10.final Master Plan Paradip

Master Plan Report – Final August 2016
MASTER PLAN FOR PARADIP PORT

Master Plan for Paradip Port
Prepared for
Ministry of Shipping/ Indian Ports Association

st
Transport Bhawan, 1 Floor, South Tower, NBCC Place
Sansad Marg, B. P Marg, Lodi Road
New Delhi,110001 New Delhi - 110 003
www.shipping.nic.in www.ipa.nic.in
Prepared by
AECOM India Private Limited,

th
9 Floor, Infinity Tower C, DLF Cyber City,
DLF Phase II, Gurgaon, Haryana,
India, Pin 122002
Telephone: +91 124 4830100,
Fax: +91 124 4830108
www.aecom.com
August 2016
© AECOM India Private Limited 2016
This document has been prepared by AECOM India Private Limited for the sole use of our client (the “Client”) and in accordance
with generally accepted consultancy principles, the budget for fees and the terms of reference agreed between AECOM India
Private Limited and the Client. Any information provided by third parties and referred to herein has not been checked or verified
by AECOM India Private Limited, unless otherwise expressly stated in the document. No third party may rely upon this document
without the prior and express written agreement of AECOM India Private Limited.
All rights reserved. No section or element of this document may be removed from this document, reproduced, electronically
stored or transmitted in any form without the written permission of AECOM India Private Limited.
SAGARMALA: Master Plan for Paradip Port

Final Report
Quality Information
Client: Ministry of Shipping/ Indian Ports Association Contract No. (if any): NA
Project Title: SAGARMALA: Master Plan for Paradip Port Project No.: DELD15005
Document No: DELD15005-REP-0000-CP-1014

Controlled Copy No:
Share Point Ref:
Document Title: Master Plan for Paradip Port - Final
Covering Letter/ Transmittal Ref. No: Date of Issue: 25 August 2016
Revision, Review and Approval Records
HM ASM SG
D. Master Plan for Paradip Port - Final
22.08.2016 22.08.2016 25.08.2016
RP ASM SG
C. Master Plan for Paradip Port - Final
01.08.2016 01.08.2016 03.08.2016
PM ASM SG
B. Master Plan for Paradip Port - Final
29.05.2016 01.06.2016 02.06.2016
HM ASM SG
A. Master Plan for Paradip Port - Draft
31.12.2015 31.12.2015 31.12.2015
Prepared by/ Approved by/
Revision Description Reviewed by/ date
date date
Document Revision Register
Revision By Name &

Issue no. Date of issue Section Revision Details
Position
Marshal Praveen
1. 02.06.2016 Comments on Draft Master Plan Report
(Engineer II)
Ritu Paliwal
2. 03.08.2016 Comments on Final Master Plan Report
(Sr. Consultant)
Himanshu Mahajan
3. 25.08.2016 Comments on Final Master Plan Report
(Engineer I)
SAGARMALA: Master Plan for Paradip Port

Final Report
Table of Contents
1.0 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................................. 1-1
1.1 BACKGROUND ..................................................................................................................................... 1-1

1.2 SCOPE OF WORK ................................................................................................................................. 1-2
1.3 PRESENT SUBMISSION ........................................................................................................................... 1-3
2.0 THE PORT AND SITE CONDITIONS ....................................................................................................... 2-1
2.1 PARADIP PORT AS AT PRESENT ................................................................................................................ 2-1

2.1.1 Road Connectivity .................................................................................................................... 2-1
2.1.2 Rail Connectivity ...................................................................................................................... 2-2
2.2 SITE CONDITIONS ................................................................................................................................. 2-3
2.2.1 Meteorology ............................................................................................................................ 2-3
2.2.1.1 Winds ...................................................................................................................................... 2-3
2.2.1.2 Rainfall .................................................................................................................................... 2-4
2.2.1.3 Air Temperature ...................................................................................................................... 2-4
2.2.1.4 Visibility................................................................................................................................... 2-5
2.2.1.5 Relative Humidity .................................................................................................................... 2-5
2.2.2 Oceanography ......................................................................................................................... 2-6
2.2.2.1 Tides........................................................................................................................................ 2-6
2.2.2.2 Currents................................................................................................................................... 2-6
2.2.2.3 Cyclone .................................................................................................................................... 2-6
2.2.3 Geotechnical Data ................................................................................................................... 2-6
3.0 DETAILS OF EXISTING FACILITIES......................................................................................................... 3-1
3.1 GENERAL ........................................................................................................................................... 3-1

3.2 EXISTING DOCKS AND QUAYS .................................................................................................................. 3-2
3.2.1 Eastern Quay (EQ) ................................................................................................................... 3-3
3.2.2 Central Quay (CQ) .................................................................................................................... 3-3
3.2.3 South Quay (SQ) ...................................................................................................................... 3-4
3.2.4 Fertilizer Berth (FB) .................................................................................................................. 3-4
3.2.5 Iron Ore Berths (IOB)................................................................................................................ 3-4
3.2.6 Coal Handling Berths (CB) ........................................................................................................ 3-4
3.2.7 POL Jetty ................................................................................................................................. 3-5
3.2.8 New Oil Jetty ........................................................................................................................... 3-5
3.2.9 General Cargo/ Multi-Purpose Berths ....................................................................................... 3-5
3.3 EQUIPMENT FOR BREAKBULK CARGO ........................................................................................................ 3-5
3.4 SINGLE POINT MOORING TERMINALS........................................................................................................ 3-5
3.5 STORAGE FACILITIES ............................................................................................................................. 3-6
3.6 PORT RAILWAYS .................................................................................................................................. 3-7
3.7 PILOTAGE AND TOWAGE FACILITIES .......................................................................................................... 3-7
3.8 REPAIRING FACILITY .............................................................................................................................. 3-7
4.0 PERFORMANCE, OPTIONS FOR DEBOTTLENECKING & CAPACITY ASSESSMENT .................................. 4-1
4.1 GENERAL ........................................................................................................................................... 4-1

4.2 BCG BENCHMARKING STUDY.................................................................................................................. 4-1
SAGARMALA: Master Plan for Paradip Port i

Final Report
4.3 CAPACITY A SSESSMENT OF EXISTING FACILITIES ........................................................................................... 4-3
4.3.1 General ................................................................................................................................... 4-3
4.3.2 Capacity of Berths .................................................................................................................... 4-3
4.3.2.1 General ................................................................................................................................... 4-3
4.3.2.2 MCHP ...................................................................................................................................... 4-5
4.3.2.3 Conventional Berths ................................................................................................................. 4-6
4.3.2.4 Liquid Berths ............................................................................................................................ 4-9
5.0 DETAILS OF ONGOING PROJECTS ........................................................................................................ 5-1
5.1 GENERAL ........................................................................................................................................... 5-1

5.2 DEVELOPMENT OF DEEP DRAFT COAL IMPORT BERTH ................................................................................... 5-2
5.3 DEVELOPMENT OF MULTI-PURPOSE BERTH TO HANDLE CLEAN CARGO ............................................................. 5-3
5.4 DEVELOPMENT OF N EW IRON ORE BERTH FOR HANDLING OF IRON ORE EXPORTS ............................................... 5-4
5.5 MECHANIZATION OF EQ1 TO EQ3 BERTHS ................................................................................................ 5-4
5.6 LPG TERMINAL IN SOUTH OIL JETTY ......................................................................................................... 5-6
6.0 TRAFFIC PROJECTIONS ........................................................................................................................ 6-1
6.1 GENERAL ........................................................................................................................................... 6-1

6.2 MAJOR COMMODITIES AND THEIR PROJECTIONS .......................................................................................... 6-1
6.2.1 Coal ......................................................................................................................................... 6-1
6.2.2 Coking Coal.............................................................................................................................. 6-6
6.2.3 POL.......................................................................................................................................... 6-8
6.2.4 Other Commodities .................................................................................................................. 6-9
6.2.5 Coastal Shipping Potential ..................................................................................................... 6-10
7.0 CAPACITY AUGMENTATION REQUIRMENTS ....................................................................................... 7-1
7.1 PORT CAPACITY AFTER ON-GOING DEVELOPMENTS ...................................................................................... 7-1

7.2 REQUIREMENT FOR CAPACITY EXPANSION .................................................................................................. 7-2
8.0 PORT CONNECTIVITY AND INFRASTRUCTURE ..................................................................................... 8-1
8.1 CONSTRAINTS IN RAIL AND ROAD CONNECTIVITY TO THE PORT ........................................................................ 8-1
8.1.1 General ................................................................................................................................... 8-1
8.1.2 Road Connectivity .................................................................................................................... 8-1
8.1.3 Rail Connectivity ...................................................................................................................... 8-2
8.2 INTERSECTIONS IN RAIL & TRAFFIC CONFLICT .............................................................................................. 8-5
8.2.1 Locations of Intersections......................................................................................................... 8-5
8.2.2 Main Tracks from Cuttack ........................................................................................................ 8-6
8.2.3 Tracks to Haridaspur ................................................................................................................ 8-8
8.3 INTERNAL RAIL CONNECTIVITY ............................................................................................................... 8-10
8.3.1 Evaluation of Rail Networks ................................................................................................... 8-11
8.3.2 Observations from the Calculations ........................................................................................ 8-13
8.3.2.1 Existing MCHP & MGR Lines ................................................................................................... 8-13
nd
8.3.2.2 Proposed BOT Tracks & 2 MGR Area .................................................................................... 8-14
8.3.2.3 Location & Tracks for Wagon Loader for CQ Mechanization in Future ..................................... 8-16
8.3.2.4 Existing Wagon Tippler Facility & Yard for it ........................................................................... 8-18
8.3.3 Tracks between EQ & CQ Area ............................................................................................... 8-19
8.3.4 Tracks to Multi-purpose Berths in Southern Dock ................................................................... 8-19
SAGARMALA: Master Plan for Paradip Port ii

Final Report
8.3.4.1 Existing Exchange Yard along with All Planned Projects .......................................................... 8-21
8.3.5 New Tracks and Rail Network for Outer Harbour .................................................................... 8-21
8.3.6 No. of Mainlines Entry / Exit to Port ....................................................................................... 8-24
8.4 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR IMPROVEMENT IN ROAD ACCESS .......................................................................... 8-24
9.0 SCOPE FOR FUTURE CAPACITY EXPANSION ........................................................................................ 9-1
9.1 DEVELOPMENT POSSIBLE WITHIN THE EXISTING HARBOUR ............................................................................. 9-1

9.1.1 Mechanization of CQ1 to CQ2 .................................................................................................. 9-1
9.1.2 Capacity Augmentation of MCHP ............................................................................................. 9-2
9.1.3 IWT Terminal ........................................................................................................................... 9-3
9.1.4 Conversion of Iron Ore Berth to Handle Coal ............................................................................. 9-4
9.2 DEVELOPMENT OF POTENTIAL OUTER HARBOUR ......................................................................................... 9-5
9.2.1 Alternative Locations ............................................................................................................... 9-5
9.2.2 Qualitative Evaluation of the Alternative Sites .......................................................................... 9-5
9.2.3 Planning of the Outer Harbour ................................................................................................. 9-5
9.3 LAND USE PLAN .................................................................................................................................. 9-7
10.0 SHELF OF NEW PROJECTS AND PHASING .......................................................................................... 10-1
10.1 GENERAL ......................................................................................................................................... 10-1

10.2 ONGOING PROJECTS ........................................................................................................................... 10-1
10.3 PROJECTS TO BE COMPLETED BY YEAR 2020 ............................................................................................. 10-3
APPENDIX-1: BCG BENCHMARKING STUDY FOR PARADIP PORT ................................................................... - 1 -
SAGARMALA: Master Plan for Paradip Port iii

Final Report
List of Figures
Figure 1.1 Aim of Sagarmala Development .................................................................................. 1-1
Figure 1.2 Governing Principles of Approach ............................................................................... 1-2
Figure 1.3 Port Led Developments .............................................................................................. 1-2
Figure 2.1 Location Plan of Port .................................................................................................. 2-1
Figure 2.2 Road Connectivity to Paradip ...................................................................................... 2-2
Figure 2.3 Rail Connectivity to Paradip ........................................................................................ 2-2
Figure 2.4 Wind Rose Diagram.................................................................................................... 2-3
Figure 3.1 Existing Facilities at Paradip Port ................................................................................ 3-1
Figure 3.2 Location of SPMs ....................................................................................................... 3-6
Figure 5.1 Ongoing Developments 1............................................................................................ 5-1
Figure 5.2 Ongoing Developments 2............................................................................................ 5-1
Figure 5.3 Location of Deep Draft Coal Import Berth .................................................................... 5-2
Figure 5.4 Location of Multipurpose Berth.................................................................................... 5-3
Figure 5.5 Location Plan of New Iron Ore Berth and Stackyard .................................................... 5-4
Figure 5.6 Location Plan of EQ 1 to EQ 3 Berths and Stackyard .................................................. 5-5
Figure 6.1 Thermal Coal Requirement of Existing and Upcoming Power Plants ........................... 6-2
Figure 6.2 Current Coal Movement .............................................................................................. 6-3
Figure 6.3 Coal Movement by Road Rail and Coastal Shipping.................................................... 6-3
Figure 6.4 Current Rail Network .................................................................................................. 6-4
Figure 6.5 Optimization Model for Coal Logistics ......................................................................... 6-5
Figure 6.6 Output of O-D Study ................................................................................................... 6-5
Figure 6.7 Steel Plants relevant for Coking Coal .......................................................................... 6-7
Figure 6.8 Coastal Shipping Possibilities ..................................................................................... 6-8
Figure 6.9 POL Traffic – Paradip Port .......................................................................................... 6-9
Figure 6.10 Coastal Shipping - Steel ........................................................................................... 6-11
Figure 6.11 Coastal Shipping – Cement ...................................................................................... 6-11
Figure 6.12 Coastal Shipping – Cement Cluster .......................................................................... 6-12
Figure 6.13 Coastal Shipping – Fertiliser ..................................................................................... 6-12
Figure 8.1 Evacuation Modal Spilit............................................................................................... 8-1
Figure 8.2 Rail Connectivity ......................................................................................................... 8-2
Figure 8.3 Key Rail Routes Between Talcher/Ib Valley and Paradip/Dharma................................ 8-3
Figure 8.4 Interventions required for Effective Transfer of Coal Mined from Talcher and ..................
Ib Valley to Paradip..................................................................................................... 8-3
Figure 8.5 Rail Traffic Intersection in Present Scenario ................................................................ 8-5
Figure 8.6 Option 1 for Development of Rail Tracks ..................................................................... 8-6
Figure 8.7 Option 2 for Development of Rail Tracks ..................................................................... 8-7
Figure 8.8 Location and Conceptual Layout of Rail Grade Separator Near Barabandha Station ... 8-7
Figure 8.9 Existing DE for Haridaspur Connectivity ...................................................................... 8-9
Figure 8.10 Conceptual Layout of Flyover for Down Track to Haridaspur ....................................... 8-9
Figure 8.11 Land on the Other Side of DE for Haridaspur Track................................................... 8-10
Figure 8.12 Overall Schematic Port Rail Network......................................................................... 8-12
Figure 8.13 Existing MCHP Area & MGR Lines ........................................................................... 8-13
Figure 8.14 Proposed BOT Lines and 2nd MGR .......................................................................... 8-14
SAGARMALA: Master Plan for Paradip Port iv

Final Report
Figure 8.15 General Cargo Loading Area (Existing) ..................................................................... 8-16
Figure 8.16 General Cargo Loading Area (Proposed) .................................................................. 8-16
Figure 8.17 Existing Wagon Tippler & Yard ................................................................................. 8-18
Figure 8.18 Loading Area for MPB............................................................................................... 8-20
Figure 8.19 Exchange Yard for Existing Harbour ......................................................................... 8-21
Figure 8.20 Outer Harbour MGR ................................................................................................. 8-22
Figure 8.21 Exchange Yard for Outer Harbour ............................................................................. 8-22
Figure 8.22 Proposed Flyover at Gate 3 ...................................................................................... 8-25
Figure 8.23 Proposed Flyover at Gate 4 ...................................................................................... 8-25
Figure 9.1 Mechanization of CQ1 & CQ2 Berths .......................................................................... 9-1
Figure 9.2 Proposed Arrangement for Capacity Augmentation of MCHP ...................................... 9-2
Figure 9.3 Proposed Location for the IWT Terminal ..................................................................... 9-3
Figure 9.4 Conversion of IOHP to Handle Coal ............................................................................ 9-4
Figure 9.5 Location of Project Sites ............................................................................................. 9-5
Figure 9.6 Master Plan Layout for Proposed Outer Harbour ......................................................... 9-6
Figure 9.7 Port Land Use Plan..................................................................................................... 9-7
Figure 10.1 Port Layout along with Ongoing Developments ......................................................... 10-2
Figure 10.2 Layout Plan 2020...................................................................................................... 10-4
SAGARMALA: Master Plan for Paradip Port v

Final Report
List of Tables
Table 2.1 Average Monthly Distribution of Rainfall ...................................................................... 2-4
Table 2.2 Maximum and Minimum Temperature-Monthwise ....................................................... 2-5
Table 3.1 Details of Breakwater, Channel & Turning Basin ......................................................... 3-2
Table 3.2 Berthwise Details ........................................................................................................ 3-3
Table 3.3 Details of the Storage Facilities ................................................................................... 3-6
Table 3.4 Details of Open Areas for Stacking ............................................................................. 3-7
Table 4.1 Cargo Handled during Last 5 Years (MTPA) ............................................................... 4-1
Table 4.2 Recommended Berth Occupancy................................................................................ 4-3
Table 4.3 Cargo handled at Berths during FY 15-16 ................................................................... 4-4
Table 4.4 Capacity of MCHP ...................................................................................................... 4-5
Table 4.5 Stacking Capacity of the Existing Coal Stackyard for MCHP ....................................... 4-6
Table 4.6 Berth Capacity of a Typical Multipurpose Berth ........................................................... 4-7
Table 4.7 Berth Capacity Assessment for Berths EQ1 to EQ3 .................................................... 4-8
Table 4.8 Typical Capacity Calculations for Oil Terminal ............................................................. 4-9
Table 6.1 List of Power Plants with Coastal Shipping.................................................................. 6-6
Table 6.2 Paradip Port – Traffic Projections.............................................................................. 6-10
Table 6.3 Paradip Port – Coastal Shipping Opputunity.............................................................. 6-13
Table 7.1 Existing and Proposed Capacity of Berths (MTPA) ...................................................... 7-1
Table 7.2 Additional Need in Capacity by 2020, 2025 and 2035 .................................................. 7-2
Table 8.1 Status of Rail Evacuation Projects Critical to Coastal Coal Movement ......................... 8-4
Table 8.2 Comparison of Two Options ........................................................................................ 8-8
Table 8.3 Rated Rake Handling Capacities of Material Handling Facilities ................................ 8-10
Table 8.4 Rail Traffic Projections for Year 2020 ........................................................................ 8-11
Table 8.5 Rail Traffic Projections for Year 2025 ........................................................................ 8-11
Table 8.6 Traffic Estimate for Existing MCHP Area ................................................................... 8-13
Table 8.7 Traffic Estimate for BOT Tracks along with CQ Mechanization .................................. 8-15
Table 8.8 Traffic Estimate for GCB Loading Area ..................................................................... 8-17
Table 8.9 Traffic Estimate for Existing Wagon Tippler ............................................................... 8-19
Table 8.10 Traffic Estimate for MPB in Southern Dock ............................................................... 8-20
Table 8.11 Traffic Estimate for Outer Harbour Area for 2020 ...................................................... 8-23
Table 10.1 Ongoing Projects ...................................................................................................... 10-1
Table 10.2 Projects to be Completed by Year 2020 .................................................................... 10-3
SAGARMALA: Master Plan for Paradip Port vi

Final Report
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background
The Sagarmala initiative is one of the most important strategic imperatives to realize India’s economic
aspirations. The overall objective of the project is to evolve a model of port-led development, whereby
Indian ports become a major contributor to the country’s GDP.
As shown in Figure 1.1, the Sagarmala project envisages transforming existing ports into modern
world-class ports, and developing new top notch ports based on the requirement. It also aspires to
efficiently integrate ports with industrial clusters, the hinterland and the evacuation systems, through
road, rail, inland and coastal waterways. This would enable ports to drive economic activity in coastal
areas. Further, Sagarmala aims to develop coastal and inland shipping as a major mode of transport
for the carriage of goods along the coastal and riverine economic centres.
As an outcome, it would offer efficient and seamless evacuation of cargo for both the EXIM and
domestic sectors, thereby reducing logistics costs with ports becoming a larger economy.
Figure 1.1 Aim of Sagarmala Development
In order to meet the objectives, Indian Port Association (IPA) appointed the consortium of McKinsey
and AECOM as Consultant to prepare the National Perspective Plan as part of the Sagarmala
Programme.
SAGARMALA: Master Plan for Paradip Port 1-1

Final Report
1.2 Scope of Work
The team of McKinsey and AECOM distilled learnings from the experience in port-led development,
the major engagement challenge to develop a set of governing principles for our approach is shown in
Figure 1.2.
Figure 1.2 Governing Principles of Approach
As indicated above, the origin-destination of key cargo (accounting for greater than 85% of the total
traffic) in Indian ports have been mapped to develop traffic scenarios for a period of next 20 years.
The forces and developments that will drive change in the cargo flows have also been identified. This
would lead to the identification of regions along the coastline where the potential for expansion of
existing port exists. The various activities involved in the port led developments are charted in Figure
1.3.
Figure 1.3 Port Led Developments

Final Report
As part of the assignment, it is also expected to coordinate with the team working on “Benchmarking
Operational Improvement Roadmap for Major Ports in India” study (which is being carried out
simultaneously along with this assignment) and identify current and future logistic constraints (at the
Major Ports) for the top 85% cargo categories based on analysis of current port capacity, productivity
levels in comparison to international benchmark and evacuation bottlenecks in the logistics chain. This
understanding should be an input in defining the 2035 Master Plan for each port.
Accordingly, this Master Plan report has been prepared taking into consideration the inputs provided
on the future traffic and the benchmarking and operational improvements suggested for this port.
1.3 Present Submission

The present submission is the Final report for Development of Master Plan for Paradip Port as part of
SAGARMALA assignment. This report is organised in the following sections:
Section 1 : Introduction
Section 2 : The Port and Site Conditions
Section 3 : Details of Existing facilities
Section 4 : Performance, Options for Debottlenecking & Capacity Assessment
Section 5 : Details of Ongoing Projects
Section 6 : Traffic Projections
Section 7 : Capacity Augmentation Requirements
Section 8 : Port Connectivity and Infrastructure
Section 9 : Scope for Future Capacity Expansion
Section 10 : Shelf of New Projects and Phasing

Final Report
2.0 THE PORT AND SITE CONDITIONS
2.1 Paradip Port as at Present
Paradip Port (20°15‘55.44” N and 86°40‘27.34” E) is one of the 12 major ports in India. It is an
artificial, deep-water port on the East coast of India in Jagatsinghpur district of Odisha. It is situated at
confluence of the Mahanadi River and the Bay of Bengal. It is about 210 nautical miles south of
Kolkata and 260 nautical miles north of Visakhapatnam. The location plan of Paradip Port is shown in
the Figure 2.1.
Figure 2.1 Location Plan of Port
2.1.1 Road Connectivity
Paradip Port is connected via road with Cuttack and Chandikhole, which are two of the major cities in
Odisha.
Cuttack and Paradip are connected by SH-12 (2 lanes).
Cuttack and Chandikhole are connected by NH-5A (4 lanes).
All-important destinations in India whether on the North, West or East could be accessed through any
one of the above mentioned Highways as shown in Figure 2.2.

Final Report
Figure 2.2 Road Connectivity to Paradip
2.1.2 Rail Connectivity
Paradip port Rail network is a part of the East Coast Railway System and is connected to the
Hinterland via Cuttack by a broad gauge rail link. Cuttack is around 90 km from Paradip and connects
Port to Howrah-Chennai main line. Howrah-Chennai line connects Paradip to Kolkata (route length of
about 500km) on the North and Chennai on the South (route length of about 1,340 km). The current
rail connectivity to Paradip Port is shown in Figure 2.3.
Figure 2.3 Rail Connectivity to Paradip

Final Report
2.2 Site Conditions
2.2.1 Meteorology
The climate at Paradip is governed by the monsoon. In the months of June to September, the south-
west monsoon occurs, followed by the north-east monsoon in October- December. The later period is
often indicated as the post-monsoon period. January-February is the winter period and March-May is
usually the hot weather period.
2.2.1.1 Winds
Monthly Wind Rose diagrams for Paradip Port are presented in Figure 2.4. The predominant wind
direction during the months of March to September is South – Southwest and the highest wind speed
during this period was recorded to be 18 m/s. During the period November to January the
predominant wind direction changes to North-Northeast. The months of October and February are
observed to be transition months, where a marked variation in the wind direction was observed. The
Wind Rose diagram at Paradip Port is presented in Figure 2.4.
Figure 2.4 Wind Rose Diagram

Final Report
2.2.1.2 Rainfall
Annual average rainfall at Paradip is about 1,400 mm per annum, about 75% of which is received
during the South-Western Monsoon season, i.e., between June and September. October contributes
to about 8% of the annual rainfall as presented in Table 2.1.
Table 2.1 Average Monthly Distribution of Rainfall
Month Average Rainfall (mm) Maximum Rainfall (mm) Minimum Rainfall (mm)
January 10.0 - 12.0 27.7 0.0
February 36.0 - 40.0 76.7 6.1
March 48.0 - 50.0 177.4 15.0
April 38.0 - 42.0 67.2 16.0
May 42.0 - 44.0 139.9 4.2
June 235.0 - 245.0 451.6 81.6
July 268.0 - 276.0 577.9 135.3
August 308.0-316.0 362.4 235.8
September 245.0-255.0 331.4 15.3
October 116.0-120.0 331.4 15.3
November 12.0-14.0 41.1 0.0
December 36.0-40.0 134.2 0.0
2.2.1.3 Air Temperature
The mean maximum and minimum temperature were observed to be 35.96° C and 13.30° C
respectively. The maximum temperature at Paradip ranges between 28.6° and 35.8° C, while
minimum temperature varies between 13.3° to 22.5° C. Month wise Maximum and Minimum
Temperature at the port vicinity is presented in Table 2.2.

Final Report
Table 2.2 Maximum and Minimum Temperature-Monthwise
Month Mean of Maximum Temperature (°C) Mean of Minimum Temperature (°C)
January 29.52 13.30
February 30.44 15.54
March 31.38 19.12
April 33.94 20.96
May 35.82 22.54
June 34.52 22.44
July 35.96 22.50
August 33.20 21.26
September 34.14 24.88
October 33.94 22.00
November 33.42 17.66
December 28.68 13.62
2.2.1.4 Visibility
Generally, the visibility in the region is very good; visibility in the monsoon normally deteriorates during
rains and occasional squalls. Visibility is recorded at Paradip daily at 08:30 hrs and at 17:30 hrs and
records are available since 1975. Normally lowest range of visibility occurs at sunrise or at sunset and
as the times of recording at Paradip observatory are fixed, lowest values are not available.
Records are maintained in coded form (WMO code 4377) as approved by World Meteorological
Organization. On analysis, the records maintained by I.M.D. for a particular year (1985) 87% of the
readings were in scale 96.6% in scale 95 and 7% in scale 97. For other years it was comparable. Only
one reading over the years was in scale 92. From these records it may be stated that during day light
hours between 08:30 hrs and 17:30 hrs visibility at Paradip does not present any problem for
navigation.
2.2.1.5 Relative Humidity
The average humidity ranges from nearly 84% in August to about 71% in December.

Final Report
2.2.2 Oceanography
2.2.2.1 Tides
The tides at Paradip are semi-diurnal in nature with a tidal range, relative to the Chart Datum (CD), as
follows:
Highest High Water Level (HHWL) + 3.50 m

Lowest Low Water Level (LLWL) + 0.40 m
Mean High Water Springs (MHWS) + 2.58 m
Mean Low Water Springs (MLWS) + 0.71 m
Mean High Water Neaps (MHWN) + 2.02 m
Mean Low Water Neaps (MLWN) + 1.32 m
The above levels are with respect to chart datum, which is approximately the level of Lowest
Astronomical Tide.
2.2.2.2 Currents
The flood and ebb currents during spring tides were reported to be of the order of 0.6 knots (0.3 m/s)
and during the neap tides 0.45 knots (0.23 m/s). Maximum currents reported did not exceed 1.2 knots
(0.6 m/s).
2.2.2.3 Cyclone
Paradip Port is a cyclone prone area and is affected by the cyclones developing in the Bay of Bengal.
During cyclonic conditions wind speeds may exceed 248 kmph as recorded during the 1999 super
cyclone.
2.2.3 Geotechnical Data
Borehole data collected by Paradip Port trust indicates that the seabed sub-strata generally comprises
of silty clay with average N value of 15 up to 7.0 m depth below seabed. Soil below 7.0 m to 14 m
consists of silty sand with average N value of 15. Below 14m soil consist of clayey silt and sand up to
a depth of 30 m with average N varies in the range of 20 to 30.

Final Report
3.0 DETAILS OF EXISTING FACILITIES
3.1 General
Paradip Port presently handles commodities such as iron ore, thermal coal, coking coal, fertilizers and
other break bulk cargo. The port also handles substantial quantities of POL through SBMs and
pipelines. The total area available with the port is 6,521 acres and is located south of Atharabanki
Creek. The dock area, surrounded by a boundary wall is about 1,500 acres.
The Port of Paradip is an artificial lagoon type harbour protected by two rubble mound breakwaters
and is connected to deep water by a dredged channel. The details are as mentioned in Table 3.1
below. The locations of various berths are shown in the following Figure 3.1.
Figure 3.1 Existing Facilities at Paradip Port

Final Report
The features of the existing harbour are as follows:
Table 3.1 Details of Breakwater, Channel & Turning Basin
Breakwaters
North breakwater 538 m long on the north- eastern side of the port
South breakwater 1,217 m long on the south-eastern side of the port
Approach channel
Length 2,020 m
Width 190 m
Depth 18.7 m below CD
Entrance Channel
Length 500
Width 160
Depth 17.1 m below CD
Turning Basin
Diameter 520 m
Depths 17.1 m below CD
3.2 Existing Docks and Quays

Paradip port is having two docks namely Eastern and Central dock with 14 Berths (Figure 3.1). These
docks are located at the lee of the Northern Breakwater. The Central Dock has three multipurpose
berths, 1 multipurpose berth and 2 fertiliser berths, while the Eastern dock has 3 general cargo berths,
2 coal berths, 1 iron ore berth and 1 oil berth on the lee of north breakwater. In addition to 14 berths,
the port has three Single Point Moorings which are dedicated to Indian Oil Company Ltd (IOCL).
Table 3.2 provides details of all the berths at Paradip Port.

Final Report
Table 3.2 Berthwise Details
Dredged Present
Berth Name Length
S. No. Depth Capacity Cargo Handled
(No. of berths) (in m)
(m) (MTPA)
1. North Oil Jetty(1) 350 13.5 7.50 POL import/export
2. Coal Berths (2) 520 14.5 21.00 Thermal coal exports
3. Iron Ore Berth (1) 210 13 6.39 Iron ore exports
Dry bulk cargo

4. East Quay (3) 686 11.0 -13.0 9.69
imports/exports
Multi cargo import /

5. Southern Quay (1) 265 13.0 4.76
export
Central Quay – 3 (1) (Licensee - Dry bulk cargo import/

6. 230 15.0 6.55
Essar) export
Multi cargo import /

7. Central Quay -1, 2 (2) 525 15.0 12.10
export
Fertilizer Berth – I (1) (Captive – Fertilizer RM, edible oil

8. 250 15.0 3.47
PPL) import
Fertilizer Berth – II (1) (Captive – Fertilizer RM, edible oil

9. 250 15.0 4.03
IFFCO) import
Dry and liquid bulk

10. Multipurpose cargo berth (1) 235 15.0 3.45
cargo import/export
11. RO-RO Jetty (1) 50 5.50 1.00 Project Cargo import
12. SPM (3) (Captive IOCL) 23.0 37.00 Crude import
Crude import/ product

13. New South Oil Jetty 350 17.0 10.00
exports
Total 126.94
3.2.1 Eastern Quay (EQ)
It has a quay length of 686 m and contains three berths viz. EQ 1, EQ 2 and EQ 3. EQ 1 and 2 can
handle 45,000 DWT vessels with a draft of 11 m and East Quay III can handle 60,000 DWT vessels
with a draft of 12.0 m. All quays are multi-purpose berths handling thermal coal, coke, fertilizers, and
other bulk cargos.
3.2.2 Central Quay (CQ)
Central Quay has three berths (CQ 1, CQ 2, CQ 3) with length of 755 m and a draft of 14.5 m and it
can accommodate vessel sizes of 60,000 – 65,000 DWT. Out of these CQ1 and CQ2 berths are
multipurpose berths whereas CQ 3 berth is mechanised berth with one ship loader and connected
conveyor system for handling ore pallets.

Final Report
3.2.3 South Quay (SQ)
South Quay is a single berth having 13.0 m draft and 265 m of quay length. It is also a multi-purpose
berth and handles iron ore, POL and coking coal.
3.2.4 Fertilizer Berth (FB)
There are two fertilizer berths (FB I and FB II), with a quay length of 250 m each and depth of 15.0 m.
These berths are captive facilities and handle fertilizer and fertilizer raw material (FRM) for Paradip
Phosphate Ltd. (PPL) and Indian Farmers Fertilizers Cooperative Ltd. (IIFCO). These berths together
handle nearly 7.5 million tonnes of cargo and can accommodate vessels up to 65,000 DWT.
3.2.5 Iron Ore Berths (IOB)
The iron ore berth is one of the oldest berths of Paradip Port and is located in the eastern dock. It has
a dredged depth of 13.5 m and the length of 210 m. It is a fixed jetty having a R.C.C. deck supported
on steel tubular piles and connecting shore arms. There are four mooring dolphins two on either side
having dimensions 7.5 m × 9.5 m and 9.5 m × 10.5 m.
The berth is equipped with a mechanised ore loading system with twin wagon tipplers, conveyor
system, stackers, reclaimers and one ship loader.
The iron ore loading stream comprises:
1 Shiploader with rated capacity of 3,000 TPH.

2 bucket wheel type Reclaimers with rated capacity of 3,000 TPH each.
2 Stacker cum Reclaimer with rated capacity of 3000 TPH each
2 Rotary type wagon tipplers with rated capacity 1,500 TPH each (each tippler is capable of
tippling 25 wagons/hr).
3.2.6 Coal Handling Berths (CB)
The Port has two mechanized coal jetties at the northern end of Eastern Quay with State-of-the-Art
equipment. Each jetty has a dredging depth of 14.5 – 15.0 m and 260 m length. It can accommodate
vessel sizes up to 60,000 to 75,000 DWT. These berths are also equipped with a mechanical coal
handling facilities for unloading of coal from the trains, stacking, reclaiming and loading coal into the
bulk carriers. This terminal has a Merry-Go-Round (MGR) system for unloading of BOBRN wagons
(2×4,000 TPH capacity).
The salient features of the handling plant are given below:
2 Stackers with rated capacity of 4,000 TPH each.

2 Reclaimers with rated capacity of 4,000 TPH each.
2 Ship loaders with rated capacity of 4,000 TPH each.
2 Track hoppers at RRS with capacity of 4 Wagons/table.

Final Report
3.2.7 POL Jetty
The port has an oil jetty of 350 m length with dolphin to dolphin facility, located in the lee of the north
breakwater. This berth handles petroleum, oil and lubes (POL). The draft at this berth is 13.5 m and
handles tankers up to 65,000 DWT with Length Overall (LOA) up to 260 m.
3.2.8 New Oil Jetty
The port has commissioned new oil jetty with 360 m length with dolphin to dolphin facility, located in
the southern dock of the harbour. This is a captive jetty commissioned by IOCL for loading of products
and unloading of crude oil. Two Unloading Arms for Crude & eight Loading Arms for products are also
installed at Jetty top. One crude pipeline, eight product pipelines (Motor Spirit, High Speed Diesel,
Naphtha, Dual Purpose Kerosene, Propylene and Propylene vapour) and 3 utilities pipelines are laid
from South Oil Jetty to IOCL Paradip Refinery.
3.2.9 General Cargo/ Multi-Purpose Berths
Eight General Cargo/ Multi-Purpose Berths have been constructed along the western face of Eastern
Dock, eastern face of Central Dock and on the Southern face of the pier.
3.3 Equipment for Breakbulk Cargo

Apart from the mechanized Coal and Iron handling plants the port has the following equipment for
efficient and smooth loading/unloading of its operations:
Mobile Crane 75 T
Pay loader 13.5 Cum
2 Pay loaders 4.7 Cum
It is important to mention that besides these, other private equipment are permitted time to time
wherever necessary.
The port has a 500 TEU capacity container yard served with two railway sidings and 15 reefer plug
points. The port has one 75 T and one 30 T Mobile crane, 2 spreaders of 40 feet and 20 feet to handle
containers in the yard.
3.4 Single Point Mooring Terminals

Total 3 Single point moorings (SPM) with capacity 37 MTPA are provided at the Paradip port to
handle the captive crude oil for IOCL. All the SPMs are located towards the southern side of the
existing port in about 30 m water depth, about 20 km away from shore, and connected to shore by
means of submarine pipelines. The location plan of the SPMs and the pipelines is presented in Figure
3.2.

Final Report
Figure 3.2 Location of SPMs
3.5 Storage Facilities

The port operations are supported by extensive storage arrangements. In addition to the open
stackyard, there are four Transit Shed and two Warehouses outside the Port area as detailed in Table
3.3 and Table 3.4
Table 3.3 Details of the Storage Facilities

2
Description of Storage Area Area (m ) Capacity (T)
Warehouse No. I 1,711 4,000
Warehouse No. II 6,000 14,000
Open Stack Yard No. I 8,50,000 15,00,000
Open Stack Yard No. II 1,00,000 1,75,000

Final Report
Table 3.4 Details of Open Areas for Stacking
2
Open Area Area (m )
Rail Sidings 8,22,200
Mechanical Ore 1,05,000
Mechanical MCHP 1,22,200
Without Siding 7,45,000
Covered 9,111
Concreted 1,01,000
Others 93,915
Total 19,98,426
3.6 Port Railways

Paradip Port trust has its own railway system. The route length is 7.5 km and track length is 88 km. At
present, there are 7 no’s of locomotives as follows:
1,400 BHP 04 (DLW-WDS-6)
1,350 BHP 02 (DL-WDS-6A/D)
3,100 BHP 01 (DLW-WDG-3A)
The port has railways sidings capable of handling 19 full rake lengths and 11 half rake lengths. The
rail terminal consists of 15 yard lines and 25 sidings inside its main terminal. The port has an open
and closed wagon handling facility for coal handling (bottom discharge) and wagon tipplers facilities
for iron ore handling. However, the existing rail network doesn’t have signalling, so shunting and rail
operations are being done manually.
3.7 Pilotage and Towage Facilities

The pilotage is compulsory for all vessels having capacity of more than 200 T Gross Tonnage. The
ports has 3 tugs having BP more than 35 T and 2 port tugs having BP more than 50 T. Mooring boats
are also available for passing the mooring lines to berth or jetty.
3.8 Repairing Facility

The port has a 500 T slipway along with workshop for repair and maintenance of port crafts and
barges. A wet basin is provided for port crafts close to slipway. The dry dock is also available, which is
75 m long, 15 m wide and 11 m deep to repair crafts.

Final Report
4.0 PERFORMANCE, OPTIONS FOR
DEBOTTLENECKING & CAPACITY
ASSESSMENT
4.1 General
The total cargo handled through the existing facilities, during the past 5 years is presented in the
following Table 4.1.
Table 4.1 Cargo Handled during Last 5 Years (MTPA)
Commodity 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15
POL 12.85 15.09 16.47 17.70 17.98
Iron Ore 13.85 6.55 1.83 5.59 2.18
Thermal Coal 13.28 16.40 21.40 25.03 30.13
Coking Coal 6.20 5.51 4.91 7.04 7.87
Fertilizer Raw material (Dry) 4.23 4.55 4.00 3.93 4.38
Fertiliser 0.18 0.28 0.14 0.12 0.05
Container 0.06 0.11 0.17 0.10 0.07
Container (TEUs) 3,527 7,853 13,072 8,675 4,312
Others 5.39 5.76 7.63 8.49 8.35
Total (MT) 56.03 54.25 56.55 68.00 71.01
4.2 BCG Benchmarking Study

BCG, as part of their benchmarking study, looked into the operation of the berths and has suggested
various measures for improving the performance.
Paradip Port Trust (PPT) has potential to handle additional cargo volume but it is constrained by the
low productivity. In order to improve the overall productivity and performance, BCG has suggested the
following measures:
Mechanized Coal Handling Plant (MCHP)
Productivity can be increased by changing berthing policies, productivity norms and reduction
in non-working time (NWT).
Five Major customers, who have exported ~95% of volume at MCHP, have used only 70% of
the storage yard, while remaining five smaller customers exported ~5% of volume have used

Final Report
30% of the storage yard. This imbalance can be amended by rationalization of the land. For
this they have suggested two options i.e.,
o Creating a common pool of land area of about 20,000 m2 at MCHP for the use of smaller
players.
o Cargo of smaller players to be moved to IHP consequently releasing the 36,000 m2 of
storage yard that is being used by smaller players.
According to BCG second option is preferred as it will help effective utilization of MCHP while
also storing cargo in the IHP land area will also improve the utilization of IHP land.
Development of additional merry-go-round at MCHP to handle additional rakes after
debottlenecking the MCPH berth and yard.
Iron Ore Handling Plant (IHP)
Iron Ore Handling Plant (IHP) in PPT is dedicated for iron ore export. However, due to fall in demand
of exporting iron ore, IHP had very low overall occupancy of ~42%. IHP is capable of handling export
thermal coal from productivity varying 8000 T/day to 17,000 T/day. Therefore using IHP as additional
thermal coal terminal will increase thermal coal handling capacity at the port. This is however, subject
to assumption that iron ore traffic would continue to remain low in future as well.
Conventional Berths
Conventional Berths CQ1, CQ2, EQ1, EQ2, EQ3, SQ and MPB handles cargo using HMCs combined
with loaders and dumpers for evacuation. Together, these berths handled ~23 MT of cargo. These
conventional berths have high berth occupancy~ 80-85% but low productivity and high non-working
time (~30%) In order to overcome the issues they have suggested the following measures:
Existing HMCs have low availability, inadequate HMC hours compared to berth requirement
and hence need for additional new HMCs.
Productivity norms needs to be established at PPT and this shall increase the cargo volume
by 6 MT.
Cargo evacuation from the wharf is delayed due to low productivity arising from high cargo
storage, high cargo stack height and very slow dumper (conventional) unloading. Thus
creation of addition storage yard with siding would ease congestion and storage constrains
Norms for Storing cargo in port land with in custom area needs to be established which will
lead to increase in efficiency of using port land.
PPT does not have adequate no. of dumpers to meet higher productivity requirement of
HMCs for evacuation cargo. Dumper evacuation from wharf to the yard should match the
HMC productivity rate this mains to addition of new dumpers. They have estimated ~340
dumpers considering 30min waiting at stockyard.
Mechanization of EQ 1-3 and CQ 1-2 to cater additional cargo (both import and export)
However development should be staggered to prevent a sudden unavailability of conventional
berths to handle import cargo at PPT.
The recommendations of BCG report for improvement of port operations are presented in Appendix
1.

Final Report
4.3 Capacity Assessment of Existing Facilities
4.3.1 General
The cargo handling capacity of port facilities is based on many factors like the vessel size, fleet mix,
equipment provided and the possible handling rates, time required for peripheral activities, capacity of
stackyard, number of users, grades, capacity of evacuation system etc.
4.3.2 Capacity of Berths
4.3.2.1 General
The capacity of existing berths is calculated assuming the mix of cargo being currently handled at
these berths and the corresponding parcel sizes.
Another factor that is important in arriving at the berth capacity is the allowable Berth occupancy
which is expressed as the ratio of the total number of days per year that a berth is occupied by a
vessel (including the time spent in peripheral activities) to the number of port operational days in a
year. High levels of berth occupancy will result in bunching of ships resulting in undesirable pre-
berthing detention. For limited number of berths and with random arrival of ships, the berth occupancy
levels have to be kept low to reduce this detention. The norms generally followed for planning the
number of berths in modern port to minimise the pre-berthing detention are given in Table 4.2.
Table 4.2 Recommended Berth Occupancy
No. of Berths Recommended Berth Occupancy Factor
1 60 %
2 65 %
3 & above 70 %
The available berths and the cargo handled at each of the berths during last year are presented in
Table 4.3 below:

Final Report
Table 4.3 Cargo handled at Berths during FY 15-16
CARGO OJ IOB EQI EQII EQIII SQ CQI CQII CQIII CBI CBII FBI FBII MPB SPM SPMII SPMIII TOTAL
EXPORT
C. COAL 84,696 97,913 43,247 6,000 55,300 13,037 24,800 25,900 3,50,893
CH. CON 2,021 2,021
CH. ORE 22,000 22,000
CONTAINER 24,331 9,901 11,035 6,990 3,589 174 265 56,285
FE. CR 16,865 46,649 19,738 8,225 2,600 12,600 1,06,677
I PAL 22,78,683 55,000 23,33,683
IORE 1,20,597 59,775 50,550 25,750 30,380 49,413 1,65,565 5,02,030
L/S 11,525 11,525
HSD 2,73,649 2,73,649
M. SPIRIT 2,10,295 2,10,295
NAPTHA 1,03,726 1,03,726
SKO 74,876 74,876
PIGI 75,000 26,999 44,000 1,45,999
PROJECT MAT. 509 509
S. COAL 69,822 63,050 69,020 9,350 2,11,242
T. COAL 64,562 1,15,03,772 1,21,87,284 2,37,55,618
TOTAL EXPORT 6,62,546 3,56,542 3,66,718 1,35,470 75,031 6,990 1,58,289 15,811 23,92,495 1,15,03,772 1,21,87,284 - - 3,00,080 - - - 2,81,61,028
IMPORT
A. COAL 16,200 85,986 1,32,770 37,001 35,800 3,07,757
B. LUMPS 15,000 15,000
C. COAL 82,367 4,56,645 8,32,089 11,30,612 14,33,719 13,64,395 16,71,337 1,63,515 71,34,679
COKE BREEZE 44,066 20,300 64,366
CONTAINER 24,398 9,654 8,286 8,248 9,733 4,830 65,149
DOLOMITE 10,600 88,129 69,934 68,183 25,209 62,906 3,24,961
AMMONIA 2,91,427 339790 40,701 6,71,918
MOP 53,000 27500 80,500
P. ACID 2,70,313 2,70,313
ROCK PHOS 10,50,034 2491954 35,41,988
SUL. ACID 3,57,550 606602 9,64,152
SULPHUR 2,36,810 501787 7,38,597
GYPSUM 51,000 17,000 1,46,517 2,44,468 20,000 1,48,700 6,27,685
H. COAL 33,036 37,349 89,539 1,14,930 46,500 92,598 20,000 4,33,952
H.R. COILS 19,155 19,155
I. PAL 52831 52,831
L. COKE 22,121 18,538 21,930 9,574 38,500 1,10,663
L/S 1,06,177 1,97,473 4,75,991 6,39,743 6,01,154 2,40,697 74,990 9,52,650 32,88,875
M. COKE 11,326 34,199 70,696 73,074 22,850 35,860 43,500 34,123 3,25,628
N. C. COAL 98,578 55,100 30,900 1,84,578
OLIFLUX 34,555 1,44,248 82,389 2,61,192
ALKYLATE 11,473 34,40,493 78,34,385 68,32,105 1,81,18,456
CRUDE OIL -
HSD 1109392 11,09,392
M. SPIRIT 563248 5,63,248
SKO 113493 1,13,493
P.COKE 2,001 75,561 64,190 75,044 10,000 42,500 1,82,181 4,51,477
PCI COAL 24,201 60,188 54,236 1,02,762 1,85,802 4,27,189
PROJEECT MAT 8,628 4,207 527 14,253
PYROXENITE 27,691 10,865 20,360 34,170 58,140 64,541 2,15,767
S.COAL 73,230 5,96,681 8,33,372 8,34,029 10,87,187 13,30,040 16,89,813 41,924 8,23,178 73,09,454
S.COIL 19,658 19,658
STEEL BAR 10,826 5,427 5,341 5,151 26,745
STEEL SLAB 14,331 24,585 6,150 45,066
TOTAL IMPORT 17,97,606 2,91,301 17,44,489 26,28,061 32,50,924 37,52,836 34,03,896 40,01,702 56,924 - - 22,59,134 39,67,633 26,35,757 34,40,493 78,34,385 68,32,105 4,78,98,137
TOTAL TRAFFIC 24,60,152 6,47,843 21,11,207 27,63,531 33,25,955 37,59,826 35,62,185 40,17,513 24,49,419 1,15,03,772 1,21,87,284 22,59,134 39,67,633 29,35,837 34,40,493 78,34,385 68,32,105 7,60,59,165

Final Report
4.3.2.2 MCHP
Based on the above considerations of berth occupancy, capacity of MCHP has been calculated as
shown in Table 4.4.
Table 4.4 Capacity of MCHP
Cargo
S. No. Particulars Unit
Coal
1. Traffic MTPA 21.08
2. Average Parcel size T 60,000
3. No. of Ship Calls per Annum No. 351
4. Handling Rate TPD 60,000
5. Time Required at Port Per Ship
a. Handling Time Days 1.00
b. Berthing / Deberthing & Miscellaneous Time Days 0.17
Total Time per Ship Days 1.17
6. Total Berth Days Required Days 410
7. Berth Days Available per Berth Days 350
8. Berth Occupancy %
Number of Berths
1 117%
2 59%
3 39%
9. Capacity of Berths at 70% Occupancy considering 2 berths 25.20
It may be noted that the above berth capacity has been calculated based on the international norms
which are recommended to keep the waiting time of ships to minimum and also optimal equipment
utilisation while allowing for scheduled maintenance. Theoretically, the berth capacity could be much
higher if higher berth occupancy of 80 to 85% is adopted.
The stacking capacity of the existing coal stackyard for MCHP has been calculated as shown below in
Table 4.5:

Final Report
Table 4.5 Stacking Capacity of the Existing Coal Stackyard for MCHP
Parameters Units Stack type 1 Stack type 2
Bulk Density T/cum 1 1
Angle of Repose degrees 37 37
Overall Length m 200 200
Overall Width m 65 65
Height of Stack m 10 10
No. of Yards Nos. 5 5
Capacity of Stockpile 4,83,387 4,83,387
Total Stacking Capacity T 9,66,775
It may be seen that the stacking capacity calculations shown above considers a number of stockpiles
(10 no.) for various users and/or various grades of cargo. Additional numbers of stockpiles would
further reduce the stacking capacity.
Considering the standard 70% utilisation of yard and dwell time of 10 days (export cargo), the capacity
of terminal based on the stacking capacity works out to about 25 MTPA, which matches the berth
capacity. As could be seen that the dwell time of cargo i.e. the average time cargo is stacked at the
yard between receipt and despatch has a significant bearing on the capacity of the stackyard.
Currently, there are two set of track hoppers to receive the coal rakes for coastal exports, the
turnaround time achieved is about 10 rakes per day per hopper, which allows for the capacity of cargo
receipts to be about 25 MTPA, considering effective 350 days for rail working per annum.
It is therefore observed from the above that the optimal capacity of MCHP is limited to about 25 MTPA
only. Theoretically these berths can handle more cargo at higher berth occupancy but higher waiting
time for ships is also likely the strain the equipment and would not provide adequate time for their
scheduled maintenance.
4.3.2.3 Conventional Berths
Conventional Berths CQ1, CQ2, EQ1, EQ2, EQ3, SQ and MPB handle cargo using HMCs combined
with loaders and dumpers for evacuation. These 7 berths handle variety of cargo of different
characteristics and brought in ships in different parcel sizes. Mainly bulk cargo like coking coal,
thermal coal, fertilizers, iron ore, iron pallets, limestone, gypsum and also containers are handled at
these berths using ship’s gear or using mobile harbour cranes.
The capacity of the berth handling multiple commodities is governed by the type of cargo handled,
average parcel sizes and the possible handling rate that could be achieved for that particular cargo.
Berth capacity calculations of a typical multipurpose terminal are shown in Table 4.6 below:

Final Report
Table 4.6 Berth Capacity of a Typical Multipurpose Berth
MHCr Ship's Gear

S.
Particulars Unit Break Break
No. Bulk Bulk
Bulk Bulk
1. Traffic MTPA 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00
2. Average Parcel size T 45,000 15,000 45,000 15,000
3. No. of Ship Calls per Annum No. 89 267 89 267
4. Handling Rate TPD 20,000* 8,000 12,000 6,000
a. Handling Time Days 2.25 1.88 3.75 2.50

Berthing / De-berthing & Miscellaneous
b. Days 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25
Time
Total Time per Ship Days 2.50 2.13 4.00 2.75
6. Total Berth Days Required Days 222 567 356 733
7. Berth Days Available per Berth Days 350 350 350 350
Number of Berths
1 63% 162% 102% 210%
2 32% 81% 51% 105%
9. Capacity of Berths at 70% occupancy 4.41 1.73 2.76 1.34

* The value would reduce with reduction in vessel size and for export cargo (where the handling rate is lower than import cargo)
As could be observed from above that capacity of multipurpose berth is affected significantly by the
type of cargo handled at the berth and the equipment for ship handling. As the mix of cargo are being
handled in all the multipurpose berths with higher proportion of bulk, the average capacity of each
berth of all the 7 available multipurpose berths for the purpose of planning could be considered as
about 2.75 MTPA.

Final Report
For berths EQ1 to 3, which handled various cargo in different throughputs the specific berth capacity
calculations have been carried out as presented in Table 4.7.
Table 4.7 Berth Capacity Assessment for Berths EQ1 to EQ3
Cargo
S. Iron
Particulars Unit
No. Ore Other
Coal Gypsum Limestone Containers
and Cargo
Pellets
1. Traffic MTPA 4.18 0.35 0.46 0.97 0.74 0.05
2. Average Parcel size T 45,000 40,000 30,000 40,000 40,000 5,000

No. of Ship Calls per
3. No. 93 9 15 24 18 10
Annum
4. Handling Rate TPD 15,000 18,000 12,000 15,000 10,000 5,000
Time Required at Port
5.
Per Ship
a. Handling Time Days 3.00 2.22 2.50 2.67 4.00 1.00
Berthing / Deberthing
b. Days 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25
& Miscellaneous Time
Total Time per Ship Days 3.25 2.47 2.75 2.92 4.25 1.25
Total Berth Days
6. Days 302 22 42 71 79 12
Required
527
Berth Days Available
7. Days 350
per Berth
Number of Berths
1 151%
2 75%
3 50%
Capacity of Berths
9. 9.34
at 70% occupancy
It could be observed that the capacity of the three berths combined is about 8.31 MTPA and it would
vary depending upon the proportion of cargo handled.
Similar calculations undertaken for CQ1 and CQ2 indicate their total capacity as 6.43 MTPA at 70%
berth occupancy. The capacity would be higher if these berths were to handle a single commodity say
coal where higher unloading rates could be achieved.

Final Report
4.3.2.4 Liquid Berths
The capacity of the liquid berths is governed by the type of product handled, pumping rate of the
tankers, size of the pipelines provided and distance of tank farms. A berth handling liquid cargo in
smaller tankers would have lower capacity as compared to the berth handling crude oil as shown in
Table 4.8.
Table 4.8 Typical Capacity Calculations for Oil Terminal
Type of Cargo
S. No. Particulars Unit
Crude POL
1. Traffic MTPA 10.00 4.00
2. Average Parcel size T 65,000 40,000
3. No. of Ship Calls per Annum No. 154 100
4. Handling Rate TPD 60,000 25,000
a. Handling Time Days 1.08 1.60
b. Berthing / Deberthing & Miscellaneous Time Days 0.25 0.25
Total Time per Ship Days 1.33 1.85
6. Total Berth Days Required Days 205 185
7. Berth Days Available per Berth Days 350 350
Number of Berths
1 59% 53%
2 29% 26%
9. Capacity of Berths at 65% Occupancy 11.09 4.92
The above calculations are only indicative and the outcome would vary significantly on the size of ship
used and also the composition of the POL products, which in many cases are handled in smaller
parcels. As at Paradip, the existing berth handles crude oil as well as products, the average berth
capacity considered is about 7.5 MTPA. The newly constructed berth has been planned to handle only
crude and therefore its capacity could be considered as 10.0 MTPA.

Final Report
5.0 DETAILS OF ONGOING PROJECTS
5.1 General
Paradip Port Trust has taken many developmental projects which are in various stages of
implementation. The details and locations of these projects are shown below in Figure 5.1 and
Figure 5.2.
Figure 5.1 Ongoing Developments 1
Figure 5.2 Ongoing Developments 2

Final Report
5.2 Development of Deep Draft Coal Import Berth
This project is planned to provide a deep draft coal import berth for handling cape size ships within the
inner harbour and the Concession Agreement has been signed with the SPV “Essar Paradip Terminal
Ltd.” on 10/11/2009 with revenue share of 31.00%. The terminal capacity envisaged is 10 MTPA. The
location plan of berth and stackyard is shown in Figure 5.3.
Figure 5.3 Location of Deep Draft Coal Import Berth
As per the details provided in the project report the coal berth would be 370 m long and 24 m wide.
Two gantry type unloaders having rated capacity of 2,000 TPH each are connected with a separate
conveyor system of same capacity. The area of stackyard allocated for the terminal is about 14.7 ha.
and Stacker and Reclaimer of matching capacities have been provided at the stackyard. In motion
wagon loading system has been proposed for wagon loading.
Based on the area of stackyard, it is assessed that only about 0.55 MT of coking coal could be
stacked. A typical 30 days dwell time for bulk import cargo will limit the terminal capacity to only 5.0
MTPA. To achieve the required terminal capacity of 10 MTPA either the dwell time of cargo will need
to be reduced to 15 days by the concessionaire.

Final Report
5.3 Development of Multi-Purpose Berth to Handle Clean
Cargo
A multipurpose berth of total 450 m length is proposed for handling of clean cargo such as steel
products, iron and containers. The Concession Agreement has been signed with the SPV “Paradip
International Cargo Terminal (Pvt) Ltd.” with revenue share of 11.044%. The terminal capacity
envisaged is 5.0 MTPA. The location plan of berth is shown in Figure 5.4. The construction is yet to
start.
Figure 5.4 Location of Multipurpose Berth
The detailed project report for the project envisages handling of steel products and containers at this
berth. In view of the requirement to handle different cargos, two mobile harbour cranes are suggested
at the berth. Considering that the containers are brought in small vessels having average parcel size
limited to only 500 TEUs, maximum of only two cranes can be deployed at the vessel. There is
unlikely that the parcel size would increase over a period of time. Therefore it is assessed that the
proposed clean cargo berth of 450 m length can handle two vessels simultaneously and thus has a
capacity of about 350,000 TEUs per annum i.e., about 5.0 MTPA, if used exclusively for containers
only. Similarly if the berth is used for handling steel products the annual throughput may be limited to
about 4.0 MTPA.

Final Report
5.4 Development of New Iron Ore Berth for Handling of
Iron Ore Exports
A new iron ore berth is proposed for handling of iron ore exports, the Concession Agreement has
been signed with the SPV “JSW Paradip Terminal Pvt. Ltd.” on 29.06.2015 with revenue share of
21.00%. The terminal capacity envisaged is 10.0 MTPA. The location plan of berth and stackyard is
shown in Figure 5.5.
The stackyard allocated to for the terminal has an area of 8.21 ha. and it is envisaged that maximum
0.7 MT of iron ore could be stacked, which provides adequate area to meet the terminal throughput of
10.0 MTPA.
Figure 5.5 Location Plan of New Iron Ore Berth and Stackyard
5.5 Mechanization of EQ1 to EQ3 Berths

In order to enhance the existing capacity of EQ1, EQ2 and EQ3 berths (proposed to be used for
thermal coal exports) from 9.69 MTPA to 30 MTPA, PPT plans to mechanize these berths.
Mechanization of these berths will involve the following provision will be made:
All three existing berths shall be strengthened and converted to two berths of adequate length
to receive two panamax size ships simultaneously.
Coal Stackyard within the existing bulb of the rail tracks.
Addition of two more loops along with track hopper for unloading of BOBRN wagons
The coal unloaded from track hoppers shall be received at the yard by two stream of
conveyors with Stacker cum Reclaimer arrangement

Final Report
From yard the coal shall be conveyed to berths using two streams of conveyors and loaded to
ships using one ship loader on each berth
The location plan of berths and stackyard is shown in Figure 5.6.
Figure 5.6 Location Plan of EQ 1 to EQ 3 Berths and Stackyard
The storage capacity of the stackyard is only about 1.0 MT and corresponding to the dwell time of 10
days it can support the terminal throughput of 30 MTPA.

Final Report
5.6 LPG Terminal in South Oil Jetty
The South Oil jetty is the captive IOCL jetty is planning to expand storage and handling of LPG by
setting up LPG Import Facility. LPG will be imported in VLGCs at South Oil Jetty constructed by IOCL
Paradip Refinery where space for putting up Butane / Propane unloading facility is available. Imported
Butane / Propane would be transferred to LPG Import Facility through 2 no. underground pipelines.
Imported Butane and Propane will be stored in aboveground mounded storage vessels and sent to
market as LPG after blending of Butane & Propane.
The terminal is being planned for the capacity of 2 MTPA which would be developed at a cost of INR.
690 cr.

Final Report
6.0 TRAFFIC PROJECTIONS
6.1 General
In terms of volumes, Paradip is one of the largest major ports in the country handling more than 70
MTPA of cargo. Paradip is strategically in the mineral rich state of Odisha.
Currently the major commodities handled in the port are coal and POL. Roughly 23 MTPA of coal is
exported from the port and is coastally shipped to the South and the Western hinterlands of the
country. Additionally, the port imports around 16 MTPA of POL primarily to serve the IOCL refineries
at Paradip and Haldia.
6.2 Major Commodities and their Projections

6.2.1 Coal
Coal deposits are mainly confined to eastern and south central parts of the country. The states of
Jharkhand, Odisha, Chhattisgarh, West Bengal, Madhya Pradesh, Andhra Pradesh and Maharashtra
account for nearly all of the total coal reserves in the country. The State of Jharkhand is the largest
producer of coal in the country as of March 2014 followed by Odisha and Chhattisgarh. Since one of
the key objectives of Sagarmala is optimizing logistics efficiency for mega-commodities, the main
focus area is thermal coal.
Presently, the power plants located in Maharashtra consume the highest quantity of coal- about 77
MTPA, followed by power plants in Chhattisgarh and Uttar Pradesh, at 62 MTPA and 60 MTPA
respectively. Overall, ten states account for more than 80% of current thermal coal requirement for
power generation in India as shown in Figure 6.1.

Final Report
Figure 6.1 Thermal Coal Requirement of Existing and Upcoming Power Plants
Therefore, while coal production is concentrated mostly in Eastern and Central parts of India, it is
transported for power generation to nearly all corners of the country as shown in Figure 6.2. For
example, 26 MTPA is sent from Odisha to Tamil Nadu. Similarly, volumes of coal also move from
Chhattisgarh to Maharashtra (19 MTPA) and Gujarat (14 MTPA). Coal imported from Indonesia and
South Africa arrives at various ports and then moves inland.

Final Report
Figure 6.2 Current Coal Movement
Rail is currently the preferred mode with 61% share in overall domestic volume movement, while
coastal shipping has a negligible share. Rail freight is INR 1.2-1.5 per tonne-km for coal movement;
the same for coastal shipping is nearly one-sixth as shown in Figure 6.3 .
Figure 6.3 Coal Movement by Road Rail and Coastal Shipping

Final Report
Further, the current rail network is already congested and industry experts believe that it cannot
suffice for the future freight load projected due to growth in power generation facilities and industrial
corridors. Congested rail lines cause high dwell time, resulting in an average freight speed of only 25
kmph. More than 90 per cent of rail routes relevant for coal movement have more than 100%
utilisation as shown in Figure 6.4.
Ports are facing severe shortage of rolling stock, which causes overstocking of coal the ports and
using of sub-optimal methods of conventional handling and road transportation. The expansion of rail
network is slow to keep up with coal capacity needed. In the past few years rail network has only
grown at 0.7 per cent year on year.
Figure 6.4 Current Rail Network
While rail is the primary mode of transport used for long distance coal movement currently, analysis
based on research data and industry expert opinions indicate that there is a significant cost reduction
potential in causing a modal mix shift towards coastal shipping. Therefore, focus on coastal shipment
of thermal coal has been identified as a key component of the overall Sagarmala vision.
An in-depth study was conducted across 400 operational thermal power plants in the country to
examine the origination, destination and mode of coal movement used presently as shown in
Figure 6.5. At the same time, a cost comparison of all possible combinations of modal mix under
different scenarios of vessel capacity was also done as shown in Figure 6.6. For example, for
movement between Talcher in Orissa to a power plant at Mundra port in Gujarat, the cost for
movement via rail is INR 2,980 per ton while the same via rail supported coastal shipping could be
much lower at INR 1,320 per ton (i.e. a potential cost saving of as high as 56 per cent).

Final Report
Figure 6.5 Optimization Model for Coal Logistics
Figure 6.6 Output of O-D Study

Final Report
Eventually, coastal shipping potential has been identified for ~130 MTPA of thermal coal. In some
cases, the cost economics give a very marginal advantage to coastal shipment, but overall railway
congestion implies that there still may be a case for coastal shipment to be undertaken in such plants.
Even in a conservative scenario, ~80 MTPA of thermal coal can be coastally shipped. Table 6.1
provides the list of power plants identified as having the potential to move to coastal shipping.
Table 6.1 List of Power Plants with Coastal Shipping
Based on these projections it was concluded that given Paradip is the nearest port to the cluster of
coal mines which are suitable for coastal shipping of coal, Paradip will have a step jump in terms of
coastally shipped coal. From the current traffic of 23 MTPA, we can expect traffic of nearly 95 MTPA
by 2020, 135-140 MTPA by 2025 and 200 MTPA by 2035. In order to realize this potential many
connectivity projects need to be undertaken in order to feed the requisite amount of coal to the port,
these projects are discussed in later portions of this report.
6.2.2 Coking Coal
Another major commodity imported in Paradip is coking coal. To service the demand of blast furnace-
based steel production, around 60 to 65 MTPA of coking coal is transported in the country, and
around 54 MTPA is consumed for the production of steel. Around 80 percent of the coking coal
consumed is imported due to insufficient coking coal reserves in India.
Eastern India (West Bengal, Jharkhand, Odisha and Chhattisgarh) is the biggest cluster of steel
production in the country with 45 MTPA (around 40 percent) of total installed steel capacity.

Final Report
While the current coking coal evacuation is facing challenges due to limited availability of rakes at
unloading ports and rail line capacity at key train routes around 21 MTPA of new steel capacity at key
steel plants (1 MTPA and above blast furnace based) is under construction (Figure 6.7) and would
need around 18-20 MTPA of coking coal to be evacuated on the same rail routes which are currently
running at above 100 percent utilization.
According to estimates, the coking coal demand for steel would reach around 130-140 MTPA in 2035
based on increased steel demand in the country for programs like Make in India and construction
impetus. Also, historically the steel growth has been growing faster than GDP with the multiplier being
GDP: 1.14. However, it is also important to note that steel being a cyclical industry is subject to ups
and downs of the economy.
The evacuation capability at the relevant unloading ports and the railway routes will need to be
improved for optimal evacuation of coking coal.
Based on these projections we expect the traffic at Paradip to increase to 16 MTPA in the next 5
years, ~20 MTPA by 2025 and ~30 MTPA by 2035. The growth till 2020 will primarily be driven by the
new Tata Kalinganagar plant and the expansion of the Bhushan Steel plant in Meramandali.
Coking coal volumes projected at Paradip port for key steel plants
Coking coal volume

Steel plants 2020 (MMTPA)
TISCO 0.9
SAIL, Rourkela 2.8
Bhushan steel, Sambalpur 1.4
JSPL, Raigad 0.4
Neelachal Ispat Nigam, Odisha 0.6
Tata, Kalinganagar 3.5
JSPL, Patratu 2.5
Bhushan steel, Meramandali 1.7
SOURCE: Origin destination analysis
Figure 6.7 Steel Plants relevant for Coking Coal

Final Report
6.2.3 POL
In addition to coal and coking coal, POL is another key commodity for Paradip port. The port currently
handles ~18 MTPA of POL which includes ~16 MTPA of crude import at IOCL refineries and ~2 MTPA
of coastal movement of POL products from Paradip. By 2025, crude oil import is expected to rise to
~34 MTPA considering Paradip refinery getting operational. LPG imports are expected to rise
considering government’s focus on distribution of LPG connections to rural households. Additional 4-5
MTPA of MS/HSD is expected to be coastally shipped from Paradip to cater to the demand of Andhra
Pradesh and Telangana as shown in Figure 6.8.
There is a potential for coastal shipping of ~5 MMTPA of MS/HSD from

Paradip to Vizag port by 2025
2025 XX Refinery
Pipeline movement Capacity
Coastal shipping
MMTPA
Deficit: 17.5
9
20
15 9 2 1
3
9 9
15
20 31
Surplus: 20.1 Deficit: 1.3
18 8
1
10 15 Surplus: 6.3
12
7
15 4
5 Deficit: 8.0
Deficit: 5.7
16
Deficit: 6.3
16 10
1. Assumes RIL Jamnagar and Essar Oil export nothing while Reliance SEZ exports 100% product
Figure 6.8 Coastal Shipping Possibilities
The split of the current traffic of POL and the projected traffic for 2025 is as shown in Figure 6.9.

Final Report
2013-14 traffic Estimated traffic in 2025
POL traffic at Paradip port (Base case)
Crude oil imports to rise

34.0 to around 34 MTPA
from 16 MTPA
considering Paradip
refinery getting
operational
LPG imports are

expected to increase
Includes ~4-5 MTPA of with government's
15.8 focus on distribution of
coastal shipping
potential from Paradip Recommendation to set LPG connections to
to Vizag port up LPG import terminals rural households
at Paradip
Around 4-5 MTPA of
5.5
MS/HSD expected to
be coastally shipped to
1.7 2.0
cater to demand of AP
0 0.2 0 and Telangana region
Crude POL POL LPG
product product
EXIM coastal
SOURCE: Indian Petroleum and Natural Gas Statistics 2013-14; Basic Port Statistics of India 2013-14
Figure 6.9 POL Traffic – Paradip Port
6.2.4 Other Commodities
Other key commodities handled at Paradip port include iron ore, limestone, fertilizers, gypsum, etc. In
the base case scenario we expect the exports of Iron Ore from the port to be depressed due to the
crashing of the global prices and the non-competitiveness of the Indian ore in the export markets.
Fertilizer traffic is also projected to grow to roughly 7 MTPA by 2025 due to the presence of IFFCO
and good connectivity to agricultural areas in Bihar and UP. Table 6.2 summaries the traffic potential
for key commodities for Paradip port.

Final Report
Table 6.2 Paradip Port – Traffic Projections
Units: MMTPA (except Containers)
Paradip Port - Traffic Projections xx Base Scenario xx Optimistic Scenario
Commodity 2014-15 2020 2025 2035 Remarks
Liquid Cargo
Mainly Crude oil imports by IOCL
POL 17.9 35.2 41.8 45.4 47.5 51.2 Paradip, IOCL Haldia and coastal
shipping
Dry and Break Bulk Cargo
Driven by coastal shipping from MCL
Thermal Coal (Loading) 23 95 135 142 200 201
mines
Imported Coal for power likely to be
Thermal Coal (Unloading) 7.0 6.0 7.5 8.5 9.0 11.0
reduced as CIL production increases
TATA Kalinganagar and Bhushan
Coking Coal 7.9 16.3 19.0 21.0 28.0 32.0
Steel Meramandli expansion
Mostly exports; likely to remain low.
JSW captive berth cargo considered.
Iron Ore 2.2 6.5 7.5 15.9 10.0 30.1 Optimistic case is related to the
volumes handled before ban. Pellets
are part of others
Limestone 2.2 3.1 4.3 4.5 7.6 8.8
Dolomite 0.7 1.0 1.35 1.44 2.4 2.8
Gypsum 0.8 1.1 1.5 1.6 2.7 3.1
Fertilizers 4.4 5.6 7.0 7.3 10.5 11.7
Containers and other Cargo
Containers (MnTEU) 0.004 0.02 0.10 0.13 0.15 0.18
Others 4.6 6.1 8.2 8.6 13.6 15.4 Highly fragmented
Total (MMTPA) 71.0 176.2 234.8 258.4 333.8 370.1
Conversion Factor Used for Containers Projections: 1 TEU = 16.75 Tons
6.2.5 Coastal Shipping Potential
Paradip is strategically positioned to serve large areas in the hinterland of the country through coastal
shipping. Steel can be major commodities from Paradip in case coastal shipping revolution takes
place in the country.
Steel: 5-6 MTPA of steel can be coastally shipped to demand states of Maharashtra, Tamil
Nadu, Andhra Pradesh and Gujarat by 2025. The key plants which will lead to the advent of
coastal shipping of steel from Paradip are SAIL Rourkela, BPSL Sambhalpur, BSL Meramandli,
JSPL Angul, etc. as shown in Figure 6.10.

Final Report
Figure 6.10 Coastal Shipping - Steel
Cement: 1-2 MTPA of cement can be coastally shipped to Paradip port from Andhra Pradesh by
2025 as shown in Figure 6.11 and Figure 6.12. Additional ~2.5 MTPA can be coastally shipped
from the proposed cement cluster in AP by 2025 if the central AP port comes up.
Figure 6.11 Coastal Shipping – Cement

Final Report
Figure 6.12 Coastal Shipping – Cement Cluster
Fertilizers: ~1 MTPA of fertilizers can be coastally shipped from Paradip port by 2025 to Andhra
Pradesh, Karnataka, Tamil Nadu and Maharashtra as shown in Figure 6.13.
Figure 6.13 Coastal Shipping – Fertiliser

Final Report
Table 6.3 summarizes the potential of coastal movement for key commodities.
Table 6.3 Paradip Port – Coastal Shipping Opputunity
Paradip Port – New Opportunities Possible via Coastal Shipping

Units: MMTPA (except Containers)
Commodity 2020 2025 2035

Steel (Loading) 3.91 5.23 9.37
Steel (Unloading) 0.50 0.67 1.19
Cement (Loading) 0.01 0.01 0.02

2.5 MMTPA can be shipped from Central
Cement (Unloading) 1.27 4.2 5.5 AP cement cluster ( If Central AP port
comes up)
Fertilizer (Loading) 0.87 1.06 1.57
Fertilizer (Unloading) 0.39 0.47 0.70
Food Grains (Loading) 0.40 0.49 0.72
Food Grains (Unloading) - - -

Final Report
7.0 CAPACITY AUGMENTATION REQUIRMENTS
7.1 Port Capacity after On-Going Developments
The capacity of the existing berths and that of proposed berths have been worked out and the same is
presented in Table 7.1.
Table 7.1 Existing and Proposed Capacity of Berths (MTPA)

Addition with
Additional
Area of Cargo Current Upcoming New Total
I/E Capacity after
Expansion Handled Capacity Facility / Capacity
Debottlenecking
Mechanisation
MCHP Coal - Export E 23.50 - - 23.5
EQ1,2,3 Coal - Export E 9.69 - 20.31 30.0
CQ1,2 Coal – Import I 12.10 - 7.90 20.0
IOB Iron Ore E 6.39 - - 6.39

Southern
Breakbulk I/E 4.76 - - 4.76
Quay
FB1,2 Fertiliser I 7.50 - - 7.50
North Oil
Crude/ HSD I 7.50 - - 7.50
Jetty
CQ 3 Dry bulk E 6.55 - - 6.55
MPB I/E 3.45 - - 3.45

Essar Coal
Coal I - - 10.00 10.00
Berth
JSW Iron
Iron ore E - - 10.00 10.00
Ore berth
South Oil
Jetty (IOCL
Crude I 10 - - 10.00
New Oil
Jetty)
New MPB Clean Cargo I/E - - 5 5.00
3 SBM
POL I/E 37.0 37.00
(IOCL)
Total Capacity (MTPA) 128.44 0 53.21 181.65
It may be noted that the capacity of the berths has been worked out based on the allowable level of
berth occupancy so as to limit the waiting time of ships and also allow sufficient time for the repair and
maintenance of handling equipment.

Final Report
7.2 Requirement for Capacity Expansion
While comparing the existing and planned capacities for the Paradip port with the traffic projections as
shown in Table 7.2 it could be seen that by 2020 there would be a shortfall of capacity for the thermal
coal export.
It is therefore necessary that action be initiated immediately for the capacity augmentation of handling
bulk export cargo and other cargo so that the projected could be completed by year 2020.
In addition to that there is likely to be significant demand for berths for Breakbulk and other cargo.
Table 7.2 Additional Need in Capacity by 2020, 2025 and 2035
2020 2025 2035
Current Capacity Capacity Capacity

Cargo
I/E Capacity Projected Augmentation Projected Augmentation Projected Augmentation
Handled
(MTPA) Traffic required over Traffic required over Traffic required over
(MTPA) current (MTPA) current (MTPA) current
(MTPA) (MTPA) (MTPA)
Coal -
E 33.21 95.00 61.79 135.00 101.79 200.00 166.79
Export
Coal –
I 12.10 22.30 10.20 26.50 14.40 37.00 24.90
Import
Breakbulk I/E 14.76 11.64 0.00 17.03 2.27 28.81 14.05
Iron Ore E 6.39 6.50 0.11 7.50 1.11 10.00 3.61
Fertiliser I 7.50 5.60 0.00 7.00 0.00 10.50 3.00

Crude/
I 54.50 35.20 0.00 41.80 0.00 47.50 0.00
POL
Total 128.46 176.24 72.10 234.83 119.57 333.81 212.35

Final Report
8.0 PORT CONNECTIVITY AND INFRASTRUCTURE
8.1 Constraints in Rail and Road Connectivity to the Port
8.1.1 General
The current cargo receipt/evacuation modal split is shown in Figure 8.1.
Figure 8.1 Evacuation Modal Spilit
It could be seen that railway is the key for receipt /evacuation of cargo to/from port of the current
cargo. Considering that the future traffic projections are also mainly for the bulk commodities, railway
shall continue to play the key role for the port infrastructure.
8.1.2 Road Connectivity
Paradip Port is connected by NH-5A (4 lane) and SH-12 (2 lane) to Chandikhole and Cuttack
respectively. During the iron ore boom period NH-5A witnessed frequent congestion; however the
same seems to be eased out for the time being. With the growth in traffic of breakbulk and containers
over a period of time, congestion on NH-5A would increase requiring additional lane to be provided.
The existing 4 lane road can be upgraded to 6 lane road by NHAI with equity contribution from PPT
and other stakeholders.
Further the junction points near approach to the port need to be widened for smooth traffic flow. Also
adequate space for the parking of trucks entering the port needs to be provided.

Final Report
8.1.3 Rail Connectivity
Thermal coal is the key cargo being brought to Paradip from Talcher. The route details are given
below:
Distance from Talcher to Cuttack is 112 km and that from Cuttack to Paradip is 84 km.
Presently 20-24 rakes each side totalling to 40 rakes per day are handled.
The number of outgoing rakes from Talcher currently is of the order of 40 rakes per day
(average). Out of these, 20 rakes per day (max.) reach Paradip and balance 20 rakes go to
other destinations.
Figure 8.2 Rail Connectivity
There are several issues on the effective movement of rakes to the Paradip Port. As could be seen
from Figure 8.2, the rake movement from Talcher to Paradip involves an overlap with Howrah-
Chennai mainline for a stretch of about 41 km between Talcher – Kapilas Road – Cuttack.
Passenger trains between Howrah- Chennai stretch is given priority over coal rakes and therefore an
exclusive single line between Kapilas Road – Cuttack is needed.
There are many other lines between Talcher and Cuttack, as shown in Figure 8.3 which are over
utilised and the work for their upgradation is in progress.

Final Report
Figure 8.3 Key Rail Routes Between Talcher/Ib Valley and Paradip/Dharma
Some interventions required for effective transfer of coal mined from Talcher and Ib Valley to Paradip
is presented in Figure 8.4.
Figure 8.4 Interventions required for Effective Transfer of Coal Mined from Talcher and Ib
Valley to Paradip

Final Report
Many of the rail upgradation projects are already in progress with the current status as shown in Table
8.1.
Table 8.1 Status of Rail Evacuation Projects Critical to Coastal Coal Movement
S. No. Project Name Project Status
1. IB Signalling in Talcher-Cuttack-Paradip route for 192 km Completed
2. New Line from Haridaspur - Paradip (82 km) Completion by 2017
3. New Line from Angul - Sukhinda road (99 km) Completion by 2016
4. Doubling of line from Titlagarh - Sambalpur Completion by 2017
5. Doubling of line from Sambalpur - Talcher Completion by 2018
6. Doubling of line from Rajathgarh - Barang Completion by 2016
7. Doubling of line from Barang - Cuttack Completed

To be started post
8. Budhapank - Salegaon via Rajathgarh (3rd and 4th Lane) financial closure. Critical
Project
9. Third lane from Bhadrak - Nergundi Status to be confirmed
10. Third lane from Jakhapura - Haridaspur Status to be confirmed

Increase track weight handling capacity from 22.5 to 25 T axle
11. Completion in 4-5 years
load
12. Build long haul loop for 192 km on Paradip- Talcher route Completion in 4-5 years
13. Bypass railway line from Salegaon to Kandarapur DPR in progress
With the completion of above projects the total rake movement could go up to about 80 rakes per day
each way. To further increase the capacity of coal movement through rail, there would be a need to
ply a dedicated heavy haul rail line between the mines and port, the feasibility of which has been
taken by government in a separate assignment.
At the port end there would be many initiatives required to increase the rake handling capacity and
these are discussed in subsequent sections.

Final Report
8.2 Intersections in Rail & Traffic Conflict
8.2.1 Locations of Intersections
The rail networks inside the Port boundary are grouped into 6 sub-divisions as shown in the
Figure 8.5. This results in incoming & outgoing traffic crossing each other. Each such conflict slows
down the traffic. With the total volume of rail traffic projected in next sections, it is clearly required to
remove such traffic conflict as much as possible.
ND
MCHP & 2 MGR AREA
Main Tracks from Cuttack Other Cargo & Existing Wagon
MPB at SQ
Outer Harbour
PPL
Figure 8.5 Rail Traffic Intersection in Present Scenario

Final Report
8.2.2 Main Tracks from Cuttack
As per the traffic estimated, the main tracks from Cuttack need to be expanded to 4 (2 up + 2 down)
for traffic projections for the year 2025.
Two options for developments are proposed as under:
Option 1: The main line tracks west of Paradip station shall be upgraded to 2 up + 2 down tracks with
2 up tracks on one side & 2 down tracks on the other. Near the PPL Level crossing, one up track has
to the raised to pass over the crossing down track (via flyover) and shall come down at the existing
exchange yard. Up Traffic for Outer Harbour and MPB at SQ shall be routed through this. Schematic
of this option is shown in Figure 8.6.
Rail Grade Separator MCHP & 2

ND
MGR AREA
Other Cargo & Existing Wagon Tippler

Main Tracks from Cuttack
MPB at SQ
Outer Harbour
PPL
Figure 8.6 Option 1 for Development of Rail Tracks
Option 2: In this option, the new set of up & down tracks shall be laid on one side of the existing
tracks. New up track shall be passed over the existing down track at place near Barabandha station
and a location & conceptual layout for the same is suggested in Figure 8.8.
This option effectively segregates the existing harbour network from outer harbour. The traffic of PPL
& MPB at SQ is proposed to be handled by this new network. A schematic of the proposed layout is
shown in Figure 8.7.

Final Report
ND
MCHP & 2 MGR AREA
Other Cargo & Existing Wagon Tippler

Main Tracks from Cuttack
MPB at SQ
Outer Harbour
PPL
Figure 8.7 Option 2 for Development of Rail Tracks
Figure 8.8 Location and Conceptual Layout of Rail Grade Separator Near Barabandha
Station

Final Report
Table 8.2 Comparison of Two Options
Description Option 1 Option 2
Traffic Separation of 2 Up/Incoming traffic shall be Up & Down traffic shall be

networks segregated. However, Down/ completely segregated.
Outgoing traffic shall have some
intersection remaining (e.g. up
PPL traffic shall intersect down
traffic from existing harbour).
Location of proposed Other than laying of additional Rail Flyover shall be nearby
developments tracks, most of the development Barabandha Station. Track
works are nearby the Paradip adjustments at Paradip
station & Paradip Exchange exchange yard.
Yard
Effects to Existing Paradip Up ramp for the proposed No effect
station flyover shall become a visual
obstruction in front of the
Paradip station.
Land acquisition Very minor around Paradip Some land may have to be
station for the Up ramp. Down acquired. However, being in the
ramp will be within Port Land. open field and in river plains in
uninhibited area, it may not be
difficult
Track reconfiguration Existing main down track shall Existing up & down tracks shall
become main up track. New remain as they are and shall
down tracks shall be laid. All function in the same way too.
points and exchange tracks Only points and exchanges for
have to be suitably relocated/ up traffic leading to PPL is to be
modified. shifted to new up track.
8.2.3 Tracks to Haridaspur
Also, the new track from Haridaspur (single track) is planned to connect at the existing dead end near
the IOCL Flyover. Then this track shall become connected to the existing main up track. For traffic
going to Haridaspur area (imported coal mainly) has to cross-over to the existing up track first before
being moved out to the new track. This shall create a major traffic conflict point and needs to be
solved.

Final Report
Figure 8.9 Existing DE for Haridaspur Connectivity
For down traffic to Haridaspur, a separate grade separator flyover is proposed near by the existing DE
where the track shall be leading into. Conceptual layout of the same is proposed in Figure 8.10.
There shall be some land to be acquired for this development. The land marked is seen to be
presently unoccupied.
Figure 8.10 Conceptual Layout of Flyover for Down Track to Haridaspur

Final Report
Figure 8.11 Land on the Other Side of DE for Haridaspur Track
8.3 Internal Rail Connectivity

Material handling in most area of the Port is either already by mechanized means or in the process of
mechanization. Proposed new facilities within the existing harbour & new outer harbour are proposed
to be fully mechanized. Rated rake handling capacities of various facilities are mentioned in the Table
8.3 below:
Table 8.3 Rated Rake Handling Capacities of Material Handling Facilities
Capacity
Facility
Rakes / day MTPA
Existing Track Hoppers in MCHP Area – 2 No. 24 30
Existing Wagon Tipplers (T-149 & T-150) – 2 No. 10 12
Proposed Track Hoppers for CQ Mechanization – 2 No. 24 30
Proposed Iron Ore Wagon Tippler for JSW – 1 No. 8 10
Proposed Wagon Loaders for Essar – 1 No. 10 10
Proposed Wagon Loaders for CQ Mechanization – 2 No. 20 20
Proposed facilities for Outer Harbour shall be planned to suit with the traffic demands.

Final Report
8.3.1 Evaluation of Rail Networks
Overall traffic in the rail network has been calculated and presented in attached, Table 8.4 & Table
8.5 for the year 2020 & 2025 respectively.
Table 8.4 Rail Traffic Projections for Year 2020

Ratio of
Projected Proportion Projected Rakes/day Effective rakes/day
Type of BOBRN/ Probability of Possible for Empty Empty
Commodity Berth Traffic Rail Traffic
Rake BOXN to backloading backloading Out In
(MTPA) Rail Road/Conv. (MTPA) Incoming Outgoing Incoming Outgoing
total
Existing Harbour
CB1, CB2, BOBRN 0.77 40.0 33% 13.3 26.7 40.0 26.7
Coal - Export 65.0 100% 0% 65.0
EQ BOXN 0.23 12.0 100% 12.0 8.3 12.0 8.3
BOBRN 13.3 0.0 13.3

Coal - Import ESSAR, CQ 21.3 100% 0% 21.3
BOXN 3.7 0.0 3.7
MPB(JMB),
Breakbulk 11.3 25% 75% 2.8 BCNA 3.4 2.3 60% 2.0 0.9 0.2 3.6 3.2
CQ3, MPB
Iron Ore JSW 2.8 100% 0% 2.8 BOXN 2.2 100% 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.2
Fertiliser FB1, FB2 5.6 10% 90% 0.6 BCNA 0.4 100% 0.0 0.4
Outer Harbour
Coal - Export 30 100% 0% 30.0 BOBRN 24.0 0% 0.0 24.0 24.0 24.0
Coal - Import 0 100% 0% 0.0 BOXN 0.0 0% 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total 81.8 81.8
With Auto-Signalling
Capacity of a track for handling incoming & outgoing rakes 50 /day
No. of tracks required at the entrance to the port 2
Table 8.5 Rail Traffic Projections for Year 2025

Projected Ratio of Empty
Projected Proportion Rakes/day Effective rakes/day
Rail Type of BOBRN/ Probability of Possible for Empty Transfer
Commodity Berth Traffic Empty In
Traffic Rake BOXN to backloading backloading Out from/to
(MTPA) Rail Road/Conv. Incoming Outgoing Incoming Outgoing
(MTPA) total OH
Existing Harbour
CB1, CB2, BOBRN 0.77 46.2 33% 15.4 32.2 46.2 32.2
Coal - Export 75.0 100% 0% 75.0
EQ BOXN 0.23 13.8 100% 13.8 13.8 13.8 0.0
ESSAR, BOBRN 13.9 0.0 13.9

Coal - Import 17.4 100% 0% 17.4
CQ BOXN 0.0 0.0 0.0
MPB(JMB),
Breakbulk 15.4 25% 75% 3.8 BCNA 3.1 3.1 60% 1.8 0.6 1.2 4.3 3.6
CQ3, MPB
Iron Ore JSW 2.8 100% 0% 2.8 BOXN 2.2 100% 2.2 2.2 2.2 0.0
Fertiliser FB1, FB2 8.2 10% 90% 0.8 BCNA 0.7 0.0 0.7
Outer Harbour
Coal - Export 60 100% 0% 60.0 BOBRN 48.0 0% 0.0 48.0 48.0 48.0
Coal - Import 10 100% 0% 10.0 BOXN 8.0 0% 0.0 8.1 16.1 0.0 0.0 16.1
Total 114.5 114.5
With Auto-Signalling
Capacity of a track for handling incoming & outgoing rakes 50 /day
No. of tracks required at the entrance to the port 2.0
Overall schematic layout of the future port rail network is presented in Figure 8.12. For detailed
evaluation of various operational areas of the port rail networks, the entire area is marked up in
separate zones; namely:
Zone 1. Exchange Yard for Existing Harbour at Paradip Station (Figure 8.19)
Zone 2. Existing MCHP Area & MGR line (Figure 8.13)

Final Report
nd
Zone 3. Proposed BOT Lines and 2 MGR (Merry-go-round) (Figure 8.14)
Zone 4. General Cargo Loading Area (Figure 8.15 & Figure 8.16)
Zone 5. Existing Wagon Tippler & Yard (Figure 8.17)
Zone 6. Loading Area for Multi-purpose berth at Southern Dock (Figure 8.18)
Zone 7. Outer Harbour MGR (Figure 8.20)
Zone 8. Outer Harbour Exchange Yard (Figure 8.21)
Rail Traffic for zones 2 till 6 are calculated for all traffic projection years separately.
Figure 8.12 Overall Schematic Port Rail Network

Final Report
8.3.2 Observations from the Calculations
8.3.2.1 Existing MCHP & MGR Lines
Presently the complete circuit from the exchange yard till MCHP area is operated with auto-signalling.
The total turnaround time estimated is about 3 hr/rake. Total number of locomotive required is 3 as
shown in Table 8.6. However, with additional locomotive, more number of rakes can be handled in
peak hours.
Figure 8.13 Existing MCHP Area & MGR Lines
Table 8.6 Traffic Estimate for Existing MCHP Area
Distance from Receiving yard till Track Hoppers 5.5 km
Average Driving speed of train in this area 20 km/h
Engine Exchange time at receiving yard 0.5 hr.
Time required for traversing receiving yard to hopper 0.28 hr.
Unloading time at Track Hopper 1.5 hr.
Time required for traversing hopper to receiving yard 0.28 hr.
Engine Exchange time at receiving yard 0.5 hr.
Total turnaround time 3.05 hr/rake
Number of Locos required 3
Nr. Sidings required for bunching/peaking 3.13
Total sidings required at Receiving Yard 3.13 i.e. 4 No.
Presently non-mechanized loading of coal is done on track numbers RRS-3 & RRS-4 (Line No. C18 &
C13). Once the BOT Track construction is done, these would become a part of the new MGR tracks.
Hence, the non-mechanized loading, if still be required, could be shifted to sidings P-6 & P-7.

Final Report
8.3.2.2 Proposed BOT Tracks & 2nd MGR Area
nd
Figure 8.14 Proposed BOT Lines and 2 MGR
Proposed new tracks are being constructed along with the facilities for new Track Hoppers, Wagon
Tipplers, Cleaning Platforms & In-motion Wagon Loaders. All of these facilities shall have one by-pass
track.
Upon detailed check it is found that the time required for inspection & cleaning of rake shall be a
constraint here. As per the present proposal, 2 platforms shall be built. However, for traffic expected in
2020 an additional platform may be required. Of course, this can be offset by reducing the time
required for inspection & cleaning, for which more human resources may have to be deployed.
As per the DPR for this development, BOT operators may not use any captive locomotives for rake
movement and shall use the IR Locos for the purpose. However, for emergency locos may be
required from PPT. Hence only 2 numbers of locos has been added in the total requirements.
From the detailed calculations presented in Table 8.7, it may be seen that the coal unloading facilities
are expected to reach their working limits by the year 2025. This would mean more traffic shall be
diverted to outer harbour.

Final Report
Table 8.7 Traffic Estimate for BOT Tracks along with CQ Mechanization
Capacity of the new Track Hoppers = 24 rakes/day
~ 20.9 rakes/day (avg.) Demand 19.1 rakes/day (avg.) Ok
Capacity of Wagon Tipplers = 8 rakes/day
Capacity of Wagon Loader = 8 rakes/day
~ 7.0 rakes/day (avg.)
Demand 17.0 rakes/day (avg.) Ok
Capacity of Proposed Wagon Loader for CQ = 16 rakes/day
~ 13.9 rakes/day (avg.)
Capacity of proposed cleaning area = 22.2 rakes/day
3 tracks ~ 19.3 rakes/day (avg.) Demand 17.0 rakes/day (avg.) Ok
Scenario 1 (Coal unloading, no Scenario 2 (Coal unloading, Scenario 3 (Iron Ore unloading, Scenario 4 (Iron Ore unloading,
back loading) cleaning, coal back loading) cleaning, coal back loading) no back loading)
Engine Exchange time at receiving yard 0 hr 0 hr 0 hr 0 hr
Distance from Receiving yard till Track Hoppers/Tippler 4 km 4 km 9 km 9 km
Average Driving speed of train in this area 20 km/h 20 km/h 20 km/h 20 km/h
Time required for traversing receiving yard to hopper/Tippler 0.2 hr 0.2 hr 0.45 hr 0.45 hr
Placing T ime for Rake hr hr 0.5 hr 0.5 hr
Unloading time at T rack Hopper/Tippler 1.5 hr 1.5 hr 2 hr 2 hr
Distance from Track Hopper/Tippler to Cleaning Area 2.5 km 1.5 km km
Time required for traversing hopper/tippler to Cleaning 0.125 hr 0.075 hr hr
Cleaning Time for Rake (effective) 0.67 hr 0.67 hr hr
Distance from Cleaning to Backloading Area 0.5 km 0.5 km km
Time required for traversing Cleaning to Backloading Area 0.03 hr 0.03 hr hr
Loading Time for Rake 1.5 hr 1.5 hr hr
Distance from Last stop to receiving yard 9 km 9.5 km 9.5 km 11.5 km
Time required for traversing last stop to receiving yard 0.45 hr 0.475 hr 0.475 hr 0.575 hr
Engine Exchange time at receiving yard 0 hr 0 hr 0 hr 0 hr
Total turnaround time = 2.15 hr/rake 4.5 hr/rake 5.7 hr/rake 3.5 hr/rake
Average ratio of rakes for Scenario1/2 and 3/4 0.77 0.23 0.0 1.0
Average T urnaround T ime = 2.69 3.53
Number of Locos required = 3 2
Total Number of Locos required = 5
Total number of rakes handled (up & down) in an hour (average) = 3.20
Add peaking factor of 30%= 1.0
Total amount of rakes to be handled in 0.25 day peak = 5.76
Hence, sidings required at exchange yard = 6

Final Report
8.3.2.3 Location & Tracks for Wagon Loader for CQ Mechanization in Future
The project for CQ Mechanization is on hold at this moment. However, it will be executed in near
future to provide additional capacity of Coal Imports.
The present BOT Lines are not planned with this facility. Within the area of the existing and planned
MGR Tracks, there is not much space where the Coal Loading facility can be added. It is identified
that the present sidings P-16 to P-19 are suitable for providing coal wagon loader with adequate track
length. However, these tracks are dead-ended presently. To convert them to a wagon loader facility
nd
tracks, they need to be connected to a loop line. So, it is proposed to have connectivity from the 2
MGR Tracks to these sidings.
The sidings P-16 to P-19 are being used for GCB cargo loading at present. This operation may be
shifted to P-14, P-15.
Alternatively, additional 2 tracks parallel to P-16 to P-19 may be built with wagon loader facility.
Figure 8.15 General Cargo Loading Area (Existing)
Figure 8.16 General Cargo Loading Area (Proposed)

Final Report
Table 8.8 Traffic Estimate for GCB Loading Area
GCB Loading-unloading area
Traffic for JMB-MPB at Southern Dock = 5.00 MTPA
Traffic for GCB = 6.30 MTPA
Rail Share = 25%
Rail Traffic Expected = 1.26 rakes/day
Distance from Receiving yard till GCB Loading/Unloading Area 5.00 km
Average Driving speed of train in this area 20.00 km/h
Engine Exchange time at receiving yard 0.50 hr
Time required for traversing receiving yard to hopper 0.25 hr
Unloading & Loading time at Yard (non-mechanised) 8.00 hr
Placing Time for Rake 0.50 hr
Time required for traversing GCB till receiving yard 0.25 hr
Total turnaround time = 10.00 hr/rake
Nr. of rakes possible to be handled = 2.00 /day
Nr. of Sidings Required = 0.63
Number of Tracks in the GCB Y ard = 2.00 Ok
Presently the GCB cargo is handled on track P-16 to P-19. However, after CQ Mechanization,
the same shall become the tracks for Wagon Loader for CQ. The GCB Cargo Loading is
proposed to be shifted to P-14, P-15.
Number of Locos required = 1
Siding Tracks needed in the exchange yard = 1
Nr. Sidings required for bunching/peaking = 0.189
Total sidings required at Receiving Yard = 1.189 i.e. 2 Nrs.

Final Report
8.3.2.4 Existing Wagon Tippler Facility & Yard for it
Existing wagon tippler facility (T-149 & T-150) along with Yard Siding Tracks (T-1 to 7 & T-10 to 12)
was originally constructed for Iron Ore unloading. Presently these are being used for Coal Unloading.
These tracks are so located that they cannot be connected to the proposed MGR Tracks. Moreover,
the dead end of the facility is constructed with “Kick-back” system for pushing back the empty wagons
to collection yard. Hence, this facility shall remain “stand-alone”.
Figure 8.17 Existing Wagon Tippler & Yard

Final Report
Table 8.9 Traffic Estimate for Existing Wagon Tippler
Capacity of the wagon Tippler (2 No.) 5-6 rakes/day (rated)
Average Rakes that can be handled 8.7 rakes/day (avg.)
Demand 12.0 rakes/day (avg.) Larger than Capacity

The above shows that the present facility of unloading BOXN Coal Wagons are not enough.
However, the ratio of BOXN to BOBRN wagons received are based on present day ratio which
is expected to change with introduction of more track hoppers. Hence the traffic expected with
BOXN shall be lesser and may be limited to the capacity of the present facility only.
Distance from Receiving yard till Tippler Yard 5 km
Average Driving speed of train in this area 20 km/h
Time required for traversing receiving yard to hopper 0.25 hr
Unloading time at Y ard 2.5 hr
Placing Time for Rake 0.5 hr
Collecting Time for rake 0.5 hr
Time required for traversing Tippler till receiving yard 0.25 hr
Total turnaround time = 5 hr/rake
No. of Tippler 2
No. of rakes can be handled = 9.6 rakes/day
Nr. of tracks needed = 1.25
Nr. of existing tracks at the Tippler Yard = 4
Total sidings required at Receiving Yard = 1 i.e. 1 No.
8.3.3 Tracks between EQ & CQ Area
Between the Quay face of existing EQ & CQ there are 4 tracks at present. After both EQ & CQ
Mechanization, 2 tracks shall have to be removed. Also the remaining yard here shall be serving only
SQ, with non-mechanized loading.
8.3.4 Tracks to Multi-purpose Berths in Southern Dock
BOT Operator (JMB) is in the process of construction of the Multi-purpose berths in Southern Dock
along with the yard and rail tracks. The proposed track connecting the main up & down tracks to the
Yard of MPB, runs parallel to the existing road (NH-5A) just inside the port boundary. This track shall
cross the access road to existing harbour in front of Gate 3 & 4 where level crossings are planned.

Final Report
Figure 8.18 Loading Area for MPB
Table 8.10 Traffic Estimate for MPB in Southern Dock
Containers Other Cargo
Traffic Projected (as per Tender Documents/DPR) 0.43 MTEU 2.18 MTPA
Rail share 30 % 50 %
Rail Traffic 0.129 MTEU 1.09 MTPA
Daily rail traffic (average) 4.1 rakes/day 0.9 rakes/day
Total number of rakes = 5.0 rakes/day
Turnaround time for rakes (as per IR Rules) 6 hrs
Number of Loading Tracks required 2
Number of loading tracks planned within MPB Yard 3
Distance from exchange yard till MPB Area 6 km
Rakes can be accomodated enroute to MPB 2
Total sidings required at Receiving Yard = 1 i.e. 1 No.

Final Report
8.3.4.1 Existing Exchange Yard along with All Planned Projects
Figure 8.19 Exchange Yard for Existing Harbour
From all the traffic estimates for separate facilities, it is seen that the total number of sidings in the
exchange yard required are less than already available space. Of course, this also depends on the
efficiency of the external rail network on incoming and outgoing traffic.
8.3.5 New Tracks and Rail Network for Outer Harbour
The rail network for the proposed outer harbour is planned to be able to work independently of the
existing rail network. Since this is a complete new development, all facilities can be planned as per the
traffic demands within the limits of the harbour.
In the Master Plan, for unloading of the coal rakes track hoppers are proposed and for loading of
imported coal, In-motion wagon loader is proposed. Capacities of these facilities shall match the
projected demand.
The main rail network to outer harbour shall consist of a Loop line on which the track hoppers and
cleaning platforms shall be located. The wagon loader shall load near the import coal stacking location
planned in the Western Dock area.
It is proposed to have a dedicated parallel set of up & down tracks from existing Paradip station
exchange yard till the new exchange yard for the outer harbour located at the existing golf club area.

Final Report
The proposed tracks shall take a turn just before the flyover at Atharbanki and then continue parallel
to NH5A to the outer harbour area.
Figure 8.20 Outer Harbour MGR
Figure 8.21 Exchange Yard for Outer Harbour

Final Report
Table 8.11 Traffic Estimate for Outer Harbour Area for 2020
Capacity of T rack Hoppers 24 rakes/day (rated)
Capacity of Proposed Wagon Loader for OH 10 rakes/day (rated)
Capacity of proposed cleaning area 7.4 rakes/day
1 tracks ~ 6.4 rakes/day (avg.) Demand 0.0 rakes/day (avg.) Ok
Scenario 1 (Coal unloading, no Scenario 2 (Coal unloading,

back loading) cleaning, coal back loading)
Engine Exchange time at receiving yard 0 hr 0 hr
Distance from Receiving yard till Track Hoppers/Tippler 4 km 4 km
Average Driving speed of train in this area 20 km/h 20 km/h
Time required for traversing receiving yard to hopper/Tippler 0.2 hr 0.2 hr
Placing Time for Rake hr hr
Unloading time at Track Hopper/Tippler 1.5 hr 1.5 hr
Distance from Track Hopper/Tippler to Cleaning Area 1.5 km
Time required for traversing hopper/tippler to Cleaning 0.075 hr
Cleaning Time for Rake 2 hr
Distance from Cleaning to Backloading Area 2.5 km
Time required for traversing Cleaning to Backloading Area 0.125 hr
Loading Time for Rake 1.5 hr
Distance from Last stop to receiving yeard 4 km 0 km
Time required for traversing last stop to receiving yard 0.2 hr 0 hr
Engine Exchange time at receiving yard 0 hr 0 hr
Total turnaround time = 1.9 hr/rake 5.4 hr/rake
Average ratio of rakes for Scenario1/2 1 0
Average Turnaround T ime = 1.9
Total number of rakes handled (up & down) in an hour (average) = 1.67
Add peaking factor of 30%= 0.5
Total amount of rakes to be handled in 0.25 day peak = 3.00
Hence, sidings required at exchange yard = 3
Since the Wagon Loader is co-located with the exchange yard, additional 2 tracks would be required for the same.
Hence total tracks required at the exchange yard 5 No.
Based on similar calculations total 15 tracks are required for traffic projected for year 2035 in the
exchange yard.

Final Report
8.3.6 No. of Mainlines Entry / Exit to Port
Indian Rail Network reaching to Paradip Port is being converted to auto-signalling to increase the
network capacity. Taking the track capacity as 50 rakes/day average on conservative side, the
requirement of the number of tracks estimated for traffic till 2025 are presented in Table 8.4 & Table
8.5 above. As can be seen total 2 up & 2 down tracks should be sufficient to cater to the projected
traffic in the port till year 2025. This would mean additional up & down tracks to be laid in the main line
to cater to increased traffic demands.
It has been observed that basis the similar calculations for year 2035 would result in 4 up and 4 down
lines which may not be practically provided. However it is expected that by that time better technology
like heavy haul rail might be in place, which using the same line space could handle much higher
throughput.
8.4 Recommendations for Improvement in Road Access

The following recommendations are made with reference to improvement in road access to and from
the existing harbour:
1. After completion of EQ & CQ mechanisation along with other planned projects as mentioned
earlier, the vehicular traffic exchange is expected to significantly reduce. Hence, the
requirements of vehicle access gates shall reduce too. In light of this and the development of
BOT Tracks, the gate 2 is proposed to be closed. Minor road traffic shall use gates 1 & 3 for
accessing the harbour.
2. Existing NH-5A from Athrabanki Flyover till outer harbour shall be bound by rail tracks on
either side of it; on eastern side tracks to southern dock and on western side the tracks to
outer harbour. With all access from port township cut-off this portion of the NH shall become a
dedicated corridor for Port traffic only.
3. For accessing the harbour from the Township, two flyovers for personal & light commercial
vehicles are proposed as mentioned below:
a. Flyover near Gate 3: In the Smart-city planning being developed under separate
contract, a flyover is proposed parallel to existing Athrabanki Flyover for access to
township from Main NH-5A. It is proposed to have a ramp out of the same to cross
over the NH-5A & Rail Tracks parallel to it and land directly in the harbour area
nearby Gate 3. Proposed flyover is shown in Figure 8.22.

Final Report
Figure 8.22 Proposed Flyover at Gate 3
b. Similar to Gate 3, a separate flyover for Gate 4 is proposed (Figure 8.23). It shall start
in front of Port Trust Hospital, cross over the rail tracks & NH5A below and would end
inside the harbour on other side. This flyover is proposed to have stairs and footpaths
on either sides of the main deck for ease of pedestrian movement.
Figure 8.23 Proposed Flyover at Gate 4
It may however be noted that the above proposals may be refined keeping in view of the
recommendations of the report on Smart City, which is in progress currently.

Final Report
9.0 SCOPE FOR FUTURE CAPACITY EXPANSION
9.1 Development Possible within the Existing Harbour
9.1.1 Mechanization of CQ1 to CQ2
The port also proposes to mechanize berths CQ1 and CQ2 to enable import of cargo like coking and
thermal coal, limestone, gypsum etc.
Mechanization of these berths will involve the following:
Strengthening these berths to receive 2 coal unloaders on each berth.

Bulk Stackyard south of the incoming rail track, adjacent to the bulb having storage capacity
of about 0.83 MT of coal. The port also proposes to allocate an additional stacking area just
south of the proposed stackyard to add additional capacity of 0.44 MT.
Mechanization of the stackyard with stacker cum reclaimers and connected conveyor system.
Two rapid loading systems with 4,000 T capacity silos each.
The location plan of berths and stackyard is shown in Figure 9.1.
Mechanised Coal Stackyard for CQ 1& 2
Figure 9.1 Mechanization of CQ1 & CQ2 Berths

Final Report
It was assessed that even after allocation of additional stackyard the total storage capacity of coking
coal (which is the main commodity to be handled at the proposed terminal) would only be limited to
about 1.3 MT only. Considering the average dwell about 30 days, the proposed stackyards can only
support the terminal capacity of about 11.0 MTPA only. Significant efforts would be needed to
evacuate the cargo faster so that the dwell time could be reduced to match the stacking capacity.
This project could be initiated once the projects for mechanisation of EQ1-3 and deep draft coal import
berth are in advanced stage of completion.
9.1.2 Capacity Augmentation of MCHP
The utilization of the equipment at MCHP is very high, which is likely to impact the maintenance
schedule requirement. The port is therefore considering various options for the capacity augmentation
of the MCHP whereby increasing the rated capacity of the equipment by way of replacing the motors,
gears etc.
It is also suggested that the augmentation of stacking area could also be carried out in the following
manner:
Addition of one row of stockpile towards north of existing stackyard

Add one stream of conveyor and Stacker cum Reclaimer
The proposed arrangement is shown in Figure 9.2.
Figure 9.2 Proposed Arrangement for Capacity Augmentation of MCHP

Final Report
The capacity of the stackyard would go up from existing 0.97 MT to 1.45 MT and would have the
following advantages:
The yard would be able to support additional berth capacity of MCHP.

This would reduce the overutilization of existing stackyard equipment so that adequate time of
scheduled maintenance would be available.
The additional yard can also support the upcoming EQ1, 2 and 3 berths. This could be accomplished
by providing a conveyor system connecting the additional yard with the proposed stackyard of EQ1 to
EQ3. The modalities of development of the additional stackyard and sharing with MCHP and EQ
berths need to be worked out.
9.1.3 IWT Terminal
Another possible development within the existing inner harbour is the IWT terminal, which needs to be
developed as part of NW5 development for movement of coal from Talcher mines to Paradip and
Dhamra port. This has a potential to ease the congested rail lines in the region. The indicative
locations for the IWT terminal are shown in Figure 9.3.
Figure 9.3 Proposed Location for the IWT Terminal
As part of the proposed development, the barge unloading jetties along with associated infrastructure
like barge unloaders, connected conveyor system and transit stackyard shall be built. The coal from
the transit stackyard would thereafter be transferred to the main coal yard of MCHP or EQ 1 to 3
berths for onward loading to ships.
The project should be initiated once the overall development of National Waterway NW5 is
undertaken. Meanwhile the IWT traffic could be handled at NQ1 & NQ2 with deployment of suitable
cranes.

Final Report
9.1.4 Conversion of Iron Ore Berth to Handle Coal
In the past few years there was decline in iron ore traffic through IOHP, and therefore it was proposed
to handle Thermal coal at IOB in addition to Iron ore. The proposal envisages unloading thermal coal
rakes in BOXN wagons at Wagon Tippler and loading through IOHP. In fact coal loading was already
carried out in the past and there is nothing new in handling coal.
The mechanised IOHP has a capacity to handle Iron ore at a designed rate of 3,000 TPH. Due to
lower projection of iron ore traffic to be handled at this berth, it is proposed that this berth be used for
coal exports as well apart from the little iron ore traffic that may come in future. However, considering
bulk density of coal being about a third of iron ore the capacity of this berth for loading coal would be
limited to about 1,000 TPD, which is quite low and does not meet the objective.
It is therefore suggested that the handling system is upgraded to enable coal loading at 2,000 TPH. It
is proposed to provide additional conveyor streams parallel to conveyors IV and VI and an additional
ship loader having capacity of 2,000 TPH for loading coal as shown in Figure 9.4.
Figure 9.4 Conversion of IOHP to Handle Coal
Port has reported recent spurt in the traffic of iron ore and pallets and thus it is advisable to keep a
close watch on this trend and the above conversion is not required to be initiated immediately. In
future if there is again a substantial decline in iron ore traffic due to policy change etc. this project may
be undertaken.

Final Report
9.2 Development of Potential Outer Harbour
9.2.1 Alternative Locations
The possible alternative locations for development of outer harbour are shown in Figure 9.5.
Figure 9.5 Location of Project Sites
9.2.2 Qualitative Evaluation of the Alternative Sites
Based on the site visits and discussions with the port personnel the following observations are made:
1. Technically, it is possible to locate the outer harbour in any of the three alternative sites.
2. The access to Location 1 would be through the existing port facilities and thus is likely to
constraint the existing port infrastructure.
3. Location 3 is close to the fishing village. Further the rail and road access to this site would
need to be through PPL establishments involving R&R issues.
4. Location 2 seems to be best suited for the development of the outer harbour with rail and road
access without any R&R issues.
9.2.3 Planning of the Outer Harbour
To cater to the proposed traffic in the year 2020, it is estimated that initial two coal export berths and
one coal import berth would be needed along with the associated handling system and storage at
outer harbour.
For an outer harbour development following technical requirements need to be addressed:
1. Adequate Channel width to handle 200,000 DWT cape size ships

2. Adequate stopping distance for vessels entering the harbour
3. Adequate water depths in the channel and harbour for the cape size ships
4. Acceptable tranquillity in the harbour basin and berths

Final Report
5. Optimisation of dredging and reclamation
Considering the above aspects various alternative layouts were prepared as part of a separate TEFR
prepared for the project. The shortlisted layout of the proposed development is shown in Figure 9.6.
The salient features of the development are given below:
1. North breakwater of length 1,140 m and south breakwater of length 4,150 m shall be
provided. The breakwaters are proposed to be rubble mound type with ACCROPODES
provided as artificial armour units on sea side to absorb the wave forces.
2. The dredged depths in the channel and harbour basin shall be provided to handle capesize
vessels.
3. The layout has been planned such the requirement of borrowed fill for reclamation purposes
could be minimised.
4. The fully mechanised system shall be provided for import and export of bulk cargo.
5. The proposed Phase 1 layout can be suitably developed out of the proposed layout based on
the immediate augmentation requirement i.e. two berths for coal export and one berth for coal
import.
Figure 9.6 Master Plan Layout for Proposed Outer Harbour

Final Report
9.3 Land Use Plan
The estate department of the port has already prepared the land use plan, which would need to be
updated in view of the updated master plan of the port. In this connection our recommendations are
follows:
1. Adequate area needs to be reserved for the storage and operations for the proposed outer
harbour. The land area behind 1.8 km from the waterfront of outer harbour can be reserved
for this purpose. The land owned by state government can be excluded.
2. Land towards the south west of proposed port land till the Atharabanki creek could be utilised
for setting up Smart city.
3. Land towards northwest can be developed for the commercial purposed and leased out for
hotel, offices etc.
The broad suggestions are indicated in Figure 9.7.
Figure 9.7 Port Land Use Plan
It may however be noted that the above proposals may be refined keeping in view of the
recommendations of the report on Smart City, which is in progress currently.

Final Report
10.0 SHELF OF NEW PROJECTS AND PHASING
10.1 General
As part of Paradip Port Master Plan several projects have been identified which need to be taken up
in phased manner with the built up in traffic. The proposed phasing, capacity addition and the likely
investments are discussed in paragraphs below.
It may be noted that apart from these projects there could be several other projects which port would
be implementing as part of the routine operations and maintenance of the port facilities. Further the
phasing proposed is not cast in stone but could be reviewed periodically and revised based on the
economic scenario and demand for port at that particular point of time.
10.2 Ongoing Projects

The details of the projects which have already been awarded and development is ongoing are given
below in Table 10.1.
Table 10.1 Ongoing Projects
Investment Capacity
Mode of
S. No. Project Name required Addition
Implementation
(INR in Crores) (MTPA)
1. Deep Draft Coal Import Berth 479 10.0 PPP
2. Deep Draft Iron Ore Export Berth 430 10.0 PPP
3. Development of Clean Cargo Berth 430 5.0 PPP
Development of Rail Connectivity for

4. 128 - Port's funds
BOT berths
5. Mechanisation of EQ1 -3 Berths 1,437 30.0 PPP
6. Capital Dredging of BOT basin 173 - Port's funds
The port layout after completion of ongoing projects shall be as shown in Figure 10.1.

Final Report
Figure 10.1 Port Layout along with Ongoing Developments

Final Report
10.3 Projects to be completed by Year 2020
The details of the projects which are envisaged to be completed by year 2020 are given below in
Table 10.2.
Table 10.2 Projects to be Completed by Year 2020
Investment Capacity
Mode of
Implementation
Development of IWT Terminal at
1. 200 2.5 PPP
Paradip Port
2. LPG Terminal at South jetty 690 0.75 PPP
Development of Outer Harbour -

3. 4,179 39 PPP
Phase 1
The port layout after completion of projects mentioned above shall be as shown in Figure 10.2.

Final Report
Figure 10.2 Layout Plan 2020

Final Report
Table 10.3.
Investment Capacity
Mode of
Implementation
1. Mechanisation of CQ1 -2 Berths 1,357 20 PPP
Development of Outer Harbour -

2. 1,103 32 PPP
Phase 2
Conversion of Iron Ore Berth to Coal
3. 100 5.0 Port’s Fund
Berth*
Expansion of the MCHP stackyard
4. 150 6.0 PPP
for additional coal storage#
* The project to be initiated only if berth is available due to insufficient iron ore traffic.
#
The project to be initiated only if additional stackyard capacity is envisaged.
The port layout after completion of projects mentioned above shall be as shown in Figure 10.3.

Final Report

Final Report
Table 10.4.
Investment Capacity
Mode of
Implementation
Development of Outer Harbour –
1. Ultimate Phase 3,485 75+ PPP
The port layout after completion of mentioned above shall be as shown in Figure 10.4.

Final Report

Final Report
Appendix-1: BCG Benchmarking Study
for Paradip Port
SAGARMALA: Master Plan for Paradip Port -1-

Final Report
Final Report
3 Paradip Port Deep-dive

3.1 Port overview
Paradip port is located on the eastern coast of India in Jagatsinghpur district of Odisha on the Bay of Bengal. It is
situated between the ports of Kolkata and Visakhapatnam. Paradip has 15 berths and 3 SPMs. The 15 berths
comprise 3 mechanized berths, 7 general cargo conventional berths, 2 oil jetty berths and 3 dedicated berths.
Figure 60: Paradip berth layout
Paradip Port Trust (PPT) has seen an increase of 6% CAGR in volume over the last 5 years. Its total revenues
have increased at 8% YoY in line with its growth in operating income of 8% YoY. Total expenses at PPT have,
however, gone up by 14% YoY. While operating expenses have gone up by 9% YoY, non-operating expenses have
increased by 27% YoY.
Operating Margin (%) CAGR
Volumes have grown at 6% Revenues have grown 8% But expenses have grown 14%
Other income Operating income Other expense Operating expense
Mn MT Rs. Crs Rs. Crs
80 1,500 1,500
+6% 69.6
68.0
+8% 1,160
60 55.7 56.4 1,068
54.5 144
1,000 154 1,000
851
810 798 +14%
146 728 743
40 170 115
145 27%
178
529
500 1,016 8% 500 477
435 88
915 59
20 44 9%
705 639 684
550 598
391 418 441
0 0 0
FY11 FY12 FY13 FY14 FY15 FY11 FY12 FY13 FY14 FY15 FY11 FY12 FY13 FY14 FY15
45 35 35 40 41
Figure 61: Volume, revenue and expense trend of Paradip port
Project Unnati 47
Final Report
Coal is the biggest cargo being handled at Paradip. Paradip handles large volumes of both export thermal coal
and import coking and steam coal. In FY15, it handled ~22 Mn MT of export thermal coal, ~9 Mn MT of import
steam coal, and ~7 Mn MT of import coking coal. Among other major cargo categories, PPT handles ~18 Mn MT
of POL products, ~3 Mn MT of iron ore and iron pellets, and ~5 Mn MT of fertilizer products. Overall, PPT handles
~46 Mn MT of dry bulk cargo.
Cargo Volume in FY 15 (mn MT)

80
Dry Bulk 5.0 69.6
18.0
60
2.2 1.3
5.8
40 6.9
9.1
21.4
20
0
Export Import Import Others IORE I PAL POL Fer Total
Thermal Coal Steam Coal Coking Coal
31% 13% 10% 8% 3% 2% 26% 7% 100%
Figure 62: Volume split by cargo at Paradip port
Paradip port is characterized by high berth occupancy and low berth productivity across its Export coal berths
(Mechanized Coal Handling Plant – MCHP) and General Cargo Berths. These berths handle the dry bulk volume
at Paradip port.
MCHP, General Cargo Berths Fertilizer Iron POL

Export Berths Ore
Coal Berth
% occupancy
100 90 90 85
85
80 80 80 80 Benchmark Occupancy Level
69 70
70 –75
54 55
50 44 42
14 13 11
0
CB-1 CB-2 CQ-1 CQ-2 CQ-3 EQ-1 EQ-2 EQ-3 SQ MPB FB-1 FB-2 IOB OJ SPM-1 SPM- SPM-3
2
0
10 10 8
20
40 31 32
40 42
48 49 49 52
60 58
59 61 61 59
65 70
80 Capacity Utilization
% capacity utilization
Potential to create additional
capacity by upgrading equipment
Figure 63: Occupancy and capacity utilization at Paradip port
Project Unnati 48
Final Report
PPT, because of its location close to Mahanadi Coal fields, can emerge as a major hub and major export center
for coastal coal. Based on Origin/Destination studies for different power plants in India under the Sagarmala
project, export coal handling requirement at Paradip is expected to grow >4x over the next 5 years—from the
current volumes of ~22 Mn MT to~95 Mn MT.
Sagarmala Projections
Coal Handling Requirement

150
+340%
100 95
59
50
22
0
FY 15 FY 17 FY 20
Figure 64: Future coal handling requirement at Paradip port
3.2 Key findings and initiatives from deep-dive
Paradip port has the potential to handle additional volume by increasing productivity at its existing berths. There
are multiple operational levers that the port can use to drive a jump in its productivity and performance.
The following 6 broad levers exist to improve port productivity and performance:
 Increase MCHP productivity through changed berthing policies, productivity norms and reduction in
non-working time
 Use Iron Ore Handling plant to handle coal to drive higher volume
 Improve land use in MCHP berths and optimize railway performance to drive higher cargo handling
 On the conventional cargo handling side, add new HMCs to lead to improved productivity of vessels.
Setting of productivity norms for vessels berthing on the conventional general cargo berths will see an
increase in overall productivity and, hence, cargo handling capacity of the berths
 Develop additional storage areas and add dumpers to the fleet of equipment available for cargo handling
to evacuate wharf faster and drive productivity higher
 Mechanize existing conventional berths to drive higher cargo volumes
Project Unnati 49
Final Report
Conv. Mech. (MCHP + IHP)
MMT of Cargo Mechanized berths Conventional berths

100 Incremental 97
operating 95 40 108 36 24
profit (Rs. crs) 24
80
73
4 57
6
60 8
33
3
46 7
40
23
20 41 41
23
0
Current Vol. MCHP prod. IHP handles Development Add new Add dumpers Cap. with Additional Total
increase coal of addn. land HMCs and develop existing infra. mech.4
and upgrade storage for
Rail infra conv. ops.
1 2 3 4 5 6
Figure 65: Identified incremental capacity through operational improvements at Paradip port
3.2.1 Mechanized coal handling plant (MCHP)
MCHP is the export coal handling plant at Paradip. MCHP handled 21 million tons of thermal coal exports in
FY15.
Railway MCHP Rake MCHP Land MCHP Loading

Network Handling Plant Capacity Equipment
Capacity handled in
FY 15 = 21 MMT
>36 mn MT
Current capacity only for export ~28 mn MT ~29 mn MT ~45 mn MT
thermal coal
~36 mn MT ~37 mn MT
Additional capacity
Currently
that can be created
Upgrading coal silo Developing additional operating at
through operational
at MCL and rake parcel of land for only 21 MMT
improvement
handling at MCHP excess cargo storage
Figure 66: Value chain for MCHP handling
Project Unnati 50
Final Report
MCHP berth is in a position to handle a much larger volume of cargo than what it handled in FY15, provided
certain operational constraints in its value chain are removed. Chief among the operational constraints include
the vessel quality berthing at MCHP and the effective use of MCHP land parcel. In addition, the turnaround time
for rake handling at MCHP receiving station also needs to be addressed to assist the berth to handle a larger
volume of cargo. In FY15, berth productivity was much lower than the potential rated capacity of MCHP
equipment. The highest gross productivity (Total Quantity Loaded / Total time spent by vessel on the berth)
achieved at the berth was ~2,027 MT/hour, and the average gross productivity for the vessel was ~1,370
MT/hour.
Average Productivity in Tons / Hr

4,500
Rated Capacity
4,000 4,000
3,500
Potential Target
3,000 3,000
2,500
Best Performance in 2014-15

2,000 2,027
1,500 FY 15 Average
Ø 1,370
1,000
500
0
Loading Instances
Figure 67: Productivity of every vessel at MCHP in FY15
Volume handled (mn MT)

10
Volume
5 9.80
handled
(mn MT)
3.30
2.20 2.10 1.80 1.90
0
TNEB NTECL APGEN KPCL ADANI OTHERS
Productivity (MT / hr)

1,800
1,600
Average
Productivity 1,400
(MT / Hour) 1,612
1,484
1,200 1,389 1,365 1,326
1,190
1,000
TNEB NTECL APGEN KPCL ADANI OTHERS
Figure 68: Volumes and productivity performance for end customers at MCHP
Project Unnati 51
Final Report
3.2.1.1 Initiative: PPT 1.1 Modification of existing berthing policy and set up of penal berth charges
Initiative Overview
The requested loading rate of vessels arriving at Paradip is much lower than the MCHP rated capacity. A key
reason behind this low rate is the absence of defined productivity norms and penal berth charges. Thus, there is
no incentive for the end customer to upgrade vessels over time. Absence of norms for number of hatch changes
and draft checks results in little control over non-working time for the vessels.
In order to improve berth performance, there is a need to put in place a stringent set of productivity norms and
penal charges. Also, a roadmap for how these norms will change over time needs to be provided to the end
customer so that they can phase out their existing set of poor performing vessels.
Variance in productivity for same ship operating at similar cargo volume and same customer
TPH TANGEDCO NTECL

1991
2,000
1888
1,900
1,800 1749
1,700 1605
1690 1616 1585
1,600 1644 1545
1486 1501
1,500 1430
1379 1372
1,400 1460 1456 1306
1303 1249 1263
1,300 1324
1340 1298
1280 1201
1,200
1224 1188 1195
1,100 1127 1160 1175
1110 1126 1095 1126 1078
1,000 1019 1028
900 959 960
906
800 748 853
713 706
700
Gem of Tamil APJ Vishwa Chennai Tamil APJ APJ APJ Vishwa Tamil Vishwa APJ APJ Vishva
Ennore Kamaraj Mahakali Diksha Selvam Anna Jad Mahadeva Suryavir Vijeta Periyar Diksha Jad Kais Prerna
Figure 69: High variance in productivity for the same vessel handling similar parcel sizes
Key Findings
Low average productivity of vessels arriving at Paradip
Due to the use of older vessels in the coastal coal transport network, overall productivity rate requested by the
vessels is low at Paradip. In FY15, more than 60% of the vessels arriving at Paradip requested loading rate below
2,000 tons per hour, while the average loading rate requested is only 2,278 tons/hr. This low request rate is
impacting the overall performance of the berth.
Since PPT does not mandate vessels achieving a specific productivity during loading, there is no incentive for
any of the vessels berthing currently to push towards higher productivity (unless the results are being pushed
by checks that drive significant high non-working time). High variance in actual planning and execution time,
conservative trimming passes, high number of hatch changes in absence of norms for each hatch change and no
control on number of allowed hatch changes, absence of norms on draught checks and high number of actual
draught checks are all driving high non-working time.
Project Unnati 52
Final Report
Vessel Productivity Rate
Vessel Productivity Rate Requested (MT / hr) Coastal vessels characterized by

5,000 older / lower productivity
• 61% of total vessels requested
rates of <= 2000 TPH
Rated Equipment Productivity
4,000 4,000 Urgent needed for upgrading
Maximum Productivity Rate Requested vessels operating on coastal
3,500
network
3,000
Operating norms across ports
being put in place to drive fleet
Average Productivity Rate Requested
Ø 2,278 upgradation over time
2,000 • Norms become progressively
more aggressive to drive fleet
Actual Average Productivity Achieved upgradation
1,369
• 2 year roadmap of norms and
1,000
productivity requirement at ports
defined upfront
Figure 70: Average productivity rate requested by vessels at MCHP
Low parcel size of vessels arriving at Paradip
TANGEDCO / NTECL coal linkage with Eastern Coal Fields is ~1.0 Mn MT. This coal is handled mostly at Haldia
port, where the vessel draught is between 7.0 – 7.5 m. Such vessels hold only up to 30,000 MT when they leave
Haldia and come to Paradip to handle the remaining cargo. Such part-loaded vessels end up having a much lower
productivity during operations.
Overall prod. increases with parcel size increase >30% vessels with small parcel size
Parcel Size (MT) No. of vessels

Correlation: 0.88
80,000 150 143
Top up Large
Topnumber
up of
operations from operations
Handymaxfrom/
Haldia port Supramax
Haldia port
vessels
60,000
100
90
40,000
67
51
50
20,000 32
0 0
500 1,000 1,500 2,000 < 40k 40 - 50k 50 - 60k 60 - 70k >70k Parcel
Size of bubble represents no. of vessels Productivity 8% 23% 37% 13% 17% size
(TPH) MTPA
Figure 71: High correlation between vessel productivity and parcel size; ~30% of total vessels in Paradip
required cargo of < 50,000 MT
Project Unnati 53
Final Report
Globally, ports have stringent norms and penal charges to maintain higher productivity. Private ports like
Mundra in India have also adopted and implemented norms to achieve higher productivity.
Key norms Key norms

• Max. 2 passes / hatch • Cargo stoppage during operation beyond
• 2 trim passes each > 1000 MTs
Newcastle
2 hrs penalized
• Max. 1 interim draft survey
Mundra
• Norms for loading/unloading enforced
• Vessel size - wise avg. prod. norms
Key Penal charges
Key Penal charges • $790 / hour for stoppages beyond 2 hrs
• $1000 / hour penal charges for non on vessel account
compliance with loading • De-berthing upon failure to meet port
• Repeat offenders denied berthing norms
Figure 72: Key norms and penal charges at other ports
Recommendations
Of the 2 MCHP berths (CB-1 and CB-2), PPT already has a berthing policy in place wherein CB-1 berth is reserved
for TANGEDCO / NTECL / APGENCO and KPCL. This prioritized berthing at CB-1 also mandates that the vessels
at CB-1 achieve gross productivity of up to 2,500 MT/hour. However, this condition has not been strictly
enforced by PPT. CB-2 is the MCHP berth that is being used for all vessels. There is no priority vessel berthing at
CB-2.
For both CB-1 and CB-2, there should be priority of berthing vessels that needs to be followed (over and above
the existing priority at CB-1). The priority should be derived on the basis of:
 Declared vessel productivity

 Vessel loading rate
 Vessel parcel size
If each of the above parameters is the same, priority should be given to the vessel on a first-come-first-serve
basis.
There is also a need to set norms for number of hatch changes and number of draught checks. On the basis of
vessel productivity and norms for non-working time, each vessel will be given a time within which they are
expected to complete loading and deberth, failing which they will need to pay penal berth charges for every
additional hour spent on the berth. If vessel stays more than double the time as mandated under the productivity
norms, vessel should be compulsorily de-berthed. Also, vessels not meeting port productivity norms for 3
instances should be denied berthing in the future.
In order to derive the productivity norms, a structured approach has been devised. Any non-working time
created due to inefficiencies/losses at the port side (e.g.: equipment breakdown, strike) or natural causes (bad
weather, etc.) should not be incorporated in the time spent by the vessel at the berth.
Project Unnati 54
Final Report
Mechanized Operations Conventional Operations
Optimal Working time = f(Optimal Vessel size, Optimal Working time = f(Optimal Vessel size,
Loading Operations
Optimal productivity) Optimal productivity)

Working • Vessel size = f(Berth draft, Length) • Vessel size = f(Berth draft, Length)
Time • Optimal productivity = 80% of rated • Optimal productivity = f(Crane moves, Cargo,
equipment capacity Crane capacity)
Non Non working time = 2 x # of hatches x time per hatch + 2 trim passes x time per trim pass + 3 draft
Working checks + other elements of non working time
Time • does not include port related time losses, weather related time losses
• draft checks can be higher for conventional operations
Optimal Working time = f(Optimal Vessel size, Optimal Working time = f(Optimal Vessel size,
Optimal productivity, Vessel quantity) Optimal productivity, Vessel quantity)
Unloading Operations
• Vessel size = f(Berth draft, Length) • Vessel size = f(Berth draft, Length)
Working • Optimal productivity = 75% of rated eqpt. cap. • Optimal productivity = f(Crane moves, Cargo,
Time when vessel quantity > 50% Crane capacity, Vessel quantity)
• Optimal productivity = 50% of rated eqpt. cap. • HMC optimal productivity for different cargo
when vessel quantity < 50% can be standardized across ports
Non Non working time = 2 x # of hatches x time per hatch + 2 trim passes x time per trim pass + # of
Working draft checks x time per draft check + other elements of non working time
Time • does not include port related time losses, weather related time losses
• draft checks can be higher for conventional operations
Figure 73: Methodology to determine working time and non-working time norms
Define Berthing Norms Define Penal Charges Plan phase wise rollout
Optimal working time and Penal charges if vessel exceeds Initially, the norm setting
non working time estimated time as defined in the norms process can start with the
for each vessel • Port related losses e.g. average / median
equipment breakdown, port performance
Prioritize berthing norm shutdown or weather related
basis: losses not included Plan for progressive
• Maximum daily productivity strengthening of norms
• In case daily productivity Penal charges pegged at 3X – should be upfront defined
levels are the same, 5X of berth hire charges and communicated
prioritize vessel which have • Extra hour charged ~$750 for
higher cargo parcel size mechanized and ~$250 for Ports should aim to reach
conventional berths optimal norm levels within 2
years
Repeat offenders to be denied
berthing
Deberthing: If vessel time

crosses 2x as defined by norms
Norms and penal charges need to be updated regularly to

account for latest improvements in vessel / port performance
Figure 74: Berthing norms and penal charges defined using structured approach in the previous figure
Project Unnati 55
Final Report
Using the above approach, we have identified MCHP norms for FY16 and FY17.
Vessel productivity rate Average # of hatch Calculated productivity

requested changes and draft checks norms
Ø 2,278 Hatch changes (Hrs) Min. prod. rate = 2,300 TPH
15
Working time for 70,000 MT =
10
~30 hrs
Median Total time for hatch changes

5 5.2
and draft checks = 7.3 hrs
0 Total time = 37.3 hrs
Draft checks (Hrs) Gross productivity = 45,040

10 TPD
5
Median
2.1
0
0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000
Vessel Productivity Total time for hatch changes and

Rate Requested draft checks = 7.3 hrs
Figure 75: Vessel productivity norms for August ’15 to July ’16
Vessel productivity rate Average # of hatch Calculated productivity

requested changes and draft checks norms
2,500 Hatch changes (Hrs) Min. prod. rate = 2,500 TPH
15
Working time for 70,000 MT =
10
~28 hrs
75th percentile Total time for hatch changes

5
4.2 and draft checks = 5.4 hrs
0 Total time = 33.4 hrs
Draft checks (Hrs) Gross productivity = 50,300

10 TPD
5
75th percentile
1.2
0
0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000
Vessel Productivity Total time for hatch changes and

Rate Requested draft checks = 5.4 hrs
Figure 76: Vessel productivity norms for August ’16 to July ’17
Project Unnati 56
Final Report
Year 1 (Aug – 15 to Jul – 16) Year 2 (Aug – 16 to Jul – 17)

Declared Quantity to be Loading Rate Declared Quantity to be Loading Rate
Ship Class
Ship Class productivity loaded requested productivity loaded requested
Mini-Cape/ Mini-Cape/
45,000 TPD >69,000 MTs >3000 TPH 50,000 TPD >74,000 MTs >3500TPH
Panamax Panamax
Supramax 48,000 TPD >57000 MTs >3000 TPH
Panamax 43,000 TPD >65000 MTS >2500 TPH
or
or Panamax 46,000 TPD >72000 MTS >2500 TPH
Supramax 41,000 TPD >55000 MTs >3000 TPH Supramax 43,000 TPD >57000 MTs >2500 TPH
Supramax 39,000 TPD >57000 MTs >2500 TPH Panamax /
40,000 TPD >55000 MTs >2000 TPH
Supramax
Panamax / Vessels below 40,000 TPD to be berthed only if no better
37,000 TPD >55000 MTs >2000 TPH
Supramax productivity vessel to be berthed in next 2 days
Figure 77: Detailed productivity norms for Year 1 and Year 2
The roadmap of how and when these norms will be implemented has been discussed with the end customers.
Along with the priority berthing with productivity norms, there also needs to be a clear definition of penal
charges linked with poor performance for the vessel. The penal charges will be defined for a productivity rate
that is slightly lower than the one defined for berthing norms.
Class Productivity (TPH)
Panamax 1,856
0-6 months
(October – 15 to Supramax 1,523
March – 16)
Handysize 1,314
Panamax 2,205
6-12 months
(April – 16 to Supramax 1,900
September – 16)
Handysize 1,384
12-18 months Panamax 2,275

(October – 16 to
March – 17) Supramax 2,276
Figure 78: Penal charges linked to productivity norms
Vessels not meeting productivity threshold will be penalized USD750/hr for every additional hour.
Expected Impact
Enforcement of stringent productivity norms along with berthing policies prioritizing productivity will lead to
improvement in gross productivity at MCHP. At a gross productivity of ~1,880 TPH and annual occupancy of
85%, MCHP berths can handle up to 28 Mn MT.
Due to increase in productivity, additional cargo handling capacity is being created in MCHP. At a per ton revenue
realization of ~Rs. 150, this additional volume handling capacity is equivalent to a net profit of ~Rs. 45 Crs.
Project Unnati 57
Final Report
3.2.1.2 Initiative: PPT 1.2 Generate additional demand for thermal coal from existing customers and
new customers
Initiative Overview
Increase in gross productivity at PPT will lead to decrease in occupancy for PPT. Therefore, in order to fill up
capacity, there is a need to generate additional demand for coastal coal movement from Paradip.
Key Findings
Due to increase in cargo requirement at existing customers, MCHP will have potential cargo of ~27 Mn MT. Thus,
additional cargo of up to ~9 Mn MT will need to be identified. Typical players from whom this can be raised
include coastal plants of:
 Andhra Pradesh Generating Co

 Maharashtra Generating Co
 Gujarat Generating Co
Thermal Coal Volume (mn MT)

40
9
30
1
2
5
20 2
36
27
10 21
19
0
Existing Less: Adani Current cargo Addn Addn NTECL TPCIL Proposed Generate Total
TANGEDCO demand demand
Figure 79: Thermal coal volume—need to generate ~9 Mn MT of cargo
Recommendations
Origin / Destination studies in Sagarmala have shown that APGENCO’s cost of handling coal through shipping
should be much lower than cost of handling coal through railways. Therefore, it is possible for APGENCO to have
a modal shift in handling thermal coal.
Expected Impact
Additional 9 Mn MT of thermal coal cargo volume handled through MCHP berths. Additional demand at MCHP
can create another ~Rs. 90 Crs for PPT.
Project Unnati 58
Final Report
3.2.2 Iron Ore Handling Plant (IHP)
Iron Ore Handling Plant (IHP) is a dedicated iron ore export terminal at PPT. However, due to fall in demand of
iron ore exports, IHP had very low occupancy. In FY15, it had an overall occupancy of ~42%. IHP also has a
wagon tippler to unload BOXN wagons. However, this is not in use today due to a labor dispute.
Low productivity shipments to Leading to improved

IHP currently under-utilized be handled through IHP productivity
Overall occupancy of ~42% Handymax vessels with top-up
1
cargo from Haldia 7%-10%
Existing conveyor system at improvement in
IHP can be used for thermal 2 All BOXN cargo to be handled productivity at
coal loading through IHP MCHP
• Reduction of loading
~4 – 5 mn MTs of coal stoppages and R&M
exports possible through IHP • Handling cost matched with
• Similar capacity release at current handling cost at MCHP Additional ~1lac
MCHP sqm. land
Smaller players' cargo routed parcel
3
through IHP stackyard & berths
• Rationalization of MCHP
storage & utilization of IHP
stackyard
Figure 80: IHP berth utilization for thermal coal export can add capacity in the short term
3.2.2.1 Initiative: PPT 2.1 Use IHP for export coal handling
•
• Initiative Overview
•
• IHP is capable of handling export coal. In fact, in FY15 it handled 8 vessels for export thermal coal loading at
productivity varying from 8,000 MT/day to 17,000 MT/day. Therefore, using IHP as an additional thermal coal
terminal will increase thermal coal handling capacity for PPT.
•
• Key Findings
Low parcel size of vessels arriving at Paradip
• As discussed, TANGEDCO / NTECL coal linkage with Eastern Coal Fields is ~1.0 Mn MT. This coal is handled
mostly at Haldia port, where the vessel draught is between 7.0 – 7.5 m. Such vessels hold only up to 30,000 MT
when they leave Haldia and come to Paradip to handle the remaining cargo. Such part-loaded vessels end up
having a much lower productivity during operations. If moved to IHP, they will ensure better utilization of IHP
berth by matching productivity of vessels with equipment productivity and also create additional cargo handling
capacity at MCHP. There is, however, a need to manage operations through wagon tippler as this will reduce cost
for the end customer. Till the time wagon tippler operations are not available, IHP can continue to operate
shifting cargo for TANGEDCO / NTECL coming to IHP instead of MCHP.
•
Project Unnati 59
Final Report
Handling of this current “shifting cargo” at IHP will have another advantage. Because this coal is handled
manually, there is a risk of contamination with foreign material that creates additional down time for MCHP
operations. Removing this cargo from IHP will lead to an increase in overall MCHP productivity.
•
Higher cost at IHP due to lower productivity, can be balanced by reduction in wharfage costs at IHP
Rs. / MT TANGEDCO / NTECL

50 -75 top up cargo
40
+14
MCHP Productivity linked cost IHP wharfage MCHP wharfage Total
• MCHP productivity for top up vessels = 1083 MT / hour

ASSUMPTIONS
• IHP productivity for export coal = 417 MT / hour

• Pre berthing delay at MCHP = 60.3 hours
•
KEY
Pre berthing delay at IHP = 62.9 hours

• Parcel size = 24,617 MT
• Vessel per day cost = Rs. 600,000
• Vessel GRT = 29,935 MT
• Other rates taken from Paradip Port Scale of Rates
•
Figure 81: IHP berth is cheaper for top-up cargo operations
• In addition, smaller customers handling < 1 Mn MT at MCHP can be shifted to IHP to improve utilization of the
berth and the land allocated to MCHP. Any rakes over and above the current 3 rakes/day through manual
operations should be handled through wagon tippler operations.
•
• Productivity adjusted prices for IHP is slightly higher compared to MCHP. For MCHP, the customers would be
paying between Rs. 125 – Rs. 145 depending on the volume of cargo handled. For IHP, the same amount would
be ~Rs. 88. An additional hidden cost for the customer for IHP is the amount of time spent by the vessel. This
productivity factor amounts to ~Rs. 32 / MT. Thus, even productivity adjusted IHP is cheaper compared to MCHP
by Rs. 18 / MT.
Project Unnati 60
Final Report
IHP cheaper than MCHP handling by ~Rs. 18
Rs. / MT 138 -32
-88
18
MCHP Productivity linked cost IHP wharfage Total
• MCHP productivity for export coal for Panamax = 2083 MT / hour

ASSUMPTIONS
• IHP productivity for export coal for Panamax = 583 MT / hour

• Pre berthing delay at MCHP = 60.3 hours
•
KEY
Pre berthing delay at IHP = 62.9 hours

• Parcel size = 70,000 MT
• Vessel per day cost = Rs. 600,000
• Vessel GRT = 29,935 MT
• Other rates taken from Paradip Port Scale of Rates
•
Figure 82: IHP berth is cheaper compared to MCHP operations
Recommendations
IHP needs to start handling thermal coal exports. This will ensure better utilization of IHP, and also increase
thermal coal handling capacity at PPT.
Expected Impact
IHP can handle up to 4.5 million tons of coal and this capacity will be released at MCHP. At current price of ~Rs.
88/MT and another additional potential to increase prices by Rs. 15 - 18 / MT, this would lead to an additional
operating revenue of Rs. 40 Crs, which would flow almost directly to the operating surplus of the port as most
costs are of a fixed nature.
3.2.2.2 Initiative: PPT 3.1 Rationalize existing plots in MCHP, and develop additional land
Initiative Overview
In order to handle higher cargo volume from existing MCHP capacity, there is a need to improve the churn of
cargo over the existing land parcel. Currently, there is a big difference between the volumes per unit area
occupancy achieved by customers. In general, high-volume customers have a very good churn of volumes— often
differing by a factor of more than 10.
Key Findings
Cargo turnover or churn varies from 2.9 sqm/1000 MT for KPCL and 3.1 sqm/1000 MT for TANGEDCO to values
of 40–50 sqm/1000 MT for players such as TPCIL and NTPL. Higher value of this metric is a negative as it implies
the customer is turning over inventory on the same land parcel much slowly. The five major customers who have
Project Unnati 61
Final Report
exported ~95% of volume at MCHP have used only 70% of the storage yard, while the remaining five smaller
customers who exported ~5% of volume have used 30% of the storage yard. This imbalance is affecting the
effectiveness of the land parcel. Average land utilization of major customers (> 1.0 Mn MT cargo) is 4.28 sqm per
1000 tons, while for the smaller customers it is 27.7 sqm per 1000 tons.
Fragmented land holdings affecting larger players
sq. m / 1000 MT Average land use levels for major

Land parcel 50.0
50 customers = 4.28 sq.m / 1000 MT
surrendered in
current year 41.3
40 37.8 Leads to cargo handling capacity of
~28.5 mn MT for 122,200 sq. m
30 27.0
Small players handing < 1 mn MT
moved to IHP to better utilize
20
17 ~100,000 sq. m land
11.2
10 8.8
5.5 5.1 6.5 For handling cargo more than 28
5 3.7 2.9 mn MT from existing assets,
0 additional land has to developed
TNEB2 APG APG NTECL KPCL APL OPGP TCPL APP TPCIL NTPL • Customer profile and volumes
(NW)1 (W)
Area in key input that will drive additional
36.2 13.0 8.0 11.0 6.0 12.0 6.0 6.0 8.0 8.0 8.0
'000 sqm land area requirement
Cargo 9.8 2.4 0.9 2.2 2.1 1.8 0.5 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2
volume
1. APG Non washed coal is being managed by 3 different players 2. Currently includes ~3 mn MT / year of shifting cargo which in the future should move to IHP
Source: Land allocation data from PPT, BCG analysis
Figure 83: Land utilization by customers at MCHP
The typical international benchmark for this churn (sqm/1000 MT) is between 5.0 and 17.0. However, for
parcels where end customers are fixed, this can be a much lower number due to low complexity of handling yard
operation for fewer customers. Currently, most of MCHP’s bigger customers are either better than international
benchmark or in line with global performance.
Recommendations
We have assessed two options for the rationalization of the land:
1. Common pool of land for smaller players: Creating a common pool of land area of 20,000 sqm at
MCHP for the usage of smaller players. This will release 16,000 sqm of land for bigger customers.
2. Handling of smaller customers' cargo at IHP: Cargo of smaller players can be moved through IHP.
This will release 36,000 sqm of storage yard used by the smaller players.
Option 2 is the preferred option as it will help in effective utilization of MCHP while also storing cargo in the IHP
land area that will improve utilization of IHP land parcel of 100,000 sqm. To handle 28.0 Mn MT of thermal coal
over 122,200 sqm of land, a land churn of 4.35 sqm/1000 MT of land is required. Of the 4 biggest players, 2 are
well below this threshold. With increase in cargo, APGENCO and NTECL can also have better land churn rates
than the 5.1/6.7 sqm. Thus, the existing land parcel will be able to handle 28 Mn MT, provided the existing
customer base remains the same.
Project Unnati 62
Final Report
If each player is able to reach a target of 3.7 sqm/1000 MT (TANGEDCO performance), the same land parcel will
be able to support up to 33 Mn MT of cargo. Higher cargo volumes from the same customers can be supported
with further improvement in land churns.
Further optimization of land use can be carried out by the following steps.
 Consolidation of land parcel for use by APGENCO. Currently, they have multiple cargo handling agents
which leads to poor utilization of existing land parcel
 A further optimization can be done by getting Coal India to come and manage port level inventory of
Washed and Non washed coal. This will result in a common inventory and hence a better utilization of
the existing parcel. Also, this will reduce the following instance of efficiency loss in the coal network
 Pre berthing delays of vessels due to waiting outside for inventory
 Excess time spent for each vessel in bench change and stock pile change. This will further add
productivity to vessel performance
Development of additional storage yard at MCHP
However, if additional cargo is obtained from additional players, land fragmentation will increase and it might
be difficult for all customers to have a low churn rate. In this case, there might be a need to develop additional
land to support MCHP berth. Initial assessment for developing another 61,000 sqm with all equipment and
systems in place is around Rs. 200 crores (based on interviews of PPT management). However, this number may
be revised upwards or downwards after a detailed technical feasibility is conducted. This detailed technical
study is ongoing at the time of writing this report and its results are expected by Jan 2016.
Expected Impact
Improvement in yard performance will support MCHP berth to handle additional cargo. This additional cargo
(above 21 Mn MT handled in FY15) can vary from 7 Mn MT to 15 Mn MT. This initiative has the potential to
create additional capacity for the port that will increase port operating surplus by Rs. 27 Crs.
3.2.2.3 Initiative: PPT 3.2 Improve RRS monitoring to improve maintenance and reduce rake TRT
Initiative Overview
In addition to debottlenecking MCHP berth and yard, there is also a need to look at potential constraints on the
receiving station end for MCHP. In FY15, the MCHP station received an average of 15 BOBRN rakes. At its peak,
the MCHP station received around 22 rakes in a day.
Key Findings
In order to handle 28.0 Mn MT of cargo by MCHP linked to rake receiving station, there is a need for around 21
rakes in a day. And to take this cargo up to 36 Mn MT, 27 rakes need to be handled in a day.
21 rakes in a day correspond to each rake handling from entry to exit to be over in 2 hours with a buffer of ~15
minutes between each rake. Similarly, 27 rakes in a day correspond to each rake handling from entry to exit to
be over in 1.5 hours with a buffer of 15 minutes between each rake.
While 21 rakes is possible in the existing setup with some system level constraints being met, 27 rakes would
need additional steps for driving improvement. At 27 rakes / day with ~340 days of operations, the entire MCHP
setup can potentially handle upto 33 mn MT of cargo. However, this is subject to obtaining sized coal cargo and
availability of rakes in the system.
Project Unnati 63
Final Report
The current average rake turnaround time is 2:15 hours. Of this, around 30 minutes is spent in the incoming
rake moving in and out of the receiving station. The remaining 1:45 hours is spent in actual unloading. The
percentage split of time lost in different activities is as given below:
% time
5 100
100
3
5
11
80 77
60
Unldg time OS coal Engine drag Door probs. Other Total
Actual
time (mins)
81 11 5 3 5 105
Figure 84: Split of time spent in different activities at MCHP receiving station
The leading cause of lost time on the rakes is due to the presence of over-sized coal in incoming rakes. To address
this problem, a crusher cum silo system needs to be installed at the coal loading end in MCL coalfields. This
initiative will save an additional 15 minutes of time lost due to over-sized coal, while also decreasing the time
spent in actual unloading.
Recommendations
In order to maximize the handling from existing steps, different stakeholders need to take actions. PPT should
liaison with each stakeholder to identify and track performance.
Project Unnati 64
Final Report
Improved turnaround time

MCHP, • Additional locos
Paradip Port • Better track maintenance
• R&M of auto-signaling system in MCHP
Increase BOBRN availability in system

Indian
Railways Auto-signaling to improve TRTs in
circuit
Installation of silo loading and crushers /

Mahanadi washery at mine-end
Coal Fields • will reduce occurrences of boulders and
improve rake TRT
BOBRN handling facility to increase

Steel industry
backhaul on rakes
Figure 85: Actions needed to optimize rakes in Talcher-Paradip loop
There is a need for a coal loading silo with appropriate crusher system at all MCL mine heads (Bharatpur,
Ananta) from where thermal coal is currently coming to Paradip Port. Currently, Bharatpur coal crusher system
is expected to be operational from end March 2016 / early April 2016.
For further identification of specific areas of improvement in rake receiving station at MCHP, monitoring of rake
performance and detailed data for exact causes of delays needs to be recorded. On the basis of interviews
conducted with different team members, following ideas have emerged that need to be verified with additional
data.
 Improvement of railway track cleaning: Inadequate cleaning of railway track often leads to engine
slippage, increasing turnaround time for rake in the system.
 Use of double locos to draw engines: Inadequate power from single loco affects rake speed in the loop
and, hence, affects turnaround time.
 Auto – signaling system: Upgrade auto-signaling system at rake receiving system at MCHP in PPT.
Expected Impact
Additional rake handling capacity will boost MCHP handling and will create additional operating surplus of ~Rs.
41 Crs. If the current system is not in a position to manage all 27 rakes even after complete debottlenecking and
optimization, there may be a need to create additional railway lines/merry-go-round as per PPT 3.3. This will
entail an additional development cost of ~Rs. 200 Crs (initial estimates).
3.2.2.4 Initiative: PPT 3.3 Development of additional railway merry-go-round at MCHP
Initiative Overview
There may be a need to create another rake receiving system at MCHP to handle additional cargo.
Key Findings
After debottlenecking, if the MCHP system is not in a position to handle 27 rakes, there may still be a requirement
to create an additional rake receiving system for handling additional incoming coal cargo.
Project Unnati 65
Final Report
Project Unnati 66
Final Report
Recommendation
PPT should get technical and feasibility studies conducted for requirement of an additional merry-go-round at
MCHP. However, actual decision of implementation should only be taken after the impact of MCL crushing is
observed on the existing receiving stations.
There would also be a need to estimate the potential NPV of the new project. If capital expenditure is very high
and incremental volume-handling capacity is not enough, there might be a case to not take up this project
altogether, in lieu of mechanization of existing conventional berths or development of outer harbour.
Expected Impact
Potential increase in rake-receiving capacity at MCHP and subsequent increase in volume handling capacity.
3.2.2.5 Initiative: PPT 3.4 Setup auto-signalling system, add new line between Talcher–Paradip
Initiative Overview
There is a need to upgrade Talcher–Paradip railway line to ensure ease of cargo movement from MCL to Paradip
port for coastal evacuation.
Key Findings
Without an auto-signalling system and additional rail lines, PPT will face evacuation constraints for its cargo.
Recommendation
This project should be taken up by the Indian Railways. It can be monitored as part of other inter-ministerial
projects being taken up in Sagarmala.
Expected Impact
Increase in number of rakes handled, and ease of cargo evacuation from the port.
End-state of mechanized berths in Paradip
Project Unnati 67
Final Report
Operations IHP MCHP (CB-1, CB-2)

• Tangedco / NTECL current shifting cargo • Remaining cargo (TANGEDCO – 7,
of 3MMT NTECL – 2, APGENCO – 3, KPCL – 2)
– Low productivity vessels of sub- – No top-up allowed
Supramax vessels shifted to IHP – Minimum parcel size defined 55,000
Berth – Linked to Haldia top up volume (~ 1.0 TPH
mn MT) – Additional cargo required from existing
customers
• Small players (< 1 mn MT annual volume
) shifted (~1.3 MMT)
• Land for IHP used for shifting cargo and • Additional parcel upto 40,000 sq. m
allocating for small players available for allocation
Land
• New land to be developed for handling
cargo beyond 28 mn. tons
• Meet labor requirement of 3 rakes using • Additional rake capacity

TANGEDCO / NTECL till labor issue is – 6 – 7 BOBRN = 9 – 10 mn MT
not resolved – 3 – 5 BOXNs for double loading
Railways • Once resolved, use wagon tippler for
operations
• Use of wagon tippler for handling cargo
for small players
Figure 86: End-state for existing mechanized berths in PPT
3.2.3 Conventional berths
PPT has 7 conventional berths—CQ1, CQ2, EQ1, EQ2, EQ3, SQ, and MPB—and another berth, CQ-3, which is
mechanized for iron pellets. All import cargo is handled at these berths using ship cranes or HMCs combined
with loaders and dumpers for evacuation. Together, these berths handled ~23 Mn MT of cargo in FY15. There
are 4 harbor mobile cranes (HMC) operated across berths CQ1, CQ2, SQ, EQ1, EQ2, and EQ3 by private players.
One crane is of 100 MT capacity, two are of 80 MT capacity, and one is of 60 MT capacity.
Figure 87: Conventional berths layout and draughts for respective berths at PPT
Project Unnati 68
Final Report
Currently, conventional berths occupancy rate is high and for most berths it is between 80–85%.
% occupancy
100
85 85
80 80 80 80
80
69 70 –75
60
44
40
20
0
CQ-1 CQ-2 CQ-3 EQ-1 EQ-2 EQ-3 SQ MPB
Figure 88: Conventional berths have very high occupancy
However, the productivity at these conventional berths, which is in the range of 8-10K tons per day, is low
compared to other major ports including NMPT, VOC and other Indian private ports such as Krishnapatnam and
Karaikal.
Paradip Vizag Kandla VOC NMPT

'000 MT/ship berth day
30 Krishnapatnam (15 – 18.5 m)
26
25
Karaikal (14.5 m)
20 18
16
13
11 10 10 9 9 9
10 8 8 8 8 7 7
5
0
14
EQ-3
EQ-2
EQ-1
7
WQ1
WQ4
NCBI
MPB
IV
EQ9
CJ-10
CJ-9
CJ-8
CJ-7
SQ
Figure 89: Productivity benchmark at conventional berths
Also, PPT berths have the highest average NWT across berths. A deep dive of the key reasons for this high non-
working time indicated the following broad categories of issues affecting productivity at the berths:
 Low number of HMCs operating between conventional berths

 Poor availability of existing HMCs further compounding problems
 Lack of adequate storage space and high cargo affecting evacuation performance from wharf
 Lack of adequate number of dumpers to execute the wharf evacuation process
Project Unnati 69
Final Report
Kandla Paradip Vizag VOC

Average NWT
(Hrs)
Very high NWT
40
CQ-1
in Paradip
SQ
EQ-2
CQ-2 EQ-1 EQ5
30
B-9 WQ2
WQ4
WQ1
20 WQ3 CQ-3
EQ8 EQ-3
B-4 MPB EQ9

10
2–4 NCBI
hrs CJ-8
CJ-9 CJ-10 CJ-7
0
0 ~0.8 hrs / 1 2 3 6
'000 ton
Average WT Per ’000 Ton (In Hrs)
Figure 90: Non-working time for PPT conventional berths is among the highest across all ports
%non working time break-up by reason

100
A B C D 7
9
11
4
14
50 5 100
10
4
14
22
0
HMC Eqpt B/D Ship Overstock Eqpt shifting Hatch Delay in Surveys Payloader Others Total NWT
unavailable Gear b/d change and cargo in/out
draft survey extraction
A Less # of B Poor availability of C Lack of adequate storage space D Lack of operational and
HMCs existing equipment productivity norms
than needed Wharf full due to slow cargo • High hatch changes
evacuation and draft surveys
• high stack height
• less # of dumpers
Figure 91: Non-working time split for conventional berths at PPT
Initiative: PPT 4.1 Operate 8 Harbour Mobile Cranes across EQ 1-3, CQ1-2, SQ, MPB berths
Initiative Overview
Currently, 4 harbor mobile cranes (HMCs) are being operated and shared between 6 conventional berths at PPT.
However, they are not sufficient to serve the current demand at conventional berths. As a result, HMCs need to
be shared between vessels as not all vessels have an HMC operating on them at all times. Geared cranes with
ship cranes, therefore, rely on lower productivity ship cranes for evacuation. In addition, availability of HMCs is
low compared to benchmark due to frequent breakdowns, which results in low productivity at conventional
berths compared to other major ports.
Project Unnati 70
Final Report
Key Findings
Currently, 2 out of 4 HMCs at PPT are of Orissa Stevedores Ltd. (OSL) with rated capacities of 80 tons and 100
tons. Other 2 HMCs are operated by Chennai Radha Engineering Works (CREW) with rated capacities of 60 tons
and 80 tons.
Among the four HMCs, OSL-1 and OSL-2 are available ~70% of the time due to frequent breakdowns, while
CREW-1 is available for 90% of the time, and CREW-2 for 85% of the time. Due to high occupancy at PPT berths,
the average number of hours each berth has a vessel is ~7,000 hours. Due to the presence of low number of
HMCs, <50% of vessels could use HMCs in FY15. This had a significant impact on the productivity of existing
berths. Using the total number of vessel hours and the average working time for each HMCs historically, there is
a need to add around 6 new HMCs across the conventional berths. Of these, PPT has already awarded contracts
for 4 new HMCs.
Low availability of most Low operating time for HMCs

existing HMCs compared to berth occupancy Need for addn. HMCs
Average berth ~80%
HMC available, FY 15 # of hours of operations occupancy
100 8,000 Avg. berth
90 occupancy Annual op. hours ~7,000 hrs
85 90 6,681 6,624 7,000
80 Avg. HMC ops. # of berths 7
69 70 6,000
5,158 Ø 5,679
WT / HMC ~5,500 hrs
60 4,252
4,000 # of HMCs reqd. ~9
40 Availability 90%
2,000 Total # HMCs reqd. ~10

20
Addn. ~4 - 6
0 0
requirements
OSL-1 OSL-2 CREW-1 CREW-2 CREW1 CREW2 OSL1 OSL2
TAMP assumes WT of 4,000 hours
while working out tariff rates Because of upgradation at
EQ / CQ, around 4 addn.
<50% of total vessels could use HMCs will be sufficient as
HMCs in FY 15 berth construction will begin
• Almost 30% of time lost as NWT in < 1 year
Figure 92: Existing HMCs have low availability, inadequate HMC hours compared to berth requirement and,
hence, there is a need for additional HMCs
However, there is also a plan to mechanize EQ 1-3, CQ 1-2 and the construction activity is expected to start soon.
Thus, instead of 7 berths, around 1.5 berths will be immediately decommissioned. Hence, instead of 10 HMCs,
there will be a need of only 8 HMCs and the remaining 4 HMCs should be sufficient to handle cargo from all
vessels.
Recommendations
Add 4 additional HMCs across the conventional berths. The current award of contract for 4 HMCs is given out
and the HMCs will be commissioned by November 30, 2015.
Project Unnati 71
Final Report
Expected Impact
Additional HMCs on the berth will lead to an increase in berth productivity, thereby creating additional
occupancy on the berths to increase capacity. This initiative will lead to capacity creation of ~6 Mn MT, which
will add around ~Rs. 36 Crs of additional operating surplus for the port.
3.2.3.1 Initiative: PPT 4.2 Penal charges linked to productivity norms for different cargo
Initiative Overview
As discussed earlier, conventional berths have high non-working time on the berths. In order to improve
operational control on the performance, there is a need to set productivity norms for each HMC. Once norms for
HMCs have been established, norms for vessels would also need to be established.
Key Findings
PPT does not have any productivity norms to drive equipment and vessel performance till FY15. There is an
urgent need to set up productivity norms for driving higher berth and vessel productivity.
Recommendation
Productivity norms should be set to increase productivity and reduce non-working time. Norms have to be set
for both HMC operations and vessel operations. These norms have to be set for each cargo type. Adequate penal
berth charges need to be put in place after a pilot of productivity norms has been completed at the port.
Expected Impact
Setup of additional productivity norms and penal charges will support initiative PPT 5.1 in increasing cargo
volumes by 6 Mn MT through conventional berths.
3.2.3.2 Initiative: PPT 5.1 Develop additional storage capacity and full rake sidings
Initiative Overview
Wharf evacuation from the cargo is delayed due to low dumper productivity. At most of the existing siding plots,
due to high cargo storage and high stack height, dumper unloading is very slow, creating long queues for the
dumpers just before entering the stack yard. Addressing the issue of high cargo stack heights will lead to
increased dumper productivity, ensuring faster wharf evacuation and reduced non-working time for the HMC.
Key Findings
Most of the hig- volume port customers (SAIL, Bhushan, TATA Steel, and JSPL) suffer from this problem of high
stack height. Also, siding plots are in high demand due to the ease of evacuation of cargo from the plots.
Recommendations
Creation of additional storage yard with sidings would ease congestion and storage constraints in existing plots.
From the current port map, additional land parcel of ~200,000 sqm has been identified for development of
additional plots. This will also have sufficient length to have full rake sidings.
Project Unnati 72
Final Report
Low Land
Conventional storage Low Land IOHP Storage BOT area f or new berths MCHP Storage
Figure 93: Land parcel for new siding storage plots development
Expected Impact
Construction of the new plots can be completed in ~1 year, and estimated capex for plot development and
sidings should be ~Rs. 20 Crs. This will lead to an increase in dumper productivity, reducing non-working time
for HMCs on the berths and increasing cargo unloading productivity. This increase is expected to be around 4
Mn MT of cargo.
3.2.3.3 Initiative: PPT 5.2 Incentivize performance through yard management norms and penalty
structure, reallocate siding plots per cargo volumes
Initiative Overview
The absence of any norms for storing cargo in port land within the custom area affects overall port productivity.
Key Findings
Absence of land use norms at the port creates disincentive for customers to evacuate cargo efficiently. For siding
plots or plot lands close to berths, absence of norms creates situations where slow moving cargo is stored on the
plots, affecting overall port productivity. Also, a linear tariff structure of storing cargo creates no urgency to
evacuate cargo faster.
Recommendations
To address efficiency of using port land, the following needs to be done:
 Norms for storing cargo in port land within custom areas need to be put in place
 Telescopic pricing for storing cargo on land to incentivize faster evacuation and higher productivity
Project Unnati 73
Final Report
 Priority for using plots close to sidings and berths should be defined to ensure high volume customers
are given preference
Expected Impact
Norms for storing cargo will lead to an increase in efficiency of using port lands, and will also drive increased
dumper productivity—reducing non-working time for HMCs on the berths, which in turn will support initiative
PPT 5.2 in handling additional cargo at PPT berths.
3.2.3.4 Initiative: PPT 5.3 Add new dumpers to the fleet and reduce shift changeover times
Initiative Overview
PPT does not have adequate dumpers to meet the higher productivity requirement of HMCs for evacuating cargo
from wharf. The poor unloading speed at storage yards further compounds this problem. Inadequate number of
dumpers currently deployed in the port is another problem plaguing conventional operations. Also, time lost in
shift changes affects dumper productivity and working time.
Key Findings
The turn round time (TAT) of dumpers from wharf to yard without waiting at the yard is 28–30 minutes. This
includes the waiting time on wharf for loading, loading time, time to the yard from wharf, cargo unloading time
at the yard, and time to wharf from yard. On an average, 15–20 minutes is spent by each dumper in a trip waiting
at the yard. Increase in cargo handling can lead to an increase in this waiting time before yard. As a result, the
total number of trips per dumper in each shift is low (usually around 9–10).
Also, dumper operations are stalled for 1.5–2.0 hours during shift changes, as the current shift drivers leave
almost 1 hour prior to the shift ending time, and the next shift drivers start 45 minutes to 1 hour later. This also
hinders continuous HMC operations.
Recommendations
Dumper evacuation from wharf to yard should match the HMC productivity rate. Considering the current TRT of
trucks and different queue waiting times, we have estimated the total number of dumpers required at the port.
Considering HMC output at 750 MT/hour, each shift should have a minimum of 400 trips. With current truck
TRT of one hour, port will need about ~710 dumpers in total. Hence, there is a need to add another 340 dumpers
to the existing fleet.
To maximize the number of trips per dumper in each shift, non-working time of ~2 hours between shift changes
has to be addressed. Port has to initiate discussions with stakeholders to increase the dumper operating hours
per shift to 7.5 hrs.
Project Unnati 74
Final Report
Waiting time at stockyard
Description Scenario 1: 10 mins Scenario 2: 20 mins Scenario 3: 30 mins Scenario 4: 40 mins

Average dumper TRT1 ~28 mins ~28 mins ~28 mins ~28 mins
(without waiting)
Total dumper TRT ~38 mins ~48 mins ~58 mins ~68 mins
Shift operating hours ~6.5 hours ~6.5 hours ~6.5 hours ~6.5 hours
# of trips ~10.3 trips / shift ~8.1 trips / shift ~6.7 trips / shift ~5.7 trips / shift
Tons by HMC / shift2 6,000 tons / shift 6,000 tons / shift 6,000 tons / shift 6,000 tons / shift
# of trips / shift3 400 trips / shift 400 trips / shift 400 trips / shift 400 trips / shift
# of dumpers / group ~36 ~46 ~55 ~55
Total # of groups needed 10 + 2 (buffer for internal 10 + 2 (buffer for 10 + 2 (buffer for internal 10 + 2 (buffer for internal
movement) internal movement) movement) movement)
Total # of dumpers ~468 ~588 ~708 ~840
Addn. no. of dumpers ~100 ~220 ~340 ~470
Figure 94: Dumper requirement estimates
End-state of conventional berths at Paradip
Through addressing all bottleneck constraints on the conventional side, conventional berths at PPT can
potentially handle ~10–12 Mn MT of additional cargo. However, once some of these berths go for upgrade, the
actual volume released will be lower. However, the volume loss, which might happen if productivity at other
berths is not upgraded, will be stemmed and cargo loss would be minimized.
Current Performance (FY15) Projected Performance
Berth Occupancy2 (%) New Prod.3 (TPD) Occupancy (%) Prod. (TPD) Addn. Cap.1 (mn MT)
EQ-1 88% 7,789 62% 14,000 1.2
EQ-2 87% 8,229 55% 14,000 1.5
EQ-3 84% 8.682 54% 14,000 1.6
CQ-1 90% 10,145 59% 14,000 1.5
CQ-2 77% 10,066 51% 14,000 2.0
SQ 85% 9,184 52% 14,000 2.0
MPB 89% 10,541 60% 16,000 1.5
CQ-3 40% 13,430 40% 9,000 1.5
Total ~10.0 – 12.0 mn

tons
Figure 95: End-state for conventional berths at Paradip
Project Unnati 75
Final Report
3.2.3.5 Initiative: PPT 6.1 Mechanization of EQ 1-3 and CQ 1-2
Initiative Overview
In addition to the identified cargo handling capacity, PPT will still need to cater to additional cargo (both import
and export). Therefore, there is a need to look at mechanization of existing berths to improve cargo handling
capacity at existing berths.
Key Findings
PPT has an existing plan of berth development. As part of this plan, there is a new import coal berth with a
capacity of 10 Mn MT being developed by Essar. Also, a general clean cargo/container terminal with a capacity
of 5 Mn MT is being developed by J M Baxi. Finally, there are plans to develop an iron ore berth of 10 Mn MT
capacity as well.
Berth Current Ops. Cargo (FY 15) Draft Future Cap. Status
• Import coal handling by Essar

• Ready by FY'19
Coal berth ~ 10 mn
• Berth draft = 18.1 m
• Exp. investment = ~ Rs. 479 crs.
• Container handling by JM Baxi

• Ready by FY'19
Multi-purpose New berths ~ 5 mn
• Exp. investment = ~ Rs. 431 crs
• Iron ore handling by JSW SW

• Ready by FY'20
Iron ore berth ~ 10 mn
• Exp. investment = ~ Rs. 740 crs.
Figure 96: Existing berth development plan at PPT
PPT’s hinterland handles a very large volume of thermal coal cargo. Thus, additional berths would be needed to
handle this cargo volume. PPT has currently planned to go for mechanization of EQ 1/2/3 for thermal coal export
and mechanization of CQ 1/2 for coking coal handling.
Project Unnati 76
Final Report
Berth Current Ops. Cargo (FY 15) Draft Future Cap. Status
EQ - I ~2.5 mn 11.0 m ~ 10 mn
• Export thermal coal
• RFQ prepared, contract to be
EQ – II ~2.6 mn 11.5 m ~ 10 mn awarded by Jan-16
• Berth draft upgraded to 14.5 m
• Exp. investment = ~Rs. 1,500 crs
Currently all
EQ – III General Cargo ~2.7 mn 12.5 m ~ 10 mn
Conventional berths
CQ – I ~3.5 mn 14.5 m • Import coal

• RFQ prepared, contract to be
~ 10 mn
awarded by Mar 2016
• Exp. investment = ~Rs. 1,300 crs
CQ – II ~3.0 mn 14.5 m
Figure 97: Mechanization plan for conventional berths at PPT
Recommendations
PPT should go ahead with the mechanization plan for EQ 1–3 because there is additional cargo. However,
mechanization of CQ 1–2 needs to be reevaluated depending on estimates of cargo handling in the hinterland.
Also, this will ensure that berths in inner harbor are available for break bulk / other cargo handling. Shelving of
CQ 1/2 would save a potential capex of Rs. 1,300 crs (under PPP). Subsequently, if more berths are being
developed in the outer harbor, further development of deep draft coking coal handling berths can be taken up.
Expected Impact
Mechanization will increase volumes at each of the above berths by more than 6 Mn MT. This will result in
additional operating surplus of ~Rs. 60 Crs for each berth, and a total of Rs. 180 Crs once these berths are fully
operational (assuming only EQ 1/2/3 are mechanized).
3.2.4 Additional cargo handling capacity at Paradip Port
As per Sagarmala O/D studies, PPT’s hinterland in <5 years will have ~95 Mn MT of export volumes. Even with
debottlenecking capacity added and new mechanization capacity of berths, there will be an additional
requirement of 4–5 berths.
Thus, there is a need to develop an Outer Harbor / Satellite port at Paradip to cater to this demand. While these
berths are being developed, additional demand from upcoming industrial clusters in the hinterland can also be
identified, and new deep draught berths can be developed to cater to this emerging demand.
Project Unnati 77
Final Report
35 - 45 95
12
10
18
21
Current Additional Additional Current Gap Projected capacity

mechanized conventional mechanization
capacity capacity plan
Figure 98: Additional volume handling capacity needed at Paradip Port
Project Unnati 78

10.final Master Plan Paradip

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

10.final Master Plan Paradip

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

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

10.final Master Plan Paradip

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Master Plan Report – Final August 2016

MASTER PLAN FOR PARADIP PORT

Ministry of Shipping/ Indian Ports Association

AECOM India Private Limited,

© AECOM India Private Limited 2016

SAGARMALA: Master Plan for Paradip Port

Document No: DELD15005-REP-0000-CP-1014

Document Title: Master Plan for Paradip Port - Final

Covering Letter/ Transmittal Ref. No: Date of Issue: 25 August 2016

Revision, Review and Approval Records

Document Revision Register

Revision By Name &

SAGARMALA: Master Plan for Paradip Port

1.1 BACKGROUND ..................................................................................................................................... 1-1

2.0 THE PORT AND SITE CONDITIONS ....................................................................................................... 2-1

2.1 PARADIP PORT AS AT PRESENT ................................................................................................................ 2-1

3.0 DETAILS OF EXISTING FACILITIES......................................................................................................... 3-1

3.1 GENERAL ........................................................................................................................................... 3-1

4.1 GENERAL ........................................................................................................................................... 4-1

SAGARMALA: Master Plan for Paradip Port i

5.0 DETAILS OF ONGOING PROJECTS ........................................................................................................ 5-1

5.1 GENERAL ........................................................................................................................................... 5-1

6.0 TRAFFIC PROJECTIONS ........................................................................................................................ 6-1

6.1 GENERAL ........................................................................................................................................... 6-1

7.0 CAPACITY AUGMENTATION REQUIRMENTS ....................................................................................... 7-1

7.1 PORT CAPACITY AFTER ON-GOING DEVELOPMENTS ...................................................................................... 7-1

8.0 PORT CONNECTIVITY AND INFRASTRUCTURE ..................................................................................... 8-1

SAGARMALA: Master Plan for Paradip Port ii

9.0 SCOPE FOR FUTURE CAPACITY EXPANSION ........................................................................................ 9-1

9.1 DEVELOPMENT POSSIBLE WITHIN THE EXISTING HARBOUR ............................................................................. 9-1

10.0 SHELF OF NEW PROJECTS AND PHASING .......................................................................................... 10-1

10.1 GENERAL ......................................................................................................................................... 10-1

APPENDIX-1: BCG BENCHMARKING STUDY FOR PARADIP PORT ................................................................... - 1 -

SAGARMALA: Master Plan for Paradip Port iii

SAGARMALA: Master Plan for Paradip Port iv

SAGARMALA: Master Plan for Paradip Port v

SAGARMALA: Master Plan for Paradip Port vi

Figure 1.1 Aim of Sagarmala Development

SAGARMALA: Master Plan for Paradip Port 1-1

Figure 1.2 Governing Principles of Approach

Figure 1.3 Port Led Developments

SAGARMALA: Master Plan for Paradip Port 1-2

1.3 Present Submission

SAGARMALA: Master Plan for Paradip Port 1-3

Figure 2.1 Location Plan of Port

2.1.1 Road Connectivity

Cuttack and Paradip are connected by SH-12 (2 lanes).

Cuttack and Chandikhole are connected by NH-5A (4 lanes).

SAGARMALA: Master Plan for Paradip Port 2-1

2.1.2 Rail Connectivity

Figure 2.3 Rail Connectivity to Paradip

SAGARMALA: Master Plan for Paradip Port 2-2

Figure 2.4 Wind Rose Diagram

SAGARMALA: Master Plan for Paradip Port 2-3

Table 2.1 Average Monthly Distribution of Rainfall

January 10.0 - 12.0 27.7 0.0

February 36.0 - 40.0 76.7 6.1

March 48.0 - 50.0 177.4 15.0

April 38.0 - 42.0 67.2 16.0