<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Lake Carriers&#039; Association</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.lcaships.com/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.lcaships.com</link>
	<description>Representing Operators of U.S.-Flag Vessels on the Great Lakes Since 1880</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 21 May 2013 16:27:21 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en-US</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.4.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>LCA Supports Dredging Brevort Harbor in Michigan</title>
		<link>http://www.lcaships.com/2013/05/01/lca-supports-dredging-brevort-harbor-in-michigan/</link>
		<comments>http://www.lcaships.com/2013/05/01/lca-supports-dredging-brevort-harbor-in-michigan/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 01 May 2013 14:35:06 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>lca</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Legislative and Regulatory Efforts]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.lcaships.com/?p=1927</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p>Download this document.</p>
]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://www.lcaships.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/050113-Brevort-Harbor.pdf">Download this document.</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.lcaships.com/2013/05/01/lca-supports-dredging-brevort-harbor-in-michigan/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>LCA Supports Dredging of Waukegan Outer Harbor</title>
		<link>http://www.lcaships.com/2013/04/25/lca-supports-dredging-of-waukegan-outer-harbor/</link>
		<comments>http://www.lcaships.com/2013/04/25/lca-supports-dredging-of-waukegan-outer-harbor/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 25 Apr 2013 18:22:16 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>lca</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Legislative and Regulatory Efforts]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.lcaships.com/?p=1916</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p>Download this document.</p>
]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://www.lcaships.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/042513_Waukegan-Outer-Harbor.pdf">Download this document.</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.lcaships.com/2013/04/25/lca-supports-dredging-of-waukegan-outer-harbor/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Federal Regulation of Ballast Water</title>
		<link>http://www.lcaships.com/2013/04/25/federal-regulation-of-ballast-water/</link>
		<comments>http://www.lcaships.com/2013/04/25/federal-regulation-of-ballast-water/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 25 Apr 2013 14:19:21 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>meritech</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Position Papers]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.lcaships.com/?p=61</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p>In March 2012 the U.S. Coast Guard issued regulations governing the discharge of ballast water in U.S. waters. Specific to the Great Lakes, vessels entering from the oceans will be required to install ballast water treatments systems, some as soon [...] <a href="http://www.lcaships.com/2013/04/25/federal-regulation-of-ballast-water/">Continue reading <span class="meta-nav">&#8594;</span></a>]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>In March 2012 the U.S. Coast Guard issued regulations governing the discharge of ballast water in U.S. waters. Specific to the Great Lakes, vessels entering from the oceans will be required to install ballast water treatments systems, some as soon as 2014. Vessels that confine their operations to the Great Lakes will continue to employ the currently required Best Management Practices (BMPs) while the Coast Guard further studies if treatment is feasible and appropriate on these vessels.</p>
<p>In March 2013, the U.S. EPA issued its updated Vessel General Permit that will come into effect on December 19, 2013. Similar to the Coast Guard’s Final Rule, the EPA generally requires BMPs on lakers. However, the EPA’s Vessel General Permit also allows individual states to add their own requirements and that could mean requiring ballast water treatment systems. For example, two Great Lakes states have at times considered mandating systems that exceed the current norm by 1,000 times, this despite the fact there isn’t even a way to measure performance to such a level.</p>
<p>LCA supports the continued use of Best Management Practices on lakers, and not just because no treatment system is currently available that can accommodate lakers’ volumes and flowrates. Lakers never leave the system, so they have never introduced a non-indigenous species. Lakers’ ballast could possibly spread a species introduced by an oceangoing vessel, but one must remember there are at least 64 identified vectors for introduction and spread. Further, no new non-indigenous species have been identified ever since 2006 when the St. Lawrence Seaway started requiring mid-ocean ballast water exchange on vessels that loaded overseas.</p>
<p>Add to that the fact the Lakes are interconnected, so species can and do migrate independent of commercial navigation. The ruffe, for example, is expanding its range by migrating along the southern shore of Lake Superior.</p>
<p>Technology may well reach the point where a system can handle lakers’ volumes and flowrates (which can top 16.4 million gallons and approach 80,000 gallons per minute), but for all the reasons stated here, there is no need for lakers to treat their ballast.</p>
<p>LCA has helped to find solutions to this world-wide problem. Our first voluntary ballast water management plan dates from 1993. Within a few years we were collaborating on testing a filtration system that could be installed on oceangoing vessels trading to the Lakes. Best Management Practices and steps to respond to an outbreak of viral hemorrhagic septicemia followed. Individual members have undertaken efforts of their own. We too want to see an end to ballast water introductions of non-indigenous species and that goal now is in sight with the coming requirement that oceangoing vessels treat their ballast.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.lcaships.com/2013/04/25/federal-regulation-of-ballast-water/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>LCA Comments on Transportation Worker Identification Credential (TWIC) – Reader Requirements</title>
		<link>http://www.lcaships.com/2013/04/23/lca-comments-on-transportation-worker-identification-credential-twic-reader-requirements/</link>
		<comments>http://www.lcaships.com/2013/04/23/lca-comments-on-transportation-worker-identification-credential-twic-reader-requirements/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 23 Apr 2013 16:41:37 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>lca</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Legislative and Regulatory Efforts]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.lcaships.com/?p=1908</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p>Download this document.</p>
]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://www.lcaships.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/041913_TWIC_Card_Reader.pdf">Download this document.</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.lcaships.com/2013/04/23/lca-comments-on-transportation-worker-identification-credential-twic-reader-requirements/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Dredging Crisis</title>
		<link>http://www.lcaships.com/2013/04/23/dredging-crisis/</link>
		<comments>http://www.lcaships.com/2013/04/23/dredging-crisis/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 23 Apr 2013 08:11:56 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>meritech</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Position Papers]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.lcaships.com/?p=59</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p class="wp-caption-text">Each foot of available draft means the ship is leaving behind cargo. The largest lakers forfeit almost 3,200 tons of cargo of each foot of reduced draft.</p>
<p>Years of inadequate funding for dredging have left an estimated 18-plus million cubic [...] <a href="http://www.lcaships.com/2013/04/23/dredging-crisis/">Continue reading <span class="meta-nav">&#8594;</span></a>]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<div id="attachment_287" class="wp-caption alignright" style="width: 310px"><img class="size-medium wp-image-287" title="Dredging Crisis" src="http://www.lcaships.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/LCA-members-020-300x200.jpg" alt="" width="300" height="200" /><p class="wp-caption-text">Each foot of available draft means the ship is leaving behind cargo. The largest lakers forfeit almost 3,200 tons of cargo of each foot of reduced draft.</p></div>
<p>Years of inadequate funding for dredging have left an estimated 18-plus million cubic yards of sediment clogging the Great Lakes Navigation System. That total is expected to grow to 23 million cubic yards by 2017.</p>
<p>The impacts of the dredging crisis are felt every day. LCA's members estimate that three of every four cargos they carry each year represent less than full loads. The amount of cargo that's left behind varies with the size of the vessel. When record low water levels have amplified the lack of dredging, the largest vessels have forfeited as much as 12,000 tons, or 17 percent of their per-trip carrying capacity. If the ship is carrying iron ore for the steel industry, 12,000 tons is enough product to make the steel in 10,000 cars, the production of which would keep a large auto plant in operation for more than three weeks.</p>
<p>The dredging crisis is man-made. The Corps needs $200 million to restore the system. The Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund ("HMTF"), the repository for a Federal tax levied on waterborne commerce specifically to pay for dredging, has a surplus that is projected to soon reach $9 billion because the HMTF collects about $1.6 billion per year, but annually spends less than $800 million.</p>
<p>Two bills requiring the HMTF to spend as much as it takes in have been introduced in the 113th Congress: H.R. 335 and S. 218, authored by Senator Carl Levin (D-MI). The Senate's Water Resources Development Act, S. 601, incorporates the key provisions of S. 218. If provided adequate funding the Corps can restore the Great Lakes Navigation System to project dimensions and allow waterborne commerce to achieve the efficiencies the American economy needs to fully rebound from the recession. Unfortunately, the Federal budget has appeared to favor other waterways in recent years, and the 1-million-ton-per-year minimum annual volume for a port to be dredged does not recognize the interdependence of the Great Lakes Navigation System. LCA will be working with the Corps and the Administration to address these imbalances.</p>
<p><img class="wp-image-550 aligncenter" title="Dredging" src="http://www.lcaships.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/Dredging.png" alt="" width="600" height="445" /></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.lcaships.com/2013/04/23/dredging-crisis/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Jones Act</title>
		<link>http://www.lcaships.com/2013/04/17/jones-act/</link>
		<comments>http://www.lcaships.com/2013/04/17/jones-act/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 17 Apr 2013 17:00:16 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>meritech</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Position Papers]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.lcaships.com/?p=67</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p>The Jones Act (Section 27, Merchant Marine Act, 1920) requires cargo moving between U. S. ports be carried in vessels that are U. S.-crewed, -built and -owned. Although the law dates from 1920, foreign-flag vessels have been barred from domestic [...] <a href="http://www.lcaships.com/2013/04/17/jones-act/">Continue reading <span class="meta-nav">&#8594;</span></a>]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The Jones Act (Section 27, Merchant Marine Act, 1920) requires cargo moving between U. S. ports be carried in vessels that are U. S.-crewed, -built and -owned. Although the law dates from 1920, foreign-flag vessels have been barred from domestic commerce since 1817.</p>
<p>Nationwide, the fleet engaged in domestic waterborne commerce numbers more than 40,000 vessels of all kinds. While the Lakes Jones Act fleet numbers only 65 or so large vessels, they are real workhorses, moving as much as 115 million tons of cargo per year when the economy is strong.</p>
<p>The ownership requirement ensures the U. S. maintains control over its domestic fleet. The build requirement supports the shipyards that are needed to build and maintain our Navy and Coast Guard. The crewing requirement means the U. S. has skilled and loyal seafarers to call on in times of war to ferry supplies to our troops throughout the globe.  During the first Persian Gulf war, some foreign-flag vessels chartered to move supplies to U.S. troops refused to enter the war zone.</p>
<p>The level playing field promotes competition (contracts are won or lost for cents per ton), and on the Great Lakes, has produced the world's largest fleet of self-unloading vessels. The Lakes Jones Act fleet is so efficient a vessel can move a ton of cargo more than 800 miles for about roughly the cost of a lunch at a moderately priced restaurant.</p>
<p>Every Administration since 1920 has supported the Jones Act. The Navy considers the law indispensible. It's very simple, without the Jones Act, America would be less secure.</p>
<p>The environment benefits too.  Jones Act vessels are held to the world's highest environmental, safety, and operational standards.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.lcaships.com/2013/04/17/jones-act/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Second Poe-Sized Lock</title>
		<link>http://www.lcaships.com/2013/04/17/second-poe-sized-lock/</link>
		<comments>http://www.lcaships.com/2013/04/17/second-poe-sized-lock/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 17 Apr 2013 17:00:02 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>meritech</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Position Papers]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.lcaships.com/?p=63</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p>The Water Resources Development Act of 2007 directs the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to build a second Poe-sized lock at Sault Ste. Marie, Michigan, at full Federal expense. The "Soo Locks" connect Lake Superior to the lower Great Lakes [...] <a href="http://www.lcaships.com/2013/04/17/second-poe-sized-lock/">Continue reading <span class="meta-nav">&#8594;</span></a>]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The Water Resources Development Act of 2007 directs the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to build a second Poe-sized lock at Sault Ste. Marie, Michigan, at full Federal expense. The "Soo Locks" connect Lake Superior to the lower Great Lakes and St. Lawrence Seaway, and typically handle more than 80 million tons of cargo per year.</p>
<p>Twinning the Poe Lock is a perfect vehicle for energizing the region's economy. The $590 million project is shovel ready, and would, over a decade, generate 1.5 million man hours for construction workers. One economist likens the project to opening an auto manufacturing plant in one of the most distressed areas of the country.</p>
<p>The benefits will continue long after construction is complete. Because nearly 70 percent of U. S.-flag carrying capacity on the Lakes is restricted to the Poe Lock, a second chamber will ensure a failure of the Poe Lock does not bring Great Lakes shipping to a virtual standstill. This means steel mills and power plants no longer need fear crippling disruptions in their supply chain should the Poe Lock fail and the U. S. military no longer needs fear a slowdown or cessation of steel production.</p>
<p>The coffer dams at either end of what will be the new chamber are in place, so if Congress will appropriate $100 million or so this year, full-scale construction could be underway almost immediately. If the project is funded in small increments, the 10-year construction schedule will be extended and the overall cost will increase due to the inefficiencies inherent with incremental funding.</p>
<p>The reason the project has stalled is a flawed benefit/cost (b/c) study that incorrectly assumes the railroads can fill the void if the Poe Lock goes down for a lengthy period of time.  That conclusion is wrong in two regards: 1) the railroads do not have enough rolling stock to move the cargo that vessels currently haul; and 2) many end users, steel mills in particular, lack rail access.  At the behest of Senator Debbie Stabenow (D-MI), the Corps is re-examining the lock’s benefits and seeking more input from Great Lakes stakeholders.  A proper analysis of the lock’s role will produce a positive b/c ratio.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.lcaships.com/2013/04/17/second-poe-sized-lock/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Adequate Icebreaking Resources</title>
		<link>http://www.lcaships.com/2013/04/04/adequate-icebreaking-resources/</link>
		<comments>http://www.lcaships.com/2013/04/04/adequate-icebreaking-resources/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 04 Apr 2013 15:24:31 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>meritech</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Position Papers]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.lcaships.com/?p=65</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p class="wp-caption-text">The U.S. Coast Guard Cutter MACKINAW leads a U.S.-flag laker through heavy ice. Photo courtesy United States Coast Guard.</p>
<p>The U. S. Coast Guard is charged with breaking ice on U. S. waterways to meet the needs of commerce. To [...] <a href="http://www.lcaships.com/2013/04/04/adequate-icebreaking-resources/">Continue reading <span class="meta-nav">&#8594;</span></a>]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<div id="attachment_226" class="wp-caption alignright" style="width: 219px"><img class="size-medium wp-image-226" title="US Coast Guard Ice Breaking" src="http://www.lcaships.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/thumbnail1-209x300.jpg" alt="" width="209" height="300" /><p class="wp-caption-text">The U.S. Coast Guard Cutter MACKINAW leads a U.S.-flag laker through heavy ice. Photo courtesy United States Coast Guard.</p></div>
<p>The U. S. Coast Guard is charged with breaking ice on U. S. waterways to meet the needs of commerce. To accomplish this task on the Great Lakes, the Coast Guard has nine vessels with icebreaking capabilities. However, six of these vessels were built in the 1970s and are now nearing the end of their serviceable lives.  The Coast Guard acknowledges that these vessels are in need of extensive repair and modernization and will begin a program of service life extension in 2014.</p>
<p>Canada too tasks its Coast Guard with icebreaking. The country used to have seven icebreakers stationed on the Lakes, but now keeps only two such vessels in the region.</p>
<p>Shipping during the ice season (December 16-April 15) is critical to keeping America's and Canada's economic engines running. Customers on both sides of the border must minimize stockpiling costs, so vessels continue to operate even as the ice reaches a thickness of three or four feet. Cargo movement during the ice season typically tops 20 million tons, or 15 percent of the annual total.</p>
<p>Recognizing the advancing age of its icebreaking assets, in 2013 the U. S. Coast Guard transferred an ice-capable vessel from the East Coast to the Lakes. However, for the long term, the Coast Guard should build a twin of its newest icebreaker, the MACKINAW, launched in 2006. The Lakes trade is so crucial to America's economic well-being that two heavy icebreakers are the minimum requirement.</p>
<div id="attachment_225" class="wp-caption alignleft" style="width: 310px"><img class="size-medium wp-image-225" title="McCarthy1204GB" src="http://www.lcaships.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/McCarthy1204GB-300x199.jpg" alt="" width="300" height="199" /><p class="wp-caption-text">To meet the needs of commerce, lakers have to keep operating when ice returns in early December. The fleet can move almost 20 percent of its annual float during the ice season that begins in mid-December and stretches into April.</p></div>
<p>Canada should re-evaluate its commitment to icebreaking on the Great Lakes. There are actually more Canadian lakers than American. Yet for the past three winters, nine of the eleven icebreakers in the system were U. S. In one instance, the U. S. had to send its most powerful icebreaker to assist a grain cargo moving between two Canadian ports while a number of U. S.-flag lakers were icebound in the Detroit River. As a result, one American company had to cancel cargos totaling roughly 200,000 tons.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.lcaships.com/2013/04/04/adequate-icebreaking-resources/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Amendments to National Marine Sanctuary Regulations</title>
		<link>http://www.lcaships.com/2013/03/29/amendments-to-national-marine-sanctuary-regulations/</link>
		<comments>http://www.lcaships.com/2013/03/29/amendments-to-national-marine-sanctuary-regulations/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 29 Mar 2013 17:44:17 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>lca</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Legislative and Regulatory Efforts]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.lcaships.com/?p=1783</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p>Download this document.</p>
]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://www.lcaships.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/032813-Amendments-to-Natl-Marine-Sanctuary-Regs-Final.pdf">Download this document.</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.lcaships.com/2013/03/29/amendments-to-national-marine-sanctuary-regulations/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>First U.S.-Flag “Lakers” Back in Service; 52 More to Follow</title>
		<link>http://www.lcaships.com/2013/03/05/first-u-s-flag-lakers-back-in-service-52-more-to-follow/</link>
		<comments>http://www.lcaships.com/2013/03/05/first-u-s-flag-lakers-back-in-service-52-more-to-follow/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 05 Mar 2013 19:13:53 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>lca</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[News Releases]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.lcaships.com/?p=1559</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p>CLEVELAND – The 2013 Great Lakes shipping season began on March 2 with the sailing of the tug/barge unit PRENTISS BROWN/ST. MARYS CONQUEST. The vessel, operated by Port City Marine Services, departed its winter lay-up berth in Milwaukee and sailed [...] <a href="http://www.lcaships.com/2013/03/05/first-u-s-flag-lakers-back-in-service-52-more-to-follow/">Continue reading <span class="meta-nav">&#8594;</span></a>]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>CLEVELAND – The 2013 Great Lakes shipping season began on March 2 with the sailing of the tug/barge unit PRENTISS BROWN/ST. MARYS CONQUEST. The vessel, operated by Port City Marine Services, departed its winter lay-up berth in Milwaukee and sailed for Charlevoix, Michigan, where it loaded 9,200 tons of cement for delivery to Chicago.</p>
<p>Next to get underway was the tug/barge unit DOROTHY ANN/PATHFINDER. The vessel, one of 10 operated by The Interlake Steamship Company, loaded about 13,000 tons of iron ore at Cleveland Bulk Terminal in Cleveland, Ohio, on March 4 for delivery to the steel mill at the end of the deep-draft section of the Cuyahoga River.</p>
<p>Over the next several weeks, 52 more U.S.-flag lakers will return to service and spend 10-plus months hauling the raw materials that are the foundation of the industrial heartland, primarily iron ore, limestone and coal. During the course of the season more than 1,600 American mariners will crew these vessels.</p>
<p>The U.S.-flag Great Lakes fleet is unique in the world in that virtually every vessel is a self-unloader, which means the ship or barge can discharge cargo without any assistance from shoreside personnel or equipment. The largest vessels can unload 70,000 tons of cargo in 12 hours or less. Prior to self-unloading, it would have taken days to empty a vessel of a cargo that size.</p>
<p>The self-unloading vessel was invented and perfected on the Great Lakes and is one reason waterborne commerce on the Inland Seas is so efficient. A recent study by the U.S. Maritime Administration states that “on average, transportation cost savings from $10 to more than $20 per ton are associated with the use of lakers compared to the next most competitive transportation mode.” The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers estimates that Great Lakes shipping annually saves its customers $3.6 billion compared to the next least costly mode of transportation.</p>
<p>By law - the Jones Act - U.S.-flag lakers are built in the United States, crewed by American citizens and owned by American corporations. This holds the vessels to the world’s highest safety and operational standards and mandates that crews pass demanding U.S. Coast Guard exams.</p>
<p>The environment benefits when the Lakes fleet returns to service. Vessels use less fuel to move a ton of cargo than trains or trucks and produce significantly fewer emissions in the process. A number of lakers have been repowered in recent years with state-of-the-art engines and generators that have further reduced the industry’s carbon footprint.</p>
<p>Iron ore for steel production is the primary cargo moved by U.S.-flag lakers. In 2012, the fleet moved more than 45 million tons of taconite pellets. Limestone for the construction industry and steelmaking approached 22 million tons. Coal for power generation totaled more than 17 million tons. Other cargos included cement, salt, sand and grain and collectively totaled 5 million tons.</p>
<p>Those totals were impacted by the dredging crisis on the Great Lakes. At the end of 2012, the largest vessels were leaving more than 10,000 tons of cargo behind because of inadequate dredging and falling water levels. If the full length of the Federal navigation channel in the Cuyahoga River was dredged to its project depth, 23 feet, the PATHFINDER would have been able to carry 3,200 more tons. The vessel is scheduled to shuttle ore within Cleveland Harbor for four weeks, so will forfeit approximately 77,000 tons.</p>
<p>There is no reason the Great Lakes Navigation System cannot be maintained to project depth. The cargos that move on the Lakes (and East, Gulf and West Coasts) are taxed and the receipts are deposited in the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund (“HMTF”). Nationwide the tax generates about $1.6 billion per year, but the HMTF typically only spends about $750 million. The surplus, about $7 billion, is used to mask the size of the Federal deficit. As a result, more than 18 million cubic yards of sediment now clog Great Lakes ports and waterways.</p>
<p>Legislation that would require the HMTF to spend what it takes in for dredging on dredging has been introduced in both the House and Senate. H.R. 335 was introduced on January 22 and already has 94 co-sponsors, 17 from Great Lakes districts. S. 218 was introduced on February 4, and has 31 co-sponsors, including 12 of the 16 Great Lakes Senators. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers estimates it would cost about $200 million to restore the Great Lakes Navigation System, just a fraction of the surplus amassed in the HMTF.</p>
<p>The next vessels to enter service will be two cement carriers on March 7. The iron ore trade out of Escanaba, Michigan, is expected to resume on March 14.</p>
<p>Lake Carriers’ Association represents 17 American companies that operate 57 U.S.-flag vessels on the Great Lakes and carry the raw materials that drive the nation’s economy: iron ore and fluxstone for the steel industry, limestone and cement for the construction industry, coal for power generation, as well as salt, sand and grain. Collectively, these vessels can transport more than 115 million tons of cargo per year. Those cargos generate and sustain more than 103,000 jobs in the United States and have an economic impact of more than $20 billion. More information is available at www.lcaships.com. Contact Glen Nekvasil, Vice President. Phone: (440) 333-9996.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.lcaships.com/2013/03/05/first-u-s-flag-lakers-back-in-service-52-more-to-follow/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
