Supertankers—Are These ‘Sea Monsters’ Facing Extinction?
By “Awake!” correspondent in Ireland
THE maiden voyage of the Olympic Bravery did not last long—just a few hours. This V. L. C. C. (Very Large Crude Carrier) ran aground on rocks off the coast of Brittany, France. The vessel had been a double problem for her owners. Not only did this ‘monster of the seas’ become a wreck before earning any money, but she also became obsolete before ever doing a day’s work. On this disastrous voyage, the Olympic Bravery was destined to be ‘laid up,’ joining many other vessels in premature redundancy.
The plight of the Olympic Bravery well symbolizes the problems surrounding a modern breed of ships, dubbed “supertankers” due to their tremendous size. When first built, supertankers were viewed by many as an ideal way of transporting the huge amounts of crude oil required by modern industrial societies. Initially, prodigious sums of money were invested in their development. But of late, the shipyards that remodeled their facilities to build these ships find their order books empty.
Close-up View of a Supertanker
We invite you to join us at the shipyard in Belfast to view a new supertanker, the Lima, while she is in the final stages of construction. Vessels like the Lima are not built in the tradition of graceful ships. They appear brutally functional. The Lima’s sides are starkly perpendicular, the bows rounded in a sweeping semicircle, not elegantly tapered. She is finished with a bulbous stub “nose,” normally hidden below the water. This feature facilitates passage through the seas. Supertankers do not cut their way through the water but batter their passage.
As we stand alongside this vessel, her starboard (right) side towers above us like a steel cliff, 80 feet (24 meters) high. The actual height, from deck level to keel, is 94 feet (29 meters), and the length is 1,154 feet (352 meters)—not far short of one quarter of a mile! Here at the stern we can see that even the propeller is of supersize. It is over 30 feet (9 meters) in diameter and weighs 60 tons.
Climbing to deck level, we are confronted by a bewildering tangle of pipes, valves and hydrants. These are used to load and unload oil, and for service and safety purposes. The deck slopes gently from the center, having a width of 182 feet (55 meters). Overall it is large enough to contain 60 tennis courts. Actually, the deck is made up of the ceilings for each of the vessel’s storage tanks. Each tank has an inspection hatch. As we peer into one of the tanks, the bottom of the ship is so far below us that it is hidden from our view in murky shadows.
To the rear of the tanker, rising six stories above the deck, is a structure housing control rooms, accommodations, a swimming pool and other amenities. The navigating bridge on the top story runs the complete width of the ship.
The Lima is described as a vessel of 330,000 “deadweight tons” (d.w.t.). This means that her carrying capacity is 330,000 tons. (When the Lima goes into service, nearly all this space will be filled with crude oil.) That much crude oil is roughly equal to 84 million (imperial) gallons (382 million liters).
As we view the Lima, our minds turn to the uncertain future of supertankers, the largest moving objects man has ever made. Why have the technological “miracles” of the 1960’s become the shipping “dinosaurs” of the 1970’s? To answer this question, we might examine how and why these supertankers developed.
Development of the Supertankers
Supertankers like the Lima are a very new concept in shipping. The whole idea of transporting oil is not that ancient, for oil only started to emerge as an important fuel in the past hundred years, since the invention of the internal combustion engine. Initially, oil was shipped in wooden barrels on ordinary vessels as part of “general cargo.” Then, in 1886, the first specially built “tanker” was launched, the Glückauf, of 2,300 d.w.t.. Growth in tonnage sizes came very slowly. By World War I tankers had reached 8,000-ton capacity; by World War II 16,000-tonners had been built. During the next ten years tankers grew to 30,000 d.w.t.. The scene was now set for the dramatic leap forward into the supertanker era, led originally by Japanese shipbuilders.
In the early 1960’s, the first 100,000-tonner was built. From that time on, sizes increased so fast that any new records were broken as soon as they were set. To date, the largest supertankers are approximately 500,000 d.w.t.
Designers have plans for even larger vessels. The building dock at the Belfast shipyard could handle a 1,000,000-tonner. The only restraints to size increases seem to be the strength of available building materials, and the shortage of harbors deep enough to handle such huge ships.
Just why have supertankers been developed? Why the relentless drive for ever larger ships?
Reasons for Development
The basic motive is MONEY. Many of the world’s multimillionaires have amassed much of their fortunes from speculation with supertankers. Oil companies claim that the cost of many oil products has been kept down by the introduction of these colossal vessels. Why is this the case? The Encyclopædia Britannica notes that the “cost of transportation decreases as ship size increases. The unit cost of carrying oil in a 200,000-ton tanker is 25 percent lower than in a 16,000-ton vessel.” (1976 edition, Macropædia, Vol. 16, p. 689) Several factors are responsible for this. Regardless of the size of the tanker, the size of the crew varies little, and, hence, wages paid are about the same. Also, at a given speed, a long ship moves through the water more easily than a short one. So, the very size of supertankers aids them to reduce their power requirements and, consequently, the amount of fuel used.
Growth in demand for oil products also gave impetus to the supertanker boom. In the 1930’s, approximately 75 percent of the world energy needs were met by coal. By the 1950’s, the pendulum was swinging in favor of oil. Russia and her allies have been able to meet their needs from home deposits, but western Europe and Japan were almost entirely dependent on imported oil, mainly from Arab states. By the 1970’s, even North America found it necessary to import oil, formerly having been self-sufficient.
This ever-growing demand required a fleet of tankers to transport oil from where it exists in abundance, especially around the Persian Gulf, over thousands of miles of ocean to the oil-consuming countries. In the early 1970’s, world demand for oil was growing at an annual rate of between 7 and 9 percent. Consequently, there was a parallel need for growth in tanker tonnage. Supertankers filled that need.
The Boom Becomes a Slump
Then, at the end of 1973, the Arab states introduced the oil-exporting embargo. Within weeks the price of Middle-Eastern oil quadrupled, increasing revenue for the producers but also reversing the previous rapid growth in demand. In some areas this growth had been as much as 10 percent annually.
Until this stunning reversal, it had been assumed that there would be a steady growth in demand for oil. On this basis, many supertankers were on order and were being built to cope with the anticipated growth. Suddenly, the world’s tanker fleet was far too big for the diminishing demand for oil. Ships yet to be completed just added to the surplus, worsening the situation even further. All around the globe, supertankers were “laid up” from regular use. Whenever possible, orders for new tankers were canceled.
Other Problems
These economic problems are not the only difficulties that supertankers have faced in their short history. Some authorities believe that the speed of technological advance in designing these gigantic vessels has outstripped the ability to deal with possible dangers.
One outstanding technical hazard is that of explosions. Gases evaporate from the residue of oil left inside the ship’s tanks after the main load has been discharged. These gases are very easily ignited unless special precautions are taken. Generally speaking, the likelihood of explosion increases with the size of the tank. After three supertankers exploded in December of 1969, new methods of cleaning tanks were introduced. “Inerting,” that is, expelling explosive gases with inert (non-volatile) exhaust gases from the ship’s own engines, was thought to be the answer. But then, on December 29, 1975, the Berge Istra, a supertanker using inserting techniques, exploded.
Another problem involves the navigating of supertankers. Because of their size and shape, they are difficult to maneuver with accuracy, and it takes considerable time to bring them to a complete stop.
The “draught” or underwater depth of some of the huge tankers is so great that few of the world’s harbors have been able to cope with them. In some places, like the Straits of Dover, supertankers pass only one or two feet (.3 to .6 meter) above the seabed. Often these huge vessels have to unload in specialized deep-water ports, like Bantry Bay in Ireland.
Considerable misgivings are being expressed concerning the pollution hazards of supertankers. Collisions and groundings, which are hard to control, can result in the spilling of tremendous quantities of oil. When the Torrey Canyon grounded at Land’s End, England, in 1967, she gushed her 100,000-ton cargo of crude oil into the sea, with resulting havoc to marine and bird life. Miles of coastline were polluted. This disaster prompted the devising of better methods for cleaning-up operations after future mishaps. Aside from such disasters, many authorities are concerned about the unknown damage being done to the delicate ecology of the seas from the millions of tons of oil spilled accidentally or carelessly every year.
The swing in fortunes of supertankers well illustrates the capricious nature of human affairs. At present plans for developing these vessels are themselves grounded. Some have predicted the “death of the deep-sea dinosaurs.” The present world fleet of supertankers will, in the normal course of events, wear out. Though a large question mark hangs over their future at the present, only time will reveal whether these ‘sea monsters’ are simply hibernating rather than becoming extinct.