Liquifuels Limited

[AlgosteelII]

I seem to remember another ship in that fleet called the Liquilady.

Show here.
https://www.seawaysalties.com/vessel-in ... index.html

[William Lafferty]

I seem to remember another ship in that fleet called the Liquilady.

Liquilady was launched as Busen Rolllo 4 April 1950 at Greenock by Scotts Shipbuilding & Engineering Co., Ltd., a large motor tanker, for St. Helier Shipowners Ltd., London. Later Jarabella and San Stefano, Porter chartered it 1966-1967 for lake service, it then owned by Pan American Steamship Corporation of Panama Inc., Monrovia, managed by A. N. E. Vanizelos, Athens. 520.3 x 69.4 x 37.1; 11392 gross and 6654 net tons; Doxford 5-cylinder MN1100, 5500-bhp. It arrived at Cartagena 24 November 1968 for conversion to a storage barge and dismantled there by José Navarro Francés, demolition begun in January 1972. Here it is as Busen Rollo (bottom), a René Beauchamp photograph of it as Liquilady, and as an oil transfer barge at Cartegena, 1971 (top).

[Ronald Eckstein]

I seem to remember another ship in that fleet called the Liquilady.

[William Lafferty]

Surveying agencies, classification societies, underwriters, and marine safety organizations have historically deferred to tanker operators in maintaining a low freeboard for their vessels for a variety of reasons, not the least of which is tankers providing optimal metacentric height to the hull meaning the liquid cargo, carried very low in the hull, is more stable due to the vessel's resulting low center of gravity. Also, the nature of tankship operation means that the hull, criss crossed internally with many more longitudinal and transverse water-tight bulkheads than a typical freighter or bulk carrier, adds additional internal strength to the hull and adds appreciably to a tanker's stability should one or more tanks be breached. Those many internal tanks also guard against seawater ingress in such a breach since, if loaded, those tanks are already filled with a generally much heavier liquid. A general cargo ship or bulk carrier has in its holds a lot of dead space even when fully loaded which can alllow massive amounts of water to enter in a breach, filling up even the spaces between chunks of ore or coal, for example. As opposed to other cargo vessels, any access to the cargo areas of the hull are strictly controlled by valves and piping, while other vessels must keep what can be giant hatches continually under control of compromise by mechanical means. However, the bottom line (literally) is low freeboard allows a tanker to carry more cargo within given draft parameters, and to do so safely. The biggest threat to a tanker's safety is the volatile nature of its cargoes, rather than heavy seas or even collision, and, somewhat ironically, it is the nature of that liquid cargo that allows tankers to be generally safer and maneuverable in heavy seas.

[Guest]

2346h EDT Tues. Oct.13/26
In response to OhioBob about freeboard of ‘50’s -60’s vintage lakes tankers…
Tans were built in the centre of the hull to maximize load bearing and in ways when loaded kind of acted like ballast and steadied the ship. The flat deck areas or harbour decks as we called them were often awash when the ships were loaded to maximum. These harbour decks were likely 8-10 feet wide from where they abutted the tank outer sides. The tank sides were 8-10 feet high. The harbour decks were actually used as decks by crew when alongside loading /unloading cargo. Crew could stand on them when coupling hoses to manifolds for loads being pumped out of or into the cargo tanks. To facilitate crew movement fore and aft catwalks with handrails were located in the centre of the hull either above the tank tops or between port and starboard tanks .

Interesting. How did these vessels handle in rough weather? Seems like being that low they wouldn't roll much.

[Steamboater66]

2346h EDT Tues. Oct.13/26
In response to OhioBob about freeboard of ‘50’s -60’s vintage lakes tankers…
Tans were built in the centre of the hull to maximize load bearing and in ways when loaded kind of acted like ballast and steadied the ship. The flat deck areas or harbour decks as we called them were often awash when the ships were loaded to maximum. These harbour decks were likely 8-10 feet wide from where they abutted the tank outer sides. The tank sides were 8-10 feet high. The harbour decks were actually used as decks by crew when alongside loading /unloading cargo. Crew could stand on them when coupling hoses to manifolds for loads being pumped out of or into the cargo tanks. To facilitate crew movement fore and aft catwalks with handrails were located in the centre of the hull either above the tank tops or between port and starboard tanks .

[Ohio Bob]

Looking at the photo of the vessel (and other older tankers), was there a design purpose behind the very low freeboards? I assume the liquid fuel holds were the higher center section with the outer being ballast tanks and tunnels.

[Guest]

Thanks for all of the informative replies!

[William Lafferty]

Liquifuels, Ltd., was created by Weaver Coal Co., Ltd., and Fuel Oil & Equipment, Ltd., in 1949 as an independent fuel oil distributor, its first terminal built in summer 1950 at Toronto. It later became a division of the consortium Canadian Fuel Marketers Group, Ltd., which was taken over by Ultramar, Inc., in 1980. Liquifuels established a number of Canadian terminals on the lakes and used Gayport Shipping, Ltd., tankers, and after 1959 Hall Corporation of Canada tankers after Hall acquired Gayport, although Hall's first tanker, Northcliffe Hall, was chartered to Liquifuels 1957-1959. using combined Liquifuels and Hall funnel livery. Liquilassie, Ltd., Toronto, managed by J. P. Porter Shipping, Ltd., and chartered to Liquifuels, operated the tanker Liquilassie in Liquifuels livery 1961-1974.

[Steamboater66]

1222h EDT. Sat. Oct. 10/26
Guest was asking about Liquifuels and tanker service on the lake.
Yes, Liquifuels did operate a tanker service. To the best of my recollection they were based in Toronto.
I definitely know they were running one tanker; her name was the Liquilassie. I know this because I was on the Imperial Collingwood. Collingwood was in the neighborhood of 350 ft. with a cargo capacity of I think, somewhere between 30 -50k barrels. Both ships spent their summers shuttling furnace oil and gasoline to all the little town ports around the lower lakes. We’d often meet up in proximity with Liquilassie at ports where we had to wait for them to clear so we could get alongside or in the canals.

[Guest]

Liquilassie

[Algosteel 2]

https://www.aukevisser.nl/others/216184550.jpg

The 'Liquilassie', shows active 1961-87. I recall seeing the vessel in Great Lakes boat books of the late 60s - early 70s.

[Guest]

There was a tanker named Liquilassie that operated on the Great Lakes starting in the early 1960s up until the early 1980s. It was owned by Porter Holdings (Liquilassie Shipping Ltd.) based out of Toronto.

[Guest]

I was wondering if anyone had any information on a Canadian company known as Liquifuels Limited that operated at least one tanker on the Great Lakes during the late 1960s? I have seen a photograph of a tanker that appears similar to those operated on the lakes by Texaco and Imperial Oil during that period, but could not make out a name.