GLF update?

Discussion board focusing on Great Lakes Shipping Question & Answer. From beginner to expert all posts are welcome.
hausen
Posts: 803
Joined: July 2, 2010, 1:36 pm

Re: GLF update?

Unread post by hausen »

ML wrote:Did CN lose hauling contracts with US Steel to ASC? Seems like the last few years ASC's footers haul to Gary and Conneaut and am wondering if that has any play in CN layups and the Blough's fate..
It probably does have something to do with it - word on the waterfront seems to be that AIP/Rand is running the ASC footers with notably small crews. If that's so, it likely allows them to charge lower freight rates in the short term, even if it means ASC vessels might end up with shortened life spans in the long term from the deferred maintenance and increased wear and tear that a very small crew might lead to.

In the short term this might mean that ASC is able to charge lower freight rates than GLF. Given how some of GLF's ships were built and how they've been maintained, some of those GLF ships are likely to last much longer than most ASC ships, however.

The big looming variable is what happens with new shipping industry-wide fuel efficiency standards coming from c. 2023 onward, which might make for some unpredictable outcomes in the business of Lakes shipping which a lot of us in 2021 might think of as very unlikely.
ML

Re: GLF update?

Unread post by ML »

Did CN lose hauling contracts with US Steel to ASC? Seems like the last few years ASC's footers haul to Gary and Conneaut and am wondering if that has any play in CN layups and the Blough's fate....
JMarx

Re: GLF update?

Unread post by JMarx »

I'm probably the least qualified to comment, but if they have excess capacity it would make sense to let the Blough go and focus investment on their other Lakers. Footers aside, they have Munson, Anderson, Callaway, and Clarke...my understanding is that these ships are very similar and/or sister ships...this provides economies of scale and operational capability to easily dispatch interchangeably. And for the biggie loads, they have the footers. Was the Blough serving a need that couldn't be met with the smaller/bigger ships?

I'm not in the industry so perhaps I'm missing some nuance... hopefully I'm all wrong...
Guest

Re: GLF update?

Unread post by Guest »

guest wrote:with 2 105 ft wide vessels done for, is that new lock at the soo justified?
Yes, the new lock is justified. The ships with a 78-foot beam also need to use the Poe Lock and the new lock when it's completed. If the Poe Lock is out of service for any length of time, it means that ships with a beam of 78 feet or wider, and a length greater than 767 feet can't use the MacArthur Lock. That's a vast majority of the American lake fleet, and a number of newer Canadian vessels laidup.

As for the Blough, I'm still waiting on the NTSB investigation report to be available.
Andrew

Re: GLF update?

Unread post by Andrew »

Based on the fact that GLF has essentially been running a fleet of 6 this season without any real issues, and keeping the Clarke at the wall, seems to indicate that they're not in a position where they see themselves needing that tonnage anytime soon. Frankly, they could take the money and put it into the Callaway and Clarke, since the stone trade has been very good the last several years.

One has to wonder if CN is considering slowly divesting their maritime operations if the Callaway and Blough never get back on the lakes. Time will tell, I guess. The loss of the Blough would be crushing for boatwatchers, but with that St. Clair-esque size, it really is too big to haul stone and too small for the footer-size loads.
Guest

Re: GLF update?

Unread post by Guest »

When it comes to being in the know regarding office decisions, crew are Very low on the totem pole.
Bob

Re: GLF update?

Unread post by Bob »

So now what do they do with the blough if she’s done send her to scrap?
guest

Re: GLF update?

Unread post by guest »

with 2 105 ft wide vessels done for, is that new lock at the soo justified?
Guest

Re: GLF update?

Unread post by Guest »

My friend is definitely not low on the totem pole. Well respected long time GLF mariner. He says Blough is finished I believe him. Said damage is real extensive. Too expensive too repair considering market outlook n limited flexibility.
Jared
Posts: 697
Joined: December 6, 2014, 4:51 pm

Re: GLF update?

Unread post by Jared »

Guest wrote:For all of you speculating about the BLOUGH. Spoke with long time GLF officer in my home town on Saturday while he’s off his ship on vacation. He says the BLOUGH is finished. Won’t be repaired.
Heard the same thing several months ago with a few of the shipyard workers who told me she was done. However NO decision has been made public and the information provided to me was by low men on the totem pole.
Chris M
Posts: 703
Joined: July 28, 2009, 10:30 pm

Re: GLF update?

Unread post by Chris M »

Spoke with someone currently working with GLF and nothing offical has been decided but it's not looking good
Guest

Re: GLF update?

Unread post by Guest »

For all of you speculating about the BLOUGH. Spoke with long time GLF officer in my home town on Saturday while he’s off his ship on vacation. He says the BLOUGH is finished. Won’t be repaired.
Guest

Re: GLF update?

Unread post by Guest »

What year was the Hugh?
hugh3 wrote:I remember on the USS boats that I sailed on.
hugh3

Re: GLF update?

Unread post by hugh3 »

I remember on the USS boats that I sailed on there being a notice on the pilot house bulkhead about insurance. As I remember it stated that USS would cover the first 50% of any cost and Lloyds of London would cover the second 50%. It had to do with a fund that USS maintained instead of paying 100% of premiums.........
GuestfromEU
Posts: 326
Joined: December 7, 2014, 10:33 am

Re: GLF update?

Unread post by GuestfromEU »

All GLF vessels have P&I coverage with North of England, as I can see from online P&I Club database search. H&M search is not as easy. Key Lakes is the member holding coverage for all GLF vessels.

Full P&I and H&M cover may be a requirement of financial institutions if any lending instruments are in place for any vessels in the fleet. Being self-insured during the winter navigation experiment makes sense, as it is possible H&M clubs may have denied coverage due to high potential for claims. Since GLF has changed hands several times and is now managed by a true shipping company, it seems likely they would have true H&M coverage.

Quick clarification, P&I (Protection & Indemnity) coverage is for claims related to damages caused by the vessel. Damage to docks, oil spills, damage to other ships, and the like. It could be compared to comprehensive coverage for your auto. H&M (Hull & Machinery) is for damage to a ship. Hull repairs after grounding, machinery faults which are high value to repair, and others. It is not a fixed line, though. Many claims can be assessed to both P&I and H&M depending on the situation. P&I is a general term taken to include both, as P&I clubs also offer H&M coverage. It is common for shipowners to have one club for P&I and a different club for H&M.

Also, P&I clubs technically are self-insured. A good analogy would be to a "farmer's co-op". Members are the shipowners and money (premiums) are paid in to a collective fund and disbursed as claims are filed. The clubs all work together and will share claims as well.

Some further information can be found here https://www.igpandi.org/about

My apologies for taking away from the original discussion.
Guest

Re: GLF update?

Unread post by Guest »

I was always under the impression that GLF was self-insured, and had been since the Winter Navigation experiments of the 1970s. Or with the purchase of the fleet by CN Rail, did the amount self-insured become a 50/50 or a 33.3/33.3/33.3 coverage?

Thanks for any clarification, if such information is publicly available.

- Brian
GuestfromEU
Posts: 326
Joined: December 7, 2014, 10:33 am

Re: GLF update?

Unread post by GuestfromEU »

To add one thought, no major repairs are exclusively paid "out of pocket". The vessel owners have P&I and H&M cover, insurance in other words. There is a deductible, likely in range of USD 100,000 to 250,000 depending on many variables, possibly a percentage of total repairs as well, and other associated costs. Point is the ship owner will not be liable for USD 5m in total repair costs, for example. If the H&M club determines repairs are in excess of coverage or vessel net value that is a different story, but this would not be the case unless vessel is a total loss like St. Clair.

There may be several H&M clubs involved, as vessels are often covered by multiple insurers at varying percentages. The shipyard will also have multiple insurance policies. The investigations have likely been concluded for a long time. I have not read any definitive work being performed on the Blough. Perhaps there is work ongoing. Price of steel is at record high levels now, which combined with a now soft iron ore market could be reasons to delay repairs. While the Blough incident was big news to the Great Lakes community, it is a relatively minor incident in the eyes of an insurer compared to other incidents globally in a given year. Only the cost of repairs in the USA is reason for the high repair cost as mentioned in the media.
CSLFAN

Re: GLF update?

Unread post by CSLFAN »

St Clair, Tecumseh and Blough....no information on the last two and it has been a long time. When the Blough grounded she was repaired quite quickly, I saw a recent photo of her next to the new Barker and she dosen't show much exterior damage but who knows what's inside....CN, the parent company is in a very expensive battle with CP rail to buy Kansas City Southern railroad....wonder if they think a lake boat fleet is worth it along with the CN dock....there must be some insurance money for Blough but Clarke would be all out of pocket and isn't the Republic a charter and not GLF owned? Maybe it will be like the days when Columbia was for sale and there was a for sale sign in all the wheelhouse windows....sailing only 6 boats can't be a great amount of income compared to what the railroad generates and who would buy them?
Andrew

GLF update?

Unread post by Andrew »

I'm not starting this topic for rumors to circulate, but just curious if there is any substantive word on the Blough, Callaway, or Clarke and their condition/status/chance of seeing them in the near future?
Post Reply