Got this on your yacht?
Thursday, August 13, 2009
Tuesday, August 11, 2009
A Wall of Water...
From today's Maritime News Source...
On Tuesday, August 11, 2009, SAFE Solutions, LLC will be showcasing the latest strategies and techniques in dealing with the ongoing problem of piracy on the high seas. The ship “Horizon Challenger” will be outfitted with the Nemesis 5000: a non-lethal, extremely high pressure water system which will repel and deter pirates. The demonstration will be taking place at the Bayonne Drydock, in Bayonne, New Jersey at 1:45PM. The Nemesis 5000 was designed and invented by a former member of the British Special Boat Service with more than two decades experience in dealing with maritime issues. Hector Delgado, President of SAFE Solutions, stated “If you are a pirate, business is booming: According to the ICC International Maritime Bureau’s Piracy Reporting Centre (IMB), piracy attacks around the world more than doubled to 240 from 114 during the first six months of 2009 compared with the same period in 2008. It is something that, ultimately, affects all of us. In fact, Lloyd’s recently stated that the cost of insurance for vessels going through the Gulf of Aden now costs approximately $20,000 per vessel, per voyage. This is staggering considering that just a year ago the same insurance coverage cost just $500. This cost, at least in part, is being passed on the consumer.” The Nemesis 5000 is non-lethal and surrounds the ship with a “wall of water” which prevents pirates from boarding the ship. Further, it does not require specialists for its installation, maintenance, and use. By connecting directly to the ship’s fire suppression system, adequate water pressure is guaranteed. And, if a fire (or even multiple fires) breaks out on board the ship in the midst of a pirate attack, the Nemesis 5000 will not affect the performance of the fire suppression system.
On Tuesday, August 11, 2009, SAFE Solutions, LLC will be showcasing the latest strategies and techniques in dealing with the ongoing problem of piracy on the high seas. The ship “Horizon Challenger” will be outfitted with the Nemesis 5000: a non-lethal, extremely high pressure water system which will repel and deter pirates. The demonstration will be taking place at the Bayonne Drydock, in Bayonne, New Jersey at 1:45PM. The Nemesis 5000 was designed and invented by a former member of the British Special Boat Service with more than two decades experience in dealing with maritime issues. Hector Delgado, President of SAFE Solutions, stated “If you are a pirate, business is booming: According to the ICC International Maritime Bureau’s Piracy Reporting Centre (IMB), piracy attacks around the world more than doubled to 240 from 114 during the first six months of 2009 compared with the same period in 2008. It is something that, ultimately, affects all of us. In fact, Lloyd’s recently stated that the cost of insurance for vessels going through the Gulf of Aden now costs approximately $20,000 per vessel, per voyage. This is staggering considering that just a year ago the same insurance coverage cost just $500. This cost, at least in part, is being passed on the consumer.” The Nemesis 5000 is non-lethal and surrounds the ship with a “wall of water” which prevents pirates from boarding the ship. Further, it does not require specialists for its installation, maintenance, and use. By connecting directly to the ship’s fire suppression system, adequate water pressure is guaranteed. And, if a fire (or even multiple fires) breaks out on board the ship in the midst of a pirate attack, the Nemesis 5000 will not affect the performance of the fire suppression system.
Thursday, August 6, 2009
Steering Going Backwards....
Steerage astern? - you need a flanking rudder - here's a nice example on an sweet little tug up at LaConner.....
Tuesday, August 4, 2009
Monday, August 3, 2009
Okay........
From Maritime News - Holland & Knight
On July 15, 2009, the U.S. Department of Justice announced that the Captain and Chief Officer of a foreign vessel pled guilty in the Eastern District of Louisiana (New Orleans) to charges that included not only the Act to Prevent Pollution from Ships (APPS), False Statements and Obstruction of Justice; but also failure to notify the Coast Guard of hazardous conditions and charges related to presentation of false or incomplete ballast tank reports.The case involved two primary issues: (1) a 24-inch outer-hull crack in the vessel’s rudder stem, which created a condition that adversely affected the safety and operation of the vessel; and (2) fuel oil in a ballast tank due to a leaking “deep” fuel tank in the forward part of the vessel.For the first time, criminal charges were brought against a person for violation of the Non-Indigenous Aquatic Uses and Prevention Control Act 16. U.S.C. § 4711(g). The Chief Officer was charged under the Act because he presented a Ballast Report that did not record efforts by the crew to deal with contamination of a ballast tank by an adjacent leaking fuel tank. The Captain not only failed to report the condition to the Coast Guard, but caused oil-contaminated water to be discharged in an attempt to clean the ballast tank. Prior to arrival at a terminal in New Orleans, the Captain attempted to conceal the condition by ordering that a hose with a stopper at one end and partially filled with water be fitted to the ballast tank’s sounding tube in order to give Coast Guard inspectors the misimpression that the ballast tank was filled with clean water. Those actions led to charges for the failure to maintain an accurate oil record book (i.e., one that recorded the discharge of oil-contaminated water) and Obstruction of Justice.In addition to an APPS violation and Obstruction of Justice – charges frequently seen in vessel pollution cases – the Captain was charged under the Ports and Waterways Safety Act (PWSA) with failing to notify the nearest U.S. Coast Guard Sector or Group Office that hazardous conditions existed aboard the vessel, namely the rudder stem crack and leak between the fuel and ballast tanks.Ports and Waterways Safety ActThe PWSA provides civil and criminal penalties for violating the Act or regulations issued pursuant to the Act. 33 U.S.C. § 1232. Coast Guard regulations require the owner, agent, master, operator, or person in charge of a vessel to immediately notify the nearest Coast Guard Sector or Group Office whenever there is a hazardous condition aboard or caused by the vessel. 33 C.F.R. § 160.215. A willful and knowing violation is a felony punishable by less than ten but more than five years in prison. While not an issue in this case, it is worth noting that using a weapon or “engag[ing] in conduct that causes … fear of bodily injury” to Coast Guard officials enforcing the regulations is punishable by less than 25 but more than ten years in prison.The charges against the Chief Officer involved his presentation to the Coast Guard of a false Ballast Report, which includes soundings and volumes of water in ballast tanks. The report contained false entries and omissions as to the level of liquid in the ballast tank at issue, the specific gravity of the liquid in the tank, and the hydrocarbon nature of the liquid. The Chief Officer was charged with Making False Statements and with violating the Non-Indigenous Aquatic Nuisance Prevention and Control Act.Non-Indigenous Aquatic Nuisance Prevention and Control ActThe Non-Indigenous Aquatic Nuisance Prevention and Control Act provides civil and criminal penalties for violating regulations issued pursuant to the Act. 16 U.S.C. § 4711(g). Coast Guard regulations require the master, owner, operator or person in charge of a vessel to keep written records that include detailed ballast tank and water information, such as the capacity and volume of tanks, the origin of ballast water, and the date, location and volume of water discharged. 33 C.F.R. § 151.2045. A knowing violation is a felony punishable by less than ten but more than five years in prison.The result in this case could have been avoided had the master and chief officer properly reported the unsafe conditions to the Coast Guard, discharged the oil/water mixture in the ballast tank in compliance with MARPOL, not rigged a hose to the ballast tank sounding tube in an effort to trick Coast Guard inspectors, and presented records that completely and accurately reflected onboard efforts to deal with the contaminated ballast tank. Vessel operators must be vigilant in enforcing their environmental compliance plans and requiring crew members to promptly notify authorities of unsafe conditions (such as a cracked rudder stem and contaminated ballast tank). It remains to be seen whether the vessel’s owners or operators will be held criminally liable for the acts of the vessel’s Captain and the Chief Officer – either based on direct knowledge of the events or through a theory of vicarious liability.
On July 15, 2009, the U.S. Department of Justice announced that the Captain and Chief Officer of a foreign vessel pled guilty in the Eastern District of Louisiana (New Orleans) to charges that included not only the Act to Prevent Pollution from Ships (APPS), False Statements and Obstruction of Justice; but also failure to notify the Coast Guard of hazardous conditions and charges related to presentation of false or incomplete ballast tank reports.The case involved two primary issues: (1) a 24-inch outer-hull crack in the vessel’s rudder stem, which created a condition that adversely affected the safety and operation of the vessel; and (2) fuel oil in a ballast tank due to a leaking “deep” fuel tank in the forward part of the vessel.For the first time, criminal charges were brought against a person for violation of the Non-Indigenous Aquatic Uses and Prevention Control Act 16. U.S.C. § 4711(g). The Chief Officer was charged under the Act because he presented a Ballast Report that did not record efforts by the crew to deal with contamination of a ballast tank by an adjacent leaking fuel tank. The Captain not only failed to report the condition to the Coast Guard, but caused oil-contaminated water to be discharged in an attempt to clean the ballast tank. Prior to arrival at a terminal in New Orleans, the Captain attempted to conceal the condition by ordering that a hose with a stopper at one end and partially filled with water be fitted to the ballast tank’s sounding tube in order to give Coast Guard inspectors the misimpression that the ballast tank was filled with clean water. Those actions led to charges for the failure to maintain an accurate oil record book (i.e., one that recorded the discharge of oil-contaminated water) and Obstruction of Justice.In addition to an APPS violation and Obstruction of Justice – charges frequently seen in vessel pollution cases – the Captain was charged under the Ports and Waterways Safety Act (PWSA) with failing to notify the nearest U.S. Coast Guard Sector or Group Office that hazardous conditions existed aboard the vessel, namely the rudder stem crack and leak between the fuel and ballast tanks.Ports and Waterways Safety ActThe PWSA provides civil and criminal penalties for violating the Act or regulations issued pursuant to the Act. 33 U.S.C. § 1232. Coast Guard regulations require the owner, agent, master, operator, or person in charge of a vessel to immediately notify the nearest Coast Guard Sector or Group Office whenever there is a hazardous condition aboard or caused by the vessel. 33 C.F.R. § 160.215. A willful and knowing violation is a felony punishable by less than ten but more than five years in prison. While not an issue in this case, it is worth noting that using a weapon or “engag[ing] in conduct that causes … fear of bodily injury” to Coast Guard officials enforcing the regulations is punishable by less than 25 but more than ten years in prison.The charges against the Chief Officer involved his presentation to the Coast Guard of a false Ballast Report, which includes soundings and volumes of water in ballast tanks. The report contained false entries and omissions as to the level of liquid in the ballast tank at issue, the specific gravity of the liquid in the tank, and the hydrocarbon nature of the liquid. The Chief Officer was charged with Making False Statements and with violating the Non-Indigenous Aquatic Nuisance Prevention and Control Act.Non-Indigenous Aquatic Nuisance Prevention and Control ActThe Non-Indigenous Aquatic Nuisance Prevention and Control Act provides civil and criminal penalties for violating regulations issued pursuant to the Act. 16 U.S.C. § 4711(g). Coast Guard regulations require the master, owner, operator or person in charge of a vessel to keep written records that include detailed ballast tank and water information, such as the capacity and volume of tanks, the origin of ballast water, and the date, location and volume of water discharged. 33 C.F.R. § 151.2045. A knowing violation is a felony punishable by less than ten but more than five years in prison.The result in this case could have been avoided had the master and chief officer properly reported the unsafe conditions to the Coast Guard, discharged the oil/water mixture in the ballast tank in compliance with MARPOL, not rigged a hose to the ballast tank sounding tube in an effort to trick Coast Guard inspectors, and presented records that completely and accurately reflected onboard efforts to deal with the contaminated ballast tank. Vessel operators must be vigilant in enforcing their environmental compliance plans and requiring crew members to promptly notify authorities of unsafe conditions (such as a cracked rudder stem and contaminated ballast tank). It remains to be seen whether the vessel’s owners or operators will be held criminally liable for the acts of the vessel’s Captain and the Chief Officer – either based on direct knowledge of the events or through a theory of vicarious liability.
Sunday, August 2, 2009
Safety Alert...
The US Coast Guard issued a safety alert advising of a potential problem involving certain ANSUL – High Pressure Carbon Dioxide Fire Extinguishing Systems. There have been several instances where this system has discharged without human intervention. The manufacturer has identified the suspect CO2 cylinder valves as those having a date code between 10-07 and 06- 08. Owners, operators, and masters of ships having such ANSUL systems should immediately check the dates on the CO2 cylinder valves and notify ANSUL if the date code is within the suspect range. Safety Alert 05-09 (7/21/09).
Saturday, August 1, 2009
How Much is She Worth?
Accountant and business consultant Moore Stephens has warned that shipping companies must be able to substantiate any decision to use future cashflow as an alternative to broker valuations.Writing in the latest issue of the firm’s shipping newsletter, Bottom Line, Moore Stephens Technical Partner David Chopping said, “In recent months, many of the world's listed shipping companies have released their financial statements. It has been challenging. Companies have, amongst other things, had to consider whether their assets are impaired. Even a brief review of shipping company accounts highlights the number of impairments made. But many relate to items other than vessels and newbuildings. From a sample of 51 US-listed shipping companies, nearly 30 per cent have recorded impairment losses, but only half of those have recorded any on newbuildings or vessels.” With vessel values falling, many owners will need to consider impairment. Whatever accounting policy is adopted, vessels will always need to be written down if they are worth less than their current carrying value. Market values will always be the starting point for such assessments although, in limited circumstances, it may also be possible to look at future long-term income streams.Under both International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) and US Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (US GAAP), the existence of impairment is determined by comparing the book value of an asset with its recoverable amount. The starting point for estimating how much you could get from selling a vessel is a broker's valuation. Such valuations have been called into question by some shipping companies, on three main grounds. Firstly, in a thin market, determining a price will be difficult, so the margin of error increases. Secondly, there are differing opinions about whether a broker valuation really reflects 'fair value'. Thirdly, the market has overreacted. David Chopping explained, “If broker valuations are below book value, a company can still try to demonstrate that its future cashflow exceeds that value. Here IFRS and US GAAP diverge, with the IFRS test based on the present value of future cashflow, and the US test based on nominal amounts. This means that impairments are much less likely under US GAAP.“In both cases, there are two main methods of using future cashflow to support a valuation. The first is to take account of factors not reflected in a broker valuation, such as long-term charters at good rates. Secondly, and more controversially, in those cases where companies have no such factors to take account of, they can use their own estimates.”“Where the result of this exceeds book value they can then at least argue that there is no impairment. However, under IFRS, this does require an assumption that the market is currently mispricing vessels. The assumption will need to be supported, and to survive the sceptical scrutiny of the company's auditor. Only time will tell if such projections were reasonable or unduly optimistic.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
