- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Lower Mississippi River to be dredged to 50 feet. (not a river pilot thread)
Posted on 8/1/20 at 12:46 pm to Captain Crackysack
Posted on 8/1/20 at 12:46 pm to Captain Crackysack
quote:
deepening of the Lower Mississippi River to 50 feet
quote:
New Panama Canal Max draft of 49.9 ft
With 1.25" to spare, definitely going to need to up pilot pay.
1
Posted on 8/1/20 at 12:52 pm to Captain Crackysack
so many "that's what she said" jokes
Posted on 8/1/20 at 12:56 pm to Captain Crackysack
This thread is way over my head. 
Posted on 8/1/20 at 1:02 pm to AutoYes_Clown
On a serious note I am interested to see what this does to curtent flood stages for that portion of the Mississippi.
Posted on 8/1/20 at 1:12 pm to Captain Crackysack
quote:
ever since the new Panama Canal locks were opened, there has been a race to 50 feet among gulf coast and east coast ports including the lower mississippi (Port Nola, Port of Baton Rouge, Port of South Louisiana) Houston, Mobile, etc.
Port of Corpus Christi is planning on handling fully-laden VLCCs and Suezmax tankers at some facilities. IIRC, their minimum draft for every single facility is going to be -54' with up to another -4' for overdepth allowance and advanced maintenace dredging. That is going on now, they are working from Port A back towards La Quinta channel and the main port.
Everyone else is playing catch up. PoCC is now 3rd in the nation based on tonnage... lots and lots of Permian Basin crude exported (plus the Qmax ships for LNG, which are big but only draft in the 40's if memory serves).
Posted on 8/1/20 at 1:15 pm to wheelr
quote:
Why is it a new project? Couldn't they just start going deeper during their routine operations?
Cuz the previous project was to only 45 ft?
I would think that this is mostly a funding and project management distinction. In reality, the govt will contract out to (or mobilize govt owned) existing dredges to deepen to 50 ft the existing nav channel, where needed, which is pretty similar in scope to existing operations. Prior to this “new project” there was never funding (or authorization?) to dredge to 50 ft.
Posted on 8/1/20 at 1:18 pm to SWCBonfire
It’s amazing to me how LA is always reactive in key infrastructure projects where Texas appears to be ahead on them.
Posted on 8/1/20 at 1:23 pm to SWCBonfire
quote:
PoCC is now 3rd in the nation based on tonnage..
What always gets overlooked when discussing this topic is that the Lower Mississippi River encompasses multiple ports. There is Port Nola, Port of Baton Rouge, Port of South Louisiana, Port of Plaquemines and probably one or two more that I'm forgetting. When you add up the tonnage handled by all the ports on the lower Mississippi, nobody else is really even close. This project helps out all of those lower Mississippi ports
This post was edited on 8/1/20 at 1:24 pm
Posted on 8/1/20 at 1:33 pm to Captain Crackysack
Louisiana always catering to the dredges of society.
Posted on 8/1/20 at 1:48 pm to Oilfieldbiology
quote:
It’s amazing to me how LA is always reactive in key infrastructure projects where Texas appears to be ahead on them.
The Panama Canal expansion was completed a couple of years ago. Other ports have been planning for this for a decade at least. Hell, in New York they’ve already built a new bridge to allow larger ships to come in.
I don’t think the depth of the Mississippi River is what’s holding Louisiana ports back, it’s more the time needed to transit and the costs associated with it.
Posted on 8/1/20 at 1:52 pm to SeaBass23
Don’t forget our absurd inventory tax system.
Posted on 8/1/20 at 1:54 pm to Captain Crackysack
Politicians fixing to make bank!
Go to 55 or go home!
Go to 55 or go home!
Posted on 8/1/20 at 2:00 pm to Captain Crackysack
Why stop at 50? We should have gone for the whole enchilada by going 66 feet to get the Suez traffic too.
The VLCC can always just use LOOP.
The VLCC can always just use LOOP.
Posted on 8/1/20 at 2:18 pm to FutureMikeVIII
quote:
Why is it a new project? Couldn't they just start going deeper during their routine operations?
Lot more to it than that. You have to slope back the soil so that it won't slough off into the deepened channel. That either means you keep the current slope back to shoreline the same and drastically narrow the width of the deeper channel, deepen it and widen the whole thing, or build massive bulkheads to hold back the existing shoreline before you deepen it. And if you have stratas of soils that don't behave nicely (like allow all the material on top to slide off once exposed), you have to do something to fix that.
Having a tiny narrow deep channel is the cheapest but not very practical or safe. Others are very, very expensive.
Posted on 8/1/20 at 2:20 pm to bakersman
quote:
They should load the silt from this project onto barges and start another project for coastal restoration
Yeah, because all of the other projects we have going on have been so successful.
It seems like every few years we get a story about a barrier island being rebuilt, only for it to wash away again.
Coastal restoration in SELA is a losing battle as long as we just keep trying to build land. SELA was built by the river, and will die by the river.
Posted on 8/1/20 at 2:25 pm to Captain Crackysack
Your point is noted.
What you should then be asking: why is little old piss-ant Corpus Christi kicking your arse infrastructure-wise, and what will that do to future shipping volumes?
What you should then be asking: why is little old piss-ant Corpus Christi kicking your arse infrastructure-wise, and what will that do to future shipping volumes?
Posted on 8/1/20 at 2:30 pm to Captain Crackysack
An 82' draft is mind-blowing. You can't safely get anywhere near Louisiana drafting that much
Posted on 8/1/20 at 2:33 pm to SWCBonfire
Will this support more LNG plants along the river with easier navigation?
Posted on 8/1/20 at 2:34 pm to DownshiftAndFloorIt
quote:
An 82' draft is mind-blowing. You can't safely get anywhere near Louisiana drafting that much
They can't get anywhere near any port. ULCCs and VLCCs almost exclusively use offshore oil ports or offload\backload onto smaller shuttle tankers.
This post was edited on 8/1/20 at 2:36 pm
Posted on 8/1/20 at 2:38 pm to SWCBonfire
quote:corpus Christi will never over take the lower Mississippi. They could dredge the channel to 100 feet.
why is little old piss-ant Corpus Christi kicking your arse infrastructure-wise, and what will that do to future shipping volumes?
Page 2 of 4
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News