Soo Locks

[ed]

I agree with guest ! I can think of thousands of better uses for federal money than building another lock at the soo.

[Guest]

Interesting article in this afternoon's online Detroit Free Press.

http://www.freep.com/story/news/politic ... /81261608/

The rhetoric and extreme hyperbole of this report and the article in today's News is getting ridiculous. I find this kind of reporting actually stifles discourse on an important issue. It offers such an extreme view there's almost no way to start the discussion.

[garbear]

Interesting article in this afternoon's online Detroit Free Press.

http://www.freep.com/story/news/politic ... /81261608/

[mhillm]

Get rid of the goofy rules that say a seaway size ship can't use a seaway size lock. Give up on the new lock and use the Mac for what it capable of doing.

That would be great if it were exactly like the Seaway Locks, the Mac Lock unfortunately has a very slight bend/dogleg above the lock that creates a pinch point that gives a 740 foot long, 78 foot wide boat 6 inches of clearance. Not much of a worry with a good captain, no wind, no waves and no other traffic in the canal but those are conditions that can not be counted on.

[Guest]

Most of the problems with the Soo locks would be solved if they were managed by the Seaway instead of the USACE. Get rid of the goofy rules that say a seaway size ship can't use a seaway size lock. Give up on the new lock and use the Mac for what it capable of doing.

[Guest]

As long as the transfer is done in Canadian water (a Canadian bay). it becomes a cross boarder cargo. Just have to do the Customs papers in and out for the cargo.

[Guest]

There is no way that the seaway will be expanded to accommodate thousand footers. First, if the US can not agree on the $500 - $600 million dollars to duplicate the existing Poe lock, How/where is the US going to come up with the $1.0 - $1.2 billion to expand the existing Snell and Eisenhower locks? Second, why would Canada come up with $10+ billion dollars to expand the 12 locks and one guard gate in the Seaway system in Canada when they do not have a single vessel that needs a larger lock. Third, during the 5 -7 year construction period of the Poe lock, traffic was maintained through the other three locks at the Soo. However, 12 of the locks and the guard gate in the Seaway are single locks. Closure of any one of these locks for a 6 - 7 year period during construction would reduce Seaway traffic to zero. With the downward trend in Great Lakes commerce, an expansion of the Seaway to accommodate thousand footers will never be justified.

Since the Poe Lock has only been down for 20 days in 48 years, there is a short term fix that could be implemented in a few hours. A thousand footer could transport a full cargo to the Soo. The cargo could then be off loaded into a 730 footer using the 'dipsy doodle' technique previously used by American Steamship and Canada Steamship. The smaller boat could then transit the McArthur Lock and transfer the cargo to another thousand footer waiting down stream of the locks. The double/triple handling of the cargo would increase cargo cost but this would be minimal compared to construction costs of $500 - $600 million.

This is the most sensible and achievable strategy I've heard to deal with the possibility of the Poe lock going down for any longer than a few days.

[Russ]

If the Poe lock were to be down for any period of time, the Jones Act would be a non-issue. An emergency would be declared and Canadian boats would be permitted to load and unload in American ports. The Jones Act would be suspended just as it was World War II.

[Guest]

I think one point overlooked concerning the conveyor unloading/loading principle is that some damage will occur to the product each time it is handled by such a system.

If I recall correctly, a few years ago a railroad company was able to secure a contract to haul ore partially on the basis of minimizing damage, and therefore loss, of iron ore pellets in transit by eliminating the loading and unloading into a vessel. I may be mistaken on this as it was several years ago.

The bottom line is that the locks are the most efficient method to transport cargoes between Lake Superior and the lower lakes. In fact, one of the primary reasons a lock was built at Sault Ste. Marie was to eliminate the costly and time consuming transshipment of cargoes around the rapids.

If the Poe Lock were to be put out of service for any length of time, its likely that special permits would be granted to allow Canadian flagged ships carry cargoes between US ports if necessary.

Here's one for those well versed in the Jones Act regulations. Can a Canadian flagged carrier receive cargo from a US flagged self-unloader loaded in a US port and reload it into another US flagged carrier destined to another US port without violating the Act? Or could it be made possible by having the transfer made in Canadian waters?

[Guest]

It would be interesting to have the Welland Canal expanded to fit the the thousand footers and deeper draft vessels. I do not know much aboutbthe seaway locks, but that would also be interesting for a thousand footer to travel the length of the seaway into saltwater instead of being trapped in 4 lakes.

I guess that there has to be an economic benefit of enlarging the Soo locks. By the way I'm hearing things, the future looks bleak for both fleets with foreign steel and bs coal cuts. There is not enough money in grain, stone, salt, or cement to keep the fleets busy.

An expansion of the Welland Canal and St. Lawrence Seaway would most likely have a negative impact upon the Canadian fleet as such an enlargement would open the lakes to larger ocean vessels. As such, they could load ore and grain at the head of the lakes for direct shipment overseas, thereby eliminating a good portion of the Canadian fleet's annual tonnage committed to bringing these export cargoes through the Seaway to the St. Lawrence ports. In addition, I don't believe there would be any obstacles for foreign flagged ships to load cargoes in a Canadian port and unload in an American port or vice versa. I would assume that the only reason we have not seen this take place is that it does not make economic sense to a foreign flagged shipping company with the current size restrictions.

[Russ]

There is no way that the seaway will be expanded to accommodate thousand footers. First, if the US can not agree on the $500 - $600 million dollars to duplicate the existing Poe lock, How/where is the US going to come up with the $1.0 - $1.2 billion to expand the existing Snell and Eisenhower locks? Second, why would Canada come up with $10+ billion dollars to expand the 12 locks and one guard gate in the Seaway system in Canada when they do not have a single vessel that needs a larger lock. Third, during the 5 -7 year construction period of the Poe lock, traffic was maintained through the other three locks at the Soo. However, 12 of the locks and the guard gate in the Seaway are single locks. Closure of any one of these locks for a 6 - 7 year period during construction would reduce Seaway traffic to zero. With the downward trend in Great Lakes commerce, an expansion of the Seaway to accommodate thousand footers will never be justified.

Since the Poe Lock has only been down for 20 days in 48 years, there is a short term fix that could be implemented in a few hours. A thousand footer could transport a full cargo to the Soo. The cargo could then be off loaded into a 730 footer using the 'dipsy doodle' technique previously used by American Steamship and Canada Steamship. The smaller boat could then transit the McArthur Lock and transfer the cargo to another thousand footer waiting down stream of the locks. The double/triple handling of the cargo would increase cargo cost but this would be minimal compared to construction costs of $500 - $600 million.

[Jared]

It would be interesting to have the Welland Canal expanded to fit the the thousand footers and deeper draft vessels. I do not know much aboutbthe seaway locks, but that would also be interesting for a thousand footer to travel the length of the seaway into saltwater instead of being trapped in 4 lakes.

I guess that there has to be an economic benefit of enlarging the Soo locks. By the way I'm hearing things, the future looks bleak for both fleets with foreign steel and bs coal cuts. There is not enough money in grain, stone, salt, or cement to keep the fleets busy.

[Odysseus]

I find the concept and discussion of a conveyer system to unload Superior vessels to lower lakes vessels intriguing.

But I wonder how efficient this could be in the real world. We are talking about the idea of a laker that, given no opposing traffic, would take about 1.5-2 hours to lock through the Poe once making the piers, give or take. But an unloading system would require securing to a pier, extending a boom into a dedicated hopper location, and the regular time to unload all of that cargo only to be loaded to the proper load level requirements for the receiving vessel that would be heading down bound.

First, there is the time it would take to transfer the load. That's a lot longer than just locking through.

Second, there is the assumption there is going to be a willing and waiting vessel to receive the load.

Third, there are vessels that are designed for specific a cargo. Which goes back to the aforementioned number two, how do you know there is going to be a willing vessel there?

Fourth, if there are no willing and waiting vessels to receive Superior laden cargo, where do you store the materials in the Soo? The Carbide dock is only so big.

How is this system supposed to be more efficient than locking through with just one Poe sized lock, let alone a twinned lock? Moreover, how would the Lake Carriers Association sign off on such an idea? How would the Canadians carriers like this? Who would keep track of which pile belongs to which boat for which destination?

Seems like a bigger issue than just locking through in one Poe sized lock, let alone two.

[Guest]

It was only ever advantageous for ships too large for the Panama Canal.

The railroad there along the canal was never getting any non-cruise ship business from cargo ships that were Panamax or smaller in size. The container business was entirely from vessels that otherwise would've had to sail the long way around South America.

It's expensive, by compared to thousands of miles out of your way, there was some economic justification for it. Does not apply here to the Soo locks at all.

[Guest]

Crazy thought but would it not be more feasible and very much cheaper to install several conveyor systems to unload and load product at the soo instead of actually going threw a lock. You could have dedicated vessels on each end. I once heard it is cheaper and quicker to unload a vessel and to reload it on the other side of the Panama Canal. Kind of same thought.

How did that work out at the Panama Canal? Think they just went thru an over 5 billion dollar expansion project.

[Guest]

Crazy thought but would it not be more feasible and very much cheaper to install several conveyor systems to unload and load product at the soo instead of actually going threw a lock. You could have dedicated vessels on each end. I once heard it is cheaper and quicker to unload a vessel and to reload it on the other side of the Panama Canal. Kind of same thought.

[Albert]

A new Poe class lock would be pork barrel spending at its finest. A new lock isn't needed. As others have said, if by minimal chance the Poe broke down then it would be fixed with great urgency and back operational quickly.

[Guest]

The business case to build another Soo lock is less and less compelling as overall annual tonnage trends downward. Regardless of how industry would cope if the Poe lock was unavailable for a longer term, how can governments be convinced to spend billions on an industry that is steadily contracting ? Yes, a second large lock helps protect industry in the event the Poe is disabled, but how many times has that happened in its history ? The argument isn't strong enough. I wish that wasn't true.

[Guest]

Let's keep in mind that while they limit vessels to 75' through there, it's still just as wide as the Welland Canal and Seaway locks that allow vessels with a 78' beam to pass through.

If the Poe Lock ever goes down for a significant amount of time, it strikes me as a safe assumption that this paper limitation would quickly be lifted to allow vessels with a 78' beam to pass.

[Mr Link]

The Davis and Sabin locks are too shallow by today's standards. The depth over the (lock gate) sill, which is the minimum depth, is only 23.5 feet for the the Davis and Sabin. The MacArthur is 31 feet deep and the Poe is 32 feet deep. Granted the connecting channels aren't that deep, but they want some clearance under the boat.

And trying to deepen a lock that is built in bedrock would likely be more expensive than just building a new one.