[QUOTE=c.captain;123912] I hope someday there might be more and that we will build really large offshore support vessels in the US like well intervention ships and pipelayers and get the foreign vessels out of the GoM. Those vessels themselves would be high value specialized ships which I believe we have the capability of doing at a price equivalent with the North Europe yards of Norway or the Netherlands. Those are the vessels I want to see US built and all it takes is legislation to disincentive the future use of those foreign ships like Technip’s DEEP BLUE. Levy a tax on those foreign ships to work in the GoM which would not apply to a US built vessel and overnight you will see orders placed![/QUOTE]
I would also like to see some U.S built wind turbine installation vessels when they start building those farms off the east coast.
[QUOTE=GLMASailor;123922]I would also like to see some U.S built wind turbine installation vessels when they start building those farms off the east coast.[/QUOTE]
Big wheels are turning in that direction on the coast of Maine as we speak!
It’s a small step for right now but it’s a step in the right direction.
The whole cost of doing business is probably just more expensive here, and they goes beyond shipbuilding. I disagree that shipyards are broken, otherwise they would be entirely out of business. I think the mentality there there is a lot of room for improvement (or gum-mint subsidization) is more accurate.
Everyone has to remember, as said before, that the Chinese yards will never be competed with in any way you can really compare stuff to. If the US Postal service built ships, how the hell could you compare its price-tag when the government maybe offering ridiculously cheap prices subsidized to generate market share? Its destructive competition. Yes some can argue we subsidize yards here with equipment grants and building MSC/“navee” ships, but they aren’t basically footing a percentage of the bill for commercial tonnage. Chinese yards are almost all goverment controlled and “owned.” They typically have in-house r&d shared throughout the indsutry, as well as training for tradesmen through naval architects. Raw material supply chain and pricing/exchange rates factor in too! When the raw materials have to be shipped halfway across the world and pay import duties that’s something that adds up too. Large ship engines are often made under license in the country the ship is built in; thats a big competitive deal over in asia. Dirt cheap chinese yards with government subsidization makes the other asian yards drive down their prices, otherwise why would anyone choose them? Look up China Shipbuilding Industry Corporation and China State Shipbuilding Corporation. How you gonna compete with that?
Almost every yard I can imagine has re-invested and will continue to do so. The oldschool building techniques they were used here until way too recently (and still are in instances) are slow to go away, but are slowly doing so. It can’t and won’t happen overnight. The idea is that over time the more stuff they build, the more they can re-invest. Its in the yards’ best interest to do so now that times have changed.
You have to separate shipyards by type. Your NASSCO, AKER etc build stuff in huge modules usually a ship or two ahead. Don’t make it sound like they’re building them plate by plate!
[QUOTE=0rion;123925]Horizon lines is owner of the cranes and have a long term lease on the dock and yard.
I dont see them giving that to Crowley anf if they sell they want to sell also their antique fleet of container ships.
Crowley can build the ships, but they wont have space in San Juan to operate. This all under the current situation.[/QUOTE]
Horizon can’t afford to operate the way they have been forever. They’ll either bow out with dignity or collapse in a cataclysmic implosion before too long.
Don’t become to sad. Nobody is capable to compete with the South Korean heavy industry.
You have to stick to what you’re good at, building big military ships and… Mhm that’s it.
[QUOTE=lm1883;123953]The vessels will cost 209 million a piece. With a going day rate (international) on a 3500 TEU ship of $7500 USD/day, they would be paid for in 76 years on the international market.
A corresponding vessel will run about $40 million in a Chinese yard. Obviously, with out a domestic build requirement, there is absolutely no market for US built ships.
That being said, there must be profit or the ships wouldn’t be built. So one wonders what the day rate is in that run, or what they are charging per TEU. Anybody have an idea?
Here is the interactive Harper Peterson (HARPEX) website. It tracks box-ship day rates.
If you look at the site please note the day rates on 8500 and 6500 TEU vessels.[/QUOTE]
i don’t know what their TEU rates are but shipping a standard truck/car/suv is $1100 from the Mainland to Honolulu or reverse. That rate jumps to $1750 for outlying ports such as Kahului (Maui). The Mokihana carries its fair share of ro/ro in the garage, not including in containers and open flatracks. Same goes for the other ships, inlcuding Horizon. The domestic run carries a lot of autos and a lot of reefers. Lot of dough in those ‘commodities.’
The idea that Horizon is competition for Matson on the Pineapple run is a farce. It’s good for Matson so they never have to worry about gov’t accusations of ‘monopoly.’ It’s also a contributing reason why Horizon is converting 2 old steamers on the west coast to more efficient LNG or some such variation; they know they will be around.
The Mokihana demo/conversion cost between $20-25 million, on a ship that was already 23yrs old. It finished in Oct 2007. That loan was paid off many years ago and cash is still pouring in.
Matson just spends money like that, based on what I have seen. Tell me of another US Flag, US owned company that has 2-4 ships just sitting around?
As the old man on the Mokihana once told me, “Matson could make money by burning it.”
NOVEMBER 12, 2013 — Seabulk Tankers, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of SEACOR Holdings Inc. (NYSE: CKH), has entered into a contract with General Dynamics NASSCO, a wholly owned subsidiary of General Dynamics (NYSE: GD), for the design and construction of one 50,000 deadweight ton LNG-conversion-ready product carrier with a 330,000 barrel cargo capacity. Delivery is expected in the fourth quarter of 2016 and the order includes an option for a furrther vessel.
Seabulk Tankers now has three vessels on order at NASSCO, with an option for a fourth vessel.
Kevin Graney, the shipbuilder’s vice president and general manager, said, “NASSCO remains committed to bringing the most economical and environmentally sound technology to Jones Act owners and operators. We are pleased to extend our partnership with SEACOR through a third and potentially a fourth ECO tanker. This follow-on order is a clear indication that NASSCO is the shipyard of choice for Jones Act tankers.”
Daniel Thorogood, president and COO of Seabulk Tankers, Inc., commented, “This additional order at NASSCO puts Seabulk firmly in position to serve our customers with some of the most modern, safe and fuel efficient Jones Act tankers available. With three tankers on order at NASSCO, Seabulk, as an integrated shipowner and operator, will continue to offer safe and customer focused transportation solutions for many years to come.”
and here I was questioning the vision of Charles Fabrikant…shame on me!
[QUOTE=Goirish44;123865]Good for the jones act and good for the SIU! As someone that ships out of Philly it’s always exciting to hear about these jobs coming to aker![/QUOTE]
Matson is only crewed by the SIU in the STEW DEPT.
Sorry Sacco & Company!
Updated - - -
[QUOTE=Kraken;123955]Don’t become to sad. Nobody is capable to compete with the South Korean heavy industry.
You have to stick to what you’re good at, building big military ships and… Mhm that’s it.[/QUOTE]
Sad but true!
And these ships being assembled by AKER are made up of almost all Korean or Chinese parts.
Updated - - -
[QUOTE=lm1883;123909]Exposing our shipbuilding industry to predatory markets is not capitalism and it sells out your fellow tax paying American. While we are at it, we could remove those super costly gringo sailors, train engineers, and even better airline pilots. Think of how competitive we would be! Then, we can all bitch at the unemployment office while our locality is raising taxes because those great revenue streams are gone.
Infrastructure costs money. Education for our kids costs money. Social security costs money. Defense programs cost money. Need I continue?Offshoring industry displaces or removes tax revenue, especially at the local level. To make up for incongruence, taxes are usually raised and standard of living decline. If I have to sell you on that take a drive down the NY thruway and stop in every town or city. Go on a lovely holiday in Youngstown, Ohio, or Flint, Michigan.
Towns like that are great examples of tax
debasement, or what happens when labor is offshored.
Our jones act simply creates a domestic free market unto itself, retains industry and reflects the cost of doing business in America. Matson building their ships overseas would have been great for Matson. Matthew Cox could have given himself a bonus for saving all that money on construction cost. What would be wonderful about that? Well, the Chinese recoup subsidies paid to the yard, and when Mr. Cox fills up his car, or goes out to dinner,he supports the only economy left.[/QUOTE]
Actually, the USA does in fact practice protectionism in regards to both the Jones Act and our defacto subsidies via MSP program & the PL-480 Food for Peace Program (Does that still exist, either?), and there is NOTHING wrong with PROTECTING American jobs or industries. But we should have done this forty years ago, thirty years ago… twenty years ago. It’s a bit late now, but I still hope that we won’t lose what we have left, because it ain’t much, that’s for sure!
[QUOTE=SaltySailor;124545]And these ships being assembled by AKER are made up of almost all Korean or Chinese parts.[/QUOTE]
What kind of rules there are regarding outsourcing in shipbuilding? How much of the vessel can you build abroad without endangering its Jones Act compliance?
I’m just wondering because there are some components that are not manufactured locally in the US and have to be bought elsewhere. Also, I’ve heard rumors that complex hull forms with largely non-developable surface geometry are avoided at least in some US shipyards because there are production issues that would make them extremely expensive. Thus, many US-built offshore ships tend to have a rather simple hull form. Of course, that does not necessarily matter in the GOM, but if you’re heading to the Arctic in the future, simplifying the hull form too much may reduce the operational capability of the vessel…
I think Newport News Shipbuilding is one of the few places that can roll a complex formed plate of steel but their attempt at re-entry into the commercial market failed miserably with the Double Eagle tankers.
[QUOTE=Tups;124547]What kind of rules there are regarding outsourcing in shipbuilding? How much of the vessel can you build abroad without endangering its Jones Act compliance?[/QUOTE]
I think it is 25% of the cumulative materials and equipment can be foreign sourced but don’t quote me on that.
Controversy continues at the yard, built on 110 acres of the sprawling Philadelphia Naval Shipyard, which closed in 1996. In May, the Metal Trades Department of the AFL-CIO labor federation protested to the Coast Guard, part of the Department of Homeland Security, that Aker was violating the U.S. Jones Act by importing the bulbous bow sections of the tankers it is building now.
The Coast Guard said last month that the imported sections were 1.14 percent of each hull’s total weight, below the 1.5 percent limit. The union vowed to take its fight to Congress.
About 70 percent of the money spent by the Philadelphia yard “stays in the States,” Clapham said. This includes all 25,000 tons of steel the yard purchases annually, mostly from mills in Conshohocken and Coatesville and one in Indiana.
The yard defends the 30 percent it spends overseas, saying the massive diesel engines that propel ships and some other components are no longer built in the United States. It also imports bulbous bows from Hyundai Mipo to save money. The South Korean yard will build 70 tankers like the ones built here in 2007, so it mass-produces the bow sections.
Against all odds the news just keeps getting better! Hurray for Crowley!!!
Crowley Orders World’s First LNG-Powered Container-RoRo Vessels
Jacksonville, Florida-based Crowley Maritime Corporation on Monday announced that it has placed groundbreaking order for a pair of LNG-powered combination container-Ro/Ro vessels, becoming the latest in a growing list of U.S. operators opting for clean burning LNG in the Jones Act market.
Crowley said it has signed a contract with VT Halter Marine of Pascagoula, Mississippi to build two of the world’s first LNG-powered ConRo ships to provide Jones Act service between the United States mainland and Puerto Rico.
The so-called Commitment Class vessels are designed to travel at speeds up to 22 knots, carry containers ranging in size from 20-foot standard to 53-foot-long units, and hundreds of vehicles in enclosed, weather-tight car decking. The ships, to be named El Coquí (ko-kee) and Taíno (tahy-noh), are scheduled for delivery in second and fourth quarter 2017 and will replace Crowley’s towed triple-deck barge fleet, which has served the trade continuously since the early 1970s.
“Our investment in these new ships – the first of their kind in the world – is significant on so many fronts,” said Tom Crowley, company chairman and CEO. “We named them the Commitment Class of ships because they represent our commitment to our customers and the people of Puerto Rico whom we will continue to serve for years to come with the superior service they expect from Crowley.”
The vessel design has been brought to life by Warstila Ship Design in conjunction with Crowley subsidiary Jensen Maritime, a leading Seattle-based naval architecture and marine engineering firm. The new double-hulled ConRo ships have been designed to maximize the carriage of 102-inch-wide containers, which offer the most cubic cargo capacity in the trade. The ships will be 219.5 meters long, 32.3 meters wide, have a deep draft of 10 meters, and an approximate deadweight capacity of 26,500 metric tonnes. Cargo capacity will be approximately 2,400 TEUs, with additional space for nearly 400 vehicles. Crowley says the main propulsion and auxiliary engines will be fueled with LNG.
“When we sat down with Jensen and Wartsila to design these ships, we started with a clean slate to address and incorporate the specific needs of the Puerto Rico market,” said John Hourihan, senior vice president and general manager, Puerto Rico and Caribbean services. “We are very excited to add faster transit times to our existing service offerings while maintaining our ability to handle 53-foot and refrigerated equipment that so many of our customers have come to rely on.”
“We also understand what our car customers want, so we are pleased that these vessels will be the only ones in the trade to offer vehicle transportation in completely-enclosed, ventilated, weather-tight decks,” he said. “Coupled with the LNG fuel, customers can take satisfaction in that they are getting faster, more reliable service, while reducing the amount of CO2 emissions attributable to each container by approximately 38 percent. This design is a win-win for the customer and for the environment.”
“Safety and environmental protection were also at the forefront of our design process,” said Johan Sperling, Jensen vice present. “For example, one of the superior safety systems we engineered included a feature that places all fuel tanks behind double-wall voids with no exposure to the environment.”
Additionally, Sperling said the ships will meet or exceed all regulatory requirements and have the CLEAN notation, which requires limitation of operational emissions and discharges, as well as the Green Passport, both issued by classification society Det Norske Veritas (DNV).
Today’s announced order is the latest display of U.S. owners’ and operators’ appetite for LNG-powered vessels in the Jones Act market, following recent orders for dual fuel containerships from Matson, which has placed orders for two 3,600 TEU vessels at Aker Philadelphia, and TOTE, which has ordered at least three 3,100 TEU vessels from NASSCO in San Diego. In addition, Horizon Lines is also planning to convert two of its steam-powered containerships to the use of dual fuel for operation between Long Beach, California and Honolulu, Hawaii.
While the switch to LNG as a marine fuel in the Jones Act market is mostly praised, some have questioned the high costs associated with building such vessels.
[QUOTE=Tugted;125093]There goes the tug jobs out of Jaxs[/QUOTE]
Ok, yeah, I admit there is a definite downside to this news but even if they retire those barges in exchange for these new ships you have to admit that this progress is good for the herd as a whole, the Jones Act fleet that is. Crowley may be closing this one door on their tug fleet but I’ll guaran-damn-tee ya they’ll open another door somewhere else. They are a tug company first and foremost and will not turn their back on their tug guys.
[QUOTE=Kraken;123955]Don’t become to sad. Nobody is capable to compete with the South Korean heavy industry.
You have to stick to what you’re good at, building big military ships and… Mhm that’s it.[/QUOTE]
Again I missed your ludicrous post only until this late date but if I am not mistaken the USA builds tugs and ferries and barges and offshore vessels in great numbers…SIR!
Updated - - -
[QUOTE=PaddyWest2012;125090]Against all odds the news just keeps getting better! Hurray for Crowley!!![/QUOTE]
WOW! I completely missed this one.
GOOD CATCH THERE PADDY!
Will say this is another knife into the already dead corpse that is Horizon Lines. How much longer can they keep kicking?
