Trump global trade deal energy export wins are at odds with domestic shipbuilding reality
A liquefied natural gas tanker is tugged toward a thermal power station in Futtsu, east of Tokyo.
Issei Kato | Reuters
The Trump administration is touting commitments by foreign nations for future large purchases of U.S. energy as part of recent trade deal frameworks, including with the EU, Indonesia, and South Korea, but a separate recent mandate from the U.S. Trade Representative to promote domestic shipbuilding may stand in the way of making those liquified natural gas shipments reality.
The USTR policy mandates that 1% of U.S. LNG exports be carried on U.S.-flagged ships starting in April 2028, and a year later, 1% needs to be transported on U.S.-built ships. Subsequent annual increases of 1% would reach a total of 15% of U.S. LNG required to be on U.S.-built vessels by 2047.
“The requirement of U.S.-built ships to move the country’s LNG and crude is problematic,” said Jason Feer, global head of business intelligence for Poten & Partners, a company specializing in energy market analysis and consulting, particularly in the LNG sector.
The U.S. government’s new shipbuilding policy was undertaken as part of an investigation into China’s dominance in the shipbuilding industry, as part of the broader national security concerns of the U.S. government (the Biden administration was pursuing the issue as well and released a report in January 2025 stating its recommendations). China manufactures as much as 75%-80% of global freight fleets. In April, Trump announced the new USTR policy to rebuild America’s shipbuilding industry.
On Capitol Hill, Senator Mark Kelly (D-AZ), Senator Todd Young (R-IN), Representative John Garamendi (D-CA-8), and Representative Trent Kelly (R-MS-1) introduced the Shipbuilding and Harbor Infrastructure for Prosperity and Security (SHIPS) for America Act to close the gap with international builders through a series of programs.
There is only one U.S.-flagged LNG vessel currently operating, Crowley’s American Energy, but it was made in France in 1994 and began service in March 2025 to carry LNG from the U.S. Gulf Coast to Puerto Rico. It is a Jones Act vessel, which means that, based on the 1920 maritime commerce law covering shipments between U.S. ports, it needs to be staffed by a U.S. captain and crew, and registered in the U.S., to be U.S.-flagged.
The current number of LNG carriers operating globally is 682, according to Poten & Partners. Only one of those vessels, the LNG Aquarius, was built by the United States. The LNG Aquarius was ordered on July 1, 1974, and delivered by General Dynamics on June 7, 1977. The vessel currently sails under the Indonesian flag, based on MarineTraffic vessel information.
By 2047, Poten & Partner estimates the U.S. would need 45 vessels to move the 15% of LNG required by the USTR guidelines. Currently, there is only one U.S. vessel on the global order books out of a total of 331 planned vessels, Feer said. On paper, he added, the number of LNG vessels on the order books “looks good” to support a U.S. energy export expansion. But under the new USTR guidelines, these vessels would not be eligible.
Hanwha Shipping, a U.S. subsidiary of South Korea’s Hanwha Ocean, is now building a domestic liquefied natural gas carrier through its affiliate, Hanwha Philly Shipyard. This vessel will be the first U.S.-ordered, export market-viable LNG carrier in almost 50 years. A second possible LNG vessel could also be ordered.
Based on the history of LNG shipbuilding, it takes approximately two and a half years for an LNG vessel to be built.
“Globally, you can build a lot of ships to support an expansion, but the problem is it has to be built in a U.S. shipyard, and the U.S. has not built a commercial ocean-going vessel in decades,” said Feer. “In that time, we have lost a lot of shipbuilding capacity, and the yards we have open are used for building Jones Act domestic ships and the Navy.”
Another hurdle, Feer said, is the constraints in hiring skilled labor. “There are not enough craft workers — pipefitters, carpenters, welders. Trying to build all of this, on top of a set deadline, is going to be a huge challenge,” he said.
The costs associated with that skilled labor will also be a factor. It costs around $260 million to build an LNG vessel, according to industry estimates. A U.S.-made vessel can be approximately two to four times more expensive.
Feer says there needs to be more clarity on what constitutes a U.S.-made vessel within the USTR mandate.
“Could the majority of the vessel be manufactured overseas and completed in the U.S.? Is it a U.S.-made engine? How many of the LNG vessels made by Hanwha would be made in Korea and finished here? It is unclear how feasible the USTR mandate is,” he said.
Louis Sola, former Federal Maritime Commission Commissioner appointed by President Trump, and now a partner at lobbying firm Thorn Run Partners, tells CNBC the math doesn’t work.
“The question everyone is asking is simple,” Sola said. “Can the U.S. actually build enough LNG carriers fast enough under the SHIPS Act without shooting ourselves in the foot? We’ll need as many as 50 vessels by 2050. Korean and Japanese yards already take over two years per ship and are booked solid, and we don’t currently build this class here whatsoever,” he added.
The USTR did not respond to a request for comment.
“Without some common-sense flexibility or a phased-in approach, the math just doesn’t add up. We risk bottling up our own LNG exports and opening the market to the competition right when our allies need American energy the most,” Sola said.
According to BIMCO, the largest association for global ship owners, U.S. exports comprise up to 27.5% and 9.5% of global LNG and crude tanker demand, respectively. The U.S. predominantly uses South Korean LNG vessels to move the commodity.
Overall, 78% of the LNG fleet is built in South Korea, while 13% and 7% are from Japan and China, respectively, according to BIMCO. South Korean shipyards also dominate the order book, with 64% of capacity on order, but Chinese shipyards are increasingly getting orders and now have 32% of capacity on order.
Reflagging of vessels, USTR mandate waivers
Niels Rasmussen, chief shipping analyst for BIMCO, says one potential workaround is foreign-built ships that can currently be reflagged under specific conditions.
These ships must be owned by U.S. citizens or entities and qualify for one of the following programs: the Maritime Security Program, Cable Security Fleet, Tanker Security Fleet, Voluntary Intermodal Sealift Agreement, or Ready Reserve Fleet. “The SHIPS Act would also permit the reflagging of foreign-built ships for inclusion in the new Strategic Commercial Fleet Program (SCFP) for a seven-year period, which can be extended twice,” said Rasmussen
As U.S.-built and flagged ships become available, they will replace foreign-built ships in the 250-ship SCFP fleet. However, foreign-built LNG tankers in the SCFP fleet would seemingly not satisfy USTR LNG export and would require a waiver to be able to export LNG, he said.
According to shipping consultant Clarkson’s, 2025 will see a record delivery of LNG vessels.
In addition to South Korea’s lead position in ship orders, Swiss marine engine company WinGD has the most popular engine, and French engineering company Gaztransport & Technigaz, which specializes in membrane containment systems for liquefied natural gas (LNG) and other cryogenic gases, is the dominant containment system being used in the new vessels.
The U.S. may have to fall back on a waiver provision in the USTR mandate, according to energy experts.
The waiver provision, if used, would increase the cost of vessel components by 25%, but may be the best option relative to an unreasonable delay in ship availability, said Andrew Lipow, president of Lipow Oil Associates.
Lipow said if there are not enough LNG vessels, a situation which could impact LNG production and crude production, the use of waivers would need to be considered.
“Oil wells also produce some associated natural gas with it so this can also impact U.S. oil production,” said Lipow. “The administration will not want to put the country in a situation where they would have to shut in production. If the markets are fearful that the U.S. does not have the ability to export LNG, prices could go down, and that would most likely lead to a waiver,” he added.
Lipow noted that the use of waivers has been seen before in Jones Act vessels, so a foreign-flag vessel could transport U.S. gasoline between two U.S. ports. “There is precedent for waivers on foreign-flag vessels to mitigate supply disruptions,” he said.
There you are, motoring along in your Volvo XC90 PHEV with the Pilot Assist engaged alongside a big 18-wheeler at a comfortable 70 mph cruise when the interstate starts to slowly sweep left. From the drivers’ seat, that semi on your right looks awfully close. As the steering wheel turns itself in your hand, you start to wonder if that truck’s a bit too close. The car isn’t doing anything wrong, but it’s too close for your comfort and you give the wheel a little nudge to hug the inside of the lane just a bit more.
These deeply personal preferences are tough to quantify, and highlight a simple fact about Advanced Driver Assistance Systems (ADAS) that the industry at-large hasn’t yet to come to terms with: when it comes to self-driving cars, one size does not fit all.
The Volvo experience I outlined above was very real, happening just as the wife and I were arguing about the relative merits of our very different choice in running shoes. She prefers the supportive, cushion-y ride of the HOKA Clifton 9s, which I’ve become convinced are The Devil™, preferring instead the zero-lift, no-cushion feel of my Xero Prio runners. The intervention with the Volvo interrupted that particular argument and started another. Namely, the one about why I had chosen that moment to “interfere” with the Pilot Assist.
“It was too close to that truck,” I explained. “Freaked me out.”
“That’s how I feel in the Honda,” she said. “I’m always afraid that it’s going to try and put me into oncoming traffic.”
That’s when the idea for this post came to me. Because, as a car brand, it’s really not possible to just say that your car has ADAS or doesn’t have ADAS in a binary sense. That’s because these systems are not just proprietary to a given brand, they can vary from vehicle-to-vehicle within that brand, and each one can have distinct lane centering behavior, steering feel, lane change aggressiveness, braking distances, timing for its hand-off warnings, and probably a bunch of other stuff that I haven’t even thought of depending on what kind of cameras, sensors, and software the specific vehicle you are in is equipped with.
It’s a bit of a mess, in other words.
Opinion: Honda Sensing gets it right
I first experienced Honda’s ADAS in 2014, driving a then-new CR-V between Chicago and Bay Harbor, Michigan for an Acura press drive. Even in its early generations, I was impressed with the way it handled stop-and-go traffic, the way it guided you through turns, but didn’t do the turning for you, and the speed and intensity it used in braking very much mirrored my own.
Last month, I had a chance to test out the 2025 Honda Civic Sport Touring Hybrid for a week on Cape Cod. I picked the car up at PreFlight Parking outside Boston Logan, jammed it with luggage, and immediately hit heavy traffic, where the Honda Sensing Low-Speed Follow function took me right back to 2014, ratatouille-style, when my experience in that car had led me to believe that self-driving cars were right around the corner.
In the decade-plus since experiencing that first autonomous Acura, I’ve had the chance to experience Ford BlueCruise, Tesla Autopilot and FSD, and Mercedes-Benz DRIVE PILOT. And all, interestingly enough, in and around the Circuit of the Americas in Austin at one time or another over my three years of hosting Electrify Expo events there.
Each different OEMs’ system had its strengths and quirks. I remember Mercedes DRIVE PILOT as impressively precise, even clinical. The Ford system faded into memory. I couldn’t tell you anything about it, which is probably high praise. The Tesla systems, though, stood out — but for all the wrong reasons. Lane changes came too quickly, it accelerated too late, and too aggressively, and I often found myself bracing for collisions that (in fairness) never came.
More than once in those years I’ve wondered if maybe I’d just got it wrong back in 2014. That the tech was so new, and I had been so wow’ed by it initially, that I had got swept up in the hype of self-driving cars … but that drive in my wife’s XC90, back-to-back as it was with the Civic Hybrid, showed me that wasn’t it. Instead, I just didn’t like the way those other cars drove. Just like I don’t like the way HOKAs feel. And, just like my wife isn’t wrong for liking her gross marshmallow shoes (probably), I’m not wrong for preferring a more restrained digital co-pilot.
It’s a matter of fit, not fact — and that’s going to be a tough sell.
Everyone but me is wrong
As the great George Carlin once asked, “Have you ever noticed that anyone who is driving slower than you is an idiot, and anyone driving faster than you is a maniac?”
ADAS systems live squarely in that same subjective space occupied by other drivers. If the bots brake too hard, steer too sharply, or get too close to the car head before changing lanes, they might not be technically doing anything wrong, but they’re maniacs – and right now, there’s no real way to know how one car’s ADAS is going to behave until you’ve spent some significant time behind the wheel. Like, “Uh-oh. I bought a thing and I hate it,” amounts of time.
That’s a problem for both buyers and sellers (to say nothing of manufacturers and software developers), because why would you risk demonstrating a system that might scare someone? How do you sell “confidence” and “convenience” when what feels confident and convenient to one driver feels reckless to another, and milquetoast to a third?
Lucky for you guys, I have a solution.
Jojo’s ADAS scorecard *
| System | Lane centering bias | Lane change distance (car lengths) | Follow distance (default) | Braking force (max Gs) | Hands-off time allowed | Overall “feel” |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ford BlueCruise | Centered | ~3.5 | Moderate | 0.30 G | Medium | Stable |
| Honda Sensing | Slight left bias | ~2.5 | Safe | 0.35 G | Short | Balanced |
| Mercedes-Benz DRIVE PILOT |
Centered | ~3.5 | Moderate | 0.40 G | Long | Confident |
| Tesla Autopilot | Centered | ~1.5 | Close | 0.45 G | Long (varies) | Aggressive |
| Volvo Pilot Assist | Slight right bias | ~3.0 | Moderate | 0.30 G | Moderate | Cautious |
That asterisk (*) is there because these are completely made up, imaginary values. They’re simply there to illustrate one way for manufacturers and dealers to share objective, quantifiable information about how their different ADAS systems behave. If it’s done right, it might help a car shopper get a better feel for how their next car might drive, and prevent them from spending their hard-earned cash on a car that drives like an idiot. Or a maniac.
That’s my take, anyway – what’s yours? Head down to the comments and let us know what values you’d like to see represented on an ADAS scorecard, and how much you’d be willing to base your next car buying decision on how it drives.
As for me, my X handle might be VolvoJo, but if I’m shopping for a car that’s going to drive me instead of the other way around, I might have to see if “HondaJo” is available.
Original content from Electrek.
If you’re considering going solar, it’s always a good idea to get quotes from a few installers. To make sure you find a trusted, reliable solar installer near you that offers competitive pricing, check out EnergySage, a free service that makes it easy for you to go solar. It has hundreds of pre-vetted solar installers competing for your business, ensuring you get high-quality solutions and save 20-30% compared to going it alone. Plus, it’s free to use, and you won’t get sales calls until you select an installer and share your phone number with them.
Your personalized solar quotes are easy to compare online and you’ll get access to unbiased Energy Advisors to help you every step of the way. Get started here.
FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links. More.
Elon wants the US military to start buying Tesla Cybertrucks – and now they are! The Air Force has ordered two Cybertruck testers for target practice to determine how easy they are to blow up, while Jo makes up a whole new conspiracy theory on today’s explosive episode of Quick Charge!
Today’s episode is brought to you by retrospec—makers of sleek, powerful e-bikes and outdoor gear built for everyday adventure. Electrek listeners can get 10% off their next ride until August 14 with the exclusive code ELECTREK10 only at retrospec.com.
An it doesn’t stop there. We’ve also got exciting new home battery backup and V2X options for Tesla owners, and one Texas EV driver that decided to conquer the Texas floodwaters by harnessing the awesome combined powers of electrons and stupidity (it’s pretty awesome).
Source Links
Prefer listening to your podcasts? Audio-only versions of Quick Charge are now available on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, TuneIn, and our RSS feed for Overcast and other podcast players.
New episodes of Quick Charge are recorded, usually, Monday through Thursday (most weeks, anyway). We’ll be posting bonus audio content from time to time as well, so be sure to follow and subscribe so you don’t miss a minute of Electrek’s high-voltage daily news.
Got news? Let us know!
Drop us a line at tips@electrek.co. You can also rate us on Apple Podcasts and Spotify, or recommend us in Overcast to help more people discover the show.
If you’re considering going solar, it’s always a good idea to get quotes from a few installers. To make sure you find a trusted, reliable solar installer near you that offers competitive pricing, check out EnergySage, a free service that makes it easy for you to go solar. It has hundreds of pre-vetted solar installers competing for your business, ensuring you get high-quality solutions and save 20-30% compared to going it alone. Plus, it’s free to use, and you won’t get sales calls until you select an installer and share your phone number with them.
Your personalized solar quotes are easy to compare online and you’ll get access to unbiased Energy Advisors to help you every step of the way. Get started here.
FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links. More.
Tesla’s Dojo supercomputer project is reportedly over. Bloomberg reports that CEO Elon Musk is killing the project after a mass exodus of talent from the Dojo team to a competing startup.
Dojo was the name of Tesla’s in-house AI chip development to create supercomputers to train its AI models for self-driving.
Tesla hired a bunch of top chip architects and tried to develop better AI accelerator chips to rely less on companies like NVIDIA, AMD, and others.
It has been running into delays for years.
We previously reported on significant setbacks. In 2018, Jim Keller, the famed chip architect who was first hired to lead Tesla’s chip-making effort, left the company.
Ganesh Venkataramanan succeeded him, but he left Tesla in 2023.
For the last few years, Peter Bannon, who worked with Keller for years, has been leading Tesla’s chip-making programs, but he is now reportedly also leaving the automaker.
Bloomberg reports that Musk has “ordered the effort to be shut down.”:
Peter Bannon, who was heading up Dojo, is leaving and Chief Executive Officer Elon Musk has ordered the effort to be shut down, according to the people, who asked not to be identified discussing internal matters. The team has lost about 20 workers recently to newly formed DensityAI, and remaining Dojo workers are being reassigned to other data center and compute projects within Tesla, the people said.
DensityAI is a new startup currently in stealth mode, founded by several former Tesla employees, including Venkataramanan.
It reportedly plans to build chips for AI data centers and robots, much like the Dojo program.
The company recently hired 20 former Tesla employees who worked on Dojo.
While the program appeared to be lagging behind for years as Tesla increasingly bought more compute power from NVIDIA, Musk has been claiming progress.
The CEO said in June:
Tesla Dojo AI training computer making progress. We start bringing Dojo 2 online later this year. It takes three major iterations for a new technology to be great. Dojo 2 is good, but Dojo 3 will be great.
During Tesla’s quarterly conference call in late July, the CEO claimed that Dojo 2 will be “operating at scale sometime next year.”
Electrek’s Take
It’s unclear whether the report is accurate or if it’s an extrapolation from the talent exodus to Elon killing Dojo, or if Elon was lying just a few weeks ago.
Alternatively, this development may be so recent that Elon went from being confident in Dojo a few weeks ago to disbanding the team working on it now.
Either way, I think it’s clear that the project has been lagging, and Tesla has been extremely dependent on chip suppliers rather than making its own.
I think Dojo being likely dead is not a big loss for Tesla.
When it comes to chip making, developing its own inference compute for onboard “AI computers” was always the more important project.
TSMC is set to produce Tesla’s new AI5 chip, which is coming soon, and we have recently learned that Samsung will be manufacturing its AI6 chip.
I think the bigger concern from this report is that it’s the latest example of an ongoing exodus of talent at Tesla.
FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links. More.
-
Sports3 years ago‘Storybook stuff’: Inside the night Bryce Harper sent the Phillies to the World Series
-
Sports1 year agoStory injured on diving stop, exits Red Sox game
-
Sports2 years agoGame 1 of WS least-watched in recorded history
-
Sports2 years agoMLB Rank 2023: Ranking baseball’s top 100 players
-
Sports4 years ago
Team Europe easily wins 4th straight Laver Cup
-
Sports2 years agoButton battles heat exhaustion in NASCAR debut
-
Environment2 years agoJapan and South Korea have a lot at stake in a free and open South China Sea
-
Environment2 years agoGame-changing Lectric XPedition launched as affordable electric cargo bike