BRUNEI MARITIME MASTERPLAN Muara port development strategy
Faculty of Civil Engineering and Geosciences Department of Hydraulic and Geotechnic Engineering Section of Hydraulic Engineering Name student: A.F. Prinsen Study number: 9672063
COMMITTEE
Chairman Prof. H.Ligteringen MSc Section: Hydraulic Engineering, Ports and waterways Email address: [email protected]
Member: R. Groenveld MSc Section: Hydraulic Engineering Email address: [email protected]
Member: J.P. Noppen BBE BSc MSc Section: Processes in Building Email address: [email protected]
Member: T. Vellinga MSc Section: Hydraulic Engineering Email address: [email protected]
External Advisor: R. Clarke Function: Director Ports and Dockyard, Halcrow Group Ltd. Email address: [email protected]
BRUNEI MARITIME MASTERPLAN
Acknowledgment This research project completes my study at the faculty Civil Engineering of the Technical University Delft. The project was offered by Halcrow Group Ltd. and provided me with the opportunity to contribute to the maritime development of Brunei.
This study provides insight of the development possibilities of Brunei maritime infrastructure and Muara port. I hope that the structure of the approach and its outcome contribute to the realisation of Brunei’s vision on the future maritime development possibilities.
I would like to thank my graduation committee members for their guidance, critical remarks and contribution: Chairman prof. ir. H. Ligteringen ir. R. Groenveld ir. J.P. Noppen ir. T. Vellinga.
Special thanks goes to mister Richard Clarke of the Ports and Dockyards department of Halcrow Group in London for providing me with the opportunity gaining working experience abroad.
Alexander Prinsen The Hague, July 2004
BRUNEI MARITIME MASTERPLAN - i - Summary
Summary
The Sultanate of Brunei, located on the island of Borneo in Southeast Asia, is a country with large oil and gas reserves that has been able to create economic growth from its oil and gas revenues. The Asian crisis and fluctuating world oil and gas prices have shown that Brunei’s economic base is vulnerable as it depends heavily on these revenues. Furthermore new oil and gas finds are becoming scarce and oil and gas production may decline in the future. With the aim of creating a more balanced economy the Brunei Government has developed since its independence in 1974 National Development Plans. Currently the 7th NDP is being implemented and more emphasis is put on attracting (heavy) manufacturing and high-tech industry. The government has selected 10 industrial areas (722 ha) in Brunei for industrial development. On one of these sites, Sungai Liang, plans are to develop large scale industrial activity such as an Alumina Smelter and Tire Recycling Plant. On the other industrial sites manufacturing and services industry are to be developed.
Substantial growth of the Brunei economy goes hand in hand with a review of its present maritime infrastructure. Gaining insight into the implications of an increase in the various cargo flows (dry bulk, multi-purpose and container) on the maritime (Muara Port and Sungai Liang) and land (truck) infrastructure, will be the main focus of this study. The project goal is defined as: ‘To determine for Brunei the optimal terminal locations for the 2015 cargo flows and to develop for Muara port a phased expansion plan.’
The general cargo port of Brunei, Muara port, has facilities for containers and multi-purpose cargo. The container terminal (16 ha) has a capacity for 200,000 TEU and the multi-purpose terminal (10 ha) has a capacity of approximate 1.0 million tons. The planned expansion of the Brunei economy, based on large scale non oil and gas export oriented projects, will therefore have a large impact on the Brunei maritime infrastructure. The existing port facilities are not sufficient to accommodate the foreseen increases in cargo volumes.
Three cargo scenarios are developed (low, average and high) to estimate the future cargo volumes. The individual components which generate cargo volumes are determined. The total cargo volume in any year under consideration is calculated as the sum of the individual components. The three individual cargo volume components are based on the real GDP growth (excluding oil and gas), the preferred large scale (heavy) industry investment options at Sungai Liang and the development of the other 9 industrial sites. The average scenario for the year 2015 is chosen for further detailed study. The expected throughput for Brunei of 6.9 million tons is divided between Muara port (3.0 million) and at the west coast near Sungai Liang (3.9 million tons).
The potential terminal locations are evaluated and development of Kuala Belait is discarded, based on the extensive redevelopment required. This leaves Sungai Liang and Muara port as the preferred terminal locations. The conclusion from the hydraulic analysis is that the significant wave height at Sungai Liang (Hs > 0.5m, occurring 50% of the time) does exclude the container terminal option. This results in handling the container ships in Muara port.
Five routing alternatives, via water and/or land, are generated for the two terminal locations and the cargo volumes involved: direct shipping, Sungai Liang dry bulk jetty and Muara port land transport, Sungai Liang dry bulk jetty and Muara port (multi-purpose) transshipment, Muara port (multi-purpose and dry bulk) transshipment and finally Muara port full land transport option.
BRUNEI MARITIME MASTERPLAN - ii - Summary
Through a MCE based on four distinctive costs criteria (nautical, hydraulic, transportation and construction) these different alternatives are evaluated. Sungai Liang showed the highest potential as (direct) dry bulk handling terminal location, whereas Muara port is selected for container and multi-purpose cargo handling facilities with truck transport to the hinterland.
For Muara port the terminal area dimensions and the required berth length are determined. For 2015 the multi-purpose and container terminal require 26 ha each (total 52 ha). This is 26 ha more than currently in use. The average shipment volumes for the container and multi-purpose are 250 TEU and 4,000 tons respectively. Six multi-purpose berths (939 m) and two container berths (488 m) are required. This is respectively 328 meters and 238 meters more than the current situation.
To accommodate the expansion in Muara port four alternative layouts are developed: maximum use existing waterfront (expansion of the terminals to each side), maximum use total waterfront (relocating the multi-purpose terminal), minimum use Pulau Muara Besar (relocating the container terminal to the island) and maximum use Pulau Muara Besar (relocating both terminals to the island). The results from a MCE conducted show that the full development of Pulau Muara Besar has the highest score. This is the result of relocating all maritime activity away from the urban area to the island where space is in abundance and no disturbance occurs to the village of Muara. The relocation of the multi-purpose terminal in Muara port is regarded as the worst. Taking also the high capital cost of the latter into account, this alternative is discarded.
Immediate port expansion at Pulau Muara Besar is not feasible as the development of the island has a lead time of approximately nine years, whereas the multi-purpose terminal requires expansion in 2007. This has lead to the conclusion that a phased development approach must be chosen. First the existing waterfront of Muara port has to be developed. Approximately 25 ha is available for expansion until 2015. Parallel with the expansion in the port the basic infrastructure for Pulau Muara Besar must be developed consisting of a bridge and bypass road around Muara village. This phasing will make it possible to relocate the container terminal in 2013 to the island and providing enough space for the multi-purpose terminal on the Muara port waterfront till 2030.
Expanding Muara port increases the traffic, industrial noise and safety risks for the surrounding urban area. Noise pollution will require some mitigating measures before 2015. Early construction of the bypass road will alleviate the negative effects of the increased traffic on the inhabitants of Muara village. The hinterland connection capacity itself is sufficient until 2030. With the foreseen port expansion to the island it is recommended to develop the bypass road at an early date.
The final conclusion is a phased development approach for Muara port is possible, via the existing waterfront to Pulau Muara Besar and that expansion of Muara port and the development of Pulau Muara Besar has to start as soon as possible. The total investment cost for the phased port development is estimated to be 330 million dollar.
BRUNEI MARITIME MASTERPLAN - iii - Table of contents
Table of contents ACKNOWLEDGMENT...... I SUMMARY...... II TABLE OF CONTENTS...... IV LIST OF TABLES ...... VIII LIST OF FIGURES...... IX 1 INTRODUCTION...... 1 2 SCOPE OF RESEARCH...... 2 2.1 PROBLEM DEFINITION...... 2 2.2 PROJECT GOAL...... 2 3 PORT DEVELOPMENT FRAME WORK...... 4 3.1 HISTORICAL PORT DEVELOPMENT THEORY...... 4 3.2 THE FUNCTIONING OF A PORT...... 4 3.3 PORT MASTERPLAN METHODOLOGY ...... 4 3.4 FRAMEWORK STUDY...... 5 PART ONE; PRESENT SITUATION BRUNEI ...... 6 4 GENERAL OVERVIEW BRUNEI ...... 6 4.1 ECONOMIC FACTS ...... 6 4.2 EXISTING MARITIME INFRASTRUCTURE...... 8 4.2.1 Ports and terminals West coast ...... 8 4.2.2 Port locations in Brunei Bay ...... 9 4.3 HINTERLAND INFRASTRUCTURE...... 10 4.3.1 Road infrastructure ...... 10 4.3.2 Rail infrastructure ...... 10 4.3.3 Waterways ...... 10 4.3.4 Power infrastructure ...... 10 4.3.5 Pipeline infrastructure ...... 10 4.4 METEOROLOGICAL AND HYDRAULIC CONDITIONS...... 11 4.4.1 Wind ...... 11 4.4.2 Wave ...... 12 4.4.3 Current ...... 13 4.4.4 Tide...... 13 5 MUARA PORT INFORMATION AND PERFORMANCE...... 14 5.1 RELEVANT DETAILS OF MUARA PORT...... 14 5.2 MUARA PORT THROUGHPUT ...... 15 5.2.1 Reconciliation of both sets...... 15 5.2.2 Container terminal ...... 16 5.2.3 The Multi purpose terminal...... 17 5.3 SURROUNDING AREA MUARA PORT ...... 18 PART TWO; CARGO AND MARITIME SCENARIOS ...... 19 6 SCENARIO DEVELOPMENT...... 19 6.1 NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL PLANS ...... 19 6.2 CONTAINER DEVELOPMENTS REGIONAL AND WORLD WIDE ...... 20 6.3 SCENARIOS ...... 21 6.3.1 Component 1: the real GDP growth (excluding oil and gas)...... 22
BRUNEI MARITIME MASTERPLAN - iv - Table of contents
6.3.2 Component 2: the preferred large scale (heavy) industry investment options at Sungai Liang...... 23 6.3.3 Component 3: the development of the other 9 industrial sites ...... 24 6.4 RESULTS FROM THE SCENARIOS...... 25 6.4.1 Results scenarios ...... 25 6.4.2 Industrial development per district ...... 26 6.5 MARITIME OVERVIEW...... 26 6.5.1 Regional Maritime history...... 26 6.5.2 Container ship size overview...... 27 6.5.3 Multi-purpose ship size overview ...... 27 6.5.4 Dry Bulk ship size overview ...... 27 PART THREE; DEVELOPMENT OF ROUTING AND PORT LAYOUT ALTERNATIVES...... 28 7 EVALUATION OF POTENTIAL TERMINAL LOCATIONS ...... 28 7.1 CARGO VOLUMES PER DISTRICT ...... 28 7.2 DESIGN SHIP SIZES ...... 29 7.2.1 Container ship ...... 29 7.2.2 Multi-purpose ship ...... 29 7.2.3 Dry bulk ship ...... 29 7.3 HYDRAULIC ANALYSIS ...... 30 7.3.1 Berthing operational limits due to wind speed...... 30 7.3.2 Berthing operational limits due to significant wave height...... 30 7.3.3 Additional information Design parameters for Sungai Liang...... 31 7.3.4 Wave period...... 31 7.3.5 Current ...... 32 7.4 NAUTICAL REQUIREMENTS...... 32 7.4.1 Approach channel...... 32 7.4.2 Manoeuvring area ...... 35 7.5 CONCLUSIONS...... 37 8 NATIONAL CARGO ROUTING...... 38 8.1 ROUTING ALTERNATIVES ...... 38 8.1.1 Alternative 1; Direct shipping...... 39 8.1.2 Alternative 2: Bulk jetty and Muara port land transport ...... 40 8.1.3 Alternative 3; Bulk jetty and Muara port transshipment...... 41 8.1.4 Alternative 4: Muara port transshipment...... 41 8.1.5 Alternative 5: Muara port full option...... 42 8.2 EVALUATION OF CARGO ROUTING ALTERNATIVE ...... 43 8.2.1 “Hard” criteria ...... 44 8.2.2 “Soft” criteria ...... 45 8.3 RESULTS AND CONCLUSION...... 46 9 MUARA PORT SPATIAL REQUIREMENTS ...... 47 9.1 TERMINAL AREA REQUIRED...... 47 9.1.1 Container terminal ...... 47 9.1.2 Multi-purpose terminal...... 49 9.2 BERTH LENGTH REQUIRED...... 50 9.2.1 Queuing theory...... 51 9.2.2 Arrival rate...... 51 9.2.3 Service rate...... 52 9.2.4 Service system chosen ...... 52 9.2.5 Berth calculations...... 53 9.3 CONCLUSIONS...... 53 10 MUARA PORT LAY-OUTS DEVELOPMENT FOR 2015 ...... 54
BRUNEI MARITIME MASTERPLAN - v - Table of contents
10.1 MUARA PORT DEVELOPMENT STARTING POINTS...... 54 10.1.1 Present Muara port land use...... 54 10.1.2 Muara port terminal limitations...... 54 10.2 MUARA PORT LAY OUT ALTERNATIVES DEVELOPMENT ...... 56 10.2.1 Introduction...... 56 10.2.2 Layout 1; Maximum use of the existing waterfront ...... 57 10.2.3 Layout 2; Maximum use of the total waterfront ...... 58 10.2.4 Layout 3; Minimum Pulau Muara Besar development ...... 59 10.2.5 Layout 4; Maximum Pulau Muara Besar development...... 60 10.3 MULTI CRITERIA EVALUATION SELECTION METHOD...... 61 10.3.1 Criteria ...... 61 10.3.2 Determining individual weight factors...... 61 10.3.3 Nautical & Hydrodynamic aspects...... 61 10.3.4 Nautical safety and accessibility ...... 62 10.3.5 Future ship size ...... 62 10.3.6 Terminal expansion flexibility ...... 62 10.3.7 Urban impact...... 63 10.3.8 Infrastructural changes ...... 63 10.3.9 Port morphology...... 63 10.4 SCORING TABLE...... 64 10.4.1 Sensitivity analysis ...... 64 11 MUARA PORT DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY ...... 66 11.1 AVAILABLE AREA ...... 66 11.2 LEAD TIME ...... 67 11.3 COSTS ESTIMATE DEVELOPMENT ...... 68 11.4 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT ...... 69 11.4.1 Introduction...... 69 11.4.2 Methodology followed ...... 70 11.4.3 Frame work ...... 70 11.4.4 Determining relevant issues for this study ...... 71 11.4.5 Valuable areas...... 71 11.4.6 Hinterland traffic impact (congestion, truck emissions/noise/safety) ...... 71 11.4.7 Noise pollution by port activities...... 73 11.4.8 Hazardous cargo & Risks...... 75 11.4.9 Alternative 4 implications...... 75 11.5 SYNTHESIS AND CONCLUSIONS ...... 76 12 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ...... 77 12.1 CONCLUSIONS...... 77 12.2 RECOMMENDATIONS ...... 78 13 REFERENCE LIST ...... 79 APPENDIX ...... 81 A HISTORICAL BACKGROUND BRUNEI...... I B BRUNEI ECONOMIC BACKGROUND ...... II B.1 POPULATION ...... II B.2 WORK FORCE & SECTORS...... II B.3 ECONOMY...... III B.4 TRADE FIGURES ...... III B.5 TRADE STATISTICS OF BRUNEI ...... III
BRUNEI MARITIME MASTERPLAN - vi - Table of contents
C MAP ROAD INFRASTRUCTURE...... V D APPENDIX ENERGY AND OFFSHORE INFRASTRUCTURE ...... VI D.1 POWER SUPPLY BRUNEI...... VI D.2 OFFSHORE INDUSTRY INFRASTRUCTURE...... VI E RECONCILIATION CARGO THROUGHPUT TABLE...... VIII F CARGO FORECAST RESULTS ...... X G VESSEL SIZE CHARACTERISTICS...... XII H WAVECLIMATE.COM DATA ...... XIV I BERTH CALCULATION...... XVI J AREA RESTRICTIONS TERMINALS ...... XVII K ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT ASPECTS...... XVIII L ENVIRONMENTAL BACKGROUND BRUNEI...... XXII L.1 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTS ...... XXII L.2 GOVERNMENT ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION POLICY...... XXII L.3 INTERNATIONAL & NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL TREATIES ...... XXIII L.4 COASTLINE ...... XXIII L.5 ISLANDS...... XXIII L.6 ECOLOGY ...... XXIII L.7 INLAND JUNGLE AND FOREST ...... XXIII L.8 MANGROVE AREAS ...... XXIV L.9 CORAL REEFS...... XXIV L.10 SPECIES ...... XXV A HISTORICAL BACKGROUND BRUNEI...... I B BRUNEI ECONOMIC BACKGROUND ...... II C MAP ROAD INFRASTRUCTURE...... V D APPENDIX ENERGY AND OFFSHORE INFRASTRUCTURE ...... VI E RECONCILIATION CARGO THROUGHPUT TABLE...... VIII F CARGO FORECAST RESULTS ...... X G VESSEL SIZE CHARACTERISTICS...... XII H WAVECLIMATE.COM DATA ...... XIV I BERTH CALCULATION...... XVI J AREA RESTRICTIONS TERMINALS ...... XVII K ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT ASPECTS...... XVIII L ENVIRONMENTAL BACKGROUND BRUNEI...... XXII
BRUNEI MARITIME MASTERPLAN - vii - Table of contents
List of Tables Table 4-1 APEC region real GDP Growth...... 6 Table 4-2 Real GDP growth rate broken down for 1993 to 2001 ...... 7 Table 4-3 Total Export revenue from 1993 to 2001...... 7 Table 4-4 Total import value from 1993 to 2001...... 7 Table 4-5 Hs for Muara port (Waveclimate.com)...... 13 Table 5-1 Overview terminals in Muara port...... 14 Table 5-2 Set 1992 – 1996 ...... 15 Table 5-3 Set 1996 – 2000 ...... 15 Table 5-4 Reconciled Annual throughput Muara port terminals for years 1992 - 2000 ...... 16 Table 5-5 Average container shipment...... 16 Table 5-6 Berth occupancy container terminal ...... 17 Table 5-7 Berth occupancy Multi-purpose terminal 1992 – 2000...... 18 Table 5-8 UNCTAD multi-purpose terminal berth occupancy recommendations...... 18 Table 5-9 No. of berths estimate multi-purpose terminal 1992 - 2000 ...... 18 Table 5-10 Maximum number of berths per ship at Multi-purpose terminal...... 18 Table 6-1 Industrial options ...... 19 Table 6-2 Industrial site size and activity...... 20 Table 6-3 Global Container Volume, according to ESCAP...... 21 Table 6-4 Container throughput increase Southeast Asia 1990 – 1999 ...... 21 Table 6-5 Cargo growth scenarios...... 22 Table 6-6 Container and multi-purpose cargo growth percentage 2000 - 2030...... 23 Table 6-7 Input 2005 cargo volumes...... 23 Table 6-8 Tire Recycling Plant cargo and Alumina Smelter cargo full capacity...... 24 Table 6-9 Cargo forecast results for selected years...... 25 Table 6-10 Percentage of the total industrial site for each District ...... 26 Table 6-11 Cargo handled per district until 2030...... 26 Table 7-1 Expected container ship dimensions...... 29 Table 7-2 Expected multi-purpose ship dimensions ...... 29 Table 7-3 Expected dry bulk ship dimensions ...... 30 Table 7-4 Limiting wind velocity for ship operations...... 30 Table 7-5 Limiting Hs and the resulted downtime for the terminals ...... 31 Table 7-6 Reference hydraulic information ...... 31 Table 7-7 limiting current values for berthing ...... 32 Table 7-8 Approach channel depth adjustments ...... 33 Table 7-9 Approach channel width calculation...... 35 Table 7-10 Width approach channels...... 35 Table 7-11 Required basin width and depth ships...... 36 Table 7-12 Turning circle dimensions...... 36 Table 8-1 Weighted score routing criteria...... 44 Table 8-2 Hard criteria score...... 46 Table 8-3 Sensitivity analysis...... 46 Table 8-4 Soft criteria score ...... 46 Table 9-1 Required total stacking area container terminal...... 48 Table 9-2 Total container terminal area ...... 49 Table 9-3 Total multi-purpose terminal area required...... 50 Table 9-4 Average container shipment volume in TEU forecasted to 2030 ...... 51 Table 9-5 Average multi-purpose shipment volume forecasted to 2030...... 51 Table 9-6 Total ships call to Brunei ...... 52 Table 9-7 Queue system and waiting time criteria...... 52 Table 9-8 Number of berths per terminal type ...... 53 Table 9-9 Total berth length required 2015 – 2030...... 53 Table 10-1 Muara port land use ...... 54 Table 10-2 Terminal area requirements ...... 56
BRUNEI MARITIME MASTERPLAN - viii - Table of contents
Table 10-3 Weighted score criteria ...... 61 Table 10-4 Multi Criteria Evaluation result ...... 64 Table 10-5 Validation sets...... 64 Table 11-1 Lead time port development ...... 67 Table 11-2 Environmental port issues...... 71 Table 11-3 Estimated generated traffic for Muara port...... 72 List of Figures Figure1-1 Southeast Asia ...... 1 Figure 1-2 Brunei map ...... 1 Figure 3-1 Masterplan time frame...... 4 Figure 3-2 Framework report ...... 5 Figure 4-1 Average price crude oil...... 6 Figure 4-2 Production oil and gas for Brunei...... 6 Figure 4-3 ASEAN water and land infrastructure...... 8 Figure 4-4 Map West coast of Brunei ...... 9 Figure 4-5 Maps of the Brunei Bay...... 10 Figure 4-6 Average wind speed altimeter ...... 11 Figure 4-7 Seasonality wind speed...... 12 Figure 4-8 Wind scatter diagram...... 12 Figure 4-9 Average Hs (SAR data)...... 12 Figure 4-10 Seasonality Hs ...... 12 Figure 4-11 Offshore wave scatter diagram Brunei ...... 12 Figure 4-12 Sungai Liang Tidal Range February 2004...... 13 Figure 4-13 Muara port Tidal Range February 2004 ...... 13 Figure 5-1 Photo Muara Port...... 14 Figure 6-1 Industrial sites Brunei...... 20 Figure 6-2 Real GDP multi-purpose cargo volume...... 23 Figure 6-3 Real GDP TEU cargo volumes...... 23 Figure 6-4 Cargo volume Sungai Liang ...... 24 Figure 6-5 Throughput of the other 9 industrial sites...... 25 Figure 7-1 Cargo origin/destination of the 2015 situation ...... 28 Figure 7-2 SAR average wave period ...... 31 Figure 7-3 Muara port approach channel ...... 33 Figure 7-4 Sungai Liang approach channel...... 34 Figure 7-5 Kuala Belait approach channel ...... 34 Figure 8-1 Routing container transport ...... 38 Figure 8-2 Selected terminal locations...... 38 Figure 8-3 Routing cargo flows of alternative 1 ...... 39 Figure 8-4 Routing cargo flows of alternative 2 ...... 40 Figure 8-5 Routing cargo flows of alternative 3 ...... 41 Figure 8-6 Routing cargo flows of alternative 4 ...... 42 Figure 8-7 Routing cargo flows of alternative 5 ...... 42 Figure 9-1 Container terminal area growth ...... 49 Figure 9-2 Multi-purpose terminal area growth ...... 50 Figure 10-1 Muara port land use ...... 55 Figure 10-2 Layout 1; Maximum use of the existing waterfront ...... 57 Figure 10-3 Layout 2; Maximum use of the total waterfront...... 58 Figure 10-4 Layout 3; Minimum Pulau Muara Besar development...... 59 Figure 10-5 Layout 4; Maximum Pulau Muara Besar development ...... 60 Figure 11-1 Muara port spatial growth alternatives ...... 66 Figure 11-2 Alternative port development paths...... 67 Figure 11-3 Development path Muara port...... 68 Figure 11-4 Muara access road capacity ...... 72
BRUNEI MARITIME MASTERPLAN - ix - Table of contents
Figure 11-5 Noise contour present situation ...... 74 Figure 11-6 Noise contour alternative 1...... 74 Figure 11-7 Noise contour alternative 3...... 74 Figure 11-8 Schematic outline of the expansion in time...... 76
BRUNEI MARITIME MASTERPLAN - x - Introduction
1 Introduction Southeast Asia has become in the last decades the largest economic growth region of the world. Its manufacturing products are distributed over the region and the world. Historically maritime transport has been the main method for trading products, due to the lack of sufficient land infrastructure. This resulted in a specialised trading pattern in which smaller ships (so called feeders) use the many shallow ports along the coastline. Ports have become increasingly important as the cargo handling transfer nodes in the sophisticated logistic chain of manufactured goods. Specialisation and upgrading of port infrastructure is therefore a main focus in the whole region.
Brunei1 is located on the island of Borneo and is surrounded on the land side by Malaysia and on the water side by the Brunei Bay and South China Sea (180 km coastline), see Figure 1-2 (More about Brunei history can be found in appendix A.). The country (with a gross surface area of 5,770 sq kilometres and 358,000 inhabitants in 2000) has an economy based mainly on oil and gas revenues (90% of its export earnings). Per capita Gross Domestic Product (GDP) was 11,059 US dollars in 2002. Over the past 10 years the Brunei GDP growth varied between 4 % in 1997 and – 4% in 1998, averaging 2 %. The land surface developed in the tertiary age and consist mainly of sandstones and clay. The terrain in the western part is hilly lowland, which rises in the hinterland to about three hundred metres and swampy plains and alluvial valleys dominate the Brunei-Muara, Tutong and Belait districts.
Borneo lies central in the region (in the middle of the main region economies Thailand, Malaysia, Indonesia, Vietnam and the Philippines Figure1-1) and the close proximity of the main shipping route between Singapore, Hong Kong and Japan (which is used for the trade to the intra-Asian2 cargo and international shipment) could provide Brunei with an additional competitive advantage.
Figure1-1 Southeast Asia Figure 1-2 Brunei map Of the four regional districts of Brunei (from the south to north: Belait, Tutong, Brunei – Muara and Temburong , which is separated by the Malaysian province of Sarawak from Brunei), the Brunei- Muara district is the financial and governmental centre. Its capital Bandar Seri Begawan, located at the mouth of the Brunei River, is connected with ferry connections to the Temburong district and the surrounding coastal villages of Sarawak and is connected by roads to all the other districts of Brunei. Other urban concentrations can be found in the northwest and west of Brunei alongside the main Brunei coastal highway, running from the north from Muara, via Tutong to Kuala Belait in the far south.
1 Brunei Darussalam is the official name 2 This is the trade between the Asian countries themselves.
BRUNEI MARITIME MASTERPLAN 1 Scope of Research
2 Scope of Research Presently the reliance of the Brunei economy on the oil and gas revenues makes the economy vulnerable, especially with the prospect that the oil and gas reserves are limited. (It is currently estimated that oil and gas reserves will last till 2020 and 2030 respectively). Therefore the oil and gas revenues are likely to decline in the future. With the aim of creating a more balanced economy the Brunei Government has developed since its independence in 1974 five year National Development Plans (NDP’s).
Currently the 7th NDP (2000 – 2005) is being implemented and more emphasis is put on attracting export-oriented manufacturing and service activity. The government has selected 10 industrial areas (722 ha) in Brunei for industrial development. For the Sungai Liang coastal industrial site (see Figure 1-2), plans are to develop large scale heavy industrial activity3 such as an Alumina Smelter and Tire Recycling Plant. On the other 9 industrial sites (High- tech) manufacturing and services industries are to be developed. These developments will increase the cargo flows like multi-purpose cargo, containers and dry bulk.
The implications of these projects and the general economic growth on the Brunei maritime infrastructure will pose challenges to port planning. A study investigating the possible future maritime (e.g. new facilities at Sungai Liang, changes to Muara port) and land infrastructure alternatives could increase the understanding of the choices available and contribute to the discussions on the future infrastructural developments of Brunei.
Of the existing ports in Brunei, Muara Port is in an excellent position to support the expansion of the export-oriented economy and to become a regional port of significance. It has a tremendous advantage over other ports along the Borneo coast because Muara port is located in a sheltered bay, close to the island of Pulau Muara Besar (Malayan: Puala Muara Besar). Development of Pulau Muara Besar is considered for terminal expansion by the Brunei Government. Industrial and logistic development has not yet been considered in the 7th NDP and is therefore left outside the scope of this study.
Halcrow Group Limited, a United Kingdom based Civil Engineering company, is involved in Brunei as a consultant for the development of a transshipment container terminal on the island of Pulau Muara Besar. It has supported this study to gain insight into the future Brunei maritime development options, with emphasis on Muara port.
2.1 Problem definition Substantial growth of the Brunei economy goes hand in hand with a review of its present maritime infrastructure. Gaining insight into the implications of an increase in the various cargo flows (dry bulk, multi-purpose and container) on the maritime (Muara Port and Sungai Liang) and land infrastructure, will be the main focus of this study.
2.2 Project goal To determine for Brunei the optimal terminal locations for the 2015 cargo flows and to develop for Muara port a phased expansion plan.
Research objectives to reach project goal: Collect relevant economic, infrastructural, hydraulic and metrological information Provide a consistent dataset as a basis for cargo flow analysis and Muara port performance. Develop a spreadsheet model for economic scenarios up to the year 2030 to predict cargo flows
3 Industries requiring large spatial demand, large throughput volumes and high energy consumption.
BRUNEI MARITIME MASTERPLAN 2 Scope of Research
Use predicted cargo flows for evaluation of water and land transport routing alternatives and select most suitable alternative. Calculate terminal dimensions and berth lengths to develop layout options for Muara port and select the most suitable option(s), taking also into account the environmental impact. Provide a vision for port development beyond 2005
BRUNEI MARITIME MASTERPLAN 3 Port development frame work
3 Port development frame work
3.1 Historical port development theory Bird4 (1971) has conducted a detailed study into the spatial development of ports in the United Kingdom. Bird developed a model called “Anyport” in which the spatial growth of a port is explained. Bird’s model shows that a port grows in different stages away from the city towards deeper water to accommodate specialised terminals. Hoyle5 (1981) has elaborated the model of Bird further into the modal called “cityport” and included the port’s relation with its surrounding urban area. This relation is becoming more and more intertwined and the urban expansion pushes terminal development away from the city, hand in hand with redevelopment of old terminal areas into urban areas.
In the Brunei situation, historically the port was located at the estuary of the Brunei River near the capital (Bandar Seri Begawan). As the ships grew in size, the water depth was not sufficient anymore and Muara port had to be developed to overcome the limited water depth at the capital city (5 meters). With limited international trade occurring in Brunei, little terminal development was required, enabling the surrounding urban area to grow around the port but at the same time this was limiting future expansion of the port. Muara port has already a designated industrial area (Seresa) for export oriented industry.
3.2 The functioning of a port At points were the land infrastructure converges with the maritime systems, ports have been created. The primary function of a port is to accommodate cargo handling activity (warehousing, trans- shipment). As a result the focus of the port is on one hand on the maritime side and on the other hand on the land side requirements. To fulfil this, a port requires sufficient maritime access for ships, sufficient space for maritime interface (the berths), sufficient land infrastructure (cranes, warehouses) and good hinterland connections.
3.3 Port masterplan methodology The research objectives mentioned before are normally part of the development of a port masterplan. The general methodology of a port masterplan is therefore briefly described below.
For ports to be able to adjust to future changes in cargo throughput and developments in the maritime sector, a flexible port expansion plan must be developed. In such a plan three different time frames can be distinguished, as seen in Figure 3-1 7; (1) masterplan, with an horizon of 25 years (long term). (2) first phase masterplan, with a horizon of 10 years (medium term). (3) minor layout changes within 2 years (short term).
Figure 3-1 Masterplan time frame
4 Bird, J, 1971, Seaports and seaport terminals, London: Hutchinson University Library 5 Hoyle, B.S., and Pinder, D.A. (eds) 1981, Cityport Industrialisation and Regional Development: Spatial Analysis and Planning Strategies (Oxford, Pergamon Press)
BRUNEI MARITIME MASTERPLAN 4 Port development frame work
The reason to develop a masterplan is to provide insight into future development requirements. With this insight terminal area can be reserved. When a country has more ports, national or regional masterplans for port development are required for optimum allocation of resources. These plans should take into account the existing port capacity, the hinterland connections, the industrial development and the cost of the infrastructure. The port planner plays a role in the optimisation of existing ports (Can the efficiency and throughput capacity be improved, often without new infrastructure?) and in preparing lay-outs for new port facilities or extensions where appropriate. Port planning incorporates maritime aspects, such as hydraulic, nautical and operational aspects, together with land aspects such as, spatial planning, transport, environmental and legal aspects. Preliminary design of infrastructure is carried out to determine costs. 7
3.4 Framework study Part of the methodology (and terminology) of the port masterplan development is now translated for the Brunei situation in a three step approach (Figure 3-2).
Part 1; Present situation
Part 2; Scenario's 2005 - 2030
Part 3; Cargo routing and Potential terminal locations port layouts Selected terminal locations National cargo routing Selected routing alternative Muara Port spatial requirements Future terminal area and berth length Port development alternatives Preferred port development plan Figure 3-2 Framework report Part one; Present situation Data on the present situation is gathered for the economy, the ports, port infrastructure, the hinterland connections and the hydraulic and meteorological conditions, see chapter 4. The port and terminal performance of Muara port is analysed in chapter 5.
Part two; Cargo and maritime scenarios Brunei’s industrial, economical and maritime developments are identified, which are translated into three scenarios, Low, Average and High, see chapter 6.
Part three; Development of routing and port layouts alternatives The results from step 2 are then used to determine the most optimal maritime terminal locations for development, chapter 7, followed by determining the most optimal cargo routing, chapter 8, followed by the maritime requirements for Muara port, chapter 9. For Muara port alternative port layouts are developed and evaluated with a Multi Criteria Evaluation, chapter 10. Chapter 11determines a Muara port development plan, involving the phasing, environmental impact and a costs estimate.
BRUNEI MARITIME MASTERPLAN 5 Part one; Present situation Brunei
Part one; Present situation Brunei
4 General overview Brunei Before any port development can take place first the present situation of the economy, ports, hinterland, meteorological and hydraulic conditions and finally the Muara port performance has to be investigated.
4.1 Economic facts The Southeast Asian economies have over the last decades shown much larger economic growth than the world average. During the Asian currency crisis in 1997 the Southeast Asia economic growth dropped (in terms of real Gross Domestic Product), the region recovered from 2000 onwards and growth is again above the world average. 1 (see Table 4-1)
Year Real GDP growth (%) 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 World 3.3 3.5 2.3 3.0 4.0 1.4 Southeast Asia 7.4 4.1 -7.7 3.9 5.9 2.1 Brunei Darussalam 1.0 3.6 -4.0 2.6 2.8 1.5 Indonesia 7.8 4.9 -13.7 0.3 4.8 3.3 Malaysia 10.0 7.3 -7.4 5.8 8.5 0.4 The Philippines 5.8 5.2 -0.6 3.4 4.4 3.2 Singapore 7.7 8.5 -0.1 6.9 10.3 -2.0 Thailand 5.9 -1.4 -10.5 4.4 4.6 1.8 Viet Nam 9.3 8.2 5.8 4.8 6.8 6.8 Table 4-1 APEC region real GDP Growth From the table it can be concluded that Brunei‘s real GDP growth is structurally lower than the average of the other countries in the Southeast Asia region.
The real GDP of Brunei is highly dependent on the contribution of the oil and gas exports 6. The production of oil and gas has remained fairly constant over the years (see Figure 4-2). Fluctuation of world market prices for these products therefore affects the economy directly, see Figure 4-1 and Table 4-3 16
Gas, natural: Gross million cubic meters 80.000 Petroleum:Crude thousand 42-gallon barrels 70.000 60.000 50.000 40.000 30.000 20.000 10.000 0 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 Figure 4-1 Average Volume Year e/ price crude oil Figure 4-2 Production oil and gas for Brunei
BRUNEI MARITIME MASTERPLAN 6 Part one; Present situation Brunei
The non-oil and gas sector, defined as the total economy minus the oil and gas sector including among others the Government, agriculture, manufacturing and services sectors, shows a more stable economic growth. 5 The non oil and gas sector is still recovering from the aftermath (1999 – 2001) of the Asian crisis. (See Table 4-2) The growth figures before the crisis are more in line with the average APEC regional growth (see Table 4-1).
Year Real GDP (%) 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 Brunei Darussalam 0.5 1.8 3.0 3.6 4.1 -4.0 2.6 2.8 0.8 Oil and gas sector -2.4 -1.0 1.0 1.0 1.5 -9.0 4.6 3.7 1.5 Non oil and gas sector 4.8 5.6 5.7 6.7 7.1 2.3 0.3 1.8 -0.1 Table 4-2 Real GDP growth rate broken down for 1993 to 2001 The revenues of the oil and gas exports are shown in Table 4-3. More details on the Brunei economy can be found in appendix B. 6 In 2001 90 percent of the export revenues were derived from the oil and gas sector. The secondary export products (others in the Table 4-3) were worth in total of 393,524 thousands US$ (9%). (1) Textiles and apparel (Special traditional clothes and dresses for ceremonials) (2) Machinery and Electrical Appliances (3) Vehicles (4) Prepared Foodstuffs / Base metal and Metal articles
Revenues in thousands of US$ Sector 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 Oil and Gas Unknown 1,628,628 2,593,761 2,293,305 2,656,726 1,834,669 2,212,400 1,783,478 3,136,922 Other Unknown 156,710 177,222 199,949 57,436 88,986 128,264 385,669 393,524 Total Unknown 1,785,339 2,770,983 2,493,255 2,714,162 1,923,655 2,340,664 2,169,147 3,530,446 Table 4-3 Total Export revenue from 1993 to 2001 The Brunei import statistics show the reliance of the economy on the imported products (see Table 4-4). With the low oil prices prevailing during 1998/1999, some 70 percent of the export earnings were used for imports. In 2001 with the high oil prices this figure dropped to 37 percent. The categories of imports (through Muara Port) in 2001 were worth in total 1,309,975 thousands US$ and consisted of: (1) Vehicles (2) Machinery and Electrical Appliances (3) Textiles and apparel (4) Other (5) Base metal and Metal articles (6) Prepared Foodstuffs (7) Chemicals (8) Live Animals
Revenues in thousands of US$ 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 Total Unknown 2,000,404 2,132,661 4,434,841 2,310,688 1,276,250 1,720,353 1,067,610 1,309,975 Table 4-4 Total import value from 1993 to 2001 The government budget policy is centred on the principles that the Brunei population shares in the benefits created from the exploitation of oil and gas. Brunei has free health care, fully sponsored education and sponsored housing and food. There is no income tax at the moment. 6
6 Asian Trade statistics from the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), http://202.154.12.3/trade/publicview.asp ,
BRUNEI MARITIME MASTERPLAN 7 Part one; Present situation Brunei
Out of a total population of 358,000 per July 2003 the workforce in Brunei consisted of around 143,000 people, 40% of the total population and 60% of the people eligible to work. The oil and gas industry is next to the government the main employer of Brunei, together making up a total of 90% of the total jobs. The other 10% is provided by the agriculture, forestry and fishing. The unemployment rate is 5%.
The revenues from the oil and gas sector are accounting for over 30% to 50% of gross domestic product (GDP), around 80%-90% of the exports, and 75%-90% of government revenues.
The commercial activity in the private sector is made up of small scale manufactures (textiles and furniture) and primary production, including agriculture (Rice/ vegetables / fruit / water buffalos (imported from Australia)), forestry and fishery. The livestock is used to produce Halal (islamic method of preparing meat products) meats.
4.2 Existing maritime infrastructure The inter-regional trade is carried out by small cargo ships (feeders) that travel along the maritime routes shown in Figure 4-3 below. It can be seen that Brunei is centrally positioned within this regional maritime infrastructure. On the South China Sea site of Borneo other ports are located like Bintulu, Kushing and Kota Kinabaru. These ports are small are outside the scope of this report.
Figure 4-3 ASEAN water and land infrastructure The Brunei maritime infrastructure can be divided into two categories, the mainly export oriented facilities for oil and gas (liquid bulk terminals) at the west coast and the facilities for all the other cargo at Muara port (general cargo, consisting of containerised and multi-purpose cargo, and cargo for the local construction market, cement and bitumen port).
4.2.1 Ports and terminals West coast The west coast of Brunei has a shallow coastline with the 10 meter water depth contour line minimal four kilometres offshore, as shown in the Admiralty Chart 9 in Figure 4-4. The offshore oil and gas industry owns many pipelines in front of the coast.
BRUNEI MARITIME MASTERPLAN 8 Part one; Present situation Brunei
Figure 4-4 Map West coast of Brunei
The most southern port of Brunei is the port of Kuala Belait (No. 1 in Figure 4-4), at the mouth of the Kuala Belait river. The natural sheltered port has an available water depth of 4 meters above Chart Datum and access is limited to barges and very small cargo ships. The port has specialised itself to supply the offshore industry. The port facilities area located on the north side of the river bank. The south bank is covered with mangroves, swamps and oil production wells. The population lives along the north bank and is concentrated along the coastline.
The next village north of Kuala Belait is Seria (No. 2). Two offshore buoys in front of the coast (No. 6) are used for the export of crude oil. A small oil refinery north of Seria is refining crude oil for local demand7 (Figure 4-4). The population is concentrated along the coastline extending from Kuala Belait.
Twenty kilometres north of Seria along the coastline Lumut (No. 3) can be found. Here the LNG plant and LNG export facilities (4.5 km LNG jetty) are located (No. 7). Special LNG carriers export the gas to various clients in Asia. (Figure 4-4)
Just five kilometres north of Lumut lies Sungai Liang (No. 4). The area between the LNG plant and Sungai Liang has been selected for large scale (heavy) industry development (more in paragraph 6.3.2).
North of Sungai Liang at the mouth of the river Tutong, the coastal village of Tutong (No. 5) is located. A very shallow entrance to the port restricts entrance to Tutong, see the Figure 4-4.
4.2.2 Port locations in Brunei Bay Muara Port is located on the west of Brunei bay and can be reached through an approach channel from the South China Sea. (Figure 4-5) The approach channel has been dredged through the Muara Spit that shelters Muara Port. The Brunei Bay is relatively deep (on average 20 meters) with deep trenches at the entrance of the bay.
7 Capacity of 10,000 bpd of leaded and unleaded petrol, diesel, aircraft fuel, and kerosene for local consumption. From www.uktradeinvest.gov.uk
BRUNEI MARITIME MASTERPLAN 9 Part one; Present situation Brunei
In front of Muara port the uninhabited island Pulau Muara Basar is located. The island is separated from the main land by a channel with a water depth between 8 to 10 meters.
Further south in Brunei Bay the capital Bandar Seri Begawan is located. It can be reached from the Brunei Bay through the estuary of the Belait River (Figure 4-5). The available draft in the estuary is approximate 5 meters.
Figure 4-5 Maps of the Brunei Bay
4.3 Hinterland infrastructure The hinterland for the maritime infrastructure of Brunei is small. Borneo itself is not highly populated / industrialised and has no significant land infrastructure of any kind. Therefore the focus will be on Brunei itself. The infrastructure of Brunei is briefed below.
4.3.1 Road infrastructure The total road length in Brunei is 2,800 km, of which 1,123 km is asphalted, see also appendix C. The asphalted roads are mainly located in the populated areas (the Brunei-Muara district and the coastal areas in the west). The longest highway, 135 kilometres long, connects Kuala Belait with Muara. There are 176,000 private cars and 19,000 commercial motorised vehicles in the country.
4.3.2 Rail infrastructure No commercial railway systems are present in Brunei. For the oil and gas industry a dedicated railway, 13 kilometres long, is used for the transport of materials between Kampong Badas and Lumut.
4.3.3 Waterways The four rivers in Brunei are of limited use for inland transportation. The west coast rivers (Kuala and Tutong) are only navigable near the mouth of the rivers. Over the Brunei River cargo is transported from the Brunei bay to the capital Bandar Seri Begawan. In the Temburong district the Temburong River is used for very small boats to supply the small villages in the jungle.
4.3.4 Power infrastructure The electricity demand in Brunei is provided by four power plants located at Lumut, Jeradung, Gadong and Berakas. The fuel type used is Natural Gas, a fuel that Brunei has in abundance. The installed capacity is approximately 720 MW. To accommodate the planned increase in industrial activity the government is planning to extend the Lumut capacity with 500 MW, which will increase the total national capacity with 75%. More can be found in appendix D.
4.3.5 Pipeline infrastructure The oil and gas industry has developed a sophisticated offshore pipeline system for transportation of the produced oil and gas. At three locations this pipeline system is connected to onshore locations: (1)
BRUNEI MARITIME MASTERPLAN 10 Part one; Present situation Brunei
Seria, the crude oil refinery and export terminal; (2) Lumut, the natural gas LNG plant and export terminal; (3) Jeradong, the natural gas power plant. The total length of the network consists of 553 km crude oil and 920 km natural gas pipeline.
4.4 Meteorological and hydraulic conditions For any new port development or modifications to the existing ones hydraulic (wind, significant wave height and current velocities) conditions have to be known and this is done through the use of the database Waveclimate.com.
The areas looked at are offshore of Sungai Liang (planned site for Alumina Smelter and Tire Recycling Plant, paragraph 6.4, with longitude 4°39'03''N and latitude 114°22'59''E), and Muara port (longitude 5°01'30''N and latitude 115°05'42''E).
Brunei has a tropical equatorial climate. The annual rainfall is generally high, approximate 3,000 mm, and the humidity is high throughout the year, approximate 85%, due to the high temperature and rainfall. Air temperature is relatively uniform throughout the year, fluctuating between a minimum of 240C and a maximum of 310C, with an average of 280C.
Monsoon winds influence the climatic variations. There are 2 main monsoon periods in Brunei, from December to March with a wind direction from the northeast and from June to October with the main wind direction from the southeast. In between this period two inter-monsoon periods occur from April to May and November to December. The rain seasons occurs from September to January, with December as the wettest; and from May to June. Virtually a drought period is from February to April.
Although Southeast Asia experiences many tropical storms, Brunei is not affected by these storms.
4.4.1 Wind In general the wind speed is defined as the hourly average wind speed at 10 meters above the sea surface.
The average offshore wind originates from the northeast, with speeds (Figure 4-6) in a range of 2 – 6 m/s. Higher speeds occur in the Brunei bay of 6 – 8 m/s.
Throughout the year, taking into account the seasonality8 of the wind speed, Figure 4-7 shows wind speeds between 2 – 10 m/s, with the higher values in the months November to March, which Figure 4-6 Average wind speed altimeter coincides with the northern monsoon period. This will also be valid for Muara port. A more detailed investigation into the wind speed and direction (using the scatterometer, Figure 4-8) reveals that the main wind direction is from the northeast (with strong wind up to 14 m/s) and southwest (with moderate winds up to 6 m/s).
8 The seasonality presents the seasonal distribution of either wind speed (Figure 4-7) or significant wave height (Figure 4-10). The mean wind speed or wave height per month is shown with a red line. The orange band gives the range of wind speeds or wave heights that occurs 90% of the time: 5% of the time the wind speed or wave height is below this band, and 5% of the time it is above it. The wind speed in the seasonality plot is obtained from the ERS-1/2 scatterometer, the wave height from the ERS-1/2 altimeter.
BRUNEI MARITIME MASTERPLAN 11 Part one; Present situation Brunei
Wind speed directions N Windspeed (m/s) 1,5 0 - 1 1 - 2 1 2 - 3 3 - 4 0,5 4 - 5 W 5 - 6 0 E 6 - 7 7 - 8 8 - 9 9 - 10 10 - 11 11 - 12 Figure 4-7 Seasonality wind speed 12 - 13 13 - 14 S
Figure 4-8 Wind scatter9 diagram
4.4.2 Wave
The significant wave height (Hs) is defined as the arithmetical mean value of the height one-third of the waves for a stated interval.
The average offshore Hs (Figure 4-9) show that the range is between 0.5 – 1.0 meter. The seasonality of Hs (Figure 4-10) show that the range is between 0 – 2.8 metres, with the higher values in the months November to March, which coincides with the northern monsoon period.
A more detailed investigation (Figure 4-11) into the Figure 4-9 Average Hs (SAR data) wave direction and occurring Hs reveals that the main wave direction is from the north (with Hs between 0.0 – 3.0 meters) and northwest (with Hs between 0.0 – 1.0 meter).
Wave direction N Hs (m) 12 10 0.0 - 0.5 8 0.5 - 1.0 6 1.0 - 1.5 4 2 1.5 - 2.0 W 0 E 2.0 - 2.5 2.5 - 3.0
Figure 4-10 Seasonality Hs S Figure 4-11 Offshore wave scatter diagram Brunei
9 A scatter diagram shows wind or wave directions and the frequency that a certain wind or wave direction occurs.
BRUNEI MARITIME MASTERPLAN 12 Part one; Present situation Brunei
For Hs at Muara port (Table 4-5) the range is between 0.0 - 0.5 meters throughout the year.
Range Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 0.0 - 0.5 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 0.5 – 1.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100
Table 4-5 Hs for Muara port (Waveclimate.com)
4.4.3 Current The offshore current velocity along the coastline of Brunei shows a maximum value of 0.75 knots. The velocity at the approach channel entrance of Muara port is assumed to be the same. Within Muara port the tidal current is assumed to be approximate 0.5 knots.
4.4.4 Tide The tide in Brunei has a mixed diurnal tide. The mean water level is approximate 1.2 meters above Chart Datum10 Muara port and Sungai Liang.
The tidal information for Muara port, Figure 4-13, has been obtained from the Muara port website for the month February 2004. The result shows that the Mean Higher High Waterlevel (MHHW) is CD+ 2.4 meters and Mean Lowest Low Waterlevel (MLLW) is CD+ 0.2 meters.
The tidal information for Sungai Liang has been obtained from the online database Tidel-info.com for February 2004, Figure 4-12. The reference level of the tide is the Mean Water Level. The tidal elevation in Sungai Liang is approximate + 0.8 meters and –1.0 meters. That will imply that the MHHW is CD+ 2.0 meters and the MLLW is CD+ 0.2 meters.
Both locations show therefore approximate the same tidal graph.
Figure 4-12 Sungai Liang Tidal Range February 2004 Figure 4-13 Muara port Tidal Range February 2004
10 Chart Datum is the Lowest astronomic tide water level.
BRUNEI MARITIME MASTERPLAN 13 Part two; Cargo and maritime scenarios
5 Muara Port information and performance
This chapter is assessing the current performance of the Muara port terminal as a starting point for future development. This will be carried out for the container and multi-purpose terminal. The bitumen and cement terminals are not further investigated.
5.1 Relevant details of Muara Port The port was opened in 1973 for commercial exploitation and the Port Department of the Brunei Government took over the port management and operations in 1986. The Maritime Department is responsible for the nautical aspects of the port, like dredging and ship assistance with tugs.
The port area covers Muara port and the Seresa industrial area, with a waterfront length of approximate 4.000 meters, and comprises of a container terminal, a multi-purpose terminal, bitumen jetty, naval base, fishery, cement jetty and a ferry terminal. These facilities (Table 5-1) are spread over the waterfront from the entrance of the approach channel to the Seresa industrial area, see Figure 5-1. The port water depth is 12.5 meters since 2001. 11
No. in No of Berth length Terminal area Terminal water depth Terminal type Figure 5.1 berths (m) (ha) (m) 1 Ferry Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown 2 Cement Unknown Unknown Unknown 8 3 Fishery wharf 1 Unknown Unknown 9 (est.) Unknown 4 Container 1 250 10 12.5 5 Multi-purpose 3 611 10 12.5 6 Fishery wharf 2 Unknown Unknown 10 (est.) Unknown 7 Bitumen jetty Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown 8 Naval Base Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Table 5-1 Overview terminals in Muara port
Figure 5-1 Photo Muara Port
11 From the Brunei Port and Marine department websites : End 2000 the port has been dredged from 9.5 meters to 12.5 meters at LLWL
BRUNEI MARITIME MASTERPLAN 14 Part two; Cargo and maritime scenarios
On the Muara port photo (Figure 5-1) the following areas can be distinguished: • The urban area of Muara is located behind the port and the Seresa industrial area • At the entrance of the port (number 8) the naval base is located with its barracks and other facilities. • Two jetties of the bitumen terminal (number 7), next to the naval base. Its throughput is unknown. • Two fishery wharfs with its fishery industry, east of the multi purpose terminal (number 6) and west of the container terminal (number 3). • A cement jetty (number 2) at the Seresa industrial area. The Brunei cement factory started production in 1995. • A ferry terminal (number 1) at the Seresa Industrial area, since 1997 operational.
5.2 Muara port throughput Two data sets were available to assess the performance of Muara Port. The first one for the years 1992 to 1996 12 and the second one for the years 1996 to 2000. 13 The first set included the cement and bitumen terminal and the second set not. Both data sets are presented in Table 5-2 and Table 5-3.
The multi-purpose terminal throughput in the first set did not specify separate throughputs for imported and exported multi-purpose cargo. In the second data set these were given as non containerised cargo, but included also the cement and bitumen. To provide a baseline for the multi- purpose terminal throughput, both tables have been reconciled.
Set 1 Set 2 YEAR 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 YEAR 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 Total ship calls 918 979 1,142 1,234 1,460 Total ship calls 1,460 1,437 1,154 877 1,059
CONTAINERISED (million metric tons) CONTAINERISED (million metric tons) Import no datano datano data no datano data Import 0.865 no data 0.607 0.630 0.565 Export no datano datano data no datano data Export 0.030 no data 0.044 0.065 0.077 Total 0.507 0.600 0.694 0.7340.895 Total 0.895 0.866 0.651 0.695 0.642
Multi purpose 0.791 0.907 0.980 0.831 0.999 NON-CONTAINERISED (million metric tons) Cement 0.084 0.127 0.103 0.6110.494 Import 1.501 no data 0.556 0.359 0.450 Bitumen 0.016 0.022 0.018 0.0220.021 Export 0.013 no data 0.013 0.007 0.014 Total 891 1.056 1.101 1.464 1.514 Total 1.514 1.226 0.569 0.366 0.464
Total tons (million metric tons) Total tons (million metric tons) Import no datano datano data no datano data Import 2.366 no data 1.163 0.989 1.015 Export no datano datano data no datano data Export 0.043 no data 0.057 0.072 0.091 TOTAL 1.398 1.656 1.795 2.1982.409 Total 2.409 2.092 1.220 1.061 1.106
14 T E Us ('000) T E Us ('000) Import 23 26 30 37 44 Import 44 41 30 32 31 Export 21 24 29 34 40 Export 40 38 29 30 30 Total 44 51 59 71 85 Total 84 79 60 62 61 Table 5-2 Set 1992 – 1996 Table 5-3 Set 1996 – 2000
5.2.1 Reconciliation of both sets The overlapping year 1996 showed in both sets the same values for all the totals (ship calls, total containerised, total non-containerised, total cargo throughput), allowing to make the datasets consistent and filling up the blank spots for the cargo types bitumen, cement and multi-purpose cargo for the years 1996- 2000. The reconciled annual terminal throughput as determined in appendix E is
12 www.bruclass.com/bboatinfro.htm 13 Port department website 14 Figures provided by the Muara Port authority for the container terminal
BRUNEI MARITIME MASTERPLAN 15 Part two; Cargo and maritime scenarios presented in Table 5-4.
Annual throughput terminal Muara port (Millions tons) Year 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 Containerised 0.507 0.600 0.694 0.734 0.895 0.866 0.651 0.695 0.642 Multi purpose 0.791 0.907 0.980 0.831 0.999 1.046 0.459 0.292 0.434 Cement 0.084 0.127 0.103 0.611 0.4940.120 0.090 0.060 0.020 Bitumen 0.016 0.022 0.018 0.022 0.0210.060 0.020 0.014 0.010 TOTAL 1.398 1.656 1.795 2.198 2.4092.092 1.220 1.061 1.106 Table 5-4 Reconciled Annual throughput Muara port terminals for years 1992 - 2000 From 1992 onwards a gradual increase was seen in the total throughput until the year 1996. After which a decrease set in till the year 2000. The total tons that passed through Muara port varied between 1.11 million tons (2000) and 2.41 million tons (1996).
The container and multi-purpose terminal will be dealt with in more deal below.
5.2.2 Container terminal The terminal is located in front of Muara village (number 4 on the Muara Port photo). In 2000 the container terminal operations became the responsibility of the PSA Corporation Limited terminals from Singapore for a 25 year lease. The terminal is equipped with 2 Panamax cranes with a 40-tonne lifting capacity each for the handling of containers. The water depth alongside the present 250 meter berth is 12.5 meters. The total terminal area is assumed to be approximate 16 ha. The area on the waterfront (10 ha) uses equipment consists of forklift trucks, reach stackers and straddle carriers. The area behind the multi-purpose terminal (6ha) is operated by forklift trucks. 15 The container terminal throughput, in TEU table 6-1 and 6-2 has been increasing till 1996 and decreased ever since, to level of 60.000 to 70.000 TEU in the year 2000.
The average number of containers (TEU) handled per call (loaded and unloaded) in Muara Port is shown in Table 5-5. This is derived from the total TEU throughput divided by the total container ship calls. This shows that the average number of container handled per ship has been decreasing since 1992 from 121 TEU per call to 95 TEU in 2000.
Year 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 TEU (*1000) 44.0 50.7 58.6 71.1 84.5 78.6 59.3 61.5 60.8 Calls 362 400 578 612 688 666 651 632 642 TEU handled per call 121 127 101 116 123 118 91 97 95 Table 5-5 Average container shipment
To get an indication of the berth occupancy for the Muara Container Terminal the following equation 7 can be used.
Cb = p * f * N b *tn * mb
In which: Cb = throughput per annum. [TEU] P = gross production per berth. [moves/hr] F = TEU factor. The composition of the container flow in 40’ units and 20’ units. [-] Nb = the number of cranes [-] tn = working hours per year [hrs/yr] mb = berth occupancy. These should be between 0.3 – 0.4. [-]
15 websites: PSA Muara Container terminal and Ports department
BRUNEI MARITIME MASTERPLAN 16 Part two; Cargo and maritime scenarios
Cb = shown in Table 5-2 and Table 5-3 P = assumed is 25 moves per hour. F = assumed is that a value of 1,3 can be used. Nb = 2 (paragraph 5.2.2) tn = 8760 operational hours (24 hour service during 365 days)
With the above formula the berth occupancy is calculated and the results are presented below.
Year 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000
Berth occupany (mb) 0.07 0.08 0.09 0.11 0.13 0.12 0.09 0.09 0.11 Table 5-6 Berth occupancy container terminal The terminal has a low berth occupancy rate in this rough estimate. For the actual data available in the year 2000, it is very likely that the terminal working hours are much lower. When it is assumed that there on average 12 working hours the berth occupancy is increased to 0.22. This shows that the terminal is operating far below its capacity. Furthermore the gross production of the cranes might be to optimistic, a range of 20 moves/hr would seem more realistic with the current performance.
Muara container terminal has according to the Brunei government and the terminal operator PSA a capacity of around 200,000 to 300,000 TEU per annum with 1 berth. This capacity is more likely to be on the lower side with the following argument. Assuming the maximum acceptable berth occupancy of 0.30, a maximum possible handling rate of 30 moves/hr and taken the other factors constant, a value of Cb of 200,000 TEU per annum is the resultant. A Cb value higher than 200,000 can only be achieved when the berth occupancy is increased above 0.30 and that will always result in higher waiting times for the ships. Higher waiting times are not welcomed by ship owners as the profit for ship owners is made during sailing. Therefore the maximum capacity of the container terminal is approximately 200,000 TEU’s.
5.2.3 The Multi purpose terminal The Multi-Purpose terminal is located directly next to the container terminal and a wide variety of ships are serviced, Ro-Ro, live animal and general cargo vessels, number 5 on the Muara Port photo, Figure 5-1. The terminal has presently 3 berths with a total berth length of 611 meters and the water depth is since 2001 12.5 meters. Mobile cranes are present to assist in the handling of the cargo. Each berth is equipped with a transit shed. The storage area of the terminal consists of 3 transit warehouses with a total capacity of 12,950 m2 and a long storage warehouse with a capacity of 16,630 m2.
The total tonnage for the multi-purpose cargo (Table 5-4) is used to determine the berth occupancy of the terminal during the period 1992 – 2000.
A first estimate for the berth occupancy for the terminal can be found using the following equation. 7 cb = p * N b *tn * mb in which: cb = throughput per berth per annum [tons] p = average gang productivity [ton/hr] Nb = number of gangs per ship [-] tn = Number of operational hours per year. [hrs/year] mb = berth occupancy. [-] cb = annual throughputs from Table 5-4 p = assuming 30 tons/hr on average Nb = assuming 2.5 gangs per ship tn = 4160 working hours per year (2 shifts of 8 hours and 5 working days)
BRUNEI MARITIME MASTERPLAN 17 Part two; Cargo and maritime scenarios
The result shows, Table 5-7, the total berth occupancy for the multi-purpose terminal.
YEAR 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000
Total berth occupancy (mb) 2.54 2.91 3.14 2.66 3.20 3.35 1.47 0.94 1.39 Table 5-7 Berth occupancy Multi-purpose terminal 1992 – 2000
In order to know the actual number of berths in use the results given in Table 5-7 are divided by the number of berth resulting in the average berth occupancy for the terminal. The outcome is than cross referenced with the UNCTAD recommendations 12 (Table 5-8) for the maximum acceptable berth occupancy. This is a rough method, as it does not take into account the waiting time at the terminal.
Number of berths 1 2 3 4 5 6 – 10 Recommended maximum berth occupancy 0.40 0.50 0.55 0.60 0.65 0.70 Table 5-8 UNCTAD multi-purpose terminal berth occupancy recommendations
This result in shown in the Table 5-9 below. Year No. berths needed 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 1 2.54 2.91 3.14 2.66 3.20 3.35 1.47 0.94 1.39 2 1.27 1.45 1.57 1.33 1.60 1.68 0.74 0.47 0.70 3 0.85 0.97 1.05 0.89 1.07 1.12 0.49 0.31 0.46 4 0.63 0.73 0.79 0.67 0.80 0.84 0.37 0.23 0.35 5 0.51 0.58 0.63 0.53 0.64 0.67 0.29 0.19 0.28 6 0.42 0.48 0.52 0.44 0.53 0.56 0.25 0.16 0.23 Table 5-9 No. of berths estimate multi-purpose terminal 1992 - 2000
Although the multi-purpose terminal claims to have three berths, it can be clearly seen that more berths were required before 1998.
Investigation in the ship sizes used for this period and the respectively quay length required, shows that a maximum of 5 berths requires 593 meters of quay length, Table 5-10. More berths would surpass the maximum quay length of 611 meters. This would lead to the conclusion that in those years no real increase in waiting time occurred, when on average the handled ships consist of small multi- purpose ships.
Average ship size Number of Maximum berth length per ship (dwt) berths size at the multi-purpose terminal (m) 3,000 5 593 2,000 5 538 Table 5-10 Maximum number of berths per ship at Multi-purpose terminal
5.3 Surrounding area Muara port The port is connected to the other areas in Brunei by a road that starts at the entrance of the container terminal and runs through the urban area of Muara to the west where the coastal highway begins.
To the east of the approach channel the island Pelempong along the Muara Spit (see Figure 4-5) is located sheltering the port from the offshore climate conditions. Muara Spit is a habitat for monkeys and breeding ground for turtles, see appendix L. It is largely covered with forest, has some sand dunes and some mangrove areas. South of the industrial area of Seresa the Royal Marina of Brunei is located at the beginning of a peninsula. The water area is used for recreation and the shoreline consists further south of mangroves and forests.
BRUNEI MARITIME MASTERPLAN 18 Part two; Cargo and maritime scenarios
Part two; Cargo and maritime scenarios
6 Scenario development For the development of the maritime infrastructure the future cargo situation must be known. In this chapter the container and multi-purpose cargo is forecasted through 3 economic scenarios (low, average and high). Furthermore the maritime developments for the region and Brunei will be discussed to predict the design ship size of the maritime infrastructure.
6.1 National industrial plans Under the 7th National Development Plan 16covering the period 1996 to 2000, the structural reforms to promote economic diversification included: (1) Encouraging oil/gas downstream manufacturing activities such as petrochemical and gas- based industries, refining and bunkering; (2) Promoting Brunei as a service hub for trade (manufacturing export sites), tourism and business services; (3) Developing agriculture and fisheries, mainly to cover some part of Brunei’s domestic requirements, such as Halal production and shrimp production; (4) Engage in becoming an offshore financial centre for the region.
Under (1) the following industrial activities in Table 6-1 are seen as potential options.
Oil Gas Spin-off industries Larger oil refinery Ammonia Plastics Petrochemicals Urea Textiles Methanol Packing materials Energy intensive industries, Synthetic rubber such as an Alumina Smelter Tyre Recycling Plant Agricultural chemicals Pharmaceuticals Table 6-1 Industrial options Under (2) and (3) 10 industrial sites for export oriented business have been allocated, Figure 6-1. 2
16 From website: http://www.mod.com.bn/editor_2.htm.
BRUNEI MARITIME MASTERPLAN 19 Part two; Cargo and maritime scenarios
Figure 6-1 Industrial sites Brunei For each industrial site the type of industrial activity is determined by the Brunei Government and shown in Table 6-2.
District No. Industrial area Area (ha) Activities 1 Serasa 83 Manufacturing and Services 2 Kampong Salar 40 Furniture, warehouse and Cold Storage Brunei- 3 Lambak Kanan (east) 74 HI-Tech Industry Muara 4 Lambak Kanan (west) 45 Food processing and Services 5 Beribi I & II 47 Manufacturing and Services Tutong 6 Serambangun 40 Manufacturing and Services 7 Sungai Liang 300 Large scale manufacturing (heavy industry) Belait 8 Sungai Bera 50 Manufacturing and Services 9 Pekan Belait 38 Manufacturing and Services Temburong 10 Batu Apoi 5 Manufacturing and Services Total 722 Table 6-2 Industrial site size and activity
To the Brunei-Muara district 5 industrial sites with a total area of 290 ha are allocated. The main advantage of these sites is the close proximity to Muara port. Near the village of Tutong one industrial site will be located with an area of 40 ha. To the Belait district 3 industrial sites, with a total site area of 388 ha, are allocated, one near the LNG plant of Lumut (no 7, Sungai Liang), one near the oil refinery of Seria (no. 8 Sungai Bera) and one at the waterfront of the Kuala river (no. 9, Pekan Belait). The large Sungai Liang site (300 ha) has been reserved for oil and gas related and/or (large scale heavy) high energy consuming industries. For this site specific plans to develop an Alumina Smelter and Tyre Recycling Plant are under consideration. In the Temburong district a 5 ha industrial area is planned (no. 10, Batu Apoi)
6.2 Container developments regional and world wide The prediction according to an extensive research17 by the Economic and Social Commission for the Asian and Pacific region is that the world annual growth rate in container volume will be 6.5% from 1999 to 2006 and 6% from 2006 to 2011 3. The decline is partly the result of the expected limit of the
17 This study is based on the application of the Maritime Policy Planning Models (MPPM) developed and maintained by the Transport, Communications, Tourism and Infrastructure Development Division of ESCAP. Its objective is to provide a planning context for informed decision making by governments, shipping lines and port authorities in the ESCAP region. ESCAP provides detailed, quantified and internally consistent forecasts of the structure of the maritime container transport system serving the ESCAP region through to the year 2011. These forecasts cover three broad areas: the volume and direction of container flows, the shape of the shipping network, and the port facilities required to service the trade.
BRUNEI MARITIME MASTERPLAN 20 Part two; Cargo and maritime scenarios containerisation18 rate of high value added cargo. The containerisation is still growing through increased trade liberalisation, through Free Trade Zones and through an increased share of international trade represented by manufactured goods, Table 6-3.
Year19 1980 1990 1999 2006 2011 Container volumes (million TEU) 13.5 28.5 59.0 91.7 122.7 Compounded average growth rate over previous period - 7.8% 8.4% 6.5% 6.0% Table 6-3 Global Container Volume, according to ESCAP Asia’s share in the world containerised exports is expected to rise from 46 percent in 1999 to 51 percent in 2011; the share in the world containerised imports is expected to rise from 40 percent to 44 percent. This increase mainly is a result of China becoming one of the largest manufacturing bases in the world. 3 9 The Southeast Asian share in the total world distribution of containers will increase from 10 percent in 1996 to 11 percent in 2011. For the two major container terminal key hubs in Asia (Singapore and Hong Kong), the container transshipment volumes are assumed to reach 64 million TEU by the year 2011.
The container throughput in Southeast Asia has risen from 9.550 thousand in 1990 to 28.000 thousand in 1999, representing an average growth rate of approx. of 13% 3, Table 6-4.
YEAR 1990 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 TEU (*000) 9,550 19,894 21,730 24,151 25,506 28,314 % growth -- 52% 9% 11% 6% 11% Table 6-4 Container throughput increase Southeast Asia 1990 – 1999 For the intra-Asian trade it is expected that the growth rate for containers will be 7.6 percent 20 per annum until 2011. This is above the expected world average of 6.0 percent per annum and below the past performance. Similar figures would apply for the future container growth of Brunei as there is a large potential market in Southeast Asia of which Brunei could have a share.
6.3 Scenarios Key to this study of the future development of Brunei’s maritime infrastructure is the knowledge of the expected future cargo volumes. This study will focus on the multi-purpose, container and dry bulk cargo terminals. The ferry, cement, bitumen, fishery wharf are assumed not to require additional space and therefore left outside the scope.
Firstly a timeframe has to be defined for this study. The period from 2005 to 2030 has been chosen. The 25 year period is in line with the general practice for port masterplans (paragraph 3.3).
Secondly the individual components, which generate cargo volumes, are determined. The total cargo volume in any year under consideration is calculated as the sum of the individual components. The three individual cargo volume components are the following:
1. Component 1: the real GDP growth (excluding oil and gas) 2. Component 2: the preferred large scale (heavy) industry investment options at Sungai Liang 3. Component 3: the development of the other 9 industrial sites
In parallel the key variables are determined to estimate the cargo volume generated by the each of the
18 The cargo being put into containers for shipment. 19 Estimated and forecast growth rates for container trade (1980–2011). ESCAP, 2001. Comparison of the study’s forecasts with those provided by private consulting firms suggest that these global level estimates lie within the range of expert opinions, but slightly towards the more conservative end of that range. 20 The intra-Asian trade will continue to outperform global container growth by some percentage points, recording an average of 7.6 percent per annum over the forecast period.
BRUNEI MARITIME MASTERPLAN 21 Part two; Cargo and maritime scenarios individual components. For the first component the two key variables are the real GDP growth rate and the cargo multiplier for containerised (TEU) and multi-purpose cargo. The second component is constant at a given throughput for multi-purpose, containerised (TEU) and dry bulk cargo. For the third component the key variable is the TEU generated per ha of industrial site.
Due to the uncertainty in the key variables a range (low-, average- and high) of values is chosen to reflect this uncertainty and as a result components 1 and 3 will have each three scenarios. The outcome of the total cargo volume for any chosen year will be the result of the addition of the three individual scenarios (high with high, average with average and low with low for the components 1 and 3, plus component 2).
6.3.1 Component 1: the real GDP growth (excluding oil and gas) As concluded in the paragraph 4.1 economic analyses, the Brunei real GDP growth, including the revenues from the oil and gas, has been historically lower than the average for the Southeast Asian region, due to the high dependence of the Brunei economy on the oil and gas revenues. This resulted in a 2 % historical growth of the real GDP for the 1992 to 1998 period. 6 This figure changes when the oil and gas is excluded, this then shows that the economy has been growing at a higher rate (on average of 6%) during that period. Estimates are that the non-oil and gas economy will growth with 6% during the period 2002 – 2005.6
The scenarios will start in 2005, therefore the cargo volumes from 2000 to 2005 are estimated using the actual 2000 and 2001 GDP figures 1.8% and 0.0% (Table 4-2) and the estimated 2002 – 2005 GDP figures 6%. For the average scenario a 6.0% underlying future real GDP growth, for the low scenario a 4.0% growth and for the high scenario an 8.0% growth is assumed. It is further assumed that these growth rates can be maintained over the period 2006 till 2030, as a result of the positive effects of the industrialisation on the Brunei economy and no major decline in the oil and gas revenues.
The total cargo volume is divided into three categories, containerised which is measured in TEU, multi-purpose cargo and dry bulk measured in tons. For the cargo forecast the real GDP excluding the oil and gas sector is directly linked to the cargo volumes, with a multiplier 14 . The general cargo and container multiplier are 1.1 and 2.0 respectively. It is assumed that the multiplier for multi-purpose cargo forecast is constant during the whole period. For the container forecast for the period 2000 to 2005 a multiplier of 2.0 is taken. In the period 2005 to 2015 in which Brunei is beginning to industrialise and containerisation is taking place on a larger scale, the multiplier is assumed to decrease to 1.5. In the period 2015-2030 a multiplier of 1.0 is assumed to take into account a more gradual container growth due to the limited size of the country (population and industrial activity).
In the cargo forecast these economic scenarios (Table 6-5) translate, through the multiplier, into three scenarios for the container and multi-purpose cargo volumes (Table 6-6 ).
Economic growth Scenario 2000 2001 2002 - 2005 2006 - 2030 Low 1.8% 0% 6% 4% Average 1.8% 0% 6% 6% High 1.8% 0% 6% 8% Table 6-5 Cargo growth scenarios
BRUNEI MARITIME MASTERPLAN 22 Part two; Cargo and maritime scenarios
Scenario Multi-purpose cargo Containerised cargo 2000 2001 2002- 2005 2006 - 2015 2015 - 2030 2000 2001 2002 - 2005 2006 - 2015 2015 - 2030 Low 2% 0% 6.6% 4.4% 4.4% 3.6% 0.0% 12.0% 6.0% 4.0% Average 2% 0% 6.6% 6.6% 6.6% 3.6% 0.0% 12.0% 9.0% 6.0% High 2% 0% 6.6% 8.8% 8.8% 3.6% 0.0% 12.0% 12.0% 8.0% Table 6-6 Container and multi-purpose cargo growth percentage 2000 - 2030 For 2005 the cargo volumes results are shown in Table 6-7. In order to forecast the containerised cargo into TEU’s an average weight per TEU of 10.8 ton is assumed. [reference from Ecorys and Port of Rotterdam]. The result is shown in the figure below.
Cargo volume 2000 2005 TEU 60,566 93,537 Containerised (tons) 642,000 560,426 multi-purpose (tons) 434,000 1,010,199 Total tonnage (tons) 1,076,000 1,570,625 Table 6-7 Input 2005 cargo volumes
The forecast for the multi-purpose (Figure 6-2) and container (Figure 6-3) cargo volumes are presented geographically presented below.
5.000.000 4.000.000 Low Multi-purpose cargo Average Multi-purpose cargo 3.000.000 High Multi-purpose cargo 2.000.000 1.000.000 0 tons Years 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020 2022 2024 2026 2028 2030
Figure 6-2 Real GDP multi-purpose cargo volume
1.000.000 900.000 800.000 Low TEU 700.000 Average TEU 600.000 High TEU 500.000 400.000 300.000 200.000 100.000 0 TEU's
Year 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020 2022 2024 2026 2028 2030
Figure 6-3 Real GDP TEU cargo volumes
6.3.2 Component 2: the preferred large scale (heavy) industry investment options at Sungai Liang The government has identified an Alumina Smelter and tyre recycling plant as a the first preferred large scale (heavy) industry options for the Sungai Liang site, 300 ha (see also paragraph 6.1). Both the Alumina Smelter and Tyre Recycling Plant have very high energy consumption per ton of intake and the availability of cheap gas makes this location an attractive proposition.
The development of these projects has entered the feasibility stage. Therefore this study will consider these projects to go ahead and assumes construction will start in 2008. In 2010 the production of both
BRUNEI MARITIME MASTERPLAN 23 Part two; Cargo and maritime scenarios
industrial plants will commence and reach full capacity in 2014. A linear production increase is assumed during these 4 years. After 2014 the plants will operate at full capacity, as is shown in Figure 6-4
2.000.000
Containers (TEU) 1.500.000 Dry Bulk (tons) 1.000.000 Multi purpose (tons)
500.000 Cargo volume 0
0 2 4 6 8 2 4 6 8 0 2 2 2 2 3 Year 00 00 00 00 2 2 2 2 200 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020 20 20 20 20 20
Figure 6-4 Cargo volume Sungai Liang Based on a literature survey, relevant information for an Alumina Smelter of 600.000 tonnes per annum Alumina intake and for a Tyre recycling plant of 800.000 tonnes per annum Shredded tyres intake, is compiled and evaluated.
The individual raw materials and products of these plants can be combined into 3 groups consisting of containerised cargo, multi-purpose cargo and dry bulk, the individual materials and products can be found in the Table 6-7. • The containerised cargo is the sum of Thermoplastic, Scrap Steel, Textile waste, Thermo elastomers, Aluminium Fluoride and other, Ingots and waste and others. This totals 483,100 tons containerised in 80,508 TEU’s. • The multi-purpose cargo is the sum of Scrap Steel, Textile waste, Thermoplastic Elastomers, Aluminium Fluoride, Ingots and Waste and others. This totals 861,100 tons. • The dry bulk is the sum of powder bulk (Alumina and Petroleum Coke) and other dry bulk (Pre shredded tyres and Thermo plastic rubber). This totals 1,635,000 tons.
The full capacity cargo volumes calculated are presented in the following Table 6-8:
Tyre recycling plant Import Export Alumina Smelter Import Export Tons TEU Tons TEU Tons TEU Tons TEU Pre shredded Tyres 800,000 0 - - Alumina 600,000 -- - Thermo plastic rubber 112,400 3,707 - - Petroleum Coke 123,000 - - - Scrap Steel - - 93,500 3,100 Aluminium Fluoride and others - 107 - - Textile waste - - 67,000 2,200 Ingots - - 200,000 4,167 Thermoplastic Elastomers - - 488,000 30,000 Waste and others - - 12,600 787 Empty containers - 31,593 - - Empty containers - 4,847 - - Total cargo throughput 912,400 35,300 648,500 35,300 Total cargo throughput 723,000 4,954 212,600 4,954 Table 6-8 Tire Recycling Plant cargo and Alumina Smelter cargo full capacity
6.3.3 Component 3: the development of the other 9 industrial sites The cargo volumes resultant from the development of the other 9 planned industrial areas (total area of 420 ha) are difficult to estimate as no details are available. On basis of the following assumptions a best estimate is made:
the total raw materials import and total product export consists of containers only, measured in TEU. the manufacturing investment projects produce 500 TEU per built ha per yr, including
BRUNEI MARITIME MASTERPLAN 24 Part two; Cargo and maritime scenarios
imported and exported containers. the total average TEU load is assumed to be 11 ton/TEU 7 the planned manufacturing capacity is assumed to come on stream between 2006 and 2030 on a linear basis.
The total built manufacturing area is assumed to cover 50% of the total area (thus 210ha). This results in a total of 105,000 TEU’s and total containerised tons of approx. 1,155,000 tons for the year 2030.
The uncertainty in the assumptions made is very high, therefore the above calculated value will be taken as the average. A high estimate of 1,000 TEU per built ha per yr will be assumed and a low estimate of 250 TEU per built ha per yr. For each of these values a scenario line will be constructed, as shown in Figure 6-5.
250.000 200.000 Low Average High 150.000 100.000 50.000 0
TEU's 0 2 4 6 8 0 2 4 6 8 0 2 4 6 8 0 00 00 00 00 00 01 01 01 01 01 02 02 02 02 02 03 Year 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Figure 6-5 Throughput of the other 9 industrial sites
6.4 Results from the Scenarios The results are derived from a model that has been constructed using the input data presented in the above paragraphs. With this model the different cargo volumes (container, multi-purpose and dry bulk cargo) are forecasted and if required, the influences of changes in the key variables on the cargo volumes can be studied.
6.4.1 Results scenarios The outcome from these computations is presented in Table 6-9 for four reference years (2005, 2015, 2025 and 2030). The period 2005 – 2015 represents the first phase masterplan and the whole period the complete masterplan timeframe (paragraph 3.3). The full computation which is the underlying basis of Table 6-9 is presented in the appendix F together with the graphically presentation of the three cargo volumes.
For example the outcome of the average scenario for the TEU forecast in the year 2030 (701,586 TEU) consists of the contributions the three components i.e. (i) the average GDP growth scenario (516.078 TEU), (ii) the Sungai Liang site (80.508 TEU) and (iii) the average industrial growth scenario for the of the other 9 sites (105.000 TEU).
Year scenario Cargo type 2005 2015 2025 2030 Low Containers (TEU) 101,249 265.858 365.786 428.993 Multi-purpose cargo (tons) 585,085 1.726.532 2.190.454 2.508.989 Dry bulk (tons) 0 1.635.000 1.635.000 1.635.000 Average Containers (TEU) 106,155 337.849 550.152 701.586 Multi-purpose cargo (tons) 597,414 1.926.417 2.876.661 3.634.302 Dry bulk (tons) 0 1.635.000 1.635.000 1.635.000 High Containers (TEU) 113,161 444.644 853.301 1.179.148 Multi-purpose cargo (tons) 609,744 2.167.089 3.892.086 5.480.236 Dry bulk (tons) 0 1.635.000 1.635.000 1.635.000 Table 6-9 Cargo forecast results for selected years
BRUNEI MARITIME MASTERPLAN 25 Part two; Cargo and maritime scenarios
The uncertainty of attracting sufficient export-orientated industry make the accuracy of the prediction for the 2015 – 2030 period less meaningful. Therefore this study will concentrate on the maritime requirements for the year 2015 and ensure that the options selected are non regret for the later years. Of the three scenarios the average scenario is taken, as the basis for the development of the maritime infrastructure and where applicable for sensitivity purposes the high and low scenario will be used.
6.4.2 Industrial development per district The cargo forecast developed in the scenarios does not show what the impact will be for the different districts in Brunei. This might be of importance when different port locations are considered. To extract these figures the total average TEU capacity for the new industrial sites (excluding Sungai Liang) is used as a starting point and the following steps are followed: • combine the industrial areas per district • pro rate this capacity for each district as a percentage of the total new industrial sites area
New industrial % of total new District site (ha) industrial site Brunei-Muara 289 68 Belait 88 22 Tutong 40 9 Tembourong 5 1 Total 422 100% Table 6-10 Percentage of the total industrial site for each District • Establish for the reference years the TEU capacity (average scenario) of these industrial sites. This results in the following table.
Table 6-11 Cargo handled per district until 2030
6.5 Maritime overview
6.5.1 Regional Maritime history The Southeast Asian region has historically developed an unique type of maritime trade. The lack of inland infrastructure made the economies heavily dependent on the water infrastructure for the trade and text box 1 emphasis this.
The countries of Southeast Asia depend heavily on marine transport and benefit greatly from the participation of international trade and shipping. Although Southeast Asia does not produce large volumes of bulk cargo such as oil, iron ore and grain, industrial development in the core countries (Thailand, Malaysia, Indonesia and the Philippines) since 1970’s has produced large volumes of containerised cargo. [Southeast Asian regional port developments, 2001] Text Box 1
BRUNEI MARITIME MASTERPLAN 26 Part two; Cargo and maritime scenarios
6.5.2 Container ship size overview The world wide drive by containership owners to lower their transportation costs per container is resulting in increased ship sizes. It is predicted that the container ship of the future will be able to carry 12,500 TEU to 15,000 TEU. 4 These mega-container ships are still on the drawing board as their power and size impose technical and practical limitations. Their very large size will restrict the use of these ships to specific high volume transport routes, with calls to only a few ports with enough water depth and adequate infrastructure. The largest container ship now in service is the Sovereign Mærsk with a capacity of 8,000 TEU, length 347 meters and a beam of 42.8 meters.
The maritime pattern in Southeast Asia has resulted in the specific use of certain types of container ships as emphasised in textbox 2. “The Asian Short Sea shipping market is characterised by the dominance of Lo-Lo container shipping. The fact that there are relatively few land borders between the main countries of the region means that modal options such as road and rail are generally not available for anything other than short distance or domestic moves. In addition, RO-RO services tend to be limited to localised and domestic trades. As a result, Lo-Lo shipping is the primary means of carrying intra-regional traffic, as well as taking a natural place in the forefront of feeder traffic carriage of course. The dynamic economic growth of the region is therefore transmitted directly through to containerised shipping flows. Making Asia the largest and fastest growing regional container market in the world.” [Short Sea Container Markets, The Feeder and Regional Trade Dynamo, Drewry Consultants, 1997] Text Box 2 Currently the container ship size used in the Inter-Asian maritime trade varies between 20 and 1,500 TEU, with an average ship size of 700 TEU. The ships deployed between Thailand and Singapore average currently already 1,000 TEU. For the future these so called feeder ships will increase in size (to between 1,000 and 2,500 TEU), as the Inter-Asian trade is expected to keep on growing. 4 When more cargo is generated in Brunei it becomes more economical for the shipping lines to use these larger container ships on route to Brunei.
6.5.3 Multi-purpose ship size overview Multi-purpose cargo is not suited for transport in containers, due to its size or economic limitations. The multi-purpose ships range from 2,000 dwt to well over 20,000 dwt and are equipped with derrick and gantry ship-based cranes. The majority of the multi-purpose ships in service are in the range between 2,000 dwt and 10,000 dwt. The larger sizes are only used for specialised cargo types and on routes with scheduled pick-up and deliveries for specific clients.
The characteristics of the Southeast Asian trade, in particular the short travel distances and the dominance of shallow ports, make the smaller multi-purpose ships the most preferred. This was also true for Muara Port in the past with its restricted water depth of 8 meters and low cargo volumes. Now that the Brunei and regional economy are expected to continue to grow, the maritime trade will also continue to grow. It is assumed that this will result in an increase of the average ship size.
The design of multi-purpose ships has not changed much for decades 13 15 and therefore current ship dimensions can be used.
6.5.4 Dry Bulk ship size overview The dry bulk is transported in four types of ships, the Capesize, Panama-max, Handy-max and the Handy class. For Brunei the arrival of Capesize ships is not realistic, because these ships are only economical for annual volumes in access of 3 million tons and on long hauling distances. The arrival of Panama-max ships is only likely when shipments originate from Japan. The Handy-max and Handy class are for Brunei and in the world maritime trade the most commonly used types, as these are economically for short distances and specialised cargos. The dimensions of these vessels have remained constant over the last decades 15.
BRUNEI MARITIME MASTERPLAN 27 Part three; Development of routing and port layout alternatives
Part three; Development of routing and port layout alternatives
Part 3; Cargo routing Potential terminal locations and port layouts Selected terminal locations National cargo routing Selected routing alternatives Muara Port development Alternative layouts Port development alternatives Preferred port development plan
7 Evaluation of potential terminal locations - cargo volume per district - design ship sizes - nautical requirements Potential terminal locations Selected terminal locations
For this study the year 2015 has been chosen as the year for further detailed evaluation. For the three port locations (Kuala Belait, Sungai Liang and Muara port) first the suitability is investigated for their use for the forecasted cargo throughput.
7.1 Cargo volumes per district In the previous chapter the cargo volumes for the different cargo types have been established. The total cargo volumes to be handled are compiled per district by using the Table 6-11. It is assumed that the contribution of the existing economic base can be allocated for 100% to the Brunei-Muara district. This is a reasonable assumption as 80% of the population lives there (paragraph 4.1) and it makes no difference for changes to the land infrastructure whether the additional 20% of the cargo would be transported from Muara port beyond the Brunei-Muara district. For the average scenario of the year 2015 these are presented in Figure 7-1 below.
The Sungai Liang industrial plants operate at full capacity and the other 9 industrial areas are at 20% of their capacity.
Kulau Belait Containers: 9,240 TEU Sungai Liang Dry bulk: 1,635,000 tons Containers: 80,508 TEU Multi-purpose: 861,100 tons
West coast Tutong Containers: 3,780 TEU
Brunei - Muara district Containers: 243,910 TEU Temburong Multi-purpose: 1,061,917 tons Containers: 420 TEU Muara Port
Figure 7-1 Cargo origin/destination of the 2015 situation
BRUNEI MARITIME MASTERPLAN 28 Part three; Development of routing and port layout alternatives
Of the total Brunei-Muara district container volume of 243,910 TEU’s, 28,560 TEU’s are generated by the new industrial areas.
A cargo analysis for the Sungai Liang site shows the following: - The total cargo throughput at the Sungai Liang site is (approximately 3,0 million tons) of the same order of magnitude as Muara port (approximately 3.4 million tons, with 1.1 million tons multi-purpose and 2.3 million tons containerised cargo). - It processes in comparison with the Brunei-Muara district all dry bulk, almost half of the multi- purpose cargo and approximate 1/3 of the total TEU’s. The other districts have hardly any impact on a national scale. - For Sungai Liang the multi-purpose cargo and half of the number of containers are for export only. In addition the other half of the containers are imported as empties.
7.2 Design ship sizes As the Sungai Liang cargo volumes are relatively high it is logical to consider alternative terminal locations to Muara port. The terminal locations are Sungai Liang (with a new long and possible new short pier, Figure 7-4) and Kuala Belait. In order to study the future suitability of these sites the expected ship sizes have to be determined first. An overview of the ship size can be found in appendix G. 11
7.2.1 Container ship The regional maritime container transport is done using feeder ships ranging between 250 and 1,250 TEU depending on the volumes transported on the routes. Development of the Sungai Liang site is likely to attract feeder container ships up to 250 TEU and for Sungai Liang and Kuala Belait this is taken as the design ship size. Muara port will likely attract container feeder ships up to 1,000 TEU for the year 2015 and this is therefore taken as design ship. The dimensions are given in the table below.
Length overall (m) Beam Draft TEU (LOA or Ls) (m) max. (m) 250 143 19.0 6.5 1000 200 29.0 10.0 Table 7-1 Expected container ship dimensions
7.2.2 Multi-purpose ship The most common range of multi-purpose ships is 3,000 to 20,000 dwt. The Alumina Smelter and Tire Recycling Plant might require occasionally ships up to 15,000 dwt, exporting large volumes of homogenous cargo. This is therefore taken as the design ship size for Muara port and Sungai Liang. For Kuala Belait the design ship size is taken of a 8,000 dwt. The dimensions are given in the table below. Length overall (m) Beam Draft dwt (LOA or Ls) (m) max. (m) 8,000 125 18.0 8.0 15,000 165 21.5 9.5 Table 7-2 Expected multi-purpose ship dimensions
7.2.3 Dry bulk ship For the dry bulk terminal the Panamax (70,000 dwt), the Handy-max (45,000dwt) and Handy ships (20,000 dwt) are expected. The largest of the ships, the Panamax will be taken as the design ship size for Muara port and Sungai Liang. For Kuala Belait port the berthing of these ships is not considered an option, as the port cannot realistically be developed to accommodate these ship sizes.
BRUNEI MARITIME MASTERPLAN 29 Part three; Development of routing and port layout alternatives
Length overall (m) Beam Draft dwt (LOA or Ls) (m) max. (m) 70,000 255 35.5 13.5 Table 7-3 Expected dry bulk ship dimensions
7.3 Hydraulic analysis The wind and wave data investigated in paragraph 4.4 will now be used to determine the suitability of offshore berthing at Sungai Liang and of the sheltered ports of Muara and Kuala Belait. Kuala Belait is discarded in this analyses as these conditions do not affect the port.
7.3.1 Berthing operational limits due to wind speed For safe berthing operation and cargo handling the locations will need to comply with the following rules:
• Berthing for oil tankers less than 60,000 dwt, operational wind speed limit of 10 m/s. 11 This limit is assumed to be also valid for the large bulk ships. • Loading and unloading operations of oil tankers less than 60,000 dwt has an operational wind speed limit of 20 m/s 11. This limit will be assumed to be also valid for the large bulk ships. • Container operations are hampered by wind speeds of 20 m/s and more 11. • Mooring boats are limited by wind speeds of 12 – 15 m/s. 11. For Brunei 12 m/s is assumed to be the limit. • For optimal berthing conditions the berth orientation should be aligned within 300 of the prevailing wind direction. 7 The downtime for Sungai Liang and Maura port is determined by the above limitations in relation with the actual wind speed occurrence as found in waveclimate.com database. The database provides the percentage of annual occurrence of specific wind speeds, which have been translated into days per year. The output from the database is given in the appendix H. The number of days that the wind speed exceeds the acceptable limit (downtime) set by the above operational rules has been compiled in Table 7-4. The downtime value for (un)berthing at Muara Port can be expected to be lower than for the offshore conditions at Sungai Liang, because Muara port is sheltered from the northeast by the Muara Spit and from the southeast by land. The berthing orientation result for Sungai Liang in a direction of 2200 – 500 and for Muara port all directions are possible due to its sheltered location.
Limitation value V Downtime (days/yr) Type of limitation wind (m/s) Sungai Liang Muara Port (Un) Berthing 10 15 <10 During cargo handling 20 <1 <1 Equipment limitation 20 <1 <1 Mooring boats 12 4 3 within 300 of the prevailing Berth alignment 2200 – 500 All directions wind direction Table 7-4 Limiting wind velocity for ship operations The downtime related to the wind speed limits show acceptable results for both locations.
7.3.2 Berthing operational limits due to significant wave height
For the save berthing of ship and the cargo handling operation at a terminal, Hs should not surpass 11 certain limits. These handling limits for Hs per ship type are given in Table 7-5. These limitations are based on wave periods between 7 – 12 s.
BRUNEI MARITIME MASTERPLAN 30 Part three; Development of routing and port layout alternatives
The downtime for Sungai Liang and Maura port is determined by the limits set above in relation with the actual Hs occurrence as found in waveclimate.com database. The database provides the percentage of annual occurrence of specific Hs, which have also been translated into days per year. The output from the database is given in the appendix H. The number of days that Hs exceeds the acceptable limit (downtime) set by the above operational rules has been compiled in Table 7-5.
The mooring boats meet to the ships outside the port area and will be influenced by the offshore wave conditions.
The conditions for Muara port are far more sheltered and it is assumed that the downtime for berthing is less than 1 day per year.
Downtime terminal due to the Limiting wave Type of Limitation According to wave height (days/yr) height (m) Sungai Liang Muara port Mooring boats PIANC 1.5 7 7 Berthing ship PIANC 1.0 47 <1 General Cargo PIANC 0.8 – 1.0 47 <1 (un)loading container ship PIANC 0.5 193 <1 Dry Bulk 30,000 – 100,000 dwt Loading PIANC 1.0 – 1.5 7 <1 Dry Bulk 30,000 – 100,000 dwt Unloading PIANC 0.8 – 1.0 47 <1 Table 7-5 Limiting Hs and the resulted downtime for the terminals
The downtime related to Hs limits shows very unfavourable results (53 percent per year on average) for container ships.
7.3.3 Additional information Design parameters for Sungai Liang
Additional information on the Hs return periods at the Lumut location has been obtained from Interbeton (Table 7-6), which has constructed an LNG terminal there. These wave conditions for Sungai Liang are in line with the data obtained from the waveclimate database.
1:100 year Hs = 4.31 m, Tp = 12.07 s 1:50 year Hs = 3.94 m, Tp = 11.81 s 1:10 year Hs = 3.61 m, Tp = 11.13 s 1:1 year Hs = 3.09 m, Tp = 10.23 s Extreme offshore wave direction : North 1:100 year surge: 0.4 m MHWS: +2.04 m Table 7-6 Reference hydraulic information
7.3.4 Wave period The average wave period that occurs in front of Brunei is in the range of 5s to 10s (waveclimate.com) and the values for the limiting Hs in Table 7-5 are therefore valid to use for Brunei.
Figure 7-2 SAR average wave period
BRUNEI MARITIME MASTERPLAN 31 Part three; Development of routing and port layout alternatives
7.3.5 Current The velocity of the current along the berth of the terminals will influence the ship handling when certain limits are exceeded. For Muara port it has been assumed that the current along the existing and future berths will be 1 knots, perpendicular 0.25 knots and at the port entrance the 0.74 knots. The results are presented in the Table 7-7.
According Limiting current Occurring currents (kn) Type of limitation of berth to velocity (kn) Sungai Liang Muara port Current alongside the berth OCIMF 3 0.5 – 0.75 1 (assumed Current perpendicular on the berth OCIMF 0.75 0.5 – 0.75 0.25 (assumed) Maximum velocity current at port Ligteringen Min. 4 - 5 none 0.75 (assumed) entrance Table 7-7 limiting current values for berthing The current does not impose any limitation to the Sungai Liang and Muara port locations.
7.4 Nautical requirements The design ship sizes will be used to determine the dimension of the approach channel (depth, length and width) and the manoeuvring area for the terminal locations.
7.4.1 Approach channel 7.4.1.1 Depth The depth of the approach channel is calculated for the design ship with the equation below 7 , in which the water level factors (influencing the ships motion in the water) are taken into account. For Muara port there will be no tidal range applied as the port authority wants 24 hour access.
d = D −T + smax + r + m In which: d Water depth required [m] D Draught vessels fully loaded for the design ships. [m] T Tidal elevation above a reference level. [m] smax Maximum sinkage of the vessel due to ship motions given as squat and trim. [m] r Vertical motion due to wave response by the ship; [m] m Remaining safety margin or net underkeel clearance; For the three locations a sandy bottom is assumed. [m]
To calculate r the significant wave height (Hs) is divided by 2. From the hydraulic analyses in chapter 5 the maximum Hs expected is approximate 3 meters.
T = 0.0 smax = 0.5 r = 1.5 m = 0.5
The water level factors total 2.5 meters. In the Table 7-8 the results for the different ship sizes are given for the water depth required in the approach channel. The existing approach channel water depth is for Muara port 12.5 meter (+CD), for Sungai Liang it is dependent on the distance of the berth to shore, and Kuala Belait approximate CD +4 meter.
BRUNEI MARITIME MASTERPLAN 32 Part three; Development of routing and port layout alternatives
Approach Additional depth required (m) Vessel type channel depth Sungai Liang Max Draft (m) (m) Muara Port 21 Kuala Belait Panamax 13.5 16.0 + 3.5 * -- Multi-purpose (15,000 dwt) 9.5 12.0 - 0.5 * -- Multi-purpose (8,000 dwt) 8.0 10.5 - 2.0 * + 6.5 Feeder 1000 TEU 10.0 12.5 0.0 * -- Feeder 250 TEU 6.5 9.0 - 4.5 * + 5.0 Table 7-8 Approach channel depth adjustments The water depth of the Muara Port approach channel requires an increase (+3.5 m) for the Panamax dry bulk ship only. Kuala Belait requires for the smallest multi-purpose ships 4.5 meters increase and for the smallest container ships an increase of 5.0 meters.
To accommodate Panamax ships at Sungai Liang an offshore dry bulk pier is required (16 meters of water depth).
7.4.1.2 Length
The one way approach channel of Muara port shown in Figure 7-3 has a depth of CD +12.5 m. Accommodating Panamax ships results in adding 500 meters to the channel length (total 3,411 meters). There is no need to go to a two way as the number of average ship calls is maximal 5 per day in the year 2015.
Figure 7-3 Muara port approach channel
21 * Can be designed to be adequate
BRUNEI MARITIME MASTERPLAN 33 Part three; Development of routing and port layout alternatives
The offshore berthing area for Sungai Liang will be located six kilometres offshore, with a water depth of 16.0 meters so no approach channel is required.
Potential coastal shipping could be located two kilometres offshore, with a water depth of 10 meters.
Figure 7-4 Sungai Liang approach channel
To receive the smallest container ship for the shallow port of Kuala Belait a new approach channel (depth 10.5 m and width 100 m), extending approximate 1,000 to 2,000 m into the sea, is required. The new approach channel alignment for Kuala Belait must take into account four requirements 7 : (1) Shortest possible length from the port entrance to deep water, to minimise the dredging costs. (2) Minimum cross-currents and cross-wind, to minimise the width of the approach channel for the navigation of ships. (3) A small angle into the dominant wave direction, to minimise the width needed for the ships in the approach channel. (4) Minimum number of bends. For Kuala Belait the last requirement will pose the main limitation, as there will always be a bend at the port entrance. To have a small angle with the dominant wave direction the channel must be orientated as indicated below. This results in a favourable length, and cross wind and current influence. A one-way channel is adequate for the cargo volume (container and multi- purpose) involved. This results in an estimated average of 3 calls per day in 2015.
Figure 7-5 Kuala Belait approach channel
BRUNEI MARITIME MASTERPLAN 34 Part three; Development of routing and port layout alternatives
7.4.1.3 Width The approach channels are assumed to be a 1-way channel. To accommodate the design ships the required width is determined using the following equation below. 7
W = Wbm + ∑Wi + 2Wb
The total approach channel width is made up of different components W that are determined by the local natural conditions and these are determined in Table 7-9 below. These components are assumed to be valid for all the locations, based on the assumption that the offshore conditions are similar. These width components are a multiplier function of the beam (B) of the design ship.
Width component Condition Width (m) Argument
Basic Width (Wbm) Water depth <1.25 1.7 B ships Draught Additional Width (Wi) * Prevailing cross-winds 15 – 33 kn 0.4 B * Prevailing cross-current 0.5 – 1.5 kn 0.7 B The maximum expected cross current from paragraph 4.4.4 is between 0.5-1.5 kn * Prevailing long current 1.5 – 3 kn 0.1 B The current through the approach channel is caused by the tidal current in the Muara Port area * Prevailing wave height 1 – 3 m 1.0 B * Aids to navigation Good 0.1 B No electrical aid mechanism is used * Seabed characteristics Soft 0.1 B Fluvial soil * Cargo Hazard none -- Bank Clearance (Wb) Sloping edge 0.5 B Type of approach channel bank Table 7-9 Approach channel width calculation
The total width required for a 1-way channel would be 5.1 B. The present width of Muara port is 122 meters and Kuala Belait has presently a width of approximate 50 meters.
Approach channel Adjustment approach channel (m) Ships Beam Ship type width Sungai (m) (m) Muara Port Liang21 Kuala Belait Panamax 25.0 125 + 3 * -- Multi-purpose (15,000 dwt) 21.5 108 - 14 * -- Multi-purpose (8,000 dwt) 18.0 90 - 32 * + 40 Feeder 1000 TEU 29.0 145 + 23 * -- Feeder 250 TEU 19.0 95 - 27 * + 45 Table 7-10 Width approach channels For Muara port the adjustment to the approach channel has to made for the 1000 TEU feeder ship. (widening with 23 meters). Kuala Belait requires doubling of the existing channel width at the port entrance.
7.4.2 Manoeuvring area The area within the port is now evaluated. The main area in the port consist of the basin dimensions and the turning circle for ships.
7.4.2.1 Basin The basin requirements are given by the following four design rules 7 . (1) Basins with a length of less then 1 km the width should be (4 to 5)B + 100m.
(2) Basins with a length of more than 1 km the width should be Ls + Bs + 50 m. (3) Bulk carriers need (4 to 6)B +100m. (4) The water depth in the basin will need to be 1.1 * the draught of the vessel.
BRUNEI MARITIME MASTERPLAN 35 Part three; Development of routing and port layout alternatives
For the sheltered conditions in Muara port and Kuala Belait the low value of 4B is used for a basin length shorter than 1 km. Muara port has much more water area, so that the second rule is applicable. Sungai Liang will require no basin dimension. Kuala Belait has an estimated width of 150 meters.
Additional requirements Basin dimensions (m) Muara port Sungai Liang Kuala Belait 21 Ship type Short Long Water depth W d (m) W d (m) W d (m) basin basin (CD +) (m) (CD +) (m) (CD +) (m) (CD +) Panamax 242 -- 14.9 -- + 2.4 * * -- -- Multi-purpose (15,000 dwt) 258 237 10.5 -- - 2.0 * * -- -- Multi-purpose (8,000 dwt) 172 193 8.8 -- - 3.7 * * + 22 + 4.8 Multi-purpose (5,000 dwt) 160 170 7.7 -- -- * * + 10 + 3.7 Multi-purpose (3,000 dwt) 152 153 6.6 -- -- * * + 2 + 2.6 Feeder 1000 TEU 216 279 11.0 -- - 1.5 * * -- -- Feeder 250 TEU 176 212 7.2 -- - 5.3 * * + 26 +3.2 Table 7-11 Required basin width and depth ships
Muara port has due to its enormous water space no restrictions to the width of the basin. The water depth along the berth requires only an increase for a dry bulk terminal (+2.4 meters).
Kuala Belait shows that the basin width requires an additional 22 meters for the largest multi-purpose ships and 76 meters for the smallest container ship. The water depth requires an increase of minimal 2.6 meters for the smallest multi-purpose ship and 4.8 meters for the container ship.
7.4.2.2 Turning circle Ships must have sufficient turning area within the port for manoeuvring. PIANC advises a minimal depth of 1.1 * Vessel Draught (same as the above depth) and a diameter minimal of 2 * Length vessel (Ls), see Table 7-12. Ship type Diameter circle (m) Water depth in circle (m) Panamax 510 14.9 Multi-purpose (15,000 dwt) 330 10.5 Multi-purpose (8,000 dwt) 250 8.8 Feeder 1000 TEU 400 11.0 Feeder 250 TEU 286 7.2 Table 7-12 Turning circle dimensions Muara port and Sungai Liang can accommodate this in the existing water area. Kuala Belait on the other hand requires widening its basin from 100 meters to 250 meters.
BRUNEI MARITIME MASTERPLAN 36 Part three; Development of routing and port layout alternatives
7.5 Conclusions Muara port and Sungai Liang can be developed to accommodate the design ship sizes. Kuala Belait is discarded based on the following considerations.
• The coastal port of Kuala Belait, cannot realistically be developed to accommodate the 70,000 dwt Panamax, as a result of their sheer size. • Kuala Belait as an alternative to Sungai Liang for containers and multi-purpose cargo is discarded as an option for the following reasons: o An very expensive completely new approach channel in a shallow coastline has to be dredged (depth of 10.5 m, width 100 m) o The port basin dimensions adjustments are also too large to be accommodated (water depth 4 to 8.8 m, turning area diameter from 150 to 286 m) • In addition such major adjustments would have a very negative environmental impact on the coast morphology, salt intrusion and mangrove conservation areas.
The wind speed and the current velocity presents no limitation.
From the downtime analyses it is concluded that the container handling is not possible in Sungai Liang without investing in sufficient protection. The bulk ships and multi-purpose ships experience still a 10% downtime period per year and detailed investigation is required to determine if that is acceptable. The choice for other berthing facilities at Sungai Liang will require large investment in improving the berthing conditions and the investment must be compared to other means of transporting the cargo to Sungai Liang. (This is in large contrast to the existing LNG berth at Lumut, but these ships can berth under much larger wave conditions (up to 2 meters) resulting is much less downtime.)
The analysis confirms that Muara port is a very sheltered port. There is not enough information available to assess the tidal velocity accurately. This report will therefore assume that the tidal conditions will be adequate for terminal development in Muara port and at Pulau Muara Besar. Muara port requires widening of the entrance channel by 23 meters to accommodate the 1,000 TEU container ship.
BRUNEI MARITIME MASTERPLAN 37 Part three; Development of routing and port layout alternatives
8 National cargo routing
- alternatives - selection through MCE National cargo routing Selected routing alternative
The potential terminal locations have been determined in the previous chapter. In this chapter the most optimal land and water transport alternatives are considered to supply Sungai Liang and the Brunei economy. This will result to the optimal national cargo routing for 2015 and beyond.
8.1 Routing alternatives Container transport over sea to the West coast has not been considered as a viable option for the following reasoning:
Based on the results found in chapter 7 container transport via water to Sungai Liang experiences a downtime of 193 days. This downtime is unacceptably high (container ships demand 24 hour turnover time throughout the year) and can only be overcome by very extensive wave protection methods which require huge investments. In addition half of the total Sungai Liang container throughput is imported as empties. These empties are available in Muara port because Brunei will remain in the future a net importer of containerised cargo. The Brunei-Muara district is serviced by trucks from Muara port, relocation of empty containers by truck to Sungai Liang is therefore the most logical solution from the transport logistics point of view, resulting in the schematic routing as shown in Figure 8-1.
Container cargo Muara 80 km Truck Sungai Port transport Liang (un)Loading Figure 8-1 Routing container transport The question now to be answered is: “What additional maritime facilities are required in Sungai Liang and Muara port for optimal routing of the cargo volumes?”.
Without Kuala Belait as a port option and without container water transport, Figure 8-2 gives a schematic overview of the logistic characteristics.
W a te r tran sp o rt 120 km
D = 16 m Downtime: Multi-purpose 47 days Jetty Pier Dry Bulk 47 days 6 km Downtime: All handling <1 day 7 m < D < 10 m
2 km Offshore Terminal location Coastal Pier D >12 m
Sungai Liang Muara Port 7 km Sheltered port location 80 km
Land transport
Figure 8-2 Selected terminal locations
BRUNEI MARITIME MASTERPLAN 38 Part three; Development of routing and port layout alternatives
In view of the dominant cargo position of Sungai Liang (Figure 7-1), at first glance the preferred option would be to develop for this cargo local maritime facilities. Such a development would result in the construction of a 6 km long jetty to handle multi-purpose and dry bulk cargo (Figure 8-2). Alternatively a light weight jetty could be built for dry bulk only, possibly supplemented with a coastal jetty (2km) for the multi-purpose cargo which can be transshipped via Muara port. Off course a full Muara port transshipment alternative for multi-purpose and dry bulk cargo is considered as well.
For the routing a total of five alternatives have been developed based on the above considerations:
Alternative 1: Direct shipping Alternative 2: Bulk jetty and Muara port land transport Alternative 3: Bulk jetty and Muara port transshipment Alternative 4: Muara port transshipment Alternative 5: Muara port full option
Maritime and land transport are intimately linked in the transport chain from origin to destination. More maritime transport will automatically result in less land transport. In alternative 1 the maritime transport is maximised and land transport minimised, whereas for alternative 5 the reverse situation applies.
In addition at each point in the transport chain where maritime transport ends and land transport takes over (and vice versa), unloading and loading operations are taking place normally involving additional equipment and storage area.
The cargo flow routing alternatives (1 to 5) emphasize maritime routing and volumes involved. To complete the overall picture, the accompanying sea and land transport chain implications in terms of distance and loading and unloading operations for the three different cargo types have been amplified. As Muara port and its surroundings is a critical area for congestion and pollution also the number of truck movements per annum has been estimated and presented.
8.1.1 Alternative 1; Direct shipping In this alternative, Figure 8-3, the cargo for the west coast and Muara port is handled separately. The dry bulk cargo (import) and multi-purpose cargo (export) for the west coast is handled at a newly built offshore Sungai Liang terminal with its storage area onshore. Muara port handles the multi-purpose cargo for the Brunei-Muara district. The containers are distributed, via the Muara port terminal, to the industrial areas of Brunei-Muara, Sungai Liang, Kuala Belait and Tutong.
Truck transport Jetty transport Short Sea Shipping 9,240 TEU Kulau Belait
Dry bulk: 1,635,000 tons Sungai Liang 80,508 TEU Multi-purpose: 861,100 tons
West coast 3,780 TEU Tutong
Containers: 337,849 TEU 337,849 TEU 420 TEU 1,061,917 tons Temburong Multi-purpose: 1,061,917 tons
Muara Port 243,910 TEU
Brunei - Muara district
Figure 8-3 Routing cargo flows of alternative 1
BRUNEI MARITIME MASTERPLAN 39 Part three; Development of routing and port layout alternatives
The transport logistics involve a 6 km long pier, over which the dry bulk is transported with a conveyor belt and the multi-purpose cargo with trucks. The truck transport will occur in concentrated periods when a ship is moored.
Dry Bulk Offshore 6 km Conveyor Sungai terminal transport Liang unloading
Multi-purpose cargo Offshore 6 k m T ru c k Sungai terminal tra n s p o rt Liang Loading
Container cargo Muara 8 0 k m T ru c k Sungai Port tra n s p o rt Liang (un)Loading
The transport loads over the jetty results in a heavy jetty structure. The jetty will have a 2–way truck transport lane and in addition a dry bulk conveyor belt system.
8.1.2 Alternative 2: Bulk jetty and Muara port land transport In this alternative, Figure 8-4, the dry bulk cargo is routed directly to a newly built dry bulk terminal at Sungai Liang, the container and multi-purpose cargo via Muara port. From Muara port the distribution to the industrial sites is done by truck.
Truck transport Jetty transport 9,240 TEU Kulau Belait Short Sea Shipping
80,508 TEU Dry bulk: 1,635,000 tons Sungai Liang 861,100tons West coast West 3,780 TEU Tutong
Containers: 337,849 TEU 337,849 TEU 420 TEU Temburong Multi-purpose: 1,926,417 tons 1,926,417 tons
Muara Port 1,061,917 tons 243,910 TEU
Brunei - Muara district Figure 8-4 Routing cargo flows of alternative 2
The transport logistics involved consists of bulk transport directly to Sungai Liang and trucking of the other two cargoes from Muara port (80 km).
Dry Bulk Offshore 6 km Conveyor Sungai terminal transport Liang unloading
Multi-purpose cargo Muara 80 km Truck Sungai Port transport Liang Loading
Container cargo Muara 80 km Truck Sungai Port transport Liang (un)Loading
The consequence of this alternative is that the import terminal can be constructed for the dry bulk only, resulting in a much lighter pier and causeway construction. The causeway requires also maintenance provisions for the conveyor and berth, so a one way road has to be considered for the maintenance crew.
BRUNEI MARITIME MASTERPLAN 40 Part three; Development of routing and port layout alternatives
For this case the expansion of Muara port will only apply to the multi-purpose and container terminal.
8.1.3 Alternative 3; Bulk jetty and Muara port transshipment In this alternative, Figure 8-5, the dry bulk will be transported directly to a newly built offshore terminal at Sungai Liang and the multi-purpose and container cargo are routed through Muara port. Through an assumed modal split (70% coastal shipping and 30% trucks) the multi-purpose destined for Sungai Liang is transported by coastal ships to a newly built coastal pier at Sungai Liang with a storage area onshore. From here the cargo is further distributed/collected for the Sungai Liang industrial area. The other 30% is transported by truck to the sites individually together with total volume of containers from Muara port.
Truck transport Jetty transport Short Sea Shipping 9,240 TEU Kulau Belait
Dry bulk: 1,635,000 tons Sungai Liang 80,508 TEU 261,730 tons West coast 3,780 TEU Tutong Multi-purpose: 602,770 tons
Containers: 337,849 TEU 337,849 TEU 420 TEU Temburong 1,323,647 tons Multi-purpose: 1,926,417 tons
Muara PortMuara 1,061,917 tons 243,910 TEU
Brunei - Muara district
Figure 8-5 Routing cargo flows of alternative 3
The transport logistics for the multi-purpose cargo is more complex involving also coastal ship terminal operations.
Dry Bulk O ffs h o re 6 km Conveyor Sungai te rm in a l tra n s p o rt Liang unloading
M u lti-p u rp o s e c a rg o Muara 80 km Truck Sungai Port tra n s p o rt Liang Loading Unloading 120 km Coastal Coastal 2 + 7 km Truck tra n s p o rt je tty tra n s p o rt Loading Container cargo Muara 80 km Truck Sungai Port tra n s p o rt Liang (un)Loading
The handling of dry bulk at Sungai Liang will require a light weight structure to shore for the transportation of the dry bulk with a conveyor belt system. The coastal ships are to be berthed north of Sungai Liang with a (heavy) jetty structure capable of exporting the multi-purpose cargo. A 2-way lane is required for efficient transport on the pier. From the storage area additional 7 km transport is required to Sungai Liang.
8.1.4 Alternative 4: Muara port transshipment This alternative, Figure 8-6, will route all cargo through Muara port. All dry bulk cargo is transported from a newly built dry bulk terminal by coastal ships to a newly built Sungai Liang terminal and forwarded by truck to the industrial sites of Sungai Liang. Using the same modal split as for alternative 3 (70:30) the multi-purpose cargo for Sungai Liang is transported by coastal ships to the Sungai Liang terminal where a storage area is located on shore for the distribution to the industrial areas. The remaining 30% is transported by truck to the other sites together with the containers.
BRUNEI MARITIME MASTERPLAN 41 Part three; Development of routing and port layout alternatives
Truck transport Jetty transport Short Sea Shipping 9,240 TEU Kulau Belait
Dry bulk: 1,635,000 tons Sungai Liang 80,508 TEU 261,730 tons West coast 3,780 TEU Tutong Multi-purpose: 602,770 tons
Dry bulk: 1,635,000 tons 337,849 TEU 420 TEU Temburong Containers: 337,849 TEU 1,323,647 tons
Multi-purpose: 1,926,417 tons Port Muara 1,061,917 tons 243,910 TEU
Brunei - Muara district
Figure 8-6 Routing cargo flows of alternative 4
The construction of the coastal pier is such that it can support the multi-purpose cargo and conveyor belt.
Dry Bulk M uara Sungai Port Liang unloading 2 km Conveyor Loading Coastal 120 km Coastal transport + 7 km transport je tty (un)Loading truck transport M ulti-purpose cargo M uara 80 km Truck Sungai Port transport Liang Loading (un)Loading 120 km Coastal Coastal 2+7 km Truck transport je tty transport Loading Container cargo Muara 80 km Truck Sungai Port tran spo rt Liang (un)Loading
In Muara port additional berthing and terminal area must be allocated to handle the coastal ships at the terminals.
8.1.5 Alternative 5: Muara port full option In this alternative, Figure 8-7, all the cargo is handled in Muara port where the cargo is distributed (and vice versa) by truck to the industrial areas. For the dry bulk a new terminal has to be created in Muara port. Truck transport Jetty transport Short Sea Shipping 9,240 TEU Kulau Belait 1,635,000 tons 80,508 TEU Sungai Liang 861,100 tons
West coast 3,780 TEU Tutong
Dry bulk: 1,635,000 tons 1,635,000 tons Containers: 337,849 TEU 337,849 TEU 420 TEU Temburong 1,926,417 Multi-purpose: 1,926,417 tons
Muara Port 1,061,917 tons 243,910 TEU
Brunei - Muara district
Figure 8-7 Routing cargo flows of alternative 5
BRUNEI MARITIME MASTERPLAN 42 Part three; Development of routing and port layout alternatives
The logistic routing is for alternative for all the cargoes similar. Dry Bulk Muara 80 km Truck Sungai Port transport Liang unloading
Multi-purpose cargo Muara 80 km Truck Sungai Port transport Liang Loading
Container cargo Muara 80 km Truck Sungai Port transport Liang (un)Loading
8.2 Evaluation of cargo routing alternative As shown in the above presentation of the alternatives 1 to 5, the choices of the terminal location determine the logistic process involved. The resultant cargo routing alternatives have to be compared with each other in order to find the optimum alternative. The economic evaluation of each alternative requires a detailed assessment of all capital/terminal/infrastructural investment costs and (logistic) operating costs. These are considered outside the scope of this report. Therefore the evaluation will concentrate on a more qualitative comparison based on the following “hard” criteria. This is supplemented by a number of “soft” criteria.
“Hard” criteria “Soft” criteria - transportation cost - environmental consideration - hydraulic consideration - industrial clients perspective - nautical implications - construction cost
To select the most (beneficial) routing alternative the Multi Criteria Evaluation (MCE) method is used.8
The MCE uses qualitative criteria which are scored on a scale from 1 to 10, in which 10 is the best score and 1 the worst. The scores are multiplied with the weight of the criteria and then added up. The weight of the criteria is established using a comparison matrix, in which the same criteria are listed in column and rows. Each criteria in a row is compared to the other criteria in the columns. When a criteria in a row is considered more important that the one in the column, it is awarded a 1. If not it is awarded a 0. When both criteria are considered equally important, both are awarded a 1. The awards of each criteria from the columns are then added to determine the total score. From the total score the relative score of each criteria is then determined. This individual score is than corrected to a scale of 100.
Group 1 Criteria a Criteria Score Weighted score b Criteria a x Individual score/sum Criteria b x Sum Total score
In the following the criteria will be discussed and a scoring set will be presented.
BRUNEI MARITIME MASTERPLAN 43 Part three; Development of routing and port layout alternatives
8.2.1 “Hard” criteria The weight factors for the ‘hard’ criteria are derived from the following table.
Criteria Total Corrected Weighted score ABCD awards awards % Transportation costs A X 0 0 0 0 1 7 Hydraulic costs B 1 X 1 0 2 4 27 Nautical costs C 1 1 X 0 2 4 27 Construction costs D 1 1 1 x 3 6 40 Total score 6 15 100 % Table 8-1 Weighted score routing criteria
The hard criteria are evaluated as follows 1) Transportation costs These are the total transportation cost for using truck, ship and conveyor belt, including all the handling costs.
Alternatives Score Only the dry bulk and multi-purpose cargo transportation costs have to be 1 10 compared as container transport cost are the same for all alternatives. When 2 8 comparing the logistic diagrams alternative 1 will result in the lowest 3 5 transportation costs, followed by alternative 2 and 3, as dry bulk import for 4 2 all 3 cases will be directly shipped to Sungai Liang. Alternative 3 is ranked 5 1 lower then alternative 2 because it still involves some 9 km truck transport with additional handling at the coastal pier. Alternative 4 involves also the truck transport of dry bulk and is certain less attractive then alternative 3, but is difficult to judge whether it is cheaper than alternative 5.
2) Hydraulic costs These costs relate to the reduction of the downtime, see also Table 7-5.
Alternatives Score Alternative 1 and 4 experience the same wave conditions during the winter 1 1 season influencing the terminal operations of the multi-purpose cargo 2 6 (coastal) ships. For the dry bulk ships in alternative 1, 2 and 3 the impact on 3 3 the of these conditions is the somewhat less. Alternative 5 scores the highest 4 2 as Muara port experiences a downtime of less than 1 day per year. 5 10
3) Nautical costs These costs relate to the adjustment of the approach channel and port basin area to accommodate the future ship sizes. See paragraph 7.4.
Alternatives Score Alternative 1 and 2 require no adjustments in Sungai Liang and minimal 1 6 adjustments in Muara port. Of the alternatives 3, 4 and 5, alternative 3 2 7 requires the minimal adjustments in Muara port, whereas alternative 4 and 5 3 5 require major nautical adjustments to accommodate the Panamax ship in the 4 1 port. 5 1
4) Construction cost These are related to the construction costs required at the terminal locations.
Alternatives Score Construction costs for alternative 1 are extremely high, as it involves a 6 km
BRUNEI MARITIME MASTERPLAN 44 Part three; Development of routing and port layout alternatives
1 1 long 2-way truck causeway with a dry bulk conveyor system approach trestle 2 5 structure, with at the end a (protected) dry bulk berth (consisting of 2 berths, 3 3 as a first estimate) and multi-purpose berth (consisting of 1-3 berths, as a first 4 3 estimate). This alternative is not really feasible. Alternative 4 will still 5 8 involve very high investment costs for the 2 km long heavy dry bulk/multi- purpose approach trestle (with possible the same number of berths as alternative 1). Some additional terminal and storage cost in Muara port will be encountered as well. For alternative 3 the investments costs in the light weight dry bulk pier and approach trestle will still be high, but lower than the alternatives 1 and 4. Alternative 2 only involves the dry bulk pier, making it less expensive than alternative 3. For alternative 5 all investment costs in Muara port are low compared to the other alternatives.
8.2.2 “Soft” criteria The soft criteria are shown below:
1. Environmental considerations The environmental impact of these routing alternatives will have the largest effect on the number of trucks between Muara port and Sungai Liang. In addition the construction of piers at Sungai Liang will have some effect on the morphology of the coast line.
Alternatives Score Alternative 5 will create the largest number of truck movements, but has no 1 10 effect on the west coast shore, and is viewed as the least favourable and 2 8 therefore scores less than all other alternatives. Although alternative 3 and 4 3 3 stimulate the use of coastal shipping, as an environmental friendly transport 4 3 option, the additional effect to the west coast shore will influence the score 5 1 somewhat negatively. Alternative 1 will be the best followed by alternative 2, as the morphological consequence are better than for alternative 3 and 4 and no long distance hauling is involved in alternative 1.
2. Industrial clients perspective The owners of the industrial plants of Sungai Liang prefer to have a terminal nearby to limit the transport between their site and the terminal and thus having more control over the transport chain.
Alternatives Score Alternative 1 is the most preferred option, followed by alternative 2 and 3. 1 10 The alternatives 4 and 5 via Muara port are the worst options. 2 8 3 4 4 1 5 1
BRUNEI MARITIME MASTERPLAN 45 Part three; Development of routing and port layout alternatives
8.3 Results and conclusion Using the Multi Criteria Evaluation (MCE) method for the ‘hard’ criteria results in the following scoring table (Table 8-2).
Alternatives Criteria WF 1 2 3 4 5 Transportation costs 7108521 Hydraulic costs 27 1 6 3 2 10 Hard Nautical costs 2767511 Construction costs 4015338 Total score 100 293 600 367 213 620 Table 8-2 Hard criteria score Alternative 5 has the highest score, but the difference with alternative 2 is minimal. Alternative 1, 3 and 4 score considerably less than alternative 2 and 5.
The outcome of the ‘hard’ criteria will have to be validated to get some insight into the sensitivity of the outcome against the chosen weight set. A first validation set when all the criteria are given the same weight factor. In the second and third set variations in the hydraulic and nautical costs have been evaluated. In the forth set the key issues are high transportation costs and low hydraulic and nautical costs. Weight factor Score Criteria WF0 WF1 WF2 WF3 WF4 1 2 3 4 5 Transportation costs 7 25 7 7 40 WF0 297 603 368 214 620 Hydraulic costs 27 25 33 19 10 WF1 450 650 400 200 500 Nautical costs 27 25 19 33 10 WF2 267 595 354 221 677 Construction costs 40 25 40 40 40 WF3 337 609 382 207 551 100 100 100 100 100 WF4 510 650 400 230 470 Table 8-3 Sensitivity analysis For all sensitivities considered alternative 2 and 5 remain the most attractive. With a slight advantage of alternative 2. Therefore alternatives 1, 3 and 4 are discarded. This leaves a comparison between alternative 2 and 5.
The key issue between alternative 2 and 5 is the difference between the dry bulk trucking costs from Muara port compared to the construction cost of a light weight dry bulk pier at Sungai Liang. It is difficult to draw a final conclusion as to which alternative is the most attractive, therefore the influence of some “soft” criteria, like environmental considerations and industrial clients perspective will be taken into account as well. Alternatives Criteria 1 2 3 4 5 Environmental considerations 108331 Soft Industrial clients perspective 108411 Total score 2016742 Table 8-4 Soft criteria score This evaluation shows that alternative 1 is preferred over all the other alternatives and alternative 5 and 4 (little less) have the lowest score. The difference between alternative 2 and 1 is very small.
Combining both conclusions from the ‘hard’ and ‘soft’ criteria leads to the conclusion that alternative 2 is the preferred option. This alternative will therefore be further developed, focusing on the development of Muara port layout alternatives. In addition it is recommended to conduct an in depth study into the development of the dry bulk terminal at Sungai Liang.
BRUNEI MARITIME MASTERPLAN 46 Part three; Development of routing and port layout alternatives
9 Muara Port spatial requirements - number of calls Muara Port spatial - cargo forecast requirements Future terminal area and berth length
In the previous chapter Muara port has been identified to remain for the foreseen future the central maritime container and multi-purpose cargo handling port of Brunei. The future cargo volumes to be handled require additional terminal area and berth length and these will be calculated. For the berth length calculation the queuing theory will be used. The outcome of the calculations will be used as input to develop alternative port layouts.
9.1 Terminal area required Table 6-9 from paragraph 6.4 will be used to determine the terminal area for the container terminal and multi-purpose terminal.
9.1.1 Container terminal The container terminal area is subdivided in three areas: • the stacking area for the containers (import, export and empties). Stacks for hazardous cargo and reefers will not be taken into account. • the buildings and road area (general facilities) • Container freight station (CFS) To calculate the total terminal area, firstly the stacking area for each of the three stacks (import, export and empties) is determined using the equation below. 7 Secondly, from the total of the three stacking areas the total terminal area can be calculated assuming certain percentages of the total terminal area for general facilities and CFS.
C *t * F O = i d r *365* mi In which: O = Stacking area required for import, export and empties [m2] Ci = Number of container movements per year per stack [TEU/yr] td = Average dwell time [days] F = Required area per TEU inclusive the travel lanes for the stacking equipment (m2) [m2/TEU] r = Average stacking height / nominal stacking height [-] mi = Acceptable average occupancy rate [-]
Ci = through the stacks: 45 % import, 45 % export and 10% empties. td = import 5 days, export 7 days and empties 20 days F = 12 m2/TEU r = import 0.6, export 0.8 days and empties 0.9 mi = 0.65
The values used for each individual parameter are discussed below: • The number of annual container movements in TEU (Ci) Of the total annual container movements 45% is moving through the import and export stack respectively, as currently is the case, and 10% through the empty container stack.
• Average dwell time (td) The average dwell time differs between the different container stacks. The export stack has a dwell
BRUNEI MARITIME MASTERPLAN 47 Part three; Development of routing and port layout alternatives time of 7 days on average. The import stack in general is cleared as soon as possible and therefore has the lowest dwell time, on average 5 days. The empty container stack has on average a dwell time of 20 days, because this stack is used as long storage for empty containers.
• Required area TEU per m2 (F) The required stacking area is dependent, among other things, on the total annual throughput of the container terminal and the type of container stacking equipment used. The following criteria for the selection of the stacking equipment type in relation to the annual throughput are used: 11. (1) Forklift trucks for less than 200.000 TEU per annum. (2) Reach stackers for less than 300.000 TEU per annum. (3) Straddle carriers for more than 100.000 TEU per annum. (4) Gantry cranes for more than 200.000 TEU per annum and for limited terminal space.
Because the container forecast exceeds the given maximum, the use of the first two types of stacking equipment is not feasible.
For the last two types of stacking equipment (straddle carrier and gantry crane) the value of F is 12 m2 per TEU (this is consistent with a stacking height of 3 high) is chosen.
• Average stacking height / nominal stacking height (r) The value of r is mainly dependent on the number of moves for re-positioning in a particular stack. Imported containers will leave the terminal relatively fast and these containers will need to be easily accessible, hence a value of 0.6 is taken. The exported containers are stacked according to a ship loading plan, hence less additional re-positioning is needed in stack and a value of 0.8 is applicable. For the empty container stack little re-positioning of containers is required, therefore a value of 0.9 is used.
• Acceptable average occupancy rate (mi) The arrival and departure pattern of containers to and from the terminal is stochastic by nature. On average the value of mi varies between 0.65 and 0.70. For this terminal the lower value of 0.65 is chosen.
The outcome of the equation is presented in the table below.
Year Scenario 2015 2025 2030 Low Area (m2) 133,256 183,343 215,024 Average Area (m2) 178,952 275,752 351,656 High Area (m2) 222,869 427,700 591,023 Table 9-1 Required total stacking area container terminal
The stacking area or primary area (Apy) is part of the total terminal area required. This area is approximately between 60-85 percent of the total area. Using Thorensen 2003 the total yard area (AT) can be calculated by adding the stacking area, general facilities area and CFS area. The CFS area for stuffing and stripping of containers (ACFS) is approximate between 15 – 30 percent of the total area. The general facilities area (AROP) is approximate between 5 – 15 percent of the total area. For this report the following areas in percentage of the total terminal area are assumed: - The ACFS area is 20% of the total terminal area.
- The AROP area is 10% of the total terminal area.
This leaves for the primary yard 70% of the total area. The total terminal area is presented in the Table 9-2.
BRUNEI MARITIME MASTERPLAN 48 Part three; Development of routing and port layout alternatives
Year Scenario 2015 2025 2030 Low Area (m2) 190,365 261,918 307,177 Average Area (m2) 255,646 393,932 502,365 High Area (m2) 318,384 610,999 844,319 Table 9-2 Total container terminal area
The present container area in use (16ha) will not be sufficient for the future, as a shortage of space will occur after 2010, as is shown in the graph below. 90 80 Low 70 Average 60 High 50 40 maximum space 2005 30 20 10
Ha 0
Year 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030
Figure 9-1 Container terminal area growth This implicates that additional storage capacity is required in the immediate future.
9.1.2 Multi-purpose terminal The multi-purpose terminal area is divided into: • warehouses, transit sheds and open storage • the buildings and road area. (general facilities)
To calculate the total terminal area firstly the total storage area Ots is calculated using the equation 7 below . Secondly the total terminal area can be calculated from the total storage area Ots assuming a certain percentage of the total area for general facilities.
f1 * f 2 *Cts *td Ots = mts *h* ρ *365 In which 2 Ots = the required floor area at the terminal [m ] f1 = proportion gross/net surface in connection with traffic lanes for FLT’s. [-] f2 = bulking factor due to stripping and separately stacking of special consignments [-] Cts = fraction of total annual throughput Cs which passes the transit shed [ton/yr] td = Dwell time [days] mts = Occupation rate of the transit shed or storage [m] h = Stacking height in the storage [m] ρ = Density of the cargo as stowed in the ship [-] 365 = days per year [-]
The variables in the equation are dealt with in detail below: f1 = 1.5 f2 = 1.2 Cts = total multi-purpose cargo throughput will pass through the storage area from Table 6-9. td = 10 days mts = 0.70 h = 2 meters r = 0.6
BRUNEI MARITIME MASTERPLAN 49 Part three; Development of routing and port layout alternatives
This result in the following total storage area required
Year Scenario 2015 2025 2030 Low Area (m2) 92,915 117,882 135,024 Average Area (m2) 103,672 154,811 195,584 High Area (m2) 116,624 209,457 294,925
The multi-purpose terminal consists of more than the storage facilities alone. There are other building, traffic lanes, berthing areas and parking areas on the terminal and it is assumed that the total storage area consists of 40 % of the total terminal area. The total multi-purpose terminal area is shown in Table 9-3.
Year Scenario 2015 2025 2030 Low Area (m2) 232,288 294,704 337,560 Average Area (m2) 259,180 387,026 488,959 High Area (m2) 291,560 523,642 737,312 Table 9-3 Total multi-purpose terminal area required
The present multi-purpose terminal area (10 ha) will not be sufficient to accommodate the future multi-purpose cargo beyond 2007, as is seen in the figure below. 80 70 Average 60 High 50 Low 40 30 maximum space 2005 20 10 0 Ha
Year 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030
Figure 9-2 Multi-purpose terminal area growth Immediate expansion is required for the multi-purpose terminal also.
9.2 Berth length required At the waterfront the terminal requires a certain berth length (quay) to handle the future number and the average length of the ships. The total terminal berth length can be calculated using the equation 7 given below . The average ship length (Ls) of the multi-purpose and container ships has been determined in paragraph 7.2.
Lq = 1.1* n *(Ls +15) +15 In which Lq = quay length, made up from the total length of n berths [m] Ls = the average ship length expressed in Length Over All [m] n = the number of berth needed determined by the queuing theory [-]
The number of berths (n) has to be determined first before the quay length can be calculated. For this the queuing theory has to be used.
BRUNEI MARITIME MASTERPLAN 50 Part three; Development of routing and port layout alternatives
9.2.1 Queuing theory This theory 5 makes it possible to calculate the number of service points (berths) through a chosen type of service system. Such a system characterises the distribution of the arrival pattern and the distribution of the service time of the ships. The choice is between an irregular system with a negative exponential distribution (M) and a regular system with an Erlang 2 distribution (E2).
Firstly the total terminal berth utilisation (ρ) is determined: λ ρ = µ In which : ρ = total utilisation of terminal [-] λ = inter arrival time of the ships [hr/ship] µ = service rate of the ships [hr/ship]
The service rate is the time a ship occupies the berth. This consists of the handling time at the berth, the time the ship requires to berth and unberth and other time consuming activities as custom duties.
The number of berths (n) is found by dividing the total terminal utilisation by an assumed number of berths. If the outcome for the service system chosen is less than the maximum accepted delay also chosen, which can be found in tables 5 then the number of berths is correct. ρ u = n In which : u = berth utilisation [-] ρ = total utilisation of terminal [-] n = number of servers required (berths) [-]
9.2.2 Arrival rate The expected arrival rate of the ships (container and multi-purpose) is based on the assumed shipment volume (defined as the total cargo volume loaded and unloaded during berthing). The maritime overview of paragraph 6.5 is used as basis to determine these shipment volumes.
The maritime development of Asia showed that feeders are to remain the main means of transport. For the reference years in the Table 9-4 the assumed average shipment volumes are shown for all three scenarios. Year Scenario (Average shipment volume in TEU) 2015 2025 2030 Low 250 500 500 Average 250 1,250 1,500 High 500 2,000 2,500 Table 9-4 Average container shipment volume in TEU forecasted to 2030
The average multi-purpose shipment volume is assumed to show no large increase until the year 2015, as the cargo throughput is similar to the peak of 1996. From 2015 onwards the average shipment volume will increase to year 2025 and remain constant. This has been highlighted for each of the 3 scenario in Table 9-5. Year Scenario (Average shipment volume in Tons) 2015 2025 2030 Low 3,000 5,000 5,000 Average 4,000 6,000 6,000 High 5,000 8,000 8,000 Table 9-5 Average multi-purpose shipment volume forecasted to 2030
BRUNEI MARITIME MASTERPLAN 51 Part three; Development of routing and port layout alternatives
cargo throughput The arrival rate of the ships (λ) can then be calculated as: average shipment volume
With the above assumptions on the average shipment volume and the cargo forecast determined in Table 6-9, the following arrival pattern, Table 9-6, has been derived.
Year Calls Scenario 2015 2025 2030 Low TEU 1,063 732 858 Multi-purpose cargo 576 438 502 Average TEU 1,351 440 468 Multi-purpose cargo 482 479 606 High TEU 889 427 295 Multi-purpose cargo 433 487 685 Table 9-6 Total ships call to Brunei
9.2.3 Service rate For each shipment volume the average terminal handling rate applies. These rates are estimated in the following: • For the container terminal it is assumed that each ship will be serviced by 2 Panamax cranes with a average capacity of 50 moves/hr. The terminal operator claims this rate and this seems realistic as 39% of the world terminals operate at this rate. 11 • For the multi purpose terminal the cargo handling is divided into two categories. ○ The multi-purpose cargo from Sungai Liang is assumed to be handled at a rate of 300 tons/hr ( scrap steel and aluminium ingots with 30 ton cranes with 10 moves per hour and the bags are loaded with special bag loader with a total capacity of 300 tons/hr ). ○ The handling rate for the other multi-purpose cargo in Muara port is assumed as 30 ton/hr * 2,5 gangs (for a 100 meter ship) 7 this is total 75 ton/hr. The shipment volume is the average total handling per ship.
From the above the handling hours per ship are resultant.
Adding to the handling time per ship the hours for berthing and (un)berthing time, 1 hour (0.5 hour berthing and 0.5 hour (un)berthing), gives the total service rate per ship. Other time consuming activities like customs are assumed to be done during the handling period of the ships.
9.2.4 Service system chosen Systems and maximum acceptable delays for each terminal, Table 9-7.
Queue Delay as percentage of the Terminal type system type service time
Sungai Liang multi-purpose cargo M/E2/n 30% Multi-purpose terminal Muara port M/M/n 30% Container terminal E2/E2/n 10% Table 9-7 Queue system and waiting time criteria
For Sungai Liang the multi-purpose cargo vessels arrive throughout the whole year on irregular bases (M). The service rate is regular, because the vessels are more or less the same size (E2). A waiting time of 30% of the service time is generally accepted.
For the multi-purpose terminal in Muara port the vessels arrive throughout the whole year on irregular
BRUNEI MARITIME MASTERPLAN 52 Part three; Development of routing and port layout alternatives
bases (M). The ships vary in size (on average 8,000 dwt, but the range will vary between 5,000 dwt and 15,000 dwt) and as is also the shipment size (M). It is further assumed that the terminal operates as one terminal and a waiting time of 30% of the service time is generally accepted as maximum.
For the container terminal the arrival pattern of the ships is normally according a scheduling making the calls regular (E2). The service rate is also more or less regular, because the shipment sizes are assumed to be more or less the same (E2). In general a waiting time of 10% of the service time is accepted as a maximum. It is furthermore assumed that the future container operations are conducted from one terminal only.
9.2.5 Berth calculations In the appendix I these calculations are presented for the average scenario in Table 9-8.
Year Terminal type 2015 2025 2030 Multi-purpose 6 7 8 Container 2 3 3 Total 8 10 11 Table 9-8 Number of berths per terminal type
Now the total berth length can be calculated using the design ship lengths given below for the container and multi-purpose ships:
Year 2015 2025 2030 Multi-purpose (m) 125 125 125 Container (m) 200 200 270
The ending result is presented in the Table 9-9.
year Terminal type 2015 2025 2030 Multi-purpose (m) 939 1,093 1,247 Container (m) 488 725 956 Total (m) 1,427 1,818 2,203 Table 9-9 Total berth length required 2015 – 2030 The additional berth length for the multi-purpose and container terminals for 2015 are 328 meters and 238 meters respectively.
9.3 Conclusions For the year 1996 – 1997 the port reached a historical maximum throughput of 0.9 million tons containerised and 1.0 million tons multi-purpose cargo. This meant for the multi-purpose terminal that this throughput required 13 ha (with the terminal area calculation method of paragraph 9.1.2) was just manageable, as it exceeded its theoretically maximum capacity in terms of terminal area (10 ha of terminal area) and its berths were fully occupied. For the container terminal this throughput was approx. half of its capacity in terms of terminal area (7 ha of 16 ha, assuming that area A is integrated into the container terminal).
Between 2005 and 2010 the maximum capacity of the terminals will be reached, looking at the Figure 9-1 and 9-2, and will increase further beyond 2015. Therefore the terminals have to be expanded in the near future and alternative developments must be considered.
BRUNEI MARITIME MASTERPLAN 53 Part three; Development of routing and port layout alternatives
10 Muara port lay-outs development for 2015 - Layout alternatives Port development - Multi Criteria Evaluation alternatives Preferred port development plan
In the previous chapter the terminal area and berth length requirements for 2015 have been determined and now these requirements must be translated into an optimal layout for Muara port for 2015 and beyond.
10.1 Muara port development starting points The present Muara port land use will be highlighted first. Thereafter, using the terminal area requirements of chapter 9, different port layouts will be developed.
10.1.1 Present Muara port land use Currently the total port area is 72 ha (excluding the naval base, bitumen jetty and cement jetty). The total vacant port area on the existing waterfront totals 27 ha, with a total waterfront length of approximately 2,000 meters. The approximate existing land use of Muara port for the different terminals is shown in the following Table 10-1.
Area Waterfront length From north to south: (ha) (m) NB Naval Base unknown unknown OT Oil & Bitumen Jetty unknown unknown FW1 Fishery Wharf 1 9 206 M-p Multi-purpose 10 611 A Area A (used by CT) 6 0 CT Container Terminal 10 250 B Free area B 12 353 C Free area C 5 0 FW2 Fishery Wharf 2 10 260 D Free area D 10 380 CJ Cement Jetty unknown unknown Table 10-1 Muara port land use
10.1.2 Muara port terminal limitations Good access of the port by road is very important, as all the cargo will be transported by truck through Brunei. With the increased cargo activity in the port the current road infrastructure is expected to be insufficient. Considerable modifications may be required to accommodate the increased traffic.
Terminal development on Pulau Muara Besar requires a land connection together with a bypass road around Muara port.
BRUNEI MARITIME MASTERPLAN 54 Part three; Development of routing and port layout alternatives
Figure 10-1 Muara port land use
For terminal expansion to Pulau Muara Besar the area available is assumed to be more than 100 ha. The area E is reserved for a bridge connection to Pulau Muara Besar.
For the further development of Muara port it is assumed that the following terminals will remain unchanged: - The naval base at the entrance of the channel (NB) - The shell bitumen jetty next to the navel base (OT) - The cement and ferry jetties. (CJ)
BRUNEI MARITIME MASTERPLAN 55 Part three; Development of routing and port layout alternatives
10.2 Muara Port lay out alternatives development To develop Muara port the areas B, C and D are readily available for future development and the fishery wharfs FW1 and FW2 can possibly be combined. Rearranging of the existing container and multi-purpose terminals is also considered. Area A is currently in use by the container terminal, but this area can be modified for the multi-purpose terminal.
10.2.1 Introduction The required terminal area and berth length have been calculated in chapter 9 for all scenarios. The average scenario was chosen for further development, but as this development has to be non regret for later years the high and low scenarios for the area requirements for years 2025 and 2030 are also taken into account, as is shown in Table 10-2. As mentioned before the existing container terminal area is 10 ha with additional 6 ha and the multi-purpose terminal area is 10 ha.
Total 2015 Total 2025 Total 2030 Terminal Scenario (ha) (ha) (ha) Low 19 26 30 Container terminal Average 26 40 50 High 32 61 84 Low 23 29 34 Multi-purpose terminal Average 26 39 49 High 29 52 74 Table 10-2 Terminal area requirements
Terminals can be further developed either along the existing waterfront or on the island of Pulau Muara Besar. Building a second separate container and a second multi-purpose terminal along the existing waterfront has not been considered a viable proposition for the following reasons: - After a short investigation into the viability of operating two container terminals along the existing waterfront, this option has been dismissed. The container throughput is relatively low and separating container operations will result in doubling of equipment and thus more investment. Furthermore relocation of containers between the two terminals will become more costly and create additional handling costs. - One multi-purpose terminal operation is more efficient in terms of space and berth utilisation.
The following future alternative developments for Muara port are considered for the year 2015 and presented in layouts:
Alternative 1: Maximum use existing waterfront (Layout 1) Alternative 2: Maximum use total waterfront (Layout 2) Alternative 3: Minimum use Pulau Muara Besar (Layout 3) Alternative 4: Maximum use Pulau Muara Besar (Layout 4)
Alternative 1 and 2 make maximum use of the limited existing waterfront. In alternative 1 the terminals will expand each to one side and in alternative 2 the multi-purpose terminal is relocated to the Seresa waterfront to make space for the container terminal expansion at the old multi-purpose terminal area.
In alternative 3 one terminal moves to the island. The container terminal instead of the multi-purpose terminal is chosen to move to the island, because the new terminal can be optimally designed with state of the art technology ensuring a cost competitive solution. In addition the multi-purpose terminal requires less terminal depth enabling a wider buffer zone with the urban area reducing noise, dust and light pollution. In alternative 4 both terminals are located on Pulau Muara Besar from the start.
BRUNEI MARITIME MASTERPLAN 56 Part three; Development of routing and port layout alternatives
10.2.2 Layout 1; Maximum use of the existing waterfront This layout maximises the use of the existing waterfront in Muara port. The free area on both sides of the existing terminals will be used for the container and multi-purpose terminal expansion respectively. For the expansion of the multi-purpose terminal to 25 ha the fishery wharf WF1 (9ha) will be relocated at the Seresa Industrial area on location D and area A (6ha) will be redeveloped for the multi-purpose terminal. The container terminal expansion to 27 ha will redevelop the areas B (12ha) and C (5ha) for its expansion.
This layout requires a berth extension of 566 m (multi-purpose and container berth respectively 328 m and 238 m) resulting in a total berth length of 1,427 m. This is approximately the maximum waterfront length available.
This development alternative maximises the port land use. There is no area vacant beyond 2015 for expansion on the Muara waterfront.
Multi-purpose terminal (25 ha) consists of: A = 6 ha M-p = 10 ha FW1 = 9 ha
Container terminal (27 ha) consists of: CT = 10 ha B = 12 ha C = 5 ha
Figure 10-2 Layout 1; Maximum use of the existing waterfront
BRUNEI MARITIME MASTERPLAN 57 Part three; Development of routing and port layout alternatives
10.2.3 Layout 2; Maximum use of the total waterfront This layout maximises the total waterfront area of Muara port. The multi-purpose terminal is relocated to the Seresa waterfront at the locations B, C, WF2 and D (total 37 ha), to accommodate the container terminal expansion at its present location (by 16 ha to 26 ha). The container terminal will integrate the present multi-purpose terminal area (10 ha) and area A (6ha) into its terminal. This assumes the relocation of the fishery wharf WF2 to the other fishery wharf site WF1.
This layout requires a new quay of 939 m for the multi-purpose terminal and a total quay of 488 m for the container terminal (this leaves 373 m vacant on the old multi-purpose quay). This development alternative results in some area (17 ha) available for expansion beyond 2015 for the multi-purpose terminal and no area available for expansion of the container terminal.
Multi-purpose terminal (37 ha) consists of: B = 12 ha C = 5 ha FW2 = 10 ha D = 10 ha
Container terminal (26 ha) consists of: CT = 10 ha A = 6 ha M-p =10 ha
Figure 10-3 Layout 2; Maximum use of the total waterfront
BRUNEI MARITIME MASTERPLAN 58 Part three; Development of routing and port layout alternatives
10.2.4 Layout 3; Minimum Pulau Muara Besar development This layout is based on the assumption that the container terminal will be moved to Pulau Muara Besar. The multi-purpose terminal will expand on the former container terminal area (10ha) and redevelop area A (6ha) for the multi-purpose terminal. The development of a new container terminal on Pulau Muara Besar opposite of Muara port requires a new terminal area of 26 ha.
This layout requires a berth length of 939 m for the multi-purpose terminal. The existing multi- purpose berth is 611m and old container terminal berth is 250 m. This requires the construction of an additional approx. 80 m of berth. The container terminal requires the development of 488 m berth at its new location. For the multi-purpose terminal expansion beyond 2015 a total area of 27 ha consisting of B, C and one of the fishery wharfs can possibly be developed bringing the total area to 60 ha. This area is sufficient to accommodate the multi-purpose terminal beyond 2030 for the average scenario.
On Pulau Muara Besar there is enough area available to accommodate the expansion of the container terminal.
Multi-purpose terminal (26 ha) consists of: CT = 10 ha A = 6 ha M-p = 10 ha
Container terminal (26 ha) consists of: PMB = 26 ha
Figure 10-4 Layout 3; Minimum Pulau Muara Besar development
BRUNEI MARITIME MASTERPLAN 59 Part three; Development of routing and port layout alternatives
10.2.5 Layout 4; Maximum Pulau Muara Besar development In the last layout both the container terminal (26 ha) and the multi-purpose terminal (26 ha) will be relocated on Pulau Muara Besar. The terminals will be located opposite of Muara port. This layout will result in total vacant area in Muara port of 53 ha (27 ha free area and 26 ha old terminal area).
This layout requires the development of new berths totalling 1,427 meters (939 m multi-purpose berth and 488 m container berth) for the year 2015.
Multi-purpose terminal (26 ha) consists of: PMB = 26 ha
Container terminal (26 ha) consists of: PMB = 26 ha
Figure 10-5 Layout 4; Maximum Pulau Muara Besar development
BRUNEI MARITIME MASTERPLAN 60 Part three; Development of routing and port layout alternatives
10.3 Multi Criteria Evaluation selection method To select the most (beneficial) port layout the Multi Criteria Evaluation (MCE) method is used. 8 The method was already described in paragraph 8.2. In the following the criteria will be discussed and a scoring set will be presented.
10.3.1 Criteria The following criteria have been selected:
- Nautical and hydraulic aspects - Urban impact - Nautical safety and accessibility - Land infrastructure - Future ship size - Port morphology - Terminal expansion flexibility - Capital investment effectiveness
To use costs as criteria in this analyse will not be considered, as costs are quantitative and the above method uses qualitative criteria. It is recommended that an in-depth study is further developed and that the costs of all alternatives are quantified.
10.3.2 Determining individual weight factors The result of the weighted scoring is shown in the comparison matrix below:
Criteria Total Weighted score ABCDEFG awards (WF0) % Nautical and hydraulic aspects A X110000 2 10 Nautical safety and accessibility B 0X10000 1 5 Future ship size C 00X0111 3 14 Terminal expansion flexibility D 1 1 1 x 1 1 1 6 28 Urban impact E 1 1 0 0 x 1 1 4 19 Land infrastructure F 1 1 0 0 0 x 1 3 14 Port morphology G 110000x 2 10 Total score 21 100 % Table 10-3 Weighted score criteria The terminal expansion flexibility is seen as the most important criteria followed by the urban expansion, land infrastructure and future ship size. The other criteria are less significant but are nevertheless important to take into account.
10.3.3 Nautical & Hydrodynamic aspects The nautical and hydraulics criteria include dredging required, berthing conditions and wave penetration. The approach channel adjustments are assumed to be identical for all layouts.
Score 9 Alternative 1 requires little dredging of the basin and berthing areas. Berthing conditions are expected to be unchanged. Minimal adjustment is required. 7 Alternative 2 requires extension of the port basin towards the Seresa waterfront at the newly developed multi-purpose terminal and dredging is required along the new berths. The berthing conditions are assumed to be adequate. 4 Alternative 3 requires extension of the port basin towards Pulau Muara Besar for the container terminal. The actual location of the berths will determine the amount of dredging required, considerable dredging is expected in the northeast corner.
BRUNEI MARITIME MASTERPLAN 61 Part three; Development of routing and port layout alternatives
1 Alternative 4 requires extension and expansion of the port basin area towards Pulau Muara Besar. The northeast corner requires sheltered berthing conditions reducing wave influences from the approach channel. The northwest corner development is assumed to be influenced by the tidal current velocity. This alternative has the largest dredging and berthing implications.
10.3.4 Nautical safety and accessibility The nautical safety is the risk that ships will collide with each other or with port structures. The higher the estimated risk the less safe the layout will be. Accessibility of the berthing areas depends on the degree of ship manoeuvring required.
Score 6 For alternative 1 the access and safety is almost the same as for the present situation. No change is expected. 8 Alternative 2 will also have no particular accessibility problems. The velocity of the cross current may cause some negligible nuisance during berthing at the multi-purpose terminal, thus decreasing the accessibility somewhat but not hampering the nautical safety. 7 For alternative 3 the location of the container terminal on the island increases the safety in the port as the container ships can manoeuvre independently from multi-purpose ships. Berthing at the container terminal will require more manoeuvring at the northeast corner compared to the northwest corner. 6 Alternative 4 The shipping activity is now concentrated at Pulau Muara Besar making the situation comparable to alternative 1.
10.3.5 Future ship size Future ship size has impact on the port basin, berthing length and water depth along the berth. Have the present terminals flexibility to accommodate larger ships? It is assumed that the new berths are capable to receive the larger ships and the older berths not.
Score 5 In alternative 1 the new berthing area will be able to receive larger ships. This results both for the container terminal and for the multi-purpose terminal in only one berth for the larger ships. 3 Alternative 2 will have no new berths for the container terminal restricting the flexibility of the terminal. The multi-purpose terminal has all new berths and will therefore have no limitations. The flexibility of the container terminal is more important then the flexibility of the multi-purpose terminal. 6 Alternative 3 has a newly constructed container terminal with maximum flexibility. The multi-purpose terminal does not have new berths thus limiting its flexibility. 10 In alternative 4 the construction of both terminals at Pulau Muara Besar results in the maximum flexibility for future ships sizes.
10.3.6 Terminal expansion flexibility This criteria focuses on the flexibility to expand the terminal area and berths after 2015 without major constraints.
Score 2 In alternative 1 further expansion is very restricted. 2 For alternative 2 the future expansion is very restricted. 8 In alternative 3 both terminals will have expansion options available at the locations. 10 Alternative 4 has unlimited expansion options.
BRUNEI MARITIME MASTERPLAN 62 Part three; Development of routing and port layout alternatives
10.3.7 Urban impact When the port is expanding what are the consequences for the urban areas with regard to congestion and environmental impact?
Score 1 In alternative 1 the terminal traffic is concentrated along one road through Muara port. Congestion is expected to be severe and as a result increasing environmental pressure in the urban area. The increased terminal operations will develop more environmental pollution like dust, noise en night light. The urban areas will experience the maximal hinder. 2 Alternative 2 is almost identical to alternative 1. Part of the terminal operation has been relocated, but still the hinder experienced will be great. 6 Alternative 3 The congestion is lowered as the Pulau Muara Besar traffic will be diverted along the future bypass road. The environmental conditions will improve but the access road of Muara port will still experience some congestion. The terminal operation environmental pollution is less. 10 Alternative 4 The total traffic is bypassing Muara port and the environmental conditions have improved considerably in Muara port, as the terminal operations are located elsewhere
10.3.8 Infrastructural changes The land and water infrastructure will require adjustment to the future situation. The less adjustment the better.
Score 8 In alternative 1 the increased traffic, due to the two terminal expansions, require investment in the road infrastructure. On the other hand the waterfront expansion is very small (only extension of the existing berths). Therefore the total changes are limited. 6 Alternative 2 is identical to alternative 1 for the infrastructural changes. The waterfront development is on the contrary large as new berths have to be developed for the multi- purpose terminal. 2 In alternative 3 large infrastructural adjustments are to be constructed in order to develop Pulau Muara Besar. Besides a land connection a new bypass road has to be developed to handle the future traffic. Furthermore construction of new berths on Pulau Muara Besar is contributing to the large changes. 1 Alternative 4 has even larger changes as now also the multi-purpose terminal is transferred to the island. The same land infrastructural changes will occur as in alternative 3.
10.3.9 Port morphology How large will be the effect of the port layout on the morphology of the port? Can there be change expected to the port bed conditions?
Score 10 In alternative 1 the terminal development is expected to have little impact on the port morphology. The extension of the terminals is affecting the basin soil balance to a minimum. 6 Alternative 2 requires development of the Seresa industrial waterfront and some impact is expected on the port morphology. 3 In alternative 3 the dredging of the northeast corner of Pulau Muara Besar is expected to have impact on the morphology in the port as a large area will be dredged. The impact of the northwest corner is expected to have less impact as the northeast corner, but still
BRUNEI MARITIME MASTERPLAN 63 Part three; Development of routing and port layout alternatives
significant. 2 For alternative 4 the dredging required for the Pulau Muara Besar development is expected to have significant impact on the port morphology as large areas will be dredged.
10.4 Scoring table The result of these scores and weight factors is shown in Table 10-4. Alternative 4 has the highest score (684). Interesting to see that the alternative 2 has the lowest score (390). This is explained by the large redevelopment required for the short term and expansion limitation on the long term. Alternative 3 is the second best option (555) and alternative 1 the third (477).
Layout Criteria WF 1 2 3 4 Nautical and hydraulic 10 9 7 4 1 Nautical safety and accessibility 5 6 8 7 6 Future ship size 14 5 3 6 10 Terminal adjustment 28 2 2 8 10 Urban impact 19 1 2 6 10 Land infrastructure 14 8 6 2 1 Port morphology 10 10 6 3 2 100 477 390 555 684 Table 10-4 Multi Criteria Evaluation result
10.4.1 Sensitivity analysis The outcome of the MCE will have to be validated to get some insight in the sensitivity of the outcome against the chosen weight set. A first validation set investigates how the results change when all the criteria are given the same weight factor. For the second validation set the land criteria are increased with 6.7 points each (20 points change in total) and at the same time the waterside criteria are decreased with 5 each giving the same total change (20 points). This is then reversed in the third validation set where the land criteria are decrease with 6.7 and the water criteria increase with 5 points.
Weight factors Score Criteria WF0 WF 1 WF 2 WF 3 1 2 3 4 Nautical and hydraulic 10 14 5 15 WF 0 477 390 555 684 Nautical safety and accessibility 5 14 0 10 WF 1 577 480 518 580 Future ship size 14 14 9 19 WF 2 396 334 565 735 Terminal adjustment 28 15 35 21 WF 3 540 404 501 621 Urban expansion 19 15 26 12 Land infrastructure 14 14 20 8 Port morphology 10 14 5 15 100 100 100 100 Table 10-5 Validation sets
For all the sensitivities considered alternative 4 remains the most attractive and alternative 2 is in all cases the worst. This means that the outcome is robust against large variations in the weight factors. Before detailing the development plan the merits of alternative 2 will be closer investigated.
In addition to the outcome of the MCE the following analysis support the elimination of alternative 2. • Up to 2015 the investment in alternative 2 is higher than alternative 1 (see the cost estimate below) • Also longer term alternative 2 has more regret investment as it involves compared to alternative 1 additional relocation of terminals: Firstly the fishery wharf 2 has to be relocated and combined
BRUNEI MARITIME MASTERPLAN 64 Part three; Development of routing and port layout alternatives
with fishery wharf 1 (10ha for both wharfs), secondly the multi-purpose terminal has to be relocated after redevelopment of the Seresa waterfront and thirdly the vacant area the multi- purpose terminal leaves behind is converted into container terminal, which will be converted back to multi-purpose terminal when moving to alternative 3.
Cost estimate between alternative 1 and 2. Relocating fishery wharf: Alternative 1 FW1 to D 5 million Alternative 2 FW2 with FW1 10 million
Landfill Alternative 1 100,000 m2 (FW1 and B together) * 4 meters water * $ 4/m2 = $ 1.6 million Alternative 2 60,000 m2 (area B only) * 4 meters water * $ 4/m2 = $1.0 million
Berth Alternative 1 503 m * $ 54,000 /m1 = $ 27.2 million Alternative 2 939 m * $ 54,000 /m1 = $ 50.7 million
Land development Alternative 1 200,000 m2 * $ 200 /m2 = $ 40.0 million Alternative 2 470,000 m2 * $ 150 /m2 = $ 70.5 million
Dredging Alternative 1 320,000 m3 (503 m long * 12.5 m deep * 50 m wide) * 7 /m3 = $ 2.2 million Alternative 2 590,000 m3 (939 m long * 12.5 m deep * 50 m wide) * 7 /m3 = $ 4.1 million
Redevelopment terminal Alternative 1 60,000 m2 (area A for multi-purpose terminal) * 100 /m2 = $ 6.0 million Alternative 2 160,000 m2 (area A and old multi-purpose terminal) * 100 /m2 = $ 16.0 million
BRUNEI MARITIME MASTERPLAN 65 Part three; Development of routing and port layout alternatives
11 Muara port development strategy The integral development of Pulau Muara Besar (alternative 4) had the highest score in the MCE and alternative 2 which was discarded, the lowest. This leaves alternatives 1, 3 and 4 as viable options for port development. Below these alternatives have been schematically presented in Figure 11-1 with reference to figure 9-1 and 9-2 and appendix J (where the spatial demand of both terminals was drawn as a function of the time in years).
It can be concluded for the average scenario that: • The existing multi-purpose terminal (10ha) and container (16ha) reach in year 2007 and 2010 respectively their maximum capacity. • In alternative 1 both terminals (52ha, 26 ha each) reach their capacity around 2015. • In alternative 3 the multi-purpose terminal (52 ha) has adequate free area to operate until around 2030 and for the container terminal there are no restrictions. • In alternative 4 there are no restrictions over time for both terminals.
ct & m-p t no limit
Space 4 ct: ha > 100 m-p t: ha <52 3 ct : ha < 26 m-p t: ha < 26 1
0 Alternative 3 out of space in Muara Port Multi-purpose Alternative 1 out of space terminal area container limit terminal area limit
Time 2005 2007 2010 2015 2030 ? Figure 11-1 Muara port spatial growth alternatives
How should Muara port be developed over time? There are three restrictions found: - Available area - Lead time - Environmental
Each of these restrictions will be evaluated below
11.1 Available area Crucial for the choices to be made is the knowledge till what year for alternative 1 and 3 the spatial demand can be met on the existing waterfront. As there is limited space at the existing waterfront, container and/or multi-purpose terminal capacity will in a certain year be fully utilised and additional capacity will only be available on the island.
As the existing terminals are limiting in the near future (2007 – 2010) urgent action has to be taken to implement terminal expansion. This can either be done by implementing alternative 1, 3 or 4 directly or following a certain sequence. All development paths are shown in Figure 11-2.
BRUNEI MARITIME MASTERPLAN 66 Part three; Development of routing and port layout alternatives
Development path 4 Sequence 3
1
0 Time Figure 11-2 Alternative port development paths
11.2 Lead time The question now arises is: How should the port development plan be phased to ultimately arrive at alternative 4?
The shortest route is directly to alternative 4. Alternative 1 and 3 are potential intermediate stages. The development could possibly be realised via alternative 1 and 3 or moving from the present situation to alternative 3 and from there to alternative 4. Alternative 1 can relatively early be implemented whereas alternative 3 and 4 involve development of Pulau Muara Besar and require long lead times. The lead times for the different alternatives are estimated in the project planning below.
Planning scale (years) 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Planning Tender & design
Muara port development Expanding container terminal Expanding multi-purpose terminal Relocating FW1 Bypass road
Pulau Muara Besar development Bridge Container terminal development (quay construction, dredging, terminal area) Relocating container terminal Table 11-1 Lead time port development
The lead time is defined as the time required from start of the planning till operation. The estimated lead time for the developments are (in years): Muara port expansion : 6 Pulau Muara Besar development : 9
As the multi-purpose terminal will be short of space in 2007 immediate expansion is required. As the development of the island takes 9 years, going directly to alternative 3 or 4 is not an option. This implies that alternative 1 has to be developed first. This leaves the following development paths open,
BRUNEI MARITIME MASTERPLAN 67 Part three; Development of routing and port layout alternatives as is shown in Figure 11-3.
Development path 4 Sequence
3
1
0 Time
Figure 11-3 Development path Muara port
As the terminal area in Muara port will be insufficient beyond the year 2015 also the decision to move to alternative 3 or 4 has to be taken now, as both alternatives have an estimated lead time of 9 years.
Alternative 1 involves terminal investment costs for the expansion of the existing multi-purpose terminal. Following the development path from alternative 1 to alternative 4, which means relocating all terminals on the island is not considered viable, as the investment costs for alternative 1 are then regret costs. Following the development path from alternative 1 via alternative 3 to alternative 4 leaves the multi-purpose terminal on the existing waterfront in operation, with expansion possibilities till 2030.
11.3 Costs estimate development To provide a rough insight in the costs of developing the terminals an estimate is given below.
For the development of alternative 1 it is estimated that the following costs are involved: ○ For the approach channel costs have to be made to make it suitable for the 1,000 TEU ships. The widening will involve a volume 840,000 m3 (23 m wide * 2,900 m long * 12.5 m deep). 840,000 * $ 3/m3 = $ 2,520,000 ○ For developing alternative 1 the expansion requires land fill of the area B next to the container terminal and landfill of the Fishery wharf 1. This is estimated to be 6 ha each with 4 meters of landfill, 480,000 m3. 480,000 * $ 4/m3 = $ 1,920,000 ○ The construction of the quay walls total 560 meters new structure and dredging of the new walls to a depth of 12.5 meters, 350,000 m3 (12.5 m deep * 50 m wide * 560 m long). 560 * $ 54,000/m1 = $ 30,240,000 350,000 * $ 7/m3 = $ 2,450,000 ○ The new developed terminal area requires redevelopment of in total 26 ha. 260,000 * $ 200/m1 = $ 52,000,000 ○ For the relocation of the FW1 to D involves costs for compensation and construction of new fish boat jetties and warehouses together with possible cleaning up of the old site. $ 5,000,000
Creating alternative 1 results in making costs of approximate 94 million dollar.
For the development of Pulau Muara Besar for alternative 3 the following costs have to be made:
BRUNEI MARITIME MASTERPLAN 68 Part three; Development of routing and port layout alternatives
○ Connecting Pulau Muara Besar to the main land a bridge of 1,500 meters long and 30 meters wide and a new access road (the bypass road) of 10,000 meters and 30 meters wide has to be constructed. Cost bridge 1,500 * 30 * $ 1,000/m2 = $ 45,000,000 Cost road 10,000 * 30 * $ 100/m2 (30 cm thick asphalt) = $ 30,000,000
○ The development of Pulau Muara Besar involves the construction of the container terminal with 700 meters of quay wall and 60 ha of terminal land. Furthermore dredging is required along the berth after completion 440,000 m3 (700 m long* 50 m wide * 12.5 m deep). Quay wall: 700 * $ 54,000/m1 = $ 37,800,000 Terminal area: 600,000 * $ 200/m1 = $ 120,000,000 Dredging: 440,000 * $ 7/m3 = $ 3,080,000
The development of alternative 3 is estimated to cost 236 million dollar.
The total phased port development costs (alternative 1 and 3 ) are estimated to be 330 million dollar.
In addition the environmental impact of the port expansion is a third factor influencing the phasing of the plan. This aspect is examined in some detail below.
11.4 Environmental impact assessment
11.4.1 Introduction In general a port is situated where the land and water infrastructure meet, requiring a large spatial area and as a result affecting an area much larger than its own. Ports are sometimes located in environmental sensitive areas with natural habitat values, local recreational value and urban settlements. The effects of the port activity are therefore not localised, but have their influence far beyond the port. It is therefore important that the economic activities of the port are balanced with the national and local environmental values to provide a sustainable growth for the port, but also for its surrounding area.
Examples of different areas and accompanying effects are: - urban areas, potentially creating social problems and affected by an increase in traffic, noise, risk of accidents. - natural areas, which will experience environmental pollution from the port.
How these different values are evaluated does largely depend on the local and political perceptions, as those will determine the strategy decisions and regulating instruments for the development directions. Either way the balance between economic progress and environmental concern has to go hand in hand to provide an sustainable port development program, which is according the Rio Convention 1992: “Development which meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs”
The instrument to guide decision making towards a balanced sustainable development is the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA). This structured approach, see appendix K was developed to provide a broader view on the issues related to infrastructural projects, such as port development, and to come to a more integrated assessment of its impact on the surrounding area.
There is not yet an environmental agency in Brunei that regulates all the environmental issues. The limited industrial development (the oil and gas sector) in Brunei, has regulated itself through very strict environmental guidelines. Therefore at the moment there is no integral environmental management system in place for the port development, but on the other hand an integrated coastal zone management system is being set up to face the increasing industrialisation / urbanisation and the introduction of more intensive agricultural practices. In addition the Brunei government has proposed policy objectives and environmental strategies which
BRUNEI MARITIME MASTERPLAN 69 Part three; Development of routing and port layout alternatives
will play a role in the future decision making process. (see appendix K)
11.4.2 Methodology followed A practical methodology is presented in the European Sea Ports Organisation (ESPO) document “Environmental Code of Practise”. This methodology systematically discusses the environmental issues involved. Not all these issues are applicable for the Muara port development. The issues for the spatial expansion of the port will be highlighted.
The goal is to identify which issues linked to the Muara port development cause environmental concerns and how the port development can take these issues into account. For the issues identified the impact of the phasing of the alternatives will be worked out in some detail.
11.4.3 Frame work The frame work divides the environmental issues into four functionalities of the port: 1) Hinterland transport 2) Port area (land and sea) 3) Ship / Port interface 4) Maritime area (outside the port area)
The hinterland transport issues concern the accessibility of the hinterland and road safety. The better the access of the port by road, the less congestion there is in general. Furthermore truck transport mixes with the local transport and a large increase in truck transport will increase the risk of accidents. It is in the interest of the port that this impact is minimised.
The port area is the area within the port where all the industrial and terminal activity takes place. This area will therefore have significant effect on the surrounding area and it is in the interest of the port that the impact of its industrial activity on the surrounding area is minimised.
The Ship / Port interface concerns the area in the port where ships are handled, in particular the terminal area. Depending on the management structure of the port authority, it has directly or indirectly influence on the cargo handling methods used and thus on the surrounding area. On the other hand the port authority is directly responsible for adequate waste disposal by ships when required.
The maritime area is the water area outside the boundaries of the port, but within the national territorial waters. This area is of interest to the port as it involves maritime transport, which should be promoted as environmentally friendly as possible.
These four functionalities have resulted into the following list of issues that are of concern for a port.
Hinterland transport Port area Ship / port interface Maritime area Accessibility hinterland Port development Ship Waste Management Maritime Safety Road safety Dredging and Disposal of Dredged Material Cargo Handling Ship Emissions Soil Contamination Hazardous Cargo Noise Management Port Waste Management Water Quality and Management Air Quality and Management Monitoring the Port Environment & Reporting Port Preparedness and Contingency Plans
BRUNEI MARITIME MASTERPLAN 70 Part three; Development of routing and port layout alternatives
Table 11-2 Environmental port issues
11.4.4 Determining relevant issues for this study As this study will focus on the Muara port development and the limitations imposed on the port development the relevant environmental issues are all related to the impact on the surrounding areas.
The issues out of the above list which relate to port and terminal expansion are: - Accessibility hinterland - Road safety - Port development - Noise Management - Air Quality and Management, due to increased traffic urban area - Cargo Handling - Hazardous Cargo
The above issues are interrelated and will therefore be discussed in an integral matter.
As was seen in figure 5-1 the port activities have been identified including the industrial activity taking place at the Seresa site. The main focus will be the two terminals (multi-purpose and container) and how they will affect the surrounding area. The hinterland connection consists of the access road through Muara port, used by local and industrial traffic. Expansion is considered through the creation of a new bypass road around Muara port, which connects to the main roads of Bandar Seri Begawan and the coastal highway. The urban area of Muara port is located directly behind the terminals and industrial area of Seresa. The distance from the outer boundary of the two terminals is approximate 500 meters.
11.4.5 Valuable areas The environmental nature areas have been identified as the Muara Spit, which is the island next to the entrance channel (This is the habitat for breading turtles and a tribe of monkeys) and the water area between Pulau Muara Besar and Muara Spit, which is used for local fishing. Out of scope are the coral reefs north of the port and the mangrove area along the coast in the south. More can be found in the appendix L. A recreational area of value is the royal marina sailing club, south of Seresa industrial area behind the peninsula.
11.4.6 Hinterland traffic impact (congestion, truck emissions/noise/safety)
11.4.6.1 Congestion The future cargo throughput of the terminals will have impact on the road system in and around Muara port, especially on the current access road. Therefore the current road capacity will be investigated and when applicable suggestions for adjustments will be made. In addition the increase in truck traffic will result in increased pollution by trucks (emissions) and increased noise levels along the road. The access road originating at the roundabout (see Figure 11-5 to 11-7) where the coastal highway
Highway Terminals from Sungai Liang and the Bandar Seri into Brunei Muara Port access road 1,600 meters Begawan road meet, runs through Muara residential area and divides into a road to the terminals and a road to the Seresa industrial area. The traffic volume moving on the section to Seresa access road access Seresa and from the port is given in Table 11-3.
BRUNEI MARITIME MASTERPLAN 71 Part three; Development of routing and port layout alternatives
There will be some traffic to and from the industrial area and some local traffic, increasing the traffic load from the intersection to the roundabout. The latter part will be the bottleneck.
In order to determine the maximum capacity of this road comprehensive simulations have to be made using detailed data on the composition of the vehicle flow and its distribution over time. This is outside the scope of this study, but a rough estimate will be made based on a number of assumptions.
I. With a working day of 16 hours and a maximum of 1,000 vehicles per hour 16,000 vehicles can pass over the road per day. It has to accommodate also 1,000 * 16 hours/day local traffic (5,000 people with 1 moves per day), traffic 5000 * 1 move/day from Seresa (50 ha with 10 moves/day) and work traffic 50 ha* 10 moves/day to the terminals (52 ha * 10 moves/day). This would result work traffic 52 ha * 10 moves/day into 10,000 possible truck movements per day. 10,000 trucks moves/day possible
II. For the number of annual truck movements the following assumptions are made. - container transport (assuming 2 TEU per truck) is carried out both ways. - multi-purpose cargo transport uses a truck capacity of 24 tons 12. For the Alumina Smelter and Tire Recycling Plant cargo the journey to Sungai Liang is empty. For the other locations this is carried out both ways. The annual traffic generated (both ways) for the terminals for years 1996 to 2030 is given below. 1996 2005 2015 2030 container 85,000 94,000 230,000 700,000 multi-purpose 83,000 47,000 120,000 300,000 Total annual move 170,000 140,000 350,000 1,000,000 Moves per day (300 days) 566 466 1,200 3,400 truck moves/hr 30 24 60 170 Table 11-3 Estimated generated traffic for Muara port This results in the following figure on the Muara port access road capacity. The figure shows that the present road has sufficient capacity beyond the year 2030.
12.000 10.000 8.000 6.000 4.000 2.000 0 Moves/day
YearTruck movement2005 forecast2010 2015 maximum2020 truck moves2025 possible2030 Local traffic
Figure 11-4 Muara access road capacity From the above no bottleneck is found concerning the traffic within the time scale considered. The conclusion is that the road in Muara port is capable of transporting the expected moves.
11.4.6.2 Emissions and safety The heavy traffic will be affecting the village in two ways: 1) large increase in heavy traffic, generating much more emissions affecting the air quality of Muara village drastically and creating more disturbance to the housing located directly next to the road. 2) the mixture of heavy traffic with local traffic will increase the likelihood of accidents with
BRUNEI MARITIME MASTERPLAN 72 Part three; Development of routing and port layout alternatives
pedestrians and local traffic. Any disturbance in the flow will result directly into congesting the one-lane road.
These two aspects are not creating a sustainable development of the village. Therefore to increase the liveability two alternatives must be considered: • adding two new lanes to the existing road for the port traffic. As the road runs through an urban area this might be problematic, because it might require demolition of houses alongside the road. Compensation measures are required to offer new housing and to increase the safety on the road. • Building the bypass road, foreseen for the Pulau Muara Besar development, at an earlier date and connecting the Seresa industrial area / port terminals to this bypass road. This will lower the negative effects in Muara village.
The bypass road is already part of the future development of Pulau Muara Besar. Early construction of this road and connection to the existing terminals, based on the above, is highly recommended.
11.4.7 Noise pollution by port activities The cargo handling at the terminals inevitably creates noise and with close proximity to urban areas, as is the case in Muara port, nuisance to the Muara village is being created. The area affected by the maximum acceptable noise levels is determined by national regulations. No Brunei official regulations have been found, therefore the Dutch regulations have been taken for guidance.
For urban areas in the Netherlands the maximum acceptable noise levels created by industrial activity (including port activity) are the following: 22 • 50 dB(A) for the day • 45 dB(A) for the evening • 40 dB(A) for the night
In order not to exceed these limits the recommended distances for container and multi-purpose terminals from urban area are 500 and 300 meters respectively 23. As a first approximation it is assumed that these distances apply from the outer boundaries of the terminals. In actual practice for a detailed study, the noise sources are identified and through extensive modelling the contour lines are determined.
The impact of the noise contour lines on the present situation and the impact of expanding the terminals along the lines of alternative 1 and 3 are evaluated below. For large pictures see the appendix K.
22 (Handreiking industrielawaai en vergunningverlening, ministerie Vrom, oktober 1998) 23 “Bedrijven en milieuzonering 1999” handbook
BRUNEI MARITIME MASTERPLAN 73 Part three; Development of routing and port layout alternatives
The present location of the terminals and urban areas are separated by a buffer zone of approximate 500 meters, with some warehousing and green zones. The noise contour lines are not crossing urban areas.
Figure 11-5 Noise contour present situation
Expanding the container terminal to the left the contour line will move with it into the urban area. Expanding the multi-purpose terminal to the right, the contour line coincides with boundary of the urban area.
Figure 11-6 Noise contour alternative 1
Relocating the container terminal to the island will decrease the noise distance to 300 meters and will affect the urban area of Muara village.
Figure 11-7 Noise contour alternative 3
When moving from the present situation to alternative 3, no noise impact will be experienced. On the contrary moving from the present via alternative 1 to alternative 3, the maximum noise levels will exceed the maximum allowable during the period alternative 1 is operational. The longer this period the more measures are required to mitigate these effects. Sustainable development can be created by moving the container terminal to the island. When the economic growth is less that the average prediction, resulting in longer term of operation in alternative 1, longer term mitigation actions have to be implemented. One could consider to construct high
BRUNEI MARITIME MASTERPLAN 74 Part three; Development of routing and port layout alternatives buildings and more green zones as additional buffer to lower the noise disturbance for the affected areas.
11.4.8 Hazardous cargo & Risks Handling hazardous cargo at the terminals will pose special risks to the surrounding environment and community. A disaster can be prevented by the enforcement of correct handling and storage regulations. (Partly these regulations are set in SOLAS by IMO and partly by the national government). In view of handling of hazardous cargo at the two terminals, creating storage areas closer to shore could be considered (maximum distance as possible from the urban area in case of explosions or toxic gases). Furthermore truck transport of hazardous cargo will also impose risks to the urban area on the access road. This is an additional stimulus to construct the bypass road at an early date.
Another terminal to consider is the bitumen terminal next to the multi-purpose terminal. The area that it could affect will be small on land, but very large on the water side. The close proximity to the fishery area and Muara Spit will pose a big risk, in case of a big explosion or fire, spilling bitumen into the Brunei Bay and sea.
11.4.9 Alternative 4 implications Above the environmental aspects were reviewed for alternative 1 and 3. When alternative 4 will be developed large changes will take place and some new environmental aspects must be taken into account.
- The bypass road will be used by all cargo traffic to and from the island, relieving Muara village from truck transport, lowering the truck pollution and the risk of traffic accidents. - The relocation of the terminals from Muara port to Pulau Muara Besar will reduce the noise pollution to virtually zero. - The risk of hazardous cargo accidents affecting Muara village is eliminated. Developing Pulau Muara Besar will put some pressure on its environmentally valuable areas, such as the fishing area, mangroves areas and its natural habitat. Therefore the development of part of the island into a port and industrial area has to be done in a balanced way. Ultimately moving the multi-purpose terminal to the island as well, will result in the best overall solution, also from the environmental point of view, because the environmental pressure on the Muara village is reduced to almost zero.
Pulau Muara Besar is the largest island in Brunei that can be used for development. Alternative 3 will initially require 50 ha in 2030 on the island (3% of the total island area) for the container terminal and 100 ha (6% of the total island area) for alternative 4 in 2030.
It is uninhabited and the Government has not dedicated this island as a protected nature area. It is therefore difficult to assess the environmental value of the island. When the terminal development in this report is considered the maximum development of 6% in 2030 is small. Nevertheless compensating measures to create a sustainable island development will increase in the future with the terminal expansion. This will then be inline with the ambition of the Brunei government to have economic growth with good environmental quality. The directions one has to look at are: a) creating environmental protected areas on the island as buffer against the industry b) compensating a decrease of area on the island with an increase of protected area nearby c) enforcing environmental friendly industrial activity
It is therefore recommended to evaluate future terminal development against environmental and economic values to ascertain a balanced sustainable industrial port development. This view has to take into account the growing environmental awareness of Brunei. With that in mind the terminal development of Pulau Muara Besar will involve a balance between environment and industry. In
BRUNEI MARITIME MASTERPLAN 75 Part three; Development of routing and port layout alternatives accordance with the European situation any reduction of environmental area has to be compensated by creating an environmental protected area elsewhere.
11.5 Synthesis and Conclusions At the existing waterfront the multi-purpose terminal is adequate to 2007 and the container terminal to 2010. In order to accommodate future cargo growth, expansion of the existing terminals is imminent and has to start before 2007.
Because of the limited terminal expansion area in Muara port, Pulau Muara Besar has to be developed under any scenario at some time in the future. For the assumptions in this study, the year that existing terminals in alternative 1 will run out of space is around 2015. Planning of any development on the island requires a lead time of nine years. In order to have the container terminal in operation on the island around 2015, construction of Pulau Muara Besar infrastructure (maritime and land) has to start as soon as possible. The above also implies that alternative 1 has to be implemented at short notice and that in Muara port until 2015 also (considerable) infrastructural changes are required.
Implementing alternative 1 increases the environmental pressure around Muara village. Some mitigation measures to limit the noise pollution are required until 2015. It has been recommended to construct the bypass road at as early as possible to diminish environmental pressure on Muara village. In addition relocation of the container terminal will reduce the noise level and possible relocation of the complete multi-purpose terminal to the island beyond 2025 will reduce the noise pollution to zero.
The following schematic overview (Figure 11-8) shows in which year terminal area and environmental limitations are reached.
Noise contour line Muara access road limit alternative 1 full capacity ct & m-p t no limit
4 ct: ha > 100 m-p t: ha <52 3 ct : ha < 26 m-p t: ha < 26 1
0 Alternative 3 out of space in Muara Port Multi-purpose Alternative 1 out of space terminal area limit container terminal area limit
2005 Time 2007 2010 2015 2030 ? Figure 11-8 Schematic outline of the expansion in time
In line with the theory of Bird and Hoyle all terminal on the island is the most preferred solution for sustainable development point of view. The other end situation that could be envisaged has part of the multi-purpose terminal at Muara port (at full capacity) and the other part on the island together with the container terminal. Ideally all future export oriented industry should be located on the island as well, resulting in minimum transport distances with the maximum environmental gains.
BRUNEI MARITIME MASTERPLAN 76 Conclusions and recommendations
12 Conclusions and recommendations
12.1 Conclusions With regard to Brunei’s port capacity, its main port (Muara port) has a multi-purpose terminal which is close to capacity and a container terminal with some spare capacity. The planned expansion of the Brunei economy, based on large scale non oil and gas export oriented projects, will therefore have a large impact on the Brunei maritime infrastructure.
• The planned industrial activity at Sungai Liang has a total cargo throughput of approximate 3 million tons (half of it dry bulk cargo import). This is of the same order of magnitude as Muara port throughput. • The significant wave height at Sungai Liang results for container ships in a downtime of 193 days (Hs>0.5m), which would require expensive wave protection structures and for bulk ships and multi-purpose ships in a downtime of 47 days (Hs >1.0 m), which will be easier to accommodate. • Of the potential port locations Kuala Belait has been discarded, due its spatial limitations and the environmental impact due to the major adjustments required. This leaves Sungai Liang and Muara port as potential terminal locations. • A number of alternatives for distributing the cargo by ships and/or truck has been selected and evaluated by a MCE. The outcome shows as the preferred option that the dry bulk cargo is shipped directly to Sungai Liang (over a 6 kilometre light weight dry bulk jetty) and the multi-purpose and container cargo directly to Muara port. • The future cargo volumes in Muara port require additional terminal area and berth length. The multi-purpose terminal is limited in 2007 and the container terminal in 2010. Four alternatives have been developed as possible port expansion options and it was concluded that Muara port does not have enough free port area to accommodate expansion beyond 2015. Terminal expansion area is available in abundance on Pulau Muara Besar opposite of Muara port. • Expanding Muara port increases traffic, industrial noise and safety risk for the surrounding urban area. Noise pollution will require some mitigating measures before 2015. Early construction of the bypass road will alleviate the negative effects of the increased traffic on the inhabitants of Muara village. • Immediate port expansion to Pulau Muara Besar is not feasible as the development of the island has a lead time of approximately nine years, whereas expansion of the terminals is required starting in 2007. In addition there is approximately 25 ha available for expansion on the existing waterfront. Therefore a phased approach has been chosen. • The final port configuration will be either all terminals on Pulau Muara Besar or a part of the multi-purpose terminal in Muara port and the other part on the island together with the container terminal.
BRUNEI MARITIME MASTERPLAN 77 Conclusions and recommendations
12.2 Recommendations This study provides a framework for developing Brunei’s maritime infrastructure. The structure of the approach has general validity. The basic data contain many assumptions, which when more detailed knowledge is available might require changes. In addition certain choices have been made on limited data and a more detailed analysis would be recommended to validate the outcome.
Therefore it is recommended that in the following areas more research is done:
⇒ More detailed information on Muara port and its land use ⇒ More detailed information on the future diversification plans and required terminal capacity ⇒ More precise economic figures on the Brunei economy ⇒ Future design ships for the container and multi-purpose terminal
⇒ More detailed hydraulic data ⇒ The economic viability of a dry bulk terminal at Sungai Liang. ⇒ The economic viability of a coastal export pier for multi-purpose cargo. ⇒ Quantify the investment cost of all Muara port alternative layouts ⇒ More detailed information of the port access road
⇒ More basic data for the Environmental Impact Assessment ⇒ Early implementation of the bypass road to create better environmental Muara port ⇒ More morphology research for the Pulau Muara Besar waterfront development ⇒ Extensive soil data collection of Pulau Muara Besar ⇒ Investment plan for the phasing of the developments
BRUNEI MARITIME MASTERPLAN 78 Reference list
13 Reference list 1 APEC 2002 Anonymous, ‘APEC 2002 Economic Outlook’, APEC Secretariat, 2002.
2 BEDB Brunei Economic Development Board, Brunei Investment info kit,(from www.bedb.bu, last viewed )
3 ESCAP 2001 Regional Shipping and Port Development Strategies, Under a Changing Maritime Environment’, Maritime Policy Planning Model (MPPM), Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific, document ST/ESCAP/2001, 2001. (from www.unescap.org.)
4 Drewry Consultants, 1997 ‘Short Sea Container Markets, The Feeder and Regional Trade Dynamo’, Drewry Consultants Ltd., 1997.
5 Groenveld, 2001 Groenveld, R., ‘Service Systems in Ports and Waterways’, CT4330 Faculty of Civil Engineering and Geosciences Technical University Delft, Delft, 2001
6 IMF 1999 IMF Staff Country Report No. 99/19, ‘Brunei Darussalam; Recent Economic Developments; International Monetary Fund April 1999’, (from www.worldbank.org)
7 Ligteringen 2000 Ligteringen H., ‘Ports and terminals; CTwa4330/5306’, Faculty of Civil Engineering and Geosciences, Delft Technical University Delft, 2000
8 Ridder 2003 Ridder H.A.J de., ‘Integraal ontwerpen in de Civiele Techniek – Ontwerpproject 1, CT1061’, Technical University Delft, Delft november 2003
9 South Asia Studies 2003 Chia Lin Sien, Mark Goh and Jose Tongzon, ‘Southeast Asian Regional Port Development, A Comparative Analysis’, Institute of Southeast Asian Studies, Singapore, 2003.
10 Royal British Admiralty Admiralty Charts South China Sea, Royal British Admiralty
11 Thoresen 2003 Thoresen, C. A., ‘Port Designer’s Handbook: Recommendations and Guidelines’, Thomas Telford 2003
12 UNCTAD 1985 ‘Port development, A Handbook for planners in developing countries’, United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD), second edition 1985.
13 UNCTAD 2002 ‘Review Maritime transport 2002’, United Nations Conference on Trade and Development, UNCTAD/RMT/2002 (from www.unctad.org)
14 Welters 2001 Welters, H.W.H, Langen, de, P et al, ‘Port Economics I’, Erasmus University Rotterdam, 2001
BRUNEI MARITIME MASTERPLAN 79 Reference list
15 Wijnolst 1996 Wijnolst, N., ‘Shipping’, Delft University Press, 1996
16 Wu 2001 Wu, J.C., ‘The mineral industry of Brunei’, U.S. Geological survey minerals yearbook 2001
Web sites General information on Brunei: 17 Asian Trade statistics from the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), http://202.154.12.3/trade/publicview.asp , last viewed 25 January 2004. 18 Brunei Government information on Brunei, http://www.brunei.gov.bn/about_brunei/land.htm , last viewed 30 September 2003. 19 CIA fact data on Brunei, www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/bx.html, last viewed 30 September 2003 20 Energy Information Administration (EIA), http://www.eia.doe.gov/, last viewed 30 September 2003 21 Energy Information Administration (EIA), http://eia.doe.gov/, last viewed 30 September 2003 22 UNESCAP data on Brunei, www.unescap.org, last viewed 23 Summary on the 7th National Development Plan, http://www.mod.com.bn/editor_2.htm, last viewed 30 January 2004.
Data on Muara port 24 Brunei Marine Department, http://www.marine.gov.bn/towards/index.htm, last viewed 15 October 2003. 25 Brunei Port Department, http://www.ports.gov.bn/muara/, last viewed15 October 2003 26 Brunei Government port information, http://www.brunet.bn/homepage/tourism/muara/mport.htm, last viewed 15 October 2003 27 Muara port data before 1996, http://www.bruclass.com/bboatinfo.htm , last viewed 3 March 2004. 28 Muara Port and throughput statistics 1996 – 2000 http://www.brunet.bn/gov/ports, last viewed 3 March 2004. 29 Muara Container Terminal, http://www.psamuara.com.bn/ , last viewed 3 March 2004. 30 Philippines port authority on Muara port, http://www.ppa.com.ph/apa-2002/apa_members/ apa_brunei /apa_bru.htm, last viewed 20 January 2004.
Environmental information on Brunei Brunei Government Environmental data, www.brunet.bn/gov/modev/environment/551.html, last viewed 15 November 2003. Protected coral reefs, http://www.reefbase.org/dataphotos/dat_gis.asp, last viewed15 November 2003 Marine Protected Areas in Southeast Asia, www.arcbc.org, last viewed15 November 2003
Alumina Smelter and Tire Recycling Plant Tomoga Alumina Smelter, http://www.tomago.com.au/, last viewed Hillside Alumina Smelter Ingot dimensions, http://aluminium.bhpbilliton.com/docs/HillsideIngot.pdf, last viewed
BRUNEI MARITIME MASTERPLAN 80 Appendix
Appendix A HISTORICAL BACKGROUND BRUNEI...... I B BRUNEI ECONOMIC BACKGROUND ...... II C MAP ROAD INFRASTRUCTURE...... V D APPENDIX ENERGY AND OFFSHORE INFRASTRUCTURE ...... VI E RECONCILIATION CARGO THROUGHPUT TABLE...... VIII F CARGO FORECAST RESULTS ...... X G VESSEL SIZE CHARACTERISTICS...... XII H WAVECLIMATE.COM DATA ...... XIV I BERTH CALCULATION...... XVI J AREA RESTRICTIONS TERMINALS ...... XVII K ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT ASPECTS...... XVIII L ENVIRONMENTAL BACKGROUND BRUNEI...... XXII
BRUNEI MARITIME MASTERPLAN 81 Appendix
A Historical background Brunei
Source: U.S. State Department Background Notes 1999
Historians believe there was a forerunner to the present Brunei Sultanate which the Chinese called Po- ni. Chinese and Arabic records indicate that this ancient trading kingdom existed at the mouth of the Brunei River as early as the seventh or eighth century A.D. This early kingdom was apparently conquered by the Sumatran empire of Srivijaya in the early ninth century and later controlled northern Borneo and the Philippines. It was subjugated briefly by the Java-based Majapahit Empire but soon regained its independence and once again rose to prominence.
The Brunei Empire had its golden age from the 15th to the 17th centuries, when its control extended over the entire island of Borneo and north into the Philippines. Brunei was particularly powerful under the fifth sultan, Bolkiah (1473-1521), who was famed for his sea exploits and even briefly captured Manila; and under the ninth sultan, Hassan (1605-19), who fully developed an elaborate Royal Court structure, elements of which still remain.
After Sultan Hassan, Brunei entered a period of decline, due to internal battles over royal succession as well as the rising influences of European colonial powers in the region, that, among other things, disrupted traditional trading patterns, destroying the economic base of Brunei and many other Southeast Asia sultanates. In 1839, the English adventurer James Brooke arrived in Borneo and helped the Sultan put down a rebellion. As a reward, he became governor and later "Rajah" of Sarawak in northwest Borneo and gradually expanded the territory under his control.
Meanwhile, the British North Borneo Company was expanding its control over territory in northeast Borneo. In 1888, Brunei became a protectorate of the British Government, retaining internal independence but with British control over external affairs. In 1906, Brunei accepted a further measure of British control when executive power was transferred to a British resident, who advised the ruler on all matters except those concerning local custom and religion.
In 1959, a new constitution was written declaring Brunei a self-governing state, while its foreign affairs, security, and defence remained the responsibility of the United Kingdom. An attempt in 1962 to introduce a partially elected legislative body with limited powers was abandoned after the opposition political party, Partai Rakyat Brunei, launched an armed uprising, which the government put down with the help of British forces. In the late 1950s and early 1960s, the government also resisted pressures to join neighbouring Sabah and Sarawak in the newly formed Malaysia. The Sultan eventually decided that Brunei would remain an independent state.
In 1967, Sultan Omar abdicated in favour of his eldest son, Hassanal Bolkiah, who became the 29th ruler. The former Sultan remained as Defence Minister and assumed the royal title Seri Begawan. In 1970, the national capital, Brunei Town, was renamed Bandar Seri Begawan in his honour.The Seri Begawan died in 1986.
On January 4, 1979, Brunei and the United Kingdom signed a new treaty of friendship and cooperation. On January 1, 1984, Brunei Darussalam became a fully independent state.
BRUNEI MARITIME MASTERPLAN I Appendix
B Brunei economic background
Some general economic background is presented.
B.1 Population
Brunei has approximate of 358,098 inhabitants (July 2003). The population is projected to increase to 436,500 people in 2011, equivalent to a population growth of 2% per annum. The age structure of the Brunei population shows that the population is relatively young, see Table B-1 Population structure of Brunei
% of Age class (2003 est.) population Male Female 0-14 years 29.6 54,118 51,902 15-64 years 67.6 128,421 113,480 65 years and over 2.8 4,804 5,373 100 187,343 170,755 Table B-1 Population structure of Brunei
Of the total population 72% lives in the urban areas and 28%. in rural areas. The population is concentrated in the north and western coastal zone where 85% of the population lives, of which 66% is living in the Brunei-Muara district. The population density is the highest in the Brunei-Muara District with 384 people per sq kilometre, see Table B-2. The capital Bandar Seri Begawan has 3,380 people per sq kilometre.
Population % of total Area per district Population Density District (1999) population (sq km) (people / sq km) Brunei-Muara 218,800 66 570 383 Belait 66,800 20 2700 25 Tutong 35,700 11 1200 30 Temburong 9,400 3 1300 7 Total 330,700 100 5770 57 Table B-2 Population concentration per district
In the following table the it can be seen that one third of the population is concentrated in the four largest villages of Brunei.
Major cities Population Bandar Seri Begawan 45,876 Kuala Belait 21,163 Seria 21,082 Tutong 13,049 Total top 4 villages 101,170 Table B-3 Major Cities of Brunei (1991)
The population composition (1999): Malayan people (67%), Chinese (15%), Indian (11%) and indigenous people (6%).
B.2 Work force & sectors
The working force in Brunei consists of around 143,000 people, that is 40% of the whole population. The participation of the male population is 75% and the female of 54%. The female participation has
BRUNEI MARITIME MASTERPLAN II Appendix been growing over the last couple of years. The oil and gas industry is after the government the main employer of Brunei, both making up a total of 90% of the total jobs. The other 10% is provided by the agriculture, forestry and fishing industries. The unemployment rate is 5%.
Economic sectors and % of total employment of Brunei (Figures 1999) Government service 48% Production of oil, natural gas, services, and construction 42% Agriculture, forestry and fishing 10% Table B-4 Work force divided over working sectors
B.3 Economy
The government economic policy is centred on the principle that its population shares in the benefits created from the exploitation of oil and gas. Brunei citizens enjoy free health care, fully sponsored education and sponsored housing and food. There is no income tax at the moment.
The main offshore oil and gas fields are Champion and Southwest Ampa (the oldest field, with more than half of Brunei's natural gas reserves and production) and Magpie. The majority of the produced oil is exported and some is transported to the Seria oil refinery for inland use. The gas is transported by pipeline to the Lumut LNG plant, where the gas is liquefied and exported by ship. The fossil reserves have been estimated to last till 2018 for the oil and 2033 for the gas.
The commercial activity within the private sector is mainly carried out by small scale manufactures (textiles and furniture) and farmers (Rice/ vegetables / fruit / water buffalos (bred in Australia). The livestock is used to produce Halal meats.
B.4 Trade figures
The importance of the ASEAN countries for the Brunei economy for 2000 is shown in the Table B-5 Main import and export trading partners of Brunei.24
Export partners Export % Import partners Import % Japan (Gas) 40.3 Singapore 32 South Korea (Gas) 12.3 Japan 23 Thailand 12.1 Malaysia 19 Australia 9.2 United Kingdom 6 United States of America 8.1 Hong Kong 5 Republic of China 6.4 Others 15 Singapore 5.7 Total 100 Others 5.9 Total 100 Table B-5 Main import and export trading partners of Brunei
B.5 Trade statistics of Brunei
Within the ASEAN region Brunei is a very small country. Although its GDP per capita is relatively high its contribution to the ASEAN economy is very small. It accounts for around 1% of the trade of the countries in its region; Malaysia, Thailand, Singapore, Indonesia and Philippines. The Asean trade statistics are obtained from the ASEAN secretary website: www.asean.org
Export 2001 Import 2001 Brunei 3,530,446 Brunei 1,309,975 Cambodia 1,495,093 Cambodia 1,501,986
24 From the website: www.asiatradehub.com
BRUNEI MARITIME MASTERPLAN III Appendix
Indonesia 56,317,618 Indonesia 30,962,141 Malaysia 88,031,608 Malaysia 73,097,902 Myanmar 2,218,368 Myanmar 2,811,431 Philippines 32,150,202 Philippines 29,550,811 Singapore 121,686,816 Singapore 115,919,039 Thailand 65,117,827 Thailand 62,072,285 Total 370,547,976 Total 317,225,570 Table B-6 Regional economic performance Brunei
Export trade (Thousands US$) 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 Mineral Products 2,656,726 1,834,669 2,212,400 1,783,478 3,136,922 Textiles and apparel 56,841 88,542 126,583 175,730 209,500 Vehicles 37 1 - 130,201 101,717 Machinery and Electrical Appliances 3 4 4 39,655 31,514 Prepared Foodstuffs 265 121 325 453 18,525 Base metal and Metal articles 75 3 842 21,799 16,530 Other 214 314 510 17,831 15,738 Total 2,714,162 1,923,655 2,340,664 2,169,147 3,530,446 Table B-7 Main Export products Brunei
Import (Thousands US$) 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 Live Animal 69,574 23,306 46,770 42,560 63,249 Vegetable Products 77,957 109,213 54,579 49,610 42,649 Prepared Foodstuffs 150,115 91,552 100,345 94,065 98,106 Mineral Products 112,456 39,233 29,714 21,179 17,460 Chemicals 128,524 67,115 278,391 75,481 85,734 Textiles and apparel 119,229 79,180 117,477 152,046 180,067 Stone/Cement/Ceramics 82,729 39,983 29,217 26,046 23,410 Base metal and Metal articles 292,663 192,083 130,079 107,905 127,937 Machinery and Electrical Appliances 476,986 205,658 451,416 191,300 241,962 Vehicles 415,229 137,920 272,025 135,439 257,031 Miscellaneous Manufactured articles 100,410 53,536 38,976 31,947 34,031 Other 284,818 237,472 171,364 140,031 138,340 Total 2,310,6881,276,2501,720,3531,067,6101,309,975 Table B-8 Main Imported products Brunei
BRUNEI MARITIME MASTERPLAN IV Appendix
C Map road infrastructure
Figure C-1 Brunei Road infrastructure
BRUNEI MARITIME MASTERPLAN V Appendix
D Appendix energy and offshore infrastructure
Information taken from the ASEAN Centre for Energy of the website: http://www.aseanenergy.org/energy_sector/electricity/brunei/map_electrical_system.htm
D.1 Power supply Brunei
The power supply system of Brunei consists of three networks. The networks 1 and 3 are the most important ones for the Brunei economy. The current capacity is supplied by six power plants using gas as fuel. The capacity at the moment is close to its maximum and additional capacity is being plant in Lumut (500 MW) the majority will be used for industrial expansion. The gas for the Brunei-Muara (network 3) power plants is supplied by an offshore pipeline coming to shore at Jerudong. .
Figure D-2 Power supply Brunei Power stations Fuel Type 1997 1998 1999 2000 (MW) (MW) (MW) (MW) Network 1 Gadong 1 Natural Gas 128.0 128.0 128.0 128.0 Gadong 2 Natural Gas 132.0 132.0 132.0 132.0 Lumut Co-generation Natural Gas 180.0 180.0 180.0 180.0 Network 2 Belingus Diesel 9.5 7.5 7.5 7.5 Network 3 Jeradong Natural Gas 73.6 73.6 73.6 74.0 Gadong 3 Natural Gas 55.2 55.2 55.2 55.2 Berakas Natural Gas 128.8 128.8 128.8 129.5 Total 707.1 705.1 705.1 706.5 Table D-9 Power Capacity Network
D.2 Offshore industry infrastructure
The offshore oil and gas industry has a dense network in front of the west coast. This is shown in the picture. The information is taken from the Shell Brunei website, http://www.shell.com.bn/.
BRUNEI MARITIME MASTERPLAN VI Appendix
Seria has a crude oil terminal and refinery and Lumut a Liquefied Natural Gas plant and export terminal.
Figure D-3 Offshore industry infrastructure Brunei
BRUNEI MARITIME MASTERPLAN VII Appendix
E Reconciliation cargo throughput table
The methodology uses the following formula:
Total cargo throughput = average shipment* number of calls ∑different cargo types [ ]
The total Muara port cargo throughput and the total number of calls are known using the tables 6-1 and 6-2 from paragraph 6.1. So if the average shipment per cargo type and number of calls per cargo type can be estimated such that the equation is consistent than the data sets are usable to fill up the blank spots in the years 1996 – 2000 for the bitumen, cement and multi-purpose throughput. In order to do so the following had to be assumed:
• The average bitumen shipment is assumed to be constant, as these specialised ships have standard sizes (in the Brunei case the shipments range has been assumed of 2000 to 4.000 ton). • The average cement shipment has been influenced by the construction of the cement factory in 1995 and the infrastructural activities during the years 1994 to 1996. • The containerised shipment ranged between 1,100 – 1,500 tons more or less inline with the number of containers (TEU’s) and the water depth restriction of Muara port. • The average multi-purpose shipment is determined by the total non-containerised minus the total bitumen minus the total cement throughput.
The estimation of the average shipment and calls have been done parallel to obtain the average through for different cargo types. In the spreadsheet the multi-purpose throughput is than derived from total non-containerised throughput minus the result for the cement and bitumen throughput.
The iteration is been done until the difference with the annual calls and total cargo throughput resulted into the minimal difference.
BRUNEI MARITIME MASTERPLAN VIII Appendix
BRUNEI MARITIME MASTERPLAN IX Appendix
F Cargo forecast results
BRUNEI MARITIME MASTERPLAN X Appendix
1.400.000 1.200.000 1.000.000 Low Average High 800.000 600.000 400.000 200.000 0 TEU Year 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020 2022 2024 2026 2028 2030 Figure F-4 TEU cargo forecast to 2030
6.000.000 5.000.000 Low Average High 4.000.000 3.000.000 2.000.000 1.000.000 0 Tons Year 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030
Figure F-5 Multi-purpose cargo forecast to 2030
2.000.000 1.500.000 Dry bulk 1.000.000 500.000 0
Tons 7 9 1 3 25 27 29 007 009 011 013 015 01 01 02 02 0 0 0 Year YEAR 2001 2003 2005 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Figure F-6 Dry Bulk cargo forecast to 2030
BRUNEI MARITIME MASTERPLAN XI Appendix
G Vessel size characteristics
BRUNEI MARITIME MASTERPLAN XII Appendix
BRUNEI MARITIME MASTERPLAN XIII Appendix
H Waveclimate.com data
Occurring Wind frequency for the different months.
lower upper Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 2,4 4 8,2 18,9 25,8 25,7 12,7 21,7 22 21,3 17,1 8,5 2 3 1,9 3,6 10,5 13,3 18 16,5 17,1 17,8 18 15,8 16 11,4 3 4 3,6 7,3 12,1 12,6 18,4 15,5 19,5 18 19,2 12,5 13,4 12,4 4 5 5,2 11,6 16,8 14,1 14,4 13 19,7 11,1 13,9 11,9 9,2 12,2 5 6 11,4 14,1 15,3 15,3 11,8 10,6 12,3 9,1 12,3 14 11,2 11,5 6 7 17,4 16,2 11,4 11,9 5,4 7,6 7,7 7,8 6,9 9,3 11,5 10,1 7 8 20,5 13,7 9 6,9 2,9 4,7 4,6 5,6 3,7 6,3 7,8 8,6 8 9 16,5 12,7 7,5 3,5 1,9 3,1 2,3 3,2 1,4 4,3 7,1 7,4 9 10 9,1 7,5 5,5 1,8 0,8 1,9 1,3 2 1,4 2,6 3,9 8,1 10 11 7,2 3,7 2,6 0,9 0,3 0,7 1,5 1,1 0,5 1 1,6 4,8 11 12 3,7 3,5 0,9 0,6 0,1 0,2 0,7 1,1 0,3 0,7 0,8 2,3 12 13 1 2 0,2 0,1 0 0,3 0,3 1,1 0,3 0,5 0,3 0,9 13 14 0,1 0,2 0 0,1 0 0,1 0,3 0,4 0 0 0,1 1,1 14 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0,1 0 0 0 0,1 0,2 15 16 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 16 17 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0,1 17 18 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 18 19 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0,1 19 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0,1 20 21 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 21 22 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0,1 22 23 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 23 24 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 24 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 total 100 100,1 100 100 99,8 99,9 100,1 100 99,9 100,2 100,1 99,9
Wind Days / yr lower upper Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec total 0 1 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0 1 2 0,7 1,1 2,5 5,7 8,0 8,0 3,8 6,7 6,6 6,6 5,1 2,6 58 2 3 0,6 1,0 3,3 4,0 5,6 5,1 5,1 5,5 5,4 4,9 4,8 3,5 49 3 4 1,1 2,0 3,8 3,8 5,7 4,8 5,9 5,6 5,8 3,9 4,0 3,8 50 4 5 1,6 3,2 5,2 4,2 4,5 4,0 5,9 3,4 4,2 3,7 2,8 3,8 47 5 6 3,5 3,9 4,7 4,6 3,7 3,3 3,7 2,8 3,7 4,3 3,4 3,6 45 6 7 5,4 4,5 3,5 3,6 1,7 2,4 2,3 2,4 2,1 2,9 3,5 3,1 37 7 8 6,4 3,8 2,8 2,1 0,9 1,5 1,4 1,7 1,1 2,0 2,3 2,7 29 8 9 5,1 3,6 2,3 1,1 0,6 1,0 0,7 1,0 0,4 1,3 2,1 2,3 21 9 10 2,8 2,1 1,7 0,5 0,2 0,6 0,4 0,6 0,4 0,8 1,2 2,5 14 10 11 2,2 1,0 0,8 0,3 0,1 0,2 0,5 0,3 0,2 0,3 0,5 1,5 8 11 12 1,1 1,0 0,3 0,2 0,0 0,1 0,2 0,3 0,1 0,2 0,2 0,7 4 12 13 0,3 0,6 0,1 0,0 0,0 0,1 0,1 0,3 0,1 0,2 0,1 0,3 2 13 14 0,0 0,1 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,1 0,1 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,3 1 14 15 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,1 0 15 16 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0 16 17 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0 17 18 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0 18 19 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0 19 20 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0 20 21 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0 21 22 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0 22 23 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0 23 24 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0 24 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0 365
Monthly distribution of sign. wave height (m)
BRUNEI MARITIME MASTERPLAN XIV Appendix
lower upper Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 0.0 0.5 13,2 30,6 56 69,6 89,6 81,8 83,6 71,4 78,8 59,3 11,9 6,8 0.5 1.0 54,7 51 36 28,3 8,3 14,5 16,4 22,2 18,2 31,5 71,2 50 1.0 1.5 28,3 16,3 8 2,2 2,1 3,6 0 6,3 3 9,3 13,6 32,4 1.5 2.0 3,8 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3,4 8,1 2.0 2.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,4 2.5 3.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,4 3.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 total 100.0 99.9 100.0 100.1 100.0 99.9 100.0 99.9 100.0 100.1 100.1 100.1
Days of occurrence of significant wave height lower upper Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec total 0.0 0.5 4 9 17 21 28 25 25 22 24 18 4 2 199 0.5 1.0 17 14 11 8 3 4 5 7 5 10 21 16 122 1.0 1.5 9 5 2 1 1 1 0 2 1 3 4 10 38 1.5 2.0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 3 5 2.0 2.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.5 3.0 3.0 31 28 31 30 31 31 30 31 30 31 30 31 365
BRUNEI MARITIME MASTERPLAN XV Appendix
I Berth calculation
BRUNEI MARITIME MASTERPLAN XVI Appendix
J Area restrictions terminals
90 Low Average 80 High maximum space 2005 70 Area available alternative 1 60 50 40 30 20 10
Ha 0
Year 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030
Figure J-7 Area restrictions container terminal
80 Average High 70 Low maximum space 2005 60 Area available alternative 1 Area available alternative 3 50 40 30 20 10
Ha 0
Year 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030
Figure J-8 Area restrictions multi-purpose terminal
BRUNEI MARITIME MASTERPLAN XVII Appendix
K Environmental management aspects
Environmental Impact Assessment The EIA is generally conducted through a tool in which the different perceptions are combined resulting into an approved EIA program. The general method employed to do this consists of the following steps: 1) Identification of the project and possible environmental impact 2) Initial environmental examination to determine if possible environmental aspects should be studied further 3) Draft EIA. The environmental aspects are outlined, different options are examined and improvements are suggested. This is done also for the existing situation without any adjustment. 4) Participation of non governmental organisations 5) EIA. Suggestion and comments are evaluated and incorporated. 6) Approval of the EIA
Port development aspects The aspects that have to be balanced between the port and its surrounding areas are:
i) Economic prospects These are the economic opportunities created through the cargo forecast and development initiatives for the port area. ii) Environmental consequences The development of new and expanding the existing port area influences the surrounding environment. This has therefore to be minimized. Competent Parties environmental affected iii) Operative law and regulations authorities These issue addresses the administrative power of local and national government to regulate the development of the port. iv) Social aspects developing party The social aspects of the surrounding urban areas have to of the project; be integrated into the development of the port to compensate the negative impact of the port onto the population. One must think in the loss of urban land, fishery grounds, fishery wharfs and coastal area. v) Technical possibilities These aspects will determine in large extend the innovative solutions to circumvent the above aspects.
Economic The issues and their expressed values are perceptions and prospects views from the affected and beneficiary parties. These parties involved are in generally the developing party of Environmental Social the project, Parties affected and the competent consequences aspects environmental authorities. Port development
Operative There is not yet a sophisticated environmental agency in Technical law and possibilities regulations Brunei that regulates all the environmental issues. The limited industrial development (the oil and gas sector) in Brunei, has regulated itself through very strict environmental guidelines, together with the relative small population the environment was not on the agenda. Therefore at the moment there is not integral environmental management system in place, but
BRUNEI MARITIME MASTERPLAN XVIII Appendix on the other hand an integrated coastal zone management system is being set up to face the increasing industrialisation, urbanisation and the introduction of more intensive agricultural practices.
The 7th National Development Plan ) objectives and strategies:
The proposed policy objectives are: 1. Maintain sustainable utilisation of natural resources; 2. Minimise negative impacts on the environment arising from population growth and human activities; 3. Balance socio-economic development objectives to ensure good quality environment.
The proposed environment strategies include the following: a. Improve Environment and Natural Resources Assessment and Information Database; b. Integrating Environmental Dimensions in Economic Planning and Development; c. Controlling Pollution; d. Improving Solid Waste Management; f. Protecting Vulnerable Ecosystems and Habitats; g. Improving Environmental Awareness and Education; h. Protecting Coastal and Marine Environmental Resources; i. Improve Working and Living Environments in Urban Areas.
Figure K-9 Noise contour present situation The present location of the terminals and urban areas are separated by a buffer zone of approximate 500 meters, with some warehousing and green zones. This fulfils the above requirements.
BRUNEI MARITIME MASTERPLAN XIX Appendix
Figure K-10 Noise contour alternative 1 Expanding the container terminal to the left the contour line will move with it into the urban area. Expanding the multi-purpose terminal to the right, the contour line coincides with boundary of the urban area.
BRUNEI MARITIME MASTERPLAN XX Appendix
Figure K-11 Noise contour alternative 3 Relocating the container terminal to the island will decrease the noise distance to 300 meters and will affect no urban area anymore in Muara port.
BRUNEI MARITIME MASTERPLAN XXI Appendix
L Environmental background Brunei
Sources used: - National development plan: Brunei web: Brunet.bn - Climate: brunet.bn - Ecology: arcbc.org
L.1 Environmental facts
Main environmental facts of Brunei. • Brunei has 161 kilometres coastline. • There are 33 islands, with a total area of 7,939 hectares. • The total offshore reef area is 45 km2. • Mangroves are mostly to be found on the coast of Temburong in East Brunei, between Tutong and Telisai and at the catchments at Kulua Belait in South West Brunei. • Turtles are found nesting along the beaches mainly on the western part of Brunei and on the Muara Spit east of approach channel of Muara Port. • Large areas of Brunei are covered with forests, 3,410 sq kilometres • The continuous demand of sand and gravel for landfills and construction creates problems of soil and coastal erosion and increased siltation in the coastal waters. Coastal development is also a major threat to the coastal environment of Brunei, as is domestic, agricultural and oil pollution. • The coastline between Kuala Belait and Lumut is reinforced with a rock wall. • An offshore sediment flow comes to shore between the offshore island of Pulua Punyit and Muara, where the sediment flow is divided into a northeast and southwest flow.
L.2 Government environmental protection policy
The Brunei government has recognised the need for managing its unique environment, it has one of the most untouched environment in the world. The National Environmental Strategy has been drawn up since 1993 to improve the environmental status and awareness of the country. In the 7th National Development Plan the goals for the environment were formulated:
- Sustainable use of natural resources - Minimise negative impact on the environment arising from population growth and human activities - Achieving an appropriate balance between socio-economic development and maintaining the quality of the environment - Principal areas: o Raise environmental consciousness; o Integrate environmental dimensions in economic planning and development; o Protect vulnerable ecosystems, habitats and biodiversity; o Protecting the forests, the ocean, freshwater resources and the atmosphere o Managing solid waste
BRUNEI MARITIME MASTERPLAN XXII Appendix
L.3 International & National Environmental Treaties
The process of rectifying international environmental treaties by the Brunei government is slow. Nationally it has been recognised that the environment needs more attention and the following has already been implemented:
- National Oil Spill Contingency Plan. The petroleum industry and maritime traffic locally and in neighbouring Malaysia impose tremendous hazards of oil pollution. - The Integrated Management Plan for the Coastal Zone has proposed that all 33 islands of the country be classified into three categories respectively for General use, Conservation and Protection. Twenty-one islands have been selected for protection (i.e. highest level of protection for biodiversity preservation), 10 for conservation (i.e. where regulated eco- tourism, education, research and sustainable resource exploitation are allowed) and 2 for general use. The two very small islands with coral reefs, Pelong Rocks and Punyit are respectively classified for Conservation and Protection, as marine wildlife sanctuaries.
L.4 Coastline
Brunei’s 161 kilometres of coastline contains sandy beaches, mud flats and estuaries with mangrove and peat swamps facing the open sea. This zone is the country's most productive ecosystem and the coastal resources are largely untouched. The low saline level, relatively warm water (29.5 degrees Celsius) enriched by nutrients, carried by the river, is making the coastal waters rich fishing grounds.
L.5 Islands
Of the 33 islands, with a total area of 7,939 hectares or 1.4 per cent of the total land area, all except two (Pelong Rocks and Pulua Punyit) are located in river or estuarine environments consisting of mangrove swamps or shifting vegetation. Largely uninhabited, the islands are an undisturbed environment and breeding grounds for endangered species.
The largest island in Brunei, Pulua Muara Basar, is located in front of Muara in the Brunei Bay. The island is covered with some forests and mangrove.
L.6 Ecology
Brunei has vast areas of forests inland, some mangroves and coral reefs in the coastal areas are present, see the Table L-10. The major threats to the coastal and marine environment are coastal erosion and increased siltation from gravel and beach sand mining.
Area (sq km) % total area Islands 8 1.4 Mangroves 184 3 Reef 45 0.01 Forest and Jungle 3,410 58 Total 240,41 67 Table L-10 Environment divided over landmass in percentage
L.7 Inland Jungle and Forest
Large areas of Brunei are covered with forests, 3,410 sq kilometres. The inland forests have been largely unexploited and therefore very interesting for eco-tourism, see also Figure L-12.. A short period existed when some commercial forest exploitation was done but the government has regulated this since. The forest has since been relatively untouched
BRUNEI MARITIME MASTERPLAN XXIII Appendix
Figure L-12 Forests in Brunei
L.8 Mangrove areas
The mangrove are relatively unexploited by commercial activity and therefore they belong among the best preserved mangrove areas in the region. These are mostly to be found on the coast of Temburong in East Brunei, between Tutong and Telisa and at the catchments at Kulua Belait in South West Brunei.
The mangroves provide important functions in the coastal area, as habitat for plant and animal life and natural hatcheries of marine life and as natural sea protection system of the coastal areas.
Its commercial use for aquaculture, such as fish, shrimp or prawn rearing, will put the mangroves under pressure. Continuous research and effort with the right expertise are being realised to manage and preserve this natural asset from neglect and future overexploitation.
L.9 Coral Reefs
The total known reef area is 45 km2 and is mostly confined to five areas far from the shore on offshore islands and shoals (the two largest areas being Ampa and Victoria patches 25km off the west coast of Tutong and Telisai, number 4) The only two oceanic islands, see Figure L-13 Coral reefs and Mangroves in Brunei, are found in the north west side of the coast, these are Pelong Rocks (1) and Pulau Punyit (2). The coastal waters between Muara and Tutong are fringed with coral reefs and shoals. The outer coral reefs of Colombo (3) {at the champions oilfield} and Ampa Patches (4) are located in oil and gas fields.
BRUNEI MARITIME MASTERPLAN XXIV Appendix
Figure L-13 Coral reefs and Mangroves in Brunei
L.10 Species
Many species of animals and insects have their habitat in the swamps, mangroves and islands. On the islands many species of birds and flying foxes (large fruit bats) can be found. Mangroves and swamps harbour indigenous animals like reptiles and monkeys and are the temporary homes for birds migrating every northern winter from China and Siberia to Brunei. For the coral reefs large amount of species of hard corals and over 150 species of fish have been recorded.
Three species of marine turtles are found nesting along the beaches mainly on the western part of Brunei and on the spit east of Muara.
BRUNEI MARITIME MASTERPLAN XXV