Calcasieu Ship Channel Traffic Study (Port of Lake Charles)

Calcasieu Traffic Study – Base Case Results | 20 June 2014 | 1

Calcasieu Traffic Study

Base Case Results

Matthew von Schilling | 20 June 2014


Table of Contents

1. Introduction2. Key Simulation Results3. Traffic Year Results4. Detailed Results5. Pilot and Tug Requirements6. Conclusions


1 Introduction


Purpose and Background

Ausenco was engaged by the Port of Lake Charles to conduct a simulation study of the capacity of the Calcasieu Ship Channel.• Traffic in the channel is expected to increase significantly over the next 10 years due to the expanded

operations of the existing terminals and the construction of various proposed facilities. Vessel traffic is forecasted to increase by over 50% in the next five years and to double by 2023.

• This increased traffic could have a significant impact on the operations of the channel and may require changes to the channel infrastructure to avoid significant congestion and delays.

• Ausenco developed a detailed simulation model of the Calcasieu Ship Channel to investigate the present and future channel capacity and assess the need for changes to the channel operations and infrastructure.


Simulation Model Screenshot

The figure below shows a screenshot of the Calcasieu Ship Channel simulation model.


Simulation Model Scope

The Calcasieu Ship Channel simulation model included the following details:• The Outer Bar and Inner Channel, from the CC buoy to the I-10 bridge.

• 19 existing and proposed terminals (over 30 berths) along the channel.

• Current and forecasted piloted vessel traffic to each terminal, from 2013 to 2033.

• Vessel transit rules: one-way traffic, passing restrictions, separation time between vessels, and exclusion zones for LNG vessels.

• Convoys, which gave priority to vessels calling at terminals further up the channel.

• Inbound and outbound pilot boarding windows.

• Wind and visibility restrictions.

• Pilot and tug requirements.

The inputs for the model are discussed in detail in the Inputs and Assumptions document.1

1Ausenco, Calcasieu Ship Channel Traffic Study – Revised Draft Report: Inputs and Assumptions Section, June 2014


1,0221,108

1,153 1,189

1,322

1,668

1,914

2,0392,121 2,121

2,183 2,184 2,1912,237 2,241 2,249 2,249 2,249 2,249 2,249 2,249

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033

Num

ber o

f Ves

sel C

alls

Total Number of Piloted Vessel Calls (Vessel Mix)

Large LNG

Small LNG

Deep Draft

Wide

Narrow

Simulation Model InputsVessel Traffic from 2013 to 2033

• Traffic forecasts for 2014 to 2033 were provided by the current and future channel users.

• The vessels in the simulation model were grouped into five categories – Large LNG, Small LNG, Deep Draft, Wide and Narrow.

• The majority of the increased traffic was LNG carriers to the proposed terminals.

• Deep Draft vessels that were laden inbound and laden outbound are discussed separately in the results, since they were subject to different boarding windows.

Annual traffic in the channel is expected to increase from 1,000 vessels in 2013 to over 2,000 vessels in 2020.


Simulation Methodology

The simulation model was used to evaluate the traffic in each year – from 2013 to 2033 – independently.• Each traffic year was individually modeled as a unique “simulation run”. Within each simulation run, the

traffic for the year was repeated 40 times – to produce 40 simulated years – and each time with different weather and environmental conditions. This repetition was done to provide a sufficient amount of variability in the model outputs.

• The outputs from each simulation run were analyzed to determine statistics and conclusions about the channel operations for each traffic year (based on the 40 repetitions).

• The results detailed in this presentation represent the “base case” simulation model – that is, the model with the existing channel infrastructure and operational rules.o The results provided assume a sufficient number of Pilots and tugs in the channel – these numbers

are discussed in detail in Section 5.


Key Performance Indicators

Two key performance indicators (KPIs) were used to assess the capacity of the channel and the impact of increased traffic: the number of vessel calls and the vessel wait time. • The number of vessel calls indicated whether the channel was capable of handling the scheduled

traffic.

• Vessel wait time was a measure of how much vessels were delayed waiting to enter the channel and represented the effect of congestion on operations. Although the channel may be capable of handling increased traffic levels, the additional delays incurred may not be acceptable to the channel or the users.

• Inbound wait time for a vessel was counted from the time it was assigned a berth and ready to enter the channel, and was equal to the time a vessel waited at the pilot boarding area due to opposing traffic, government regulations, boarding windows, wind, visibility, and Pilot and/or tug availability.

• Outbound wait time for a vessel was counted from the time it had finished all loading or unloading activities and was ready to depart, and was equal to the time a vessel waited at berth for suitable conditions as noted immediately above.

• Combined wait time was the sum of the inbound and outbound wait time.


Wait Time Statistics

Detailed statistics for wait time were produced by the simulation model and are detailed in this presentation.• The wait time experienced by each individual vessel in the entire simulation was an output of the

model. Statistics about the overall wait times were calculated from an analysis of the individual wait times.

• The median (or 50th percentile) wait time is primarily used in this presentation because it represents the delays for a “typical” vessel. Other statistics – namely, the minimum, 25th, 75th and 99th percentiles – provide a distribution of the operations.

• These statistics are identified on box and whisker diagrams:

• The 99th percentile is shown on the figures as the peak value rather than the 100 th percentile (the absolute maximum). This was done because each simulation run had a few vessels that experienced excessively long delays which in practice could be reasonably managed and mitigated by the channel.

99th Percentile

75th Percentile

Minimum

25th Percentile

Median


Structure of Results Sections

The results of the traffic year simulation runs are detailed in several sections:• Key Simulation Results: presents the results for the 2013, 2018, and 2023 traffic years. These traffic

years represented the operations of the channel over the next ten years, when traffic is expected to increase significantly, and provide a general overview of the study results.

• Traffic Year Results: presents the results for each traffic year (from 2013 to 2033) to show when and how the wait time increased with additional traffic.

• Detailed Results: presents detailed outputs for the 2018 and 2023 traffic cases to identify the potential key causes of wait time in the channel.

• Pilot and Tug Requirements: presents the number of Pilots and tugs required for the channel for each traffic year.


2 Key Simulation Results


2.3 h 4.6 h 6.8 h0

24

48

72

96

120

144

2013 2018 2023C

ombi

ned

Wai

t Tim

e (h

/ves

sel)

99th Percentile

75th Percentile

Median

25th Percentile

Minimum

Key Performance IndicatorsComparison of 2013, 2018, and 2023 Traffic Years

• The figure shows the wait time statistics for all vessels in 2013, 2018, and 2023.

• The median wait time increased from 2.3 hours in 2013 to 6.8 hours in 2023, as a result of the additional traffic in the channel.

• The table shows that the channel was able to handle all of the scheduled vessel traffic in all three traffic years.

• The results indicate that while the Calcasieu Ship Channel is capable of handling all of the additional traffic, vessels calling at the channel will typically experience higher wait times.

Year

Number of Vessels

Scheduled

Number of Vessels Handled

2013 1,022 1,022

2018 1,668 1,668

2023 2,183 2,183


Wait Time by Vessel CategoryComparison of 2013, 2018, and 2023 Traffic Years

• The figures show the wait time for each of the modeled vessel categories in 2013, 2018, and 2023.

• The median wait time increased by 3.1 to 4.0 hours between 2013 and 2023 for the vessel categories present in both traffic years.

• The Large LNG carriers had the highest wait times out of all vessel categories in both 2018 and 2023.

3.5 h 2.6 h 1.3 h0

24

48

72

96

120

1442013

99th Percentile

75th Percentile

Median

25th Percentile

Minimum

8.8 h 5.5 h 6.6 h 2.1 h 4.1 h 3.1 h0

24

48

72

96

120

144

Com

bine

d W

ait T

ime

(h/v

esse

l)

2018

12.3 h 7.5 h 8.6 h 3.1 h 5.7 h 4.6 h0

24

48

72

96

120

144

Large LNG Deep Draft(Laden Inbound)

Deep Draft(Laden Outbound)

Small LNG Wide Narrow

2023


3 Traffic Year Results


0

24

48

72

96

120

144

2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033

Com

bine

d W

ait T

ime

(h/v

esse

l)

Total Wait Time Distribution by Year

99th Percentile

75th Percentile

Median

25th Percentile

Minimum

Wait Time for All VesselsEach Traffic Year from 2013 to 2033

• The figure shows the wait time statistics for all vessels for each of the traffic years.

• The median wait time increased from 2.3 hours in 2013, to 4.6 hours in 2018, and to 6.8 hours in 2023.

• The 99th percentile wait time increased from 31.0 hours in 2013, to 50.8 hours in 2018, and to 67.2 hours in 2023.

• The wait time for all vessels followed the same trend as the increase in traffic (as shown on Slide 7).


0

6

12

18

24

2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033

Med

ian

Com

bine

d W

ait T

ime

(h/v

esse

l)

Combined Wait Time by Vessel Type

Large LNG

Deep Draft (Laden Inbound)

Deep Draft (Laden Outbound)

Small LNG

Wide

Narrow

All Vessels

Wait Time by Vessel CategoryEach Traffic Year from 2013 to 2033

• The figure shows the median wait time for each vessel category for each traffic year.

• The Large LNG carriers had the largest increase in median wait time – from 6.4 hours in 2017 (the first year in which they are expected to call at terminals in the channel) to 12.3 hours in 2023.

• The wait time for all other vessel categories increased moderately as the traffic increased.

• The wait time in a given traffic year was highest for the most-restricted vessel categories – Large LNG carriers and Deep Draft vessels.


4 Detailed Results


Detailed Wait Time Results for Vessel Categories

The wait times for each vessel category were analyzed in detail to determine which aspects of the channel were the cause of delays.• Each vessel category was subject to different rules and restrictions that governed when vessels could

enter the channel.

• The following slides show the wait times for each vessel category and for each month. The comparison between vessel categories allowed the identification of particular causes of wait time, and the monthly breakdown allowed an assessment of seasonal causes.

• It is somewhat difficult to assign an exact cause to delays experienced by any single vessel because delays are often subject to knock-on effects. For example, a vessel may be delayed initially due to opposing traffic, and then further delayed by a missed boarding window or weather (or by multiple conditions at the same time).

• The results are shown for the 2018 and 2023 traffic cases because these represented key years for traffic increases and provided suitable indications for the causes of wait time.

• Since the Large LNG carriers and Deep Draft vessels were the two most restricted vessel categories, the majority of comparisons are made between these categories.


5.6 h 3.3 h 3.1 h 2.8 h 1.4 h 0.9 h 1.2 h 1.5 h 1.1 h 1.7 h 1.9 h 2.5 h0

24

48

72

96

120

144

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec


99th Percentile

75th Percentile

Median

25th Percentile

Minimum

Wait Time by Month | 2018 Traffic YearInbound Wait Time for Large LNG Carriers & Deep Draft Vessels

• The figures show the inbound wait time in 2018 for Large LNG carriers and Deep Draft vessels that were laden on their inbound transit.

• Although both vessel categories were restricted by the same inbound boarding windows, the Large LNG carriers had consistently higher median wait times.

• The passing restrictions for LNG carriers on the Outer Bar as well as the more restrictive wind limit likely resulted in the overall higher wait time throughout the year.

• The median wait times for both vessel categories varied seasonally (lower in summer months and higher in winter months), which was the result of wind and visibility delays.

9.2 h 5.9 h 6.2 h 5.7 h 2.8 h 2.7 h 2.6 h 2.4 h 2.0 h 3.5 h 3.0 h 6.2 h0

24

48

72

96

120

144

Inbo

und

Wai

t Tim

e (h

/ves

sel)

Large LNG


3.3 h 4.8 h 6.0 h 2.5 h 1.9 h 2.8 h 1.7 h 1.4 h 1.5 h 3.0 h 3.6 h 6.5 h0

24

48

72

96

120

144

Out

boun

d W

ait T

ime

(h/v

esse

l)

Large LNG

Wait Time by Month | 2018 Traffic YearOutbound Wait Time for Large LNG Carriers & Deep Draft Vessels

• The figures show the outbound wait time in 2018 for Large LNG carriers and Deep Draft vessels that were laden on their outbound transit (since these vessels were subject to the same outbound boarding windows as the Large LNG carriers).

• Similar to the previous slide, there was a distinct seasonality that was attributed to weather.

• The median wait time was higher for the Deep Draft vessels than the Large LNG carriers. These Deep Draft vessels called at terminals further upstream than the Large LNG vessels, and were subject to more delays.

7.4 h 7.9 h 6.7 h 3.7 h 3.2 h 4.7 h 2.8 h 4.4 h 4.3 h 4.1 h 4.7 h11.8 h

0

24

48

72

96

120

144



99th Percentile

75th Percentile

Median

25th Percentile

Minimum


Wait Time by Month | 2018 Traffic YearCombined Wait Time for All Other Vessels

• The three figures show the combined wait time in 2018 for the three other vessel categories – Small LNG carriers, Wide vessels, and Narrow vessels – that is, those that were not restricted by inbound and outbound boarding windows.

• The wait times for these three vessel categories were much lower than those for Large LNG carriers or Deep Draft vessels.

• Although the wait times had some seasonality, it was not as pronounced as for the other vessel categories.

3.3 h 3.3 h 3.0 h 2.4 h 1.1 h 1.3 h 1.1 h 1.5 h 1.4 h 2.8 h 2.5 h 2.6 h0

24

48

72

96

120

144Small LNG

5.5 h 5.5 h 5.8 h 4.2 h 2.9 h 2.9 h 3.0 h 3.2 h 3.2 h 4.7 h 4.7 h 4.9 h0

24

48

72

96

120

144

Com

bine

d W

ait T

ime

(h/v

esse

l)

Wide99th Percentile

75th Percentile

Median

25th Percentile

Minimum

4.8 h 4.6 h 4.6 h 3.6 h 2.1 h 2.2 h 2.4 h 2.0 h 2.2 h 3.6 h 3.8 h 3.9 h0

24

48

72

96

120

144


Narrow


Wait Time by Month | 2023 Traffic YearInbound Wait Time for Large LNG Carriers & Deep Draft Vessels

• The figures show the inbound wait time in 2023 for Large LNG carriers and Deep Draft vessels that were laden on their inbound transit.

• As was seen in the results for 2018, the median wait times for both vessel categories varied seasonally and the Large LNG carriers had consistently higher median wait times.

13.0 h 9.3 h 9.7 h 8.5 h 5.4 h 3.6 h 4.1 h 4.0 h 3.3 h 5.4 h 6.0 h 7.8 h0

24

48

72

96

120

144

Inbo

und

Wai

t Tim

e (h

/ves

sel)

Large LNG

8.5 h 4.5 h 5.6 h 4.4 h 2.8 h 2.0 h 2.4 h 3.1 h 2.1 h 2.8 h 3.5 h 4.3 h0

24

48

72

96

120

144



99th Percentile

75th Percentile

Median

25th Percentile

Minimum


Wait Time by Month | 2023 Traffic YearOutbound Wait Time for Large LNG Carriers & Deep Draft Vessels

• The figures show the outbound wait time in 2023 for Large LNG carriers and Deep Draft vessels that were laden on their outbound transit.

• As was seen in the results for 2018, the median wait time was higher for the Deep Draft vessels than the Large LNG carriers.

4.3 h 5.1 h 6.9 h 3.6 h 2.7 h 3.4 h 2.2 h 2.3 h 2.8 h 3.4 h 4.1 h 8.7 h0

24

48

72

96

120

144

Out

boun

d W

ait T

ime

(h/v

esse

l)

Large LNG

7.3 h 7.9 h 8.4 h 6.8 h 5.0 h 4.8 h 3.5 h 4.3 h 4.5 h 4.5 h 7.1 h 11.0 h0

24

48

72

96

120

144



99th Percentile

75th Percentile

Median

25th Percentile

Minimum


Wait Time by Month | 2023 Traffic YearCombined Wait Time for All Other Vessels

• The three figures show the combined wait time in 2023 for the Small LNG carriers, Wide vessels, and Narrow vessels.

• As was seen in the results for 2018, the wait times for these three vessel categories were much lower than those for Large LNG carriers or Deep Draft vessels.

4.1 h 3.9 h 4.2 h 3.3 h 2.3 h 2.2 h 2.3 h 2.4 h 2.1 h 3.8 h 3.4 h 3.8 h0

24

48

72

96

120

144Small LNG

7.6 h 6.9 h 7.3 h 6.1 h 4.5 h 4.3 h 4.4 h 4.4 h 4.5 h 6.6 h 6.9 h 6.6 h0

24

48

72

96

120

144

Com

bine

d W

ait T

ime

(h/v

esse

l)

Wide99th Percentile

75th Percentile

Median

25th Percentile

Minimum

6.2 h 6.0 h 6.2 h 5.4 h 3.5 h 3.3 h 3.4 h 3.2 h 3.4 h 4.7 h 5.6 h 5.7 h0

24

48

72

96

120

144


Narrow


Summary of Detailed Wait Time Results

The monthly statistics demonstrated that wait time was highly seasonal for certain vessel categories and that the Large LNG carriers experienced the highest combined wait times.• The wait times for all vessel categories were seasonal which was attributed to the wind and visibility

delays. The Large LNG carriers, the most restricted vessel category, had the most pronounced seasonality.

• Weather delays are difficult to mitigate and as traffic increases in the channel, such delays will have a more significant impact and result in higher wait times.

• Weather delays create knock-on effects, however, which could be mitigated. After a delay ended, there was often a queue of vessels waiting to enter or exit the channel, and any additional restrictions on the queued vessels – boarding windows, passing, etc. – increased the time before the backlog could be cleared.

• Any changes to the channel operations and infrastructure that would allow vessels to move more freely (longer boarding windows, passing lanes, revised LNG exclusion zones, etc.) would likely reduce wait times for all vessels in the channel.

• It is also expected that changes that only directly decrease wait times for one vessel category (e.g. changing passing restrictions for LNG carriers) will have a secondary impact and decrease wait times for all other vessel categories.


Several vessels per year experienced excessive wait times. The figure below demonstrates a series of events that prevented a vessel from entering the channel, and shows how wait time can be the result of multiple causes.

Example of a Long Wait TimeWorst Case (100th Percentile) Scenario


5 Pilot and Tug Requirements


Pilot Requirements

Each modeled vessel required at least one Lake Charles Pilot on board to transit the Calcasieu Ship Channel.• There are currently 17 Pilots employed by the Port of Lake Charles.

• The Pilots have restrictions on continuous working hours and required break periods, as well as a limit to the number of working hours in a year.

• The exact number of hours the Pilots will work in each year in the future was not known at the time of the study, so the number of Pilots required was determined for limits of 700, 800, and 900 working hours per year.

• For the simulation model, the working hour limits were assumed to be a hard limit – that is, the Pilots in the model were unable to exceed this limit. As such, if the modeled channel had an insufficient number of Pilots, then it was unable to handle the scheduled vessel traffic.


0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033

Num

ber o

f Pilo

ts R

equi

red

Channel Pilot Requirements

700 h/y Pilot Working Hour Limit



Pilots Required in 2018:700 h/y:800 h/y:900 h/y:

363228


494338


221917

Number of Pilots RequiredEach Traffic Year from 2013 to 2033

• The figure shows the number of Pilots required to handle the modeled traffic in the channel for each traffic year and for the three different working hour limits.

• The number of Pilots required varied between 17-22 in 2013 to 38-49 in 2023, which was roughly proportional to the increase in traffic.

• The real Calcasieu Ship Channel employed 17 Pilots in 2013.


Channel Tug Requirements

Each modeled vessel required two assist tugs to transit the Calcasieu Ship Channel.• The channel currently has 7 assist tugs, which is equivalent to 3 tug “sets” (with the 7 th tug available as

a spare).

• All of the LNG terminals were assumed to provide their own dedicated tugs, so the LNG carriers in the simulation model did not require the use of the channel tugs.o The tug requirements for the LNG terminals were not known at the time of the study, nor were the

rules for shared usage for the dedicated LNG terminal tugs, so the tug usage for these terminals could not be accurately modeled.

• Unlike the Pilots, if the channel had an insufficient number of tugs, it could still be possible to handle all of the scheduled traffic, albeit with additional delays. That is, the number of tugs did not impose a hard limit on the number of vessels that could be handled.

• Simulation runs with different numbers of tug sets were performed to determine how the number of tugs impacted vessel wait time and to assess the need for additional tugs.


Number of Channel Tugs RequiredVessel Wait Time for 2013, 2018, and 2023

• The figure shows the wait time for the vessels which required channel tugs (i.e. non-LNG vessels) in 2013, 2018, and 2023 when the modeled channel had different numbers of tug sets.

• The results are shown for simulation runs with 3 and 4 channel tugs sets, as well as with unlimited tug sets.

• The results indicate that an increased number of channel tugs did not significantly reduce vessel wait time.

2.4 h 2.2 h 2.2 h 4.2 h 3.9 h 3.8 h 5.7 h 5.3 h 5.2 h

2013 2018 2023

0

24

48

72

96

120

144

3 Tug Sets(Present)

4 Tug Sets UnlimitedTug Sets

3 Tug Sets(Present)


3 Tug Sets(Present)


Com

bine

d W

ait T

ime

(h/v

esse

l)

Wait due to Tugs

99th Percentile

75th Percentile

Median

25th Percentile

Minimum


6 Conclusions


Overall Conclusions

The results of the base case simulation runs showed that the channel was capable of handling the forecasted traffic levels up to 2033, although the increased traffic was subject to longer wait times that may need to be mitigated.• For each traffic year, the channel was capable of handling the scheduled number of vessels.

• Wait time increased for all vessels as traffic increased, although Large LNG carriers experienced the most significant increase in wait time.

• The overall wait time increased, and if the amount indicated by the model is considered unacceptable – for example, if the typical wait times experienced by the present traffic needs to be maintained – then changes to the channel operations or infrastructure should be investigated.

• The discussion of results focused on median wait time (the wait time for a typical vessel), but the long wait times caused by multiple sources could impact production capabilities at the terminals and may need to be considered as well.

• The channel will require a significantly higher number of Pilots to handle the forecasted additional traffic.

• The current number of channel tugs is likely sufficient for the channel (assuming the LNG terminals provide their own dedicated tugs) since additional tugs did not significantly reduce wait time.


Next Steps

The next major step for the study is to determine which sensitivity cases to perform. • Each sensitivity case can be used to investigate changes to the channel operations to determine if they

improve the wait time as intended. Results can be compared between sensitivity cases to attempt to identify the “optimal” changes.

• Some potential changes which could be investigated in the study are:o Changes to LNG exclusion zone restrictions and passing rules (on the entire channel or just on the

Outer Bar)o Passing lane(s) (location(s) and length(s) to be determined)o Anchorages (specific locations to be determined)o A salt water barriero Revised boarding window rules (if possible)o Combinations of the above

The other remaining steps for the simulation study are:• Produce report detailing results of the base case and sensitivity cases.

• Prepare user interface for simulation model.

Business

Calcasieu Ship Channel Traffic Study (Port of Lake Charles)