Decision No. 67-W-2014

APPLICATION

[1] Jan De Nul NV (applicant) applied, through its Canadian representative, for a licence to use the “DN46”, a utility ship registered in Luxembourg, to support dredging operations for the removal of the bundwall of the construction dock of the Hebron Gravity Based Structure foundation. The ship will assist the cutter suction dredger for positioning of anchors, and will install and support a floating pipeline of 1,200 metres, including the diffuser pontoon. The activities will commence April 1 and end June 30, 2014.

NOTICE AND OFFER

[2] Canadian Transportation Agency (Agency) staff gave notice of the application to the Canadian marine industry. Ocean Dredging DSM Inc. (Ocean) filed an offer for Canadian-registered ships by the Agency’s deadline.

PRELIMINARY MATTER

[3] In its offer, Ocean indicates that it owns a fleet of tugs and barges that would be available to support the dredging operations, and identifies the dredging barges “IV-8”, “OCEAN BORROMÉE VERREAULT” and “OCEAN BASQUE 2”.  However, in the applicant’s response and in Ocean’s reply, the ships identified by the parties are the “OCEAN FOXTROT”, a crane barge with a tug, and a dredging barge with a tug. As the parties have specifically addressed the suitability of the “OCEAN FOXTROT” as well as those of a crane barge with a tug and a dredging barge with a tug, the Agency will consider that these are the Canadian ships offered for the activity.

ISSUE

[4] Is there a suitable Canadian ship available to perform the activity?

POSITIONS OF THE PARTIES

[5] The applicant states that the ship will be used for various activities to support dredging operations. The activities consist of positioning anchors, installing and relocating two anchor boxes in limited space close to the shoreline, and installing and ensuring the safe operation of a floating pipeline.

“OCEAN FOXTROT”

Manoeuvrability

[6] The applicant argues that the “OCEAN FOXTROT” is twice as long as the “DN46”, making it difficult to manoeuvre. According to the applicant, using the “OCEAN FOXTROT” would either slow down the operations or make anchor handling and repositioning impossible without moving the dredger. In addition, the applicant claims that working close to the shore in a tight space would create safety risks or make the operations impossible.

[7] Ocean states that sufficient space is available to manoeuvre the equipment in the area. Ocean points out that it has experience working in the area with a tug. According to Ocean, the “OCEAN FOXTROT” is more manoeuvrable than the “DN46” as it has twin screw propulsion and is equipped with a bow thruster. Finally, Ocean claims that the “OCEAN FOXTROT” is positioned high, which would add visibility and security to its manoeuvres.

Lifting and handling requirements

[8] The applicant submits that the “OCEAN FOXTROT” is not equipped with a deck crane and would therefore not be able to accommodate heavy weights nor handle and install the floating pipeline. In addition, due to the coamings on both the port and the starboard sides of the ship, pipeline handling must be performed over the stern of the ship, thus increasing the safety risks. Moreover, the applicant argues that as the tug will not be able to take the floating pipeline “alongside”, the ship has to approach the pipeline with its stern perpendicular to the floating pipeline. This will make it more difficult to keep its position next to the floating pipeline.

[9] Ocean asserts that the “OCEAN FOXTROT” has sufficient deck space and capacity to install a mobile deck crane or an excavator that would meet the lifting requirements. Ocean points out that its naval architects confirmed that there would be no stability problems in installing an excavator that exceeds the required capacity for tasks like changing the cutter head. Ocean adds that there is an eight-ton crane on the “OCEAN FOXTROT”.

Crane barge with a tug

Manoeuvrability

[10] With respect to the use of a crane barge with a tug, the applicant states that the same restrictions as those raised for the “OCEAN FOXTROT” are applicable. The applicant adds that with no additional bow thruster, manoeuvrability will not be better than that of the “OCEAN FOXTROT”.

[11] According to Ocean, the crane barge can be carried alongside or pushed by the tug. Ocean claims that once the tug and the crane barge are uncoupled, the proposed crane barge is smaller than the “DN46”. Ocean states that the manoeuvrability of the proposed tugs that will move the crane barge cannot be compared with the manoeuvrability of any regular propulsion system and the “DN46”, as the tugs have azimuth thrusters which are the most precise and efficient available.  Ocean contends that the use of this kind of tug will increase safety at the site, and that the tugs can be equipped with twin screws, the same propulsion system of the “DN46”. Ocean states that its tugs are made for harbour towing and they can safely handle large ships in confined spaces and that, as it has learned from its experience on site, there is sufficient space to manoeuvre the crane barge.

Lifting and handling requirements

[12] The applicant states that the capacities of the winch and deck crane on the proposed crane barge are to be confirmed. The applicant argues that lifting the 150T anchor box will cause the crane barge to pitch heavily, thus disrupting the connection between the tug and the crane barge. The applicant claims that moving around with heavy weight will be a high-risk, if not impossible, operation. The applicant also submits that an anchor roll should be installed at the front edge of the crane barge to ensure the safe operation and handling of the anchors. In addition, the applicant states that the crane should be positioned at the edge of the crane barge for maximum reach (installation of anchors on shore). According to the applicant, this will cause the crane barge to tilt when lifting, thus disrupting the connection between the tug and the crane barge.

[13] In response, Ocean submits that the applicant can provide a winch that can be installed on the crane barge. Ocean states that it can also provide winches to meet the customers’ needs. Ocean adds that the weight of the anchor boxes can be reduced, while keeping the same anchor force, by adding more boxes, to provide flexibility in the selection of winches. Ocean points out that the weight boxes are assembled on site. Ocean states that a crane that meets the requirements was proposed to the applicant. Ocean asserts that it proposed to install an excavator on the crane barge to meet that applicant’s needs, but no formal answer was received. Ocean states that the installation of cranes and excavators on barges is part of its regular operations.

Dredging barge with a tug

Manoeuvrability

[14] The applicant submits that the manoeuvrability of the dredging barge would be limited as the set up is larger than the combination of the tug and the crane barge. The applicant argues that the dredging barge is equipped with spuds that cannot be used at all locations as the water depths range from approximately 20 metres to more than 70 metres. The applicant adds that, as such, the dredging barge will have to be kept in position by the tug where the spuds cannot be used.

[15] Ocean submits the same arguments with respect to the manoeuvrability of the dredging barge as it does for the crane barge (as referred to in paragraph 11 above), and adds that the dredging barge has just completed a complex dredging activity close to a petroleum wharf with no room for movement and that it was positioned easily and safely at a confined job site.

Lifting and handling requirements

[16] With respect to the dredging barge, the applicant contends that the mobile crane seems suitable for handling Delta Flipper anchors, but cannot provide safe working conditions for larger anchors. The applicant submits that a capacity of at least 200T would be required and with a reduced load chart for offshore conditions, a capacity of 220T to 250T would be required. The applicant adds that the combined weight of the crane and anchor box (400T) would require ballasting, which would probably overload the dredging barge. As well, if a larger barge is used, manoeuvrability would further be reduced. According to the applicant, moving around with the weight (swinging the crane or moving the dredge) would be a high-risk operation. The applicant contends that the deck crane, with its lifting point high above the deck, would make it more difficult to handle the floating pipeline parts.

[17] Ocean submits that it has proposed different mechanical dredges, such as a sectional barge and a regular mechanical dredging barge. Ocean points out that the dredging barge “OCEAN BORROMÉE VERREAULT” is equipped with a 200T capacity crane, which can handle the weight requirements, as confirmed by its naval architects. According to Ocean, it is a heavy duty marine crane with a load chart for offshore conditions, which means that no modifications would be required. Ocean claims that the crane would provide safe working conditions. Finally, Ocean states that the tug and dredging barge can safely support the pipeline handling operations and anchor installation and repositioning.

ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS

Legislative context

[18] The intent of the Coasting Trade Act is to allow foreign ships to be used in Canadian waters when there is no suitable Canadian ship available for a proposed activity. The Agency must determine whether, on a balance of probabilities, a Canadian ship is suitable and available to perform the activity.

[19] In carrying out its responsibilities, the Agency relies upon an applicant to provide detailed information about all relevant facts and circumstances that are pertinent to a proposed activity and to the foreign ship to be used. The Agency also relies upon Canadian operators to provide detailed information about the offered ship and how a Canadian ship that has been offered would be able to meet the requirements as described by an applicant. These requirements are clearly set out in the Canadian Transportation Agency Guidelines Respecting Coasting Trade Licence Applications (Guidelines).

[20] The onus lies with the applicant to file an application that contains all relevant details. Similarly, a Canadian operator filing an offer in answer to an application is required to describe in detail how a ship is going to perform the activity, including all relevant information to justify the offer.

[21] The Guidelines provide that the onus is on the applicant to demonstrate that a ship that has been offered is not suitable and/or is not available for the proposed activity. Further, the Guidelines recognize that the Coasting Trade Act does not state that an offered Canadian-registered ship must be “identical” to the foreign ship proposed in the application. The suitability of a Canadian‑registered ship is not assessed in relation to the foreign ship, but rather in relation to the requirements of the activity and whether the Canadian-registered ship is capable of performing the activity.

Availability

[22] The applicant did not challenge the availability of the offered ships. Therefore, the Agency finds that the ships offered by Ocean are available to perform the activity.

Suitability

[23] The applicant has challenged the suitability of the ships offered by Ocean on two grounds: manoeuvrability and ability to meet the lifting and handling requirements of the activity, which are addressed below.

Manoeuvrability

“OCEAN FOXTROT”

[24] The applicant questions the manoeuvrability of the “OCEAN FOXTROT” as it is longer than the “DN46”. The applicant argues that the size of the ship would slow down operations or make handling and repositioning of anchors impossible without moving the dredger; however, the applicant fails to explain or quantify how a slowdown of operations or movement of the dredger would impact the ability of the “OCEAN FOXTROT” to perform the activity. Ocean asserts that the “OCEAN FOXTROT” is more manoeuvrable than the “DN46” as it has twin screw propulsion and is equipped with a bow thruster.

Crane barge with a tug

[25] With respect to the combination of a crane barge and a tug, the applicant asserts that the same restrictions as those raised for the “OCEAN FOXTROT” are applicable. The applicant adds that with no additional bow thruster, manoeuvrability will not be better than that of the “OCEAN FOXTROT”. However, Ocean states that its barges will be moved by tugs equipped with azimuth thrusters, which are more manoeuvrable than any regular propulsion system. In addition, Ocean submits that once the tug and the crane barge are uncoupled, the crane barge is actually smaller than the “DN46”.

Dredging barge with a tug

[26] The applicant also questions the manoeuvrability of the combination of a dredging barge and a tug as it is larger than the combination of a crane barge and a tug. Moreover, the applicant indicates that due to the water depths, the spuds that equip the dredging barge could not be used at all locations. The Agency notes that Ocean did not specifically address the issue of the spuds. However, the applicant states that the dredging barge will have to be kept in position by a tug.

[27] The Agency has considered the arguments and is of the opinion that those presented by Ocean regarding the manoeuvrability of the proposed ships are more convincing than those of the applicant. The Agency finds that Ocean’s proposed ships satisfy the manoeuvrability requirement of the activity.

Lifting and handling requirements

“OCEAN FOXTROT”

[28] The applicant has challenged the suitability of the “OCEAN FOXTROT” as it is not equipped with a deck crane to satisfy the pipeline handling operations and the anchor installation and repositioning. However, the Agency is of the opinion that by offering to equip the “OCEAN FOXTROT” with an excavator and/or a deck crane of the appropriate capacity, Ocean has adequately addressed the lifting issues related to the handling/installation of a pipeline and the anchor repositioning requirement raised by the applicant.

Crane barge with a tug

[29] The applicant has challenged the suitability of the combination of a crane barge and a tug in terms of winches and deck cranes to satisfy the pipeline handling operations and the anchor installation and repositioning. However, as in the case of the “OCEAN FOXTROT”, the Agency is of the opinion that by offering to equip its ships with a winch and/or an excavator and/or a deck crane of the appropriate capacity, Ocean has adequately addressed the lifting issues related to the handling/installation of a pipeline and the anchor repositioning requirement raised by the applicant.  In addition, Ocean’s proposal to add more anchor boxes provides evidence that Ocean is able to offer additional flexibility in lifting capacity to address the lifting and handling requirements of the activity.

Dredging barge with a tug

[30] The applicant has acknowledged that the crane proposed by Ocean has the capacity to handle the weight of the anchor boxes. Although the applicant indicates that additional load capacity would be necessary for offshore conditions, it fails to provide justification for this additional capacity which does not appear in the requirements of the activity.

[31] Based on the submissions, the Agency finds, on a balance of probabilities, that Ocean’s proposed ships satisfy the lifting and handling requirements of the activity.

DETERMINATION

[32] In light of the foregoing, the Agency finds that the ships offered by Ocean are suitable to perform the activity and, as a result, the Agency determines, pursuant to subsection 8(1) of the Coasting Trade Act, that there are suitable Canadian ships available to perform the activity.

[33] The Agency is providing this determination to the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness.