huge bomb ship in the Yemen

[dyqik]

** Just read that the Safer isn't a VLCC, it's a ULCC. VLCCs are up to 320,000 DWT, the Safer is a 406,000 DWT!

Bit of a VHF/UHF problem there. I work at a hundred to a thousand times the frequency of UHF. Apparently known as THF, for Tremendously High Frequency. Which is the band above Extremely High Frequency.

[noggins]

Its “only” got 150,000 dwt oil onboard though

[Martin_B]

Its “only” got 150,000 dwt oil onboard though

Which is important for the environment, but not when trying to tow it to a safe place to scrap.

[KAJ]

Relevant article in Grauniad

[Bird on a Fire]

Seems like an argument for something like the UN Peacekeeping forces intervening.

f.cking up 7m people's water, especially round there *waves arms* doesn't seem like a good idea.

[Woodchopper]

Seems like an argument for something like the UN Peacekeeping forces intervening.

f.cking up 7m people's water, especially round there *waves arms* doesn't seem like a good idea.

You’d be looking at something more like an invasion of the area around the ship rather than peacekeeping, as the latter needs the consent of the parties in a conflict (or at least the most important ones).

Two problems there. Firstly, a military take over of the ship and surrounding waters would involve a high risk of shooting and explosions. Which really wouldn’t be a good idea.

Secondly, getting the necessary resolution passed by the UN Security Council would be difficult. Leaving aside the risks of military action blowing up the ship lots of states are very reluctant to have UN sanctioned attacks (yes, that happened in Libya in 2011, but that’s widely viewed as something which made the situation worse).

[Martin_B]

Seems like an argument for something like the UN Peacekeeping forces intervening.

f.cking up 7m people's water, especially round there *waves arms* doesn't seem like a good idea.

You’d be looking at something more like an invasion of the area around the ship rather than peacekeeping, as the latter needs the consent of the parties in a conflict (or at least the most important ones).

Two problems there. Firstly, a military take over of the ship and surrounding waters would involve a high risk of shooting and explosions. Which really wouldn’t be a good idea.

Secondly, getting the necessary resolution passed by the UN Security Council would be difficult. Leaving aside the risks of military action blowing up the ship lots of states are very reluctant to have UN sanctioned attacks (yes, that happened in Libya in 2011, but that’s widely viewed as something which made the situation worse).

Considering the Houthis want the ship repaired, it seems like they want to continue owning (and presumably producing) through the field. It might be cheaper at current tanker prices to buy them a 2nd hand double-skinned tanker.

There's a 10-year old double-skinned VLCC on sale now for US$41 million. Converting it for use as an FSO like the Safer shouldn't be more than the same price (should be US$10-20 million, but it depends on how much work is required - it sounds like all processing is done onshore and it's just storage, so it should be the lower end - connections for turret swivel only - the current swivel might need some work, though.)

The Safer is supposed to have 1.1 million barrels of oil on board, and the current spot price is about US$80/barrel. The scrap value of the Safer (assuming it can be moved) should be around $20 million, but even assuming you can only give it to a scrap yard for nothing (there's a lot of steel left there and lots of spare capacity in the scrapyards) then it seems like you'd at least break even by taking control of the Safer and giving the Houthis a 'new' FSO.

[Woodchopper]

Seems like an argument for something like the UN Peacekeeping forces intervening.

f.cking up 7m people's water, especially round there *waves arms* doesn't seem like a good idea.

You’d be looking at something more like an invasion of the area around the ship rather than peacekeeping, as the latter needs the consent of the parties in a conflict (or at least the most important ones).

Two problems there. Firstly, a military take over of the ship and surrounding waters would involve a high risk of shooting and explosions. Which really wouldn’t be a good idea.

Secondly, getting the necessary resolution passed by the UN Security Council would be difficult. Leaving aside the risks of military action blowing up the ship lots of states are very reluctant to have UN sanctioned attacks (yes, that happened in Libya in 2011, but that’s widely viewed as something which made the situation worse).

Considering the Houthis want the ship repaired, it seems like they want to continue owning (and presumably producing) through the field. It might be cheaper at current tanker prices to buy them a 2nd hand double-skinned tanker.

There's a 10-year old double-skinned VLCC on sale now for US$41 million. Converting it for use as an FSO like the Safer shouldn't be more than the same price (should be US$10-20 million, but it depends on how much work is required - it sounds like all processing is done onshore and it's just storage, so it should be the lower end - connections for turret swivel only - the current swivel might need some work, though.)

The Safer is supposed to have 1.1 million barrels of oil on board, and the current spot price is about US$80/barrel. The scrap value of the Safer (assuming it can be moved) should be around $20 million, but even assuming you can only give it to a scrap yard for nothing (there's a lot of steel left there and lots of spare capacity in the scrapyards) then it seems like you'd at least break even by taking control of the Safer and giving the Houthis a 'new' FSO.

Yes, that would probably be the best solution.

There will still be big problems implementing it even if a party can be found that is willing to buy a new tanker and give it to the Houthi government. They have had to endure UN sanctions since 2015, and a brutal Saudi led war against them (which has been supported by the US, UK, France etc). So there will be very little trust for any of the obvious candidates with enough capacity to be able to buy a new tanker, safely move the Safer and sell the oil it contains.

A deep pocketed mostly neutral state like Japan might be acceptable to the Houthis, but such a government might well decide that the risks of getting involved were too high.

[noggins]

The Houthis have a war to win, and the ship is a weapon. The Houthis claim for a replacement vessel is a diversion.
There is no resolution to this without peace, at least locally, if not the whole of Yemen.

[dyqik]

Considering the Houthis want the ship repaired, it seems like they want to continue owning (and presumably producing) through the field. It might be cheaper at current tanker prices to buy them a 2nd hand double-skinned tanker.

There's a 10-year old double-skinned VLCC on sale now for US$41 million. Converting it for use as an FSO like the Safer shouldn't be more than the same price (should be US$10-20 million, but it depends on how much work is required - it sounds like all processing is done onshore and it's just storage, so it should be the lower end - connections for turret swivel only - the current swivel might need some work, though.)

The Safer is supposed to have 1.1 million barrels of oil on board, and the current spot price is about US$80/barrel. The scrap value of the Safer (assuming it can be moved) should be around $20 million, but even assuming you can only give it to a scrap yard for nothing (there's a lot of steel left there and lots of spare capacity in the scrapyards) then it seems like you'd at least break even by taking control of the Safer and giving the Houthis a 'new' FSO.

Yes, that would probably be the best solution.

There will still be big problems implementing it even if a party can be found that is willing to buy a new tanker and give it to the Houthi government. They have had to endure UN sanctions since 2015, and a brutal Saudi led war against them (which has been supported by the US, UK, France etc). So there will be very little trust for any of the obvious candidates with enough capacity to be able to buy a new tanker, safely move the Safer and sell the oil it contains.

A deep pocketed mostly neutral state like Japan might be acceptable to the Houthis, but such a government might well decide that the risks of getting involved were too high.

You've still got to clear the minefield around the Safer, though.

[plodder]

The Houthis have a war to win, and the ship is a weapon. The Houthis claim for a replacement vessel is a diversion.
There is no resolution to this without peace, at least locally, if not the whole of Yemen.

wisdom. It’s a hell of a bargaining chip.

[Sciolus]

Yeah, the only way to fix the Safer is to let the Houthis win the war, which means Saudi Arabia losing, which means the West won't support it, which makes it highly unlikely. I really can't see a viable solution.

[Matatouille]

Yeah, the only way to fix the Safer is to let the Houthis win the war, which means Saudi Arabia losing, which means the West won't support it, which makes it highly unlikely. I really can't see a viable solution.

If the Houthis can be persuaded to give up the ballistic missiles and launchers (given to them by the last Yemeni President in a bid to stay in power), the Saudis might be more persuadeable for a Houthi controlled state on their doorstep. This is substantially what it has all been about: an Iran ally with missiles able to reach the Saudi desalination plants that they'd carefully placed on their one coast that was out of range of Iran itself.

[Woodchopper]

Looks like there is an agreement to unload the oil: https://twitter.com/yemenifatima/status ... 4k-ja2LHyQ

[EACLucifer]

Yeah, the only way to fix the Safer is to let the Houthis win the war, which means Saudi Arabia losing, which means the West won't support it, which makes it highly unlikely. I really can't see a viable solution.

It would also come with the pretty substantial downside of the Houthis winning. You should probably check how they behave. Just because one side - the Saudi backed side - is bad does not mean the other side - the Iranian backed side - is not also bad.

[Martin_B]

Looks like there is an agreement to unload the oil: https://twitter.com/yemenifatima/status ... 4k-ja2LHyQ

So the operation to remove the oil from the Safer will cost ~$100 million, and will unload 1.1 million barrels of oil. Considering the current oil price of $80-90/bbl, I'd be tempted to unload the oil and then sail off (you may need a warship or two around to prevent any Houthis from trying to stop you, as they seem to want to be paid for the oil at market rate!)

[Al Capone Junior]

And you lot don't realise that this is the kind of sh.t I deal with every day (OK, usually on a smaller scale).

so with this one, what’s the plan, stan?

something like

a) bribe the rebels
b) clear the mines
c) set up a bund
d) ????
e) safely siphon the oil
f) tow it away to get broken up

Is this what you had in mind for d?

d) and then a miracle occurs

[plodder]

Be good to know how the ??? bit works, I’m sure it’s clever

[Martin_B]

Be good to know how the ??? bit works, I’m sure it’s clever

Aren't you the one that wrote the "???" ?

From what I've read, it sounds like a tanker will be brought alongside and the oil either siphoned or pumped off (would probably need pumps from the 2nd tanker as the Safer's pumps aren't working and might take quite a while to get into an operating state, but the oil is probably also stabilised enough for siphoning, it's just a longer procedure).

But the Houthis either want to be paid to allow this to happen, or to be paid for the oil, despite the operation costing pretty much the value of the oil; although I wonder if it *really* costs that much, or that is what the owner of the 2nd tanker is demanding for putting their boat and personnel into such a dangerous location and activity.

Either way, I'd suggest having a frigate or something alongside, too, in case the Houthis decide that two tankers make a better bargaining ploy than one, and once the offload has happened and the Safer has been made safe (or as safe as an ageing single-skinned ULCC with zero maintenance for ~10 years can be) I'd then sail off with the oil and the frigate between the tanker and land.

[plodder]

Yeah the ??? was more about how they siphon it off without it all going bang

[Martin_B]

Yeah the ??? was more about how they siphon it off without it all going bang

That's just engineering. It's doable, unless you impose too many constraints on the system. I could explain it, but you may need a 3-year degree to understand it. As I said last year:

And you lot don't realise that this is the kind of sh.t I deal with every day (OK, usually on a smaller scale).

[noggins]

Pumo Cargo out, pump inert gas in, and some ballast if needed.

Thatll be 25 grand
Noggins Salvage LLC

[Grumble]

Presumably tankers are designed to allow offload of the oil with standardised kits available at many docks around the world.

[Martin_B]

Presumably tankers are designed to allow offload of the oil with standardised kits available at many docks around the world.

The standardisation is with the connection equipment, and it's not as 'standard' as you might think - there are a few different international standards, and they don't all work with each other. Fortunately, there are adapter kits, or tankers have multiple connection types to work with most dock equipment.

Tankers have their own pumps to offload at docks. The dock doesn't usually vacuum siphon oil out of a tanker as vacuums are something you try and avoid (both the risk of vaporisation of the oil and potential for oxygen to enter). You always try and move flammable hydrocarbons at above atmospheric pressure if you can.

FSO (Floating Storage and Offtake) vessels, like the Safer also have their own pumps to offload to a tanker for the same reason. But the Safer has not been maintained and I doubt that the Safer's pumps will be operational after this time. They may be capable of being repaired, but if I were the owner of the offtake tanker in this case, I'd probably want to use my own equipment rather than rely on repairing pumps which may not have been used for several years.

[Grumble]

Presumably tankers are designed to allow offload of the oil with standardised kits available at many docks around the world.

The standardisation is with the connection equipment, and it's not as 'standard' as you might think - there are a few different international standards, and they don't all work with each other. Fortunately, there are adapter kits, or tankers have multiple connection types to work with most dock equipment.

Tankers have their own pumps to offload at docks. The dock doesn't usually vacuum siphon oil out of a tanker as vacuums are something you try and avoid (both the risk of vaporisation of the oil and potential for oxygen to enter). You always try and move flammable hydrocarbons at above atmospheric pressure if you can.

FSO (Floating Storage and Offtake) vessels, like the Safer also have their own pumps to offload to a tanker for the same reason. But the Safer has not been maintained and I doubt that the Safer's pumps will be operational after this time. They may be capable of being repaired, but if I were the owner of the offtake tanker in this case, I'd probably want to use my own equipment rather than rely on repairing pumps which may not have been used for several years.

I suspect the engineering is exactly as standardised as I think! Can’t even get a screw right without specifying which standard and size and thread count