Feral Jundi

Monday, September 19, 2011

Maritime Security: GreySide Group Disputes Reports About Personnel Traveling Through Mozambique

Filed under: Maritime Security,Mozambique,United Kingdom — Tags: , , — Matt @ 4:15 PM

This popped up on my radar and I wanted to get this out there. I hate it when companies get falsely accused or criticized about incidents. In this case, I don’t know if the media was the one that solely produced this dumb story or if the media was being fed information by a competitor of GreySide‘s?

Either way, here is GreySide’s response to this article. I think it is also interesting that this story came out right after it came out that GreySide had set up shop in the UK? Hmmmm…. –Matt

 

GreySide Group Disputes Information Surrounding Personnel Traveling Through Mozambique
Sep. 19, 2011
The GreySide Group refutes information contained in recent reports surrounding five of its personnel traveling through Mozambique. The GreySide Group employees were briefly questioned at the Nampula airport; however, there were no weapons present, and after the Mozambique authorities investigated and found no wrongdoing, the personnel were quickly released and granted visas.
“As a security firm operating globally we take every step to ensure all proper licenses are obtained prior to conducting international missions on behalf of our clients. Our highly trained team of professionals were in full compliance with our rigorous procedures, and with applicable international and domestic laws,” said Alex Popovic, CEO, GreySide Group.
The GreySide Group team was carrying ammunition legally and in accordance with Directorate of Defense Trade Controls, International Traffic in Arms Regulations and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms.
“We have conducted dozens of transits without a single incident, and currently have numerous teams in the Gulf of Aden protecting commercial ships transiting high risk waters,” said Popovic.
One of the first companies to provide armed guards for US flagged vessels starting in 2009, the GreySide Group is regularly contracted to train foreign allies of the United States throughout the Middle East to combat terrorism. The GreySide Group trained US Special Forces groups prior to deployment to SE Asia, and also trained US Coast Guard personnel for its Anti-Piracy task force deployed to the Gulf of Aden to specifically combat piracy within Task Force Atalanta.
About The GreySide Group
Founded in 2003, the GreySide Group is an international risk management firm specializing in training, maritime security, intelligence operations and information security. With a specialty in providing armed security in high-risk environments, GreySide Group is the exclusive provider of maritime security services for several of the largest, and most prominent shipping companies in Europe and is endorsed by select Lloyd’s underwriters. GreySide Group’s executive and management teams consist of experienced former US military special operations personnel, intelligence community personnel and experienced security professionals.
Press release here.

——————————————————-

GreySide Group Adds Anti-Piracy Expert & Opens UK Office to Support Growth
Sept. 13, 2011
UK Office and Anti-Piracy Expert Support GreySide’s Global Clients
GreySide Group, an industry leader in Maritime Security, Anti-Piracy, and International Risk Management & Security is proud to announce the opening of a European office in the United Kingdom, and the addition of Michael Ferguson to the executive team.

(more…)

Friday, September 16, 2011

Maritime Security: The EUNAVFOR Says Armed Security Will Fail, Despite Successes

Filed under: Maritime Security — Tags: , , , , , , — Matt @ 4:54 PM

You know, I agree that eventually a boat with an armed crew will get taken one of these days. But even if one or two are taken, how would that possibly indicate any kind of potential failure? I mean look at the statistics so far?

According to the figures from EUNAVFOR, 90% of ships surviving a pirate attack in the Gulf of Aden this year have credited a security team for aiding their escape.

I don’t know about you, but my math says that even if a couple of boats with armed security are taken, the overwhelming success of the boats that got away would still show the validity of the concept. That it works.

On the other hand, I do agree that eventually it will happen.  That is just the odds of the whole thing, because eventually the worst and most minimally staffed and armed security detail will be overwhelmed by a well armed pirate crew(s) that know what they are doing. But so far, that has not happened ‘god forbid’.  But I am not going to sit here and say that if does happen, that armed security on boats is a bad idea or that a few incidents will equal a failed concept.  That is just ridiculous.

It kind of reminds me of how contractors in Iraq or Afghanistan are viewed by the public, based on a few very highly publicized events. That the thousands of missions of success, are wiped out by one or two events?  Make no mention of the complexity of these conflicts, and just bash private industry as it tries to survive and win in such an environment. Pffft. It would be like bashing the concept of the Marines, because of Haditha? Or bashing the concept of the Army, because of their Kill Teams deal. Or bashing any of the branches for accidentally killing or harming civilians.

And here is where the public versus private debate really begins. Much like with the early privateers and their successes in US wars, Navy proponents will always become jealous and get competitive if private industry is looked upon as a good idea or had success. So likewise, at the end of those wars, there was always that element of anti-private industry in any of the scholarly treatments of the concept and that history, just because it helps knock down private industry a few notches. It is totally an ego/budget thing when it comes to matters of defense and the monopoly on the use of force. And guess who owns the military academies, or has massive budgets to promote how cool and effective they are? lol Exactly…..

So the only thing private industry can do, is to continue to prove it’s worth and improve upon the service it provides. To be the better idea, despite what anyone says.  I thoroughly expect to see this ‘perfect record’ be broken, and I imagine that these particular cases will be used against private industry by all those who stand to benefit from that.

I would like to hope that we are all on the same side in this fight. Or ‘expulsis piratis, restituta commercia’? That ego could be put aside, and the public/private partnership could actually be a strategic edge in this fight.-Matt

 

Bound To Fail
September 16th, 2011
Why are armed guards currently so popular? Well the answer is simple, no ship has yet to be taken by pirates with an armed team onboard.
But for how long can this continue? Well according to EUNAVFOR, not much longer.
Captain Keith Blount, chief of staff at the counter-piracy task force, speaking at a conference organised by the International Chamber of Shipping (ICS), believes that this 100% record will inevitably fail. He stated that pirates will take a ship with armed guards on board, it is simply a matter of time.
With piracy season in the Indian Ocean soon about to ramp up again due to the end of the monsoon season, these words may come to haunt an industry which has seen armed guards as the only ray of hope in an otherwise forlorn situation.

(more…)

Monday, September 12, 2011

Maritime Security: The Global Shipping Industry Wants The UN To Provide Guards–Oh Really?

Filed under: Maritime Security — Tags: , , , , , — Matt @ 4:43 PM

This is cheapskate move if I have ever seen one. Instead of accepting the costs of security, the global shipping industry has cooked up a scheme to get the UN to provide these guards? We are talking about the same UN that effectively stood by while places like Rwanda burned, or the same UN that sent forces into the Ivory Coast, that traded food for sex with starving people. Oh yeah, the UN is a great bargain and idea. There are so many examples of how pathetic the UN really is, and yet these shipping companies want to go this route? Amazing.

But what really kills me is who do you think will pay for such a service? Well the US  contributes 22% to the UN budget and is the top contributor of funding, so that gives you an idea of where a good chunk of that money will come from. And of course the cheapest most corrupt country will provide the troops, and that government will swindle most of the money used to pay for that force. The end result will be what you see with most of the UN’s deployments, and that is a under-funded crap military force lead by greedy and corrupt leaders.

How about this. Those companies that cannot afford PSC’s, yet can afford to buy a multi-million dollar vessel and transport millions of dollars worth of cargo, can own up to the idea that contracting with PSC’s is the cost of doing business. Just like banks hire their own guards, or shopping malls hire their own security–the shipping companies can do the same. And like-wise, you don’t see banks or shopping malls calling on the UN to provide guards? Pfffft.

Either way, I don’t see it happening. I also think that the cost of security should be a personal responsibility of these shipping companies and not on the UN. Then those costs can be passed onto their clients that choose to use those services. That is how this is done, and that is the way it should be. –Matt

 

Global Shipping Industry calls for UN armed force against Somali pirates
September 9, 2011
The global shipping industry (represented by the Round Table of international shipping associations) has called for the establishment of a United Nations force of armed military guards to tackle the piracy crisis in the Indian Ocean, which it says is spiralling out of control.
In a hard hitting letter to UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon, the International Chamber of Shipping (ICS), BIMCO, INTERTANKO and INTERCARGO demand a “bold new strategy” to curb rising levels of piracy which have resulted in the Indian Ocean resembling “the wild west”.

(more…)

Tuesday, August 30, 2011

Maritime Security: Ministry Of Shipping–Indian Ship Owners Are Now Allowed To Contract With Private Security Companies

Filed under: India,Maritime Security,Publications — Tags: , , , , , — Matt @ 1:20 PM

This is surprising, because from what I can tell, Indian ship owners are able to contract with whatever PSC they want. Which means Indian ship owners could tap into the already vibrant maritime security market. This is great news if true. I posted the guidelines in my Scribd if anyone is curious, and I could not find anything in them that said these PSC’s had to be Indian owned.

A couple of months back I posted a deal about the Indian government warming up to the idea of allowing their ship owners to use armed guards. But I got the impression in that article that they would only allow retired Indian naval officers to work on these vessels? Now I am sure Indian shipping companies would probably prefer contracting with Indian PSC’s, but hopefully with these new guidelines, this will help them to realize they have a choice–that’s if they would like to go outside of the market of Indian PSC’s.-Matt

 

Ships with Indian crew can have armed guards
Aug 30 2011
The ministry of shipping on Monday issued guidelines allowing ships with Indian crew to deploy armed guards in a bid to combat piracy in the Gulf of Aden. The move comes on the back of recommendations from the inter-ministerial group (IMG) of officers constituted to handle the hostage situation on hijacked ships and also suggest preventive measures.
It has been found that about 35 per cent of the ship transiting in these waters deploy armed security guards and that the pirates generally don’t attack ships with armed guards on board, an official release said on Monday. So far, 120 Somalian pirates have been apprehended by India as on date.
As per the new guidelines, ship owners are allowed to engage private maritime security companies (PMSC) through a proper selection procedure. In line with these, all Indian ships visiting Indian ports are to furnish details of security personnel on board, the firearms carried by them and the details of licence issued, etc, to the port authority, customs, Coast Guard and the Navy. Foreign merchant vessels visiting Indian ports with security guards are also required to follow similar procedure, as per the guidelines.

(more…)

Friday, August 19, 2011

Quotes: Up To 80% Of Ship Owners Are In Favour Of Arming Their Vessels

Filed under: Maritime Security,Quotes — Tags: , , , — Matt @ 2:33 PM

“We took the decision three to four months ago that we could not defend our ships without contracting-in armed guards with light machine guns and who will shoot back,” said Per Gullestrup, CEO & Partner of Clipper Ferries/Ro-Ro.
“I hear that 60% to 80% of owners are in favour of arming their ships, which is a lot, and if you figure out that every time you do, it costs an owner between $30K and $50K to put armed guards on each passage then you are talking about a lot of money,” he said.

I had to post this, just because it is such a startling quote. And if the figures of $50,000 per passage is true, then anyone with any business sense will know that this is going to be one heck of a market.  I have mentioned this in the past, and will continue to say that the maritime security market is seeing some rapid growth right now and will only go up.

Of course this will only snowball on itself, just because no shipping company will want to be the ‘undefended low hanging fruit’ that could be easily taken by pirates. And believe me, there are plenty of ways for pirates to figure out what shipping companies are using armed security, and which ones are not. Pirate investment companies have elaborate intelligence collection operations going on, and they will find you if you are ‘easy money’.

The other thing I was wondering is that if PNC’s are making $50,000 per voyage, then how come we are not seeing salaries reflect this rate? These companies that are making this much money per trip, should definitely ensure that their contractors are getting paid well to put their lives on the line. For that fee, contractors should have the best equipment, weapons, and leadership on those voyages. We should also see health coverage as a mandatory benefit, just because there is no DBA out on the high seas. So if you get your leg blown off by an RPG round, I certainly hope that your company covers that? And if contractors are not able to receive these benefits because the rate is too low, then that $50,000 per voyage fee needs to go up.

I would also hope that companies are investing in good legal help, and offer their contractors full coverage if they happen to get caught up in some legal issues. There is so much that could happen out there, and there are no legal protections whatsoever. Please do not throw your contractors under the bus, and you have a responsibility to take care of them out there if they get into trouble. Especially if they are in ports of countries that have really shady laws.  There is no SOFA to protect or give guidance to these contractors out there, so a company really needs to be on the ball with this stuff.

Let’s talk about salaries. I believe salaries for maritime security should reflect the danger that those crews are up against. If pirates are using wolfpack tactics and heavy weaponry, then that ups the danger level tremendously. Not to mention that if pirates manage to sink a vessel, that the crew is now in danger of drowning. I make this point, because it is a requirement for most of these contractors to have STCW certifications. So contractors are expected to get this certification (on their own dime usually), so that if the vessel catches fire or sinks, that they will know how to survive. Why then are the salaries not reflecting this reality of sea life in pirate infested waters?

Not to mention that the value of the ship and it’s goods, and it’s safe delivery, is extremely important and vital to the world markets. Those armed guards are crucial to the safe delivery of those goods, and yet pay structures do not reflect this great responsibility? Stuff to think about, and I certainly hope that the companies remember who their most important asset is out there, and that is their contractors. –Matt

 

Up to 80% of owners want their ships armed

As many as 60% to 80% of ship owners are in favour of arming their vessels even though the cost can be as high as $50,000 per passage, a leading Danish ship owner has claimed.
“We took the decision three to four months ago that we could not defend our ships without contracting-in armed guards with light machine guns and who will shoot back,” said Per Gullestrup, CEO & Partner of Clipper Ferries/Ro-Ro.
“I hear that 60% to 80% of owners are in favour of arming their ships, which is a lot, and if you figure out that every time you do, it costs an owner between $30K and $50K to put armed guards on each passage then you are talking about a lot of money,” he said.

(more…)

« Newer Posts — Older Posts »

Powered by WordPress