new ice breaker

Post a reply


BBCode is ON
[img] is ON
[url] is ON
Smilies are OFF

Topic review
   

If you wish to attach one or more files enter the details below.

Maximum filesize per attachment: 3 MiB.

Expand view Topic review: new ice breaker

Re: new ice breaker

by Guest » November 25, 2015, 11:21 am

Guest wrote:I'd agree that another Poe size lock should be built and another large ice breaker as well. I don't think the US tax payer should be footing the bills. The days of the Soo being needed for national security are history. That title might be better applied to Silicon Valley now. To pay for all this we should start collecting tolls at the locks much like the Seaway does. There's no reason for us to to prop up failing steel companies or declining coal burning operations. The super rich who own their own fleets won't go hungry if they pay tolls.
Interesting Bernie Saunders mathematics your proposing. I guess its just like we shouldn't have propped up the failing automakers a few years ago or all the money we taxpayers have dumped into all the "Green Energy" boondoggles that have yet to produce anything at all least of all make a profit.
As for the rhetoric about the super rich owning fleets, I believe most are stockholder owned. That means the vast majority are funded by employee pensions, 401k's and small investors holding shares.
As for dumping obsolete 1000 footers, they are the most efficient boats for hauling ore and coal which is the staple of the American markets. Where are these marginally profitable companies supposed to come up with the 10's of millions of dollars to replace each of these boats? Unlike the Fed Govt, they can't just print money and squander it.
Tolls wouldn't solve the problem either, it would be like all deceptive tax schemes and hinder the economy and hamstring what little profitability there is left in the Great Lakes maritime market.
If we surrender our ability to make steel, manufacture goods with it and de-industrialize the Great Lakes region, then the Arsenal Of Democracy will have been lost and along with it, a large part of our independence and freedom.

Re: new ice breaker

by Guest » November 25, 2015, 11:01 am

Guest wrote:building a new ice breaker for the great lakes would be a waist of U S taxpayers money. The last three years we used the Canadian ice breakers to start the season because our Mack. could not work. why waist more money on a breaker that is not needed. As for a new lock - that too would be a waist of taxpayer's money. with all the hulls in layup - the need just is not there for a new lock.
I think we should build two or three Samuel Risleys for what another Mackinaw would cost.

Re: new ice breaker

by New Guy Rick » November 25, 2015, 10:36 am

Are we voting?
Yes to the lock. If there is a major problem the economic impact is huge.

No to the Icebreaker. Sorry. I know the cost of moving stuff by water is one of the cheapest alternatives. I see a lot of the ice-breaking effort along the St. Clair River. It has to cost the US and Canadian people a ton of money. When I look at how much marine traffic is still running through the winter... it makes no sense to me.
How much did it cost to help the Anderson on her failed last run last winter?
Too may ships are heading for early layup. I think more ships should run longer in the season, preparing for a shutdown. Then shut it all down along when the Soo Locks close for the season.

My 2 cents.
Rick

Re: new ice breaker

by Guest » November 25, 2015, 7:44 am

Guest wrote:
Al wrote: if we neglect the Great Lakes infrastructure, the industries that depend on it will certainly wither.
The withering is because industry has declined, not because shipping has been neglected.
Unfortunately, the decline of the domestic steel industry can be traced back to the 1959 steel strike that allowed cheap foreign steel enter the market. Since then, the domestic steel industry has struggled to remain competitive.

Re: new ice breaker

by Guest » November 25, 2015, 7:10 am

Metal production has now shifted to electric arc furnaces, both steel and aluminum. Blast furnaces are old technology here in the USA. We are closing down the coal burning power plants by the dozens here in the USA in the cause of "the environment". Today sixty per cent of the world's steel and a lot of aluminum comes from China where the environment means nothing. There is no more need for more shipping here in the USA. The Chinese have captured our industrial production without firing a shot.

Re: new ice breaker

by beecher » November 25, 2015, 5:03 am

Yes to a new ice breaker.
Yes to a new lock.
No to the dumping of steel.

Re: new ice breaker

by Guest » November 25, 2015, 1:14 am

Marc wrote:Construction of a 2nd Poe size lock is a matter of national security and an economic catastrophe if not dealt with in the near future.

https://youtu.be/TQjyZcsVNZE
Interesting bit of propaganda. Yes, one solution is for taxpayers to pay for a new lock. Another solution is for shipowners to replace their obsolete 1000 footers with a fleet of up to date, efficient Seaway max vessels at their cost. All that shipbuilding would be great for the economy.

Re: new ice breaker

by Guest » November 25, 2015, 12:52 am

I'd agree that another Poe size lock should be built and another large ice breaker as well. I don't think the US tax payer should be footing the bills. The days of the Soo being needed for national security are history. That title might be better applied to Silicon Valley now. To pay for all this we should start collecting tolls at the locks much like the Seaway does. There's no reason for us to to prop up failing steel companies or declining coal burning operations. The super rich who own their own fleets won't go hungry if they pay tolls.

Re: new ice breaker

by CG Bob » November 24, 2015, 10:28 pm

Red DC for Damage Control excellence
Red E for Engineering excellence
Blue E for Deck excellence
Green E for Operations
Black Circle E for Operational Readiness

The letters may have up to 3 hash marks under them, for subsequent excellence. Gold letter indicates 5th award in a row.

Re: new ice breaker

by Guest » November 24, 2015, 10:24 pm

Al wrote: if we neglect the Great Lakes infrastructure, the industries that depend on it will certainly wither.
The withering is because industry has declined, not because shipping has been neglected.

Re: new ice breaker

by Marc » November 24, 2015, 9:01 pm

Construction of a 2nd Poe size lock is a matter of national security and an economic catastrophe if not dealt with in the near future.

https://youtu.be/TQjyZcsVNZE

Re: new ice breaker

by Guest » November 24, 2015, 7:56 pm

The down turn in coal is not cyclical. It is permenant. Coal producers are closing mines, railroads are moth balling lines.

Steel might come back but never to its former dominance.
Infrastructure improvements need to be made but not in. The form of a new ice breaker or an additional lock.

Unfortunately American great lake shippings has been in a decline since the 1980's.
What needs to be funded are dredging projects to improve the efficiency of ships by allowing them to load to their safe limits.

Re: new ice breaker

by Guest » November 24, 2015, 5:54 pm

The letters DEE stand for excellence in Deck Dept. and Engineering Dept.(twice) from when the Alder went through testing by the USCG Refresher Training Team. The D should be black and the Es should be red.

Re: new ice breaker

by garbear » November 24, 2015, 2:55 pm

I also agree with Al. No matter what kind of downturn there is, there will be boats too big to use the Mac Lock. If the Poe goes out of commission for any length of time, the Midwest economy could be left in shambles.

Re: new ice breaker

by shirlohio » November 24, 2015, 1:19 pm

I tend to agree with you, Al.
BTW, speaking of icebreakers, do any of you know what the letters DEE on the side of the Alder's super structure stand for? Just curious. TIA

Re: new ice breaker

by Al » November 24, 2015, 12:30 pm

The steel, ore and lake shipping industries are cyclical. Failing to invest in infrastructure now because of layoffs and layups would be shortsighted. One thing is certain, if we neglect the Great Lakes infrastructure, the industries that depend on it will certainly wither.

Re: new ice breaker

by Guest » November 24, 2015, 10:59 am

building a new ice breaker for the great lakes would be a waist of U S taxpayers money. The last three years we used the Canadian ice breakers to start the season because our Mack. could not work. why waist more money on a breaker that is not needed. As for a new lock - that too would be a waist of taxpayer's money. with all the hulls in layup - the need just is not there for a new lock.

Re: new ice breaker

by Guest » November 24, 2015, 6:20 am

Guest wrote:The big picture of commerce on the lakes certainly doesn't warrant either a new icebreaker or a new lock at the Soo.
What is currently happening should have no bearing on the need for another Poe sized lock and bigger, better icebreakers. How soon we forget the debacles of the past 3 winters! If the Poe goes down the 1000 footers are out of business.

Re: new ice breaker

by Guest » November 23, 2015, 10:39 pm

The big picture of commerce on the lakes certainly doesn't warrant either a new icebreaker or a new lock at the Soo.

Re: new ice breaker

by MikeCDN » November 23, 2015, 8:14 pm

Honestly,

I think it's our turn, on the Canadian side, to step up and build one for the Great Lakes. The U.S. built the Mackinaw. Now our government needs to build a comparable one to assist with ice breaking.

Just my thoughts,

M.

Top