Trending Now

US Intermodal Gains Momentum Amid Trucking Challenges

New Articles

PORT OF VIRGINIA ENHANCES GLOBAL CONNECTIVITY—FOR ST. LOUIS

port of virginia
Archives, Global Logistics, Ocean Ports

PORT OF VIRGINIA ENHANCES GLOBAL CONNECTIVITY—FOR ST. LOUIS

Leave a comment

As the fifth busiest container port in the U.S., the Port of Virginia obviously provides a financial boost for Virginians—but also Missourians as well.

You see, the Port of Virginia is one of the St. Louis region’s primary gateways to the world. Dedicated rail service provided by two Class I railroads–Norfolk Southern and CSX–connect the St. Louis region to the East Coast port, where more than $900 million has been invested within the past three years. 

That investment has doubled the Port of Virginia’s capacity and increased efficiencies for getting freight on and off both rail and ocean carriers. That translates into time and cost savings for importers and exporters in the St. Louis region who utilize the Port of Virginia and its ocean carrier services for global connectivity. 

“We have 30 weekly services with our ocean carrier customers, and that gives shippers in the St. Louis community or any of our inland connections a lot of options,” explains Aaron Katrancha, director of Breakbulk, Ro-Ro & Rail Sales for the Port of Virginia. “You can get basically anywhere in the world from the Port of Virginia—Asia, Africa, Caribbean, Central America, Europe, India, subcontinent, Middle East, Mediterranean, South America, you name it. We have those global connections to offer the St Louis market.” 

Katrancha likens the rail connections between the intermodal yards of the St. Louis region and the Port of Virginia to commercial airline service.  “Our rail services run on a very concrete schedule that our customers can set their watches to,” he boasts.  

Bi-State Development, which operates the St. Louis Regional Freightway, has taken the lead in ensuring local shippers are aware of the scheduled rail services and the benefits they offer, Katrancha explained in a talk at May’s FreightWeekSTL 2021 with Mary Lamie, executive vice president of Multi Modal Enterprises at Bi-State Development.

“Everything that Aaron has shared today,” Lamie said, “reinforces the global significance of the Port of Virginia and opportunities for growth between our two regions.” 

anticircumvention
Archives, Global Trade Daily, News

U.S. Domestic Industry Files Anti-Circumvention Cases Against Three Countries Regarding Crystalline Silicon Photovoltaic Cells

Leave a comment

The Petitioners representing the U.S. domestic industry filed new petitions with the U.S. Department of Commerce (“Commerce”) against imports from three countries, Thailand, Vietnam, and Malaysia, alleging that certain Chinese producers are diverting Chinese-origin components through Thailand to undergo minor processing to complete Crystalline Silicon Photovoltaic (“CSPV”) cells and modules subject to the Orders and subsequently to export the merchandise to the United States to avoid AD/CVD duties. The companies that were named in the circumvention submissions were:

Thailand

1. Canadian Solar Manufacturing (Thailand) Co., Ltd. (“Canadian Solar Thailand”), a subsidiary of Canadian Solar Inc. (“Canadian Solar”);

2. Trina Solar Science & Technology (Thailand) Co., Ltd. (“Trina Solar Thailand”), a subsidiary of Trina Solar Co., Ltd;

3. Talesun Solar Technologies Thailand or Talesun Technologies (Thailand) Co., Ltd.; and

4. Astroenergy Solar Thailand Co., Ltd (“Astroenergy Thailand”).

Vietnam

1. Trina Solar (Vietnam) Science & Technology Co., Ltd. (“Trina Solar Vietnam”);

2. Canadian Solar Manufacturing (Vietnam) Co., Ltd. (“Canadian Solar Vietnam”);

3. China Sunergy Co., Ltd. in Vietnam (“CSUN Vietnam”);

4. Boviet Solar Technology (Vietnam) Co., Ltd. or Boviet Solar Technology Co., Ltd. (“Boviet Solar”);

5. GCL System Integration Technology (Vietnam) Co. Ltd. (“GCL-Si Vietnam”);

6. Vina Cell Technology Company Limited and Vina Solar Technology Company Limited; and

7. Jinko Solar (Vietnam) Co., Ltd.

Malaysia

1. Jinko Solar Technology Sdn. Bhd. (“Jinko Solar Malaysia”);

2. LONGi (Kuching) Sdn. Bhd.; and

3. JA Solar (Malaysia) Co., Ltd. or JA Solar Malaysia Sdn. Bhd.

While the requests are hundreds of pages in length, the gist of the allegations against each country is that the operations being performed in each of these countries are minor or insignificant, and the products being exported from each of the three countries are subject to the antidumping and countervailing duty order on CSPV cells and modules from China.

Within 45 days of the filing (which was August 16, 2021) the rules of Commerce require it to either make a final determination or initiate a full investigation. The 45-day deadline is September 30, 2021. It is very likely that Commerce will conduct a full review of these circumvention allegations, in light of their complexity and seriousness.

Of great importance to importers here is that if there is a final determination that there has been circumvention, the entries on or after the date of the initiation of the scope inquiry will be subject to Chinese rates. Thus, for imports made no later than September 30, 2021, importers could find themselves subject to the high Chinese rates. At the moment, it is very difficult for importers to know the likelihood of whether those Chinese rates will be applied, because the preliminary and final determinations of Commerce are still several months away.

The final determination in an anticircumvention ruling is to be issued normally within 300 days from the date of initiation, according to the Commerce rules. Before that time Commerce will issue a preliminary determination and at that time importers will have a better idea of the likelihood that duties will be applied to those products allegedly circumventing the order.

_________________________________________________________________________

Jeffrey Neeley is a Washington-based partner with the law firm Husch Blackwell. He leads the firm’s International Trade Remedies team.

Cortney O’Toole Morgan is a Washington D.C.-based partner with the law firm Husch Blackwell. She leads the firm’s International Trade & Supply Chain group.

plywood
Archives, Global Trade Daily, News

American Plywood Imports Peak Near $3B

Leave a comment

IndexBox has just published a new report: ‘U.S. – Plywood – Market Analysis, Forecast, Size, Trends and Insights’. Here is a summary of the report’s key findings.

In 2020, American plywood imports grew by +15% y-o-y to 5.4M or by +7.7% to $2.9B in value terms, reaching a record level over the past decade. Viet Nam, Brazil and Canada constitute the major plywood suppliers to the U.S., with a combined 41%-share of the total imports. Last year, Cambodia, Indonesia, Brazil, Viet Nam, Chile, Canada and Russia saw the most rapid increases in plywood exports to the U.S. In 2020, the average plywood import price in America dropped by -6.7% against the figures of 2019.

Plywood Imports into the U.S.

Plywood imports into the U.S. skyrocketed to 5.4M cubic meters in 2020, with an increase of +15% against 2019 figures. In value terms, plywood imports rose by +7.7% significantly to $2.9B (IndexBox estimates) in 2020.

Viet Nam (779K cubic meters), Brazil (766K cubic meters) and Canada (697K cubic meters) were the main suppliers of plywood imports to the U.S., with a combined 41% share of total imports. China, Indonesia, Chile, Russia and Cambodia lagged somewhat behind, together accounting for a further 42%.

In 2020, the most notable growth rate in terms of purchases, amongst the main suppliers, was attained by Cambodia (39.7% y-o-y), Indonesia (+36.6% y-o-y), Brazil (+36.5% y-o-y), Viet Nam (+24.4% y-o-y), Chile (+18.5% y-o-y), Canada (+14.4% y-o-y) and Russia (+7.8% y-o-y).

In value terms, Viet Nam ($424M), China ($363M) and Indonesia ($351M) constituted the largest plywood suppliers to the U.S., together comprising 39% of total imports. Canada, Brazil, Chile, Russia and Cambodia lagged somewhat behind, together accounting for a further 44%.

The average plywood import price stood at $542 per cubic meter in 2020, falling by -6.7% against the previous year. Prices varied noticeably by the country of origin; the country with the highest price was Indonesia ($695 per cubic meter), while the price for Chile ($420 per cubic meter) was amongst the lowest. In 2020, the most notable rate of growth in terms of prices was attained by China, while the prices for the other major suppliers experienced a decline.

Source: IndexBox Platform

data
3pls, Archives, Global Logistics, Global Trade Daily

THE SOLUTION TO MITIGATING RISKS FOR TODAY’S 3PL COMES DOWN TO DATA

Leave a comment

Gaps in operations are not biased. Whether you are a warehouse manager navigating scheduling oversights or a fleet manager solving the next best approach to reducing costs, gaps in operations within the global logistics arena are inevitable. The real concern is how the modern-day 3PL provider can successfully mitigate risks while minimizing common gaps before they become a critical problem. 

Until one can jump to the list of solutions ranging from technology applications to hybrid work models, the most common (and possibly least talked about) gaps must be identified. Taking it a step further, 3PL providers should have a solid understanding of the why behind the what. In other words, they should ask themselves: Why are these gaps present within our operations and can they be resolved? Are these gaps common within the industry or are they unique to my company?

“One of the bigger gaps in the industry is the availability of timely and accurate data back to the shippers and to the community,” states Jason Carl, vice president of 4PL Solutions at BridgeNet Solutions. “3PLs are sitting on a wealth of data and information, and the ability to harness that effectively has always been a gap from my perspective. Delivering standardized timely information and data makes all the difference for a shipper in today’s environment.”

Carl has more than 15 years of experience in the logistics arena, ranging from ocean exports to operations. He originally started his career with Evergreen Line before moving on to BDP International for 13 years, managing operations for several multinational clients. He moved to BridgeNet two years ago to head the 4PL product.

BridgeNet Solutions, a wholly-owned subsidiary of BDP, provides sourcing, outsource sourcing procurement and managed transportation services focusing primarily on data analytics for more effective supply chain management.

BridgeNet’s cloud-based data solution, Xonar, is the company’s analytics and execution platform based on a foundation of accurate data collection combined with a robust analytics layer. Xonar enables BridgeNet to effectively collect and share critical information from shipper ERP systems, 3PL providers and freight payment companies. Carl cites this solution and the above capabilities as a game-changer for the company among competitors.

“Oftentimes what you find is that providers offering these solutions could be largely just software as a service or a technology company,” he explains. “At BridgeNet, we extend both the technology and the execution components to our customers, ensuring they can rely on an excellent integration hub paired with customizable technology based on the customer’s needs. We also offer a network of control tower operations based in Asia, Europe and the Americas to oversee that and to orchestrate the flow of information that’s moving through Xonar on a day-to-day basis.”

To be successful at identifying and eliminating common gaps in processes, the provider must consider the quality of the information coming in and going out. It is critical the provider understands where this information could be compromised–or even worse, completely missed. 

“3PLs need to understand the why,” Carl says. “Not just at the strategic level but also down to the desk level. It enables better decision-making on a day-to-day basis that really benefits shippers in ways that are often overlooked. The quality of the data can be a game-changer for planning processes and for decision-making overall. There is an increased recognition of that at least in the conversations I’m having.”

Beyond closing gaps in operations and day-to-day processes, Carl emphasizes the importance of looking at the big picture rather than just the result, citing innovative technology as a distraction for what is really going on layers deep within a data solution. 

“If the underlying data is not high quality, not standardized, not tightly controlled, then it’s not going to yield the results that providers want to achieve from that piece of technology. The value of that underlying information cannot be discounted. Before you go on the tech journey, providers should focus on the information that is going to fuel operations. This is where 4PLs can step in.”

As for the role of the 4PL provider, they are part of the bigger picture of where your data is coming from and what it all means. Data translation is equally as important as data collection. If a provider cannot identify the value from the data, the role of analytics becomes a moot point. That’s why Carl emphasizes the need to look and think outside of the box for solutions that are not only more cost-effective but add significant value to client needs. 

“4PLs can act as a translator or the intermediary to help provide data-driven insights to shippers by standardizing information from a multitude of 3PLs and then translate shipper’s needs and strategies for actionable change from the 3PL,” he says. “This bridge between the two entities can be a great help but it is not always the right fit for every shipper or for every supply chain. There are many situations where, now more than ever, a 4PL provider can provide a lot of value and support for 3PL operations and processes.”

Whether it is a pandemic or random disruption (think Suez Canal), the conversation of eliminating gaps in operations would be incomplete without addressing how the logistics industry has shifted looking back at the last year and a half. Buzzwords such as “agile” and “adaptable” might very well be accurate, but in what ways are 3PL providers being challenged to maximize their position in a competitive market? Carl points to letting go of the past as many companies still utilize lessons learned to affirm the success of the future.

“Gone are the days where the 3PL can rest on proverbial laurels and be complacent based on past success and relationships,” he warns. “The past 18 months have proven this. The existing network that 3PLs may have been operating for a customer for many years may no longer be sufficient in 2021. The needs are going to change, and it’s important that 3PLs are responding effectively to compete and be good partners for the shipping community.”

________________________________________________________________

Jason Carl is vice president of 4PL Solutions at BridgeNet, a BDP International company, where he oversees the development, performance and operations of the 4PL product and global control tower teams. He has more than 15 years’ experience helping customers improve and optimize complex supply chains through technology and process optimization. Carl holds an undergraduate degree in Economics from Austin College in Sherman, Texas, and an MBA in Strategy from Temple University’s Fox School of Business. He can be reached at jcarl@bridgenetsolutions.com. 

telecommunications
Archives, Global Trade Daily, News

U.S. Government Imposes Sanctions and Issues Joint OFAC/BIS Telecommunications Fact Sheet to Support Cuban Protests

Leave a comment

During the past month, the U.S. Department of Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (“OFAC”) has issued three separate rounds of Specially Designated Nationals & Blocked Persons List (“SDN List”) designations in order to support protests in Cuba that began on July 11th. Further, OFAC and the U.S. Department of Commerce’s Bureau of Industry and Security (“BIS”) issued a joint fact sheet describing existing OFAC general licenses (“GLs”) and BIS license exceptions that facilitate certain telecommunications equipment, software, and services exports to Cuba without prior approval by the U.S. government.

SDN Designations

Using its authority under the Global Magnitsky Act, OFAC added a total of five Cuban government officials and three Cuban government entities to the SDN List on July 22nd, July 30th, and August 13th. All property and interests in property of these SDNs that are or come within the U.S. or the possession or control of U.S. persons are blocked as of the below effective dates, and U.S. persons are generally prohibited from engaging in transactions involving such SDNs unless authorized by OFAC.

Entities:

-Brigada Especial Nacional del Ministerio del Interior (“SNB”) – Also known as the Boinas Negras or Black Berets, the SNB is a special forces unit under the Cuban Ministry of the Interior – Blocked July 22, 2021

-Policia Nacional Revolucionaria (“PNR”) – A police unit under the Cuban Ministry of the Interior – Blocked July 30, 2021

-Tropas de Prevencion (“TDP”) – Also known as the Boinas Rojas or Red Berets, the TDP is a military police unit of Cuba’s Revolutionary Armed Forces, which is commanded by Cuba’s Ministry of Revolutionary Armed Forces – Blocked August 13, 2021

Individuals:

-Lopez Miera, Alvaro – Minister of the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Cuba – Blocked July 22, 2021

-Callejas Valcarce, Oscar Alejandro – Director of the PNR – Blocked July 30, 2021

-Sierra Arias, Eddy Manuel – Deputy Director of the PNR – Blocked July 30, 2021

-Martinez Fernandez, Pedro Orlando – Chief of the Political Directorate of the PNR – Blocked August 13, 2021

-Sotomayor Garcia, Romarico Vidal – Chief of the Political Directorate of the Cuban Ministry of the Interior – Blocked August 13, 2021

OFAC’s “50% Ownership Rule” will also extend these blocking sanctions to any entities owned 50 percent or more, individually or in the aggregate, directly or indirectly, by one or more of these newly designated SDNs.

Joint Fact Sheet: “Supporting the Cuban People’s Right to Seek, Receive, and Impart Information through Safe and Secure Access to the Internet”

Cuba remains comprehensively sanctioned by the U.S. government and most transactions between the U.S. and Cuba remain prohibited. However, in a jointly issued fact sheet dated August 11th, 2021, OFAC and BIS outlined existing OFAC GLs and BIS license exceptions available to exporters of telecommunications equipment, software, and services to Cuba under the Cuba Assets Control Regulations (31 CFR § 515.101, et seq., the “CACR”) and the Export Administration Regulations (15 CFR § 730.1, et seq., the “EAR”). The fact sheet serves as a reminder that despite the embargo on Cuba, there are certain avenues for trade that the U.S. government allows without any prior review, so long as there is strict adherence to the CACR and the EAR.  OFAC GLs highlighted by the fact sheet include:

-Exportation or reexportation of services incident to the exchange of communications over the internet, and installation, repair, or replacement services for certain described items. See CACR §§ 515.578, 515.533.

-Exportation or reexportation of telecommunications-related services and related payments. See CACR § 515.542.

-Transactions necessary to maintain a physical presence undertaken by various enumerated types of organizations such as news bureaus, educational organizations, religious organizations, humanitarian organizations, telecommunications services providers, and internet-based services providers. See CACR § 515.573.

-Provision of internet-based distance learning. See CACR § 515.565.

-Exportation or reexportation of information and informational materials (including of a commercial nature) so long as certain requirements are met. See CACR §§ 515.206(a), 515.545.

BIS license exceptions highlighted by the fact sheet include:

-Consumer Communications Devices (“CCD”). Authorizing the export and reexport of certain items such as mobile phones and modems to individuals and independent non-governmental organizations in Cuba. See EAR § 740.19.

-Items in Support of the Cuban People (“SCP”). Authorizing the export and reexport of certain EAR99-designated items and of certain telecommunications infrastructure items. See EAR § 740.21.

Each of the above OFAC GLs and BIS license exceptions impose specific limitations, terms and conditions which must be complied with carefully. None of the above GLs or license exceptions would authorize a transaction involving an SDN or an entity controlled 50 percent or more by SDNs— specific licenses would be required under such circumstances. Additionally, depending on the specific facts and circumstances of a given activity, many of the above-listed OFAC GLs will prohibit direct financial transactions between persons subject to U.S. jurisdiction and persons listed on the U.S. State Department’s Cuba Restricted List.

The fact sheet also indicated that OFAC and BIS will provide favorable licensing treatment for activities benefiting the free flow of information to and from Cuba that are not otherwise authorized under the above-described OFAC GL’s and BIS license exceptions.  For OFAC’s licensing policy, the fact sheet states that “For prohibited transactions not otherwise authorized by OFAC general licenses, OFAC considers specific license requests on a case-by-case basis and will prioritize license applications, compliance questions, and other requests that may concern internet freedom in Cuba . . . OFAC has a favorable licensing posture towards specific license requests involving transactions that are ordinarily incident and necessary to ensure that the Cuban people have safe and secure access to the free flow of information on the internet.” Likewise, for BIS’s licensing policy, the fact sheet states that “A general policy of approval applies to [BIS] license applications for telecommunications items and internet-related items intended to improve communications to, from, and among the Cuban people (emphasis supplied).”

________________________________________________________________________

Cortney O’Toole Morgan is a Washington D.C.-based partner with the law firm Husch Blackwell. She leads the firm’s International Trade & Supply Chain group.

Grant Leach is an Omaha-based partner with the law firm Husch Blackwell focusing on international trade, export controls, trade sanctions and anti-corruption compliance.

Tony Busch is an attorney in Husch Blackwell’s Washington, D.C. office.

resin
Archives, Global Trade Daily, News

China Significantly Expands Epoxy Resin Imports

Leave a comment

IndexBox has just published a new report: ‘China – Epoxide Resins In Primary Forms – Market Analysis, Forecast, Size, Trends And Insights’. Here is a summary of the report’s key findings.

In 2020, imports of epoxide resins in primary forms into China jumped by +40% y-o-y to 405K tonnes, reaching $1.3B in value terms. Taiwan, South Korea, and the U.S. remain the key epoxy resin suppliers to China, with a combined 76%-share of the total imports. Thailand, the Netherlands, South Korea, the U.S., Taiwan, and Germany saw the highest spikes in exports to China. The average epoxy resin import price in China dropped by -10% y-o-y last year. 

Epoxide Resin Imports into China

In 2020, imports of epoxide resins in primary forms into China soared to 405K tonnes, picking up by +40% on the previous year’s figure. In value terms, epoxide resin imports surged by +26.1% y-o-y to $1.3B (IndexBox estimates) in 2020.

Taiwan (Chinese) (147K tonnes), South Korea (116K tonnes) and the U.S. (44K tonnes) were the main suppliers of epoxide resins to China, with a combined 76% share of total Chinese imports. These countries were followed by Germany, Thailand, Japan and the Netherlands, which together accounted for a further 19%.

In 2020, the most notable growth rate in terms of purchases, amongst the main suppliers, was attained by Thailand (+131% y-o-y), the Netherlands (+77% y-o-y), South Korea (+63% y-o-y), the U.S. (+41% y-o-y),Taiwan (+33% y-o-y) and Germany (+24% y-o-y). Imports from Japan reduced by -4% y-o-y during this period.

In value terms, Taiwan (Chinese) ($418M), South Korea ($283M) and the U.S. ($135M) appeared to be the largest epoxide resin suppliers to China, together comprising 67% of total imports. Japan, Germany, Thailand and the Netherlands lagged somewhat behind, together comprising a further 27%.

In 2020, the average epoxy resin import price amounted to $3,100 per tonne, waning by -10% against the previous year. Prices varied noticeably by the country of origin; the country with the highest price was Japan ($8,473 per tonne), while the price for the Netherlands ($2,353 per tonne) was amongst the lowest. In 2020, the most notable rate of growth in terms of prices was attained by Japan, while the prices for the other major suppliers experienced more modest pace of growth.

Source: IndexBox Platform

lentils
Archives, Global Trade Daily, News

Global Lentil Imports Soar to $1.7B

Leave a comment

IndexBox has just published a new report: ‘World – Lentils – Market Analysis, Forecast, Size, Trends and Insights’. Here is a summary of the report’s key findings.

Global lentil imports picked up by +25% y-o-y to $1.7B in 2020. India, Turkey and Pakistan remain the largest lentil importers worldwide, accounting for 37% of global import volume. Last year, Egypt, Turkey, Pakistan, Italy, Germany, India, Canada and the U.S. recorded the highest increases in the import volume of lentils. The average lentil import price rose by +19% y-o-y in 2020. Canada and Australia keep leading positions in global lentil exports. 

Global Lentil Imports by Country

In 2020, global imports of lentils stood at 2.9M tonnes, increasing by +4.9% against the previous year’s figure. In value terms, lentil imports skyrocketed +25.1% y-o-y to $1.7B (IndexBox estimates) in 2020.

India represented the major importing country with an import of about 1.1M tonnes, which resulted in 37% of total imports. Turkey (630K tonnes) held the second position in the ranking, distantly followed by Pakistan (194K tonnes) and Sri Lanka (178K tonnes). All these countries together held approx. 35% share of total imports. Canada (103K tonnes), Egypt (86K tonnes), the U.S. (72K tonnes), Italy (62K tonnes), Spain (59K tonnes) and Germany (43K tonnes) followed a long way behind the leaders.

In 2020, lentil imports in Egypt grew nearly twofold, while in Turkey, Pakistan, and Italy, the annual growth rate overcame the 50% figure; Germany and India also posted tangible double-digit growth.

In value terms, the largest lentil importers worldwide were India ($581M), Turkey ($312M) and Pakistan ($104M), with a combined 59% share of global imports.

In 2020, the average lentil import price amounted to $591 per tonne, growing by +19% against the previous year. There were significant differences in the average prices amongst the major importing countries. In 2020, the country with the highest price was Germany, while Turkey was amongst the lowest. In 2020, the most notable rate of growth in terms of prices was attained by Canada, while the other global leaders experienced more modest paces of growth.

Major Suppliers of Lentils

Canada was the key exporter of lentils in the world, with the volume of exports resulting at 3.1M tonnes, which was near 67% of total exports in 2020. It was distantly followed by Australia (661K tonnes), Turkey (406K tonnes) and the U.S. (329K tonnes), together making up a 30% share of total exports.

In value terms, Canada ($1.7B) remains the largest lentil supplier worldwide, comprising 63% of global exports. The second position in the ranking was occupied by Australia ($349M), with a 13% share of global exports. It was followed by Turkey, with a 12% share.

Source: IndexBox Platform

port tampa bay
Archives, Global Logistics, Global Trade Daily, Ocean Ports, Top Ports

BIG SHIP READY: COSCO Shipping is Among Container Lines that Call Port Tampa Bay

Leave a comment

Port Tampa Bay has emerged as Florida’s preferred new supply chain solution for containerized cargo. The incorporation of direct Asia container services and new connections to Mexico and Central America have significantly enhanced the port’s role in serving the state’s largest and fastest-growing market—the Tampa Bay/Orlando 1-4 Corridor, Florida’s distribution hub. 

The Central Florida region has boomed into one of the hottest industrial real estate markets in the country, becoming the state’s hub for distribution, logistics and manufacturing. As the “front door to the I-4,” Port Tampa Bay is well situated to help businesses capitalize on the growth of the region, which is driving demand for retail, e-commerce, food & beverage, energy products and construction & building materials. 

New tenant Celadon will soon break ground on a paper fiber manufacturing plant that aims to generate up to 80,000 TEUs/year for export to Asia. The port recently expanded terminal capacity with additional paved storage and extended berths to keep pace with continued growth. Part of the expansion includes additional cranes and equipment, and new trans-load warehouse facilities.

The Port recently welcomed CMA CGM, COSCO, Evergreen, OOCL, Maersk and Sealand to their family of container lines offering an array of new services, joining established carrier partners ZIM, MSC and Seatrade. 

Expanded connections serving trade with Mexico offer more efficient supply chain solutions versus the traditional costly and congested overland routes. Work Cat recently began offering a weekly Brownsville Texas-Port Tampa Bay container-on-barge services using 53-foot containers, which is especially attractive for customers used to receiving deliveries by truck from Monterrey and Northern Mexico. ZIM recently launched a weekly Altamira-Port Tampa Bay service, the Mexico Tampa Shuttle, with Kuehne and Nagel as partners on the new service, promoted as the Blue Marlin Express. Seatrade’s SeacatLine also increased the frequency of its Costa Rica service to weekly.

Importers and exporters in Florida’s distribution hub now enjoy significant savings as truckers make as many as three to four roundtrip deliveries per day from Port Tampa Bay to their distribution centers. Partners such as container terminal operator Ports America and cold storage specialist Port Logistics Refrigerated Services have made it possible for Port Tampa Bay to expand infrastructure and capacity to ensure it is well-positioned for continued growth.

wheat
Archives, Global Trade Daily, News

Durum’s Share in the European Wheat Imports Spikes

Leave a comment

IndexBox has just published a new report: ‘EU – Wheat – Market Analysis, Forecast, Size, Trends and Insights’. Here is a summary of the report’s key findings.

Imports of durum wheat in the EU surged by +25% y-o-y to 6.1M tonnes, reaching $1.7B in 2020. Over the last year, the share of durum supplies by volume in the total European wheat imports increased from 15.4% to 19.2%. Italy represents the largest importer of durum wheat in the EU. Belgium emerged as the fastest-growing European importer of durum wheat in 2020. The total imports of all types of wheat estimated at 32M tonnes or $7.4B in value terms.

European Imports of Durum Wheat

In 2020, imports of durum wheat in the EU surged to 6.1M tonnes, with an increase of +25% against the previous year’s figure. In value terms, durum wheat imports soared by +29.0% y-o-y to $1.7B in 2020. Over the last year, the share of the durum wheat supplies (by volume) in the total European wheat imports increased from 15.4% to 19.2%.

Italy represented the major importing country with an import of around 3.2M tonnes, which amounted to 51% of total imports. Belgium (866K tonnes) occupied the second position in the ranking, followed by Spain (498K tonnes) and Germany (372K tonnes). All these countries together occupied approx. 28% share of total imports. Poland (264K tonnes), the Netherlands (263K tonnes), Portugal (145K tonnes), Greece (103K tonnes) and Luxembourg (96K tonnes) followed a long way behind the leaders.

Imports into Italy in volume terms increased by +27.8% in 2020. Belgium (+163.7%), Poland (+105.5%), Portugal (+51.0%), Greece (+7.6%) and Luxembourg (+5.5%) displayed positive paces of growth. Moreover, Belgium emerged as the fastest-growing importer imported in the EUin 2020. By contrast, Germany (-3.7%), Spain (-8.3%) and the Netherlands (-30.5%) illustrated a downward trend over the same period.

In value terms, Italy ($950M) constitutes the largest market for imported durum wheat in the EU, comprising 55% of total imports. The second position in the ranking was occupied by Belgium ($200M), with a 12% share of total imports. It was followed by Spain, with a 7.7% share.

In 2020, the durum wheat import price in the EU amounted to $282 per tonne, increasing by 3.5% against the previous year. Average prices varied somewhat amongst the major importing countries. In 2020, major importing countries recorded the following prices: in Germany ($319 per tonne) and Luxembourg ($304 per tonne), while Poland ($214 per tonne) and Belgium ($230 per tonne) were amongst the lowest. In 2020, the most notable rate of growth in terms of prices was attained by Spain, while the other leaders experienced more modest paces of growth.

Total European Wheat Imports

In 2020, approx. 32M tonnes of wheat were imported in the EU; flattening at the previous year’s figure. In value terms, wheat imports rose by +2.2% y-o-y to $7.4B (IndexBox estimates) in 2020.

In 2020, Italy (8M tonnes), distantly followed by the Netherlands (4.4M tonnes), Spain (4.2M tonnes), Germany (4M tonnes) and Belgium (3.8M tonnes) were the largest importers of wheat, together comprising 77% of total imports. Romania (1.2M tonnes), Portugal (1.2M tonnes), Austria (1.2M tonnes), Greece (0.9M tonnes), Poland (0.9M tonnes) and Latvia (0.7M tonnes) followed a long way behind the leaders.

In value terms, Italy ($2B) constitutes the largest market for imported wheat in the EU, comprising 28% of total imports. The second position in the ranking was occupied by the Netherlands ($962M), with a 13% share of total imports. It was followed by Spain, with a 13% share.

The wheat import price in the EU stood at $233 per tonne in 2020, picking up by +2.9% against the previous year. Average prices varied somewhat amongst the major importing countries. In 2020, major importing countries recorded the following prices: in Italy ($256 per tonne) and Portugal ($243 per tonne), while Poland ($199 per tonne) and Austria ($207 per tonne) were amongst the lowest.

Source: IndexBox Platform

baton rouge
Archives, Global Logistics, Global Trade Daily, Ocean Ports

PROJECTING GOOD THINGS FOR THE PORT OF GREATER BATON ROUGE

Leave a comment

Despite a worldwide pandemic, three successful projects were completed at the Port of Greater Baton Rouge in 2020: a major expansion of shipping container storage capacity; delivery of a custom-made, deep-reach stacker for transloading containers into and out of barges; and the opening of a $22 million railcar chambering yard.

Last year, more than 16,000 containers moved through the Louisiana port, more than double the volume of 2017 when the service began. In the process, SEACOR AMH LLC transports empty containers from Memphis to the Port of Greater Baton Rouge via barge to be loaded with resin from area plants, and then moves the loaded barges downriver to the Port of New Orleans for international transport. 

This rapid increase in container volumes prompted the Port of Greater Baton Rouge to increase the size of its container storage facility. The $5 million expansion created nearly 4 acres of additional paved container storage capacity and gave the port the ability to store about 2,000 containers.

A 20% efficiency gain in its container operations was just one positive outcome of the port’s new, deep-reach container stacker known as The Big Red Beast. With its telescopic boom for stacking four containers high, shorter loading and unloading times have helped meet the increasing demand for container shipping services for area customers in the petrochemical industry sector, says Port Executive Director Jay Hardman. Financed almost 100% by a Maritime Administration grant, the one-of-a-kind Beast was designed and manufactured specifically for the port by Taylor Machine Works of Louisville, Mississippi.

The railcar chambering yard was completed in 2020 on port property south of the Intracoastal Waterway. The yard facilitates the storage of railcars and expedites the arrival and departure of unit trains of 80 or more railcars into and out of the port. The chambering yard currently facilitates delivery by rail of wood pellets to tenant Drax Biomass for export overseas. Grön Fuels, which recently announced plans to build a $9.2 billion renewable fuels complex at the site, is also planning the utilization of the rail chambering yard.

The Port of Greater Baton Rouge is the head of deepwater navigation on the Mississippi River; a 45-foot shipping channel to the mouth of the Mississippi River is maintained by the U.S. Corps of Engineers. The port’s deepwater terminal on the Mississippi is currently capable of docking three deep-draft vessels simultaneously. 

 

Port leadership recently applied to the Louisiana Department of Transportation Port Construction and Development Priority Program (PCDPP) for a $15 million rehabilitation/expansion of its “Northern Berth” on the Mississippi River that would allow for the Port of Greater Baton Rouge to have a fourth deep draft vessel berth at its northernmost point.