Today's Fedeal Register
From: Dick Mayer
Sent: Wed 11/28/07 7:08 AM
Source: FEDERAL REGISTER:
http://frwebgate4.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/waisgate.cgi?WAISdocID=26842326560+0+0+0&WAISaction=retrieve
If you want a good read, please see the explanation why the government thinks that it is necessary to promulgate this temporary rule without first announcing their intention to have the rule. It is contained in the section beginning with the title "Regulatory Information". It is followed by "Background and Purpose " with some history of the Kauai protest, etc.
[Federal Register: November 28, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 228)][Rules and Regulations] [Page 67251-67256]From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov][DOCID:fr28no07-12] =======================================================================-----------------------------------------------------------------------DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITYCoast Guard33 CFR Part 165[Docket No. USCG-2007-0093]RIN 1625-AA87Security Zone; Kahului Harbor, Maui, HIAGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.ACTION: Temporary interim rule; request for comments.-----------------------------------------------------------------------SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is creating a temporary security zone in the waters of Kahului Bay and Kahului Harbor, Maui, and on designated adjacent areas of land. This zone is intended to enable the Coast Guard and its law enforcement partners to better protect people, vessels, and facilities in and around Kahului Bay and Kahului Harbor during the transit of the Hawaii Superferry. This rule complements, but does not replace or supersede, existing regulations that establish a moving 100-yard security zone around large passenger vessels like the Superferry.DATES: This rule is effective from 12:01 a.m. (HST) on December 1, 2007, through 11:59 p.m. (HST) on January 31, 2008. Comments and related material must reach the Coast Guard on or before December 19, 2007.ADDRESSES: You may submit comments and related material, identified by Coast Guard docket number USCG-2007-0093, by any of the three methods listed below. To avoid duplication, please use only one of the following methods: (1) Mail: Lieutenant Sean Fahey, U.S. Coast Guard District 14 (dl), Room 9-130, PJKK Federal Building, 300 Ala Moana Blvd., Honolulu, Hawaii 96850. (2) Electronically: E-mail to Lieutenant Sean Fahey at Sean.C.Fahey@uscg.mil using the subject line ``Comment--Maui Security Zone.'' (3) Fax: (808) 541-2101. (4) Online: http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/leaving.cgi?from=leavingFR.html&log=linklog&to=http://www.regulations.gov. All comments will be reviewed as they are received. We may change this rule based on your comments. Documents indicated in this preamble as being available in the docket are part of docket USCG-2007-0093 and are available for inspection and copying at U.S. Coast Guard District 14 (dl), Room[[Page 67252]]9-130, between 7 a.m. and 3:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lieutenant Sean Fahey, U.S. Coast Guard District 14 at (808) 541-2106.SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:Regulatory Information We did not publish a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) for this temporary rule. Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing an NPRM. It would be contrary to the public interest to delay implementing this temporary rule, as any delay might result in damage or injury to the public, the Hawaii Superferry (HSF) and its passengers and crew, other vessels, facilities, and law enforcement personnel. Though operation of the HSF from Oahu to Maui was temporarily enjoined by the state circuit court in Maui, that injunction was lifted on November 14, 2007, following action by the Hawaii State legislature, and service to Maui is advertised to resume on December 1, 2007. Given recent assessments by the Maui Police Department that waterborne obstruction tactics similar to those used in Kauai in August 2007 are likely to be employed in Maui as well when the HSF resumes service there, it is critical that this rule be in place so that local, State, and Federal public safety officials can adequately ensure maritime safety and security, and secure the observances of rights and obligations of the United States. The main obstruction tactic employed by waterborne protesters in Kauai in August 2007 was to physically place themselves directly in the path of the HSF as it attempted to enter the harbor. Several obstructers ashore threw rocks and bottles at U.S. Coast Guard personnel. These actions are dangerous not only to the obstructers themselves--some of whom used or incited children and juveniles in support of their obstruction efforts--but also to the HSF, its passengers and crew, and law enforcement personnel working to ensure the vessel's safe passage. Groups opposing the lawful operation of the HSF continue to vow to impede its transit utilizing these same dangerous tactics. These opposition groups have started several internet forums to encourage and coordinate support for their efforts. The danger such obstruction tactics pose is illustrated by an article posted on November 5, 2007, on Surferspath.com, a popular Web site for Hawaiian surfers. In this article, two prominent opposition members urge those who oppose the operation of the Superferry to take ``the last step of non-violent resistance,'' and prepare themselves for the possibility of ``physical injury or death'' that may result from obstructing the Superferry. These preparations include making the ``proper arrangements,'' preparing a ``last will and testament'' and engaging in a ``cleansing ceremony to prepare your body, mind, and spirit to greet the Spiritual Hierarchy that awaits your return.'' The letter goes on to say that, ``[t]here is also the possibility of accident in the turmoil of numerous boats, swimmers, and surfers in an ocean environment. In that sense you have to be prepared at the level of the Native American who decided when it was `a good day to die.' '' The Coast Guard cannot disregard such adamant safety and security threats. Consequently, this rule is necessary to prevent damage or injury to vessels, persons, and waterfront facilities, including the HSF, its passengers and crew, law enforcement personnel working to ensure the vessel's safe passage, and the obstructers themselves, arising from these dangerous and unlawful obstruction tactics. Any delay in implementing this temporary rule would be contrary to the public interest and would jeopardize the security and safety of the public, the HSF and its passengers and crew, other vessels, facilities, and law enforcement personnel. For the same reasons, under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the Federal Register. Although the Coast Guard has good cause to issue this temporary rule without first publishing a proposed rule, you are invited to submit post-promulgation comments and related material regarding this rule on or before December 19, 2007. We may change this temporary interim rule based on the comments received. All comments received will be posted, without change, to http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/leaving.cgi?from=leavingFR.html&log=linklog&to=http://www.regulations.gov and will include any personal information you have provided. We have an agreement with the Department of Transportation (DOT) for their Docket Management Facility to process online submissions to Coast Guard dockets. You may review the Department of Transportation's Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477), or you may visit http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/leaving.cgi?from=leavingFR.html&log=linklog&to=http://DocketsInfo.dot.gov.Background and Purpose The Hawaii Superferry (HSF) is a 349-foot large passenger vessel documented by the U.S. Coast Guard with an endorsement for coastwise trade, and certified for large passenger vessel service in the United States. The HSF, operating Hawaii's first inter-island vehicle-passenger service, is intended to provide service among the islands of Oahu, Maui, and Kauai. The sole port in Maui that can accommodate the HSF is Kahului Harbor. The sole port in Kauai that can accommodate the HSF is Nawiliwili Harbor. The HSF inaugurated commercial service from Oahu to both Maui and Kauai on August 26, 2007. The voyage to and from Maui on that date occurred without incident. However, in Kauai, nearly 40 swimmers and obstructers on kayaks and surfboards blocked Nawiliwili Harbor's navigable channel entrance to prevent the lawful entry of the HSF into Kauai. Other demonstrators ashore threw rocks and bottles at Coast Guard personnel who were conveying detained obstructers to shore. On the following day, August 27, 2007, the HSF again sailed to and from Maui without incident. Upon arrival in Kauai, however, approximately 70 persons entered the water again to physically block the channel entrance, thereby preventing the HSF from docking in Nawiliwili Harbor. Due to the difficulty in maneuvering in the small area of Nawiliwili Harbor, and in the interest of ensuring the safety of the protesters, the HSF's master chose not to enter the channel until the Coast Guard cleared the channel of obstructers. However, because the vessel remained outside the harbor, and because the obstructers did not approach within 100 yards of the vessel, the existing security zone for large passenger vessels (33 CFR 165.1410) did not provide the Coast Guard with the authority to control obstructer entry into Nawiliwili Harbor or clear the channel of obstructers before the HSF commenced its transit into the harbor. After waiting 3 hours, and with nearly 20 obstructers still in the water actively blocking the HSF, the HSF's master, after consulting with company officials, made the decision to return to Oahu without mooring in Kauai. On August 28, HSF officials announced the ``indefinite'' suspension of commercial operations. Since that date, the HSF has only sailed in commercial service to either Kauai or Maui once; on September 8, 2007, to pick up and return cars to Oahu that were stranded on Maui after the[[Page 67253]]suspension of commercial service on August 28. This sailing was the product of a stipulated agreement in an ongoing lawsuit (discussed further below) involving HSF and environmental groups opposed to the HSF operating in and out of Kahului Harbor, Maui. Shortly after the company announced its suspension of operations on August 28, the trial court judge in the ongoing state court proceeding referenced in the previous paragraph issued a temporary restraining order, which was followed by a preliminary injunction several weeks later, prohibiting HSF from utilizing the harbor improvements in Kahului Harbor, Maui. This injunction was the product of a Hawaii Supreme Court determination that the Hawaii Environmental Protection Act (HEPA) required the state to conduct an environmental assessment of the effects of the harbor improvements that were necessary to accommodate the HSF in Kahului Harbor. Following the Supreme Court decision, the trial court determined that HEPA required the environmental assessment to be conducted before the HSF could use those harbor improvements; and since that assessment had not occurred, the injunction was a necessary remedy. The injunction only pertained to Kahului Harbor; it did not apply in Nawiliwili Harbor, Kauai. However, the HSF voluntarily decided not to sail to Kauai while the court case was ongoing. In response to this judicial action, the governor called the Hawaii legislature into special session to consider whether to grant legislative relief to HSF. The legislature passed a bill during this special session called Act 2, which the governor signed into law. Act 2 allowed the HSF to utilize the harbor improvements in Maui and Kauai while all necessary environmental assessments were being conducted. The trial judge in Maui determined that this legislation overcame the requirement in HEPA that caused him to enjoin HSF from utilizing of the harbor improvements in Maui, and in a ruling on November 14, 2007, he dissolved and vacated the injunction. This opened the door to HSF resuming commercial service to Maui. Notwithstanding the fact that the HSF did not face waterborne obstructers in Kahului Harbor during any of its commercial voyages there, recent intelligence and assessments by the Maui Police Department indicate a substantial likelihood that certain elements in Maui, disaffected by the process that led to adoption of Act 2 and vacation of the injunction, plan to adopt the dangerous tactics used by the obstructers in Kauai in an effort to prevent the HSF from safely arriving in Maui. Individuals and groups have organized rallies and started several internet forums to encourage and coordinate support for their efforts. The dangerous and unlawful intent of these individuals and groups is clear, as is their resolve. This temporary security zone is in response to the threat posed by would-be obstructers in and around Kahului Harbor to HSF and its crew and passengers, law enforcement officers working to ensure HSF's safe transit, and the obstructers themselves. By designating significant portions of the waters of Kahului Harbor and Kahului Bay, and specified areas of land adjacent to the water, as a security zone, activated for enforcement 60 minutes before the HSF's arrival into the zone through 10 minutes after its departure from the zone, this temporary security zone rule provides the Coast Guard and its law enforcement partners the authority to prevent persons and vessels from entering or remaining in the water with the intent of using themselves as human barriers to impede the HSF's safe passage.Discussion of Rule This rule creates a temporary security zone in most of the waters of Kahului Harbor, Maui; in waters of Kahului Bay, Maui; and on designated areas of land adjacent to Kahului Harbor. This temporary security zone is effective from 12:01 a.m. (HST) on December 1, 2007, through 11:59 p.m. (HST) on January 31, 2008. The security zone will be activated for enforcement 60 minutes before the HSF's arrival into the zone, and will remain activated for 10 minutes after the HSF's departure from the zone. The activation of the zone for enforcement will be announced by marine information broadcast and by a red flag, illuminated between sunset and sunrise, posted at the following locations: at Gate 1 at the main entrance to the harbor; on Pier No. 2; and at the harbor entrance on Wharf Street. During its period of activation and enforcement, entry into the land and water areas of the security zone is prohibited without the permission of the Captain of the Port, Honolulu, or his or her designated representative. In preparing this temporary rule, the Coast Guard made sure to consider the rights of lawful protestors. To that end, the Coast Guard excluded from the security zone a defined region which creates a sizeable area of water in which demonstrators may lawfully assemble and convey their message in a safe manner to their intended audience. This area of the harbor not included in the security zone is completely accessible to anyone who desires to enter the water, and is fully visible to observers ashore, at the HSF mooring facility, aboard the HSF when transiting the harbor, and from the air. The Coast Guard also took into account the lawful users of Kahului Harbor and Kahului Bay in its creation of this temporary rule. As previously noted, the rule will only be activated 1 hour before the HSF's arrival into port, and will be deactivated 10 minutes after the HSF departs the port. Kahului Harbor and Kahului Bay are fully available to all users during the period when the zone is not activated. Furthermore, the rule affords those desiring to use the harbor and surrounding waters and land areas with the opportunity to and a process for requesting permission of the Captain of the Port to enter the zone while it is activated in a manner that will not endanger any vessel, waterfront facility, the port, or any person. The security zone incorporates the minimum land and water areas necessary to ensure the purposes underlying the rule's creation are served. Waters outside of the harbor are included in the zone to ensure that the HSF is able to line up, unimpeded, on the range that guides it safely into Kahului Harbor. The breakwaters on either side of the harbor entrance are included in the zone to ensure that would-be obstructers do not have a ready staging point for attempting to block the very narrow entrance to Kahului Harbor. Pier No. 2, to which the HSF ties up, is included in the security zone, is entirely fenced off, and not legally accessible except to authorized personnel. Other than the designated protest area, the waters of Kahului Harbor, including areas of the harbor not navigable by the HSF, are included in the zone to prevent would-be obstructers from interfering with law enforcement vessels in the harbor that are working to ensure the HSF's safe passage. Under 33 CFR 165.33, entry by persons or vessels into the security zone during a period of zone activation is prohibited unless authorized by the Coast Guard Captain of the Port, Honolulu or his or her designated representatives. Operation of any type of vessel, including every description of watercraft or other artificial contrivance used, or capable of being used, as a means of transportation on water, within the security zone while the zone is activated is prohibited. If a vessel is found to be operating within the security zone without permission of the[[Page 67254]]Captain of the Port, Honolulu while the zone is activated, the vessel is subject to seizure and forfeiture. All persons and vessels permitted in the security zone while the zone is activated must comply with the instructions of the Coast Guard Captain of the Port or the designated on-scene patrol personnel. These personnel include commissioned, warrant, and petty officers of the Coast Guard and other persons permitted by law to enforce this regulation. Upon being hailed by an authorized vessel or law enforcement officer using siren, radio, flashing light, loudhailer, voice command, or other means, the operator of the vessel must proceed as directed. If authorized passage through the security zone, a vessel must operate at the minimum speed necessary to maintain a safe course and must proceed as directed by the Captain of the Port or his or her designated representatives. While underway with permission of the Captain of the Port or his or her designated representatives, under 33 CFR 165.1408, no person or vessel is allowed within 100 yards of the HSF when it is underway, moored, position-keeping, or at anchor, unless authorized by the Captain of the Port or his or her designated representatives. When conditions permit, the Captain of the Port, or his or her designated representatives, may permit vessels that are at anchor, restricted in their ability to maneuver, or constrained by draft to remain within the security zone during the enforcement period in order to ensure navigational safety. Any Coast Guard commissioned, warrant, or petty officer, and any other person permitted by law, may enforce the regulations in this section.Regulatory Evaluation This rule is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed it under that Order. We expect the economic impact of this rule to be so minimal that a full Regulatory Evaluation is unnecessary. This expectation is based on the short activation and enforcement duration of the security zone created by this temporary rule, as well as the limited geographic area affected by the security zone.Small Entities Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have considered whether this rule will have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The term ``small entities'' comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. While we are aware that the affected area has small entities, including canoe and boating clubs and small commercial businesses that provide recreational services, we anticipate that there will be little or no impact to these small entities due to the narrowly tailored scope of this temporary rule, as well as the fact that such entities can request permission from the Captain of the Port to enter the security zone when it is activated. If you think that your business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this rule would have a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment (see ADDRESSES) explaining why you think it qualifies and how and to what degree this rule would economically affect it.Assistance for Small Entities Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we offer to assist small entities in understanding this rule so that they may better evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking process. If this rule will affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact Lieutenant Sean Fahey, U.S. Coast Guard District 14, at (808) 541-2106. The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.Collection of Information This rule calls for no new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).Federalism A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on State or local governments and either preempts State law or imposes a substantial direct cost of compliance on them. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have determined that it does not have implications for federalism.Unfunded Mandates Reform Act The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in such expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.Taking of Private Property This rule will not affect a taking of private property or otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights.Civil Justice Reform This rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.Protection of Children We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule is not an economically significant rule and does not create an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that may disproportionately affect children. While some obstructers, both on land on and shore, used small children in furtherance of their obstruction activities during the August 26 and 27 HSF arrivals into Kauai, and while online forums and other sources indicate that some organizers are actively recruiting adolescents and small children with the intent of putting them in harm's way should the HSF attempt to enter either Kauai or Maui, any heightened harm faced by children as a result of these tactics has no relation to the creation of this rule. Instead, those heightened risks are entirely the product of persons who recruit and employ adolescents and children to put themselves at risk of death or serious physical injury by attempting to physically obstruct the passage of a large passenger vessel in a small harbor.Indian Tribal Governments This rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination[[Page 67255]]with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.Energy Effects We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use. We have determined that it is not a ``significant energy action'' under that order because it is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order 12866 and is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. The Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs has not designated it as a significant energy action. Therefore, it does not require a Statement of Energy Effects under Executive Order 13211.Technical Standards The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use voluntary consensus standards in their regulatory activities unless the agency provides Congress, through the Office of Management and Budget, with an explanation of why using these standards is inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards (e.g., specifications of materials, performance, design, or operation; test methods; sampling procedures; and related management systems practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. This rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.Environment We have analyzed this rule under Commandant Instruction M16475.1D, which guides the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have concluded that there are no factors in this case that limit the use of a categorical exclusion under section 2.B.2 of the Instruction. Therefore, under figure 2-1, paragraph (34)(g) of the Commandant Instruction M16475.1D, this rule is categorically excluded from further environmental documentation. An ``Environmental Analysis Checklist'' and ``Categorical Exclusion Determination'' are available in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES.List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165 Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.0For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR part 165 as follows:PART 165--REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS01. The authority citation for part 165 continues to read as follows: Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1226, 1231; 46 U.S.C. Chapter 701; 50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Pub. L. 107-295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.02. Add a new Sec. 165.T14-164 to read as follows:Sec. 165.T14-164 Security Zone; Kahului Harbor, Maui, HI. (a) Location. The following land areas, and water areas from the surface of the water to the ocean floor, are a security zone that is activated as described in paragraph (c) of this section, and enforced subject to the provisions of paragraph (d) of this section: (1) All waters of Kahului Harbor, Maui, shoreward of the Kahului Harbor COLREGS DEMARCATION LINE (see 33 CFR 80.1460), except for a zone extending from the shoreline with the following three legs as boundaries: (i) A leg extending in a straight line between Buoy ``10'' (LLNR 28375) and Buoy ``12'' (LLNR 28380); (ii) A leg extending in a straight line between Buoy ``10'' (LLNR 28375) and the nearest shoreline point; and (iii) A leg extending in a straight line between Buoy ``12'' (LLNR 28380) and the fence line at the southwestern base of Pier Two, at position (20[deg]53.589[min] N, 156[deg]28.084[min] W). (2) Pier No. 2 in Kahului Harbor. (3) The eastern breakwater at the entrance of Kahului Harbor, beginning at the east break wall (20[deg]53.958[min] N, 156[deg]28.161[min] W). (4) The western breakwater at the entrance of Kahului Harbor, beginning at the berm on the west break wall (20[deg]53.925[min] N, 156[deg]28.611[min] W). (5) All waters of Kahului Bay bounded on the south by the COLREGS. DEMARCATION LINE (see 33 CFR 80.1460); bounded on the north by line of latitude 20[deg]56[min] N; bounded on the west by a straight line drawn from the berm on the west break wall (20[deg]53.925[min] N, 156[deg]28.611[min] W) at a direction of 330[deg] to the line of latitude 20[deg]56[min] N; and bounded on the east by a straight line drawn from the east break wall (20[deg]53.958[min] N, 156[deg]28.161[min] W) at a direction of 030[deg] and ending at the line of latitude 20[deg]56[min] N. (b) Effective period. This section is effective from 12:01 a.m. (HST) on December 1, 2007, through 11:59 p.m. (HST) on January 31, 2008. It will be activated for enforcement as described in paragraph (c) of this section. (c) Enforcement periods. The zone described in paragraph (a) of this section will be activated for enforcement 60 minutes before the Hawaii Superferry's arrival into the zone and will remain activated until 10 minutes after the Hawaii Superferry's departure from the zone. The activation of the zone for enforcement will be announced by marine information broadcast and by a red flag, illuminated between sunset and sunrise, posted at the following locations: At Gate 1 at the main entrance to the harbor; on Pier No. 2; and at the harbor entrance on Wharf Street. (d) Regulations. (1) Under 33 CFR 165.33, entry by persons or vessels into the security zone created by this section and activated as described in paragraph (c) of this section is prohibited unless authorized by the Coast Guard Captain of the Port, Honolulu or his or her designated representatives. Operation of any type of vessel, including every description of watercraft or other artificial contrivance used, or capable of being used, as a means of transportation on water, within the security zone is prohibited. If a vessel is found to be operating within the security zone without permission of the Captain of the Port, Honolulu, and refuses to leave, the vessel is subject to seizure and forfeiture. (2) All persons and vessels permitted in the security zone must comply with the instructions of the Coast Guard Captain of the Port or the designated on-scene-patrol personnel. These personnel comprise commissioned, warrant, and petty officers of the Coast Guard and other persons permitted by law to enforce this regulation. Upon being hailed by an authorized vessel or law enforcement officer using siren, radio, flashing light, loudhailer, voice command, or other means, the operator of a vessel must proceed as directed. (3) If authorized passage through the security zone, a vessel must operate at the minimum speed necessary to maintain a safe course and must proceed as directed by the Captain of the Port or his or her designated representatives. While underway with permission of the Captain of the Port or[[Page 67256]]his or her designated representatives, no person or vessel is allowed within 100 yards of the Hawaii Superferry when it is underway, moored, position-keeping, or at anchor, unless authorized by the Captain of the Port or his or her designated representatives. (4) Persons desiring to transit the security zone in this section may contact the Captain of the Port at telephone number (808) 927-0865 or on VHF channel 12 to seek permission to transit the area. If permission is granted, all persons and vessels must comply with the instructions of the Captain of the Port or his or her designated representatives. When conditions permit, the Captain of the Port, or his or her designated representatives, may permit vessels that are at anchor, restricted in their ability to maneuver, or constrained by draft to remain within the security zone in order to ensure navigational safety. (e) Enforcement. Any Coast Guard commissioned, warrant, or petty officer, and any other Captain of the Port representative permitted by law, may enforce this temporary security zone. Dated: November 21, 2007.Sally Brice-O'Hara,Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, Fourteenth Coast Guard District.[FR Doc. 07-5872 Filed 11-26-07; 1:53 pm]
Wednesday, November 28, 2007
Tuesday, November 27, 2007
HI Superferry: Surf's Up, Dude! Part Two
OK, just to show goodwill, thought I would do something to help the Superferry.
After an exhaustive search on the net for sources of observations of surf in or just outside of Kahului harbor I determined the following recommendations:
First, I could not find a webcam aimed at Pier 2(c) in Kahului Harbor. I think Hawaii Superferry should set up a webcam or two or three on the state property that they are using aimed at the waterline of Pier 2(c), to be checked remotely online as needed.
Second, for at night, like early in the morning, when a webcam would not be useful, I think either DOT or Hawaii Superferry should install a sensor or two on each side of Pier 2 so that wave action on each side of Pier 2 can be monitored remotely on the net, even at night.
Third, for better forecasting into Kahului Harbor and on the Maui northshore in general, I would recommend that NOAA, NDBC, or Scripps Institution place a moored Waverider buoy about a mile offshore from Kahului Harbor similar to the one that is offshore from Waimea Bay.
Lastly, in addition to the links in my prior post regarding surf forecasting, I really like these Surfline LOLA links:
http://www.surfline.com/reports/report.cfm?id=10816
http://www.surfline.com/surfline/forecasts4/forecast_ss.cfm?alias=hawaii&county=mauihookipa_hi&sspot=Kahului#Kahului
http://www.surfline.com/surfline/forecasts4/forecast_by.cfm?alias=hawaii&county=mauihookipa_hi
http://lolabw1.surfline.com/testAniC.jsp?zoom=75&grb=enp&gs=waveBearingAni&tau=3&lat=20.745840238902257&lon=-156.68701171875&units=e&slat=20.745840238902257&slon=-156.68701171875&p=17
HI Superferry: Correction on the Kahului Harbor Webcam
Date: Wed 11/28/07 10:06 AM
Karen Chun pointed this out to me. It is on the roof of Century 21 right next to Hawaii Superferry, although it is roving and probably does not have a clear view of the waterline at Pier 2(c):
http://www.selldirt.com/Kahului_Harbor_Camera.php
Aloha, Brad
After an exhaustive search on the net for sources of observations of surf in or just outside of Kahului harbor I determined the following recommendations:
First, I could not find a webcam aimed at Pier 2(c) in Kahului Harbor. I think Hawaii Superferry should set up a webcam or two or three on the state property that they are using aimed at the waterline of Pier 2(c), to be checked remotely online as needed.
Second, for at night, like early in the morning, when a webcam would not be useful, I think either DOT or Hawaii Superferry should install a sensor or two on each side of Pier 2 so that wave action on each side of Pier 2 can be monitored remotely on the net, even at night.
Third, for better forecasting into Kahului Harbor and on the Maui northshore in general, I would recommend that NOAA, NDBC, or Scripps Institution place a moored Waverider buoy about a mile offshore from Kahului Harbor similar to the one that is offshore from Waimea Bay.
Lastly, in addition to the links in my prior post regarding surf forecasting, I really like these Surfline LOLA links:
http://www.surfline.com/reports/report.cfm?id=10816
http://www.surfline.com/surfline/forecasts4/forecast_ss.cfm?alias=hawaii&county=mauihookipa_hi&sspot=Kahului#Kahului
http://www.surfline.com/surfline/forecasts4/forecast_by.cfm?alias=hawaii&county=mauihookipa_hi
http://lolabw1.surfline.com/testAniC.jsp?zoom=75&grb=enp&gs=waveBearingAni&tau=3&lat=20.745840238902257&lon=-156.68701171875&units=e&slat=20.745840238902257&slon=-156.68701171875&p=17
HI Superferry: Correction on the Kahului Harbor Webcam
Date: Wed 11/28/07 10:06 AM
Karen Chun pointed this out to me. It is on the roof of Century 21 right next to Hawaii Superferry, although it is roving and probably does not have a clear view of the waterline at Pier 2(c):
http://www.selldirt.com/Kahului_Harbor_Camera.php
Aloha, Brad
Monday, November 26, 2007
HI Superferry: Surf's Up, Dude!
First, I'll take a few quotes from the Army Corp. of Engineers Kahului Harbor study to develop the setting:
"Kahului Harbor is exposed to wind and waves from the north and northeast. The northwest end of Maui shelters the harbor from waves arriving from the northwest. The harbor is protected by two large breakwaters. High energy waves generated by intense winter storms in the north Pacific Ocean routinely attack the breakwaters...The harbor entrance is a 660-ft opening between the breakwaters."
"The Island of Maui helps to block wave energy from both the northwest and east."
"Virtually the entire wave climate (at the harbor) is confined to a narrow band of directions between north and northeast. Dominant wave directions in the offshore climate (northwest and east) are no longer a presence near the harbor entrance."
"Significant wave height statistics for the Kahului (harbor) array show a mean annual Hs of nearly 3 ft and maximum of over 8 ft for the year..."
The study measures that the wave peaks having the most effect in the harbor come from the direction of 0 N to 30 NE degrees azimuth. So swells have an effect in the harbor mostly from the North and not the Northwest. This can be used when checking the sites below.
Now for the surf forecasting sites, Glenn James of Maui Weather Today links to most of the useful ones below. NOAA's link for Buoy 1 and all of the animated models below are worth checking.
"I want to thank all of the Hawaii Weather Today surf reporting team: Ole Olson on Kauai; Kaleo Ohina, Ian Masterson and Kyle Stanford on Oahu; Steven Mark, Mike Napier, Ken Potts and Ron Busby on Maui…and finally David Hume and Tait Rusnak on the Big Island. Thanks to Mr. Pat Caldwell on Oahu for his forecast skills."
Buoy 1
Buoy 2
Buoy 3
Buoy 4
Equatorial buoy
Waimea Buoy
Mokapu buoy
Lanai buoy
Pat Caldwell - NWS
Island swell shadow lines for Kauai
Island swell shadow lines for Oahu
Island swell shadow lines for Maui
Island swell shadow lines for Big Island
NCEP Wave Model - animated
Global WW3 wave model - animated
Oceanweather wave model
Close up swell activity for the islands
Lajolla Swell Model - animated
Stormsurf wave Model - animated
And a little bit of humor below:
From: Scott
To: Brad ; Jonathan
Subject: RE: HI Superferry: Studies of Waves in Kahului Harbor
Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2007 19:31:44 -1000
Has anyone seen the study on Nawiliwili wave action? Word has it that the waves caused by Kauai citizens will exceed 3 ft 100% of the time when the Superferry comes into port.
-----Original Message-----
From: Brad
Sent: Sunday, November 25, 2007 1:04 PM
To: Jonathan
Subject: RE: HI Superferry: Studies of Waves in Kahului Harbor
Oh, my point is from the study it is more like 10% not 1% of the time that wave action on Pier 2(C) will be a problem. That is more like 37 days out of the year. For how tight this thing is on profit, that is a big problem. Plus, as you say what about the time or two where they forecast it wrong and are there at the pier and the vessel gets damanged by wave action. If I was the bondholder on this, I would want to understand and know about this.
Aloha, Brad
"Kahului Harbor is exposed to wind and waves from the north and northeast. The northwest end of Maui shelters the harbor from waves arriving from the northwest. The harbor is protected by two large breakwaters. High energy waves generated by intense winter storms in the north Pacific Ocean routinely attack the breakwaters...The harbor entrance is a 660-ft opening between the breakwaters."
"The Island of Maui helps to block wave energy from both the northwest and east."
"Virtually the entire wave climate (at the harbor) is confined to a narrow band of directions between north and northeast. Dominant wave directions in the offshore climate (northwest and east) are no longer a presence near the harbor entrance."
"Significant wave height statistics for the Kahului (harbor) array show a mean annual Hs of nearly 3 ft and maximum of over 8 ft for the year..."
The study measures that the wave peaks having the most effect in the harbor come from the direction of 0 N to 30 NE degrees azimuth. So swells have an effect in the harbor mostly from the North and not the Northwest. This can be used when checking the sites below.
Now for the surf forecasting sites, Glenn James of Maui Weather Today links to most of the useful ones below. NOAA's link for Buoy 1 and all of the animated models below are worth checking.
"I want to thank all of the Hawaii Weather Today surf reporting team: Ole Olson on Kauai; Kaleo Ohina, Ian Masterson and Kyle Stanford on Oahu; Steven Mark, Mike Napier, Ken Potts and Ron Busby on Maui…and finally David Hume and Tait Rusnak on the Big Island. Thanks to Mr. Pat Caldwell on Oahu for his forecast skills."
Buoy 1
Buoy 2
Buoy 3
Buoy 4
Equatorial buoy
Waimea Buoy
Mokapu buoy
Lanai buoy
Pat Caldwell - NWS
Island swell shadow lines for Kauai
Island swell shadow lines for Oahu
Island swell shadow lines for Maui
Island swell shadow lines for Big Island
NCEP Wave Model - animated
Global WW3 wave model - animated
Oceanweather wave model
Close up swell activity for the islands
Lajolla Swell Model - animated
Stormsurf wave Model - animated
And a little bit of humor below:
From: Scott
To: Brad ; Jonathan
Subject: RE: HI Superferry: Studies of Waves in Kahului Harbor
Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2007 19:31:44 -1000
Has anyone seen the study on Nawiliwili wave action? Word has it that the waves caused by Kauai citizens will exceed 3 ft 100% of the time when the Superferry comes into port.
-----Original Message-----
From: Brad
Sent: Sunday, November 25, 2007 1:04 PM
To: Jonathan
Subject: RE: HI Superferry: Studies of Waves in Kahului Harbor
Oh, my point is from the study it is more like 10% not 1% of the time that wave action on Pier 2(C) will be a problem. That is more like 37 days out of the year. For how tight this thing is on profit, that is a big problem. Plus, as you say what about the time or two where they forecast it wrong and are there at the pier and the vessel gets damanged by wave action. If I was the bondholder on this, I would want to understand and know about this.
Aloha, Brad
HI Superferry: USACE Technical Reports for HI Harbors and FOI correspondence
The following directory link includes the USACE full-text .pdf Technical Reports including for most HI harbors. They are in chronologic order in the directory. The pertinent HI reports from the most recent are: Kawaihae CHL TR-06-6, Kahului CHL TR-02-21, Nawiliwili CHL TR-02-7, and Molokai CHL TR-01-29.
The directory for the USACE/CHL reports is the following:
Digital Library
-Hyperion Hierarchy
--Digital Collections
---ERDC Publications
----Coastal and Hydraulics Laboratory (CHL)
-----Technical Report
The address for the Kawaihae report is the following, it is more current and thorough than the Kahului report:
http://libweb.erdc.usace.army.mil/uhtbin/cgisirsi/xVNzSAFSI9/ERDC_VBG/97370010/503/4042
There were a number of issues that came up in the most recent reports on Kawaihae harbor and and on Kahului harbor that relate to the Superferry's situation, particularly with how much wave action is in those harbors. The Kawaihae harbor report is very interesting and worth scanning.
The figure that is being mentioned elsewhere is that operations likely cannot handle waves of more than 3 ft. which is common at least 10% of the time.
After I cited the ACoE CHL TR for Kahului, I received an e-mail from a knowledgeable person who pointed me to the similar report for Kawaihae harbor. That person also indicated that there is public record e-mail correspondence to and from the USACE on this matter relative to the Superferry that has been obtained with FOI.
Aloha, Brad
The directory for the USACE/CHL reports is the following:
Digital Library
-Hyperion Hierarchy
--Digital Collections
---ERDC Publications
----Coastal and Hydraulics Laboratory (CHL)
-----Technical Report
The address for the Kawaihae report is the following, it is more current and thorough than the Kahului report:
http://libweb.erdc.usace.army.mil/uhtbin/cgisirsi/xVNzSAFSI9/ERDC_VBG/97370010/503/4042
There were a number of issues that came up in the most recent reports on Kawaihae harbor and and on Kahului harbor that relate to the Superferry's situation, particularly with how much wave action is in those harbors. The Kawaihae harbor report is very interesting and worth scanning.
The figure that is being mentioned elsewhere is that operations likely cannot handle waves of more than 3 ft. which is common at least 10% of the time.
After I cited the ACoE CHL TR for Kahului, I received an e-mail from a knowledgeable person who pointed me to the similar report for Kawaihae harbor. That person also indicated that there is public record e-mail correspondence to and from the USACE on this matter relative to the Superferry that has been obtained with FOI.
Aloha, Brad
HI Superferry: About the Bondholder ABN-Amro Bank
They have a strong position in the Netherlands (home country) and Latin America (Brazil), and presence elsewhere (including Midwest U.S.).
From their web page:
"ABN AMRO was created by the merger between ABN Bank and Amro Bank on 22 September 1991 in Amsterdam. The date of incorporation of ABN AMRO is 29 March 1824 in the Hague. On that day Nederlandsche Handel-Maatschappij (Netherlands Trading Society, NTS) was established by Royal Decree of King Willem I. With effect from 3 October 1964 after the merger with Twentsche Bank, NTS changed her name to Algemene Bank Nederland (ABN Bank). After the merger with Amro Bank in 1991, ABN changed its name to ABN AMRO."
"ABN AMRO is a prominent international bank, our history going back to 1824. ABN AMRO ranks eighth in Europe and 12th in the world based on total assets, with more than 4,000 branches in 53 countries, a staff of more than 99,000 full-time equivalents and total assets of EUR 1,120.1 bln (as at 1 November 2007)."
"ABN AMRO, 1991-present - Global clients, 1992-present...The growing network of investment banks paved the way in 1996 for the joint venture with prestigious merchant bank N.M. Rothschild & Sons, London. The move allowed ABN AMRO to profit from Rothschild's strong position in international privatisations and boosted ABN AMRO's share of the stock issue market."
"ABN AMRO believes that the concept of sustainable development is based on creating long-term value for our shareholders, clients, employees and suppliers; contributing to society and the environment; and being engaged with and transparent about what we stand for."
"Here, and in ABN AMRO's Group-wide Sustainability Report, we aim to provide this transparency."
"Our Approach - Read about what sustainable development means to ABN AMRO, how it's organised throughout the company and how we report on it. Find out how you can give us feedback."
Here are some useful links to areas of their web page:
http://www.abnamro.com/com/about/about.jsp
ABN AMRO does look to protect their assets when they know about it:
http://www.abnamro.com/com/about/sd/sd_assets.jsp
In their "Sustainability Report," I refer you to pages 9 and 15 regarding the top 6 Focus Areas:
http://www.abnamro.com/com/about/sr2006en.htm
Regarding their Corporate Clients of which HI Superferry would be one:
http://www.corporates.abnamro.com/corporates/index.jsp
They even provide a means for stakeholder feedback from anywhere in the world:
http://www.abnamro.com/com/about/sd/sd_feedback.jsp
http://www.abnamro.com/com/contact/contact_general.jsp
I wonder if these bondholders know about the wave problem risks to the Superferry in Kahului and Kawaihae Harbors as documented by the U.S. Army Corp of Engineers.
You know, these people have the resources to bring the Solar Ferry here from Australia, instead of the Superferry. And these people have a lot of wind power in their home country.
We want big wind and solar projects here, not little dinky ones. These guys can make it happen. I know some of you want energy sovereignty, but I'm just throwing it out there.
Aloha, Brad
From their web page:
"ABN AMRO was created by the merger between ABN Bank and Amro Bank on 22 September 1991 in Amsterdam. The date of incorporation of ABN AMRO is 29 March 1824 in the Hague. On that day Nederlandsche Handel-Maatschappij (Netherlands Trading Society, NTS) was established by Royal Decree of King Willem I. With effect from 3 October 1964 after the merger with Twentsche Bank, NTS changed her name to Algemene Bank Nederland (ABN Bank). After the merger with Amro Bank in 1991, ABN changed its name to ABN AMRO."
"ABN AMRO is a prominent international bank, our history going back to 1824. ABN AMRO ranks eighth in Europe and 12th in the world based on total assets, with more than 4,000 branches in 53 countries, a staff of more than 99,000 full-time equivalents and total assets of EUR 1,120.1 bln (as at 1 November 2007)."
"ABN AMRO, 1991-present - Global clients, 1992-present...The growing network of investment banks paved the way in 1996 for the joint venture with prestigious merchant bank N.M. Rothschild & Sons, London. The move allowed ABN AMRO to profit from Rothschild's strong position in international privatisations and boosted ABN AMRO's share of the stock issue market."
"ABN AMRO believes that the concept of sustainable development is based on creating long-term value for our shareholders, clients, employees and suppliers; contributing to society and the environment; and being engaged with and transparent about what we stand for."
"Here, and in ABN AMRO's Group-wide Sustainability Report, we aim to provide this transparency."
"Our Approach - Read about what sustainable development means to ABN AMRO, how it's organised throughout the company and how we report on it. Find out how you can give us feedback."
Here are some useful links to areas of their web page:
http://www.abnamro.com/com/about/about.jsp
ABN AMRO does look to protect their assets when they know about it:
http://www.abnamro.com/com/about/sd/sd_assets.jsp
In their "Sustainability Report," I refer you to pages 9 and 15 regarding the top 6 Focus Areas:
http://www.abnamro.com/com/about/sr2006en.htm
Regarding their Corporate Clients of which HI Superferry would be one:
http://www.corporates.abnamro.com/corporates/index.jsp
They even provide a means for stakeholder feedback from anywhere in the world:
http://www.abnamro.com/com/about/sd/sd_feedback.jsp
http://www.abnamro.com/com/contact/contact_general.jsp
I wonder if these bondholders know about the wave problem risks to the Superferry in Kahului and Kawaihae Harbors as documented by the U.S. Army Corp of Engineers.
You know, these people have the resources to bring the Solar Ferry here from Australia, instead of the Superferry. And these people have a lot of wind power in their home country.
We want big wind and solar projects here, not little dinky ones. These guys can make it happen. I know some of you want energy sovereignty, but I'm just throwing it out there.
Aloha, Brad
Sunday, November 25, 2007
HI Superferry: Army CoE Studies of Waves in Kahului Harbor
Well, as usual, John Garibaldi, gave some quotes in the Maui News yesterday that indicate he does not understand the results of government studies on the effects of waves in Kahului Harbor. I refer you to pages 38 thru 40, Figures 43 and 44 of the following Army Corp. of Engineers study. The whole thing is worth scanning through:
Try to access the report through this address:
http://libweb.wes.army.mil/uhtbin/cgisirsi/20071125201145/SIRSI/0/518/0/CHL-TR-02-21.pdf/Content/1?new_gateway_db=HYPERION
Here is the title info.: ERDC/CHL TR-02-21
by Edward F. Thompson and Zeki Demirbilek
Wave Climate and Wave Response, 2025 Plan, Kahului Harbor, Maui, Hawaii
BTW, I am told there is further correspondence from the Army Corp of Engineers to DOT and Superferry regarding wave action in Kahului, Harbor. I do not have copies of that yet, but am lead to believe it is significant and has already been obtained through FOI. I wonder if the bond holder of HI Superferry is aware of all of this?
The following pub. is regarding placement of sensors in Kahului Harbor that were used for the above study:
http://chl.erdc.usace.army.mil/Media/7/9/9/CERC-MP-94-10.pdf
The following is yesterday's article. It did get into some details, but I noticed the article missed some key points, and went in some misdirections away from some obvious lines of inquiry:
http://www.mauinews.com/news/2007/11/24/02ferry1124.html
The following article references the above Army Corp. of Engineers study. The article is worth reading:
http://www.mauinews.com/news/2007/3/9/01stu0309.html
I need to re-read the above ACoE study; but initially, it looks like this is a significant problem that the data from the Army Corp. of Engineers could have been used to foresee. On the otherhand, any Maui surfer could have told you this is not just an "analytical" problem; it is real, the ACoE were just able to measure it. Further, it is not just 1% of the time, try more like 10% of the time at Pier 2c.
Meanwhile, the Honolulu Advertiser has a couple of good articles today on preparations and logistical details, finally:
http://the.honoluluadvertiser.com/current/ln/superferry
http://the.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/2007/Nov/25/ln/hawaii711250365.html
Aloha, Brad
Try to access the report through this address:
http://libweb.wes.army.mil/uhtbin/cgisirsi/20071125201145/SIRSI/0/518/0/CHL-TR-02-21.pdf/Content/1?new_gateway_db=HYPERION
Here is the title info.: ERDC/CHL TR-02-21
by Edward F. Thompson and Zeki Demirbilek
Wave Climate and Wave Response, 2025 Plan, Kahului Harbor, Maui, Hawaii
BTW, I am told there is further correspondence from the Army Corp of Engineers to DOT and Superferry regarding wave action in Kahului, Harbor. I do not have copies of that yet, but am lead to believe it is significant and has already been obtained through FOI. I wonder if the bond holder of HI Superferry is aware of all of this?
The following pub. is regarding placement of sensors in Kahului Harbor that were used for the above study:
http://chl.erdc.usace.army.mil/Media/7/9/9/CERC-MP-94-10.pdf
The following is yesterday's article. It did get into some details, but I noticed the article missed some key points, and went in some misdirections away from some obvious lines of inquiry:
http://www.mauinews.com/news/2007/11/24/02ferry1124.html
The following article references the above Army Corp. of Engineers study. The article is worth reading:
http://www.mauinews.com/news/2007/3/9/01stu0309.html
I need to re-read the above ACoE study; but initially, it looks like this is a significant problem that the data from the Army Corp. of Engineers could have been used to foresee. On the otherhand, any Maui surfer could have told you this is not just an "analytical" problem; it is real, the ACoE were just able to measure it. Further, it is not just 1% of the time, try more like 10% of the time at Pier 2c.
Meanwhile, the Honolulu Advertiser has a couple of good articles today on preparations and logistical details, finally:
http://the.honoluluadvertiser.com/current/ln/superferry
http://the.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/2007/Nov/25/ln/hawaii711250365.html
Aloha, Brad
Saturday, November 24, 2007
HI Superferry: Back in Time Re: Superferry Financial Analysis
Here we go, check 'em out, some of this analysis and reporting is accurate, some not:
From this article one can tell that the Superferry principals focused their analysis too much on external environment economic variables to try to determine their own internal viability. FYI, there is mention of fast ferries in NZ in this article. There are no longer any fast ferries in NZ. They put out too big of a wave wake and proved to be financially unsound there:
http://pacific.bizjournals.com/pacific/stories/2003/06/16/story7.html
Some good questions by Rich. He uses numbers from the above article and elsewhere. A little bit of original number crunching, but not a complete BEA, although still accurate info. and good questions:
http://www.superferryimpact.com/Unanswered-Questions-Superferry.pdf
Regarding the original financing by ABN-Amro Bank, who are they?:
http://starbulletin.com/2005/10/29/business/story02.html
Regarding bond payments coming due recently:
http://www.honoluluadvertiser.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071022/NEWS01/710220362/1019/NEWS09
And an outstanding Masters Degree Thesis done at MIT on this technology and market:
http://dspace.mit.edu/bitstream/1721.1/36092/1/41094021.pdf
Aloha, Brad
From this article one can tell that the Superferry principals focused their analysis too much on external environment economic variables to try to determine their own internal viability. FYI, there is mention of fast ferries in NZ in this article. There are no longer any fast ferries in NZ. They put out too big of a wave wake and proved to be financially unsound there:
http://pacific.bizjournals.com/pacific/stories/2003/06/16/story7.html
Some good questions by Rich. He uses numbers from the above article and elsewhere. A little bit of original number crunching, but not a complete BEA, although still accurate info. and good questions:
http://www.superferryimpact.com/Unanswered-Questions-Superferry.pdf
Regarding the original financing by ABN-Amro Bank, who are they?:
http://starbulletin.com/2005/10/29/business/story02.html
Regarding bond payments coming due recently:
http://www.honoluluadvertiser.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071022/NEWS01/710220362/1019/NEWS09
And an outstanding Masters Degree Thesis done at MIT on this technology and market:
http://dspace.mit.edu/bitstream/1721.1/36092/1/41094021.pdf
Aloha, Brad
HI Superferry: What is the Big Picture?
You know, I was thinking, there is an interesting confluence of events taking place in the Pacific Region and beyond, and I do not think they are unrelated. One of them is a short clip below regarding elections in Australia yesterday, one of the few staunch allies that the U.S. has left in the world, and home country of Austal, maker of HI Superferry.
But other big things happening include....oil prices getting close to $100/barrel and threats from some OPEC nations of pushing it to $200/barrel, new laws in Congress meant to crackdown on the American public, North Korea and nukes, China buying more oil and selling more dollars, U.S. dramatically stepping up military activity in the Central Pacific (including force movements and unprecedented bombing practice in HI) and the East Pacific in recent weeks, and the no holds barred government effort on behalf of the militarily capable HI Superferry.
If I was going to start a research project on this, and I don't necessarily have time to do so, I would say that there is political-economic power struggle developing right now behind the scenes between China and the U.S., and that China is buying and storing crude oil to push up the price for later use and that they are using U.S. dollars (selling them) to do it, putting persistent pressure on that. And as usual, the Neocon's, because they do not really understand finance or economics, the only response they can come up with is military posturing. Somebody else can take the time to research this, but if I had to guess, I would say this is the big picture that the HI Superferry falls within.
Regarding one of the best U.S. allies left in the world:
Australia’s Labor Party sweeps to power
Conservative Howard ousted; policy changes on global warming, Iraq ahead
SYDNEY, Australia - Conservative Prime Minister John Howard suffered a humiliating defeat Saturday at the hands of the left-leaning opposition, whose leader has promised to immediately sign the Kyoto Protocol on global warming and withdraw Australia's combat troops from Iraq.
Labor Party head Kevin Rudd's pledges on global warming and Iraq move Australia sharply away from policies that had made Howard one of President Bush's staunchest allies.
Rudd has named global warming as his top priority, and his signing of the Kyoto Protocol will leave the U.S. as the only industrialized country not to have joined it.
Aloha, Brad
But other big things happening include....oil prices getting close to $100/barrel and threats from some OPEC nations of pushing it to $200/barrel, new laws in Congress meant to crackdown on the American public, North Korea and nukes, China buying more oil and selling more dollars, U.S. dramatically stepping up military activity in the Central Pacific (including force movements and unprecedented bombing practice in HI) and the East Pacific in recent weeks, and the no holds barred government effort on behalf of the militarily capable HI Superferry.
If I was going to start a research project on this, and I don't necessarily have time to do so, I would say that there is political-economic power struggle developing right now behind the scenes between China and the U.S., and that China is buying and storing crude oil to push up the price for later use and that they are using U.S. dollars (selling them) to do it, putting persistent pressure on that. And as usual, the Neocon's, because they do not really understand finance or economics, the only response they can come up with is military posturing. Somebody else can take the time to research this, but if I had to guess, I would say this is the big picture that the HI Superferry falls within.
Regarding one of the best U.S. allies left in the world:
Australia’s Labor Party sweeps to power
Conservative Howard ousted; policy changes on global warming, Iraq ahead
SYDNEY, Australia - Conservative Prime Minister John Howard suffered a humiliating defeat Saturday at the hands of the left-leaning opposition, whose leader has promised to immediately sign the Kyoto Protocol on global warming and withdraw Australia's combat troops from Iraq.
Labor Party head Kevin Rudd's pledges on global warming and Iraq move Australia sharply away from policies that had made Howard one of President Bush's staunchest allies.
Rudd has named global warming as his top priority, and his signing of the Kyoto Protocol will leave the U.S. as the only industrialized country not to have joined it.
Aloha, Brad
HI Superferry: KauaiEclectic Great Blog
Friday, November 23, 2007
Musings: Homegrown "Terrorism"
"Well, the holiday season is officially upon us, with its over-emphasis on buy-buy, spend-spend. Yawn…… Every year, I pull further out of that whole scene, trying to distill my observance down to the essence, and away from all that hyper-materialism.
Mine is kind of an anti-American attitude, when you get down to it, because our economy is so consumerism-based. So far, however, it’s not illegal to speak disparagingly about shopping.
But with the U.S. Senate now poised to consider The Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007 (H.R. 1955), all kinds of unpopular thought, speech and action now protected by the First Amendment could be at risk.
As I read an article by Jessica Lee on the proposed act published in The Indypendent, I was struck by how some of the concerns expressed about the bill are already playing out here in Hawaii with Gov. Lingle’s response to the Superferry opposition."...[blog continues]
I recommend clicking on and reading the article by Jessica Lee above and saying something to your two Senators about the bill above linked.
Aloha, Brad
Musings: Homegrown "Terrorism"
"Well, the holiday season is officially upon us, with its over-emphasis on buy-buy, spend-spend. Yawn…… Every year, I pull further out of that whole scene, trying to distill my observance down to the essence, and away from all that hyper-materialism.
Mine is kind of an anti-American attitude, when you get down to it, because our economy is so consumerism-based. So far, however, it’s not illegal to speak disparagingly about shopping.
But with the U.S. Senate now poised to consider The Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007 (H.R. 1955), all kinds of unpopular thought, speech and action now protected by the First Amendment could be at risk.
As I read an article by Jessica Lee on the proposed act published in The Indypendent, I was struck by how some of the concerns expressed about the bill are already playing out here in Hawaii with Gov. Lingle’s response to the Superferry opposition."...[blog continues]
I recommend clicking on and reading the article by Jessica Lee above and saying something to your two Senators about the bill above linked.
Aloha, Brad
Friday, November 23, 2007
HI Superferry: Blog by Hale Mawae of Kauai
This guy Hale Mawae of Kauai (http://bebo.com/hmawae2004) is a great writer. I recommend reading two recent commentaries on his blog.
"No Conspiracy Here Folks!"
A Criticism: Part Deux
By Hale Mawae
http://bebo.com/BlogView.jsp?MemberId=2400702044&BlogId=5019000328
[just a short quote from that]..."And yet we still want to drive our gas filled cars on the Superferry that will burn massive amounts of dirty diesel fuel, in the name of our so called “freedom.” We can send our kids off to a war waged in vain to put more “freedom oil” in the Superferry’s hungry belly and continue to ride on the back of the beast without guilt and still feel good about ourselves."...
[and his previous commentary]...
All in Favor? Say, Aye! Right now! Or Else!
A Criticism
By Hale Mawae
http://bebo.com/BlogView.jsp?MemberId=2400702044&BlogId=4981492953
Aloha, Brad
"No Conspiracy Here Folks!"
A Criticism: Part Deux
By Hale Mawae
http://bebo.com/BlogView.jsp?MemberId=2400702044&BlogId=5019000328
[just a short quote from that]..."And yet we still want to drive our gas filled cars on the Superferry that will burn massive amounts of dirty diesel fuel, in the name of our so called “freedom.” We can send our kids off to a war waged in vain to put more “freedom oil” in the Superferry’s hungry belly and continue to ride on the back of the beast without guilt and still feel good about ourselves."...
[and his previous commentary]...
All in Favor? Say, Aye! Right now! Or Else!
A Criticism
By Hale Mawae
http://bebo.com/BlogView.jsp?MemberId=2400702044&BlogId=4981492953
Aloha, Brad
HI Superferry: Larry Geller's reports on Excessive Force
These posts and their comments are worth reading:
http://poinography.com/?p=5188
http://disappearednews.com/2007/11/poinography-tasers-option-for-hawaii.html
http://disappearednews.com/2007/11/what-chance-of-lingle-command-using.html
http://disappearednews.com/2007/11/hawaii-police-actions-more-on-tasers.html
It would be inappropriate to use tasers or water cannons for this. This police action does not require lethal action and both tasers and water cannons have proven to be that. So far, Linda Lingle's mistakes have only been with bad political decisions, although some would contest that constitutional infractions may be proven later. But, let's not turn this into government criminal actions, fatalities, and a terrible public relations fiasco for the state.
Aloha, Brad
http://poinography.com/?p=5188
http://disappearednews.com/2007/11/poinography-tasers-option-for-hawaii.html
http://disappearednews.com/2007/11/what-chance-of-lingle-command-using.html
http://disappearednews.com/2007/11/hawaii-police-actions-more-on-tasers.html
It would be inappropriate to use tasers or water cannons for this. This police action does not require lethal action and both tasers and water cannons have proven to be that. So far, Linda Lingle's mistakes have only been with bad political decisions, although some would contest that constitutional infractions may be proven later. But, let's not turn this into government criminal actions, fatalities, and a terrible public relations fiasco for the state.
Aloha, Brad
HI Superferry: Letter from Kauai Orgs to the Governor
A letter from many Kaua'i organizations to the Governor:
http://www.kauaiworld.com/articles/2007/11/22/opinion/edit01.txt
KAUAI GARDEN ISLAND NEWSPAPER
Thursday, November 22, 2007
Open letter to Gov. Linda Lingle
RE: Act 2, to allow an Inter-Island Ferry Service to operate while the state conducts an Environmental Assessment.
We, the undersigned organizations representing citizens of Kaua‘i and the Neighbor Islands, reject this Act, believing that it is unlawful, unconstitutional and immoral.
The 40 plus conditions, included in Executive Order No. 07-10, if read carefully, have a bottom line: that the success of the Hawai‘i Superferry be ensured at any cost.
According to the Executive Order, the concern for the safety of marine mammals is secondary to the comfort of the ferry passengers, as stated in item A2(a), of the Executive Order.
Furthermore, there is no method mentioned to determine “passenger comfort,” so it is apparently up to the discretion of the captain of the vessel. What parameters to define “passenger comfort” will the captain of the vessel use?
The dates listed for the humpback whale season in the bill are inaccurate and insufficient. The humpback whales are in our waters from November through May, and other species are here year round. In fact, The Garden Island newspaper reported on Oct. 20, that the humpbacks are already here.
NOAA recommends a speed limit of not more than 13 knots in whale waters. This bill allows a killing speed of 25 knots in sensitive areas. The truth is all Hawaiian waters are sensitive; there is no way to contain whales in a given location.
The agricultural and natural resource screenings as required by the bill will be virtually impossible to implement as described by the HSF corporation in its scheduled “turn around time” of 1 hour. Thorough physical inspections, we believe, would require at least 5 to 10 minutes per vehicle. Random screening is not sufficient.
We are concerned for our homes and our environment; we affirm that corporate business interests must come secondary to these considerations, especially when that corporate business so profoundly affects our culture and environment.
Under this act, the governor oversees and can amend the provisions of the law. It is only fair, under the circumstances, to have all operating conditions under the supervision of an independent agency, charged with the authority to implement appropriate sanctions. Indeed, what sanctions or consequences are established for failure to comply?
If HSF is found to be non-compliant with the specified conditions, does the Oversight Task Force, as called for in section 1a(1), qualify as an independent agency and do they have this power?
If HSF is found to be in non-compliance with Act 2, does that nullify and void the privilege of operation this law affords, requiring them to stop operation?
Knowing that, as Judge Cardoza stated in his Oct. 9, decision, “there is a real possibility of irreparable damage to the environment, to the way of life in this community,” we feel betrayed.
We believe critical interests, including the environmental, cultural and social qualities of our lives, have been pushed aside by your actions. Therefore, we urge all citizens of Hawai‘i to join us in condemnation of this act.
The way this act is written leaves the governor responsible for the consequences; we, therefore, go on record at this time, stating that we will hold the governor so accountable.
People for the Preservation of Kaua‘i
Thousand Friends of Kaua‘i
GMO Free Kaua‘i
Hawai‘i Ocean Noise Coalition
Hui-R
Islandbreath
Kanaka Council of the Island of Hawai‘i
Kaua‘i Alliance for Peace and Social Justice
Surfrider Foundation, Kaua‘i Chapter
http://www.kauaiworld.com/articles/2007/11/22/opinion/edit01.txt
KAUAI GARDEN ISLAND NEWSPAPER
Thursday, November 22, 2007
Open letter to Gov. Linda Lingle
RE: Act 2, to allow an Inter-Island Ferry Service to operate while the state conducts an Environmental Assessment.
We, the undersigned organizations representing citizens of Kaua‘i and the Neighbor Islands, reject this Act, believing that it is unlawful, unconstitutional and immoral.
The 40 plus conditions, included in Executive Order No. 07-10, if read carefully, have a bottom line: that the success of the Hawai‘i Superferry be ensured at any cost.
According to the Executive Order, the concern for the safety of marine mammals is secondary to the comfort of the ferry passengers, as stated in item A2(a), of the Executive Order.
Furthermore, there is no method mentioned to determine “passenger comfort,” so it is apparently up to the discretion of the captain of the vessel. What parameters to define “passenger comfort” will the captain of the vessel use?
The dates listed for the humpback whale season in the bill are inaccurate and insufficient. The humpback whales are in our waters from November through May, and other species are here year round. In fact, The Garden Island newspaper reported on Oct. 20, that the humpbacks are already here.
NOAA recommends a speed limit of not more than 13 knots in whale waters. This bill allows a killing speed of 25 knots in sensitive areas. The truth is all Hawaiian waters are sensitive; there is no way to contain whales in a given location.
The agricultural and natural resource screenings as required by the bill will be virtually impossible to implement as described by the HSF corporation in its scheduled “turn around time” of 1 hour. Thorough physical inspections, we believe, would require at least 5 to 10 minutes per vehicle. Random screening is not sufficient.
We are concerned for our homes and our environment; we affirm that corporate business interests must come secondary to these considerations, especially when that corporate business so profoundly affects our culture and environment.
Under this act, the governor oversees and can amend the provisions of the law. It is only fair, under the circumstances, to have all operating conditions under the supervision of an independent agency, charged with the authority to implement appropriate sanctions. Indeed, what sanctions or consequences are established for failure to comply?
If HSF is found to be non-compliant with the specified conditions, does the Oversight Task Force, as called for in section 1a(1), qualify as an independent agency and do they have this power?
If HSF is found to be in non-compliance with Act 2, does that nullify and void the privilege of operation this law affords, requiring them to stop operation?
Knowing that, as Judge Cardoza stated in his Oct. 9, decision, “there is a real possibility of irreparable damage to the environment, to the way of life in this community,” we feel betrayed.
We believe critical interests, including the environmental, cultural and social qualities of our lives, have been pushed aside by your actions. Therefore, we urge all citizens of Hawai‘i to join us in condemnation of this act.
The way this act is written leaves the governor responsible for the consequences; we, therefore, go on record at this time, stating that we will hold the governor so accountable.
People for the Preservation of Kaua‘i
Thousand Friends of Kaua‘i
GMO Free Kaua‘i
Hawai‘i Ocean Noise Coalition
Hui-R
Islandbreath
Kanaka Council of the Island of Hawai‘i
Kaua‘i Alliance for Peace and Social Justice
Surfrider Foundation, Kaua‘i Chapter
Thursday, November 22, 2007
HI Superferry: Break Even Analysis...Conclusions and Follow-up
I began this analysis with limited outsider information, but with enough information to do accurate Break Even and scheduling analysis on the Superferry. I also wanted to financially and logistically evaluate a few comments and ideas mentioned by intelligent speakers on Kauai over the past few months.
Regarding Governor Lingle's last public forum visit to Kauai, toward the end of the forum there was a speaker (I am now told he is Juan Wilson) who proposed three conditions under which the people of Kauai might be able to accept the Superferry back in Nawiliwili Harbor. They are: 1) No vehicles brought to Kauai on the Superferry; 2) Superferry travel interisland at the same speeds as the cruise ships (about 20 to 24 knots); and 3) No expanded security zone in Nawiliwili Harbor.
What I found is that Hawaii Superferry can operate profitably with only passengers and two wheeled vehicles and no 3 and 4+ wheeled vehicles to Kauai, and can operate profitably traveling interisland going no faster than maximum cruise ship speed. I also believe that government officials, particularly Governor Lingle and the Coast Guard, have the responsibility to lift the expanded security zone from Nawiliwili Harbor that would be an insult to the intelligent, freedom loving and law-abiding people of Kauai and Hawaii.
Notwithstanding the above evaluation in the short-term, over the intermediate to long-term, the Superferry with one or two ferries has very high operating expenses that allow for only a small percentage of profit potential with only private sector business. Further, the counter constraints of BEP financials, scheduling time and speed logistics, excessive cost of fuel consumption for this ferry design (which is worsening by the day now with fuel prices increasing), and inherent dangers of this technology to the large numbers of marine mammels in this region of the world make it unlikely that Hawaii Superferry will succeed as a viable commercial business in the intermediate to long-term, short of increasing government intervention and financing.
Aloha, Brad
P.S. In doing some further searches on this. Mainly to see where this BEA pulls up in a Google search, I found a very interesting MIT Masters Degree thesis on very similar issues.
I cite it here: http://dspace.mit.edu/bitstream/1721.1/36092/1/41094021.pdf
Here is the author cite:
LEONIDAS M. TH. KAMBANIS
File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat...break even analysis..."Superferry II"...
...dspace.mit.edu/bitstream/1721.1/36092/1/41094021.pdf
Regarding Governor Lingle's last public forum visit to Kauai, toward the end of the forum there was a speaker (I am now told he is Juan Wilson) who proposed three conditions under which the people of Kauai might be able to accept the Superferry back in Nawiliwili Harbor. They are: 1) No vehicles brought to Kauai on the Superferry; 2) Superferry travel interisland at the same speeds as the cruise ships (about 20 to 24 knots); and 3) No expanded security zone in Nawiliwili Harbor.
What I found is that Hawaii Superferry can operate profitably with only passengers and two wheeled vehicles and no 3 and 4+ wheeled vehicles to Kauai, and can operate profitably traveling interisland going no faster than maximum cruise ship speed. I also believe that government officials, particularly Governor Lingle and the Coast Guard, have the responsibility to lift the expanded security zone from Nawiliwili Harbor that would be an insult to the intelligent, freedom loving and law-abiding people of Kauai and Hawaii.
Notwithstanding the above evaluation in the short-term, over the intermediate to long-term, the Superferry with one or two ferries has very high operating expenses that allow for only a small percentage of profit potential with only private sector business. Further, the counter constraints of BEP financials, scheduling time and speed logistics, excessive cost of fuel consumption for this ferry design (which is worsening by the day now with fuel prices increasing), and inherent dangers of this technology to the large numbers of marine mammels in this region of the world make it unlikely that Hawaii Superferry will succeed as a viable commercial business in the intermediate to long-term, short of increasing government intervention and financing.
Aloha, Brad
P.S. In doing some further searches on this. Mainly to see where this BEA pulls up in a Google search, I found a very interesting MIT Masters Degree thesis on very similar issues.
I cite it here: http://dspace.mit.edu/bitstream/1721.1/36092/1/41094021.pdf
Here is the author cite:
LEONIDAS M. TH. KAMBANIS
File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat...break even analysis..."Superferry II"...
...dspace.mit.edu/bitstream/1721.1/36092/1/41094021.pdf
Wednesday, November 21, 2007
HI Superferry: Break Even Analysis...Schedule, Speed, and Time
OK, this is the last of these posts related to my Break Even Analysis of the Superferry. I get into the Scheduling, Speed, and Time because it does determine the BEP and constraints affecting that, and because of that idea by the Kauai speaker that the Superferry should "not travel any faster than the cruise ships going interisland."
So, I wanted to make sure I know what speeds the cruise ships go interisland. What I find is that the maximum speed of most cruise ships is 23 to 24 knots; although, they cruise interisland at about 20 knots mostly at night for their day trips on the islands. So, it is accurate to say that they cruise at 20 to 24 knots interisland. Some useful references I found that relate to this are:
http://www.ship-technology.com/projects/zaandam/
http://www.ship-technology.com/projects/destiny/
Also, related to Cruise Ship Speed and Whales:
http://web.mac.com/leetepley/Site/New_data_on_Vessel_-_Whale_Collisions.html
http://www.savekahuluiharbor.com/pdf/SB1276Testimony.doc
http://www.pacificenvironment.org/article.php?id=2224
http://www.divester.com/2007/01/24/cruise-ship-expected-to-pay-fine-for-killing-whale/
Also, looking on a map the distance between Honolulu and Kahului and Honolulu and Nawiliwili as the ship would travel is about 105 miles in both cases. We will be needing to convert between miles per hour and knots, so here are some good converters:
http://www.cleavebooks.co.uk/scol/ccspeed.htm
http://www.flightsimaviation.com/rule-of-thumb/22_Convert_Knots_to_Miles_per_Hour.html
Additionally, I'll work with Superferry's new and old schedules from their web site and look at some variations on that:
"New Schedule*
OAHU/MAUI
Route
Honolulu, O‘ahu to Kahului, Maui
Depart Time Arrival Time
6:30 a.m. to 10:15 a.m.
Kahului, Maui to Honolulu, O‘ahu
11:15 a.m. to 2:15 p.m."
(It is interesting to note that Hon to Kah here is 3:45 hrs or 28mph avg. or 24.3 knots avg., but Kah back to Hon is 3 hrs or 35mph avg. or 30.4 knots avg. Why the difference? Well, at any rate, this indicates how slow the Superferry is willing to go.)
Old Schedule "OAHU/KAUAI (Mon-Fri, Sun)
Route
Honolulu, O‘ahu to Nāwiliwili, Kaua‘i
Depart Time Arrival Time
3:15 p.m. to 6:15 p.m.
Nāwiliwili, Kaua‘i to Honolulu, O‘ahu
7:15 p.m. to 10:15 p.m."
(These prior times and speeds would have been 3 hrs or 35mph avg. or 30.4 knots avg.)
I tested a number of senerios of speed into this day-long schedule and find that the key counter constraints are acceptable speed and daylight hours. Basically to go an acceptable speed, some to quite a bit of it will be in the dark. It becomes a question of whether a balance can be found between the two. Limiting the dark travel time is important because marine mammals are harder to see up ahead in the dark at high speeds even if the required lookouts use optical aids such as infrared night vision (http://electronics.howstuffworks.com/nightvision.htm).
I also want to say that as Greg Kaufman, Lee Tepley, and other experts have testified, there really is no safe speed for the marine mammals above 13 knots on avg., as Governor Lingle has choosen to ignore.
One of the more reasonable schedules that I tested is the following:
[All departures with vehicles still have to check in 1 to 2 hrs ahead of departure to go through thorough 5 minute auto screenings.]
Prospective Schedule OAHU/MAUI
Honolulu, O‘ahu to Kahului, Maui
6:30 a.m. to 10:15 a.m. (same as company's 3:45 hrs at 24.3 knots)
Kahului, Maui to Honolulu, O‘ahu
11:15 a.m. to 3 p.m. (3:45 hrs at 24.3 knots avg.)
OAHU/KAUAI
Honolulu, O‘ahu to Nāwiliwili, Kaua‘i
4 p.m. to *7:45 p.m. (3:45 hrs at 24.3 knots avg. arriving at a time of day to less affect commuter traffic; also at a time of day forcing more checkins into traditional accommodations.)
Nāwiliwili, Kaua‘i to Honolulu, O‘ahu
*8:45 p.m. to *12:30 a.m. (3:45 hrs at 24.3 knots avg.)
*Superferry could go slower 5 to 10 miles in and out of Nawiliwili Harbor and have all whale lookouts using night vision optics.
I chose the above speed in the schedule because it meets the maximum speed cruise ships use and it was the time and speed proposed by the Superferry at least for the first leg to Maui. You can test slower speeds, more time, and a longer schedule, but I think it becomes undoable with a longer schedule than above.
The above schedule is not perfect. In fact it becomes apparent with senerio testing that there is no perfect schedule for the Superferry that involves Kauai.
In summation, the Superferry with one or two ferries has very high operating expenses that allow for only a small percentage of profit potential with only private sector business. Further, the counter constraints of BEP financials, scheduling time and speed logistics, excessive fuel consumption for this ferry design, and inherent dangers of this technology to large numbers of marine mammels in this region of the world make it unlikely that Hawaii Superferry will succeed as a viable business in the intermediate to long-term, short of increasing government intervention and financing.
Aloha, Brad
So, I wanted to make sure I know what speeds the cruise ships go interisland. What I find is that the maximum speed of most cruise ships is 23 to 24 knots; although, they cruise interisland at about 20 knots mostly at night for their day trips on the islands. So, it is accurate to say that they cruise at 20 to 24 knots interisland. Some useful references I found that relate to this are:
http://www.ship-technology.com/projects/zaandam/
http://www.ship-technology.com/projects/destiny/
Also, related to Cruise Ship Speed and Whales:
http://web.mac.com/leetepley/Site/New_data_on_Vessel_-_Whale_Collisions.html
http://www.savekahuluiharbor.com/pdf/SB1276Testimony.doc
http://www.pacificenvironment.org/article.php?id=2224
http://www.divester.com/2007/01/24/cruise-ship-expected-to-pay-fine-for-killing-whale/
Also, looking on a map the distance between Honolulu and Kahului and Honolulu and Nawiliwili as the ship would travel is about 105 miles in both cases. We will be needing to convert between miles per hour and knots, so here are some good converters:
http://www.cleavebooks.co.uk/scol/ccspeed.htm
http://www.flightsimaviation.com/rule-of-thumb/22_Convert_Knots_to_Miles_per_Hour.html
Additionally, I'll work with Superferry's new and old schedules from their web site and look at some variations on that:
"New Schedule*
OAHU/MAUI
Route
Honolulu, O‘ahu to Kahului, Maui
Depart Time Arrival Time
6:30 a.m. to 10:15 a.m.
Kahului, Maui to Honolulu, O‘ahu
11:15 a.m. to 2:15 p.m."
(It is interesting to note that Hon to Kah here is 3:45 hrs or 28mph avg. or 24.3 knots avg., but Kah back to Hon is 3 hrs or 35mph avg. or 30.4 knots avg. Why the difference? Well, at any rate, this indicates how slow the Superferry is willing to go.)
Old Schedule "OAHU/KAUAI (Mon-Fri, Sun)
Route
Honolulu, O‘ahu to Nāwiliwili, Kaua‘i
Depart Time Arrival Time
3:15 p.m. to 6:15 p.m.
Nāwiliwili, Kaua‘i to Honolulu, O‘ahu
7:15 p.m. to 10:15 p.m."
(These prior times and speeds would have been 3 hrs or 35mph avg. or 30.4 knots avg.)
I tested a number of senerios of speed into this day-long schedule and find that the key counter constraints are acceptable speed and daylight hours. Basically to go an acceptable speed, some to quite a bit of it will be in the dark. It becomes a question of whether a balance can be found between the two. Limiting the dark travel time is important because marine mammals are harder to see up ahead in the dark at high speeds even if the required lookouts use optical aids such as infrared night vision (http://electronics.howstuffworks.com/nightvision.htm).
I also want to say that as Greg Kaufman, Lee Tepley, and other experts have testified, there really is no safe speed for the marine mammals above 13 knots on avg., as Governor Lingle has choosen to ignore.
One of the more reasonable schedules that I tested is the following:
[All departures with vehicles still have to check in 1 to 2 hrs ahead of departure to go through thorough 5 minute auto screenings.]
Prospective Schedule OAHU/MAUI
Honolulu, O‘ahu to Kahului, Maui
6:30 a.m. to 10:15 a.m. (same as company's 3:45 hrs at 24.3 knots)
Kahului, Maui to Honolulu, O‘ahu
11:15 a.m. to 3 p.m. (3:45 hrs at 24.3 knots avg.)
OAHU/KAUAI
Honolulu, O‘ahu to Nāwiliwili, Kaua‘i
4 p.m. to *7:45 p.m. (3:45 hrs at 24.3 knots avg. arriving at a time of day to less affect commuter traffic; also at a time of day forcing more checkins into traditional accommodations.)
Nāwiliwili, Kaua‘i to Honolulu, O‘ahu
*8:45 p.m. to *12:30 a.m. (3:45 hrs at 24.3 knots avg.)
*Superferry could go slower 5 to 10 miles in and out of Nawiliwili Harbor and have all whale lookouts using night vision optics.
I chose the above speed in the schedule because it meets the maximum speed cruise ships use and it was the time and speed proposed by the Superferry at least for the first leg to Maui. You can test slower speeds, more time, and a longer schedule, but I think it becomes undoable with a longer schedule than above.
The above schedule is not perfect. In fact it becomes apparent with senerio testing that there is no perfect schedule for the Superferry that involves Kauai.
In summation, the Superferry with one or two ferries has very high operating expenses that allow for only a small percentage of profit potential with only private sector business. Further, the counter constraints of BEP financials, scheduling time and speed logistics, excessive fuel consumption for this ferry design, and inherent dangers of this technology to large numbers of marine mammels in this region of the world make it unlikely that Hawaii Superferry will succeed as a viable business in the intermediate to long-term, short of increasing government intervention and financing.
Aloha, Brad
Tuesday, November 20, 2007
HI Superferry: Break Even Analysis
First, from my last analysis,
HI Superferry: An Analysis of the New Superferry Prices, looking at just the Maui service that thusfar has been proposed by the Superferry, I decided to do a Break Even Analysis.
I'm going to leave out the calculations, but mention some key assumptions first: I'm using the prices that the ferry proposes for the two time periods that start on Dec. 1 and change on Dec. 21. There is no fuel surcharge in the first period, but I am assuming a fuel surcharge starting Dec. 21 comparable to what the company was previously going to charge. Since the company right now is proposing to operate between Oahu and Maui, I generously assume they can reduce cost by as much as $150,000 per week by reducing employees they call back initially, particularly on Kauai. I make another generous assumption that the Superferry can sell on average at least $10 worth of merchandise, food, or beverages to each passenger; with the higher load factors to get to break even, that is about twice what I previously assumed they might sell onboard. I decided that the company cannot likely significantly or materally reduce their fuel cost by sourcing at below wholesale from the government, so I'm leaving that out.
With these realistic assumptions the Break Even Point for the Maui Operations alone would be:
From Dec. 1 to Dec. 20, BEP:
866 passengers at $29 per person and
282 vehicles at $55 per vehicle
(which happens to be Superferry capacity)
From Dec. 21 to Mar. 12, BEP:
644 passengers at $39 per person and
218 vehicles at $65 per vehicle plus a $17 fuel surcharge on each vehicle = $82 per vehicle
Those are very high break even points; but, of course that is only with the Maui operations. So, let's add in the prospective Kauai operations.
First, what about with passengers and no vehicles to Kauai? The people can rent cars already on Kauai and the rental car companies can use their shuttles to pick the people up at the Harbor, as with the cruise ships.
What I find is that just to cover the cost of fuel alone for the transit to Kauai with passengers only, the Break Even Point in passenger numbers to cover the incremental cost of fuel only at the $29 fare is 471 passengers. And for the $39 fare is 350 passengers. And conversely, the BEP fare price at the average expected by the company of 400 passengers is $34, to cover fuel only. The question you have to ask yourself is how likely are an average of 350 to 471 people going to take the Superferry to Kauai on what will likely be at least a 3 1/2 hour ride without their personal car, to rent a car when they get there. And this all would only be for the company to just cover their fuel cost to and from Kauai.
It was not the conclusion that I had hoped to find, but to me it looks like it would not be worth the incremental effort for the Superferry to go to Kauai with passengers only. There is further Break Even Analysis that I did regarding Kauai, but I disstilled it down to the above conclusions for the sake of brevity.
Since I just mentioned inspections above, I'll go into that some more here. Assuming as many as 280 vehicles to inspect, at least to Maui and back, that the company would need to break even, it could take many hours to inspect them all even if only 4 -5 minutes was used on each vehicle, assuming only 1 or 2 inspectors. I propose there be at least 10 company inspectors operating at once. They would be able to take 4 - 5 minutes on average on each car and it would take 2 hours to inspect a full capacity load of cars, and that would be required to be started at least an hour before the Superferry arrives at each location. Passengers would be notified when they book fares that they have to arrive 2 hours before departure for vehicle inspection should they be bringing a vehicle.
I also went into some detail regarding the schedule, distances traveled, time, and speed constraints...I'll make that the next post.
Aloha, Brad
HI Superferry: An Analysis of the New Superferry Prices, looking at just the Maui service that thusfar has been proposed by the Superferry, I decided to do a Break Even Analysis.
I'm going to leave out the calculations, but mention some key assumptions first: I'm using the prices that the ferry proposes for the two time periods that start on Dec. 1 and change on Dec. 21. There is no fuel surcharge in the first period, but I am assuming a fuel surcharge starting Dec. 21 comparable to what the company was previously going to charge. Since the company right now is proposing to operate between Oahu and Maui, I generously assume they can reduce cost by as much as $150,000 per week by reducing employees they call back initially, particularly on Kauai. I make another generous assumption that the Superferry can sell on average at least $10 worth of merchandise, food, or beverages to each passenger; with the higher load factors to get to break even, that is about twice what I previously assumed they might sell onboard. I decided that the company cannot likely significantly or materally reduce their fuel cost by sourcing at below wholesale from the government, so I'm leaving that out.
With these realistic assumptions the Break Even Point for the Maui Operations alone would be:
From Dec. 1 to Dec. 20, BEP:
866 passengers at $29 per person and
282 vehicles at $55 per vehicle
(which happens to be Superferry capacity)
From Dec. 21 to Mar. 12, BEP:
644 passengers at $39 per person and
218 vehicles at $65 per vehicle plus a $17 fuel surcharge on each vehicle = $82 per vehicle
Those are very high break even points; but, of course that is only with the Maui operations. So, let's add in the prospective Kauai operations.
First, what about with passengers and no vehicles to Kauai? The people can rent cars already on Kauai and the rental car companies can use their shuttles to pick the people up at the Harbor, as with the cruise ships.
What I find is that just to cover the cost of fuel alone for the transit to Kauai with passengers only, the Break Even Point in passenger numbers to cover the incremental cost of fuel only at the $29 fare is 471 passengers. And for the $39 fare is 350 passengers. And conversely, the BEP fare price at the average expected by the company of 400 passengers is $34, to cover fuel only. The question you have to ask yourself is how likely are an average of 350 to 471 people going to take the Superferry to Kauai on what will likely be at least a 3 1/2 hour ride without their personal car, to rent a car when they get there. And this all would only be for the company to just cover their fuel cost to and from Kauai.
It was not the conclusion that I had hoped to find, but to me it looks like it would not be worth the incremental effort for the Superferry to go to Kauai with passengers only. There is further Break Even Analysis that I did regarding Kauai, but I disstilled it down to the above conclusions for the sake of brevity.
Since I just mentioned inspections above, I'll go into that some more here. Assuming as many as 280 vehicles to inspect, at least to Maui and back, that the company would need to break even, it could take many hours to inspect them all even if only 4 -5 minutes was used on each vehicle, assuming only 1 or 2 inspectors. I propose there be at least 10 company inspectors operating at once. They would be able to take 4 - 5 minutes on average on each car and it would take 2 hours to inspect a full capacity load of cars, and that would be required to be started at least an hour before the Superferry arrives at each location. Passengers would be notified when they book fares that they have to arrive 2 hours before departure for vehicle inspection should they be bringing a vehicle.
I also went into some detail regarding the schedule, distances traveled, time, and speed constraints...I'll make that the next post.
Aloha, Brad
HI Superferry: Break Even Analysis...Forthcoming
Aloha,
I have called upon a Cost Accounting class from years past and spent all of my spare time yesterday doing a thorough proforma profit/loss, breakeven, and multiple scenerio financial analysis on the Superferry. Anybody can do these calculations with the information that has thusfar been divulged publicly by the company. It is a lot easier to do this in a spreadsheet, but I did it instead on paper. Here are a few links about BEA: http://www.beyondtechnology.com/tips_bkevn.shtml
http://connection.cwru.edu/mbac424/breakeven/BreakEven.html
I have called upon a Cost Accounting class from years past and spent all of my spare time yesterday doing a thorough proforma profit/loss, breakeven, and multiple scenerio financial analysis on the Superferry. Anybody can do these calculations with the information that has thusfar been divulged publicly by the company. It is a lot easier to do this in a spreadsheet, but I did it instead on paper. Here are a few links about BEA: http://www.beyondtechnology.com/tips_bkevn.shtml
http://connection.cwru.edu/mbac424/breakeven/BreakEven.html
I may take a few posts to get all of the pertinent conclusions out.
First, what inspired me on this:
One, on my last profit/loss evaluation of Superferry's recent low rates offer, the point that stands out is that even with high loads of passengers and vehicles on the Superferry, the ferry would likely be operating at a net loss under the low rates. (In doing those prior calculations, I used the prices quoted by the company, loads higher than expected by the company on average, costs that have been divulged by the company, and prior calculations by Dick Mayer as published by Larry Geller.)
Second, it becomes obvious that a breakeven analysis under multiple scenerios needs to be done because of how high are the Superferry's expenses; just to see the extreme of what would be necessary for the Superferry to get out of the red. Also, I do this to see what kind of flexibility the Superferry may really have regarding pricing, scheduling, types of loads, and key conditions.
Third, watching the forum on video of Governor Lingle's last visit to Kauai, toward the end of the forum there was a speaker (I did not get his name) who proposed three conditions under which the people of Kauai might be able to accept the Superferry back in Nawiliwili Harbor. They are: 1) No vehicles brought to Kauai on the Superferry; 2) Superferry travel interisland at the same speeds as the cruise ships (about 20 to 24 knots); and 3) No security expanded zone in Nawiliwili Harbor. I found very interesting what that speaker proposed at least twice in public forums that I viewed. So, I seek to financially and logistically analyze the first two of those.
Fourth, I will therefore look at the schedule, distances, speeds, and time of day (day or night) to make some obvious constraint conclusions that thusfar don't seem to have made their way into the public debate.
Fifth, and lastly, one of the Kauai speakers at the Senators' forum on Kauai mentioned and a few others have also referenced how long it would take to adequately inspect each vehicle getting onto the Superferry. It is a shocking amount of time. The assumption they make is that there would be one inspector for all of the vehicles. I expand upon that to what would be realisticly necessary to adequately inspect the cars before they get onto the Superferry.
So, with my next post, I will wade into it.
Aloha, Brad
First, what inspired me on this:
One, on my last profit/loss evaluation of Superferry's recent low rates offer, the point that stands out is that even with high loads of passengers and vehicles on the Superferry, the ferry would likely be operating at a net loss under the low rates. (In doing those prior calculations, I used the prices quoted by the company, loads higher than expected by the company on average, costs that have been divulged by the company, and prior calculations by Dick Mayer as published by Larry Geller.)
Second, it becomes obvious that a breakeven analysis under multiple scenerios needs to be done because of how high are the Superferry's expenses; just to see the extreme of what would be necessary for the Superferry to get out of the red. Also, I do this to see what kind of flexibility the Superferry may really have regarding pricing, scheduling, types of loads, and key conditions.
Third, watching the forum on video of Governor Lingle's last visit to Kauai, toward the end of the forum there was a speaker (I did not get his name) who proposed three conditions under which the people of Kauai might be able to accept the Superferry back in Nawiliwili Harbor. They are: 1) No vehicles brought to Kauai on the Superferry; 2) Superferry travel interisland at the same speeds as the cruise ships (about 20 to 24 knots); and 3) No security expanded zone in Nawiliwili Harbor. I found very interesting what that speaker proposed at least twice in public forums that I viewed. So, I seek to financially and logistically analyze the first two of those.
Fourth, I will therefore look at the schedule, distances, speeds, and time of day (day or night) to make some obvious constraint conclusions that thusfar don't seem to have made their way into the public debate.
Fifth, and lastly, one of the Kauai speakers at the Senators' forum on Kauai mentioned and a few others have also referenced how long it would take to adequately inspect each vehicle getting onto the Superferry. It is a shocking amount of time. The assumption they make is that there would be one inspector for all of the vehicles. I expand upon that to what would be realisticly necessary to adequately inspect the cars before they get onto the Superferry.
So, with my next post, I will wade into it.
Aloha, Brad
Monday, November 19, 2007
HI Superferry: Sovereignty and Sustainability
Archives
Island Breath: Sovereignty and Sustainability
by Juan Wilson - Special to The Garden Island
Posted: Saturday, Nov 17, 2007 - 11:53:49 pm HST
Carrying a football field full of vehicles and burning 2,000 gallons of fuel an hour, the Hawaii Superferry is a poster child for unsustainability. However, it was the actions of the company regarding an environmental assessment that created the strong visceral resistance to operation on Kaua’i.
The ferry operators have been their own worst enemy. Activists who had been working on individual causes — such as energy policy, overdevelopment, traffic congestion, ocean mammal protection, Hawaiian cultural integrity, invasive species and anti-militarism — all came together to stop the Superferry unless it completed an environmental study.
People who had never thought about the implication of visitors “driving” to Kaua’i became alarmed. People who had never participated in a demonstration, found themselves in the water, breaking federal laws, to protect Kaua’i.
Gov. Linda Lingle created the “Unified Command” by teaming the state with the Homeland Security, Hawaii Superferry Inc. and the Kaua’i County Mayor’s Office. Government hard-liners didn’t seem to realize the degree to which their support for the Superferry undermined their own credibility and authority.
When anti-Superferry protesters faced the armed U.S. Coast Guard, they realized that the Coast Guard was not protecting Kaua’i from destructive outside forces. It was turned landward to protect the Superferry from Kaua’i.
Denying the Superferry a docking in Nawiliwili Harbor on Aug. 27 planted a new seed of independence on Kaua’i soil. Dedicated activists who never had thought much about the kapu/taboo subject of Hawaiian sovereignty began thinking about it. The idea of taking control of our own lives and resources has begun to grow.
This growth is being nurtured by external economic forces — foremost the ever-rising cost of energy and the subsequent rise in transportation, housing and food costs. How the issue of sovereignty plays out on Kaua’i will be linked tightly to our island’s path toward sustainability.
Historic record
It is quite clear to me that the means by which Hawai‘i became a territory, and eventually a state, was based on an illegal overthrow of the internationally recognized Hawaiian nation.
America’s 1849 Friendship Treaty with the Kingdom of Hawai‘i promised perpetual peace and amity. By landing Marines with bayonets on Hawaiian shores in 1893, the U.S. provided the military muscle to support a coup, lead by businessman Stanford Dole, that imprisoned the Hawaiian Queen, and seized the islands.
The Friendship Treaty may have been broken, but it was never abrogated. Moreover, the Kingdom of Hawai‘i has never given up its claim to sovereignty. American history reveals that Hawaiian culture and language were suppressed. Land and water were grabbed. The Hawaiian population was affected by Mainland diseases. Yet the sense of an independent Hawaiian nation has persisted.
In 1978, the Office of Hawaiian Affairs was created by a state constitutional amendment. The office’s purpose was to formulate policy and manage the resources for Hawaiians until a sovereign entity was decided upon. The most significant feature of the office’s structural model was “the authority to govern itself.”
But the Office of Hawaiian Affairs has proved to be a disappointment to Hawaiians interested in sovereignty. Recently, the Senate Indian Affairs Committee unanimously passed an amended version of the Hawaiian Government Reorganization Act, also known as the “Akaka Bill.” The office has supported and lobbied for this bill.
The Akaka Bill relegates Hawaiian independence to the status “enjoyed” by indigenous American Indians, and we all know how well that has worked out for them. The Akaka Bill renounces any claims of national independence by Hawaiians, and provides the United States some legal authority here.
I won’t detail this history further. Read it for yourself, starting with the issue of the Bayonet Constitution of 1887. The record indicates that the nation Hawai‘i never ceased to exist and that the United States has no legal claim to Hawai‘i. Like the authority of the “Unified Command,” the authority of the United States to occupy Hawai‘i continues through the power of the U.S. military.
Move to sovereignty
For decades there have been many Hawaiian independence efforts. They have varied widely in style and substance. Currently, there are several active groups. They all claim sovereignty and vary in form from strict monarchies to constitutional democracies. Here are four: Hawaiian Kingdom, Reinstated Nation of Hawai‘i, Reinstated Kingdom of Hawai‘i and Kingdom of Hawai‘i.
Coming together
In 1993, 100 years after the takeover, the U.S. adopted the “Apology Bill,” admitting America’s wrongdoing. That same year, international law professor Francis Boyle, of the University of Illinois at Urbana Champaign, came to Honolulu. Boyle is an expert in independence movements and has assisted the Palestinian people in the development of their independent nation state and defended Bosnia-Herzegovina in the International Court of Justice.
Boyle outlined the criteria for international recognition of Hawaiian sovereignty:
• Territory: A fixed territory, and clearly we have the Hawaiian Archipelago.
• Population: A distinguishable population of people — Native Hawaiians.
• Government: Here you have the Kapuna Council, that you’ve traditionally supported.
• International Relations: There are states in the Western Pacific that would give Hawai‘i diplomatic recognition.
Professor Boyle returned to Hawai‘i in 2004 to give a keynote speech to a gathering of Hawaiian sovereignty advocates who met on Kaua’i. He was optimistic about the potential for international recognition of Hawaiian independence. However, he warned that the splits in the claims of sovereignty could sink the movement. He suggested that the sovereignty advocates agree to disagree. They should look to one another as political parties within a single nation and drop their claims of exclusive authority. They could then go to the people and compete for leadership authority.
He went on to stress that sovereignty proponents begin to provide the services of a nation, including education, public works, social services and all that would eventually replace what is now provided by the existing state entities.
What are the implications of this for us today?
Sovereignty 2.0
To a degree, the sovereignty movement has foundered because it has been divided on racial lines, with Native Hawaiians (Kanaka Maoli) on one hand, and all late comers on the other. Obviously, the Kanaka Maoli are a tiny fraction of the population due to historic events and intermarriage. It is hard to build a successful change in governance, no matter how justified, with a tiny minority.
Another distinction sometimes brought up is whether you were born in Hawai‘i or are a transplant. Although birthplace can be criteria for citizenship, it is not the only one. Commitment to sustaining a nation, understanding its history and supporting its culture are crucial criteria as well.
It is my opinion that the enthusiastic participation of people with European and Asian backgrounds will be critical to independence movement. Many of the progressive activists who have come together on the issue of the Superferry are of these backgrounds. They now perceive the state and federal government as acting against the interest of Kaua’i.
In realizing importance of protecting Kaua’i, some progressives now see they share a commitment with the sovereignty activists. As a result, they are less anxious than in the past about the implications of the movement. They see room for a wider spectrum of people working for independence.
I strongly feel that Hawaiian independence will be built from the bottom up. From the Ahupuaa (watershed) to the Kalana (district) to the Moku (bioregion) to the Moku Puni (island) and ultimately to Hawaii Nei (the archipelago).
The current federal, state and county governments are out of touch, out of control and facing an uncertain economic future. We will need to redefine and rebuild our communities after the global petroleum economic culture fails.
My advice to those interested in sovereignty and sustainability: Start at home in your own backyard. Grow some food, then start talking to your neighbors. The more local, the more bettah!
• Juan Wilson is a resident of Hanapepe and writes a bi-weekly column for The Garden Island. Juan is an architect-planner and the editor of www.IslandBreath.org
Island Breath: Sovereignty and Sustainability
by Juan Wilson - Special to The Garden Island
Posted: Saturday, Nov 17, 2007 - 11:53:49 pm HST
Carrying a football field full of vehicles and burning 2,000 gallons of fuel an hour, the Hawaii Superferry is a poster child for unsustainability. However, it was the actions of the company regarding an environmental assessment that created the strong visceral resistance to operation on Kaua’i.
The ferry operators have been their own worst enemy. Activists who had been working on individual causes — such as energy policy, overdevelopment, traffic congestion, ocean mammal protection, Hawaiian cultural integrity, invasive species and anti-militarism — all came together to stop the Superferry unless it completed an environmental study.
People who had never thought about the implication of visitors “driving” to Kaua’i became alarmed. People who had never participated in a demonstration, found themselves in the water, breaking federal laws, to protect Kaua’i.
Gov. Linda Lingle created the “Unified Command” by teaming the state with the Homeland Security, Hawaii Superferry Inc. and the Kaua’i County Mayor’s Office. Government hard-liners didn’t seem to realize the degree to which their support for the Superferry undermined their own credibility and authority.
When anti-Superferry protesters faced the armed U.S. Coast Guard, they realized that the Coast Guard was not protecting Kaua’i from destructive outside forces. It was turned landward to protect the Superferry from Kaua’i.
Denying the Superferry a docking in Nawiliwili Harbor on Aug. 27 planted a new seed of independence on Kaua’i soil. Dedicated activists who never had thought much about the kapu/taboo subject of Hawaiian sovereignty began thinking about it. The idea of taking control of our own lives and resources has begun to grow.
This growth is being nurtured by external economic forces — foremost the ever-rising cost of energy and the subsequent rise in transportation, housing and food costs. How the issue of sovereignty plays out on Kaua’i will be linked tightly to our island’s path toward sustainability.
Historic record
It is quite clear to me that the means by which Hawai‘i became a territory, and eventually a state, was based on an illegal overthrow of the internationally recognized Hawaiian nation.
America’s 1849 Friendship Treaty with the Kingdom of Hawai‘i promised perpetual peace and amity. By landing Marines with bayonets on Hawaiian shores in 1893, the U.S. provided the military muscle to support a coup, lead by businessman Stanford Dole, that imprisoned the Hawaiian Queen, and seized the islands.
The Friendship Treaty may have been broken, but it was never abrogated. Moreover, the Kingdom of Hawai‘i has never given up its claim to sovereignty. American history reveals that Hawaiian culture and language were suppressed. Land and water were grabbed. The Hawaiian population was affected by Mainland diseases. Yet the sense of an independent Hawaiian nation has persisted.
In 1978, the Office of Hawaiian Affairs was created by a state constitutional amendment. The office’s purpose was to formulate policy and manage the resources for Hawaiians until a sovereign entity was decided upon. The most significant feature of the office’s structural model was “the authority to govern itself.”
But the Office of Hawaiian Affairs has proved to be a disappointment to Hawaiians interested in sovereignty. Recently, the Senate Indian Affairs Committee unanimously passed an amended version of the Hawaiian Government Reorganization Act, also known as the “Akaka Bill.” The office has supported and lobbied for this bill.
The Akaka Bill relegates Hawaiian independence to the status “enjoyed” by indigenous American Indians, and we all know how well that has worked out for them. The Akaka Bill renounces any claims of national independence by Hawaiians, and provides the United States some legal authority here.
I won’t detail this history further. Read it for yourself, starting with the issue of the Bayonet Constitution of 1887. The record indicates that the nation Hawai‘i never ceased to exist and that the United States has no legal claim to Hawai‘i. Like the authority of the “Unified Command,” the authority of the United States to occupy Hawai‘i continues through the power of the U.S. military.
Move to sovereignty
For decades there have been many Hawaiian independence efforts. They have varied widely in style and substance. Currently, there are several active groups. They all claim sovereignty and vary in form from strict monarchies to constitutional democracies. Here are four: Hawaiian Kingdom, Reinstated Nation of Hawai‘i, Reinstated Kingdom of Hawai‘i and Kingdom of Hawai‘i.
Coming together
In 1993, 100 years after the takeover, the U.S. adopted the “Apology Bill,” admitting America’s wrongdoing. That same year, international law professor Francis Boyle, of the University of Illinois at Urbana Champaign, came to Honolulu. Boyle is an expert in independence movements and has assisted the Palestinian people in the development of their independent nation state and defended Bosnia-Herzegovina in the International Court of Justice.
Boyle outlined the criteria for international recognition of Hawaiian sovereignty:
• Territory: A fixed territory, and clearly we have the Hawaiian Archipelago.
• Population: A distinguishable population of people — Native Hawaiians.
• Government: Here you have the Kapuna Council, that you’ve traditionally supported.
• International Relations: There are states in the Western Pacific that would give Hawai‘i diplomatic recognition.
Professor Boyle returned to Hawai‘i in 2004 to give a keynote speech to a gathering of Hawaiian sovereignty advocates who met on Kaua’i. He was optimistic about the potential for international recognition of Hawaiian independence. However, he warned that the splits in the claims of sovereignty could sink the movement. He suggested that the sovereignty advocates agree to disagree. They should look to one another as political parties within a single nation and drop their claims of exclusive authority. They could then go to the people and compete for leadership authority.
He went on to stress that sovereignty proponents begin to provide the services of a nation, including education, public works, social services and all that would eventually replace what is now provided by the existing state entities.
What are the implications of this for us today?
Sovereignty 2.0
To a degree, the sovereignty movement has foundered because it has been divided on racial lines, with Native Hawaiians (Kanaka Maoli) on one hand, and all late comers on the other. Obviously, the Kanaka Maoli are a tiny fraction of the population due to historic events and intermarriage. It is hard to build a successful change in governance, no matter how justified, with a tiny minority.
Another distinction sometimes brought up is whether you were born in Hawai‘i or are a transplant. Although birthplace can be criteria for citizenship, it is not the only one. Commitment to sustaining a nation, understanding its history and supporting its culture are crucial criteria as well.
It is my opinion that the enthusiastic participation of people with European and Asian backgrounds will be critical to independence movement. Many of the progressive activists who have come together on the issue of the Superferry are of these backgrounds. They now perceive the state and federal government as acting against the interest of Kaua’i.
In realizing importance of protecting Kaua’i, some progressives now see they share a commitment with the sovereignty activists. As a result, they are less anxious than in the past about the implications of the movement. They see room for a wider spectrum of people working for independence.
I strongly feel that Hawaiian independence will be built from the bottom up. From the Ahupuaa (watershed) to the Kalana (district) to the Moku (bioregion) to the Moku Puni (island) and ultimately to Hawaii Nei (the archipelago).
The current federal, state and county governments are out of touch, out of control and facing an uncertain economic future. We will need to redefine and rebuild our communities after the global petroleum economic culture fails.
My advice to those interested in sovereignty and sustainability: Start at home in your own backyard. Grow some food, then start talking to your neighbors. The more local, the more bettah!
• Juan Wilson is a resident of Hanapepe and writes a bi-weekly column for The Garden Island. Juan is an architect-planner and the editor of www.IslandBreath.org
Sunday, November 18, 2007
HI Superferry: Cont. Solar re: Pualaa's Manifesto
I previously put up some info. on wind power. Here is a start on solar power. After Pualaa's Manifesto, the following happened:
http://www.kauaiworld.com/articles/2007/11/10/news/news02.txt
And before the Manifesto:
http://www.kauaiworld.com/articles/2007/10/06/news/news03.txt
The first link below has a good article about solar on Kauai. The whole brochure is worth reading through:
http://www.kauaiworld.com/specialsections/gogreen/pages/page02.htm
http://www.kiuc.coop/energy_programs_residential_energy_wise.htm
http://homepage.mac.com/juanwilson/islandbreath/09-science/science02solarkauai.html
The next are from the State. As indicated, a solar water heater, rather than a full solar system is the simpler way to enter into it:
http://www.hawaii.gov/dbedt/info/energy/renewable/solar
http://www.hawaii.gov/dbedt/info/energy/publications/solar-gill.pdf
http://www.hawaii.gov/dbedt/info/energy/publications/solardata/
And lastly for now. A few months ago I saw a program about "photovoltaic thin film" a relatively new technology that may make solar panel systems financially and logistically more accessible, so I am providing some links for that:
http://www.azom.com/details.asp?ArticleID=1167
http://www.bigfrogmountain.com/powerfilmsolarproducts.htm
http://www.etaengineering.com/panels/unisolar.shtml
http://www.mhi.co.jp/power/e_a-si/index.html
http://www.leonardo-energy.org/drupal/node/1832
http://www.halfbakery.com/idea/Photovoltaic_20Paint
Aloha, Brad
http://www.kauaiworld.com/articles/2007/11/10/news/news02.txt
And before the Manifesto:
http://www.kauaiworld.com/articles/2007/10/06/news/news03.txt
The first link below has a good article about solar on Kauai. The whole brochure is worth reading through:
http://www.kauaiworld.com/specialsections/gogreen/pages/page02.htm
http://www.kiuc.coop/energy_programs_residential_energy_wise.htm
http://homepage.mac.com/juanwilson/islandbreath/09-science/science02solarkauai.html
The next are from the State. As indicated, a solar water heater, rather than a full solar system is the simpler way to enter into it:
http://www.hawaii.gov/dbedt/info/energy/renewable/solar
http://www.hawaii.gov/dbedt/info/energy/publications/solar-gill.pdf
http://www.hawaii.gov/dbedt/info/energy/publications/solardata/
And lastly for now. A few months ago I saw a program about "photovoltaic thin film" a relatively new technology that may make solar panel systems financially and logistically more accessible, so I am providing some links for that:
http://www.azom.com/details.asp?ArticleID=1167
http://www.bigfrogmountain.com/powerfilmsolarproducts.htm
http://www.etaengineering.com/panels/unisolar.shtml
http://www.mhi.co.jp/power/e_a-si/index.html
http://www.leonardo-energy.org/drupal/node/1832
http://www.halfbakery.com/idea/Photovoltaic_20Paint
Aloha, Brad
Saturday, November 17, 2007
HI Superferry: Bumper Stickers to Affect Demand
It is 6 hours after they started taking reservations and the maiden voyage is still not booked up per their web site. I figured they would have booked up to capacity within just a few hours.
In light of this, here are some links for bumperstickers to affect demand:
"Thursday, November 15, 2007
From http://www.savekahuluiharbor.com/
Get this Maui version of the bumper sticker mailed to you for $2.00 through their supporter, Redwood Games. (avail aprox 11/20)
Get your IMPEACH LINGLE bumper sticker for $2.00 (avail 11/20)
Click on this to download a larger jpg image to print out posters (If you want to order 25 or more of these it's cheaper go to http://www.makestickers.com/ and upload the larger jpg image to them)"
BTW, Kauai Eclectic Blog has some really good posts and comments to those recently:
Musings: That Choking Feeling
Musings: Lost Boys
Musings: Rough Sailing?
Aloha, Brad
In light of this, here are some links for bumperstickers to affect demand:
"Thursday, November 15, 2007
From http://www.savekahuluiharbor.com/
Get this Maui version of the bumper sticker mailed to you for $2.00 through their supporter, Redwood Games. (avail aprox 11/20)
Get your IMPEACH LINGLE bumper sticker for $2.00 (avail 11/20)
Click on this to download a larger jpg image to print out posters (If you want to order 25 or more of these it's cheaper go to http://www.makestickers.com/ and upload the larger jpg image to them)"
BTW, Kauai Eclectic Blog has some really good posts and comments to those recently:
Musings: That Choking Feeling
Musings: Lost Boys
Musings: Rough Sailing?
Aloha, Brad
Friday, November 16, 2007
HI Superferry: An Analysis of the New Superferry Prices
From http://the.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/2007/Nov/16/br/br4195738620.html:
"The Hawaii Superferry will resume service to Maui on Dec. 1 with $29 special one-way fares from Dec. 1 to Dec. 20."
"The Superferry said after its initial $29 fare it will offer $39 one-way fares beginning Dec. 21 and through March 12, 2008."
"The company said a reduced passenger vehicle fare will also be offered at $55 each way. Motorcycles, scooters, and mopeds are $35. All promotional fares are subject to applicable Hawai'i taxes and fees. The fuel surcharge has been waived for these promotional fares."
I also reference:
HI Superferry...Would Lose Money w/Private Sector Business Only
Based on both of the above information I did some quick calculations and come to some interesting conclusions.
Under these new prices, doing 14 trips to and from Maui, the Superferry will lose as much as $400,000 per week under the early reduced fares without a fuel surcharge. Under the later fare after Dec. 20, the losses would be at least $300,000 per week.
I am assuming a generous 50 % (people) to 100 % (autos) demand increase under the lower prices to still come to these losses. I am assuming that Superferry will use the same workforce, but they might be able to save as much as $150,000 a week with less employees. I am also assuming that Superferry's marine diesel fuel source would still be the private market, but if the Superferry has been able to secure a deal with the U.S. Navy for lower cost marine diesel fuel, then they may be able to save as much as $75,000 a week on fuel.
The Superferry can try to sell lots of merchandise and refreshments on-board, but that would not amount to much more than $200,000 per month. Superferry can also make a big push to get more motorcycles, scooters, and mopeds on-board at $35 each, but I am already factoring that in with a generous 100% increase in autos revenue over the averages that the Superferry was expecting.
All things considered, with only 14 trips per week, losses would be at least a $1,000,000 a month under these prices with no fuel surcharge. The only benefit for the Superferry is that this gives them short-term working capital (cash) to service their loans in the immediate short-term while their other expenses might be able to be delayed a few weeks, but these low prices cannot be maintained even in the intermediate-term. It just goes to show how desperate a situation the Superferry already is in.
From a fiduciary responsibility standpoint the board of directors and corporate officers of Hawaii Superferry should be charging a fuel surcharge otherwise they are just giving away money.
Aloha, Brad
"The Hawaii Superferry will resume service to Maui on Dec. 1 with $29 special one-way fares from Dec. 1 to Dec. 20."
"The Superferry said after its initial $29 fare it will offer $39 one-way fares beginning Dec. 21 and through March 12, 2008."
"The company said a reduced passenger vehicle fare will also be offered at $55 each way. Motorcycles, scooters, and mopeds are $35. All promotional fares are subject to applicable Hawai'i taxes and fees. The fuel surcharge has been waived for these promotional fares."
I also reference:
HI Superferry...Would Lose Money w/Private Sector Business Only
Based on both of the above information I did some quick calculations and come to some interesting conclusions.
Under these new prices, doing 14 trips to and from Maui, the Superferry will lose as much as $400,000 per week under the early reduced fares without a fuel surcharge. Under the later fare after Dec. 20, the losses would be at least $300,000 per week.
I am assuming a generous 50 % (people) to 100 % (autos) demand increase under the lower prices to still come to these losses. I am assuming that Superferry will use the same workforce, but they might be able to save as much as $150,000 a week with less employees. I am also assuming that Superferry's marine diesel fuel source would still be the private market, but if the Superferry has been able to secure a deal with the U.S. Navy for lower cost marine diesel fuel, then they may be able to save as much as $75,000 a week on fuel.
The Superferry can try to sell lots of merchandise and refreshments on-board, but that would not amount to much more than $200,000 per month. Superferry can also make a big push to get more motorcycles, scooters, and mopeds on-board at $35 each, but I am already factoring that in with a generous 100% increase in autos revenue over the averages that the Superferry was expecting.
All things considered, with only 14 trips per week, losses would be at least a $1,000,000 a month under these prices with no fuel surcharge. The only benefit for the Superferry is that this gives them short-term working capital (cash) to service their loans in the immediate short-term while their other expenses might be able to be delayed a few weeks, but these low prices cannot be maintained even in the intermediate-term. It just goes to show how desperate a situation the Superferry already is in.
From a fiduciary responsibility standpoint the board of directors and corporate officers of Hawaii Superferry should be charging a fuel surcharge otherwise they are just giving away money.
Aloha, Brad
HI Superferry: A Couple of Companies of Interest
Belt Collins -- Contracted by Lingle Admin. to do the "EIS"
Austal -- Builder of the Superferry. History, technology, company ownership would be interesting.
Aloha, Brad
Austal -- Builder of the Superferry. History, technology, company ownership would be interesting.
Aloha, Brad
HI Superferry: Hawaiian Spirits Respond Immediately?
Superferry Kapu!?
The mana is strong on this one,
Hawaiian Spirits respond within hours of court ruling?:
Superferry’s Kahului barge breaks loose:
http://www.mauinews.com/news/2007/11/16/01supk1116.html
http://the.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/2007/Nov/15/br/br2401356789.html
AP national report on unified command preparations:
http://uk.biz.yahoo.com/16112007/323/hawaii-superferry-readying-protests.html
http://www.businessweek.com/ap/financialnews/D8SUTQR80.htm
Aloha, Brad
The mana is strong on this one,
Hawaiian Spirits respond within hours of court ruling?:
Superferry’s Kahului barge breaks loose:
http://www.mauinews.com/news/2007/11/16/01supk1116.html
http://the.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/2007/Nov/15/br/br2401356789.html
AP national report on unified command preparations:
http://uk.biz.yahoo.com/16112007/323/hawaii-superferry-readying-protests.html
http://www.businessweek.com/ap/financialnews/D8SUTQR80.htm
Aloha, Brad
HI Superferry: Re: Pualaa's Manifesto
I've gotten started on researching some of the details of Pualaa's Manifesto for Sustainability on Kauai. Regarding wind power for the individual property owner here is a nice place to start. A good PDF read from http://www.state.hi.us/dbedt/ert/wwg/index.html:
Available:
Small Wind Electric Systems: A Hawaii Consumer's Guide available from http://www.state.hi.us/dbedt/ert/wwg/smallwindguideHI05-37629.pdf (PDF file, 1.4 Mb). The consumer guide provides information to help consumers determine if a small wind electric system can provide all or a portion of the energy needed for a home or business, based on wind resource, energy needs, and economics. Include sections on how to: make a home more energy efficient; choose the correct turbine size; identify the parts of a wind electric system; determine whether enough wind resource exists; choose the best site for a turbine; connect a system to the utility grid; and whether it's possible to become independent of the utility grid using wind energy. In addition, each guide includes contacts for more information.
Bumper stickers available.
Also of local interest: http://www.kauaiworld.com/specialsections/gogreen/index.htm
Aloha, Brad
Available:
Small Wind Electric Systems: A Hawaii Consumer's Guide available from http://www.state.hi.us/dbedt/ert/wwg/smallwindguideHI05-37629.pdf (PDF file, 1.4 Mb). The consumer guide provides information to help consumers determine if a small wind electric system can provide all or a portion of the energy needed for a home or business, based on wind resource, energy needs, and economics. Include sections on how to: make a home more energy efficient; choose the correct turbine size; identify the parts of a wind electric system; determine whether enough wind resource exists; choose the best site for a turbine; connect a system to the utility grid; and whether it's possible to become independent of the utility grid using wind energy. In addition, each guide includes contacts for more information.
Bumper stickers available.
Also of local interest: http://www.kauaiworld.com/specialsections/gogreen/index.htm
Aloha, Brad
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
