ShipSpotting.com
Login: Lost Password? SIGN UP
Ship Photo Search
Advanced Search
Pages: [1]
  Print  
Author Topic: Canadian Ice breaking Issues  (Read 7876 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Peter Ziobrowski
Quite a regular
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 45


View Profile WWW
« on: March 19, 2014, 12:46:00 pm »

Seems Canadian ship owners are unhappy with the Icebreaking services this year. In fairness to the Coast Guard, The ICE Service does say this is the worst year in 25 years for ice.
http://blog.halifaxshippingnews.ca/2014/03/ice-causing-delays.html

That said, it doesn't help that the largest icebreaker in the fleet may have spent its fuel budget for the year, and is laid up to the end of the fiscal year march 31.
http://blog.halifaxshippingnews.ca/2014/03/did-ccgs-louis-st-laurent-spend-its.html
Report to moderator   Logged
Jean Hemond
Top Poster
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,394


View Profile WWW
« Reply #1 on: March 19, 2014, 03:58:09 pm »

 I guess it is the same here in Quebec so fas as budget restrictions goes. I didn't see the Icebreaker Desgroseillers  moving away from the wharf that with a few exceptions.   Could it be that the ice sticking on the shores and not removed contributes to upstream accumulation? It is I think confirmed for some areas as  the Martha Black is  for her part more often on the move in Trois-Rivieres.
Report to moderator   Logged
Magogman
Top Poster
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,355


View Profile WWW
« Reply #2 on: March 19, 2014, 05:16:26 pm »

The icebreakers Martha L. Black and Pierre Radisson are scheduled to work on ice in the St Lawrence Seaway starting next week.  The Seaway will be hard pressed to open on March 28 due to ice conditions.  On the Great Lakes ice thickness of 30 inches or more is taxing icebreakers.  It is going to be a very difficult opening to the navigation season on the lakes.
Report to moderator   Logged

My blog with narrative and more photos is located at:
http://magogman.blogspot.com

read the introduction and also there are about 5 different blogs of ships and railroads
Tuomas Romu
Home away from home
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 352


View Profile
« Reply #3 on: March 19, 2014, 05:46:37 pm »

The development of CCGS John G. Diefenbaker began in 2008, but the idea of the new polar icebreaker dates back to the Polar 8 project from the 1980s. The C$1.3 billion vessel is expected to enter service in the 2020s. Maybe.

The development of the new Finnish escort icebreaker began in the spring of 2013 and the building contract was awarded in January 2014. The 123 million euro vessel will be enter service in the winter of 2016.

Just makes you wonder what kind of vessels Canada really needs...
Report to moderator   Logged
Vincent Milner
Just can't stay away
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 133


View Profile
« Reply #4 on: March 20, 2014, 07:09:28 am »

And here is a write up on the seaway shipping season delayed because of ice conditions.

As per the Administrator of Seaway Operations Salvatore Pisani, in 2003, the Seaway was scheduled to open March 25 and had to delay until March 31. This was due to very similar ice conditions as to what is is now.

Watertown daily times
Report to moderator   Logged
Les bateaux du Québec
Top Poster
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 792


View Profile WWW
« Reply #5 on: March 28, 2014, 04:54:43 pm »

Speaking of icebreakers, I just read an article speeking of canadian ship building. It's a csn (syndicat article). A report that suggest things to improve ship building accross canada and Quebec. The syndicat ask the Harper Gouvernment to bring the contract for building  the polar icebreaker, CCGS John G. Diefenbaker to Davie shipyard. It's argued that Seaspan is not capabe of building it on time and this will cause extra cost and will influence Arctic canadian strategie.  It is quote that Davie is able to built it now at initial cost (700 billion)and with adequat skills.

With this tough winter for canadian coast guard, maybe we will see move in the strategy.

Here the article in french
http://www.csn.qc.ca/c/document_library/get_file;jsessionid=8C2F77B8FDE307F0C745D8392A816306?uuid=ba3fdf4f-d746-488c-babc-119fc93e547b&groupId=13943
Report to moderator   Logged
Paul Bradshaw
Home away from home
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 156



View Profile
« Reply #6 on: March 29, 2014, 02:33:02 pm »

Is there any irony in the vessel name? Grin
Report to moderator   Logged
Mac Mackay
Top Poster
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,093


View Profile WWW
« Reply #7 on: March 30, 2014, 01:29:42 am »

Davie is no more qualified to build the icebreaker than Seaspan is, so it makes just as little or as much sense to build it in Quebec as it does in Vancouver.
Seaspan has enough work with the navy supply ships, which should be moved ahead now that Protecteur is a constructive total loss. Also the replacement for the research ship Hudson should also be moved ahead. If Seaspan did not have to build the icebreaker it would be much more effective.
Also if Davie were to get the icebreaker contract we might get the ship much faster. We should be building two of them (the other should be called the Lester B. Pearson, but would likely be called the Brian Mulroney if the current government is still in power) and Davie could certainly follow on with a second at a much reduced price.
The comment about the Finnish icebreaker above does not allow for the fact that Canada's new icebreaker is a Polar icebreaker and must be able to reach the North Pole unaided.
Report to moderator   Logged
Tuomas Romu
Home away from home
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 352


View Profile
« Reply #8 on: March 30, 2014, 08:39:35 am »

The comment about the Finnish icebreaker above does not allow for the fact that Canada's new icebreaker is a Polar icebreaker and must be able to reach the North Pole unaided.

Well, some bloggers compare the Diefenbreaker to the new icebreaking bulk carrier Fednav recently received from Japan...

But anyway, let's make a comparison between the large diesel-electric icebreaker projects that are now underway around the world:

CCGS John G. Diefenbaker (Canada)New Baltic icebreaker (Finland)Viktor Chernomyrdin (Russia)
Length149 m110 m146.8 m
Beam28 m24 m28.5 m
Power34 MW19 MW25 MW
Propulsion2 shaftlines + 1 azimuth thruster3 azimuth thrusters1 shaftline + 2 azimuth thrusters
Icebreaking capability3 kn, 2.5 m4 kn, 1.8 m2 kn, 2 m
Ice classPC2 Icebreaker+PC4 Icebreaker+Icebreaker8
Price (CAD)C$1.3 billionC$189 millionC$245 million
Price (EUR)855 million €123 million €200 million €
Development began200820132012
Delivered2021-202212/201512/2015
StatusDesignDesignUnder construction

Of course the new Canadian polar icebreaker is much bigger and more powerful than the new Baltic escort icebreaker, but despite the above figures I still don't understand why it costs 7 times as much and takes a decade longer to design and build. The same applies to the Russian icebreaker which costs only a quarter of the price of the Canadian icebreakear. In terms of technology, all vessels are roughly at the same level.

I talked with the guys from Arctech and they had an opinion about how fast and at what price they could build an icebreaker equivalent to the Diefenbreaker...

As for "what kind of vessels Canada needs", I was referring to the recent call from Canadian shipowners for escort icebreakers along the St. Lawrence river. While I am not familiar with the ice conditions along the St. Lawrence seaway, I would assume that a vessel designed to assist and escort other ships is much more useful there than a polar icebreaker despite the size and power advantage of the latter vessel.
« Last Edit: March 30, 2014, 08:42:53 am by Tuomas Romu » Report to moderator   Logged
Mac Mackay
Top Poster
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,093


View Profile WWW
« Reply #9 on: March 30, 2014, 11:54:51 am »

The current situation on the St.Lawrence River and Gulf is a little exceptional since there is more ice this year than there has been for several years. In any event, Canada's largest icebreaker, Louis S. St-Laurent has not been used very much this winter, due to government funding limitations. It may come out after March 31 when the new financial year starts.
Similarly on the Great Lakes, this has been an exceptional year for ice,with some of the lakes frozen over completely for the first time in decades. One of the Canadian icebreakers on the Lakes has had main engine problems, and as a result two icebreakers  from the River/Gulf have been sent to the Lakes to open up.
Therefore there is a temporary shortage of icebreaking capacity.
Canada's two largest icebreakers, St-Laurent and Terry Fox are too big to fit in the St.Lawrence Seaway locks,so they cannot help in the Lakes, but they could help in the Gulf and River.
All of Canada's icebreakers are old and need to be replaced. Government inaction is to blame for this situation, but that delay is the result of budget cuts during the recent recession, which had many other benefits to the Canadian economy.
Icebreaking ability for a Polar class ship is only a small part of the requirements for the ship. It must also conduct a lot of scientific and survey work, and establish Canada's sovereignty in the Arctic. It therefore must have very large accommodations, self-sufficeint helicopter capability, cargo carrying ability (to supply scientific and military outposts) and huge fuel capacity to survive one or two years in the ice.
Its mission cannot easily be compared to other icebreakers in the world.
As to why the ship should cost so much , there are two reasons. First is that we have no shipbuilding capability in Canada for ships of this size or complexity. Both Seaspan in Vancouver, and Halifax Shipyard are being rebuilt from the ground up with all new facilities so that they can build warships and other government vessels. There will also be large costs associated with training workers, and buying many components from overseas suppliers.
It is certainly debatable whether Canada should be in the shipbuilding business at all, in view of the high costs. The argument for shipbuilding is that once a shipbuilding industry is re-developed, Canada should be able to build its own ships, to its own unique requirements, without relying on other nations.
The argument against is that most components come from abroad anyway and there are mature shipbuilding capabilities elsewhere, which can deliver on time, on budget and would save tax payers' dollars for other needed uses.
The present government is eager to sign free trade agreements with other countries such as Norway, South Korea and in the E-U and South America. Many of these countries can build  icebreakers for a fraction of the Canadian cost, even if their huge subsidies are taken into account.
However it is Canada's aim, I believe, to create skilled jobs in Canada no matter the cost.
   
   
Report to moderator   Logged
Les bateaux du Québec
Top Poster
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 792


View Profile WWW
« Reply #10 on: March 30, 2014, 12:00:47 pm »

I thinks there is two way of see the icebreaker problem here in canada: If we thinks the country is rich, of course all ships have to be replaced because there are all aging. But if we see it with rational investement there is no much urgent. First the Polar projet should be prioritized because CCGS Louis St-Laurent is getting quite old and needed to be refit to continued to operate and it is probably a costly ship to keep active because of the old tehcnology (even if it been refited in the early 90's).
As for the type 1200 icebreaker, I don't think it's urgent to replace them. Amundsen and Radisson have new engines and DesGroseiller and Henry Larsen are more recent (1982 and 1987).
I think, here in the St-Laurence river, a polyvalent ship is needed since the retierment of the CCGS Tracy.  This winter, there was only on buoy tender available. At a moment, there was a couple of dangerous buoy adrifted in the channel and no buoy tender in the area because busy with icebreaking duty.  

As for the Davie skills, in 2011, when the polar contract was awarded to seaspan, Davie was all mess yard. No real owner, no employes. But now, the yard is Under better management, about 800 workers and couple contract in hand. Could be a good move to bring the polar contract here to save money to canadian tax payers, amd mabe built two!





Report to moderator   Logged
Tuomas Romu
Home away from home
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 352


View Profile
« Reply #11 on: March 30, 2014, 01:18:05 pm »

Thanks for clarification, Mac.

Refitting Louis S. St-Laurent for 2017-2022 will cost C$55 million extra for the Canadian taxpayers.
Report to moderator   Logged
Pages: [1]
  Print  
 
Jump to:  


Powered by SMF 1.1.11 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines LLC
Page created in 0.033 seconds with 19 queries.
Copyright © 2010 All rights reserved