Denny wrote: ↑January 20, 2025, 2:58 pm
Not trying to cause or create a firestorm 🔥 here by my comments folks just questions as always and opinions by me is all here. Anyway, couldn’t GLF just try to repower either the Anderson or the Clarke from steam to diesels then? Didn’t they just do that to the Munson a few years ago then? I don’t get it and understand then why IF they repowered the Munson to diesels why they left both the Anderson and Clarke as Steamers? Both Interlake along with Lower Lakes took the time and money to invest in turning their steamers into diesels yet GLF has only done the Munson I believe so far. So why is that? I would have thought once Interlake and Lower Lakes got on board and did this that GLF would eventually follow through as well. And what about the Sykes? If I’m correct, she has been plagued by I think boiler problems or something like that with her engines or whatever? My point again, couldn’t they just repower the Sykes from Steam to Diesels then? Again folks, I’m not trying to cause any firestorm 🔥 by my comments but just my theory and opinions only is all. Don’t have the detail information on all this like you have then. Again, just my thoughts and opinions only is all.
Generally speaking, diesel engines for ships require a lengthy lead time to procure along with the associated engineering and reworking of a vessel's structure to accommodate a repowering. This is a complex undertaking and not just simply pulling out one power plant and replacing it with another.
Given the somewhat bleak future outlook for US-flagged shipping and an aging fleet that will require several hundreds of millions of dollars to modernize with new units, not to mention the apparent open secret that CN was looking to divest itself of GLF just a few years ago, it is unsurprising that there have been no moves toward repowering any of the GLF's AAA class following the repowering of the Munson. It must be remembered that the ships operating on the lakes are there to serve the purpose of moving bulk materials in a profitable manner for their owners and if that is not possible either by obsolescence or lack of available cargoes such ships will be idled and or retired. If the shipowners do not see a future need for available tonnage then they will, rightly so, retire ships without replacements. Ships do not create demand for cargo movement, they provide a method to economically move that cargo.
guest wrote: ↑January 18, 2025, 9:49 am
Are the Anderson and Clarke currently burning high-sulfur fuel? Would that have anything to do with a layup?
I thought they could only burn high-sulfur fuel and their pollution exemption expired at the end of 2025.
You may be right on that. IIRC the EPA gave all the Great Lake steamers an exemption from the pollution requirements. Some boat owners claimed compliance would force them to immediately lay up. In addition it was argued that certain limestone mines would have to be shuttered due to the loss of those small boats. I thought the exemption was forever but perhaps you are right. I do recall the EPA wanted to give ship owners time to either re-power or build new replacements. Only Interlake and Van Eckenfort did that.
If that is true, why spend a bunch of money on a drydock or winter work for one more season of employment? Kinda puts the kabash on the Ryerson too. I believe the SS Badger has a different exemption.
The fuel sulphur requirements exemption for Great Lakes steamers is valid indefinitely. Some people may be getting confused with the EPA's repower fuel waiver incentive program that allowed steamers repowered with diesels to burn high sulfur fuel. That waiver ends on December 31, 2025.
Probably because CN doesn't want to invest any money in an asset they want to sell.
It could be a race to see who can lower their freight rates the fastest. When you only have two customers (DTE and Cliffs) with the bulk of the remaining cargoes (excluding low volume salt and low revenue stone), your bid better be lower than the next guy. Pretty hard to get anyone to pay for any capital improvement. And those tug/barge combos are pretty hard to beat when fuel is cheap and wages/benefits are only going higher. 12 guys vs 18 to 20.
I imagine companies are paying north of $40 per day per crew member for food alone.
Not trying to cause or create a firestorm 🔥 here by my comments folks just questions as always and opinions by me is all here. Anyway, couldn’t GLF just try to repower either the Anderson or the Clarke from steam to diesels then? Didn’t they just do that to the Munson a few years ago then? I don’t get it and understand then why IF they repowered the Munson to diesels why they left both the Anderson and Clarke as Steamers? Both Interlake along with Lower Lakes took the time and money to invest in turning their steamers into diesels yet GLF has only done the Munson I believe so far. So why is that? I would have thought once Interlake and Lower Lakes got on board and did this that GLF would eventually follow through as well. And what about the Sykes? If I’m correct, she has been plagued by I think boiler problems or something like that with her engines or whatever? My point again, couldn’t they just repower the Sykes from Steam to Diesels then? Again folks, I’m not trying to cause any firestorm 🔥 by my comments but just my theory and opinions only is all. Don’t have the detail information on all this like you have then. Again, just my thoughts and opinions only is all.
guest wrote: ↑January 18, 2025, 9:49 am
Are the Anderson and Clarke currently burning high-sulfur fuel? Would that have anything to do with a layup?
I thought they could only burn high-sulfur fuel and their pollution exemption expired at the end of 2025.
You may be right on that. IIRC the EPA gave all the Great Lake steamers an exemption from the pollution requirements. Some boat owners claimed compliance would force them to immediately lay up. In addition it was argued that certain limestone mines would have to be shuttered due to the loss of those small boats. I thought the exemption was forever but perhaps you are right. I do recall the EPA wanted to give ship owners time to either re-power or build new replacements. Only Interlake and Van Eckenfort did that.
If that is true, why spend a bunch of money on a drydock or winter work for one more season of employment? Kinda puts the kabash on the Ryerson too. I believe the SS Badger has a different exemption.
As of 10:15 a.m. on January 18, the Philip R. Clarke left from Toledo overnight and is now out in Lake Erie right now. I would guess they may have unloaded their ore load then went out into Lake Erie to “clean out” before they then arrive back in Toledo later today for Winter Lay Up. Their AIS now shows Velers late this evening whatever the Velers thing means and stands for. Two other arrivals for Toledo expected are the 1,000 footers American Spirit and the Edwin H. Gott.
Are the Anderson and Clarke currently burning high-sulfur fuel? Would that have anything to do with a layup?
I thought they could only burn high-sulfur fuel and their pollution exemption expired at the end of 2025.
I see on the AIS map the Anderson made it into Toledo for layup on January 17 and is now at the Frog Pond area out near the Lakefront where the Maumee River and the Channel meet up with Lake Erie. It’s usually the same spot and area to where the Anderson has been laid up at before in the past. The Clarke also arrived in Toledo to unload a cargo of Taconite Ore Pellets at the Torco Dock. Once they are finished unloading at Torco, then I would expect the Clarke to move and shift over to the area where the Anderson is now at for Lay Up then. As I had mentioned in another separate post, I hope and pray 🙏 that both the Anderson and the Clarke are not going into Long-Term Layup and that neither is finished or has been sold! I have not seen either one since 2022 on the St. Clair River and that year is when they painted the 70 years logo thing on each of the ship’s bow area near their pilothouses to which I was lucky to see then and get photos of each ship with that logo. Hopefully each one will be around with us for a few more seasons yet to come as I believe GLF put a lot of money and dollars into each ship upgrading them along with each one being dry docked and repainted not too long ago. I’m not sure when each are due up for their next CG Survey and inspection? That might tell us something about each then!
A post i just saw on Facebook stated Arthur M. Anderson is going into Long term layup and possible retirement once unloaded in Toledo. The Philip R. Clarke recently had her AIS as being Long Term Layup as well. Has anyone heard any news regarding these two being finished?