In a letter sent out by Drewry this week, the advisory states:

“As you may be aware demand in the shipping markets has not yet recovered, with commodity prices starting to fall. Now in a third year of low returns there is increased pressure on ship operating costs, with 2013 not promising signs of a significant recovery …”

Two days ago, Business & Financial News carried this report from Reuters:

“Danish oil and shipping group A.P. Moller-Maersk will not invest significantly in its shipping business over the next five years and will focus on its oil, drilling rigs and ports, the Financial Times reported on Monday.

“‘We will move away from the shipping side of things and go towards the higher profit generators and more stable businesses,’ Maersk Chief Executive Nils Anderson told the newspaper.

“‘What we are going to do over the next five years, we are not going to invest significant amounts in Maersk Line. We have sufficient capacity to grow in line with the market.’

“Maersk Line, the company’s container shipping unit, has struggled with profitability due to the global economic slowdown and an oversupply of vessels that could intensify next year. The subsidiary is a barometer of world trade as its fleet carries more than 15 percent of all sea-borne containers. Ship owners are raising rates and cutting costs to cushion falling volumes as global trade slows.” –

Time out. A week ago, in Art. 20 (“A Likely Story”), didn’t we just read that Kim Fejfer, the chief executive of the container terminals unit of Maersk, stated that, “International container traffic is likely to continue growing between 5% and 6% over the next few years …”

Isn’t that what he told Fox News? Doesn’t he keep in touch with CEO Nils Andersen? Wasn’t he told that the tailspinning economy has forced Maersk to idle more ships than any other carrier and that another 150,000 to 250,000 TEU are forecast to be laid up by the end of the year?

Maybe Mr. Fejfer is taking his cues from U.S. port officials and those who’ve decided that the Panama Canal must be widened to accommodate the “influx” of giant post-Panamax vessels laden with thousands of goods for jobless and homeless Americans.

If that’s what Mr. Fejfer’s “5% to 6%” projected growth estimate is all about, he should have checked with his boss first.

His CEO would have reminded him that the Canal will be accommodating only the super carriers that the U.S. Navy is … Hmmm. Could that be the real reason for the Canal’s widening?