Who says everything is going up??
Ship operating costs is actually falling according to this article:
PS> This is for worldwide shipping and may not be relevant to US domestic shipping.
Who says everything is going up??
The outlook for worldwide shipping is good, but may be threatened by trade wars and protectionist policies:
Will the good ol’ Bill of Lading soon be a thing of the past? (At least in paper form):
The first LNG powered Crude Oil Tanker is now in full operation:
Presently at the Equinor’s refinery in Mongstad, Norway.
Liberian Register is the fastest growing in the world, both in ordinary shipping and the Offshore oil & gas sector:
Their US HQ will be strengthened by an offshore expert.
Watch out for Palau
Anybody here who are looking for a a new career? US ships and lots of foreign flag ships calling at US ports before heading to Europe MAY need to be HAZMAT certified soon:
Sovcomflot is in the forefront of “going green” in shipping:
A look ahead by the new CEO of NSA:
The cost of operating ships will increase in the year to come:
The cost will eventually be transferred to consumers in the form of higher prices for goods and fuel.
BIMCO’s reports on US soya bean export shows some amazing results:
China down 97% as expected, but Argentina, Egypt and Iran is suddenly importing a lot.(???)
A consortium led by COSCO beats Maersk in the Blockchain game:
Note that ALL companies involved, except CMA CGM are from Asia.
Will LNG save the US shipping industry?
From Splash 24/7 today:
Predictions for 2019 and beyond:
Appeared in Lloyds List
CHINA’S state-owned Cosco Shipping Holdings Co is moving forward with plans to sell the Long Beach Container Terminal under terms of an agreement reached with US regulators earlier this year.
The agreement eased national security concerns about Cosco’s planned purchase of Orient Overseas International Ltd, owner and operator of LBCT.
Cosco’s proposed acquisition of OOIL came under scrutiny of the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, an interagency group authorised to review transactions involving foreign investments and their potential effects on the country’s national security.
In July, Cosco said clearance from CFIUS came after the two firms agreed with the US departments of Homeland Security and Justice to place LBCT in a US-run trust and sell it within a year to ease the national security concerns over a China-based state-owned entity running a major US gateway.
Cosco has yet to formally announce the sale, but industry sources said advisers are being hired and bids of more than $1bn are expected from global port operators, along with pension funds and private equity.
The expectation is that the sale will be completed by June 2019 at the latest because of the agreement with US regulators in July of a sale within one year.
In August, the Port of Long Beach said that the third and final phase of the Middle Harbor Terminal Redevelopment Project, to be run by LBCT, remained underway and on track to be completed on time and on budget.
POLB said the project had not been affected by corporate changes to LBCT’s parent company OOIL. Following the sale of LBCT, it said the new owner would take over the historic 40-year, $4.6bn lease that OOIL signed with POLB in 2012.
When finished, the facility operated by LBCT will be a 311-acre “modern marvel” equipped with the most advanced technologies in North America and the cleanest available cargo handling equipment, the port said.
“Phase 3 completes the creation of the most innovative, efficient and clean terminal in the Americas,” said LBCT president Anthony Otto, who has worked with the port on the modernisation project from concept to realisation. “We’ve had tremendous success with the first two phases, and we are excited to be closing in on full build-out.”
Construction began in 2011 on the container terminal, which is designed to handle more than twice as much cargo as the two older terminals it is replacing. On completion, the facility will have an annual capacity of 3.3m teu.
Key features include a 4,250 ft concrete wharf for working three big ships simultaneously, 14 dual-hoist super post-Panamax cranes to accommodate 22,000-teu ships, and an on-dock rail yard for moving 1.1m teu a year.
Digitisation in shipping is progressing on many fronts and progressive operators wants to stay ahead of the pack with their own research facilities:
Viking ship rigging for those who may wonder:
Another company to introduce a new product to improve utilisation and benefits of digitisation in shipping:
Sanctions may be bad for some and good for others:
It is not always the target that suffer though.
From today’s LL:
MATSON NAVIGATION has filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, aiming to overturn two decisions by the Maritime Administration that allow APL to operate shipping services to Guam and the Northern Mariana Islands while receiving a federal subsidy under the US Maritime Security Program.
“This case involves two MARAD decisions approving the replacement of two vessels receiving subsidies under MSP Agreement Numbers MA/MSP-54 and MA/MSP-57 with two vessels, renamed the APL Guam and APL Saipan, operated by APL Lines, Inc, APL Marine Services, Ltd, and APL Maritime, Ltd,” Matson states in its filing.
“Whereas the vessels originally subsidized under these agreements operated in the Middle East, the replacement vessels are used by APL to carry cargo originating on the west coast of the United States to Guam and Saipan, both of which are US territories. They directly compete with Matson’s unsubsidized vessels that operate in these domestic trade routes,” Matson’s filing states.
While the MSP payments were meant to level the playing field between lower-priced foreign competition and more costly US operations, Matson’s claim is that the field has in fact been tilted against them by MARAD’s decisions to maintain subsidies for APL.
Matson claims that, “As a result of the APL decisions and the MSP subsidies resulting therefrom, APL is able to offer significantly lower prices than Matson for shipping cargo on the same routes, driving carriage from Matson to APL and altering the competitive balance in this domestic market.”
It claims that between the fall of 2016 and the fall of 2017, the same timeframe in which the APL Saipan was approved for inclusion in the MSP, “the volume of containers Matson carried in the ‘Guam Service’ declined by 23%.”
The US Maritime Security Program was first established in 1996 under the provisions of the Merchant Marine Act of 1936 which authorized the secretary of transportation to provide an “operating-differential subsidy” (ODS) to US-flag ship operators for the operation of their vessels in essential services in the foreign commerce of the United States.
According to The Federal Register , a US government publication, these long-term ODS payments are generally based on the difference between US operating costs, primarily wages, and those of principal foreign competitors.
The payments were meant to level the playing field between lower-priced foreign competition and more costly US operations.
“The ODS programme helped to maintain a US-flag merchant fleet to serve both the commercial and national security needs of the United States,” The Federal Register states. In a word, the ODS is a financial offset that enables US military forces to make use of US-flag ships instead of relying on foreign operators.
In 1996, when the MSP was established, participating carriers were required to operate eligible vessels in “the foreign commerce of the United States, and certain domestic areas such as Guam” with a minimum of operating restrictions, for at least 320 days in any fiscal year.
Payments to the operators started at $2.3m per ship, and decreased to $2.1m per ship per year after that. To ensure the carriage of military cargoes, MSP payments would be reduced for each day any vessel carried civilian bulk preference cargoes in excess of 7,500 tons.
In its filing, Matson claims that the APL ships are continuing to receive a subsidy from the US government under the MSP, but that the APL ships do not meet the requirements.
“The APL vessels are ineligible for MSP subsidies because they do not operate exclusively either in foreign trade or in mixed foreign trade and domestic trade permitted under a registry endorsement,” the filing states.
“Specifically, trade with Saipan is neither foreign trade nor domestic trade permitted under a registry endorsement. Accordingly, the APL vessels do not meet the statutory and/or regulatory eligibility requirements,” the filing argues.
Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP, the law form representing Matson Navigation declined to comment on the case, but provided Lloyd’s List with a copy of Matson Navigation’s filing in the District Court. MARAD officials did not respond to an emailed request for comment.
Block chain is everywhere. Now also to check out worldwide bunker sources: