Arthur M. Anderson to long term layup/Retirement

Post a reply

BBCode is ON
[img] is ON
[url] is ON
Smilies are OFF
Topic review
   

If you wish to attach one or more files enter the details below.

Maximum filesize per attachment: 3 MiB.

Expand view Topic review: Arthur M. Anderson to long term layup/Retirement

Re: Arthur M. Anderson to long term layup/Retirement

by Guest » January 29, 2025, 1:08 pm

GLF has had the limestone backhaul contract for US Steel since they began manufacturing flux pellets at Mintac. It appears they lost this contract in 2024 and that is probably is the main reason why they may stay at the wall.

Re: Arthur M. Anderson to long term layup/Retirement

by Guest » January 27, 2025, 6:26 pm

As has been pointed out before, we're going to see a repeat of the 1970's where economical and now surplus 1.000 footers will cause many small boats to go to the wall.

Only the most efficient small boats (e.g. Herbert C Jackson and Mark Barker) a handful of others and the Tug Barges will be hauling stone, salt and those taconite runs to Dearborn, Toledo DRI and the Cleveland shuttle. Ancient steam vessels with their high fuel consumption, crewing needs and maintenance requirements can't compete with those other boats.

Wind farms in the Great Lakes would have created a lot of employment for merchant mariners during construction and operation. A whole new fleet of work boats would have been needed to perform those tasks.

Re: Arthur M. Anderson to long term layup/Retirement

by Denny » January 27, 2025, 7:28 am

Thanks Bob for clearing that up and updating me on the work the Anderson had put into her at Fraser in Superior years ago. It just don’t make any sense to me and I guess it never will that GLF put tons of money into her years ago replaced some steel in her, gave them a 5-year then they brought her back out of layup then! One would think and yes I know her age at 73 now but, it seemed that GLF was always finding work for her and then later on with the Clarke as well. Otherwise, why then would both the Clarke and Anderson had been out sailing these last few years then IF there wasn’t any business for them or cargo to carry? One would’ve thought that both of them then should’ve been put into long term layup then sooner than now at least! Just my opinions only and my two cents here is all everyone.

Re: Arthur M. Anderson to long term layup/Retirement

by esky » January 27, 2025, 6:29 am

the calloway is docked at north shore marine terminal not the ore dock

Re: Arthur M. Anderson to long term layup/Retirement

by clarkjol » January 26, 2025, 7:12 pm

Mn bob wrote: January 24, 2025, 11:23 pm If the Anderson and Clarke are going into long term layup why didn’t they layup in escanaba with the callaway?Doesn’t uss/Great Lakes fleet own that dock so there wouldn’t be any dockage fees.
Canadian National Rwy. owns the Escanaba ore dock. USS had a dock at one time in Duluth.

Re: Arthur M. Anderson to long term layup/Retirement

by Mn bob » January 26, 2025, 6:35 pm

Denny, you are correct about the Anderson. She was towed from cn ore docks to Fraser shipyard and from what I understand is she had extensive steel work done and I believe a 5 year inspection done at that time. There was talk back then that she was done and wouldn’t sail again but then that all changed. Hopefully the Anderson and Clarke will sail this next season.

Re: Arthur M. Anderson to long term layup/Retirement

by Denny » January 25, 2025, 10:23 pm

What type of work did the Anderson have done on her at last check? She was laid up per one poster from 2017-19 and I recall about that time wasn’t she moved then over to Fraser Shipyard in Superior? I can’t recall back then if she got work done plus a 5-year done to her or not at that time. She’s been painted a lot in the last few years or so that much I know. What about the Clarke and what if any type of work was done to her and when and where did she have it done? The Clarke like the Anderson I think also got some new paint applied to her as well not too long ago and I don’t recall when her last 5-year took place?

Re: Arthur M. Anderson to long term layup/Retirement

by Guest » January 25, 2025, 3:01 pm

The Anderson is due for her five year inspection this winter. The Clarke is also due… if not this winter, then next. These boats might need extensive work to keep running, so Great Lakes Fleet is possibly taking a wait-and-see approach. If the economics justify the investment of keeping these boats running (including the costs for inspection and repairs), they will run again.

The Anderson sat out two years in Duluth (2017-2019) before they brought her back. And while she had a good amount of work done to bring her back, other parts of her may currently need work.

Re: Arthur M. Anderson to long term layup/Retirement

by Denny » January 25, 2025, 10:35 am

I’m just a little bit surprised here as I’m sure that I’m not the only one regarding the Anderson and Clarke both now headed to Long Term Lay Up in Toledo. In 2024, it seemed that GLF was busy hauling ore pellets often over to Indiana Harbor and the Anderson was making lots of runs there! The past two shipping seasons it would seem that GLF picked up more loads to Lake Michigan mills and they were coming down to the Lower Lakes less. The GLF fleet in 2024 at least seemed to be hauling ore pellets all over the place to Indiana Harbor, Cleveland, Nanticoke and in Toledo as well. I don’t know how much the Anderson and Clarke made visits to Nanticoke or Toledo but it did seem like they were busy hauling mostly to Indiana Harbor with a few trips to Cleveland also. So, with the Anderson and Clarke in layup this then will leave GLF with only “5 ships to run then in 2025!” Three 1,000 footers and the Munson and the Great Republic. The 2025 season should be a very interesting one to watch then for GLF and their fleet of ships then. Just my comments and opinions only here.

Re: Arthur M. Anderson to long term layup/Retirement

by Guest » January 25, 2025, 1:46 am

It’s a shame we won’t see huge wind farms in our wonderful Great Lakes😳. Do you really understand the environmental dangers wind turbine generators present if placed in our waters? Better check into that before you espouse how wonderful they would be. How would they help the US lakes shipping industry? The dirty little secret is that much of this so called green energy turns out in the long run to be more detrimental to the environment than stable abundant fossil fuels.

Re: Arthur M. Anderson to long term layup/Retirement

by Guest » January 25, 2025, 12:26 am

🤷 have to ask the company that? I imagine they will keep them in sailing ready condition if cargo demand warrants fitting them out.easier to do that where they are laying now.

Re: Arthur M. Anderson to long term layup/Retirement

by Mn bob » January 24, 2025, 11:23 pm

If the Anderson and Clarke are going into long term layup why didn’t they layup in escanaba with the callaway?Doesn’t uss/Great Lakes fleet own that dock so there wouldn’t be any dockage fees.

Re: Arthur M. Anderson to long term layup/Retirement

by Guest » January 24, 2025, 7:03 pm

If you look the tonnage figures are trending downward. These fleets already have est. cargo demands for the coming season. They may run again but I wouldn’t count on it. Despite lots of $ invested in recent past yrs to both the Anderson n the Clarke they are worn out. Calloway is done. Again, less coal cargoes n ore tonnage is predicted to shrink. Stone was also down this past season. Not enough cargo forecast to run them profitably. Wait n see🤷

Re: Arthur M. Anderson to long term layup/Retirement

by Mn bob » January 24, 2025, 10:47 am

If they are still able to run than why are they going into long term layup? I don’t think the economy has slowed that much already that there would not be enough loads for these ships to haul.

Re: Arthur M. Anderson to long term layup/Retirement

by Geest » January 24, 2025, 9:58 am

Custom500 wrote: January 23, 2025, 7:48 pm How about other minerals that might be present around the lakes? Is it possible that with new leadership we'll be taking advantage of other resources that that might become available due to the easing of some regulations, and that might open new shipping opportunities?
If there were other minerals or commodities present in sufficient quantity around the lakes to move by ship at a profit, they would already be moving by ship. A new administration will not stop the end of steam coal nor can they magically create a market for product that hasn't or doesn't yet exist on the lakes, regardless of political party. In reality, the current administration just took steps to kill the next potential new market on the lakes which would have been offshore wind farms, which is a real shame.

Re: Arthur M. Anderson to long term layup/Retirement

by guest » January 24, 2025, 3:35 am

Mn bob wrote: January 23, 2025, 1:58 pm So with the steamer exemption the Clarke and Anderson can no longer run? At least not until they get changed over to diesel which will probably not happen as mentioned in this post that those ships are 70 years old. So this year uss/Great Lakes fleet will only have 4 boats running. There is still going to be cargo to haul even if there is going to be a decline in coal. Many ships will be going to scrap in the next 5 years. How does interlake keep up with the changing times, they have one of the oldest ships in the Lee a Tregurtha still running and also have a new build a couple years ago. Once the footers start going to scrap along with the other ships that are idled there won’t be many u.s.ships left to haul cargo. And with no new build plans in the future that leaves the Canadian shipping companies with the upper hand as they have invested in a lot of new ships in the last several years.
No. As at least two others have mentioned, they can legally continue to run on steam using high sulfur heavy-oil fuel. That exemption has no expiration date.

Re: Arthur M. Anderson to long term layup/Retirement

by Custom500 » January 23, 2025, 7:48 pm

How about other minerals that might be present around the lakes? Is it possible that with new leadership we'll be taking advantage of other resources that that might become available due to the easing of some regulations, and that might open new shipping opportunities?

Re: Arthur M. Anderson to long term layup/Retirement

by Mn bob » January 23, 2025, 1:58 pm

So with the steamer exemption the Clarke and Anderson can no longer run? At least not until they get changed over to diesel which will probably not happen as mentioned in this post that those ships are 70 years old. So this year uss/Great Lakes fleet will only have 4 boats running. There is still going to be cargo to haul even if there is going to be a decline in coal. Many ships will be going to scrap in the next 5 years. How does interlake keep up with the changing times, they have one of the oldest ships in the Lee a Tregurtha still running and also have a new build a couple years ago. Once the footers start going to scrap along with the other ships that are idled there won’t be many u.s.ships left to haul cargo. And with no new build plans in the future that leaves the Canadian shipping companies with the upper hand as they have invested in a lot of new ships in the last several years.

Re: Arthur M. Anderson to long term layup/Retirement

by Guest » January 21, 2025, 2:20 pm

They are not going to invest and make capital improvements in 70+ yr old ships to sit idle with no cargo to haul. Another poster recently gave his opinion the US fleet will within a few years be 20-25 vessels. I predicted the same about 2 yrs ago and was laughed at here. Coal will be gone n most blast furnaces. It’s the end of an era.🤷

Re: Arthur M. Anderson to long term layup/Retirement

by Guest » January 21, 2025, 6:51 am

So my failing memory was correct that the exemption was forever.

Perhaps another factor lingering over repowering is the emission standards for the replacement diesels have only gotten stricter since most of the repowerings have occurred. I believe the new engines now cost alot more to build than the less clean ones.
Shipyard labor costs have also risen as has the cost of capital. The time to borrow money for a major project were when rates were at historic lows.

I wonder if there was ever the opportunity to argue to the EPA that the benefits of the lower fuel consumption (and less CO2 emissions) of an older diesel was better than still running a steam plant. Maybe diesels emit more NOX or something than a fuel guzzling steam plant.

Top