Giant megaships to suck Aussie 'stranded' gas fields

Discussion in 'Current Events' started by edesignuk, Oct 9, 2009.

  1. edesignuk Moderator emeritus

    edesignuk

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2002
    Location:
    London, England
    #1
    The Register.

    That's erm, rather large :eek:
     
  2. eawmp1 macrumors 601

    eawmp1

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2008
    Location:
    FL
    #2
    Makes sense. If you can't get the resource to processing, take the processing to the resource.
     
  3. snberk103 macrumors 603

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2007
    Location:
    An Island in the Salish Sea
    #3
    Safer for population centres, too. If the floating refinery ever goes "boom" you're not evacuating 10s of thousands of people potentially. Bad for the environment though if the refinery goes "sink", though.

    How would they handle the waste water in a refinery of that size? I'll admit I haven't read the article yet, I'll do that next.
     
  4. arkitect macrumors 601

    arkitect

    Joined:
    Sep 5, 2005
    Location:
    Bath, United Kingdom
    #4
    I wish they'd put a matchbox next to these things so you can get a proper view of how huge it is.
    ;)
     
  5. Dr.Pants macrumors 65816

    Dr.Pants

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2009
    #5
    The numbers quoted in the Register are pretty mind-boggling, I admit.

    I think the companies involved after making a massive investment like that (which, note, hasn't been done yet) have to worry about conditions on the sea - water gets too rough/weather goes south, piracy, political turmoil north, sinking. I can imagine that it would be very hard, if not impossible, to insure.
     
  6. velocityg4 macrumors 68040

    velocityg4

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2004
    Location:
    Georgia
    #6
    Haven't people learned yet. You don't say that a ship can withstand major storms, hurricanes or that they are unsinkable. That is a sure fire way to make sure it will sink.:p

    Since they say it can withstand a Typhoon it will probably go down in Light Air.
     
  7. juanm macrumors 65816

    juanm

    Joined:
    May 1, 2006
    Location:
    Fury 161
    #7
    And so was the München... :rolleyes:

     
  8. Don't panic macrumors 603

    Don't panic

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2004
    Location:
    having a drink at Milliways
    #8
    they won't allow matchboxes within a 20 nautical miles radius from this monster ;)

    it would comfortably be the longest ship in the world.
     
  9. yellow Moderator emeritus

    yellow

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Location:
    Portland, OR
  10. snberk103 macrumors 603

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2007
    Location:
    An Island in the Salish Sea
    #10
    Edmund Fitzgerald, at 24,000 tonnes and 222 metres. Not the biggest ship, admittedly. But she went down with all hands during a storm on a lake without getting a distress call out. It was Lake Superior mind you, but still a lake. I'm with velocityg4.... claiming a ship will be too big to sink is like being a security red-shirt on an away-mission during a Star Trek episode.

    Look up the Gordon Lightfoot song Edmund Fitzgerald for a treat.
     
  11. mojohanna macrumors 6502a

    mojohanna

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2004
    Location:
    Cleveland
    #11
    Great song. "The lake it is said never gives up her dead when the gales of November come early...."
     
  12. RedTomato macrumors 68040

    RedTomato

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2005
    Location:
    .. London ..
    #12
    Larger than Knock Nevis??

    I look forwards to seeing it being 'extended' to over 500m then within a couple of decades ending up as a floating rust-heap storing FLNG off the shore of somewhere hot and dry, while everyone else points and stares and says 'Thank God we didn't pay to have THAT built'.
     
  13. bartelby macrumors Core

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2004
    #13
    But there is one in the image, it's just in between the 2 ships
     
  14. wfoster macrumors 6502a

    wfoster

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2009
    Location:
    Plymouth, UK
    #14
    Hahaha :D
     
  15. obeygiant macrumors 68040

    obeygiant

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2002
    Location:
    totally cool
    #15
    I've seen those natural gas tankers with the big spheres, and they're HUGE! You can see them miles away! I'd love to see one of these things out to sea.
     
  16. carlgo macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2006
    #16
    The Fitz sank because two huge waves came along and they were the right distance apart so that the bow was up on one and the stern up on the other. This suspended the middle, which was full of iron, and it then broke in half and sank in seconds. TV images show the two section on the bottom with a big pile of iron in between them.

    During WWII passenger liners were used as troop transports. One of them was hit by a rogue wave so big it messed up stuff on top of the ship, way the hell up there. It tipped to within a degree or so of sinking. There were something like 20,000 troops aboard.

    Obviously, this would have been a huge tragedy.
     
  17. whooleytoo macrumors 603

    whooleytoo

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2002
    Location:
    Cork, Ireland.
    #17
    That would be cooool.

    Or if they could show the silhouette of a man, an elephant, and a dinosaur standing next to it. I can't visualise anything these days without an elephant and a dinosaur. Even better - the dinosaur and the fossil fuel ship next to each other could serve as a "Before and After" shot. :)
     

Share This Page