Return to Great Lakes & Seaway Shipping Great Lakes & Seaway Shipping Online
Discussion Boards
Please click to visit our sponsor
It is currently November 26, 2021, 9:52 pm

FAQ | Instructions | Help
Search for:



Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 119 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 8  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: St. Clair on Fire News Update
Unread postPosted: March 5, 2019, 5:08 pm 
Harry L. Allen had no storage cargo on-board at the time of the fire. An image from Flickr: https://c1.staticflickr.com/8/7346/1622 . cf70b4.jpg


Report this post
Top
  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: St. Clair on Fire News Update
Unread postPosted: March 5, 2019, 11:05 am 
In the Boatnerd News section "Today in Great Lakes History - March 5, it tells the story of the grain elevator fire that destroyed the SS Harry L. Allen that was at this dock for a winter layup. This was in Duluth in 1978. Was there storage grain aboard the Allen, and if so was it salvageable? I'm wondering even if the exterior was wreck if the inboard spaces of the ship were protected. TIA


Report this post
Top
  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: St. Clair on Fire News Update
Unread postPosted: March 3, 2019, 7:34 pm 
Thanks for that correction Guest as I had forgotten about the Homer and her length at over 800 feet long. Yes indeed she would then be the longest freighter to have met its demise but as you mentioned also, the St. Clair at least tonnage wise at over 44,000 tons would be the largest in capacity lost as you mentioned and suggested. As for the vessel with the most expense lost due to a fire I would have to say the Windoc and YES I know she wasn’t a young vessel. However, after the 2001 season the Windoc accident then forced Paterson out of business. I have to believe that the Windoc accident cost Paterson plenty of millions not just on the Windoc itself but of the company as a whole. Just my two cents.


Report this post
Top
  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: St. Clair on Fire News Update
Unread postPosted: March 3, 2019, 6:24 pm 
By capacity she would be the largest Great Lakes vessel no longer with us.

But the Arthur B. Homer at over 800' would still be the longest Great Lakes vessel to have met its demise, albeit due to retirement for economic reasons rather than being declared a constructive total loss after a fire.


Report this post
Top
  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: St. Clair on Fire News Update
Unread postPosted: March 3, 2019, 5:14 pm 
Some other things to consider that I thought about with her. If she is declared a total loss, I believe then she would be the largest vessel on the Great Lakes to be lost correct? The Fitzgerald was 729 feet long and so far is the largest ship to be lost although she sank in a terrible storm though. At 770 feet in length, the St. Clair was the largest ship to be side launched and if she’s a loss it could be the largest ship to be lost. Just some thoughts only on this is all and nothing more than that.


Report this post
Top
  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: St. Clair on Fire News Update
Unread postPosted: March 3, 2019, 4:07 pm 
Any updates on the St. Clair? Thank you.


Report this post
Top
  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: St. Clair on Fire News Update
Unread postPosted: March 1, 2019, 7:16 pm 

Joined: December 7, 2014, 10:33 am
Posts: 326
Guest wrote:
In reference to the St. Clair, however, by looking at the ASC website, that vessel represents nearly 7% of the fleet's single trip carrying capacity. I have no idea what type of cargo tonnages commitments the company has for the coming season but coming from working background of over 25 years in logistics and production scheduling I can say that losing that much capacity is definitely going to have an impact on operations. This 7% figure is just a crude estimation as the true seasonal carrying capacity of the fleet would also have to take into account several other factors such as average vessel operational speeds, unloading rates, trading routes, etc. From what I have heard, ASC planned to outfit all of their ships in 2019 before this accident happened so they must be planning for at least a busy spring. Having the remaining fleet units make a few extra trips may help alleviate the shortfall but the benefits of this is also reliant upon the company's tonnage commitments. In the short term, the loss of the St. Clair's capacity (for at least this season at a minimum) may result in some cargoes being outsourced to other fleets that have some reserve capacity while in the long term further cuts in the coal trade over the next 10 years or so will likely offset the shortfall.


All very good points.

One factor to also consider is that the capacity of the fleet is not linear. For example, a smaller vessel making more trips could have a higher net percentage of tonnage carried for the fleet year-end total. The 7% value assumes all vessels carry the same tonnage (e.g. a 25,000 DWT ship makes 50 trips loaded and a 50,000 DWT ship makes 50 trips loaded). Since ships within the fleet vary in cargo carrying capacity, and make different amounts of trips, the loss of revenue capacity can only be accurately calculated based on the trade route employed and then compared to the fleet wide totals for accurate extrapolation.


Report this post
Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: St. Clair on Fire News Update
Unread postPosted: March 1, 2019, 6:15 am 
MilwBob wrote:
Guest wrote:
Joe Delaronde wrote:
The replacement cost is a Whole different story, though.


Good Point! Luckily this fire didn't spread to the other two ships moored nearby.

Does the U.S. have any type of waiver system to allow a foreign flagged (Canadian) vessel to carry cargoes between two domestic ports if there are no available U.S. flagged carriers? I read somewhere that some of this was permitted during World War II, but I have never heard of it in peace time.

Why would they need to do this? The loss, wether temporary or permanent, of the St Clair in no way, shape, or form constitutes an emergency situation. There is no need to have a Canadian vessel cover her loads.


I probably should have started that part of my post in a new thread as I didn't mean to ask about the existence of waivers in connection with the St. Clair fire but rather a comparison to what seems to happen quite a bit in the Canadian tanker trades.

In reference to the St. Clair, however, by looking at the ASC website, that vessel represents nearly 7% of the fleet's single trip carrying capacity. I have no idea what type of cargo tonnages commitments the company has for the coming season but coming from working background of over 25 years in logistics and production scheduling I can say that losing that much capacity is definitely going to have an impact on operations. This 7% figure is just a crude estimation as the true seasonal carrying capacity of the fleet would also have to take into account several other factors such as average vessel operational speeds, unloading rates, trading routes, etc. From what I have heard, ASC planned to outfit all of their ships in 2019 before this accident happened so they must be planning for at least a busy spring. Having the remaining fleet units make a few extra trips may help alleviate the shortfall but the benefits of this is also reliant upon the company's tonnage commitments. In the short term, the loss of the St. Clair's capacity (for at least this season at a minimum) may result in some cargoes being outsourced to other fleets that have some reserve capacity while in the long term further cuts in the coal trade over the next 10 years or so will likely offset the shortfall.


Report this post
Top
  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: St. Clair on Fire News Update
Unread postPosted: February 28, 2019, 8:12 pm 
I've always understood the answer to be yes, but that it literally requires an act of Congress.


Report this post
Top
  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: St. Clair on Fire News Update
Unread postPosted: February 28, 2019, 7:57 pm 

Joined: May 9, 2010, 7:20 pm
Posts: 363
Guest wrote:
Joe Delaronde wrote:
The replacement cost is a Whole different story, though.


Good Point! Luckily this fire didn't spread to the other two ships moored nearby.

Does the U.S. have any type of waiver system to allow a foreign flagged (Canadian) vessel to carry cargoes between two domestic ports if there are no available U.S. flagged carriers? I read somewhere that some of this was permitted during World War II, but I have never heard of it in peace time.

Why would they need to do this? The loss, wether temporary or permanent, of the St Clair in no way, shape, or form constitutes an emergency situation. There is no need to have a Canadian vessel cover her loads.


Report this post
Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: St. Clair on Fire News Update
Unread postPosted: February 28, 2019, 6:00 am 
Joe Delaronde wrote:
The replacement cost is a Whole different story, though.


Good Point! Luckily this fire didn't spread to the other two ships moored nearby.

Does the U.S. have any type of waiver system to allow a foreign flagged (Canadian) vessel to carry cargoes between two domestic ports if there are no available U.S. flagged carriers? I read somewhere that some of this was permitted during World War II, but I have never heard of it in peace time.


Report this post
Top
  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: St. Clair on Fire News Update
Unread postPosted: February 27, 2019, 3:57 pm 
The replacement cost is a Whole different story, though.


Report this post
Top
  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: St. Clair on Fire News Update
Unread postPosted: February 27, 2019, 1:15 pm 
The estinated cost of the St. Clair when built in 1976 was $24.3 million. Adjusting for inflation, in 2019 dollars, she would cost $108 million. But remember, she's a fully depreciated asset to ASC, so her current value is perhaps $10 to $15 million.


Report this post
Top
  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: St. Clair on Fire News Update
Unread postPosted: February 27, 2019, 8:03 am 
Guest wrote:
Guest wrote:
If the St. Clair is a total loss, will this represent the largest financial loss in the Great Lakes shipping history?


That is a good question. Using today's currency, that would probably be true. Using a constant dollar value, that may or may not be true. Much younger ships (albeit smaller but less depreciatedSeaway) have been wrecked/lost.


It would be interesting to know how much the Cyprus was valued at when it was lost just a few weeks into its career. In addition some relatively young ships that were lost like the Leecliffe Hall and Roy A. Jodrey. Has anyone seen a figure as to the value of the Edmund Fitzgerald when it sank in 1975? Over the years, I have used some inflation calculators on line that provide some insight into the relative buying power of the dollar. The high inflation of the 1970s is particularly interesting.


Report this post
Top
  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: St. Clair on Fire News Update
Unread postPosted: February 26, 2019, 6:01 pm 
Guest wrote:
If the St. Clair is a total loss, will this represent the largest financial loss in the Great Lakes shipping history?


That is a good question. Using today's currency, that would probably be true. Using a constant dollar value, that may or may not be true. Much younger ships (albeit smaller but less depreciatedSeaway) have been wrecked/lost.


Report this post
Top
  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 119 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 8  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours




Return to Great Lakes & Seaway Shipping  
Copyright Boatnerd.com All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
Use of this site is based on the Terms of Use
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group