Return to Great Lakes & Seaway Shipping Great Lakes & Seaway Shipping Online
Discussion Boards
Please click to visit our sponsor
It is currently October 21, 2021, 1:59 pm

FAQ | Instructions | Help
Search for:



Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 17 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: Arthur M Anderson, museum
Unread postPosted: September 4, 2021, 10:27 am 

Joined: December 7, 2014, 10:33 am
Posts: 325
To the topic of emissions regulations. EGCS, or Scrubbers, remove NOx and SOx, but not CO2. CO2 (Carbon Dioxide) is the pollutant of concern with regards to the new IMO regulations as a result of MEPC 76. Scrubbers were installed to permit vessels to burn high sulfur HFO and MGO. Upgrades to existing ships, and designs for new ships, have taken into account economic factors, but the new regulations were not foreseen even just two years ago. Many shipowners are now finding themselves with an apparent poor investment in capital upgrades.

To further clarify my earlier remarks, EEXI (Energy Efficiency Existing Ship Index) is a value which is calculated for every single vessel, new and old. There is a set, calculated value for which each ship must meet or exceed. The set value does not change, and the calculated value would change only if modifications are made to improve the efficiency of the ship. This is not about reducing pollutants, it is about reducing fuel consumption, or changing to alternative fuels and thereby reducing Greenhouse Gases (GHG's). Regarding alternative fuels like Methanol, Hydrogen, or Ammonia, the technology for engines to consume these fuel is just progressing beyond infancy, and land-based production, infrastructure, and distribution are years away from being a viable option.

The Carbon Intensity Indicator is another regulation coming into force alongside EEXI. The primary difference is whilst the EEXI is a static value, CII is a fluid value. EEXI calculates the vessel benchmark one time, whilst the CII calculates annually, thus getting a real time, current picture of the vessel efficiency and GHG emissions. It is not a set value and each year will revise downward slightly, requiring a ship to be approximately 2% more efficient than the year prior. By efficiency, this can be taken as fuel consumed for each cargo ton moved over a measured distance. Each ship will be assigned a grade from A to E, based on the calculations performed each year and respective ships of same type and size. As each new ship is delivered, with attractive, compliant EEXI and CII values, the global average set value will trend downward, forcing existing ships to meet the new values. Grades A, B, and C are compliant. Grades D and E are not compliant, and must be improved to become compliant or the vessel cannot sail. Also to note, banks, financial institutions, and charterers are focusing on this and some will institute restrictions on charterparties, mandating only grade A or B vessels be engaged on moving their cargo. This may not be a factor on the lakes, but very well could affect to some degree.

To put this in perspective, almost every shipowner in the world is scrambling to perform the calculations, often outsourced to Class Societies, engine manufacturers, or independent consultants. Many are bringing in consultants to advise on the path forward, whether that is limiting engine power, installing energy improvement devices, upgrading engine components, and other options. The important thing to remember is these investments are not one off. That is, continual improvement is required to stay compliant. Considering engine power limitation, some ships just 10 years old may see a reduction of up to 40-50% of engine power at the onset, and further reduced each year. At what point does a ship become unprofitable? Engine Power Limitation is a quick solution, but installation of other options - re-designed propeller, exhaust gas recirculation, different turbochargers, upgraded generator engines - are all projects that take time, one year to execute at best, often longer. Every shipowner is taking some action on this and the limited capability for manufacturers to keep up production will make for difficult compliance in meeting timely targets with each passing day.


Report this post
Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Arthur M Anderson, museum
Unread postPosted: September 2, 2021, 9:17 pm 
Jared wrote:
I am of the belief that the Jones act will come up hard against the emissions protocol as it is impractical for US ships. But from the sounds of it, the Jones act may be on its last legs anyways.

With the El Faro disaster and the Hurricanes hitting us on a regular basis, the Jones act has been questioned non stop since McCain mentioned it several years ago. As you mentioned before on emissions, most of our ships in the entirety of the country will be hard pressed to make them with no hope for the older lakers at all. A battle of wills is coming..


I'm not so sure that the Jones Act is at its end yet.. If that act were to be repealed, that would likely mean the end for U.S. domestic shipbuilding, that is, unless U.S. yards quickly found a way to compete with overseas yards like in China. There are many obstacles that would have to be overcome for that to become true. Repealing the Jones Act would also open up domestic trading to foreign competitors with lower rates than American operators, and would likely put the domestics out of business, that is, unless they would be able to find a way to make themselves competitive with foreign operators. I'm not saying it would be impossible, but it would take a lot to be able to adjust to an unprotected market such as that if the Jones Act were to be repealed. But, on the other hand, it may not be a bad thing for U.S. shipbuilders and shipping operators to adapt to try to become more competitive on a global market to be prepared if such a situation were to arise.

As for emissions requirements, I believe the future is more optimistic than you think. Many ships on the Great Lakes use #2 diesel fuel oil, which currently meets emissions requirements. The new Mark W. Barker is being constructed with engines that burn #2. I don't think she would have been fitted with engines that burn #2 if they would not meet regulations in the next 15-20 years at least. These vessels may be able to undergo retrofit with Exhaust Gas Scrubbers (EGS) to keep them within the boundaries. Interlake has served as a prime example of a company taking action to remain within compliance. They have fitted almost all of their older classic vessels with EGS systems and keep them in emissions compliance while burning cheaper, less refined #6 Heavy Fuel Oil. This proves that many older vessels could be modified to meet requirements.


Report this post
Top
  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Arthur M Anderson, museum
Unread postPosted: September 1, 2021, 9:18 pm 
Two of the thousand footers have been re-powered, the Edwin H. Gott and the Paul R. Tregurtha.

Mark Barker said in a Zoom meeting last Fall that what kept him up at night was a broken crankshaft on one of their thousand footers that had the Pielstick engines. It would put the vessel out of service for months. He said that is one of the reasons why the Paul R was repowered - to have two extra crankshafts.

The EPA had an incentive program to encourage US Great Lakes ship owners with vessels that have steam turbine engines to replace that machinery with Tier 2 emission diesel engines. I don't know if this incentive program is still in place or if it was just a proposal that went nowhere.

https://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyNET.exe/P10 . e=x&ZyPURL


Report this post
Top
  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Arthur M Anderson, museum
Unread postPosted: September 1, 2021, 7:20 pm 

Joined: December 6, 2014, 4:51 pm
Posts: 630
I am of the belief that the Jones act will come up hard against the emissions protocol as it is impractical for US ships. But from the sounds of it, the Jones act may be on its last legs anyways.

With the El Faro disaster and the Hurricanes hitting us on a regular basis, the Jones act has been questioned non stop since McCain mentioned it several years ago. As you mentioned before on emissions, most of our ships in the entirety of the country will be hard pressed to make them with no hope for the older lakers at all. A battle of wills is coming..

Getting back on point, I think we need to focus on the museum ships we have now or replace them with what's left of the stock we have. If you save the Anderson, Crapo, and Sykes, then you may have to give up the Mather, Franz, or Mackinaw. Nobody will have room for a footer, and quite frankly they are neither historic or aesthetically pleasing. Same goes for the Roger Blough. Many ships live on through models, photographs, and plans. At the end of the day every laker is a motorized barge transporting material from A to B with no Glamorous fittings or furnishings.


Report this post
Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Arthur M Anderson, museum
Unread postPosted: September 1, 2021, 2:47 pm 
GuestfromEU wrote:

Technology will improve in the coming years, but deadlines are also approaching and the IMO seems hellbent on enforcing the new rules without possibility of extensions or variances.


You pretty much nailed it. The only thing I would add is that the 2030 ballast water thing, although that is a Canadian regulation, with which the EPA has not yet fallen in line. Any ship visiting a Canadian port will be required to have this system by law. So between that and environmentalists pushing for it. It's probably only a matter of time before the EPA does too.


Report this post
Top
  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Arthur M Anderson, museum
Unread postPosted: September 1, 2021, 7:07 am 

Joined: December 7, 2014, 10:33 am
Posts: 325
Guest wrote:
One thing you gotta consider though, is that governments on both sides of the border, along with the IMO, are fixing to impose ever stricter environmental regulations on the industry. The IMO's initial emissions regulations (they are designed to get more strict with time) start in 2023 and ballast water treatment regulations come into effect in 2030.

I could see these being the tipping point, because it either will cost too much, or won't be feasible to retrofit into some of these older ships.


This is absolutely true. You very likely are aware of the impacts to the industry. Here is a short summary for those not aware. Please contribute to any points I missed.

The emissions regulations will be a difficult obstacle to overcome, not only for old steam plants, but also 1970's-vintage vessels and even including recent re-powered ships. There are no grandfather provisions in the IMO code - new and old vessels are held to the same standards. While the formula is somewhat complex, it can be summarized as cargo transported per year, fuel consumed, maximum rated power of main engine, and various other factors all plugged in to give a baseline number. That number can be improved by installing energy saving devices, but no options are commercially viable for aged vessels on the lakes. The target number for which the baseline must be below reduces year over year. Example, if a vessel is given a rating of 4.90, with baseline of 5.00, they are good. Next year that baseline will lower, to say 4.92, still in range. Then 4.84 the next year. Now the ship no longer falls within the limit, so action must be taken. One approach which can be done with minimal work is to limit engine power, thereby reducing fuel consumed. This is a popular method on ocean ships, which often trade at eco or slow speed. Most ships on the lakes trade at full speed, hauling as much cargo as possible in a season. Each ship is unique in the amount of engine power reduction required, but this could easily add 10+ hours to round trip time from the Twin Ports to Northern Indiana ports, for example. In an industry that measures delays by the minute, this is significant. On ocean ships, vessels built just 5-10 years ago are being impacted as they already fall above the required baseline starting in 2023. The bar is set high. This will affect every ship in the world, regardless of age. Ships built in the 1980s or older could see power limitations up to 50% of maximum, with decreasing allowances each yer.

Ballast water regulations are a separate matter with more viable options to fulfill requirements, but again it comes to a commercial solution. While ballast water treatment systems currently on the market are available, there is a strong chance they physically will not fit in the machinery spaces of some vessels. Electrochlorination systems are not economically possible, as they require salt water to generate chlorine or addition of bulk chemicals, an expensive proposition. UV systems are not yet capable of processing the flow rate of some larger vessels, for example the thousand foot vessels. One of the largest UV type systems on the market is rated for 3,000 cubic meters per hour. That is 13,208 gallons per minute. The Stewart J Cort pumps out ballast at 64,000 gallons per minute. Other thousand footers are around 52,000 gallons per minute. If two treatment systems of largest capacity were installed, the time required to pump out ballast is still over twice as long as present. Further to the issue is electrical power required to operate a treatment system, which can be significant, often exceeding 250 kw per treatment system. Generators now installed would require replacement for larger units, which is not a particularly difficult task, only costly. Are existing switchboards designed for this capacity? If not, they also require modification or replacement. This all requires a significant investment. Ballast water treatment systems can start at $2m (parts and labour) and quickly go higher, often exceeding $3m. Generator replacement can be another $0.75m. That is for one system - if multiple systems are required, the costs can easily go above $5m. Where is the breakeven point for a ship approaching or exceeding 50 years old? Now combine the capital costs of the ballast water treatment systems with emissions regulations and it quickly becomes a losing proposal for many ships.

Technology will improve in the coming years, but deadlines are also approaching and the IMO seems hellbent on enforcing the new rules without possibility of extensions or variances.


Report this post
Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Arthur M Anderson, museum
Unread postPosted: September 1, 2021, 12:05 am 
Very interesting thread and topic here folks. Totally agree with many of you as far as the Sykes someday becoming a museum ship along with the Ryerson as well. As long as the Roger Blough isn’t finished as I got my fingers crossed and prayers included she’s not, I would love to see her someday become a museum. Also, although it’s a footer I’d love to see the Cort become one just for the fact of her being the first one built and also her unique design and unloading system. Now, as far as if any ships someday become museums such as what we are just talking here only about is all then the question becomes “What port city and town do you put a museum in?” Most of the lakes’ major port cities have them now already such as Duluth, Cleveland and Toledo along with the Valley Camp at the Soo. What ports and towns have the room and space for a large vessel being a museum and what ports I wonder would want one? These are just my thoughts and opinions only on this subject is all it is!


Report this post
Top
  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Arthur M Anderson, museum
Unread postPosted: August 31, 2021, 7:08 pm 
One thing you gotta consider though, is that governments on both sides of the border, along with the IMO, are fixing to impose ever stricter environmental regulations on the industry. The IMO's initial emissions regulations (they are designed to get more strict with time) start in 2023 and ballast water treatment regulations come into effect in 2030.

I could see these being the tipping point, because it either will cost too much, or won't be feasible to retrofit into some of these older ships.


Report this post
Top
  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Arthur M Anderson, museum
Unread postPosted: August 31, 2021, 1:14 pm 
I agree, the Wilfred Sykes would be a great choice. A beautiful ship with a long great lakes history. Additionally, on the night the Fitz went down the Sykes was on lake Superior but, she was hugging the Michigan shoreline while heading to the Soo.


Report this post
Top
  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Arthur M Anderson, museum
Unread postPosted: August 31, 2021, 12:37 pm 
I'd beg to differ that many of the classic ships are nearing the end of their lifespan. It isn't wishful thinking, either. Many of them have recently received major upgrades over the last decade which should keep them running for a long time. Unless we are on the cusp of a major shipbuilding boom, I don't expect the US side to dispose of too much anytime soon. The reason that the Canadians are disappearing is that there are newer and less expensive ships being built overseas, something that US fleets on the lakes can't do. Most of the Interlake ships had new power plants put in recently, The Sykes and Alpena are well kept up and have recently had a lot of work done on their boilers (if there was a plan to barge or dispose of them anytime soon, the owners would not have put in the work), and besides the Callaway, all the old USS ships have had considerable work done recently too. That said, they won't last forever, but at the end of the day, replacing a steam engine is easier than a newbuild, and if the hulls haven't been around too much salt, they'll last a century. I'm willing to argue that due to their small size and flexibility, they will always have cargo to haul. The ones in real danger are the footers, who weren't constructed as well and are having the loss of the coal market creeping up on them. Will they be repowered? The time for a new engine for the 13 will be coming up in a matter of a decade or two. That will be telling. Since the trend is to build smaller (VTB and the Mark Barker), and smaller engines will theoretically cost less, there might be a better shot at the smaller ships outlasting the bigger ones. But that's my two cents. We shall see.


Report this post
Top
  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Arthur M Anderson, museum
Unread postPosted: August 31, 2021, 10:22 am 

Joined: July 2, 2010, 1:36 pm
Posts: 756
If someone with access to an essentially unlimited budget were to take on the project of preserving a 1950s-era laker, Wilfred Sykes would be an obvious choice, especially if she ends up completing her career with her original steam turbine power plant intact. The Sykes is the prototype for all of the '50s era lakers that came after her: the first large bulk-carrying laker to have a high-horsepower steam turbine, first such ship to have an enclosed poop deck aft, and the first of that line of lakers with an elevated level of consideration given to a specific aesthetic style of naval architecture, with her stem-to-stern streamline aesthetic. If such a theoretical very wealthy person wanted to, they could even decide whether or not to, say, keep the Sykes' self-unloading system intact, or whether to spend some of that unlimited cash on removing the self-unloading system and returning her to her original appearance.

For similar reasons, the Edward L. Ryerson would be another obvious priority for preservation.

That said, if our hypothetical tremendously wealthy person was interested enough in Great Lakes maritime preservation to fund such an endeavor, one imagines that they would also find it quite compelling to render assistance to the many fine and struggling museum ships that currently exist around the Lakes.


Report this post
Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Arthur M Anderson, museum
Unread postPosted: August 31, 2021, 9:37 am 
Interesting debate.. I completely understand the commentary about economic viability of museum ships. Also agree that while the Anderson is forever tied to the 'Fitzgerald lore', the ship itself is not extraordinary vs her contemporaries.

Having that said, my suspicion is that we are quickly approaching a time when many of the remaining 'classic lakers' (pilothouse forward) will be at end of lifespan. (how many will realistically be left in 20 years?) If one of the last generation of 'classic lakers' (1950-60s) were to be preserved, which would you choose? The Anderson certainly would be easier to market given her tie to the Fitz vs other AAA-class/similar generation vessels. Is there another that would be better suited? (same era but better condition, easier to maintain?)

Yep, it's all probably just Boatnerd board dreaming.. :-)


Report this post
Top
  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Arthur M Anderson, museum
Unread postPosted: August 30, 2021, 11:20 pm 

Joined: April 28, 2010, 6:37 pm
Posts: 963
Our current museum ships are struggling. Please support them rather than add another to the mix


Report this post
Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Arthur M Anderson, museum
Unread postPosted: August 30, 2021, 9:28 pm 
just whats needed another museum ship, whos your sugar daddy? bill gates about the only real suceesful museumn ship is the valley camp remember a ship is only a hole in the water to throw $ into 99% are not successful


Report this post
Top
  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Arthur M Anderson, museum
Unread postPosted: August 30, 2021, 7:17 pm 
Why? What is so special about that ship?


Report this post
Top
  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 17 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  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