NOVEMBER 9, 2015— Shipbroker Seabrokers says that “market sources have indicated that Edison Chouest Offshore has canceled two newbuild 27,000 bhp AHTS icebreakers that were to be built at its LAShip yard in Houma, Louisiana.”
Designed by ECO’s North American Shipbuilding, Larose, LA, the vessels were to be built to Polar Class 3, equipped to operate in arctic waters with air temperature down to minus 40 degrees Celsius.
The reported Chouest cancelation of the pair comes in the wake of Shell’s recent decision to halt its operations offshore Alaska for the “foreseeable future.”
Delivery of first Arctic AHTS from LaShip shipyard had been slated for end 2016.
Spoke to my manager today, he says Shell is buying out of Aiviq contract. It’ll become a Government vessel but with out ECO employees, just like the Wheeler deal.
Not only the US Government is in need of new ice breakers. With Polar Class 3 this may be an attractive purchase for other countries with Arctic/Antarctic ambitions. To obtain PC-3 Class with any IACS member require quite a bit:
Table 1 - Polar Class Descriptions
Polar Class Ice Description (based on WMO Sea Ice Nomenclature)
PC 1 Year-round operation in all Polar waters
PC 2 Year-round operation in moderate multi-year ice conditions
PC 3 Year-round operation in second-year ice which may include multiyear ice inclusions.
PC 4 Year-round operation in thick first-year ice which may include old ice inclusions
PC 5 Year-round operation in medium first-year ice which may include old ice inclusions
PC 6 Summer/autumn operation in medium first-year ice which may include old ice inclusions
PC 7 Summer/autumn operation in thin first-year ice which may include old ice inclusions
But it may be a little late, since several countries are already in the process of building or ordering new Ice breakers for their Coast Guard or Research Institutes. This includes Australia, Canada, China, Chile, Norway and probably others.
Russia is always in need of more Ice breakers, both for commercial and government purposes, however.
But would sale to a foreign Government, or even private Owners, be approved by the US Government?
PS> I don’t think Shell is taking over ownership, just paying themselves out of the contract.
[QUOTE=ombugge;173250]With Polar Class 3 this may be an attractive purchase for other countries with Arctic/Antarctic ambitions…
…but it may be a little late, since several countries are already in the process of building or ordering new Ice breakers for their Coast Guard or Research Institutes. This includes Australia, Canada, China, Chile, Norway and probably others.[/QUOTE]
None of these countries need are looking for anything what Edison Chouest was building until now. Most of them are already building bigger, more advanced and more capable vessels tailored for their specific needs and - with the exception of Canada’s overly expensive polar icebreaker - at a lower cost.
if any of the above were even interested, I would well imagine that they would expect a very sizable discount on the price to incentivize them to buy
Russia is always in need of more Ice breakers, both for commercial and government purposes, however.
But would sale to a foreign Government, or even private Owners, be approved by the US Government?
under current sanctions over Ukraine, Russia would be out but a “friendly” government or corporation would be greenlighted by the US to buy the ship if anyone wanted it.
PS> I don’t think Shell is taking over ownership, just paying themselves out of the contract.
I agree, Shell doesn’t own ships any more and likely has no idea of what to do with the thing…they will allow ECO to dispose of the whale and if they are buying ECO out at full price I would want Shell to demand ECO to scrap the behemoth but they won’t.
I agree that nobody would buy this, or any of the ECO newbuildings at the price they have been built/contracted for, but to get something back must be better then paying for lay-up for a ship that has few if any possibilities to earn a dime outside the Arctic.
As for the others, it depends on if they can get out of machinery and equipment contracts already signed.
I believe the main propulsion system has been ordered from Rolls-Royce Marine already for delivery early next year for the first vessel??
They don’t need the long dollar, as shell probably paid ECO a fuckload of money to get out of the long term charter. Enough to pay the boat off a few times over I’d guess??? Plus what money they have already made. What was the day rate and charter length??? That’s Assuming all things are normal like elsewhere in the industry, maybe not in the bayou.
Gummint money aside, could it be made into a capable naval salvage vessel with limited conversion work? I’m saying a MSC boat like the existing big tugs etc. selling point is it’s Arctic capable to some degree.
[QUOTE=z-drive;173266]They don’t need the long dollar, as shell probably paid ECO a fuckload of money to get out of the long term charter. Enough to pay the boat off a few times over I’d guess??? Plus what money they have already made. What was the day rate and charter length??? That’s Assuming all things are normal like elsewhere in the industry, maybe not in the bayou.
Gummint money aside, could it be made into a capable naval salvage vessel with limited conversion work? I’m saying a MSC boat like the existing big tugs etc. selling point is it’s Arctic capable to some degree.[/QUOTE]
Whatever Shell is paying to get out of the AIVIQ, it will be far far too much, just like everything else on their Arctic misadventure.
Chouest will just buy a few more Congressman and lease it to the Government at some absurd rate for some ridiculous purpose. Maybe they’ll be breaking the ice in Puerto Rico with it.
From what I understand that vessel is basically incapable of operating in anything much warmer than Arctic climate. It also has massive daily fuel burn that would be extremely prohibitive. (IIRC, 20,000 or 30,000 gallons per day.)
[QUOTE=Capt. Phoenix;173280]From what I understand that vessel is basically incapable of operating in anything much warmer than Arctic climate. It also has massive daily fuel burn that would be extremely prohibitive. (IIRC, 20,000 or 30,000 gallons per day.)[/QUOTE]
75 - 113 m3 a day in fuel consumption? That is insane, is it under full load or just average consumption?
[QUOTE=Tups;173282]Well, that’s just bad design. Even “real” icebreakers can operate in warmer climates.[/QUOTE]
I think it was something about the insulation be so heavy that the engine room gets overheated in warm waters. Allegedly the trip through Panama was extremely difficult.
[QUOTE=Capt. Phoenix;173283]I think it was something about the insulation be so heavy that the engine room gets overheated in warm waters. Allegedly the trip through Panama was extremely difficult.[/QUOTE]
Well, it’s a tempting shortcut to use lower maximum ambient temperature when dimensioning the engine room ventilation system because the air intakes take quite a lot of space inside the ship and if you plan to work in the Arctic, the maximum capacity is never needed.
[QUOTE=Capt. Phoenix;173283]I think it was something about the insulation be so heavy that the engine room gets overheated in warm waters. Allegedly the trip through Panama was extremely difficult.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Chief Seadog;173263]The Nathaniel Palmer is getting a bit long in the tooth. The Aiviq could take over that NSF charter without much difficulty.[/QUOTE]
like the NSF could afford the fuel burn plus isn’t the PALMER sitting dockside much of the year due to funding shortages?
[QUOTE=Kraken;173281]75 - 113 m3 a day in fuel consumption? That is insane, is it under full load or just average consumption?[/QUOTE]
I haven’t seen the detailed specs of this vessel, but I believe it has Diesel/Electric propulsion, with two or more RRM Azimuth thrusters and 4 main generators?
That give the flexibility to run one generator when slow steaming, or “idling in the field”, two generators for free steaming.
Full power on the main thrusters should only be required when towing, or breaking heavy ice, which would be rarely.
100% power on the main thrusters should only require three generator at 85-90% MCR, if power balance and power management system is designed right.
All four generators at max output should only be required if full power on ALL thrusters (incl. Bow thrusters) is required simultaneously with heavy load on other system, such as FiFi etc. The likelihood of that occurring is minimal I would say, thus consumption at full power is not really relevant.
I repeat, I don’t know the specifics of the Aiviq, but that would be normal criteria applied by other vessels with Diesel/Electric propulsion for use in the Offshore industry.
[QUOTE=ombugge;173307]I haven’t seen the detailed specs of this vessel, but I believe it has Diesel/Electric propulsion, with two or more RRM Azimuth thrusters and 4 main generators?
That give the flexibility to run one generator when slow steaming, or “idling in the field”, two generators for free steaming.
Full power on the main thrusters should only be required when towing, or breaking heavy ice, which would be rarely.
100% power on the main thrusters should only require three generator at 85-90% MCR, if power balance and power management system is designed right.
All four generators at max output should only be required if full power on ALL thrusters (incl. Bow thrusters) is required simultaneously with heavy load on other system, such as FiFi etc. The likelihood of that occurring is minimal I would say, thus consumption at full power is not really relevant.
I repeat, I don’t know the specifics of the Aiviq, but that would be normal criteria applied by other vessels with Diesel/Electric propulsion for use in the Offshore industry.[/QUOTE]