Supplemental InformationCable Ferry – Route 21.

October 27, 2011 1

Topics of Discussion

• Preliminary Project Schedule• Approval Process & Timelines• Engineering Parameters• Cable Design Criteria• Vessel Design• Crew Size ~ Minimum Safe Manning• Marine Traffic (Baynes Sound)• Cable Ferry Statistics• Examples of Large Cable Ferries• Home Porting ~ Emergency Support • Business Case Financials

October 27, 2011 2

Preliminary Project Schedule

October 27, 2011 3

Approval Process & Timelines

•CEAA/NWPA/ILMB Approvals August – October 2011

•Employee/Public Information Sessions September 2011

•ASP Process November 2011 – April 2012

•Design & Tendering November 2011 – June 2012

•Project Review/Approval (SEMC/Board) May – June 2012

•Section 55 Application May – June 2012

•Decision to Proceed Late June 2012

•Construction (Vessel + Berths) July 2012 – July 2013

•Set-to-Work, Test/Trials & Training August – October 2013

•Cable Ferry In-Service*Project In-Service Contingency

November 2013*April 2014

Key Events

October 27, 2011 4

Engineering Parameters

Wind Data:

Based on 2008 data from Chrome Island correlated with Historical Data from Ballenas (1994-2008), wind speed/direction/duration

Use of Chrome Island site will be conservative for Baynes Sound based on observed 2008/09 data

From Report BCF-012 (Oceanic Consulting/Triton Consulting Ltd.):

Where: Annual = value seen once per year

50 Year = 50 Year Return, value seen once every 50 years

Chrome Island Wind Data:

Return Period From North Sectors From South SectorsAnnual 37.3 knots 41.8 knots

(30-sec gust 49.2 knots) (30-sec gust 55.2 knots)50 Year 49.2 knots 48.8 knots

(30-sec gust 64.9 knots) (30-sec gust 64.3 knots)

October 27, 2011 5

Engineering Parameters

Wave Data:Based on data collected in Baynes Sound by Wave Buoy

Data on Wave Height, Period (frequency), and direction collected from 18 November 2008 to 12 March 2009 – see time data plots from Report BCF-016

Extrapolated to Extreme Values, correlated with measured data due to long measurement period (4 months)

Wave heights limited to short fetch in channel, no significant swell, wave periods short (< 6 seconds)

Also: current due to tide noted as ~ 1 knot maximum.

October 27, 2011 6

Engineering Parameters

Environmental Design Criteria:Based on the data collected in 2008-2009 extrapolated to extreme values

Cable Design: Drive and Guide Cables to be identical, designed to:

Operating Wind Speed for standard operations sized with appropriate safety margins; for fatigue and maintenance procedures

Design Extreme Wind Speed – ensure that strength is not exceed with reduced safety margins; also design of the cable braking system.

Engine Specification: One (1) primary and one (1) stand-by prime mover driving the cable system.

The transit speed in Operating (normal) conditions can be achieved with one prime mover.

For extreme conditions, two engine operations are permitted and expected.

Parameter: Notes:

Avg. Sig. Wave Height: 0.1m - 0.6 m Moderate wave climate

Avg. Sig. Wave Period: 2.0-3.0 s Short waves, no fetch, important for roll response

Max. Wave Height: 1.24 m Acceptable for cable ferry service, use to define freeboard requirements

Operating Wind Speed: 42.0 knots (sustained)55.0 knots (30s Gust)

Use for standard operating performance with substantial safety margins

Design Extreme Wind Speed:

50.0 knots (sustained)65.0 knots (30s Gust)

Extreme design conditions – “get home”

Environmental Conditions: Protected waters with wind and cross currents

October 27, 2011 7

Engineering Parameters

RIDE QUALITY ISSUES

Description/Factors Mitigation/Mitigating Factors

Operating Conditions:•Dominated by broadside winds; sea conditions comprise short high frequency waves, no significant swell

• Typical of cable ferry operations

Ferry Response:The key motion parameters are roll, pitch, and heave. Other motions are constrained by the cable system.

(1 ) Roll Response • can cause slips or falls; and • can contribute to sea sickness.

(a) Ferry parameters and/or stability characteristics can ensure the natural roll period of the vessel is away from the most probable wave periods (in this case 2-3 seconds). (b) Foils or skegs may mitigate roll.

(2 ) Pitching Response • ferry could “scoop” a large wave onto the deck. • can cause slips or falls; and • can contribute to sea sickness.

(a) Waves generally on the beam, pitching unlikely.(b) Ferry hull much longer than prevailing wave lengths.(c) 3 cable system provides pitch restraint at both ends.

(3) Heave Response • impact passenger comfort and • may limit the capability of the ferry to dock.

(a) Higher displacement vessels require more energy to generate a heave response(b) 3 cable system provides physical contact to the dock and constraint at both ends of the ferry

Spray Exposure:Waves striking the ferry may generate spray that could carry up in the wind on to the car deck.

(a ) Cable Ferries do not generally have a rub strake that can act as a spray interceptor.

(b ) The bulwarks on the ferry can be raised to ensure spray is kept clear of the decks, but there is a trade- off with windage.

October 27, 2011 8

Cable Design Criteria

CABLE LENGTH ISSUES Note: Actual Length = 1900m (pier to pier)

Description/Factors Mitigation/Mitigating Factors

Normal Operation:Cable - 1900m from dock to dock; water depths vary from 20-60m; generally sandy bottom; cable pretensioned.

Length has no effect; cable is lifted and dropped by segment as a function of water depth (No different than any other cable ferry operation).

High Winds:If wind load on ferry exceeds the pretension force + weight of cable, the ferry will move off centre, leading to the following risks:

(1) Cable scour on bottom, wear on cable where cable contacts with bottom

(a ) Channel bottom sandy, with negligible sea life (CEAA)

(b ) Design margins on cable, material selection to account for wear

(c) 3 cable system provides redundancy

(2) Higher loading on cable (a ) Design margins on cable, material selection to account for wind loads, 1 in 50 year event

(b ) 3 cable system provides redundancy(c) Ferry to be designed to manage cable from oblique

angles with sufficient power margins

October 27, 2011 9

Cable Length

October 27, 2011 10

Vessel Design

Description/Factors Mitigation/Mitigating Factors

Larger size/increased displacement relative to comparable Cable Ferry designs (e.g. Needles Ferry) leading to:

(1) Increased mass (displacement) + entrained water to accelerate and decelerate; increased load on cable system and machinery (Note that increased mass reduces heave response)

(a) Avoid exceeding current design practice by any significant margin;(b) Optimize hull/structure to minimize weight, reduce drag (location of machinery)(c) Invest in design process (model tests, computer simulations)

(2) Increased windage, resulting in more lateral load on the cable system; increased load on cable system and machinery

(a) Avoid exceeding current design practice by any significant margin;(b) Invest in design process (wind tunnel tests, computer simulations)

(3) Increased fuel consumption resulting from factors (1) and (2), leading to higher emissions

(a) Avoid exceeding current design practice by any significant margin;(b) Evaluate power transmission systems for maximum efficiency(c) Use of LNG

(4) Increased size increases demand on crew during loading and emergency duties

(a) Conduct risk assessments to define critical duties and resultant crew profile (b) Develop/modify vessel arrangement to accommodate crew profile(c) Implement/Innovate with communication technologies & emergency equipment(d) Develop comprehensive training program

October 27, 2011 11

Minimum Safe Manning – Estimating Accuracy

VesselPax

LevelBCF

EstimateTC

Approval VesselPax

LevelBCF

EstimateTC

ApprovalSpirit of BC 2052 48 48 Quinitsa 294 6 6Spirit of VI 2052 48 48 Quinsam 293 7 7C. Celebration 1571 33 33 Skeena 441 8 9C. Inspiration 1571 33 33 Kahloke 145 5 5C. Renaissance 1571 33 33 Klitsa 145 5 5Alberni 1171 22 22 Kuper 145 5 5Coquitlam 1460 34 34 Kwuna 146 4 4Cowichan 1460 34 34 Nimpkish 120 5 5Surrey 1460 34 34 Mill Bay 71 4 4Oak Bay 1460 34 34 N. Is. Princess 143 7 7New West 1303 29 29 Quadra Q. II 143 7 7Burnaby 879 25 25 Tachek 144 6 6Nanaimo 973 27 27 Tenaka 144 6 6Capilano 445 12 12 N. Adventure 600 40 40Cumberland 450 12 12 N. Expedition 600 38 38Is. Sky 450 12 12 Chilliwack 374 26 26Bowen Q 392 8 8 Q. Prince Rupert 504 40 40Powell River Q 392 8 8Mayne Q 392 8 8Howe Snd Q 292 6 8

October 27, 2011 12

Marine Traffic (Baynes Sound)

• Transport Canada Marine Communications & Traffic Services (MCTS) reports the following:– Baynes Sound (Sector 4 traffic management area) is not

a primary passage; majority of marine traffic takes place between Hornby and Texada Island;

– Most of the vessels calling in for the Baynes Sound area are: military training vessels, CCG vessels, tugs and barges, with few fishing and pleasure vessels

• At peak season, traffic looks as follows:– 2009: June – 9 calls, July – 16 calls, August – 23 calls– 2010: June – 8 calls, July - 24 calls, August –8 calls

*commercial vessels, fishing vessels over 20m and pleasure vessels over 30m

October 27, 2011 13

Cable Ferry Comparison

RouteCrossing Length

(m)Vsl Length (m) Car Capacity

Marine X-

Traffic

Denman Island Rte 21 1900 75 50 Low

River Hurst Ferry, Lk. Diefenbaker SK. 1500 36 18 Low

Bergo, Finland 1116 37 21 Low

Keistio, Finland 1600 27 10 Low

Vartsala, Finland 950 49 36 Low

Poole Hbr, Dorsey, UK 1000 74 48 High

River Tamar, Devon 1000 85 73 High

Westerhusen, Elbe River, Germany 100 27 4 Very

High

Caputh Ferry, Havel River, Germany 100 22 8 Very

High

October 27, 2011 14

Examples of Large Cable Ferries

•Connects Devon and Cornwall, UK

•73 cars

•85 meters long

•1000 meter route in high vessel traffic zone

•Poole Harbour, Dorset, UK

•48 cars

•74 meters long

•1000 meter route in a high marine traffic area

Torpoint Ferry

Bramble Bush Bay Ferry

October 27, 2011 15

Home Porting ~ Emergency Support

StageQuinitsa

@ Denman West (min). 6 Crew

Cable Ferry @ Buckley Bay (min)

3 CrewVariance

First Alert - -

Notify & verify available crew 4 2 -2

Crew prep & travel to ship 15 30 15

Start up vessel 20 5 -15

CF prep for depart Buckley, depart 0 1 1

CF transit to pick up berth and secure 0 8 8

Ramp down, ready to load 1 1 0

Load, secure, depart berth 1 1 0

Transit to Buckley Bay 10 8 -2

Secure and discharge 2 1 -1

Total time 53 57 4

"-" means CF takes less time

October 27, 2011 16

Impact of Number of Crew on Feasibility of Cable Ferry

• When crew savings are excluded, Cable Ferry remains more cost effective than conventional service

Business Case Financials

Route 21: 40-Year NPV Cable Ferry vs Conventional Ferry

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Cable Ferry Crew No.

$ N

PV

Quinitsa 6 Crew

October 27, 2011 17

Independent Expert Review

• We have heard the community’s concerns regarding whether BC Ferries has appropriate expertise to arrive at the current conclusions

• BC Ferries will retain an independent expert to review all aspects of the feasibility study

• Expert’s report will be made available to the public