Isn’t the Northwest Passage the jurisdiction of the United Nations? The United Nations, under the International Whaling Agreement of 1949 regulates whaling. IMCO Regulations, a United Nations agency determine vessel building codes. So why wouldn’t the United Nations treaty on navigation and laws of the sea have regulatory authority?
Oil or bunker C does not rinse easily from fuel tanks. Crystal Cruise alleges their ship used a different oil transiting the Northwest Passage. How do we know? Did the shipyard issue a certification for clean tanks, or good oil get dumped over evil residue?
The Northwest Passage is mostly in the territorial waters of Canada. This claim is not recognized by the United States and China, who would like to say that those waters are international. Canada bases it’s maritime laws on the international treaties which it has signed. The laws of Canada are enforced in its portion of the passage, and I’m certain that the Americans do the same on the Alaska side. In addition, Canadian Coast Guard accompanied that Crystal boat. If something had happened, Canadian agencies and resources would have been responsible of rescue and clean-up. As far as I understand it Crystal acquired its permits for the passage from Canada and hired Canadian pilots for the transits. I expect that they relied in Canadian charts, as well. I don’t know anything about her tanks getting cleaned out, but I know she bunkered here in Vancouver (Canada), before she headed north. If I hear any details about how the tanks were cleaned, I’ll get back to you.
[QUOTE=bobdurino;191343]Isn’t the Northwest Passage the jurisdiction of the United Nations? The United Nations, under the International Whaling Agreement of 1949 regulates whaling. IMCO Regulations, a United Nations agency determine vessel building codes. So why wouldn’t the United Nations treaty on navigation and laws of the sea have regulatory authority?
Oil or bunker C does not rinse easily from fuel tanks. Crystal Cruise alleges their ship used a different oil transiting the Northwest Passage. How do we know? Did the shipyard issue a certification for clean tanks, or good oil get dumped over evil residue?
Say what you will about Titanic, she burned coal.
Bob Durino[/QUOTE]
good lord…another person as obtuse as DeepSeaDouche
whatever is the point you are trying to make with this post? I am quite certain the CRYSTAL SERENITY had only very low sulphur diesel in her tanks when she left which I well imagined were well cleaned if the vessel ever changed from HFO.
btw, the IMO has not been IMCO since the 1980s and the NW Passage is fully within Canada’s maritime jurisdiction. Where on earth did you come up this those waters being under the UN? As far as I know the only territorial seas on the planet not under the jurisdiction of nation states are the waters of Antarctica.
In addition to Hurtigruten, the French cruise-liner Ponant last month announced details of its four new ships for luxury expeditions to Arctic waters. Sized for 184 passengers, less then half of the new Hurtigruten vessels that each can accommodate 530 guests, the new Ponant explorer ships possess Ice Class 1C certification.
The lowest polar class, PC-7, roughly corresponds to the Baltic ice class 1A, meaning that from Polar Code point of view those ships are not even strengthened for navigation in ice. Personally I think that only ships with polar ice class or equivalent level of ice strengthening should be allowed to navigate in polar waters.
Ulstein is also getting into the race, but no firm orders yet: https://ulstein.com/ship-design/cruise
When will we see the first X-Box Cruise ships on the water??
I don’t know how this latest boom developed but it seems to be gathering momentum to the point where millions are going to be pumped into a mid 70’s hull even!
With a conversion booked, Ulstein is hoping to expand its cruise market activities to newbuildings such as this
OCTOBER 22, 2016 — Norway’s Ulstein Verft has signed a contract for conversion work on an exploration cruise vessel — and is making a push to secure orders for newbuilding cruise ships of its own design.
The vessel to be converted is owned by Adventurers Partner Ltd.
Called the Sea Adventurer, the 100 m, ice strengthened vessel was built in Croatia and delivered in 1975 as the Alia Tarasova. It was refurbished in 1999 and had further upgrades in 2002. It is currently operated by Seattle, WA, based Quark Expeditions and has a capacity of117 passengers.
Ulstein says the ship will be modernized and upgraded. Among other things, main engines and gears will be replaced, cabin capacity and various upgrades on interior will be done. Work in Ulstein’s engineering and design department has already started. The ship will most likely come to the shipyard inearly April 2017 and the job is to be completed by mid-June 2017.
Quark Expeditions says that the work will include renovations to the interior of the ship including outside cabins with en suite facilities, spacious forward lounge and bar, and other amenities; addition of new passenger cabins, new bathrooms in every cabin, and upgrades to the main lounge and main dining room, gym, and select suites.
“This is an important contract for us within a new segment. The ship owner wanted a quality partner, and even if it’s a demanding project with short delivery time, we will deliver on-time with quality as always,” says managing director Kristian Sætre.
Ulstein is very much in the market for cruise newbuilding work, too. The shipbuilder has developed cutting edge cruise ship designs in several sizes, ranging from small vessels with accommodation for approximately 100 or more passengers, to vessels that can accommodate 800 passengers or more.
It says its cruise ships have been developed to withstand the inhospitable conditions of sea areas such as the North Sea and the Polar regions as well as being equally at home in warmer waters.
Though Ulstein has its eye on cruise newbuildings, its first venture in the sector is conversion of the 100 m Sea Adventurer
now how do we see some of these ships be US built and flagged? I do know one company with US vessels are considering adding a US ship to their fleet with capability to sail in the Arctic but costs to build new are prohibitive and conversion candidates are not attractive either. Seattle happens to be the home of three retired TAGOS hulls which would be available for conversion however even with a very low cost to acquire the base vessel, at least at the moment the cost to convert one in the US is still too high to justify a greenlight.
[QUOTE=Drill Bill;191868]Or would they have to be escorted by an icebreaker?[/QUOTE]
Ice classes 1A Super, 1A, 1B, 1C and II are defined in the Finnish-Swedish Ice Class Rules as follows:
[I]1. ice class IA Super; ships with such structure, engine output and other properties that they are normally capable of navigating in difficult ice conditions without the assistance of icebreakers;
ice class IA; ships with such structure, engine output and other properties that they are capable of navigating in difficult ice conditions, with the assistance of icebreakers when necessary;
ice class IB; ships with such structure, engine output and other properties that they are capable of navigating in moderate ice conditions, with the assistance of icebreakers when necessary;
ice class IC; ships with such structure, engine output and other properties that they are capable of navigating in light ice conditions, with the assistance of icebreakers when necessary;
ice class II; ships that have a steel hull and that are structurally fit for navigation in the open sea and that, despite not being strengthened for navigation in ice, are capable of navigating in very light ice conditions with their own propulsion machinery;[/I]
1A and 1A Super are roughly equal to PC-7 and PC-6, respectively. However, even the lowest polar classes take into account the possibility of encountering multi-year ice which does not occur in the seasonally freezing Baltic Sea.
Note that the winter navigation system in the Baltic Sea is based on icebreakers operating in the region. Even ships with the highest ice class are not assumed to be capable of independent icebreaking - instead, they can operate independently in broken ice channels previously opened by icebreakers. In particularly harsh winters, even these ships sometimes have to rely on icebreaker assistance. Ships of lower ice class are often towed even on easy winters, and thanks to the upcoming EEDI regulations this will likely increase in the future as the installed power on mechant ships will become smaller and the bow geometry becomes less efficient in ice.
As for icebreaker escort, having an icebreaker in front of you does not mean that you can sail with no regard of ice. This is particularly interesting when the Russians are proposing high-speed trans-polar convoys led by massive nuclear-powered icebreakers. The ice blocks surfacing in the channel behind the icebreaker would have a thickness of 2-3 metres and they would be thrown against the bow of the following ship by the icebreaker’s propeller wash. That, in my opinion, would require icebreaker-level strengthening. Furthermore, when wind and currents create compression in the ice field, the escorted ships can fall behind and become completely immobilized. Ships have been sunk in such situations before the icebreaker managed to turn back and relieve the compression by breaking ice around the beset vessel.
Therefore, I would not take ice class 1C ship into anything but very marginal drift ice with such low concentration that there’s no chance it can turn into a high-concentration ice pack when the wind changes direction. I guess that would be okay around Greenland and Svalbard during the summer/autumn season as it’s mostly open water, but I would prefer a ship with a proper polar class. We once crossed a fjord in Svalbard with speedboats in thick fog, and suddenly there was a truck-sized iceberg which was so low that it would have not shown in the radar. Hitting that with a slightly older ship with poor watertight subdivision could even sink the vessel, as happened in Antarctica few years ago with MV Explorer…
[QUOTE=c.captain;191355]good lord…another person as obtuse as DeepSeaDouche
whatever is the point you are trying to make with this post? I am quite certain the CRYSTAL SERENITY had only very low sulphur diesel in her tanks when she left which I well imagined were well cleaned if the vessel ever changed from HFO.
btw, the IMO has not been IMCO since the 1980s and the NW Passage is fully within Canada’s maritime jurisdiction. Where on earth did you come up this those waters being under the UN? As far as I know the only territorial seas on the planet not under the jurisdiction of nation states are the waters of Antarctica.
.[/QUOTE] Seems to me intelligent questions about UN jurisdiction, IMCO, soverign boundaries and issues pertinent to law of the sea or freedom of navigation are legit. As for DeepSEADouche aka c.captain, nitrogen bubbly is hard on brain tissue, sorry to hear of your self imposed affliction. Next time kiddie pool first.
Bob Durino
It doesn’t specifically state that this will be built for Polar operation, but that is more or less a given these days, especially when it is designed and built in Norway.
NOVEMBER 2, 2016 — Following successful completion of Crystal Serenity’s Northwest Passage voyage this summer, Genting Hong Kong’s Crystal Cruises is adding two more expedition yachts as part of its response to its guests’ interests in adventure travel, and expedition cruising.
It has rebranded its current Crystal Yacht Cruises as Crystal Yacht Expedition Cruises. It will operate three new build expedition mega-yachts, including the previously announced Crystal Endeavor.
Built by Genting Hong Kong’s MV Werften shipbuilding subsidiary in Germany, Endeavor Class ships are the world’s largest mega yachts with ice class certification. They offer unique expedition experiences and impress both explorers and shipbuilders alike.
The yachts are described as true all-rounders. Passengers travel on board to the tropics and – thanks to ice class PC6 – the polar regions, too.
no complaints from me but sure would like to see a couple be US built and flagged
[QUOTE=c.captain;192178]no complaints from me but sure would like to see a couple be US built and flagged[/QUOTE]
So far, the only way US citizens are going to directly profit out of this other than port facilities in Alaska is by investing in companies operating FOC ships in Arctic cruises or by opening a big store in Nunivak peddling trinkets to tourists featuring genuine Eskimo carvings mass produced in China.
Canada stands ill prepared to sit at the table with the Russians when the chips are down and the pleasantries are over. How will the US react?
[QUOTE=Lee Shore;192190]So far, the only way US citizens are going to directly profit out of this other than port facilities in Alaska is by investing in companies operating FOC ships in Arctic cruises or by opening a big store in Nunivak peddling trinkets to tourists featuring genuine Eskimo carvings mass produced in China.
Canada stands ill prepared to sit at the table with the Russians when the chips are down and the pleasantries are over. How will the US react?[/QUOTE]
The Russians were the first to recognize Canadian sovereignty in the North. But you’re right: we largely benefit from the US being a more valuable target than we are. One more reason why you should guard your elections from them. And not just the US: Europe, too has had their elections sabotaged.
Then again, who is prepared to stand up to Russia? There’s only one likely candidate.
I don’t know about that…Alaska has thousands of miles of coastline no company is offering itineries for but due to its remoteness and distance away from Canada makes it pretty much a given that any ship offering such cruises be American. I do know that at least one of the US flag operators is exploring opening up this territory to cruising but nobody seems to be in any hurry to do this. I also know that there is a big hurdle these companies need to get over which is that they cannot continue to use the handful of existing small US built passenger vessels forever and that remote Alaska cruises will demand a larger and more seaworthy vessel. I have advocated that ex TAGOS ships (which Seattle happens to be the home of several) be converted to this role. Here is a conceptual design of how these vessels in an expedition configuration would look
[QUOTE=c.captain;192198]I don’t know about that…Alaska has thousands of miles of coastline no company is offering itineries for but due to its remoteness and distance away from Canada makes it pretty much a given that any ship offering such cruises be American. I do know that at least one of the US flag operators is exploring opening up this territory to cruising but nobody seems to be in any hurry to do this. I also know that there is a big hurdle these companies need to get over which is that they cannot continue to use the handful of existing small US built passenger vessels forever and that remote Alaska cruises will demand a larger and more seaworthy vessel. I have advocated that ex TAGOS ships (which Seattle happens to be the home of several) be converted to this role. Here is a conceptual design of how these vessels in an expedition configuration would look
I though you wondered why anybody would spend money of a “mid-1970s hull” earlier?
The T-AGOS hulls from early 1980’s are not much younger, or suited for operation in Polar regions: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USNS_Stalwart_(T-AGOS-1)
Besides, the vessel to be upgraded at Ulstein is already in use as an Expedition vessels in the Arctic and Antarctica.
If anybody are prepared to spend money on building vessel(s) for Polar Cruising in the US, they may as well get “design & equipment packet” from European sources, rather than converting old and obsolete US built hulls not suited for Polar conditions. That will save a lot of money on research and development and enable competing with purpose-built foreign flagged vessels on “adventure cruises” worldwide.
BTW; Not all foreign registers are “FOC”. The eight Polar Expedition vessels to be built in Norway will be flying Norwegian, French and German flag. (The Crystal vessels built in Germany probably FOC flag)
[QUOTE=c.captain;192198]I don’t know about that…Alaska has thousands of miles of coastline no company is offering itineries for but due to its remoteness and distance away from Canada makes it pretty much a given that any ship offering such cruises be American. I do know that at least one of the US flag operators is exploring opening up this territory to cruising but nobody seems to be in any hurry to do this. I also know that there is a big hurdle these companies need to get over which is that they cannot continue to use the handful of existing small US built passenger vessels forever and that remote Alaska cruises will demand a larger and more seaworthy vessel. I have advocated that ex TAGOS ships (which Seattle happens to be the home of several) be converted to this role.[/QUOTE]
The few American companies already operating in the Inside Passage and coastal Alaskan waters could expand their routes and ship inventories. They cater to a niche market and their business model is more along the lines of expedition style cruising than the floating hotel/casinos the size of aircraft carriers.
Their current ships are capable of accommodating fewer than 100 passengers and are similar in size to the converted TAGOS ship in your rendering. There are yards in BC and Seattle capable of purpose building these pocket cruise ships from scratch.
We should concentrate on expanding that corner of the market. I don’t see us being able to compete with the likes of Carnival Cruises and other FOC operators who load thousands of passengers in a style reminiscent of cattle drives and who pay their third world crews peanuts.
These floating monstrosities are generating huge profits and by their sheer size are the ones most likely to impose a burden on existing facilities and cause environmental damage.
Canada should impose a cruising tax based on tonnage in preparation of such an eventuality and we should concentrate on solidifying our grip on the niche market we already own.
