[YachtForum]

Originally Posted by CaptTom

Even via a telephone interview, Stan's energy and enthusiasm for his new venture came right through.

Ditto Tom. Stan once made the comment that he appreciated my enthusiasm for the industry, yet he embodies that very spirit. There are too many that simply take up oxygen (in any industry), but there are a few that breathe new life into the same.

[airship]

Well, YES, I'm not going to "press the point" on the customs & excise issues on the transfer of bunkers from one yacht or vessel to another. Especially when that person also sponsors this great forum...

However, I did consult with my contact at the French Douanes based in the port of Nice on the subject. What he had to say about it was there's no problem at all with a yacht or other vessel refuelling or provisioning "her own tenders". But he'd "dearly love to know" that day a yacht or vessel was "transferring" bunkers or any other supplies which might be considered "bonded" stores to another yacht or vessel (ie. one that could not reasonably be called a "tender", whether that is a boat or aircraft) within EU waters...?! Apparently there are EU regulations which prohibit this activity.

And if there are European regulations that apply, it only makes sense that a lot of other countries around the globe probably also have similar regulations. When you consider the importance of taxes on petroleum products to the budgets of many countries, you might understand why your own view-point that "if there is no sale or exchange of consideraton for a commodity, then there is no customs issue" is not always shared...?!

A shadow boat refuelling "her" superyacht in mid-Atlantic or off the Ross Ice Shelf down in Antartica (Ross Dependency, claimed by New Zealand, ahem), well, why not?! But if the object of the exercise is to replenish a yacht's fuel tanks with "duty-free" fuel which it might not otherwise be entitled to buy locally, off the French coast...then beware!

[YES!]

With all due respect, I submit that if proper documentation is presented proving that all of the vessels and all of the fuel was purchased on an international voyage and is owned by the same international owner, there will be no restriction on or customs event initiated by transfering any goods whatsover between those commonly owned vessels and wholly owned commodities, period.

It is not being sold, imported or otherwise involves the port state. Two vessels traveling in company will burn fuel at different rates and may have different tankage capacities, and when owned by the same person/company they are in no way prohibited by or concerned with authorities in any way if they want to reposition their cargoes between the vessels, whether at anchor or in port.

If you put all of the precise informaton in from on your customs officers, I am sure they will understand more clearly the reality of the situation.

On the other hand, you can make as complicated of a hypothetical situation as you like which can be resolved only by a court of law. In actual practise under my personal oversight with the knowledge of all port state authorites, yachts and their support vessels have transferred fuel and stores in St. Maarten, Nice, Marseille, Porto Cervo, Naples, Venice, Athens, Dubrovnik and Miami. There has never been a complaint, question or issue in 3 years of operation.

This will be my last post on airship's topic.

Thank you.

[airship]

In actual practise under my personal oversight with the knowledge of all port state authorites, yachts and their support vessels have transferred fuel and stores in St. Maarten, Nice, Marseille, Porto Cervo, Naples, Venice, Athens, Dubrovnik and Miami. There has never been a complaint, question or issue in 3 years of operation.

I'd simply question the "with the knowledge of all port state authorities" part of that...

Just because the yachts and their support vessels under your personal oversight "got away" with transferring fuel and stores in those places doesn't mean that it was or is legal to do so.

I've "gotten away" with exceeding the speed limit on numerous occasions though it'd be a little far-fetched for anyone to accept if I pleaded "ignorance of the law" if I'd actually been caught at it. On the other hand, I never actually asked the authorities if it was OK before I went ahead and did so...?!

Putting things in perspective, shadow yachts are both a relatively new, and above all, an extremely rare phenomenon, and you could probably count the number of yacht / shadow yacht combinations using your fingers...?!

So no wonder most customs authorities have not considered all the implications that these yacht combos (did I just invent a new term?! ) pose in their operation. After all, of the literally thousands of major yachts which frequent the French Riviera during the summer, how many of these would anyone have suspected of exchanging fuel, stores, passengers or crew between each other without due regard to International or country-specific regulations...?!

I don't personally have anything against shadow-yacht type vessels per se, honestly...I'd be quite content with an "Octopus" or whatever, so that I'd always have the helicopter (or 2), the submarine (so that I could recover all the Shurhold brushes that my crew lost accidentally over the side when washing down) and travelling on something that might possibly survive the odd rogue wave which might destroy the QEII's bridge wing. I realise that lots of "folk" might also like to be able to get into more ports (something that isn't always possible with a 50m plus superyacht), yet have the Sikorsky S-76 chopper and minisub available "at their whim" when they so desire. But aircraft movements off yachts are generally prohibited from yachts in port...

If you want all the toys, then by all means, build yourself an "Octopus" (I believe there are some possibilities to combine a shadow yacht with a normal yacht), into a single vessel but which looks better than an Octopus-type one. (And let's all admit, shadow yachts to date have been unbelievably ugly - the Golden Shadow at least looks good in a "rugged sense"...)

Depends on where you're cruising I guess?! I'd have to admit that I'd prefer to charter an "Abeille Flandre" type vessel as a shadow yacht anywhere very far from terra firma, even if it doesn't carry a chopper...?!

Otherwise, what's the point of having two yachts, 2 crews and therefore twice as many problems as an owner...?!

This never was my topic, I'd like to say that it was merely "hijacked" temporarily for purposes of a debate between an instigator of shadow yachts and a sceptic...

Going back on topic about working on a shadow boat though: Wouldn't it be even more difficult to negotiate 3 months on / off contract when the owner already needs two captains and two chief engineers, which would mean that he'd need four captains and four chief engineers if he owned a yacht plus its shadow...?!

And this will be my last post on YES's topic.

Thank you

[YES!]

For airship - it is not that I did not want to talk to you - just not another round about the EU customs hypotheticals.

But you do raise a couple of good, new and on-topic points.

The management of rotational crew is actually easier with two vessels and two crews. When guests are not embarked and during maintenance periods, it is easy for a captain or chief engineer to "cover" both vessels while one or the other takes leave. The redundancy in capabilities and support opportunities are excellent.

You are comparing Octopus with 70+ crew to having the same volumetric capabilities with less than 30 crew. Going to sea, two is better than one; I don't care how big the one ship is. The navies of the world never sail alone. And owners never do crossings anyway, so why the cruise ship size?

And that brings up your other point: In my humble opinion, when you get over 45 or 50 meters, you are no longer yachting - you are shipping.

When you must use the commercial port instead of a comfortable and clean marina connected to a luxury resort, you are shipping - not yachting.

If you cannot put your passarelle across the quay and walk straight into the Cafe de Paris in St. Tropez, you are not yachting.

When you are at anchor becasue you have to be not becasue you want to be, you are shipping - not yachting.

When you have to single up, get underway, and leave port to use your helicopter; you are just a nuisance - to yourself, your crew and your neighbors. That is not yachting.

If you cannot get into an anchorage where you can tie your stern off to a palm tree to keep from swinging, you are not yachting.

With an ugly shadow boat - I remember that beauty is in the eye of the beholder, so no offense taken - you can enjoy all of the above wonderful aspects of yachting and still have instant access every toy imaginable. Why get the OCtopus underwsay to go diving when the support vessel is there? When you add the safety and security features of a Yacht Escort Ship, the fact that you can augment crew from one yacht to the other to support parties and functions, park your ugly shadow aorund the corner so no one can see it, and still have your aft deck on the veranda of the Cafe de Paris; that's yachting.

By the way, in the thousands of pictures on the Forum of both Octopus and Rising Sun, have you ever seen a bathing beauty on board? That's NOT yachting!

Nice talking with you, airship.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by YES!

By the way, in the thousands of pictures on the Forum of both Octopus and Rising Sun, have you ever seen a bathing beauty on board? That's NOT yachting!

Proving once and for all that it's not the size of your yacht... it's how you sail it.

[Neil Rooney]

Here's Lady Lola Shadow going through the bridge in St. Maarten last year.

[YES!]

Niel -

Where's my picture on Lady Lola going through the bridge right behind the Shadow?

Kidding, and thanks for the nice shot of LLS.

[Talon]

I know of a UK Customs Cutter that had to pay tax on it's remaining bunkered fuel!! If they didn't the cutter would be impounded.

I believe that this happened in Norway, with the cutter commander not being able to find proof of origin for the fuel.

Shame eh!!

[lurker]

Somewhat related to the topic of transfer of fuel, what about other goods such as alcohol and tabacco products? Those are heavily taxed in some countries. Transfer of meat products can also be a problem. That's a shame really.

The only concern that I have with transfer of fuel between two ships is safety and potential enviromental damage should something goes worng.

[lurker]

A question for Stan, if you dont' mind.

While no doubt that a shadow boat has a number of benefits. How about the cost of running two smaller boats compared to a larger one?

For instance, instead of having a 250' yacht (or ship), will it cost less to run say a two 164' fleet.

Personally heli refueling and storage space are some very good reasons. If something has to go wrong during refueling of the heli, better on the shadow than on my yacht. Aviation fuel is nothing like diesel. Same goes to the water toys if they run on petrol.

[lurker]

The following post is originally posted by YES!, his original post was lost along with two of my other posts. I got a copy in my e-mail, I guess he wouldn't mind me posting it again for him.

Originally Posted by YES

Good point, lurker -

Cost of 250 footer versus two 164 footers (I will try to keep "apples to apples"):

At current yard rates, a 250 foot yacht will cost an average of $1.5 million per meter or about $115 million. It will take 25 or so crew to properly man her. Port costs will be commercial rates which are generally billed on hourly or daily rates - more expensive than the more expensive yacht marinas without the joy or access of a marina - extra security, dirty commercial areas, limited access due to customs and immigration areas, etc.

For the 164 foot yacht, you will pay an average in a top yard of $1 million per meter or about $50 million. Note: The difference in cost per meter is that the depth and breadth of a ship grows exponentially with the length. The 164foot Yacht Escort Ship will cost about $8 million. You can run a 164 foot yacht with 11 crew and the escort vessel with 6 crew. Basically, there are ten less crew to pay, feed, clothe and manage. The 50 meter yacht can get into almost any marina while the shadow boat will normally be at anchor outside the harbor in order to use the helicopter, submarine, etc. So your dockage is normally based on 164 feet not the combined lengths.

As you can see, it is significantly less expensive to procure and operate a yacht and yacht escort compared to a single larger yacht that has the equivalent hauling, storage and landing capabilities of the Yacht and Yacht Escort Ship in tandem.

The 164 foot yacht plus a shadow boat of equal size has the toy carrying capacity of an Octopus-sized vessel at a fraction of the cost with much more flexibility. More importantly, it provides all of the safety and security that is inherent when two ships transit in company versus sailing alone. Even an Octopus can break down mid-Atlantic.

I am old fashioned, but anything over 50 meters is no longer yachting - it is shipping. When you cannot put your aft passarelle on the doorstep of the Cafe de Paris in St. Tropez, you have never really arrived.

But that's just my opinion - I could be wrong.

Concerning your alcohol and tobacco comments, as long as nothing is being bought or sold, that is - owned by the same entity and used for their personal consumption - these products on an international voyage and purchased elsewhere are legal to move between the vessels. The customs declaration for ships and yachts for inbound clearance requires lists of alcohol, tobacco and bunkers on board, separated by categories for cargo and ship's stores. I have routinely declared ship's stores in excess of 1000 bottles of wine, champagnes and liquors wihtout any problems anywhere. The point is that they are for personal use only, not for sale or distribution.

I have never heard of a ship being charged for its own bunkers upon an international arrival. But I have seen other government security people treat a grandmother like a known terrorist, so when it comes to governmental exercises of illegitimate power, anything is possible. A vessel "in transit" - that is, passing through a country on a voyage to subsequent countries - is not required to pay duty on goods that will not be discharged during those intermediate stops. If the goods are ship's stores, the intent is that they will be consumed by those embarked on the vessel and not moved ashore, and are therefore not dutiable.

Happy to discuss or clarify further, as necessary.

[YachtForum]

Good idea to copy from the e-mail responder. Thanks for covering for me lurker!

[lurker]

I mentioned tobacco and alcohol products because fuel should be treated in similar manner as well. Of course the potential tax revenue from taxing transfer of fuel is a lot greater. So, how would different countries interpret their legislations and enforce them is another issue altogether. There is always the potential environmental and safety issues and that can be exploited by legislators.

To build and to operating two 164 footers would be cheaper than 250 footer based on my own rough estimates, too. I think there are many other factors that favors two 164 footers in terms of cost and maintenance.

For examples, you need a lot more teak to cover the 250 footer than the 164 footer. The shadow of course won’t need teak, or may be just a little accent next to the heli pad to greet the owner & guests.

Tender garage is another cost saving factor. To design, build, and maintain those hull side garages isn’t cheap. You need extra reinforcement to compensate for the lost of hull structure integrity much like the sunroof on a car except it cost a heck lot more. The 250 footer will probably have at least two hull side garages. I reckon that those two garage doors alone can add a million to the final price of the 250 footer. Not to mention that launching the tender form hull side garage can be problematic and dangerous in rough sea.

[lurker]

Having a shadow also gives you a lot of flexibility when choosing the main yacht. You can have the 70 knot TWINE, Wallypower 118 or a Wally sloop, or even the Maltese Falcon clipper and still have a heli and all the toys ready for you.

On the other hand though, the 250 footer is probably more stable and probably more sea worth in extremely bad weather. However, that shouldn’t be an issue if the owner doesn’t plan on ocean crossing or head down to Antarctica. Speaking of which, it reminds me of the alt house explore yachts. Their foredeck tender storage solution is simple, but the tenders are not sheltered. The alt house design is pretty to my eyes, but perhaps doesn’t offer as much accommodation compared to other designs.