Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

Arctic shipping to conserve energy.

How to save energy through both societal and individual actions.

Re: Arctic shipping to conserve energy.

Unread postby Tanada » Wed 17 May 2017, 09:31:40

This is the fundamental problem caused by the bureaucracy of the Pentagon. If you are a student of recent history you know the same thing took place in the 1960's and probably repeated in the 1990's on what seems to be a 20-30 year cycle. First come massive budget cuts to the military without a massive reduction in expectations. Then comes finagling to try and have every person in the service do more with less. Less manpower and fewer pieces of equipment. Then some 'brilliant' person comes to the conclusion that every weapon system should be like a Swiss army knife and preform all roles wonderfully so you can just buy a bunch of that one weapon system. The following stage is to sink enormous moneys into designing, building and testing things like the LCS for the Navy and the F-35 for the USAF/Navy that are supposed to be the universal system that does everything within a broad category. Meanwhile you have cut personnel to beyond minimum manning levels to save money at the same time. This includes even the brand new Gerald Ford class aircraft carriers with 'reduced manpower needs' due to 'advanced automation'.

The problem is not specific to any one subsystem of the new design, it comes from marrying too many new things into one new whole. As a result you have a whole set of systems that are each requiring a high maintenance standard because there is not enough operational experience to have worked out the bugs and developed the detailed maintenance plan that will keep the system running at peak performance with the least down time possible. The new Swiss army dose everything design then has all sorts of issues with finicky new delicate systems that need a tone of work to stay fully operational.

A couple of real world examples, the F-111 was initially designed to be the super fighter bomber of the 1960's with the A version going to the USAF and the B version going to the USN. Unfortunately it was intended to be very long range for deep penetration missions into enemy territory which required it to be large to carry a lot of fuel. It was also given swing wings which were the new wonder technology of the 1960's which are inherently very heavy compared to traditional wings because of all the extra hinges/hydraulics built into them. The end result was the B version was just plain too heavy and complex to fly from the majority of the USN aircraft carriers. It was nice for marine air bases or shore bases but the USN requires shipboard aircraft. So the USN went with an independent design that was relatively new, the F-4, and they up-rated the electronics and capabilities to do most of what the F-111B would do in a much simpler airframe that was lighter but shorter range in endurance. The moderately upgraded F-4 was such a successful design the USAF ended up buying thousands of them for itself and only bought the minimum number of super complex F-111A's that were forced on them by powerful lobbyists who got Congress to pass the budget for them. The Navy also was 'encouraged' to adopt a modern fighter/bomber aircraft to replace the F-4 design and what they came up with was the F-14 Tomcat, which started out as a shrunken version of the F-111B designed from scratch to fit the USN aircraft carriers. It had the same swing wings and longer range than the F-4 but the real unique feature was the Phoenix fire and forget missile that could knock down an enemy bomber at 90 miles independently after being launched. The issue was like the F-111 and the B-1B bomber in the USAF the swing wings were great in theory, but a maintenance PITA in practice. As a result the USN continued to operate F-4 fighter aircraft into the late 1990's and by 2010 all of the F-14's were withdrawn from service and almost all of them were literally chopped up to prevent their parts from being sold to Iran. In the 1970's Iran had been the first, and it turned out only, foreign purchaser before the fall of the Shah.

Now we have super automated systems that don't have all the bugs worked out being mated to new ships and aircraft designs that have little or no real world experience along with every bell and whistle people could think of adding to make the platforms do all jobs for all departments. Like the F-111B the USN has 'delayed and deferred' orders for the F-35 and are buying F-18 Super Hornets to replace their aging Hornet aircraft as an 'interim measure' exactly like what was done in the 1960's when they 'deferred' the F-111B and bought improved F-4 aircraft instead.

There are two basic philosophies for military logistics, option one is hit the enemy with your wonder weapon and stomp them in the dirt immediately. Option two is hit the enemy with so much stuff you overwhelm them with raw numbers. These two methods can be seen all the way back at least as far as Ancient Greece where the Spartans dedicated their population to being military men equal to our modern Special Forces where the few, the proud, the Spartans could take on a force up to five times their own and win more often than not. The problem came when they started fighting forces more than 5 times their own size because being super specialized for warfare they didn't have enough people to recover well from losses. Their military training lasted 10 years taking boys just past toddler age and toughening and training them for war. Other militaries that used citizen soldiers could throw almost every person they had at the Spartans and wear them down by sheer numbers. Others like the Red Army of WW II and the Iranians during the Iran-Iraq war or the Mongols of the 1200's used human wave attacks where they would send draftee's by the thousands against the enemy wave after wave until they were tired and low on ammunition, then send in another wave to finish them off. If you don't care about casualties this system works with quantity over quality.

The USA has a couple deep military traditions. One is in perceived peacetime we cut spending and scrap a lot of existing capability in a piecemeal fashion depending on whose congressperson gets to hang onto the military contracts. The other 'tradition' is we dink around in this low capability mess condition until reality kick us a good hard one in the rear, like when the US Civil War broke out, followed by the Spanish American war, followed by World War I, World War II, Korea and so on and so on. Every time we won the government promptly dismantled the military back close to pre war strength and when the USA 'won' the Cold War we did it all over again in the 1990's. Unfortunately we have not come close to restoring our say 1988 level of capability since then because we keep placing brushfire war games with very poorly equipped and trained opponents that specialize in what is called unconventional war.

Now we have climate change staring us in the face opening up the Arctic to all sorts of new possibilities, and new dangers, and we are woefully unprepared to deal with this new world we have created. Our navy is a mere shadow of its former self and has been torn in two trying to design super high tech ships that on the one hand can best anyone else's navy while simultaneously being intended mostly to fight small mobile terror units. These two demands are fundamentally incompatible and are resulting in ships that are not great at either role.

With the new need for Arctic operations beyond the submarines that have been deployed there for the last 60 years what will be the USN response? Sadly I think it will be another 20 year long study by Pentagon bureaucracy to try and figure out the least cost least risk system. Meanwhile the Russian navy and merchant marine are deploying dozens of ice hardened ships and the Chinese are taking advantage of that new reality. There is nothing fundamentally new the USN needs to learn to put a joint Navy/Coast Guard base on the Arctic coast somewhere in Alaska. There is also nothing new that needs to be developed to safely build ships designed for current and expected future conditions operating in the Arctic sea. Thicker hulls with greater reinforcement is not a technology that mystifies anyone. Deploying navigational aids and maintaining them is not a mysterious process either.

But we have to get off the dime and actually DO IT!
I should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, design a building, write, balance accounts, build a wall, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, pitch manure, program a computer, cook, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects.
User avatar
Tanada
Site Admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 14867
Joined: Thu 28 Apr 2005, 02:00:00
Location: South West shore Lake Erie, OH, USA

Re: Arctic shipping to conserve energy.

Unread postby Synapsid » Wed 17 May 2017, 17:42:50

Thanks for this Tanada.
Synapsid
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 780
Joined: Tue 06 Aug 2013, 20:21:50

Re: Arctic shipping to conserve energy.

Unread postby Newfie » Tue 23 May 2017, 17:52:22

Kind of a neat video on the topic.

Talks about the conflict between Canada and USA over whose water it is.

http://gcaptain.com/watch-canadas-new-s ... -shortcut/
Attachments
IMG_1043.jpg
IMG_1043.jpg (167.12 KiB) Viewed 19507 times
User avatar
Newfie
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 10946
Joined: Thu 15 Nov 2007, 03:00:00
Location: US East Coast

Re: Arctic shipping to conserve energy.

Unread postby Subjectivist » Wed 24 May 2017, 15:56:20

I think you will enjoy this one Newfie,
https://youtu.be/pd1Zgt2lycY
II Chronicles 7:14 if my people, who are called by my name, will humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven, and I will forgive their sin and will heal their land.
User avatar
Subjectivist
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 4311
Joined: Sat 28 Aug 2010, 06:38:26
Location: Northwest Ohio

First tanker crosses northern sea route without ice breaker

Unread postby dolanbaker » Thu 24 Aug 2017, 13:03:23

Surprised no one has posted this here..

Image

http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-41037071
A commercial LNG tanker has sailed across the colder, northern route from Europe to Asia without the protection of an ice-breaker for the first time.

The specially-built ship completed the crossing in just six-and-a-half days setting a new record, according to tanker's Russian owners.

The 300-metre-long Sovcomflot ship, the Christophe de Margerie, was carrying gas from Norway to South Korea.

Rising Arctic temperatures are boosting commercial shipping across this route.

The Christophe de Margerie is the world's first and, at present, only ice-breaking LNG carrier.
Ronald Coase, Nobel Economic Sciences, said in 1991 “If we torture the data long enough, it will confess.”
User avatar
dolanbaker
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 3533
Joined: Wed 14 Apr 2010, 09:38:47
Location: Éire

Re: First tanker crosses northern sea route without ice brea

Unread postby vtsnowedin » Thu 24 Aug 2017, 13:16:11

dolanbaker wrote:Surprised no one has posted this here..

Image

http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-41037071
A commercial LNG tanker has sailed across the colder, northern route from Europe to Asia without the protection of an ice-breaker for the first time.

The specially-built ship completed the crossing in just six-and-a-half days setting a new record, according to tanker's Russian owners.

The 300-metre-long Sovcomflot ship, the Christophe de Margerie, was carrying gas from Norway to South Korea.

Rising Arctic temperatures are boosting commercial shipping across this route.

The Christophe de Margerie is the world's first and, at present, only ice-breaking LNG carrier.

An interesting cost benefit analysis would be comparing the cost of one or two ice breakers shepherding a convoy through vs. the cost of having all of the ships in the convoy all built to ice breaker standards. They built this ship so somebody thinks it's the way to go but I'd like to see their figures and assumptions list.
User avatar
vtsnowedin
Fission
Fission
 
Posts: 8927
Joined: Fri 11 Jul 2008, 02:00:00

Re: Arctic shipping to conserve energy.

Unread postby Tanada » Fri 17 Nov 2017, 21:53:01

"The trade turnover by the Northern Sea Route in 2017 grew by 20%, though the amount of transported cargo is lightly lower," he said.

The Northern Sea Route - is the main sea route in the Russian Arctic. The Russian ministry of transport forecasts cargo turnover along the Northern Sea Route by 2020 will grow tenfold to 65 million tonnes a year. The Route crosses seas of the Arctic Ocean (Kara, Laptev, East Siberian and Chukotka) and partially the Pacific Ocean (the Bering Sea). The Northern Sea Route from the Kara Gate to the Providence Bay is about 5,600km long. The distance between St. Petersburg to Vladivostok along the Northern Sea Route is more than 14,000km, while the distance vessels have to cover by the Suez Canal is more than 23,000km.

The Sabetta airport is the northernmost "air gates" of Russia and one of the biggest northern airports in the world. The airport has the strategic status for implementation of the LNG plant project in Yamal. The Yamal LNG plant is due to go operational in 2017. The project's cost is $27 billion. Practically total amount of future liquefied gas - 96% - is contracted already. Yamal LNG's shareholders are Novatek (50.1%), Total (20%)


LINK
I should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, design a building, write, balance accounts, build a wall, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, pitch manure, program a computer, cook, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects.
User avatar
Tanada
Site Admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 14867
Joined: Thu 28 Apr 2005, 02:00:00
Location: South West shore Lake Erie, OH, USA

Re: Arctic shipping to conserve energy.

Unread postby Tanada » Wed 07 Feb 2018, 08:32:08

Lots of pictures at link below the quote.

Teekay’s New Icebreaking LNG Carrier ‘Eduard Toll’ Makes Historic Northern Sea Route Passage

Bermuda-based shipping company Teekay has taken delivery of the icebreaking LNG carrier Eduard Toll, which has now completed its first unescorted trip across the Northern Sea Route.

Eduard Toll is the fourth of 15 Arc7 LNG carriers being built for Russia’s $27 billion Yamal LNG project and Teekay’s first of six LNG newbuildings contracted to service the project.

Over the New Year, the vessel made history as it underwent the latest seasonal independent passage by a merchant ship on the Northern Sea Route.

The vessel was technically accepted by Teekay in Korea at the beginning of December 2017 after successfully completing sea trials. From there, the vessel departed for her journey to the port of Sabetta, Northern Russia, via the Northern Sea Route.

At times during the trip, the unescorted Eduard Toll broke ice 1.8 meters thick at speeds of five knots astern, arriving at Sabetta ahead of schedule sometime in early January.

“This marked a major milestone for shipping in the arctic as this was the first time a shipping vessel made independent passage, without the support of an ice breaker, during this time of year,” Teekay said in a media release it issued this week.

“With the inaugural passage now successfully behind us, we look forward to loading for someplace sunnier as soon as Yamal LNG’s busy quay becomes available, and to doing it all over again for decades to come on the Eduard Toll and our five other five newbuilds comprising the Arc7 fleet that we own with our joint venture partner, China LNG,” said Mark Kremin, President and Chief Executive Officer, Teekay Gas Group Ltd.

The ship’s namesake, Baron Eduard Toll, was a Russian geologist and explorer who dedicated his life to the discovery of the Arctic and pioneered Russian Polar expedition.

LINK
I should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, design a building, write, balance accounts, build a wall, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, pitch manure, program a computer, cook, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects.
User avatar
Tanada
Site Admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 14867
Joined: Thu 28 Apr 2005, 02:00:00
Location: South West shore Lake Erie, OH, USA

Re: Arctic shipping to conserve energy.

Unread postby radon1 » Thu 08 Feb 2018, 03:35:50

Recently heard interesting numbers: according to the Russian governmental department responsible for the development of the Arctic route, the route's turnover may reach 2.5 million tons annually by 2022 under their optimistic scenario. By comparison, Shanghai port annual turnover is over 500 m tons currently, and Novorossiysk port annual turnover is around 150 m tons.
radon1
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1984
Joined: Thu 27 Jun 2013, 05:09:44

Re: Arctic shipping to conserve energy.

Unread postby Tanada » Thu 08 Feb 2018, 07:16:32

radon1 wrote:Recently heard interesting numbers: according to the Russian governmental department responsible for the development of the Arctic route, the route's turnover may reach 2.5 million tons annually by 2022 under their optimistic scenario. By comparison, Shanghai port annual turnover is over 500 m tons currently, and Novorossiysk port annual turnover is around 150 m tons.



A great deal depends on two factors. What are the shipping companies willing to risk for greater profit? just how thick is the ice at a given time of the year? A passage through ice free waters takes on the order of 3 weeks. A passage through a meter of ice with a ship designed for it takes 6 to 7 weeks depending on just how wide spread the ice is. If you do not save time and hence money taking the Northern Route because there is still too much ice then what do you gain other than being able to say you did it?

That being said, the ice has been thinner and weaker for several years now than the old averages and the fact that this now group of LNG tankers now has year around independent passage capability could prove very important to the whole process. For Russia building these LNG carriers makes plenty of sense because they need to haul gas from their new Arctic LNG terminal and they want to do it year around. This option may also appeal to Canada which has plenty of gas, but Canada already has pipelines which would allow them to ship gas over either the Pacific or Atlantic to Asia or Europe respectively. For Russia the Arctic gas they are developing was formerly 'stranded' by lack of connections to the pipeline network and using LNG freighters is a big step forward.

If the ice continues to thin at some date we hit a tipping point where shipping companies can be confidant the ice is thin enough for enough of the year to make commitment to the NSR the best financial choice. In my minds eye that tipping point could be almost any time now as the thinner and less area the ice has the more of the trip will be through clear water at 'normal' speed and the less will be in breaker mode at 5 knots. Does the company increase profits enough with regular 6 week passages? 5 Weeks? 4 Weeks? We already know that the clear water 3 week passage is a money maker, we just don't know where the tipping point is yet.
I should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, design a building, write, balance accounts, build a wall, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, pitch manure, program a computer, cook, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects.
User avatar
Tanada
Site Admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 14867
Joined: Thu 28 Apr 2005, 02:00:00
Location: South West shore Lake Erie, OH, USA

Re: Arctic shipping to conserve energy.

Unread postby vtsnowedin » Thu 08 Feb 2018, 09:02:20

This class of ice capable tanker are larger then an Nimitz class aircraft carrier. 127,000 tons vs 100,000 tons loaded. It is not going to have any problem with any first year ice. And of course once one has broken a path a second following in just a day or two will have an easier time of it. Even if they get the shipping season up to ten months of the year there would be considerable cost savings.
Th traditional southern route takes 53 days and 53 days worth of fuel. The northern route about 18 days so they have 35 days worth where they can watch the weather go when the going is good. Those ships are not cheap to build and they will have to make up for the extra cost compared to a regular LNG UL tanker but unless they lose one in North sea force ten waves they should make out with a tidy profit. At least they think they will.
User avatar
vtsnowedin
Fission
Fission
 
Posts: 8927
Joined: Fri 11 Jul 2008, 02:00:00

Re: Arctic shipping to conserve energy.

Unread postby radon1 » Thu 01 Mar 2018, 04:48:11

Putie has now said in his address to the Parliament that the Arctic route turnover should reach 80 mln tonnes annually by year 2025. The total annual turnover of the Russian ports is 1 bln tonnes currently, 50% more than Soviet Union's maximum and 3 times as much as Russia's portal turnover immediately after the Soviet Union's break-up.
radon1
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1984
Joined: Thu 27 Jun 2013, 05:09:44

Re: Arctic shipping to conserve energy.

Unread postby Newfie » Tue 17 Apr 2018, 08:08:06

User avatar
Newfie
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 10946
Joined: Thu 15 Nov 2007, 03:00:00
Location: US East Coast

Re: Arctic shipping to conserve energy.

Unread postby Zarquon » Sun 12 Aug 2018, 17:44:09

https://www.marinetraffic.com/en/ais/ho ... 2.1/zoom:3

Currently a few tankers being shown in the Russian arctic, plus but I have no idea how complete the picture is. Also, no weather (ice) info available. Is there a site displaying current ice conditions?
Zarquon
Lignite
Lignite
 
Posts: 231
Joined: Fri 06 May 2016, 19:53:46

Re: Arctic shipping to conserve energy.

Unread postby Newfie » Sun 12 Aug 2018, 19:42:26

You can poke around the Canadian site, the Danes have one for Iceland/Greenland. Don’t know about other than that. You would think Sweden or Finland would have something.

PS found this. See if it’s any good. Just going to bed myself.

http://www.arctic-lio.com/nsr_ice
User avatar
Newfie
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 10946
Joined: Thu 15 Nov 2007, 03:00:00
Location: US East Coast

Re: Arctic shipping to conserve energy.

Unread postby vtsnowedin » Mon 13 Aug 2018, 05:16:37

User avatar
vtsnowedin
Fission
Fission
 
Posts: 8927
Joined: Fri 11 Jul 2008, 02:00:00

Re: Arctic shipping to conserve energy.

Unread postby Newfie » Mon 13 Aug 2018, 11:05:11

I don’t have charts for that region, along the Siberian coat. However, what I’ve read is that sea is quite shallow. I’m presuming that the ice free region along the Siberian coast is navigable, pretty sure it is. If so they have a wide open path for commerce.
User avatar
Newfie
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 10946
Joined: Thu 15 Nov 2007, 03:00:00
Location: US East Coast

Re: Arctic shipping to conserve energy.

Unread postby Newfie » Fri 24 Aug 2018, 17:06:47

User avatar
Newfie
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 10946
Joined: Thu 15 Nov 2007, 03:00:00
Location: US East Coast

Re: Arctic shipping to conserve energy.

Unread postby jawagord » Fri 24 Aug 2018, 17:51:33

Newfie wrote:Merk seems to have done it.
Http://gcaptain.com/maersk-sends-first- ... tic-route/


When they start sending ships through the Northwest passage, I'll get excited (with or without ice breakers), that's the litmus test of Arctic shipping.
jawagord
Peat
Peat
 
Posts: 114
Joined: Mon 29 May 2017, 09:49:17

PreviousNext

Return to Conservation & Efficiency

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests