Op-Ed: Banning Anchoring on the Hudson Would be Unsafe

File image courtesy Fran Trudeau / CC BY SA 2.0

Published Jul 29, 2024 4:48 PM by Capt. Nathan Hauser

 

What if there was a major U.S. highway where you were never allowed to pull over, even for safety reasons? That highway would be far less safe, for everyone who used it.

If Congress doesn’t act, the Hudson River – a 153-mile stretch of vital marine highway – will also become far less safe, with vessel operators prohibited from anchoring nearly everywhere on the river, even to protect human life, the environment, and neighboring communities.

The Coast Guard and the marine industry have long agreed on the critical importance of anchorages on the Hudson River, where over 13 million tons of cargo is transported annually. In 2016, motivated by this common understanding, the Coast Guard drafted a proposed regulation to establish additional federally designated anchorages on the Hudson – located where vessel operators had been safely anchoring for decades. In the face of well-intentioned but misinformed opposition led by environmental groups, the Coast Guard later withdrew its rulemaking.

In 2023, the Coast Guard issued a report to Congress reaffirming the importance of anchorages to support safe navigation on the Hudson. This time, the Coast Guard did not propose establishing additional anchorages, but rather rescinded its previous prohibition on anchoring outside federally designated anchorage areas, sensibly allowing towing vessel captains and pilots to anchor, when necessary.

Disregarding the Coast Guard’s judgment on navigational safety, New York Congressmen Ryan and Molinaro responded by inserting language into the House of Representatives’ Coast Guard Authorization Act of 2024 that effectively prohibits vessel operators from anchoring on the Hudson River.

If allowed to stand, this prohibition will create serious safety, environmental and economic risks.

The Coast Guard’s 2023 report to Congress was developed in part through consultation with the Hudson River Safety, Navigation, and Operations Committee (HRSNOC). The HRSNOC was established by the Coast Guard in 2018 to include a broad range of Hudson River waterfront, recreational, and commercial users. The report emphasized what generations of commercial mariners know to be true: “Anchorages are an essential part of navigational safety.” When river conditions become unsafe for navigation - for reasons of weather, ice, vessel traffic congestion, lack of available safe berthing, crew fatigue, or mechanical casualty - it is vital for the safety of the crew and for all surrounding waterways users that the captain has the discretion to anchor the vessel, out of the way of river traffic, until it is safe to proceed. This practice has served mariners and Hudson River communities well for centuries, as the Coast Guard report notes: “The Coast Guard is not aware of any incidents within the study area of collisions or other marine casualties related to imprudent commercial vessel anchoring.”

And notwithstanding opponents of anchorages claiming they are seeking to protect the environment on the Hudson River, the freedom to anchor is itself critical to environmental protection. If vessels are forced to continue navigating, instead of “pulling over” and anchoring, despite facing dangerous conditions, the risk of accidents, including those that could harm the river’s ecosystem, increases substantially. When navigating in such a situation, vessels may have to navigate at reduced speed, and possibly with reduced maneuverability, contributing to negative consequences of increased emissions and river congestion.

It should also be considered that navigating on such a dynamic waterway for a significant period of time can present unforeseen hazards.  Over the course of navigating the 153-mile waterway, which can easily exceed 24 hours, weather and waterway forecasts can change significantly. To reduce the risk of these hazards, as part of a required navigation risk assessment, anchoring is considered a priority mitigation consideration. 

On top of creating safety and environmental risks, prohibiting anchorages on most of the Hudson River can detrimentally impact the supply chain as well. Preventing anchoring threatens the safe transport of vital cargo that households and businesses need – not only consumer goods, but also transportation of energy sources, construction materials, and other building blocks of the local economy that support families and livelihoods, both in the Hudson Valley and beyond to western portions of New England.  Additionally, the region has become a significant supporter of green initiatives, notably the transportation of wind energy components – most of which are delivered by marine operators navigating the Hudson River.

The safety, environmental and supply chain risks that come with prohibiting anchorages are not unique to the Hudson River. There is real danger that leaving this prohibition in place will set a precedent for similar restrictions on critical waterways elsewhere in the United States, with serious implications for safe and efficient commercial and recreational navigation.

The Coast Guard authorization bill, having passed the House of Representatives, is now before the Senate Commerce Committee, which will have the opportunity to amend the bill before it moves to a full Senate vote. As part of a coalition of maritime leaders, with centuries of experience operating on the Hudson River, my company has joined our colleagues in urging Chairwoman Maria Cantwell (D-Washington) and Ranking Member Ted Cruz (R-Texas) to remove this language from the bill and keep commerce moving safely through the Hudson Valley.

Our industry is proudly the safest, most sustainable and efficient mode of freight transportation in the United States, strongly committed to continuous improvement and innovation. We move forward confidently by knowing our past, and the lessons we have learned that are still relevant today. That is why we implore Congress to avoid making the Hudson River unsafe for mariners, residents, and the environment. 

Captain Nathan Hauser is Regional Vice President, Northeast at Moran Towing Corporation and serves as Atlantic Region Chairman of the American Waterways Operators.

Top image: Barge on the Hudson at Newburg Bay (Fran Trudeau / CC BY SA 2.0)

The opinions expressed herein are the author's and not necessarily those of The Maritime Executive.

 

Combining Hovercraft and Ground Effect Technology for Freight Transport

The Soviet-built Ekranoplan, an example of a large ground effect craft

Published Jul 29, 2024 8:56 PM by Harry Valentine

Both hovercraft and ground effect technology can be developed to carry weight of several of the largest cargo airplanes. Combining the technologies into a single vehicle allows for more efficient travel at higher speed over extended distances with the ability to come ashore on to land to load and unload the vehicle.

Introduction

Hovercraft technology and wing-in-ground effect technology developed independently of each other over a period of decades, with each technology suited to its own unique niche in the transportation market and for military applications. In the UK, hovercraft vehicles were assigned to comparatively short-distance transportation across water, with the ability to come ashore on to a beach to load and discharge both passengers and freight. By comparison, wing-in-ground effect technology included boat hulls that allowed each vehicle to remain on a water surface when at a terminal, when in service or when moored out-of-service at a terminal.

Both hovercraft and ground effect vehicles use aeronautical propellers for propulsion and aeronautical rudders to change direction. That commonality invites exploration of methods by which to combine the 2-technologies into a single vehicle that can both travel efficiently at high speed across water while also being able to transfer from water to land to load and unload freight at coastal terminals. Developers of both technologies have explored possible mega-scale development of each technology that would theoretically have been capable of a laden weight of several thousand tons and equivalent to several of the largest cargo planes.

Mega-Scale ‘Aircraft’

Boeing designed the theoretical ‘airplane’ dubbed “Pelican” with a wingspan of 500 feet, a wind chord of almost 100 feet, and intended to carry a payload of 1.5 million pounds with a maximum take-off weight of 5,000,000 pounds. It was intended to save fuel by traveling in ‘ground effect’ mode at 20 feet to 100 feet above ocean, climbing to 10,000 feet elevation when approaching land so as to touch down at a commercial airport. The fuselage of ‘Pelican’ was intended to exceed 400 feet in length, with each square foot of its wing carrying around 125 pounds of weight.

The Antonov AN-225 represents largest commercial cargo airplane built, with a take-off weight just over 1,300,000 pounds. Prior to the conflict in Ukraine, the AN 225 was used to carry unique types of freight. However, companies that specialize in carrying air freight showed little interest in the 6-engine AN-225, opting instead for the 4-engine Boeing 747 airplane and large 2-engine airplanes built by Boeing and by Airbus adapted to carry freight. Ongoing development in a turbine engine and aeronautical reduction gear technology offers the future prospect of mega-size turbofan and turboprop engines delivering over 250,000 lb of thrust each.

Combining Two Technologies

A mega-scale hovercraft with a momentum curtain measuring 50-feet by 500-feet and air pumped in at three PSI would produce a ‘lift’ of 5,400 tons. Expanding on the ground-effect tandem wing concept from Germany would result in two columns of multiple wings in a row, with successive air intakes at progressively higher elevation. This would yield a capacity of 5,000 tons for a hovercraft with ground effect wings.

In service, the vehicle would operate between land-based coastal locations and travel across water carry such priority freight inside containers. Upon departure, it would use onboard air turbo-compressors during acceleration as a hovercraft before making the transition to ground effect flight so as to travel efficiently at high speed. A total chord length of 500 feet across multiple rows of overlapping and closely spaced wings should allow for a maximum travel height of 25% of the wing chord or 100 to 125 feet above water, with peak economical cruising occurring at a flight elevation of 15 feet to 25 feet above water.

Basic Operation

A heavy vehicle that combines hovercraft capability with ground-effect wings would operate between land-based coastal terminals and travel efficiently at elevated speed above a water surface. Hovercraft air pumps would function at low vehicle speed during departure from and during approach to a terminal. At higher speed when ground-effect wings carry the vehicle, hovercraft air pumps would be shut off. To save fuel, acceleration would occur on a solid land surface to reach a sufficiently high speed for ground-effect wings to carry the vehicle as it transitions to travel above water.

Fuel consumption accounts for up to 80% of the operating cost of a cargo plane that travels at over 500-miles per hour. Ground effect flight at speeds of 150 to 200-miles per hour would consume far less fuel than high-elevation flight, including for a vehicle that incurs 4 to 5-times the laden weight of a large cargo plane. The market segment for a mega-size ground-effect freight plane would be to offer much faster delivery time within 3 to 4-days compared to ships that require 3 to 4-weeks, at a fraction of the transportation cost of air freight.

Research Focus

The development of combination hovercraft – tandem wing ground effect technology will depend on innovative problem-solving thinking from people who have research experience with both technologies. Tandem-Wing of Germany has built ground effect vehicles that travel above a water surface while combining a large forward wing with a large trailing wing installed behind it. Future research would need to focus on developing a series of wings installed one behind the other, with successive air intakes arranged at progressively higher elevation and designed in a way to assure ground effect dynamics along the entire chord length of the wing assembly.

People with research expertise in hovercraft technology would need to focus on the maximum possible width and length of fuselage that a cushion of air could carry as the vehicles makes the transition between liquid and solid surface. A large-scale hovercraft might need to use multiple momentum curtains under the fuselage, perhaps with multiple skirts to minimize loss of air at low vehicle speed while assuring vehicle levitation. Researchers will need to establish a transition speed where the vehicles transfer between hovercraft mode and ground effect wing operation to ensure energy-efficient operation while carrying freight over extended distances.

Rough Seas

Extreme wave conditions that occur in the shallow waters of the North Sea and northern region of the Bering Sea require that ground-effect craft travel at a sustained elevation of at least 100 feet above water. Experience from Australia involving a small ground-effect craft revealed that it could travel smoothly at speed at an elevation of 4 feet above waves of 13 feet. Airline pilots advised that gusting winds at airports caused stability issues with commercial aircraft during touch down, when the ground-effect dynamics had its greatest effect on aircraft stability. However, airplanes wings are very different to ground-effect wings.

Commercial aircraft wings are built with large wingspan greatly exceeding the comparatively short chord measurement. Ground effect wings can be built with front to rear chord measurement greatly exceeding wingspan, allowing vehicles built with long-chord wings to sustain smooth ‘flight’ when traveling at elevated speed above choppy water. Further research involving small scale vehicles could establish the wingspan, wing chord and travel speed of ground effect craft that maintain smooth ‘flight’ above severe sea swells as occur in the Bering Sea, as well as waves of up to 80-feet height that occur in both the Bering and North Seas.

International Market

The commercial airline industry operates cargo planes on long-haul international flights that cross oceans. A large-scale combination hovercraft – ground effect vehicle could operate several direct trans-ocean routes between major coastal cities located on opposite sides of the same ocean. While slower than airplanes, these vehicles would be much faster than container ships. There is likely a market for a fuel-efficient vehicle that carries 4 to 5 times the payload of freight of a cargo plane at lower transportation costs and competitive delivery schedules. Such a vehicle might even operate via the Arctic.

One trans-Arctic route could connect west coast American terminals located near Los Angeles and San Francisco or Asian terminals located near Tokyo, Busan or Shanghai to European terminals located near Edinburgh, Rotterdam or Hamburg, potentially traveling via the Russian side of the Arctic. There might also be potential to locate some Asian terminals to terminals located along the American east coast, via the Canadian side of Arctic. It might be possible for a large ground effect plane to travel directly across the North Pole between the Bering Sea and Norwegian Sea.

Domestic Service

There would likely be a market for the services of smaller-scale combination hovercraft–ground effect vehicles within countries such as Russia and Canada, where such vehicles could travel along wide rivers and across (frozen) lakes. During summer, ships can serve several coastal communities located around Hudson Bay, Canada where winter ice conditions prevent ship navigation. There is potential for hovercraft vehicles built with ground-effect wings to travel above the ice surface of Hudson Bay and stop on ice surface terminals at coastal communities to deliver essential supplies such as food.

During the northern winter, hovercraft built with ground-effect wings could provide winter time fast ferry service across North America’s ice-covered Great Lakes. There would likely be potential for service across Lake Michigan between Milwaukee and Muskegon, also across western Lake Ontario between Toronto and Niagara/St. Catharines region.

Hovercraft with ground-effect wings would be able to travel at speed above ice covered rivers in northern Canada such as the Mackenzie, ice covered rivers in northern Russia as well as across frozen level tundra land between large bodies of water turned to winter ice cover, in northern Canada and northern Russia.

Conclusions

The combination of earlier research by developers of hovercraft and ground effect vehicles, along with later developments, suggests the possibility of a combination hovercraft built with ground effect wings being able to incur a total laden weight of 5,000 tons.

A vehicle of such capacity could occupy a market niche carrying medium-priority freight at a faster delivery time along international routes than ships and lower transportation tariffs than air freight. There would be potential for smaller-size hovercraft built with ground effect wings to provide wintertime freight transportation service in Canada’s Arctic region after regulatory issues are resolved.

The opinions expressed herein are the author's and not necessarily those of The Maritime Executive.

 ICYMI

Ship Strike on Shark Captured on Video for the First Time

Boat's keel makes contact with basking shark (Oregon State University Hatfield Marine Science Center)

Published Jul 28, 2024 11:33 PM by The Maritime Executive

 

 

Ship strike incidents are widely believed to be a contributing factor in the declining numbers of many shark species. But until now, there has never been any video evidence of what happens when a ship strikes a shark, or any other large marine creature.

Now, researchers at the Oregon State University (OSU) have offered a first-hand glimpse of an actual event of a basking shark experiencing a boat strike. The researchers have released rare footage of about six minutes in which a shark was struck by a boat. The sequence and the change in the shark's behavior may help scientists understand the impact that sharks and marine mammals experience in the event of strikes.

Barely a few hours after strapping a camera to the back of an endangered basking shark off the coast of Ireland in April, a team from Oregon State University captured the disturbing moment of the newly-tagged shark being struck by a boat.  

Unfortunately, the researchers could not tell whether the shark, a female about seven meters long, survived the strike. The camera and the activity measurement device were designed to release themselves from the shark at a predetermined time, which happened about seven hours after the strike. However, data gathered showed the shark never resumed feeding or any other normal behavior during the period it was being monitored.

Also, the footage showed visible damage to the shark’s skin, paint marks and an abrasion, but no apparent bleeding or open wound. The team noted that non-lethal injuries can have short- and long-term consequences for a shark or whale after a ship strike..

“This is the first ever direct observation of a ship strike on any marine megafauna that we’re aware of. The shark was struck while feeding on the surface of the water and it immediately swam to the seafloor into deeper, offshore waters, a stark contrast to its behavior prior to the strike,” said Taylor Chapple, a shark researcher at OSU’s Hatfield Marine Science Center.

Listed as globally endangered by the International Union for Conservation of Nature, the basking sharks are the second largest known fish, reaching more than eight meters in length. Estimates show that only around 20,000 of them remain in the world with Ireland being one of the only known locations where the mammals continue to aggregate in large numbers.

The OSU researchers targeted the basking sharks due to their behaviors, particularly filter feeding at the water’s surface, a trait similar to some whales. While this behavior makes them more susceptible to boat strikes, basking sharks often sink when killed - unlike whales. This makes it hard to gauge mortality rates.

As part of their research to learn more about the basking shark foraging and eating habits, scientists tagged a camera and activity monitor system on several of the mammals.

“The fact that a shark we fitted our ‘Fitbit’ to was struck in this area within a few hours underlines just how vulnerable these animals are to boats and highlights the need for greater education in how to mitigate against such strikes,” said Nicholas Payne, an assistant professor at Trinity College Dublin’s School of Natural Sciences and co-author of the study.

 

Malaysia Says Chinese VLCC was Anchored, Drifted After Hafnia Nile Impact

Ceres 1 was on fire after being hit by the Hafnia Nile (Malaysian Maritime)

Published Jul 30, 2024 4:00 PM by The Maritime Executive

 

 

Malaysia officials provided the first details on the July 19 incident in which the Hafnia Nile and a Chinese VLCC impacted revising their earlier statements that the Chinese vessel had attempted to flee after the fire. While saying they believe the Chinese vessel Ceres 1 was at anchor, and that they are developing the information, they said at this time they could not disclose why the incident happened.

According to their preliminary assessment, the tanker Ceres 1 registered in São Tomé & Principe, was at anchor near the eastern terminus of the Singapore Strait approximately 25 nautical miles northeast of Malaysia. They reported that the Ceres 1 had anchored “due to technical problems encountered.” Further, they reported that the Ceres 1 has communication and navigational issues.

They did not elaborate, but they said the Hafnia Nile, which AIS signals show traveling at 14 knots, was “trying to avoid the Ceres 1 but failed.” The port side of the product tanker impacted with the starboard side bulbous bow. Fires broke out on both vessels after the impact with Maritime Malaysia reporting the starboard side anchor chain on the Ceres 1 was cut off due to the impact.

Initially, the Malaysian authorities said the Ceres 1 had left the area with the assistance of two tugs. Yesterday they reported that they had been told by the vessel’s operators that the two tugs were there to cool the Ceres 1 and assist with the firefight. They implied the two tugs were not strong enough to stop the vessel from drifting and it was later located about 20 nautical miles from the scene of the incident. The engine of the tanker was reported to be “not fully functional” causing the vessel to be swept away by the current.

 

Video being circulated online showing the extent of the damage to Ceres 1 (Edwin Tharsis/LinkedIn)

 

Reports have cited the Ceres 1 as operating in the shadow fleet to avoid oil sanctions. Reports indicate the vessel carries Iranian oil and undertakes ship-to-ship transfers to hide the cargo’s origins. The vessel has also been reported to turn off and spoof its AIS signal while questions remain over the ownership of the vessel.

The Ceres 1 was not loaded when the accident occurred but the Hafnia Nile still has 300,000 barrels of naphtha aboard. They believe the cargo is undamaged and that the oil sheen near the vessel is coming from a bunker tank damaged by the impact.
 
The Hafnia Nile is “severely burnt and its superstructure was compromised, but its cargo intact,” said the Director General of Malaysia’s Marine Department, Mohamad Halim Ahmed. “Our priority is to ensure it remains afloat and can be moved safely.”

Both vessels remain under detention by Maritime Malaysia. Salvors have been appointed for the Hafnia Nile and a containment boom was placed around the vessel. Negotiations are ongoing with the managers of the Ceres 1 for the appointment of salvors. 

 

Op-Ed: Coral Restoration is a Distraction That Won't Save Reefs

Bleached coral heads at Flower Garden Banks NMS (NOAA / G.P. Schmahl)

Published Jul 29, 2024 11:13 AM by The Conversation

 

 

Climate change has killed billions of corals and fundamentally changed coral reefs. The response, especially in Australia, has been to fix the symptoms, not address the cause – climate change for which humans are responsible.

Much money and research effort is expended in replacing, regrowing and supporting corals, in the hope reefs may survive a warmer world.

These technological and scientific “solutions” give hope that something can be done. But as we argue in Nature Climate Change today, there is little evidence these measures will create resilient or healthy reef ecosystems over the long term.

Humanity must take dramatic action on climate change. By focusing so much attention on treating the symptoms – such as replacing dead corals – we risk squandering money, time and public trust in science.

We believe coral restoration may be, at best, a feel-good measure that satisfies a human urge to do something about climate change – and at worst, a dangerous distraction from climate action. A fundamental rethink is needed.

What to do about our troubled reefs?

The world’s coral reefs have suffered devastating damage due to climate change and resulting warmer seas. This includes the Great Barrier Reef, which last summer experienced yet another mass bleaching.

Clearly, something must be done.

In recent years, a popular solution has emerged in the form of direct scientific interventions. These include:

• growing baby corals in a nursery to later plant them on an ocean reef
• selective breeding, which involves identifying heat-tolerant corals, collecting their eggs and sperm, and breeding heat-tolerant offspring
• minimizing stressors, for example, cloud-seeding or building structures to shade coral, pumping cooler water onto reefs, or removing natural predators such as crown-of-thorns starfish.

Such interventions attract substantial research and philanthropic funding. But many scientists, including us, are concerned about their growing popularity.

There is little compelling evidence these interventions improve outcomes across coral reef ecosystems.

For example, a 2020 study synthesized current knowledge in coral reef restoration. It found 60% of projects had monitored restored sites for less than 18 months. Most projects were small-scale, with a median restored area of 100 square meters.

It concluded coral restoration projects were poorly designed, lacked clear and achievable objectives, and improvements were needed in monitoring and reporting.

Another study last year found some forms of coral rehabilitation “may be feasible, affordable, and ethical”, but the benefits were small and the measures expensive.

The researchers said legislation and policy should concentrate on “bolstering ecosystem resilience by reducing greenhouse gas emissions and other drivers of reef degradation”.

We don’t always have to ‘do something’ on reefs

In some areas of science, such as human health, people have been shown to prefer solutions that involve active intervention: that is, adding something new, regardless of evidence for or against its efficacy. The same “intervention bias” may be influencing how we try to help coral reefs.

A vast literature on coral reefs calls for action in the form of scientific intervention.

However, resilience, recovery and change are an inherent feature of natural ecosystems. This was demonstrated by a review of 400 studies of disturbed ecosystems, which showed human restoration provided no consistent benefits over natural recovery.

Recent evidence from the northern Great Barrier Reef, following a major bleaching event, supports the idea that, in the short-term at least, nature can recover on its own. There, coral cover jumped from 10% in 2016, the lowest ever recorded, to an ephemeral but record high of 36% just six years later.

This is not to say the bounce-back will last. Heatwaves will continue to kill regrown corals, rendering this natural success temporary. That’s why drastic emissions reduction is essential.

What is a healthy reef?

Intervention on coral reefs usually aims to increase live coral cover. This approach rests on the assumption that more coral leads to healthy reefs.

Corals are undoubtedly a foundational and iconic part of coral reefs. But corals and reefs are not the same. Corals are important, iconic organisms. Coral reefs are highly diverse, complex ecological systems composed of thousands of animal, plant and bacteria species.

The science is not clear on whether more corals will return reefs to a “healthy” state, especially given such scientific interventions are usually small in scale. There is also evidence suggesting reefs can grow, even when coral species decline.

More science is needed to determine what a “healthy” reef is. A pretty reef with plenty of coral? A usable reef with plenty of fish? Or a reef that is unspoiled by human activity?

And there’s another important research question to answer: how can humanity come to terms with reefs transformed by climate change?

Towards transformative solutions

We do not seek to divide reef scientists into camps “for and against” coral restoration.

But we are not confident that specific, targeted coral interventions will have wider benefits. What’s needed is broader, evidence-based investigation into transformation across reefs and human communities - to bring about real, large-scale solutions.

We realize our position may be considered controversial. But the stakes are high – and an evidence-based approach to caring for coral reefs is urgently needed.

Robert Paul Streit is a Research Fellow in Just Ocean Governance at The University of Melbourne

David Roy Bellwood is a Professor at James Cook University

Tiffany Morrison is a Professorial Research Fellow, James Cook University and Professor, The University of Melbourne.

This article appears courtesy of The Conversation and may be found in its original form here. 

 

Philippine Coast Guard Reports "Minimal" Impact of Spill on Manila

Courtesy Greenpeace Philippines

Published Jul 30, 2024 4:41 PM by The Maritime Executive

 

 

Philippine authorities believe that the impact of the spill from a sunken tanker in Manila Bay is "minimal" so far, and report that pollution prevention activities at the wreck site are well under way. 

Over the weekend, NGO Greenpeace Philippines released video imagery of a thick layer of fuel oil on top of the water's surface at the north end of Manila Bay. However, the Philippine Coast Guard and the International Tanker Owners Pollution Federation (ITOPF) asserted that aerial views of the slick are "unindicative" of the "actual aerial view." The PCG released video of its own aerial survey along Manila's waterfront, and said that its aircrew found "very minimial and unnoticeable" oil sheens off Manila, Bulacan, Bataan and Cavite on Tuesday. 

The PCG acknowledged that there is still a visible sheen at the wreck site. For now, it has suspended the use of dispersants on the advice of the ITOPF, and will resume when it has a different and more effective formulation. It is also placing improvised spill containment booms made of coconut fiber in an attempt to minimize environmental damage. 

Greenpeace Philippines warned Monday that weather conditions could potentially push oil into waters used by local subsistence fishermen, impacting their livelihood. “[The Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources, BFAR] estimates that tens of thousands of fisherfolk in Bataan, Bulacan, Pampanga, and Cavite, are going to be affected, with monthly revenue loss of as much as [$1.4 million] in Bataan and above [$1.2 million] in Bulacan and Pampanga," said Greenpeace climate campaigner Khevin Yu in a statement. 

On Monday, BFAR said that it is monitoring fish landings for any signs of oil contamination, primarily using a smell ("sensory") test. Follow-up lab testing is planned. For now, the agency is still allowing commercial fishing in the parts of Manila Bay that are not directly affected by the spill. 

The University of the Philippines' Marine Science Institute's most recent forecast suggests that the spill will likely reach metro Manila this week, though the amount and timing are weather-dependent. 

Air Under the Keel

Since the first ships sailed the seas there’s been a need for ship repairs.

iStock

Published Jul 29, 2024 1:39 PM by Sean Hogue

(Article originally published in May/June 2024 edition.

 

In the beginning, the Greeks and Romans would wait for high tide, then haul their ships onto shore.

As ships increased in size, this became harder. The next big idea was to “careen” the ship at low tide, hauling it onto its side using ropes. In this way the hull could be accessed. Well, one side anyway.

The true sea change began in the 15th century with the British building drydocks around the world to service the Royal Navy fleet. Henry VII commissioned the first English drydock in Portsmouth, completed in 1495. This was a “graving” dock, cut from the ground and lined with stone in a stepwise fashion to roughly mimic the contour of a hull. It was fitted with gates sealed with puddle clay. These would be closed and the water pumped out, leaving the boats inside high and dry.

Gates gave way to caissons – floating structures wedged into place and ballasted down. Early caissons were designed with a traditional hull form rather than the square blocks we see today.

Across the pond in the U.S., the first drydocks were designed by Loammi Balwin Jr., a Harvard-educated engineer who spent his early years working alongside his father on the ten-year construction of the Middlesex Canal, connecting the Merrimack River to the port of Boston and completed in 1803.

The Charlestown (Boston) and Norfolk (Virginia) drydocks took six years to build, and the Charlestown dock was inaugurated in 1833 with the docking of the USS Constitution. Both docks still service the U.S. Navy to this day, a testament to their granite-based construction and sound engineering.

From Charlestown to Charleston

Head down the eastern seaboard from the Charlestown Navy Yard to North Charleston, South Carolina, and you’ll find yourself at Detyens Shipyards, where the proud tradition of shipbuilding and repair continues.

Founded in 1962 by William Detyens, the company serviced over 200 vessels in its first four years of operation from its yard along the Wando river. It was primarily government work in those days, everything from destroyer escorts and minesweepers to Coast Guard tugboats and cutters.

Today, Detyens boasts three graving docks with the largest capable of servicing Panamax-sized vessels. The facility has also grown to include modern enclosed shops for all crafts, eight 56-ton gantry cranes (on a continuous rail system), four tower cranes, rail access and over 8,000 feet of deepwater pier space – plus a floating drydock.

Maximizing the capability of the large graving docks, the yard uses keel blocks as high as 14 feet, allowing ships to fully extend their drop-down thrusters. An example of this is the recently drydocked North Ocean 102 – a McDermott-owned flex-lay vessel fitted with a swing down thruster, which completed a routine drydocking at the yard.

Other ongoing projects of note include the first intermediate drydocking of the dredge Baltimore (the largest bucket dredge in America), the Neil Armstrong oceanographic research vessel operated by Woods Hole, and the Alicon – a high-speed ferry chartered to MARAD.

Detyens Shipyards continues its support of the USN Foreign Military Sales program with employees stationed overseas who assist foreign governments with their ship maintenance programs, carrying on a longstanding tradition begun back in the 1960s.

South to the Gulf

Head further south down to the Gulf of Mexico and you’ll run into Alabama Shipyard in Mobile.

The yard has been active since 1917 as the Alabama Drydock and Shipbuilding Company. Operations expanded quickly during World War II, and the company was soon the largest employer in the area, building and maintaining vessels for the U.S. Navy. This contributed to Mobile’s growth, which became the second largest city in the state, behind Birmingham.

Tough times in the 1970s saw the yard close, and it changed hands a few times in subsequent years. Its current success began in 2019 when Alabama Shipyard LLC purchased the yard and quickly scaled from eight employees to over 300.

Once again, Alabama Shipyard serves as the largest maintenance, overhaul, repair, conversion and dismantling yard in the region.

Continuing its proud tradition of servicing military vessels, the yard currently has the Military Sealift Command (MSC) hospital ship USNS Comfort in for a 156-day drydocking and overhaul, scheduled for completion in January 2025. A few berths over you’ll find the MSC fleet replenishment oiler USNS Laramie  in for overhaul. This work is scheduled for completion in September.

Currently, the yard’s next available drydock space opens in late July with pier space available immediately.

Down to the Equator

Heading farther south still – across the Gulf of Mexico, around Yucatan and down through the Caribbean – and you’ll tie up next at Astivik SA Shipyard in Cartagena, Colombia.

The ISO-certified yard has been operational for nearly 50 years. In 2004, a Florida-based company acquired a majority stake and made strategic investments with the vision of positioning Astivik as one of the leading shipyards in the Caribbean.

The yard sits on seven hectares and boasts three floating drydocks with a maximum lifting capacity of 4,000 tons – the highest in Colombia. There’s a 220-ton slipway drydock with three docking positions and an airbag slipway specially designed for barges. There are more than 300 meters of piers for alongside-works and 2,155 square meters of covered shop space.

Proudly serving the local industry, Astivik used 100-percent Colombian talent in building the Dorada, the most powerful pushboat ever designed and built in Colombia and the most efficient to operate along the Magdalena River – boasting a record 99,328 barrels transported in a single voyage.

With the Free Trade Agreement between the governments of Colombia and the U.S., the yard is free under the Jones Act to service U.S.-flagged vessels. This helps add to the impressive client roster from over 30 countries around the world.

Back Across the Pond

Take stores for a long voyage, cast off and head east. Cross the pond into the Med, up into the Aegean, through the Dardanelles and into the Sea of Marmara. A few short weeks and you’ll throw a line at a Gemak Group shipyard in Turkey.

Established in 1969, Gemak now stands out in Turkey and around the world for its wide range of skills and technical expertise. Having built 58 ships since the mid-eighties and repaired nearly 3,000, the yard is a preferred partner for vessel construction, conversion projects, vessel repairs and maintenance.

Equipped with a Capesize drydock, two floating drydocks, a 100-ton floating crane and forty-five dock cranes along 2,000 meters of wet berth space, the yard can handle just about anything that sails in.

A current project is upgrading the jackup wind turbine installation vessel Sea Installer. The upgrade includes a crane swap from 900 tons to 1,600 tons, the addition of sponsons, lengthening the spud legs by 10 meters and improvements to the jacking system.

The yard is capable of handling 5,500,000 DWT of ship repair per annum.

No More Careening from Port to Port

Modern shipyards require capacity, capability and fast turnaround for unexpected repairs.

With the advent of graving docks followed by floating drydocks, shipyards can now deliver all three essentials with the timeliness needed to get your ship back in the water doing what ships do best.

Because one thing that will never change while there are ships sailing the seas is the need for ship repair.  

Master mariner Sean Hogue is a regular contributor to The Maritime Executive.

The opinions expressed herein are the author's and not necessarily those of The Maritime Executive.

 

BOEM Releases Final Environmental Statement for Offshore Maryland Wind Farm

BOEM completed the environmental review for the next US offshore wind farm (file photo)

Published Jul 30, 2024 8:13 PM by The Maritime Executive

 

The Biden administration is continuing to move forward aggressively with its efforts for the offshore wind energy industry. Plans for the first large-scale wind farm off Maryland cleared a key hurdle in the approval process coming as the industry continues to face challenges and work remains suspended after a blade failure at one of the first projects.

The Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) announced on July 29 the availability of its final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for a proposed wind project offshore Maryland to be developed by US Wind. This comes just before the tenth anniversary of the August 2014 competitive lease sale which resulted in US Wind receiving a lease for nearly 47,000 acres in the federal waters 10 nautical miles offshore Ocean City, Maryland.

BOEM highlights it held three public scoping meetings in June 2022 to solicit public input on the environmental review process and hosted two in-person and two virtual public meetings in October 2023 to gather feedback on a draft of the EIS. The next step in the process is for BOEM to issue a Record of Decision on US Wind’s Construction and Operations Plan, which is expected in September 2024. According to the company, other cooperating federal agencies and state agencies are expected to render favorable decisions by the end of 2024.

“We are well on our way to putting Maryland’s offshore wind goals that much closer to reality,” said Jeff Grybowski, US Wind CEO. “We applaud BOEM for the comprehensive and thorough review of our federal permit application. We are now one step closer to securing all our federal permits by the end of this year, and look forward to the day we can get steel in the water.”

US Wind is seeking approval for its proposed Maryland offshore wind project, which includes three planned phases. Two of those phases, MarWin and Momentum Wind, have received offshore renewable energy certificates from the State of Maryland.  If approved, the project proposes to install up to 114 turbines, up to four offshore substation platforms, one meteorological tower, and up to four corridors for offshore export cables, which would make landfall in Delaware Seashore State Park. The total project would have a capacity between 1.1 and 2.2 GW.

The approval however comes as Vineyard Wind 1 continues to have problems. Nantucket town officials reported late on Monday, July 29, that additional parts of the failed turbine blade fell from the turbine with some large pieces entering the water column, while smaller pieces floated on the surface and some pieces landed on the turbine platform. They are cautioning that “small, popcorn-sized pieces of foam, with some larger pieces and limited fiberglass fragments possibly mixed in,” are expected to reach the island’s southern beaches. 

GE Vernova is blaming a manufacturing defect for causing the massive blade to fracture in mid-July. US regulators ordered the wind farm which is still under construction to suspend all operations for a safety review. GE Vernova is said it will need to inspect the approximately 150 blades for its 13 MW Halliade-X turbines manufactured at a plant in Canada. A large portion of the blades were going to Vineyard Wind 1 which is among the first to use this model of turbine.

The Department of the Interior however is continuing to push forward with its plans. On August 14, BOEM will hold an offshore wind lease sale for the Central Atlantic, auctioning areas offshore Delaware, Maryland, and Virginia that could generate up to 6.3 gigawatts of energy to power up to 2.2 million homes. The Department also announced a schedule to hold up to 12 additional lease sales through 2028 but recently canceled the planned auction for the Gulf of Mexico reporting a lack of interest. One company made an unsolicited offer which will be reviewed. Since the start of the Biden-Harris administration, the Department of the Interior reports it has approved the nation's first nine commercial-scale offshore wind projects with a combined capacity of more than 13 gigawatts. 
 

EU Protests Taiwan’s Local Content Rules for Offshore Wind Farms

iStock

Published Jul 28, 2024 11:01 PM by The Maritime Executive

 

 

The European Union has filed a formal challenge to a longstanding Taiwanese directive that requires offshore wind developers to source most of their components locally. Last week, the EU requested for dispute settlement consultations at the World Trade Organization (WTO).

In 2021, Taiwan’s Ministry of Economic Affairs published a localization policy to spur development of the domestic offshore wind supply chain. The policy applied during Taiwan’s Round 3 offshore wind tenders, with the first phase completed in December 2022. As per the local requirement rules, at least 60 percent of parts used in offshore wind farm development must be sourced locally, except products and services that the Taiwanese supply chain cannot readily provide.

However, the EU argues that the localization criteria is inconsistent with WTO regulations, which require that member countries such as Taiwan should not discriminate against imported goods and services.

The dispute settlement consultations that the EU is requesting are the first step in WTO dispute settlement proceedings. If they do not lead to a satisfactory solution within 60 days, the EU can request the WTO to set up a panel to rule on the matter.

Taiwan has responded that it will participate in the talks with the EU in resolving the trade dispute. “Our foreign mission has been tasked with discussing the concerns over the policy with the EU. Again, the Minister of Economic Affairs J.W Kuo had already said that Taiwan would relax its local content criteria for windfarm projects,” said the Ministry of Economic Affairs.

Taiwan has defended the policy, arguing that it is critical to its national and energy security. In addition, it is meant to encourage foreign developers to cooperate with domestic players, especially in the field of research and development.