Carnival Orders 4 New Ships

[FuturzMinion]

Its time to replace the Fantasy fleet. :)

I don't agree, the Fantasy class ships are smaller, the crew are closer to you and they are able to get into smaller, prettier ports.

[bruadhin]

They're going to have to be big ships, since it takes about 6 times the weight of LNG to equal the energy in a pound of diesel or residual fuel. So, the fuel tanks will have to be 6 times as big, and add in the insulation of the tanks and the re-liquifaction equipment, the below decks area will need to increase substantially.

 

That is a huge bet on natural gas prices staying low. I hope they keep the ability to convert back to bunker fuel. It sounds like it is going to be a cramped ship for the passengers.

[LSUcajunmom]

That is a huge bet on natural gas prices staying low. I hope they keep the ability to convert back to bunker fuel. It sounds like it is going to be a cramped ship for the passengers.

 

Maybe part of the reason it will be so big to accommodate the gas tanks. And while we are at it throw in some extra cabins!! :p

[ragethjj23]

Two are for AIDA & two for Costa. None for Carnival.

 

Dont forget about the other 5 ships...

[bruadhin]

Maybe part of the reason it will be so big to accommodate the gas tanks. And while we are at it throw in some extra cabins!! :p

 

Gross tonnage includes all spaces, not just passenger spaces. Those gas tanks may eat up a lot of that 180,000+ gt. Obviously it is all speculation until the design is released, but 5,000+ lower berths AND LNG suggests a cramped ship.

 

They could go with smaller tanks and reduced range to offset the larger fuel requirement.

[eroller]

Royal Caribbean's Oasis Class is looking better and better at 225,000 GT and 5400 passengers. Leave it to Carnival to design something smaller but carry more passengers, then brag about it being the highest capacity. Sorry but I don't consider having the highest capacity in the industry a selling point. Largest physical ship perhaps gives you bragging rights, but not highest capacity. That is actually a negative in my book.

 

As previously mentioned the LNG tanks and support will also take up a lot of space, meaning even less space per passenger. These will be two very high density ships. They will take chair-hogs to a whole new level I'm sure.

 

Two for sure will go to AIDA, and it's likely the other two will go to Costa.

 

So that is 4 of the previously announced 9 new ships. I'm guessing the other five will be split between Princess, Carnival, and P&O.

[love my grandkids]

Royal Caribbean's Oasis Class is looking better and better at 225,000 GT and 5400 passengers. Leave it to Carnival to design something smaller but carry more passengers, then brag about it being the highest capacity. Sorry but I don't consider having the highest capacity in the industry a selling point. Largest physical ship perhaps gives you bragging rights, but not highest capacity. That is actually a negative in my book.

 

As previously mentioned the LNG tanks and support will also take up a lot of space, meaning even less space per passenger. These will be two very high density ships. They will take chair-hogs to a whole new level I'm sure.

 

Two for sure will go to AIDA, and it's likely the other two will go to Costa.

 

So that is 4 of the previously announced 9 new ships. I'm guessing the other five will be split between Princess, Carnival, and P&O.

 

Will be interesting to see the design but seems like they will be rather crowded.

[chengkp75]

That is a huge bet on natural gas prices staying low. I hope they keep the ability to convert back to bunker fuel. It sounds like it is going to be a cramped ship for the passengers.

 

It's not so much a bet on gas prices as the emissions requirements which continue to get stricter. As of last Jan 1st, the ships cannot burn bunker (residual fuel) within 200nm of the US coast without the costly ($1-1.5mil) upgrade of scrubbers. And in 2020, the IMO is looking to establish a 1% sulfur limit on fuel everywhere in the world, so LNG is a very attractive idea for ships of all kinds, but there are two main hurdles: tank size, and the availability of bunker barges/tankers to fuel the larger ships.

[eroller]

but there are two main hurdles: tank size, and the availability of bunker barges/tankers to fuel the larger ships.

 

 

Exactly. Right now LNG refueling is quite limited to certain ports. I'm sure that will expand greatly over the next decade, but until that happens these new LNG powered cruise ships might have some itinerary limitations. It's a major reason some others lines have taken a wait-and-see approach to LNG powered vessels.

 

The tanks will either be placed below decks taking up an enormous amount of interior space, or out on deck taking up already very valuable deck space. Either way you are talking about a loss of space. It will be interesting to see how the design compensates for this, but we already know these will be high density ships based upon the GT and passenger capacity.

[bruadhin]

It's not so much a bet on gas prices as the emissions requirements which continue to get stricter. As of last Jan 1st, the ships cannot burn bunker (residual fuel) within 200nm of the US coast without the costly ($1-1.5mil) upgrade of scrubbers. And in 2020, the IMO is looking to establish a 1% sulfur limit on fuel everywhere in the world, so LNG is a very attractive idea for ships of all kinds, but there are two main hurdles: tank size, and the availability of bunker barges/tankers to fuel the larger ships.

 

I admit I have no idea what the fuel burn and thus the operational costs for a cruise ship are, but there must be more to the picture. Are there substantial performance penalties or high operational costs for the scrubbers? Otherwise that seems much cheaper than going to LNG.

 

Exactly. Right now LNG refueling is quite limited to certain ports. I'm sure that will expand greatly over the next decade, but until that happens these new LNG powered cruise ships might have some itinerary limitations. It's a major reason some others lines have taken a wait-and-see approach to LNG powered vessels.

 

The tanks will either be placed below decks taking up an enormous amount of interior space, or out on deck taking up already very valuable deck space. Either way you are talking about a loss of space. It will be interesting to see how the design compensates for this, but we already know these will be high density ships based upon the GT and passenger capacity.

 

I can't believe for a second they would put them on deck. Otherwise it wouldn't be much of a cruise ship.

 

Also, I have to wonder if there are safety concerns? I understand that bunker fuel is difficult to light, while LNG would rapidly vaporize and be much more flammable.

 

Finally, won't the cruise line have to be much more strict about where smoking is and is not permitted on the open decks? I assume there will have to be some venting for when the ship isn't able to consume or otherwise keep the LNG cool enough to avoid evaporation.

[eroller]

 

 

 

I can't believe for a second they would put them on deck. Otherwise it wouldn't be much of a cruise ship.

 

 

 

 

VIKING GRACE, an LNG powered passenger ferry in Europe (the first I think) put the tanks on deck. In this pic you can see how huge they are. That would take a lot of space below decks to place them there.

 

Yes there are a lot of restrictions and safety concerns with refueling the LNG tanks. Also the majority of ports right now simply don't have LNG refueling capabilities. I'm not sure how it will all be managed but obviously it can be done. We already have LNG powered overnight ferries which are quite similar to cruise ships in many respects.

 

Edited June 15, 2015 by eroller

[bruadhin]

VIKING GRACE, an LNG powered passenger ferry in Europe (the first I think) put the tanks on deck. In this pic you can see how huge they are. That would take a lot of space below decks to place them there.

 

Yes there are a lot of restrictions and safety concerns with refueling the LNG tanks. Also the majority of ports right now simply don't have LNG refueling capabilities. I'm not sure how it will all be managed but obviously it can be done. We already have LNG powered overnight ferries which are quite similar to cruise ships in many respects.

 

 

Those definitely aren't small, and this is a ferry. How long a voyage does she go on and how long between refueling?

[cjknox]

From what I've heard this is how the 9 ship order will be broken down:

 

Carnival: 1

Princess: 1

Costa: 2

HAL: 1

Aida: 2

P&O UK: 1

Cunard: 1

 

(Both Costa and Aida's new builds being announced today.)

 

As was mentioned earlier it takes more LNG to power a vessel compared to the crude that is currently being utilized. I feel that this technology can be integrated good enough to make the tanks less noticeable if at all; and obviously Carnival feels that they'll be able to accomplish this task. That's the advantage of starting a design from scratch. I applaud Carnival for trying something different, and no doubt they'll be investing in the infrastructure to support the continued operation of these vessels between now and their completion.

 

As far as passenger space ratio goes I don't feel that it'll be an issue as it's such a relative concept that it'll just depend on each individual. One person can say they feel that a certain ship feels crowded while another one the exact same sailing could say they don't feel that way.

[falkcor]

As was mentioned earlier it takes more LNG to power a vessel compared to the crude that is currently being utilized. I feel that this technology can be integrated good enough to make the tanks less noticeable if at all; and obviously Carnival feels that they'll be able to accomplish this task.

 

or, for all we know, they might make them entirely apparent to trumpet the fact that the ship is powered by LNG, and the environmental benefits related therein...

 

sounds crazy, but that's exactly what they did with island princess:

 

 

proudly placing replica 'jet engines' on the funnel (which i always thought looked kinda ridiculous) to delineate that they used GE gas turbine engines:

 

http://www.geaviation.com/press/marine/marine_2003812.html

[chengkp75]

I admit I have no idea what the fuel burn and thus the operational costs for a cruise ship are, but there must be more to the picture. Are there substantial performance penalties or high operational costs for the scrubbers? Otherwise that seems much cheaper than going to LNG.

 

 

 

I can't believe for a second they would put them on deck. Otherwise it wouldn't be much of a cruise ship.

 

Also, I have to wonder if there are safety concerns? I understand that bunker fuel is difficult to light, while LNG would rapidly vaporize and be much more flammable.

 

Finally, won't the cruise line have to be much more strict about where smoking is and is not permitted on the open decks? I assume there will have to be some venting for when the ship isn't able to consume or otherwise keep the LNG cool enough to avoid evaporation.

 

There is another specter on the horizon, that Carnival must be looking at, and that is that after 2015, all new engines must meet the stricter Tier 4 emissions standards, which are difficult for engines running even on diesel fuel to meet without a lot of computer control and post combustion treatment (scrubbers, catalytics). LNG fueled engines can already meet the Tier 4 requirements.

 

Scrubbers present their own problems. There are two types of scrubbers for ships, open and closed systems. Open systems are only allowed to be operated in the open ocean, as the scrubber water contains all the heavy metals, sulfur, and soot from the fuel, and is discharged overboard. Needless to say, this kind of system will have a limited lifespan given the effectiveness of the environmental lobby. Closed systems recirculate the scrubber water, and remove the contaminants with a centrifuge, but then this product must be discharged to a shore facility for incineration, so there is a cost, and an infrastructure investment involved.

 

Studies I've read show that conversion to LNG makes sense in N. America and Europe, due to the low gas prices, but not so much in Asia. Given today's prices, LNG in the US is about 70% of the cost of residual fuel, and 50% of the cost of diesel fuel, for the same calorific output. It's not quite that dramatic in Europe, but still a cost savings.

 

You bet there are safety concerns. And they will seriously affect the design of LNG fueled cruise ships. Currently, IMO has interim rules for the design of gas fueled ships, and the classification societies are following. ABS's rules are the ones I'm familiar with, and have restrictions like:

 

1. Tank placement can either be on deck (not likely for a cruise ship) or if in the hull, must not be closer to the side than 1/5 of the beam (width), and no less than 2 meters from the bottom, to protect them from incident. Fuel tanks are usually in the bottom of the ship or along the side. Having to place them inboard from the hull will greatly complicate the machinery layout of the engineering spaces.

 

2. Unlike normal fuel tanks which are vented to the atmosphere, LNG tanks are fitted with relief valves, and the ship must have the ability to utilize the "boil off gas" generated when the LNG warms up and turns to gas. This can be a simple burner arrangement (wasteful of energy), or a "dual fuel" engine that can burn gaseous and liquid fuel at the same time, or a reliquefaction plant to cool and compress the boil off gas back to a liquid and put it back in the tank. This, and closed venting while bunkering (sending the vapor that exists in an empty LNG tank back to the facility delivering the new liquid LNG to the ship) removes most of the additional hazard from smoking on deck.

 

3. Requirements for inert gas generation onboard for preventing and quelling LNG tank fires. Inert gas is basically exhaust gas that has an oxygen content below 5%. When in a confined space like a fuel tank, if the atmosphere has less than 5% oxygen, combustion is not possible, and no flammable material will burn. So, you've got more equipment.

 

4. Gas detection systems, which generally include sensors imbedded in the tank insulation to detect cracks in the tank.

 

5. Cryogenic problems. Spilled LNG can fracture structural steel, so special arrangements like double walled pipe to contain spills in materials designed to take the extreme cold are used.

 

All of this, and the limited arrangements for LNG bunkering that exist today, is why most ship owners, not just cruise lines, are taking a wait and see attitude to LNG. Carnival must not have wanted to invest in the additional technology to burn diesel fuel and meet Tier 4, given that a potential Tier 5 is on the horizon (next decade or so), when probably only LNG engines would be allowed to be built.

 

Know that the Tier emissions levels are only for new built engines. Those already in existence must meet the Tier level when they were built.

[chengkp75]

From what I've heard this is how the 9 ship order will be broken down:

 

Carnival: 1

Princess: 1

Costa: 2

HAL: 1

Aida: 2

P&O UK: 1

Cunard: 1

 

(Both Costa and Aida's new builds being announced today.)

 

As was mentioned earlier it takes more LNG to power a vessel compared to the crude that is currently being utilized. I feel that this technology can be integrated good enough to make the tanks less noticeable if at all; and obviously Carnival feels that they'll be able to accomplish this task. That's the advantage of starting a design from scratch. I applaud Carnival for trying something different, and no doubt they'll be investing in the infrastructure to support the continued operation of these vessels between now and their completion.

 

As far as passenger space ratio goes I don't feel that it'll be an issue as it's such a relative concept that it'll just depend on each individual. One person can say they feel that a certain ship feels crowded while another one the exact same sailing could say they don't feel that way.

 

As you posted while I was doing my long winded one, some of what you say is answered there. There are over 50 LNG powered ships operating today, and several types of cargo ships are being built. Carnival may be the first major cruise line to do this, but they will be building in experience from others.

 

As far as investing in the infrastructure, that is where it gets really complicated. It becomes a bit of a chicken/egg problem. Why should an energy provider invest in a gas bunkering facility unless there is a demand for it, and why should a shipping company invest in a gas fueled ship when there is no facility to provide it.

 

Most LNG facilities in the US today are gassification plants that take LNG and allow it to return to gaseous form for distribution to consumers. What a bunkering facility requires is a reliquefaction plant that will take this gaseous natural gas from the grid, and reliquify it to allow pumping and economical storage. Since the US is now looking to export natural gas, all of the gas terminals built in the 70's and 80's to receive LNG from abroad, are now applying for licenses to build reliquefaction systems to allow export to vessels. From the reliquefaction plant, you need to either bring the ship to the facility for loading (not likely to happen with a cruise ship), run a cryogenic pipeline to the dock (not likely in urban areas), or build LNG bunker barges/small tankers. These will not be owned by Carnival, any more than the current bunker barges are, so there must be demand or incentive for companies to invest in building them. Since these will be new types of vessels, the rules for design and safety will take a while to develop.

 

It is happening, but it's not going to happen overnight, and it's not going to happen without a lot of growing pains.

[eroller]

From what I've heard this is how the 9 ship order will be broken down:

 

Carnival: 1

Princess: 1

Costa: 2

HAL: 1

Aida: 2

P&O UK: 1

Cunard: 1

 

(Both Costa and Aida's new builds being announced today.)

 

 

No sure where you got this information from but my sources have specified that none will be for the Cunard brand. It's not performing strongly enough. I'm also not sure that any will be for HAL as they already have two ships on order (outside this 9-ship announcement). Those two ships are probably enough to last them for awhile based on their usual growth pattern.

 

Carnival and Princess already have ships on order (two for Carnival & one for Princess going to China), which are also outside this 9-ship order but I would expect them each to get at least one towards the end of this build cycle. I think P&O will get more than one.

 

I would speculate the following based on information I have heard:

 

2: AIDA

2: Costa

2: P&O

2: Carnival

1: Princess

 

Of course the beauty of this arrangement is flexibility. Carnival Corp. has secured the building slots but doesn't have to decide the brand allocations just yet. It can be changed or adapted depending on market conditions and brand performance in the next few years or soon after the actual contracts are signed.

Edited June 15, 2015 by eroller

[portocaller]

Too big for me. I have no desire to sail with that many people. That's just me. On the other hand, I am happy the cruising industry is doing that well, but when it doesn't, those will be some pretty sweet deals.

[eroller]

I think this Bloomberg headline got it best!

 

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-06-15/carnival-will-stuff-more-than-7-000-humans-into-its-new-cruise-ships

 

There is also an interesting video with Carnival Corp. CEO Arnold Donald.

[Haoie]

If you think some ships feel crowded now, wait til you see these! Passenger to space ratio is very important.

[London-Calling]

Leave it to Carnival to design something smaller but carry more passengers, then brag about it being the highest capacity..

 

Yes!

 

The second biggest class of ships, yet still 45,000 gt smaller than the ‘Oasis’ class, with a bigger passenger capacity of 6,600 compared to Oasis’s 6,296, (all berths).

 

Space ratio, Oasis = 38, Carnival Newbuild = 27 (all berths).

[London-Calling]

This is a better image of Viking Grace's Gas tanks:

 

http://www.seabreezes.co.im/images/content/news/201403/VikiingGrace.jpg

[falkcor]

I think this Bloomberg headline got it best!

 

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-06-15/carnival-will-stuff-more-than-7-000-humans-into-its-new-cruise-ships

 

There is also an interesting video with Carnival Corp. CEO Arnold Donald.

 

LOL and for those that don't click through... the headline is:

 

Carnival Will Stuff More Than 7,000 Humans Into Its New Cruise Ships

 

brilliant! LOL :)

[CHOPPERTESTER]

Yes!

 

The second biggest class of ships, yet still 45,000 gt smaller than the ‘Oasis’ class, with a bigger passenger capacity of 6,600 compared to Oasis’s 6,296, (all berths).

 

Space ratio, Oasis = 38, Carnival Newbuild = 27 (all berths).

 

2 for Aida and 2 for Costa, I am assuming primarily local to the Med where not much LNG would be required to get you port to port or to a refueling stop. The two tanks shown for the ferry could fit in the MDR they get rid of to force you into the fee for dinner spots. For TAs, they'll probably be duel fuel, LNG for local and bunker in international waters outside the restricted fuel zones.

 

6600 pax on a 180,000 ton ship "not being crowded" as stated by Carnival is laughable but then again they are for the German and Italian markets vs 6200 NA's on an Oasis class so space would be a wash. Just kidding.

[vwrestler171]

They're going to have to be big ships, since it takes about 6 times the weight of LNG to equal the energy in a pound of diesel or residual fuel. So, the fuel tanks will have to be 6 times as big, and add in the insulation of the tanks and the re-liquifaction equipment, the below decks area will need to increase substantially.

 

If they keep the fuel liquidized, why would they need all the re-liquification equipment? I know we are building some engines at work that get better mileage that the diesel counterparts. Plus LNG is much cheaper than diesel.