Transshipment FS Report

China Power Hub Generation
Company Pvt. Ltd

Company Pvt. Ltd
China Power Hub Generation Company
Feasibility Study for Offshore

Coal Handling Solution
Final Report
April 16th, 2016
China Power Hub Generation Company Pvt. Ltd

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

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.

Company Pvt. Ltd
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

Company Pvt. Ltd
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

Company Pvt. Ltd
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 IACS – International Association of
Capex – Capital Expenditure Classification Societies
IPP – Independent Power Producer
CIF – Cost Insurance and Freight
IRR - Internal Rate of Return
CPHGCL - China Power Hub Generation
Company Limiter KPT – Karachi Port Trust
CPIH - China Power International OCHS - Offshore Coal Handling Solution
Holding OCIMF - Oil Companies International
DWT – Dead Weight Tonnes Marine Forum
EPC - Engineering Procurement OGV – Ocean Going Vessel
Contract Opex – Operational Expenditure
FC – Floating Crane
PFS – Preliminary Feasibility Study
FEM – Finite Element Method
PFT – Panamax Floating Terminal
FFA - Freight Forward Assessment
SHINC - Sunday and Holidays INCluded
FOB – Freight on Board
SLUB – Self Loading and Unloading
FTS – Floating Transfer Station Barges
HUBCO - Hub Power Company SOW – Scope of Work
HPP – Hubco Power Plant STCW - Standards of Training,
Certification and Watch-keeping

Company Pvt. Ltd
SWL – Safe Working Load TU – Transhipment Unit
t – tonne (1,000 kg) UKC – Under keel clearance
tpy – Tonnes per year USD – Dollars of the United States of
America
tpa – Tonnes per annum
TS – Transhipment Site
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

Company Pvt. Ltd
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.).

Company Pvt. Ltd
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

Company Pvt. Ltd
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.

Company Pvt. Ltd
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;

Company Pvt. Ltd
 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.

Company Pvt. Ltd
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.

Company Pvt. Ltd
Peak monthly throughput (December) [t] 659,000

Minimum average feeding rate
[tpd] 22,200
(about)*
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.

Company Pvt. Ltd
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.).

Company Pvt. Ltd
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.
Distance to Distance to Max vessel

Loading Rate
Loading Point HPP TS Karachi Port size
[tpd]
[nm] [nm] [t]
East Kalimantan
> 200,000 20,000 -
(Samarinda 4,000 3,990
DWT 40,000
area)
South Africa - > 200,000 35,000 -

4,380 4,370
Richards Bay DWT 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.

Company Pvt. Ltd
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:

Company Pvt. Ltd
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.

Company Pvt. Ltd
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.

Company Pvt. Ltd
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.

Company Pvt. Ltd
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.

Company Pvt. Ltd
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.

Company Pvt. Ltd
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.

Company Pvt. Ltd
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

Company Pvt. Ltd
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] <= 2 2 to 4 4 to 6 6 to 8 8 to 10 10 to 12 > 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
Direction
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).

Company Pvt. Ltd
Wave direction in degrees North
-15 to 15 to 45 to 75 to 105 to 135 to 195 to 225 to 255 to 285 to 315 to
% Total
15 45 75 105 135 165 225 255 285 315 345
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
Significant Wave Height
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 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0 14.0 16.0 18.0 20.0
% Total
2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0 14.0 16.0 18.0 20.0 22.0
0.00 to 0.50 0 0.42 1.50 0.20 0.08 0.01 0 0 0 0 0 2.21
Significant Wave Height
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.

Company Pvt. Ltd
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]
Operative
TS Treshold Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
[m]
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. 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
SPMX
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

Company Pvt. Ltd
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.

Company Pvt. Ltd
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.

Company Pvt. Ltd
 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.

Company Pvt. Ltd
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.

Company Pvt. Ltd
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.

Company Pvt. Ltd
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.

Company Pvt. Ltd
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.

Company Pvt. Ltd
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.

Company Pvt. Ltd
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
carried out more efficiently.
The following picture shows two FCs (Logmarin design) while loading a Capesize
vessel in double berth (one on each side) in Indonesia.

Company Pvt. Ltd
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.

Company Pvt. Ltd
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.

Company Pvt. Ltd
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

Company Pvt. Ltd
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:

Company Pvt. Ltd
Type of ship Handymax Supramax
New Ultramax
Shipyard SPP Imabari Jangsu Imabari STX
Century
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

C& New
Shipyard Imabari Oshima STX Oshima
Heavy 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

Company Pvt. Ltd
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
Shanghai Hyundai
Shipyard Imabari
Waigaoqiao 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

Company Pvt. Ltd
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.

Company Pvt. Ltd
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:

Company Pvt. Ltd
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.

Company Pvt. Ltd
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.

Company Pvt. Ltd
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

Company Pvt. Ltd
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. Proposed barges
As presented in the description of evaluated scenarios, this report considers two types
of barges:
 Dedicated flat top barges, similar to standard “Indonesian” flat top towed
barges and tugboats with improved quality to meet both reliability and life span
required by the HPP. Higher standards are required due to the remote location
of HPP, for which long time is required to replace/repair the facility in case of
substantial damage/total loss.
 Self-Loading and Unloading Barges (SLUB) (for details refer to section 9.4.5),
for shuttling between the shore terminal and the off-shore site where they can
carry out transhipment operations as well.
Considering the requirement of this project, the barges, independently on the type,
would be designed on purpose for the project with the following characteristics:
 Maximized cargo capacity, compatibly with prevailing restrictions at site.

Company Pvt. Ltd
In fact, a larger cargo capacity would reduce the number of voyages necessary to
achieve the annual target throughput, leading to, other than cost optimization:
o Less traffic in the area (reduced both visual and traffic impact on local
communities),
o Fewer emissions (per unit ton of coal transported) associated to the
feeder sailing (reduced environmental impact),
o Lower impact on berth occupancy, thanks to the lower barge shipments
required to perform the annual throughput.
 Designed and built in compliance with the rules of a primary classification
society and with all national and international rules, regulations and
recommendations including all amendments that are applicable for the specific
type of ship at the time of the contract signature and expected to be in force at
the vessels’ delivery.
 Considering the requirement for navigation during the monsoon season,
particular care would be given to the design and arrangement of lashing
equipment (for minimizing stresses to cargo handling system, especially with
reference to the SLUB).
The following table shows the main characteristics (all about) assumed for the
dedicated flat top barges under evaluation:
Length overall 100 m

Beam 27.0 m
Depth 8.0 m
Design draft 6.5 m
DWTcc 12,500 t
Reduced DWTcc (monsoon) 11,000 t
Tug/barge Speed laden 4.0 kn
Tug/barge Speed empty 5.0 kn
Preliminary estimated consumptions (*)
Manoeuvring 5.0 tpd
Navigation 7.0 tpd
Loading 0.7 tpd
Unloading 0.7 tpd
Waiting 0.7 tpd
(*) consumptions refer to the towing tugboat

The dimensions indicated above are to be considered as assumptions only, resulting
from reasonable considerations on the barges, and shall be verified in due course
performing more detailed design activities.

Company Pvt. Ltd
9.4.2. Tugboat
Based on speed and power prediction, the pusher tug suitable to serve the envisaged
feeder barge should have a total power of approximately 3,000 kW, coupled to two
azimuth thrusters in stern drive configuration. In case of PFT, the tug should be also
suitable to provide the required assistance to berth the PFT to the OGV.
The tugs shall be completely outfitted and equipped for towing, pushing (during berthing
operation as required) and other related duties and classed as a push-boat for
Unrestricted Services for 24 hours unmanned engine room.
Keeping the gross tonnage under 500 GT would allow to consider the vessel as exempted
from SOLAS application, regarding both manning and safety appliances, thus
considerably reducing costs.
Main dimensions are about as follows:
Length overall 32.5 m
Beam 10.8 m
Depth 5.6 m
Draft 4 m
For the purpose of the calculation of the economics of the project, it is considered as
the base case a standard propulsion system with MDO as fuel.
Sketches below show the lay out of the tugboat:

Company Pvt. Ltd
9.4.3. Standard self-discharging Supramax vessels

The vast majority of Handy size, Handymax and Supramax vessels (nowadays nearly up
to about 60,000 DWT) are equipped with cranes (and sometimes also with their own
grabs) and are therefore commonly referred to as “geared” vessels. Thanks to the
permanently installed equipment, they can load or unload themselves using their own
cranes and cargo handling devices (grabs, hooks, etc.). Despite the fact that these
vessels can load/discharge themselves with their own cargo handling equipment,
they are also sometimes used as “conventional gearless” vessels (i.e. their cargo is
loaded or discharged by shore appliances).
The cargo handling equipment comprises four centre-mounted fixed pedestal cranes
(positioned between the five holds) usually employing electro hydraulic grabs and having
a SWL in the range of 25 to 30 t in grab operation. These are generally used when the
jetty is not equipped with a suitable cargo handling system, having a maximum outreach
limited to 10 – 11 m from the ship rails (both port and starboard side).
Considering the vessel’s type of operation generally involving long distance navigation
and short periods at port for loading/discharging only (as anticipated, not necessarily

Company Pvt. Ltd
by using their own means), such vessels are designed based on the optimisation of
the sailing performances rather than of the crane cycles. As such, cranes are not of
the heavy-duty type (the investment cost ad power requirement associated to such units
would be excessive for the infrequent use) and the achievable loading/unloading rates
are quite low and can be estimated in about 13,000 tpd and 15,000 tpd, provided
at least two barges are always available alongside.
Hereafter the calculation of the theoretical cycle for one crane, used for estimating
free digging, average and cleaning transhipping rate for self-discharging on barges:
SELF-DISCHARGING SUPRAMAX WITH 4 x 30/26 CRANES WITH 15 CBM GRABS
CARGO HANDLING SYSTEM - THEORETICAL UNLOADING CYCLE COMPUTATION
TIME DIAGRAM 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170
Closing 14 18
Hoisting [m] 14 18
Slewing [degree] 90 32
Luffing [m] 10 27
Lowering [m] 2 8
Opening 9 12
Hoisting [m] 2 6
Luffing [m] 10 27
Lowering [m] 14 24
TOTAL TIME FOR CYCLE = 172 sec
The daily transhipment rates (used as input data in the simulation) have been
preliminarily calculated as follows, based on two cranes working simultaneously on
one feeder barge:
Free digging Average Cleaning
cycle digging cycle cycle
Theoretical rate [tph] 236
Number of cranes [/] 2
Daily transshipping rate [tpd] 12,880 11,330 6,560
9.4.4. Floating Cranes

Floating Cranes (FC) have been firstly introduced by Dutch stevedoring companies to
cope with the very limiting restrictions in Northern Europe ports and to supplement
existing shore based facilities, basically consisting of a very basic rectangular shaped
harbour pontoon without accommodation and with a large centre mounted pedestal
crane (weight >600 t). Adaro together with the French company Louis Dreyfus
Armateurs extended the concept of working with floating crane at sea and led the way
for standard FC operation in Indonesia in 1992.

China Power Hub Gener ation
Company Pvt . Ltd
FC design for bulk transhipment operation generally relies on a grab crane centred
mounted on deck, but different concepts have been studied and progressively introduced
for optimising the crane cycle and maximise the achievable rate.
In particular, Logmarin has developed an upgraded FC concept conceived for OGV
loading. To safely and efficiently operate both in harbour and open water, the FC is
equipped with combined “roll damping systems” for pontoon rolling motions
attenuation (amplitude, period and acceleration). As a result, the unit is less sensitive
to the adverse weather conditions as compared with most of the standard FCs. To reduce
waiting time associated to OGV availability, Logmarin has also designed and delivered
five units provided with a small buffer storage (about 3,000 t), as shown in the picture
below:
Although FCs are generally non propelled, self-propelled solutions can be employed
for reducing the requirement for tug boat assistance (as option).
Based on a market research recently carried out by Logmarin, about 215 FCs operate
today around the world, distributed as shown in the chart below:

Company Pvt. Ltd
To respond to the specific requirements of HPP project, for the development of this
feasibility stage, Gottwald G HPK 8200 B has been selected as grab crane, mainly thanks
to the good visibility even in OGV discharge operation and overall good
performances reported from the market (reference to section 11.1.1).
In order to minimize crane cycles and enhance the FC rate, the pontoon will have to
be carefully studied at design stage, mainly with reference to crane position on deck,
hull forms to reduce sensitiveness to adverse weather conditions, stability, electrical
power requirement minimization, accommodation, buffer storage, etc.
In the present shipbuilding market, the total new building and delivery time of the FC
at the transhipment site would be 14-16 months. Furthermore about two months of
basic designing activity are required to enable the shipyard to start construction.

Company Pvt. Ltd
The solution considered for this project has been preliminarily envisaged as non-
propelled. This will entail the requirement for tugboat assistance during manoeuvring
operations (berthing and unberthing to the OGV) and for transfer from the fair
weather TS to Karachi (monsoon season).
free digging, average and cleaning transshipping rate at anchorage:
FLOATING CRANE: GOTTWALD 8200 Series 45t SWL - HARDOX 34,0m3 COAL GRAB
CARGO HANDLING SYSTEM - THEORETICAL UNLOADING CYCLE COMPUTATION
TIME DIAGRAM 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Closing 9 9
Hoisting [m] 18 14
Luffing [m] 5 11
Lowering [m] 5 7
Opening 7 8
Hoisting [m] 5 7
Luffing [m] 5 11
Lowering [m] 18 13
TOTAL TIME FOR CYCLE = 91 sec
Therefore, the daily transshipment rates (used as input data in the simulation) have
been preliminarily calculated as follows:
The following table shows the preliminary estimated consumptions:
Manoeuvring (tug boat) 4.0 tpd

OGV unloading operation 4.2 tpd
Waiting 1.0 tpd
It shall be noted that in this case the peak throughput cannot be achieved, due to
operability limitations caused by weather conditions (reference to section 6).
9.4.5. SLUB
The task of the Self-Loading/Self-Unloading Barges (SLUB) is to unload the OGVs at
the transhipment site, self-load the cargo on their deck, transport and deliver the
cargo to the shore jetty.
The SLUB concept is similar to standard geared vessels, which are capable to self-load
and self- unload using their own means. The main difference between the two
concepts is that a standard geared vessel is designed to maximize ship productivity,
including transport from source to destination, rather than concentrating on
loading/discharging rates and vessel manoeuvrability performance. As such the vessel
speed is one of the main targets to be maximized.

Company Pvt. Ltd
On the contrary, SLUBs as proposed for this project are used to transport the cargo
for a short distance (from the TS to the shore jetty only) and their speed in not a primary
design parameter, as long as the propulsion system is sufficient to allow good
manoeuvrability in the prevailing environmental conditions at the operative site. The
core of the SLUB is the cargo handling system, which shall be tailor-made to the specific
logistics challenges of the project.
Many similar units operate around the world, some of them are shown in the pictures
below (photos are from Liebherr and Rock Tree):

Company Pvt. Ltd
SLUB will be designed as a pontoon with spoon bow and inclined stern, equipped with:
 Two heavy duty grab cranes, Liebherr CBG 350 type, designed for working with
35 t SWL at 32 m maximum outreach plus 8 m eccentric platform. In order to
smoothen the stresses incurred by the crane and its component during open
sea operation, it has been considered as operating with a maximum SWL of 30
t, therefore equipped with 20.6 m3 clamshell grabs suitable to unload OGVs of
the required size;
 A suitable material handling system, comprising hoppers, conveyor belts and
loader, to enable direct transfer of the coal from the SLUB to the shore hopper;
 Storage capacity;
 Propulsion system, including twin stern azimuth propellers and a bow-thruster
duly sized, to enhance manoeuvrability in the channel and while berthing and
suitable for the SLUB to work without the assistance of tugboats (unless
required by local authority).
The SLUB main (all about) features are reported in the following table:
Length overall 120 m

Beam 30.0 m
Depth 9.5 m
Design draft 6.5 m
DWTcc 16,000 t
Reduced DWTcc (monsoon) 15,000 t
Maximum laden speed 9.0 kn
Speed laden (monsoon) 5.0 kn
Speed empty (monsoon) 5.0 kn

Company Pvt. Ltd
Preliminary estimated consumptions (*)
Manoeuvring 4.5 tpd
Navigation 7.5 tpd
Loading 6.0 tpd
Unloading 5.5 tpd
Waiting 0.8 tpd
Coal transfer operations occur in subsequent steps, as follows:

 Offshore, cargo is unloaded from the OGV and self-loaded on the SLUB’s cargo
hold.
free digging, average and cleaning transhipping rate while discharging a
Capesize OGV:
Therefore, the daily transhipment rates at anchorage have been preliminarily

calculated as follows (based on two cranes operating simultaneously on the
Capesize holds):
Theoretical cycle time [sec] 96
Daily transhipping rate [tpd] 33,360 27,740 13,870
The daily transhipment rates at anchorage have also been preliminarily

calculated for Panamax vessels:

Company Pvt. Ltd
 Once the SLUBs have completed the self-loading operation, they bring the coal
to the shore receiving facility.
 On shore, the SLUB self-discharges the cargo as follows: cargo flows through
the hoppers set on the SLUB’s under deck level (hence discharging rate is
maximized) and, through a belt conveyor system set along the SLUB, the coal will
be conveyed to the discharging boom. Cargo flowing through the hopper is helped
by dozers and by the SLUB’s cranes.
The average rate for self-discharging at shore has been estimated in 2,000 tph.
 The SLUBs shall be cleaned (shovel clean only) between the transportation of
different product types.
The SLUBs may be delivered in place, ready for operations, in about 18/24 months (the
above time frame is based on first class Chinese shipyard performance) from contracts
agreement and permits are in place.
9.4.6. Panamax Floating Terminal (PFT)
In order to evaluate possible benefits arising from the availability of buffer storage at
anchorage, a floating terminal obtained from a Panamax bulk carrier converted for the
purpose has been considered. The converted vessel will be kept at anchorage, serving
approaching OGV vessels responsible for coal transportation from source.

Company Pvt. Ltd
At this preliminary project stage we assume a transshipment configuration similar to the

following picture representing Oldendorff Floating Terminal engaged in cape OGV- to-
barge transshipment operation.
Four Liebherr CBG 350 grabs cranes would be installed on one side, working together
with four/five (final configuration as the result of the preliminary engineering) coal
receiving hoppers center mounted in between the holds, a conveyor belt system and
two barge loaders loading (more efficiently) one barge at the time.
Cranes would collect the coal from the OGV holds and deliver it to the hoppers; each
hopper will be provided with a transversal feeder collecting the cargo and delivering it
to two longitudinal conveyors feeding two booms.

Company Pvt. Ltd
The primary function of the PFT intermediate buffer storage is to smooth out the
discontinuity OGV and feeder barge transport to shore.
When both OGV and feeder barge are available coal is transferred from OGV to
feeder. While waiting for the next feeder, OGV discharging continues filling up the PFT
buffer storage. On the contrary, in case of OGV being unavailable at TS but feeder barge
ready to be loaded, coal can be collected from the PFT buffer storage by cranes and
loaded on the feeder barge.
Thanks to the availability of over 65,000 t of floating buffer storage (which can be
segregated in its 7 holds), unloading operations are carried out smoothly and
continuously even while waiting for barge, thus minimizing demurrage charges. The PFT
system can be equipped with a mechanical sampler, a metal detector and a belt scale
(option).
In the present shipbuilding and conversion market, the total conversion and delivery
time of the PFT at transshipment site would be 14-16 months, out of which the actual
time spent at the shipyard for conversion would be limited to 4-5 months, the balance
time gap being represented by the designing activity and the lead time of the new
equipment to be installed.

Company Pvt. Ltd
As anticipated, at this preliminary project stage four side mounted Liebherr CBG 350
cranes have been considered, operating with 35 t SWL, at 32 m maximum outreach plus
8 m eccentric platform. In order to reduce the stress incurred by the crane and its
components during open sea operation, a maximum SWL of 30 t has been considered
(as a consequence, 20.6 m3 Clamshell grabs have been considered).
free digging, average and cleaning transshipping rate of the PFT inserted as input data
in the simplified simulation. Based on the envisaged layout of cranes on the PFT deck
and the possible interferences occurring while unloading a Capesize/Panamax vessel
(I.e. two cranes discharging two adjacent holds), a reduction on the “calculation”
number of cranes has been used for overall discharging performance, as per following
tables.
 Discharging a Capesize OGV:

Calculation no. of cranes [/] 3.5
 Discharging a Panamax OGV:

Company Pvt. Ltd
Calculation no. of cranes [/] 3.2
 In addition, theoretical cycle has been preliminarily estimated also for self-
discharging operation (collection of coal from buffer storage and delivery to
hoppers for distribution in feeder hold):
Therefore, the daily transshipment rates have been preliminarily calculated as follows:

The following table shows the preliminary estimated consumptions:
Manoeuvring 15.0 tpd

OGV unloading operation 13.2 tpd
Waiting 2.5 tpd
10. SHIPYARDS FOR CONSTRUCTION
Since the new feeders and/or floating terminal will be the blood line of HPP supply chain,
its quality, reliability and delivery time have to be taken into consideration together with
the price at design and shipyard selection stage. Therefore, a first-class shipyard should
be selected for the purpose.
In 2009, the Chinese ship industry has surpassed Korea for the first time, accounting
about 62% of the world new ship orders. Chinese competitiveness is driven by lower
cost of both labours and steel. For relative simple units like barges and Floating
Terminals, Chinese shipyards result to be overall more competitive as compared to

Company Pvt. Ltd
Philippines, Indonesia and Vietnam. Korea and Japan result to be too expensive for such
units.
As a first indication, the following shipyard might be taken into consideration as
experienced in similar construction and characterized by suitable standards for this
type of units: Chengxi (China), Cosco (China), Keppel (Philippines).
11. CARGO HANDLING EQUIPMENT
11.1. FLOATING OFF SHORE INSTALLATION

The main differences between shore and offshore cargo handling equipment installations
are related to the dynamic loads to which the machines are exposed to and the poor
available space on deck.
The last decades have seen the spread of floating terminals around the world,
operating in different environments and handling a variety of materials, according to the
specific project requirement, site location, etc. To respond to the operational needs
and with the aim to try and identify the most cost efficient and performing solutions,
designers and cargo handling equipment manufacturers have developed tailor made
layouts and general arrangements, returning a large variety of different floating
terminals.
In this eclectic panorama, some examples of continuous unloaders installations (CBU,
screw type unloaders) together with excavators and hydraulic grab cranes can be
spotted, but they all remain to a sort of prototype stage. In fact, the largest majority
of floating terminals today operating around the world relies on grab cranes
technology, as it has the best performances when operating off shore, where
environmental/weather conditions are tough.
The operating conditions of floating facilities are more demanding than those of
onshore terminals (i.e. high winds & waves in open water, etc.) and Logmarin would not
recommend the employment of other technologies apart from grab cranes. Moreover, in
response to the tough operating conditions and working environment, among crane
population particular care shall be put in the selection of the manufacturer and
model, limiting the range for selection to heavy-duty cranes only.

Company Pvt. Ltd
For details on the cargo handling equipment selected for each floating terminal
solution refer to section 9.2 above. Next sections provide general information on
equipment specifically designed for floating installation.
11.1.1. Heavy Duty Cranes
Floating terminals are subject to dynamic
forces acting on the hull structures and
equipment installed on board. In case of
transhipment operation, cranes have to
be duly designed taking into
consideration special requirements
resulting from the type of bulk material and
the environmental condition in which they
operate, to guarantee continued
operations and high cargo turnover.
Reliability and performance of heavy duty
cranes depend on the construction
concept and especially on the group classification (FEM standard rules), which
determines the overall crane strength.
The four-rope (two holding and two opening/closing ropes) heavy-duty grab crane is
designed for rapid and efficient dry bulk turnover and, if required, can be used for
hook operations as well. This type of crane is particularly suitable for heavy-duty work
where the crane must achieve a high daily cargo turnover in off-shore operations.
This is the type of crane that suits transhipment operations at best, as it is designed
to withstand the toughest conditions in terms of operating hours, lifting capability or
safe working load (SWL) and working environment.
The only point against this type of crane is the relatively higher price and deadweight
when compared with the so-called “standard cranes”.
Selection criteria used to identify the most suitable crane type/manufacturer and main
characteristics are:
 loading rate, to cope with the requested turnover;
 outreach, to cover the OGV and the FT own cargo holds, if present, at the best;
 reliability;
 local service availability.
Manufacturers:
Although a variety of crane manufacturers have references of installation on their
products on floating transfer terminals, each type is constructed based on a different
design and recorded performances change accordingly. Based on the feedback
collected (mainly in terms of rates, maintenance requirements, equipment reliability,
etc.) from the field, availability and quality of after-sale service and on the presence
of similar installations in the world region under evaluation, the following
manufacturers could be considered:
 LIEBHERR is by far the market leader for this specific crane installation with a
wide range of products to cover different sizes and applications as requested for
every single project in the marine field. All Liebherr cranes are manufactured in
Europe under stringent quality controls and fully designed in accordance to

Company Pvt. Ltd
Class criteria for open water grab operations. Liebherr has the largest modern
cranes population in East Asia, mainly in Indonesia (more than hundred cranes
in operation) with local service facilities, including an after sale service centre in
Indonesia, Singapore and other countries in Asia.
 CARGOTEC/MacGREGOR offers a single type of HD grab crane in different sizes,
produced in Asia (mainly China). With its K4-50 HD model, they have
introduced (on the paper) a new high capacity/large outreach crane to the floating
crane market. However, the increase in outreach and SWL capacity alone
does not necessary lead to higher production and crane performances, as the
overall cycle time represents a key issue in the actual crane efficiency. In addition,
representative data on the system reliability are not available to date due to K4-
50 recent appearance on the floating crane market and shall be obtain to
properly evaluate and compare it with existing heavy duty cranes.
 TSUJI/Iknow cranes have gained a good reputation because of their high
reliability and low maintenance/running costs, both issues linked to the completely
electric drive system for holding/closing/luffing winches and slewing system. Due
to the limited outreach available on the standard design cranes, at the moment
all Iknow cranes are used on board floating terminals in combination with
hoppers and conveyors system.
 Gottwald/Terex has entered the transhipment market applying their harbour
mobile crane technology for floating crane installation, with little modification to
the original design. Starting from operating in North America, the concept has
so far proven to be successful and has spread also in other world regions. Apart
from the robustness of design (both in structure and power requirement), one
of the key factors of the product is the good visibility of the operator above the
working area, enabling him to see into the holds of both ship and barge for
accurate stowage (or gathering) of the commodity.
Although in the marine field all of the above have in their production range cranes
suitable for this application and experience in transhipment operations, for the
purpose of this study the following cranes have been used for reference:
- For off-shore operations:
o Liebherr CBG 350 crane to be installed on the SLUB and PFT. The crane is
mounted on an eccentric platform for outreach increase and better coverage
of OGV holds during unloading operation;

Company Pvt. Ltd
o Gottwald GHPK 8200 B crane for installation on Floating Crane;
- For the shore terminal:
o Liebherr CBG 350 crane on travelling gantry.
However in the next project stage Logmarin can assist to select the most overall
suitable crane type comparing different manufacturers’ proposals.
Short description of each crane under consideration is provided here below:
 Liebherr CBG 350 is a heavy-duty four rope
crane, which has largely proven to achieve
high performances when operating with
maximum lifting capacity of 35 t in grab
operation at an outreach of 36 m. It can also
be modified by outfitting a larger winch thus
reaching a lifting capacity increased to 45 t at an
outreach of 32 m in grab operation, still
guaranteeing safety and efficiency during open
sea operations.
According to the feedback from the field,
Logmarin and Liebherr have further developed
an even more reliable model, lowering the SWL
to 40,5 t (10% less), thus reducing stresses,
overload probability, possible failures, etc. still
guaranteeing absolute satisfying loading rates thus increasing the crane
availability and reliability:
 Gottwald GHPK 8200 B crane is designed to work as a stevedoring crane for

loading and unloading vessels up to Capesize in coastal waters, with a SWL of
40.8 t at its maximum outreach of 43 m. Originally conceived as a harbor
crane, the design has been revised to allow the installation on barges for
carrying out transshipment operations also while afloat and it is mainly used for
midstream operations (26 units working in the Mississippi River).

Company Pvt. Ltd
For the feasibility study scope, a preliminary estimation of cargo loading rate has been
derived by means of a Logmarin’s produced program, which in the past has proven to
get to conservative results and is therefore considered to represent a good - instrument.
Definition of loading rates:
One of the most important targets of preliminary design of bulk material transfer
terminals is the identification of loading and unloading rates, which will end up highly
influencing the entire operation economy. Special care is therefore to be given to the
definition of relevant parameters, according to experience received from the field.
It is therefore firstly important to list possible significant cycles to be analysed since,
from the time the receiving barge reaches the TS to the very last crane manoeuvre,
operational conditions are subjected to variations, highly affecting the overall feeder
loading rate.
In general the following are considered:
 Peak digging cycle/rate
 Cream digging cycle/rate
 Free digging cycle/rate
 Average digging cycle/rate
PEAK DIGGING CYCLE/RATE: defined as the instantaneous maximum rate under ideal
conditions (spillages, idles, etc. are not considered). It is generally used for power
calculation, hoppers buffer capacity and conveyor belt sizing.
CREAM DIGGING CYCLE/RATE: defined as the maximum loading rate that will occur
for a very short time (usually one hour), subject to particularly favourable conditions,
such as digging from top layers, optimum cycle time, high water level etc. It is generally
used for on board conveyors capacity definition.
FREE DIGGING CYCLE/RATE: defined as the loading rate for a sustainable period of time,
excluding weather delays, breakdowns, shift changes, personnel breaks, clean up
phase, etc. In addition, digging is considered from a specific point of the hold, located
at centreline when the cargo has been up to half unloaded (sometimes 75%

Company Pvt. Ltd
cargo condition is considered). It represents the average theoretical unloading, used
to measure and test performances.
AVERAGE DIGGING CYCLE/RATE: defined considering an extended period of time. In
case of a complete discharge from a reference barge/ship, rate would be calculated
simply dividing total tonnage unloaded by the time actually required. Idles caused by
factors other than the cargo handling system, such as bad weather,
breakdowns/faults or suspensions of power supply, are not accounted for, while
activities including cleaning operations, refuelling, ordinary maintenance, shifting,
personnel breaks etc. are included). As this capacity is very much depending on the skill
of the operators, this test is normally executed by or under the supervision of the
manufacturers’ operators.
Once the cycle is defined, operation is split in sequential phases to be analysed according
to general parameters (such as cargo density, grab volume, crane type, etc.) and
those specific for the cycle/phase (hoisting/lowering speed with empty/full grab over the
barge/hopper, distance to be covered to reach cargo in barge, etc.) At preliminary stage,
main phases can be defined as follows:
 Grab closing
 Grab hoisting
 Shift to hopper (Slewing and Luffing)
 Grab opening
 Shift back to barge/ship (Slewing and Luffing)
 Grab lowering
If required and for a further environment safeguard, the above phases can comprise the
hopper closing right after discharge and prior to the shift above the barge hold (where
the opening phase then takes place), for impeding spillages from falling from the inside
surface of the open grab. As a consequence, the crane cycle will be elongated and has
to be calculated accordingly. This operation can be avoided in case of particularly
designed grabs and hoppers, limiting the possible environment impact.
For each phase a time
value is defined
accordingly to crane
performances and
displacement value
considered, resulting in
a total cycle estimated
time. However, in
practical cases some
crane motions can
overlap and be carried
out partially
simultaneously according to the transhipping operational layout and design position of
cranes and hoppers. Crane simultaneous speeds are to be considered for the purpose
as some reduction on nominal values may occur.

Company Pvt. Ltd
Moving on with the design and logistic analysis, the cycle time subdivision can get to
even more details, adding relevant parameters such as acceleration/deceleration values,
efficiencies, etc. and reaching more accurate results.
The ratio between average digging rate and free digging rate is known as unloading
crane efficiency and is representative of all idles due to scheduled maintenance,
personnel breaks, shifts from different hatches and consequent manoeuvres, etc. At
design stage, it is important to correctly define its value in order not to distort results,
error which would lead to unrealistic predictions and eventually losses in terms of
efficiency/money (it is suggested to overestimate reducing coefficients and foreseen
resulting rates).
Efficiency has to consider the following affecting factors (from experience):
 Crane efficiency: a 0.88 coefficient has been applied to account for routine
stops during operations (overloads, small maintenance/breakdowns, crane
drivers shift, waiting, etc.);
 Grab filling capacity: a 0.95 coefficient has been applied to consider that the
grab will be hardly completely full, on average.
It is important to underline how results obtained by considering either free digging cycle
or average digging cycle do not take into account important variables such as weather
conditions and breakdowns (as per previous definitions). These are in fact ignored for
the scope of crane unloading rate estimation as they are not to be considered as
efficiencies proper of the facility itself, but are counted for in further overall operation
estimation reducing the number of operative days.
During the engineering phase, crane/grab efficiency will be further exploited,
evaluating the best position/design of the receiving hopper also considering the most
efficient barge fleet resulting from the simulation (barge main features play an important
role in the crane cycle estimation and cargo handling design). Moreover products from
different manufacturers and relative performances will be more deeply investigated and
accurately compared.
11.1.2. Grabs
Considering the heavy working conditions associated to operation in open water,
grabs should be fabricated with high quality materials and be properly designed, in order
to avoid failures which would result in major interruptions. An effective and well proven
product is provided by the German and Dutch grab manufacturers PEINER- SMAG and
Nemag, world leaders in grabs supply in the marine industry and in the floating
transhipment units market.
Two types of grabs are generally found in marine applications:
 Clamshell grabs: conventional grabs which scoops open perpendicularly with
respect to the crane’s jib. Even if less competitive then scissors type grabs in
terms of loading performances, these are preferable when looking at cost and
environmental impact;
 Scissors grabs: grabs optimized in terms of cycle and capacity, thanks to the
shorter closing time and larger spread (scoops open in line with the crane’s jib,
increasing the overall outreach), returning better performances. However,
shells cannot be totally closed and spillage from top may result.

Company Pvt. Ltd
In both cases, for coping with heavy-duty operation requirements, grabs are to be
manufactured in stainless steel (Hardox material should be considered in addition for
the side and bottom cutting edges), for wearing prevention.
Based on the project specific requirements (area of operation and need for fast crane
cycle to cope with the target performances and environmental care), clamshell four
ropes grabs are suggested for crane operation. At engineering stage, the design of the
grab will be optimized to maximize volume, efficiency, reliability and to minimize
spillage, according to crane loading capacity, material density and environmental impact.
11.1.3. Hoppers
In order to optimize crane cycles by
reducing the distance between collecting
and discharging points, cranes often
work in conjunction with hoppers. Grab
cranes discharge the collected coal into
trunk pyramidal shape hoppers. These
are to be purposely designed with an upper
opening large enough to easily
accommodate material falling from the
grab (depending on the grab volume),
inclined plates having different angles
with the aim of facilitating the natural
free flow of material to the bottom of the hopper for avoiding building up of obstructions
(giving consideration to the specific material properties). Moreover, they
are usually provided with internal grid for protecting the conveyor system from any
foreign body. Devices (such as spill plates and wind brakes) should also be integrated
in the design for environmental pollution prevention.
11.1.4. Conveyor belt system
From hoppers, coal is generally collected by apron feeders or feeder belts and then flows
onto a conveyor belt system which leads to destination.

Company Pvt. Ltd
Size, type and speed of the conveyor system are determined at design stage. Choice
of both width and speed are taken according to the required conveying capacity and the
available room, while distances to be covered help defining inclination angles.
Metal detectors, belt scales and mechanical samplers can also be integrated in the
conveyor system in order to weight and monitor the quality of the cargo. In addition,
to reduce or avoid dust emission either the sheltering of the conveyor belts (shelters are
positioned on top and sides) or the total enclosure of the entire conveyor system may
be considered.
Although there is a wide range of conveyor system manufacturers, the design of
conveyor system for floating operation needs particular experience to fit the
peculiarity inherent to the specific operation and the environment, especially considering
the operation in open sea.
11.1.5. Cargo holds cleaning and trimming
The cleaning of the OGV cargo holds and of the barge/SLUB storage (as required) is
carried out by means of wheel loader/integrated tool carrier (i.e. CATERPILLAR)
equipped with a dedicated bucket for coal handling and having the possibility of
accessories installation such as rotating brooms or similar, for the complete hold cleaning
(only required between to different product to avoid contamination).
12. GENERATORS
In order to reduce consumptions (cost savings) and emissions (environmental

impact), a diesel electric configuration is usually applied on transhipping units for both
feeding the cargo handling system and the propellers when available (SLUB case).
Main advantages are the following:
 Capacity to maximize the generators’ efficiency even with variable loads (during
man oeuvres and low speed navigation or when the loading rate is reduced for
some reason or other, one single engine can be operated at its low
consumption rate, while the others are kept in stand-by);
 Possibility of carrying maintenance on one generator without interrupting
operations;
 Possibility of positioning the generators anywhere in the engine room (or in a
dedicated machinery space) as there is no need for them to be located close to
the utility;

Company Pvt. Ltd
 Reduction of structural borne noise and vibrations.
13. PRELIMINARY CYCLE ESTIMATION
13.1. MAIN ASSUMPTIONS

In order to preliminarily investigate the viability of the proposed solutions and carry
out a proper comparison of the alternatives under evaluation, preliminary cycle time
calculations have been estimated via simplified calculation software and simulation. In
particular the following main assumptions on the logics regulating the feeders’ behaviour
have been used:
 For the purpose of this study, it is assumed that transhipment operation would
be allowed 24 hour a day, in a SHINC/FHINC (Friday Sunday and Holidays
INCluded), as the large majority of international terminals operates.
 According to the scenarios under evaluation, simplified cycles have been
performed for feeders transporting the entire OGV coal amount to the shore
jetty (full transhipment).
 For scenarios from A to C two barges/SLUBs can moor simultaneously next to
an OGV and, considering the proposed layout of the receiving terminal, also at
shore.
 For Scenario D only one barge at a time can moor to the PFT. At receiving
terminal, the same assumptions of the others scenarios have been applied
(unloading of two barges simultaneously).
 Offshore and shore unloading rates have been preliminarily estimated as can be
found in section 9.4 above. In particular, average values have been considered
taking into account the effects on the crane cycles of the progressive lowering
of the pile inside the hold and of the OGV decrease of draft as the cargo is
discharged. A cleaning reduced rate has been considered for the hold cleaning
phase (applied to the discharge of the last 15-20% of DWTcc, about).
 No waiting time for OGV has been considered at transhipment site (OGVs are
assumed to be ready at anchorage to be unloaded).
 No waiting time has been considered at the shore unloading jetty due to
equipment unavailability (feeder barges or self-discharging vessels only wait for
berth to be free and equipment having terminated discharging of the previous
unit).
 No interruption caused by possible breakdowns, maintenance, etc. has been
accounted for.
 The number of feeders per scenario has been preliminarily calculated with the
aim to keep the monthly occupancy to acceptable values (reference to section
13.2). In particular, occupancy has been preliminarily estimated for the most
and less demanding months in terms of required daily rate, which have been
assumed as representative, of the system behaviour, reference to sections 2.1,
6.3.1 and Error! Reference source not found.Annex 1.
 In order to account for possible inefficiencies associated to waiting for clearance
or delays, inefficiencies have been applied to the estimated cycle time.
 For scenario D, PFT mooring and unmooring time has been estimated in 2 hours
and 1 hour respectively; furthermore cleaning/maintenance has been

Company Pvt. Ltd
accounted for considering 12 hours interruption of transhipment operation
between two consecutive OGVs.
13.2. MAIN INPUTS
A C
Scenario TUG & BARGE SLUB
SUPRAMAX -
GEARED CAPESIZE PANAMAX
N. Feeders [/] 4 3 3
Feeder DWT [t] 12,500 16,000 16,000
Speed laden [kn] 4.0 5.0 5.0
Speed empty [kn] 5.0 5.0 5.0
Sailing distance [nm] 6.0 6.0 6.0
1150 / 1350 /
OGV unloading rate [tph] 470 / 470
1150 1350
OGV unloading rate after
[tph] 270 / 270 580 / 580 670 / 670
threshold
1700 / 1700 /
Shore unloading rate [tph] 900 / 900
1700 1700
OGV DWT [t] 52,000 170,000 71,500
Threshold [t] 12,000 30,000 20,000
Inefficiency per cycle [hr] 1 1 1
Annual throughput [t] 3,800,000 3,800,000 3,800,000
Fuel Consumption - Feeder Cycle per every OGV
Manoeuvring [tpd] 5.0 4.5 4.5
Navigation [tpd] 7.0 7.5 7.5
Loading [tpd] 0.7 6.0 6.0
Unloading [tpd] 0.7 5.5 5.5
Waiting [tpd] 0.7 0.8 0.8
Idle [tpd] 0.7 0.8 0.8
D
Scenario PFT + TUG & BARGE
CAPESIZE PANAMAX
N. Feeders [/] 3 3
Feeder DWT [t] 12,500 12,500
Speed laden [kn] 4.0 4.0
Speed empty [kn] 5.0 5.0
Sailing distance [nm] 6.0 6.0
OGV unloading rate [tph] 1,900 2,200
OGV unloading rate after threshold [tph] 950 1,100
Shore unloading rate [tph] 900 / 900 900 / 900
OGV DWT [t] 170,000 71,500
Threshold [t] 30,000 20,000
Inefficiency per cycle [hr] 1 1

Company Pvt. Ltd
D
Scenario PFT + TUG & BARGE
CAPESIZE PANAMAX
Annual throughput [t] 3,800,000 3,800,000
Fuel Consumption - Feeder Cycle per every OGV
Manoeuvring [tpd] 5.0 5.0
Navigation [tpd] 7.0 7.0
Loading [tpd] 0.7 0.7
Unloading [tpd] 0.7 0.7
Waiting [tpd] 0.7 0.7
Idle [tpd] 0.7 0.7
Transhipper Fuel Consumption
Manoeuvering [tpd] 15.0 15.0
Operation [tpd] 13.2 13.2
Waiting [tpd] 2.5 2.5
Idle [tpd] 2.5 2.5
Dec Apr
Monthly tonnage [t] 659,000 310,000
Monthly operative days [days] 29.7 14.4
13.3. SYSTEM OCCUPANCY

Occupancy is a measure of the facility utilization and it is useful for evaluating the
suitability of the logistic system to meet the required annual throughput or for
evaluating the possibility of increasing the import without incurring in major refurbishing
and upgrading costs.
The system occupancy changes according to shore/floating terminal characteristics, type
of loading/unloading operation, number of units involved, cargo handling rate, etc.
During design and procedure planning, the aim is to find a compromise between logistic
system performances and OGV waiting time and demurrage consequently. It goes
without saying that the highest the occupancy percentage, the lower the maximum
throughput achievable.
For the calculation of occupancy, it is highly important to define a reasonable number
of operative days. At this preliminary stage, the operative days of the scenarios have
been calculated based on the weather conditions of the region and the operative
threshold of the equipment and vessels (reference to section 6.3.1 above).
Verification of operative days shall be carried out in more detail in the next project stage.
It is important at feasibility stage, and subsequently at design stage, to estimate the
system occupancy, as it representative also of the idle time left for compensating to
the following inefficiencies:
 Additional waiting for tide/traffic,
 Breakdowns,

Company Pvt. Ltd
 Inefficiencies.
For the purpose of this report, the “System occupancy” is provided, referring to the
entire logistic system.
In the results reported in the section below and attachment, levels of occupancy between
about 70% and 96% are considered acceptable at this early project stage, based on the
following considerations:
- The occupancy refers to the peak monthly production. Other months
throughout the year are expected to be characterized by less demanding
performance requirements, and may compensate for peak month shortage, if
required.
- The calculated occupancy is based on the operational days as resulting from a
1.5 m significant wave height threshold. An important factor that influences the
weather threshold is the size of the vessels involved.
As a matter of fact, this assumption may result to be slightly conservative (PFT
using large flat top barge and SLUB having larger platform stability can be
considered less influenced by bad weather), but in line with the early stage of
the project. On the contrary the scenario using floating cranes can be
considered more affected by bad weather.
In order to properly set the operative threshold for transhipment operation, a
mooring and sea keeping analysis should be performed, for assessing the
behaviour of the vessels involved in the operation.
- Higher occupancy is associated to Panamax shipment only. In case of combined
Panamax and Capesize fleet, the effective occupancy will be lower than the one
reported in the results table for Panamax only.
In particular, the employment of Capesize allows for less OGV manoeuvres (during
which the transhipper cannot operate) and shortens the impact of the cleaning
phase over a single vessel.
Considering the different coal monthly requirement and the weather conditions
characterized by strong seasonal variation, it is highly recommended to further assess
the supply chain performances via a dynamic simulation, tailored on the specific project.
The benefits of such tool include the possibility of representing the entire system and
operative conditions, investigating the effect of each component/status change on other
chain links (weather conditions, breakdowns, etc.).
13.4. MAIN RESULTS
A
TUG & BARGE
Scenario SUPRAMAX -
GEARED
Dec Apr
CYCLE TIME FOR MONTHLY THROUGHPUT CALCULATION
N. cycles [/] 5.0
Time for OGV unloading [hr] 55.9
Total time for other ineff. [hr] 5.0
Total time for OGV unloading [hr] 60.9

Company Pvt. Ltd
A
TUG & BARGE
Scenario SUPRAMAX -
GEARED
Dec Apr
Total time for OGV unloading [days] 2.5
Est. Av. system rate [tpd] 20,498
Total time for monthly tonnage [days] 32.1 15.1
Occupancy [%] 108% 105%
CYCLE TIME FOR CONTRACTUAL UNLOADING RATE
CALCULATION
Time for OGV unloading [hr] 82.4
Total time for other ineff. [hr] 5.0
Total time for OGV unloading [hr] 87.4
Total time for OGV unloading [days] 3.6
Est. Av. contractual rate [tpd] 14,271
Average Feeder Cycle per every OGV
Maneuvering [hr] 3.0
Navigation [hr] 3.4
Loading [hr] 32.4
Unloading [hr] 14.4
Waiting [hr] 10.4
Idle [hr] n.a.
Yearly Fuel Consumption - Feeders
Maneuvering [t] 182.7
Tug assistance maneuvering [t] 2,192.3
Navigation [t] 287.7
Loading [t] 276.1
Unloading [t] 123.1
Waiting [t] 88.6
Idle [t] n.a.
Total consumption [t] 3,150.6
C
SLUB
Scenario
CAPESIZE PANAMAX
Dec Apr Dec Apr
N. cycles [/] 11.0 5.0
Time for OGV unloading [hr] 119.9 55.3
Total time for other ineff. [hr] 11.0 5.0
Total time for OGV unloading [hr] 130.9 60.3
Total time for OGV unloading [days] 5.5 2.5
Est. Av. system rate [tpd] 31,163 28,461

Company Pvt. Ltd
C
SLUB
Scenario
CAPESIZE PANAMAX
Dec Apr Dec Apr
Total time for monthly tonnage [days] 21.1 9.9 23.2 10.9
Occupancy [%] 71% 69% 78% 76%
CYCLE TIME FOR CONTRACTUAL UNLOADING RATE CALCULATION
Est. Av. contractual rate [tpd] 29,077 29,022
Maneuvering [hr] 8.8 4.0
Navigation [hr] 8.8 4.0
Loading [hr] 57.8 22.7
Unloading [hr] 33.3 14.0
Waiting [hr] 1.5 2.8
Idle [hr] 20.7 12.8
Maneuvering [t] 110.6 119.6
Tug assistance maneuvering [t] 1,475.3 1,594.4
Navigation [t] 184.4 199.3
Loading [t] 969.4 903.5
Unloading [t] 512.3 512.3
Waiting [t] 3.4 14.8
Idle [t] 629.5 623.7
Total consumption [t] 3,884.9 3,967.5
D
PFT + TUG & BARGE
Scenario
CAPESIZE PANAMAX
Dec Apr Dec Apr
N. cycles [/] 14.0 6.0
Est. Av. system rate [tpd] 25,643 23,030
Total time for monthly tonnage [days] 25.7 12.1 28.6 13.5
Occupancy [%] 87% 84% 96% 94%
CYCLE TIME FOR CONTRACTUAL UNLOADING RATE CALCULATION

Company Pvt. Ltd
D
PFT + TUG & BARGE
Scenario
CAPESIZE PANAMAX
Dec Apr Dec Apr
Est. Av. contractual rate [tpd] 28,551 29,429
Maneuvering [hr] 11.2 4.8
Navigation [hr] 12.6 5.4
Loading [hr] 35.1 13.9
Unloading [hr] 63.0 26.5
Waiting [hr] 4.9 8.9
Idle [hr] 32.4 15.1
Tug assistance maneuvering [t] 1,877.6 1,913.3
Navigation [t] 246.4 251.1
Loading [t] 68.6 64.5
Unloading [t] 123.1 123.1
Waiting [t] 9.6 41.2
Idle [t] 518.6 490.2
Total consumption [t] 3,000.5 3,042.9
Yearly Fuel Consumption - Transhipper
Operation [t] 1516.8 1446.1
Waiting [t] 15.7 22.4
Idle [t] 604.9 605.2
Total consumption [t] 2165.3 2140.1
Total Annual Fuel Consumption
Total Annual Consumption -
[t] 3,000.5 3,042.9
Feeders
[t] 2,165.3 2,140.1
Transhipper
[t] 5,165.8 5,183.0
Supply Chain
Standard geared Supramax OGVs are penalized by the low cargo handling rate typical
for this type of vessels and do not take advantage of the economy of scale associated
with larger shipment sizes. Therefore might be evaluated only as a possible
contingency plan.
To reduce the occupancy ratio of the transhipment unit(s) and the shore storage
requirement, it is recommendable to evaluate the possibility to receive a limited

Company Pvt. Ltd
amount of shipments during the monsoon period using the shelter provided by
Karachi channel.
14. THROUGH LIFE SUPPORT REQUIREMENTS
14.1. MANNING
For an amicable relationship with the local community and to reduce operating costs,
it is advisable to sponsor local employment as much as possible.
However, during the period in which the facilities are being commissioned and crew
trained, a team of experienced technicians should be located at the site. This task
force would include port captain, skilled crane drivers, electricians, foremen,
mechanics, specifically organized/set-up by the Contractor and/or the Advisors
(Logmarin can provide this service) for the projects start-up and training
program/supervision of local employees.
When the commissioning is completed, some key personnel (expatriates) should stay on
to direct the local workforce, in order to complete training and maintain the standards
as required to serve the power station smoothly and efficiently.
The operator shall develop a suitable training program for the crew involved with
transhipment operations and, generally, with the activities related to the export chain,
to retain an adequate pool of skilled, competent and qualified personnel to manage all
the different activities and operations.
Training on the use of standard international shipping terms shall be held to limit
potential risks of miscommunication, which could lead to dangerous situations especially
during transhipment operations and berthing/unberthing of the floating terminal to OGV.
Periodical emergency response exercises, inclusive of safety and emergency drills,
shall be undertaken on a regular basis to examine any deficiencies that may be
identified. Continuous induction sessions shall be scheduled; appropriate PPE shall be
identified and provided to the relevant personnel.
Generally speaking, the whole staff shall be in a healthy physical condition and shall
have proper qualifications and required level of competence for the task, including STCW
(Standards of Training, Certification and Watch-keeping as required).
14.1.1. Number of crew members
The minimum number of crew members on board has to be worked out in accordance
with relevant international rules and local requirements, based on vessel’s
characteristics (length, installed power, etc.) and type of service/operation.
Relevant rules on the subject include the following:
 IMO resolution A.890(21) named “principles of safe manning”, as amended by
Resolution A.955(23). The resolution defines the principles that should be
observed in determining the minimum safe manning level of a ship.
The resolution notes that safe manning is a function of the number of qualified
and experienced seafarers necessary for the safety of the ship, crew, passengers,
cargo and property and for the protection of the marine environment.
Furthermore, it recognize that ability of seafarers to maintain observance of the
requirements is also dependent upon conditions relating to

Company Pvt. Ltd
training, hours of work and rest, occupational safety, health and hygiene and
the proper provision of food.
 International convention and code on Standards of Training, Certification and
Watch keeping for Seafarers (or STCW) as amended in 2010 with the so called
“Manila Amendment”, establishing basic requirements on training, certification
and watch keeping for seafarers, as well as those related to hours of work and
rest (minimum 10 hours of rest in any 24-hour period and 77 hours in any 7- day
period).
Furthermore, the number of crew members has to be increased accordingly to specific
activities which are to be carried out on board.
Following crew numbers have been preliminarily estimated:
Preliminary 3 x tug/barge Total (PFT +

PFT Total 3 x SLUB
estimation sets tug/barge set)
Crew on board [n°] 24 42 66 75
14.1.2. Change of personnel

The relieving crew shall board the unit before the off-going crew leave to allow
suitable hand over as required by the reliving task.
Change of crew of tugboats, FC, SLUB and speed boat will normally take place alongside
the shore terminal always in accordance with safety procedure and wearing protective
clothing and lifesaving appliances. Changeover will only take place in day light and in
reasonably good weather conditions, unless for emergencies.
14.2. MAINTENANCE
The floating facilities have to be designed and constructed in accordance with the
latest rules and regulations of any IACS Classification Society. The fleet and their
machineries/equipment must be maintained in a state of complete operational readiness
at all times, in compliance with the requirements of Regulatory and Classification Bodies
and to perform the task.
Since barges and floating terminals represent the lifeline of the export chain, they should
always remain available for the services required. Any unscheduled stoppages resulting
from breakdowns will result to be extremely expensive, not only from the point of view
of emergency maintenance to be carried out but also due to down time resulting queuing
of OGVs (as applicable) and/or delay in coal feeding to the power plant. It is therefore
of utmost importance that preventive maintenance, check-up and reporting are carried
out frequently, in order to have a real time assessment of the condition of all machinery
on board.
Towards this, a custom built maintenance plan needs to be chalked up, for which
Logmarin, will of course be available to assist, in consultation with the major
equipment suppliers.
Routine maintenance works (on a daily, weekly, monthly basis) shall be carried out
on-board by the crew, which will be normally provided with the necessary spares and
tools. In case special tools or machineries are required, the assistance of small local
mechanical/electrical workshops can be sought.

Company Pvt. Ltd
Strategic spares (in addition to standard spares, as the case may be) such as a spare
propulsion system, crane slewing bearing, conveyors and grab are also envisaged.
Custom built spares inventory plans will be drawn up for assessment, reporting and
replenishment of both essential and recommended spares.
The operator, shall identify the equipment and technical systems that are considered
critical and the procedure set in place to insure that these systems are adequately
maintained and that there be specific measures established aimed at promoting the
reliability of such equipment or system. These measures should include the regular
testing of stand-by arrangements and equipment or technical systems that are not in
continuous use.
Some on-line maintenance can be carried out also while working as the floating facilities
should be designed with suitable redundancy for such purpose. However, system
unavailability has been considered for maintenance, even if it shall be scheduled in such
a way not to interfere with the operation.
Dry-dock special surveys, in accordance with Class requirements, will take about 15 to
20 days, subject to local (or in the Arabian Gulf) availability of dry-docking facility every
five years or more (in case of Class extensions). However, for reducing dry
docking expenses and avoiding operation interruption, the TU and the barges may be
designed and built to comply with the requirement given by the “in-water survey”
class notation, to carry on underwater hull inspection when afloat at the site. In fact,
according to IACS “Requirements concerning survey and certification”, vessels can avoid
to dry-dock for 10 years and more be only subjected to in-water surveys, provided that
weather and current conditions are satisfactory and the proper equipment and
suitably trained staff employed.
14.3. SERVICE BOAT

A service boat capable of accommodating about 12 people including crew members
with a speed of about 20 knots is required in this kind of off-shore transhipment
operations. The service boat will be used for OGV custom and immigration clearance,
for personnel changeover and other services.
Main features may be as follows:
 Length O.A. 12.56 m
 Beam O.A. 3.85 m
 Depth at sides 1.67 m
 Draught (APPROX.) 0.80 m
 Speed 20-30 knots.
 Range 180 nm.
 Crew 2 persons
 Passengers 12 persons
 Deck area for provision

Company Pvt. Ltd
The estimated Capex of such a new building service boat is estimated in about 1
million USD.
15. CONTRACTS
Responsibilities of coal transportation mainly depend on the main terms of the Coal
Supply Agreement. The property of a commodity (coal in this case) transported by
ship changes hands from Seller to Buyer according to the Incoterms, a set of rules
universally accepted and used in practice in international trade that define rights and
responsibilities of sellers and buyers for the delivery of goods under sales contracts.
In particular, the property of the coal may pass from Seller to Buyer at the
discharging site (usually at the End User receiving berth as in the case of a CFR – Cost
and Freight – price term) or at the loading site (as in the case of FOB – Free on Board
– price term).
 CFR terms
The seller (the Coal Supplier or a trading company) is responsible for delivering the
coal by sea to a specified location at the Power Facility and provide the buyer with the
documentation necessary to obtain the coal from the carrier. Anything that happens
prior to delivery is the Seller’s responsibility. This represents the CFR deal, where the
Seller will also be the Charterers of the vessel(s) and as such the responsible for the
ocean transportation. Normally the CFR alternative allows for the least control over
the arrival of the ships at discharge port.
 FOB terms
Seller shall deliver the Coal FOB at their loading port (or anchorage) and the seller will
be solely responsible for inland transportation (barge transportation and
transhipment, in case of most of the Indonesia sources), insurance and other related
matters up to the point of delivery FOB, timely delivery and proper loading, trimming
and stowage of each shipment of Coal on board the vessel designated by the Buyer. The
FOB Buyer of the Coal will have to be the Charterers of the vessel(s) used for ocean
transportation and shall consequently procure bulk carriers suitable to enter, berth at
and leave the Port (or anchorage) of Loading.
In both cases, and more relevantly for the FOB case, the coal Buyer (and Charterer
consequently) does not necessary have to be the end user, but a different entity from
the end user, with the two entities bind by a Sale & Purchase Agreement. This is the
contractual arrangement followed in an IPP Project in which Logmarin Individuals were
involved, the 1,320 MW ISKEN Sugözü Power Plant (Turkey), which has been running
now for more than 10 years smoothly. In the Isken case, a Special Purpose trading

Company Pvt. Ltd
company (controlled by the End User) is the Coal Buyer in charge to buy and
transport the coal (under a long term contract involving shipping and transhipment) and
to sell the coal at the receiving jetty of the End User. Purchase, sea transport, trans-
shipment, barge transportation and self-discharging operations are controlled by the
Special Purpose Company, which is the Charterer and deals with all the different aspects
of coal purchasing and transportation.
15.1. TRANSHIPPING AND BARGING CONTRACTS

The most common contractual arrangement for transhipping and barging service is
called “Build Own and Operate” (BOO), a contractual arrangement whereby a specialized
Company, selected by the End User, invest, build, own, operate and maintain the
facilities for the duration of the contract on a USD per ton service remuneration. The
USD per ton service remuneration includes capital depreciation, financial expenses,
operating and maintenance costs plus a reasonable return on the investment (IRR).
An alternative arrangement is called “Build Transfer and Operate” (BTO), a contractual
arrangement whereby the End User negotiate with the selected specialized Company
two separate contracts in parallel:
o Engineering Procurement Contract (EPC): to build the facility on a turn-key
basis, on behalf of the end user (HPP case the Sponsors or the BOT company)
Once the facility is commissioned satisfactorily (delivery tests successfully
passed), ownership is transferred to the End User against a previously agreed
delivery price.
o Operation and Management Contract (O&M): at the same time the ownership is
transferred to the End User, the Owner redeliver the facility at a symbolic bare
boat charter to the same Company which will operate and maintain the facility
on behalf of the Owner under the O&M service contract on a USD per ton
service remuneration. The USD per ton service remuneration includes OPEX and

Company Pvt. Ltd
management fees. In such a case, the end user has to depreciate the
investment.
We have experience in IPP projects where Lenders required the BOT Company to be
the owner of the transhipment facility (being integral part of the IPP coal supply
chain) and we are providing advice for an IPP project in Vietnam which Lenders and BOT
Company are looking at this contractual arrangement.
15.2. POTENTIAL TRANSHIPMENT SERVICE PROVIDERS

Based on its experience, Logmarin suggest as possible experienced service providers:
Coeclerici Logistics (CC, http://www.coeclerici.com) has been pioneer and is market
leader in the field of off shore logistics; they offer the entire spectrum of services
from, engineering & design, implementation, operation and technical management,
having a long lasting experience in operation floating cranes and floating terminals in
Europe, Venezuela, India and Indonesia.
Louis Dreyfus Armateurs (LDA, http://www.lda.fr) is among the world most
experienced in operating floating cranes; they also have extensive experience
operating sets of tugs and barges (up to 12,000 DWT) in Indonesia. LDA have a long
history of designing, building and operating Floating Cranes: they were the first to
operate Floating Cranes in Kalimantan, Indonesia, for the transhipment of Coal for PT
Adaro, about 25 years ago. Since then, LDA and OMS have operated more than 15
floating cranes in various parts of the world, including Indonesia, India, Columbia and
Romania.
PT. Mitra Bahtera SegaraSejati (MBSS, www.mbss.co.id) operates on-shore and
off-shore coal loading terminals and provides a broad range of services that free their
client from the complexities of loading, shipping, trans-shipping and ocean trade
stevedoring of coal. MBSS fleet consists of:
 Approximately 80 sets of tugs (from 1,100 hp to 2,600 hp) and barges (from
8,000 to 12,000 tons).
 6 floating cranes
 Workforce neared 1,000 people spread across the Indonesian archipelago in
various maritime and shore based operations
Oldendorff Carriers GmbH & Co. (hereinafter EO) is an integrated shipping and
logistic company specialized in the transportation of dry bulk commodities,
cements/aggregates, forest products, scrap, concentrates and steel products, etc.
With about a century of history EO has a transport capacity of over 250 mil tons a
year.
Rock Tree - operates specialized transhipment vessels or offshore floating terminals for
the transfer of dry bulk commodities between barges or coastal vessels and ocean going
ships. They also provide barges for river to transhipment site.
Swire CTM Bulk Logistic (SCBL, www.swirectmbl.com) is a joint venture between CTM
and Swire groups dedicated to providing efficient off-shore transhipments solutions,
coastal, overseas transport providing integrated and cost-effective environmentally
friendly supply chain of dry bulk commodities worldwide. Their experience includes
floating cranes and floating terminals.

Company Pvt. Ltd
16. COST ESTIMATION
The following sections provide preliminary cost estimations for the supply chain
scenarios under evaluation.
All the costs have been preliminary estimated only and reported in USD currency,
being it the trading currency of the commodities CIF value.
The estimation is to be considered preliminary only and for comparison of evaluated
scenarios only, based on a broad scope of work which will be further refined during
the next project phases. In the next project phase, in order to have a more precise
budget estimation, a calculation software shall be developed on purpose to take into
account: rump up period, fleet composition as the result of the rump up period and
preferred system, manning cost, Capex (in accordance with the quotation received
from main suppliers) and Opex costs as locally checked and updated. Local taxes and
project return shall also be incorporated.
16.1. MAIN ASSUMPTIONS

Following assumptions have been considered for the costs estimations.
16.1.1. Bunker cost
For cost estimation purpose, following assumptions have been made:
 In the route from East Kalimantan, OGVs go to Singapore to refuel, thanks
to the convenient fuel price and the relative short deviation required;
 In the route from Richards Bay (South Africa), OGVs go to Fujairah to refuel,
thanks to the relative short deviation required;
 Barges shuttling between TS and the shore terminal refuel at HPP receiving
facility.
In order to estimate coal transportation cost, the average fuel market prices of the
last two years in Singapore and Fujairah have been considered as reference for freight
estimation purpose.
As such, the following values have been considered:
[USD/t] Singapore Fujairah
IFO 380 419.67 427.31
IFO 180 437.70 458.90

MDO 659.22 825.82

Company Pvt. Ltd
16.1.2. OGV Port costs

Port charges in Pakistan, including light dues, navigational AIDS, pilotage and anchorage
dues have to be checked and negotiated locally, taking into consideration the continuity
of the service between the fleet of barges and the additional turnover for the port
authority generated by the OGVs, thus entailing special discounted tariffs.
 Trading units: the analysis takes into account port charges at source, at
destination and in Singapore/Fujairah, for refuelling purpose as necessary.
Costs have been preliminary assumed as shown in the following tables and they
will have to be verified with local authorities in the next project stage.

Company Pvt. Ltd
Port Expenses
Supramax Panamax Capesize
[USD/call]
East Kalimantan 12,000 15,000 24,000
Richards Bay 35,000 50,000 85,000
Singapore (bunker) 8,000 10,000 12,000
Fujairah (bunker) 8,000 10,000 12,000
HPP Transhipment site 15,000 18,000 25,000
Karachi buoys 30,000 35,000 n.a.
16.2. FREIGHT ANALYSIS

The following sections provide preliminary freight estimations for the scenarios under
evaluation. The analysis has been performed based on following main assumptions
and on others described in this report:
 Delivery and redelivery in Fujairah (at the end of the contract period/agreed
numbers of consecutive voyages) for vessels coming from South Africa;
 Delivery in Singapore and redelivery in Fujairah for vessels coming from
Indonesia;
 Bunkering in Singapore or Fujairah according to the route as described in
section 16.1.1 (in case of consecutive trips);
 War and Piracy Risks insurance have been assumed to amount to 20,000
USD, 16,000 USD and 14,000 USD for Capesize, Panamax and Supramax
vessels respectively for a round trip.
Fuel is the biggest budget item for most modern power stations (and industry in
general). Therefore, the manner by which coal is handled and transported (logistics
and freight costs) affects overall power plant efficiency.
The freight component in the total delivered cost of the commodity is significant
especially when the cargo has to be transported over long distances from producer to
consumer. Also for relatively short transportations the number of shipments in larger
vessels (Panamax and Capesize) is increasing and the number of Handysize and
Handymax stems is meaningfully reducing.
As a matter of fact, most of the new Power Projects in Vietnam, Thailand and India
are based on large shipments up to Capesize, in order to reduce the landed cost of the
materials, in some cases employing transhipment solutions at the receiving end of the
supply chain as well. The economical equation looks fairly simple: the bigger the
cargo size, the lower the transport cost per unit.
In these terms, the trend towards the utilization of larger vessels is clearly driven by the
benefits of lower transportation costs (freight) on a per tonne basis as compared with
smaller carriers.
Shipping market data provided in this report have been developed with the support of
Bancherocosta ship Brokerage Company (www.bancosta.com).

Company Pvt. Ltd
16.2.1. Piracy risk
The choice of the shipping route from Richards Bay to the TS is heavily influenced by
Piracy Risk management. This is due to the fact that the site location of this project is
located in the piracy risk area. However, on the 8th October 2015 it has been released
a revision of the BMP4 high risk area (Red Sea, Gulf of Aden and the Arabian Sea).
The main change involves a decrease area compared with the previous version, as can
be seen from the map below.
16.2.2. Shipping Market Trend

Shipping costs and the behavior of the shipping market are monitored by the Baltic
Exchange, which provides information on maritime transportation markets, used for
the trading and settlement of physical and derivative contracts. The Baltic Exchange
consists of more than 600 members, including professionals in the international dry
shipping industry and maritime lawyers and arbitrators.
Every workday, global shipping brokers are asked about their pricing by the Baltic
Exchange. The result is a list of T/C value daily rates, voyage costs and costs for the
most common shipment sizes, routes and commodities.

Company Pvt. Ltd
The following chart represents the 2015 average market: Capesize daily rate resulted
to be particularly unpredictable whereas other vessel sizes’ rates seemed to keep a
steadier downward trend.
As resulting from recent market studies, the key issue in the coal market is not the
lack of demand, but the massively excessive fleet growth. According to BIMCO (the
world’s largest international shipping association), the dry bulk carrier fleet has grown
about 3%. Evaluating number and size of vessels that will be delivered during the
next two years, it is reasonable to think that such a trend in the market will continue
and coal shipment in Capesize vessels will increase.
The following charts represent the updated trading Dry Bulk fleet by size and number:

Company Pvt. Ltd
As no concrete record of fixtures on voyages (meaning no transportation data) for this

SOW is available up to now, to estimate the freight cost per ton of imported coal from
Indonesia and South Africa to HPP, 7 years Baltic average charter historical rates
followed by Freight Forward Assessment (FFA) projections (3 years) in accordance to
Baltic index for standard Supramax, Panamax and Capesize shipment have been used.

Company Pvt. Ltd
Therefore for the purpose of this report, the daily rates as shown in the next table
have been calculated by averaging the last historical average T/C value of the last 7
years with the Freight Forward Assessment till 2018.
USD/day Capesize Panamax Supramax
10 years (7 T/C + 3 FFA) 16,212 10,638 10,912
Based on the assumptions described in this report, freight estimation for the described
standard vessels has been performed.
Market/ Source
Shipment size
East
Vessel Richards bay
Transhipment
Kalimantan
Supramax 11.48 18.53 52,000 t

Site
Panamax 8.36 13.71 71,500 t
Capesize 6.25 9.68 170,000 t

Company Pvt. Ltd
Market/ Source
Shipment size
East restriction
Vessel Richards bay
Karachi Kalimantan
Port
Supramax 12.19 19.52 51,000 t
Panamax 10.61 17.02 60,000 t
16.3. DEDICATED UNITS

A preliminary estimation on the Capex and Opex costs associated with the supply
chain scenarios under considerations has been made, based on the years of
experience of execution of various projects of similar magnitude and on the following
main assumptions:
 Euro to USD exchange rate: 1€ = 1.10 USD
 No taxes have been considered. Specific assessment on tax and duty has to
be made locally,
 Cost of personnel is included as deemed necessary to perform the scope of
the service. Any additional stevedoring costs, if required for local regulation,
are not included; further checks have to be carried out locally in the next study
development process.
 The cost of maintenance and refurbishment, when necessary, evolves like
the age of the facility and therefore a cost incremental factor of 2.5%, of
such cost has been assumed.
Logmarin has the know-how, experience and manpower to support the
project outset to the operational performance assessment, including basic
design criteria of the floating facilities, project implementation, personnel
training, commissioning, etc.
 The Capex and Opex cost associated to the shore facility and ancillary
facilities have not been considered in this study.
16.3.1. Commercial depreciation period
The commercial life of the transhipment fleet does not necessarily coincide with their
actual physical operational life.
The useful economic life of an OGV is generally held to be twenty years (her amortization
is generally calculated on this life span), although, if well maintained and in favourable
freight market environments, her life can extend even more.
For barges and transhipment units, life span depends on the design standards applied.
For example the “Chinese - Indonesian” standards for coal transportation and
handling, physical life span of the facility is about 10 years only, hence depreciation
period is shorter than that. Other similar units with higher design standards and
proper maintenance program can last 20 years or more.
For the purpose of preliminary economics estimation, 15 years economical life has
been assumed, with a residual “scrap value” for depreciation purpose. The ingredients
that guarantee longer and smoother operational life are a mixture of sound and
experienced foresight at the project design stage and a proper maintenance program.

Company Pvt. Ltd
Therefore:
 The facilities have to be designed by international professionals in the
required field of activities, to operate on a twenty-four hours seven days per
week basis (Logmarin Advisors has vast of proven reference);
 The key components of the facilities have to be of Best Available Technology
(BAT), built by world class manufacturers;
 There must be adequate after sales support from key equipment
manufacturers (i.e. cranes, conveyor system, power generation sets,
propulsion) for service and spare parts to ensure minimum disruption for the
operation;
 In addition to having good equipment, it is also fundamental to have
experienced operators and maintenance personnel. Without either, the project
objectives will be not obtainable. Therefore the operator must prove to have
the capability of maintaining the equipment, therefore avoiding any major
breakdown of the system;
 Periodical surveys shall be carried out also by independent surveyors and
maintenance plan shall be revised and updated accordingly.
16.3.2. Annual fixed costs
Performed cost estimation includes the following:
 Capex: since the floating terminal will be the blood line of supply chain, its
quality, reliability and delivery time have to be taken into consideration
together with the price at the design and shipyard selection stage.
Therefore, calculations are based on a first Class Chinese shipyard market. The
following items have been considered in the calculation of the investment
costs (Reference to Annex 3 for costs breakdown, except for Tug and Barge,
where “market price” has been assumed as relative standard unit):
o Supplies: including cargo handling and other key equipment to be
installed on board (such as generators, bridge equipment, propulsion,
mooring equipment, etc.);
o Shipyard: steel price, outfitting and coating, outfitting, etc.;
o Various services at shipyard: agency, insurance, etc.;
o Engineering and technical services: design, class approval, etc.;
o Forwarding of key equipment to the shipyard and mobilization of the
fleet to the site. In case of tugboats, mobilization costs are not
considered assuming that a tugboat will take care of transportation of
one barge including related cost in barge transportation;
o Spare parts;
o Contingency (10%)
 Working costs: annual fixed costs, such as crew costs, costs for
maintenance, insurance, administration fees, etc.
On the basis of the fixed costs, including Capex and working costs, a “Annual average
depreciation” has been calculated with following assumptions:

Company Pvt. Ltd
 USD financing
 Equity: 50%
 Loan: 50% at 7.0% of interest
 IRR: about 15%
A provision for periodical maintenance (special services, dry docks as required, etc.)
has been included in the “Annual average depreciation” calculation as well.
The following table shows the assumed values for fixed costs (all costs in USD x
1,000):
TWD
Unit PFT FC Tugboat SLUB
Barges
Capex 36,900 14,640 3,670 7,890 30,320
Crew costs 1,500 700 - 300 790
Other costs 1,770 800 180 340 910
Working costs 3,270 1,500 180 640 1,700
Average dry dock 800 280 220 250 500
Residual value 3,850 450 200 175 1,800
Annual average cost* 9,890 4,170 830 2,055 7,020

*average depreciation, crew, other R/C, DD provision
16.3.3. Variable costs
In addition to the fixed costs estimated as described in the section above, variable
costs shall be included in the cost per tonne estimation (Reference to Annex 4):
I. Variable maintenance, depending on the cargo handled quantities;
II. Fuel and port costs, as described in section 16.1.1 and 16.1.20 above. For
transhipment charge MDO price reference is 826 USD per mt;
III. Speed boat
IV. 15% margin on variable costs has been included in the calculation.
V. In case of shipping in standard self-discharging vessels (Supramax), additional
0.20 USD/t have been considered for trimming equipment (dozers) to be used
on barge for distributing coal within the hold, in response to the limited
standard crane outreach.
VI. Stevedoring charge is NOT included. It is assumed that at the transshipment
site the transshipment operation is carried our using the transshipper own crew
and personnel. In case of SLUB, coal is self-discharged onto shore receiving
hopper(s) using SLUB crew. In case of standard barges stevedoring cost to
operate shore cranes needs to be estimated and considered for alternative
logistics scenarios comparison purpose. For reference only, the cost to operate
and maintain the shore cranes can be estimated in about 0.50/0.80 USD per
ton discharged (capital cost excluded).

Company Pvt. Ltd
16.3.4. Industry assumptions regarding ocean loss and coal quantity.
In shipping operations there are three main reasons for a discrepancy between the
Weight Certificates issued at loading point and the quantity actually delivered to
shore:
 Inaccuracy of the weight indicated in the weight certificate: weight
certificate is often determined by the Draft Surveys. Accuracy of a draft survey
is usually plus or minus 0.5%, when performed in port and calm waters. If coal
is loaded off-shore, as it happens frequently in Indonesia, accuracy can be even
lower (due to waves). Normally, draft survey is carried out both at loading and
at unloading sites, to double check the weight value.
 Loss in moisture content: during navigation, the cargo may lose part of its
moisture content and weight consequently. In case of coal this usually does not
exceeding 0.5% and it is usually quantified comparing the sampling results before
loading and at shore delivery and checking the records that are kept by the OGV's
Master about the amount of water pumped out from cargo holds during
navigation.
 Spillage or cargo loss during cargo handling operations: this may be
partially due to external factors (as in case of strong wind in open storage alike
the barge) and spillage at the various transfer points which are under the
responsibility of the operator of the unloading system (either transshipment
facilities or shore equipment).
To prevent the loss of cargo due to spillage and dust, hopper type barges with
enclosed cargo holds. This would also return a lower environmental impact,
both visual and in terms of dust production. In addition, to reduce or avoid dust
emission either the sheltering of the conveyor belts (shelters are positioned on
top and sides) or the total enclosure of the entire conveyor system may be
considered (both on the transhipment and on shore).
The dust emission generated by grabs, is mainly due to transfer of coal in
combination with air displacement at the transfer points (hopper/barge hold).
Mostly spillage from grabs is a result of:
 Poor closing of the lip plates;
 Spillage from the underside of the grab;
 Dust emission during discharge over the hopper;
 Influence of the crane driver/auto operation
At the engineering stage, the design of the grab (and hopper) shall be
optimized to maximize volume, efficiency, reliability and to minimize spillage,
according to crane loading capacity, material density and environmental impact.
Suitable operation procedure shall be developed as well.
Standard shipping practice foresees that in case of significant discrepancy between
the two surveys at loading and unloading points (exceeding a threshold value set in
the transportation contract), the reason (and the responsible) for the discrepancy will
be investigated.

Company Pvt. Ltd
17. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
This report is the outcome of the preliminary feasibility stage based on available
information. It is recommended to deepen the analysis in the next project stages,
after having shortlisted two (or three) of the evaluated transportation scenarios to be
studied in more detail, also involving Service Providers.
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. Similarly to off-shore
operations, also shore jetty availability need to be assessed using waves propagation
model and mooring/seakeeping analysis to estimate the percentage of time the
barge/SLUB can remain alongside the jetty under the influence of residual waves.
Establish contact with local authorities should be considered a priority, with the aim to
obtain their concurrence on the alternative transshipment solutions, “port cost” at the
HHP site and evaluate the possibility to use the shelter provided by Karachi channel
during the monsoon and investigate relative cost associated to Panamax OGV mooring
in Karachi sheltered channel.
After having discarded standard geared Supramax option (higher freight and lower
HHP coal feeding capacity), three alternative options involving transhipment
operations have been evaluated.
Coal would be discharged from large OGV (up to Capesize) at the transhipment point by
means of one of the following facilities:
a. One Panamax Floating Terminal (PFT) and three sets of tug and barge thus
requiring shore cranes to unload the coal from barges;
b. Three self-loading & unloading barges (SLUB). In this latter case, coal is
unloaded from the OGV, transported and delivered to shore hopper(s) by the
SLUB, no other feeder facility would be required. No shore cranes are required.
c. Two floating cranes (FC) and four sets of tug and barge thus requiring shore
cranes to unload coal from barges.
Both alternatives a. and b. can provide smooth supply chain to HPP relaying on a
better seakeeping capability and unloading performance as compared to the floating
cranes alternative c.

Company Pvt. Ltd
Main benefits inherent to alternative a. and b. are summarised in the following table.
1 PFT + 3 Barges (a.) 3 SLUB (b.)
In case of failure of one SLUB,

the other one can continue the
One transhipper unit with up to
Reliability discharging operation of the
four cranes and three barges
OGV although with a reduction
on daily average capacity.
Up to about 100,000 t
Buffer capacity Up to about 48,000 t
(PFT + 3 barges)
Self-unloading, no shore cranes

Shore
are required to discharge the
Opex/Capex
coal
During the monsoon period the

Flexibility PFT can be used to transport
the coal.
The risks associated to transhipment operation, the likelihood of casualty

happening and time for repairs depends not only on the design standards and the
quality of the cargo handling equipment/construction, but is also strictly connected
with the experience of the operator (Service Provider) in this specific field.
Therefore to identify the most reliable and efficient system with clear costs, risks and
opportunities, it is recommended to involve a number of reputable and creditworthy
Service Providers (see 15.2 above) to quote and validate this study accordingly.
Logmarin is available to assist HPP:
 Providing technical, theoretic and practical inputs in the discussion and
attending to meetings as required explaining the project features and details,
including the environmental aspects, to the concerned parties and to the
Authority.
 With preparation of an expression of interest and request for proposal to be
sent to potential Service Providers to require a quotation for the service
(toward Coal Transportation Agreement, should HPP require single contract ocean
transport & transhipment, or Transhipment Service, in case of two separate
contracts).
Other activities include:

Company Pvt. Ltd
 Preparation of the preliminary design of new building transhipment units (either
SLUB or FC/tug and barge sets) or conversion (in case of PFT) to be submitted
to shipyard for requesting quotation,
 Assistance in shipyard and main equipment manufacturers selection and in
negotiation during contract preparation,
 Supervision at shipyard during construction, commissioning, crew training,
 Development of operational procedures and check lists to achieve the goals at
which the unit aims.
 Assistance in risk assessment.

ANNEX 1 - MONTHLY DISTRIBUTION OF COAL REQUIREMENT
- No shipment from Karachi during monsoon season
Monsoon season
Assumed coal
[t] 1,437,537
consumption
Hs Threshold
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Year
1.5 m
Days [/] 31 28 31 30 31 30 31 31 30 31 30 31 365
Downtime [days] 1.5 2.9 7.3 14.6 21.4 27.7 30.3 27.6 15.4 3.3 0.8 0.3 153.1
Preventive maintenance [days] 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 7.0
Theoretical available time [days] 28.5 24.1 22.7 14.4 9.6 2.3 0.7 3.4 14.6 26.7 28.2 29.7 204.9
Group 1 Maint. [days] 12 12 0 0 0 24

Group 2 Maint. [days] 0 0 12 12 0 24
Total Maintenance Time [days] 12 12 12 12 0 48
Days of consumption [/] 31 28 31 30 19 18 19 19 30 31 30 31 317
Unit 1 Consumption [t] 172,727 156,012 172,727 167,155 105,865 100,293 172,727 172,727 167,155 172,727 167,155 172,727 1,900,000
Total consumption [t] 345,455 312,023 345,455 334,311 278,592 267,449 278,592 278,592 334,311 345,455 334,311 345,455 3,800,000
Imported by OGVs [t] 616,000 525,000 498,000 310,000 0 0 0 0 0 589,000 609,000 659,000 3,806,000
From storage [t] 25,000 279,000 268,000 279,000 279,000 335,000 1,465,000
Monthly throughput [t] 616,000 525,000 498,000 310,000 0 0 0 0 0 589,000 609,000 659,000 3,810,000
Daily throughput (OD) [t] 21,700 21,800 21,900 21,600 0 0 0 0 0 22,100 21,700 22,200 -

Doc. No. 232.0003_Rev.3 –Annexes 1 to3 to the Final Report Page 1 of 18
- Partial shipment from Karachi during monsoon season, for reducing storage capacity requirement
Monsoon season
Assumed coal
[t] 1,437,537
consumption
Hs Threshold Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Year
1.5 m
Days [/] 31 28 31 30 31 30 31 31 30 31 30 31 365
Downtime [days] 1.5 2.9 7.3 14.6 10.9* 15.7* 21.5* 11.6* 1.8* 3.3 0.8 0.3 92.3
Preventive maintenance [days] 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 7.0
Theoretical available time [days] 28.5 24.1 22.7 14.4 20.1 14.3 9.5 19.4 28.2 26.7 28.2 29.7 265.7
Group 1 Maint. [days] 12 12 0 0 0 24
Group 2 Maint. [days] 0 0 12 12 0 24

Total Maintenance Time [days] 12 12 12 12 0 48
Days of consumption [/] 31 28 31 30 19 18 19 19 30 31 30 31 317
Total consumption [t] 345,455 312,023 345,455 334,311 278,592 267,449 278,592 278,592 334,311 345,455 334,311 345,455 3,800,000
Imported by OGVs [t] 516,000 445,000 421,000 270,000 140,000 120,000 60,000 130,000 150,000 459,000 523,000 572,000 3,806,000
From storage [t] 65,000 139,000 148,000 219,000 149,000 185,000 905,000
Monthly throughput [t] 516,000 445,000 421,000 270,000 140,000 120,000 60,000 130,000 150,000 459,000 523,000 572,000 3,810,000
Daily throughput (OD) [t] 18,100 18,500 18,600 18,900 7,000 8,400 6,400 6,800 5,400 17,200 18,600 19,300 -
(*) downtime days based on significant wave height threshold of 2 m, considering the shelter at the selected anchorage

Doc. No. 232.0003_Rev.3 –Annexes 1 to3 to the Final Report Page 2 of 18
Company Pvt. Ltd
ANNEX 2 - ALTERNATIVE SHORE BASED EQUIPMENT PROPOSED BY
LOGMARIN
On the basis of the envisaged feeder units according to the alternative scenarios
proposed, the shore terminal layout and cargo handling equipment has been
conceptually developed, as described in this section with the aim of qualitatively
describing the intended operation and for comparison with the layout resulting from
reference doc. A and for identification of possible optimizations.
In particular, in-depth design of marine works should be carried out for carefully
considering:
 A detailed maritime-hydraulic characterization of the site, with determination of
extreme events;
 Geotechnical aspects based on the results of specific survey to be conducted in
this regard;
 Engineering insights related to realization and sizing;
 Refinement of costs and realization time estimation through the involvement of
maritime leading local companies.
The employment of boring concrete piles and concrete superstructures for the
receiving terminals has been assumed, using pre-cast beams and slabs fit-in in situ.
This is because of the durability and minimization of maintenance activities
guaranteed by boring concrete piles. The use of steel piles remains a valid alternative.
 Scenarios A, B and D: coal is delivered to the shore terminal by dedicated flat
top barges, entailing the need for shore discharging facilities. In order to allow
the simultaneous discharge of two barges, two berths in line are foreseen.
With the aim to allow both for the simultaneous discharge of two barges and for
redundancy purpose, three travelling Liebherr CBG 350 40.5 SWL grab cranes
have been preliminary envisaged, able to travel from one berth to the other. In
this way, two cranes can operate on one barge, while the third crane can be
employed on the second barge during cleaning phase (if available and ready for
unloading).

Doc. No. 232.0003_Rev.3 –Annexes 1 to 3 to the Final Report Page 6 of 18
Company Pvt. Ltd
In order to minimize the crane cycle thus enhancing the discharging

performances, each crane will be provided with a dedicated hopper travelling with
it. Delivery to shore is envisaged via a conveyor belt of about 2,500 tph average
rate.
Unloading rates and other equipment main features provided hereunder have
been estimated with reference to dedicated 12,500 DWT flat top barges.
Three Liebherr cranes CBG 350 operating at 40.5 t SWL and 32 m outreach
have been preliminarily used, as alternative to the four bridge-type grab ship
unloaders.
Hereunder the theoretical calculation of the barge unloading cycle is shown,
with resulting daily rates reported in the subsequent table:

Company Pvt. Ltd
Theoretical rate [tph] 1,000
The above rates refer to the operation of a single crane on each barge; as
anticipated in case of only one barge being available at berth, two cranes can
work simultaneously on its hold.
 Scenario C: coal is delivered to the shore terminal by self-loading/unloading
barges (SLUB). Being the SLUB equipped with cranes as necessary to fully
discharge the OGV at HPP transhipment site and with bottom type reclaiming
system with discharging boom, the SLUB will be able to self-discharge the coal
ashore as well, thus reducing both Capital and Operational cost of the shore
receiving berth.
In particular, a discharging boom is envisaged (positioned either at SLUB bow
or stern according to final jetty design and general requirement) to deliver the
coal onto two shore receiving hoppers feeding the two envisaged conveyor
lines.
With the aim to allow the simultaneous discharge of two SLUBs simultaneously,
two berths in line are foreseen.

Company Pvt. Ltd
Thanks to the ability of the SLUB to self-unload, the requirement for

discharging equipment at the shore terminal is limited to the installation of a
receiving hopper dedicated to each SLUB. As a consequence, the structural part
of the jetty can be much simplified, using only berthing dolphins for the “fore”
SLUB (no need for heavy equipment to cover the entire berthing length), as shown
in the sketch hereunder:
Hoppers installed on deck will be designed to have the following main features:
 Volume: about 20 m3.
 Power requirement: about 55 kW
 In order to reduce the exposure of the falling cargo to weather agents
and to minimize the dispersion of dust in the surroundings
(environmental impact), the delivery boom conveyor can be closed and
the hoppers could be designed with protective wind breaks and covering
on the top, similar to the solutions proposed in the pictures below:

Company Pvt. Ltd
Breakwater
Similarly to off-shore operations, also discharging operations on shore might need to
stop in case of adverse sea state resulting in significant residual waves at the jetty.
Reference values of significant wave height threshold which might be considered for
downtime depend on a number of conditions, which may be identified as follows:
 Waves direction: waves coming from bow of the barges have a lower impact
than those coming from the side. In this view, the receiving shore terminal layout
has been conceptually positioned so to minimize the possibility of cross waves
from impacting on the barges.
 Barges’ size: the larger the size, the less subject to sea state.
 Equipment employed for the operation. With this regards, as a general
comment, it can be said that cranes and the self-discharging system of the SLUBs
allow for operating with a higher wave height than shore cranes working inside
the flat top barge holds.
Despite the above considerations, the overall weather conditions expected at site during
the monsoon season are quite challenging for the performance of the discharging
operation, in particular:
 The offshore transhipment operation at the fair weather TS should not be
considered,
 Barges and SLUBs should be able to sail from Karachi (monsoon TS) to the
receiving HPP berth and vice versa with significant waves height below 3.0 meters.
 The shore jetty availability, to be assessed using waves propagation model and
mooring/seakeeping analysis to estimate the percentage of time the
barge/SLUB can remain alongside the jetty under the influence of residual waves.
In order to reduce the downtime due to bad weather, thus meeting the throughput target
and provide a reliable coal source of supply without being forced to interrupt the coal
delivery to the shore terminal, the construction of a breakwater providing

Company Pvt. Ltd
shelter to the barge berth (as the result of wave propagation and mooring analysis) is
highly recommended.
For reference only, two alternative layouts have been conceptually drafted as
described hereunder:
 Separate to the coal berth (similar to the solution proposed in reference doc.
A): the breakwater would allow for contained overtopping, as a stretch of water
would guarantee for further protection to the berth (pedestrians and cargo
handling equipment).
Alternative configurations may be investigated based on the availability of
construction material locally and related costs. As a reference, the following two
sketches are based on large rocks and concrete blocks armour layer
respectively:
This alternative breakwater has been considered for the shore terminal layout
in scenarios A and B, allowing for a sheltered area also for tugs in between the
coal berth and the breakwater itself:

Company Pvt. Ltd
 Attached to the coal berth: in this configuration, values of wave overtopping

discharge should be low to guarantee safety not only for structures but also for
vehicles and workers operating on the sheltered side. The breakwater
configuration should be as shown in the following sketch (for reference only).
To fulfill this requirement, the top of the breakwater and concrete crown wall
would be required to be higher than in the above alternative.
This solution has been conceptually drafted for scenario C, as shown
hereunder:

Company Pvt. Ltd
With the aim of developing the breakwater layout and carry out a preliminary design,
the following information and additional analysis would need to be obtained and
performed:
- Wave propagation study, for assessing the effectiveness of the proposed
breakwater and evaluate its dimensions, by verifying the residual wave
obtained at berth.
- Static and seismic stability verifications.
- Morphodynamic study on the final project configuration is suggested in next
project development phase to better investigate coastal sediment movements.
- Geotechnical site investigation and detailed settlement analyses.

Company Pvt. Ltd
ANNEX 3 – PRELIMINARY CAPEX ESTIMATION BREAKDOWN
Panamax conversion preliminary Capex estimation
Budget USD
A Supplies
Crane Liebherr CBG 350 CIF SY + extension platform 8,200,000
Conveyor system and two fixed barge loaders 3,517,000
Grabs CIF SY 633,000
Genset for cargo (3 units x abt 1800kW, 440V 60Hz) 1,960,000
Mechanical coal sampler 350,000
Bow Thruster 320,000
Spare parts 100,000
Fendering systems (4 primary + 6 smaller) 300,000
Electrical switch board 350,000
Electrical cables 600,000
Dozers for cleaning purpose 400,000
Other Supplies 475,000
Total Supplies 17,205,000
B Shipyard
Crane columns and boom rests 416,000
Hoppers + Boom rests 650,000
Conveyor system steel structures 850,000
Bargeloaders columns 119,000
Workshop Drawings 100,000
Additional accomodation 250,000
Coating (Owner's supplied paints) 250,000
Other steel structure and reinforcement 192,000
Shipyard electrical and mechanical fitting 1,600,000
Warfage 168,000
Total Shipyard 4,595,000
C Services
Conversion design 450,000
Shipyard conversion supervision 250,000
Class supervision and drawings approval 100,000
External technical traveling, accommodation and lodging expenses 100,000
Minimum crew during conversion 200,000
Forwarding Exp. 200,000
Local agent/forwarding 150,000
Total Services 1,450,000

Company Pvt. Ltd
Panamax conversion preliminary Capex estimation
Budget USD
D Mobilization of the FTS 650,000
Total Preliminary Conversion Cost (A+B+C+D) 23,900,000
E Second hand Panamax 13,000,000

Grand Total (A+B+C+D+E) 36,900,000

Company Pvt. Ltd
SLUB Preliminary Capex estimation
Budget USD
A Supplies
Conveyor systems 2,680,000
Hoppers gates 500,000
Grabs (21,0 cum) 350,000
440V, 220V and Em. Switchboards 350,000
Main Generators (1800 rpm) 1,900,000
Navigation equipment 150,000
Cranes CBG 350 3,000,000
Extension Platform 1,210,000
Windlass + Winch (foreward and aft) 1,000,000
Azimuth thruster 2 x 1400 kW 1,650,000
Bowthruster 700 kW 330,000
Rescue boat and ancilliary facility 250,000
Chains/shackes/emercy rope towingropes 200,000
Mooring ropes 58,000
Wheel loaders CAT 950 + 938 560,000
Lubricating oil first supply 60,000
B Shipyard
Steel (about 4600t) 6,800,000
International paint supply 600,000
Coating 300,000
Catodic protection 50,000
Outfitting and CHS installation 600,000
Machinery and systems 1,200,000
Electrical part 1,800,000
Accomodation outfitting and forniture 500,000
Piping installation and ballast system 500,000
DD and warfage 100,000
Commissioning and testing 300,000
Workshop drawings 300,000
C Services
Approvals Class 150,000
Agency 60,000
Total Services 210,000

Company Pvt. Ltd
SLUB Preliminary Capex estimation
Budget USD
D Forwarding/Mobilization
Mobilization to the site 650,000
Other forwarding expences 300,000
Total Forwarding/Mobilization 950,000
E Technical expenses
Supervision 250,000
Project design 300,000
Project management 150,000
Other thechnical expenses 430,000
Total technical expenses 1,130,000
Total Costs (A+B+C+D+E) 30,120,000
F Spares 200,000
Grand Total (A+B+C+D+E+F) 30,320,000

Company Pvt. Ltd
FC Preliminary Capex estimation
Budget USD
A Supplies
Crane and grabs CIF Sing 4,200,000
Accomodation supply 300,000
Air Condyitioning system 100,000
Deck equipment 60,000
Spare parts 100,000
Auxiliries Genset 900,000
Fendering systems 50,000
Elettrical switch board 300,000
Electrical cable 300,000
Other electrical devices(starting pannels/relays/transformers, etc) 80,000
Sewage treatment system 20,000
Winches and windlass 500,000
Mooring and fendering system 150,000
Lube oil (first supply) 30,000
B Shipyard
C Services
Project design 300,000
Shipyard supervision 180,000
Forwarding Exp. 150,000
Other Services 220,000
Total Services 850,000
Total Costs (A+B+C) 13,940,000
D Mobilization towage 700,000

Grand Total (A+B+C+D) 14,640,000

ANNEX 4 – TOTAL COST PER TONNE (10 YEARS TERM FROM COD)
Fixed Costs PFT + 3 TUG&BARGE SET 2 FC 3 SLUBs
Fixed cost [USD] 18,791,002 17,241,002 21,305,000

Contingency on fixed cost (10%) [USD] 1,879,100 1,724,100 2,130,500
Total Fixed cost [USD] 20,670,103 18,965,103 23,435,500
- Fixed cost: capital amortization, financial charge, profit margin, running costs (crew, insurance, routine maintenance/repairs,
administration charge), estimate provision for dry-docking
- Includes costs required to keep all Marine Spread ready in all respect for unloading
- Fixed costs shall be independent of actual tonnage
- To be paid in 12 equal monthly instalments
Variable Cost PFT + 3 TUG&BARGE SET 2 FC 3 SLUBs
O&M Charges [USD/t] 0.68 0.75 0.47

Contingency on O&M (10%) [USD/t] 0.07 0.07 0.05
Total O&M Charges [USD/t] 0.75 0.82 0.52
Bunker Fuel Charges [USD/t] 1.69 1.36 1.23
Contingency on Bunker Fuel (10%) [USD/t] 0.17 0.14 0.11
Total Bunker Fuel Charges [USD/t] 1.85 1.49 1.34
- O&M Charges: crew overtime, variable maintenance, lube oil

- O&M Charges are Direct Costs related to unloading (operational costs incurred by SP)

Doc. No. 232.0005_Rev.1 – Annex 7 to the Final Report Page 4 of 5
- Bunker Consumption by SP to transship coal from OGV to Terminal to Jetty

- Assumed that Bunker Consumption is based on fuel requirement for transport of coal and shall remain constant over the course of
the life of the contract and invoiced as such. However, Bunker escalation/de-escalation formula to be developed to cope with fuel market
price fluctuation
Tariff at: PFT + 3 TUG&BARGE SET 2 FC 3 SLUBs
2,000,000 tpa [USD/t] 12.94 11.80 13.58

3,000,000 tpa [USD/t] 9.50 8.64 9.67
3,800,000 tpa [USD/t] 8.04 7.31 8.02

Doc. No. 232.0005_Rev.1 – Annex 7 to the Final Report Page 5 of 5

Transshipment FS Report

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Transshipment FS Report

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Transshipment FS Report

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

China Power Hub Generation

Company Pvt. Ltd

China Power Hub Generation Company

Feasibility Study for Offshore

April 16th, 2016

China Power Hub Generation Company Pvt. Ltd

China Power Hub Generation Company

China Power Hub Generation Company Pvt. Ltd

China Power Hub Generation Company Pvt. Ltd

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

China Power Hub Generation Company Pvt. Ltd

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

China Power Hub Generation Company Pvt. Ltd

China Power Hub Generation Company Pvt. Ltd

1.1. LOGMARIN SCOPE OF WORK

China Power Hub Generation Company Pvt. Ltd

1.2. EVALUATED SCENARIOS

China Power Hub Generation Company Pvt. Ltd

B. Floating Cranes discharging gearless OGV into barges: once at transhipment

C. Transhipment operations are carried out by dedicated self-propelled, self-

China Power Hub Generation Company Pvt. Ltd

The transhipment area is exposed to SW monsoon; hence a contingency plan

2. COAL SUPPLY CHAIN TARGETS

China Power Hub Generation Company Pvt. Ltd

China Power Hub Generation Company Pvt. Ltd

Annual tonnage [t] 3,800,000

China Power Hub Generation Company Pvt. Ltd

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

China Power Hub Generation Company Pvt. Ltd

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

2.2. OTHER CONSIDERATIONS

China Power Hub Generation Company Pvt. Ltd

Distance to Distance to Max vessel

South Africa - > 200,000 35,000 -

3.1. EAST KALIMANTAN

China Power Hub Generation Company Pvt. Ltd

At anchorage, vessels up to Capesize can be loaded via transshipment facilities

China Power Hub Generation Company Pvt. Ltd

China Power Hub Generation Company Pvt. Ltd

China Power Hub Generation Company Pvt. Ltd

5.1. PRELIMINARY SHORE TERMINAL LAYOUT

China Power Hub Generation Company Pvt. Ltd

China Power Hub Generation Company Pvt. Ltd

China Power Hub Generation Company Pvt. Ltd

China Power Hub Generation Company Pvt. Ltd

China Power Hub Generation Company Pvt. Ltd

S 0.5 0.4 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.1

China Power Hub Generation Company Pvt. Ltd

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

Mean wave period in seconds (Tm)

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

6.3.1. Operational thresholds at the transhipment site

China Power Hub Generation Company Pvt. Ltd

China Power Hub Generation Company Pvt. Ltd

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