Kandla, Paradip Ports Negotiate with SCI and DCI

Kandla and Paradip ports are in negotiations with the Shipping Corporation of India (SCI) and Dredging Corporation of India (DCI) to develop a new dredging strategy, reports thehindubusinessline.com.

This new plan will include the new joint ventures between the mentioned sides and also doing business together in the dredging sector.

Regarding this very important plan, P. K. Sinha, the Shipping Secretary, stated: “Such a strategy could be a win-win for all parties involved and our country as a whole, as the dredging capacity of Indian firms will go up.”

According to the International Association of Dredging Companies, 43 pct of the total dredging market worldwide is not open for international tenders.

Sudhanshu Shekhar Mishra, Chairman, Paradip Port Trust, commented: “Our dredging requirement is set to double next year. As a port, we would like to focus on core activity of attracting cargo and efficient functioning. Our Board members are enthusiastic about the proposal.”

As recently reported, DCI has already achieved financial closure for two other dredgers and one of them has even been installed. Each dredger costs Rs.550 crore.

After these dredgers, the company plans to buy another two dredgers for Rs.1,200 crore.

“We have asked SCI to consider diversification into dredging space so that it can be protected from the cyclical nature of the shipping market. To tide over the fund crunch that SCI is facing now, a tie-up between SCI and a port such as Kandla that has regular demand for dredging is being looked at,” concluded Sinha.

something about the UK’s port marine safety

  Background

On 15 February 1996 the ‘Sea Empress’ failed to make it safely into port. She grounded during her approach and subsequently spilt 73,000 tonnes of crude oil near to Britain’s only coastal national park. The system for managing the risks associated with getting the ship safely in and out of the port failed – if the system had worked, the accident would not have happened.

One of the consequences of this disaster was the creation of the Port Marine Safety Code (PMSC). It was first published in 2001 and extensively refreshed and reformatted in October 2009, making it a far more concise and practical document. The code is supported by a ‘Guide to Good Practice on Port Marine Operations’ which, in my view, could be a far more helpful document if more ports were persuaded to put commercial competition aside and contribute to it.

Aiming for swift vessel turnaround, profitable services and, in the case of leisure and cruise ports, an enjoyable visit is good business practice, but ensuring that a ship can get in and out of the port safely is fundamental.

Incidentally, I use the term port to encompass the wide variety of terms used in the UK, including havens, harbours and docks and I use the terms ship and vessel to describe all types of water craft.

Managing marine safety

Managing the safety of marine operations (getting ships in and out of the port safely) in UK ports has improved since 2001 largely, in my view, because of the impact of the PMSC. This code was put together by the Department for Transport and the ports industry. It applies to all ports that are governed by bodies formed in accordance with the requirements of local legislation. It not only appreciates the diversity of ports and harbours but also recognises their special status as harbour authorities.

Harbour authorities are bodies created by statute to serve a public interest to ensure the port is managed, maintained and improved. As these harbour authorities are formed by law they have legal duties and responsibilities and they are granted powers to make their own local laws to assist in regulating conduct within their jurisdiction. Most of the law that forms harbour authorities, and a lot of law made by them, is antiquated and no longer relevant or fit for purpose. However, modernising the law has not found political favour and it is expensive, so the majority of it remains somewhat poor.

Old law aside, it remains that the individuals that are responsible for running ports have to be able to demonstrate that their organisations are ‘open, accountable and fit for purpose’. Those individuals may be board members of a company, councillors and co-opted members that sit on a council committee or commissioners (often volunteers) that govern a trust port – the structure of the governance arrangements make no difference. The PMSC is not law, in that harbour authorities cannot be forced to comply with it and failure to comply is not an offence in itself. But not to comply with it will almost invariably have a serious impact as it establishes the national standard that the police, authorities and lawyers will expect all ports, regardless of size or type, to meet when they come knocking to commence that uncomfortable post incident scrutiny. It is my view, that not to meet the standards in the code is foolhardy as non-compliance opens the door to the boardroom to allegations of both criminal and civil negligence.

It is the door to the boardroom that will swing wide open – the code makes it quite clear that accountability for the safe operation of the port, its waters and approaches rests with the ‘duty holder’, which is how the code describes those who make strategic decisions and control the finances ie. the board, commissioners, committee or council. While harbour authorities have powers to appoint a harbour master, pilots and other professionals, they cannot assign or delegate their accountability, so the buck literally stops with the board.

The safety management system

The central thrust of the code is that marine operational safety is to be managed by way of a formal risk based safety management system (SMS). The core of this system has to demonstrate that all the risks associated with marine operations are identified and managed so that they are ‘as low as reasonably practicable’ (ALARP). This is risk management. Keeping your fingers crossed is not managing risks. Having a shelf full of folders that are rarely, if ever, used is not managing risks. Over reliance on the skill and experience of staff is not managing risks.

The Quality of Port Infrastructure ranking

 There is something about rankings. In sports, and increasingly in business, rankings abound. We have rankings of the best places to live, the most knowledge intensive regions of the world and the most competitive economies. In the latter case, countries are compared across economic performance criteria. One of the most influential is the Global Competitiveness Index (GCI) of the World Economic Forum (WEF). The 2012-2013 WEF ranking appeared last September. Switzerland is on top, moving ahead of Singapore. The WEF ranking consists of over 100 ranked items, classified in 12 pillars. For each pillar, some rankings are survey based, while others are based on actual data.


Through the provision of cost-efficient, reliable and frequent connections to overseas and inland markets seaports play an essential role in facilitating trade and in increasing the competitiveness of a nation or region. It is no surprise that Pillar 2 of the GCI dealing with infrastructure includes a component on the ‘Quality of Port Infrastructure’. This component is based on survey results where business leaders assess the competitiveness of economies. Like most other rankings in business, the ranking methodology is not perfect. For one, the ranking is based on perceptions of business leaders, which may not always be accurate. In academia, scholars are well aware that ‘stated preferences’ (based on perceptions and ‘what if ’ situations) and ‘revealed preferences’ (based on actual economic behaviour) do not always point to the same direction. Next, the business leaders rank a variety of indicators, so they rank the quality of port infrastructure probably more in relation to other variables, as compared to other countries. Third, cultural differences are likely to affect results. In some cultures more outspoken and straightforward scores are given, while respondents in other cultures are less inclined to score really high or low. This is relevant as the highest-ranking countries, The Netherlands and Singapore, score a 6.8 on a maximum of 7.

These disclaimers apply, but still, most industry observers would not be too surprised to find these two countries at the top of the rankings. Moving from a 4.5 to a 4.6 may not be a reason to uncork the bottles, but the big picture is probably correct. Therefore, we think it is worth discussing some important findings from these rankings.

Huge differences between the BRIC countries

First of all, the BRIC countries, whose economic performance is crucial for global economic growth, overall do not score high, with substantial differences between them. Brazil ranks 127th of 141, with a score of just 2.7. Furthermore, the country’s score has gone down in the last decade. This is a huge issue as Brazil has a vast potential for increased exports as well as imports. Important improvements in the port sector are required to enable this, both at the level of infrastructure provision, port operations and unfolding port governance reform processes.

Russia is somewhat better off with a score of 3.7, India even a bit better (4.0), whereas China scores a 4.4. Especially this last result is intriguing: even though China has the largest ports in the world and advances substantial investments in port infrastructure, its ranking is average. This may hint at institutional and procedural bottlenecks.

Overall, these results suggest a huge unlocked potential for international trade. This applies to the BRIC, but also to the ‘next eleven’ - Bangladesh, Egypt, Indonesia, Iran, Mexico, Nigeria, Pakistan, Philippines, Turkey, South Korea and Vietnam - that were identified by Goldman Sachs as large countries with huge growth potential.

The performance of the only fully private port sector (the UK) is improving

Next, it is interesting to look at the performance of the UK, the only country with a fully private port industry. The UK scores a 5.8, good enough to reach the 13th position. In the last five years, the UK’s score has gone up year by year. So even though some observers have voiced concerns over the lack of public control over a vital sector, this WEF ranking suggests the UK ports industry is performing well without the public funding that goes into the industry in many other countries.

France’s port reform has not (yet) had an effect

It may be too early to expect results, but France’s score, after the port reform that was finalised in 2011, suggests that the effects are still to come. After scores around 6 in the period 2004-2010, France is now down to 5.4. This may be due to the labour unrest (in 2010 and 2011) that negatively impacted the image of French ports (in particular Marseille). It will be interesting to see how business leaders rank France’s port system in the coming years. Indeed, there seems to be a considerable time lag between a port reform process and an improved score in the WEF ranking: Ireland pursued port reform in the late 1990s but only started to score better since 2007.

Germany seems to slide down

Germany may be a case in point to suggest that a high quality port infrastructure needs to be nurtured. Germany ranked 4th in 2007, with a score of 6.6, but has since been sliding down to 6.0, and the 10th place. The score is certainly still good, but does seem to suggest that the quality of the port infrastructure is less considered as of global benchmark quality . Perhaps the investments in Wilhemshafen and the associated port competition dynamics will turn this trend around.

Jan De Nul Group: New Projects in Asia and Australia

Several projects have been awarded to Jan De Nul Group: a reclamation project in Indonesia, a capital dredging project in Russia and an offshore project in Australia.
In Indonesia an offshore island will be reclaimed. These works are a part of a large scale reclamation development north of Jakarta, where a 260 ha island is developed for Kapuk Naga Indah and designed for housing and recreation. One of Jan De Nul Group’s jumbo trailing suction hopper dredgers will be deployed.
In Russia, Jan De Nul Group signed a contract for the dredging works for the first phase of the Yamal LNG project. The project is located near the village of Sabetta, on the north-east of the Yamal Peninsula. Quays will be built for receiving large LNG plant process modules and construction material. The access channel and port basin of the port of Sabetta will be dredged. This port will serve as a key element of the transport infrastructure for the Yamal LNG Project. The project includes the design and construction work for a complete onshore LNG facility. A dozen of dredgers will be deployed to carry out these dredging works.

Also in Australia, an offshore project has been awarded to Jan De Nul Group. The job is linked to a pipeline stabilisation project. Rockberms will be installed in water depths of more than 150 m, pipeline shore approaches trenched and the seabed prepared for offshore platforms. After installation the platforms will be ballasted with crushed iron ore. The new 200 m long and 40 m wide fall pipe vessel ‘Joseph Plateau’, which is the largest of its kind in the world, will be mobilized immediately upon delivery from the shipyard in Bilbao early April. In the Northsea, a number of projects have been awarded which involve the deployment of its sister vessel ‘Simon Stevin’ up to the third quarter of 2013.
About Jan De Nul Group
People and Vessels. These are the driving forces behind Jan De Nul Group. Thanks to its skilled employees, technical expertise and ultramodern fleet, Jan De Nul Group ranks at the top of the international dredging industry as well as being one of the largest civil engineering and environmental contractors. The supporting services of the dredging, civil and environmental division enable Jan De Nul Group to perform large-scale projects to its clients’ satisfaction, whether this concerns a Palm Island in Dubai, the construction of the new locks for the Panama Canal, or the installation of foundations for offshore wind parks.
The dredging fleet of Jan De Nul Group is the world’s most modern and most diverse fleet, this being the result of a resolute investment policy in its own equipment. The new vessels with their advanced technology on board are designed by the Group’s ’in-house’ engineering departments. Furthermore, Jan De Nul Group directly manufactures and supplies the dredging equipment to the shipyard, which is unequalled in the dredging sector. In 2012, the turnover of Jan De Nul Group again exceeded €2 billion.

PAJ to Solicit Bids for Kingston Harbour Dredging

The Port Authority of Jamaica (PAJ) is preparing to solicit international bids for the Kingston Harbor dredging project.

It's said that the most important part of this development program is dredging to the depth of 17 meters, the depth that will allow the Kingston port to accommodate the larger container vessels.

Currently, the harbor is about 14 meters deep.

The dredging project will improve Kingston’s competitive advantage and enable the port to serve as a transshipment hub for drought restricted ports of the US East and Gulf Coast.

For more than 20 years, the need to cleanup the harbor has been accepted by the political leadership, but just a few concrete measures have been taken.