South East Shipping News

Why Mueller will testify

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

                                                                             

 

Trump Was Right

The Final, final report of Mueller clears

the President of Allegations

of Collusion and Obstruction of Justice

                  

by Rick Eyerdam

 

 

 

It says so right there on the cover of the official Mueller Report that was published by the Department of Justice and titled “The Mueller Delusion.”

I found it on Amazon for $17 a copy, just by accident when I was looking for books that just might link President Trump to delusional behavior, which is really what is wrong with the poor guy. He doesn’t know reality because his damaged brain only allows him to see things through the lens of his desires. And when what he wants differs from what is real it is automatically false and therefore not worthy of consideration.

            The Mueller Report, author Robert Mueller, is described in this listing on the Amazon page which sells the book thus:

 

   from Rick Eyerdam on June 17, 2019 
 
The Department of Justice says the Mueller Report is a DELUSION
 
The write up says: "The two-year long investigation into allegations of interference in the 2016 Presidential election (and charges of obstruction of justice during this investigation) ended with this final report of Special Counsel Robert Mueller, which can be summed up in just four words: no collusion, no obstruction. This two-volume report covers all the interviews and evidence gathered by the Special Counsel and dozens of FBI agents, and includes the questions and answers given by President Trump. After all the millions of dollars spent and thousands of hours of investigation, Mueller brought no charges against the President because, well, no collusion no obstruction. Was it worth it? Or was this investigation premised on false charges, and conducted for solely political reasons? Read for yourself and judge whether Mueller and his team had any basis to believe Russia interfered in the election, whether President Trump interfered with the investigation or obstructed justice--or whether the entire thing was a delusion from the very beginning."

My simple critique of the listing was:

 

“Seems to have a slight skewing of the actual content. Don't you think!

 

Well they didn’t agree. In response they said.

 

Thank you for submitting a customer review. 

Thank you for submitting a customer review on Amazon. After carefully reviewing your submission, your review could not be posted to the website. While we appreciate your time and comments, reviews must adhere to the following guidelines:
http://www.amazon.com/review-guidelines

 

I have an article that is due Friday for Maritime Professional so I won’t have the time to ask the Justice Department these questions:

 

1. Who wrote the title: The Mueller Delusion?
2. Who wrote the subhead: The final report of special council Robert Mueller clearing the president of allegations of collusion and obstruction of justice?

3. Who wrote the book’s description, which appeared with the Amazon listing?

 

The two-year long investigation into allegations of interference in the 2016 Presidential election (and charges of obstruction of justice during this investigation) ended with this final report of Special Counsel Robert Mueller, which can be summed up in just four words: no collusion, no obstruction. This two-volume report covers all the interviews and evidence gathered by the Special Counsel and dozens of FBI agents, and includes the questions and answers given by President Trump. After all the millions of dollars spent and thousands of hours of investigation, Mueller brought no charges against the President because, well, no collusion no obstruction. Was it worth it? Or was this investigation premised on false charges, and conducted for solely political reasons? Read for yourself and judge whether Mueller and his team had any basis to believe Russia interfered in the election, whether President Trump interfered with the investigation or obstructed justice--or whether the entire thing was a delusion from the very beginning."

 

1. Who paid for this version of the final report?
2. When the Justice Department gets a request for the Mueller Final Report, is this the versions they get?
3. Was this designed so that the President can say truthfully, at last, that the final report says no collusion and no obstruction, at least on the cover?
4. Of Mueller: How does he feel and what does he plan to do with the official
   Department of Justice copy of his final report is titled: The Mueller Delusion?

 

I just ordered it from the US Book Depository for $27, ten dollars more than the other order:

I actually thought it might be a joke so I ordered two, which arrived today. No Joke.

Here is what the Amazon message said

Estimated delivery: June 27, 2019 - July 5, 2019

Items shipped from Book Depository US

The Mueller Delusion: The Final Report of Special Counsel Robert Mueller Clearing the President of Allegations of Collusion and Obstruction of Justice

by United States Department of Justice

$27.00

Qty:                                                                                                                                       1            1            2            3            4            5            6            7            8            9 10+ Delete Qty:1

Sold by:Book Depository US

In Stock.

 Gift options not available.

 

 

 

WHY RENEWABLE ENERGY IS ESSENTIAL FOR THE CARIBBEAN

Caribbean countries must transform their energy systems by creating new, greener sources of power.

MASAŌ ASHTINE

Puerto Rico lost electricity again on April 18th, seven months after Hurricane Maria first knocked out the island's power grid. For people in some remote rural areas, the blackout was more of the same. Their power had yet to be restored.

The dangerous fragility of Puerto Rico's energy systems has put other Caribbeancountries on high alert. Across the region, electric grids are dated, ailing, and overburdened—making it easy work for a powerful passing storm.

Caribbean nations also rely heavily on oil and diesel imports to fuel their power plants—a dirty and expensive way to produce energy. So even before the 2017 hurricane season, Caribbean governments were trying to integrate renewable energy sources likewind and solar into their existing grids.

Now that task seems far more urgent. To move beyond fossil fuels, Caribbean countries must transform their energy systems by building in new, greener sources of power. That will also make electric grids more resilient to weather extremes because they will be decentralized—pulling from a diverse array of power sources.

CLIMATE CHANGE IN THE CARIBBEAN

As an environmental scientist working in Jamaica, I recognize many reasons why the Caribbean region must upgrade its outmoded energy systems. Mitigating global climate change, of course, is a big one.

Unfortunately, I believe that climate change will also complicate the region's transition toward renewable energy. The Caribbean is comprised of island nations, which are the world's most vulnerable places when it comes to rising seas, changing weather patterns, and other effects of global warming.

The Caribbean is already seeing more weather extremes. Research suggests, for example, that northern Caribbean countries like Cuba, Jamaica, and the Bahamas have gotten rainier over the past three decades, though historical data is limited.

Meteorologists also believe that climate change is making hurricanes more frequent and powerful over the Atlantic Ocean.

The uptick in severe weather is costly. According to the United Nations, the 2017 hurricane season cost Caribbean countries and the United States $92 billion.

WHY TRADITIONAL ENERGY SOURCES NEED TO ADAPT

As the Eastern U.S. and Caribbean brace for a potentially brutal 2018 hurricane season, policymakers are looking for fast ways to strengthen their power grids.

Installing more wind, solar, and hydropower—the world's most reliable and common renewable energy options—would seem to be a more obvious step in the right direction. Between 2015 and 2016, the global capacity of these green power sources rose 9 percent —nearly half of which comes from the widespread adoption of solar panels.

After Maria, technology companies like Tesla saw an opportunity to spotlight their products in wind, solar, and geothermal power in the Caribbean.

Tesla installed Powerwall solar-powered batteries across Puerto Rico. This technologyhas kept the lights on during blackouts at over 660 locations, though experts cautionthat such solar "microgrids" cannot serve the energy needs of an entire country.

THE PROBLEM WITH CLIMATE CHANGE

But, in a Caribbean of increasing weather extremes, these green energy systems are themselves vulnerable.

Modern wind turbines, for example, were first engineered in Europe—a region that rarely experiences Category 5 hurricanes. Wind speeds above 165 mph would tear the turbines apart.

Changing precipitation and temperature patterns in the Caribbean also affect hydro and solar power. More rain in the region's north means fewer sunny days than anticipated. Higher temperatures in other countries suggests increased likelihood of drought, leading rivers to run dry.

Climate change is a profoundly unpredictable process, though. That makes it harder for weather models to correctly identify which renewable energy infrastructure should be built where.

Computer models are inherently imperfect planners. As researchers from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology recently affirmed, plugging in short-term weather data to make long-term atmospheric projections adds "irreducible elements of chaos."

Climate change, which affects various parts of the world differently, makes it even harder to accurately predict future weather scenarios. Comprehensive modeling systems that use LIDAR and other remote-sensing technologies do better, but they are too expensive for widespread adoption in the Caribbean.

THE FUTURE IS NOW

The Caribbean is making progress in planning for a future of more renewable energy, though.

Jamaica aims to install new automated weather stations that will collect real-time weather data nationwide. This initiative will help meteorologists across the entire Caribbean better predict future weather, which in turn supports the development of renewable energy systems.

So will a new climate model developed by my colleagues at the University of the West Indies. The system, called SMASH, can aid planners in siting wind farms and predicting the path and severity of the hurricanes that could mangle turbines.

A new Caribbean drought atlas from Cornell University has compiled climate data going back to 1950. The tool won't just help sustain food production during dry times; I believe it will also provide engineers precipitation data that's critical to planning hydropower enterprises.

Cutting-edge hydropower plants that run on urban wastewater may one day also address the current limitations of hydropower in the Caribbean. Many small islands lack the big rushing rivers that allow water to be a meaningful power generator.

Wind farms, too, are adapting to the instability of this changing climate. Once firmly pegged to the ground, turbines can now float thousands of feet above the land, spooled out like kites to capture winds where they blow hardest. Floating turbines will also fare better during hurricanes.

All of these technologies may eventually help Caribbean countries navigate their way through climate change toward a real renewable energy boom. But the climate change conundrum won't be solved before the 2018 hurricane season hits.

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article. Masaō Ashtine is a lecturer in alternative energy at the University of the West Indies—Mona Campus.

Facebook does not sell user data. That is the key.

Today in front of the combined Senate committees Mark Zuckerberg made a key distinction. It is assumed that Facebook accumulates data on its users that it then sells to advertisers. But this is not the case at all. Facebook accumulates data on its users that the users allow Facebook to collect. On the other hand advertisers come to Facebook and describe in detail the kind of people they want to reach with their advertisements.

Facebook then compares the advertisers' request to the data that Facebook has collected. Facebook then selects the individuals who will see the advertisers who are appropriate and it connects the Facebook users with the advertiser. Actually an algorithm does it. It does not inform the advertiser about any of the actual data used to match it with the Facebook user under any circumstances. 

Advertiser A wants to advertise snow shoes to individuals who need snow shoes, perhaps, and those who can afford snow shoes.  Facebook scours its users for information about the amount of snow they endure. It looks for anything that might be said about snow and snow shoes by its members. Facebook decides which of those who had issues with snow --- probably everybody who has issues with snow --- and Facebook then allows the snow shoe advertiser to access each and every  person who has issues with snow who is on Facebook and who -- and this important, who has not specifically said they don't want advertisements for snow shoes or any other shoes.

You talk about cars and they connect the car ads to you. You talk about sports cars and the connect the sports car companies (who have paid to be connected) with you. You talk about Chevys and you get some Chevy ads. And for your convenience you get the Chevy ads from Chevy companies that are close to your location, which the local Chevy companies pay for. But the ads are always a pass through from Facebook to you based on your data and not from the Chevy dealer. He may be wasting his money advertising to you. But he will never know it. 

Global cyber theat

Global Cyber Threat Bulletin: 18 March 2018

Russian government cyber actors are engaging in a sophisticated cyber attack campaign targeting organization in critical infrastructure sectors. This attack is occurring in two stages. Initially, threat actors are attacking the networks of smaller organizations with preexisting relationships with larger organizations that are the ultimate targets of the attacks. Malware and spear phishing are the most common tactics during these initial "staging" attacks. The threat actors then use their access to staging targets’ networks to target their intended, larger victims. Organizations in the maritime industry are encouraged to learn more about this attack and ensure that they are following cyber risk management best practices to limit their vulnerability to this attack.

Background

Per Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) reports, Russian government actors are targeting organizations in the energy, nuclear, water, aviation, critical manufacturing, and other commercial sectors. DHS and FBI warn of a sophisticated, multi-layered intrusion campaign focused on gaining remote access to small commercial-focused networks via malware or spear phishing campaigns. Once compromised, these networks enable Russian government cyber actors to gain remote access into targeted sector networks, facilitating network reconnaissance and the collection of information pertaining to Industrial Control Systems (ICS). This includes shipping and marine terminal facilities.

Russian government cyber actors are using a range of tactics, techniques, and procedures to further this campaign, including:

Spear-phishing emails (from compromised legitimate account),

Watering-hole domains,

Credential gathering,

Open-source and network reconnaissance,

Host-based exploitation, and

Targeting ICS infrastructure.

The threat actors appear to have deliberately chosen the organizations they targeted, rather than pursuing them as targets of opportunity. Staging targets held preexisting relationships with many of the intended targets.

What Should a Maritime Company Do?

Although most maritime companies will not be intended targets of these attacks, maritime companies have preexisting relationships with a wide variety of governmental and commercial actors that support wide-ranging US interests, and accordingly should be aware of their potential status as a staging target for this attack. More specifically, maritime transportation companies can be exploited to access and attack US commercial entities.

As part of this announcement, the US-CERT released indicators of compromise (IOCs) related to this campaign, available at: https://www.us-cert.gov/ncas/alerts/TA18-074A . DHS and FBI recommended that network administrators review the IP addresses, domain names, file hashes, network signatures, and YARA rules provided at the above link, and add the IPs to their watchlists to determine whether malicious activity has been observed within their organization. They also advised system owners to run the YARA tool on any system suspected to have been targeted by these threat actors.

HudsonCyber recommends that all clients immediately:

Review the detection and prevention guidelines and other best practices detailed at the link above.

Implement a robust data backup process that safeguards any data considered valuable to their organization or critical to their business operations; data backups must be stored offline (disconnected from the network) and tested regularly to confirm their integrity. Perform regular testing to confirm data integrity.

Advise shore-based employees and crews of the increase in cyber threats and provide awareness training on social engineering tactics, safe Internet browsing behaviors, and how to respond to suspected cyber incidents.

                                                                                     Source: US Department of Homeland Security

For more information about how HudsonCyber can support your cyber risk management needs, contact us today:

GENERAL INQUIRIES

Telephone: +1-856-342-7500

Email: [email protected]

Websites: www.hudsoncyber.com

www.hudsonanalytix.com

POINTS OF CONTACT

Max Bobys: [email protected]

William Elkins: [email protected]

What the POMTOC and South Florida Container Terminal deal is likely to mean

Better together: There is a logic behind terminals looking to work together in order to cope with bigger volumes It's high time that terminals followed lines and ports and get in on the partnerships act finds Felicity Landon The US Federal Maritime Commission's decision allowing two Miami terminal operators 'to seek cooperation and commonality in both business and operating matters' certainly caused a stir. Does it pave the way for other terminals to seek close partnerships? Is it the turn of terminal operators to set up alliances that match up to the oversize alliances of their customers? And are they really free to go ahead? The FMC gave its blessing for the Miami Marine Terminal Conference Agreement to take effect, allowing the South Florida Container Terminal Port of Miami Terminal Operating Company (POMTOC) to establish 'a variety of common rates, rules and practices, as well as to meet to discuss these matters'. It also went as far as suggesting that this agreement could form a template for terminal alliances to create framework service agreements with shipping line alliances. Miami is the first high-profile example and every case will be different, says Neil Davidson, Drewry's senior analyst - ports & terminals. However, he adds: “The FMC are normally pretty cautious in terms of allowing parties to work together, and don't give their permission lightly. The fact that they also made a very general statement that they expect to see more terminals doing this is quite an interesting comment from the regulatory side. Having said that, the EU has its own set of rules and ways of weighing this up, of course.” Reducing fragmentation of capacity is necessary in order to handle volumes that are so much bigger than they were, says Mr Davidson. There is a logic behind terminals looking to work together in order to cope with what is being thrown at them by their customers, he says - and there is scope for alliances to happen, but there are operational and regulatory challenges, and risks attached to such a partnership. “Because of the peaks and pressures created by the bigger ships in port, the natural reaction might be to say I should work with my next-door-neighbour terminal rather than against him, to join forces for practical reasons and commercial reasons - the client has got bigger and more powerful, therefore I need to do the same. “There are lots of sensible operational reasons for doing that, which would also benefit the shipping lines. But the dilemma is that the regulatory authorities would always be in the background - perhaps saying you are colluding or you are a cartel or too close together. So the formation of more terminal alliances is dependent to an extent on the competition in the port or with neighbouring ports, and on the attitude of the authorities towards competition.” Talking practicalities The other issue to consider, says Mr Davidson, is how it works in practice. “Yes, you can sign the document to say you will work together with your neighbouring terminal - but to really make it work, you may need to buy or merge, in order to bring in the same rules in terms of strategy, profitability and shareholding, and have a completely uniform approach. “Shipping lines can have alliances because they will have similar capacity vessels and share schedules and rotations. However one terminal in a port could be very different from another, so it is not aligning like with like. The chances are the one of the two terminals just isn't as good as the other one, so you would always have a weaker terminal of the two which is difficult to overcome. The proliferation of mega container ships means massive surges of containers when they do call. A terminal alliance might sound like the answer - but Mr Davidson points out: “The alliance idea doesn't address the fact that usually everyone in the port has the same peaks. So even if you work together, you are still suffering the same peaks.” It is difficult for terminals to form successful working alliances if they are not immediately next door to each other, he points out. “If you share a quay line, you can cooperate more easily. If you are across the bay from each other, it is much harder.” In the case of the Miami partnership, the two terminals are, as pointed out by the FMC, in close proximity to each other. “The alternative is what you see in Los Angeles/Long Beach, where the volumes of an alliance get spread over numerous terminals and there are lots of inter-terminal transfers. Clearly it would be better to merge neighbouring terminals so you don't need to split the volumes so much. In Asian ports perhaps there is more port authority ability to make these things happen but in North America and Europe, where private operators are more independent in their outlook, it is more difficult for the authorities.” Space premium Despite recent expansions, true deepwater capacity for vessels of 18,000 teu and above is still at a premium in Northern Europe, says Andrew Penfold, director - global maritime at WSP Parsons Brinckerhoff. “At first you think the (liner) consolidation means the common user terminal operators are scrapping around for business - but not really. The point should be made that the mergers and consolidation situation in the shipping lines certainly wasn't driven by wanting to cut bunker prices or handling prices - it was driven by their own self-inflicted problems of overcapacity. The question of which port choice or which terminal you use has been almost an afterthought and is only now receiving the attention it needs.” The challenges of handling the volumes of alliance partners are emerging in the developing world too, he says. Again, terminals will struggle to handle the sheer volumes involved; there are already instances where the demands of the big caller are so huge that the terminal operator has to push out the smaller shipping lines. “That provides an opportunity for smaller terminal operators to get in. “Economies of scale? Yes, on the water, driven by the shipping lines' problems. But with the higher consignment size to push through the terminal, generally speaking you hit the point when the efficiency of the terminal starts to decline. I think there will be some scope for more terminals to work together in response to their customers' consolidation - but they don't need to do that - at the moment the terminal operators aren't in distress from all of this.” The Port of Long Beach has been addressing congestion caused by ever-long dwell times of containers across terminals. Michael Christensen, senior executive lead, supply chain optimisation, points out that while there is so much opportunity for ocean carrier alliances to use multiple terminals, once one terminal gets congested and a vessel switches to another, the congestion moves among terminals and spreads through a port very quickly. “Terminals are so interlinked these days,” he says. “When we had a big labour-driven congestion problem two years ago, there was an interesting metric we noted; any time a terminal reached about 80% of capacity, the fluidity of the terminal and efficiency of the operation degraded very quickly.” ALLURE OF BETTER BARGAINING POWER Will the creation of alliances give terminals better bargaining power when dealing with their ever stronger and larger customers? WSP Parsons Brinckerhoff's Andrew Penfold says despite expectations, terminal operators have seen only a marginal impact on prices for handling containers, and most are not 'in distress'. "If you take the volume of containers that CMA CGM would be wishing to handle with their partners and associates, it becomes quite difficult to put that all in one terminal - even Rotterdam World Gateway with its capacity will be sorely tested to handle all the demand. So you have a situation whereby the new alliances will have to make some sort of deal involving one or more other terminals. So while Maersk will be putting all its business through APM in the Maasvlakte, it is quite likely they will have overflow cargo that may have to be placed elsewhere.” A large shipping line serving Northern Europe will have a certain amount of business that must go into Antwerp and into Rotterdam, says Mr Penfold - it is the 'debatable' business that could be switched into either that is where the real questions are. “In response to that, the stevedores have continuously added new features and new value-added - for example, barge terminals, investment in intermodal trains. The independent terminal operator is in a better position to make this kind of investment than a shipping line owned terminal would be, because of the money available.” It might be good for the shipping line to play one terminal off against another in order to secure the lowest possible price, but it isn't good for the shipping lines if they create a situation where none of the terminals can meet their needs, adds Drewry's Neil Davidson. “If none of the terminals has the capacity or ability to cope with the surges and associated challenges, then having a choice means nothing.” - See more at: http://www.portstrategy.com/news101/port-operations/planning-and-design/finding-allies#sthash.yJx0u3Jk.dpuf

Two out of three Miami terminals seek alliance to negotiate with container lines

Reynolds Hutchins, Associate Editor | Dec 08, 2016 3:54PM EST
Additional reporting Rick Eyerdam

An agreement between the South Florida Container Terminal and Port of Miami Terminal Operating Company could be the first of many at US ports.

WASHINGTON — US regulators are reviewing a proposed agreement between two marine terminal operators at the Port of Miami that would allow the terminals to jointly negotiate terms and conditions with container lines — a first for the United States.

Although the port of Seattle and Tacoma came together operationally as the Northwest Seaport Alliance in 2015, this is the first time two marine terminals have sought the Federal Maritime Commission’s blessing to create their own alliance. Miami’s South Florida Container Terminal and Port of Miami Terminal Operating Company want to jointly negotiate, set, and approve terminal rates, charges, rules, and regulations, and rates of return between the terminals.

South Florida Container Terminal is an APM terminal, in essence, with the added benefit of a common user terminal designation. POMTOC was PortMiami’s only common user terminal until the port made all three terminals common user, including the Sealand Terminal.

But as Maersk withdrew from its APM terminals and sold interests in them, the benefit of Maersk’s exclusive calls at it’s terminals was displaced by a need for greater warf space and increased need for limited SuperpostPanamax cranes. Rather than compete for the limited resources at PortMiami and drive down costs in the competition the two adjacent terminals decided it would be easier to collaborate.

The terminals’ request parallels the vessel-sharing agreements container lines have formed to pool their cargo in larger ships in order to mitigate overcapacity and broaden their networks. Through the alliances, the container lines still compete with fellow members, and are forbidden from jointly marketing, selling, or contracting with third-parties, such as tug operators and stevedores.

According to FMC Commissioner William Doyle, agreements such as that in Miami are a direct response to the Ocean Alliance, a VSA between China Cosco Lines, Evergreen Line, CMA CGM, and Orient Overseas Container Line set to take sail in April.

The Miami terminals did not respond to requests for comment from JOC.com.

“Since the Ocean Alliance is allowed to jointly negotiate as an alliance with marine terminals who agree to do so, some marine terminal operators and port authorities may want to explore options for entering into their own alliances where they could jointly negotiate terms and conditions with the ocean carriers,” Doyle said at a North Atlantic Port Association meeting outside of Washington, DC. last week.

FMC commissioners say they have also been approached by others, including the South Carolina Ports Authority, regarding a potential partnership with another Southeast port operator.

“We’re absolutely going to have more agreements,” FMC Chairman Mario Cordero told JOC.com this week.

Doyle said the Miami terminals’ discussion agreement is a step beyond that of the Northwest Seaport Alliance, which gained the FMC’s green light in July 2015, because it will also allow those terminals to jointly negotiate terms and conditions for services with the ocean carriers.

Language in the proposed agreement includes conference and rate-setting authority that would allow the terminals to discuss and agree on matters of rates, charges, rules, and regulations through joint or individual marine terminal operator agreements with ocean common carriers. Additionally, the proposal would authorize the terminals to meet individually or as a group with one or more users, including ocean common carriers, to discuss any matters related to rates, charges, rules, and regulations.

The agreement appears to allow the terminals to jointly meet with a group of ocean common carriers, like an alliance grouping, and come to a joint agreement for services, Doyle said.

The draft agreement submitted on Nov. 16 is still under review, but has received some positive feedback from the likes of Doyle and Cordero. As with vessel-sharing agreements and the agreement for the Northwest Seaport Alliance, the FMC is expected to publish the language of the agreement for a public comment period. The FMC will then have 45 days to request additional information before making a decision.

“At the end of the day, you can’t have major ports in the same region independently trying to address issues in the supply chain,” Cordero said. “This agreement allows the FMC to monitor this in such a way that it doesn’t border collusion or anticompetitive behavior.”

Contact Reynolds Hutchins at [email protected] and follow him on Twitter: @Hutchins_JOC.

Maersk Line to acquire Hamburg Süd in cash deal worth up to $5bn

According to vesselsvalue.com, Hamburg Süd’s fleet of 44 vessels, all operating north-south services in the Latin America market, is valued at $1.44bn.

By Mike Wackett 01/12/2016
Maersk Line today announced it is to acquire Hamburg Süd in a cash deal one analyst claims could be worth up to $5bn.

“We estimate the takeover price in a range from $3bn-$5bn, which would increase Maersk’s leverage from 1.2x to around 1.6x full year 2017 EBITDA,” said Jeffries in a research note.

Maersk’s acquisition of the world’s seventh-biggest carrier would lift its capacity to 3.8m teu, from its current 3.1m teu, giving it an 18.6% global share.

The financial implications are harder to gauge, given the highly secretive nature of Hamburg Süd as part of Germany’s private Oetker Group.

“Profitability of Hamburg Süd hasn’t been disclosed, but we suspect it is depressed in the low container freight rate environment,” Jeffries said.

“As a result, the takeover would only create value if profitability would recover, through a combination of significant cost synergies and a potential recovery of container freight rates,” added the analyst.

The deal, following a recent wave of industry consolidation, will leave only 13 global carriers, compared with 20 at the start of the year.

According to vesselsvalue.com, Hamburg Süd’s fleet of 44 vessels, all operating north-south services in the Latin America market, is valued at $1.44bn.

The carrier recently made a foray into the east-west trades, but Maersk Group chief executive Soren Skou said today that “no decision had been made” on whether these services would continue after the completion of the acquisition of the German carrier at the end of next year.

Mr Skou told The Loadstar this morning that the “strong Hamburg Süd, Alianca and CCNI brands” would be maintained in Latin America, subject to regulatory approval, and that the east-west business “would fall within the 2M [alliance]”.

According to Alphaliner, Hamburg Süd purchases more than 2,000 slots a week from UASC, Cosco and APL as part of its global liner service offering on the Asia-Europe, transpacific and transatlantic trades.

These slot-charter agreements are set to end next April with the formation of the new vessel-sharing alliance structure, and it is difficult to see how Hamburg Süd could maintain its east-west market.

“Hamburg Süd is a very well-run and highly respected company with strong brands, dedicated employees and loyal customers,” said Mr Skou. “It complements Maersk Line, and together we can offer our customers the best of two worlds, first of all in the north-south trades.”

Chairman of Hamburg Süd Group, Dr Ottmar Gast, said the decision to “divest its engagement in shipping”, which can be traced back for 80-years, “was not an easy decision for my family”.

A separate statement from Oetker Group said continuing “active participation” in the shipping sector “would entail an even higher capital requirement”, which would “make the balancing of risk within the Oetker Group business portfolio more cumbersome”.

It added that in its view Maersk was “the ideal partner to preserve and further develop the shipping company’s successful business model”.

Mr Skou confirmed that the Hamburg Süd head office in Hamburg would be maintained, although he did not elaborate on integration of offices around the world, or the carrier’s 6,000-strong workforce, other than to pledge a “light touch”.

Mr Skou also hoped for synergies for Maersk’s terminal operation, APM Terminals, from the takeover.

He refused to be drawn on the acquisition price, other than to confirm that it was an “entirely cash transaction” with “no need to sell assets”.

Subject to obtaining regulatory approval from China, South Korea, Australia, Brazil, the US and the EU etc – a process expected to last until the latter part of next year, Maersk hopes to close the transaction by year-end 2017.

Product tankers, tramp, and other shipping-related operations made up around 7% of Hamburg Süd’s $6.7bn revenue in 2015. Mr Skou said there were “no plans for them as yet”. It is assumed they will be disposed of shortly after the takeover.

Mariel Now Allowed to Compete in Transshipment

By Gavin van Marle
24/10/2016
Prospects of the Cuban port of Mariel capturing US transhipment volumes have significantly improved since the US government last week lifted a ban on foreign vessels calling at US ports within 180 days of calling at Cuba.
The US Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) and Commerce Department’s Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) issued a general licence, waiving the restriction as part of the ongoing programme to restore relations between the two countries.
Treasury Secretary Jacob Lew said: “President Obama’s historic announcement in December 2014 charted a new course for a stronger, more open US-Cuba relationship. The treasury department has worked to break down economic barriers in areas such as travel, trade and commerce, banking, and telecommunications.
“Today’s action builds on this progress by enabling more scientific collaboration, grants and scholarships, people-to-people contact, and private sector growth. These steps have the potential to accelerate constructive change and unlock greater economic opportunity for Cubans and Americans.”
Secretary of Commerce Penny Pritzker added: “These amendments will create more opportunities for Cuban citizens to access American goods and services, further strengthening the ties between our two countries.
More commercial activity between the US and Cuba benefits our people and our economies.”
The lifting of these restrictions is also key to the development of the deepwater container terminal at Mariel, close to the Cuban capital of Havana, which has set itself the target of winning US transhipment cargo from the new neo-panamax vessel sizes now using the enlarged Panama canal.
At the recent TOC Americas Container Supply China event, Charles Baker, general director of TC Mariel, the PSA International-managed container terminal at the port, said lifting the embargo would “allow shippers and their 3PLs to reconsider the overall cost of their deepsea supply chains”.
While some ports on the US east and Gulf coasts have invested heavily in dredging access channels to accommodate the larger ship sizes, others that have yet to complete these programmes, and Mr Baker claimed the Cuban port was ideally located to serve as a first port of call on Asia-US east coast services and act a as a feeder point for ports such as Mobile and New Orleans.
“The normalisation of trade between Cuba and the US is something that is good for the entire region because more investment will come into the region from US companies,” he added.

PortaMiami beware, Florida East Coast Railroad considering sale

 Intermodal Fortress Investment Group LLC is exploring a sale of Florida East Coast Railway Corp., the coastal freight operator it took private in 2007, according to people familiar with the matter.

 

 

Asset manager Fortress is working with Barclays Plc and Morgan Stanley to weigh options for Jacksonville-based Florida East Coast Railway, the people said, asking not to be named as the details aren’t public. The company is likely to attract interest from other private equity firms, infrastructure firms and railway operators, the people said.

A spokesman for Barclays declined to comment.

Representatives for Fortress and Morgan Stanley didn’t immediately respond to requests for comment. The holding company of Florida East Coast Railway—Florida East Coast Industries Inc.—was taken private in 2007 by funds managed by Fortress in a transaction valued at about $3.5 billion.

The fund later spun off the railway operations into a separate company, leaving real estate, logistics and telecommunications assets under the FECI umbrella. Fortress, based in New York, had about $70.2 billion in assets under management as of June 30, according to its website.

Florida East Coast Railway can trace its roots back to 1895, when industrialist Henry M. Flagler bought the Jacksonville, St. Augustine, Halifax, and Indian River railroads to create a transportation route along the state’s coastline. It now operates about 350 miles of freight rail.

With Panama Canal open CMA CGM will advance Kingston hub

A statement from CMA CGM said: “Reflecting on new possibilities, maritime companies can rethink their routes, including that from Asia to the US east coast. For example, on the journey between New York and Hong Kong, the choice to sail by Panama or Suez canal is subtle: there is just one day difference. “Until now, the canal dimensions limited the size of ships and impacted the region’s technological and commercial strategies. With the lifting of such constraints the evolution of vessels is probable, initially from 5,000 to 9,000 or to 10,000 teu or even larger. The traffic is not likely to rise, but volumes in transit will probably increase.” The line added it would now look to develop the Jamaican port of Kingston as its central hub in the region. Last year it signed a $509m deal worth with Port Authority of Jamaica that transferred ownership of its container terminals to CMA CGM on a 30-year build-operate-transfer model. This will see the terminal expanded in two phases, with capacity taken successively up to 3.2m teu and 3.6m teu, and the port’s draught deepened to 14.2 metres by the end of 2016, and then to 15.5 metres. CMA CGM has formed a special purpose vehicle to bid for the project – Kingston Freeport Terminal – comprising its remaining port business, CMA Terminals, and Terminal Link, its container terminal operating company in which China Merchants has a 49% stake. Luc Portier, CMA CGM’s director of studies, projects and development, said: “A widened canal will bring new opportunities for world trade. CMA CGM has foreseen these changes and made Kingston a strategic base: modernisation works will allow the group to operate all larger vessels sailing in the area, and make Jamaica a transhipment hub for the whole sub region.”