Upload
vesna
View
26
Download
0
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
“Soñar Valparaíso”. Alter nat ive Development Plan for Chile’s Region V Ports. Asaf Ashar National Ports & Waterways Int., USA www.asafashar.com. April 2012. Presentation Agenda. Traffic Forecast Fleet Forecast EPSA/EPV Plan Alternative Plan Capacity of Plans Capability of Plans - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
Citation preview
ALTERNATIVE DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR CHILE’S REGION V PORTS
ASAF ASHARNATIONAL PORTS & WATERWAYS INT., USA
www.asafashar.comApril 2012
“SOÑAR VALPARAÍSO”
Presentation Agenda
• Traffic Forecast• Fleet Forecast• EPSA/EPV Plan• Alternative Plan• Capacity of Plans• Capability of Plans• Cost of Plans• Summary & Conclusions
Demand Scenarios
Comparison
Supply Options
Past Traffic Developments
19901991
19921993
19941995
19961997
19981999
20002001
20022003
20042005
20062007
2008 -
200,000
400,000
600,000
800,000
1,000,000
1,200,000
1,400,000
1,600,000
1,800,000
-10%
-5%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%
50%
55%
60%
TEUsChange (%)
14.5%
9.5%
ContainerizationContainerization (Reefer, Copper, Forest Products)
Growing Import & Asia
Forecast Scenarios
20092010
20112012
20132014
20152016
2017 -
500,000
1,000,000
1,500,000
2,000,000
2,500,000
3,000,000
3,500,000
4,000,000
4,500,000
6% 15% Actual
177%
4.0 mil.
2.2 mil.
Only to 2017 when Outer Harbor needed
World’s Economic Forecast
Slowing Recovery
Increasing Volatility
IHS Global Insight; Wilbur Smith; Ashar
Present and Future ShipsCategory Name Operator Capacity
(TEUs)Dimensions LOA x Beam x Draft
(m)
Arrangement Under-Below-Across (rows)
Sub Panamax Cap San Antonio HSD 3,700 252 x 32.2 x 12.5 8 -6 - 13
Panamax - Max Zim Savannah Zim 5,000 295 x 32.3 x 13.5 8 -6 - 13
Post Panamax I Monte Class III HSD 6,300 300 x 40 x 13.5 9 - 5 - 16
Post Panamax II Sovereign Maersk Maersk 8,000 347 x 42.8 x 14.5 9 - 6 - 18
Post Panamax III New Panamax (NPX) --- 12,500 366 x 49 x 15.2 10 - 6 - 19/20
Post Panamax III MSC Daniela MSC 13,800 366 x 51.3 x 15 10 – 6 - 20
Post Panamax III Emma Maersk Maersk 14,500 396 x 56.4 x 15.5 10 – 6 - 22
Post Panamax III Triple E 18,000 165,000 400 x 59 x 15.5 10 – 8 - 23
Larger Newer Ships more Fuel Efficient
Fleet Composition by Line
Alphaliner 2012; Ashar
Growing Consolidation (Super Alliances), Larger Ships, Larger Terminals
38%
Presentation Agenda
• Traffic Forecast• Fleet Forecast• EPSA/EPV Plan• Alternative Plan• Capacity of Plans• Capability of Plans• Cost of Plans• Summary & Conclusions
Demand Scenarios
Comparison
Supply Options
Comparison of Development Plans
• Capacity – Forecast Scenarios (TEUs)• Capability – Future Ships (Depth, Turning
Basin, Berth Length, Yard Area)• Efficiency – Scale Economies; Automation;
Land Access; Logistic• Competition• (Environmental Concerns)
Alternative Plans• EPSA/EPV Plan –– Short Term: Minor Extension of Present Terminals– Mid Term: New Terminals in San Antonio (Puerto
Central) and Valparaiso (Terminal 2)• Alternative Plan (AA & PW) –– Short Term: Meaningful Expansion of Present
Terminals– Long Term: Outer Terminal
• Cost Comparison – Only Basic Infrastructure– Per Capacity Unit ($/ TEU)
• Only Containers
Competition
• Valparaiso and San Antonio serve the same Hinterland– No Captive Cargo
• Similar Services & Prices– Line Switching for $10/Box– Both STI & TPS Low Price $120/Box
• Tight Price Control by EPSA/EPV• Small Risk of Collusion• 3 Terminals = Sufficient Number of Competitors
Automated Modern Terminal600 x 600 m = 32 ha; 16 ha / 300-m Berth
8 STS (65 MT, no tandem); 32 ASC (8 wide, 1-over-5); 20 Shuttle Strads
TTI; Ashar2012
Middle Harbor Terminal Long Beach (1)2 Terminals; 80 ha; 1.3 M TEUs; 16,250 TEUs/ha
1 Terminals; 120 ha; 3.3 M TEUs; 27,500 TEUs/ha (+70%); $1.2 billion; 40-year Lease
POLB; Ashar2012
Berth’s Scale Economies
0.4 0.425 0.45 0.475 0.5 0.525 0.55 0.575 0.6 0.625 0.65 0.675 0.7 0.725 0.75 0.7750.000.050.100.150.200.250.300.350.400.450.500.550.60
Berth Utilization (E2/E2/n)
Wai
t ing
Tim
e /
Serv
ice
Tim
e
n = 2
UNCTAD; Ashar 2009
3 X (0.68 – 0.58) = 0.3; 3rd Berth = 1.3
n = 3
0.1
More Combinations of Ship Length1,200 = 240 x 5; 900 = 240 x 3
Fixed Facilities: Gate, Administration, Maintenance
Puerto Central
Lagoon
Bulk
San Antonio Harbor
Original EPSA Plan
Shallow
Deep
Lagoon
171717
NN
900 m
131 m
16 Ha
7,2 Ha8,8 Ha
Ampliación a incorporar por canje a STI
Área de respaldo a canjear a STI
Área Inundada a canjear a STI
Puerto Central
Ampliación Frente
Área Total: 31 ha (40 ha)Frente lineal: 746 m (900 m)
Calado: 15 m
2011 EPSA Plan -- STI
1818
120 m
620 m740 m945 m
250
m
N
Área Total: 35.7haFrente lineal: 945 m (700 + 245) + 250 = 1,195m
Profudidal : 15 m
900 m
Ship-side Yard: 12 ha; 4 ha / Berth
Odd-Shape Area; Traffic?
STI Sea Protection: 2% to 5% Downtime
2011 EPSA Plan – Puerto Central
14 ha
19
120 m
620 m740 m
Área Total: 13 haFrente lineal: 740 mProfudidal: 14.5 m
740 m << 900, 945 m of SA Terminals
Original EPV Plan -- TPS
6.5 ha/Berth
Original EPV Plan (1)
Downtow
n
Terminal 2
Terminal 1TPS (628 m, 16 ha)
Original EPV Plan (2)30 - 40 m Depth in Front!
6 – 7 ha / Berth; Remote Gate? Logistics?
Limited Protection: 5 - 15% Downtown
Constrained Land Access; Rail?
EPV 2012 Bidding
Sea Protection; Land Access
Only 2 BerthsOnly 1 Container Berth?
?
Expanded STI, San Antonio
769m (-15 m)
+9 ha; 43 ha
l
2012: 2.2 million TEUs
+430m; 1,200m; 49 ha
Ashar 2009
2007: 1.55 million TEUs
Expanded TPS, Valparaiso
+516m; 1,130m
+7 ha; 23 ha
610 m; 16 ha
Ashar 2009
2012: 1.87 million TEUs
2007: 1.45 million TEUs
2012: 6 ha / Berth
Port Moin, APMTPhase I: 600 m / 40 ha / -16 m / 1.3 M TEUs; Final: 1,500 m / 80 ha / -18 m/ 6 M TEUs
Bid 8/2010; Award 3/2011; Phase I: 8/2016; 33 Years; 80% of Trade; Exclusivity; Price Control
APMT 2011; Google; Ashar 2012
Colombo South Harbor
Present PortFuture Port
3 x 1,200 m (3 x 400m) ; 18m (23m); 600 ha; 7.2 M TEUS (0.8 M TEUs/Berth)
6.8 km Breakwater; $1.6 billion; 75% Transshipment; Indian Direct?
Ashar; Sri Lanka Port Authority
Rotterdam’s Maasvlakte 2
Open-Sea Reclamation; 240 M cu m; 11 km Seawall; 1,000 ha
3 Terminals: Euromax, APMT and ECT/HPH, each 1,200 m; 1.2 mil TEU/Berth
Future Port
Present Port
Outer Harbor 400 x 500 m Modules
600 m Diameter
Ashar/Woodbury 2009
http://www.lyd.com/lyd/controls/neochannels/neo_ch4358/deploy/presentacion2.pdf
Logistic Park
Outer Harbor Development
Options
General & Bulk
Presentation Agenda
• Traffic Forecast• Fleet Forecast• EPSA/EPV Plan• Alternative Plan• Capacity of Plans• Capability of Plans• Cost of Plans• Summary & Conclusions
Demand Scenarios
Comparison
Supply Options
Capacity vs. ForecastYear Capacity -- Existing
PlanCapacity --
Alternative PlanForecast -- 6%
GrowthForecast -- 15%
Growth2010 2,425,000 2,425,000 1,500,000 1,500,000
2012 2,999,000 4,050,000 1,685,400 1,983,750
2014 5,649,000 4,380,000 1,893,715 2,623,509
2017 5,649,000 5,908,571 2,255,445 3,990,030
2010 2012 2014 2017 -
1,000,000
2,000,000
3,000,000
4,000,000
5,000,000
6,000,000
-
1,000,000
2,000,000
3,000,000
4,000,000
5,000,000
6,000,000
Cap. Existing Plan
Cap. Alternative Plan
6% Growth
15% Growth
Ashar 2009
Infrastructure Unit CostsConstruction Element Unit Cost per Unit ($, US)
Berths (Muelles) Linear Meter 121,000
Structural Steel Ton 2,200
Sheet Pile Placement Linear Meter 1,900
Excavation Cubic Meter 25
Dredging Cubic Meter 6.5
Hydraulic Fill Cubic Meter 9
Quarry Run or Select Fill Cubic Meter 25
Dewatering Hydraulic Fill Hectare 10,000
Dynamic Compaction Hectare 24,000
Finish Grading Hectare 12,500
Woodbury 2009
Cost Comparison
PlanCapacity (TEUs) Infrastructure Cost Unit Cost
2012 2017 ($) Differ. ($/TEU) Differ.
EPSA/EPV Plan 2,999,000 5,649,000 412,979,944 100%
128.1 100%
Alternative Plan 4,050,000 5,908,571 326,893,709 79% 93.8 73%
EPSA/EPV -Alternative 1,051,000 259,571 86,086,236 21%
34.3 27%
Ashar 2009
Summary & Conclusion• EPSA/EPV Plans – Small Terminals, Odd Shape, No Rail,
Difficult Land Access, No Support Facilities, Problems in Navigations, Difficulties in Serving Future Post-Panamax
• Alternative Plan – New Spacious Harbor, Large Terminals, Accommodates Traffic to 2035 and beyond
• Expansion of Present Terminals – Relatively Easy and Cost Effective, Retains Competition (Tariff Control)
• Savings -- Alternative Saves $86 million, or 27% of Infrastructural Cost
• Other Cargoes -- Outer Harbor has sufficient space for Non-Container Cargoes
Gracias
ASAF ASHARNATIONAL PORTS & WATERWAYS INT., USA
www.asafashar.comApril 2012
“SOÑAR VALPARAÍSO”