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

Whitelaw & Pearson 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 65 Feet And Growing

Whitelaw & Pearson Trend Towards Increased Breadth

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

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

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

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

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

Whitelaw & Pearson CASE STUDY - CAPITAL COST BREAKDOWN

Whitelaw & Pearson 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 CASE STUDY - Capital Cost Comparison

Whitelaw & Pearson 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 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 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 Vessel Parameters

Whitelaw & Pearson 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 Effective Power

Whitelaw & Pearson 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 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 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 Free Running Performance

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

Whitelaw & Pearson 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 CASE STUDY - Capital Cost Comparison

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

Whitelaw & Pearson CASE STUDY - Operating Profile Fishing between April and November SHRIMP: 12 TRIPS NM OFFSHORE –To/from 10 knots –48 Hours 2.5 knots

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

Whitelaw & Pearson 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 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