I’m surprised, but stand corrected. Sorry for making assumptions without checking facts.
I saw somewhere that the propulsion and winch packet for the new-building Ice class AHTSs for ECO would be by Rolls-Royce Marine and a [U]repeat order[/U]. I therefore assumed that this one would be the same.
The statement that fuel consumption at full power is not relevant still stands, as that will not be frequently applied on high powered vessel like this, especially with 4 main engine configuration.
For long distance towing yes, but any large powered AHTS in normal service will fairly rarely if ever apply full power (>85-90% MCR all engines) for long duration. Even 85-90% MCR will only be needed maybe 10-20% of the time?
(Obviously this depends on type- and area- of operation. Lots of idling and slow steaming in most cases though)
I’m also surprised of the Bollard Pull quoted.
200 m.t. for installed power of 21,776 Bhp, with direct shaft driven CPPs in Kort Nozzles sounds low.
(I would have assumed >250 m.t. Cont. BP)
Yeah, Aiviq’s diesel-mechanical with shaftlines and rudders - You can find its GA on pages 41-43 of this document. The new AHTS’s were supposed to be diesel-electric with Rolls-Royce z-drive thrusters.
As for the fuel consumption, the figures for Fennica and Nordica are 42 tons/day at 13 knots and 30 tons/day at 11 knots. Of course, making direct comparison is difficult as those are diesel-electric ships with 15 MW propulsion power and medium-speed generating sets (as opposed to Aiviq’s 16 MW diesel-mechanical power plant with high-speed Caterpillars).
[QUOTE=Tups;173319]Yeah, Aiviq’s diesel-mechanical with shaftlines and rudders - You can find its GA on pages 41-43 of this document. The new AHTS’s were supposed to be diesel-electric with Rolls-Royce z-drive thrusters.
As for the fuel consumption, the figures for Fennica and Nordica are 42 tons/day at 13 knots and 30 tons/day at 11 knots. Of course, making direct comparison is difficult as those are diesel-electric ships with 15 MW propulsion power and medium-speed generating sets (as opposed to Aiviq’s 16 MW diesel-mechanical power plant with high-speed Caterpillars).[/QUOTE]
Thanks for the info.
Yes the consumption figures for Fennica/Nordica would most likely not be much different from what it would take to get Aiviq to the same speeds. Normal steaming would probably be on two engines at 85% MCR or thereabout as that is more economical then to run 4 engines at say 50% MCR for the same output.
Does any of these vessels burn IFO when steaming??
When Chouest announced these icebreakers back in 2013 they also announced that they were building four subsea construction vessels to serve the GoM which would have C-Innovation ROVs as well as 400 MT AHC cranes. Anyone know if those are still on or have they been cancelled as well? As far as I know at least two were definitely moving forward but I am unsure if things have changed…
[QUOTE=SomeGuy;173328]When Chouest announced these icebreakers back in 2013 they also announced that they were building four subsea construction vessels to serve the GoM which would have C-Innovation ROVs as well as 400 MT AHC cranes. Anyone know if those are still on or have they been cancelled as well? As far as I know at least two were definitely moving forward but I am unsure if things have changed…
The facts I gather are G$ will use the Aiviq as a right off. The Gov/NSF will utilize at a discounted rate on Chouest behalf. 1st venture they are proposed to go find the Endurnece Shackeletons ship. Should be interesting Gov. is bringing in their top brass Ice Navigators.
[QUOTE=JB Slave;173338]The facts I gather are G$ will use the Aiviq as a right off. The Gov/NSF will utilize at a discounted rate on Chouest behalf. 1st venture they are proposed to go find the Endurnece Shackeletons ship. Should be interesting Gov. is bringing in their top brass Ice Navigators.[/QUOTE]
I think the facts you have gathered are a huge bunch of BS…there is no way in hell the NSF has funding to do any of this without some special Congressional appropriation. SHOW ME THE MONEY!
In Sea-web, the status of Island Venture’s US-built sister ship (IMO 9721944) is “On Order/Not Commenced”. Of course, the data may not be up-to-date - the status has not been updated since 2013.
[QUOTE=Tups;173405]In Sea-web, the status of [I]Island Venture[/I]'s US-built sister ship (IMO 9721944) is “On Order/Not Commenced”. Of course, the data may not be up-to-date - the status has not been updated since 2013.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=anchorman;173414]It was never started from what I understand.[/QUOTE]
That is probably why I cannot find and updated status anywhere.
What I did find and didn’t know is that it is not only the Island Venture and the sister ship (if it gets built) that has Chouest involvement but the entire Island Offshore company.
[QUOTE=Kraken;173281]75 - 113 m3 a day in fuel consumption? That is insane, is it under full load or just average consumption?[/QUOTE]
A vessel like the Skandi Skolten burns 40 m3/day while steaming so those numbers are very far off.
[QUOTE=SomeGuy;173328]When Chouest announced these icebreakers back in 2013 they also announced that they were building four subsea construction vessels to serve the GoM which would have C-Innovation ROVs as well as 400 MT AHC cranes. Anyone know if those are still on or have they been cancelled as well? As far as I know at least two were definitely moving forward but I am unsure if things have changed…
The two X-Bows are the only ones that will have the 400t cranes. They’ve built the C-Installer which has a 150t on it. I’ve heard they’ll be building more like that one (although possibly not in this market!).
[QUOTE=Capt. Phoenix;173415]Didn’t the Houma yard put out the island performer?[/QUOTE]
No. Ulstein in Norway did.
[QUOTE=anchorman;173414]It was never started from what I understand.[/QUOTE]
Correct. Still planned but current market conditions will, I’m sure, delay this.
No. It was built in Norway under the NIS register (besides the hull & superstructure being built in Romania or Poland), then reflagged to Vanuatu later on. Similar to all the Island Vessels under ECO management.
[QUOTE=ombugge;173416]That is probably why I cannot find and updated status anywhere.
What I did find and didn’t know is that it is not only the Island Venture and the sister ship (if it gets built) that has Chouest involvement but the entire Island Offshore company.
Maybe even less well known is the Island Offshore owns a full scale Semisub, now drilling in the Barents Sea, off Northern Norway: http://www.islanddrilling.no/our-rigs
I don’t know how this will affect the possibilities of selling the Aiviq, or how that one stack up against these vessels?
The embargo against Russia may not be a big hinder as there are ways around such things.
Sale to a third party in a a non-embargo country, with BB Charter to a non-Russian company controlled by FEMCO and a long term TC to FEMCO, Vladivostok comes to mind.
The Aiviq not being a military vessel, sale abroad should not come under US Gov. restrictions, unless it has been heavily subsidized?
