china power hub generation company - nepra | home...china power hub generation company pvt. ltd...

China Power Hub Generation Company Pvt. Ltd


Doc. No. 232.0002_Rev.3 – Preliminary Feasibility Study-Final Report Page 2 of 98


China Power Hub Generation Company

Feasibility Study for Offshore

Coal Handling Solution

Final Report

April 16th, 2016




China Power Hub Generation Company

Feasibility Study for Offshore

Coal Handling Solution

Final Report

Edited: Francesca Narizano, Davide D’Amore, Marta Speranza, Erik Wensfelt, Fabio Collovati,

Mario Terenzio

Checked: Francesca Narizano

Approved: Mario Terenzio

Responsibilities:

Whilst Logmarin Advisors has applied its best reasonable efforts and care to include accurate

and up-to-date information in this document, the responsibility of the accuracy of the data is

not with Logmarin Advisors and Logmarin Advisors makes no warranties or representations as

to the accuracy of any information contained herein or accuracy or reasonableness of

conclusions drawn there from.




Index

1. THE PROJECT ................................................................................................... 7

1.1. LOGMARIN SCOPE OF WORK .........................................................................7

1.2. EVALUATED SCENARIOS ..............................................................................8

2. COAL SUPPLY CHAIN TARGETS ...................................................................... 10

2.1. MINIMUM TARGET FEED RATE......................................................................12

2.2. OTHER CONSIDERATIONS ..........................................................................14

3. COAL SOURCES .............................................................................................. 15

3.1. EAST KALIMANTAN .................................................................................. 15

3.2. SOUTH AFRICA – RICHARDS BAY .................................................................17

4. LOCATION ..................................................................................................... 19

5. SHORE TERMINAL.......................................................................................... 19

5.1. PRELIMINARY SHORE TERMINAL LAYOUT ........................................................ 19

5.1.1. Shore based equipment ..................................................................... 21

6. METEOROLOGICAL CONDITIONS ................................................................... 22

6.1. MONSOON ............................................................................................ 22

6.2. WIND .................................................................................................23

6.3. WAVE .................................................................................................24

6.3.1. Operational thresholds at the transhipment site.................................... 25

6.4. TIDE ...................................................................................................27

7. SELECTION OF TRANSHIPMENT SITE............................................................. 27

7.1. FAIR WEATHER TS (FWTS) .......................................................................29

7.2. BAD WEATHER TS (BWTS) - KARACHI PORT .................................................. 30

7.3. ANCHORING ARRANGEMENT .......................................................................32

7.3.1. Single point mooring (Fair season)...................................................... 32

7.3.2. Multi mooring points (Karachi) ........................................................... 37

8. OCEAN GOING VESSELS................................................................................. 38

8.1. GEARED VESSELS.................................................................................... 39

8.2. PANAMAX AND POST PANAMAX ....................................................................40

8.3. CAPESIZE VESSELS.................................................................................. 41

9. OFFSHORE TRANSHIPMENT OPERATION ....................................................... 42

9.1. PFT: CONSIDERATIONS ABOUT BUFFER STORAGE..............................................42

9.2. FLOATING TRANSHIPMENT OPERATIONS ......................................................... 43

9.3. COMMON ISSUES INHERENT TO TRANSHIPMENT OPERATIONS ................................ 44

9.4. EVALUATED TRANSHIPMENT SOLUTIONS AND FLEET............................................45




9.4.1. Barges ............................................................................................ 45

9.4.1.1. Standard barges .......................................................................... 46

9.4.1.2. Self-propelled barges ................................................................... 47

9.4.1.3. Proposed barges .......................................................................... 47

9.4.2. Tugboat........................................................................................... 49

9.4.3. Standard self-discharging Supramax vessels ........................................ 50

9.4.4. Floating Cranes ................................................................................ 51

9.4.5. SLUB............................................................................................... 54

9.4.6. Panamax Floating Terminal (PFT)........................................................ 58

10. SHIPYARDS FOR CONSTRUCTION .................................................................. 62

11. CARGO HANDLING EQUIPMENT ..................................................................... 63

11.1. FLOATING OFF SHORE INSTALLATION............................................................. 63

11.1.1.Heavy Duty Cranes ........................................................................... 64

11.1.2.Grabs .............................................................................................. 69

11.1.3.Hoppers........................................................................................... 70

11.1.4.Conveyor belt system........................................................................ 70

11.1.5.Cargo holds cleaning and trimming ..................................................... 71

12. GENERATORS................................................................................................. 71

13. PRELIMINARY CYCLE ESTIMATION................................................................ 72

13.1. MAIN ASSUMPTIONS ................................................................................72

13.2. MAIN INPUTS ........................................................................................ 73

13.3. SYSTEM OCCUPANCY ................................................................................74

13.4. MAIN RESULTS ...................................................................................... 75

14. THROUGH LIFE SUPPORT REQUIREMENTS..................................................... 79

14.1. MANNING ............................................................................................. 79

14.1.1.Number of crew members.................................................................. 79

14.1.2.Change of personnel ......................................................................... 80

14.2. MAINTENANCE ....................................................................................... 80

14.3. SERVICE BOAT ....................................................................................... 81

15. CONTRACTS ................................................................................................... 82

15.1. TRANSHIPPING AND BARGING CONTRACTS ...................................................... 83

15.2. POTENTIAL TRANSHIPMENT SERVICE PROVIDERS ...............................................84

16. COST ESTIMATION ........................................................................................ 85

16.1. MAIN ASSUMPTIONS ................................................................................85

16.1.1.Bunker cost...................................................................................... 85




16.1.2.OGV Port costs ................................................................................. 86

16.2. FREIGHT ANALYSIS .................................................................................. 87

16.2.1.Piracy risk........................................................................................ 88

16.2.2.Shipping Market Trend ...................................................................... 88

16.3. DEDICATED UNITS .................................................................................. 92

16.3.1.Commercial depreciation period.......................................................... 92

16.3.2.Annual fixed costs............................................................................. 93

16.3.3.Variable costs................................................................................... 94

16.3.4.Industry assumptions regarding ocean loss and coal quantity. ................ 95

17. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS...................................................... 96

Reference documents:

A. Coal Import Jetty for HUB II 2×660 MW Coal Fired Power Plant - Relevant

Excerpt of Feasibility Study Report, by Guang Electric Power Design institute of China Energy Engineering Group, dated August 2015

B. Coastal Refinery SPM – Computational wave modelling studies, HR Wallingford, (January 2016),

Abbreviations:

BAT – Best Available Technology

Capex – Capital Expenditure

CIF – Cost Insurance and Freight

CPHGCL - China Power Hub Generation Company Limiter

CPIH - China Power International

Holding

DWT – Dead Weight Tonnes

EPC - Engineering Procurement Contract

FC – Floating Crane

FEM – Finite Element Method

FFA - Freight Forward Assessment

FOB – Freight on Board

FTS – Floating Transfer Station

HUBCO - Hub Power Company

HPP – Hubco Power Plant

IACS – International Association of Classification Societies

IPP – Independent Power Producer

IRR - Internal Rate of Return

KPT – Karachi Port Trust

OCHS - Offshore Coal Handling Solution

OCIMF - Oil Companies International

Marine Forum

OGV – Ocean Going Vessel

Opex – Operational Expenditure

PFS – Preliminary Feasibility Study

PFT – Panamax Floating Terminal

SHINC - Sunday and Holidays INCluded

SLUB – Self Loading and Unloading Barges

SOW – Scope of Work

STCW - Standards of Training, Certification and Watch-keeping




SWL – Safe Working Load

t – tonne (1,000 kg)

tpy – Tonnes per year

tpa – Tonnes per annum

TS – Transhipment Site

TU – Transhipment Unit

UKC – Under keel clearance

USD – Dollars of the United States of America

Attachments:

Doc. no. 232.1001 – Preliminary cycle estimation

Doc. no. 232.1002 – Preliminary cycle estimation - Partial shipment from

Karachi during monsoon season

Doc. No. 232.0003_Rev.0 – Annexes 1 to 3 to the Final Report






1. THE PROJECT

The joint venture Company, named China Power Hub Generation Company Limiter

(CPHGCL), resulting from China Power International Holding (CPIH) and Hub Power Company (HUBCO), is interested in a new 2 x 660 MW coal fired power plant (HPP), to

be located slightly to the north of the estuary of the Hub River (Baluchistan province, Pakistan). To feed the power station, an effective supply chain for coal transportation from various sources has to be devised and developed.

The Project foresees an annual coal consumption of about 3.8 million tonnes per year (to be delivered to shore in total, for the two power units), which will be sourced from

South Africa and/or Indonesia. Shipment from source to the power plant location will be carried out via Ocean Going Vessels (OGV, Supramax, Panamax and Capesize are preliminarily considered).

Within this scenario, Logmarin has been appointed to perform a preliminary feasibility

study aimed at the identification of an efficient and environmentally sustainable coal supply chain, overcoming natural restrictions.

1.1. LOGMARIN SCOPE OF WORK

Logmarin is fully aware that logistics is a vital link in every supply chain. Therefore, local

restrictions and requirements have to be duly considered for the ultimate benefit of the Client, as the proposed solutions need to be tailor made in response to the project

peculiarities and targets.

At this stage, Logmarin’s SOW would be to analyse the pertaining information

provided by the Client and to develop a high-level deskwork study to preliminary outline and compare different coal supply chain solutions, with the aim to identify the most cost

effective one, taking into consideration the related environmental restrictions. In particular, the following activities will be carried out:

a. Presentation of two suitable alternative Offshore Coal Handling Solution (OCHS) able to carry out off-shore transhipment operations for discharging

OGV, in accordance with the requirements specified by the Client.

b. Preliminary identification of up to two suitable deep water anchorages to be

selected as transhipment site, based on weather data to be provided by the Client and operational requirements.

c. Preliminary assessment on the downtime risk due to bad weather and

annual availability time based on historical weather data (wind, waves, etc.) to be provided by the Client.

d. Presentation of two suitable alternative solutions in terms of barging system for handling the required approximately 3.8 million tonnes per annum of coal.

e. Outline description of the supply chain for the concerned operation, from the

OGV arrival to the barge unloading at shore terminal, including the description of the transhipment operation from OGV to barge. The analysis will take into account the physical environment and restrictions at site (wind, waves,

tide, etc.).




With reference to transhipper facilities, conceptual

drawings/sketches/pictures and broad description of the intended type of units will be provided.

f. Preliminary barge cycle evaluation (simplified static simulation) and

assessment of transhipment performances and shore/floating terminal occupancy, based on three types of OGV (Panamax and Capesize vessels).

g. Preliminary estimation of CAPEX and OPEX (+/- 20% accuracy) for barges and transhipper operations based on international standards or information

provided by the Client. Cost estimation will be based on present market cost and no taxes, local expenses and duties will be included, unless provided by

the Client.

h. Preliminary estimation on the transhipment service (USD per unit ton of coal transhipped and transport from the anchorage to the shore terminal) in case

the service is subcontracted to a Service Provider.

i. Freight analysis for up to three shipment size (namely Supramax, Panamax and Capesize) based on one source in Indonesia and one in South Africa based,

as per our understanding, on averaging the last historical average T/C value of the last 7 years with the Freight Forward Assessment (FFA) till

2018 and bunker based on last two year average Singapore market.

j. Preliminary estimation and brief description of required ancillary services for

the smooth and safe performance of operation (i.e. tug boat, bunker, pilots, etc.).

k. Preliminary concept suggestion of the shore unloading facilities main features and conceptual layout, on the basis of the information received and

of the supply chain operational requirements. This activity will include:

Brief description/listing of major equipment components;

Propose manufacturers for key equipment;

Lead-time requirements and other considerations.

With reference to shore facility and jetty, conceptual drawings/sketches/pictures will be provided.

l. Selection of the recommended solution in terms efficiency in barging and

transshipment system and preliminary assessment on number and characteristics of the units involved (size, DWT, cargo handling equipment,

etc.) to ensure the smooth import of coal. This activity will include:

Brief description/listing of all major equipment components;

Propose manufacturers for key equipment;

Lead-time requirements and other considerations.

1.2. EVALUATED SCENARIOS

The following transportation options have been evaluated and compared within this study, as briefly described below:

A. Supramax vessels self-discharging into barges: coal would be transported by geared OGVs from sources to the transhipment site (TS) with suitable water




depth. Here OGVs would unload the coal using their own cranes onto standard towed barges for transportation to the shore receiving jetty.

B. Floating Cranes discharging gearless OGV into barges: once at transhipment site, the OGV will be discharged by Floating Crane (FC) into standard towed

barges for delivery to shore receiving jetty.

C. Transhipment operations are carried out by dedicated self-propelled, self- loading/self-unloading barges (SLUB), collecting the cargo from gearless OGV

holds and delivering it to shore. SLUB is basically a coastal vessel; therefore it can be employed also to transport coal from Karaci, if required.




D. Panamax Floating Terminal (PFT) discharging gearless OGV into barges: once at transhipment site, the OGV will be discharged by PFT into flat top “standard” towed barges for delivery to shore receiving jetty.

The transhipment area is exposed to SW monsoon; hence a contingency plan (Monsoon contingency plan) needs to be implemented to allow smooth coal supply to

the HPP.

2. COAL SUPPLY CHAIN TARGETS

The coal supply logistics is the lifeline of any power plant project hence it must be designed to be reliable, efficient and with a suitable degree of redundancy to overcome the supply chain bottlenecks (i.e. slowdowns or stoppages such as vessel or

barge delay, waiting for port services, labour stoppage, weather, maintenance, breakdowns, tide, traffic along access ways, etc.).

It is therefore important to prioritize as follows:

Guaranteeing a smooth and continued feeding of coal;




Conceiving the overall most effective supply chain, finding the optimum cost-

ratio between ocean transportation costs and coal receiving terminal costs and performances (considering both capital and operational costs).

A dominant factor in coal supply costs for most of the new coal fired power stations is the cost of ocean transportation, especially where the material has to be transported

over long distances from producer to consumer. This is mainly due to inadequate infrastructure available to facilitate usage of large bulk carriers to both suppliers and end users.

Also in the case of this Project, the lack of large port infrastructures in the area and

the relative shallow water draft at the envisaged receiving site may prevent the end users to benefit from the lower transportation costs on a per ton basis by way of

utilization of large size of modern vessels, unless implementing shore based projects with high capital costs and extensive environmental impact.

Within the Project feasibility study carried out by Guangdong Electric Power Design institute of China Energy Engineering Group (reference doc. A), the possibility to build

a receiving terminal capable to accommodate 100,000 DWT bulk carriers has been evaluated as well.

However, considering the required civil works and costs associated of the shore terminal

to accommodate the 100,000 DWT OGV size, seems not to be the most overall cost-effective supply chain for HPP, for the following qualitative arguments:

1. The shallow foreshore requires breakwater and jetty structure stretched out and/or a combination of dredging and jetty/breakwaters to reach suitable natural

deep water.

2. The construction of a much longer breakwater and jetty will increase the project lead time exponentially due to the longer exposure to weather loads. Working with floating equipment will hardly be possible from April to October.

3. The laden draft of the original envisaged 100,000 DWT OGV is about 14.5 m, as

such a minimum natural water depth of about 18 meters should be achieved, for taking into account a reasonable under keel clearance (UKC, reference to section 7), considering OGV to approach the terminal with high tide.

4. 100,000 DWT OGV should not be taken as reference, being this size not

representative in the dry-bulk market (reference to section 16.2.2). The utilization of standard modern Panamax size OGV (75/83,000 DWT with laden draft of about

14.3 m) may be used as an alternative, or standard Capesize vessels partially loaded at 14.0 m draft may be evaluated. In the latter case, just as reference, the potential shipment size would be about 125,000 t and relative berthing

displacement about 150,000 t. Capesize vessels standard main features are reported in section 8.3.

5. The presence of such long breakwater with longshore sediment transport might lead to severe impact on coastal morphology.

6. The remarkable investment (and maintenance) cost associated to the shore facilities (jetty, breakwater, causeway, channel and discharging equipment)

needs to be depreciated in a relative small annual coal throughput.

With the above challenges, a transhipment alternative operation for transferring the coal from large OGV to barges able to reach a shallow draft shore terminal is

envisaged and evaluated within this report.




2.1. MINIMUM TARGET FEED RATE

The supply chain object of this study will be conceived based on an annual tonnage of about 3.8 million tonnes per year.

As a “rule of thumb” and based on experience in similar operations (not affected by monsoon), a raw material inflow capacity about 20% higher than the average daily requirement based on the expected working days may be a reasonable assumption, to

allow the building up of the storage and to cope with any unexpected events:

As an example only:

Annual tonnage [t] 3,800,000

Assumed system operative days [/] 330

Margin on feeding rate [%] 20%

Minimum target feeding rate (abt) [tpd] 13,800

However, according to the data obtained on weather conditions at site, with particular

reference to seasonal variations (monsoon), the months of June, July and August result to be the most significantly affected by strong winds and waves phenomena (with predominant incoming direction from SW), which heavily affect the offshore

operation and to a lower extent the receiving jetty (due to residual waves). An impact is therefore expected on the capacity of the logistic system to feed the power station.

May and September are also similarly affected, although to a less extent.

As such, the monthly distribution shown in the chart hereunder has been used for the development of this PFS, based on the following base case assumptions:

o During fair season coal shipments to be arranged in such a way to fill up the

storage at its maximum capacity. The storage shall have a buffer capacity capable to feed the HPP during the monsoon;

o During monsoon season HPP supply will be achieved reclaiming the coal from the stockpile only, as base case (no coal shipment is foreseen).

Following chart represent coal shipments, consumption and storage monthly

distribution.




Peak monthly throughput (December) [t] 659,000


Minimum average feeding rate

(about)*

[tpd]

22,200

Storage requirement [t] 1,520,000

Shipment to Karachi (during monsoon) [t] 0

(*) about 25,000 tpd average should be targeted.

An alternative, the supply chain arrangement could be based on the reduction of the coal amount to be reclaimed from storage during monsoon in order to receive it by means of a number of coal shipments (limited to Panamax size vessel partially loaded

with about 60,000 t of coal at the allowed draft of Karachi sheltered channel), as required to guarantee a smooth coal feeding to HPP. In particular, ten shipments (600,000 t as

reference only) have been envisaged to be unloaded in Karachi during the monsoon season.

Coal discharged in Karachi would be transported by sea to HPP by truck. As an alternative solution, the same transhipment facilities might be used in the sheltered

waters of Karachi Port.

Following chart represent coal shipments, consumption and storage monthly distribution for this alternative supply chain arrangement.




Peak monthly throughput (December) [t] 572,000


Minimum average feeding rate (abt) * [tpd] 19,300

Storage requirement [t] 960,000

Shipment to Karachi (during monsoon) [t] 600,000

(*) about 22,000 tpd average should be targeted.

In the course of this study, additional information and assumptions are provided and the various scenarios under consideration have been tested by means of simplified barge cycle estimation (reference to section 13 below), to assess the preliminary estimation

given above.

2.2. OTHER CONSIDERATIONS

While conceiving the coal supply chain, it is worth considering also the other supply requirements of the Project, both during construction and operation, in order to

provide the facilities with suitable flexibility to cope with various needs. In particular, even if not covered by this study, following items may be considered during the next

project stages:

Receipt of transportation of materials and equipment as required for plant construction, which may be transported by sea instead of by land, if roads are not sufficient for the purpose.

Receipt of limestone, if required for the planned operation, fuel oil, etc.

Export of gypsum and ashes, if required for the planned operation.

Full-flange design of the shore terminal, in order to serve the units approaching in all operational aspects (including refuelling, fresh water supply and other consumables supply, maintenance, parking in case of operation

stoppages, etc.).




3. COAL SOURCES

At this preliminary stage, two scenarios in terms of coal sources will be evaluated. The primary port of loading is Richards Bay, in South Africa, while East Kalimantan

(Samarinda area, distributing coal from different producers) is considered as the Indonesian source. However, the final Indonesian source should be chosen also taking into account the quality of coal required by the power plant.

The following table shows the distances from coal sources to the receiving site and loading parameters, including maximum vessels size and loading rate assumed for the purpose of this study.

Loading Point

Distance to

HPP TS [nm]

Distance to

Karachi Port [nm]

Max vessel size

[t]

Loading Rate

[tpd]

East Kalimantan (Samarinda

area)

4,000

3,990

> 200,000

DWT

20,000 - 40,000

South Africa - Richards Bay

4,380

4,370

> 200,000 DWT

35,000 - 55,000

Next sections provide additional details and description for the two sources.

3.1. EAST KALIMANTAN

In East Kalimantan, the area around Samarinda sees the transportation of coal from a variety of producers mostly via Indonesian standard barges (flat top and towed) along

the Mahakam River, reaching the open sea for transshipment in OGV.

Due to the draft limitation along the river, barges usually range from 8,000 DWT to 12,000 DWT, delivering the coal downstream to two deep water anchorages, Muara

Jawa or Muara Berau, according to the year season. However, Muara Jawa transshipment site is not available at the moment, so the only anchorage site that can

be utilized is the farer Muara Berau.




Muara Berau

Samarinda

Muara Jawa

At anchorage, vessels up to Capesize can be loaded via transshipment facilities operating at different transfer rates according to the type of cargo handling

equipment, generally ranging from about 20,000 tpd to about 40,000 tpd.

Shipping route from East Kalimantan to the project area is shown in the chart below:




3.2. SOUTH AFRICA – RICHARDS BAY

On the east coast of South Africa, Richards Bay is the country largest port, located within a large natural lagoon (28° 48.996' S - 32° 02.769' E). The port consists of different terminals, handling different products, ranging from bulk, break-bulk, oil, general cargo,

etc.

In particular, Richards Bay Coal Terminal (RBCT) and Dry Bulk Terminal (DBT) are

described hereunder.

RICHARDS BAY COAL TERMINAL (RBCT)

It was originally opened in 1976 and has now become the single largest export coal terminal in the world, having a design capacity of 91 million tons per annum.

The terminal has six deep water berths (from 301 to 306) served by 4 ship loaders, two working at 8,500 to and 2 at 10,000 tph. Each berth is 350 m long

with 19 m depth alongside and a permissible draft of 17.5 m.

In 2015, the terminal has exported more than 75 mil tonnes of cargo (33%

destined to Southern Asia and 28% to Eastern Asia) and serving a total of about 700 bulk vessels (over 450 Capesize). The largest vessel handled to date

is 372,201 DWT vessel “Brazilian Pride” (LOA = 363.7 m, Beam = 63.4 m, Draft = 21.8 m) and the largest shipment of coal was loaded on “M/V Ocean

Vanguard” (206,258 DWT).

DRY BULK TERMINAL (DBT)

The Dry Bulk Terminal handles multiple products over its conveyor system,

used for all products and therefore subject to thorough washing after each loading/unloading of a parcel, to guarantee for product quality. Vessels are

allowed at berths with maximum LOA from 240 to 300 m and draft from 17 to 17.5 m.




The following chart shows the route used for freight calculation purposes:

The route from Richards Bay to the TS results to be longer due to the fact that it is influenced by Piracy Risk management zone, which shall be avoided in order to reduce

risks, as described in section 16.2.1.




4. LOCATION

The site selected for the Project is positioned to the east of Karachi, slightly to the north of the existing HUB power plant at the mouth if Hab River, as shown in the map below:

Although the site location is close to Karachi (about 55 km only from Karachi Port Trust,

KPT) and Port Bin Qasim (about 115 km), the same can hardly be used for efficiently supplying the required bulk commodity to the power plant due to the following main reasons:

Limitation in draft entailing restrictions to berth OGV size to up to 10.67 draft and 11.5 draft respectively and the max vessel size accepted is 55,000 DWT ;

Poor coal handling infrastructure (a dedicated terminal for bulk cargo is envisaged to be constructed in Port Bin Qasim area, but the target milestone of 2017 is not expected to be guaranteed);

Dependency on external traffic and other shipment relying on the same coal berths;

No history of similar barging operations across the coast lines. However the proposed units shall be designed to cope;

Inefficiency and extra cost in delivery to the plant via inland infrastructure and via see (barge cycles would be long and affected by external traffic, port dues).

In section 7.2, more information is available on Karachi port.

5. SHORE TERMINAL

5.1. PRELIMINARY SHORE TERMINAL LAYOUT

Based on the information provided by the Client, the presently envisaged shore terminal

foresees the construction of a feeder receiving berth (referred to as “coal berth”) connected to shore by a trestle. In order to protect the coal berth from the expected

adverse sea state (reference to section 6 below), a breakwater is also planned for construction.




The preliminary report provided by the Client (reference doc. A) reports the area to be mostly composed of intensely weathered claystone and moderately weathered claystone. Based on these results, piles have been selected as foundation of the

structure, both for the coal berth and the trestle. Following sketches refer to the coal berth and trestle piling structure respectively:

The coal berth is composed by a pile-supported beam, slab structure with a handling platform of 265 m length and 22 m width, allowing for the in-line berthing of two barges

simultaneously.




The trestle connecting the coal berth with the plant is 495 m long, and 12.5 m width. It allows the coal berth to reach a minimum water depth on chart datum of 6.7 m.

In order to provide shelter from the action of monsoon related sea state, having a predominant incoming direction from SW, an “L–shaped” mound-type structure

breakwater has been proposed, to be positioned 110 m to the south of the jetty (reported azimuths being 74.73°-254° and 129.73°-309.73°).

The total envisaged length of the breakwater is 727 m, with a -7.5 m contour. Based on information from reference doc. A, the crest elevation of the breakwater is

foreseen to accept a small extent of over-topping water. Its elevation is set above the high water level and projected to be 0.6 times the design wave height, sets to 7.95 m, while its width is 9.69 m.

In the proposed solution as described above, the coal berth and the breakwater are separated so to obtain a tugboat berth opposite to the barges berth.

5.1.1. Shore based equipment

The shore jetty will be responsible for the receiving and unloading of barges, limited in size and characterized by a single and squared shaped hold. As a land-based installation, disadvantages related to weight of machines and encumbrance does not represent a

significant obstacle, generally representing only a cost issue.




However, consideration should also be given to the way the equipment will be delivered and installed at site, as the jetty location might not benefit from good shore connections (main roads, train, etc.) although according to the available draft at berth

it may allow for the approach of heavy lift vessels which could be used for the transport of heavy preassembled equipment via sea (to be verified). This issue shall

be duly and thoughtfully addressed, as it would entail a cost component and possibly might require proper consideration during discussion with local authorities along the permitting process, especially in case of requirement for realization of land infrastructure

on purpose.

In accordance with the available information (Project Feasibility Study 5.3.2.3 Option III) four bridge-type grab ship unloaders having an unloading capacity of 1000t/h

each feeding two belt conveyors with width of 1.6m and velocity of 3.15m/s (About 2,500 TPH estimated handling rate). The average unloading rate of a barge has been reported to be 900 tph only with two cranes working simultaneously, i.e. about 450 tph average unloading capacity each (11 hours in total is needed to unload a 10,000 t barge).

6. METEOROLOGICAL CONDITIONS

The analysis of historical weather conditions data is the key element to assess the suitability and reliability of an off-shore operation, to design the receiving jetty and to

evaluate breakwater requirement. Information on the weather conditions expected at site and of consequences on the operation smooth development (as reported in this

report) has been based on the following documents provided by the Client:

- “Ocean wave and wind data - Computational wave modelling studies”, HR

Wallingford, (January 2016),

- “Coal Import Jetty for HUB II 2x660mw Coal Fired Power Plant”, Energy China

GEDI, (August 2015).

6.1. MONSOON

Pakistan Coast is swept by the South West (SW) monsoon, from June to September, with a transition month in May. During the remaining part of the year (fair season)

the area is relative mild.

The following charts represent the wind and swell distribution in the month of July, representing the most rough month in terms of wind and sea state in response to the

peak month of SW monsoon.




As a result of the analysis of the weather data available, mainly in terms of significant wave height and swell characterization (reference to following sections), it can be

stated that the sea state and weather conditions during monsoon season will highly affect the transhipment operation up to its prevention, with consequent significant impact on the HPP port operation, as well.

6.2. WIND

In winter there are prevailing winds coming from NE, while during summer (Monsoon season) the prevailing incoming direction is from WSW and SW, with a frequency of

about 32.7% and 19.9% respectively. As expected in response to the monsoon characterization of the area, the strongest winds come from SW, reaching up to 51.5




Dir

ecti

on

m/s return periods over 100 years. The wind speed distribution is shown in the wind speed distribution chart and in the wind rose hereunder.

Wind speed distribution

Speed [m/s] 12 Total

N 0.6 1.0 0.4 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.1

NNE 0.6 1.6 0.5 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.7

NE 0.7 1.4 1.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 3.3

ENE 0.6 1.5 0.2 0.3 0.1 0.0 0.0 3.6

ENE 0.6 0.9 0.5 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.1

ESE 0.5 0.5 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0

SE 0.5 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.8

SSE 0.6 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.9

S 0.5 0.4 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.1

SSW 0.5 1.4 0.8 0.8 0.2 0.1 0.0 3.8

SW 0.5 2.8 4.7 5.6 4.9 1.3 0.1 19.9

WSW 0.9 4.0 10.4 11.2 5.0 1.1 0.1 32.7

WSW 0.8 3.6 6.2 3.1 0.7 0.1 0.0 14.5

WNW 0.6 2.0 1.3 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.3

NW 0.9 1.8 0.7 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.0 3.8

NNW 0.8 1.1 0.6 0.5 0.2 0.1 0.0 3.3

Total 10.1 24.4 28.7 22.7 11.4 2.6 0.1 100.0

6.3. WAVE

The wave conditions in the deep-water of the site have been extracted by the (UK) Met Office Global Wave Model as a time-series which covers a period of 10 years, (November 1997 – October 2007).




Sig

nif

ican

t W

ave H

eig

ht

Sig

nif

ican

t W

ave H

eig

ht

Wave direction in degrees North

% -15 to

15

15 to

45

45 to

75

75 to

105

105 to

135

135 to

165

195 to

225

225 to

255

255 to

285

285 to

315

315 to

345

Total

0.00 to 0.50 0.01 0 0 0.01 0.03 0.48 0.49 0.79 0.03 0.38 0 2.21

0.50 to 1.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 4.09 20.40 1.69 0.49 0 26.67

1.00 to 1.50 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.39 21.21 4.87 0.25 0 27.72

1.50 to 2.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.12 16.49 6.87 0.02 0 23.50

2.00 to 2.50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8.57 5.96 0.01 0 14.54

2.50 to 3.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.60 1.73 0 0 3.33

3.00 to 3.50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.22 0.26 0 0 0.48

3.50 to 4.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.02 0.07 0 0 0.09

Total 0.01 0 0 0.01 0.03 0.48 6.09 69.31 21.48 1.15 0 98.55

Mean wave period in seconds (Tm)

% 0.0

2.0

2.0

4.0

4.0

6.0

6.0

8.0

8.0

10.0

10.0

12.0

12.0

14.0

14.0

16.0

16.0

18.0

18.0

20.0

20.0

22.0 Total

0.00 to 0.50 0 0.42 1.50 0.20 0.08 0.01 0 0 0 0 0 2.21

0.50 to 1.00 0 0.24 19.18 6.05 1.10 0.10 0.01 0 0 0 0 26.67

1.00 to 1.50 0 0 20.54 5.91 1.04 0.23 0.01 0 0 0 0 27.73

1.50 to 2.00 0 0 17.53 5.72 0.23 0.03 0 0 0 0 0 23.50

2.00 to 2.50 0 0 6.67 7.64 0.20 0 0 0 0 0 0 14.51

2.50 to 3.00 0 0 0.07 3.19 0.08 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.33

3.00 to 3.50 0 0 0 0.45 0.03 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.48

3.50 to 4.00 0 0 0 0.09 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.09

Total 0 0.66 65.48 29.25 2.75 0.36 0.02 0 0 0 0 98.52

Waves at site comes mostly from between165°N and 285°N, with the largest waves (Hs>2.5 m) coming from the range 195°N – 255°N. Due to the exposure of the site, the maximum wave heights predicted range from 3.5 m to 4 m.

The following table shows also the probability of exceedance of Hs levels on monthly basis:

Predicted exceedence levels by month at site

Hs [m] Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oc t Nov Dec

Days 31 28 31 30 31 30 31 31 30 31 30 31

1 8.0 11.7 21.5 27.6 29.1 29.7 30.8 30.6 28.6 19.1 9.8 8.0

1.5 1.5 2.9 7.2 14.6 21.4 27.7 30.3 27.6 15.4 3.3 0.9 0.3

2 0.3 0.8 1.3 2.9 10.9 15.7 21.5 11.6 1.8 0.5 0.0 0.0

2.5 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.3 1.5 4.5 5.6 2.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0

3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.8 1.1 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

6.3.1. Operational thresholds at the transhipment site

There are no standard rules for the definition of weather operational thresholds above

which the off-shore operation is prevented. It depends on many factors: floating terminal and feeder size, stability, design criteria, type, direction and periods of

waves, etc.

The International Chamber of Shipping (ICS) and the Oil Companies International Marine

Forum (OCIMF) published guidelines for the safe development of offshore ship- to-ship operation for the transfer of petroleum products. Information on standard practice,

manoeuvring and mooring practices, alternative suggested procedures, risk mitigation measurements, details of equipment to be employed, considerations on communication, etc. are all discussed to provide a deep insight in the ship-to-ship field and to allow

the performance of smooth and safe operation. However, the publication does not provide a clear guideline on applicable weather thresholds.




As a rule of thumb, the longer the wave’s period, the greater the stress on the mooring lines, fenders and mechanical components and this generates a lower weather threshold. Meaning to say that a transhipment operation might be affected with

1.0 meter swell, while in the presence of wind generated waves (shorter wave period) operation can be carried out also with 2.0 Hs meters.

Another important factor that influences the weather threshold is the size of the vessels involved: a small floating crane is more sensitive to waves than a Capesize

vessel. Having said so, usually the feeder is the weak link of the chain and usually the operation ceases because of the inability to keep the feeder berthed alongside

According to Logmarin experience, transhipping operations can be carried out with wind up to 25 knots and significant wave height as follows:

Up to 1.5 m Hs head waves: operation is carried out smoothly (100%);

From 1.5 m to about 2.0 m Hs head waves: transhipment operation might be delayed;

2.0 m Hs and above: operations are prevented (final decision left to the vessels’ Master according to actual behaviour of participating vessels).

For the development of this report and simulation, the following operative thresholds and consequent operative days have been considered for each scenario, based on the

different expected sea-keeping behaviour of the vessels engaged in the transhipment operation:

Estimated Downtime [d]

TS

Operative

Treshold [m]

Jan

Feb

Mar

Apr

May

Jun

Jul

Aug

Sep

Oct

Nov

Dec

FC

1

8.0

11.7

21.5

27.6

29.1

29.7

30.8

30.6

28.6

19.1

9.8

8.0

Self disch. SPMX

1.5

1.5

2.9

7.2

14.6

21.4

27.7

30.3

27.6

15.4

3.3

0.9

0.3

SLUB (*)

1.5

1.5

2.9

7.2

14.6

21.4

27.7

30.3

27.6

15.4

3.3

0.9

0.3

PFT

1.5

1.5

2.9

7.2

14.6

21.4

27.7

30.3

27.6

15.4

3.3

0.9

0.3

(*) In case of SLUBs, two units may work simultaneously on the same OGV, one on

each side. In this case, the weather threshold for the unit working on the exposed

side would be reduced.

Being the floating body of a Floating Crane smaller as compared to the envisaged flat

top barges or SLUB, it can be considered the weak link of the transhipment system. Without a seakeeping analysis of the participant units (OGV, barge and FC) it is not

possible to proper estimate the weather threshold simply based on the waves characteristics. However to be on the conservative side 1.0 meter has been assumed to allow one crane to work on each OGV side. With significant waves between 1 and

1.5 m height, only one FC may be assumed to operate on the lea side of the OGV.

Transhipment operations are highly influenced by the harsh wave conditions during the monsoon season, due to cross waves and swell, causing an expected almost

continuous downtime from about June to September. This makes mandatory to the




identification of two different transhipment sites, in order to alternate transhipment operations according to the bad weather season (as described in section 7).

6.4. TIDE

All the elevations reported are based on the Chart Datum (CD). Tides in the site area

are for the most part semi-diurnal tides. In the table below are reported the main characteristics

Mean higher high water level (MHHW)

2.6 m

Mean lower high water level (MLHW)

2.0 m

Mean sea level (MSL)

1.5 m

Mean higher low water level (MHLW)

1.3 m

Mean lower low water level (MLLW)

0.6 m

7. SELECTION OF TRANSHIPMENT SITE

The selection of a suitable area for carrying out open water transhipment operations much depends on the prevailing weather conditions at the site (wind, significant wave height, swell, current, etc.), traffic due to other vessels sailing by (which may cause risk

of collision), tug assistance, navigational distance to be covered by OGVs, which may add unnecessary costs, available depth, possible shelters etc.

The most appropriate transhipment site(s) shall satisfy the following basic criteria:

A minimum water depth shall be guaranteed, depending on the OGV intended for the services. In this regards, following drafts shall be considered, for fully loaded vessels:

o Panamax: 14 meters (or slightly more);

o Post-Panamax: similar to Panamax vessels;

o Capesize: about 18 meters.




Furthermore, a suitable under-keel clearance (UKC1) for each type of OGV has to be considered, in order to cope with possible rolling and pitching movement due to swell while at anchor. Considering that the transhipment sites may be subject

to waves, it is suggested allowing an UKC of not less than 3.0 m, therefore the reference depths for identification of transhipment sites should be minimum 18 and 22 meters (on the lowest tide) for Panamax and Capesize vessels respectively.

The gross under keel clearance (UKC) can be defined as a margin added to the

vessel maximum draft, applied to take into consideration all possible changes of draft due to external causes and to ensure that the vessel remains afloat at all times. In particular:

o Allowance for static draught uncertainties;

o Change in water density;

o Squat including dynamic trim;

o Dynamic heel due to wind and turning

o Wave response allowance;

o Net under keel clearance (the minimum margin remaining between the keel of the vessel and the nominal channel bed level).

In addition, it is recommendable the water depth on CD not to exceed 80 m

(about).

Reasonably sheltered and not exposed to severe weather conditions, mainly with reference to swell.

1 UKC is the minimum clearance between the deepest point of the vessel and the sea bottom, when fully loaded and in still water conditions.




Locations where the bathymetric lines are too close one another (involving a steep slope of the sea bottom), should be avoided as this might reduce the

anchoring capacity of the OGV.

Close to port where ancillary services such as bunkering, catering, workshop for maintenance/repairs are available.

Reasonably operational cost (manpower, duties/port charges, services, etc.)

Local Maritime Authority availability to keep a suitable sheltered anchorage area available on an exclusive long term basis for the purpose of carrying out

transhipment operations, with space enough to anchor a number of incoming and receiving OGVs while waiting to be loaded.

Final locations for all the sites shall be defined jointly with local authorities in due course. Furthermore, for floating operations it may be considered that the site is easily

movable and adjustable in accordance with vessel size and weather conditions.

As the sea state is expected to change significantly from the NE to the SW monsoon, the possibility of shipping some coal to Karachi during the monsoon season (when

transhipment operation is prevented close to the HPP) could be considered and its feasibility investigated at later stage. From Karachi, coal could be delivered to the HPP

either by using a transhipment solution (the same employed during the fair season) or by trucks.

In this view, two different TS have preliminarily identified, one as close as possible to the jetty (to minimise the barge sailing distance hence the cycles), one in a sheltered

area for maximising the operational days during the bad season, as described in Chapter 7.2. However, the advantages of having no fixed infrastructure will allow changing the

transhipment location as required in accordance with the actual experience gained.

7.1. FAIR WEATHER TS (FWTS)

Based on the above considerations, the location reported in the chart hereunder (24° 55.000' N - 66° 33.500' E) is preliminarily proposed as TS for the feeding of HPP, as it seems to be suitable from the depth point of view to accommodate vessels up to

Capesize and is about 6 nm only from the envisaged shore terminal.




Unfortunately, the small island between the transshipment site and the shore terminal measure around 0.56 nm only, therefore it does not represent a feasible sheltered location where to carry out transshipment operations during the monsoon season.

7.2. BAD WEATHER TS (BWTS) - KARACHI PORT

Based on the weather conditions at site and on the coal annual requirement, the

possibility to use the shelter of Karachi channel to import some coal during the monsoon period should also be evaluated. The Karachi Port is one of the largest and busiest seaports of South Asia, handling about 25 million tonnes per annum, corresponding to

the 60% of the nation’s cargo. The port is located near the site selected for the project, about 30 nm SE, and it may be the selected as a “contingency” solution during

the monsoon season.

The port comprises a natural harbour with an approach channel of about 11 km length and 12.2 m depth, able to provide a safe navigation for vessels up to 55,000 DWT.

The stevedores in Karachi Port provide all the necessary equipment for loading and unloading operations; current cargo handling rates allow the handling of about 8,000 t of coal per day.




The open storage area of the port covers over 45 hectares and a new ten-hectare coal yard opened recently in the port. The current coal terminal throughput capacity is 6

million tpa with about 700,000 of stock capacity. Coal will be discharged and stocked at berth and subsequently transported to the site by truck, which is about 55 Km

away from Karachi port.

As an alternative solution, considering the availability of HPP transhipment facility, the same units could be moved to Karachi port to carry out the transhipment operation in

a sheltered area during monsoon. In such a case, the OGV could either berth at any shore berth available with at least 11.85 meter draft (oil, container terminals) or mooring

buoys may be provided in the channel as indicated in the following picture, where transhipment operations may be carried out in the port, as described in detail in section 7.3.2.




7.3. ANCHORING ARRANGEMENT

When dealing with ship-to-ship operations, the participating vessels are to be kept steady at a determined anchoring point for avoiding any risk which may be associated to drifting

and possible collision. This result can be achieved relying on a single-point mooring system (by far the most used) or on a multi-point mooring alternative (mainly used in mid-stream operations).

Considering the singularity of this project, where very large units will be berthed alongside during off-shore cargo handling equipment operation, sea keeping and mooring simulations would be recommendable, as it would help defining the required mooring

equipment, purposely designed to withstand the loads of all the participant vessels. The outcome of the analysis will also provide data/recommendation about extreme weather

condition management.

7.3.1. Single point mooring (Fair season)

This is by far the most used in ship to ship operation. In this case, the vessels participating to the transhipment operation are free to weathervane around the anchoring point, lying

into the prevailing ever-changing wind and current condition. As a consequence, the loads acting on the mooring system are minimised.




Examples of single-point mooring

This methodology, largely applied for ship-to-ship operations and promoted also in the oil and gas field by OCIMF (Oil Companies International Marine Forum), usually relies

on the anchor of the mother vessel (OGV), as this is supposed to be the larger and more reliable one (higher holding capacity). The OGV acts as the leading vessel, while

floating terminal and feeder(s) moor alongside by using their own mooring facilities.

Main advantages are the following:

Thanks to the possibility to weathervane in response to wind and current, the system aligns itself so to minimize the loads on the anchor and mooring

system.

Relatively low investment cost for mooring facility, as the units involved in the operation rely on the OGV anchor. Associated costs and environmental impact will

also be minimized, as the sea bottom is interested by a single anchor.

The anchorage location is not fixed and can be easily changed, if required (i.e.: from fair weather to a bad weather location) as no fix equipment needs being

removed and relocated.

This methodology has proven in many years to be practicable and safe. The following picture shows the (so far) largest HUB in the world, devised by Logmarin. The operation

involves three vessels of 400,000 DWT, 280,000 DWT and 170,000 DWT respectively moored together and is successfully operating in Subic Bay ( Philippines), relying on the

largest vessel’s anchor.




Vale operation in Subic Bay, discharging world largest iron ore from Valemax to Capesize

The following picture shows the transhipment operation carried out in Goa (West coast of India) during Fair season only:

OCIMF describes operational procedures to be undertaken in order to avoid risks, which can be kept to a minimum if well trained crew is employed and check lists are duly

followed. It is to be underlined that oil transfer involves the movement of a much more dangerous and pollutant cargo than coal. Therefore, as this practice is so largely used

and commonly referred to in the “oil case”, then operation can be considered far more applicable in the “coal case”.

The proposed manoeuvring operation is carried out as follows:

The OGV waits at anchor at the agreed site on a steady heading, (in particular cases, heading may be achieved with the help of a tugboat);

The Transhipper Unit (TU) berths alongside (on the side opposite to the anchor chain line) by means of its own means or with tugboat assistance as circumstance

requires.




carried out more efficiently.

Berthing and unberthing operations should be conducted during daylight only, until the personnel are suitably experienced for night-time manoeuvring operations.

Suitable manoeuvring study and procedure should be developed upon the transhipment methodology and characteristics have been selected.

PFT: in case of PFT alternative, berthing operation would be carried out with the

PFT approaching the OGV waiting at her anchor (as described above). In order to facilitate the approaching and departure manoeuvres and improving the

safety of the operation, the PFT would be equipped with bow thruster and berthing and mooring operation will be carried out with the help of tug-boat (same tugboat used for barge towing).

SLUB: similarly to the PFT, also SLUB will berth to the anchored OGV. For the

purpose of this report, it is assumed that no tugboat assistance is required in case of SLUBs, thanks to the enhanced manoeuvring capability of the unit obtained with the installation of twin azimuth thrusters and bow thruster. Final confirmation

will have to be obtained by local Authority.

FC: once the FC is berthed alongside the OGV (on her own anchor) barges will be towed alongside the FC and the OGV unloading operation will start according

to the agreed unloading plan. With waves up to Hs 1.0 meter floating cranes will be operating on each side of the OGV, as such the unloading operation is

The following picture shows two FCs (Logmarin design) while loading a Capesize

vessel in double berth (one on each side) in Indonesia.




Floating cranes can operate also with Hs of about 1.5 meters height, but in this case the FC needs to operate on the “lee” side of the OGV. However, only Capesize vessels can

safely berth two FCs on its lea side, in line. The efficiency of the unloading operation may be reduced because of lower room of manoeuvring for the FCs and the barge while unloading OGV centre holds.

Each crane will tranship the cargo to one barge at a time. Floating cranes will be moored in such a manner that shifting along the vessel from hold to hold (including the barge moored along the floating crane) will be done with own winches on deck.

Barges will be towed from the anchorage area to the unloading berth in a continuously round voyages system with tugs. Tugs will leave, after arrival at the berth, the full barge for unloading and sail back to the anchorage, with an empty barge.




7.3.2. Multi mooring points (Karachi)

As the name itself suggests, a multi mooring points system considers two or more

anchoring points to keep the vessels participating to transhipment operations always with the same heading.

Multi mooring points system is particularly used for operation along rivers and estuary areas, where:

tides/currents are characterized by a prevailing direction;

the site is not exposed to strong winds and waves from different directions;

operation would require to be configured in line with the main channels, without causing interferences with traffic.

As such, this system suits particularly well the case of the “contingency” transhipment

alternative at Karachi during monsoon.

The following picture represents a 64,000 tons FSTS developed by Logmarin’s individuals with a permanent mooring arrangement designed to withstand tropical storms

(wind speed over 120 km/h) and to operate safely, with a Capesize moored alongside, with a wind speed up to 65 km/h, waves up to 2.5 m and current up to 2.5 kn.

When applied and recommended, the multi mooring system allows for the following:

reduced space required for the operation as compared to single mooring point (swing mooring),

the space required for the operation is reduced also by using piles, instead of anchor chain legs that require longer catenary to reduce (dissipate) the loads acting

on the anchors.

floating terminal yawing is minimized/prevented, thus berthing of OGV and barges is easier.

Following sketch represents a possible mooring solution to be developed for the

specific requirement of Karachi channel (mid-stream operation). In such a case OGV is hold in position using vessel own anchors and stern mooring buoys.




The type and dimensions of the above mooring system (and therefore its cost) is subject to the local environmental loads (basically winds and current), characteristics of the

channel bottom, vessels involved which need to be dynamically modelled (mooring study) and presented to local Authority for their concurrence and approval.

The following picture represents a typical midstream operation in Mississippi River

8. OCEAN GOING VESSELS

A dominant factor in logistics costs for most of the new coal fired power stations is the cost of ocean freight, mainly due to limited accessibility of larger bulk carriers to both




suppliers (Indonesia, Vietnam) and end users (Pakistan, Thailand, Vietnam, Philippines, etc.) as a number of the new power stations are affected by shallow water draft, thus preventing end users from benefiting from the utilization of the larger size

of modern vessels.

Limited accessibility to larger bulk carriers for transportation causes higher freight charges in the coal supply cost which is affected by shallow water draft.

The following sections contain the main features of standard modern bulk carriers based on market analysis and represent the design of some of the major Japanese, Korean and Chinese shipbuilding yards.

8.1. GEARED VESSELS

Handysize, Handymax, Supramax and Ultramax (basically a 10 meter longer Supramax) vessels, that nowadays have a capacity of up to about 65,000 DWT, are generally known

as “geared” vessels, as they are normally equipped with cranes.

These vessels can load and discharge themselves with their own cargo handling

equipment either from/to barges (as in the case of this project) or at a berth. In the latest case for unloading, shore facilities would consist in relatively inexpensive shore

hoppers. These vessels are also often used as conventional gearless vessels, i.e. their cargo is loaded or discharged by port appliances. In other words, their size and dimensions are often utilized to overcome port restrictions such as draft and LOA

limitation. In the latest case, port equipment shall be able to load/unload the vessel in spite of the presence of cranes on board, which might constitute an obstacle.

Such standard modern vessels are designed with 5 cargo holds and 4 centre-mounted cranes with 25/30 tonnes of safe working load, in grab operation. The maximum

outreach of the centre-mounted crane is usually limited to 10 – 12 meters from ship rails (both port and starboard side).

Main dimensions are as shown below:




Type of ship Handymax Supramax

Ultramax Shipyard

SPP

Imabari

Jangsu New

Century

Imabari

STX

DWT 35,000 28,350 35,500 52,300 53,500 57,700 63,800

Draft (at max DWT) 9.9 9.8 10 12.2 12.3 13 13.3

LOA (m) 180 169.3 183 190 190 190 199.9

Breadth (m) 30 27.2 28.5 32.26 32.26 32.26 32.26

Depth mld (m) 14.7 13.6 15.1 17.2 17.3 18.2 18.5

No. Cargo Holds 5 5 5 5 5 5 5

Service Speed (kn) 14.5 14 14 14.7 14.2 14.5 14,5

GRT N/A 17,050 23,270 31,260 30,000 N/A 35,900

8.2. PANAMAX AND POST PANAMAX

Panamax identify the size limits for ships traveling through the present restriction of the Panama Canal (which will be enlarged in 2015), due to the width the available

lock chambers and the depth of water in the canal. Post Panamax vessels are vessel designed to exploit the new Panama Canal restrictions.

Main dimensions are as shown below:

Type of ship Post Panamax Panamax

Shipyard

Imabari

Oshima

STX

Oshima C &

Heavy New

Century

DWT 95,500 105,000 98,500 81,900 81,100 74,500

Draft (at max DWT) 14.47 13.53 13.6 14.44 14.45 14.25

LOA (m) 235 254.62 253.5 225 229 225

Breadth (m) 38 43 43 32.26 32.26 32.26

Depth mld (m) 20.7 19.39 20.5 19.99 20.01 19.6

No. Cargo Holds 7 7 7 7 7 7

Service Speed (kn) 14.1 14.3 14.5 14.5 14.5 14.6

GRT 50,617 59,300 N/A 43600 N/A 40,500




8.3. CAPESIZE VESSELS

Capesize vessels are primarily used to transport coal, iron ore and, less extensively

grains, primarily on long-haul routes. As it can be seen from the table below that provides the main dimensions of standard Capesize vessels, they have a breadth very

similar to the one of Post Panamax ships.

Type of ship Capesize

Shipyard Shanghai

Waigaoqiao

Imabari Hyundai

Heavy Ind

DWT 177,000 180,200 179,500

Draft (at max DWT) 18.3 18.15 18.2

LOA (m) 292 291.9 292

Breadth (m) 45 46 45

Depth mld (m) 24.8 24.7 24.7

No. Cargo Holds 9 9 9

Service Speed (kn) 15 15.4 15.3

GRT N/A 93,200 91,600




9. OFFSHORE TRANSHIPMENT OPERATION

As anticipated, transportation options under evaluation for this project include the option of offshore transhipment, with coal transported by large vessels from sources to a site with suitable water depth where it is transferred to dedicated barges for transportation

to the shore jetty located at the project receiving site. Thanks to intermediate transhipment operations, it is possible to import in larger vessels size (Panamax and

Capesize) and sources can be consequently diversified.

9.1. PFT: CONSIDERATIONS ABOUT BUFFER STORAGE

The opportunity to provide buffer storage depends on its value as an effective device to minimize OGVs’ detention time and barging fleet, making the overall supply chain

more efficient.

Its size and design depend on a number of factors, such as the quantity and qualities

of material to be handled, necessity for segregation, annual throughput, distance from shore terminal facility to the offshore TS, feeders receptive capability, congestion along the feeders’ route, tide, size of the vessels involved, environmental impact, etc.

The buffer storage works smoothing out the discontinuities in the supply chain, in the following ways:

In case of feeders being not ready for receiving coal (either unavailable at site or busy while mooring/unmooring), OGV discharge can continue by temporarily storing the coal in the buffer.

When OGV is not at site, but feeders are available, the coal is transferred by

the cargo handling system from FTS storage into feeders (barge) holds, hence the feeder operation will continue even while waiting the next OGV.

More specifically, the main goal of the buffer storage is to effectively reduce OGV

detention time (demurrage) and allow for a reduction in the barging fleet.

Other considerations that may lead to the requirement of buffer storage are as follows:

Reduced storage capacity at destination, requiring additional storage to be provided in the supply chain;

Requirement for cargo blending, as a duly designed terminal with buffer storage may be used for coal blending purpose as well.

On the contrary, costs associated with a terminal provided with buffer storage are higher, as follows:

Higher CAPEX during construction/conversion,

Higher number of crew members, particularly in the case of a converted vessel floating terminal as they have to be qualified as working on a vessel instead of

barge or pontoon, in addition to the cargo handling facility operators,

Higher operative costs related to the tonnes handled, as cargo temporarily stored in the holds is handled twice.




In order to optimize the size of the buffer storage on board the FTS, its effectiveness on the coal supply chain should to be duly evaluated using a dynamic simulation, which would allow a deep analysis of the interconnection between the different links of

the supply chain. The main aim of evaluation through dynamic simulation is to make a proper assessment of the risks (higher capital and operative costs associated to large

buffer storage) and the cost saving opportunities which may arise from its utilization.

9.2. FLOATING TRANSHIPMENT OPERATIONS

The need for floating transfer operations started at the end of the Second World War

as a lot of berths and equipment in Europe had been destroyed and the demand for import was very high. The concept of floating cranes operating midstream was a ready solution and this initiated impetus to use and improve transhipping systems.

From its first applications, floating terminal technology has developed and there is wealth of knowledge from many examples of floating terminals in operation for dry- bulk, oil

and gas all over the world and the trend toward the utilization of this alternative is growing. There are a number of cases where dry bulk commodities are moved solely thanks to the introduction of floating terminals.

This solution is mainly selected as it offers economic gains, by way of achieving substantial savings in the dry-bulk sea borne trade without incurring prohibitive investment costs and environmental impact associated with the building of deep water

shore based infrastructures.

Floating facilities can broadly be classified into three different types: floating cranes with single or twin cranes mounted on pontoons; small floating terminals, with cranes mounted on pontoons working with a combination of cargo handling system

comprising of hoppers, conveyor belts and ship loaders; and larger floating terminals, either large floating devices with buffer storage or converted second-hand bulk

carriers. Furthermore, in order to better suit the different requirements of the demanding supply chain field (not only in terms of annual throughput and cargo handling system rates, but also environmental and safety commitment, cost saving, etc.), customized

solutions may be proposed.

At the last count, Logmarin identified 370 units operating all over the world (mainly concentrated in Indonesia), as described in the following chart:




As far as the maximum throughput that the system can handle, there is actually no limit, because the “modular” system can be upgraded in accordance with the increase of the coal demand.

In this report, grab cranes floating terminal solutions are presented, as they are usually characterized by higher performances in offshore operation compared to other

cargo handling equipment based alternatives. Such a consideration is confirmed also by the large majority of grab crane based FT over the world, as represented in the following chart:

9.3. COMMON ISSUES INHERENT TO TRANSHIPMENT OPERATIONS

The behaviour of the transshipper facility at sea has to be duly considered at

design stage in order to adopt some movement-damping devices and to

design the cargo handling facility with a suitable dynamic factor to bear such

stress and fatigue. This brings about a fundamental difference in the designing and selection of the cargo handling

facilities, which have to be designed specifically for “heavy-duty operation in

open sea”.

Experience in design and running similar

facilities off-shore is of paramount importance to ensure the constant efficiency, environmental friendliness and reliability of operations.

To ensure the performance standards which are required to guarantee to import the coal

smoothly, efficiently and safely, the operator must perform suitable maintenance of the equipment in order to avoid any major breakdown of the system. Moreover, both

good quality equipment and experienced personnel are a must for the required standard of performance and reliability.




9.4. EVALUATED TRANSHIPMENT SOLUTIONS AND FLEET

The next sections describe the floating units included in this report.

9.4.1. Barges

Barges are widely used around the world to transport dry bulk cargo, mostly iron ore and coal.

The vast majority of the about 400 million t coal produced in Indonesia (420 million ton in 2014) is transported by barges and a remarkable amount of iron ore, bauxite,

agri-bulk, coal is also transported by barges in India, China, Northern Europe, Americas, Russia, etc. through Mississippi, Danube, Rio Amazon, and many other navigable rivers throughout the world. Dry bulk sea-going barges’ size generally ranges between

2,500 and 15,000 DWT reaching also higher values in some cases.

Barges can be classified depending on:

Propulsion means, as they can be towed (as the case of standard Indonesian

barges), pushed or self-propelled (as in the case of the Indian standard market).

Deck shape, as they can be:

o “Flat top” (as the case of standard Indonesian barges), where, as shown by the pictures below, cargo is loaded on deck forming high piles contained by bulkheads, or

o “Hopper type”, where cargo is contained within the barge’s sides, as shown by the picture below.




The main advantages of hopper type barges are reduced environmental impact (both visual and in terms of dust production), reduced air draft (which may be an issue in case of bridges to be sailed underneath along the route) and increased

manoeuvrability (as the area exposed to wind is smaller). To further minimize the environmental impact, hopper type barges can be provided with closed holds.

9.4.1.1. Standard barges

Although the standard open top barges are widely used especially in Indonesian coal

trade (reason why they are often referred to as “Indonesian standard barges”), they were not initially designed for the transport of this commodity, but have been instead adapted from the oil industry.

Way back, such barges were used to transport pipes for the oil industry and this is the

reason why their length varies from 270 ft to 300 ft and 330 ft. Later on, when the coal industry in Indonesia started taking shape, these barges were adapted by simply

adding side walls for bulk cargo containment. Nowadays Indonesian standard barges are commonly used for coal transportation, both internally and to relatively close




locations such as the Philippines, Vietnam, Thailand, etc., especially during high shipping market freight.

In the following table Indonesia standard barges’ main dimensions are reported:

Cargo Capacity 8,000 DWT 10,000 DWT 12,000 DWT

LOA (m) 100.0 100.6 110.0

Beam (m) 25.6 27.5 28.0

Loaded Draft (m) 4.9 5.1 5.5

During navigation the constant presence of a tugboat to tow the barge is required all the way from the loading port to the receiving terminal, at which locations the barge is assisted by another smaller tug boat for mooring and unmooring maneuvers.

9.4.1.2. Self-propelled barges

Self-propelled barges can be considered as shallow water vessels, requiring different skills and operational management compared to towed or pushed barges. The size of

standard self–propelled barges ranges from 2,500 to 13,000 DWT.

Main advantages, compared to standard towed barges, can be reassumed in the following bullet point list:

Shorter turning diameter,

Better maneuvering capabilities,

Larger cargo capacity with same operational capabilities in river bends,

Less sensitive to weather conditions (particularly with reference to sea state),

Higher speed/fuel efficiency ratio.

The negative issues inherent to the self-propelled barge type are represented by the

much higher capital cost required (mainly associated to the machinery and propulsion equipment, accommodation, etc.) and the higher operative cost (crew is formed by about 16 members and final number depends on the Flag Administration.

9.4.1.3.

china power hub generation company - nepra | home...china power hub generation company pvt. ltd...

Documents