PHASE 2 – PORT REQUIREMENTS 118
2. Consequences for port infrastructures 123
Capacity of principal port projects Dakar
2011 traffic=400,000 TEU Concession DP WORLD ==>
2032 Designation Quay length
Surface
area Capacity Year
Current terminal 660m 18ha 600,000 TEU
Phase 1 extension Port of the Future 500m 500,000 TEU 2020 Final extension Port of the Future 500m 500,000 TEU 2025
The Dakar container terminal is far from being saturated, with a fairly slow growth in traffic. In principle, the concessionaire is committed to investing in an external extension programme beyond the current port, which will require protection works. It should be noted, however, that there are alternatives which would allow container capacity to be developed inside the current port, making it possible to put back the introduction of the Port du Futur27
infrastructure. In any event, the port of Dakar should be able to meet the demand for increases in the medium term without requiring more infrastructure resources.
Conakry
2011 traffic=160,000 TEU
Concession BAL ==> 2036 Designation Quay length Surface
area Capacity Year
Current terminal 270m 8ha 160,000 TEU
Phase 1 extension 338m 12ha 300,000 TEU 2013
Final extension 300m ? 300,000 TEU 2025?
Long term
The concession for the Conakry terminal was recently (2011) taken over from Getma by Bolloré. The concessionaire is committed to making significant investments to increase the capacity of the terminal. This effort is underway with the extension of the quay (+338m) and an increase in yard area. Eventually, the quay will be increased to 900m in length.
Freetown
2011 traffic=55,000 TEU
Concession BAL ==> 2030 Designation Quay length Surface
area Capacity Year
Current terminal 722m >300,000 TEU*
Extension * depending on reinforcements in equipment
27
The latter has the major disadvantage of requiring costly protection works before the first metre of quay can come into service.
Bolloré Africa Logistics was awarded the concession for the container terminal. The quay is 722m long, but with a draught of only 9.5 m. It is currently served by two mobile cranes. Given the low level of current traffic, no capacity problems are to be expected in the medium term.
Monrovia
2011 traffic=60,000 TEU
Designation Quay length Surface
area Capacity Year
Current terminal 600m 75,000 TEU*
Phase 1 extension Final extension
Long term
* Plus conventional traffic
APM Terminals was granted the concession for the container terminal in Monrovia in 2010 for a period of 25 years. Through the introduction of the necessary equipment, the terminal should not suffer froma lack of capacity in the medium term.
San Pedro
2011 traffic=118,000 TEU
Designation Quay length Surface
area Capacity Year
Current terminal 210m 120,000 TEU
New terminal 700m 20ha 500,000 TEU 2017+
MSC was awarded the concession for the container terminal in 2010 in order to cater for transhipment traffic. This occupies almost half of the only quay in the port, which is now saturated not only because of the many halts by MSC ships, but also by those of other shipping lines (Maersk, CMA-CGM etc.) and conventional vessels on long stopovers. Depending on the season (for example, conventional rice imports during the cocoa season), this can result in long delays for some vessels.
There is a project to construct a new container terminal with a capacity of 500,000 TEU, but this will not be available before 2017-2018.
Abidjan
2011 traffic=546,000 TEU
Designation Quay
length
Surface
area Capacity Year
Current terminal Vridi Container Terminal 1000m 31ha 1,100,000 TEU*
Extension Second terminal 1500m 35ha 1,500,000 TEU 2018+ Long term (Isle of Boulay)
* Through reinforcement of equipment as and when needed to meet demand
The Abidjan container terminal has changed profoundly over recent years through major investments in equipment (renewal of quayside gantries and the transformation of yard management from using reach-stackers to a management system which is now almost fully
RTG). These investments must continue; reinforcements to the equipment could help to increase the terminal capacity to 1.1m TEU if needed.
Nevertheless, a project for a second container terminal has been launched by the State and the PAA in order to introduce competition and develop transhipment traffic. This project involves a broadening and deepening of the Vridi Canal and channel to provide the terminal with a draft of 16m. This project is currently at the consultation stage, with four groups interested, three of which include shipowners.
Tema
2011 traffic=750,000 TEU
Designation Quay
length
Surface
area Capacity Year
Current terminal 660m 10ha 600,000 TEU*
Phase 1 extension Unrealistic projects 2020+
Final extension Long term
The current terminal in Tema, comprising only two berths, deals with 80% of the port’s container traffic. It is saturated as is the entire system, including the three ICDs.
The capacity of the system could be increased marginally by adding to the equipment available and increasing the space available at the ICDs, through improving shared computer systems and strengthening scanning equipment in order to streamline the processing of containers. It is also possible to relieve the pressure on the terminal quays by adding a berth and equipping the other quays with mobile cranes with a view to increasing productivity for the treatment of goods other than container traffic.
But currently there is no viable solution for the medium and long term. The master plan for the port has resulted in an unrealistic project for a new port constructed outside and backing onto the current port. The cost for this has been estimated at $3bn and it would have the effect of concentrating flows and substantially increasing the level of congestion, which is already at a critical level.
Lomé
2011 traffic=350,000 TEU
Designation Quay
length
Surface
area Capacity Year
Current terminal 430m 350,000 TEU
Phase 1 extension Third quay 450m 500,000 TEU 2013-2014 Phase 2 extension LCT phase 1 400m 500,000 TEU 2013-2014 Phase 2 extension LCT completion quay 1 600m 750,000 TEU 2020?
Long term Quay LCT vis-à-vis? 1000m 1,250,000 TEU 2030
The current terminal, under concession to Bolloré Africa Logistics, has two berths either side of a jetty with extremely limited capacity. The space available behind the quay for the container yard is thoroughly inadequate to cope with the storage needs, so many containers
are subject to further transport to an area behind the future third quay. The latter should come into service in early 2014 and will offer 450m of quay with a draught of 15m. It will bring a very large increase in capacity thanks to powerful equipment (four quayside gantries and a yard operating with RTGs). While import-export and transit demand will largely be covered by this development, another project is also planned for Lomé, with the putting into service of the first phase also due in early 2014. This is the LCT dock, initiated by MSC, which has recently gone into partnership with China Merchants. Officially, the goal of this project is to partially cover the transhipment needs of ship owner MSC. In the long term, this dock has the potential to offer two quays of more than 1,000m each, with a draught of 16-17m.
Cotonou
2011 traffic=250,000 TEU
Designation Quay
length
Surface
area Capacity Year
Current terminal 600m 250,000 TEU
Extension phase Benin Terminal 540m 20ha 540,000 TEU 2013
Long term Second port Sèmé-Kpodji 2025
The Benin Terminal is expected to come into service in the port of Cotonou in early 2013, offering 540m of quay with a draught of 13m, while the channel should be deepened to 15m over the next two years.
Beyond this, the port cannot be extended (because of its proximity to the city, to the French Embassy and the Presidential residence) and beyond the commissioning of the new container terminal south of the dock, further port development will require a new site.
In the long term, we know of the proposed second port in Benin, located at Seme-Kpodji, 20km from Cotonou in the direction of Nigeria.
Lagos
Nigeria's ports are expecting to have to deal with 10m TEU in 30 years’ time and 2m TEU by 2018, compared to 1.2m TEU today. Faced with such a prospect, ambitious greenfield ports will need to be envisaged. Most of the demand will continue to be concentrated in the region of Lagos.
2011 traffic=1,100,000 TEU
Designation Quay
length
Surface
area Capacity Year
Apapa terminal 1050m 55ha 850,000 TEU
Tin-Can terminal 770m 24ha 400,000 TEU
Extension 1 (can be phased) Badagry (Phase 1) 3,000,000 TEU 2016+ Extension 2 (can be phased) Lekki (Phase 1) 2,000,000 TEU 2016+
This justifies the two projects planned, one at Lekki and a second, more recent, project at Badagry.
The first (Lekki) is being promoted by a Singapore operator (Tolaram) in partnership with ICTSI as the operator, and the second (Badagry) has been launched by a consortium including, notably, APMT and TIL (MSC group). In both cases, they are large greenfield projects near Lagos (Lekki is 65km to the east of the city and Badagry is 20km to the west) and both projects comprise multiple activities (oil, dry bulk, industrial zones etc.).
Douala/Kribi
2011 traffic= 340,000 TEU
Designation Quay
length
Surface
area Capacity Year
Current Douala terminal 700m 500,000 TEU
Kribi extension phase 1 Multipurpose quay 700m 400,000 TEU 2015? Kribi final extension
Long term
The port of Douala is handicapped by its access channel and the difficulty of keeping it dredged. Use of the port is prohibited to vessels with a medium and large draught.
There are no extension projects planned for this site.
In contrast, the first step in the construction of a greenfield port at Kribi is well advanced. At its launch, it was a very ambitious project with many specialised terminals to be put out to concessions. Today, the first step is underway with the Chinese company CHEC entrusted with building the general port, including a multipurpose terminal offering 600m of quay.
Libreville/Owendo
2011 traffic=81,000 TEU
Designation Quay
length
Surface
area Capacity Year
Current terminal 475m 15ha 120,000 TEU
Phase 1 extension 150m 2014?
Long term
The port is congested with an average wait of four days per ship. A large part of the problem is down to very slow handling, which is performed exclusively with on-board equipment. The first improvement will come with the arrival of two mobile cranes, a process which is underway. The port authority also plans to increase the length of quay available in the container terminal, with the addition of one berth.
Pointe-Noire
2011 traffic=443,000 TEU
Designation Quay
length
Surface
area Capacity Year
Current terminal Congo Terminal 800m 31ha 450,000 TEU
Phase 1 extension Congo Terminal 700m 36ha 750,000 TEU 2030+ Long term
Since the concession was awarded to Bolloré Africa Logistics and its partners in 2010 for a period of 27 years, significant investments have been made in order to create a real container terminal with specialised and expanded quays and yard storage, and providing the terminal with quayside equipment (mobile cranes and then quayside gantries) and yard equipment (a move to RTGs). At the end of the concession, there should be some 1,500m of quay with a draught of 15m, providing a capacity of 1.2 million TEU.
Luanda
2011 traffic=631,000 TEU
Designation Quay
length
Surface
area Capacity Year
Current terminal Sogester 542m 14ha 330,000 TEU Multipurpose terminal Unicargas 536m 18ha 200,000 TEU
Extension?
Long term Barra do Dande 800m 800,000 TEU
The port of Luanda has two main facilities for dealing with container traffic: the Sogester terminal (a joint venture between APMT and a local operator) and the multipurpose Unicargas terminal.
Following the boom in traffic in recent years, these facilities are now saturated. There is a greenfield project 50km north of Luanda at Barra do Dande, but we know nothing concrete about the progress of this project.
Walvis Bay
2011 traffic=230,000 TEU
Designation Quay
length
Surface
area Capacity Year
Current terminal 300,000 TEU
Phase 1 extension 480m 24ha 350,000 TEU 2015
Final extension 2,400m 120ha 1,750,000 TEU 2025?
Long term
The infrastructure of the port of Walvis Bay is still quite underdeveloped and lacks specialised facilities.
There are long-term plans for extension, which could be achieved in phases. Specifically this concerns a jetty, reclaimed from the sea, of some 2.4km in length and with a depth of 500m.
Summary of port needs and the risks of over or under-capacity Dakar
The current terminal still has spare capacity and can support several years of growth provided transhipment traffic does not grow too quickly (which seems likely). We can understand why the concessionaire would not be over keen to invest in the Port du Futur project when we take into account the sums of money involved and the indivisible nature of this kind of project. Perhaps it would be better to develop the terminal inside the port, transferring facilities for bulk liquids and solids, currently situated in the south-east of the terminal, outside the terminal (bulk vessels do not require the same stability as containerships). This would provide the possibility of doubling the capacity of the container terminal.
The construction of the Port du Futur would certainly lead to the existing terminal facilities being reallocated to meet other needs. The new container terminal, which could be built in phases, would have the advantage of offering more extensive storage facilities and quays with greater draught.
In either case, we cannot see any real risk of over-capacity in Dakar.
Conakry
The investments which are currently planned satisfactorily meet demand in the medium to long term.
Abidjan
Abidjan is one of ports with potential over-capacity problems. Provided it further strengthens the equipment at its disposal, the current terminal can provide a total capacity of about 1.1m TEU. It can satisfy the needs of the Ivory Coast and the overland corridors it serves for another 10 years. The proposed second terminal will have a capacity at least equal to and probably greater than the current terminal. It will also offer greater draught, in the region of 16m, and with these conditions could be attractive for transhipment, without actually being able to generate very large volumes of transhipment traffic.
Ultimately, if the second terminal is completed, there will certainly be strong intra-port competition (except in the case of an allocation of the concession to a group including Bolloré). The competition will centre on attracting import-export and transit traffic rather than transhipment volumes. Depending on whether the terminal is completed in one block or in phases, over-capacity will be more or less severe. The advantage of the project lies in the much improved draught, but serious questions remain about its sustainability given the maintenance costs for these depths.
Tema
Tema certainly has the greatest risk of under-capacity handicapping the country’s economy. Under-capacity is already blatant and is not limited to the port: access to the port is also below the capacity required. It is possible for the container terminal operator to gain a marginal improvement in capacity by adding to the available equipment and, if possible, gaining another berth, on condition that, in parallel, the authority also strengthens the storage
capacity outside the port (ICDs). The situation can continue in this way for a few more years but in an impaired fashion.
Beyond the medium term, the master plan project for the port is not credible because it is both too ambitious and has a total price tag of $3bn. This type of project cannot respond quickly to medium-term need. This is especially so as the port authority needs to be changed so that its role is redefined as one of landlord and not, as is now the case, a stakeholder in all projects and associated with all the ports. It is also urgent to introduce a ‘cargo community system’ worthy of the name to facilitate flows as much as possible in the port and ICDs. Moreover, it is probably not advisable to create a second port on the same site as the first since inextricable congestion already exists around the port of Tema.
There is an urgent need to produce a viable project authorising the installation of a real container terminal, with sufficient storage space, and which is capable of providing a minimum capacity of 2 million TEU once finished (construction in phases). Failure to do this places the country’s economy at risk of serious repercussions due to the obsolescence of its port facilities and their under-capacity.
Lomé
In Lomé, Bolloré’s ‘third quay’ project alone would have been sufficient to cope with the expected traffic in the medium to long term. The second project, the MSC/China Holdings dock, has a completely different potential and may well not be limited to transhipment traffic. It seems inevitable that there will be competition between the new arrivals and Bolloré. The level of over-capacity will depend on both the phasing of the project and the ability of MSC and its potential partners to make the site a real and efficient transhipment hub. At the moment there are more questions than answers. However, it is not unreasonable to think that a large capacity in Lomé could also help meet the needs of Ghana until a viable solution can be found to their port capacity needs.
Cotonou
Benin Terminal, the first real container terminal in the port of Cotonou, will become operational in early 2013 and offer sufficient capacity to meet the medium to long-term needs of the country and the overland corridors it serves. It will also constitute the first genuine container terminal port.
Lagos
Currently, Nigeria does not have an international trade commensurate with its population: container traffic is less than double that of Ghana, while its population is six times greater. The existing facilities, especially Apapa and Tin-Can, meet demand as best they can, but their capacity reserves are reduced. The time has come for Nigeria to invest in new port sites, with the prospect of container traffic climbing to 2-3 million TEU in 2018 and 10 million TEU in 2040.
Two projects have been presented and are underway: - Lekki, promoted by ICTSI with Tolaram
- Badagry, promoted by APMT and TIL
Both projects are ambitious, with a broad range of terminals and an industrial and logistics free zone. The reported coming into service deadlines (2015 and 2016) appear consistent with the port’s needs. But there are still uncertainties about the characteristics of these greenfield projects and the phasing of the putting into service of the terminals.
Pointe-Noire
The development of the Pointe-Noire terminal due to be conducted by Bolloré Africa Logistics and its partners should be able to meet medium and long-term needs. The phasing of these works can be adjusted to meet changing needs. Transhipment traffic is likely to fluctuate or decrease if other ports targeting this market are constructed in the region (Equatorial Guinea etc.). The capacity made available will serve the needs of transit traffic, which is expected to grow strongly in the long term (DRC, CAR, Chad etc.).
Luanda
Despite the award of a first concession, the strong growth in recent years has led to serious problems of congestion and port capacity in Angola. There is, however, a greenfield project for a site in Barro do Dande, 50km from Luanda, but no specific information is available.
Walvis Bay
According to studies by Inros Lackner and Nathan Associates, the terminal should provide a capacity of 500,000 TEU by 2014, which seems over and above the needs of the Namibian hinterland and the corridors served.
Table summarising the risks of over-capacity
The table below summarises the conclusions drawn from the analyses of port projects and prospective traffic. The table details for 2015 and 2020 the risk of over-capacity (or under- capacity) according to the projects that we felt realistic and likely to enter into service in the time frames mentioned.