possible cost. Right now, we're just in the process of discussions with some of the fixed-wing aircraft providers, commercial contractors in the U.S., and we're in discussion with the other coops, so it is a little early to determine where that is going to go.
Nerland: Those 16 ships-how many days a year are they occupied with actual oil spill response? Do you have any statistics on that?
Toenshoff: The answer is not very many. In the United States, prevention has worked very well, and many operators of ships and refineries and terminals are very cautious about oil spill response or oil spills, they're very concerned about the cost directly for response, as well as the cost for their reputation. As such, industry has taken a very proactive position to minimize and prevent oil spills. As such, our boats don't really go to work very often, which is okay, because there is not a need for them to go to work very often. As a not-for-profit organization funded by our customers, we do not need the boats to go to work to maintain the capability. We just need to have a series of customers, such as most of the major politically observative companies, take a stance with us to continue to fund us.
Schive: Who are your customers, and who are not your customers? You said that you had to build down your company because there was a shift in the picture of the customers. What were the reasons for that kind of development?
Toenshoff: We have approximately 62 customers in MSRC. Of the 62, 17 are oil companies-companies such as Exxon, Mobil, Chevron, BHP, Star, Texaco, Shell, Amerada Hess, the larger integrated oil companies. Forty-five of the 62 companies are smaller terminal operators as well as shipowners. We do have some of the more notable shipowners-as an example, Mitsui OSK Line is one of our customers, Tokyo Marine is a local customer of MSRC-as well as other international and non-international shipowners.
I prefer not to address who is not our customer and who left us. They have their own reasons that they left us, primarily because the regulations allowed them, in many regards, to find alternative methodologies at a cheaper cost. However, these are non-dedicated capabilities, and I think we would all agree that dedicated is often better than non-dedicated.
Mearns: As a marine biologist, I'm very concerned about something that's happening, and that is a general national and perhaps worldwide decline in R&D in developing new technologies. I think 10 percent of the world's R&D experts in new technologies are in this room right now, and as the community continues to invest in infrastructure and hardware and so on, where is the R&D going to come from? Who is doing it? Do you have any regrets or thoughts as far as who's taking up the R&D that was dropped at MSRC?
Toenshoff: Maybe Mr. Lessard could address that. Mr. Lessard was chairman of the Marine Preservation Association Research & Development Oversight Committee. The Marine Preservation Association is the group that funds MSRC. Mr. Lessard?
Lessard: That's exactly what I was going to contribute, I wasn't going to ask a question. For the research program that was proposed by MSRC, we spent quite a bit of time convincing the American Petroleum Institute to pick up the best features of that-certainly not continuing at a $6 million dollar-a-year level, but the very best of those programs is being funded on a more broad basis, if you will, because the API picks up a lot more of the industry than the MSRC was, so it's a fairer distribution of the money, and we're able to leverage with government organizations, with private industry, Exxon is supplying funds-and I think we are able to continue a pretty good research presence even though it's not funded under the MSRC anymore.
Suzuki: You have 16 dedicated oil spill response vessels. What is the limit of the operation for those vessels? Under what sea conditions and weather conditions will the vessels be able to operate? In
