Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - Kyle Stubbs

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 9
I believe they are actually destined to be built in Romania, by the Damen yard there.


Site related news, functions and modules / Re: "Shared" photos
« on: June 01, 2017, 12:21:25 PM »
Hey, at least the site isn't like the rest of the internet (e.g. Facebook, Google, Twitter, etc), where you can just buy promotion of your posts. Here you still at least would have to put in a huge amount of legwork on your own part to be on top if you so desire.


Shipping News and information / Re: Renamings
« on: May 16, 2017, 02:29:22 AM »
IMO 9509970, Industrial Jazz being renamed today as Ocean Jazz, with flag change to USA

Site related news, functions and modules / Re: Yacht tenders
« on: May 14, 2017, 04:23:53 PM »
If anything deserved a separate category in Special Purpose Vessels first, it would probably be "Pollution Control Vessels." Of the 15 photos I've added to that general category, 11 fall under that umbrella.

I still don't see why a yacht supplier is any different from a crew vessel not used for oilfield purposes. Or a clear line between what defines an "Off Shore Crew Boat" from one lumped in with the workboat category, as their is no listed definition on the site for either. Clarifying that line could easily provide a suitable home for yacht suppliers in an area where people are bound to look for than anyways, and in line with their usual classification in Equasis.

Site related news, functions and modules / Re: Yacht tenders
« on: May 13, 2017, 04:48:09 PM »
From my perspective, crew boats not involved in the offshore oil industry, such as the small fleets in most ports that ferry crew, mail, supplies, etc to and from anchored cargo ships, are generally recommended to be included in either the "Off Shore Crew Vessels" or the "Work Boats including Crew Boats and Tenders" categories. Where, exactly, the distinction is drawn is not particularly clear, as many could have started life in the oilfields, or are built to designs identical to those that did.

Yacht tenders, in essence, perform the same services as those vessels, albeit usually as larger, more luxurious vessels. If the consensus has been to lump non-oilfield crew boats in with the oilfield ones since they provide the same kind of commercial services to different types of customers, I don't see why why one additional, very specific and limited industry should get it's own special category.

If a change for clarification is desired, maybe separating all non-oilfield crew boats, including yacht suppliers, into a clearly defined subcategory of Passenger Vessels, Special Purpose Vessels or even workboats should be considered instead.

Trip reports / Re: Went to Morehead City
« on: May 13, 2017, 01:17:30 AM »
I for one find this an interesting post, as I had no idea that Morehead City even received traffic bigger than fishing boats and the odd tug and barge. If Steven hadn't enlightened us to this point, I would have continued to be ignorant of that fact, as chances are I probably wouldn't have closely looked at an individual photo of a product tanker.

I don't see any regular posters from the North Carolina coast on this site that we could have asked if we were travelling through the region, so isn't that exactly the intention of this category, to inform us of locations we may not have known of where shipping traffic can be seen?


Unless things have changed, site policy has been to maintain obstructed, blurred or otherwise inadequate photos if they are the first, and only photo of the vessel uploaded to the site. Once another photo of the vessel which meets standards is posted, the practice should be to delete the original.

I don't see the need for an extra category when such a process is already in place.


Shipping News and information / Re: ships sold for scrap
« on: January 21, 2017, 09:49:50 PM »
Matson has sold the 1973-built container/RoRo vessel LURLINE (IMO 7321087). After preparation for her voyage at Terminal 5 in Seattle, she will be towed to the US Gulf Coast to be dismantled.

Also a couple of old hits ---LOVE ME TENDER  and  PLEASE PLEASE ME.

The Monkees demand their recognition, too!

A personal favorite for me has always been the 2002-built bulker CRUX, or more specifically, it's original name of FRAGRANT ISLAND. Though, the yacht DUMB LUCK cuts a close second.

Other names I have seen such as WIDE CHARLIE, NEW HISTORY and MORNING NINNI have been on the amusing side as well.

Kind Regards,


That is the basis of me referring to Shell's Junk Yard Fleet.  Thank gawd these machines will not disfigure Seattle's beautiful waterfront!

Don't you already have the US Coast Guard icebreaker fleet stationed in Seattle?

I've always wondered how a couple of drill rigs and some state-of-the-art suppliers manage to "disfigure" the water front when they're parked a stone's throw from a bunch of unused container gantry cranes, seveal rusty old drydocks, abandoned grain silos, and a couple of dozen oil storage tanks...

Shipping News and information / Re: IMO number
« on: November 28, 2015, 02:59:30 AM »
Here's some more info on the PORT DE BEYROUTH/HOLLAND, showing that as built she didn't resemble either tug, but listing that she had been rebuilt multiple times:

An image I found of her before the fire showed an Official Number of 2208584 on the bridge wing, which led me to the information on her identity of all places on this site, stating that she was built in 1955 as the tug IMSUN.

Interestingly, the tug she's moored along matches the original PORT DE BEYROUTH, later HOLLAND, as seen in Wim Kosten's photo on the site. Them moored together adds credence to the notion both were broken up around the same time.

Kind Regards,

Trip reports / Re: Question for All
« on: November 19, 2015, 06:27:23 PM »
I've only spent a very limited amount of time in Mobile, but from what I can tell, the options are limited.

Cooper Riverside Park downtown would offer views of the vessels at the Austal USA shipyard, and any passing traffic. Unfortunately, it's upriver of most of the deepwater port, so I would assume it's mostly tug and barge traffic at that point.

Distant views of the ships coming and going look like they would be available from the boardwalk at Arlington Park near Mobile Downtown Airport, and from Fort Gaines, Fort Morgan or the Mobile Bay Ferry out at the mouth of the estuary, though the viewing distance is probably well over a mile for those locations.

Out at Bayou la Batre, there is a boat launch south off of Shell Belt Road, at the mouth of the harbor, that probably offers a great view of the fishing boats coming and going.

From what I can find, perhaps the best option is the local 2 hour harbor cruise offered on Sundays. It costs $20, and they ask for reservations in advance:

Hope this helps,


I might suggest that for the military vessel weapon category, the site enforce a member limit instead of a site limit.

In such a case, each member would be allowed to post one photo of a weapon type per vessel class, regardless of which vessel it is mounted upon. For example, a single member could post images of a 5"/54 caliber Mark 45 Mod 2 each from both a Ticonderoga-class cruiser and a Arleigh Burke-class destroyer, but posting images of the same weapon from two different Ticonderoga-class cruisers would not be permitted.

As such, weapon photos would only be accepted if the posting member does the leg work to identify and describe what type of gun is photographed, and which vessel, class and type it is mounted upon. Any photos lacking such details would be automatically nominated for deletion.

Those are my thoughts on the subject.

Kind Regards,

I must say that I agree with the reflexion put forward by the Florida lawyer, this tragedy would  ultimately qualify as a Jones Act induced tragedy. There is only so much things you can renew on a ship that has been run hard fo 45 years... There is a reason that MOST commercial vessels sailing foreign going rarely see 30 years of service, let  alone 45.

Maybe 33 deaths will be enough to send a wake-up call, it did not register after the Marine Electric casualty in the 80's unfortunately. If the owners had the choice to built foreign instead of trying to stretch an asset beyond its useful life could this have been avoided ? There would most likely still be an American Merchant Marine today, and safer, newer, more economically viable ships sailing.

This will sound probably harsh, but I know its not going to get questionned, it never is, it would be unpatriotic to do so.

Those who do not learn the lessons of history are bound to repeat the same mistakes.

Why is the onus on the law that's been in use for decades? All US maritime companies have to be familiar with it and base their operations to suit it. Shouldn't it be the responsibility of those companies operating the vessels to know their limits and replace them before they become dangerous? TOTE, the owner of Sea Star Lines, certainly saw fit on the Alaska run, and replaced the sisters of EL FARO, which had managed to survive the rigors of the North Pacific for many years, with a pair of new, US-built Ro/Ros. In fact, EL FARO's replacement also are currently under construction as well.

However, what if one of those replacements, had it already entered service, encountered teething problems and lost power in the same storm? Would it have made it through going beam-to in a Category 4 hurricane? It's probably designed to, as was EL FARO, but life has a way of messing with best laid plans.

But, instead of sitting at home speculating and playing the blame game, we all should just mourn the lives lost, and praise the Coast Guard search and rescue teams risking their own lives to seek truth.

Kind Regards,

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 9