Innovating. Shipment Success Through Intelligent Visibility. Issue 59 September 2017

Transcription

1 Issue 9 September 217 Shipment Success Through Intelligent Visibility WELCOME to the September issue of CargoSmart s Innovating, a monthly, complimentary e-newsletter for the ocean shipping industry. Innovating is designed to provide insights about cargo delays around the globe that you may find useful to improve your daily operations and strategic planning. On, 217, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, and Egypt cut diplomatic, trade, and transportation ties with Qatar. Air, sea, and land border connections were cut off, blocking vessels coming from and going to Qatar from the four countries. In the issue of CargoSmart s Innovating, we reviewed the initial impact the Qatar Gulf crisis had on vessel performance in the region. We found that as carriers made changes to the routings and types of ships visiting the Middle East ports, the performance fluctuated at each of the terminals. As of early September, the trade embargoes are still in effect. In this issue, CargoSmart s Global Vessel Voyage Monitoring Center continued to study the performance of three countries ports involved in the crisis-qatar, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates. We also reviewed the performance at the terminal level at each port. We analyzed 22 ocean carriers data from 1 to 31, 217. Overall, we found that the number of vessel arrivals dropped in and then started to increase in and, the number of mega vessels visiting Saudi Arabia and United Arab Emirates increased in, and that Hamad Port in Qatar had the longest vessel arrival and departure delays among the terminals in and. CargoSmart analyzes schedule reliability each month to provide insights about ocean carriers performance. This month, we reviewed the schedule reliability of 24 ocean carriers across 12 trade lanes in. Overall, on-time schedule reliability was 68.8% in, slightly lower than the schedule reliability in. In our Incidents Around the World column featuring vessel and port disruptions, we reviewed the impact Hurricane Harvey had at the Port of Houston in. Closed to container vessels for a week, we identified 18 vessels that skipped the port. We invite you to monitor current events affecting your shipments and to share your delay experiences with us on our visibility blog at visibility.cargosmart.com/blog or by at innovating@cargosmart.com. ABOUT INNOVATING CargoSmart is creating a whole new visibility model for ocean shippers and logistics service providers to monitor their shipments. The rules of the game are changing in the global shipping and logistics industry. CargoSmart s innovative methods offer insights for the industry to manage their shipments. CargoSmart s monthly, complimentary Innovating newsletter delivers refreshing insights for you to make intelligent decisions for your supply chain. CONTENTS Qatar-Gulf Crisis Continues: Middle East Ports 2 Carrier Reliability Report 6 World Incidents: Hurricane Harvey 8 Contact 9 Kim Le Executive Editor 217 CargoSmart Limited. All rights reserved. 1

2 QATAR-GULF CRISIS: CONTINUED STUDY OF THE IMPACT ON MAJOR MIDDLE EAST PORTS On, 217, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, and Egypt cut diplomatic, trade, and transportation ties with Qatar. Air, sea, and land border connections were cut off, blocking vessels coming from and going to Qatar from the four countries. In the issue of CargoSmart s Innovating, we reviewed the initial impact the Qatar-Gulf crisis had on vessel performance in the region. We found that as carriers made changes to the routings and types of ships visiting the Middle East ports, the performance fluctuated at each of the terminals. As of early September, the trade embargoes are still in effect. In this issue, CargoSmart s Global Vessel Voyage Monitoring Center (GVVMC) continued to study the performance of three countries ports involved in the crisis-qatar, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates. We also reviewed the performance at the terminal level at each of the ports. We analyzed 22 ocean carriers data from 1, 217 to 31, 217 in the following aspects: Number and size of berthed vessels Average vessel berth times Average vessel arrival delays Average vessel departure delays Vessel Arrival Count Dropped in at Each Port First, we reviewed the number of vessels arriving at the three countries from 1 to 31, 217 as shown in Figure 1. One might expect that Qatar, the country being cut off by other Middle East countries, would have fewer visiting vessels. However, the trend in the number of vessel visits over the six months was similar among the three countries. Qatar experienced an increasing trend as the number of vessel arrivals went up over the last three months. The vessel count more than doubled from 29 vessels in to 69 vessels in. Saudi Arabia s vessel count trend was similar to Qatar. The vessel count stayed around 27 from to and then jumped to 313 in. Again, the arriving vessels gradually increased over the past three months: 26 in, 276 in, and reached 313 in. United Arab Emirates also had a similar trend. Its ports vessel count varied from 867 to 884 from to, and then dropped to 72 in. However, like Qatar and Saudi Arabia, the visiting vessels increased over the last three months, from 72 to Vessel Arrival Count in Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and United Arab Emirates from to 217 Qatar Saudi Arabia United Arab Emirates Figure 1: Vessel arrival count at the ports of Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and United Arab Emirates from to 217 Jebel Ali Had the Most Vessel Arrivals Next, we reviewed the number of vessels arriving at each terminal in the three countries from 1 to 31, 217 as shown in Figure 2. Qatar has only one terminal, Hamad Port, so the trend was the same as in Figure 1. Saudi Arabia has six container terminals. Southern Container had an increasing trend of vessel arrivals, from 4 in to 6 in. International Ports Services and Jubail Commercial Port maintained a steady vessel arrival count per month across the sample period. Saudi Global Ports had 8-12 vessel arrivals each month in the sample period. Northern Container, the biggest terminal, also had an increasing trend of vessel arrivals over the six months. Red Sea Gateway, on the other hand, had a decreasing trend, dropping from 6 vessel arrivals in to 43 in. In United Arab Emirates, Khalifa Port Container and Sharjah Container had a steady number of vessel arrivals over the past six months. What led to the overall decrease from to was the decreasing vessel arrivals at the largest terminal among the ports, DP World Jebel Ali Container, and the Khorfakan Container. Jebel Ali had a big drop from 632 in to 36 in and the Khorfakan decreased from 92 in to 8 in. 217 CargoSmart Limited. All rights reserved. 2

3 Vessel Arrival Count at the Level in Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and United Arab Emirates from to 217 Hamad Port International Ports Services Jubail Commercial Port Northern Container Red Sea Gateway Figure 2: Vessel arrival count at the terminals of the ports of Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and United Arab Emirates from to 217 Mega Vessel Visits Increased in Saudi Global Ports Southern Container DP World Jebel Ali Container Khalifa Port Container (KPCT) Khorfakkan Container Qatar Saudi Arabia United Arab Emirates Sharjah Container In addition to the vessel arrival count, we checked the changes in vessel sizes going to the three countries. As shown in Figure 3, vessels with a capacity of <4, TEUs were the majority of vessels berthing at Qatar, and only 22 vessels with a capacity of 7, - 9,999 TEUs between and. In Saudi Arabia, the number of vessels with a capacity of <4, TEUs dropped from around in,, and to only 71-1 in and, and then the number jumped to 111 in. The number of vessels with a capacity of 4,-6,999 TEUs also dropped about 3% from 73 in to 2 in. Again, the number went back up and reached 73 in. However, for the number of vessels with a capacity of 1, TEUs, it greatly increased from 4 in to 71 in. This shows a shift in vessel sizes from a capacity of <4, TEUs and 4,-6,999 TEUs to 1, TEUs for container terminals in Saudi Arabia. In United Arab Emirates, the number of vessels with a capacity of <4, TEUs had a similar pattern to Saudi Arabia, but to a greater degree. The number of vessels with a capacity of <4, TEUs in,, and were as high as 66 to 64, but then dropped 3% month by month to 1 in, 17 in, and 48 in. 4,-6,999 TEU vessels increased from 132 in to 173 in, while 7,-9,999 TEU vessels decreased from 72 in to 48 in. The number of vessels with a capacity of 1, TEUs increased from 4 in to 76 in. This reveals that the shifting trend to larger vessels also occurred in United Arab Emirates. Vessel Count Vessel Size Distribution in Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and United Arab Emirates from to 217 <4, 4,-6,999 7,-9,999 1, <4, 4,-6,999 Figure 3: Vessel size distribution by TEU capacity at the ports of Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and United Arab Emirates from to 217 Average Berth Times Varied at the s The average berth times at Hamad Port in Qatar ranged from 14.1 hours in to 21 hours in. The terminals in Saudi Arabia had varying performance. As shown in Figure 4, International Ports Services and Saudi Global Ports had a rising trend from to. International Port Services had an increasing trend from to, from 2.2 hours to 2.7 hours. Meanwhile Saudi Global Ports had the same situation with the average berth hours increasing from 22 hours in to 3.4 hours in. Then the two terminals had different stories as the average berth hours in International Port Services increased again from 22 hours in to 31 hours in, while the berth hours at Saudi Global Ports fluctuated in the following three months. For United Arab Emirates, the average berth times at the DP World Jebel Ali Container remained steady between 22.4 to 27.4 hours. The Khalifa Port Container (KPCT) also performed steadily in the average berth times, ranging between 13 and 1 hours. For average berth times at the Khorfakkan Container, it had an improving performance of around 4% from 2.4 hours in, to 11.8 hours in, and to 12.7 hours in, with the exception of 23.6 hours in. Sharjah Container had a large increase in of nearly doubled of its average berth time, up to 3.4 hours in. Its average berth time was around 1. hours from to. 7,-9,999 Qatar Saudi Arabia United Arab Emirates 1, <4, 4,-6,999 7,-9,999 1, 217 CargoSmart Limited. All rights reserved. 3

4 Hours Average Vessel Berth Times in Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and United Arab Emirates from to 217 Hamad Port Qatar International Ports Services Jubail Commercial Port Northern Container Red Sea Gateway Saudi Arabia Saudi Global Ports Figure 4: Average vessel berth times at the ports of Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and United Arab Emirates from to 217 Hamad Port Had the Longest Vessel Arrival and Departure Delays Among the s in and To have a deeper understanding of the performance of each terminal in each port, we analyzed the average vessel arrival and departure delays. As shown in Figure and Figure 6, Hamad Port in Qatar had an average arrival delay that surged from 16 hours in to 39.6 hours in and its average departure delay also increased from 9.4 hours in to 27.7 hours in. In Saudi Arabia, the average arrival and departure delays of International Ports Services, Jubail Commercial Port, Northern Container, and Saudi Global Ports were similar. The terminals had longer arrival and departure delays from to, and then the delay hours decreased in, and the delay hours went back up again in. Southern Container offered the steadiest performance in terms of the vessel delay hours among the terminals in Saudi Arabia. Its average arrival delays remained between 11 and 2 hours and its average departure delays were between 13 and 27 hours over the past six months. Overall, the average arrival delays ranged from to 37 hours and the departure delays ranged from 1. to 1.3 hours over the past six months. For average arrival delays in United Arab Emirates, DP World Jebel Ali Container had a slight increase from 16.4 hours in to 2.9 hours in and then improved to around 18 hours from to. The departure delays had a similar pattern. Khalifa Port Container had worsening performance from 1.4 hours in to 2. and 22.7 hours in and respectively. On the other hand, Khorfakkan Container decreased its average arrival delay from 21.9 hours in to 1.7 hours in, while Southern Container DP World Jebel Ali Container Khalifa Port Container (KPCT) Khorfakkan Container United Arab Emirates Sharjah Container Sharjah Container improved in a greater degree, dropping from 3.2 hours in to 8 hours in. For average departure delays in United Arab Emirates, DP World Jebel Ali Container and Khalifa Port Container had similar patterns in average arrival delays from to. Jebel Ali had a worsening performance from 18.7 hours in to 24.6 hours in. Khalifa Port Container had worsening performance from 1.9 hours in 18.3 hours in. Jebel Ali had improved performance in the following three months from 17.6 to 2.1 hours, while the departure delays at the Khalifa Port Container had an increasing trend with average delays longer than 23 hours in and. Khorfakkan Container had a similar performance on average departure delays when comparing with its average arrival delay since the figure overall decreased from 18.3 hours in to 13.9 hours in. Sharjah Container improved from 22.2 hours in to only 9.3 hours in. Hours Average Vessel Arrival Delays in Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and United Arab Emirates from to 217 Hamad Port Qatar International Ports Services Jubail Commercial Port Northern Container Red Sea Gateway Saudi Arabia Saudi Global Ports Figure : Average vessel arrival delays at the ports of Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and United Arab Emirates from to 217 Hours Hamad Port Qatar International Ports Services Jubail Commercial Port Northern Container Red Sea Gateway Saudi Arabia Saudi Global Ports Southern Container DP World Jebel Ali Container Khalifa Port Container (KPCT) Khorfakkan Container United Arab Emirates Average Vessel Departure Delays in Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and United Arab Emirates from to 217 Sharjah Container Figure 6: Average vessel departure delays at the ports of Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and United Arab Emirates from to 217 Southern Container DP World Jebel Ali Container Khalifa Port Container (KPCT) Khorfakkan Container United Arab Emirates Sharjah Container 217 CargoSmart Limited. All rights reserved. 4

5 Qatar-Gulf Crisis, Ramadan, and Peak Season Possible Factors Influencing Performance Overall, we found that the number of vessel arrivals dropped in and then started to increase in and, the number of mega vessels visiting Saudi Arabia and United Arab Emirates increased in, and that Hamad Port in Qatar had the longest vessel arrival and departure delays among the terminals in and. While the performance at the ports varied before and after the Qatar-Gulf crisis, it is not easy to identify if the crisis had a direct impact on the performance. The crisis started in early, overlapping with Ramadan from 26 to 24, and was followed by the start of peak season for vessels transiting between Asia and Europe in late summer. Several factors may have influenced port and terminal performance. The GVVMC shares statistics on port performance so that you can better plan your shipments to select schedules and routings to avoid delays. The statistics reflect the general situation in the past. The future performance of the vessels and ports will depend on the actual situation that could be affected by weather, vessel delays, and other factors. 217 CargoSmart Limited. All rights reserved.

6 SCHEDULE RELIABILITY DECREASED TO 68.8% IN AUGUST 217 CargoSmart analyzes schedule reliability each month to provide shippers and logistics service providers with insights about their ocean carriers performance. This month, we reviewed the schedule reliability of 24 ocean carriers across 12 trade lanes. Overall, on-time schedule reliability decreased by 1.1%, from 69.9% in 217 to 68.8% in 217. Regarding schedule reliability by trade, half of the 12 trades declined from 217 to 217. The Europe-Oceania trade experienced the largest decrement in reliability, decreasing by 4.4%, from 79.1% in 217 to 33.7% in 217. The trans-atlantic trade experienced the largest improvement in reliability, increasing by 11.% from 61.7% in 217 to 72.7% in 217. The North America-Oceania trade continued to have the highest reliability with 9.9% in 217. Details are shown in Figure 1. Monthly Schedule Reliability by Trade % 1% 2% 3% 4% % 6% 7% 8% 9% 1% From the vessel discharging region perspective, as shown in Figure 2, the Oceania region experienced the largest decrement in reliability, decreasing by 13.7%, from 86.6% in 217 to 72.9% in 217. While the Oceania region ranked the highest in the previous three months, the reliability in was impacted by severe winter storms. The South Asia region had the highest reliability with 79.8% in 217. Africa had the lowest reliability of 31.2% in 217. South Asia North America Oceania Europe Middle East Asia South America Africa Monthly Schedule Reliability by Port of Discharge Region % 1% 2% 3% 4% % 6% 7% 8% 9% 1% 4.% 31.2% 72.9% 79.8% 76.% 74.6% 86.6% 72.9% 61.8% 69.2% 73.% 68.4% 7.4% 67.1% 6.6% 66.% North America-Oceania Trans-Pacific Intra Asia Trans-Atlantic Asia-Oceania Asia-Middle East Asia-Europe Asia-South America Europe-Middle East Europe-South America Asia-Africa Europe-Oceania 86.6% 9.9% 79.1% 74.4% 71.% 73.1% 61.7% 72.7% 79.6% 7.3% 72.7% 69.2% 64.1% 6.8% 66.1% 63.3% 9.6% 62.2% 9.% 6.1%.6% 43.2% 79.1% 33.7% Figure 2: Monthly schedule reliability by port of discharge region from 1 to 31, of the 24 carriers experienced varying degrees of declining schedule reliability from 217 to 217. As shown in Figure 3, the top five most reliable carriers in 217 were MCC, CCNI, OOCL, Evergreen, and Wan Hai with an average on-time performance of 82.4%, 79.%, 78.2%, 76.2%, and 74.6% respectively. Figure 1: Monthly schedule reliability by trade from 1 to 31, CargoSmart Limited. All rights reserved.

7 Monthly Schedule Reliability by Carrier % 1% 2% 3% 4% % 6% 7% 8% 9% 1% MCC 8.3% 82.4% CCNI 79.% 89.6% OOCL Evergreen Wan Hai COSCO SHIPPING Lines CMA CGM ANL Container Line Hyundai Maersk Line CNC Line Hamburg Sud APL PIL Alianca Hapag-Lloyd MOL K Line Yang Ming ZIM NYK UASC Safmarine 79.% 78.2% 77.6% 76.2% 7.6% 74.6% 74.4% 73.% 76.1% 73.% 7.4% 72.4% 67.8% 72.2% 68.9% 71.8% 72.4% 7.6% 66.% 68.9% 71.6% 68.% 69.% 66.8% 6.% 64.3% 67.% 64.2% 66.6% 63.8% 64.9% 63.4% 64.7% 63.2% 63.4% 63.1% 6.4% 62.4% 62.% 61.2% 6.2% 61.% MSC 43.6% 46.1% Figure 3: Monthly schedule reliability by carrier from 1 to 31, 217 Methodology: CargoSmart provides schedule reliability information for up to 24 leading ocean carriers, covering over 19, vessel schedules, over 7 services, 76 major container ports, and over 1,4 port pairs around the world each month. The schedule reliability is determined by comparing the estimated time of arrival (ETA) and actual time of arrival (ATA) at the discharging port. A vessel s ETA at the port of discharge (POD) is initially captured from the carrier when the vessel departs from the port of loading (POL). If the ATA is within plus or minus 24 hours of the ETA, then the vessel is considered to be on time. Reliability is calculated by dividing the number of on-time vessel arrivals by the total number of vessel arrivals within the measurement period. Would you like to review the carrier performance of your specific shipment routes? Subscribe to Big Schedules Analytics today to improve your shipment planning. Learn more CargoSmart Limited. All rights reserved.

8 INCIDENTS AROUND THE WORLD Vessel casualties, port strikes, facility shutdowns, and extreme weather can all affect vessel schedules and potentially delay shipments. In this column, we cover incidents around the world that caught our attention during the previous month and their impact on shipment delays. Vessels Ports MERCOSUL MANAUS, a steam pipe burst and one crew member was injured, Santos, Brazil MERCOSUL SANTOS, collided with a tug pushing several barges, Amazon River, Para, Brazil NEDERLAND REEFER, one crew was injured on board, River Fal, Falmouth, UK KOTA GANTENG, collided with tanker GLOBAL APOLLON that spilled palm oil, Hong Kong SHANSI, captain was arrested for being drunk, Marsden Point, New Zealand HARBOUR BRIDGE, chemicals leaked from a tank on board, Long Beach, US VISION, had a fire in the engine room, Rhine River, Netherlands LOG-IN PANTANAL, containers fell overboard, Santos, Brazil CSCL VANCOUVER, had a fire on board, East China Sea off Shanghai, China CSCL JUPITER, ran aground near port of Antwerp, Belgium MAERSK PEMBROKE, had a fire on board, near Lizard Point, UK MAYSSAN, experienced engine trouble in Strait of Hormuz, UAE MSC BRIANNA, allided by tanker ERATO, Keratsini Harbor, Piraeus, Greece MONA, sank at Port Khalid, UAE DELPHIS BOTHNIA, allided with the wall of the southern lock in the Kiel Canal Week-long port strike in Jakarta International Container, Indonesia Hong Kong port closed due to tropical Storm Hato Sea ports along Texas coast shutdown due to Hurricane Harvey, US Heavy rains and flooding closed Mumbai ports, India Hurricane Harvey: Port Closures in Texas, US Hurricane Harvey caused massive destruction with strong winds, heavy rainfall, and flooding in Texas in late. Cites lost access to electricity and transportation infrastructure, including flooded highways and railroads. Port authorities closed all Texas ports on 2 to prepare for the hit. The largest port in the affected area, Houston, stopped accepting container vessels on 24 and suspended its port operations until September 1. We observed that 18 vessels skipped Houston during the adverse weather period and four vessels waited nearby for the port to open. While container operations within the port quickly returned to normal, many cargo destination districts were still recovering and delays in delivery were unavoidable. Port of Houston Duration: 1 September 12, 217 Vessel Arrivals: 8 Average Berth Time: 26.2 Hours Longest Berth Time: 46. Hours Average Berth Times (Hours) Port of Houston Vessel Arrival Count and Average Vessel Berth Times ( 1 September 12, 217) 1-Aug 2-Aug 3-Aug 4-Aug -Aug 6-Aug 7-Aug 8-Aug 9-Aug 1-Aug 11-Aug 12-Aug 13-Aug 14-Aug 1-Aug 16-Aug 17-Aug 18-Aug 19-Aug 2-Aug 21-Aug 22-Aug 23-Aug 24-Aug 2-Aug 26-Aug 27-Aug 28-Aug 29-Aug 3-Aug 31-Aug 1-Sep 2-Sep 3-Sep 4-Sep -Sep 6-Sep 7-Sep 8-Sep 9-Sep 1-Sep 11-Sep 12-Sep Average Berth Times (Hours) Vessel Arrival Count Vessel Arrival Count CargoSmart Limited. All rights reserved.

9 Gain Actionable Insights from Big Data Big Schedules Analytics is a new feature in Big Schedules that provides an interactive dashboard to measure and analyze carrier performance and gain market intelligence for better decision making. You can set up port pairs to compare their performance based on your business needs. The powerful analytics include: On-Time Reliability Transit Time Reliability Vessel Waiting Time Analysis Subscribe to Big Schedules Analytics today at to improve your shipment planning! DATA METHODOLOGY CargoSmart established the Global Vessel Voyage Monitoring Center (GVVMC) to detect and analyze exceptions as they are happening so that shippers, forwarders, and NVOCCs can be informed earlier. Opened in Hong Kong in October 212, the GVVMC monitors and analyzes 7, vessels' movements covering 9% of the world's container capacity and over 1,1 global container ports. Using advanced analytical software tools, the center analyzes vessel patterns, to detect deviations that have the potential to cause shipment-plan exceptions and monitor live vessel schedules to measure carriers reliability. The GVVMC obtains data from the Automatic Identification System (AIS), ocean carrier websites, marine terminals, and shipment data. The center ensures high data quality by observing and reconciling multiple data sources. VISIBILITY BLOG - JOIN THE DISCUSSION Follow updates and share your insights about vessel delays on CargoSmart's blog at visibility.cargosmart.com/blog. To receive the monthly Innovating newsletter for the shipping industry by , please subscribe at We value your feedback and want to continue to improve our service and information that we provide to you. To provide feedback or ask questions, please contact us at innovating@cargosmart.com. China Germany Hong Kong United States CargoSmart Limited. All rights reserved. 9