By Mark Edward Nero
The Federal Maritime Commission has opened nominations for its 2014 Chairman’s Earth Day Awards, which honors members of the maritime transportation industry for innovations and successes in developing environmentally sustainable shipping practices.
Specifically, the award highlights technologies, programs and practices of the maritime transportation industry that benefit the environment through efficiency or innovation.
The Chairman’s Earth Day Award is open to participants that meet certain requirements, including:
• Nominated private entities must be incorporated in and maintain a primary place of business in the United States.
• Nominated individuals, whether participating singly or in a group, must be citizens or permanent residents of the US.
• Nominees cannot be a federal entity or federal employee acting within the scope of their employment.
The submission period is from Jan. 13 to March 10. At the end of the period, eligible submissions are to be evaluated based on:
• Programs or practices that provide an environmental benefit or reduction in environmental harm, including but not limited to, efforts that encourage a reduction in emissions or pollutants.
• Programs or practices that are sustainable and also serve as models for others to follow or replicate.
• Efforts that increase the public’s awareness of the maritime transportation industry’s efforts to protect the environment.
Submissions should include a title and a description of the program or practice in a document of up to five pages or a presentation of up to 10 slides. Optional material includes a link to additional information on the program, as well as videos or pictures.
Submissions can be emailed to Mary Hoang at mhoang@fmc.gov or mailed to: Mary Hoang, Federal Maritime Commission, 800 North Capitol St. NW, Washington, DC 20573.
More information about the FMC and the Chairman’s Earth Day Award can be gained by contacting Mary Hoang at (202) 521-5733 or visiting http://www.fmc.gov/news/maritime_environmental_issues.aspx.
Thursday, January 23, 2014
Tuesday, January 21, 2014
California Maritime Leadership Symposium
The 14th Annual California Maritime Leadership Symposium (CMLS) is scheduled for February 19 -20th, 2014 at the Sacramento Convention Center. The annual event focuses on briefing Sacramento’s policymakers on key matters related to the entire Maritime Transportation System. The symposium is a comprehensive forum for port executives, commissioners, and other stakeholders across the state to seek resolution to the growing challenges the Maritime Transportation System faces.
Hosted by a broad-based Coalition of the maritime industry, CMLS is headed up by the California Association of Port Authorities, California Marine Affairs and Navigation Conference, California Marine and Intermodal Transportation System Advisory Council, California Maritime Academy, Harbor Association of Industry and Commerce, and the Propeller Club of Los Angeles - Long Beach.
Event Details:
Dates: Wednesday, February 19 – Thursday, February 20, 2014
Location: Sacramento Convention Center
For more information: http://maritimesymposium.com/
To register: http://maritimesymposium.com/
Event Details:
Dates: Wednesday, February 19 – Thursday, February 20, 2014
Location: Sacramento Convention Center
For more information: http://maritimesymposium.com/
To register: http://maritimesymposium.com/
What Were They Thinking?
By Marilyn Raia
Sometimes when researching a topic for my column, I come across a case that makes me question the thought processes of the person who brought it and his lawyer. To start the new year, following are a few recently discovered cases in which the parties and their counsel attempted and failed to put a new spin on well-established maritime law applicable to seamen.
Practicing Alchemy Not Part of Seaman’s Duties
McClendon v. OMI Offshore Marine Services, 807 F.Supp. 1266 (E.D. Tx 1992), involved a personal injury sustained by McClendon while he was acting as a caretaker of a tug in a dry dock undergoing repairs. McClendon decided to practice alchemy while waiting for the tug to be able to return to service. He obtained an ounce of mercury from a friend and placed it in a potato which he then baked in a very hot oven in the tug’s galley, intending to turn the mercury into gold. Instead, McClendon sustained an injury by breathing the mercury vapors escaping from the oven.
McClendon hired a lawyer who reasoned that because McClendon was a seaman injured on a tug, he was entitled to compensation. The court disagreed. Under federal law, a crewmember injured while working aboard a vessel in navigation due to the unseaworthiness of the vessel or the negligence of the vessel owner, is entitled to compensation for his injury. However, the court denied a recovery to McClendon because the tug was in a dry dock undergoing repairs and not in navigation at the time of the injury. Moreover, the court noted it had not been able to find, and Mr. McClendon’s lawyer did not cite, any case holding the practice of alchemy was within the duties of a seaman acting as a caretaker of a vessel in a dry dock.
Bar Fight Does Not Entitle Seaman to Maintenance and Cure
Seamen who are injured in the service of a vessel in navigation are entitled to recover “maintenance and cure” from their employers. “Maintenance” is a daily living allowance and “cure” is the payment of bills for medical treatment necessitated by the injury. Whether a seaman was injured in the service of a vessel has been the subject of creative, but not always successful, legal arguments.
In Bilozur v. Royal Daiquiri’s Inc., 2007 AMC 685 (E.D. La 2007), Bilozur was an employee of Edison Chouest Offshore. He joined the M/V Seacor Reliant on May 5, 2005 and signed off the vessel on June 7, 2005. After Bilozur signed off, he could do what he wanted. He chose to stay in a nearby dormitory where ECO employees could stay for free if space were available. From June 7-10, 2005, Bilozur participated in a training course at the ECO facility. Completion of the course was a condition of Bilozur’s employment. He could take the course for free at the ECO facility or for a fee at any Coast Guard facility.
After the course was over, Bilozur went to a restaurant/bar to have dinner and plan a fishing trip with a friend. After drinking four beers and liquor, Bilozur noticed a hostile environment at the restaurant/bar and left. Another patron believed Bilozur was asked to leave because he had been harassing others.
Bilozur backed his car into another car in the parking lot. He went back into the bar/restaurant and learned the car was owned by a woman with whom Bilozur had trouble earlier in the evening. The police were called and charged Bilozur with reckless operation of a vehicle. Instead of leaving the scene, Bilozur chose to stay. Some time later he was hit from behind in the neck. When he awoke, his neck was twisted. He was transported to the hospital where his neck was found to have been broken, rendering him a quadriplegic. Bilozur sued ECO for, among other things, maintenance and cure, arguing he was in the service of the vessel at the time of his injury. He argued other ECO employees were in the bar/restaurant in the course and scope of their employment and contributed to the injury. He also argued ECO benefitted by his presence in the area while taking the course because he could fill in if another employee failed to report for work. The court did not find Bilozur’s arguments persuasive. It reasoned even if Bilozur were in the service of the vessel when he took the course, the course had ended before Bilozur went to the bar/restaurant. Moreover, the court said Bilozur’s time “was his own and ECO should not have to pay for the consequences of his actions.”
Willful Self-Inflicted Injury Precludes Recovery of Maintenance and Cure
A seaman’s right to recover maintenance and cure is not dependent on his employer’s fault. However, the right to receive maintenance and cure may be forfeited under certain circumstances, such as when a seaman intentionally injures himself.
In Discovery Sun Partnership, Ltd. v. Kapsomenakis, 2000 AMC 2402 (S.D. Fla 2000), Kapsomenakis was fired from his position as a seaman aboard the vessel Discovery and was asked to leave. Instead of leaving, he stood on freshly painted stairs inside the engine room. An oiler then observed him holding onto the handrails and dragging his feet down the stairs. After his feet were on the deck, Kapsomenakis struck his head against a door frame. He also attempted to pull a fire extinguisher from the wall onto himself.
Kapsomenakis’s employer moved for summary judgment. It argued Kapsomenakis was not employed by the company at the time of the injury and even if he were, it had no obligation to pay him maintenance and cure because the injury was intentionally self-inflicted. The district court held the plaintiff’s “blatantly willful conduct” precluded him from recovering maintenance and cure. Because of that finding, the district court did not need to rule on whether Kapsomenakis was actually an employee at the time of the injury.
Intoxication May Bar Recovery for Seaman’s Injuries
In Park v. Alakanuk Native Corporation, 1995 AMC 377 (D. Ak. 1994), Alakanuk hired Park to be the caretaker of its vessel which was awaiting disposal. Park’s duties included checking lines, checking bilges, and maintaining the ship’s generator. Park received a daily stipend and groceries, and was allowed to live aboard the vessel. He was warned against the use of alcohol and instructed not to leave the vessel unattended while the generator was running.
Alakanuk authorized Park to hire someone to assist him with the installation of a compressor. Park hired an 18 year old, Schwin, who remained on board with Park after the compressor was installed to help keep watch over the vessel. Park had responsibility for the vessel 24 hours per day.
One day after spending many hours working on the vessel’s generator, Park and Schwin left the vessel unattended and drove in Park’s truck to a bar and restaurant approximately eight miles away. They spent many hours there socializing and drinking. Park admitted having consumed multiple beers. The bar would not serve alcohol to Schwin because he was underage. However, Schwin had a bottle of whiskey in the truck, which Park knew about. Schwin left the bar to go outside from time to time during the evening. He and Park also smoked marijuana.
Both Park and Schwin were intoxicated when the bar closed at 5 AM. They argued about who should drive the truck back to the vessel. Park allowed Schwin, who did not have a driver’s license, to drive. Park then sat in the passenger seat, buckled his seat belt, and fell asleep. Shortly after leaving the bar, the truck left the road and came to rest upside down in a used car lot. Park and Schwin were seriously injured.
Park sued Alakanuk for injuries suffered in the car wreck on negligence and unseaworthiness theories. He also sought maintenance and cure, unearned wages, and punitive damages. Park did not win and was required to pay Alakanuk’s costs.
The district court held Park was not “in service of the ship” or in the course of his employment at the time of the injury, prerequisites to recovering maintenance, cure and unearned wages. The court recognized a seaman might, under certain circumstances, be in the course of employment while engaged in recreation ashore. However, it held Park was not in service of the ship while he was in the bar with Schwin. Nor was he acting in the course of his employment doing the work ordered by his employer while in the bar with Schwin. The court also held Park could not recover for his injuries because they were caused by his own breach of duty and choice to proceed on an unsafe course of action. Finally, the court held that although a seaman may recover from his employer for injuries caused by a co-worker’s negligence during the course of his employment, Park could not base a claim on Schwin’s negligence because Schwin was not in the course of his employment when the accident happened.
US law is quite favorable to seamen who are injured while in the course of their employment on a vessel. However, seamen who make poor decisions and put themselves in peril lose the benefit of the favorable law and must bear the consequences of their actions.
Marilyn Raia is of counsel in the San Francisco office of Bullivant Houser Bailey. She has been certified as a specialist in admiralty and maritime law by the State Bar of California Board of Legal Specialization. She can be reached at marilyn.raia@bullivant.com.
Sometimes when researching a topic for my column, I come across a case that makes me question the thought processes of the person who brought it and his lawyer. To start the new year, following are a few recently discovered cases in which the parties and their counsel attempted and failed to put a new spin on well-established maritime law applicable to seamen.
Practicing Alchemy Not Part of Seaman’s Duties
McClendon v. OMI Offshore Marine Services, 807 F.Supp. 1266 (E.D. Tx 1992), involved a personal injury sustained by McClendon while he was acting as a caretaker of a tug in a dry dock undergoing repairs. McClendon decided to practice alchemy while waiting for the tug to be able to return to service. He obtained an ounce of mercury from a friend and placed it in a potato which he then baked in a very hot oven in the tug’s galley, intending to turn the mercury into gold. Instead, McClendon sustained an injury by breathing the mercury vapors escaping from the oven.
McClendon hired a lawyer who reasoned that because McClendon was a seaman injured on a tug, he was entitled to compensation. The court disagreed. Under federal law, a crewmember injured while working aboard a vessel in navigation due to the unseaworthiness of the vessel or the negligence of the vessel owner, is entitled to compensation for his injury. However, the court denied a recovery to McClendon because the tug was in a dry dock undergoing repairs and not in navigation at the time of the injury. Moreover, the court noted it had not been able to find, and Mr. McClendon’s lawyer did not cite, any case holding the practice of alchemy was within the duties of a seaman acting as a caretaker of a vessel in a dry dock.
Bar Fight Does Not Entitle Seaman to Maintenance and Cure
Seamen who are injured in the service of a vessel in navigation are entitled to recover “maintenance and cure” from their employers. “Maintenance” is a daily living allowance and “cure” is the payment of bills for medical treatment necessitated by the injury. Whether a seaman was injured in the service of a vessel has been the subject of creative, but not always successful, legal arguments.
In Bilozur v. Royal Daiquiri’s Inc., 2007 AMC 685 (E.D. La 2007), Bilozur was an employee of Edison Chouest Offshore. He joined the M/V Seacor Reliant on May 5, 2005 and signed off the vessel on June 7, 2005. After Bilozur signed off, he could do what he wanted. He chose to stay in a nearby dormitory where ECO employees could stay for free if space were available. From June 7-10, 2005, Bilozur participated in a training course at the ECO facility. Completion of the course was a condition of Bilozur’s employment. He could take the course for free at the ECO facility or for a fee at any Coast Guard facility.
After the course was over, Bilozur went to a restaurant/bar to have dinner and plan a fishing trip with a friend. After drinking four beers and liquor, Bilozur noticed a hostile environment at the restaurant/bar and left. Another patron believed Bilozur was asked to leave because he had been harassing others.
Bilozur backed his car into another car in the parking lot. He went back into the bar/restaurant and learned the car was owned by a woman with whom Bilozur had trouble earlier in the evening. The police were called and charged Bilozur with reckless operation of a vehicle. Instead of leaving the scene, Bilozur chose to stay. Some time later he was hit from behind in the neck. When he awoke, his neck was twisted. He was transported to the hospital where his neck was found to have been broken, rendering him a quadriplegic. Bilozur sued ECO for, among other things, maintenance and cure, arguing he was in the service of the vessel at the time of his injury. He argued other ECO employees were in the bar/restaurant in the course and scope of their employment and contributed to the injury. He also argued ECO benefitted by his presence in the area while taking the course because he could fill in if another employee failed to report for work. The court did not find Bilozur’s arguments persuasive. It reasoned even if Bilozur were in the service of the vessel when he took the course, the course had ended before Bilozur went to the bar/restaurant. Moreover, the court said Bilozur’s time “was his own and ECO should not have to pay for the consequences of his actions.”
Willful Self-Inflicted Injury Precludes Recovery of Maintenance and Cure
A seaman’s right to recover maintenance and cure is not dependent on his employer’s fault. However, the right to receive maintenance and cure may be forfeited under certain circumstances, such as when a seaman intentionally injures himself.
In Discovery Sun Partnership, Ltd. v. Kapsomenakis, 2000 AMC 2402 (S.D. Fla 2000), Kapsomenakis was fired from his position as a seaman aboard the vessel Discovery and was asked to leave. Instead of leaving, he stood on freshly painted stairs inside the engine room. An oiler then observed him holding onto the handrails and dragging his feet down the stairs. After his feet were on the deck, Kapsomenakis struck his head against a door frame. He also attempted to pull a fire extinguisher from the wall onto himself.
Kapsomenakis’s employer moved for summary judgment. It argued Kapsomenakis was not employed by the company at the time of the injury and even if he were, it had no obligation to pay him maintenance and cure because the injury was intentionally self-inflicted. The district court held the plaintiff’s “blatantly willful conduct” precluded him from recovering maintenance and cure. Because of that finding, the district court did not need to rule on whether Kapsomenakis was actually an employee at the time of the injury.
Intoxication May Bar Recovery for Seaman’s Injuries
In Park v. Alakanuk Native Corporation, 1995 AMC 377 (D. Ak. 1994), Alakanuk hired Park to be the caretaker of its vessel which was awaiting disposal. Park’s duties included checking lines, checking bilges, and maintaining the ship’s generator. Park received a daily stipend and groceries, and was allowed to live aboard the vessel. He was warned against the use of alcohol and instructed not to leave the vessel unattended while the generator was running.
Alakanuk authorized Park to hire someone to assist him with the installation of a compressor. Park hired an 18 year old, Schwin, who remained on board with Park after the compressor was installed to help keep watch over the vessel. Park had responsibility for the vessel 24 hours per day.
One day after spending many hours working on the vessel’s generator, Park and Schwin left the vessel unattended and drove in Park’s truck to a bar and restaurant approximately eight miles away. They spent many hours there socializing and drinking. Park admitted having consumed multiple beers. The bar would not serve alcohol to Schwin because he was underage. However, Schwin had a bottle of whiskey in the truck, which Park knew about. Schwin left the bar to go outside from time to time during the evening. He and Park also smoked marijuana.
Both Park and Schwin were intoxicated when the bar closed at 5 AM. They argued about who should drive the truck back to the vessel. Park allowed Schwin, who did not have a driver’s license, to drive. Park then sat in the passenger seat, buckled his seat belt, and fell asleep. Shortly after leaving the bar, the truck left the road and came to rest upside down in a used car lot. Park and Schwin were seriously injured.
Park sued Alakanuk for injuries suffered in the car wreck on negligence and unseaworthiness theories. He also sought maintenance and cure, unearned wages, and punitive damages. Park did not win and was required to pay Alakanuk’s costs.
The district court held Park was not “in service of the ship” or in the course of his employment at the time of the injury, prerequisites to recovering maintenance, cure and unearned wages. The court recognized a seaman might, under certain circumstances, be in the course of employment while engaged in recreation ashore. However, it held Park was not in service of the ship while he was in the bar with Schwin. Nor was he acting in the course of his employment doing the work ordered by his employer while in the bar with Schwin. The court also held Park could not recover for his injuries because they were caused by his own breach of duty and choice to proceed on an unsafe course of action. Finally, the court held that although a seaman may recover from his employer for injuries caused by a co-worker’s negligence during the course of his employment, Park could not base a claim on Schwin’s negligence because Schwin was not in the course of his employment when the accident happened.
US law is quite favorable to seamen who are injured while in the course of their employment on a vessel. However, seamen who make poor decisions and put themselves in peril lose the benefit of the favorable law and must bear the consequences of their actions.
Marilyn Raia is of counsel in the San Francisco office of Bullivant Houser Bailey. She has been certified as a specialist in admiralty and maritime law by the State Bar of California Board of Legal Specialization. She can be reached at marilyn.raia@bullivant.com.
BNSF Penalized for Hazardous Spill Near LA Port
By Mark Edward Nero
BNSF Railway has agreed to plead no contest and pay a fine to settle charges that it failed to report a June 2012 hazardous spill near the Port of Los Angeles, LA City Attorney Mike Feuer said Jan. 13. The spill resulted in a dangerous leak that lasted for days.
BNSF pled no contest to failing to report the release of a hazardous material and creating a public nuisance, and agreed to pay over $140,000, which includes criminal penalties, medical expenses and lost wages to a Port Police officer affected by the incident, plus reimbursement for costs borne by local agencies, as well as a donation to the Cabrillo Marine Aquarium.
BNSF is also required under the agreement to conduct hazardous materials training for designated employees, including an employee at the corporate level who will oversee hazardous materials issues.
The Environmental Justice and Protection Unit of Los Angeles City Attorney Mike Feuer filed the criminal charges against BNSF Railway in June 2013 in response to the spill. The case marks the first time BNSF has pled to criminal charges in California. “Businesses dealing with hazardous materials have a responsibility to protect the public and safeguard the environment,” Feuer said.
According to Feuer’s office, several drums containing hazardous materials including phenol, cresylic acid and other corrosives that cause inhalation hazards leaked from barrels being transported in a cargo container under the control of BNSF bound for China between June 23 and June 29, 2012.
Port Police were eventually alerted to the spill while investigating a report of an abandoned container at the location. The responding Port Police officer was overcome by fumes and later hospitalized.
BNSF Railway has agreed to plead no contest and pay a fine to settle charges that it failed to report a June 2012 hazardous spill near the Port of Los Angeles, LA City Attorney Mike Feuer said Jan. 13. The spill resulted in a dangerous leak that lasted for days.
BNSF pled no contest to failing to report the release of a hazardous material and creating a public nuisance, and agreed to pay over $140,000, which includes criminal penalties, medical expenses and lost wages to a Port Police officer affected by the incident, plus reimbursement for costs borne by local agencies, as well as a donation to the Cabrillo Marine Aquarium.
BNSF is also required under the agreement to conduct hazardous materials training for designated employees, including an employee at the corporate level who will oversee hazardous materials issues.
The Environmental Justice and Protection Unit of Los Angeles City Attorney Mike Feuer filed the criminal charges against BNSF Railway in June 2013 in response to the spill. The case marks the first time BNSF has pled to criminal charges in California. “Businesses dealing with hazardous materials have a responsibility to protect the public and safeguard the environment,” Feuer said.
According to Feuer’s office, several drums containing hazardous materials including phenol, cresylic acid and other corrosives that cause inhalation hazards leaked from barrels being transported in a cargo container under the control of BNSF bound for China between June 23 and June 29, 2012.
Port Police were eventually alerted to the spill while investigating a report of an abandoned container at the location. The responding Port Police officer was overcome by fumes and later hospitalized.
Ex-ILWU Treasurer Ordered to Repay
Stolen $1.69 Million
By Mark Edward Nero
The former secretary-treasurer of International Longshore & Warehouse Union Local 502 in British Columbia has been ordered by a judge to repay $1.69 million that was stolen from the union over the course of about six years.
Former union official Robert Victor Eric Ford, who was secretary-treasurer of Local 502 from October 2003 until August 2012, was issued the order on Jan. 17, 2014 by British Columbia Supreme Court Justice Kenneth Affleck.
Affleck said Ford was able to get away with the embezzlement for so long because of lax accounting practices at the union local. According to the judge, the local often gave Ford blank checks, and that Ford took advantage of the procedure by essentially writing checks to himself and using various means to cover up his misdeeds.
Union leaders became aware of Ford’s actions in August 2012, according to court documents. Ford, who has blamed the theft on gambling debts, resigned from his position with the union Aug. 20, 2012.
Union attorney Howard Mickelson said that although he was pleased with the judge’s decision, he’s not hopeful that the money will be repaid. “He probably gambled most if not all of the money away, so there’s very little left for the union to recover,” Mickelson said.
Local 502 represents about 850 members in the Metro Vancouver area.
The former secretary-treasurer of International Longshore & Warehouse Union Local 502 in British Columbia has been ordered by a judge to repay $1.69 million that was stolen from the union over the course of about six years.
Former union official Robert Victor Eric Ford, who was secretary-treasurer of Local 502 from October 2003 until August 2012, was issued the order on Jan. 17, 2014 by British Columbia Supreme Court Justice Kenneth Affleck.
Affleck said Ford was able to get away with the embezzlement for so long because of lax accounting practices at the union local. According to the judge, the local often gave Ford blank checks, and that Ford took advantage of the procedure by essentially writing checks to himself and using various means to cover up his misdeeds.
Union leaders became aware of Ford’s actions in August 2012, according to court documents. Ford, who has blamed the theft on gambling debts, resigned from his position with the union Aug. 20, 2012.
Union attorney Howard Mickelson said that although he was pleased with the judge’s decision, he’s not hopeful that the money will be repaid. “He probably gambled most if not all of the money away, so there’s very little left for the union to recover,” Mickelson said.
Local 502 represents about 850 members in the Metro Vancouver area.
Seattle, Tacoma Ports to Share Operating Info
By Mark Edward Nero
The ports of Seattle and Tacoma say they intend to share information with one another that will allow them to “gather and share information to identify potential options for responding to unprecedented industry pressures.”
In a discussion agreement that was filed Jan. 17 with the Federal Maritime Commission, the ports said that the move is necessitated in part by strong global competition. The agreement allows the ports, with appropriate legal oversight, to share information about their respective operations, facilities and rates. Both ports say they’ve agreed that a change in governance, such as a merger, will not be part of the discussions.
“These discussions are aimed at increasing our collective market share and generating more container cargo moving through Puget Sound,” a joint statement by the ports regarding the discussions reads in part. “We must leverage our strengths in the face of continued soft demand and increasing competition.”
The statement also goes on to say that Seattle and Tacoma face “fierce competition” from ports throughout North America and must “adjust to shifts” in the global maritime industry, such as global shipping lines responding to losing millions of dollars each year by investing in larger vessels with more capacity, sharing those vessels, consolidating terminals and reducing the number of ports at which they call.
The seven-page agreement, which is dated Jan. 16, 2014 and is signed by Port of Tacoma CEO John Wolfe and Seattle Deputy CEO Kurt Beckett, can be read or downloaded at http://www.portoftacoma.com/File.ashx?cid=6899 or at http://www.portseattle.org/Cargo/SeaCargo/Documents/FMC%20Discussion%20Agreement.PDF.
The ports of Seattle and Tacoma say they intend to share information with one another that will allow them to “gather and share information to identify potential options for responding to unprecedented industry pressures.”
In a discussion agreement that was filed Jan. 17 with the Federal Maritime Commission, the ports said that the move is necessitated in part by strong global competition. The agreement allows the ports, with appropriate legal oversight, to share information about their respective operations, facilities and rates. Both ports say they’ve agreed that a change in governance, such as a merger, will not be part of the discussions.
“These discussions are aimed at increasing our collective market share and generating more container cargo moving through Puget Sound,” a joint statement by the ports regarding the discussions reads in part. “We must leverage our strengths in the face of continued soft demand and increasing competition.”
The statement also goes on to say that Seattle and Tacoma face “fierce competition” from ports throughout North America and must “adjust to shifts” in the global maritime industry, such as global shipping lines responding to losing millions of dollars each year by investing in larger vessels with more capacity, sharing those vessels, consolidating terminals and reducing the number of ports at which they call.
The seven-page agreement, which is dated Jan. 16, 2014 and is signed by Port of Tacoma CEO John Wolfe and Seattle Deputy CEO Kurt Beckett, can be read or downloaded at http://www.portoftacoma.com/File.ashx?cid=6899 or at http://www.portseattle.org/Cargo/SeaCargo/Documents/FMC%20Discussion%20Agreement.PDF.
2013 Was POLB’s Third-Busiest Year Ever
By Mark Edward Nero
Cargo volumes at the Port of Long Beach rose 11.3 percent last year to 6.73 million TEUs, making 2013 the port’s third-busiest year ever, behind only 2006 and 2007, according to newly released data.
In 2013, imports were up 12.8 percent to 3.45 million TEUs, while exports rose 10.7 percent to 1.7 million TEUs and empties were up 8.8 percent to 1.57 million TEUs, according to port numbers.
Shipping container volume rose in part because major shipping lines – CMA CGM and Mediterranean Shipping Co. – began increasing service to Long Beach at the end of 2012, according to the POLB.
December 2013 saw a slight dip in imports, but overall finished with a four percent increase over the same month in 2012, according to data. The overall number of containers increased to 582,443 TEUs during the month, while imports were down 1.4 percent to 291,434 TEUs. Exports were up 9.3 percent to 148,150 TEUs compared to the same month the year before, and the number empty containers moved rose 10.8 percent to 142,859 TEUs.
“Our economy is getting better, and the port is providing a shot in the arm for Long Beach and all of Southern California,” Al Moro, the port’s Acting Executive Director, said.
More details on Long Beach’s cargo numbers are available at www.polb.com/stats.
Cargo volumes at the Port of Long Beach rose 11.3 percent last year to 6.73 million TEUs, making 2013 the port’s third-busiest year ever, behind only 2006 and 2007, according to newly released data.
In 2013, imports were up 12.8 percent to 3.45 million TEUs, while exports rose 10.7 percent to 1.7 million TEUs and empties were up 8.8 percent to 1.57 million TEUs, according to port numbers.
Shipping container volume rose in part because major shipping lines – CMA CGM and Mediterranean Shipping Co. – began increasing service to Long Beach at the end of 2012, according to the POLB.
December 2013 saw a slight dip in imports, but overall finished with a four percent increase over the same month in 2012, according to data. The overall number of containers increased to 582,443 TEUs during the month, while imports were down 1.4 percent to 291,434 TEUs. Exports were up 9.3 percent to 148,150 TEUs compared to the same month the year before, and the number empty containers moved rose 10.8 percent to 142,859 TEUs.
“Our economy is getting better, and the port is providing a shot in the arm for Long Beach and all of Southern California,” Al Moro, the port’s Acting Executive Director, said.
More details on Long Beach’s cargo numbers are available at www.polb.com/stats.
