Roger Blough future

[Guest]

I’d rather see it scraped instead of turning it into a barge!

I'm with you partially as the Blough has been one of my favorites since it entered service in 1972. However, I would rather see it converted into a barge and serve some purpose, including providing some jobs, rather than just going straight to the torch.

[GuestfromEU]

Some reading below on marine insurance. Skuld, Gard...all have the same rules, only small differences in phrasing. I did not search for clauses applicable to constructive total loss and whom takes possession of the hull after a claim is paid. No doubt further searching online will find case law stating this more clear.

https://www.skuld.com/contentassets/5cd ... _rules.pdf

https://www.gard.no/web/publications/do ... d=20747880

https://www.penningtonslaw.com/news-pub ... -revisited

https://www.bullivant.com/marine-insurance-101/

[Guest]

Will the engines be saved or scrapped as well.

[Mn bob]

I’d rather see it scraped instead of turning it into a barge!

[Guest]

I can’t see the Blough going anywhere but the scrap yard (maybe a temporary dock in the meantime but it will end up at the scrap yard). She is excess capacity as Coal shipments come to an end. She is too small to be as efficient as the footers but to large to compete with the river class vessels. Financially speaking that fire was the best thing that could have happened to GLF as she would have been at the wall anyways. It’s sad to see her go but her odd size (similar to the St. Clair) makes her expendable. Personally I think the Ryerson has a better chance of sailing again because she can fit down the seaway although a repowering would probably be required at some point. I hope to see her sail again, the issue is from a financial perspective it is cheaper to build a new ship overseas than to re-power and when you start talking about seaway shipments it becomes cheaper for a Canadian company to build new.

[Guest]

She has had all of the fuel and oil removed along with asbestos in the aft end. Yes there is asbestos on the forward end and lead paint everywhere but the environmental dangers are no more then the repowerings and conversions that have been done the last 20 years. The aft end is a total loss but I am holding out hope VTB will turn it into a barge. They have done work like this in Escanaba in the past if I’m not mistaken?

[Guest]

If CN has already received an insurance settlement was the Blough not declared a total loss as it apparently has not been turned over to the underwriters? It would seem if the insurance paid for a total loss they would have taken title of it and been able to recoup some of its loss by selling the Blough for scrapping or whatever other purchase they could secure. I don't know if there would be any clauses in the insurance contract that would dictate what type of sale the insurer could secure for the Blough, but I would assume they would have a free hand in selling it to whatever entity would be willing to buy and not limited to a scrap sale. I believe the only scrapyard capable of handling a vessel of this size is at Port Colborne, but is the scrapyard at Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario also able to dismantle a ship of this class?

[Guest]

CN is fully aware that USS has two blast furnaces "temporarily idled". One in Gary and the other near Pittsburgh. The Pittsburgh mill (idled October 3rd) is capable of producing 1.4 million tons of steel. Thats probably what the Blough would carry in a single season.

US Steel has already cancelled all capital improvements in the MON Valley.

[CSLFAN]

Thanks for your update....I think we had this discussion after the St Clair fire but I can't locate my notes and your reply is about how I remembered it.

[Guest]

Canada has the same (or more strict) asbestos and hazardous material abatement regulations than the US so it is a moot point on location. What is confirmed is she will be towed out of Sturgeon Bay soon, either to Conneaut or Escanaba. I do not know the future plans but she is committed to scrap. When and where is not known, but she will be moved within the next few weeks. CN received the insurance payment some time ago (unknown amount) and they determined she is excess capacity with repair costs uneconomical. Comparing repair costs against newbuilding is an empty conversation as CN determined no tonnage is required to replace the lost capacity.

I find it extremely difficult to believe that anyone would scrap a US laker on the American side, considering how tough the EPA is. Yes, Canada has tough environmental laws, just like the US and Western Europe, but the Province of Ontario allows the transfer of both ownership and ongoing liability to a legal receiver. In the US, due to Superfund laws, that is not possible.

Previous vessels scrapped on the US side of the lakes were the J.W. Shelley (in drydock) at Toledo, the tanker Jupiter (after her destruction by explosion and fire) and Merle M. McCurdy in 1988. That's less than a handful that have been scrapped on the US side of the lakes since the late-1980s.

Triad Salvage tried to scrap the Kinsman vessel, Merle M. McCurdy in the late-80s, but was stopped by the EPA, and was forced to sell the McCurdy to International Marine Salvage (Marine Recycling Corp's predecessor).

I'm saddened to see the Roger Blough go, as she has been a very personal favourite of mine since I saw her photo in the book, "Fate of the Lakes" by James P. Barry in the mid-1970s. And later going up to the Soo to photograph her in July 1988 and then meeting Jimmie Hobaugh and his wife at Cyde's when we were, along with my parents watching the ships at Mission Point. There's no other ship like the big, beamy Roger Blough and that is what makes her unique.

[GuestfromEU]

To Guest from UK and Mr Link....I think we talked about this before but what is your take on the insurance situation for the Blough....thanks guys

CN received the insurance money already. They are not obligated to repair the ship, it is their choice if they wish to recycle the ship or make repairs. They have decided to scrap the ship, likely based on a decision beyond the cost of repairs. All ships are required to maintain P&I and H&M insurance (Protection & Indemnity and Hull & Machinery). This is not optional, it is a requirement. While self-insured could make sense, it is international law that governs the requirement to hold valid insurance cover. Railroads have the potential to cause significant monetary damage in an incident, but a serious marine casualty could easily compound to the hundreds of millions, even exceeding one billion dollars. CN could not survive that impact from the onset, let alone cumulative ongoing legal costs for years. That is not as applicable in the case of the Blough incident, but I refer more to a situation involving vessel foundering or allision that causes catastrophic damage to quantify significant costs (i.e. Exxon Valdez). Granted the Blough is not a tanker, but remember fuel bunkers are separated from the water by only steel plates less than 25mm thick. Even 50 tons of fuel spilled in the wrong area could total a respectable amount of damages.

[Mr Link]

To Guest from UK and Mr Link....I think we talked about this before but what is your take on the insurance situation for the Blough....thanks guys

Marine insurance is a topic of great mystery to me, so I'll be of no help explaining it.

I do recall that 20 some years ago the railroad side of Canadian National was self insuring, at least on the US side of the border. So it honestly wouldn't surprise me if they had no insurance at all on such an old asset. Being as big as they are they could just take the risk and eat the losses if anything actually happens rather than paying expensive premiums to an insurance company. Again that is how they operated 20 years ago on their rail operations, but I have no idea if that is still in effect or was ever the policy for their marine operations.

[Mn bob]

Why would they tow the blough to conneaut? Because they own the dock? I would think it would be in the way there. Makes more sense to tow it to Erie if there going to scrap it at port colborne

[CSLFAN]

To Guest from UK and Mr Link....I think we talked about this before but what is your take on the insurance situation for the Blough....thanks guys

[GuestfromEU]

Canada has the same (or more strict) asbestos and hazardous material abatement regulations than the US so it is a moot point on location. What is confirmed is she will be towed out of Sturgeon Bay soon, either to Conneaut or Escanaba. I do not know the future plans but she is committed to scrap. When and where is not known, but she will be moved within the next few weeks. CN received the insurance payment some time ago (unknown amount) and they determined she is excess capacity with repair costs uneconomical. Comparing repair costs against newbuilding is an empty conversation as CN determined no tonnage is required to replace the lost capacity.

[Guest]

She will go to Escanaba for scrapping in the near future.

With environmental laws in the US, I highly doubt that the Blough would go to any American post for scrapping. Who wants to take that liability?

GLF would be on the hook for any mismanagement a scrapper did in not properly disposing of any toxins (and there must be lots after the fire).

No, she'll be going to Port Colborne, once GLF (or their insurers) and Marine Recycling put an agreement together.

[Mn bob]

That will be a very very sad day when they send the blough off to scrap!

[Guest]

Will the company order a new ship to replace the Blough and what would the cost be for a new build?

Thank you in advance.

[Guest]

She will go to Escanaba for scrapping in the near future.

[Guest]

The Blough will be scrapped and towing to a different Lake Michigan port will happen soon.