Battleship repair plans draw skepticism

For decades, the Battleship Texas has rested in the shallow, brackish waters of the Houston Ship Channel, slowly decaying. While tourists marvel at the last surviving dreadnought that fought in two world wars, beneath the surface, a system of pumps pushes out water seeping through the ship’s corroded hull.

Tens of millions in taxpayer dollars have been spent, and several strategies attempted and discarded, to keep the vessel afloat. Now the battleship’s caretakers are considering a new, bolder strategy: towing the 104-year old vessel hundreds of miles to a dry dock for extensive repairs. This operation would be costly and potentially dangerous, with no guarantee that the ship would endure the trip without needing further renovations.

“Every day that goes by, every year that goes by, we have more and more water coming in, more and more water being pumped out,” said Bruce Bramlett, the executive director of the Battleship Texas Foundation, the nonprofit that runs the battleship museum. “In the end, her days are numbered. If we don’t intervene now, the water’s gonna win because it always does.”

A copy of an engineering proposal obtained by the Houston Chronicle details several options for transporting the ship from its berth adjacent to the San Jacinto Battleground, down the ship channel and into the Gulf of Mexico before eventually berthing at a dry dock, possibly in Louisiana, Mobile, Ala., or Tampa, Fla. After repairs, the ship would be permanently moored at an undetermined site other than the one near the battleground; Galveston is a frequently mentioned option.

The proposal, commissioned by the Battleship Texas Foundation, was prepared by Valkor Energy Services, an oil and gas construction company that specializes in heavy marine transport. In the 21-page study, Valkor outlines several methods for transporting the battleship to a domestic dry dock, involving a combination of pontoons to keep the ship afloat and submersible pumps to prevent the vessel from being inundated on the journey.

Valkor also outlines an international option that would prove even more complicated: towing the ship through the ship channel, anchoring it in the Gulf of Mexico, then transferring the 27,000-ton ship to the deck of a massive semi-submersible ship. The battleship would then be taken to an international shipyard for repairs.

In the proposal, Valkor says it has received interest and price estimates from shipyards in South Korea, Ukraine and Vietnam. That option is intriguing to Bramlett because of the relatively low cost of labor and steel overseas.

The cost of such a project is unclear. The state Legislature has approved a $35 million appropriation toward the transportation and repair of the battleship, with the understanding that the days of seemingly unlimited public funding are ending.

Bramlett expects the cost to exceed the state appropriation by $10 million to $15 million, if not more. How will he make up the gap?

“Same thing we always do — find it,” Bramlett said.

Earlier efforts

While the Battleship Texas was considered one of the more formidable vessels of its time, serving admirably during both world wars — including famously shelling the Normandy coast during D-Day — age has not been kind to the ship.

Years of saltwater corrosion laid waste to the ship’s steel hull. By the 1980s , lower interior areas had taken on water, and structural support had failed in some areas. The original caretakers, the Battleship Texas Commission, lacking the funds to maintain the ship in its declining condition, transferred it to the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department in 1983.

The state agency raised funds to move the ship from its San Jacinto berth to a dry dock for repairs, collecting $15 million over five years before towing it to a shipyard in Galveston in 1988. After a14-month refit, the ship transferred to another dry dock facility on Green’s Bayou in 1990 for additional maintenance.

But the problems didn’t end. Bramlett said the Galveston dry dock only fully repaired 10 percent to 15 percent of the hull, and the ship continued to flood periodically. Hundreds of thousands of gallons of water were pumped out every day to keep it from sinking or tipping over.

The museum caretakers and the parks and wildlife department eventually came up with a plan to preserve the ship: Build a dry berth at its current location to keep the ship out of water and prevent further corrosion.

The Legislature approved $25 million for this project in 2009, with the Battleship Texas Foundation pledging an additional $4 million. The state signed a $5.7 million contract with AECOM, a multinational engineering firm, in October 2010 to design and develop the plans.

But AECOM determined during its initial surveys that the support structures in many areas of the ship had deteriorated so much that the ship could collapse on itself, even while docked at its wet berth in San Jacinto.

As a result, the parks and wildlife department abandoned the dry berth project and has spent at least $54 million maintaining and repairing the ship since 2009, a spokeswoman said. The work included two phases of critical repairs to engine rooms as well as installing an emergency generator, additional pumps and fuel storage to help address leaks.

With the recent passage of Senate Bill 1511, parks and wildlife appears to be wiping its hands of any future involvement in maintaining the battleship. The agency would enter into a 99-year agreement with the Battleship Texas Foundation, which would take over day-to-day operations of the ship and pay for its maintenance.

“(TPWD) has supplemented the operating costs, leaks, and frankly they’re pragmatic enough to look and say, ‘I don’t care who you are, if you lose money long enough, you’d be filing bankruptcy and going away,’ ” Bramlett said.

‘Mickey Mouse’ plans

Questions have been raised about the feasibility of the plans to move and repair the ship, given its age and condition and the heavy traffic in the Houston Ship Channel.

The proposal from Valkor Energy Services states that the project has received a “positive response” from “Port Authorities, Cost (sic) Guard, and American Bureau of Shipping.”

But a spokeswoman said no Port of Houston officials have had any conversations with Valkor or the Battleship Texas Foundation about the project. The spokeswoman said the Coast Guard and Houston Pilots Association would have final approval authority.

Henry de la Garza, a spokesman for the Houston Pilots Association, said the pilots have not been approached about the project. The association would need to see a naval architect’s report on the structural integrity of the battleship before approving it, de la Garza said.

“That would be our concern: that it doesn’t sink in the middle of the ship channel and cause all kinds of problems,” de la Garza said.

The proposed method of transporting the battleship — with inflatable pontoons attached to the sides acting as its “belt and suspenders” to keep it buoyant — has drawn some skepticism as well.

Miles Williams, a naval architect for the Texas-based Alan C. McClure Associates Inc., said the Valkor study’s image of the battleship with inflatable pontoons attached looked “Mickey Mouse.” The added weight of the pontoons could inflict even more damage to the ship’s already compromised hull, Williams said.

Bramlett said that any concerns about the method of transporting the ship would be addressed well before it departs its berth. Precautions would include divers aboard the ship to address leakage in the hull, additional pumps, and backup generators, he said.

The operation will be insured against catastrophe, Bramlett said, and if insurers raise any issues with the condition of the ship, they would go back to the drawing board.

“If it’s not doable, it won’t move a foot,” Bramlett said. “But if it doesn’t, its longterm survival is bleak.” nick.powell@chron.com