World's Largest Ship Floated For the First Time

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

World's Largest Ship Floated For the First Time

Posted by samzenpus on Wednesday December 4, 2013 @09:04PM from the that's-a-biggun dept.

Zothecula writes "A ship with a hull longer than the Empire State Building is tall has been floated out of dry dock in Geoje, South Korea. Measuring 488 m (1,601 ft) long and 74 m (243 ft) wide, the hull belongs to Shell's Prelude floating liquefied natural gas (FLNG) facility, which upon completion will be the largest floating facility ever built."

114 of 166 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Technically it is not a ship... by Stolpskott · 2013-12-04 21:09 · Score: 5, Interesting

As it has no motive power of its own (it has to be towed into position), it is not really a ship. But it is still a really cool feat of engineering, designed to ride out the typhoon season off the Australian coast and keep LNG production going for 25 years or so...
However, Shell are apparently building an even bigger one as well. Maybe they are trying to have a ship that is longer than the Burj Khalifa? ;)
1. Re:Technically it is not a ship... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-12-04 21:17 · Score: 1
  
  So it's an artificial island?
2. Re:Technically it is not a ship... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-12-04 21:25 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  RTFA: "three 6,700-hp thrusters at the rear of the Prelude"
  Just because they're not intended for transportation doesn't mean they're not there.
3. Re:Technically it is not a ship... by clickety6 · 2013-12-04 21:28 · Score: 1
  
  World's biggest raft?
  
  World's biggest pontoon?
  
  --
  ----------------------------------- My Other Sig Is Hilarious -----------------------------------
4. Re:Technically it is not a ship... by Stoopiduk · 2013-12-04 21:48 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Prelude has three 6,700 horsepower thrusters for weathervaning. Mightn't be the best way of getting it around, but if they can pivot the bugger about the mooring turret, I'm sure they could move it around in some dreadfully slow and awkward fashion.
5. Re: Technically it is not a ship... by somersault · 2013-12-04 22:04 · Score: 1
  
  Barges have to be flat bottomed, though I'm guessing this thing may be flat bottomed. Barges can also have their own propulsion, for example the river homes that people pilot around the canals here in the UK are barges.
  
  --
  which is totally what she said
6. Re:Technically it is not a ship... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-12-04 22:11 · Score: 1
  
  yeh, about a fourth of the power of a Maersk Triple E class, the next largest ship in the world
7. Re:Technically it is not a ship... by jcr · 2013-12-04 23:18 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  Technically, it's a barge.
  -jcr
  
  --
  The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
8. Re: Technically it is not a ship... by Joce640k · 2013-12-04 23:24 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  Barges can also have their own propulsion, for example the river homes that people pilot around the canals here in the UK are barges.
  Those things were pulled by horses when they started out, hence "barges".
  Adding a motor made them into "boats".
  
  --
  No sig today...
9. Re:Technically it is not a ship... by JWSmythe · 2013-12-05 00:01 · Score: 1
  
  No one said it could get anywhere fast. It can run 2 of 3 thrusters to turn, so I'd expect it could run 2 of 3 thrusters to go straight. Anything faster than stopped is still movement.
  
  --
  Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
10. Re:Technically it is not a ship... by flyneye · 2013-12-05 00:07 · Score: 1
  
  Like a 76 Chrysler New Yorker with a 225 slant 6 cyl....
  It's a Low Rider.
  
  --
  *Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!
11. Re:Technically it is not a ship... by metametametameta · 2013-12-05 00:18 · Score: 1
  
  Technically, it's an FPSO.
12. Re: Technically it is not a ship... by somersault · 2013-12-05 00:19 · Score: 1
  
  From the definitions I can find, a barge is always a boat, whether it's powered or not.
  And from Wikipedia, this looks like another case of the US having a different perception of things from the rest of the world, because it sounds like all your barges are basically just trailers for tugboats.
  
  --
  which is totally what she said
13. Re:Technically it is not a ship... by phrostie · 2013-12-05 00:39 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  to me it looks like a cross between the titanic and the Hindenburg.
  stand back.
14. Re:Technically it is not a ship... by PPalmgren · 2013-12-05 00:56 · Score: 1
  
  That's like hooking a horse up to a car without an engine and saying its intended for transportation. Container ships around 80% of that size need an order of magnitude more horsepower to function.
15. Re:Technically it is not a ship... by Threni · 2013-12-05 00:58 · Score: 1
  
  And also, pedantically, it's not the first time the world's largest ship (or barge) has been floated; they all have.
16. Re:Technically it is not a ship... by gl4ss · 2013-12-05 01:30 · Score: 1
  
  but that's exactly what some people in developing countries do and it's for transportation and it's a CARriage so uhh ah.
  it doesn't need to work as a container ship and I didn't think it was said to be, but it fills the tickboxes for a boat..
  sure it isn't going far in a hurry but still.
  
  --
  world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
17. Re:Technically it is not a ship... by MightyYar · 2013-12-05 01:49 · Score: 1
  
  It's a security feature.
  -cybercriminal
  
  --
  W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
18. Re:Technically it is not a ship... by RivenAleem · 2013-12-05 01:49 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  I'm sure Archer could provide some choice words to this effect.
19. Re: Technically it is not a ship... by ebno-10db · 2013-12-05 01:51 · Score: 1
  
  Barges have to be flat bottomed, though I'm guessing this thing may be flat bottomed. Barges can also have their own propulsion ...
  So far I've check Wikipedia, the Free Dictionary and Merriam Webster (sorry if those last two cover the American Language rather than English). They all agree a barge may be powered, but they disagree on whether it has to be flat bottomed or just usually is.
  
  the river homes that people pilot around the canals here in the UK are barges
  In the US they're called houseboats, but British usage still jibes (albeit grandiosely) with definitions of barge other than "big ugly thing for cargo".
  
  b : a large motorboat supplied to the flag officer of a flagship
  c : a roomy pleasure boat; especially : a boat of state elegantly furnished and decorated
20. Re:Technically it is not a ship... by sumdumass · 2013-12-05 01:54 · Score: 1
  
  Not a lot unless they paint it with paint consisting of chemicals we would later usr as rocket fuel.
21. Re:Technically it is not a ship... by Hognoxious · 2013-12-05 01:57 · Score: 1
  
  Like standing on the stern of the Tirpitz and farting.
  
  --
  Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
22. Re:Technically it is not a ship... by slimdave · 2013-12-05 02:05 · Score: 1
  
  "25 Mega Tons of fire" is an interesting way of quantifying the energy in something less than 600,000 tons of LNG. Considering your estimate of 5 or 10 million deaths, along with overuse of exclamation marks, I think that you might be a little bit unbalanced.
23. Re:Technically it is not a ship... by petermgreen · 2013-12-05 02:11 · Score: 1
  
  The article is light on details but it does mention the vessel having three thrusters at the rear. Not clear whether those are just for direction control or if they can be used to move the whole vessel.
  
  --
  note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
24. Re:Technically it is not a ship... by TWX · 2013-12-05 02:12 · Score: 1
  
  Like a 76 Chrysler New Yorker with a 225 slant 6 cyl
  A friend if mine had a Canadian-market '68 Dodge Polara fastback that had been imported to the United States. He bought for his first-time-driver son, it came factory-equipped with the RG 225ci slant six. He pulled the factory motor and dropped in a G 170ci slant six and put in shorter gears in the differential, he didn't want him going too fast. Car strained to reach 65mph on the freeway.
  
  His son wasn't real happy with him for a long time over that...
  
  --
  Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
25. Re:Technically it is not a ship... by Snotnose · 2013-12-05 02:22 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  RTFA: "three 6,700-hp thrusters at the rear of the Prelude"
  That Honda must go hella fast, unless it has to haul your mom around.
26. Re:Technically it is not a ship... by DerekLyons · 2013-12-05 03:00 · Score: 1
  
  He didn't say it didn't have thrusters - he said it wasn't (or didn't appear to be) self propelled. Two very different things.
  And he's correct, if it's not self propelled, it's not a ship - it's a barge.
27. Re:Technically it is not a ship... by ah.clem · 2013-12-05 03:33 · Score: 1
  
  Wish I had mod points, I always like a good "yo' momma" joke.
  
  --
  "Life is not magic." Dr. Ron Weiss - "If we don't play God, who will?" Dr. James Watson
28. Re:Technically it is not a ship... by Quila · 2013-12-05 04:18 · Score: 1
  
  It's a barge with maneuvering thrusters.
29. Re: Technically it is not a ship... by ebno-10db · 2013-12-05 04:19 · Score: 1
  
  this looks like another case of the US having a different perception of things from the rest of the world
  Since barge is a word in English, it's a matter of definition and usage in English, rather than perception of a language independent idea. Hence "rest of the world" in this case means other people in countries using English as their primary language. Despite the roots of the language in some obscure country, Americans constitute a majority of people in countries using English as their primary language. We win!
30. Re: Technically it is not a ship... by somersault · 2013-12-05 04:29 · Score: 1
  
  There's a reason that there's "American English" and "English".. I'm not sure why you have to make it about "winning". That's one of the major flaws when it comes to humanity in general, not being able to realise how life doesn't always need to be about "us vs them". Or "US vs them". Ho ho ho..
  
  --
  which is totally what she said
31. Re:Technically it is not a ship... by mrchaotica · 2013-12-05 05:18 · Score: 1
  
  Last time I called an ocean-going vessel a "barge" on Slashdot, I got crucified for it by people who believe that "barges" can only be flat-bottomed devices suitable only for calm water.
  
  --
  "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
32. Re:Technically it is not a ship... by tibit · 2013-12-05 06:14 · Score: 1
  
  This is completely bogus. The only way you'd kill 5-10 million people with such a ship/barge would be if you'd drop it on a large city from high up, and depend in the liquid gas having a conformal radial surface flow once the thing hits the ground. Even then it'd be a rather long stretch, since once the gas ignites, it goes up real fast. It wouldn't go as far as the same amount of less volatile petroleum products. If you had such a ship full of gasoline and then dropped it from up high on NYC, then certainly you could kill a million or two. Maybe.
  Even if it'd explode at a port in a densely populated city, the casualties would be much lower. Probably in the thousands, maybe very low 10,000 at most.
  
  --
  A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.
33. Re:Technically it is not a ship... by davester666 · 2013-12-05 07:38 · Score: 1
  
  Dammit. I had something for this. Gimme a minute.
  
  --
  Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
34. Re:Technically it is not a ship... by bill_mcgonigle · 2013-12-05 10:22 · Score: 1
  
  Last time I called an ocean-going vessel a "barge" on Slashdot, I got crucified for it by people who believe that "barges" can only be flat-bottomed devices suitable only for calm water.
  News flash: the idiots have mod points. They also make conflation errors, so watch this comment sink like an LNG barge that just got hit by an airplane.
  
  --
  My God, it's Full of Source!
  OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
35. Re:Technically it is not a ship... by WolfWithoutAClause · 2013-12-05 11:54 · Score: 1
  
  I prefer the term 'titanburg'
  
  --
  -WolfWithoutAClause
  "Gravity is only a theory, not a fact!"
36. Re:Technically it is not a ship... by jcr · 2013-12-05 11:55 · Score: 1
  
  Not as useless as bitching about it, kid.
  -jcr
  
  --
  The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
37. Re:Technically it is not a ship... by flyneye · 2013-12-06 00:29 · Score: 1
  
  LOL not a lot of lowriders in Canada, eh?
  Not a bad idea, but , I'd be afraid of the kid not being able to accelerate from danger.
  I bet it got great gas mileage for the boat it was too. Probably the biggest help to the kid.
  
  --
  *Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!
38. Re:Technically it is not a ship... by flyneye · 2013-12-06 00:30 · Score: 1
  
  oops, I see it was an import. Well still....
  
  --
  *Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!
Whatever.... by meglon · 2013-12-04 21:16 · Score: 5, Funny

....floats your boat.

--
Fascism: An authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization. See also: NAZI's
And they used to say... by Notabadguy · 2013-12-04 21:17 · Score: 4, Funny

It's not the size of the ship, it's the motion in the ocean....
Apparently, it *is* all about the size of the ship!
1. Re:And they used to say... by Notabadguy · 2013-12-04 21:18 · Score: 1
  
  Even funnier that it's the South Koreans proving that they do indeed have the biggest....boats.
2. Re:And they used to say... by Sockatume · 2013-12-04 22:40 · Score: 1
  
  You say that like it's a bad thing. Isn't that the kind of skills-based economy most of the developed world is desperately trying to assemble?
  
  --
  No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
3. Re:And they used to say... by Opportunist · 2013-12-04 23:20 · Score: 1
  
  Asians outsourcing now, too?
  
  --
  We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
4. Re:And they used to say... by TitusGroan8856 · 2013-12-05 01:22 · Score: 1
  
  I always thought it was about a Captain that could keep his ship in the harbour long enough to get everyone off.
5. Re:And they used to say... by ebno-10db · 2013-12-05 01:56 · Score: 1
  
  They would starve otherwise. South Korea's economy basically relies on their engineering ability.
  Do you have anything to support that statement.
6. Re:And they used to say... by ebno-10db · 2013-12-05 02:00 · Score: 1
  
  Their offshore engineers are some of the best in the world. They are truly amazing. (Their ability to host two of the biggest international ocean engineering conferences in the world next year should speak to that... the fact that they are both at the same time, does not speak highly of their scheduling abilities, though.)
  Doesn't sound much different from various other communist countries, like the old USSR. Great engineering hampered by idiotic bureaucracy. The reason for the success of free countries isn't better engineers or scientists, but in greater freedom to tell people where to stick it (a joke, but of the "more truth is said in jest" kind).
7. Re:And they used to say... by Talderas · 2013-12-05 02:58 · Score: 1
  
  I think you might be confused. He's talking about S. Korea. Based on national boundaries, the only land trading partner that S. Korea has is N. Korea. Because of that the vast majority of S. Korean trade goods, both in an out, pass through seaports.
  
  --
  "Lack of speed can be overcome. In the worst case by patience." --Znork
amazing indeed by RafalLos · 2013-12-04 21:18 · Score: 1, Interesting

I'm cucurious what these types of floating superstructures do to the ecology around them. The environmental impact of their sheer existence in the water is potentially staggering.
1. Re:amazing indeed by Stoopiduk · 2013-12-04 21:40 · Score: 1
  
  Interesting question - the mooring points are likely to have a direct impact wherever they're attached to the seabed, as will all of the subsea equipment and the engineering work to secure them in place.
  The platform itself will, I imagine, have a minimal impact aside from noise and vibration. There have been whispers of regulating ship noise and vibration for the protection of the marine environment at IMO for some time, but nothing has come forward yet or is likely to in the next couple of years.
  There will be increased marine traffic from shuttle tankers and crew/support vessels, but oil majors are largely pretty careful about the vessels they employ, especially for a project with as high profile as this.
  Once it's in place, I doubt we'll ever hear too much about prelude, unless it goes horribly, horribly wrong.
2. Re:amazing indeed by WWJohnBrowningDo · 2013-12-04 22:52 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  Do you even know how offshore natural gas is processed?
  Natural gas is pressurized at the offshore platform and pumped all the way to the shore using a long pipeline. Then an onshore LNG processing plant cleans and liquefies it and pump it back out to LNG tankers.
  This thing is designed to replace the long undersea pipeline and the onshore LNG processing plant and its associated dock. One of the reasons why this monstrosity is being built is precisely because it's more environmentally friendly than the alternative. A single offshore facility can replace multiple onshore facilities since the offshore facility is mobile.
3. Re:amazing indeed by Alioth · 2013-12-05 00:01 · Score: 1
  
  Certainly in the Gulf of Mexico, the various platforms and structures provide a pretty rich environment for marine life. The best fishing spots are all near the various platforms since the underwater parts of their structures provide places for various plants and animals to make their homes (and thus attracting the fish that feed of this). I would imagine the mooring points for this barge will do the same.
  Of course it all goes horribly wrong for this environment if there is a spill.
  
  --
  Oolite: Elite-like game. For Mac, Linux and Windows
4. Re:amazing indeed by Stoopiduk · 2013-12-05 00:49 · Score: 1
  
  ... and therefore, we shouldn't consider the impact of the floating facility on the environment around them.
  I agree, Prelude is a good idea and from what I understand is by a way the lesser of two evils, I am still interested in the effect it will have on the area it's deployed in.
5. Re:amazing indeed by Sockatume · 2013-12-05 01:16 · Score: 1
  
  A floating platform in deep waters will, all things being equal, have a lower environmental impact that placing the same structure on a shoreline.
  
  --
  No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
6. Re:amazing indeed by Stoopiduk · 2013-12-05 01:24 · Score: 1
  
  I don't understand how you've been upvoted for reinstating a point I've already agreed with.
  Just because it's a lesser impact doesn't mean it's not an interesting one.
7. Re:amazing indeed by danbert8 · 2013-12-05 01:54 · Score: 1
  
  More for the life in the air and on land than the stuff in the water. A spill of LNG would boil pretty rapidly and gas off primarily methane into the atmosphere. Methane is lighter than air, so it would quickly rise and lead to an increase in the greenhouse effect until broken down. GLOBAL WARMING ALARM!!!
  Unless there is an ignition source... In that case, BOOM!
  
  --
  Yes it's an anecdote! Were you expecting original research in a Slashdot comment?
8. Re:amazing indeed by danbert8 · 2013-12-05 04:07 · Score: 1
  
  You are correct, it likely wouldn't go off like a bomb or a fertilizer plant since there is no oxidizer for it. You wouldn't likely get one big rupture anyway, just a leak that would spew out high pressure natural gas which would rise pretty quickly. With an ignition source you'd probably end up with a very nice flare that would slowly enlarge the hole until either a BLEVE or the vessel ran out of fuel. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boiling_liquid_expanding_vapor_explosion
  I will admit, due to the lightness of natural gas, the flare would go upward and make a BLEVE unlikely, but it is still a risk depending on the configuration of the vessel and the location of the flare. Even if the natural gas doesn't all burn, the expansion of the boiling liquefied gas is enough to destroy the whole vessel and probably eject the material miles away.
  
  --
  Yes it's an anecdote! Were you expecting original research in a Slashdot comment?
9. Re:amazing indeed by King_of_Prussia · 2013-12-05 04:25 · Score: 1
  
  Well the main reason it's being built is that construction labour in Western Australia is expensive enough to make this thing worth while. Instead of having thousands of people on FIFO contracts for $x-hundred-k a year each, for the 5+ years it takes to get a large LNG terminal up on land, you build it in Korea and just float it there.
  
  --
  Making the moon less necessary since 1998.
10. Re:amazing indeed by danbert8 · 2013-12-05 07:40 · Score: 1
  
  BLEVEs usually occur when a pressurized container is heated (usually by fire). The LNG may stay liquid at cold temperatures and atmospheric pressure, but if the container is heated, it will pressurize and boil and can cause a BLEVE just as LPG would. Water can cause a BLEVE if heated sufficiently. Also heating has the double whammy of boiling the liquid and weakening the steel, both making BLEVEs due to fire more likely.
  
  --
  Yes it's an anecdote! Were you expecting original research in a Slashdot comment?
11. Re:amazing indeed by Sockatume · 2013-12-05 21:35 · Score: 1
  
  Sorry, I thought it was an interesting aspect and hadn't seen you make the point anywhere.
  
  --
  No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
Worlds biggest shipyards by antsbull · 2013-12-04 21:23 · Score: 5, Interesting

I saw a documentary on them a couple of nights ago, and this shipyard is averaging a super-tanker every 3.5 days if you divide the number of super-tankers they will build this year. Absolutely stunning the technology, skills, planning and productivity that they are managing there. This wouldn't be achievable in a western country thanks to unions and the terrible productivity and project overruns that come with western societies.
1. Re:Worlds biggest shipyards by Anonymous Coward · 2013-12-04 21:53 · Score: 1
  
  True. It is only possible with far eastern slave labor.
2. Re:Worlds biggest shipyards by gl4ss · 2013-12-04 22:00 · Score: 1
  
  they do a 100 super tankers in a year?
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_tankers
  care to link to that documentary, since that list is awful short compared to them pumping out 100 of world biggest class tankers in a year. at 1 billion a pop that's 100 billion for the shipyard.......
  
  --
  world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
3. Re:Worlds biggest shipyards by bob_super · 2013-12-04 22:06 · Score: 1
  
  These slaves have the best internet connectivity on the planet!
  Panem et circenses to the Nth power!
4. Re:Worlds biggest shipyards by Sique · 2013-12-04 22:18 · Score: 1
  
  If you look at the list, a) it mentions being totally incomplete and b) look at the BP tankers alone, each line consists of several ships in the same class.
  
  --
  .sig: Sique *sigh*
5. Re:Worlds biggest shipyards by Anonymous Coward · 2013-12-04 22:31 · Score: 1
  
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_tanker#Flag_states mentions ~4300 supertankers are currently registered. so if 100 are built per year then it would take 43 years to replace the fleet (assuming constant size). so the number seems plausible.
6. Re:Worlds biggest shipyards by smittyoneeach · 2013-12-04 22:49 · Score: 2, Funny
  
  I suppose unions can point to their triumphs in Detroit instead.
  
  --
  Get thee glass eyes, and, like a scurvy politician, seem to see things thou dost not.--King Lear
7. Re:Worlds biggest shipyards by Stoopiduk · 2013-12-05 00:52 · Score: 2
  
  That's not how shipbuilding works. The cheapest labour is not a way to success. Chinese yards are generally not as successful as the Korean and Singaporean yards that pay better, are more efficient and more advanced.
  Ship owners can ill-afford to have shoddily-built ships anymore, especially in the tanker sector if they're looking to work with the oil majors.
8. Re:Worlds biggest shipyards by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · 2013-12-05 01:08 · Score: 2
  
  These things get built while lawyers in the US are still filing delays over environmental impact statements in the US.
  True story: Lawyers have been fighting longer, delaying the dredging of some bays in the US, to make them 5 feet deeper, so they can accommodate the new "Superpanamax" ships (the Panama canal is being expanded on the max size it can handle) than the original Panama Canal took to build.
  Meanwhile, China is building an even bigger canal next door, for even bigger ships.
  The US has lost, because it has tied its own hands with regulations, as certainly as if we were a dictatorship with kickbacks at every level, from buildings to drivers licenses.
  
  --
  (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
9. Re:Worlds biggest shipyards by Stoopiduk · 2013-12-05 01:13 · Score: 1
  
  Tankers represent 2% of Samsung's current backlog according to their IR report.
  If we take super tanker to mean VLCC, that's anything over 200,000dwt (ULCCs are around 320,000 dwt, so I'm being generous). If they were churning out 100, that would be 20,000,000 dwt per annum.
  According to Braemar Seascope, global tanker deliveries for all tankers over 27,000 dwt peaked at just under 55,000,000 dwt in 2011, with around 32,000,000 dwt in deliveries expected this year, not accounting for slippage. Samsung are not producing 100 super tankers a year.
  Deletions from the fleet are under 10,000,000 dwt per annum. Overcapacity is already bad, I'm glad we don't live in the world that documentary was covering.
10. Re:Worlds biggest shipyards by AmiMoJo · 2013-12-05 01:17 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  SK has unions. Also French and Japanese companies seem to be able to build things on time and on budget. Ditto the Germans, who are also unionised.
  It's a cultural thing, nothing to do with unions.
  
  --
  const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
  SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
11. Re:Worlds biggest shipyards by _Spirit · 2013-12-05 02:07 · Score: 1
  
  These shipyards also can't cut any corners with worker safety. The Shell HSSE officer wasn't in the video for laughs. He's on site to ensure that they work according to Shell's global safety guidelines which are better than the standard that a lot of companies in the west have locally.
  These guys are taken seriously because not complying with their instructions can potentially lose the shipyard its contract. (and yes Shell actually terminates contracts for that reason, it's not like the major electronics manufacturers)
  
  --
  
  beauty is only a light switch away
12. Re:Worlds biggest shipyards by ebno-10db · 2013-12-05 02:08 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  Why should reality stand in the way of ideology?
13. Re: Worlds biggest shipyards by Badblackdog · 2013-12-05 02:12 · Score: 1
  
  I call Bullshit on a supertanker every 3.5 days. Dude, really, think about it. I am not going to be a citation douche, but you need to revisit that statement.
14. Re:Worlds biggest shipyards by swb · 2013-12-05 03:25 · Score: 1
  
  And there's two sides to the cultural thing -- management is an equal player in the push-pull with unions and bears some responsibility for the things typically blamed on unions.
15. Re:Worlds biggest shipyards by the+eric+conspiracy · 2013-12-05 03:33 · Score: 1
  
  It's the neocon way to ignore reality and embrace ideology.
  Next up: Dinosaurs did coinhabit the earth with early man.
16. Re:Worlds biggest shipyards by Quila · 2013-12-05 04:23 · Score: 2
  
  Unions here work to screw the employer over the most for the benefit of the workers. Unions there work with the company to ensure the long-term survival of everybody. In Germany, when business was slow unions agreed to hour cuts at an auto plant in order to keep it open, but they kept benefits and job security. In the US they would have stood fast demanding raises until the plant got shut down and production moved to Mexico.
17. Re:Worlds biggest shipyards by ebno-10db · 2013-12-05 04:23 · Score: 1
  
  Since you mention neocons, what you should have said was "dinosaurs do coinhabit the earth with man".
18. Re: Worlds biggest shipyards by khallow · 2013-12-05 05:05 · Score: 1
  
  I call Bullshit on a supertanker every 3.5 days. Dude, really, think about it.
  Apple sold over 40 million iPods in 2011. That's one iPod made every 0.7 seconds. Does it mean that someone slapped together an iPod in 0.7 seconds? No.
19. Re:Worlds biggest shipyards by ickleberry · 2013-12-05 08:50 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  Apparently at the Samsung shipyard this thing was built in, it's a good month if nobody dies in an accident that month. At least that's how it was in 2006 when they had almost made it a month without anyone getting killed, then 2 lads decided to fall to their deathsfrom a crane.
20. Re:Worlds biggest shipyards by Quila · 2013-12-09 02:37 · Score: 1
  
  So we have at least one union that doesn't operate that way. It's like how 98% of lawyers give the other 2% a bad name.
  Call me when we have something more like German unions across the board. Take car makers. They have the giant IG Metall union, but most of the time things don't go that far. Individual plants have "works councils" where most disputes can be resolved to mutual satisfaction.
21. Re:Worlds biggest shipyards by hairyfish · 2013-12-09 08:39 · Score: 1
  
  Whereas on the streets in the US it's considered a good 20 seconds if no-one dies in a car accident...
Taunt the seasteaders. by SuricouRaven · 2013-12-04 21:50 · Score: 1, Insightful

This is what you can build when you have real money, a real business model and a real plan instead of just a fantasy of a libertarian utopia.
1. Re:Taunt the seasteaders. by Sockatume · 2013-12-04 22:17 · Score: 2
  
  Yes, companies with billions of dollars can build bigger things than people with less money. You've shaken my perceptions of seasteading (whatever that is) to the core.
  
  --
  No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
2. Re:Taunt the seasteaders. by citizenr · 2013-12-04 22:42 · Score: 1
  
  dont worry, it will be used as a commodity market instrument by people that never really worked they entire life
  http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/03/04/1071052/-About-those-offshore-tankers-that-Koch-Industries-use-to-to-cash-in-when-the-Price-is-Right
  
  --
  Who logs in to gdm? Not I, said the duck.
3. Re:Taunt the seasteaders. by SuricouRaven · 2013-12-04 22:46 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  It's a movement that aims to escape the reach of existing governments by setting up semi-autonomous permanent settlements at sea. A mixture of libertarian idealists ('A place free from overgrown government, where the right of individuals to live free is valued!') and free market enterprise idealists ('A place where we can locate our call centers and offices free from taxation, minimum wage, health and safety and working hours regulations.').
  The only group with a halfway-viable business plan are Blueseed, who hope to use their ship as a legal workaround for US immigration law - station it just in international water, allowing people 'visiting' the country on a tourist visa to commute by ferry and technically not be illegally working in the US. It's not attracted enough investment, because it's a high-risk venture: Even if the ship works and is financially viable, it's likely the government would act quickly to change the law and close this 'loophole.'
4. Re:Taunt the seasteaders. by angel'o'sphere · 2013-12-04 23:20 · Score: 1
  
  That concept would make more sense in an area where living on land is super cheap and working on the flaoting island pays you considerably high.
  I mean, why should *I* as a german work on such an island and just earn a *normal* US wage and then spen that *in the US*?
  The only interesting point here would be the taxing ...
  
  --
  Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
5. Re:Taunt the seasteaders. by LoRdTAW · 2013-12-05 01:04 · Score: 1
  
  ......And you don't have a greedy, egotistical douche bag looking to maximize profits in the short term for shareholders (his/her buddies) and bail out when the seas get rough (e.g. after they are done fucking every last penny out of the company).
  The Asians have a sense of honor in their society and that is what makes them successful. A large, long lasting and profitable company that takes pride in its work is worth more to a CEO than the bottom line or how big his yacht is or how many whores he can screw. There is pride in the companys success, not their personal success. Maybe I am wrong but this is what I see and why Asian companies are always ahead of the game.
6. Re:Taunt the seasteaders. by ebno-10db · 2013-12-05 02:05 · Score: 1
  
  by people that never really worked [in their] entire life
  That's the politics of envy. Screwing people and pushing propaganda are hard work. I think the Koch's and their ilk are undercompensated. You should get on your knees and thank [insert preferred deity] for these job creators.
7. Re:Taunt the seasteaders. by ebno-10db · 2013-12-05 02:10 · Score: 1
  
  use their ship as a legal workaround for US immigration law
  What a shame we won't put the navy to good use. It would also be a great opportunity to test the Mk 48 ADCAP under real conditions.
8. Re:Taunt the seasteaders. by ebno-10db · 2013-12-05 02:15 · Score: 1
  
  A large, long lasting and profitable company that takes pride in its work is worth more to a CEO than the bottom line or how big his yacht is or how many whores he can screw.
  Either that, or the board, the stockholders, and the employees keep his ass in line.
9. Re:Taunt the seasteaders. by alexander_686 · 2013-12-05 02:49 · Score: 1
  
  Let’s see – “normal German wages” is what? No minimum wage. Over a million earn less than 5 euro an hour. And you can’t buy (and thus play) Castle Wolfenstein?
  I kid, of course. Seasteadings only works if one is hard core liberation. It is more of a philosophical statement (or is it theological statement?) then a rational economic plan.
10. Re:Taunt the seasteaders. by petermgreen · 2013-12-05 03:04 · Score: 1
  
  Suppose you were german but had gone to a big US university (say MIT), while you are there you made contacts and wanted to start a buisness together. You also learnt how things are done in the US.
  If you want to start the buisness in the US then you have to get a work visa for the US (much harder than a student visa or a buisness visa). If you go back to Europe you have the reverse problem, you will have to somehow get your american co-entrepreneurs into europe. You will also have to deal with doing things the european way rather than the american way (not saying if it's better or worse just different).
  You could split things across two locations but it's much harder to work together if you aren't physically together.
  If you start your business on a seastead near the US then you maintain easy access to US customers and services while avoiding the need to get a work visa for the US. When the business is big enough then as I understand it there are methods you can use the fact you are an executive of the company to get a visa and enter the US proper.
  That is the idea anyway, whether it will work is more debatable.
  
  --
  note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
11. Re:Taunt the seasteaders. by ebno-10db · 2013-12-05 04:40 · Score: 1
  
  Wow, talk about Poe's law...
  The scary thing is that you might be right about Poe's law applying.
12. Re:Taunt the seasteaders. by SuricouRaven · 2013-12-05 04:42 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  There are easier ways. The UK had a very similar situation once - pirate radio ships in the 60s. Stations were broadcasting from international water. This created a problem for the government: They were causing interference to commercial stations, blatantly infringing copyright, and had a tendency to say very offensive things that would get 'legitimate' stations in trouble. Yet they were legally untouchable. The government's solution was simple: Siege. They made it a crime for anyone to provide any service to these boats, including transportation or sale of goods. Thus the pirates couldn't come ashore (They'd be arrested), and their supporters couldn't deliver supplies (they'd be arrested upon return), and eventually the ships would run out of food for the crew and fuel for the transmitter.
  The same approach would work against a hypothetical Blueseed-like ship: Simply make it illegal to travel outside the US to work while in the US on a visitor or student visa. The workers can still go out to work, but they can't come back without being arrested. If they start doing anything illegal enough to really upset the powers that be (Counterfeit goods manufacture, drug production, unlicensed radio station operation, etc) then they can be shut down by the siege approach.
13. Re:Taunt the seasteaders. by bmajik · 2013-12-05 07:52 · Score: 1
  
  You're actually missing an important aspect of sea-steading.
  One implementation of seasteading calls for smaller groups (nuclear or extended families, lets say) to have their own independently float-able barge/ship/unit/whatever.
  One of the key problems with soil-based governments is that your neighbors (and hence, their bad politics) are "sticky" -- its hard for you to control who your neighbors are, and since they always manage to impose their will upon you, this is the practical limit to freedom for land-based societies.
  But this isn't necessarily true in a cluster of sea-steaders.
  Imagine 100 families that have tied their rafts/boats together (like something out of Snowcrash). You liked your new neighbors for a while, but over time, they became more and more a hinderance to your lifestyle.
  If we're talking about a land-based community, you have to sell your house and find a new place to live -- which is going to have the same problem.
  But if we're talking about sea-steading, you just untie the ropes and sail off. Maybe a few likeminded people follow you.
  The interesting possibility with sea-steading is that people groups can constantly form and split and reform and split and reform at a very granular level. Nobody needs to fight over who stays and who leaves; nobody needs to suffer a neighbor they don't like.
  
  --
  My opinions are my own, and do not necessarily represent those of my employer.
14. Re:Taunt the seasteaders. by Sockatume · 2013-12-05 21:39 · Score: 1
  
  I think the idea that one's homeland would be a profitable business venture privately-held by investors in another country says a lot about libertarians.
  
  --
  No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
15. Re:Taunt the seasteaders. by angel'o'sphere · 2013-12-06 05:07 · Score: 1
  
  Well, assuming on such a sea installation people do high quality IT / programming / art jobs, the normal wage is around $100,000. (Ofc they need a few "workers" that likely get even less than $5 an hour)
  My point was: paying no taxes, because truly working off shore is one benefit. However more interesting is having also a low cost of living, like e.g. in Thailand.
  On the other hand working offshore in front of the US coast has the benefit of health care on land, and ofc. living in a more or less first world nation :D
  A concept like this would be also interesting (for me) in front of the coast of Portugal or in the Mediterranean sea. No Hurricanes/Taifuns no Monsun, warm enough to have a pleasant winter, likely with wind turbines such a floating island would be more or less be completely autonomous.
  
  --
  Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
Re:Yah... stupid much? by RDW · 2013-12-04 22:50 · Score: 2

It is a large ship compared to humans, compared to an ocean, it is a speck.
And, if necessary, easy enough to avoid:
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Avoid-Huge-Ships-John-Trimmer/dp/0870334336
It is world largest temporarily by hotfireball · 2013-12-05 00:12 · Score: 1

It is world largest, unless it will steered onto riffs and sink, like Costa Concordia. Then something world-bigger will be needed to get that wreck out.
Pfft. by thatkid_2002 · 2013-12-05 00:31 · Score: 1

Call me when they levitate that thing.
Re:Yah... stupid much? by Virtucon · 2013-12-05 00:32 · Score: 1

$235 GBP for a paperback? WTF!?!?! This ought to come with a portable emergency beacon or at least a toaster.

--
Harrison's Postulate - "For every action there is an equal and opposite criticism"
Re:Yah... stupid much? by Stoopiduk · 2013-12-05 00:34 · Score: 2

Commenter specifically said the area around it, not the whole ocean.
You don't bed down subsea apparatus, anchor the largest floating structure in the world, start offloading shuttle tankers full of LNG and transport supplies and crew for such a installtion without affecting the surrounding ecology in some way.
I for one welcome the curiosity of the original post over your off-topic twitter-bashing and (hopefully) deliberate misinterpretation of the commenter's point.
A big boat eh? by skovnymfe · 2013-12-05 00:46 · Score: 1

Are there any emission or pollution laws that are enforceable when you're on international seas?
1. Re:A big boat eh? by Stoopiduk · 2013-12-05 01:21 · Score: 2
  
  Yup, the International Maritime Organisation (IMO) has a growing list of environmental regulations that apply to every ship in the world.
  Most people will be surprised how good oil companies are when it comes to employing decent, environmental sound ships for their projects. Generally the majors don't have their own fleets now, so charter in tonnage, and have very high standards and a ridiculous number of inspections for the vessels they employ.
  Admittedly, this is largely because they have caused some huge catastrophes in the past.
Described using wrong units. meters?? WTH?? by 140Mandak262Jamuna · 2013-12-05 00:54 · Score: 1, Funny

It bothers me people easily cast aside traditions and commonly accepted norms and blithely and almost nonchalantly use new yardsticks. There is a 3000 year old tradition to describe un-powered floating tubs by saying how many cubits long, how many cubits wide and how many cubits tall these tubs are.
Well, at least they could have used the next best length unit, football fields. But, no, they would not use something so familiar to us and readily imaginable by all of us as the lengths football fields. True, I concede, using how many skyscrapers it would dwarf once you image it standing on its end or how big a building it could enclose in its shell, etc would somewhat ameliorate the use of such abstruse exotic and non standard units as meters.

--
sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
1. Re:Described using wrong units. meters?? WTH?? by Rakarra · 2013-12-05 08:38 · Score: 1
  
  One of my favorites was listening to a news anchor describe the wall of water in the 2011 Japan Tsunami. "The water was twice as tall as I would be if I stood on Gary's [my co-anchor's] shoulders."
Not entirely correct by s7uar7 · 2013-12-05 01:47 · Score: 1

I'm pretty sure that the world's largest ship has floated before.
Re:Yah... stupid much? by bobbied · 2013-12-05 03:40 · Score: 2

IQ below room temperature.
Not sure what range you are talking about? Could be really good, could be not so good, could be really bad.
70 degrees Fahrenheit
21 degrees Celsius
294 degrees Kelvin

--
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
because engineers are SO highly regarded in the US by Thud457 · 2013-12-05 03:45 · Score: 2

engineers are not as highly respected in Korean society as they are in say, American society.
Wow. Talk about damning with faint praise.

--
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
Tell me when it isnks by wisnoskij · 2013-12-05 04:03 · Score: 1

Meh, tell me when it sinks. Now that is a news story.

--
Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
Video by SleazyRidr · 2013-12-05 04:23 · Score: 2

I was sent a video of this happening at work yesterday: http://www.youtube.com/v/TrBSi405Ous?version=3&f=videos&app=youtube_gdata#
The time lapse makes it look kinda like stop-motion, but it is pretty cool to see something that big start to move.

--
Is 1563649 a prime number?
An answer to piracy? by wfstanle · 2013-12-05 05:19 · Score: 1

Although it might not have been the reason for not including a way of moving on its own, as an anti piracy ploy, this might have merit. One of the first things that pirates do when capturing a ship is to move it to a frindly port. Without engines, it is much more difficult to do that. The pirates would have to take over not just the barge-supertanker but at the same time take over the tug. If more than one tugboat is needed to move the barge the pirates problems become much harder because they will have to take over more than one tugboat.
Get yours in while you can: by Tablizer · 2013-12-05 10:12 · Score: 1

"I'm king of the worrrlllddd!..."

--
Table-ized A.I.