Using the most modern container vessel design for the Arctic,
it is technically feasible to establish a container traffic link between
North America and Europe via the Northern Sea Route, a 2005
study concluded.
The evaluation, funded by the Institute of the North and
executed by Finnish-based Aker Arctic Technology, used ice operational
simulations and only evaluated the feasibility of vessel
design, not the economic feasibility of the concept. Such economic
analysis is still needed before a trans-Arctic shuttle operation can
be considered as a serious alternative to today’s route via the
Panama Canal.
Assuming twin trans-shipment ports in Alaska and Iceland, the
study evaluated vessels that were 750 TEU and 5,000 TEU. The simulations
were based on two different kinds of years, average winter
ice conditions and severe winter ice conditions, for both vessels.
The evaluation used the double-acting operation design which
allows the vessel to travel the traditional bow ahead in open water
and, by using a propeller system that turns 180 degrees, to go stern
ahead in ice-covered waters.
The 750 TEU Arctic container vessel for the study was a modified
version of the Norlisk Nickel’s Arctic Express, which moves
nickel plate year-round and without icebreaker assistance between
the ports of Dudinka and Murmansk in the Russian Federation (See
page 82). The theoretical study vessel was modified from carrying
nickel plate to container storage both below and above deck. The
design also doubled the size of the fuel storage due to the longer
sailing required. The ship could ply the shallow waters near
the coastline of northern Russia, but simulation runs indicated it
would need some traditional icebreaker assistance in severe winter
conditions.
The 5,000 TEU vessel used the same icebreaking design, just
on a larger scale. While the larger vessel will accommodate more
containers, the size and especially the draft of 13.5 meters would
prohibit it for use along the traditionally shallow-draft route of the
NSR.
While the study does not look at the cost of fairway fees in
this scenario, it does note that the current fee structure along the
NSR is based on the paradigm of using icebreakers and “paying
potential.” Therefore, today the movement of natural resources
along the NSR pays high fees whether using icebreaker assistance
or not. This type of fee policy is not suitable for cargo vessels that
are capable of independent operations, as the fee should be paid
if the icebreaker assistance is needed, according to the study. |
As noted, it is anticipated that the smaller study vessel would
need icebreaker support some of the year, while the larger vessel
would not. However, if the 5,000 TEU ship needed assistance
it would require two icebreakers due to the width of the vessel.
Another issue the larger study vessel poses is the ability to travel
outside the traditional NSR routes.
Using only economic input related to the cost of the vessel, the
operational costs, the amount of cargo that could be delivered and
other related issues, the transport cost from the Aleutian Islands
in Alaska to a port in Iceland via the NSR for the larger study vessel
would be between $US354 TEU and $US526 TEU, and between
$US1,244 TEU and $US1,887 TEU for the smaller container ship. It
needs to be noted again that these figures do not include all of
the economic considerations that are needed to make an accurate
evaluation, such as fairway/icebreaker fees, port infrastructure
costs, terminal and harbor costs and the cost to offload cargo onto
the shuttle vessel, as well as transferring it back to an open-ocean
vessel after reaching the twin port.
“All of these factors are unclear, uncertain and difficult to estimate,”
the study concludes. “Most adverse of them might be the
fairway fees, of which a current estimate of $US900 to $US1,000
TEU can be given for traffic” in 2005. “The second could be the cost
for building and running the terminals which could be in the same
category as the cost of the vessels. Of course, the terminals for the
large and effective 5,000 TEU vessel are much more expensive than
those for the 750 TEU vessel, but cost per container may be lower
for the larger traffic volume. Of less importance and even more difficult
to clarify and estimate may be the feeder link cost. Even the
existing system using the southern route includes feeder links to
the container hub ports and how this picture would be changed for
the Arctic Shuttle Container Link remains to be clarified. However,
it is expected that extra costs compared to the prevalent system
could be created.”
|
