Sanctions are increasingly complex today, due to the Ukraine war. P&I Clubs are increasingly on point sorting these out for carriers and shippers.
P&I Clubs form risk pools to insure carriers on specific voyages, covering such risks as damage, war risks, and environmental damage.
The annual joint conference of the Hellenic American Chamber of Commerce included several P&I club members and attorneys who represent them and others.
I especially noted the comment by Nikolai Ivanov, of Skuld.
“being in between the sanctions authorities, and the practical part of the shipping industry…we act as a buffer between the two and have to effectively police up and down the sanctions chain”
He points out that Skuld had to deny coverage to some old customers as a result of the sanctions. His remark clarifies that the P&I clubs are on the front lines of sanctions enforcement. No one else is allocating substantial resources to it.
What can happen if this enforcement mechanism fails? The result could be a kind of free-for-all in which sanctions for the Ukraine war, for instance, are no longer of much use. There have been attempts to circumvent the major clubs, for instance, by Russia attempting to provide similar insurance. I don’t think anyone believes that Russian entities could do this on a very large scale.
It appears most of the issues are in the energy transport and bulk carrier transport areas. Extreme shortages in these areas could be the trigger for massive violations of the sanctions, possibly without insurance, with only shadow coverage, or with insurers looking the other way. This wouldn’t be a good situation.
So far the insurers have been able to cope with the sanctions increases.
Here we see another bet on ammonia power. One partner is the Swiss firm WinGD, which has a long history of providing power for merchant shipping. Their website gives no indication that they have a hydrogen or ammonia-powered engine yet. But they do offer dual-fuel engines that will utilize gas for fuel. Perhaps they are not so far away.
Another development partner, CMB.TECH, a clean technology private firm based in Antwerp, already has some design expertise for ammonia engines. A look at their site shows some hydrogen-powered vessels operating, and some ammonia-powered vessels on order. They also have some hydrogen-powered fixed engines and other machines such as an excavator that they say can be ordered today.
Handling of hydrogen or ammonia on board and at ports is a major concern with this technology. Watch for the designs to see how difficult this will be.
With all the talk of breaking up the alliances, this decision by Maersk and MSC is smart. Each line now has a ready answer for regulators, both in the EU and the US.
The decision is reminiscent of what happened with IBM and ATT. In those cases, the US regulators sued these two giant companies on antitrust grounds. At the time, IBM was dominant in computers, and ATT was dominant in telephones, and there were concerns of price fixing with both companies. In each of these cases, the government had to take legal action against the firms. But the lawsuits dragged on and on; giant companies can easily afford large legal entourages that can string out a proceeding forever.
One of my good friends and former bosses led the IBM antitrust management team.
Somewhere in the proceedings, while imagining life after the breakup, each of these firms came to the conclusion they would be better off broken up. So each of them proposed a split-up. The proposal itself was enough to defuse the lawsuit’s consequences, and reduce concerns the regulators had.
For a short while, I worked for Lucent, which was one of the spinoffs of ATT; it was the Western Electric manufacturing division, and included Bell Labs and other electronics manufacturers. Other ATT spinoffs were the ‘baby Bells’, the regional telephone companies. Now, 40 years later, they are all gone too. So is local phone service, replaced by cell phones, so a monopoly in local landline service is not a concern. Lucent is also gone, merged into Alcatel, a large European concern with partial Chinese ownership, and is called Alcatel-Lucent. It’s a private concern.
IBM spun off its printer and PC division into Lenovo, also a Chinese company, and while they still support mainframe computing today, are now more of a software company.
I think it’s a smart move to defuse regulatory concern about alliances. The political atmosphere right now would definitely support breaking them up. Huge profits in times just past, and terrible service for customers in the past and right now make the alliances an easy political target. But saying it’s going to end anyway should buy Maersk and MSC some negotiating room with the regulators. The only issues then will be how they preserve service; these are easily dealt with by making some kind of plans that man or may not ever be implemented.
I think the big question for Maersk and MSC will be the effect on their capital expenses and on their service guarantees. The rationale for alliances was that more regular service could be offered on an alliance route because the carriers covering it would share the job of providing regular ship sailings. That would reduce the need of each firm for more ships. That’s much lower capital expense.
Alliances are a great example of business collaboration to reduce costs, here capital costs (since the voyage operating costs are ‘covered’ by the cargo). Capital is expensive; no one can buy enough ships without borrowing, or using up cash on hand, or asking for more investment.
But in recent times, carriers are blanking sailings when they don’t have full ships. Service, even on alliance routes, has deteriorated to an awful level for container shipping.
It’s hard to see how Maersk, for instance, can cover a 2M alliance route adequately for a large customer, who may require weekly shipments. Some of the business will have to go to another carrier. And then the scheduling will not be straightforward. Throw blanked sailings into the mix, and customers will suffer.
But the regulators will be appeased; they can’t regulate as much when the alliance is gone.
I think the big problem of long-term success for ocean container carriers is customer service. They have to figure out how to set delivery expectations for customers and then deliver to them reliably. Hopefully at a profit.
Another take from Drewry is posted below.\, via Nick Savvides and Loadstar.
Update 1/27/2023: another thoughtful article from Greg Miller·Wednesday, January 25, 2023 in American Shipper.
Supply Chain and Logistics 