Thanks Longwalks1
As a Canadian I've long felt that we let the ball slip as we never spend enough on Arctic infrastructure for the NWP to be in consideration as an alternative Arctic shipping lane. A few stations for repairs, refueling, and emergency rescue might have paid large dividends at some future point.
That opportunity however has passed, now even our sovereignty over the passage is in dispute.
Russia, primarily through default, is now virtually the sole vendor for those wishing a rapid nautical passage between Europe and the East. While some tonnage may pass through the Northern Route, or even one of the North West Passages, no one else has invested in the Nuclear tugs, and few have even considered building the heavy conventional icebreakers that I'm sure Lloyd's will consider a necessity.
Having ceded this to the Russians, it would appear rather mean spirited to then impose our own regulations for shipping in their waters. As long as the Russians are on board with these proposals, I have no objections. If however this is an attempt to unilaterally and retroactively punish an entity after they have invested $Billions, then I can't support it. I just now learned that the Russians have been pushing for the compliance of other nations with the MARPOL Annex VI provisions which limits sulfur content in marine fuel. They also have been developing LPG bunkering for domestic shipping, so it seems as though they will be on board for anything that cleans up arctic shipping. My worries were for naught.
http://en.portnews.ru/news/229661/Shipping costs have crashed so in recent years that they can almost be removed from the ledger, except for shipments of very inexpensive bulk goods. However, my understanding is that many of the world's largest shipping companies are not doing at all well financially, and that downsizing and mergers are now taking place.
The New Silk Road, with high speed rail linking the East and West without a nautical link is still just over the horizon. Even when this is in place a market will exist for the cheap transport of unrefined raw materials to feed China's factories, and return shipments of the inexpensive do-dahs we've come to expect. Nations that willfully raise the costs of this trade will find their exports of raw material and their imports of finished goods lagging behind those entities that aren't so hobbled.
Speed of passage may also be of concern. Would there be a premium for the fast shipment of wheat, rice, or produce, in times of regional food shortage? Would additional weeks under Egypt's blazing sky require refrigeration costs not a concern for produce following in an icebreaker's wake?
The truly gargantuan hulls that escape size restrictions forced by canals and locks will require the safest routes for their passage. Few would dare the rugged, twisting NWP, or even the open but remote NP, when for a few dollars more a passage can be arraigned with repair facilities, rescue facilities, and the world's only fleet of Nuclear icebreakers.
This link, Norwegian from 2015
http://commons.wmu.se/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1062&context=shiparcindicates that fuel savings, even using the smaller Suezmax hulls are much larger than I had imagined. 62% less fuel over a route that is <50% the distance, on a voyage that takes 40% less time.
It's difficult to argue that an addition of 8,438 tons of CO2 per round trip could be beneficial, regardless of whether this was spewed out in the Arctic or the Mediterranean Sea.
The cost savings is also greater than I would have thought. From $16.70/ton through the Suez to
$14.5 for the NEP. 13% could be one hell of a bump in profitability.
I was unaware of the magnitude of the advantages possible when the NEP is utilized.
Thanks so much for addressing the whole subject.
Terry