by guest7 » October 25, 2013, 11:30 pm
If tug/barge is the future for cement, wouldn't it be cheaper to sink some money into fixing whatever problems the long inactive St. Marys Cement III has than to notch the St. Marys Challenger? I realize Port City is the St. Marys Challenger's current owner, but St. Marys Cement remains the primary customer and they have chartered out vessels in the past. I also realize that the St. Marys Cement III is foreign built and therefore can't be used on domestic U.S. runs but it could be swapped with the St. Marys Cement which was built in Toledo and could therefore be brought under U.S. flag. At 9400 tons, the St. Mary Cement's capacity is only about 8% less than the St. Marys Challenger's 10,250 ton capacity. St. Marys Cement probably doesn't handle heavy seas well, but I understand the St. Marys Challenger has been pampered when it comes to heavy weather for years anyway.
If tug/barge is the future for cement, wouldn't it be cheaper to sink some money into fixing whatever problems the long inactive [i]St. Marys Cement III[/i] has than to notch the [i]St. Marys Challenger[/i]? I realize Port City is the [i]St. Marys Challenger[/i]'s current owner, but St. Marys Cement remains the primary customer and they have chartered out vessels in the past. I also realize that the [i]St. Marys Cement III[/i] is foreign built and therefore can't be used on domestic U.S. runs but it could be swapped with the [i]St. Marys Cement[/i] which was built in Toledo and could therefore be brought under U.S. flag. At 9400 tons, the [i]St. Mary Cement's[/i] capacity is only about 8% less than the [i]St. Marys Challenger's[/i] 10,250 ton capacity. [i]St. Marys Cement[/i] probably doesn't handle heavy seas well, but I understand the [i]St. Marys Challenger[/i] has been pampered when it comes to heavy weather for years anyway.