John Sherwin

Discussion board focusing on Great Lakes Shipping Question & Answer. From beginner to expert all posts are welcome.
Jared
Posts: 798
Joined: December 6, 2014, 4:51 pm

Re: John Sherwin

Unread post by Jared »

Guest wrote:Jared - Google "Jones Act Repeal" and page after page of studies and reports will show up.
From Frobes which I was quoting. The results are mixed bag, but economists, lobbyists, and politicians are giving it a second look. Not saying I agree with a repeal, but it's clear that it's time for changes within the act itself.

The Jones Act: Friend Or Foe?

By Ted Loch-Temzelides

Maria was the worst hurricane to hit Puerto Rico in decades, creating a tremendous amount of devastation. Many are concerned that this might become the “new normal” if such events become more commonplace in the U.S. territory when, as many scientists argue, water temperatures rise, and the frequency and severity of hurricanes increase.


The Jones Act, or, more precisely, the “Merchant Marine Act,” is a federal statute, meant to support the U.S. commercial fleet. It is one of the most important transportation-related laws in the country. The act is named after Senator Wesley Jones, who introduced it in 1920. The act regulates all maritime commerce in U.S. waters and between U.S. ports. It requires that shipping of all goods transported between U.S. ports be carried out by ships under the U.S flag. The ships must be constructed in the United States, owned by U.S. citizens, and crewed by U.S. citizens and U.S. permanent residents. Furthermore, the steel used in any foreign repair work on a Jones Act vessel must be less than ten percent of the ship’s total weight. Waivers are only possible on a temporary basis, in cases involving national defense, or other emergencies, such as hurricanes.



Signed by President Wilson, the Jones Act was meant to ensure that the U.S. would have a robust fleet in the event of a military confrontation. As the costs associated with the Jones Act restrictions make U.S. ships more expensive to operate, it is fair to say that the U.S. maritime industry has not been flourishing over the years. However, the industry supports the Jones Act as a job creator for American workers and as a contributor to the U.S. National Security. Indeed, over time presidents from both parties are on record supporting the Jones Act, based on national security considerations.


Is the act overall beneficial for the U.S.? The purpose of the Jones Act is to ensure the viability of the United States maritime and shipping industries. Clearly, the act prevents foreign-flagged ships from carrying cargo between U.S. ports. Reduced competition in both building ships and transporting goods can lead to higher prices. For example, Jones Act ships can cost three times as much as those built in foreign shipyards. Critics of the act argue that a large fraction of these costs is passed on to the final consumers, who have to pay higher prices for the transported goods, or for goods using high-cost inputs transported by Jones Act vessels. Places like Hawaii and Puerto Rico are considered to be particularly affected due to their reliance on maritime transportation. Sen. John McCain has been one of the strongest critics of the law. On the other hand, proponents argue that the Jones Act is vital to national security and that it protects American jobs, for example, in the ship-building industry. The Jones Act has been historically waived during short periods of emergencies affecting the mainland of the United States, most recently after Hurricanes Harvey and Irma. After some hesitation, it was just announced that the Act will be temporarily waived for Puerto Rico. These incidents contribute to the debate about the Jones Act’s overall net merits.

The fact that the Jones Act has both fierce opponents and fierce supporters is not surprising. Like many regulations, it creates both winners and losers. The question for policy should be whether the gains from the regulation exceed the resulting losses or the other way round.


But despite the importance of the act, there is no rigorous economic analysis devoted to the evaluation of the costs and benefits that it generates for the U.S. economy. An exhaustive analysis is needed in order to compare the welfare effects associated with maritime services in the presence and in the hypothetical absence of the Jones Act.

Such an analysis will need to consider a number of different factors.

Many foreign-flag vessels operate in competitive, somewhat unregulated markets and are often subject to low compliance costs. As a result, and since foreign and domestic vessels are largely considered to be perfect substitutes in transportation, foreign competition would likely result in reductions in freight rates, should the Jones Act be repelled.

However, the Jones Act has other far-reaching implications for the entire U.S. transportation sector and beyond. Such effects are very hard to capture in their entirety. As an example, the U.S. trucking and rail industries, as well as the ports, would be affected in complex ways, if the Jones Act were to be repelled. Trains have been used as a substitute for maritime transportation in the U.S., when this leads to costs savings. If maritime transportation becomes less expensive due to increased competition, there will be a corresponding shift away from rail, resulting in loss of revenue in that sector. Ports, on the other hand, could benefit from the increased number of foreign vessels served, due to economies of scale.


Perhaps most importantly, in the presence of foreign competition, the domestic maritime industry would likely be largely uncompetitive given its higher cost structure, leading to a decline in size and, finally, a smaller domestic representation, as only the most efficient and low-cost domestic firms would be able to compete. Supporters of the Act point to the national security implications of such an outcome.

For a complete cost-benefit analysis, losses in domestic “producer surplus” need to be aggregated and compared to the total benefits in “consumer surplus.” In addition, the national security benefits from the Act will need to be assigned a dollar value and enter the calculation as well. The resulting net effect would determine the desirability of a potential policy change.

Is the Jones Act, then, a friend or a foe of the American economy?

It depends on whom you ask.

Until a rigorous cost-benefit analysis of the far-reaching implications from its potential repeal are carefully calculated, we will not know.

The fact that the Act affects different industries, locations, professions, etc. diversely, and the fact that it involves non-trivial national security implications, makes this a formidable task.
Marc

Re: John Sherwin

Unread post by Marc »

Jared wrote:A friend of mine that just went through the Great Lakes Maritime Academy was saying that the Jones Act might not be around much longer.
February 2022:
Washington's support for the Jones Act has never been higher
Guest

Re: John Sherwin

Unread post by Guest »

Jared - Google "Jones Act Repeal" and page after page of studies and reports will show up.
garbear

Re: John Sherwin

Unread post by garbear »

Guest wrote:It took me a little while but I found a pdf document with the location of the various vessels out on Lake Superior on November 10, 1975. The pdf document is part of learning dataset for students to learn meteorology.

SWN = John Sherwin
ALG = Algosoo (?)
TAD = Tadoussac
SIM = Simcoe
BEE = Charles M. Beeghly
WEI = Ernest T. Weir
CLK = Philip R. Clarke
BRE = Ernest R. Breech
ARM = Armco

https://www.michiganseagrant.org/lesson ... tzMaps.pdf

- Brian
I was on the Clarke that day. The worst wind I ever saw.
Jared
Posts: 798
Joined: December 6, 2014, 4:51 pm

Re: John Sherwin

Unread post by Jared »

hausen wrote:
Jared wrote: A friend of mine that just went through the Great Lakes Maritime Academy was saying that the Jones Act might not be around much longer. If the act is repealed then these hulls that have been laid up for decades at time will go to the torch. I'm on the fence with the Jones Act, it protects American mariners, but it constrains our ability to compete with other nations. Here is an interesting article on the downsides of the Jones Act.

https://www.cato.org/publications/polic ... onger-bear


It should be noted that the Cato Institute is by no means a neutral observer of economies and markets. It is a highly partisan political "think tank", funded directly by the likes of the tiny handful of people who would be the only ones to benefit if the Jones Act was repealed.

The Jones Act does not restrain the U.S.'s ability to "compete with other nations"; what's really meant by an overtly political phrase like that is that the U.S.'s strong currency and robust safety and environmental laws are what keeps it from being used as a flag of convenience by those who'd rather rake in huge profits by running a shoddy, dirty, unsafe operation vs. run a high-quality mission-oriented business that adheres to high standards. Many global shipping barons today are already indeed U.S.-based and so in a sense the "U.S" -does- compete just fine in international shipping, it's just that it's a handful of shipping barons using flags of convenience and excluding American workers from benefiting. The Jones Act is not a hindrance to global "competition"; it's a last bulwark against cheap, shoddy, unsafe outfits that funnel cash out of our economy taking over our domestic maritime industry.

If the U.S.-flagged carriage requirement of the Jones Act was repealed, we would not suddenly see a burgeoning growth of U.S.-flagged ships crewed by U.S. citizens, trading on global shipping lanes. That's not in the plans of those constantly calling for Jones Act repeal. If the Jones Act is repealed, what we'd see is not the U.S. maritime industry suddenly "competing" abroad, we'd see the U.S. maritime industry cease to compete at all; it would cease to exist. In its place, U.S. inland/Great Lakes/coast-wise maritime trade would be dominated by ships owned by overseas shipping conglomerates, crewed by cheaply-paid workers from abroad, with all of the profits disappearing overseas. There might end up being a few U.S.-based companies in the mix, but their ships would be flagged in, say, the Marshall Islands or Liberia, and they too would be crewed by cheaply-paid workers from overseas. A handful of U.S. business higher-ups would get enormously rich and that wealth would disappear into offshore accounts. Meanwhile thousands of already-scarce good-paying jobs would disappear from the U.S. economy, along with all of the domestic economic benefit that goes along with them.
This is all conjecture as no cost analysis or systematic study has been conducted on the repeal of the Jones Act. In my personal opinion it needs to be modified if Shipbuilding companies cannot produce a sustainable merchant fleet in a specific period of time.
Guest

Re: John Sherwin

Unread post by Guest »

Very well said, hausen. Contrary to what some would like, the Jones Act is going nowhere.
BigRiver
Posts: 1090
Joined: April 28, 2010, 6:37 pm

Re: John Sherwin

Unread post by BigRiver »

Well said, Hausen!
hausen
Posts: 803
Joined: July 2, 2010, 1:36 pm

Re: John Sherwin

Unread post by hausen »

Jared wrote: A friend of mine that just went through the Great Lakes Maritime Academy was saying that the Jones Act might not be around much longer. If the act is repealed then these hulls that have been laid up for decades at time will go to the torch. I'm on the fence with the Jones Act, it protects American mariners, but it constrains our ability to compete with other nations. Here is an interesting article on the downsides of the Jones Act.

https://www.cato.org/publications/polic ... onger-bear
It should be noted that the Cato Institute is by no means a neutral observer of economies and markets. It is a highly partisan political "think tank", funded directly by the likes of the tiny handful of people who would be the only ones to benefit if the Jones Act was repealed.

The Jones Act does not restrain the U.S.'s ability to "compete with other nations"; what's really meant by an overtly political phrase like that is that the U.S.'s strong currency and robust safety and environmental laws are what keeps it from being used as a flag of convenience by those who'd rather rake in huge profits by running a shoddy, dirty, unsafe operation vs. run a high-quality mission-oriented business that adheres to high standards. Many global shipping barons today are already indeed U.S.-based and so in a sense the "U.S" -does- compete just fine in international shipping, it's just that it's a handful of shipping barons using flags of convenience and excluding American workers from benefiting. The Jones Act is not a hindrance to global "competition"; it's a last bulwark against cheap, shoddy, unsafe outfits that funnel cash out of our economy taking over our domestic maritime industry.

If the U.S.-flagged carriage requirement of the Jones Act was repealed, we would not suddenly see a burgeoning growth of U.S.-flagged ships crewed by U.S. citizens, trading on global shipping lanes. That's not in the plans of those constantly calling for Jones Act repeal. If the Jones Act is repealed, what we'd see is not the U.S. maritime industry suddenly "competing" abroad, we'd see the U.S. maritime industry cease to compete at all; it would cease to exist. In its place, U.S. inland/Great Lakes/coast-wise maritime trade would be dominated by ships owned by overseas shipping conglomerates, crewed by cheaply-paid workers from abroad, with all of the profits disappearing overseas. There might end up being a few U.S.-based companies in the mix, but their ships would be flagged in, say, the Marshall Islands or Liberia, and they too would be crewed by cheaply-paid workers from overseas. A handful of U.S. business higher-ups would get enormously rich and that wealth would disappear into offshore accounts. Meanwhile thousands of already-scarce good-paying jobs would disappear from the U.S. economy, along with all of the domestic economic benefit that goes along with them.
Jared
Posts: 798
Joined: December 6, 2014, 4:51 pm

Re: John Sherwin

Unread post by Jared »

Guest wrote:
guest wrote:I wonder if there is some kind of tax write off?? As the Americans tend to hold on to retired ships. " C.T.C. NO.1" Comes to my mind
Building Jones Act compliant vessels costs a lot of money. Hulls that still potentially have use to them or have parts to keep other ships in service are kept around to keep other vessels in service as long as possible. The CTC was kept around for parts for the other Maritimers that were owned by Lower Lakes/Grand River. Now that most of them are gone, it is likely she won't be kept around. Keep in mind she was actually in USE as a cement storage barge at the St. Marys Cement South Chicago Terminal up until 2009 when she was acquired by Grand River Navigation.

The Sherwin is still a practically "new" hull by Great Lakes standards, even though she is 64 years old, the hull has only seen 23 years of service. If Interlake were to need a vessel of her size range, they could take her back to the shipyard and have the repower and self-unloader conversion completed for much less than the cost of building a new vessel. Many ask why they built the new Mark W. Barker when they have the Sherwin sitting around, but the fact of the matter is that their customers needed capacity in the river class market, so the Sherwin would have been well over 150' too long, making more sense to build a new river class ship to meet the demands of their customers and hold onto the Sherwin for another day (or as insurance for her sister the Oberstar).
A friend of mine that just went through the Great Lakes Maritime Academy was saying that the Jones Act might not be around much longer. If the act is repealed then these hulls that have been laid up for decades at time will go to the torch. I'm on the fence with the Jones Act, it protects American mariners, but it constrains our ability to compete with other nations. Here is an interesting article on the downsides of the Jones Act.

https://www.cato.org/publications/polic ... onger-bear


Please keep the Fitzgerald stuff on other threads. This is about the Sherwin and her fate, not an event 45 years ago.
Guest

Re: John Sherwin

Unread post by Guest »

Sherwin passed through the locks at 1:50 PM Monday, November 10th.
Guest

Re: John Sherwin

Unread post by Guest »

It took me a little while but I found a pdf document with the location of the various vessels out on Lake Superior on November 10, 1975. The pdf document is part of learning dataset for students to learn meteorology.

SWN = John Sherwin
ALG = Algosoo (?)
TAD = Tadoussac
SIM = Simcoe
BEE = Charles M. Beeghly
WEI = Ernest T. Weir
CLK = Philip R. Clarke
BRE = Ernest R. Breech
ARM = Armco

https://www.michiganseagrant.org/lesson ... tzMaps.pdf

- Brian
Guest

Re: John Sherwin

Unread post by Guest »

I work in the meteorological field and much of my work is in numerical weather prediction models. An interest I have is in re-analysis of past weather events.

Having studied in depth the meteorological aspects of the Edmund Fitzgerald storm over the years, and having done a numerical weather prediction model simulation of it, the John Sherwin taking the regular downbound course was the best option for her, as the winds were from the SSE. ( https://www.goldenhorseshoewx.ca/case_s ... _loop.html )

(Notice that I'm showing the 80 meter winds (260 feet) which would be above a ship's anemometer observation. That's for a very important reason - 80 meter winds have been found over the years to better simulate maximum wind gusts at the surface in an unstable atmosphere. And the atmosphere out on the lakes that day was unstable with a lot of vertical air motion and mixing of winds from the higher atmosphere down to the lake surface.

The Sherwin was several hours ahead of the Edmund Fitzgerald, so the weather conditions were not the same as where the Fitz was located - well north of the Keweenaw Peninsula at the time. The storm at 7am was passing over Marquette, Michigan and deepening ( https://www.goldenhorseshoewx.ca/case_s ... 18_syn.png ).

The Edmund Fitzgerald was a National Weather Service (NWS) cooperating vessel, meaning that the pilothouse officers took regular weather observations (that is synoptic observations at 00Z, 06Z, 12Z and 18Z), submitted those reports via radio (such as WMI Lorain or WLC Roger City) who in turn telexed the observations to the NWS. In 1975 there were 32 vessels that took regular weather observations around the Great Lakes. Such observations helped to fill in the gaps that the early weather models couldn't resolve.

For anyone interested, many of the Mariners Weather Logs from the 1970s have been posted to the archive website, and one in particular will be of interest. It's the May 1976 issue which covers the Great Lakes navigation season from 1975 and has many weather observations from various vessels, including the Edmund Fitzgerald. https://archive.org/details/sim_mariner ... 5/mode/2up

- Brian
Duluth Guest

Re: John Sherwin

Unread post by Duluth Guest »

Guest wrote:
Duluth Guest wrote:
Guest wrote:When the Fitz went down how far away on Lake Superior was the Sherwin?
John Sherwin wasn't on Lake Superior when the Fitzgerald sank. She had locked through down bound earlier in the day, along with the Ernest T. Weir. She took the usual down bound route and not the Northerly course.
Thanks for reply that's interesting info, would the Fitz have been better off also taking the down bound route?
Factually answering that question would require quite a bit of just pure speculation since we don't know the actual cause of the foundering beyond a reasonable doubt. Opinions on those questions are much easier to generate.
Guest

Re: John Sherwin

Unread post by Guest »

Duluth Guest wrote:
Guest wrote:When the Fitz went down how far away on Lake Superior was the Sherwin?
John Sherwin wasn't on Lake Superior when the Fitzgerald sank. She had locked through down bound earlier in the day, along with the Ernest T. Weir. She took the usual down bound route and not the Northerly course.
Thanks for reply that's interesting info, would the Fitz have been better off also taking the down bound route?
Duluth Guest

Re: John Sherwin

Unread post by Duluth Guest »

Guest wrote:When the Fitz went down how far away on Lake Superior was the Sherwin?
John Sherwin wasn't on Lake Superior when the Fitzgerald sank. She had locked through down bound earlier in the day, along with the Ernest T. Weir. She took the usual down bound route and not the Northerly course.
Guest

Re: John Sherwin

Unread post by Guest »

The key is coatings for ocean going vessels and salt carriers. Not sure many US operators spent much on paint for cargo holds and unloading systems. IIRC some US operators refused to carry salt until the very last years of a boats life for that very reason,

And looking how some companies don't even care about fabric maintenance of the visible hull, I imagine what we don't see is worse,
Jared
Posts: 798
Joined: December 6, 2014, 4:51 pm

Re: John Sherwin

Unread post by Jared »

Guest wrote:
Jared wrote:They fired up the boiler and engine on the Ryerson last June and she passed with flying colors. The problem is she's still steam and not a self unloader. And despite what is repeatedly claimed about hulls "being in good shape", steel ages too.

A little bit off topic, but the Iowa Class BBs of the Navy have served no more than 17 years of service despite being 80+ years old. The curator of the BB New Jersey said that during the last administration, a bunch of naval architects came out to gauge the strength of the steel compared to an sample of the same quality of steel made today and compared to a sample that has been held in storage (inside, heated, and not exposed to any elements). And the results were that the steel on the 80 year old BB had lost 46% of it strength.

So now that we are pushing the better part of a half century of age for the majority of the fleet, the hulls themselves have lost around a third of their strength (with lower quality steel so maybe more) since their launches in the 50s-70s.
They did a hydro on the boilers-which was quite successful. Fires were not lit nor steam put on the turbine. Also, the Iowas were exposed to salt water while operating. Salt is pretty brutal so this should be factored in when comparing fresh water operating ships!
I might have misinterpreted what was said about the Ryerson's test. It sounded to me like they did a complete dry run.

Salt water or not, steel ages and loses strength. Just another factor to add in the calculation of bringing boats out or extending their lifetimes.
Guest

Re: John Sherwin

Unread post by Guest »

Guest wrote:I was under the impression that even carrying a few cargoes of salt set of the nasty corrosion. Spoken to sailors who said each load covered the entire ship in the salt dust.
Would imagine Surveyors would be mighty particular when inspecting steel on those boats. If they error on the "safe side", you'll be cropping and renewing a lot of steel.
Algoma Central's newest self-unloaders have been carrying salt as soon as their first Winter on the lakes. And they did that even in the early 1970s with their 650-foot self-unloaders, Algosoo, etc.

Those ships sailed on the lakes for 35-40 years and considering how often some of them went through the Seaway, Algoma Central certainly got their monies worth out of them, even if their life expectancy is less than the vessels in the US fleets.

Wastage in a ship as it ages is accounted for in the strength standards for a lake ship, or for any ship for that matter. Of course, how fast that limit is reached depends on the trade route and specific cargo a ship carries.
Guest

Re: John Sherwin

Unread post by Guest »

Jared wrote:They fired up the boiler and engine on the Ryerson last June and she passed with flying colors. The problem is she's still steam and not a self unloader. And despite what is repeatedly claimed about hulls "being in good shape", steel ages too.

A little bit off topic, but the Iowa Class BBs of the Navy have served no more than 17 years of service despite being 80+ years old. The curator of the BB New Jersey said that during the last administration, a bunch of naval architects came out to gauge the strength of the steel compared to an sample of the same quality of steel made today and compared to a sample that has been held in storage (inside, heated, and not exposed to any elements). And the results were that the steel on the 80 year old BB had lost 46% of it strength.

So now that we are pushing the better part of a half century of age for the majority of the fleet, the hulls themselves have lost around a third of their strength (with lower quality steel so maybe more) since their launches in the 50s-70s.
They did a hydro on the boilers-which was quite successful. Fires were not lit nor steam put on the turbine. Also, the Iowas were exposed to salt water while operating. Salt is pretty brutal so this should be factored in when comparing fresh water operating ships!
Guest

Re: John Sherwin

Unread post by Guest »

I was under the impression that even carrying a few cargoes of salt set of the nasty corrosion. Spoken to sailors who said each load covered the entire ship in the salt dust.
Would imagine Surveyors would be mighty particular when inspecting steel on those boats. If they error on the "safe side", you'll be cropping and renewing a lot of steel.
Post Reply