Shell Is Building the World's Largest Man-Made Floating Object

[slakjaw]

Originally Posted by milt

I thought the world's biggest floating object was the trash island out in the Pacific.

lol

[Amail]

rsNINE, I'm curious - what do you know about this project? What makes you think this is any more dangerous than any of the hundreds of FPSO's in place or in production? Do you have some insight into it's mooring design? Is there some fatal flaw in the hull design? Perhaps you take issue with the SCR's or maybe the gas export lines? Or are you just spooked that it's really big?

This looks to me like any other incrementally bigger offshore floating platform. And, I do know a little about them.

[BRPORSCHE]

I do apologize NINESOOPER. I was a little impatient last night. Though I still don't take back my thoughts. Something like this will be an engineering marvel and I am all for it. It's about pushing the envelope. Like Souk said this will eliminate A LOT of pipelines that would eventually pollute the Earth's Oceans.

Edit: Also what were your thoughts on the BP disaster? I feel that even though yes it had a negative impact in the short term, but over the long term the advancement in well technology has had many breakthroughs that will better the Industry. Sometimes you have to have a problem before you can understand your faults.

[rsNINESOOPER]

Originally Posted by sammyg2

Stoopid post.
I suppose you hypocrites walk or ride bicycles everywhere you go and don't own an internal combustion engine, and everything else you own is made from wood or wool or cotton?

Hypocrites? Nothing in my post suggests I am against oil and gas until a reliable alternative can be found. You make an awful lot of assumptions when you throw out your rhetoric.

Disagreement is normal but educated people tend to discuss things and create a debate instead of a schoolyard statement cast as a personal insult.

[rsNINESOOPER]

Originally Posted by Amail

rsNINE, I'm curious - what do you know about this project? What makes you think this is any more dangerous than any of the hundreds of FPSO's in place or in production? Do you have some insight into it's mooring design? Is there some fatal flaw in the hull design? Perhaps you take issue with the SCR's or maybe the gas export lines? Or are you just spooked that it's really big?

This looks to me like any other incrementally bigger offshore floating platform. And, I do know a little about them.

I do not have first hand knowledge of the project but do have two friends who work in the refinery industry. One is an engineer who works in offshore development and the other is a systems manager at a refinery. Getting a chance to hear the engineer talk about the project was interesting from the safety standpoint of packing all those systems together and having enough ability to create fool proof operation of them so a tired worker can not make a catastrophic mistake. Obviously it's impossible to be able to look the project over in any level of detail unless you are inside it but speculation based on current designs is fair at this stage until more in depth info comes to light.

I would be interested in what methods of stability management that are employed during a hull breach event during a class 5 typhoon or a terrorist attack scenario. Personally I believe an approach of a few smaller vessels linked together with articulated / flexible pipe work allowing isolation of certain processes to reduce the exposure to total loss. A collection vessel, a first stage separation vessel and a refining/ transfer vessel. I know this is more complicated and has its own risks but also allows separation and isolation in an emergency scenario. The all eggs in one basket with no padding does not make logical sense to me. I am however fascinated by the engineering necessary to construct the ship which will be quite a feat.

[RWebb]

1. Natural gas is a good transitional fuel until we can develop PV solar, fuel cells, genetically engineered cellulosic fuels, or whatever -- I think this is still true even tho it is not as "good" as we used to think. See my post a few weeks ago on this.

2. I don't know if it is ridiculous to build something like this, tho obviously Shell thought not. Aussies have decent regs. tho I dunno to what degree potential natural disasters have been analyzed. In the US, they are supposed to do that, but... Maconda/BP.

3. Rather than just sink, I'd be worried that the LNG would create a gigantic fireball if disaster struck.

4. Another issue is that they may be trying to avoid the env'l impacts of onshore facilities that are usually involved with LNG.


and, OT seems out of control these days -- much like PARF

[rsNINESOOPER]

Originally Posted by BRPORSCHE

I do apologize NINESOOPER. I was a little impatient last night. Though I still don't take back my thoughts. Something like this will be an engineering marvel and I am all for it. It's about pushing the envelope. Like Souk said this will eliminate A LOT of pipelines that would eventually pollute the Earth's Oceans.

Edit: Also what were your thoughts on the BP disaster? I feel that even though yes it had a negative impact in the short term, but over the long term the advancement in well technology has had many breakthroughs that will better the Industry. Sometimes you have to have a problem before you can understand your faults.

Apology accepted-

I agree it will indeed be an engineering marvel but like you mention "sometimes you have to have a problem before you can understand you faults". This is the problem with a project like the Royal Dutch Shell. It's scale makes it vulnerable to a failure of epic proportions that goes beyond the BP catastrophe. The well technology is not what I worry about. I am concerned with human error and regulatory/ operational error. Which in the BP incident occurred at all levels based upon what I have read about it. BP has done a horrible job owning up to the failure and their lackluster action on the clean up and just plain admitting they screwed up royally without having to be pressured into being responsible is reprehensible. Mistakes are inevitable for we are human but what is most important is how we set ourselves up for less risk and what we do to make up for those mistakes that are made. Some mistakes can not be undone. Shell has a history of shrugging off responsibility in their oil and gas exploration endeavors that continues to this day. I believe a company like Shell should have to clean up their act a little before throwing anchor off the coast of Australia. I trust in the engineer but when they are pushed by companies like Shell short cuts are made by the top that effect the outcome of a project that could be great.

[vash]

phew..glad this thread isnt about someone's bathroom visit at a mexican bran muffin factory.

[sammyg2]

Originally Posted by rsNINESOOPER

Hypocrites? Nothing in my post suggests I am against oil and gas until a reliable alternative can be found. You make an awful lot of assumptions when you throw out your rhetoric.

Disagreement is normal but educated people tend to discuss things and create a debate instead of a schoolyard statement cast as a personal insult.

Someone else jumped on your bandwagon and started spewing crap about how oil companies shopuld be blowing all their money on alternative energy to save the planet.
Ironically he is the same honest person who posted in the parts section that he was interested in buying a cat bypass pipe for his nine eleven so he could ditch his catalytic converter and pollute the earth more. My reply was directed at him specifically and anyone else who lives in a fantasy world devoid of facts.

No, you just expressed a wish that this large ship sink and that you would extract enjoyment from that happening. SHAME ON THEM FOR TRYING TO BRING YOU AND ALL OF US CHEAP CLEAN ENERGY FUELS!

Would it be too much of a stretch to assume you would also celebrate the drowning of the hundred of so crewmembers?

[red-beard]

Originally Posted by RWebb

1. Natural gas is a good transitional fuel until we can develop PV solar, fuel cells, genetically engineered cellulosic fuels, or whatever -- I think this is still true even tho it is not as "good" as we used to think. See my post a few weeks ago on this.

2. I don't know if it is ridiculous to build something like this, tho obviously Shell thought not. Aussies have decent regs. tho I dunno to what degree potential natural disasters have been analyzed. In the US, they are supposed to do that, but... Maconda/BP.

3. Rather than just sink, I'd be worried that the LNG would create a gigantic fireball if disaster struck.

4. Another issue is that they may be trying to avoid the env'l impacts of onshore facilities that are usually involved with LNG.


and, OT seems out of control these days -- much like PARF

You, of course, know that Natural Gas is LESS flammable and harder to ignite than gasoline, right?

[sm70911]

[QUOTE=sammyg2;6039397]Someone else jumped on your bandwagon and started spewing crap about how oil companies shopuld be blowing all their money on alternative energy to save the planet.
Ironically he is the same honest person who posted in the parts section that he was interested in buying a cat bypass pipe for his nine eleven so he could ditch his catalytic converter and pollute the earth more. My reply was directed at him specifically and anyone else who lives in a fantasy world devoid of facts.

I was and still am interested in a pre muffler that's true. (I find it slightly creepy that you check back through my posts in order to reference that)
I enjoy driving my 911 and also do as much as I can to live in an environmentally friendly way. Its not such a contradiction is it really ? I dont believe that we all have to just stop driving gas powered cars in order to believe in sustainable resources.
Do I think its up to the energy sector to invest into a sustainable future for coming generations, yes I do. Do I believe its wrong not to be developing these resources right now, yes.

Overall Its a long term viewpoint, and sadly something that's not just black and white, but hey maybe one day Donald Trump will be President and you could be his go to energy guy ... while hes getting on with some more important other stuff like reality TV and birth certificates.

[RWebb]

Originally Posted by red-beard

You, of course, know that Natural Gas is LESS flammable and harder to ignite than gasoline, right?

N gas makes a real nice fireball - that's the point. Nobody is putting refineries off shore.

[red-beard]

It is safer than gasoline and I don't see people complaining about gasoline tankers going around.

[scottmandue]

Originally Posted by red-beard

It is safer than gasoline and I don't see people complaining about gasoline tankers going around.

Uh... I thought most tankers hauled crude oil?

I don't want to get into that PARFy-ness of all this, but the biggest explosion int the Los Angeles harbor... was a coke (the mineral) hauling ship.

And we already have fuel cells...

BMW World - BMW 750hL

[RWebb]

Originally Posted by red-beard

It is safer than gasoline and I don't see people complaining about gasoline tankers going around.

think about the size


Nonetheless, it pretty much has to be safer than coal use. A study done at Harvard Medical School found that if the health costs f burning coal were factored in, the price would be 3X the cost today.

[MarKoBrow]

Originally Posted by RWebb

think about the size


Nonetheless, it pretty much has to be safer than coal use. A study done at Harvard Medical School found that if the health costs f burning coal were factored in, the price would be 3X the cost today.

I also read that burning Nat Gas has far less CO2 output as burning Gasoline, Is this true?

[Porsche-O-Phile]

Which exposes socialized medicine for the ruse it is - simply a mechanism by which the liberals intend to social engineer all behaviors - eliminating those they happen to not like by citing things like "public health costs".

If you don't like the health impacts from burning coal (FWIW I don't either), then don't live downwind from a coal plant (I don't)

[MarKoBrow]

Originally Posted by Porsche-O-Phile

Which exposes socialized medicine for the ruse it is - simply a mechanism by which the liberals intend to social engineer all behaviors - eliminating those they happen to not like by citing things like "public health costs".

If you don't like the health impacts from burning coal (FWIW I don't either), then don't live downwind from a coal plant (I don't)

I don't understand are you saying that burning coal is a behavior and the public is given a choice whether or not it want to be exposed to it's burning. I have been hearing from both sides of the fence about the negative impact of burning coal for the last 30 years.

[RWebb]

Originally Posted by MarKoBrow

I also read that burning Nat Gas has far less CO2 output as burning Gasoline, Is this true?

yes, in fact N gas powered vehicles are used in high pollution areas to cut emissions - rather unwieldy tho

[rsNINESOOPER]

aa