Page 15 - Журнал Sozvezdye Review - «СОЗВЕЗДИЕ» #38

рынок фрахтования и ставок перевалки, дефицит
терминалов и/или флота, нарушение непрерывно-
сти поставок и регулярный перенос сроков ввода
ключевого объекта, генерирующего доход, а соот-
ветственно и прямые убытки за каждый лишний
день стройки.
Необходимо принять к сведению, что если в
летний навигационный период технически имеет-
ся возможность увеличить транспортные мощно-
сти за счет мобилизации дополнительного флота,
то проектирование и строительство береговой ин-
фраструктуры в морских/речных портах занима-
ет многократно большее время. В условиях совре-
менного российского бизнеса обустройство таких
капиталоемких и долгосрочных объектов может
быть инициировано только самим оператором (ин-
вестором) проекта или государством.
Инфраструктурный задел советского Севера уже
либо утрачен, либо в полной мере уже задействован.
В текущей ситуации, когда экспортные терминалы
бурно растут, отсутствие серьезных вложений в пор-
товую инфраструктуру северных портов-отправи-
телей рано или поздно может поставить тех же са-
мых экспортеров перед угрозой невозможности
уложиться в необходимые сроки обустройства или
обеспечить нормальное функционирование произ-
водственных объектов в Арктике.

Still right where started Stages of development

Among the reasons cited as complicating the cargo For projects to be able to ensure that their cargoes
delivery to the Arctic Zone is volatile delivery by the reach them all right, they need to take care that ade-
investors of the project schedules; lacking coordination quate onsite infrastructure is in place well in advance.
between the Russian Arctic’s regulated monopoly op- The preparatory period may last two to three years. At
erator (Rosatom) and projects of different levels; and first, cargoes are unloaded onto unequipped shore us-
lacking synergies between somewhat narrow agendas ing smaller boats, floating cranes and temporary berths.
of regional projects and other transport projects in the With these technologies, the speed of cargo handling is
Arctic Zone. Alongside with the multibillion-dollar in- contingent on weather and specifications of the mecha-
vestment projects, high on the Arctic logistics agenda is nisms involved. Vessels stay idle waiting for days and
also basic life support for small communities residing even weeks to be unloaded, or for the unloading to
in the area. This support is often seen as commercial- complete, in the short Arctic summer season which, in
ly inexpedient, holding the local people hostage to the the Gulf of Ob, can be as short as 10 to 12 weeks.
growing transport needs of income-generating projects. Once permanent cargo terminals are in place to ser-
Vague as they seem, the strategies being adhered to vice field development and cargo flows can be moved
by Russian Arctic regions, icebreaker monopoly opera- from river to sea-going ships, delivery by sea will start
tor, transport market players, and large investors cause to pick up. Unlike the river ship, sea-going one has larg-
uncertainty as to whether mutually acceptable partner- er cargo capacity and, most importantly, where berths
ship is possible at all in the Arctic Zone. are insufficient or depths too shallow, cargoes can be
Investment decisions – taken hastily and with- transferred into smaller boats in summer or unloaded
out due consideration of the market players and char- on fast ice in winter. This makes it possible to schedule
acteristics inherent in the Arctic region –are for the the deliveries in the time horizon of two seasons, sum-
most part devoid of verified logistics strategies. Poorly mer and winter, which makes it easier to predict the cost
aligned, the development scenarios cause many compa- of onshore infrastructure, while also reducing the need
nies to see the future trends in Arctic transport as spon- for storage sites and tanks.
taneous and difficult to predict even for the next few Deploying temporary cargo storage sites for oper-
seasons. The very size of the Arctic Zone, the geograph- ation solely in the summer season doesn’t sound ex-
ical scatteredness of its entry points, and the specific- pedient. These sites include, for example, tank farms
ity of Arctic areas are still too dominant a factor to al- with capacity much larger than that of permanent tanks
low projects to have a fixed vision of their development. farms to be installed at field production phase, or ware-
Specialist involvement is only sporadic. Generalists are houses with an area of 100+ hectares, especially giv-
quite few, and those involved are often either dedicat- en that their full capacity usage time is limited to two
ed experts or the staff of regional companies pursuing years only. Intended for cargo handling solely during
their own short-term commercial goals. peak delivery period, these temporary facilities seem an
From the perspective of investors, Arctic projects obviously poor solution in terms of starting costs and SOZVEZDYE #38
can be also complicated by the energy component in maintenance expenditures. Thus, by opting for the year-
both onshore facilities and fleet: The current focus on round delivery by sea a project can expect, alongside
greening the energy sector makes long-term forecast- with faster delivery and construction times, better cost транспорт
ing highly challenging. effectiveness during startup and production phases.
Thus, any project of this kind appears hindered at transport
the start of its implementation by insufficiently accurate Infrastructure-related challenges
analytical data, overlooked trends, and lacking risk as-
sessment quality. Within energy projects, adding to the To enable us to more clearly understand the cur-
complexity of what is already a complex trend analysis, rent situation, we should turn to earlier stage in Arctic
is the high degree of politicization. logistics development. One example of a flagship Arc- 13