2011 Introduction to Deep-Draft Navigation Economics of Deep Draft Navigation Analysis.
-
Upload
dominic-mccormick -
Category
Documents
-
view
220 -
download
0
Transcript of 2011 Introduction to Deep-Draft Navigation Economics of Deep Draft Navigation Analysis.
2011 Introduction to
Deep-Draft Navigation
Economics of Deep Draft Navigation Analysis
• Purpose– To provide an overview of the maritime
system as well as the requirements and procedures for conducting deep-draft navigation economic analyses in accordance with standards and guidance as applied by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE).
• Student Learning Objectives:– Become familiar with the Maritime
Transportation System and Terminology– Identify the General Concepts and Procedural
Steps for Economic Analysis Applied to the Study of Deep-Draft Waterway Improvements Under National Economic Development (NED) Criteria.
– Identify primary sources of guidance and data and exposure to some of the general terminology applied for studies.
• “The role of the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers with respect to navigation is to provide safe, reliable, and efficient waterborne transportation systems (channels, harbors, and waterways) for movement of commerce, national security needs, and recreation. The Corps accomplishes this mission through a combination of capital improvements and the operation and maintenance of existing projects.”
-ER 1105-2-100
Federal Involvement – Why?
• The Federal Interest is established by the Constitution –Commerce Clause
• Provides means of commercial transportation
• Is part of national defense
Corps Involvement – So How Did the Corps Get Involved?
Gallatin’s 1808 report to Congress on waterways, canals and roads
Congressionally directed in 1824 to remove snags from Ohio & Mississippi Rivers
U.S. Ports: Vital to Trade…and to Our National Economy
MillionTons
Over 100
50 - 100
25 - 50
10 - 25
Houston
Corpus ChristiS. Louisiana
New Orleans
Baton Rouge
Texas City
Lake Charles
PlaqueminesTampa
New York/NJ
Valdez
Long Beach
Beaumont
Lower DelawareRiver (9 harbors)
Duluth/Superior
Los Angeles
Port Arthur
St. Louis
Portland
Seattle
Freeport
Huntington
Richmond
Oakland
Tacoma
Boston
Hampton Roads
Port Everglades
Jacksonville
Memphis
Detroit
Cleveland
SavannahCharleston
Indiana Hbr
Cincinnati
Portland
Two Harbors
Anacortes
Honolulu
Chicago Pittsburgh
Baltimore
Pascagoula
53 harbors – coastal, inland, Great Lakes - handled over 10 million tons each in 2008…
Toledo
Mobile
Matagorda
Kalama
Barbers Pt
Nearly 12,000 Miles 9 ft & Over
192 Lock Sites / 238 Chambers
Moving Nearly 600 Million Tons
About 2/3rds Cost of Rail and1/10 Cost of Truck
Inland Waterway System:
Principal US Harbor ImprovementsFunded in 2009*
* Includes 2-year ARRA funding.
SELECTED PROJECTS STATE FY 2009FEDERAL
COSTSNON-FEDERAL
COSTTOTAL COST
PERCENT COMPLETE
DEPTH FEET
DEPTH METERS
MOBILE HARBOR AL 29,770 244,126 284,874 529,000 15% 55 16.8
LOS ANGELES HARBOR CA 885 58,100 135,900 194,000 80% 53 16.2
OAKLAND HARBOR CA 32,892 224,798 183,288 408,086 100% 50 15.2
JACKSONVILLE HARBOR FL 18,149 21,200 36,100 57,300 100% 40 12.2
PORT EVERGLADES HARBOR FL 1,435 76,298 41,083 117,381 92% 36 11.0
INDIANA HARBOR CDF IN 8,390 63,000 60,000 123,000 21% 27 8.2
GULFPORT HARBOR MS 21,000 28,715 17,981 46,696 100% 38 11.6
NEW YORK & NEW JERSEY HARBOR NY 90,000 1,165,437 1,314,698 2,480,135 70% 50 15.2
WILMINGTON HARBOR NC 2,075 276,300 190,700 467,000 76% 42 12.8
COLUMBIA RIVER CHNL IMPROV OR 34,451 110,024 60,784 170,808 100% 43 13.1
HOUSTON-GALVESTON CHANNELS TX 108,178 541,369 240,991 782,360 85% 45 13.7
TEXAS CITY CHANNEL TX 46,000 82,153 135,926 218,079 100% 52 15.8
OTHERS 74,723 N/A N/A N/A Varies Varies Varies
TOTAL 467,948 2,891,520 2,702,325 5,593,845
($USD in Thousands)
• Deep-Draft Navigation System: System of independent channels that serve individual ports. For Corps purposes, these channels are in excess of 14-feet deep, and are found in coastal waters, bays, major rivers and the Great Lakes.
• Deep-Draft Commercial Vessels: Ships and ocean-going tows.
• Harbors: “Water Area” partially enclosed to provide safe and suitable accommodation for vessels.
• Port: A sheltered harbor where marine terminal facilities are provided.
• Terminal Facilities: Part of a port or harbor which provides docking, cargo-handling, and storage facilities
Top 10 Coastal U.S. Ports, 2008(Millions of Short Tons)
Rank Port Tonnage
1 Port of South Louisiana 223.9
2 Houston, TX 212.2
3 New York, NY & NJ 153.4
4 Long Beach, CA 80.2
5 Corpus Christi, TX 76.7
6 New Orleans, LA 73.0
7 Beaumont, TX 69.4
8 Mobile, AL 67.6
9 Port of Plaquemines, LA 63.7
10 Los Angeles, CA 59.7
Source: USACE Navigation Data Center
Top 10 U.S. Ports HandlingForeign Waterborne Commerce, 2008
(Millions of Short Tons)
Rank Port Tonnage
1 Houston, TX 146.3
2 Port of South Louisiana 111.4
3 New York, NY & NJ 91.1
4 Long Beach, CA 67.2
5 Corpus Christi, TX 55.3
6 Los Angeles, CA 52.9
7 Beaumont, TX 46.7
8 Texas City, TX 38.7
9 Norfolk, VA 36.8
10 New Orleans, LA 36.4
Source: USACE Navigation Data Center
U.S. Waterborne Traffic by State, 2008(Millions of Short Tons)
Rank State Tonnage
1 Louisiana 484.9
2 Texas 442.3
3 California 190.1
4 Florida 122.5
5 Illinois 120.3
6 Ohio 119.4
7 Pennsylvania 115.3
8 New Jersey 110.1
9 Washington 100.9
10 Kentucky 100.1
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020 2022 2024 2026 2028
Imports Exports Total
U.S. Imports and Exports
Source: IHSGI World Trade Service
Millions of TEUs
Cargo Handling, Circa 1950
Cargo Handling, Circa 2004
The Need for Deeper Channels
Cargo
Functional Classifications of Maritime Cargoes
All Maritime Cargo
General Cargo Bulk Cargo
Break Bulk Neo-Bulk Containerized Liquid Bulk Dry Bulk
Sacks Cartons Crates Drums
Pallets Bags
Lumber Paper Steel Autos
Containers
Lift On/Lift Off (Lo/Lo)
Roll On/Roll Off (Ro/Ro)
LNG / LPG Petroleum Molasses Chemicals Vegetable
Oil
Grain Sand & Gravel Scrap Metal
Coal/Coke Clinker
Fertilizer
Shipboard Measurements
Foreign Flag General Cargo Characteristics
DWT 11,000 14,000 16,000 20,000 24,000 30,000
Length 442 478 498 535 568 610
Beam 65 69 72 77 81 86
Draft 26 29 30 33 35 38
Hourly Cost at
Sea
453 516 564 664 760 900
Hourly Cost in
Port
367 413 448 523 595 701
Note: All measurements in feet; Cost in US $Source: USACE Economic Guidance Memo 00-06, 01 June 2004
General Cargo
Pure Car Truck Carrier (PCTC)
Roll On/Roll Off (Ro/Ro)
Lighter Aboard Ship (LASH)
Lift On/Lift Off (LO/LO)
Heavy Lifters Sea BargeIntegrated Tow
Float On /Float Off
Width 8’
Height 8’ 6”
Length 20’
TEU
Twenty-Foot Equivalent Unit (TEU)
Foreign Flag Containership Characteristics
TEU 600 1,600 2,500 3,000 4,800 6,000
DWT 9,000 23,000 35,000 42,000 66,000 82,000
Length 427 611 716 768 984 1,044
Beam 68 89 100 105 122 140
Draft 24 32 37 39 43 46
Immersion Rate (tpi)
53 101 136 154 229 279
Hourly Cost at
Sea
485 842 1137 1327 1840 2298
Hourly Cost in
Port
383 552 697 799 928 1215
Note: All measurements in feet; tpi – tons per inch; cost in US $ Source: USACE Economic Guidance Memo 04-01 June 2004
Containership
Containership
Loading Containers
Top 20 Container Ports by TEUs
Rank in
2000
Rank in
2007
Rank in
2008 Port name Country
2000 Million
TEU
2007 Million
TEU
2008 Million
TEU
Percent change 2000–08
Percent change 2007–08
Av annual rate (%) 2000–08
2 1 1 Singapore Singapore 17.0 27.9 29.9 76 7.1 7.36 2 2 Shanghai China 5.6 26.2 28.0 398 7.0 22.21 3 3 Hong Kong China 18.1 23.9 24.2 34 1.5 3.7
11 4 4 Shenzhen China 4.0 21.1 21.4 436 1.5 23.43 5 5 Busan South Korea 7.5 13.3 13.4 78 1.2 7.5
13 7 6 Dubai UAE 3.1 10.7 11.8 287 11.0 18.465 11 7 Ningbo China 0.9 9.4 11.2 1,145 19.9 37.038 12 8 Guangzhou China 1.4 9.2 11.0 669 19.6 29.15 6 9 Rotterdam Netherlands 6.3 10.8 10.8 72 0.1 7.0
24 10 10 Qingdao China 2.1 9.5 10.3 387 9.1 21.99 9 11 Hamburg Germany 4.2 9.9 9.7 128 -2.0 10.94 8 12 Kaohsiung Taiwan 7.4 10.3 9.7 30 -5.7 3.4
10 14 13 Antwerp Belgium 4.1 8.2 8.7 112 6.0 9.932 17 14 Tianjin China 1.7 7.1 8.5 398 19.7 22.212 16 15 Port Klang Malaysia 3.2 7.1 8.0 149 11.9 12.17 13 16 Los Angeles United States 4.9 8.4 7.8 61 -6.0 6.18 15 17 Long Beach United States 4.6 7.3 6.5 41 -11.3 4.4
113 18 18 Tanjung Pelepas Malaysia 0.4 5.5 5.6 1,239 1.8 38.317 20 19 Bremen/Bremerhaven Germany 2.7 4.9 5.5 103 12.4 9.214 19 20 New York/New Jersey United States 3.1 5.4 5.3 73 -2.5 7.1
Top 10 U.S. Container Ports, 2008Twenty-Foot Equivalent Units (TEUs)
Rank Port TEUs (X 1,000)
1 Los Angeles, CA 5,521
2 Long Beach, CA 4,843
3 New York, NY & NJ 4,103
4 Savannah, GA 2,086
5 Norfolk, VA 1,645
6 Oakland, CA 1,548
7 Tacoma, WA 1,458
8 Houston, TX 1,371
9 Charleston, SC 1,307
10 Seattle, WA 1,224Source: USACE Navigation Data Center
Bulk Carrier
Great Lakes - Coasters
• Oil Tankers carry about 40% of the world’s seaborne trade.
• About 60% of the world’s crude oil is transported by seagoing tankers.
• Crude is generally transported in larger vessels.• Tanker Size Groupings:
– Ultra Large Crude Carriers (ULCCs) > 320,000 DWT
– Very Large Crude Carriers (VLCCs) 200 – 320,000 DWT
– Suezmax (long to medium haul) 120 – 200,000 DWT
– Aframax (medium to short haul) 80 – 120,000 DWT
– Panamax (short haul) 55 - 70,000 DWT– Handysize (smallest in world fleet) to as little as...
10,000 DWT
Oil and Tanker Business
Foreign Flag Tanker Characteristics
DWT 20,000 60,000 80,000 120,000 200,000 325,000
Length 498 685 745 838 973 1,121
Beam 79 113 124 141 167 195
Draft 30 42 46 52 60 70
Immersion Rate (tpi)
79 159 191 247 343 468
Hourly Cost at
Sea
647 840 930 1,080 1,389 1,782
Hourly Cost in
Port
512 653 721 822 1,039 1,292
Note: All measurements in feet; tpi – tons per inch; cost in US $Source: USACE Economic Guidance Memo 06-01 June 2006
Oil Tanker
ULCC - Jahre Viking - 565,000 DWT) Length 1,504 ft; Beam 226
ft; Draft 81 ft
Cruise Ships
Duluth - Superior
Mobile Harbor
Louisiana Offshore Oil Port (LOOP)
Freeport Harbor
Long Beach
Port of Los Angeles
Port of Oakland
More Information on Dredging
• http://education.usace.army.mil/navigation/dredging.html
USACE “Education Center” website (for students, teachers, librarians and other educators).
Some Trivia
• State of _______ has deep draft port facilities on 4 Great Lakes.
• __________ &_________ have ports along the Great Lakes and the Atlantic Coast.
• The deep-water port farthest from the sea is ______________ (at miles 168 to 255 up the Mississippi River)
• On the West Coast, ________&__________ operate the largest # of container cranes (80)
• On the East Coast, ________&__________ operate the largest # of container cranes (50)
• State of Michigan has deep draft port facilities on 4 Great Lakes.
• Pennsylvania & New York have ports along the Great Lakes and the Atlantic Coast.
• The deep-water port farthest from the sea is Baton Rouge (at miles 168 to 255 up the Mississippi River)
• On the West Coast, Long Beach & Los Angeles operate the largest # of container cranes (80)
• On the East Coast, New York & New Jersey operate the largest # of container cranes (50)
Issues in Economics of Container Ship Driven Channel Deepening
Background
• The Corps experience in many Districtshas mostly been for bulk cargo.– Bulk cargo ships generally have a simple
itinerary, back and forth between only 2 ports• All economic analyses by the Corps of
ports for containers have been done with homegrown spreadsheets, unique for each application, some of them developed by consultants.
What is Different about Container Traffic?
• They have a scheduled itinerary calling at multiple ports
• Port rotations dynamic• Vessels on rotation dynamic• Services at any port are complex with
multiple rotations
Container Ship Operations & Loadings
• Container ship cargo is diverse so that the draft a vessel needs to call at a port is variable from trip to trip
• What a ship can carry depends on the number of container slots, design draft, the weight of the cargo, and other factors– Some containers are empty meeting need to
be repositioned to the exporting ports (see return route of previous slide)
Container Posers
• Sailing drafts almost always significantly less than design drafts even in the deepest ports around the world
• Carry TEU’s for multiple US ports except at the last US port of call
• Carriers seem to add capacity rather than drafting deeper– “Undulation” in sailing drafts
• At deeper ports, larger vessels seem to have a larger share of total calls—statistical analysis suggestive but not definitive
• At deeper ports, sailing draft distribution is deeper but not as much as expected.
Example Cost Efficiencies
0.0
10.0
20.0
30.0
40.0
50.0
60.0
25.0 30.0 35.0 40.0 45.0 50.0
Sailing Draft in Fee
Co
st
per
10
00 m
ile
s p
er
TE
U
38.5
39.5
41
46
47.5
MaxDraft
Panamax
Post Panamax Gen 1 & 2
0.0%
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
40.0%
50.0%
60.0%
70.0%
80.0%
90.0%
100.0%
20 25 30 35 40 45 50
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
Panamax
2002 = 11812003 = 17542004 = 15572005 = 14202006 = 18472007 = 1768
0.0%
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
40.0%
50.0%
60.0%
70.0%
80.0%
90.0%
100.0%
20 25 30 35 40 45 50
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
Post Panamax Gen 1
2002 = 11342003 = 11422004 = 12372005 = 11302006 = 15592007 = 1774
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
35
.72
37
.65
39
.34
39
.76
41
.11
42
.24
43
.79
44
.8
45
.92
47
.57
49
.22
50
.78
52
.55
59
.39
Terminal Class by Depth
Share of Vessel Class by Depth
Vessel Class O
Vessel Class N
Vessel Class M
Vessel Class L
Vessel Class K
Vessel Class J
Vessel Class I
Vessel Class H
Vessel Class G
Vessel Class F
Vessel Class E
Vessel Class D
Vessel Class C
Vessel Class B
Vessel Class A
Cumulative Sailing Draft by Terminal DepthGen 2 Vessels
30.00%
40.00%
50.00%
60.00%
70.00%
80.00%
90.00%
100.00%
34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48
Sailing Draft
Pe
rce
nt
42 44 45 46 47 48
Potential Impact ofPanama Canal Expansion
• The expansion in the Panama Canal, scheduled to be completed in 2015
– Predicted to drastically change the size vessels on routes that use the canal
– These Post-Panamax ships are in service on other routes but cannot pass through the canal
– A relatively quick migration to these larger vessels is predicted once the canal opens
Draft12.04 m (39.5’)
Draft15.2 m (50’)
Actual Locks – Vessel Max: 4,800 TEUs
New Locks – Vessel Max : 12,600 TEUs
32.3m (106’)
33.5m (110’)
49m (160’)12.8m (42’)
294.1m (965’)
304.8m (1000’)
366m (1200’)
427m (1400’)55m (180’)
18.3m (60’)
New Locks Dimensions
Evolution of the Full Container Ship Fleet
Number of
VesselsTEU Capacity
Number of
VesselsTEU Capacity
Number of
Vessels
TEU
Capacity
Feeders 100-499 438 136,079 11 2,607 449 138,686
Feedermax 500-999 785 574,847 155 130,864 940 705,711
Handy 1,000-1,999 1144 1,613,546 321 459,448 1465 2,072,994
Sub-Panamax 2,000-2,999 673 1,697,300 167 426,865 840 2,124,165
Panamax 3,000-4,000+ 727 2,905,510 328 1,376,161 1055 4,281,671
Post-Panamax 3,700 - 13,300 557 3,734,910 474 4,215,918 1031 7,950,828
4,324 10,662,192 1,456 6,611,863 5,780 17,274,055
12.9% 35.0% 32.6% 63.8% 17.8% 46.0%
18.3% 24.8%
Source: ACP, Shipping Intelligence Network, Clarkson Research, December 2007.
% Post-Panamax
% Panamax
Total
Average Vessel Size
Vessel SizeFull Container Ship Fleet -
December 10, 2007Orderbook 2007-2012 Projected Fleet 2012
Economic Evaluation
• The Corps has no standardized economic model to evaluate the benefits of navigation improvements to container ships.
• Data issues daunting• Modeling subject to large uncertainties
• Short Break
• 10 Minutes