DOCSLIB.ORG

United States Flag Privately-Owned Merchant Fleet

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

U.S. Department of Transportation Maritime Administration ‐ Office of Policy and Plans 02/04/2019 United States Flag Privately‐Owned Merchant Fleet Oceangoing, Self‐Propelled, Vessels of 1,000 Gross Tons and Above that Carry Cargo from Port to Port Summary of Changes from 2016 Onward e r e g e g n t r e l n a i p o e e a me u t s mb y T g P A a a A Ch T B U n u T S S A r T Ch W I f N G r J l a N i p V o l i D a M V e pe e O h e M Ch p e s O t S Y y s a M T I e D V IN Jan‐16 9680853 PERLA DEL CARIBE Container ship 36912 45000 2016 Totem Ocean Trailer Express N N N Y Y Vessel flagged into U.S. Flag Fleet IN Jan‐16 9448334 SLNC GOODWILL Tanker 30241 50326 2009 Nord Goodwill LLC NNNNY Vessel flagged into U.S. Flag Fleet Vessel Operator changed from Handytankers K/S OPERATOR Jan‐16 9255244 MAERSK MICHIGAN Tanker 28517 47047 2003 Maersk Line A/S NNY NY to Maersk Line A/S OUT Feb‐16 8919922 COURAGE Ro‐Ro 52288 29213 1991 American Roll‐On Roll‐Off Y Y N N Y Vessel flagged out of U.S. Flag Fleet IN Feb‐16 9782493 COASTAL STANDARD General Cargo 2451 2565 2016 Coastal Transportation Inc. N N N Y Y Vessel flagged into U.S. Flag Fleet IN Feb‐16 9222352 SLNC CORSICA General Cargo Ship 5548 6404 2001 Schuyler Line Navigation Co N Y N N Y Vessel flagged into U.S. Flag Fleet NAME Feb‐16 8419166 MATSON KODIAK Container ship 20965 20668 1987 Horizon Lines LLC N Y N Y Y Name change from HORIZON KODIAK NAME Feb‐16 7116315 MATSON NAVIGATOR Container ship 28212 31203 1972 Horizon Lines LLC N N N Y Y Name change from HORIZON NAVIGATOR OPERATOR Feb‐16 9448334 SLNC GOODWILL Tanker 30241 50326 2009 Patriot Contract Services NNNNY Operator change from Nord Goodwill LLC OPERATOR Apr‐16 7116315 MATSON NAVIGATOR Container ship 28212 31203 1972 Matson Navigation Co Inc. N N N Y Y Operator change from Horizon Lines LLC OUT Apr‐16 8313661 CAPT. STEVEN L. BENNETT General Cargo 29226 41151 1984 Sealift Inc. N Y N N Y Vessel flagged out of U.S. Flag Fleet OUT May‐16 8212673 SSG EDWARD A. CARTER JR. Container ship 57075 58943 1985 Maersk A/S N Y N N Y Vessel flagged out of U.S. Flag Fleet OUT May‐16 7218462 HORIZON FAIRBANKS Container ship 20987 22086 1973 Horizon Lines LLC N N N Y Y Vessel flagged out of U.S. Flag Fleet IN May‐16 9316139 AIDA Vehicles Carrier 60942 22564 2006 American Roll‐on Roll‐off Y Y N N Y Vessel flagged into U.S. Flag Fleet IN May‐16 9704790 LOUISIANA Chemical/Products Tanker 29801 49828 2016 Crowley Petroleum Service Inc. N N N Y Y Vessel flagged into U.S. Flag Fleet Vessel changed operators from Maersk Line A/S to OPERATOR May‐16 9255244 MAERSK MICHIGAN Tanker 28517 47047 2003 Handytankers K/S NNY NY Handytankers A/S OPERATOR May‐16 9232979 MARSTAN Container ship 6368 8627 2000 APL Ltd N Y N N Y Changed from Sealift Inc. U.S. Department of Transportation Maritime Administration ‐ Office of Policy and Plans 02/04/2019 IN Jun‐16 9710191 INDEPENDENCE Tanker 29923 49181 2016 Seabulk Tankers Inc. N N N Y Y Vessel flagged into U.S.‐Flag Fleet IN Jun‐16 9697997 MAGNOLIA STATE Tanker 29923 49076 2016 American Petroleum Tankers LLC N N N Y Y Vessel flagged into U.S.‐Flag Fleet IN Jun‐16 9681833 OCEAN GLORY General Cargo 18410 19410 2015 Intermarine LLC NNNNY Vessel flagged into U.S.‐Flag Fleet IN Jun‐16 9215696 SSG EDWARD A. CARTER JR Container ship 40085 51087 2001 Sealift Inc. NNNNY Vessel flagged into U.S.‐Flag Fleet OUT Jun‐16 7408081 EAGLE FORD Tanker 64329 124644 1978 Seabulk Tankers Inc. NNNY NVessel flagged out of U.S. Flag Fleet OUT Jun‐16 8026799 ENERGY ENTERPRISE Dry Bulk 28250 33373 1983 International Shipholding Corp NNNY NVessel flagged out of U.S. Flag Fleet OUT Jun‐16 9100243 MOHEGAN Container ship 6158 7850 1994 Sealift Inc. N Y N N Y Vessel flagged out of U.S. Flag Fleet Operator Change from American Petroleum OPERATOR Jun‐16 9408138 EVERGREEN STATE Tanker 29606 48641 2010 Crowley Petroleum Service Inc. NNNY Y Tankers LLC OPERATOR Jun‐16 8419154 MATSON TACOMA Container ship 20965 20668 1987 Matson Navigation Co Inc. N Y N Y Y Operator Change from Horizon Lines LLC IN Aug‐16 9698006 GARDEN STATE Tanker 27300 49430 2016 American Petroleum Tankers LLC N N N Y Y Vessel flagged into U.S.‐Flag Fleet IN Aug‐16 9704805 WEST VIRGINIA Tanker 29801 49828 2016 Crowley Petroleum Service Inc. N N N Y Y Vessel flagged into U.S.‐Flag Fleet NAME Aug‐16 9316139 PATRIOT Ro‐Ro 60979 22564 2016 American Roll‐on Roll‐off Y Y N N Y Name change from AIDA IN Sep‐16 9698018 BAYSTATE Tanker 29923 49130 2016 American Petroleum Tankers LLC N N N Y Y Vessel flagged into U.S.‐Flag Fleet NAME & Changed from HORIZON CONSUMER, Changed Sep‐16 7224306 MATSON CONSUMER Container ship 25644 25651 1973 Matson Navigation Co Inc. N YNYY OPERATOR from Horizon Lines LLC OPERATOR Sep‐16 8419166 MATSON KODIAK Container ship 20965 20668 1987 Matson Navigation Co Inc. N Y N Y Y Updated from Horizon Lines LLC Vessel capacity corrected from 27,300 GT and REPORT Sep‐16 9698006 GARDEN STATE Tanker 29923 49172 2016 American Petroleum Tankers LLC NNNY Y 49,430 DWT PROGRAM Oct‐16 9680841 ISLA BELLA Container ship 36751 33106 2015 Totem Ocean Trailer Express N Y N Y Y Vessel added to VISA program PROGRAM Oct‐16 9680853 PERLA DEL CARIBE Container ship 36912 33127 2016 Totem Ocean Trailer Express N Y N Y Y Vessel added to VISA program OPERATOR Oct‐16 9448334 SLNC GOODWILL Tanker 30241 50326 2009 Schuyler Line Navigation Company, LLCNNNNY Operator corrected from Patriot Contract Services IN Nov‐16 9710206 CONSTITUTION Tanker 29923 49160 2016 Seabulk Tankers Inc. N N N Y Y Vessel flagged into U.S.‐Flag Fleet IN Nov‐16 9759886 AMERICAN ENDURANCE Tanker 29801 49828 2016 American Petroleum Tankers LLC N N N Y Y Vessel flagged into U.S.‐Flag Fleet U.S. Department of Transportation Maritime Administration ‐ Office of Policy and Plans 02/04/2019 PROGRAM Nov‐16 7116315 MATSON NAVIGATOR Container ship 28212 31203 1972 Matson Navigation Co Inc. N Y N Y Y Vessel added to VISA program PROGRAM Nov‐16 7366312 MATSON PRODUCER Container ship 25644 25651 1974 Matson Navigation Co Inc. N Y N Y Y Vessel added to VISA program NAME & Name change from HORIZON ANCHORAGE and Dec‐16 8419142 MATSON ANCHORAGE Container ship 20965 21282 1987 Matson Navigation Co Inc. N Y N Y Y OPERATOR operator change from Horizon Lines LLC NAME & Operator change from Crowley Liner Services Inc. Dec‐16 7617905 HORIZON ENTERPRISE Container ship 28219 31423 1980 Pasha Hawaii Holdings LLC NY NY Y OPERATOR (8/2016) NAME & Operator change from Crowley Liner Services Inc. Dec‐16 7617890 HORIZON PACIFIC Container ship 28219 31213 1979 Pasha Hawaii Holdings LLC NY NY Y OPERATOR (8/2016) NAME & Operator change from Crowley Liner Services Inc. Dec‐16 7729461 HORIZON RELIANCE Container ship 34077 45895 1980 Pasha Hawaii Holdings LLC NY NY Y OPERATOR (8/2016) NAME & Operator change from Crowley Liner Services Inc. Dec‐16 7729459 HORIZON SPIRIT Container ship 34077 46154 1980 Pasha Hawaii Holdings LLC NY NY Y OPERATOR (8/2016) IN Dec‐16 9239850 APL SAIPAN Container ship 16916 20979 2002 APL Ltd Y Y N N Y Vessel flagged into U.S.‐Flag Fleet IN Dec‐16 9289207 SAFMARINE KURAMO Container ship 24488 28844 2004 Maersk Line A/S N Y N N Y Vessel flagged into U.S.‐Flag Fleet Vessel added to fleet list—was in fleet but not IN Dec‐16 9010486 EASTERN WIND General Cargo 1495 1500 1990 Trident Seafood Corp. NNNY N previously identified as general cargo vessel OUT Dec‐16 9139713 APL AGATE Container ship 65475 63693 1997 APL Ltd Y Y N N Y Vessel sent to be broken up OUT Dec‐16 8109668 CHARLESTON Tanker 31452 48846 1983 USCS Charleston Chartering N N N Y Y Vessel broken up PROGRAM Dec‐16 9258193 OCEAN CRESCENT General Cargo 7252 8097 2002 Intermarine LLC N Y N N Y Left MSP program, replaced by OCEAN GLORY Entered MSP program in place of OCEAN PROGRAM Dec‐16 9681833 OCEAN GLORY General Cargo 18410 19410 2015 Intermarine LLC Y Y N N Y CRESCENT (contract date Sept 18. 2016) Vessel flagged into U.S.‐Flag Fleet and entered IN Jan‐17 9777888 LIBERTY PASSION Ro‐Ro 58107 20352 2017 Liberty Maritime Corp Y Y N N Y MSP and VISA Vessel flagged into U.S.‐Flag Fleet and entered IN Jan‐17 9310109 LIBERTY Ro‐Ro 61321 19628 2006 American Roll‐On Roll‐Off Carrier LLC Y Y N N Y MSP and VISA OUT Jan‐17 7506015 SS EL YUNQUE Ro‐Ro 28137 16144 1976 Sea Star Line LLC N Y N Y Y Vessel in lay‐up awaiting recycling NAME & Jan‐17 8419142 MATSON ANCHORAGE Container ship 20965 21282 1987 Matson Navigation Co Inc.
Recommended publications
  • Container Ship Size and Port Relocation Discussion Paper 169 Roundtable

    Container Ship Size and Port Relocation Discussion Paper 169 Roundtable

    CPB Corporate Partnership Board Container Ship Size and Port Relocation Discussion Paper 169 Roundtable Olaf Merk International Transport Forum CPB Corporate Partnership Board Container Ship Size and Port Relocation Discussion Paper 169 Roundtable Olaf Merk International Transport Forum The International Transport Forum The International Transport Forum is an intergovernmental organisation with 59 member countries. It acts as a think tank for transport policy and organises the Annual Summit of transport ministers. ITF is the only global body that covers all transport modes. The ITF is politically autonomous and administratively integrated with the OECD. The ITF works for transport policies that improve peoples’ lives. Our mission is to foster a deeper understanding of the role of transport in economic growth, environmental sustainability and social inclusion and to raise the public profile of transport policy. The ITF organises global dialogue for better transport. We act as a platform for discussion and pre- negotiation of policy issues across all transport modes. We analyse trends, share knowledge and promote exchange among transport decision-makers and civil society. The ITF’s Annual Summit is the world’s largest gathering of transport ministers and the leading global platform for dialogue on transport policy. The Members of the Forum are: Albania, Armenia, Argentina, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Belgium, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Canada, Chile, China (People’s Republic of), Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, India, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Kazakhstan, Korea, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Mexico, Republic of Moldova, Montenegro, Morocco, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Russian Federation, Serbia, Slovak Republic, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, Ukraine, the United Arab Emirates, the United Kingdom and the United States.
  • Heraldry in the Republic of Macedonia (1991-2019)

    Heraldry in the Republic of Macedonia (1991-2019)

    Preprints (www.preprints.org) | NOT PEER-REVIEWED | Posted: 1 September 2021 doi:10.20944/preprints202109.0027.v1 Article Heraldry in the Republic of Macedonia (1991-2019) Jovan Jonovski1, * 1 Macedonian Heraldic Society; [email protected] * Correspondence: [email protected]; Tel.: +38970252989 Abstract: Every country has some specific heraldry. In this paper, we will consider heraldry in the Republic of Macedonia, understood by the multitude of coats of arms, and armorial knowledge and art. The paper covers the period from independence until the name change (1991-2019). It co- vers the state coat of arms of the Republic of Macedonia especially the 2009 change. Special atten- tion is given to the development of the municipal heraldry, including the legal system covering the subject. Also personal heraldry developed in 21 century is considered. The paper covers the de- velopment of heraldry and the heraldic thought in the given period, including the role of the Macedonian Heraldic Society and its journal Macedonian Herald in development of theoretic and practical heraldry, as well as its Register of arms and the Macedonian Civic Heraldic System. Keywords: Heraldry in Macedonia; Macedonian civic heraldry; Republic of Macedonia. 1. Introduction The Republic of Macedonia became independent from the Socialist Federative Re- public of Yugoslavia with the Referendum of 8 September 1991. The Democratic Federal Macedonia was formed during the first session of the Anti-Fascist Assembly for the Na- tional Liberation of Macedonia (ASNOM) on 2 August 1944 (it later became the People’s Republic of Macedonia, a federal unit of the Federal People’s Republic of Yugoslavia).
  • Downloaded, Is Consistently the Same and Their Facilities Are Accessible Only to the Types of Goods in Which They Manage (Roa Et Al, 2013)

    Downloaded, Is Consistently the Same and Their Facilities Are Accessible Only to the Types of Goods in Which They Manage (Roa Et Al, 2013)

    Running head: THE IMPACT OF VESSEL BUNCHING 1 The Impact of Vessel Bunching: Managing Roll-on-Roll-off Terminal Operations Jonathan E. Gurr California State University Maritime Academy THE IMPACT OF VESSEL BUNCHING 2 Abstract The operations at port terminals are under consent examination, consistently investigating the various operational challenges effecting efficiency and performance. In a study to identify the consequences of vessel bunching, vessels that arrive within a short amount of time between each vessel, this paper presents an approach to forecast Ro-Ro terminal capacity while referencing the various input factors: vessel arrival schedule, inbound cargo volume, and rail or truck out-gate volume. Using a quantitative analysis derived using actual historical data from a Ro-Ro terminal at the Port of Long Beach, California, the proposed approach applied an additional probability factor that vessel bunching would occur. The analysis highlights the effectiveness of using actual historical data when examining a Ro-Ro terminal’s capacity and how the resulting information could be communicated inclusively with all stakeholders involved in port operations as means of performance improvement. Keywords: vessel bunching, ro-ro, terminal, forecast, capacity, risk assessment THE IMPACT OF VESSEL BUNCHING 3 The Impact of Vessel Bunching Seaports remain the most common way to transfer goods from one form of transportation to another. Global ports are responsible for handling over 80 per cent of global merchandise trade in volume and more than two thirds of its value (UNCTAD, 2017). As key nodes in the supply chain, ports are under continual pressure to implement efficiency improvements and cost saving measures.
  • The Need for Speed

    The Need for Speed

    DEO VOLENTE Deo Volente The Need for Speed BUILDERS Hartman Marine B.V. OWNERS Hartman Seatrade B.V. DEO VOLENTE YARD NUMBER 001 IMO NUMBER 9391658 12 | ShipBuilding Industry | Volume 1 | No. 2 Deo Volente.indd 12 07-06-2007 11:42:59 COMO Hartman Seatrade is a modern shipping company specializing in the carriage of all kind of dry cargoes with special emphasis on voluminous project cargoes and heavy lift transports. With a vast experience in deep Deo Volente sea shipping for more than two centuries the Urk based company recently inaugurated its new ‘mini’ heavy lift vessel – Deo Volente. The new build vessel is a surpass of the previous Deo Volente with an accent on operating terms as speed and heavy lift capabilities. Photo courtesy of Flying Focus ight from the beginning the two Hartman brothers MARIN and Wolfards. Construction of the hull was Rhad a pretty good idea of how their new vessel ordered from CIG group who built her on her Polish should look like and be able to. They designed a novel location, and was transferred to the Netherlands for concept for a small and fast heavy lift vessel which outfitting under management of Hartman Marine BV. would fall just in the 3000 gross tonnage and 3000 kW installed power category. These criteria are of High Service Speed significant effect on the operating costs with regard to The Deo Volente is proof of nowadays need for the required number of crew and manning speed. She is the fastest heavy lift cargo ship in the certification.
  • Structural Design of a Container Ship Approximately 3100 TEU According to the Concept of General Ship Design B-178

    Structural Design of a Container Ship Approximately 3100 TEU According to the Concept of General Ship Design B-178

    Structural design of a container ship approximately 3100 TEU according to the concept of general ship design B-178 Wafaa Souadji Master Thesis presented in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the double degree: “Advanced Master in Naval Architecture” conferred by University of Liege "Master of Sciences in Applied Mechanics, specialization in Hydrodynamics, Energetics and Propulsion” conferred by Ecole Centrale de Nantes developed at West Pomeranian University of Technology, Szczecin in the framework of the “EMSHIP” Erasmus Mundus Master Course in “Integrated Advanced Ship Design” Ref. 159652-1-2009-1-BE-ERA MUNDUS-EMMC Supervisor: Dr. Zbigniew Sekulski, West Pomeranian University of Technology, Szczecin Reviewer: Prof. Robert Bronsart, University of Rostock Szczecin, February 2012 Structural design of a container ship approximately 3100 TEU 3 according to the concept of general ship design B-178 ABSTRACT Structural design of a container ship approximately 3100 TEU according to the concept of general ship design B-178 By Wafaa Souadji The initial design stage is crucial for the ship design, including the ship structural design, as the decisions are here taken fundamental to reach design objectives by establishing basic ship characteristics. Consequently, errors which may appear have the largest impact on the final design. Two main aspects related to the design of structures are typically addressed in the initial design: analysis of strength and cost estimation. The design developed in the dissertation is based on the conceptual design of general containership B-178 built in the Stocznia Szczecińska Nowa, providing its main particulars, hull form as well as the general arrangement. The general objective of the thesis is to carry out the hull structural design based on the functional requirements of the containership.
  • Lighter Barges: an Alternative to Servicing Post- Panamax Vessels at the Port of Wilmington, NC

    Lighter Barges: an Alternative to Servicing Post- Panamax Vessels at the Port of Wilmington, NC

    Lighter Barges: An Alternative to Servicing Post- Panamax Vessels at the Port of Wilmington, NC Jonathan E. Bingham1, Kathryn R. Cyr1, Lawrence B. Cahoon2 1- Marine and Coastal Ocean Policy Program* UNC Wilmington, Wilmington, NC 28403 2- Dept. of Biology and Marine Biology UNC Wilmington, Wilmington, NC 28403; [email protected] 1 INTRODUCTION The North Carolina State Ports Authority recently proposed a costly plan to deepen and widen the Port of Wilmington’s navigation channel in order to accommodate large post- Panamax vessels. This paper proposes that there is another, potentially more appealing and affordable alternative: shallow-draft lighter barges. Ports in areas like Hong Kong and the lower Mississippi River use variations of lighter barges to bring cargo to and from ships and ports. Wilmington’s unique location and navigational challenges make lighter barges a viable option that deserves consideration. American port facilities and channels have grown to accommodate Panamax sized vessels over the last century. The existing Panama Canal channels feature a depth of about 40 ft. The channel depth and the dimensions of the first two lock systems (106 ft. width) turned out to be the limiting factors for the Panamax vessel design and size. However, in June of 2016, the situation will change for U.S. harbors when the newly constructed Panama Canal expansion is completed. The project creates a new lane for ship traffic with larger locks than the original channels, allowing for wider ships with deeper drafts (Fig. 1). New construction is expected to double the canal’s current capacity of 300 million tons per year (Dervarics 2015).
  • Potential for Terrorist Nuclear Attack Using Oil Tankers

    Potential for Terrorist Nuclear Attack Using Oil Tankers

    Order Code RS21997 December 7, 2004 CRS Report for Congress Received through the CRS Web Port and Maritime Security: Potential for Terrorist Nuclear Attack Using Oil Tankers Jonathan Medalia Specialist in National Defense Foreign Affairs, Defense, and Trade Division Summary While much attention has been focused on threats to maritime security posed by cargo container ships, terrorists could also attempt to use oil tankers to stage an attack. If they were able to place an atomic bomb in a tanker and detonate it in a U.S. port, they would cause massive destruction and might halt crude oil shipments worldwide for some time. Detecting a bomb in a tanker would be difficult. Congress may consider various options to address this threat. This report will be updated as needed. Introduction The terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, heightened interest in port and maritime security.1 Much of this interest has focused on cargo container ships because of concern that terrorists could use containers to transport weapons into the United States, yet only a small fraction of the millions of cargo containers entering the country each year is inspected. Some observers fear that a container-borne atomic bomb detonated in a U.S. port could wreak economic as well as physical havoc. Robert Bonner, the head of Customs and Border Protection (CBP) within the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), has argued that such an attack would lead to a halt to container traffic worldwide for some time, bringing the world economy to its knees. Stephen Flynn, a retired Coast Guard commander and an expert on maritime security at the Council on Foreign Relations, holds a similar view.2 While container ships accounted for 30.5% of vessel calls to U.S.
  • 13 Ship-Breaking.Com

    13 Ship-Breaking.Com

    Information bulletin on September 26th, 2008 ship demolition #13 June 7th to September 21st 2008 Ship-breaking.com February 2003. Lightboat, Le Havre. February 2008 © Robin des Bois From June 7th to September 21st 2008, 118 vessels have left to be demolished. The cumulative total of the demolitions will permit the recycling of more than 940,000 tons of metals. The 2008 flow of discarded vessels has not slowed down. Since the beginning of the year 276 vessels have been sent to be scrapped which represents more than 2 millions tons of metals whereas throughout 2007 289 vessels were scrapped for a total of 1.7 milion tons of metals. The average price offered by Bangladeshi and Indian ship breakers has risen to 750-800 $ per ton. The ship owners are taking advantage of these record prices by sending their old vessels to be demolished. Even the Chinese ship breaking yards have increased their price via the purchase of the container ship Provider at 570$ per ton, with prices averaging more than 500 $. However, these high prices have now decreased with the collapse of metal prices during summer and the shipyards are therefore renegotiating at lower price levels with brokers and cash buyers sometimes changing the final destination at the last minute. This was the case of the Laieta, which was supposed to leave for India for 910 $ per ton and was sold to Bangladesh at 750 $ per ton. The price differences have been particularly notable in India; the shipyards prices have returned to 600 $ per ton. From June to September, India with 60 vessels (51%) to demolish, is ahead of Bangladesh with 40 (34%), The United States 8 (7%), China 4 (4%), Turkey 2 (2%), Belgium and Mexico, 1 vessel each (1%).
  • Appendix: Case Studies of Environmental Dredging Projects Table 1

    Appendix: Case Studies of Environmental Dredging Projects Table 1

    1. Introduction This section describes the sources of available data on which much of the performance standards is based. Completed dredging projects that provide information on upstream and downstream water column conditions, as well as on mass of contaminant removed, provide a basis for determining historical rates of loss and dredging-related recontamination. It was thought that dredging projects that have been completed or are currently in progress can provide practical information on resuspension issues. Information on water quality data, equipment used, monitoring techniques, etc. from these projects will give insight as how to develop the performance standards. For the resuspension standard, water column monitoring results available from other sites were used to complete an analysis of the case study data. The process used to gather relevant information from dredging sites and the information obtained are included herein. It is also important to review all information that exists for the Hudson River. Available data was used to assess the existing variability in the Hudson River water quality, and can be used to estimate the water column quality during and resulting from the dredging operation. Descriptions of the data sets available to perform this analysis are provided herein. 2. Case Studies Objective and Overview During completion of the Hudson River Feasibility Study (FS) and the associated Responsiveness Summary (RS), the GE dredging database, the USEPA website, and other online sources were investigated to identify dredging projects that were relevant and similar to that proposed for the Hudson River in size and complexity. The USEPA and State agencies were contacted to gather information for each dredging project.
  • LNG AS SHIP FUEL No 01 2014

    LNG AS SHIP FUEL No 01 2014

    LNG AS SHIP FUEL No 01 2014 THE FUTURE – TODAY LNG READY SERVICE ENGINES FOR GAS-FUELLED SHIPS RECOMMENDED PRACTICE ON BUNKERING GLOBAL LNG SOLUTIONS DNV GL Anzeige Safe Hands MARITIME PUT THE FUTURE OF YOUR FLEET IN SAFE HANDS As your classification partner, our extensive maritime vessels, benefitting your business and the maritime industry expertise, technical knowledge and regulatory foresight as a whole. With DNV GL your fleet is in safe hands. will help to ensure that your fleet meets the demands Can you afford anything else? of the future. Our aim is safety, compliance and optimal operational performance throughout the lifetime of your Learn more at dnvgl.com/maritime 2 LNG AS SHIP FUEL No. 01 2014 EDITORIAL In 2000 the first LNG-fuelled ferry based on DNV GL standards was launched. This ferry has been operating safely and successfully ever since. Over the years that have followed, shipping has seen bunker prices rise sharply and environmental regula- tions tighten, while in the LNG sector there has been a surge in production and deployment of infrastructure. Combined, these trends have set the stage for LNG to emerge as a viable fuel choice on a much larger scale. In 2014 the industry hit a significant milestone with over 120 LNG-fuelled ships in operation or on order worldwide. They range from passenger ferries, Coast Guard ships, containerships and Con-Ro vessels to Dr Gerd-Michael Wuersig tankers and platform supply vessels. The vast majority Business Director LNG-fuelled ships Senior Principal Specialist of these ships is in operation or will be built to DNV Business Development GL class, reflecting the trust our customers have in [email protected] our long involvement in this technology and our continually evolving technical expertise.
  • CHEVRONS Chevron (Insignia)

    CHEVRONS Chevron (Insignia)

    ____________________________________________________ CHEVRONS Chevron (insignia) From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chevron_%28insignia%29 Jump to: navigation, search "Argent a chevron gules" A chevron (also spelled cheveron, especially in older documents) is an inverted V-shaped pattern. The word is usually used in reference to a kind of fret in architecture, or to a badge or insignia used in military or police uniforms to indicate rank or length of service, or in heraldry and the designs of flags (see flag terminology). The symbol is also used on highway signs to guide drivers around curves. Ancient history The chevron occurs in early art including designs on pottery and rock carvings. Examples can be found approximately 1800 BC in archaeological recovery of pottery designs from the palace of Knossos on Crete in the modern day country of Greece.[1] Sparta (Lacedaemonia (Λακεδαιμονία)) used a capital lambda (Λ) on their shields. Heraldry A chevron is one of the ordinaries in heraldry, one of the simple geometrical figures which are the chief images in many arms. It can be subject to a number of modifications. When the ends are cut off in a way that looks like the splintered ends of a broken piece of wood, with an irregular zig-zag pattern, it is called éclaté.[2] When shown as a smaller size than standard, it is a diminutive called a chevronel. 1 ____________________________________________________ Chevrons appeared early in the history of heraldry, especially in Normandy. In Scandinavia the chevron is known as sparre; an early example appears in the arms of Arvid Gustavsson Sparre.
  • City of Watsonville Historic Context Statement (2007)

    City of Watsonville Historic Context Statement (2007)

    Historic Context Statement for the City of Watsonville FINAL REPORT Watsonville, California April 2007 Prepared by One Sutter Street Suite 910 San Francisco CA 94104 415.362.7711 ph 415.391.9647 fx Acknowledgements The Historic Context Statement for the City of Watsonville would not have been possible without the coordinated efforts of the City of Watsonville Associate Planner Suzi Aratin, and local historians and volunteers Ann Jenkins and Jane Borg whose vast knowledge and appreciation of Watsonville is paramount. Their work was tireless and dependable, and their company more than pleasant. In addition to hours of research, fact checking and editing their joint effort has become a model for other communities developing a historic context statement. We would like to thank the City of Watsonville Council members and Planning Commission members for supporting the Historic Context Statement project. It is a testimony to their appreciation and protection of local history. Thanks to all of you. Table of Contents Chapter Page 1.0 Background and Objectives 1 1.1 Introduction 1.2 Location and Boundaries of Study 1.3 Context Statement Objective 2.0 Methodology 5 2.1 Context Statement Methodology 2.2 Summary of Resources 3.0 Introduction to Historic Contexts 7 3.1 Summary of Historic Contexts 3.2 Summary of Regional History Before Incorporation 3.3 Summary of regional history from 1868 – 1960 4.0 Historic Context 1 - Municipal Development 17 4.1 Overview 4.2 History 4.2.1 Schools 4.2.2 Civic Institutions 4.2.3 Infrastructure: Water 4.2.4 Infrastructure: