OKHOTSK SEA & SEA ICE, MOMBETSU, JAPAN, 24-28.2.

2002

Economical and environmental evaluation

of double acting tanker
Noriyuki Sasaki (Sumitomo Heavy Industries. Ltd., Japan)
Juhani Laapio (Fortum Oil and Gas Oy, Finland)
Bjorn Fagerstrom (Fortum Oil and Gas Oy, Finland)
Kimmo Juurmaa (Masa-yards Arctic Research Center, Finland)
Goran Wilkman (Masa-yards Arctic Research Center, Finland)

1
 Economical and environmental evaluation
of double acting tanker

Noriyuki Sasaki (Sumitomo Heavy Industries. Ltd., Japan)

Juhani Laapio (Fortum Oil and Gas Oy, Finland)
Bjorn Fagerstrom (Fortum Oil and Gas Oy, Finland)
Kimmo Juurmaa (Masa-yards Arctic Research Center, Finland)
Goran Wilkman (Masa-yards Arctic Research Center, Finland)

1. Abstract
Operation of vessels in ice sea is quite different from open sea and the vessels must be
designed as an ice going hull form. It is generally recognized that conventional ice bow has un-
escapable disadvantage that the resistance in open sea is rather high compared with a
conventional bow. In order to solve this problem, idea of DAT (Double Acting Tanker) was
invented by Kvaerner Masa-Yard. DAT is designed for running astern as an icebreaker in ice
bound, and ahead in open water. In order to sail in icy condition, the stern part of DAT is
differently designed compared with a conventional tanker due to ice strengthening for ice
breaking and pod propulsion systems. Many ice tests not only model but also full scale show
superior ice breaking capacity of DAT because of it’s lower ice resistance supported by POD
propulsion system 1)2). It can be said that DAT has a possibility of saving an operation cost such
as fuel oil consumption, ice breaker escort fee etc.
On the contrary, the capital cost for a DAT tanker is higher than a conventional tanker due to
pod propulsion unit and increment of required weight of steel of the hull. Therefore, it is very
important to evaluate advantage DAT quantitatively from the economical point of view. This
paper intend to compare following aspects of DAT with conventional ice tanker:

· Operational cost
· Environmental impact

2. Evaluation of DAT and conventional tanker

2.1 Assumptions
In order to evaluate the new concept DAT more realistic, a specific tanker and a route was
considered based on following assumptions:

(1) Size of vessel : Aframax ( see Table 1)

(2) Route : North Sea – Naantali, Finland
(3) Main engine output : Based on Finnish-Swedish Rules or model tests
(4) Ice conditions around the route : statistical data between 1990-2000

In the calculation, the principal dimensions of DAT are almost the same as a conventional, as
shown in Table 1.
It should be noted that the main engine output for the DAT is smaller than that of conventional
because of superior ice breaking capacity which is recognized by model tests and have been
accepted by authority such as FMA(Finish Maritime Administration) and LRS(Lloyds Register).

1
 Table 1. Principal dimensions of conventional and DAT tankers

Dimensions conventional DAT

1. Lpp (m) 225.0 225.0
2. Breadth molded (m) 44.0 44.0
3. Depth molded (m) 22.5 22.5
5. Dead weight (ton) 101,000 106,000
6. Output Power 22 MW 16MW

2.2 Economical and environmental evaluation

The hierarchy of evaluation of conventional and DAT tankers, as shown in Fig.1, is derived
from performance, operability, and cost evaluation.

Evaluation of economy and environmental impact

Operability Performance Cost

Sailing speed in open sea Payload

Sailing speed in ice sea FO consumption

Fixed costs
Time in Harbor Ice breaking capacity

Total required time Operational costs:

Fuel , lubricating

Escort of ice breaker

Annual operational cost Environmental impacts Port cost

Fig.1 Evaluation of economy and environmental impact of DAT.

3. Performance
3.1 Payload
The cargo space of DAT can be enlarged because DAT utilize a podded propulsion system.
Increment ratio of cargo volume by re-arrangement of engine room will be 10-30% according to
ABB Azipod references. Therefore, 5% of increment ratio will be applied to the calculation in
this paper taking the increment of hull steal weight due to strengthening of aft part of DAT.

3.2 F O consumption
Estimation of required power at the designed ship speed is very important in the evaluation of
performance of conventional and DAT tanker. These required powers are necessary in the
calculation of an operation variable cost such as fuel oil and lubricating oil, and environmental
impacts.

2
 Required power in open sea condition can be obtained from the model test and expressed by a
following equation using model test data.

P = EHP/h =RT*Vs/h (KW) ............................................... (1)

EHP and RT are effective hose power and resistance of ship. RT can be expressed as follow:

RT = Rv + Rw .................................................................... (2)

Rv is viscous resistance and Rw is wave resistance. It is generally recognized that total

resistance of a vessel with ice bow is higher than resistance of well-designed bulbous bow which
can be applied to DAT.

(RT)IB = (RT)NB * C1 ........................................................... (3)

The difference of resistance is about 10 % as shown in Fig.2, which was obtained from a
model test.

C1 = 1.10 (according to the model test).............................. (4)

Ice bow

20000

18000 Ice bow

Bulbous bow(DAT)
16000

14000
EHP(ps)

12000
Bulbous bow(DAT)
10000

8000

6000

4000
12 13 14 15 16 17
Vs(knots)

Fig.2 EHP curves of ice tankers with different bow shape

On the centrally, propulsive efficiency hP of DAT is lower than that of conventional ice tanker.
hP can be expressed as follows:
h P = h H ×h O ×h R × h t ........................................................................................ (5)

where, hH is hull efficiency given by next expression

1- t
hH = ......................................................................................................... (6)
1- w

where, t is thrust deduction factor, and w is wake factor, hO is propeller open efficiency and
hR is relative-rotative efficiency, ht is transmission efficiency.

3
 The propulsive efficiency of DAT can be expressed as

(h P ) DAT = (h P ) * C 2 * C 3 ................................................. (7)

where,
C2 is correction factor for difference of open water efficiency between a conventional
propeller and POD unit, and given by:

C2 = 0.95........................................................................... (8)

C3 is correction factor for difference of hull form and appendages such as rudder.

C3 = 1.02........................................................................... (9)

Fig. 3 shows the comparison of propulsive efficiency of each vessel which was obtained by
model tests. It is noted that the propulsive efficiency of DAT is slightly lower than the
conventional tanker.

0.8
Conveｎtional ship
Podded propulsion ship
0.75
p

0.7
η

0.65

0.6
12 13 14 15 16 17
Vs(knots)

Fig.3 Propulsive efficiency of conventional ship and podded propulsion ship

3.3 Ice breaking capacity

Main engine outputs of an ice tankers have been decided according to rule requirements that
are based on full scale experience and model test data of several kinds of ice going vessels. For
example, engine output of 22MW for the conventional tanker was decided based on Finish-
Swedish rule regarding a minimum power requirement. However, DAT has a selected different
story. Because DAT is a quite new concept and the previous rule requirement can not take DAT
design into account. 16MW of engine output of Aframax tanker was accepted by authorities
based on the result of ice model tests. Full scale experiments obtained from MT Uikku and MT
Lunni, which were carried out 1993-1994, contributed to this judgment. From the above
background, it is not easy to compare two concepts on the same basis such as the same ship
speed or the same output. Therefore, the comparison will be made based on maximum outputs
because output of main engine is kept maximum during the ice sea operation.
The ship speeds for each vessel in ice sea condition will be derived from ice model tests.

4
4. Operability
4.1 Total required time
Operability of conventional and DAT tankers are evaluated based on the annual capability to
carry oil. This annual capability to carry oil is necessary in the calculation of annual income,
annual profit, and economical ratios. In order to evaluate the annual capability to carry oil, total
required time to sail the route is necessary.
Total required time to sail in a route depends on the climatic conditions. Therefore, the total
required time to sail is not the same for one season to another season. For example, total required
time in the winter season is longer compared with in the summer season due to ice.
Total required to sail in a route is assumed summing up of required time in water condition,
required time in ice condition and required time in harbor, which can be expressed as

TT = TOW + TIC + TH .......................................................... (10)

Where, TOW is required time in water condition, TIC is required time in ice condition, and TH is
required time in harbor.

(1) Required time in open Water

If the route of tankers can be assumed straight line connecting point A and point B, distance
from point A to pint B can be expressed as

R AB = ( Lx 2 + Ly 2 ) 0.5 ................................................................................................(11)
2 ×p × R
Lx = × ( Bx - Ax) ......................................................................................... (12)
360
2 ×p × R
Ly = × cos(( Bx + Ax) / 2) * ( By - Ay ) ............................................................ (13)
360

Where, AX,Y and BX,Y are latitude and longitude of point A and point B in degree respectively,
and R is radius of the earth.
In fact, a tanker sails in a route is not straight, but it can be divided into several straight
segments and ship speed VAB in each segment can be regarded as constant. Therefore, total
required time for the route can be expressed:

N
( R AB ) i
TAB = å .................................................................................. (14)
i =1 (V AB ) i

(2) Required time in ice sea

Total required time in icy condition can be expressed as

L0 L L
TIC = TIBW + + 1 + × × × + n .......................................................... (15)
(V 0 ) (V1 ) (Vn )
where, Li is distance of each sub-distance and Vi is sailing speed for i-th segment where the
ship speed can be regarded as constant because the ice thickness also can be assumed
homogeneous within each segment. TIBW is waiting time for ice breaker.

5
(3) Required time in harbor
The evaluation of total required time in harbor is very important for operability of a tanker.
This because the required time in harbor is one of the important elements in the determination of
the volume capacity, and operational cost of a tanker.
Total required time in harbor can be expressed as

TH = TNW + TTT + TWB + TWD + TDT ............................................................. (16)

where TNW is required net working time at berth, TTT is required travel time in port including
waiting time for tugboats and berthing time, TWB is waiting time at buoy or anchor while berth is
free, TWD is waiting at berth to discharge or load or to depart, and TDT is delays time and idle-
times in working cycle due to weather, stoppages, or not working harbor-man.
Required net working time can be expressed as

æC ö
TNW = çç TP + a P ÷÷ .................................................................................. (17)
è C PC ø

where CTP is cargo capacity, CPC is cargo pumping capacity, aP is delay time in cargo pumping.
Required to travel in port can be expressed as

æD ö
TTT = çç H + a H ÷÷ ..................................................................................... (18)
è VH ø

where DH is distance of harbor area, VH is sailing speed in harbor, aH is delay time berthing.

4.2 Annual capacity

The number of frequencies of a tanker in a year can be expressed as

Tops Topw
FT = + ...................................................................................... (19)
Tsummer Tw int er

where TOPS is total operation days in summer season, TSummer is total required time in summer
season in a route, TOPW is total operation days in winter season, and Twinter is total required time
in winter season in a route.
When WC is cargo deadweight of a tanker per a frequency, then the annual capability of the
tanker to carry oil can be expressed as

C AO = WC × FT .......................................................................................... (20)

5. The Annual Operational Variable Cost

The annual variable cost of a tanker is normally summing up of fuel and lubricating oil costs
per year (CF), escort icebreaker cost per year (CES), and port cost per year (CP) including port,
tugboats, and cargo handling fees. The variable cost can be expressed as

CVariable = C F + C ES + C P ....................................................................... (21)

6
5.1 Fuel and Lubricating Oil Costs
The fuel and lubricating oil costs per a year can be expressed as follow

CFO = (WF × PF + WO × PO ) ......................................................... (22)

where WP is fuel consumption per year, PF is price fuel per liter, WO is lubricating oil
consumption per year, and PO is oil price per liter.
The fuel consumption per year of a tanker can be expressed

NE
WF = å (Si - P × Ti - F × Fi - R × (1 + hi - F )) .............................................. (23)
i =1

where Ne is number of engines, Si-P is shaft horsepower of i-th engine, Ti-F is annual operating
time of i-th engine per year, Fi-R is a fuel consumption rate of i-th engine in (l/kw.h), and hI-F is
losses factor of i-th engine.
Similarly, the lubricating oil consumption per year of a tanker can be expressed as follow

NE
WO = å (Si - P × Ti - F × Oi - R × (1 + hi -O )) .............................................. (24)
i =1

where Oi-R is oil consumption rate for i-th engine (l/kw.h), and hI-o is losses factor of i-th
engine.

5.2 Escort Icebreaker’s Cost

Escort icebreaker’s cost can be determined as follow

C EC = 2 × PEH × DEH × FT .................................................................... (25)

where PEH is escort fee per hour, DEH is the number of operating times in hours, FT is
frequency per year.

5.3 Port Cost

Port cost is assumed summing up of port fee(CPF), tugboats fee(CTF), and cargo handling
fee(CHF) , which can be expressed as

CP = CPF + CTF + CHF ................................................................... (26)

(1) Port Fee

Port fee can be calculated as follow

C PF = PPH × DPH × FT ........................................................................ (27)

where PPH is rate cost of port per hour, and DPH is the number of days in a port.

7
(2) Tugboats Fee
Tugboats fee is calculated including berthing and un-berthing, which can be expressed as

æN B
N ö
UB

CTF = PTH × ç å H i -TH + å H i -TH ÷ × FT ..................................................... (28)

è i =1 i =1 ø

Where, NB is the number of tugboats operated for berthing, NUB is the number of tugboats
operated for un-berthing, PTH is price rate per hour per tugboat, and Hi-TH is hours operation for i-
th tugboat.

(3) Cargo Handling Cost

Cargo handling cost of a tanker is function of the transshipment equipment both on board and
on land, which can be calculated as

æC ö
C HF = FT × çç TC + a ÷÷(PH + FR × FC × E P ) ................................................ (29)
è C PC ø

where CTC is cargo capacity, CPC is cargo pumping capacity, a is delay time, PH is cost per
hour, FR is fuel consumption rate of pumping generator (l/kw.h), FC is fuel cost per liter, and EP
is engine power of generator.

5.4 The Annual Maintenance Cost

The annual maintenance cost is assumed summing up of annually and monthly checking cost
(CA), hull repair and maintenance cost per year (CH), engine maintenance cost per year (CM),
propulsion system maintenance cost per year (CP), steering system maintenance cost per year
(CS), electrical system maintenance cost per year (CE), cargo system maintenance cost per year
(CU), and coating an painting costs per year (CC). This annual maintenance cost can be expressed
as

C Ma int = C H + C M + C P + C S + C E + CU + C C ............................................... (30)

According to pod makers information, maintenance cost can be reduced if podded drive
system can be applied because of saving the maintenance costs of shafting system and rudder.
However, the maintenance cost of two concepts will be treated as the same in this paper.

6. The Annual Environmental Impacts of Conventional and DAT Tankers

The annual environmental impact of tankers is evaluated based on the volume of emission of
CO2, NOx, and SOx per year. The volume of environmental impact emitted per tanker per year is
necessary for calculation of the ratio of the annual of volume of environmental impact per
capacity to carry oil.

6.1 The Annual Volume of CO2 Emitted by Tankers

The emission of the pollutant is depending on many different factors. Essentially, emissions of
carbon dioxide, CO2, are proportional to the fuel consumption.
When Pi is shaft power of a tanker, then CO2 emitted by the tanker in kg per year can be
expressed as

LTCO = e CO × (C × Pi × T ) × FT ............................................................................ (31)

2 2

8
where e CO2 is an emission factor for CO2, 1 kg fuel = 3.35 g CO22), C is fuel consumption in litter
/ kwh, 162 litter / kwh, T is total required time per frequency, and FT is frequency per year.

6.2 The Annual Volume of NOx Emitted by Tankers

Nitrogen oxides (NOx) include various nitrogen compounds like nitrogen dioxide (NO2) and
nitric oxided (NO). These compounds play an important role in the atmospheric reactions that
create ozone (O3) and acid rain. Individually, they may affect ecosystems, both on land and in
water.
NOx forms when fuels are burned at high temperatures. The two major emission sources are
transportation systems and stationery combustion sources such as electric utility and industrial
boilers. For the transportation systems, the amount of the formation of nitrogen oxides, NO2,
depends in the main on engine type, power setting, and speed .
When PI is shaft power of a tanker, then NOx emitted by the tankers in kg per year can be
expressed as
LTNO = e NO × (C × Pi × T ) × FT ........................................................................ (32)
x x

where e NOx is an emission factor for NOx in g/kwh. This emission factor depends on rpm of
engine of a tanker, which is 17 g/kwh for n < 130 rpm, 45xn-2 g/kwh for 130 < n < 2000 rpm,
and 9.84 g/kwh for n > 2000 rpm.

6.3 The Annual Volume of Sulfur Dioxide (SOx) Emitted by Tankers

Sulfur dioxide, SOx is released primarily from burning fuels that contains sulfur like coal, oil,
and diesel fuel.
When Pi is shaft power of a tanker, then SOx emitted by the tanker in kg per year can be
expressed as
LTSO = e SO × (C × Pi × T ) × FT ....................................................................... (33)
x x

where e SO is an emission factor for SOx in g/kwh. This volume emission factor of SO2 is mainly
2

determined by fuel quality.

6.4 Environmental Impact

The ratio of the annual environmental impact for i-th element per the annual capability to
carry oil can be expressed as
C
Ri - EI = i - EI ........................................................................................ (34)
C capacity

Where, Ci-EI is the annual environmental impact of i–th element such as CO2, Nox and Sox.
Ccapacity is the annual capacity.

9
7. Evaluation of Aframax Double Acting Tanker operating in Baltic Sea
7.1 Route analysis
A feasibility study of Aframax DAT operating in Baltic Sea was carried out. The tanker is
carrying oil from North Sea to a refinery Naantali in Finland. Fig.4 shows the route of
conventional and DAT tanker between Naantali and North Sea. In order to make the calculation
simple, the route was divided into several segments where the ship speed is constant not only
summer but also winter time.

Segment A-B B-C C-D D-E E-F F-G G-H H-I I-J J-K K-L
Distances 206.6 363.3 154.8 177.3 151.1 102.0 68.1 405.4 194.3 297.5 114.7
(km)

Fig.4 Route of tankers between Northern Sea and Naantaly in Finland

Table 2 Ice thickness distributions for each segment

Unit: m
Speed fact. Jan Feb Mar Apr
Route seg. Conv. DAT Conv. DAT Conv. DAT Conv. DAT Conv. DAT
1 port 0.2 0.4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2 A-B 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
3 B-C 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
4 C-D 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
5 D-E 1 1 0 0 0.5 0.5 0 0 0 0
6 E-F 0.7 0.7 0 0 0.5 0.5 0 0 0 0
7 F-G 0.7 0.7 0 0 0.5 0.5 0 0 0 0
8 G-H 0.7 0.7 0 0 0.5 0.5 0 0 0 0
9 H-I 1 1 0 0 0.5 0.5 0 0 0 0
10 I-J 1 1 0 0 0.5 0.5 0.35 0.35 0 0

10
11 J-K 1 1 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.35 0.35 0 0
12 K-L 0.7 0.7 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.35 0.35 0.15 0.15
13 port 0.2 0.4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Speed factor : local speed / service speed

11
7.2 Comparison of annual capacity
Annual capacity of DAT can be increased according to following reasons:

Increment of cargo space by rearrangement of engine room

Higher sailing speed in ice sea condition
Efficient berthing due to high maneuverability
Owing to the above advantage of DAT, more frequent round trips can be achieved and this is
one of the biggest advantage for owner when trying to find optimum design for ice /open sea
performance.
Annual capacity of both ships were calculated according to eq.(20) and compared in Fig.5.
As shown in Fig.5 annual capacity of DAT is larger than conventional ship by about 16%.

60,000,000
Conv.
50,000,000 DAT

40,000,000

30,000,000

20,000,000

10,000,000

0
Cargo Capa(Barrel) Income($)

Fig. 5 Comparison of annual capacity of DAT and conventional tanker

7.3 Comparison of Operational Cost

(1) Fuel oil consumption
Fuel oil Consumption (FOC) is the most dominant factor of operational cost. As mentioned
before, hull resistance of DAT is lower than that of conventional tanker with ice bow.
Therefore required power is less than the conventional ice tanker. Because FOC during
operation can be represented by eq.(23), it is important to compare FOC rate curves for DAT and
conventional tanker. There are two major factors. One is difference of FOC rate between a diesel
(medium speed diesel engine) electric system and long stroke slow speed diesel engine. Another
factor is distribution of loading conditions during
a voyage. It is noted that FOC rate of
conventional tanker is rather worse affected by 180
non-optimum operation during a open sea 178
navigation where we have to use relatively lower 176
condition compared with normal output of main
g/kWh

174
engine.
172
FOC at ice sea was assumed constant for both
vessel because output at ice sea condition can be 170
considered as MCR for each. Therefore 168
comparison was made based on sailing speed at 0 50 100 150
%MCR
each segment. In order to estimate the sailing
speed, the model test results shown in Fig. 7 were
used. Fig.6 Typical FOC rate of diesel engine

12
 Conv. (AHD,,22MW). DAT (,AST.16MW)
10.00 10.00
8.00 8.00
6.00 6.00
V(kts)

V(kts)
4.00 4.00
2.00 2.00
0.00 0.00
0 0.5 1 1.5 0 0.5 1 1.5
Ice Thickness(m) Ice Thickness(m)

Fig. 7 Ice breaking Capacity of conventional Aframax tanker and DAT

Fig. 8 shows a distributions of energy consumption KW*H for each segment in February.
Depending this curve FOC of DAT in a year is lower than conventional by 24%.

3000000.0

Conv.
2500000.0
DAT
2000000.0
KW*H

1500000.0

1000000.0

500000.0

0.0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
Segment No.

Fig.8 Energy consumption for each vessel at each segment (February)

Fig.8 shows an energy consumption including ice breaker which escorts the conventional
tanker if the ice thickness is higher than 0.4 m. 7700 KW icebreaker (Voima) was assumed for
the study. Energy consumption of DAT system is lower than conventional tanker system by 32%
if we include energy consumption of an icebreaker.

13
 4000000.0
Conv.
3500000.0
DAT
3000000.0

2500000.0
KW*H

2000000.0

1500000.0

1000000.0

500000.0

0.0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
Segment No.

Fig. 9 Energy consumption incl. icebreaker for each vessel at each segment (February)

Taking the difference of FOC open sea and ice sea conditions into account, total FOC cost was
calculated and shown in Fig.10. The difference of cylinder and system oil are also shown in the
same figure. The difference of FOC is the most important factor to evaluate DAT system. It can
be concluded that fuel oil cost of DAT is 25% less than conventional tanker.

System Oil Cost Conv

DAT

Cylinder Oil Cost

Fuel Cost

- 500,000 1,000,000 1,500,000 2,000,000 2,500,000

Cost (US$)

Fig. 10 Fuel oil consumption of DAT and conventional tanker

(2) Port cost

Fig.11 and Fig.12 show comparison of maneuverability between DAT and conventional tanker.
Owing to the excellent maneuverability of DAT, the vessel principally does not need tugboats for
assisting of berthing. Therefore, total port cost can be saved considerably by using DAT system
as shown in Fig.13.

13
 4.0
Conventional tanker
DAT
Dist./Lpp 3.0

2.0

1.0

0.0
-4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4
Dist./ Lpp

Fig.11 Comparison of circle test between DAT and conventional tanker

5
4.5 Conventional tanker
4 DAT
3.5
3
Dist./Lpp

2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Dist/ Lpp

Fig.12 Comparison of crash stop between DAT and conventional tanker

14
 Port Charge etc.

Port entrance Fee

Ton S.Tax

Tonnage TAX Year

Pilot fee

Pumping cost Conv

DAT
Tugboat Cost

- 100,000 200,000 300,000 400,000 500,000

Cost(US$)

Fig.13 Port cost of DAT and conventional tanker

(3) Annual operation cost

Fig.14 shows the comparison of annual operation cost of DAT and conventional tanker.
Because of large difference in Fuel oil and ice breaker escort cost, total operational cost DAT is
lower than conventional tanker by 30% (USD1,300,000)

Annual Operation Cost of Aframax Tanker

North Sea - Naantalli(Finland)

Fuel Cost
Cylinder Oil Cost
DAT
System Oil Cost
Tugboat Cost

Tug Boat Ice Breaker Escort

Pumping cost
Fuel Oil
Pilot fee
Tonnage TAX Year
Ton S.Tax
Conv
Port entrance Fee
Escort cost

- 1,000,000 2,000,000 3,000,000 4,000,000 5,000,000

Cost（＄）

Fig.14 Annual operation costs

15
7.4 Environmental Impact
Environmental impact of DAT and conventional tanker were evaluated by the procedure
explained by section 6. Fig. 15 and Fig. 16 show annual volume of CO2 and NOX / SOX emitted
from DAT and conventional tanker respectively.
CO2(m3- E6)

350
Conv.
60,000
300 DAT
50,000 250
40,000 200
30,000 150
20,000 100

10,000 50

0 0
Conv. DAT Nox(m3E- 6) Sox(m3E- 5)

Fig.15 Emission of CO2 per year Fig.16 Emission of NOX and SOX per year

8. Conclusion
The conclusions obtained from this study are as follows:

(1) Economy and environmental impact of DAT system was evaluated based on direct
calculation assuming the Baltic sea transportation.
(2) From the economical point of view, DAT tanker is more efficient compared with
conventional ice tanker because annual capacity is 16% higher and operation cost is 30%
lower than conventional tanker.
(3) From the environmental point of view, DAT tanker also shows improvement over
conventional tanker in which DAT tanker emits 27 % less CO2, NOx, and SOx compared
with conventional tanker.

Authors would like to say many thanks to Prof. Ikeda and Mr. Jaswer (University of Osaka
Prefecture) for supplying us a basic program of profit calculation.

References

1) Juurmaa K., Wilkman G., Backstrom M., New Icebreaking Tanker Concept for the Arctic
(DAT), POAC95, Murmansk, Russia
2) Sasaki N, Laapio J, Fargerstrom B, and Juurma K.: Model Tests of Ice Going Acting
Aframax Tanker, 7th Marine Hydrodynamics and Structure Conference, Vancouver, Canada,
June 2001
3) Fors A.C, Kivel J, and Ranki E.: Model Tests in Ice with M-224, Working Paper no120,
1998
4) Eide E, 1979.: Engineering Production and Cost Functions for Tankers, Elsevier Scientific
Publishing Company, Amsterdam.
5) Wilgenhof J.D.: Application of Electric Propulsion on a Ro-Ro Ferry and a Chemical
Tanker, The Sixth International Marine Design Conference, 1997, pp.487-508

16