Cargo Ship Parking Lot at Sea

[goboatingnow]

Originally Posted by Scorpius

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

Why have you direct experience.

[fstbttms]

Originally Posted by slowpoker

Funny nobody has commented about the real reason that those Container Ships are waiting to unload.
The State of California is not allowing any trucks that are just a few years old to transit into any part of the State or the Ports there to do any travelling through their roads; no loading or unloading or anything, if those trucks do not meet their latest strickt and ever changing Emissions Regulations.
Most Truckers cannot afford newer trucks.
Trucks are very costly to run and specially to buy a new one every 3 to 4 years to keep up with all those ever choking regulatory Emissions in those States.
Trucks that are not clean enough for their liking, are not allowed to even come into their State!.
Please comment on that also, for us to try to understand the reasons for this situation. It has been going on for many months and is affecting our whole Country and others also.
Only the truck drivers are talking about this problem, at least from their empty trucks. They are being affected directly.
Nothing is being explained by the Newspapers or the talking heads on the TV .

Does California have strict air quality regulations? Yes. Are they responsible for supply chain issues or ships being unable to unload at California ports? No. Do they require the purchase of new trucks "every 3 to 4 years"? No.

Maybe you should spend a couple of minutes boning-up on the actual regulations you're referring to before referring to them.

[boatman61]

Originally Posted by 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

Ahh.. That'll be the shoals to the West of Cape Trafalgar..

[RaymondR]

There are parking areas off all the coal loading ports on the east coast of Australia which get very crowded at times.

A few years ago I was transiting through one and was almost run down by a bulk coal carrier. These things are massive and there is quiet a distance between the lights on the bow and on the superstructure and with so many other vessels at anchor all showing lots of lights and a couple of tugs working off the loading terminal it's very difficult to isolate one vessel from another in the dark.

The close call had such an effect on me I replaced the grey scale radar with a dopler unit at my next port of call.

[Ericson38]

Things are even tougher in LA once you get the containers off the ship (finally)-

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/tr...SPwly#image=13

[Pete the Cat]

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 some expert fact-based information. This thread was beginning to imitate the breathless fear mongering we hear each day from the politicized media about any effort to change the status quo. As I understand, these new rules and procedures were the result of some long dialogue between the USCG, the ports, the shipping companies about what to do about limiting the pollution and unnecessary burning of fossil fuels. Most of his is about applying the experience of air traffic control to slow down vessels enroute and to stage their arrivals to the availability of port loading/unloading with the advent of shared technology (saltellites and real time position and integrated information sharing). We have some real threats to your grandkids here from the substantial pollution and fossil fuel burning from international trade and this seems to be a good step forward for all the parties. This thread was getting out of hand and it is good to have some facts. Thanks.

[Happ]

Originally Posted by Kd9truck

Off shore yes, 50 miles? I am an east coast guy, so I Am thinking no way cause you would need a mile of road to hit the bottom no?
The vessels are waiting about a week off the NYC harbor and coast before unloading and we are talking a dozen ships max but mostly about 5 and no more than 8 miles off shore as closer to land the waters are calmer due to the prevailing wind off the land (only the fetch of the distance from land)
I sailed the lower Chesapeake 2x, spring and fall of this year, no extra ships lying in wait off shore or “in harbor” same for Wilmington NC this past fall.
So not sure what or where the media is reporting about? Sorry to be contrary on this OP but a picture of ships anchored would be proof positive. A screen shot of an AIS image of the off shore fleet would be amazing but right now, to me, I am not sure that it a thing.

I’m on the East Coast as well but spent 28 years in both LA and Sf. These are some of the busiest ports in the US and I dare say the world. The water gets deep in the Pacific very quickly unlike the East Coast. It truly is something you have to see to understand the magnitude.

[Hillbillybuddha]

Originally Posted by CaptTom

I'm on the other coast, so forgive me if this is a stupid question: Are the ships' diesel exhausts the real problem, or is that just an excuse?

I ask because I really don't know. Clearly a bunch of ships in the harbor will be spewing some unfriendly stuff. But then again, so are cars and factories. So I have to wonder if the ships are a real problem, or just a scapegoat.

Growing up in Socal in the 70s and 80s, I remember how bad the smog was. While kids back east and up north got snow days off from school. We had smog days. There were days when I couldn't see my best friends house and he lived two houses away. It was bad. I grew up and became a mechanic. Emission equipment on cars can be a real pain in the butt but I remember what it was like and I'm happy those laws are in place now.

[Shaneesprit]

Shipping in the English Channel is a known cause of local costal air pollution, along the UK coast, but it does sound like a not in my back yard type fix, I am afraid this is a very common problem of emission controls, the entire system is you fix your bit and don’t worry about the damage that is increased by others as long you shifted the carbon to someone else’s issue.

[Auklet]

Originally Posted by slowpoker

Funny nobody has commented about the real reason that those Container Ships are waiting to unload.
The State of California is not allowing any trucks that are just a few years old to transit into any part of the State or the Ports there to do any travelling through their roads; no loading or unloading or anything, if those trucks do not meet their latest strickt and ever changing Emissions Regulations.
Most Truckers cannot afford newer trucks.
Trucks are very costly to run and specially to buy a new one every 3 to 4 years to keep up with all those ever choking regulatory Emissions in those States.
Trucks that are not clean enough for their liking, are not allowed to even come into their State!.
Please comment on that also, for us to try to understand the reasons for this situation. It has been going on for many months and is affecting our whole Country and others also.
Only the truck drivers are talking about this problem, at least from their empty trucks. They are being affected directly.
Nothing is being explained by the Newspapers or the talking heads on the TV .

I can't comment on the Port rules for CA b/c that would require more study than l'm willing to put into it for any comment worthwhile. But, for someone who has recently driven up l-5 and highway 99 into northern CA and Oregon, man you would not know or suspect much loss of trucking activity in CA! Trucks everywhere; hundreds to thousands of 'em. Just have to see it to believe it.

[Dirk01]

Originally Posted by boatman61

Ahh.. That'll be the shoals to the West of Cape Trafalgar..

Oddly enough, not there, but south-east of Faro

[Auspicious]

Originally Posted by Auklet

I can't comment on the Port rules for CA b/c that would require more study than l'm willing to put into it for any comment worthwhile. But, for someone who has recently driven up l-5 and highway 99 into northern CA and Oregon, man you would not know or suspect much loss of trucking activity in CA! Trucks everywhere; hundreds to thousands of 'em. Just have to see it to believe it.

Here is a start https://www.portoflosangeles.org/env...-truck-program the first return from a Google search. Lots of links. The short version is that any truck older than a 2007 (about 14 years old) is effectively prohibited from serving any ports in California.

CA fines for spending too long in an anchorage without loading or unloading has led to ships drifting outside the territorial limit waiting for a schedule for docking and moving to an anchorage. This results in further delays as well as navigational risk. (source: gCaptain)

I can tell you one outcome and the reason there has been some supply relief and a contribution to inflation: ships are bypassing CA and heading through the Panama Canal to Houston, New Orleans, Port Everglades, Charleston, Baltimore, and New York. Canal fees, fuel, salaries, maintenance and repair all show up in the prices we pay at retail. Baltimore has seen huge investment to support more and bigger ships and load/unload faster. CA regulation is good for us in MD. (source: gCaptain, personal observation, discussion with officers, listening to VHF 14 Pilots in lower Chesapeake Bay)

We can't blame CA for meatpacking and similar elements of supply chain disruption, but they stand at the head of the line for goods from Asia.

[gonesail]

unbelievable .. a state as big as CA .. can't muster enough resources .. or let enough trucks in .. to unload a few ships?

[boatman61]

Originally Posted by Dirk01

Oddly enough, not there, but south-east of Faro

In that case its a new phenomena, prior to Covid all my runs to/from the strait saw minimums of 15/20 ships anchored behind the banks that run W from the Cape about 10-15nm out from the coast.

[Scorpius]

Originally Posted by Auklet

I can't comment on the Port rules for CA b/c that would require more study than l'm willing to put into it for any comment worthwhile. But, for someone who has recently driven up l-5 and highway 99 into northern CA and Oregon, man you would not know or suspect much loss of trucking activity in CA! Trucks everywhere; hundreds to thousands of 'em. Just have to see it to believe it.

A HUGE percentage of the food consumed in San Francisco and north (northern California, Oregon, Washington State, British Columbia and, to a lesser extent, Alaska, total population around 38 million or roughly the total population of Canada) is grown in California's Central Valley and Mexico - and pretty well all of it comes north by truck. It's an unbelievably HUGE volume.

That enormous number of trucks is a major reason why California has such strict pollution laws.