Boatnerd Discussion Forum

Just wondering when is this LNG conversion supposed to take place? For some reason i thought I had read that it was supposed to happen this winter layup? Seeing that she's laying up at Superior Midwest Energy Coal Terminal this winter i guess that isn't the case or did plans change and get pushed back? Thanks for any information.
Dan McNeil

This from the MAN Diesel news 11/11/2013
Matson Navigation Company a subsidary of Matson Inc a leading U.S. carrier has placed an order for two 3600TEU container ships powered by two MAN B&W duel fuel engines capable of using LNG,MDO or HFO as a fuel. Entire news can be read on the MAN Diesel & Turbo web site.LNG as a fuel is alive and thriving in world shipping including the America

Right now, I think the costs are about equal to the diesel powered units. This is mainly because we have yet to retro-fit our automotive shop and any work on the units has to be done by an outside contractor. Retro-fit - Our shop has to be totally fireproofed, complete with a blast door in the passage way that leads into the hub. A massive, sparkproof air exhaust system also has to be installed. This system is supposed to be equipped with sensors that are designed to start the system in the event that NatGas is detected.

How different are these MaK 6M46DF engines going into the Mesabi Miner from the MAK 6M43C diesel engines on the Paul R. Tregurtha?

I'm kind of surprised that the Tregurtha isn't going first. But I imagine she's much more economical to run than her fleetmates at this point so there's probably operational savings in fully converting one of the other less efficient pair first instead of keeping the Miner's Pielstick diesels going for another season just to apply the LNG upgrade to the Tregurtha.

I'm wondering just how the Tregurtha's engines will be converted. The 46DF as I understand it went with a larger bore specifically in order to become dual fuel and be able to burn LNG. What will the LNG solution be for the Tregurtha's nearly brand new power plant since I highly doubt they weren't planning for this a couple of years ago so I assume that it's more than possible?

In the extremely unlikely event that they're planning for yet another repowering for her just to burn LNG, I guess that means that one engine will go into the Jackson and the other into the Sherwin hopefully in a few years?

Randy S wrote:

Guest wrote:It's my understanding that LNG is mainly for use in open waters. When maneuvering the engines would be switched to straight diesel for more power. I understand there is considerable horsepower and torque loss when operating on LNG with a little diesel for ignition. Anyone know if this is correct?

My company currently has the Westport/Cumins engines in our Kenworths. According to Westport's data, the LNG engines provide the same acceleration and torque as the straight diesel engines. The marine engines might be different

A questions for you. Approximately what is the distance or time before you break even on the payback for the conversions on the kenworths? I wonder too what it might be in relation to the ships?

Are there any other ships currently projected or looking at converting to LNG for their fuel?

Any alteration of structure and addition or alteration of fuel tanks in the United States will have to have the approval of both the vessels classification society which I would guess is the ABS and also the United States Coast Guard Ship safety and inspection service.This installation will be how ever structured safe.The Design firm who are proposing this conversion will also have taken this into consideration.

Guest wrote:It's my understanding that LNG is mainly for use in open waters. When maneuvering the engines would be switched to straight diesel for more power. I understand there is considerable horsepower and torque loss when operating on LNG with a little diesel for ignition. Anyone know if this is correct?

My company currently has the Westport/Cumins engines in our Kenworths. According to Westport's data, the LNG engines provide the same acceleration and torque as the straight diesel engines. The marine engines might be different

In reading all the posts, it is mentioned that "bridge wings would be added to the pilothouses of all three of the Interlake footers." In doing this though, wouldn't this eliminate them from unloading coal into the hopper in Marquette at the WE Power Plant? If you see the Interlake footers now, they have no bridge wings and also the Cedarglen had part of her bridge wings cut off so she could fit under the loading chutes at the LS&I Ore Dock. The Bayship class footers all have bridge wings thus, they do not go into Marquette very often if at all to load or unload cargoes.

Would it be possible to put the LNG tanks in the first cargo hold forward of the pilot house and unloading gear? I'm sure they could work around it and lengthen the ship to make up for the lost space. Having the tanks on the stern like that looks dangerous.

It's my understanding that LNG is mainly for use in open waters. When maneuvering the engines would be switched to straight diesel for more power. I understand there is considerable horsepower and torque loss when operating on LNG with a little diesel for ignition. Anyone know if this is correct?

The plans call for a platform to extend from the stern approximately 18 feet. The platform will be above the existing stern anchor so the waterline length will not change. Bridge wings and rear view cameras will be added to compensate for the reduced visibility caused by the giant tanks on the back deck.

Rmack wrote:How much does LNG weigh? It seems like hanging all that weight off the stern would make the ship kind of hard to handle when empty. Is there enough ballast capacity forward to compensate?

LNG goes between 3.5 and 4 pounds a gallon. I used to deliver propane as bottled gas to tailer courts in Northern Indiana, and the weight of that was 4 pounds per gallon.

The fuel oil bunkers are outboard of the engines, on the port and starboard side. Any LNG tanks put in their place would end up coming through part of the after cabin and would interfere with the rotation of the self-unloader boom.

BTW! anyone know how tall these tanks are? From the illustration on Facebook they look to be over 50-feet tall.

How much does LNG weigh? It seems like hanging all that weight off the stern would make the ship kind of hard to handle when empty. Is there enough ballast capacity forward to compensate?

Guys
Stop thinking locally ,thing global.LNG fuel in ships is not new technology , It is used currently in other locations such as Europe both on coastal and inland waters,in summer and winter.The Diesels used are duel fuel meaning they can us LNG or if needed Diesel oil.LNG tanks on deck is also not new.Search the internet there are a lot of examples of LNG use in world shipping.

Speculation on a couple of the questions asked - Use the LNG for cooling the crew's quarters - this would require a massive expenditure in plumbing and air handling equipment. I think that due to the extreme fire hazard associated with LNG, they would want to keep all of the plumbing to a minimum. Also, as LNG warms up, the pressure rises. If it rises too much, it is vented off. Diesel tanks - She will still need to carry diesel. From what I have read on the engines, they can use diesel exclusively, or LNG, which is ignited by a small amount of diesel on each firing.

Where are the Diesel tanks located on the Miner? And why can't the LNG Tanks be put in place of the existing Tanks and a small Tank be added for the Generators and the small amount of Fuel the Engines need?

So, if they lengthen the Miner, Tregurtha and the Barker then what will the knew length of them be someday? Also, one has to consider this as a thought maybe. If they lengthen them further, how and what if any effect will it have in the winter and spring with ice in the locks? Granted 1000 footers get in barely with the ice but, they have to back out and ram and come into the lock again sometimes. The Poe is 1200 feet long and the maximum length of a ship to use it is 1100 feet. If you stretch them to the 1100 foot length, could they have problems with ice in the Poe if it gets bad enough? Just my thoughts on this subject to anyone.

Paul R. Tregurtha is also planned to get this conversion as will the James R Barker. Only their the Cort and the older & smaller vessels will not see LNG conversions.

I'm sure that they've planned to have adequate onboard LNG capacity for the typical duties these three see since there will be only a single location to fuel.

But I assume if there's a run where LNG refueling isn't always practical that they would instead just utilize full conventional fuel. The tanks remain since these won't be running on a 100% LNG diet and the engines should be able to switch away from LNG as needed.

So if one happens to not get back to Sarnia in time, they'd just revert to a 100% conventional fuel mixture and refill at a more convenient location until they did get back.