10,000 Shipping Containers Lost At Sea Each Year

kkleiner writes "Right now, as you read this, there are five or six million shipping containers on enormous cargo ships sailing across the world's oceans. And about every hour, on average, one is falling overboard never to be seen again. It's estimated that 10,000 of these large containers are lost at sea each year. This month the Monterey Bay Aquarium Research Institute (MBARI) sent a robotic sub to investigate a shipping container that was lost in the Monterrey Bay National Marine Sanctuary in 2004. What's happened to the sunken shipment in the past seven years? It's become a warren for a variety of aquatic life on the ocean floor, providing a new habitat for species that might otherwise not be attracted to the area."

Comments

oh, new habitat you say?

[Anonymous Coward]

then i guess it is okay that the contents of the containers are breaking down and polluting the water around it?

remember the "artificial reef defense" if you are ever cited for littering.

Re:oh, new habitat you say?

[Penguinshit]

The contents of that particular container are tires. I doubt they are going anywhere. (yes, I live in the Monterey Bay area)

Re:oh, new habitat you say?

[Anonymous Coward]

I find myself reminded of the beaching of MSC Napoli from a few years ago, which got quite a lot of press coverage around here. That's my mental reference point for how dangerous the average cargo will be. The Napoli capsized and spilled a lot of cargo all over our beaches, most of it was fairly harmless - timber, metal parts, cloth, empty barrels... but a few of the containers were holding barrels of ultra-high concentration hydrochloric acid.

Admittedly, the long term harm from an HCl spill would be almost nil once it dilutes, but even so you'd hope that containers being used to move hazardous chemicals would be the ones best secured.

Re:oh, new habitat you say?

[Jeremiah Cornelius]

Clownfish seem to nest among rusted Huffy bicycles, almost naturally. And those plastic utensils? a container fill of 7.5 million Dixie Sporks is a haven for krill shrimp and barnacles.

Funny. They didn't used to ship those things in to the US.

Re:oh, new habitat you say?

[GameboyRMH]

Are you sure about that?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osborne_Reef#Failure

Re:oh, new habitat you say?

[Penguinshit]

These tires are in a large steel box, thousands of feet deep. No storm surge reaches that deep.

Re:oh, new habitat you say?

[Anonymous Coward]

Metals are fine. Rubber is fine. Plastic... not good.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marine_pollution#Plastic_debris

Many types of plastic will break down into grains small enough to bioaccumulate, causing very serious problems to high level predators.

Re:oh, new habitat you say?

[Phoghat]

Oh Jake? Remember that container of military rifles we were shipping? well, I think it fell overboard somewhere in the Pacific. Yeah, it fell overboard, that's the ticket.

"Lost"

[Warbane]

I wonder how many of those 10,000 are really lost and how many are "lost."

Re:"Lost"

[Anonymous Coward]

The ones that are full of drugs or other contraband are lost and the ones dumped for insurance purposes are "lost."

Re:"Lost"

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, I'm sure some crew members sometimes pick up one of those huge containers, jump overboard, and swim to shore with it.

Seriously...

Re:"Lost"

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm sure someone's already tried the GPS-tracking approach, and became a conspirator after blackmailing the people stealing cargo.

Oh. And by "people" I mean extraterrestrials. Of course. Aliens be in our base, stealing our shit yo!

Re:"Lost"

[Anonymous Coward]

No; they offload it at unregistered ports, or bribe port officials, or do some ninja-esque hauler stunts at sea.

Though doing the third method would be as remarkable as building the pyramids.

Re:"Lost"

[e9th]

If I were the captain of this ship, I'd just dump the whole lot overboard and blame pirates.

Re:"Lost"

[rhook]

It's not that hard to offload cargo from on ship to another at sea, it's been done for hundreds of years.

Re:"Lost"

[Anonymous Coward]

The story shows that this is a delivery rate of 99.99%, I would be rapt in these GREAT numbers.
So carry on as before.

Re:"Lost"

[Anonymous Coward]

But lifting a 30-ton container from a cargo vessel to a 70-100ft pirate ship? Two freighters aren't going to meet up without drawing attention.

Re:"Lost"

[Anonymous Coward]

If delivery were any lower there would be an actual investigation. Looks like the perfect target.

TFA:

Yet when scaled up to the global scale, that 0.01% could still mean millions in lost revenue

Re:"Lost"

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

I wonder how many of those 10,000 are really lost and how many are "lost."

I got this container of LCD televisions hea', great price, just for you. Where'd it come from? It fell of the back of a boat, that's all I'm sayin'.

Re:"Lost"

[MrQuacker]

Ocean is a big place, and nobody is watching.

Re:"Lost"

[longacre]

There's a whole season of "The Wire" about this very topic.

Re:"Lost"

[Anonymous Coward]

Do you mean like they are on an island that can only be accessed by entering is with exact coordinates and is populated by smoke monsters, others and dead people in limbo.... or do you mean people simply taking stuff?

Re:"Lost"

[Nikker]

As someone who has worked unloading containers from overseas I have to say cooking books is fun. I've unloaded quite a few containers that came from Asia (China) that were not on skids but seemed to have made it the entire trip with boxes up to the top on both side but somehow empty in the middle, interesting to say the least.

Re:"Lost"

[Blackajack]

When unloading containers at the central Nike warehouse in Netherlands, we'd find a container that was ransacked once or twice a week on average and missing or opened boxes were a daily occurrence.

Once, after a particularly bad while our supervisor got a bunch of pictures of the seals in the container doors and was told to compare every seal to a picture before anyone touches it and call office immediately if it looks different in ANY way. After that we found no more tampered containers.

..For two days..

Re:"Lost"

[lennier1]

Except for a couple of CIA satellite guys looking for new sources of their favorite donkey porn.

Re:"Lost"

[oliverthered]

and the illegal immigrants too.

I'd expect drugs to come stuffed up a mule or cow or race horse or something like that anyhow.

Re:"Lost"

[Anonymous Coward]

I read that as unicorns and got all excited about sea-unicorn bandits for a moment.

Re:"Lost"

[TheTurtlesMoves]

Not really, the ocean is really big. Geo is really far away, and LEO sats only cover a area for 10 mins or less per 12 odd hours (depends on the orbit). More to the point. Anyone with that kind of hardware doesn't give a rats arse about a few containers.

Re:"Lost"

[Registered Coward v2]

It's not that hard to offload cargo from on ship to another at sea, it's been done for hundreds of years.

True, naval vessels have been doing underway replenishments for years, but not with containers. Transferring cargo between two moving ships using lines and hoses is hard enough. Container ships don't have the cranes needed to move them, and it's a pretty precise operation even when the platforms are stable in port.

Re:"Lost"

[delinear]

Although there's no reason you can't individually offload small, high value cargo and then just dump the container overboard. It's a lot more work, but if you have a buyer and the price is right it might still be worth it. What do 30 tons of iPads go for on the black market?

Re:"Lost"

[RooftopActivity]

That's what they want you to think! It's about what's IN the container!

Re:"Lost"

[Talderas]

The only issue with that is that it's only viable to be done with the topmost cargo containers. Remember these containers are stacked vertically. If the valuable stuff is at the bottom, you can't crack it open, loot it, and dump the container overboard without first dumping the containers above it to make it look like an accident.

Thus, you pay off someone to load the most valuable stuff on top.

Re:"Lost"

[Red Flayer]

I read that as unicorns and got all excited about sea-unicorn bandits for a moment.

Narwhals.

Not sea-unicorns, narwhals. And yes, they do engage in banditry on the high seas.

Re:"Lost"

[EsbenMoseHansen]

It is probably for that reason that valuables are loaded under deck.

Re:"Lost"

[Anonymous Coward]

Or just toxic waste dumped off the coast of Somalia?

http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/johann-hari/johann-hari-you-are-being-lied-to-about-pirates-1225817.html

Re:"Lost"

[Threni]

And another 47 series of Lost.

Re:"Lost"

[camperdave]

Looks like one of the lower containers buckled. I would think they would load one layer of containers sideways every once in a while instead of loading everything parallel to the keel. It would help to lock the stack together and spread the load in case a container buckled.

Re:"Lost"

[jbengt]

It's the new "fell off the back of the truck"

Re:"Lost"

[petermgreen]

Some ships have onboard cranes that can lift containers onto smaller vessels, I saw them doing it on an episode of "salvage code red" (they were removing the containers to reduce weight and get the beached ship out)

Re:"Lost"

[snspdaarf]

I work in the freight business. Containers are designed to have external devices lock them together. Putting them in/on a ship is a complex process that is designed to limit the amount of shuffling of containers at each port. Interlocking containers like hay bales would slow the process down, costing the shipping line money.

Re:"Lost"

[sosume]

It's even easier to change the label on a container.

Re:"Lost"

[kilfarsnar]

Actually, I think those are both "lost".

Re:"Lost"

[TheLink]

The only issue with that is that it's only viable to be done with the topmost cargo containers.

Maybe that's one of the reasons why only 10000 shipping containers are lost each year ;).

Perhaps someone should do a study to see if putting the "less juicy" containers on top reduces the "loss" rates. ;)

Re:"Lost"

[Catbeller]

A container doesn't just tumble off a stack into the water, either, but that's the only alternative explantion.

Re:"Lost"

[camperdave]

I thought it might be that containers only have a few load bearing points and couldn't take the weight of containers stacked on them anywhere else.

Re:"Lost"

[Catbeller]

Or the way all contraband in the world, drugs and weapons and small frightened slaves, are shipped from country to country. "Lost" in the ocean.

Re:"Lost"

[Dishevel]

It is not stealing.
Because you can not steal what you own.
and "All your base are belong to them"

Re:"Lost"

[e9th]

In the case of the Ital Florida, do you have any idea how they would go about unloading this mess without risking further collapse?

Re:"Lost"

[snspdaarf]

Nope. I am not a crane operator.

Re:"Lost"

[geekoid]

Ja^H^H the companys through with you! He has no use for smu^H^H^H Captains who drop their shipments at the first sign of an Imper^H^H^H^H Cargo Container collapse.
.

Re:"Lost"

[StikyPad]

It's actually pretty tricky. The ships have to match speed and direction (you can't just sit still or the ships will drift), and I've certainly never heard of anything the size of a cargo container being transferred. You can't just toss them around with a crane because it will change your center of gravity, possibly significantly. Basically the "modern" technique is the same as the ancient technique -- you throw or shoot a light rope across which is tied to a heavier cable, and then you ferry stuff back and forth across the cable using tag lines. The ships will naturally be pulled together by the load passing between them, so you have to correct for that, but if the ships veer too far apart, the line will part violently and people will usually lose body parts when that happens (best case).

Anyway, if you ever transport freight by cargo ship (including household goods) make sure to get marine insurance because the freight companies aren't liable for "acts of God." My friend's shipping container fell overboard in a storm -- ironically, it contained his sailboat -- and without marine insurance he would've been SOL.

Re:"Lost"

[ultranova]

If I were the captain of this ship, I'd just dump the whole lot overboard and blame pirates.

How would you do that? It's not like the ship has a crane capable of lifting them. And even if it had, who's going to climb on that half-collapsed pile over and over again to attach it to one container at a time, then unlocking the container from it's neighbours, possibly triggering another collapse (which might sink the ship, BTW).

Re:"Lost"

[rhook]

I've unreped conex containers many times. Container ships also happen to have cranes, follow this link for one example.

http://pixdaus.com/pics/1269222332cwH2vvh.jpg

Re:"Lost"

[rhook]

Good luck with that, there are tamper seals placed on those containers by customs at the port of origin.

Re:"Lost"

[lennier1]

Like Obama's real birth certificate? j/k

Re:"Lost"

[GameboyRMH]

I would guess, from where we're looking, first take the precarious looking ones at the top-right, then start from the top-left and work to the bottom-right. This is based on my Jenga experience.

Re:"Lost"

[GameboyRMH]

I wish you were a level-character in the Psychonauts sequel.

Re:"Lost"

[Registered Coward v2]

I've unreped conex containers many times. Container ships also happen to have cranes.

Yup - I forgot about the ones that pull into smaller non-container ports. my mistake. Anyway - did you do a real unrip or vertrep with a Sea King slinging the conex?

Re:"Lost"

[mmj638]

If they were "lost", surely they wouldn't be part of that 10,000 figure would they ...

Re:"Lost"

[Phoghat]

Here's a hundred bucks, put the green one on top.

Re:"Lost"

[hohokus]

It's not that hard to offload cargo from on ship to another at sea, it's been done for hundreds of years.

uh, yeah, actually, it is.

if you're talking about pitching a sack of potatoes from deck to deck, sure, go ahead, they've been doing that for hundreds of years.

if you're talking about using a crane to swing a TEU full of product in a 6 foot swell from a 170,000 ton freighter (emma maersk) to some vessel alongside, you're in for a pretty serious operation.

there's about a thousand different ways to kill yourself in the open ocean. if the containers were stuffed full of cash/gold bars/diamonds/etc, this might be worth considering. but it's probably rubber dog shit from china, and not really worth dying for.

Re:"Lost"

[Dishevel]

What ever mod thought my reply was off topic has some serious issues.
Just for that one mods own good. Might I just say.
HUGE WHOOSH!

Not just aquatic habitats...

[sakura the mc]

But on land too!

http://containerhouse.info/

100,000 sneakers in that container?

[kriston]

So, are there 100,000 sneakers in that container? What happens if we open it?

Re:100,000 sneakers in that container?

[Frequency Domain]

A smell like you wouldn't believe.

Re:100,000 sneakers in that container?

[geekoid]

Shoepocolypse?

Similar idea, but on the surface

[GodfatherofSoul]

I watched a documentary that suggested that artificial "floating reefs" be set out on the open ocean where biological deserts have formed to establish this type of habitat. The idea came from all the sea life attracted to the shelter of flotsom.

I'm not a biologist, but I am curious if these open ocean deserts are man made or just nature. Hard to imagine the latter from what I've read in historical accounts of the oceans.

Re:Similar idea, but on the surface

[willy_me]

I'm not a biologist, but I am curious if these open ocean deserts are man made or just nature.

They will most likely be naturally occurring "deserts". I know that some sea cucumbers are protandric - they can change gender if required. I guess when traversing the sea floor it can take a long time to come across another sea cucumber. So when this happens, and they are both of the same gender, one changes gender allowing them to procreate. This quality would not have evolved without large desert like expanses in the ocean.

Current human activities do not appear to be effecting the deserts so much as they are effecting the ocean's oases - the coral reefs. Higher temperatures, increased CO2 levels, and fishing are all destroying these ecological hotspots.

Re:Similar idea, but on the surface

[Afty0r]

I am curious if these open ocean deserts are man made or just nature.

Not necessarily a direct answer, but this academic presentation is incredibly eye-opening and well worth a watch:
http://www.ted.com/talks/jeremy_jackson.html

Re:Similar idea, but on the surface

[TheTurtlesMoves]

In fact it has been speculated that the much smaller numbers of fish (that we have eaten/killed) above these ocean deserts does have a large impact. The majority of food is things dying up the top and sinking down, less to die, less to sink, less food......

Re:Similar idea, but on the surface

[Anonymous Coward]

... So when this happens, and they are both of the same gender, one changes gender allowing them to procreate.

Dude, that is really gay.

Re:Similar idea, but on the surface

[Anonymous Coward]

since the shipping containers are full of mystery goods which may or may not be toxic and whose containers may or may not decay gracefully, i think the Gump quote is apropos here, "reef is like a box of chocolates: you never know what you're gonna get."

Re:Similar idea, but on the surface

[LWATCDR]

Yes they are natural and have been for a long time. They are not lifeless just have a lower density of life. Almost all life starts with plant life. plant life needs sun light and nutrients So in the deep mid ocean what plants you have near the surface when they die sink to the bottom. When fish eat the waste sinks. When the the fish that dies eats them they sink. So you have have the energy source and the nutrients separated by miles of water column. Unless you have vertical currents there is not much mixing. BTW the richest locations in the sea are where deep water raises to the surface. So yes they are natural because they are caused by the laws of physics. Kind of like how there really isn't much life above 1700 meters in the atmosphere unless there is some kind of land sticking up.

Re:Similar idea, but on the surface

[Chemisor]

Ocean deserts are natural. They exist because wherever there are nutrients in seawater, you get plankton growth. It grows and grows and grows until all that can be eaten is eaten. Then they die and sink to the bottom. The result is that a desert forms unless the nutrients are continually replenished. The replenishment happens naturally from rivers or coastal upwellings of deep seawater, but most of the open ocean is completely dead.

One benefit of building OTEC plants is that they circulate deep water back to the surface, replenishing nutrients and creating an environment where life can grow. Read "The Millenial Project" by Marshall Savage for a more in-depth discussion of the benefits of ocean colonies.

Re:Similar idea, but on the surface

[Anonymous Coward]

Deserts and Dead Zones are different. Most deserts are natural most dead zones are caused by man

Most (man made) dead zones are close to the coast where there is a lot of these are caused by fertilizer, runoff (farm or city), increased water temperature, etc. (Mississippi delta)

an example of this cycle follows

When you have fertilizer and warmer water, you can get a "Bloom" of plants that choke out or poison fish and what not. (toxic algae, blocked sunlight, blocked water/air interface, hard to swim in) Then, the plants will die off in mass after they suck up all the nutrients (fertilizer, CO2). The plants die, sink to the bottom and decompose. Decomposing mater on the floor sucks up a ton of oxygen, again, killing fish and the like.

One more thing

[Anonymous Coward]

To add: If the Captain of any vessel orders it, (in an emergency) any containers they are carrying can be jettisoned to ensure the ship's safety.
Having worked helping customers move their personal possessions overseas, (mainly for oil & telecommunications companies) I can tell you we very rarely mention it. I have had many people as me if they can pack their kids in with their sofas though.

Re:One more thing

[tantaliz3]

No, but we have great little containers with the words "Live Animals" on the side. :)

Re:One more thing

[argStyopa]

Here's an even more unpleasant truth about international ocean shipping: essentially the shipping company is not liable for the 'disposed' containers, either. If the shipping company has enough losses on a vessel to declare a "General Average", then the compensation for the losses (including vessel damage, if any) are assessed against the other *customers* with cargo on that vessel.

Basically, the vessel is carrying the cargo as a courtesy; any risk of loss belongs to the owners of the cargo(es) collectively, NOT to the carrier.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_average

So as a forwarding agent, not only do you get the pleasure of telling someone that their container of goods has been lost, you get to tell them that
a) they still have to pay freight shipping costs, AND
b) they're going to be legally liable for their 'share' of whatever the general average costs work out to be

Oh it's great fun.

Re:One more thing

[garyebickford]

And that is why these guys recommend shipping insurance (there are many others in their business, I'm sure). They also maintain the Gallery of Transport Loss, with photos of the disasters that have occurred to various ships and freight airplanes, which for some reason I find terrifically amusing.

It's also an example of terrible web design (on every page you have to scroll down a long way to get to the actual content). Nevertheless it's worth navigating in any case for a couple of hours of pictures of ships on the beach, ships sinking, ships struck by hurricanes, ships losing containers, etc.

A couple of examples:

towboat pulled under a bridge, rolled upside down, and comes up on the other side

M/V APL China struck by hurricane, limps into port with containers hanging over the side.

Last but not least, a day at the beach turns into four months. Truly amazing pictures of people walking up the beach next to a huge container carrier

Re:One more thing

[camperdave]

The wikipedia article states that "merchants whose cargo landed safely would be called on to contribute a portion, based upon a share or percentage, to the merchant or merchants whose goods had been tossed overboard". The ones who lost cargo would be on the receiving end, not on the liable end.

I imagine that container "berths" towards the center of the ship would demand a higher price because there's less chance of them being tossed (or accidentally falling overboard) than those at the sides and top of the stack.

Re:One more thing

[Anonymous Coward]

I believe we slashdotted the site, as none of the pictures show up.

Re:One more thing

[argStyopa]

Sorry, to be clear:
- the only case where someone who lost something would still be required to contribute is in the case where there's actually damage to the ship. That said, in my 21 years in seafreight, I can't think of a time when containers went overboard (either on purpose or no) when there *wasn't* significant damage to the ship. It's not like the captain would do such a thing lightly or arbitrarily, nor is it "easy" to knock these things free - they're pretty well pegged in there, not unlike a stack of legos.
- there's no pricing differential for a number of reasons, mainly (I'd guess) because
1) the chance of this happening to your given container is so vanishingly unlikely individually, it doesn't really have economic merit;
2) if the steamship lines COULD charge you more for a 'better seat' they certainly would. That they don't, suggests to me that they probably either don't WANT to even raise the subject OR they already have a complicated enough time loading a vessel (simultaneously) for balance, keeping certain cargo segregated (don't want the explosives shipping next to the spontaneously combustibles), port rotations (load cargo so that the vessel can stop in port A, unload all the cargo for port A in 8 hours, load in all the cargo from port A in 8 hours, without blocking the cargo still sitting on the ship for ports B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, and J). Adding the ability for shippers to pick their spot would probably not bring enough revenue to justify the additional level of planning nightmare.

Yes, freight insurance is available (but pricey, on the order of 3-6% of value), and people are ignorant, thinking 'default' insurance will protect them, when in fact that's typically capped at some absurdly low number, like $50/shipping unit (pallet, etc.)

Re:One more thing

[camperdave]

Regarding the "berths" - chalk that one up to ignorance of the trade. I was thinking of things as a simple load at A, unload at B rather than visiting multiple ports and loading/unloading from each. And yes, there would be trim issues - they probably have the heaviest containers closer to the centerline and as low as possible... bearing in mind when it gets unloaded.

Sharks with fricken iphones

[Leuf]

You do not want to be the guy that has to explain to the shark that water damage isn't covered.

Re:Sharks with fricken iphones

[pinkushun]

... or ill tempered sea bass with frikken hello kitty laser pointers attached to their heads.

Human Trafficking?

[drpimp]

The number of people that are lost out of that 10,000 would be an interesting question as well. But then again, how would anyone ever know?

Re:Human Trafficking?

[schwit1]

Creepy. Like right out of Amistad.

A-HA!

[93 Escort Wagon]

I knew all that global warming stuff was nonsense. Now we know the REAL reason sea levels are rising - it's simply displacement of 10,000 cargo containers' worth of water every year!

After all, all that water has to go SOMEWHERE...

Re:A-HA!

[Anonymous Coward]

A 40' shipping container is about 60 m^3. The surface area of the oceans is about 360x10^12 m^2 (360 million square kilometers). That means sinking 10,000 cargo containers (assuming no water got inside) would raise the sea level by about 1.7 nanometers per year. That fails to explain the observed 1.8mm/year rise by about 6 orders of magnitude.

Just in case anyone was inclined to take you seriously.

Re:A-HA!

[93 Escort Wagon]

Just in case anyone was inclined to take you seriously.

For a moment or two there, I thought you had.

Re:A-HA!

[Anonymous Coward]

Ugh, I stopped taking you seriously when I saw you used "orders of magnitude" in an attempt to seem smarter. Why not just say "million times greater" something that is native to our thinking process in our base 10 system, no conversion is necessary. AND, we have a single word for it, it's not like 1 * 10^145, even something above a trillion I could understand, because anything above that isn't common knowledge. EVERYONE knows 1 million, and it is used in common language every day.

also,

Admiral Akbar says "Our oceans can't repel shipping containers of that magnitude."

Re:A-HA!

[markass530]

wow 1.8mm a year. we ARE in trouble

Re:A-HA!

[maxwell demon]

Ugh, I stopped taking you seriously when I saw you used "orders of magnitude" in an attempt to seem smarter.

Why do you think he attempted to seem smarter by using that term? As far as I'm concerned, that's a perfect normal term, which I'd also use without thinking about it. Using the term has to do with being used to the term, not with a desire to appear smart. Indeed, it would never have appeared to me to connect that term with smartness in any way.

Re:A-HA!

[Dunbal]

Because "order of magnitude" is a term understood by anyone with half a brain and has its own additional implicit meaning - like "you forgot a few zeros, dumbass".

Re:A-HA!

[korean.ian]

Indeed, even i understood that term, and I'm an Arts major!

Re:A-HA!

[Shakrai]

Manbearpig

Re:A-HA!

[Anonymous Coward]

The displacement due to 10000 containers per year pales in comparison to the displacement caused by the 6 million on the ocean at any given time.

Incoterms

[fivevoltforest]

Makes you realize why there are so many designations and varying terms for the transfer of goods.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incoterm#Summary_of_terms

If I order my container full o' crap from China on FOB terms, when it falls into the sea (or gets "lost") I take the hit.

But should I choose to have them send DDP, I bear no responsibility until the container is unloaded at my receiving port.

Re:Incoterms

[Thorfinn.au]

Yes, but no-one deals is in anything but FOB or FIS.

Re:Incoterms

[hazem]

Thanks for the excellent link.

I think if you were dealing with one factory for all your product and you only had one warehouse to receive the goods, DDP might make sense.

But suppose you work for a large sportswear company and you contract with several footwear and apparel factories in a country. On top of that, you may have more than one major warehouse and may also ship some product directly to the warehouses of your largest customers. In that case, you're probably better off with FOB because then you have better control over how the product is shipped. There are several reasons for this:

1) you can probably get better deals with the shipping carriers shipping all your consolidated products to a handful of locations than the factories might get shipping to many different locations

2) you can coordinate shipments of related products. The green and white shoes from one factory get shipped together with the green and white shorts and shirts from 2 other factories.

3) if a factory finishes product early, they might send it before you really want it (they want to transfer ownership and get paid). If you control things from the consolidator forward, you can hold it there or schedule it on slower/cheaper vessels.

4) you may need to switch from vessel to air-freight by the time the goods are manufactured. This will be easier to accomplish if you own the product at the consolidator.

5) if for whatever reason you wanted to have the product destroyed (e.g. all your "McCain/Palin t-shirts that didn't get finished until December '10), it's easier and cheaper to have them destroyed in the remote country than doing it locally after paying freight and customs.

In any case, however you structure your contracts, you will have to a premium for the factory/shipper keeping ownership and liability further into the supply chain. So even if you do choose DDP as your terms, you'll pay for that, and probably more than if you had chosen FOB and arranged for shipping and insurance yourself.

My Prayers to Rod Serling Have Clearly Gone Astray

[avatar139]

I was hoping the Demi-God of Irony, Rod Serling, would influence the God of Inevitabile Ill Fortune, Edward Murphy, in ensuring that every single one of those 100,000 containers was filled with the entirety of the first run of DVD copies of the movie Titanic when it was originally released!

I'm betting that Murphy was able to divert my prayers to Serling for the same reason that (for those of you who are wondering) George Nichols wasn't appointed in his position instead, which is that as we've all suspected over the years, even the Gods are not above Murphy's law!

I suppose I should've tried aiming for the Blue-Ray release instead, that would've only taken three containers to fill instead of all of them!

It's not just at sea!

[MagusSlurpy]

The Big Mac containers lost in my apartment have attracted new life, as well!

Re:It's not just at sea!

[VolciMaster]

The Big Mac containers lost in my apartment have attracted new life, as well!

I find your claim insightful - "Big Mac" containers are the only life-attracting aspect of the product

29,000 rubber ducks

[DigiShaman]

Reminds me of this story. Basically, 29,000 toy yellow ducks fell overboard as it was leaving China back in 1992.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-464768/Thousands-rubber-ducks-land-British-shores-15-year-journey.html

Re:29,000 rubber ducks

[Anonymous Coward]

Wikipedia has info and a few more references about these ducks.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friendly_Floatees

The Harper's Magazine article about them is especially good.

Well known hazard to yachties

[waimate]

Many of these tend to float pretty much at surface level for days or even weeks. With surface waves, they are impossible to see from small craft but of course are massive and hard. They are a very well known hazard to cruising folk crossing oceans, and will readily hole and sink a fibreglass yacht, or even knock a keel off. Forward-looking sonar, if you've got it, can't see them because of waves.

There are thousands of people crossing oceans in smallish boats, and every year a few of them go missing due to shipping containers. They very thought of them makes a cruising yachtie's blood run cold.

Re:Well known hazard to yachties

[Anonymous Coward]

There are thousands of people crossing oceans in smallish boats, and every year a few of them go missing due to shipping containers. They very thought of them makes a cruising yachtie's blood run cold.

Don't worry, I'm sure your millions of dollars will warm that blood right back up.

Re:Well known hazard to yachties

[bill_mcgonigle]

Are the automatic sinking valves out there yet? I thought I read about 10 years ago about a gizmo that would be installed into a container that would have a couple radios in it. One would sense the ship's radio (or that it's been removed from the ship and not disabled). In that case, the second radio would be a transmitter beacon, to help locate the missing cargo container if it's fallen off a ship (and has sufficiently valuable contents). It would also be detectable by other ocean vessels. When the battery was about to run out on the transmitter beacon, the last thing it would do would be to blow a valve, causing the container to sink.

The additional logistics would consist of checking in and out a container when it was put on a ship, electronically registering it to the ship - not terribly hard to implement or integrate. Countries could require these valves for entry at their ports.

Or, did I just dream that one up?

Re:Well known hazard to yachties

[radtea]

Don't worry, I'm sure your millions of dollars will warm that blood right back up.

Not everyone who cruises is rich. I doubt even the majority would count as such. A lot of people who cruise want to get away from it all because they don't deal with "it all" very well, and people like that are rarely rich.

Re:Well known hazard to yachties

[radtea]

Or, did I just dream that one up?

Probably not, but consider the economics: millions of containers, 0.1% loss rate, hundreds of dollars in hardware that has to be maintained (batteries swapped out once every few years at the very least.) Who is goiing to spend hundreds of millions of dollars to fix a problem they don't have?

Then consider the politics: the only way you'd make this fly would be with a global treaty requiring it, which would be opposed by a small number of wealthy and well-organized companies and championed by a few disorganized individuals with very little at stake.

Technological solutions of this kind are only useful if they can be practically implemented.

Re:Well known hazard to yachties

[VolciMaster]

Are the automatic sinking valves out there yet? I thought I read about 10 years ago about a gizmo that would be installed into a container that would have a couple radios in it. One would sense the ship's radio (or that it's been removed from the ship and not disabled). In that case, the second radio would be a transmitter beacon, to help locate the missing cargo container if it's fallen off a ship (and has sufficiently valuable contents). It would also be detectable by other ocean vessels. When the battery was about to run out on the transmitter beacon, the last thing it would do would be to blow a valve, causing the container to sink.

The additional logistics would consist of checking in and out a container when it was put on a ship, electronically registering it to the ship - not terribly hard to implement or integrate. Countries could require these valves for entry at their ports.

Or, did I just dream that one up?

If you *din't* dream it up - then it's pretty cool. If you *did* - you should go patent it.

Re:Well known hazard to yachties

[Anonymous Coward]

Seconded. The guy needs to walk down to any marina that *doesn't* have a gate keeping you out. Some of them are even seedy! Some of the liveaboards never leave, and become like dockside trailers. The Internet is resplendant with tales of those who seek free anchorage on their journeys, and live frugally outside the system like homesteaders or Slab City dwellers.

Re:Well known hazard to yachties

[bill_mcgonigle]

Then consider the politics: the only way you'd make this fly would be with a global treaty requiring it

Not really. Consider that California makes some silly requirement for a car, and all 50 US states, and sometimes Canada, wind up receiving cars designed like that.

If, say, the US required this for all containers coming into its ports, that might create a new worldwide standard (as the costs of tracking non-compliant containers would become a factor).

And in this case, the costs would be passed along to all those who purchase the products, but disproportionately those wealthy individuals (the yacht owners) would benefit.

Re:Well known hazard to yachties

[bill_mcgonigle]

If you *din't* dream it up - then it's pretty cool. If you *did* - you should go patent it.

Well, if I did, thanks, though this comment thread can stand as prior art. :) I'm a big fan of Mercedes releasing its airbag technology into the public domain, so this would be similar.

Container holding 50,000 iPads lost at sea

[Jeremi]

... and 7 years later, a new breed of octopus will be discovered, one that lives exclusively on meals ordered from Amazon.

Re:Container holding 50,000 iPads lost at sea

[Dunbal]

But will it be able to predict world cup results?

Woot?

[upto0013]

So this is where Woot.com gets all their crap?

They aren't lost one at a time...

[Anonymous Coward]

They overload container vessels on purpose, raising the center of gravity of the ship. If there is smooth sailing, you make millions extra a year. If you hit rough seas, you cut loose your entire top layer of containers, lower your COG, and still come out ahead in the grand scheme of it all.

1 an hour...as an average. Reality would be more like every 100 hours 100 containers get cut loose.

Re:They aren't lost one at a time...

[TheTurtlesMoves]

I have been told you can get quite cheap rates for the top layers. Also some have shear pins even, so that once the roll is at a particular level, they pop off automatic like (so i am told).

Also you should never, ever, ever ship something without insurance if you can't afford the loss.

Re:They aren't lost one at a time...

[EsbenMoseHansen]

The top layers can only take really light containers, so I bet that those would be cheap.. especially if there has been a lot of heavy containers booked, and cell space is going to waste.

Re:They aren't lost one at a time...

[GameboyRMH]

Hmm so it's like those truck-delivery missions in Just Cause 2 (IIRC the GTA series has similar missions too). Better to drive like a nut and go for the big rewards than to go slow and end up wasting your time.

I'll keep that in mind next time I ship something by sea.

It's not just containers that get lost

[ahodgkinson]

I've seen a statistic somewhere, I think it was from Lloyds, which states that, on average, one ship gets lost per day somewhere in the world (I believe it included hijacking and piracy) . These are mostly small ships, but given that an occasional container ship goes missing, I wonder how many of the containers are lost due to entire ships sinking.

I also wonder how much theft and smuggling contributes to the number of 'lost' containers

Re:It's not just containers that get lost

[Grindalf]

That insurance statistic is from P&I insurance, you would need to look up "Loss Prevention." P&I Insurance companies compile these statistics (Lloyds still only do hull insurance and not cargo).

Re:It's not just containers that get lost

[tompaulco]

Well, considering that the largest container ships can carry over 20,000 containers, apparently that number could be reached by less than 1/2 of one large container ship sinking.

Stop the whining.

[MaroonMotor]

Container sacrifice is the only thing prolonging Cthulhu's sleep.

Re:Stop the whining.

[Anonymous Coward]

Is that some kind of a cargo cult?

Re:Stop the whining.

[Anonymous Coward]

Gold.

Sea level

[Anonymous Coward]

I thought it was global warming raising sea level

ObNeal Stephenson

[kieran]

Quote from "Zodiac":

"They claim that this junk was going to become a habitat for marine life. You don't buy that?"
Bless her, she did know how to blow my lid. "Rebecca, goddamnit, since the beginning of time, every corporation that has ever thrown any of its shit into the ocean has claimed that it was going to become a habitat for marine life. It’s the goddamn ocean, Rebecca. That's where all the marine life is. Of course it's going to become a habitat for marine life."

oh noes! we're all doomed!

[ghostdoc]

Did anyone else pick up on the bizarre doom-mongering going on in TFA?

To quote:

We lose a few (relatively speaking) containers a year.
These containers are a product of a new technology.
Aquatic species use these containers to live in, and might spread to new areas where they would affect the ecology
ALL NEW TECHNOLOGIES ARE DANGEROUS AND WE MUST BE SCARED OF THEM!

I understand that in order to get any MSM attention these days there must be an overwhelming imperative involving the destruction of all we hold sacred, but this is stretching a point surely?

Re:oh noes! we're all doomed!

[clang_jangle]

Noticing when technology is used irresponsibly is not the same as being a Luddite.

wessel

[ghostdoc]

nope, still pronouncing 'vessel' in my head as 'wessel'. Damn them and their multicultural crew.

Suspect..

[Anonymous Coward]

>Where'd you get this?

>Dont worry 'bout it, it fell off the back of a containership.

Exactly

[ThatsNotPudding]

Do they 'fall' or are they pushed?

Better details please

[cyberfin]

Article fails to mention that the estimate is between 2.000 and 10.000 containers lost at sea per year. Going straight to the highest figure is, well, a little sensationalistic.

Also, at a low (and I mean LOW) estimate of 200 million containers shipped worldwide every year, it would mean that the highest amount of lost containers per year represents a percentage of 0,005. Considering the rough conditions of certain parts of the oceans, I would call that an unimpressive figure, even non-newsworthy.

Re:Better details please

[radtea]

I would call that an unimpressive figure, even non-newsworthy

And yet if one of those containers fell on you it would be impressive indeed. It's all about perspective.

We have this issue in any number of areas. Global capitalism is just so damned productive, such a powerful amplifier of human capability, that even small inefficiencies can result in significant consequences. This has been the argument around reprocessing nuclear fuel for decades: even at 0.1% loss rates, we would still have the potential for hundreds of kilograms of plutonium going "missing" every year, and we'd never know if it was a result of criminal activity or an accounting/process-control error until a mushroom cloud appeared in place of a major American city.

Re:Better details please

[cyberfin]

I have to disagree with almost the entirety of this comment (it's my right, no?).

Of course everything is about perspective, but it does not apply to everything in the same manner, or even at all in other cases.

'Lost containers that create undersea habitats' is not the same as 'Missing plutonium'

Also, if that container fell on me during my shift at a cargo port, no one would bat an eye-lid. If it fell at me out of thin air during my commute to work in the middle of the city... you get the point.

Perspective indeed, but realistic, global, contrasted.

Re:Better details please

[geekoid]

yeah, but it isn't argued by intelligent experts, only by politician and greenpeace.

Stop your stupid fear mongering.

So THAT'S what happened to my flying car.

[ScentCone]

I was having it shipped in from Moller's new facility in China.

BS, I say it's on purpose...

[hesaigo999ca]

Well, let's say you are the captain of a ship and need to make extra cash cus they just don't pay you that much, and lets say some said company is willing to pay xxx amount of dollars, to drop a shipping container on purpose containing yyy garbage in it....could be toxic or not, but in the end, it costs less to make it appear like an accident and that we end up leaving the garbage at the bottom of the sea, because, if it would happen to be say IMPORTANT STUFF THAT A COMPANY OWNS OR PERSONAL BELONGINGS, we would have heard about this a long time ago, and they would have already devised a way to avoid dropping that important cargo overboard, especially with all the technology we have today, this could be avoided, the fact it is only coming out now and barely even mentioned as something
that everyone is up in arms over (can you imagine Walmart, your customer is waiting for their goods, and your deadline is approaching and you hear they dropped your container on the bottom of the sea....it would not get swept under any rug....we would all hear about it)

So I wonder if this is just another ploy to get us to accept, "hey sometimes containers drop overboard"
we then accept said scenario....
then scenario happens even more frequently by accident (wink,wink)
and no one knows any better, that we now have an extra place for all human garbage....and that only in 15 years will we discover the truth, and have to deal with a massive clean up......

Many would think I might have an overactive imagination....but with all the supposed smoke screens today, how could we not have seen the BP oil (scam i call it) accident, that could have been prevented had there been xxx....
or how could someone fool the whole stock exchange and make 50 billion disappear....
or how could such a disaster happen in haiti, and that 1 year after we all pledged to help them,
they still have yet to get the help they need ....and not so much as a peep in our news about this fact....

smoke screen, smoke screen, smoke screen......
So why do I think like I do about such things, because I have been trained by our governments to think outside the box to see the real truth....most of the time.

Re:BS, I say it's on purpose...

[Ksevio]

It's a little misleading to say that one on average is lost every hour. Realistically, most of them are lost during large storms where several fall off the ship. It's not like the ship just shows up and the stringy guy's container is missing.

Re:BS, I say it's on purpose...

[hesaigo999ca]

I understand what you say, and would agree this is the best view one could have for a proper reason for things to disappear, but we all know as soon as a vulnerability is found in any system, it is exploited...I am just stating that this could be used to dispose of special materials that could end up contaminating the ocean....ie - nuclear waste.

Re:BS, I say it's on purpose...

[geekoid]

We do know about, have known about it. There is nothing 'shocking' or new in the article to anyone who ahs spent more the 20 minutes dealing with shipping logistics.

This is not new, surprising, unsuspected. It's accounted for by accountants, shippers, inspectors and so on. PLUS that would really be lot of waste anyways.

You are not thinking outside the box, you are becoming an unthinking, knee jerk, reactionary loon.

I would love for you to actually start thinking.

Re:BS, I say it's on purpose...

[geekoid]

no, it could not be used for nuclear waste that is so toxic people would want to hide it.

Maybe you should fucking read up on nuclear waste, storage, management, as well as the pesky details on proper transportation.

or you can jst bask in your ignorance and stupidity and we will go with people disposing oh highly toxic and tracked waste can predict the weather well enough to know when a storm is coming. They can also dictate to the union crane operators where to but the box, tell the captain how to ballast the ship, and then cause the exact type of container collapse in the middle of the fucking ocean.

Idiot.

Re:BS, I say it's on purpose...

[hesaigo999ca]

Wow, what a lot of rubbish you need to spew out of that small mind of yours.....if only you knew the evils of which man is capable.....I see we have not experienced first hand again that possibility....or to think that the US is the only country in the world...of course there could be ships out there leaving the port of India, of which is barely monitored, and of which the tracking number of a few containers is the only clue as to knowing what those containers might hold, and that coming from another country then the US such as (enter nuclear capable country here).....

Really, you really think the US is all powerful to know everything about every container that is out there on all these boats that do not belong to them, maybe once the enter US water border they can undergo extensive follow through, but until then there is not much the US can do in international waters....

I guess you like sounding smart when you aren't, maybe as much as I like sounding paranoid about such human possibilities.....but then again, this post was only about possibilities, of using a vulnerability in a system, and not fact or proof, which you would need for such accusations.....do you have any experience in importing and exporting of goods across countries? Please speak up now or forever hold your piece (pun intended) ~!

~ + ~ = U?

Re:BS, I say it's on purpose...

[hesaigo999ca]

wow you again, you must be following my posts immensely.....i guess you like me....wow I have a fan....following me like a little lap dog....cool, ok here is one for you....
%73%74%6F%70%20%77%61%73%74%69%6E%67%20%6D%79%20%74%69%6D%65%20

In New Jersey we call that "IT FELL OFF A TRUCK"

[Anonymous Coward]

n/c

Top Heavy

[zbrewski]

Original article claims the containers are rarely weighted. I beg to differ, for I was briefly employed in this industry and have witnessed great care during loading (and unloading) container ships. The Center Of Gravity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metacentric_height) for any ocean going vessel is very very important thing and has to be kept right in proper place for given ship, not too low and not too high. While one can adjust CoG to some level by ballast tanks/pumps, the weight of containers and their positioning are major factor. I think the guys and gals on the container ships are taking this very seriously.

Human trafficking

[tekrat]

I've heard about people being snuck into various countries by being "loaded" into shipping containers. I now have to wonder how many are at the bottom of the ocean whether by choice (illegal immigration), or not (human trafficking). Whoops sorry, your Filipino Mail-Order Bride was lost at sea. No refunds.

yet another reason

[plopez]

to boycott goods from overseas.

Greens are wrong

[wcrowe]

See, the environmentalists are wrong. If 10,000 containers are good, then surely 100,000 containers would be better. Clearly we should be dumping our trash in the sea.

You broke the rule...

[Anonymous Coward]

It's only pronounced "wessel" when preceded by the word "nuclear".

Re:You broke the rule...

[demonbug]

Did somebody say nuclear wessel?

great *long* article on the ducks

[danpritts]

http://harpers.org/archive/2007/01/0081345

Re:Old news

[Coren22]

Did you read all the commentary about the subject too or did you just read a news article? If you read it on BBC, then you have missed the whole point of Slashdot, which is the commentary.

UPS Tracking Info...

[DeadBugs]

Shipping information received

Left UPS facility

In transit

A warren for a variety of aquatic life on the ocean floor

Re:Vegeta how many were lost?

[GameboyRMH]

I lol'd XD

Sea level rise.

[howzit]

Ha! Knew it! Global warming is not the reason for the rise in the sea-level, but I couldn't work out what that reason really was....'till now!!!!!!