Project2Rubricv4.xlsxM416Project2Spring18 Ex2.Port_Project_IIJPJ1 Ex.1Port_Project_IIEC1
 

• Type of paperEssay (Any Type)
• SubjectTrade
• Number of pages5
• Format of citationAPA
• Number of cited resources3
• Type of serviceWriting

Instructions will be uploaded later.

Sheet1

Appearance

5

5

5

5

5 4 3 0 Possible

5

5

5

5 20

and Content

5 4 3 0 Possible

Organization 5

5

5

5

5

5

Overall

0 Possible

10

Effort 10

10 30

0 Possible 100

Port Project 2 Rubric

Student(s)

Subject

Date Received

criterion

Excellent

Good

Acceptable

Not Acceptable

Initial Impression

5

4

3

0

Possible

Clean Work/

Overall

Quality of References

APA Format and Citation

Apparent

Effort

20

Required Elements

Hard Copy

Completed On Time

Writing Lab

Posted to Turnitin

Organization

Abstract

Development of Narrative

Conclusion

Grammar and Mechanics

Quality of Research

30

10

8

6

Originality and Creativity

Overall Impression

`

100

80

60

Total Score

Comments:

MARA 416 Port Project

CONTEMPORARY PORT TOPIC

DUE: April 10, 2018

Using news sources such as the Journal of Commerce and other high caliber news
sources, write an essay on a contemporary port topic of your choosing. Illustrate
your essay with concepts learned in this course.

This project can be done individually, or in small groups (2 or 3 person max per
group), your choice. In the case of group projects, all members will receive the same
grade.

MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS

6 to 8 page essay, properly formatted and all sources cited

APA format throughout

Supported by at least THREE (3) CURRENT articles from Journal of
Commerce and/or other high caliber news source(s)

Submit project via Turnitin link in Port Project content area

ORGANIZATION

Title page
Abstract

Narrative, consisting of

Background/history of chosen topic
Current Developments

Conclusion
List of References

TAMUG WRITING LAB
ONE (1) documented session required

BE CREATIVE AND PROFESSIONAL

continued…

Take some time and browse news sources for good ideas. Journal of Commerce is
an excellent tool for this.

Possible examples:

Current Port Labor Development in (U.S. East Coast, West Coast, Far East,
etc.)
Port Privatization in (Country or region)
Port Productivity in (Country or region)
Competition between ports (East Coast, West Coast, Gulf Coast, Europe, etc.)
Growth of Global Terminal Operators
Development of port clusters in (Pearl River, Tokyo Bay, Malacca Straits, etc.)
Port expansion projects (here, there, and anywhere)

The potential list is endless.

IMPORTANT:

PROJECT SHOULD FOCUS ON PORTS, NOT SHIPS

DO NOT recycle old projects.

Focus on dynamic contemporary port topics and issues. Do not simply
describe individual ports

Jones1

Port Project II

Development of Container Port Automation

John Paul Jones

MARA 416

Professor Mike Donelan

December 3, 2015

Aggie Honor Code Statement: An Aggie does not lie, cheat or steal, or tolerate those who do.

_______________________________________

Jones 2

The invention of the 20-foot equivalent unit, in the 1960’s, brought about a revolution in

the shipping industry; and today that same unit is changing the landscape of ports around the

world. The change is not the addition of roads or intermodal capability, but the use of automation

to streamline the ship to shore interface. In automated container ports, the only interaction a

human has with the container is from a central tower where the crane operators maneuver the

spreader bar for the last three feet of a lift. Every other movement of a container is completed by

a software system and robotic equipment. The ambitious push for automation has arisen from the

increases in container ship size. With larger ships, the amount of cargo handling is beginning to

exceed the ability of manual capacity, and the only way to break this barrier is through the use of

heavily automated terminals. The use of fully automated terminals is the next evolution in the

development of cargo handling and is already being done successfully in by APM’s Maasylakte

II Terminal in Rotterdam.

The ability to have automated terminals arises through the technological advances society

has made through the years. However, the implementation of automated terminals is being

hastened by the increased size of container ships and the rising cost of shore labor. The container

ships in operation today are increasing in size dramatically with 18,000 TEU ships already in use

with the number expected to rise to 100 vessels by 2019 (Bonney, 2015). This gross size increase

requires not only larger cranes to work the ships, but also for faster loading and unloading due to

the shear number of TEUs being handled on each vessel. The issue with this is only a finite

number of cranes can work a vessel at a given time, so the only way to reach the goal of faster

unloading is through increasing the number of lifts per hour. According to the Journal of

Jones 3

Commerce, the only possible way to achieve the sought after lifts per hour is through the use of

automation (Bonney, 2015). With this advanced technology, the ports of world will be better

suited to handle the large ships being developed in the world today.

The unions of today and the rising salaries of longshoreman are also a catalyst for ports

becoming fully automated. As seen in the Figure 41 on page 172 of Alderton, the cost of port

labor beginning in the 1960s became the largest cost for linear services (2008). This excessive

labor cost creates cause for terminals to increase interest in automation. With the use of

machines, the capital investment is great in the beginning; but the equipment can handle the

cargo more efficiently with lower operating costs. This benefits the terminal and the shipper. The

container yard saves money on labor, and the shipping line receives a reduced turnaround. The

increased automation in terminals will cost the unions jobs; however, the union will receive more

technical high paying jobs for maintenance of the equipment (Mongelluzo, 2015). This

represents a trade off between the unions and the terminal operators.

The first aspect of yard automation is the ship to shore gantry crane. The cranes used in

today’s automated yards are semi-automated cranes (Mongelluzo, 2015). This means that crane

operators are stationed in a control room and only have manual control of the last three feet of

the lift. The entirety or the lift is completed by the computer software except the landing of the

spreader bar on the container and the placing of the container on the truck. The operator has high

definition camera views of all angles necessary to complete the loading. The central location of

operators protects the men from the elements of the crane such as the sun, acceleration and

deceleration of the cab, and depth perception (Mongelluzo, 2015). Depth perception is a problem

not often though of, but it is a major issue with the increase in crane size. In order to handle the

18,000 TEU ships a crane height of 180 feet is required, and at this height depth perception is a

Jones 4

major issue for the operator (Mongelluzo, 2015). The use of semi-automated cranes with high

definition cameras eliminates this problem.

The next piece of crucial automated equipment is the automated rubber tire gantry crane

(ARTG). The crane operates exactly the same as a manual rubber tire gantry except it operates

under full automation. This equipment operates much in the same manner as the ship to shore

crane. All container movements within the stack are done with full automation, and the container

landing is done by an operator a remote station. However, one operator can control the manual

loading of the container to truck of up to six ARTGs (Konecranes). This is a major labor

reduction tool by allowing a single operator to do the work of six with a manual system. The

system that allows the ARTG to be fully automatic in the stack is the cranes active load control

system; this system minimizes container sway and holds the box in one place as the ARTG

moves (Konecranes). The ARTG is another example how automation can labor cost and save

time when used properly.

The automatic guided vehicle (AGV) also plays a crucial role in the efficiency of a fully

automatic terminal. The AGV is a driverless vehicle which takes the container from the ship to

shore crane then to the ARTG (Mongelluzo, 2015). These vehicles are run by computer software

that directs individual trucks to the ARTG. An innovative way the trucks increase efficiency is

by being battery operated. When the battery on the truck becomes depleted, the truck simply

drives itself to the service station; and the battery is exchanged in a process that takes just over 6

minutes (Mongelluzo, 2015). This saves the terminal refueling time, as well as the fuel cost

associated with running diesel trucks. Also, the AGV can be fitted with a self-unloading

mechanism, which allows the truck to place the container in a staging area for the rubber tire

Jones 5

gantry to place the container in its respective spot. All of the equipment and techniques listed

above are exhibited in the fully automated Maasvlakte II terminal in Rotterdam.

The APM terminal in Rotterdam is the worlds first fully automated container terminal.

The terminal has complete automation from the ship to shore crane to the container leaving the

gate; this terminal has achieved great efficiency as result of this high level of automation. It is

expected that Rotterdam’s APM terminal will improve vessel productivity by 40 percent

(Mongelluzzo, 2015). This is a major margin in today’s world of large ships that are trying to

minimize port time. The terminal minimizes time through two operations of the facility: ship to

stack and stack to out the gate.

The container cranes operating in the yard are semi-automated; the lift is totally control

by the computer except for the landing of the spreader bar on the container. One unique feature

of APM cranes is that they utilize a two-lift system. The ship-unloading crane lands the container

on a secondary platform that is fully automated. This crane then lands the container on the

driverless AGV to move the container to its destination (Mongelluzo, 2015). APM’s use of the

secondary platform saves valuable seconds by allowing the spreader bar to return immediately to

the vessel without waiting on the AGV. Next, the AGV takes the container from the crane to the

ARTG to be stacked. This vehicle saves time in two ways. First, the AGV is driverless and

battery operated; these two features allow the truck to be loaded by the fully automated container

crane and removes refueling time from the equation with a six minute battery change

(Mongelluzo, 2015). The second beneficial feature of the AGV is that each truck has a lifting

capacity and places the container in a designated stacking area for the ARTG (Mongelluzo,

2015). This saves time by allowing the truck to return immediately to the quayside to pick up

another container.

Jones 6

APM’s Maasvlakte II terminal also boasts two of the most efficient stacking and gate

control methods of a container yard to date. The stacking system used in Maasylakte II is based

on the containers intermodal method of shipment once off the vessel (Mongelluzo, 2015). The

yard services three intermodal methods truck, rail, and inland barge; therefore, the AGV brings

the container to the respective stack for its next mode of transportation allowing all similar

containers to be in one area. Next, the automated truck gate operating method used by the

terminal has proven to be drastically more efficient than the ones used by manual terminals. The

common gate in gate out time of Maasylakte II is 30 minutes compared to the common time of

US ports which is 45 minutes to an hour (Mongelluzo, 2015). This efficiency is achieved by

forcing truckers to enter all information into an electronic portal and requiring trucks to arrive in

a 2 hour appointment window (Mongelluzo, 2015). The implementation of the automated truck

gate has cut gate time in half allowing for a much more efficient turn time, and reducing yard

congestion by establishing an appointment method.

With the challenges of modern container terminals, the automated terminal is the future

of the industry. It is the only way to achieve the efficiency shipper’s desire, and with the amount

of competition in the market, those that do not adopt this philosophy will fall by the wayside for

those that do. Rotterdam’s APM Maasylakte II terminal is an example of the efficiency that can

be achieved by a fully automated system, and the benefits a terminal operators has from

automated machines. This project has opened my eyes to the benefits of running an automated

terminal, and it has given me valuable insight into the direction the container terminal industry is

heading.

Jones 7

References

Alderton, P. (2008). Port Management and Operations. London: Informa Law Mortimer House.

Bonney, J. (2015, September 09). Rx for North Europe ports handling mega-ships: more

automation. Journal of Commerce. Retrieved from http://www.joc.com/port-

news/international-ports/rx-north-europe-ports-handling-mega-ships-more-

automation_20150909.html

Konecranes. (2015). Automated RTG (ARTG) System. Retrieved from

http://www.konecranes.com/equipment/container-handling-equipment/automated-rtg-

artg-system

Mongelluzzo, B. (2015, May 02). New automated Rotterdam container terminal shows how far

US lags. Journal of Commerce. Retrieved from http://www.joc.com/port-news/terminal-

operators/apm-terminals/new-automated-rotterdam-container-terminal-shows-just-how-

far-us-lags_20150502.html

Mongelluzzo, B. (2015, September 03). Crane assist technology investment pays off for SSA

marine. Journal of Commerce. Retrieved from http://www.joc.com/port-news/terminal-

operators/ssa-marine/crane-assist-technology-investment-pays-ssa-

marine_20150903.html

Creesy1

Port Project 2

United States Deep Draft Arctic Port

Eleonor Creesy

MARA 416

Instructor: Mike Donelan

April 21, 2015

Aggie Honor Code Statement: An Aggie does not lie, cheat or steal, or tolerate those who do.

_______________________________________

Creesy 2

Abstract

Melting ice “in the Arctic region has increased the possibilities of resource extraction

and commercial transit accessibility” (Pegna, 2013). The United States has fallen behind in

developing this area by not allocation resources and by not ratifying the United Nations

Convention of the Law of the Sea. The United States needs to be competitive in this region

and maintain the same level of investment of other countries, such as Russia. One way that

the United States could move forward in Arctic development is by building a deep draft

Arctic port.

Background

The causes of global warming have been fiercely debated. However, there is no

denying that the polar ice caps are melting at a significant rate. In fact, the “polar ice cap is

25% smaller today than it was in 1978” (Walter, 2012). Shipping routes that would close

during certain months due to ice can stay open for a longer period of time. In 2007, “for the

first time in recorded history, both the Northwest Passage (NWP) and Northern Sea Route

(NSR) were simultaneously ice-free” (2012). The warming of the polar ice caps has shown

no signs of slowing or ending. “If the current rate of warming continues the Arctic may be

completely ice-free year-round as early as 2030” (2012).

These routes are not often used due to risk of getting stuck in the ice. As everyone in

shipping knows, a delay could prove very costly for both the shipper and the ship owner. Few

ships take the risk now. However, as the ice continues to melt, these routes will become more

feasible and more ships will be seen in the area. Capital investment in ice breakers should be

Creesy 3

made and a deep draft Arctic port in the United States should be the focus of expansion into

the Arctic market.

On Thin Ice: U.S. Capability Lacking in the Race for the Arctic

UN Convention Law of the Sea

The melting ice cap will allow countries that have arctic claims to seek new economic

opportunities. As the countries move forward and seek to expand their reach into Arctic

waters, the United States has run into one major problem. “Extended continental shelf (ECS)

claims and territorial disputes fall under the guidance established in the UN Convention on

Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), which the U.S. has signed but not ratified. Since it is not a

member of the treaty, the U.S. cannot submit an ECS claim under Article 76 of the

convention, as other Arctic states are doing” (Walter, 2012). Arctic states have been claiming

Creesy 4

rights and ratification of the treaty has left the United States out of this group. “Once a state

has ratified UNCLOS, the state has ten years to establish the limits and boundary of the

country’s extended continental shelf to be eligible to receive the benefits of the territory and

its resources within the labeled boundary” (Pegna, 2013). Since the United States has not

ratified this treaty, it cannot claim any territory or resources. Companies have been unwilling

to spend the capital to explore possibilities in the Arctic because property rights cannot be

protected without acceding the treaty.

Current Developments

While the United States has largely left the Arctic area undeveloped, “Russia has

jumped on the possibilities of Arctic shipping, providing icebreakers, improving charts,

developing search-and-rescue capabilities, and even charging tolls for passage through its

waters. Canada has proceeded more cautiously. Last year, Canada logged 22 voyages

through the Northwest Passage” (Booney, 2014). NOAA has incomplete charts in the Arctic

region. Although several expeditions have been made, they are years apart and only occur

when the budget allows. It is not seen as a priority at this time. Other Arctic nations are

gaining valuable knowledge now. The United States is falling behind in this area.

US Army Corps of Engineers

Early in 2011, the US Army Corps of Engineers and local governments of Alaska met

to discuss the possibility of creating a deep draft Arctic port. “The goal of the meeting was to

start the process of joint planning for U.S. Arctic ports in Alaska, responding to the

opportunity of study funding through the state of Alaska” (USACE, 2013). Several existing

ports were researched. “It was determined that by using an independent tool for the port

Creesy 5

site(s) selection would lend credibility to the site selection process. The Multi-Criteria

Decision Analysis (MCDA) tool developed by the Institute of Water Resources as part of the

IWR-Planning suite is available to the public without charge and was determined the best

tool for use with this evaluation” (2013). Several criteria were utilized in the assessment and

rated on a scale of 0 to 5. 5 was “very good” and 0 was very little “potential”. The included

criteria were port proximity, intermodal connections, upland support, existing water depth,

and navigation accessibility. In 2013, the Nome, Alaska was announced as the most practical

location for a deep draft Arctic port. Cost is the only hindrance in the plan. The city of Nome

would have to pay and “estimated $113 million dollars for the project while the US Army

Corps of Engineers would pay for $98 million dollars. The total cost for the project is $211

million dollars” (2013).

Source: ©Google Earth 2013. Citations added by USACE

Creesy 6

Conclusion

There has been a decline in Arctic shipping in the last two years. “The decline in

2014 was partly caused by the weather: less sea ice melted last summer than in 2013, so the

route was more dangerous” (TROMSO, 2015). The United States needs to take a long term

approach to the Arctic. “The Arctic contains vast amounts of energy which could become

accessible as the world warms and the ice retreats in summer” (2015). Other countries are

making significant investments and securing rights for their companies. The United States

should do the same. A deep draft Arctic port is a great example of how money can be utilized

to help not only Alaska but the rest of the hinterland and increase United States sovereignty

in the Arctic.

Creesy 7

References

Bonney, J. 2014. Arctic passage for ships: slow going. Journal of Commerce. Retrieved

from http://www.joc.com/maritime-news/international-freight-shipping/arctic-

passage-ships-slow-going_20140820.html

Dlouhy, J. 2015. U.S. must invest in Arctic, Senate panel told. Fuel Fix. Retrieved from

http://fuelfix.com/blog/2015/03/05/u-s-must-invest-in-arctic-senate-panel-told/

TROMSO. 2015. The Arctic: not so cool. The Economist. Retrieved from

http://www.economist.com/news/international/21641240-hype-over-arctic-recedes-

along-summer-ice-not-so-cool.

Pegna, M. R. 2013. “U.S. Arctic Policy: The Need to Ratify a Modified UNCLOS and

Secure a Military Presence in the Arctic.” Journal of Maritime Law & Commerce.

44, no. 2: 169-194.

USACE. 2013. “Alaska deep draft Arctic ports study.” US Army Core of Engineers.

http://www.poa.usace.army.mil/Library/ReportsandStudies/AlaskaRegionalPortsStu

dy.aspx

Walter, E. J. 2012. On thin ice: U.S. capability lacking in the race for the Arctic. gCaptain.

On Thin Ice: U.S. Capability Lacking in the Race for the Arctic