America s Marine Highway Program Development and Funding

Transcription

1 America s Marine Highway Program Development and Funding America Association of Port Authorities, Maritime Economic Development Committee Short Sea Shipping Work Group PORT SURVEY ANSWERS Kristin Decas, Executive Director, MEDC Committee Chair 333 Ponoma Street, P.O. Box Port Hueneme, CA Phone Fax KDecas@portofhueneme.org LAST UPDATED APRIL 13, Many of the concept vessels to support American Marine Highway trade are being designed to run on alternative fuels, including LNG. Does your port have plans to explore the installation of LNG marine fueling stations to support LNG vessel configurations? o Port of Hueneme No plans to install at this time, but open to the possibility and have had preliminary discussions with our existing terminal fuel operator. Community education is important. o Baltimore No o Canaveral - We have no current plans to install LNG marine fueling stations but acknowledge that the next generation of vessels, including cruise ships, may need them or could use LNG for at least shore power. So, we will do long-range planning. We could plan, construct, commence operations within a relatively short timeframe. o Corpus Christi - No, not at this time. As the announced 2017 construction completion date for the Cheniere LNG export terminal approaches, the issue shall be reviewed. o Detroit - We currently do not have plans to explore installation of LNG fueling stations, however we do have a port constituent (Waterfront Petroleum) whom we could approach to discuss. They have a current operation in southwest Detroit that handles several million gallons of diesel. o Everett Not at this time. o Freeport At this time Port Freeport has no plans to explore this option, there is no interest in our existing account base to offer LNG fueling stations. o Georgia - The Georgia Ports Authority currently does not have plans for shipside LNG fueling at our ports as there have been no requests by carriers for same. We are currently in advanced discussions with several companies to construct/supply LNG fueling stations for the local trucking community and I would expect the same would be available for vessel fueling if/when demand requires.

2 o Humboldt Bay Port of Humboldt Bay does not have any plans to explore the installation of LNG. o Los Angeles - Currently there are no LNG powered vessels calling at the Port of Los Angeles. The only company involved in LNG on the west coast is TOTE. TOTE currently is converting two ORCA Class Roll-On/Roll-Off ships to operate on LNG. TOTE operates between Pacific Northwest and Alaska. LNG bunkering is being discussed in a working group under IAPH. o Miami Port Miami currently does not have plans to install LNG fueling stations. o Mobile - We view vessel bunkering with conventional fuels or LNG to be a private sector function rather than one that the Port would do. At times, our port has had fuel tanks on its property with lines run to vessels. We view this as impractical today due to geographical constraints. All fuel today is taken from barge or truck which would work for LNG. If LNG becomes a fuel required, we would support private sector initiatives to make it available. We do believe that LNG has a potential as a ship furl and have one existing short sea operator actively looking at the feasibility o New Bedford - While the Port of New Bedford currently has bulk oil terminals within it's boundaries, LNG is a hot-button political issue locally. Any effort to build an LNG facility in the port would likely face stiff resistance, as was faced in Fall River, 20 miles away. With that being said, educating the public about the benefits of locating a terminal in the port is possible and the port would likely help any efforts to do so. o New York/New Jersey At the Port of NY & NJ, we have only begun to explore the issues, challenges and opportunities associated with the introduction of LNG facilities of any type within the port environment. o Oakland - The Port of Oakland would be open to the installation of LNG marine fueling stations, but there has been a lot of public pressure against LNG facilities in Southern California (safety issues), so the surrounding community may push back on such a proposal. If the community issues could be tackled, it would take approximately one year to implement. o Plaquemines Not at this time. o Portland - We are starting to look at LNG as a possible alternative vessel fuel going forward. We have discussed the option with the local gas utility (NW Natural) and have had preliminary discussions with at least one provider of LNG marine fueling infrastructure (Liquiline North America). Port of Portland has a dual interest in this subject:

3 First, we are a deep-water port that regularly sees vessels that must transit the offshore portion of the 200 NM Emissions Control Area then transit 100 NM of the Columbia River to reach Portland. In essence the 200NM ECA is 300 NM deep for us here in Portland-Vancouver. Also, these ECA-mandated low sulfur fuels are significantly more costly and do seem to cause a real decrease in maximum available horsepower. While LNG may not be an appropriate alternative fuel for all the vessels that call here, it could be an economically and operationally viable alternative for some significant number of them. Second, we are a major inland port. The Columbia-Snake River system extends inland almost 465 miles from the Pacific Ocean to Lewiston ID. The Port of Portland is about 102 miles upriver from the Pacific. The system as a whole is currently the #1 US wheat export gateway and the #3 grain export gateway in the world. A great deal of these cargo comes down the Columbia River on barges. We would expect that the major Columbia-Snake River tug/barge operators would look closely at the use of LNG as a fuel if it were demonstrated to be economically and operationally efficient. Anecdotally, there are several concerns I have heard about conversion to LNG as a vessel fuel. The biggest obstacle that I have seen is the cost of vessel conversion from diesel or bunker to LNG. If a financing vehicle existed to allow both deep draft and inland vessels to make the LNG conversion and spread the costs over the break-even span, my sense is that there will be significant interest in the concept. A second concern is LNG price stability over the long term. One of the concerns I have heard voiced repeatedly is that operators feel as if they are currently being whip-sawn by diesel and bunker price volatility. The feeling seems to be that they would not want to make the LNG conversion, only to be whip-sawn in the same manner by a different fuel. That s said, we would expect to support both our deep water vessels and the regional tug/barge industry should either wish to pursue LNG as a fuel alternative. o San Diego - No o San Francisco No o Stockton - No o Toledo - Yes o Virginia No, but we have discussed the use of Tanktainer modules if LNG were needed to support these types of vessels in the future. o Unknown - Yes

4 2. If yes, what would you expect a timeline to look like for installing the infrastructure (public hearings, permitting, construction, etc.)? o Port of Hueneme Many variables, would depend on financing, etc. o Baltimore N/A o Canaveral See (1) o Corpus Christi See (1) o Detroit N/A o Everett N/A o Freeport N/A o Georgia See (1) o Humboldt Bay N/A o Los Angeles N/A o Miami Currently no plans. o Mobile If practical from a financial standpoint, we would not think that it could be done in 18 months or so once a decision was made and technology identified. o New Bedford See (1) o New York/New Jersey At this time, it is unknown if installation of any LNG infrastructure will be pursued. o Oakland See (1) o Plaquemines N/A o Portland - We may be more fortunate than most in this regard. The local gas utility, NW Natural, already has two liquefaction plants installed in the Portland area. My understanding is that currently they are used to make and store LNG for reserve use in the event of unusually high episodic gas usage by private and/or commercial users. These plants already exist, are already permitted, and could in theory supply some amount of LNG to the marine transportation sector. Even more fortunately, one of the existing liquefaction plants happens to be co-located with the sole current operator of vessel bunkering services on the Columbia River.

5 In short, were there sufficient demand, it might be possible to bring LNG vessel fueling online here in a very short period of time. If a new LNG vessel fueling installation was required, the timeline from inception to completion might be several years. This use of LNG would have public appeal as the cleanest non-experimental vessel fuel currently available, but would need to overcome some amount of regional public resistance to natural gas in any form due to fracking-related issues. It is worth noting that LNG has some real air-shed advantages that might be well received regionally. Immediately east of Portland is the Columbia River Gorge, a designated National Scenic Area that has unfortunately become known for high levels of haze. Both tugs and trains regularly transit the Columbia River corridor through the gorge and are held to be contributors to the airshed load in the gorge. If LNG can be demonstrated to reduce this pollution, that might serve to expedite the regional development timeline. A greater benefit would be reducing dieselrelated air toxics in the Portland-Vancouver airshed, which have on occasion been up to seven times above state of Oregon ambient air contaminant health-based benchmarks. Both of these factors could help to accelerate the adoption of LNG as vessel fuel. o San Diego N/A o San Francisco N/A o Stockton N/A o Toledo 3-5 Years o Virginia N/A o Unknown 3 Years 3. For the purpose of potential federal grant awards to facilitate short sea shipping, planning may become part of the application requirements. Does your port have a master plan and is it approved by your state? o Port of Hueneme We are currently building our strategic action plan. In accordance with the requirements of the California Coastal Act, the Port adopted and the California Coastal Commission approved a Port Master Plan for property owned by the Port at the time of the plan s development (July 1978). The Port and Coastal Commission have approved seven (7) Master Plan Amendments since See Figure 7 Port Master Plan Land Use Designations. As part of the California Public Resources Code (Section 30715), the Port adopted regulations for the issuance of Coastal Development Permits for new

6 developments contained in the certified Port Master Plan, as amended from time to time. Except for specific appealable developments, this authority has been delegated to the Port in Chapter 8 of the California Coastal Act governing ports. The Port s regulations establish an application process for a Coastal Development Permit. The Board of Harbor Commission acts upon the Coastal Development Permit application within twenty-one days after the conclusion of a public hearing. Any action by the Board shall become final after the tenth (10th) working day unless an appeal is filed with the California Coastal Commission under Public Resources Code Section for those developments that are appealable. This plan does not spell out specific capital investment strategies. o Baltimore Yes we have a Strategic Plan and a Facility Development Plan. o Canaveral We have a land use plan that is approved by the State. o Corpus Christi The PCCA strategic plan is under review. The plan does not need to be approve by the state. o Detroit We are in the middle of a long-range strategic planning process that we plan to incorporate into our MPO s transportation plan for the region. o Everett We do have a Marine Terminal Master Plan that is approve by the Everett Port Commission. State approval of this plan is not required. o Freeport Port Freeport does have a Master Plan but it is not approved by the State or part of any State wide program at this time. o Georgia The Authority does have a 10 year master plan that has been shared with the State of Georgia; however, does not require approval by the State. Our governing legislation provides autonomy for activities such as this. Our plan is not specific to Short Sea Shipping. o Humboldt Bay Yes, the Port of Humboldt Bay has Strategic Plan goals that include short sea shipping, but the goals are still being developed by the Board of Commissioners. o Los Angeles Short-sea shipping is not presently deemed viable for containers or non-container cargo at the Port of Los Angeles. As such, se do not have a SSS master plan. o Miami Port Miami has composed the 2035 Master Plan, which is up for review for state approval. o Mobile We do not have it in our Master Plan as it is not required. No State approval of our plan is required.

7 o New Bedford Yes. o New York/New Jersey - The planning that is done for the Port of NY & NJ is not subject to approval by the states of NY & NJ on a planning level. On a macro level, all agency activities are subject to approval by the governors of the two states. We do, however, work with the relevant DOTs and other state and regional entities when it comes to planning for off-port operating and capital improvements o Oakland Our Port has a Strategic Plan, approved by our Board of Port Commissioners. The Port of Oakland does not get approval from the State of California, except in regards to State Tidelands Trust issues. o Plaquemines Yes, not state approved. o Portland - Yes, we do have a Master Plan. Technically Port of Portland is an agency of the state of Oregon, so in that sense the plan can be seen as stateapproved. If you are looking for a more specific type of approval, please let me know and I ll chase down the answer. o San Diego Yes. o San Francisco Yes. o Stockton N/A o Toledo No, but there is a statewide freight plan under development. o Virginia Yes. o Unknown - No 4. Preliminary assessments indicate ship-to-ship handling is more expensive than railto-ship or truck-to-ship moves. From a port perspective, do you have a sense if this is true and if so, why is it more costly? o Port of Hueneme We would like have feeder vessels call on our Port as opposed to conduct larger ship to smaller ship handling operations. Labor costs could drive up ship to ship handling. o Baltimore For the nation to use the tremendous capacity of the AMH and relieve hwy congestion, we need to get trucks (i.e. trailers) off the hwys; not containers. AMH, as now defined by MARAD, is focused on trailers; therefore, I think a Ro/Ro operations are likely, and AMH will be competing with rail movements first, then trucking. On the USEC, most containers that come to the

8 coastal ports move inland, not north/south. If there was a need for north/south movement, then the container would stay on the vessel til the next port-call, since vessels make several USEC calls. Call w/ any Qs: Jim Dwyer, Baltimore, o Canaveral Ship-to-ship assumes feeder service from a major port to a smaller one. Major port costs are relatively high when compared to the other modes mentioned. o Corpus Christi Our sense is that such in-port ship to ship transfers would be more expensive. Such in-port transfer operations would be at dock and would involve the need for "two of everything" including, but not limited to, access fees, pilot fees, harbor tugs, as well as unique ship-to-ship fendering and moorage. Our sense is that vessel to vessel transfer operations would occur only at a geographic location where it can be done safely and also where it would not encroach upon the navigation channel. Our sense is that to accommodate such in-port transfers would require expensive new dock construction, if an appropriate location could be identified. o Detroit Types of cargo, volume and location all impact the answer to this question. You would need to know all the factors to provide a definitive answer. o Everett In general terms, Lift on/lift off operations are typically more expensive than roll/on roll/off (truck or rail) due to the increased manning requirements. o Freeport Ship to ship is not practical. Barge to ship is still done and practical for certain commodities. Rail to ship depends on the ports capacity and infrastructure. Truck to ship is most practical again depending on the commodity. o Georgia We have not studied the economies regarding different modes of transportation. o Humboldt Bay N/A o Los Angeles The POLA does not have any transshipment, and cannot comment on the differential handling costs. o Miami - PortMiami views ship-to-ship handling as more expensive due to logistics. The expense per container would be too high to move them a short distance along the Miami River, at which point they would have to be loaded onto trucks to reach their final destination. Rail and truck is a more feasible option for PortMiami. o Mobile Vessel to vessel transfer can be very cost effective but has to be analyzed on a case by case basis based on commodity, vessel types, volumes, etc.

9 In ports like Mobile and New Orleans where I have worked it is quite common but not really for containers. o New Bedford N/A o New York/New Jersey - With the exception of lightering activities that occur at anchorage, we do not have ship-to-ship cargo handling in the Port of NY & NJ. If total costs for ship-to-ship handling were taken into account, the fact that new equipment (i.e. vessels with on-board cranes, etc.) would need to be purchased and crewed versus the use of existing equipment and labor, could contribute to the excess costs associated with such operating practices --- if, in fact, it is a more costly approach. o Oakland It is true that it is more costly, for the simple fact that ILWU labor is handling the container three times versus one. There are also potential costs for linesmen on both arrival and departure of the barge, adding costs to an already expensive method of transport. o Plaquemines I do not have a sense if regards to the truth of this statement. o Portland - Our sense is that this is true. However, since we are starting to prepare for re-negotiation of our ILWU contract, any detailed answer I d give could end up being partially invalidated in the next few months depending on where our ILWU negotiations go. In a general sense, however, I think there is one overarching factor to look at; we in this country are very used to inter-modal cargo moves, whereas, unlike the Europeans of the Asians, we simply are not in the habit of making intra-modal cargo moves. We have designed our most of our facilities and our processes to accommodate and optimize Ship:Rail and Ship:Road movements -- but not Ship:(Different) Ship moves. It may be that a significant increase in Ship:Ship efficiency could be gained simply by according Ship:Ship moves equal prioritization in facility and process design. After all, a lot of Marine Highway work will involve a high percentage of intramodal freight. Maybe we need start to identify intra-modalism as a different (but related) process with different (but related) needs. o San Diego Yes. You are looking at double handling with ILWU labor and double the Port tariff charges. o San Francisco We do believe it is true primarily due to the high costs of using ILWU labor and gang structures for ship-to-ship moves. o Stockton N/A o Toledo Yes ship to ship handling could be more expensive under the existing agreement with the ILA.

10 o Virginia - Our port has operated an inland barge service for several years (very slow short-sea shipping). It is true in our experience that the cost is higher. Mostly because two expensive quay crane lifts are added to the cost structure. It is not truly ship to ship. It is lift-off big ship, short move to small ship, lift-on small ship or in reverse depending on import/export cargo flow. These additional cost result in the cargo being placed at the appropriate location for inland delivery (no closer or farther) than foreign vessel direct to the final port. A smaller factor is all of the costs referenced are incurred by the vessels and ports. The other moves can have costs incurred by the railroad or trucker. o Unknown No.