If these two statements are remotely true, what more justification is needed to take care of your ship.
Unless, of course, it is intended to run it into the ground and strip as much profit from the carcass as can be managed:

“A planned system of inspection and maintenance has been shown in some circumstances to result in lifetime costs of about one sixth of the cost of neglecting the damage and replacing the structure when required to do so.”
PF Weber Structural Surveys of Oil Tankers. The Institute of Marine Engineers

The cost of installation of a protective coating is approx 10% or renewal of the plating concerned assuming a plate thickness of 12mm.
Inspection,Repair and Maintenance of Ship Structures Piero Caridis

Your second sentence is the applicable one.

"Unless, of course, it is intended to run it into the ground and strip as much profit from the carcass as can be managed:"

Profit is the name of the game. A new tanker pays for it's construction cost in less than a year after delivery, all the rest is gravy. Maintentance costs money and there's no return on it. You take it to the first 5-year survey cycle then sell it, buy a new-build and do the same. The second owner provides Johnny Walker to renew certificates at the 10 year mark and carries on. The third, at 15 years, has to provide copious amounts of said beverage along with boxes of cartons of Marlborough for that renewal before it's sold.

After the third survey cycle, it's generally junk, the fourth owner buys it and no more maintenance is done. It's run up on a beach in India or Bangladesh before it's 20 years old.


Cynical? Who, me?

LOL, I knew that would pull you out of the cave!

:Þ