Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
International Association of Marine and Shipping Professionals
NEWS BULLETIN 16 – 22 April 2018
CALL US ON +41 22 519 27 35
WWW.IAMSP.ORG
The International Association of Marine and Shipping Professionals (IAMSP) is the
professional body for Marine and Shipping professionals world-wide, formed in 2015. The
association is an independent, non-political organization aims to:
Contribute to the promotion and protection of maritime activities of the shipping
industry, the study of their development opportunities and more generally everything
concerning these activities.
Promote the development of occupations related to maritime and shipping; serve as a
point of contact and effective term for the business relationship with the shipping industry
(charter brokers, traders, shipping agents, Marine surveyors, ship inspectors, ship-managers,
sailors, and stevedores etc.).
Ensuring the representation of its members to the institutions, national and
international organizations as well as with governments, communities and professional
groups while promoting the exchange of information, skills and the exchange of
experience.
Develop the partnership relations sponsorship, collaboration between IAMSP and
other associations, companies, national and international organizations involved in
activities related to Maritimes and shipping.
Contribute to the update and improvement of professional knowledge of its members
and raise their skill levels to international standards.
Progress towards a comprehensive and integrated view of all marine areas and the
activities and resources related to the sea.
About I.A.M.S.P
Port development Somaliland: Emiratis plough millions into a country that no one
recognises
15/04/2018
Sohar Port and Freezone signed an agreement with Sohar Flour Mills for the lease of a ten hectare plot
within the port area for the construction and management of 12 grain storage silos, each boasting a storage
capacity of 13,000 tonnes.
Under the agreement, Sohar Flour Mills will also oversee the construction and development of a new agro
bulk terminal and deep water berth, which will be dedicated to handling the rapidly growing volumes of
agro-commodities moving through Sohar Port, a press release said.
The agreement was signed on Wednesday at a ceremony held at Sohar Port and Freezone offices. Mark
Geilenkirchen, Sohar Port and Freezone CEO, said, ―Aligning with Oman‘s national food security strategy,
we moved to set up a dedicated ‗food cluster‘ within Sohar Port and Freezone, which essentially forms the
basis for an entire upstream and downstream food production, packaging and distribution ecosystem. The
construction of these large capacity grain silos certainly highlights the rapid growth and development of the
food and agriculture sector in Sohar and aligns with the country‘s continued economic diversification
efforts.‖
Sohar Flour Mills is a partnership between Atyab Investments, wholly-owned by Oman Flour Mills, and
Essa Al Ghurair Investments based in the UAE. The company has already invested in a state-of-the-art
RO15mn flour mill located at the port, which is expected to become operational by the end of third quarter
this year.
The terminal will be dedicated to the import and export of agricultural bulk: wheat, rice, barley, and other
grains. It will be able to load and unload grain at a rate of 600 tonnes per hour. In its first phase, the facility
will have a wheat milling capacity of 550MT per day with a potential to expand to 2,000MT per day in
later phases.
[Muscat Daily]
14/04/2018
Somalia‘s federal government can do little to stop the project.
The ancient port town of Berbera in Somaliland, a breakaway state in northern Somalia, is generally a
sleepy place. The heat, which can reach 50 degrees Celsius in the summer, stifles even the dogs. Yet
visitors will find it buzzing at the moment. Near the edge of town, sand and rubble fill the space where,
until recently, there were 19th-century Ottoman traders‘ houses. New buildings are springing up. A little
out to sea, as half a dozen ships idle in the sun, a barge from Dubai hauls a colossal crane towards the shore.
Port development Oman: Sohar to construct new agro bulk terminal
INTERNATIONAL news
All of this activity relates to a new port being
built by DP World, a company mostly owned by
the government of Dubai, part of the United
Arab Emirates (UAE). At the moment, Berbera‘s
port is small—used mostly for the export of
livestock to the Persian Gulf, and the import of
goods to Hargeisa, the capital of Somaliland.
However, over the next decade or so, thanks to
DP World, it could turn into one of east Africa‘s
biggest. The port and another Emirati project, to
build a military base in Berbera, are powerful
reminders of how money from the Gulf is
changing the Horn of Africa. It also risks
exacerbating the struggle between Somalia‘s
weak, but internationally recognised federal
government in Mogadishu and its restive,
secessionist regions.
The Berbera port, which will cost some $450m, is by far the biggest investment in Somaliland since the
province declared independence from Somalia in 1991 (in practical, but not legal, terms it is a separate
country). It has taken on a new significance since February, when DP World was thrown out of
neighbouring Djibouti, where it had operated the main port since 2009. Djibouti currently handles over 90%
of Ethiopia‘s sea trade, and also hosts French, American and Chinese naval bases. Somaliland officials
probably hope to steal some of that traffic. In March Ethiopia announced it had bought a 19% stake in the
Berbera port.
The project annoys politicians in Mogadishu, who fear losing more of their already meagre authority. So
they have kicked back at the UAE. Last month parliament passed a law banning DP World from all of
Somalia (something it cannot enforce). On April 8th the authorities in Mogadishu temporarily seized an
Emirati plane carrying some $9.6m in cash, apparently intended for soldiers in Puntland, another
autonomous state, being trained by the UAE. On April 11th the defence minister announced that Somalia
would end a similar programme in which the UAE paid and trained soldiers in the national army, who will
henceforth be paid by the (penniless) federal government.
Officials in Somaliland are unruffled. The federal government ―cannot control even ten square kilometres of
Mogadishu‖, says Liban Yusuf Osman, Somaliland‘s deputy foreign minister, dismissing its objection to the
port deal. But the dispute drives a big wedge between the two governments, says Rashid Abdi of
International Crisis Group, a Brussels-based NGO. It does not help that many politicians in Mogadishu are
thought to have taken money from Qatar, the UAE‘s rival, or that Turkey, another rival, is one of Somalia‘s
biggest foreign investors.
Indeed, the government in Mogadishu is a mess, thanks in part to constant manoeuvring by foreign-funded
politicians. On April 9th the speaker of parliament, Mohamed Osman Jawari, stood down, having
apparently lost a power struggle with the prime minister, Hassan Ali Khayre, and the president, Mohamed
Abdullahi Mohamed, known by his nickname ―Farmaajo‖.
A few days before, African Union soldiers had to step in after Mr Jawari‘s bodyguards stormed the
parliament and ran up against troops loyal to the prime minister. Both sides ostensibly oppose the port in
Oceans: Current that keeps Europe warm is weakening
Berbera, but Mr Jawari saw an opportunity to seize more power for parliament by holding a (symbolic) vote
on the deal, without consulting Mr Mohamed.
The bickering does not help the cause of a unified Somalia. The government in Mogadishu has little to offer
the country‘s regions. That allows countries like the UAE to swoop in and fill the gaps. Al-Shabab, a
terrorist group linked to al-Qaeda, continues to mount successful attacks. On April 1st dozens of Ugandan
soldiers were killed by the jihadists in the most deadly raid in over a year. The greater the chaos in the areas
ostensibly controlled by federal government, the smaller the incentive for regions such as Somaliland to
care what its politicians think.
[The Economist]
13/04/2018
By Jason Daley
Two new studies show the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation has decreased 15 to 20 percent
over the last 150 years.
Great Britain and Ireland can be a little chilly, but they‘re surprisingly balmy for their latitude. These
regions have an ocean current to thank for that warm(ish) weather. Known as the Atlantic Meridional
Overturning Circulation (AMOC), the current works like a conveyor belt, drawing warm water up from the
Gulf Stream to North America‘s east coast and then shunting it toward Europe.
But, as Victoria Gill at the BBC reports, two new studies suggest that the AMOC is the weakest it‘s been in
over 1,600 years, with the most drastic changes taking place in the last 150 years.
The first study, entitled Anomalously weak Labrador Sea convection and Atlantic overturning during the
past 150 years, published in the journal Nature, addresses the history of the AMOC. Researchers studied
the size of the grains in cores of sediment from the ocean floor. As Andrea Thompson at Scientific
American reports in the article Slow-Motion Ocean: Atlantic‘s Circulation Is Weakest in 1,600 Years, the
stronger a current is, the larger the grains of sediment it can move, allowing researchers to map changes in
current strength by sediment size. The team also looked for tiny fossil critters, known as foraminifera of
―forams,‖ to get a sense of ocean temperatures. Since some species of foram thrive in warm waters while
others prefer cooler temps, researchers can use foram species as a rough thermometer for past ocean
temperature.
The Atlantic meridional overturning circulation (AMOC) and the subpolar gyre, where ocean waters cool when the
AMOC weakens. Credit: Nature
In the second study in Nature, entitled Observed fingerprint of a weakening Atlantic Ocean overturning
circulation, the team used state-of-the-art climate models and a century of ocean sea surface temperatures to
study AMOC changes. The results of both studies suggest that the AMOC is weak, but when that change
started is up for debate.
As Summer K. Praetorius writes for Nature, the sediment core study suggests that the AMOC began
weakening in 1850, the beginning of the industrial era. She also points out that the change corresponds with
the end of the Little Ice Age, a climate dip that lasted from the 1300s to 1850s. As the climate warmed up,
it‘s possible more fresh water flowed into the oceans, which disrupted the AMOC.
The sea temperature model, however, suggests that the AMOC flow has weakened since the mid-twentieth
century as a result of human-induced climate warming. As Thompson notes, however, this record did not
extend as far back as the sediment study.
Despite the difference in timing, both studies show similar pattern of current decline, weakening about 15 to
20 percent in the last 150 years. ―We think it‘s quite remarkable that all the evidence is converging,‖ David
Thornalley of University College London tells Thompson.
Shipping emissions: IMO members agree to halve carbon emissions by 2050
―What is common to the two periods of AMOC weakening—the end of the Little Ice Age and recent
decades—is that they were both times of warming and melting,‖ Thornalley says in a press release.
―Warming and melting are predicted to continue in the future due to continued carbon dioxide emissions.‖
Does that mean London will soon come to resemble Nome, Alaska?
―The [current] climate models don‘t predict [an AMOC shutdown] is going to happen in the future,‖
Thornalley tells Damian Carrington at The Guardian, ―the problem is how certain are we it is not going to
happen? It is one of these tipping points that is relatively low probability, but high impact.‖
Murray Roberts, who studies ocean temperatures at the University of Edinburgh tells Gill that even if
AMOC changes don‘t meddle with overall climate, these changes could wreak havoc on delicate ecosystems
in the Atlantic.
―The deep Atlantic contains some of the world‘s oldest and most spectacular cold-water coral reef and
deep-sea sponge grounds,‖ he says. ―These delicate ecosystems rely on ocean currents to supply their food
and disperse their offspring. Ocean currents are like highways spreading larvae throughout the ocean and we
know these ecosystems have been really sensitive to past changes in the Earth‘s climate.‖
Researchers expect future changes in global climate will cause further slowdowns of the Atlantic
overturning. But there is still much more to learn about these complex systems. As Alexander Robinson, co-
author of the sea temperature, tells Carrington: ―We are only beginning to understand the consequences of
this unprecedented process – but they might be disruptive.‖
[Smithsonian.com]
13/04/2018
Today, envoys from 173 member states of the International Maritime Organization (IMO) reached an
agreement to cut carbon emissions, following years of slow progress.
The compromise plan, which will cut emissions by at least 50 percent by 2050 compared with 2008 levels, fell
short of more ambitious targets. The IMO said it would also be pursuing efforts towards phasing out CO2
emissions entirely.
Reducing the industry‘s emissions has been a hotly contested issue. One of the most vociferous proponents of
emission controls have been the Pacific island nations, where rising sea levels are already swallowing up land,
and the rate is expected to increase in the coming decades.
Delegates said opposition from some countries – including the United States, Saudi Arabia and Panama – had
limited what could be achieved at the IMO session this week in London. Canada, Argentina, Russia, India,
Brazil, Iran and the Philippines also raised concerns over the proposals for reasons ranging from worries that
targets could have a negative effect on global trade to a lack of sufficient data.
―The IMO should and could have gone a lot further,‖ said Bill Hemmings, shipping director with green
campaigners Transport & Environment. ―This decision puts shipping on a promising track.‖ Greenpeace
International political adviser Veronica Frank said the plan was ―far from perfect but the direction is now clear
– a phase-out of carbon emissions.‖
Shipping emissions: IMO moves forward with ban on vessels carrying high-sulphur fuel
―This decarbonisation must start now and targets improved along the way, because without concrete, urgent
measures to cut emissions from shipping now, the Paris ambition to limit warming to 1.5 degrees will become
swiftly out of reach,‖ Frank said.
The shipping sector, along with aviation, avoided specific emissions-cutting targets in a global climate pact
agreed in Paris at the end of 2015, which aims to limit a global average rise in temperature to ―well below‖ 2
degrees Celsius from 2020.
Higher targets
European Union countries along with the Marshall Islands, the world‘s second-biggest ship registry, had
supported a goal of cutting emissions by 70 to 100 percent by 2050, compared with 2008 levels. Europe‘s
transport commissioner Violeta Bulc and climate commissioner Miguel Arias Canete said in a joint statement
while the EU had ―sought a higher level of ambition, this is a good starting point that will allow for further
review and improvements over time.‖ British-based research group InfluenceMap said an emission cut of 70
percent would have been ―much closer to what is needed if shipping is to be in line with the goals of the Paris
agreement‖.
Shipping accounts for 2.2 percent of world CO2 emissions, according to the IMO, the U.N. agency responsible
for regulating pollution from ships. This is around the amount emitted by Germany, according to the latest EU
data available, and is predicted to grow significantly if left unchecked.
According to the text produced by the IMO working group submitted to member states, the initial strategy
would not be legally binding for member states. The text separately pointed to possible medium-term measures
to address emissions that could include low-carbon and zero-carbon fuels, improved energy efficiency for new
and existing ships and possible market-based mechanisms to encourage the shift to lower-carbon fuels.
It also said its final strategy should be subject to a review in 2028.
The new agreement focuses on the carbon emissions. It lays out an initial strategy to reduce emissions by
encouraging shipping companies to make their ship designs more energy efficient, use alternative fuels or
energy sources and streamline operations so that they consume less energy.
The deal is an important milestone, Corbett says. ―Clearly the IMO is moving into the 21st century,‖ he says.
―The main issue that the IMO will continue to have to wrestle with is timing.‖ The organization, he adds, will
need to walk a line between allowing the shipping industry time to adopt and prove new ship technologies —
but not allow the industry to delay too long to meet environmental targets.
Marshall Islands President Hilda Heine said the country‘s delegation had ―fought hard‖ for the outcome.
―While it may not be enough to give my country the certainty it wanted, it makes it clear that international
shipping will now urgently reduce emissions and play its part in giving my country a pathway to survival,‖
Heine said.
[Reuters / Science News / Bloomberg]
13/04/2018
By Jonathan Saul and Libby George
Container shipping: How’s the new profile looking?
:
The International Maritime Organization (IMO) said it approved on Friday an amendment that would ban
ships unequipped to strip sulphur from carrying high-sulphur fuel from 2020 – when new sulphur-content
limits come into effect.
New 2020 limits cut the amount of sulphur in the fuel that ships worldwide are allowed to use, from 3.5 to
0.5 percent by 2020. However, ships that have installed scrubbers that can remove sulphur as fuel is burned
can continue to use higher-sulphur fuel. The amendment to MARPOL Annex VI approved on Friday would
make it illegal for ships without scrubbers to carry fuels above the sulphur limit in their supply systems but
would allow any ship to carry higher sulphur fuels as cargo.
The approval is the second to last step required in order to formalise the ban on carrying fuel oil – which is
itself a step aimed at making it easier to enforce the stricter sulphur limits. The IMO will next have to
formally adopt the amendment at the group‘s meeting in October
[Reuters]
13/04/2018
By Trevor Crowe
At the start of April, the commencement of joint operations between the major Japanese liner companies in
the form of ‗ONE‘ ushered in the latest step along the road in the consolidation of the container shipping
sector. In February 2017 we took a look at how the concentration in the sector was evolving, and now
seems like a good time to review how the profile looks today.
A new look
The start of joint operations as of April 2018 between major Japanese containership operators NYK, MOL
and K-Line, as the ‗Ocean Network Express‘ was another milestone in the ongoing consolidation of the
box shipping sector. Recent years have seen the acceleration of this trend, with significant merger and
acquisition activity, and now looks like an appropriate time to reflect how the changes have left the sector
shaping up. The red line on the graph shows the profile today of the top 20 boxship operators by share of
total fleet capacity deployed, The blue line shows the same profile 20 years ago. What do the curves tell
us?
Many hands made light work?
In 1998, the profile looked very different to today. Back then, the top 20 carriers accounted for 73% of
deployed capacity globally, with the largest (Maersk) with a 7.2% share and the carrier ranked 20th
(CSAV) with 1.3%. The top 20 included some famous old names (P&O Nedlloyd, Sealand, APL, Cho
Yang, CSAV), and was essentially made up of the global carriers of the day. The list of carriers ranked 21-
30 also contained some carriers still well-known today: Wan Hai, Crowley, Matson and PIL (ranked 30th)
as well as carriers since notably merged with others such as Safmarine, UASC, Hamburg-Sud, Delmas and
MISC.
Were there too many cooks?
Things look very different today. The top 20 now account for 90% of all capacity, and the top 10 for a
mighty 83%. The largest carrier (still Maersk) now accounts for 19.4%, but the carrier ranked 10th (Zim)
for 1.8% and the 20th (Quanzhou Ansheng) just 0.3%. The realm of global carriers is now basically the top
10. PIL, the largest regional carrier is ranked 11th, and outside of the top 10 only HMM could really be
considered a global player.
Two to tango
This profile is the result of an era of major consolidation, which looks like it might take a breather as and
when the merger of OOCL with China COSCO Shipping is completed. The scope of the liner companies‘
cost base and the perceived benefits from economies of scale have led to a slimming of the number of
major operators long considered inevitable by many.
Numbers down, and up
So, whether this is the end game or not, we now appear to have reached a point in time where the box
shipping business has a distinctly changed profile, amongst the most consolidated in shipping. A
heavyweight top 10 carrier operates 10.4 times the capacity of the carriers ranked 11-20, compared to 2.4
times 20 years ago. How this all works out for this challenging sector remains to be seen, but for now
container shipping is embracing its new look.
[Clarksons Research]
13/04/2018
By Jeff Berman
Looking at the many facets that comprise the container shipping sector, it is fair to say that it is replete with
many familiar themes, like overcapacity and rate pressures, as well as potential opportunities for future
growth and stabilization.
Those are a few of many takeaways in a report issued this week by global business advisor firm AlixPartners.
The report, entitled 2018 global container shipping outlook: Though challenges remain, opportunities exist for
carriers, takes an in-depth approach to various factors prevalent within the sector.
Looking at the many facets that comprise the container shipping sector, it is fair to say that it is replete with
many familiar themes, like overcapacity and rate pressures, as well as potential opportunities for future
growth and stabilization. Those are a few of many takeaways in a report issued this week by global business
advisor firm AlixPartners.
The financial health of the sector was a key theme in the report, with AlixPartners stating that the Altman Z-
score, a formula for predicting the likelihood of a bankruptcy (a rating of less than 1.81 suggests financial
distress), for the container shipping sector is at 1.44. That reading is less than optimal but represents an
improvement over 2016‘s 1.10, which is a historical low. And the score has not eclipsed 2.99, which
represents the ―safe zone‖ since 2009.
The report touched upon various factors at play that help to put the market outlook into perspective,
including:
• slow and steady growth in demand after a brief lull, with fleet capacity on the rise again;
• 2018 fleet capacity growth estimates are between 4%-5%, up from 2017‘s 3.3%;
• total new container-ship capacity at around 1.3-million TEU is due for delivery in 2018, with 30% of that
capacity for megaships of 18,000-25,000 TEU;
• rates will remain ―squeezed‖ with supply continuing to outpace demand for services, with total demand
needing a minimum of 4%-5% growth to provide a true opportunity for margin growth; and
• 2017 industry EBITDA saw a nearly 50% annual improvement, with revenue up 6%, and EBIT up 6%.
Esben Christensen, global co-head of AlixPartners‘ maritime practice, told LM that the most fundamental
issue within the container shipping sector is capacity discipline.
―Carriers have talked for years about how consolidation was needed, and that has now happened to a large
extent in the last couple of years,‖ he said. ―That is good, because it leads to fewer decision makers that make
decisions on capacity that can ruin if for everybody else. But the bad news is that the fewer decision makers
that are out there are still more bullish on carrier growth objectives than what the market is. The problem with
that is that each [carrier] feels they can outgrow the market and order capacity that outsizes market growth,
but as they all do that then you end up in the situation we all find ourselves in, with capacity entering the
market bigger than growth in the market. If this is not done right, then the picture does not dramatically
improve.‖
Conversely, Christensen said carriers have done a decent job of realizing some synergies from their positions,
citing lowering SGA as an example, even though it has not come down in comparison to market revenues,
Container shipping: AlixPartners report analyzes challenges and opportunities
which leave good opportunities for carriers to get more aggressive on trimming their cost structures and allow
them to grow in what is a challenging rate environment.
The report made it clear that carrier fleet expansion efforts need to be paused, or at least slowed down, saying
that they need to ―curb their voracious appetites for new ships.‖ And it added that starting in September 2017,
following a period of slowing new orders and deferred deliveries for much of 2017, the buying spree of new
ships resumed, which it said essentially continued the current margin-crushing balance of supply and
demand.‖
When asked why carriers seem fixated on capacity expansion efforts, Christensen said that there are two parts
to the story, with the mega carriers that are getting bigger and consolidating followed by the rest of the
market.
―Companies that are on that bubble have to decide who they want to be, and if they want to be an East-West
mainline carrier they have to invest in ships or they cannot keep up and get the scale of the benefits the bigger
guys have,‖ he said. ―They try to grow with the leaders or find their own niche. The trouble with finding a
niche is that there are not a lot of players in the market and to be a player you need to grow your fleet. That is
something we are seeing on a broader scale.‖
Looking at the rate outlook for the sector, the report said the situation is not ideal, explaining that rates will
continue to be squeezed as supply continues to outpace demand containerized services, adding that total
demand, at the very least, will have to meet the expectations of a 4%-5% increase to provide any real
opportunity for margin growth.
Christensen said it is a ―stretch‖ to expect to see these kinds of growth rates, coupled with the ongoing push
for capacity growth making it hard to see rates seeing that kind of increase.
―That is what we are seeing no during the Transpacific contract season [in March, April, and May],‖ he said.
―We are seeing shippers being very aggressive on maintaining rates at last year‘s level, which was low.
Carriers are having a hard time getting rates up, because they also know they need to build ships. This year‘s
contract season is not off to a good start.‖
Pricing discipline by carriers, said the report, is one of the areas that provides opportunities for them to
significantly improve their performance through effective management, noting that ongoing fleet
consolidation has created a situation with the top five carriers controlling around two-thirds of global
capacity. And it added that that realignment of ownership creates a unique opportunity for the industry to
demonstrate a level of price discipline that has been lacking for years.
Another area that can improve their outlook, the report said, is operating expense management, with carriers
improving their capacity management skills but have not produced the anticipated cost savings from fleet
consolidation, leaving opportunities for fleet operators to make dramatic cuts in redundant expenses and
modernize operations.
On the price discipline side, Christensen said carriers need to control capacity coming in and resist the urge to
sub-optimize their individual demands, or freight needs, for the good of the overall trade.
―As long as carriers price into business aggressively, the margins are very transparent,‖ he said. ―It is not like
the good old days when nobody knew what each other‘s rates were….everybody knows that now. It requires a
lot of discipline, and it is just not there. I am hopeful, for the carriers‘ sake, that with consolidation that this is
Container shipping: Asia-Europe carriers in new battle for market share, forcing rates down
something that will be easier to do, because there will be fewer people making decisions than there were in
the past, but it has not happened yet, at least not consistently.‖
Regarding costs, he said there are solid opportunities to make inroads, especially on the network side.
―Carriers have done a good job controlling their port-to-port expenses, hosting bigger and more efficient
vessels, but they have not done a great job controlling their inland costs,‖ he said. ―Those are more
complex…but there are a lot of expenses there, especially in the U.S. alone with inland haulage and
intermodal positioning. There is a lot to be done, and I think that should be a real area of focus for these
carriers when faced with a challenging market and rate environment.‖
Focusing on rates is somewhat easier, because it is so ―obvious,‖ explained Christensen, while managing
inland costs can be more complex and messy, and carriers have gotten out of the chassis business and
divested some of their port assets. Things are happening, but there is much more to do. There is also
digitization and blockchain technology that can help, too.‖
[Logistics Management]
13/04/2018
By Mike Wackett
As container spot rates on the Asia-North Europe trade continue to slide, CMA CGM has announced a
reduction in FAK rates.
Next month, the French carrier will charge $850 per 20ft and $1,600 per 40ft from $900 and $1,700, and
other carriers are expected to follow as they scramble to fill ships. With demand remaining weak post-
Chinese New Year, several forwarders have told The Loadstar they have been offered rate discounts in the
past two weeks to switch carrier.
UK-based NVOCC Westbound Logistics has suggested carriers are aggressively competing for market share
following the introduction of new 22,000 teu ships on the route and is expecting further reductions.
Interestingly however, the recently merged Japanese carrier Ocean Network Express (ONE) continues to
publish FAK rates which, at $1,600 per 20ft and $3,100 per 40ft, are substantially out of kilter with
competitors.
The bellwether Shanghai Containerized Freight Index (SCFI) recorded another dismal week for Asia-Europe
carriers. Spot rates for North Europe tumbled a further 5.2% to $585 per teu and have now fallen by $300
since the beginning of the year, which will be causing alarm bells to ring in the boardrooms of major carriers.
Moreover, the freight rate slide is happening at the same time as carriers are suffering rising bunker prices and
a range of other inflationary pressures, including a big spike in ship charter rates.
For Mediterranean ports, the spot rate decline was not as big, at 2.6% to $600. The reason is said to be due to
additional demand as a consequence of the Maersk Honam fire and general average delay – the vessel was on
an Asia-Mediterranean loop – shippers having to replace and rebook cargo from many of the 7,860 boxes
involved.
Oil & gas shipping U.S.: Enterprise Products Partners to expand terminal on Houston Ship
Channel
Port development Indonesia: Pelindo II to build new port in Kalimantan
Elsewhere, there was welcome improvement in spot rates from Asia to the US as carrier negotiators sit down
with shippers to finalise new annual contracts beginning 1 May. Rates for the US west coast ticked up 2.1%
to $1,152 per 40ft, while rates to the US east coast were up 2% to $2,192 per 40ft.
Nevertheless, spot rates for the west coast are still around 15% lower than a year ago, and for the east coast
some 7% below, which makes carrier negotiators‘ task of securing increases, or even maintaining current rate
levels, particularly challenging.
But there was some good news for carriers in secondary trades this week – SCFI reported rates to the South
American east coast up 22.7% to $2,094 per teu following rate volatility in the wake of alliance restructuring
due to Maersk‘s acquisition of Hamburg Süd. The jump enabled the SCFI‘s composite index to edge up by
just under 1% this week, although it is still around 18% lower than 12 months ago.
[The Loadstar]
13/04/2018
US-based Enterprise Products Partners has bought a 65-acre waterfront site on the Houston Ship Channel to
facilitate its next phase of expansion at Enterprise Hydrocarbon Terminal (EHT) situated on the channel.
The new site is situated to the east of EHT and comprises two docks and dredging infrastructure that will be
used for maintenance and expansion of the dock. It also features land areas that can be used to significantly
expand Enterprise‘s marine terminal capabilities.
Enterprise also plans to build at least two deepwater docks at the newly acquired site to accommodate
Suezmax vessels. The site, along with the EHT complex, forms part of Enterprise‘s Gulf Coast network of
marine terminals that includes 18 ship docks and eight barge docks. The company‘s Gulf Coast infrastructure
system also features access to about 125 pipelines, 400 million barrels of storage and every refinery in
Houston, Beaumont, Port Arthur and Texas City region in the US, accounting for more than four million
barrels per day of capacity.
Equipped with seven deep-water ship docks and two barge docks, the terminal can currently handle vessels
with up to a 45ft draft, including Suezmax tankers, the largest tankers that can navigate the Houston Ship
Channel. EHT primarily offers terminal services to major integrated oil companies, exporters, marketers,
distributors and chemical companies.
[Ship Technology]
13/04/2018
By Vincent Wee
Indonesian state-owned port operator Pelindo II is planning to develop a new port at Pantai Kijing to serve
Kalimantan as the current Pontianak Port in West Kalimantan suffers from heavy siltation as well as has
limited scope to expand due to space constraints.
Port development Canada: Quebec’s new container plan comes under tight scrutiny
Local reports cited Pelindo II corporate secretary Shanti Puruhita as saying that the port operator spends
IDR70bn ($5.1m) a year to dredge sediment from the Kapuas River, where the current port is located over
10nm upriver from the coast at the inland city of Pontianak. ―The high sedimentation rate of the Kapuas River
has made us think about developing a new seaport,‖ Shanti said.
Pelindo II Pontianak general manager Adi Sugiri explained that the river had to be dredged every year
because the sedimentation hindered the movement of river transportation, the lifeblood of the transportation
system in Kalimantan. He added that as the seaport was squeezed between the Kapuas River and a crowded
residential area, there was limited potential for the port to be expanded.
Shanti said that Pelindo II planned to develop a new seaport called the Pantai Kijing International Seaport in
an area facing Singapore and close to Malaysia along an old shipping lane. ―It will become the largest seaport
in Kalimantan to support the government‘s Sea Toll Road policy,‖ she said, adding that the adjacent area
would be developed into a special economic zone where smelters and factories would be developed to
manage local commodities.
The port is expected to begin operations in the third quarter of 2019. No investment amount was revealed.
[Seatrade Maritime News]
13/04/2018
Canada's Port of Quebec, which has focused virtually exclusively on bulk shipping and the cruise business, is
to enter the container game long dominated by the Port of Montreal on the St Lawrence River by planning to
build a container port along the "big waterway".
The surprise announcement of the plan in December came at a time when the Port of Montreal is in the midst
of expanding its container terminals. Montreal currently is Canada's leading container hub on the East Coast,
handling 1.5 million TEU.
The announcement stunned St Lawrence River maritime circles (including the Port of Montreal). It also
confounded Canadian consultants well versed in the special features and challenges of the continental
waterway that allows ocean carriers to penetrate deeply into the industrial heartland of North America, reports
American Journal of Transportation.
President and CEO of the Quebec Port Authority, Mario Girard, said the planned facility was aimed at
boosting the competitiveness of the St.Lawrence gateway with US East Coast ports accommodating much
bigger ships since the 2016 enlargement of the Panama Canal.
He affirmed that the Port of Quebec, with its water depth of 15 metress at high tide (compared to Montreal at
11.3 metres), was strongly positioned to capitalise on the changing landscape of commercial shipping.
"Quebec City," Mr Girard said, "must get on board and leverage its strategic location on the shortest route
between Europe and the St Lawrence-Great Lakes region, which is home to over 40 per cent of the US
manufacturing industry."
Costing an estimated CAD400 million (US$309.74 million), the proposed terminal at the Port of Quebec,
with nominal annual capacity of 500,000 TEU, would be the revised principal feature of the Beaufort 2020
expansion project that was originally designed as a multi-purpose facility. The terminal would extend the
Terminal operators: Union leaders condemn ICTSI
port's wharf line by 610 metres, connect with existing road and rail networks, and house a 17-hectare
container yard.
"The Port of Quebec has many merits, but not for containers," asserts consultant Brian Slack. "Logistics-wise,
the container project does not make sense. A lot is going on globally revolving around the myth of mega ships
of 20,000 TEU. It is far from reality, at least as far as North America is concerned."
"What is striking about Montreal is its status as a destination port with the full discharge and load: you are
typically bringing 4,000 containers in and you are taking 4,000 containers out. Now that is as good as you are
going to get on any US East Coast port where vessels make multiple stops.
"Try and find a port that can give you a turnaround of up to 8,000 TEU. That's pretty good going. Montreal is,
in fact, a unique business model, with direct container services of small or what you could call medium-sized
vessels."
Professor Claude Comtois, a transportation/logistics expert at the Universite de Montreal, questions the
viability of a 10,000-TEU container ship calling at the Port of Quebec. He points out that the Port of Quebec
represents too much of a detour (more than a thousand nautical miles) to warrant mega-ship calls as well as at
various ports on the US eastern seaboard (as many transatlantic services via Halifax are structured). Thus, the
Port of Quebec must constitute, in such cases, a destination port where all containers are loaded and unloaded
(as happens in Montreal).
"But," continued Mr Comtois, "the small local market could generate barely 10 per cent of this traffic -
meaning thousands of containers will have to be transported by train or truck to markets well beyond the City
of Quebec."
As a result, apart from the increase in greenhouse gas emissions and road congestion around Quebec City, this
implies, in his view, additional costs by truck and rail towards markets in Ontario and the US Midwest
compared with the services offered via the Port of Montreal.
"For a shipping line, there is no commercial justification for the creation of a container service in which the
capacity of ship is dependent on distant markets already served in a competitive way by the Port of Montreal
with well-established intermodal links," Mr Comtois said.
While the shipping lines themselves always ultimately decide where they load and unload cargo, industry
observers see little evidence thus far that the Port of Quebec will emerge one day soon as a second container
port on the St Lawrence.
[Hong Kong Shipping Gazette]
13/04/2018
Global unions have accused International Container Terminal Services, Inc. (ICTSI) of lowering standards in
the worldwide ports industry.
International Transport Workers‘ Federation (ITF) general secretary Steve Cotton said that ICTSI was
involved in intimidation and labour rights violations. He made the claims as he joined leaders of several
international unions in Melbourne this week to mark the 20th anniversary of the Patrick Stevedores dispute,
Maritime safety: Panama Canal tugboat captains sanctioned over refusal to transit vessels
in neopanamax locks
in which the Patrick Corporation undertook a restructuring of its operations, which was later ruled illegal by
Australian courts.
Mr Cotton said: ―Twenty years on from the iconic Patrick dispute where hundreds of workers were locked
out of their workplace for weeks on end, it seems ICTSI has learnt nothing. The right of workers to join a
union and collectively bargain was upheld then and the same applies now.‖
ITF claims intimidation
He stressed that ICTSI ―continues to intimidate its workforce‖ and actively remove worker benefits. ―The
ITF has documented a pattern of labour rights violations from across ICTSI‘s global network. Dock workers
illegally sacked in Madagascar, workers paid poverty wages in Makassar, discriminating against union
members in Melbourne, a worker fatally crushed in Jakarta.
―Unions in South Africa have publically (sic) opposed ICTSI‘s entry into Africa, the world‘s fastest growing
port market. Unions protested today in Melbourne, with the ITF calling on ICTSI to end the exploitation of
its workforce, targeting of trade unionists, and undermining of their rights across the company‘s global
operations.‖
[Port Strategy]
12/04/2018
The Panama Canal Authority (ACP) has announced that it will apply sanctions against certain tugboat
captains who recently refused to transit vessels through the canal‘s new neopanamax locks, impacting the
operations of the Expanded Panama Canal.
A pilot tugboat maneuvers a container ship through the Neopanamax locks of the Expanded Panama Canal. Credit:
Panama Canal Authority
Container shipping: World Container Index - 12 Apr 2018
The union representing the captains, however, says the captains refused because of safety issues.
―The decision is based on the fact that these captains of tugboats refused to fulfill their duty to assist the
transit of vessels through the neopanamax locks, which affected the regular operation and caused a negative
economic impact for the country as it affected the confidence of our clients and the image of the Panama
Canal,‖ the ACP said in a statement announcing the sanctions. The ACP is the agency of the Panamanian
government that is responsible for the operation and management of the Panama Canal.
Details of the sanctions, the number of captains impacted, and when the refusals took place were not
immediately clear. Unlike the original locks, which use ―mules‖ to guide ships through the locks, the new
neopanamax locks require the use of pilot tugboats to maneuver ships through.
The union representing the tugboat captains, the Unión de Capitanes y Oficiales de Cubierta del Panama
Canal, or UCOC, wrote on Twitter that the captains were sanctioned after refusing to work due to safety
concerns, adding that the sanctions are part of the ACP‘s plan to privatize tug operations.
Last month, the UCOC along with two other unions for maritime workers in the Panama Canal released a
joint strategy seeking to improve the operations of the waterway and enhance the safety of workers. The
strategy cited the scarcity of resources, including both personnel and equipment, for making some
operations of the Expanded Panama Canal unsafe. The strategy explicitly listed worker fatigue as being an
issue.
In its statement, the ACP said it is aware of its responsibility to guarantee the safety of workers and the
reliability of Canal operations, but it decided to take the action ―to safeguard the greater interests of Panama
and the Canal‖.
The Expanded Panama Canal opened larger vessels in June 2016. Since then, more than 3,000 vessels have
made the transit through the new locks, far exceeding the initial traffic estimates for the waterway.
[gCaptain]
12/04/2018
The World Container Index assessed by Drewry, a composite of container freight rates on 8 major routes
to/from the US, Europe and Asia, is down by 2.2% to $1191.98/40ft container.
Two-year spot freight rate trend for the World Container Index:
Our detailed assessment for Thursday, 12 April 2018
The composite index is down by 2.2% this week and down by 18.2% from the same period of 2017.
• The average composite index of the WCI, assessed by Drewry for year-to-date, is US $1,387/40ft
container, which is $74 lower than the five-year average of $1,461/40ft container.
• Spot rates on most routes from Asia declined. Rates from Shanghai to Los Angeles reduced by $50 to
$1,180 per 40ft, whereas rates from Shanghai to the USEC inched up by $16 for a 40ft box to $2,370.
Meanwhile, rates on Shanghai-Rotterdam dropped to $1,189 per feu this week. The headhaul rates on
Transatlantic trade plummeted – a change of $136 – to reach $1,864 per feu. Drewry expects the rates to
increase slightly next week on the back of the proposed 15 April GRIs.
Our latest freight rate assessments on eight major East-West trades:
Spot freight rates by route - assessed by Drewry
A silk road through ice: China wants to be a polar power
[Drewry]
12/04/2018
It would like a bigger say in the Arctic.
When the occupants of ―Snowpanda House‖ in Ahtari zoo, Finland, were first allowed to play in the open
air in mid-February, they bounded out and rolled in the white stuff. Xi Jinping, China‘s president, had said
the furry animals would act as ―messengers of friendship‖ when he promised them to Finland during a visit
last year en route to America. On the same trip Mr Xi used a refuelling stop in Alaska to butter up his hosts
there, too. The American north was ―a mythical, almost mystical place‖, a local spokesperson quoted him
as saying—a bit ―like a Shangri-La‖.
Mr Xi has been showing a growing interest in Arctic countries. In 2014 he revealed in a speech that China
itself wanted to become a ―polar great power‖. Last year he met leaders from seven of the eight members
of the Arctic Council, a group of northern countries that admitted China and four other Asian states as
observers in 2013. In January the Chinese government published its first policy document outlining its
Arctic strategy. The paper referred to China as ―a near-Arctic nation‖ (never mind that its most northerly
settlement is no closer to the Arctic than Berlin is). It also linked China‘s Arctic plans with Mr Xi‘s Belt
and Road Initiative, a scheme for building infrastructure abroad to improve links between Asia, Africa and
Europe.
China‘s ambitions are fuelled by a wide range of interests. It wants access to the Arctic for its researchers
so they can work out how melting ice affects weather patterns, among other things. Their findings could
help China devise responses to its problems with air pollution and water scarcity. China is also keen to tap
into the Arctic resources that will become easier to exploit as the ice cap retreats. They include fish,
minerals, oil and gas. The region could hold a quarter of the world‘s as-yet-undiscovered hydrocarbons,
according to the United States Geological Survey. Chinese firms are interested in mining zinc, uranium and
rare earths in Greenland.
As the ice melts, it may become more feasible for cargo ships to sail through Arctic waters. China is
excited by this possibility (its media speak of an ―ice silk road‖). In the coming decades such routes could
cut several thousand kilometres off journeys between Shanghai and Europe. Sending ships through the
Arctic could also help to revive port cities in China‘s north-eastern rustbelt, notes Anne-Marie Brady, the
author of a recent book, ―China as a Polar Great Power‖. China is thinking of building ports and other
infrastructure in the Arctic to facilitate shipping. State-linked firms in China talk of building an Arctic
railway across Finland.
Chinese analysts believe that using Arctic routes
would help China strategically, too. It could
reduce the need to ship goods through the
Malacca Strait, a choke-point connecting the
Pacific and Indian oceans. Much of China‘s
global shipping passes through the strait. It
worries endlessly about the strait‘s vulnerability
to blockade—for example, should war break out
with America.
There are no heated territorial disputes in the
Arctic, but there are sensitivities, including
Canada‘s claim to the North-West Passage, a
trans-Arctic waterway that America regards as
international—ie, belonging to no single state.
China does not want to be seen as a clumsy
interloper. One point of the policy document
was to allay fears that China might muscle its
way into the Arctic as it has in the South China
Sea. The paper stresses that China will play by
international rules and co-operate with the
Arctic Council (its members include polar great-
powers to reckon with: America and Russia).
Plenty of non-Arctic countries, including European ones, have similar dreams. But China is ―by far the
outlier‖ in terms of the amount of money it has pledged or already poured into the region, says Marc
Lanteigne of Massey University in New Zealand. Its biggest investments have been in Russia, including a
gas plant that began operating in Siberia in December. Russia was once deeply cynical about China‘s
intentions. But since the crisis in Ukraine it has had to look east for investment in its Arctic regions.
The interest shown by Chinese firms could be good news for many Arctic communities. Few other
investors have shown themselves willing to stomach the high costs and slow pay-offs involved in
developing the far north. But Chinese involvement attracts criticism, too. Greens who would rather see the
Arctic kept pristine fear that Chinese money could encourage projects that cause pollution. No one wants to
see the kind of problems that have afflicted some Chinese investments in Africa, where the outsiders stand
accused of loading locals with debt while disregarding environmental and labour laws. The relative
stability of the Arctic will attract Chinese firms looking for places to park their money where conflict is
unlikely.
The main concern of Arctic countries is that China‘s ambitions will result in a gradual rewiring of the
region‘s politics in ways that give China more influence in determining how the Arctic is managed.
Greenland is a place to watch. Political elites there favour independence from Denmark but resist taking the
plunge because the island‘s economy is so dependent on Danish support. The prospect of Chinese
investment could change that. Should Greenland become independent, China could use its clout there to
help further its own interests at meetings of Arctic states, in the same way that it uses its influence over
Cambodia and Laos to prevent the Association of South-East Asian Nations from criticising Chinese
behaviour in their neighbourhood.
For all the reassuring language of China‘s official statements on the Arctic, it is possible that its
calculations may change as its Arctic investments grow. China‘s diplomats may begin to chafe at their
limited say in how the Arctic is run. At present, like other observers, China may not speak or vote at
China’s Maritime Silk Road: Strategic and economic implications for the Indo-Pacific region
meetings of the Arctic Council, which is by far the most prominent of several regional forums. Aki Tonami
at the University of Tsukuba in Japan says China‘s policy paper devotes less space to the Arctic Council
than might be expected, given the organisation‘s importance. In the years to come China may prefer to deal
with Arctic issues bilaterally or in settings such as the UN where it feels it has a bigger say, reckons Adam
MacDonald of Dalhousie University in Canada. Or China could start pushing for a restructuring of the
Arctic Council in ways that give non-Arctic states a more prominent role.
But tinkering with the Arctic‘s administrative structure would be risky. Many countries believe the existing
one has done a good job of promoting good-neighbourliness. That it is taking longer than expected for the
economic benefits of a melting Arctic to become readily accessible may also help explain why countries in
the region have not been bickering more: there have been few spoils to divvy up.
It might be easier to work out how to accommodate the evolving interests of non-Arctic countries were
America—the region‘s most powerful country—to show more interest. Andrew Holland of the American
Security Project, a think-tank, believes the United States will pay limited attention to Arctic debates while
Donald Trump remains president. China‘s route to the pole is widening.
[The Economist]
12/04/2018
China unveiled the concept for the 21st century Maritime Silk Road (MSR) in 2013 as a development
strategy to boost infrastructure connectivity throughout Southeast Asia, Oceania, the Indian Ocean, and
East Africa.
Source: CSIS: China‘s Maritime Silk Road - Strategic and Economic Implications for the Indo-Pacific Region [2018]
The MSR is the maritime complement to the Silk Road Economic Belt, which focuses on infrastructure
development across Central Asia. Together these initiatives form the One Belt One Road (OBOR) initiative
designed to enhance China‘s influence across Asia.
There is a shortage of infrastructure investment to meet the needs of developing nations across the Indo-
Asia-Pacific region and most nations have welcomed the opportunity to bid for Chinese funding. At the
same time, there are growing questions about the economic viability and the geopolitical intentions behind
China‘s proposals. Thus far MSR initiatives have mainly been concentrated in the littoral states of the Indo-
Pacific region, especially port development projects, which is raising questions about whether these
investments are economic or military in nature. These large-scale investments are also structured in ways
that invite questions about the potential for China to exert undo leverage over the domestic and foreign
policies of heavily indebted recipient countries.
To shed light on some of these themes, the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) has
commissioned seven experts to unpack the economic and geostrategic implications of China‘s
infrastructure development across the Indo-Pacific region under the MSR. Their research is presented in the
paper China‘s Maritime Silk Road - Strategic and Economic Implications for the Indo-Pacific Region.
The essays begin with analysis of four infrastructure projects, three by China under MSR and one by India
as a counter to MSR. These are:
• Kyaukpyu (Myanmar)
• Hambantota (Sri Lanka)
• Gwadar (Pakistan)
• Chabahar (Iran)
Source: CSIS: China‘s Maritime Silk Road - Strategic and Economic Implications for the Indo-Pacific Region [2018]
[Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS)]
Ro-ro shipping: Danish DFDS agrees to buy Turkish U.N. Ro-Ro in $1.2 billion deal
12/04/2018
Mexican energy infrastructure firm IEnova, a unit of U.S.-based Sempra Energy, will invest about $130
million to develop a refined products terminal in the northern border state of Baja California, the company
said in a statement on Thursday.
The facility will feature initial storage capacity of 1 million barrels, the statement added, and is expected to
begin commercial operations during the second half of 2020. The company said the capacity of the
terminal, which will be built and operated by IEnova, has been fully contracted on a long-term basis.
Half of the capacity has been acquired by a local unit of U.S. oil major Chevron Corp, the statement added.
While another ―global oil company‖ has signed a long-term contract for use of the terminal, it was not
named. The so-called Baja Refinados terminal is designed to offer fuel supplies, mostly gasoline and
diesel, to consumers in Baja California.
The facility marks IEnova‘s fourth fuel terminal in Mexico and will be located some 50 miles (81 km)
south of the U.S.-Mexico border, just outside the city of Ensenada.
[Reuters]
12/04/2018
By Teis Jensen
Danish shipping and logistics company DFDS (DFDS.CO) has agreed to buy Turkish freight shipping
operator U.N. Ro-Ro from Turkish private equity firms Actera Group and Esas Holdings for 950 million
euros ($1.17 billion) on a debt-free basis.
It marks a change of course for the Turkish company, which had planned an initial public offering for up to
57.7 percent of the company, a draft prospectus showed last month. U.N. Ro-Ro operates five freight
shipping routes between Turkey, Italy and France.
DFDS said U.N. Ro-Ro‘s freight market was ―one of Europe‘s most attractive‖ and that it was
operationally similar to northern Europe, where DFDS does most of its current business. Shares in DFDS
rose 4.5 percent after the news. DFDS‘s board has decided to terminate the company‘s current share
buyback program and suspend a planned dividend. It is also recommending a share issue of 1 billion
Danish crowns ($166 million) as part of the financing structure which otherwise consists of committed
term loan financing.
The Lauritzen Foundation, which holds 42 percent of DFDS‘s share capital, has confirmed its intention to
participate pro rata in a share issue, DFDS said. For 2018, U.N. Ro-Ro expects revenue of 240 million
euros ($297 million) and core profit (EBITDA) of 97 million euro, DFDS said.
Actera and Esas Holding had acquired the 98.8 percent stake, that DFDS now plans to buy, from private
equity firm KKR & Co LP (KKR.N) for an undisclosed sum in 2014. DFDS said the ratio between its net
interest-bearing debt and its core profit (EBITDA) is expected to rise to around 2.5 after the deal and the
share issue. That would be in line with its targeted ratio of between 2.0 and 3.0.
DFDS also changed its financial forecast for 2018 as a consequence of the deal and now expects revenue to
Oil & gas shipping Mexico: IEnova to invest $130 million in Baja California fuel terminal
Port development Africa: More strategic investment can accelerate growth and development
by strengthening trade
grow by 8 percent and EBITDA before special items of between 3.0 billion and 3.2 billion Danish crowns.
[Reuters]
12/04/2018
Despite the high volumes of goods that require transport, the development and integration of ports in
Africa‘s wider logistic chains remains uneven.
Africa needs to take advantage of the economic potential of its ports and shipping sector if it is to realise its
growth ambitions. Globally, ports are gateways for 80% of merchandise trade by volume and 70% by value.
Investment in ports and their related transport infrastructure to advance trade and promote overall economic
development and growth is therefore vital – particularly in emerging economies that are currently under-
served by modern transportation facilities.
However, port investment must be channelled appropriately to ensure financial sustainability and economic
growth. Investment is not always about building new ports or terminals – investment spent on infrastructure
without cognisance of the efficiency and effectiveness of the performance of the port may not produce the
desired results. Port performance must be seen in the context of not only port infrastructure shortfalls, but
also the fact that port performance has a direct impact on the efficiency and reliability of the entire transport
network in which the port is just a node for the transfer of goods.
These are among the key findings of an analysis of port development in sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) issued
by PwC today. The report, Strengthening Africa‘s gateways to trade, was developed in response to the
challenges facing SAA‘s ports in attracting external investment and highlighting the regional economic and
growth benefits thereof.
Challenges facing sub-Saharan ports
Source: PwC Analysis
Why ports matter
As an emerging market region endowed with vast resources and a growing population, SSA must accelerate
its market access and trade across the region and with the rest of the world. PwC analysis shows that a 25%
improvement in port performance could increase GDP by 2%, demonstrating the close relationship between
port effectiveness and trade competitiveness. With growing congestion in many African ports, Africa runs
the risk of sacrificing further growth through lack of investment in port terminal infrastructure. Access to
effective ports, interconnecting infrastructure and efficient operations to cope with current demand and
future growth, will lead to reduced costs and improved overall freight logistics efficiency and reliability –
all of which are fundamental to the region‘s future success.
Despite the high volumes of goods that require transport, the development and integration of ports in
Africa‘s wider logistic chains remains uneven. Some ports are important generators of benefit and serve
large hinterland areas, often extending beyond national borders. Others lag in terms of available facilities,
reliability and efficiency in the handling of freight, which increase supply-chain costs. The disparities in
performance between different ports impacts on Africa transport logistic chains, and makes African
countries less competitive than they could be.
Dr. Andrew Shaw, PwC Africa Transport and Logistics Leader, says: ―Ports are a vital part of the supply
chain in Africa, with many ports having a far-reaching hinterland often spanning a number of countries,
which makes them a natural focus for regional development.‖
―In this report we show that the global transportation and logistics industry can no longer afford to ignore
developments in Africa. Logistics service providers and ports in particular will continue to play a key
facilitator role in trade competitiveness and thus facilitate trade and sustained economic growth across the
region. Trade competitiveness requires governments and key stakeholders to see ports as facilitators of
trade and integrators in the logistics supply chain. Efficient ports can make countries and regions more
competitive and thus improve their growth prospects. The reliability and efficiency of each port terminal,
including minimising delay to shippers, is critical to enhancing future trade facilitation.‖
Kuria Muchiru, Partner, Government & Public Sector PwC Kenya, adds: ―Efficient port operations in
Mombasa and Dar es Salaam are critical to increased throughput and evacuation of cargo. Investments in
rail are seen as a major step towards contributing to improved performance. Developments in multimodal
operations and master planning of the ports to keep up to date with increasing throughput, which in turn
fuels economic growth are critical to efficiency. In the long run East Africa is expected to a be a major
transhipment hub on the East Coast of Africa, which will reduce freight costs in addition to contributing to
the Belt and Road. ‖
Ian Arufor, Partner PwC Nigeria, comments: ―International trade is a primary vehicle for the international
movement of capital to developing nations, which ultimately drives economic development.‖
―As the larger West African economies embark upon, or seek to accelerate, the implementation of their
economic development drives, new and / or expanded port access and capabilities are increasingly
recognised as key tenets of these programs. This is exemplified by the number of active port development
and expansion projects in Nigeria and Ghana.‖
The case for shifting focus
Historically, many governments have focused on the revenues that can be extracted from ports as opposed
to recognising them as facilitators of trade and growth. Africa needs to shift its understanding of the role
ports can play and step up investment in them to achieve its economic development goals. In particular,
there should be more awareness of the greater economic benefits that effective and efficient ports can play.
In SSA, the business case for port expansion is often only defined once capacity is already constrained and
thus many ports operate under severe pressure while investment decisions are being made. This continual
lag, which often lasts years, reduces competiveness and takes no account of the resulting reduced trade
impact on African economies. In contrast, China‘s approach to port investment is instructive. China
considers port investments on the benefits it receives from trade and thus regards ports as highly strategic
investments in the national interest.
High port logistics costs, poor reliability and low economies of scale in trade volumes have a negative
impact on trade growth in Africa. According to PwC estimates, US$2.2 billion per annum could be saved in
logistics costs if the average throughput at the major ports in SSA doubled. In other parts of the world, such
a focus on volume and efficiency has led to a stronger emphasis on hub and feeder ports for containers and
enhancing scale for commodity bulk terminals.
Although individual countries in Africa have tended to push for developing their own hub ports (ports with
the greatest volume potential), it is likely that we will see some ports eventually emerge as major hubs.
PwC‘s analysis shows that, based on the degree of shipping liner connectivity, amount of trade passing
through a port, and the size of the hinterland, Durban (South Africa), Abidjan (Côte d‘Ivoire) and Mombasa
(Kenya) are most likely to emerge as the major hubs in Southern Africa, West Africa and East Africa,
respectively.
It is notable that SSA merchandise trade has increased by about 300% over the past 30 years, yet the region
contributed less than 1% to the value of world trade growth during this period. The value of SSA exports
has declined since the end of the resources boom, while imports have continued to grow. As demand for
commodities begins to increase once more, we expect to see prices and volumes will rise again.
The fact that most African countries have an imbalance in trade focused on commodity exports and
manufactured imports poses major cost challenges. SSA imports are predominated by containerised cargo,
while exports are mostly handled as bulk freight. This trade imbalance between imports and exports means
that many containers return empty, thereby absorbing valuable port capacity and resulting in higher
logistics costs for inbound traffic to offset the cost of an empty return leg. Improving Africa‘s trade
potential to export manufactured, semi-processed or agricultural goods would significantly improve the
imbalance in containerised trade. This rebalancing of containerised trade offers a unique opportunity for
African countries to beneficiate and expand trade in higher-value exports.
Most SSA ports are public sector owned and managed, which makes the raising of capital in a constrained
economic environment difficult. Governments‘ role in the port sector also affects investment returns
because of the manner in which they regulate and operate ports.
Greater clarity and transparency about government involvement and regulation of port activity is important.
Almost all investors we spoke to during our research highlighted governance as the main risk consideration
in their investment decision to support increased port investment. This is in an environment in which 67%
of port terminal operators interviewed in southern Africa felt that they needed to expand their port facilities.
Performance of ports in SSA
A range of physical, organisational, technological and institutional elements play a role in determining port
capacity and efficiency. PwC has developed a Port Performance Analysis (PPA) that tests the performance
of SSA ports against international norms and practices. Using the PPA assessment tool, notwithstanding the
fact that each region and port has its own specific challenges, it is possible to draw the following
conclusions about SSA ports:
• There is a lag in investment in port infrastructure, which tends to perpetuate bottlenecks at key African
ports. The investment lag is largely driven by reluctance to invest ahead of demand and when investment
decisions are made, it frequently takes a number of years before new equipment is supplied or infrastructure
constructed.
Port development India: Professionals should head major ports
• African ports tend to operate at higher densities than their global counterparts due to land constraints.
• Terminal capacity utilisation is often constrained by vessel sizes, vessel utilisation and call frequency.
• Road network around ports are often not sufficient to sustain port volumes.
• Many of the handling inefficiencies and long container dwell times are not the result of port infrastructure
shortfalls at all. Rather, they are a consequence of poor port management, customs and associated container
clearing processes, as well as inadequate landside connections which prevent containers leaving ports
without delay.
Future drivers of investment
The report assesses current investment in SSA‘s ports and reveals a number of trends:
• Ownership and service models are gravitating towards greater private-sector involvement;
• Increasing competition between ports is driving investment decisions;
• Shipping lines and port operators are increasingly driving port investment;
• Externally-funded commodities and consumer goods are driving investment;
• Appetite for large greenfield investment is waning;
• Focus on intermodal facilities and dry ports is increasing; and
• Greater awareness of infrastructure interdependencies.
Shaw comments: ―SSA ports are under increasing pressure to respond to the needs of shipping lines,
logistic providers and multinational traders, as they seek to drive efficiencies throughout the value chain.
There remains a strong case for SSA to focus on investment in ports. Developing port infrastructure ahead
of demand, focusing on the ports with the greatest potential (the ‗hub‘ ports of the future) and improving
the overall functioning of these ports so that through productivity gains they are increasingly attractive as
destinations for global trade are key imperatives.‖
[PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC)]
12/04/2018
There are 12 major ports and 187 non-major ports on India‘s 7,517-km coastline. While the major sea ports
come under the administrative jurisdiction of the Central Government, the non-major ones fall under the
respective maritime State governments.
To vest the administration, control and management of major ports, they were brought under the provisions
of Major Ports Trusts Act 1963. The intention of the government, by constituting a body corporate for
Indian major ports, was to de-link Port Trusts from governmental administration and give such body
corporate a good deal of autonomy to function as commercial entities with separate budgets, rules and
regulations.
But the powerful bureaucracy defeated that objective and started treating the Port Trusts as an extension of
the Centre. Consequently, with political influence and bureaucratic support at the highest level, personnel
of the Indian Administrative Service, Indian Police Service, Indian Revenue Service, and Indian Navy
managed to get appointed as Port Trust chairmen in many major ports during the last 55 years.
Clause 3(a) of the Major Port Trusts Act merely states that a chairman be appointed by the Central
Government and it does not specify any special qualifications and professional experience for appointment
to the post.
The civil service personnel seem to have fully exploited this provision and managed to get appointed to
various port trusts, with very few professional managers getting appointed as chairmen.
Looking back
On the invitation of VKRV Rao — an outstanding economist and the Minister of Transport and Shipping
in 1967 — experts from the International Association of Ports and Harbours (IAPH), led by Stig Axelson,
General Manager, Port of Gothenberg, Sweden, visited major ports in India and submitted a detailed report
to the Ministry of Shipping in 1969 on how to modernise port planning, operations and management.
The relevant extract reads thus: ―We have found that, with one exception the current port chairmen have
had little or no experience in the areas of port development, operations, shipping or, in fact, in any field of
transportation.
―Nevertheless, such chairmen are expected to direct effectively the efforts of subordinate officers and to
evaluate their performance.
―Likewise, these officials are at times called upon to participate in meetings on international trade
conventions, agreements, between ship owners, chambers of commerce programmes, etc.
―In our opinion, it is unrealistic to expect a port administrator or manager to develop insight and
appreciation of the complexities of port operation and international trade overnight. There is no short-cut or
substitute for experience and the fact that most of the current port chairmen at Indian major ports have not
had the benefit of such experience is neither fair to them as individuals nor is it in the best interests of
India.‖
This particular recommendation, being so damaging to the interests of the civil service personnel, was
quietly allowed to gather dust in the Ministry of Shipping without being brought to the notice of the Prime
Minister‘s Office. Seventeen years later when the National Shipping Board (1985) for India assessed the
same issue, it could not come to a conclusion different from that reached by the IAPH team.
―The Committee is of the view that port administration, like the Railways and Airports Administration, is a
highly specialised affair for which professionals who are fully acquainted and have grown with port
problems would be better suited to head the Port Trusts. Only when such an officer is not available from
amongst port services, the question of inducting merited officers from Indian Administrative Services,
Defence Services, Engineering Services, and Indian Institute of Business Management should arise.‖
Scene at world ports
Antwerp in Belgium is the largest general cargo port in Europe handling 224 million tonnes annually.
Robert Vleugels, Fernand Suykens and Eddy Bruyninckx were all professional managers who served as
chief executives, with each putting in over 20 years of service with distinction.
John Black, a harbour engineer, served as chief executive of London Port Authority for about 22 years.
Anthony J Tossoli retired as chief executive of New York and New Jersey Port Authority after three
decades of professional service. Jean Rousset and Jean Smagghe, chief executives of Marseilles Port
Authority and Le Harve Port Authority in France had decades of shipping experience before being
appointed to the post.
Bold initiative needed
Shipping emissions: Improving air quality at UK ports
The government at the Centre is credited with implementing a number of initiatives to reform management
policies for effective governance. It is introducing a new Bill in Parliament to constitute Port Authorities in
place of Port Trusts for all major ports. Of the total annual sea-borne traffic of 1,133 million tonnes at
Indian ports, 57 per cent is handled by major ports and the balance by non-major ports.
By 2020 non-major ports are expected to handle about 50 per cent of the country‘s sea-borne trade. Major
sea ports will thus face keen competition and formidable challenge from non-major ports. All the non-
major ports operate in the private sector and they have appointed highly qualified, technically competent
professional managers as chief executives with a longer tenure of service. There is, therefore, a compelling
need for major ports also to professionalise its management structure to meet with the challenges thrown up
by the private sector ports.
A decisive change and meaningful transformation in the governance of major ports will happen only if the
Prime Minister‘s Office insists that the chairman and deputy chairman to be appointed to major port
authorities should necessarily have qualifications, technical knowledge and professional experience
relevant to international trade, ports, shipping and maritime transport.
[The Hindu Business Line]
12/04/2018
By Eva Grey
A recent UK Government report has found that emissions from the shipping industry are far higher than
previously thought. As this raises concern for air quality in ports such as
Southampton and Liverpool, what is being done to regulate and mitigate emissions at ports around the UK?
In December 2017, University Maritime Advisory Services (UMAS) and Ricardo Energy & Environment
published the report A review of the NAEI shipping emissions methodology for the Department for
Business, Energy & Industrial Strategy with some alarming findings: domestic shipping fuel consumption
is 250% higher than previously estimated, and as a result, the CO2 emissions are also much higher.
The findings are based on a revised modelling methodology, which estimates emissions for the UK‘s
National Atmospheric Emissions Inventory (NAEI) used for official international inventory reporting
obligations. The increase is attributed primarily to improved activity coverage, both of existing categories,
such as fishing vessels, as well as new vessel types not previously included in the calculations, like
offshore industry vessels.
According to the UCL Energy Institute, who publicly commented on the findings, the new methodology is
a considerable improvement on the existing one in terms of vessel coverage, fuel consumption and
emission factors and it exceeds the requirements of reporting a national shipping emissions inventory under
international commitments.
The findings came as a stark reminder that the UK needs to do more to improve air quality standards across
the country. In March, a package of funding worth more than £260m was launched by the government to
help improve air quality in some of the most polluted areas. The scheme gives funding to local authorities
to encourage grassroots action in the fight against air pollution.
But while the package mainly targets road traffic, questions arise whether the government should pay more
attention to the threats of shipping emissions, particularly in busy ports such as Felixstowe, Immingham,
Liverpool and Southampton.
Just how polluted are the UK‘s ports?
Carbon emissions from the combustion of fuels comprise about 80% of the UK‘s estimate of national
greenhouse gas inventory emissions, of which almost half are from sectors where rigorous regulation and
reporting does not occur, the NAEI warned. Shipping is one such source of fuel oil, a heavy distillate or
residual product used in very large engines.
Both nationally and internationally, campaigners have been long calling for stricter regulation of emissions
from shipping, which is feared to be responsible for 17% of global CO2 emissions in 2050 if left
unregulated. Last year, the International Council on Clean Transportation (ICCT) found that emissions of
greenhouse gases (GHGs) from global shipping are on the rise again, having increased from 910 million
tonnes (Mt) to 932Mt between 2013 and 2015: Global shipping emissions rise as IMO meets to discuss
climate action.
Existing estimates for fishing vessels, for
example, assumed zero fuel oil consumption,
and just 47,000t gas oil consumption. The new
study reveals that these vessels in fact consume
201,000t of fuel, reflecting commensurate CO2
and CH4 emissions, as well as higher than
anticipated increases in NOX, N2O, PM10 and
SO2 – all dangerous pollutants to human health.
An additional 4.4Mt of CO2 emissions were
calculated to originate from other, non-fishing
vessels stopping at UK ports.
―This work shows that the UK‘s efforts to decarbonise and improve air quality must include domestic
shipping,‖ said Dr Tristan Smith, director of UMAS and reader in Energy and Shipping at the UCL Energy
Institute. ―Not only does this study show that we formerly underestimated the significance of domestic
shipping, but reinforces the concern that without action this sector will become an increasing share of UK‘s
GHGs.
―The sooner we understand the air quality implications, particularly in port cities, of domestic shipping, the
sooner cost-effective and sustainable strategies to address the coupled GHG and air quality issues can be
developed,‖ he added.
How are port emissions being addressed?
Speaking at the Smart Shipping Event in February, UK transport secretary Chris Grayling told an audience
of representatives from across the shipping sector that the country‘s maritime industry is on the verge of a
technological revolution that could make shipping faster, safer and more environmentally friendly. He
referenced the rise in the number of electric and hybrid vessels entering operation, as well as the ongoing
development of low or zero emission fuels as encouraging trends towards curbing pollution.
Grayling‘s speech came just five months after the government pledged over £6m in funding trials of
innovative technologies and fuels to reduce maritime emissions, such as state-of-the-art propellers, on
board waste heat recovery, and rotor sails that use wind power to cut fuel consumption.
―The UK already has several hybrid ships operating in its waters,‖ a government press release read. ―These
systems offer local air quality benefits, can be quieter for port communities and provide opportunities for
further energy efficiency on board a vessel.‖ By 2025, the government estimates that the majority of new
ships will be expected to be 30% more efficient than current designs.
Shipping emissions: Port of Rotterdam CEO suggests joint European CO2 price
Efforts coming from individual port authorities are equally noteworthy.
Last year, the Port of London Authority (PLA) marked a first in the maritime sector by publishing a draft
Air Quality Strategy for a UK port. The aim of the strategy, which covers the tidal Thames from
Teddington Lock to Southend, focuses on reducing emissions from marine sources within the tidal River
Thames. The move came less than 12 months after the PLA made London the first UK port to offer a
‗green‘ discount on charges for ships using cleaner technology.
―The Thames Vision sets out how use of the river will grow over the next twenty years,‖ said PLA chief
executive Robin Mortimer at the time. ―Our commitment in the Vision is that this growth will happen in
tandem with an improving environment.‖
Similarly, the DP World London Gateway Port confirmed last year that it reduced its carbon emissions by
28% per TEU in 2016. This was achieved through the introduction of hybrid-electric shuttle carriers, better
recording and tracking of energy use, and reduced energy consumption in buildings.
Going forwards, the British Ports Association has launched a new Port Futures project, which will address
key issues for ports over the next 50 years, with climate change and the environment an integral part of the
challenges faced by UK ports in the years to come.
Similarly, new guidance from the UK Chamber of Shipping, Cleaning up our act: taking our responsibility
seriously, published in March comes in the form of an Environmental Resolution, encouraging its members
to push for greener operations – be it that they eliminate irresponsible practices, reduce pollution as much
as they are able, or develop further research, training and in-house policies to address concerns.
―We hope that our Environmental Resolution sends a clear message that, fundamentally, it is simply not
necessary to pollute the environment in order to run a profitable, productive shipping business,‖ a Chamber
press release read. ―There is no need to operate vessels in a way that will damage the world‘s flora and
fauna or endanger human health.‖
[Ship Technology]
12/04/2018
The Port of Rotterdam Authority is calling on the Dutch Government to form a coalition with countries in
North-West Europe to introduce a joint CO2 price.
At the port authority‘s Energy in Transition Summit 2018, Port Authority CEO, Allard Castelein, put
forward a case for much higher CO2 price in conjunction with a new industrial policy for the Netherlands.
The port authority also revealed the results of the CO2 impact of marine and inland shipping, announcing
that it would introduce an incentive of almost US$ 6.2 million (€ 5 million) to support vessel owners and
charterers that experiment with low-carbon or zero-carbon fuels to promote climate-friendly maritime
shipping.
Castelein wants a significantly higher CO2 price to stimulate new investments in clean technologies and
innovation. He said: ―A price in the range of 50-70 euros [61-86 dollars] per ton of CO2 will stimulate
companies to invest in solutions that we really need in order to realise the targets of the Paris Climate
Agreement. I don‘t support a solo approach, such as that of the UK with electricity production.‖
―As a transit country, the Netherlands is closely linked to the countries that surround it. A North-West
European coalition would guarantee a level playing field for the industry‖
Shipping emissions: The 2020 global sulphur limit and the scrubber exercise
[Port Technology International]
12/04/2018
By John Yallouridis
It has been a long-standing objective of the International Maritime Organization (IMO) to reduce the
sulphur content in marine fuels for quite some time now hence, its latest decision to lower the cap to 0.5%
sulphur content from January 1st, 2020 is of no surprise to anyone.
As expected, this decision aims to reduce the adverse impacts of the SOx, NOx and Particulate Matter
emissions produced by the world fleet on human health and to improve the air quality of this world.
Although transportation of goods by sea is by far the most environmentally efficient method of trade – far
more than road or air transport; these latest regulations will inevitably impose even stricter environmental
criteria for the shipping industry. However, the inherent paradox in this, is that the pollution ratios for
shipping are constantly improving while the totality of cargo carried by the global fleet is constantly
increasing. This has been achieved through design improvements to modern ships, their engines and their
respective propulsion, resulting in significantly lower consumption and emission figures along with an
increased cargo intake.
Shipping should be the one of the last industries which are subjected to the environmental microscope and
there are still numerous questions posed surrounding the net effect of the global sulphur limit cap on the
environment. It goes without question that the introduction of such a regulation will decrease the SOx,
NOx and PM emissions from ships but at the same time will increase the pollution from the refineries
which have been tasked with production of the VLSFO. Come 2020, most of the marine fuel demand will
be for the compliant VLSFO and the refineries will have to produce the VLSFO to satisfy the demand of
the industry. Such production comes at a environmental cost from both de-sulphurisation and additional
fuel blending. Not to mention that such demand can only be satisfied after refineries undergo an ‗upgrade‘
in order to host these new production capabilities which would impose an additional environmental burden.
Also, the existence of VLSFO will create additional storage and segregation needs both onshore and on
board barges.
Notwithstanding the above, ship owners have the option to continue to burn the 3.5% sulphur content fuel
post 2020, provided they install exhaust gas scrubbers on their vessels. These devices are designed to
remove the sulphur oxide present in the exhaust gas with seawater. This reaction generates sulphates which
then are either discharged as wastewater at sea (Open Loop Scrubbers) or kept on board until the vessel can
discharge it at suitable onshore facilities (Closed Loop Scrubbers). Therefore, the question that seems to
eventually form, is where the pollution will be redirected (between air, water and shore – all of which are
connected).
Scrubber exercise
Nevertheless, the shipping industry must and will comply, and the additional costs associated with the
implementation of the low sulphur regulations will eventually be passed to the end consumer. In the
medium term, the freight market has no other option than to adjust for the (increased) bunker cost. The
spread between FOB and CIF cargo prices will increase as the transportation cost increases by way of
increased voyage expenses. Every single individual consumer around the world is going to pay for the new
regulations through the increased cost of raw materials and eventually consumer goods.
On the financial side, the natural position of a ship owner is long on ships. The implied ‗Risk vs Return‘
Shipping emissions: Fuel costs to spike 25 percent in 2020 on sulfur cap
curve of the business for any shipowner would naturally reflect the risk of any future legislation being
imposed and the costs associated with its compliance. For that reason, someone could say that, installing
scrubbers, is a decision against the natural position which for all intents and purposes is no different than
hedging the bunker prices for marine fuel or otherwise. Therefore, the decision to install scrubbers is
inherently a speculation which, hopefully, would turn out to be financially beneficial to those that will opt
for it. There is nothing wrong with that provided this is an informed decision.
A speculation can be translated into a prudent business decision, when the return from such is as certain as
possible at minimum risk. This is the reason why there is so much noise surrounding the thousands of
―Scrubber Repayment‖ schedules that exist in the market which aim to justify such decision. The whole
scrubber exercise is a bit controversial as the benefit from installing a scrubber would be bigger in older
ships with larger consumption. All going well, that would make any amortization schedule shorter,
however, as older assets tend to have a limited residual life, that would increase the risk of the project (as
new regulations may, although not likely, intercept scrubbers‘ operations at any time in the future) and
these thoughts are repeating in a never-ending cycle. Also, smaller ships that consume less fuel would
require a longer amortization period.
Eventually, whether the installation of a scrubber is going to be in an older ship, a modern one or a
newbuilding, it all comes down to the price differential between the HSFO and the compliant VLSFO post
2020. Obviously, the greater the differential between the fuels – the greater the benefit from installing the
scrubbers – the faster the amortization of the project – the lesser the risks.
There are many bunker experts expecting a differential that could be as big as 300-400$/MT upon
inception of the regulations (where logic dictates that the wider differential should be witnessed due to the
uncertainty and volatility of the transition period). If one were to take such a differential, then the
amortization of a scrubber on a dry bulk capesize vessel on a retrofit basis, would be something less than a
year – always dependent on the operational speed. Therefore, anyone would think that this is a no-brainer.
Well, it is provided you get it right. Good thing is that once the scrubber has been fully amortized any
additional benefit exponentially adds to the return. However, it should be noted that the benefit will only
exist as long as the majority of the ships burn VLSFO and the spread with the HSFO holds good as the
majority of ships are compelled to burn the most expensive fuel. For example, assume that on January
2020, all ships where fitted with scrubbers there would simply be no benefit as the fleet fuel demand would
not switch towards the VLSFO and the loss would amount to the total cost of the scrubber installation.
To sum up, the shipping industry has adopted a wait-and-see stance so far, however, it seems that the latest
regulations may present an opportunity for those that are willing to take on, amongst others, the risk of the
fuel oil differential between VLSFO and HSFO post 2020.
[Global Sulphur Limit]
11/04/2018
By Libby George
Global shipping fuel costs are likely to rise by a quarter, or $24 billion, in 2020 when new rules limiting
sulfur kick in, consultants Wood Mackenzie said on Wednesday.
The ballooning costs will come as the change in regulations forces a portion of the world‘s fleet to switch to
lower sulfur, but higher cost, fuels such as marine gasoil (MGO) and ultra low sulfur fuel oil.
The International Maritime Organization‘s (IMO) rules targeting air pollution will cut the maximum
Shipping emissions: Industry has the technology to go green, it just needs the policy signal
amount of sulfur emissions that ships worldwide can burn to 0.5 percent of fuel content by 2020, from 3.5
percent currently.
Ships that install ―scrubbers‖ can continue to burn cheaper high sulfur fuel oil, but the bulk will not install
these in time for the shift in 2020. ―Switching to MGO is a more costly solution, and in full compliance,
would probably see freight rates increase, perhaps by around $1 a barrel,‖ said Wood Mackenzie senior
research analyst Iain Mowat.
Wood Mackenzie said its ―base case‖ for cost increases is $24 billion in 2020, compared with a total global
shipping fuel bill of roughly $100 billion today. However, if no vessels added scrubbers and all ships
complied with the rules, the spike could be as high as $60 billion.
The rule change marks a seismic shift for the shipping and refining sectors. The IMO is meeting in London
this week to hash out further details on how it will implement the rules and ensure compliance.
Mowat said that while shippers could expect a 20-50 percent return on investment cost for installing
scrubbers, the penetration rate for them would be limited by factors including limited access to finance,
scrubber manufacturing capacity and dry-dock space. Wood Mackenzie estimates just 2 percent of the
global fleet will have scrubbers by 2020.
As a result, Wood Mackenzie said the world‘s refiners need to gear up to churn out the lower sulfur fuels
that vessels will need, and even the primary spots for refueling ships could shift based on where lower
sulfur fuels are available.
―Singapore, for example, could potentially lose some of its market share for bunker fuels to China as
shippers look for alternative locations with a surplus of compliant fuels,‖ Mowat said. ―China, with ample
MGO supply, is well positioned to attract shippers.‖
[Reuters]
11/04/2018
As the engine of global trade, the shipping industry is instrumental – and, broadly speaking, invisible – in
our daily lives. 90% of the world‘s goods are transported by ship, and seaborne trade supports the
economies of developed and developing nations alike.
The industry is also a large emitter – accounting for around 2.4% of global greenhouse gas (GHG)
emissions, equivalent to Germany. These emissions do not fall within the scope of the Paris Agreement,
with the burden of reducing this GHG contribution falling instead to shipping‘s regulating body – the
International Maritime Organization (IMO), a specialised agency of the UN.
Historic inaction on the part of the IMO – which has had to contend with both a historically conservative
industry, as well as powerful lobbyists in some of the world‘s largest ‗flag states‘ – now sees shipping‘s
GHG emissions edge perilously close to endangering the Paris Agreement‘s less-than-2C of warming target
if dramatic changes are not made soon.
The onus is now on the shipping industry to demonstrate real progress in terms of its emissions. The IMO
has yet to implement any plans to reduce GHGs, but that is due to change at the organisation‘s Marine
Environment Protection Committee (MEPC) meeting this week.
In an industry where the assets – ships – last for up to 25 years, there is an understandable tendency to be
risk-averse. Despite this, the very nomenclature of shipping‘s environmental impact has changed markedly
over the last two years. In the last 18 months ―decarbonisation‖ has fully entered the lexicon – alongside a
slew of buzzwords reflecting the biggest changes happening in the sector.
All of this is welcome news for those focusing on shipping‘s environmental impact, for while actual
regulatory progress has been limited, these changes at least reflect a shift in mindset. There is plenty of
cause for the IMO to be ambitious with its targets.
Tremendous investment has been made in recent years in a range of new fuel and technology solutions to
help shipping mitigate its environmental impact. Currently the industry burns a range of heavy fuel oils and
residual oil products left over from hydrocarbon cracking in refineries. These fuels are extremely carbon
intensive – and so one of shipping‘s main priorities is to pioneer alternative, low- and zero-carbon fuels to
help manage its decarbonisation pathway.
The solutions are diverse – with electricity, hydrogen, ammonia and biofuels all viable options for various
segments of the industry. These are supported by a raft of proven efficiency technologies already available
on the market, including digital performance management, energy-saving Flettner rotors and air lubrication
systems.
This isn‘t futuregazing – already we have witnessed the electrification of inland and short-sea shipping
routes in Northern Europe; and some of the biggest companies within the industry are implementing high-
impact energy-efficiency retrofits. Paired with further development of new fuels it is clear that powerful
factors are now combining to build pressure on the IMO from across the supply chain.
This week‘s meeting marks a chance for shipping to finally set itself on an ambitious and encompassing
decarbonisation strategy. To match Paris, shipping must achieve a 70-100% emissions reduction by 2050.
While difficult, a recent OECD International Transport Forum report concluded that with currently and
developing fuels and technologies, this goal is by no means impossible to achieve.
The full strategy will come into force by 2023, and at just under five years away, that puts the vast majority
of the global fleet in the crosshairs for competition in a changed landscape. What‘s more, newbuilds
ordered today will need to have mitigated against these policy changes before their first dry-dock, a
scheduled maintenance period where ships can be modified.
While the IMO remains responsible for setting regulatory targets and ensuring that the industry complies
with them through rigorous enforcement, this is not shipping‘s issue alone. All companies with maritime
transport within their supply chain have a role – remembering that this includes 90% of all goods globally.
There is a huge community of organisations that have a shared responsibility to measure and verify their
own supply chain emissions and have the power to influence change. We hope to see this practice increase.
There are further levers. By engaging with the companies they invest in and finance, investors and
financiers should – and in some cases have a fiduciary duty to – ensure that companies are not only
preparing to comply with regulations, but remain competitive under them.
We have yet to see sector-wide engagement between these groups, but a clear policy signal from the IMO
will kick-start this practice across the industry, steering capital away from those companies unable or
unwilling to embrace decarbonisation.
What this all makes plain is that low-carbon shipping is not a pipe dream. In many respects, the catalysts
for this change are already in place, and are becoming a commercial reality for the sector. However,
shipping‘s regulators must send a strong, clear policy signal to the world, so that an ambitious pledge can
be met with equally ambitious actions.
[Climate Home]
Port development Europe: Construction spending will reach $11.6 billion in 2019 and fall to
$4.5 billion in 2022
11/04/2018
By Olivier Monnier
Bollore SA, the largest port operator in Africa, said billions of euros of investment in upgrades to West
African harbors by governments and companies will provide enough capacity for them to operate
sufficiently for the next 10 years.
Countries in the region have been investing heavily in ports to cope with rising traffic in the region and to
accommodate larger cargo vessels as economic growth increases. Bollore‘s biggest projects on the
continent include harbors in Ivory Coast, Sierra Leone and Cameroon, while the French company is
working with partners on a $1 billion expansion of the Ghanaian port of Tema.
The Ghana project is ―well advanced‖ and should be completed by the middle of next year, Stanislas de
Saint Louvent, deputy chief executive officer of Bollore Ports, said in an interview in Abidjan, Ivory
Coast‘s commercial capital. A 400 million-euro ($494 million) investment by the company and partner
Maersk APM Terminals in a second container terminal in Abidjan, with input from China Harbour
Engineering Company Ltd., will be operational by mid-2020, he said. In Sierra Leone, Bollore is finalizing
an extension to a container terminal in the capital Freetown that‘s due to be finished in September.
Port projects
Those three projects will take up the majority of Bollore‘s Africa investment in ports over the next three
years, De Saint Louvent said. The company has spent almost 3 billion euros in Africa over the past decade,
including in railway and transportation as well as ports, Jerome Petit, Africa CEO for Bollore Logistics,
said in the same interview.
Bollore has a near-monopoly on ports in West and Central Africa, holding concessions to operate container
terminals in 15 nations including Guinea, Togo and Nigeria. The company also runs 25 dry ports including
in landlocked nations such as Burkina Faso and Chad. The group‘s market share in Africa is about 13
percent, according to the company‘s website. It has operations in almost every country on the continent.
In Cameroon, the deep-sea port of Kribi, built by CHEC and mostly funded by the Eximbank of China,
became operational last month and is partly run by Bollore. An expansion project is in the pipeline.
―The port capacity on the West African coast will be able to absorb volumes for the next ten years,‖ De
Saint Louvent
[Bloomberg]
11/04/2018
ResearchAndMarkets.com's Project Insight - Port Construction Projects: Europe report provides analysis
based on projects showing total project values for Europe and analysis by stage and funding for the top ten
countries.
The top 50 projects are listed for the region giving country, stage, value of port construction. Ranked
Port development West Africa: Bollore sees port capacity lasting for decade
Port development France: Port of Le Havre seeks €500 million for investments
listings of the key operators for the sector are also provided, showing the leading contractors, consulting
engineers and project owners. Country profiles are provided for the top 10 countries including Russia, the
UK and Italy.
Port construction projects in Europe are currently valued at US$58.1 billion; of this, US$27.5 billion is in
the planning stage.
Russia accounts for the highest value with US$22.6 billion, followed by the UK with projects valuing
US$8.2 billion. Italy and Albania follow with port construction projects with a value of US$4.7 billion and
US$4.5 billion respectively, with the latter due to the US$2.9 billion Port of Shëngjin project. The largest
projects currently in the pipeline are the US$7.1 billion Taman Sea Port Terminal Development and the
US$6.3 billion Zvezda DSME Shipyard Reconstruction, both in Russia.
Key highlights
• The total pipeline of projects is valued at US$58.1 billion with US$7.9 billion being spent in 2018 and
US$11.6 billion in 2019.
• The highest value of projects are at the planning stage with a total value of US$27.5 billion, followed by
projects in execution with US$16.7 billion.
• Projects in the pre-execution stage amount to US$12.0 billion, while those at the pre-planning stage total
US$1.9 billion.
• Assuming all projects proceed as planned, spending will reach US$11.6 billion in 2019 and fall to US$4.5
billion in 2022. The highest value of project completions will be in 2020, with a value of US$12.0 billion.
• The top contractor in the region is FNK-Engineering based in Russia and Dredging International NV
based in Belgium. The top engineers are Lenmorniiproekt based in Russia and Maritime Construction and
Technology LLC Based in the US.
[Business Wire]
11/04/2018
Buoyed by its good results for 2017, HAROPA Le Havre has come up with ambitious development plans.
The port‘s turnover increase 1,5% last year to €180.5M last year. Showing how far the port has moved
away from the former "tool and operating port" model, just €6.6M came from port operations, with €53.3M
coming from leases and €120.6M from port dues. Cash flow came to €41.6M, exceeding the target set in
the 2014-10 Strategic Plan by €1.6M.
Meanwhile, approved subsidies for port development for the period 2015-2020 total €115M. On top of this
HAROPA Le Havre wants to invest a further €500M by 2020, to bring the total to €610M, viz:
• maintenance and upgrades €110M
• grade separation at La Brèque rail/road (A29) crossing - €35M
• Parc Frigo (PLPN 3) - €15M
• wind energy developments - €57M
• extending ro-ro terminal - €33M
Terminal operators Malaysia: Northport signs 30-year concession extension
• completion of Port 2000 and Atlantic project to expand container capacity - €235M
• The new route for barge services - €125M
The funding currently available is insufficient to implement the whole scheme. Subject to its Supervisory
Board approvals for the scheme, HAROPA Le Havre will thus look for additional subsidies, especially to
the European Commission, and will work on prioritisation and phasing of the projects according to the
financial capacity that is available.
[WorldCargo News]
11/04/2018
By Paul Avery
The Port Klang Authority (PKA) and Northport (Malaysia) Bhd have signed a 30-year extension of the
concession agreement covering Northport and Soutpoint at Port Klang.
Northport was formed from the merger of Klang Container Terminal (KCT) and Klang Port Management
Sdn Bhd (KPM) in 2001. In January 2016, MMC Corporation Berhard through its wholly-owned
subsidiary, MMC Port Holdings Sdn Bhd (MMC Ports) took over the ownership of Northport, which
operates container and bulk/general cargo facilities at port Klang.
The 30-year extension was signed between Northport, the Government of Malaysia and Port Kelang
Authority (PKA) in Kuala Lumpur today.
―We are delighted to have signed this agreement and to have the opportunity to continue working for the
progress of Port Klang and the nation‘s economic growth as a whole. We thank the Government and PKA
for their confidence in Northport and we are very positive that Northport will continue to contribute to
make Port Klang, Asia‘s Preferred Logistics Hub‖ said Dato‘ Sri Che Khalib.
The agreement gives Northport the security of tenure to expand its facilities. In 2017, Port Klang handled
11.9M TEU, the majority of which (9M TEU) was handled at Hutchinson‘s Westports facility, altough its
throughput declined from almost 10M TEU in 2016 as some business was lost to Singapore.
In recent years Westport has grown faster than Northport, and wits its CT9 expansion now completed
Westports has an annual capacity of 15M TEU. The terminal has also recently secured approval from the
government to embark on Phase 2 development where its capacity will be doubled to 30 million TEUs with
the development of CT10 to CT19 by 2035.
Northport has upgraded its Wharf 8 to handle 18,000 TEU vessels, and now has a capacity of 5.8M TEU.
With its concession extension secured Northport ―is currently embarking on plans to upgrade and replace
existing quay cranes and yard handling equipment‖ the PKA noted.
It remains to be seen whether MMC Port Hoidings will push for additional capacity at Northerport. MMC
also operates the Port of Tanjung Pelepas Sdn Bhd (With APM Terminals), Johor Port Berhad, Penang Port
Sdn Bhd, Tanjung Bruas Port Sdn Bhd, Kontena Nasional Berhad and JP Logistics Sdn Bhd. It also has a
stake in Red Sea Gateway Terminal Company Limited in the Jeddah Islamic Port, Saudi Arabia.
[WorldCargo News]
11/04/2018
By Greg Knowler and Mark Szakonyi
Amid an escalation in trade tensions between the United States and China, speculation is mounting about
why US regulators have not yet approved COSCO Shipping‘s takeover of a Long Beach terminal through
its acquisition of Orient Overseas Container Line (OOCL).
Shares of OOCL‘s parent Orient Overseas (International) Ltd. ended trading at a 12 percent discount on
Tuesday to COSCO‘s offer price of $63 billion, reflecting investors‘ concern that the Committee on
Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS) might block the deal, according to Alphaliner.
Confirming to Alphaliner that it is discussing US terminal assets with CFIUS officials, COSCO, a China
government-backed carrier, said it is confident the deal will pass US review and that the deal‘s June 30
deadline will be met. The deal has been approved by the European Union, passed the US Hart-Scott-
Rodino antitrust review and a review by COSCO shareholders, but still needs approval from two Chinese
regulators.
Currrently, COSCO owns a 46 percent stake in the Pier J Terminal (PCT) in Long Beach and a 100 percent
stake in Pier 100-102 West Basin Container Terminal (WBCT) in Los Angeles. COSCO‘s lease at PCT,
which is jointly owned with SSA (44 percent) and CMA CGM (10 percent), is due to expire in 2022. The
lease at WBCT is believed to expire in 2038m, according to Alphaliner. The WBCT lease was acquired by
COSCO in 2016 from China Shipping Container Lines.
Rising trade tension between the United States and China, along with fresh memories of how US politics
discouraged DP World‘s takeover of six US terminals, is sparking questions, nonetheless. On March 12,
the Trump administration blocked Singapore-based chipmaker Broadcom‘s attempt to buy Qualcomm, the
largest US mobile chipmaker, citing security issues tied to the United States‘ ability to build a 5G network
while China pursues the same goal.
And although both sides pledged to negotiate and rhetoric has eased in the last week, US tariffs on $50
billion of imports from China and Chinese retaliation threaten roughly 887,000 TEU, or 6.6 percent of the
total US container trade with China and 2.5 percent of total US container volume, according to an analysis
of data from PIERS, a sister product of JOC.com.
Merged COSCO-OOCL would be second-biggest in US trades
The merged COSCO-OOCL would be the second-largest carrier serving the US trades, with an 11.8
percent market share and the largest carrier moving imports from Asia to the United States, with a 17.3
percent share, according to 2017 PIERS data.
Terminal operators U.S.: Speculation mounts on US allowing COSCO takeover of LB
terminal
Between 2013 and 2017, OOCL increased its share of total trade from 4.1 percent to 5.2 percent, as its Asia
import share rose from 4.5 percent to 6.5 percent. COSCO‘s share of total trade rose from 4.4 percent to
6.6 percent, as its share of Asian imports increased to 10.8 percent.
COSCO Shipping and OOCL are poised to gain more market share after its Asia-US volume jumped 23
percent year over year in the first quarter to 695,382 TEU — the fastest rate of growth among the Top 10
carriers in the trade, according to PIERS.
COSCO‘s management team said the carrier planned to reduce its capacity deployed on the trans-Pacific
from 23 percent to 19 percent this year. Alphaliner said the main issue within the regulatory review is
OOCL‘s Long Beach Container Terminal, as COSCO would take on the 40-year lease expiring in 2052,
valued at $4.6 billion. COSCO already controls two separate container terminals in the Los Angeles-Long
Beach/San Pedro Bay area.
Following pushback from US Congress over port security issues, United Arab Emirates (UAE)-based
terminal operator DP World spun out the operating leases at six US ports it gained through its acquisition
of UK-based P&O Ports. UAE-based Gulftainer gained a 35-year terminal lease at the Port of Canaveral,
Florida, in 2015, despite some local pushback and US Rep. Duncan Hunter, R-Calif., requesting the then-
Obama administration to scrutinize the deal for security implications.
Hunter, who is under federal investigation for using political funds for personal use, chairs the House
subcommittee overseeing port security, was an early House President Donald Trump supporter, and urged
the blocking of Broadcom‘s acquisition of Qualcomm.
[JOC.com]
Terminal operators: SAAM announces $85 million in investments
11/04/2018
The Republic of Djibouti maintains that the decision to cancel its contract with DP World for the Doraleh
Container Terminal concession was in accordance with the law passed in Parliament on 8 November 2017.
The Government of Djibouti and its representatives tried to negotiate in good faith to find a solution to this
situation, going back six years, but these efforts were rejected by DP World. The Djiboutian state therefore
firmly opposes DP World‘s recent statement which threatened any company which entered into a new
contract with Djibouti related to the Doraleh Container Terminal.
DP World has no respect towards the sovereign power of the Djiboutian state and no right to threaten other
companies who wish to enter into business with the Djiboutian state. The Republic of Djibouti states that
the previous contract with DP World was detrimental to the country‘s interests such as its control over its
own infrastructure, its economic growth and its ability to improve the living conditions.
The Republic of Djibouti wishes to emphasise that it remains open to business. Specifically, Djibouti
wishes to highlight that international investors from the public and private sectors, in particular from the
infrastructure sector, are very welcome in Djibouti.
[Republic of Djibouti]
11/04/2018
By Michele Labrut
Chile-based SAAM, the largest logistics company in Latin America that operates port terminals, airports
and the largest tugboat fleet in the Americas in association with SMIT in several countries, has announced
it will invest $85m in infrastructure and improvements to its tugboat fleet this year.
―In 2017 we concluded a high investment cycle with over $500m in capital expenditures over the last four
years, giving us state-of-the-art infrastructure and equipment to continue growing. This year we expect to
invest close to $85m, which will be used to maintain our port equipment and infrastructure and reinforce
our tug fleet. This could also include inorganic growth opportunities that we are constantly evaluating,‖
commented SAAM's chairman, Óscar Hasbun who is also ceo of Chilean line CSAV.
He also added that the company began implementing a new operating model last year, aimed at making the
organization more flexible, modern and efficient. ―These efforts will help us streamline operations and
continue expanding to strengthen our leadership in the region,‖ he remarked.
In the port terminals division, investments consisted of the purchase of two new STS cranes for San Vicente
Terminal Internacional (SVTI), new mobile cranes for Iquique Terminal Internacional (ITI), both in Chile,
and the installation of new facilities at Florida International Terminal (FIT), in the US, all for an investment
close to $53m.
Maintenance of the tugboat fleet and construction of three new tugboats, one for Canada and two for Brazil,
will cost around $28.8m and in logistics, some $3.7m will be invested in the installations of Santiago
airport.
Terminal operators Djibouti: Government response to DP World’s allegations regarding
Doraleh Container Terminal
Terminal operators: HHLA must look elsewhere for growth as Hamburg volumes weaken
[Seatrade Maritime News]
11/04/2018
By Gavin van Marle
German terminal operator HHLA is increasingly eyeing international acquisitions as a means of mitigating
against future volume weakness in its home port of Hamburg, Drewry Maritime Financial Research argued
today.
Although 2017 saw HHLA post ―inspiring results‖, with revenues up 6.3% to €1.25bn and EBIT increasing
5.6% to reach €173m, any container throughput growth was largely due to last year‘s shift in alliance
volumes and could come under pressure this year. HHLA handled 7.1m teu last year, while Hamburg
competitor Eurogate saw volumes decline 25.6% to 1.7m teu.
DMFR said in an investor note: ―HHLA registered sterling growth of 8.1%, year on year, in throughput
volumes, largely benefiting from shuffling in liner alliances that took place last year as it captured some
market share from Eurogate.
―However, the competitive landscape might change in favour of Eurogate, as one of its leading customers,
Maersk Line, acquired Hamburg Süd, which currently calls at an HHLA terminal.‖
A wider problem is that volumes moving through Hamburg appear to be stagnating – according to
Alphaliner its 2017 throughput of 8.86m teu was 0.8% down on 2016‘s 8.93m teu.
In a year in which most gateway ports posted significant gains, volumes at Antwerp rose 4.1% to 10.45m
teu and at Rotterdam by 10.9% to reach 13.73m teu. This indicates that Hamburg could be in the midst of a
longer-term decline and HHLA – as its principal container terminal operator – will need to seek
opportunities elsewhere for sustainable growth.
Drewry said: ―We believe modest growth expectations in the port of Hamburg have driven HHLA to seek
growth through international acquisitions, although this comes after a long hiatus.
―A full 13 years after its last international acquisition in Odessa, HHLA announced the acquisition of
Estonian terminal operator, Transiidikeskuse. ―The acquisition marks the entry of HHLA into the small,
albeit rapidly-growing, Estonian market. We applaud the company‘s effort to pursue a policy of regional
diversification and expect the management to continue to pursue its goal, to unlock greater value for
shareholders.‖ Transiidikeskuse operates a terminal at the port of Muuga, Estonia‘s primary container
gateway with a current annual capacity of 300,000 teu.
Terminal operators UK: Hutchinson receives remote control gantry cranes at Felixstowe
Muuga port
Angela Titzrath, chairwoman of HHLA‘s executive board, said: ―Estonia is one of the fastest-growing
economies in Europe and a pioneer when it comes to digitisation. We are therefore pleased to be integrating
Transiidikeskuse– already a profitable and high-performing company – into the HHLA family.
―One of HHLA‘s targets is to grow internationally. The successful conclusion of this contract shows that
we are doing just that. The acquisition enables us to enter a promising regional market that offers growth
potential as a result of its geographic position and its link to the ‗New Silk Road‘.‖
[The Loadstar]
10/04/2018
The Port of Felixstowe has taken delivery of its first two remote control ship-to-shore gantry cranes.
Commenting on the new cranes, Clemence Cheng, CEO of the Port of Felixstowe and Executive Director,
Hutchison Ports, said ―These new cranes are the latest acquisition in our ongoing investment programme to
provide the best equipment, infrastructure and systems for our customers. They will further enhance our
capability to work multiple mega-vessels simultaneously.
Port development Mauretania: Construction of first deepwater port to start this year
The two new cranes, the 32nd and 33rd at the UK‘s largest container port, were delivered on the Zhen Hua 23 from
ZPMC in Shanghai.
―Remote control quay cranes have been pioneered at other Hutchison Ports terminals. Their introduction at
Felixstowe will improve the working conditions of the drivers, enhance safety and benefit communications
within operational teams.‖
In addition to the new cranes, the port is creating an additional 18,000 TEU of container storage capacity,
upgrading its terminal operating system, raising the height of 10 ship-to-shore cranes on Trinity Terminal
and has eight additional yard cranes on order for delivery in early 2019. The new cranes are capable of
working vessels with containers stowed 11-high and 24-wide on deck. Instead of being in a cab 50 metres
above the quay, the drivers will be located in a nearby operations centre.
[American Journal of Transportation]
10/04/2018
Work will begin before the end of the year on Mauritania‘s first deepwater port in the city of Nouadhibou,
Mauritania‘s second city, with a population of 120,000.
The Saharan state, which has a population of 4.3 million and a nominal GDP of $5bn, is 90% desert. It has
large deposits of iron ore, gold, and copper, as well as rich fisheries, but lacks infrastructure needed for
exports.
Container shipping: Seeking differentiation, carriers launch faster, guaranteed services
The announcement was made by Mohamed Ould
Daf, the president of the Nouadhibou Free Zone
(ZFN), to investment forum earlier this week. He
said a feasibility study for the project had already
been concluded.
The country‘s economy is set for rapid growth
following the discovery of offshore oil and gas
deposits, and an infrastructure boom is expected.
The new port will be developed as free trade zone
to attract foreign investment. A small port was
built in the city by the Chinese in the 1980s. This
was designed to handle 500,000 tonnes of cargo a
year, but by 2009 was attempting to process three
times that amount.
Ould Daf said the Nouadhibou facility would have
a depth of 18m – sufficient to accommodate large
modern ships – and would ―radically change the
commercial scene in the sub-region‖ for fishing,
mining and trade. He added that these sectors have
suffered from prohibitive shipping costs.
[Global Construction Review]
10/04/2018
By Greg Knowler
Striving to differentiate services in an increasingly commoditized business is testing the imagination of
container shipping executives and leading to a range of new offerings from carriers that range from faster
ocean transits, booking guarantees, and fixed prices to further integrating landside logistics into the supply
chain.
The array of offerings stretches across all major trades, with the Ocean Alliance announcing the
deployment of what it calls its Day Two Product incorporating 41 services across seven trades, Maersk
Line expanding its online platform to China-Mediterranean shippers, and APL informing the market that it
will extend its Eagle Guaranteed premium services to the trans-Atlantic and Asia-Oceania networks.
These new services follow Hyundai Merchant Marine‘s re-entry into the Asia-Europe trade with the Asia
Europe Express (AEX) in April launching the fastest Busan-Rotterdam transit in the market (by one day, at
least). HMM already operates a premium service on the trans-Pacific that charges 10-20 percent higher
rates for faster and guaranteed service. Since those services connecting Asia with the US West Coast began
in May, the carrier had handled 10,000 TEU by the end of January.
Also offering a speedy service, this time on the trans-Atlantic as volume grows, is Mediterranean Shipping
Co., which has revised its schedule for Mediterranean-US East Coast ports, cutting up to four days off the
journey.
It is now one year after the revamped carrier alliances were launched, and shippers remain unconvinced
about the service offerings. Common complaints include poor schedule reliability, a lack of choice with
fewer carriers and alliances, and more transhipment because of fewer direct port calls.
Anxious to improve service levels and set themselves apart from peers after returning to profitability in
2017, carriers have become more open to trying new strategies and investing in digitalized solutions.
Maersk Group said earlier this year that it plans to become a global integrator of container logistics using
its logistics unit Damco, Maersk Line, and port operator APM Terminals to provide a one-stop-shop for
shippers.
Ocean Alliance member CMA CGM Tuesday announced that the carrier and its subsidiaries will offer
customers land solutions and logistics in each of the countries where they have a presence. The offer will
include road, rail, and inland waterway options, giving shippers a solution that integrates the supply chain
and even allows door-to-door services.
Another of the Ocean Alliance carriers, COSCO Shipping Holdings, has been pushing an integrated
strategy of its own for the last couple of years with increasing assertiveness. China's largest shipping
company has continued to aggressively expand into landside logistics, building on Beijing‘s Belt and Road
strategy to grow its terminal and inland footprint in Asia and Europe.
Earlier this week, Maersk Line announced an extension to its online platform, ship.maerskline.com, that
will include China-based shippers exporting to all Mediterranean destinations via Shanghai, Ningbo, and
Qingdao, the carrier‘s latest move to tackle the long-standing industry problem of container no-shows and
cancellations.
The wider service scope of the Maersk platform will be added to its current three North China ports
(Qingdao, Xingang, and Dalian) that serve West Africa, South Africa, and east coast South America. The
offering will be available for customers located in China who place bookings either directly or through a
booking agent.
Silvia Ding, Maersk Line senior vice president and head of trade management, said the digital service
offered by the carrier ensured a commitment from shipper and carrier at the time of booking by providing a
secured space and container. ―It also provides competitive and fixed prices, which give customers a stable
service delivery. Through the steady volumes booked per week on this platform, we are happy to see that
our customers are embracing the increased transparency in pricing and visibility of service delivery,‖ she
said.
No-show payment seen addressing business liability
Booking cancellations and no shows has been a challenge for the shipping industry for years, and with the
new online model, Maersk Line aims to reduce downfalls through customer commitment via a no-show
payment.
"The mutual commitment is also a great benefit for us, as we get new market insights and have managed to
reduce downfall significantly on our digital platform. This allows us to improve our planning and vessel
optimization, which ultimately enhances the customer experience," said Silvia.
The in-house attempt to combat no-shows comes as Maersk Line starts to offer enforceable contracts
through the New York Shipping Exchange, a company that offers a platform where containers booked with
a carrier but not actually showing up for loading can result in penalties for shippers, while shippers will
becompensated for containers being rolled by carriers.
APL is extending its Eagle GO. Guaranteed program to the trans-Atlantic and Oceania routes where
customers will pay a surcharge to participate and get a 100 percent refund if the carrier fails to meet the
Container shipping: Hyundai Merchant Marine to order 20 mega containerships
delivery date. The expansion of the program from April 23 means that shippers who pay the premium rate
will be guaranteed equipment and vessel space on six services to the United States from 17 European ports
and seven to Australia and New Zealand from 15 Asian ports.
The announcement comes 14 months after APL launched the Eagle program with a portfolio that also
includes Eagle Reach Guaranteed, which promises ―day-definite‖ arrival of containers to six intermodal
railyards: Chicago; Columbus; Dallas; El Paso, Texas; Kansas City; and Memphis. Another service, Eagle
Get Guaranteed service, assures an ―expeditious discharge of cargo‖ — within 12 hours of cargo operations
starting — from the ship.
Calvin Leong, chief trade officer of APL, said, ―APL now provides more options for guaranteed space and
equipment in all seasons for our customers‘ most demanding, time-sensitive, and high volume cargoes.‖
[JOC.com]
10/04/2018
By Chris Dupin
Hyundai Merchant Marine (HMM) said Tuesday it will order 20 ―eco-friendly mega containerships,‖ 12
with capacity to carry more than 20,000 TEUs and eight with 14,000-TEUs of capacity as part of its plan to
grow its fleet‘s carrying capacity to 1 million TEUs.
South Korea‘s largest container carrier said the dozen 20,000-TEU ships will be deployed in the Asia-
North Europe trade, while the eight 14,000-TEU ships will be used in services to the U.S. East Coast. As
they will be "new Panamax" ships - having the largest dimensions able to pass through the new locks in the
Panama Canal that opened in 2016 - the company expects they will be deployed in the Asia-U.S. trade,
probably through the Panama Canal, but this is not yet confirmed.
In order to comply with International Maritime Organization (IMO) requirements under which ships must
use bunker fuel oil with a maximum sulfur content of 0.5 percent or reduce the sulfur oxide content of
emissions in another way starting Jan. 1, 2020., HMM said the new ships either will have scrubbers
installed or use liquefied natural gas (LNG) for fuel. The company said it will decide whether to use
scrubbers or LNG ―after thorough discussions with the finally selected shipbuilder.‖
―Considering the factors, including the recent increase in new shipbuilding price and dock availability,‖
HMM said it was starting its selection process by sending shipbuilders a request for proposals Tuesday.
HMM did not have an estimated cost for the new ships yet.
―If the shipbuilding process proceeds smoothly, followed by the selection of the shipbuilder, signing of a
letter of intent and finalizing its contract, all the new vessels will be sequentially delivered in the right time
to prepare for the 2020 environmental regulations,‖ HMM said.
It added that Korea Ocean Business Corp., a company the South Korean government plans to launch in
July, will finance 90 percent of the costs of newbuilding and HMM will take the remaining 10 percent.
HMM currently has a fleet with a capacity of 342,613 TEUs - 12 owned containerships with 107,419-TEUs
of capacity and 53 chartered containerships with capacity of 235,194 TEUs - and two 11,000-TEU ships on
order, according to Alphaliner‘s list of the 100 largest container carriers. An HMM spokeswoman noted the
company has also chartered ships with about 100,000 TEUs of capacity to 2M carriers.
Lars Jensen, the chief executive officer of SeaIntelligence Consulting in Copenhagen, said the order would
Oceans: Center of world's marine biodiversity is in danger
account for approximately 1.5 percent fleet growth in 2020. That‘s a substantial order, he noted, and "not
disruptive in itself. The problematic part is that this will double Hyundai's size - and a carrier suddenly
needed to double its size in a year, when you are the size of Hyundai, will be disruptive in the market."
―The new ships "may be seen by HMM to be a bargaining chip for alliances - their agreement with 2M runs
until 2020, and hence they need to start negotiating for a new position at that time. The problematic part is
that I am not sure bringing capacity to the table is sufficient to have good bargaining position unless you
are actually able to also bring volumes to the table filling that capacity."
[American Shipper]
10/04/2018
Research led by Swansea University's Bioscience department have found that the world's centre of
biodiversity is under widespread threat of losing a key marine resource.
Seagrass meadows in the vast Indonesian archipelago. Credit: Dr. Richard Unsworth
Writing about the findings in the recent Science of the Total Environment journal, Indonesia's globally
significant seagrass meadows are under widespread threat, researchers examined the risks to seagrass
meadows throughout the vast Indonesian archipelago that makes up a key part of the famed Coral Triangle
-- a marine area located in the western Pacific Ocean.
This area is widely known as the centre of the world's biodiversity and the meadows are the 'Prairies of the
Sea'. They are highly productive shallow water marine and coastal habitats comprised of marine plants, and
these threatened areas provide important food and shelter for animals in the sea.
Air pollution Germany: Diesel ban in Hamburg to trigger domino effect across Europe
The research led by Dr Richard Unsworth indicates that up to 90% of the seagrass meadows that they
examined in Indonesia have been extensively damaged and degraded over the past five years. In the
findings, researchers also discuss solutions to the problems these productive ecosystems face, including the
importance of community-led conservation action. In the study they also discuss examples where seagrass
conservation has been.
For example, in a series of small islands in Eastern Indonesia, seagrasses were threatened by sediment and
nutrient run-off from the land due to the degradation of riverbanks. As a result, replanting of riparian
vegetation along the rivers as an incentive scheme with local farmers has reduced the flow of these
pollutants into the sea.
Dr Richard Unsworth from Swansea University's Biosciences department said: "Our research is for the first
time recording how an area of the world so critically important for its biodiversity is rapidly losing a key
marine resource.
"This loss of seagrass is a terrible problem as the habitats in Indonesia have a major significance for daily
food supply and general livelihoods. Without seagrass as a fishery habitat many people in Indonesia would
not be able to feed their families on a daily basis." Dr Leanne Cullen-Unsworth from Cardiff University
added: "The ecological value of seagrass meadows is irrefutable, yet the loss of these systems in Indonesia
is accelerating. Seagrass meadows in Indonesia are mostly ignored in the conservation arena. As a result,
they're often not monitored, poorly researched and largely and unmanaged, leading to a tragedy of the
seagrass commons."
Professor Rohani Ambo-Rappe of Hasanuddin University, Indonesia, a collaborator on the research stated:
"Declining seagrass health is the result of shifting environmental conditions due largely to coastal
development, land reclamation, and deforestation, as well as seaweed farming, overfishing and garbage
dumping. The poor state of Indonesia's seagrasses will compromise their resilience to climate change and
result in a loss of their ability to lock away carbon dioxide and provide important fisheries habitats."
[Swansea University /ScienceDaily]
10/04/2018
By Violeta Keckarovska
In a landmark ruling Germany‘s highest administrative court in Leipzig ruled in favour of upholding diesel
bans that were introduced by lower courts in the cities of Stuttgart and Düsseldorf.
The ruling says that it would be up to the city and municipal authorities to apply the bans but advises to
―exercise proportionality‖ in enforcing them and to impose them gradually. Cars that meet Euro-4
emissions standards could be banned from next January, while Euro-5 vehicles should not be banned until
September 2019, four years after the introduction of the latest Euro-6 standard.
Paving the way for cities across Germany to follow suit, the ruling sets a precedent and is expected to
trigger a domino effect across the country and wider. The ruling which demonstrates a complete U-turn in
attitude toward diesel cars following the VW emissions scandal, is also likely to disrupt the cosy
Health & safety: New measures needed to protect port workers opening fumigated
containers from harm
relationship between the German government and car manufacturers, which have already suffered a decline
in their shares after the ruling.
While the decision came as a shock to the German car manufacturers and the federal government which is
currently weighing options to avoid bans after the ruling, it should come as no surprise given Germany‘s
environmental performance. The country has persistently broken EU rules on levels of air pollution and the
European Commission has threatened to initiate legal proceedings against Germany at the European Court
of Justice for its failure to do anything about high levels of harmful emissions in its cities. The German
government is now facing the consequences of its inactivity.
Despite claims that municipalities are not in a position to fulfil the bureaucracy tasks that would accompany
a driving ban any time soon, Hamburg already announced swift implementation on two of the most polluted
roads starting from late April. The driving ban in Hamburg is expected to immediately apply to all vehicles
that do not comply with the Euro 6 standard. Other major cities including Düsseldorf and Stuttgart are
expected to follow.
These developments revive the discussion about city logistics and urban supply chains. The ban would
obviously disrupt the express operations of companies delivering within cities and if urban supply chains
become burdened with regulations and delays, logistics costs would rise. Logistics companies will be
looking closely at the latest developments and be hopeful that their operations will be governed by the
principle of proportionality.
Dortmund, for instance, is laying the groundwork to enable the issuing of hundreds of overnight exemptions
for emergency services, food deliveries and city service vehicles. The aim is to ensure that supplies and
provisions continue to reach areas where roads might be closed. Even if this is the case for other cities that
decide to impose the diesel ban, supply chain disruptions will be unavoidable. Rethinking city logistics
operations and perhaps a radical shift to e-mobility might be the outcome of this landmark ruling which
seems to have put an end to the country‘s love affair with diesel vehicles.
[Transport Intelligence]
10/04/2018
A new study by the European Agency for Safety and Health at Work (EU-OSHA) has reviewed the risks to
workers when opening fumigated shipping containers.
The study, entitled Health risks and prevention practices during handling of fumigated containers in ports,
identifies significant gaps in preventive measures and makes recommendations that should be implemented
to improve the safety and health of workers.
Each year, more than 600 million freight containers are shipped worldwide. These containers are frequently
treated with pesticides to prevent damage to the goods. Agents used for this purpose have known toxic or
irritant properties and can have long-term effects on the cardiovascular and central nervous systems, for
instance phosphine (PH3), methyl bromide (MeBr) and formaldehyde. Workers at ports who open these
Marine pollution Indonesia: Borneo oil spill hurts the poor
containers, for example during customs inspections, can be exposed to these harmful agents. The report
indicates that this problem has been underestimated.
Despite the potential for exposure, standard safety and health measures and documentation to protect the
workers have been introduced in only a few cases. The report aims to provide an overview of the current
knowledge of the situation and to recommend how to minimise these risks to workers‘ safety and health.
The report — produced in response to a need identified by the European Commission‘s Sectoral Social
Dialogue Committee — describes a number of problems including:
• Fumigated containers are almost never labelled as fumigated.
• Insufficient safety procedures when opening and unloading fumigated containers.
• Appropriate risk assessments not carried out.
• Lack of a clear, standardised screening protocol to check for residual fumigants.
• Under-reporting of incidents of adverse health effects.
A number of changes to current practice could vastly improve the safety and health of the workers in
question. The report includes a number of preventive actions, strategies and recommendations:
• Do not open containers until a risk assessment concludes that it is safe to do so. This could be based on
shipping documents or approved measurements of the container atmosphere, if necessary after ventilating
it.
• Introduce adequate monitoring equipment and standardised screening procedures for fumigated
containers. The tools used for screening should detect MeBr and PH3 (and other fumigants if possible) with
sufficient sensitivity to accurately detect a level of at least 10 % of the occupational exposure limit.
• Enforce legislation regarding the labelling of fumigated containers. A uniform approach across European
ports is needed to avoid competition at the expense of safety and health.
• Identify containers that might pose a health risk to workers – clear, standard labelling is needed (including
the use of symbols where there may be a language barrier).
• Create and implement standard procedures for off-gassing (replacing the air) and ventilating fumigated
containers.
• Distribute information packs offering guidance on personal protective equipment and risk assessment;
these should be easily understandable to all workers who may be exposed to fumigated containers.
[EU-OSHA]
09/04/2018
By Kate Walton
―We believe this is the worst oil spill to catch fire since the 2010 Deepwater Horizon disaster,‖ said Fathur
Roziqin Fen, director for East Kalimantan for WALHI, Indonesia‘s largest environmental organisation.
Balikpapan Bay oil spill catches fire. Credit: Tempo
He is closely monitoring the consequences of last week‘s large oil spill in Balikpapan Bay, Borneo. "Over
130 square kilometres of sea are covered in oil,‖ Fen told me. Five fishermen have been killed, Irrawaddy
dolphins are dying, at least 162 fishermen have lost their livelihoods, 17,000 hectares of mangroves are at
risk, and crab farms worth billions of Rupiah have been destroyed.
The Indonesian government has distributed masks around the city and asked residents not to light cigarettes
near the bay. Pertamina, the state-owned gas and oil enterprise that owns a pipeline in the bay, initially
denied that the oil was theirs and claimed test results indicated it was motor oil. Ten tests later, the company
finally admitted responsibility. It turned out that part of the pipe, located only 25 metres under the sea, had
somehow moved 120 metres from its original location.
A satellite image shows the extent of area that is covered with crude oil from an undersea pipe leakage in
Balikpapan Bay. Source: Indonesian National Disaster Mitigation Agency / BNPB
―The sea pollution is so bad and we‘ve lost our livelihood,‖ a fisherman told the ABC. ―I‘m standing on the
coast and the smell is so strong it‘s giving me a headache.‖ WALHI says more than 70% of Balikpapan Bay
has been covered in oil.
Stretching some 54,716 kilometres, Indonesia‘s coastline is the world‘s second longest, after Canada‘s.
Coastal communities not only have to deal with sinking shorelines, salinisation of rice fields and vegetable
plots, and natural disasters such as tsunamis, but also with poverty, health, food shortages, and
unemployment. A large oil spill can severely compound these challenges.
In 2011, almost 15 million coastal dwellers – approximately 6% of Indonesia‘s total population – were
deemed poor or very poor. Many of them live alongside major shipping routes, such
as the Makassar Strait where Balikpapan is located, and must contend with contaminants from cargo ships
as well as gas and oil rigs. Pertamina‘s oil pipeline is not the only extractive project in the Makassar Strait.
In mid-2017 a gas rig opened that pipes its product 80 kilometres to Bontang, north of Balikpapan.
In Indonesia, living beside the sea is not a sign of wealth. Marine pollution and its impact on ocean life
represents a major threat to coastal communities. In coastal Indonesia, a meal often consists of a heaped
plate of plain rice and a fried fish. For most, seafood is the only animal protein they eat because chicken,
beef, and goat is too expensive. Without access to fish, shellfish, and crustaceans, many coastal people‘s
diets would likely consist entirely of carbohydrates.
Indonesian companies don‘t exactly have a great record of managing the environmental impact of
extractive industries such as oil, gas, and mining. The Freeport gold mine in Timika, Papua, reportedly
dumps as much as 200,000 tonnes of waste into the local rivers every day. Locals claim the waste has raised
the height of the riverbed and caused fish, oysters, and prawns to all but disappear, despite Freeport-
McMoRan spending US$15.5 million annually to reduce the mine‘s impact.
Horn of Africa: Tiny Djibouti aiming to be global military and shipping center
On the other side of the country, in Sidoarjo, East Java, the drilling of a gas exploration well has sent
boiling mud flowing across villages since 2006, killing 13 people and displacing as many as 60,000
residents.
While the 2009 Environmental Law states that polluters must be responsible and pay for any environmental
damages caused, in practice this has been hard to prove in court and harder to implement. The Sidoarjo mud
flow, for example, not only displaced tens of thousands of people, but also contaminated rivers with
cadmium and lead. While cadmium causes renal failure, lead damages the brain and nervous system,
meaning its long-term impact on residents is unclear. The government ordered the mining company, PT
Lapindo Brantas, to compensate victims in 2007, but 11 years later many are still waiting. Others only
received payouts because the central government loaned Lapindo the money.
President Joko ―Jokowi‖ Widodo said in 2016 that ―it is our responsibility as citizens of the world to
preserve the oceans‖; however, WALHI claims that this is not the first oil spill to occur in Balikpapan Bay
– an earlier spill in May 2017 received little attention. As with many environmental issues, it appears there
is a disconnect between the government‘s words and its actions.
Indonesia recently vowed to reduce plastic waste, but this will only solve one element of marine pollution;
the country is simply too focused on achieving food and energy security and becoming one of the world‘s
10 largest economies by 2030. Indonesia must realise that economic success comes at an environmental
price that might be too high.
[Lowy Interpreter / Maritime Executive]
09/04/2018
Two fighter jets took off and roared over the Djibouti-Ambouli International Airport, a sprawling complex
in this tiny African nation that is quickly becoming a strategic military and shipping outpost for the world.
Not far away, a massive U.S. flag waved over transport planes parked in front of America‘s only permanent
military base in Africa, Camp Lemonnier, home to about 4,000 personnel.
Djibouti, an arid Horn of Africa nation with less than 1 million inhabitants, also has become a military
outpost for China, France, Italy and Japan, with that nation‘s first overseas base since World War II. Other
powers including Saudi Arabia have expressed interest in the key location across the Bab el-Mandeb strait
from the Arabian Peninsula and on one of the world‘s busiest shipping corridors.
On the chaotic streets of what has been called the ―Singapore of Africa,‖ the jostling between the United
States and China for influence is plainly seen.
Before being sacked by President Donald Trump, then-Secretary of State Rex Tillerson made a point of
stopping in Djibouti on his Africa visit last month and noting its importance in the fight against the al-
Qaida-linked al-Shabab extremist group in neighboring Somalia and the Islamic State group in the region at
large. The U.S. carries out drone missions in Somalia and Yemen from Djibouti, but the military paused air
operations last week after a jet crashed and a helicopter was damaged during a landing.
China‘s first overseas military base, which was manned last year, is just a few miles from the U.S. one. The
head of the U.S. Africa Command, Gen. Thomas Waldhauser, earlier this year predicted that ―there will be
more.‖
China‘s economic interest is strong as well, with Djibouti borrowing up to $957 million from the Export-
Import Bank of China to finance several projects in recent years, according to the China Africa Research
Initiative at Johns Hopkins University. The Chinese built a new electrified rail line that links the capital of
neighboring Ethiopia, Africa‘s second most populous country and one of its strongest economies, with
Djibouti as the nation aims to become a global shipping power.
―We sit on two of the busiest shipping lanes in the world. We are servicing the wider region, including
some of the world‘s fastest-growing economies,‖ the chairman of the Djibouti Ports and Free Zones
Authority, Aboubaker Omar Hadi, said in an interview during a recent visit by The Associated Press.
He called Djibouti, a largely Muslim nation, a model of stability in an otherwise volatile region. It is also
one of the world‘s fastest-growing economies, with the World Bank projecting 7 percent growth this year.
The country made headlines earlier this year when it seized control of a container terminal run by the
Dubai-based DP World, one of the world‘s largest port operators, in a long-running legal dispute. If China
takes over the terminal‘s operations, the effects on supplying the U.S. military base could be ―significant,‖
the U.S. Africa Command chief has warned.
That will not happen, Hadi‘s office said: ―Djibouti has no plan to give Doraleh Container Port to China.‖ It
is now managed by a fully state-owned company controlled by the ports authority, it added.
Djibouti is currently investing $15 billion in local infrastructure projects that connect the region to global
trade routes, including the expansion of ports, improved road and rail links and new airports, according to
official figures provided to AP.
The country‘s ports now have a total handling capacity of 18 million tons per year, officials said, and the
new Doraleh Multipurpose Port, a $590 million joint project between the ports authority and China
Merchants Port Holdings opened in May last year, is already working at full capacity. It is a separate entity
from the Doraleh Container Port.
Now officials are pursuing a new project called the Djibouti International Free Trade Zone, expected to be
the largest of its kind in Africa.
―Once complete it will span an area of 4,800 hectares (11,860 acres), following a total investment of more
than $3.5 billion,‖ the ports authority chairman said. The first phase is expected to be complete by the end
of the year.
Officials hope the ambitious infrastructure projects will not only raise Djibouti‘s global image but also help
it pay off significant debts.
During Tillerson‘s visit, Foreign Minister Mahamoud Ali Youssouf acknowledged that Djibouti‘s debt
totals roughly 84 percent of its GDP, most of it to China. ―The burden of debt is there, we are aware of it,‖
he said. ―But let me tell you that it is so far manageable.‖
One sign of investor confidence is whether China‘s commercial banks begin lending to Djibouti as well,
said Jyhjong Hwang, senior research assistant at the China-Africa Research Initiative.
Oil & gas shipping Canada: Kinder Morgan halts spending on Trans Mountain pipeline
Djibouti‘s officials anticipate that the demand for their ports will grow as more African nations expand their
economies. They also dismissed concerns about a recent deal by DP World, Ethiopia and Somalia‘s semi-
autonomous region of Somaliland to develop and manage the Port of Berbera there, seen by some as
another reason for Djibouti‘s seizure of the container terminal from DP World.
―Competition will make the region more attractive. East Africa‘s economies are growing fast, and there is
a clear demand for Djibouti‘s infrastructure to support this growth,‖ the ports authority chairman said.
Djibouti‘s residents said local business is booming as a result of the growing international military and
shipping interest, despite the country‘s unemployment rate of nearly 40 percent, and construction sites and
new roads dotted the city. Economic growth has attracted entrepreneurs from India, Yemen, Gulf nations
and elsewhere.
―Our company provides a fleet of cars for the army bases and we are really benefiting from it,‖ said Nour
Omar, one of Djibouti‘s best-known businessmen and general manager of local import and distribution
business BSH Holding. ―We aim to expand our services following their demand.‖
[The Associated Press]
09/04/2018
Canadian midstream company Kinder Morgan announced Sunday that it will stop all non-essential
spending on its controversial Trans Mountain pipeline project.
Image courtesy Trans Mountain / Kinder Morgan
If completed, the pipeline would triple Kinder Morgan's capacity to transport heavy oil sands crude from
central Canada to an export terminal in Vancouver, leading to a concomitant increase in tanker traffic.
British Columbia premier John Horgan has vowed to do whatever is necessary to block the pipeline, and his
government is pursuing multiple legal suits to prevent its construction.
Given the sustained opposition from B.C.'s political leadership, Kinder Morgan has decided to suspend
work. "Under current circumstances, specifically including the continued actions in opposition to the
project by the Province of British Columbia, [we] will not commit additional shareholder resources to the
project," Kinder Morgan wrote. "However, [we] will consult with various stakeholders in an effort to reach
agreements by May 31 that may allow the project to proceed."
According to Kinder Morgan president and CEO Steve Kean, the company has put $1.1 billion into the $7.4
billion pipeline, including funds spent on upgrading the Westridge Marine Terminal in Burnaby. ―We
expect to continue investing but it has become clear that this particular investment may become untenable
for a private party to undertake,‖ said Kean. "The fact remains that a substantial portion of the project must
be constructed through British Columbia, and since the change in government in June 2017, that
government has been clear and public in its intention to use 'every tool in the toolbox' to stop the project."
Other Canadian energy companies expressed serious concern that the failure of Kinder Morgan's private
sector effort would be a blow to the sector's reputation and ability to attract investment. "The project is
critical to Canada and the future of its oil and gas industry,‖ said
Alex Pourbaix, president and CEO of tar sands oil company Cenovus Energy. ―If the rule of law is not
upheld and this project is allowed to fail, it will have a chilling effect on investment not just in British
Columbia, but across the entire country."
Private investment might not be required. On Monday, Canadian natural resource minister Jim Carr
suggested that the government might pay for the rest of the pipeline's construction. Alberta's premier,
Rachel Notley, said that her oil-rich province would also be interested in investing to get the project built.
Southern alternative
The Trans Mountain expansion would complement the capacity of TransCanada's Keystone XL pipeline, a
competing transport route that is also intended to carry Alberta's oil to overseas markets. The cross-border
Keystone XL would connect a storage hub at Hardisty, Alberta to American pipeline infrastructure at Steele
City, Nebraska, enabling Canadian producers to load export cargoes at U.S. Gulf Coast ports like LOOP
and Corpus Christi. LOOP has the water depth to handle VLCCs, which have more than twice the carrying
capacity of the Aframax tankers that would call Kinder Morgan's Westridge terminal. Like Trans Mountain,
Keystone XL is highly controversial, and it faces numerous legal challenges.
[Maritime Executive]
Port development Canada: Dual container terminal strategy for St. Lawrence?
09/04/2018
Kawasaki Kisen Kaisha (K-Line), a global shipping company based in Japan, has today entered a guilty
plea in the Federal Court to criminal cartel conduct.
K-Line‘s plea follows an investigation by the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC)
and charges laid by the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions in relation to cartel conduct
concerning the international shipping of cars, trucks, and buses to Australia.
This is the second guilty plea in Australia in relation to this cartel. On 18 July 2016, Nippon Yusen
Kabushiki Kaisha (NYK) pleaded guilty to criminal cartel conduct. On 3 August 2017, NYK was convicted
and fined $25 million.
K-Line is a global organisation with offices in Europe, Africa, Northeast Asia, South East Asia, Japan,
North America, Central America, South America, India, the Middle East and Oceania (including Australia).
It has over 8,000 employees and is headquartered in Tokyo. It also has an Australian subsidiary, K-Line
(Australia) Pty Ltd.
The matter will now proceed to sentence and is next scheduled for a sentencing hearing in the Federal Court
on 15 and 16 November 2018. The ACCC‘s investigation into other alleged cartel participants is
continuing. As this is a criminal matter currently before the Federal Court, the ACCC will not provide any
further comment at this time.
[ACCC]
09/04/2018
By Leo Ryan
Port of Quebec is proposing a new St. Lawrence River container terminal. The Port of Montreal is in the
midst of expanding its container terminals. Is there room enough for two on the St. Lawrence?
Build it and the cargo will come. A familiar refrain that surfaces often by hopeful advocates of a major new
project in the world marine industry. In the highly competitive container terminal sector, deep water, either
natural or through dredging, can be a vital asset along with location in this fast-moving era of mega-ships.
But other important factors can come into play when assessing whether certain projects are logistically or
economically viable – certainly the case of the recent ambitious proposal of the Port of Quebec to enter the
container game long dominated by the Port of Montreal on the St. Lawrence River.
Some four decades ago, CP Ships (now part of Germany‘s Hapag-Lloyd group) dropped its North Atlantic
container service with the Port of Quebec in favor of Montreal, which is more than 1,000 miles from the
Atlantic Ocean. In rapid fashion, Montreal emerged as Canada‘s leading container hub on the East Coast –
today handling 1.5 million TEU - while Quebec City has focused virtually exclusively on bulk shipping. It
Vehicle shipping Australia: K-Line pleads guilty to criminal cartel conduct
is also a superb destination for cruise operators.
Aerial view of the bustling Port of Montreal targeting expanded container facilities. Source: AJOT
A recent surprise announcement by the Port of Quebec to establish a container terminal stunned St.
Lawrence River maritime circles (including the Port of Montreal). It also confounded Canadian consultants
well versed in the special features and challenges of the continental waterway that allows ocean carriers to
penetrate deeply into the industrial heartland of North America.
Quebec’s surprise plan
Last December, Mario Girard, president and CEO of the Quebec Port Authority, unveiled a plan to build a
container terminal at the deep-water port aimed at boosting the competitiveness of the St. Lawrence
gateway with U.S. East Coast ports accommodating much bigger ships (with capacities above 10,000
containers) since the 2016 enlargement of the Panama Canal.
He affirmed that the Port of Quebec, with its water depth of 15 meters [49.2 feet] at high tide (compared to
Montreal at 11.3 meters [37-feet]), was strongly positioned to capitalize on the changing landscape of
commercial shipping. ―Quebec City,‖ Girard said, ―must get on board and leverage its strategic location on
the shortest route between Europe and the St. Lawrence-Great Lakes region, which is home to over 40% of
the U.S. manufacturing industry.‖
Artist rendering of ambitious container terminal project of Port of Quebec.
Worth recalling is the fact that there was no mention specifically of the Port of Quebec as a container player
when the provincial government unveiled its ambitious Quebec Maritime Strategy in 2015. The over-
arching goal was to develop Quebec Province as ―the mega-hub of transatlantic trade.‖
Much emphasis and government financing support subsequently flowed to the Montreal region as Quebec‘s
leading port, intermodal and industrial cluster arguably best placed to reap the benefits of such
developments as the Canada-European Union free trade agreement in force since last September.
Costing an estimated C$400 million (US$309.74 million), the proposed terminal at the Port of Quebec, with
nominal annual capacity of 500,000 containers, would be the revised principal feature of the Beaufort 2020
expansion project that was originally designed as a multi-purpose facility. The terminal would extend the
port‘s wharf line by 610 meters, connect with existing road and rail networks, and house a 17-hectare
container yard.
―The Port of Quebec has many merits, but not for containers,‖ asserts consultant Brian Slack.
―Logistics-wise, the container project does not make sense. A lot is going on globally revolving around the
myth of mega ships of 20,000 TEU. It is far from reality, at least as far as North America is concerned.‖
―What is striking about Montreal is its status as a destination port with the full discharge and load: you are
typically bringing 4,000 containers in and you are taking 4,000 containers out. Now that is as good as you
are going to get on any U.S. East Coast port where vessels make multiple stops.
―Try and find a port that can give you a turnaround of up to 8,000 TEUs. That‘s pretty good going.
Montreal is, in fact, a unique business model, with direct container services of small or what you could call
medium-sized vessels.‖
The Montreal model
Other key features of the Montreal model: the short dwell time of containers on docks (averaging 1.8 days)
and two train days from Chicago. Presently, the Port of Montreal is working to reduce persistent truck
congestion problems that began several weeks ago amidst the strong growth in container volume. Truckers
have experienced wait times of three to four hours, prompting some haulers to charge shippers up to C$75
per waiting hour at terminal gates. While the port is investing in various fluidity projects (including
connecting roads), extension of gate hours was being considered.
In addition, Slack points to Montreal‘s excellent intermodal connections with its core markets in Central
Canada and the Midwest whereas Quebec has ―an important rail connectivity issue. The Quebec box
terminal at its location would need to be linked by shortline to the main CN line on the South Shore. If
feasible, it could be very expensive.
―For Midwest traffic, there is rising competition from CSX and Norfolk Southern who are improving their
services to the East Coast.‖
Professor Claude Comtois, a transportation/logistics expert at the Université de Montréal, questions the
viability of a 10,000-TEU container ship calling at the Port of Quebec. He points out that the Port of
Quebec represents too much of a detour (more than a thousand nautical miles) to warrant mega-ship calls as
well as at various ports on the U.S. eastern seaboard (as many transatlantic services via Halifax are
structured). Thus, the Port of Quebec must constitute, in such cases, a destination port where all containers
are loaded and unloaded (as happens in Montreal).
―But,‖ continued Comtois, ―the small local market could generate barely 10% of this traffic – meaning
thousands of containers will have to be transported by train or truck to markets well beyond the City of
Quebec.‖
As a result, apart from the increase in greenhouse gas emissions and road congestion around Quebec City,
this implies, in his view, additional costs by truck and rail towards markets in Ontario and the U.S. Midwest
compared with the services offered via the Port of Montreal.
―For a shipping line, there is no commercial justification for the creation of a container service in which the
capacity of ship is dependent on distant markets already served in a competitive way by the Port of
Montreal with well-established intermodal links,‖ Comtois said.
In a significant development, the Port of Montreal in early February moved an important step forward to
establishing a sixth container facility to keep pace with projected demand and with massive infrastructure
investments by U.S. East Coast ports by releasing an environmental impact report on the project at
Contrecoeur. The latter is situated on the south shore of the St. Lawrence River, 40 kms (24.9 miles)
downstream from Montreal. Assuming this project gains Ottawa‘s green light (there are several wildlife
habitat issues that do not appear insurmountable), the C$750 million (US$580.76 million) Contrecoeur
facility would boost the port‘s capacity from 2.1 million to 3.5 million containers upon completion slated
for 2023.
Port development Sri Lanka: Reconstruction of Kankesanthurai Harbour in Colombo
Site of the Port of Montreal‘s planned new container terminal at Contrecoeur, 25 miles downstream. Source: AJOT
Critical view of maritime employers
Meanwhile, the Port of Quebec must not only secure sufficient financing from government and industry
sources, it must overcome serious reservations not just from a local environmental group known as Nature
Quebec but from the influential Maritime Employers Association (MEA).
Headquartered in Montreal, the MEA represents vessel owners, operators and agents as well as stevedoring
companies and terminal operators. Its members include such shipping lines as Maersk, MSC, OOCL,
Fednav, CMA-CGM and Hapag-Lloyd.
Outlining its position in a recent statement, the MEA said it did not believe that the Quebec container
terminal plan ―answered a real need of industry and markets.‖ The MEA lauded Montreal‘s vocation as a
destination port. It singled out the extra surface transport costs implied from Quebec, and argued that, partly
due to often difficult winter conditions, containerships larger than 8,000 TEU were not suitable for the St.
Lawrence trades and the markets served by the Port of Montreal.
While the shipping lines themselves always ultimately decide where they load and unload cargo, industry
observers see little evidence thus far that the Port of Quebec will emerge one day soon as a second
container port on the St. Lawrence.
[American Journal of Transportation]
09/04/2018
For the reconstruction of the KKS harbour, a credit line agreement between the Export-Import Bank of
India and the Sri Lankan Government was signed.
A $ 45.17 million credit line from India will be used to finance the restoration of the KKS Harbour, which
is to be transformed into a self-sustainable, commercial harbour. This project is line with the Government‘s
North-East Economic Corridor concept to develop trade in the northern and eastern ports/harbours.
The restoration of the KKS Harbour will be carried out by the Sri Lanka Ports Authority (SLPA). It
comprises the installation of a new jetty along with the rehabilitation of the existing one. Meanwhile, the
finances to upgrade the northern part of the Colombo Port will be in the form of a Technical Assistance
(TA) loan from the Asian Development Bank (ADB).
ADB has provided $ 1.5 million to prepare the National Port Master Plan in addition to the TA loan of $
4.42 million for detailed design and for any other projects identified by the Master Plan. Additional
terminals will be added to the Colombo Port to handle a larger volume of containers as well as for logistic
facilities and energy production. Minister of Ports and Shipping Mahinda Samarasinghe submitted the
Cabinet papers for the two projects.
Terminal operators Djibouti: DP World issues legal notice over future port development after
seizure of container terminal
KKS Harbour and Colombo Port project. Credit: Sri Lanka Ports Authority
[SLPA]
09/04/2018
The row between Dubai-based port operator DP World and the government of Djibouti has taken another
turn for the worse with the latest proclamation from company, which was unceremoniously evicted from
the Doraleh Container Terminal (DCT) in the Port of Djibouti by the authorities in February.
DP World is sending a clear message to anyone who chooses to step in and assist in the management or
development of the port that legal proceedings will undoubtedly follow.
DP World has insisted that the Concession Agreement to operate DCT, a joint venture controlled by DP
World, remains in full force and effect. That Agreement conferred on DCT the right to operate the port,
which it designed and built, and in turn DP World was mandated to manage the port. The Agreement
apparently also gave DCT and DP World exclusive rights to build and operate any other container ports and
free zones in Djibouti.
The Concession Agreement was recently upheld as a valid and binding contract under English law by a
tribunal of arbitrators (one a former member of the United Kingdom Supreme Court, another a member of
the English Court of Appeal, and the third a leading Queens Counsel and independent arbitrator) under the
Terminal operators Turkey: NYK and Oyak to build and operate USD110 million car terminal
near Istanbul
auspices of the London Court of International Arbitration or LCIA, which rejected the Government of
Djibouti‘s attempt to rescind the Concession Agreement based on what are termed ‗false allegations of
corruption‘.
In a related proceeding an English High Court Justice agreed that the Concession Agreement had been a
great financial success for Djibouti. The Port of Djibouti‘s own website appears to bear this out with figures
commencing in 2010 showing an annual throughput of around 425,000 TEU. By 2016, the last year for
which figures are available, this total had risen steadily year by year to a height of 987,000 TEU,
comfortably doubling turnover.
After the government seized the terminal on February 22 the DP World staff managing DCT were forced to
leave the country resulting in a further LCIA arbitration application being lodged by DP World and DCT,
accusing the Djibouti authorities of unlawful seizure and falsely declaring the Concession Agreement
terminated. Apparently, DP World has received information that the Djibouti government has been
contacting other companies regarding further development and operations at the port, something DP World
says is expressly forbidden in the original agreement.
DP World has stated that it and DCT are ‗the lawful holders of rights in respect of the ownership and
operation of the container shipping terminal at Doraleh, Djibouti, and will pursue all available legal
recourse, including claims for damages, against any other entities that tortuously interfere or otherwise
violate their rights with respect to the Concession Agreement‘.
[The Handy Shipping Guide]
09/04/2018
Japanese shipping company Nippon Yusen Kaisha (NYK) has joined forces with Turkish conglomerate
Oyak to build and operate a finished-car logistics terminal in Yarimca port near Istanbul.
The company signed an agreement with Oyak, the Turkish Armed Forces‘ pension fund, in Istanbul on
April 5. As informed, the new joint venture will be owned and operated together with Oyak Denizcilik ve
Liman İşletmeleri A.Ş. (Oyak Port), a port-management subsidiary of Oyak.
Shipping industry needs an alternative to fossil fuels, but which one?
Artist rendering of car terminal in Yarimca port. Credit: NYK
―The new joint venture will be positioned to respond to demand in an area where finished-car imports and
exports are expected to rise,‖ NYK said in a statement. The new terminal, which will have a yard area of
about 180,000 square meters, will be the first large terminal that is located in the suburbs of Istanbul and
dedicated to finished cars, according to NYK.
Operations are scheduled to commence in mid-2019. The investment is worth USD 110 million, Reuters
reported.
[World Maritime News]
09/04/2018
The shipping industry needs to move to renewable and alternative fuels to reduce the sector's impact on the
environment.
But there is no widely available fuel to manage climate change and local pollutants according to a recent
study by researchers at The University of Manchester: Assessment of full life-cycle air emissions of
alternative shipping fuels, published in the Journal of Cleaner Production.
How the shipping industry's need to radically reduce its CO2 emissions will a prominent discussion when
the International Maritime Organisation's Marine Environment Protection Committee (MEPC) meets in
London from 9-13 April.
Flags of convenience: Death of 2,400 sheep on Panama-flagged livestock carrier spark
widespread outrage
The research team says there is a need for alternative fuels in shipping for two main reasons; to reduce local
pollutants and comply with regulation and; to mitigate against climate change and cut greenhouse gas
emissions.
Alternative fuels are defined as any other fuel than conventional fossil fuels that can be used for powering
ships. The alternative fuels assessed in the study were liquefied natural gas (LNG), methanol, liquid
hydrogen (LH2) (with and without carbon capture and storage), biodiesel, straight vegetable oil (SVO) and
bio-LNG. However, the analysis demonstrates that no widely available fuel exists currently to both reduce
the environmental impact and comply with current environmental regulation. Some of the alternative fuel
options analysed have the potential, but only if key barriers can be overcome.
Dr. Paul Gilbert, Senior Lecturer in Climate Change Mitigation, said: "There is, at present, no readily
available fuel option to deliver significant savings on local pollutants and greenhouse gas emissions in
tandem. In particular, LNG is a promising option for meeting existing regulation, but it is not a low
greenhouse gas emissions fuel."
Researchers from the University's Tyndall Centre for Climate Change carried out a life cycle assessment of
current and future fuels used by the shipping companies to quantify their environmental impacts.
They measured the impacts by using six emissions types. These were local pollutants (sulphur oxides,
nitrogen oxides, and particulate matter) and greenhouse gases (carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide).
However, to become a viable alternative for the industry to adopt, the fuel must meet a range of criteria.
One of the fundamental requirements is that it can deliver emissions reductions over its full life-cycle.
Dr. Gilbert added: "To understand the full extent of the environmental implications it is important to
consider the emissions released over the full life-cycle and not just during fuel combustion. Otherwise,
there is a risk of misleading the industry and policy on the true emission penalties of any alternative fuels."
The study says effort needs to be directed at overcoming barriers to exploiting the identified low carbon
potential of fuels or finding alternatives.
Dr. Gilbert said: "As the urgent need to curtail greenhouse gas emissions is the more severe challenge, it is
therefore important to ensure that any short-term measure doesn't diminish the potential roll-out of low
carbon fuels, in particular when taking into account the long life times of ships and fuel supply
infrastructure. To meet the objective of reducing greenhouse gas emissions, whole life-cycle emissions need
to be accounted for."
[University of Manchester / phys.org]
09/04/2018
More than 2,400 sheep died during an August 2017 voyage of the 1990-built Panama-flagged livestock
carrier Awassi Express from Australia to the Middle East.
Farmers have said they were disappointed their animals were enduring deadly conditions onboard livestock carrier
Awassi Express. Credit: Channel Nine
The death of a large number of sheep last year on a ship that was transporting them from Australia to the
Middle East has sparked an outcry from animal rights activists and Australian agriculture officials.
During an August 2017 voyage of the livestock carrier Awassi Express from Freemantle to Qatar, Kuwait
and the United Arab Emirates, 2,400 sheep died, 3.79 percent of the total consignment of 63,804 animals.
The incident became the subject of an investigation by Australia‘s Department of Agriculture and Water
Resources, which published its findings last week.
The investigation found the sheep were prepared and transported in accordance with Australian Standards
and that the cause of the animal deaths was heat stress, with the peak in mortalities corresponding to
extreme heat and humidity experienced in Qatar.
David Littlefield, the department‘s minister, told the Australian Broadcasting Corp. he was ―shocked and
gutted‖ after viewing video footage from the ship that was given to him by the animal rights group Animals
Australia. The Australian version of ―60 Minutes‖ is reportedly planning to air that same footage on its
program this Sunday.
Livestock carrier blocked in Fremantle
The "Awassi Express" slated to take 65,000 sheep to the Middle East, has failed to satisfy an inspection
and must provide evidence of improvements before maritime officials will allow it to set sail with livestock on
board.
Inspectors from the Australian Maritime Safety Authority (AMSA) spent hours inspecting the "Awassi
Express" after it docked in Fremantle on Apr 9, 2018. AMSA has advised the master and ship operator that
they will have to arrange a third party air flow verification report to prove compliance with air flow standards
before an Australian Certificate for the Carriage of Livestock can be issued.
The inspected ship, used by Emanuel Exports, is the same vessel linked to 2,400 sheep deaths during a
voyage to the Middle East last August. The Department of Agriculture investigated that incident but scandal
―This is the livelihoods of Australian farmers that are on that ship,‖ said Littlefield. ―That is their pride and
joy and it‘s just total bullshit that what I saw is taking place.‖
The Australian Livestock Exporters‘ Council also described the Animals Australia footage ―as highly
distressing and unacceptable to the industry, livestock producers and the community.‖
―These deaths and the conditions in which they occurred are plainly unacceptable,‖ said Simon Westaway,
the chief executive officer of the council. According to the council, 1.74 million live sheep were exported
from Australia in 2017, 12,377 of which died in transit, a mortality rate of 0.71 percent.
―The range of livestock mortalities since 2010 has been between 0.6 to 0.9 percent and is trending down,
but our industry is determined to achieve better outcomes,‖ the Australian Livestock Exporters‘ Council
said, noting that the country also exports more than 1 million live cattle annually.
Animals are sometimes used to strengthen breeding and herd numbers, but the council notes religious
requirements, particularly around festival times, dictate the slaughter of live animals. And in situations in
which Australian animals are involved, this is done ―under Australian controlled conditions.‖
―Processing live animals locally is often cheaper than buying boxed or chilled meat slaughtered in
Australia, which is a high-input cost industry compared to its global competitors,‖ the council added.
In a statement, Graham Daws, the managing director of Emanuel Exports, the company exporting the
sheep, called the incident ―devastating‖ and said the company has ―taken steps over more than six months
to address the issues arising from our own extensive review of the voyage and the government findings.‖
He said that has included reducing stocking rates in summer up to 15 percent beyond the benchmark for the
Australian Standards for Export of Live Animals.
Daws said the blacklisting of Qatar by other Gulf Cooperation Council ―meant the captain of the vessel had
no choice other than to call Doha as first port (instead of Kuwait, as planned.) Extreme heat and humidity
was encountered in Doha. Such weather events are an anomaly and voyage records show the vast majority
of deliveries during the hotter summer months each year are successful.‖
According to a report from Australia‘s Financial Review, Emanuel Exports has agreed to ―comply with new
stringent measures to protect sheep and cattle after the federal Agriculture Department threatened to block a
shipment planned for next week. About 65,000 sheep and 250 cattle are due to depart from Fremantle on
board the MV Awassi Express on Wednesday, bound for the Middle East for a 20-day voyage.‖
Source: Vesselfinder
Awassi Express owner / management
Source: Equasis
erupted after footage of the sheep surfaced, reportedly showing livestock being mistreated. The vision
showed hundreds of sheep crowded into a small space, workers throwing dead sheep overboard, and
faeces-covered pens where animals stood panting or collapsed on the ground.
It remains unclear what will happen to the sheep and 250 cattle Emanuel Exports plans to send to Kuwait,
United Arab Emirates, Oman and Qatar in the coming days. Emanuel Exports was also responsible for a
July 2016 consignment, in which an estimated 3,000 sheep died from heat stress during a voyage to the
Middle East.
Full report with photos: Live exports: Maritime officials block shipment of 65,000 sheep to the Middle East
[ABC News, 9 Apr 2018]
Awassi Express. Credit: ABC News
According to Equasis, the Awassi Express has been detained six times in different Australian ports between
2014 and 2017 because of numerous serious deficiencies detected during Port State Control inspections,
such as:
• Fire safety
• ISM: Emergency preparedness
• Life saving appliances: Inflatable liferafts
• Life saving appliances: Launching arrangements for survival craft
• Life saving appliances: Lifeboats
• Life saving appliances: Lifebuoys
• Life saving appliances: On-board training and instructions
• Life saving appliances: Rescue boats
• MLC, 2006 Accommodation, recreational facilities, food and catering: Sanitary facilities, water pipes and
tanks
• Safety of navigation: Automatic identification system (AIS)
• Safety of navigation: Magnetic compass
• Water/weathertight conditions: Freeboard marks
[American Shipper / Equasis / ABC News]
Advance your career by gaining Professional Recognition. Professional recognition is a visible mark of
quality, competence and commitment, and can give you a significant advantage in today‘s competitive
environment.
All who have the relevant qualifications and the required level of experience can apply for Professional
Membership of IAMSP.
The organization offers independent validation and integrity. Each grade of membership reflects an
individual‘s professional training, experience and qualifications. You can apply for Student Membership as
per following :
Fellow (FIAMSP)
To be elected as a fellow, the candidate must satisfy the council that he/she:
Has held for at least eight (8) years consecutively a high position of responsibility in shipping or related
business.
Has distinguished himself/herself in shipping practice.
Is a principal in a firm or a director of a company in the business or profession.
Members in this grade are entitle to use the initials FIAMSP After their names.
Full Member (FMIAMSP)
Individuals holding an internationally recognised marine qualification, or who can prove that they have
practiced on a full time basis for a minimum of five (5) years as a consultant or marine surveyor.
Individuals who, by producing written reports can demonstrate that they have practiced marine surveying or
consultancy for at least five (5) years.
Individuals whose qualifications or experience shall be considered appropriate by the Professional
Assessment Committee.
Members may use the initials FMIAMSP after their names.
Associate Member (AMIAMSP)
Associate Membership shall be open to any person, partnership, company, firm or other corporate that does
not own a Ship but is engaged in ship operating or ship management. Associate Members can nominate one
(1) person to represent them in the Association. Associate Members are entitled to attend General Meetings
and to participate in discussion at such meetings but shall not vote or stand for election to the Board of
Directors.
Technician (TechIAMSP)
Individuals holding a recognised qualification, for example Inspector level 2 or higher (NACE, FROSIO,
ICorr), RMCI and IRMII, NDT Technicians (CSWIP), for example gauging personnel, divers or other
surveyors with at least three years full time practical experience in a marine related field. Technician
Members may use the designation TIAMSP after their names.
Affiliate (AFFIAMSP)
Graduates who do not meet the criteria for Full or Associate Membership and are continuing to train and
gain experience prior to applying for Associate Membership
Student (SIAMSP)
Individuals who are enrolled in training programs related to the maritime or shipping will be appointed as
student members of the Association for the duration of their course.
PROFESSIONAL MEMBERSHIP
Fellow (FIAMSP)
M. Peter Harold Tedder
United Kingdom
M. Robinson Mark
United Kingdom
M. Jasim Aqeel
Iraq
Full Member (FMIAMSP)
Capt. Siddig Atif
Qatar
M. MOREIRA JOAO PAULO
Portugal
M. Ephraim Kevin
Bahrain
Affiliate (AFFIAMSP)
M. Kirton Christopher
Singapore
M. Hubert Louis-philippe
France
Mrs. HELENA ISABEL
CAMPOS LANÇA PALMA
Portugal
LAST MEMBERSHIP
UPCOMING EVENTS SUMMARY
April SUSTAINABILITY. DIGITISATION. COLLABORATION.
19 The Hallam Conference Centre, London
April
CYBER SECURITY SEMINAR 23
Cavendish America Square, London, UK
April
Arctic Shipping Forum 2018 - Helsinki (NI members login below to receive 20% discount) 20
Helsinki Congress Paasitorni, Paasivuorenkatu 5 A, 00530 Helsinki, Finland
April London Branch Conference - The future of maritime professionals
20
Novotel, Victoria Street BS1 6HY BRISTOL UK
April Singapore Maritime Week 2018
21
Singapore
April SHIPPING 360 TRAINING COURSE
27
The Hallam (Cavendish Venues), London
April
27 Singapore Maritime Week 2018
Singapore
February 12th Arctic Shipping Summit – Montreal
21
Montreal - venue TBC
