«Break Bulk Shipping Study TABLE OF CONTENTS List of tables List of Figures Executive Summary 1 BREAK BULK CARGO 1.1 Definition 1.2 Types of Break ...»
133.95 million tonnes which was supported by 4029 ship calls during the year (DPA, 2008). DPA revenue and net profit achieved A$26.79 million and A$4.59 million respectively in 2007/2008 (DPA 2008).
The principal cargoes at Dampier are iron ore (83.5% of total throughput), salt, LNG, LPG, Ammonia, Condensate and general cargo. According to the Dampier Port Development Plan, the type of general cargo includes supplies for oil and gas rigs, fabricated steel structure, rail equipment, bulk/bagged/palletted cargoes and supplies for local construction projects. In the period 2007/2008, 31.41% of total imports comprised general cargo required for the construction and exploration activity in the Dampier region although the overall volume of general cargo only account for 0.28% of total cargo volume.
Five general cargo wharves and berthing facilities are mentioned in the Dampier Port
Development Plan; these are:
Dampier Cargo Wharf (DCW), built in 1981/82 and extended in 1994, consists of a concrete deck with a main wharf face of 209.65 metres and an inner face of
143.2 metres. The main or western berth has a declared depth of 10 metres and can accept vessels of up to 35,000 tonne deadweight. The eastern side is suitable for small craft and supply ships. DCW has a laydown area of 6,100m2 which provides sufficient capacity for the existing general cargo trade. The wharf has been specially strengthened for heavy lift cargo but structural repair work now in progress will involve temporary restrictions. However, DCW is outdated and in need of an upgrade to handle the expected trade volume in the future. For instance the existing layout of the facility hinders efficient general cargo handling and transfers and a cargo laydown area immediately adjacent to the berth is similarly lacking.
DPA Heavy Load Out Facility is a 50-metre long berth with a depth alongside of
5.5 metres. It was built in 2003 as a temporary facility to support North West Shelf Venture (NWSV) Trunk Line Expansion Project (TSEP) and cannot be relied upon as a permanent facility beyond 2013.
Pilbara Iron Service Wharf, managed and maintained by Rio Tinto Iron Ore, has a 69.5-metre wharf face. This swinging basin is 243.8 metres long with the approaching depth of 6.4 metres at eastern side and 6.7 metres at western side.
This facility built in 1965 is used for petroleum imports only.
20 Mermaid Marine Australia (MMA) Supply Base Wharf has 216 metres berth space adjacent to 12ha of laydown area and 3,700m2 undercover storage areas.
MMA—Australia’s largest marine services provider to the offshore oil and gas industry—provides cranes (up to 150 tonnes) and forklifts (up to 16 tonnes).
NWSV Supply Base Wharf built in 1982 is located at Woodside Energy Limited’s terminal. This facility is made up of four 50-metre berths to be used as a supply base to service rigs offshore.
Difficulties occur in operating ships with break bulk cargo at Dampier due to outdated berths lacking in wharf space, insufficient berth availability, berth priorities from a break bulk cargo interest perspective, limited R&D operation hours and a shortage of undercover storage area. According to the berth descriptions detailed above the existing general cargo wharves are either of outdated construction or designed for temporary use only. Existing general cargo berths are not long enough to take more than one large vessel at a time and demand for the facility is erratic with weeks of high demand and weeks of low demand (Development Plan). All cargo has to be discharged direct to transport which is time consuming and inefficient.
Berth competition had been reported by shipping lines calling at Dampier. Berth congestion has also been reported as a problem which is aggravated when general cargo ships encounter the port call of the coastal trading vessel “Kimberley Rose” which has the berth priority enforced by WA State Government. It was stated that general cargo vessels might be required to move off the berth to allow “Kimberley Rose” to berth, resulting in significant delay sometimes up to 12 to 14 days. The shortage of receival and delivery operation hours and undercover storage impedes break bulk operation in Dampier. In addition, labour issues also need to be addressed with stevedores needing to improve labour training and reliability.
Figure 4: Forecast General Cargo Throughput Source: The Dampier Development Plan (DPA 2008) DPA has realised that the existing general cargo facilities will progressively either come to the end of their life or reach full capacity in the not too distant future. Meanwhile, additional general cargo berth capacity will be greatly in demand along with the anticipated average growth rate of 2.8% per annum (Figure 4). As a result, the DPA is considering three phases for future development of general cargo facilities to meet projected demand for additional space. In the first phase of 2007-2015, additional three 21 general cargo berths are planned and will be constructed at either Dampier or Maitland.
In the second phase of 2016-2025 an additional eleven general cargo berths will be built to cater for the trade growth and replacement of the DCW. The final phase of 2026general cargo facilities at three possible areas—King Bay Industrial Estate, Dampier and Maitland Industrial Estate—might be further developed.
A member commented that provision should be made for larger PCTC and roro class vessels which will only add to the facilitation of imports of heavy machinery for mining and other infrastructure development. Issues to consider will be berth length or good dolphin systems, adequate berth strength and ramp landing areas unimpeded by wharf fixtures as well as an adequate back-up areas.
The issue of line handling (ie. mooring and unmooring) at WA regional ports in general has been an area of concern for a long time. The ports are squeezed to minimise costs and are unable to hold a permanent workforce for line handling.
22 6 PORT COSTS
6.1 Indicative Port Cost Comparisons for Selected Break Bulk Ports 6.1.1 Description of Port Costs Shipping lines, importers and exporters of break bulk cargo all face a variety of port costs associated the with use of port facilities and other services, some of which are based on one-to-one commercial contracts between shipowner/operator and the service provider e.g. stevedoring companies and towage services. The table below separates these costs in different phases related to a typical ship call to discharge/load break bulk cargo.
6.1.2 Scope of Port Cost Study Although the users are ultimately concerned with the total costs associated with a port call, it was not possible to include all cost components in making the port to port comparison. An explanation of the various costs in the Phases identified above, are as follows;
Phase 1 - Port charges are usually paid by the ship operator.
Phase 2 – These are levied by the port authority and are paid by the ship operator.
Phase 3 - Stevedoring and similar cargo costs are the subject of negotiation/agreement between the stevedore and shipping company;
Facility Access Charges which are usually paid by stevedore and included in the stevedoring charge;
Site occupation charges that are usually paid by stevedore and included in the stevedoring charge;
The cost for Landside Logistics/Cargo Distribution are the responsibility of the importer and are beyond shipping companies’ control.
Because of the confidential nature of charges agreed between the ship operator/stevedore/terminal operator, only the charges in Phases 1 and 2 are included in the comparison.
23 6.1.3 Port Cost Study Methods
The objective of the cost analyses is to provide some measure for the comparison of port charges at one port with those of another to determine where, if any, considerable differences might exist and to explain those differences. This study can be presented in at least three ways.
The first method is tabulating the standard tariff rates of port authority and port service charges at five major break bulk cargo ports in terms of tonnage handled. This would provide a basis for comparison but not in an ideal form as it would only present very basic data which SAL members already know and would not effectively address the objective.
An alternative is to calculate an average cost using actual costs incurred for vessels calling at given ports over a twelve month period. It was recognised that certain charges are negotiable between service providers and shipping lines and would require shipping companies to provide data that might be commercially sensitive. However, the data on actual costs incurred was not available.
The third method is using a standard size and type of vessel as a constant and applying the public standard tariffs of port authority and service providers to calculate the total cost. This method does permit a direct like-for-like comparison. However, it might not reflect actual costs for all ports as it ignores any negotiated costs that might exist and it does not allow for different sized ships.
It was decided to adopt the third approach for the port cost comparison study.
6.1.4 Indicative Port Cost Comparison Tables 7 to 13 refer to the port costs for a 15,000 GT/100 metre LOA break bulk vessel and table 13 sets out indicative port call costs for a 67,000 GT/240 metre LOA large PCTC or ro ro vessel.
Total Indicative Ports Costs of a Conventional Break Bulk Vessel Because of the significance of the towage cost to the overall port costs, two alternative formats for comparing ports were used. Alternative 1 includes tariff charges for the use of tugs provided by Svitzer. Alternative 2 for tugs provided by PB Towage; this is only applicable at Brisbane and Melbourne. The difference between the two alternatives for towage is approximately $2200 for Melbourne; Brisbane is slightly more expensive for towage under Alternative 2.
The next table ranks the five ports according to the different alternatives of towage service provider. Melbourne ranks as the most expensive port in both categories. In Alternative 1, the total cost excluding GST is $30,022 per port call at Melbourne which is about 24% more expensive than the closest port Newcastle. The least costly port is Fremantle at $14,068 per port call which is about 53% cheaper than Melbourne.
The change in towage provider does not alter the ranking according to the total port call cost from the highest to the lowest.
Comparison of Breakdown Cost—Alternative 1 To compare the cost components for a typical vessel entering each port, two tables are provided. Table 9 shows tariff costs and Table 10 shows costs on a percentage basis.
Port Authority charges are made up of Tonnage Rates, Channel Fees, Navigation Service Charges, Conservancy or similarly named charges usually based on the GT of the ship and Melbourne, Newcastle and Port Kembla are highest.
A percentage breakdown of these costs shows the percentage of total costs allotted to the various charges.
With the reduced towage costs, Newcastle now becomes the most expensive port for tug services.
In the following Table, these charges are again shown as a percentage of the total ship call cost.
The impact resulting from the use of the second tug provider at Brisbane is not noticeable with the percentage cost allocation the same as in Alternative 1. However, in Melbourne the cost reduction is more noticeable with towage now reduced to 47% of the total port’s cost.
Total Indicative Ports Costs of a Larger PCTC vessels/Ro Ro
6.2 Impact of High Port Costs Australian port authorities argue that their current charges and recently announced increases are reasonable since most charges have not been increased in the last few years. However, some of the port authorities of the ports sampled have now announced increases; Newcastle from 1 July 2009, Port Kembla from 1 December 2008, Melbourne and Fremantle from 1 July 2009. At Brisbane rates effective from 1 July 2008 including Pilotage, remain in place.
Increases in Svitzer Towage rates at Brisbane, Newcastle and Melbourne became effective from 15 June 2009. PB Towage rates fixed in 2008 remain unchanged.