Industry tracks dramatic rise in container ship fires
A series of fires on container ships this year alone has left importers with delayed, damaged, or destroyed cargo—and big insurance bills. Experts say there could be more to come.
Contributing Editor Toby Gooley is a writer and editor specializing in supply chain, logistics, and material handling, and a lecturer at MIT's Center for Transportation & Logistics. She previously was Senior Editor at DC VELOCITY and Editor of DCV's sister publication, CSCMP's Supply Chain Quarterly. Prior to joining AGiLE Business Media in 2007, she spent 20 years at Logistics Management magazine as Managing Editor and Senior Editor covering international trade and transportation. Prior to that she was an export traffic manager for 10 years. She holds a B.A. in Asian Studies from Cornell University.
In the first three months of 2019, the maritime industry set what may be a record for the largest number of container ship fires in the shortest amount of time. Between January 1 and the middle of March, fires on board six ships had delayed, damaged, or destroyed hundreds of cargo containers:
On Jan. 3, a container on the Yantian Express caught fire off Canada's Eastern Seaboard. More than 260 boxes were destroyed.
On Jan. 29, the Olga Maersk was sidelined in Panama after a fire broke out in its engine room.
On Jan. 31, the APL Vancouver was stricken off the coast of Vietnam by a fire that started in a cargo bay.
On Feb. 13, a fire broke out in containers of charcoal on the E.R. Kobe near China. The ship was diverted to Hong Kong to unload the damaged boxes; three more containers caught fire as the ship continued on to Shanghai.
On Mar. 6, the giant Maersk Honam caught fire off of India, killing five crew members. It took five days to get the fire under control.
On Mar. 10, a container on the combined container/auto carrier Grande America caught fire off the coast of France. As the ship became engulfed in flames, crew members evacuated in lifeboats and were later rescued by a British naval vessel. The ship capsized and sank the following day.
There have been other fires on board container ships in recent years—more than 20 major ones since the middle of 2012, according to Richard W. Bridges, vice president, client development, for the cargo insurer Roanoke Trade. But the unusually high number of incidents should prompt importers and exporters to take a fresh look at their cargo insurance to make sure they have adequate coverage, he said during a panel discussion at the recent Coalition of New England Companies for Trade (CONECT) 23rd Annual Northeast Trade and Transportation Conference in Newport, R.I.
When ships and cargo suffer damage or delay, ship owners may declare "general average." This contractual obligation requires cargo owners to shoulder part of the loss, based on the value of their cargo and its percentage share of the "value of the voyage;" that is, the total value of the ship plus all cargo on board, Bridges explained. The freight is seized, and in order to get their goods back, cargo owners—or, more typically, their insurers—must pay a security deposit to cover the initial estimated cost of salvaging the ship as well as a bond to guarantee payment of any future adjustments to the general average liability.
Historically, Roanoke Trade has seen demands for 10 percent to 20 percent, but lately, these amounts appear to be rising, Bridges said. For example, the salvage security for the Maersk Honam was set at 42.5 percent of the CIF (cost, insurance, and freight) value of the cargo, with an additional 11.5 percent required as general average security, he said. Fail to put up the required deposit and bond, Bridges warned, and the vessel owner can hold and even auction off your cargo. (For more about general average, see "Ship in distress? Get out your wallet,"DC Velocity, July 2016.)
WHY SO MANY FIRES?
Experts say several factors are behind the recent flurry of conflagrations. One is the increasing size of container vessels coupled with the shrinking size of their crews.
"The smaller crews we have today don't have enough people to fight a shipboard fire," said Capt. Glenn Walker of the marine surveying and consulting firm Atlantic Marine Group, speaking on the same panel. "Their chances of quickly finding the source of a fire and putting it out are small."
Another factor is that today's bigger container ships are carrying a greater variety of cargo, and in larger quantities, said fellow panelist Kathy Schricker, regional vice president for cargo insurer Avalon Risk Management. That means more containers carrying hazardous materials are likely to be on board, she said. The widespread and well-documented problem of incorrectly declared and improperly packed and secured shipments of dangerous goods also increases the risk of a fire, she added. (Editor's note: Just days after this article was written, fire broke out on board the container ship KTMC Hong Kong in the Port of Laem Chabang, Thailand. A subsequent explosion injured more than 100 people. Authorities there reportedly blamed the incident on nearly 20 containers of undeclared volatile chemicals.)
Regardless of how promptly cargo owners pay the deposit and bond, they are in for a long wait before they can retrieve any cargo that is undamaged or salvageable. That's because it can be difficult to find a port that is willing and able to store both ship and containers for months while the physical damage and legal issues are sorted out. It was seven weeks before the Maersk Honam arrived under tow at the Port of Jebel Ali in the United Arab Emirates, and the Yantian Express spent almost four months in Freeport, Bahamas, before finally sailing back up the East Coast to Halifax, N.S., with the remaining intact containers on board.
For shippers, the wait can be excruciating, as information can be difficult, if not impossible, to obtain. Two importers in the audience at the mid-April CONECT conference, including one that had $30 million worth of merchandise on the Yantian Express, said that more than three months after the fire, they still did not know the location or condition of their containers.
Congestion on U.S. highways is costing the trucking industry big, according to research from the American Transportation Research Institute (ATRI), released today.
The group found that traffic congestion on U.S. highways added $108.8 billion in costs to the trucking industry in 2022, a record high. The information comes from ATRI’s Cost of Congestion study, which is part of the organization’s ongoing highway performance measurement research.
Total hours of congestion fell slightly compared to 2021 due to softening freight market conditions, but the cost of operating a truck increased at a much higher rate, according to the research. As a result, the overall cost of congestion increased by 15% year-over-year—a level equivalent to more than 430,000 commercial truck drivers sitting idle for one work year and an average cost of $7,588 for every registered combination truck.
The analysis also identified metropolitan delays and related impacts, showing that the top 10 most-congested states each experienced added costs of more than $8 billion. That list was led by Texas, at $9.17 billion in added costs; California, at $8.77 billion; and Florida, $8.44 billion. Rounding out the top 10 list were New York, Georgia, New Jersey, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Louisiana, and Tennessee. Combined, the top 10 states account for more than half of the trucking industry’s congestion costs nationwide—52%, according to the research.
The metro areas with the highest congestion costs include New York City, $6.68 billion; Miami, $3.2 billion; and Chicago, $3.14 billion.
ATRI’s analysis also found that the trucking industry wasted more than 6.4 billion gallons of diesel fuel in 2022 due to congestion, resulting in additional fuel costs of $32.1 billion.
ATRI used a combination of data sources, including its truck GPS database and Operational Costs study benchmarks, to calculate the impacts of trucking delays on major U.S. roadways.
There’s a photo from 1971 that John Kent, professor of supply chain management at the University of Arkansas, likes to show. It’s of a shaggy-haired 18-year-old named Glenn Cowan grinning at three-time world table tennis champion Zhuang Zedong, while holding a silk tapestry Zhuang had just given him. Cowan was a member of the U.S. table tennis team who participated in the 1971 World Table Tennis Championships in Nagoya, Japan. Story has it that one morning, he overslept and missed his bus to the tournament and had to hitch a ride with the Chinese national team and met and connected with Zhuang.
Cowan and Zhuang’s interaction led to an invitation for the U.S. team to visit China. At the time, the two countries were just beginning to emerge from a 20-year period of decidedly frosty relations, strict travel bans, and trade restrictions. The highly publicized trip signaled a willingness on both sides to renew relations and launched the term “pingpong diplomacy.”
Kent, who is a senior fellow at the George H. W. Bush Foundation for U.S.-China Relations, believes the photograph is a good reminder that some 50-odd years ago, the economies of the United States and China were not as tightly interwoven as they are today. At the time, the Nixon administration was looking to form closer political and economic ties between the two countries in hopes of reducing chances of future conflict (and to weaken alliances among Communist countries).
The signals coming out of Washington and Beijing are now, of course, much different than they were in the early 1970s. Instead of advocating for better relations, political rhetoric focuses on the need for the U.S. to “decouple” from China. Both Republicans and Democrats have warned that the U.S. economy is too dependent on goods manufactured in China. They see this dependency as a threat to economic strength, American jobs, supply chain resiliency, and national security.
Supply chain professionals, however, know that extricating ourselves from our reliance on Chinese manufacturing is easier said than done. Many pundits push for a “China + 1” strategy, where companies diversify their manufacturing and sourcing options beyond China. But in reality, that “plus one” is often a Chinese company operating in a different country or a non-Chinese manufacturer that is still heavily dependent on material or subcomponents made in China.
This is the problem when supply chain decisions are made on a global scale without input from supply chain professionals. In an article in the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, Kent argues that, “The discussions on supply chains mainly take place between government officials who typically bring many other competing issues and agendas to the table. Corporate entities—the individuals and companies directly impacted by supply chains—tend to be under-represented in the conversation.”
Kent is a proponent of what he calls “supply chain diplomacy,” where experts from academia and industry from the U.S. and China work collaboratively to create better, more efficient global supply chains. Take, for example, the “Peace Beans” project that Kent is involved with. This project, jointly formed by Zhejiang University and the Bush China Foundation, proposes balancing supply chains by exporting soybeans from Arkansas to tofu producers in China’s Yunnan province, and, in return, importing coffee beans grown in Yunnan to coffee roasters in Arkansas. Kent believes the operation could even use the same transportation equipment.
The benefits of working collaboratively—instead of continuing to build friction in the supply chain through tariffs and adversarial relationships—are numerous, according to Kent and his colleagues. They believe it would be much better if the two major world economies worked together on issues like global inflation, climate change, and artificial intelligence.
And such relations could play a significant role in strengthening world peace, particularly in light of ongoing tensions over Taiwan. Because, as Kent writes, “The 19th-century idea that ‘When goods don’t cross borders, soldiers will’ is as true today as ever. Perhaps more so.”
Hyster-Yale Materials Handling today announced its plans to fulfill the domestic manufacturing requirements of the Build America, Buy America (BABA) Act for certain portions of its lineup of forklift trucks and container handling equipment.
That means the Greenville, North Carolina-based company now plans to expand its existing American manufacturing with a targeted set of high-capacity models, including electric options, that align with the needs of infrastructure projects subject to BABA requirements. The company’s plans include determining the optimal production location in the United States, strategically expanding sourcing agreements to meet local material requirements, and further developing electric power options for high-capacity equipment.
As a part of the 2021 Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, the BABA Act aims to increase the use of American-made materials in federally funded infrastructure projects across the U.S., Hyster-Yale says. It was enacted as part of a broader effort to boost domestic manufacturing and economic growth, and mandates that federal dollars allocated to infrastructure – such as roads, bridges, ports and public transit systems – must prioritize materials produced in the USA, including critical items like steel, iron and various construction materials.
Hyster-Yale’s footprint in the U.S. is spread across 10 locations, including three manufacturing facilities.
“Our leadership is fully invested in meeting the needs of businesses that require BABA-compliant material handling solutions,” Tony Salgado, Hyster-Yale’s chief operating officer, said in a release. “We are working to partner with our key domestic suppliers, as well as identifying how best to leverage our own American manufacturing footprint to deliver a competitive solution for our customers and stakeholders. But beyond mere compliance, and in line with the many areas of our business where we are evolving to better support our customers, our commitment remains steadfast. We are dedicated to delivering industry-leading standards in design, durability and performance — qualities that have become synonymous with our brands worldwide and that our customers have come to rely on and expect.”
In a separate move, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) also gave its approval for the state to advance its Heavy-Duty Omnibus Rule, which is crafted to significantly reduce smog-forming nitrogen oxide (NOx) emissions from new heavy-duty, diesel-powered trucks.
Both rules are intended to deliver health benefits to California citizens affected by vehicle pollution, according to the environmental group Earthjustice. If the state gets federal approval for the final steps to become law, the rules mean that cars on the road in California will largely be zero-emissions a generation from now in the 2050s, accounting for the average vehicle lifespan of vehicles with internal combustion engine (ICE) power sold before that 2035 date.
“This might read like checking a bureaucratic box, but EPA’s approval is a critical step forward in protecting our lungs from pollution and our wallets from the expenses of combustion fuels,” Paul Cort, director of Earthjustice’s Right To Zero campaign, said in a release. “The gradual shift in car sales to zero-emissions models will cut smog and household costs while growing California’s clean energy workforce. Cutting truck pollution will help clear our skies of smog. EPA should now approve the remaining authorization requests from California to allow the state to clean its air and protect its residents.”
However, the truck drivers' industry group Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association (OOIDA) pushed back against the federal decision allowing the Omnibus Low-NOx rule to advance. "The Omnibus Low-NOx waiver for California calls into question the policymaking process under the Biden administration's EPA. Purposefully injecting uncertainty into a $588 billion American industry is bad for our economy and makes no meaningful progress towards purported environmental goals," (OOIDA) President Todd Spencer said in a release. "EPA's credibility outside of radical environmental circles would have been better served by working with regulated industries rather than ramming through last-minute special interest favors. We look forward to working with the Trump administration's EPA in good faith towards achievable environmental outcomes.”
Editor's note:This article was revised on December 18 to add reaction from OOIDA.
A Canadian startup that provides AI-powered logistics solutions has gained $5.5 million in seed funding to support its concept of creating a digital platform for global trade, according to Toronto-based Starboard.
The round was led by Eclipse, with participation from previous backers Garuda Ventures and Everywhere Ventures. The firm says it will use its new backing to expand its engineering team in Toronto and accelerate its AI-driven product development to simplify supply chain complexities.
According to Starboard, the logistics industry is under immense pressure to adapt to the growing complexity of global trade, which has hit recent hurdles such as the strike at U.S. east and gulf coast ports. That situation calls for innovative solutions to streamline operations and reduce costs for operators.
As a potential solution, Starboard offers its flagship product, which it defines as an AI-based transportation management system (TMS) and rate management system that helps mid-sized freight forwarders operate more efficiently and win more business. More broadly, Starboard says it is building the virtual infrastructure for global trade, allowing freight companies to leverage AI and machine learning to optimize operations such as processing shipments in real time, reconciling invoices, and following up on payments.
"This investment is a pivotal step in our mission to unlock the power of AI for our customers," said Sumeet Trehan, Co-Founder and CEO of Starboard. "Global trade has long been plagued by inefficiencies that drive up costs and reduce competitiveness. Our platform is designed to empower SMB freight forwarders—the backbone of more than $20 trillion in global trade and $1 trillion in logistics spend—with the tools they need to thrive in this complex ecosystem."