Container port forecasts

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


18 (19) 23 (17)


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



14 (18) 18 (23)


North America

South America

Africa

Europe

Middle East

Asia

Australia




(Percentage change for the year)

•Percentage change between 2013 and 2014

North America

South America

Africa

Europe

Middle East

Asia

Australia


-23% -22%


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


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


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


-

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


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


Main changes per commodity for trade route – Asia

12

Export TEUs


(15 000) (10 000) (5 000) - 5 000 10 000 15 000 20 000 25 000


Citrus

Chemicals

Deciduous Fruit

Manganese Exports

Beverages

Copper



Iron & Steel

*Other commodities

Other Non-Ferrous Metal Mining

Soya Beans

Ferrochrome

Scrap Metals



Other Agriculture

Paper

Other Mining

Chrome


Main changes per commodity for trade route – Europe

13

Export TEUs


(15 000) (10 000) (5 000) - 5 000 10 000

Tobacco Products


Subtropical Fruit

Chemicals

Fish And Seafood

Other Mining

Manganese Exports


Chrome

Ferrochrome

*Other commodities

Motor Vehicle Parts & Accessories




Beverages

Citrus

Other Agriculture

Processed Foods

Grapes

Deciduous Fruit


Main changes per commodity for trade route – Asia

14

Import TEUs


(10 000) (5 000) - 5 000 10 000 15 000 20 000 25 000 30 000 35 000

Textile Products


Chemicals

Iron & Steel

Rice

Processed Foods

Motor Vehicle Parts & Accessories

Paper

Fish And Seafood


*Other commodities

Other Non-Ferrous Metal Mining

Granite

Other Mining

Other Petroleum Products

Salt

Beverages

Bricks

Other Agriculture

Cement



Main changes per commodity for trade route – Europe

15

Import TEUs


(35 000) (30 000) (25 000) (20 000) (15 000) (10 000) (5 000) - 5 000



Fish And Seafood

Transport Equipment

Animal Feed

Grapes

Citrus

Deciduous Fruit

Scrap Metals

Stone

*Other commodities

Slaughtered Animal Meat

Pharmaceutical Products

Textile Products


Beverages

Paper

Processed Foods

Chemicals




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


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


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


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


Flow results for South Africa:

Now



30 years from now


Flow results for sugar cane

*not scaled to total


Flow results for processed foods



Flow results for grain




30 years from now


Agenda





• 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





• 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





• 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


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


• 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)


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





• 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





• Other Themes

• Closure

Closure

• Feedback on outcomes will be provided

• Chance to comment

• Contact us please: [email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

Container port forecasts

Business

Transcript of Container port forecasts