8 ms·

Why don't they treat this cargo under the assumption that it is a liquid and transport it accordingly (e.g. in large barrels)? I mean this question genuinely as

Why don't they treat this cargo under the assumption that it is a liquid and transport it accordingly (e.g. in large barrels)? I mean this question genuinely as someone with little knowledge of logistics.

jabl 8y ago
Because bulk transport, even including the cost of occasional sinkings due to liquefaction, is cheaper? See also Glückauf, the first tanker designed to transport oil directly in the hold rather than in barrels. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gl%c3%bcckauf_(1886) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gl%c3%bcckauf_(1886) I suppose in addition to the measures described in the article, bulk ships could adopt cargo holds divided into more subcompartments (including longitudinally, to reduce risk of capsizing) , similar to tankers.
holmet 8y ago
Try putting 200,000 tons of coal into barrels, transport it, and then unbarrel it at the other end. The extra cost and time would be massive.
- lqet 8y ago
  What about just compartmentalizing the ship's cargo space?
  - falcolas 8y ago
    I imagine they don't do that so they can carry more than just these bulk loads. Carrying bauxite in one direction and scrap iron the other, for example.
  - holmet 8y ago
    They are also compartmentalised. Bulkers tend to have four or five large tanks to hold stuff in.