Date post: | 06-Apr-2017 |
Category: |
Business |
Upload: | tristan-wiggill |
View: | 133 times |
Download: | 0 times |
Container Port Forecasts
Decision making factors for volumes and types
Agenda
• Introduction and Background
• What is the focus for Today
• Discussion: Currently modelled factors
• Discussion: To be modelled factors
• Other Themes
• Closure
Trade flows of containers in 2012
19 (23) 17 (18)
•Thousand containers •Values: 2012 (2011)
North America
South America
Africa
Europe
Middle East
Asia
Australia
Source: FDM 2013, GAIN
Total exports of 964 508 TEUs in 2012 Total imports of 1 390 676 TEUs in 2012
Trade flows of containers in 2013
18 (19) 23 (17)
•Thousand containers •Values: 2013 (2012)
North America
South America
Africa
Europe
Middle East
Asia
Australia
Total exports of 1 085 851 TEUs in 2013 Total imports of 1 495 698 TEUs in 2013
Source: FDM 2014, GAIN
Trade flows of containers in 2014
14 (18) 18 (23)
•Thousand containers •Values: 2014 (2013)
North America
South America
Africa
Europe
Middle East
Asia
Australia
Total exports of 1 075 389 TEUs in 2014 Total imports of 1 374 748 TEUs in 2014
Source: FDM 2015, GAIN
Trade flows of containers in 2014
(Percentage change for the year)
•Percentage change between 2013 and 2014
North America
South America
Africa
Europe
Middle East
Asia
Australia
Total exports of 1 075 389 TEUs in 2014 Total imports of 1 374 748 TEUs in 2014
-23% -22%
Source: FDM 2015, GAIN
Asia is the predominant region
for both imports and exports
7
8%
46%
1%
28%
9%
6%
2%
Export TEUs
Africa
Asia
Australia & Oceania
Europe
Middle East
North America
South America
2%
58%
1%
27%
3% 5%
4%
Import TEUs
Source: FDM 2015, GAIN
Imports and Exports of TEUs to and from global regions (2008-2014)
-
100 000
200 000
300 000
400 000
500 000
600 000
Asia Europe Africa Middle East NorthAmerica
Australia &Oceania
SouthAmerica
# o
f TE
Us
Exports To
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
-
100 000
200 000
300 000
400 000
500 000
600 000
700 000
800 000
900 000
Asia Europe NorthAmerica
SouthAmerica
Middle East Australia &Oceania
Africa
# o
f TE
Us
Imports From
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
Source: FDM 2015, GAIN
Exports
-
20 000
40 000
60 000
80 000
100 000
120 000
140 000
Breakdown of Manufactured Goods in containers
-
50 000
100 000
150 000
200 000
250 000
300 000
350 000
400 000
TEU
's
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
Source: FDM 2015, GAIN
-
200 000
400 000
600 000
800 000
1 000 000
1 200 000
TEU
's
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
Imports
-
100 000
200 000
300 000
400 000
500 000
600 000
Breakdown of Manufactured Goods in containers
Source: FDM 2015, GAIN
Importance on container content knowledge –
Consider Durban Export Growth between 2013 and 2014
Decrease Increase
(20 000) (15 000) (10 000) (5 000) - 5 000 10 000 15 000 20 000 25 000
Chrome
Other Mining
Wood Timber And Products
Other Agriculture
Other Manufacturing Industries
Metal Products, Machinery And Electronic Equipment
Processed Foods
Paper
Citrus
Non-Ferrous Metal Products
*Other commodities
Recycled Paper
Motor Vehicles And Trucks
Iron Ore Exports
Scrap Metals
Copper
Iron & Steel
Manganese Exports
Chemicals
Tobacco Products
Pulp Of Wood And Paper
Growth in TEUs 2013 - 2014
Source: FDM 2015, GAIN
Main changes per commodity for trade route – Asia
12
Export TEUs
Growth in TEUs 2013 - 2014
(15 000) (10 000) (5 000) - 5 000 10 000 15 000 20 000 25 000
Pulp Of Wood And Paper
Citrus
Chemicals
Deciduous Fruit
Manganese Exports
Beverages
Copper
Other Manufacturing Industries
Non-Ferrous Metal Products
Iron & Steel
*Other commodities
Other Non-Ferrous Metal Mining
Soya Beans
Ferrochrome
Scrap Metals
Motor Vehicles And Trucks
Wood Timber And Products
Other Agriculture
Paper
Other Mining
Chrome
Source: FDM 2015, GAIN
Main changes per commodity for trade route – Europe
13
Export TEUs
Growth in TEUs 2013 - 2014
(15 000) (10 000) (5 000) - 5 000 10 000
Tobacco Products
Pulp Of Wood And Paper
Subtropical Fruit
Chemicals
Fish And Seafood
Other Mining
Manganese Exports
Motor Vehicles And Trucks
Chrome
Ferrochrome
*Other commodities
Motor Vehicle Parts & Accessories
Non-Ferrous Metal Products
Wood Timber And Products
Other Manufacturing Industries
Beverages
Citrus
Other Agriculture
Processed Foods
Grapes
Deciduous Fruit
Source: FDM 2015, GAIN
Main changes per commodity for trade route – Asia
14
Import TEUs
Growth in TEUs 2013 - 2014
(10 000) (5 000) - 5 000 10 000 15 000 20 000 25 000 30 000 35 000
Textile Products
Metal Products, Machinery And Electronic Equipment
Chemicals
Iron & Steel
Rice
Processed Foods
Motor Vehicle Parts & Accessories
Paper
Fish And Seafood
Other Manufacturing Industries
*Other commodities
Other Non-Ferrous Metal Mining
Granite
Other Mining
Other Petroleum Products
Salt
Beverages
Bricks
Other Agriculture
Cement
Motor Vehicles And Trucks
Source: FDM 2015, GAIN
Main changes per commodity for trade route – Europe
15
Import TEUs
Growth in TEUs 2013 - 2014
(35 000) (30 000) (25 000) (20 000) (15 000) (10 000) (5 000) - 5 000
Pulp Of Wood And Paper
Non-Ferrous Metal Products
Fish And Seafood
Transport Equipment
Animal Feed
Grapes
Citrus
Deciduous Fruit
Scrap Metals
Stone
*Other commodities
Slaughtered Animal Meat
Pharmaceutical Products
Textile Products
Motor Vehicles And Trucks
Beverages
Paper
Processed Foods
Chemicals
Other Manufacturing Industries
Metal Products, Machinery And Electronic Equipment
Source: FDM 2015, GAIN
Container Forecasting (Ports)
• Driven by economy • Port capacity obligation
Total Container Demand
Imports and Exports
• Driven mainly by strategy • Business option
Transshipments
Growth in Commodities (Imports & Exports)
Likelihood of containerisation
Container density
FDM Forecast
Propensity Forecast
Density Trends Forecast
Competition & Capacity Growth Factors
3
2
1
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
120%
Ferr
och
rom
e
Iro
n &
ste
el b
asic
ind
ust
ries
Ferr
om
anga
nes
e
Wo
od
& w
oo
d p
rod
uct
s
Ind
ust
rial
ch
emic
als
Foo
d &
fo
od
pro
cess
ing
Oth
er c
hem
ical
s
Cit
rus
Mac
hin
ery
& e
qu
ipm
ent
Veg
etab
les
Tran
spo
rt e
qu
ipm
ent
Pap
er &
pap
er p
rod
uct
s
Dec
idu
ou
s fr
uit
Oth
er m
anu
fact
uri
ng
ind
ust
ries
No
n-m
etal
lic m
iner
al p
rod
uct
s
Mo
tor
veh
icle
par
ts &
acc
esso
ries
Ru
bb
er p
rod
uct
s
Met
al p
rod
uct
s ex
cl. m
ach
iner
y
Elec
tric
al m
ach
iner
y
Bri
cks
Furn
itu
re
Text
iles
& c
loth
ing
Tob
acco
pro
du
cts
Ph
arm
aceu
tica
ls &
to
iletr
ies
Co
tto
n
Pri
nti
ng
& p
ub
lish
ing
Dai
ry
Live
sto
ck (
slau
ghte
red
)
Sub
tro
pic
al f
ruit
Vit
icu
ltu
re
2009 2040
Container Penetration Factor (the Ceiling is 100%)
These commodities are 100% containerised – No more so called
multiplier
Historic container growth rate faster than GDP
Future container growth rate faster than GDP
Source: FDM 2013, GAIN
Extrapolated container forecasts versus
commodity-based forecast
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
12000
1979
1984
1989
1994
1999
2004
2009
2014
2019
2024
2029
2034
2039
Ind
ex 1
97
9=
10
0
TEU History Extrapolated (10 yrs history)
Extrapolated (20 yrs history) Extrapolated (30 yrs history)
GDP Index Commodity-based forecast
Source: FDM 2013, GAIN
100% containerised growth shows
container limits
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
12000
1979
1984
1989
1994
1999
2004
2009
2014
2019
2024
2029
2034
2039
Ind
ex 1
97
9=
10
0
TEU History Extrapolated (10 yrs history)
Extrapolated (20 yrs history) Extrapolated (30 yrs history)
GDP Index Commodity-based forecast
100% containerised
Source: FDM 2013, GAIN
Average weights of containers
have been seen to decrease
6.50
7.00
7.50
8.00
8.50
9.00
19
90
19
91
19
92
19
93
19
94
19
95
19
96
19
97
19
98
19
99
20
00
20
01
20
02
20
03
20
04
20
05
20
06
20
07
20
08
20
09
20
10
Average weight per TEU for Rotterdam
10.0
10.1
10.2
10.3
10.4
10.5
10.6
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
Average weight per TEU for Singapore
Containers weights have been monitored
for South Africa since 2008
14.9 14.2
15.5 15.8 15.9 15.7
14.1
10.6 9.8 10.0 9.9
9.2 9.8
8.8
0.0
2.0
4.0
6.0
8.0
10.0
12.0
14.0
16.0
18.0
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
Average weight per TEU for South Africa
Exports
Imports
Source: FDM 2015, GAIN
Flow results for South Africa:
Now
Source: FDM 2015, GAIN
Flow results for South Africa:
30 years from now
Source: FDM 2015, GAIN
Flow results for sugar cane
*not scaled to total
Source: FDM 2015, GAIN
Flow results for processed foods
*not scaled to total
Source: FDM 2015, GAIN
Flow results for grain
*not scaled to total
Source: FDM 2015, GAIN
Flow results for South Africa:
30 years from now
Source: FDM 2015, GAIN
Agenda
• Introduction and Background
• What is the focus for Today
• Discussion: Currently modelled factors
• Discussion: To be modelled factors
• Other Themes
• Closure
The question for Today’s Discussion
• Quay wall
– Including: Full Containers, Empties and Transhipments
– Quay wall decisions:
• Which Port?
• Weight per TEU
• Physical type of container
• Flow into hinterland
– Decisions you make to route your freight?
• Packing/Unpacking containers
• Modal choice
• Domestic Containers
– Similar as above or not?
Agenda
• Introduction and Background
• What is the focus for Today
• Discussion: Currently modelled factors
• Discussion: To be modelled factors
• Other Themes
• Closure
Currently modelled factors • Which Port?
– Nature of the commodity
– Final destination of freight
– Facility’s distance from ports
– Shipping line calling at ports
– Linkages to dry ports
Open Discussion
• BMW use Cape Town since it is less congested • Use rail because it is cheaper and • Rail can provide volume of multiple containers
• Dedicated MSC depot for BMW in Rosslyn • Smaller business do not have same dynamics • Smaller business can use for empty containers only
• Pretcon (Bidfreigth) • 4 days to city deep • 5 days to Pretcon
Currently modelled factors • Weight per TEU
– Reasons for past trends
– Future trends
– Impact on modes of transport
Open Discussion
2046?
• Automotive: • 54 m3 for FEU • 28 m3 for TEU
• Baby products: • FEU high cube 90 m3 = 4.25 tons (extremely light)
• Other participants:
• Drive to pack in more per TEU, • % increase not quantified, • However, savings opportunities diminishing
Currently modelled factors • Pick up %
– Reasons for past trends
– Future trends
– Ceiling per commodity
– Consistency vs variability?
Open Discussion
Source: Drewry
• Benefits of containers understood and used for high value products, to reduce handling
• Imported chemicals (imported in drums, unpacked)
Agenda
• Introduction and Background
• What is the focus for Today
• Discussion: Currently modelled factors
• Discussion: To be modelled factors
• Other Themes
• Closure
To Be modelled Factors • Physical Typology
– Sizes
• 20 foot
• 40 foot
• 20 foot reefer
• 40 foot reefer
• High cube,
• Tanktainer,
• Open top/side, Irregular size
35%
24%
17%
7%
0% 8%
2%
5%
2%
Imports
TEU
FEU
High cube
Open top/side
Irregular sized
Tanktainer
Flexitank
Reefer (TEU)
Reefer (FEU)
37%
22%
11%
5% 1%
8%
3% 5% 8%
Exports
TEU
FEU
High cube
Open top/side
Irregular sized
Tanktainer
Flexitank
Reefer (TEU)
Reefer (FEU)
Source: Project Survey Source: Project Survey
To Be modelled Factors • Physical Typology
– Decision factors:
• Nature of the commodity
• Parcel size
• Shipping Route
• Handling capability at destination/port
• Availability of slots on vessels
• Availability of empty containers
• Price
31%
19%
7%
2%
2%
12%
27%
38%
13%
50%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%
Price
Availability of container stock
Availability of slots on vessels
Handling capability at port
Shipping route
Parcel size
Nature of the commodity
What drives the choice between TEU vs. FEU
Domestic
International
Source: Project Survey
Open Discussion
• Automotive parts export • Volumes determines size:
• FEU: 53-54 m3, TEU: 28 m3 • 20ft used more where:
• Smaller orders due to low volumes/affordability • Some destinations cannot accept FEU • Denser commodities due to weight restrictions
• Some receive discounts for using FEU to assist with repositioning of empties
• FEU High Cube: bigger volumes requested • Groupage in containers sometimes for very low volumes • Open top Skiptainers:
• domestic mineral movements (Rail) • Chrome and manganese
To Be modelled Factors • Unpack/pack (hinterland)
– Location: • At or near the Port
• Distribution Centre
• Warehouse
• Factory
Open Discussion
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%
Within the port of entry/exit
Near to the port of entry/exit at awarehouse/hub
At a central distribution facility placedcloser to the consumer market
Near to the site the goods aremanufactured at a warehouse/hub
On-site (your own factory/premises)
Domestic
Exports
Imports
Source: Project Survey
Where do you unpack/pack your containers?
To Be modelled Factors • Unpack/pack (hinterland)
– Why at this location: • Nature of the commodity
• Weight or Size of the container not suitable for mode
• Redistribution to multiple receivers
• Other
Open Discussion
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45%
Other
Weight or Size of container not suitable for specificmode (i.e. too heavy or too long)
Nature of the commodity (i.e. time or environmentsensitive)
Redistribution of parcel to multiple receivers
We do not have a say in this as the logistics serviceprovider manages this process/customer…
Reason for packing/unpacking location
Domestic
Exports
Imports
Source: Project Survey
• Most pack at own facilities • Valuable items, Managing risk of theft /damage
• LSP (Depend on range of services requested): • At LSP warehouse:
• Often use whole network of services offered • At coast, transport by road,
• Others at client factory/warehouse • BMW only unpack at their facilities:
• Weight of goods, quality, high value • Air freight for very high valuable components
To Be modelled Factors • Modal choice
– Drivers of modal choice:
Comments
5.5
5.4
5.0
3.3
3.2
3.1
2.5
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0
Security/damage to freight
Ease of use
Accessibility
Reliability
Availability of infrastructure on required routes
Time
Price
Ranking for what drives modal choice (1=priority)
Source: Project Survey
To Be modelled Factors • Modal choice
– What would facilitate a modal shift towards rail
Comment
12%
28%
0%
4%
56%
Change predominant modal choice in the future
Yes, moving more to road
Yes, moving more to rail
Yes, moving more tocoastwise shipment
Yes, moving more to air
No
35%
19%
18%
16%
12%
Move to rail depends on…
Better rail service reliability
Lower price
Container hubs/dry portsconnected to rail routes
More rail routes and branch lines
Modal interfaces that allow forroad and rail
Source: Project Survey Source: Project Survey
• Perception by some that rail is unreliable and slow • Bidfreight intermodal reckons perceptions are wrong:
• Lead time is acceptable • Lead time is worth the cost saved • Volumes:
• Export 1000 TEUs per month • Import 2500 TEUs per month
• What drives your modal choice? 1. Lead time (understandably from inland workshop) 2. Price (Cheaper and higher volume) 3. Reliability (predictability) 4. Accessibility (proximity to terminals/depots)
• Agents and FF prefer Road due to ability to close off files quicker and receiving payment quicker
• Lead time: • Durban road (1-1.5 days) • Durban rail (3 days) • Cape Town rail (3-5 days) • Cape Town road (2 days)
• BMW uses air freight for high-value, urgent shipments
Interactions?
• Which Port?
• Weight per TEU
• Physical type of container
• Packing/Unpacking containers
• Modal choice
Open Discussion
Domestic: • Speed key criteria • Some products: volume/market demand is very low • Sugar in domestic containers on rail • LSP:
• Valuable goods moved in hard body/curtain side • Quicker to load and offload • Trend towards curtain side from hard body (ease)
• Open top Skip tainers: • domestic mineral movements (Rail) • Chrome and manganese
• Containers to reduce double handling of goods • Liquidation of Freight Dynamics discontinued rail service
Agenda example
• Introduction and Background
• What is the focus for Today
• Discussion: Currently modelled factors
• Discussion: To be modelled factors
• Other Themes
• Closure
Other Themes • Coastal shipment
– Shipping line routes
– Cost of port handling
– Port and back of port congestion
Open Discussion
12%
28%
0% 4%
56%
Change predominant modal choice in the future
Yes, moving more toroad
Yes, moving more torail
Yes, moving more tocoastwise shipment
Yes, moving more toair
No
• Road to Moz, Zim, Zam • Other Countries via direct sea, no transhipment • Some transhipments via Singapore create lead time issues
Other Themes • Empties
– Imbalance of trade (Seasonality, etc.)
– Source of Empties • Rent from shipping lines
• Unpacking full
• Buy/rent from container manufacturing/storage facility
Open Discussion
Source: Drewry Source: Drewry
Percentage of Full International volumes
• Shipping line containers • Majority of attendants use them only • Do not allow triangulation (Check container state) • Get from depot, return to depot • If not available has to collect at further depot
• Smaller businesses can take import empties to inland depots, full imports not via rail and inland depots
• If imported through Durban: • Demurrage fee R4000-4500 • Depend on SC cost if worthwhile to offset risk of
unpacking at port • LSP:
• Empty containers moving back to Durban • Not ideal, but not allowed to triangulate
Other Themes • Transhipment
– Increased freight movements south of the equator
– Required route not available
– Increasing vessel size
– Price
– Piracy
Open Discussion
Source: McKinsey Global Institute: Global flows in a digital age
• No control over transhipment decision • Some transhipments via Singapore create lead time issues
Agenda
• Introduction and Background
• What is the focus for Today
• Discussion: Currently modelled factors
• Discussion: To be modelled factors
• Other Themes
• Closure
Closure
• Feedback on outcomes will be provided
• Chance to comment
• Contact us please: [email protected]