Environment Industrial Technology Manufacturing Transportation Ships

Here’s a Contradiction in Terms – Ecotankers

November 7, 2014

154

November 7, 2014 – I came across the term ecotanker in my reading of headlines today. It would seem that the prefix “eco” is being bandied about by the most unlikely sources. Really, an ecotanker, a ship that carries fossil fuels being associated with ecology and the environment? Well five of these branded ships are being built at General Dynamics NASSCO‘s San Diego, California, shipyard. Each has a deadweight of 50,000 tons and is designed to transport 330,000 barrels of liquid natural gas (LNG). Why the “eco” label? Apparently it refers to the ships’ improved fuel efficiency and environmentally enhanced ballast water treatment systems as well as a dual-fuel engine capability, meaning it can run using gasoline derived from LNG or heavy bunker oil. The tankers also feature optimized hull form factors to reduce drag through the water and improve fuel consumption. They are designs created by Daewoo Shipbuilding & Marine Engineering in South Korea. When you assign the prefix “eco” to an oil tanker it seems a misnomer. And LNG tankers have been cited as particularly dangerous. Recently the city of West Vancouver passed a unanimous motion to ban LNG tankers from its nearby waterways describing the cargo as volatile, as eco-unfriendly. In the case of ecotankers the use of “eco” seems un-eco-sensitive. And my eco-consciousness imagines a less than eco-friendly eco-disaster happening somewhere impacting local ecology and resulting in an eco-catastrophe. I’m “eco”ed out!