Op ed in the WSJ this morning, a couple of retired general officers explaining the need for more US icebreakers. Makes sense, especially if we are gonna have off shore oil exploration in the Arctic. If they have an emergency on an Arctic oil platform, icebreakers can get up there for a rescue.
The OpEd claims that new icebreakers will cost $1 billion apiece. That sounds too high by a lot. An icebreaker is just a merchant steamer with a very strong hull, a specially shaped bow, and extra powerful engines. You'd think you could buy one for 10-20% over the price of a standard merchant steamer. Unless Pentagon weinies gold plate the specifications. Which they have a lot of practice doing. I think you can buy a supertanker for $200 million, you ought to be able to get an icebreaker for about that kind of money.
Then the Op-ed veers off into the merits of leasing icebreakers instead of buying them out right. This does not compute. The only reason for leasing anything is you don't have the up front cash to buy it outright. Uncle Sam has all the upfront cash in the world, and he can print more if he runs short. The lessor has to make all his expenses plus some profit, His expenses include interest on the money he has to borrow to buy or build the ship. A lease deal will cost the taxpayers more than an outright buy. Especially as icebreakers are very specialized and I don't think there are any for sale, you need an icebreaker, you have to build it special.
No comments:
Post a Comment