Talk:Seawise Giant

message: Prelude is joined. At a length of 1601 ft the Prelude (owned by Shell) is the longest floating vessel ever. 243 ft wide. 600,000 metric tonnes laden.
mickrussom (talk) 13:52, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Prelude now worlds largest floating vessel ever

message: *Article says this in the section "The Ship":The ship sails under the flag of Singapore. She is crewed by 40 people.However, the ship dosen't sail anymore and is permanently moored, as mentioned later in the article.According to the data in the following website, the ship has been carrying the Norwegian flag since 1979.http://supertankers.topcities.com/id132.htmThe only involvement of Singapore in with Knock Nevis is when Keppel Shipyard repaired the wreck after Iraqi jets bombed the ship.I have removed the reference to the Singapore flag untill someone can present evidence of the ship sailing under the Singapore flag. --Pavithran 13:58, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: According to Class Society DNV at https://exchange.dnv.com/exchange/main.aspx?extool=vessel&subview=registry&imono=7381154 it is Singapore. Also Equasis at http://www.equasis.org/equasis/affiche.build_page_2?P_IMO=7381154&P_SHIP_MANAGER=1448869&Z_CHK=30123 shows Singapore.Offshore1 19:45, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Flag

message: Maybe it Google took a new photo when the ship wasn't it? Or maybe I'm looking at the wrong thing. Riobranden 18:25, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  There is no ship in the Google map link 

message: In the first paragraph the Iranian Airforce is supposed to have damaged the ship. Later in the article the blame is shouldered by the Iraqi Airforce. Is this verifiable? --203.187.212.153 23:05, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inconsistency / Gulf War Damage

message: The English Channel has an average depth of 63 m (207 ft) and it's Max width is 240 km (150 mi). Even if the Seawise Giant were to be fully loaded and have a draft of 24.6 m (81 ft), she would still have enough clearance to navigate through the channel. Unless a valid source is presented where it shows that the vessel could not be navigated through the channel, this remains a dubious claim.   — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.63.110.9 (talk) 17:32, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The average depth is meaningless, it's the shallowest part that dictates the size of ship that can pass. 82.46.109.233 (talk) 10:04, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  English Channel 

message: The ship is under contract to Maersk Oil in Qatar until mid-2007, apparently in the Al-Shaheen oil field, which is northeast of Qatar's land.  Google Maps apparently does not have good enough resolution to show the ship in that area. JonathanFreed 05:35, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Current location 

message: Anyone know if the Knock Nevis is self-propelled after her conversion? That is, is her steam plant still in operation? If not, then she is not listed in Lloyd's Register of Ships and the title of world's largest ship would be held by the four TI Europe class ULCCs.Mytg8 16:44, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  World's largest? 

message: Greetings, I created the comparison image to the left, and I originally added it to this page in Feb 2007, only to have it removed because apparently it is "ridiculous".. Can I please have some opinions/comments? Apparently including arguably the most well known sci-fi spaceship makes the entire thing "ridiculous"? - Fosnez 14:56, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, do you understand why including a fictional object might expose your compariaon to ridicule? Whay not include the Yellow Brick Road as well? Apart from the spacecraft it is actually quite informative. Why not replace it with a real spacecraft, or the Hindenburg? or a large aircraft? Greglocock 00:31, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That is a very nice image, but I agree.  Remove the starship or replace it and it would make a very good addition to the article.Mytg8 15:59, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comparison Image 

message: The coordinates listed in the article are in the middle of the ocean which Google maps doesn't render.  HOWEVER, south west of that location (near Qatar) is a port where a large craft appears to be moored.  The coordinates are 25.933680, 51.598535.  I'm going to edit the page to reflect this change.Kakomu 06:57, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Changing Map Coordinates 

message: This is (or was) a oil tanker, not an eighteen wheeler. The Knock Nevis has gross registered tonnage of 260,941 grt, a net registered tonnage of 214,793 nrt, a deadweight (weight of cargo/fuel/supplies etc.) of 564,650 dwt and a displacement (maximum total weight) of 647,955 t. The first two of these measurements are of volume (100 cubic feet equals one gross or net ton) and the latter two measurements are of mass in metric tonnes. It appears that the figure for GLW was derived by adding the figures for grt and deadweight tons together. As this is combining apples and oranges (or rather volume and mass) the figure is meaningless. In the final analysis, only trucks have a GLW, not ships.--Sadowski (talk) 20:11, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: GLW? (Gross Laden Weight) etc. 

message: No way does this ship weigh 236000 GT, that would be 236 trillion tonnes, enough for a steel block 31 x 31 x 31 km. --90.211.128.237 (talk) 01:53, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe it refers to gross tonnage. Mgiganteus1 (talk) 00:31, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: weight

message: The article mixes long tons (2240 pounds / 1016 kg approx) and metric tonnes (1000kg).
Lightship displacement (i.e mass of ship without cargo, fuel, crew etc) quoted as 81,879 long tons
Full load displacement (i.e mass of ship plus cargo, fuel etc) quoted as 646,642 long tons
If this is the case then the deadweight (i.e mass of cargo, fuel etc ) should be the difference between these
i.e 564,763 long tons.
But the deadweight is quoted as 564,763 metric tonnes (equivalent to 555,843 long tons). Same number, inconsistent unit?
It seems a bit like pedantry but if we are looking at the largest ship ever built then the numbers do need to be right. I have trawled the internet but cannot find any real consistency with these numbers as definitions of weight/tonnage/displacement are tricky and seem to be readily misquoted or misinterpreted.
Suggest Displacement 646,642 long tons (correctly converted to 657,019 tonnes), deadweight 555,843 long tons ( converted from quoted 564,763 tonnes). This leaves Lightship displacement as the difference; 90,799 long tons (92,256 tonnes) not the 81,879 tons quoted. 
There is clearly 9,000 tons difference so I don't want to edit the article by swapping an error with another one. If anyone knows the correct values for all three.....
Conversion used: 1 long ton (2240 pounds) = 1.016046909 tonnes    — Preceding unsigned comment added by Firthwood14 (talk • contribs) 23:21, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: numbers do not add up

message: This image is from only five days after the conversion was completed, there is a really large tanker here, could that be it? http://www.terraserver.com/view.asp?cx=325421.746447646&cy=2793757.07137899&proj=32640&mpp=7.5&pic=-1&prov=-1&stac=-1&styp=AD  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.184.21.14 (talk) 06:03, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Imagery

message: FSO "Knock Nevis" demobilized from the Al Shaheen field, Qatar on contract expiry on 12th August. The USD 2 million end of up grade project bonus was received from the client. The unit sailed to Fujairah and arrived mid September and is currently undergoing tank cleaning and de-mucking, scheduled to be completed before year end 2009. There is a dispute with the previous client regarding conditions at redelivery of the vessel. The Company is marketing "Knock Nevis" for future opportunities world-wide - scrapping is also a possible scenario. 
(from http://www.bluepulz.com/?Id=1864) 
(See also: http://www.na24.no/imarkedet/article2742753.ece (Norwegian))  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.205.111.246 (talk) 13:18, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: This article needs an update - the job in Al Shaheen field is over

message: Sad reports from southwest Asia:
http://www.shipspotting.com/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?viewmode=thread&topic_id=6996&forum=1&post_id=40716#40716
The Knock Nevis has been renamed "Mont" and is headed to Bhavnagar, India on her way to the breakers at Alang beach.  End of an era. Mytg8 (talk) 14:20, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  The end of the Seawise Giant/Jahre Viking/Knock Nevis? 

message: Since the ship is beached and in the process of being scrapped, I wonder what the article name should be. She was only named Knock Nevis for about 5 years of the 30 she was in service, and her last name was actually "Mont". Would it be appropriate to name the article "Seawise Giant" or "Jahre Viking" and redirect the other names? After all, that was what she was registered as most of her working life.Mytg8 (talk) 13:55, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Out of curiosity, does the name Knock Nevis mean anything in Norwegian?Mytg8 (talk) 19:28, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Not that I am aware of. It seems that there are other ships that have the first word Knock but I don't think it means anything. I admit I may be wrong--99.141.194.185 (talk) 21:31, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I can confirm that "Knock Nevis" means absolutely nothing in Norwegian; it sounds more English than anything to a Norwegian ear - we wouldn't even know how to pronounce it. I'm not an expert on this ship but I don't believe the motivations for naming her Knock Nevis came from a Norwegian source. Nimloth250 (talk) 21:04, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Renaming article? 

message: I didn't mean for my last edits to come off as vandalism; sorry. Honestly, though, I am surprised that a Flick Search only brings up a few pictures from "everyday people" or people who work on it. And there is NO findable video coverage/"bootleg" footage. Not necessarily too late if it will be broken slowly, but I guess I'll never get to see it in real life. 
Here are the Flickr results; http://www.flickr.com/search/?q=knock%20nevis&w=all  check out the helicopter shot; http://www.flickr.com/photos/mortan/3671468974/.  Wow, I wish whoever that was took more pictures; it's a high quality shot, too, not some cell phone catch. Daniel Christensen (talk) 21:29, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Why is it nobody seems to care that this has happened, this should be relatively important news that the largest ship in the world and the largest ship ever will no longer be the same ship, at least it is highly unlikely unless we go into an oil crisis again like 1973, which triggered the building of the Batillus class supertankers. couldent we at least get more than one little picture of the ship at Alang--99.141.194.185 (talk) 20:37, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Sad to see it go; surprised at the little attention it got

message: the draught in the first paragraph is 26 meters while in the infobox with another reference it's 30 meters; and the Batallius class ships also claim a 30 foot draught which would make them just as much or more unnavigable as the Nevis. Daniel Christensen (talk) 00:43, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Good catch. The infobox data is actually the depth of the ship, not the draft.  Changed it to say so.Mytg8 (talk) 00:50, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Unbelievable Contradictions

message: Current location is Plot V1 of the Alang Ship Breaking Yard . This ship can be viewed during the scrapping process at coordinates 21°25'05.02 N 72°12'26.53 W per image provided by Digital Globe 2010 in Google Earth. Image may be viewed in Google Maps at the following link:
[ http://maps.google.com/maps?ll=21.417824,72.20797&z=17&t=h&hl=en]
208.75.96.66 (talk) 09:00, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, the problem is when and if Google Earth will update the view. The present view was taken in 2004 and it may be years before its replaced.Mytg8 (talk) 14:10, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The ship viewed is not the Knock Nevis, that ship has been there for some time and it is impossible that they could have gotten to scrapping that quickly. When will the next update on Google maps be? I hope its soon because the ship is being slowly eaten away as we speak.--99.141.194.185 (talk) 20:40, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Current location due to scrapping 

message: What's with the MV?  She wasn't a motor vessel; she was a steamship. Chasrob (talk) 11:24, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't know and don't care! The article should be changed back to the original name, either Knock Nevis or Seawise Giant. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 13:23, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  MV? Mont 

message: 8 kilometres is just under 5 miles, it's not 5 and a half miles!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.103.129.209 (talk) 07:04, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The Relevant Search Scotland source says 3½ miles. Kendall-K1 (talk) 19:03, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: mathematics error

message: I moved it to porthos because it should be knock nevis. Daniel Christensen (talk) 07:23, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: move

message: So, the final voyage was December 2009 or Jan 2010? The article contradicts itself  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.75.114.165 (talk) 01:27, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Final Voyage

message: Published sailing directions indicate that it would be unwise or even dangerous to attempt to take a vessel of >22m draft through the English Channel.  Hence, Jahre Viking could not safely navigate the channel.  See this link for sailing directions :
http://msi.nga.mil/MSISiteContent/StaticFiles/NAV_PUBS/SD/Pub191/Pub191bk.pdf#page124
86.137.14.36 (talk) 20:13, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The doubts were raised by an anonymous editor and not backed up by anything except personal opinion and flawed reasoning. We now have one reliable source plus confirmation. I suggest we remove the "dubious" template. Kendall-K1 (talk) 18:54, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Depths in English Channel 

message: This honour should rather go to F-60. At least if one understands "largest" as dimension and not as weight.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.29.242.200 (talk) 19:11, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Why is that? Many trains are longer and heavier than this object. Chasrob (talk) 15:43, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of "as well as the largest self-propelled human-made object ever built" 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Seawise Giant. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20101118043817/http://www.islandnavigation.org:80/seawiseGiant.html to http://www.islandnavigation.org/seawiseGiant.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110714085312/http://www.micportal.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=3996:main-anchor-of-the-jahre-vikingseawise-giant-arrives-in-hong-kong&catid=21:world-ports&Itemid=32 to http://www.micportal.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=3996:main-anchor-of-the-jahre-vikingseawise-giant-arrives-in-hong-kong&catid=21:world-ports&Itemid=32
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 06:04, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Seawise Giant. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100317190941/http://www.bluepulz.com/?Id=1342 to http://www.bluepulz.com/?Id=1342
*Added  tag to http://www.bluepulz.com/?Id=2245
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080814090101/http://www.maritime-connector.com/ContentDetails/1433/gcgid/191/lang/English/World-s-Largest-Ships.wshtml to http://www.maritime-connector.com/ContentDetails/1433/gcgid/191/lang/English/World-s-Largest-Ships.wshtml
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:36, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Could someone please explain the dimensions of this vessel. What exactly is the height (top to bottom), length (front to back), and width (side to side) of this vessel? 173.86.46.180 (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 23:26, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: dimensions

message: The Iran–Iraq War#Attacks on shipping has that it was hit by Exocet missiles, with a source ref. --Jerome Potts (talk) 22:41, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sunk by parachute bombs ? 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 08:22, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion