Comparison tool

Compare LNG vessels and containment systems

Pick up to 4 entries, or start from a preset. Entries are compared on described characteristics only — no scores or rankings are applied.

Educational data

Preset comparisons

Select entries (1/4)

Feeder

The shuttle between import hubs and satellite terminals.

Operational role
LNG Feeder Vessel
Containment system
Type C Pressure Tanks · Bi-Lobe Type C Tanks · GTT Mark III Membrane
Capacity class
Mid-scale (indicative: approximately 30,000–100,000 m³)
Indicative capacity
8K–45K m³
Tank geometry
Bi-lobe Type C pressure vessels, or small membrane tanks on larger feeders
Typical application
Shuttling parcels from a large import terminal or FSU to smaller satellite terminals
Hull-space efficiency
Moderate — depends on whether Type C or membrane containment is fitted
Infrastructure requirements
One large hub terminal plus several smaller receiving jetties
Propulsion options
DFDE / TFDE · X-DF
BOG management
BOG as fuel · Reliquefaction
Advantages
Connects hub terminals to markets too small for a full cargo — Parcel sizes match regional storage and demand — Often able to serve both terminal discharge and bunkering duties
Limitations
Requires a reliable hub terminal with transhipment capability — Voyage economics are sensitive to utilisation and waiting time — Boil-off management differs sharply between Type C and membrane designs
Typical routes
Baltic hub-and-spoke services · Mediterranean satellite terminal supply · Indonesian inter-island distribution

Technical information

Status
Educational overview
Last reviewed
15 September 2026
Source status
Sources pending editorial review.

Technical parameters are indicative and may vary by vessel design, generation, shipyard, operator and intended service.