Development of New Offshore and Icebreaker Technologies for the European Research Icebreaker Consortium’s Research Infrastructure
a report by
Lester Lembke-Jene1 and Albrecht Delius2 1. ERICON-Aurora Borealis Science and Technology Manager, Alfred Wegener Institute for Polar and Marine Research, Bremerhaven; 2. Director of Operations, Wartsila Ship Design Germany, Hamburg
The Arctic Ocean and its marginal seas currently receive a great deal of interest and public awareness as they react more intensely to global changes than other regions on Earth. Arctic sea-ice extent and thickness vary and might fundamentally decrease in the coming decades. This has the potential to be accompanied by changes in high-latitude ecosystems, large-scale oceanic and atmospheric processes and living conditions in these regions. Understanding the dynamics of global change in itself is of considerable societal relevance. Consequently, particular attention is paid to the polar regions, especially by the Arctic-rim countries and most European nations, as well as the EU.
Despite the problems associated with global warming, environmental changes also open up new economic perspectives. Decreases in sea ice may lead to openings of new sea passages for commercial traffic, e.g. along the Northern Sea Route. The seafloor below the ice-covered polar ocean is thought to harbour large provinces of so-far undiscovered oil and gas1
Scientific Rationale for Planning a New European Icebreaker and Drilling Vessel
It concluded that research icebreakers with the ability to conduct operations throughout the year in the central Arctic Ocean (and in the polar Southern Ocean), even under most unfavourable weather conditions, are required to fulfil the new needs of polar ocean research for all marine disciplines. No existing ship had the required capabilities and capacities or was able to autonomously operate in thick pack-ice, except during the optimal ice conditions of the late summer season.
A scientific assessment of future Arctic Ocean research needs was carried out by the European Polar Board, an expert panel of the European Science Foundation.5
that might become accessible for exploration for the first time in the near future. This possible hydrocarbon potential is largely unconstrained, however, and subject to large uncertainties. Extremely few datasets have resulted in a principal lack of understanding of the geological past, basin history and tectonic development of the Arctic Ocean. This ‘white spot’ on the map of geoscience research has been identified2
for decades and scientists have been trying to overcome this by carrying out site surveys and scientific ocean drilling.3,4
Past Polar Marine Scientific Drilling
Scientific (and commercial) drilling operations have long faced severe technical and logistical problems when attempting to drill in ice-covered polar deep-sea basins. The Arctic Ocean has remained largely unsampled and is one of the major challenges for international scientific programmes, such as the Integrated Ocean Drilling Program (IODP). While the first successful scientific deep-sea drilling in the central Arctic Ocean was carried out during the Arctic Coring Expedition (ACEX) in 2004, the long-term environmental history and tectonic structure of the area are still largely unknown. In the ACEX setup, three ships were used:
• •
a modified geotechnical drilling ship;
a conventional icebreaker for ice management of small ice floes in the vicinity of the drilling vessel; and
• a powerful nuclear-powered icebreaker for managing large ice floes at a certain distance from the drilling site.
Further drilling operations in the central Arctic Ocean remain to be executed. Major operational and technical obstacles with the expedition layout used so far range from unresolved problems in icebreaking to the dynamic positioning capacity of a drilling vessel in thick pack ice. They also include logistical hurdles, high associated costs for the execution of expeditions in sea-ice, problems with full utilisation of the IODP’s drilling technologies and maintaining a full analytical workflow offshore.
© TOUCH BRIEFINGS 2010
A decision was taken to develop the European Research Icebreaker ‘Aurora Borealis’, a new multinational marine research facility for polar oceans. This new vessel design incorporates state-of-the-art drilling facilities to fulfil the need for a dedicated platform to drill in permanently ice-covered ocean basins. The icebreaker is powerful enough to autonomously perform dynamic positioning when drilling against drifting pack ice.
The Alfred Wegener Institute for Polar and Marine Research, with funding provided by the German Federal Ministry for Education and Research, oversaw the principal technical design and general arrangement planning for the vessel. The work was carried out by Wartsila Ship Design Germany with specialised subcontractors Nautex (dynamic positioning concept, Houston), Aker Arctic Technology (Helsinki) and HSVA (Hamburg Ship Model Basin, Germany). The latter two companies carried out extensive ice tank tests of the design for a performance evaluation of its icebreaking capabilities and provided additional expert advice on icebreaking technologies.
Principle Vessel Design The design combines three otherwise-distinct vessel types in one ship:
• A heavy icebreaker, • A multipurpose research vessel, •
A scientific ocean drilling ship,
The vessel design fulfils all technical criteria to receive certification for the highest ice class, Polar Code 1 (as defined by the International Association of Ship Classification Societies). The Aurora Borealis is able to operate with a maximum endurance of 90 days in all polar waters worldwide during all seasons of the year, with a maximum scientific and technical crew of 120 personnel.
As an icebreaker, the Aurora Borealis is designed to withstand the harshest environmental conditions, with surface air temperatures of -50°C. It is able to break multi-year ice with thicknesses of up to 2.5m with a speed of 3knots. The ability to operate with continuous speed in such
55
Engineering & Construction
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100 |
Page 101 |
Page 102 |
Page 103 |
Page 104 |
Page 105 |
Page 106 |
Page 107 |
Page 108