Evidence indicates that the world’s ports are returning to pre-pandemic levels. During the first 11 months of 2021, the value of US international freight increased by more than 22% (PDF) compared with the same 11 months in 2020. More freight means more ships docking at port. And not only are more ships docking, but their dwell times are increasing as well. The average container vessel dwell time at the top 25 US container ports was estimated at 28.1 hours in 2020. In the first half of 2021, average container vessel dwell times increased to 31.5 hours.
While this increase in activity is undoubtedly welcome, more docked ships bring a new challenge. The longer a ship is docked, the more vulnerable the port is to a cyberattack.
The Cyber-Risk to Ships
The maritime industry is especially vulnerable to cyber incidents. There are multiple stakeholders involved in the operation and chartering of a ship, which often results in a lack of accountability for the IT and OT system infrastructure and the ship’s networks. The systems may rely on outdated operating systems that are no longer supported and cannot be patched or run antivirus checks.
Going forward, this threat is expected to increase. Critical ship infrastructure related to navigation, power, and cargo management has become increasingly digitized and reliant on the Internet to perform a broad range of legitimate activities. The growing use of the Industrial Internet of Things (IIoT) will increase the ships’ attack surface.
Common ship-based cyber vulnerabilities include the following:
Obsolete and unsupported operating systems
Unpatched system software
Outdated or missing antivirus software and protection from malware
Unsecured shipboard computer networks
Critical infrastructure continuously connected with the shore side
Inadequate access controls for third parties including contractors and service providers
Inadequately trained and/or skilled staff on cyber-risks
Troubled Waters?
Maritime cybersecurity has become a significant issue affecting ports around the world. According to the firm Naval Dome, cyberattacks on maritime transport increased by 400% in 2020. Cybersecurity risks are especially problematic to ports around the globe since docked ships regularly interact digitally with shore-based operations and service providers. This digital interaction includes the regular sending of shipping documents via email or uploading documents via online portals or other communications with marine terminals, stevedores, and port authorities.
Cargoes were transported from the Port of Abu Dhabi to the Beibu Gulf Port, and then transferred to the Qinzhou East Railway Yard Station in mid-August by a block train running through the New Western Land-sea Trade Corridor.
For the Middle East clean market it has been muted compared to last week. TC1 saw marginal gains over the week to WS280 (a TCE of $63676 per day). A similar run on the LR2 going west, TC20, rose by just over $140k per day ending at $543,333 per day.
TC15 Skikda-Japan on the LR2s has seen a little improvement again, rising week on week to $4,366,667 by the end of the week. There was little gain in overall TCE but a marked improvement from last week. The TC5 55kt Middle East Gulf to Japan saw a jump of WS25.71 points, settling on a firm footing and ending at WS330.71 at weeks end. The MRs saw the worst of it, losing a marginal WS7.5 points, but still sitting high at WS520 with a TCE per day of $58,468.
Handymax routes in both the Mediterranean and the Baltic did opposite shifts with the Mediterranean gaining WS17.82 points to finish just at Ws180.63. This was a relatively healthy gain on the week off the back of decent activity. The Baltic route, meanwhile, saw a drop of WS18.57 finishing at WS347.14.
The MRs on the Continent had another good week with both the Transatlantic and West African routes seeing gains of around WS30 points. The TC19 closed at WS240.71 and TC2 at WS231.94
The US market has been active, despite labour day on the Monday. TC14 and TC18 US export runs rose by WS20 points for Transatlantic to WS183.33 with TCE of $11,602 per day. The run to Brazil finished at WS274.17, a gain of nearly WS35 points.
VLCC
VLCC rates eased this week with the market coming off the recent high. For the 270,000mt Middle East Gulf/China route, the rate fell 4.5 points to the WS70.5 level (a round-trip TCE of $31,700 per day). The rate for 280,000mt Middle East Gulf/USG (via Cape of Good Hope) slipped two points to between WS40-41. In the Atlantic, rates for 260,000mt West Africa/China were three points lower than a week ago at a touch above WS71 ($34,800 per day round-trip TCE). For the 270,000mt US Gulf/China market, rates dipped midweek, then started an upward trajectory on Thursday and were last assessed $37,500 higher week-on-week at $8.5875m (showing a round-trip TCE of $30,700 per day).
Suezmax
Rates for 135,000mt Black Sea/Augusta stumbled this week with tonnage building up in the Mediterranean, which translates into a drop of 10 points since last week at WS181.5 (a round-trip TCE of $73,500 per day). For the 130,000mt Nigeria/UKC trip, rates dipped a meagre 2.5-3 points to WS125 (a round-trip TCE of $33,100 per day). In the Middle East, the rate for 140,000mt Basrah/West Mediterranean continued to hover around the WS65 mark.
Aframax
The Mediterranean market rates took a tumble. The rate for 80,000mt Ceyhan/West Mediterranean fell 32.5 points to WS157 (a round-trip TCE of $30,600 per day). In Northern Europe, similarly the market fell with the rate for 80,000mt Hound Point/UK Continent dropping 25 points to WS152.5 (a daily round-trip TCE of $30,100). The rate for 100,000mt Primorsk/UK Cont route was reduced by 21.5 points to WS181.5 (a round trip TCE of $48,200 per day).
Across the Atlantic, the market has steadied for now with small improvements made. The rate for 70,000mt EC Mexico/US Gulf rose two points to between WS252.5-255 (a round-trip TCE of $53,700 per day) while for the 70,000mt Caribbean/US Gulf trip the rate remained flat at between WS237.5-240 (a round-trip TCE of $45,100). For the Transatlantic route of 70,000mt US Gulf/UK Continent, the rate climbed four points to WS210 ($36,400 per day round-tip TCE).
Source: Baltic Exchange
This September, government experts on the health of plants and crops will gather in London for the first ever International Conference on Plant Health. This high-level meeting organized by the secretariat of the UN’s International Plant Protection Convention (IPPC) and hosted by the UK government will review the state of the world’s natural and agricultural plant resources, and what can be done to protect and enhance them.
Given the combined pressures of climate change, water shortages, destructive pests and disease the conference could make for a sobering experience.
In the two days preceding the conference, and in the same London venue, a smaller, and even more specialized group consisting of international trade bodies, shipping industry representatives and national plant protection and bio-security agencies will meet to review one of the many ways that invasive and destructive pests can pass from one country to another – by ‘hitch-hiking’ a ride in, or on, any of the 240 million freight container shipments that are made by sea every year.
The International Workshop on Reducing the Introduction of Pests Through the Sea Container Pathway (19-20th September) will be a wake-up call to all parties involved in international container shipping and logistics.
Pest impacts
The threat to a nation’s food supply or its agricultural industries may not be obvious just because a few insects find their way into a forty-foot steel container. But history is littered with examples of how highly destructive pests have entered a country’s ecosystem through imported goods or packaging, and wreaked devastation on native plant species.
The Great Potato Blight, that caused famine and mass migration from Ireland in the 1840s, is thought to have been caused by the import of the pest responsible from Central America to Europe aboard the sailing ships of the day. In the 20th century, large numbers of trees in the US and Europe were lost to disease and pests thought to have been unknowingly imported as international trade spread.
Contamination is not just confined to ‘dirty’ cargoes. Last year, Australian authorities reported the detection of live pests in a consignment of baby clothes and equipment intercepted at the border. The UK government has related how a colony of invasive wasps found their way to the country having nested in the radiator grill of a brand new (and very expensive) motor car, being delivered to a showroom.
Inspections of containers arriving at borders carried out by national biosecurity agencies over the past few years suggest that the number of containers and cargoes infested by pests may be greater than feared.
National environment and agricultural ministries have been working through the IPPC to tackle this issue for several years and the London workshop has been convened to consider options for regulating the cleanliness of sea containers and setting standards for preventing their contamination by invasive pests.
Shippers will be familiar with ISPM-15, the IPPC’s existing standards for the pre-treatment and marking of timber used to block and brace cargoes in containers or used to make pallets and other packaging for transport. Could a similar International Standard for Phytosanitary Measure for the cleanliness of intermodal containers be in prospect?
Unilateral action
Several countries have already taken unilateral action to protect their native plant species against specific pests. Last year the Australian government introduced new requirements for the pre-treatment of containers imported from listed countries and carrying specific cargoes to protect against the introduction of the Khapra Beetle, a small insect that could devastate the country’s cereal grain crop were it to become established.
These rules supplemented existing measures to protect against introduction of the Brown Marmorated Stink Bug, a creature with effects as unpleasant as its name suggests! Failure to comply with these requirements will almost certainly result in a container being denied entry at the Australian border and possibly re-exported, ultimately at the shipper’s expense.
New Zealand has similar measures and there are controls too to protect against different pests that threaten other countries. Canada and the US are concerned about threats to their forests and their wheat crops; Fire Ants are a big threat to native species in Japan.
This is a live issue (in some senses literally!) and under active review by governments around the world. The possibility of new international mandatory measures on container cleanliness should command the attention of shippers everywhere.
Global developments
The Global Shippers Forum (GSF) has been monitoring and influencing these developments since 2018 when it was invited to join an IPPC Task Force set up to examine the threat to plant health posed by pest-contaminated containers and cargoes. That Task Force reported at the end of 2021 and set out a range of regulatory options for its parent body, the Commission for Phytosanitary Measures (CPM) to consider.
Crucially, it also warned that implementation of new mandatory requirements could impose significant new costs and risks to the fluidity of the international movement of containers and further disrupt world trade. GSF was clear in its opposition to new rules applying indiscriminately to every container shipment, urging that controls and resources be targeted instead on high-risk trade corridors and specific pest threats.
The work of developing any new measures will be taken forward by a CPM Focus Group, which will have the authority to make recommendations to its parent body, the Commission for Phytosanitary Measures (CPM). This month’s workshop in London will develop key ideas for the Focus Group to pursue. GSF is speaking at the event and will be ensuring shippers’ interests are represented and the scope and limits of responsibilities clearly defined.
GSF will also be represented on an industry advisory body that will be advising the new CPM Focus Group on the practicality and effectiveness of any new regulatory measures it may propose. GSF will also be making the case for a significant increase in the publicity given to this threat within the industry.
Pest contamination is an unintended consequence of international trade and awareness of its risks and consequences is relatively low. Much could be gained in a short time by raising awareness of the issue in the industry and the relatively simple ways of preventing it.
Not that there is any shortage of advice and guidance on how to pack containers safely and to keep them clear of invasive pests. The Code of Practice for Packing Cargo Transport Units (the CTU Code), a publication of three UN trade and transport organizations is the authoritative guide to container packing that all shippers and packers should be aware of, and familiar with.
The IPPC has also acknowledged the work done by the Cargo Integrity Group, a partnership of seven global trade and shipping organizations, including GSF, to develop a ‘Quick Guide’ to the provisions of the CTU Code. This included a ‘Container Packing Checklist’ of 34 questions about the manner of packing and securing of goods that should be answered affirmatively by the packer prior to dispatch of the container to a shipping line.
Simple nudges
Shippers should not wait to be confronted with new regulations before responding to this issue. Whether you are a buyer or a seller of goods, the standards of care with which they are packed into the containers that will transport them should be a core part of your quality checks and specifications to suppliers or contractors.
Is the risk of accidental contamination by pests understood? Are the recommended precautions taken during the packing and storage of the container? Have staff been trained in what to look out for and what to do if they find evidence of infestation or contamination? Simple nudges could make a big difference.
Hitch-hiking in cargoes is not the only way invasive pests can move between countries. The containers themselves and the conditions under which they are stored in ports and by shipping lines are also crucial to preventing their contamination.
The efforts of shippers to avoid contamination during packing will be wasted if the empty container supplied to them is already infested, or dispatched containers are stored under the wrong conditions awaiting shipment. Container cleanliness is an industry-wide issue and responsibility.
Fewer than one percent of alien species that enter a country are thought to become invasive but where this has happened the effects on economies, landscapes and peoples’ lives has been traumatic and permanent.
Containers can become contaminated at any point in their journeys by sea but keeping bugs out of the boxes as they are packed is a responsibility that shippers and packers are likely to become more accountable for in the future.
U.S. Congressman Alan Lowenthal (CA-47) and Edie Chang, Deputy Executive Officer of Planning, Freight & Toxics Division at the California Air Resources Board spoke at a Community Town Hall moderated by Joe Lyou, president and CEO of the Coalition for Clean Air. The event was hosted by Pacific Environment and Long Beach Alliance for Children with Asthma August 31 evening.
Rep. Lowenthal represents the Port of Long Beach – one of the nation’s busiest cargo ports, and an area that is facing extreme pollution from fossil fuel ships. At the Town Hall, community members shared heartbreaking stories about how ship pollution has affected their family and communities in profound and irreversible ways.
The policymakers demanded an end to ocean shipping pollution in ports and at sea.
Congressman Lowenthal said, “Since my earliest days of public service on the Long Beach City Council three decades ago, I have worked to clean up the maritime industry. This session of Congress, I introduced a bill to clean up the massive emissions generated from the maritime shipping industry.
“We must all work together towards zeroing out pollution from all ocean shipping companies that do business with the U.S. for our children, our community, and our environment.”
CARB Deputy Executive Officer Edie Chang said “We are vigorously attacking every source of harmful pollution from the transportation of freight that impacts the health of port-adjacent communities. This includes requiring ships in California waters to use clean-burning fuel, and plugging those ships into the grid – and turning off their engines – while they’re loading and unloading.
“We recently updated our standards for harbor craft from ferries to tugboats so they use the very cleanest engines. We are proposing regulations to require that trucks transporting containers in and out of ports shift rapidly to zero-emissions.
“And we are continuing to push for tougher federal new engine standards for locomotives to complement our proposed regulations to address sources of pollution like interstate locomotives that California must have in order clean the air especially near port-adjacent communities that are already burdened by high levels of air pollution.”
In July, Rep. Lowenthal introduced the Clean Shipping Act, aimed at zeroing out pollution from all ocean shipping companies that do business with the U.S. This legislation will protect the health of port communities, address environmental injustice and provide solutions to the climate crisis. Through the Inflation Reduction Act, Democrats secured billions of dollars that would help fund the zero-emission transition at the ports.
Antonio Santos, Federal Climate Policy Director, Pacific Environment, said: “We are on the cusp of market changes for zero-emission shipping. But we face a climate crisis, and it’s incumbent on federal, state, and local governments to put into place policies and investments to help accelerate the process.
“For far too long, port communities have suffered the burden of maritime pollution, and it’s time to right the ship. We need Congress to act and pass the Clean Shipping Act of 2022 to end dirty fossil-fueled shipping in our oceans and ports.”
In June, the City of Long Beach joined the City of Los Angeles in calling on the San Pedro Port Complex’s top maritime importers to commit to making all calls on 100% zero-emission ships by 2030.
“We are seeing strong momentum at various levels of government for zero-emission ocean shipping this decade, including recent resolutions from the City of Long Beach and Los Angeles and the Inflation Reduction Act’s $3 billion for reducing air pollution at ports,” said Dawny’all Heydari, Lead for the Ship It Zero campaign, Pacific Environment.
“Emissions from ocean cargo ships pose serious risks to public health, including death from cancer and cardiovascular disease, as well as childhood asthma. This is most especially detrimental to portside working-class Black and Brown communities, including West Long Beach, Wilmington, and San Pedro.
“We applaud the leadership of Rep. Lowenthal, the California Air Resources Board, and city councils for taking action at such a critical time for climate change, and we will continue to demand an end to ship pollution this decade.”
The Port of Long Beach also joined the Ports of Los Angeles and Shanghai and C40 Cities’ Green Ports Forum to create the world’s first transpacific green shipping corridor between ports in the United States and China.
“We’re not going to solve our climate crisis or our air pollution problems without addressing emissions from ships,” said Joe Lyou, President and CEO of Coalition for Clean Air and moderator of the event.
“This town hall gives us an opportunity to get going in the right direction. We will talk about the problems, the solutions, and the concrete next steps we can all take to reduce and eventually eliminate greenhouse gas and air pollution emissions from ships.”
In the mid-2000s, when shipping stocks first became popular on Wall Street, the shares were commonly bought as a play on China’s economy. China is pivotal to ocean shipping, whether it’s container ships, oil tankers, bulkers or gas carriers.
“There’s a saying that everything that moves out of China in containers has to come into China as raw materials,” noted Oeyvind Lindeman, chief commercial officer of Navigator Gas (NYSE: NVGS), on his company’s latest conference call.
Ominously, signs of China’s weakening economy are showing up across all shipping sectors at once.
The glass-half-empty view is that pullbacks in shipping demand are bellwethers of more severe economic problems to come. The glass-half-full view is that declines are temporary. A rebound of Chinese demand for iron ore, oil and gas will eventually boost commodity shipping rates.
Container shipping
Sales of containerized goods to the U.S. and Europe supported the Chinese economy throughout the pandemic era. Markets were rattled Wednesday when China’s official monthly export stats came in much lighter than expected.
China’s exports rose 7.1% year on year (y/y) in August, well below the consensus forecast for 12.8% growth. Exports had grown 18% y/y in July. China’s exports to the U.S. declined 3.8% y/y in August, compared to an 11% increase in July.
Outbound volumes are being squeezed from both sides. Demand for Chinese goods is falling at the same time COVID-19 lockdowns and weather issues are constraining Chinese manufacturing and logistics.
Index: January 2019 = 100 (Chart: FreightWaves SONAR)
The government has extended lockdowns in Chengdu and announced new nationwide precautions through the end of October. Analysts do not foresee any relaxation of China’s zero-COVID policy this year.
Meanwhile, China recorded its highest temperatures and lowest rainfall in over six decades last month. Resultant power outages forced factory closures in Sichuan.
Dry bulk imports
China is the world’s largest producer of steel. Its steel production in January-July was down 6.1% y/y. Production in July fell 10% versus June.
“The decline in Chinese steel production has predominantly come from the ailing property sector and the stop-start industrial activity due to COVID-19 lockdowns,” wrote Mark Nugent, dry bulk analyst at shipbroker Braemar, in a research note on Thursday.
Brokerage EastGate Shipping said that the heatwave and power shortages forced 20 steel mills to go offline for around a week in mid-August.
Brokerage BRS blamed the plunge on diversions of Australian iron ore from China to Southeast Asia, and more damaging to rates, a sharp decline in Chinese imports of long-haul Brazilian iron ore in August.
“Scorching temperatures and a relentless zero-COVID policy seriously crippled steel demand in China,” said BRS. It does not expect a full recovery of Chinese steel production until next spring, “casting doubts on a radical rebound in seaborne iron ore demand.”
According to Poten & Partners, Chinese crude imports grew rapidly from 4.1 million barrels per day (b/d) in 2009 to 10.1 million b/d in 2019. Growth slowed in 2020 when the pandemic hit and declined by 550,000 b/d in 2021.
Chinese imports sank to 8.7 million b/d in June, the lowest monthly average since July 2018. Imports were 8.8 million b/d in July and 9.5 million b/d in August. In the first eight months of this year, Chinese crude imports fell 5.2% versus the same period in 2021.
The International Energy Agency said in its latest outlook that China’s lockdowns “set back our projected demand recovery by two months.”
BRS noted that China has 920,000 b/d in new refinery capacity scheduled to come online by the end of the year. Normally, that would increase crude import demand. However, China’s refining capacity is already higher than domestic consumption and the government has not been pushing exports.
“Considering our relatively pessimistic short-term outlook for China, [with] COVID and lockdowns to remain a going concern until at least the beginning of next year, we expect little upside in Chinese runs as Beijing appears unwilling to permit its refiners to focus on export markets,” said BRS.
LPG shipping
China also is one of the world’s largest importers of liquefied petroleum gas (LNG): propane and butane.
Beyond its use for energy, China imports propane as feedstock for propane dehydrogenation (PDH) plants for the creation of propylene. The propylene is used to produce polypropylene, which is in turn used to manufacture plastic.
Tim Hansen, chief commercial officer of Dorian LPG (NYSE: LPG), referred to Chinese demand headwinds during his company’s latest call. Hansen cited “renewed impact of COVID-19 lockdowns” and worries about Chinese demand that “were a factor for market players, which resulted in more risk-averse [behavior] and reduced opportunistic trades.”
According to Lindeman of Navigator Gas, “All eyes are on China and when they are getting out of their malaise.”
Oystein Kalleklev, CEO of Flex LNG (NYSE: FLNG), said on his company’s latest call: “In a sense, you could say that Europe has been very lucky, because the cooldown in the Chinese economy driven by COVID lockdowns has resulted in lower demand from China.
“Chinese imports this year are down by more than 20% [or] 9 million tons. And European buyers have been able to get access to these cargoes, which would have been a lot more difficult if the Chinese economy was running at normal capacity.”
Kalleklev believes China will come back to the LNG import market, in a big way, pointing to commitments for new volumes that have yet to come onstream.
“Even though China has a reduction in LNG imports this year, they are signing for almost half of these new volumes, because the LNG story in China is in its early phases,” Kalleklev said. “This year, actually, Japan will probably import more LNG than China. And there are more than 10 times as many people in China. So, China will continue to grow once they get control of COVID and reflate their economy.”
The Nigerian Navy has commenced the training of its personnel on cyber-security to face contemporary and emerging security threats in the maritime environment.
The Commandant of the Nigerian Navy Provost and Regulating School, Commodore Chindo Yahaya made this known weekend during the combined graduation ceremony of the Naval Provost Officers’ Basic Course 11/22 and Able Regulators’ Qualifying Course 13/22 held at the School’s temporary location in Makurdi.
He explained that other new study areas introduced in the 16 weeks training of the 44 graduands made up of eight Officers and 36 Ratings, included Health, Safety and Environment as well as Maritime Domain Awareness.
Commodore Yahaya who pointed out the importance of the School in administering criminal justice, discipline and law enforcement in the Nigerian Navy said “this is why every effort is being made to continuously improve and expand the scope of the course contents in line with Mission and Vision of the Chief of the Naval Staff.
“Plans are ongoing also, for the School to commence Young Officers’ Advocacy Course and Police Administration and Security Management Course as captured in the Chief of the Naval Staff Strategic Directives 5 of 2021. The commencement of these courses will improve the outcomes of the School.”
While stressing the urgent need to move the school to a more befitting site for reason of space and conducive environment, the Commandant disclosed that since its relocation from Lagos in 2010, “the school has been operating from this temporary site. The space has become too small and inadequate. However, I am delighted to say that concrete efforts are ongoing to resolve this issue by planned allocation of a land to the School in no distant future.”
The Special Guest and Commandant of the Air Force War College, Air Vice Marshall Sayo Olatunde charged the graduands to always exhibit courage, discipline and the professionalism in the discharge of their duties.
According to him, “this is also a period of transformation and for you; it cannot be business as usual. The Nigerian Navy looks up to you to apply what you have learnt to improve your performance at your respective duty posts in the Service.
The highpoint of the event which was witnessed by representatives of sister military and paramilitary organizations as well as friends and families of the graduands was the presentation of awards to deserving graduating officers and ratings.
Manoeuvring is the ability of a vessel to turn towards the port or starboard side using the steerage force stemming from the turning of the rudder aft based on diverse requirements.
These requirements can be anything like maintaining or changing its desired course of travel, trying to steer clear of an obstruction underway, or approaching a port or dock.
Manoeuvring is a broad topic in naval architecture or vessel sciences and has been a matter of serious discussion and research for years. Many of us are also aware of the manoeuvring trials that take place to assess the turning abilities of a vessel.
Before discussing the pivot point of a vessel, it is crucial to revisit a ship’s ‘turning circle’ manoeuvre briefly.
A turning circle manoeuvre is when the vessel constantly turns towards a particular direction such that it completes or tends to complete a full circle after some time and returns to its origin or starting point.
This is a common aspect of transportation, starting from vehicles like cars or two-wheelers. Similarly, a turning circle is achieved for vessels by simply applying the constant rudder moment towards a particular side.
For example, by applying the rudder angle towards the port side, a vessel turns leftwards and essentially tends to complete a turning circle in an ‘anticlockwise sense.’ Likewise, by applying a rudder angle towards the starboard, the vessel tends to achieve a turning circle in a ‘clockwise sense.’
Simply put, a turning circle is nothing but a vessel turning in a particular direction. The constant turning moment from the rudder is applied for a fair amount of time to develop a motion in a circular trajectory or path.
Hence, we can all say that when a vessel turns towards a particular side, even for less time, it marks the beginning of the turning circle phenomena. The turning tendency is stopped whenever the rudder is re-aligned, and the vessel re-orients itself to the new direction or course.
Other kinds of nuances and physical phenomena are involved in this. For instance, for a starboard turn, during some initial moments, the vessel tends to drift slightly towards the port side before re-orienting towards the intended starboard direction and vice-versa. This is due to the interplay of some hydrodynamic phenomena.
Moving back to the physics of turning, there are essentially three phases of turning:
i) The first, where the rudder force is applied, the vessel tends to initially drift towards the other side and finally attains an equilibrium of forces and moments involved in turning towards the desired course.
ii) the second phase, where the vessel is at 90 degrees from its original direction of heading, and the moments from the induced one of the rudder and the hull are in a state of mutual equilibrium. During this stage, the centrifugal force also comes into action, keeping the vessel oriented towards the geometric centre of the circle it traces or tends to trace.
iii) In The third phase, where a steady state is achieved, the trajectory becomes fixed with a constant radius, and all external forces become virtually non-existent, with the hull moment becoming the dominant one exceeding the induced moment of the rudder.
Now, whenever a vessel is in a state of turn, irrespective of whether it completes a turning circle, the turning takes about a point of action. As we know from the physics of rotation, all bodies in a state of rotatory motion turn about to a fixed point within the geometric limits of the body.
What is a pivot point of a vessel?
This is the same for vessels, where during stages of turning, the vessel’s turning moment acts about a definitive point of action, which lies on its centre-line, somewhat towards the fore-end or aft end. This kinematic point of action is known as the pivot point of a vessel.
In simple words, it can also be imagined as the point of rotation of a vessel. Now, since the hull is never a regular-shaped body, this pivot point is never the same as the Centre of Gravity, or C.G of the vessel, about which we have dealt with so much in the entire field of naval architecture or marine sciences.
Neither is it related to the Centre of Flotation or Centre of Buoyancy, which is related to the disposition of the vessel on the water surface and the overall hydrostatics associated with the hull.
However, the pivot point is more of a hydrodynamic parameter. The pivot point’s position primarily depends on the hull form, the speed, and the direction of the vessel’s motion. Though different, it is up to some extent on these mentioned points as well, the correlation being beyond the scope of this article.
Though we mentioned just a while back that it is a ‘fixed’ point, the fixity is only relevant for a particular scenario, and the location of this point may change again for a different speed-motion scenario.
For example, for all practical purposes, this point is located between 1/3rd and 1/6th of the bow when the vessel is moving ahead or has a forward component of speed and around 1/3rd or 1/6th of the stern when the ship is moving astern.
Now, let us discuss some instances to know more about the positions of the pivot point in detail based on the situation.
Most designers use the ratio velocity by length or V/L as a parameter for analysing the behaviour of the pivot points.
When the vessel is stationary (V/L=0): There are no forces or motions associated with the vessel. The pivot point is almost close to or coinciding with the C.G, which is near the midship.
When the vessel moves ahead (V/L >0): The pivot point shifts forwards and is roughly located around 1/3rd or 1/4th distance from the bow, as mentioned.
When the vessel is moving backwards (V/L <0): The pivot points move backwards and, similarly, are located around 1/3rd to 1/4th of the ship’s length from the stern, depending on the speed.
When the vessel is turning: When the vessel is turning either by bow or stern, the pivot point attains a location somewhere between 1/3rd and 1/6th of the vessel’s length from bow or stern, depending on the hull form, speed and rudder moment applied. The location of the pivot point determines the radius of the circle completed or tended during turning. A smaller circle is achieved if the pivot point is closer to the bow or stern, for forward or back turning, respectively. For the pivot point further from the bow, the circle is larger. In terms of hull form, a fuller form ship, like a bulker or tanker, has a pivot point closer to the bow than slender vessels.
The locus of the pivot point traced during turning is the trajectory of the circle created or tending to be created.
According to Hellenic Shipping News, shipping finance has shown its first signs of growth over the past year. The Petrofin Index for Global Ship Finance, which started at 100 in 2008, has risen 1 point (from 62 in 2021 to 63), showing an increase for the first time in eleven years.
According to Petrofin Research’s annual report, released yesterday, loans from the top 40 banks for shipments in 2021 are $290.12 billion higher from $286.9 billion in 2020. 3. Asian and Australian (APAC) banks show the only growth, from $100.85 billion to $114.75. APAC increased its share of the Global Portfolios from 35% to 39.5%.
The share of European banks further decreased by $9.78, or 5.8% year over year. Within Europe, the big drop in German banks continues, although the trend has slowed down. Greek banks posted 14.2% year-on-year growth, while Scandinavian banks continued their overall decline and downplayed lending in favor of using their services for shipping.
“According to Petrofin Research, we can provide an indicative and cautious figure for global ship financing, including all forms of lending, leasing and alternative providers, of approx. $500 billion. Total global bank lending from all banks including local banks amounts to approx. 340,000 million dollars, that is, approx. 2/3 of the total global financing of ships.
There is mounting evidence that due to the Russian invasion of Ukraine, coupled with high energy prices, geographic sanctions, higher interest rates, slowing global growth and concerns about an incoming recession, Bank lending in 2022 has been interrupted as caution prevails among banks. China’s targeted closures and economic slowdown have added to previous concerns and are also having a temporary impact on Chinese leasing,” the report noted.
In its analysis, Petrofin Research said that “as 2021 unfolded and Covid-19 restrictions eased, global economy GDP rebounded from -3.1% to +5.9% y/y, seaborne trade from -3.5% to +4% YoY, while fleet growth was limited to a 2.9% increase. The above change was aided by continued monetary easing by central banks, low interest rates and a resurgence in demand for goods and raw materials, leading to increased fleet congestion and inefficiency. As a result of these developments, charter rates in most sectors (except oil tankers) have skyrocketed by 50% for LNG, up to 185% for dry bulk and multiples for containers (Clarkson statistics). Ship values followed suit, while scrapping slowed. All in all, a remarkable change. Banks, under the aforementioned favorable conditions and prospects, faced increased demand for loans, as well as competition from other non-bank lenders.
The Petrofin Global Index (Chart 2) shows the development of ship finance versus global fleet growth from 2008 to 2021. The long decline in ship finance loans was mainly due to the exit of many big European names from ship financing during the period. This withdrawal process appears to have run its course. The 2021 bank credit marks a long-awaited recovery.”
“However, compared to the growth of the global fleet, it is clear that such growth was not primarily financed by banks, but by relevant non-bank financing sources, including private fleet cash flows and liquidity from private fleets. owners. Within the top 40, 21 banks are based in Europe, 16 in Asia/Australia and 3 in North America. European banks still have the lion’s share at US$157.2bn.
The share of European banks fell further, from 58% to 54.19%. Within Europe, the share of German and Scandinavian banks continued to fall, while Greek banks showed a year-on-year increase of 14.2%.
Relatively new/small banks like Bank of Cyprus, Hellenic, Pareto, M&M bank, etc. they grew during 2021 and provided plurality to the available sources of bank financing. Total shipping-related bank lending for all banks, including numerous domestic banks worldwide, which are outside the scope of this research, at the end of 2021 is projected to be approximately US$340 billion. An estimate of the global exposure to ship financing would include all forms of direct or indirect financing.
The global iron ore seaborne trade has trended lower so far this year, mainly as a result of China’s diminishing iron ore imports. In its latest weekly report, shipbroker Banchero Costa said that “global iron ore loadings in the full 12 months of 2021 were up +0.7% y-o-y to 1,555.3 mln t, according to vessels tracking data from Refinitiv. So far in 2022, iron ore trade softened again, primarily due to weaker demand from China and supply issues in Brazil. In January-August 2022, global iron ore loadings declined by -2.6% y-o-y to 993.8 mln tonnes, from 1020.6 mln t in the same period of 2021. Exports from Australia increased by +0.7% y-o-y in Jan-Aug 2022 to 584.3 mln tonnes, just a little below 2020 levels, which was the most recent record high, and above the levels of 2018 and 2019. Exports from Brazil, on the other hand, declined by -4.5% y-o-y so far this year to 218.0 mln tonnes, from 228.2 mln tonnes in the same period of last year, although they were still higher than in 2020”.
According to the shipbroker, “demand is weighted down by a weakening economy in China, with iron ore imports into the country down by -1.9% y-o-y to 706.3 mln tonnes in the first 8 months of 2022. On the other hand, the European Union is seeing a revival, with imports up +3.6% y-o-y to 56.5 mln tonnes in the same period. Imports into Europe, however, are still well below the levels of 2019 (62.8 mln t in the Jan-Aug period of that year) and 2018 (65.7 mln t)”.
Source: banchero costa &c s.p.a
“Canada is the fourth largest exporter of iron ore in the world, after Australia, Brazil, and South Africa. In Jan-Aug 2022, Canada accounted for 3.3% of global seaborne iron ore shipments. Seaborne iron ore exports from Canada peaked in 2020, and have been declining since. Canada’s iron ore exports in the 12 months of 2020 increased by +10.3% y-o-y to 56.6 mln t, from 51.4 mln t in 2019. That was itself up +8.4% from 47.4 mln t in 2018. In 2021, however, Canada exported just 53.1 mln t of iron ore, which represented a -6.2% y-o-y decline. So far this year we have seen a continuation of this negative trend. In the first 8 months of 2022, Canada exported 32.8 mln tonnes of iron ore, which was a -3.5% y-o-y decline from the 33.9 mln tonnes shipped in the same period of last year. The vast majority of Canadian iron ore exports are loaded in the St. Lawrence river, in the east of the country”.
Source: banchero costa &c s.p.a
Banchero Costa added that “the largest loading port by volumes is Sept-Iles (Seven Islands), with 18.3 mln tonnes of iron ore loaded in the first 8 months of 2022. Another 12.8 mln tonnes of iron ore were loaded this year from nearby Port Cartier. Additionally, 1.7 mln tonnes were loaded this year from Milne Inlet on Baffin Island, far north in the Arctic. Given the location of the load ports, the natural market for Canadian iron ore is the Atlantic Basin. Nevertheless, given the limited size and lack of growth potential of the European market, Canada has quite successfully diversified also into the Asian markets. The European Union is still by far the top destination, accounting for 39.8% of Canada’s total iron ore exports so far in 2022. The EU, which was already the top buyer of Canadian seaborne iron ore, further increased volumes by +4.5% y-o-y in Jan-Aug 2022 to 13.0 mln t in Jan-Aug 2021, from 12.5 mln t in the same period of 2021. However, this was still well below the 13.8 mln tonnes Canada exported to the EU in Jan-Aug 2019. The second top destination for Canada’s iron ore exports is Mainland China, accounting for a 20.8% share. Shipments from Canada to China declined by -18.8% y-o-y to 6.8 mln tonnes in the first 8 months of 2022, from 8.4 mln tonnes in Jan-Aug 2021. They were also well below the record 12.4 mln tonnes shipped in Jan-Aug 2020. In third place was Japan, with 3.6 mln tonnes in Jan-Aug 2022, down -20.6% y-o-y. Japan accounts for 11.1% of Canada’s total exports”, the shipbroker concluded.
Nikos Roussanoglou, Hellenic Shipping News Worldwide
This website uses cookies to improve your experience. We'll assume you're ok with this, but you can opt-out if you wish. Cookie settingsACCEPT
Privacy & Cookies Policy
Privacy Overview
This website uses cookies to improve your experience while you navigate through the website. Out of these cookies, the cookies that are categorized as necessary are stored on your browser as they are essential for the working of basic functionalities of the website. We also use third-party cookies that help us analyze and understand how you use this website. These cookies will be stored in your browser only with your consent. You also have the option to opt-out of these cookies. But opting out of some of these cookies may have an effect on your browsing experience.
Necessary cookies are absolutely essential for the website to function properly. This category only includes cookies that ensures basic functionalities and security features of the website. These cookies do not store any personal information.
Any cookies that may not be particularly necessary for the website to function and is used specifically to collect user personal data via analytics, ads, other embedded contents are termed as non-necessary cookies. It is mandatory to procure user consent prior to running these cookies on your website.
