1. Skip to navigation
  2. Skip to content
  3. Skip to sidebar




The world's largest offshore facility

Home Forums Community General Chat The world's largest offshore facility

This topic contains 14 replies, has 8 voices, and was last updated by Profile photo of ellmer - http://yook3.com ellmer – http://yook3.com 3 years, 1 month ago.

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 15 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #1639
    Profile photo of Luigi
    Luigi
    Participant

    I have just seen this ad on the latest issue of Time magazine. I thought it could be of interest here.

    #15609
    Profile photo of i_is_j_smith
    i_is_j_smith
    Participant

    488m long. 74m wide. 260k tons of steel. Moored in 250m of water 200km or so off the Australian coast using 4 groups of mooring chains, each chain using suction piles “the size of small houses”. No info on the total number of mooring lines. Can withstand a Category 5 cyclone.

    12 05 25.54S, 126 38 23.86E

    Needs to be un-moored and brought to port in 25 years for overhaul and inspections.

    All that for a low, low price of $10.8 to $12.6 Billion dollars US. Granted a large part of that cost is for the LNG drilling, processing, and storage facilities. Like to find the cost of the ship and mooring alone. Gotta be at least 10% to 20% of the total cost…

    And do you really want to bring your entire seastead into port every 25 years?

    #15644
    Profile photo of dvd
    dvd
    Keymaster

    For those who want to learn more, the homepage of the project is http://www.shell.com/home/content/aboutshell/our_strategy/major_projects_2/prelude_flng/ and here is a 1m42s video animation.

    With a permanent crew of 110, the Floating LNG would qualify as the first shipstead. However, the vessel won’t be launched until 2017, so the first shipstead will probably stil be Blueseed.

    #15649
    Profile photo of
    Anonymous

    this has actually already been discussed at length here…

    #15650

    the comment “this has already been discussed” leaves us kind of blocked – without info what exactly has been discussed, where, and what has been the outcome of the earlier discussion. So if you would be so kind to give a short resume what has been the result of earlier discussions and point to them so we can follow.

    As far as i see it stationary steel ships has been dismissed for seasteading due to the high cost of maintenance and their short service life 15 years. If this project expects a service life of 25 years it will have to run a tight maintenance shedule including a perfect andodic protection of the hull to keep the thickness of the steelplating in an acceptable range.

    Projects like Nkossa and Adriatic LNG have gone away from steel exactly for this reason. – on the other hand oil/gas can afford such high cost projects – but the cost/squaremeter/year is probably prohibitive for long term housing projects like seasteading. Factors of 10 and multiples of 10 away from what could compete in a “housing market”. There are solid (economic) reasons why ships don’t have a second life as floating housing units and it is not happening this way although you can get old ships for free for just taking the tank slurry and ambient problem out of sight of the owner.

    A basic figure – maintaining a ship costs about 80.000 USD a day – this is a lot of money for a “condo administration”. So ship-steads will only work for the most extreme high end applications – hospital ships, millionaire hide away – but not for a mass application. Shell can do it – average joe with housing need not.

    You might the following link collection useful to guide you through the discussions of the last 2 years…

    Wil

    #15651
    Profile photo of shredder7753
    shredder7753
    Participant

    Wil i’ve heard u mention that they’re moving away from steel ships and getting into concrete like Nkossa, etc. in ur opinion why are they still using steel for the Prelude system?

    ____________

    My Work II

    “Leadership and do-ership are not the same thing”

    #15652
    Profile photo of
    Anonymous

    is it possible somebody might have forgotten the search bar?

    *wink*

    I cant recall exactly what thread it was in which we discussed the FLNG, but it was about 2 months ago. People dug up videos of it’s wave performance and what not, and we talked about how other large floating platforms might have similar performance, what not.

    Acutally, after trying to use the search function to look for it myself, I couldnt find the discussion. I did find an even older one about it, but not the one to which I referred.

    Either way, though, my mention of the previous conversation should not be a block to any current one, but rather give those interested in continuing the conversation an additional resource to see what people have already said about it. You should not need me to summarize anything for you before you feel comforatble moving forward.

    #15653

    you can get qualified welders in any shipyard worldwide, classification processes are easy, oil industry has the divers, the underwater welding, and all processes necessary for maintenance in place and on board, and on payroll already, ensurance is easier, etc. etc.

    This ship is not a isolated island floating out – it is a piece of a drilling and distribution sistem that works with steel, is educated on steel, and used to steel. Starting with the workers, to the engineers, to the accountant people. So even if it would be 10 times more cost efficient to build it in concrete – the “systemic friction” would probably eat up this advantage in the total “gas delivery cost calculation” – so there are plenty of good reason to stay conservative and work with steel – for shell – especially now with oil/gas prices on the rise high maintenance cost can easyly be accepted as part of the deal.

    Not so plenty of good reasons for a seastead.

    Traditional shipbuilding in steel has not delivered floating islands for housing purpose in the last 100 years for good reasons – it is too expensive to maintain such islands in a marine environment – you can bet that traditional shipbuilding in steel will not deliver islands for housing purpose in the next 100 years for the same good reasons either.

    It is not a question of technically possible – it is a question of economic feasible. To make it feasible we need a gamechanging technology – the only technology that is available and capeable to give the factor 10 less cost and give real estate compareable long term use to a project is floating concrete structures.

    Wil

    concretesubmarine.com

    #15654
    Profile photo of shredder7753
    shredder7753
    Participant

    actually the uh game-changing technology is the ehh, bergstead – ahem.

    ____________

    My Work II

    “Leadership and do-ership are not the same thing”

    #15655
    Profile photo of i_is_j_smith
    i_is_j_smith
    Participant

    dvd wrote:
    so the first shipstead will probably stil be Blueseed.

    Calling Blueseed a shipstead is a bad joke. To be fair I don’t consider the FLNG ship a shipstead either, but at least it’s a good distance from shore and not just a “quick ferry ride” from land.

    And I agree that the reason big corporations still go with steel is because there is an existing infrastructure for building in steel. Their engineers would probably all love to go with concrete but when you are looking for investors to drop 10-12 billion in your project it’s a good idea to stick with well-known technologies.

    #15662
    Profile photo of elspru
    elspru
    Participant

    dvd wrote:
    so the first shipstead will probably stil be Blueseed.

    it could be made of concrete.

    i_is_j_smith wrote:

    Calling Blueseed a shipstead is a bad joke. To be fair I don’t consider the FLNG ship a shipstead either, but at least it’s a good distance from shore and not just a “quick ferry ride” from land.

    if it has a community of people living aboard, and used as a home, it is at least in some ways a seastead as a derivation of homestead.

    And I agree that the reason big corporations still go with steel is because there is an existing infrastructure for building in steel. Their engineers would probably all love to go with concrete but when you are looking for investors to drop 10-12 billion in your project it’s a good idea to stick with well-known technologies.

    Ferrocement is a well-known technologies, many buildings are made from ferrocement, most skyscrapers, apartment buildings, university campuses. So it’s already the material of choice for housing options.

    People that live in “steel houses” are usually impoverished, sheet metal shacks, their roofs made of sheet metal, the clanging during the rain is tremendous, so metal shacks are usually found in relatively arid desert regions, where they also don’t rust away as fast.

    In toronto we have a nature-reserve island which is growing out of piles of ferrocement building scrap. It’s an island or peninsula created from ferrocement. known as the Leslie Spit, or Outer Harbour East Headland.

    I’m in the process of becoming a political candidate of the riding it stems from (Toronto–Danforth) for the pirate party, with the slogan “steer your own life”.

    Imagine how many submarines could have been made with that much ferroconcrete.

    Interesting discussion I had today regarding making a floating island,

    when I said using plastic bottles, Maureen said “it’s made of garbage?”

    and I said, “well the whole Leslie Spit is made of garbage”,

    and she was like “Oh right”, we sail in the outerharbour,

    so it’s easily viewable east of us, as it’s the eastern shore.

    There’s a fairly large amount of bays, and good anchorage due to the rocks and rebar.

    calm aware desire choice love express intuit move

    #15668
    Profile photo of i_is_j_smith
    i_is_j_smith
    Participant

    elspru wrote:
    if it has a community of people living aboard, and used as a home, it is at least in some ways a seastead as a derivation of homestead.

    I don’t consider the “Oasis of the Seas” or the “Allure of the Seas” shipsteads. They have a “community of people living aboard”, over 2000 full-time staff that use it “as a home”. I also don’t consider oil platforms seasteads either, even though they also have a community of people making their home onboard. So there is no way I’m going to consider a boat…even a big one…anchored 12nm off the U.S. coast and used as temporary housing and office space for undocumented IT techs a shipstead, let alone a seastead. Regardless of what material it’s built out of.

    elspru wrote:
    Ferrocement is a well-known technologies, many buildings are made from ferrocement, most skyscrapers, apartment buildings, university campuses.

    Buildings, skyscrapers, apartment buildings, and university campuses don’t float.

    elspru wrote:
    So it’s already the material of choice for housing options.

    That’s fine, but it’s not the material of choice for large ocean-going vessels. That’s what I meant when I said there was an “existing infrastructure for building in steel” in that if you want to build a huge floating ship there are already places where you can go and engineers you can call on to have it built using steel. Nobody is going to drop $10B on a project if the lead designer says “I know all ships are usually made of steel, but we want to try something new and different and build it out of concrete”. They go with the most well-known and established technology available.

    I certainly think concrete is a great option for large permanently-moored seasteads, however.

    #15682
    Profile photo of elspru
    elspru
    Participant

    i_is_j_smith wrote:

    elspru wrote:

    if it has a community of people living aboard, and used as a home, it is at least in some ways a seastead as a derivation of homestead.

    I don’t consider the “Oasis of the Seas” or the “Allure of the Seas” shipsteads. They have a “community of people living aboard”, over 2000 full-time staff that use it “as a home”. I also don’t consider oil platforms seasteads either, even though they also have a community of people making their home onboard.

    [/quote]

    employement and home is quite different, though I know some chinese factories have residences for their workers on site. so perhaps it is a residential option. Interesting, then that means those cruise ships are the first commercial-seasteads.

    elspru wrote:

    Ferrocement is a well-known technologies, many buildings are made from ferrocement, most skyscrapers, apartment buildings, university campuses.

    Buildings, skyscrapers, apartment buildings, and university campuses don’t float.

    [/quote]

    they simply weren’t designed to, but they use a more than adequate amount of fibercement to float.

    elspru wrote:

    So it’s already the material of choice for housing options.

    That’s fine, but it’s not the material of choice for large ocean-going vessels.

    [/quote]

    sure, busses and cars are often made of metal, though some have fiberglass, plastic and even hemp shells.

    That’s what I meant when I said there was an “existing infrastructure for building in steel” in that if you want to build a huge floating ship there are already places where you can go and engineers you can call on to have it built using steel.

    there are concrete docks, many construction people are familiar with pouring concrete walls.

    Nobody is going to drop $10B on a project if the lead designer says “I know all ships are usually made of steel, but we want to try something new and different and build it out of concrete”. They go with the most well-known and established technology available.

    woah man $10B? that’s way out of the price-range of normal folk. seems like only people that will be using that ship are millionaires at the very least, and we already have a bunch of cruise-liners.

    I certainly think concrete is a great option for large permanently-moored seasteads, however.

    depending on the shape, can also be highly mobile.

    calm aware desire choice love express intuit move

    #15703
    Profile photo of SailorTrash
    SailorTrash
    Participant

    There’s a concrete boat at anchor not far from us, a big 52-footer. The guy is fixing it up to resell and I’ll be helping him with the electrics. It feels solid and it stays dry–first impressions, at least–but it has a couple of worrisome cracks on the deck. They don’t leak, so they look worse than they are, but they’re stress points. Not sure if they can be mended aside from cosmetically.

    http://seagypsies-mikeandkatie.blogspot.com/

    Much like Eskimos and snow, boat people have over 30 words for “leak.”

    #15704

    sailor, the fact that you speak about worrisome cracks – indicates that you take for given that a crack in concrete must be some kind of a problem.

    Other than in steel where a crack means that the part lost its strength and you throw the part away – a crack in concrete is no problem at all. The weakening is cero. Concrete is a composite material. Compression strength is in the concrete, tension strenght in the rebar.

    If you find it worrysome it is probably because you are seeing things with a steel oriented education – not with a concrete engineering education – so you basicly worry about the wrong things in the wrong universe.

    Think of a crack in concrete like you would think about the “seperation gap between planks” in a wooden boat.

    Even if it is filtering water – it is a easy fix. The only problem you have to fear in asociation with cracks is rebar rusting when the gap width exceeds the allowed margin (see concrete norms). – Even so – a easy fix, if you fix it at time.

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 15 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.



Posted on at

Categories:

Written by

Blog/Newsletter

Donate