Table 21. Estimated ownership and operating costs for a hypothetical
double-capacity NSR container ship or general cargo ship.
From USACE (1995)
Estimate for NSR simulations
42,000 dwt (2,500 TEU) foreign
Hypothetical 42,000 dwt (2,000 TEU)
containership
ULA multipurpose ship
Length
242 m
242 m
Beam
33 m
33 m
Draft
11.9 m
11.9 m
35,000 shp
38,500 shp
Speed
19 kn
19 kn
1.2 =
Replacement cost
,093,000
,312,000
1.2 =
Annual capital cost
5,607,307
6,729,000
Total fixed annual operating cost:
3,930,040
4,792,000
2.0 =
(including insurance)
861,899
1,724,000
Total annual fixed cost:
9,537,347
11,521,000
Total daily fixed cost:
27,250
32,920
1.25 =
Daily fuel cost at sea:
7,204
9,005
1.25 =
Daily fuel cost in port:
721
901
Total daily cost at sea
34,454
41,925
New simulations produced the time, speed, and
amount of cargo that can be delivered in one trip
cost values shown in Table 24. In general, the re-
through the Suez Canal, for example. The distance
sulting elapsed time and mean speed values were
advantage enjoyed by the NSR is thus eliminated
essentially unchanged from the previous simula-
if larger ships cannot be used. For these simula-
tions, with the exception of those for the container
tions, we assumed that the proposed ships had
ship in August. It can be seen that elapsed time
the same ice classification as those currently in
for the MPC carrier decreased by 16.7 hours, and
use. Ship speeds under various ice, wind, and vis-
the mean transit speed increased by half a knot.
ibility conditions were also left unchanged, with
In all other seasons, there is not enough open wa-
the exception of the ships' open-water speeds. As
ter along the route to significantly change the con-
prescribed by USAED, the open-water speed of
tainer ship's elapsed time and mean speed from
the multipurpose cargo ship (MPC) was increased
earlier trials.
by 2 kn over the current Noril'sk capability, from
In terms of total cost, the seasonal trends were
17 to 19 kn. Open-water speeds for the new liq-
uid-bulk (LBC) and dry bulk (DBC) vessels were
similar to the earlier simulations. April transits
each set at 15 kn, which was a 0.5-kn increase
were the most costly, averaging 9,000 for the
three ship types. August was the least costly
over the Lunni-class and a 0.2-kn decrease rela-
time for transit at 8,000. June and October 's
tive to the Strekalovsky-class. USAED provided us
means were 3,000 and 5,000, respectively.
with the projected ownership and operating costs
presented in Tables 21 through 23. Using calcu-
D u e to t he large increase in daily ownership
lated displacement tonnages and the 1995 Rus-
and operating costs for the MPC vessel relative to
the other two types, its transits now became the
sian rate structure, the per-voyage icebreaker fees
most costly in all seasons, displacing the liquid
for the three ship types are as follows:
bulk carrier as the
most costly transport-
August and October transits
69,960 t .72/t = 0,250
er in earlier trials. To
1 (MPC carrier) =
43,510 t .59/t = 199,710
(43,510 t .72/t = 1,860*)
double the cargo ca-
2 (LBC carrier)
=
48,340 t .59/t = 221,880
3 (DBC carrier)
=
pacity, daily MPC costs
increased 2.55 times,
April and June transits
69,960 t .39/t = 7,120
from ,450 per day
1
=
43,510 t .97/t = 259,750
(43,510 t .39/t = 1,010*)
to ,925 per day. This
2
=
48,340 t .97/t = 288,590
3
=
yielded an increase of
2.46 times in total tran-
*The icebreaker fee if the ULA-class rate is used, as instructed by Ramsland (see footnote, p. 43).
sit costs during the
Applying this rate would result in a ,750 decrease in total costs for August and October
winter months and an
transits and a ,740 decrease in April and June transit costs.
44
Previous Page
