Buy or Charter Marine Equipment: Compare the Operating Plan First

1. Keep the required output the same

Start with the scope, location, completion window and acceptance requirement. Establish which technically credible spreads could deliver that requirement, including auxiliary units and material-handling arrangements.

If one option assumes different ground, support equipment, transport or completion dates, identify that difference before comparing cost. IADC guidance treats equipment choice as project-specific and links it to material, site geometry, transport, placement and deployment—not to a day rate in isolation.

Decision record: one common requirement and an explicit list of differences between options.

2. Draw the period each option commits you to

For a charter scenario, identify mobilisation, setup, working and non-working periods, release and demobilisation. Check which costs and responsibilities the actual offer places with each party; do not infer them from the word ‘charter’.

For ownership, define the assessment period and document acquisition readiness, deployment, maintenance and the periods between assignments. Separate evidenced follow-on work from possible work. A tender pipeline remains a scenario until it becomes contracted utilisation.

Decision record: a timeline of paid or committed time, dependencies and evidence for subsequent work.

3. Put responsibilities beside the costs

Assign responsibility for crew, fuel, supporting craft, maintenance, inspections, insurance, repairs, standby and relocation as applicable. Record inclusions and exclusions once so costs are neither omitted nor counted twice. Use the actual proposed unit and terms; ownership and charter structures vary.

For an ownership assessment, identify who will evaluate financing, tax, residual value and disposal assumptions where relevant. Label estimates and obtain appropriate commercial and specialist review before any commitment.

Decision record: one sheet linking each material assumption to its scope, responsible party, source and date.

4. Test the assumption that could change the decision

Compare at least a supported base case and a plausible downside—for example, a delayed start, a shorter first campaign or no evidenced follow-on assignment. Keep price dates, currency, time horizon and cash-flow treatment consistent, with the appraisal method set by the responsible financial reviewer.

Do not rely on a universal break-even number of days. Its meaning depends on the assets, commercial terms, responsibilities and timing actually being compared.

Decision record: the assumption that changes the preferred option and the evidence needed to resolve it.

5. Finish with a conditional recommendation

A useful recommendation states the credible alternatives, comparison basis, unresolved evidence and conditions to satisfy before commitment. It may support purchase, charter or a staged decision. The objective is a traceable choice that management can challenge.

This framework organises the ownership-versus-charter decision; the cited sources support the operational starting point but do not prescribe this framework or recommend either commercial option.

Decision record: a conditional recommendation, its limits and the next evidence required.

Sources and limits

The two primary IADC references were rechecked on 2 November 2026. They support the project-specific operational basis for equipment selection; they do not compare a particular purchase with a particular charter or replace engineering, commercial, tax, legal or financial review.

• IADC: Equipment — project conditions, transport, placement, deployment and mobilisation
• IADC: Equipment and Methods — project-specific technical, environmental and economic criteria

This is general procurement decision guidance. It is not a quotation, asset-availability statement, engineering acceptance, financial appraisal or recommendation to enter a particular transaction. The website equipment catalogue does not establish ownership or current availability.