Cost New

[John Arton]

In 1974 DFDS introduced the 12,200 ton Dana Regina onto the Harwich-Esberg route
The cost of the ship?
a mere £10 million, less than the top prize in the twice weekly Euro Millions lotto.
How things have changed in such a short time.

http://www.simplonpc.co.uk/DFDS/DFDS_Dana_Regina03.jpg
rgds
JA

[j.sabourn]

The North Sea offshore industry re shipping, no where was this more obvious regarding the short sightedness of the British Government regarding new buildings. The Norwegian vessels in comparison to British tonnage re anchor handlers and supply vessels, and even in the stand by boats far exceeeded the standard of British vessels. In Norway they had set up in their tax system that any group of business people could build ships, with government incentives, and made it a practical investment for many business people. Most British tonnage in the North sea during my time was second hand Norwegian ships whilst they got rid of while building more modern and adaptable tonnage more in line with the Industry. Therefore always saw plenty of Norwegian ships in the British sector and extremely few British in the Norwegian sector of the North sea. At one time I was the only British ship working in the Norwegian sector working out of Bergen, the old Seaforth Laird, she happened to be an old Norwegian vessel ( also Ulsteins)re. a previous post. However whereas Norwegian flag had excemption for their own flag re pilotage in/out Bergen we did not, putting another obstacle in the way of retaining a ship working over there. Britain as regards anything to do with shipping either building or manning, seems to have been a government objective to get rid of, which I still maintain we will all live to regret. John S

---------- Post added at 09:15 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:06 AM ----------

As regards the spot market which was how the North Sea worked in general, there were very few ships with long term charters. The British ships would of been say of the 5000 H.P. class with a bollard pull of 80 tons which were competing against a Norwegian vessel of 10,000 HP and a bollard pull of of 150 tons. Nowadays of course these are all near extinct and for most rig shifts the last I heard the oil comanys were insisuisting on 20,000 HP and bollard pulls up to 300 tons. I have a strong suspicions where the British ships lie in the queue on the spot market. JS

[vic mcclymont]

John, Norway can offer subsidies to owners/ builders, because they are not in the EU.

[cappy]

John, Norway can offer subsidies to owners/ builders, because they are not in the EU.

###now thats interesting vic ......there must be loads of other things that are hampered by the eu ......if the subsidies were offered here many big money men would be interested if there was a profit at the end .....but thats become a dirty word in some fields......so we just carry on with 2nd class boats and 1st class seamen ...regards cappy

[j.sabourn]

Vic, talking about the very late 70"s and 80"s. Did the EU have any say then.? Seems that long ago cant remember. What I do remember is the usual pleas of the Government of the day pleading for cut backs. Then the taxing of travel expenses by the Thatcher government, this only applying to seamen, business people being exempt. I voted for her 3 times as well as the alternative did not seem too savoury. The ways of the world and government sometimes make me aware of how little we know what is really going on. e.g. I often wonder whatever happened to the massive work forces we had in shipbuilding and the coal industries among others. Out here I am amazed at the housing building programmes that are going on, and wonder where are all these are people coming from to require all this accomodation. Maybe they know something the public dont. If it is people moving out of one house into a newer one, that still leaves the house they are vacating, when I say huge I mean really large amounts of new buildings. There will be an answer to this to satisfy someone asking though, whether factual or not remains to be seen. Cheers JS

---------- Post added at 10:23 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:10 AM ----------

Re the spot market for anchor handlers/supply vessels. In the 80"s this was shown in any of the newspapers printed and issued in certain port areas. Varied usually between 3000 and 10000 pounds a day, however when you have a lot of sub standard ships competing for the same job, always left a lot of ships laid up and their crews sent home off pay. Anyone getting the Shields or Newcastle papers do they still show the spot market rates. JS

---------- Post added at 10:43 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:23 AM ----------

#4... When an alien country (s) have control of your weights and measures systems which have been in use for hundreds of years, that is already too much control and too much say. I beleive (although I am no lionger a resident) that whatever the cost the freedom and liberty of a people making its own laws, and having its own justice system, supercedes all others. There are many good things in the UK way of life which are certainly going to disappear, whatever promises are made by a bunch of pontificating politicians. I believe the British people will make the right decision whatever the cost. Get that new house in Harrogate before the prices go up. Cheers Love to Pat. John S

[j.sabourn]

Spot Market.... Have just looked up on Google the rate at present for an Anchor Handling supply vessel in the North Sea, after being down to 20,000 US dollars a day is now 26,000 US dollars a day. When you consider on the spot market it is usual for the Charterers to pay all fuel costs, leaving the owners to pay crews wages and food. It wouldnt take too long to pay for the ship, depending on the working days. Crew is usually 9. Can and should be a lucrative business to those familiar with the Trade. Cheers John S

[vic mcclymont]

John, ban on subsidies was in force in the eighties, not sure about the seventies.
Vic

[Captain Kong]

I think we joined Europe in 1976, I was away at sea at the time and didn't have a vote on it, so pressganged into a foreign country.
Cheers
Brian

[robpage]

When we talk about the EU and subsidies we have a major problem , we play the rules and the game , French Ferry companies and fishermen had subsidised fuel , the fishermen because fishing is agriculture , the ferries too , they transport French Cauliflowers for export , hence are agricultural too . We don't follow the continental example , they use special derogations and have more ways around the rules than there are rules , to survive Europe , we need to learn Continental play

[John Arton]

Norway
To avoid cabotage for its coastal shipping Norway joined the E.E.A. or European Economic Area, in around 95. This allowed there ships to load, discharge and carry goods between 2 European countries.
The beauty of joining the E.E.A. was that it gave them access to markets without having loads of customs forms etc. to file etc. but they did not have comply with many of the irritating and expensive labour regulations nor have to kow tow to the European Courts of Human Rights.
The Danes also had a similar investment system whereby groups of small investors would pool their resources and build ships in Danish yards. There was also the proviso that 75% of the ship equipment had to be sourced from within Denmark. For this they got excellent tax breaks on their investment returns.
This could lead to problems should these ships be sold on but only after they had been Danish registered for a certain number of years. When arranging the sale you would have to negotiate with upwards of 500 investors, doctors dentists etc.
When I was a Port Captain we had one ship on Time Charter where on of its major investors was the most renowned Danish porn film maker, regretfully there was non of his products or raw material on board, just a bunch of drunken Scandinavian hooligans.
rgds
JA