Ryerson, Sherwin, AMA, & Algoma Steamers

[Guest]

Until the final fallout from the decreasing number of coal plants is realized the Sherwin will stay as she is she's a payed for asset thats act compliant her future is still yrs from an outcome.

[Guest]

The plan of having the Sherwin rebuilt with a forward-mounted self-unloader boom was so she could reach the far end of the dock, as the distance from the bow stem to the center of the boom pivot would be shorter than with a stern-mounted self-unloader. There is also risk of damaging the rudder on a stern-mounted self-unloader at the far end of the dock.

[Guest]

That isn't exactly a bad thing for the Sherwin. Remember, all that stuff was gutted when they were planning on bringing her back out. While stripped out at the moment, also presumably all the hazardous materials have also been stripped, such as asbestos. Its not like she would have returned with that turbine anyway being in mothballs so long.

If the long term cargoes were there, I have no doubt Interlake would finish the work they started. With the decline in coal and such, at this point seems unlikely it will ever be finished.

The Sherwin has an advantage even in the face of permanently declining coal shipments. She's the right length and width to deliver iron ore pellets up the Rouge to the steel mill there; as long as that mill is in service, and especially if they ever increase capacity there, the Sherwin has a theoretical chance to be a viable carrier. It was said in 2008 that Interlake was looking forward to having a self-unloader with a forward-mounted boom to better access certain parts of the pellet storage area at the mill.

The longer the Sherwin exists as a Jones Act-compliant hull in relatively good condition while ships in other U.S. fleets become worn out, get scrapped, or sold Canadian, the better her chances get.

If they need the boom at the far end of the slip to access that part of the pellet storage area, why don't they do a 3 point turn and back in ? Maybe a bit time consuming but still possible

[hausen]

That isn't exactly a bad thing for the Sherwin. Remember, all that stuff was gutted when they were planning on bringing her back out. While stripped out at the moment, also presumably all the hazardous materials have also been stripped, such as asbestos. Its not like she would have returned with that turbine anyway being in mothballs so long.

If the long term cargoes were there, I have no doubt Interlake would finish the work they started. With the decline in coal and such, at this point seems unlikely it will ever be finished.

The Sherwin has an advantage even in the face of permanently declining coal shipments. She's the right length and width to deliver iron ore pellets up the Rouge to the steel mill there; as long as that mill is in service, and especially if they ever increase capacity there, the Sherwin has a theoretical chance to be a viable carrier. It was said in 2008 that Interlake was looking forward to having a self-unloader with a forward-mounted boom to better access certain parts of the pellet storage area at the mill.

The longer the Sherwin exists as a Jones Act-compliant hull in relatively good condition while ships in other U.S. fleets become worn out, get scrapped, or sold Canadian, the better her chances get.

[Shipwatcher1]

With the Sherwin you must realize she has no engine, no bow thruster, and nothing left in the pilothouse, plus no self-unloader boom. Probably she would require at least 12-18 months in the shipyard before she would ever run again. I'm sure you'd be talking in the $30-$50 million range, at least, to get her running. Plus, with Detroit Edison going to natural gas in their plants within the next several yrs. I wonder if Interlake would be that interested in running her again.

That isn't exactly a bad thing for the Sherwin. Remember, all that stuff was gutted when they were planning on bringing her back out. While stripped out at the moment, also presumably all the hazardous materials have also been stripped, such as asbestos. Its not like she would have returned with that turbine anyway being in mothballs so long.

If the long term cargoes were there, I have no doubt Interlake would finish the work they started. With the decline in coal and such, at this point seems unlikely it will ever be finished.

[MilwBob]

What could make a difference this year, is four less hulls at ASC..

Shouldn't make that much a difference. Only the Buffalo was in service, they have another boat who could take her place. The other 3 hadn't been out in years, and the 2 steamers wouldn't have seen service regardless.

[Lakerguy]

I've been wondering...what are the ramifications of the steamers being sold Canadian are. How long will they be allowed to remain where they are? What are the legalities of having a vessel laid up in another country? Will they have to tow them somewhere come spring or is there a legal precedent for them to remain in U.S. ports?

[garbear]

With the Sherwin you must realize she has no engine, no bow thruster, and nothing left in the pilothouse, plus no self-unloader boom. Probably she would require at least 12-18 months in the shipyard before she would ever run again. I'm sure you'd be talking in the $30-$50 million range, at least, to get her running. Plus, with Detroit Edison going to natural gas in their plants within the next several yrs. I wonder if Interlake would be that interested in running her again.

[Darryl]

What could make a difference this year, is four less hulls at ASC...

[William Lafferty]

I have learned to greed this kind of talk with skepticism. Until you see her towed over to Fraser I wouldn't count on anything.

Indeed. It is 6-1/2 to 7-1/2 years overdue for every major survey.

[ZenithBoatWatcher]

Rumors are saying that the Anderson is getting work done this winter.

[Andrew]

Since it's mid winter and the economy is doing well.....how about discussing any rumors floating around about these 5. Any news on anything?

Also, any idea is ASC will rename one of their ships now?