The Costs of Increasing a Basic Shrimp Vessel from 65 to 85 FEET

1. The Costs of Increasing a Basic Shrimp Vessel from 65 to 85 FEET A Case Study Whitelaw & Pearson

2. The Task • To investigate the economic sense of increasing the length of vessels designed to prosecute the inshore fishery now being served by a fleet restricted to 65 feet LOA. Whitelaw & Pearson

3. 65 Feet And Growing Whitelaw & Pearson

4. Trend Towards Increased Breadth Whitelaw & Pearson

5. Forces Driving Increased Vessel Size • MULTI-SPECIES FISHING • QUALITY IMPROVEMENT THROUGH BOXING AND REFRIGERATED SEAWATER • DECK AREA for HANDLING & PROCESSING • CREW ACCOMMODATION Whitelaw & Pearson

6. Vessel Variations INCREASED BREADTH 65 x 30 A “TYPICAL” BOAT 65 x 24 INCREASED L 75 x 27.5 INCREASED L 85 x 31 Whitelaw & Pearson

7. ASSUMED CONSTANTS QUOTAS OPERATIONAL SPEED CREW SIZE BRIDGE AREA VARIABLE WITH VESSEL SIZE FISH HOLD CAPACITY DECK AREA ACCOMMODATION AREA Vessel Variations Whitelaw & Pearson

8. Side Issues – Rules And Regulations • GROSS TONNAGE • LARGE vs. SMALL F.V. REGULATIONS • MANNING REQUIREMENTS • LIFE SAVING EQUIPMENT • BILGE, BALLAST AND FIRE FIGHTING • STRUCTURAL FIRE PROTECTION Whitelaw & Pearson

9. Capital Cost Categories • BASIC HULL AND DECK STRUCTURE • TOPSIDES & OUTFIT • UNDERWATER EQUIPMENT (STEERING & PROPULSION) • MAIN PROULSION MACHINERY • ELECTRONICS • FISHING GEAR & HYDRAULICS • REFRIGERATION & RSW Whitelaw & Pearson

10. CASE STUDY - Independent of Length • OUTFIT LEVEL • ELECTRONICS PACKAGE • AUXILIARY MACHINERY • FISHING GEAR & HYDRAULICS • REFRIGERATION Whitelaw & Pearson

11. CASE STUDY - Principal Variables • HULL AND DECKS STRUCTURE • MAIN PROPULSION MACHINERY • PROPELLER AND SHAFTING Whitelaw & Pearson

12. CASE STUDY - CAPITAL COST BREAKDOWN Whitelaw & Pearson

13. CASE STUDY - Hull and Deck Structure • FRP (Fibre Reinforced Plastic) Construction • American Bureau of Shipping (ABS) Rules for Building and Classing Reinforced Plastic Vessels • Laminate Weight the Basis for Cost Comparison Whitelaw & Pearson

14. CASE STUDY - Capital Cost Comparison Whitelaw & Pearson

15. THE QUESTION OF POWER THE BASIS: Determine the required installed power for each vessel to meet the requirements of: • 10 knots free running speed and • 6 tonnes of tow pull at 2.5 knots Whitelaw & Pearson

16. The Resistance Prediction • Started by generating lines for the four vessels • Predicting resistance for specific vessels • 65 x 24 represents where vessels are now • 75 and 85 vessels are based on this parent hull • 65 x 30 represents the trend of where design is going Whitelaw & Pearson

17. The Resistance Prediction • No model tests were done • The resistance prediction was based on a “standard series” of similar vessels • The accuracy of the prediction depends on how “similar” the study vessels are to the series vessels • Fortunately someone else has done work on short/fat vessels, or “Low L/B Vessels” Whitelaw & Pearson

18. Vessel Parameters Whitelaw & Pearson

19. Series Parameters We had a good basis for predicting the resistance of the 65 x 24, 75 x 27 and 85 x 31 foot vessels Unfortunately no one has done vessels as “short” and “fat” as the 65 x 30 so these results are a bit suspect Whitelaw & Pearson

20. Effective Power Whitelaw & Pearson

21. Summary PE at 10 knots • Effective power for all vessels is essentially the same • As expected the longer vessels require proportionately less power for the same speed • The power for the 65 x 30 is probably under-predicted Whitelaw & Pearson

22. Summary PE at 10 knots • The power for the 65 x 30 is probably under-predicted • This was confirmed by Professor Friis based on recently completed model tests • We added a new vessel 65 x 30 A Whitelaw & Pearson

23. Propulsion • The effective power is simply the power required to push or pull the hull through the water at 10 knots • That brings us to the propulsion calculations. Whitelaw & Pearson

24. Free Running Performance Whitelaw & Pearson

25. Towing Performance • Towline pull is a function of the prop, not the ship • A bigger prop is better Whitelaw & Pearson

26. Propulsion • The best combination of propeller pitch and RPM for free running is NOT the best for the trawling condition and vis a versa • There must be a compromise between free running efficiency and tow pull • Installed power will be greater than for ideal condition • The final outcome is that the same engine choice is made for the 75 and 85 foot vessels Whitelaw & Pearson

27. CASE STUDY - Capital Cost Comparison Whitelaw & Pearson

28. Life Cycle Costing Model • Capital Investment • Fuel • Insurance • Vessel Maintenance Whitelaw & Pearson

29. CASE STUDY - Operating Profile Fishing between April and November SHRIMP: 12 TRIPS - 200 NM OFFSHORE • To/from grounds @ 10 knots • 48 Hours Trawling @ 2.5 knots Whitelaw & Pearson

30. Life Cycle Costing Model BASES • CAPITAL INVESTMENT – 15 YEARS @ 8% • ANNUAL FUEL – TRIP PROFILE and SPECIFIC FUEL CONSUMPTION • INSURANCE - $31.00 per $1000 VESSEL COST • MAINTENANCE – HULL SURFACE AREA Whitelaw & Pearson

31. Conclusions • Capital Cost Differences Trivial • Capital Cost increases are Offset by Fuel Savings • Total Yearly Costs Differences are only +/- 3% • Opportunity to Improve Design Fundamentals Whitelaw & Pearson

32. Conclusions - Intuitive • Longer, more slender vessels require less power than short fat ones at the same design speed – or there is an opportunity to take advantage of greater speeds with similar power • Improved free running performance in a seaway in the longer vessels due to improved pitch performance • Improved towing performance in a seaway in the longer vessels due to improved pitch performance • Better directional stability and therefore safety in a seaway • Improved operability or “working” time for the longer vessels due to improved motions • Opportunity for improved layout on deck and below Whitelaw & Pearson