Archives For TEU

TEU Token

The creators of a new industry-specific digital currency that shippers can use to book ocean shipments say so-called “cryptocurrency” could help reduce carrier overbooking and shipper no-shows, which cost the industry some $23 billion annually.

The Hong Kong-based 300 Cubits recently introduced the TEU, not the container unit but rather a digital dollar that replaces traditional currencies as the deposit for shipment bookings, providing greater visibility to the booking process and allowing users to penalize bad behaviour. Whereas other tech startups have introduced digital management platforms to achieve the same goals, 300Cubits’ founders say they’re offering something different: not a place for transaction, but a means of transaction.

The company introduced the new TEU crypto currency to the market, putting some up for sale and giving others away to container lines and shippers “who actively promote the tokens for early adoption.” The TEU tokens are blockchain-based, which means they are tethered to a decentralized, distributed digital ledger used to record transactions across many computers so that the record cannot be altered retroactively.

Blockchain is a largely back-end technology, which means there’s very little change for the user, both shipper and carrier, according to Johnson Leung, a longtime shipping finance analyst formerly with Jefferies who founded 300Cubits with his partner Jonathan Lee.

“The biggest change is the acceptance of TEU tokens as a booking deposit, which is a more commercial decision than a technical call,” Leung told, “We do not plan on a substantial change in terms of user interface experience other than having one more option for the user to choose whether to use TEU tokens and the amount to put it before the shipper clicks on the book button.”

The tokens were named TEU to honor, in a way, the classical unit of measurement for container shipping, said Leung.

“TEU is a kind of a classical unit for container shipping that is getting less and less used,” Leung said. “We just think that the people in the industry would appreciate the name as TEU when naming something that could be the money for the industry.”

In an era marked by the buzzword “disruption,” Leung was clear that TEU tokens are not disrupting any existing system or process in the container shipping industry. TEU tokens are like an industry-specific bitcoin, another blockchain-based cryptocurrency. Put simply, Leung said, “We play part of what the dollar does today in container shipping.”

According to a white paper prepared by the company, once TEU tokens are used to book shipment their value could be lost if a customer does not turn up with cargo or a carrier does not load cargo according to a confirmed booking.

Trust, or lack thereof, is the biggest pain point in the container shipping industry, according to 300 Cubits.

“Unlike ticket booking in airlines, customers in container shipping do not bear any consequence for not showing up for bookings. Industry people complain the lack of trust between liners and customers,” the company said in a statement. The TEU token can change that.

While it is aimed at tackling overbookings and no-shows and providing greater visibility into the container shipping industry, 300Cubits should not be confused with other tech firms attempting to accomplish the same feat through different avenues. Leung’s company only provides the means of transaction. It does not provide the actual space for where carriers and shippers can transact, like the New York Shipping Exchange, an online portal through which carrier cargo space can be booked and which also monitors whether the booking is fulfilled by shipper and carrier.

According to Leung, the container shipping industry is a $150 billion industry that has been in “constant distress” since the economic crisis of 2008. Subtle technological innovations, like digital currencies and digital marketplaces to use them, are going to be the means to ease that volatility.

Frequently Asked Questions regarding TEU – 300cubits.tech

300Cubits White Paper – 300cubits.tech

Source: www.dailyshippingtimes.com, 3 August 2017.

Advertisements

Saldanha Bay South AfricaRecently while reading of Transnet’s terminal capex expansion plans, I came across this interesting if not highly improbable plan featured in an article by Harry Valentine on Maritime Executive. I say improbable given the current economic and labour situation prevailing in South Africa at this time, not to mention the fact that the Transnet controlled Port of Ngqura is considered South Africa’s transhipment hub. Nonetheless, I think its admirable that such ideas are conceived and with a bit of thought and application are presented for consideration. From a Customs’ perspective such plans – in particular the notion of a floating terminal – could pose some interesting challenges (err opportunities) for SARS particularly given impending new compliance, licensing and reporting requirements contained in the new Customs Control Act. 

The Port of Los Angeles has welcomed its first 18,000-TEU ultra-large container ship, and Brazil, with a population almost as large as the U.S. and with future prospects of increased trade with Asia, could see such ships arriving via South Africa.

The projected future volume of container traffic that will pass through Brazilian ports would warrant future operation of ultra-large container ships between Brazil and major Asian transshipment terminals. However, it would take much investment and likely many years before a Brazilian port and terminal would be able to berth and service these vessels. One option would be to develop a transshipment port in South Africa that could serve as a terminal for ultra-large container ships that sail from such ports as Busan, Inchon, Shanghai and Hong Kong carrying containers destined for South America.

South Africa offers two bays capable of accepting ultra-large container ships. Richards Bay in the Northeast offers a draft clearance of 19 meters, while Saldanha Bay just north of Cape Town offers a draft of 21 meters. Bulk and ore freight terminals operate at both locations. Saldanha Bay is larger than Richard’s Bay, located near the large City of Cape Town and is closer to the shipping lane between South America and the Far East. It is also close to St. Helena Bay where waiting vessels may drop anchor.

When Richards Bay is at capacity, alternative areas where waiting vessels may drop anchor with a measure of protection from stormy seas are located at much greater distances. The Port of Durban is still Africa’s busiest container port and regularly operates at near-capacity. However, Durban and companion ports at Maputo, Port Elizabeth, Coega, East London and Cape Town have insufficient depth to accommodate ultra-large container ships. Saldanha Bay is a natural inlet that offers the necessary depth and has available space to develop a transshipment terminal to the south of the ore terminal.

There are tentative plans to borrow a precedent from Egypt and anchor a floating LNG storage tanker in Saldanha Bay, perhaps near the southern end of the inlet, to serve a variety of customer requirements. Tanker vessels could regularly carry LNG from Mozambique, Tanzania and Angola to the floating storage terminal. Operational precedents established at the Port of Durban could ensure smooth operation of maritime vessels entering and leaving Saldanha Bay, especially with excess vessels being able to drop anchor in St. Helena Bay as well as nearby Table Bay at Cape Town some 60 nautical miles away.

Future ultra-large container ships of 22,000 TEUs would offer savings in terms of average cost per container on the segment between Saldanha Bay and distant East Asian ports at or near the South China Sea. Automated terminal operations that include transfer of containers among vessels could contribute to competitive transportation costs to a variety of destinations along South America’s Atlantic coast as well as several South African ports, perhaps extending as far north as Nigeria on the Atlantic Coast (Asia – Africa trade), Tanzania on the East Coast (Africa – South America trade), as well as domestic Africa -Africa trade.

While South Africa’s economy may presently be under-performing, South African authorities have the option of inviting foreign investors and developers to explore the option of developing a transshipment super port at Saldanha Bay. Future trade through Saldanha Bay would include containers sailing to and from East Asian transshipment terminals such as Port of Colombo and Port of Singapore to connect into the combination of West Coast Africa – Asia and Atlantic Coast South America -Asia trade. Such combined trade enhances prospects for potentially viable transshipment port and terminal operations at a South African bay.

A transshipment super port at the southern end of the African continent would mostly transfer containers that originate from and be destined for foreign ports. Only a minority of the containers would originate from or be destined for domestic South African ports. South African exporters and importers would benefit from lower transportation costs per container compared to the transportation costs per container aboard smaller vessels.

It’s an idea worth considering.

Floating Islands

Cape Town is at the crossroads of ships that carry the trade between Asian nations and nations along the Atlantic Coast of South America and sub-Sahara West Africa. There may be future scope for an offshore, floating transshipment terminal built at Saldanha Bay and assembled either at Cape Town or St Helena Bay to reduce per-container transportation costs along this trade route. Such a terminal would attract interest from overseas. A floating hotel partially surrounded by breakwaters and permanently anchored offshore near a coastal city could be connected to the mainland using floating bridges and water taxi service.

There may be scope to expand upon the technology to develop multiple floating structures in a calm water area, with bridges connecting between them at strategic locations to maintain navigable canals between them. While water taxis could shuttle visitors between mainland and an offshore floating island, semi-floating bridges could also connect between mainland and such islands that may include business districts and even residential areas.

Coupled floating structures may also serve as an airport with a runway for commuter size of aircraft and perhaps even comparable size of wing-in-ground effect vehicles that provide service between coastal cities.

Source: article by Harry Valentine.

Namport-rail-upgradeThe Namibian Ports Authority has completed the upgrade of all railway infrastructure at the Port of Walvis Bay at a cost of N$20M (US$1.3M)

The work was included in Namports maintenance programme in 2010, but is now part of wider plans to upgrade facilities at Walvis Bay in preparation for the completion of the new container terminal.

A total of 4.5kms of track inside the port and the section of railway running from the city into the port have been replaced using material that can cope with heavier loads.

A spokesperson for Namport said: “Although the project was of relatively low value, its execution was complex as we had to ensure minimum operational interruption to the track, which is in daily use.”

The new container terminal is being constructed on 40-ha of reclaimed land and will add 700,000 TEU of annual handling capacity to the existing 350,000 TEU. Walvis Bay is already attracting bigger ships and recently handled its biggest ever container vessel the CMA CGM DANUBE, a 112,580 dwt vessel with a nominal intake of 9200 TEU.

A statement from Namports read: “The visit of CMA CGM DANUBE complements our port expansion project, which accommodates greater carrying capacity. Following the completion of the port expansion project vessels such as this will be accommodated at the new container terminal.”

The Walvis Bay Corridor Group, which was set up to promote the use of the port among neighbouring states, is keen to improve ancillary infrastructure at Walvis Bay to make the most of the new terminal.

Namport manager for corporate communication Taná Pesat said: “The benefits are our safe and secure corridors to and from landlocked SADC markets. The frequency of direct ship calls and flexibility of doing business with ease.”

However, the plot of land at the port given to Zimbabwe in 2009 for the construction of a dedicated dry port has still not been developed. Source: World Cargo News

PSA Singapore Terminals

Two new container berths capable of serving large container ships will be operated by COSCO-PSA Terminal in Singapore in 2017.

COSCO-PSA Terminal (CPT), a joint venture company formed by COSCO Pacific Limited and PSA Corporation, is investing in the new berths, and will move from its current two-berth terminal to three new mega berths as part of a Pasir Panjang Terminal expansion project.

A few of the planned 15 berths in Phases 3 and 4 of the Pasir Panjang Terminal are already operational. The rest of the S$3.5 billion ($2.6 billion) project is scheduled to be completed by the end of 2017, pushing Singapore’s annual container handling capacity to 50 million TEUs.

All the new berths at Pasir Panjang Terminal are designed to be able to handle container ships with capacities larger than 10,000 TEUs.

PSA Singapore currently operates 57 berths at its container terminals in Tanjong Pagar, Keppel, Brani and Pasir Panjang. The terminals at Pasir Panjang are PSA’s most advanced. The berths at Pasir Panjang Phases 3 and 4 are up to 18 meters deep and equipped with quay cranes able to reach across 24 rows of containers to serve the world’s largest container ships. They also feature the latest port innovations such as a zero-emission, fully-automated electric yard crane system.

Singapore is the world’s second busiest container port after Shanghai in China, which took over Singapore in 2010. Source: Maritime Executive

MarEx APM Tangier 2016Maritime Executive reports that the world’s third largest port operator APM Terminals said it will invest 758 million euros ($858.3 million) in a new transhipment terminal in Tangier, Morocco, that will be the first automated terminal in Africa.

APM Terminals, a unit of Denmark’s shipping and oil group A.P. Moller-Maersk, has been named as the operator of the new container transshipment terminal at the Tanger Med 2 port complex. The group already operates the APM Terminals Tangier facility at Tanger Med 1 port, which started operations in July of 2007 and handled 1.7 million TEUs in 2015. The new terminal will have annual capacity of five million TEUs.

Maersk Line, also a part A.P. Moller-Maersk, will be an important customer of the new terminal. The new terminal is scheduled to open in 2019, under the terms of a 30-year concession agreement with the Tanger Med Special Agency (TMSA), which has responsibility for the development and management of the Tanger Med port complex.

The Tanger-Med port complex is strategically located on Africa’s northwest coast near the mouth of the Mediterranean Sea on the Strait of Gibraltar, where the Atlantic Ocean and Mediterranean Sea meet. Tanger-Med is the second-busiest container port on the African continent after Port Said, Egypt. The new APM Terminals MedPort Tangier terminal will increase the port’s total annual throughput capacity to over nine million TEUs.

APM Terminals MedPort Tangier will have up to 2,000 meters of quay length and will feature the technology pioneered at the APM Terminals Maasvlakte II Rotterdam terminal which opened in 2015.

For APM Terminals the Western Mediterranean is an important market. APM Terminals Algeciras, on the Spanish side of the Strait of Gibraltar, operates in tandem with APM Terminals Tangier as an integrated Western Mediterranean transshipment hub. APM Terminals Algeciras handled more than 3.5 million TEUs in 2015, and has completed a major upgrading of its cranes and quay infrastructure to accommodate ultra-large container Ships of 18,000 TEU capacity and above.

The location of the Tangier and Algeciras facilities provide a natural transshipment location for cargoes moving on vessels to and from Africa from Europe and the Far East on the primary East/West shipping route through the Mediterranean Sea; over 200 cargo vessels pass through the Strait of Gibraltar daily on major liner services linking Asia, Europe, the Americas and Africa.

While African ports at present account for only 4.5 percent of global port throughput (including transshipment cargoes), the United Nations 2015 World Population Prospects Report projects that more than half of the world’s population growth between 2015 and 2050 will occur in Africa, with the African population more than doubling from 1.1 billion to 2.4 billion over the next three and a half decades.

Significant investment in port and transportation infrastructure will be required to meet the anticipated needs of the expanding African population and corresponding economic growth.

APM Terminals is the largest port and terminal operating company in Africa by equity-weighted container volume, with 12 facilities operating in 10 countries and three more terminals under construction. Source: Maritime Executive

APM Terminals has released drone footage of its Rotterdam Maasvlakte II terminal. The terminal set a loading record last month on the Madison Maersk with 17,152 TEU loaded, including ten high above deck stowage.

The facility launches the world’s first container terminal to utilize remotely-controlled ship-to-shore (STS) gantry cranes. The cranes move containers between vessels and the landside fleet of 62 battery-powered Lift-Automated Guided Vehicles (Lift-AGVs) which transport containers between the quay and the container yard, including barge and on-dock rail facilities.

The Lift-AGV’s also represent the world’s first series of AGV’s that can lift and stack a container. A fleet of 54 Automated Rail-Mounted Gantry Cranes (ARMGs) then positions containers in the yard in a high-density stacking system. The terminal’s power requirements are provided by wind-generated electricity, enabling terminal operations, which produce no CO2, emissions or pollutants, and which are also considerably quieter than conventional diesel-powered facilities.

The facility, constructed on land entirely reclaimed from the North Sea, has been designed as a multi-modal hub to reduce truck traffic in favor of barge and rail connections to inland locations.

Construction began in May 2012, with the first commercial vessel call in February 2015.

2015 and 2016 are the years of ramping up operations and refining the terminal operating system. The 86 hectare (212 acre) deep-water terminal features 1,000 meters of quay, on-dock rail, and eight fully-automated electric-powered STS cranes, with an annual throughput capacity of 2.7 million TEU.

At planned full build-out, the terminal will cover 180 hectares (445 acres) and offer 2,800 meters of deep-sea quay (19.65 meters/64.5 feet depth), with an annual throughput capacity of six million TEUs. Source: Maritime Executive

Majestic MaerskContainer shipping lines are poised to take delivery of a new generation of “megaships” over the next two years, just as the growth of world trade is slowing down, contributing to massive overcapacity in the market.

Megaships, which can be up to 400 meters long, seem to be here to stay, not least because so many more are already on order, the product of high fuel costs and low interest rates.

But the trend towards larger vessels is not without problems especially for other businesses in the transport system, and the trend could be nearing its limit as the economies of scale associated with megaships decline.

Container shipping capacity has doubled every seven years since the turn of the millennium and will reach nearly 20 million TEU in 2015 up from five million TEUs in 2000.

But since the financial crisis, container capacity has continued to grow rapidly, even as the growth in freight volumes has slowed, creating a massive overhang in shipping capacity and pressuring freight rates.

Capacity growth is being driven by the trend towards larger vessels. The size of container ships has been growing faster than for any other ship type according to the OECD’s International Transport Forum.

Between 1996 and 2015, the average carrying capacity of container ships increased 90 percent, compared with a 55 percent increase for dry bulk carriers and 21 percent for tankers.

The growth in container ship size has been accelerating. It took 30 years for the average container ship size to reach 1,500 TEU but just one decade to double from 1,500 to 3,000 TEU.

Between 2001 and 2008, the average size of newly built ships hovered around 3,400 TEU but then jumped to 5,800 TEU between 2009 and 2013, and hit 8,000 TEU in 2015.

Megaships
Both the average size of new container ships and the maximum size are set to continue growing over the next five years. Shipping lines have already taken ownership of 20 megaships with a capacity of more than 18,000 TEU each and another 52 are on order, according to the OECD.

The largest ship so far delivered has a capacity of 19,200 TEU, but carriers with capacity up to 21,100 have been ordered and will be in service by 2017.

Megaships are being introduced into service between the Far East and North Europe, the world’s largest route by volume, where potential economies of scale are greatest, but are having a cascade effect on other routes.

Large ships that formerly plied the Far East-North Europe route are being displaced into Trans-Pacific service, and former Trans-Pacific carriers are moving to the Trans-Atlantic route.

The new generation of ultra-efficient megaships is credited with cutting the cost of shipping even further and lowering greenhouse gas emissions.

But researchers for the OECD question whether megaships are contributing to unsustainable overcapacity and imposing unintended costs on shippers, port operators, freight forwarders, logistics firms and insurers.

Fuel Costs
The new generation of megaships is the lagged effect of the era of high oil prices between 2004 and 2014 and low interest rates since the financial crisis in 2008.

Costs in the shipping industry can be divided into the capital costs associated with the construction of new vessels, operating costs, and voyaging costs primarily related to fuel consumption.

Construction costs increase more slowly than ship size. Increasing a container ship from 16,000 TEU to 19,000 TEU cuts the annual capital cost per TEU-slot by around $69 according to the OECD.

Larger ships are slightly more operationally efficient than smaller ones, with an annual saving of perhaps $50 per slot on a 19,000 TEU ship compared with a 16,000 TEU vessel.

But the real savings are on the fuel bills. Megaships are “astonishingly fuel efficient” and actually consume less fuel on a voyage than 16,000 TEU carriers, according to the OECD.

With overwhelming cost advantages, especially on fuel, and cheap finance readily available, the upsizing decision appears to have been a straightforward one for shipping lines.

Slow Steaming
The new generation of megacarriers has been optimized to save fuel by voyaging much more slowly than previous container vessels.

Fuel consumption is related to the cube of speed. If a vessel travels twice as fast it will consume eight times as much fuel. The cube-rule has important implications for the economics of the shipping industry.

When fuel prices are high, it makes sense to voyage slowly to cut fuel bills, even if it means operating more ships to move the same amount of cargo. When fuel prices are low, it makes sense to travel faster and use fewer ships.

During the period of soaring oil prices, container lines instructed captains to cut speed in order to conserve fuel.

The new ships ordered were specifically designed to operate most efficiently at slower speeds to take advantage of slow steaming economies. In fact some carriers are so large they cannot operate at higher speeds.

Crucially, slow steaming has now been designed into the new generation of vessels entering container service, so it will not be easily reversed, even though fuel prices have plunged since 2014.

According to the OECD, most of the voyaging cost reductions in the new generation of megaships come from their optimization for slow steaming rather than from increased size.

“Between 55 and 63 percent (at least) of the savings per TEU when upgrading the vessel size from an early 15,000 TEU design to a modern 19,000 TEU design are actually attributable to the layout for lower operation speeds,” the OECD estimated.

“Cost savings are decreasing as ships become bigger,” the OECD concluded. “A large share of the cost savings was achieved by ship upsizing to 5,000 TEU, which more than halved the unit costs per TEU, but the cost savings beyond that capacity are much smaller.”

Unintended Costs
The consolidation of container volumes into fewer, larger megaships is creating challenges for other firms in the freight business.

Insurers are worried about the costs if a megaship sinks or develops mechanical problems. Insurer Allianz has warned the industry must prepare for losses of more than $1 billion, or even up to $2 billion in the event of a collision between two megaships.

Economies of scale depend on megacarriers being loaded close to maximum capacity and spending as much time as possible at sea rather than in port.

The need to fill megaships is one reason that the industry is consolidating into an alliance network.

Shipping lines are also adopting the hub-and-spoke system employed by airlines to ensure their ultra-large container vessels sail nearly full.

Shipping schedules for the megacarriers have been consolidated into fewer sailings each week from fewer ports (about six in North Europe and eight in Asia).

Containers for other destinations must be transhipped, either on a smaller container vessel or by road, rail and barge. Schedule consolidation is not necessarily favored by shippers and freight forwarders who prefer regular and reliable service (fewer sailings can mean more concentrated risk).

Port operators, too, have been forced to invest heavily to attract and handle the new megacarriers. Port channels must be dredged to greater depths to handle the deeper drafts of the megaships. Quaysides must be raised and strengthened to handle the increased forces when a megaship is tied up.

The biggest problem comes from the scramble to unload a megacarrier quickly so it can put to sea again. The average turnaround time for a container ship is now just one day, and less in Asia.

The arrival of fewer vessels but with larger numbers of containers is creating intense peak time pressure on the ports.
Ports need more cranes, more highly skilled staff to operate them fast, more space in the yard, and the ability to handle more trucks, railcars and barges to move the containers inland.

The OECD estimates megaships are increasing landside costs by up to $400 million per year (one third for extra equipment, one third for dredging, and one third for port infrastructure and hinterland costs). Source: Maritime Executive/Reuters.

Container weighingThe responsibility for verifying the gross weight of loaded containers under next year’s new box-weighing rules will in many cases rest with freight forwarders, logistics operators or NVOCCs, according to freight transport insurance specialist TT Club.

Welcoming the initiative of the World Shipping Council (WSC) in its recent publication of guidelines to the industry in relation to implementing the SOLAS requirements that become mandatory on 1 July 2016, TT Club noted that unlike the CTU Code, which forensically seeks to identify the chain of responsibility for everyone involved in the movement of freight, the amendment to the Safety of Life at Sea Convention (SOLAS) mandating the verification of gross mass of container overtly only names the ‘shipper’, the ‘master’ and the ‘terminal representative’, and – by implication – the competent authorities.

TT Club said the complex nature of logistics means that the term ‘shipper’ may encompass a range of people involved in the contracting, packing and transporting of cargo. However, as stated in the WSC guidance, it said the key commercial relationship in question is with the person whose name is placed on the ocean carrier’s bill of lading.

“Thus, in many cases, the responsibility for actual ‘verified’ declaration will rest with a freight forwarder, logistics operator or NVOC. This means that often reliance will have to be placed on others to have adequate certified methods to provide verified gross mass – particularly for consolidation business,” TT Club said.

It noted that of course many suppliers of homogenous shipments will already have advanced systems, which merely require some form of national certification, adding: “Apart from having a sustainable method by which the gross mass is verified, the shipper also needs to communicate it (‘signed’ meaning that there is an accountable person) in advance of the vessel’s stow plan being prepared.

“The information will be sent by the shipper to the carrier, but with joint service arrangements there may be a number of carriers involved, with one taking responsibility to consolidate the manifest information, in addition to communication with the terminal.”
It said the ‘master’ comprises a number of functions within the carrier’s organisation.

“Implicit in the SOLAS amendment is that the carrier sets in place processes that ensure that verified gross mass is available and used in planning the ship stow,” TT Club said. “Arguably, each carrier will need to amend systems and processes to capture ‘verified’ information.

“However, the simplest might be to amend the booking process, so that the gross mass information is left blank in the system until ‘verified’ data are available. This will be effective if it is clearly understood by all partner lines and terminals with whom the line communicates.”

TT Club said the explicit obligation of the master was simply that he shall not load a container for which a verified gross mass is not available. “This does not mean that one with a verified gross mass is guaranteed to be loaded, since that would derogate from the traditional rights of a master,” the insurance specialist added.

Recognising the pivotal nature of the port interface, it noted that the ‘terminal representative’ has been drawn into the new regulation as a key recipient of information for ship stow planning “and, critically, in a joint and several responsibility not to load on board a ship if a verified gross mass is not available”.

It added: “There has been considerable debate as to whether terminals need to position themselves to be able to weigh containers, not least because of the cost of creating appropriate infrastructure, and amending systems and procedures, with uncertain return on investment. In addition there are commonly incidences of containers packed at the port, in which case the terminal activities could include assisting the shipper in producing the verified gross mass.

“The SOLAS amendment places responsibility on national administrations to implement appropriate standards for calibration and ways of certifying. The overtly named parties rely on this to work smoothly and, preferably, consistently on a global basis.”
TT Club said clarity of such processes needed to be matched by consistency in enforcement. “Talk of ‘tolerances’ is disingenuous,” it said. “SOLAS calls for accuracy. Everyone appreciates that some cargo and packing material may be hygroscopic, thereby potentially increasing mass during the journey, but that need not mask fraudulent activity, nor entice over-zealous enforcement.”

It said the UK Marine Guidance Note may be instructive here, stating that enforcement action will only be volunteered where the difference between documented and actual weight exceeds a threshold. TT Club concluded: “It is suggested that key measures of success of the revised SOLAS regulation will include not only safety of containerised movements, but also free movement of boxes through all modes of surface transport, and a shift in behaviour and culture throughout the unit load industry.”

Port of Singapore [Picture credit - singaporevisablog.wordpress.com]

Port of Singapore [Picture credit – singaporevisablog.wordpress.com]

The Port of Singapore has been named the best seaport in Asia for the 27th time – beating fierce rivals Hong Kong and Shanghai.

The honour was given out at the 2015 Asia Freight, Logistics and Supply Chain Awards (AFLAS) held in Hong Kong here the other day.

The AFLAS awards, organised by freight and logistics publication Asia Cargo News, honour organisations for demonstrating leadership as well as consistency in service quality, innovation, customer relationship management and reliability.

Determined by votes cast by readers of Asia Cargo News, the Port of Singapore clinched the award for its leading performance on a range of criteria, including cost competitiveness, container shipping-friendly fee regime, provision of suitable container shipping-related infrastructure, timely and adequate investment in new infrastructure to meet future demand and the facilitation of ancillary services.

The other finalists in the Asia category this year were the Port of Hong Kong and Port of Shanghai.

Said Mr Andrew Tan, chief executive of Maritime and Port Authority of Singapore (MPA): “We will continue to work closely with all our stakeholders to strengthen our competitiveness as a premier global hub port and international maritime centre.

“Singapore will also continue to plan and invest ahead, such as our commissioning of Pasir Panjang Terminal Phases 3 and 4 this week which will increase the overall capacity of Singapore’s port to 50 million TEUs (Twenty-Foot Equivalent Units) when fully operational.”

Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong on Tuesday officially opened the terminals. When the expansion is fully operational by the end of 2017, Singapore will be able to handle a total of 50 million TEUs of containers annually.

MPA said the Port of Singapore continued to achieve good growth in 2014. Its annual vessel arrival tonnage reached 2.37 billion gross tonnes (GT). Its container throughput hit 33.9 million TEUs, while total cargo tonnage handled reached 580.8 million tonnes.

Its total volume of bunkers remained the highest in the world, at 42.4 million tonnes. The total tonnage of ships under the Singapore Registry of Ships was 82.2 million GT, putting Singapore among the top 10 ship registries in the world.

namport-expansionConstruction of the N$3 billion container terminal at Walvis Bay is taking shape with over 1.5 million cubic metres of land reclaimed from the Atlantic Ocean. China Harbour Engineering Company (CHEC), which is constructing the terminal, says the work is on schedule for completion in 2017.

“We understand the importance of the project not only for Namibia but for Africa as a continent and therefore we are fully committed to deliver a state-of-the-art project at the end,” said CHEC’s acting project manager, Feng Yuan Fei.

The expansion includes the construction of a modern container terminal, adding 600m of quay length to the existing 1500m and 650 000 TEU (twenty-foot equivalent unit) per annum capacity to the existing 350 000 TEU. The Namibia Port Authority (Namport) port engineer, Elzevir Gelderbloem, said Namport is happy with the progress made so far.

“It took us nine years to get to the construction phase of the project. Such projects take time to implement and we hope our next projects will be much quicker. However, we have no dry land to expand as the harbour is completely boxed in by the town, but with the current project we are creating more land in water. This type of expansion is unique and feasible for a container terminal.

“It’s the kind of construction that has never been used in the country but will improve our port services at least until 2020 when we will have to undergo the same process again,” he said.

Reclamation of the land is scheduled for completion in February next year, after which the next phase is to complete the quay walls by April and then the construction of revetment by August in the same year. Erection of revetment involves the layering of different rock such as armour core rock, mixed filter layer, geotextile, and crushed stone layers to create a wall around the reclaimed land. More than 400 000 cubic metres of rock will be needed for revetment.

Feng said he was confident they would comfortably meet the deadline to complete the revetment in August next year. “We also created a sandbag cofferdam, which prevents the dredged material and muddy water from overflowing during the process of reclamation,” he said. Source: New Era newspaper

TArtist's Illustration -DEME Grouphe Maritime and Port Authority of Singapore (MPA) has signed a milestone contract for the construction of the first phase of a new $1.82 billion mega port in Singapore.

The contract was awarded to a joint venture between the Dredging International Asia Pacific Ltd., a subsidiary of Belgium’s DEME Group, and South Korea’s Daelim.

The project, formally known as the Tuas Terminal Phase 1 Reclamation, Wharf Construction and Dredging Project, entails the construction of a new port terminal with 20 deep-water berths having a total capacity of 20 million twenty-foot equivalent units (TEUs) per annum. The Joint Venture will be responsible for the construction of an 8.6-kilometer quay wall and its foundation, the dredging of the fairway and basins, as well as the reclamation of 294 hectares of new land.

This major project is expected to complete within six years, and has been awarded to the Joint Venture for a Contract value of SGD 2.42 billion (or approximately US $1.82 billion).

Beginning in 2030, the Government of Singapore will start to consolidate its container port facilities at Tuas. New technology will be introduced at the greenfield site to create a hypermodern, innovative and largely automated logistics hub. The consolidation will also free up existing port land near the city centre for future urban redevelopment.

The Tuas Terminal Project is anticipated to ensure that Singapore’s leading global hub port continues to have sufficient capacity in the long term to meet industry demand.

Singapore ranks as the world’s second busiest container port handling 33.9 million 20-foot containers in 2014, according to the MPA. The Port of Shanghai ranks as number 1 with 35.2 million TEU in 2014. Source: Gcaptain.com

Port of Shanghai, China [Picture: DaliyMail.co.uk]

Port of Shanghai, China [Picture: DaliyMail.co.uk]

Shanghai retained its title as the world’s busiest container port for a fifth consecutive year after widening the gap with its closest rival Singapore.

Singapore handled 33.9 million 20-foot containers last year, according to a statement posted on the Maritime & Port Authority of Singapore’s website dated Jan. 16. Last month, Shanghai said it expects to process about 35.2 million boxes in 2014. A year before, the gap between the two ports was about 1 million boxes.

Shanghai, Shenzhen and other ports in China are dominating the global container-shipping market while the facility in Ningbo overtook South Korea’s Busan last year as the world’s fifth-busiest harbor. Seven of the world’s 10 top container ports were in China in 2013, with Hong Kong coming in fourth.

Shipping companies are adding larger container ships to meet demand as economic growth helped consumers to spend more money on clothes and food. Global trade last year probably grew 3.8 percent, according to the International Monetary Fund.

Global containerized trade reached 124 million boxes in the first 11 months of 2014, an increase of 4.3 percent from 118.9 million a year ago, according to Container Trade Statistics Ltd.

Geneva-based Mediterranean Shipping Co., the world’s second-largest container shipping company, currently operates the biggest vessel that can carry 19,224 boxes between Asia and Europe. Last year, China Shipping Container Lines Co. launched a ship that could carry about 19,100 containers. Source: Bloomberg/GCaptain

containerThe International Maritime Bureau has been alerted to a fraud involving a shipping container’s weight and size that is atypical of what one might out of a container weight fraud case; the tare weight, or unladen weight of the container itself was unrealistically falsified and much higher than the actual, correct weight of the container.

The IMB reports that the incident concerned a container of aluminium scrap in which the information outside the box was tampered with to show false weight and size. The fraud was uncovered by an IMB member after being notified of a significant weight shortage on the container, which arrived in the Far East from the Middle East.

During the investigation, the IMB member noted that the tare weight of the container, as shown on its door – and used by the shipper – was 3,680kg, while the cube, also shown on the door, was 2,700 cubic feet. While the numbers displayed were entirely acceptable for a 40 foot container, the box in question was a 20 foot one, according to the IMB. The shipper has since confirmed that the correct tare weight for the container should have been 2,200kg, much lower than what was declared.

An examination of the photos taken when the container was loaded revealed that the part of the door on which the figures were displayed was a slightly different color, which leads to the conclusion that the door had been repainted at some point, and the new, false figures were added after that. The IMB notes is not known when this was done and it is unlikely to be an isolated case.

The IMB says it has not come across a case before where a container has been repainted with incorrect weight and size information that in hindsight clearly cannot be correct for a 20 foot container, however it does have knowledge of a case where a label was placed over the container number of a stolen container to disguise the theft. The IMB says that this would be a more logical deception since carriers tend to focus on the container numbers themselves, and rely on the shipper to provide any other information required.

The IMB asks that others who detect similar container information tampering to report it so that it can attempt to establish a pattern that might indicate who is responsible and can issue suitable warnings to the industry if it proves widespread in the future.

Apart from being a fraud, mis-declaring the weight of containers can also pose a danger to the vessel and crew, as mis-declared container weights remains a contributing factor to incidents involving containers lost at sea.

This month, the International Maritime Organization’s Maritime Safety Committee is scheduled to adopt amendments to the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea chapter VI to require mandatory verification of the gross mass of containers, either by weighing the packed container or by weighing all packages and cargo items and adding the tare mass, in turn boosting the safety of container ships and crew.

The IMB stresses that in this case, the container owner has denied responsibility and the IMB member doubts its supplier was involved. Source: emaritimeexchange.com

-Dinesh Sharma, senior research manager at Drewry Maritime Advisors, says that global container throughput would rise between 5% and 5.5% a year up to the end of the decade. Speaking at a Ports & Terminals seminar in London, he cited ports in Africa and northern China as registering the strongest growth.

In his outlook, Sharma projected a 2020 global throughput volume of at least 1 billion TEU, up from 623 million TEU in 2013, with Asia accounting for 65% (650 million TEU) and transhipment traffic 32% (320 million TEU) of the total. This, he explained would compare with shares of 56% and 22.5% (140 million TEU), respectively, in 2013.

Within Asia, Sharma argued that China would become increasingly significant over the next seven years, citing that the country’s share of global container-handling activity would rise from 30% in 2013 to 40% in 2014. In 2000, China’s ports processed just 16% of a world total of 235 million TEU, a figure that reveals the spectacular growth that has occurred in the Asian country since it joined the World Trade Organisation in November 2001.
In a further assessment of the future, Sharma said the percentage of empty boxes handled would not change and would remain at about the 20% (200 million TEU) level in 2020.
Other interesting facts presented by the analyst showed that 22,000 TEU-sized ships would be in operation in 2020, the world population of super post panamax cranes would number over 2,000 units, compared with 1,160 units in service in 2013, and that the leading four global terminal operating companies would control an estimated 41% of all containers handled. Source: World Cargo News

BagamoyoThe government of Tanzania has announced that successful negotiation with Chinese officials will allow work to start on the $11bn Bagamoyo megaport this year, rather than January 2015, as originally scheduled.

The port is to be developed by China Merchants Holdings International, the world largest independent port operators. In the first phase of work, the quay, the container yards, the cargo terminals and all dredging work will be completed by 2017.

These facilities will then be expanded in stages over a period of 30 years, to give an eventual capacity of 20 million containers a year. This is likely to make the port the largest on the east coast of Africa, with a capability to handle roll on, roll off ships and container vessels with a 10,000 TEU capacity (these is, “new Panamax” ships that are too large to fit in the Panama Canal).

Underwriting the development is the discovery of some 200 trillion cubic feet of natural gas, which is going to make the country a leading exporter over the next decade.

Bagamoyo is seen as a Tanzania’s trump card in the sharpening struggle with other east African companies for foreign investment, export markets, industrial development and business from landlocked countries in the interior.

In particular, Tanzania is competing with the Kenyan port of Mombasa for investment and the handling of exports from Uganda, Burundi, Zambia and Rwanda. Although it looks to be in the lead in terms of port infrastructure, Kenya has taken the lead in the development of effective rail links, and Mozambique is closer to bringing its liquid natural gas deposits to market.

When completed, the port will cover about 800 hectares. Around it will be a 1,700 hectare special economic zone. The intention is to encourage set up industries that process or refine Tanzania’s raw materials, such as coffee roasting or ore processing, thereby capturing more of the value chain.

Adelhelm Meru, the director general of the Export Processing Zones Authority, which will be in charge of the zone, told journalists in Dar es Salaam recently that he wanted to attract “industries specialising in value-addition of agricultural products” which he said had been a leading area of investment under the EPZA for the past six years. He said about 55% of industries established under the EPZA dealt in agricultural and textile processing.

The zone is expected to be fully developed by 2024. Source: Global Contruction Review