Boatnerd Discussion Forum

Icebreaking draught 21 feet and maximum draught 24

Her stats indicate 21' draft in icebreaking mode. And 24' draft in other service. Plenty of room in the Lakes for her.

Guest wrote:https://www.marinelink.com/news/develop ... ence434256

That's the Robinson Bay replacement isn't it?

Bookworm wrote:Reading your response brought a hypothetical idea to mind. Could a private (financially well-grounded) enterprise build and maintain a single heavy-duty icebreaker designated for Great Lakes use only? Obviously it couldn't be everywhere at once and more regulations than I'm aware of might make it unworkable. I have no one in mind. Simply like to learn from the many educated posts I read.

The only 2 that come to mind would be Great Lakes Towing or Lake Carriers Association. I do believe that current law requires US great lakes vessels use private ice breaking where available before the USCG is obligated to assist. I know that in the '70's Selvick Marine Towing was utilized a lot in the Green Bay/Sturgeon Bay/Bay De Noc areas when we were sailing in the Winter Navigation Demonstration Program.
Private tugs were also used in the greater Chicago area of Southern Lake Michigan.
My guess is that there would be some push back from great lakes carriers to paying for services that they feel their tax dollars are already paying for by using USCG ice breaking assets.
If I remember correctly, the LCA had a lot of input in the construction and deployment parameters for WAGB-83 Mackinaw.

Bookworm wrote:Reading your response brought a hypothetical idea to mind. Could a private (financially well-grounded) enterprise build and maintain a single heavy-duty icebreaker designated for Great Lakes use only? Obviously it couldn't be everywhere at once and more regulations than I'm aware of might make it unworkable. I have no one in mind. Simply like to learn from the many educated posts I read.

Sure, it's possible, but it would be very unprofitable. To build a mission capable icebreaker of this nature would cost a minimum of US$125-150m at the very low end, when considering not only construction costs but also engineering and development. To be effective, the beam would be larger than 78', thus relegating it to the four lakes as Seaway transit is not possible. The operation period would be December through March/April, with no feasible options for work during the remaining 8-9 months of the year. I cannot think of any other new ships worldwide that justify the expense of building a new ship, only to let it sit idle for a healthy majority of the year. It would be along the same lines of Algoma building a new bulk carrier to be used only during the fall grain rush. The economics simply aren't there.

With the USCG and CCG providing services, and the extremely high day rates this private icebreaker would charge for their assistance, any shipping company would gladly take the free (or low cost) services offered by the governments. Let's say the hypothetical going rate is $5,000/hour for this hypothetical new icebreaker. During four months of use, averaging 100 hours of hired time per week, that's $500,000/week. Operating expenses are deducted (fuel, wages, insurance, etc), so let's say a net profit of $250,000/week. That's $1,000,000 per month net profit, $4,000,000 for the entire winter (assuming it works to aid the 2 or 3 ships still sailing into February). These are all very hypothetical numbers that are probably on the very, very optimistic end. As a private company, the operator of this icebreaker is in the business to generate a profit, but let's assume the entire $4m goes into paying off the construction loans. With interest, it would be 50+ years before that loan is paid off (all the while not generating a profit). This also assumes constant winter weather and income generated each year, something we all can agree does not happen. Very likely there would be years this private icebreaker would never be needed. Rarely would it ever be needed beyond the four month estimate. If this private company was seeking outside financing, no lender would consider this ROI as anything serious.

The only comparison I can think of is the Erika Kobasic. This is a private tugboat that shipping companies can contract for ice assistance. This tug is also dating from the 1940s, so it does not have the expense of paying off construction loans of a new ship. The price shipping companies pay for use of this tug is not cheap, but reasonable enough to justify when needed. I believe they charge per hour used, but I could be mistaken. This being said, she only operates in the Lake Michigan area - you don't see this tug traversing all over the lakes to aid anywhere needed.

All of this does not factor in that icebreaking is a complex affair. Icebreakers don't simply ram ice to break it up - there is a science behind how they choose to approach every scenario, taking the ice formation, thickness, and downstream conditions into effect. The private company would have to liaise with the respective Coast Guards and follow their plan of attack, something that may or may not even be possible.

Google ST. Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation New Tug Boat.

There was a recent article the Canadians looking for a 4th used Ice Breaker for St. Lawrence Seaway/ Great Lakes usage?

Reading your response brought a hypothetical idea to mind. Could a private (financially well-grounded) enterprise build and maintain a single heavy-duty icebreaker designated for Great Lakes use only? Obviously it couldn't be everywhere at once and more regulations than I'm aware of might make it unworkable. I have no one in mind. Simply like to learn from the many educated posts I read.

Mr Link wrote:Any word how the "new" Canadian icebreaker Captain Molly Kool is doing? The first of three anchor handling tugs that was converted at Davie Shipyard?

Heard she's doing ok, also from my friends in the CCG, those 3 will not be used here in the Great Lakes as they draught too much and there is no port deep enough for them to tie-up at. So they will not be used any further West then probably Montreal.

Any word how the "new" Canadian icebreaker Captain Molly Kool is doing? The first of three anchor handling tugs that was converted at Davie Shipyard?

Mac Mackay wrote:The USCG doesn't have a sterling record in building icebreakers either.

Witness the USCGC Healy. It has led a less-than-reliable life. While I'm quite sure the original technology and design supplied by Kvaerner-Masa in Finland was well refined, something certainly was lost in translation (figuratively) when it was built in New Orleans (itself a hotbed of icebreaking history...) The Polar Star and Polar Sea are certainly outdated, but they still perform their intended purpose.

The USA cannot even manage to get a new training vessel built to serve all domestic maritime universities as a shared asset. I believe there is some headway on this now, after many years.

I agree Mac, the differences between the CCG and USCG are too great, and the political aspect would be insurmountable for a common design, shared asset icebreaker to ever come to fruition. Consider the main objectives of the CCG - ensuring commerce safely moves, damage to property from flooding is mitigated, etc. Now consider the USCG - coastal law enforcement, marine inspections (from personal bass fishing boats to the largest ships afloat), marine navigation, etc. There are commonalities, for sure, but we are talking about two different organizations at their core. You do not have to look far to find professionals in the maritime community who feel the USCG is an overworked, understaffed organization. They have a lot on their plate that might be better served if delegated to new/other organizations, not unlike the CCG and Transport Canada.

Sorry to pour ice water on the idea of a common design, but in my opinion it will never happen. First the Canadian government has enough trouble figuring out how to build ships without adding an international layer to the complexity.
Despite the similarities in name, the CCG and the USCG are radically different types of organizations.
The USCG is military and the CCG is civilian.
The CCG has unionized crews with labour agreements that define hours of work, time off and even the standards of accommodation on ships. They have little in the way of policing powers. If they have to enforce law they must bring the RCMP along. Their mandate is quite different from that of the USCG, and their ships reflect this.
The USCG doesn't have a sterling record in building icebreakers either. Witness the recent Antarctic fiasco. However as a military organization their vessel needs are defined in an entirely different way. So trying to combine the two regimes in a common ship design just would not work.
I think the current situation works well. Canada is able to bring in some bigger ships in the spring when the pressure eases off a bit in the Gulf of St.Lawrence. As for leaving one of those ship on the Lakes for the winter, that might be a possibility, but at this point the current CCG fleet is stretched to the limit and beyond.

algowest wrote:Since US and Canada share icebreaking task on the Great Lakes, develop a joint US/Canada icebreaker design and each build one. Share the design costs and have it built on a shipyard on the Lakes (U.S.) and Lower St. Lawrence (CDN). I know it may be a stretch to have both countries agree on a design, but that's the way it should be. Save money, multipurpose, and built in own domestic yards. Plus, if they're built to the same design, they can share operating expertise, crew training, port visits, etc. Why not work together since they operate together in the same environment anyway?

Amen. Now that would be fantastic!!

From my two friends on Facebook who know the rail and shipping industry, Keetac ore goes by rail to Granite City, IL(It's across from St. Louis), but no ore goes to mills on the Lakes by rail.

From a friend on Facebook. Ore hasn't been shipped in years over the winter to Gary. Was back in the Wisconsin Central days.

Guest wrote:

wlbblw wrote:Losing the Poe Lock will not result in an all out shut down of the steel industry. What do you think steel mills do during winter? The product will go by rail instead.

They stock up all year. Railroads can't handle the lost capacity.

I was under the impression that there has been a decline in winter all-rail shipments from the Minnesota iron range to steel mills that are served by water routes during the summer; can anyone more familiar with regional rail traffic speak to this?

wlbblw wrote:Losing the Poe Lock will not result in an all out shut down of the steel industry. What do you think steel mills do during winter? The product will go by rail instead.

They stock up all year. Railroads can't handle the lost capacity.

Since US and Canada share icebreaking task on the Great Lakes, develop a joint US/Canada icebreaker design and each build one. Share the design costs and have it built on a shipyard on the Lakes (U.S.) and Lower St. Lawrence (CDN). I know it may be a stretch to have both countries agree on a design, but that's the way it should be. Save money, multipurpose, and built in own domestic yards. Plus, if they're built to the same design, they can share operating expertise, crew training, port visits, etc. Why not work together since they operate together in the same environment anyway?