As was noted by others, it depends on what machinery and fuel type each ship was designed with as built. The AmShip footers are different, as the Pielstick engines were designed for IFO180 blended fuel oil. The BayShip footers (mostly) had EMD engines, which were pure MDO. With IFO and HFO (Residual Fuels), there are separate Storage, Settling, and Service (Day) Tanks. Sometimes the Settling Tank is omitted, but for as long as I've been at sea, they have been mandatory in new construction.
Some recent ships (built after year 2000) have separate Low Sulfur tanks, for when the vessel is steaming in Emission Control Areas, but that has gone out of favor and many ships now only bunker low sulfur fuel oil exclusively. I believe the lakes has transitioned to purely diesel oil (MDO) now.
I recall the Columbia Star and Oglebay Norton consumed around 14,000 gallons per day. Obviously dependent on weather, loaded/ballast, and who was the Captain.
Only the lakes measures fuel consumption in gallons. Elsewhere it is Metric Tons.
A good example is the above 14,000 gallons per day (44.54 MT, roughly). The ship I am now Chief of (ocean going...a saltie, as you say) is of similar cargo capacity, but consumes 18-20 MT of MDO per day. Single engine, slow speed MAN. Other vessels in the fleet are newer and average 15 MT per day. When we used to burn DMA (HFO380), it was a few MT less per day...heavy oil is more efficient. Point is, the EMD engines are a bit long in the tooth (and were never really suited to be a good/efficient marine engine anyway).
Seems as of late, there's been a lot of question's/answer's concerning Fuel Capacity of the 1,000 footer. hopefully this will answer a few questions. This I'm taking from the BELLE RIVER which of-coarse is now the WALTER J. McCARTHY, JR. This info 'is from American SS's ship's directory!. Fuel type.....#2 Diesel Oil; Fuel Consumtion.....Average per day 12,000 gallons; Capacity.....Port tank between Frame 118-123 is 66,759 gallons equal to 1,590 bbls; Stbd tank between Framd 118-123 is 66,759 gallons (the same as the Port Side. There may be 'some' difference's between other vessel's, but this give an idea for the mentioned vessel.
From the fuel tankage plating on the Gott;
port and starbd bunker oil tanks at 78,594 gals each, a day tank of 22,709 gals and an overflow tans of 2,400. those are for the BUNKER oil. On the diesel oil side, its a 28,825 gal tank with a day tank of 10,479. Since that boat now runs on All diesel, that would put total tankage north of 220,000 gals. I assume her sistership the Speer would be similar if not identical.
Denny wrote:I think you got some good points and hit the nail and the icing on the cake with your comments there Odysseus as I was thinking the same thing the way that you put it. Yes you are indeed correct as in some ports and places, there are lakers and even 1,000 footers that will take on fuel while they discharge. I know that the footers will sometimes take on fuel while discharging coal I think it is at the St. Clair Power Plant? Also, I think at the Ports of Indiana there used to be and may still be a fuel barge that would fuel lakers at the Ports of Indiana. The Port of Hamilton used to have at least the Hamilton Energy and now there is the Sterling Energy which can fuel lakers and salties maybe? So again, I think you are correct.
I have visited the vessels in gary when fuel barges have come alongside, fuel trucks at Indiana harbor and burns harbor. There is a fueling connection at the dock I believe at St clair, the dock isnt very big and i dont recall a turn around at the dock itself. Not very much room to park a work truck let alone a semi at monroe power plant.
It would be interesting to know whether fleets are tied into only buying fuel from certain sources by contract, or whether they are able to make spot market purchases if lower prices in certain ports offer an opportunity to save some money, or a prediction of sustained rising/higher prices provides an incentive to load up before they increase further.
What may seem like excessive tank capacity could certainly be a big benefit in the latter two cases. Since it looks like running with half full verses full fuel tanks would only be a difference of around 200-250 tons, it doesn't seem like that would have too significant effect on draft.
A master today is far more than just a captain, being part bean counter and logistics expert can help a company survive in the inevitable lean times, and every $100,-000 saved helps.
I think you got some good points and hit the nail and the icing on the cake with your comments there Odysseus as I was thinking the same thing the way that you put it. Yes you are indeed correct as in some ports and places, there are lakers and even 1,000 footers that will take on fuel while they discharge. I know that the footers will sometimes take on fuel while discharging coal I think it is at the St. Clair Power Plant? Also, I think at the Ports of Indiana there used to be and may still be a fuel barge that would fuel lakers at the Ports of Indiana. The Port of Hamilton used to have at least the Hamilton Energy and now there is the Sterling Energy which can fuel lakers and salties maybe? So again, I think you are correct.
It seems to me that most vessels, regardless of size, seem to be loaded by the weight of the fuel. From the conversations I've had with guys who work on the boats or have fueled the boats, it's always about how many tons of fuel they take, not the gallons.
Maximum capacity might be a different matter altogether as well. Will a vessel that transits the relative short distances of the Great Lakes, especially locked into geography that can't transit the Welland, want to take on a maximum capacity of fuel? Keep in mind, the more fuel on board, the less the company can load for profit.
So maybe load fuel on the discharge point to ensure being ballasted down on a return empty trip with enough fuel to make it back loaded at the maximum draft it can handle? Perhaps this is why I see so many vessels taking fuel at their discharge points.
Food for thought.
Anyway, I don't think any vessel, let alone a footer, ever takes on it's maximum capacity. It's all about judging how much is needed to get from point A to point B to point C, and doing so with as much as can be carried once loaded. Weight of fuel comes into consideration.
Boatnerd's fleet gallery has the maximum fuel capacity listed for two footers. The American Spirit's fuel capacity is listed as 580 tons (589.4 mt). The Burns Harbor is listed as 446.84 tons (454.02 mt).
What the maximum capacity is listed as and what's typically taken on during refueling might however be two different figures, but this at least gives an idea of what the upper range is for fuel capacity on Great Lakes 1000' freighters.
From what I've heard and read some if not most of them take on at least 100,000 gallons! I once heard on my marine scanner one time where the James R. Barker took on about 115-125,000 once. However, this was many years ago before they have since put in the new Gas Exhaust Scubber system. So, I suppose it did not do much as far as changing the gallons it takes maybe lowering it just a little as a guess? Surely someone else will know or have more on this than I do but, I would guess that most of the footers take on at least 100,000 gallons of fuel. Hope that this information helps.