South Asia Gateway Terminals (Pvt) Ltd, better known as SAGT, is located in the port of Colombo at the renowned and historic Queen Elizabeth Quay. Last year the terminal handled a record container throughput of 1.96 million TEU.

The port’s natural geographic location is strategically positioned on the main East-West shipping route, linking the Far East with Africa, Europe, and the East Coast of the US, providing ideal connections to the trade in the Indian sub-continent. This makes the Port of Colombo a superb strategic hub. As part of SAGT’s constant striving to improve its health, safety and environmental management systems, the company looked at methods for reducing fuel usage within the port and focused on crane diesel usage. In April 2012, with the assistance of Control Techniques India, SAGT ran a pilot project to evaluate the fuel saving potential of Emerson Control Techniques RIS.GA system.

The results surpassed expectations and an order was immediately placed for RIS.GA systems to be installed on all its Rubber Tyred Gantry Cranes (RTGs) and Mobile Harbour Cranes (MHCs) – 28 systems in total.

With the installation of the 28 RIS.GA systems on the RTGs and MHCs, SAGT is not only seeing significant savings of diesel fuel it also benefits from a rapid return on investment (ROI) of under two years at today’s fuel prices.

With the compact fuel saving system installed on its cranes, SAGT is able to reduce the idle engine speed by up to 40% and achieves a direct fuel saving without any interruption during changeover from operations mode to idle mode. During idle time the system supplies the cranes auxiliary devices. As a result, SAGT has reduced the total fuel consumption by 22% with minimum modification to the present systems. The resulting ROI is less than two years.

As well as reducing fuel costs, the compact fuel saving system has effectively boosted crane productivity too. The number of fuel stoppages are fewer and the wear and stress on the diesel engine, generator and auxiliaries are also reduced. This results in cutting maintenance downtime and costs, and is expected to extend plant life. And, of course, since emissions are cut, the environmental impact is also reduced.

The RIS.GA system is very compact and was supplied fully wired and assembled, ready to install. As it is a static electronic system, it requires little or no maintenance.

The compact fuel saving system has been applied successfully on rubber tyre gantry and mobile harbour cranes throughout the world and is saving fuel on cranes manufactured by ZPMC, Kalmar, MGM-OMG, Doosan and Fantuzzi Reggiane. In many cases, savings can be as much as 50% with ROI as short as one to two years, depending on local oil costs, with proven reduced wear and stress extending the working life of the diesel engine, generator and electrical auxiliaries.

The resolution from the International Association of Ports and Harbors on the safety of maritime containers and their recommendation to the IMO is to be welcomed. There is a fundamental need for the stricter control over the packing of cargo within containers, how they are stowed on-board ships and their declared weights.

The issue of loading too much cargo into containers has been highlighted internationally during the last decade. In 2007, the investigation following the beaching of the MSC Napoli showed that for 20% of the vessel’s deck cargo, there was a difference of more than three tonnes between the actual weight of the container and the declared weight.

It is clear that the responsibility for declaring the containers weight correctly lies with the shipper, a fact that is already recognised in the International Maritime Organization’s (IMO) Safety of Life at Sea Convention (SOLAS), and there is current debate concerning whether the existing regulations can be further strengthened or clarified by the IMO’s Maritime Safety Committee. Further, the shipper’s responsibility is reinforced in international carriage law.

Shippers may say that it is a challenge to make sure that containers are accurately weighed, but in many cases it is relatively simple. From a logical perspective it should be easy to calculate what the weight of the cargo in a container is if the cargo is uniform – the weight of one item multiplied by the number loaded on a pallet, adding in the weight for the number of pallets used, dunnage and the container itself.

That this process has not become the norm is due to 40-plus years of tolerance of weights being estimated or inaccurate. Quite simply, people have allowed it to continue because, unfortunately, no one stakeholder has faced sufficient pain as a consequence of the mis-declaration of container weights or indeed, until recently focused analysis on the issue. There is now general agreement concerning the need for change.  The incidence rate of accidents caused by badly stowed or mis-declared containers continues and the industry is taking action.

Container weighing options

Accurate container weights can help guide critical plans regarding stowage, and verifiable load data also serves to ensure worker safety. Lifting containers within an acceptable weight range also prevents accelerated stress on the spreader, thus extending equipment life.  But the options to check the weight of the container for the terminal operator is limited as weighing will stop the flow of containers within the terminal. It is at this point where spreader manufacturers step in. Over the years they have come up with some innovative products ‘hidden’ in the twist-locks of the spreaders to measure the weight of the container without interrupting the handling procedure of the container, thus making sure that productivity is not being affected.

RAM Spreaders

RAM’s engineers have considerable experience as initial design work was first carried out during 1988/89 following on with a prototype system fitted to a prototype RAM Intelligent Spreader. Considerable experience was gained from the test program of the RAM twist-lock load system but at that time there was no market demand. Today the situation has changed. Apart from RAM’s own original design there are also several proprietary systems available. RAM is able to fit any of these systems to its range of spreaders. While the industry is interested in the weight of the container, there is also the benefit that the systems can also provide the loadings applied to each twist-lock. RAM’s spreader operating system can collect the data and provide the terminal with accurate data on individual twist-lock performance. This information, coupled with regular visual and NDT checks can potentially mean that the life of twist-locks can be extended. During servicing of a spreader, twist-locks are often removed for examination or maintenance. Since it does not follow that they will be refitted into the same position on the spreader or may even be fitted to a different spreader, a system that can enable easy traceability is also an advantage. Ideally, the twist-locks should have a simple system, not requiring manual intervention where the spreader can identify electronically the individual twist-locks so when data is recorded it can be logged for subsequent updating of total life records. The life of twist-locks can then be tracked and recorded in whichever spreader they are fitted. Over the last 10 years RAM Spreaders has endeavoured to bring new and innovative products to the market whilst broadening its product range from just spreaders to other equipment that can bring major benefits to the terminal operator.

Bromma

Sweden-based Bromma is offering a similar system to that of the French company Lasstec whereby the container weight verification is done from the spreader twist-locks. For container terminals, a spreader-based weighing approach has several key advantages.  First, weighing from the spreader twist-locks yields much more accurate information, as container weight precision is greater than 99%. Second, unlike weigh bridges or crane-based container weighing, spreaders weigh each container separately when operating in twin-lift mode.  In addition, with a spreader-based approach you weigh containers from the spreader twist-locks without adding any extra operational steps or requiring any extra space or transit lanes. Terminals simply log container weights in the normal course of lifting operations – with a warning system alerting the terminal to overloaded and eccentric containers. Container weight verification during the normal course of terminal operations is a way to accomplish the weighing mission without impairing terminal productivity, and especially at busy trans-shipment terminals. Bromma offers a special technical advantage in its mounting of spreader-based container weight verification technology by mounting the load cell externally, locked with easy access to the spreader twist-locks. This means load sensors may be exchanged independently of the twist-locks. The result of this design advantage is that new load sensors are not needed when twist-locks are periodically replaced. According to Bromma collecting weight data as part of the regular lifting cycle, with no disruption to terminal work flow, will enable ports to stow containers appropriately, prevent worker injuries, and extend equipment life cycles. That is why container weight verification from the spreader twist-locks is becoming so popular.

Strainstall

The latest company that has introduced a new container weighing system for docking cranes is UK-based Strainstall. Although the company is not a spreader manufacturer it has utilised their 45 years of experience in providing industry leading measurement solutions to develop their own container weighing system.

The system is designed for low impact installation and enables operators to view live loadings via an in-cab display or log/transmit data for analysis at a later stage. Various integration options are available, including modification of spreader twist-locks and replacing existing load bearing pins or components with load measuring pins within the existing spreader head block assembly. “This new system means port operators can significantly improve both safety and productivity by allowing crane operators to know exactly what weights they are lifting, enabling vessels to be correctly loaded and by ensuring all containers are charged according to actual weight,” said Scott Cruttenden, Business Development Manager – Industrial Sector.

The system has numerous benefits including simple non-intrusive integration, high accuracy and reliability, optional telemetry versions, numerous output options, view live or store historic data and can be retrofitted.

Conclusion

The port is an ideal place to carry out weight checks, at the in-gate for example or where the container is lifted off the truck or rail chassis. There is a
far lower risk in relation to containers arriving by sea at a port, where the weighing point would logically be the lift-off the ship-to-shore gantry crane. Nevertheless, once a container is packed and sealed at some inland place it is unlikely to be opened until destination. Thus, while the best place to verify weight clearly is at the outset of the movement, the marine terminal stands at a key nodal check-point in the supply chain. A weight-checking regime of this sort raises three questions in particular: firstly, what is the port supposed to do with a container where the weight differs from what is declared or that is eccentrically packed? And secondly, do governmental enforcement agencies have sufficient resources to follow through new legislation and establish such checks, assuming there is an agreement at the IMO level on the issue?  Thirdly, and perhaps the most important one, who is going to pay for it all?

By 2030 the cargo turnover of Russian ports will increase by nearly 84% and reach 1 billion metric tonnes, while their capacity amounts to 1.4 billion metric tonnes, compared to the current 800 million tonnes, according to the “Strategy for the Development of the Russian Sea Port Infrastructure until 2030”, which was recently approved by the Russian government. According to state plans, the implementation of the strategy will help to address the four main challenges facing the Russian ports which comprise: an increase of port capacities, ensuring of safe operation of ports’ infrastructure, increasing competitiveness of domestic ports in the global market, as well as the improving of their management by the state.

The collapse of the Soviet Union resulted in a significant decline in the volume of cargo trans-shipment at Russian ports and reduced their overal effectiveness, however, since 2000, the situation has started to improve. In 1992, up to 50.7% of Russian cargo was shipped through ports of neighbouring countries, but by 2011 cargo traffic through Russian ports has increased two-fold.

Today, the share of ports of neighbouring countries is estimated at not more than 21% of the entire Russian cargo volume. However it’s only the beginning, and, in accordance with state plans, by 2030 up to 90% of cargo volumes of Russia will be passed through national ports. In addition, 15% reserve capacity will be ready in case of peak traffic or force majeure. According to the Strategy, there are plans to develop cargo flows, by paying particular attention to the development of ports, which account for the majority of export and import cargo traffic and transit.

Currently, the bulk of cargo trans-shipment at the 64 Russian seaports comes from the ports of the Baltic and the Azov-Black Sea region, with 35% and 32% respectively of the total volume of trans-shipment in 2011. At the same time the Far Eastern Russian ports account for 23%, while the ports in the Arctic Basin and Caspian ports contribute respectively 8% and 2% to the total volume.

Port Development

Among the key Russian ports are the northern ports of St Petersburg and St Petersburg region, the Far Eastern ports (Vladivostok, Nakhodka), as well as the southern ports (Novorossiysk, Taman). Most of Russian ports specialise in the trans-shipment of exporting raw goods cargo, including crude oil, petroleum products, liquefied natural gas, coal, timber, etc. According to analysts of the Russian Ministry of Transport, the development of national ports is an objective necessity, given that due to the collapse of the Soviet Union, Russia has lost its key ports in Ukraine and the Baltic States. In the case of the latter, in recent years Baltic ports have been able to offer real competition to Russian ports in the region. Despite a significant increase in terms of delivery and longer distance, the ports in Finland, Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia,  sometimes look economically more attractive for international cargo carriers than their Russian rivals. This could be explained by certain problems which remain typical for Russian ports and for which solutions are planned by the government in their national strategy.

Alexander Davydenko, head of the Federal Agency of Sea and River Transport commented: “Among the main weaknesseses of Russian sea ports are their climatic and geographical location and in particular their low depth. The majority of Russian ports were built in the 1960’s-70’s and do not meet modern requirements in terms of the depth at the berths and harbours. Another problem is outdated infrastructure. The latter resulted in the fact that many modern large-capacity ships are not able to enter Russian ports.” The new strategy also involves that the ports of the Baltic and the Black Sea regions will become the main centres of cargo trans-shipment for Russia. It is planned that their turnover will grow by 69% to 313 million tonnes, and by 74% to 301 million tonnes respectively. The majority of transferred cargo is expected to account for hydrocarbons and fertilizers.

The Baltic ports will also be developed, while, according to the state, their current growth rates remains low. Russian analysts believe that the domestic Baltics ports and especially the big port of St Petersburg and a new port at Ust-Luga are strategically better positioned than their Finnish and Baltic competitors. However, lack of capacity and poor transport infrastructure did not allow to unlock their potential, while high risks deter potential investors. However there is a possibility that much can change in the near future, thanks to planned implementation of certain investment projects, which will help to significantly increase the capacities of Russian Baltics ports. For example, a large complex for the trans-shipment of  crude oil and petroleum products will soon be launched in the port of Ust-Luga. The new complex will be operated by the Neva Pipeline Company and will have the capacity of 30 million tonnes.

In addition to the Neva complex, two terminals for the trans-shipment of LNG will also be commissioned in Ust-Luga in the near future. The new terminals will be operated by Russian oil and gas producer Novatek, as well as petrochemical giant Sibur and will have the capacity of 6 million and 4 million tonnes respectively.

In addition, another potential investor, Russian NCSP Group, one of Europe’s largest  stevedore and port services providers, is planning to build a terminal for the trans-shipment of fertilizers in the Primorsk port, Russia’s largest oil port on the Baltic Sea. At the same time in the case of Black Sea and Azov ports, it is planned that their turnover will be increased through the rise of grain trans-shipment. As part of these plans, a new grain terminal  with the capacity of 14 million tonnes will be built in Taman, Russia’s third largest port. The strategy involves that the volume of cargo trans-shipment through the Far Eastern ports will be increased by 87% to 234 million tonnes, which will be mainly due to the planned construction of new coal terminals.

At the same time, the turnover of Arctic ports will be increased by 2.8 times up to 113 million tonnes (mainly due to the planned launch of the Novatek LNG terminal in the Yamal Peninnsula with a capacity of 15 million tonnes). Finally, the cargo turnover of the Caspian ports is expected to grow by 2.2 times to 24 million tonnes. In addition to establishing new capacities, the strategy also involves simultaneous construction of all the necessary port infrastructure and in particular railroads and pipeline networks. There are also plans for the reconstruction of the approach channels and icebreaker support.

Victor Olersky, Deputy Minister of Transport of Russia and one of the main developers of the strategy, comments: “In order to improve the competitiveness and attractiveness of the Russian ports in  the international arena, there is a need to synchronise port infrastructure with rail, waterway, and road transport. It is also very important to attract extra-budgetary funds for investment projects. The ratio of state and private investments for the funding of the strategy by 2015 will be 1:2, while by 2030 it should be 1:3.”

Total volume of investments in the implementation of the strategy is estimated at 430 billion rubles (USD14 billion), of which 300 billion rubles (USD10 billion) will be private investments. In the case of private investment, one of the ways of their attraction will be allowing stevedoring companies to enter into concession agreements with the government on the construction of port facilities with the aim of their further lease. Currently, stevedore companies have an opportunity to enter only in investment agreements. The new mechanism will enable the state to attract private capital in the establishment of port infrastructure as compensation for their rental payments in the future. Russian analysts believe that this state initiative may associate with significant benefits for national port
s, as private companies are ready to invest in the development of port infrastructure.  According to some Russian media reports, so far, the volume of private investments in the development of the national port infrastructure is already 10 times higher than those invested by the state. Analysts from the Russian Ministry of Transport also believe that the implementation of the strategy will not only allow to significantly increase port capacities and the volume of trans-shipped cargo, but also increase the operation factor of national trans-shipment complexes to a 75-80% level.