3 ms·

Perhaps I'm making too many assumptions, but wouldn't such a lawsuit be filed in an Egyptian court? It could be very easy to find them guilty. In the article th

by mastax 6y ago

Perhaps I'm making too many assumptions, but wouldn't such a lawsuit be filed in an Egyptian court? It could be very easy to find them guilty. In the article the port authority is already holding the ship hostage for the money, and they could easily bar Evergreen from using the canal if they don't pay up. What motivation do they have to negotiate?

ivan_gammel 6y ago
I doubt that the contract between the company operating the ship and the canal authority includes the settlement of disputes in Egyptian court. If it goes this way, the company may seek for compensation abroad - this will damage the reputation of Egypt and result in a very long and difficult litigations everywhere around the world. Besides that, new risks associated to this route may push shippers to look more closely to an alternative route. Northern route is much shorter, does not have vessel size limits and it becomes more easier to navigate with global warming. It's not hard to imagine ice class nuclear merchant ships carrying 30-40k TEU there in 10 years.
- gpm 6y ago
  > nuclear merchant ships [...] in 10 years. This is very hard for me to imagine.
  - nbdfml354 6y ago
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear-powered_icebreaker https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear-powered_icebreaker Imagine one of these with stuff on it.
    - WJW 6y ago
      I imagine that it's not so much the "nuclear ship" part as much as it is the "nuclear merchant ship" part. Of course you can build big nuclear-powered vessels. But how many governments are willing to part with enough uranium to power such a vessel? Civilian use of nuclear material is extremely restricted and enforcement of maritime law is already something of a problem area due to how international the whole thing is.
      - xyzzy21 6y ago
        The United States did in 1959: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NS_Savannah https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NS_Savannah
      - ivan_gammel 6y ago
        Well, Russia already operates such fleet and generally considers it as the only feasible way to go with Northern route - to break ice you need a lot of power. I'm pretty sure China won't see a problem with admitting such vessels in their ports or even operating some on their own. With Northern route it's the only way to go in next 50 years, while Arctic is still fully freezing.
  - ivan_gammel 6y ago
    They already exist: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sevmorput https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sevmorput The only question is if it is economically viable at current level of technology.
- Jeff_Brown 6y ago
  I'm not convinced Egypt's reputation matters much when a company is calculating whether to go through the Suez Canal vs. around South Africa? As long as the Suez is substantially cheaper, the only effect of this kind of tail risk will be in the cost of insurance.
posterboy 6y ago
They do have contracts and Terms of Service when there's a six figure number involved just to cross the channel. How the contracts are judged could indeed be a matter of jurisdiction, but the terms wont be nice to begin with. At one billion I reckon its a matter of foreign relation so they won't be ripped off in a dark back alley. And in return they receive protection from other claimants, who will have to bear their own risks no doubt. Especially if it was force majeure as the GP implied.
zelon88 6y ago
Evergreen is also probably facing liabilities from affected customers if the cargo were to never reach it's destination. It would apparently create the need for whoever is receiving the goods to perhaps negotiate with Egypt separately in such an event. My guess is that if Egypt decides to push responsibility entirely on the ship's owners and operators then it would open itself up to more vocal criticism from other customers afraid of also being sued for mistakes caused by Suez being unfit.

by mastax 6y ago

ivan_gammel 6y ago

I doubt that the contract between the company operating the ship and the canal authority includes the settlement of disputes in Egyptian court. If it goes this way, the company may seek for compensation abroad - this will damage the reputation of Egypt and result in a very long and difficult litigations everywhere around the world. Besides that, new risks associated to this route may push shippers to look more closely to an alternative route. Northern route is much shorter, does not have vessel size limits and it becomes more easier to navigate with global warming. It's not hard to imagine ice class nuclear merchant ships carrying 30-40k TEU there in 10 years.

gpm 6y ago
> nuclear merchant ships [...] in 10 years. This is very hard for me to imagine.
- nbdfml354 6y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear-powered_icebreaker https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear-powered_icebreaker Imagine one of these with stuff on it.
  - WJW 6y ago
    I imagine that it's not so much the "nuclear ship" part as much as it is the "nuclear merchant ship" part. Of course you can build big nuclear-powered vessels. But how many governments are willing to part with enough uranium to power such a vessel? Civilian use of nuclear material is extremely restricted and enforcement of maritime law is already something of a problem area due to how international the whole thing is.
    - xyzzy21 6y ago
      The United States did in 1959: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NS_Savannah https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NS_Savannah
    - ivan_gammel 6y ago
      Well, Russia already operates such fleet and generally considers it as the only feasible way to go with Northern route - to break ice you need a lot of power. I'm pretty sure China won't see a problem with admitting such vessels in their ports or even operating some on their own. With Northern route it's the only way to go in next 50 years, while Arctic is still fully freezing.
- ivan_gammel 6y ago
  They already exist: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sevmorput https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sevmorput The only question is if it is economically viable at current level of technology.
Jeff_Brown 6y ago
I'm not convinced Egypt's reputation matters much when a company is calculating whether to go through the Suez Canal vs. around South Africa? As long as the Suez is substantially cheaper, the only effect of this kind of tail risk will be in the cost of insurance.

posterboy 6y ago

They do have contracts and Terms of Service when there's a six figure number involved just to cross the channel. How the contracts are judged could indeed be a matter of jurisdiction, but the terms wont be nice to begin with. At one billion I reckon its a matter of foreign relation so they won't be ripped off in a dark back alley. And in return they receive protection from other claimants, who will have to bear their own risks no doubt. Especially if it was force majeure as the GP implied.

zelon88 6y ago

Evergreen is also probably facing liabilities from affected customers if the cargo were to never reach it's destination. It would apparently create the need for whoever is receiving the goods to perhaps negotiate with Egypt separately in such an event. My guess is that if Egypt decides to push responsibility entirely on the ship's owners and operators then it would open itself up to more vocal criticism from other customers afraid of also being sued for mistakes caused by Suez being unfit.