Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: Fw: RE: SS Badger Articles

Expand Messages
  • ss43bob
    The question is who is not telling the truth? Hawthornes letter is dated Oct. 13, yet a Dec. 3 statement issued by the Great Lakes Maritime Research Institute
    Message 1 of 12 , Jan 2, 2012
    • 0 Attachment
      The question is who is not telling the truth? Hawthornes letter is dated Oct. 13, yet a Dec. 3 statement issued by the Great Lakes Maritime Research Institute saying they are wroking with LMC on coming up with a natural gas solution. However, last summer LMC said they were working with a Michigan source for the gas solution, and the head of that company has said they were NOT working together. All very muddled. From what I have heard & read, LMC has rejected storing the ash on board for later disposal, and I do not know if they still have a dieselization plan as a back-up. I am probably going to start a ruckus with what I am about to say (and these opinions are none but my own), but I have to ask how seriously is LMC (ie Manglitz) pursueing these options? Manglitz is on record as having told Charles Conrad he considered it a mistake to buy the ferries in the first place; now in the last year there has been a flurry of different stories concerning the fate of the Badger, from storing the ash to diesels to a natural gas conversion to a permanent grandfather clause to continueing dumping ash- I have to ask is Manglitz on a fishing expedition hoping he'll come up with the Big Catch or a big spender to cover his costs for him, or is he eying up the dock space wondering what would be the best spot for a condo?

      --- In carferry@yahoogroups.com, Allan Bigelow <allanbigelow@...> wrote:
      >
      > Below is an email to the author of the Chicago Tribune article and the response. Someone is not telling the truth.
      >
      > --- On Thu, 10/13/11, Hawthorne, Michael <mhawthorne@...> wrote:
      >
      >
      > From: Hawthorne, Michael <mhawthorne@...>
      > Subject: RE: SS Badger Articles
      > To: "Allan Bigelow" <allanbigelow@...>
      > Date: Thursday, October 13, 2011, 3:37 PM
      >
      >
      >
      > #yiv1911474172 P {margin-top:0;margin-bottom:0;}
      >
      >
      > Allan,
      >
      > Thanks for your note. I think you misunderstood the point of my story. I'm not "opposed" to anything here. I'm a journalist highlighting an important issue. It's up to others to make up their minds about it based on the information presented in my story and from other sources. As you probably noticed, I put the issue of the Badger into context, explained how they had been given four years to find a solution and now are asking for five more years.
      >
      > As far as the natural gas option is considered, I'm told it was abandoned weeks ago.
      >
      > Regards to online ads, they are handled by a contractor with no links to the Tribune newsroom. Like any other advertisement in the physical newspaper, there is clear line separating the paper's ad content and news content.
      >
      > Regards,
      >
      > Michael Hawthorne
      >
      >
      >
      >
      > From: Allan Bigelow [allanbigelow@...]
      > Sent: Thursday, October 13, 2011 3:26 PM
      > To: Hawthorne, Michael
      > Subject: SS Badger Articles
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      > Dear Mr. Hawthorne
      >
      >  
      >
      > This email is in response to your recent articles in the Chicago Tribune and Twin Cities Star Tribune pertaining to the SS Badger.
      >
      > Per your article you are opposed to the EPA giving the SS Badger an extension for their current practice of dumping coal slurry into Lake Michigan. While I agree with and am appreciative of your previous work pertaining to cleaning up the Chicago river and the Great Lakes and I do not like the practice of dumping the coal slurry into the lake, why attack LMC when they are exploring other options to that practice? I would think you would be more supportive of what they are trying to do considering they want to comply.
      >
      > Let’s face it this not some old coal power plant. A major constraint they face is how to convert a ship that has obtained several historical designations. The vessel is on the National Register of Historic Places which was awarded by the Department of the Interior. It has been awarded a historic site by two states, Michigan and Wisconsin. Its propulsion system was also awarded being a Mechanical Engineering Landmark by the American Society of Mechanical Engineers. I can only begin to understand how daunting task fixing the problem could be, as I am an owner of an old Victorian home in a historical district.
      >
      > The two options Lake Michigan Carferry is exploring are installing a dust collection system or converting the ship to clean burning natural gas need more time.
      >
      > If Lake Michigan Carferry, decides to proceed with installing a dust collection system several things need to be researched. One area is safe disposal of the ash. Another is safety of the crew and passengers. Another is operability of the ship. Lastly is profitability. While dust collection systems have been installed in other applications it has never been done for a coal burning steamship.
      >
      > There other option and the one they seem to be giving the most research and press to with DTI Energies is the conversion to Natural Gas boilers. I would think you would be willing to support them getting an extension for this. This would make the ship cleaner than the other ships in the great lakes fleet including their competitor Lake Express. If implemented successfully if could result in the immediate conversion of the remaining steamships on the lakes from dirty bunker oil to Natural Gas. This would result in the older steamships being cleaner than the newer ships with diesel technology. However,  DTI Energies has only come up with the idea for the SS Badger this year. This technology needs to be tested for people’s safety.
      >
      > I wish you would reconsider your stance on the EPA extension. I feel if it is not granted, the Natural Gas option would go away completely and other ships with similar technology like St Mary’s Challenger, Wilfred Sykes and Edward Ryerson will not use it as well and be converted to a dirtier technology like the existing technology. Also if LMC chose to use the extension to pursue the dust collection system this could provide the basis for implementing clean coal as another fuel alternative. If the extension is not granted I am afraid at best LMC would convert to a petroleum technology that is bad for the environment and is just what we do not need in an environment of $3.35 per gallon gas and continued wars in the middle east. Or in the worst case scenario, they shut down completely. This would not only be bad for the 200 workers of LMC but would destroy the economies of Manitowoc and Ludington and shut down a vital transportation link. That is not
      > what is needed in this current economy. While you mention the competitor Lake Express in your article. The Lake Express does not have the capacity for large truck traffic and oversized loads and has had some mechanical and reliability issues that were not mentioned.
      >
      > In conclusion, please reconsider your stance on the extension LMC is seeking. There is too much at stake for the communities and workers involved. Also I am optimistic if they  the extension is granted the technologies that are being explored can be put in place will be a win win for our region. Otherwise keep up the good work. I hope to see more articles about other polluters like MMSD in Milwaukee with their sewage dumping  and etc.
      >
      >                                                                                                                                                                 Thanks Again                    
      >
      >                                                                                                                                                                 Allan Bigelow
      >
      >  
      >
      > PS. I noticed the online version of your Chicago Tribune article had two advertisements for the Lake Express. Given the competitive nature of both companies and the Lake Express parent company Lubar and Company’s heavy investment in the oil and gas industries it might effect the perception of credibility of the article. See this link http://lubar.com/investments/index.cfm
      >
      >
      > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      >
    • Dave Petersen
      As far as Condos go they can’t sell the ones we already have in Ludington, I wonder how deep they would have to sink the concrete to support one, when the
      Message 2 of 12 , Jan 3, 2012
      • 0 Attachment
        As far as Condos go they can’t sell the ones we already have in Ludington, I wonder how deep they would have to sink the concrete to support one, when the ships docked my uncles house on Rath Avenue used to shake rattle and roll, that whole area is more like terra firmless

        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      • skinnerorg
        Good Morning Bob, A few thoughts embedded in your original note below... ... While I may not agree with everything Manglitz et al have done with the Badger,
        Message 3 of 12 , Jan 3, 2012
        • 0 Attachment
          Good Morning Bob,

          A few thoughts embedded in your original note below...

          >> I have to ask how seriously is LMC (ie Manglitz) pursueing these options? Manglitz is on record as having told Charles Conrad he considered it a mistake to buy the ferries in the first place <<

          While I may not agree with everything Manglitz et al have done with the Badger, he's not a dummy. While he may have believed at first that the purchase of the ferries was a bad move (consider the track record of the 20 years leading up to that time) I think time has proven him wrong. He had probably been proven wrong before Conrad died. He is in business to make money. If the Badger were a money loser for this long I don't believe he would still be involved.

          >> I have to ask is Manglitz on a fishing expedition hoping he'll come up with the Big Catch or a big spender to cover his costs for him, or is he eying up the dock space wondering what would be the best spot for a condo? <<

          I can say with confidence he isn't looking at the dock space as a hot spot for condos. We have so many waterfront condos in Ludington that have never been lived in (I've never seen more than about a half dozen cars at one very large complex), some of which have been available for many years, that anyone who would consider building more would be considered a fool, and Manglitz doesn't fit that description.

          Dave is also correct about the soil in that area. It was once a flowing river. I understand the river is still underground in that area, and it has a nasty habit of swallowing much smaller buildings, including one within the last five years. My guess is that's the reason there is so much vacant land to the north of the docks along Rath Avenue.

          Is he looking for a big spender to cover his costs? Maybe. If it would work it would give him some huge bragging rights, not only as compared to Lake Express (which has been smearing the Badger for years as being a dirty ride) but also throughout the Great Lakes shipping industry. It would be a very large feather in his cap if he can pull it off. It wouldn't surprise me to find that is part of his thinking.

          However, finding someone willing to put forth that sort of investment while also doing the research to find out if the conversion is even viable takes time and a great deal of expense. He would have to find investors who are willing to gamble on the research end of it also, hoping for a payoff after the conversion. Unless those investors are also willing / able to help with the conversion, he has to find more investors to complete the job once the research is accomplished.

          In today's economy finding investors who are willing to risk on something like this would be an enormous task all by itself. Many who could have invested a few years ago are out of the picture today, and many who are hedging their bets on an economic turnaround are interested in much higher stakes than what they would ever see returned on the conversion of the Badger.

          Here's hoping, though. Most of us here in Ludington are cheering every time we hear of a possible step forward in saving the Badger.

          Kind regards,
          Shawn
        • Allan Bigelow
          Hi Bob. How did that post finally make it after all this time? I tried to post this back on October 13th. I was having problems with my computer so I did not
          Message 4 of 12 , Jan 3, 2012
          • 0 Attachment
            Hi Bob. How did that post finally make it after all this time? I tried to post this back on October 13th. I was having problems with my computer so I did not think anything I sent around that time went through. There should be another one with EPA contacts.

            I think subsequent articles and docs the EPA has published have proven Michael Hawthorne was wrong about there not being a relationship between LMC and DTE Energies. This is a link to the EPA docs on the Badger.

            http://www.epa.gov/r5water/npdestek/badger/index.html

            --- In carferry@yahoogroups.com, "ss43bob" <ss43bob@...> wrote:
            >
            > The question is who is not telling the truth? Hawthornes letter is dated Oct. 13, yet a Dec. 3 statement issued by the Great Lakes Maritime Research Institute saying they are wroking with LMC on coming up with a natural gas solution. However, last summer LMC said they were working with a Michigan source for the gas solution, and the head of that company has said they were NOT working together. All very muddled. From what I have heard & read, LMC has rejected storing the ash on board for later disposal, and I do not know if they still have a dieselization plan as a back-up. I am probably going to start a ruckus with what I am about to say (and these opinions are none but my own), but I have to ask how seriously is LMC (ie Manglitz) pursueing these options? Manglitz is on record as having told Charles Conrad he considered it a mistake to buy the ferries in the first place; now in the last year there has been a flurry of different stories concerning the fate of the Badger, from storing the ash to diesels to a natural gas conversion to a permanent grandfather clause to continueing dumping ash- I have to ask is Manglitz on a fishing expedition hoping he'll come up with the Big Catch or a big spender to cover his costs for him, or is he eying up the dock space wondering what would be the best spot for a condo?
            >
            > --- In carferry@yahoogroups.com, Allan Bigelow <allanbigelow@> wrote:
            > >
            > > Below is an email to the author of the Chicago Tribune article and the response. Someone is not telling the truth.
            > >
            > > --- On Thu, 10/13/11, Hawthorne, Michael <mhawthorne@> wrote:
            > >
            > >
            > > From: Hawthorne, Michael <mhawthorne@>
            > > Subject: RE: SS Badger Articles
            > > To: "Allan Bigelow" <allanbigelow@>
            > > Date: Thursday, October 13, 2011, 3:37 PM
            > >
            > >
            > >
            > > #yiv1911474172 P {margin-top:0;margin-bottom:0;}
            > >
            > >
            > > Allan,
            > >
            > > Thanks for your note. I think you misunderstood the point of my story. I'm not "opposed" to anything here. I'm a journalist highlighting an important issue. It's up to others to make up their minds about it based on the information presented in my story and from other sources. As you probably noticed, I put the issue of the Badger into context, explained how they had been given four years to find a solution and now are asking for five more years.
            > >
            > > As far as the natural gas option is considered, I'm told it was abandoned weeks ago.
            > >
            > > Regards to online ads, they are handled by a contractor with no links to the Tribune newsroom. Like any other advertisement in the physical newspaper, there is clear line separating the paper's ad content and news content.
            > >
            > > Regards,
            > >
            > > Michael Hawthorne
            > >
            > >
            > >
            > >
            > > From: Allan Bigelow [allanbigelow@]
            > > Sent: Thursday, October 13, 2011 3:26 PM
            > > To: Hawthorne, Michael
            > > Subject: SS Badger Articles
            > >
            > >
            > >
            > >
            > >
            > >
            > >
            > >
            > > Dear Mr. Hawthorne
            > >
            > >  
            > >
            > > This email is in response to your recent articles in the Chicago Tribune and Twin Cities Star Tribune pertaining to the SS Badger.
            > >
            > > Per your article you are opposed to the EPA giving the SS Badger an extension for their current practice of dumping coal slurry into Lake Michigan. While I agree with and am appreciative of your previous work pertaining to cleaning up the Chicago river and the Great Lakes and I do not like the practice of dumping the coal slurry into the lake, why attack LMC when they are exploring other options to that practice? I would think you would be more supportive of what they are trying to do considering they want to comply.
            > >
            > > Let’s face it this not some old coal power plant. A major constraint they face is how to convert a ship that has obtained several historical designations. The vessel is on the National Register of Historic Places which was awarded by the Department of the Interior. It has been awarded a historic site by two states, Michigan and Wisconsin. Its propulsion system was also awarded being a Mechanical Engineering Landmark by the American Society of Mechanical Engineers. I can only begin to understand how daunting task fixing the problem could be, as I am an owner of an old Victorian home in a historical district.
            > >
            > > The two options Lake Michigan Carferry is exploring are installing a dust collection system or converting the ship to clean burning natural gas need more time.
            > >
            > > If Lake Michigan Carferry, decides to proceed with installing a dust collection system several things need to be researched. One area is safe disposal of the ash. Another is safety of the crew and passengers. Another is operability of the ship. Lastly is profitability. While dust collection systems have been installed in other applications it has never been done for a coal burning steamship.
            > >
            > > There other option and the one they seem to be giving the most research and press to with DTI Energies is the conversion to Natural Gas boilers. I would think you would be willing to support them getting an extension for this. This would make the ship cleaner than the other ships in the great lakes fleet including their competitor Lake Express. If implemented successfully if could result in the immediate conversion of the remaining steamships on the lakes from dirty bunker oil to Natural Gas. This would result in the older steamships being cleaner than the newer ships with diesel technology. However,  DTI Energies has only come up with the idea for the SS Badger this year. This technology needs to be tested for people’s safety.
            > >
            > > I wish you would reconsider your stance on the EPA extension. I feel if it is not granted, the Natural Gas option would go away completely and other ships with similar technology like St Mary’s Challenger, Wilfred Sykes and Edward Ryerson will not use it as well and be converted to a dirtier technology like the existing technology. Also if LMC chose to use the extension to pursue the dust collection system this could provide the basis for implementing clean coal as another fuel alternative. If the extension is not granted I am afraid at best LMC would convert to a petroleum technology that is bad for the environment and is just what we do not need in an environment of $3.35 per gallon gas and continued wars in the middle east. Or in the worst case scenario, they shut down completely. This would not only be bad for the 200 workers of LMC but would destroy the economies of Manitowoc and Ludington and shut down a vital transportation link. That is not
            > > what is needed in this current economy. While you mention the competitor Lake Express in your article. The Lake Express does not have the capacity for large truck traffic and oversized loads and has had some mechanical and reliability issues that were not mentioned.
            > >
            > > In conclusion, please reconsider your stance on the extension LMC is seeking. There is too much at stake for the communities and workers involved. Also I am optimistic if they  the extension is granted the technologies that are being explored can be put in place will be a win win for our region. Otherwise keep up the good work. I hope to see more articles about other polluters like MMSD in Milwaukee with their sewage dumping  and etc.
            > >
            > >                                                                                                                                                                 Thanks Again                    
            > >
            > >                                                                                                                                                                 Allan Bigelow
            > >
            > >  
            > >
            > > PS. I noticed the online version of your Chicago Tribune article had two advertisements for the Lake Express. Given the competitive nature of both companies and the Lake Express parent company Lubar and Company’s heavy investment in the oil and gas industries it might effect the perception of credibility of the article. See this link http://lubar.com/investments/index.cfm
            > >
            > >
            > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            > >
            >
          • Erik Jonasson
            Hi Group,   I know this is not directly related, but thought it might be of some interest. My parents live in western Washington State and live on an island
            Message 5 of 12 , Jan 3, 2012
            • 0 Attachment
              Hi Group,
               
              I know this is not directly related, but thought it might be of some interest. My parents live in western Washington State and live on an island served by the state ferry system. The have one boat that is 45 years old that they are looking at repolacing the power plant (this would be the 2nd time the power plant has been replaced)  One option they are looking at is a hybrid set up where the boat would actually run on electricity once it was out of the dock and running. They are looking for ANY way to stop emissions out that way.
               
              Maybe I  am behind the eight ball, but didn't I just read here a few weeks ago that the Badger had been grandfathered here recently and no repower/ash collection was needed ?
               
              Happy New Year to All !
               
              Erik G. Jonasson
               


              --- On Tue, 1/3/12, Allan Bigelow <allanbigelow@...> wrote:


              From: Allan Bigelow <allanbigelow@...>
              Subject: [carferry] Re: Fw: RE: SS Badger Articles
              To: carferry@yahoogroups.com
              Date: Tuesday, January 3, 2012, 9:41 AM



               



              Hi Bob. How did that post finally make it after all this time? I tried to post this back on October 13th. I was having problems with my computer so I did not think anything I sent around that time went through. There should be another one with EPA contacts.

              I think subsequent articles and docs the EPA has published have proven Michael Hawthorne was wrong about there not being a relationship between LMC and DTE Energies. This is a link to the EPA docs on the Badger.

              http://www.epa.gov/r5water/npdestek/badger/index.html

              --- In carferry@yahoogroups.com, "ss43bob" <ss43bob@...> wrote:
              >
              > The question is who is not telling the truth? Hawthornes letter is dated Oct. 13, yet a Dec. 3 statement issued by the Great Lakes Maritime Research Institute saying they are wroking with LMC on coming up with a natural gas solution. However, last summer LMC said they were working with a Michigan source for the gas solution, and the head of that company has said they were NOT working together. All very muddled. From what I have heard & read, LMC has rejected storing the ash on board for later disposal, and I do not know if they still have a dieselization plan as a back-up. I am probably going to start a ruckus with what I am about to say (and these opinions are none but my own), but I have to ask how seriously is LMC (ie Manglitz) pursueing these options? Manglitz is on record as having told Charles Conrad he considered it a mistake to buy the ferries in the first place; now in the last year there has been a flurry of different stories concerning the
              fate of the Badger, from storing the ash to diesels to a natural gas conversion to a permanent grandfather clause to continueing dumping ash- I have to ask is Manglitz on a fishing expedition hoping he'll come up with the Big Catch or a big spender to cover his costs for him, or is he eying up the dock space wondering what would be the best spot for a condo?
              >
              > --- In carferry@yahoogroups.com, Allan Bigelow <allanbigelow@> wrote:
              > >
              > > Below is an email to the author of the Chicago Tribune article and the response. Someone is not telling the truth.
              > >
              > > --- On Thu, 10/13/11, Hawthorne, Michael <mhawthorne@> wrote:
              > >
              > >
              > > From: Hawthorne, Michael <mhawthorne@>
              > > Subject: RE: SS Badger Articles
              > > To: "Allan Bigelow" <allanbigelow@>
              > > Date: Thursday, October 13, 2011, 3:37 PM
              > >
              > >
              > >
              > > #yiv1911474172 P {margin-top:0;margin-bottom:0;}
              > >
              > >
              > > Allan,
              > >
              > > Thanks for your note. I think you misunderstood the point of my story. I'm not "opposed" to anything here. I'm a journalist highlighting an important issue. It's up to others to make up their minds about it based on the information presented in my story and from other sources. As you probably noticed, I put the issue of the Badger into context, explained how they had been given four years to find a solution and now are asking for five more years.
              > >
              > > As far as the natural gas option is considered, I'm told it was abandoned weeks ago.
              > >
              > > Regards to online ads, they are handled by a contractor with no links to the Tribune newsroom. Like any other advertisement in the physical newspaper, there is clear line separating the paper's ad content and news content.
              > >
              > > Regards,
              > >
              > > Michael Hawthorne
              > >
              > >
              > >
              > >
              > > From: Allan Bigelow [allanbigelow@]
              > > Sent: Thursday, October 13, 2011 3:26 PM
              > > To: Hawthorne, Michael
              > > Subject: SS Badger Articles
              > >
              > >
              > >
              > >
              > >
              > >
              > >
              > >
              > > Dear Mr. Hawthorne
              > >
              > >  
              > >
              > > This email is in response to your recent articles in the Chicago Tribune and Twin Cities Star Tribune pertaining to the SS Badger.
              > >
              > > Per your article you are opposed to the EPA giving the SS Badger an extension for their current practice of dumping coal slurry into Lake Michigan. While I agree with and am appreciative of your previous work pertaining to cleaning up the Chicago river and the Great Lakes and I do not like the practice of dumping the coal slurry into the lake, why attack LMC when they are exploring other options to that practice? I would think you would be more supportive of what they are trying to do considering they want to comply.
              > >
              > > Let’s face it this not some old coal power plant. A major constraint they face is how to convert a ship that has obtained several historical designations. The vessel is on the National Register of Historic Places which was awarded by the Department of the Interior. It has been awarded a historic site by two states, Michigan and Wisconsin. Its propulsion system was also awarded being a Mechanical Engineering Landmark by the American Society of Mechanical Engineers. I can only begin to understand how daunting task fixing the problem could be, as I am an owner of an old Victorian home in a historical district.
              > >
              > > The two options Lake Michigan Carferry is exploring are installing a dust collection system or converting the ship to clean burning natural gas need more time.
              > >
              > > If Lake Michigan Carferry, decides to proceed with installing a dust collection system several things need to be researched. One area is safe disposal of the ash. Another is safety of the crew and passengers. Another is operability of the ship. Lastly is profitability. While dust collection systems have been installed in other applications it has never been done for a coal burning steamship.
              > >
              > > There other option and the one they seem to be giving the most research and press to with DTI Energies is the conversion to Natural Gas boilers. I would think you would be willing to support them getting an extension for this. This would make the ship cleaner than the other ships in the great lakes fleet including their competitor Lake Express. If implemented successfully if could result in the immediate conversion of the remaining steamships on the lakes from dirty bunker oil to Natural Gas. This would result in the older steamships being cleaner than the newer ships with diesel technology. However,  DTI Energies has only come up with the idea for the SS Badger this year. This technology needs to be tested for people’s safety.
              > >
              > > I wish you would reconsider your stance on the EPA extension. I feel if it is not granted, the Natural Gas option would go away completely and other ships with similar technology like St Mary’s Challenger, Wilfred Sykes and Edward Ryerson will not use it as well and be converted to a dirtier technology like the existing technology. Also if LMC chose to use the extension to pursue the dust collection system this could provide the basis for implementing clean coal as another fuel alternative. If the extension is not granted I am afraid at best LMC would convert to a petroleum technology that is bad for the environment and is just what we do not need in an environment of $3.35 per gallon gas and continued wars in the middle east. Or in the worst case scenario, they shut down completely. This would not only be bad for the 200 workers of LMC but would destroy the economies of Manitowoc and Ludington and shut down a vital transportation link. That
              is not
              > > what is needed in this current economy. While you mention the competitor Lake Express in your article. The Lake Express does not have the capacity for large truck traffic and oversized loads and has had some mechanical and reliability issues that were not mentioned.
              > >
              > > In conclusion, please reconsider your stance on the extension LMC is seeking. There is too much at stake for the communities and workers involved. Also I am optimistic if they  the extension is granted the technologies that are being explored can be put in place will be a win win for our region. Otherwise keep up the good work. I hope to see more articles about other polluters like MMSD in Milwaukee with their sewage dumping  and etc.
              > >
              > >                                                                                                                                                                 Thanks Again                    
              > >
              > >                                                                                                                                                                 Allan Bigelow
              > >
              > >  
              > >
              > > PS. I noticed the online version of your Chicago Tribune article had two advertisements for the Lake Express. Given the competitive nature of both companies and the Lake Express parent company Lubar and Company’s heavy investment in the oil and gas industries it might effect the perception of credibility of the article. See this link http://lubar.com/investments/index.cfm
              > >
              > >
              > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
              > >
              >








              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            • vanousterhout
              Bob - Thank you for posting your somewhat contrarian take on the SS Badger situation - quite frankly I agree that the folks at LMC are the ones that aren t
              Message 6 of 12 , Jan 5, 2012
              • 0 Attachment
                Bob -

                Thank you for posting your somewhat contrarian take on the SS Badger situation - quite frankly I agree that the folks at LMC are the ones that aren't telling the whole truth. Too many stories and too many contradictions coming from them. They're either hiding something or they don't have a plan.

                Based on what I've heard and read, I've come to the conclusion that the recent SS Badger natural conversion talk is nothing more than a diversion - the owners have no intent of changing to diesels, to natural gas or anything else. Logically with Manglitz and the other owners now in their mid to late 60's, there is no reason to believe that they're looking to make long term investments in the SS Badger. They're more likely plotting retirement.

                Which leads me to believe they're fishing for exemptions and unwilling to spend money to continue operating. This is not Charles Conrad we're talking about - Manglitz is looking at this as a business decision. At best he's looking to extend the operation a few years while working out an exit strategy.

                To that point, Manglitz has already started selling off his personal Ludington real estate including parcels between the SS Badger dock and his condo development, so it's clear that he's not looking to develop the SS Badger site:

                http://www.trulia.com/property/45652376-311-S-Rath-Ave-Ludington-MI-49431

                http://www.greenridge.com/property/property.asp?PRM_MlsNumber=2943592&PRM_MlsName=SouthWesternMI

                https://is.bsasoftware.com/bsa.is/AssessingServices/ServiceAssessingSearchResults.aspx?i=1&on=manglitz&appid=0&unit=152


                With regard to the ship:

                The 2010 Tiger II grant application states that LMC could not afford the $16 million cost to install diesel engines (a project that would have preserved the Skinner Unaflow engines for tours): http://www.scribd.com/doc/50082919/City-of-Ludington-Tiger-II-Grant-Application-for-SS-Badger-carferry-project

                A recent letter to EPA from Manglitz ignores the diesel engines option altogether, making reference instead to "diesel boilers":

                "LMC has investigated several alternative propulsion systems in order to achieve zero
                discharge: (1) installing new diesel boilers; (2) switching to No. 2 fuel oil using the current
                boilers; (3) substituting an alternative vessel; and (4) switching to compressed or liquefied
                natural gas systems. Each proposed effort was discovered to be either technologically
                impossible or economically infeasible on the Badger in 2012."
                http://www.epa.gov/r5water/npdestek/badger/pdfs/petition.pdf

                The key here is "economically unfeasible." Manglitz does not want to make an investment, or doesn't think one is worthwhile.

                With regards to the story behind the DTE natural gas project, the truth appears to be that Wayne Fox, the sales rep for DTE did attempt to work out a deal with LMC for a short time, but conversations never progressed to any real world engineering because the infrastructure needs alone far exceeded the costs for a dieselization of the SS Badger:

                "we do not know when DTE (or another entity) will install the infrastructure necessary to support this system. While we had thought
                it would be done simultaneously, DTE has advised LMC that this would not happen until there were enough customers to amortize the cost of doing so (tens of million of dollars).

                Such infrastructure cannot be installed by LMC. Without the infrastructure, this technology (natural gas) is not useable and could not be BAT."
                Page 7 - http://www.epa.gov/r5water/npdestek/badger/pdfs/petition.pdf

                The point here, based on LMC statements, is that DTE does not appear to have ever worked on technology to convert the ship - it looks like they only talked about costs to get natural gas to the Ludington dock. Without available natural gas, any talk of a conversion is just wishful thinking.

                To the feasbility of natural gas for the SS Badger, the reality is that there is not a chance that it will happen. Zero. Manglitz is saying publicly that a natural gas conversion would cost $50-$100 million (compared with $16 million to put diesels in the ship). If anything he's pursuing an overpriced option in order to turn around tell the EPA that they're mandating a ridiculous solution to the coal ash problem.
                http://www.sheboyganpress.com/article/20111211/SHE0101/312120039/Permit-could-keep-S-S-Badger-car-ferry-operating

                The whole bit about "studying" and "considering" is just PR drama to deflect from the issue of dumping and to distract the media off the simple fix, dieselization. He's gambling that he can get a pass to operate as-is for a few more years after doing nothing during the original 4 year grace period. In the end, the study will either confirm his $50-$100 million estimate or say that it isn't a good idea to retrofit a 70 year old ship. Either way, he'll be able to use the study to again lobby for exemptions.

                If the extension/exemption effort works, then Manglitz will operate a few more years using coal - if not, he still walks away a rich man. The ships and SS Badger property were bought outright decades back and the company carries no debt.

                It's a win-win for him. For everyone else, the future is up in the air. The one thing that is certain is that the current ownership will not invest in complying with the EPA deadline.

                Sentimentality aside, Manglitz is managing this as a business decision and when the time is right, he'll walk away. He's already cutting business and financial ties with Ludington, so indications are that he's already heading out the door.

                CVO

                --- In carferry@yahoogroups.com, "ss43bob" <ss43bob@...> wrote:
                >
                > The question is who is not telling the truth? Hawthornes letter is dated Oct. 13, yet a Dec. 3 statement issued by the Great Lakes Maritime Research Institute saying they are wroking with LMC on coming up with a natural gas solution. However, last summer LMC said they were working with a Michigan source for the gas solution, and the head of that company has said they were NOT working together. All very muddled. From what I have heard & read, LMC has rejected storing the ash on board for later disposal, and I do not know if they still have a dieselization plan as a back-up. I am probably going to start a ruckus with what I am about to say (and these opinions are none but my own), but I have to ask how seriously is LMC (ie Manglitz) pursueing these options? Manglitz is on record as having told Charles Conrad he considered it a mistake to buy the ferries in the first place; now in the last year there has been a flurry of different stories concerning the fate of the Badger, from storing the ash to diesels to a natural gas conversion to a permanent grandfather clause to continueing dumping ash- I have to ask is Manglitz on a fishing expedition hoping he'll come up with the Big Catch or a big spender to cover his costs for him, or is he eying up the dock space wondering what would be the best spot for a condo?
                >
                > --- In carferry@yahoogroups.com, Allan Bigelow <allanbigelow@> wrote:
                > >
                > > Below is an email to the author of the Chicago Tribune article and the response. Someone is not telling the truth.
                > >
                > > --- On Thu, 10/13/11, Hawthorne, Michael <mhawthorne@> wrote:
                > >
                > >
                > > From: Hawthorne, Michael <mhawthorne@>
                > > Subject: RE: SS Badger Articles
                > > To: "Allan Bigelow" <allanbigelow@>
                > > Date: Thursday, October 13, 2011, 3:37 PM
                > >
                > >
                > >
                > > #yiv1911474172 P {margin-top:0;margin-bottom:0;}
                > >
                > >
                > > Allan,
                > >
                > > Thanks for your note. I think you misunderstood the point of my story. I'm not "opposed" to anything here. I'm a journalist highlighting an important issue. It's up to others to make up their minds about it based on the information presented in my story and from other sources. As you probably noticed, I put the issue of the Badger into context, explained how they had been given four years to find a solution and now are asking for five more years.
                > >
                > > As far as the natural gas option is considered, I'm told it was abandoned weeks ago.
                > >
                > > Regards to online ads, they are handled by a contractor with no links to the Tribune newsroom. Like any other advertisement in the physical newspaper, there is clear line separating the paper's ad content and news content.
                > >
                > > Regards,
                > >
                > > Michael Hawthorne
                > >
                > >
                > >
                > >
                > > From: Allan Bigelow [allanbigelow@]
                > > Sent: Thursday, October 13, 2011 3:26 PM
                > > To: Hawthorne, Michael
                > > Subject: SS Badger Articles
                > >
                > >
                > >
                > >
                > >
                > >
                > >
                > >
                > > Dear Mr. Hawthorne
                > >
                > >  
                > >
                > > This email is in response to your recent articles in the Chicago Tribune and Twin Cities Star Tribune pertaining to the SS Badger.
                > >
                > > Per your article you are opposed to the EPA giving the SS Badger an extension for their current practice of dumping coal slurry into Lake Michigan. While I agree with and am appreciative of your previous work pertaining to cleaning up the Chicago river and the Great Lakes and I do not like the practice of dumping the coal slurry into the lake, why attack LMC when they are exploring other options to that practice? I would think you would be more supportive of what they are trying to do considering they want to comply.
                > >
                > > Let’s face it this not some old coal power plant. A major constraint they face is how to convert a ship that has obtained several historical designations. The vessel is on the National Register of Historic Places which was awarded by the Department of the Interior. It has been awarded a historic site by two states, Michigan and Wisconsin. Its propulsion system was also awarded being a Mechanical Engineering Landmark by the American Society of Mechanical Engineers. I can only begin to understand how daunting task fixing the problem could be, as I am an owner of an old Victorian home in a historical district.
                > >
                > > The two options Lake Michigan Carferry is exploring are installing a dust collection system or converting the ship to clean burning natural gas need more time.
                > >
                > > If Lake Michigan Carferry, decides to proceed with installing a dust collection system several things need to be researched. One area is safe disposal of the ash. Another is safety of the crew and passengers. Another is operability of the ship. Lastly is profitability. While dust collection systems have been installed in other applications it has never been done for a coal burning steamship.
                > >
                > > There other option and the one they seem to be giving the most research and press to with DTI Energies is the conversion to Natural Gas boilers. I would think you would be willing to support them getting an extension for this. This would make the ship cleaner than the other ships in the great lakes fleet including their competitor Lake Express. If implemented successfully if could result in the immediate conversion of the remaining steamships on the lakes from dirty bunker oil to Natural Gas. This would result in the older steamships being cleaner than the newer ships with diesel technology. However,  DTI Energies has only come up with the idea for the SS Badger this year. This technology needs to be tested for people’s safety.
                > >
                > > I wish you would reconsider your stance on the EPA extension. I feel if it is not granted, the Natural Gas option would go away completely and other ships with similar technology like St Mary’s Challenger, Wilfred Sykes and Edward Ryerson will not use it as well and be converted to a dirtier technology like the existing technology. Also if LMC chose to use the extension to pursue the dust collection system this could provide the basis for implementing clean coal as another fuel alternative. If the extension is not granted I am afraid at best LMC would convert to a petroleum technology that is bad for the environment and is just what we do not need in an environment of $3.35 per gallon gas and continued wars in the middle east. Or in the worst case scenario, they shut down completely. This would not only be bad for the 200 workers of LMC but would destroy the economies of Manitowoc and Ludington and shut down a vital transportation link. That is not
                > > what is needed in this current economy. While you mention the competitor Lake Express in your article. The Lake Express does not have the capacity for large truck traffic and oversized loads and has had some mechanical and reliability issues that were not mentioned.
                > >
                > > In conclusion, please reconsider your stance on the extension LMC is seeking. There is too much at stake for the communities and workers involved. Also I am optimistic if they  the extension is granted the technologies that are being explored can be put in place will be a win win for our region. Otherwise keep up the good work. I hope to see more articles about other polluters like MMSD in Milwaukee with their sewage dumping  and etc.
                > >
                > >                                                                                                                                                                 Thanks Again                    
                > >
                > >                                                                                                                                                                 Allan Bigelow
                > >
                > >  
                > >
                > > PS. I noticed the online version of your Chicago Tribune article had two advertisements for the Lake Express. Given the competitive nature of both companies and the Lake Express parent company Lubar and Company’s heavy investment in the oil and gas industries it might effect the perception of credibility of the article. See this link http://lubar.com/investments/index.cfm
                > >
                > >
                > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                > >
                >
              • Allan Bigelow
                I did a google earth on the properties mentioned. The 311 S Rath property is about 4 to 5 blocks away from the carferry operation. The 602 S Rath property is
                Message 7 of 12 , Jan 5, 2012
                • 0 Attachment
                  I did a google earth on the properties mentioned. The 311 S Rath property is about 4 to 5 blocks away from the carferry operation. The 602 S Rath property is only two acres of that big area of vacant land north of the ticket office and parking lot. Those properties do not have a real value to the operation. Just because they are selling them does not mean their hiding something or do not have a plan. To the contrary they probably are useing the funds keep the company in business after 2012.

                  I think as far as options they have that they are presenting to the epa, I think they are constrained by the historic designations that the ship has obtained. I have a house in a historic district. There is alot of red tape involved to fix anything exterior. I can only imagine what its like for something like the Badger that has specific designations.

                  Just because the owners of LMC are getting older does not mean they are looking for an exit strategy. Lake Express Ceo Ken Szallai is 64. Sheldon Lubar the owner of the parent company is 82. I think if Manglitz were looking for an exit strategy he could have easily sold it to Lubar or converted the ships to PM42 an PM43.

                  I don't think the problem with LMC is any conspiracy theories. I think they are too SS Badger focused and are unwilling to develope another ship because of the historic designations the Badger has.

                  --- In carferry@yahoogroups.com, "vanousterhout" <vanousterhout@...> wrote:
                  >
                  > Bob -
                  >
                  > Thank you for posting your somewhat contrarian take on the SS Badger situation - quite frankly I agree that the folks at LMC are the ones that aren't telling the whole truth. Too many stories and too many contradictions coming from them. They're either hiding something or they don't have a plan.
                  >
                  > Based on what I've heard and read, I've come to the conclusion that the recent SS Badger natural conversion talk is nothing more than a diversion - the owners have no intent of changing to diesels, to natural gas or anything else. Logically with Manglitz and the other owners now in their mid to late 60's, there is no reason to believe that they're looking to make long term investments in the SS Badger. They're more likely plotting retirement.
                  >
                  > Which leads me to believe they're fishing for exemptions and unwilling to spend money to continue operating. This is not Charles Conrad we're talking about - Manglitz is looking at this as a business decision. At best he's looking to extend the operation a few years while working out an exit strategy.
                  >
                  > To that point, Manglitz has already started selling off his personal Ludington real estate including parcels between the SS Badger dock and his condo development, so it's clear that he's not looking to develop the SS Badger site:
                  >
                  > http://www.trulia.com/property/45652376-311-S-Rath-Ave-Ludington-MI-49431
                  >
                  > http://www.greenridge.com/property/property.asp?PRM_MlsNumber=2943592&PRM_MlsName=SouthWesternMI
                  >
                  > https://is.bsasoftware.com/bsa.is/AssessingServices/ServiceAssessingSearchResults.aspx?i=1&on=manglitz&appid=0&unit=152
                  >
                  >
                  > With regard to the ship:
                  >
                  > The 2010 Tiger II grant application states that LMC could not afford the $16 million cost to install diesel engines (a project that would have preserved the Skinner Unaflow engines for tours): http://www.scribd.com/doc/50082919/City-of-Ludington-Tiger-II-Grant-Application-for-SS-Badger-carferry-project
                  >
                  > A recent letter to EPA from Manglitz ignores the diesel engines option altogether, making reference instead to "diesel boilers":
                  >
                  > "LMC has investigated several alternative propulsion systems in order to achieve zero
                  > discharge: (1) installing new diesel boilers; (2) switching to No. 2 fuel oil using the current
                  > boilers; (3) substituting an alternative vessel; and (4) switching to compressed or liquefied
                  > natural gas systems. Each proposed effort was discovered to be either technologically
                  > impossible or economically infeasible on the Badger in 2012."
                  > http://www.epa.gov/r5water/npdestek/badger/pdfs/petition.pdf
                  >
                  > The key here is "economically unfeasible." Manglitz does not want to make an investment, or doesn't think one is worthwhile.
                  >
                  > With regards to the story behind the DTE natural gas project, the truth appears to be that Wayne Fox, the sales rep for DTE did attempt to work out a deal with LMC for a short time, but conversations never progressed to any real world engineering because the infrastructure needs alone far exceeded the costs for a dieselization of the SS Badger:
                  >
                  > "we do not know when DTE (or another entity) will install the infrastructure necessary to support this system. While we had thought
                  > it would be done simultaneously, DTE has advised LMC that this would not happen until there were enough customers to amortize the cost of doing so (tens of million of dollars).
                  >
                  > Such infrastructure cannot be installed by LMC. Without the infrastructure, this technology (natural gas) is not useable and could not be BAT."
                  > Page 7 - http://www.epa.gov/r5water/npdestek/badger/pdfs/petition.pdf
                  >
                  > The point here, based on LMC statements, is that DTE does not appear to have ever worked on technology to convert the ship - it looks like they only talked about costs to get natural gas to the Ludington dock. Without available natural gas, any talk of a conversion is just wishful thinking.
                  >
                  > To the feasbility of natural gas for the SS Badger, the reality is that there is not a chance that it will happen. Zero. Manglitz is saying publicly that a natural gas conversion would cost $50-$100 million (compared with $16 million to put diesels in the ship). If anything he's pursuing an overpriced option in order to turn around tell the EPA that they're mandating a ridiculous solution to the coal ash problem.
                  > http://www.sheboyganpress.com/article/20111211/SHE0101/312120039/Permit-could-keep-S-S-Badger-car-ferry-operating
                  >
                  > The whole bit about "studying" and "considering" is just PR drama to deflect from the issue of dumping and to distract the media off the simple fix, dieselization. He's gambling that he can get a pass to operate as-is for a few more years after doing nothing during the original 4 year grace period. In the end, the study will either confirm his $50-$100 million estimate or say that it isn't a good idea to retrofit a 70 year old ship. Either way, he'll be able to use the study to again lobby for exemptions.
                  >
                  > If the extension/exemption effort works, then Manglitz will operate a few more years using coal - if not, he still walks away a rich man. The ships and SS Badger property were bought outright decades back and the company carries no debt.
                  >
                  > It's a win-win for him. For everyone else, the future is up in the air. The one thing that is certain is that the current ownership will not invest in complying with the EPA deadline.
                  >
                  > Sentimentality aside, Manglitz is managing this as a business decision and when the time is right, he'll walk away. He's already cutting business and financial ties with Ludington, so indications are that he's already heading out the door.
                  >
                  > CVO
                  >
                  > --- In carferry@yahoogroups.com, "ss43bob" <ss43bob@> wrote:
                  > >
                  > > The question is who is not telling the truth? Hawthornes letter is dated Oct. 13, yet a Dec. 3 statement issued by the Great Lakes Maritime Research Institute saying they are wroking with LMC on coming up with a natural gas solution. However, last summer LMC said they were working with a Michigan source for the gas solution, and the head of that company has said they were NOT working together. All very muddled. From what I have heard & read, LMC has rejected storing the ash on board for later disposal, and I do not know if they still have a dieselization plan as a back-up. I am probably going to start a ruckus with what I am about to say (and these opinions are none but my own), but I have to ask how seriously is LMC (ie Manglitz) pursueing these options? Manglitz is on record as having told Charles Conrad he considered it a mistake to buy the ferries in the first place; now in the last year there has been a flurry of different stories concerning the fate of the Badger, from storing the ash to diesels to a natural gas conversion to a permanent grandfather clause to continueing dumping ash- I have to ask is Manglitz on a fishing expedition hoping he'll come up with the Big Catch or a big spender to cover his costs for him, or is he eying up the dock space wondering what would be the best spot for a condo?
                  > >
                  > > --- In carferry@yahoogroups.com, Allan Bigelow <allanbigelow@> wrote:
                  > > >
                  > > > Below is an email to the author of the Chicago Tribune article and the response. Someone is not telling the truth.
                  > > >
                  > > > --- On Thu, 10/13/11, Hawthorne, Michael <mhawthorne@> wrote:
                  > > >
                  > > >
                  > > > From: Hawthorne, Michael <mhawthorne@>
                  > > > Subject: RE: SS Badger Articles
                  > > > To: "Allan Bigelow" <allanbigelow@>
                  > > > Date: Thursday, October 13, 2011, 3:37 PM
                  > > >
                  > > >
                  > > >
                  > > > #yiv1911474172 P {margin-top:0;margin-bottom:0;}
                  > > >
                  > > >
                  > > > Allan,
                  > > >
                  > > > Thanks for your note. I think you misunderstood the point of my story. I'm not "opposed" to anything here. I'm a journalist highlighting an important issue. It's up to others to make up their minds about it based on the information presented in my story and from other sources. As you probably noticed, I put the issue of the Badger into context, explained how they had been given four years to find a solution and now are asking for five more years.
                  > > >
                  > > > As far as the natural gas option is considered, I'm told it was abandoned weeks ago.
                  > > >
                  > > > Regards to online ads, they are handled by a contractor with no links to the Tribune newsroom. Like any other advertisement in the physical newspaper, there is clear line separating the paper's ad content and news content.
                  > > >
                  > > > Regards,
                  > > >
                  > > > Michael Hawthorne
                  > > >
                  > > >
                  > > >
                  > > >
                  > > > From: Allan Bigelow [allanbigelow@]
                  > > > Sent: Thursday, October 13, 2011 3:26 PM
                  > > > To: Hawthorne, Michael
                  > > > Subject: SS Badger Articles
                  > > >
                  > > >
                  > > >
                  > > >
                  > > >
                  > > >
                  > > >
                  > > >
                  > > > Dear Mr. Hawthorne
                  > > >
                  > > >  
                  > > >
                  > > > This email is in response to your recent articles in the Chicago Tribune and Twin Cities Star Tribune pertaining to the SS Badger.
                  > > >
                  > > > Per your article you are opposed to the EPA giving the SS Badger an extension for their current practice of dumping coal slurry into Lake Michigan. While I agree with and am appreciative of your previous work pertaining to cleaning up the Chicago river and the Great Lakes and I do not like the practice of dumping the coal slurry into the lake, why attack LMC when they are exploring other options to that practice? I would think you would be more supportive of what they are trying to do considering they want to comply.
                  > > >
                  > > > Let’s face it this not some old coal power plant. A major constraint they face is how to convert a ship that has obtained several historical designations. The vessel is on the National Register of Historic Places which was awarded by the Department of the Interior. It has been awarded a historic site by two states, Michigan and Wisconsin. Its propulsion system was also awarded being a Mechanical Engineering Landmark by the American Society of Mechanical Engineers. I can only begin to understand how daunting task fixing the problem could be, as I am an owner of an old Victorian home in a historical district.
                  > > >
                  > > > The two options Lake Michigan Carferry is exploring are installing a dust collection system or converting the ship to clean burning natural gas need more time.
                  > > >
                  > > > If Lake Michigan Carferry, decides to proceed with installing a dust collection system several things need to be researched. One area is safe disposal of the ash. Another is safety of the crew and passengers. Another is operability of the ship. Lastly is profitability. While dust collection systems have been installed in other applications it has never been done for a coal burning steamship.
                  > > >
                  > > > There other option and the one they seem to be giving the most research and press to with DTI Energies is the conversion to Natural Gas boilers. I would think you would be willing to support them getting an extension for this. This would make the ship cleaner than the other ships in the great lakes fleet including their competitor Lake Express. If implemented successfully if could result in the immediate conversion of the remaining steamships on the lakes from dirty bunker oil to Natural Gas. This would result in the older steamships being cleaner than the newer ships with diesel technology. However,  DTI Energies has only come up with the idea for the SS Badger this year. This technology needs to be tested for people’s safety.
                  > > >
                  > > > I wish you would reconsider your stance on the EPA extension. I feel if it is not granted, the Natural Gas option would go away completely and other ships with similar technology like St Mary’s Challenger, Wilfred Sykes and Edward Ryerson will not use it as well and be converted to a dirtier technology like the existing technology. Also if LMC chose to use the extension to pursue the dust collection system this could provide the basis for implementing clean coal as another fuel alternative. If the extension is not granted I am afraid at best LMC would convert to a petroleum technology that is bad for the environment and is just what we do not need in an environment of $3.35 per gallon gas and continued wars in the middle east. Or in the worst case scenario, they shut down completely. This would not only be bad for the 200 workers of LMC but would destroy the economies of Manitowoc and Ludington and shut down a vital transportation link. That is not
                  > > > what is needed in this current economy. While you mention the competitor Lake Express in your article. The Lake Express does not have the capacity for large truck traffic and oversized loads and has had some mechanical and reliability issues that were not mentioned.
                  > > >
                  > > > In conclusion, please reconsider your stance on the extension LMC is seeking. There is too much at stake for the communities and workers involved. Also I am optimistic if they  the extension is granted the technologies that are being explored can be put in place will be a win win for our region. Otherwise keep up the good work. I hope to see more articles about other polluters like MMSD in Milwaukee with their sewage dumping  and etc.
                  > > >
                  > > >                                                                                                                                                                 Thanks Again                    
                  > > >
                  > > >                                                                                                                                                                 Allan Bigelow
                  > > >
                  > > >  
                  > > >
                  > > > PS. I noticed the online version of your Chicago Tribune article had two advertisements for the Lake Express. Given the competitive nature of both companies and the Lake Express parent company Lubar and Company’s heavy investment in the oil and gas industries it might effect the perception of credibility of the article. See this link http://lubar.com/investments/index.cfm
                  > > >
                  > > >
                  > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                  > > >
                  > >
                  >
                • ooo
                  The impact of Badger s historic designation on LMC s plans is minimal, if any. She is listed on the National Register of Historic Places and the Michigan and
                  Message 8 of 12 , Jan 6, 2012
                  • 0 Attachment
                    The impact of Badger's historic designation on LMC's plans is minimal, if any.

                    She is listed on the National Register of Historic Places and the Michigan and Wisconsin State Registers. She is not yet a National Historic Landmark, although that process is well advanced.

                    The two state registers have no regulatory processes that apply to private proprty.

                    The National Register listing brings with it a review of any "federal undertaking," but no regulation of private activities on private property. (The proposed TIGER grant would have been subjected to those reviews.) That process ends with a recomendation to the federal agency involved, which agency may then ignore the recomendation.

                    The National Historic Landmark designation, if approved, will have no regulatory impact at all.

                    Historic Designation that brings with it regulation of change is almost always by local government; although this can vary by state, that is certainly true of Michigan and Wisconsin. As far as I know, Ludington has no local historic designation program. Even if the city did, there is a serious legal issue since local designation in Michigan is, by state statute, expressed with real estate boundaries and the Badger is not real estate.

                    Therefore, you can eliminate historic regulations as a factor in the decisions LMC faces.

                    Bill Worden


                    --- In carferry@yahoogroups.com, "Allan Bigelow" <allanbigelow@...> wrote:
                    >
                    > I did a google earth on the properties mentioned. The 311 S Rath property is about 4 to 5 blocks away from the carferry operation. The 602 S Rath property is only two acres of that big area of vacant land north of the ticket office and parking lot. Those properties do not have a real value to the operation. Just because they are selling them does not mean their hiding something or do not have a plan. To the contrary they probably are useing the funds keep the company in business after 2012.
                    >
                    > I think as far as options they have that they are presenting to the epa, I think they are constrained by the historic designations that the ship has obtained. I have a house in a historic district. There is alot of red tape involved to fix anything exterior. I can only imagine what its like for something like the Badger that has specific designations.
                    >
                    > Just because the owners of LMC are getting older does not mean they are looking for an exit strategy. Lake Express Ceo Ken Szallai is 64. Sheldon Lubar the owner of the parent company is 82. I think if Manglitz were looking for an exit strategy he could have easily sold it to Lubar or converted the ships to PM42 an PM43.
                    >
                    > I don't think the problem with LMC is any conspiracy theories. I think they are too SS Badger focused and are unwilling to develope another ship because of the historic designations the Badger has.
                    >
                    > --- In carferry@yahoogroups.com, "vanousterhout" <vanousterhout@> wrote:
                    > >
                    > > Bob -
                    > >
                    > > Thank you for posting your somewhat contrarian take on the SS Badger situation - quite frankly I agree that the folks at LMC are the ones that aren't telling the whole truth. Too many stories and too many contradictions coming from them. They're either hiding something or they don't have a plan.
                    > >
                    > > Based on what I've heard and read, I've come to the conclusion that the recent SS Badger natural conversion talk is nothing more than a diversion - the owners have no intent of changing to diesels, to natural gas or anything else. Logically with Manglitz and the other owners now in their mid to late 60's, there is no reason to believe that they're looking to make long term investments in the SS Badger. They're more likely plotting retirement.
                    > >
                    > > Which leads me to believe they're fishing for exemptions and unwilling to spend money to continue operating. This is not Charles Conrad we're talking about - Manglitz is looking at this as a business decision. At best he's looking to extend the operation a few years while working out an exit strategy.
                    > >
                    > > To that point, Manglitz has already started selling off his personal Ludington real estate including parcels between the SS Badger dock and his condo development, so it's clear that he's not looking to develop the SS Badger site:
                    > >
                    > > http://www.trulia.com/property/45652376-311-S-Rath-Ave-Ludington-MI-49431
                    > >
                    > > http://www.greenridge.com/property/property.asp?PRM_MlsNumber=2943592&PRM_MlsName=SouthWesternMI
                    > >
                    > > https://is.bsasoftware.com/bsa.is/AssessingServices/ServiceAssessingSearchResults.aspx?i=1&on=manglitz&appid=0&unit=152
                    > >
                    > >
                    > > With regard to the ship:
                    > >
                    > > The 2010 Tiger II grant application states that LMC could not afford the $16 million cost to install diesel engines (a project that would have preserved the Skinner Unaflow engines for tours): http://www.scribd.com/doc/50082919/City-of-Ludington-Tiger-II-Grant-Application-for-SS-Badger-carferry-project
                    > >
                    > > A recent letter to EPA from Manglitz ignores the diesel engines option altogether, making reference instead to "diesel boilers":
                    > >
                    > > "LMC has investigated several alternative propulsion systems in order to achieve zero
                    > > discharge: (1) installing new diesel boilers; (2) switching to No. 2 fuel oil using the current
                    > > boilers; (3) substituting an alternative vessel; and (4) switching to compressed or liquefied
                    > > natural gas systems. Each proposed effort was discovered to be either technologically
                    > > impossible or economically infeasible on the Badger in 2012."
                    > > http://www.epa.gov/r5water/npdestek/badger/pdfs/petition.pdf
                    > >
                    > > The key here is "economically unfeasible." Manglitz does not want to make an investment, or doesn't think one is worthwhile.
                    > >
                    > > With regards to the story behind the DTE natural gas project, the truth appears to be that Wayne Fox, the sales rep for DTE did attempt to work out a deal with LMC for a short time, but conversations never progressed to any real world engineering because the infrastructure needs alone far exceeded the costs for a dieselization of the SS Badger:
                    > >
                    > > "we do not know when DTE (or another entity) will install the infrastructure necessary to support this system. While we had thought
                    > > it would be done simultaneously, DTE has advised LMC that this would not happen until there were enough customers to amortize the cost of doing so (tens of million of dollars).
                    > >
                    > > Such infrastructure cannot be installed by LMC. Without the infrastructure, this technology (natural gas) is not useable and could not be BAT."
                    > > Page 7 - http://www.epa.gov/r5water/npdestek/badger/pdfs/petition.pdf
                    > >
                    > > The point here, based on LMC statements, is that DTE does not appear to have ever worked on technology to convert the ship - it looks like they only talked about costs to get natural gas to the Ludington dock. Without available natural gas, any talk of a conversion is just wishful thinking.
                    > >
                    > > To the feasbility of natural gas for the SS Badger, the reality is that there is not a chance that it will happen. Zero. Manglitz is saying publicly that a natural gas conversion would cost $50-$100 million (compared with $16 million to put diesels in the ship). If anything he's pursuing an overpriced option in order to turn around tell the EPA that they're mandating a ridiculous solution to the coal ash problem.
                    > > http://www.sheboyganpress.com/article/20111211/SHE0101/312120039/Permit-could-keep-S-S-Badger-car-ferry-operating
                    > >
                    > > The whole bit about "studying" and "considering" is just PR drama to deflect from the issue of dumping and to distract the media off the simple fix, dieselization. He's gambling that he can get a pass to operate as-is for a few more years after doing nothing during the original 4 year grace period. In the end, the study will either confirm his $50-$100 million estimate or say that it isn't a good idea to retrofit a 70 year old ship. Either way, he'll be able to use the study to again lobby for exemptions.
                    > >
                    > > If the extension/exemption effort works, then Manglitz will operate a few more years using coal - if not, he still walks away a rich man. The ships and SS Badger property were bought outright decades back and the company carries no debt.
                    > >
                    > > It's a win-win for him. For everyone else, the future is up in the air. The one thing that is certain is that the current ownership will not invest in complying with the EPA deadline.
                    > >
                    > > Sentimentality aside, Manglitz is managing this as a business decision and when the time is right, he'll walk away. He's already cutting business and financial ties with Ludington, so indications are that he's already heading out the door.
                    > >
                    > > CVO
                    > >
                    > > --- In carferry@yahoogroups.com, "ss43bob" <ss43bob@> wrote:
                    > > >
                    > > > The question is who is not telling the truth? Hawthornes letter is dated Oct. 13, yet a Dec. 3 statement issued by the Great Lakes Maritime Research Institute saying they are wroking with LMC on coming up with a natural gas solution. However, last summer LMC said they were working with a Michigan source for the gas solution, and the head of that company has said they were NOT working together. All very muddled. From what I have heard & read, LMC has rejected storing the ash on board for later disposal, and I do not know if they still have a dieselization plan as a back-up. I am probably going to start a ruckus with what I am about to say (and these opinions are none but my own), but I have to ask how seriously is LMC (ie Manglitz) pursueing these options? Manglitz is on record as having told Charles Conrad he considered it a mistake to buy the ferries in the first place; now in the last year there has been a flurry of different stories concerning the fate of the Badger, from storing the ash to diesels to a natural gas conversion to a permanent grandfather clause to continueing dumping ash- I have to ask is Manglitz on a fishing expedition hoping he'll come up with the Big Catch or a big spender to cover his costs for him, or is he eying up the dock space wondering what would be the best spot for a condo?
                    > > >
                    > > > --- In carferry@yahoogroups.com, Allan Bigelow <allanbigelow@> wrote:
                    > > > >
                    > > > > Below is an email to the author of the Chicago Tribune article and the response. Someone is not telling the truth.
                    > > > >
                    > > > > --- On Thu, 10/13/11, Hawthorne, Michael <mhawthorne@> wrote:
                    > > > >
                    > > > >
                    > > > > From: Hawthorne, Michael <mhawthorne@>
                    > > > > Subject: RE: SS Badger Articles
                    > > > > To: "Allan Bigelow" <allanbigelow@>
                    > > > > Date: Thursday, October 13, 2011, 3:37 PM
                    > > > >
                    > > > >
                    > > > >
                    > > > > #yiv1911474172 P {margin-top:0;margin-bottom:0;}
                    > > > >
                    > > > >
                    > > > > Allan,
                    > > > >
                    > > > > Thanks for your note. I think you misunderstood the point of my story. I'm not "opposed" to anything here. I'm a journalist highlighting an important issue. It's up to others to make up their minds about it based on the information presented in my story and from other sources. As you probably noticed, I put the issue of the Badger into context, explained how they had been given four years to find a solution and now are asking for five more years.
                    > > > >
                    > > > > As far as the natural gas option is considered, I'm told it was abandoned weeks ago.
                    > > > >
                    > > > > Regards to online ads, they are handled by a contractor with no links to the Tribune newsroom. Like any other advertisement in the physical newspaper, there is clear line separating the paper's ad content and news content.
                    > > > >
                    > > > > Regards,
                    > > > >
                    > > > > Michael Hawthorne
                    > > > >
                    > > > >
                    > > > >
                    > > > >
                    > > > > From: Allan Bigelow [allanbigelow@]
                    > > > > Sent: Thursday, October 13, 2011 3:26 PM
                    > > > > To: Hawthorne, Michael
                    > > > > Subject: SS Badger Articles
                    > > > >
                    > > > >
                    > > > >
                    > > > >
                    > > > >
                    > > > >
                    > > > >
                    > > > >
                    > > > > Dear Mr. Hawthorne
                    > > > >
                    > > > >  
                    > > > >
                    > > > > This email is in response to your recent articles in the Chicago Tribune and Twin Cities Star Tribune pertaining to the SS Badger.
                    > > > >
                    > > > > Per your article you are opposed to the EPA giving the SS Badger an extension for their current practice of dumping coal slurry into Lake Michigan. While I agree with and am appreciative of your previous work pertaining to cleaning up the Chicago river and the Great Lakes and I do not like the practice of dumping the coal slurry into the lake, why attack LMC when they are exploring other options to that practice? I would think you would be more supportive of what they are trying to do considering they want to comply.
                    > > > >
                    > > > > Let’s face it this not some old coal power plant. A major constraint they face is how to convert a ship that has obtained several historical designations. The vessel is on the National Register of Historic Places which was awarded by the Department of the Interior. It has been awarded a historic site by two states, Michigan and Wisconsin. Its propulsion system was also awarded being a Mechanical Engineering Landmark by the American Society of Mechanical Engineers. I can only begin to understand how daunting task fixing the problem could be, as I am an owner of an old Victorian home in a historical district.
                    > > > >
                    > > > > The two options Lake Michigan Carferry is exploring are installing a dust collection system or converting the ship to clean burning natural gas need more time.
                    > > > >
                    > > > > If Lake Michigan Carferry, decides to proceed with installing a dust collection system several things need to be researched. One area is safe disposal of the ash. Another is safety of the crew and passengers. Another is operability of the ship. Lastly is profitability. While dust collection systems have been installed in other applications it has never been done for a coal burning steamship.
                    > > > >
                    > > > > There other option and the one they seem to be giving the most research and press to with DTI Energies is the conversion to Natural Gas boilers. I would think you would be willing to support them getting an extension for this. This would make the ship cleaner than the other ships in the great lakes fleet including their competitor Lake Express. If implemented successfully if could result in the immediate conversion of the remaining steamships on the lakes from dirty bunker oil to Natural Gas. This would result in the older steamships being cleaner than the newer ships with diesel technology. However,  DTI Energies has only come up with the idea for the SS Badger this year. This technology needs to be tested for people’s safety.
                    > > > >
                    > > > > I wish you would reconsider your stance on the EPA extension. I feel if it is not granted, the Natural Gas option would go away completely and other ships with similar technology like St Mary’s Challenger, Wilfred Sykes and Edward Ryerson will not use it as well and be converted to a dirtier technology like the existing technology. Also if LMC chose to use the extension to pursue the dust collection system this could provide the basis for implementing clean coal as another fuel alternative. If the extension is not granted I am afraid at best LMC would convert to a petroleum technology that is bad for the environment and is just what we do not need in an environment of $3.35 per gallon gas and continued wars in the middle east. Or in the worst case scenario, they shut down completely. This would not only be bad for the 200 workers of LMC but would destroy the economies of Manitowoc and Ludington and shut down a vital transportation link. That is not
                    > > > > what is needed in this current economy. While you mention the competitor Lake Express in your article. The Lake Express does not have the capacity for large truck traffic and oversized loads and has had some mechanical and reliability issues that were not mentioned.
                    > > > >
                    > > > > In conclusion, please reconsider your stance on the extension LMC is seeking. There is too much at stake for the communities and workers involved. Also I am optimistic if they  the extension is granted the technologies that are being explored can be put in place will be a win win for our region. Otherwise keep up the good work. I hope to see more articles about other polluters like MMSD in Milwaukee with their sewage dumping  and etc.
                    > > > >
                    > > > >                                                                                                                                                                 Thanks Again                    
                    > > > >
                    > > > >                                                                                                                                                                 Allan Bigelow
                    > > > >
                    > > > >  
                    > > > >
                    > > > > PS. I noticed the online version of your Chicago Tribune article had two advertisements for the Lake Express. Given the competitive nature of both companies and the Lake Express parent company Lubar and Company’s heavy investment in the oil and gas industries it might effect the perception of credibility of the article. See this link http://lubar.com/investments/index.cfm
                    > > > >
                    > > > >
                    > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                    > > > >
                    > > >
                    > >
                    >
                  • Max Hanley
                    ... [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                    Message 9 of 12 , Jan 6, 2012
                    • 0 Attachment
                      On Jan 6, 2012, at 8:28 AM, "ooo" <bworden@...> wrote:

                      > The impact of Badger's historic designation on LMC's plans is minimal, if any.
                      >
                      > She is listed on the National Register of Historic Places and the Michigan and Wisconsin State Registers. She is not yet a National Historic Landmark, although that process is well advanced.
                      >
                      > The two state registers have no regulatory processes that apply to private proprty.
                      >
                      > The National Register listing brings with it a review of any "federal undertaking," but no regulation of private activities on private property. (The proposed TIGER grant would have been subjected to those reviews.) That process ends with a recomendation to the federal agency involved, which agency may then ignore the recomendation.
                      >
                      > The National Historic Landmark designation, if approved, will have no regulatory impact at all.
                      >
                      > Historic Designation that brings with it regulation of change is almost always by local government; although this can vary by state, that is certainly true of Michigan and Wisconsin. As far as I know, Ludington has no local historic designation program. Even if the city did, there is a serious legal issue since local designation in Michigan is, by state statute, expressed with real estate boundaries and the Badger is not real estate.
                      >
                      > Therefore, you can eliminate historic regulations as a factor in the decisions LMC faces.
                      >
                      > Bill Worden
                      >
                      > --- In carferry@yahoogroups.com, "Allan Bigelow" <allanbigelow@...> wrote:
                      > >
                      > > I did a google earth on the properties mentioned. The 311 S Rath property is about 4 to 5 blocks away from the carferry operation. The 602 S Rath property is only two acres of that big area of vacant land north of the ticket office and parking lot. Those properties do not have a real value to the operation. Just because they are selling them does not mean their hiding something or do not have a plan. To the contrary they probably are useing the funds keep the company in business after 2012.
                      > >
                      > > I think as far as options they have that they are presenting to the epa, I think they are constrained by the historic designations that the ship has obtained. I have a house in a historic district. There is alot of red tape involved to fix anything exterior. I can only imagine what its like for something like the Badger that has specific designations.
                      > >
                      > > Just because the owners of LMC are getting older does not mean they are looking for an exit strategy. Lake Express Ceo Ken Szallai is 64. Sheldon Lubar the owner of the parent company is 82. I think if Manglitz were looking for an exit strategy he could have easily sold it to Lubar or converted the ships to PM42 an PM43.
                      > >
                      > > I don't think the problem with LMC is any conspiracy theories. I think they are too SS Badger focused and are unwilling to develope another ship because of the historic designations the Badger has.
                      > >
                      > > --- In carferry@yahoogroups.com, "vanousterhout" <vanousterhout@> wrote:
                      > > >
                      > > > Bob -
                      > > >
                      > > > Thank you for posting your somewhat contrarian take on the SS Badger situation - quite frankly I agree that the folks at LMC are the ones that aren't telling the whole truth. Too many stories and too many contradictions coming from them. They're either hiding something or they don't have a plan.
                      > > >
                      > > > Based on what I've heard and read, I've come to the conclusion that the recent SS Badger natural conversion talk is nothing more than a diversion - the owners have no intent of changing to diesels, to natural gas or anything else. Logically with Manglitz and the other owners now in their mid to late 60's, there is no reason to believe that they're looking to make long term investments in the SS Badger. They're more likely plotting retirement.
                      > > >
                      > > > Which leads me to believe they're fishing for exemptions and unwilling to spend money to continue operating. This is not Charles Conrad we're talking about - Manglitz is looking at this as a business decision. At best he's looking to extend the operation a few years while working out an exit strategy.
                      > > >
                      > > > To that point, Manglitz has already started selling off his personal Ludington real estate including parcels between the SS Badger dock and his condo development, so it's clear that he's not looking to develop the SS Badger site:
                      > > >
                      > > > http://www.trulia.com/property/45652376-311-S-Rath-Ave-Ludington-MI-49431
                      > > >
                      > > > http://www.greenridge.com/property/property.asp?PRM_MlsNumber=2943592&PRM_MlsName=SouthWesternMI
                      > > >
                      > > > https://is.bsasoftware.com/bsa.is/AssessingServices/ServiceAssessingSearchResults.aspx?i=1&on=manglitz&appid=0&unit=152
                      > > >
                      > > >
                      > > > With regard to the ship:
                      > > >
                      > > > The 2010 Tiger II grant application states that LMC could not afford the $16 million cost to install diesel engines (a project that would have preserved the Skinner Unaflow engines for tours): http://www.scribd.com/doc/50082919/City-of-Ludington-Tiger-II-Grant-Application-for-SS-Badger-carferry-project
                      > > >
                      > > > A recent letter to EPA from Manglitz ignores the diesel engines option altogether, making reference instead to "diesel boilers":
                      > > >
                      > > > "LMC has investigated several alternative propulsion systems in order to achieve zero
                      > > > discharge: (1) installing new diesel boilers; (2) switching to No. 2 fuel oil using the current
                      > > > boilers; (3) substituting an alternative vessel; and (4) switching to compressed or liquefied
                      > > > natural gas systems. Each proposed effort was discovered to be either technologically
                      > > > impossible or economically infeasible on the Badger in 2012."
                      > > > http://www.epa.gov/r5water/npdestek/badger/pdfs/petition.pdf
                      > > >
                      > > > The key here is "economically unfeasible." Manglitz does not want to make an investment, or doesn't think one is worthwhile.
                      > > >
                      > > > With regards to the story behind the DTE natural gas project, the truth appears to be that Wayne Fox, the sales rep for DTE did attempt to work out a deal with LMC for a short time, but conversations never progressed to any real world engineering because the infrastructure needs alone far exceeded the costs for a dieselization of the SS Badger:
                      > > >
                      > > > "we do not know when DTE (or another entity) will install the infrastructure necessary to support this system. While we had thought
                      > > > it would be done simultaneously, DTE has advised LMC that this would not happen until there were enough customers to amortize the cost of doing so (tens of million of dollars).
                      > > >
                      > > > Such infrastructure cannot be installed by LMC. Without the infrastructure, this technology (natural gas) is not useable and could not be BAT."
                      > > > Page 7 - http://www.epa.gov/r5water/npdestek/badger/pdfs/petition.pdf
                      > > >
                      > > > The point here, based on LMC statements, is that DTE does not appear to have ever worked on technology to convert the ship - it looks like they only talked about costs to get natural gas to the Ludington dock. Without available natural gas, any talk of a conversion is just wishful thinking.
                      > > >
                      > > > To the feasbility of natural gas for the SS Badger, the reality is that there is not a chance that it will happen. Zero. Manglitz is saying publicly that a natural gas conversion would cost $50-$100 million (compared with $16 million to put diesels in the ship). If anything he's pursuing an overpriced option in order to turn around tell the EPA that they're mandating a ridiculous solution to the coal ash problem.
                      > > > http://www.sheboyganpress.com/article/20111211/SHE0101/312120039/Permit-could-keep-S-S-Badger-car-ferry-operating
                      > > >
                      > > > The whole bit about "studying" and "considering" is just PR drama to deflect from the issue of dumping and to distract the media off the simple fix, dieselization. He's gambling that he can get a pass to operate as-is for a few more years after doing nothing during the original 4 year grace period. In the end, the study will either confirm his $50-$100 million estimate or say that it isn't a good idea to retrofit a 70 year old ship. Either way, he'll be able to use the study to again lobby for exemptions.
                      > > >
                      > > > If the extension/exemption effort works, then Manglitz will operate a few more years using coal - if not, he still walks away a rich man. The ships and SS Badger property were bought outright decades back and the company carries no debt.
                      > > >
                      > > > It's a win-win for him. For everyone else, the future is up in the air. The one thing that is certain is that the current ownership will not invest in complying with the EPA deadline.
                      > > >
                      > > > Sentimentality aside, Manglitz is managing this as a business decision and when the time is right, he'll walk away. He's already cutting business and financial ties with Ludington, so indications are that he's already heading out the door.
                      > > >
                      > > > CVO
                      > > >
                      > > > --- In carferry@yahoogroups.com, "ss43bob" <ss43bob@> wrote:
                      > > > >
                      > > > > The question is who is not telling the truth? Hawthornes letter is dated Oct. 13, yet a Dec. 3 statement issued by the Great Lakes Maritime Research Institute saying they are wroking with LMC on coming up with a natural gas solution. However, last summer LMC said they were working with a Michigan source for the gas solution, and the head of that company has said they were NOT working together. All very muddled. From what I have heard & read, LMC has rejected storing the ash on board for later disposal, and I do not know if they still have a dieselization plan as a back-up. I am probably going to start a ruckus with what I am about to say (and these opinions are none but my own), but I have to ask how seriously is LMC (ie Manglitz) pursueing these options? Manglitz is on record as having told Charles Conrad he considered it a mistake to buy the ferries in the first place; now in the last year there has been a flurry of different stories concerning the fate of the Badger, from storing the ash to diesels to a natural gas conversion to a permanent grandfather clause to continueing dumping ash- I have to ask is Manglitz on a fishing expedition hoping he'll come up with the Big Catch or a big spender to cover his costs for him, or is he eying up the dock space wondering what would be the best spot for a condo?
                      > > > >
                      > > > > --- In carferry@yahoogroups.com, Allan Bigelow <allanbigelow@> wrote:
                      > > > > >
                      > > > > > Below is an email to the author of the Chicago Tribune article and the response. Someone is not telling the truth.
                      > > > > >
                      > > > > > --- On Thu, 10/13/11, Hawthorne, Michael <mhawthorne@> wrote:
                      > > > > >
                      > > > > >
                      > > > > > From: Hawthorne, Michael <mhawthorne@>
                      > > > > > Subject: RE: SS Badger Articles
                      > > > > > To: "Allan Bigelow" <allanbigelow@>
                      > > > > > Date: Thursday, October 13, 2011, 3:37 PM
                      > > > > >
                      > > > > >
                      > > > > >
                      > > > > > #yiv1911474172 P {margin-top:0;margin-bottom:0;}
                      > > > > >
                      > > > > >
                      > > > > > Allan,
                      > > > > >
                      > > > > > Thanks for your note. I think you misunderstood the point of my story. I'm not "opposed" to anything here. I'm a journalist highlighting an important issue. It's up to others to make up their minds about it based on the information presented in my story and from other sources. As you probably noticed, I put the issue of the Badger into context, explained how they had been given four years to find a solution and now are asking for five more years.
                      > > > > >
                      > > > > > As far as the natural gas option is considered, I'm told it was abandoned weeks ago.
                      > > > > >
                      > > > > > Regards to online ads, they are handled by a contractor with no links to the Tribune newsroom. Like any other advertisement in the physical newspaper, there is clear line separating the paper's ad content and news content.
                      > > > > >
                      > > > > > Regards,
                      > > > > >
                      > > > > > Michael Hawthorne
                      > > > > >
                      > > > > >
                      > > > > >
                      > > > > >
                      > > > > > From: Allan Bigelow [allanbigelow@]
                      > > > > > Sent: Thursday, October 13, 2011 3:26 PM
                      > > > > > To: Hawthorne, Michael
                      > > > > > Subject: SS Badger Articles
                      > > > > >
                      > > > > >
                      > > > > >
                      > > > > >
                      > > > > >
                      > > > > >
                      > > > > >
                      > > > > >
                      > > > > > Dear Mr. Hawthorne
                      > > > > >
                      > > > > > Â
                      > > > > >
                      > > > > > This email is in response to your recent articles in the Chicago Tribune and Twin Cities Star Tribune pertaining to the SS Badger.
                      > > > > >
                      > > > > > Per your article you are opposed to the EPA giving the SS Badger an extension for their current practice of dumping coal slurry into Lake Michigan. While I agree with and am appreciative of your previous work pertaining to cleaning up the Chicago river and the Great Lakes and I do not like the practice of dumping the coal slurry into the lake, why attack LMC when they are exploring other options to that practice? I would think you would be more supportive of what they are trying to do considering they want to comply.
                      > > >


                      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                    • Robert Strauss
                      There is a bill concerning the Coast Guard, I believe, that has an exemption of the EPA rules for the Badger attached to it. It has passed the Republican
                      Message 10 of 12 , Jan 6, 2012
                      • 0 Attachment
                        There is a bill concerning the Coast Guard, I believe, that has an exemption of the EPA rules for the Badger attached to it. It has passed the Republican controlled House of Representatives, but looks like it has an uphill battle in the Democrat controlled Senate. If it gets by them, then would have to be signed by the President.So it is 1/3 of the way there.



                        To: carferry@yahoogroups.com
                        From: cmstpps@...
                        Date: Tue, 3 Jan 2012 07:58:31 -0800
                        Subject: Re: [carferry] Re: Fw: RE: SS Badger Articles






                        Hi Group,

                        I know this is not directly related, but thought it might be of some interest. My parents live in western Washington State and live on an island served by the state ferry system. The have one boat that is 45 years old that they are looking at repolacing the power plant (this would be the 2nd time the power plant has been replaced) One option they are looking at is a hybrid set up where the boat would actually run on electricity once it was out of the dock and running. They are looking for ANY way to stop emissions out that way.

                        Maybe I am behind the eight ball, but didn't I just read here a few weeks ago that the Badger had been grandfathered here recently and no repower/ash collection was needed ?

                        Happy New Year to All !

                        Erik G. Jonasson



                        Visit Your Group
                        The Carferry List is sponsored in part by the Society for the Preservation of the S.S. City of Milwaukee.

                        MARKETPLACE


                        Stay on top of your group activity without leaving the page you're on - Get the Yahoo! Toolbar now.

                        Switch to: Text-Only, Daily Digest � Unsubscribe � Terms of Use


                        .





                        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                      • Robert Strauss
                        This is from the Badger s Facebook page: Congrats to S.S. Badger engineers Charles Cart & Bill Kulka for earning natural gas certificates @ AMO Safety Training
                        Message 11 of 12 , Jan 6, 2012
                        • 0 Attachment
                          This is from the Badger's Facebook page:

                          Congrats to S.S. Badger engineers Charles Cart & Bill Kulka for earning natural gas certificates @ AMO Safety Training and Research Center in Florida.

                          So it would appear that natural gas is still in play, as I don't see the engineers training in Florida just for the heck of it.



                          To: carferry@yahoogroups.com
                          From: allanbigelow@...
                          Date: Tue, 3 Jan 2012 15:41:58 +0000
                          Subject: [carferry] Re: Fw: RE: SS Badger Articles






                          Hi Bob. How did that post finally make it after all this time? I tried to post this back on October 13th. I was having problems with my computer so I did not think anything I sent around that time went through. There should be another one with EPA contacts.

                          I think subsequent articles and docs the EPA has published have proven Michael Hawthorne was wrong about there not being a relationship between LMC and DTE Energies. This is a link to the EPA docs on the Badger.

                          http://www.epa.gov/r5water/npdestek/badger/index.html

                          --- In carferry@yahoogroups.com, "ss43bob" <ss43bob@...> wrote:
                          >
                          > The question is who is not telling the truth? Hawthornes letter is dated Oct. 13, yet a Dec. 3 statement issued by the Great Lakes Maritime Research Institute saying they are wroking with LMC on coming up with a natural gas solution. However, last summer LMC said they were working with a Michigan source for the gas solution, and the head of that company has said they were NOT working together. All very muddled. From what I have heard & read, LMC has rejected storing the ash on board for later disposal, and I do not know if they still have a dieselization plan as a back-up. I am probably going to start a ruckus with what I am about to say (and these opinions are none but my own), but I have to ask how seriously is LMC (ie Manglitz) pursueing these options? Manglitz is on record as having told Charles Conrad he considered it a mistake to buy the ferries in the first place; now in the last year there has been a flurry of different stories concerning the fate of the Badger, from storing the ash to diesels to a natural gas conversion to a permanent grandfather clause to continueing dumping ash- I have to ask is Manglitz on a fishing expedition hoping he'll come up with the Big Catch or a big spender to cover his costs for him, or is he eying up the dock space wondering what would be the best spot for a condo?
                          >
                          > --- In carferry@yahoogroups.com, Allan Bigelow <allanbigelow@> wrote:
                          > >
                          > > Below is an email to the author of the Chicago Tribune article and the response. Someone is not telling the truth.
                          > >
                          > > --- On Thu, 10/13/11, Hawthorne, Michael <mhawthorne@> wrote:
                          > >
                          > >
                          > > From: Hawthorne, Michael <mhawthorne@>
                          > > Subject: RE: SS Badger Articles
                          > > To: "Allan Bigelow" <allanbigelow@>
                          > > Date: Thursday, October 13, 2011, 3:37 PM
                          > >
                          > >
                          > >
                          > > #yiv1911474172 P {margin-top:0;margin-bottom:0;}
                          > >
                          > >
                          > > Allan,
                          > >
                          > > Thanks for your note. I think you misunderstood the point of my story. I'm not "opposed" to anything here. I'm a journalist highlighting an important issue. It's up to others to make up their minds about it based on the information presented in my story and from other sources. As you probably noticed, I put the issue of the Badger into context, explained how they had been given four years to find a solution and now are asking for five more years.
                          > >
                          > > As far as the natural gas option is considered, I'm told it was abandoned weeks ago.
                          > >
                          > > Regards to online ads, they are handled by a contractor with no links to the Tribune newsroom. Like any other advertisement in the physical newspaper, there is clear line separating the paper's ad content and news content.
                          > >
                          > > Regards,
                          > >
                          > > Michael Hawthorne
                          > >
                          > >
                          > >
                          > >
                          > > From: Allan Bigelow [allanbigelow@]
                          > > Sent: Thursday, October 13, 2011 3:26 PM
                          > > To: Hawthorne, Michael
                          > > Subject: SS Badger Articles
                          > >
                          > >
                          > >
                          > >
                          > >
                          > >
                          > >
                          > >
                          > > Dear Mr. Hawthorne
                          > >
                          > > �
                          > >
                          > > This email is in response to your recent articles in the Chicago Tribune and Twin Cities Star Tribune pertaining to the SS Badger.
                          > >
                          > > Per your article you are opposed to the EPA giving the SS Badger an extension for their current practice of dumping coal slurry into Lake Michigan. While I agree with and am appreciative of your previous work pertaining to cleaning up the Chicago river and the Great Lakes and I do not like the practice of dumping the coal slurry into the lake, why attack LMC when they are exploring other options to that practice? I would think you would be more supportive of what they are trying to do considering they want to comply.
                          > >
                          > > Let���s face it this not some old coal power plant. A major constraint they face is how to convert a ship that has obtained several historical designations. The vessel is on the National Register of Historic Places which was awarded by the Department of the Interior. It has been awarded a historic site by two states, Michigan and Wisconsin. Its propulsion system was also awarded being a Mechanical Engineering Landmark by the American Society of Mechanical Engineers. I can only begin to understand how daunting task fixing the problem could be, as I am an owner of an old Victorian home in a historical district.
                          > >
                          > > The two options Lake Michigan Carferry is exploring are installing a dust collection system or converting the ship to clean burning natural gas need more time.
                          > >
                          > > If Lake Michigan Carferry, decides to proceed with installing a dust collection system several things need to be researched. One area is safe disposal of the ash. Another is safety of the crew and passengers. Another is operability of the ship. Lastly is profitability. While dust collection systems have been installed in other applications it has never been done for a coal burning steamship.
                          > >
                          > > There other option and the one they seem to be giving the most research and press to with DTI Energies is the conversion to Natural Gas boilers. I would think you would be willing to support them getting an extension for this. This would make the ship cleaner than the other ships in the great lakes fleet including their competitor Lake Express. If implemented successfully if could result in the immediate conversion of the remaining steamships on the lakes from dirty bunker oil to Natural Gas. This would result in the older steamships being cleaner than the newer ships with diesel technology. However,� DTI Energies has only come up with the idea for the SS Badger this year. This technology needs to be tested for people���s safety.
                          > >
                          > > I wish you would reconsider your stance on the EPA extension. I feel if it is not granted, the Natural Gas option would go away completely and other ships with similar technology like St Mary���s Challenger, Wilfred Sykes and Edward Ryerson will not use it as well and be converted to a dirtier technology like the existing technology. Also if LMC chose to use the extension to pursue the dust collection system this could provide the basis for implementing clean coal as another fuel alternative. If the extension is not granted I am afraid at best LMC would convert to a petroleum technology that is bad for the environment and is just what we do not need in an environment of $3.35 per gallon gas and continued wars in the middle east. Or in the worst case scenario, they shut down completely. This would not only be bad for the 200 workers of LMC but would destroy the economies of Manitowoc and Ludington and shut down a vital transportation link. That is not
                          > > what is needed in this current economy. While you mention the competitor Lake Express in your article. The Lake Express does not have the capacity for large truck traffic and oversized loads and has had some mechanical and reliability issues that were not mentioned.
                          > >
                          > > In conclusion, please reconsider your stance on the extension LMC is seeking. There is too much at stake for the communities and workers involved. Also I am optimistic if they � the extension is granted the technologies that are being explored can be put in place will be a win win for our region. Otherwise keep up the good work. I hope to see more articles about other polluters like MMSD in Milwaukee with their sewage dumping � and etc.
                          > >
                          > > � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � Thanks Again� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
                          > >
                          > > � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � Allan Bigelow
                          > >
                          > > �
                          > >
                          > > PS. I noticed the online version of your Chicago Tribune article had two advertisements for the Lake Express. Given the competitive nature of both companies and the Lake Express parent company Lubar and Company���s heavy investment in the oil and gas industries it might effect the perception of credibility of the article. See this link http://lubar.com/investments/index.cfm
                          > >
                          > >
                          > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                          > >
                          >






                          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.