Project Cargo Special

By A. Peterse

Project Cargo and Heavy Lifts

Developments, Design Considerations, Operational
Aspects and Market Expectations
Wikipedia states that project cargo ‘is a term used to broadly describe the national or
international transportation of large, heavy, high value or critical (to the project they
are intended for) pieces of equipment.’ The need for this type of transportation has
resulted in specific ship types. An overview of the development of multi-purpose/
heavy lift vessels.

Wikipedia’s definition is rather broad, yet it is in line with the com- Project cargo
mon use of this term, together with even broader cargo categories on container
such as “general cargo” and “break bulk”, that is, any dry cargo flatbeds.
which is not unitised and not (major) bulk.
In its bi-annual market reviews, Drewry [1] distinguishes a number
of dry cargo segments, as depicted in the table below. Drewry em-
phasises two points:
• Project cargo is ‘the invisible break bulk volume: it has become
the foundation of the most dynamic part of the break bulk mar-
ket, but no trade or port statistics exist.’
• Project cargo is carried on multi-purpose/heavy lift vessels, but
– depending on prevailing conditions of their specific market
segment – container vessels, roll-on/roll-off (ro-ro) ships, gear-
less coasters and bulkers, will take their share.
These factors complicate any attempt to analyse and forecast mar-
ket conditions.
Global Break-Bulk Market Outlook 10

Est. Global
Primary

Dry cargo market segments

Seaborne Cargo Markets Competing
Cargo for Vessel
2008 Multi-Purpose Types
(mill.t)
Ships
Dry Bulk Major Major Bulk Major Bulk Cargo Iron ore, Major Bulk
1,981 Bulk carriers
Cargo Cargo Bulk Cargo coal,
Cargo grain (30) (Multi-Purpose
ships part)
Minor Other Minor Other Minor Bulk Phosrock,
556 Other Minor Bulk
Bulk Bulk Cargo Cargo bauxite, Handy bulkers
(Multi-Purpose
Cargo other (109) ships part)

Neo/Agri- Neo/Agri-Bulk Iron & steel,

forest products, 619 Neo/Agri-Bulk
Bulk Cargo Cargo (Multi - Purpose Handy bulkers
fertilisers,
(121) ships part) Ro-Ro ships
sugar, rice
Non - General Unitised Containerised General cargo
1,389
Containerised Con tainerships
Bulk Cargo General General Cargo in containers General Cargo Ro-Ro ships
Cargo Cargo (24) (Multi -Purpose ships
Con-bulkers
part)
Other Unitised General cargo
General Cargo in trailers 415 Other Unitised Ro-Ro ships
(short sea) General Cargo Ferries

Non - Unitised Specialised Reefer, Reeferships

General General Cargo vehicles 66 Specialised Car carriers
Cargo General Cargo
Ro-Ro ships
Non - Specialised All types of Non -Specialised
Breakbulk non-unitised 259 Breakbulk Ro-Ro ships
General Cargo general & project General Cargo Heavy lift ships
cargo

Source: Drewry

Dry bulk cargo market segments (by Drewry). Project cargo on a open top, gearless vessel, the Oceanic (picture by Flying Focus).

14 SWZ|MARITIME
 Arie Peterse is member of the Supervisory Board and
former Managing Director of BigLift Shipping BV.

As far as heavy lifts are concerned – arbitrarily: any indivisible load over 100 mt – it can easily be identified which industry sector drives the
demand for heavy lift transportation:

Industry Sector Projects Heavy Lifts

Oil and gas Offshore exploitation, FPSOs (floating pro- Jackets, top sides, turrets, reels, carousels,
duction storage and offloading), oil refiner- reactors, columns, furnaces, heat exchangers,
ies, LNG plants, petrochemical complexes modules, pipe racks
Power generation & distribution Oil/gas fired power plants, Turbines, generators, boilers, heat recovery steam gen-
renewables erator (HRSG) modules, transformers, wind turbine foun-
dations, transition pieces, towers, nacelles
Mining Mines and export facilities Wharf decks, (un)loaders, dump trucks
Water Desalination plants Desalination blocks
Infrastructure Bridges, tunnels, port, rail Steel structure, tunnel boring machines (TBMs), (con-
tainer)cranes, locomotives, rolling stock
Shipbuilding Ship sections, marine engines, dredging equipment,
tugs, barges, yachts

Note: For specific projects, especially offshore projects or plant

construction in remote areas, the project owner and contractors
may decide on a modular way of construction to reduce the number
of man-hours on the construction site and to enhance control of
quality and project schedule. Ocean transportation of large, heavy
modules by specialised flat-deck module carriers or tug-barge com-
binations is not part of this overview, nor is the specialised market
of ocean transport of large loads by semi-submersible vessels.

Multi-purpose and Heavy Lift Vessels: a Brief History

Before the era of containerisation, heavy lifts and project cargoes
could be transported on general cargo liner vessels, many of which
were equipped with heavy lift gear, such as the vessels of
Hansa-Linie, see picture below.
When around the 1970s containerisation became the standard in
liner shipping, a niche was created for specialised heavy lift ship- The Ank Winsemius was converted from a coaster in 1969 and fitted with a 60-mt derrick.
ping. The first steps into this market were made on the basis of con-
verted coaster tonnage: a heavy derrick was installed, sponsoons
were added to create stability.

The Gloria Virentium was built in 1977 and was equipped with two 400-mt derricks and a
DDG Hansa’s Uhenfels built in1967, with a lift capacity of 2 x 275-mt with Stülcken derricks. ro-ro ramp.

Jaargang 140 • 15
 Project Cargo Special

The Dock Express 11, built in 1979, with originally two gantries of 600 mt, ro-ro and flo-flo.

new development for on-land plants – made possible by the intro-

OPEC net oil export revenues between 1972 and 2007 (source: Marefa.org).
The need for more modern heavy lift vessels became clear and
newbuilds came into the market. These were still relatively small
vessels, such as the Gloria Virentium built in 1977.
Since the OPEC oil embargo in 1973, the Middle East countries
quickly became “oil rich” and decided to not just rely on exporting
crude, but to industrialise their countries on a large scale, starting
with oil refineries and petrochemical plants. Large areas of desert
were developed as new industrial cities, including a totally new in-
frastructure of ports, power generation, desalination plants, et cet-
era. The demand for heavy lift transportation boomed, especially
since quite a number of the plants were built on a modular basis – a
duction of sophisticated hydraulic self propelled modular transport-
ers (SPMTs), that could be combined in any configuration, were
electronically controlled and 360 degrees steerable.
New, larger heavy lift tonnage was built on the basis of contracts
for these Middle East developments, including the “Project”,
“Scan” and “Dock Express” vessels.
Development of the Multi-purpose/Heavy-lift Carrier
In practice, the term “multi-purpose vessel” (MPV) is used to cover
a wide range of ship types. DNV-GL [2] distinguishes five categories
with, understandably, quite some overlap. These categories are ex-
plained in the table on the next page. Of these five categories, the
“multi-purpose project carrier” is primarily designed to carry pro-
ject cargo and heavy lifts. The DNV-GL “MPV update 2017” [3] gives
an age analysis of this tonnage:

Category Number of vessels per age group Average age

<0 0<5 5<10 10<15 15<20 20<25 25<30 30<40 Total
Heavy lift MPVs* 4 110 212 84 85 37 17 30 579 11.6
Premium heavy lift MPVs** 46 66 159 44 40 7 5 4 370 8.0
* Lifting capacity 100<250 t. ** Lifting capacity >250 t.

This shows, that the popularity of multi-purpose/heavy lift vessels,

especially those with a higher lifting capacity, had its start in the
1990s. Modern multi-purpose/heavy lift vessels typically have one or
two box-shaped holds, wide hatch openings (no understow) and
two or three cranes on port or starboard side. Design and construc-
tion of such vessels became feasible due to technological innova-
tions as:
• Cranes: In the 1980s marine crane builders designed and built
new types of cranes, which offered improved operations and
safer handling of heavy lifts compared to the traditional masts
and derricks. NMF developed a range of standard heavy lift
The Project Arabia built in 1982. The vessel was equipped with two 350 mt cranes and has cranes of the pedestal type, with ever increasing lift capacities,
operated in the Mammoet pool since 1984. up to 1000 metric tonnes (mt) at this moment [4]. Huisman [5] de-

16 SWZ|MARITIME
 Project Cargo Special

Five MPV categories (source DNV GL).

Five MPV
categories
(source DNV GL).

veloped the custom-built Heavy Lift Mast Crane (HLMC). These

cranes have been in service on the Happy Buccaneer since
1984. Huisman has delivered HLMCs up to 1500 mt capacity for
heavy lift vessels. The offshore version with the highest lifting
capacity currently in operation, is one of 4000 mt installed on
Heerema’s Aegir, but larger ones are already being built.

The two Huisman

Heavy Lift Mast
Cranes of 550 mt
on board the
Happy
Buccaneer were
upgraded at a
NMF cranes of 1000 mt each on board heavy lift vessel Lone in the port of Wilhelmshaven later time to two
(picture by Ein Dahmer). times 700 mt.

Jaargang 140 • 17
 Project Cargo Special

FEM analysis of
a cargo vessel.

• Finite Element Method (FEM) analysis: The strength analysis of handling restricted to lift-on/lift-off (lo-lo) or will ro-ro by stern ramp
the large open box structure of the vessel being subjected to or even float-on/float-off (flo-flo) be included? Trade areas may im-
loads in port due to the operations of the heavy lift cranes and pose limits, think of the Great Lakes for example, and of course the
at sea due to dynamic forces acting on heavy cargo items available budget may do so as well.
stowed on deck, is only possible by FEM analysis of a detailed Items to consider are:
structural model of at least the mid body of the ship. More de- • Vessel lay-out: One or two box-shaped holds. Note that the typi-
tailed analysis is required on the transfer of the crane loads into cal lay-out of a long hold with a small hold forward, is often dic-
the local ship structure [6]. Deformations of the ship structure, tated by damage stability requirements; one long hold is feasi-
which may be considerable, are to be calculated, in order to de- ble, but will restrict maximum draft, and as such the deadweight.
sign the hatch covers and, if required, stoppers to limit deforma-
tions.
• Damage stability: The probabilistic approach of damage stability
gives the naval architect more freedom in the subdivision of the
vessel than the former “one or two compartment standard”, but
it will be clear that the requirements of maximum hold length
and narrow side tanks present some challenges.

Multi-purpose Heavy Lift Vessels: Design Choices

With today’s easy access to fast computers and sophisticated soft-
ware, ship designers can quickly evaluate any ship concept; design
choices, often conflicting, are to be made. Expected market devel-
opments will give guidance, that is, is the multi-purpose character A modern multi-purpose vessel, Spliethoff’s Donaugracht (picture by Flying Focus).
most important or is the goal a specialised heavy lift vessel; is cargo

Deformations for inward/outward deflections. A modern heavy lift carrier, the BigLift Happy Star (picture by Flying Focus).

18 SWZ|MARITIME
 Project Cargo Special
Deadweight may not be of prime importance for the carriage of
project cargo and heavy lifts, but if a multi-purpose function is
envisaged as primarily role, whereby for instance bulk or steel
cargoes are to be carried, it will limit the intake.
• Cranes: Mostly there are two located at one of the ship’s sides,
able to work in tandem. Larger vessels may have a third crane,
often of reduced capacity. The choice of lifting capacity, out-
reach, boom length, height of pivot point above deck and so on
will all have their impact on the ship’s structure, stability and
ballast requirements.
• Ballast system: Ballast tanks are to be arranged in such a way
that stability in all situations is ensured and that during lifting
operations, heel can be compensated. Ideally, all double bottom
tanks remain one hundred per cent filled during heavy lift opera-
tions and heel can be compensated by pumping ballast between
the side tanks, without the need to pump ballast in or out. The
speed of heavy lift handling will be determined by the installed
ballast pump capacity and the ballast lines. Water ballast treat-
ment is compulsory for newbuilds. In ports in the United States
this also applies to existing vessels. The application of solid bal-
last, such as magnetite, in some side compartments can be con-
sidered to enhance heel compensation, while sacrificing some
deadweight.
• Hatch covers: Upperdeck: foldable or lift-off panels or a combi-
nation thereof. Allowable loads on the upper deck hatch covers
are often low, 1.5 t/m2 for weight and cost savings, but will then
restrict the stowage of heavy cargo. Tween deck pontoons are
the standard; so are adjustable tween deck heights. The tween
deck pontoons may be used to create separation bulkheads.
• Allowable loads: High allowable loads will facilitate stowage of
heavy cargo items. On the tanktop 15-20 t/m2 can be created, for
tween deck and upper deck pontoons this will normally be re-
stricted to 5 t/m2.
• Stability and damage stability: For seagoing conditions, SOLAS
regulations regarding intact and damage stability apply. No in-
ternationally recognised requirements apply to stability in port,
Jaargang 140 •
Stability
pontoons are
fixed to the side
of the ship during
heavy lifting
(picture (left) by
K. Goudriaan).
although during the handling of heavy loads by a ship’s gear,
very critical stability situations may occur. Accidents happen
during lifting operations as it is not always understood that the
stability of the ship will suddenly change in the instance a load
becomes free-hanging in the ship’s crane; at that moment, the
gravity force of the cargo applies at the top of the crane, the
metacentric height (GM) of the ship is drastically reduced, pos-
sibly even negative. A number of heavy lift operators use as an
(unofficial) standard that the vessel’s GM should be a minimum
of one metre during the whole cycle of cargo operations. There-
fore, heavy lift vessels may have a relatively large beam. How-
ever, too large a beam will result in high GM values in sailing
conditions, giving unfavourable roll motions in sea conditions,
thereby applying high dynamic forces on the cargo and its
lashings.
A compromise is found in the application of a “stability pon-
toon”, fixed to the side of the ship during the lifting of heavy
cargo. The stability pontoon increases the waterline area, re-
spectively the moment of inertia of the waterline area, and so
the metacentric height: it is not intended, as is often misunder-
stood, to create additional anti-heel ballast capacity.
Disadvantages of the stability pontoon are the time and effort it
takes to install and dismantle the system when handling heavy
lifts and the space it takes on deck during the sea voyage. Fur-
thermore, it is clear that lifting operations require utmost atten-
tion to the safety of the system; if the pontoon is lifted out of the
water due to heel of the vessel during the handling of a heavy
load or is submerged, the ship will lose its stability and may
capsize, see for instance the tragic accident with the Stella
Mare at Albany in 2003.
An alternative way to increase the ship’s stability for cargo op-
erations can be the temporary fitting of tween deck hatch cov-
ers along the ship’s side, although the contribution to the stabili-
ty will be less than when using a stability pontoon.
DNV-GL has a set of rules regarding stability, with special atten-
tion to safety against capsizing. This applies to ships having the
19
 Project Cargo Special
voluntary class notation “crane vessel”, which may include, in
their definition, heavy lift ships [7]. These rules also introduce
the “accidental load drop criterion”: requirements to the ship’s
stability when there is an accidental loss of the hook load due to
failure of the lifting gear and the ship rolls away from the side of
the lift. In the past, the Dutch port labour inspectorate (Havenar-
beidsinspectie) applied similar regulations to Dutch flag heavy
lift ships.
• Open sailing: Flexibility of stowage of heavy and large loads can
be obtained if the heavy lift vessel is allowed to sail, at reduced
draft, without (or partially without) the upper deck hatch covers
in place. Cargo can be stowed on the tank top or tween deck, is
better protected and subject to lower dynamic forces than on
the upper deck.
As early as the 1980s, the heavy lift Dock Express vessels and
the Happy Buccaneer were already allowed to sail “open top”.
The exemption of the load line convention was based on an
adaption of existing guidelines for open top container vessels
[8]. Basic requirement is that the vessels are fitted with a bilge
system for dewatering the holds in case a quantity – to be de-
termined in tank tests – of green or rain water has entered the
hold. Stability with the holds partly flooded is to be considered
and fire protection measures are required.
Recently the need was felt by national authorities and classifi-
cation societies to formalise the regulations for open top multi-
purpose vessels, especially regarding the assumed conditions
of flooded holds: classification societies introduced voluntary
Lifting by running the hoisting winch(es) causes ship’s heel. There is a risk of overload of
crane(s) due to increased outreach; taut mooring lines; transverse forces on crane top(s);
and swinging of load when getting free from the ground.
20
rules for a class notation “hatchcoverless”, while national au-
thorities need to grant an exemption of the International Con-
vention on Load Lines [9, 10].
• Location of the superstructure: For specialised heavy lift car-
riers, the choice to locate the superstructure forward is logical:
ro-ro facilities over the stern are made feasible, large deck
loads will not hamper visibility from the bridge and the forward
superstructure will reduce the risk of green water washing over
the bow damaging cargo stowed on deck or entering the hold in
case of open top sailing.
The ship’s officers generally see no disadvantages in steering
and manoeuvring from a wheel house located forward; all on
board enjoy the quiet in their cabins away from the engine room
and propeller.
• DP: The top end heavy lift carriers are often not just used for the
transport of heavy lifts, but also work at the destination as
crane vessels, directly installing the heavy lifts, for example in-
stallation of wharf decks, assembling cranes et cetera. Offshore
installation work is an option as well, but generally dynamic po-
sitioning (DP2) will be a requirement for the installation of sub-
sea structures, wind turbine transition pieces and so on. Fur-
thermore, requirements may not stop there: heave compensa-
tion of the cranes, additional accommodation, a helideck or a fly
jib may be needed for specific offshore projects. Investment in
such equipment will certainly make the vessel versatile for
offshore installation contracts, but too expensive to operate in
the regular heavy lift transportation market.
Controlled safe lifting by transfer of ballast between side tanks.
SWZ|MARITIME
 Project Cargo Special

Operational Aspects
Loss prevention is an important issue in the transportation of pro-
ject cargo: the cargo is often of great value as well as critical to the
project. Loss of, or damage to the cargo will have direct financial
consequences, but may also cause long delays in the completion of
the project. Project owners, engineers/contractors and the insur-
ance companies involved will therefore closely watch the trans-
portation of their cargo. Under the usual conditions of charter par-
ties and Bills of Lading, liability for damage or loss of cargo is limit-
ed and for cargo stowed on deck entirely excluded, while the ship
owner or operator is not responsible for any delays. Marine War-
ranty Surveyors (MWS) are often appointed to guide the selection
of the ocean carrier, do plan approval of the planning and engineer-
ing of the transport and attend the actual loading, stowage, and
seafastening. The vessel will not leave the load port without a
signed “sail away certificate” of the MWS.
Shipment of project cargoes and especially heavy lifts require care- Safe lift due to large lifting triangle.
ful planning and coordination with all involved. Shipping manuals
are prepared in the office of the ship owner or operator by staff with
a nautical background and experience and naval architects. Super- • Rules of thumb: For example, for lashing of boxes and crates:
intendents will travel to load ports to coordinate operations. sum of minimum breaking loads of the lashings shall be twice
For large projects, extensive manuals are prepared and discussed the static weight of the cargo.
with clients and MWS. Method statements and stowage/lifting/lash- • Calculation of the forces on cargo stowed on board using for in-
ing plans are standard and voyage planning, mooring plans, risk stance: accelerations as given in “advanced calculation me-
analysis, project specific Health, Safety & Environment (HSE) proce- thod” of the CSS code [11]; accelerations as per class require-
dures are not exceptional. Subjects which certainly need to be ad- ments for the design loads on ship structure [12]; assumed ship
dressed are: motions, for example Noble Denton “default motion criteria”
• A stowage plan: including deck strength calculations for the [13]. Wind forces can be added separately.
heavy loads as well as of load spreaders if required. • The design wave method: a wave spectrum is assessed, based
• For all heavy lifts: lifting plans: rigging plan, calculation of sling on the extreme wave condition (ten year return) to be expected
forces, selection of slings/grommets, shackles, lifting beams/ on the route. Ship motion response is calculated by diffraction
spreaders. programmes on the basis of the actual ship dimensions, charac-
Lifting operations will always require full attention to the risks in- teristics and loading conditions. From the ship motions, local
volved. The incident rate of accidents due to mechanical failure or accelerations are calculated; the design value is generally ac-
due to human error is low. However, there can be serious conse- cepted as having a ten per cent exceedance.
quences. Another issue, often overlooked, is the stability of the load
being lifted while the lifting points are situated below the location of
the load’s centre of gravity.
Cargo lashing is always a topic of much discussion and, fortunately,
also a subject of extensive studies. It may be time-consuming and
costly, however, with proper engineering and design, an ample
stock of lashing material as part of the ship’s onboard inventory and
a skilled crew, it does not have to be. According to the SOLAS regu-
lations, all vessels must have a Cargo Securing Manual (CSM) on
board describing the types of cargo, which the ship is suitable to
carry, and the proper way of loading, stowing and lashing of these
cargoes. It will be impossible to include all project cargoes of any
type, size and weight in such a CSM. Specific calculations are then
to be made for each shipment to design proper stowage and lash-
ing, to be approved by the MWS. Example: Noble Denton: transverse force based on roll twenty degrees, ten seconds and
Various methods can be seen in the engineering and design of lash- heave 0.2 g. Rotational inertia of the load is often not taken into account, but may be
ing plans, with increasing sophistication: considerable for high structures.

Jaargang 140 • 21
 Project Cargo Special
Stopper welding checked by non-destructive testing (NDT, left) and lashing of deck cargo by steel wire lashings.
• Voyage simulation: Safe Trans [14]. Using Monte Carlo simula-
tion, acceleration statistics and probabilities of ship motions
and resulting accelerations during the planned voyage are pro-
duced using databases of wind and wave conditions, taking into
account the planned duration in an area, seasonal data, wave
direction and such. Additional risks, including delays, weather
forecast errors, and mitigating actions, such as calling a port of
refuge or a captain’s decision for deviation can be incorporated.
Actual lashing of project cargo and heavy lifts is mostly done using
“stoppers” welded to the ship’s deck/tanktop/hatchcovers to re-
Age profile of heavy lift vessels with a lifting capacity of 500 mt or more.
Toepfer Transport’s quarterly Multipurpose Index.
22
strain any longitudinal or transverse movement and lashings against
any uplift forces.
Apart from the lashing/seafastening design, the structural strength
of the cargo itself may have to be checked. Container cranes, high
modules and such often have to be reinforced for the sea voyage,
as these are usually designed for static forces and wind only. Note,
however, the recent loss of the superyacht My Song, allegedly due
to collapse of the shipping cradle [15].
Maximum allowable accelerations on the cargo during the voyage
may be an operational restriction, contractually prescribed by the
cargo owner or MWS. Thanks to the availability of reliable weather
and seastate forecasts, the Ship Performance Optimization System
(SPOS) [16] for example, and decision support systems that forecast
ship performance in the expected weather conditions, such as Oc-
topus on board [17], the captain and officers on board can make ad-
justments to the planned route to avoid unacceptable levels of ac-
celerations.
Market Expectations
The shipping market, normally cyclical, is currently at a prolonged
low level of the cycle; the market for multi-purpose and heavy lift
vessels is no exception.
The world-wide financial crisis of 2008 hit the market of project car-
go; investments in large industrial projects came to a full stop, with
the exception of (offshore) wind parks. Still, there were many new-
builds entering the market, ordered before “Lehman”. Cosco made
the strategic decision to build up a considerable fleet of multi-pur-
pose tonnage and added eight vessels with a lifting capacity of 700
mt to its fleet; orders by western operators were often not driven by
market demands, but by fiscal considerations, easily available bank
loans and Chinese yards prepared to build western designs at rela-
tively low prices.
The age profile of specialised heavy lift carriers underlines how the
overcapacity was created in recent years, see the graph on the left.
The depressed market conditions led to bankruptcies, including
those of Flinter, Abis and very recently Hansa Heavy Lift, as the
banks have been reducing or totally shedding their shipping port-
folios, accepting large write-offs. Private investors in KG Structures
and similar lost their investment. Under pressure of the banks, a
consolidation has taken place in the heavy lift market: Harren taking
charge of the vessels of Combidock as well as SAL and newcomer
Zeaborn consolidating Rickmers Linie-Nordana and Intermarine.
Various parties give a review of the expectation of the break bulk
market on a regular basis. Drewry [18] publishes its “multipurpose
shipping annual review and forecast”, analysing demand and sup-
ply of the multi-purpose market, including an effort to come to a
quantitative five-year forecast. The lack of statistics on project car-
go remains problematic, demand is derived from the total capital
investment on large projects. Dynamar [19] monitors the fleet devel-
opment of the main operators and reports a top ten, see the table.
In its quarterly “MPP Report”, German broker Toepfer Transport [20]
gives an update of all recent market news and rumours, including
SWZ|MARITIME
 Project Cargo Special
Dynamar’s top ten multipurpose operators.
as an indication of actual market conditions “Toepfer’s Multipur-
pose Index”, that is, the development of the time charter rate of a
12.500-t dwt “F type” multipurpose vessel, which vessel type is
widely used in the market.
DNV-GL [21] publishes an “MPV Update”, giving technological infor-
mation on the design and operations of multi-purpose ships and
regulatory issues, besides market trends.
Recently, the various market reviews show some optimism on the
basis of an increase on reported worldwide investment plans of the
energy and mining industry, with the provision that there may be
some years in the process of planning and design, firm investment
decisions and execution. Furthermore, the multi-purpose market
has its interdependence with other dry cargo markets, the bulk mar-
ket as well as the container markets. Today’s geopolitical situation
and the threat of trade wars make the outlook for these markets not
References
1. Drewry: Outlook for breakbulk and project cargo market, www.
drewry.co.uk
2. DNV GL, www.dnvgl.com/expert-story/maritime-impact/
One-step-at-a-time.html
3. DNV-GL MPV Update 2017
4. http://www.ttsgroup.com/Products/Heavylift/
5. https://www.huismanequipment.com/en/products/cranes/
heavy_lift_mast_cranes
6. DNVGL-CG-0151 “Strength Analysis of General Cargo and Mul-
ti-purpose Dry Cargo Ships”, February 2016
7. DNV-GL Rules for classification Part 5, Chapter 10, Section 2
“Crane vessel”, October 2015
8. IMO MSC/circ. 608 “Interim guidelines for open-top contain-
er ships”
9. DNV-GL Rules for classification Part 6 Chapter 5 Section 2 “Ships
Designed Without Hatch Cover Hatchcoverless” July 2017
10. N. van de Minkelis A. de Bruijn “Voorwaarden voor varen met
open top” SWZ|Maritime, July/August 2018
Jaargang 140 •
very positive. From 1 January 2020, the International Maritime
Organization’s regulations on the sulphur cap of bunker fuels will
come into force. It is expected that many owners of multi-purpose
vessels will not have the financial resources to install scrubbers.
Although there is still uncertainty on how bunker prices will
develop, it may realistically be expected that the voyage expenses
will rise considerably when they have to run the vessels on low
sulphur fuel; for older tonnage it can mean a last voyage to the
scrap yard. If so, it will certainly help to bring the multi-purpose
market in an upward cycle again. However, at this moment there is
as yet no sign of increased scrapping of multi-purpose-heavy lift
tonnage.
Newbuilding orders are extremely scarce due to the current market
conditions; when new orders will be placed, it will be interesting to
see if a choice for LNG will be made.
11. IMO Code for the safe practice of cargo stowage and secur-
ing, Annex 13, Methods to assess the efficiency of securing ar-
rangements for non-standardized cargo
12. DNV GL Rules for the Classification of Ships, /36/, Part 3, Chap-
ter 4, Section 3
13. Noble Denton Marine Services, Marine Warranty Wizard
14. Marin Safe Trans, The safe design and operation of marine
transports
15. https://gcaptain.com/superyacht-my-song-lost-during-
transport/
16. www.meteogroup.com, Spos9 factsheet
17. www.amercon.com, Octopus on board
18. https://www.drewry.co.uk/maritime-research-products/
multipurpose-shipping-annual-review-and-forecast-201920
19. https://www.dynamar.com/
20. https://www.toepfer-transport.com/tt-reports/mpp-report/
21. https://www.dnvgl.com/maritime/insights/publications.
html?takeCount=1
23