FROM THE SINGAPORE BUSINESS TIMES, ALSO INSURANCE JOURNAL (USA):

 

 

 

***Call to boycott Suez Canal over pirates

 

(OSLO) A leading Norwegian shipowner called on tanker operators to boycott the Suez Canal which he said would force global powers to intervene in Somalia to crush piracy by forcing up oil and commodity prices.

The call, which has yet to receive widespread support from other shipowners, raised the possibility that owners and crews could join hands in demanding more action against pirates.

The International Transport Workers' Federation, the largest seafarer's union with 720,000 members worldwide, said last month it was considering advising crews to refuse to enter pirate zones.

'The only way the politicians will be forced to take action is if we agree to stay out of the Gulf of Aden, meaning we wouldn't go through the Suez Canal,' said Jan Hammer, chief executive of Odfjell Tankers, which has 95 chemical tankers.

The Suez Canal is a short-cut between Asia and Europe using shipping lanes that traverse the Gulf of Aden north of lawless Somalia.

More than 35 vessels and 800 crew are being held for ransom in and around Somalia, with recent ransom demands above US$10 million per ship and the global economy drained of US$7 billion to US$12 billion a year, according to the One Earth Future Foundation.

'I can't see any other solution' except for a military intervention, Mr Hammer told Reuters. 'The politicians will have to get together in a Nato or UN context and address the real problems on land.'

So far Mr Hammer said he has no public allies among shippers.

He said many express private support for no-sail zones but fear banding together could violate anti-competition laws.

In his view shippers should also consider shunning the Persian Gulf, source of 40 per cent of the world's oil transported by ship.

He said today's international naval presence off the Horn of Africa would have to grow 700 per cent to scare pirates who now attack from hijacked 'mother ships' with hostages on board far out in the Indian Ocean.

Jakob Larsen, maritime security officer at the Bimco shipowners' association, said industry support for a strategic no-sail zone was growing as some crew unions threaten to hold shipping companies liable for pirate violence.

'We are not there yet, but if things continue to escalate it's possible they (shipowners) will be tempted to avoid conflict areas completely,' Mr Larsen said. 'Oil prices would then climb even higher than they are now.'

Sailing around southern Africa instead of through the Suez Canal adds weeks of travel between the Indian Ocean and the Mediteranean Sea. Doing so regularly would boost commodity prices and cut the slack in a freight market weakened recently by too many competing ships, Mr Hammer said.

Frontline, the world's largest oil tanker company, opposes such coordinated action.

'You would hit the Egyptian economy very hard at a time when they probably need every dollar,' said Frontline technical director Olav Eikrem, in a reference to the political turmoil in the region that forced president Hosni Mubarak from office last month.

Mr Eikrem agreed with Mr Hammer that military and political intervention in Somalia was needed to root out pirates but said a shipping campaign that hurt the global economy could backfire.

'We are not going to engineer that,' he said. 'We are in the supply business. But at the end of the day all these extra costs for security and insurance and diversions will be passed on to the consumer.' A marine insurance expert said a boycott of dangerous waters would be 'fully understandable'.

'If companies feel that the threat is so immense that they put forward that solution then it's fully understandable,' Stein Are Hansen, assistant director of the Norwegian Hull Club marine insurer\. \-- Reuters

 

 

FROM LLOYD'S LIST:

 

 

Flag states seek vetting body for armed guards

Steve Matthews - Friday 18 March 2011

THE increasing use of armed security guards on board ships to deter pirate attacks is prompting calls for greater regulation of companies offering security services to shipowners.

The Bahamas and the Marshall Islands administrations have jointly submitted a paper to the International Maritime Organization for discussion at the upcoming Maritime Safety Committee meeting in May, calling on the committee to support establishment of an association of independent maritime security providers that would set standards and be subject to a code of conduct and vetting. It is understood other leading registries including Panama, Liberia and Singapore support the proposal.

Bill Gallagher, president of International Registries Inc, which manages the Marshall Islands registry, said: “There are many organisations offering various types of security, armed and unarmed, and we are not in a position to advise owners about them.”

IRI business operations director John Ramage said: “We strongly believe that if an owner decides to go down the route of armed security he needs support. We are not qualified to vet every security firm.”

Mr Gallagher said the Marshall Islands did not prevent owners putting armed guards on board, but urged them to discuss it first with charterers, insurers and lawyers.

He said that there had been a recent rise in the number of tankers wanting to put armed guards on board. “It is getting out of hand,” he said. “You have a highly regulated industry coming up against a totally unregulated industry.”

The aim was to bring in a minimum standard of training for security personnel, he said. Security companies should comply with a recognised code of conduct and there should be agreements covering rules of engagement.

“What is needed is a forum to discuss and resolve issues around armed security,” said Mr Gallagher.

Under the plan, when a flag administration is approached by an owner, the owner would be referred to the association for advice on the use of the appropriate level of security and which companies can provide it. “It is not just about armed security as there is still an equal number of owners that prefer unarmed security,” Mr Gallagher said. “But current data suggests that ships with armed security are more successful in deterring hijacking.”

He pointed out that there are logistical problems involved in getting arms on board ships and taking them off again in some countries. “Instead of owners having to work independently with security firms, an association can work in co-operation with the military, ports, insurance and so on and would alleviate some workload on owners having to deal with these issues individually,” he said.

www.lloydslist.com/piracy

THE paper submitted to the MSC calls for consideration to be given to recognising an established maritime security services industry association to which a flag state might choose to refer vessel operators seeking maritime security advice and services.

Among requirements proposed for such an association to receive recognition by the MSC are:

An association must be a signatory to the International Code of Conduct for Private Security Service Providers;

It should set and maintain clear minimum standards of acceptable maritime security service and professionalism and equipment, technology and hardware provision through a code of conduct and appropriate rules for the use of armed force;

It should vet each potential member and their operatives; and It should provide framework for training, certification, competence and recruitment.

 

 

 

 

Beluga Shipping files for insolvency

Herbert Fromme - Friday 18 March 2011

BREMEN-based heavylift operator Beluga Shipping filed for insolvency yesterday, a day after its subsidiary Beluga Chartering.

Beluga Shipping is the group’s main operating company, while Beluga Chartering carries out the freighting business.

Both companies cited “major irregularities” in published figures for turnover and liquidity as the reason for the move.

Beluga and its major investor Oaktree claim that founder and long-standing chief executive Niels Stolberg is responsible for misrepresenting the true financial situation. Oaktree has filed criminal charges against Mr Stolberg for fraud. He was questioned by Bremen state prosecutors on Wednesday.

The administrator for both companies, Edgar Grönda of the Bremen office of law firm Schultze & Braun, told a staff meeting in Bremen yesterday afternoon that he would not have accepted the job if there were no chance of rescuing the group and continuing operations.

Beluga spokesman Klaus-Karl Becker said that the company still had around 20 vessels available, “and much more cargo to carry”.

It did have more than 70 vessels, but most of the 55 chartered-in ships were withdrawn by German shipping funds earlier this week after charter payment delays and demands by Oaktree to reduce rates.

It is likely that the admin-istrator will seek fresh talks with shipping funds and owners.

Beluga said that the insolvency did not involve the ultimate parent, a non-operating company called Beluga Group. US investor Oaktree, which entered the group in 2010 and took management control two weeks ago, owns 49.5%. Mr Stolberg holds 48%, while 2.5% is kept by an as yet unidentified holding company that may be related to one of the two other shareholders.

In addition to Beluga Shipping, the holding company owns Beluga Education, which carries out seafarers’ training, and Beluga Offshore. This includes a joint venture with construction giant Hochtief for offshore windfarm construction.

“Beluga Group is now actively negotiating with stakeholders on how to continue our work, for example in the offshore field,” Mr Becker said. This included the banks, especially Bremer Landesbank and NordLB, as well as Hochtief.

Oaktree is regarded as having overplayed its hand when it made far-reaching demands — including a three-month stay of all claims against Beluga — to shipping funds and owners of chartered-in vessels, allegedly in an arrogant manner.

However, experts point out that the insolvency could give Oaktree a chance to make a fresh start with Beluga.

As the major creditor of the insolvent group, Oaktree has influence over future proceedings, and is now rid of many liabilities that the companies previously had entered into.

 

 

Owners stay vigilant over Japan nuclear disaster zone Asia

Tom Leander - Friday 18 March 2011

SHIPOWNERS and shipmanagers say they have been monitoring the cascading radiation crisis in Japan hour by hour after the Liberian registry warned earlier this week that ships should remain 300 miles off the coast north of Onahama in northeast Japan.

The advisory is in reaction to the contradictory information about the status of the Fukushima Daiichi reactor, where several explosions have led to possible rupture of a containment vessel and radiation has leaked into the atmosphere.

“The reports vary on the extent of damage to the reactor containment vessels, the amount of radiation released and where the radiation is reportedly at higher than normal levels,” the Liberian International Ship & Corporate Registry’s Bureau of Maritime Affairs wrote in the advisory issued on March 15.

The advisory goes on to recommend that “masters contact their port agents to ensure that radiation levels are safe and to check current capability to handle cargo”.

Hemant Panthania, managing director of NYK Shipmanagement in Singapore, said NYK’s ships were staying outside a radius of 100 nautical miles from the site of the disaster. “But we are monitoring the situation closely,” he added.

Likewise, a spokesman at the Singapore office of shipmanager V. Ships said it was checking the situation on an hour-to-hour basis. No other flag registry has issued a similar warning, shipmanagers said.

Rob Grool, group managing director of Wallem Group in Hong Kong, said some owners had advised staying 200 nautical miles from the site of the disaster, but he added: “The situation is very much a mix at the moment. There is no reason to alarm and at the moment nothing to fear.”

Mr Grool said information being released by the US government and the international agencies was detailed and reliable.

Shipmanagers may not be alarmed, but their vigilance is growing. Concern increased yesterday when US Nuclear Regulatory Commission head Gergory Jaczko called radiation levels at one of the Fukushima Daiichi reactors “extremely high” and recommended a larger evacuation radius than is currently being recommended by the Japanese government.

The US now recommends its troops and citizens in Japan stay “at least” outside a 50-mile radius of the disaster site, while Japanese officials are sticking to their previously declared 12-mile “no-go” zone.

The NRC said that it had modified its advisory after running computer modelling exercises using the “best available information we have,” according to an NRC spokesperson.

Although shipmanagers report rumours of owners diverting ships from calls in Japan, they could not name direct cases. A Singapore shipmanagement executive said: “I am hearing that some owners are electing not to call in Japan if their normal route was, say, Shanghai to Busan to Kobe to Yokohama, and then across the Pacific.”

He added, however, that this option had not been taken by his clients.

Likewise, shipbrokers report no direct cases. However, a panamax broker in Singapore said: “We are seeing a pile-up of interest in fixing vessels out of north China, which is near enough to Japan to be an issue if there is a disaster.”

He explained that he had been seeing heavy inquiry for panamax voyages between Indonesia and India, but fewer that involved deliveries between Indonesia and north China and Australia and north China.

“It’s a down market,” he said, “and in a market like this we would typically see a lot more interest in shorter voyages from 15 to 20 days involving delivery to north China, but we are not seeing that.”

He said that panamax rates for a north pacific round voyage, typically a voyage from Australia’s west coast to north China or Japan and back, had dropped from the start of the week, to between $14,000 and $15,000 per day versus between $16,000 and $16,500 per day on Monday.

 

 

 

FROM FAIRPLAY DAILY NEWS:

 

 

Nautilus wants nuclear danger data

NAUTILUS has expressed concern at “conflicting information” from companies regarding Japan’s nuclear crisis.

The Anglo-Dutch union for ship officers said yesterday that its members are demanding advice about how close their ships can safely approach the tsunami-ravaged Japanese disaster zone.

“It is essential that the UK is proactive on the nuclear crisis in Japan and ensures that seafarers have access to appropriate official guidance,” general secretary Mark Dickinson said in a statement.

The union has urgently sought official guidance from the UK Maritime & Coastguard Agency about the safety of members on vessels trading in Japan, including Tokyo Bay.

Nautilus said the MCA advised that it is safe for UK ships to proceed to Tokyo Bay, but the union claimed “the advice for other Japanese ports seems to be uncertain”.

Seafarers are being advised to contact their companies for further guidance, the union noted.

The MCA has reportedly advised that seafarers should be guided by Navtex warnings for areas XI and XIII. In addition, the UK may send communications to all British ships via the Ship Register list.

According to the union, the Liberian register has advised vessels under its flag to remain 300 miles off Japan’s coast north of Onahama, while some companies are advising that vessels stay at least 100-200 n-miles off the Fukushima nuclear reactors.

The US Coast Guard has warned US-flag carriers to avoid an 80km (50 mile) area near the northeast coast of Honshu. The carrier Ronald Reagan's crew has detected low levels of radiation from its position about 160km (100 miles) offshore; 17 sailors had to be treated for exposure.

Meanwhile, monitoring stations are starting to detect higher radioactivity from the disaster across the Pacific, although the levels are still very low and not thought to be dangerous for the US or Asian countries outside Japan.

 

 

 

FROM FAIRPLAY MAGAZINE:

 

 

 

FROM THE JOC (USA)
:

 

 

 

FROM EYE FOR TRANSPORT (UK):

 

Maintaining air links with Japan

 

 

FROM IFW: