Russian icebreaker to deliver fuel to Nome, highlighting shortage of U.S. icebreakers
Alex DeMarban |
Dec 05, 2011
A Native corporation's decision Monday to ask a Russian icebreaker to deliver an emergency shipment of fuel added an exclamation point to Alaska demands that the U.S. Coast Guard boost its Arctic presence as climate change opens ice-locked regions to development. "This is an example where we have to increase our icebreaking capability and have the ability to receive fuel in these ports, because we're going to have a lot more activity up north," said Rep. Don Young, R-Alaska. The Coast Guard has reported an increase in vessel traffic through the Bering Strait and expects more as tourism, Arctic shipping and petroleum development ramp up in coming years. The Renda, a 371-foot double-hulled vessel that recently muscled through five-foot thick ice, was the only ship the Sitnasuak Native corporation could find to break through Nome’s sea ice and deliver 1.5 million gallons of fuel to the town of 3,600, said Jason Evans, Sitnasuak chairman. The unusual fuel delivery, apparently unprecedented in Western Alaska, arose because sea ice around Nome recently prevented a fuel barge operated by an Alaska company from delivering the fuel. When Sitnasuak officials received news of the cancellation seven days ago, they began a global search for ice-class vessels that could do the trick, said Evans. The U.S. didn't have many options, he said. The Coast Guard's medium-duty ice-class vessel, Healy, is currently conducting scientific research outside Nome, but it drafts too deep to get within a mile of Nome's shore. An ice tug would have been needed to finish cutting a path to Nome's docks. But the ice-capable tugs owned by Cook Inlet Tug and Barge weren't available. They are dedicated to Cook Inlet for the winter, said Evans. He learned that sophisticated ice-breaking technology exists in Norway, which hopes to expand its lucrative offshore oil drilling into icier waters. But ships operating near that country were too far away to help. Sitnasuak also looked into placing a 50,000-gallon fuel tank on an ice-breaking ferry owned by the Mat-Su Borough. The ship is supposed to break through two feet of ice, but it hasn't yet been tested for that purpose, Evans said. That left only the privately owned Renda, one of eight marine tankers in Russia that can punch through thick sea ice, said Evans. He couldn't find similar ships in the U.S. There are none in the North Pacific or Arctic seas, though they do exist in the Great Lakes, said Mikhail Sheshtakov, supply and logistics manager for Vitus Marine. Sitnasuak contracted with Alaska-based Vitus Marine to hire the Renda, which is expected to deliver the fuel later this month. It first must obtain U.S. Coast Guard approval and line up customs requirements. Shell Oil, which hopes to explore for oil in the Beaufort and Chukchi seas beginning this summer, is building its own icebreakers to support those operations. The company is spending about $350 million to have Edison Chouest Offshore build the Nanuq and Aiviq, 300-foot-long ships known as ice-class anchor handlers, said Curtis Smith, a spokesman for Shell in Alaska. Evans said his company's search highlighted the nation's limits in the high Arctic. "We're definitely behind in terms of how many vessels we have and their abilities, and it's something we might want to look at with proposed offshore oil and gas development and new vessel routes opening in the Arctic," said Evans. "The Russians have known this is coming and have developed Arctic shipping expertise. The U.S. should also." Some state and federal lawmakers are echoing that call, and want the Coast Guard to embrace a bigger Arctic role. The nation's only two heavy-duty U.S. icebreakers are sidelined in Seattle, home of the Coast Guard's icebreaker fleet. The heavy-duty ice-class ship Polar Sea and its twin, the Polar Star, are 1970s-era cutters that have been repeatedly repaired to keep going past their original life span. That leaves the Healy as the nation's only functioning icebreaker. But the Healy is medium-duty, meaning it can't slam through the frozen seas as easily as the two Polar ships once did, using their hull like a maul to shatter stretches of ice.
by CaptTCS | December 7, 2011 - 12:41pm
I see allot of comments about.. "That's what the Coasties signed up for".. I'm hear to tell you... This is NOT a Natural Disaster! This is NOT a Catastrophic Marine Incident! This is NOT a Drug or Immigration Interdiction! This is NOT a need of "Homeland Security"! This is rescuing a community, that obviously isn't able to plan well enough for the Winter, from HIGH GAS PRICES! If Alaska is so "Independent"... I say Let them learn from their mistakes by having to pay more for their heating oil!
by rdizzle | December 7, 2011 - 10:42pm
You got that right!
by CaptTCS | December 7, 2011 - 12:43pm
I know ALLOT of Coasties... And I can GUARANTEE that NONE of them "Signed Up" to extend an already long deployment, and miss out on ANOTHER holiday with family.. To rescue Nome from their own STUPIDITY!
by randyk43 | December 7, 2011 - 2:24pm
READ the piece Capttcs, it is fairly simple. Or better yet, UNDERSTAND the piece.
by rdizzle | December 7, 2011 - 10:45pm
Please, explain what we are missing. So far i got that Nome is poorly run and needs a military ship to endure the cost instead of them. I say the people in charge of screwing up the fuel situation pay out of pocket the difference in fuel prices. Even if it means they spend the rest of their lives in debt.
by randyk43 | December 11, 2011 - 9:16am
BRAINS!!!!
by kat11 | December 11, 2011 - 9:45am
That of which you are OBVIOUSLY lacking!!
by randyk43 | December 11, 2011 - 2:11pm
Another person who can't read!
by Perry | December 6, 2011 - 3:18pm
Without the approval of the Law of the Sea Treaty by the Senate, the USA has no standing in the Arctic, so why would you need ice-breakers? Oil companies are exporting products from the USA to keep prices high for Americans, so why do we support drilling in such risky waters, by a company refusing to clean up the mess they made in Nigeria? Don Young is already collecting cash from the company which will build new ice-breakers for the government; why are people so afraid of an almost 80 year old man angry at the world?
by SPECKLEFOOT | December 6, 2011 - 2:37pm
Holy Moose Mung, you missed the real meaning of the situation. It's not lack of icebreakers that should concern us. It's lack of FUEL already on site, protecting the lives and security of 3,500 Alaskans! What in the name of blazes happened here, such that Nome is in such a situation? Someone has been criminally negligent. That's what this story should be about. Someone, somewhere, for some reason we don't know, either dropped the ball, or couldn't deliver payment to Delta Western in time. There is a whole different and more important underlying story here. Get on it, Dispatch!
by CaptTCS | December 6, 2011 - 10:04am
Alaska: "Spirit of Independence" or... "Help! Coast Guard... Please come rescue us from High Gas Prices!
by randyk43 | December 6, 2011 - 11:33pm
Or just where people can't read?
by randyk43 | December 6, 2011 - 11:32pm
You live in Seattle Capt?
by CaptTCS | December 7, 2011 - 1:00pm
You must be in Nome
by jo1 | December 6, 2011 - 8:46am
It's a poor investment for only 3 years of service. The Arctic ice will be gone in 2015 according to AD's own reporting.
by El Bob | December 5, 2011 - 10:56pm
There seems to be a couple of choices here. One choice is that we Alaskans could sit by the fire warming our thumbs, jaw about how the Feds have abandoned us, and wait for them to build dedicated ice breakers, and a home port for them, for a few villages on the arctic coast of Alaska which have little or no economic significance outside of their region. Another choice, in keeping with the mythic Alaskan spirit of independence and innovation, would be for the State of Alaska to build a railroad spur to Nome and Barrow, which would drive economic development of ports, create jobs in the terminal shops, etc. If both plans were started tomorrow I wonder which could be completed more quickly and at a lower cost?
by rdizzle | December 5, 2011 - 9:38pm
They can either fly the fuel in or have the russian tanker bring it in. At which point they dont need the Healy sitting around on their thumbs after an already long deployment. To be told that after 7 months you will no longer be home by christmas as promised just so a city with poor logistical planning can be spared high gas prices is stupid. The crew did their duty and deserve to be home with their families now.
by CaptTCS | December 5, 2011 - 7:48pm
So... They are asking the Healy to waste their time loitering around Nome, extending their 7 1/2 month Deployment, possibly missing out on being home with Family before Christmas... All so they can "Possibly" help get a ship into a Harbor that they don't even fit in. And all because Nome couldn't plan well enough to stockpile fuel BEFORE Winter hit! My opinion of Alaskans is REALLY going to change, if they need to have the Hard Working crew of the Healy endure further hardships and miss out on Christmas at home.. Just to save the people of Nome from HIGH GAS PRICES!
by randyk43 | December 6, 2011 - 8:41am
BTW what kind of hardship will it be to miss some god awful Christmas advertising to ad nauseam this time of year.
by randyk43 | December 6, 2011 - 8:35am
Sinasuak ordered the fuel 90 days ago so it is not Nome's inability to stockpile fuel. And Alaskans don't depend on your "opinion" to survive.
by kat11 | December 11, 2011 - 9:52am
So randyk43 you are saying that the military that defends your right to run you big mouth doesn't deserve to have a few comforts, that they are to be treated like a prisoner????? You seriously need to check that mouth of yours before you open it!! Life on that ship is a hardship, they make huge sacrifices for your ungrateful a@@!! These men and women have worked hard to get where they are. Not our fault that the villagers in Nome have chosen the life they have!! Not everyone has it the same, that's the way of the world buddy or are you one of these that think that just because you breathe you deserve a hand out. Suck it up buttercup!!
by randyk43 | December 11, 2011 - 12:21pm
No, you said it actually. Another person who can't read!
by CaptTCS | December 7, 2011 - 12:34pm
You don't know ANYTHING about life aboard Healy! I hear about it EVERY DAY! When was the last time you had to spend your Anniversary, Thanksgiving, AND Christmas without YOUR spouse?
by randyk43 | December 7, 2011 - 2:36pm
Been a fisherman for 50 years Capt. Is that a real rank designation or are you just a fake. Captains usually have their heads on straight not up something dark.
by El Bob | December 6, 2011 - 11:47am
"Mommy, what did Daddy say?" "Daddy says he has to stay on the ship for another few weeks because some people have a problem and he probably won't be home this Christmas like he promised." "Don't worry, though, he has plenty of Jamaican coffee,"
by Oldhaines | December 6, 2011 - 7:29pm
Gee bobby, if those coasties wanted a home life they should not have joined homeland security. PS: In seven years active duty military I missed XMAS at home seven out of seven. Four years on foreign soil and three in a tent in the field. (One of those was while in a combat zone). Warm, dry, hot food and Jamaican coffee... people are not shooting at you, Internet, movies, more coffee, a few girls on the boat..... people are still not shooting at you,....Paycheck posted... Looks nice and fat again........ pretty damn cushy!
by CaptTCS | December 7, 2011 - 1:04pm
You don't know anything about what it's like in the Bearing in December, do you? Life aboard Healy is ANYTHING but Cushy right now! I know ALLOT of Coasties... And I can GUARANTEE that NONE of them "Signed Up" to extend an already long deployment, and miss out on ANOTHER holiday with family.. To rescue Nome from their own STUPIDITY!
by randyk43 | December 7, 2011 - 7:34pm
READ the piece Capttcs, it is fairly simple. Or better yet, UNDERSTAND the piece.
by El Bob | December 6, 2011 - 9:11pm
Over the course of over 25 years I don't remember all that many Christmas Day's at home either, and almost all of those missing Christmas were the direct result of someone either pulling a completely boneheaded move or contemplating the same. Be that as it may, that's the life I agreed to, and it was what it was. That's the life the Coasties agreed to as well and I don't believe you'll ever hear a man jack among that crew complain, at least not publicly. But, in return for their service, and quiet sacrifice, we owe them a bit more than Senator Mark Begich and snarky comments. My humble opinion - your mileage may vary.
by Nomad | December 5, 2011 - 6:32pm
I would like to know who is responsible for such a late delivery of fuel to Nome in the first place. It's no secret we have storms this time of year, and freeze-up can begin in October in the protected harbor. Was Sitnasuak late in placing the order, or did Delta Western delay the delivery?
by Ohanna | December 5, 2011 - 5:20pm
There are several problems with this plan which are not mentioned in this article. The Coast Guard Cutter Healy receives most of it’s funding through contracts with the National Science Foundation to accomplish it’s primary mission which is research. There is no money in the under-funded Coast Guard budget to pay for additional time of deployment this would require. The Healy uses somewhere around 30,000 gallons of diesel fuel per day to operate. Then there is the cost of an extended deployment in terms of extra food, at sea pay (additional pay for crew) and wear and tear on the ship. I believe the NSF pays over 100,000 per day for use of the Healy.
by CaptTCS | December 7, 2011 - 1:12pm
The fact of the matter is that it was Nome's F'Up! It's Nome's bed and they should sleep in it! I always hear about the "Independent Spirit" of Alaska. Where is that "Independent Spirit" now? Nome, Alaska: "HELP! Coast Guard... Rescue us from High Gas Prices!" Alaska has to Hire a RUSSIAN Ship to deliver KOREAN OIL.. While forcing a Coast Guard SCIENTIFIC Icebreaker to hang around in the Bearing Sea IN DECEMBER.. Missing Christmas with their Families. Independent Spirit! Give me a Break! If I was Alaskan, I would be EMBARRASSED!
by randyk43 | December 7, 2011 - 11:16pm
That's OK Capttcs you are an embarrassment to humanity already.
by Oldhaines | December 6, 2011 - 9:20pm
Crimminy that's a million gallons every 33 days Ohanna.... I think your "around" guess is just a little wild.
by Ohanna | December 7, 2011 - 10:34pm
Their fuel tanks hold 1.2 million gallons, the engines have 30000 horsepower and they refill in Dutch harbor every 4-6 weeks when deployed. Now obviously it depends if they are breaking ice versus just cruising but I did get that estimate from fairly reliable sources. Unfortunately that was the best I could get, there is nothing in print. But you might want to check out the National Science Foundation budget for the Healy, which I did, and we are talking at least 100,000 per day. You do need to remember that ship cost close to 1 billion to build and it needs to major repairs dockside every year after breaking ice. I did try to use the best numbers I could find. Did you want to present some better concrete estimates from your sources?
by randyk43 | December 8, 2011 - 6:32am
The prudent mariner keeps his fuel tanks full. So when the Healy pulls into port to restock and provision they also fill the fuel tanks. I doubt that they run the tanks dry in that period of time. Your guesstimemates are to high I believe.
by Ohanna | December 8, 2011 - 7:33am
Point well taken. I could not get a reliable online source so I asked a former Healy crewmember. It was the best I could do. If anyone does have that information, I would appreciate them posting it here. But I again say, 100,000 per day operating costs is not an unreasonable total estimate.
by randyk43 | December 6, 2011 - 8:24am
Better check your math before you "burn up"!
by El Bob | December 5, 2011 - 7:30pm
Good on you!
by randyk43 | December 5, 2011 - 5:54pm
Which state are you hailing from so we can look over the Federal budgeted money and see if you folks can stand some cuts!
by Ohanna | December 7, 2011 - 10:44pm
Well let's look at it this way. My state gets .81 dollars back in services for every dollar it pays in Federal Taxes. Alaska gets 1.82 back in Federal Services for every dollar it pays in Federal taxes. And let's see now, what is your state income tax? Or sales tax? Oh that is right you do not pay any.
by Oldhaines | December 13, 2011 - 5:09pm
In Alaska we call that federal money "rent" and any time the Fed's want to stop paying they can leave. You can bet we will not beg them to stay.
by rdizzle | December 5, 2011 - 9:47pm
That would be every bloated state in the union. So include yourself in that little audit
by zidar | December 5, 2011 - 4:47pm
It's natural for Alaska to call upon Russian resources in a situation like this. They have the ships because their climate is similar to that of Nome. You can't expect the USA, with a limited amount of Arctic ports, to have a full complement of ice-capable ships. If it weren't for the Jones Act the fuel would be purchased in Alaska. Because of the Jones Act Nome's dollars go to Korea.
by Oldhaines | December 5, 2011 - 2:58pm
Well, at least yet another lesson is delivered. When are the people in Alaska's villages going to finally realize that there are very powerful interests that want them gone? 1. Increase regulation on subsistence hunting and fishing.
by El Bob | December 5, 2011 - 1:53pm
Yes, Mark, and private enterprise, not your beloved Federal bureaucracy, once again rose to the occasion. Yes, it's a shame that the vessel is Russian flagged, but the Russians have been developing their arctic regions for over a century and such vessels fit in economically with their infrastructure. The current U.S. administration strongly opposes development of a comprehensive U.S. arctic infrastructure, so there's no economic incentive for American flagged shipping to develop such vessels. Additionally, I doubt the American public, even the Democratic voting public at this point, will stand for the Federal government buying such a vessel to stand-by "just in case" the one of the few U.S. arctic coastal villages has a fuel crisis. Спасибо, и безопасное плавание.
by Nomad | December 5, 2011 - 6:28pm
ALL Americans better be demanding we purchase a state of the art ice breaker - and more - if we are going to allow oil exploration and drilling in Arctic waters. It will cost the country and the taxpayers a LOT more to clean up an oil disaster when we're not even equipped to handle this relatively small event. And even if we weren't to develop offshore leases, there will still be significant increases in land-based resource development, not to mention an influx of international shipping just off our shores. We're no super-power in the Arctic, but we have a LOT at stake.
by El Bob | December 5, 2011 - 7:24pm
How about, instead, we demand that industry develop the necessary infrastructure to actually require the presence of an ice breaking spill control capacity from industry profits. Unless of course you're asking ALL Americans to get behind paying tax dollars for a government owned fleet of such vessels to post to the arctic to clean up a potential mess for industry? There was a USCG ice breaker in that area on research patrol. If industry establishes the necessary spill response, and the winter port necessary to fit it, then the USCG has a base, too. And, the costs go to the party that makes the profit, who pass it down to the consumer, who gets to make decisions about whether or not to buy the product (as opposed to deciding whether or not to pay your tax bill). |













Comments