[QUOTE=Bayrunner;183199]We haven’t been seeing her as often but she runs a lot between the Norfolk harbor coal piers and Brayton Pt. I’ve also seen her on marine traffic going between Electro-Coal in LA and TECO big bend in Tampa.
Obama’s war on coal might do her in.[/QUOTE]
Last I heard she was getting scrapped. Hasn’t happened yet.
Coastal 202, Mississippi Enterprise, and Texas Enterprise still actively running the coal/fertilizer dry bulk trade between LA and FL. Thats about it as far as I know…
Thanks for the replies guys. I have been camping and was unable to read them until just now. There’s a lot to learn for a new guy…
Forgot where the pissing match re: Presidential candidates were situated, so here is as good place as any: http://www.vgtv.no/#!/video/126884/avsloert-donald-trumps-hemmelige-parykk-aaker
Sorry about comments in Norwegian, but I think you get the drift.
I was wondered about the possibility of starting a business selling these “wigs” on the US market, especially after this years election result is known. “Everybody” may want one.
One of his fans in Norway has gone even further: http://www.vgtv.no/#!/video/125595/halvor-overrasker-kjaeresten-med-trump-sveis
Again, you have to imagine the comments, but his girlfriend’s reaction says it all.
I personally don’t think that any of the Presidential candidates are majorly concerned with speaking about their views about the merchant marine because many people don’t know anything about it. Many people don’t realize that the majority of goods sold around the world are transported via ship. I hope that Trump would support the Jones act because of the way that he wants to “Make America Great Again” but who truly knows what will happen.
[QUOTE=KPChief;183193]I dont know for sure but I do not think there is much container feeder traffic between CONUS ports (said “not too much” not “not any” for all nit pickers). Why? Trucks and trains. Its cheaper to put the container on a chassis or a rail car and drive it from anywhere in CONUS than it is to load it on a ship in GOM as you propose and bring it to the US east coast.[/QUOTE]
A few tug companies have tried to do container barge runs between CONUS ports and found it not economically viable.
I can’t imagine that is cheaper to truck a container than to put it on a small feeder ship. A 390 TEU container ship like the TransAtlantic should have operational expenses per TEU far less than 195 tractor trailers. Even the expense if equipment should be similar with each big rig new running about $150,000. The biggest pro truck argument is speed of shipment, but at a higher price.
I remember reading an article a few years ago about this saying that the biggest economic block to short sea shipping is some kind of weird tariff system charged at each port, maybe that was referring to the harbor maintenance fee.
[QUOTE=Capt. Phoenix;183708]A few tug companies have tried to do container barge runs between CONUS ports and found it not economically viable.
I can’t imagine that is cheaper to truck a container than to put it on a small feeder ship. A 390 TEU container ship like the TransAtlantic should have operational expenses per TEU far less than 195 tractor trailers. Even the expense if equipment should be similar with each big rig new running about $150,000. The biggest pro truck argument is speed of shipment, but at a higher price.
I remember reading an article a few years ago about this saying that the biggest economic block to short sea shipping is some kind of weird tariff system charged at each port, maybe that was referring to the harbor maintenance fee.[/QUOTE]
Don’t forget the Tonnage Tax and APHIS fees. The U.S. Government isn’t going in the right direction with these, opting to increase their regularity rather than diminish it. No presidential candidate or president is going to stop the gravy train that is the federal government, I don’t care what party they’re affiliated with.
[QUOTE=DamnYankee;183709]Don’t forget the Tonnage Tax and APHIS fees. [/QUOTE]
Do either apply to domestic shipping?
[QUOTE=Capt. Phoenix;183708]A few tug companies have tried to do container barge runs between CONUS ports and found it not economically viable.
I can’t imagine that is cheaper to truck a container than to put it on a small feeder ship. A 390 TEU container ship like the TransAtlantic should have operational expenses per TEU far less than 195 tractor trailers. Even the expense if equipment should be similar with each big rig new running about $150,000. The biggest pro truck argument is speed of shipment, but at a higher price.
I remember reading an article a few years ago about this saying that the biggest economic block to short sea shipping is some kind of weird tariff system charged at each port, maybe that was referring to the harbor maintenance fee.[/QUOTE]
I believe you’r right that Short Sea Shipping would have been a lot cheaper than road or rail transport within CONUS and beyond.
Besides, it would have been much more environmentally friendly, especially if modern fuel efficient ships were used. (LNG powered?)http://ec.europa.eu/transport/modes/maritime/short_sea_shipping/index_en.htm
What is holding it back??
I don’t know but, aside from tariffs and protection of land transport, maybe outdated cargo handling by Longshoremen with outrageous labour agreements and a preference of tug/barge as the mode of transport in stead of ships?
I realize that it appears “cheaper” to operate a tug and barge, because under US rules you can get away with lesser and cheaper crews then a ship with equivalent cargo capacity. But is it really?
Ships can travel faster than the eqv. tug/barge, thus deliver more cargo faster between ports = more revenue/year/ship.
Risk is reduced relative to tug/barge transportation = less insurance cost. (P&I, Hull and Cargo Insurance)
I don’t know the manning rules for US coastal shipping, but modern European Short Sea Ships are operated with a very small crew.
Dependent on GT and trade, this can be as little as 4 pers. for fairly large Inland vessels like this: www.inlandnavigation.eu
Short Sea/Inland vessels , like this one: http://products.damen.com/en/ranges/combi-coaster/combi-coaster-2500
Can be manned by 6 - 10 pers. when trading within European waters.
For those who may wonder, here is a link to the EU Cabotage rules: http://ec.europa.eu/transport/modes/maritime/news/cabotage_en.htm
[QUOTE=Capt. Phoenix;183708]Even the expense if equipment should be similar with each big rig new running about $150,000.[/QUOTE]
A new Kenworth T680 is actually around $250,000 so a fleet of 195 of them is $48.75 million. I expect you could build a brand new, 100 meter long, 390 TEU container ship for that or less. The life expectancy of the ship is probably longer than of the trucks as well.
[QUOTE=Capt. Phoenix;183794]A new Kenworth T680 is actually around $250,000 so a fleet of 195 of them is $48.75 million. I expect you could build a brand new, 100 meter long, 390 TEU container ship for that or less. The life expectancy of the ship is probably longer than of the trucks as well.[/QUOTE]
I have wondered why there is no coast wise trade every time I travel on any coast wise interstate and see all the trucks carrying containers. If anyone knows of an in depth business plan for such short sea shipping I would be interested in seeing it. Surely there is one out there somewhere. I don’t know about the economics of shipping between US ports but I am SURE fewer citizens would be at risk.
[QUOTE=ombugge;183792]I believe you’r right that Short Sea Shipping would have been a lot cheaper than road or rail transport within CONUS and beyond.
Besides, it would have been much more environmentally friendly, especially if modern fuel efficient ships were used. (LNG powered?)http://ec.europa.eu/transport/modes/maritime/short_sea_shipping/index_en.htm
What is holding it back??
I don’t know but, aside from tariffs and protection of land transport, maybe outdated cargo handling by Longshoremen with outrageous labour agreements and a preference of tug/barge as the mode of transport in stead of ships?
I realize that it appears “cheaper” to operate a tug and barge, because under US rules you can get away with lesser and cheaper crews then a ship with equivalent cargo capacity. But is it really?
Ships can travel faster than the eqv. tug/barge, thus deliver more cargo faster between ports = more revenue/year/ship.
Risk is reduced relative to tug/barge transportation = less insurance cost. (P&I, Hull and Cargo Insurance)
I don’t know the manning rules for US coastal shipping, but modern European Short Sea Ships are operated with a very small crew.
Dependent on GT and trade, this can be as little as 4 pers. for fairly large Inland vessels like this: www.inlandnavigation.eu
Short Sea/Inland vessels , like this one: http://products.damen.com/en/ranges/combi-coaster/combi-coaster-2500
Can be manned by 6 - 10 pers. when trading within European waters.
For those who may wonder, here is a link to the EU Cabotage rules: http://ec.europa.eu/transport/modes/maritime/news/cabotage_en.htm[/QUOTE]
Yeah, all of that. MARAD has some short-sea shipping studies and they queried industries on what the problems are (http://www.marad.dot.gov/ships-and-shipping/dot-maritime-administration-americas-marine-highway-program/americas-marine-highway-program-reference-library/):
"Noted that the principal obstacles to effective development of short-sea shipping services were the cost of domestically built cargo vessels, high stevedoring costs in U.S. ports, and manning levels for self-propelled vessels engaged in domestic commerce, as well as the cost to shippers of Harbor Maintenance Tax (HMT) assessed on domestic shipments. "
So, in comparison between tug/barge and coastal self-propelled, obviously much of the costs above are comparable between the two for taxes, stevedoring, so the cheaper option relies on the treatment of tug/barge versus coastal freighter for regulatory purposes. In such comparison, US manning laws are the big difference. For example, that Damen coastal freighter you link–approx 1767 gross tons, assume that’s ITC, maybe you could regulatory tonnage it down significantly, by the ballast tanks being excluded, a few tonnage openings, not sure but doesn’t seem realistic to get it below 1000 gross register tons (maybe a nav arch could comment) but even if you could, it seems highly impossible to get it below 200, or 100 (which would be the ultimate for cutting down impact of US laws on manning). So, let’s say over 1000 GRT… The laws call for a master, 3 mates, chief engineer, probably two more licensed engineers, 2 ABs, 1 OS, maybe an engine rating (total crew 10, maybe 11). If you promise not to go over 400 miles or get it below 1000 GRT, can take off 1 mate, but now your market area maybe limited. Tug and barge, presume a tug capable of pushing an equivalent cargo capacity barge would be much lower tonnage, probably just need a master and mate, maybe another mate if voyages will be over 600 miles, engineers would be variable–tonnage would matter. Depending on how much regulatory tonnage a tug would be able to achieve, much less manning possibly down as low as four on some voyages.
Add in the lack of coast guard inspection and regulatory requirements (e.g. accomodations, lifesaving, more bodies = more lifesaving equip of course, and maintenance) not surprisingly, the tug and barge has been (and will remain) a much cheaper operation.
At the end of the day the equipment used and manning is determined by the customer, not the operator or government. Exxon or Shell wouldn’t use barges if they didn’t want to, but it’s the most practical way. They can specify they want cargo moved by ship if they like. Why do OSV’s have multiple DPO’s on watch or tug/barges have additional licensed personnel? It’s Customer specified. This just needs to be stated before blaming the wrong people.
The impediment isn’t always longshoremen, but usually us. If you can divert cargo through ports with cheaper labor it can be reduced, which is something we are already seeing. The only way to get shirt sea shipping going is to prove proof of concept with a foreign built ship long enough to see if the economics will work or not before anyone will build jones act tonnage. Even if it were just to move military cargo??
[QUOTE=z-drive;183800]The only way to get shirt sea shipping going is to prove proof of concept with a foreign built ship long enough to see if the economics will work or not before anyone will build jones act tonnage. Even if it were just to move military cargo??[/QUOTE]
Except established, cheaply operated, tug outfits have tried and it’s been cost prohibitive. I don’t think using foreign built tonnage would show anything different, though I have considered that exact thing.
From what I have been told by people fairly high up in Port Operations, there is a Fee each and every time a Box is moved. So, let’s say a box comes in from overseas and is dropped at the Dock, Move 1. It is then moved to a Barge, Move 2. It gets to it’s end port and put on the dock, Move 3. The OTR Truck picks it up for delivery, Move 4. I am sure that there are a bunch of other fees and charges that add up real fast, which is why it ends up looking cheaper just to have a truck or Train move it from the First port to near the final destination.
If there were some way to get these fees / charges down then I could see Short Sea Shipping being more viable but until then not much will happen.
[QUOTE=Tugs;183803]From what I have been told by people fairly high up in Port Operations, there is a Fee each and every time a Box is moved. So, let’s say a box comes in from overseas and is dropped at the Dock, Move 1. It is then moved to a Barge, Move 2. It gets to it’s end port and put on the dock, Move 3. The OTR Truck picks it up for delivery, Move 4. I am sure that there are a bunch of other fees and charges that add up real fast, which is why it ends up looking cheaper just to have a truck or Train move it from the First port to near the final destination.
If there were some way to get these fees / charges down then I could see Short Sea Shipping being more viable but until then not much will happen.[/QUOTE]
OK understand that. Who determines these fees? Everything else seems equal when comparing European vs US coast wise trade. The harbor tax is the same for all ships in the US except those involved in export and then the tax is 0. Ships of foreign material are put together in the US all the time. US mariners make no more than European mariners involved in short sea shipping in Eurpoe and the manning is certainly close to the same. Minimum manning on US vessels is VERY flexible. So far the mysterious fees seem to be the one thing that makes trucking cheaper…or is it really? For example; let’s assume 1000 containers just arrived in Jacksonville FL and need to go to New York state. How is it cheaper to move those 1000 containers with 1000 trucks and the 1000 employees rather than with one ship with maybe 10 employees? Bound to be some local drivers that can get these containers to their final destination.
[QUOTE=Jamesbrown;183798]Yeah, all of that. MARAD has some short-sea shipping studies and they queried industries on what the problems are (http://www.marad.dot.gov/ships-and-shipping/dot-maritime-administration-americas-marine-highway-program/americas-marine-highway-program-reference-library/):
[/QUOTE]
That link above seems to be broken. But this link seems to be a fairly good study from 2006. Urge you to read it very closely though as you will see everything has to be just perfect for it to make money. This has been talked about since at least the 90’s if not 80’s and they just cant overcome all the issues to make a clear case to do it [U]under the present conditions[/U]. Also note the important differences in what that market moves in EU vs in US. Such as transshipment traffic, bulk cargoes, and factory to factory moves.
If you want to make manning adjustments, give construction subsidies (above loan guaranties) or lower the HM fee for domestic shipping or possibly give the carrier a “tax holiday” from that fee for a specified time during start up. What we want to “makes sense” is a bit different from what makes money to pay off loans and stockholders.
Or how about these free market ideas from the EU…(from the above report):
[I]The EU has also provided some financial support to short-sea shipping through such programs as the Marco Polo initiative that provides for 30 percent co-financing of eligible projects and the possibility of government ownership of assets and leasing them back to the industry. [/I]
There you go, get the government involved. If you want to reduce our carbon footprint mandate the shift for x% of truck/rail moves between “port” locations to be by domestic marine transport. Get the terminals located where they make most sense, get the ships/barges/ATB’s built or modified. Prove the concept. Pollute less. Will congress pass such laws and spend such tax revenue? Geeze McCain would go apoplectic. They cant even take care of US mariners when they opened up exporting our natural resources again.
As I was trying to say earlier in this thread this should be part of a bigger maritime policy but the patchwork of present programs is for the most part a subsidy for big international based conglomerates. From what exists now it does not look competitive (enough) from financial and schedule standpoints. I sure hope is does become a reality someday but pretty sure I’ll be retired by then unless they need a duty engineer in the remote control center!
Here is the main MARAD page on America’s Marine Highway library for some other papers.
yes, which is why it makes sense to try it with foreign cheap tonnage before investing in new ships. It’s the only way to find out. The tug/barge outfits working inland and seem to get by, but coastwise won’t unless they’re ATB’s.
With the automation of ports coming to the US, should we see any savings in costs and efficiency?
Saltchuck and their less than state of the art vessels [El Faro], Matson which has some decent vessels make a profit along with others. We all know foreign vessels deliver from US port to US port when coming from overseas. How are things different in Europe where coast-wise trading is feasible from a business standpoint?
[QUOTE=tengineer1;183812] We all know foreign vessels deliver from US port to US port when coming from overseas. [/QUOTE]
Really, since when? Do you have facts to back up that statement?