As an industry outsider, I find the proliferation of ATBs particularly interesting. I’ve seen some describe their proliferation as the bane of the industry and others propose they’re the forefront of the American Merchant Marine. I’ve done plenty of reading, but have failed to find a definitive answer to the central questions in this emerging sector: Why use ATBs? Do companies realize enormous tax benefits or savings on salary expense by manning ATBs with less crew members? Also, what are the long term implications to the industry?
In a nutshell: as professional mariners, what is your opinion of ATBs and what impact do you feel they will ultimately have on the American maritime industry?
One answer, but not for all cases, is that oil companies like 80-100k bbl “parcels” of product in certain trades, a size not practical for a ship. Also some places ATB’s go are not always practical for ships. There are savings for pilots, and assist tugs (normally one tug vs 2 for a product tanker).
Everything else is debatable, but those are a few things that I commonly mention. You will get many opinions on the rest. But ultimately yes it’s cheaper than a ship but there are applications for an ATB where a ship is impractical. (We know there are small tankers but nothing in these parts of the world in that size range.)
Manning costs are cheaper as you only have to have a crew of about 10 or 12 people vice 17-25 for a ship. I’m sure there are other cost savings, but that’s the first one that’s comes to my mind.
[QUOTE=seadog6608;146083]Manning costs are cheaper as you only have to have a crew of about 10 or 12 people vice 17-25 for a ship. I’m sure there are other cost savings, but that’s the first one that’s comes to my mind.[/QUOTE]
An 80-100k bbl ATB with 6-7 is what I experienced.
I last sailed ATBs that were 150 to 200K bbls. 8 to 11 man crews depending on fuel burned. On a couple of contracts, turn-a-round time was important. We’d drop the barge at the terminal, move to an easier venue to make repairs, bunker, and revictual. Pilots were required to move the barge because of tonnage.
Tugs and barges are in competition with small tankers in some trades but there is distortion due to regulations.
ATBs are slower and less fuel efficient then small tankers but ATBs have lower construction and crewing costs. To determine proper manning the tug portion of the ATB is treated by regulators as an uninspected vessel and the barge is treated as if it does not exist. The barge is considered to be an unmanned inspected vessel.
A coastwise tanker of the same capacity by contrast is manned in accordance with the size of the entire vessel.
In addition to lower manning costs, construction costs of a barge are lower as well due to lighter scantling and lower freeboard requirements.
No logical argument can be made that both the ATB and equivalent sized tanker are regulated in a consistent manner.
I know the company i work for saves a shitload on pilots at least along the northeast coast. No one really takes pilots although that is starting to change because most of the older guys with trips are retiring and some guys younger mariners have been on the same boat/run for 5-10 years so they have little or no recency in different ports. The gulf coast is a different story. Seems like we take pilots everywhere.
Also, I should clarify that the big atb’s like Crowley/osg are definitely bullshit rule beaters. But Bouchard Reinauer Kirby Etc where barges have traditionally been that size in that trade they’re just doing what they always have in a more reliable way.
They still save on assist boats as well except
For those Crowley guys who use one to tie up the tug itself.
One bullshit thing against government regulations though is that a double hulled ATB (twin screw, us crew, recency/pilotage) has to take an escort tug through buzzards bay/cape cod canal but a laden tanker (single screw/rudder foreign crew) doesn’t? that irritates the piss out of me whenever I see it.
[QUOTE=z-drive;146115]Also, I should clarify that the big atb’s like Crowley/osg are definitely bullshit rule beaters. But Bouchard Reinauer Kirby Etc where barges have traditionally been that size in that trade they’re just doing what they always have in a more reliable way.
They still save on assist boats as well except
For those Crowley guys who use one to tie up the tug itself.
One bullshit thing against government regulations though is that a double hulled ATB (twin screw, us crew, recency/pilotage) has to take an escort tug through buzzards bay/cape cod canal but a laden tanker (single screw/rudder foreign crew) doesn’t? that irritates the piss out of me whenever I see it.[/QUOTE]
Why does any particular coastwise “look” the way it does. The main factors are:
Environmental factors (distance between ports, depths, weather. type of cargo)
Costs of the vessel, Jones act requirement that ships must be U.S. built.
Costs of labor
Regulations
Look at the Alaska fisheries trade. U.S. law allows uninspected vessels (I think up to 500 tons) to serve the Alaskan fisheries. That trade is mostly done by small ships.
I think that if tugs / barges and small vessels of the same capacity faced the same regulatory regime you would see far more small ships and far fewer tug/barges in the U.S. coastwise trade. Vessels would be shaped more by the demands of the sea and less by unequal regulations.
Northland hauls more fish, and fish plant supplies by barge in one month, than Coastal Transportation does by ship in an entire year.
The small ships are best suited to serve small fish plants that don’t have enough volume to justify a barge with reefer containers. The ships take a lot longer to load, but they get back to Seattle with faster than a barge.
Most of the fish goes into reefers, by barge to Dutch Harbor, and then onto container ships.
[QUOTE=tugsailor;146141]Northland hauls more fish, and fish plant supplies by barge in one month, than Coastal Transportation does by ship in an entire year.
The small ships are best suited to serve small fish plants that don’t have enough volume to justify a barge with reefer containers. The ships take a lot longer to load, but they get back to Seattle with faster than a barge.
Most of the fish goes into reefers, by barge to Dutch Harbor, and then onto container ships.[/QUOTE]
Yeah, It’s been a long time since I worked up there.
The ship I worked on had about 30,000 cubic feet of cargo space which is roughly 10 containers. Plus we had two reefer containers on the back deck for 12 total. I don’t know how many containers those barges carry but it’s considerably more then that.
The SeaLand D-7s are likely the smallest ship where the economics favors fully inspected ships. Everything smaller then that but more then 500 tons is going to go by barge.
BTW how do they load the containers? By forklift or crane?
[QUOTE=Kennebec Captain;146145]Yeah, It’s been a long time since I worked up there.
The ship I worked on had about 30,000 cubic feet of cargo space which is roughly 10 containers. Plus we had two reefer containers on the back deck for 12 total. I don’t know how many containers those barges carry but it’s considerably more then that.
The SeaLand D-7s are likely the smallest ship where the economics favors fully inspected ships. Everything smaller then that but more then 500 tons is going to go by barge.
BTW how do they load the containers? By forklift or crane?[/QUOTE]
At at the fish plants it’s by crane. It’s often a quick touch and go on the same tide with just a handful of containers. At the freight docks it’s either by crane, “pass pass” between a forklift on the dock and a forklift on the barge, or it’s running a forklift up and down a ramp.
As stated above, largely manning and regulations. ITBS were used in what, the 70s and 80s, but I believe that a change in the regulations made the solid connection between the barge and the tug had the effect of making the combined vessel more like a ship and therefore taking and advantage away. Not sure if any more ITBs are even being made. That said the connection systems today are a far cry more stable than the early systems, ala Bludworth that I worked with. As far as crew size, we had 12 and that included two tankermen and a cook. (three engineers, master, two mates, two ABs and an Ordinary). Ship crews today, at least internationally, are generally less that 20, or at least the ones that I tend to go onboard anymore. In my view, they are generally rule beaters for the smaller liquid petroleum parcel loads. Quicker than a hawser boat, with a two watch system, a lot fewer personnel, and the advantage of an uninspected vessel. At least the pin boats don’t get ejected from the notch, or do they?
[QUOTE=cmakin;146204] At least the pin boats don’t get ejected from the notch, or do they?[/QUOTE] Haven’t heard of any…the damage would be tough to hide. And if anyone has, lets see the report (Atleast say what tug/barge and when) rather than just heresay.
[QUOTE=z-drive;146208]Haven’t heard of any…the damage would be tough to hide. And if anyone has, lets see the report (Atleast say what tug/barge and when) rather than just heresay.[/QUOTE]
As one who has experienced ejection with a Bludworth system, I can say that it isn’t pleasant, but we did no permanent damage, other than the TV lounge becoming a zero gravity lab. . . .and the mate’s cabin a vomitorium.
I believe it! The way a majority of pinboats are you’ll do damage coming alongside a barge dead in the water unless you do it just right, nevermind in a seaway. A few examples
That goes to my comment about it being a more reliable system . . . . .I came ashore before they were widespread. Probably before they were first installed, for that matter.
