional port studies covering the Gulf of Mexico and the North Atlantic. Brigadier General Kenneth B. Cooper, Deputy Director of Civil Works, Corps of Engineers, has said that "the impact onshore could prove to be the overriding factor in deciding upon the desirability or location of supercarrier facilities.”
During the Jackson Committee hearings, Senator Jennings Randolph (Dem., W. Va.) estimated a single deepwater port terminal on the Atlantic Coast would cost between $450 million and $500 million. He said it would involve Federal funds of $150-$200 million.
The highlight of the May 1972 Forum on mammoth tankers, deepwater ports, and the environment, sponsored by MarAd and the Propeller Club of the United States, was the announcement of a proposed offshore unloading facility to be constructed eight miles outside Delaware Bay. The Maritime Administration has been advocating such a terminal for some time, but this was the first public indication that a specific site in the northeast had been selected.
Robert J. Blackwell, Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Maritime Affairs, stated that such a manmade island is urgently needed to meet the rising petroleum import needs of the northeastern states. He said that crude oil imports are expected to increase by 135% by 1980.
The offshore island (or superport), flanged on the seaward side by a protective breakwater, initially would comprise about 100 acres and be capable of transshipping 100 million tons of oil imports annually. This first stage of the project, if begun by November 1972, could be completed in 1977 at a total cost of about $500 million. As import demands increased, the island could be doubled in size, bringing the total cost to some $787 million and capacity to 200 million tons per year.
Required dredging and construction of the breakwater would be done by the Army Corps of Engineers. Building of the island itself and its storage facilities would be financed by private capital—presumably the oil companies that would use the facility.
And, to further propound and confound the whole problem of VLCCs, growing energy demand, and offshore island superports, on 21 June 1972, Senator
Harrison A. Williams, Jr. (Dem., N.J.), asked President Nixon to block construction of the planned Delaware Bay Oil Storage Facility. The 22 June 1972 (N.Y.) Journal of Commerce article went on to say:
"The Interstate Oil Company, Philadelphia, has announced plans to build an offshore floating dock with storage space for crude oil. This would make it possible for large tankers to unload with the oil being taken to shore by smaller boats or possibly a pipeline.
"This facility would be located in the mouth of the Delaware River off the Coast of New Jersey. Plans now call for this construction beyond the three-mile limit, which would be outside of our territorial waters, Senator Williams noted.
'"I am sure you can recognize,’ he wrote the President, 'the potential for catastrophe in this sort of operation, particularly a facility that would be comstructed without the scrutiny of such government agencies as the Corps of Engineers or the Environmental Protection Agency, and others. There are, of course, the clear ecological hazards of enormous magnitude. Secondly, states like New Jersey depend significantly on the revenues from the tourist industry which flourishes as a result of ocean beaches. Thus, an oil spill also would mean economic catastrophe. I would urge you to use all of the powers at your command to prevent this construction. Certainly, since the oil eventually would pass through sovereign waters and into United States ports, I think there are many ways by which this project could be halted. I respectfully request that you make this action clear to this company, or any other concern which would plan to rush into a venture of this nature,’ Senator Williams said.”
In the meantime, the oil industry may beat Federal government investigations and "eventually”-sponsored offshore superport projects to the punch in the construction of offshore marine terminals for the VLCCs.
The 1 May 1972 Oil and Gas Journal reports:
"Robert H. Chitwood, General Manager of Supply and Transportation for Cities Service Oil Company, testified that at least two offshore crude oil unloading terminals will be needed by the mid-1970s. CITGO, Continental Oil Company and Phillips Petroleum Company—perhaps joined by others—are studying the feasibility of building one on the Texas Gulf Coast, he said.
"Chitwood noted that between Corpus Christi, Texas, and Lake Charles, Louisiana, there are 22 refineries with capacity of 3.3 million barrels of oil
per day, or 70% of the Gulf Coast total. 'We do not believe that a so-called superport designed for multiple commodity use can be built within the time- frame requirements of the crude petroleum consumers,’ he said.
"He said the seadock project would use a singlepoint mooring system located just inside the 100-foot depth contour. A pumping platform would move crude oil to shore through a large-diameter submarine pipeline. He estimated that ten such systems could be built for the cost of a single artificial-island superport.
"Chitwood said two or three different sites off Texas are being studied, with 1975 being an optimistic target for completion. 'That we are moving as rapidly as we can on the project is about all 1 can say,’ he said.
"Another study project involves a monobuoy facility to be installed off the Louisiana coast. Involved in this study are Ashland Oil & Refining Company, Chevron Pipe Line Company, Marathon Pipe Line Company, Pure Transportation Company, Shell Pipe Line Company, Texas Pipe Line Company, and Humble Pipe Line Company. All except Humble and Chevron are owners of Capline.
"Their monobuoy tanker terminal reportedly would be located in 100 to 120 feet of water and capable of handling all tankers of today or any being planned. Initial design capacity will be from 750,000 to one million b/d with the crude flowing ashore through a large-diameter pipeline. A spokesman said optimum line size has not been selected, but would be probably 42 to 48-inch.
"Site of the facility has not been selected, he said, but the study group is looking hardest at the Grand Isle area.
"The facility will be a common carrier, connecting to Capline and other carriers.
The American Petroleum Institute has testified that, in its judgment, the monobuoy system is superior to the offshore island for reasons of safety, flexibility, low investment, economy of operation, short construction lead time, and minimum effect on the environment, and several monobuoy systems can be constructed and installed for a mere fraction of the cost of a single artificial island.
Nature does not always put deep harbors and compatible environments where she places major deposits of oils and minerals—or where man decides to erect his cities, his oil and mineral-refining facilities, and his industrial complexes.
At the same time, the escalatii^ costs of labor and
transportation have accelerated the need for VLCCs and ore bulk oil carriers (OBOs).
The increasing capacity of these vessels has been welcomed for economic reasons. Yet, without ports able to accommodate them and able to provide the required fast turn-arounds, the cost-saving purpose of these supercarriers is defeated.
For example, one major oil company estimates that if its large carriers—which make approximately 13,000 port calls per year—could spend one hour less in each port of call, the time-saving would amount to approximately 2.5 million dollars.
This continuing increase in size of tankers and ore carriers is rendering many of the world’s traditional ports obsolete. The hazards of port traffic and potential accidental carrier spillage add an ecological and public concern.
The situation becomes more critical each year as: (1) the need for oil and raw minerals increases; (2) the refinement and consumption of these valued resources is growingly concentrated in heavy population centers; and (3) remote sources of oil and minerals are discovered and produced in regions where deep water harbor development is economically prohibitive.
An immediate solution to these problems is the offshore single-buoy mooring terminal system (see Figure 1), which shows the Mar Caspio loading crude oil at SBM Puerto Rosales, Argentina, one of over 100 of these systems in service throughout the world. The SBM terminal system may be installed offshore in deep waters—beyond the limiting confines of existing harbors which are restrictively shallow (and often subject to costly and continuous dredging). The SBM terminals are also installed in remote locations, more often than not subject to severe environmental conditions.
The depth of water in which divers may work or within which diving chambers may be used constitutes the only limiting factor in installing an SBM terminal system. This system may be constructed and installed at considerably less initial cost than any other present- day method used to overcome natural harbor limitations. And, too, it provides significant advantages in operating and maintenance economies.
The SBM terminal system is a complete, self- contained offshore marine terminal facility (see Figure 2). The system includes a floating buoy terminal (see Figure 3), connecting floating and underbuoy submersible hoses, the terminal moorings, and related submarine pipelines. Once moored thereto, the vessel is free to load and discharge while freely responding to the forces of wind, wave, swell, and currents.
A careful engineering analysis program establishes the criteria for the completed SBM terminal system (see
J
c
5
Loading/Discharging Tanker
r
Mooring Lines
■Mono Mooring Buoy i Product Distribution Unit \ \ r Rotating
\ \ \Mooring Arm
Floating Hoses
Hose Marker Lights
Control Valve
Rotating Balance Arm
totating Cargo Manifold
Flanged Hose Connections
Mooring Chains
Underbuoy Hoses -Underbuoy Hose Floats
Pipeline End Manifold
-Submarine Pipe Lines To Shore Tank Farms
-
SECTION PROFILE
DECK PLAN
ELEVATION
Figure 4—General arrangement of SBM system
An IMODCO SBM under construction
%ure 4). Tank-testing and computer analyses are important major parts of this program.
*
The design and size of a particular terminal system (see Figure 5) are directly related to the following
Factors:
V
^ Maximum ship size to be accommodated * Number, type, and flow rates of cargoes to be handled
^ Depth of water and tidal range ^ Maximum swell wave heights ^ Current velocity ^ Maximum wind force ^Seabed and soils analysis
The offshore buoy terminal system has demonstrated lts versatility in handling crude oil and product, in
handling solids in slurry form (i.e., iron sands), and for handling cryogenics.
SBM terminals have been constructed to simultaneously handle up to five separate products (see Figure 6). This capability enables the bulk carrier to perform cargo loading, discharging, bunkering, and deballasting operations—simultaneously—even under adverse sea and weather conditions.
This capability is particularly meaningful in light of today’s vessel waiting-time costs.
Among the advantages of the SBM terminal system are that it:
► provides direct delivery of cargo—liquid suspended cargo can be delivered or received directly without conventional port facilities.
► is a most economical loading/unloading facility—the SBM terminal is far less costly to install and operate than the classical oil/conveyor wharves, piers, or offshore islands or towers. For example, the currently touted offshore superport will cost $500,000,000 and take five years to construct. An SBM that will accomplish the same functions can be constructed and installed within one year and for a fraction of the cost.
► provides maximum flexibility in installation. A terminal can be installed at almost any point off any coastline, in the open sea, or in any navigable body of water.
► is accessible to all tankers and ore carriers. Any size VLCC, OC, or OBO—either afloat or on today’s drawing boards may use the SBM terminal.
► saves valuable ship time. Dead time from maneuvering, entry, mooring, and turn-around with normal harbor arrangements, is greatly reduced with the singlebuoy mooring system—as is the cost of ship waiting time to load or discharge.
► permits accelerated loading of crude oil or minerals from newly tapped fields, either onshore or offshore.
► reduces or eliminates pilotage and tug costs.
► is exceptionally seaworthy. The SBM terminal is a flexible installation, capable of both lateral and vertical movement, and it will absorb considerably greater shock loads than a rigid jetty structure. As a result, it can withstand very extreme sea and weather conditions that would probably cause extensive damage or destruction to a more expensive tower or jetty.
► reduces the risk of accidental pollution to either the harbor or the sea.
► reduces fire, disaster, and collision hazards. Offshore SBM terminals remove the danger of fire or other disaster from congested and/or populated harbor areas. The offshore location provides a natural barrier between ship and shore that would localize any fire, no matter how serious, to the ship herself.
In 1958, with the installation of the first offshore single-buoy mooring systems in Borneo and in Sweden (see Figure 7), an answer had been provided for the accommodation of the large deep draft tankers. Since these first installations, the SBM terminal system has been extensively used worldwide for both crude oil and oil product transfer. Now, more recently, in another important breakthrough, this system is also credited with the handling of the first ore slurry cargo.
This significant event took place in May 1971 at New Zealand’s Waipipi Ironsands Facility, a Marcona development and undertaking. With the loading of the 52,192-ton San Juan Traveler (see Figure 8), the first ironsands concentrate in a liquid suspension form was pumped out through a 12-inch ID submarine pipeline (approximately 1.5 miles in length), at a loading rate of 1,000 long dry tons per hour, via the medium of a single-buoy mooring. The design and environmental conditions for this project were as follows:
To accomplish this project, the terminal was designed for bulk carriers of up to 75,000 tons. The water depth was 64 feet. The wind velocity was 40 knots. The wave height was 20 feet. The current velocity was 1.5 knots, and there was a tidal range of 10 feet.
When the terminal is unoccupied, the facility will withstand wind velocities gusting up to 83 knots with wave heights of up to 30+ feet.
A second single buoy mooring system is presently being installed in New Zealand for the handling of a similar cargo, for New Zealand Steel.
In summary, then, the offshore single-buoy mooring system offers a positive and immediate means of correcting all of the burdens of the problems discussed in the opening stages of this paper. It is suggested that the past 14 years of experience in this field, primarily by the major international oil companies and also by the U. S. military, could well serve as a guide to those various governmental bodies and academic bodies now studying the subject. This would be a fulfillment of the National Research Council’s I960 judgment.
*
A 1939 graduate of America’s last merchant marine sail training ship, the Pennsylvania Schoolship Annapolis, Commander Frankel entered the Naval Service in April 1941. An ensign in the USS Sumner (AGS-5) during the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor on 7 December 1941, he served in the Pacific Theater in various auxiliary and amphibious vessels during World War II. Transferring to the regular Navy in 1946, he was Executive Officer of the USS Bronx (APA-236), 1946-1947, and subsequently Executive Officer of the USS Eversole (DD-789) in 1948. In 1951, Commander Frankel attended the General Line School at Monterey and thereafter served on the Staff, Commander Naval Forces Far East, 1952-1954. He was Commanding Officer of the USS Pollux (AKS-4) in 1954-1955 and Commanding Officer of the USS Watts (DD-567) in 1955-1958. Commander Frankel was in the Office of Naval Material from 1959 to I960, and served as Commanding Officer, Military Sea Transportation Service Office, Long Beach, until June 1962. He has been with IMODCO, Inc., pioneer designers and constructors of offshore marine terminal facilities since his retirement in 1962, and has been president of that company since 1967. Commander Frankel holds an unlimited Master’s License.