Well this is a big coup for Dakota Creek


This will probably bankrupt everyone involved. The banks are going to take a beating too. Possibly the taxpayers too.

I agree that it probably makes more sense to replace enough of the foreign formed plates, to comply. Although most of the vessel’s cost is in equipment, it seems very unlikely that it will sell for enough to a foreign buyer.

With enough patience, they can eventually get the waiver. Maybe they should just buy foreign quota and fish outside the US until they can get the waiver.


One option MAY be for the present owner to register the vessel under a foreign flag, either alone or with local partners and do their fishing elsewhere.

Russia is renewing their fishing fleet. Getting a top of the line vessel like this into their fleet should be interesting to them. Lots of big fishing companies in Vladivostok to ask.

BTW; doesn’t Russia have quota for pollock in the disputed waters of the Bering Sea?


Sucks to be the yard. But anyway this is a easy why to compare building cost in USA versus Europe.

A ST-118 design (slightly bigger) built in Norway for Sealord Fishing Group Ltd (New Zealand) has a building cost of 52 million dollars.

What’s the 23 million dollars in difference between the Norwegian yard and the US yard used on? Gold toilets?


Is it actually built in Norway or is it built in Romania and finished in Norway?


As far as the article states the vessel is built by Simek.

Pictures in the link I gave.


I don’t read Norwegian.

But that is irrelevant as vessels “built by” Norwegian yards are rarely actually built in Norway, they just have the equipment installed there.


Did you look at the pictures?


I have no way of knowing where those pictures were taken.


Well I do, that is Simek yard, Flekkefjord. I live 2 hours away from the place.


Them why didn’t you just answer my initial question instead of being so fucking obtuse?


It’s called modern shipbuilding, you should try it in the United States.

Steelwork is low tech, labor intensive work that is best done in low cost countries. When a hull is built in Norway it’s done by Eastern Europeans anyway.


If “modern shipbuilding” is building a ship in another country then claiming it was built in yours like what’s commonly done in Norway then I’m happy with how it’s done here.


What constitutes a ship in your world? Just the hull? If all the equipment inside the hull is manufactured in Norway and the hull is manufactured in Romania but finished in Norway, where is the ship built?


There is a thing called Google Translate. It is not perfect, but it does give you an pretty good idea.
In this case,some sections were built in Poland and transported by barge to the building yard in Norway.

Section building is a common way of doing things in the world of shipbuilding outside of USA. It make perfectly good sense since it is now possible to transport very large and heavy items across oceans relatively cheaply.

Both the America’s Finest ant the Tokatu are designed by Skipsteknisk AS here in Aalesund are very similar in size, type and equipment installed (ST116 XL & ST118 respectively)


Your continuous refr. to “building in Romania” is what VARD does. They own and operate yards there and tow the hulls to their yards in Norway, where machinery and equipment is installed, most of it made in Norway, as is a lot of equipment that goes into vessels built in USA.

But of course to spend millions extra to build foreign designed hulls in US yard, from imported steel (w/25% duty added) by imported workers, make total sense. (Just make sure no plates or members are shaped when imported)

Any idiot can see the logic in this, especially the Shipyard Management and Owners. who are mostly foreign companies anyhow. (Aker, Austral, BEA, Damen, Fincantieri etc.)


Russia is already building their own fishing vessels based on the modified ST-116XL and ST-118 designs:


I recall reading that these ships cost about three times as much to build in Russia compared to Croatia or China - about $30 million instead of $10 million - but the new fishing quotas are only granted to companies who renew their fleet on Russian yards. Thus, I doubt anyone in Russia would be interested in purchasing the overpriced America’s Finest.

As for who gets to claim the fame for building the vessel, in Europe steel block construction is regularly outsources to cheaper yards. However, this does not mean the shipyard welding the blocks together is capable of actually delivering a complete vessel. Steel cutting and welding is nothing compared to outfitting and commissioning.


Yes I have seen Skipsteknisk steadily announcing new contracts for their designs from Russian Yards and Owners in the local paper and maritime media. Most of the equipment on board are also procured from here.

I was thinking more in terms of bareboat charter of Americas Finest, but apparently that option is not even available??

BTW; Kleven have problem with the two Polar Expedition Cruise ships for Hurtigruten:


Well look at that…a country passing regulations that are in the best interests of its citizens/industry/industrial capacity… Hopefully we’ll take note


Well, this whole “import substitution program” in Russia is related to the sanctions and counter-sanctions stemming from the crisis in Ukraine. The shipbuilding industry is happy, but the shipowners are not overjoyed when they have to pay more for lower quality products (not just ships in general, but also the onboard equipment) that are often delivered well behind schedule.

Anyway, we are getting quite good at teaching shipyards how to build the ships we design…


Appears to supply most of the processing equipment for the new Russian fleet of fishing vessels:


this is stoopid to be discussing sending the AMERICA’s FINEST to Russia…it needs to go to the Bering Sea where it is intended and Congress needs to whack CG’s dick and issue a waiver for the vessel.