South East Shipping News

Now in six languages at www.southeastshippingnews.com An elegant, detailed and accurate news site for those interested in the maritime business in the Southeastern United States, Caribbean and Central America

  • Home
  • Archives
  • Profile
  • Subscribe

Florida's taxpayers deserve a Naval Super Ferry!

  O1Exp-vessel

The two former Superferries that failed because of Jones Act costs operating among the Hawaiian Islands have been acquired by taxpayers and provided to the US Navy and renamed after Jones Act ports.

The  Alakai is now USNS Puerto Rico and the Huakai is now USNS Guam. Whoopee.

Secretary of the Navy Ray Mabus says the high speed ferries "will be used for peacetime operations such as troop transport training, exercise missions and humanitarian and disaster relief."

The ferries are currently being modified to support military operations and to increase their endurance by installing crew berthing, sewage treatment plants and water-making equipment.

Let’s hope Congressperson Ileana Ros Lehtinen and Senator Bill Nelson jump on this opportunity to base at least one of these giant, high speed transports in Florida, either Key West or Jacksonville where they can be on hand for emergency missions in the Caribbean or, ultimately when the US government begins massive humanitarian relief to Cuba after the post Castro riots and recriminations subside.

Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

TESTIMONY-BY: PAUL COZZA, PRESIDENT CSL International

AFFILIATION: CSL INTERNATIONAL

 

 

Statement of Paul Cozza President CSL International

Committee on House Transportation and Infrastructure Subcommittee on the Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation

April 26, 2012

I. Introduction

Good morning Chairman LoBiondo, Ranking Member Larsen, and distinguished members of the Subcommittee. Thank you for inviting me to testify. I am Paul Cozza, President of CSL International. We are a U.S.-based shipping company, concentrating in Self Unloading Bulk ships on international Short Sea routes. We are headquartered in Massachusetts, and are a subsidiary of Canada Steamship Lines based in Montreal.

CSL International specializes in the marine transportation and handling of dry-bulk. We also have offices in the U.K., Norway, Singapore, Australia, Indonesia, and Canada. We own and operate the largest fleet of self-unloading vessels in the world, serving clients in industries ranging from building and construction to agriculture. Self-unloading vessels serve a special sector of the dry-bulk shipping industry, with their self-contained and automated equipment offering high levels of speed, efficiency and environmental advantages.

I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you today to make two main points:

First, I will demonstrate the economic contribution and environmental value of the Short Sea Shipping industry. In summary, Short Sea Shipping is the coastal movement of cargo on the water that does not cross an ocean and could also in some instances be served by rail or truck transportation. We are able to transport cargo more efficiently and with far lower environmental impacts than trucks or trains. For instance, while a truck can carry one ton of cargo approximately 155 miles on a gallon of diesel fuel, and a train can transport that same cargo 413 miles, an average CSL vessel can outperform both, moving the cargo an impressive 1100 miles on that same gallon of fuel. Nevertheless, CSL is presently engaged in a major effort to recapitalize our fleet to make it even "greener."

Second, I would like to bring to the Subcommittee's attention the impact the North American Emission Control Area ("EGA.") will have on our industry and offer a solution that achieves equivalent environmental goals without sacrificing the environmental benefits that Short Sea Shipping provides. Implemented under Annex VI of the International Convention to Prevent Pollution from Ships ("MARPOL"), the ECA establishes sea- going vessel air quality standards for a 200-mile area around the coastline of the U.S. and Canada and sets limits on the sulfur content of fuel used within the ECA. The ECA standards are far more strict than will be imposed anywhere else in the world, both in terms of the distance the ECA extends from shore and the level of permitted fuel sulfur content. We are concerned the 200-mile ECA is too stringent for some vessels and may not provide any appreciable environmental benefit beyond 50 miles for lower horsepower ships, such as CSL's and those of other Short Sea Shipping companies.

More specifically, by August 1, 2012, sea-going vessels operating in the ECA must use fuel with no more than a 1% sulfur content. We at CSL are prepared to meet and support that standard despite the resulting, not insignificant, increase in operating costs. The 2012 fuel price impacts, for CSL as an example, while sustainable, will still be measured in millions of dollars.

By August 1, 2015, in accordance with the aforementioned Annex VI agreement, vessels operating within the ECA will be required to use an ultra-low 0.1% sulfur fuel which is a marine diesel. Significantly, prices for this ultra-low sulfur fuel to the extent the fuel is available will raise our cargo rates and challenge our business and more importantly the customers we serve. Marine diesel fuel has different flash point specifications than road diesel which means we can't simply adjust to a "generic" low sulfur diesel fuel. Because we trade in near-shore routes, typically not beyond 100 miles from the coast, our vessels must use the reduced sulfur fuel nearly all the time, as opposed to trans-ocean-going vessels which only need this fuel when transiting the ECA on the way into and out of port, which in many cases only represents less than 10% of a voyage. Outside the ECA, ships may use up to 3.5% sulfur fuel.

Although well-intended, flaws in current ECA regulations will jeopardize the Short Sea Shipping sector. Indeed, based on supply issues, we are concerned that compliant North American marine fuel prices could nearly double in 2015. The anticipated increase in 2015 fuel costs using the ultra-low sulfur fuel will hamper marine competition and could cause a modal shift from energy efficient short sea ships to higher emitting shore-based rail and truck modes, with the unintended consequence of creating more congestion (in systems that, in many cases, are already stretched to their breaking points) as well as increased air pollution closer to population centers.

CSL, working in concert with our customers, also forecasts that the resulting higher transportation costs in 2015 will negatively affect their businesses. Approximately two-thirds of the cargo that we ship is in support of the construction industry in the U.S.; therefore, this regulation mandated cost increase has strong potential to negatively impact both commercial and residential economic development in the U.S.

CSL fully recognizes and supports the value of reducing its carbon footprint as well as emissions of other pollutants associated with marine transport. To better understand the self- unloading vessel's impact on air quality, we commissioned a study to analyze our ships' emissions using the emissions modeling approach (the "CALPUFF" model) that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA") itself used in the ECA development process. The study indicated that air quality impacts from lower horsepower ships diminished as the ships moved further away from the coast - with a sharp drop in impact at about 39 miles offshore.

Given these facts and objectives, CSL International believes efforts should be made to align the environmental goals of the ECA with the U.S. Maritime Administration's ("MarAd") 2010 Marine Highway Program. This program seeks to "use the waterways to relieve landside congestion and attain other benefits that waterborne transportation can offer in the form of reduced greenhouse gas emissions and energy savings."

As Mar Ad further explained, "From an environmental perspective... short sea shipping can offer air quality improvement, reduce traffic and mitigate noise pollution."1

Accordingly, we urge policy makers, namely Congress and the EPA in consultation with the U.S. Coast Guard and MarAd, to revisit the ECA boundary and reduce the 200 nautical mile ECA to 50 miles for 0.1% sulfur fuels (in 2015) for lower emitting ships of 20,000 horsepower and below. This revision will move away from the current "one size fits all" regulation and align with scientifically based approach which achieves the same environmental protection goals.

In summary, CSL supports and endorses environmental initiatives in marine transportation. For over 150 years, the CSL Group has pioneered technology that makes seaborne dry-bulk transportation more environmentally efficient. We are investing millions of dollars in a fleet renewal program that will significantly reduce our environmental footprint. We also firmly believe that the aforementioned ECA regulations, as presently prescribed, need to be modified as outlined. Through scientific testing, our proposal does not have a negative environmental impact on the coast and will not contribute to a modal-shift impacts or negative economic impacts to the building and construction industry.

If you would like further information, I have left our full report and additional details in a longer written testimony. Thank you very much for this opportunity. I will be pleased to answer any questions that you have.

II. CSL International

CSL International has been permanently established in Beverly, Massachusetts since 1992. CSL International owns, co-owns, or manages through a pool agreement, 41 ships, most of which operate in North America. In addition to managing the extensive North American fleet, CSL International also oversees its international operations with offices in the United Kingdom, Norway, Singapore, Indonesia, Australia and Canada. Through Short Sea Shipping routes, CSL serves major North American industrial customers such as U.S. Gypsum, National Gypsum, GP Gypsum, Martin Marietta, Vulica, Polaris Materials, and RG Steel, to name a few.

Recognizing the environmental benefit, CSL has also already started using fuels with lower sulfur well ahead of international requirements. Last year, CSL's fleet averaged fuel sulfur levels under 2.2% when the world standard was 4.5%. We are still ahead of the curve even with a recent global fuel sulfur reduction to 3.5% which started in January of 2012.

Moreover, to improve our efficiency and further reduce our environmental footprint, we are currently recapitalizing our fleet with nine new state-of-the-art "Trillium"-classed ships. They will be equipped with the latest environmental protection technology and the lowest available emission engines. Our first new vessel will start trading on the East Coast this Fall. It will be among the cleanest-operating vessels on the market. The massive new building project is relatively unprecedented, especially in our current economy, but we think the time is right to enhance the efficiency and sustainability of our fleet.

III. Short Sea Shipping's Environmental and Economic Value

CSL also founded the Short Sea Shipping Coalition in 2011 to promote the environmental benefits of short sea trade. The informal coalition is comprised of industry leaders who depend on Short Sea Shipping, as well as short sea providers and non- government agencies. The coalition promotes tough, performance- based air emission standards for smaller and efficient vessels in the short sea trade. Current partners in the Short Sea Shipping Coalition include:

CSL International Martin Marietta

Polaris

Vulica

U.S. Gypsum

Desgagnse Transport

 

Short Sea Shipping's Environmental Value

Sometimes referred to in the U.S. as the "marine highway," Short Sea Shipping is the movement of people and cargo on water routes that do not cross an ocean that, in some instances, could also be served by truck or rail. Due to its coastal nature, North American Short Sea Shipping is commonly comprised of vessels Panamax size and smaller (can transit the Panama Canal (approximately 60-80,000 deadweight tons and 800+ feet in length)), typically not exceeding 20,000 propulsion horsepower. Short Sea Shipping is an important component of the global strategy to improve air quality by reducing land based congestion and subsequent air pollution from less efficient truck and rail carriers.

Policymakers have undervalued the inherent environmental value in transporting people and cargo via ship in the creation of the North American ECA. Marine transport offers three main environmental benefits: (1) increased energy efficiency, (2) decreased carbon and sulfur dioxide emissions, and (3) reduced congestion, especially in urban areas.

Modal Comparison

Regarding energy efficiency, according to Maritime Administration's 2011 Report to Congress: "Trucks, on average, can carry one ton of freight for approximately 155 miles on a gallon of diesel fuel (i.e., 155 ton-miles of freight per gallon - equivalent to 842 British Thermal Units (BTU) per ton-mile); Rail achieves 413 ton-miles of freight per gallon (i.e., 316 BTU per ton-mile); and A tug-and-barge operation can get as much as 576 ton-miles of freight to a gallon of fuel (227 BTU per ton- mile)."

Additionally, self-propelled oceangoing vessels, such as short sea ships, can have significant energy efficiencies over land- based modes beyond those achieved by tug and barge. Specifically, our vessels achieve rates in excess of 1,100 ton-miles of freight per gallon . This mode of transport is thus seven times more efficient than truck and two-and-a-half times more efficient than the rail industry.

While the aforementioned was offered in the Maritime Administration's 2011 Report to Congress, the below image represents a separate analysis by CSL which shows the same trends.

Further, as "the most energy-efficient means of moving cargo between two points," marine transport "offers corresponding reductions per ton-mile in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions." In fact, examining the range of typical CO2 efficiencies for various loaded cargo carriers; bulk ships produce an average of 2.7 grams of CO2 per ton-mile while trains range from 10-119 grams per ton- mile. Trucks, by comparison, are the most inefficient of the transportation options ranging from 80-181 grams of CO2 per ton- mile (data excerpted).2 Overall, "international shipping is currently estimated to have emitted 870 million tons of CO2 in 2007, no more than about 2.7% of the global total of that year."

According to the Maritime Administration's report to Congress delivered in April 2011, water transportation "is available to bring significant freight congestion relief along certain corridors. A study for U.S. Department of Transportation estimated that there were a total of approximately 78.2 million trailer loads of highway and rail intermodal cargo that moved between origins and destinations 500 miles apart along the United States contiguous coasts in 2003. This long-haul coastal truck and intermodal traffic accounted for 15 percent of total 527 million trailer loads of United States intercity truck and intermodal rail traffic in 2003."

C. Short Sea Shipping's Economic Value

In addition to its environmental benefits, the short sea shipping industry is also an important contributor to the North American economy. Based on an October 18, 2011 study titled: "The Economics of the Great Lakes - St. Lawrence Seaway System."

Short Sea Shipping on the Great Lakes alone annually contributes -

$33.6 billion in economic activity;

227,000 United States and Canadian jobs; and

$4.6 billion in United States and Canadian tax revenue

Additionally, Short Sea Shipping services many important domestic trade routes, moving a wide range of dry bulk cargo efficiently and affordably. Some of these trade routes are set forth below:

IV. Regulatory Background MARPOL Annex VI and the ECA

MARPOL Annex VI seeks to minimize airborne emissions from ships including Sulfur Oxides (SOx), Nitrogen Oxides (NOx), Ozone Depleting Substances, Particulate Matter (PM), and Volatile Organic Compounds.

Annex VI has been implemented along the following timeline:

1997: Annex VI (Regulations for the Prevention of Air Pollution from Ships) was added to the MARPOL Convention.

2005: The requirements of Annex VI internationally entered into force on May 19. Among the various technical and operational emission reducing measures outlined in Annex VI is the option for member states to establish ECAs in their domestic waters.

2005: Canada domestically ratified Annex VI allowing domestic enforcement and the eligibility to apply for any ECA.

2008: The United States ratified Annex VI.

2009: Annex VI entered into force domestically on January 8, making the United States eligible to domestically enforce the Annex and also to apply for an ECA. In the United States, Annex VI is applied via the Act to Prevent Pollution from Ships, 33 USC. 1901 etseq. ("APPS").

2010: The International Maritime Organization (IMO) approved a joint application by the United States and Canada for the creation of an ECA via Marine Environment Protection Committee (MEPC) 59/6/5 entitled "Proposal to Designate an Emission Control Area for Nitrogen Oxides, Sulfur Oxides, and Particulate Matter."

As explained above, the North American ECA is designed to reduce air pollution from shipping beyond the scope required for most portions of the globe. Strict 1% sulfur in fuel requirements will take effect in the new 200 nautical mile North American ECA on August 1, 2012. Starting in 2015, however, the ECA fuel sulfur limit is mandated to be not more than 0.1 percent. By comparison, a world-wide fuel sulfur limit of 0.5% takes effect in the year 2020.

In comparison, the U.S. adopted an ECA for the Caribbean Sea area around Puerto Rico in July 2011 with a geographical area of approximately 40 x 50 nautical miles. The U.S. used very similar environmental and health statistics to justify the 50 nautical mile ECA for this region as it did when justifying the 200 nautical mile North American ECA on both coasts of the United States and Canada.

V. Independent Study

In an effort to best understand the ECA-related air quality issues, the Short Sea Shipping Coalition commissioned Drs. Ranajit Sahu and H. Andrew Gray to formally study low horsepower ships as a demographic of the larger maritime community for which the ECA was designed. (Dr. Sahu's and Dr. Gray's curriculum vitae are included in Exhibit A of the Report, and a copy has been formally submitted to the Subcommittee for the record.) The resulting report, entitled Modeling the Air Quality Impacts of Short Sea Shipping Emissions and the Implication for the North American Emission Control Area (ECA), analyzes short sea ship emissions using the same CALPUFF and meteorological modeling the EPA used to justify the current 200 nautical mile ECA. Additionally, 12 ships were selected to represent the "typical" short sea shipping vessel (from a propulsion horsepower perspective and therefore emissions basis). The study analyzes the impact of "worst case" short sea shipping vessels' emissions data on shore air quality.

The study indicates that the smaller ships (with corresponding lower horsepower propulsion systems) used in short sea trades, have virtually no environmental impact on the East or West Coasts of North America beyond 50 miles. More specifically, the results indicate that ships fitted with propulsion systems of 20,000 horse power (14,913 kW) or less had no (or negligible) air quality impact on the coasts even when using fuel with a sulfur content of 2.6% (i.e., with concentrations that the fuel CSL International currently uses) at 50 miles and beyond.

In addition to the greenhouse gas emissions discussed above, our sponsored study focused on sulfur dioxide (SO2), the major pollutant whose emissions will be affected by the fuel sulfur requirements in the ECA.

The S02 Standard

As background, the U.S. EPA has promulgated various National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS)3 and thereby defined acceptable levels of major air pollutants, including for SO2 in the ambient air to which the public has general access. The purpose of the NAAQS is to protect the public health, including the health of "sensitive" populations such as asthmatics, children, and the elderly. The SO2 NAAQS were recently (June 2010) modified to add a 1-hour average standard of 75 parts per billion (ppb). This corresponds to a concentration of 196 micrograms per cubic meter. It is currently the most stringent SO2 standard in the U.S.

Analysis

Our analysis conservatively predicts that SO2 concentrations are well below the numerical value of the 1-hour SO2 NAAQS even when ships are at port. Moreover, this prediction is based on applying a fuel sulfur level of 2.6%, which, as stated above, is expected to drop to 1% fuel sulfur level in August 2012. The study also indicates that SO2 concentrations along the coasts drop off dramatically as the distance from the ship to shore increases. Thus, based on the modeling analysis, the outward extent of the ECA could be much smaller (on the order of 50 miles or smaller), while still not adversely impacting coastal air quality.

1. Eastern Domain

The largest ship (in terms of rating) used in the study for the eastern domain has an engine size of approximately 12000 kW. For a 12000 kW engine, the maximum hourly SO2 emissions using 2.6% sulfur in fuel is 9.91 * 12000/1000 = 120.6 kg/hr. The S02 emission rate using 1% sulfur in fuel is 3.81 * 12000/1000 = 46.4 kg/hr.

The calculated SO2 rates above are also conservative in that the engine load is typically 75% of its maximum power during a voyage (as opposed to 100% assumed in the study), and which is even lower as the ship approaches port. While in port, engine power may be a small fraction (20% to 40%) of its maximum power. Thus, the actual SO2 emission rates would be 20% to 75% of the rates calculated in the study or in the range of 24 kg/hr - 95 kg/hr for a 12000 kW ship with 2.6% sulfur in fuel and in the range of 9 kg/hr - 35 kg/hr for this same 12000 kW ship with 1% sulfur in fuel.

2. Western Domain

Similarly, the largest ship studied in the western domain is rated around 11500 kW. Using the same types of calculations above, the range of S02 emissions from a ship of this size will be 23 kg/hr - 91 kg/hr (maximum of 114 kg/hr) with 2.6 % sulfur in fuel and in the range of 8.6 kg/hr -34 kg/hr (maximum of 44 kg/hr) with 1% sulfur in fuel.

3. Results

Using the highest expected SO2 emission rate discussed above of 120.6 kg/hr (for the largest ship, at maximum power, emitting at exactly the meteorological conditions that would provide the highest impact, and assuming a fuel sulfur content of 2.6%), the highest modeled port 1hour SO2 concentration would be 1.156*120.6 = 139.4 micrograms/cubic meter: far lower than even the numerical value of the EPA SO2 NAAQS of 196.

The results demonstrate how insignificant the impact of these short-sea ships is on coastal air quality.

East Coast Offshore SO2 Dispersion

VI. Creating a "Win-Win"

The anticipated significant fuel cost increase in 2015 may trigger a modal shift, causing an unintended increase in land- based congestion and emissions that far exceed current short sea emissions.

This can be avoided by reducing the 2015 ECA to 50 miles for 0.1% sulfur fuels in 2015 for smaller ships.

A reduction in the ECA boundary for the 0.1% sulfur fuels in 2015 will deliver the same environmental benefits suggested while supporting an industry which is already a greener alternative. The flexibility in fuel options will assure economic sustainability to those companies already under strain from the recent recession.

Maximize the Marine Highway Program

The North American ECA, as currently defined, stands as an obstacle to realizing the environmental and economic potential of the Marine Highway Program. Again, referencing MarAd's 2011 Report to Congress, "Between 1980-2003 the tons per mile moved by inter-city truck increased by 128%. Also during this period, vehicle miles in the United States have increased by 50% creating more road congestion and noise than ever before."

Considering an average long haul truck can carry 26 tons of cargo and a Handy Size (approximately less than 60,000 dead weight tons with a length of 550-650 feet) short sea vessel can carry a pay load of over 50,000 tons, the short sea trade removes 1,923 trucks from American and Canadian roads, easing congestion and the emissions they produce. Similarly, the same ship would remove 819 rail cars, assuming a capacity of about 61 tons per rail car.

Enhanced Short Sea Shipping has the potential to keep additional low efficiency trucks from the road; lessen higher emitting rail volume; and improve social benefits including reduced road congestion and noise - all while maintaining the improved marine air quality standards called for in Annex VI. Unfortunately, this potential will not be realized if the industry is forced to comply with the ECA as it currently exists.

Precedents for Effective Alternatives

There have been several other examples of recent practical solutions entertained by the EPA, Transport Canada and Environment Canada in achieving mutual clean air goals.

1. Steamship Exemption

Following the adoption of Annex VI and the creation of the ECA, the United States recognized, the unique challenges faced by older steamships. The older vessels' obsolete technology proved to be incompatible with using ultra low sulfur marine distillate fuels. Thus, the United States formally exempted the entire demographic of steamships from the ECA requirements until 2020.

The United States' submission4 to the IMO was adopted at the 62nd session of the Marine Environmental Protection Committee in July of 2011.

Great Lakes Steamship Repower Incentive Program

Again, as the environmental and economic realities of the North American ECA continued to be assessed, the EPA recognized the environmental advantages of waiving the lower sulfur fuel requirements for Great Lakes steam ships [that were] repowered with more efficient modern diesel propulsion. In January of 2012, the EPA amended Title 40 Code of Federal Regulations Part 1043 to incentivize Great Lakes steamship owners "to repower those steamships with cleaner marine diesel engines. The simplified program will automatically permit the use of residual fuel, through December 31, 2025, in a steamship if it has been repowered with a certified Tier 2 or later marine diesel engine, provided the steamship was operated exclusively on the Great Lakes and was in service on October 30, 2009."5

Fleet Averaging

Transport Canada, in an effort to ease devastating impacts to Canadian Great Lakes ship owners, proposed a Fleet Averaging Program which provides an alternative to improving air quality. The Fleet Averaging Program requires Canadian Great Lakes vessels to gradually reduce their fuel sulfur content from 2012-2020. The program permits a company's fleet of vessels to collectively meet pre-established annual fuel sulfur targets through the use of lower sulfur fuels, exhaust gas treatment, or a combination of measures. Transport Canada will oversee and monitor the industry to assure compliance. By 2020, each ship must individually meet the ECA 0.1% fuel sulfur content standard.

C. Recommendation

As responsible carriers, CSL and the Short Sea Shipping Coalition proudly support and promote the North American ECA. If properly drawn, it can serve as a valuable tool to reduce maritime contributions to global emissions. For the reasons set forth above, we seek to align the 2015 ECA to a sustainable size while exceeding air quality goals set by the EPA and Environment Canada through a performance-based approach.

Our study indicates that vessels of 20,000 horsepower are capable of meeting and exceeding desired air quality goals when using fuel with sulfur content of 2.6% at a distance of 50 miles.

Therefore, we recommend:

-- a 200 nautical mile ECA for 1% sulfur fuels, effective August 1, 2012 (as currently accepted);

-- a submission to the IMO Marine Environmental Protection Committee; an amendment to reduce the North American ECA to 50 miles for 0.1% sulfur fuels on vessels of less than 20,000 horsepower in 2015; and

-- a mechanism to indemnify vessel owners who are unable to purchase low sulfur (0.1% sulfur) fuel due to regional unavailability.

This alternative dovetails with the Maritime Administration's 2010 Marine Highway program and will best serve the coastal environment by comprehensively improving air quality while reducing risk, hazard, and inconvenience of over-used road and rail systems.


Copyright 2012 Congressional Quarterly, Inc.
All Rights Reserved.

Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

US mayors link up to improve ports

Pete Goldin | Thu, 6 Oct 2011

Aggressive task force will develop a proactive strategy to attract investment

Printer friendly version Email the editor Send to a friend
The US Conference of Mayors (USCM) has established a Metro Exports and Ports Task Force to find ways to strengthen US ports, generate cargo-related jobs and thus revitalise both national and local economies.

The USCM told IFW that the organisation considered ports a key national infrastructure tool that must be invested in to spur economic growth.

Port infrastructure development issues such as funding will be a primary focus of the task force.

The USCM also said that ports and intermodal transportation would be key in any national transport plan and investment strategy.

Alvin Brown, Mayor of Jacksonville, Florida, was this week appointed to lead the task force. Port development in Jacksonville is one of his top priorities, and now he will bring this commitment to a national level.

Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, Chair of the USCM, said he expected Brown “to develop a proactive, aggressive strategy to strengthen the nation’s ports”.

Brown’s stated goals for the task force include increased federal spending for ports, streamlined  review processes for proposed harbour improvements and job creation.

Brown’s two vice-chairs are Mayor RT Rybak, of Minneapolis, Minnesota, and Mayor Ashley Swearengin, of Fresno, California.

According to the USCM, the task force is currently in an “organisational phase” and additional members are still being selected. As many as 15 to 20 mayors are expected to make up the task force.

Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Ring of confidence

10 May 2011
Forward-thinking ports should be seriously considering investment in LNG facilities. Credit: Wolfgang Meinhart

Forward-thinking ports should be seriously considering investment in LNG facilities. Credit: Wolfgang Meinhart

Stevie Knight argues that proactive ports will win the next growth battle

You can see the beginnings of it in short sea operations: the reliability of feeder services has grown and this means lines are gaining confidence in the services.

It’s because a growing number of smaller ports are accepting their role as a feeder outport even if it means a dip in their ambitions for grabbing the bigger ships, says Steve Wray of OSC.

So the reliability of feeder services has increased and in some places connections are already ‘seamless’, due in the main to the rising efficiencies of the transhipment hubs and the better frequency of the feeder services.

“In some places, if a box missed a transfer it could have easily been a week before the next feeder came through, which is the kiss of death to perishables. Now the gap is often down to just a day or two before the next available connection,” he explains.

So what you have is the “coherent ring of confidence” where reliability follows volume follows reliability.

It’s the same with a lot of ‘green’ technology. There was a time when, if you asked people about, say, eco-friendly electric handling equipment, they would have said, ‘let’s wait and see’. Now it’s something that many of the global operators routinely invest in, pushing others to do the same.

However, Mark Yong of BMT Asia points out it hasn’t really been about cost savings as running expenses are only a tiny fraction of the purchase amount and as for maintenance, “it is too soon to tell". He explains: “Port entities have made an effort to purchase electrical handling equipment – to be seen as being green.”

Although this “ring of confidence” is a response to the growing green agenda, the actions the ports are taking means that ‘environmental’ has moved from the periphery to the year-end reports.

Liquefied natural gas is, too, going to become part of many ports’ repertoire, says Dr Yong. “Gas - LNG – this will be the future. We have an abundance of LNG, with Exxon Mobil and Shell both beginning to produce more natural gas than oil,” even though at present there are only a handful of facilities.

But LNG has yet to find a foothold in people’s awareness. The problem is that at present, fitting a bunkering facility to the port is extremely expensive and the whole scheme is resting on that supply and demand spiral, a slow process to get off the ground.

However, Dr Yong says, the increase in ships, “will doubtless soon start to produce investors in port facilities, after all, the fuel gives you 100% reduction on sulphur emissions and a massive reduction in other pollutants”.

When, not if, LNG becomes a worthwhile pursuit, he says, you might find something of a market explosion.

The trick for ports will be to look for that ‘tipping point’ where the lines show enough demand to offset the price of the port side technology, and the price has come down enough for more than the most stalwart of clean energy proponents to take it seriously.

Images for this article - click to enlarge

 

Comments (1) | TrackBack (0)

 Marco Polo heads for the sea

14 Apr 2011

 

The Italian port of Livorno will be at one end of the new Marco Polo route.

Following a thorough selection and negotiation process, 32 new Marco Polo projects are set to receive a share of the €57m funds earmarked under the 2010 Call for proposals. 

Marco Polo is the EU funding programme for freight transporters, shippers and logistic operators that are committed to the sustainable transport of goods across Europe. Marco Polo pursues the reduction of congestion on Europe's roads by shifting freight off the road to more environmentally friendly modes of transport, such as short-sea shipping, rail and inland waterways.

 

Within their project lifespan, these 32 projects are expected to either shift off Europe's roads or remove at source more than 15 billion t/km in total, which is the equivalent of 450,000 trucks travelling between Hamburg and Vienna.

 

The 32 projects include 26 modal shift actions, which take freight off the roads and transfer it to alternative modes of transport. There are four common learning actions, which aim at sharing knowledge and know how in the transport and logistics sector. One motorways of the sea action combines short sea shipping with other modes of transport, and there is one traffic avoidance action, which reduces the amount of freight to be transported on road while making the entire supply chain more efficient.

 

The MP Spait proposal calls for a new short sea shipping service between the Port of Almeria, located in the Spanish region of Andalusia, and the Northern Italy port of Livorno, focusing on the transport of the main traded goods transported between those regions

 

Considering the absence of a such a service between ports located in the regions and the high volumes of goods transported between them, in particular olive oil and its derivates, plastic materials, boilers, machinery, grease and chalk, transported exclusively by road, the MP Spait project will  achieve a substantial shift of goods from the road to sea transport, relieving the current traffic congestion of trucks crossing the Pyrenees in those directions.

 

The current road transport of trailers will be replaced by the short sea shipping service, performed by a ro-ro/pax vessel with a capacity for some 105 trailers and a service speed of about 16 knots, resulting in a one way transit time of 47 hours.

 

With 101 proposals received by the call deadline, the third Marco Polo II call for project proposals attracted a record number of submissions in 2010, with a total funding request of €235m, against an annual programme budget of €64m.

 

 

About UsAdvertiseComment and AnalysisDirectoryEventsFeaturesLatest JobsNewsSite MapSubscribe Company information | Terms & Conditions | Privacy & Anti-Spam Policy

Copyright © Mercator Media Ltd 2010, All Rights Reserved

 

Powered by MySource Matrix

Comments (1) | TrackBack (0)

A bill moving through the Florida legislature restructures toll roads including the Turnpike, raises electronic tolls to the same as cash and invents a strange new kind of port with equal stature to Port of Miami. Here is what an expert says:

Port Citrus: Don't be seduced by siren song

 Sunday, February 27, 2011 at 1:00 am (Updated: February 27, 1:04 am)

 

By Walter Wynn Jr.

 

Re: “Commission steams toward Port Citrus,” Feb. 23.

As reported in this article, there was a presentation to the Board of County Commissioners by attorney Fred Busack after which the BOCC voted unanimously to award his firm $50,000 to lobby for a change of statutes to create a public port authority. The thrust of the article was that Port Citrus would become a seagoing container port utilizing Trans-Sea Lifters, or TSLs, which eliminate “the need for the ship to dock in the port.”

In the past year or two, I have seen dozens of container ports and container ships in the South Pacific, North America, Central America and South America as well as Europe. These large container ships carry thousands of containers. Time is money for the ships, the shippers, and the containers as well as the cargo contained. Large ships go to large ports where there are hundreds or thousands of acres for storage of containers coming and going, along with the infrastructure to move the containers to and from their destinations. 

There are huge cranes that load and unload containers at the rate of more than one per minute. Containers go onto train cars, semi-trucks, or are moved around in the port by transporters. These cranes and transporters work 24/7. Some small fraction of the containers are later loaded onto smaller ships or barges for further transport by water to smaller ports. These smaller ports are destination or origination points for goods, or both; Port Citrus will be neither.

Not knowing anything about TSLs, I searched the Internet to find this site: http://www.tsltec.com/Site/Vessel_Characteristics.html and related pages. The TSL is essentially a self-propelled floating dry dock that could accommodate several barges carrying up to 1,848 20-foot containers, or half that amount of 40-foot containers.

The problem with this concept is twofold. First, the containers must be offloaded from the oceangoing bulk carriers onto the barges and the barges then loaded onto the TSL. Large bulk carriers do not have onboard cranes for self loading and unloading, so they would have to go to a container port and transfer containers to the TSL barges. Second, the TSL barges would have to be taken from that port to a location where the water depth exceeds 20 meters, or about 66 feet, which is the depth required for loading or offloading barges.

Additionally, the TSL would have to then come transit to an area near Port Citrus where the water depth is also 60 feet, and that would be about 50 miles offshore. TSL barges would then be towed into Port Citrus for offloading containers for shipment ashore and loading returning containers from end users. Even if the TSL came directly from a shipping port overseas, the problem remains of offloading the barges 50 miles or so from Port Citrus. 

There are numerous points to consider prior to rushing into the Port Citrus project.

First, with the budget so strapped for funds, why didn’t the BOCC approach our elected representatives to seek the statute change at no cost to the county? Who has done a study to check the feasibility of Port Citrus as a container port?

Second, one or more tugs will be required to tow/push the barges to Port Citrus. Will Port Citrus have to buy, operate and maintain these tugs? What is the funding source for Port Citrus?

Third, what will Port Citrus do with the containers if they arrive? If we were to get one barge with 50 containers on it, we would need 50 semis to transport them elsewhere or about 17 rail cars. What would Port Citrus do with 1,800 containers? (See http://sea-point.net/container/ about capacities of barges and rail cars.)

Where is our infrastructure for transshipment? Who will pay for the cranes and container transporters needed to load/offload and move these containers around? Who will pay for the roads and/or rail lines needed for reshipment? Who has done a business plan to locate sources and destinations for Port Citrus containers?

Finally, none of the very large PANAMAX container ships as mentioned in the article have onboard cranes for container loading/unloading. Offloading from the PANAMAX container ships can only be done in a large container port such as Tampa, where the infrastructure exists for moving the containers directly to rail or truck lines with immediate access to interstate highways and rail lines. Why would shippers spend several more days moving the container from Tampa to Port Citrus and thus delay arrival at the destination?

Port Citrus is neither a destination for, nor a point of origination for containers. The concept does not seem to make economic sense to me.

I believe that the BOCC got a good sales pitch without consideration of the big picture and that the sales pitch was successful because Mr. Busack got $50,000 for his law firm.

I can provide photos of large and small ships, tugs, barges, semi-trucks, rail cars, etc., from various ports around the world if desired.

Walter Wynn Jr. has a bachelor of science degree from the U.S. Naval Academy. He earned his Ph.D from Cornell University, engineering physics, in 1965; qualified for command of nuclear submarines; is a commander, U.S. Navy (retired); local business owner for computer services (retired); and resident of Pine Ridge since 1987.

 

 

Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Lahood to promote marine highways as Port of Miami River prepares its short sea study

Tuesday, April 05, 2011 10:47 PM

  MRMG Bridge and dog 011

WASHINGTON, Apr. 5, 2011 (Xinhua News Agency) -- The United States is going to make more efforts to promote coastal and river transportation, U.S. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood said Tuesday in a report sent to the Congress.

 

"America's maritime transportation system is a major priority for President Obama's administration," said Ray LaHood.

 

"When we finish America's fully-integrated, national marine highway system, our legacy will be more than routes on water. It will be a country less dependent on foreign oil. It will be a 21st century means of moving people and goods. It will be a future that America is prepared to win," he added.

 

The report, named America's Marine Highways, said that there were four potential benefits of using coastal and river transportation: improving America's economic competitiveness while creating and sustaining jobs; providing an environmentally sustainable transportation system that requires less energy and reduces greenhouse gas emissions; adding to America's strategic sealift resources and supporting American shipbuilding industry; improving public safety and security through the safe movement of passengers and freight.

 

In addition, the report identified a range of potential legislation and regulatory actions that industry stakeholders had suggested to the government in order to induce increased waterborne freight traffic on America's marine highways.

 

Among the suggested proposals are waiver of the Harbor Maintenance Tax for some non-bulk freight and establishment of a Marine Highway infrastructure-oriented program similar to the Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (TIFIA) program that could help fund port and terminal intermodal infrastructure.

 

The Transportation Department said that the above actions are under consideration by the Administration. Moreover, the Department had officially designated the 18 all-water routes as marine highway corridors, connectors and crossings and would implement eight related programs in those areas.

 

Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Marine-highway developments provide boost for Aker Philadelphia Shipyard

By Linda Loyd

Inquirer Staff Writer

Aker Philadelphia Shipyard has gotten an indirect boost with the selection by the U.S. Department of Transportation of a coastal freight service that wants Aker to build five container ships to be part of a marine-highway system.

The selection of American Feeder Lines Holdings L.P. of New York and its partners, the South Carolina State Ports Authority and the Port of Galveston, Texas, does not directly help Aker solve its current crisis - no new ship orders or financing - and stay in business.

The South Philadelphia shipyard is completing three product tankers, which have buyers, with the last to be delivered in May. Aker recently began layoffs among its workforce of more than 1,000.

American Feeder has signed a "letter of intent" with Aker to build five container vessels. But first, the New York firm needs to raise $750 million in debt and equity financing from hedge and investment firms to start the ship construction, likely in 2012.

Eight marine-highway initiatives, endorsed Aug. 11 from among 35 applicants by the U.S. Maritime Administration, are eligible to compete for an initial $7 million grant and future aid aimed at getting cargo off congested roads and rails and onto waterways on the East, West, and Gulf Coasts, the Great Lakes, and some inland waterways.

"We have the moral support right now," said Tobias Koenig, chief executive and cofounder of American Feeder Lines. "For getting investors, this has put us in a better position because the DOT now says, 'We want this done.' "

American Feeder wants to operate a "short sea" container service between ports from Maine to Texas, based on a business model used in Europe, Asia, and South America.

Cargoes are expected to increase in 2014, when the Panama Canal is expanded and mega-ships from Asia arrive directly at the East and Gulf Coasts. Ships on the marine highway would operate as a "hub and spoke" network, similar to that of the airline industry. International containers would arrive at "hub" ports and transfer cargo to smaller ships, which would take it to "spoke" ports.

"We're working hard to find a way to get going before the end of this year," Koenig said. "Once we're there, we are happy to put orders in to Aker."

Aker senior vice president Scott Clapham said, "We are encouraged that the DOT is supporting this important effort, and hopefully it will create future work. We think this demonstrates the long-term need for the shipyard."

In addition to the eight projects selected, six others were identified to apply for federal funds after "further development of concepts."

Those include a "New Jersey Marine Highway Initiative" sponsored by the state Department of Transportation and backed by the South Jersey Port Corp. to develop maritime-freight services in five locations: Upper New York Bay; Newark Bay; Raritan and Linden; Camden, Gloucester and Paulsboro; and Salem.



Read more: http://www.philly.com/inquirer/business/20100818_Marine-highway_developments_provide_boost_for_Aker_Philadelphia_Shipyard.html#ixzz0x3B3vg3D
Watch sports videos you won't find anywhere else

Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Subscribe to this blog's feed

Archives

  • May 2012
  • April 2012
  • March 2012
  • February 2012
  • January 2012
  • December 2011
  • November 2011
  • October 2011
  • September 2011
  • August 2011

Categories

  • Air Cargo News
  • Breaking news
  • Caribbean Basin ports
  • Cruise
  • Current Affairs
  • Current Events
  • Customs and BP
  • Cyber attacks
  • Export opportunities
  • Eyerdam links
  • Eyerdam Opinion
  • Follow up
  • Guest Opinion
  • Haiti Shipping Update
  • In Depth Analysis
  • Jobs
  • Latin America ports
  • Logistics
  • Navigation hazards
  • News with a smile
  • Port of Miami River
  • Science
  • Security
  • South Fla. Trade Calendar
  • Southeast Ports
  • Special Report
  • Terraforming Haiti
  • Travel
  • Update
  • US Maritime Highway

About

Blog powered by TypePad
  • South East Shipping News
  • Powered by TypePad