Roger Blough future

Discussion board focusing on Great Lakes Shipping Question & Answer. From beginner to expert all posts are welcome.
GuestfromEU
Posts: 359
Joined: December 7, 2014, 10:33 am

Re: Roger Blough future

Unread post by GuestfromEU »

All ships are required to have active P&I and H&M coverage. Self-insured is not permitted and most terminals require copies of insurance cover prior to berthing. Most port authorities will not allow entry of a ship without insurance coverage.

As for replacement cost, $200m seems high but could be realistic. A better assessment would be to take cost of Mark Barker and scale up on a curve. Replacement value is not necessarily taken as cost to replace the ship in exact form, but rather a ship designed for the same purpose. If CN/Key Lakes pursued construction of a replacement ship it would not be designed to replicate the Roger Blough. The design would be more typical of new ships but with similar DWT as the Blough.
Guest

Re: Roger Blough future

Unread post by Guest »

The Roger Blough cost $20 million when ordered in October 1967. With inflation, that becomes $177 million in 2022.

Brian
guest

Re: Roger Blough future

Unread post by guest »

thats probably the replacement cost to build a new one. i wonder how much insurance, if any GLF had on her? CN self insures their trains themself. what that means they have public liability insurance, but if theres a train wreck the cost to repair the damages, cargo destroed, etc. comes out of general revenue. i believe at one time, or perhaps still, canada steamship lines di the same. but being as their a private company thats their business. CN is a publically traded company, so the general public can ask questions, wthin reason.
Guest

Re: Roger Blough future

Unread post by Guest »

Was the Blough really worth $200 million U.S. before the fire?
Jared
Posts: 798
Joined: December 6, 2014, 4:51 pm

Re: Roger Blough future

Unread post by Jared »

Guest wrote: September 2, 2022, 9:39 am Today's posting of the NTSB report included the statement that over $100 million dollars of damages were incurred.

Is there any recent news on her fate?
That's about the same value as her hull. That's pretty much the death kneel of her being a total loss.
Guest

Re: Roger Blough future

Unread post by Guest »

Today's posting of the NTSB report included the statement that over $100 million dollars of damages were incurred.

Is there any recent news on her fate?
Andrew

Re: Roger Blough future

Unread post by Andrew »

It usually ends up being six years between drydocking. That's because with the Jones Act, there is an option for a one-year extension on the 5-Year.

In the case of the Cason J. Callaway, her owner has not been kind to her (or the other ships in the fleet). Over five years, quick fixes can start adding up. And when you're dealing with a nearly 70 year old thing, You can only put bandaids on the problems for so long.

Ballast tanks need work every so often, and if they simply get patched rather than completely replaced, sooner or later, the whole thing is going to be a rust sieve that needs to be completely replaced. The outer hull plating is really the least of the problem. It's the bulkheads and plate steel separating the ballast tanks from the hull and the ballast tanks from the cargo hold. This can get patched and major work can get put off. And it can happen not just over 20-30 years, but in a fairly short time if the correct repairs are neglected. In the case of CN, the reputation of that fleet is that they are trying to maximize their gains short term, meaning minimal repairs and maximum abuse for their assets. There are plenty of first-hand accounts of CN not treating their ships well and that they're pretty beat up.

Let's not forget the Anderson was in the exact same spot several years back, and the expectation was that she would be retired, but she got her ballast tanks replaced at Fraser. With the steel market looking good, you never know, but with the Clarke still at the wall, there's little chance you'll see the Callaway out until the Clarke has seen some significant service prior to this. I do expect the Clarke will get service later this season.

Both the Anderson and Clarke should be good for the next decade or so (at least structurally, can't comment on the power plants and their viability), but after that, anyone's guess. I would have to say at this conjecture, the Callaway is more probably than not finished, though I can't rule anything out, especially with the Blough at the wall. With the Jones Act, most companies are hesitant to scrap.
Bulldog

Re: Roger Blough future

Unread post by Bulldog »

How did the callaway end up in such rough shape? They do an inspection every 5 years and can’t believe that they would let a ship get in that condition in between inspections.
Duluth Guest

Re: Roger Blough future

Unread post by Duluth Guest »

I haven't been on here in a while but thought I might chime in on this thread. I think a few points have been missed here a bit.

First of all. Roger Blough's 5 year certification, which requires a dry docking, doesn't expire until spring of 2023 so nothing will likely be done until it expires. Drydocking is expensive; I don't believe that it'll happen multiple times within a certification period unless the capacity is truly, critically required. This is obviously not the case with GLFs current capacity. Also, she utilizes an dual inclined belt unloading system rather than a singular or double loop-belt style that is more typical for other Great Lakes self unloaders. The inclined belt system is not unique to the Bough but it does make utilization of a traditional boom nearly impossible without a massive amount of re-work of the stern which is extremely unlikely.

Second, the Callaway's hull needs a lot of work not only within the cargo hold, but within ALL of the ballast tanks and many areas of shell plating as well. She has some docking damage on the starboard side where the plating was been set-in and a leaking, set in area of plating on the starboard side near the bilge turn that was been temporarily repaired with a steel box filed with hydraulic cement. Much of her onboard technology and computer soft wares are now out of date or not approved by ABS. Considering her condition, my personal opinion is that her working career is likely over. I think she'll likely serve as a parts supply for the Clarke and Anderson until the practical re-usable parts are exhausted.

As for the Clarke, she was drydocked, updated and repaired meeting the requirements to regain certification in 2020.
hausen
Posts: 803
Joined: July 2, 2010, 1:36 pm

Re: Roger Blough future

Unread post by hausen »

Custom500 wrote:Was there not talk earlier about developing facilities at Duluth or superior to handle container ships? Where does that stand?
There's been a land-side (truck and train-oriented) 'intermodal facility' (i.e. container terminal) operating at the Clure Public Marine Terminal (a.k.a. the "Port Terminal") in Duluth for several years now, under the banner of Duluth Cargo Connect, the entitity which also runs all of the other marine cargo handling operations at Duluth Seaway Port Authority-owned facilities.

If recall serves, the hindrance to opening a maritime side to the existing truck/rail intermodal terminal at Duluth was mostly bureaucracy-driven: getting that facility approved for maritime trade mostly involved getting U.S. Customs-approved container inspection capability installed, probably a combination of Customs-approved inspection/security equipment and getting the right paperwork processed and approved.

As it stands, the facility is now capable/approved, as far as the governing powers that be are concerned, of operating as a maritime container terminal. That does not necessarily mean that any agreements have been made for container shipping companies to start sending ships to the facility. If and when such trade commences (hopefully it does, a lot goes into getting all the right pieces in place for it), we'll be sure to know about it here.
Jon Paul
Posts: 888
Joined: December 14, 2017, 8:37 pm

Re: Roger Blough future

Unread post by Jon Paul »

If the Blough is undamaged forward of the fire bulkhead in the engine dept it is a far more valuable asset compared to other long term layups i.e. Sherwin, Ryerson and American Valor which haven't seen the cutters torch yet though others forecast the imminent demise of the Blough.
As I stated before, the Blough is a workhorse never properly utilized. The USCG would never have allowed the RB to reenter service after a major grounding without a thorough hull inspection.
In a reconfigured deck mounted unloaded system the Blough now could efficiently add limestone to its ability to also carry pellets and to a far wider array of docks than before.
I'm not buying the doom and gloom of the bulk markets on the Great Lakes system either.
Cliffs, Interlake and VTB on the American side have shown optimism, leadership and invested in the future of Great Lakes bulk shipping when others see a demise.
I trust their outlook backed by their investment in the future of Great Lakes bulk shipping.
After watching the
hausen
Posts: 803
Joined: July 2, 2010, 1:36 pm

Re: Roger Blough future

Unread post by hausen »

guest wrote:the blough can not fit in the welland canal or seaway locks so the wind mill blade idea is out the window. im sure when the st clair is finished being scrapped she wont be far behind
Exactly. A 105' employed in wind turbine component transport would only make sense in the event that either such components were being manufactured somewhere in the Great Lakes hinterland and needed to be transported to another location around the Lakes, or if wind turbine components were being brought in from overseas and staged at one Great Lakes port for eventual transport to another. It's a rather limited set of scenarios where such a thing would be a plausible business model, brought up more to point out that theoretically at least there are alternate uses for a ship like the Blough where her overall hull/superstructure configuration could be a benefit or at least not a hindrance.
Guest

Re: Roger Blough future

Unread post by Guest »

Does anyone know what how many crew members are on the Clarke?

She's still steamer, yes?
Custom500

Re: Roger Blough future

Unread post by Custom500 »

Was there not talk earlier about developing facilities at Duluth or superior to handle container ships? Where does that stand?
Guest

Re: Roger Blough future

Unread post by Guest »

Guest wrote:Just curious of where all of this talk has come from that the Blough was not completely repaired or had operating deficiencies following its 2016 grounding on Gros Cap? From what I have read the ship was fully repaired and I doubt it would have been allowed to operate with only partial repairs being done from both a CG regulator and liability perspective. I believe some of this comes may stem from an inference once made on this board shortly after the Blough reentered service that it was being used mainly to deliver ore to Gary rather than also making runs to Conneaut to keep the ship close to the shipyard in the event something went wrong. As the Blough operated in unrestricted service on the lakes afterward (limited only by its size), I submit this theory has been disproven. This sort of reminds me of the old myth of the cement carrier Paul H. Townsend being prohibited from operating on Lake Superior due to "top-heavy" concerns. Rather than any operating restrictions, it is far more likely that the Townsend was used primarily on the lower lakes due to the operational and economic considerations of its owner.
The Bought was repaired to class standards. Inferences that she was being kept close to Bay were a cockamamie idea that did not take into account that if she had a "problem" due to "lack of repairs" there is a shipyard in Erie that could also handle her.
cslfan

Re: Roger Blough future

Unread post by cslfan »

I had it in my notes that she needed repair and I may have messed up on that one....good news if she is in better shape than I thought.....thanks for the info.
Guest

Re: Roger Blough future

Unread post by Guest »

CSLFAN wrote:Thanks for your response guys...I wanted to generate some discussion on the future of great lakes shipping and you are providing it...I'm working on some other numbers and will post soon...In the mean time, what is your estimate of the cost of the new Barker which in terms of size and tonnage is like a Great Republic with the boom on the other end.
Where did you get the idea that the Clarke needs serious work? She just had a bunch of money put into her around the end of 2019 and is in great shape for her age.
Guest

Re: Roger Blough future

Unread post by Guest »

Just curious of where all of this talk has come from that the Blough was not completely repaired or had operating deficiencies following its 2016 grounding on Gros Cap? From what I have read the ship was fully repaired and I doubt it would have been allowed to operate with only partial repairs being done from both a CG regulator and liability perspective. I believe some of this comes may stem from an inference once made on this board shortly after the Blough reentered service that it was being used mainly to deliver ore to Gary rather than also making runs to Conneaut to keep the ship close to the shipyard in the event something went wrong. As the Blough operated in unrestricted service on the lakes afterward (limited only by its size), I submit this theory has been disproven. This sort of reminds me of the old myth of the cement carrier Paul H. Townsend being prohibited from operating on Lake Superior due to "top-heavy" concerns. Rather than any operating restrictions, it is far more likely that the Townsend was used primarily on the lower lakes due to the operational and economic considerations of its owner.
Guest

Re: Roger Blough future

Unread post by Guest »

IMO Two factors will play a role in a boats future in a declining market -
1)Significant shipyard work. Labor and material costs have skyrocketed. If the ABS/USCG wants you to fix bulkheads/side shell or a boiler/diesel needs a significant repairs. Even regular 5 years must be double what they were 10 years ago.
2) Fuel consumption. Steamers esp. But some motor vessels burn more per ton carried than other.

Now if every boat were employed then these factors wouldn't be as important. But if you've got surplus tonnage, you run with the cheapest operating unit. Remember too that railroads are just waiting to poach any cargoes they can so there is a limit to how high rates in some markets can go.
Guest

Re: Roger Blough future

Unread post by Guest »

Very interesting discussion here! I love the creative ideas for the future that hausen suggests. The industry is certainly changing, and although more downsizing appears to be inevitable in the future (especially on the American side), I agree with those of the opinion that the ships will never go away. Innovation and ingenuity have been consistent themes throughout the industrial history of the United States, and the geography of the Great Lakes region provides ample opportunities for new growth that could benefit from shipping. The new Mark W. Barker is an example of how Interlake already envisions such a future for the industry and is planning accordingly. Her cargo holds and unloading system allow the flexibility to carry many cargoes, including some we might never expect.

That being said, I do expect that some cargoes making up the bulk of today’s shipping industry will continue to support vessel traffic into the future, even if it’s inevitably less than before. For instance, despite the continued shuttering of blast furnaces in the region, steelmakers have recently made some big investments in their largest/most efficient furnaces that should provide steady traffic for some time (Cliff’s #7 furnace in Indiana Harbor, Burns Harbor facility, and USS’s Gary Works). Electric arc furnaces (EAFs) and minimills are certainly a major threat to blast furnaces, and already are responsible for some of the recent shutdowns we’ve seen, but it stands to reason that they can support an ore trade on the Lakes - albeit to a lesser extent than today. Instead of taconite, EAFs and minimills use feed such as hot briquetted iron (HBI)/direct reduced iron (DRI), scrap metals, and pig iron. Scrap metal works well in this process, but the use of HBI/DRI and pig iron is often necessitated due to supply/demand with scrap. Both HBI/DRI and pig iron are formed using processes that involve mined ore, which could keep the mines of Michigan and Minnesota relevant. For instance, the Cleveland-Cliffs CEO has stated that production of the DR pellet (used to make DRI and then HBI) at Northshore Mining (now moved to Minorca for the time being) would keep the mine in business for quite some time. In addition, USS's Gary Works currently produces pig iron at the facility using ore as well. I see hope for a lesser, yet stabilizing, Great Lakes steel trade with the rise of EAF technology. There’s always the possibility of exporting ore through the Seaway as well.

Regarding the concerns about steel for this upcoming season, the decreased demand may not be quite as bad as it looks at first glance. A shortage of computer chips is currently preventing motor companies from manufacturing the usual quantity of cars, so demand for ore could increase after this problem is resolved. Cliffs’ blast furnace at Burns Harbor is also coming off a period of inactivity due to maintenance, so they have a stockpile to work through before shipments to the facility will start again. Both of these factors could explain why the Cort is in layup until May, for example. Still, it is concerning that the U.S. fleet has been able to get by without the Blough, Callaway, and Clarke for an extended period of time. All three GLF vessels were in operation just two years ago before COVID-19 hindered the economy. The Clarke isn’t even in need of repair and still sitting (even more concerning), but there’s still a possibility we see her out at some point this season. Other recent events like Cliffs conducting tests on the Ryerson’s steam turbine and VanEnkevort constructing a new barge give reason for some optimism as well.
Andrew wrote:
The greatest concern to me has been the CN fleet, which I think has really beaten those ships up pretty bad. I doubt any of the AAAs last much into the 2030s thanks to that, although Clarke and Anderson did get some work done within the last few years. Whoever picks up that fleet, be it a Canadian company (who I heard did make a bid) or GLF itself, is probably not going to want the 767s.
I completely agree that GLF vessels would appear to be at the most risk at the moment. In fact, I really can’t think of any other active vessels in immediate danger on the U.S. side other than CN’s classics. Both the Anderson and Callaway have been in need of significant steelwork over the past few years, and it remains to be seen whether or not the Callaway will even sail again. I heard that a Canadian company placed a bid on the fleet as well. Even if such a sale were to go through in the future (it sounds as if the listing has been pulled for now), the ships could continue to operate under the U.S. flag in an arrangement similar to that which CN used with Key Lakes and GLF. If there is still a use for AAA’s on the U.S. side, a Canadian firm could operate them as-is in such a scenario.
Guest wrote:
Do you agree that the Blough is heading to scrap?

And with scrap steel prices at really high levels, will we see more Lakers being scrapped instead of going through the next 5 year?
I’ll chime in on these as well. My personal opinion is that it’s more likely than not that the Blough is finished. Her unconventional self-unloading equipment, awkward size, the reduced demand for tonnage, and lingering concerns from grounding - not to mention the extensive fire damage - will make it hard to justify the investment needed to give her new life. If the economy turns around and GLF wants to fire up the Clarke and, say, one of the Blough or Callaway, however, I could see a scenario in which a major overhaul of the Blough could be better long-term than patching up the Callaway. I’m not giving up hope on the old gals yet! :) I do agree with Andrew that it’s unlikely any American lakers are sent to the heap unless they’re deemed beyond feasible repair, such as the St. Clair. For all we know, this could be the Blough.
Post Reply