Abstract
A cost-benefit analysis is conducted on the double-hull requirements for oil tankers in United States' waters contained in the U.S. Oil Pollution Act of 1990. The benefits of reduced spillage are compared with the increased construction and operations costs of double-hulled vessels. In the most probable scanario, the expected benefits are only 20% of the expected costs. Double-hulls do not even show a positive net present value with the most favorable assumptions. Even if double-hulls prevent all of the spillage that occurs due to collisions and groundings, and that the damage per gallon spilled is as extensive as in the ‘Exxon Valdez’ incident, the benefits are under half of the costs.
| Original language | English (US) |
|---|---|
| Pages (from-to) | 167-175 |
| Number of pages | 9 |
| Journal | Maritime Policy and Management |
| Volume | 23 |
| Issue number | 2 |
| DOIs | |
| State | Published - 1996 |
Funding
Table 1 shows annual operating expenses for double-versus single-hulled tankers of the various sizes. Again the data are from the National Research Council [I]. Operating costs include manning, supplies, routine maintenance and repairs, administrative costs, fuel and port costs. We have excluded the cost of vessel and cargo insurance premiums, as this expense is inappropriate in a cost-benefit analysis. The increased operating cost of double-hulled tankers come exclusive in the maintenance and repair category. A double-hull design increases the inspection area on a vessel by approximately 100% over a single-hull design. In addition, the amount of steel surface subject to corrosion and fatigue is increased by a factor of three which leads to a significant increase in the amount of steel replacement [lo].
ASJC Scopus subject areas
- Geography, Planning and Development
- Transportation
- Ocean Engineering
- Management, Monitoring, Policy and Law