“SOÑAR VALPARAÍSO”
ALTERNATIVE DEVELOPMENT PLAN
FOR CHILE’S REGION V PORTS
ASAF ASHAR
NATIONAL PORTS & WATERWAYS INT., USA
www.asafashar.com
April 2012
Presentation Agenda
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Traffic Forecast
Demand
Scenarios
Fleet Forecast
EPSA/EPV Plan
Supply
Options
Alternative Plan
Capacity of Plans
Capability of Plans Comparison
Cost of Plans
Summary & Conclusions
Past Traffic Developments
1,800,000
Containerization (Reefer,
Containerization
Copper, Forest Products)
1,600,000
60%
55%
50%
Growing Import & Asia
45%
1,400,000
40%
1,200,000
14.5%
35%
30%
1,000,000
9.5%
800,000
25%
20%
15%
600,000
10%
400,000
5%
0%
200,000
-5%
-
-10%
TEUs
Change (%)
Forecast Scenarios
Only to 2017 when Outer Harbor needed
4.0 mil.
4,500,000
4,000,000
3,500,000
177%
3,000,000
2.2 mil.
2,500,000
2,000,000
1,500,000
1,000,000
500,000
-
6%
15%
Actual
World’s Economic Forecast
Increasing Volatility
Slowing Recovery
IHS Global Insight; Wilbur Smith; Ashar
Larger Newer Ships more Fuel Efficient
Present and Future Ships
Dimensions
LOA x Beam x Draft
(m)
Arrangement
Under-BelowAcross (rows)
Category
Name
Operator
Capacity
(TEUs)
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
Fleet Composition by Line
38%
Growing Consolidation (Super Alliances),
Larger Ships, Larger Terminals
Alphaliner 2012; Ashar
Presentation Agenda
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Traffic Forecast
Demand
Scenarios
Fleet Forecast
EPSA/EPV Plan
Supply
Options
Alternative Plan
Capacity of Plans
Capability of Plans Comparison
Cost of Plans
Summary & Conclusions
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 Terminal
600 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
POLB; Ashar2012
1 Terminals; 120 ha; 3.3 M TEUs; 27,500
TEUs/ha (+70%); $1.2 billion; 40-year Lease
Berth’s Scale Economies
0.60
0.55
Wait ing Time / Service Time
0.50
0.45
0.40
0.35
3 X (0.68 – 0.58) = 0.3; 3rd Berth = 1.3
More Combinations of Ship Length
1,200 = 240 x 5; 900 = 240 x 3
Fixed Facilities: Gate, Administration,
Maintenance
n=2
n=3
0.30
0.1
0.25
0.20
0.15
0.10
0.05
0.00
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 0.775
Berth Utilization (E2/E2/n)
UNCTAD; Ashar 2009
San Antonio Harbor
Lagoon
Puerto
Central
Bulk
Original EPSA Plan
Deep
Shallow
Lagoon
2011 EPSA Plan -- STI
Ampliación a incorporar por canje a
STI
Área Total: 31 ha (40 ha)
Frente lineal: 746 m (900 m)
Calado: 15 m
Área de respaldo a canjear a STI
Área Inundada a canjear a STI
16 Ha
Puerto Central
Ampliación Frente
17
17
2011 EPSA Plan – Puerto Central
Área Total: 35.7ha
Frente lineal: 945 m (700 + 245) + 250 = 1,195m
Profudidal : 15 m
Ship-side Yard: 12 ha; 4 ha / Berth
Odd-Shape Area; Traffic?
STI Sea Protection: 2% to 5% Downtime
14 ha
945 m
18
18
Original EPV Plan -- TPS
740 m << 900, 945 m of SA Terminals
Área Total: 13 ha
Frente lineal: 740 m
Profudidal: 14.5 m
6.5 ha/Berth
19
Original EPV Plan (1)
Terminal 1
TPS (628 m, 16 ha)
Terminal 2
Original EPV Plan (2)
30 - 40 m Depth in Front!
Limited Protection: 5 - 15% Downtown
6 – 7 ha / Berth; Remote Gate? Logistics?
Constrained Land Access; Rail?
EPV 2012 Bidding
Only 1 Container Berth?
Only 2 Berths
Sea Protection; Land Access
?
Expanded STI, San Antonio
2007: 1.55 million TEUs
+9 ha; 43 ha
2012: 2.2 million TEUs
l
769m (-15 m)
+430m; 1,200m; 49 ha
Ashar 2009
Expanded TPS, Valparaiso
2007: 1.45 million TEUs
2012: 1.87 million TEUs
2012: 6 ha / Berth
+516m; 1,130m
+7 ha; 23 ha
610 m; 16 ha
Ashar 2009
Port Moin, APMT
Phase 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
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; $1.6 billion; 75% Transshipment; Indian Direct?
Future Port
Ashar; Sri Lanka Port Authority
Present Port
Rotterdam’s Maasvlakte 2
Present Port
Future Port
Open-Sea Reclamation; 240 M cu m; 11 km Seawall; 1,000 ha
3 Terminals: Euromax, APMT and ECT/HPH, each 1,200 m; 1.2 mil TEU/Berth
Outer Harbor
400 x 500 m Modules
600 m Diameter
Outer Harbor
Development
Options
General &
Bulk
Logistic
Park
Ashar/Woodbury 2009
http://www.lyd.com/lyd/control
s/neochannels/neo_ch4358/depl
oy/presentacion2.pdf
Presentation Agenda
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Traffic Forecast
Demand
Scenarios
Fleet Forecast
EPSA/EPV Plan
Supply
Options
Alternative Plan
Capacity of Plans
Capability of Plans Comparison
Cost of Plans
Summary & Conclusions
Capacity vs. Forecast
Year
Capacity -- Existing
Capacity -Plan
Alternative Plan
Forecast -- 6%
Growth
Forecast -- 15%
Growth
2010
2,425,000
2,425,000
1,500,000
1,500,000
2012
2,999,000
4,050,000
1,685,400
1,983,750
2014
5,649,000
4,380,000
1,893,715
2,623,509
2017
5,649,000
5,908,571
2,255,445
3,990,030
6,000,000
6,000,000
Cap. Existing Plan
5,000,000
5,000,000
Cap. Alternative Plan
6% Growth
4,000,000
4,000,000
15% Growth
3,000,000
3,000,000
2,000,000
2,000,000
1,000,000
1,000,000
-
2010
2012
2014
2017
Ashar 2009
Infrastructure Unit Costs
Construction Element
Unit
Cost per Unit ($, 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
Capacity (TEUs)
Infrastructure Cost
Unit Cost
Plan
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 PostPanamax
• 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
“SOÑAR VALPARAÍSO”
Gracias
ASAF ASHAR
NATIONAL PORTS & WATERWAYS INT., USA
www.asafashar.com
April 2012