Nov 17, 2019
13,308
7,884
136
You may remember the EverWhatever stuck in the canal a while back causing massing shipping disruptions.


Well, in case you missed it recently, the same company is at it again:

Initial attempt to refloat Ever Forward in Chesapeake Bay unsuccessful, authorities to try again Wednesday

www.baltimoresun.com.ico
The Baltimore Sun|28 minutes ago
The Coast Guard said it would again try to rescue the Ever Forward on Wednesday, when the tide will be higher. The ship ran aground outside the shipping channel two weeks ago.
 

Amused

Elite Member
Apr 14, 2001
57,355
19,535
146
You may remember the EverWhatever stuck in the canal a while back causing massing shipping disruptions.


Well, in case you missed it recently, the same company is at it again:

Initial attempt to refloat Ever Forward in Chesapeake Bay unsuccessful, authorities to try again Wednesday

www.baltimoresun.com.ico
The Baltimore Sun|28 minutes ago
The Coast Guard said it would again try to rescue the Ever Forward on Wednesday, when the tide will be higher. The ship ran aground outside the shipping channel two weeks ago.

And right on Q the Qunts are claiming it is full of trafficked children.

 
Last edited:
  • Haha
Reactions: hal2kilo

sdifox

No Lifer
Sep 30, 2005
100,245
17,895
126
Evergreen is the fourth largest container shipping company on the planet. They operate 150 container ships.

Looks like Baltimore is a pain to get to
 
Last edited:

hal2kilo

Lifer
Feb 24, 2009
26,065
12,279
136
Saw some footage yesterday. That thing is embedded on the bottom. These monster freighters have so much mass, they just keep on going. The hull line is exposed by about 10 feet. Good luck literally digging and dredging it out.
 

GodisanAtheist

Diamond Member
Nov 16, 2006
8,328
9,711
136
Wonder if we're ever going to get to a point where it makes more sense to have a literal floating deepwater port to offload cargo containers onto smaller container ships or some sort of automated trolly system, to then go to an inland port where they are put on trains and shipped wherever for local distribution networks to handle.

This "bringing a ship right up to land" thing seems to be problematic. Might make more sense to take the land out to the ships.
 

sdifox

No Lifer
Sep 30, 2005
100,245
17,895
126
Wonder if we're ever going to get to a point where it makes more sense to have a literal floating deepwater port to offload cargo containers onto smaller container ships or some sort of automated trolly system, to then go to an inland port where they are put on trains and shipped wherever for local distribution networks to handle.

This "bringing a ship right up to land" thing seems to be problematic. Might make more sense to take the land out to the ships.


Apparently it is the cargo rebalancing that takes time.
The post I linked in the previous reply explained why they prefer to bring the ship as close to destination as possible.
 
Last edited:

Thump553

Lifer
Jun 2, 2000
12,839
2,625
136
Wonder if we're ever going to get to a point where it makes more sense to have a literal floating deepwater port to offload cargo containers onto smaller container ships or some sort of automated trolly system, to then go to an inland port where they are put on trains and shipped wherever for local distribution networks to handle.

This "bringing a ship right up to land" thing seems to be problematic. Might make more sense to take the land out to the ships.

That's very similar to a huge project Singapore has gong on now (apparently not content to already be the busiest/largest port in world);
 
  • Like
Reactions: GodisanAtheist