escorting a UL-class ship were .54/t in summer
logical forecasting services, and the use of com-
and .45/t in winter and that the summertime
munication systems. He also lists many other mis-
fee for a ULA-class ship was .79/t. He did not
cellaneous fees that could add substantially to the
specify upon which type of tonnage the fee was
total cost of passage. Such additional fees may in-
calculated.
clude, for example, bunker filling, water delivery,
Ramsland also stated that his source did not
special required vessel guidance in or near ports
indicate whether these rates were for deadweight
along the way, emergency services, local taxes, and
tons, gross registered tons, net registered tons, or
tariffs.
displacement tonnage. However, the hypothetical
In response to our request to INSROP for pas-
example discussed by Wergeland bases the ice-
sage fees, Ramsland*** provided us with a copy
breaker fee on displacement tonnage. We followed
of the Administration's schedule of port fees
this same convention in our assumptions.
and service charges (RSMOT 1994). Our trans-
If we apply Ramsland's rates to displacement
lation of this document is included as Appen-
tonnage in the fashion of Wergeland, we arrive at
dix G. He stated that these scheduled fees were
the following total icebreaker fees:
a fraction of what is currently being levied in actual
practice in the port cities of
Murmansk, Archangel'sk,
August and October transits
and Kandalaksha. In other
= 31,200* t .72/t
1 (Noril'sk)
= 6,000
= 26,100† t .59/t
= 0,000 (26,100 t 3.72/t = ,100)†† words, the fee schedule does
2 (Lunni)
3 (Strekalovsky) = 27,300** t .59/t = 5,000
not reflect the rapidly evolv-
ing market conditions, and
April and June transits
fees can fluctuate substan-
= 31,200 t .39/t
1
= 7,000
tially and with short notice.
= 6,000 (26,100 t 4.39/t = 5,000)††
= 26,100 t .97/t
2
Our simulations did not
= 27,300 t .97/t
3
= 3,000
account for intermediate
* Maximum displacement as listed in L. Tunik (1994).
† Calculated from Uikku specifications provided by Neste Shipping Co., Espoo, Finland (Fig. 7) stops in Russian ports and
therefore we assumed these
**Loaded displacement as listed in Murmansk Shipping Company literature (Fig. 8)
†† The icebreaker fee if the ULA-class rate is used, as instructed by Ramsland (see 2nd footnote, fees and service charges
would not apply. Without
p. 15).
a basis for knowing what
The above fees are fixed rates per voyage. Since
miscellaneous charges would apply, and assum-
we have little information about the average du-
ing that they would be a relatively minor com-
ration of voyages outside the summer season, we
ponent of total cost, we chose to disregard all
have chosen to apply these icebreaker rates in the
such additional fees at this time. We did, how-
model as fixed miscellaneous fees.
ever, as stated above, choose to apply icebreaker
Mikhailichenko related that a dedicated breaker
rates as a fixed fee in our final time and cost
can be chartered at the daily rate of ,000. The
simulations.
class of icebreaker was not specified, but Werge-
land (1991) listed the various icebreaker types and
Table 9. Daily rates for icebreaker
their respective rates, which we show as Table 9.
assistance to foreign vessels
We assumed, however, that this scenario would
when not under flat-fee contract
be more costly for transit voyages than the flat
for escort. (From Wergeland 1991).
fees proposed above and therefore chose not to
Rate
simulate it.
Icebreaker class
($US/day)
Arktika
55,000
Miscellaneous passage fees
Vaygach
50,000
These costs are handled as fixed transit costs in
Yermak
40,000
our model, regardless of the time required for pas-
Kapitan Sorokin
30,000
sage. Miscellaneous components of the total NSR
Moskva
15,000
passage cost reported by Wergeland (1991) in-
cluded fees for pilotage, an ice helmsman, maps,
guide books, and so forth. These amounted to
*** T. Ramsland, Coordinator of INSROP's Sub-Pro-
,330. His "pilot fee" includes guidance by re-
gramme on Trade and Commercial Shipping Aspects
connaissance aircraft, hydrographic and meteoro-
of the NSR, personal communication, 1995.
28
Previous Page
