Cargo Ship Parking Lot at Sea

[MarkSF]

I believe the goal is not to have them all waiting for days 50 miles out, it's to have them adjust their speed so that they arrive at the right time and can head straight into the port. They'll be given the equivalent of a landing slot.

Airplanes don't circle around the airport for days, as that would not be efficient. Why should ships?

Sailing in SF Bay regularly, I think it's a great idea.

[lordgeoff]

Originally Posted by waterman46

Cruisers might have a more "interesting" time avoiding dozens of "parked" cargo ships hovering about 50 miles offshore, due to new policies being used by crowded ports:

https://www.sfgate.com/local/article...n-16770819.php

But my bigger concern is that when the weather turns bad, there will be increased chances of lost containers since those ships that could have been anchored in calm water inside the bay will now be tossing around offshore for extended periods waiting to be unloaded.

I think this is a lose-lose situation for recreational boaters and the shipping industry and will actually harm air quality, not help it as was claimed by the promoters. Normally ships enter SF Bay and anchor in designated areas, using no power for propulsion while they wait. If they are forced to remain offshore, they will be using much more fuel since they must maintain position (there is no anchoring that far offshore near SF Bay or LA), and emissions will be greater.

Not hard to avoid stationary, large, brightly lit, AIS activated, ships.
Why would containers fall of stationary anchored ships?

[Scorpius]

Originally Posted by lordgeoff

Not hard to avoid stationary, large, brightly lit, AIS activated, ships.
Why would containers fall of stationary anchored ships?

We're not talking about anchored ships. These guys are just steaming back and forth waiting for a berth in their destination port. Besides, anchored ships in an exposed anchorage can still lose containers in a storm. It's probably less likely than when underway because, at anchor, the bow will usually be facing into the wind and waves which is not true when underway and trying to maintain a course.

[Scorpius]

Originally Posted by MarkSF

I believe the goal is not to have them all waiting for days 50 miles out, it's to have them adjust their speed so that they arrive at the right time and can head straight into the port. They'll be given the equivalent of a landing slot.

Airplanes don't circle around the airport for days, as that would not be efficient. Why should ships?

Sailing in SF Bay regularly, I think it's a great idea.

Normally you would be right. They would simply slow down to arrive at their port at their allotted time.

However, these are not normal times. The backlog is so bad they could probably cross the Pacific at one knot and STILL not have a berth ready for them. If you look at the Vessel Finder website you will see a large number of ships simply sailing north and south, parallel to the coast, at 2 knots or so, off LA and San Diego (vessel name, type, size, destination, course and speed for each ship are given if you click on one of the arrows). They are staying well offshore to avoid the sea lanes and local traffic - and so that they don't have to burn expensive diesel (instead of the cheaper, dirty, bunker "C") as required in territorial waters.

[waterman46]

Originally Posted by MarkSF

I believe the goal is not to have them all waiting for days 50 miles out, it's to have them adjust their speed so that they arrive at the right time and can head straight into the port. They'll be given the equivalent of a landing slot.

Airplanes don't circle around the airport for days, as that would not be efficient. Why should ships?

Sailing in SF Bay regularly, I think it's a great idea.

Certainly routing the ships should help on timing the arrivals, but it still means more time at sea and exposed to whatever weather is out there. Most of the time off CA the weather is not severe, but we do get periods where seas are steep and large even for the ships. I hope they will allow them to enter the Bay if that is the case.

[boat driver]

God, how scary you all make it sound. Makes one wan to start camping in the Midwest with rattlers and scorpions in the tent. your information about ships , fuel, pollution, and containers falling overboard is about as inaccurate as one can get.

[Uncle Bob]

Originally Posted by boat driver

God, how scary you all make it sound. Makes one wan to start camping in the Midwest with rattlers and scorpions in the tent. your information about ships , fuel, pollution, and containers falling overboard is about as inaccurate as one can get.

Some thrive on fear.

[Morequestions]

Reminds me of trucking, getting paid to haul other peoples stuff then having to sit and wait for free until it's convenient for them to unload me. Total lack of respect for the shipping company and employees.
On the other hand all these backed up ships is a barometer of the state of our economy. It's booming, people are buying all this stuff coming in and ordering MORE!. Yeah they have MONEY and spending it. I miss the good ole lock down days, cheap gas, no traffic!

[Watermann]

When I'm not sailing my own boat, I drive large ships, with the vast majority of my career being on the U.S. West Coast (and lots of time in BC as well). A few clarifications since I see some misinformation in this thread...

Originally Posted by Scorpius

Oh yes, there will be lots of extra emissions. 50 miles out they are outside territorial waters so any local pollution laws won't apply. They'll be burning dirty, dirty bunker "C" rather than diesel and the main engine will probably be running 24/7 if for nothing else than to keep the head into the wind and seas. It has been estimated that a large container ship produces as much pollution as 50 MILLION cars (I kid you not) so, with the onshore winds that we have on the west coast you're darn tootin that's a HUGE increase to local pollution.

The North American Emissions Control Area (ECA) extends 200NM offshore. The emissions/fuel requirements that apply in harbor are the same that apply to this area, including ships that are only 50NM out. The requirements are met by either burning ULSD or through the use of stack scrubbers (which are the less popular option). Both the generators and main engines on ships are capable of running on a range of fuels, including HFO and ULSD.

When anchored inshore or in a harbour they don't run their main engines and run their generators on diesel - so far less pollution. Here (Vancouver and Victoria), ships are required to shut down ALL engines and use shore power when at dock - so far less pollution than there used to be. I believe the same rule is in effect at American west coast ports.

Main engines on ocean-going ships are generally only used for propulsion, though some container ships have shaft generators. If fitted, those generators are only used when mid-ocean and the need to immediately maneuver (ie, slow or stop the engine with little notice) is not likely. Approaching a coast and certainly when in pilotage waters, the main engine is only turning the propeller. As noted above, the vast majority of ships (including all of the large container ships) are slow speed, direct-reversing diesels. There is no cluch or gearbox - if the engine is running, the propeller is turning. They're not running the main engine at the dock at all (except brief bumps for pre-departure testing).



Only a handful of terminals on the west coast have shore power and only for container ships and cruise ships. The bulkers, tankers and car ships you see are definitely not plugged in to shore power. Admittedly, I don't know the specifics of BC's terminals on that.

And, as has been pointed out, container loss on the high seas is very possible. Usually containers are not lost in ones and twos, but in the dozens as stacks fail. After a loss it's a veritable mine field in the area - although a great many of them sink.

Very real problems. And yes, we have them here off the west coast of Canada too - although most of the ships are brought into inshore anchorages to wait - inside Vancouver Island. Gulf Island residents LOVE them! (Note I'm being factious ).

And herein lies the rub - the harbors on the west coast are full, all the way from BC down to SoCal. Puget Sound's anchorages are chocked full (again) after a bit of a lull in December. We have a couple other harbors (Port Madison for one) that would be another spot to fit three or four ships, but it's a sensitive topic with the tribes who have treaty fishing rights in many of the areas. The USCG still holds final say, but they try to be diplomatic about it.

If you want to see how many ships are where, go to Vessel Finder. There's a wall of ships off LA and San Diego doing around 2 knots.

Most ships (especially container) that you see doing only 2 kts are drifting and not making way. Dead Slow speed on most ships these days is 4-7 kts. As much as most folks don't like the emissions of diesel fuel, ships don't want to unnecessarily burn fuel. A ship at 2 kts is drifting with the wind/current. They'll run the engine for a bit to reposition (and for other engineering reasons that I think have to do with lubrication) but other than that, they're adrift.

However, these are not normal times. The backlog is so bad they could probably cross the Pacific at one knot and STILL not have a berth ready for them. If you look at the Vessel Finder website you will see a large number of ships simply sailing north and south, parallel to the coast, at 2 knots or so, off LA and San Diego (vessel name, type, size, destination, course and speed for each ship are given if you click on one of the arrows). They are staying well offshore to avoid the sea lanes and local traffic - and so that they don't have to burn expensive diesel (instead of the cheaper, dirty, bunker "C") as required in territorial waters.

Again, territorial waters has nothing to do with it. The ECA extends 200NM offshore of all of the USA and Canada.



Hope this helps...

[HeywoodJ]

Seems a different tone here than when it’s an anchoring restriction that affects recreational boats. One anchoring restriction leads to another.

And how about all the lost maintenance time that the engineering crew has while at anchor?

[donradcliffe]

There are certainly more ships out there drifting than there used to be. It is a bit more complicated to avoid the ones that are within 5 miles of the coast near San Pedro as they change speed and course more often than the ones further out. Most of the ships off California are not displaying NUC status.

I did have one drifting 60 miles off Santa Cruz call me on the VHF to request a 1.5 mile CPA because I had been aiming at him for the last 5 hours.

It would be more stressful to avoid them without AIS, especially in the fog.

[Scorpius]

Originally Posted by Watermann

When I'm not sailing my own boat, I drive large ships, with the vast majority of my career being on the U.S. West Coast (and lots of time in BC as well). A few clarifications since I see some misinformation in this thread...

The North American Emissions Control Area (ECA) extends 200NM offshore. The emissions/fuel requirements that apply in harbor are the same that apply to this area, including ships that are only 50NM out. The requirements are met by either burning ULSD or through the use of stack scrubbers (which are the less popular option). Both the generators and main engines on ships are capable of running on a range of fuels, including HFO and ULSD.

Main engines on ocean-going ships are generally only used for propulsion, though some container ships have shaft generators. If fitted, those generators are only used when mid-ocean and the need to immediately maneuver (ie, slow or stop the engine with little notice) is not likely. Approaching a coast and certainly when in pilotage waters, the main engine is only turning the propeller. As noted above, the vast majority of ships (including all of the large container ships) are slow speed, direct-reversing diesels. There is no cluch or gearbox - if the engine is running, the propeller is turning. They're not running the main engine at the dock at all (except brief bumps for pre-departure testing).

Only a handful of terminals on the west coast have shore power and only for container ships and cruise ships. The bulkers, tankers and car ships you see are definitely not plugged in to shore power. Admittedly, I don't know the specifics of BC's terminals on that.

And herein lies the rub - the harbors on the west coast are full, all the way from BC down to SoCal. Puget Sound's anchorages are chocked full (again) after a bit of a lull in December. We have a couple other harbors (Port Madison for one) that would be another spot to fit three or four ships, but it's a sensitive topic with the tribes who have treaty fishing rights in many of the areas. The USCG still holds final say, but they try to be diplomatic about it.

Most ships (especially container) that you see doing only 2 kts are drifting and not making way. Dead Slow speed on most ships these days is 4-7 kts. As much as most folks don't like the emissions of diesel fuel, ships don't want to unnecessarily burn fuel. A ship at 2 kts is drifting with the wind/current. They'll run the engine for a bit to reposition (and for other engineering reasons that I think have to do with lubrication) but other than that, they're adrift.

Again, territorial waters has nothing to do with it. The ECA extends 200NM offshore of all of the USA and Canada.

Hope this helps...

Thanks for this. It certainly clarifies things. If those guys are drifting out there they must be rolling pretty badly!

[Dirk01]

Same in Europe. Just sailed Gibraltar - Portimao.
Far off the coast ships are anchoring. Deck lights sometimes on and somtimes off. Same applies to navigation lights. Sometimes both on. Very disturbing.

One have to be aware of it much more often in these times.
So, keep a sharp lookout. Or, as Germans says - Warschau (and that has nothing to do with the polish city...).

I'm curious how that appears in the English Channel next month.

Cheers
Dirk

[bongo]

Thanks to the few professional mariners above. I am another one. 35 years at sea, and a retired Chief Engineer. I hate to say this but most of you sound like Q anon Bimbos on FB, working each other up into a frenzy. Big ships don’t roll in the Santa Barbara Channel except under rare circumstances. We actually choose to weather serious storms at sea, and not inside. Engineers do maintenance around the clock, and only the main engine is not done while under way. While drifting, even the ME can be maintained.
While I appreciate the concern for local pollution, this is is very misguided. Of far greater concern is climate change, which is increased one container at a time by the cheap CRAP that we are addicted to buying from overseas. If you only knew how polluted Asia is, water, air, it is a cesspool, and we buy their crap because it is cheaper, largely because they don’t meet Western environmental/social standards.
If we are going to Bitch about container ship traffic, then we need to buy American, or at least from countries that have similar social/environmental standards.

[Kd9truck]

Originally Posted by bongo

Thanks to the few professional mariners above. I am another one. 35 years at sea, and a retired Chief Engineer. I hate to say this but most of you sound like Q anon Bimbos on FB, working each other up into a frenzy. Big ships don’t roll in the Santa Barbara Channel except under rare circumstances. We actually choose to weather serious storms at sea, and not inside. Engineers do maintenance around the clock, and only the main engine is not done while under way. While drifting, even the ME can be maintained.
While I appreciate the concern for local pollution, this is is very misguided. Of far greater concern is climate change, which is increased one container at a time by the cheap CRAP that we are addicted to buying from overseas. If you only knew how polluted Asia is, water, air, it is a cesspool, and we buy their crap because it is cheaper, largely because they don’t meet Western environmental/social standards.
If we are going to Bitch about container ship traffic, then we need to buy American, or at least from countries that have similar social/environmental standards.

100% Yes, and thank you.