# Talk:Oil tanker

Is it only for me extreme unlikely, that a new tanker costs $43M and a used one $42.5M or $120M new for very large ones and $116M for used? Nobody would buy used if he can have new ones for only 1-2% more than used tankers? It would only make sense if the waiting time for new tankers would be very long, so that if you need a tanker right now you buy a used one which engines and other import parts are overhauled before the sale, but I think shipyards in Europe and North America have problems to get enough new ship orders, and China is having a giant capacity to build new ships, so I guess the building time is pretty low?! Greetings Kilon22 (talk) 06:44, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

"Until 1956, tankers were designed to be able to navigate the Suez Canal.[23] This size restriction became much less of a priority after the closing of the canal during the Suez Crisis of 1956.[23] Forced to move oil around the Cape of Good Hope, shipowners realized that bigger tankers were the key to more efficient transport.[23]"
This source number 23 is NOT existing. All "Marine Log"s are availible online. There is also the possibility to search them. I can´t find the right article containing such information.

"Second only to pipelines in terms of efficiency," This reference is awfully ambiguous.  Tanker transport is at least an order of magnitude cheaper than pipe line transport.  For instance, using $35 000/day for an AFRAmax carrier, that's 100 000 t carried 750 km, or 4.5 cents per barrel.  An equivalent pipeline tariff would be in dollars per barrel.
187.143.80.250 (talk) 07:34, 18 April 2018 (UTC) baden k.

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

SS Belanak.jpg
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 08:23, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Subsection #History#Modern oil tankers para.3 (The first successful oil tanker) states tht the Zoroaster had "21 vertical watertight compartments for extra buoyancy".
This was not written by a mariner! (who would have referred to bulkheads rather than compartments).  More importantly, bulkheads add weight - and thus reduce buoyancy.  Our existing text lacks credibility - needs fixing.
The point of partitioning a ship, or a tank, is to reduce floodability - that is, to protect buoyancy in case of hull damage (but not to provide any "extra"!) - or to limit the free surface effect.  Both are safety considerations; that makes them of particular interest in relation to the development history of oil tankers.  This point about the Zoroaster's partitioned design is worth getting right.
Fixing all this is difficult without access to sources.  If the source cited (Tolf, Robert W. (1976). "4: The World's First Oil Tankers". The Russian Rockefellers: The Saga of the Nobel Family and the Russian Oil Industry. Hoover Press. ISBN 0-8179-6581-5) is in fact sound, the existing phrasing can be corrected without difficulty - though material about the different safety issues should be added if at all possible.  If that source is itself defective - not uncommon in books published by non-mariners! - the article can't be corrected without getting away from the source it cites.  I'm unable to check Tolf, and don't have any alternative sources.  Anyone else better placed? 2A04:B2C2:405:EB00:70A9:DF0D:6D77:5314 (talk) 06:59, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

Is the term oil tanker really normally used to refer to both crude oil tankers and product tankers? That's certainly quite confusing.
My impression is that in the tanker industry, companies frequently (typically?) specialize in either type, while this article does not seem to go into much length in distinguishing the two types (the term 'product tanker' is used only once in the article text outside of the lead section). --Njardarlogar (talk) 06:26, 14 September 2024 (UTC)