What Are These Cargo Ships Carrying? | Chief MAKOi Seaman Vlog 

You should do one for great lake ships.

I actually know a few guys who work on those ships. So that's a big possibility. 😊

Thank you for another very interesting video Chief

@Chief MAKOi if you do let me know what you think of the history of the Great Lakes 3 biggest ship disasters. Carl D. Bradley, Daniel j Morrell, and the Edmund Fitzgerald.

@@DeaconDee80 I was literally just about to type up something about Great Lakes freighters lol

I agree fully with you: these videos are very educational for me, as I know nothing about ships only that they form the cornerstone of our economic models and the ease where I can get my online orders. So thank you Chief Makoi for the solid videos!

Basically the process is what they are doing at 9:43 of this video for general cargo ships. The Box by Marc Levinson spends at least 100 pages on this if you want to know more. The tl;dr is that it was extremely expensive to ship things using this method. Before containers they had what were called Breakbulk shipping it would take several weeks to load/unload in each port. All cargo was transported to the dock and stored in a massive warehouse right next to the ship (similar to the layout at 10:01, note the cut at 10:06 and how this took basically from early morning to late afternoon/aka all day), laid out on the dock then lifted into place using cranes. Longshoremen would have to use the different cargo types and try to pack the cargo so it would not be damaged, shift during transit, or cause unbalanced weight for the ship which could cause capsizing. All cargo was shipped by the individual item, so they would use the cargo shapes and sizes to create rows and wedge things together achieving a greater packing ratio than with containers. (e.g. take barrels to create a makeshift bin for wheels of cheese, wedged in place by crates to transfer loads to a bulkhead) This has several huge drawbacks compared to containers. The loading process had to be completed for each stage of the transport process from the ship, to rail, to trucks, to the final destination perhaps with each item needing handling dozens of times end to end. Ships were usually older converted surplus military ships, there was little reason to spend money on better designed ships when they'd be sitting in port anyways. Even with modern engines it could easily take more than 6 months to ship something across an ocean, 1-2 weeks for the voyage and the rest of the time waiting for loading in a warehouse. It was hugely labor intensive and required massive amounts of longshoremen on each end hired as cheap day labor, not the industry professionals you see today. Everything was out in the open there were very high rates of damage and theft of cargo, especially for things like alcohol which was one major import that was high margin enough to afford the cost. Being a longshoreman was also a dangerous job and due to the heavy lifting and equipment required and had a very high occupational injury rate with back, foot, shoulder, and crushing injuries all common. Around 3/4 of the shipping cost was spent on land before the ship ever went to sea.

@@nn123654 thank you for that very thorough comment. very interesting

@@nn123654 Great reply. My early years of going to sea with and without a license was always on break bulk ships. Some issues that were solved or made better by containerization was that some cargoes would 'sweat' and give off moisture and if going from a tropical loading to a cold winter discharge port, if the moisture condensed inside the hold and wet the cargo it could be damaged. Think cargoes like cocoa beans, coffee beans, cinnamon bark. Some cargoes released vapors which could injure people exposed while they were pumped into deep tanks. Cashew nut oil for one. Some cargoes were noxious and when the holds vented the air if it washed across the crew quarters you could get everyone stirred up. Green hides come to my mind. Some cargoes were valuable but still being shipped in boxes or crates and were subject to pilferage. Cigarettes and bottled booze were particularly vulnerable. Sometimes we carried livestock--pregnant goats and cattle. Usually we signed on an animal handler as well, but sometimes the chief mate got that pinned on his duty roster. It was usually more interesting sailing break bulk, but the work was harder, it paid less. You did get a chance to go go ashore in places no one else ever heard of (Matadi, Walvis Bay, Durban, Abidjan, Puerto Cabello, Bahia, Beira, Mombasa, Laurenco Marques, Monrovia, Dar es Salaam...) Overall, after I got enough seniority with the union, I sailed container ships, & very occasionally tried something different.

Best 10 years of my life.⚓

Seems like nowadays not much time for shoreleave. Especially with Covid.

I spent ten years as a conductor. Now that I'm seven years into my career merchant mariner, I can say that there is no comparison. I absolutely wish that I'd made the switch sooner. The biggest difference is having time to enjoy my life. Instead of being married to my phone, I have six months of paid time off a year. This is what freedom feels like.

Meh 😝

13 - 1,000 ft long ships 🚢. Standing on the dock at the rear really gives you a sense of how BIG and HIGH they are when empty.

Amazing and awesome!!!

Well, you're a pretty BAD chemist because it is NOT a massive explosive risk. From a flammability standpoint, your car, or you smoking in bed, is a by FAR larger 'fire' (NOT explosion) risk than an LPG/LNG tanker. Yes, I'm a chemist and I deal in high temperature combustion and hydrogen dominated chemistry all the time. Hell there were more fires from 'peaceful protests' this summer than there were in the entire LPG/LNG field worldwide. Have some respect for the petroleum engineers, professional engineers that designed those ships and the mariners that sail those vessels. In case you are wondering, there is this little thing that is called fuel to air ratio that is needed not only for combustion, but deflagration and detonation.

@@stevenharris9941 When you did all the school to become a chemist, did you not learn language and critical thinking skills? Did you not learn history and the fact that industry and building have evolved and become safer over the years, often times due to what has been learned when things go wrong? "Growing up" and "worried" both refer to the past. I'm sure he wasn't born a chemist, so that means he grew up without the scientific knowledge and his merchant mariner parent likely told him of the dangers involved in the job. Consider when the parent was working in the industry and consider that petroleum products weren't always handled as safely as they are today. He didn't say if he still thinks the risk is high and he never claimed to be an expert at dealing with flammable or potentially explosive products. Reading your statement, you make it sound as though nothing in life ever goes wrong. Air travel is supposed to be extremely safe, yet planes do crash. Is it impossible for an LPG/LNG leak to happen and mix with enough air to combust? Do the people in the industry not consider and even train how to handle various failures? You don't have to be an expert to consider that there is potential for a catastrophic event when dealing with this type of product. Notice how I didn't say how much risk? The other chemist also didn't speculate, just that there could be a massive explosion. People didn't expect the San Bernardino, California gas line (at the bottom of Cajon pass) to have a leak and ignite after a run away train crashed, either, in the 1980's. Fireworks are not expected to explode while being handled for shipping into and out of the plant, but it happened. People in Mexico didn't expect the main sewer line to ever explode, let alone explode multiple times. That is a good example of your air/fuel ratio point. The OP never mentioned anything about not having respect for the engineers and people working with the liquid gas. He actually didn't even mention them, yet you assumed he thought they were not capable. Luckily, my dad taught me how to spell the word "assume." He told me that when I assume, it makes an ASS out of U and ME. Some people just have an ego and use their emotions to read into a statement what isn't there. Information missing from a statement can be just as important as what is included. Well, I'm no chemist and I didn't even study it in school (other than what was in general science classes) but for my line of work, hobbies, and life in general, I have learned to analyze situations and consider what I know and what I might assume, from various points of view, before coming up with a response or solution. A good friend said that I am a calculating person. He was right and it has it's pros and cons. It has served me well for engineering/mechanical, legal, and social purposes. It would be dumb of me to assume that a chemist would use similar logic for work or personal life, but it doesn't mean I can't be left shaking my head when they don't.

@@stevenharris9941 an explosion doesn't have to involve combustion: you only require rapidly expanding gases LNG/LPG as liquids occupy a fraction of a percent of the volume they would occupy as a gas, if these cryogenically cooled and pressurised gas cargoes were to spill and meet sea water the would rapidly, violently expand with incredible force in the very same manner that highly pressurised steam in a high pressure boiler does when they rupture creating a steam explosion. But surely as a good chemist you would understand this, right?

@@CATASTEROID934 Haha, pressurized fuels are so scary. I can't imagine anyone who understands that process not getting chills if they see, or think about a dent in a highly pressurized canister of a fuel near them.

Thank you Chief for another informative video. :)

Maybe since RoRo ships are more akin to passenger ships, and not cargo ships - technically speaking. RoRo is mainly used for short hops that would need vehicles, aside from human passengers.

@@baybum7 Not really. Military Sealift Command (US) has a small fleet of converted Sea-Land fast container ships, with multiple decks connectable by ramps, besides deck stowage. They accommodate CH-53s and M-1A tanks to anywhere on the oceans. In excess of 32 knots. Built in Holland. Hardly short-hoppers.

"And while cars are probably the most common cargo, they haul anything else that can be driven or carried on" As mentioned in the video...

@@baybum7 I think you are thinking of RoRo ferries, smaller ships designed for short trips with people and cars, but I am saying that what Chief called a car carrier is usually called a RoRo everywhere I have seen. Google RoRo and see what comes up. And if he was only talking about Car Carriers, then he left out the large class of RoRos used for hauling trucks and trains and heavy equipment that are the size range as the car carriers, just have taller decks to allow larger vehicles. I think he just left out RoRo as one of the common names, which is forgivable because I don't think he works on that side of the industry.

@@martinc.720 Yes, my comment was that he didn't mention the more common name of RoRo when talking about RoRos!

A great sea yarn! Thanks for the first laugh of the day from Liz and Ginger (pic left) in Australia.

It's on his playlist - look it up.