California Ports to Fine Ocean Carriers for Backlog; Ports Remain Full

[mystery-ak]

California Ports to Fine Ocean Carriers for Backlog; Ports Remain Full

Wendell Husebø 26 Oct 2021

California Port of Los Angeles and Long Beach are set to fine ocean carriers November 1 for remaining docked at terminals beyond the allotted time.

For those containers being offloaded to truckers, the shipping companies will be fined for every container sitting in the terminal over nine days, the Hill reported. If the containers are being unloaded onto railcar, the carriers will be fined $100 per container after three days. The fines will also increase $100 per day for each container.

more
https://www.breitbart.com/economy/2021/10/26/california-ports-to-fine-ocean-carriers-for-backlog-ports-remain-full/

[sneakypete]

WTH?

The fruitcakes running Ca are even nuttier than I thought.


What they are doing is akin to fining water because it's wet.

It is the fault of California politicians that all those ships are anchored offshore and nobody is unloading cargo.

[EdinVA]

Revenue baby.... newsom needs a new limo

[IsailedawayfromFR]

Now the state wants even more draconian measures out of shippers.  Soon they may all leave the ports and not return, as well as any industry which relies upon shipped goods.

Having attacked truckers, California now has a new target
One of my correspondents is an incredibly acute observer of the Democrats' non-stop assaults on the State of California, especially in the transportation industry.  He recently sent me an email about the fact that California didn't stop with its attack on trucking.  Instead, California Democrats are also going after the shipping industry.  He gave me permission to reproduce his email here:

Did you know that, in addition, to all the other wanton destruction in this state, such as the electric car mandate (for which no infrastructure is yet being built), Democrats have similarly deliberately destructive plans for shipping?  In 2027, they're going to require all ships in California ports to turn off their onboard generators and run only onshore power.

This is a big deal, costing tens of millions per dock, and, of course, it's going to require foreign-owned ships to spend hundreds of thousands, if not millions, per ship to make the conversions necessary to comport with the new law.

So if you're a ship owner and you're transporting goods either to or from the USA, and you think that California is geographically convenient, what you're doing right now (this minute) is planning alternate destinations.  You're going to land your ship in Texas, Louisiana, Florida, etc., or even build a new facility in Baja.

But the conflict doesn't stop there.  Even if a company has the margins to afford the new infrastructure, California utilities are massively hiking their rates and are set to do so even more aggressively in the future.  So even if you want to comply, there's more at stake than money.  The rate hike is going to mean a massive jobs exodus out of this state.

Now, imagine that you're a company that provides certain critical infrastructure but you need electricity to operate and you're regulated so you can't hike prices.  With doubled input costs wiping out your ability to stay solvent, then what?  You shut down!
https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2021/12/having_attacked_truckers_california_now_has_a_new_target.html

[Kamaji]

I am astounded that Mexico has not yet figured out that California has in effect handed it a license to print money.  Namely, Mexico could develop a deep water port on its northern Pacific coast, along with highways to the borders with New Mexico, Texas, and Arizona, for the express purpose of facilitating the "last mile" transport of cargo destined for the U.S.  They should be able to work together with those border states to make sure this happens, as well as working with the shipping companies.  Of course we're talking about an investment in the billions of USD, but getting the shipping and portage fees that are now going to California would most likely amortize that investment down fairly quickly.

[EdinVA]

I am astounded that Mexico has not yet figured out that California has in effect handed it a license to print money.  Namely, Mexico could develop a deep water port on its northern Pacific coast, along with highways to the borders with New Mexico, Texas, and Arizona, for the express purpose of facilitating the "last mile" transport of cargo destined for the U.S.  They should be able to work together with those border states to make sure this happens, as well as working with the shipping companies.  Of course we're talking about an investment in the billions of USD, but getting the shipping and portage fees that are now going to California would most likely amortize that investment down fairly quickly.

With a fleet of Unclean truck so they cannot deliver to kalifornia... 

[Kamaji]

With a fleet of Unclean truck so they cannot deliver to kalifornia... 

With a fleet of whatever gets the job done the most efficiently - fastest, safest, cheapest.

The main concern would likely be security - regular organized crime as well as the drug cartels - so perhaps the best solution would be an essentially barricaded dedicated highway running from someplace near Tijuana, along the border, at least to Arizona.  Arizona could then build out an existing port of entry.  Once it gets going, there would be incentives for the other two states to facilitate extension of that secured highway to their own ports of entry.

Running a secured - which should include active patrols of military police - highway adjacent to the international border would also help to dissuade some of the border crossers, because that land would no longer be untended wasteland.

[Free Vulcan]

Cali will raise prices till it makes more sense to pay the fee to go thru the Panama canal and unload in Houston.

[Kamaji]

Cali will raise prices till it makes more sense to pay the fee to go thru the Panama canal and unload in Houston.

Certainly between the fees and the Panama canal fees and unloading fees in Houston, there would be enough financial space for it to make sense for Mexico and the states to build out a dedicated port structure for cargo destined for the U.S. to be unloaded at a dedicated Mexican port, and transshipped overland to ports of entry in AZ, NM, and TX?

[Hoodat]

I am astounded that Mexico has not yet figured out that California has in effect handed it a license to print money.  Namely, Mexico could develop a deep water port on its northern Pacific coast, along with highways to the borders with New Mexico, Texas, and Arizona, for the express purpose of facilitating the "last mile" transport of cargo destined for the U.S.

They already have a deep water port at Ensenada.  They lack a highway running from there to Mexicali and on to Yuma, AZ.

Lazaro Cárdenas and Manzanillo are also Pacific ports, but lie much further south.

[Kamaji]

They already have a deep water port at Ensenada.  They lack a highway running from there to Mexicali and on to Yuma, AZ.

Lazaro Cárdenas and Manzanillo are also Pacific ports, but lie much further south.

Which means they're already part of the way there.  Now they just need to get the dedicated highway started.

Maybe we should put together a development proposal and submit to the Mexican government and the State of Arizona?

[Free Vulcan]

Certainly between the fees and the Panama canal fees and unloading fees in Houston, there would be enough financial space for it to make sense for Mexico and the states to build out a dedicated port structure for cargo destined for the U.S. to be unloaded at a dedicated Mexican port, and transshipped overland to ports of entry in AZ, NM, and TX?

The upper Baja is just a few miles from the border to Yuma AZ. Even a canal would be an option.

I think that 'price point' is coming fast for something to spring up.

Hell, I'd take Vancouver at this juncture.

[Kamaji]

The upper Baja is just a few miles from the border to Yuma AZ. Even a canal would be an option.

I think that 'price point' is coming fast for something to spring up.

Hell, I'd take Vancouver at this juncture.

Don't know if a canal would be feasible, since it looks like it's pretty mountainous around Ensenada.  That being said, there are already two existing roadbeds from Ensenada that could be utilized, one of which runs north and joins HWY 20, which runs East, and the other (HWY 3), which goes generally Southeast from Ensenada, but which could be used to access the flat desert areas south of Guadalupe Victoria (as per the Google map), and then run North by Northeast in the desert east of Guadalupe Victoria to access Yuma.  That route would probably require blasting at least one new tunnel or mountain roadbed out, as well as building across the desert areas.  However, that should be feasible.

Anyone up for a comprehensive port development proposal?  We could make millions!!

[Smokin Joe]

Now the state wants even more draconian measures out of shippers.  Soon they may all leave the ports and not return, as well as any industry which relies upon shipped goods.

'Nice ship you have there, shame it isn't getting unloaded...'

Sounds like a fertile environment for extracurricular payments....

[Smokin Joe]

With a fleet of Unclean truck so they cannot deliver to kalifornia... 

For California purposes, a 2017 Peterbilt is "unclean". That's part of the problem--no trucks older than three years.

[Fishrrman]

Hoodat wrote:
"They already have a deep water port at Ensenada.  They lack a highway running from there to Mexicali and on to Yuma, AZ.
Lazaro Cárdenas and Manzanillo are also Pacific ports, but lie much further south."

None of this will work unless the port has good rail service as well.
A single "stack train" can haul 200, 250 or more containers.
That's with 2 guys (engineer and conductor) running it.
More fuel efficient, as well. Not talking environmental quality here (don't care), but rather "fuel costs".

Aside:
Only ran one stack train, from Pt. Jervis to Kearny NJ. Got an "approach" coming up to Ridgewood, put the air on, and... BAM! went into emergency. Must have been "a kicker" as the conductor walked back and didn't find anything. Made it the rest of the way ok...

[LegalAmerican]

biden. adm.   USA HOLODOMOR.   


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sr5WkhEiqcY&t=170s

[Kamaji]

Hoodat wrote:
"They already have a deep water port at Ensenada.  They lack a highway running from there to Mexicali and on to Yuma, AZ.
Lazaro Cárdenas and Manzanillo are also Pacific ports, but lie much further south."

None of this will work unless the port has good rail service as well.
A single "stack train" can haul 200, 250 or more containers.
That's with 2 guys (engineer and conductor) running it.
More fuel efficient, as well. Not talking environmental quality here (don't care), but rather "fuel costs".

Aside:
Only ran one stack train, from Pt. Jervis to Kearny NJ. Got an "approach" coming up to Ridgewood, put the air on, and... BAM! went into emergency. Must have been "a kicker" as the conductor walked back and didn't find anything. Made it the rest of the way ok...

Good idea!  A rail line would work just as well as a dedicated highway to finish the "last mile" transport of the goods destined for the U.S. from Ensenada to, e.g., Arizona.

We'll have to include that in our development proposal to the Mexican government.

[mystery-ak]

@LegalAmerican enough with that comparison..

[LegalAmerican]

@LegalAmerican enough with that comparison..

What are you BOTH talking about?   I am talking about  STALIN, starving people, and our PORTS ARE BLOCKED the same way.  This is the start.  'BACKLOG'.   

[GtHawk]

Cali will raise prices till it makes more sense to pay the fee to go thru the Panama canal and unload in Houston.

Not California, the cities of Los Angeles and Long Beach have decided to make bonus money of of Noisome and the democrats malfeasance and Gaia worshiping incompetence.

[Smokin Joe]

Hoodat wrote:
"They already have a deep water port at Ensenada.  They lack a highway running from there to Mexicali and on to Yuma, AZ.
Lazaro Cárdenas and Manzanillo are also Pacific ports, but lie much further south."

None of this will work unless the port has good rail service as well.
A single "stack train" can haul 200, 250 or more containers.
That's with 2 guys (engineer and conductor) running it.
More fuel efficient, as well. Not talking environmental quality here (don't care), but rather "fuel costs".

Aside:
Only ran one stack train, from Pt. Jervis to Kearny NJ. Got an "approach" coming up to Ridgewood, put the air on, and... BAM! went into emergency. Must have been "a kicker" as the conductor walked back and didn't find anything. Made it the rest of the way ok...

I routinely see double stacked trainloads of containers going through ND. Heading West...

[Smokin Joe]

https://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php/topic,454946.msg2539001.html#msg2539001

[Hoodat]

What are you BOTH talking about?   I am talking about  STALIN, starving people, and our PORTS ARE BLOCKED the same way.

Uh, no.  It is not at all the same.

[Kamaji]

https://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php/topic,454946.msg2539001.html#msg2539001

That's a reasonable short-term solution, but it isn't a long-term solution, and long-term, it's highly unlikely that California will suddenly see reason, no matter how blatantly obvious, and change course.  As a result, there is a long-term opportunity for Mexico to capture substantial revenues from facilitating the transport of cargo from the Pacific into the U.S. in a way that "works around" California.