M/V Michipicoten

[Guest]

Let's all just hope that we'll soon be down to just the Mark W. Barker on the US side and get rid of all of the others before a possible tragedy strikes. Time to torpedo the Jones Act and let foreign fleets and crews with their modern vessels handle the trade between US ports on the Lakes.

[Guest]

Does the fact that no hull work is going on suggest she's headed to scrap?

[ejawac6n]

Perhaps LLT isn't very flush with capital. Why didn't they repair the cuyahoga? In the 80s when soo river company went bankrupt P&H bought the co. From the receivers for not a whole lot of $. Sold the obsolete vessels and kept the better ones. Perhaps mckeil {bravener} has the same thing in mind with LLT. After all what goes around comes around. One never knows!

[Guest]

Well articulated, Guest.
If the previous commenter had insight, he would be fully aware there is no “strained budget” issue here.

[Guest]

Sir, I’m not one of those people who grew up away from the Great Lakes or doesn’t understand lakes shipping. I went to sea in 1974 and just retired a few years ago as a deck officer. I full well know the history of longevity of lake vessels but I also know the rigors these ships are put thru and that everything has its limits. The age of most of the US fleet is way beyond design stage no matter how much steel is renewed. Please don’t insult my experience nor first hand knowledge of lake ships.

[Guest]

Even brand new vessels have had hull fractures.

They know what they're doing. If she can be reasonably be repaired and returned to service, she will be. If she can't, she won't be. It will be decided by engineering science and what Lower Lakes is willing to pay for at the yard, not by unfounded fears that suddenly every piece of steel aboard her is one load away from failure.

I know that the lifespan of Great Lakes vessels can be hard to comprehend for people that haven't grown up around the lakes and that such folks can be quick to seemingly condemn the entire Great Lakes fleet, but 70-100 year lifespans aren't exactly treading into new territory here.

[Guest]

It’s an old ship with thousands of loading and unloading cycles, thousands of miles of travel, a previous fracture/ failure of the deck while underway when still owned by interlake, plus typical lake ship groundings in its career. It’s 20 + yrs since its overhaul and upgrades after joining the Canadian fleet. No matter how well and closely these ships are inspected all can not be ascertained to the complete hull condition. Steel make look good,test good at that time but have unforeseen issues soon to arise. She had a major hull failure that is a warning for the rest of her structure. In addition her overall findings in the intial inspection points to shoddy maintenance possibly from the fleets strained budget and lack of safety concerns.old ship, poor maintenance = pending trouble.

[Guest]

So does this mean the boat is classed by ABS? If so, that report sure isn't a good look for them or whoever the classification agency is.

Question - does a Canadian flag vessel undergoing repairs in a US facility get inspected by the USCG or Transport Canada? Aren't there special rules for older vessels?

Canada and the United States have agreements in place for vessels trading between the two countries, so the Michipicoten has to comply with those regulations. Transport Canada has marine inspectors and qualified organizations (such as Lloyds of London and American Bureau of Shipping) who provide inspection of Canadian vessels.

Great Lakes vessels, once they reach a certain age, have to undergo a "Special Survey", where those areas of the hull that can suffer wear and tear are closely inspected for stress corrosion and fractures. Inspectors also look for signs of wastage.

A previous poster mentioned the Michipicoten's age along with her frequency of loading and unloading; yes that can accumulate stress over a number of years and that's following a loading plan is very important in order to reduce hull stress.

Of course, ships can accumulate stress over a number of years through springing, though in the Michipicoten's case, her shorter length makes her less susceptible then the 1950s vessels that were lengthened to 767 feet to 826 feet in the 1970s.

[Guest]

So does this mean the boat is classed by ABS? If so, that report sure isn't a good look for them or whoever the classification agency is.

Question - does a Canadian flag vessel undergoing repairs in a US facility get inspected by the USCG or Transport Canada? Aren't there special rules for older vessels?

If one goes to the eagle.org website and clicks on Abs Record, then type in michipicoten, you will get a list of the major criticality issues the Michipicoten.

The ABS inspectors have found major issues: water-tight doors with self-closing mechanism in the cargo tunnel were missing or broken. Other water-tight doors not sealing properly or worn out. Oxyacetylene tanks not stowed properly, misc. electrical panels had missing insulation mats, bridge-wing gyro-repeaters seized and not functional, General Alarm system not working in the conveyor tunnel.

Every ship before sailing in the Spring is inspected, so how was Michipicoten allowed to sail, when these issues didn't develop between her sailing on March 24 and the hull crack that developed in June?

Someone farther down in the beginning of the post mentioned ships being overloaded while at loading docks. I thought Great Lakes ships were required to use a loading plan to prevent groundings while loading. Repeated groundings while loading can lead to hull stress and even fractures. This was one of the concerns during the investigation after the loss of the Edmund Fitzgerald.

[Guest]

If one goes to the eagle.org website and clicks on Abs Record, then type in michipicoten, you will get a list of the major criticality issues the Michipicoten.

The ABS inspectors have found major issues: water-tight doors with self-closing mechanism in the cargo tunnel were missing or broken. Other water-tight doors not sealing properly or worn out. Oxyacetylene tanks not stowed properly, misc. electrical panels had missing insulation mats, bridge-wing gyro-repeaters seized and not functional, General Alarm system not working in the conveyor tunnel.

Every ship before sailing in the Spring is inspected, so how was Michipicoten allowed to sail, when these issues didn't develop between her sailing on March 24 and the hull crack that developed in June?

Someone farther down in the beginning of the post mentioned ships being overloaded while at loading docks. I thought Great Lakes ships were required to use a loading plan to prevent groundings while loading. Repeated groundings while loading can lead to hull stress and even fractures. This was one of the concerns during the investigation after the loss of the Edmund Fitzgerald.

All of the items you list are deficiencies, no argument. However they did not contribute to the hull crack. You do not hold CCG responsible either and they are inspectors as well. In the end you have a hull that is 72 years old and has been loaded at least 50 times a year(at least) and the stress on the steel takes it's toll.

By the way no one uses the bearing repeaters for shooting bearings or sun azimuths anymore up here.

[Guest]

I would imagine that the load plan used to take on the vessel's cargo will receive some attention.

[Guest]

If one goes to the eagle.org website and clicks on Abs Record, then type in michipicoten, you will get a list of the major criticality issues the Michipicoten.

The ABS inspectors have found major issues: water-tight doors with self-closing mechanism in the cargo tunnel were missing or broken. Other water-tight doors not sealing properly or worn out. Oxyacetylene tanks not stowed properly, misc. electrical panels had missing insulation mats, bridge-wing gyro-repeaters seized and not functional, General Alarm system not working in the conveyor tunnel.

Every ship before sailing in the Spring is inspected, so how was Michipicoten allowed to sail, when these issues didn't develop between her sailing on March 24 and the hull crack that developed in June?

Someone farther down in the beginning of the post mentioned ships being overloaded while at loading docks. I thought Great Lakes ships were required to use a loading plan to prevent groundings while loading. Repeated groundings while loading can lead to hull stress and even fractures. This was one of the concerns during the investigation after the loss of the Edmund Fitzgerald.

[Guest]

The lack of any visible steel work being done this quickly does not seem unusual In this case. The damage was not caused by an accident such as a collision or grounding but what appears to be a structural failure while the vessel was operating in favorable conditions. The reason for this will have to be evaluated before any serious repair work is done if the vessel can indeed be put back into operational service.

[Guest]

So no news out of the SY? If someone saw they were cutting a large section of the hull to fit replacement steel we'd know for sure.

I was hoping someone would fly a drone over the boat and they did! Thanks for posting the picture.

[Guest]

No inside information but in my experience the various agencies and classification society are going to look at the entire boat. And if they look real hard, the work list of crop and renewal could get real long, real quick. The crack might be covered by insurance but none of the other work. And that will decide the future of the M/V Michipicoten. Scaffolding with/and steel renewal gets expensive in a hurry.

[Denny]

In reply to Mn Bob’s post regarding the Robert S. Pierson, YES indeed it’s very rare to have them up as far as on Lake Superior! As you mentioned, I’m sure they are filling in for the Michipicoten while a decision awaits on the future of them. While the Pierson I know in the past carried coal or coke to Algoma at the Soo and possibly a few stone loads as well, I believe she’s been and has been in Lake Superior before? I believe she’s loaded ore pellets from Marquette to Algoma possibly. Not sure though if she has ever loaded from Duluth and Superior or Two Harbors though as those three ports might be rare for her to visit. Anybody else up in Lake Superior country know for sure just what places she’s loaded from? I would think maybe she has loaded and visited Thunder Bay, Ontario and might have loaded grain there a few times as well?

[Mn bob]

Went by fraser shipyard yesterday and don’t see anything going on at all with the ship. You can see down in the drydock at the side that had the crack and they are not doing anything to the hull.

[badger]

If the insurance companies are involved in the process it could be a long time making a decision whether to repair the vessel or not. Ever notice how insurance companies are quick to take your money but when it comes to paying out.....well that's another story. There must be boatnerds at the lake head that might have the inside scoop?

[Guest]

So no news out of the SY? If someone saw they were cutting a large section of the hull to fit replacement steel we'd know for sure.

[Mn bob]

I see the Robert s Pearson is headed for two harbors, this is a very rare occurrence to see this ship on Lake Superior. I’m sure they are helping out hauling ore to algoma at the soo picking up the extra loads that the michipicoton is missing.