Alter nat ive Development Plan for Chile’s Region V Ports

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


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


Expanded TPS, Valparaiso

+516m; 1,130m

+7 ha; 23 ha

610 m; 16 ha

Ashar 2009



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


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”

Documents

Alter nat ive Development Plan for Chile’s Region V Ports