Login: Lost Password? SIGN UP
Ship Photo Search
Photo Search - Advanced Search


Full Screen - Add Comment - Bookmark this photo - Edit Info
Get thumbnail code to post in forum, blog or homepage

New! View the summary page for this ship!
Photo Details
Photographer:Geir Vinnes [View profile]Title:LUCKY WINNERAdded:Jan 31, 2011
Captured:November 06, 2010IMO:7045669Hits:2,825
Location:Koh Si Chang Transhipment Area, Thailand
Photo Category: Bulkers built 1971-1980
Lucky Winner
Manager/Owner: Hong Kong Lucky Ocean Shipping, Fuzhou - China.
Built: 1971 Kaldnes A/S, Tønsberg - Norway.
Loa. 165 m. Br. 22 m.
14750 Gt., 22888 Dwt.
10000 Bhp. Sulzer Sulzer 5RND76.
Flag: Panama.
Ex. Baron Belhaven (86), Northern Explorer (90), Flag Marina (94), Everfortune (06), Gang Hai 656 and Tang Shan Hai.
06/11-2010 Koh Si Chang.

Baron Belhaven was built as a bulker in Norway in 1971, she is supposed to have been broken up in China as Flag Marina in 1994 (Imonr. 7045669),
but she is still trading with a new Imonr. 8987670 as Lucky Winner built 1981 in China and the ex. names after 1994 is not listed anymore.
I took some close up photos and could see traces of her ex names.
Here are some photos of her as Baron Belhaven Baron Belhaven.
Baron Belhaven (1).
Baron Belhaven (2).
And one as Flag Marina.
Vessel Identification
Name:Lucky Winner
Former name(s):
- Everfortune (Until 2006 Mar)
- Seaport 656 (Until 2005 May)
- Gang Hai 656 (Until 2000 Jan)
- Tang Shan Hai (Until 2000)
- Flag Marina (Until 1995)
- Northern Explorer (Until 1990 Jan)
- Baron Belhaven (Until 1986)
Technical Data
Vessel type:Bulk Carrier
Gross tonnage:14,750 tons
Summer DWT:23,310 tons

Additional Information
Build year:1971
AIS Information
AIS information: N/A
More Of This Ship
Lucky Winner
© Knut Helge Schistad
Lucky Winner
© Knut Helge Schistad
Lucky Winner
© Knut Helge Schistad
More Of: This Photographer - This Ship - This Ship By This Photographer

Photo Comments (18)

Comments sorting method :
IACSman on Mar 14, 2014 18:29 (4 years ago)
Ok, but strange. In our company we have had ships older than that in our company arriving Chinese ports, discharge and then reload(General Cargo). Is this a new rule, or when was it introduced?
Phil English on Mar 13, 2014 15:39 (4 years ago)
The short answer is no. As already stated, IMO numbers should remain unchanged irrespective of what happens. However, misinformation could mean that a new IMO number is unwittingly issued when it should not have been. Ships cannot trade in Chinese waters, even coastwise, beyond 33 years old. Think about that for a minute.

IACSman on Mar 13, 2014 14:36 (4 years ago)
Hmmm, see what you mean Edmund...I made a comment here 3 years ago suggesting she was declared TCL and then deleted from all lists. But it has been pointed out that she was never a TCL. But could not the same happen if she was sold as scrap? Then all certificates would have been withdrawn/made invalid and stricken from all registers and flags. If she then continue as a "rogue" ship domestically in China for some years, end up in a yard and being somewhat rebuild/re-constructed and then presented as a new ship again? Lot of if and but here...but anyway. The Chiense are pretty inventive. :-)
Edmund Wharram on Mar 13, 2014 10:22 (4 years ago)
The IMO number is given to a ship (Engine Part) and remains with it for ever. The only exception being if you cut a ship in half and add a new engine section to an original bow section. Then it will have a new IMO number. Otherwise it keeps the original IMO number. What we need is some photo's of the other vessel 8987670 under it's names "Tang Shan Hai','Gang Hai 656','Seaport 656' (this appears to be when the problem arises.
Geir Vinnes on Feb 26, 2011 10:56 (7 years ago)

Thanks to all of you for your comments.
Gary, I could see traces from both Northern Explorer and Baron Belhaven.
Hope to see her again as Lucky P.

Gary Ritchie on Feb 21, 2011 15:29 (7 years ago)
Hi Geir,

I sailed on the Northern Explorer in 1987 as first trip deck cadet. Obviously this is a long time ago - but she looks very similar and nothing makes me think this is not the same ship. She was a fine ship and had a fine crew back then. You mention that you could see previous names - which ones in particular?

Thanks for posting the photos as they have brought back many happy memories. Gary
Bjørn Knudsen on Feb 18, 2011 13:05 (7 years ago)
Hello Geir
The old IMO IMO 7045669 - Was reported as broken up 1994 but is still in existence with new IMO number in 2010
Here is your own :
Phil English on Feb 18, 2011 11:41 (7 years ago)
As of 17th Feb, she has been renamed LUCKY P.
Phil English on Feb 03, 2011 15:00 (7 years ago)
Good idea Egil but, as far as I know this ship was never a CTL. Besides, IMO numbers remain unchanged even when ships are rebuilt. This is a very curious state of affairs and I'd love to hear someone from IHS Fairplay give their take on it.
IACSman on Feb 03, 2011 14:02 (7 years ago)
Perhaps it's possible with a new IMO number if the vessel have been declared TCL, and therefore have been deleted from all official lists. If then, someone buys the object as a TCL, and rebuild it, it could be re-classed and entered with a new IMO-number. I am not a lawyer, just guessing here. :-)
Geir Vinnes on Feb 01, 2011 05:16 (7 years ago)

Maybe she was resold from the breakers for domestic trade in Chinese waters in 94, and as usual in China the Imonr.
disappears when ships are trading domestic, then some 10 years later when she goes back to international trade she got herself a new Imo number.
But I dont understand how she suddenly became 10 years younger and built in China.
Thanks for adding the photo Patrick.


Patrick Hill on Jan 31, 2011 11:20 (7 years ago)
I have added a scan of her as "Flag Marina" at Hull -
Phil English on Jan 31, 2011 10:11 (7 years ago)
Thanks Geir, this is certainly very interesting. As sole administrators of the IMO number issuance, I wonder if IHS Fairplay are aware of this discrepancy?
Geir Vinnes on Jan 31, 2011 09:59 (7 years ago)
Sorry about the photo links, I have now added them under the description.
I wish I was able to edit my own comments.

Geir Vinnes on Jan 31, 2011 09:52 (7 years ago)
Hi Phil,

I saw traces of her ex. names on both the bow and stern,
and looking at photos of her as Baron Belhaven I cant see many differences, she also have the same number and layout on her hatches.
Here are a two more links to photos of Baron Belhaven: Baron Belhaven (1)
and Baron Belhaven (2).

Phil English on Jan 31, 2011 09:13 (7 years ago)
Geir, are you sure it's totally the same ship? Maybe parts of scrapped vessels were used in her construction, hence the new IMO number?
Geir Vinnes on Jan 31, 2011 08:35 (7 years ago)
Hi Christian,

It seems so, I have seen it on Ling Hai (Imonr. 8990328) and Hae Song (Imonr. 9095981) as well. But I guess its not legal.

Christian Bråthen on Jan 31, 2011 08:23 (7 years ago)
Is that even possible, to get a new IMO-number? Sounds almost like som shady business! :-D
Please Login to add a comment!

This photo has been shown 2,825 times since it was added to the site.

Copyright © 2019 All rights reserved View airplanes live at!