NZ Tankers Overseas

flyer682
16th February 2006, 10:00
Recently I've been researching the voyages made by NZ coastal tankers and have come up with a number of overseas ports they have called at. I'm hoping that some Members may be able to help with the actual location of these ports and perhaps even some photos of them.
The ports concerned are:

Teluk Semanka
Labuan Amuk
Tg. Berlayer
Pulau Bukom
Kurnell
Westernport
Kwinana

Thanks.

John_F
16th February 2006, 10:27
Flyer,
Kwinana is in Western Australia, a few miles south of Fremantle. There is a BP refinery there. Last went there in 1963.
I'm sure someone else on the site will help with the others.
Kind regards,
John F

ruud
16th February 2006, 10:52
Ahoy David,

Kurnell:

http://www.ourshire.com.au/suburbs/

Kwinana:

http://www.chemlink.com.au/wa_kwinana.htm

exsailor
16th February 2006, 11:41
Spent some time in Indonesia with Djakarta Lloyd, so can help with;-
Teluk Semangka - Pertamina owned terminal in Teluk Semanka Bay on south-western tip of Sumatra in Sunda Strait. Scene of frequent pirate attacks. In history, place was wiped out by Krakatoa eruption.
Labuan Amuk - on Sumbawa Island. Think BP had a hand in operating this refinery for the Indonesians.
Tanjong Berlayer - refinery port for BP on Singapore Island
Pulau Bukom - site of Shell refinery on Singapore Island

Regards, Dennis.

exsailor
16th February 2006, 11:51
Westernport - Port Phillip, Melbourne.
See www.ppsp.com.au/

lagerstedt
17th February 2006, 05:29
Hi David

Kurnell is the Caltex refinary in Botany Bay, across the bay from Sydney airport and a few hundred metres from the spot where Capt Cook landed and opposite to the site where Capt La Perouse landed to bury on of his crew. La Perouse arrived first, Cook arrived later. Can't remember to the dates, 17???.

Regards

Blair lagerstedt

flyer682
21st February 2006, 08:32
Thanks guys for your help.

mikefoster
18th July 2006, 06:25
Hi David

I don't have information on too many overseas trips by NZ tankers but I did operate the coastal tankers here from 1975 to 1992 and had an involvement before that. Two trips on which I have a bit of information were the Kotuku to Indonesia under co mand of Fred Kelner and the Amokura to Hawaii under the late David Lochhead. I've included both stories in a book I'm writing called Stormy Petrol?, the story of the joint venture in shipping in refining in New Zealand from 1964. Fred sent me pictures of Kotuku alongside the VLCC into which she pumped her entire cargo. She scarecly reached the VLCC's rail.

Regards

Mike

PS Of course there were many trips to Oz and Singapore etc when they went off the coast for survey. Also truips to Oz to take condensates from here or occasiobnally to collect inport cargoes. In 1985 we had the big expansion at Marsden Point refinery and all four ships made trips offshore.

Oz.
18th July 2006, 07:34
Westernport Bay isnt Port Phillip Bay. There are two bays , Port Phillip and Westernport. I have heard it said by a few that Port Phillip is the ******** of the world and Melbourne is 40 miles up it!! Western port is East of Port Phillip and is very much shallower and very tidal, although there is access to a BP refinery there and an LP gas installation.

Paul J Burke
18th July 2006, 09:19
There are actually 3 Bays in the Port Phillip area,Westernport,Port Phillip, and Corio Bay ,which hosts the Port of Geelong.i worked in Westerport on the Tugs,for 3 months in the mid 1970s,and recall that the Channel was quite deep, to enable the big gas tankers and oil tankers to berth.Westernport was often "touted"as being the replacement Port for Melbourne,once it reached full capacity,but every time the matter was raised the "Green Movement" were "up in arms."

cboots
18th July 2006, 13:44
Melbourne is on Port Phillip Bay not Western Port Bay. Western Port, or the Hastings Port proposal to take the overflow predicted from the Port of Melbourne, whenever that occurs, is still very much on the cards and, to the best of my experience, is widely preferred by the Green movement to the dredging proposal for Port Phillip Bay. That is not to say that the two are necessarily mutually exclusive, of course. The concerns for the environmental, or Green movement, is that depending on the water depths wanted by the operators, there may stjill be some dredging required in sensitiive areas. But it certainly wouldn't be as drastic as the the Port Phillip Bay dredging proposal.
CBoots

waimea
20th July 2006, 10:16
Western Port is two words, not one, and it is deeper than Port Phillip. Dredging the The Rip, South Channel, Port Melbourne Channel the lower Yarra River and the berths, is not drastic and it has been done many times over the last 100 years, so what the fuss is about now God only knows. It appears that people forget the very reason for the existance of Melbourne - it is a port! Only a few years ago they blasted the limestone pinnacles at The Rip with hardly a murmer heard apart from the silvertails living at Portsea who suddenly found small cracks in their swimming pools.If the Greenies don't like living close to ports, they have an option. It is a bit like buying a house next to an airport and then complaining about the aircraft noise

Jan Hendrik
20th July 2006, 14:10
David, I will try to find out a bit more on these vessels upon my return (now off for nearly 2 months a you know).

Waimea, I agree with you on this point, however, a lot of people don't.
The dredging is required in order to see progress in the Port of Melbourne as otherwise all mega container vessels will have to be diverted to e.g. Adelaide and feeder ships will need to take over and the reputation of Australia's largest port would then be at stake.
I think the protests against this dredging has momentarily disappeared, yet the 600 million dollars investment to dredge the Channel in 2007 has yet to pass the local State Government.
For some dredging activities, i.e. the trial run, with the "Queen of the Netherlands", refer to: Main page -- dredgers -- first page Queen.....
The Channel requires deepening from about 11.5 metres to 13.5 metres and that won't even be enough to receive the next generation of container ships unless they only arrive with part cargo.
Jan

cboots
24th July 2006, 05:35
Before Waimea starts making disparaging remarks about "greenies", whoever he imagines they might be, a quick appraisal of the facts may be to his benefit. The proposed dredging of the bay to allow access to vessels drawing up to fourteen metres is far more drastic than anything that has been done, or even contemplated before. The effects that this may have on the unique environment that is Port Phillip Bay are, frankly, unknown. That is why a fortune has been handed out to consultants to endeavour to forecast what the results might be and, as is to be expected, there is a great deal of controversy over the various findings. The current delay is largely the consequence of the discovery that the supporters of the proposal, headed by the port authority, ignored (some maintain suppressed) important findings in the major study that they themselves commissioned that did not suit their case. The State Government of Victoria entered the fray and insisted on further work being carried out. As well as being concerned for the environment I am an economist and I am simply unconvinced by the commercial arguments in favour of this project, especially as its advocates are not proposing spending their own money on it but rather expect the public purse to dig deep for their benefit. The largest container vessels trading at present are not engaged on the Australian trade, the volumes are simply not there in a small population such as ours. Container shipping has boomed in the last couple of decades because it has been able to offer cheap transport to an increasingly internationalised economy which has been happy to take advantage of it. But this could all come to a crashing halt with the end of cheap fuel. In short, why risk an environmental disaster to be left with an economic lemon?
I would note that this thread started as an enquiry on NZ coastal tanker ports of call. The Bay dredging proposal would make an extremely interesting thread provided that we refrain from a "Herald Sun" type of insult swapping and stick to the arguments.
CBoots

waimea
24th July 2006, 09:37
Didn't realise that people who have the ego to descibe themselves as "gentleman" ever sailed with Furness Withy.

I know a Greenie when I see one, and you sound like one to me. Thanks for the leasson but I've read it all before! If the thread was originally about NZ tankers, then why have you felt obliged not to stick to it and, having suggested we refrain from insult swapping, why have you the then got the arrogance to insult me? Thank God I never sailed with you, but then again perhaps I did.

nzmatt
24th July 2006, 09:57
its just a shipping forum everyone,we are all having fun. (Thumb)

waimea
24th July 2006, 10:43
nzmatt,

I quite agree, and I am having fun - get the Log Book out.

Cheers

cboots
24th July 2006, 13:36
Waimea, are there any prejudices that you do not possess? Greenies, Furness Withy people, those who dare to point out your ignorance to you, the list appears to be endless.
CBoots

trotterdotpom
24th July 2006, 14:48
Hi David

Kurnell is the Caltex refinary in Botany Bay, across the bay from Sydney airport and a few hundred metres from the spot where Capt Cook landed and opposite to the site where Capt La Perouse landed to bury on of his crew. La Perouse arrived first, Cook arrived later. Can't remember to the dates, 17???.

Regards

Blair lagerstedt

You're right about Kurnell and Cook's landing place, Blair, but Cook's arrival predated that of La Perouse by 18 years. Cook landed at Botany Bay in 1770. The First Fleet, under Captain Arthur Phillip, arrived in January, 1778, and La Perouse turned up a few days later on January 26th, just as Phillip and Co were leaving Botany Bay for Port Jackson. La Perouse's ships "Astrolabe" and "Boussole" were lost later the same year in a storm in the Solomons.

Rule Britannia.

John T.

nzmatt
25th July 2006, 06:28
get the Log Book out, (Thumb)

cboots
25th July 2006, 07:16
John T raises the question of an area of deep controversey, who got here first? Was it the Portuguese, the Dutch, those dastardly Frenchmen, or as some would have it, the Chinese? In my view the difference between Cook and his rival claimants is that Cook knew what he was looking for, found it, charted a good bit of it, and made his way home again. All that said, it is a miracle that parts of Australia don't speak French, Dutch and even Portuguese perhaps.
CBoots

waimea
25th July 2006, 12:32
cboots,

You have managed to name only three of my alleged prejudices and you presume that I am ignorant merely because I don't agree with you. Yet a further example of your arrogance. Nowhere did I suggest, for example, that I am prejuced against Furness Withy people, indeed in my 22 years at sea I met many who served their time there and found them, on the whole, to be delightful. Concerning my ignorance, unless you have a PhD you are quite probably less educated than I am. You will no doubt respond because your ego will not allow you to do otherwise, but I don't mind having the second to last word and perhaps that is where we should leave it. If you wish, however, to continue the repartee, then contact me privately and I will oblige you. You never know, we might perhaps discover some mutual respect in the process of getting to know each other.

thunderd
25th July 2006, 12:47
I wonder who will have enough consideration for the other members of this site to call a halt to the acrimonious insult swapping.

It achieves absolutely nothing except to disrupt the enjoyment of all your colleagues.

I respect the genuine passion expressed in your views and your right to express them, that's one of the many things that make this site great, but personal attacks are just unacceptable, should they become necessary I'd suggest PMs at 50 paces at dawn.

SN values your memberships and input but I'm afraid some members on this thread are just going a bit too far.

cboots
25th July 2006, 13:01
I wish to make no further comment. When Waimea makes any valid point, or states anything that is worthy of comment, then I shall reply, but his gratuitous insults and petty assertions as to how much he knows is simply childish and a waste of time.
CBoots

thunderd
25th July 2006, 13:13
Noted cboots and as waimea in post #24 stated he was willing to let you have the last word then hopefully the thread can now get back on track.

Thank you all for the final resolution.

john shaw
25th July 2006, 15:10
May I inject a modicum of humour from the "parent country" in an attempt to lighten the load a little (despite the entertainment value of your little spat - ah, the impetuousness of youth- naturally gentlemen, I refer there to your nations' ages, rather than your goodselves !) and deflect you Antipodeans from savaging each other interminably, by referring to post 21, quote" it is a miracle that parts of Australia don't speak French, Dutch or even Portuguese"-- what language DO you all speak then mateys? -- it certainly is not English as I know it!!
( Now you COULD all unite and turn on me, or better still just talk nicely amongst yourselves about NZ coastal tankers like good little kiwis and cobbers).
(*)) (Night)

Affectionately, a Pom!!!

thunderd
25th July 2006, 16:42
May I inject a modicum of humour from the "parent country" in an attempt to lighten the load a little (despite the entertainment value of your little spat - ah, the impetuousness of youth- naturally gentlemen, I refer there to your nations' ages, rather than your goodselves !) and deflect you Antipodeans from savaging each other interminably, by referring to post 21, quote" it is a miracle that parts of Australia don't speak French, Dutch or even Portuguese"-- what language DO you all speak then mateys? -- it certainly is not English as I know it!!
( Now you COULD all unite and turn on me, or better still just talk nicely amongst yourselves about NZ coastal tankers like good little kiwis and cobbers).
(*)) (Night)

Affectionately, a Pom!!!

John I am confident that your misguided injection of humour, and blatant attempt to pour petrol on the fire, will fail to break the bonds between the merchant seamen of all nationalities on this site and I doubt they will consider your comments worthy of their effort to "turn on you", they have better things to do.

Affectionally a Merchant seaman.

cboots
26th July 2006, 03:32
Dear Whinging Pom, or should I say, G'dye Mate,
In answer to your query regarding language spoken in this fair land of ours, God's country no less, the answer is quite simply name a language and you will find someone who calls themselves an Aussie who speaks it. Your attempts to broker a peace are taken in the good spirit in which they were intended by this party to the spat at least. Hostilities have now moved to the back blocks - the personal messages - where I hope they will remain and not sully the regular threads any longer.
Good on ya,
CBoots

john shaw
26th July 2006, 08:55
CBoots-- G'dye and thanks muchly-- oil on troubled waters and all that-- I feel positively aglow now!! Very best wishes to all those from the Southern Hemisphere,and to Derek I concur wholeheartedly with the sentiment that the fellowship of the sea transcends and overrides any national boundaries. (Applause)

sscott
16th April 2007, 07:52
I sailed on the NZ Coastal Tankers from 1981 to 1993. The most diverse trades outside NZ were during the NZ Refining Co expansion shutdown (circa 1985) when all four tankers were 'sent offshore' for 6 months.

Individually, Kotuku was the widest ranging of the product tankers due to her being surplus to NZ requirements for about 75% of the time during the 1980's.

I sailed in Kotuku as 3/0, 2/O and briefly as C/O between 1981 and 1987. During that time, she traded irregularly in;

New Plymouth - Caltex Kurnell, crude
New Plymouth - Geelong, crude
New Plymouth - Gore Cove, crude
Geelong - Tahiti - Fiji, refined products

I have posted a composite panaorama photo of Kotuku berthed double-banked alongside at Papeete, Tahiti in the 'Union Steamship Co' section.

Stuart