High Capacity, Medium Speed Seaborne Transport of Seafood

Transkript

1 High Capacity, Medium Speed Seaborne Transport of Seafood a R&D-project to promote environment friendly, fast and cost efficient transport of seafood from Norway to the European continent Torgeir Edvardsen SINTEF Fisheries and Aquaculture Aquaculture 2006 Firenze 9-13 May

2 Background Almost all transport of fresh fish from Norway to Europe goes on truck more than trailers a year. energy use environmental impact commercial sustainability With an export volume of more than tonnes of fresh fish from Norway to Europe, other transport corridors must be created 2

3 Background Road capacity - Transport policies: "from road to sea and rail" Cargo owners: inexpensive, reliable and quality enhancing transport New skip design concepts, cargo handling concepts; transport economics Structural change in the aquaculture industry 3

4 ALTERNATIVE: Waterborne transport to the Continent!.. and lorry/rail/plane further on 4

5 The Project High Capacity, Medium Speed Seaborne Transport of Seafood will demonstrate that fast seaborne transport of fresh fish from Norway to the European continent is possible with competitive transport costs & transport time 5

6 Setting Fresh seafood southbound Fresh food (eg vegetables) northbound Logistics Feeding in Norway Sea leg Routing on the Continent Technology Dedicated ships Cargo carriers and handling systems Product enhancement (eg. superchilling) 6

7 The Project is financed by the Norwegian Research council, the Norwegian Shipowners Association and a consortium of industrial companies 7

8 The Consortium Partners Cargo Owners Technology Suppliers Transport/Shipping Finance & RTD Fjord Seafood ASA SalMar AS Pan Fish Sales AS Sekkingstad AS Alsaker Fjordbruk AS Lerøy Seafood Group ASA Sea Star International AS Vartdal Plastindustri AS Rolls Royce Marine AS TTS Ships Equipment AS Det Norske Veritas AS, DNV Research Ugelstad Management AS Green Management AS Olympic Shipping AS United European Car Carriers AS Johs Lunde Transport Spedisjon AS Norges forskningsråd Norges Rederiforbund SINTEF Gruppen 8

9 Challenges to a waterborne logistics solution Reliability and regularity (==> large skips) Enough cargo for cost efficiency Cooperation among cargo owners for sufficient cargo volume Transport time must be better than with truck Efficiency in the whole logistics chain A solution which gives an environmental gain 9

10 Some results from the project Technology Logistics Economics 10

11 Analytical concept sketch 2 ships (130m), one roundtrip/week/ship Container based system, 45 feet multimodal eurocontainer 9 port calls (hubs) in Norway 1-2 port calls on the Continent Service speed ca 22 knots Out distribution: lorry/plane/rail On average same transport time as truck 30% cost savings relative to truck at 50% capacity utilization (incl. return cargo) 11

12 First draft Rolls Royce Marine AS 12

13 Simulation on waves, North sea Test on wave-date North sea 170 meter 150 meter 130 meter 13

14 Test results: simulation of operability 75,7% 12,0 kn 83,2% 28,0 kn 14

15 Some results from the project: Logistics 15

16 Distribution of slaughterhouses for fish in Norway today (70 largest) 16

17 Distribution of slaughterhouses for fish in Norway Estimate for 2010 (red box = 10 largest) 17

18 Likely landing ports Eemshaven Harlingen Ijmuiden Vlissingen Zeebrugge 18

19 Major final destinations 19

20 Transport time from slaughtering to delivery Tidsforbruk fra slakting til levert kunde Lagertid 1-12 timer før transport 20 Rotterdam Schiphol Ijmuiden Volendam Lisboa Zebrugge Antwerpen Nieuwpoort Brussels Boulogne s Mer Fecampe /Dieppe) Paris (Rungis) Bretagne (Brest) Bayonne London Grimsby Ruhr (duisburg) Bremerhaven Hamburg Berlin Bischofmais Milano Roma Napoli Barcelona Madrid Valencia Malaga Destinasjoner Trondheim Hestvika Kristiansund Eggesbønes Florø Bergen Sunnhordaland Hjelmeland Tid [døgn]

21 Schedule ship 1 and 2 Skip 1 Skip 2 Avgangs Ankomst Avgang Ankomst Avgang havn Dag Klokka Dag Klokka Dag Klokka Dag Klokka Trondheim 4 15:56 1 1:56 Hestvika 4 18: :09 1 4:47 1 6:09 Kristiansund 4 23: :59 1 9:21 1 9:59 Eggesbønes 5 4:55 5 5: : :38 Florø 5 9: : : :44 Bergen 5 16: :07 2 2:04 2 3:07 Sunnhordaland 5 20: :57 2 6:05 2 6:57 Hjelmeland 6 0:38 6 1: : :26 Vlissingen 7 3: : : :55 Stavanger 2 19: : : :08 Bergen 3 3:00 3 5:20 7 3:00 7 5:20 Ålesund 3 14: : : :45 Trondheim 3 23: : :50 1 1:56 21

22 Some results from the project: Economics 22

23 Required rate vs capacity utilization Rate per enhet vs kapasitetsutnyttelse tur-retur Total fraktrate per lastbærerenhet [NOK] 35,000 34,000 33,000 Rate vs kapasitetsutnyttelse 32,000 Rate trailer 31,000 Rate termo-trailer 30,000 29,000 28,000 27,000 26,000 25,000 24,000 23,000 22,000 21,000 20,000 19,000 18,000 17,000 16,000 15,000 14,000 13,000 12,000 11,000 10,000 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 110% Kapasitetsutnyttelse skip 23

24 Sample calculations to Paris; 22 knots Fraktrate til Paris, fordeling av kostnader Hastighet 22 knop Total fraktrate [NOK] 32,000 31,000 30,000 29,000 28,000 27,000 26,000 25,000 24,000 23,000 22,000 21,000 20,000 19,000 18,000 17,000 16,000 15,000 14,000 13,000 12,000 11,000 10,000 9,000 8,000 7,000 6,000 5,000 4,000 3,000 2,000 1,000 0 Vedlikehold Cont. og Flatbeds Distribusjonskostnad Tilbringerkostnad Kommisjon Bunkers Laste/Losse kostnader Havnekostnader TC-kostnad At 35% capacity utilization: BE at NOK ,- total rate At 50%: BE at ,- At 65%: BE at ,-. 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50% 55% 60% 65% 70% Kapasitetsutnyttelse tur retur 75% 80% 85% 90% 95% 100% 24

25 Sample calculations 22 vs 28 knots , ,- Fraktrate til Paris, fordeling av kostnader Hastighet 22 knop Fraktrate til Paris, fordeling av kostnader Hastighet 28 knop Vedlikehold Cont. og Flatbeds Total fraktrate [NOK] 32,000 31,000 30,000 29,000 28,000 27,000 26,000 25,000 24,000 23,000 22,000 21,000 20,000 19,000 18,000 17,000 16,000 15,000 14,000 13,000 12,000 11,000 10,000 9,000 8,000 7,000 6,000 5,000 4,000 3,000 2,000 1, % 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50% 55% 60% 65% 70% Distribusjonskostnad Tilbringerkostnad Kommisjon Bunkers Laste/Losse kostnader Havnekostnader TC-kostnad Kapasitetsutnyttelse tur retur 75% 80% 85% 90% 95% 100% Total fraktrate [NOK] 32,000 31,000 30,000 29,000 28,000 27,000 26,000 25,000 24,000 23,000 22,000 21,000 20,000 19,000 18,000 17,000 16,000 15,000 14,000 13,000 12,000 11,000 10,000 9,000 8,000 7,000 6,000 5,000 4,000 3,000 2,000 1, % 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50% 55% 60% 65% 70% Vedlikehold Cont. og Flatbeds Distribusjonskostnad Tilbringerkostnad Kommisjon Bunkers Laste/Losse kostnader Havnekostnader TC-kostnad Kapasitetsutnyttelse tur retur 75% 80% 85% 90% 95% 100% 25

26 Sample calculations 22 vs 28 knots , ,- Fraktrate til Paris, fordeling av kostnader Hastighet 22 knop Fraktrate til Paris, fordeling av kostnader Hastighet 28 knop Total fraktrate [NOK] 32,000 31,000 30,000 29,000 28,000 27,000 26,000 25,000 24,000 23,000 22,000 21,000 20,000 19,000 18,000 17,000 16,000 15,000 14,000 13,000 12,000 11,000 10,000 9,000 8,000 7,000 6,000 5,000 4,000 3,000 2,000 1, % 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50% 55% 60% 65% 70% Vedlikehold Cont. og Flatbeds Distribusjonskostnad Tilbringerkostnad 32,000 Kommisjon Distribusjonskostnad 31,000 Bunkers 30,000 Tilbringerkostnad 29,000 Laste/Losse kostnader Kommisjon 28,000 Havnekostnader 27,000 Bunkers 26,000 TC-kostnad 25,000 Laste/Losse kostnader 24,000 Havnekostnader 23,000 22,000 TC-kostnad 21,000 20,000 19,000 18,000 17, hours are saved by increasing the 75% 80% 85% 90% 95% 100% Total fraktrate [NOK] 16,000 15,000 14,000 13,000 12,000 11,000 10,000 9,000 8,000 7,000 6,000 5,000 4,000 3,000 2,000 1,000 0 speed with 5 knots 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50% 55% 60% 65% 70% Vedlikehold Cont. og Flatbeds 75% 80% 85% 90% 95% 100% Kapasitetsutnyttelse tur retur Kapasitetsutnyttelse tur retur 26

27 Concluding remarks 27

28 Recommended solution 2 ships (Loa = 136m), one round trip a week/ship; 2 departures/week from Trondheim, Hitra, Kristiansund, Eggesbønes, Florø, Bergen, Sunnhordaland og Hjelmeland to Vlissingen Service speed ca 22 knop Loading at slaughterhouse (large; feeding from smaller) 45 Eurocontainers (on flatbeds) Loading/unloading without shore assistance Unloading to flatbeds for distribution 28

29 Final design Ship investment 22 mill per ship Total system investment 58 mill Sw opper / Norw egian Fresh Seafood Rolls Royce Marine AS 29

30 Conclusion The system is profitable relative to trucking with 34% capacity utilization southbound and 100% capacity utilization northbound Transport time: same or better than truck Realization of the system dependent on sufficient southbound cargo commitment 30

31 Acknowledgements Roar Pedersen Jostein Storøy, Odd T. Mørkve and Tom Ståle Nordtvedt 31

32 Thank you for your attention! Torgeir Edvardsen SINTEF Fisheries and Aquaculture 32