next »

[pieter melissen]

Dear Poster

During the last couple of years we have put considerable effort into reorganising the tanker sector. It had been somewhat neglected, but we feel now that it is back on track again. The most delicate task was to differentiate between crude oil tankers on the one hand and chemical and product tankers on the other, which, especially for the larger ships, is not immediately obvious from the outside.

Equasis is notorious in classifying many products tankers (i.e. there cargo compartments are coated to be able to carry lighter products such as gasoline and naphtha) as crude oil tankers, taking over the definition from Lloyds/Fairplay which calls them crude oil/products tankers. Equasis subsequently cuts of the second part of the definition and uses the crude oil part only.

This results that in many times photos are allocated to the crude oil category, which in reality should be under product tankers. It is a time consuming effort to check each shot all the time.

There is one way for everybody to help us preventing this. Underneath each picture there is a link to the summary page of the ship. After opening that page you can see to which category earlier posted pictures have been allocated. If you follow the "majority category" you will most likely choose the correct one. In case you seriously question "our" choice, do not hesitate to contact us, we do not claim to have perfect knowledge.

For new ships the summary page may not yet work satisfactorily, but you can always try to find new ships on the website of the owners or even the builders. This may sometimes give a proper indication whether the ship is a (clean)product tanker or not. Type indications for product tankers are generally MR/LR1/LR2 and now even LR3 ships (Suezmax Size)are becoming increasingly popular. If the owner calls a ship Aframax, or "dirty" one may assume that she is not coated, or that her coatings are no longer properly applied.

And yes, even clean product tankers can be used to carry crude oil, but no crude oil carrier can be used to carry lighter products, hence the differentiation. Many clean product tankers do also carry vegetable oils, but that should not result in them being classified as vegetable oil tankers.  

Many thanks in advance to everybody and keep the tankers coming.

Pieter Melissen

Corrector Tanker Category.    

[simonwp]

While I appreciate what you say Pieter, if posters have to do too much research before they can post their photographs, many will not bother. Personally I feel that there are too many categories, and that they could be simplified without detriment to the site. However it may be too later to change anything now.

[pieter melissen]

While I appreciate what you say Pieter, if posters have to do too much research before they can post their photographs, many will not bother. Personally I feel that there are too many categories, and that they could be simplified without detriment to the site. However it may be too later to change anything now.

Most of the research has already been done and is reflected in the summary pages. Actually I cannot fully understand why people would not bother to post if they should do something by themselves. With due respect I would argue that most people like to know what they saw and tell us about it in a correct way, rather than just snapshooting about and empty the SD-cards on this site.

[Allan RO]

couldn't agree more Pieter, far too many people just upload pics with very few details and some seem too idle to enter the most basic information, even date of photograph

Allan

[simonwp]

I agree in general Pieter, but I just think having to search owners websites etc to see if a vessel is officially a products or crude tanker, or maybe both, is just a step too far. I also think General Cargo, Bulkers, and Containership categories are split too far. I might search by, for example, RO-RO, or bulker, or Passenger Ship, but I can't ever remember searching by a date of build.

[simonwp]

It's not a matter of being idle Alan, it's a matter of time, resources etc. I take photographs of ships for pleasure, and post them on here because I think others might enjoy them. When the pleasure becomes a chore, then it's time to stop.

[pieter melissen]

The purpose of my plea was to make people post in such a away that photographs (there are well over 2.2 million of them now)are easier to find and can therefore be more satisfactorily enjoyed.   

[gwrdave]

Peter,
I normally use the link from Equasis/Classification Society/Survey, some of the societies give quite a lot of details and one is often the purpose of the vessel. Looked up FNSA 11 (IMO# 9424534) and the DNV-GL classifies this as a crude oil tanker.

http://vesselregister.dnvgl.com/vesselregister/vesseldetails.html?vesselid=G107582

Most of the others including Korean and Chinese societies do the same thing.

Regards,
Dave Gallie

[pieter melissen]

Hi Dave, yes things are never as  straightforward as one would hope, however the Class says :

"
Main purpose:
Crude oil carriage
Additional purpose(s):
Oil products carriage at high temperature
Oil product carriage, low flashpoint (< 60 °C)
Oil product carriage, high flashpoint (>= 60 °C)"

Based on the additional purpose, one has to conclude that she can also carry light oil products, which I suppose means that she is coated, and therefore qualifies as a product tanker. From the pictures I have of her (As AGATE V) she looks like an bunkering tankers and just like so many modern bunker tankers these days, they carry HFO, which is even heavier than crude oil, but they are still considered product tankers. In Lloyds Register this particular ship is said to be a products tanker too.

As I said in the opening post here, many product tankers do carry crude oil form time to time, but non-coated crude oil tankers will never carry (light) products. (And also there are sometimes exceptions, because recently several newbuild crude tankers coming from Korean yards have been known to make their maiden trip carrying a full cargo of light diesel fuel to Western European ports)  

But David, this will always be discussions about what is what, and as long as we do not simply have an age-bracker system for tankers, just like for bulkcarriers, we have to follow what we have, and as it says on the main page, Shipspotting is the source of the best information, so let's all try to make that happen....  

[davidships]

Let's not exaggerate the size of the task, Simon.  Thanks to Pieter's hard work over many months, if not years, in working through ALL the tanker images, moving them into the appropriate category where necessary, the effort required is close to zero.  

Just a look at other images of the using "View the summary page for this ship!"  That can be done before loading, or if more convenient, afterwards (then just editing the info accordingly if the guess was wrong.  Only completely new entries should need any digging elsewhere.

You raised some more general points about the subdivisions of categories.  We will take take soundings from the Admin group about this - and then we can open this up for wider discussion, though I would prefer to do that in the Autumn.

David

[simonwp]

It has been a bit of an issue for me, David. Over the past few years I have been digitalising my large collection of photographs and slides, and, as I do so, I am posting a selection on here. I have been especially keen to post "new to site" vessels, but tankers have on occasions caused me difficultly due to the vessel having being scrapped so no contemporary information available, and just designated as "tanker" on sites such as Miramar. Many have been taken at Immingham, where they would almost certainly have been discharging crude, but exactly what category they should be in has been unclear. I have either not posted, or if I thought the vessel was particularly interesting, taken a guess.

I guess it boils down to what exactly is the mission of the site. Is it to have perfect pictures with perfect information even if that restricts the photographs posted, or is it to extend the range of ships covered by allowing some flexibility, and accepting for older vessels precise information might not be readily available to a lot of members. I personally prefer the latter. If information is initially lacking for the original poster, with a membership of our size, there is usually someone who can fill in the gaps and ease the burden on admins.

[pieter melissen]

Paul (?). If you are having trouble identfying an older tanker, just sent me a message and I'll do it for you. And for that matter the older tankers are causing far less problems than the newer ones where the mix of product and crude tankers is much more diffuse.
When other people come up with extra info, it will still be the adimin who will have to physically add the info to the photo. 

[pieter melissen]

BP R-Class tankers

https://www.bp.com/en/global/bp-shipping/our-fleet/r-class-overview/bp-resolution.html

Very recently several pictures of the new British Resolution were posted as Chemical and product tankers, no doubt because she paid an empty visit to Amsterdam. Checking the BP website I found that she and her sisters have been designed to carry crude oil and black products,and are not epoxy coated. Therefore, in the definition we apply on this site, she can not be considered as a clean product tanker(LR2). Hence I moved the shots to the crude oil category.

Please keep note of this when posting photo's of her and her sisters.

Thank you.

Jump to: Please select a destination: ----------------------------- Shipspotters all over the world ----------------------------- => Shipping News and information => Trip reports => Scale Models => Site related news, functions and modules => Help and Advice => Consultations and review of site standards