Building Maritime Strength: A Conversation with Shipyard Expert Caitlin Hardy of Ness Sea Consulting

🎧 Short Summary 

Shipyards sit at the very heart of America’s maritime future, operating as both industrial engines and strategic assets essential to national security. In this conversation with Caitlin Hardy, Founder of Ness Sea Consulting, we explore the challenges and opportunities in rebuilding U.S. shipbuilding capacity, the lessons commercial yards can teach defense programs, and the innovations shaping maritime construction. Plus, I share reflections from the Women in AgriBusiness Summit, where bulk carriers and the looming Section 301 USTR port fees emerged as critical concerns for U.S. grain exports.  

🎧 Expanded Description 

Shipyards don’t just build vessels—they shape America’s maritime strength. In this episode, I’m joined by Caitlin Hardy of Ness Sea Consulting to break down why shipyards are both economic engines and national security assets, and how America can rethink its approach to shipbuilding. 

Hardy brings a wealth of experience from her naval architecture background and work with industry leaders like Kongsberg, Crowley, Holland America, and Foss Maritime. Responding to our recurring car manufacturing analogy, she argues that the U.S. must first master building reliable “F-150s” before focusing too heavily on ambitious “Cybertrucks” in ship design. She also shares examples of commercial innovation—from AI-enhanced radar systems to hull-cleaning robots—that make shipping safer and more efficient without requiring revolutionary vessels. 

We also contrast commercial and defense practices, asking what the Navy could learn from cruise lines that refurbish massive vessels in just two weeks with thousands of contractors onboard. Hardy’s perspective highlights where efficiency and innovation can intersect. 

Alongside shipyards, we spotlight another pressing issue: bulk carriers and U.S. grain exports. At the Women in AgriBusiness Summit in Orlando, concerns centered on the new Section 301 USTR port fees set to begin October 14. With slim margins in ag exports and many bulk carriers Chinese-built or owned, a $1M+ fee could either deter vessels from calling U.S. ports—or erase the competitiveness of U.S. commodities if passed down the chain - both concerns I will continue to look into. 

For anyone involved in ocean shipping, maritime technology, or national security planning, this episode offers crucial insights into how shipyards and trade policy together shape America’s maritime future—and what steps we must take now to strengthen both. 

 ⚓ A special thanks to our partner Ness Sea Consulting for supporting today’s episode. 

🎧 Shipyards, Security, and Strategy with Caitlin Hardy
👉 Listen now: www.TheMaritimeProfessor.com/podcast 

Chapters

• 0:00 Introduction to Maritime Strength and Shipyards
• 6:49 USTR Port Fees Impact on Bulk Carriers
• 8:38 Introducing Caitlin Hardy of Nestisi Consulting
• 10:17 Naval Architecture and Maritime Career Journey
• 17:40 Founding Nestisi and Bridging Technology Gaps
• 23:33 Exciting Maritime Tech Innovations
• 30:56 Building F-150s Before Cybertrucks
• 33:48 Washington State Ferries and Local Shipbuilding
• 38:11 Maritime Prosperity Zones and Future Outlook
• 44:51 Closing Thoughts and Contact Information

Transcript

SPEAKER_01: 0:01

Ready to go.

SPEAKER_02: 0:10

You're listening to By Land and By Sea, powered by the Maritime Professor. When we talk about U.S. maritime strength, shipyards are right at the center of that conversation. They're not just places where vessels get built or repaired, they're strategic assets. And today I'm joined by someone who knows shipyards and shipbuilding inside and out. Caitlin Hardy of Nestisi Consulting. Hi, welcome back to By Landed by Sea, an attorney breaking down the weekend supply chain, presented by Maritime Professor. It's me. I'm Lauren Beegan, former FMC International Affairs Attorney and founder of the Maritime Professor and School Strategies. By Landed by Sea is your go-to resource for navigating the regulatory side of global ocean shipping. And me, I'm your favorite maritime attorney. Excuse me. I'm here to walk you through both ocean transport and surface transport topics in the wild world of supply chain. As always, the guidance service general for educational purposes only. It should not be considered to be legal advice, and there is no attorney client privilege created by this video or this podcast. If you need an attorney, contact an attorney. This is plain language maritime created so that anyone, not just lawyers or industry insiders, can understand what's happening in the world of shipping. So let's dive into this week's episode because as you know, ocean shipping moves the world. Before we get jump into the episode, though, I want to say don't miss my next just in time learning webinar on the brand new section 301 port fees that are about to go into effect later. What's that, mid-October, October 14th? This is on the section 301 USTR port fees for the China-built or China operated vessels. It's happening, the just in time learning class is happening October 2nd at noon. It's just 30 minutes, plain language, practical takeaways for importers, exporters, carriers, shippers, you name it. If you have anything to do with the maritime industry, this is going to affect you. You can register now at the Barentideprofessor.com. And if you missed the live version of my last just in time learning class, it was on FMC vs. Marad, compare and contrast, who does what. That class is now available on demand in our just in time learning series. It's the perfect quick primer on how the regulator and the promoter fit into America's Maritime System. It was a really, really great session. We've gotten a lot of really fantastic feedback on that. So this week also brought me down to Orlando for the Women in Agribusiness Summit. It was an incredible chance to connect with so many new facets of the supply chain world. Look, I'm very hooked into the maritime world, but I'm often finding myself even in new conversations within this already very niche niche area. Commercial maritime and defense or military maritime are often two different networks of maritime conversations that I regularly find very different networks in. But what I learned at the summit is that I've actually unintentionally been leaving out bulk carriers in my conversations. Bolt grain exports out of the US are an incredible category, one of the US, one that the US dominates in many ways, is what I learned this week. But the margins are slim, pricing is tight, and that means that extra fees can significantly hinder the competitiveness of the market. Now we ended up having conversations here about bulk carriers in the Section 301 USTR port fees. Admittedly, like I said, I hadn't focused much on the bulk side of things before. But what I learned, and what I'm going to continue to research on this, is that many of these bolt carriers are Chinese-owned or Chinese built. And unlike container vessels, bulk carriers don't have that liner service, right? So that's that regular dedicated trade route. So if a vessel is going to get hit with a million dollar plus fee, that might be enough of a deterrent to stop them from calling US ports altogether. So the current concern that was expressed to me was that this could potentially eliminate the ability of US commodities to get to market, right? If we don't have the bulk vessels coming and calling at the US to pick up the grain exports, they could potentially go away. And that was the extreme concern. But I what I want to look into is was it extreme, or is this maybe what they're going to start anticipating seeing come mid to end October, maybe early November? Once these fees have come into effect, are we going to see bulk carriers try to avoid these fees and potentially avoid the US calls? Look, even if the bulk carriers still make these calls, which I think that they might, and I'm really interested to see are some of these bulk carriers going to potentially either reflag or come under ownership of a US company, those would all be ways of kind of helping to alleviate. But even if they still call and they're Chinese operated or Chinese owned or built, those fees get passed along, right? Because it's not necessarily the problem or the the it wasn't the vessel's fault, I should say, right? These vessels were built a long time ago. But those fees could potentially eat away at the competitiveness of the commodity itself, right? These US exports of grain, low margins here is what I'm understanding. And so any fees built on top of that could have a deletive effect on the competitiveness of the market. Like I said, I'm going to keep looking into this because this story I heard here was pretty jarring on all accounts as that was explained to me. I think it deserves more attention as these US airport fees take effect in just a few weeks. I've been encouraged to see that the international ocean carrier, uh, you know, liner service ocean vessels are for the most part not going to be instilling some sort of a surcharge, general surcharge. We're just going to see how it goes. But in the meantime, it's the bulk carriers that I'm, I hadn't honestly I hadn't paid much attention to. And I'm going to start looking further into that. Remember, vessels arriving empty or imbalanced, and US-owned company vessels are exempt. And so that's where I think maybe there's something here that I want to look into. Maybe some of these bulk vessels are being considered for purchase by US companies to help carve out these exemptions. If they arrive empty or in balanced, that's another way of having an exemption for the bulk carriers. I just don't know enough about the fleet. I need to look into it. So as I learn more, I'll pass that along to you guys. But hopefully we can we can find if there's going to be exemptions. Really, we got to keep these commodities going, right? I'm going to keep digging into this. But even though my background here might be a little incomplete, I wanted to raise the issue because it's important. And I'd love to hear your feedback. How is this going to impact you? Because this ag world at this conference is very concerned. At the the women's women and agribusiness conference summit, this was a fantastic summit this week in Orlando. But the resounding concern was there that potentially these bulk carriers are going to be hit or inadvertently going to be really having some troubles for the bulk exports of the U.S. commodities. We also had some news out of the FMC this week. There was a court case that came out talking about the detention-demurge ruling. As I understand it, and admittedly, I've been in this summit, so I haven't taken a close look, but I'll be doing that for next week. As I understand it, it's just the motor carrier conversation that has been put into that case. The rest of the rule still remains in place. So detention and demurrage, the 20 invoice requirements, the 30-30-30, right? 30 days to issue the invoice, 30 days to dispute it and try to button it all up 30 days after a dispute is filed. That all still, as I understand it, like I said, I have to take a closer look. And this is not legal advice, but as I understand it, the majority of the rule stays in place. It's just the motor carrier conversation, whether or not they should be assessed or invoiced on that bill. Because currently what the rule says, it's only the billing party or the build party or the consignee, but nobody else, which kind of means that that motor carrier, that's the part that's still that I want to look at that. That's what this case decided. So let's jump back into the interview today, though. I'm speaking to Caitlin Hardy, founder of Nestie Consulting. And what we talk about is what shipyards mean for U.S. maritime strategy, from the local builds that spark debate to the role of repair yards to the bigger picture of national security and innovation. This was a really thoughtful interview. I thought that this was a really wide-ranging discussion. You're not going to want to miss it. So let's roll that conversation. Here's my interview with Caitlin Hardy. Today on By Land and By Sea, I'm joined by someone who has truly built a career at the crossroads of tradition and innovation in the maritime space. Caitlin Hardy is the founder and managing director of Nestie, a strategic consulting firm working at the intersection of just that maritime, high-tech, and also defense. Before launching Nestie, Caitlin served as president of Congress Underwater Technology here in the U.S., where she led efforts around sub-sea systems, advanced sensors, robotics, winning major government contracts, and expanding their U.S. presence. Her career spans naval architecture, shipbuilding, and maritime operations from time to time, from time at Crowley Foss, and the Holland American Lions to maritime tech startups like IO Current and Polyverse. She's a U.S. Naval Academy graduate in naval architecture, holds an MBA from the University of Washington, and today also serves on the boards of Washington Maritime Blue, Women Offshore, and the Lloyd's List editorial board. Caitlin is truly passionate about bringing new technology into shipbuilding. So, Caitlin, welcome to the show. Thank you for being here today.

SPEAKER_00: 9:48

Hi, Lauren. Thank you so much for having me on by land and by sea. It's exciting to get to chat with you today.

SPEAKER_02: 9:53

Yeah, it's so great to have you here, and I'm so happy that you were able to join. This is going to be such a great conversation. You've built such a fascinating career. So before we dive too far into Nessy, the company that you started, can you walk us through your background a little bit? How did your education and early experience shape the way you approach shipbuilding today?

SPEAKER_01: 10:12

Sure. I think, you know, sort of the earliest years is I grew up on a small island and I've said a lot of times sort of, you know, publicly that I always wanted to escape that island, and so I learned to sail. And that passion for sailing and being on the water ultimately led me to the Naval Academy. When I went through school, and I think now there are the same number of naval architecture programs in America, which is six, and that is not nearly enough. It wasn't enough then, and it wasn't enough now. Um, but that you know, foundation and understanding what it takes for a vessel from the earliest times that you're thinking about it on the back of a napkin, going through the design spiral and all those design considerations is what ultimately led me here. So I started out as a naval architect under Crowley when I first got out of the Navy, did a lot of new vessel construction, salvage, sea lift, sort of anything and everything in between. And I've worked across a lot of different verticals in my career. So I talk about, you know, coming up through the Hawes pipe, not as a mariner, but as an engineering perspective, understanding what it takes to bring one design together for one vessel, what the implications are for everything from stability to you know what the loading goes into, the structural piece of it, the different, you know, major components that you're populating from different OEMs and how you make those choices to looking across a class of vessels, how does that fit in within your larger fleet? And then your fleet overall operating globally, what are the considerations for ensuring that you're able to support maintenance, you're able to support your crews, and you're able to support the mission of delivering whatever the goods, the people, et cetera, are.

SPEAKER_02: 11:39

That's great. And having that naval architecture experience is so fascinating because that well situates you for having these conversations. You understand the baseline of how ships work, really how they how they're built, and you can build on top of that into this new tech world that you kind of find yourself moving closer to. Now, before we go too far, I always like to kind of make sure that my audience understands some of the lingos you're talking about. So you said Hospiper. Can you explain that a little bit on in in kind of the like pair and contrast to the licensed world?

SPEAKER_01: 12:10

Yeah, oh gosh, it it's a position on board a vessel and working your way up. So really it's that learned experience, that hands-on experience as you move through the ranks, uh, the Hawes pipe, you know, coming up the chain from the anchor, you know, leading all the way up. And so it's this way that we talk about experience, not just a practical from an academic perspective of, you know, going to university, but really this earned experience. And I think the legitimacy that goes behind those who have served and worked in these really hard-demanding physical roles of what they bring to our industry.

SPEAKER_02: 12:49

And that's it too. So uh one thing that that we would often talk about kind of in the the DC world is that Hospiper, even getting to kind of be certified and or or it's it's unlicensed from the merchant marine credential, but there are some programs that allow you to go into a Hospiper world. They can be tough to follow. I I feel like there's some administrative perhaps cleanup that could happen there to make it a little bit easier because it's it's a just a different path, but it should have a clear path. And right now it feels a little bit like whack-a-mole.

SPEAKER_01: 13:22

I I agree with you completely on that. You know, I think we both probably have some friends who are doing things on the crewing side of where it can help reduce some of these burdens. In a lot of ways, I would see it as being similar to, you know, you could say a military pilot who has a very clear path of what it takes to go and work for the airlines. But the flip side is, you know, you could have someone who starts out in small planes and they're building hours and building hours, and then they get that, you know, certified flight instructor. In a lot of ways, I think there's comparison where that is maybe a much smoother path than what it is for those folks in maritime who are, you know, just going out and finding a role, finding themselves on board and working their way up.

SPEAKER_02: 13:59

And it's it's so fantastic to actually, you know, pull somebody in who kind of showed that passion early and and wanted to work through, right? I mean, that's that's a such a fantastic approach to getting into the industry. So, okay, so let's talk about your company a little bit. So, what inspired you to launch Ness C? What gaps did you see in the shipbuilding industry that weren't really being filled? And and what were some of the things that you wanted to tackle with this new venue?

SPEAKER_01: 14:26

For sure. No, it's definitely scary to think about, you know, leaving a corporate role and going out onto your own, starting something new, is that hole there? I launched Nest C before the administration had changed, but even then there were a lot of signs that, regardless of which way the presidency went, that there were going to be significant changes in the United States around shipbuilding. I think for me, a lot of what I've been seeing, you know, over my career, but certainly over the last couple of years, was reflected finally in there being more of a willingness towards new technology and maritime. I would say pre-COVID, I'm from the Northwest, from the Seattle area. There's a huge amount of tech here. And most people have no idea the amount of maritime that's here, the wide variety of vessels. I've had the opportunity to look to work for a lot of really great Jones Eck companies and international companies. And I was always a bit surprised at the reluctance to try not just sort of the new crazy technologies that we maybe work with at Messi today, but things that were available off the shelf that could make people safer at sea, reducing OpEx, reducing that initial capex for the investment you're making into a vessel for whatever its mission might be. And in my time at Kongsburg, I mean, Kongsburg leads as a tech leader, largest maritime OEM in the world, we would have a lot of really amazing founders or people who were looking at going off onto their own, come up with ideas. And I was in a role where, you know, you just don't have time to, you know, have all those conversations for the amount of people that are reaching out to you and started to see that it was really exciting the number of people who weren't traditionally from our industry. And that what there was becoming more of a willingness from our industry to be open to newcomers, but that when those newcomers got here, they'd never heard of class societies before. They'd never heard of regulatory, you know, flag state. They had all these great ideas, but thought they were going to bypass, you know, the gates that are in place to ensure that things are done in what we would say is the proper way, or at least the legal regime that we do have to operate in maritime with or without this great technology. And so that was really part of the genesis of Nessie on the maritime technology piece, or I would say at this point, we're, you know, ocean technology, at least adjacent. The other piece for me was I was doing a huge amount of work in defense, and I felt a huge amount of urgency. Kongsberg has been around for over 200 years. They're driving hard to ensure that there is, you know, a lot of leading tech and differentiators there. But as I saw these new companies coming, I felt like there was an opportunity that what they had was so novel, but not necessarily understanding the path of how to get there. And I thought if they had someone who'd maybe been through that before, it would give them a greater chance of success that you know is great for the US and their allies.

SPEAKER_02: 16:57

Yeah, and that's so true. Just because you have a great idea doesn't mean that you have this entire background of how the shipbuilding works. And so it's such a fantastic opportunity for you to help say, look, I know how this all works. And also I'm forward-leaning in my thinking of I can piece that round peg in this square hole because it's actually not that dissimilar. It can, it can fit, right? And that's kind of where you come in is like, that's a great idea. You're missing this one little element, and then it'll work.

SPEAKER_01: 17:26

Exactly. It's that one little element where it could also be like, oh my gosh, what you've come up with is brilliant. But if you're willing, have you considered this segment or this idea? Like, do you realize this application could also do, you know, feature X, which has a huge you know, impact to this community?

SPEAKER_02: 17:42

Yeah, and actually that's one thing, that's one of the themes that we've kind of been talking about on this podcast is the blending of the traditional idea with the future, but also military and commercial. One thing that came up with my interview with acting administrator Sang Yi was that there is this kind of two different conversations where we have military use and military shipbuilding, but commercial use and commercial shipbuilding is equally important, but sometimes feels like it gets a little bit left behind. And it's it's a very important side of it. And actually, arguably, we need the military readiness, but we also need the in the commercial sustainability of the industry moving forward. So speak to to the kind of defense versus commercial side.

SPEAKER_01: 18:28

Right. Oh, there's so much there. And I I think that's it right there, right? Defense versus commercial. Even in you know, acting administrator Yi's comments, it was, you know, they are very separate at times. And having worked in both, I think that was the other area where I saw Nessie could be a translator, where I felt like I've always been a translator in my roles, is how do you take the best of what already exists to accelerate the curve of where you're trying to go, right? Responding to that sense of urgency. That could be something like you have a cruise ship that needs to leave in three weeks because you've passengers booked, right? That is very different than preparing for war or more potential conflict. But what is shared across those are a lot of processes that, you know, it's no sense in having one for crews and one for military when there's a lot of lessons learned. You know, what I see it's always still entertaining to me, and this isn't meant to, you know, sort of make fun or be light, but to hear about vessel construction management. I came out of the military, went straight into an operating company that had acquired a naval architecture firm that had been around for over 50 years. That was always the model. Like my brain really just can't think about not having vessel construction management be part of your program. And so I was really excited for NSMV when you know Merrad hired Tote and brought on like people who have done this before. But that should be the standard. That shouldn't be something that is considered earth-shattering in the US. And I feel like we should be beyond the point where we're still talking about that is excitement because our allies and those who aren't our allies have been doing that model for so long. So I think there's a lot of practices from the commercial world, right? One that's as simple as why aren't we finalizing our designs earlier and government shipbuilding and moving on? All of these design changes and considerations are killing us in time. It's killing us in quality because we're constantly adjusting to where we think we need to be. And then with what we end up is just sort of this haphazard thing that maybe doesn't meet the mission of what we initially intended. And so I think there's a lot of this like, all right, we are committing to this and we need to trust that we're making the right decision with the ability to pivot maybe in future designs later. On the commercial side, you know, it's things. One of the gentlemen that I worked for talked a lot about how cruise ships have a higher op tempo than military vessels. One of the teams that I had, we would fly in 1,200 contractors for almost every cruise ship dry dock, tear everything apart in a two to three week period, and sail on time. And in the military, that is just almost comical to even consider that that could be possible. I was really excited to see recently, I think it had been MIB, the maritime industrial base under the Navy, which is primarily focused on government builds, but looking at how we leverage commercial builds, had taken a group of program officers to a cruise ship dry dock just to see like how is this done and something that's adjacent to where we are.

SPEAKER_02: 21:11

And that's exactly it. I want to break that down. I really kind of highlight that point. 1,200 people came in while the vessel was in dry dock for fixes, right? For fixes, for updates, for maybe refreshes of cabins. But 1,200 people all came in so that they could work at the same time instead of a dry dock that kind of drags on, right? It's how many maybe 50 people are working on a dry dock otherwise, maybe 100, but 1,200 people to fly in because exactly as you're saying, they got to get that cruise ship back out there making money. And that's one of the things that that kind of I keep highlighting is we need to have economic engines associated with these vessels, right? And that's where the cargo comes in. A lot of my listeners are shippers, and so they understand the economic drivers help move things along faster out of necessity. They have to, because if it sits there, it's losing money. Exactly.

SPEAKER_01: 22:00

No, and I think for your shippers, you know, it's it's so easy to look at a vessel. I mean, there are these magnificent, you turn a vessel on its side and it's you know larger than most skyscrapers in America. But when you consider what goes inside of a vessel, right? We can do shipbuilding in the US. We can figure out how to scale shipbuilding. But I see a lot of this being challenges around supply chains, which is something that your shippers are expert in because they're managing manufacturing just for probably different types of components or different things, you know, whether it's clothing or consume, more consumer-based items. That's really one of the largest challenges that I see that we have to US shipbuilding is the supply chain piece. And so then this also becomes the balance of getting items to a vessel build quickly enough, but deciding as a country. And this is where, you know, America first says we need 100% American components. Well, what does that mean? What does it mean from the timelines and now balancing the sense of urgency? If we didn't feel like we had a potential conflict with Taiwan or even customers who are waiting to get a vessel out of the dock, what does that mean and how it shifts our decision making for the vessels that we are trying to deliver?

SPEAKER_02: 23:05

That's right, because it's pushing everything forward. We have to deliver this, which there's always that urgency, but if you know that it's going to start losing money, right, at a certain point, like if there are economic drivers part of it. That's it's so true. And it's such a powerful driver that the the inertia of kind of commerce, right? And moving along. So you're at the heart of this innovation in shipbuilding. So what tech advances are you most excited about right now? What how are they changing the industry? What's some kind of cool things that you're watching that that our listeners might find just fascinating?

SPEAKER_01: 23:41

Oh gosh, there's so many. I I have had such a blast this last year. And you know, I I would say the roles I've sort of self-selected into, you know, during my career have really been on the leading edge of innovation and maritime. It totem Foss had an opportunity to work on the first LNG barge in the US, one of the first in the world. You know, Holland America saw a lot of new things that were coming on, say it's bridge equipment. And so the areas that I work in today were quite broad in the types of technologies that we support. One I'm really excited about, they're starting to make waves in the commercial world, is called Takaro Blue. They are a company that takes existing COTS radar and does an AI ML layer. So if you think about Orca AI, I think everyone has seen that video of the collision off of the UK that was caught on video through their system. I see Takaro Blue as the missing layer of if you were able to take your existing radar and immediately have contacts that are showing through the radar is being auto-tuned. You don't even have to have a mariner that is tuning the radar. What does that do for your situational awareness? And, you know, getting to a point where you're able to track radar targets way faster than what ARPA does today for those who aren't necessarily familiar with being on the bridge. It feels like this very antiquated system of looking at like 70s or you know, 60s, 50s space consoles. It moves beyond that, but it's a very simple add-on. And I think those are the technologies that I gravitate to are what are the things we can do quickly that again make people safer at sea, make us able to ship or have in a you know more responsible way or be better aware of what's taking place near us. And so I think what this technology does, we're doing a lot in the defense world right now with uncrewed surface vessels, but there's a lot of translations, especially in busy shipping channels. If you could see every target on your radar and a system is automatically tracking those, telling you the speed, telling you where they're anticipating that they will go, that's quite powerful. Another technology that's been a lot of fun to see has been with the fleet robotics team. So there's a lot of different whole cleaning robots. I would say, you know, shippers should be like, why do I care about a whole cleaning robot? Well, you care because who's ultimately paying for the cost of fuel, right? Is that on the charter? And if it is, then that's something that is absolutely being passed on to you. So if you can reduce fuel costs because the hole passing through the water, you know, fluid dynamics is that much more efficient, that's a really good story. But I also see a lot of applications with the hole cleaning robots, especially as they get to a point where they are able to operate while underway, which is quite novel to think about this little robot, you know, roombaying its way along the hole as a vessel sails or steams along, that it could be providing information about the gauging of the paint coating thickness, the steel thickness. Is there something on the bottom of the hole that shouldn't be there from a defense application? So those are two that I think are really neat. Another one that I am working with that has been interesting to see the conversation in the US, a little bit less related to commercial. Again, we're spending a lot of time on defense, but is with Eureka Navalcraft. And they are taking existing designs from oil and gas. These are surface effect ships that are already classed, have been proven to oil and gas standards, which are a very, very hard, you know, customer to meet, and are optionally manned or uncrewed surface vessels. And so what these are able to do is, you know, if you think about the you know, Pacific Ocean and potential conflicts of the future, how do we get people to shore? How do we get people in and out? How do we send in payloads, you know, potentially weapons where we don't want people to be? And so where I see the difference in a lot of these technologies, Eureka is a great example, is this balance of not having to do something that's so earth-shattering that it's going to take us 15 to 30 years to get to. But what's something that we could begin building today that will be ready to go and be able to make an impact? And when I look back, you know, sort of my training, especially in something like stability, I see so many of the renderings of vessels today that I'm like, oh, like that's a really pretty picture. And I can tell just looking at something that, like, is that even going to stay upright? And that's one of the challenges that we have is we don't have enough people in America who have formal training in things like naval architecture to be able to suss out what is real and what's not. And so it's been fascinating, you know, working with a lot of different companies, going down, you know, the line of venture capital or private equity as they work to grow, you know, the ability to fund their companies and prove out these technologies that there is really a gap in a lot of these firms of how do they invest? If we're talking about shipbuilding, you know, what does that mean for laying a keel and the ceremony that we have around it? There's a lot of announcements recently where, you know, everyone is laying a keel, but like, is there actually a keel there? Like, what is that that you're, you know, maybe there's a coin underneath. I hope, you know, stick to a tradition. And so those are some of the things that I'm seeing right now that I think are interesting. I think there's also a lot of technology that is new to the US, but that's not necessarily new in shipbuilding. And for us, I feel like that's maybe one of the most key things. You know, the small infrastructure grants that came out of MARAD for ports and shipyards are fantastic, but they're still such small amounts of money.$8 million barely moves the needle in the conversation. And so, how do we leverage existing technology that's coming out of South Korea, coming out of Finland, Norway, Japan to ensure that we're able to get to a point where we can keep pace with being best in class for shipbuilding?

SPEAKER_02: 29:13

Well, and that leads me to all really fascinating stuff that you're bringing up here and great applications and kind of out-of-the-box thinking. But that leads me to something that I often bring up in this show. Kind of there, I see kind of two different worlds of your, like if we break it down into like the most basic version. We have the F-150, right? We have the like, and I guess when I'm always thinking of commercial cargo vessels when I when I think of this example, but we have the F-150, right? I mean, it's a floating paperweight, it does the job. It really hasn't been updated in many years. It's gotten bigger, but it's kind of from my basic understanding, the the same thing, but larger. And then I just think that we have an opportunity for a cyber trust model, like just to break the mold, something funky. You look at it and you're like, wow, how to That works. Do you think that, and you kind of mentioned we have these drawings that are like, oh, that looks nice, but like, is that going to actually work? Do you think that there's an opportunity for a break the mold cyber truck model, or do you think that fundamentally vessels have to look and be a certain way? I mean, we've seen some different hull, you know, material being used on on just kind of pleasure craft, but to get to that scale of a large cargo vessel is a different world.

SPEAKER_01: 30:27

Yeah, definitely. I I mean it's the material side is really fascinating right now. We're seeing, you know, natural composites, things made out of like flaxseed. I'm, you know, talking with a team that's looking at that, that doesn't really scale from a strength perspective. We call that longitudinal strength, right? The worst thing that you could have happened other than a fire is that your ship cracks in half. But I I think the F-150 Cybertrack is a great analogy and way of thinking through. I'm probably the Debbie Downer in this because I would say, as much as I love the approach that SpaceX has taken, I don't think that's where American shipbuilding is today. I don't think that we are those, you know, certainly for things like aircraft carriers for nuclear submarines. But when we're looking at just moving goods, right, going back to 90% of everything moves by the ocean, I'm concerned that we've forgotten how to make F-150s. Our tier two, tier three yards are fantastic. But as we really look at like how do we improve blue water shipbuilding in the US, that would be my first focus. And I would say, let's teach our workforce how to build F-150s. Because I think about how complex it would be, you know, navigating a vessel, but even thinking about like flying an airplane. Like, let's learn how to fly a two or four seater Cessna before we jump in a lair jet. And I feel like we're jumping into that jet right now with all these conversations around building LNG carriers in the US. I understand, you know, the USTR side moving 1%, you know, from the US, but an LNG carrier is arguably one of the most complex types of vessels you could build. And we're not even talking about new designs here. We're talking about existing designs. If we're looking at things like membrane tanks, you know, for those who are less familiar with shipping, it's these highly precise, you know, welds that take place. It's a different type of welding to a large degree, the systems integration that takes place. So all of the different sensoring systems, all the different layers that you're bringing into a vessel, on the flip side, a piece that's not really related to your shippers today, but will be at some point is icebreakers, right? When we look at the Arctic opening up, expecting that, you know, in the next decade, less than a decade and a half, that the Arctic will be navigable year-round, what does that mean for shipping routes? But are icebreakers really where we should be starting? And so, you know, as a naval architect, I never expected that I would hear about shipbuilding, you know, from the president speaking to Congress. That's an exciting moment. But the hard part is how do we get our workforce to the point where they're beyond building F-150s? And so, you know, if I was sort of queen for a day, I'd be like, let's build as many tankers as we can, something that is repeatable and straightforward and gets people to a really high quality point and understanding of what we're doing, and then go after those hard things.

SPEAKER_02: 33:11

That's so important. I love that you said that too, because I think you're probably right. We perhaps we haven't totally forgotten how to build an F-150, but we could certainly use a lot more practice, right? We could certainly use getting faster at it, uh, getting better at it, kind of all of those things, right? So I think those economies of scale, right? Yeah, exactly. Yeah, exactly. Well, and so so you are from Washington State, you're local to Washington State, and there's been some exciting news about ferry build. So certainly, right? Building in the US, but they're happening in Florida. It's Eastern shipbuilding in Florida, which has stirred up some strong feelings around the Washington State world. Talk to me a little bit about that and and how we can kind of all work together, but how it's important to kind of have some competition still in there.

SPEAKER_01: 33:56

It is. So Washington State Ferries, largest ferry system in the US. A lot of the vessels that we have, we have a little over 20 vessels right now. COVID was an incredibly challenging period, both from the age of the vessels, but really from workforce. And, you know, I we've been talking about this for years and you know, circles you and I are both in of like this silver tsunami, right? Of people retiring. And you can only sort of keep paying people a little bit extra to keep them on until where they're finally going to be like, I actually need to retire. And I would argue that's you know, a bit of what's happened at Washington State Ferries. I grew up in a place where we rely on Washington State Ferries to get home. My family members, if they can't get off island, can't go to the doctor, we can't go and do, you know, big grocery shops, things of that nature. So it's not just this like nice to have, but it is like a critical way of something that's influencing your life. And so for the recent announcement that Washington State Ferries had decided for, you know, not just the first round of bids that went out that came back in from the state, uh, from yards within Washington state, but allowing going to the state legislature in Washington to say, you know, we are beyond this percentage of extra cost because we're building in Washington, we'd like to look outside the state. I would say it's a point of huge contention right now. We have a new governor. It's someone who rides the ferries a lot. I am happy to see that we're just getting boats built. And for a lot of those who aren't from shipbuilding and those who are, there's a lot of frustration of why wasn't a Washington state yard chosen. I think when I look at the conversation, I'm looking at the commercial aspect of what needs to happen in America from you know the discussions in the EO, from the Ships for America's Act, but also the defense side focusing on, you know, what's happening with China and potentially Taiwan. And my hope is that while the contract for ferries is going to Eastern, that the West Coast yards are likely about to become so busy if I had to look at my crystal ball because of the current geopolitical situation. And so I think it's interesting from you know this very hyper-localized focus of did Washington give away the potential to develop our, you know, workforce here? I think a lot of people would say yes. I'm still hoping the answer is no, because I think we're about to see that renaissance on the West Coast where a lot of expertise flows into the West Coast because it has to, by nature, being able to not deal with the Panama Canal and get through to the Pacific much more quickly.

SPEAKER_02: 36:20

Well, and I think that's true countrywide, is that we have some fantastic shipbuilding operations already. And so while we do have competition among the shipyards, we need to also make sure that we're not losing what we have. We're we're talking about building new places, which is exciting, but we have to make sure that we're not losing what we have. And they're at least in the New England area, we've lost at least one that I know about since even the executive order came out. And it wasn't just, you know, it you can't just flip a switch right with one executive order. But certainly we want to make sure that that slide doesn't continue and that we actually keep and capture what we have and continue to build because with those facilities is also people know how to do this, right? And and we don't want to lose that workforce. We it's nothing else, we want to grow it, right? So yeah, that's such a great point. And I think that you're you're right on with kind of that geopolitics mind of you know, it's a vessel, it's it's sailed by land, by water, right? So, you know, if it's if it's built on the west coast and will be used in the in the Pacific, then it's already there instead of having to maneuver it down and around the Panama Canal or wherever it would need to get to to get over to that side. You know, you all you we talked about the executive order a little bit just now, but uh you've worked for both Jones Act companies and international companies. And what was it like to see the executive order and the Ships for America Act, the Ships Act language come out? What were some things that that you really kind of attached to? You thought were good ideas? Are there any areas that you think might need a little bit more kind of massaging or or or uh a little bit more refinement?

SPEAKER_01: 37:52

I'm gonna be hiding out, I think, for the next couple of weeks. No, I mean both are fantastic, right? What it says is that people recognize that we have a challenge of not having enough vessels and skill sets to build vessels in America today. And so I think that the conversation is moving in the right direction. Know a lot of the teams I've been involved in both. You know, I think I certainly have a concern over, you know, our shipbuilders, those of us who have worked in yards both in the US and abroad. And I think the abroad piece is really, really key because it goes back to like, what is some of the best in class technology for welding, for instance, right? For things around piping, instead of, you know, kind of eyeballing each piece, like what tools are out there that can expedite the speed that we do these things at, but also increase the quality. And so with both the EO and Shift for America's Act, you know, my first question is like, 300 vessels of what type? Again, what is it that we're trying to build? What is it that we really need that is going to help solve things for your shippers today, that is going to increase resilience for Americans, right, in our own supply chains and how we get things to our citizens from abroad. I'm really excited about the maritime prosperity zones and looking forward to seeing the further language that comes out on those. You mentioned, you know, a yard in New England that has closed or, you know, lost some of their workforce. In the Northwest, I've seen similar things over the last few years. And, you know, it's I keep using aviation examples close to that world as well, but I kind of equate it to people who move in next to an airport and then start to complain about the noise. I'm the weirdo who's like, oh yes, like great, what just took off? And I would feel that way about a shipyard, but a lot of people aren't going to. And so I think what's unique about the maritime prosperity zones that I'm looking forward to seeing where they currently, or at least I think differ from opportunity zones, is opportunity zones have been placed in underrepresented areas that have economic challenges, right? There's incentives to go in and develop. But if you think about some of the prime examples of where we could be building or reinvigorating shipbuilding in America, those are maybe some of the most, you know, prized places where people want to be, where people want to live, where people want to have mixed-use developments. And so it'll be curious to see what is that balance that happens overall.

SPEAKER_02: 40:06

That's right. And I think that that's the the marathon prosperity zones is such an interesting idea because I've also heard it talked about in that perhaps we find ways of having maritime prosperity zones internal to the country. I mean, what we're talking Iowa, right? We're talking Kansas. Are there opportunities to have shipbuilding be part of those areas of the country to help support this larger mission? Because military, national security is maritime security and they're interlinked, right? And that's something that I've been so excited to see this administration really lean in on saying maritime security is national security. And so that intention drives us forward to continue to build that out. I also like that you kind of pointed out, right? There's there's some critiques here and there, but let's not let perfect be the enemy of good, right? We want to make sure that we're still moving forward. We want to make sure that we still have forward movement in this area. And so there are some things that we could fix, precision being one, right? 300 of what vessel? But but it really is, it's a good idea, and and we're we're kind of, you know, the industry's on board. Let's keep moving it. So I have one more question for you. I think we're this has been a really interesting conversation. I really love getting your take on everything. But as we wrap up, I kind of want to get your big picture takeaway. So, where do you see the US maritime industry in one year, perhaps five years, and perhaps 10 years, right? Because each of those incremental periods of time is going to show a very different world of maritime readiness. And to say one year we're gonna be fully ready, not reality. But what do you see as possible in those increments, one, five, and ten?

SPEAKER_01: 41:43

I would like to think that in one year we will have had great advancement on the EO, especially when we go back to, you know, looking at those prosperity zones, what are the public-private partnerships that take place? A big piece of this, you know, not on the defense side, we're starting to see the money come through on the defense side, but what does that look like for commercial incentives? Because as we look to, you know, the best builders abroad, they are using those types of incentives to be able to sustain their shipbuilding industries. So I think at one year, it's really understanding, you know, a further lay of the land, whether that's from the maritime industrial base, some of the work that Blue Forge has been doing. I would hope that there's a bigger conversation on supply chain and understanding that it will take us time to, you know, just as it takes time to build an actual vessel hole, it will take time to get the learnings here in the US to be able to do things like valves and, you know, it's a really easy example is where do propellers come from? Where are the foundries in the US? We could talk about that for hours. I could. Most people probably would not want to. So that would be my one year. My five year would be that we, you know, are coming out of seeing some of the first classes of vessels that are, you know, the recipients of these monies and these incentives, and that shippers are helping drive the change and asking questions and helping being part of, you know, I'd say a little bit of the pressure to allow for some of these supply chain areas that are going to allow vessels to deliver more quickly. But then also on the maintenance and repair side, how do we better leverage what we have, what we have in the way of dry docks today, what we have in all these locations around the US, having yards that have maybe been, you know, less busy or inactive being brought back to life. And then in 10 years, you know, if I could believe that it's, you know, we're becoming a powerhouse in the world again for shipbuilding on the commercial side. And what does that look like? It's repeatability, it's cost efficiencies, it's building beyond onesie twosies so that we're truly getting the gains that you learn as you build, you know, a class of vessels, a fleet of vessels.

SPEAKER_02: 43:43

That's right. Well, that's so that's encouraging. Uh, hopefully, I think you're right. I think that we do need to break it down incrementally. And I think that those are good targets to have and would be successful wins if we were to get there. So thank you so much for the conversation today. This has been such a rich discussion, such a great conversation. I I loved hearing more about your journey. I mean, we we we're friends, so I'm I'm happy to learn more about you know your your upbringing, but then also your insights on where we're going. This is some really interesting stuff that you're a part of. And and so if if our listeners want to learn more about Nest C, how do they follow your work? How do they get in touch with you?

SPEAKER_01: 44:18

Yeah, absolutely. We're on LinkedIn, NESS, fun fact, made a name. So Ness dash C for you military types, Ness Taxi, and that's our website as well, NESS-sa.com. Happy to connect with people, always happy to talk about shipbuilding and what we can do to further our abilities in the United States. So thank you so much, Lauren.

SPEAKER_02: 44:36

That's wonderful. Well, thank you so much for joining us today. We'll be watching Nessi closely as you continue to help shape the future of shipbuilding. So thank you so much, Caitlin.

SPEAKER_01: 44:44

Thank you so much, Eileen.

SPEAKER_02: 44:51

Shipyards may not always make the headlines, but they're foundational to both economic competitiveness and national defense. And conversations like this show why the US needs a long-term strategy for capacity and innovation in the shipyard and in shipbuilding generally. Stay tuned here for more insights like this. Sometimes it's industry leaders, sometimes it's just me and a microphone breaking it all down, but always in plain language and always with an eye on what really matters in the world of ocean shipping. If you like this episode, be sure to follow, subscribe, and leave a review. Want to go deeper on these topics or bring this kind of insight to your team, visit themaritimeprofessor.com to explore corporate trainings, tailored briefings, and on-demand webinars, all designed to make complex maritime regulations practical and easy to understand. And if your organization needs help navigating the legal or strategic side of ocean shipping regulations, head over to Squall Strategies. That's where I provide consulting services on regulatory guidance and policy support and anything you might need across the global supply chain. As always, this podcast is for educational purposes only and is not considered legal advice. If you need an attorney, contact an attorney. Until next time, I'm Lauren Beegan, the Maritime Professor, and you've just listened to Byland Advice E. See you next time.