I wish our Congressmen cared for us equally


#1

This in vesselfinder’s news section.

3 of the 11 ships should be made in India. Our govt could have stipulated the same. Want cheap, US tax payer subsidized LNG? Part of it has it be shipped on US flagged bottoms. But, that’s asking for too much.

                         Top Japanese fleet owners have applied for [B]India’s biggest shipping tender worth $7 billion[/B] issued by state-run natural gas firm [GAIL (India) Ltd](http://www.gailonline.com/final_site/index.html) [B]to hire 11 new liquefied natural gas (LNG) carriers[/B] to ferry gas from the 

A consortium of [B]Mitsui O.S.K. Lines Ltd (MOL)[/B]-[B]Nippon Yusen Kabushiki Kaisha Ltd (NYK Line)[/B] and [B]Mitsui & Co Ltd[/B] and another group comprising [B]Mitsubishi Corporation-Kawasaki Kisen Kaisha Ltd (K Line)[/B] and [B]GasLog Ltd[/B] applied for the tender when the deadline ended on Thursday, at least two people briefed on the tender said, asking not to be named because the details have not been made public


[I]Image: Mitsui O.S.K. [/I]

Monaco-based and New York Stock Exchange-listed [B]GasLog[/B] is the only non-Japanese firm to apply for the tender. In today’s market, it costs more than $200 million to build an LNG ship from scratch.

“The process of finalizing the successful bidder will take at least two months,” said an official who is advising GAIL on the tender. The tender will be awarded to the bidding group quoting the lowest daily hire

GAIL declined to comment.

GAIL needs the 11 LNG tankers to haul 5.8 million metric tonnes per annum (mmtpa) of gas from the United States beginning December 2017.

The keenly watched tender, a part of the prestigious [B]‘Make in India’ initiative[/B] of Prime Minister Narendra Modi, stipulates that three of the nine LNG carriers that will be on firm order have to be built at local yards.

GAIL will not order the ships directly at shipyards-both overseas and Indian. It plans to time charter the carriers from global fleet owners who will have to construct three of the nine LNG tankers in India as part of the ‘Make in India’ plan.

Prospective bidders are required to quote for lots of three vessels with a provision that under each lot, one of the vessels shall be built in an Indian yard.

State-run [B]Shipping Corporation of India Ltd (SCI)[/B] and GAIL have a step-in right to take at least 26% and 10% stakes respectively in each of the nine LNG carriers hired by GAIL.

The local shipbuilder winning the contract to build the three LNG tankers have the option of acquiring another 5% to 13% stake in each of these tankers, according to the tender documents.


[I]LNG Tanker Bishu Maru - Image:
[/I]
India’s state-run [B]Cochin Shipyard Ltd[/B] is the only yard that has fulfilled the eligibility criteria set by GAIL to build the LNG tankers. It has signed a technology collaboration pact with South Korea’s [B]Samsung Heavy Industries Co Ltd[/B] to build the LNG ships. It has also secured license from [B]GTT[/B], France, to use its patented [B]Mark-III LNG containment systems[/B].

“We have successfully completed a Mark-III flex mock-up, which has been certified by GTT, France. With this, Cochin Shipyard has completed all the requirements to be licensed by GTT to build ships for any client world-wide using their patented Mark-III technology. Cochin has become the first shipyard in India to obtain this coveted license from GTT. Now, Cochin fulfils all the conditions of the GAIL tender,” Madhu Nair, chairman and managing director of Cochin Shipyard, said in an interview in February.

The LNG carriers ordered at overseas yards will have to be constructed and delivered between 1 January and 31 May 2019 while those ordered at Indian yards will have a window period of between 1 July 2022 and 30 June 2023 for delivering the vessels, according to the tender terms.

As a result, each of the six LNG carriers built at overseas yards will be hired by GAIL for 19.5 years while each of the three tankers constructed in India will be hired for 16 years.

The three LNG carriers to be built in India will be entitled to receive financial assistance from the union government, according to a shipbuilding policy approved by the National Democratic Alliance (NDA) government which will take effect from 1 April 2016 and run for 10 years.

India’s shipbuilding industry has also been granted infrastructure status helping yards raise long-term working capital loans from banks at competitive rates.

[I]
Source: Livemint[/I]

                           [VesselFinder](https://plus.google.com/117582159141669298394?rel=publisher)

#2

[QUOTE=smoker;182457]This in vesselfinder’s news section.

3 of the 11 ships should be made in India. Our govt could have stipulated the same. Want cheap, US tax payer subsidized LNG? Part of it has it be shipped on US flagged bottoms. But, that’s asking for too much.
[/QUOTE]

It is a buyers market, so why exactly should Indian taxpayers pay to keep US yards alive?


#3

Because, like steamer says, it is subsidized by the US tax payer right down to the local level to the tune of millions of dollars per project. Not a lot to ask for a ship or two to build or crew.

Of course I’m not familiar with the deal so India, who is modernizing their military and industrial power infrastructure, might have had to kick something back in those sectors. Instead of the US mariner getting benefit, maybe GE or Lockeed will.


#4

Good luck with building an LNG carrier in India. I’ve seen one vessel built there - a small bulk freighter - and the quality left much to hope for. I wouldn’t be surprised if some of the steel and equipment was sourced from Alang…


#5

Cochin Yards are building a couple of aircraft carriers for the Indian navy. The wiki page below mentions the hurdles your talking about.


#6

[QUOTE=lm1883;182462]Because, like steamer says, it is subsidized by the US tax payer right down to the local level to the tune of millions of dollars per project. Not a lot to ask for a ship or two to build or crew.

Of course I’m not familiar with the deal so India, who is modernizing their military and industrial power infrastructure, might have had to kick something back in those sectors. Instead of the US mariner getting benefit, maybe GE or Lockeed will.[/QUOTE]

Again why should India pay for that? India could just as easily buy the LNG from another source.


#7

[QUOTE=Kraken;182470]Again why should India pay for that? India could just as easily buy the LNG from another source.[/QUOTE]

The point that I was trying to make was the differences in attitude when it comes to national priorities between the 2 govts. One wants to build the country’s infrastructure and the other is behaving more like a 3rd world country, exporting national wealth without adding value to it. If the Indian govt. can call for a global tender, with conditions that ships be built in the country, adding jobs and infrastructure along the way, why can’t the US govt. insist on the same from the exporters of LNG? After all, the LNG is tax payer subsidized.

India sure can buy from any other source and it does. So, why is India attaching conditions to shipping lines for US import and not to other countries from where it imports? India does not have sufficient LNG ships to fulfill its import requirement. Read the article. It’s the shipping lines and ship builders who are bidding.

As for why should India and any other country pay US, then my counter question is why should the US tax payer bear the expense for everything from foreign aid to defense of other countries, including yours, to pharmaceutical drugs to LNG? Why don’t you walk your talk and petition your govt to remove the country from NATO and let’s see how well your country survives without the protective umbrella of the US Armed Forces?

I hate to say this, but on this I agree with Donald Trump when he says that it’s about time the world was made to pay it’s fair share and get the US tax payer off the hook for everything.


#8

[QUOTE=Tups;182463]Good luck with building an LNG carrier in India. I’ve seen one vessel built there - a small bulk freighter - and the quality left much to hope for. I wouldn’t be surprised if some of the steel and equipment was sourced from Alang…[/QUOTE]

Hate much? How many times have you trotted out that ONE example on this forum?

India has successfully built '00s of commercial & war ships for decades and how many maritime incidents have you read that involved Indian built ships sinking due to sub-standard build quality?

How do you know that the owner of the example of your ship did not pay for the cheapest ship possible? After all, you get what you pay for.

      • Updated - - -

[QUOTE=lm1883;182468]Cochin Yards are building a couple of aircraft carriers for the Indian navy. The wiki page below mentions the hurdles your talking about.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vikrant-class_aircraft_carrier[/QUOTE]

From reading the article, seems like those hurdles are present because India is trying to design & manufacture everything in house, from the scratch. Give them credit for it. At least, they’re not stealing the technology like the Chinese do.


#9

[QUOTE=smoker;182482]As for why should India and any other country pay US, then my counter question is why should the US tax payer bear the expense for everything from foreign aid to defense of other countries, including yours, to pharmaceutical drugs to LNG? Why don’t you walk your talk and petition your govt to remove the country from NATO and let’s see how well your country survives without the protective umbrella of the US Armed Forces?[/QUOTE]
I don’t think you know jack shit about what Norway brings to the table in regards to NATO.


#10

[QUOTE=Kraken;182487]I don’t think you know jack shit about what Norway brings to the table in regards to NATO.[/QUOTE]

So, you don’t need NATO and US participation, right? Cool. Saves us money which can be used here.

http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_67655.htm

Today, the volume of the US defence expenditure effectively represents 73 per cent of the defence spending of the Alliance as a whole. This does not mean that the United States covers 73 per cent of the costs involved in the operational running of NATO as an organisation, including its headquarters in Brussels and its subordinate military commands, but it does mean that there is an over-reliance by the Alliance as a whole on the United States for the provision of essential capabilities, including for instance, in regard to intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance; air-to-air refuelling; ballistic missile defence; and airborne electronic warfare.

Answers your question about subsidies and all and why the US tax payer is owed?


#11

[QUOTE=smoker;182488]So, you don’t need NATO and US participation, right? Cool. Saves us money which can be used here.[/QUOTE]

:smiley: hehehehe

Im beginning to understand why Trump manages to sell his moronic worldview so well.

[U]We are NATO[/U], Norway was a founding member and the Secretary General of NATO is even Norwegian.


#12

[QUOTE=Kraken;182490]:smiley: hehehehe

Im beginning to understand why Trump manages to sell his moronic worldview so well.

[U]We are NATO[/U], the Secretary General of NATO is even Norwegian.[/QUOTE]

On a revolving basis. After that? What! You become ----?

Convenient that you bothered not to answer the rest of the comment. Facts hurt?

The point then and still is that the US tax payer is on the hook for a whole bunch and I wish that for once, we (as a tax payer) and national economic & infrastructural interests were given priority. Simple.


#13

[QUOTE=smoker;182492]On a revolving basis. After that? What! You become ----?

Convenient that you bothered not to answer the rest of the comment. Facts hurt?

The point then and still is that the US tax payer is on the hook for a whole bunch and I wish that for once, we (as a tax payer) and national economic & infrastructural interests were given priority. Simple.[/QUOTE]
And how much is US taxpayers, paying for the upkeep of the defences of Norway? Do you have any links or are you just full of shit?


#14

[QUOTE=Kraken;182493]And how much is US taxpayers, paying for the upkeep of the defences of Norway? Do you have any links or are you just full of shit?[/QUOTE]

I don’t give a flying fuck about Norway. That Norway is dependent upon NATO for her security and the US bears a major responsibility vis-a-vis Norway is a fact.

This thread is about how US interests and, in this case, especially how the US jobs, are at the losing end due to the US politician myopia and short sightedness. Period.


#15

[QUOTE=smoker;182494]I don’t give a flying fuck about Norway. That Norway is dependent upon NATO for her security and the US bears a major responsibility vis-a-vis Norway is a fact.

This thread is about how US interests and, in this case, especially how the US jobs, are at the losing end due to the US politician myopia and short sightedness. Period.[/QUOTE]
Where are you pulling this facts from? Your ass? I asked about links, not your first grade bullshit.


#16

[QUOTE=smoker;182494]
This thread is about how US interests and, in this case, especially how the US jobs, are at the losing end due to the US politician myopia and short sightedness. Period.[/QUOTE]

It shows how Congressional interests are most certainly not based on the best interests of the American taxpayer. I wish we had some way to outsource that collection of self serving hypocrites.

Quite frankly, I would not protest turning over governance to someplace like Norway, or any other nation with a parliamentary system whereby we could throw the bastards out when they go rancid. If nothing else since the American voter seems to be more focused on a(cultivated)cult of personality rather than a legitimate interest in the good of the nation and its citizens, a king or queen might provide them with the costume drama they seem to crave.


#17

[QUOTE=Kraken;182496]Where are you pulling this facts from? Your ass? I asked about links, not your first grade bullshit.[/QUOTE]

Read the URL, idiot. Read the article itself and figure out for yourself who’s bidding and how moronic you sound. Also, go to the home page of gCaptain and get some knowledge about how much India is paying for this LNG. Reading comprehension.

Don’t expect any more replies from me. I refuse to come down to the level of the lowest common denominator.


#18

Well, you don’t have enough personnel to staff you naval vessels, there’s one (comes from the commanding officer of one of your own). Norway also spends less than the recommended 2% of GDP, so there’s that. Wilhelmsen, who would receive NATO charters in times of conflict are going to be using foreign officers, at least that’s how a Wilhelmsen captain tells it, so there’s that.


#19

[QUOTE=Steamer;182497]It shows how Congressional interests are most certainly not based on the best interests of the American taxpayer. I wish we had some way to outsource that collection of self serving hypocrites.

Quite frankly, I would not protest turning over governance to someplace like Norway, or any other nation with a parliamentary system whereby we could throw the bastards out when they go rancid. If nothing else since the American voter seems to be more focused on a(cultivated)cult of personality rather than a legitimate interest in the good of the nation and its citizens, a king or queen might provide them with the costume drama they seem to crave.[/QUOTE]

When I read the comments from the supporters of these personalities, I am left flabbergasted. Surely, no country can have such low info and ill educated citizenry than the US, who are so hung up on isms, even though it’s contrary to their own interests.


#20

[QUOTE=lm1883;182500]Well, you don’t have enough personnel to staff you naval vessels, there’s one (comes from the commanding officer of one of your own). Norway also spends less than the recommended 2% of GDP, so there’s that. Wilhelmsen, who would receive NATO charters in times of conflict are going to be using foreign officers, at least that’s how a Wilhelmsen captain tells it, so there’s that.[/QUOTE]

That was a problem when the oil market was boiling and everyone wanted to work offshore. It’s not a problem now :slight_smile:
Wilhelmsen is a global player and have kicked all the Scandinavian Officers ashore, not much we can do about that. But we have the second biggest offshore fleet in the world, should always manage to move some equipment.

I can’t talk away that we use only 1.4% of GDP on the defences, but per capita we are only beaten by the US.