Suez blocked by stuck ship!

[kowalski655]

Simpo Two said:

So the owners will say 'Fine, keep the ship'.
Then rescue the crew at night by helicopter - a nice little job for special forces.
The ship can stay there and rot as a testimony to the SCA.

Scuttle the ship in the middle of the canal, the narrowest part. fk you SCA

[Mykap]

J6542 said:

Mykap said:

epom said:

It does seem a little like daylight robbery. Let’s see how much we can get, someone think of a figure... 1 billion, perfect. Don’t think they’ll get it being honest.

What’s the cost of a ship as big as that one ? Can’t be cheap.

About 100 million this was quoted from Lloyd's List by an earlier poster.

Surely it must be worth more than that?
Thats only about £5000 a container not including the price of the ship.

That's the cost of the ship only.

[Digga]

NEVER RACED OR RALLIED.

[MOTORVATOR]

Digga said:

NEVER RACED OR RALLIED.

I'm interested. Anyone know where I can get an insurance quote?

[GliderRider]

What's the betting that someone, somewhere, has done a few fag packet calculations for the cost and potential earnings of an Eilat to Ashkelon canal?

Edit: They already have (done some rough calculations). $55 billion at 2015 prices, with a 10 year payback. It would need one heck of a tunnel or cutting though.

https://www.jpost.com/opinion/an-israeli-suez-cana...

Edited by GliderRider on Friday 16th April 23:27

Edited by GliderRider on Saturday 17th April 00:30

[mcdjl]

GliderRider said:

What's the betting that someone, somewhere, has done a few fag packet calculations for the cost and potential earnings of an Eilat to Ashkelon canal?

Edit: They already have (done some rough calculations). $55 billion at 2015 prices, with a 10 year payback. It would need one heck of a tunnel or cutting though.

https://www.jpost.com/opinion/an-israeli-suez-cana...

Edited by GliderRider on Friday 16th April 23:27

Edited by GliderRider on Saturday 17th April 00:30

Jpost.com said:

The new Eilat-Med rail line will cost $4.9b.; Egypt is digging a secondary canal, running parallel to half of the existing Suez, at a cost of $8.4b. A trans-Israel canal would be much more expensive. But if it could match the current rate of traffic through the Suez, its construction could cost $55b. dollars and it would pay for itself in 10 years.

That's not what I'd call rough calculations of the cost of building it. It also doesn't include any running costs. I'm all for optimism so I'll assume that building it wouldn't kick off a war of some sort, but will assume that the costs at least double if anyone tries that!

[Digga]

The event also underlines other issues regarding the scale of consumerism and the long term viability of shipping so much from the Far East to Western Europe and even USA.

The miles traveled by the silicon chips which are currently in shortage is both fascinating and absurd.

Overall, a good deal could and should change.

[Talksteer]

J6542 said:

Mykap said:

epom said:

It does seem a little like daylight robbery. Let’s see how much we can get, someone think of a figure... 1 billion, perfect. Don’t think they’ll get it being honest.

What’s the cost of a ship as big as that one ? Can’t be cheap.

About 100 million this was quoted from Lloyd's List by an earlier poster.

Surely it must be worth more than that?
Thats only about £5000 a container not including the price of the ship.

Looking at previous announcements a 15,000-20,000 TEU container ship would cost around $190 million new. I would expect a relatively linear deprecation and a 15-20 year service life. Hence $100 million is a little low unless the 100 million was in £.

The ship will have a mass of around 60,000 tonnes empty which means that the vessel is only around 3 times the cost of its steel to produce. This is a seriously low marine industry.

[thewarlock]

Talksteer said:

Looking at previous announcements a 15,000-20,000 TEU container ship would cost around $190 million new. I would expect a relatively linear deprecation and a 15-20 year service life. Hence $100 million is a little low unless the 100 million was in £.

The ship will have a mass of around 60,000 tonnes empty which means that the vessel is only around 3 times the cost of its steel to produce. This is a seriously low marine industry.

Steel usually accounts for somewhere between half and two-thirds of displacement, depending on vessel type.

[Mykap]

thewarlock said:

Talksteer said:

Looking at previous announcements a 15,000-20,000 TEU container ship would cost around $190 million new. I would expect a relatively linear deprecation and a 15-20 year service life. Hence $100 million is a little low unless the 100 million was in £.

The ship will have a mass of around 60,000 tonnes empty which means that the vessel is only around 3 times the cost of its steel to produce. This is a seriously low marine industry.

Steel usually accounts for somewhere between half and two-thirds of displacement, depending on vessel type.

The key number here is lightship displacement. Ie the weight if the the vessel without cargo bunkers etc.

I can't find it online but from experience I'm guessing 65000 to 70000 tonnes.

In any event the value for insurance depends on market conditions .

100 million is ballpark for the vessel. General average has been declared so cargo cost / loss is now in play.
SCA, hold the aces.

[Talksteer]

GliderRider said:

What's the betting that someone, somewhere, has done a few fag packet calculations for the cost and potential earnings of an Eilat to Ashkelon canal?

Edit: They already have (done some rough calculations). $55 billion at 2015 prices, with a 10 year payback. It would need one heck of a tunnel or cutting though.

https://www.jpost.com/opinion/an-israeli-suez-cana...

Edited by GliderRider on Friday 16th April 23:27

Edited by GliderRider on Saturday 17th April 00:30

The Guardian used this as this years April fools joke:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/apr/01/suez...

The mountains in the way are in the range of hundreds of meters high, would make more sense to break through to the dead sea shore and go around from there.

Also major issue is where do you get the water to operate the locks?

[Talksteer]

thewarlock said:

Talksteer said:

Looking at previous announcements a 15,000-20,000 TEU container ship would cost around $190 million new. I would expect a relatively linear deprecation and a 15-20 year service life. Hence $100 million is a little low unless the 100 million was in £.

The ship will have a mass of around 60,000 tonnes empty which means that the vessel is only around 3 times the cost of its steel to produce. This is a seriously low marine industry.

Steel usually accounts for somewhere between half and two-thirds of displacement, depending on vessel type.

I found a figure of 55,000 tonnes empty for a the slightly smaller Triple E class of container ships. Very big ships are more mass efficient, the largest oil tankers and ore carriers are 80% cargo.

[hidetheelephants]

Talksteer said:

GliderRider said:

What's the betting that someone, somewhere, has done a few fag packet calculations for the cost and potential earnings of an Eilat to Ashkelon canal?

Edit: They already have (done some rough calculations). $55 billion at 2015 prices, with a 10 year payback. It would need one heck of a tunnel or cutting though.

https://www.jpost.com/opinion/an-israeli-suez-cana...

Edited by GliderRider on Friday 16th April 23:27

Edited by GliderRider on Saturday 17th April 00:30

The Guardian used this as this years April fools joke:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/apr/01/suez...

The mountains in the way are in the range of hundreds of meters high, would make more sense to break through to the dead sea shore and go around from there.

Also major issue is where do you get the water to operate the locks?

There is no water, the valley north of Eilat is drier than a mouthful of crackers, as is the Negev; either pump seawater or devise a sea-level route. Either way it's going to be 200-odd miles long; my back of a fag packet calculation is that for a sealevel route there would be maybe 80km of tunnel due to the difficulty of and ridiculous amount of spoil produced in making a cutting greater than 150m deep, requiring the excavation of ~10bn cubic metres and costing something daft like $300m per km.

[john2443]

Talksteer said:

Also major issue is where do you get the water to operate the locks?

hidetheelephants said:

There is no water, the valley north of Eilat is drier than a mouthful of crackers, as is the Negev

The Dead Sea is 400m below sea level so would either need loads of locks to get down there and back up and it would gradually flood as all the lockfulls of water were let through, or fill it in and build a massive embankment using all the spoil from the tunnels!

[Chimune]

Most Israelis would be very happy to see the Dead Sea filling up again. It's been shrinking for 50 odd yrs now. Used to be a big tourist attraction.

[GliderRider]

Chimune said:

Most Israelis would be very happy to see the Dead Sea filling up again. It's been shrinking for 50 odd yrs now. Used to be a big tourist attraction.

There is a bit of difference between filling the Dead Sea up to its previous, recent history, level, and filling it to the level of the Red Sea. It is 1,412 ft below sea level, so there is an awful lot of land that would be flooded in the process. The Jordanians might not be too happy either, given that one side of it is theirs.

[Simpo Two]

GliderRider said:

There is a bit of difference between filling the Dead Sea up to its previous, recent history, level, and filling it to the level of the Red Sea. It is 1,412 ft below sea level...

Pah, aqueduct!

Or some inclined planes... big ones...

[hidetheelephants]

john2443 said:

The Dead Sea is 400m below sea level so would either need loads of locks to get down there and back up and it would gradually flood as all the lockfulls of water were let through, or fill it in and build a massive embankment using all the spoil from the tunnels!

All good reasons to not use locks.

[MOTORVATOR]

Simpo Two said:

GliderRider said:

There is a bit of difference between filling the Dead Sea up to its previous, recent history, level, and filling it to the level of the Red Sea. It is 1,412 ft below sea level...

Pah, aqueduct!

Or some inclined planes... big ones...

You can do better Simpo.

No need to fill it up, Think Archimedes, an 800m diameter wheel and a few camels to power it. Job done innit?

[The Mad Monk]

A video explanation of the dynamics of ships passing through the Suez Canal and why one could get stuck.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ty-m4pm8oog