Witteveen+Bos Deventer Delft University of Technology
FEASIBILITY STUDY COAL TRANSPORT KALIMANTAN
Research on different alternatives for coal transport in the province of South Kalimantan, Indonesia.
THESIS REPORT
December 2011 ing. B. Christiaan Joppe
Witteveen+Bos Deventer Delft University of Technology
FEASIBILITY STUDY COAL TRANSPORT KALIMANTAN
Research on different alternatives for coal transport in the province of South Kalimantan, Indonesia.
Author ing. B.C. Joppe Student nr. 1525336
Date December 31st 2011
Graduation Committee Prof. ir. T. Vellinga TU Delft, Ports & Waterways ir. P. Quist TU Delft, Ports & Waterways ing. M.G.M. Huijsmans Witteveen+Bos, Ports & HE Dr. ir. W. Daamen TU Delft, Transport & Planning ir. A. Talmon TU Delft, Dredging technology
Delft University of Technology Faculty of Civil Engineering & Geosciences Stevinweg 1 2628 CN Delft
Witteveen+Bos P.O. Box 233 van Twickelostraat 2 7400 AE Deventer
Table of content
TABLE OF CONTENT
Table of content ...... 5
List of figures ...... 11
List of tables ...... 17
Preface...... 19
Summery ...... 21
Abbreviations and Definitions ...... 32
1 Introduction ...... 33
1.1 Current transport system ...... 33
1.2 Project background ...... 34
1.3 Project objective ...... 34
1.4 Research questions ...... 34
1.5 Research approach ...... 36
1.6 Report lay out ...... 37
2 Coal mining in a nutshell ...... 38
2.1 Surface Mining ...... 38
2.2 Types of coal ...... 38
2.3 Coal market ...... 39
3 The current transport system ...... 40
3.1 Transport network ...... 41
3.2 Capacity of the transport system ...... 42
3.3 Boundary conditions ...... 43
3.3.1 Hydraulic boundary conditions...... 43
3.3.2 Geotechnical boundary conditions ...... 44
3.4 Description of the current transport chain ...... 45
3.4.1 Coalmine area ...... 46
3.4.2 Inland stockpiles ...... 46
3.4.3 Tatakan transit stockpile ...... 47
3.4.4 Lok Buntar loading terminal ...... 47
December 2011 Page 5 of 196 FEASIBLITY STUDY COAL TRANSPORT KALIMANTAN
3.4.5 Sungai Mati river ...... 47
3.4.6 Sungai Puting channel...... 48
3.4.7 Sungai Puting transhipment terminal ...... 48
3.4.8 Sungai Negara river ...... 49
3.4.9 Sungai Barito river ...... 49
3.4.10 Deep-sea transhipment arrangement...... 50
4 Design criteria ...... 51
4.1 Future throughput capacity ...... 51
4.2 Governing coal carrier ...... 52
4.3 Different quality of coal ...... 52
4.4 Continuation existing traffic ...... 52
5 Investigation alternative transports systems ...... 53
5.1 Investigated transport modes ...... 54
5.1.1 Coal transport by trucks ...... 54
5.1.2 Coal transport by barges ...... 55
5.1.3 Hydraulic transportation of coal ...... 55
5.1.4 Coal transport by conveyor belt ...... 56
5.2 Alternatives between the Mine area and Sungai Puting ...... 57
5.3 Alternatives between Sungai Puting and deep-sea ...... 60
5.4 Alternatives without Sungai Puting terminal ...... 61
6 Selection of alternatives ...... 63
6.1 Selection criteria ...... 63
6.2 Qualitative selection for further research...... 65
6.2.1 Alternatives 1.1 till 1.3 ...... 65
6.2.2 Alternatives 2.1 till 2.4 ...... 65
6.2.3 Alternatives 3.1 till 3.2 ...... 65
6.2.4 Alternative 2.1, 2.2, 3.1 and 3.2 ...... 65
6.2.5 Alternatives A and B ...... 66
6.3 Conclusion ...... 66
7 The simulation model ...... 67
Page 6 of 196 Chair of Ports & Waterways Table of content
7.1 Program description ...... 67
7.2 Model structure ...... 68
7.3 Verification and validation of the model ...... 74
7.4 Input parameters simulation model ...... 74
7.4.1 Fixed input parameters ...... 74
7.5 Information processing ...... 77
7.5.1 The relative stockpile growth ...... 78
7.5.2 The efficiency of the terminals at Lok Buntar and Sungai Puting ...... 80
7.5.3 The efficiency of the barges ...... 81
7.6 Costs calculation according to the model ...... 83
7.6.1 Barge and tug costs ...... 83
7.6.2 Terminal costs ...... 85
7.7 Finding the optimal barge transport configuration ...... 88
7.8 Schematisation of barge cycles ...... 90
7.9 Mathematical analysis of barge cycles ...... 92
8 Alternative 1.1, Barge transport from Lok Buntar ...... 95
8.1 Research approach ...... 95
8.2 Blok schematisation of barge transport...... 96
8.3 Using the simulation model for optimisation...... 99
8.4 Results from the simulation model ...... 100
8.4.1 Optimal transport configuration for 2013 with one berth ...... 102
8.4.2 Optimal transport configuration for 2013 with two berths ...... 104
8.4.3 Optimal transport configuration for 2015 with one berth ...... 106
8.4.4 Optimal transport configuration for 2015 with two berths ...... 108
8.4.5 Optimal transport configuration for 2015 with three berths ...... 110
8.4.6 Optimal transport configuration for 2017 with two berths ...... 112
8.4.7 Optimal transport configuration for 2017 with three berths ...... 114
8.4.8 Optimal transport configuration for 2017 with four berths ...... 116
8.5 Design plan for the future ...... 118
8.5.1 Transport configurations...... 118
8.5.2 Results from queuing theory ...... 119
December 2011 Page 7 of 196 FEASIBLITY STUDY COAL TRANSPORT KALIMANTAN
8.6 Conclusions ...... 120
9 Alternative 2.1, Hydraulic transport from Lok Buntar ...... 121
9.1 Research approach ...... 121
9.2 Block schematisation of hydraulic transport ...... 122
9.3 Coal properties ...... 125
9.4 The friction head ...... 126
9.4.1 Introduction ...... 126
9.4.2 Conclusion about the friction head...... 126
9.5 Design plan for the hydraulic system ...... 128
9.6 Separation area ...... 132
9.7 Power consumption hydraulic transport ...... 133
9.8 Costs calculation hydraulic transport ...... 133
9.9 Recommendations for further research ...... 135
9.9.1 Different variations...... 135
9.9.2 The behaviour of coal-water mixtures ...... 135
9.9.3 Detailed design of the installation ...... 135
9.9.4 Environmental impact ...... 136
9.10 Conclusions ...... 136
10 Alternative 3.1, Conveyor belt from Tatakan ...... 138
10.1 Block schematization of conveyor belt transport ...... 138
10.2 Main figures from design report ...... 141
10.3 Costs for conveyor belt transport ...... 141
10.4 Conclusions ...... 142
11 Alternative A, Transhipment with floating cranes ...... 143
11.1 Description ...... 143
11.2 Results from the simulation model ...... 143
11.2.1 Optimal transport configuration for 2013 ...... 146
11.2.2 Optimal transport configuration for 2015 ...... 148
11.2.3 Optimal transport configuration for 2017 ...... 150
11.3 Design plan ...... 152
Page 8 of 196 Chair of Ports & Waterways Table of content
11.4 Conclusions ...... 153
12 Alternative B, Offshore deep-sea terminal ...... 154
12.1 Description ...... 154
12.2 Alternative model structure...... 154
12.3 Results from simulation model ...... 158
12.3.1 Optimal transport configuration for 2013 ...... 160
12.3.2 Optimal transport configuration for 2015 ...... 162
12.3.3 Optimal transport configuration for 2017 ...... 164
12.4 Design plan ...... 166
12.5 Conclusions ...... 167
13 Multi Criteria Analysis ...... 168
13.1 Alternatives between Lok Buntar and Sungai Puting ...... 169
13.2 Alternatives between Sungai Puting and deep-sea ...... 170
14 Conclusions ...... 171
14.1 Alternatives between Lok Buntar and Sungai Puting ...... 171
14.1.1 Barge transport ...... 171
14.1.2 Hydraulic coal transport...... 171
14.1.3 Conveyor belt transport ...... 172
14.2 Alternatives between Sungai Puting and deep-sea ...... 172
14.2.1 Transhipment via floating cranes ...... 172
14.2.2 Transhipment via deep-sea terminal ...... 173
14.3 Conclusions concerned the calculation methods ...... 173
15 Recommendations to develop the transport system ...... 175
References ...... 176
December 2011 Page 9 of 196 FEASIBLITY STUDY COAL TRANSPORT KALIMANTAN
Appendix A: Investigation according to the queuing theory ...... 177
Introduction ...... 177
Schematisation with the Erlang-C formula ...... 178
Results from the queuing theory ...... 179
Costs estimation of barge transport ...... 179
Appendix B: Evaluation of the friction head ...... 181
Darcy Weisbach for water and homogeneous mixtures ...... 181
Durant Gilbert ...... 182
Führböter ...... 183
Jufin Lopatin ...... 183
Wilson for heterogeneous flow...... 184
Wilson for fully stratified flows ...... 185
Russian coarse coal formula ...... 186
Appendix C: Comprehensive Multi Criteria Analysis ...... 187
MCA alternatives between Lok Buntar and Sungai Puting...... 187
Feasibility of constructing and operating the transport system ...... 187
Reliability of the transport system ...... 188
Flexibility of the transport system ...... 190
Financial feasibility ...... 191
Environmental impact ...... 191
Economic and social impact ...... 193
MCA alternatives between Sungai Puting and deep-sea ...... 194
Reliability of the transport system ...... 194
Flexibility of the transport system ...... 195
Financial feasibility ...... 196
Page 10 of 196 Chair of Ports & Waterways List of figures
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 0.1 The location of the project area at Kalimantan ...... 21 figure 0.2 Schematisation of the current transport system ...... 22
Figure 0.3 Schematisation of the alternive with a terminal at deep-sea to load the coal carriers ...... 23 figure 0.4 Technical and financial feasability of barge transport between LB and SP ...... 24 figure 0.5 Technical and financial feasabilty of barge transport between sp and the anchorage ...... 25 figure 0.6 Influence of the properties of the transport system on the technical feasability ...... 26 figure 0.7 Mathematical model To optimize the transport system ...... 28 figure 0.8 Friction head according to a number of emperical relations ...... 29
Figure 1.1 Small schematisation of the current transport system ...... 33 figure 1.2 Map of south East Asia, with the Site location indicated by the red box ...... 35 figure 2.1 Diagram with different coal qualities [ 24] ...... 39 figure 2.2 Coalexporting countries in 2009, percentage of total worlds export [ 24] ...... 39 figure 3.1 Map of the wet infrastructure of the transport system ...... 40 figure 3.2 Schematisation of the current transport system ...... 41 figure 3.3 Distances betweeen the different stockpiles and terminals...... 42 figure 3.4 Average rainfall at South Kalimantan...... 43 figure 3.5 A typical Soil profile along the Sungai Puting and Sungai Mati river ...... 44 figure 3.6 Satellite image of the transport route in Kalimantan Selatan (South Kalimantan) ...... 45 figure 3.7 Loading jetty at Lok Buntar ...... 47 figure 3.8 Sungai puting terminal, with temporary transchipment arrangement...... 48 figure 3.9 390ft Bargetransport over the Barito river...... 49 figure 3.10 Transshipment of coal at a deep-sea location offshore ...... 50 figure 4.1 Production target for both the AGM and the SKB mine ...... 51 figure 4.2 390ft barge transport together with local treaders at the Sungai Barito ...... 52
Figure 5.1 Legend schematisation alternatives ...... 53 figure 5.2 30T trucks at the Tatakan stockpile...... 54
Figure 5.3 Barge-tug combination between Lok Buntar and Sungai puttng Stockpile ...... 55
Figure 5.4 An example of a pipeline for hydrylic transportation of sand [ 29] ...... 56
Figure 5.5 Example of coal conveyor in indonesia [ 27] ...... 56
December 2011 Page 11 of 196 FEASIBLITY STUDY COAL TRANSPORT KALIMANTAN
figure 5.6 0, Current transport sysem before Sungai Puting ...... 57
figure 5.7 1.1, Current transort system without Tatakan...... 58
figure 5.8 1.2, Current transport system without Tatakan and Lok Buntar...... 58
figure 5.9 2.1, Hydraulic transport from Lok Buntar to Sungai Puting...... 58
figure 5.10 2.2, Hydraulic transport from the mine to sungai Puting...... 59
figure 5.11 3.1, Conveyor belt from Tatakan till Sungai Puting...... 59
figure 5.12 3.2, Conveyor belt from the mine till Sungai Puting...... 59
figure 5.13 A, Current transport system after Sungai Puting ...... 60
figure 5.14 B, Current transport system with deepsea terminal ...... 61
figure 5.15 2.3B, hydraulic transort from Lok Buntar to offshore ...... 61
figure 5.16 2.4B, Hydraulic transport from the mine to offshore...... 62
figure 5.17 3.3B, Conveyor belt from Tatakan to offshore ...... 62
figure 5.18 3.4B, Coveyor belt from the mine to offshore ...... 62
figure 7.1 Structure of the simulation model for 180ft barges between Lok Buntar and Sungai Puting ...... 69
figure 7.2 Structure of the simulation model for 390ft barges between Sungai Puting and Deep-sea ...... 71
figure 7.3 Strcture of the simulation model for coal carriers at deep-sea ...... 73
figure 7.4 Graph of the capacity decrease oven a year ...... 75
Figure 7.5 Probability density function of death weight tonnage of the coal carriers ...... 76
figure 7.6 Relative stockpile growth at Lok Buntar...... 78
figure 7.7 Required number of barges ...... 79
figure 7.8 example of the Normalized relative stockpile growth ...... 79
figure 7.9 The percentage of time the Lok Buntar terminal is occupied by a barge ...... 80
figure 7.10 The percentage of time the Lok Buntar terminal is operational ...... 80
figure 7.11 Required number of barges against the berth occupation ...... 81
figure 7.12 The occupancy of the 180ft barges between Lok Buntar and Sungai Puting ...... 81
figure 7.13 Percentage of time the 180ft barges are sialing between Lok Buntar and Sungai Puting ...... 82
figure 7.14 Barge efficiency and the percentage the barges are sailing ...... 82
figure 7.15 The variable barge costs per ton between Lok Buntar and Sungai Puting...... 84
figure 7.16 The fixed barge costs per ton between Lok Buntar and SUngai Puting ...... 84
figure 7.17 The total barge costs per ton between Lok Buntar and Sungai Puting...... 84
figure 7.18 Capital costs for constructing a (un)loading conveyor, with trend line...... 86
Page 12 of 196 Chair of Ports & Waterways List of figures figure 7.19 The fixed terminal costs per transported ton between Lok Buntar and Sungai Puting ...... 87 figure 7.20 The variable terminal costs per transported ton between Lok Buntar and Sungai Puting ...... 87 figure 7.21 The total terminal costs per transported ton between Lok Buntar and Sungai Puting ...... 87 figure 7.22 Relative stockpile growth ...... 88 figure 7.23 Transport costs per configuration ...... 88 figure 7.24 The costs for barge transport plotted agains the relative (un)loading capacity ...... 89 figure 7.25 The costs for barge transport plotted against the number of opperational barges ...... 89 figure 7.26 Technical and financial feasability of barge transport between LB and SP ...... 90 figure 7.27 Technical and financial feasabilty of barge transport between sp and the anchorage ...... 91 figure 7.28 Influence of the properties of the transport system on the feasability...... 92 figure 7.29 Mathematical model for the transport system ...... 94 figure 8.1 180ft Barge transport near Sungai Puting ...... 95 figure 8.2 Block schematisation Barge transport ...... 97 figure 8.3 Technical and financial feasability of barge transport between LB and SP ...... 100 figure 8.4 Relative stockpile growth for 2013 with one berth per terminal ...... 102 figure 8.5 Transport costs for 2013 with one berth per terminal ...... 102 figure 8.6 Required number of barges against the transport costs (2013 with one berths) ...... 103 figure 8.7 (un)loading capacity against the transport costs (2013 with one berths) ...... 103 figure 8.8 Relative stockpile growth for 2013 with two berths per terminal ...... 104 figure 8.9 Transport costs for 2013 with two berths per terminal ...... 104 figure 8.10 Required number of barges against the transport costs (2013 with two berths) ...... 105 figure 8.11 (un)loading capacity against the transport costs (2013 with two berths) ...... 105 figure 8.12 Relative stockpile growth for 2015 with one berth per terminal ...... 106 figure 8.13 Transport costs for 2015 with one berths per terminal ...... 106 figure 8.14 Required number of barges against the transport costs (2015 with one berths) ...... 107 figure 8.15 (un)loading capacity against the transport costs (2015 with one berths) ...... 107 figure 8.16 Relative stockpile groth for 2015 with two berths per terminal ...... 108 figure 8.17 Transport costs for 2015 with two berths per terminal ...... 108 figure 8.18 Required number of barges against the transport costs (2015 with two berths) ...... 109 figure 8.19 (un)loading capacity against the transport costs (2015 with two berths) ...... 109 figure 8.20 Relative Stockpile groth for 2015 with three berths per terminal ...... 110
December 2011 Page 13 of 196 FEASIBLITY STUDY COAL TRANSPORT KALIMANTAN
figure 8.21 Transport costs for 2015 with three operational berths per terminal ...... 110
figure 8.22 Required number of barges against the transport costst (2015 with three berths)...... 111
figure 8.23 (un)loading capacity against the transport costs (2015 with three berths) ...... 111
figure 8.24 Relative stockpile growth for 2017 with two berths per terminal ...... 112
figure 8.25 Transport costs for 2017 with two berths per terminal ...... 112
figure 8.26 Required number of barges against the transport costs (2017 with two berths) ...... 113
figure 8.27 (un)loading capacity against the transport costs (2017 with two berths) ...... 113
figure 8.28 Relative stockpile growth for 2017 with three berths per terminal ...... 114
figure 8.29 Transport costs for 2017 with three berths per terminal ...... 114
figure 8.30 Required number of barges against the transport costs (2017 with thre berths) ...... 115
figure 8.31 (un)loading capacity against the transport costs (2017 with three berths) ...... 115
figure 8.32 Relative stockpile growth for 2017 with four berths per terminal ...... 116
figure 8.33 Transport costs for 2017 with four berths per terminal ...... 116
figure 8.34 Required number of barges against the transport costs (2017 with four berths) ...... 117
figure 8.35 (un)loading capacity against the transport costs (2017 with four berths) ...... 117
figure 8.36 Transport costs from The Lok Buntar stockpile till Sungai puting stockpile ...... 119
Figure 8.37 Difference between the simulation model and the queueing theory ...... 119
figure 9.1 Blockschematization for designing the hydraulic system ...... 123
figure 9.2 Example of seive curve for coal ...... 125
figure 9.3 Required hydraulic head for different formulas in the governing situation ...... 127
figure 9.4 Mixture velocity for the scenario in 2017 ...... 129
figure 9.5 Friction head for the senario in 2017...... 130
figure 9.6 Development of the Throughput capacity from 2013 to 2017 ...... 131
figure 9.7 The number of operational days per week from 2013 to 2017 ...... 131
figure 9.8 Development of the volume concentration from 2013 to 2017 ...... 131
figure 9.9 Development of the discharge from 2013 to 2017 ...... 131
figure 9.10 Cost development for hydraulic transport from Lok Buntar to Sungai Puting ...... 137
figure 10.1 Blockschematisation of conveyor belt transport ...... 139
figure 10.2 Capital costs conveyor belt between Lok Buntar and Sungai Puting...... 141
Figure 10.3 Total transport costs with conveyor belt between Tatakan and Sungai Puting ...... 142
figure 11.1 Technical feasibility of the transport system between Sungai Puting and deep-sea ...... 144
Page 14 of 196 Chair of Ports & Waterways List of figures figure 11.2 Relative stockpile growth for 2013 with transhipment by floating cranes ...... 146 figure 11.3 Average number of coal carriers at the anchorage for 2013 ...... 146
Figure 11.4 Transport costs in 2013 only concerning the barges and the terminal [€/T] ...... 147 figure 11.5 Total transport costs for 2013 with transhipment by floating cranes [€/T] ...... 147 figure 11.6 Relative stockpile growth for 2015 with transhipment by floating cranes ...... 148 figure 11.7 Average number of coal carriers at the anchorage for 2015 ...... 148
Figure 11.8 Transport costs in 2015 only concerning the barges and the terminal [€/T] ...... 149 figure 11.9 Total Transport costs for 2015 with transhipment by floating cranes [€/T] ...... 149 figure 11.10 Relative stockpile growth for 2017 with transhipment by floating cranes ...... 150 figure 11.11 Average number of coal carriers at the anchorage for 2017 ...... 150
Figure 11.12 Transport costs in 2017 only concerning the barges and the terminal [€/T] ...... 151 figure 11.13 Total Transport costs for 2017 with transhipment by floating cranes [€/T] ...... 151 figure 11.14 Required number of barges for transhipment with deep-sea terminal ...... 152 figure 11.15 Transport costs from Sungai Puting stockpile till deep-sea unloading berth ...... 153 figure 12.1 Structure of the simulation model between Sungai Puting and deep-sea terminal ...... 155 figure 12.2 Structure of the simulation model at deep-sea with deep-sea terminal ...... 157 figure 12.3 Technical and financial feasability of barge transport between SP and deep-sea ...... 158 figure 12.4 Relative stockpile growth for 2013 with one berth per terminal ...... 160 figure 12.5 Transport costs for 2013 with one berth per terminal ...... 160 figure 12.6 Required number of barges against the transport costs (2013 with four berths) ...... 161 figure 12.7 Loading capacity against the transport costs (2013 with four berths) ...... 161 figure 12.8 Relative stockpile growth for 2015 with two berths per terminal ...... 162 figure 12.9 Transport costs for 2015 with two berths per terminal ...... 162 figure 12.10 Required number of barges against the transport costs (2015 with two berths) ...... 163 figure 12.11 (un)loading capacity against the transport costs (2015 with two berths) ...... 163 figure 12.12 Relative stockpile growth for 2017 with four berths per terminal ...... 164 figure 12.13 Transport costs for 2017 with four berths per terminal ...... 164 figure 12.14 Required number of barges against the transport costs (2017 with four berths) ...... 165 figure 12.15 (un)loading capacity against the transport costs (2017 with four berths) ...... 165 figure 12.16 Required number of barges for transhipment with deep-sea terminal ...... 166 figure 12.17 Transport costs from Sungai Puting stockpile till deep-sea unloading berth ...... 167
December 2011 Page 15 of 196 FEASIBLITY STUDY COAL TRANSPORT KALIMANTAN
figure 0.1 Waiting time, amount of loading berths plotted against the loading capacity ...... 178
figure 0.2 Structure for transport costs at one of the terminals ...... 180
Page 16 of 196 Chair of Ports & Waterways List of tables
LIST OF TABLES table 0.1 Parameters which determine the technical feasebility of the transport system ...... 27 table 4.1 Production Targets for coming years ...... 51 table 4.2 Major bulk carrier size catogories ...... 52 table 5.1 Abbreviations used in the summary of evert alternative ...... 53 table 5.2 Properties of different barge sizes...... 55 table 5.3 Alternatives before Sungai Puting Terminal ...... 57 table 6.1 Summation of the alternatives, with the chosen altermnative highlighted ...... 64 table 7.1 Number of working hours per year ...... 75 table 7.2 Input parameters for barge speed of the 180ft and 390ft barges ...... 75 table 7.3 Input parameters for delays...... 75 table 7.4 The range of number of barges ...... 77 table 7.5 The range of number of berths at the terminals ...... 77 table 7.6 Summary of barge costs ...... 83 table 7.7 Summary of terminal costs ...... 85 table 7.8 Capital costs for the 180ft barge terminal at Lok Buntar and Sungai Puting ...... 85
Table 7.9 Capital costs for a 390ft barge loading terminal at Sungai Puting...... 85
Table 7.10 Costs estimates for constructiing the loading and unloading conveyors ...... 86 table 7.11 Parameters which determine the technical feasebility of the transport system ...... 93 table 8.1 (un)loading capacity per berth according to the relative (un)loading capacity in 2013 ...... 99 table 8.2 (un)loading capacity per berth according to the relative (un)loading capacity in 2015 ...... 99 table 8.3 (un)loading capacity per berth according to the relative (un)loading capacity in 2017 ...... 99 table 8.4 The transport configuration which are investigated between LB and SP ...... 99 table 8.5 Three most efficient transport configurations per run ...... 118 table 8.6 Design plan for the years 2013 till 2017 ...... 118
Table 8.7 Required number of barges according to the queueing theory ...... 119 table 8.8 Design plan for the years 2013 till 2017 ...... 120 table 9.1 Differnt between coal prperties and sand properties ...... 125
Table 9.2 The deposition limit for different formulas in the governing situation ...... 128 table 9.3 Summary of the operation parameters from 2013 to 2017...... 132
December 2011 Page 17 of 196 FEASIBLITY STUDY COAL TRANSPORT KALIMANTAN
table 9.4 Power consumption hydraulic system ...... 133
table 9.5 Costs for the hydraulic system ...... 134
table 9.6 Total costs for hydraulic transportation of coal ...... 134
table 9.7 Costs per ton for hyadraulic transport from Lok Buntar to Sungai puting...... 137
table 10.1 Properties of the different parts of the conveyor belt ...... 141
table 10.2 Power consumption of the conveyor belt ...... 141
Table 10.3 Cost calculation conveyor belt ...... 142
table 11.1 The transport configurations which are investigated between SP and DS ...... 145
table 11.2 Three most efficient transport configurations per run ...... 152
table 11.3 Design plan for the years 2013 till 2017 ...... 152
table 12.1 The transport configurations which are investigated between SP and DS ...... 158
table 12.2 Three most efficient transport configurations per run ...... 166
table 12.3 Design plan for the years 2013 till 2017 ...... 166
table 13.1 MCA for the alternatives between Lok Buntar ans Sungai putting ...... 169
table 13.2 MCA for the alternatives between Sungai Puting and deep-sea ...... 170
table 0.1 Failure mechanisms for barge transport between Lok Buntar and SUngai Puting ...... 189
table 0.2 Failure mechanisms for hydraulic transport between Lok Buntar and Sungai Puting ...... 189
table 0.3 Failure mechanism for the conveyor belt between Lok Buntar and Sungai Puting ...... 189
Table 0.4 Development transport costs per ton from for different transport modes ...... 191
Table 0.5 Transport costs for the alternatives between Sungai Puting and deep-sea...... 196
Page 18 of 196 Chair of Ports & Waterways Preface
PREFACE
You are about to read my final graduation thesis for the master Hydraulic Engineer at the Delft university of Technology. This master thesis is commissioned by Witteveen+Bos in Jakarta for a period of ten months, of which I spend two months in Indonesia.
I would like to thank the graduation committee for the support they gave my during this master thesis project. Sometimes it was a bit difficult to clarify all the subjects I was busy with, but I’m convinced it has contributed to a higher quality level of the final result. Special thanks to Marijn Huysmans, who made this whole project possible.
Furthermore I would like to thank my classmates for the enjoyable time we had during our master studies in Delft. Especially the laborious hours we spend studying in the Royal Library at The Hague where a good balance between business and pleasure. Special thanks to Rémon, Erwin and Tom who joint me during these weeks.
For my close family this was a difficult and intensive year with the divorce of my parents. I would like to thank them for their patience during my eight years of studying in Groningen and Delft. Fortunately life goes on and in a couple of weeks the family will be strengthened with the birth of a little girl. I wish the girl and her parents all the best in life.
Enjoy reading my thesis report!
Christiaan Joppe Deventer, December 2011
December 2011 Page 19 of 196 FEASIBLITY STUDY COAL TRANSPORT KALIMANTAN
Page 20 of 196 Chair of Ports & Waterways Summery
SUMMERY
One of the world’s most plentiful energy resources is coal. At the moment more than one fourth of world energy consumption is from coal reserves around the world. Coal is a fossil fuel, which is mainly used to generate electricity or to produce steel. The use of this resource is increasing and likely to quadruple by 2020. In contrast with oil reserves, coal reserves are widely distributed over the world. This makes coal an attractive energy source without much political sensitivity. Indonesia and especially the islands of Kalimantan and Sumatra preserve some of the largest coal deposits in the world.
THESIS DESCRIPTION
This master thesis focuses on the transportation of coal from two coalmines in South Kalimantan to the Java sea. Coal has to be transported from the coal mine area, situated hundred kilometre land inward, to a location with sufficient water depth, at the mouth of the river Barito.
FIGURE 0.1 THE LOCATION OF THE PROJECT AREA AT KALIMANTAN
The objective of this master thesis is summarized in two mean research questions and two sub questions. The main research questions are formulated as follows.
What are the possibilities to transport coal from the mine hundred kilometre land inward to a location with sufficient water depth to load Cape-size coal carriers? Which of the alternatives are most feasible from a technical and financial point of view?
Two sub questions are formulated to specify the main research questions.
How feasible is hydraulic coal transport in comparison to conventional barge transport and conveyor belt transport? What is the most efficient transport configuration, applying barge transport between Lok Buntar and deep-sea?
December 2011 Page 21 of 196 FEASIBLITY STUDY COAL TRANSPORT KALIMANTAN
CURRENT TRANSPORT SYSTEM
The whole transport chain from the mine to offshore first had to be explored in detail. Not much was known about the transport route and therefore all parts of the transport chain had to be mapped before the research could start. With a site-visit of two weeks the different parts of the transport system have been visited.
Ida Manggala Tatakan Lok Buntar Sungai Puting
unloading Jetty 1 AGM AGM mine stockpile loading Jetty 1 unloading jetty 2 e e l l i i
p unloading p k k c c
o jetty 3 o
Pualam Sari t t s s unloading loading jetty 4 SKB SKB jetty 2 mine stockpile unloading jetty 5
Sungai Puting Destination
near- shore loading jetty 1 Deep-sea e l i floating crane 1 p k c
o floating crane 2 t s Overseas floating crane 3 loading floating crane 4 jetty 2 floating crane 5 floating crane 6
FIGURE 0.2 SCHEMATISATION OF THE CURRENT TRANSPORT SYSTEM
In figure 0.2 a schematization of the transport system is given with the transport modes used between the different parts of the transport chain. From the inland stockpiles the coal is transported by 30T trucks to a transfer stockpile called Tatakan. The Tatakan stockpile is close to the loading terminal called Lok Buntar. Transport between Tatakan and Lok Buntar is done by small 10T trucks. At Lok Buntar 180ft barges are loaded for transport to Sungai Puting transhipment terminal. From the Sungai Puting terminal the coal is transported to deep-sea by 390ft barges. At deep-sea the coal can be transhipped in three ways.
Direct transport by the 390ft barges to near shore destinations (10% of total throughput) Transhipment by self-loading Handy-size coal carries (22.5% of total throughput) Transhipment by floating cranes to Panamax-size coal carries or larger (67.5% of total throughput)
INVESTIGATION ALTERNATIVES
The biggest challenge for the new transport system is to increase the throughput capacity five times in six years. In total four design criteria for the alternative transport system are formulated. The four design criteria are:
The annual throughput capacity of the transport system has to increase from 3 million ton per year to 15 million ton per year in 2017. The governing vessels, which have to be loaded at deep-sea, are Cape size coal carriers. The transport system has to be able to distribute two different qualities of coal separated from each other Continuation of local use of the bigger rivers, S. Negara and S. Barito.
Three different transport modes have been investigated in this thesis. Those are; transport by barges, conveyor belt transport and hydraulic transport. Hydraulic transportation of coal is very similar with the transportation of sand in the dredging industry. The coarse coal is first mixed with water and then transported through a pipeline by means of a number of centrifugal pumps in series.
Page 22 of 196 Chair of Ports & Waterways Summery
In total, twenty different alternative transport systems have been described. With a qualitative evaluation, six alternatives have been chosen to investigate in more detail. The six chosen alternatives seem to be most promising with respect to the technical and financial feasibility. Three alternatives for transportation between Lok Buntar and Sungai Puting and two alternatives for transportation between Sungai Puting and deep-sea have been chosen. The six selected alternatives are:
Barge transport between Lok Buntar and Sungai Puting. With floating cranes at deep-sea. Barge transport between Lok Buntar and Sungai Puting. Including a deep-sea terminal. Hydraulic transport between Lok Buntar and Sungai Puting. With floating cranes at deep-sea. Hydraulic transport between Lok Buntar and Sungai Puting. Including a deep-sea terminal. Conveyor belt transport between Lok Buntar and Sungai Puting. With floating cranes at deep-sea. Conveyor belt transport between Tatakan and Sungai Puting. Including deep-sea terminal.
Sungai Puting Destination
near- Deep-sea shore loading jetty 1 unloading jetty 1 loading e l i jetty 1 p unloading k e c l i
o jetty 1 t p s k
c overseas o
unloading t s loading jetty 2 jetty 2 loading jetty 2 unloading jetty 3
FIGURE 0.3 SCHEMATISATION OF THE ALTERNIVE WITH A TERMINAL AT DEEP-SEA TO LOAD THE COAL CARRIERS
COAL TRANSPORT BY BARGE
Two alternatives are chosen, which include barge transport from Lok Buntar to the mouth of the river Barito. From Lok Buntar to Sungai Puting, 180ft barges are used for transportation. From Sungai Puting to deep-sea, the coal is transported by 390ft barges. The alternative for deep-sea transhipment, different from the current transport system, is presented in Figure 0.3.
The first alternative is identical to the current situation. 90% of 390ft barges are unloaded by floating cranes or by self-loading coal carriers at the anchorage. The remaining 10% of the 390ft barges deliver the coal directly to near-shore destinations. The second alternative is an alternative with a deep-sea terminal at the end of the transport system. At this terminal the barges are unloaded and coal is stocked at a stockpile. Form this stockpile the coal carriers are loaded at the deep-sea terminal. Near-shore transport is still done by the 390ft barges.
A comprehensive logistics study is performed with the use of a simulation model. The simulation model is written in Matlab and is a so-called event based model. The simulation model is made particular for the situation in South Kalimantan and simulates the real situation very accurately. The results from the simulation model are plotted in tables with on the y-axe the number of barges and at the x-axe the loading capacity of the terminal. The transport configuration which is lowest in transport costs, is determined with the results from the simulation model. A transport configuration is a combination of the number of barges, number of berths and the loading capacity of the berths.
The current transport system consists of several cycles of barges, where full barges sail one way and empty barges sail the other way back. From the transport chain two different kinds of cycles can be distinguished.
A cycle with barge transport between two terminals A cycle with barge transport between a terminal and an anchorage for loading coal carriers
December 2011 Page 23 of 196 FEASIBLITY STUDY COAL TRANSPORT KALIMANTAN
The difference between the two barge cycles is the variability of waiting time at deep-sea. In the first system the waiting time is more or less constant, while at the second option the waiting time at deep-sea is variable. When there are always enough barges at the anchorage to load the coal carriers non-stop, a minimum amount of coal carriers will be waiting at the anchorage, and the waiting time for the barges will be much. When the coal carriers have to wait for the barges, on average more vessels will be at the anchorage, and the waiting time for the barges will be less. The results from the simulation model are summarized in two graphs for both barge cycles.
The result of the barge cycle simulation between two terminals is summarized in figure 0.4. This is for example the barge cycle between Lok Buntar and Sungai Puting. A hyperbolic line can be recognized at which the transport capacity is just enough to transport the required throughput capacity. Above this line, more coal is transported than the required annual throughput. Below this line, less coal is transported than the required annual throughput. The total transport costs are determined by the costs for the terminals and the barges. The costs for the barges increase when the amount of barges increases. The costs for the terminal increases when the loading capacity of the terminal increases. As a result from this, the configuration with the lowest transport costs have to be found somewhere on the hyperbolic line, where just enough throughput is transported. If the costs for the barges are relative high this point shifts to the right. If the costs for the terminals are relative high this point shifts more to the left.
Barge costs Too much transport capacity available
o t
l s a e
n g i r t a
m u
r L b
p o w e l +
h e t s a +
t g tr n e a u n
o s h
o p i
t o r t rt t c a h o r t a st
s Terminal costs e y d p t e i o r c
i f a u o p
q t a e c n r
u g e Enough transport capacity available o n h i t
m d t a a r
o e o l
h p h t s
g f n u o a
The capacity of the barges together with the terminals is not enough to transport the required throughput r o t e n s e a
t e r o c N n I
Not enough barges to transport the required throughput
Not enough transport capacity available
Increase of loading capacity at the terminal
Increase of the berth occupancy at the terminal
FIGURE 0.4 TECHNICAL AND FINANCIAL FEASABILITY OF BARGE TRANSPORT BETWEEN LB AND SP
Page 24 of 196 Chair of Ports & Waterways Summery
The results of the barge transport system between Sungai Puting and the anchorage are summarized in figure 0.5. This is an example of a barge cycle between a terminal and an anchorage with variable waiting time for the barges at deep-sea. The results look similar with the results from the barge cycle between two terminals. An area at the lower part of the graph can be recognized, where not enough barges are operational to transport the required annual throughput. At the left side of the graph a similar area can be recognized where the terminal does not have enough loading capacity to load the required annual throughput. In the remaining part of the graph enough transport capacity is available to transport the required throughput capacity. The transport configuration has to be found in this area of the graph. In the corner with much operational barges and much loading capacity the coal carriers are loaded non-stop. This means that there are always enough barges available to load the coal-carrier without any delay. The transport capacity in this area is too much, because the efficiency of the barges goes down, without increase of transport capacity. The configuration with the lowest transport costs has to be found in the middle, between non-stop loading and minimum transport capacity. The exact point is determined by the relative costs for the barges, terminal and the waiting time of the coal carriers.
The seagoing vessels are loaded non-stop Barge costs Too much transport capacity available l a s n e i g r m r a e
b
t l + a e
n h t o
i t t a + a
r y t e i p c o a
f
p Terminal costs o a
c t
n g u
n Lowest transport costs i o + d a m a o
l
e
h The seagoing vessels are loaded with delay h g t
u f Enough transport capacity available o o
n Costs for e e s
t
a coal carrier o e r N c n I
Not enough barges to transport the required throughput
Not enough transport capacity available
Increase of loading capacity at the terminal
Increase of the berth occupancy at the terminal FIGURE 0.5 TECHNICAL AND FINANCIAL FEASABILTY OF BARGE TRANSPORT BETWEEN SP AND THE ANCHORAGE
Referred to the barge cycle between two terminals. The location of the hyperbolic line at which the transport capacity is just equal to the throughput capacity is a property of the transport system. In figure 0.5 the different properties of the transport system are described and their effect on the feasibility of the transport configurations. This schematisation is based on the barge cycle between two terminals.
December 2011 Page 25 of 196 FEASIBLITY STUDY COAL TRANSPORT KALIMANTAN
Duration between the barges being loaded Enough transport capacity available V ery irre tim gul o e ar t b i e nt l s tw er a e a e en rr
n i g b v i a
r a l t rg
a e m u s r b p
e l h
t a
g e n e
u h
o m h t o i t e r
t f t t
a o h s r t a y
y
e t s
y
d i t p t r e i a r o r
c l
o i f a u p u
o g s p
q e n t a e
R a D c n r
r
t u u g e r o n F h a i u
t ll
y t
m d r i t e a o a g r t u im l t n o a i e o
l e r
m i b n h p e te o h t t s w r e
e a f g f
n e r r n i t o u v o a
b a h
a l f r o r
g e
t e e a n s
s a
e b a
v t e a e r o r r c g a N n e g I e
c y
Not enough barges to transport the required throughput c l e
Not enough transport capacity available
Increase of loading capacity at the terminal
Increase of the berth occupancy at the terminal FIGURE 0.6 INFLUENCE OF THE PROPERTIES OF THE TRANSPORT SYSTEM ON THE TECHNICAL FEASABILITY
The minimum loading capacity is mainly determined by the interval between two barges being loaded. The minimum required number of barges is mainly determined by the cycle time of the barges. The location of the hyperbolic line is determined by the regularity of the transport system. If the transport system is fully regular with not any delay, the hyperbolic line is equal to the extreme limits of the system. These effects are schematized in figure 0.6.
The extreme limits (the minimum required number of barges and minimum loading capacity per berth) can be calculated mathematically. When the transport system is more irregular, the hyperbole function, which was part of the limit, goes upwards and as consequence more barges and more loading capacity are required for transportation.
A mathematical model has been developed to determine the technical feasibility of barge cycle between two terminals. The model can help to find the most feasible transport configuration from technical and financial point of view. First the ultimate limits concerning the minimum required number of barges and the minimum loading capacity is calculated with two formulas. The minimum loading capacity required at the terminals can be calculated with the first formula. The absolute minimum number of barges required (theoretical) can be calculated with the second formula. The parameters in the formulas are described in table 0.1.
Tyr Tyr tc T 1 min n M n n hr b hr b
Tyr ts ta nt nb nb_minTl nhr Mb Tl
Page 26 of 196 Chair of Ports & Waterways Summery
T.yr [T/yr] Annual throughput capacity. T.min [T/hr] Minimum loading capacity n.hr [hr/yr] Number of operational hours per year. M.b [T] Capacity of the barges. t.s [hr] Nominal sailing time of the barges in one cycle. t.c [hr] Time between two barges being loaded at a terminal. t.a [hr] Nominal time of a barge at the anchorage. (transport cycle between two terminal ta=0) n.t [#] Number of terminals in the cycles. (1 or 2) n.b [#] Number of berths per terminal. n.b_min [#] Minimum required number of barges (theoretical) n.b_req [#] Required number of barges (empirical) T.l [T/hr] Loading capacity of the terminal. C.r [-] Regularity coefficient of the transport system. (between 1 and 10) TABLE 0.1 PARAMETERS WHICH DETERMINE THE TECHNICAL FEASEBILITY OF THE TRANSPORT SYSTEM
The formulas described above are plotted in figure 0.7. In this plot the absolute limits of the transport system are indicated with Tmin and nb_min. At these limits the transport system can transport the throughput capacity only if the transport system is fully regular. In practice a transport system is never fully regular, therefore another formula is developed to estimate the required number of barges when the transport system is more irregular. The required number of barges for irregular transport systems (empirical) can be calculated with the following formula.
Tyr ts ta nt nb nb_reqTl Cr nhr Mb Tl
In this formula an empirical parameter is included which determines the irregularity of the system. This empirical parameter is called the regularity coefficient and varies between 1 and 10. This coefficient is equal to one for a fully regular system and increases when the transport system is more irregular. The coefficient has been determined by fitting the formula to the results from the simulation model. In case of the transport system between Lok Buntar and Sungai Putting the regularity coefficient has been determined to be 1.4.
More research is desired to give the regularity coefficient a more fundamental background. This could be done with a Monte Carlo simulation of the queuing theory. Than the empirical coefficient could be described according to shape parameter of the gamma distribution for the inter arrival time of the barges.
December 2011 Page 27 of 196 FEASIBLITY STUDY COAL TRANSPORT KALIMANTAN
40
upper limit T T t 35 yr yr c Tmin 1 nhr Mb nhr nb Min. number of barges
lower limit 30
Required number of barges
25 Min. loading capacity
20 Tyr ts ta nt nb nb_reqTl Cr nhr Mb Tl
15 Number of operational barges [#] barges operational of Number
10 Tyr ts ta nt nb nb_minTl nhr Mb Tl 5
0 1400 1600 1800 2000 2200 2400 2600 2800 Loading capacity [T/hr]
FIGURE 0.7 MATHEMATICAL MODEL TO OPTIMIZE THE TRANSPORT SYSTEM
Page 28 of 196 Chair of Ports & Waterways Summery
HYDRAULIC COAL TRANSPORT
Two alternatives are chosen with hydraulic transportation between Lok Buntar and the Sungai Puting terminal. Hydraulic transportation of coal is an unconventional transport mode. In this thesis the feasibility of hydraulic coal transport is investigated. Hydraulic transportation of coal is very similar with sand transport in the dredging industry. The main differences between a coal-water slurry and a sand-water slurry are.
The density of the particles (ρc/s)
The average particle size (dm50)
Sands consists mainly of quarts with a density of 2650 kg/m3, while coal has a density between 1100 kg/m3 and 1500 kg/m3, depending on the quality and the origin of the coal. The particles are transported in water, therefor the relative density underwater determines the tendency of settling. The relative density is 1650 kg/m3 for, respectively 300 kg/m3 for coal particles. This means that the tendency of settling is around 5 times higher for sand than for coal. The sieve curve of coal have to be between certain boundaries. The coal particles may not be too small or too large. When the coal is exported at deep-sea the particles has to be around 30mm. This is much larger than the average particle size of sand (between 63µm 2000µm). Larger particle sizes will increase the turbulent behaviour of the slurry.
Much research has been performed on the hydraulic transportation of sand. The behaviour of a sand-water mixture is described according to a pipeline characteristic. In such a graph the discharge is plotted against the required pressure head, or friction head. The friction head is expressed in meter water column and is direct related to the required power supply to the hydraulic system. The working point at which the friction head is lowest is also the most efficient working point regarding power supply. For a sand-water slurry, a number of empirical formulas are available. In this thesis the applicability of the formulas for a coal-water slurry is investigated. In the analysis is investigated which influence the particle density and particle size have on the friction head in a particular formula. In figure 0.8 the development of the friction head is given for all different empirical formulas.
From the analysis a careful conclusion could be drawn to assume that the friction head is probably between the Wilson formula for homogeneous flow and the Wilson formula for stratified flow. The Russian formulas of Jufin Lopatin and the research of Traynis on coarse coal transport, would underline this conclusion. The deposition velocity is the most important point on the graph, since the hydraulic system will be designed on this point. Therefor the formula of Jufin Lopatin is chosen to determine the friction head at the deposition velocity. However, more empirical research is desired on this topic.
FIGURE 0.8 FRICTION HEAD ACCORDING TO A NUMBER OF EMPERICAL RELATIONS
December 2011 Page 29 of 196 FEASIBLITY STUDY COAL TRANSPORT KALIMANTAN
A design plan is written for the hydraulic system. In the design plan is described how the hydraulic system should be constructed in South Kalimantan. In the plan is written at what working point the system have to operate the first couple of years. The working point of a hydraulic system is the combination of the discharge and volume concentration.
When the throughput per year increases, the discharge per hour also has to increase. This is not favourable for the design of a hydraulic system, since it has to be designed on a certain discharge capacity. A solution is found in the amount of operational days per week, at which the hydraulic system is operational. This way, the throughput capacity per year can increase, without much variation of the discharge capacity per hour. In 2013 the hydraulic system have to be operational three days per week. In 2017 the governing annual throughput capacity of 15million ton is reached with six operational days per week.
COAL TRANSPORT BY CONVEYOR BELT
A design for the conveyor belt between Lok Buntar and Sungai Puting has been made by another consultancy company than W+B. In this report a design is described of the conveyor belt. The power demand is calculated and a cost estimation is given. The main figures are taken from the report to compare conveyor belt transport with barge transport and hydraulic transport.
CONCLUSIONS FROM THE MCA
A multi criteria analysis (MCA) is performed to evaluate the tree different alternatives between Lok Buntar and Sungai Puting. The main advantages of the three alternatives between Lok Buntar and Sungai Puting are:
Transport by barge is most reliable to transport the throughput capacity. Transport by barge will create economic activity for the local economy Hydraulic transport can be relocated and is flexible in throughput capacity Hydraulic transport give the least hindrance from coal dust and noise The operation costs for conveyor belt transport is relative low. Power demand of the conveyor belt system is relative low.
The main disadvantages of the three alternatives between Lok Buntar and Sungai Puting are:
Barge transport is dependent on the water level of the river system and thereby on the dry season. Transport by barge is not flexible in transport capacity. Power demand of the hydraulic system is relative high. A solution has to be found to separate the coal from the water content at the end of the system. The capital costs for the conveyor belt are relative high. The structure of a conveyor belt is not flexible concerning the location and sensitive for settling.
The two alternatives for transhipment at deep-sea are also evaluated with a MCA. The main difference between the two alternatives is the waiting time of the barges and the coal carriers at the anchorage. In the current situation both have to wait a significant time, while at a deep-sea terminal the barges only have to wait for the other barges at the berths. The main advantages of both alternative transport systems between Sungai Puting and deep-sea are:
Transhipment with floating cranes is direct and reduces handling time to a minimum. Transhipment with floating cranes is flexible and not fixed to a location. Transhipment with floating cranes is cheaper, compared to a deep-sea terminal A deep-sea terminal reduces the waiting time of the barges and the coal carries to a minimum. The transport system with an extra stockpile access at deep-sea is much more reliable. A deep-sea terminal is less vulnerable for weather delay.
Page 30 of 196 Chair of Ports & Waterways Summery
The main disadvantages of both transport systems between Sungai Puting and deep-sea are:
Transhipment without a stockpile at deep-sea is less reliable, compare to a deep-sea terminal with stockpile access. Transhipment with floating cranes does increase the waiting time of the coal carriers as well as for the barges Transhipment with floating cranes is more vulnerable for weather delay, compare to a deep-sea terminal. The capital costs for the construction of a deep-sea terminal are high, compare to floating cranes. The handling time at a deep-sea terminal will increase because the coal has to be handled twice. A deep-sea terminal is fixed to the location and water depth.
CONCLUSIONS ABOUT THE CALCULATION METHODS
In this thesis a number of calculation methods have been used to determine the technical feasibility of the barge transport system. The different calculation methods are:
Calculation of the waiting time and the required number of barges with the queuing theory Optimization of the transport configuration with the simulation model Optimization of the transport system with the mathematical model
The queuing theory helped a lot to get insight into the behaviour of the system but didn’t gave the desired results. The simulation model costs some laborious hours of programming, but gave very useful results on the efficiency of the transport system. Finally the mathematical model, based on the results of the simulation model, is probably the best method to get the required information to design a transport system like this. An empirical coefficient is included to simulate the behaviour of an irregular system. Research on this coefficient called the regularity coefficient could optimise this model.
RECOMMENDATIONS TO BSS
It is recommended to Baramulti Sungih Sentosa (BSS) to invest in a barge transport system between Lok Buntar and Sungai Puting. A conveyor belt next to the barge transport system could be interesting to increase the reliability and capacity of the transport system. However, this is only feasible if there are sufficient coal deposits available in South Kalimantan for a couple of decennia.
The transhipment at deep-sea is financially more feasible when this is done with floating cranes. The capital costs for a deep-sea terminal are too high to make this a feasible alternative. However, if the deep-sea terminal would be used by other coal traders as well it could become financially feasible.
December 2011 Page 31 of 196 FEASIBLITY STUDY COAL TRANSPORT KALIMANTAN
ABBREVIATIONS AND DEFINITIONS
Abbreviation Description 10T 10 ton truck transport 30T 30 ton truck transport 180ft Barges with an overall length of 180 feet (other dimensions are given in table 5.2) 180B 180ft barge transport 390ft Barges with an overall length of 390 feet (other dimensions are given in table 5.2) 390B 390ft barge transport A Surface of the pipe cross section AGM Antang Gunang Meratus Coalmine BSS Baramulti Sungih Sentosa CB Conveyor belt transport c.v Volume concentration of the mixture CPT Cone penetration test C.r Regularity coefficient of the transport system. c.t Transport concentration D Diameter of the pipeline for hydraulic transport d.50 Average diameter of the coal particles d.mf Average diameter of the coal particles (d.10 +d.20 +d.30 ...+d.90/9) DS Deep-sea area g Gravity acceleration HT Hydraulic transport KalSel Kalimantan Selatan LB Lok Buntar terminal LWL Low Water Level λ.f Friction coefficient M.b Capacity of the barges. n.b Number of berths per terminal. n.hr Number of operational hours per year. n.t Number of terminals in the cycles. (1 or 2) ρ.c Density of solid coal ρ.w Density of water SB Sungai Barito river S.f Relative density of the fluid SKB Sunber Kuria Buana Coalmine SM Sungai Mati river SN Sungai Negara river SP Sungai Puting river S.s Relative density of the solids ST Sungai Tapin river
t.a Nominal time of a barge at the anchorage. (transport cycle between two terminal ta=0) t.c Time between two barges being loaded at a terminal. t.s Nominal sailing time of the barges in one cycle. T.l Loading capacity of the terminal. TUD Delft university of Technology T.yr Annual throughput capacity. v.m Mixture velocity W+B Witteveen+Bos WBI Witteveen+Bos Indonesia Q Discharge of the hydraulic system > Continuation of the transport mode
Page 32 of 196 Chair of Ports & Waterways Introduction
1 INTRODUCTION
One of the world’s most plentiful energy resources is coal. At the moment more than one fourth of world energy consumption is from coal reserves around the world. Coal is a fossil fuel, which is mainly used to generate electricity or to produce steel. The use of this resource is increasing and likely to quadruple by 2020. In contrast with oil reserves, coal reserves are spread around the world. This makes coal an attractive energy source without the political sensitivity of other fossil fuels.
Indonesia is one of the largest coal exporting countries in the world. In particular the islands of Sumatra and Kalimantan preserve some of the most coal dense areas in the world. This master thesis project is commissioned with the assessment of the overall coal transportation logistics of two coalmines in South Kalimantan.
Both coalmines are located hundred kilometres land inward from Banjarmasin, the capital of South Kalimantan. The location of the project area is highlighted in figure 1.2. For further transportation to worldwide destinations, the coal has to be transported to an offshore transhipment facility at sufficient water depth. The transhipment location have to be suitable for loading Cape-sized coal carriers. The mine area is part of the Sungai Barito river basin. As a result of the geographic constraint, the most common location for deep-sea transhipment is at the mouth of the river Barito, near the city of Banjarmasin.
Conventional transportation by barge is modelled with a comprehensive simulation study on barge transportation. With the use of a simulation model the most efficient barge transport system is determined. The project also comprises a detailed research on the technical and financial feasibility of hydraulic transportation of coal. A detailed analysis is performed on the determination of the required power consumption of a hydraulic system for coal transport.
1.1 CURRENT TRANSPORT SYSTEM
The project area comprises two coalmines and several road- and waterways in the province of Kalimantan Selatan (South Kalimantan). The project area is indicated by a red box in figure 1.2. The transport chain comprises one channel, several rivers and three stockpiles.
Haul road from the mine to Tatakan Tatakan transit stockpile Haul road from Tatakan to Lok Buntar Lok Buntar stockpile Sungai Mati (artificial enlarged river) Sungai Puting (artificial channel) Sungai Puting stockpile Sungai Negara (natural river) Sungai Barito (natural river) Java Sea (open sea)
30T trucks 10T trucks 180ft barges 390ft barges coal carrier
Coal mine Tatakan Lok Buntar Sungai Puting Java sea FIGURE 1.1 SMALL SCHEMATISATION OF THE CURRENT TRANSPORT SYSTEM
In Figure 1.1 a small schematisation of the current transport system is given. The first part of transportation is done by 30T trucks from two coalmines to an inland transit stockpile, called Tatakan. From the Tatakan stockpile, coal is transported by 10T trucks to a small loading terminal called, Lok Buntar. With 180ft barges coal is transported 28km downstream to a transhipment terminal called, Sungai Puting. From the Sungai Puting transhipment terminal, coal is transported by 390ft barges to the Java Sea.
December 2011 Page 33 of 196 FEASIBLITY STUDY COAL TRANSPORT KALIMANTAN
At sufficient water depth, coal is loaded into coal carriers for transportation to overseas destinations or directly transported by the 390ft barges to near shore destinations. A more comprehensive description of the current transportation route is provided in chapter 3. A detailed map of the wet infrastructure of the transport system is presented in figure 3.1.
1.2 PROJECT BACKGROUND
This project is part of several projects for the coalmining company Baramulti Sungih Sentosa(BSS). BSS is developing transport facilities for their coalmine activities in South Kalimantan. The transport system comprises road transport and water transport over natural and artificial waterways. Currently the first 15% of the total transport distance is covered by trucks, while the last 85% of the transport distance is covered by barge.
Witteveen+Bos(W+B) is involved in several projects together with BSS. One of the projects parallel to this project includes the excavation and dredging works of the Mati river and the Puting channel. In 2009 W+B was involved with the design of the Sungai Puting stockpile. This graduation project is part of the plan to upgrade the transport system to a throughput capacity of five times the current capacity.
1.3 PROJECT OBJECTIVE
The objective of this thesis project is to investigate the possibilities for an alternative transport system between the mine area and the deep-sea transhipment arrangement. The alternatives have to be suitable for an increase of the throughput capacity from 3.000.000T per year at the moment to 15.000.000T per year in 2017. The six most promising alternatives are investigated in detail and compared with each other, with a Multi Criteria Analysis. The result is a comprehensive recommendation to BSS for the complete logistics between the mine and deep-sea.
1.4 RESEARCH QUESTIONS
Two main research question are formulated, with two sub questions to specify the main research questions.
The two main research question are formulated as:
What are the possibilities, to transport coal from the mine, hundred kilometre land inward, to a location with sufficient water depth to load Cape-size vessels? Which of the alternatives are most feasible from a technical and financial point of view?
Two important sub questions are defined to specify the research question.
Is hydraulic coal transport a feasible alternative in comparison to more conventional barge or conveyor belt transport? What is the most efficient transport configuration when barge transport between Lok Buntar and deep-sea is applied?
Page 34 of 196 Chair of Ports & Waterways Introduction
FIGURE 1.2 MAP OF SOUTH EAST ASIA, WITH THE SITE LOCATION INDICATED BY THE RED BOX
December 2011 Page 35 of 196 FEASIBLITY STUDY COAL TRANSPORT KALIMANTAN
1.5 RESEARCH APPROACH
A literature study is commissioned to collect information from coalmining and transport supply chains. Special attention is paid to hydraulic transportation of coal through a pipeline with a series of centrifugal pumps.
After the literature study, the current transport system is investigated in detail. The design criteria are determined together with the coal trader, BSS. Following from these design criteria, a number of possible alternatives on the current transport system are investigated. This part of research is mainly performed in Indonesia, during an 9 weeks stay over there
A qualitative selection is performed where the most promising alternatives will be chosen. The chosen alternative are included into further research. The choice will be based on the relevance for the project objective and the research questions.
A simulation model is made particular for the transport system in South Kalimantan. The simulation model is developed to determine the technical and financial feasibility of the transport configurations. The most efficient transport configuration is calculated with an estimation of the transport costs.
Hydraulic transport of coal is studied using empirical relations from the dredging industry. The difference between hydraulic pumping of coal-water mixtures in comparison with sand-water mixtures is investigated in detail. A comprehensive analysis is performed to determine the power consumption of the hydraulic system.
A Multi Criteria Analysis is made to investigate the feasibility of the different alternative transport systems and modes. The following criteria are used to compare the alternatives:
Technical feasibility of required transport capacity. Reliability of the production capacity. Flexibility of the system related to changes in capacity and location. Financial feasibility. Environmental impact. Economic and social impact.
At the end of the project a recommendation will be written to BSS, how they can best optimise their transport system from a technical and financial point of view.
Page 36 of 196 Chair of Ports & Waterways Introduction
1.6 REPORT LAY OUT
This thesis report is separated into eight main parts:
Introduction to the thesis project and he current transport system (chapter 1 up to and including 3) Investigation of alternative transport systems (chapter 4 up to and including 6) Description of the simulation model (chapter 7) Alternatives between Lok Buntar and Sungai Puting (chapter 8 up to and including 10) Alternatives between Sungai Puting and deep-sea (chapter 11 and 12) Comparison of the alternative according to a Multi Criteria Analyse (chapter 13) Final conclusions and recommendations (chapter 14 and 15)
In chapter two, a short introduction into coalmining is given for readers who are not familiar with this subject. Climate, geotechnical and hydraulic conditions are described in chapter three. The existing transport system in South Kalimantan consists of several parts, such as roads, terminals, and channels. In paragraph 3.4 all parts of the transport chain are described in detail. Small tables in the beginning of every paragraph display the most important figures of the transport link. Chapter three also includes a schematisation of the system and a description of the transport capacity.
In chapter four the main design criteria are clarified. The design criteria can be seen as the boundary conditions to which all alternatives must satisfy. The different transport modes investigated in this project are described in chapter five. Special attention is paid to hydraulic coal transport. In chapter five all possibilities concerning different alternatives are described. These chapters describe all alternatives which are possible with the different transport modes described in chapter seven. In chapter six a qualitative choice is made on which of the alternatives are taken into account for further research. The six alternatives are described and modelled in the next chapters.
In chapter seven the simulation model is described and the interpretation of the results. This is an important chapter to read before the alternatives with barge transport are read.
Chapter eight till ten give a detailed investigation of the alternatives for transportation between Lok Buntar and Sungai Puting. In chapter eight, barge transport from Lok Buntar and Sungai Puting terminal is studied in detail. First a qualitative analyse is made according to the queue theory. Secondly a detailed analyse is done with a simulation model. In chapter nine hydraulic transport between Lok Buntar and Sungai Puting is studied in detail. Special attention is paid to determination of the friction head, when pumping a coal-water mixture. In chapter ten the alternative of a conveyor belt between Lok Buntar and Sungai Puting is described. Only main figures are given from a study which was done before.
Chapter eleven and twelve describe the alternatives for transport between Sungai Puting and the deep-sea area near Banjarmasin. In chapter eleven the current transhipment method with floating cranes is investigated in detail with the simulation model. An alternative with a deep-sea stockpile is investigated in chapter twelve.
In the last chapters from thirteen till fifteen a recommendation is clarified for which alternatives are technical, and financial, most feasible, and which alternative is the most reliable. In chapter fifteen a recommendations are written for BSS.
December 2011 Page 37 of 196 FEASIBLITY STUDY COAL TRANSPORT KALIMANTAN
2 COAL MINING IN A NUTSHELL
All the mines in South Kalimantan are so called surface mines. An explanation of surface mining is given in paragraph 2.1. In paragraph 2.2 it is explained how coal is formed and what types of coal exist. At the end of this chapter, a few main figures from the coal industry are given.
2.1 SURFACE MINING
Surface mining, also known as opencast or open cut mining, is only financially feasible when the coal seam is near the surface. More than 90% of the coal present in a coal seam can be extracted when opencast mining is applied. This rate is significantly higher compared to other underground mining.
Surface mining requires large areas of land (up to many square kilometres) as well as the use of special and large size equipment, such as: draglines, which remove the overburden. power shovels. large trucks, which transport overburden and coal. bucket wheel excavators. Conveyors.
The overburden of soil and rock is first fragmented up by explosives; it is then removed by draglines or by shovel and truck. Once the coal seam is exposed, it is drilled, fractured and systematically mined in strips. The coal is then loaded onto large trucks or conveyors for transport to either the coal preparation plant or directly to the costumer. [ 24]
2.2 TYPES OF COAL
The quality of each coal deposit is determined by: varying types of vegetation from which the coal originates. depths of burial. temperatures and pressures at those depths. length of time the coal has been forming in the deposit.
The degree of change undergone by coal as it matures from peat to anthracite is known as coalification. Coalification has an important bearing on the coal's physical and chemical properties and is referred to as the 'rank' of the coal. Ranking is determined by the degree of transformation of the original plant material to carbon. The ranks of coals, from those with the least carbon to those with the most carbon, are lignite, sub-bituminous, bituminous and anthracite.
Initially, the peat is converted into lignite or 'brown coal' - these are coal-types with low organic maturity. In comparison to other coals, lignite is quite soft and its colour can range from dark black to various shades of brown.
Over many more millions of years, the continuing effects of temperature and pressure produces further change in the lignite, progressively increasing its organic maturity and transforming it into the range known as 'sub- bituminous' coals.
Further chemical and physical changes occur until these coals become harder and blacker, forming the 'bituminous' or 'hard coals'. Under the right conditions, the progressive increase in the organic maturity can continue, finally forming anthracite. In addition to carbon, coals contain hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen and varying amounts of sulphur. High-rank coals are high in carbon and therefore heat value, but low in hydrogen and oxygen. Low-rank coals are low in carbon but high in hydrogen and oxygen content. Different types of coal also have different uses, as shown in the figure below. [ 24]
Page 38 of 196 Chair of Ports & Waterways Coal mining in a nutshell
FIGURE 2.1 DIAGRAM WITH DIFFERENT COAL QUALITIES [ 24]
2.3 COAL MARKET
The coal market is divided into hard coal and low rank coals as explained in the previous paragraph. The mines at Kalimantan located close to the coast mainly produce high quality coal, while the mines located more inland produce mainly lower quality coal.
Overall international trade in coal reached 941Mt in 2009. Although this amount seems to be quite significant, it only accounts for about 16% of global coal production. Most coal is used in the country in which it is produced.
With 230Mt coal per year is Indonesia one of the largest coal exporting countries in the world. This is equal to 24% of the total international coal trade. Only Australia exports more coal per year than Indonesia. Japan on the other hand is by far the biggest coal importing country in the world with 165Mt per year in 2009.
Transportation costs account for a large share of the total delivered price of coal, therefore good logistics are of great importance for the Indonesian coal market.
13% 28% Australia 3% Indonesia 6% Russia 7% Colombia South Africa USA 7% Canada 12% 24% Other
FIGURE 2.2 COALEXPORTING COUNTRIES IN 2009, PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL WORLDS EXPORT [ 24]
December 2011 Page 39 of 196 FEASIBLITY STUDY COAL TRANSPORT KALIMANTAN
3 THE CURRENT TRANSPORT SYSTEM
In this chapter the whole transport system from the mine area to deep-sea is described. In paragraph 3.1 the transport system is schematized and details about the transport modes are given. The distances are specified between the stockpiles and the terminals. In paragraph 3.2 information about the capacity is clarified. In paragraph 3.3 the mythological, geotechnical and hydraulic boundary conditions of the project area are given. A comprehensive description of all different parts of the transport chain is given in paragraph 3.4.
The transport start starts at Lok Buntar loading terminal. From Lok Buntar, coal is transported via the Sungai Mati and Sungai Puting to the Sungai Puting transhipment terminal. From the Sungai Puting terminal, coal is transported via the Sungai Negara and Sungai Barito to the open sea near Banjarmasin. In figure 3.1 the wet infrastructure of the transport system is given.
FIGURE 3.1 MAP OF THE WET INFRASTRUCTURE OF THE TRANSPORT SYSTEM
Page 40 of 196 Chair of Ports & Waterways The current transport system
3.1 TRANSPORT NETWORK
In figure 3.2, information is given about the transport modes used between the terminals and the number of loading and unloading facilities per terminal. Ida Manggala Tatakan Lok Buntar Sungai Puting
unloading Jetty 1 AGM AGM mine stockpile loading Jetty 1 unloading jetty 2 e e l l i i
p unloading p k k c c
o jetty 3 o
Pualam Sari t t s s unloading loading jetty 4 SKB SKB jetty 2 mine stockpile unloading jetty 5
Sungai Puting Destination
near- shore loading jetty 1 Offshore e l i floating crane 1 p k c
o floating crane 2 t s Overseas floating crane 3 loading floating crane 4 jetty 2 floating crane 5 floating crane 6
FIGURE 3.2 SCHEMATISATION OF THE CURRENT TRANSPORT SYSTEM
The following can be said about the transport network: The 390ft barges leaving Sungai Puting stockpile can transport coal directly to near-shore destinations or tranship the coal offshore to larger coal carriers. It is possible to transport coal from the Tatakan inland stockpile directly to the Sungai Puting stockpile, but this haul road is not in use by BSS. BSS only uses the road as a back-up transport method if the Sungai Mati or Sungai Puting is congealed. The number of loading and unloading jetties at Sungai Puting terminal is only an estimation, since not all the jetties are constructed jet. At the moment transhipment is done on a temporary basis. At the offshore transhipment arrangement no stockpile is available. The stock is created by the barges itself. A maximum of two cranes can serve one coal carrier at the same time.
Few thinks can be said about the percentage of throughput. Only about 10% of total throughput is coming from the SKB mine. By far the most coal is transported from the AGM mine. Only about 10% of total throughput is directly transported to near shore destinations by 390ft barges.
In the schematisation at figure 3.3, the distances between the stockpiles and the terminals are mentioned. Important to notice is that the Tatakan stockpile and the loading terminal at Lok Buntar are only two kilometres separated from each other, while the distance between the Sungai Puting terminal and the open sea is more than 100 kilometres.
December 2011 Page 41 of 196 FEASIBLITY STUDY COAL TRANSPORT KALIMANTAN
Ida Manggala Tatakan Lok Buntar Sungai Puting
unloading Jetty 1 AGM 26 km AGM mine stockpile loading Jetty 1 unloading jetty 2 e e l l i i
2 km p 29 km unloading p k k c c
o jetty 3 o
Pualam Sari t t s s unloading 10 km loading jetty 4 SKB SKB jetty 2 mine stockpile unloading jetty 5
Sungai Puting Destination
Variable distances near- shore loading Variable distances jetty 1 Offshore e l i floating crane 1
p 100 km k c
o floating crane 2 t s Overseas 10 km floating crane 3 Variable distances loading floating crane 4 jetty 2 floating crane 5 floating crane 6
FIGURE 3.3 DISTANCES BETWEEEN THE DIFFERENT STOCKPILES AND TERMINALS
3.2 CAPACITY OF THE TRANSPORT SYSTEM
The total throughput capacity is either limited by the production capacity of the mine or by the capacity of the transport system. When the production capacity of the mine increases, the capacity of the transport system has to increase as well.
The maximum capacity of the transport system is determined by the lowest capacity of one of the transport links. When the production capacity of the mine is higher than the maximum capacity of one of the transport links, a bottleneck is formed and the stockpile or waiting queue before this limited transport link will grow over time.
The six transport links and terminals, which can be potential bottlenecks, are: Loading jetty 180ftt barges at Lok Buntar. 180ft barge transport Unloading jetty 180ftt barges at Sungai Puting stockpile. Loading jetty 390ftt barges at Sungai Puting stockpile. 390ft barge transport Transhipment arrangement at the floating crane offshore.
Page 42 of 196 Chair of Ports & Waterways The current transport system
3.3 BOUNDARY CONDITIONS
In this paragraph information is given about the boundary conditions at the site location in South Kalimantan. In paragraph 3.3.1 the hydraulic boundary conditions are described. The geographic boundary conditions are described in paragraph 3.3.2.
3.3.1 HYDRAULIC BOUNDARY CONDITIONS
Kalimantan has a tropical climate with very high rainfall throughout the year. Average rainfall is around 3000mm per year and the temperature varies between 29 and 34 C . South Kalimantan does not have much temperature difference throughout the year. Instead of temperature changes, Kalimantan has a dry and rainy season. The area is noticeably drier between June and October, when precipitation levels are at their lowest. The average rainfall throughout the year is presented in figure 3.4.
The precipitation level has influence on the water level of the river system. The water level at the rivers are significantly lower during the dry season. The tide in the Sungai Negara also influence the water level in the Sungai Mati and Sungai Puting. This has influence on the navigability of the two rivers. If the water levels are too low the barges have to reduce their load. The Low Water Level (LWL) at Lok Buntar is determined by measurements and by hydraulic calculations.
Water level measurements have been conducted during dry season and rainy season. Measurements from 2009 show a difference in water level between dry and wet season of 1.0m at the Lok Buntar terminal. The hydraulic calculation have been performed with a hydraulic model called Sobek. Water level measurements at Sungai Negara during dry season are used as downstream boundary. Due to resistance in the Sungai Puting and Sungai Mati, the tides are dimmed in this river system. The average water level difference due to the tide is calculated to be around 0.5m. In 2011 the channel is widened to a channel, capable of handling two way barge transport with 180ft barges. When the channel is deepened the resistance will be reduced and the tidal different will probably increase with a few decimetres.
The dry season has an average duration of four months, but not much information is known about the navigability of the Sungai Mati and Sungai Puting throughout the year. A decrease in capacity of the 180ft barges happened once this year. In the years before, the barge transport system for 180ft barges was not fully developed jet. The only time the capacity of the 180ft barges had to be decreased this year was for a duration of 3 months. The capacity of the barges had to be decreased with a maximum of 30% on the total capacity. [ 20]
400
350
300
250
200
150 Rainfall [mm] Rainfall 100
50
0 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
FIGURE 3.4 AVERAGE RAINFALL AT SOUTH KALIMANTAN
December 2011 Page 43 of 196 FEASIBLITY STUDY COAL TRANSPORT KALIMANTAN
3.3.2 GEOTECHNICAL BOUNDARY CONDITIONS
Detailed soil investigation has been carried out along the smaller river system by a geotechnical consultancy company. Several Cone Penetration Tests (CPT) are conducted at different site locations. The soil investigation is focused on the Sungai Puting canal and Sungai Mati river. The soil condition at the site location are important for the design of the terminals and eventually other structures of alternative transport systems. For the dredging operations the soil condition is important to determine the required equipment.
Based on drilling logs, the subsoil to eight meters depth can be classified into three types of soil. Peat soil Organic clay Silty clay
The thickness of each type of soil layer varies along the river system. Peat soils with zero plasticity and very soft consistency are found at some locations as the top layer. The thicknesses of this layer are generally between 0.5 to 2.0 meter, although at some locations this layer is 4.5 meter thick.
Organic clays with high plasticity and very soft consistency are found at almost all boring locations. Generally, organic clay layers are the second or the middle layer. The thicknesses of this layer vary between 0.5 meter to 6.0 meter.
The third layer, silty clay layer with high plasticity and very soft consistency are also found at almost all boring locations. The thicknesses of this layer varies between 1.5 to 6.0 meter.
The seismic activity in this area of Indonesia is relative low. The consequences of an earthquake could be disastrous for the transport system and the smaller river system of Sungai Puting and Sungai Mati. The chance that something like this would occur in future is unknown. More detailed researches have to be performed on this topic. [ 20]
surface level surface level
Top layer Peat soil
Silty clay 1.5m below surface level very soft 16m below surface level
Silty clay Organic clay medium stiff
26m below surface level 4.0m below surface level
Silty clay stiff Silty clay
48m below surface level 8.0m below surface level
FIGURE 3.5 A TYPICAL SOIL PROFILE ALONG THE SUNGAI PUTING AND SUNGAI MATI RIVER
Page 44 of 196 Chair of Ports & Waterways The current transport system
3.4 DESCRIPTION OF THE CURRENT TRANSPORT CHAIN
The current transport route consists of several stages, which are described in this chapter. Every paragraph treats one stage in the route from the mine area to deep-sea. Every paragraph start with an brief summation of the main figures in a table.
In figure 3.6 a satellite image is given from the transport route in South Kalimantan. Transportation from the coalmine area to the loading terminal at Lok Buntar is done by 10T and 30T trucks. From Lok Buntar to offshore transportation is done by 180ft and 390ft barges. 90% of the throughput is transhipped offshore to larger coal carriers.
The transport route comprises one channel, several rivers and three stockpiles
The mine area (paragraph 3.4.1) Haul road from the mine. (paragraph 3.4.2) Tatakan stockpile (paragraph 3.4.3) Haul road between Tatakan and Lok Buntar Lok Buntar loading terminal (paragraph 3.4.4) Sungai Mati, artificial enlarged river. (paragraph 3.4.5) Sungai Puting artificial channel. (paragraph 3.4.6) Sungai Puting transhipment terminal (paragraph 3.4.7) Sungai Negara, natural river (paragraph 3.4.8) Sungai Barito, natural river (paragraph 3.4.9) Java Sea, open sea (paragraph 3.4.10)
FIGURE 3.6 SATELLITE IMAGE OF THE TRANSPORT ROUTE IN KALIMANTAN SELATAN (SOUTH KALIMANTAN)
December 2011 Page 45 of 196 FEASIBLITY STUDY COAL TRANSPORT KALIMANTAN
3.4.1 COALMINE AREA
Antang Gunang Meratus Coalmine (AGM) Location 30km north of the loading terminal at Lok Buntar CCoW 22,433 Ha Production 2,700,000 T/year Quality Sub-Bituminous Energy value Between 4900 kCal/Kg and 5200 kCal/Kg Sunber Kuria Buana Coalmine(SKB) Location 10km east of the loading terminal at Lok Buntar CCoW 10,920 Ha Production 300,000 T/year Quality Bituminous Energy value Between 6600 kCal/kg and 6900 kCal/kg
The coalmine area consists of two coalmines in the province of Kalimantan Selatan (KalSel). The Sunber Kuria Buana coalmine (SKB) has been exploited by BSS for 10 years already. The Antang Guang Mertus coalmine (AGM) has started exploiting since 2009. The total coal-production of both mines is transported over the same waterway system from Lok Buntar to the mouth of the Barito river.
The quality of coal is different for both mines. The AGM mine produces mainly sub-bituminous coal, with an average energy value of 5000 kCal/kg. The SKB mine produces mainly bituminous coal with a higher energy value of around 6750 kCal/kg.
In the table above all figures are given for both coalmines. The size of the mine is indicated as the Coal Contract of Work. The CCoW of a mine is the area assigned for coal extraction. The production is the average production in the first half year of 2011. [18]
3.4.2 INLAND STOCKPILES
Ida Manggala Stockpile (IM) Function Inland stockpile for the SKB mine Location 38km by road to Tatakan Stockpile capacity 25,000T Production 2011 2,700,000 T/year Pualam Sari Stockpile (PS) Function Inland stockpile for the AGM mine Location 25km by road to Tatakan Stockpile capacity 25,000T Production 2011 300,000 T/year
After the coal is excavated, it is transported by 30T trucks to the Ida Manggala and Pualam Sari inland stockpiles. The Ida Manggala stockpile handles coal from the AGM mine only. This stockpile is situated 26km north of Lok Buntar. The Pualam Sari stockpile handles coal from the SKB coalmine only and is 10 km south of Tatakan.
The function of the stockpiles is to crush the coal and to create one transport connection for further transport. The coal is transported out of the stockpile by 30T trucks to the Tatakan transit stockpile. [18]
Page 46 of 196 Chair of Ports & Waterways The current transport system
3.4.3 TATAKAN TRANSIT STOCKPILE
Tatakan Transit Stockpile (TK) Function Transfer stockpile for both the AGM and SKB mine Location 5km by road to Lok Buntar Stockpile capacity 50,000T Production 2011 Circa 200,000T per month
The Tatakan transit stockpile handles coal from both the Ida Manggala as well as from the Pualam stockpile. It is a transit stockpile to receive coal from the two inland stockpiles, before it goes to Lok Buntar. 30T trucks are used to transport coal from the mine to Tatakan. 10T trucks are used to transport coal from Tatakan to Lok Buntar. At the entrance of the stockpile the full and empty trucks are weighted when they arrive and leave the stockpile. The difference in weight gives the production from both mines.
3.4.4 LOK BUNTAR LOADING TERMINAL
Lok Buntar Loading Terminal (LB) Location At the spring of Sungai Mati Stockpile capacity 10,000T Loading capacity 500T/hr plus 750T/hr
Lok Buntar is the first harbour at the transport route and is situated at the spring of the Sungai Mati. Coal is transported from the Tatakan transit stockpiles to Lok Buntar by 10T trucks. The trucks arriving at Lok Buntar depositing the coal at a stockpile in front of the loading facilities. The coal is transported further by 180ft barges. At the moment two loading terminals are available. Both with a conveyor belt system.
3.4.5 SUNGAI MATI RIVER
Sungai Mati river Total Length 33km Length included in the transport route 18.7km Average Width 20-25m Average Depth 3-4m
Sungai Mati is the first part of the waterway from Lok Buntar loading terminal to Sungai Puting transhipment terminal. River Mati is a natural river flowing from Lok Buntar to the river Tapin in the north. For transport purpose, the river is canalized and upgraded to twice the natural width. At the moment the canal is even further widened to a width of around 50m.
FIGURE 3.7 LOADING JETTY AT LOK BUNTAR
December 2011 Page 47 of 196 FEASIBLITY STUDY COAL TRANSPORT KALIMANTAN
3.4.6 SUNGAI PUTING CHANNEL
Sungai Puting channel Total Length 15km Length included in the transport route 10.0km Average Width 20-25m Average Depth 4-5m
Sungai Puting is the second part of the waterway form Lok Buntar loading terminal to Sungai Puting transhipment terminal. The channel is specially constructed as bypass for coal transport from the river Mati to river Negara. The channel is originally constructed by the government, but is now owned by BSS itself. At the moment, BSS is widening the canal to make it suitable for two lane traffic by 180ft barges. This will be finished at the end of 2011.
3.4.7 SUNGAI PUTING TRANSHIPMENT TERMINAL
Sungai Puting Transhipment Terminal (SP) Location At the armpit of the S. Negara and S. Puting Stockpile capacity 25,000T Unloading capacity Various productions Loading capacity Various productions
The Sungai Puting Transhipment Terminal is located at the point where the Sungai Puting is flowing into the Sungai Negara. The terminal is situated at the north bank of Sungai Puting and the east bank of Sungai Negara.
At this moment there are two loading arrangements available at the terminal. Loading the 390ft barges is done by three excavators at each barge. The excavators shovel coal from the smaller 180ft barges directly to the 390ft barges. The long beam excavators have a relatively small (0.4 m3) bucket. This is a temporary solution, because the jetties where still under construction at the time I visit the site-location. In figure 3.8 the temporary loading arrangement is shown.
For the future, 5 unloading jetties and two loading jetties are planned to be constructed. Loading and unloading will then be done mainly by conveyor belts. The two loading terminals are planned to have a conveyor system to load the barges. Two of five unloading jetties will be arranged with coal handling by excavator. At the other three unloading jetties also a conveyor system is planned.
FIGURE 3.8 SUNGAI PUTING TERMINAL, WITH TEMPORARY TRANSCHIPMENT ARRANGEMENT.
Page 48 of 196 Chair of Ports & Waterways The current transport system
3.4.8 SUNGAI NEGARA RIVER
Sungai Negara river (SN) Total Length 85km Length included in the transport route 26km Average Width 300m Average Depth 8m – 9m
Sungai Negara is a relative large natural river originating in the north, flowing to the south into the Barito River. At the village of Marabahan the two rivers come together. At this village there is a floating market, which congeal the river for two hours a day
3.4.9 SUNGAI BARITO RIVER
Sungai Barito river (SB) Total Length 890km Length included in the transport route 84km Average Width 500m Average Depth 10m – 15m
Sungai Barito is the largest river in the area and one of the biggest rivers at Kalimantan. The river originates in the Muller Mountain Range from where it flows southward into the Java Sea. Together with the Sungai Negara this is the last stage of the transport route.
FIGURE 3.9 390FT BARGETRANSPORT OVER THE BARITO RIVER.
December 2011 Page 49 of 196 FEASIBLITY STUDY COAL TRANSPORT KALIMANTAN
3.4.10 DEEP-SEA TRANSHIPMENT ARRANGEMENT
Deep-sea Transhipment Arrangement (OS) Distance to the coast Circa 10km Number of floating cranes 6 Transhipment capacity 1200 T/hr. – 2500 T/hr. Range of coal carriers 10,000DWT – 180,000DWT
At the mouth of the river Barito, 10% of the coal throughput is transported further by the same barges to near shore destinations and 90% is transhipped to larger coal carriers sailing to overseas destinations.
The coal carriers which are loaded are differing a lot from each other. The size varies from Handy size till Cape size, with in between Panamax size. 25% of the vessels are self-loaders, while the other part has to be loaded by floating cranes.
BSS has six floating cranes in operation near the coast of Banjarmasin at the moment. The floating cranes differ a lot from each other. The nominal loading capacity varies from 1200T/h to 2500T/h. Sometimes the loading capacity is limited by the pumps for pumping ballast water out of the vessel.
There is no vertical or horizontal tidal window present at the Barito River, since maintenance dredging is organized by government to prevent economic damage.
The location where the coal carriers are loaded depends on the draft of the vessel. Large draft Cape size vessels are loaded more offshore than small draft Handy Size vessels. When the coal carriers arrive, they first have to pass customs, which takes at least one day. Sometimes it can take a few days before the loading operation can start.[ 18]
FIGURE 3.10 TRANSSHIPMENT OF COAL AT A DEEP-SEA LOCATION OFFSHORE
Page 50 of 196 Chair of Ports & Waterways Design criteria
4 DESIGN CRITERIA
In this chapter the design criteria of the transportation system are defined. The design criteria are the requirements, which have to be taken into account when designing the new transportation system.
The four main criteria which have to be taken into account are:
Future production capacities for both mines. (paragraph 4.1) The governing coal carriers which have to be loaded offshore. (paragraph 4.2) Possibility of distributing two different qualities of coal. (paragraph 4.3) Continuation of local use of the bigger rivers, S. Negara and S. Barito. (paragraph 4.4)
4.1 FUTURE THROUGHPUT CAPACITY
The most challenging design criterion is the future target concerning coal production of the AGM mine. The target for 2013 is to produce 5,000,000 ton per year. In 2017 the mine has to produce 15,000,000 ton per year. The production of the SKB mine will gradually reduce to zero in 2017.
Year Production of the AGM mine Production of the SKB mine 2011 3,000,000 T/yr 250,000 T/yr 2013 5,000,000 T/yr 417,000 T/yr 2015 10,000,000 T/yr 833,000 T/yr 2017 15,000,000 T/yr 1,250,000 T/yr TABLE 4.1 PRODUCTION TARGETS FOR COMING YEARS
16.0 14.0 12.0 10.0 8.0 AGM mine 6.0 SKB mine 4.0 2.0 0.0 2011 2013 2015 2017
FIGURE 4.1 PRODUCTION TARGET FOR BOTH THE AGM AND THE SKB MINE
December 2011 Page 51 of 196 FEASIBLITY STUDY COAL TRANSPORT KALIMANTAN
4.2 GOVERNING COAL CARRIER
At the end of the transport route, 90% of throughput is transhipped to coal carriers. The coal carriers can be classified in three main categories. Handy size, Panamax and Cape size. The offshore transhipment has to be suitable for receiving all sizes in between.
Category DWT LOA Draft (75% limit) Mini bulk carrier < 12.000T 110m – 140m 8.0m Small handy-sized 15.000T – 25.000T 150m – 150m 10.1m Handy-sized 25.000T - 50.000T 150m – 210m 12.4m Handy max 35.000T - 50.000T 170m – 210m 12.4m Panamax 50.000T - 80.000T 210m – 240m 14.2m Cape size 100.000T - 180.000T 250m – 300m 18.1m TABLE 4.2 MAJOR BULK CARRIER SIZE CATOGORIES
4.3 DIFFERENT QUALITY OF COAL
At the moment 90% of the total production is originated from the AGM mine and only 10% from the SKB mine. The SKB mine produces high quality bituminous coal, while the AGM mine produces lower quality sub- bituminous coal. Despite the decrease of coal production from the SKB mine to zero in 2017, separated coal- transport has to be assured in future.
4.4 CONTINUATION EXISTING TRAFFIC
The big rivers in South Kalimantan are not only in use by large coal traders. Also the local population make use of the rivers as transport connection. A lot of local treading is done by small motorized canoes, called a “Sampan” in local language.
A floating market is situated at the point where the Sungai Negara flows into the Sungai Barito. Every day from eight till ten o’clock in the morning, the rivers are closed off for large coal barges, and only small boots can cross the river.
The use of the bigger rivers, Sungai Negara and Sungai Barito, by local traders has to be guaranteed in future. There are no restrictions of the use of the Sungai Mati and Sungai Puting, since these channels are owned by BSS.
FIGURE 4.2 390FT BARGE TRANSPORT TOGETHER WITH LOCAL TREADERS AT THE SUNGAI BARITO
Page 52 of 196 Chair of Ports & Waterways Investigation alternative transports systems
5 INVESTIGATION ALTERNATIVE TRANSPORTS SYSTEMS
In this chapter an overview is given of the different alternatives for coal transport between Lok Buntar and Sungai Puting. For convenience, the transportation system is separated into two parts. The first part between the mine area and Sungai Puting terminal and the second part between the Sungai Puting Terminal and deep-sea.
In paragraph 5.1 all the transport modes, investigated in this report, are described. All alternatives for transportation between the mine area and Sungai Puting are described in paragraph 5.2. The alternatives for transport between Sungai Puting and deep-sea are described in paragraph 5.3. In the last paragraph the alternatives are describes without Sungai Puting terminal.
The alternatives are first summarized in a table with a code, a summary and a short description. The code is used as the short notation for every alternative. 0 stand for the current situation between Lok Buntar and Sungai Puting. A stand for the current situation between Sungai Puting and deep-sea. 1 and B for adjustment and extension of the current transport system. 2 for alternatives including hydraulic transport. 3 for alternatives including conveyor transport.
According to the description in the table, all alternative are schematized to give the reader a fast overview and to compare the different alternatives easily. A legend for all the schematizations is given in Figure 5.1. A summary of every alternative give a brief overview of the transport modes at different stages in the transport system. The abbreviations used in these summaries are clarified in the table 5.1.
mine stockpile jetty disposal area floating crane destination
Road transport with 10T trucks. Road transport with 30T trucks.
Barge transport with 180ft barges. Barge transport with 390ft barges.
Handy size selfloading bulk vessel. Panamax/ Cape size non-selfloading bulk vessel.
Hydraulic transport Conveyor transport over long distance
FIGURE 5.1 LEGEND SCHEMATISATION ALTERNATIVES
Abbreviation meaning 10T 10 ton truck transport 30T 30 ton truck transport 180B 180ft barge transport 390B 390ft barge transport HT Hydraulic transport CB Conveyor belt transport > Continuation of the transport mode TABLE 5.1 ABBREVIATIONS USED IN THE SUMMARY OF EVERT ALTERNATIVE
December 2011 Page 53 of 196 FEASIBLITY STUDY COAL TRANSPORT KALIMANTAN
5.1 INVESTIGATED TRANSPORT MODES
Transportation of coal can be done using various transportation modes. Common transportation modes used in South Kalimantan are transportation by trucks and by barges. These transport modes are discussed in paragraph 5.1.1 and 5.1.2. Other transport modes which are more common around the world are transport by rail and conveyor belt.
Coal transport by rail is often used in the United States of America. This transport method is not included in the this thesis because the geographic site conditions are not suitable for a rail connection to the coast. The investment costs would be too high.
The use of a conveyor belt over a long distance is discussed in paragraph 5.1.4. Hydraulic transportation is taken into consideration as a serious alternative for transportation by conveyor belt. Hydraulic transportation of coal is discussed in paragraph 5.1.3.
5.1.1 COAL TRANSPORT BY TRUCKS
Coal transport by trucks is widely used at Kalimantan. Trucks are used where no river system is available. The use of trucks is attractive because it is reliable and very flexible. If one or more trucks are broken not the whole production is stopped and if for some reason the transport route should change, trucks can change route easily as well.
In the current transport system two kinds of trucks are in use. 30T trucks to transport coal from the mine to the Tatakan stockpile and 10T trucks to transport the coal from Tatakan to Lok Buntar. For transport over longer distances a semi-trailer truck could be considered. Semi-trailer trucks are also known as road trains and can transport up to 50T.
The advantage of using a larger truck, like the semi-trailer truck, is that the fuel costs decreases per ton. A disadvantage of using larger trucks are the increase in costs of road maintenance. A good foundation is essential when large semi-trailer trucks are used.
FIGURE 5.2 30T TRUCKS AT THE TATAKAN STOCKPILE.
Page 54 of 196 Chair of Ports & Waterways Investigation alternative transports systems
5.1.2 COAL TRANSPORT BY BARGES
The transportation method used the most over longer distances at Kalimantan, is transportation by barges pulled or pushed by tug boats (mainly pulled). If a river system is available this is an attractive transportation method because of the low investment cost and the high reliability. The general costs are largely dependent on the fuel cost. Several barge sizes for coal transport are available.
No. barge description maximum length overall Width draught capacity 1 100 ft. 275T 28.4m 7.7m 1.78m 2 140 ft. 750T 39.7m 10.8m 2.49m 3 180 ft. 1,500T 54.0m 14.5m 2.80m 4 270 ft. 5,500T 72.0m 22.0m n.a 5 300 ft. 7,500T 82.0m 24.0m 5.20m 6 390 ft. 10,000T 118.9m 25.0m 7.00m TABLE 5.2 PROPERTIES OF DIFFERENT BARGE SIZES.
390 ft. barges are used at the Sungai Negara and Barito and have a loading capacity between 8,000T and 10,000T. The 180 ft. barges used at the Sungai Mati and Sungai Puting have a maximum transport capacity of 1,500T. Other barge sizes could be considered to be more feasible in relation with dredging costs.
FIGURE 5.3 BARGE-TUG COMBINATION BETWEEN LOK BUNTAR AND SUNGAI PUTTNG STOCKPILE
5.1.3 HYDRAULIC TRANSPORTATION OF COAL
Hydraulic transportation of coal is the transportation of coal by means of a pipeline with centrifugal pumps in series. To create an liquid mixture, normally water is used as the transportation medium. Hydraulic transportation of a coal mixture is similar to the hydraulic transportation of sand mixture in the dredging industry.
The main difference between the hydraulic transportation of coal-slurries in comparison with sand-slurries is the density of the particles. The solid coal particles have a lower density than the sand particles and therefore is the tendency of settling less for coal slurries. Because the tendency of settling is less the required energy demand of the system is probably lower for coal-mixtures than for sand-mixtures with the same particle size.
Coal slurry pipelines can make use of water, methanol, crude oil, or another liquid transport medium. The coal is separated from the liquid phase at the destination for subsequent use in combustion. The liquid may then be reused as a fuel, discharged to receiving waters or returned to the point where the coal is added to the pipeline. The pipeline can be either a non-recirculating (one-way) or recirculating (two way) system.
December 2011 Page 55 of 196 FEASIBLITY STUDY COAL TRANSPORT KALIMANTAN
Coal slurry pipelines require coal-liquid slurry preparation at the upstream end, coal-liquid separation facilities at the downstream end, and intermittent pumping stations along the route of the pipeline. Slurry storage tanks are usually located at the upstream end of the pipeline as a safeguard against downtime for the pipeline, and at the downstream end of the pipeline as a contingency for downtime of the coal-using facility.
The major variables affecting slurry pipeline throughput are the pipeline length, pipe diameter, slurry velocity, and solids concentration. Slurry pipelines can range up to 1100mm in diameter and can be several hundreds of kilometres long.
FIGURE 5.4 AN EXAMPLE OF A PIPELINE FOR HYDRYLIC TRANSPORTATION OF SAND [29]
5.1.4 COAL TRANSPORT BY CONVEYOR BELT
Conveyor belts are normally used in mine-mouth power plants to bring coal from the mining area to the storage or usage area. Conveyor belts can be used for coal transport in hilly terrain where roads are relatively inaccessible, typically being used to move coal over 10km to 30km distances.
Conveyors have the advantage of being relatively maintenance free but have the disadvantage of location inflexibility, making a truck haul still necessary. The only adverse environmental impacts of conveyor belts for coal transport are coal dust losses during loading, unloading, or transport. Conveyor belts do not use water, except for belt cleaning.
FIGURE 5.5 EXAMPLE OF COAL CONVEYOR IN INDONESIA [27]
Page 56 of 196 Chair of Ports & Waterways Investigation alternative transports systems
5.2 ALTERNATIVES BETWEEN THE MINE AREA AND SUNGAI PUTING
Six alternatives plus the current situation for coal transport between the mine area and Sungai Puting can be distinguished.
Nr. Code Summary Description 1 0 30T/10T/180B Current transport system. 2 1.1 30T/ > /180B Current transport system without Tatakan. 3 1.2 30T/ > / > Haul road from the mine till Sungai Puting. 4 2.1 30T/ > / HT Hydraulic transport from Lok Buntar to Sungai Puting 5 2.2 HT / > / > Hydraulic transport from the mine to Sungai Puting. 6 3.1 30T/ CB / > Conveyor belt from Tatakan till Sungai Puting. 7 3.2 CB / > / > Conveyor belt from the mine till Sungai Puting. TABLE 5.3 ALTERNATIVES BEFORE SUNGAI PUTING TERMINAL
In this paragraph the alternatives for coal transportation between the mine area and Sungai Puting are described. This project includes only four different transport modes as described in paragraph 5.1. road transport barge transport hydraulic transport conveyor transport
In the current situation coal is transported from the mine to Tatakan with 30T trucks and from Tatakan to Lok Buntar with 10T trucks. From Lok Buntar coal is loaded into barges and transported to Sungai Puting terminal.
The different transport methods can be used in different stages in the transport route. The transport route between the mine and Sungai Puting consists of three stages. road connection between the two mines and Tatakan. road connection between Tatakan and Lok Buntar. waterway connection between Lok Buntar and Sungai Puting.
A lot of combinations can be made with the use of different transport modes at different stages in the transportation network. All realistic possibilities are given the table 5.3.
Ida Manggala Tatakan Lok Buntar Sungai Puting
unloading Jetty 1 AGM AGM mine stockpile loading Jetty 1 unloading jetty 2 e e l l i i
p unloading p k k c c
o jetty 3 o
Pualam Sari t t s s unloading loading jetty 4 SKB SKB jetty 2 mine stockpile unloading jetty 5
FIGURE 5.6 0, CURRENT TRANSPORT SYSEM BEFORE SUNGAI PUTING
The first alternative on the current situation is a transport system without Tatakan. Every time coal is handled, it costs extra money. Therefore this is a logical adjustment on the current transportation system. Transport between Lok Buntar and Sungai Puting is done by 180ft barges. Road transport between the mines and Tatakan could be done by semi-trailer trucks. Semi-trailer trucks are larger than normal single-trailer truck and will therefor reduce the amount of trucks on the road.
December 2011 Page 57 of 196 FEASIBLITY STUDY COAL TRANSPORT KALIMANTAN
Ida Manggala Lok Buntar Sungai Puting
unloading jetty 1 AGM AGM mine stockpile loading Jetty 1 unloading jetty 2 e l i
unloading p k c
jetty 3 o
Pualam Sari t s unloading loading jetty 4 SKB SKB jetty 2 mine stockpile unloading jetty 5
FIGURE 5.7 1.1, CURRENT TRANSORT SYSTEM WITHOUT TATAKAN.
A direct haul road between the mine and Sungai Puting reduces handling time to a minimum. Another coalmining company which is situated next to BSS in Sungai Puting uses a similar transport system already. A alternative with semi-trailer trucks is possible.
Ida Manggala Sungai Puting
AGM mine
stockpile Pualam Sari
SKB mine
FIGURE 5.8 1.2, CURRENT TRANSPORT SYSTEM WITHOUT TATAKAN AND LOK BUNTAR.
There are two alternatives that include hydraulic transport before Sungai Puting terminal. The first option uses hydraulic transport form Lok Buntar. The second option uses direct transport from the mine to Sungai Puting.
Ida Manggala Lok Buntar Sungai Puting
AGM AGM mine stockpile loading jetty 1 e l i
disposal p k c
area o
Pualam Sari t s
loading SKB SKB jetty 2 mine stockpile
FIGURE 5.9 2.1, HYDRAULIC TRANSPORT FROM LOK BUNTAR TO SUNGAI PUTING.
Page 58 of 196 Chair of Ports & Waterways Investigation alternative transports systems
Ida Manggala Sungai Puting
AGM loading mine jetty 1 e l i
disposal p k c
area o
Pualam Sari t s
SKB loading mine jetty 2
FIGURE 5.10 2.2, HYDRAULIC TRANSPORT FROM THE MINE TO SUNGAI PUTING.
Also two alternatives are investigated that include a conveyer belt over long distances. One option with conveyor transport from Tatakan stockpile and another option with direct transport from the mine to Sungai Puting terminal.
Ida Manggala Tatakan Sungai Puting
AGM AGM mine stockpile
stockpile Pualam Sari
SKB SKB mine stockpile
FIGURE 5.11 3.1, CONVEYOR BELT FROM TATAKAN TILL SUNGAI PUTING.
Ida Manggala Sungai Puting
AGM mine
stockpile Pualam Sari
SKB mine
FIGURE 5.12 3.2, CONVEYOR BELT FROM THE MINE TILL SUNGAI PUTING.
December 2011 Page 59 of 196 FEASIBLITY STUDY COAL TRANSPORT KALIMANTAN
5.3 ALTERNATIVES BETWEEN SUNGAI PUTING AND DEEP-SEA
Two alternatives for coal transport between Sungai Puting and deep-sea can be distinguished.
Nr. Code Summary Description Current transport system. 1 A 390B/ FC
Current transport system with deep see terminal. 2 B 390B/ DT
Transportation between Sungai Puting and deep-sea is currently done by 390ft barges. The barges are loaded at Sungai Puting and unloaded at deep sea. The transhipment offshore is partly done by floating cranes and partly done by self-loading Handy size coal carriers.
The main disadvantage with this way of transportation is that a delay in loading at, or transportation from, Sungai Puting will directly lead to a delay in transhipment offshore. Another disadvantage is that the 390ft Barges have to wait offshore till there is a coal carrier available to unload the coal. A solution for both disadvantages could be a deep see loading facility offshore. Different alternatives are possible.
Different possibilities for a deep see terminal. Onshore stockpile with a loading pier to deep-sea water. An artificial island with stockpile and deep-sea loading terminal offshore. A floating terminal with stockpile and deep-sea loading terminal offshore.
The three different possibilities can be modelled in the same way, namely as an extra stockpile where 390ft barges can be unloaded and where coal carrier can be loaded directly. A number of properties have to be taken into account. Number of unloading and loading jetties. Size of the stockpile. Loading rate per berth. Waiting arrangement.
The current situation is schematized in figure 5.13. In the schematization can be seen that there are three different methods of coal export.
The first method is direct export by the 390ft barges. The barge directly sail to the end user The second method is transhipment by self-loading vessels, mainly Handy-size. The third method is transhipment by floating cranes, mainly Panamax size.
Sungai Puting Destination
near- shore loading jetty 1 Offshore e l i floating crane 1 p k c
o floating crane 2 t s Overseas floating crane 3 loading floating crane 4 jetty 2 floating crane 5 floating crane 6
FIGURE 5.13 A, CURRENT TRANSPORT SYSTEM AFTER SUNGAI PUTING
Page 60 of 196 Chair of Ports & Waterways Investigation alternative transports systems
The alternative transport system is similar to the current situation, only the floating cranes are replaced by a deep-sea loading terminal.
Sungai Puting Destination
near- Offshore shore loading jetty 1 unloading jetty 1 loading e l i jetty 1 p unloading k e c l i
o jetty 1 t p s k
c overseas o
unloading t s loading jetty 2 jetty 2 loading jetty 2 unloading jetty 3
FIGURE 5.14 B, CURRENT TRANSPORT SYSTEM WITH DEEPSEA TERMINAL
5.4 ALTERNATIVES WITHOUT SUNGAI PUTING TERMINAL
Four alternatives have been investigated without the Sungai Puting terminal included.
Nr. Code Summary Description Hydraulic transport from Lok Buntar to offshore 3 2.3B 30T/ > / HT / > / DT
Hydraulic transport from the mine to offshore 4 2.4B HT / > / > / > / DT
Conveyor belt from Lok Buntar to offshore 5 3.3B 30T/ CB / > / > / > / DT
Conveyor belt from the mine to offshore 6 3.4B CB / > / > / > / > / DT
There are two options which include hydraulic transportation till offshore. A disadvantage of hydraulic transport till offshore is the high investment costs and the time it takes to clear the pipeline. Hydraulic transport till offshore is only possible when a disposal area is constructed near the deep-sea terminal.
Ida Manggala Lok Buntar Offshore Destination
loading near- jetty 1 shore AGM AGM mine stockpile loading jetty 1 loading jetty 2 e l i
disposal p loading k c
area o jetty 3
Pualam Sari t s overseas loading loading jetty 4 SKB SKB jetty 2 mine stockpile loading jetty 5
FIGURE 5.15 2.3B, HYDRAULIC TRANSORT FROM LOK BUNTAR TO OFFSHORE
December 2011 Page 61 of 196 FEASIBLITY STUDY COAL TRANSPORT KALIMANTAN
Ida Manggala Offshore Destination
loading near- jetty 1 shore AGM loading mine jetty 1 loading jetty 2 e l i
disposal p loading k c
area o jetty 3
Pualam Sari t s overseas loading jetty 4 SKB loading mine jetty 2 loading jetty 5
FIGURE 5.16 2.4B, HYDRAULIC TRANSPORT FROM THE MINE TO OFFSHORE
Two alternative are included with direct conveyor belt transport to offshore. One alternative direct form the mine area and one alternative from Tatakan stockpile. The advantage of these alternatives are the little amount of handlings.
Ida Manggala Tatakan Offshore Destination
loading near- jetty 1 shore AGM AGM mine stockpile loading jetty 2 e l i
p loading k c
o jetty 3
Pualam Sari t s overseas loading jetty 4 SKB SKB mine stockpile loading jetty 5
FIGURE 5.17 3.3B, CONVEYOR BELT FROM TATAKAN TO OFFSHORE
Ida Manggala Offshore Destination
loading near- jetty 1 shore AGM mine loading jetty 2 e l i
p loading k c
o jetty 3
Pualam Sari t s overseas loading jetty 4 SKB mine loading jetty 5
FIGURE 5.18 3.4B, COVEYOR BELT FROM THE MINE TO OFFSHORE
Page 62 of 196 Chair of Ports & Waterways Selection of alternatives
6 SELECTION OF ALTERNATIVES
Not all alternatives, described in chapter 5, will be taken into account for further research. In this chapter a qualitative evaluation is made on which of the alternatives are most suitable to investigate in more detail.
6.1 SELECTION CRITERIA
The objective of this master thesis is to answer the research questions, which are formulated in paragraph 1.4. The decision on which of the alternatives will be included into further researched is mainly based on these research questions. Two main research questions and two sub-questions are formulated.
The two main research question are formulated as: What are the possibilities, to transport coal from the mine, hundred kilometre land inward, to a location with sufficient water depth to load Cape-size vessels? Which of the alternatives are most feasible from a technical and financial point of view?
To answer the main research questions, a qualitative choice has to be made on which of the alternatives are probably most feasible from a technical and financial point of view. This can be done according to a number of criteria, which will also be used in the multi criteria analysis in chapter 13.
Scoring on the six main criteria will determine the feasibility of the different alternatives. These criteria are: Feasibility of constructing and operating the transport system Reliability of the transport system Flexibility of the transport system Financial feasibility Environmental impact Social impact
The first criterion of the transport system is the ability of transport system to transport the required production capacity. The transport system has to be able to transport the coal production from the mines. Another criteria which has to be determined if it is possible and realistic to construct the transport system in the area of Kalimantan.
The reliability of the system is the ability of the transport system to keep operating when one or more parts of the system fail. Three parameters of a failure mechanism are of importance in this. Chance of occurrence of a failure. Percentage of decrease in throughput when a part of the system fails. The average duration of a failure.
The flexibility of the transport system on changes in capacity can be important in the first few years when the production capacity has to increase significantly. To solve delays from a potential congestions in the transport system, it is necessary that the transport capacity can be increased for a while after the congestion. The flexibility of the transport system on changes of the location can be important when coal deposits get empty and when other deposits get interesting to exploit.
The financial feasibility can be determined by the costs per ton to transport the coal from the mine to deep-sea area. This is important for BSS, so they can determine the profit of coal treading in South Kalimantan. The costs will have large influence on the decision for a certain transport system.
December 2011 Page 63 of 196 FEASIBLITY STUDY COAL TRANSPORT KALIMANTAN
Two sub questions are defined in paragraph 1.4 to specify the research questions.
How feasible is hydraulic coal transport in comparison with conventional barge transport and conveyor belt transport? What is the most efficient transport configuration, applying barge transport between Lok Buntar and deep-sea?
To answer the first sub-question the technical and financial feasibility of the three different transport modes have to be investigated in an objective way. Therefore three alternatives have to be chosen, which are similar in transport system, but different in the use of transport modes. A system with barge transport, a system with hydraulic transport and a transport system with conveyor belt transport has to be chosen. Barge transport is only possible from Lok Buntar to deep-sea, while hydraulic transport and conveyor belt transport is possible form the mine area to deep-sea. So the area where the three transport modes could be compared is between Lok Buntar and deep-sea.
To answer the second sub-question, a simulation model will be written to investigate the technical and financial feasibility of different transport alternatives with barge transport. Therefore a number of alternatives with barge transport have to be chosen. An interesting optimisation can be performed to investigate the most efficient transport configuration for the current method of transhipment by floating cranes at deep-sea. Also the transport system between Lok Buntar and Sungai Puting would be interesting to investigate.
Nr. Code Summary Description Chapter Current transport system. 1 0A 30T/10T/180B/390B/ FC
Current transport system with offshore terminal. 2 0B 30T/10T/18F0B/390B/ DT
Chapter 3 1.1A 30T/ > /180B/390B/ FC Current transport system without Tatakan. 8 and 11 Current transport system without Tatakan, with deep- Chapter 4 1.1B 30T/ > /180B/390B/ DT sea terminal. 8 and 12
5 1.2A 30T/ > / > /390B/ FC Haul road from the mine till Sungai Puting.
Haul road from the mine till Sungai Puting, with deep-sea 6 1.2B 30T/ > / > /390B/ DT terminal. 390ft barge transport from Lok Buntar 7 1.3A 30T/ > /390B/ > / FC
390ft barge transport from Lok Buntar, with deep-sea 8 1.3B 30T/ > /390B/ > / DT terminal. Chapter 9 9 2.1A 30T/ > / HT /390B/ FC Hydraulic transport from Lok Buntar to Sungai Puting. and 11
Hydraulic transport from Lok Buntar to Sungai Puting, Chapter 9 10 2.1B 30T/ > / HT /390B/ DT with deep-sea terminal. and 12 Hydraulic transport from the mine to Sungai Puting. 11 2.2A HT / > / > /390B/ FC
Hydraulic transport from the mine to Sungai Puting, with 12 2.2B HT / > / > /390B/ DT deep-sea terminal. Hydraulic transport from Lok Buntar to deep-sea. 13 2.3B 30T/ > / HT / > / DT
Hydraulic transport from the mine to deep-sea 14 2.4B HT / > / > / > / DT
Conveyor belt from Tatakan till Sungai Puting. Chapter 10 15 3.1A 30T/ CB / > /390ft/ FC and 11 Conveyor belt from Tatakan till Sungai Puting, with deep- Chapter 10 16 3.1B 30T/ CB / > /390ft/ DT sea terminal. and 12 Conveyor belt from the mine till Sungai Puting. 17 3.2A CB / > / > /390ft/ FC
Conveyor belt from the mine till Sungai Puting, with 18 3.2B CB / > / > /390ft/ DT deep-sea terminal. Conveyor belt from Lok Buntar to deep-sea. 19 3.3B 30T/ CB / > / > / > / DT
Conveyor belt from the mine to deep-sea. 20 3.4B CB / > / > / > / > / DT
TABLE 6.1 SUMMATION OF THE ALTERNATIVES, WITH THE CHOSEN ALTERMNATIVE HIGHLIGHTED
Page 64 of 196 Chair of Ports & Waterways Selection of alternatives
6.2 QUALITATIVE SELECTION FOR FURTHER RESEARCH
The technical feasibility of the different alternatives have to be determined. In table 6.1 all the alternatives are summarized with the corresponding numbering. The alternatives are evaluated in the next paragraphs.
6.2.1 ALTERNATIVES 1.1 TILL 1.3
Transportation by barge from Lok Buntar till Sungai Puting is already done for a couple of years. It is a transport mode which has proven to function in South Kalimantan. The terminals have to be expanded and the number of barges have to be increased, to upgrade the transport system for a throughput capacity of 15 million ton coal per year. It is interesting to investigate if this is possible and subsequently determine the most efficient transport configuration.
The alternative with road transport from the mine to Sungai Puting is not included into the investigating because from a logistic point of view this is not an interesting alternative to investigate. The cost of road transport are very much dependent on the local conditions like, fuel and labour costs. BSS already exploit some road connections from the mines to Tatakan. From these experience they can easily determine the feasibility of road transport from Tatakan to Sungai Puting
6.2.2 ALTERNATIVES 2.1 TILL 2.4
Transportation of coarse coal with a hydraulic system is less common around the world. Only a few projects are known where it is proven to be a feasible transportation method. Because it is a relative unknown transport mode, transportation direct form the mine-area to deep-sea area is not realistic. The investment costs would be enormous and the risk of failure too high. For instance the risk the pipeline would clog and the whole pipeline would be full with solid coal. Only two alternatives are left. Hydraulic transportation form the mine area to Sungai Puting and form Lok Buntar to Sungai Puting.
6.2.3 ALTERNATIVES 3.1 TILL 3.2
Transportation of coal by conveyor belt is done by more coal traders in South Kalimantan. Coal transport by conveyor belt over long distances is a proven transportation mode around the world and can cover over hundred kilometres. A conveyor belt system from the mine area to deep-sea has to be at least 80 kilometres long. It is possible to construct a conveyor like this, but the conveyor belt would have to cross inhabited area and the capital cost would be very high. Therefore this is not a realistic alternative. Two alternatives with conveyor belt transport are left. One alternative with a conveyer from Lok Buntar to Sungai Puting and an alternative from the mine area to Sungai Puting.
6.2.4 ALTERNATIVE 2.1, 2.2, 3.1 AND 3.2
The alternative with a conveyor belt between Lok Buntar to Sungai Puting is investigated by an extern party. More research could be done for transport by conveyor belt from the mine area to Lok Buntar. However this would be a very extensive study, with would include much mechanical engineering. It is decided to include only alternative 3.1 into further research. This is the alternative with a conveyor belt between Lok Buntar and Sungai Puting.
To compare this alternative with the alternatives which include barge transport and hydraulic transport it is necessary that the transport systems are similar. Therefore it is decided to include also alternative 1.1 and 2.1 into further research. Alternative 1.1, 2.1 and 3.1 are similar in design but different in the use of transport mode. If the research is finished a good comparison can be made between the different transport modes.
December 2011 Page 65 of 196 FEASIBLITY STUDY COAL TRANSPORT KALIMANTAN
6.2.5 ALTERNATIVES A AND B
The two alternatives for deep-sea are both interesting to investigate. The current transport system with floating cranes in particular, because this is a complex system, which is impossible to calculate analytical. The second alternative with transhipment via deep-sea terminal is also interesting, because it will determine how much profit can be realized with the construction of a deep-sea terminal. If the profit is more than the costs to construct a deep-sea terminal it would be financial feasible. Both alternative will be included into further research.
6.3 CONCLUSION
From the evaluation in paragraph 6.2 it can be concluded that only alternatives including Sungai Puting are taken into account, because:
Too much risk is involved when applying hydraulic transport or conveyor belt transport till offshore. Transport by 390ft Barges is a relative reliable and flexible transport mode.
One of the main objectives of the project is to compare different transport modes with each other. Therefore, three alternatives are included for further research that are very similar, only the transportation mode between Lok Buntar and Sungai Puting is different. These alternatives are:
1.1, Conventional Barge transport from Lok Buntar 2.1, Hydraulic transport from Lok Buntar 3.1, Conveyor belt transport from Tatakan
Both alternatives for transhipment offshore are included for further research. This will be done with a simulation study. The main investigation will be the influence of a deep-sea terminal with stockpile on the transport costs.
A, Deep-sea transhipment by floating cranes B, Deep-sea transhipment by a terminal
From the alternatives described in chapter 5, six alternatives will be investigated in more detail. From chapter 8 till 10 the alternative between Lok Buntar and Sungai Puting are further analyse. In chapter 11 and 12 the two alternatives for transport between Sungai Puting and deep-sea are further analysed.
In table 6.1 all alternatives are summarized and the chosen alternatives are highlighted. In the last column the reference is given to the chapter at which the alternative is further investigated. Alternative 1.1 without Tatakan stockpile will be used as zero situation. This is done because the adjustments of the current transport system to this system are relative small and at the time this report is finished this situation is probable already implemented. Finally it will provide a good comparison with the other alternatives.
The six alternative which are investigated in more detail are:
Barge transport between Lok Buntar and Sungai Puting. With floating cranes at deep-sea. Barge transport between Lok Buntar and Sungai Puting. Including a deep-sea terminal. Hydraulic transport between Lok Buntar and Sungai Puting. With floating cranes at deep-sea. Hydraulic transport between Lok Buntar and Sungai Puting. Including a deep-sea terminal. Conveyor belt transport between Lok Buntar and Sungai Puting. With floating cranes at deep-sea. Conveyor belt transport between Tatakan and Sungai Puting. Including deep-sea terminal.
Page 66 of 196 Chair of Ports & Waterways The simulation model
7 THE SIMULATION MODEL
A transport system with tugboats and barges is complex, because a lot of different parameters determine the efficiency of the transport system. Modelling a complex transport system like the one in South Kalimantan is difficult or even impossible with an analytical approach. Therefore a simulation model is written to get grip on this complex transport system.
In this chapter the simulation model is described according to 9 paragraphs
Program description (paragraph 7.1) Model structure (paragraph 7.2) Validation and verification (paragraph 7.3) Input parameters (paragraph 7.4) Information processing (paragraph 7.5) Costs calculation according to the model (paragraph 7.6) Finding the optimal barge transport configuration (paragraph 7.7) Schematisation of barge cycles (paragraph 7.8) Mathematical analysis of barge cycles (paragraph 7.9)
7.1 PROGRAM DESCRIPTION
A simulation model is a computer program that attempts to simulate a particular system and is useful to get insight into long-term processes. The simulation model for this transport system is written in Matlab and is a so called event-based model. This means that the model is in essence a sequence of events, which are programmed to be linked to each other. Linking the different events, which play a role in a particular simulation, is the intelligent part of the program. An event in the simulation is a task, which has to be executed by the simulation program. An event is an code of four figures, which represent a certain job. The four different figures represent the following.
The time at which the job has to be executed The class where it belongs to. This can be a berth, barge or special event The ID of a barge, berth, or special event. The job, that the barge, berth, or special event have to execute
With these four figures al the events can be coded and sorted at time. For instance a barge which arrives at the Lok Buntar loading terminal to be loaded leads to the following sequence of events.
Barge arrives at the terminal. Check if one of the berths is available. If one of the berths is available sign in at that particular berth. Check if enough coal is available at the stockpile. Check capacity of the barge and determine the loading time. Sign off at the berth when the barge is loaded. Check if another barge is in the queue to be loaded.
You could say that a simulation model exactly repeats the same events as in real life, but then much faster. The parameters in the model can easily be changed and consequences can be measured. This information can be used to design an optimal transport system.
The simulation model is written in Matlab. Matlab is used because it is a very general programming language, which is used around the world for all different kind of modulations. The knowledge about this language is very useful to solve all kinds of engineering problems.
December 2011 Page 67 of 196 FEASIBLITY STUDY COAL TRANSPORT KALIMANTAN
7.2 MODEL STRUCTURE
The program structure is a structure of linked events which play a role in the simulation. The structure gives an overview of the different events and how they are linked together. Three different program structures are made for the simulation model between Lok Buntar and Sungai Puting.
The program structure for 180ft barges between Lok Buntar and Sungai Puting (figure 7.1) The program structure for 390ft barges between Sungai Puting and Deep-sea (figure 7.2) The program structure for coal carriers at deep-sea (figure 7.3)
Page 68 of 196 Chair of Ports & Waterways The simulation model
Sungai Putting Lok Buntar unloading berths loading berths
Sign in at the queue at Check availability of Start sailing to the Stop loading coal Sungai Puting the unloading berths Sungai Puting The capacity of the Time step barges is determined When berth become available by the waterlevel check if queue is occupied Start loading coal from stockpile
Sign in at one of the When stockpile is berths at S. Puting empty, check again when stockpile is probably sufficient in height.
Check stockpilelevel Check stockpilelevel at Sungai Puting
When stockpile is empty, check again when stockpile is probably sufficient in Sign in at one of the height. berths at Lok Buntar
Start unloading coal from barge When berth become available check if queue is occupied Time step
Start sailing to Lok Check availability of Sign in at the queue at Stop unloading coal Buntar the loading berths Lok Buntar
180ft barges entrance the model
FIGURE 7.1 STRUCTURE OF THE SIMULATION MODEL FOR 180FT BARGES BETWEEN LOK BUNTAR AND SUNGAI PUTING
December 2011 Page 69 of 196 FEASIBLITY STUDY COAL TRANSPORT KALIMANTAN
Page 70 of 196 Chair of Ports & Waterways The simulation model
When passage is possible again, check if queue is occupied
Deep sea Sungai Putting Floating market unloading berths loading berths
Sign in at queue in front of floating market
Sign in at the queue Check availability of Check availability of Sail further to Check passage at Start sailing to Stop loading coal offshore vessel at anchorage near-shore order Banjarmasin floating market Marabahan
Time step When vessel become available check if Start loading coal from queue is occupied stockpile
When stockpile is empty, check again Check if waves are not when stockpile is too high for mooring probably sufficient in height.
When waveheight become Check stockpilelevel below threshold start loading
Sign in at one of the Start unloading coal berths at Sungai from barge Puting
When rain started during When berth become transshipment, include delay available check if queue is occupied Time step
Start sailing to the Check passage at Sail further to Sungai Check availability of Sign in at the queue at Stop unloading coal Banjarmasin floating market Puting the loading berths Sungai Puting
Sign in at queue in front of floating market
When passage is possible again, check 390ft barges if queue is occupied entrance the model
FIGURE 7.2 STRUCTURE OF THE SIMULATION MODEL FOR 390FT BARGES BETWEEN SUNGAI PUTING AND DEEP-SEA
December 2011 Page 71 of 196 FEASIBLITY STUDY COAL TRANSPORT KALIMANTAN
Page 72 of 196 Chair of Ports & Waterways The simulation model
Deep sea loading berths
Coal carriers Seagoing vessel Check if seagoing Stop loading coal from leaving the model leaves the model vessel is full barge
When rain started during Time step transshipment, include delay
Start loading coal from the barge
When waveheight become below threshold start loading
Check if waves are not too high for mooring
Check available barges in queue
When floating crane becomes available move vessel to anchorage
Check if floating crane Sign in at the is available anchorage
Coal carriers Create seagoing Determine self-loading entrance the model vessel randomly or not
FIGURE 7.3 STRCTURE OF THE SIMULATION MODEL FOR COAL CARRIERS AT DEEP-SEA
December 2011 Page 73 of 196 FEASIBLITY STUDY COAL TRANSPORT KALIMANTAN
7.3 VERIFICATION AND VALIDATION OF THE MODEL
Before the results of the simulation model are used, the model first has to verified. Verification is a quality control process that is used to evaluate whether the simulation model complies with regulations, specifications, or conditions imposed at the start of a development phase. This is often an internal process [26]
Verification of the simulation model is done according to the eventlist. The eventlist is a list where all the events are displayed, and where the whole program is based on. The eventlist is updated and sorted, after every event is finished. After an event is carried out, the event is deleted form the eventlist and the next event is ready to be carried out.
Another list is made in which all the events and parameters are saved, after they are carried out. This list is called the figlist, with all figures saved from the simulation. In this way, a list is created where all the events can be read after the simulation is finished. From this list the sequence of different events can be checked. When the simulation is correct, the figlist should consist of exactly the same sequence of events as the program structure in figure 7.3 till figure 7.1.
With the figlist a good verification of the simulation model can be performed. For further verification of the events, all different events are checked. Every event is a task on their own and carries out changes in the properties of the elements in the transport system. To verify these events, the figlist is extended with the most important properties of the elements. These are for instance the number of barges at a certain terminal and the location of a certain barge. With this information about the properties the events can be verified as well.
When the simulation model is verified, the result should be validated. Validation of the simulation model is done according to the results of the simulation. The results of the simulation model can be visualized in graphs and tables. The graphs and tables show if the simulation model produces consistent, reasonable and correct outcomes. The results are described in the next paragraphs.
Validations have to be done with figures from real life. Since the transport system is not fully developed jet and the properties of the transport system are not measured jet, this is difficult to perform. A good validation is recommended for further research. This can be done when the loading and unloading berths and jetties are constructed and a minimum of 5 million ton per year is transported.
7.4 INPUT PARAMETERS SIMULATION MODEL
Before the simulation model is used, the input parameters have to be chosen. The input parameters are important, because the accuracy of the input parameters determine for a large part the accuracy of the outcome. Two different kinds of input parameters can be defined.
The parameters which are fixed and don’t change over different runs. The parameter which are not fixed and are part of the optimisation study.
7.4.1 FIXED INPUT PARAMETERS
The fixed parameters are part of the boundary conditions of the simulation model. These parameters can be changed by the user of the model, but are not part of the optimisation. Therefor they are assumed to be fixed for this optimisation study. The fixed input parameters are:
Working hours per year Sailing speed of the 180ft and 390ft barges The limitation of capacity, because of limited water depth at the Sungai Mati Delay because of the floating market near Marabahan Weather delay due to rain and waves Inter arrival time of the coal carrier at deep sea The size and death weight tonnage of the coal carriers
Page 74 of 196 Chair of Ports & Waterways The simulation model
The working hours per year are determined together with BSS. A total number of 7,000 operational hours are implemented into the simulation model. The amount of working days and working hour are given in table 7.1.
Number of working days per year 350 days/year Number of working hours a day 20 hours/ day Number of working hours per year 7,000 hours/year TABLE 7.1 NUMBER OF WORKING HOURS PER YEAR
The speed of the 180ft barges is collected from a former study done by W+B in 2010. The speed of the 390ft barges is determined from the average sailing time between Sungai Puting and deep-sea.
Barge Mean speed full Mean speed Standard dev. Min. sailing Max. sailing empty speed within 95% speed within 95% 180ft 7.0 km/hr 9.0 km/hr 0.50 km/hr 6.0 km/hr 10.0 km/hr 390ft 5.5 km/hr 6.0 km/hr 0.35 km/hr 4.8 km/hr 6.7 km/hr TABLE 7.2 INPUT PARAMETERS FOR BARGE SPEED OF THE 180FT AND 390FT BARGES
Two delay mechanisms are included into the simulation mode. The fists delay in the transport route can occur near the village of Marabahan, where a floating market blocking the river for two hours a day. The second delay can occur at deep sea. The barges can be delayed at deep-sea by high waves or by rain. Waves higher than 2 meters prevent the barges to moor besides the floating cranes. Heavy rain delays the loading operation at deep- sea. The two weather delays together are responsible for a delay of 10% of the time. The average duration is 10 hours.
Delays Percentage of the time Mean duration Standard deviation Floating market 10% 2 hours a day 0 hours Weather delay offshore 10% 10 hours 2 hours TABLE 7.3 INPUT PARAMETERS FOR DELAYS
The water level at the Sungai Mati and Sungai Puting is not constant in time, as described in paragraph 3.3.1. In the dry season the water level decreases, and the barges have to reduce their load. The dry season has an average duration of four months, but not much information is known about the water lever in this period. A decrease in capacity of the 180ft barges happened once this year. In the years before, the barge transport system for 180ft barges was not fully developed jet.
The only time the capacity of the 180ft barges had to be decreased this year was for a duration of 3 months. The capacity of the barges had to be decreased with a maximum of 30% of the total capacity. It is decided to simulate a governing situation in which the barges have to reduce the load to a maximal of 50% for a duration of 3 months. The limitation in capacity is shown in figure 7.4.
1.2
1.1
1
] - 0.9
0.8
0.7
Capacity factor [ factor Capacity Capacity factor 0.6
0.5
0.4 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Months [jan- dec]
FIGURE 7.4 GRAPH OF THE CAPACITY DECREASE OVEN A YEAR
December 2011 Page 75 of 196 FEASIBLITY STUDY COAL TRANSPORT KALIMANTAN
The size of the sea-going coal carriers are determined together with BSS. The average death weight tonnage of the coal carriers is 58.000 T. The distribution of the death weight tonnage is as follows:
25% of the coal carriers is Hand-size 70% of the coal carriers is Panamax 5% of the coal carriers is Cape-size
-5 x 10 PDF Vesselsize 4.5
4
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5 Probability of occurence
1
0.5
0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Vesselsize[T] 4 x 10 FIGURE 7.5 PROBABILITY DENSITY FUNCTION OF DEATH WEIGHT TONNAGE OF THE COAL CARRIERS
The inter arrival time of the coal carriers is direct related to the throughput capacity of the transport system. If the throughput capacity increases the inter arrival time decreases.
Year Throughput [T/yr] Throughput [T/day] Average Average vessel size Inter arrival time 2013 5.000.000 14285.71 58.000T 4.06 days 2015 10.000.000 28571.43 58.000T 2.03 days 2017 15.000.000 42857.14 58.000T 1.35 days
Page 76 of 196 Chair of Ports & Waterways The simulation model
Variable input parameters The variable input parameters are the input parameters which are included into the optimisation study. These parameters mainly determine the efficiency of the transport system. The variable input parameters function as the main design parameters of the system, while the fixed input parameters function more as the boundary conditions of the transport system.
The five variable input parameters are
The number and effective loading capacity of the berths at Lok Buntar The number and effective unloading capacity of the berths at Sungai Puting. Number of 180ft and 390ft barges. The stockpile height at Lok Buntar, Sungai Puting and deep-sea. The number and effective unloading capacity of the berths at deep-sea
Two different kind of barges are in use in the transport system. 180ft barges between Lok Buntar and Sungai Puting and 390ft barges between Sungai Puting and deep-sea. One of the objectives of the optimisation study is to determine the amount of barges required to transport the required throughput. A maximum amount of 25 barges is included into the barge cycle between Lok Buntar and Sungai Puting, because more barges are certainly not efficient anymore. A maximum of 35 barges are included into the barge cycle between Sungai Puting and deep-sea, because in this cycle more barges are required to wait at the anchorage for the seagoing coal carriers.
Barges Minimum number of barges Maximum number of barges 180ft barges 5 25 390ft barges 5 35 TABLE 7.4 THE RANGE OF NUMBER OF BARGES
Four different terminals can be distinguished. The loading terminal for 180ft barges at Lok Buntar, the unloading terminal for 180ft barges at Sungai Puting, the loading terminal for 390ft barges also at Sungai Puting and the unloading terminal for 390ft barges at deep-sea. The ranges of the optimisation are given in table 7.4 and table 7.5.
Terminal Min. number of Max. number of Min. loading Max. loading berths berths capacity per berth capacity per berth LB loading terminal 1 berth 4 berths 500 T/hr 2000 T/hr SP unloading terminal 1 berth 4 berths 500 T/hr 2000 T/hr SP loading terminal 1 berth 3 berths 500 T/hr 1200 T/hr DS unloading terminal 1 berth 3 berths 500 T/hr 1200 T/hr TABLE 7.5 THE RANGE OF NUMBER OF BERTHS AT THE TERMINALS
7.5 INFORMATION PROCESSING
In the first paragraphs of this chapter the structure of the simulation model is described. The simulation model is in essence a sequence of events programmed to be linked to each other. The model updates the properties of different elements in the transport system after every event. To get useful information out of the simulation model, these properties have to be saved during the simulation.
With the information of changing properties over time, the results of the simulation can be plotted and average values about waiting time, berth efficiency and stockpile height can be calculated. From the results of the simulation model also the validation of the program is performed.
December 2011 Page 77 of 196 FEASIBLITY STUDY COAL TRANSPORT KALIMANTAN
The results of the simulation model are described according to a number of plots.
The relative stockpile growth. The occupancy of the terminal. The percentage of time the terminal is operational. The percentage of time of the barges are operational. The percentage of time the barges are sailing.
7.5.1 THE RELATIVE STOCKPILE GROWTH
The most valuable result of the simulation model is the required number of barges to transport a certain annual throughput. The number of barges determines partly the capacity of the transport system. When the terminals have more overcapacity, less barges are required for transportation. The capacity of the terminal is defined as the number of berths times the effective loading capacity per berth. The relative loading capacity is defined as the absolute loading capacity divided by the throughput of the transport system. The relative capacity of the terminal determines the overcapacity of the terminal.
To define the required number of barges, which is enough to guarantee a stable transport system, the stockpile should not increase in time. The stockpile should also not decrease too much, because this would lead to an empty stockpile and large waiting queues in front of the terminal.
To visualize this principle, the number of barges is plotted against the relative capacity of the terminal. In the plot the relative growth of the stockpile is visualized. The relative growth of the stockpile is determined as a percentage of the total throughput that the stockpile has increased or decreased in time. When the percentage is negative the stockpile has been decreased, if the number is positive the stockpile has been increased.
The transport system can only be stable when the stockpile height stays equal or decreases in time. When the relative growth of the stockpile is positive, the transport capacity of the barges, or the relative loading capacity of the terminal is too low to guarantee a stable transport system. In the plot at figure 7.6 a cell is coloured green in case the stockpile is stable and coloured red is case the stockpile is not stable.
In figure 7.7 the required number of barges are plotted against the loading capacity of the Lok Buntar terminal. When the overcapacity of the terminal increases, the required number of barges decrease.
30 9.5% 7.8% 6.1% 4.3% 2.4% 0.5% -1.5% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% 29 9.5% 7.8% 6.1% 4.3% 2.4% 0.5% -1.6% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% 28 9.5% 7.8% 6.1% 4.3% 2.4% 0.5% -1.5% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% 27 9.5% 7.8% 6.1% 4.3% 2.4% 0.5% -1.5% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% 26 9.5% 7.8% 6.1% 4.3% 2.5% 0.5% -1.4% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% 25 9.5% 7.8% 6.1% 4.4% 2.5% 0.6% -1.4% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% 24 9.5% 7.9% 6.2% 4.4% 2.6% 0.7% -1.2% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% 23 9.6% 8.0% 6.3% 4.6% 2.7% 0.9% -1.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% 22 9.8% 8.2% 6.5% 4.8% 3.0% 1.2% -0.8% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% 21 10.0% 8.4% 6.7% 5.0% 3.3% 1.5% -0.4% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% 20 10.3% 8.7% 7.1% 5.4% 3.7% 1.9% 0.0% -1.9% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% 19 10.6% 9.1% 7.5% 5.8% 4.1% 2.4% 0.6% -1.4% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0%
Number of barges operational [#] operational of barges Number 18 11.1% 9.6% 8.1% 6.4% 4.8% 3.0% 1.3% -0.5% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% 17 11.9% 10.4% 8.9% 7.4% 5.9% 4.5% 3.1% 1.7% 0.2% -0.9% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% 16 13.1% 11.9% 10.8% 9.7% 8.5% 7.5% 6.5% 5.5% 4.5% 3.5% 2.6% 1.8% 0.8% -0.2% -1.0% -1.9% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% 15 15.9% 15.1% 14.3% 13.5% 12.7% 11.9% 11.3% 10.5% 9.6% 8.9% 8.1% 7.4% 6.6% 5.6% 4.9% 4.2% 3.2% 2.4% 1.6% 0.8% -0.1%
Abs. Loading
714 729 744 760 776 794 812 831 850 871 893 916 940 965 992
1050 1082 1116 1152 1190 capacity [T/hr] 1020
Rel. loading
102% 104% 106% 109% 111% 114% 116% 119% 122% 125% 128% 132% 135% 139% 143% 147% 152% 156% 161% 167% capacity [-] 100%
Berth
98% 96% 94% 92% 90% 88% 86% 84% 82% 80% 78% 76% 74% 72% 70% 68% 66% 64% 62% 60% occupation [-] 100% FIGURE 7.6 RELATIVE STOCKPILE GROWTH AT LOK BUNTAR
Page 78 of 196 Chair of Ports & Waterways The simulation model
22
21 Required number of… 20
19
18
17
16 Required number of barges [#] barges of number Required 15
14 700 750 800 850 900 950 1000 1050 1100 1150 1200 1250 1300 1350 1400 Loading capacity per berth [T/hr]
FIGURE 7.7 REQUIRED NUMBER OF BARGES
With a sensitivity test the accuracy of the relative stockpile growth can be calculated. From data analysis the standard deviation of the normalized relative stockpile height can be determined. Per definition more than 95% of the runs is inside two times the standard deviation. In the area which is within the range of two times the standard deviation from the outcome of the simulation study it is not completely certain within 95%, if the transport system is stable or not. An example of the normalized relative stockpile growth is given in figure 7.8.
14 13 12 11 Real runs 10 Normalisation 9 8 7 6 5
Percentage runs [%] [%] runs Percentage 4 3 2 1 0
Relative stockpile height at Lok Buntar [-]
FIGURE 7.8 EXAMPLE OF THE NORMALIZED RELATIVE STOCKPILE GROWTH
December 2011 Page 79 of 196 FEASIBLITY STUDY COAL TRANSPORT KALIMANTAN
7.5.2 THE EFFICIENCY OF THE TERMINALS AT LOK BUNTAR AND SUNGAI PUTING
Two definitions are possible concerning the efficiency of the terminals. The two definitions are:
The percentage of time the berth is occupied and a barge is moored along the berth. The percentage of time the berth is operational and a barge is being loaded or unloaded.
Two plots have been created by the simulation model to visualize the difference between the two definitions. When the efficiency of the terminal is relative high, the difference between the two definitions becomes clear. In this area the stockpile decreases in time and the probability of an empty stockpile increases. When the stockpile is empty the berths are occupied by barges, while the berths are not operating. The difference in the remaining graph is caused by the time it takes to moor and unmoor the barges.
30 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 29 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 28 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 27 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 26 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 99% 99% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 25 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 99% 99% 99% 99% 99% 99% 99% 99% 99% 100% 24 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 99% 99% 99% 99% 99% 99% 99% 99% 99% 99% 99% 99% 23 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 99% 99% 99% 99% 99% 99% 99% 99% 98% 98% 98% 98% 98% 98% 98% 22 100% 100% 99% 99% 99% 99% 99% 99% 99% 99% 99% 98% 98% 98% 98% 98% 98% 97% 97% 97% 97% 21 99% 99% 99% 99% 99% 99% 99% 99% 99% 98% 98% 98% 98% 98% 97% 97% 97% 97% 97% 96% 96% 20 99% 99% 99% 99% 99% 98% 98% 98% 98% 98% 98% 97% 97% 97% 97% 97% 96% 96% 96% 95% 95% 19 99% 99% 98% 98% 98% 98% 98% 98% 97% 97% 97% 97% 96% 96% 96% 96% 95% 95% 95% 94% 94%
Number of barges operational [#] operational of barges Number 18 98% 98% 98% 98% 97% 97% 97% 97% 96% 96% 96% 95% 95% 95% 94% 94% 93% 93% 93% 92% 92% 17 97% 97% 97% 97% 96% 96% 95% 95% 94% 93% 92% 92% 92% 91% 91% 91% 90% 90% 90% 89% 89% 16 96% 95% 95% 94% 94% 93% 92% 91% 90% 89% 88% 87% 86% 84% 83% 82% 82% 82% 82% 82% 83% 15 93% 92% 91% 90% 89% 88% 87% 86% 85% 84% 83% 82% 81% 79% 78% 77% 76% 74% 73% 72% 70%
Abs. Loading
714 729 744 760 776 794 812 831 850 871 893 916 940 965 992
1050 1082 1116 1152 1190 capacity [T/hr] 1020
Rel. loading
102% 104% 106% 109% 111% 114% 116% 119% 122% 125% 128% 132% 135% 139% 143% 147% 152% 156% 161% 167% capacity [-] 100%
Berth
98% 96% 94% 92% 90% 88% 86% 84% 82% 80% 78% 76% 74% 72% 70% 68% 66% 64% 62% 60% occupation [-] 100% FIGURE 7.9 THE PERCENTAGE OF TIME THE LOK BUNTAR TERMINAL IS OCCUPIED BY A BARGE
In figure 7.9 the occupation of the terminal at Lok Buntar is shown. The efficiency of the terminal increases when the amount of barges increases or when the relative capacity of the terminal decreases. Both phenomena are a logical consequence of the transport system.
30 90.5% 90.3% 90.1% 89.9% 89.8% 89.6% 89.3% 87.7% 85.6% 83.6% 81.6% 79.5% 77.5% 75.5% 73.4% 71.4% 69.3% 67.3% 65.3% 63.2% 61.2% 29 90.5% 90.3% 90.1% 89.9% 89.8% 89.5% 89.3% 87.7% 85.6% 83.6% 81.6% 79.5% 77.5% 75.5% 73.4% 71.4% 69.3% 67.3% 65.3% 63.2% 61.2% 28 90.5% 90.3% 90.1% 89.9% 89.7% 89.5% 89.3% 87.7% 85.6% 83.6% 81.6% 79.5% 77.5% 75.5% 73.4% 71.4% 69.3% 67.3% 65.3% 63.2% 61.2% 27 90.5% 90.3% 90.1% 89.9% 89.7% 89.5% 89.3% 87.7% 85.6% 83.6% 81.6% 79.5% 77.5% 75.5% 73.4% 71.4% 69.3% 67.3% 65.3% 63.2% 61.2% 26 90.5% 90.3% 90.1% 89.9% 89.7% 89.5% 89.3% 87.7% 85.6% 83.6% 81.6% 79.5% 77.5% 75.5% 73.4% 71.4% 69.3% 67.3% 65.3% 63.2% 61.2% 25 90.5% 90.3% 90.1% 89.9% 89.7% 89.4% 89.2% 87.7% 85.6% 83.6% 81.6% 79.5% 77.5% 75.5% 73.4% 71.4% 69.3% 67.3% 65.3% 63.2% 61.2% 24 90.4% 90.2% 90.0% 89.8% 89.6% 89.3% 89.1% 87.7% 85.6% 83.6% 81.6% 79.5% 77.5% 75.5% 73.4% 71.4% 69.3% 67.3% 65.3% 63.2% 61.2% 23 90.3% 90.1% 89.9% 89.7% 89.4% 89.2% 88.9% 87.7% 85.6% 83.6% 81.6% 79.5% 77.5% 75.5% 73.4% 71.4% 69.3% 67.3% 65.3% 63.2% 61.2% 22 90.2% 90.0% 89.7% 89.5% 89.2% 88.9% 88.6% 87.7% 85.6% 83.6% 81.6% 79.5% 77.5% 75.5% 73.4% 71.4% 69.3% 67.3% 65.3% 63.2% 61.2% 21 90.0% 89.7% 89.5% 89.2% 88.9% 88.7% 88.4% 87.7% 85.6% 83.6% 81.6% 79.5% 77.5% 75.5% 73.4% 71.4% 69.3% 67.3% 65.3% 63.2% 61.2% 20 89.7% 89.4% 89.2% 88.9% 88.6% 88.3% 88.0% 87.6% 85.6% 83.6% 81.6% 79.5% 77.5% 75.5% 73.4% 71.4% 69.3% 67.3% 65.3% 63.2% 61.2% 19 89.3% 89.1% 88.8% 88.5% 88.2% 87.8% 87.4% 87.1% 85.6% 83.6% 81.6% 79.5% 77.5% 75.5% 73.4% 71.4% 69.3% 67.3% 65.3% 63.2% 61.2%
Number of barges operational [#] operational of barges Number 18 88.8% 88.5% 88.2% 88.0% 87.6% 87.3% 86.8% 86.4% 85.6% 83.6% 81.6% 79.5% 77.5% 75.5% 73.4% 71.4% 69.3% 67.3% 65.3% 63.2% 61.2% 17 88.1% 87.7% 87.4% 87.0% 86.5% 85.9% 85.2% 84.6% 83.8% 82.7% 81.6% 79.5% 77.5% 75.5% 73.4% 71.4% 69.3% 67.3% 65.3% 63.2% 61.2% 16 86.8% 86.3% 85.6% 84.9% 84.1% 83.2% 82.3% 81.3% 80.2% 79.1% 77.9% 76.6% 75.4% 74.1% 72.7% 71.3% 69.3% 67.3% 65.3% 63.2% 61.2% 15 84.1% 83.2% 82.2% 81.3% 80.3% 79.3% 78.1% 77.0% 75.9% 74.7% 73.5% 72.2% 71.0% 69.8% 68.4% 67.1% 65.8% 64.4% 63.0% 61.5% 60.1%
Abs. Loading
714 729 744 760 776 794 812 831 850 871 893 916 940 965 992
1050 1082 1116 1152 1190 capacity [T/hr] 1020
Rel. loading
102% 104% 106% 109% 111% 114% 116% 119% 122% 125% 128% 132% 135% 139% 143% 147% 152% 156% 161% 167% capacity [-] 100%
Berth
98% 96% 94% 92% 90% 88% 86% 84% 82% 80% 78% 76% 74% 72% 70% 68% 66% 64% 62% 60% occupation [-] 100% FIGURE 7.10 THE PERCENTAGE OF TIME THE LOK BUNTAR TERMINAL IS OPERATIONAL
In figure 7.10 the line at which the stockpile height is stable can be recognized easily. At this line the percentage of time the terminal is operational, is equal or to the occupancy of the terminal. This phenomenon can be seen as one of the verifications of the simulation model, since the percentage of time the berth are loading is per definition equal to the occupancy of the berth.
Page 80 of 196 Chair of Ports & Waterways The simulation model
The time the berths are operational is important to determine the variable terminal costs. The variable costs are for instance the costs for power supply and variable maintenance. The difference between the occupation and the percentage of time the berths are operational is presented in figure 7.11.
100.0%
95.0%
]
- 90.0%
85.0%
80.0%
75.0% Occupation of the berths
Percentage of time [ time of Percentage 70.0% Percentage of time the 65.0% terminals operational 60.0% 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 Required number of barges [#]
FIGURE 7.11 REQUIRED NUMBER OF BARGES AGAINST THE BERTH OCCUPATION
7.5.3 THE EFFICIENCY OF THE BARGES
Two definitions concerning the efficiency of the barges can be defined. The two definitions are:
The occupancy of the barges. (percentage of time the barges are sailing, being loaded and unloaded) The percentage of time the barges are sailing
The difference between the two definitions is the time the barges are being loaded and unloaded. The occupancy of the barges is defined as the percentage of time the barges are contributing to the transportation of coal. This is the time the barges are being loaded, being unloaded or sailing between Lok Buntar and Sungai Puting. The remaining time, the barges are in a queue in front of Lok Buntar and Sungai Puting.
The occupation of the barges is important because it determines partly the efficiency of the whole transport system. The efficiency of the barges decreases, when more barges are operational. The occupation of the barges is presented in figure 7.12.
30 52.2% 52.7% 53.3% 54.0% 54.7% 55.3% 56.0% 56.0% 55.7% 55.4% 55.1% 54.8% 54.5% 54.1% 53.6% 53.2% 52.8% 52.4% 52.0% 51.6% 51.2% 29 53.9% 54.5% 55.1% 55.8% 56.4% 57.2% 57.9% 57.8% 57.6% 57.3% 57.0% 56.7% 56.4% 56.0% 55.5% 55.1% 54.6% 54.1% 53.8% 53.4% 52.9% 28 55.8% 56.5% 57.1% 57.8% 58.5% 59.1% 59.9% 59.9% 59.6% 59.3% 59.0% 58.7% 58.4% 57.9% 57.5% 57.0% 56.6% 56.1% 55.7% 55.3% 54.8% 27 57.8% 58.5% 59.2% 59.9% 60.6% 61.4% 62.2% 62.1% 61.8% 61.5% 61.2% 60.9% 60.5% 60.1% 59.7% 59.1% 58.7% 58.2% 57.7% 57.3% 56.8% 26 60.1% 60.8% 61.4% 62.2% 62.9% 63.8% 64.5% 64.6% 64.1% 63.8% 63.5% 63.2% 62.7% 62.4% 62.0% 61.5% 60.9% 60.5% 59.9% 59.5% 59.1% 25 62.5% 63.2% 63.9% 64.5% 65.4% 66.2% 67.0% 67.1% 66.6% 66.3% 66.0% 65.6% 65.3% 64.8% 64.3% 63.9% 63.3% 62.8% 62.4% 61.9% 61.4% 24 65.0% 65.8% 66.5% 67.2% 68.1% 68.8% 69.7% 69.8% 69.5% 69.1% 68.6% 68.3% 67.9% 67.4% 67.0% 66.5% 66.0% 65.5% 64.9% 64.4% 64.0% 23 67.7% 68.5% 69.2% 70.0% 70.8% 71.7% 72.4% 72.8% 72.3% 71.9% 71.5% 71.1% 70.7% 70.2% 69.8% 69.2% 68.8% 68.3% 67.7% 67.2% 66.7% 22 70.7% 71.4% 72.2% 72.9% 73.9% 74.7% 75.6% 75.9% 75.5% 75.1% 74.6% 74.1% 73.8% 73.2% 72.7% 72.3% 71.9% 71.3% 70.8% 70.2% 69.7% 21 73.8% 74.6% 75.3% 76.2% 77.0% 77.8% 78.6% 79.4% 79.0% 78.5% 78.0% 77.6% 77.0% 76.5% 76.1% 75.5% 75.1% 74.6% 74.0% 73.5% 72.9% 20 77.2% 78.1% 78.7% 79.5% 80.4% 81.3% 82.2% 83.1% 82.7% 82.3% 81.7% 81.3% 80.7% 80.2% 79.7% 79.1% 78.6% 78.0% 77.6% 76.8% 76.4% 19 80.8% 81.6% 82.4% 83.3% 84.0% 85.0% 85.9% 86.9% 86.9% 86.2% 85.9% 85.3% 84.9% 84.2% 83.7% 83.1% 82.5% 81.9% 81.4% 80.8% 80.1%
Number Number of barges[#] operational 18 84.7% 85.5% 86.4% 87.2% 88.0% 88.9% 89.9% 90.8% 91.5% 90.9% 90.4% 89.8% 89.3% 88.6% 88.1% 87.5% 86.9% 86.2% 85.6% 85.0% 84.4% 17 88.9% 89.6% 90.5% 91.2% 92.0% 92.8% 93.5% 94.2% 94.8% 95.3% 95.7% 95.0% 94.3% 93.7% 93.1% 92.4% 91.8% 91.2% 90.4% 89.8% 89.1% 16 92.9% 93.6% 94.2% 94.8% 95.2% 95.6% 96.0% 96.5% 96.8% 97.1% 97.3% 97.4% 97.6% 97.9% 98.0% 98.1% 97.5% 96.8% 96.1% 95.3% 94.6% 15 96.1% 96.5% 96.8% 97.1% 97.2% 97.4% 97.5% 97.7% 97.8% 98.1% 98.1% 98.2% 98.4% 98.5% 98.5% 98.6% 98.8% 98.7% 98.8% 98.8% 99.0%
Abs. Loading
714 729 744 760 776 794 812 831 850 871 893 916 940 965 992
1050 1082 1116 1152 1190 capacity [T/hr] 1020
Rel. loading
102% 104% 106% 109% 111% 114% 116% 119% 122% 125% 128% 132% 135% 139% 143% 147% 152% 156% 161% 167% capacity [-] 100%
Berth
98% 96% 94% 92% 90% 88% 86% 84% 82% 80% 78% 76% 74% 72% 70% 68% 66% 64% 62% 60% occupation [-] 100% FIGURE 7.12 THE OCCUPANCY OF THE 180FT BARGES BETWEEN LOK BUNTAR AND SUNGAI PUTING
December 2011 Page 81 of 196 FEASIBLITY STUDY COAL TRANSPORT KALIMANTAN
In figure 7.13 the percentage of time the barges are sailing is presented. The difference between this plot and the plot with the occupancy of the barges is the time the barges are loaded and unloaded. It is interesting to see that when the loading and unloading time increases the relative sailing time decreases.
The sailing time of the barges are essential to determine the costs for the barges. The costs can be divided in the fixed costs and variable costs of the barges. The fixed costs are applicable for every barge at any time. The variable costs are only applicable when the barges are sailing between Lok Buntar and Sungai Puting. At that moment the barges consume most of the power and the maintenance for the engines increases as well.
30 34.1% 34.7% 35.3% 36.0% 36.7% 37.4% 38.1% 38.5% 38.6% 38.7% 38.8% 38.9% 39.0% 39.0% 39.0% 39.0% 38.9% 38.9% 38.9% 38.9% 38.9% 29 35.2% 35.8% 36.5% 37.2% 37.9% 38.7% 39.4% 39.7% 39.9% 40.0% 40.1% 40.2% 40.4% 40.4% 40.3% 40.3% 40.3% 40.2% 40.3% 40.3% 40.3% 28 36.5% 37.2% 37.8% 38.5% 39.3% 40.0% 40.8% 41.1% 41.3% 41.4% 41.5% 41.7% 41.8% 41.8% 41.8% 41.8% 41.7% 41.7% 41.7% 41.7% 41.7% 27 37.8% 38.5% 39.2% 39.9% 40.7% 41.5% 42.3% 42.6% 42.8% 42.9% 43.1% 43.2% 43.3% 43.3% 43.4% 43.2% 43.3% 43.3% 43.2% 43.3% 43.2% 26 39.2% 40.0% 40.7% 41.5% 42.2% 43.1% 44.0% 44.3% 44.3% 44.6% 44.7% 44.8% 44.8% 45.0% 45.0% 45.0% 45.0% 45.0% 44.9% 44.9% 45.0% 25 40.8% 41.5% 42.3% 43.0% 43.9% 44.7% 45.6% 46.1% 46.1% 46.2% 46.4% 46.5% 46.7% 46.7% 46.7% 46.8% 46.7% 46.7% 46.8% 46.7% 46.8% 24 42.4% 43.2% 44.0% 44.8% 45.7% 46.5% 47.5% 47.9% 48.1% 48.2% 48.2% 48.4% 48.5% 48.6% 48.7% 48.7% 48.7% 48.7% 48.6% 48.6% 48.7% 23 44.2% 45.0% 45.8% 46.6% 47.5% 48.5% 49.3% 49.9% 50.0% 50.2% 50.2% 50.3% 50.5% 50.5% 50.6% 50.6% 50.7% 50.8% 50.7% 50.7% 50.8% 22 46.1% 46.9% 47.8% 48.5% 49.6% 50.5% 51.4% 52.0% 52.2% 52.3% 52.4% 52.4% 52.7% 52.7% 52.7% 52.8% 53.1% 53.0% 53.0% 53.0% 53.0% 21 48.2% 49.0% 49.8% 50.8% 51.6% 52.5% 53.4% 54.4% 54.5% 54.6% 54.7% 54.9% 54.9% 55.0% 55.1% 55.1% 55.3% 55.4% 55.3% 55.4% 55.4% 20 50.3% 51.3% 52.0% 52.9% 53.8% 54.8% 55.8% 56.9% 57.1% 57.2% 57.3% 57.5% 57.5% 57.6% 57.7% 57.7% 57.8% 57.8% 58.0% 57.9% 58.0% 19 52.6% 53.5% 54.4% 55.4% 56.2% 57.3% 58.4% 59.4% 59.9% 59.9% 60.1% 60.2% 60.4% 60.4% 60.5% 60.6% 60.6% 60.7% 60.8% 60.8% 60.8%
Number Number of barges[#] operational 18 55.1% 56.0% 57.0% 57.9% 58.8% 59.9% 61.0% 62.0% 63.0% 63.1% 63.3% 63.3% 63.4% 63.5% 63.6% 63.8% 63.8% 63.8% 63.9% 63.9% 64.1% 17 57.8% 58.7% 59.7% 60.6% 61.5% 62.5% 63.4% 64.4% 65.2% 66.2% 66.9% 67.0% 67.0% 67.1% 67.2% 67.3% 67.3% 67.5% 67.4% 67.5% 67.5% 16 60.3% 61.3% 62.2% 63.0% 63.7% 64.5% 65.2% 66.0% 66.7% 67.4% 68.1% 68.7% 69.4% 70.1% 70.8% 71.4% 71.5% 71.6% 71.7% 71.6% 71.7% 15 62.6% 63.3% 64.0% 64.6% 65.1% 65.7% 66.3% 67.0% 67.5% 68.2% 68.7% 69.3% 70.0% 70.6% 71.1% 71.8% 72.5% 73.0% 73.6% 74.2% 75.0%
Abs. Loading
714 729 744 760 776 794 812 831 850 871 893 916 940 965 992
1050 1082 1116 1152 1190 capacity [T/hr] 1020
Rel. loading
102% 104% 106% 109% 111% 114% 116% 119% 122% 125% 128% 132% 135% 139% 143% 147% 152% 156% 161% 167% capacity [-] 100%
Berth
98% 96% 94% 92% 90% 88% 86% 84% 82% 80% 78% 76% 74% 72% 70% 68% 66% 64% 62% 60% occupation [-] 100% FIGURE 7.13 PERCENTAGE OF TIME THE 180FT BARGES ARE SIALING BETWEEN LOK BUNTAR AND SUNGAI PUTING
In figure 7.14 the difference between the occupation of the barges and the percentage of time the barges are sailing is given. The graphs are made from the line at which the stockpile is just stable in time. It can be seen that when 15 barges are operational in the transport system, the barges only have to stay in a queue 1% of the time. However the occupation of the berths is than relative low with 60% and the loading capacity have to be relative high with 1190 T/hr.
100.0% Percentage of the time
90.0% the barges sailing
] Occupation of the - 80.0% barges
70.0%
60.0%
50.0% Percentage of time [ time of Percentage
40.0%
30.0% 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 Number of operational barges [#]
FIGURE 7.14 BARGE EFFICIENCY AND THE PERCENTAGE THE BARGES ARE SAILING
Page 82 of 196 Chair of Ports & Waterways The simulation model
7.6 COSTS CALCULATION ACCORDING TO THE MODEL
The total costs for barge transport between Lok Buntar and Sungai Puting are divided between the cost for the barges/tugs and the cost for the terminals. The costs for the barges are described in paragraph 7.6.1. The costs for the terminal are described in paragraph 7.6.2.
7.6.1 BARGE AND TUG COSTS
The barge costs can be divided into the fixed cost and the variable costs. The fixed costs are applicable the whole time the barges are operational and are mainly determined by the number of barges that are operational. The variable costs are only applicable when the barges are sailing between the terminals. The variable costs are mainly determined by the sailing time of the barges. In table 7.6 the different fixed and variable costs are defined.
Barge costs Fixed costs Variable costs Depreciation of the barges Power consumption Depreciation of the tug boats Variable maintenance and repair of the tugs Interest Variable maintenance and repair of the barges Inflation Fixed maintenance tugs Fixed maintenance barges 10% Overhead TABLE 7.6 SUMMARY OF BARGE COSTS
To calculate the depreciation of the barges and tug boats, the current value has to be known in South East Asia. A good approximation can be made according to the CIRIA guideline for dredging equipment. According to the CIRIA, the value of a tugboat can be estimated with the total installed power on board. The value of a barge can be estimated by the lightweight. The prices according to the CIRIA is the price, which have to be paid in West Europe. Therefore a factor of 0.7 is included for the costs of the tugs and barges in South East Asia.
The tugboats used between Lok Buntar and Sungai Puting have an installed power of two times 283 kW. The value for a tugboat in South East Asia is assumed to be €575,000.-. The total lightweight of an 180ft barge is 300T. The value of a 180ft barge with a capacity of 1,500T is estimated to be € 525,000.-. For the tugboats used between Sungai Puting and deep-sea an installed power of two times 600 kW is used. The value for a tugboat, used between Sungai Puting and deep-sea in is assumed to be €1,218,000.-. The total lightweight of an 390ft barge is 1,000T. The value of a 390ft barge with a capacity of 8,000T is estimated to be € 2,500,000.-.
The interest over the capital cost is determined to be 7% annually. This is the same percentage the CIRIA guideline includes in the costs for dredging equipment. The inflation is set on 0%. The inflation will not be 0%, but the revenue will probably increase or decrease with the same percentage. Costs for insurance, labour and management are included in the overhead of 10% per year.
The total maintenance costs of the barges is assumed to be 10% of the capital costs. The total maintenance costs can be divided into fixed maintenance and variable maintenance and repair. The variable maintenance and repair is assumed to be 60% of total maintenance. So the variable maintenance cost is assumed to be 6% of the capital costs. The fixed maintenance cost are assumed to be 4% of the capital costs.
The power consumption of the tug boats is estimated by the total installed power on board. It is assumed that the tug boats use 70% of the total installed power on board while sailing. With the factor for fuel consumption according to Brake the total fuel consumption can be calculated. A fuel price of €0,70 per litre is assumed. The fuel costs are €79,- per operational hour for the tugs between Lok Buntar and Sungai Puting and €167,- per operational hour for the tugs between Sungai Puting and deep-sea.
For the calculation of the barge costs the fixed and variable costs for barges are important. The cost for barge transport increase with the number of barges operational. The variable costs of the barges are presented in
December 2011 Page 83 of 196 FEASIBLITY STUDY COAL TRANSPORT KALIMANTAN
figure 7.15. In figure 7.16 the fixed barge costs are given. The total barge cost are the fixed barge costs plus the variable barge and are presented in figure 7.17.
30 € 0.47 € 0.48 € 0.49 € 0.50 € 0.51 € 0.52 € 0.53 € 0.53 € 0.53 € 0.53 € 0.53 € 0.54 € 0.54 € 0.54 € 0.54 € 0.54 € 0.54 € 0.54 € 0.54 € 0.54 € 0.54 29 € 0.47 € 0.48 € 0.49 € 0.50 € 0.50 € 0.52 € 0.53 € 0.53 € 0.53 € 0.53 € 0.54 € 0.54 € 0.54 € 0.54 € 0.54 € 0.54 € 0.54 € 0.54 € 0.54 € 0.54 € 0.54 28 € 0.47 € 0.48 € 0.49 € 0.50 € 0.51 € 0.51 € 0.53 € 0.53 € 0.53 € 0.53 € 0.53 € 0.54 € 0.54 € 0.54 € 0.54 € 0.54 € 0.54 € 0.54 € 0.54 € 0.54 € 0.54 27 € 0.47 € 0.48 € 0.49 € 0.50 € 0.51 € 0.51 € 0.53 € 0.53 € 0.53 € 0.53 € 0.53 € 0.54 € 0.54 € 0.54 € 0.54 € 0.54 € 0.54 € 0.54 € 0.54 € 0.54 € 0.54 26 € 0.47 € 0.48 € 0.49 € 0.50 € 0.50 € 0.52 € 0.53 € 0.53 € 0.53 € 0.53 € 0.53 € 0.54 € 0.54 € 0.54 € 0.54 € 0.54 € 0.54 € 0.54 € 0.54 € 0.54 € 0.54 25 € 0.47 € 0.48 € 0.49 € 0.49 € 0.50 € 0.51 € 0.52 € 0.53 € 0.53 € 0.53 € 0.53 € 0.53 € 0.54 € 0.54 € 0.54 € 0.54 € 0.54 € 0.54 € 0.54 € 0.54 € 0.54 24 € 0.47 € 0.48 € 0.49 € 0.49 € 0.50 € 0.51 € 0.52 € 0.53 € 0.53 € 0.53 € 0.53 € 0.53 € 0.54 € 0.54 € 0.54 € 0.54 € 0.54 € 0.54 € 0.54 € 0.54 € 0.54 23 € 0.47 € 0.48 € 0.48 € 0.49 € 0.50 € 0.51 € 0.52 € 0.53 € 0.53 € 0.53 € 0.53 € 0.53 € 0.53 € 0.53 € 0.54 € 0.53 € 0.54 € 0.54 € 0.54 € 0.54 € 0.54 22 € 0.47 € 0.47 € 0.48 € 0.49 € 0.50 € 0.51 € 0.52 € 0.53 € 0.53 € 0.53 € 0.53 € 0.53 € 0.53 € 0.53 € 0.53 € 0.53 € 0.54 € 0.54 € 0.54 € 0.54 € 0.54 21 € 0.46 € 0.47 € 0.48 € 0.49 € 0.50 € 0.51 € 0.52 € 0.52 € 0.53 € 0.53 € 0.53 € 0.53 € 0.53 € 0.53 € 0.53 € 0.53 € 0.53 € 0.53 € 0.53 € 0.53 € 0.53 20 € 0.46 € 0.47 € 0.48 € 0.49 € 0.49 € 0.50 € 0.51 € 0.52 € 0.52 € 0.53 € 0.53 € 0.53 € 0.53 € 0.53 € 0.53 € 0.53 € 0.53 € 0.53 € 0.53 € 0.53 € 0.53 19 € 0.46 € 0.47 € 0.47 € 0.48 € 0.49 € 0.50 € 0.51 € 0.52 € 0.52 € 0.52 € 0.52 € 0.53 € 0.53 € 0.53 € 0.53 € 0.53 € 0.53 € 0.53 € 0.53 € 0.53 € 0.53
Number of barges operational [#] operational of barges Number 18 € 0.46 € 0.46 € 0.47 € 0.48 € 0.49 € 0.50 € 0.50 € 0.51 € 0.52 € 0.52 € 0.52 € 0.52 € 0.52 € 0.53 € 0.53 € 0.53 € 0.53 € 0.53 € 0.53 € 0.53 € 0.53 17 € 0.45 € 0.46 € 0.47 € 0.47 € 0.48 € 0.49 € 0.50 € 0.50 € 0.51 € 0.52 € 0.52 € 0.52 € 0.52 € 0.52 € 0.52 € 0.53 € 0.53 € 0.53 € 0.53 € 0.53 € 0.53 16 € 0.44 € 0.45 € 0.46 € 0.46 € 0.47 € 0.47 € 0.48 € 0.49 € 0.49 € 0.50 € 0.50 € 0.51 € 0.51 € 0.52 € 0.52 € 0.52 € 0.53 € 0.53 € 0.53 € 0.53 € 0.53 15 € 0.43 € 0.44 € 0.44 € 0.45 € 0.45 € 0.45 € 0.46 € 0.46 € 0.47 € 0.47 € 0.47 € 0.48 € 0.48 € 0.49 € 0.49 € 0.49 € 0.50 € 0.50 € 0.51 € 0.51 € 0.52
Abs. Loading
714 729 744 760 776 794 812 831 850 871 893 916 940 965 992
1050 1082 1116 1152 1190 capacity [T/hr] 1020
Rel. loading
102% 104% 106% 109% 111% 114% 116% 119% 122% 125% 128% 132% 135% 139% 143% 147% 152% 156% 161% 167% capacity [-] 100%
Berth
98% 96% 94% 92% 90% 88% 86% 84% 82% 80% 78% 76% 74% 72% 70% 68% 66% 64% 62% 60% ccupation [-] 100% FIGURE 7.15 THE VARIABLE BARGE COSTS PER TON BETWEEN LOK BUNTAR AND SUNGAI PUTING
30 € 0.31 € 0.31 € 0.31 € 0.31 € 0.31 € 0.31 € 0.31 € 0.31 € 0.31 € 0.31 € 0.31 € 0.31 € 0.31 € 0.31 € 0.31 € 0.31 € 0.31 € 0.31 € 0.31 € 0.31 € 0.31 29 € 0.30 € 0.30 € 0.30 € 0.30 € 0.30 € 0.30 € 0.30 € 0.30 € 0.30 € 0.30 € 0.30 € 0.30 € 0.30 € 0.30 € 0.30 € 0.30 € 0.30 € 0.30 € 0.30 € 0.30 € 0.30 28 € 0.29 € 0.29 € 0.29 € 0.29 € 0.29 € 0.29 € 0.29 € 0.29 € 0.29 € 0.29 € 0.29 € 0.29 € 0.29 € 0.29 € 0.29 € 0.29 € 0.29 € 0.29 € 0.29 € 0.29 € 0.29 27 € 0.28 € 0.28 € 0.28 € 0.28 € 0.28 € 0.28 € 0.28 € 0.28 € 0.28 € 0.28 € 0.28 € 0.28 € 0.28 € 0.28 € 0.28 € 0.28 € 0.28 € 0.28 € 0.28 € 0.28 € 0.28 26 € 0.27 € 0.27 € 0.27 € 0.27 € 0.27 € 0.27 € 0.27 € 0.27 € 0.27 € 0.27 € 0.27 € 0.27 € 0.27 € 0.27 € 0.27 € 0.27 € 0.27 € 0.27 € 0.27 € 0.27 € 0.27 25 € 0.26 € 0.26 € 0.26 € 0.26 € 0.26 € 0.26 € 0.26 € 0.26 € 0.26 € 0.26 € 0.26 € 0.26 € 0.26 € 0.26 € 0.26 € 0.26 € 0.26 € 0.26 € 0.26 € 0.26 € 0.26 24 € 0.25 € 0.25 € 0.25 € 0.25 € 0.25 € 0.25 € 0.25 € 0.25 € 0.25 € 0.25 € 0.25 € 0.25 € 0.25 € 0.25 € 0.25 € 0.25 € 0.25 € 0.25 € 0.25 € 0.25 € 0.25 23 € 0.24 € 0.24 € 0.24 € 0.24 € 0.24 € 0.24 € 0.24 € 0.24 € 0.24 € 0.24 € 0.24 € 0.24 € 0.24 € 0.24 € 0.24 € 0.24 € 0.24 € 0.24 € 0.24 € 0.24 € 0.24 22 € 0.23 € 0.23 € 0.23 € 0.23 € 0.23 € 0.23 € 0.23 € 0.23 € 0.23 € 0.23 € 0.23 € 0.23 € 0.23 € 0.23 € 0.23 € 0.23 € 0.23 € 0.23 € 0.23 € 0.23 € 0.23 21 € 0.22 € 0.22 € 0.22 € 0.22 € 0.22 € 0.22 € 0.22 € 0.22 € 0.22 € 0.22 € 0.22 € 0.22 € 0.22 € 0.22 € 0.22 € 0.22 € 0.22 € 0.22 € 0.22 € 0.22 € 0.22 20 € 0.21 € 0.21 € 0.21 € 0.21 € 0.21 € 0.21 € 0.21 € 0.21 € 0.21 € 0.21 € 0.21 € 0.21 € 0.21 € 0.21 € 0.21 € 0.21 € 0.21 € 0.21 € 0.21 € 0.21 € 0.21 19 € 0.20 € 0.20 € 0.20 € 0.20 € 0.20 € 0.20 € 0.20 € 0.20 € 0.20 € 0.20 € 0.20 € 0.20 € 0.20 € 0.20 € 0.20 € 0.20 € 0.20 € 0.20 € 0.20 € 0.20 € 0.20
Number of barges operational [#] operational of barges Number 18 € 0.19 € 0.19 € 0.19 € 0.19 € 0.19 € 0.19 € 0.19 € 0.19 € 0.19 € 0.19 € 0.19 € 0.19 € 0.19 € 0.19 € 0.19 € 0.19 € 0.19 € 0.19 € 0.19 € 0.19 € 0.19 17 € 0.18 € 0.18 € 0.18 € 0.18 € 0.18 € 0.18 € 0.18 € 0.18 € 0.18 € 0.18 € 0.18 € 0.18 € 0.18 € 0.18 € 0.18 € 0.18 € 0.18 € 0.18 € 0.18 € 0.18 € 0.18 16 € 0.17 € 0.17 € 0.17 € 0.17 € 0.17 € 0.17 € 0.17 € 0.17 € 0.17 € 0.17 € 0.17 € 0.17 € 0.17 € 0.17 € 0.17 € 0.17 € 0.17 € 0.17 € 0.17 € 0.17 € 0.17 15 € 0.16 € 0.16 € 0.16 € 0.16 € 0.16 € 0.16 € 0.16 € 0.16 € 0.16 € 0.16 € 0.16 € 0.16 € 0.16 € 0.16 € 0.16 € 0.16 € 0.16 € 0.16 € 0.16 € 0.16 € 0.16
Abs. Loading
714 729 744 760 776 794 812 831 850 871 893 916 940 965 992
1050 1082 1116 1152 1190 capacity [T/hr] 1020
Rel. loading
102% 104% 106% 109% 111% 114% 116% 119% 122% 125% 128% 132% 135% 139% 143% 147% 152% 156% 161% 167% capacity [-] 100%
Berth
98% 96% 94% 92% 90% 88% 86% 84% 82% 80% 78% 76% 74% 72% 70% 68% 66% 64% 62% 60% ccupation [-] 100% FIGURE 7.16 THE FIXED BARGE COSTS PER TON BETWEEN LOK BUNTAR AND SUNGAI PUTING
30 € 0.78 € 0.79 € 0.80 € 0.81 € 0.82 € 0.83 € 0.84 € 0.84 € 0.84 € 0.85 € 0.85 € 0.85 € 0.85 € 0.85 € 0.85 € 0.85 € 0.85 € 0.85 € 0.85 € 0.85 € 0.85 29 € 0.77 € 0.78 € 0.79 € 0.80 € 0.81 € 0.82 € 0.83 € 0.83 € 0.83 € 0.84 € 0.84 € 0.84 € 0.84 € 0.84 € 0.84 € 0.84 € 0.84 € 0.84 € 0.84 € 0.84 € 0.84 28 € 0.76 € 0.77 € 0.78 € 0.79 € 0.80 € 0.81 € 0.82 € 0.82 € 0.82 € 0.82 € 0.83 € 0.83 € 0.83 € 0.83 € 0.83 € 0.83 € 0.83 € 0.83 € 0.83 € 0.83 € 0.83 27 € 0.75 € 0.76 € 0.77 € 0.78 € 0.79 € 0.80 € 0.81 € 0.81 € 0.81 € 0.81 € 0.82 € 0.82 € 0.82 € 0.82 € 0.82 € 0.82 € 0.82 € 0.82 € 0.82 € 0.82 € 0.82 26 € 0.74 € 0.75 € 0.76 € 0.77 € 0.78 € 0.79 € 0.80 € 0.80 € 0.80 € 0.80 € 0.81 € 0.81 € 0.81 € 0.81 € 0.81 € 0.81 € 0.81 € 0.81 € 0.81 € 0.81 € 0.81 25 € 0.73 € 0.74 € 0.75 € 0.75 € 0.77 € 0.77 € 0.79 € 0.79 € 0.79 € 0.79 € 0.79 € 0.80 € 0.80 € 0.80 € 0.80 € 0.80 € 0.80 € 0.80 € 0.80 € 0.80 € 0.80 24 € 0.72 € 0.73 € 0.74 € 0.74 € 0.75 € 0.76 € 0.77 € 0.78 € 0.78 € 0.78 € 0.78 € 0.78 € 0.79 € 0.79 € 0.79 € 0.79 € 0.79 € 0.79 € 0.79 € 0.79 € 0.79 23 € 0.71 € 0.72 € 0.72 € 0.73 € 0.74 € 0.75 € 0.76 € 0.77 € 0.77 € 0.77 € 0.77 € 0.77 € 0.77 € 0.77 € 0.78 € 0.77 € 0.78 € 0.78 € 0.78 € 0.78 € 0.78 22 € 0.70 € 0.70 € 0.71 € 0.72 € 0.73 € 0.74 € 0.75 € 0.76 € 0.76 € 0.76 € 0.76 € 0.76 € 0.76 € 0.76 € 0.76 € 0.76 € 0.77 € 0.77 € 0.77 € 0.77 € 0.77 21 € 0.68 € 0.69 € 0.70 € 0.71 € 0.72 € 0.73 € 0.73 € 0.74 € 0.75 € 0.75 € 0.75 € 0.75 € 0.75 € 0.75 € 0.75 € 0.75 € 0.75 € 0.75 € 0.75 € 0.75 € 0.75 20 € 0.67 € 0.68 € 0.69 € 0.69 € 0.70 € 0.71 € 0.72 € 0.73 € 0.73 € 0.73 € 0.74 € 0.74 € 0.74 € 0.74 € 0.74 € 0.74 € 0.74 € 0.74 € 0.74 € 0.74 € 0.74 19 € 0.66 € 0.67 € 0.67 € 0.68 € 0.69 € 0.70 € 0.71 € 0.72 € 0.72 € 0.72 € 0.72 € 0.72 € 0.73 € 0.73 € 0.73 € 0.73 € 0.73 € 0.73 € 0.73 € 0.73 € 0.73
Number of barges operational [#] operational of barges Number 18 € 0.64 € 0.65 € 0.66 € 0.67 € 0.67 € 0.68 € 0.69 € 0.70 € 0.71 € 0.71 € 0.71 € 0.71 € 0.71 € 0.71 € 0.71 € 0.72 € 0.72 € 0.72 € 0.72 € 0.72 € 0.72 17 € 0.63 € 0.64 € 0.64 € 0.65 € 0.66 € 0.67 € 0.67 € 0.68 € 0.69 € 0.69 € 0.70 € 0.70 € 0.70 € 0.70 € 0.70 € 0.70 € 0.70 € 0.70 € 0.70 € 0.70 € 0.70 16 € 0.61 € 0.62 € 0.62 € 0.63 € 0.64 € 0.64 € 0.65 € 0.65 € 0.66 € 0.66 € 0.67 € 0.67 € 0.68 € 0.68 € 0.69 € 0.69 € 0.69 € 0.69 € 0.69 € 0.69 € 0.69 15 € 0.59 € 0.59 € 0.60 € 0.60 € 0.61 € 0.61 € 0.61 € 0.62 € 0.62 € 0.63 € 0.63 € 0.63 € 0.64 € 0.64 € 0.65 € 0.65 € 0.66 € 0.66 € 0.66 € 0.67 € 0.67
Abs. Loading
714 729 744 760 776 794 812 831 850 871 893 916 940 965 992
1050 1082 1116 1152 1190 capacity [T/hr] 1020
Rel. loading
102% 104% 106% 109% 111% 114% 116% 119% 122% 125% 128% 132% 135% 139% 143% 147% 152% 156% 161% 167% capacity [-] 100%
Berth
98% 96% 94% 92% 90% 88% 86% 84% 82% 80% 78% 76% 74% 72% 70% 68% 66% 64% 62% 60% occupation [-] 100% FIGURE 7.17 THE TOTAL BARGE COSTS PER TON BETWEEN LOK BUNTAR AND SUNGAI PUTING
Page 84 of 196 Chair of Ports & Waterways The simulation model
7.6.2 TERMINAL COSTS
The terminal costs can also be divided into the fixed costs and the variable costs. The fixed costs are mainly determined by the number of berths constructed. The variable costs are applicable only when the terminal is operational. At this time the loading conveyor is consuming most of its power and extra maintenance is required for the moving parts.
Terminal costs Fixed costs Variable costs Depreciation of the berths Power consumption Depreciation of the loading conveyors Variable maintenance (un)loading conveyor) Depreciation of the unloading conveyors Interest Inflation Fixed maintenance (un)loading conveyor Maintenance dredging costs 10% overhead TABLE 7.7 SUMMARY OF TERMINAL COSTS
The capital costs for the construction of the terminals is determined according to former projects executed by Witteveen+Bos in Jakarta. In these projects a loading berth at Lok bunter and a loading jetty at Sungai Puting are designed. The costs for material and construction are estimated.
The costs for the constructing of a terminal at Lok Buntar for loading two barges is estimated to be € 1,077,000. The costs for one berth, three berths and four berth are interpolated according to the required berth length. The costs for the terminal with a different amount of berths are given in table 7.8. The costs for construction of a loading jetty at Sungai Puting is estimated to be € 588,000.00 per jetty. The costs for the terminal with different amount of jetties are given in Table 7.9.
Number of berths Berth length Terminal costs one 80.4m € 574,000 two 150.8m € 1,077,000 three 221.2m € 1,580,000 four 291.6m € 2,082,000 TABLE 7.8 CAPITAL COSTS FOR THE 180FT BARGE TERMINAL AT LOK BUNTAR AND SUNGAI PUTING
Number of jetties Terminal costs one € 588,000 two € 1,176,000 three € 1,764,000 four € 2,352,000 TABLE 7.9 CAPITAL COSTS FOR A 390FT BARGE LOADING TERMINAL AT SUNGAI PUTING
The capital costs for constructing of the loading and unloading conveyors are determined according to the guideline of Dutch association of cost engineers (DACE). The costs for conveyors are mainly determined by the belt width and the conveyor length. The belt width is standard for certain loading capacities. With the cost estimation from the DACE a trend line is made to determine the gradient in capital costs for different conveyors.
December 2011 Page 85 of 196 FEASIBLITY STUDY COAL TRANSPORT KALIMANTAN
Investment costs for loading/unloading conveyors Loading capacity length in m Belt with Costs per m Total costs [T/hr] [m] [mm] [EUR/m] [EUR]
500 T/hr 50 1200 6700 € 335,000 750 T/hr 50 1400 8200 € 410,000 1000 T/hr 50 1600 9350 € 467,500 1250 T/hr 50 1600 9350 € 467,500 1500 T/hr 50 1800 10500 € 525,000 2000 T/hr 50 1800 10500 € 525,000 TABLE 7.10 COSTS ESTIMATES FOR CONSTRUCTIING THE LOADING AND UNLOADING CONVEYORS
€ 600,000
€ 550,000 y = 37000x + 325500
€ 500,000
€ 450,000
€ 400,000
€ 350,000
€ 300,000 500 T/hr 750 T/hr 1000 T/hr 1250 T/hr 1500 T/hr 2000 T/hr
Total costs [EUR] Lineair (Total costs [EUR])
FIGURE 7.18 CAPITAL COSTS FOR CONSTRUCTING A (UN)LOADING CONVEYOR, WITH TREND LINE.
The maintenance costs for the terminal and conveyors is estimated to be 10% of the capital cost of the terminal. 50% of this maintenance costs are assumed to be fixed and the other 50% to be variable. Also the costs for maintenance dredging are included in the costs for fixed maintenance of the terminals.
The power consumption of the loading and unloading conveyers are estimated with the installed power. It is assumed that 80% of the total installed power is used. The fuel consumption can be calculated according to the factor of Brake for diesel engines. A fuel price of €0,70 per litre is used for the calculation.
The calculated cost for the terminals are given in the figures at the next page. figure 7.19 gives the fixed costs of the terminal and conveyers. The variable costs of the terminals with conveyors belts are presented in figure 7.20. In figure 7.21 the total costs for both the terminals with conveyor belts are calculated.
Page 86 of 196 Chair of Ports & Waterways The simulation model
30 € 0.98 € 1.00 € 1.02 € 1.04 € 1.06 € 1.08 € 1.11 € 1.13 € 1.16 € 1.19 € 1.21 € 1.24 € 1.28 € 1.31 € 1.35 € 1.38 € 1.42 € 1.46 € 1.51 € 1.56 € 1.61 29 € 0.98 € 1.00 € 1.02 € 1.04 € 1.06 € 1.08 € 1.11 € 1.13 € 1.16 € 1.19 € 1.21 € 1.24 € 1.28 € 1.31 € 1.35 € 1.38 € 1.42 € 1.46 € 1.51 € 1.56 € 1.61 28 € 0.98 € 1.00 € 1.02 € 1.04 € 1.06 € 1.08 € 1.11 € 1.13 € 1.16 € 1.19 € 1.21 € 1.24 € 1.28 € 1.31 € 1.35 € 1.38 € 1.42 € 1.46 € 1.51 € 1.56 € 1.61 27 € 0.98 € 1.00 € 1.02 € 1.04 € 1.06 € 1.08 € 1.11 € 1.13 € 1.16 € 1.19 € 1.21 € 1.24 € 1.28 € 1.31 € 1.35 € 1.38 € 1.42 € 1.46 € 1.51 € 1.56 € 1.61 26 € 0.98 € 1.00 € 1.02 € 1.04 € 1.06 € 1.08 € 1.11 € 1.13 € 1.16 € 1.19 € 1.21 € 1.24 € 1.28 € 1.31 € 1.35 € 1.38 € 1.42 € 1.46 € 1.51 € 1.56 € 1.61 25 € 0.98 € 1.00 € 1.02 € 1.04 € 1.06 € 1.08 € 1.11 € 1.13 € 1.16 € 1.19 € 1.21 € 1.24 € 1.28 € 1.31 € 1.35 € 1.38 € 1.42 € 1.46 € 1.51 € 1.56 € 1.61 24 € 0.98 € 1.00 € 1.02 € 1.04 € 1.06 € 1.08 € 1.11 € 1.13 € 1.16 € 1.19 € 1.21 € 1.24 € 1.28 € 1.31 € 1.35 € 1.38 € 1.42 € 1.46 € 1.51 € 1.56 € 1.61 23 € 0.98 € 1.00 € 1.02 € 1.04 € 1.06 € 1.08 € 1.11 € 1.13 € 1.16 € 1.19 € 1.21 € 1.24 € 1.28 € 1.31 € 1.35 € 1.38 € 1.42 € 1.46 € 1.51 € 1.56 € 1.61 22 € 0.98 € 1.00 € 1.02 € 1.04 € 1.06 € 1.08 € 1.11 € 1.13 € 1.16 € 1.19 € 1.21 € 1.24 € 1.28 € 1.31 € 1.35 € 1.38 € 1.42 € 1.46 € 1.51 € 1.56 € 1.61 21 € 0.98 € 1.00 € 1.02 € 1.04 € 1.06 € 1.08 € 1.11 € 1.13 € 1.16 € 1.19 € 1.21 € 1.24 € 1.28 € 1.31 € 1.35 € 1.38 € 1.42 € 1.46 € 1.51 € 1.56 € 1.61 20 € 0.98 € 1.00 € 1.02 € 1.04 € 1.06 € 1.08 € 1.11 € 1.13 € 1.16 € 1.19 € 1.21 € 1.24 € 1.28 € 1.31 € 1.35 € 1.38 € 1.42 € 1.46 € 1.51 € 1.56 € 1.61 19 € 0.98 € 1.00 € 1.02 € 1.04 € 1.06 € 1.08 € 1.11 € 1.13 € 1.16 € 1.19 € 1.21 € 1.24 € 1.28 € 1.31 € 1.35 € 1.38 € 1.42 € 1.46 € 1.51 € 1.56 € 1.61
Number of barges operational [#] operational of barges Number 18 € 0.98 € 1.00 € 1.02 € 1.04 € 1.06 € 1.08 € 1.11 € 1.13 € 1.16 € 1.19 € 1.21 € 1.24 € 1.28 € 1.31 € 1.35 € 1.38 € 1.42 € 1.46 € 1.51 € 1.56 € 1.61 17 € 0.98 € 1.00 € 1.02 € 1.04 € 1.06 € 1.08 € 1.11 € 1.13 € 1.16 € 1.19 € 1.21 € 1.24 € 1.28 € 1.31 € 1.35 € 1.38 € 1.42 € 1.46 € 1.51 € 1.56 € 1.61 16 € 0.98 € 1.00 € 1.02 € 1.04 € 1.06 € 1.08 € 1.11 € 1.13 € 1.16 € 1.19 € 1.21 € 1.24 € 1.28 € 1.31 € 1.35 € 1.38 € 1.42 € 1.46 € 1.51 € 1.56 € 1.61 15 € 0.98 € 1.00 € 1.02 € 1.04 € 1.06 € 1.08 € 1.11 € 1.13 € 1.16 € 1.19 € 1.21 € 1.24 € 1.28 € 1.31 € 1.35 € 1.38 € 1.42 € 1.46 € 1.51 € 1.56 € 1.61
Abs. Loading
714 729 744 760 776 794 812 831 850 871 893 916 940 965 992
1050 1082 1116 1152 1190 capacity [T/hr] 1020
Rel. loading
102% 104% 106% 109% 111% 114% 116% 119% 122% 125% 128% 132% 135% 139% 143% 147% 152% 156% 161% 167% capacity [-] 100%
Berth
98% 96% 94% 92% 90% 88% 86% 84% 82% 80% 78% 76% 74% 72% 70% 68% 66% 64% 62% 60% ccupation [-] 100% FIGURE 7.19 THE FIXED TERMINAL COSTS PER TRANSPORTED TON BETWEEN LOK BUNTAR AND SUNGAI PUTING
30 € 0.83 € 0.85 € 0.86 € 0.88 € 0.90 € 0.91 € 0.93 € 0.93 € 0.93 € 0.93 € 0.93 € 0.93 € 0.93 € 0.93 € 0.93 € 0.93 € 0.93 € 0.93 € 0.93 € 0.93 € 0.93 29 € 0.83 € 0.85 € 0.86 € 0.88 € 0.90 € 0.91 € 0.93 € 0.93 € 0.93 € 0.93 € 0.93 € 0.93 € 0.93 € 0.93 € 0.93 € 0.93 € 0.93 € 0.93 € 0.93 € 0.93 € 0.93 28 € 0.83 € 0.85 € 0.86 € 0.88 € 0.90 € 0.91 € 0.93 € 0.93 € 0.93 € 0.93 € 0.93 € 0.93 € 0.93 € 0.93 € 0.93 € 0.93 € 0.93 € 0.93 € 0.93 € 0.93 € 0.93 27 € 0.83 € 0.85 € 0.86 € 0.88 € 0.90 € 0.91 € 0.93 € 0.93 € 0.93 € 0.93 € 0.93 € 0.93 € 0.93 € 0.93 € 0.93 € 0.93 € 0.93 € 0.93 € 0.93 € 0.93 € 0.93 26 € 0.83 € 0.85 € 0.86 € 0.88 € 0.90 € 0.91 € 0.93 € 0.93 € 0.93 € 0.93 € 0.93 € 0.93 € 0.93 € 0.93 € 0.93 € 0.93 € 0.93 € 0.93 € 0.93 € 0.93 € 0.93 25 € 0.83 € 0.85 € 0.86 € 0.88 € 0.90 € 0.91 € 0.93 € 0.93 € 0.93 € 0.93 € 0.93 € 0.93 € 0.93 € 0.93 € 0.93 € 0.93 € 0.93 € 0.93 € 0.93 € 0.93 € 0.93 24 € 0.83 € 0.85 € 0.86 € 0.88 € 0.89 € 0.91 € 0.93 € 0.93 € 0.93 € 0.93 € 0.93 € 0.93 € 0.93 € 0.93 € 0.93 € 0.93 € 0.93 € 0.93 € 0.93 € 0.93 € 0.93 23 € 0.83 € 0.85 € 0.86 € 0.88 € 0.89 € 0.91 € 0.93 € 0.93 € 0.93 € 0.93 € 0.93 € 0.93 € 0.93 € 0.93 € 0.93 € 0.93 € 0.93 € 0.93 € 0.93 € 0.93 € 0.93 22 € 0.83 € 0.85 € 0.86 € 0.88 € 0.89 € 0.91 € 0.92 € 0.93 € 0.93 € 0.93 € 0.93 € 0.93 € 0.93 € 0.93 € 0.93 € 0.93 € 0.93 € 0.93 € 0.93 € 0.93 € 0.93 21 € 0.83 € 0.84 € 0.86 € 0.87 € 0.89 € 0.90 € 0.92 € 0.93 € 0.93 € 0.93 € 0.93 € 0.93 € 0.93 € 0.93 € 0.93 € 0.93 € 0.93 € 0.93 € 0.93 € 0.93 € 0.93 20 € 0.83 € 0.84 € 0.85 € 0.87 € 0.88 € 0.90 € 0.92 € 0.93 € 0.93 € 0.93 € 0.93 € 0.93 € 0.93 € 0.93 € 0.93 € 0.93 € 0.93 € 0.93 € 0.93 € 0.93 € 0.93 19 € 0.82 € 0.84 € 0.85 € 0.87 € 0.88 € 0.90 € 0.91 € 0.93 € 0.93 € 0.93 € 0.93 € 0.93 € 0.93 € 0.93 € 0.93 € 0.93 € 0.93 € 0.93 € 0.93 € 0.93 € 0.93
Number of barges operational [#] operational of barges Number 18 € 0.82 € 0.83 € 0.85 € 0.86 € 0.87 € 0.89 € 0.91 € 0.92 € 0.93 € 0.93 € 0.93 € 0.93 € 0.93 € 0.93 € 0.93 € 0.93 € 0.93 € 0.93 € 0.93 € 0.93 € 0.93 17 € 0.81 € 0.82 € 0.84 € 0.85 € 0.86 € 0.88 € 0.89 € 0.90 € 0.91 € 0.92 € 0.93 € 0.93 € 0.93 € 0.93 € 0.93 € 0.93 € 0.93 € 0.93 € 0.93 € 0.93 € 0.93 16 € 0.80 € 0.81 € 0.82 € 0.83 € 0.84 € 0.85 € 0.86 € 0.87 € 0.87 € 0.88 € 0.89 € 0.90 € 0.91 € 0.91 € 0.92 € 0.93 € 0.93 € 0.93 € 0.93 € 0.93 € 0.93 15 € 0.77 € 0.78 € 0.79 € 0.80 € 0.80 € 0.81 € 0.81 € 0.82 € 0.83 € 0.83 € 0.84 € 0.85 € 0.85 € 0.86 € 0.87 € 0.87 € 0.88 € 0.89 € 0.89 € 0.90 € 0.91
Abs. Loading
714 729 744 760 776 794 812 831 850 871 893 916 940 965 992
1050 1082 1116 1152 1190 capacity [T/hr] 1020
Rel. loading
102% 104% 106% 109% 111% 114% 116% 119% 122% 125% 128% 132% 135% 139% 143% 147% 152% 156% 161% 167% capacity [-] 100%
Berth
98% 96% 94% 92% 90% 88% 86% 84% 82% 80% 78% 76% 74% 72% 70% 68% 66% 64% 62% 60% ccupation [-] 100% FIGURE 7.20 THE VARIABLE TERMINAL COSTS PER TRANSPORTED TON BETWEEN LOK BUNTAR AND SUNGAI PUTING
30 € 1.81 € 1.85 € 1.88 € 1.92 € 1.96 € 2.00 € 2.04 € 2.07 € 2.09 € 2.12 € 2.15 € 2.18 € 2.21 € 2.24 € 2.28 € 2.31 € 2.35 € 2.39 € 2.44 € 2.48 € 2.53 29 € 1.81 € 1.85 € 1.88 € 1.92 € 1.96 € 2.00 € 2.04 € 2.07 € 2.09 € 2.12 € 2.15 € 2.18 € 2.21 € 2.24 € 2.28 € 2.31 € 2.35 € 2.39 € 2.44 € 2.48 € 2.53 28 € 1.81 € 1.85 € 1.88 € 1.92 € 1.96 € 2.00 € 2.04 € 2.07 € 2.09 € 2.12 € 2.15 € 2.18 € 2.21 € 2.24 € 2.28 € 2.31 € 2.35 € 2.39 € 2.44 € 2.48 € 2.53 27 € 1.81 € 1.85 € 1.88 € 1.92 € 1.96 € 2.00 € 2.04 € 2.07 € 2.09 € 2.12 € 2.15 € 2.18 € 2.21 € 2.24 € 2.28 € 2.31 € 2.35 € 2.39 € 2.44 € 2.48 € 2.53 26 € 1.81 € 1.85 € 1.88 € 1.92 € 1.96 € 2.00 € 2.04 € 2.07 € 2.09 € 2.12 € 2.15 € 2.18 € 2.21 € 2.24 € 2.28 € 2.31 € 2.35 € 2.39 € 2.44 € 2.48 € 2.53 25 € 1.81 € 1.85 € 1.88 € 1.92 € 1.96 € 2.00 € 2.04 € 2.07 € 2.09 € 2.12 € 2.15 € 2.18 € 2.21 € 2.24 € 2.28 € 2.31 € 2.35 € 2.39 € 2.44 € 2.48 € 2.53 24 € 1.81 € 1.85 € 1.88 € 1.92 € 1.96 € 1.99 € 2.04 € 2.07 € 2.09 € 2.12 € 2.15 € 2.18 € 2.21 € 2.24 € 2.28 € 2.31 € 2.35 € 2.39 € 2.44 € 2.48 € 2.53 23 € 1.81 € 1.84 € 1.88 € 1.92 € 1.95 € 1.99 € 2.03 € 2.07 € 2.09 € 2.12 € 2.15 € 2.18 € 2.21 € 2.24 € 2.28 € 2.31 € 2.35 € 2.39 € 2.44 € 2.48 € 2.53 22 € 1.81 € 1.84 € 1.88 € 1.91 € 1.95 € 1.99 € 2.03 € 2.07 € 2.09 € 2.12 € 2.15 € 2.18 € 2.21 € 2.24 € 2.28 € 2.31 € 2.35 € 2.39 € 2.44 € 2.48 € 2.53 21 € 1.81 € 1.84 € 1.88 € 1.91 € 1.95 € 1.99 € 2.03 € 2.07 € 2.09 € 2.12 € 2.15 € 2.18 € 2.21 € 2.24 € 2.28 € 2.31 € 2.35 € 2.39 € 2.44 € 2.48 € 2.53 20 € 1.81 € 1.84 € 1.87 € 1.91 € 1.95 € 1.98 € 2.02 € 2.07 € 2.09 € 2.12 € 2.15 € 2.18 € 2.21 € 2.24 € 2.28 € 2.31 € 2.35 € 2.39 € 2.44 € 2.48 € 2.53 19 € 1.80 € 1.83 € 1.87 € 1.90 € 1.94 € 1.98 € 2.02 € 2.06 € 2.09 € 2.12 € 2.15 € 2.18 € 2.21 € 2.24 € 2.28 € 2.31 € 2.35 € 2.39 € 2.44 € 2.48 € 2.53
Number of barges operational [#] operational of barges Number 18 € 1.80 € 1.83 € 1.86 € 1.90 € 1.94 € 1.97 € 2.01 € 2.05 € 2.09 € 2.12 € 2.15 € 2.18 € 2.21 € 2.24 € 2.28 € 2.31 € 2.35 € 2.39 € 2.44 € 2.48 € 2.53 17 € 1.79 € 1.82 € 1.86 € 1.89 € 1.92 € 1.96 € 2.00 € 2.03 € 2.07 € 2.11 € 2.15 € 2.18 € 2.21 € 2.24 € 2.28 € 2.31 € 2.35 € 2.39 € 2.44 € 2.48 € 2.53 16 € 1.78 € 1.81 € 1.84 € 1.87 € 1.90 € 1.93 € 1.96 € 2.00 € 2.03 € 2.07 € 2.11 € 2.14 € 2.18 € 2.22 € 2.27 € 2.31 € 2.35 € 2.39 € 2.44 € 2.48 € 2.53 15 € 1.75 € 1.78 € 1.81 € 1.83 € 1.86 € 1.89 € 1.92 € 1.95 € 1.99 € 2.02 € 2.05 € 2.09 € 2.13 € 2.17 € 2.21 € 2.26 € 2.30 € 2.35 € 2.40 € 2.46 € 2.52
Abs. Loading
714 729 744 760 776 794 812 831 850 871 893 916 940 965 992
1050 1082 1116 1152 1190 capacity [T/hr] 1020
Rel. loading
102% 104% 106% 109% 111% 114% 116% 119% 122% 125% 128% 132% 135% 139% 143% 147% 152% 156% 161% 167% capacity [-] 100%
Berth
98% 96% 94% 92% 90% 88% 86% 84% 82% 80% 78% 76% 74% 72% 70% 68% 66% 64% 62% 60% occupation [-] 100% FIGURE 7.21 THE TOTAL TERMINAL COSTS PER TRANSPORTED TON BETWEEN LOK BUNTAR AND SUNGAI PUTING
December 2011 Page 87 of 196 FEASIBLITY STUDY COAL TRANSPORT KALIMANTAN
7.7 FINDING THE OPTIMAL BARGE TRANSPORT CONFIGURATION
To determine the optimum barge transport configuration, three question are important.
Is the barge transport configuration able to transport the required throughput? Which of the possible configurations are lowest in costs? Which of the low-costs configuration is most suitable for future scenarios?
The first question is answered by the relative stockpile grown, described in paragraph 7.5.1. An example of the relative stockpile growth is given in figure 7.22. The configurations which are coloured green are able to transport the throughput capacity. The configuration which are coloured red are not able to transport the required throughput capacity.
30 9.5% 7.8% 6.1% 4.3% 2.4% 0.5% -1.5% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% 29 9.5% 7.8% 6.1% 4.3% 2.4% 0.5% -1.6% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% 28 9.5% 7.8% 6.1% 4.3% 2.4% 0.5% -1.5% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% 27 9.5% 7.8% 6.1% 4.3% 2.4% 0.5% -1.5% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% 26 9.5% 7.8% 6.1% 4.3% 2.5% 0.5% -1.4% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% 25 9.5% 7.8% 6.1% 4.4% 2.5% 0.6% -1.4% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% 24 9.5% 7.9% 6.2% 4.4% 2.6% 0.7% -1.2% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% 23 9.6% 8.0% 6.3% 4.6% 2.7% 0.9% -1.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% 22 9.8% 8.2% 6.5% 4.8% 3.0% 1.2% -0.8% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% 21 10.0% 8.4% 6.7% 5.0% 3.3% 1.5% -0.4% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% 20 10.3% 8.7% 7.1% 5.4% 3.7% 1.9% 0.0% -1.9% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% 19 10.6% 9.1% 7.5% 5.8% 4.1% 2.4% 0.6% -1.4% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0%
Number of barges operational [#] operational of barges Number 18 11.1% 9.6% 8.1% 6.4% 4.8% 3.0% 1.3% -0.5% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% 17 11.9% 10.4% 8.9% 7.4% 5.9% 4.5% 3.1% 1.7% 0.2% -0.9% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% 16 13.1% 11.9% 10.8% 9.7% 8.5% 7.5% 6.5% 5.5% 4.5% 3.5% 2.6% 1.8% 0.8% -0.2% -1.0% -1.9% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% 15 15.9% 15.1% 14.3% 13.5% 12.7% 11.9% 11.3% 10.5% 9.6% 8.9% 8.1% 7.4% 6.6% 5.6% 4.9% 4.2% 3.2% 2.4% 1.6% 0.8% -0.1%
Abs. Loading
714 729 744 760 776 794 812 831 850 871 893 916 940 965 992
1050 1082 1116 1152 1190 capacity [T/hr] 1020
Rel. loading
102% 104% 106% 109% 111% 114% 116% 119% 122% 125% 128% 132% 135% 139% 143% 147% 152% 156% 161% 167% capacity [-] 100%
Berth
98% 96% 94% 92% 90% 88% 86% 84% 82% 80% 78% 76% 74% 72% 70% 68% 66% 64% 62% 60% occupation [-] 100% FIGURE 7.22 RELATIVE STOCKPILE GROWTH
Now the configurations with the lowest transport costs have to be found. The transport costs are defined as the costs to transport one ton of coal over the distance between Lok Buntar and Sungai Puting. The transport costs for barge transport between Lok Buntar and Sungai Puting, consist of the barge costs and the terminal costs as described in paragraph 7.6. The total transport costs are presented in figure 7.23. The transport configurations which are coloured most green are the configuration which are lowest in costs. The configurations, which are coloured red are the highest in costs. The configurations which are crossed are not able to transport the required throughput.
30 € 2.60 € 2.64 € 2.68 € 2.73 € 2.78 € 2.83 € 2.88 € 2.91 € 2.94 € 2.97 € 2.99 € 3.03 € 3.06 € 3.09 € 3.13 € 3.16 € 3.20 € 3.24 € 3.29 € 3.33 € 3.38 29 € 2.58 € 2.63 € 2.67 € 2.72 € 2.76 € 2.81 € 2.87 € 2.90 € 2.93 € 2.95 € 2.98 € 3.02 € 3.05 € 3.08 € 3.12 € 3.15 € 3.19 € 3.23 € 3.28 € 3.32 € 3.37 28 € 2.57 € 2.62 € 2.66 € 2.71 € 2.76 € 2.80 € 2.86 € 2.89 € 2.92 € 2.94 € 2.97 € 3.01 € 3.04 € 3.07 € 3.11 € 3.14 € 3.18 € 3.22 € 3.27 € 3.31 € 3.36 27 € 2.56 € 2.61 € 2.65 € 2.70 € 2.74 € 2.79 € 2.85 € 2.88 € 2.90 € 2.93 € 2.96 € 2.99 € 3.03 € 3.06 € 3.10 € 3.13 € 3.17 € 3.21 € 3.25 € 3.30 € 3.35 26 € 2.55 € 2.60 € 2.64 € 2.68 € 2.73 € 2.78 € 2.83 € 2.87 € 2.89 € 2.92 € 2.95 € 2.98 € 3.01 € 3.05 € 3.08 € 3.12 € 3.16 € 3.20 € 3.24 € 3.29 € 3.34 25 € 2.54 € 2.58 € 2.63 € 2.67 € 2.72 € 2.77 € 2.82 € 2.86 € 2.88 € 2.91 € 2.94 € 2.97 € 3.00 € 3.04 € 3.07 € 3.11 € 3.15 € 3.19 € 3.23 € 3.28 € 3.33 24 € 2.53 € 2.57 € 2.62 € 2.66 € 2.71 € 2.76 € 2.81 € 2.85 € 2.87 € 2.90 € 2.93 € 2.96 € 2.99 € 3.03 € 3.06 € 3.10 € 3.14 € 3.18 € 3.22 € 3.27 € 3.32 23 € 2.52 € 2.56 € 2.60 € 2.65 € 2.70 € 2.75 € 2.79 € 2.83 € 2.86 € 2.89 € 2.92 € 2.95 € 2.98 € 3.02 € 3.05 € 3.09 € 3.13 € 3.17 € 3.21 € 3.26 € 3.31 22 € 2.51 € 2.55 € 2.59 € 2.63 € 2.68 € 2.73 € 2.78 € 2.82 € 2.85 € 2.88 € 2.91 € 2.94 € 2.97 € 3.00 € 3.04 € 3.08 € 3.12 € 3.16 € 3.20 € 3.25 € 3.30 21 € 2.49 € 2.53 € 2.58 € 2.62 € 2.67 € 2.71 € 2.76 € 2.81 € 2.84 € 2.87 € 2.89 € 2.93 € 2.96 € 2.99 € 3.03 € 3.06 € 3.10 € 3.15 € 3.19 € 3.24 € 3.29 20 € 2.48 € 2.52 € 2.56 € 2.60 € 2.65 € 2.70 € 2.75 € 2.80 € 2.83 € 2.85 € 2.88 € 2.91 € 2.94 € 2.98 € 3.01 € 3.05 € 3.09 € 3.13 € 3.18 € 3.22 € 3.28 19 € 2.46 € 2.50 € 2.54 € 2.59 € 2.63 € 2.68 € 2.73 € 2.78 € 2.81 € 2.84 € 2.87 € 2.90 € 2.93 € 2.97 € 3.00 € 3.04 € 3.08 € 3.12 € 3.17 € 3.21 € 3.26
Number of barges operational [#] operational of barges Number 18 € 2.44 € 2.48 € 2.52 € 2.57 € 2.61 € 2.66 € 2.70 € 2.75 € 2.80 € 2.83 € 2.86 € 2.89 € 2.92 € 2.95 € 2.99 € 3.03 € 3.07 € 3.11 € 3.15 € 3.20 € 3.25 17 € 2.42 € 2.46 € 2.50 € 2.54 € 2.58 € 2.63 € 2.67 € 2.71 € 2.76 € 2.80 € 2.85 € 2.88 € 2.91 € 2.94 € 2.98 € 3.01 € 3.05 € 3.10 € 3.14 € 3.19 € 3.24 16 € 2.39 € 2.43 € 2.46 € 2.50 € 2.54 € 2.57 € 2.61 € 2.65 € 2.69 € 2.73 € 2.77 € 2.81 € 2.86 € 2.91 € 2.95 € 3.00 € 3.04 € 3.09 € 3.13 € 3.18 € 3.23 15 € 2.34 € 2.37 € 2.40 € 2.44 € 2.47 € 2.50 € 2.53 € 2.57 € 2.61 € 2.65 € 2.68 € 2.73 € 2.77 € 2.81 € 2.86 € 2.91 € 2.96 € 3.01 € 3.07 € 3.13 € 3.19
Abs. Loading
714 729 744 760 776 794 812 831 850 871 893 916 940 965 992
1050 1082 1116 1152 1190 capacity [T/hr] 1020
Rel. loading
102% 104% 106% 109% 111% 114% 116% 119% 122% 125% 128% 132% 135% 139% 143% 147% 152% 156% 161% 167% capacity [-] 100%
Berth
98% 96% 94% 92% 90% 88% 86% 84% 82% 80% 78% 76% 74% 72% 70% 68% 66% 64% 62% 60% occupation [-] 100% FIGURE 7.23 TRANSPORT COSTS PER CONFIGURATION
Page 88 of 196 Chair of Ports & Waterways The simulation model
From the table with the total transport costs it can be concluded that the configurations at the border of a stable stockpile are lowest in costs. To get a clear picture of the configurations with the lowest transport costs, the costs of the configurations at the border are plotted in two graphs. In the first plot at figure 7.24 the number of barges is plotted against the transport costs. In the second plot in figure 7.25 the loading capacity is plotted against the transport costs. From these plots it can be seen that the three transport configurations lowest in costs are;
An amount of 18 barges and the terminals with a loading capacity of 831 T/hr. An amount of 21 barges and the terminals with a loading capacity of 812 T/hr. An amount of 19 barges and the terminals with a loading capacity of 831 T/hr.
€ 3.25 € 3.20
€ 3.15 /T]
€ € 3.10 € 3.05 € 3.00 € 2.95 € 2.90 € 2.85
Transport costs per ton [ ton per costs Transport € 2.80 € 2.75 Transport costs € 2.70 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 Number of operational barges [#]
FIGURE 7.24 THE COSTS FOR BARGE TRANSPORT PLOTTED AGAINS THE RELATIVE (UN)LOADING CAPACITY
€ 3.25 € 3.20
€ 3.15 /T]
€ € 3.10 € 3.05 € 3.00 € 2.95 € 2.90 € 2.85
Transport costs per ton [ ton per costs Transport € 2.80 € 2.75 Transport costs € 2.70 700 750 800 850 900 950 1000 1050 1100 1150 1200 Loading capacity per berth [T/hr]
FIGURE 7.25 THE COSTS FOR BARGE TRANSPORT PLOTTED AGAINST THE NUMBER OF OPPERATIONAL BARGES
December 2011 Page 89 of 196 FEASIBLITY STUDY COAL TRANSPORT KALIMANTAN
7.8 SCHEMATISATION OF BARGE CYCLES
In paragraph 7.7 the results of the simulation model are presented in tables with on the y-axe the number of barges and at the x-axe the loading capacity of per berth. The current transport system consists of several cycles of barges, where full barges sail one way and empty barges sail back. From the transport chain two different kinds of cycles can be distinguished.
A cycle with barge transport between two terminals A cycle with barge transport between a terminal and an anchorage for loading coal carriers
The difference between the two barge cycles is the variability in waiting time of the barges at deep-sea. In the first system the waiting time is more or less constant, while at the second option the waiting time at deep-sea is variable. When there are always enough barges at the anchorage to load the coal carriers non-stop, a minimum amount of coal carriers will be waiting at the anchorage, and the barges will have to wait a long time. When the coal carriers have to wait for the barges, on average more vessels will be at the anchorage, and the waiting time for the barges will be less. The results from the simulation model are summarized in two graphs for both barge cycles.
Barge costs Too much transport capacity available
o t
l s a e
n g i r t a
m u
r L b
p o w e l +
h e t s a +
t g tr n e a u n
o s h
o p i
t o r t rt t c a h o r t a st
s Terminal costs e y d p t e i o r c
i f a u o p
q t a e c n r
u g e Enough transport capacity available o n h i t
m d t a a r
o e o l
h p h t s
g f n u o a
The capacity of the barges together with the terminals is not enough to transport the required throughput r o t e n s e a
t e r o c N n I
Not enough barges to transport the required throughput
Not enough transport capacity available
Increase of loading capacity at the terminal
Increase of the berth occupancy at the terminal
FIGURE 7.26 TECHNICAL AND FINANCIAL FEASABILITY OF BARGE TRANSPORT BETWEEN LB AND SP
The result of the barge cycle between two terminals is summarized in figure 7.26. This is for instance the barge cycle between Lok Buntar and Sungai Puting. An area at the lower part of the graph can be recognized, where not enough barges are operational to transport the required annual throughput. At the left side of the graph a similar area can be recognized where the terminal does not have enough loading capacity to load the required annual throughput. A hyperbolic line can be recognized at which the transport capacity is just enough to transport the required throughput capacity. Above this line, more coal is transported than the required annual throughput. Below this line, less coal is transported than the required annual throughput. The total transport costs are determined by the costs for the terminals and the barges. The costs for the barges increase when the number of barges increases. The costs for the terminal increase when the loading capacity of the terminal increases. As result from this the configuration with the lowest transport costs have to be found somewhere on the hyperbolic line, where just enough throughput is transported. If the costs for the barges are relative high this point shifts to the right. If the costs for the terminals are relative high this point shifts more to the left.
Page 90 of 196 Chair of Ports & Waterways The simulation model
The results of the barge transport system between Sungai Puting and the anchorage are summarized in figure 7.27. This is an example of a barge cycle between a terminal and an anchorage with variable unloading capacity. The results look similar with the results from the barge cycle between Lok Buntar and Sungai Puting. An area at the lower part of the graph can be recognized, where not enough barges are operational to transport the required annual throughput. At the left side of the graph a similar area can be recognized where the terminal does not have enough loading capacity to load the required annual throughput. In the remaining part of the graph enough transport capacity is available to transport the required throughput capacity. The transport configuration has to be found in this area of the graph. In the corner with much operational barges and much loading capacity the coal carriers are loaded non-stop. This means that there are always enough barges available to load the coal-carriers non-stop. The transport capacity in this area is too much, because the efficiency of the barges goes down, without increase of transport capacity. The transport which is lowest is costs has to be found in the middle, between non-stop loading and minimum transport capacity. The exact point is determined by the relative costs for the barges, terminal and the waiting time of the coal carriers.
The seagoing vessels are loaded non-stop Barge costs Too much transport capacity available l a s n e i g r m r a e
b
t l + a e
n h t o
i t t a + a
r y e t i p c o a
f
p Terminal costs o a
c t
n g u
n Lowest transport costs i o + d a m a o
l
e
h The seagoing vessels are loaded with delay h g t
u f Enough transport capacity available o o
n Costs for e e s
t
a coal carrier o e r N c n I
Not enough barges to transport the required throughput
Not enough transport capacity available
Increase of loading capacity at the terminal
Increase of the berth occupancy at the terminal FIGURE 7.27 TECHNICAL AND FINANCIAL FEASABILTY OF BARGE TRANSPORT BETWEEN SP AND THE ANCHORAGE
December 2011 Page 91 of 196 FEASIBLITY STUDY COAL TRANSPORT KALIMANTAN
7.9 MATHEMATICAL ANALYSIS OF BARGE CYCLES
The location of the hyperbolic line, at which the transport capacity is just equal to the throughput capacity, is a property of the transport system. In figure 7.28 the different properties of the transport system are described and there effect on the feasibility of the transport configurations. This schematisation is based on the barge cycle between two terminals. Three effects on the feasibility can be recognized:
If the duration between loading of two barges increases the maximum berth occupancy decrease. If the duration of the average cycle increases, more barges are required. If the transport system gets more regular, less barges and less loading capacity is required
Duration between the barges being loaded V Too much transport capacity available ery irre tim gul o e ar t b i e nt l s tw er a e a e en rri n g b v i a a r l t rg
a e m u s r b p
e l h
t a
g e n e
u h
o m h t o i t e r
t f t t
a o h s r t a y
y
e t s
y
d i t p t r e i a r o r
c l
o i f a u p u E D o g s n p ou
q gh u e n tra c t a nsp e o a r y R t r c ca n
r p
r a a
c c t ity av u a g
i l la t e bl e e i o n F o h
i u t t ll y n
m d r i m t e
a a g o r tim ul o
a e f e o l e r
i b n t h p e te o h t h t s w r
e a f g e f n e rr
n i a
u v
o a b a a
a l
r o rg b v t e e n s a e s e r a r
g a t e e g r o c e N n
I
Not enough barges to transport the required throughput
Not enough transport capacity available
Increase of loading capacity at the terminal
Increase of the berth occupancy at the terminal FIGURE 7.28 INFLUENCE OF THE PROPERTIES OF THE TRANSPORT SYSTEM ON THE FEASABILITY
The location of the hyperbolic line is determined by the regularity of the transport system. If the transport system is fully regular with not any delay, the hyperbolic line is equal to the extreme limits of the system. These limits can be calculated mathematically. When the transport system is more irregular the hyperbole function go upwards and as consequence more barges and more loading capacity are required for transportation.
The properties of the transport system are investigated and a mathematical model has been developed to determine the technical feasibility of the transport system. The model can help with the determination of the most efficient transport configuration. First the ultimate limits concerning the amount of barges and the loading capacity is determined.
Page 92 of 196 Chair of Ports & Waterways The simulation model
T.yr [T/yr] Annual throughput capacity. T.min [T/hr] Minimum loading capacity n.hr [hr/yr] Number of operational hours per year. M.b [T] Capacity of the barges. t.s [hr] Nominal sailing time of the barges in one cycle. t.c [hr] Time between two barges being loaded at a terminal. t.a [hr] Nominal time of a barge at the anchorage. (transport cycle between two terminal ta=0) n.t [#] Number of terminals in the cycles. (1 or 2) n.b [#] Number of berths per terminal. n.b_min [#] Minimum required number of barges (theoretical) n.b_req [#] Required number of barges (empirical) T.l [T/hr] Loading capacity of the terminal. C.r [-] Regularity coefficient of the transport system. (between 1 and 10) TABLE 7.11 PARAMETERS WHICH DETERMINE THE TECHNICAL FEASEBILITY OF THE TRANSPORT SYSTEM
The minimum loading capacity required at the terminals
Tyr Tyr tc T 1 min n M n n hr b hr b
The absolute minimum amount of barges required (theoretical)
Tyr ts ta nt nb nb_minTl nhr Mb Tl
The formulas described above are plotted in figure 7.29. In this plot the absolute limits of the transport system are indicated with Tmin and nb_min. At these limits the transport system can transport the throughput capacity only if the transport system is fully regular. In practice a transport system is never fully regular, therefor another formula is developed to estimate the required number of barges when the transport system is more irregular.
The required number of barges for irregular transport systems (empirical)
Tyr ts ta nt nb nb_reqTl Cr nhr Mb Tl
In this formula an empirical parameter is included which determines the irregularity of the system. This empirical parameter is called the regularity coefficient and varies between 1 and 10. This coefficient is equal to one for a fully regular system and increases when the transport system is more irregular. The coefficient has been determined by fitting the formula to the results from the simulation model. In case of the transport system between Lok Buntar and Sungai Putting the regularity coefficient has been determined to be 1.4.
More research is desired to give the regularity coefficient a more fundamental background. This could be done with a numerical calculator of the queuing theory. Than the empirical coefficient could be described according to shape parameter of the gamma distribution for the inter arrival time of the barges.
December 2011 Page 93 of 196 FEASIBLITY STUDY COAL TRANSPORT KALIMANTAN
40
upper limit T T t 35 yr yr c Tmin 1 nhr Mb nhr nb Min. number of barges
lower limit 30
Required number of barges
25 Min. loading capacity
20 Tyr ts ta nt nb nb_reqTl Cr nhr Mb Tl
15 Number of operational barges [#] barges operational of Number
10 Tyr ts ta nt nb nb_minTl nhr Mb Tl 5
0 1400 1600 1800 2000 2200 2400 2600 2800 Loading capacity [T/hr]
FIGURE 7.29 MATHEMATICAL MODEL FOR THE TRANSPORT SYSTEM
Page 94 of 196 Chair of Ports & Waterways Alternative 1.1, Barge transport from Lok Buntar
8 ALTERNATIVE 1.1, BARGE TRANSPORT FROM LOK BUNTAR
Ida Manggala Lok Buntar Sungai Puting
unloading jetty 1 AGM AGM mine stockpile loading Jetty 1 unloading jetty 2 e l i
unloading p k c
jetty 3 o
Pualam Sari t s unloading loading jetty 4 SKB SKB jetty 2 mine stockpile unloading jetty 5
An obvious modification to the current transport system is a transport system with direct road transport from the mine to Lok Buntar. At the moment, coal is transported from the mine to the Tatakan stockpile by 30T trucks. At Tatakan, coal is first stocked and then re-handled to 10T trucks for transport to Lok Buntar. Handling the coal at Tatakan is unnecessary costly. The Tatakan stockpile is therefor left out in this alternative transport system. Transport from Lok Buntar to Sungai Puting is done by 180ft barges.
8.1 RESEARCH APPROACH
Only the part of the transport system between Lok Buntar and Sungai Puting is taken into account to compare with the other alternatives. Barge transport between the two terminals is analysed with the use of a simulation model. The advantage of a simulation model is the flexibility to design the model exactly conform the real situation.
At the end of the chapter a comparison is made between the different outcomes from the queuing theory and the simulation model. The advantages and disadvantages of each method will be described.
FIGURE 8.1 180FT BARGE TRANSPORT NEAR SUNGAI PUTING
December 2011 Page 95 of 196 FEASIBLITY STUDY COAL TRANSPORT KALIMANTAN
8.2 BLOK SCHEMATISATION OF BARGE TRANSPORT
For the investigation of barge transport from Lok Buntar to Sungai Puting a clear overview of the different relations between parameters is required. A block schematization is made in which the relation between investments and benefits is clarified.
In the block schematization for barge transport, six different blocks can be distinguished.
1. Design criteria 2. Lok Buntar terminal 3. Channel configuration 4. Sungai Puting terminal 5. Barge requirements 6. Additional constructions
The schematization starts with the design criteria. The two design criteria which have influence on the design of the transport system are the amount operational hours and the required throughput per year. These parameters determine the average throughput per hour in a year. With the average throughput per hour the average inter arrival time can be calculated. The inter arrival time is the time between two barges arriving at the terminal.
The configuration of the Lok Buntar terminal consists of two major parameters. The amount of loading berths and the loading capacity per berth. With the queuing theory an estimate of the average waiting time can be calculated. In this way is the total service time is determined by the terminal configuration. With a simulation model the service time can be calculated more accurate and delays in the transport system can be implemented
The configuration of the channel determines the sailing time between Lok Buntar and Sungai Puting. When applying a channel with limited width for crossings and over taking, the waiting time during sailing will increase when throughput increases. Three different channel configurations are possible:
One way channel. One way channel with limited space for crossing and over taking. Two way channel.
The configuration of Sungai Puting terminal determines the total service time at Sungai Puting. Two mayor parameters are of importance. The amount of unloading berths and the capacity per berth. The same holds for the Lok Buntar terminal, the terminal configuration determines the total service time for a barge to be unloaded.
Page 96 of 196 Chair of Ports & Waterways Alternative 1.1, Barge transport from Lok Buntar
Working Throughput 1 hours capacity
Design creteria
Costs Number of Inter Arrival Type of loading Service Time loading terminals loading berths at Time 2 system distribution Lok Buntar Lok Buntar distribution
Type of canal 3 Dredging Costs one-way/ two way
Can be calculated with the use of the Queing theory or a Simiulation model.
Costs Type of Number of Inter Arrival Service Time unloading terminals unloading unloading berths at Time 4 distribution Sungai Puting system Sungai Puting distribution
Can be calculated with the use of the Queing theory or a Simiulation model.
Costs for Necessary amount Cycles time Sailing Time Sailing Time Unloading Time Waiting time Loading Time Waiting time 5 180F Barge + Tug 180F barge + tug single barge Empty Full
Costs Waiting area Turning circle 6 Additional Constructions barge + tug
Total Costs Barge Transport
Input fo Multi Criteria Analysis
$ / T Barge Transport
FIGURE 8.2 BLOCK SCHEMATISATION BARGE TRANSPORT
December 2011 Page 97 of 196 FEASIBLITY STUDY COAL TRANSPORT KALIMANTAN
Page 98 of 196 Chair of Ports & Waterways Alternative 1.1, Barge transport from Lok Buntar
8.3 USING THE SIMULATION MODEL FOR OPTIMISATION
A simulation model is written to get grip on the complex transport system. In chapter 7 the simulation model is fully described. Before the simulation model is used, the user have to know what the simulation model should calculate or optimize. It is important to have an idea about the quantities and properties of the barge transport system before using the simulation model. Before an optimisation is made, the most useful runs have to be determined. The required throughput capacity for 2013 is five million ton coal per year. The two terminals at Lok Buntar and Sungai Puting can be carried out with one, two or three berths. The (un)loading capacity of the berths decreases, when the amount of berths per terminal increases.
In table 8.1 the (un)loading capacities are determined according to the number of berths and the relative (un)loading capacity. The range in which loading conveyors are available is between 500T/hr and 1500T/hr effective loading capacity. Therefor is chosen to make two calculations. One calculation with one berth per terminal and another calculation with two berths per terminal.
Number of berths 100% relative (un)loading capacity 167% relative (un)loading capacity 1 714 T/hr 1190 T/hr 2 357 T/hr 595 T/hr TABLE 8.1 (UN)LOADING CAPACITY PER BERTH ACCORDING TO THE RELATIVE (UN)LOADING CAPACITY IN 2013
The required throughput capacity for 2015 is ten million ton per year. In table 8.2 the (un)loading capacities are determined according to the number of berths per terminal and the relative (un)loading capacity. There is chosen to make three calculations with two, three and four berths per terminal.
Number of berths 100% relative (un)loading capacity 167% relative (un)loading capacity 1 1429 T/hr 2381 T/hr 2 714 T/hr 1190 T/hr 3 476 T/hr 794 T/hr TABLE 8.2 (UN)LOADING CAPACITY PER BERTH ACCORDING TO THE RELATIVE (UN)LOADING CAPACITY IN 2015
The required throughput capacity for 2017 is 15.000.000 ton per year. In table 8.3 the (un)loading capacities are determined according to the number of berths and the relative (un)loading capacity. There is chosen to make three calculations with two, three and four berths per terminal.
Number of berths 100% relative (un)loading capacity 167% relative (un)loading capacity 2 1071 T/hr 1786 T/hr 3 714 T/hr 1190 T/hr 4 536 T/hr 893 T/hr TABLE 8.3 (UN)LOADING CAPACITY PER BERTH ACCORDING TO THE RELATIVE (UN)LOADING CAPACITY IN 2017
In table 8.4 show summary of the configuration which will be investigated. Two configuration for 2013 and three configurations for 2015 and 2017 are investigated.
Number of berths Required throughput capacity at Lok Buntar 2013 2015 2017 and Sungai Puting 5,000,000 T/year 10,000,000 T/year 15,000,000 T/year One berth X X Two berths X X X Three berths X X Four berths X TABLE 8.4 THE TRANSPORT CONFIGURATION WHICH ARE INVESTIGATED BETWEEN LB AND SP
December 2011 Page 99 of 196 FEASIBLITY STUDY COAL TRANSPORT KALIMANTAN
8.4 RESULTS FROM THE SIMULATION MODEL
The goal of the simulation model is to determine the most efficient transport system. The definition of the most efficient barge transport configuration is described in paragraph 0. To determine the optimum barge transport configuration, three question are important to ask.
Is the barge transport configuration able to transport the required throughput? Which of the possible configurations are lowest in costs? Which of the low-costs configurations is most suitable concerning the configurations in previous years?
These questions can be answered by the following two tables and three plots.
The relative stockpile growth (explained in paragraph 7.5.1) The required number of barges plotted against the relative (un)loading capacity (explained in paragraph 7.5.1) The transport costs per configuration (explained in paragraph 7.6) The costs for barge transport plotted against the relative (un)loading capacity. (explained in paragraph 7.7) The costs for barges transport plotted against the number of operational barges. (explained in paragraph 7.7)
In the next paragraphs the results from the simulation model for different throughputs are explained according these five figures. At the end of every paragraph the most efficient configurations are summarized. A design plan for the years from 2015 to 2017 is presented in paragraph.
The structure of the technical and financial feasibility is described in paragraph 7.8. The structure is summarized in a schematization. The schematization divide the table in different kind of technical feasibility. The costs for the barges and the terminals determine the financial feasibility.
Duration between the barges being loaded V Too much transport capacity available ery irre tim gul o e ar t b i e nt l s tw er a e a e en rri n g b v i a a r l t rg
a e m u s r b p
e l h
t a
g e n e
u h
o m h t o i t e r
t f t
t o a h s r t a y
y
e t s y
d i t p t r e i a r o r
c l
o i f a u p u E D o g s n p ou
q gh u e n tra c t a nsp e o a r y R t r c ca n
r p
r a a
c c t ity av u a g
i l la t e bl e e i o n F o h
i u t t ll y n
m d r i m t e
a a g o r tim ul o
a e f e o l e r
i b n t h p e te o h t h t s w r
e a f g e f n e rr
n i a
u v
o a b a a
a l
r o rg b v t e e n s a e s e r a r
g a t e e g r o c e N n
I
Not enough barges to transport the required throughput
Not enough transport capacity available
Increase of loading capacity at the terminal
Increase of the berth occupancy at the terminal FIGURE 8.3 TECHNICAL AND FINANCIAL FEASABILITY OF BARGE TRANSPORT BETWEEN LB AND SP
Page 100 of 196 Chair of Ports & Waterways Alternative 1.1, Barge transport from Lok Buntar
December 2011 Page 101 of 196 FEASIBLITY STUDY COAL TRANSPORT KALIMANTAN
8.4.1 OPTIMAL TRANSPORT CONFIGURATION FOR 2013 WITH ONE BERTH
The relative stockpile growth determines if the transport system is stable and if it is able to transport the required throughput capacity of 5 million ton per year. For the scenario in 2013 with one operational berth per terminal, the relative stockpile growth is given in figure 8.4. It can be seen that a minimum number of 6 and a maximum of 7 barges is required to transport the required throughput capacity efficiently.
20 9.4% 7.8% 6.1% 4.3% 2.4% 0.4% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% 19 9.5% 7.8% 6.1% 4.3% 2.4% 0.5% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% 18 9.5% 7.8% 6.1% 4.3% 2.4% 0.4% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% 17 9.5% 7.8% 6.1% 4.3% 2.4% 0.4% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% 16 9.5% 7.8% 6.1% 4.3% 2.4% 0.5% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% 15 9.5% 7.8% 6.1% 4.3% 2.4% 0.5% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% 14 9.5% 7.8% 6.1% 4.3% 2.4% 0.5% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% 13 9.5% 7.8% 6.1% 4.3% 2.4% 0.4% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% 12 9.5% 7.8% 6.1% 4.3% 2.4% 0.5% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% 11 9.5% 7.8% 6.1% 4.3% 2.4% 0.5% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% 10 9.5% 7.8% 6.0% 4.3% 2.4% 0.4% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% 9 9.5% 7.8% 6.1% 4.3% 2.4% 0.5% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0%
Number of barges operational [#] operational of barges Number 8 9.5% 7.9% 6.2% 4.5% 2.6% 0.7% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% 7 10.1% 8.4% 6.8% 5.1% 3.4% 1.5% -0.4% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% 6 11.2% 9.7% 8.1% 6.5% 4.8% 3.0% 1.4% -0.5% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% 5 16.3% 15.7% 14.7% 13.9% 13.2% 12.3% 11.7% 10.9% 10.2% 9.5% 8.5% 7.9% 7.0% 6.3% 5.4% 4.8% 3.9% 3.0% 2.3% 1.2% 0.4%
Abs. Loading
714 729 744 760 776 794 812 831 850 871 893 916 940 965 992
1050 1082 1116 1152 1190 capacity [T/hr] 1020
Rel. loading
102% 104% 106% 109% 111% 114% 116% 119% 122% 125% 128% 132% 135% 139% 143% 147% 152% 156% 161% 167% capacity [-] 100%
Berth
98% 96% 94% 92% 90% 88% 86% 84% 82% 80% 78% 76% 74% 72% 70% 68% 66% 64% 62% 60% ccupation [-] 100% FIGURE 8.4 RELATIVE STOCKPILE GROWTH FOR 2013 WITH ONE BERTH PER TERMINAL
The transport cost per configuration for the scenario in 2013 with one berth per terminal is given in figure 8.5. The transport costs are calculated with respect to the efficiency of the barges and the occupancy terminals. A full clarification of the transport costs is given in paragraph 7.6.
20 € 2.93 € 2.97 € 3.02 € 3.06 € 3.11 € 3.16 € 3.20 € 3.23 € 3.26 € 3.29 € 3.31 € 3.34 € 3.37 € 3.41 € 3.44 € 3.48 € 3.52 € 3.56 € 3.60 € 3.65 € 3.70 19 € 2.90 € 2.94 € 2.99 € 3.03 € 3.08 € 3.13 € 3.17 € 3.20 € 3.23 € 3.25 € 3.28 € 3.31 € 3.34 € 3.38 € 3.41 € 3.45 € 3.49 € 3.53 € 3.57 € 3.62 € 3.67 18 € 2.87 € 2.91 € 2.95 € 3.00 € 3.05 € 3.10 € 3.14 € 3.17 € 3.19 € 3.22 € 3.25 € 3.28 € 3.31 € 3.34 € 3.38 € 3.42 € 3.46 € 3.50 € 3.54 € 3.59 € 3.64 17 € 2.84 € 2.88 € 2.92 € 2.97 € 3.02 € 3.07 € 3.11 € 3.14 € 3.16 € 3.19 € 3.22 € 3.25 € 3.28 € 3.31 € 3.35 € 3.38 € 3.42 € 3.46 € 3.51 € 3.55 € 3.61 16 € 2.80 € 2.85 € 2.89 € 2.94 € 2.99 € 3.03 € 3.08 € 3.10 € 3.13 € 3.16 € 3.19 € 3.22 € 3.25 € 3.28 € 3.32 € 3.35 € 3.39 € 3.43 € 3.48 € 3.52 € 3.57 15 € 2.77 € 2.82 € 2.86 € 2.90 € 2.95 € 3.00 € 3.05 € 3.07 € 3.10 € 3.13 € 3.16 € 3.19 € 3.22 € 3.25 € 3.29 € 3.32 € 3.36 € 3.40 € 3.45 € 3.49 € 3.54 14 € 2.74 € 2.78 € 2.83 € 2.87 € 2.92 € 2.97 € 3.02 € 3.04 € 3.07 € 3.10 € 3.13 € 3.15 € 3.19 € 3.22 € 3.25 € 3.29 € 3.33 € 3.37 € 3.41 € 3.46 € 3.51 13 € 2.71 € 2.75 € 2.80 € 2.84 € 2.89 € 2.94 € 2.98 € 3.01 € 3.04 € 3.06 € 3.09 € 3.12 € 3.15 € 3.19 € 3.22 € 3.26 € 3.30 € 3.34 € 3.38 € 3.43 € 3.48 12 € 2.68 € 2.72 € 2.76 € 2.81 € 2.86 € 2.91 € 2.95 € 2.98 € 3.00 € 3.03 € 3.06 € 3.09 € 3.12 € 3.16 € 3.19 € 3.23 € 3.27 € 3.31 € 3.35 € 3.40 € 3.45 11 € 2.65 € 2.69 € 2.73 € 2.78 € 2.83 € 2.88 € 2.92 € 2.95 € 2.97 € 3.00 € 3.03 € 3.06 € 3.09 € 3.12 € 3.16 € 3.19 € 3.24 € 3.28 € 3.32 € 3.37 € 3.42 10 € 2.61 € 2.66 € 2.70 € 2.75 € 2.79 € 2.84 € 2.89 € 2.92 € 2.94 € 2.97 € 3.00 € 3.03 € 3.06 € 3.09 € 3.13 € 3.16 € 3.20 € 3.24 € 3.29 € 3.34 € 3.38 9 € 2.58 € 2.63 € 2.67 € 2.72 € 2.76 € 2.81 € 2.86 € 2.88 € 2.91 € 2.94 € 2.97 € 3.00 € 3.03 € 3.06 € 3.10 € 3.13 € 3.17 € 3.21 € 3.26 € 3.30 € 3.35
Number of barges operational [#] operational of barges Number 8 € 2.55 € 2.59 € 2.64 € 2.68 € 2.73 € 2.78 € 2.82 € 2.85 € 2.88 € 2.91 € 2.93 € 2.96 € 3.00 € 3.03 € 3.06 € 3.10 € 3.14 € 3.18 € 3.23 € 3.27 € 3.32 7 € 2.51 € 2.55 € 2.59 € 2.64 € 2.68 € 2.73 € 2.78 € 2.82 € 2.84 € 2.87 € 2.90 € 2.93 € 2.96 € 2.99 € 3.03 € 3.07 € 3.11 € 3.15 € 3.19 € 3.24 € 3.29 6 € 2.46 € 2.50 € 2.54 € 2.59 € 2.63 € 2.68 € 2.72 € 2.77 € 2.81 € 2.83 € 2.86 € 2.89 € 2.92 € 2.96 € 2.99 € 3.03 € 3.07 € 3.11 € 3.15 € 3.20 € 3.25 5 € 2.35 € 2.38 € 2.42 € 2.45 € 2.48 € 2.51 € 2.55 € 2.58 € 2.62 € 2.65 € 2.70 € 2.74 € 2.78 € 2.82 € 2.87 € 2.92 € 2.97 € 3.02 € 3.07 € 3.14 € 3.20
Abs. Loading
714 729 744 760 776 794 812 831 850 871 893 916 940 965 992
1050 1082 1116 1152 1190 capacity [T/hr] 1020
Rel. loading
102% 104% 106% 109% 111% 114% 116% 119% 122% 125% 128% 132% 135% 139% 143% 147% 152% 156% 161% 167% capacity [-] 100%
Berth
98% 96% 94% 92% 90% 88% 86% 84% 82% 80% 78% 76% 74% 72% 70% 68% 66% 64% 62% 60% ccupation [-] 100% FIGURE 8.5 TRANSPORT COSTS FOR 2013 WITH ONE BERTH PER TERMINAL
Page 102 of 196 Chair of Ports & Waterways Alternative 1.1, Barge transport from Lok Buntar
€ 3.30
€ 3.20
/T] € € 3.10
€ 3.00
€ 2.90 Transport costs per ton [ ton per costs Transport € 2.80 Transport costs € 2.70 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Number of operational barges [#]
FIGURE 8.6 REQUIRED NUMBER OF BARGES AGAINST THE TRANSPORT COSTS (2013 WITH ONE BERTHS)
€ 3.30
€ 3.20
/T] € € 3.10
€ 3.00
€ 2.90
Transport costs per ton [ ton per costs Transport € 2.80 Transport costs € 2.70 700 750 800 850 900 950 1000 1050 1100 1150 1200 Loading capacity per berth [T/hr]
FIGURE 8.7 (UN)LOADING CAPACITY AGAINST THE TRANSPORT COSTS (2013 WITH ONE BERTHS)
The optimum barge transport configuration can be determine according to the graphs in figure 8.6 and figure 8.7. The graph show the transport costs at the border at which the stockpile growth is just stable. At these configurations exact 5 million ton per year is transported. From the graphs, the optimum barge transport configuration can be determined.
The three most efficient barge transport configurations for a throughput of 5 million ton per year with one loading berth in Lok Buntar and one unloading berth in Sungai Puting.
1. 6 barges operational and a total loading capacity of the terminals of 831 T/hr 2. 7 barges operational and a total loading capacity of the terminals of 821 T/hr 3. 6 barges operational and a total loading capacity of the terminals of 850 T/hr
December 2011 Page 103 of 196 FEASIBLITY STUDY COAL TRANSPORT KALIMANTAN
8.4.2 OPTIMAL TRANSPORT CONFIGURATION FOR 2013 WITH TWO BERTHS
The relative stockpile growth determines if the transport system is stable and if it is able to transport the required throughput capacity of 5 million ton per year. For the scenario in 2013 with two berths per terminal, the relative stockpile growth is given in figure 8.8. It can be seen that a minimum number of 7 and a maximum of 10 barges is required to transport the required throughput capacity efficiently.
20 5.0% 3.1% 1.2% -0.8% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% 19 5.0% 3.1% 1.2% -0.8% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% 18 5.0% 3.2% 1.2% -0.8% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% 17 5.0% 3.2% 1.2% -0.8% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% 16 5.0% 3.1% 1.2% -0.8% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% 15 5.0% 3.1% 1.2% -0.7% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% 14 5.0% 3.1% 1.2% -0.8% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% 13 5.0% 3.2% 1.2% -0.8% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% 12 5.0% 3.2% 1.2% -0.7% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% 11 5.0% 3.2% 1.3% -0.7% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% 10 5.1% 3.4% 1.5% -0.4% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% 9 5.8% 4.0% 2.2% 0.3% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0%
Number of barges operational [#] operational of barges Number 8 6.9% 5.2% 3.5% 1.6% 0.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% 7 12.5% 11.5% 10.4% 9.3% 8.2% 7.0% 5.7% 4.6% 3.5% 2.2% 1.0% -0.3% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% 6 23.4% 22.8% 22.0% 20.9% 20.2% 19.3% 18.4% 17.4% 16.5% 15.5% 14.5% 13.6% 12.4% 11.3% 10.3% 9.3% 8.1% 6.7% 5.8% 4.5% 3.1% 5 36.0% 35.4% 34.7% 34.0% 33.2% 32.5% 31.8% 31.1% 30.2% 29.4% 28.7% 27.7% 26.9% 26.0% 25.1% 24.2% 23.3% 22.3% 21.4% 20.2% 19.1%
Abs. Loading
364 372 380 388 397 406 415 425 436 446 458 470 483 496 510 525 541 558 576 595 capacity [T/hr] 357
Rel. loading
102% 104% 106% 109% 111% 114% 116% 119% 122% 125% 128% 132% 135% 139% 143% 147% 152% 156% 161% 167% capacity [-] 100%
Berth
98% 96% 94% 92% 90% 88% 86% 84% 82% 80% 78% 76% 74% 72% 70% 68% 66% 64% 62% 60% ccupation [-] 100% FIGURE 8.8 RELATIVE STOCKPILE GROWTH FOR 2013 WITH TWO BERTHS PER TERMINAL
The transport cost per configuration for the scenario in 2013 with two berths per terminal is given in figure 8.9. The transport costs are calculated with respect to the efficiency of the barges and the occupancy terminals. A full clarification of the transport costs is given in paragraph 7.6.
20 € 3.06 € 3.10 € 3.15 € 3.20 € 3.22 € 3.24 € 3.27 € 3.29 € 3.32 € 3.34 € 3.37 € 3.40 € 3.43 € 3.46 € 3.49 € 3.53 € 3.57 € 3.61 € 3.65 € 3.70 € 3.75 19 € 3.02 € 3.07 € 3.11 € 3.16 € 3.19 € 3.21 € 3.24 € 3.26 € 3.28 € 3.31 € 3.34 € 3.37 € 3.40 € 3.43 € 3.46 € 3.50 € 3.54 € 3.58 € 3.62 € 3.67 € 3.72 18 € 2.99 € 3.04 € 3.08 € 3.13 € 3.16 € 3.18 € 3.20 € 3.23 € 3.25 € 3.28 € 3.31 € 3.34 € 3.37 € 3.40 € 3.43 € 3.47 € 3.51 € 3.55 € 3.59 € 3.64 € 3.69 17 € 2.96 € 3.00 € 3.05 € 3.10 € 3.13 € 3.15 € 3.17 € 3.20 € 3.22 € 3.25 € 3.27 € 3.30 € 3.33 € 3.37 € 3.40 € 3.44 € 3.47 € 3.52 € 3.56 € 3.60 € 3.66 16 € 2.93 € 2.97 € 3.02 € 3.07 € 3.09 € 3.12 € 3.14 € 3.16 € 3.19 € 3.22 € 3.24 € 3.27 € 3.30 € 3.34 € 3.37 € 3.41 € 3.44 € 3.48 € 3.53 € 3.57 € 3.62 15 € 2.90 € 2.94 € 2.99 € 3.04 € 3.06 € 3.09 € 3.11 € 3.13 € 3.16 € 3.18 € 3.21 € 3.24 € 3.27 € 3.30 € 3.34 € 3.37 € 3.41 € 3.45 € 3.50 € 3.54 € 3.59 14 € 2.86 € 2.91 € 2.96 € 3.01 € 3.03 € 3.05 € 3.08 € 3.10 € 3.13 € 3.15 € 3.18 € 3.21 € 3.24 € 3.27 € 3.31 € 3.34 € 3.38 € 3.42 € 3.46 € 3.51 € 3.56 13 € 2.83 € 2.88 € 2.92 € 2.97 € 3.00 € 3.02 € 3.05 € 3.07 € 3.10 € 3.12 € 3.15 € 3.18 € 3.21 € 3.24 € 3.27 € 3.31 € 3.35 € 3.39 € 3.43 € 3.48 € 3.53 12 € 2.80 € 2.85 € 2.89 € 2.94 € 2.97 € 2.99 € 3.02 € 3.04 € 3.06 € 3.09 € 3.12 € 3.15 € 3.18 € 3.21 € 3.24 € 3.28 € 3.32 € 3.36 € 3.40 € 3.45 € 3.50 11 € 2.77 € 2.81 € 2.86 € 2.91 € 2.94 € 2.96 € 2.98 € 3.01 € 3.03 € 3.06 € 3.09 € 3.11 € 3.15 € 3.18 € 3.21 € 3.25 € 3.29 € 3.33 € 3.37 € 3.42 € 3.47 10 € 2.74 € 2.78 € 2.83 € 2.87 € 2.90 € 2.93 € 2.95 € 2.98 € 3.00 € 3.03 € 3.05 € 3.08 € 3.11 € 3.15 € 3.18 € 3.22 € 3.26 € 3.30 € 3.34 € 3.39 € 3.43 9 € 2.69 € 2.74 € 2.78 € 2.83 € 2.87 € 2.89 € 2.92 € 2.94 € 2.97 € 2.99 € 3.02 € 3.05 € 3.08 € 3.11 € 3.15 € 3.19 € 3.22 € 3.26 € 3.31 € 3.35 € 3.40
Number of barges operational [#] operational of barges Number 8 € 2.64 € 2.69 € 2.73 € 2.78 € 2.82 € 2.86 € 2.88 € 2.91 € 2.93 € 2.96 € 2.99 € 3.02 € 3.05 € 3.08 € 3.11 € 3.15 € 3.19 € 3.23 € 3.27 € 3.32 € 3.37 7 € 2.53 € 2.57 € 2.60 € 2.64 € 2.67 € 2.71 € 2.75 € 2.79 € 2.83 € 2.88 € 2.92 € 2.97 € 3.01 € 3.05 € 3.08 € 3.12 € 3.16 € 3.20 € 3.25 € 3.29 € 3.34 6 € 2.34 € 2.37 € 2.40 € 2.44 € 2.47 € 2.50 € 2.54 € 2.58 € 2.61 € 2.66 € 2.70 € 2.74 € 2.79 € 2.84 € 2.88 € 2.94 € 2.99 € 3.05 € 3.11 € 3.17 € 3.24 5 € 2.13 € 2.15 € 2.18 € 2.21 € 2.24 € 2.28 € 2.31 € 2.35 € 2.38 € 2.42 € 2.46 € 2.50 € 2.55 € 2.59 € 2.64 € 2.69 € 2.74 € 2.79 € 2.85 € 2.91 € 2.98
Abs. Loading
364 372 380 388 397 406 415 425 436 446 458 470 483 496 510 525 541 558 576 595 capacity [T/hr] 357
Rel. loading
102% 104% 106% 109% 111% 114% 116% 119% 122% 125% 128% 132% 135% 139% 143% 147% 152% 156% 161% 167% capacity [-] 100%
Berth
98% 96% 94% 92% 90% 88% 86% 84% 82% 80% 78% 76% 74% 72% 70% 68% 66% 64% 62% 60% ccupation [-] 100% FIGURE 8.9 TRANSPORT COSTS FOR 2013 WITH TWO BERTHS PER TERMINAL
Page 104 of 196 Chair of Ports & Waterways Alternative 1.1, Barge transport from Lok Buntar
€ 3.40
€ 3.30
/T]
€ € 3.20
€ 3.10
€ 3.00
€ 2.90 Transport costs per ton [ ton per costs Transport € 2.80 Transport costs € 2.70 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Number of operational barges [#]
FIGURE 8.10 REQUIRED NUMBER OF BARGES AGAINST THE TRANSPORT COSTS (2013 WITH TWO BERTHS)
€ 3.40
€ 3.30
/T]
€ € 3.20
€ 3.10
€ 3.00
€ 2.90 Transport costs per ton [ ton per costs Transport
€ 2.80 Transport costs
€ 2.70 350 400 450 500 550 600 Loading capacity per berth [T/hr]
FIGURE 8.11 (UN)LOADING CAPACITY AGAINST THE TRANSPORT COSTS (2013 WITH TWO BERTHS)
The optimum barge transport configuration can be determine according to the graphs at figure 8.10 and figure 8.11. The graph show the transport costs at the border at which the stockpile growth is just stable. At these configurations exact 5 million ton per year is transported. From the graphs, the optimum barge transport configuration can be determined.
The three most efficient barge transport configurations for a throughput of 5 million ton per year with two loading berths in Lok Buntar and two unloading berths in Sungai Puting.
1. 8 barges operational and a total loading capacity of the terminals of 388 T/hr 2. 9 barges operational and a total loading capacity of the terminals of 388 T/hr 3. 10 barges operational and a total loading capacity of the terminals of 380 T/hr
December 2011 Page 105 of 196 FEASIBLITY STUDY COAL TRANSPORT KALIMANTAN
8.4.3 OPTIMAL TRANSPORT CONFIGURATION FOR 2015 WITH ONE BERTH
The relative stockpile growth determines if the transport system is stable and if it is able to transport the required throughput capacity of 10 million ton per year. For the scenario in 2015 with one berth per terminal, the relative stockpile growth is given in figure 8.12. It can be seen that a minimum number of 9 and a maximum of 12 barges is required to transport the required throughput capacity efficiently.
20 17.3% 15.9% 14.4% 12.9% 11.4% 9.8% 8.1% 6.4% 4.6% 2.7% 0.8% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% 19 17.3% 15.9% 14.4% 12.9% 11.4% 9.8% 8.1% 6.4% 4.6% 2.7% 0.8% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% 18 17.3% 15.9% 14.4% 12.9% 11.4% 9.8% 8.1% 6.4% 4.6% 2.8% 0.8% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% 17 17.2% 15.9% 14.4% 12.9% 11.4% 9.8% 8.1% 6.4% 4.6% 2.8% 0.8% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% 16 17.3% 15.9% 14.4% 12.9% 11.4% 9.8% 8.1% 6.4% 4.6% 2.8% 0.9% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% 15 17.3% 15.9% 14.4% 12.9% 11.4% 9.8% 8.2% 6.4% 4.6% 2.8% 0.8% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% 14 17.3% 15.9% 14.4% 12.9% 11.4% 9.8% 8.2% 6.5% 4.7% 2.8% 0.9% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% 13 17.3% 15.9% 14.5% 13.0% 11.4% 9.9% 8.3% 6.6% 4.8% 3.0% 1.2% -0.8% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% 12 17.4% 16.0% 14.6% 13.2% 11.7% 10.2% 8.6% 6.9% 5.2% 3.5% 1.6% -0.3% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% 11 17.7% 16.4% 15.0% 13.6% 12.1% 10.6% 9.0% 7.5% 5.8% 4.1% 2.3% 0.4% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% 10 18.2% 16.9% 15.6% 14.2% 12.8% 11.3% 9.9% 8.3% 6.6% 5.0% 3.3% 1.6% 0.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% 9 19.1% 17.8% 16.5% 15.2% 14.0% 12.7% 11.4% 10.3% 9.1% 8.1% 7.1% 6.3% 5.4% 4.6% 3.8% 3.1% 2.6% 1.8% 1.1% 0.5% -0.2%
Number of barges operational [#] operational of barges Number 8 21.4% 20.7% 19.8% 19.3% 18.6% 17.9% 17.4% 16.7% 16.1% 15.8% 15.3% 14.8% 14.1% 13.5% 13.2% 12.8% 12.2% 11.6% 11.3% 10.8% 10.3% 7 28.9% 28.3% 27.8% 27.5% 27.2% 26.7% 26.4% 26.0% 25.6% 25.4% 24.8% 24.3% 24.3% 23.6% 23.3% 22.8% 22.6% 22.2% 21.6% 21.4% 21.0% 6 38.1% 37.9% 37.5% 37.3% 37.0% 36.6% 36.4% 36.1% 35.7% 35.4% 35.1% 34.8% 34.6% 34.3% 33.7% 33.5% 33.3% 32.9% 32.5% 32.2% 31.9% 5 48.0% 47.9% 47.6% 47.3% 47.1% 46.9% 46.5% 46.3% 46.1% 46.0% 45.6% 45.4% 45.2% 44.8% 44.7% 44.3% 44.1% 43.8% 43.5% 43.2% 43.1%
Abs. Loading
1458 1488 1520 1553 1587 1623 1661 1701 1742 1786 1832 1880 1931 1984 2041 2101 2165 2232 2304 2381 capacity [T/hr] 1429
Rel. loading
102% 104% 106% 109% 111% 114% 116% 119% 122% 125% 128% 132% 135% 139% 143% 147% 152% 156% 161% 167% capacity [-] 100%
Berth
98% 96% 94% 92% 90% 88% 86% 84% 82% 80% 78% 76% 74% 72% 70% 68% 66% 64% 62% 60% ccupation [-] 100% FIGURE 8.12 RELATIVE STOCKPILE GROWTH FOR 2015 WITH ONE BERTH PER TERMINAL
The transport cost per configuration for the scenario in 2015 with one berth per terminal is given in figure 8.13. The transport costs are calculated with respect to the efficiency of the barges and the occupancy terminals. A full clarification of the transport costs is given in paragraph 7.6.
20 € 2.48 € 2.52 € 2.56 € 2.60 € 2.65 € 2.69 € 2.74 € 2.79 € 2.84 € 2.89 € 2.95 € 3.00 € 3.04 € 3.07 € 3.11 € 3.15 € 3.19 € 3.23 € 3.27 € 3.32 € 3.37 19 € 2.47 € 2.51 € 2.55 € 2.59 € 2.63 € 2.68 € 2.72 € 2.77 € 2.82 € 2.88 € 2.93 € 2.99 € 3.02 € 3.05 € 3.09 € 3.13 € 3.17 € 3.21 € 3.26 € 3.30 € 3.35 18 € 2.45 € 2.49 € 2.53 € 2.57 € 2.61 € 2.66 € 2.71 € 2.75 € 2.81 € 2.86 € 2.92 € 2.97 € 3.00 € 3.04 € 3.07 € 3.11 € 3.15 € 3.20 € 3.24 € 3.29 € 3.34 17 € 2.43 € 2.47 € 2.51 € 2.55 € 2.60 € 2.64 € 2.69 € 2.74 € 2.79 € 2.84 € 2.90 € 2.95 € 2.99 € 3.02 € 3.06 € 3.10 € 3.14 € 3.18 € 3.22 € 3.27 € 3.32 16 € 2.42 € 2.46 € 2.49 € 2.54 € 2.58 € 2.63 € 2.67 € 2.72 € 2.77 € 2.83 € 2.88 € 2.94 € 2.97 € 3.00 € 3.04 € 3.08 € 3.12 € 3.16 € 3.21 € 3.25 € 3.30 15 € 2.40 € 2.44 € 2.48 € 2.52 € 2.56 € 2.61 € 2.66 € 2.70 € 2.76 € 2.81 € 2.86 € 2.92 € 2.95 € 2.99 € 3.02 € 3.06 € 3.10 € 3.14 € 3.19 € 3.24 € 3.29 14 € 2.38 € 2.42 € 2.46 € 2.50 € 2.55 € 2.59 € 2.64 € 2.69 € 2.74 € 2.79 € 2.85 € 2.90 € 2.94 € 2.97 € 3.01 € 3.04 € 3.08 € 3.13 € 3.17 € 3.22 € 3.27 13 € 2.37 € 2.40 € 2.44 € 2.49 € 2.53 € 2.57 € 2.62 € 2.67 € 2.72 € 2.77 € 2.82 € 2.88 € 2.92 € 2.95 € 2.99 € 3.03 € 3.07 € 3.11 € 3.15 € 3.20 € 3.25 12 € 2.35 € 2.38 € 2.42 € 2.47 € 2.51 € 2.55 € 2.60 € 2.64 € 2.69 € 2.75 € 2.80 € 2.86 € 2.90 € 2.93 € 2.97 € 3.01 € 3.05 € 3.09 € 3.13 € 3.18 € 3.23 11 € 2.32 € 2.36 € 2.40 € 2.44 € 2.48 € 2.53 € 2.57 € 2.62 € 2.67 € 2.72 € 2.77 € 2.83 € 2.88 € 2.91 € 2.95 € 2.99 € 3.03 € 3.07 € 3.11 € 3.16 € 3.21 10 € 2.30 € 2.34 € 2.37 € 2.41 € 2.46 € 2.50 € 2.54 € 2.59 € 2.64 € 2.69 € 2.74 € 2.79 € 2.85 € 2.89 € 2.93 € 2.97 € 3.01 € 3.05 € 3.09 € 3.14 € 3.19 9 € 2.27 € 2.30 € 2.34 € 2.38 € 2.42 € 2.46 € 2.50 € 2.54 € 2.59 € 2.63 € 2.67 € 2.71 € 2.76 € 2.80 € 2.85 € 2.89 € 2.94 € 2.99 € 3.05 € 3.10 € 3.16
Number of barges operational [#] operational of barges Number 8 € 2.22 € 2.25 € 2.28 € 2.31 € 2.34 € 2.37 € 2.40 € 2.44 € 2.47 € 2.50 € 2.54 € 2.58 € 2.62 € 2.66 € 2.70 € 2.74 € 2.79 € 2.84 € 2.89 € 2.94 € 3.00 7 € 2.10 € 2.12 € 2.15 € 2.17 € 2.20 € 2.23 € 2.26 € 2.29 € 2.32 € 2.35 € 2.39 € 2.42 € 2.46 € 2.50 € 2.54 € 2.58 € 2.63 € 2.67 € 2.72 € 2.78 € 2.83 6 € 1.95 € 1.97 € 2.00 € 2.02 € 2.05 € 2.08 € 2.10 € 2.13 € 2.16 € 2.19 € 2.23 € 2.26 € 2.30 € 2.33 € 2.37 € 2.41 € 2.46 € 2.50 € 2.56 € 2.61 € 2.66 5 € 1.79 € 1.81 € 1.84 € 1.86 € 1.89 € 1.91 € 1.94 € 1.97 € 2.00 € 2.03 € 2.06 € 2.09 € 2.13 € 2.17 € 2.20 € 2.24 € 2.29 € 2.33 € 2.38 € 2.43 € 2.49
Abs. Loading
1458 1488 1520 1553 1587 1623 1661 1701 1742 1786 1832 1880 1931 1984 2041 2101 2165 2232 2304 2381 capacity [T/hr] 1429
Rel. loading
102% 104% 106% 109% 111% 114% 116% 119% 122% 125% 128% 132% 135% 139% 143% 147% 152% 156% 161% 167% capacity [-] 100%
Berth
98% 96% 94% 92% 90% 88% 86% 84% 82% 80% 78% 76% 74% 72% 70% 68% 66% 64% 62% 60% ccupation [-] 100% FIGURE 8.13 TRANSPORT COSTS FOR 2015 WITH ONE BERTHS PER TERMINAL
Page 106 of 196 Chair of Ports & Waterways Alternative 1.1, Barge transport from Lok Buntar
€ 3.20
€ 3.15
/T] € 3.10 €
€ 3.05
€ 3.00
€ 2.95
€ 2.90 Transport costs per ton [ ton per costs Transport
€ 2.85 Transport costs
€ 2.80 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Number of operational barges [#]
FIGURE 8.14 REQUIRED NUMBER OF BARGES AGAINST THE TRANSPORT COSTS (2015 WITH ONE BERTHS)
€ 3.20
€ 3.15
/T] € 3.10 €
€ 3.05
€ 3.00
€ 2.95
€ 2.90 Transport costs per ton [ ton per costs Transport € 2.85 Transport costs € 2.80 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 1900 2000 2100 2200 2300 2400 Loading capacity per berth [T/hr]
FIGURE 8.15 (UN)LOADING CAPACITY AGAINST THE TRANSPORT COSTS (2015 WITH ONE BERTHS)
The optimum barge transport configuration can be determine according to the graphs at figure 8.14 and figure 8.15. The graph show the transport costs at the border at which the stockpile growth is just stable. At these configurations exact 10 million ton per year is transported. From the graphs, the optimum barge transport configuration can be determined.
The three most efficient barge transport configurations for a throughput of 10 million ton per year with one loading berth in Lok Buntar and one unloading berth in Sungai Puting.
1. 10 barges operational and a total loading capacity of the terminals of 1880 T/hr 2. 12 barges operational and a total loading capacity of the terminals of 1832 T/hr 3. 11 barges operational and a total loading capacity of the terminals of 1880 T/hr
December 2011 Page 107 of 196 FEASIBLITY STUDY COAL TRANSPORT KALIMANTAN
8.4.4 OPTIMAL TRANSPORT CONFIGURATION FOR 2015 WITH TWO BERTHS
The relative stockpile growth determines if the transport system is stable and if it is able to transport the required throughput capacity of 10 million ton per year. For the scenario in 2015 with two berths per terminal, the relative stockpile growth is given in figure 8.16. It can be seen that a minimum number of 11 and a maximum of 14 barges is required to transport the required throughput capacity efficiently.
25 9.5% 7.8% 6.1% 4.3% 2.4% 0.5% -1.5% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% 24 9.5% 7.8% 6.1% 4.2% 2.4% 0.5% -1.5% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% 23 9.5% 7.8% 6.1% 4.3% 2.4% 0.4% -1.6% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% 22 9.5% 7.8% 6.1% 4.3% 2.4% 0.5% -1.6% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% 21 9.5% 7.8% 6.1% 4.3% 2.4% 0.5% -1.6% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% 20 9.5% 7.8% 6.1% 4.3% 2.4% 0.5% -1.6% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% 19 9.5% 7.8% 6.1% 4.3% 2.4% 0.5% -1.5% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% 18 9.5% 7.8% 6.1% 4.3% 2.4% 0.5% -1.5% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% 17 9.5% 7.9% 6.1% 4.3% 2.5% 0.6% -1.4% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% 16 9.6% 7.9% 6.2% 4.4% 2.6% 0.7% -1.2% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% 15 9.7% 8.1% 6.4% 4.7% 2.9% 1.1% -0.9% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% 14 10.1% 8.4% 6.8% 5.1% 3.4% 1.5% -0.4% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0%
Number of barges operational [#] operational of barges Number 13 10.5% 8.9% 7.4% 5.7% 3.9% 2.2% 0.4% -1.5% -2.0% -2.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% 12 11.1% 9.7% 8.1% 6.5% 4.9% 3.2% 1.5% -0.4% -2.0% -2.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% 11 12.5% 11.2% 9.8% 8.5% 7.3% 6.1% 4.9% 3.8% 2.8% 1.5% 0.5% -0.6% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% 10 16.2% 15.2% 14.5% 13.8% 13.0% 12.1% 11.5% 10.6% 9.9% 9.1% 8.3% 7.4% 6.6% 5.9% 5.0% 4.2% 3.5% 2.7% 1.8% 0.9% 0.1%
Abs. Loading
714 729 744 760 776 794 812 831 850 871 893 916 940 965 992
1050 1082 1116 1152 1190 capacity [T/hr] 1020
Rel. loading
102% 104% 106% 109% 111% 114% 116% 119% 122% 125% 128% 132% 135% 139% 143% 147% 152% 156% 161% 167% capacity [-] 100%
Berth
98% 96% 94% 92% 90% 88% 86% 84% 82% 80% 78% 76% 74% 72% 70% 68% 66% 64% 62% 60% ccupation [-] 100% FIGURE 8.16 RELATIVE STOCKPILE GROTH FOR 2015 WITH TWO BERTHS PER TERMINAL
The transport cost per configuration for the scenario in 2015 with two berth per terminal is given in figure 8.17. The transport costs are calculated with respect to the efficiency of the barges and the occupancy terminals. A full clarification of the transport costs is given in paragraph 7.6.
25 € 2.68 € 2.72 € 2.77 € 2.81 € 2.86 € 2.91 € 2.96 € 2.99 € 3.02 € 3.05 € 3.06 € 3.09 € 3.12 € 3.16 € 3.19 € 3.23 € 3.27 € 3.31 € 3.35 € 3.40 € 3.45 24 € 2.66 € 2.71 € 2.75 € 2.80 € 2.84 € 2.89 € 2.95 € 2.98 € 3.01 € 3.03 € 3.05 € 3.08 € 3.11 € 3.14 € 3.18 € 3.21 € 3.25 € 3.29 € 3.34 € 3.38 € 3.43 23 € 2.65 € 2.69 € 2.73 € 2.78 € 2.83 € 2.88 € 2.93 € 2.96 € 2.99 € 3.02 € 3.03 € 3.06 € 3.09 € 3.13 € 3.16 € 3.20 € 3.24 € 3.28 € 3.32 € 3.37 € 3.42 22 € 2.63 € 2.67 € 2.72 € 2.77 € 2.81 € 2.86 € 2.91 € 2.95 € 2.97 € 3.00 € 3.02 € 3.05 € 3.08 € 3.11 € 3.14 € 3.18 € 3.22 € 3.26 € 3.31 € 3.35 € 3.40 21 € 2.62 € 2.66 € 2.70 € 2.75 € 2.80 € 2.85 € 2.90 € 2.93 € 2.96 € 2.99 € 3.00 € 3.03 € 3.06 € 3.09 € 3.13 € 3.17 € 3.20 € 3.25 € 3.29 € 3.34 € 3.39 20 € 2.60 € 2.64 € 2.69 € 2.73 € 2.78 € 2.83 € 2.88 € 2.92 € 2.94 € 2.97 € 2.98 € 3.01 € 3.05 € 3.08 € 3.11 € 3.15 € 3.19 € 3.23 € 3.27 € 3.32 € 3.37 19 € 2.58 € 2.63 € 2.67 € 2.72 € 2.77 € 2.81 € 2.87 € 2.90 € 2.93 € 2.95 € 2.97 € 3.00 € 3.03 € 3.06 € 3.10 € 3.13 € 3.17 € 3.22 € 3.26 € 3.31 € 3.36 18 € 2.57 € 2.61 € 2.65 € 2.70 € 2.75 € 2.80 € 2.85 € 2.88 € 2.91 € 2.94 € 2.95 € 2.98 € 3.01 € 3.05 € 3.08 € 3.12 € 3.16 € 3.20 € 3.24 € 3.29 € 3.34 17 € 2.55 € 2.59 € 2.64 € 2.68 € 2.73 € 2.78 € 2.83 € 2.87 € 2.89 € 2.92 € 2.94 € 2.97 € 3.00 € 3.03 € 3.07 € 3.10 € 3.14 € 3.18 € 3.23 € 3.28 € 3.33 16 € 2.53 € 2.58 € 2.62 € 2.67 € 2.71 € 2.76 € 2.81 € 2.85 € 2.88 € 2.91 € 2.92 € 2.95 € 2.98 € 3.02 € 3.05 € 3.09 € 3.13 € 3.17 € 3.21 € 3.26 € 3.31 15 € 2.52 € 2.56 € 2.60 € 2.65 € 2.69 € 2.74 € 2.79 € 2.83 € 2.86 € 2.89 € 2.90 € 2.93 € 2.96 € 3.00 € 3.03 € 3.07 € 3.11 € 3.15 € 3.20 € 3.24 € 3.29 14 € 2.50 € 2.54 € 2.58 € 2.62 € 2.67 € 2.72 € 2.77 € 2.82 € 2.84 € 2.87 € 2.88 € 2.92 € 2.95 € 2.98 € 3.02 € 3.05 € 3.09 € 3.13 € 3.18 € 3.23 € 3.28
Number of barges operational [#] operational of barges Number 13 € 2.47 € 2.51 € 2.56 € 2.60 € 2.65 € 2.69 € 2.74 € 2.79 € 2.82 € 2.85 € 2.87 € 2.90 € 2.93 € 2.96 € 3.00 € 3.03 € 3.07 € 3.12 € 3.16 € 3.21 € 3.26 12 € 2.45 € 2.48 € 2.53 € 2.57 € 2.61 € 2.66 € 2.71 € 2.76 € 2.81 € 2.83 € 2.85 € 2.88 € 2.91 € 2.94 € 2.98 € 3.02 € 3.06 € 3.10 € 3.14 € 3.19 € 3.24 11 € 2.41 € 2.45 € 2.48 € 2.53 € 2.56 € 2.60 € 2.64 € 2.68 € 2.73 € 2.77 € 2.81 € 2.86 € 2.89 € 2.93 € 2.96 € 3.00 € 3.04 € 3.08 € 3.12 € 3.17 € 3.22 10 € 2.34 € 2.38 € 2.41 € 2.44 € 2.47 € 2.50 € 2.54 € 2.57 € 2.61 € 2.65 € 2.69 € 2.73 € 2.77 € 2.81 € 2.86 € 2.91 € 2.96 € 3.01 € 3.07 € 3.13 € 3.19
Abs. Loading
714 729 744 760 776 794 812 831 850 871 893 916 940 965 992
1050 1082 1116 1152 1190 capacity [T/hr] 1020
Rel. loading
102% 104% 106% 109% 111% 114% 116% 119% 122% 125% 128% 132% 135% 139% 143% 147% 152% 156% 161% 167% capacity [-] 100%
Berth
98% 96% 94% 92% 90% 88% 86% 84% 82% 80% 78% 76% 74% 72% 70% 68% 66% 64% 62% 60% ccupation [-] 100% FIGURE 8.17 TRANSPORT COSTS FOR 2015 WITH TWO BERTHS PER TERMINAL
Page 108 of 196 Chair of Ports & Waterways Alternative 1.1, Barge transport from Lok Buntar
€ 3.30
€ 3.20
/T] € € 3.10
€ 3.00
€ 2.90 Transport costs per ton [ ton per costs Transport € 2.80 Transport costs € 2.70 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Number of operational barges [#]
FIGURE 8.18 REQUIRED NUMBER OF BARGES AGAINST THE TRANSPORT COSTS (2015 WITH TWO BERTHS)
€ 3.30
€ 3.20
/T] € € 3.10
€ 3.00
€ 2.90 Transport costs per ton [ ton per costs Transport € 2.80 Transport costs
€ 2.70 700 750 800 850 900 950 1000 1050 1100 1150 1200 Loading capacity per berth [T/hr]
FIGURE 8.19 (UN)LOADING CAPACITY AGAINST THE TRANSPORT COSTS (2015 WITH TWO BERTHS)
The optimum barge transport configuration can be determine according to the graphs at figure 8.18 and figure 8.19. The graph show the transport costs at the border at which the stockpile growth is just stable. At these configurations exact 10 million ton per year is transported. From the graphs, the optimum barge transport configuration can be determined.
The three most efficient barge transport configurations for a throughput of 10 million ton per year with two loading berths in Lok Buntar and two unloading berths in Sungai Puting.
1. 12 barges operational and a total loading capacity of the terminals of 831 T/hr 2. 14 barges operational and a total loading capacity of the terminals of 812 T/hr 3. 13 barges operational and a total loading capacity of the terminals of 831 T/hr
December 2011 Page 109 of 196 FEASIBLITY STUDY COAL TRANSPORT KALIMANTAN
8.4.5 OPTIMAL TRANSPORT CONFIGURATION FOR 2015 WITH THREE BERTHS
The relative stockpile growth determines if the transport system is stable and if it is able to transport the required throughput capacity of 10 million ton per year. For the scenario in 2015 with three berths per terminal, the relative stockpile growth is given in figure 8.20. It can be seen that a minimum number of 12 barges and a maximum of 17 barges is required to transport the required throughput capacity efficiently.
25 6.5% 4.7% 2.9% 0.9% -1.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% 24 6.5% 4.7% 2.9% 0.9% -1.1% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% 23 6.5% 4.8% 2.9% 1.0% -1.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% 22 6.5% 4.8% 2.9% 1.0% -1.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% 21 6.5% 4.8% 3.0% 1.0% -1.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% 20 6.6% 4.8% 3.0% 1.0% -0.9% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% 19 6.6% 4.8% 3.0% 1.1% -0.9% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% 18 6.7% 4.9% 3.1% 1.2% -0.7% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% 17 6.9% 5.1% 3.4% 1.5% -0.3% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% 16 7.3% 5.6% 3.8% 2.0% 0.1% -1.9% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% 15 7.7% 6.1% 4.4% 2.6% 0.8% -1.2% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% 14 8.4% 6.9% 5.3% 3.6% 2.0% 0.2% -1.6% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0%
Number of barges operational [#] operational of barges Number 13 10.0% 8.6% 7.3% 5.9% 4.5% 3.3% 2.0% 0.8% -0.6% -1.9% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% 12 13.6% 12.7% 11.8% 10.8% 9.8% 8.8% 7.9% 6.8% 6.0% 5.1% 4.0% 2.8% 1.8% 0.8% -0.2% -1.3% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% 11 19.9% 19.0% 18.3% 17.5% 16.6% 15.8% 15.0% 14.1% 13.3% 12.5% 11.6% 10.7% 9.7% 9.0% 8.0% 6.7% 5.9% 5.0% 3.7% 2.7% 1.5% 10 26.9% 26.1% 25.5% 24.8% 24.0% 23.2% 22.4% 21.8% 21.0% 20.2% 19.4% 18.6% 17.7% 16.8% 16.2% 15.3% 14.3% 13.3% 12.5% 11.6% 10.6%
Abs. Loading
486 496 507 518 529 541 554 567 581 595 611 627 644 661 680 700 722 744 768 794 capacity [T/hr] 476
Rel. loading
102% 104% 106% 109% 111% 114% 116% 119% 122% 125% 128% 132% 135% 139% 143% 147% 152% 156% 161% 167% capacity [-] 100%
Berth
98% 96% 94% 92% 90% 88% 86% 84% 82% 80% 78% 76% 74% 72% 70% 68% 66% 64% 62% 60% ccupation [-] 100% FIGURE 8.20 RELATIVE STOCKPILE GROTH FOR 2015 WITH THREE BERTHS PER TERMINAL
The transport cost per configuration for the scenario in 2015 with three berths per terminal is given in figure 8.21. The transport costs are calculated with respect to the efficiency of the barges and the occupancy terminals. A full clarification of the transport costs is given in paragraph 7.6.
25 € 2.75 € 2.80 € 2.84 € 2.89 € 2.94 € 2.98 € 3.00 € 3.03 € 3.05 € 3.08 € 3.11 € 3.14 € 3.17 € 3.20 € 3.23 € 3.27 € 3.31 € 3.35 € 3.40 € 3.44 € 3.49 24 € 2.74 € 2.78 € 2.83 € 2.87 € 2.92 € 2.96 € 2.98 € 3.01 € 3.04 € 3.06 € 3.09 € 3.12 € 3.15 € 3.19 € 3.22 € 3.26 € 3.30 € 3.34 € 3.38 € 3.43 € 3.48 23 € 2.72 € 2.76 € 2.81 € 2.86 € 2.91 € 2.94 € 2.97 € 2.99 € 3.02 € 3.05 € 3.08 € 3.11 € 3.14 € 3.17 € 3.20 € 3.24 € 3.28 € 3.32 € 3.36 € 3.41 € 3.46 22 € 2.70 € 2.75 € 2.79 € 2.84 € 2.89 € 2.93 € 2.95 € 2.98 € 3.01 € 3.03 € 3.06 € 3.09 € 3.12 € 3.16 € 3.19 € 3.22 € 3.26 € 3.30 € 3.35 € 3.39 € 3.44 21 € 2.69 € 2.73 € 2.78 € 2.82 € 2.87 € 2.91 € 2.94 € 2.96 € 2.99 € 3.02 € 3.05 € 3.08 € 3.10 € 3.14 € 3.17 € 3.21 € 3.25 € 3.29 € 3.33 € 3.38 € 3.43 20 € 2.67 € 2.71 € 2.76 € 2.81 € 2.86 € 2.90 € 2.92 € 2.95 € 2.97 € 3.00 € 3.03 € 3.06 € 3.09 € 3.12 € 3.16 € 3.19 € 3.23 € 3.27 € 3.32 € 3.36 € 3.41 19 € 2.65 € 2.70 € 2.74 € 2.79 € 2.84 € 2.88 € 2.90 € 2.93 € 2.96 € 2.98 € 3.01 € 3.04 € 3.07 € 3.11 € 3.14 € 3.18 € 3.22 € 3.26 € 3.30 € 3.35 € 3.40 18 € 2.64 € 2.68 € 2.73 € 2.77 € 2.82 € 2.86 € 2.89 € 2.91 € 2.94 € 2.97 € 3.00 € 3.03 € 3.06 € 3.09 € 3.13 € 3.16 € 3.20 € 3.24 € 3.29 € 3.33 € 3.38 17 € 2.62 € 2.66 € 2.71 € 2.75 € 2.80 € 2.85 € 2.87 € 2.90 € 2.92 € 2.95 € 2.98 € 3.01 € 3.04 € 3.08 € 3.11 € 3.14 € 3.19 € 3.22 € 3.27 € 3.32 € 3.37 16 € 2.60 € 2.64 € 2.68 € 2.73 € 2.78 € 2.83 € 2.85 € 2.88 € 2.90 € 2.93 € 2.96 € 2.99 € 3.02 € 3.06 € 3.09 € 3.13 € 3.17 € 3.21 € 3.25 € 3.30 € 3.35 15 € 2.57 € 2.62 € 2.66 € 2.70 € 2.75 € 2.80 € 2.84 € 2.86 € 2.89 € 2.91 € 2.94 € 2.97 € 3.01 € 3.04 € 3.07 € 3.11 € 3.15 € 3.19 € 3.24 € 3.28 € 3.33 14 € 2.55 € 2.59 € 2.63 € 2.67 € 2.72 € 2.76 € 2.81 € 2.84 € 2.87 € 2.90 € 2.93 € 2.96 € 2.99 € 3.02 € 3.06 € 3.09 € 3.13 € 3.17 € 3.22 € 3.26 € 3.31
Number of barges operational [#] operational of barges Number 13 € 2.51 € 2.55 € 2.58 € 2.62 € 2.66 € 2.70 € 2.75 € 2.79 € 2.83 € 2.88 € 2.91 € 2.94 € 2.97 € 3.00 € 3.04 € 3.07 € 3.11 € 3.15 € 3.20 € 3.25 € 3.29 12 € 2.44 € 2.47 € 2.51 € 2.54 € 2.58 € 2.61 € 2.65 € 2.69 € 2.73 € 2.77 € 2.81 € 2.85 € 2.90 € 2.95 € 3.00 € 3.05 € 3.10 € 3.14 € 3.18 € 3.23 € 3.28 11 € 2.34 € 2.37 € 2.40 € 2.43 € 2.46 € 2.49 € 2.53 € 2.57 € 2.60 € 2.64 € 2.68 € 2.73 € 2.77 € 2.82 € 2.86 € 2.92 € 2.97 € 3.02 € 3.08 € 3.15 € 3.21 10 € 2.22 € 2.25 € 2.28 € 2.31 € 2.34 € 2.37 € 2.41 € 2.44 € 2.48 € 2.52 € 2.56 € 2.60 € 2.64 € 2.69 € 2.73 € 2.78 € 2.83 € 2.89 € 2.94 € 3.00 € 3.07
Abs. Loading
486 496 507 518 529 541 554 567 581 595 611 627 644 661 680 700 722 744 768 794 capacity [T/hr] 476
Rel. loading
102% 104% 106% 109% 111% 114% 116% 119% 122% 125% 128% 132% 135% 139% 143% 147% 152% 156% 161% 167% capacity [-] 100%
Berth
98% 96% 94% 92% 90% 88% 86% 84% 82% 80% 78% 76% 74% 72% 70% 68% 66% 64% 62% 60% ccupation [-] 100% FIGURE 8.21 TRANSPORT COSTS FOR 2015 WITH THREE OPERATIONAL BERTHS PER TERMINAL
Page 110 of 196 Chair of Ports & Waterways Alternative 1.1, Barge transport from Lok Buntar
€ 3.40
€ 3.30
/T] € € 3.20
€ 3.10
€ 3.00
€ 2.90 Transport costs per ton [ ton per costs Transport € 2.80 Transport costs € 2.70 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Number of operational barges [#]
FIGURE 8.22 REQUIRED NUMBER OF BARGES AGAINST THE TRANSPORT COSTST (2015 WITH THREE BERTHS)
€ 3.40
€ 3.30
/T] € € 3.20
€ 3.10
€ 3.00
€ 2.90 Transport costs per ton [ ton per costs Transport € 2.80 Transport costs € 2.70 450 500 550 600 650 700 750 800 Loading capacity per berth [T/hr]
FIGURE 8.23 (UN)LOADING CAPACITY AGAINST THE TRANSPORT COSTS (2015 WITH THREE BERTHS)
The optimum barge transport configuration can be determine according to the graphs at figure 8.22 and figure 8.23. The graph show the transport costs at the border at which the stockpile growth is just stable. At these configurations exact 10 million ton per year is transported. From the graphs, the optimum barge transport configuration can be determined.
The three most efficient barge transport configurations for a throughput of 10 million ton per year with three loading berths in Lok Buntar and three unloading berths in Sungai Puting.
1. 15 barges operational and a total loading capacity of the terminals of 529 T/hr 2. 17 barges operational and a total loading capacity of the terminals of 518 T/hr 3. 14 barges operational and a total loading capacity of the terminals of 541 T/hr
December 2011 Page 111 of 196 FEASIBLITY STUDY COAL TRANSPORT KALIMANTAN
8.4.6 OPTIMAL TRANSPORT CONFIGURATION FOR 2017 WITH TWO BERTHS
The relative stockpile growth determines if the transport system is stable and if it is able to transport the required throughput capacity of 15 million ton per year. For the scenario in 2017 with two berths per terminal, the relative stockpile growth is given in figure 8.24. It can be seen that a minimum number of 14 barges and a maximum of 22 barges is required to transport the required throughput capacity efficiently.
25 13.6% 12.0% 10.5% 8.9% 7.2% 5.4% 3.5% 1.7% -0.3% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% 24 13.6% 12.0% 10.5% 8.8% 7.1% 5.4% 3.6% 1.7% -0.3% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% 23 13.6% 12.1% 10.5% 8.9% 7.2% 5.4% 3.6% 1.7% -0.2% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% 22 13.6% 12.1% 10.5% 8.9% 7.2% 5.5% 3.7% 1.8% -0.1% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% 21 13.6% 12.1% 10.5% 8.9% 7.3% 5.6% 3.8% 1.9% 0.1% -1.9% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% 20 13.7% 12.2% 10.7% 9.1% 7.4% 5.7% 4.0% 2.2% 0.2% -1.7% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% 19 13.9% 12.4% 10.8% 9.3% 7.7% 6.0% 4.3% 2.5% 0.6% -1.3% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% 18 14.1% 12.7% 11.2% 9.6% 8.0% 6.4% 4.7% 2.9% 1.1% -0.8% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% 17 14.4% 13.0% 11.5% 10.0% 8.4% 6.8% 5.2% 3.4% 1.5% -0.3% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% 16 14.9% 13.5% 12.0% 10.5% 9.0% 7.4% 5.7% 4.1% 2.4% 0.6% -1.1% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% 15 15.4% 14.1% 12.7% 11.3% 9.8% 8.4% 6.9% 5.5% 4.0% 2.8% 1.7% 0.7% -0.5% -1.6% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% 14 16.3% 15.1% 13.9% 12.8% 11.7% 10.7% 9.6% 8.8% 8.0% 7.1% 6.5% 5.5% 4.8% 4.3% 3.3% 2.6% 1.8% 1.3% 0.3% 0.0% -0.8%
Number of barges operational [#] operational of barges Number 13 19.0% 18.2% 17.4% 16.7% 16.0% 15.3% 14.5% 13.9% 13.5% 12.7% 12.1% 11.4% 10.8% 10.3% 9.7% 9.2% 8.5% 8.0% 7.2% 6.6% 6.0% 12 23.6% 23.1% 22.5% 22.1% 21.4% 20.8% 20.5% 20.0% 19.4% 18.9% 18.4% 17.7% 17.4% 16.7% 16.3% 15.8% 15.3% 14.7% 14.4% 13.6% 13.1% 11 29.2% 28.8% 28.5% 28.0% 27.6% 27.0% 26.6% 26.3% 25.9% 25.3% 24.9% 24.4% 23.9% 23.6% 22.9% 22.6% 22.0% 21.8% 21.1% 20.6% 20.3% 10 35.4% 34.9% 34.5% 34.3% 33.8% 33.5% 33.2% 32.6% 32.2% 31.7% 31.4% 31.1% 30.7% 30.2% 29.9% 29.5% 29.1% 28.6% 28.1% 27.6% 27.4%
Abs. Loading
1093 1116 1140 1165 1190 1218 1246 1276 1307 1339 1374 1410 1448 1488 1531 1576 1623 1674 1728 1786 capacity [T/hr] 1071
Rel. loading
102% 104% 106% 109% 111% 114% 116% 119% 122% 125% 128% 132% 135% 139% 143% 147% 152% 156% 161% 167% capacity [-] 100%
Berth
98% 96% 94% 92% 90% 88% 86% 84% 82% 80% 78% 76% 74% 72% 70% 68% 66% 64% 62% 60% ccupation [-] 100% FIGURE 8.24 RELATIVE STOCKPILE GROWTH FOR 2017 WITH TWO BERTHS PER TERMINAL
The transport cost per configuration for the scenario in 2017 with two berths per terminal is given in figure 8.25. The transport costs are calculated with respect to the efficiency of the barges and the occupancy terminals. A full clarification of the transport costs is given in paragraph 7.6.
25 € 3.42 € 3.47 € 3.54 € 3.60 € 3.67 € 3.73 € 3.81 € 3.86 € 3.91 € 3.96 € 3.99 € 4.03 € 4.08 € 4.13 € 4.19 € 4.24 € 4.30 € 4.36 € 4.43 € 4.50 € 4.57 24 € 3.41 € 3.46 € 3.53 € 3.59 € 3.65 € 3.72 € 3.80 € 3.85 € 3.90 € 3.95 € 3.98 € 4.02 € 4.07 € 4.12 € 4.17 € 4.23 € 4.29 € 4.35 € 4.42 € 4.49 € 4.56 23 € 3.40 € 3.45 € 3.51 € 3.58 € 3.64 € 3.71 € 3.79 € 3.84 € 3.89 € 3.93 € 3.97 € 4.01 € 4.06 € 4.11 € 4.16 € 4.22 € 4.28 € 4.34 € 4.41 € 4.48 € 4.55 22 € 3.38 € 3.44 € 3.50 € 3.57 € 3.63 € 3.70 € 3.77 € 3.83 € 3.87 € 3.92 € 3.95 € 4.00 € 4.05 € 4.10 € 4.15 € 4.21 € 4.27 € 4.33 € 4.40 € 4.47 € 4.54 21 € 3.37 € 3.43 € 3.49 € 3.56 € 3.62 € 3.69 € 3.76 € 3.81 € 3.86 € 3.91 € 3.94 € 3.99 € 4.04 € 4.09 € 4.14 € 4.20 € 4.26 € 4.32 € 4.39 € 4.46 € 4.53 20 € 3.36 € 3.42 € 3.48 € 3.54 € 3.61 € 3.68 € 3.75 € 3.80 € 3.85 € 3.90 € 3.93 € 3.98 € 4.02 € 4.07 € 4.13 € 4.18 € 4.24 € 4.31 € 4.37 € 4.44 € 4.52 19 € 3.35 € 3.41 € 3.47 € 3.53 € 3.60 € 3.67 € 3.74 € 3.79 € 3.84 € 3.89 € 3.92 € 3.97 € 4.01 € 4.06 € 4.12 € 4.17 € 4.23 € 4.29 € 4.36 € 4.43 € 4.51 18 € 3.34 € 3.40 € 3.46 € 3.52 € 3.58 € 3.65 € 3.72 € 3.77 € 3.82 € 3.87 € 3.91 € 3.95 € 4.00 € 4.05 € 4.10 € 4.16 € 4.22 € 4.28 € 4.35 € 4.42 € 4.50 17 € 3.33 € 3.38 € 3.44 € 3.50 € 3.57 € 3.64 € 3.71 € 3.76 € 3.81 € 3.86 € 3.90 € 3.94 € 3.99 € 4.04 € 4.09 € 4.15 € 4.21 € 4.27 € 4.34 € 4.41 € 4.48 16 € 3.31 € 3.37 € 3.43 € 3.49 € 3.55 € 3.62 € 3.69 € 3.75 € 3.79 € 3.84 € 3.88 € 3.93 € 3.98 € 4.03 € 4.08 € 4.13 € 4.19 € 4.26 € 4.32 € 4.39 € 4.47 15 € 3.29 € 3.35 € 3.41 € 3.47 € 3.53 € 3.60 € 3.67 € 3.73 € 3.77 € 3.82 € 3.86 € 3.91 € 3.96 € 4.01 € 4.07 € 4.12 € 4.18 € 4.25 € 4.31 € 4.38 € 4.46 14 € 3.27 € 3.33 € 3.39 € 3.45 € 3.51 € 3.57 € 3.64 € 3.70 € 3.74 € 3.79 € 3.82 € 3.87 € 3.92 € 3.97 € 4.03 € 4.09 € 4.15 € 4.22 € 4.29 € 4.36 € 4.44
Number of barges operational [#] operational of barges Number 13 € 3.24 € 3.30 € 3.35 € 3.41 € 3.47 € 3.53 € 3.59 € 3.66 € 3.71 € 3.75 € 3.78 € 3.83 € 3.88 € 3.93 € 3.99 € 4.05 € 4.11 € 4.18 € 4.24 € 4.32 € 4.40 12 € 3.20 € 3.25 € 3.31 € 3.36 € 3.42 € 3.48 € 3.54 € 3.60 € 3.67 € 3.71 € 3.74 € 3.79 € 3.84 € 3.89 € 3.95 € 4.00 € 4.07 € 4.13 € 4.20 € 4.27 € 4.35 11 € 3.15 € 3.19 € 3.24 € 3.30 € 3.35 € 3.40 € 3.45 € 3.51 € 3.56 € 3.62 € 3.68 € 3.74 € 3.80 € 3.85 € 3.90 € 3.96 € 4.02 € 4.08 € 4.15 € 4.23 € 4.30 10 € 3.05 € 3.10 € 3.14 € 3.18 € 3.22 € 3.27 € 3.32 € 3.37 € 3.42 € 3.47 € 3.53 € 3.59 € 3.65 € 3.71 € 3.77 € 3.84 € 3.91 € 3.99 € 4.07 € 4.15 € 4.24
Abs. Loading
547 558 570 582 595 609 623 638 653 670 687 705 724 744 765 788 812 837 864 893 capacity [T/hr] 536
Rel. loading
102% 104% 106% 109% 111% 114% 116% 119% 122% 125% 128% 132% 135% 139% 143% 147% 152% 156% 161% 167% capacity [-] 100%
Berth
98% 96% 94% 92% 90% 88% 86% 84% 82% 80% 78% 76% 74% 72% 70% 68% 66% 64% 62% 60% ccupation [-] 100% FIGURE 8.25 TRANSPORT COSTS FOR 2017 WITH TWO BERTHS PER TERMINAL
Page 112 of 196 Chair of Ports & Waterways Alternative 1.1, Barge transport from Lok Buntar
€ 4.50
€ 4.40
/T]
€ € 4.30
€ 4.20
€ 4.10
€ 4.00 Transport costs Transport costs per ton [ ton per costs Transport € 3.90
€ 3.80 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Number of operational barges [#]
FIGURE 8.26 REQUIRED NUMBER OF BARGES AGAINST THE TRANSPORT COSTS (2017 WITH TWO BERTHS)
€ 4.50
€ 4.40
/T] € € 4.30
€ 4.20
€ 4.10
€ 4.00 Transport costs per ton [ ton per costs Transport € 3.90 Transport costs € 3.80 500 550 600 650 700 750 800 850 900 Loading capacity per berth [T/hr]
FIGURE 8.27 (UN)LOADING CAPACITY AGAINST THE TRANSPORT COSTS (2017 WITH TWO BERTHS)
The optimum barge transport configuration can be determine according to the graphs at figure 8.26 and figure 8.27. The graph show the transport costs at the border at which the stockpile growth is just stable. At these configurations exact 15 million ton per year is transported. From the graphs, the optimum barge transport configuration can be determined.
The three most efficient barge transport configurations for a throughput of 15 million ton per year with two loading berths in Lok Buntar and two unloading berths in Sungai Puting.
1. 17 barges operational and a total loading capacity of the terminals of 653 T/hr 2. 22 barges operational and a total loading capacity of the terminals of 638 T/hr 3. 18 barges operational and a total loading capacity of the terminals of 653 T/hr
December 2011 Page 113 of 196 FEASIBLITY STUDY COAL TRANSPORT KALIMANTAN
8.4.7 OPTIMAL TRANSPORT CONFIGURATION FOR 2017 WITH THREE BERTHS
The relative stockpile growth determines if the transport system is stable and if it is able to transport the required throughput capacity of 15 million ton per year. For the scenario in 2017 with three berths per terminal, the relative stockpile growth is given in figure 8.28. It can be seen that a minimum number of 15 barges and a maximum of 21 barges is required to transport the required throughput capacity efficiently.
30 9.5% 7.8% 6.1% 4.3% 2.4% 0.5% -1.5% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% 29 9.5% 7.8% 6.1% 4.3% 2.4% 0.5% -1.6% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% 28 9.5% 7.8% 6.1% 4.3% 2.4% 0.5% -1.5% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% 27 9.5% 7.8% 6.1% 4.3% 2.4% 0.5% -1.5% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% 26 9.5% 7.8% 6.1% 4.3% 2.5% 0.5% -1.4% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% 25 9.5% 7.8% 6.1% 4.4% 2.5% 0.6% -1.4% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% 24 9.5% 7.9% 6.2% 4.4% 2.6% 0.7% -1.2% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% 23 9.6% 8.0% 6.3% 4.6% 2.7% 0.9% -1.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% 22 9.8% 8.2% 6.5% 4.8% 3.0% 1.2% -0.8% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% 21 10.0% 8.4% 6.7% 5.0% 3.3% 1.5% -0.4% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% 20 10.3% 8.7% 7.1% 5.4% 3.7% 1.9% 0.0% -1.9% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% 19 10.6% 9.1% 7.5% 5.8% 4.1% 2.4% 0.6% -1.4% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0%
Number of barges operational [#] operational of barges Number 18 11.1% 9.6% 8.1% 6.4% 4.8% 3.0% 1.3% -0.5% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% 17 11.9% 10.4% 8.9% 7.4% 5.9% 4.5% 3.1% 1.7% 0.2% -0.9% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% 16 13.1% 11.9% 10.8% 9.7% 8.5% 7.5% 6.5% 5.5% 4.5% 3.5% 2.6% 1.8% 0.8% -0.2% -1.0% -1.9% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% 15 15.9% 15.1% 14.3% 13.5% 12.7% 11.9% 11.3% 10.5% 9.6% 8.9% 8.1% 7.4% 6.6% 5.6% 4.9% 4.2% 3.2% 2.4% 1.6% 0.8% -0.1%
Abs. Loading
714 729 744 760 776 794 812 831 850 871 893 916 940 965 992
1050 1082 1116 1152 1190 capacity [T/hr] 1020
Rel. loading
102% 104% 106% 109% 111% 114% 116% 119% 122% 125% 128% 132% 135% 139% 143% 147% 152% 156% 161% 167% capacity [-] 100%
Berth
98% 96% 94% 92% 90% 88% 86% 84% 82% 80% 78% 76% 74% 72% 70% 68% 66% 64% 62% 60% ccupation [-] 100% FIGURE 8.28 RELATIVE STOCKPILE GROWTH FOR 2017 WITH THREE BERTHS PER TERMINAL
The transport cost per configuration for the scenario in 2017 with three berth per terminal is given in figure 8.29. The transport costs are calculated with respect to the efficiency of the barges and the occupancy terminals. A full clarification of the transport costs is given in paragraph 7.6.
30 € 2.60 € 2.64 € 2.68 € 2.73 € 2.78 € 2.83 € 2.88 € 2.91 € 2.94 € 2.97 € 2.99 € 3.03 € 3.06 € 3.09 € 3.13 € 3.16 € 3.20 € 3.24 € 3.29 € 3.33 € 3.38 29 € 2.58 € 2.63 € 2.67 € 2.72 € 2.76 € 2.81 € 2.87 € 2.90 € 2.93 € 2.95 € 2.98 € 3.02 € 3.05 € 3.08 € 3.12 € 3.15 € 3.19 € 3.23 € 3.28 € 3.32 € 3.37 28 € 2.57 € 2.62 € 2.66 € 2.71 € 2.76 € 2.80 € 2.86 € 2.89 € 2.92 € 2.94 € 2.97 € 3.01 € 3.04 € 3.07 € 3.11 € 3.14 € 3.18 € 3.22 € 3.27 € 3.31 € 3.36 27 € 2.56 € 2.61 € 2.65 € 2.70 € 2.74 € 2.79 € 2.85 € 2.88 € 2.90 € 2.93 € 2.96 € 2.99 € 3.03 € 3.06 € 3.10 € 3.13 € 3.17 € 3.21 € 3.25 € 3.30 € 3.35 26 € 2.55 € 2.60 € 2.64 € 2.68 € 2.73 € 2.78 € 2.83 € 2.87 € 2.89 € 2.92 € 2.95 € 2.98 € 3.01 € 3.05 € 3.08 € 3.12 € 3.16 € 3.20 € 3.24 € 3.29 € 3.34 25 € 2.54 € 2.58 € 2.63 € 2.67 € 2.72 € 2.77 € 2.82 € 2.86 € 2.88 € 2.91 € 2.94 € 2.97 € 3.00 € 3.04 € 3.07 € 3.11 € 3.15 € 3.19 € 3.23 € 3.28 € 3.33 24 € 2.53 € 2.57 € 2.62 € 2.66 € 2.71 € 2.76 € 2.81 € 2.85 € 2.87 € 2.90 € 2.93 € 2.96 € 2.99 € 3.03 € 3.06 € 3.10 € 3.14 € 3.18 € 3.22 € 3.27 € 3.32 23 € 2.52 € 2.56 € 2.60 € 2.65 € 2.70 € 2.75 € 2.79 € 2.83 € 2.86 € 2.89 € 2.92 € 2.95 € 2.98 € 3.02 € 3.05 € 3.09 € 3.13 € 3.17 € 3.21 € 3.26 € 3.31 22 € 2.51 € 2.55 € 2.59 € 2.63 € 2.68 € 2.73 € 2.78 € 2.82 € 2.85 € 2.88 € 2.91 € 2.94 € 2.97 € 3.00 € 3.04 € 3.08 € 3.12 € 3.16 € 3.20 € 3.25 € 3.30 21 € 2.49 € 2.53 € 2.58 € 2.62 € 2.67 € 2.71 € 2.76 € 2.81 € 2.84 € 2.87 € 2.89 € 2.93 € 2.96 € 2.99 € 3.03 € 3.06 € 3.10 € 3.15 € 3.19 € 3.24 € 3.29 20 € 2.48 € 2.52 € 2.56 € 2.60 € 2.65 € 2.70 € 2.75 € 2.80 € 2.83 € 2.85 € 2.88 € 2.91 € 2.94 € 2.98 € 3.01 € 3.05 € 3.09 € 3.13 € 3.18 € 3.22 € 3.28 19 € 2.46 € 2.50 € 2.54 € 2.59 € 2.63 € 2.68 € 2.73 € 2.78 € 2.81 € 2.84 € 2.87 € 2.90 € 2.93 € 2.97 € 3.00 € 3.04 € 3.08 € 3.12 € 3.17 € 3.21 € 3.26
Number of barges operational [#] operational of barges Number 18 € 2.44 € 2.48 € 2.52 € 2.57 € 2.61 € 2.66 € 2.70 € 2.75 € 2.80 € 2.83 € 2.86 € 2.89 € 2.92 € 2.95 € 2.99 € 3.03 € 3.07 € 3.11 € 3.15 € 3.20 € 3.25 17 € 2.42 € 2.46 € 2.50 € 2.54 € 2.58 € 2.63 € 2.67 € 2.71 € 2.76 € 2.80 € 2.85 € 2.88 € 2.91 € 2.94 € 2.98 € 3.01 € 3.05 € 3.10 € 3.14 € 3.19 € 3.24 16 € 2.39 € 2.43 € 2.46 € 2.50 € 2.54 € 2.57 € 2.61 € 2.65 € 2.69 € 2.73 € 2.77 € 2.81 € 2.86 € 2.91 € 2.95 € 3.00 € 3.04 € 3.09 € 3.13 € 3.18 € 3.23 15 € 2.34 € 2.37 € 2.40 € 2.44 € 2.47 € 2.50 € 2.53 € 2.57 € 2.61 € 2.65 € 2.68 € 2.73 € 2.77 € 2.81 € 2.86 € 2.91 € 2.96 € 3.01 € 3.07 € 3.13 € 3.19
Abs. Loading
714 729 744 760 776 794 812 831 850 871 893 916 940 965 992
1050 1082 1116 1152 1190 capacity [T/hr] 1020
Rel. loading
102% 104% 106% 109% 111% 114% 116% 119% 122% 125% 128% 132% 135% 139% 143% 147% 152% 156% 161% 167% capacity [-] 100%
Berth
98% 96% 94% 92% 90% 88% 86% 84% 82% 80% 78% 76% 74% 72% 70% 68% 66% 64% 62% 60% ccupation [-] 100% FIGURE 8.29 TRANSPORT COSTS FOR 2017 WITH THREE BERTHS PER TERMINAL
Page 114 of 196 Chair of Ports & Waterways Alternative 1.1, Barge transport from Lok Buntar
€ 3.25 € 3.20
€ 3.15 /T]
€ € 3.10 € 3.05 € 3.00 € 2.95 € 2.90 € 2.85
Transport costs per ton [ ton per costs Transport € 2.80 € 2.75 Transport costs € 2.70 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 Number of operational barges [#]
FIGURE 8.30 REQUIRED NUMBER OF BARGES AGAINST THE TRANSPORT COSTS (2017 WITH THRE BERTHS)
€ 3.25 € 3.20
€ 3.15
/T] € 3.10 € € 3.05 € 3.00 € 2.95 € 2.90
€ 2.85 Transport costs per ton [ ton per costs Transport € 2.80 Transport costs € 2.75 € 2.70 700 750 800 850 900 950 1000 1050 1100 1150 1200 Loading capacity per berth [T/hr]
FIGURE 8.31 (UN)LOADING CAPACITY AGAINST THE TRANSPORT COSTS (2017 WITH THREE BERTHS)
The optimum barge transport configuration can be determine according to the graphs at figure 8.30 and figure 8.31. The graph show the transport costs at the border at which the stockpile growth is just stable. At these configurations exact 15 million ton per year is transported. From the graphs, the optimum barge transport configuration can be determined.
The three most efficient barge transport configurations for a throughput of 15 million ton per year with three loading berths in Lok Buntar and three unloading berths in Sungai Puting.
1. 18 barges operational and a total loading capacity of the terminals of 831 T/hr 2. 21 barges operational and a total loading capacity of the terminals of 812 T/hr 3. 19 barges operational and a total loading capacity of the terminals of 831 T/hr
December 2011 Page 115 of 196 FEASIBLITY STUDY COAL TRANSPORT KALIMANTAN
8.4.8 OPTIMAL TRANSPORT CONFIGURATION FOR 2017 WITH FOUR BERTHS
The relative stockpile growth determines if the transport system is stable and if it is able to transport the required throughput capacity of 15 million ton per year. For the scenario in 2017 with four berths per terminal, the relative stockpile growth is given in figure 8.32. It can be seen that a minimum number of 17 and a maximum of 28 barges is required to transport the required throughput capacity efficiently.
30 7.3% 5.6% 3.7% 1.8% -0.1% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% 29 7.3% 5.6% 3.7% 1.9% -0.1% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% 28 7.3% 5.6% 3.8% 1.9% 0.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% 27 7.4% 5.6% 3.8% 1.9% 0.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% 26 7.4% 5.7% 3.9% 2.0% 0.1% -1.9% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% 25 7.5% 5.8% 4.0% 2.2% 0.3% -1.6% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% 24 7.7% 6.0% 4.3% 2.4% 0.6% -1.4% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% 23 7.9% 6.2% 4.5% 2.7% 0.9% -1.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% 22 8.2% 6.6% 4.8% 3.1% 1.3% -0.6% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% 21 8.6% 6.9% 5.3% 3.6% 1.9% 0.1% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% 20 9.1% 7.5% 5.9% 4.2% 2.5% 0.7% -1.2% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% 19 9.9% 8.3% 6.8% 5.4% 3.8% 2.4% 0.8% -0.6% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0%
Number of barges operational [#] operational of barges Number 18 11.3% 10.1% 8.8% 7.6% 6.6% 5.4% 4.4% 3.2% 2.1% 1.0% -0.1% -1.2% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% 17 14.3% 13.4% 12.5% 11.5% 10.5% 9.7% 8.7% 7.9% 6.9% 5.9% 4.9% 4.1% 3.1% 2.0% 1.2% 0.2% -0.8% -1.9% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% 16 18.4% 17.5% 16.8% 16.0% 15.3% 14.4% 13.7% 12.8% 12.1% 11.2% 10.3% 9.5% 8.4% 7.6% 6.8% 5.8% 4.9% 4.1% 3.0% 2.0% 1.0% 15 23.0% 22.4% 21.8% 21.0% 20.3% 19.5% 18.9% 18.0% 17.4% 16.5% 15.8% 15.0% 14.1% 13.2% 12.5% 11.6% 10.7% 9.8% 9.0% 8.0% 7.0%
Abs. Loading
547 558 570 582 595 609 623 638 653 670 687 705 724 744 765 788 812 837 864 893 capacity [T/hr] 536
Rel. loading
102% 104% 106% 109% 111% 114% 116% 119% 122% 125% 128% 132% 135% 139% 143% 147% 152% 156% 161% 167% capacity [-] 100%
Berth
98% 96% 94% 92% 90% 88% 86% 84% 82% 80% 78% 76% 74% 72% 70% 68% 66% 64% 62% 60% ccupation [-] 100% FIGURE 8.32 RELATIVE STOCKPILE GROWTH FOR 2017 WITH FOUR BERTHS PER TERMINAL
The transport cost per configuration for the scenario in 2017 with four berths per terminal is given in figure 8.33. The transport costs are calculated with respect to the efficiency of the barges and the occupancy terminals. A full clarification of the transport costs is given in paragraph 7.6.
30 € 2.65 € 2.69 € 2.73 € 2.78 € 2.83 € 2.88 € 2.91 € 2.93 € 2.96 € 2.99 € 3.02 € 3.05 € 3.08 € 3.11 € 3.14 € 3.18 € 3.22 € 3.26 € 3.30 € 3.35 € 3.40 29 € 2.64 € 2.68 € 2.72 € 2.77 € 2.82 € 2.87 € 2.89 € 2.92 € 2.95 € 2.98 € 3.01 € 3.04 € 3.07 € 3.10 € 3.13 € 3.17 € 3.21 € 3.25 € 3.29 € 3.34 € 3.39 28 € 2.62 € 2.67 € 2.71 € 2.76 € 2.81 € 2.86 € 2.88 € 2.91 € 2.94 € 2.96 € 2.99 € 3.02 € 3.06 € 3.09 € 3.12 € 3.16 € 3.20 € 3.24 € 3.28 € 3.33 € 3.38 27 € 2.61 € 2.66 € 2.70 € 2.75 € 2.80 € 2.85 € 2.87 € 2.90 € 2.93 € 2.95 € 2.98 € 3.01 € 3.05 € 3.08 € 3.11 € 3.15 € 3.19 € 3.23 € 3.27 € 3.32 € 3.37 26 € 2.60 € 2.65 € 2.69 € 2.74 € 2.79 € 2.83 € 2.86 € 2.89 € 2.91 € 2.94 € 2.97 € 3.00 € 3.03 € 3.07 € 3.10 € 3.14 € 3.18 € 3.22 € 3.26 € 3.31 € 3.36 25 € 2.59 € 2.63 € 2.68 € 2.72 € 2.77 € 2.82 € 2.85 € 2.88 € 2.90 € 2.93 € 2.96 € 2.99 € 3.02 € 3.06 € 3.09 € 3.13 € 3.17 € 3.21 € 3.25 € 3.30 € 3.35 24 € 2.58 € 2.62 € 2.66 € 2.71 € 2.76 € 2.81 € 2.84 € 2.86 € 2.89 € 2.92 € 2.95 € 2.98 € 3.01 € 3.04 € 3.08 € 3.12 € 3.16 € 3.20 € 3.24 € 3.29 € 3.34 23 € 2.56 € 2.60 € 2.65 € 2.69 € 2.74 € 2.79 € 2.83 € 2.85 € 2.88 € 2.91 € 2.94 € 2.97 € 3.00 € 3.03 € 3.07 € 3.11 € 3.14 € 3.19 € 3.23 € 3.28 € 3.33 22 € 2.55 € 2.59 € 2.63 € 2.68 € 2.72 € 2.77 € 2.82 € 2.84 € 2.87 € 2.89 € 2.92 € 2.96 € 2.99 € 3.02 € 3.06 € 3.09 € 3.13 € 3.17 € 3.22 € 3.27 € 3.31 21 € 2.53 € 2.57 € 2.61 € 2.66 € 2.71 € 2.75 € 2.80 € 2.83 € 2.85 € 2.88 € 2.91 € 2.94 € 2.97 € 3.01 € 3.04 € 3.08 € 3.12 € 3.16 € 3.21 € 3.25 € 3.30 20 € 2.51 € 2.55 € 2.59 € 2.64 € 2.68 € 2.73 € 2.78 € 2.82 € 2.84 € 2.87 € 2.90 € 2.93 € 2.96 € 3.00 € 3.03 € 3.07 € 3.11 € 3.15 € 3.19 € 3.24 € 3.29 19 € 2.49 € 2.53 € 2.57 € 2.61 € 2.65 € 2.70 € 2.74 € 2.79 € 2.83 € 2.86 € 2.89 € 2.92 € 2.95 € 2.98 € 3.02 € 3.06 € 3.09 € 3.14 € 3.18 € 3.23 € 3.28
Number of barges operational [#] operational of barges Number 18 € 2.46 € 2.49 € 2.53 € 2.57 € 2.61 € 2.65 € 2.68 € 2.72 € 2.76 € 2.81 € 2.85 € 2.90 € 2.94 € 2.97 € 3.01 € 3.04 € 3.08 € 3.13 € 3.17 € 3.22 € 3.27 17 € 2.41 € 2.44 € 2.47 € 2.51 € 2.54 € 2.57 € 2.61 € 2.65 € 2.69 € 2.73 € 2.77 € 2.81 € 2.86 € 2.90 € 2.95 € 3.00 € 3.06 € 3.11 € 3.16 € 3.21 € 3.26 16 € 2.34 € 2.37 € 2.40 € 2.43 € 2.46 € 2.50 € 2.53 € 2.57 € 2.60 € 2.64 € 2.68 € 2.72 € 2.77 € 2.82 € 2.86 € 2.91 € 2.96 € 3.02 € 3.08 € 3.14 € 3.20 15 € 2.26 € 2.29 € 2.32 € 2.35 € 2.38 € 2.41 € 2.45 € 2.48 € 2.52 € 2.56 € 2.59 € 2.64 € 2.68 € 2.72 € 2.77 € 2.82 € 2.87 € 2.92 € 2.98 € 3.04 € 3.10
Abs. Loading
547 558 570 582 595 609 623 638 653 670 687 705 724 744 765 788 812 837 864 893 capacity [T/hr] 536
Rel. loading
102% 104% 106% 109% 111% 114% 116% 119% 122% 125% 128% 132% 135% 139% 143% 147% 152% 156% 161% 167% capacity [-] 100%
Berth
98% 96% 94% 92% 90% 88% 86% 84% 82% 80% 78% 76% 74% 72% 70% 68% 66% 64% 62% 60% ccupation [-] 100% FIGURE 8.33 TRANSPORT COSTS FOR 2017 WITH FOUR BERTHS PER TERMINAL
Page 116 of 196 Chair of Ports & Waterways Alternative 1.1, Barge transport from Lok Buntar
€ 3.30
€ 3.20
/T] € € 3.10
€ 3.00
€ 2.90 Transport costs per ton [ ton per costs Transport € 2.80 Transport costs
€ 2.70 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 Number of operational barges [#]
FIGURE 8.34 REQUIRED NUMBER OF BARGES AGAINST THE TRANSPORT COSTS (2017 WITH FOUR BERTHS)
€ 3.30
€ 3.20
/T] € € 3.10
€ 3.00
€ 2.90 Transport costs per ton [ ton per costs Transport € 2.80 Transport costs € 2.70 500 550 600 650 700 750 800 850 900 Loading capacity per berth [T/hr]
FIGURE 8.35 (UN)LOADING CAPACITY AGAINST THE TRANSPORT COSTS (2017 WITH FOUR BERTHS)
The optimum barge transport configuration can be determine according to the graphs at figure 8.34 and figure 8.35. The graph show the transport costs at the border at which the stockpile growth is just stable. At these configurations exact 15 million ton per year is transported. From the graphs, the optimum barge transport configuration can be determined.
The three most efficient barge transport configurations for a throughput of 15 million ton per year with four loading berths in Lok Buntar and four unloading berths in Sungai Puting.
1. 22 barges operational and a total loading capacity of the terminals of 595 T/hr 2. 20 barges operational and a total loading capacity of the terminals of 609 T/hr 3. 19 barges operational and a total loading capacity of the terminals of 623 T/hr
December 2011 Page 117 of 196 FEASIBLITY STUDY COAL TRANSPORT KALIMANTAN
8.5 DESIGN PLAN FOR THE FUTURE
A design plan for the future is made concerning the development of the terminals at Lok Buntar and Sungai Puting. In the paragraphs 8.4.1 till 8.4.8 the most efficient transport configurations are determined for the year 2013, 2015 and 2017. In paragraph 8.5.1 the most efficient configurations are attuned to each other and a plan is made how to develop the terminals at Lok Buntar and Sungai Puting, concerning the 180ft barge transport. In paragraph 8.5.2 the results from the simulation study is compared to the queuing theory, concerning the required number of barges.
8.5.1 TRANSPORT CONFIGURATIONS
In this paragraph the results from the simulation model are analysed. Eight different runs have been made with one, two, three and four berths for different years. The most efficient transport configurations for every run are presented in table 8.5.
Year Number of berth per Number of barges Effective Loading/ Total transport costs terminal required unloading capacity per ton from LB to SP 2013 1 berth 6 barges 831 T/hr €2.77 /T 2013 2 berths 8 barges 388 T/hr €2.82 /T 2015 1 berth 10 barges 1880 T/hr €2.85 /T 2015 2 berths 12 barges 831 T/hr €2.76 /T 2015 3 berths 15 barges 529 T/hr €2.80 /T 2017 2 berths 12 barges 623 T/hr €3.60 /T 2017 3 berths 18 barges 831 T/hr €2.75 /T 2017 4 berths 22 barges 595 T/hr €2.77 /T TABLE 8.5 THREE MOST EFFICIENT TRANSPORT CONFIGURATIONS PER RUN
The three most feasible transport configurations from financial point of view does exactly match with each other, concerned the loading capacity. The three loading capacities are equal for every year. This makes the decision for the development of the terminals relative easy.
The operation starts in 2013 with one berth with 830 T/hr effective loading and unloading capacity at Lok Buntar and Sungai Puting. Every two year a new berth have to be constructed with 830 T/hr loading and unloading capacity. In 2017 three berths per terminal have to be operational with an effective loading and unloading capacity of 831 T/hr. The average berth occupation of the terminals is than 86 per cent.
The required number of barges is also determine from the results of the simulation model. The required number of barges have to increase from 6 barges in 2013 till 18 barges in 2017. The whole design plan is summarized in table 8.6. The transport costs decrease slightly throughout the years. A graph with the transport costs is presented in figure 8.36.
Year Lok Buntar loading terminal Sungai Puting unloading terminal Number of Loading capacity Number of Number of berths Loading capacity berth 180ft barges 2013 1 berth 830 T/hr 6 barges 1 berth 830 T/hr 2015 2 berths 830 T/hr 12 barges 2 berths 830 T/hr 2017 3 berths 830 T/hr 18 barges 3 berths 830 T/hr TABLE 8.6 DESIGN PLAN FOR THE YEARS 2013 TILL 2017
Page 118 of 196 Chair of Ports & Waterways Alternative 1.1, Barge transport from Lok Buntar
€ 2.80 € 2.79
€ 2.78 /T]
€ € 2.77 € 2.76 € 2.75 € 2.74 € 2.73
Transport costs [ costs Transport € 2.72 Transport costs € 2.71 € 2.70 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 Year
FIGURE 8.36 TRANSPORT COSTS FROM THE LOK BUNTAR STOCKPILE TILL SUNGAI PUTING STOCKPILE
8.5.2 RESULTS FROM QUEUING THEORY
With the queuing theory it is difficult to perform an optimisation study on the financial feasibility of the alternatives. Therefor the information from the simulation study is implemented in the queuing theory. This is loading capacity of 831 T/hr per berth. The required number of barges is calculated with respect to the loading capacity per berth and the number of berths per terminal. The results are presented in Table 8.7.
Year Lok Buntar loading terminal Sungai Puting unloading terminal Number of Loading capacity Number of Number of berths Loading capacity berth 180ft barges 2013 1 berth 830 T/hr 8 barges 1 berth 830 T/hr 2015 2 berths 830 T/hr 12 barges 2 berths 830 T/hr 2017 3 berths 830 T/hr 16 barges 3 berths 830 T/hr TABLE 8.7 REQUIRED NUMBER OF BARGES ACCORDING TO THE QUEUEING THEORY
The results from the queuing theory are different from the analysis with the simulation model. For the situation in 2015 the required number of barges calculated with the queuing theory is equal to the analysis, but the results for 2013 and 2017 are different. In 2013 the calculated number of barges is too less, while in 2017 the calculated number of barges is too high. This confirms the theory that the distributions used for the Elang-C formula are not very accurate.
20 18
16 14 12 10 8 Required number of barges acording to 6 queueing theory
Number of barges [#] barges of Number 4 Required number of barges according to 2 simulation model 0 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 Year
FIGURE 8.37 DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE SIMULATION MODEL AND THE QUEUEING THEORY
December 2011 Page 119 of 196 FEASIBLITY STUDY COAL TRANSPORT KALIMANTAN
8.6 CONCLUSIONS
In this chapter, barge transport between Lok Buntar and Sungai Puting is investigated. This alternative is comparable with the current transport system. Except that the Tatakan transit stockpile is removed from the transport system. Transport from the lime till Lok Buntar is done by trucks. No further research is done on the transport system before Lok Buntar.
In this chapter the most efficient transport configurations are determined per year. After these most efficient configurations are determined a design plan is made for the development of the terminals. The design plan is explained in paragraph 8.5.
The operation starts in 2013 with one berth with 830 T/hr effective loading and unloading capacity at Lok Buntar and Sungai Puting. Every two year a new berth have to be constructed with 830 T/hr loading and unloading capacity. In 2017 three berths per terminal have to be operational with an effective loading and unloading capacity of 831 T/hr. The average berth occupation of the terminals is than 86 per cent.
The required number of barges is also determine from the results of the simulation model. The required number of barges have to increase from 6 barges in 2013 till 18 barges in 2017. The whole design plan is summarized in table 8.8. The transport costs decrease slightly throughout the years form €2.77/T to €2.75/T. The costs for barge transport are based on the CIRIA guideline for dredging equipment and the guideline from the Dutch Association of Costs Engineers. The method to estimating the costs of the transportation by barge is given in paragraph 0.
Year Lok Buntar loading terminal Sungai Puting unloading terminal Number of Loading capacity Number of Number of berths Loading capacity berth 180ft barges 2013 1 berth 830 T/hr 6 barges 1 berth 830 T/hr 2015 2 berths 830 T/hr 12 barges 2 berths 830 T/hr 2017 3 berths 830 T/hr 18 barges 3 berths 830 T/hr TABLE 8.8 DESIGN PLAN FOR THE YEARS 2013 TILL 2017
Because the transport system makes use of a certain amount of barges, it is relative reliable. If one barge is out of order the efficiency of the other barges will probably increase and the transport capacity is only slightly influenced. Even if more than one barge is out of order it will not directly lead to an immediate increase in stockpile height above the stockpile limitation.
If one of the berth is out of order it has significant influence on the capacity of the transport system. It is therefore of big importance to maintain the loading and unloading conveyors as good as possible. It is recommended to invest in enough spare parts at site. If a conveyor unexpectedly get out of order, the conveyor can be repaired in not too much time.
The transport system is relative inflexible in throughput capacity, because the adjustment are relative time consuming. The amount of barges can be increased, but this is only helpful within a certain range. Then the loading rate per berth have to be increased, but is dependent on the conveyor belt if this is possible. If the loading capacity is already fully utilized an extra loading berth have to be constructed.
Page 120 of 196 Chair of Ports & Waterways Alternative 2.1, Hydraulic transport from Lok Buntar
9 ALTERNATIVE 2.1, HYDRAULIC TRANSPORT FROM LOK BUNTAR
Ida Manggala Lok Buntar Sungai Puting
AGM AGM mine stockpile loading jetty 1 e l i
disposal p k c
area o
Pualam Sari t s
loading SKB SKB jetty 2 mine stockpile
Alternative 2.1 comprises hydraulic transportation from Lok Buntar to Sungai Puting terminal. Transport from Sungai Puting terminal to deep-sea is done by 390ft barges. The part of transport system between Lok Buntar and Sungai Puting is taken into account in this chapter. With this alternative the feasibility of hydraulic coal transport is compared to conveyor belt transport and barge transport.
9.1 RESEARCH APPROACH
In this chapter the principles for hydraulic transportation of coal are described. Also the parameters which are important to design a slurry pipeline system are investigated. The hydraulic system consists of three stages.
1. At the first stage, the coal has to be mixed with water to create a fluid mixture. In this report this is called the hydraulification installation. 2. The second stage consists of a pipeline system with several centrifugal pumps in series. 3. At the third and last stage of the transport chain, the coal has to be separated from the water.
The hydraulification installation will be situated in Lok Buntar. The purpose of the installation is to produce a uniform mixture with a constant volume concentration in time. The advantage of pumping a uniform mixture above a non-uniform mixture is that an optimum in pipeline resistance can be found without too much risk of clogging the pipeline. Lok Buntar is the ideal location because enough water is available and it is the harbour which is closest to the mine. A stockpile has to be available to guarantee coal supply to the system at all times.
For hydraulic transportation of the mixture, a pipeline has to be constructed with several centrifugal pumps in series. The method of transportation is very similar with sand transport in the dredging industry. In the past, BSS investigated the possibility of constructing a conveyor belt between Lok Buntar and Sungai Puting terminal. A route for this conveyor belt is selected and land is already been acquired. The pipeline for hydraulic transport can be constructed at the same track where the conveyor belt is planned to be installed. The total length of the pipeline will be 29.9 km. The length is important to calculate the required power to transport the mixture to Sungai Puting. Several relations are used to determine the most efficient combination between pipeline diameter and volume concentration.
At Sungai Puting a separation area has to be created to separate the water from the coal. There are several different ways to separate the coal from the water. This is not investigated in detail in this master thesis project.
December 2011 Page 121 of 196 FEASIBLITY STUDY COAL TRANSPORT KALIMANTAN
9.2 BLOCK SCHEMATISATION OF HYDRAULIC TRANSPORT
At the next page a block schematisation for hydraulic transport is included into the report. The block schematisation for hydraulic transport describes the work method to come to a design plan for a hydraulic transport system for coal.
The schematisation distinguishes seven different blocks with different properties of the system.
1. Design criteria 2. Mixture properties 3. Pipeline properties 4. Pomp properties 5. Drive installation 6. Disposal area 7. Additional structures
The design criteria for the system are, like in the schematisation of barge transport, the starting points of the schematisation. The required throughput per year and the amount of working hours determine the minimum discharge and transport concentration of the coal-water mixture.
The mixture properties are important to determine the behaviour of the mixture inside the pipeline. The mixture properties determine the tendency of settling and at which velocity the mixture start to settle. The mixture properties together with the pipeline properties determine the pipeline characteristics. The pipeline characteristic is the development of friction head over the discharge.
The length and diameter of the pipeline are the main properties which determine the total friction head of the pipeline. To calculate the friction head is one of the main difficulties to come to a design plan for the hydraulic system. Several empirical relations are available for sand-water mixtures, but none for coal-water mixtures. The friction head is related to the required power which has to be delivered by the drive. Therefor a large part of this chapter is about determining the friction head.
The pump capacity which has to be installed is directly related to the friction head. The total pump capacity has to be delivered by a certain amount of pumps. The amount of pumps is also dependent on the size of the pumps which will be used.
The size of the dewatering system is partly dependent on the volume concentration of the mixtures. The amount of coal dust in the mixture is important with respect to the kind of installation that have to be installed.
The bock schematization gives a clear overview of the calculations of all the parameters which are related to each other.
Page 122 of 196 Chair of Ports & Waterways Alternative 2.1, Hydraulic transport from Lok Buntar
Working Throughput Efficiency 1 hours capacity
Design creteria
Transport Density Dencity viscosity Coal diameter concentration Coal Water 2 [ν] [Dmf] Different formulas are avialable to Itteration can be [Ct] [ρc] [ρw] calculate the pipeline resistance: done with the Durand/ Gibert, Moody diagram Führböter Wilson
Hydraulic Pipe Type of Pipe Length Pipeline costs rouchness Diameter 3 Pipe [L] [k] [D]
Pipeline Resistance Reinolds Required Density resistance factor number Discharge Slurry [ΔPp] [λ] [Re] [Qm] [ρm]
Required potential Lifting the difference mixture [ΔPh]
Number of Curve losses and type of [ΔPξ] curves
Total requred Head [ΔP]
Required working Costs Number of Type of pump point for one 4 Booster pumps Pumps and blades pump
Required Drive Costs Power and 5 Drive Torsion
Type of minumum Costs dewatering area 6 Disposal area system for disposal
Costs additional Hydraufication Pump Pipe 7 Constructions system acomodation Foundation
Total investment costs Input for Multi Criteria Analysis
$ / T Hydraulic Transport
FIGURE 9.1 BLOCKSCHEMATIZATION FOR DESIGNING THE HYDRAULIC SYSTEM
December 2011 Page 123 of 196 FEASIBLITY STUDY COAL TRANSPORT KALIMANTAN
Page 124 of 196 Chair of Ports & Waterways Alternative 2.1, Hydraulic transport from Lok Buntar
9.3 COAL PROPERTIES
The coal properties are important to determine the coal-water mixture properties. When the coal is delivered to the costumer it must be in the range of certain boundaries, with respect to the particle size. These boundaries are plotted in the sieve curve in figure 9.2. The coal from the mine is first crushed before it is transported, to meet the boundary conditions.
Three boundaries of coal diameters are:
Fines with a smaller diameter than 2mm may not exceed 30% in weight. Not more that 10% of the weight may have a larger diameter than 50mm. All coal particles have to be smaller than 60mm
100% 58, 100%
90% 47
80% 40
70% 35
60% 32 Example 50% 29 Upper limit 40% 26 Lower limit 30% 23
Percentage particles trough seive trough particles Percentage 20% 18
10% 11
0% 0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 Particle diameter [mm]
FIGURE 9.2 EXAMPLE OF SEIVE CURVE FOR COAL
The density of coal is around 1,300 kg/m3. For anthracite coal this can even come close to 1000 kg/m3. (see paragraph 2.2 about coal qualities) The coal density will influence the behaviour to the coal-water mixture through a pipeline enormously. Differences between coal and sand properties used in formulas are given in the table 9.1.
Coal properties after crushing Sand properties 3 3 3 Density ρc 1,100 kg/m – 1,300 kg/m 2,650 kg/m Average diameter dmf 10mm – 40mm 36µm – 2,000µm TABLE 9.1 DIFFERNT BETWEEN COAL PRPERTIES AND SAND PROPERTIES
December 2011 Page 125 of 196 FEASIBLITY STUDY COAL TRANSPORT KALIMANTAN
9.4 THE FRICTION HEAD
The main challenge of designing a hydraulic transport system is to find the relationship between mixture properties and pipeline resistance. The pressure it takes to transport a mixture through the pipeline is called the friction head. Most knowledge is available about slurry transport of sand-water mixtures. In this paragraph the considerations are described which have to be taken into account when pumping a coal-water mixture instead of sand-water mixtures.
9.4.1 INTRODUCTION
The density of the solid particles in the mixture determines mainly the tendency of settling inside the pipeline. The diameter of the particles and viscosity of the mixture is important to determine the homogeneous behaviour of the mixture. If the particles settle, the mixture will have a more stratified behaviour. The volume concentration determines greatly the mixture density, and thereby the potential energy which has to be delivered to the system. The volume concentration of the mixture is the percentage of the volume, the coal particles occupy in the mixture.
The main mixture properties, which play a role in the pumping process are. Density of the solids Volume concentration Diameter of the particles Dynamic viscosity
Several empirical relations are available, which describe the relation between sand-water mixture properties and pipeline resistance. Every relation is based on different slurry flow conditions and thereby has different application areas. The relations that are investigated in this study on their applicability for hydraulic transportation of coal are:
Darcy Weisbach for water and homogeneous mixtures Durant Gilbert Führböter Jufin Lopatin Wilson for homogeneous flow Wilson for stratified flows Russian coal formula
There are no universally accepted models applicable to calculate the resistance of coarse coal mixtures through a pipeline. Therefor all relations are applied if it was for pumping coarse coal trough the 29.9km pipeline from Lok Buntar to Sungai Puting. The result of these analyses is given in appendix A. The findings and conclusions of the analyses in appendix A are summarised in the paragraph 9.4.2.
9.4.2 CONCLUSION ABOUT THE FRICTION HEAD
With the maths program MathCAD the properties of each of the relations is plotted in figure 9.3. In these graphs the discharge per second is plotted against the required pressure head in meters water column. The graph shows the friction head according to the different empirical relations for a pipeline with a diameter of 700mm and a transport concentration of 28%.
In appendix A, different formulas to calculate the friction head are described and analysed. None of the formulas, which have been analysed, give a clear result on the friction head for hydraulic transportation of a coal-water mixture. Probably the best way to come to a more accurate result for the friction head is the calibration of the formulas to empirical experiments with a coal-water mixture. The formula of Wilson for heterogeneous flow seems to be a good basis for a more accurate answer.
Page 126 of 196 Chair of Ports & Waterways Alternative 2.1, Hydraulic transport from Lok Buntar
FIGURE 9.3 REQUIRED HYDRAULIC HEAD FOR DIFFERENT FORMULAS IN THE GOVERNING SITUATION
An estimate has to be made on the reliability of the different formulas to investigate the feasibility of hydraulic transportation of coal in general. One of the formulas has to be chosen to be the most accurate. With this formula the feasibility of hydraulic transportation of coal is further calculated.
In figure 9.3 all the seven formulas are plotted in one graph. The differences between the formulas can be seen easily. Interesting to see is that some of the formulas for sand-water mixture are definitely not suitable for coal- water mixtures, since these formulas are way out of the range of the other formulas. For instance the formulas of Durant-Gilbert and Führböter are not suitable for coal-water mixture, because of the absent of the relative particle density inside the formula. The solution could be to do more research on the empirical parameters inside these formulas.
The other formulas show a more consistent picture of the friction head. The two formulas of Wilson are of a different kind. Both formulas have, much more than the others, fundamental background. A big advantage of these formulas is the presence of the relative particle density and particle size inside the formula. The formulas of Wilson do both represent an extreme flow structure. Unfortunately both of the extreme flow structures probably don’t fit with the flow structure of a coal-water mixture through a pipeline.
The Jufin Lopatin formula seems to lay the most in the middle of the other formulas. Nevertheless is this a very simple formula with not much fundamental background. The great amount of empirical data makes this an interesting formula to take into consideration. Especially the deposition point of the Jufin Lopatin formula seems to be reliable, if it is compared with the Wilson formulas.
A careful conclusion could be drawn to assume that the friction head is probably between the Wilson formula for homogeneous flow and the Wilson formula for stratified flow. The Russian formulas of Jufin Lopatin and the research of Traynis on coarse coal transport, would underline this conclusion.
The deposition velocity is the most important point on the graph, since the hydraulic system will be designed on this point. Therefor the formula of Jufin Lopatin is chosen to determine the friction head at the deposition velocity. The further research on the feasibility of the hydraulic transport of coal will be based on the formula of Jufin Lopatin.
December 2011 Page 127 of 196 FEASIBLITY STUDY COAL TRANSPORT KALIMANTAN
The deposition points can be found in the graph at figure 9.3 as the lowest point of every formula. A summary of all the different deposition points is presented in Table 9.2.
Empirical relation Friction head Discharge Darcy-Weisbach NA NA Durant-Gilbert NA NA Führböter 4932m 3.211 m3/s Jufin lopatin 1392m 1.715 m3/s Wilson Homogenous 231m 0.763 m3/s Wilson Stratified 2212m 1.120 m3/s Russian coarse coal 1208m 2.484 m3/s TABLE 9.2 THE DEPOSITION LIMIT FOR DIFFERENT FORMULAS IN THE GOVERNING SITUATION
9.5 DESIGN PLAN FOR THE HYDRAULIC SYSTEM
In this paragraph a design plan is made for the hydraulic system for the years 2013 to 2017. The throughput has to increase from five million ton per year in 2013 to fifteen million ton per year in 2017. When the throughput per year increases, the discharge per hour also has to increase. This is not favourable for the designing a hydraulic system, since this has to be designed on a certain discharge capacity. A solution is found in the amount of operational days per week, at which the hydraulic system is operational. This way, the throughput capacity per year can increase, without too much increase of the discharge capacity per hour.
The friction head, that has to be delivered by the pumps, is estimated from the analysis in the paragraph 11.3. In this paragraph the friction head for pumping a coal-water mixture is determined according to the Jufin Lopatin formula.
Four future throughput scenarios are designed in detail.
January 2013 with a throughput of 5 million T/yr and 3 operational days/week. December 2014 with a throughput of 10 million T/yr and 4 operational days/week. January 2015 with a throughput of 10 million T/yr and 5 operational day/week. January 2017 with a throughput of 15 million T/yr and 6 operational days/week.
Page 128 of 196 Chair of Ports & Waterways Alternative 2.1, Hydraulic transport from Lok Buntar
Most of the mixture properties cannot be changed, like the particle density and coal size. However, the volume concentration of the mixture can be adapted to the design of the hydraulic system. This is the concentration of solid coal particles in the coal-water mixture. The combination between volume concentration and discharge determines the total throughput of solid coal. When the volume concentration increases, less discharge is required to satisfy the annual throughput capacity. The volume concentration cannot increase too much, because the mixture velocity has to be above the deposition velocity to prevent clogging of the pipeline.
FIGURE 9.4 MIXTURE VELOCITY FOR THE SCENARIO IN 2017
In figure 9.4 the mixture velocity is determined according to the pipeline diameter and the volume concentration. The required throughput of solid coal particles is constant over the whole graph. So when the volume concentration of the mixture decreases, the discharge has to increase to guarantee the throughput of solid coal. In figure 9.4 the velocity of the mixture is given for all combinations of pipe diameter and volume concentration. The blue colour shows the area of low velocities and the red area shows the area of high velocities. The deposition velocity is calculated according to the formula of Jufin Lopatin and also depictured into the graph.
The coal is crushed to a certain diameter before it will be transported through a pipeline, therefor the coal-water mixture can be made very uniform. The advantage of a uniform mixture is that the working point can be chosen very accurately. The most efficient working point of the system is just above the deposition velocity. At this point the particles in the coal-water mixture just stay in suspension and the friction head is lowest.
In figure 9.5 the friction head is plotted to determine the deposition velocity. The graph shows the scenario in 2017, concerning a throughput capacity of 15 million ton per year and six operational days a week. In this plot the pipe diameter is plotted against the volume concentration. From this graph the deposition velocity can be recognized as a line with the lowest friction head. At the bottom left corner of the graph the friction head increases, because of increase of mixture velocity. At the upper right corner of the plot the friction head increases because of settling of the mixture.
December 2011 Page 129 of 196 FEASIBLITY STUDY COAL TRANSPORT KALIMANTAN
The line at which the friction head is lowest, determines the deposition velocity. A pipe diameter of 700mm is chosen because this is a conventional diameter and is in the range of all scenarios between 2013 and 2017. Because the pipeline diameter is chosen to be 700mm, this is the line at which the hydraulic system can operate. From the plot at figure 9.5 the ideal volume concentrations can be determined to be 28%. This is for the scenario in 2017.
FIGURE 9.5 FRICTION HEAD FOR THE SENARIO IN 2017.
Over the years four operation parameters can be changed in time.
Throughput per year The number of operational days per week The volume concentration of the mixture Discharge of the mixture
It is decided to increase the number of operational days from 3 days per week in 2015 to 6 days per week in 2017. In 2015 the operation starts with a coal-water mixture with a volume concentration of 20%. By increasing the mixture velocity, the volume concentration can increase as well. This can continue till the maximum power of the pump system is reached. This point is reached when the annual throughput is 7.5 million ton per year and the working point of the system is equal to the governing situation in 2017. At the moment the throughput of the system increases to 7.5 million tons per year an extra operational day have to be introduced. After this is done, the volume concentration can be decreased again to 22% with a discharge of 1.686 m3/sec.
This cycle is repeated till the moment, 15 million ton coal per year is required. At this moment the volume concentration is maximal 28% again with a minimum throughput of 1.799m3/sec. The whole hydraulic system will be designed on the governing situation of 2017. figure 9.6 till figure 9.9 visualize the change of the parameters over time. In the figures it can be seen that in January of 2014, 2015 and 2016 the system switches to a different working point. At these moments the number of operational days, volume concentration and the discharge change.
Page 130 of 196 Chair of Ports & Waterways Alternative 2.1, Hydraulic transport from Lok Buntar
17500000
15000000 12500000
10000000
7500000 5000000 2500000 jan-13 jan-14 jan-15 jan-16 jan-17 Througput [T/yr]
FIGURE 9.6 DEVELOPMENT OF THE THROUGHPUT CAPACITY FROM 2013 TO 2017
7 6 5 4 3 2 jan-13 jan-14 jan-15 jan-16 jan-17 Operational days [day]
FIGURE 9.7 THE NUMBER OF OPERATIONAL DAYS PER WEEK FROM 2013 TO 2017
30 28 26 24 22 20 18 jan-13 jan-14 jan-15 jan-16 jan-17
Volume concentration [%]
FIGURE 9.8 DEVELOPMENT OF THE VOLUME CONCENTRATION FROM 2013 TO 2017
1.8
1.75
1.7
1.65
1.6 jan-13 jan-14 jan-15 jan-16 jan-17
Discharge [m^3/sec]
FIGURE 9.9 DEVELOPMENT OF THE DISCHARGE FROM 2013 TO 2017
December 2011 Page 131 of 196 FEASIBLITY STUDY COAL TRANSPORT KALIMANTAN
Important to understand is that this is just a combination of arbitrary decisions of how the design plan could look like. For instance the pipeline diameter could be chosen larger and the number of operating days per week could be decreased. The transition from three operation days to six, could also be more graduate. Like an extra hour every month. The advantage of having a more graduate increase of operational hours is that the work point will be more constant over the years.
In table 11.1 the operating parameters for the hydraulic system are summarized. The mixture velocity is just above the deposition velocity in every scenario. The friction head varies between 1269 meter water column in January 2013 till 1405 meters water column in January 2017.
Year Jan 2013 Dec 2014 Jan 2015 Jan 2017
Required throughput 5.000.000 T/yr 10.000.000 T/yr 10.000.000 T/yr 15.000.000 T/yr
Working hours 24hr x 3days x 24hr x 4days x 24hr x 5days x 24hr x 6days x 50wk 50wk 50wk 50wk
Pipeline diameter 700mm 700mm 700mm 700mm
Max. volume 20% 28% 23% 28% concentration
Transport factor 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9
Min. discharge 1.649 m3/sec 1.766 m3/sec 1.720 m3/sec 1.766 m3/sec
Deposition velocity 1.621 m3/sec 1.715 m3/sec 1.659 m3/sec 1.715 m3/sec
(a.t. Jufin Lopatin) 5836 m3/hr 6174 m3/hr 5972m3/hr 6174 m3/hr
Friction head 1269 mwc 1405 mwc 1322 mwc 1405 mwc
(a.t. Jufin lopation) 12440 kPa 13777 kPa 12.961 kPa 13777 kPa
Delivered 5.000.823 T/yr 9.997.199 T/yr 9.997.603 T/yr 14.995.798T/yr throughput
TABLE 9.3 SUMMARY OF THE OPERATION PARAMETERS FROM 2013 TO 2017.
9.6 SEPARATION AREA
The separation area is the area where the water content has to be separated from the coal-water mixture. Separating the water from the mixture can be done in several ways. The main two methods are mechanical separation or separation by thermal drying or settling.
The following methods are possible for coal-water separation
Mechanical separation with the use of sieves Mechanical separation with filter presses Mechanical separation by centrifuging Separation by thermal drying Separation by settling
Some of the methods are only applicable for small particle size, like separation by filter and separation by centrifuging. The subject of separating the coal from the water will not be treated in the master thesis project.
Page 132 of 196 Chair of Ports & Waterways Alternative 2.1, Hydraulic transport from Lok Buntar
9.7 POWER CONSUMPTION HYDRAULIC TRANSPORT
The power consumption of the hydraulic system is directly related to the discharge and the friction head of the system. The discharge times the friction head is the amount of hydraulic power that is required to pump the mixture through pipeline. The total hydraulic power has to be delivered by a number of centrifugal pumps in series.
The total maximum power, which has to be delivered to the system at the governing situation in 2017, is 24.340 kW. This hydraulic power covers the distance between Lok Buntar and Sungai Puting terminal.
It is decided to use pumps with a maximum hydraulic power of 2650 kW, because these are still standard pumps, which are suitable for pumping coal-water mixtures. Large pumps are favourable because this reduces the amount of pumps required. When pumps of 2650 kW are installed, a total of ten pumps are required to be able to pump the mixture over a distance of 29.9 kilometres. To prevent problems with overpressure or vacuum, it is decided to place the pumps at equal distance from each other.
The mechanical power to operate the pumps is different from the hydraulic power. The efficiency is determined by the kind of pump and the ideal work point of the pump. The working point can be determined very accurately, because the mixture is uniform and the discharge is more or less stable. Therefor the efficiency of the pumps can be relatively high. In this calculation the efficiency is estimated to be 80%.
The mechanical power required for the pumps has to be delivered by diesel engines. In total 30.425 kW mechanical power has to be delivered by the diesel engines. With the specific fuel consumption for diesel engines according to Brake the fuel consumption per hour can be calculated.
The figures for the governing situation in 2017, are.
Required hydraulic power 24,340 kW
Maximum hydraulic power by pumps 10 x 2,650 kW = 26,500 kW
Efficiency of the pumps 80%
Mechanical power required by the pumps 30.425 kW
Specific Fuel Consumption according to Brake 210 gr/kWhr
Fuel density 740 kg/m3
Fuel consumption at the governing situation in 2017. 8.634 m3/hr
TABLE 9.4 POWER CONSUMPTION HYDRAULIC SYSTEM
9.8 COSTS CALCULATION HYDRAULIC TRANSPORT
The costs for the hydraulic system can be separated into the fixed costs and the variable costs. The main parts of the fixed costs are the costs which have to be paid for depreciation and interest. The variable costs are the costs which have to be paid the time the hydraulic system is operational. The costs which are included into the calculation are summarized in table 9.5.
December 2011 Page 133 of 196 FEASIBLITY STUDY COAL TRANSPORT KALIMANTAN
Costs for the hydraulic system Fixed costs Variable costs Depreciation of the hydraulification system Power consumption, lubricants Depreciation of the pipeline system Variable maintenance Depreciation pipeline foundation Depreciation of the booster stations Depreciation of the separation area Interest Standard maintenance Overhead of 15% TABLE 9.5 COSTS FOR THE HYDRAULIC SYSTEM
The costs for dredging equipment have been based on the CIRIA 2009. This is a guide for cost standards for dredging equipment in 2009. An indexation for 2011 is used. A fuel price of €0.70 per litre is used to calculate the fuel prices. An overhead of 15% is add to the cost for labour, office costs, insurance, supervision and risk. The total costs for hydraulic transportation of coal between Lok Buntar and Sungai Puting are given in table 9.6.
Year Jan-13 Dec-14 Jan-15 Jan-17
Required throughput 5000000 10000000 10000000 15000000
Working hours 24hr x 3days x 24hr x 4days x 24hr x 5days x 24hr x 6days x 50wk 50wk 50wk 50wk Hydraulification system € 43,300.- € 43,300.- € 43,300.- € 43,300.- (Depreciation + interest) Hydraulification system € 2,845.- € 3,216.- € 3,587.- € 3,958.- (Maintenance + repair) Pipeline € 2,224,852.- € 2,818,027.- € 3,414,528.- € 4,012,701.- (Interest) Pipeline € 146,204.- € 209,339.- € 282,918.- € 366,875.- (Maintenance + repair) Booster stations € 3,212,898.- € 3,212,898.- € 3,212,898.- € 3,212,898.- (Depreciation + interest) Booster stations € 211,133.- € 238,672.- € 266,211.- € 293,750.- (Maintenance + repair) Separation area € 216,502.- € 216,502.- € 216,502.- € 216,502.- (Depreciation + interest) Separation area € 14,227.- € 16,083.- € 17,938.- € 19,794.- (Maintenance + repair) Fuel, lubricants costs € 18,335,520.- € 29,006,880.- € 33,222,000.- € 43,510,320.-
15% Overhead € 3,661,122.- € 5,364,738.- € 6,101,983.- € 7,752,015.-
Costs per ton € 5.61/T € 4.11/T € 4.68/T € 3.96/T
TABLE 9.6 TOTAL COSTS FOR HYDRAULIC TRANSPORTATION OF COAL
Page 134 of 196 Chair of Ports & Waterways Alternative 2.1, Hydraulic transport from Lok Buntar
9.9 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH
The analysis about hydraulic transportation of a coal-water mixture contains assumptions and estimations. Therefore it would be very interesting to execute a more comprehensive study on the hydraulic transportation of coal is there for advised.
Parts of the investigation, where more research is desirable.
Different variations in hydraulic transportation of coal. (Paragraph 9.9.1 The behaviour of hydraulic transportation of coal-water mixture inside the pipeline. (Paragraph 9.9.2) A detailed design of the hydraulification system. (Paragraph 9.9.3) A detailed design of the dewatering system. (Paragraph 9.9.3) Environmental impact (Paragraph 9.9.4)
9.9.1 DIFFERENT VARIATIONS
Coal transport via pipeline can become more feasible when a larger part of the transport is done hydraulically. Two different options are possible:
A hydraulic system, including hydraulic mining. A hydraulic system, with hydraulic transport to the end user.
Another variable in hydraulic transportation of coal can be the change in mixture properties. A lot of variations are possible, the two main variables being:
The use of another medium, instead of water. The particle size of coal
Different variations on hydraulic transportation could be investigated in more detail. The feasibility of hydraulic transport will probably increase when a larger part of the transport system is done by means of hydraulic transport. The required pump capacity will decrease enormous when the coal-mixture could be crushed to a more homogeneous mixture.
9.9.2 THE BEHAVIOUR OF COAL-WATER MIXTURES
The most important recommendation for further research is the fundamental behaviour of a coal-water mixture pumped through a pipeline. Especially pumping coarse coal is difficult to find any information about. Laboratory tests could be a solution to get more information about the behaviour of coarse coal particles in a pipeline. A much more reliable analysis on the feasibility of hydraulic transport can be made, when this would be investigated.
9.9.3 DETAILED DESIGN OF THE INSTALLATION
When the pipeline, including pumps is designed, the transport system is not finished jet. A solution has to be found to mix the coal with water and, more important, to separate the water content from the coal content again. A more detailed design with more accurate costs of the installation will result in a more reliable cost- benefit analysis.
December 2011 Page 135 of 196 FEASIBLITY STUDY COAL TRANSPORT KALIMANTAN
9.9.4 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
The impact of a hydraulic transportation system on the environment is of huge importance. The area where the pipeline will be constructed, is an area with high environmental value. The influence of the hydraulic system on the environment have to be investigated. Two main issues have to investigated in detail.
What is the influence of gaining water from the surface to create the coal-water mixture. What to do with the water content after it is separated from the mixture.
A solution could be to pump the water content back to the starting point and reuse the water time after time. This has to be investigated and influence on the environment have to be mapped.
9.10 CONCLUSIONS
The use of a hydraulic system to transport coal from Lok Buntar to Sungai Puting is very different from other transport modes, like barge transport and transport by trucks. Hydraulic transport of sand-water mixtures is widely used by the dredging industry. Hydraulic transportation of coal is much less common.
The feasibility of a hydraulic transportation system for coal between Lok Buntar and Sungai Puting is investigated. Reliable information about the behaviour of a coarse coal-water mixture through a slurry pipeline is not available. And therefore analysis is made about of the friction head when pumping a coal-water mixture. From the analysis it is found that the behaviour of coal-water mixture is much different compared to the behaviour of sand-water mixture through a slurry system.
The main difference between the mixtures is the relative particle density of coal in comparison with quarts. This is at least five times lower for coal than for quarts. As consequence, the deposition velocity for coal is probably much lower than for quarts. Some of the conventional formulas used in the dredging industry are therefore not suitable for the determination of the friction head of a coal mixture. These formulas are for instance the formula of Führböter and Durant Gilbert.
An accurate formula to determine the friction head could not be found with these analyses. The two formulas of Wilson for homogenous and stratified flows have much more fundamental background than the other formulas. A careful conclusion could be drawn to say that the friction head is probably between these two extreme flow structures investigated by Wilson. Whereby the formula for stratified flow holds the upper boundary and the formula for homogeneous flow holds the lower boundary.
The formula of Jufin Lopatin seems to underline this conclusion. The great amount of empirical data makes this an interesting formula to take into consideration. Especially the deposition point of the Jufin Lopatin formula seems to be reliable, if it is compared with the Wilson formulas. Nevertheless is this a very simple formula with not much fundamental background.
With the further study on the feasibility of hydraulic transport of coal the formula of Jufin Lopatin is used to determine the friction head. A design plan is made for the development of the hydraulic system over the years from 2013 to 2017. Because it is not favourable to change the discharge capacity of the hydraulic system, it is decided to increase the number of operational days per week. This way, the discharge per hour stays more less equal over the years.
A detailed design plan is explained in paragraph 9.5. In this plan it is described how the operation parameters change over the years. The transport concentration and the discharge per hour increase over time till the maximum power of the pumps is reached. If the maximum power of the system is reached, an extra operational day is introduced and the volume concentration and the discharge are decreased again. This is a cycle which repeats itself every year.
Page 136 of 196 Chair of Ports & Waterways Alternative 2.1, Hydraulic transport from Lok Buntar
The costs for hydraulic transport are based on the CIRIA 2009 for determining the costs for dredging equipment. Due to a switch of the working point every year, the costs to transport one ton of coal from Lok Buntar to Sungai Puting also changes. The costs include depreciation, interest, insurance, maintenance and power supply. The costs are specified in paragraph 9.8. The development of the costs per ton of coal is given in figure 9.10.
Year January-13 January-15 January-17 Costs per ton € 5.61 € 4.68 € 3.96 TABLE 9.7 COSTS PER TON FOR HYADRAULIC TRANSPORT FROM LOK BUNTAR TO SUNGAI PUTING.
€ 7.00 € 6.00 € 5.00 € 4.00 Costs per ton € 3.00 € 2.00 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
FIGURE 9.10 COST DEVELOPMENT FOR HYDRAULIC TRANSPORT FROM LOK BUNTAR TO SUNGAI PUTING
The mean advantages and disadvantages of hydraulic transportation of coal are summarized in the highlighted boxes below.
The advantages of hydraulic transportation of coal from Lok Buntar to Sungai Puting are:
Not much foundation is required for the pipeline system. The pipeline can be re-routed or relocated to other projects and is very flexible in use. It is a closed system which doesn’t require a lot of space. A hydraulic system is capable to transport large quantities over long distances.
The disadvantages of hydraulic transportation of coal from Lok Buntar to Sungai Puting are:
Water supply is required at the start of the system. The coal has to be separated from the water at the end of the system. The water content from the mixture has to be purified or pumped back to the start of the pipeline.
December 2011 Page 137 of 196 FEASIBLITY STUDY COAL TRANSPORT KALIMANTAN
10 ALTERNATIVE 3.1, CONVEYOR BELT FROM TATAKAN
Ida Manggala Tatakan Sungai Puting
AGM AGM mine stockpile
stockpile Pualam Sari
SKB SKB mine stockpile
In 2009 BSS investigated the possibility of constructing a conveyor belt between Lok Buntar and Sungai Puting to transport the coal. A detailed design of the whole conveyor belt is made by the constructing company called Laing O’Rourke. This design is used to compare the conveyor belt with the other transport modes. All information about the construction of a conveyor belt from Tatakan to Sungai Puting is based on the design of Laing O’Rourke.
The conveyer belt from Tatakan to Sungai Puting consists of four different parts. The different parts are connected with each other by a so called transfer chute. At these transfer chutes one conveyor is goes up several meters and the coal falls down at the next conveyor.
10.1 BLOCK SCHEMATIZATION OF CONVEYOR BELT TRANSPORT
The block schematization for conveyer belt transport is made according to the American design guidelines. The block schematization is, different from the block schematizations for barge transport and hydraulic transport, not used to make a detailed design of a conveyor belt.
However, the block schematizations give an overview on the parameters which are important in designing a conveyor belt. It is interesting to recognize the similarities between conveyor belt transport and hydraulic transport. Where in hydraulic transport, friction head is important to determine the required energy. With designing a conveyor belt, the belt tension is the measurement for the calculation of the required energy.
The schematisation distinguishes seven different blocks with different properties of the system.
1. Design criteria 2. Conveyor belt properties 3. Pipeline properties 4. Pulley properties 5. Drive installation 6. Additional structures
Page 138 of 196 Chair of Ports & Waterways Alternative 3.1, Conveyor belt from Tatakan
Working Throughput Efficiency 1 hours capacity
Complex itteration process where, belt speed Design creteria and belt width are limited by a surtain range Angle of Transport Density 2 Surcharge concentration Coal [ν] [Ct] [ρc]
Conveyor Conveyor belt costs Belt speed Type of Length Width 3 Conveyor belt [V] Conveyor [L] [BW]
Transport Required Density Area Discharge mixture [A] [Qm] [ρm]
Weight Lifting the Bulk material Mass and gravity mixture per mixture accelaration [ΔTEnergy n] running meter (ΔTHn) (ΔTamn) [Wm] The universal disign method for Conveyor belt sytems, recomandated by CEMA.
Skirtboard Belt Belt on idler Meterial Main resistances Idler seal drag Idler bearing Slider bed skirtboard seal friction deformation alignment trampling loss [ΔTMain n] (ΔTisn) losses (ΔTiWn) (Tsbn) friction (Tsn) (ΔTssn) (ΔTbin) friction(ΔTmn) (Tmzn)
Point sources of Belt bending Pulley Belt cleaners discharge tension on the pulley bearings and plows plows [ΔTPoint n] (ΔTpxn) (ΔTprn) (ΔTbcn) (ΔTdpn)
Total belt tension for steady belt speed [ΔTn]
Required Tension Number of Costs Pullies Type of pully 4 per pulley Pullies
Required Drive 5 costs Drive Power and Torsion
Costs Number of Conveyor Number of Additional Discharge 6 Foundation Belt cleaners Constructions plows
Total investment costs Input Multi Criteria Analysis
$ / T Conveyor belt Transport
FIGURE 10.1 BLOCKSCHEMATISATION OF CONVEYOR BELT TRANSPORT
December 2011 Page 139 of 196 FEASIBLITY STUDY COAL TRANSPORT KALIMANTAN
Page 140 of 196 Chair of Ports & Waterways Alternative 3.1, Conveyor belt from Tatakan
10.2 MAIN FIGURES FROM DESIGN REPORT
The conveyer belt from Tatakan to Sungai Puting consist of four different parts. The different parts of the conveyor belt have different properties. These properties are summarized in table 10.1.
Conveyer Nr. Length Belt width Installed power Power demand 1 18100m 1200mm 1800kW 1220kW 2 22400km 1200mm 1800kW 1448kW 3 18500km 1200mm 1800kW 1640kW 4 1550m 1200mm 450kW 300kW Total 60550m 1200mm 5850kW 4608kW TABLE 10.1 PROPERTIES OF THE DIFFERENT PARTS OF THE CONVEYOR BELT
The power consumption from the conveyor belt between Lok Buntar and Sungai Puting is calculated according to the specific fuel consumption by Brake.
Installed power 5850kW Power demand from conveyor belt 4608kW Efficiency of the pullies 79% Specific Fuel Consumption according to Brake 210 gr/kWhr Fuel density 740 kg/m3 Fuel consumption at the governing situation in 2017. 1.308 m3/hr TABLE 10.2 POWER CONSUMPTION OF THE CONVEYOR BELT
10.3 COSTS FOR CONVEYOR BELT TRANSPORT
The costs for the conveyor belt can be divided into the fixed cost and the capital costs. The fixed costs consist mainly of the depreciation and interest over the capital costs. The variable costs consist mainly of the power supply to the conveyor belt. The capital costs of the conveyor belt are taken from the detailed design by Laing O’Rourke. The capital costs are separated into five components. The maintenance costs are estimated to be 20% of the capital cost, of which 40% is fixed and 60% is variable. 15% overhead is assumed for insurance, labour and management. The costs are summarized in figure 10.2.
Construction part Capital costs in US dollar Capital costs in euro Earthwork $5,900,000 € 4,307,000 Structural Components $5,900,000 € 4,307,000 Mechanic Components $25,600,000 € 18,688,000 Electrical and Power line $11,700,000 € 8,541,000 Site construction and installation $14,200,000 € 10,366,000
Total capital costs $63,300,000 € 46,209,000 FIGURE 10.2 CAPITAL COSTS CONVEYOR BELT BETWEEN LOK BUNTAR AND SUNGAI PUTING
December 2011 Page 141 of 196 FEASIBLITY STUDY COAL TRANSPORT KALIMANTAN
Jan-13 Jan-14 Jan-15 Jan-16 Jan-17 Depreciation and interest € 6,913,571 € 6,913,571 € 6,913,571 € 6,913,571 € 6,913,571 Fixed maintenance € 3,696,720 € 3,696,720 € 3,696,720 € 3,696,720 € 3,696,720 Variable maintenance € 1,540,300 € 2,310,450 € 3,080,600 € 3,850,750 € 4,620,900 Costs for power € 1,830,746 € 2,746,119 € 3,661,492 € 4,576,865 € 5,492,238 15% overhead € 2,097,201 € 2,350,029 € 2,602,857 € 2,855,686 € 3,108,514 Total annual costs € 16,078,538 € 18,016,889 € 19,955,241 € 21,893,592 € 23,831,943 Costs per ton € 3.22 € 2.40 € 2.00 € 1.75 € 1.59 TABLE 10.3 COST CALCULATION CONVEYOR BELT
€ 3.50
€ 3.00
€ 2.50
€ 2.00
€ 1.50
Transport costs per ton per costs Transport € 1.00 Costs per ton € 0.50
€ 0.00 Jan/13 Jan/14 Jan/15 Jan/16 Jan/17 year
FIGURE 10.3 TOTAL TRANSPORT COSTS WITH CONVEYOR BELT BETWEEN TATAKAN AND SUNGAI PUTING
10.4 CONCLUSIONS
Transportation by conveyor belt between Tatakan and Sungai Puting is a relative cheap alternative. In particular the power costs are relative low. This is of big advantage, since the costs for fuel are probably going to increase the next couple of years.
Page 142 of 196 Chair of Ports & Waterways Alternative A, Transhipment with floating cranes
11 ALTERNATIVE A, TRANSHIPMENT WITH FLOATING CRANES
Sungai Puting Destination
near- shore loading jetty 1 Deep-sea e l i floating crane 1 p k c
o floating crane 2 t s Overseas floating crane 3 loading floating crane 4 jetty 2 floating crane 5 floating crane 6
11.1 DESCRIPTION
This alternative is identical with the current transport system. In the current situation 90% of the total throughput is transhipped to seagoing coal carriers. The other 10% of the throughput is directly transported to near-shore destinations. About 25% of the coal carriers have self-loading gear on board and the other 75% make use of floating cranes to unload the barges.
Coal from the mines of BSS can be exported in three different ways
Direct export to near shore destinations by 390ft barges (10%) Transhipped to Handy-size vessel with self-loading gear on board (22.5%) Transhipped to Panamax vessel or bigger by two floating cranes (67.5%)
Before the coal arrives at the deep-sea location near Banjarmasin, the barges have already been sailing over 110km. Halfway their journey, there is a floating market which close off the river two hours a day. Two hours a day the large coal barges cannot pass this part of the river near the village of Marabahan.
The wave height should not be too high for mooring, when the barges arrive at deep-sea. If the wave height is above two meters it is not possible to moor next to the coal carrier or floating crane. If the 390ft barges are already moored next to the coal carrier, the waves cannot disturb the transhipment operation anymore.
11.2 RESULTS FROM THE SIMULATION MODEL
The result from the simulation study between Sungai Puting and deep-sea, are presented in a similar way as for the transport system between Lok Buntar and Sungai Puting. The required number of barges between Sungai Puting and deep-sea is determined by the ability to transport the required throughput capacity. For the transport system between Lok Buntar and Sungai Puting this was relative easy to determine. The stockpile height at Lok Buntar had to stay equal or decrease in time. For the transport system between Sungai Puting and deep-sea this is more complicated, since the throughput of coal cannot be stocked offshore. Because the coal cannot be stocked, the Sungai Puting stockpile can hardly decrease in height and stays more-less equal over time. Only when not sufficient transport capacity is available, the stockpile at Sungai Puting will significantly increase in time.
December 2011 Page 143 of 196 FEASIBLITY STUDY COAL TRANSPORT KALIMANTAN
From the relative stockpile growth, the minimum number of barges that is required to transport the required throughput can be recognized. What is different from the relative stockpile growth of Lok Buntar is that when the loading capacity of the terminal decreases the transport capacity doesn’t increase. Even close to 90% relative loading capacity, the transport system is able to transport the required throughput. This can be explained by the fact that when there is a delay in transhipment offshore, the waiting time of the barges decreases because more coal carriers are ready to be loaded. So when the total loading time of the terminal increase, the total unloading time decreases, because more coal carriers are at the anchorage. This is why the stockpile is stable over the whole range of different loading capacities, when the minimum amount of barges are operational.
To come to the most efficient transport configuration between Sungai Puting and deep-sea the transport costs are determined. The terminal costs and barge costs are calculated according to the method described in paragraph 7.6. The difference in this optimisation is that the costs for the coal carriers is included into the optimisation. In this way a cost equilibrium arises with on the one hand the costs for the terminal, tugs, barges, and on the other hand the costs for the coal carriers and floating cranes waiting offshore to be loaded. The result is a ridge at which the transport cost are lowest. The costs for the floating cranes are determined together with BSS. The transhipment costs are determined to be around €2,00 per ton. The stand-by rate of the coal carriers have been determined to be €20,000.- per day.
The results of the barge transport system between Sungai Puting and the anchorage are summarized in figure 11.1. An area at the lower part of the graph can be recognized, where not enough barges are operational to transport the required annual throughput. At the left side of the graph a similar area can be recognized where the terminal does not have enough loading capacity to load the required annual throughput. In the remaining part of the graph enough transport capacity is available to transport the required throughput capacity. In the corner with much operational barges and much loading capacity the coal carriers are loaded non-stop. This means that there are always enough barges available to load the coal-carrier without any delay. In this area is too much transport capacity available, because the efficiency of the barges goes down, without increase of transport capacity. The configuration which is lowest in transport costs has to be found in the middle, between non-stop loading and minimum transport capacity. The exact point is determined by the relative costs for the barges, terminal and the waiting time of the coal carriers.
The seagoing vessels are loaded non-stop Barge costs Too much transport capacity available l a s n e i g r m r a e
b
t l + a e
n h t o
i t t a + a
r y e t i p c o a
f
p Terminal costs o a
c t
n g u
n Lowest transport costs i o + d a m a o
l
e
h The seagoing vessels are loaded with delay h g t
u f Enough transport capacity available o o
n Costs for e e s
t
a coal carrier o e r N c n I
Not enough barges to transport the required throughput
Not enough transport capacity available
Increase of loading capacity at the terminal
Increase of the berth occupancy at the terminal FIGURE 11.1 TECHNICAL FEASIBILITY OF THE TRANSPORT SYSTEM BETWEEN SUNGAI PUTING AND DEEP-SEA
Page 144 of 196 Chair of Ports & Waterways Alternative A, Transhipment with floating cranes
In the next paragraphs different transport configurations are investigated for different throughput capacities. The result from the simulation model is presented in three plots.
The relative stockpile growth at Sungai Puting Average number of coal carriers at the anchorage/ Average service time of a coal carrier at the anchorage Total transport costs
The plot with relative stockpile growth determines the minimum number of barges required for transport. The plot with the average number of coal carriers at the anchorage is identical with the plot of the average service time of the vessels. The average service time determines if the coal carrier is loaded non-stop and thereby the costs for the coal carrier. In the third plot an estimate of the transport costs are given. This underlines the conclusion and give an optimal transport configuration for barge transport between Sungai Puting and deep-sea.
There is chosen to run the three most efficient transport configurations from the transport system between Lok Buntar and Sungai Puting. The configurations are shown in table 11.1.
Number of Required throughput capacity Loading berths 2013 2015 2017 at Sungai Puting 5,000,000 T/yr 10,000,000 T/yr 15,000,000 T/yr One berths X Two berths X Three berths X TABLE 11.1 THE TRANSPORT CONFIGURATIONS WHICH ARE INVESTIGATED BETWEEN SP AND DS
December 2011 Page 145 of 196 FEASIBLITY STUDY COAL TRANSPORT KALIMANTAN
11.2.1 OPTIMAL TRANSPORT CONFIGURATION FOR 2013
The relative stockpile growth give an estimate of the extreme limits of the transport system. A these limits the transport system is just able to transport the required throughput capacity of 5 million ton per year. For the scenario in 2013 with one loading berth at Sungai Puting, the relative stockpile growth is given in figure 11.2. It can be seen that a minimum number of 6 barges and a minimum loading capacity of 760 T/hr is required to transport the required throughput capacity.
20 4.3% 2.4% 0.4% -0.2% 0.6% -0.2% 0.3% -0.2% -0.2% -0.1% 0.6% -0.1% 1.4% -0.2% -0.1% -0.2% 0.9% -0.1% 1.5% -0.2% -0.2% 19 4.3% 2.6% 1.1% -0.2% -0.1% -0.1% 0.4% 0.6% 0.5% 0.3% -0.1% 0.4% 0.3% -0.1% -0.2% 0.8% 0.0% -0.2% 0.4% 0.9% 1.1% 18 4.2% 2.5% 0.8% -0.1% -0.1% -0.1% 0.7% -0.1% 1.1% 0.9% 0.8% 0.9% -0.2% -0.2% 1.6% 0.4% -0.1% 0.1% 1.2% -0.1% -0.2% 17 4.3% 2.6% 2.3% 0.7% 0.5% 0.6% -0.2% 1.0% 0.9% -0.2% -0.1% -0.1% 0.5% 0.0% -0.1% 1.0% 0.8% 0.9% 0.2% 0.8% 0.2% 16 4.3% 2.4% 0.7% 1.1% 0.2% 1.8% 1.6% 1.7% 0.8% -0.2% -0.2% -0.2% -0.1% -0.2% 1.3% 0.3% -0.2% -0.2% -0.2% 1.1% -0.2% 15 4.4% 2.4% 0.6% 0.1% -0.2% 1.0% 0.3% -0.2% 1.0% -0.1% -0.2% 0.4% -0.2% 0.2% 0.2% -0.2% 0.2% -0.2% 0.7% 0.0% -0.1% 14 4.3% 2.8% 0.4% 1.2% -0.1% 1.0% 0.2% 0.3% 1.2% 0.0% 0.8% 1.6% 0.5% -0.1% 2.9% 0.3% -0.1% 0.1% 1.4% 0.5% 0.1% 13 4.3% 3.5% 0.7% 1.5% 0.6% 0.4% -0.2% 0.4% 1.5% -0.2% 0.2% -0.2% -0.2% 0.0% -0.2% -0.1% -0.1% -0.2% -0.2% 0.3% -0.2% 12 4.3% 2.9% 0.7% 1.1% 0.8% 0.5% 0.8% -0.2% -0.2% 0.3% -0.1% -0.2% 0.1% -0.2% 0.3% 0.3% -0.2% -0.1% 1.0% 1.1% 0.9% 11 4.3% 2.5% 1.8% -0.2% -0.2% 1.2% -0.2% -0.2% 1.0% -0.2% -0.1% 2.2% 2.1% 0.6% -0.2% 0.1% -0.2% 0.2% 0.2% -0.2% 0.8% 10 4.4% 2.7% 0.9% 0.0% -0.2% 1.6% 1.1% 0.1% 0.8% 0.2% 1.0% 1.7% 1.6% 1.3% 1.2% -0.2% 0.4% 0.6% -0.2% -0.1% 0.3% 9 4.4% 2.6% 1.0% 1.6% 0.0% 0.4% 0.3% 1.7% 0.8% 2.2% 0.4% 2.6% 1.3% -0.2% 1.9% 0.1% 1.4% 0.7% 0.3% 1.8% 1.5%
Number of barges operational [#] operational of barges Number 8 4.3% 2.9% 0.9% 0.9% 0.2% 2.9% 1.4% -0.2% -0.1% 1.2% 0.7% -0.2% 3.1% -0.1% 1.7% 1.9% 0.7% 1.5% 0.4% 0.6% 0.9% 7 4.6% 2.6% 1.3% 1.1% 0.8% 1.4% -0.1% 2.7% 0.7% 1.7% 0.5% 0.6% -0.2% 2.1% 2.2% 2.2% 2.9% -0.2% 0.1% 1.7% 0.3% 6 5.6% 4.5% 3.8% 3.4% 3.0% 2.5% 2.4% 2.0% 1.8% 1.6% 1.1% 1.3% 1.3% 1.2% 0.5% 0.0% 2.7% -0.2% 0.5% -0.2% 1.3% 5 20.2% 20.0% 19.5% 19.6% 19.2% 19.1% 18.9% 19.0% 18.7% 18.5% 18.3% 18.1% 18.0% 17.4% 17.2% 16.6% 16.4% 15.8% 15.4% 15.1% 14.7%
Abs. Loading
714 729 744 760 776 794 812 831 850 871 893 916 940 965 992
1050 1082 1116 1152 1190 capacity [T/hr] 1020
Rel. loading
102% 104% 106% 109% 111% 114% 116% 119% 122% 125% 128% 132% 135% 139% 143% 147% 152% 156% 161% 167% capacity [-] 100%
Berth
98% 96% 94% 92% 90% 88% 86% 84% 82% 80% 78% 76% 74% 72% 70% 68% 66% 64% 62% 60% ccupation [-] 100% FIGURE 11.2 RELATIVE STOCKPILE GROWTH FOR 2013 WITH TRANSHIPMENT BY FLOATING CRANES
The relative stockpile growth display a quite disordered picture. The average number of coal carriers at the anchorage in figure 11.3 give a clearer picture of the situation. Three different areas can be distinguished.
A minimum amount of 6 barges is required to transport the required 5 million ton of per year A minimum loading capacity of 760 T/hr is required to transport the required 5 million ton per year. A hyperbolic line can be recognized from 776,20 (x,y) till 1190,11 (x,y)where the coal carriers are more or less loaded non-stop.
20 8.56 4.91 4.85 0.39 0.39 0.95 0.51 0.92 3.23 2.76 0.37 0.41 0.37 0.75 3.45 1.37 0.37 0.37 0.37 0.70 2.06 19 8.90 4.47 0.73 3.36 0.41 3.17 0.38 0.37 0.37 0.37 0.43 0.37 0.40 1.46 1.30 0.37 0.39 1.36 0.37 0.37 0.37 18 9.81 4.20 1.23 0.87 1.74 0.63 0.38 2.33 0.37 0.37 0.37 0.37 0.90 4.03 0.37 0.43 0.39 0.41 0.40 0.42 2.85 17 9.48 8.33 0.99 0.61 0.41 0.38 1.41 0.37 0.37 5.19 0.51 3.86 0.37 0.88 0.60 0.94 0.37 0.37 1.90 0.46 1.37 16 8.32 5.53 4.08 0.61 0.84 0.37 0.37 0.37 0.37 1.19 0.49 1.68 0.82 0.54 0.50 0.37 0.42 0.87 1.60 0.37 0.72 15 9.66 9.26 3.84 1.07 1.92 0.49 0.73 1.16 0.43 1.29 3.60 0.37 0.53 1.13 0.37 3.86 0.71 1.82 0.38 1.90 2.16 14 11.18 6.46 2.13 0.59 1.79 0.46 0.46 0.39 0.37 1.40 0.37 0.38 0.37 3.88 0.36 0.37 1.12 0.56 0.38 0.76 0.94 13 8.96 2.02 3.67 0.59 0.60 0.48 1.85 0.47 0.38 3.29 0.87 1.13 1.72 0.66 0.77 3.82 1.47 2.52 2.81 0.43 1.12 12 11.37 3.93 4.95 0.66 0.83 0.54 0.44 2.48 2.27 0.40 1.26 1.86 0.39 4.53 0.44 0.38 1.34 4.08 0.37 0.65 0.37 11 11.65 5.99 1.43 5.09 3.16 0.83 0.68 4.20 0.46 1.84 2.17 0.40 0.39 0.40 1.32 0.51 3.24 1.16 0.40 0.79 0.44 10 14.83 5.82 3.08 1.44 1.71 0.59 1.00 0.65 0.50 0.63 0.51 0.45 0.45 0.44 0.47 5.50 0.44 0.49 2.89 1.87 0.45 9 15.53 5.86 2.68 1.01 1.61 0.84 0.76 0.61 0.63 0.58 0.62 0.55 0.75 1.40 0.53 0.54 0.53 0.52 0.52 0.50 0.50
Number of barges operational [#] operational of barges Number 8 8.89 6.89 1.85 1.25 0.99 0.78 0.88 3.38 1.86 0.73 0.73 2.00 0.66 0.86 0.66 0.64 2.18 0.63 0.70 0.63 0.61 7 8.82 7.96 2.75 1.53 1.32 1.10 1.42 0.90 1.31 0.87 0.87 1.04 2.25 0.78 0.77 0.77 0.75 0.87 0.76 0.81 0.83 6 11.77 16.72 5.64 16.06 13.38 3.44 7.05 5.33 5.09 4.49 6.68 2.20 2.68 2.22 1.85 2.94 1.14 2.25 1.29 2.82 1.13 5 49.73 43.34 47.29 47.31 45.44 44.54 49.52 45.14 41.77 45.11 43.58 41.04 44.24 45.48 42.27 43.32 37.53 40.20 37.02 37.79 38.95
Abs. Loading
714 729 744 760 776 794 812 831 850 871 893 916 940 965 992
1050 1082 1116 1152 1190 capacity [T/hr] 1020
Rel. loading
102% 104% 106% 109% 111% 114% 116% 119% 122% 125% 128% 132% 135% 139% 143% 147% 152% 156% 161% 167% capacity [-] 100%
Berth
98% 96% 94% 92% 90% 88% 86% 84% 82% 80% 78% 76% 74% 72% 70% 68% 66% 64% 62% 60% ccupation [-] 100% FIGURE 11.3 AVERAGE NUMBER OF COAL CARRIERS AT THE ANCHORAGE FOR 2013
Page 146 of 196 Chair of Ports & Waterways Alternative A, Transhipment with floating cranes
The total transport costs are calculated according to the costs for the barges, terminal and waiting time for the floating cranes and coal carriers at deep-sea. The costs only for barges and the terminal are presented in Figure 11.4. From the gradient of the graph it can be seen that the barges are relative costly in comparison with the terminal.
20 € 3.70 € 3.74 € 3.78 € 3.80 € 3.80 € 3.82 € 3.83 € 3.85 € 3.86 € 3.87 € 3.87 € 3.90 € 3.89 € 3.93 € 3.95 € 3.97 € 3.97 € 4.01 € 4.01 € 4.06 € 4.08 19 € 3.61 € 3.65 € 3.68 € 3.72 € 3.72 € 3.73 € 3.74 € 3.75 € 3.76 € 3.78 € 3.80 € 3.80 € 3.82 € 3.85 € 3.86 € 3.87 € 3.90 € 3.92 € 3.94 € 3.95 € 3.97 18 € 3.53 € 3.56 € 3.60 € 3.63 € 3.64 € 3.65 € 3.65 € 3.67 € 3.67 € 3.68 € 3.70 € 3.71 € 3.74 € 3.76 € 3.75 € 3.79 € 3.82 € 3.83 € 3.84 € 3.88 € 3.90 17 € 3.44 € 3.48 € 3.49 € 3.53 € 3.54 € 3.55 € 3.57 € 3.57 € 3.58 € 3.61 € 3.63 € 3.64 € 3.65 € 3.67 € 3.69 € 3.69 € 3.72 € 3.74 € 3.77 € 3.78 € 3.82 16 € 3.36 € 3.39 € 3.43 € 3.43 € 3.46 € 3.45 € 3.46 € 3.47 € 3.50 € 3.53 € 3.54 € 3.56 € 3.57 € 3.59 € 3.59 € 3.62 € 3.65 € 3.67 € 3.69 € 3.69 € 3.74 15 € 3.27 € 3.31 € 3.34 € 3.37 € 3.38 € 3.37 € 3.39 € 3.42 € 3.41 € 3.44 € 3.45 € 3.46 € 3.49 € 3.50 € 3.52 € 3.54 € 3.55 € 3.58 € 3.59 € 3.62 € 3.65 14 € 3.18 € 3.22 € 3.26 € 3.26 € 3.29 € 3.29 € 3.31 € 3.32 € 3.32 € 3.35 € 3.36 € 3.36 € 3.39 € 3.42 € 3.39 € 3.45 € 3.47 € 3.49 € 3.49 € 3.53 € 3.56 13 € 3.10 € 3.12 € 3.17 € 3.17 € 3.19 € 3.21 € 3.23 € 3.23 € 3.23 € 3.27 € 3.28 € 3.30 € 3.31 € 3.33 € 3.35 € 3.37 € 3.38 € 3.41 € 3.43 € 3.44 € 3.48 12 € 3.01 € 3.04 € 3.09 € 3.09 € 3.11 € 3.12 € 3.13 € 3.15 € 3.17 € 3.18 € 3.20 € 3.21 € 3.23 € 3.24 € 3.26 € 3.27 € 3.30 € 3.32 € 3.33 € 3.35 € 3.38 11 € 2.92 € 2.96 € 2.98 € 3.03 € 3.03 € 3.02 € 3.06 € 3.07 € 3.07 € 3.09 € 3.11 € 3.09 € 3.11 € 3.15 € 3.18 € 3.19 € 3.21 € 3.23 € 3.25 € 3.28 € 3.29 10 € 2.84 € 2.87 € 2.91 € 2.94 € 2.95 € 2.93 € 2.95 € 2.98 € 2.98 € 3.00 € 3.01 € 3.01 € 3.03 € 3.05 € 3.07 € 3.11 € 3.12 € 3.14 € 3.17 € 3.19 € 3.21 9 € 2.75 € 2.79 € 2.82 € 2.82 € 2.86 € 2.87 € 2.88 € 2.87 € 2.90 € 2.89 € 2.93 € 2.91 € 2.95 € 2.98 € 2.97 € 3.02 € 3.02 € 3.05 € 3.08 € 3.08 € 3.11
Number Number of barges[#] operational 8 € 2.66 € 2.70 € 2.74 € 2.75 € 2.77 € 2.74 € 2.77 € 2.81 € 2.82 € 2.82 € 2.84 € 2.87 € 2.83 € 2.90 € 2.89 € 2.90 € 2.94 € 2.95 € 2.99 € 3.01 € 3.03 7 € 2.57 € 2.61 € 2.64 € 2.66 € 2.67 € 2.68 € 2.71 € 2.68 € 2.72 € 2.72 € 2.75 € 2.77 € 2.79 € 2.78 € 2.80 € 2.81 € 2.82 € 2.89 € 2.91 € 2.91 € 2.96 6 € 2.47 € 2.50 € 2.52 € 2.54 € 2.56 € 2.57 € 2.59 € 2.61 € 2.62 € 2.64 € 2.66 € 2.67 € 2.69 € 2.71 € 2.74 € 2.77 € 2.74 € 2.81 € 2.82 € 2.86 € 2.85 5 € 2.16 € 2.18 € 2.19 € 2.20 € 2.22 € 2.23 € 2.25 € 2.26 € 2.27 € 2.29 € 2.31 € 2.33 € 2.34 € 2.37 € 2.39 € 2.42 € 2.44 € 2.47 € 2.50 € 2.53 € 2.56 Abs. Loading
capacity
714 729 744 760 776 794 812 831 850 871 893 916 940 965 992
1020 1050 1082 1116 1152 1190 [T/hr]
Rel. loading
102% 104% 106% 109% 111% 114% 116% 119% 122% 125% 128% 132% 135% 139% 143% 147% 152% 156% 161% 167% capacity [-] 100%
Berth
98% 96% 94% 92% 90% 88% 86% 84% 82% 80% 78% 76% 74% 72% 70% 68% 66% 64% 62% 60% ccupation [-] 100% FIGURE 11.4 TRANSPORT COSTS IN 2013 ONLY CONCERNING THE BARGES AND THE TERMINAL [€/T]
When the costs for the waiting time of the coal carriers and floating cranes is included into the total transport costs figure 11.5 is formed. A ridge can be recognized above the minimum amount of barges and below the hyperbolic line where the coal carriers are loaded non-stop.(for the situation in 2013 this is rather difficult) The transport configuration which is lowest in costs has to be found somewhere in the middle of this ridge.
20 € 18.19 € 13.12 € 13.06 € 6.85 € 6.84 € 7.66 € 7.04 € 7.63 € 10.88 € 10.24 € 6.89 € 6.97 € 6.91 € 7.49 € 11.27 € 8.39 € 6.99 € 7.03 € 7.02 € 7.54 € 9.47 19 € 18.57 € 12.40 € 7.21 € 10.91 € 6.79 € 10.68 € 6.77 € 6.77 € 6.78 € 6.80 € 6.90 € 6.82 € 6.88 € 8.39 € 8.19 € 6.88 € 6.95 € 8.32 € 6.96 € 6.97 € 6.99 18 € 19.76 € 11.94 € 7.82 € 7.35 € 8.58 € 7.02 € 6.67 € 9.44 € 6.68 € 6.70 € 6.72 € 6.74 € 7.51 € 11.90 € 6.77 € 6.89 € 6.86 € 6.91 € 6.90 € 6.97 € 10.39 17 € 19.22 € 17.64 € 7.37 € 6.88 € 6.62 € 6.59 € 8.05 € 6.59 € 6.61 € 13.39 € 6.85 € 11.54 € 6.67 € 7.40 € 7.03 € 7.51 € 6.73 € 6.76 € 8.92 € 6.93 € 8.24 16 € 17.51 € 13.63 € 11.65 € 6.79 € 7.14 € 6.46 € 6.48 € 6.49 € 6.52 € 7.69 € 6.73 € 8.41 € 7.22 € 6.85 € 6.79 € 6.63 € 6.74 € 7.38 € 8.42 € 6.71 € 7.24 15 € 19.29 € 18.78 € 11.22 € 7.36 € 8.58 € 6.56 € 6.92 € 7.54 € 6.52 € 7.74 € 11.00 € 6.48 € 6.73 € 7.58 € 6.54 € 11.44 € 7.05 € 8.63 € 6.61 € 8.78 € 9.17 14 € 21.34 € 14.76 € 8.74 € 6.59 € 8.30 € 6.43 € 6.45 € 6.37 € 6.34 € 7.82 € 6.37 € 6.39 € 6.41 € 11.35 € 6.39 € 6.46 € 7.53 € 6.77 € 6.52 € 7.10 € 7.37 13 € 18.13 € 8.45 € 10.82 € 6.50 € 6.53 € 6.39 € 8.32 € 6.38 € 6.27 € 10.38 € 7.00 € 7.38 € 8.22 € 6.76 € 6.92 € 11.21 € 7.95 € 9.43 € 9.86 € 6.55 € 7.55 12 € 21.42 € 11.05 € 12.52 € 6.52 € 6.77 € 6.37 € 6.24 € 9.13 € 8.84 € 6.24 € 7.46 € 8.32 € 6.26 € 12.08 € 6.38 € 6.31 € 7.68 € 11.53 € 6.35 € 6.75 € 6.40 11 € 21.73 € 13.85 € 7.49 € 12.66 € 9.96 € 6.69 € 6.51 € 11.46 € 6.21 € 8.18 € 8.65 € 6.15 € 6.16 € 6.21 € 7.53 € 6.41 € 10.25 € 7.36 € 6.31 € 6.89 € 6.40 10 € 26.10 € 13.52 € 9.72 € 7.46 € 7.84 € 6.26 € 6.84 € 6.39 € 6.17 € 6.38 € 6.22 € 6.15 € 6.15 € 6.17 € 6.23 € 13.31 € 6.23 € 6.33 € 9.71 € 8.31 € 6.34 9 € 26.99 € 13.50 € 9.07 € 6.74 € 7.61 € 6.55 € 6.44 € 6.22 € 6.27 € 6.19 € 6.29 € 6.18 € 6.49 € 7.45 € 6.21 € 6.28 € 6.26 € 6.28 € 6.31 € 6.28 € 6.30
Number Number of barges[#] operational 8 € 17.60 € 14.85 € 7.83 € 6.99 € 6.66 € 6.33 € 6.51 € 10.04 € 7.93 € 6.34 € 6.36 € 8.16 € 6.25 € 6.60 € 6.30 € 6.30 € 8.49 € 6.33 € 6.47 € 6.39 € 6.38 7 € 17.42 € 16.25 € 9.00 € 7.30 € 7.01 € 6.71 € 7.20 € 6.45 € 7.06 € 6.44 € 6.47 € 6.72 € 8.44 € 6.37 € 6.37 € 6.39 € 6.37 € 6.60 € 6.48 € 6.54 € 6.62 6 € 21.45 € 28.41 € 12.91 € 27.52 € 23.78 € 9.89 € 14.96 € 12.57 € 12.25 € 11.42 € 14.51 € 8.26 € 8.94 € 8.31 € 7.83 € 9.39 € 6.83 € 8.47 € 7.13 € 9.32 € 6.93 5 € 74.28 € 65.35 € 70.90 € 70.94 € 68.33 € 67.08 € 74.08 € 67.95 € 63.25 € 67.94 € 65.82 € 62.28 € 66.78 € 68.55 € 64.06 € 65.57 € 57.48 € 61.25 € 56.83 € 57.93 € 59.59
Abs. Loading
714 729 744 760 776 794 812 831 850 871 893 916 940 965 992
1050 1082 1116 1152 1190 capacity [T/hr] 1020
Rel. loading
102% 104% 106% 109% 111% 114% 116% 119% 122% 125% 128% 132% 135% 139% 143% 147% 152% 156% 161% 167% capacity [-] 100%
Berth
98% 96% 94% 92% 90% 88% 86% 84% 82% 80% 78% 76% 74% 72% 70% 68% 66% 64% 62% 60% ccupation [-] 100% FIGURE 11.5 TOTAL TRANSPORT COSTS FOR 2013 WITH TRANSHIPMENT BY FLOATING CRANES [€/T]
The three most efficient barge transport configurations for a throughput of 5 million ton per year with one loading berths in Sungai Puting are:
1. 10 barges operational and a total loading capacity of the terminal of 940 T/hr 2. 11 barges operational and a total loading capacity of the terminal of 916 T/hr 3. 10 barges operational and a total loading capacity of the terminal of 965 T/hr
December 2011 Page 147 of 196 FEASIBLITY STUDY COAL TRANSPORT KALIMANTAN
11.2.2 OPTIMAL TRANSPORT CONFIGURATION FOR 2015
The relative stockpile growth give an estimate of the extreme limits of the transport system. A these limits the transport system is just able to transport the required throughput capacity of 10 million ton per year. For the scenario in 2015 with two loading berths at Sungai Puting, the relative stockpile growth is given in figure 11.6. It can be seen that a minimum number of 13 and a minimum of 760 T/hr loading capacity is required to transport the required throughput capacity.
25 4.6% 2.5% 1.9% 0.1% 1.5% 0.8% 1.5% 0.0% 2.1% 0.5% 0.6% 1.4% 1.4% -0.3% 1.5% 0.8% 0.7% -0.2% 0.2% 0.9% 1.0% 24 4.3% 2.5% 0.9% 1.0% 1.6% -0.3% -0.1% -0.3% 1.3% 1.6% -0.3% 0.1% -0.3% 1.5% 0.0% 0.8% 1.2% 0.6% 1.0% 0.6% 0.6% 23 4.4% 2.9% 0.9% 1.7% -0.3% 0.4% 1.9% 0.8% 1.3% 2.6% 1.0% 1.5% 0.5% 1.1% -0.2% 1.6% -0.3% 0.8% -0.3% 0.4% -0.1% 22 4.3% 3.0% 2.0% 3.0% 0.2% 1.4% -0.3% 1.0% 0.1% 1.2% 0.4% -0.3% -0.3% 0.4% 1.0% 0.6% 0.3% -0.2% -0.1% -0.2% 0.6% 21 4.3% 2.5% 0.9% -0.3% 1.3% 0.4% 0.6% 1.3% 1.0% 1.1% 0.0% 0.7% 0.7% 1.3% 1.1% 2.4% 0.5% 0.1% -0.3% 1.7% 1.2% 20 4.9% 2.8% 1.0% 0.8% 0.0% 0.9% 1.4% 1.0% 0.7% 0.3% 0.0% 0.1% -0.3% 1.2% 2.2% -0.3% 0.7% 1.0% -0.1% 1.3% 0.5% 19 4.6% 2.8% 1.2% 1.4% 2.9% -0.3% 0.8% 0.5% 0.1% 2.1% 1.6% 0.5% 0.1% 1.7% 0.6% -0.3% -0.3% 1.0% 1.7% 0.2% -0.3% 18 4.6% 2.5% 0.6% 0.7% 1.1% 0.4% 1.1% 1.9% 0.3% 0.7% 2.4% 0.3% 0.5% 1.8% 1.4% 2.0% 2.0% -0.3% 1.7% 2.1% 1.0% 17 4.7% 2.8% 2.1% -0.3% 2.0% 1.6% 0.2% 0.7% -0.3% 1.3% 1.2% 0.9% 0.0% 1.4% -0.3% -0.1% 0.9% 1.0% 1.8% 1.8% 1.0% 16 4.4% 2.9% 1.5% 2.1% 2.2% 1.3% 2.2% 0.6% 1.8% 1.7% 0.0% 0.3% 2.0% 1.1% 0.9% 1.1% 1.7% 1.4% -0.3% 0.1% 0.6% 15 4.8% 2.7% 1.1% 1.0% 2.1% 2.9% 0.2% 0.5% 1.4% 1.0% -0.1% 0.7% 2.4% 1.4% 1.8% 0.6% 0.1% 0.7% 0.8% 1.5% 0.5% 14 4.4% 2.6% 1.5% 1.4% 1.4% 0.0% 1.4% 0.7% 0.7% 0.0% 1.1% 1.6% 1.7% 0.2% 2.1% 2.0% 1.3% 0.6% 1.1% 0.7% 2.0%
Number of barges operational [#] operational of barges Number 13 4.6% 3.0% 2.4% 1.9% 1.2% 1.1% 0.1% 0.7% 1.0% 1.5% 1.8% 1.2% -0.3% 0.1% 0.2% 2.0% 1.1% 0.4% 0.7% 1.2% 0.0% 12 5.9% 4.9% 4.3% 3.6% 3.4% 3.0% 3.0% 2.6% 1.9% 1.8% 1.7% 1.2% 2.5% 2.3% 0.7% 1.0% 2.3% 2.5% 1.0% 1.3% 1.4% 11 13.3% 12.7% 12.0% 11.8% 11.1% 10.6% 10.3% 10.0% 9.7% 9.2% 8.9% 8.5% 8.2% 8.0% 7.4% 7.0% 6.6% 6.6% 6.2% 5.7% 5.6% 10 20.4% 20.0% 19.5% 19.2% 18.9% 18.6% 18.4% 18.0% 17.7% 17.4% 17.2% 16.8% 16.6% 16.2% 16.0% 15.8% 15.5% 15.2% 15.2% 14.7% 14.4%
Abs. Loading
714 729 744 760 776 794 812 831 850 871 893 916 940 965 992
1050 1082 1116 1152 1190 capacity [T/hr] 1020
Rel. loading
102% 104% 106% 109% 111% 114% 116% 119% 122% 125% 128% 132% 135% 139% 143% 147% 152% 156% 161% 167% capacity [-] 100%
Berth
98% 96% 94% 92% 90% 88% 86% 84% 82% 80% 78% 76% 74% 72% 70% 68% 66% 64% 62% 60% ccupation [-] 100% FIGURE 11.6 RELATIVE STOCKPILE GROWTH FOR 2015 WITH TRANSHIPMENT BY FLOATING CRANES
The relative stockpile growth display a quite disordered picture. The average number of coal carriers at the anchorage in figure 11.7 give a clearer picture of the situation. Three different areas can be distinguished.
A minimum amount of 13 barges is required to transport the required 10 million ton of per year A minimum loading capacity of 760 T/hr is required to transport the required 10 million ton per year. A hyperbolic line can be recognized from 25,776 till 15,1190 where the coal carriers are more or less loaded non-stop.
25 5.74 5.45 1.06 0.86 0.74 0.74 0.73 0.74 0.73 0.74 0.74 0.74 0.74 0.75 0.73 0.74 0.74 0.75 0.74 0.74 0.74 24 10.75 5.72 2.41 0.95 0.73 0.75 0.88 1.75 0.73 0.73 1.17 1.07 1.17 0.74 0.75 0.74 0.74 0.74 0.74 0.75 0.74 23 9.99 3.65 1.71 0.77 3.03 0.80 0.73 0.74 0.74 0.73 0.74 0.74 0.75 0.74 0.75 0.74 3.66 0.74 1.04 0.74 0.75 22 11.86 4.09 0.95 0.72 0.76 0.76 1.23 0.73 0.75 0.74 0.74 4.04 0.95 0.74 0.74 0.74 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 21 12.51 6.36 1.34 4.17 0.77 0.81 0.74 0.74 0.74 0.74 0.75 0.74 0.77 0.74 0.74 0.73 0.74 1.03 4.13 0.74 0.74 20 8.63 6.45 2.05 0.95 0.82 0.78 0.74 0.74 0.74 0.76 0.94 0.75 0.75 0.74 0.73 0.86 0.76 0.74 1.92 0.74 0.74 19 4.85 4.02 1.60 1.08 0.80 0.80 0.75 0.74 0.76 0.73 0.74 0.75 0.75 0.74 0.75 2.60 2.55 0.74 0.74 0.75 3.73 18 8.35 10.51 3.27 1.12 0.81 0.82 0.74 0.75 0.75 0.76 0.73 0.75 0.75 0.73 0.74 0.73 0.73 1.71 0.73 0.73 0.74 17 11.59 6.57 1.40 2.16 0.83 0.78 0.83 0.77 1.95 0.74 0.75 0.75 0.76 0.74 0.76 0.75 0.74 0.74 0.74 0.74 0.74 16 6.34 4.87 1.58 1.14 0.99 0.82 0.76 0.79 0.76 0.75 0.76 0.76 0.74 0.80 0.85 0.74 0.74 0.74 0.83 0.75 0.75 15 6.16 7.19 2.50 1.32 0.98 0.96 0.84 0.81 0.80 0.77 0.79 0.78 0.75 0.76 0.75 0.76 0.81 0.76 0.75 0.75 0.77 14 10.98 6.44 1.64 1.20 1.01 1.03 0.91 0.91 0.85 0.85 0.82 0.79 0.80 0.86 0.78 0.79 0.78 0.78 0.76 0.77 0.76
Number of barges operational [#] operational of barges Number 13 9.55 7.32 1.90 1.60 1.84 1.87 1.60 1.34 1.06 1.06 0.98 1.04 1.32 1.18 0.99 0.84 0.90 0.95 0.86 0.85 0.90 12 16.38 17.41 8.20 5.72 8.99 11.92 3.41 8.14 5.71 6.35 3.30 2.64 1.74 1.71 2.41 2.35 1.20 1.13 1.45 1.29 1.31 11 30.77 24.34 27.77 28.77 23.64 24.04 24.94 21.17 19.70 21.35 22.36 19.83 23.84 15.62 12.40 19.31 13.15 17.30 13.12 12.96 15.57 10 46.68 47.84 47.29 46.91 43.43 44.55 44.41 46.47 45.03 45.12 38.33 41.38 39.20 38.55 36.47 37.06 30.70 38.56 35.92 32.51 35.42
Abs. Loading
714 729 744 760 776 794 812 831 850 871 893 916 940 965 992
1050 1082 1116 1152 1190 capacity [T/hr] 1020
Rel. loading
102% 104% 106% 109% 111% 114% 116% 119% 122% 125% 128% 132% 135% 139% 143% 147% 152% 156% 161% 167% capacity [-] 100%
Berth
98% 96% 94% 92% 90% 88% 86% 84% 82% 80% 78% 76% 74% 72% 70% 68% 66% 64% 62% 60% ccupation [-] 100% FIGURE 11.7 AVERAGE NUMBER OF COAL CARRIERS AT THE ANCHORAGE FOR 2015
Page 148 of 196 Chair of Ports & Waterways Alternative A, Transhipment with floating cranes
The total transport costs are calculated according to the costs for the barges, terminal and waiting time for the floating cranes and coal carriers at deep-sea. The costs only for barges and the terminal are presented in Figure 11.8.
25 € 3.07 € 3.11 € 3.13 € 3.17 € 3.16 € 3.18 € 3.18 € 3.21 € 3.20 € 3.23 € 3.24 € 3.25 € 3.27 € 3.31 € 3.30 € 3.33 € 3.35 € 3.39 € 3.40 € 3.41 € 3.44 24 € 3.03 € 3.06 € 3.10 € 3.11 € 3.11 € 3.15 € 3.16 € 3.18 € 3.17 € 3.17 € 3.22 € 3.22 € 3.25 € 3.24 € 3.28 € 3.28 € 3.30 € 3.33 € 3.35 € 3.38 € 3.40 23 € 2.98 € 3.02 € 3.05 € 3.05 € 3.10 € 3.10 € 3.09 € 3.12 € 3.12 € 3.11 € 3.15 € 3.16 € 3.19 € 3.20 € 3.24 € 3.23 € 3.28 € 3.28 € 3.32 € 3.33 € 3.37 22 € 2.94 € 2.97 € 3.00 € 2.99 € 3.05 € 3.04 € 3.07 € 3.07 € 3.10 € 3.09 € 3.12 € 3.14 € 3.16 € 3.17 € 3.17 € 3.20 € 3.23 € 3.25 € 3.28 € 3.30 € 3.31 21 € 2.90 € 2.93 € 2.97 € 3.00 € 2.98 € 3.01 € 3.02 € 3.02 € 3.04 € 3.05 € 3.08 € 3.08 € 3.10 € 3.11 € 3.13 € 3.13 € 3.18 € 3.20 € 3.23 € 3.23 € 3.26 20 € 2.84 € 2.89 € 2.92 € 2.94 € 2.96 € 2.96 € 2.96 € 2.98 € 3.00 € 3.02 € 3.04 € 3.05 € 3.07 € 3.07 € 3.07 € 3.13 € 3.13 € 3.15 € 3.18 € 3.19 € 3.23 19 € 2.80 € 2.84 € 2.88 € 2.88 € 2.87 € 2.93 € 2.93 € 2.94 € 2.96 € 2.95 € 2.97 € 3.00 € 3.02 € 3.01 € 3.05 € 3.08 € 3.10 € 3.11 € 3.12 € 3.16 € 3.19 18 € 2.76 € 2.80 € 2.84 € 2.85 € 2.86 € 2.88 € 2.88 € 2.88 € 2.92 € 2.92 € 2.91 € 2.96 € 2.97 € 2.97 € 2.99 € 3.01 € 3.02 € 3.08 € 3.07 € 3.09 € 3.13 17 € 2.72 € 2.75 € 2.77 € 2.82 € 2.80 € 2.82 € 2.85 € 2.85 € 2.88 € 2.87 € 2.89 € 2.91 € 2.94 € 2.93 € 2.98 € 2.99 € 3.00 € 3.02 € 3.03 € 3.05 € 3.09 16 € 2.68 € 2.71 € 2.74 € 2.74 € 2.75 € 2.78 € 2.77 € 2.81 € 2.81 € 2.82 € 2.86 € 2.87 € 2.86 € 2.89 € 2.91 € 2.93 € 2.94 € 2.97 € 3.01 € 3.03 € 3.05 15 € 2.63 € 2.67 € 2.70 € 2.71 € 2.71 € 2.71 € 2.76 € 2.77 € 2.77 € 2.79 € 2.82 € 2.82 € 2.81 € 2.84 € 2.86 € 2.89 € 2.92 € 2.93 € 2.96 € 2.97 € 3.01 14 € 2.59 € 2.63 € 2.65 € 2.66 € 2.68 € 2.71 € 2.70 € 2.72 € 2.74 € 2.76 € 2.76 € 2.77 € 2.78 € 2.82 € 2.81 € 2.83 € 2.86 € 2.89 € 2.90 € 2.94 € 2.94
Number Number of barges[#] operational 13 € 2.54 € 2.58 € 2.60 € 2.61 € 2.63 € 2.65 € 2.67 € 2.68 € 2.69 € 2.69 € 2.70 € 2.73 € 2.77 € 2.78 € 2.79 € 2.79 € 2.82 € 2.85 € 2.87 € 2.89 € 2.93 12 € 2.48 € 2.50 € 2.52 € 2.54 € 2.56 € 2.58 € 2.59 € 2.61 € 2.63 € 2.65 € 2.66 € 2.69 € 2.68 € 2.70 € 2.74 € 2.76 € 2.75 € 2.77 € 2.82 € 2.84 € 2.86 11 € 2.32 € 2.34 € 2.36 € 2.38 € 2.40 € 2.41 € 2.43 € 2.45 € 2.47 € 2.49 € 2.50 € 2.53 € 2.55 € 2.57 € 2.59 € 2.62 € 2.64 € 2.67 € 2.69 € 2.73 € 2.75 10 € 2.17 € 2.18 € 2.20 € 2.22 € 2.23 € 2.25 € 2.26 € 2.28 € 2.30 € 2.32 € 2.33 € 2.36 € 2.38 € 2.40 € 2.42 € 2.44 € 2.46 € 2.49 € 2.51 € 2.54 € 2.57
Abs. Loading
714 729 744 760 776 794 812 831 850 871 893 916 940 965 992
1050 1082 1116 1152 1190 capacity [T/hr] 1020
Rel. loading
102% 104% 106% 109% 111% 114% 116% 119% 122% 125% 128% 132% 135% 139% 143% 147% 152% 156% 161% 167% capacity [-] 100%
Berth
98% 96% 94% 92% 90% 88% 86% 84% 82% 80% 78% 76% 74% 72% 70% 68% 66% 64% 62% 60% ccupation [-] 100% FIGURE 11.8 TRANSPORT COSTS IN 2015 ONLY CONCERNING THE BARGES AND THE TERMINAL [€/T]
When the costs for the waiting time of the coal carriers and floating cranes is included into the total transport costs figure 11.5 is formed. A ridge can be recognized above the minimum amount of barges and below the hyperbolic line where the coal carriers are loaded non-stop. The transport configuration which is lowest in costs has to be found in the middle of this ridge.
25 € 9.58 € 9.42 € 6.37 € 6.27 € 6.18 € 6.20 € 6.19 € 6.24 € 6.21 € 6.25 € 6.26 € 6.26 € 6.28 € 6.33 € 6.31 € 6.35 € 6.37 € 6.41 € 6.42 € 6.43 € 6.45 24 € 13.05 € 9.57 € 7.28 € 6.27 € 6.13 € 6.17 € 6.28 € 6.90 € 6.18 € 6.19 € 6.54 € 6.47 € 6.57 € 6.25 € 6.30 € 6.30 € 6.31 € 6.35 € 6.36 € 6.40 € 6.42 23 € 12.48 € 8.07 € 6.75 € 6.09 € 7.72 € 6.16 € 6.10 € 6.14 € 6.14 € 6.12 € 6.17 € 6.17 € 6.21 € 6.22 € 6.26 € 6.25 € 8.34 € 6.30 € 6.55 € 6.35 € 6.39 22 € 13.74 € 8.33 € 6.16 € 5.99 € 6.08 € 6.07 € 6.44 € 6.08 € 6.12 € 6.11 € 6.14 € 8.47 € 6.32 € 6.19 € 6.19 € 6.22 € 6.25 € 6.28 € 6.30 € 6.33 € 6.34 21 € 14.15 € 9.89 € 6.41 € 8.41 € 6.02 € 6.07 € 6.04 € 6.04 € 6.05 € 6.07 € 6.11 € 6.11 € 6.14 € 6.13 € 6.15 € 6.14 € 6.20 € 6.43 € 8.62 € 6.25 € 6.28 20 € 11.39 € 9.90 € 6.86 € 6.10 € 6.04 € 6.00 € 5.98 € 6.00 € 6.01 € 6.05 € 6.19 € 6.07 € 6.10 € 6.09 € 6.08 € 6.23 € 6.17 € 6.17 € 7.02 € 6.21 € 6.25 19 € 8.70 € 8.16 € 6.50 € 6.14 € 5.93 € 5.99 € 5.95 € 5.96 € 5.99 € 5.96 € 5.99 € 6.02 € 6.04 € 6.03 € 6.07 € 7.40 € 7.39 € 6.12 € 6.13 € 6.19 € 8.30 18 € 11.11 € 12.66 € 7.62 € 6.14 € 5.92 € 5.95 € 5.90 € 5.90 € 5.94 € 5.96 € 5.92 € 5.98 € 5.99 € 5.98 € 6.01 € 6.02 € 6.04 € 6.78 € 6.08 € 6.10 € 6.15 17 € 13.33 € 9.85 € 6.26 € 6.84 € 5.88 € 5.86 € 5.93 € 5.89 € 6.75 € 5.89 € 5.91 € 5.93 € 5.97 € 5.95 € 6.00 € 6.02 € 6.02 € 6.04 € 6.04 € 6.07 € 6.11 16 € 9.62 € 8.62 € 6.34 € 6.04 € 5.94 € 5.85 € 5.81 € 5.86 € 5.84 € 5.84 € 5.90 € 5.91 € 5.88 € 5.95 € 6.01 € 5.95 € 5.96 € 5.98 € 6.10 € 6.06 € 6.08 15 € 9.44 € 10.20 € 6.95 € 6.14 € 5.90 € 5.88 € 5.85 € 5.84 € 5.83 € 5.83 € 5.87 € 5.86 € 5.84 € 5.87 € 5.88 € 5.92 € 5.99 € 5.96 € 5.98 € 5.99 € 6.05 14 € 12.78 € 9.63 € 6.30 € 6.01 € 5.89 € 5.93 € 5.83 € 5.86 € 5.83 € 5.86 € 5.83 € 5.82 € 5.84 € 5.92 € 5.85 € 5.88 € 5.90 € 5.94 € 5.94 € 5.98 € 5.97
Number Number of barges[#] operational 13 € 11.73 € 10.20 € 6.42 € 6.23 € 6.42 € 6.46 € 6.29 € 6.11 € 5.93 € 5.93 € 5.89 € 5.96 € 6.19 € 6.10 € 5.99 € 5.87 € 5.95 € 6.02 € 5.97 € 5.98 € 6.06 12 € 16.44 € 17.19 € 10.76 € 9.05 € 11.35 € 13.42 € 7.48 € 10.80 € 9.13 € 9.59 € 7.47 € 7.03 € 6.40 € 6.40 € 6.93 € 6.90 € 6.09 € 6.06 € 6.33 € 6.24 € 6.28 11 € 26.36 € 21.88 € 24.30 € 25.01 € 21.45 € 21.74 € 22.39 € 19.77 € 18.76 € 19.93 € 20.65 € 18.90 € 21.74 € 16.00 € 13.77 € 18.63 € 14.35 € 17.28 € 14.38 € 14.30 € 16.15 10 € 37.35 € 38.17 € 37.80 € 37.55 € 35.13 € 35.94 € 35.85 € 37.31 € 36.32 € 36.40 € 31.66 € 33.82 € 32.31 € 31.88 € 30.45 € 30.88 € 26.45 € 31.98 € 30.15 € 27.80 € 29.87
Abs. Loading
714 729 744 760 776 794 812 831 850 871 893 916 940 965 992
1050 1082 1116 1152 1190 capacity [T/hr] 1020
Rel. loading
102% 104% 106% 109% 111% 114% 116% 119% 122% 125% 128% 132% 135% 139% 143% 147% 152% 156% 161% 167% capacity [-] 100%
Berth
98% 96% 94% 92% 90% 88% 86% 84% 82% 80% 78% 76% 74% 72% 70% 68% 66% 64% 62% 60% ccupation [-] 100% FIGURE 11.9 TOTAL TRANSPORT COSTS FOR 2015 WITH TRANSHIPMENT BY FLOATING CRANES [€/T]
The three most efficient barge transport configurations for a throughput of 10 million ton per year with two loading berths in Sungai Puting.
4. 15 barges operational and a total loading capacity of the terminals of 850 T/hr 5. 14 barges operational and a total loading capacity of the terminals of 916 T/hr 6. 16 barges operational and a total loading capacity of the terminals of 812 T/hr
December 2011 Page 149 of 196 FEASIBLITY STUDY COAL TRANSPORT KALIMANTAN
11.2.3 OPTIMAL TRANSPORT CONFIGURATION FOR 2017
The relative stockpile growth give an estimate of the extreme limits of the transport system. A these limits the transport system is just able to transport the required throughput capacity of 15 million ton per year. For the scenario in 2015 with three loading berths at Sungai Puting, the relative stockpile growth is given in figure 11.10. It can be seen that a minimum number of 19 and a minimum of 760 T/hr loading capacity is required to transport the required throughput capacity.
30 4.5% 2.8% 1.3% 0.2% 0.7% 1.8% 1.8% 0.1% -0.4% 0.9% 0.4% 1.7% 1.2% 1.2% 0.1% -0.5% 1.3% 0.4% 1.9% 1.4% 0.2% 29 4.4% 3.3% 2.0% 2.2% 1.1% -0.4% 0.4% 0.9% 1.9% -0.5% -0.5% 1.3% -0.4% 0.0% 1.7% 1.5% 1.0% 0.6% 0.7% 2.1% 0.6% 28 4.4% 2.5% 2.2% 1.1% -0.2% 1.3% 0.8% 1.9% 0.1% 0.5% 1.5% 0.1% -0.3% 0.6% -0.1% 0.4% -0.5% 0.0% 1.4% 0.8% 0.2% 27 4.6% 2.7% 1.7% 0.8% 1.2% 0.3% 1.2% 0.7% 1.1% 0.9% 2.8% 0.0% 2.0% 0.4% 1.4% 1.6% 0.1% 0.5% 0.4% 1.6% 0.9% 26 4.5% 3.2% 0.9% 1.6% 2.2% 2.3% 0.2% 1.4% 1.9% 0.1% 0.6% 0.5% 1.0% 0.4% 1.4% -0.5% 1.5% 1.1% 2.2% 1.1% 0.8% 25 4.7% 2.9% 1.8% 2.1% 0.3% 0.1% 0.6% 1.1% 0.6% 0.5% -0.5% 2.3% -0.1% 1.9% 1.0% 0.4% 0.6% 0.7% 2.3% 0.8% 1.4% 24 4.8% 2.7% 1.1% -0.2% 2.1% 0.5% 0.7% 0.0% 0.9% 0.0% 2.3% 0.9% 0.3% 0.7% 0.3% 1.0% 0.5% 1.3% 0.5% 0.9% 0.3% 23 4.7% 2.7% 1.4% 1.8% 2.1% -0.4% 0.6% 1.5% 0.0% 0.7% 1.5% 1.3% 2.4% 1.1% 0.0% 0.4% 1.4% 1.4% -0.5% 1.7% 1.2% 22 4.7% 2.9% 2.0% 1.9% -0.5% 2.0% -0.5% 2.0% -0.5% 1.3% 1.3% 1.5% 2.2% -0.5% 0.4% 1.0% -0.1% 2.5% 0.3% 0.8% 1.8% 21 4.8% 3.2% 1.2% 0.4% 0.9% 0.9% -0.2% -0.2% 0.5% 1.4% 0.7% 1.3% 0.5% 0.3% 1.4% 0.3% 0.2% -0.5% 1.0% 1.2% 0.9% 20 4.8% 3.0% 1.5% 1.0% 2.9% 1.6% 0.5% 1.1% 2.0% 1.2% 2.2% 0.8% 1.1% 1.5% 0.8% 2.9% 0.5% 0.5% 1.4% 0.3% -0.3% 19 4.9% 3.6% 2.4% 1.1% 1.9% 2.4% 1.2% -0.1% 0.8% 0.3% -0.2% 0.2% 1.4% 0.8% 0.9% 0.7% 1.9% 1.1% 2.2% 1.3% 1.4%
Number Number of barges[#] operational 18 6.2% 5.4% 4.6% 4.3% 3.8% 3.3% 3.0% 2.6% 2.4% 2.5% 3.3% 1.1% 1.4% 1.8% 0.6% 1.8% 0.8% 2.1% 1.9% 1.1% 1.1% 17 11.2% 10.7% 10.1% 9.6% 9.0% 8.7% 8.3% 7.7% 7.3% 7.1% 6.6% 6.1% 5.9% 5.4% 5.2% 4.9% 4.7% 4.1% 3.9% 3.6% 3.5% 16 16.3% 16.0% 15.8% 15.5% 15.1% 14.8% 14.8% 14.1% 13.6% 13.3% 12.9% 12.3% 11.8% 11.7% 11.1% 11.0% 10.5% 9.9% 9.9% 9.4% 9.1% 15 20.1% 19.9% 19.6% 19.5% 19.4% 19.2% 19.0% 18.8% 18.6% 18.6% 18.2% 18.3% 18.0% 17.9% 17.3% 17.1% 16.9% 16.6% 16.1% 16.0% 15.4%
Abs. Loading
714 729 744 760 776 794 812 831 850 871 893 916 940 965 992
1050 1082 1116 1152 1190 capacity [T/hr] 1020
Rel. loading
102% 104% 106% 109% 111% 114% 116% 119% 122% 125% 128% 132% 135% 139% 143% 147% 152% 156% 161% 167% capacity [-] 100%
Berth
98% 96% 94% 92% 90% 88% 86% 84% 82% 80% 78% 76% 74% 72% 70% 68% 66% 64% 62% 60% occupation [-] 100% FIGURE 11.10 RELATIVE STOCKPILE GROWTH FOR 2017 WITH TRANSHIPMENT BY FLOATING CRANES
The relative stockpile growth display a quite disordered picture. The average number of coal carriers at the anchorage in figure 11.11 give a clearer picture of the situation. Three different areas can be distinguished.
A minimum amount of 19 barges is required to transport the required 15 million ton per year A minimum loading capacity of 760 T/hr is required to transport the required 15 million ton per year. A hyperbolic line can be recognized from 30,794 till 22,1190 where the coal carriers are more or less loaded non-stop. (for the situation of 2013 this is not very clear)
30 7.87 6.17 2.13 1.73 1.15 1.10 1.10 1.72 1.28 1.11 1.11 1.10 1.11 1.11 1.11 2.81 1.10 1.12 1.10 1.10 1.12 29 10.36 2.44 1.92 1.25 1.11 1.22 1.11 1.11 1.09 4.75 1.15 1.10 1.56 1.11 1.10 1.10 1.11 1.11 1.11 1.10 1.11 28 12.06 7.67 1.49 1.14 1.37 1.12 1.11 1.10 1.11 1.11 1.10 1.12 1.12 1.11 1.12 1.12 1.13 1.12 1.10 1.11 1.12 27 3.92 3.35 1.80 1.49 1.14 1.12 1.10 1.11 1.10 1.11 1.09 1.12 1.10 1.12 1.10 1.11 1.12 1.11 1.12 1.10 1.11 26 12.58 5.49 2.49 1.11 1.11 1.10 1.14 1.10 1.10 1.12 1.11 1.11 1.11 1.12 1.11 2.40 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.11 1.11 25 11.32 5.79 1.27 1.20 1.26 1.16 1.12 1.12 1.12 1.12 1.19 1.09 1.12 1.10 1.11 1.19 1.11 1.12 1.10 1.11 1.11 24 7.78 6.56 2.43 1.71 1.18 1.15 1.13 1.13 1.11 1.12 1.09 1.12 1.12 1.12 1.11 1.11 1.12 1.11 1.12 1.11 1.12 23 6.98 6.87 2.04 1.34 1.19 1.44 1.14 1.11 1.22 1.13 1.11 1.10 1.10 1.11 1.12 1.12 1.11 1.11 1.68 1.11 1.12 22 11.92 8.96 2.75 1.27 2.47 1.15 1.32 1.12 1.22 1.16 1.13 1.13 1.11 1.57 1.13 1.12 1.14 1.10 1.13 1.12 1.10 21 9.42 3.60 5.49 1.95 1.43 1.27 1.48 1.24 1.19 1.17 1.15 1.16 1.15 1.17 1.13 1.16 1.16 1.71 1.13 1.12 1.13 20 8.31 11.20 3.53 1.82 1.57 1.37 1.39 1.33 1.25 1.31 1.20 1.23 1.21 1.20 1.19 1.16 1.22 1.18 1.15 1.18 1.48 19 13.95 5.51 5.69 3.92 2.22 1.74 1.75 2.09 2.11 1.70 2.14 1.51 1.38 1.43 1.37 1.43 1.26 1.46 1.24 1.24 1.26
Number Number of barges[#] operational 18 15.59 17.82 12.39 8.66 11.57 8.40 5.82 6.78 3.69 3.25 2.25 4.55 2.83 2.43 3.72 1.84 2.70 2.13 1.55 2.03 1.86 17 27.93 24.75 23.30 25.77 20.42 21.35 22.41 19.87 21.55 17.77 19.01 16.57 15.63 10.73 10.32 6.31 12.03 16.11 8.75 7.87 10.65 16 38.66 37.17 37.40 32.97 35.03 36.54 32.45 35.32 31.52 31.13 29.77 26.32 28.74 26.75 25.32 27.20 24.52 23.47 26.77 23.14 20.24 15 52.57 45.34 49.62 45.27 44.04 48.11 39.52 44.43 46.39 46.91 45.61 45.01 38.89 40.63 41.55 40.67 38.03 40.48 39.63 41.15 40.33
Abs. Loading
714 729 744 760 776 794 812 831 850 871 893 916 940 965 992
1050 1082 1116 1152 1190 capacity [T/hr] 1020
Rel. loading
102% 104% 106% 109% 111% 114% 116% 119% 122% 125% 128% 132% 135% 139% 143% 147% 152% 156% 161% 167% capacity [-] 100%
Berth
98% 96% 94% 92% 90% 88% 86% 84% 82% 80% 78% 76% 74% 72% 70% 68% 66% 64% 62% 60% occupation [-] 100% FIGURE 11.11 AVERAGE NUMBER OF COAL CARRIERS AT THE ANCHORAGE FOR 2017
Page 150 of 196 Chair of Ports & Waterways Alternative A, Transhipment with floating cranes
The total transport costs are calculated according to the costs for the barges, terminal and waiting time for the floating cranes and coal carriers at deep-sea. The costs only for barges and the terminal are presented in Figure 11.12.
30 € 2.86 € 2.90 € 2.93 € 2.96 € 2.96 € 2.96 € 2.97 € 3.00 € 3.03 € 3.02 € 3.04 € 3.04 € 3.06 € 3.08 € 3.11 € 3.14 € 3.13 € 3.17 € 3.17 € 3.20 € 3.24 29 € 2.83 € 2.86 € 2.89 € 2.89 € 2.93 € 2.96 € 2.96 € 2.96 € 2.96 € 3.01 € 3.03 € 3.02 € 3.06 € 3.07 € 3.06 € 3.08 € 3.11 € 3.14 € 3.16 € 3.16 € 3.21 28 € 2.80 € 2.84 € 2.86 € 2.89 € 2.92 € 2.91 € 2.92 € 2.92 € 2.96 € 2.97 € 2.97 € 3.00 € 3.03 € 3.03 € 3.06 € 3.07 € 3.10 € 3.12 € 3.12 € 3.15 € 3.18 27 € 2.77 € 2.81 € 2.84 € 2.86 € 2.87 € 2.89 € 2.89 € 2.91 € 2.92 € 2.93 € 2.92 € 2.98 € 2.96 € 3.00 € 3.01 € 3.02 € 3.06 € 3.08 € 3.10 € 3.11 € 3.14 26 € 2.74 € 2.77 € 2.82 € 2.82 € 2.82 € 2.83 € 2.87 € 2.87 € 2.88 € 2.92 € 2.92 € 2.94 € 2.95 € 2.97 € 2.98 € 3.02 € 3.02 € 3.04 € 3.05 € 3.09 € 3.12 25 € 2.71 € 2.75 € 2.78 € 2.78 € 2.82 € 2.84 € 2.84 € 2.84 € 2.87 € 2.88 € 2.91 € 2.88 € 2.94 € 2.92 € 2.95 € 2.98 € 3.00 € 3.01 € 3.02 € 3.06 € 3.08 24 € 2.68 € 2.72 € 2.76 € 2.78 € 2.76 € 2.80 € 2.81 € 2.83 € 2.83 € 2.86 € 2.84 € 2.88 € 2.90 € 2.91 € 2.94 € 2.94 € 2.97 € 2.98 € 3.01 € 3.03 € 3.06 23 € 2.65 € 2.69 € 2.72 € 2.73 € 2.73 € 2.78 € 2.78 € 2.78 € 2.82 € 2.82 € 2.82 € 2.84 € 2.84 € 2.87 € 2.91 € 2.92 € 2.93 € 2.95 € 3.00 € 2.99 € 3.02 22 € 2.62 € 2.66 € 2.68 € 2.70 € 2.74 € 2.72 € 2.77 € 2.74 € 2.79 € 2.78 € 2.79 € 2.81 € 2.81 € 2.87 € 2.88 € 2.88 € 2.92 € 2.90 € 2.96 € 2.98 € 2.98 21 € 2.59 € 2.62 € 2.67 € 2.69 € 2.69 € 2.71 € 2.73 € 2.74 € 2.75 € 2.75 € 2.77 € 2.78 € 2.81 € 2.83 € 2.83 € 2.87 € 2.89 € 2.92 € 2.92 € 2.94 € 2.97 20 € 2.56 € 2.60 € 2.63 € 2.65 € 2.64 € 2.66 € 2.69 € 2.70 € 2.70 € 2.72 € 2.72 € 2.76 € 2.77 € 2.78 € 2.81 € 2.79 € 2.85 € 2.87 € 2.88 € 2.92 € 2.96 19 € 2.53 € 2.56 € 2.59 € 2.62 € 2.62 € 2.62 € 2.65 € 2.69 € 2.69 € 2.71 € 2.73 € 2.74 € 2.74 € 2.76 € 2.78 € 2.80 € 2.80 € 2.83 € 2.84 € 2.88 € 2.90
Number Number of barges[#] operational 18 € 2.48 € 2.50 € 2.53 € 2.54 € 2.56 € 2.58 € 2.60 € 2.62 € 2.63 € 2.64 € 2.65 € 2.70 € 2.71 € 2.72 € 2.75 € 2.75 € 2.79 € 2.79 € 2.81 € 2.85 € 2.88 17 € 2.37 € 2.39 € 2.41 € 2.43 € 2.45 € 2.47 € 2.49 € 2.51 € 2.52 € 2.54 € 2.57 € 2.59 € 2.60 € 2.63 € 2.65 € 2.67 € 2.70 € 2.73 € 2.75 € 2.78 € 2.81 16 € 2.27 € 2.28 € 2.29 € 2.31 € 2.33 € 2.34 € 2.35 € 2.38 € 2.40 € 2.42 € 2.44 € 2.46 € 2.48 € 2.50 € 2.53 € 2.55 € 2.58 € 2.61 € 2.63 € 2.66 € 2.69 15 € 2.18 € 2.19 € 2.20 € 2.22 € 2.23 € 2.24 € 2.26 € 2.27 € 2.29 € 2.31 € 2.32 € 2.34 € 2.36 € 2.38 € 2.40 € 2.42 € 2.45 € 2.47 € 2.50 € 2.53 € 2.56 Abs. Loading
capacity
714 729 744 760 776 794 812 831 850 871 893 916 940 965 992
1020 1050 1082 1116 1152 1190 [T/hr]
Rel. loading
102% 104% 106% 109% 111% 114% 116% 119% 122% 125% 128% 132% 135% 139% 143% 147% 152% 156% 161% 167% capacity [-] 100%
Berth
98% 96% 94% 92% 90% 88% 86% 84% 82% 80% 78% 76% 74% 72% 70% 68% 66% 64% 62% 60% ccupation [-] 100% FIGURE 11.12 TRANSPORT COSTS IN 2017 ONLY CONCERNING THE BARGES AND THE TERMINAL [€/T]
When the costs for the waiting time of the coal carriers and floating cranes is included into the total transport costs figure 11.13 is formed. A ridge is found above the minimum amount of barges and below the hyperbolic line where the coal carriers are loaded non-stop. The transport configuration which is lowest in costs has to be found in the middle of this ridge.
30 € 9.03 € 8.28 € 6.42 € 6.26 € 6.00 € 5.97 € 5.98 € 6.31 € 6.12 € 6.04 € 6.06 € 6.05 € 6.08 € 6.10 € 6.13 € 6.95 € 6.15 € 6.19 € 6.18 € 6.21 € 6.26 29 ####### € 6.50 € 6.29 € 5.98 € 5.95 € 6.03 € 5.98 € 5.98 € 5.97 € 7.73 € 6.06 € 6.03 € 6.28 € 6.09 € 6.07 € 6.10 € 6.13 € 6.16 € 6.18 € 6.17 € 6.23 28 ####### € 8.92 € 6.05 € 5.92 € 6.06 € 5.93 € 5.94 € 5.93 € 5.98 € 5.99 € 5.98 € 6.03 € 6.05 € 6.05 € 6.08 € 6.09 € 6.13 € 6.14 € 6.13 € 6.17 € 6.21 27 € 7.10 € 6.87 € 6.18 € 6.06 € 5.90 € 5.91 € 5.90 € 5.93 € 5.93 € 5.95 € 5.93 € 6.00 € 5.98 € 6.02 € 6.02 € 6.04 € 6.09 € 6.10 € 6.13 € 6.12 € 6.16 26 ####### € 7.83 € 6.48 € 5.84 € 5.84 € 5.85 € 5.91 € 5.89 € 5.89 € 5.94 € 5.94 € 5.96 € 5.97 € 6.00 € 5.99 € 6.64 € 6.03 € 6.06 € 6.06 € 6.10 € 6.13 25 ####### € 7.95 € 5.87 € 5.84 € 5.91 € 5.88 € 5.86 € 5.87 € 5.89 € 5.90 € 5.96 € 5.89 € 5.96 € 5.93 € 5.97 € 6.03 € 6.02 € 6.03 € 6.03 € 6.08 € 6.10 24 € 8.81 € 8.28 € 6.39 € 6.08 € 5.81 € 5.84 € 5.83 € 5.86 € 5.85 € 5.88 € 5.85 € 5.90 € 5.93 € 5.93 € 5.96 € 5.96 € 5.99 € 6.00 € 6.04 € 6.05 € 6.09 23 € 8.41 € 8.40 € 6.17 € 5.85 € 5.79 € 5.96 € 5.81 € 5.80 € 5.89 € 5.85 € 5.84 € 5.85 € 5.85 € 5.89 € 5.93 € 5.95 € 5.95 € 5.97 € 6.28 € 6.01 € 6.04 22 ####### € 9.34 € 6.47 € 5.79 € 6.39 € 5.75 € 5.89 € 5.77 € 5.86 € 5.82 € 5.82 € 5.83 € 5.83 € 6.10 € 5.90 € 5.90 € 5.95 € 5.91 € 5.98 € 6.00 € 5.99 21 € 9.49 € 6.81 € 7.73 € 6.10 € 5.86 € 5.80 € 5.92 € 5.82 € 5.80 € 5.80 € 5.81 € 5.82 € 5.85 € 5.87 € 5.86 € 5.91 € 5.93 € 6.21 € 5.95 € 5.96 € 5.99 20 € 8.94 ####### € 6.78 € 6.00 € 5.87 € 5.80 € 5.84 € 5.82 € 5.78 € 5.83 € 5.78 € 5.83 € 5.84 € 5.84 € 5.86 € 5.83 € 5.92 € 5.92 € 5.92 € 5.97 € 6.14 19 ####### € 7.63 € 7.74 € 6.95 € 6.15 € 5.93 € 5.97 € 6.16 € 6.17 € 6.00 € 6.23 € 5.94 € 5.88 € 5.93 € 5.92 € 5.97 € 5.89 € 6.01 € 5.92 € 5.95 € 5.99
Number Number of barges[#] operational 18 ####### ####### ####### € 9.09 ####### € 9.00 € 7.81 € 8.28 € 6.85 € 6.66 € 6.20 € 7.32 € 6.53 € 6.35 € 6.99 € 6.11 € 6.55 € 6.28 € 6.04 € 6.30 € 6.24 17 ####### ####### ####### ####### ####### ####### ####### ####### ####### ####### ####### ####### ####### ####### € 9.97 € 8.12 ####### ####### € 9.33 € 8.95 ####### 16 ####### ####### ####### ####### ####### ####### ####### ####### ####### ####### ####### ####### ####### ####### ####### ####### ####### ####### ####### ####### ####### 15 ####### ####### ####### ####### ####### ####### ####### ####### ####### ####### ####### ####### ####### ####### ####### ####### ####### ####### ####### ####### #######
Abs. Loading
714 729 744 760 776 794 812 831 850 871 893 916 940 965 992
1050 1082 1116 1152 1190 capacity [T/hr] 1020
Rel. loading
102% 104% 106% 109% 111% 114% 116% 119% 122% 125% 128% 132% 135% 139% 143% 147% 152% 156% 161% 167% capacity [-] 100%
Berth
98% 96% 94% 92% 90% 88% 86% 84% 82% 80% 78% 76% 74% 72% 70% 68% 66% 64% 62% 60% ccupation [-] 100% FIGURE 11.13 TOTAL TRANSPORT COSTS FOR 2017 WITH TRANSHIPMENT BY FLOATING CRANES [€/T]
The three most efficient barge transport configurations for a throughput of 15 million ton per year with three loading berths in Sungai Puting.
7. 22 barges operational and a total loading capacity of the terminals of 794 T/hr 8. 21 barges operational and a total loading capacity of the terminals of 831 T/hr 9. 20 barges operational and a total loading capacity of the terminals of 850 T/hr
December 2011 Page 151 of 196 FEASIBLITY STUDY COAL TRANSPORT KALIMANTAN
11.3 DESIGN PLAN
A design plan for the future is written concerning the development of the loading terminal for 390ft barges at Sungai Puting. In the paragraphs 11.2.1 till 11.2.3 the most efficient transport configurations are determined for the years 2013, 2015 and 2017. In this paragraph the results from the simulation model are analysed. The most efficient transport configurations for every year are given in table 11.2.
Year Number of jetties at Number of 390ft Effective Loading/ Total transport costs Sungai Puting barges required unloading capacity per ton from SP to DS 2013 1 berth 10 barges 940 T/hr €6.15 /T 2015 2 berths 15 barges 850 T/hr €5.83 /T 2017 3 berths 22 barges 774 T/hr €5.75 /T TABLE 11.2 THREE MOST EFFICIENT TRANSPORT CONFIGURATIONS PER RUN
The three most feasible transport configurations from financial point of view does not exactly match with each other, but the loading capacities are not very different from each other. The three most feasible loading capacities are all close to 850T/hr.
It is decided that the operation starts in 2013 with one operational berth with 850 T/hr effective loading capacity at the Sungai Puting loading terminal. Every two year a new berth have to be constructed with an effective loading capacity of 850 T/hr. In 2017 three loading berths concerning the 390ft barges at Sungai Puting have to be operational.
The amount of operational barges have to be increased from 10 in 2013 till 21 in 2017. The design plan is summarized in table 11.3. The required number of barges throughout the years is plotted in figure 11.14. The transport costs decrease with almost 7% over the years. A graph with the transport costs is presented in figure 11.15.
Year Number of berth Loading capacity Required number of 390ft barges 2013 1 berth 850 T/hr 10 barges 2015 2 berths 850 T/hr 15 barges 2017 3 berths 850 T/hr 21 barges TABLE 11.3 DESIGN PLAN FOR THE YEARS 2013 TILL 2017
25
20
15
10 Required number of barges according
Number of barges [#] barges of Number 5 to simulation model
0 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 Year
FIGURE 11.14 REQUIRED NUMBER OF BARGES FOR TRANSHIPMENT WITH DEEP-SEA TERMINAL
Page 152 of 196 Chair of Ports & Waterways Alternative A, Transhipment with floating cranes
€ 6.40
€ 6.20 /T] € € 6.00
€ 5.80
€ 5.60
€ 5.40 Transport costs [ costs Transport Transport costs € 5.20
€ 5.00 2013 2013.5 2014 2014.5 2015 2015.5 2016 2016.5 2017 Year
FIGURE 11.15 TRANSPORT COSTS FROM SUNGAI PUTING STOCKPILE TILL DEEP-SEA UNLOADING BERTH
11.4 CONCLUSIONS
The method of direct transhipment with floating cranes is efficient if a coal carrier and barges are available for loading and unloading. The coal is only handled once and the transhipment capacity of the floating cranes is comparable with shore-based equipment. The main disadvantage of direct transhipment by floating cranes is the absent of a stockpile.
Because no stockpile is available coal have to be handled directly from the barge to the coal carrier. If no barges are present at the anchorage, no coal can be transhipped and the coal carrier have to wait for the next barge. However an equilibrium is formed, whereby the number of coal carriers increases and the waiting time of the barges decreases. The costs for the barges respectively for the coal carrier determine the most financial efficient equilibrium.
In this way the efficiency of the transport system is relative good, because the loading capacity of the floating cranes is relative high with an efficient loading capacity of 1000T/hr. Especially in the years after 2015 the efficiency become better because relative more coal carriers are at the anchorage, and function almost as a stationary terminal.
The flexibility of this alternative is relative good concerned the loading location. If the coal carriers have a larger draft the operation can take place at deeper water and vice versa. The flexibility of the floating cranes with respect to the throughput capacity is less flexible. Because there is not a stockpile available near Banjarmasin, the increase of throughput have to be realized by an increase of the throughput capacity of the barges between Sungai Puting and deep-sea. From the result of the simulation model it can be concluded that this is rather difficult.
December 2011 Page 153 of 196 FEASIBLITY STUDY COAL TRANSPORT KALIMANTAN
12 ALTERNATIVE B, OFFSHORE DEEP-SEA TERMINAL
Sungai Puting Destination
near- Deep-sea shore loading jetty 1 unloading jetty 1 loading e l i jetty 1
p unloading k e c l i
o jetty 1 t p s k
c overseas o
unloading t s loading jetty 2 jetty 2 loading jetty 2 unloading jetty 3
12.1 DESCRIPTION
This alternative is similar to the current transport system. Except the transhipment to the coal carriers is not done by floating cranes, but via a deep-sea terminal. The coal carriers which arrive at Kalimantan, are loaded at the deep-sea terminal by shore based cranes.
The 390ft barges at deep-sea can export the coal in two different ways. The barges can transport the coal directly to near-shore destinations or the barges are unloaded at a jetty which is connected to the stockpile. From this stockpile the coal carriers can be loaded. The main advantage of this transhipment method above the current method is the significant decrease in waiting time for the coal carrier as well as for the 390ft barges.
Coal from the mines of BSS can be exported in two different ways
Direct export to near shore destinations by 390ft barges (10%) Transhipped to Handy sized coal carriers or bigger by a deep-sea terminal (90%)
A deep-sea terminal with stockpile can be constructed in different ways. The main property of this alternative is the presence of an extra stockpile where 390ft barges can be unloaded and where coal carrier can be loaded directly.
Different design options for a deep see terminal could be Onshore stockpile with a loading pier to deep-sea water. An artificial island with stockpile and deep-sea terminal offshore. A floating terminal with stockpile and deep-sea terminal offshore.
12.2 ALTERNATIVE MODEL STRUCTURE
The simulation model have to be adjusted for the transport system between Sungai Puting and the deep-sea terminal. The main difference of the alternative model structure is that the barges don’t have to wait for a coal carrier to be available for loading. And other way around, the coal carriers don’t have to wait for barges to be unloaded. Two alternative model structures for this transport system have been made.
In figure 12.1 the alternative model structure for the 390ft barges is presented In figure 12.2 the alternative model structure for the coal carriers is presented
Page 154 of 196 Chair of Ports & Waterways Alternative B, Offshore deep-sea terminal
When passage is possible again, check if queue is occupied
Deep sea Sungai Putting Floating market unloading berths loading berths
Sign in at queue in front of floating market
Sign in at the Check availability of Check availability of Sail further to Check passage at Start sailing to Stop loading coal anchorage berth near-shore order Banjarmasin floating market Marabahan
Time step When berth become available check if Start loading coal from queue is occupied stockpile
When stockpile is empty, check again Sign in at deep-sea when stockpile is loading berth probably sufficient in height.
Check stockpilelevel Check stockpilelevel
When stockpile is full, Sign in at one of the check again when berths at Sungai stockpile is probably Puting low enough.
When berth become Start unloading coal available check if from barge queue is occupied
Time step
Start sailing to the Check passage at Sail further to Sungai Check availability of Sign in at the queue at Stop unloading coal Banjarmasin floating market Puting the loading berths Sungai Puting
Sign in at queue in front of floating market
When passage is possible again, check 390ft barges if queue is occupied entrance the model
FIGURE 12.1 STRUCTURE OF THE SIMULATION MODEL BETWEEN SUNGAI PUTING AND DEEP-SEA TERMINAL
December 2011 Page 155 of 196 FEASIBLITY STUDY COAL TRANSPORT KALIMANTAN
Page 156 of 196 Chair of Ports & Waterways Alternative B, Offshore deep-sea terminal
Deep sea loading berths
Coal carrier Seagoing vessel Stop loading coal leaving the model leaves the model
When rain started during Time step transshipment, include delay
Start loading coal from stockpile
When stockpile is empty, check again when stockpile is probably sufficient in height.
Check stockpilelevel
Sign in at one of the deep sea berths
When berth become available check if queue is occupied
Coal carrier Create seagoing Check availability of Sign in at the entrance the model vessel randomly the loading berths accorage
FIGURE 12.2 STRUCTURE OF THE SIMULATION MODEL AT DEEP-SEA WITH DEEP-SEA TERMINAL
December 2011 Page 157 of 196 FEASIBLITY STUDY COAL TRANSPORT KALIMANTAN
12.3 RESULTS FROM SIMULATION MODEL
The behaviour of the transport system is equal to transport system between Lok Buntar and Sungai Puting. The structure of the technical and financial feasibility is described in paragraph 7.8. The structure is summarized in a schematization which is depictured in figure 12.3. The schematization divide the table in different kind of technical feasibility. The costs for the barges and the terminals determine the financial feasibility.
Barge costs Too much transport capacity available
o t
l s a e
n g i r t a
u m
r L b
p o w e l +
h e
t s a +
t g tr n e a u n
o s h p o i
t o r t rt t c a h o r t s a t
s Terminal costs e y d p t e i o r c
i f a u o p
q t a e c n r
u g e Enough transport capacity available o n h i t
m d t a a r
o o e l
p h h t s
g f n u o a
The capacity of the barges together with the terminals is not enough to transport the required throughput r o t e n s e a
t e r o c N n I
Not enough barges to transport the required throughput
Not enough transport capacity available
Increase of loading capacity at the terminal
Increase of the berth occupancy at the terminal
FIGURE 12.3 TECHNICAL AND FINANCIAL FEASABILITY OF BARGE TRANSPORT BETWEEN SP AND DEEP-SEA
The transport costs which are calculated for this alternative are the costs for transport between the Sungai Puting stockpile and deep-sea. The costs for the deep-sea terminal are not included into the transport costs. The difference between the transport costs with floating cranes and the transport costs for this alternative determine the costs available for constructing a deep-sea terminal. To compare transhipment by a deep-sea terminal with transhipment by floating cranes, the same transport configurations are investigated as in chapter 11. The transport configurations are summarized in table 12.1.
Number of Required throughput capacity Loading berths 2013 2015 2017 at Sungai Puting 5,000,000 T/year 10,000,000 T/year 15,000,000 T/year One berths X Two berths X Three berths X TABLE 12.1 THE TRANSPORT CONFIGURATIONS WHICH ARE INVESTIGATED BETWEEN SP AND DS
Page 158 of 196 Chair of Ports & Waterways Alternative B, Offshore deep-sea terminal
December 2011 Page 159 of 196 FEASIBLITY STUDY COAL TRANSPORT KALIMANTAN
12.3.1 OPTIMAL TRANSPORT CONFIGURATION FOR 2013
The relative stockpile growth determines if the transport system is stable and if it is able to transport the required throughput capacity of 5 million ton per year. For the scenario in 2013 with one berths per terminal, the relative stockpile growth is given in figure 12.4. It can be seen that a minimum number of 7 and a maximum of 8 barges is required to transport the required throughput capacity efficiently.
20 4.3% 2.3% 0.4% -1.6% -3.8% -5.9% -8.3% -9.9% -9.9% -9.9% -9.9% -9.9% -9.9% -9.9% -9.9% -9.9% -9.9% -10.0% -9.9% -9.8% -9.9% 19 4.2% 2.4% 0.4% -1.6% -3.8% -5.9% -8.3% -9.9% -9.9% -10.0% -9.9% -9.9% -10.0% -9.9% -9.9% -9.9% -9.9% -9.8% -10.0% -10.0% -9.8% 18 4.1% 2.4% 0.4% -1.5% -3.7% -6.0% -8.2% -9.9% -10.0% -9.9% -10.0% -10.0% -9.9% -9.9% -9.9% -10.0% -10.0% -10.0% -9.9% -9.9% -9.8% 17 4.1% 2.3% 0.4% -1.6% -3.8% -5.9% -8.2% -9.9% -9.8% -9.9% -10.0% -9.9% -9.8% -9.9% -10.0% -9.8% -10.0% -9.9% -9.9% -9.8% -10.0% 16 4.1% 2.3% 0.5% -1.6% -3.7% -5.9% -8.2% -9.9% -9.9% -9.8% -9.9% -9.9% -9.9% -10.0% -10.0% -10.0% -9.9% -9.8% -10.0% -9.9% -10.0% 15 4.3% 2.3% 0.3% -1.6% -3.8% -6.0% -8.2% -9.9% -9.9% -9.9% -10.0% -10.0% -9.9% -10.0% -10.0% -9.9% -9.8% -9.9% -9.9% -9.9% -9.9% 14 4.3% 2.3% 0.4% -1.6% -3.8% -6.0% -8.2% -10.0% -9.8% -10.0% -10.0% -9.9% -9.9% -10.0% -9.9% -10.0% -9.9% -9.9% -9.9% -9.9% -10.0% 13 4.1% 2.4% 0.4% -1.6% -3.8% -5.9% -8.3% -9.9% -9.9% -10.0% -10.0% -10.0% -9.8% -9.9% -10.0% -9.9% -10.0% -9.9% -9.9% -10.0% -10.0% 12 4.2% 2.3% 0.3% -1.7% -3.8% -6.0% -8.2% -9.9% -9.8% -10.0% -9.9% -9.9% -9.9% -9.9% -10.0% -10.0% -10.0% -10.0% -9.9% -9.9% -9.9% 11 4.2% 2.3% 0.4% -1.6% -3.7% -5.9% -8.2% -9.9% -10.0% -9.9% -9.9% -9.9% -10.0% -10.0% -10.0% -9.9% -9.9% -9.9% -9.9% -9.8% -10.0% 10 4.2% 2.3% 0.5% -1.6% -3.7% -6.0% -8.2% -10.0% -10.0% -9.9% -10.0% -9.9% -9.9% -9.9% -9.9% -9.9% -10.0% -9.9% -9.9% -10.0% -10.0% 9 4.2% 2.3% 0.4% -1.5% -3.8% -5.9% -8.1% -9.9% -9.9% -10.0% -9.9% -9.9% -9.9% -9.9% -9.9% -9.9% -10.0% -10.0% -9.9% -10.0% -9.9%
Number Number of barges[#] operational 8 4.2% 2.4% 0.7% -0.5% -1.2% -1.5% -2.1% -3.4% -4.2% -5.0% -6.4% -7.6% -8.2% -9.4% -9.8% -9.9% -9.9% -10.0% -10.0% -9.8% -9.9% 7 10.7% 9.9% 9.8% 8.7% 7.7% 7.2% 6.8% 5.7% 4.9% 5.1% 4.4% 3.6% 2.8% 2.7% 1.7% 1.0% 0.7% 0.4% -0.2% -0.6% -0.5% 6 23.7% 23.0% 22.7% 21.6% 21.3% 20.4% 20.2% 19.7% 19.0% 18.5% 17.9% 17.0% 16.8% 16.1% 15.4% 14.8% 14.8% 14.2% 13.5% 13.4% 12.6% 5 34.7% 34.2% 34.2% 33.5% 33.0% 32.7% 32.3% 31.9% 31.5% 31.0% 30.5% 30.2% 30.0% 29.4% 28.9% 29.0% 28.3% 27.7% 27.9% 27.3% 27.0%
Abs. Loading
714 729 744 760 776 794 812 831 850 871 893 916 940 965 992
1050 1082 1116 1152 1190 capacity [T/hr] 1020
Rel. loading
102% 104% 106% 109% 111% 114% 116% 119% 122% 125% 128% 132% 135% 139% 143% 147% 152% 156% 161% 167% capacity [-] 100%
Berth
98% 96% 94% 92% 90% 88% 86% 84% 82% 80% 78% 76% 74% 72% 70% 68% 66% 64% 62% 60% ccupation [-] 100% FIGURE 12.4 RELATIVE STOCKPILE GROWTH FOR 2013 WITH ONE BERTH PER TERMINAL
The transport cost per configuration for the scenario in 2013 with one berth per terminal is given in figure 12.5. The transport costs are calculated with respect to the efficiency of the barges and the terminals. The transport costs are the costs for transportation between the Sungai Puting stockpile and deep-sea. The transport costs don’t include costs for the deep-sea terminal. A full clarification of the transport costs is given in paragraph 7.6.
20 € 4.02 € 4.07 € 4.11 € 4.17 € 4.22 € 4.28 € 4.31 € 4.37 € 4.37 € 4.38 € 4.41 € 4.36 € 4.36 € 4.37 € 4.35 € 4.36 € 4.37 € 4.44 € 4.47 € 4.51 € 4.56 19 € 3.94 € 3.99 € 4.04 € 4.08 € 4.14 € 4.19 € 4.24 € 4.28 € 4.26 € 4.29 € 4.31 € 4.27 € 4.32 € 4.28 € 4.26 € 4.23 € 4.28 € 4.34 € 4.42 € 4.42 € 4.50 18 € 3.84 € 3.90 € 3.95 € 4.00 € 4.05 € 4.10 € 4.15 € 4.20 € 4.20 € 4.23 € 4.21 € 4.23 € 4.22 € 4.19 € 4.22 € 4.18 € 4.22 € 4.26 € 4.28 € 4.30 € 4.40 17 € 3.76 € 3.82 € 3.86 € 3.91 € 3.97 € 4.02 € 4.06 € 4.11 € 4.10 € 4.13 € 4.12 € 4.14 € 4.11 € 4.12 € 4.14 € 4.12 € 4.15 € 4.19 € 4.17 € 4.27 € 4.28 16 € 3.68 € 3.73 € 3.78 € 3.82 € 3.87 € 3.94 € 3.97 € 4.03 € 4.03 € 4.04 € 4.03 € 4.06 € 4.05 € 4.06 € 4.01 € 4.03 € 4.07 € 4.08 € 4.13 € 4.13 € 4.20 15 € 3.59 € 3.65 € 3.69 € 3.74 € 3.79 € 3.84 € 3.91 € 3.95 € 3.95 € 3.95 € 3.95 € 3.95 € 3.91 € 3.93 € 3.93 € 3.94 € 3.95 € 4.01 € 4.04 € 4.12 € 4.13 14 € 3.52 € 3.56 € 3.61 € 3.63 € 3.71 € 3.76 € 3.82 € 3.85 € 3.86 € 3.87 € 3.90 € 3.88 € 3.88 € 3.84 € 3.83 € 3.89 € 3.93 € 3.92 € 3.95 € 4.02 € 4.09 13 € 3.42 € 3.48 € 3.52 € 3.57 € 3.62 € 3.68 € 3.73 € 3.78 € 3.77 € 3.78 € 3.82 € 3.78 € 3.81 € 3.80 € 3.74 € 3.79 € 3.77 € 3.83 € 3.90 € 3.93 € 3.98 12 € 3.34 € 3.39 € 3.44 € 3.49 € 3.54 € 3.58 € 3.64 € 3.68 € 3.67 € 3.68 € 3.66 € 3.71 € 3.69 € 3.71 € 3.65 € 3.66 € 3.70 € 3.74 € 3.79 € 3.84 € 3.90 11 € 3.26 € 3.31 € 3.35 € 3.40 € 3.45 € 3.50 € 3.55 € 3.60 € 3.62 € 3.61 € 3.62 € 3.64 € 3.62 € 3.61 € 3.63 € 3.60 € 3.61 € 3.65 € 3.71 € 3.72 € 3.81 10 € 3.18 € 3.22 € 3.26 € 3.32 € 3.36 € 3.42 € 3.48 € 3.53 € 3.54 € 3.54 € 3.51 € 3.50 € 3.50 € 3.49 € 3.50 € 3.52 € 3.54 € 3.59 € 3.67 € 3.71 € 3.70 9 € 3.07 € 3.13 € 3.18 € 3.24 € 3.28 € 3.33 € 3.38 € 3.44 € 3.46 € 3.44 € 3.47 € 3.47 € 3.48 € 3.50 € 3.51 € 3.51 € 3.53 € 3.56 € 3.56 € 3.58 € 3.63
Number Number of barges[#] operational 8 € 3.00 € 3.05 € 3.09 € 3.12 € 3.15 € 3.17 € 3.20 € 3.22 € 3.26 € 3.28 € 3.32 € 3.33 € 3.31 € 3.35 € 3.35 € 3.34 € 3.38 € 3.40 € 3.47 € 3.47 € 3.54 7 € 2.77 € 2.82 € 2.83 € 2.85 € 2.87 € 2.92 € 2.93 € 2.95 € 2.98 € 3.00 € 3.03 € 3.04 € 3.09 € 3.11 € 3.13 € 3.15 € 3.21 € 3.22 € 3.27 € 3.30 € 3.32 6 € 2.47 € 2.50 € 2.52 € 2.53 € 2.56 € 2.57 € 2.59 € 2.61 € 2.65 € 2.67 € 2.70 € 2.73 € 2.74 € 2.77 € 2.81 € 2.83 € 2.87 € 2.89 € 2.90 € 2.95 € 2.98 5 € 2.15 € 2.19 € 2.20 € 2.21 € 2.22 € 2.24 € 2.29 € 2.30 € 2.30 € 2.35 € 2.36 € 2.38 € 2.40 € 2.43 € 2.46 € 2.47 € 2.49 € 2.55 € 2.54 € 2.57 € 2.62
Abs. Loading
714 729 744 760 776 794 812 831 850 871 893 916 940 965 992
1050 1082 1116 1152 1190 capacity [T/hr] 1020
Rel. loading
102% 104% 106% 109% 111% 114% 116% 119% 122% 125% 128% 132% 135% 139% 143% 147% 152% 156% 161% 167% capacity [-] 100%
Berth
98% 96% 94% 92% 90% 88% 86% 84% 82% 80% 78% 76% 74% 72% 70% 68% 66% 64% 62% 60% ccupation [-] 100% FIGURE 12.5 TRANSPORT COSTS FOR 2013 WITH ONE BERTH PER TERMINAL
Page 160 of 196 Chair of Ports & Waterways Alternative B, Offshore deep-sea terminal
€ 4.40
€ 4.20
/T] € € 4.00
€ 3.80
€ 3.60
€ 3.40 Transport costs per ton [ ton per costs Transport € 3.20 Transport costs € 3.00 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Number of operational barges [#]
FIGURE 12.6 REQUIRED NUMBER OF BARGES AGAINST THE TRANSPORT COSTS (2013 WITH FOUR BERTHS)
€ 4.40
€ 4.20
/T] € € 4.00
€ 3.80
€ 3.60
€ 3.40 Transport costs per ton [ ton per costs Transport € 3.20 Transport costs € 3.00 700 750 800 850 900 950 1000 1050 1100 1150 1200 Loading capacity per berth [T\hr]
FIGURE 12.7 LOADING CAPACITY AGAINST THE TRANSPORT COSTS (2013 WITH FOUR BERTHS)
The optimum barge transport configuration can be determine according to the graphs at figure 12.6 and figure 12.7. The graph show the transport costs at the border at which the stockpile growth is just stable. At these configurations exact 5 million ton per year is transported. From the graphs, the optimum barge transport configuration can be determined.
The three most efficient barge transport configurations for a throughput of 5 million ton per year with one loading berths in Sungai Puting and one unloading berths in deep-sea.
10. 8 barges operational and a total loading capacity of the terminals of 760 T/hr 11. 8 barges operational and a total loading capacity of the terminals of 776 T/hr 12. 8 barges operational and a total loading capacity of the terminals of 794 T/hr
December 2011 Page 161 of 196 FEASIBLITY STUDY COAL TRANSPORT KALIMANTAN
12.3.2 OPTIMAL TRANSPORT CONFIGURATION FOR 2015
The relative stockpile growth determines if the transport system is stable and if it is able to transport the required throughput capacity of 10 million ton per year. For the scenario in 2015 with two berths per terminal, the relative stockpile growth is given in figure 12.8. It can be seen that a minimum number of 14 and a maximum of 16 barges is required to transport the required throughput capacity efficiently.
25 4.2% 2.3% 0.4% -1.6% -3.7% -5.9% -8.2% -9.9% -10.0% -10.0% -10.0% -9.9% -9.9% -9.9% -10.0% -9.9% -10.0% -9.9% -9.9% -9.9% -9.9% 24 4.1% 2.3% 0.3% -1.6% -3.7% -5.9% -8.3% -10.0% -10.0% -9.9% -10.0% -10.0% -9.9% -10.0% -10.0% -9.9% -10.0% -10.0% -9.9% -9.9% -9.9% 23 4.3% 2.3% 0.4% -1.7% -3.6% -6.0% -8.3% -9.9% -10.0% -10.0% -9.9% -10.0% -10.0% -9.9% -10.0% -9.9% -10.0% -10.0% -10.0% -9.9% -10.0% 22 4.2% 2.4% 0.4% -1.6% -3.8% -6.0% -8.1% -10.0% -9.9% -10.0% -10.0% -9.9% -9.9% -10.0% -10.0% -10.0% -10.0% -9.9% -10.0% -10.0% -10.0% 21 4.2% 2.3% 0.4% -1.6% -3.7% -5.9% -8.3% -10.0% -10.0% -10.0% -9.9% -10.0% -9.9% -10.0% -9.9% -10.0% -9.9% -10.0% -10.0% -9.9% -10.0% 20 4.3% 2.3% 0.4% -1.7% -3.7% -5.8% -8.2% -10.0% -9.9% -10.0% -10.0% -10.0% -9.9% -9.9% -10.0% -10.0% -10.0% -10.0% -10.0% -10.0% -10.0% 19 4.2% 2.3% 0.4% -1.6% -3.7% -5.9% -8.2% -10.0% -9.9% -10.0% -10.0% -10.0% -10.0% -10.0% -9.9% -9.9% -9.9% -9.9% -10.0% -10.0% -10.0% 18 4.2% 2.3% 0.4% -1.6% -3.7% -5.9% -8.2% -9.9% -10.0% -10.0% -9.9% -9.9% -10.0% -10.0% -10.0% -10.0% -10.0% -9.9% -9.9% -9.9% -9.9% 17 4.3% 2.3% 0.4% -1.6% -3.7% -5.9% -7.9% -9.8% -10.0% -10.0% -10.0% -9.9% -9.9% -9.9% -10.0% -9.9% -10.0% -9.9% -10.0% -9.9% -10.0% 16 4.2% 2.4% 0.5% -1.2% -2.3% -3.1% -4.2% -5.3% -5.9% -7.3% -7.6% -8.8% -10.0% -10.0% -9.9% -9.9% -10.0% -10.0% -9.9% -9.9% -10.0% 15 5.5% 4.2% 3.2% 2.3% 1.6% 0.8% 0.3% -0.4% -0.7% -1.1% -1.8% -2.8% -3.4% -3.7% -4.5% -5.3% -6.2% -6.7% -7.3% -8.0% -8.9% 14 10.7% 9.7% 9.4% 8.4% 7.5% 7.0% 6.2% 5.8% 5.3% 4.4% 3.5% 3.2% 2.4% 1.7% 1.6% 1.0% 0.8% 0.9% 0.1% -0.3% -0.7%
Number Number of barges[#] operational 13 17.6% 17.0% 16.5% 15.8% 15.2% 14.4% 13.9% 13.7% 12.9% 12.1% 11.9% 10.9% 10.2% 9.1% 8.4% 7.4% 7.0% 6.5% 5.9% 5.6% 4.9% 12 22.7% 22.3% 21.8% 21.4% 20.9% 20.3% 19.7% 19.4% 18.6% 18.2% 17.5% 17.0% 16.3% 15.7% 15.0% 14.8% 14.0% 13.5% 13.1% 12.7% 12.4% 11 27.8% 27.4% 26.8% 26.3% 26.0% 25.8% 25.2% 24.7% 24.6% 24.1% 23.9% 23.3% 22.8% 22.3% 21.9% 21.4% 21.0% 20.7% 20.2% 19.7% 19.3% 10 34.1% 33.8% 33.6% 32.8% 32.6% 32.4% 32.0% 31.7% 31.2% 30.8% 30.4% 30.0% 29.6% 29.3% 28.7% 28.6% 28.1% 27.8% 27.6% 27.1% 27.2%
Abs. Loading
714 729 744 760 776 794 812 831 850 871 893 916 940 965 992
1050 1082 1116 1152 1190 capacity [T/hr] 1020
Rel. loading
102% 104% 106% 109% 111% 114% 116% 119% 122% 125% 128% 132% 135% 139% 143% 147% 152% 156% 161% 167% capacity [-] 100%
Berth
98% 96% 94% 92% 90% 88% 86% 84% 82% 80% 78% 76% 74% 72% 70% 68% 66% 64% 62% 60% occupation [-] 100% FIGURE 12.8 RELATIVE STOCKPILE GROWTH FOR 2015 WITH TWO BERTHS PER TERMINAL
The transport cost per configuration for the scenario in 2015 with two berths per terminal is given in figure 12.9. The transport costs are calculated with respect to the efficiency of the barges and the terminals. The transport costs are the costs for transportation between the Sungai Puting stockpile and deep-sea. The transport costs don’t include costs for the deep-sea terminal. A full clarification of the transport costs is given in paragraph 7.6.
25 € 3.33 € 3.32 € 3.32 € 3.40 € 3.48 € 3.53 € 3.62 € 3.61 € 3.65 € 3.64 € 3.71 € 3.67 € 3.66 € 3.74 € 3.73 € 3.74 € 3.75 € 3.76 € 3.85 € 3.87 € 3.93 24 € 3.25 € 3.33 € 3.31 € 3.40 € 3.45 € 3.52 € 3.57 € 3.58 € 3.59 € 3.60 € 3.62 € 3.60 € 3.64 € 3.69 € 3.67 € 3.68 € 3.74 € 3.78 € 3.78 € 3.83 € 3.85 23 € 3.25 € 3.29 € 3.30 € 3.34 € 3.37 € 3.42 € 3.46 € 3.55 € 3.56 € 3.54 € 3.52 € 3.57 € 3.63 € 3.61 € 3.64 € 3.62 € 3.69 € 3.70 € 3.72 € 3.79 € 3.84 22 € 3.18 € 3.24 € 3.24 € 3.33 € 3.32 € 3.38 € 3.39 € 3.48 € 3.54 € 3.49 € 3.53 € 3.58 € 3.55 € 3.55 € 3.55 € 3.59 € 3.63 € 3.66 € 3.70 € 3.74 € 3.82 21 € 3.13 € 3.17 € 3.19 € 3.26 € 3.28 € 3.34 € 3.40 € 3.46 € 3.46 € 3.48 € 3.44 € 3.54 € 3.50 € 3.56 € 3.54 € 3.56 € 3.58 € 3.61 € 3.64 € 3.71 € 3.76 20 € 3.09 € 3.13 € 3.18 € 3.23 € 3.26 € 3.32 € 3.37 € 3.38 € 3.43 € 3.45 € 3.40 € 3.50 € 3.49 € 3.51 € 3.51 € 3.55 € 3.56 € 3.63 € 3.65 € 3.67 € 3.73 19 € 3.03 € 3.08 € 3.14 € 3.14 € 3.16 € 3.31 € 3.31 € 3.36 € 3.37 € 3.39 € 3.42 € 3.48 € 3.49 € 3.48 € 3.49 € 3.50 € 3.53 € 3.58 € 3.61 € 3.61 € 3.67 18 € 3.02 € 3.02 € 3.06 € 3.12 € 3.18 € 3.20 € 3.26 € 3.32 € 3.33 € 3.39 € 3.35 € 3.39 € 3.40 € 3.44 € 3.41 € 3.47 € 3.51 € 3.48 € 3.57 € 3.55 € 3.63 17 € 2.99 € 2.99 € 3.03 € 3.11 € 3.11 € 3.19 € 3.26 € 3.26 € 3.19 € 3.34 € 3.30 € 3.34 € 3.36 € 3.41 € 3.44 € 3.48 € 3.49 € 3.51 € 3.53 € 3.53 € 3.58 16 € 2.94 € 2.98 € 3.01 € 2.99 € 3.01 € 3.07 € 3.11 € 3.14 € 3.15 € 3.22 € 3.17 € 3.23 € 3.30 € 3.30 € 3.35 € 3.34 € 3.38 € 3.45 € 3.44 € 3.48 € 3.53 15 € 2.84 € 2.91 € 2.89 € 2.94 € 2.96 € 3.00 € 3.02 € 3.03 € 3.08 € 3.07 € 3.08 € 3.13 € 3.10 € 3.15 € 3.18 € 3.24 € 3.28 € 3.32 € 3.33 € 3.39 € 3.38 14 € 2.70 € 2.67 € 2.74 € 2.80 € 2.81 € 2.84 € 2.84 € 2.89 € 2.90 € 2.94 € 2.99 € 3.00 € 3.06 € 3.10 € 3.14 € 3.12 € 3.19 € 3.21 € 3.24 € 3.28 € 3.31
Number Number of barges[#] operational 13 € 2.58 € 2.60 € 2.63 € 2.67 € 2.68 € 2.71 € 2.73 € 2.76 € 2.78 € 2.79 € 2.83 € 2.85 € 2.89 € 2.94 € 2.97 € 3.00 € 3.02 € 3.06 € 3.07 € 3.09 € 3.14 12 € 2.46 € 2.49 € 2.51 € 2.52 € 2.55 € 2.56 € 2.59 € 2.61 € 2.64 € 2.65 € 2.68 € 2.70 € 2.74 € 2.77 € 2.79 € 2.81 € 2.85 € 2.88 € 2.91 € 2.95 € 2.98 11 € 2.32 € 2.35 € 2.37 € 2.37 € 2.40 € 2.40 € 2.44 € 2.45 € 2.48 € 2.49 € 2.52 € 2.53 € 2.57 € 2.59 € 2.63 € 2.64 € 2.66 € 2.70 € 2.74 € 2.78 € 2.80 10 € 2.16 € 2.17 € 2.19 € 2.22 € 2.23 € 2.25 € 2.27 € 2.29 € 2.30 € 2.33 € 2.36 € 2.36 € 2.40 € 2.42 € 2.45 € 2.47 € 2.50 € 2.52 € 2.55 € 2.57 € 2.61
Abs. Loading
714 729 744 760 776 794 812 831 850 871 893 916 940 965 992
1050 1082 1116 1152 1190 capacity [T/hr] 1020
Rel. loading
102% 104% 106% 109% 111% 114% 116% 119% 122% 125% 128% 132% 135% 139% 143% 147% 152% 156% 161% 167% capacity [-] 100%
Berth
98% 96% 94% 92% 90% 88% 86% 84% 82% 80% 78% 76% 74% 72% 70% 68% 66% 64% 62% 60% occupation [-] 100%
FIGURE 12.9 TRANSPORT COSTS FOR 2015 WITH TWO BERTHS PER TERMINAL
Page 162 of 196 Chair of Ports & Waterways Alternative B, Offshore deep-sea terminal
€ 3.45 € 3.40
€ 3.35 /T] € € 3.30 € 3.25 € 3.20 € 3.15 € 3.10
Transport costs per ton [ ton per costs Transport € 3.05 € 3.00 Transport costs € 2.95 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Number of operational barges [#]
FIGURE 12.10 REQUIRED NUMBER OF BARGES AGAINST THE TRANSPORT COSTS (2015 WITH TWO BERTHS)
€ 3.45 € 3.40
€ 3.35 /T] € € 3.30 € 3.25 € 3.20 € 3.15 € 3.10
Transport costs per ton [ ton per costs Transport € 3.05
€ 3.00 Transport costs € 2.95 700 750 800 850 900 950 1000 1050 1100 1150 1200 Loading capacity per berth [T/hr]
FIGURE 12.11 (UN)LOADING CAPACITY AGAINST THE TRANSPORT COSTS (2015 WITH TWO BERTHS)
The optimum barge transport configuration can be determine according to the graphs in figure 12.10 and figure 12.11. The graph show the transport costs at the border at which the stockpile growth is just stable. At these configurations exactly 10 million ton per year is transported. From the graphs, the optimum barge transport configuration can be determined.
The three most efficient barge transport configurations for a throughput of 10 million ton per year with two loading berths in Sungai Puting and two unloading berths at deep-sea.
1. 16 barges operational and a total loading capacity of the terminals of 760 T/hr 2. 16 barges operational and a total loading capacity of the terminals of 776 T/hr 3. 15 barges operational and a total loading capacity of the terminals of 831 T/hr
December 2011 Page 163 of 196 FEASIBLITY STUDY COAL TRANSPORT KALIMANTAN
12.3.3 OPTIMAL TRANSPORT CONFIGURATION FOR 2017
The relative stockpile growth determines if the transport system is stable and if it is able to transport the required throughput capacity of 15 million ton per year. For the scenario in 2017 with three berths per terminal, the relative stockpile growth is given in figure 12.12. It can be seen that a minimum number of 21 and a maximum of 24 barges is required to transport the required throughput capacity efficiently.
35 4.2% 2.3% 0.4% -1.6% -3.8% -5.9% -8.2% -10.0% -10.0% -9.9% -10.0% -10.0% -10.0% -10.0% -10.0% -10.0% -10.0% -10.0% -10.0% -10.0% -10.0% 34 4.1% 2.3% 0.4% -1.6% -3.7% -5.9% -8.2% -10.0% -10.0% -10.0% -10.0% -10.0% -9.9% -10.0% -10.0% -10.0% -9.9% -10.0% -10.0% -10.0% -10.0% 33 4.2% 2.3% 0.4% -1.7% -3.7% -5.9% -8.2% -9.9% -10.0% -10.0% -9.9% -10.0% -10.0% -10.0% -10.0% -10.0% -10.0% -9.9% -10.0% -10.0% -10.0% 32 4.2% 2.3% 0.4% -1.7% -3.8% -6.0% -8.2% -10.0% -10.0% -10.0% -9.9% -10.0% -10.0% -10.0% -10.0% -10.0% -9.9% -10.0% -10.0% -10.0% -10.0% 31 4.2% 2.3% 0.4% -1.6% -3.7% -5.9% -8.2% -10.0% -10.0% -10.0% -10.0% -10.0% -10.0% -10.0% -10.0% -9.9% -10.0% -10.0% -10.0% -10.0% -10.0% 30 4.2% 2.3% 0.4% -1.7% -3.7% -5.9% -8.3% -10.0% -10.0% -10.0% -9.9% -10.0% -10.0% -10.0% -10.0% -10.0% -9.9% -10.0% -10.0% -10.0% -10.0% 29 4.2% 2.3% 0.4% -1.6% -3.7% -5.9% -8.2% -10.0% -10.0% -10.0% -10.0% -10.0% -10.0% -9.9% -10.0% -10.0% -10.0% -10.0% -10.0% -10.0% -10.0% 28 4.2% 2.3% 0.4% -1.6% -3.7% -6.0% -8.2% -10.0% -10.0% -10.0% -10.0% -10.0% -10.0% -10.0% -10.0% -9.9% -10.0% -10.0% -10.0% -10.0% -10.0% 27 4.2% 2.3% 0.4% -1.7% -3.7% -5.9% -8.2% -10.0% -10.0% -10.0% -10.0% -10.0% -10.0% -10.0% -10.0% -9.9% -10.0% -10.0% -9.9% -10.0% -10.0% 26 4.2% 2.3% 0.4% -1.6% -3.7% -5.9% -8.2% -10.0% -10.0% -10.0% -10.0% -10.0% -10.0% -10.0% -10.0% -10.0% -10.0% -10.0% -10.0% -10.0% -10.0% 25 4.2% 2.4% 0.4% -1.7% -3.7% -5.8% -7.9% -9.7% -10.0% -10.0% -10.0% -10.0% -10.0% -10.0% -10.0% -10.0% -10.0% -10.0% -10.0% -9.9% -10.0% 24 4.2% 2.4% 0.4% -1.3% -2.9% -4.2% -5.5% -6.4% -7.2% -8.4% -9.2% -10.0% -10.0% -10.0% -10.0% -10.0% -10.0% -10.0% -10.0% -10.0% -10.0%
Number Number of barges[#] operational 23 4.6% 3.0% 1.7% 0.5% -0.4% -1.3% -2.0% -2.9% -3.6% -4.5% -4.9% -5.6% -6.3% -7.3% -8.0% -8.9% -9.4% -10.0% -10.0% -10.0% -10.0% 22 6.3% 5.4% 4.5% 3.7% 2.9% 2.1% 1.5% 0.7% 0.2% -0.3% -0.9% -1.3% -2.1% -3.0% -3.5% -4.3% -4.8% -5.7% -5.9% -6.8% -7.3% 21 9.8% 9.0% 8.2% 7.6% 7.0% 6.3% 5.7% 5.0% 4.6% 3.9% 3.2% 2.7% 1.9% 1.4% 1.0% 0.4% -0.4% -0.7% -1.8% -1.8% -2.0% 20 13.4% 12.8% 11.9% 11.5% 10.9% 10.5% 9.9% 9.4% 8.9% 8.3% 7.9% 7.3% 6.8% 6.2% 5.6% 4.6% 4.6% 4.2% 3.3% 2.9% 2.3%
Abs. Loading
714 729 744 760 776 794 812 831 850 871 893 916 940 965 992
1050 1082 1116 1152 1190 capacity [T/hr] 1020
Rel. loading
102% 104% 106% 109% 111% 114% 116% 119% 122% 125% 128% 132% 135% 139% 143% 147% 152% 156% 161% 167% capacity [-] 100%
Berth
98% 96% 94% 92% 90% 88% 86% 84% 82% 80% 78% 76% 74% 72% 70% 68% 66% 64% 62% 60% occupation [-] 100% FIGURE 12.12 RELATIVE STOCKPILE GROWTH FOR 2017 WITH FOUR BERTHS PER TERMINAL
The transport cost per configuration for the scenario in 2017 with three berths per terminal is given in figure 12.13. The transport costs are calculated with respect to the efficiency of the barges and the terminals. The transport costs are the costs for transportation between the Sungai Puting stockpile and deep-sea. The transport costs don’t include costs for the deep-sea terminal. A full clarification of the transport costs is given in paragraph 7.6.
35 € 3.18 € 3.24 € 3.31 € 3.35 € 3.38 € 3.43 € 3.49 € 3.52 € 3.51 € 3.55 € 3.58 € 3.58 € 3.61 € 3.63 € 3.65 € 3.68 € 3.69 € 3.73 € 3.73 € 3.79 € 3.84 34 € 3.14 € 3.22 € 3.24 € 3.29 € 3.33 € 3.36 € 3.45 € 3.50 € 3.54 € 3.52 € 3.57 € 3.59 € 3.60 € 3.61 € 3.62 € 3.64 € 3.70 € 3.71 € 3.73 € 3.77 € 3.81 33 € 3.12 € 3.21 € 3.28 € 3.24 € 3.29 € 3.38 € 3.41 € 3.47 € 3.47 € 3.50 € 3.51 € 3.54 € 3.55 € 3.55 € 3.59 € 3.63 € 3.66 € 3.69 € 3.70 € 3.74 € 3.78 32 € 3.12 € 3.14 € 3.20 € 3.23 € 3.29 € 3.33 € 3.38 € 3.43 € 3.44 € 3.45 € 3.50 € 3.53 € 3.50 € 3.53 € 3.58 € 3.59 € 3.60 € 3.65 € 3.65 € 3.72 € 3.74 31 € 3.09 € 3.15 € 3.18 € 3.25 € 3.24 € 3.31 € 3.35 € 3.40 € 3.42 € 3.44 € 3.47 € 3.51 € 3.53 € 3.51 € 3.52 € 3.57 € 3.59 € 3.58 € 3.64 € 3.68 € 3.71 30 € 3.05 € 3.07 € 3.12 € 3.19 € 3.21 € 3.29 € 3.28 € 3.38 € 3.37 € 3.38 € 3.43 € 3.47 € 3.50 € 3.51 € 3.49 € 3.54 € 3.56 € 3.60 € 3.63 € 3.66 € 3.71 29 € 3.06 € 3.11 € 3.10 € 3.12 € 3.16 € 3.26 € 3.28 € 3.32 € 3.37 € 3.38 € 3.43 € 3.42 € 3.45 € 3.49 € 3.46 € 3.48 € 3.56 € 3.55 € 3.60 € 3.65 € 3.66 28 € 3.00 € 3.05 € 3.08 € 3.11 € 3.20 € 3.23 € 3.28 € 3.32 € 3.32 € 3.35 € 3.37 € 3.41 € 3.40 € 3.47 € 3.47 € 3.49 € 3.52 € 3.55 € 3.58 € 3.61 € 3.65 27 € 2.99 € 3.00 € 3.04 € 3.09 € 3.13 € 3.21 € 3.24 € 3.24 € 3.30 € 3.31 € 3.35 € 3.37 € 3.37 € 3.44 € 3.43 € 3.46 € 3.52 € 3.52 € 3.55 € 3.61 € 3.64 26 € 2.96 € 2.97 € 3.04 € 3.07 € 3.09 € 3.13 € 3.18 € 3.22 € 3.26 € 3.30 € 3.32 € 3.35 € 3.39 € 3.42 € 3.45 € 3.45 € 3.48 € 3.51 € 3.52 € 3.59 € 3.60 25 € 2.92 € 2.96 € 3.03 € 3.04 € 3.11 € 3.11 € 3.13 € 3.20 € 3.25 € 3.27 € 3.27 € 3.35 € 3.32 € 3.37 € 3.39 € 3.45 € 3.50 € 3.50 € 3.52 € 3.55 € 3.59 24 € 2.89 € 2.89 € 3.00 € 2.98 € 3.02 € 3.08 € 3.12 € 3.18 € 3.22 € 3.23 € 3.27 € 3.30 € 3.33 € 3.34 € 3.37 € 3.40 € 3.44 € 3.45 € 3.50 € 3.52 € 3.54
Number Number of barges[#] operational 23 € 2.84 € 2.86 € 2.87 € 2.93 € 2.96 € 3.01 € 3.05 € 3.07 € 3.13 € 3.18 € 3.19 € 3.23 € 3.26 € 3.31 € 3.32 € 3.35 € 3.40 € 3.44 € 3.48 € 3.47 € 3.52 22 € 2.78 € 2.84 € 2.86 € 2.90 € 2.90 € 2.91 € 2.98 € 3.02 € 3.01 € 3.04 € 3.09 € 3.10 € 3.14 € 3.16 € 3.19 € 3.25 € 3.28 € 3.32 € 3.34 € 3.39 € 3.45 21 € 2.73 € 2.75 € 2.79 € 2.82 € 2.84 € 2.86 € 2.92 € 2.92 € 2.96 € 2.98 € 2.98 € 3.01 € 3.06 € 3.08 € 3.09 € 3.15 € 3.16 € 3.20 € 3.23 € 3.27 € 3.31 20 € 2.66 € 2.66 € 2.69 € 2.71 € 2.74 € 2.77 € 2.80 € 2.82 € 2.85 € 2.87 € 2.89 € 2.93 € 2.96 € 3.00 € 3.02 € 3.06 € 3.07 € 3.09 € 3.14 € 3.16 € 3.21
Abs. Loading
714 729 744 760 776 794 812 831 850 871 893 916 940 965 992
1050 1082 1116 1152 1190 capacity [T/hr] 1020
Rel. loading
102% 104% 106% 109% 111% 114% 116% 119% 122% 125% 128% 132% 135% 139% 143% 147% 152% 156% 161% 167% capacity [-] 100%
Berth
98% 96% 94% 92% 90% 88% 86% 84% 82% 80% 78% 76% 74% 72% 70% 68% 66% 64% 62% 60% occupation [-] 100%
FIGURE 12.13 TRANSPORT COSTS FOR 2017 WITH FOUR BERTHS PER TERMINAL
Page 164 of 196 Chair of Ports & Waterways Alternative B, Offshore deep-sea terminal
€ 3.40 € 3.35
€ 3.30 /T] € € 3.25 € 3.20 € 3.15 € 3.10 € 3.05
Transport costs per ton [ ton per costs Transport € 3.00
€ 2.95 Transport costs € 2.90 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 Number of operational barges [#]
FIGURE 12.14 REQUIRED NUMBER OF BARGES AGAINST THE TRANSPORT COSTS (2017 WITH FOUR BERTHS)
€ 3.40 € 3.35
€ 3.30 /T] € € 3.25 € 3.20 € 3.15 € 3.10 € 3.05
Transport costs per ton [ ton per costs Transport € 3.00
€ 2.95 Transport costs € 2.90 700 750 800 850 900 950 1000 1050 1100 1150 1200 Loading capacity per berth [T/hr]
FIGURE 12.15 (UN)LOADING CAPACITY AGAINST THE TRANSPORT COSTS (2017 WITH FOUR BERTHS)
The optimum barge transport configuration can be determine according to the graphs at figure 12.14 and figure 12.15. The graph show the transport costs at the border at which the stockpile growth is just stable. At these configurations exact 15 million ton per year is transported. From the graphs, the optimum barge transport configuration can be determined.
The three most efficient barge transport configurations for a throughput of 15 million ton per year with three loading berths in Sungai Puting and three unloading berths in deep-sea.
1. 23 barges operational and a total loading capacity of the terminals of 776 T/hr 2. 24 barges operational and a total loading capacity of the terminals of 760 T/hr 3. 23 barges operational and a total loading capacity of the terminals of 794 T/hr
December 2011 Page 165 of 196 FEASIBLITY STUDY COAL TRANSPORT KALIMANTAN
12.4 DESIGN PLAN
A design plan for the future is made concerning the development of the terminals at Sungai Puting and deep-sea. In the paragraphs 12.3.1 till 12.3.3 the most efficient transport configurations are determined for the year 2013, 2015 and 2017. In this paragraph the most efficient configurations are connected to each other and a plan is made how to develop the terminals at Sungai Puting and deep-sea, concerning the 390ft barge transport.
In this paragraph the results from the simulation model are analysed. The most efficient transport configurations for every year are given in table 12.2.
Year Number of berth per Number of barges Effective Loading/ Total transport costs terminal required unloading capacity per ton from LB to SP 2013 1 berth 8 barges 760 T/hr €3.12 /T 2015 2 berths 16 barges 760 T/hr €2.99 /T 2017 3 berths 23 barges 776 T/hr €2.96 /T TABLE 12.2 THREE MOST EFFICIENT TRANSPORT CONFIGURATIONS PER RUN
The three most feasible transport configurations from financial point of view does exactly match with each other. The three loading capacities are almost equal for every year. A trivial design plan is written.
The operation starts in 2013 with one operational berths with 760 T/hr efficient loading capacity at Sungai Puting and deep-sea. Every two year a new berth per terminal have to be constructed with an effective loading and unloading capacity of 760 T/hr. In 2017 three berths per terminal have to be operational. The amount of operational barges have to be increased from 8 in 2013 till 24 in 2017.
The transport costs from the Sungai Puting stockpile till deep-sea increase from €3.12/T in 2013 till €2.96/T in 2017. The transport concern include only the transport from the Sungai Puting stockpile till the deep-sea loading conveyor. The costs for the deep-sea terminal are not included into the total costs. A graph with the development of the transport costs is presented in figure 12.17
Year Sungai Puting terminal Deep-sea unloading terminal Number of Loading capacity Number of Number of berths Loading capacity berth 180ft barges 2013 1 berth 760 T/hr 8 barges 1 berth 760 T/hr 2015 2 berths 760 T/hr 16 barges 2 berths 760 T/hr 2017 3 berths 760 T/hr 24 barges 3 berths 760 T/hr TABLE 12.3 DESIGN PLAN FOR THE YEARS 2013 TILL 2017
25
20
15
10
Required number of barges Number of barges [#] barges of Number 5
0 2013 2013.5 2014 2014.5 2015 2015.5 2016 2016.5 2017 Year
FIGURE 12.16 REQUIRED NUMBER OF BARGES FOR TRANSHIPMENT WITH DEEP-SEA TERMINAL
Page 166 of 196 Chair of Ports & Waterways Alternative B, Offshore deep-sea terminal
€ 3.50 € 3.40 € 3.30 Transport costs
/T] € 3.20 € € 3.10 € 3.00 € 2.90
€ 2.80 Transport costs [ costs Transport € 2.70 € 2.60 € 2.50 2013 2013.5 2014 2014.5 2015 2015.5 2016 2016.5 2017 Year
FIGURE 12.17 TRANSPORT COSTS FROM SUNGAI PUTING STOCKPILE TILL DEEP-SEA UNLOADING BERTH
12.5 CONCLUSIONS
The transportation with deep-sea terminal at the mouth of the river Barito is an interesting alternative on the current transport system. The alternative is attractive because the barges do not have to wait for the availability of a coal carrier at the anchorage. Other way around, the coal carriers don’t have to wait for the barges to be loaded. However the loading capacity of the floating cranes is higher and the amount of coal carriers increases when the transport capacity of the barges decrease. In this way the cycle time of barges do not increase significantly if there is not a stockpile available.
The presence of a deep-sea terminal only increases the efficiency of the transport system in the first few years when relative less coal is transported per year. In these years there are less coal carriers at the anchorage and the barges have to wait longer to be unloaded. But when the throughput capacity increases more coal carriers are at the anchorage and the barges do not have to wait so much for the coal carriers. In these year a deep-sea terminal do not increase the efficiency of the transport system.
The reliability however does increase with a deep-sea terminal near Barjarmasin. A stockpile at deep-sea can function as a shock absorber for changes in the requested throughput capacity. A delay in the transport system between Sungai Puting and deep-sea does not directly influence the loading operation of the coal carrier.
December 2011 Page 167 of 196 FEASIBLITY STUDY COAL TRANSPORT KALIMANTAN
13 MULTI CRITERIA ANALYSIS
In Appendix C the alternatives transport systems from chapter 8 till 12 are evaluated according to a number of criteria. A distinction is made between the alternatives before Sungai Putting and behind Sungai Putting. Six main criteria are formulated, which determine the technical and financial feasibility of the alternatives.
The six criteria to evaluate the technical and financial feasibility of the alternatives are: Feasibility of constructing and operating the transport system Reliability of the transport system Flexibility of the transport system Financial feasibility Environmental impact Economic and social impact
In this paragraph the conclusion from the multi criteria analyses in appendix C are summarized in a two tables. In paragraph 13.1 the alternatives between Lok Buntar and Sungai Puting and in paragraph 13.2 the alternatives between Sungai Puting and deep-sea.
The assessment of the different criteria is indicated with five different signs from - - to ++. The criteria evaluated in this MCA, are formulated in different kind of effects. Six different effects can be distinguished.
The impact of the transport system The benefits of the transport system The influence of the transport system The hindrance of the transport system The ability of the transport system Change of occurrence of a failure
All the criteria can be categorized in the kind of effects the transport system have. The different effects all have a different meaning concerned the signs used in the MCA. The meaning are summarized in Table 13.1.
Impact Benefits Influence Hindrance Ability Change - - Bad bad influence large hindrance not able Low - Little No little influence little hindrance hardly able - + Neutral Moderate + Good Little no influent no hindrance able + + Excellent Much very well able High TABLE 13.1 DEFENITIONS OF THE SIGNS USED FOR THE MCA
Page 168 of 196 Chair of Ports & Waterways Multi Criteria Analysis
13.1 ALTERNATIVES BETWEEN LOK BUNTAR AND SUNGAI PUTING
In table 13.1 the conclusions from the multi criteria analyse are summarized concerning the alternatives between
Lok Buntar and Sungai Puting. The full evaluation of the different alternative is given in appendix B.
between
between
between between Sungai Puting Sungai
Transport systems between the mine area and Sungai Puting terminal
and Sungai Puting Sungai and
Barge transport Barge and Buntar Lok transport Hydraulic Puting Sungai and Buntar Lok Conveyor transport Buntar Lok Alternative number 1.1 2.1 3.1 1 Feasibility of construction and operating of the transport system 1.1 Availability of the construction parts nearby. ++ - - - 1.2 Availability of particular technical knowledge for construction. + - - - 1.3 Availability of specific knowledge for operation and maintenance ++ - - +
2 Reliability of the transport system 2.1 Security of throughput capacity ++ + + 2.2 Chance of a large congestion ++ - - - 2.3 Ability of overcapacity for a short period of time - + +
3 Flexibility of the transport system 3.1 Ability to change transport route + ++ - - 3.2 Ability to change throughput capacity - + +
4 Financial feasibility 4.1 Total transport cost from Lok Buntar to Sungai Puting + - ++ 4.1 Percentage of capital costs + - - - 4.2 Percentage operational cost - + ++ 4.3 Influence of increase of the fuel price - - - + 4.4 Influence of increase of the commodities (steel and rubber) + - - - -
5 Environmental impact 5.1 Influence on the surface water - - - + 5.2 Influence from coal dust - + - 5.3 Influence form noise + + - 5.4 Influence on air quality - + +
6 Economic benefits 6.1 Employment of local community ++ - - 6.2 Improve of foreign investments - ++ + 6.3 Economic benefits for local community ++ - +
7 Social impact 7.1 Noise hindrance - + - 7.2 Hindrance for traffic + + - - 7.3 Hindrance from coal dust - + -
Overall judgement ++ - + TABLE 13.1 MCA FOR THE ALTERNATIVES BETWEEN LOK BUNTAR ANS SUNGAI PUTTING
December 2011 Page 169 of 196 FEASIBLITY STUDY COAL TRANSPORT KALIMANTAN
13.2 ALTERNATIVES BETWEEN SUNGAI PUTING AND DEEP-SEA
In table 13.2 the conclusions from the multi criteria analyse are summarized concerning the alternatives between
Sungai Puting and deep-sea. The full evaluation of the different alternatives is given in paragraph appendix B.
sea sea
- -
at deep at deep at
Transport systems between the Sungai Puting terminal an offshore
sea terminal sea
-
a deep a
Transhipment cranes by floating Transhipment via Alternative number A B 1 Technical feasibility 1.1 Availability of the construction parts nearby. ++ + 1.2 The availability of particular technical knowledge + - 1.3 Specific knowledge for operation and maintenance + -
2 Reliability of the transport system 2.1 Security of throughput capacity - ++ 2.2 Chance of a large congestion - ++ 2.3 Ability of overcapacity for a short period of time - +
3 Flexibility of the transport system 3.1 Ability to change transport route - - - 3.2 Ability to change throughput capacity - +
4 Financial feasibility 4.1 Total transport costs from Sungai Puting to the coal carrier + - - 4.2 Capital costs ++ - - 4.3 Operational cost - + 4.4 Influence of increase of the fuel price - + 4.5 Influence of increase of the commodities (steel and rubber) - +
5 Economic benefits 5.1 Employment of local community ++ + 5.2 Improve of foreign investments - + 5.3 Economic benefits for local community - +
Overall judgement + - TABLE 13.2 MCA FOR THE ALTERNATIVES BETWEEN SUNGAI PUTING AND DEEP-SEA
Page 170 of 196 Chair of Ports & Waterways Conclusions
14 CONCLUSIONS
In this chapter the conclusions from this master thesis are described. In paragraph 14.1 the conclusions of the investigation of the transport system between Lok Buntar and Sungai Puting are described. In paragraph 14.2 the conclusions of the investigation of the transport system between Sungai Puting and deep-sea are described. Conclusion about the calculation methods concerning barge transport are described in paragraph 14.3.
14.1 ALTERNATIVES BETWEEN LOK BUNTAR AND SUNGAI PUTING
14.1.1 BARGE TRANSPORT
The barge transport system between Lok Buntar and Sungai Puting is simulated with the use of a simulation model. The model is particular made for the transport system at South Kalimantan and give accurate result on the technical feasibility of the transport system.
Strong point concerning barge transport are. Transport by barge is most reliable concerning the security of throughput. Transport by barge has positive influence on the local employment and economy. Capital costs for barge transport are relative low.
Weak points concerning barge transport are. Barge transport is dependent on the water level of the river system and thereby on the dry-season. Transport by barge is not flexible with respect to the transport capacity. The operational costs are relative high.
Sufficient maintenance dredging can decrease the change of low water level at the Sungai Mati and Sungai Puting river. Good maintenance on the barges and the terminals can decrease the change of failure of the transport system due to broken equipment. With sufficient spare parts at the terminals the down-time of the loading conveyors can be decreased to minimum.
The transport configuration with the lowest transport costs is determined with the use of the simulation model. The costs for barge transport are mainly determined by the capital costs of the terminals and the operation costs of the barges. The transport costs are determined according to the number of barges and the loading capacity.
14.1.2 HYDRAULIC COAL TRANSPORT
Hydraulic transportation of coal is an unconventional transport mode. The friction head can be estimated according to empirical formulas from the dredging industry. From analysis, the Jufin Lopatin formula seem to be most accurate to determine the friction head for transporting a coal-water mixture. However, more research on this topic is required.
To keep the discharge of the hydraulic system more or less equal in time, it is decided to increase the number of operational day per from three till six days per week. In 2013 the operation start with three operational days per week and grow till 2017, when the hydraulic system will be fully operational.
Strong points from hydraulic transport between Lok Buntar and Sungai Puting are; Hydraulic transport is most flexible concerning the location and throughput capacity Hydraulic transport does not give the less hindrance form coal dust and noise Constructing a hydraulic system will increase the foreign investments.
Weak point from hydraulic transport between Lok Buntar and Sungai Puting are; Power demand of the hydraulic system is relative high. A solution have to be found to separate the coal from the water content at the end of the system. A hydraulic system will barely provide local employment.
December 2011 Page 171 of 196 FEASIBLITY STUDY COAL TRANSPORT KALIMANTAN
Hydraulic transport is the most expansive transport mode in comparison with barge transport and conveyor belt transport. The costs of hydraulic transportation of coal are mainly determined by the costs for power supply. This is very unfavourable because the fuel price is probably going to increase in future. Also the capital costs are relative high.
14.1.3 CONVEYOR BELT TRANSPORT
A detailed design of a conveyor belt between Lok Buntar and Sungai Puting is made by a consultancy company called Laing O’Rourke. The main figures from this design report are taken to compare with the other alternatives.
Strong points of a conveyor belt transport are; Conveyor belt transport is the cheapest transport mode in comparison with barge transport and hydraulic transport. Operational costs are low, mainly due to the low power consumption of conveyor belt transport. The flexibility in throughput capacity of the conveyor belt is relative high.
Weak points of the conveyor belt are; The capital costs for the conveyor belt are relative high. The structure of a conveyor belt is not flexible in location and sensitive for settling. A conveyor belt hinders the local traffic.
The costs of a conveyor belt are low in comparison with barge transport and hydraulic transport. In particular the operational costs are low, due to the low power consumption of the conveyor belt. This is of big advantage, since the costs for fuel are probably going to increase the next couple of years. The capital costs of a conveyor belt are relative high, because of the earth works and the structural works.
14.2 ALTERNATIVES BETWEEN SUNGAI PUTING AND DEEP-SEA
14.2.1 TRANSHIPMENT VIA FLOATING CRANES
Currently the transhipment at deep-sea is done by floating cranes. The transport system with transhipment by floating cranes deep-sea is simulated with the simulation model.
The transport system with floating cranes are venerable for delays, due to the absence of a stockpile at the end of the transport chain. Any delay in barge transport from Sungai Puting will directly lead in a delay in transhipment at the anchorage. The most efficient amount of barge is determined by the relative costs for the terminal, barges and waiting costs of the coal carrier.
Strong points of transshipment by floating cranes at the anchorage are; Transhipment with floating cranes is direct and reduces the handling time to a minimum. Transhipment with floating cranes is flexible and not fixed to a location. If the coal carriers have a large draft, transhipment can be relocated to deeper water and vice versa. Transhipment with floating cranes is cheaper
Weak points of transshipment by floating cranes at the anchorage are; Transhipment without a stockpile access at deep-sea is less reliable. Delay in the last face of the transport system will direct lead to delay in transhipment at deep-sea. Transhipment with floating cranes does increase the waiting time of the coal carriers as well as for the barges Transhipment with floating cranes is vulnerable for weather delay.
Page 172 of 196 Chair of Ports & Waterways Conclusions
The cost for transhipment by floating cranes is relative low. The coal only have to be handled once and the transport method is relative efficient due to the high loading capacities of the floating cranes.
14.2.2 TRANSHIPMENT VIA DEEP-SEA TERMINAL
The transhipment via a deep-sea terminal is simulated with the simulation model. An alternative model structure is programmed and inserted into the simulation model. The transport system is similar with the transport system between Lok Buntar and Sungai Puting. Both barge transport systems are between two terminals.
Strong points of a deep-sea terminal at the mouth of the river Barito are: A deep-sea terminal reduces the waiting time of the barges and the coal carries to a minimum. The transport system with an extra stockpile access at deep-sea is much more reliable. The coal carries can always be loaded from the stockpile. A deep-sea terminal is less vulnerable for weather delay.
Weak points of a deep-sea terminal at the mouth of the river Barito are: The capital costs for the construction of a deep-sea terminal are high The handling at a deep-sea terminal will increase because first the barges have to be unloaded and second the coal carriers have to be loaded A deep-sea terminal is fixed to the location and can’t be relocated to deep water, this in contrast with floating cranes.
The costs for barge transport between Sungai Puting and deep-sea terminal is calculated from the Sungai Puting terminal till the unloading conveyor. The costs for the deep-terminal have not been calculated. The cost for the barges and the terminal at Sungai Puting are very comparable with the alternative with floating cranes at deep- sea. A deep-sea terminal does not have much influence on the efficiency of the transport system. Therefore a deep-sea terminal is most likely not feasible from a financial point of view.
14.3 CONCLUSIONS CONCERNED THE CALCULATION METHODS
In this thesis a number of calculation methods have been used to determine the technical feasibility of the barge transport system. The different calculation methods are:
Calculation of the waiting time and the required number of barges with the queuing theory Optimization of the transport configuration with the simulation model Optimization of the transport system with the mathematical model
The first analysis of the transport system is done with the queuing theory. The theory is applicable to calculate the average waiting time of the barges before they are loaded and unloaded at the terminal. The theory is based on the assumption that the waiting time is direct related to the distribution of the inter arrival time of the barges. The theory is good to get insight in the parameters which have influence on the efficiency of the transport system.
However, the queuing theory cannot calculate the transport system as one system. A delay somewhere in the transport system has influence on both terminals at the same time. The queuing theory cannot calculate the influence of this dependency of the two terminals. Another large disadvantage is the limited number of distributions which can be implemented in the theory. A numerical calculation with a Monte Carlo simulation could be a solution for this.
The simulation model can be used to calculate the exact properties of the transport system. Every kind of dependency can be included into the model and the analysis is very accurate. It can be concluded that the simulation model can simulates all aspects from the real transport system. The disadvantage of the simulation model is that building the simulation model is relative laborious. Especially if it’s concerned a complex transport system with a lot of delay mechanisms, like congestions and limitations in capacity of the barges.
December 2011 Page 173 of 196 FEASIBLITY STUDY COAL TRANSPORT KALIMANTAN
The outcomes of the simulation model have been investigated and from the results a mathematical model is made. It’s a relative simple model, which can be programmed in a simple excel-sheet. The advantage of this model is that it directly visualize the extreme limits of the transportation system. The minimum number of barges is calculated with respect to the loading capacity. Also the minimum loading capacity can be calculated with the model.
An empirical formula is added to the model, which shows the effect on the required number of barges, if the transport system is not fully regular. Research is recommended on further development of this empirical formula. The empirical parameter called the regularity coefficient could be estimated with a Monte Carlo analyse of the queuing theory.
To put it in a nutshell, the queuing theory helped me a lot to get insight into the behaviour of the system but didn’t gave me the results I was looking for. The simulation model costs me some laborious hours of programming, but gave me very useful and accurate results on efficiency of the transport system. Finally the mathematical model, based on the results of the simulation model, is probably the best method to get the required information you need to design a transport system like this. Research on the empirical coefficient could optimise this model.
Page 174 of 196 Chair of Ports & Waterways Recommendations to develop the transport system
15 RECOMMENDATIONS TO DEVELOP THE TRANSPORT SYSTEM
In this chapter the recommendations to Baramulti Sungih Sentosa are formulated, concerning the upgrade of the transport system between Lok Buntar and deep-sea. The recommendations are grounded in the conclusion of the project.
Recommendation for the transport system between Lok Buntar and Sungai Puting
Invest in barge transport between Lok Buntar and Sungai Puting. o Deepen the Sungai Puting channel and the Sungai Mati river to prevent the barges being limited in capacity during dry season. o Invest in good maintenance of the barges and the tugs to prevent congestion of the river system due to broken tug boats or sunken/broken barges. o Invest in the terminals in such way, that the handling time of coal is limited to a minimum. A conveyor belt system at the terminal could be a solution o Limit the time between the barges being loaded or unloaded at the terminal to a minimum. This will directly increase the efficiency of the terminals. o Stimulate the regularity of the sailing barges. A more regular barge transport system, prevents the barges from waiting at the terminals. o An optimum transport configuration have to be found with respect to the barge and terminal costs. This can be done with the use of the simulation model. Do not invest in hydraulic coal transport between Lok Buntar and Sungai Puting o The total transport costs are too high. In particular the power costs are relative high. o The coal have to be separated from the water at the end of the transport system. A good solution is probably costly o Hydraulic transportation of coal has more potential when coal is pulverized or when more parts of the transport chain are hydraulic, like hydraulic mining or hydraulic bulk transport. Investing in a conveyor belt between Lok Buntar and Sungai Puting could be a good alternative next to barge transport. o If the transport system is in use for a long period of time, conveyor belt transport could be a good alternative next to the barge transport system. o The two transport modes are fully independent. This would make the transport system very resistant against down-time. o Conveyor belt transport is the cheapest transport mode in comparison with barge transport and hydraulic transport of coal.
Recommendations for the transport system between Sungai Puting and deep-sea are.
Invest in the transhipment at the anchorage by floating cranes o Invest in a sufficient amount of 390ft barges. Much delay in transhipment of the coal- carriers has to be prevented. o An optimum transport configuration has to be found concerning, barge costs, terminal costs and costs for the coal-carrier at the anchorage. This can be done with the use of the simulation model. Don’t invest in a deep-sea terminal near Banjarmasin. o The capital cost for constructing a deep sea terminal are very high. o A deep-sea terminal decreases the flexibility of the transport system. The location of the terminal is fixed.
December 2011 Page 175 of 196 FEASIBLITY STUDY COAL TRANSPORT KALIMANTAN
REFERENCES
Literature Nr. Reference [1] R. Elling, B. Andeweg, J. de Jong, C. Swankhuisen. Raportage-techniek. 3e druk Groningen: Wolters Noordhoff [2] B. Abulnaga. Slurry systems handbook McGraw-Hill handbooks [3] Many. Voortgezette Opleiding Uitvoering Baggerwerken VBKO [4] Dr. ir. V. Matoušek. Dredge Pumps and Slurry Transport Lecture notes OE4625 [5] R.N.Bray, A.D. Bates, J.M.Land. Dredging, a handbook for engineers Arnold [6] J. de D. Ortúzar, L.G.Willumsen. Modelling transport Wiley [7] B.S Blanchard. Logistics Engineering and management Pearson Education [8] J.F.Shortle, J.M.Thompson, C.M.Harris. Fundamentals of queuing theory Wiley [9] P.H.L.Bovy, M.C.J.Bliemer, van Nes. Transport Modelling Lecture notes CT 4801 [10] F.M.Dekker, C.Kraaikamp, H.P.Lopuhaä. A modern introduction to probability and statistics Springer Papers and articles Nr. Reference [11] R.Bosch, J.van der Caats. Wachttijdtheorie Lecture notes KMA Breda [12] V.J. de Jong. Coastal coal transport study Master Thesis TU Delft [13] C.B.Cox. Comparing the Studies of a Coal Slurry Pipeline Virginia Water Resources Research Center [14] I.Angus. An Introduction to Erlang B and Erlang C Tel management [15] M.Handry, Gt. Khairuddin. The impact of coal mining on the environment of South Kalimantan Province, Indonesia Economy and Environment Program for Southeast Asia [16] N.T.Thomopoulos. The Queuing Theory of the Erlang Distributed Interarrival and Service Time Journal of Research in Engineering and Technology [17] Baramulti Sungih Sentosa. Company profile Baramulti Baramulti Sungih Sentosa W+B projects Nr. Reference Project code [18] Sungai Mati dredging works INA-560-2 [19] Stockpile and Jetties Sungai Puting INA-560-2 [20] Tender support Baramulti INA-560-6 [21] DED stockpile jetty INA 560-4 [22] Supervision Jetty Sungai Puting INA 560-3.1 Websites Nr. Reference Association [23] www.worldcoal.org World Coal Association [24] www.worldclimate.com WorldClimate [25] www.dredging.org Central Dredging Association [26] www.wikipedia.org Wikipedia
Page 176 of 196 Chair of Ports & Waterways Appendix A: Investigation according to the queuing theory
APPENDIX A: INVESTIGATION ACCORDING TO THE QUEUING THEORY
The queuing theory is the mathematical study of waiting lines, or queues. With the queuing theory average waiting lines, waiting times and service times can be estimated from the main terminal configurations. One of the main properties of the transport system are the loading and unloading capacities of the different service points in the transport system. The total loading and unloading capacity of every terminal in the transport chain must have an effective throughput capacity of at least the total throughput capacity of the system.
INTRODUCTION
If every terminal in the transport system would have a maximum throughput capacity of exactly the required throughput capacity, every service point should have an efficiency of exactly 100%. This is theoretically possible if the schedule at which the barges arrive at the loading and unloading terminals is fully regular. In mathematical terms, the inter arrival time must have a deterministic value.
Since this is not the case in practice, an estimate has to be made of the distribution of inter arrival times. The distribution determines the deviation from the average inter arrival time. A very flat distribution will lead to a very irregular arrival schedule and therefor much overcapacity is needed at the service points. If the inter arrival times are more regular, less overcapacity is needed and the efficiency of whole transport system will be higher.
According to the queuing theory, the waiting time and the service time of the barges determined by the distribution of the inter arrival time and the service time. The waiting time together with the service time is part of the cycle time of a barge. If the cycle time increases, more barges are required to guarantee the throughput capacity. Other way around, if the cycle time can be decreased less barges are required to transport the required throughput.
A gamma distribution is most suitable for the inter arrival time of the barges. A Gamma distribution has the property of having no negative values, which is a very useful property for this parameter. Another advantage of the gamma distribution is the high flexibility of the distribution. Many different shapes and standard deviations can be chosen. When the scape parameter is an integer the gamma distribution is called the Erlang distribution. The Erlang distribution is also used a lot in the inter arrival time of vessels calling for sea ports.
The normal distribution is most suitable for the service time, because the mean service time is relatively long in comparison with the standard deviation. The problem of negative service times is therefore not present. Because there is no time included for mooring and unmooring, the service time can differ a bit from barge to barge. The loading rate of a larger barge will probably be higher than the loading rate of a smaller barge. This can be presented by the use of a normal distribution with a small standard deviation for service time.
The most suitable distribution for the inter arrival time would be a gamma distribution. A normal distribution would be the most suitable distribution for the service time. Unfortunately it is not possible to implement both distributions into the queuing theory. The Erlang distribution (gamma with integer) can only be implemented with one berth per terminal.
December 2011 Page 177 of 196 FEASIBLITY STUDY COAL TRANSPORT KALIMANTAN
SCHEMATISATION WITH THE ERLANG-C FORMULA
The ideal distributions for the inter arrival time and the service time cannot be implemented in the queuing theory, because this is analytically not possible. A mathematical solution is the Erlang-C formula. This is a particular form of the queuing theory. The Erlang-c formula uses a Poisson distribution for the inter arrival time as well as for the service time.
The Erlang-C formula can be used to calculate the cycles time of the barges between Lok Buntar and Sungai Puting, but it will only provide a rough estimation of the waiting times and queue length. The outcome from the Erlang-C formula is probably not very accurate, because the Poisson distribution doesn’t fit as good to the inter arrival time as the Gamma distribution. Nevertheless will it probably give more insight into the properties of the transport system.
If the Erlang-C formula is used to calculate the waiting time, of a barge in front of the terminal, an interesting system between parameters can be recognized. In the figure belowFout! Verwijzingsbron niet gevonden., the umber of loading berths at Lok Buntar is plotted against the loading capacity per berth. It is interesting to see, that there is a parabolic line at which the waiting time increases rapidly. This line connects the points at which the maximum loading capacity of the terminal equals the required throughput capacity. It is good to understand that the percentage of overcapacity is an important factor in determining the average waiting time and thereby the required number of barges.
FIGURE 0.1 WAITING TIME, AMOUNT OF LOADING BERTHS PLOTTED AGAINST THE LOADING CAPACITY
The distributions play an important role in the queuing theory. The rate at which the waiting time increases towards the 100% occupancy line depends fully on the distributions that are implemented into the queuing theory. Because Poisson distributions are used, instead of the Erlang and Normal distributions, the gradient at which the waiting time increases is in reality different then is shown in the figure above. Therefore it is rather difficult to get exact figures from the calculation. Nonetheless the graph gives useful information about the parameters which play a role at both the terminals and the development of the waiting time in front of the terminals.
The parameters which play a role are:
The number of loading/ unloading berths The loading/ unloading capacity per berth
Page 178 of 196 Chair of Ports & Waterways Appendix A: Investigation according to the queuing theory
RESULTS FROM THE QUEUING THEORY
With a mathematics program, called Mathcad, the average waiting time and service time of the barges at Lok Buntar and Sungai Puting can be calculated according the Erlang-C formula. With these times the average cycle time can be calculated for barges between Lok Buntar and Sungai Puting.
The transport system will afterwards be simulated with a simulation model written in Matlab. With the simulation model, the cycle time of the barges, and the required number of barges can be determined very accurate. After this is done, the results from the queuing theory can be compared with the results from the simulation model and the accuracy of the Erlang-C formula for this system can be determined.
COSTS ESTIMATION OF BARGE TRANSPORT
In this paragraph a structure of the total transport costs is sketched. The queuing theory is not sufficient enough to calculate the exact transport costs, therefor only a estimation of the costs structure is described.
As depictured in the block schematisation in figure 8.2, increasing waiting times of the barges in front of Lok Buntar terminal lead to increasing cycle time. Increasing cycle time of the barges leads to an increase of the number of barges required to transport the throughput capacity. So an increase of the waiting time leads to the increase of barge costs.
The waiting time of the barges have direct influence on the costs for barges. A similar principle holds for the terminal costs. The costs of the terminal are directly linked to the occupancy of the terminal. When the occupancy of the terminal is low, the overcapacity has to be high. Higher overcapacity will lead to higher terminal costs.
Because the waiting time is closely coupled to the transport costs, it can be assumed that when graphing the transport costs, the similar structure can be expected as in the figure at the page before. This means that reaching the hundred per cent occupancy line (ρ=1) lead to a fast increase of transport costs. This is because a large amount of barges have to be implemented to guarantee the required throughput. In the figure at the next page the estimated cost structure according to the queuing theory is displayed.
Two other effects have to be understood. If more terminals are constructed the price per ton transport costs increase. So the transport costs of transporting one ton of coal increases when more berths are constructed. The second effect, which is of less importance, is the increase of costs when applying more loading/ unloading capacity per berth. A loading conveyor with more capacity will increase the investment cost. This is a minor effect, but is present.
The three different effects on the transport costs are schematized and displayed in a graph. The red arrows display the decrease in costs when decreasing the occupation percentage. When the occupation percentage decreases, the terminal costs increase. The blue and green arrow display the decrease of transport costs when less terminals are constructed and when the loading capacity decreases.
In the fictitiously case, it can be seen that constructing three berths with a loading rate of 500 T/hr would result in the lowest transport costs. A disadvantage of this lowest unit costs is that it is relative close to the hundred per cent efficiency line, the line at which the costs increases rapidly. If in this case the throughput does increase, the same transport configuration will be much more expansive.
December 2011 Page 179 of 196 FEASIBLITY STUDY COAL TRANSPORT KALIMANTAN
Lines of equal occupation rate. Decrease of costs by reducing conveyor-
production
Decrease of cost by reducing amount of berths
Decrease of cost by reducing amount of barges
100% occupation line
FIGURE 0.2 STRUCTURE FOR TRANSPORT COSTS AT ONE OF THE TERMINALS
Page 180 of 196 Chair of Ports & Waterways Appendix B: Evaluation of the friction head
APPENDIX B: EVALUATION OF THE FRICTION HEAD
The main challenge of designing a hydraulic transport system is to find the relationship between mixture properties and pipeline resistance. The pressure it takes to transport a mixture through the pipeline is called the friction head. Most knowledge is available about slurry transport of sand-water mixtures. In this paragraph the considerations are described which have to be taken into account when pumping a coal-water mixture instead of sand-water mixtures.
Several empirical relations are available, which describe the relation between sand-water mixture properties and pipeline resistance. Every relation is based on different slurry flow conditions and thereby has different application areas. The relations that are investigated in this study on their applicability for hydraulic transportation of coal are:
Darcy Weisbach for water and homogeneous mixtures Durant Gilbert Führböter Jufin Lopatin Wilson for homogeneous flow Wilson for stratified flows Russian coal formula
DARCY WEISBACH FOR WATER AND HOMOGENEOUS MIXTURES
2 Q L A Hw (Q) darcy_weisbach f D 2g
The Darcy-Weisbach formula for fully homogeneous mixtures can be regarded as the basis for all resistance formulas. The relation is particular applicable for pumping water and mixtures with very fine partials, which typically have an homogeneous behaviour.
The formula of Darcy-Wiesbach uses an empirical parameter called the flow friction coefficient or Darcy- Weisbach coefficient. The flow friction coefficient is determined by the flow characteristic with respect to the hydraulic roughness of the pipeline. In a laminar flow the friction coefficient can be derived theoretically from the Newton’s law of liquid viscosity.
Turbulent flow cannot be described by the Newtonian viscous law because the relation between shear stress and strain rate in the turbulent flow is different. Instead of a theoretical derivation an empirical approach has provided a number of correlations to determine the friction coefficient for different flow regimes. The coefficient can be determined form the Moody diagram.[2]
Turbulent flow regimes are typical for pipelines transporting sand-water or coal-water mixtures. A value for the friction coefficient between 0.010 and 0.012 is usually appropriate for an initial estimation of water-flow friction losses in industrial pipelines. Transporting a coal water mixture through a pipeline is different from pumping a sand-water mixture through a pipeline. The main difference is in the larger particle size and a lower particle density.
December 2011 Page 181 of 196 FEASIBLITY STUDY COAL TRANSPORT KALIMANTAN
The larger particle size influences the flow behaviour significantly. The larger particles will lead to a more turbulent behaviour because of the continuous changing pore size between the particles. The lower density of the particles in comparison with quarts reduced the weight of partials under water by at least 5 times. Therefor the mixture will be less stratified and the transport concentration can probably increase
DURANT GILBERT
Hdurand_gilbert(Q) Hw darcy_weisbach (Q)1 ct
2 vm gdmf 0.292 gD vt
n K
In the Durant-Gilbert relation, the Darcy-Weisbach formula is multiplied by a factor, which includes the transport concentration and a parameter called the flow coefficient.
The flow coefficient is determined by a number of parameters.
Mean mixture velocity Particle diameter Terminal settling velocity of a particle Two empirical coefficients K and n
An important parameter that has to be implemented into the relation is the particle density of coal, because this is significantly different from quarts. The particle diameter is not clearly visible in the formula. Only the settling velocity is partly determined by the particle density.
In comparison with the other formulas it can be seen that for this formula, the required energy is much higher than the other formulas. This is probably because the particle density is not sufficiently implemented for the use of a coal-water mixture.
The solution could be found in the two empirical coefficients which are used. These coefficients are calibrated on sand-water mixtures with particles between 0.18mm and 22.5mm. This explains the difference with the other empirical formulas.
Tests with a coarse coal-water mixture could result in more reliable parameters. Unfortunately there are no better values available for the use of coal-water mixtures.
Page 182 of 196 Chair of Ports & Waterways Appendix B: Evaluation of the friction head
FÜHRBÖTER
Sktct H (Q) Hw (Q) L führböter darcy_weisbach Q A
2.59 m S d 0.037 if d 1.1mm kt s mf s mf 0.257 m d 2.53 if 1.1mm d 3.0mm s mf s mf m 3.3 otherwise s
The Führböter relation has the same disadvantage as the Durand Gilbert formula. The formula is based on an empirical parameter called the transport factor. This transport factor is very well calibrated for sand-water mixtures with particles between 0.2mm and 3mm.
The density of coal is not sufficiently included into the formula. That leads to a pipeline resistance which is much higher than with the other formulas, and probably not realistic. No values for the transport factor are available for hydraulic transport of coal-water mixtures. Empirical tests could lead to a more reliable outcome for coal- water mixture.
JUFIN LOPATIN
3 vmin H (Q) Hw (Q) 1 2 jufin_lopatin darcy_weisbach Q A
5 1 6 6 m v 5.3c D min. t JL s
The Jufin Lopatin formula is a combination of correlations for the friction head loss and the critical velocity. The minimum friction head is determined with critical velocity. The other part of the function is a correlation from large experimental databases from different tests.
The main advantage of this formula is the wide variety in particle size and pipe diameter which is used for the experiments: Pipe diameter between 103mm and 800mm and particle sizes between 0.25mm and 11mm.
The formula is not based on any fundamental relation, but probably because of the wide range of experimental data that is used, the outcome is more realistic than the Durant-Gilbert and Fuhrboter formulas.
December 2011 Page 183 of 196 FEASIBLITY STUDY COAL TRANSPORT KALIMANTAN
WILSON FOR HETEROGENEOUS FLOW
M Q s A H wilson_hom(Q) Hw darcy_weisbach (Q) ctSs 1L 2 v50
0.45 0.65 0.35 Ss 1 m v50 3.93d50 1.65 s
1 d85 M ln d 50
This semi-empirical relation for heterogeneous flow is also known as the Georgia Iron Works model. The model is based on the consideration that the heterogeneous flow is a transition between two extreme flows governed by different mechanisms for support of a solid particle in the stream of the carrying liquid. A fully stratified flow with all particles transported as a contact load and a fully-suspended flow with all particles transported as suspended- load.
The parameters in this formula include the,
Relative density Velocity at which one half of the particles is in suspended flow. Coefficient of mechanical friction Empirical exponent depending on the particle size distribution
The important parameter in this formula is the mean slurry velocity at which one half of the transported solid particles contribute to the suspended load and one half to the contact load. The value of this parameter should be determined experimentally. An empirical approximation of this parameter is given in the highlighted box above.
The parameter is partly determined by the relative density of the solids and the particle size of the coarse coal.
When the value of V50 increases the friction head and the deposition velocity increases as well. It seem to be that
when the value of V50 is determined by the approximation formula, the friction head is too low. A higher value for this parameter would probably result in more realistic values for the friction head.
A big advantage in this formula is that the relative density and the diameter of the particles are included into the formula. This could be a very useful formula when more research should be done on the parameters of V50. This formula has much more fundamental background as the formulas described before and is therefore probably more suitable for coal-water mixtures.
Page 184 of 196 Chair of Ports & Waterways Appendix B: Evaluation of the friction head
WILSON FOR FULLY STRATIFIED FLOWS
0.25 Q A H wilson_strat(Q) Hw darcy_weisbach (Q) ctSs 1L 0.55vsm
0.55 sSs Sf 0.7 1.75 8.8 D d 0.66 dl 50_dl m v sm 2 0.7 s d 0.11D 50_dl dl
The most extensive model at this moment is the Wilson formula for stratified flow. The model is developed for calculating the friction head of fully stratified flow. To avoid iterations the model makes use of a so called nomograph. A nomograph provides the values of the hydraulic gradient in a fully stratified flow for various combinations of parameters.
In this model a parameter is included for the deposition velocity. The deposition velocity in this formula is determined by the pipeline diameter, relative density and the particle density. The value for the deposition velocity is determined by the nomograph. The average particle size is 30mm. This means that the nomograph is used at the fully stratified branch of the nomograph. According to this part of the graph the deposition velocity decreases, with increasing particle size.
According to the particle diameter of the coarse coal, the mixture should behaves like a fully stratified flow. The assumption that the coal-water mixture behaves like a fully stratified flow is not very realistic and results probably in a friction head that is too high. It would be more realistic that the particles stay in suspension over the whole pipe diameter. In this case, the particles behave more like the structure described by the formula of Wilson for heterogeneous flow.
The advantage of this formula is the fundamental background of this formula. Especially the particle diameter and relative density are important parameters which are included into the formula. The disadvantage of the formula is the assumption, that the coal-water mixture is fully stratified.
This formula can function as the upper boundary of the range in which the friction head could vary. To assume the flow as fully stratified is the most negative assumption which can be made. According to the graph at figure 9.3 it can be seen that this is probably a realistic assumption.
December 2011 Page 185 of 196 FEASIBLITY STUDY COAL TRANSPORT KALIMANTAN
RUSSIAN COARSE COAL FORMULA
gD 0.8cvSs Sf H (Q) Hw (Q)1 c S S rusian_coal darcy_weisbach v s f 1.9 Q 0.75 A
3 c w v Dg min2 1.90.75 c f
Work in the former Soviet Union on coarse coal was reported by Traynis (1970) and reviewed by Faddick. They have published a formula for the depositing velocity of coarse coal mixtures. This is the lowest point in the resistance graph at with the particles just start to settle.
For the same configuration as in the graph with a pipe diameter of 700mm and a transport concentration of 30% the deposit discharge is 2.422 m3/sec.
Traynis also constructed a graph only valid for velocities higher than the deposit velocity, which is also included in figure 9.3. Interesting to see is that this graph is just a little higher than the Darcy Weisbach formula for homogeneous mixtures. This means that according to Traynis the character of the coarse coal mixture is muxh more homogeneous than it is stratified.
The deposition velocity according to Traynis is relative high in comparison with the formula of Jufin lopatin and the Wilson formula for stratified flow.
Page 186 of 196 Chair of Ports & Waterways Appendix C: Comprehensive Multi Criteria Analysis
APPENDIX C: COMPREHENSIVE MULTI CRITERIA ANALYSIS
In this appendix the alternatives transport systems from chapter 8 till 12 are evaluated according to a number of criteria. Six main criteria are formulated, which determine the technical and financial feasibility of the alternatives. In the first paragraph the alternatives between Lok Buntar and Sungai Puting are evaluated. The alternatives between Sungai Puting and deep-sea are evaluated in the second paragraph.
The six criteria to evaluate the technical and financial feasibility of the alternatives are: Feasibility of constructing and operating the transport system Reliability of the transport system Flexibility of the transport system Financial feasibility Environmental impact Economic and social impact
MCA ALTERNATIVES BETWEEN LOK BUNTAR AND SUNGAI PUTING
In this paragraph the three alternative transport systems between Lok Buntar and Sungai Puting are compared with each other. The investigation of the different alternatives are described in the chapters 8 till 10.
FEASIBILITY OF CONSTRUCTING AND OPERATING THE TRANSPORT SYSTEM
The throughput capacity of the transport system has to increase from 3 million ton coal per year in 2011 till 15 million ton coal per year in 2017. An increase of five times the throughput capacity in six years is certainly not an easy task to fulfil. A good design plan of the transport system is essential for the future.
The criteria which are important to determine the feasibility of constructing and operating the transport system are defined as. The ability of the transport system to transport the required throughput capacity. The conventionality of the transport system in the area of South Kalimantan. The availability of equipment in the area of South Kalimantan. The availability of knowledge to construct the transport system. The availability of knowledge to maintain and operate the transport system.
The questions, which have to be answered to determine these criteria Is the transport system able to transport the required throughput capacity? Is it a proven transport system in South Kalimantan? Is the equipment to build the transport system available in South Kalimantan? What knowledge is required to construct the transport system? What knowledge is required to maintain and operate the transport system?
Barge transport from Lok Buntar to Sungai Puting is researched in detail. A comprehensive simulation program is written in Matlab, to get detailed information from the transport system. Information from the simulation model gives reliable information about the efficiency of the barges in relation with the occupancy of the terminal. The capacities of loading and unloading berths determine for a large part the total throughput capacity of the transport system.
Coal transport by barge is very common in South Kalimantan. Barge transport is mostly done on the bigger rivers, Sungai Negara and Sungai Barito. Barge transport between Lok Buntar and Sungai Puting is more complicated, because of the size of the rivers. The change of collision and the change the rivers will be congealed is higher, because barge traffic will be more intensive than at the bigger rivers. There is also a change that the water level at the rivers is too low for the full loaded barges. Than the load of the barges have to be reduced.
December 2011 Page 187 of 196 FEASIBLITY STUDY COAL TRANSPORT KALIMANTAN
To put in a nutshell, barge transport is a proven transport mode in the area. There is change that the transport system gets congealed or is lowered in capacity, but this change is relative low.
An analysis on hydraulic transportation of coal is executed as detailed as possible. Nevertheless it seem to be difficult to get hard figures from the analysis. Especially the friction head was difficult to analyse and get a clear picture of. Hydraulic transportation of coarse coal is rarely done around the world. Some projects are known to be feasible, but not much information is known from these projects. Therefore some risk is involved when constructing a hydraulic system between Lok Buntar and Sungai Puting.
Most of the construction parts have to be imported from other countries. Also the knowledge about the hydraulic system has to be imported. That makes this alternative less attractive for the local community. To operate and maintain the hydraulic system a team of expats have to be present the first few years of the operation. After these years local operators can take over the operation and maintenance of the system.
Conveyor belt transport is widely used for transportation of coal around the world. Also in South Kalimantan some long distance conveyor belts are constructed. The construction of a conveyor belt transport is complex. A good foundation is required and the construction parts have to be installed very accurately. The knowledge to construct the conveyor belt has to be imported from outside Kalimantan. However to maintain and operate the conveyor belt, local employers can be employed.
RELIABILITY OF THE TRANSPORT SYSTEM
The reliability of the transport system determines the resistance of the system against failure. Failure of the system is defined as not able to transport the required throughput capacity. For instance a broken barge will reduce the transport capacity of the transport system for a while. The duration and the reduction of throughput are important to determine the size of the failure. The reliability of the system can be determined according to the amount and kind of failure mechanisms.
Three criteria are important to determine the reliability of the transport system The chance of occurrence that part of the transport system fails. The decrease in throughput capacity when the transport system fails. The duration the transport system fails.
The questions, which have to be answered to determine these criteria What is the change that part of the transport system fails? What is the decrease in transport capacity when the transport system fails? What is the duration of failure?
The reliability of the whole transport system is calculated according to a kind of probabilistic fault tree. It is a kind of fault tree because the probability of failure cannot be calculated very accurately. Nevertheless it is a good tool to get insight into the reliability of the transport system. The three criteria are used to estimate the probability of failure.
The reliability of the barge transport system is determined according a number of failure mechanisms. The failure mechanisms are summarized in tables. The main failures are related to broken transport equipment. The advantage of barge transport is that if one part of the system fails not the whole system fails. Only when the rivers system get congealed, it will lead to a 100% decrease in throughput. However, this will not have a long duration. Big failures are actually not possible with barge transport. The overall reliability of barge transport very high.
Page 188 of 196 Chair of Ports & Waterways Appendix C: Comprehensive Multi Criteria Analysis
Failure mechanism Change of Average Estimated Occurrence Decrease in Time of throughput congestion No supply from the mine Moderate 100% 2 days Water depth not sufficient due to dry period High 30% 14 days Water depth not sufficient due to poor dredging work Moderate 30% 2 days Congestion due to sunken barge Low 100% 2 day Congestion due to collision Low 100% 1 day Failure of loading conveyor belt at Lok Buntar Low 50% 2 days Failure of a tugboat Moderate 10% 3 days Failure of a-180ft barge Low 10% 3 days Failure of unloading conveyor at Sungai Puting Low 50% 2 days Shortage or striking of barge personnel Low 100% 2 days The stockpile at Sungai Puting is full Moderate 100% 2 days TABLE 0.1 FAILURE MECHANISMS FOR BARGE TRANSPORT BETWEEN LOK BUNTAR AND SUNGAI PUTING
The failure mechanisms for hydraulic transport are summarized in a table. What is remarkable is that all failure mechanism directly lead to 100% decrease in throughput capacity. This is because the system makes use of only one pipeline. If something in the system fails the whole system fails. This is a weak point of a hydraulic system. If a part of the system fails, one should be very care not clogging the pipeline. If the pipeline would clog, this would give a big delay in throughput. However, with good knowledge about the operation and maintenance the change is low that the pipeline will clog. Because the system is not operational for at least one day per week, delays which have arisen are relative easy to catch up. In a nutshell, the hydraulic system is relative venerable for delays, but overcapacity is installed, which generate more reliability.
Failure mechanism Change of Average Estimated Occurrence Decrease in Time of throughput congestion No supply form the mine Moderate 100% 2 days Failure of the hydraulification installation Low 100% 1 day Failure of the pump system Moderate 100% 4 days Failure of the drive Low 100% 2 days Failure of the pipeline Low 100% 1 day Delay at the separation area Moderate 100% 2 days Clogging of the pipeline Low 100% 14 days Collision with the bridge pillar Low 100% 2 days Shortage or striking of personnel Low 100% 2 days The stockpile at Sungai Puting is full Moderate 100% 2 days TABLE 0.2 FAILURE MECHANISMS FOR HYDRAULIC TRANSPORT BETWEEN LOK BUNTAR AND SUNGAI PUTING
The reliability of a conveyor belt between Lok Buntar and Sungai Puting is similar with the reliability of the hydraulic transport system. A failure of a part of the system will directly lead to a decrease of 100% of the throughput capacity, because it is one consecutive system. However the overcapacity of the system is high and delays can be solved relative easy. Large failures could be caused by damage of one of the belts and large settlements of the foundation. Especially failure of the foundation have to the prevented, since the underground is not suitable for heavy load. (see paragraph 3.3.2 about geotechnical boundary conditions)
Failure mechanism Change of Average Estimated Occurrence decrease in Time of throughput congestion No supply form the mine Moderate 100% 2 days Failure of the drive Low 100% 2 days Failure of the foundation Low 100% 5 days Failure of the structure Low 100% 1 day Failure of the belt Moderate 100% 5 days Collision barge with the bridge pillar Low 100% 3 days Shortage or striking of personnel Low 100% 2 days The stockpile at Sungai Puting is full Moderate 100% 2 days TABLE 0.3 FAILURE MECHANISM FOR THE CONVEYOR BELT BETWEEN LOK BUNTAR AND SUNGAI PUTING
December 2011 Page 189 of 196 FEASIBLITY STUDY COAL TRANSPORT KALIMANTAN
FLEXIBILITY OF THE TRANSPORT SYSTEM
The flexibility of the transport system is the ability of the transport system to adapt to changes in throughput capacity and changes in location. The criteria to determine the flexibility of the transport system are summarized in the highlighted boxes.
The criteria which are important to determine the flexibility of the transport system Ability to change throughput capacity of the transport system. Ability to change the location of the transport system.
The questions, which have to be answered to determine these criteria Can the transport system adapt to changes in throughput capacity? Is it possible to move the transport system to other coal deposits?
The throughput capacity of barge transport is partly determined by the amount of operational barges and partly by the (un)loading capacity of the terminals. From the results of the simulation model it can be concluded that when a certain amount of barges are operational it does not increase the throughput capacity anymore. At this point the throughput capacity is fully determined by the loading and unloading capacities of the terminals. The flexibility at this point is determined by the flexibility to increase the (un)loading capacities. The (un)loading capacities of the conveyors can increase in between a certain range. At the moment the maximum capacity of the loading conveyor is reached, the only way to increase in throughput capacity is to construct a new berth. The construction of a berth have to be planned far in advance. In this way the increase of the throughput capacity is less flexible and limited by a hard boundary. A good design planning is essential in this.
The flexibility of the barge transport system in changing location is also determined by the barges and the terminals. The barges are very flexible in changing location. The barges are only limited by the presence of a waterway system at a new location. The terminals are very inflexible in this objective. The berths, which are constructed cannot be relocated anymore. The loading conveyors could be demounted at Lok Buntar and mounted at a new location. However the foundation of the conveyors can’t be demounted. Summarized, barge transport is relative inflexible if it concerned the location. The barges are restricted by the presence of a sufficient waterway system and the terminals are fully inflexible, outside the loading equipment.
In paragraph 9.5 a design plan is written for the development of the hydraulic transport system. It is planned to start the operation in 2013 with 3 operational days per week. In 2017 the maximum throughput is reached with 6 operational days per week. From this plan it can be concluded that especially in the first couple of years there is enough overcapacity available to increase the throughput capacity. Even in the situation in 2017 there is one day per week available for extra capacity.
The flexibility of the hydraulic system concerned the location is partly limited by the availability of the water supply to the hydraulification system. Only the foundation of the pipeline and the separation area of the hydraulic system are fixed to the location. Since the foundation of the pipeline doesn’t have to be heavy it is a very flexible transport system concerned the location.
Coal transportation with conveyor belt is similar with hydraulic transportation. The conveyor belt is able to transport 2500 Ton/hr. The amount of operational days determine the throughput capacity. If the throughput of the system has to increase the number of operational days can be increase. The conveyor belt transport is flexible if it’s concerned the throughput capacity.
To construct a conveyor belt at South Kalimantan a sufficient foundation is required. This construction is fixed to the location. Some parts of the conveyor belt could be demounted and mounted at a new location. However the conveyor belt is very specified to the location. Summarized, the conveyor belt is very inflexible concerned the location.
Page 190 of 196 Chair of Ports & Waterways Appendix C: Comprehensive Multi Criteria Analysis
FINANCIAL FEASIBILITY
The financial feasibility of the transport system can be determined by the costs to transport one ton coal from Lok Buntar to Sungai Puting. In table 14. 1 the transport costs per ton are summarized per transport mode for the years 2013, 2015 and 2017.
The criteria which are important to determine the financial feasibility of the transport system Influence of the capital costs on the total transport costs Influence of the operational costs on the total transport costs Influence of increase of the fuel price on the transport costs Influence of increase of the steel price on the transport costs Influence of increase of the rubber price on the transport costs
The questions, which have to be answered to determine these criteria What is percentage of depreciation and interest on the total transport costs? What is the percentage the operational and maintenance costs on the total transport costs? What is the percentage of the fuel cost, with respect to the total costs? What is the amount of steel used for the equipment? What is the amount of rubber used for the equipment?
The costs for barge transport between Lok Buntar and Sungai Puting are calculated with the use of the simulation model. The calculation of the transport costs are explained in paragraph 8.4. The capital costs are relative low in comparison with the operational costs. Therefore the investment in the transport system will be more graduate in comparison with conveyor belt and hydraulic transport. The fuel price has quite some influence on the transport costs due the relative high fuel consumption of the tugboats. The steel price also have influence on the transport costs. Steel is required in the construction of the barges as well as for the berth and jetty construction.
In paragraph 9.8 a detailed description about the costs for hydraulic transportation is explained. The transport cost are mainly determined by the fuel costs. The fuel costs as well as the costs for the required equipment are dependent on the friction head which have to be delivered by the pumps. The steel price will also influence the transport costs, since all the equipment is made from steel. The pipeline in particular is venerable for wear. Overall the costs for hydraulic transportation are high in comparison with barge and conveyor belt transport.
The costs for the conveyor belt are calculated by an extern party. A summery from the costs for the conveyor belt is given in paragraph 10.3. From the main figures it can be concluded that the capital costs have a large influence on the transport costs. This means that a large part of the costs have to be paid at the start the project. The steel and rubber price have influence on the capital costs. However the fuel costs for the conveyor belt are relative low. Overall the costs for transport by conveyor belt are low in comparison with hydraulic transport and barge transport.
Year Throughput capacity Barge transport Hydraulic transport Conveyor transport
2013 5.000.000 T/yr €2.77 /T €5.61 /T €3.22 /T 2015 10.000.000 T/yr €2.76 /T €4.68 /T €2.00 /T 2017 15.000.000 T/yr €2.75 /T €3.96 /T €1.59 /T TABLE 0.4 DEVELOPMENT TRANSPORT COSTS PER TON FROM FOR DIFFERENT TRANSPORT MODES
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
The environmental impact is of the three alternatives is not fully investigated in this project. Nevertheless is it an important criterion, which must have its influence on the evaluation of the alternatives. In this paragraph the possible influences on the environment are summarized for every alternative.
December 2011 Page 191 of 196 FEASIBLITY STUDY COAL TRANSPORT KALIMANTAN
A comprehensive study about the impact of coal mining on the economy and environment of South Kalimantan has been carried out by the university of Lambung Mangkurat in Banjarmasin. The study is called “The Impacts of Coal Mining on the Economy and Environment of South Kalimantan Province, Indonesia”. This report can be downloaded from the internet at http://web.idrc.ca/en/ev-125658-201-1-DO_TOPIC.html. The general web-site is www.idrc.ca from the International Development Research Centre.
The criteria which are important to determine the environmental impact of the transport system. Influence on the surface water. Influence from noise hindrance. The influence on the air-quality due to the formation of coal dust.
The questions, which have to be answered to determine these criteria What is the influence of the transport system on the surface water? How much noise does the transport system produce and what is the effect on the environment? How much coal dust is produced by the transport system?
The surface water can be affected by barge transport in two ways. The coal can fall off the barges while sailing and coal can fall between the barge and the berth while loading. In both cases the coal will be in contact with the surface water. The noise from sailing barges can influence the environment. Noise can disturb the local wildlife in South Kalimantan. However barge transport is very common in the area and influence of more barges in the area is hard to determine.
The amount of escaping coal dust can be decreased by sprinkling the coal with water. This however influences the coal quality negatively. Most coal dust is generated when the barges are loaded. At this point the coal is falling several meters into the barge. Coal dust can easily escape with a small breeze. A solution could be to sprinkle the coal only when barges are being loaded. While the barges are sailing the coal dust can also escape, but this will be less in comparison with the loading operation.
The influence of hydraulic transport on the environment is difficult to determine, since there are not so much examples available. The method of separating the coal from the water determines the influence on the environment enormously. The influence on the surface water in particular is determined by the kind of installation. An installation where the water is reused would be most optimal. Surface water only has to be taken in once and the contaminated water doesn’t flow back in the environment. If the water is not reused it has to be filtered at the end of the transport system. The quality of filtering does determine the influence on the surface water. A good filter installation will increase the transport costs.
The noise from the hydraulic transportation system originates from the booster stations and the pumps. Because the pumps are located at a few points along the transport system they can be equipped with sufficient isolation against noise hindrance. Noise hindrance from the coal slurry through the pipeline is more difficult to prevent.
The influence of hydraulic transportation on the air quality is probably low. The coal is directly mixed with water at the start of the transport system. Therefore the coal dust does not have the chance to escape. Besides, it is a closed system, with no contact with the environment whatsoever. The influence of the booster station on the air quality is related to the fuel consumption. This is relative high in comparison with other alternatives.
The influence of the conveyor belt on the environment is determined by the kind of conveyor which is installed. The conveyor belt can be in greater or lesser extent be open or not. For influence on the environment it would be better to install a closed conveyor belt. However the costs will also increase. Especially the point where the coal falls from one conveyor to the next is a point of concern. At this point the change of escaping coal dust is the highest.
Page 192 of 196 Chair of Ports & Waterways Appendix C: Comprehensive Multi Criteria Analysis
The influence of the conveyor belt transport on the surface water is small. Only little water is required to clean the transport belt. Because transport by conveyor belt is over land, the risk of coal coming in direct contact with the surface water is small. The sound produced by the conveyor belt can cause hindrance to the environment. Because the noise will be produced over the whole conveyor line, it will be difficult to prevent the noise. Good maintenance is essential in this.
ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL IMPACT
In this paragraph the impact of the alternatives on the local community is evaluated. The economic impact has to do with the economic benefits for the local community. The social impact has to do with the hindrance of the transport system to the local community. Some of the criteria have already been described in the paragraph before, about the environmental impact.
The criteria which are important to determine the environmental impact of the transport system. Improvements on employment for the local community Economic benefits for the local community. Improvement of foreign investments Influence of the transport system on the local traffic routes. Influence from noise hindrance. (already treaded in the paragraph about environmental impact) Influence on the air-quality. (already treaded in the paragraph about environmental impact)
The questions, which have to be answered to determine these criteria How much employment for the local community does the transport generate? How much economic activity does the alternative generate in the area? Does the alternative increase the foreign investments? Does the alternative influence the local traffic routes in the area? How much noise does the transport system produce and what is the effect on the local community? How much coal dust is produced by the transport system?
Barge transport generates relative much low educated employment in comparison with the other two alternatives. Employment is required at the tug boats, machinery at the stockpiles and for the loading operations at the terminals. Because more people will be working at the terminal it will also generate more economic activity around the terminals.
Not much foreign investment will be involved with barge transport. Barge transport is a common transportation mode in the area, and the investments will be mostly local. The river system between Lok Buntar and Sungai Puting does exist for some decades already. The transport system does not cross any local traffic lines.
For the construction of a hydraulic transport system, specific knowledge have to be imported from outside Indonesia. To operate the hydraulic system, educated employers are required. For maintenance and repair of the equipment local employers are sufficient. This alternative will probably not improve the local employment in the area.
The pipeline have to cross the Sungai Puting channel and a local road. However, a crossing is relative easy to construct. For the road crossing the pipeline can the buried under ground for a short distance. To cross the Sungai Puting channel, a construction have to be made, which supports the pipeline over the water.
A conveyor belt system will provide local employment, for maintenance and repair jobs. Foreign employment is required to operate the conveyor belt. The conveyor belt has to cross the Sungai Puting channel as well as a local road. In contrast to the pipeline, the conveyor line is more difficult to cross. For the local road a bridge have to be made over the conveyor line. To cross the Sungai Puting channel, also a bridge have to be constructed with a long run-up in front of the bridge.
December 2011 Page 193 of 196 FEASIBLITY STUDY COAL TRANSPORT KALIMANTAN
MCA ALTERNATIVES BETWEEN SUNGAI PUTING AND DEEP-SEA
In this paragraph the two alternatives for transport between Sungai Puting terminal and deep-sea are evaluated according to a multi criteria analysis. The first alternative make use of floating cranes to tranship the coal at deep-sea. The second alternative make use of an deep-sea terminal to tranship the coal. Both alternatives are described in chapter 11 and 12. Because both the alternatives make use of barge transport not all the criteria are used to determine the difference in feasibility of the system.
The three criteria which are evaluated for the alternatives between Sungai Puting and deep-sea are:
Reliability of the transport system Flexibility of the transport system Financial feasibility
RELIABILITY OF THE TRANSPORT SYSTEM
The reliability of the transport system determines the resistance of the system against failure. Failure is defined as not able to transport the required throughput capacity. The reliability of the system can be determined according to the failure mechanisms.
The criteria which are important to determine the reliability of the transport system are: The change of occurrence of failure of the transport system The decrease in throughput capacity when the transport system fails The duration that the transport system fails
The questions, which have to be answered to determine these criteria are: What is the change the transport system fails? What is the decrease in transport capacity when the transport system fails? What is the duration of a failure?
The reliability of transhipment by floating cranes is relative poor in comparison with transhipment via a deep-sea terminal, because no stockpile is available at deep-sea. The delays which occur from the terminal at Sungai Puting directly lead to a delay in the loading operation at deep sea. The reliability of the transport system with floating cranes is partly related to the amount of 390ft barges. When there is more overcapacity in the amount of barges, the reliability is higher, due to the fictitious stockpile formed by the barges.
The reliability of the transport system with a deep-sea terminal is very good. A stockpile offshore function as a shock absorber for changes in the requested throughput capacity. A delay in the transport system between Sungai Puting and deep-sea does not directly influence the loading operation of the coal carrier.
Page 194 of 196 Chair of Ports & Waterways Appendix C: Comprehensive Multi Criteria Analysis
FLEXIBILITY OF THE TRANSPORT SYSTEM
The flexibility of the transport system between Sungai Puting and deep-sea is determined by the flexibility of the transport system in location and throughput capacity.
The criteria which are important to determine the flexibility of the transport system Ability to change the location of the transport system Ability to change throughput capacity of the transport system
The questions, which have to be answered to determine these criteria Is it possible to move the transport system to deeper water depths? Can the transport system adapt to changes in throughput capacity?
The flexibility of transhipment via floating cranes is large with respect to the location. The floating cranes can operate at all water depts. The transhipment location is only dependent on the draft of the coal carrier. The flexibility of the floating cranes with respect to the throughput capacity is less flexible. Because there is not a stockpile available near Banjarmasin, the increase of throughput have to be realized by an increase of the throughput capacity of the barges between Sungai Puting and deep-sea. From the result of the simulation model it can be concluded that this is rather difficult.
The transhipment with a deep-sea terminal is not flexible with respect to its location. The location have to be chosen very accurately, since it determines the accessibility of the terminal. It is obvious that a terminal at deep water is more expansive, than a terminal at shallower water. The flexibility of a deep-sea terminal with respect to the throughput capacity is large. Because a stockpile is available at the deep-sea terminal, changes in throughput capacity can be accumulated by the stockpile. If at a certain moment more coal is requested from the transport system, it can be realized by decreasing the stockpile height at deep-sea.
December 2011 Page 195 of 196 FEASIBLITY STUDY COAL TRANSPORT KALIMANTAN
FINANCIAL FEASIBILITY
The financial feasibility defined as the cost to transport one ton of coal from Sungai Puting to deep-sea. The financial feasibility is one of the most important criteria to decide for a certain transport system.
The criteria which are important to determine the financial feasibility of the transport system Influence of the capital costs on the total transport costs Influence of the operational costs on the total transport costs Influence of increase of the fuel price on the transport costs Influence of increase of the steel price on the transport costs Influence of increase of the rubber price on the transport costs
The questions, which have to be answered to determine these criteria What is percentage of depreciation and interest on the total transport costs? What is the percentage the operational and maintenance costs on the total transport costs? What is the percentage of the fuel cost, with respect to the total costs? What is the amount of steel used for the equipment? What is the amount of rubber used for the equipment?
The transport costs per ton of coal are calculated with the use of the simulation model. The transport costs for the two alternatives having a different definition. For the alternative with floating cranes these are the costs from the Sungai Puting stockpile till the coal carrier at the anchorage. One could say, these are the total costs for BSS to export the coal.
For the alternative with a deep-sea terminal these are the costs for transport from the Sungai Puting stockpile till the unloading conveyor at the deep-sea terminal. The costs for the deep-sea terminal itself are not included in the transport costs. The question if it is feasible to construct a deep-sea terminal must be seen in the difference in transport costs between the two alternatives. The transport costs are presented in the table below.
Year Throughput capacity Transshipment with floating Transshipment with deep-sea cranes terminal 2013 5.000.000 T/yr €6.15 /T €3.12 /T 2015 10.000.000 T/yr €5.83 /T €2.99 /T 2017 15.000.000 T/yr €5.75 /T €2.96 /T TABLE 0.5 TRANSPORT COSTS FOR THE ALTERNATIVES BETWEEN SUNGAI PUTING AND DEEP-SEA
The costs for transhipment by floating cranes is €2,-/ton. If these costs per ton are added to the cost for transhipment by deep-sea terminal, a more realistic comparison can be made. It can be seen that the difference in costs is not much. The advantage of a deep-sea terminal is relative low. Therefor it can be concluded that the development of a deep-sea terminal is most probably financially not feasible.
A deep-sea terminal at the mouth of the river Barito will be expansive in particular since the water depth is low till far offshore. So the terminal have to be constructed far offshore or much dredging is involved in the construction. Both solutions increase the costs for a deep-sea terminal.
The costs for the coal carriers are less for the alternative with deep-sea terminal, since the waiting time are reduced to a minimum. However the costs to construct a deep-sea terminal will rise the transport costs enormously. The transport costs concerning the barges and the terminal are similar for the two alternatives. In first few year the alternative with floating cranes will be more expansive, because more barges are required for transportation. After the first few year the costs for the barges and the terminal at Sungai Puting are converging for the two alternatives.
Page 196 of 196 Chair of Ports & Waterways