[From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov]
...................... C 0 A L Movemnet in the Pacific Basin Study Northern Mariana Islands Jan 1983 . ............. . .....- _j J 0 At Movement in th.e Pacific BasinStudy PACIFIC COAL.TRADE - ECONOMIC-- -OPPORTUNITIES FOR@CNMI@: Japan Hawaii oSaipan Guam American Samoa Australia Pacific* Basin Development Coun ff ct Suite 620 567 South King Street o Honolulu, Hawaii 96815 COA$TAL Ob E INFORMATIO C1 NTER COAL Movement in the Pacific Basin Study PACIFIC COAL TRADE - ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITIES FOR CNMI Prepared for The Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands by The Rsearch Institute Pacific Basin Development Council January. 1983 Pacific Basin Development Council Suite 620:567 South King Street, Honolulu, Hawaii 96815 'TABLE,,OF,CONTE NT i. Acknowledgement ii.Authors 1. Summary.of Findings 2. Recommendations 3. Introduction A. Existing Conditions 5. Coal in the Pacific 6. Transshipment 7. Coal Centers S. utilizations Systems 9. References 10. Appendixes FIGuRES &.TABLES ILI/ ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS TheResearch Institute of the Pacific.Basin Development .Council is indebted. to many individuals, government agencies, institutes and the private sector for assisting and encouraging this study.to go forward. Of special recognition are Mr. Raymond,Jenkins, whose extensive knowledge of the coal industry contributed much to the sections on coal transshipment centers and coal utilization; Dr. Walter Miklius, a transportation economist, who developed the economic model for cost-ben*efit of coal transshipment; and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, who shared their expertise and experiences in the cost and design of ports and harbors in the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands. This. study could not have been realized without the financial and logistical support of the Coastal Resources Management Office of the Planning and Budget Office of the CNMI Government. The authors are responsible for the accuracy and the usefulness of this document. Marcelino, K. Actouka Project Coordinator Abbreviations Btu British thermal unit CNMI Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands DOE Department of Energy DOI U.S. Department of Interior DWT Dead Weight Ton EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency HECO Hawaiian Electric Company JPN Japan k I kilo 1,000 m i meter MBtu Million Btu Mt metric ton Mt/y metric ton per year' Mw megawatt = 1,000 kilowatts electricity, nm a nautical miles NSW New South Wales, Australia PBDC I Pacific Basin Development Council QSLD Queensland St short ton t/h ton per hour TIN Tinian TTPI Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands Authors ;Marcelino.K. -Actouka' Project-Coordinatort Research Institute of the.Pacific Basin Development Council, B.S., Electrical Engineering; Masters in Urban and Regional Planning; and Ph.D. Candidate at the University of@Hawaii. Former Energy Planner for the U.S. Trust Territory of the Pacific;Islands. Raymond W. Jenkins t Mining Consultant. B.S., Mining and.Metallurgy, University of North Dakota. Currently consultant to the State of Hawaii Department of Planning and Economic Development (Manganese Nodule Mining and Processing) and Dillingham Corporation. While with Ralph M. Parsons provided engineering and.construction advise in development of phosphate, sulphur and coal ventures in U.S. and various foreign countries. ,Dr. Walter-Miklius, Ph.D.., .,Economics, University of California at Los Angeles. Transportation-Economist, Professor, Department of Economics, University of Hawaii. Recently completed a special assignment with the U.S. Department of Transportation in Washington, D.C9 Planning Branch, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Pacific Ocean Division a Port and Harbor Cost Estimates and Preliminary Design. Conduct of reconnaissance and design work for CNMI-ports and harbors.. 1 Summary of Findings The,geographic location of'the CNMI in relation to. the principal C04.1 shippi,ng..ro'utes- to Japan from.Australia, South Africa and South America make the CNMI an economically logical site for a coal*c'enter. A coal center comp'lex includes facilities for the transshipment of coal from the 150,000 OWT long haul colliers to 60,000 OWT or smaller colliers for'delivery to the consumers ports. Stockpiling area for four million tonnes with provision for blending would be Ancluded in the complex. The coal handling equipment for unloading, stockpiling and blending, reclaiming and shiploading operating rates and environmental control facilities would be comparable to the most modern Australian terminals. An analysis of potential users fo r this facility reveals that the Japanese electric utility industry has an adequate demand base not met by present provisions for coal delivery*to utilize the total services of a complex. The contemplated use rate is twelve million tonnes per year or.twenty percent of the Japanese 1990 utility coal demand.* The economic viability of the facility is based on the value of the services rendered to the user. The potential savings on ocean freight rates by combining 150jOOO OWT colliers for three quarters of the distance with smaller col'liers to deliver coal to the utility consumers.will largely pay for the u.se of the facility. Mal lack$ 160' Wr sow RIO/, awk ;,@U ALIUIIAN ISLANDS KOREA J N Coal Destinations in Japan. CHI list COAL CENTER IN CNM.T IAIWAH hAWA11AN 200 --------- ISLANDS M4040ne IF Otto$ 1K 00 'G iNf Coal fr"om Australia Sao" 200 TRALIA, "Cooli . . . . . . . . . . . 12(r Figure.l. Coal Transshipme*etween,Australia and. Japan x x Th i si s of course dependent on expendious coal handling. The stockpiling and blending capabilities are an added indugement of major consequence to a potential user. Economic viability of the concept based on "order of magnitude" capital cost of $50M ind.icates that with projected fees similar to other terminal fees of $2.50/tonne and a 12 MT annual turnover the revenues would be $30M. Land.rent of $0.80/T.or $10 M would revert to the Government of CNMI. $6.OM would apply to amortization. Operating costs would be in.the order of $14M/year. One hundred persons would be directly employed indirect employment affecting 300 persons. Opportunities for supporting service companies would be generated. A tentative location lying south of the DOE reserve area on the island of*Tinian has-been used in these projections. The land requirement contiguous to a potential harbor site is in the order of 500 acres. A potential site for an offloadi'ng pier and a loading pier with depths of 55 ft. (16.7m) appears to be available. Additional benefits of a coal center would include availability of relatively cheap coal for transshipment to Saipan, Guam and other nearby islands. A coal fired power plant to provide power for the center could include capacity to service the military facility and a cable to Saipan. Alternative transshipment concepts were studied. The.conclusion Was that these concepts. were not viable 'at afee structure attractive rigure 1. Coal Transshipment Functions and Locations Locations Australia Saipan. Canada Rota :United States Tinian South America St nriard Larger than Pa Standard 2'@aa@ndard Smaller than P Functions Smaller tha Pan ..Coal Larger than Coal Center for Exporting Panamex.coal unloading/stock- Shipment to whe .Countries Transshipping piling/mixing/ are shallower a and Vessels loading and sdpace is limit Exporting 6hipping the self-unload Ports - ------- and. powerplant where docking a facilities are rl@@a *Note: In this report, calculations are.based on Tinian Harbor as a potential AW x X to potential users. The quality of essent.ial services required by .,.any,potential user requires,an'investment level that precludes Hities. smaller faci Theuse of coal to fuel future extensions of the Saipan electric able. Expending generation facili@y appears to.be economically desir installation of coal fired units may be justified. Use of existing internal combustion units for future.standby @ould enhance the quality of service available to the community. The potential of cable service from a large facility located-at the coal center w ould be preferrable. Table Site Selection Criteria and Required Characterixtics far Coal Cente Channel/harbor Depth Stockpiling/ Roads/ut (55 feet minimum) Blending Area 1 (500-700 acres.) Site Existing Dredging Cost Avaiahle Existing Saipan 2 .Charlie Dock no high no*- yes 3 Obyan no high yes no Rota West Harbor. no high no yes East Harbor no high no yes Tinian San Jose no low yes yes Note: 1. Refer.t@o Corp of Engineers CoS6 of Dredging of Harbors on Saipan, Tiniar 2. Land is avaiable on Saipan but not.close to the Charlie Dock,for convey coal from ship to stockpiles and back to ship for,export. 3. Obyan is also included in the sites as it has been considered for potent oil transshiping point and the two activites as they are comp,@Atible can the infrastractCire which will reduce capital and operation/maintenance c MW The -.'site visit to 'th@e'-N,orth,er'n'Marianas and the oiscuss.ions during my October. trip have resulted in the following findings which in general support the concept of,the coal transshipment center in CNMI. 1.. Through.discussions/interviews with the leaders of'the executive, legislative and the priv,ate sector, it was found that there is agenuine support for both the assessment of the feasibility of coal transshipment through the CNMI islands and if proven economic and technically feasible to the eventual construction of the infrastructure to support the transshipping activities. It was further indicated that both support can be forthcoming in the forms of resolutions or to be more concrete, funds can be allocated. 2. It was disclosed that as early as six years ago, the Government of CNMI has seriously considered the use of steam coal for power generation and went on to invite two Australian firms to assess the.possibility of initiating a steam power plant. 3. The idea of transshipment is not new. Both the private sector and the government have been approached by Japan, the consumer of steam coal and South Africa, the supplier of coal for a coal transshipping center in CNMI." The two are not directly related, but it shows that both the supplier and the consumers believe that there is a good possibility for a transshipping center on the Pacific.- 4.' For most part land, especially flat and close to the dock/harbor areas,are scarce and are in general already designated for specific purposes (e.g. small industry, commerci al and farming activities military retention and conservation), however, officials of.the Marianas Public Land'-Corporations.and.others have indicated that if coal transship prove to be..moy@e. economical (i.e. can provide jobs and. revenues) , there is a.good -possibility.that priorities can be adjusted. In regards to. military retention areas, there is a provision in the agreement that will,allow both joint use of land and the construction and use of the shore areas for ocean related activities. This will allow the construction of port facilities and harbor in the retention areas, especially on Saipan by Charlie Doch and Thinai Harbor area. 5.' The frequent power outages and the ever increasing cost of imported oil for power generation (CNMI is budgeting $7 million out of Ats $33 million the.1983 FY Budget for power plant fuel) have contributed to the governments interest in assessing other sources of fuel. Though efforts are being expended in-the indigenous regarding resources, for the mid-term.period, coal is becoming a more acceptable option for'the officials of CNMI. 6. The officials on Rota are concerned about the lack of private sector jobs which have contributed to the continued out-migration of the young and educated population to Guam and Saipan. A coal transshipping activity was seen as both a potential economic boost to the depressed area and a means of attracting people to stay on the island. Secondary, jobs and commercial activities are hoped to help defer the already stagnant government sector and the non-competitive agriculture ventures. The two ports, East and West Harbors are not in any condition to handle even small vessels. There are no piers, storage warehouses, cranes and forklifts. The East is too exposed to the open ocean. The West has shallow and very narrow channels and the currents at high tide are.hazardous'-to-moving as.well 'as- anchored vessels. The Corps of Engineers,currently 1 et out bids to improve the West Harbor-faci.lities. From the des,ign.crite,ria. and the physical constrains, the new improvements will not allow ships of 50,000 DWT to off-load coal. In addition, both docks have no large flat surplus areas adjacent to the docks. Disregarding the Military Lease on Tinian, the island offers the most ideal channel, harbor and land area. Most of the island is flat at very low.elevation and lack major infrastructures. The roads and the old air fields used during the World War II are still in excellent condition. The small town is close to the dock but not in the way for any major expansion of warehousing, machine shops, stockpiling and movement of coal. Currently the major commercial activities are farming in which Pacific Energy of Japan is growing sourcrom for alcohol and the cattle/dairy farm. Both are compatable with-the coal storage center in that the center will basically use the shore area and will not use the agriculture and crazing land needed for the other two commercial activities. It was also pointed out that if transshipping is proven to be more economical, the land used priorities can be readjusted. The island leaders are also interested in encouraging people to stay on the island -by providing more meaningful and challeng ing jobs which'the center c. ould create. The.location.of a stockpiling center on Tinia.n could also be.an .,advantage.to th.e.islands of Guam.(who have indicated that it is,considering possible conversioh-of power generation to steam coal*from.the curre.nt low grade oil used) and Saipan. Depending on the Defense plans for the utilization of half of Tinian, a coal steam power plant could both be an asset to the military and a reliable source of power for the dairy plant, alco hol p rocessing plant and the people of Tinian. And with the steam coal stockpile on island, a more secure source of electricity could be attained. 7. It was also verified that there are at least two oil companies that are considering the potential for oil transfer/storage activities in CNMI. The possibility of such plans, in concert with the coal transshipping center, could provide a unified and reliable source of jobs, revenues and source of energy for the CNMI. A number of-sites are possible, two on Saipan, two on Rota and one on Tinian. 8. In.the CNMI, there is no labor union and officials at this point do not envision one emerging. The labor laws also have exemptions for the minimum wage for laborers. These two facts are advantageous to coal transshipping activities that will require reliable work for scheduled times and as low as possible the additional handling fees for .transferring storage and ship loading. 9. All the three major power plants in Saipan, Tinian and Rota are.within 100 yards of the water line. This could beadvantageous for steam coal unloading and cooling of the power system if future plans call for coal steam generation. 10. The depth of water(less than 1,000 ft) and the distance between point Ushi on Tinian and Puntan Agigan on Saipan is about 2 miles-and most of it is in waters about 500 feet. There is a potential for a 50 megawatt power plant Iodated on Tinian, if a coal center is placed there, to power both islands with a D.C. marine cable linking them. Recommendations Recommendations Based on the findings of this study, the Government of .:,the CNMI should take the following steps to verify the economic and engineering viability of a coal center on one of its islands. l.-Identify and contract a coal/port consulting firm with experience in Australia, Japan, and the.U.S. to conduct the following tasks.- a. Verification of coal trade and market opportunities in the Pacific Rim countries; b. Based on economic and engineering assessmentt select a site for a coal center and provide detailed cost estimates and engineering drawings for channel, port, handling, storage and blending infrastructure. c. Conduct an indepth economic/engineering assessment of secondary industries, such as cement, ammonia, desalination and agriculture. 2. Contract an independent firm or government agency to carry out both environmental and social impact assessments of a coal center and secondary industry as a result of the center in CNMI. 3. With.the-resi-ilts of the first two tasks, assuming that they' are positive, solicit and-negotiat'e financing jointly from: U.S. Congress, Japanese power industry, and the Auistralian coal industry. 4. Develop land lease agreements and tax incentives that will both provide revenues for the CNMI government and also be comparatively advantageous and beneficial enough to attract outside capital and investment in CNMI. nt roduct ion X Introduction 1. Problem statement: The CNMI, as a newly emerging self-governing' entity, is aggressively pursuing asociety,where decisions as well. as revenues for the running and maintaining of government and other public and private services can be locally generated and controlled. There are, however, a number of constraints that the CNMI government is currently faced with and it is investigating various means@to overcome them. The major ones are.- 1.. Natural Resources: Land, a precious commodiiY limited to a total of 184.51 square miles, of which 47.46 square miles is on Saipan where close to 90% of t.he population resides. Water, espectally potable water, on Saipan is obtained from underground water lenses., This both impedes the development of agriculture, urbanization and, commercial activities that require large quantities of fresh water. 2. Economic.Base: The government is the largest employer, with 51) % of the labor force in 19%6. As the private sector is still in its early development stage, government is still providing such basic services as health care, water and electricity. 3. Federal Government and Foreign Investment: Since the CNMI separation from the Trust Territory of the Pacific'Islands, federal aid has been increased, which in turn has been 'accompanied by various federal laws, rules and regulations which in some cases could discourage potential foreign investors. Efforts by both branches of the government, x especially'the*Northe'rn Mariana Islands Commission on Federa-1 Laws, have been undertaken-in studying and making recommendations on such legislation as: the Clean Air Act, the Ocean bumping Act, the Coastal Zone Management Act, the Rivers and Harbor Act, the Federal Power Act, the Deep Water Act and 'the Ocean Thermal' Energy Conversion Act. There are a number of ways to address these general problems. The government of the CNMI foresa.w that there is no stngle or simple solution to employment, transportation, energy, water, agriculture, health, training,'and housing-and so it launched a number.of.s-tudies, assessments, and economic and engineering feasibility studies. Ports. And small harbors, oil storage, fisheries, tourism, alternate energy and coal transshipment studies are but a few. These efforts are being carried out by an interdisciplinary group of indivi-duals, government agencies and private consultants to-*ens.ure that engineering, economic, environmental and social issues are weighted equally in the assessments as well as in the recommendations. ost Estimates of Dredging of Harbors on nian and Rota, Table Saipo Ck Qc4rA Location Channel. Turning Basin Estim Veet) (feet) (in Depth Width Length Radius Depth Saipan Charlie Dock 40 500 9,400 800 4o 20,00 50 530 9,500 1,000 50 35,00 60 600 9,500 1,300 60 71,00 Tinian San Jose 50 530 not given not given 50 2.5,00 .(not enough area) Ro ta 50 4,00 West Harbor 50 530 not given not given (not enough area) *Note: The given depths correspond to the, following design vessels: 40 feet .700 feet ore carrier or 50,000 DWT 50 feet 900 feet ore carrier or 125,000 DWT 60 feet 1,200 feet ore carrier or 160,000 DWT 55 feet Draft and 150,000 DWT is used in'the costs estimates for Tinian Coal Cen Source: Corps of Engineers Preliminary Cost Estimate, February 13, 1983. 1. Backgrouhd' The continued efforts of th6 Government of the Commonwealth of the.Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI)'to stimulate economic development and alternate energy resources and the utilization.of the available experts, institutions, and agencies led to the Research Institute of the ...--Pacific Basin Development Council (PBDC) a contract to tarry out a Coal Movement in the Pacific Basin Study. By the letter of May 28, 1982, the CNMI government specified the scope and the type of*assessment to be done by PBDC.. Following is*the scope of work: SCOPE OF WORK 1. Brief history of coal in the Pacific. 2. Identification of present coal-related Pacific shipping routes, shipping c6mpanies, support industries, projected traffic and tonnage volumes. 3. -Analysis of.plans and projects concerning coal movement in the Pacific with special emphasis placed on those which may-be of significance to CNMI interests.' the report will discuss related plans and projects of.'Japan, China/Taiwan, Korea, United States, Pacific Islands, Canada, Australia, and other island areas. 4. Identification of potential coal uses and associ.ated primary and secondary industries. Primary focus will be placed on those which could reasonably be expected in the CNMI or those regions which might affect the CNMI. Discussion/correspondence,with coal industry interests concerning the.-poss-ible opportunities.pre-sented by the CNMI's. lobation adjacent to coal movement routes' 6. Short-term, mid-term, long-term future possibilities of' coal usage in the CNMI. Identification of demands on CNMI resources (including financial, natural, physical and human) from primary and secondary coal-r@elated activities (e.g., land size and type, port and harbor, utilities, government services, labor, etc.). 8. Identification and evaluation of the positive and adverse economic, social and environmental impacts. A discussion of the impact of coal usage upon development of indigenous energy sources will be included. Special attention will be paid to imports which the CNMI could reasonably expect. 9, Regional issues and opportunities for regional cooperation. 10. Summary Report of Findings. 2. Study Objectives, There have been numerous studies and, as some officials have said "We have been studied to decith", in the U.S. territories and CNMI in particular. Inf.ormulating the study approach for the Coal Movement Study, five objectives were identified in the earlier stages of the work, so that as.it progresses, it will not lose sight of what the CNMI government wanted. The objectives are also essential to the direction and justification for future detailed economic, engineering, social, and environmental feasibility studies of.coal transshipment and potential use in the CNMI. This type of analysis will prevent the expending of limited.manpower and funds on the early scoping of the assessment; it wil 1. also provide a.more.reasonable and efficient method of.further. analys.is,if'this first phase-indicates some potential economic!benefit in coal.transshipment in the CNMI.. Following are the stated study objectives: 1. To verify the economic, engineering, and environmental vi,ability of coal transshipment in the CNMI. 21. To identify the potential economic benefits of coal transshipment. 3. To assess the economic trickle-down effect of coal transshipment. 4. To identify and validate the economic, engineering. and environmental viability of coal utilization in the CNMI.- 5. To establish/reject the need to.conduct a detailed engineering, economic, and environmental analysis of coal transshipment. and coal utilization in the CNMI. 3. Study Approach Coal transshipment is a multi-function activity, and it requires, an integrated approach. Transportation, engineering, economics, environmental, and social factors must be evaluated and correlated. In addition, a number of individuals, institutions, and government agencies in the past have studied the potentials and the resource availability and need for the various factors. To integrate the expertise and the findings,*the Research Institute of PBDC, through the Project Coordinators has contracted as consultants a coal mining engineer and a transportation economist, and has secured the assistance of the U.S. Army Pacific Division Corps of Engineers (letter of September 3, 1982) in the study. Each of the four participants is*r'esponsible for a specific part of the study. Following are summaries of the responsibilities' of the parties: .PBDC:.-, Project@c@oordination,@development of the recommendations, @compilation and storage'of data, and the'preparation of the general narratives. It will also provide liaison between the investigators and the CNMI government. Coal Consultant: Development of the section on transportation, handling, -storage and utilization of coal. Transpor tation Economist: Assessment of the economics of coal transshipment, the labor requirements, generation of secondary industry, and competitiveness of transshipped coal. Corps of Yngineers: Calculation and provision of preliminary design criteria for harbors and channels that can handle large vessels. This approach gives a wide access to the latest plans, technologies and regulations that could impact the transshipment and utilization of coal in the Pacific Basin. 4. Issues and Concerns While: it might at first glance look attractive and logical, close evaluation of coal transshipment raises a number of issues and concerns. Though the study is not structured to provide answers.to each of these issues, it is believed that the investigators, should at least be cognizant of.them. -The list could be expanded, but for the purposes of generating awareness of the alternatives and potential impacts of coal transshipment, the following issues will be sufficient. This itemized list also forms the foundation of our inquiries in this study. CID The Northern Mariana Islands are not lo cated in the most direct I@.,shipping lanes. for Canadian or U.S. coal. However, they -are close to coal existing'Australian and potential New Zeal,a.nd routes. a@, Why,w9uld shipping firms're-route their ships through the Nolrthern.Mariana Islands? b. What are the additionallcosts of bunkering and resupplying coal ships in the Northern Mariana Islands? c. What are the potential benefits to the Commonwealth.of the Northern Mariana Islands? The Northern Mariana Islands are located in a Pacific Ocean typhoon zone. @a. What degree of safety and/or protection can be assured or provided if it is determined that this type of weather condition will have an adverse impact on the coal carriers? b. How much impact would adverse weather conditions have on the scheduling, arrival, and departure of ships and the loading and unloading of coal in the Northern Mariana Islands? The channel depths of the Saipan, Tinian, and Rota harbors are about 30 feet; normally, 50,000 dwt (dead weight ton) vessels which draw about 40 feet of water are used for coal shipments. For transshipments of coal, 100,000 200.000 dwt ships are being considered. a. With the Federal government's emphasis on full (100%) local financing of poe.t constructi .on and possibly of. operat ions and maintenance (including dredging), how 'Coal Transhipment Figure --- Proposed :Deep-Draft Harbors for. f440 farallon do pajorcs JURACAS) 0 acre WAUG -too ASUNCION 120 do SAN eGRIHAN RANc3ca PAGAN oc WAXPILA G .0000OLLPLU ALAMArAN ROTA---- _GUGUAN SARI"N 4's =ANATAHAN rARALLON DE MEDINILLA ISO MARIANAASLANDS SAIPAN Is's INIAN AG JAN ISLAND SIZE PROJECT SIT ROTA NOT To SCALE 140 -140 GUAM STATUIC MILIES aETWEEN ISLANDS 1440 1W COMMONWiALTH OF 1'n' NORTMERN MARIANA ISLANDS LOCATION MAP JAN EVROIA U. S. ARMY ENGINEER DISTRICT;, HONOLULU .,will the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana.1slands obtain. sufficient funding for the-additional c.onstruc- tion.'and maintenance costs' if these (larger)'coal ships are used? bi If,on& of the major functions'of re-routing' to the Northern Mariana Islands is for stockpiling and transshipment purposes, how caft the needs for deeper and larger ports, larger turning basin areas and facilities, and larger stockpiling areas on shore be met? IV. Guam was recently approached by a private interest to provide bunkering facilities to refuel commercial ore and coal carriers. However, it should be noted that the Territory of Guam government has not shown any official interest in actual coal transshipment. a. What impact, if any, would the potential Guam venture have on the potential transshipment and storage operations in the Northern Marianas? b. What economic, political, environmental, labor, and other resource advantages does the Northern Marianas have over Guam? c. Can such large ships be refueled in the Northern Marianas? d. Will the existing oil supplier (Mobil Oil/Micronesia) be willing to expand its services to accommodate these potential new clients? V. Coal dust pollution, run-off, and leaching into. the water lense are of great concern to the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands. a, What reprocessing, and/or enhancing of coal can be carried.out in the Northern Marianas? b.. Wh,at,additional resources, facilities, and'manpower would be required by these activities? c. Can'these additional resources, facilities, and/mappower be obtained.in the Northern Mariana Islands? d. Given that past experiences have shown that island, sentiments are against oil storage and nuclear waste dumping, what would be the feelings of the CNMI citizens and government regarding coal storage? e.. Would there be any change in the attitudes if there were some direct benefit from the use of raw and/or processed products in economic development activities? VI. China and the Soviet Union are potential suppliers of coal. In fact, Japan in providing financial and technical assisiance for coal production to China so that Japan can import the, China coal surplus. a. If the demand for U.S., Canadian, and Australian coal diminished after the Northern Marianas' ports were expanded to accommodate coal ships, what other uses for these ports would there be? b. Would end users allow their coal supply to be tied or further controlled by the United States by its stockpiling in the Northern Mariana Islands? VII. Currently, there.is a significant foreign labor force being imported to provide construction, maid services, bar-restaurant servic.es, and to do other. semi- and skilled work on Saipan. This has resulted in.a lesser rate of retention of new capital in the islands. a Would.1hcrease.d coal.'activities increase the.demapd.lor foreign labor? @.VIII. In general,,steam coal (for power generation) is in higher demand than metallurgical.coal (for ore smelting), although Japan's interest in both types must be taken into consideration. a. Besides-electrical power generation, what other primary and secondary uses can be identified?- Ix. Elected officials in the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands have requested termination of the U.S. trusteeship of the Trust Territory-of the Pacific Islands. as soon as possible. Upon termination, certain Federal laws which have not-applied to the Northern Marianas in the past will become applicable. The application of the Jones Act will bar foreign vessels from carrying cargo between American ports. Current reports indicate that most bulk carriers are non-U.S. vessels. a. What impact will the termination of the trusteeship and concomitant application of certain previously nonappli- cable Federal laws have on potential coal movement to the Northern Marianas? b. What impacts would post-trusteeship application of. Federal trade and tariff regulatiorls (and fees) have on potential coal transshipment activities in the Northern Marianas? X. Japan is diversifying its coal sources so that strikes and other delays will not interrupt a c onstant, reliable flow of coal to Japan. a.- What are the implications of unionized labor, strikes, and. other,operational disruptions for the use of coal facilities and services in the North@rn Maria@os? b. What potential is there in the Northern Marianas for preventing strikes and other operational disruptions which would impact constant, reliable shipment of goods from the Northern Marianas? .5. Design Study Criteria The flexibility and the possible large combination of vessel sizes, channel depths, coal throughputs, different harbor sites, and many other variables require that a set of designstudy criteria be selected. The channel depths and vessel characteristics chosen are hypotetical but correspond closely to the existing coal vessels from Australia. The throughput is based upon the coal consumption of Japan and the current load/unloading capacity at Pier G at Long Beach Harbor. THree potential sites have been designated, based upon the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' reconnaissance studies of 1980: Tanapag -Rota-Harbor on Rota, and Tinian Harbor on Tinian. Harbor on Saipan,' Tanapag Harbor improvement/expansion costs will be done for three different depths K-O, -50, and 60 feet) to accommodate vessels of dead weight tons (dwt) ranging from 50,000 to 150,000. Rota and Tinian will be limited to 50,000 dwt only. On stockpiling for transshipment, calculations (Hicks: .1972: 3 363) will be limited to 1,500,000 metric tons storage capacity with the assumption that transshipment will not permit the total throughput of 3 mt to be stored at one time.*" A BRIEF HISTORY OF COAL IN THE PACIFIC This -h i s tory., is der.ived from research on the indLkstrial us@' of coal in the Hawaiian Islands, the Northern Marianas, Guam a,nd-Japan. A limited amount of material was found on coal imports to Hawaii!in the. period from 1850 to 1945, very little information is available on coal in the Northern Marianas and Guam, and extensive information is available on coal imports to Japan since 1940. The Japanese history is @important since it is the background of the present and future dominant sector of the Pacific coal trade. HAWAII Introduction of coal in significant quantities into Hawaii coincided with the mechanization of the sugar industry by the introduction of the centrifuge and the import of Scottish sugar machinery in the early 1850's. This equipment required drive lines, steam engines and boiler plants. Cane was gathered from the fields and transported to the plants.on narrow gauge railroads with small, coal fired locomotives. Steam powered ships were also introduced into the 'Island trade about this same time. The world's navies were also being converted to steam and required coaling,stations to ensure their mobility. The earliest source of coal was as ballast in sailing ships en route from the Pacific Northwest to the orient. Later a lively trade developed in hauling,lumber from the Pacific Northwest to Australia and backhauling coal to Hawaii. A coal discharge dock was built in Honolulu by the Oahu Railway and Land Company in 1890. The U.S. Navy opened a coaling station that was later upgraded to a Naval Station known as Pearl Harbor. The importance of the coal trade is evidenced by its inclusion in the Reciprocity Negotiations of 1848 between the Kingdom of Hawaii and the United Itates., S+ The Hawaiian Electric Company opened.its,first coal fired generating plant in 1894. Coinc,idental to the peaking of the coal trade was the development of,the Signal Hill oil field in Southern California and the Union,Oil.Company's-search for markets. In 1903 three of.the, largest sugar.plants.on Oahu agreed to use oil in place of coal. The. Union Oil Company introduced the progenitors of the modern tanker fleets,to serve this market. By the end of World War II in 1945, the conversion of coal to oil fired plants and ships reached the point where coal was no longer imported. The OPEC oil embargo and the higher price structure for oil occasioned a review of energy sources in Hawaii starting in 1973. Jhe studies proceeded slowly for several years, until the cement plants were threatened with serious price competition from west coast plants which had changed over to coal under Federal orders. The cement plants completed their refit to coal in 1979. The Hawaiian Electric, Company commissioned a study by the Stearns-Roger engineering firm In 1978. The study developed the conclusions that the use of coal in Hawaii'was feasible from a "logistical,, technical and operational standpoint". The study cautioned that, "The environmental and economical aspects need additional study as their potential impact on the Hawaiian Islands is considerably greater than for most any other area of the United States". The study goes on to point out that at the then cost of (Colorado) low sulfur washed coal delivered to Oahu of $2.44/MBtu, coal was competitive to the then cost of o-il on the same basis or $M7/MBtu. Current estimated cost of coal on the same laid down basis, but using was.hed Australian low sulfur coal is $2.50/MBtu. The average HECO fuel cost for oil in 1981 was $6.59. It should be noted that the plant described in the Sterns-Roger study.would meet the same emission. GUAM AND THE NORTHERN MARIANA ISLANDS Coal usage in other Pacific Islands has been difficult to establish. There,seems. to ba,ye'been,almost no industrial development.o.uring the. Spanish occupatio.n.of the.islands. After cession Guam received scant attention by th U.S. until-just before the start of World/--War II. At that time there were plans to tend the. USS Gold Star to the Philippines to bring back a-load of coal for the power house and for local business houses. (Paul Carano, 1964). -It is likely that during the intensive agricultural development that took place during the occupation of the Marianas by Japan that coal may have been used on the cane railroads or in the sugar@plants. Coaling stations established by the U.S. Navy were located at the following ports: Philippines: Olangapo and Cavite Japan: Yokohama Guam: Apra Alaska: Sitka Hawaii: Honolulu American Samoa: Tutuila. JAPAN The largest volume of coal trade in the Pacific has been to meet Japanese import requirements for their steel industry. The following table shows the principle suppliers of coking coal to Japan from 1940 to 1980 and the rounded quantities supplied: Japanese*.Coal Imports From Coking Coal Manuals 1966t 1976t 1981 (000 tonnes) bianchu'-.-. Soviet So. Year ria China U. S. A. lia Canada -Union @oland Africa 194o 741, 2#395' 1945 238. 262 X950 531. 75 59' .1955 lo4. 29364 10 65 1960 4t988 19194 564 437.:' 1965 475 6 9 904 69620 873 19149 1970 1 259345 l4o749 4t242 29489 941 1975 219227 219272 109961 2t860 1,104 193 1980 14,ooo .26,ooo lo.ooo 1.6oo 4oO 2v500 The flexibility and skill with which the Japanese procurement policy was implemented is indicated by the fact that the major part of imported coal is from coal fields not in production before 1955. These coal fields and the necessary infrastructure were financed internationally with minimum Japanese funds. The installations are modern and efficient and have resulted in very. competitive prices. The Japanese government controlled the procurement program through MITI in a manner that prevented the users from competing for the supplies and bidding up the price. When the Vendors' governments tried to equalize the negotiating process or increase the cash flow from the sale of their resources, the Japanese shifted or threatened to shift their procurement*sources. Japanese domestic coal production reached a level of 56 Mtly during World War 11. -Production fell to 20 Mt in 1946, gradually increasing to 55 Mt in 1965. Since then, production has steadily declined to the.20 Mt/y level whi.ch is expected to be maintained for. the next 20 years. The.Japanese did not import.thermal coal' before the'oil embargo. Their policy was'to increase oil and liquid natural gas im'orts for p use.in new thermal plants.- After the embargo, the policy was, quickly modified and,they implemented a thermal coal utilization program. The cement.industry and paper and pulp companies have completed their changeover and increased coal imports from nil in 1975 to 8 Mt in ..1980. Utilities were less than 2 Mt in 1980 but are expected to increase their imports to 15 Mt in 1985. Total thermal coal imports are expected to-increase to 22 Mt in.1985. E xisting Conditions C' sessment On-Site Evaluation and As of the Coal Transshipment Potential in the.Pacific 'Basin: Sai.pan,'.Tinian and Rota The on-site evaluation and assessment is.an essential component of the Coal, Movement in the Pacific Basin Study. As the engineering, economic and environmental analysis is being-,carried out ini Honolulu, Hawaii, the existing conditions (i.e. social, political, economic, and environmental) on Saipan, Tinian and Rota had to be valida ted. To bring .reality to the study, the-on-site visit tried to evaluate and assess the following: ..1. The conditions and future plans for harbors, ports,, on-shore facilities; 2. Land availability and policies; 3. Labor needs, regulations, union movement; 4. Economic conditions: role of transshipment in the long-range economic goals; S. Power plants: conditions, operation and maintenance costs and potential use of coal and its impacts on environment and renewable resources developments; 6. Acceptability of coal transshipment and utilization: political, social, and environmental; 7. Barriers/impediments to coal transshipment and utilization: technical*and social; and 8. Pre-selection of potential sites: criteria and rationale. General Conditions One method of visually assessing the conditions of the ports, harbors and channels was to ride the Marianas Queen., a ferry boat which went from Saipan to Rota and returned via Tinian. 7.. Saipan: Current reports and visual. inspections show that the: Ch.aVlie.Qock on Saipan is experiencing deterioration due to a' ge, typhoon waves,'and other corrosive environment. The ferry boat had no troubl.e maneuvering in the,turning basin and the channel, as it is the main port of call in the Northern Mariana Islands. Space on Charlie Dock is not available and the nearby shore area is being considered for other port-related activities that will prevent and' not be...compatible with coal stockpiling. Some.officials feel that the adjacent lands, flat and non-productive now, should be turned over to the Port Authority. This might prove to be a potential site for coal stockpiling. The most accessible area, "dump site", is under the U.S. military retention area. Again, some officials believe that it could be used for transshipment, as it is po,rt activity-related. Power, sewer, water, telephones, and roads are accessible and no major'utilities.expansion/extension would be needed for transshipment requirements. A master plan for the port and nearby land is underway, but so far the draft has not yet been accepted by the CNMI government. A second potential site is the sea-ramp area by the new power plant. The U.S..Army Corps of Engineers has completed a master plan for a small boat harbor for the site. Currently no funds are available to implement this plan and the docks are deteriorating and grass and small ..trees are overtaking most of the sea plane landing. As the area from the sea-plane ramp to the new power plant. and ".further -on wi th, the, repair shop and'o.ld TTPI warehouse,have been filled An and concreted, 'it is not suitable for agriculture. Production is limited to's,ervices.and repairs. Some officials feel that it should become the center for light-industries (e.g. block making, auto repairs, etc.)-. Again, it was pointed out that if coal stockpiling at this area would generate more revenues and employment, a reassessment and change of priorities could be made. An additional attractiveness of this location i's the close proximity of the docak' and power plant. If the CNMI were to opt for steam generation in the 'future theccost of coal would be relatively low; for land tr4nsportation the cost would be minimal. A well placed and technically competent official supported the stockpiling of coal on a reef-flat adjacent to the power plant with dredged canals as berms. This idea is being tried along the Atlantic Coast. Environmental and economic detail analysis has yet to be done, and if and when it is, this would be the last option for CNMI. A proposed small boat harbor is being planned for the Japanese sea plane. ramp adjacent to the new power plant. Sources indicated that currently there are no.funds to construct the facility. If it is constructed, with the deepening of the channel there is an excellent possibility of delivery of steam coal for power generation to the site. Major coal shipping.companies are using conveyor type self-unloading "buil kcarriers to ship and transfer coal*from a vessel to non-improved s i. te.s-., -S Ki p, to..Iand.-conveyors can be as long as 250 feet. Close working relatio@s be6qeen' CNMI, the Army Corps of.Engineers and coal.shippin .g companies'have.to be established to phase in.the objectives of power generation,.docking facilities and vessel designs. Rota: Currently Rota West and East Harbors have few natural depths and protections (See pictures in the Appendix). Small ships, such as the Marianas Queen, a shall draft river-type ferry, have difficulty in entering, exiting, turning around and docking at the West Rota Harbor. Recently, however, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has contracted the ..International Bridge of Guam to deepen and widen the channel, construct. docks. and causeway connecting the existing island of Anjota to the mainland. During the site visit (See pictures in Appendix), it was verified that there were no warehousing and handling structures at the dock. Most small cargo are handled by fork-lifts on to trucks and pick-ups. Land adjacent to the dock is already occupied by some houses and a small diesel power plant. Nearby lands, some still undeveloped, are high and are already being dedicated to housing, as it is close to the center of town (See Appendix Map of Songsong Village). The East Dock is basically an open non-wave protected jetty. It is deteriorating as a result of its exposure to the bay and.open ocean and the regular typhoon forces and damage. The adjacent land is limited by.the residential, school and. recreational J aci I i ti es already. in place.. Both*the West and E a st.- Dock/Harbors at this time do not have the r.equtred channel depths,. turning basins and land area to.accommpdate (approximately,5 million metric tons of coal per year) coal,for transshipment to Japan and other.Pacific Basin and Rim countries. jhe U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' development of West.Harbor, however, with the use of self-loading coal vessles could improve the role of Rota in coal transshipment in the future. An opportunity that could impact the possible development ofa coal transshipping port on Rota is-the interest of Northville, an il company, to construct a major oil transshipment facil-ity in t :Rota is he CNMI. being considered as a possible site. The exact location of the facility is further up on the northern end of.the island. Some drawbacks of the site include the lack of existing infrastructure (e.g. dock, harbor, housing), roads and utilities. Northville's decision is expected some time toward the end of this year. The recently completed airport and terminal will provide easy access to Rota. The.road construction from the airport to Songsong Village is progressing well. Power, water, and sewer, howevers are not being extended to the airport and the new housing division between the -airport and the town. The Mayor of Rota, Prudencio T. Manglona, and other elected leaders are supportive of labor and revenue generating projects for two major reasons. First, most employed people are working for the government; and second, as job opportunities are limited on-Rota, there is a strong Out-migration,to Saipan, Guam and-other areas. Coal.transshipment is looked upon as a potential incentive to turn :-.the@tide of out-migration, and'as-a trickle down effect, to improve commerce,.tourism and agriculture. Currently, there are only two-hotels (PauPau and the.Blue Penninsula). In contrast to Saipan, fresh spring water is available on.Rota. Large public land areas have not all been designated for specific uses, but are too far from the docks and elevations are too high for single conveyors to transport, reclaim, and stockpile coal. Tinian: The use of Tinian island during World War 11 by the United States as a support base for B-29's that dropped the atomic bombs on Japan has resulted in an excellent paved road, airfieldst and the existing dock and harbor (See Appendix). Two site-visits to Tinian, first by ferry boat Marianas Que6n and by small six and two-passenger planes revealed the excellent conditions of the channel, wave-breakers, docks and piers. Most of the adjacent land has not been developed and is.still overgrown with pine trees and bushes. Though the power plant is less than a mile away, there are virtually no structures (warehouses, cranes, or repair shops) presently located at.the dock. For purposes of coal transshipment, Tinian is ideal. Large harbor and port with potential expansion areas exist. Land is available at close proximity and with low elevation (See Appendix).. A major potential problem is the U.S. Department of Defense' lease option for.-Tinian. It was established in the.CNMI Covenant. The lease w c option will require the use of 18,182 acres which will in lude (See: Appendix)'a good pqrtion.of land and dockage area of Tinian Harbor. The U.S. Congress recently, after some delays, appropriated;more than $30 million for;the lease option. However, officials, especially,of the Marianas Public Land.Corporation, believe that there is a provision in the agreement for-joint use of the land as long as there is no major conflict. This has to be legally and environmentally assessed when specific DOE and coal transshipment plans become more developed. El ectri cPower Generation and Transmission Systems On all of the islands in the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI),-diesel is the main-fuel source for the power plants*. The government owns, operates and maintains.-the power systems.' The. responsibilities are carried out by the Utility Agency within the Department of Public Works. Diesel fuel is-mainly.supplied.by Mobil Micronesia, Inc.. Contract provisions, however, have not been disclosed. A bulk plant is located on Saipan. The Utility Agency is charging customers 3.5 cents per Kwh while it is estimated that power generation costs alone are 7.33 cents per Kwh. To rectify this imbalance, the CUMI government is seeking qualified contractors (Deadline October 22, 1982) to: 1. Design rates for electric power customers; 2. Calculate the total amount of revenue that must be collected by the Utility Agency; and 3. Determine the effects of current and proposed rates on conservation efforts. Saipan Power System: The main power plant is located at Lower Base. It started regular operations in May of 1980. It has three Mitsubishi-Mann generators with the.capacity of 7.3 MWe each at 13.8 kilovolts. A fourth generator will increase the total capacity to 29.2 MW by September of 1983. @rs Projections from various studies for power demands for 1983 vary from.' 18 to 20-@3 MW.* The standby power plant.has two 1,500 KW White Superiors and two 2,856 KW Norbergs. They are constantl.y under various degrees [email protected]/maintenance which has prevented a 100% reliability of power supply to the island power system. Recent reports show,that with the'main power plant utilizing heavy fuel (RFO) and the old plant with high grade diesel, the efficiency difference is close to 70%.!; Heat Rate Efficiency Main Power.Plant 8,570 Btu/Kwh 3.9 8% Old Power Plant 10,340 Btu/Kwh 33.0% *NOTE: Heavy Fuel Oil 138,778.Btu/Gal 'Diesel Oil 127,135 Btu/Gal Power demand is'increasing at a rate of about 10% each year. Power plant operation costs are forecast to be about $7.7 mi'llion. The actual costs will be less because of.the oil glut of this year. For the next. fiscal year, the government has budgeted about $7.2 million out of a total budget of $44.8 million. Tinian and Rota Power Systems: Both islands have smaller land ons (mostly to Saipan and Guam) than areas and out-migrating populati Saipan. The power systems are small diesel systems. For example, the Tinian power plant has two 600 Kw White-Superiors and two 300 Kw Caterpillars. During my visit there, it was observed that some of the generators are down and need major overhaul. In the process is the purchase of a 1,000 Kw Yamaha generator from Japan. This, as in the past, will create problems in operations and maintenance. Spare parts will be expensive and cannot be exchanged among Past the three different manufacturers. experiences have shown-that saore parts form Ja pan are usually'.hard to - secure,on a. timel basis. y The.elected officials, both on Tinian and Rota, are-typing to - institute,wawys.to encourage commercial activities on their islands@ But 'with limited power capacity and reliability, it is imperative that fuel sour. ces are identified and incentives given'to potential energy ventures. Power and Coal Storage Scenarios: In considering coal transshipment, two major.resources are essential: flat land close to port and a good ..harbor. If these conditions are met, an essential benefit of coal transshipment is the use of coal for power generation. Tinian, at this early state of the investigation, has excellent land and a good harbor that cani- also be expanded.. The government officials and.the businessmen on Tinian are in support of the coal transshipment proposal. Two scenarios are economically and technically possible to enhance the power systems on Saipan and Tinian. First, coal can be transshipped -unloading carriers to from Tinian to Saipan on smaller barges or by self Ahe site of the main power plant. Second, and meritorious, is the construction-of a larger steam power plant on Tinian where coal is (assuming that Tinian is th e stockpiling site) already available and a Strong need for power could increase with military use of the lease option.' A 50 MW power plant could*support Tinian and Saipan pow& needs. -Submarine direct cables have been used up to 1,800 feet of water. The State of Hawaii is doing work on submarine electrical cables. Coal in the Pacific TH E CANDIDATE USERS Ole It. i sunl i kely, that aCoal'Center could be financed without firm contracts for,its services at least through the pay out period. To find the.client or clients most likely to make long-term contracts for.Coal Center services it is necessary to study the structure of the international coal trade in the Western Pacific. @Tinsley"(1982) offers the most current and comprehensive information for this purpose. Construction is underway or committed to in Taiwan and Korea for coal receiving facilities. Coal Centers are being planned for Indonesia and the Phillippines. These countries have future domestic mining plans but would initially import coalfor their own use and transshipment to SE Asia. Slater (1982). None of these areas are likely to be markets. for coal passing through Tinian, Japan has the largest expanding demand for coal in the CNMI'trade area. Conversion of the cement and general industry plants to thermal coal is well underway. An active program to increase the coal fired share of power generation from 17,000 GWh 1979 to 96,000 GWh in 1990 is underway. Thermal coal imports for power will exceed the present metallurgical coal imports by 1990. Metallurgical coal imports are expected to increase from the present 60 Mt in 1981 to 80 Mt by 1990. The deep draft and well equipped ports of the coking coal importers now unload the largest bulk carriers. These ports are capable of higher throughputs. The higher capacity will be used fo@ associated public utility companies.@ Metallurgical coal importers are not prospects for a offshore Coal Center. The Japanese cement,industry made the earliest transition to coal. They-lifted 8.3,Mt in 1981 and are not expected to import more than 15 Mt by 1990.'',,The.high ash thermal'coal was landed at existi'hg ports with capacity for'increased imports. Other miscellaneous users import less than 2.0 Mt.- Cement and general industrial users are n6t:likely Coal Center prospects.. The Coal Center would import only low ash,low sulfur thermal. coals. The public utilities of Japan presently import about 5.6 Mt of. thermal power coal mostly from Australia. The 1981 Coking.Coal Manual is the source of the following data concernidg-future public utility plans for coal fired. power.generation: 1/89 Period 198 Construction decided (16 units) 10,350 MW Coal required- 25 Mt Construction undecided (20 units) 14,456 MW Coal required? 32 Mt Total (36 units) 25,806 MW 57 Mt General Industries (4 units) 500 MW Coal required 2 Mt Total coal (less 10 Mt domestic) 49 f4t Shibukawa (1981) offered the following.projections to the members of the Senate Subcommittee on Energy and Natural Resources in Washington on December 1, 1981: The Japanese electric utilities industry plans to start 49 new coal fired units with a total output of 2.4,000 MW in the coming ten years. This will require the importation of 40 to 46 Mt of thermal coal by 1990. Tinsley (1982) reports various 1981 projections of 45.50 and 51 Mt for 1990 and 74.to 82 Mt for 2000. The shift to power generation with coal has serious implications from a sueply ais well as a delivery standpoint.* Japan has experienced frequent and serious supply.d@sruptlons-of coking coal and.iron ore. Th ey.,.a re awa re that they cannot tolerate a nuncertain coal supply'for ut-il.i ties.. They must also obtain the lowest possible cost of coal landed cif plant site.- Since ocean freight'is their most controllable cost, they are looking for economies.in this area. They have recently joined in the financing of overseas port infrastructure projects. They have also studied the steel ports. The Japanese steel industry has taken the initiative in the development of bulk carriers in excess of 100,000 DWT and deep draft ports at tidewater s.teel plants. The steel mills efficient infrastructure incorporating multiple stockpiles and blending are known and have contributed to Japans competitive position in the world steel markets. JAPANS COAL SUPPLIERS Australia is an example of an uncertain supplier of concern to Japan. Australia has large low ash and low sulfur coal reserves, new efficient mines and a newly constructed infrastructure. Australian coal can easily be the lowest cost coals on the Japanese markets, industrial strife has caused frequent severe supply disruptions. The 1981 Coking 'Coal Manual. states that the 1980 disruptions cost the Japanese steel companies $200 million*on the 18 Mt of coal involved. This situation hascaused Japan to rethink its supply relationship with Australian producers and shift to a diversified supply base. 7' The United States. which is major suppl i er of coking coal to.Japan has only recently.upgraded some East Coast ports to reduce congestion.' The major.exp4nsi.on of.thermal coal.production in'the,Western.!states lacks',the infrastructure for export.to the Pacific Rim countries. U.S. thermal.coal cannot be delivered.from the West Coast at competitive prices. West Coast coal could use Tinian Coal Center faci.li,ties especially for'blending. When deeper draft ports create traffic for larger than panamax vessels the coal could be stockpiled for forwarding 'to the utility company ports which have only 14 m (43 ft) draft. Canadian coal development has been centered on coking coal. Thermal'coal is now being developed Canadian infrastructure is efficient with the provincial governments assisting in the development of new resources. Unfortunately, adverse weather and rail grades are serious impediments to the competitive position.of Canadian mines. This could be improved in the thermal power coal market by transshipping through Tinian with the large colliers that Canadian ports can load. THE RECEIVING PORTS Japan uses stockpiling and diversification of coal sources to counter supply interruptions. Both of these strategies increase the requirements for coal handling equipment and the yard space for storage and blending. Most of Japans new power plant sites have marginal space for coal receiving, stockpiling and reclaiming facilities. Their water frontage has limited draft potential. More frequent deliveries by smaller colliers will increase the potential for pollution, discharge id ....penalties and higher I abor cos ts.@ These will 'create higher energy costs @which must be passed on.to-the. consumer. Japan is now constructing three coal 'centers for thermal coal Tinsl@@.(1982)..- These centers will be equipped to efficiently receive coal@from'100,000 to-150,000 DWT coal transports. 'The.y...will be designed to handle throughputs of 8.5 to 10.0 Mtly. They will undoubtably have faci.lities for blending and reloading coal into vessels suitable for their clients facilities on demand. Many of Japans,Utility Companies are owned by major chemical and/or metallurgical groups with large coal handling facilities able to handle increased tonnage of power thermal coal. There are many more of the plants to be built that will need facilitte's beyond the range of the planned Coal Centers and will have to use panamax or smaller colliers from the' export-ports. These new plants could benefit by using a Tinian Coal Center.' To meet the thermal coal import probl em, the Ministry of Transport first considered additional Coal Centers. The heavy expense of c enters, the.shortage of deep draft harbor sites, environmental concerns and the cost of intracountry distribution have caused a reevaluation of Coal Centers. WESTPO (1981) reports that the Ministry chose 20 out of 61 candidate po.rts for expansion or development. This program if completed has an ultimate capacity for utility coal of 48.7 Mt in place by 1990. 11.8 Mt of this capacity is in operation now. Eighteen (18) Mt is scheduled to be commissioned in 1988/89. Only half of the ports for utility coal planned or existing will berth vessels of 100,000 DWT. THE NOMINATED USER, JAPANESE ELECTRICAL UTILITIES Those.-public utility companies in Japan existing or planned that @a r c re not se vi ed by Coal Center that,can receive.150,000 DWT colliers are candidates. for a-1711nian Coal Centers. services. Initiatives.on.- ,behalf,of a-Ti.nian Proposal arejikely to receive favorable consideration 'by .the Transport.Mi ni'stry., -The opportunity to avoid confrotailons in expanding ports,or opening new ports would be apprectated. Auser group would likely be.organized by MITI to negotiate for the se@vices of a Coal Center. The following narrative examines the potential of a Coal Center located on the Island of Tinian, CNMI. The purpose is to determine if the potential opportunity merits in-depth studies. This seems to be indicated by the value to a user of the tangible and intangible benefits. ..These benefits are of the same order as those at new overseas infrastructure bei ng f i nanced in part by.Japanese cooperative funds. A new exporting terminal at the Port.of Los Angeles is the most recent example according to TRAK (1982). The financing arrangement is accompanied by a long-term commitment for port operation. by a'local entity. It is understood.that the citizens of CNMI would only accept the construction of the Coal Center on the basis that it would be environmentally acceptable and economically attractive over the long-term. The greatest potential benefit that a Tinian Coal Center could offer the Japanese group would be to create a signific 'improvement in ant the reliability of supply and delivered cost of thermal coal from Australia. The proposed facility should have the inherent capability to obtain the desired benefits: -*A site-with potential harbor and ground'area, located within nable shipp reaso ing.radius of the coal ports and the utility ports for optimum transshipping benefits at minimum cost. .*A I arge ground storage of stockpiled.coal.,to provide emergency backup to Japan based stock. *A bl.endi.ng capability to enhance the trading oppo@tunities when attractive spot lots of coal suitable for blending are.on the market. *The blending capability would permit the use of lower quality coals with the normal thermal coal when the combined mix would through favorable burning characteristics result in a lower energy cost. *The high unloading, stockpiling, reclaiming and loading rates would improve the utilization of the collier fleet with resulting lower ocean freight. The relatively short haul to the Japanese ports from Tinian-would permit the possible utilization of self unloading ships and other innovative shipping ideas. This potential would be of particular importance to the more remote plants with limited land area. The stockpile would permit scheduling overseas lifting to avoid ports with impending stoppages. The reader is referred to the article on the hew Port Kembla, NSW by Paul Soros (1982). Many of the features of material handling and environmental protection would be appropriate to a Tinian port. This article and other recently published articles by Soros and R. Peckham (1982).provide the basis for.some order of magnitude" estimates of the economic!s of thi-s faci I i ty set out in below: *Constructed cost of coal center based on Port Kembla, NSW data Js. estimated as follows: Site work $ 3.0 M Marine construction 8.0 M Foundations 3.0 M Three stackers 6.0 M Two reclaimers 10.0 M One shiploader 10.0 M Material handling 10.0 M Total $50.0 M *The operating coftson an annual basis and a ten million tonne throughput is estimated as follows: Capital charges $ 6.0 M Operating expense 8.0 M General and Administrative 1.0 M CNMI Land Rent 10.0 M Total and per tonne $25.0 M--$2.50 *Note: Soros, (1982) states that the Conneaut, OH terminal charges for railroad unloading, stockpiling and shiploading is $1.19/st of coal. It charges $1.40/st or iron ore from vessel to stockpile to railroad car. Miklaus (1982) points out that the generally accepted criterion for a feasible facility is that the. expected benefits exceed the associate costs. And further that the private benefits in the form of net savings that accrue to the users of the facility will create the demand for its services. Miklaus has prepared two tables of transport costs for different. Saipan (TIN), and to JPN and TIN to sized vess0s, sai-ling from NSW to '-the amount of delay time.in*NSW harbors. The tables differ- i n' .4i Three scenarios using these-tables are. set out as1ollows: 1. sixty. thousand (60,000)'DWT collier, NSW/JPN 19 waiting days'in NSW. loading port. 150,000 DWT collier same. delays in NSW to TIN, offload and transship by 60,000'-DWT'collier to'JPN. Shipping cost compared using calculated Tin service cost of $2.50/tonne. 2. As above with minimal harbor delays in NSW. 3. As above except one half the differential delay days for 60,000 OWT colliers becau'se of.the large number of that sized colliers using the available port loaders. Three- '%ble treatment for the plus 100,000 is likely to be a favora DWT vessels that utilize the large capacity facilities more effectively. Scenario A B C 60,000 OWT $/t 18.81 12.84 15.84 Less: 150,000 DWT $/t 9.54 6.06 6.06- �0,000 DWT $/t 4.78 4.78 4.78 Tinian charges $/t 2.50 2.50 2.50 SUB TOTAL $/t 16.82 13.34 13.34 Net savings (cost) $/t. 1.99 (0.50) 2.47 The projections above have no reference to the facilities under consideration, the Australian port facilities likely to be used or a- Japanese utility receiving port. The following narrative presents a comparison of the alternate shipping schemes as they might be used. The estimating basis is from J. Sasadi (1982). The Japanese power plant used is Matsushima located on the south :The plant western ti@, of Yyushu.*' has an'output of'1000 MW and requires year@J@-The coal. handling facilities - 2 080.*kt of NSW thermal. coal each i ncl ude a berth wi th '14* mdraf t for 60,000 DWT colliers* Unloading is doneby four-700 t/h units to which has been assigned a 1540 net t/h rate. The.plant has a. 430 ground storage. It is, the, mos.t' modern coal fired unit in Japan and probably represents the standard for future coal fired plants. The queensland (QSLD) and NSW coal ports and their facilities are tabulated below: Berths Vessels Ld Rate Draft/Length QSLD k DWT k t/h M M Gladstone 3 55/60 1.6/4.0 .11.8/ 183/ 17.2 .330 1 120 4.0 :17.2 343 150 4.0/6.0 :16.8/ 342 Hay Point 3 17.7 365 @,Br i s ba ne 1 40 1.2 9.1 191 Bowen 1 16 7.0 167 NSW Port Kembla 1 55 2.0 11.0 472 1 120 5.0 16.3 280 Newcastle 1 55 2.0 11.0 359L 1,(1983) @110 4.0 15.2 540 Z21) Sydney 1 55 1.0 11.0 320 1 35f 1.0f Tinian Scheme Unloading 1 150 204.0 17.2 308 Loading 1 150 6.4 17.2 308 Analysis of the above port data shows that except for Hay Point the largest loading facilities are in the 100 to 120,000 DWT class. There is not likely to be more than two 150,000 OWT loaders available for thermal coal. loading and then only to 100,000 OWT plus vessels. The Joint Coal Board (1981) indicate an intent to see that the NS1+ 100 to .120,000 DWT are used efficiently by larger vessels. They have urged the Japanese to end the stemming of 20 to 30,000 DWT vessels. After a ..,...survey. the Board concluded that the maximum discharge facilities being constructed by the Japanese cement and power companies are in the 60 to 100.000 DWT.range. It appears reasonable to assume that 60,000 DWT ol i cy. The vessels will. be loaded a t the smal I er loaders.as a p most .:.likely loading rate for 60,000 DWT vessels will be-2000 t/h (1400 net) and for-100,000 DWT plus@ 4 to 6000 say 5000 t/h (350& net.). The approach used by Miklaus is similar to that used. by-WESTPO (1981) and.others to examine the O.S. export port situation. This approach assumes that the Japanese buy coal-on a CIF basis.' They are noted for resisting CIF contracts and insist on FOBST. The 1981 Coking. Coal Manual tabulation shows that in 1979, that of the 54 Mt of coal imported, 28 Mt was carried by Japanese Flag vessels, 20 Mt by Foreign Flag Vessels operated by a Japanese shipping company and 6 Mt by Foreign Flag Vessels.. It is common practice in Japan that the Japanese Trading Companies assigned to the'Group, by MITI make the shipping contracts for all coal.l.ifted.by the Group. The commission is a big part of their "take" from the Group for their services. This arrangement is an essential part of their eaw material negotiating procedure. The two companies that negotiate with the selected mines are able to sue a common freight structure. The larger part of the coal lifted to Japan will be by vessels with Japa e crews. Andrews (1978) states that-oriental officered and s manne@ crews cost one fifth American crews and significantly less than European crews. Cost data for Japanese crewed vessels is not presently available. The following costs adapted from the WESTPO (1981) Figure 5.5 is used in the following analysis. Vessel Size, DWT .60,000 100,000 150,000 At sea, k$ 31.6 40.5 47.8 in port k$- 15.9 22.4 - -25.9 .*Not -of steaming fuel costs in port. e: 10%. Comparison. of. Direct. shipping and 'the Tinian alternative.. NSW/JPN NSW/TIN/JPN 0 ptioh Vessel DWT 60,000 60,000 100,000 150,000 Voyage@ -tNSW/JPN TIN/JPN NSW/TIN NSW/TIN, RT nm 8536 2344. 6192 6192 At Sea Days 23.7 6.5 17.2 17..2 ys In Port Da Loadi ng 1.8 0.7 1.2- 2.1 Discharging 1.6 1.6 1.4 Sub total 3.4 2.3 2.6 3. 9 Add 1.7 1.2 1.3 2.0 Total 5.1 3.5 3.9- 5.9 RT Days 28.8 10.0 21.1 23.11Z Voyage Cost At Sea k$ 748 205 679 822 In Port k$ 81 56 87 159 Total k$ 829 261 784 981 Unit cost $/t 13.82 4.35 7.84 6.54 Delivered cost Add TIN/JPN $/t 4.35 4.35 Add TIN Fee $/t 2.50 2.50 Total $/t 13.82 14.69 13.39 Savings (Cost) (1.07) Q1.43' For delay.impact add two sea days and two port days Cost $/t 1.57 1.26 0.98 Total $/t 15.39 15.95 14.37 Savings (Cost) (0.56) 1.02 The cost data developed with the Miklaus' input and the alternate costs in the above table indicate that the utilization of the Tinian coal centers facilities will include a modest savings if the NSW leg is done with 150,000 OWT colliers. If this is the case then the important intangible benefits will accrue to the users without cost. Intangible benefits convert to tangible savings when the coal delivery system is stressed as during 1980. While the loss of business caused by the industrial strife may lead Australian labor to more temperate ways, it is too much to expect that there will not be further supply disruptions in Australia or in North America. he Tinian Coal Center as,presently conceived would have a conservative ht units the size.of Matsushima. -unloader capacity adequate to service eig 2: Between s required.. :At 4 0 even and eight.150,000 OWT colliers would be M -the ground siorage.would. be 500 kt per unit which to the t added 400 k to on site..storage would be about a minimum emergency stock.for a 100% bu@n for"90 days. The Tinian ground storage can-be increased-and.the handling equipment expanded with a modest additional capital expenditure. ADDITIONAL BENEFITS TO THE AREA Low cost coal-for energy or industrial use would become available This could enhance the construction of a coal fired plant in the area.' on Tinian with sufficient capacity to service.the coal center, the military complex and Saipan via cable. Low cost coal for'a Guam coal fired plant and otherAslaM plants would substantial, reduce the energy costs.. The encouragement of service industries associated with relatively heavy ship traffic would provide opportunities for local employment and thedevelopment of.new skills.. The town of Gladstone and Hay Point, ASLD provide examples of this potential economic benefit. IN CONCLUSION Based on this study, it appears that the conclusions of Dr. Miklaus are supported; namely that this potential project has merit particularly in comparison with infrastructure that Is being financed by Japanese Banks as part of their governments policy to.reduce raw material costs by infrastructure improvement.... W7 Transs h i pme nt 1. Introduction The purpose of this task is to.determine if a full scale economic feasibility study of the proposed coal transshipment facility to be located in-the. Northern Marianas.is warranted. To provide a background for the assessment the next section takes a look at the current and the projected pattern of international trade in coal in the Pacific area. According to a generally accepted criterion a facilityis considered feasible if expected benefits generated by the facility exceed the associated costs. However, while the benefit/cost analysis takes into account all benefits,and all costs to whomever they may accrue there will be no demand for services of the transshipment facility unless there are private benefits, i.e., net savings that accrue to the users of the facility. Thus, section supplies rough estimates of probable savings. The net savings estimated in section provide the upper limit to charges for use of the facility. The section investigates the financial viability of the transshipment facility if revenue stream is limited to net savings. The final section provides a brief summary and conclusions. Sources of User Savings If there is to be a demand for services of the transshipment facility there have to be net savings that would accrue to users of the 44w, facility. This section examines two possible sources of these savings-- economies of scale associated.with large size-vessels and assurance of uninterrupted supply of coal at lower cost.@ Savings rom. Utilization of Large Size Ships In most cases the ability to realize economies a.ssoci.ated,with large size 'vessels.is the main source of benefits to be derived from the transshipment facility. For example, the expected sav.ings'due to utilization of 500,000 OWT tankers from Persian Gulf ports' to:. the transshipment facility versus use of 120,000 DTW or 250,000 tankers from- Persian Gulf to destination ports was the basis of the proposal for development of transshipment and storage portat Palau.1/ Although the proposal did not estimate'the net savings-',attributable to the transshipment facility the data supplied allow a rough,estimate to be made. The planned throughput of the facility Was 50 million tons of crude per year and the following freight costs for different tanker sizes were reported:2/ Persian Gulf-Japan Tanker Size--(DWT) ($US/kiloliter*) 36,000 14.61 .89,500 10.24 120,000 9.73 2.50,000 6.93 500,000 5.00 (projected)" *one kl 1000 litres 0.85 metric ton (for Iranian, heavy crude, as an example) Thus, .a very rough estimate of gross savings is equal to the difference in freight costs of transporting 50 million tons of crude in 120,000 OWT or 250,000 DWT and in 500,000 DWT tankers. These savings are $278.5 million or $113.5 million, respectively, or the equivalent of $5.57 or $2.27 per..ton.* The charge for use of transshipment.facility was estimated, at $1.15 per ton. Thus, the net savings to.-the users would total $221 2. Coal Trade in the Pacific Region Coal deposits are muchimore widely distributed.than oil. Thus,. practically all industrialized countries can supply at-least part of their demands. by domestic production. A significant proportion of coal also moves relatively short distances. Nevertheless., the world seAborne trade in coal accounts for a significant proportion of total world trade, having increased'dramatically since the oil crises of 1973-74.' The volume and pattern of the trade in 198O.is shown in Table 2.1. According to OECD (1982), 1981 saw another 4.2% increased over the 1980 volume and totaled some 196 million tons. In the Pacific Basin area Japan, South Korea And Taiwan were the principal-importers and Australia, United ftates, Canada and South Africa were the principal exporters. The volume and pattern of trade in the Pacific Region are shown in Table 2.2. Japan is the largest importer of.coal. In 1981, Japan's imports of coal accounted for.about 40',10' of the world's coal trade and for almost 88% of the Pacific Regionts coal receipts. Japanese coal imports by source are shown in Table 2.3. Currently, most of the coal comes from Australia, followed by U.S., Canada and South Africa. No drastic changes in the share of coal imports by source is.expected in the future. 'Currently, world trade is dominated by trade in metallurgical coal. 1n 1981, metallurgical coal totaled some 117 million tons and accounted for about 60% of total world's seaborne trade of coal. However, it is generally expected that the future coal trade will increasingly consist of steaming of thermal coal used for thermal X x generation of electricity as well as in'some industrial processes (e.g., cement,-paper,-etci). According to available forecasts of overall steam coal trade and oceanborne steam coal trade, shown in Table 2.4 and 2.59 the volume of coal is expecte.d-.to quadruple from the Volume in 1981. According to another'forecast, shown in Table 2.,6, the imports of Pacific Rim countries are expected to increase even at a faster.rate. Japan's imports of steam coal increased dramatically in recent years and this trend is expected to continue into the future. The latest available forecast of steam impcirts by the ultimate user and the long-term forecasts of energy supply are shown in Tables 2.7 and 2.8. Distribution of Japan's imports of steam coal-by source are shown in Table 2.9. Drastic changes in this distribution is'expected in the future. Australia is expected to supply about one-half of Japan's imports. This short overview of the current and projected.pattern of coal trade in the Pacific Region suggests that the potential feasibility of the coal transshipment facility is tied closely to Japan's imports and,.more specifically, to imports of thermal coal. This allows narrowing the focus of the task to this specific aspect. Consequently, the following section looks at the possible gains to users-of the transshipment facility. Since coal contracts commonly specify FOS x x port of origin these gains would accrue to the-importers, i.e., the Japanese. Table _QQ=4 WOMM SEABOR" TRADE IN 1980 In thousand metric tons UK/ ABDITER- OTHER SOUTH JAPAN OTHERS WORLD WORLD WORLD. CONTINENT IRANEAN EUROPE AMIERICA 1960 1979 1978 Eastern Europe 8,160 3,229 8,995 979 724 244 22,331 29,256 28,401 per Europe 3,344 2,597 1,852 29 - 182 StOO4 6,739 7,795 America 22,175 6,686 8,633 5,766 31,378 4,988 81,626 56,045 36,381 stralia 6,504 1,174 1,333 52 29,327 4,754 43,144 .40.790 35,283 South Africa 13,364 3,058 4,206 - 3,289 3,351 27,269 20,703 14,093 Ott-era 352 94 - 4,390 1,228 6,072 5,867 4,573 World 1980 53,699 .18,732 25,113 6,826 69,108 14,747 188,445 World 1979 44,195 17,730 20,398 5,983 59,112 12,00@ 159,420 [World 1970 31,050 13,290 18,012 4,473 -51,036 8,665 126,526 NOTE: The term "Coal;,comprises anthracite and bituminous coal. Export statistics are used whenever possible Ex ort3 fron t4e United Sta a to Canada are excluded. Exports from Siberia to Japan are included under Eastern --ur;pe-3apan. Coal transportation between most continental countries as well as between East European countries is considered as over- land transportation. Source: GZCD (1932) Table Coal Trade in the lacific Rebrion Exporters: Australia U. S. Canada S.-Africa..-Ott Importers: 1980 1981 1980 1981 1980 1981 1980 1981 Japan -50-,128 @5-,015 20,928 23,444 YO-,450 10,T5-2 2-8-8 1, S. Korea 20277 31489 1j251 1,498 1P131 1,897 Taiwan 826 530 4oo 1,612 1t626 708 Others 976 2,6ol-_ 304 lg@7? 41@ 517 Total Exports 34,207 4lp6)5 22t883 28,131 llt996 13,266 4t914 45.2 30.2 .15.8 6.5 Ire Source: Compiled from Merrill-Lynch, Pierceq Fenner & Smith (1982). TAB "2 L -2. ources. Japanese.Co,al .,(Ipl,llion metric t6n. 19858- :199T@ Aho unt, c;@ Amount Amount ,Au,stra.l.ia, 47@,0-45,5 Upited- S'ta'tes -,23.7- 30A 24::.,-. )4.7 25 21.4-2067 Anada.-. .16@ 1 .5 -ZO -16--5 C M7 6 'South:Africa 4.2 '5,!4 .6 6.2 @8 6.8- 6.6 @'China (R.R.) 2. - 4 4.1 4. U. S. 9 .11 108 -2.o Ot her ...8: J.-G. 1.0 0. 9-, 01.8 Total. 78.0 .100. Wq -97 100 OTo 1-11' 121 100 J.. - Ot@, p 4 2.4 Table, -steant-<021 trade forecas s South WIS. Austrari@ Africa Otherb Total Wesicrn Eurup* 28 17 33 19 102 43 23 61 39 176 63 61 so.. 51 237 fir.in inj ricifk Rim f 23 so 1990 23 44 12 36 It7 t"3 43 77 22 33 200 1985 Iz 22 12 1"3 32 2 3 2 7 1990 5 2 13 1993 3 20 T0121C IM so 48 44 37 179 1990 as so 73 73 319 1993 123 147 Ito 104 489 Millions of "standard" short tons (24 X 1012 Btu). b a Western Canada. Colombia, China6 USSR..Pnd PoUnd. C Excludes Eastem Europe. Source: Borg, I. Y. (1981), p. Forecasts of Ocearborne Steam- Coal TRade. TABLE 1). 5 T9#4rv-rg;; G946@@ (million tons) On routes frarrr 1980 1985 1990 Poland 16.0 21.0 23.0 South Africa .18.7 36.5 64.2 Australia 8.5 28.6 66.9, Other origins 7.9 23.7 70.9 Total 51.1 1.10.4 @15.0 Source: Doerall, Peter E. (1931) quoted frn- H.P. Drewry (Shipping Consultants) Limited, The Growth of Steam Coal Trade. -7 Table 2.- 6 Demand for imported steart coal.-Far East', (fvI MTa). .Country 1931 1982 1983 1934 1933 1986 1937 1988. 1950 1990 Japan 9.4 15-S 19.3 2.3.4 27.5 .34.6 37.0 SO.2 37.4 6X7 Taiwan - 0.6 1.9 2.7 M 6.0 10.0 12-2 13.3 13.3. Korea 0.5 7-7 3.6 7.6 8.7 10.0 ILO 312 M3 15.9 Hong Kong - 4.7 5.2 6.4. 6.2 &2 9.2 1.3 2.3 3.9 Singapore - - - - - - 1.6 Othersb 2.0 2.0 -TQtal. 9.9 20.1 26.6 37.6 44.4 55.8 65.4 $5.8 97-3 lo*t' Million Crwfrk to"$. b Othrrs. fike the Philippi"M Source: Borg, I. Y. (1981), p. [email protected] Japanese Steam Coal Forecast .,Industry. 1980 1981 1982E L985E MOE Electric Utility 9.8 12.3 13.4 2a.0' 33.0 Cement 7.1 9.1 10.0 12.5 14.0 @Paper, etc. 4.2 3.5 4.6 6.5 Total 21.1 24.9 28.0 39.0 56.0 'Source: Merrill Lyndl, pierce, Fenner Smith (1982) TABLE .2.8 JAPANESE LONG TERM ENERGY rORECAST. ----------------- ---------------- - - ----- ----- 1990 --FORECAST DATE- --FORECASI 1977 1980 AUG. 20.. 1779 8/28/?9 ----- ------ --------------- ------- ENERGY SVPPLY:- COAL MIL. TONS DOMESTIC 19.72 18.10 20.00 20.00 -.1 IMPORTED 58.29 7 4 . 3'0 .101.00 143.50 COKING 57 . 34 64.52 77 . 00 90 . 00 THERMAL 0.95 7.10 22 .00 53 .50 NUCLEAR MIL.KW 8.00 15.70 30.00 33.00 HYDRO MIL.KW,- 26.15 29.80 41.50 53.00 IMPORTED OIL ML XL 307-00 265.00 366.00 366.00 LPG MIL.TQN3 7.39 14.00 .20.00 26.00 LNG MIL.TONS* 0.39 25.90 [email protected] 45.00 ------ ------ ------ ------ TOTAL, MIL.KL. 412-00 4Z9.00. 582.00 716.00 Source: MerTin LyndI2 Pierce., Fenner & Sndth (1982) Table Japan's Imrort of Thermal Coal by Sourrae (000 metric tons-delivered) 1979 1 80 1 8 M. 0 Aus tral ia 1;000.48 71.1 3,.529.37 67.6 5,676.11 48.8 UO So 0.12 0.01 289.09 .5.5 2,118.90 .18.2 Canada i2.6o 0.9 328.28 6.3 :L,i3q.7.o 9.8 S. Africa 21.28 1.5 238-09 4.6 1,262.89 10.8 Lr.S.S.R 11746 8.3 2-22.61 4.3 255-20 2.2 F.R.O.C. 256.28 18.2 612.82- 11.7 11188.16 10.2 Total 1,407.82 100.0 @,220.27 100.0 11,640.96 100.0 Source: Compiled from Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith (1982). mil I ion or $56 million depending on whether the-direct shipment would-be made using 120,000 DWT or 250,000 DWT tankers. .These estimates are probably biased upward because they do not include the higher cost of transporting crude from-the transshipment port to the port of ultimate destination. The upward bias may be somewhat offset by somewhat lower freight costs from Persia,n Gulf to Palau using 500,000 DWT tankers because of a shorter distance. The economies of ship-size is also a possible source of savings in case of.a coal transshipment facility. The sizes of coal transport -vessels by.size employed- ships have been increasing. The distribution of in the coal trade and as well as the distribution of new orders among size classes indicates a clear trend toward use of larger ships (Table 3.1). This trend is expected to continue in the future (Table 3.2). The evidence suggests that although there has been a significant increase in sizes of coal transport ships'this trend has a way to go before economies of large size ships are fully realized. This, in turn, is due to large extent to draft limits at the export and/or import ports and the size constraints imposed by the Panama Canal. The situation, however, is in the process of being remedied. Ongoing improvement projects will allow major loading ports in the future to handle ships'up to 170,000 DWT (Table 3.3). Similar improvements are being made at ports unloading metallurgical coal. In Japan, for example, by 1983/4 these ports will be able to handle ships up.to 150,000 to 300,000 DWT.3/ However, pprts unloading thermal :coal for power.ttations in-Japan, South Korea, Taiwan and Hongt.Kong will be limited to- 100,000 to 130, 0001. DWT Table 3. 1 Comparison of Size Distribution of New Buildin.9 Orders For Bulkers With Vessels Already Employed In The Coal Trade Z of World Vessels Employed' in Dry Bulk and the Coal Trade* Combination (2 of Cargo Carried) Carrier Fleet Size Class (DWT x 1000) on Order (DWT) 1965 1970 1975 1976 1977 Less than 25 5.7% 6 3`0 4 0 i's 29% 25% 23Z -25 - 40 23.1 23 21 12 17- 10 40 - 60 10.6 11 21 24 24 21 60 -: IOU 39.5 3 12 25 2-5 29 above 100 21.1 -- -- 10 14 19 Sources: Marine Engineering.Log 1980 Yearbook. Simmons@- Boardman Publishing Corp. 1980. Bulk Systems International, July 1979. Table 3.2 Projected Distribution of Steam Coal Shipments In Ton-Miles,.By Ship S ize' (percent) Ship Size (thousind DWT) Year 20 20-35 35-50 50-80 80-100 100-150 150+ Total, 1980 10 13 22 43 5 7 100 1985 6 7 19 39 4 17 a -100 1990 4 6 13 27 6 27- 17 1995 3 5 10 24 6 30 22 1' 100 ZOOO 2 4 a 21 7 33 25 100 Source: if. P. Drewry Shipping Consultants Ltd., Changing Ship Ty2e/Siza Preferences in the Dry Bulk Market (London, England: 11PD Publications): T980.. ves ing sel s.N According to another source even by 1980 steam coal receiv port.s in the Pacific Rim Countries accounting for 42% of total capacity will not.be able 'to handle vessels larger than 60,000 OWT (Table 3..4). In this scenario there is a'possible role for'a transshipment facility. One option is to ship coal to the.transshipment port using large (e.g., 150,000 DWT or even 170,000 DWT) vessels and to distribute it to destination ports using smaller vessels that receiving ports can accommodate. Another option is to ship directly to destination ports using the maximum size vessels the receiving [email protected] handle (e.g., 60,000 DWT). It is possible that the first option could generate sufficient savings due to use of large vessels to more than offset extra, u loading and loading costs at the transshipment1acility,-'. n The available data on daily vessel costs by size of vessel in 1980, shown in Table 3.5, provide a basis for estimating the cost,of two options discussed-above. In order to extrapolate to the in-between sizes the daily vessel costs per day at sea and in port were regressed on size of the vessel. The regression equations obtained are as follows: 2 Log CS 8.5978 + 0.3948 Log OWT R 0.9875 2 Log CP 8.1171 + 0.4143 Log DWT R 0.9808 where CS daily costs at sea; CP daily costs in port; and DWT vessel size measured in 1,000 dead weight tons. These equations were used,@in turn, to estimate daily vessel costs for a.range of vessel sizes shown in Table 3.6., In addition, the following set of assumptions o was adopted. Table 3.3 Major Fort Loadin& Facilities 1983/84 1987/90 Country Port- Raximu= Through@ut Zximu Throughpu ship size cap. acity ship size capacIty .103 dwt mtpa 103 dwt mtl3a Australia Abbott Point 150 A 150 10 Hay Point 35 ..150 170 50 Gladstone 120. 21 120 30 Newcastle 120 -.25 40 17CY 14 Fort Kembla,.@' .150* 170 Canada Roberts Bank 150 24 150 f Prince Rupert 150 10 South Africa Richards Bay 170 35 170 65 United States East-Coast ..120* '85- 150* Ila Gulf 60 30 150* 40 -West Coast 60 5 150* 20 -,South America Colombia 120-150 15 *Partly ladert Maximum ship sizes and Port capacities indicative only Source Shell Coal International Table 3.4 1990 Receiving Port Capacity For Pacific Rim 5t eam Coal Imports By Vessel Size Acco=odated GITPY; "10 of Total Capacity) vessel Size Ja]2aq Taiwan Ko-rea Total 100, 000-17@. DWT 23.8* 3 9 18.4 6 9/"* 5.21 31% 47.4 43% 60,000+ to 11.9 19% - 4.6 277. 16.5 167. 10 0, 0 0 0 Mill' Panamax or smaller 25.8 42% 8.1 3 176' 7.2 42% 41. 1L Y9 1-0 60,000 DWT) 61.5 100501 26.5 100% 17.0 100% 105.0 100--/0 *Includes 7.0 million tons capacity planned for Sakito Coal Center. Construction of this facility by 1990 is now considered uncertain. Distances NSW (Newcastle, N.S.W.) JPN (Japan, Yokohama):. 4268 nautical miles; SPN (Saipan): 3096 nautical miles; SPN JPN. 1172 nautical. miles; :2. Vessel's speed 15 knots; 3. Actual tonnage of coal loaded and discharged per voyage 97% of vessel's dead weight tons; 4. Nominal loading rate 7,000 tons per hour (both NSW and Saipan); 5. Effective loading rate.- 70% of nominal loading rate; 6. Loading and discharging working time 24 hours per day; 7. Vessel's waiting in port 19 days in NSW, no waiting time in JPN or SPN; 8. Nominal discharging rate .4,000 tons per hour (two unloaders working at the same time with 2,000 tons capacity each); same for Japan and Saipan; 9. Effective discharging rate 60% of nominal discharging rate, 10. Extra days in port for contingencies and vessel's operations Two days in each loading and discharging ports respectively; 11. Ballast voyages Vessels return with ballast. Given these assumptions and the daily vessel cost estimates the cost of. transporting coal per ton can be estimated for various vessel Table 3. 5 Daily VesM Costs In U.S. dollars im .19801 da:V 40 (MDWT) 65(MDXM 12004DW) 175(MDWT). ownership COMO daily oper-atins c" S.8597 S9926 S .13560 S1719 16 including overhea& 4526 1;. fuel coWday. at sea S10039 SI 5314 5320 8143- in port 160& S150971 snw 2653 3489 Timal costiday, at sea- 3871 4267 S23161 -S2S74S S3"7 17 S42586 In port 15781 .18629 23257 29606 'Includes l0pertmnt rel'umon inve-qtmem, 8()c,- OfPufchasepri- financed at 8% for life and Zero SaIV3.Oe Value. 8,A_ Years. IS year 'includes manning. stof=v frp;4rs and rnainteytance, insurince and *dmjn;strjj1o'n.' Source.* H. P. Drewery Shipping Comultznts@ OcearrShipphgofCoal. Sun-eyN,. 24. October. 1981. pp. 92. 94 and 97. Table 3. 6 Daily 'Vessel Costs by Size of Vessel in 1980 (in U.S. dollars) 6o,ooo 100,000 130,000 150,000 170,000 DW7 IMT INT DWT DWT At Sea 2Z 284 33,379 37,022 39.173 41.157 In 1:ort 18,275 22,582 25,175' 26,713 28,135 Table 3.7 Estimated Cost of Transnortinp, Coal by Size of Vessel, 1980 (U.S.$ per'ton) 6o,ooo 130,000 150,000 170,000 Route DWT DWT DWT DWT DIT Nsrd 14.og 12.20, 3-1.'29 10-57 NSW - SPS 15-76 ii.s6 10.29 9.f4 8.94 SM - il" 3.75 3.36 3.18 3.03 -u@ 04) oo sizes and for*three routes i nvol ved i ntwo options bei ng evaluated. Such a, set of cos testimates is,reported in Table 3.1. According to these estimates the transshi.pment option would result in lower cost per ton if the option of shipping direct is limited to use of.60,000 DWT ..vessels as long as shipment of coal from NSW to Saipan is in 100j'000 DWT or larger vessels (since $4.78 + 11.86 18.81). However, this conclusion rests heavily on the assumed waiting time at the NSW ports which on the average in 1980-81 varied from 16 to 21 days (Waters. 11, 1982), the situation which was.likely to be remedied in the future. Therefore, the cost estimates were revised assuming no waiting time at the NSW ports. The new set.of cost estimates are shown in Table 3.8. According to these estimates transshipment costs are still lower than direct shipment using 60,000*DWT vessels but the differences are smaller. In fact, unless 150,000 or 170,000 DWT vessels are used to transport.coal from NSW to Saipan the cost savings are not likely to be large enough to offset extra loading and unloading at the transshipment facility. These estimates suggest possible gross savings in the-$2.00 to $3.00 per ton range. Japan's imports of, steam coal in 1990 have been estimated at 44 million tons. As cited above 42% of-this coal will be destined to ports unable to handle vessels larger than 60,000 DWT (Table 3.4). Suppose that transshipment facility is utilized for this c oal. The gross savings would total $37 to $55 million per year (18.48) mil. tons x $2.00 or $3.00). These grpss.savings limit the''charges for use of facility to less than $2-to-$3 per ton. The next question is whether the transshipment Pi fw Table 3.8 ..Revised Estimated Cost of Transpcrting Coal by-Size of.Vessel, 1980 (U.S.$ per ton) 6o,ooo 100,000--- 1_30,000 150,000 170,000 Route DWT Ili-IT DWT Vvi T DWT NSW - JIB 9.67 8.41 7.81 7.33 NMI S1 N 9.7.9 7.43 6.50. 6.o6 5.70 SEN - J.'M 3.75 .3-36 .3-18 3-03 2@ faci I i ty wi th 'throughput of 18.5 million per years and generating revenues -some $35 to 55 million per.y' of ear would be financially feasible,.i.e., would these revenues more than cover the costs. Section 4 is devoted to answering this question. remainder of this section discussed another, possible.source of benefits--stockpiling of coal in order@'to insure against fluctuations in supply. I thas been asserted on numerous occasions that the supply of coal fro-m.Austra.1ia, is unreliable. The followingstatement is rather typical: "...Reliability of supply has been a concern of i.mpor.ters of Australian coal since labor problems have been endemic. 'Water-side workers have been associated with many export bottlenecks in the past with bans and limitations on exports bei ng common issues.* However, labor problems have also extended to the.. mines, railroads and loading facilities."jj In spite of, the frequency of these assertions there does not appear to be any data on frequency and duration of these supply,interruptions. The following two statements come closest to quantitative estimates: "Newcastle, with probably 18 million metric tons of capacity is likely to be able to move only 13 million tons in 1982 due to inter- union manning disputes, etc."2/ and "A report by New South Wales Joint Coal Board states that-production of raw coal in 1980 in N.S.W. was 50,720,200 tons compared with 50,887,500 tons in 1979. T. ---- ------- _Hd 114 4' 1 - - - - -- - - THT f r X., I T, , ft F 4:vj i 'LL --------- -- s- if u 471 .-f. C)-- C --- __0 C), ICA @4. -1 4-- 7r:U_ _LLM.4F IT 10 Ll rT tf IT 0980 91F VIA MIMI" '03 U3SS3 9 '13.4 n3s.4 MONI 01 X L a H3NI 7/t 01 S'l Table Japan.s.Thermal Coal Imports by'Source, 1981 From Australia From Other Suppliers Tons*.. Index*-* Tons* Index** January 632 IL33 :-481 February 251 53 300 60 March 567 120 29? 59 April 435 92 424- 85 Kay 490 .104. -.112 .5 5 7 June 1'@ 689 654 139' July ..347 73 563 113 iugus.t' 438 93 140. September 458* 97 .369 74 October 81 625 126 November 537 n4 396 80 December -483 102 571 115 Total 5;77 5965 Average 473 100 497 100 Thousand Netric Tons-delivered. Monthly Average 100. Source; Merrjl@ Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith (19,92) 17 Production during the first half of-1980 was seriously disrupted by.industrial disputes -.mines. These disputes particularly at, the affected underground production which fell some.1.2 percent over the year to 36,766sOOO @tons. After May,1980 production improved and during the second half of the year was equal to'an annual rate of 56,000,000 tons. The above, admittedly fragmentary, evidence suggests that the supply interruptions may indeed be sufficiently frequent and of sufficiently long duration to impose significant costs on the Japanese industry. If- that is indeed the case there are two possible solutions-diversificatile of purchases among various sources of supply and/or stockpiling. As it was shown above Japanese do purchase thermal coal from several suppliers. -Indeed according to one study the Japanese are believed to be willing to pay $6 to $7 more per ton for American coal than for coal-from other countries because of the stable U.S. coal s r the. upply (Page and Farragut, 1981.). It is not clear, however, whethe observed diversification of purchases is motivated by desire to avoid supply interruptions or merely because the lowest cost prod.ucer 4i.e.. Australia) is unabl e to satisfy their total demand. The monthly variations of Japanese coal imports*fr6m-Austra-lia and from other sources may provide a clue to the extent that purchases from other sources are being used to offset(reductions in supplyfrom.Austral 0 -in -Figure Two indices of Japanese indices.by,source for.'1981 are shown .1. -If coal purchases from other.,sources are used to offset shortages of* Australian coal the two indices should move in the opposite directions. There is,no-evidence that this has happened during,'.the-first half: of 1981 but the indices appear to move in the opposite dfrection during second half.' However, the'dat some months in a on Australian steam coal exports tonJapan in 1980 and 1981, shown in Figure Z,:exhibit a similar pattern suggesting that seasonal factors may have been responsible for the observed differences. The most notable exception is the sharp drop in exports in June 1980, which was probably caused by labor strike or similarsupply interruption. The indices of--total Australian steam coal exports, shown in Figure 3. also suggest a strike in May-June or 1980.and additional supply interruptions during August-November of 198L Unfortunately,..the 1980 and the 1981 shipment patterns may have been affected by events outside Australia. At the end of 1980 shipments may have been motivated by the anxiety over the expected coal miners' strike in the U.S. and in 1981 actually affected by this strike. The evaluation of the second solution, i.e., stockpiling, is also hampered by the same data unavailability. We know, however, that it has been considered. In fact, according to Melvin.Shores: ... There is an example, one case that I am aware of, where because of their own recognition of their labor problems, the Australians.have actually been moved to stockpile some.commodity on the West Coast of ttie-United States in order to reach the Japanese market. Vt T IT I I A 4R4- TV: L T-I 'f.' 'HI do 00 - - -- - - - - - - - - wf- v RE - jr- - I MAI tt., I I -T 1- TWA In mv IMSS3 it 'UJIMAN %. j 0980 9tr LU-JAI Al v Ulkll 7h M I C V C Table Australian Non-Coking coal Exports to Japan 1980 1981 T ons* Index** Tons* Index*** January 268, 89 .558 Us February 158 52 460 98 Ylarch 173 '57- 416 88 108 Apr11 241 80 507 May 260 86 '477 101 June. .137 4@. 747 159 367 July. 396 .'84 August 296 98 351 -7-5 Se'ptember 456 151 477... iol, October 375 124 459 97 November 141. 383 81 December... 460 152. .424 go Total 3618 Average 302 100* 471 100 Tj-,ousand Metric Tons-exported. 1980 1,81onthly Average 100. 1981 Monthly Average 100# Sources Her@ill Tynchglierce, Fenner & Smith (l982) .7 t-7r- 14 I fill L LIU I I lit. I Ilill F I IA I III era ej J- It I un F III Go to 1 1 IF I I I it IJ 1,4u I F -T-r 'A I* 1% Ir II I Z:6 Al Y zu 7-T T -F-'-1 -D c Ar r'! J, .7 7 IL L i T- Table Total Australian Non-coking.Coal Exports 1980 1981 Tons* Index** Tons* Index*** 785 105 938 107 January February 692. 93 947 M&rch 469 63 615 ....70 1216 138 April 1097 147 May 528 70 946 108 June 533 71 1214- 138 July 939 126 831. 100@ August 856 115 625 71 -September 682 91' 756 86 October 826 Ill 703 80 November .750 100 713 81' 978 December 812 109 10559 Total $969 Average 74-7 880 *Thousand Metric Tons-exported. 1980 Monthly Average 100. 1981 Monthly Average 100.. Source: Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith (1982) Thus,..stockpiling.at the transshipment.facility in order to avoid suppi interruptions may be another'source of benefits. Y40, In order to estimate these benefits it is necessary.to,have information on the frequency and.duration of supply interruptons since they together with the interest rate would determine the optimum volume of the stockpile. Furthermore, it is possible to stockpile at destination orl,at the transshipmeni facility. The choice of location Would depend on'the difference in storage costs. It is reasonable to assume that these costs would be lower at the transshipment facility than in Japan. Thus, there are potential benefits- in stockpiling at the transshipment facility unless coal in.Japan could be stockpiled at the coal.using facilities eliminating extraloading and unloading. This, however, is very unlikely. Although'these benefits could not be estimated in this preliminary 0 assessment there are likely to be net savings to be generated from stockpiling coal at-the transshipment facility. These benefits, therefore, should be estimated in the full scale economic feasibility study. Furthermore, both stockpiling and diversification of purchases should be investigated in greater detail. It is likely that a combination of stockpiling and diversification among sources of supply is the optimum strategy to.assure an uninterruped flow of coal to Japan. FOOTNOTES Borg (1982), PP. 12-13. Merill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith (1982), p..21. World Coal, Vol. 7, No. 3, March/April, 1981, p. 17. 6t of Mel Stateme vin Shore, Port Director,,. Port of Sacramento, made :@ -.during discussions following presentation of-his paper (Shore, 1979). Coal Centers This study uses the public sector knowledge of the international Coal*trade'pra.cti.ces as input. -From this input the most.useful type of facility for the CNMI is indicated candidate users have been studied and the most likely nominated. The tangible and intangible benefits to the user are analyzed. Capital and operating data from technical'articles on recent installations have been used to estimate the order of magnitude economics for a CNMJ based facility. The environmental exposures are discussed. FACILITY SCHEMES The three main schemes for transshipment facilities for an island site are: Scheme 1): Coal transfer vessel to vessel; normally be contro Iled by harbor regulations and obtain port charges. The revenues derived would be unlikely to justify the cost of dredging required for large vessels. The scheme would be used for small vessels or barges on a casual basis. Scheme 2): A shore ba'sed transfer operation with out ground storage; would require extensive harbor dredging for mooring and. a turning basin, Marine construction and bulk material LAND CURRENTLY, LEASED BY THE JOINT SERVICE- TRAINING MILITARY FOR CURRENT LEASE UNDER LEASE OPTION ir tt TINIAN PUNTAN HARBO CAROLINAS 1 2km r4 R 'hand I ing equipment would entail a large investment. This scheme requires the least land area and have the minimum environmental exposure. The scheme is unlikely to@be implemented because of its low cost-benefits to a user. Scheme 3):- A coal transferring facility with large ground storage, high capacity bulk material handling equipment with blending capability, and a harbor draft for 150,000 DWT bulk carriers. This facility would be unique and offer the greatest tangible and intangible benefits to the user and revenue to the CNMI. Depending on the layout the site would occupy from 200 to 250 ha (500. to 700 acres),. That portion of the Island of Tinian adjacent to the harbor' of San Jose appears to have excellent potential for.a site. A transshipping point with these capabilities is properly called a "Coal Center". The Coal Center scheme is only practical when the land area with the harbor potential lies on existing shipping routes. Tinian has the area adjacent to a harbor site far much larger ground storage than most terminals. Tinian is located about three quarters of the distance from New South Wales (NSW) coal ports to Yokohama, Japan (JPN): NSW-Tinian- JPN-is 4268 nm, NSW-Tinian is 3096 nm and Tinian-JPN is 1172 nm. The CNMI would derive the greatest economic benefits both direct and indirect from a Coal Center. The environmental exposures would be s.ignificant but can be mitigated by existing means in use which can be inspected @t ma jor coal ports in- Australia., THE COAL CENTER - Tinian i s alow flat island lying three miles south of Saipan. It is 12.6 miles long, 6.1 miles wfde and has a land area,of 42 square- miles. The highest elevation is 584 feet. teologically it consists of a raised-limostone reef. The U.S. Department of Defense recently advised the CNMI.that it would exercise a lease option for a defense facility on the northern part of the island. The Coal Center proposed herein would be located on the southern part of the island contiguous to the Port of San Jose. This area seems to offer a suitable base for a plated and drained coal yard capable of holding at least 4 million tons in windrows. The harbor of San Jose was dredged during WWII to a depth of 28 to. 30 feet in the southern end and where the wharfs and piers were built. A breakwater was built on a reef. The harbor lies in a natural basin between the island and the reef. The COE submitted plans for improvements to the harbor consisting of repairs to the north quay wall and a small boat harbor to be constructed in FY 1985/88. If it is not practical to use San Jose for a deep draft harbor with berths.for unloading and loading of 150,000 OWT colliers a site immediately south and east of Gurguan Point may be suitable. The attached sketch indicates the general concept of a Coal Center with a 4 million tonne ground storage. The colliers would be unloaded by two continuous bucket unloaders, each with a free digging rate of 4000 t/h. The &mbined net unloading rate is of 4400 t/h. The unloading- able Resource Requirements and Pote Beneficial Products Input Resources Output Be efits Electri Manpower & Capital Power Revenues Land & From Lan Limestone Rental Coal .Center Structure unction Cement (ash & tr Water elements Electric Cocli EmploymE Power (trainin pier dredged depth would be 16.5 m (54.1 ft). The berth length would. b* 308-m (1010. ft),with unloader reach for the maximum,.vesse.1 beam of 45m '(147-ft).. These dimensions are suitable for a 150,000 DWT collier. The conveyors inbye of the unloader dock conveyors.would flow to any one of the three windrow stacker units -at a nominal rate of 4000 t/h. These three stackers would lay up windrows of coal on four 2000 m pads as shown on.the attached sketch. The pads'would be plated to prevent seepage and enclosed by berms to contain the drainage or leachate from the piles. The drainage water would be collected in ponds, allowed to settle and be filtered. The clear water would be recycled to dust control sprays.. The coallfiltrate would be returned along with the settled coal to the stockpiles. An agglomerating agent is added at key points to the coal stream on its path to the stockpiles. This agent causes the fines to adhere to thecoarse pieces of coal as long as the proper moisture level is maintained at the pile surface. The sprays are located along the stockpiles and are controlled by a weather station on the site. Two bucket wheel reclaimers each with a capacity of 6000 t/h will transfer coal from the stockpiles to the outbye belts. The outbye belts feed the dock conveyors to the linear shiploaders. The nominal loading rate is 6000 t/h. The shiploader pier is also designed for a 150,000 OWT collier. Normally smaller colliers will be used to ship the coal to the final destination. THE COMMERCIAL POTENTIAL OF A TINIAN COAL CENTER The principal.customer for a Coal Center in Tinian,would be the Japanese thermal coal consumers. Tinsley, 1982 points out that coal imports into Japan by the most recent estimates is 'predicted to range I rom 45 to 80 Mt in 1990. Present level of imports is at,the 6.0 Mt level. China, USSR and Poland may provide 15% of the supply. The balance will come from Australia, Canada, South Africa and the west coast of the United States. Tinsley also goes on to point out that many of Japans ports are primarily involved in handling iron ore and coking coal for the steel mills. The larger part of the thermal coal imports will have to be landed at Coal Centers now under construction and transshipped to coal fired power plants which in the main are poorly sited for receiving coal in the quantities necessary to enjoy the benefits of the economies of large coal ships. Tinian has several advantages over the proposed Japanese Coal Centers: *Tinian has sufficient area available for a larger stockpile area than the proposed Coal Centers. *Tinian could deliver coal in larger self unloading boom type coal ships that would not require customer unloading equipment ..and a minimum mooring facility.' *Tinian could receive coal i n large coal carriers operati,ng ..ona faster turnaround than ships sailing into Japanese waters. *The larger stockpiling area at Tinian would permit.blending of coal. from different sources to produce a more efficient coal forburning in power plants. Th.e Powder- River Wyoming' coal producers are proposing blending with Australian termal coals. FACILITY CAPABILITIES: Conceptual studies are-.-based on the scheme shown in Figure These criteria are detailed below: *Coal receiving dock proposed is 300m long with 15m draft for 100,000 DWT ore carriers. Unloading equipment would be two continuous bucket type un,loaders each having a free oll digging rate of 3000 t/h. Net unloading rate would be 4000 t/h. *Coal storage and blending area would consist of four windrow piles 25m high by 50m wide. The windrows would be contained laterally by berms incorporated into the elevated subgrade provided for the coal stockpiling and recovery units. The berms would prevent the coal from running onto the equipmdnt tracks, permit"100% machine recovery of the stockpiled coal and contain drainage from the coal piles. The accumulated drainage would be conducted to lateral leachate pond where the:water would clarify and'be used for dust control. The coa I storage area and-the leachate-pond would be plated with.local clay.soils as required to prevent seepage. The maximum storage provided would be 4.0 Mt. Use of part of t.he'st.orage area for blending would reduce the stockpile *Coal.. st.acki ng, blending and reclaiming equipment. /Stacking equipment proposed consists of three.units operating on the outside and the center of the four coal windrows. The capacity of each stacker and its feeding conveyor would be 4000 t/h. The stackers would work independent of the reclaiming system. Provision would be..made to bypass the windrows and transfer coal directly from the unloading to the loading ship. The two bucket wheel reclaimers would each operate between two windrows at a reclaiming rate of 4000 t/h. The reclaiming conveyors would deliver the coal through a transfer point to the.ship loading conveyor. Normally, one reclaimer would be operating. Coal stacking and reclaiming operations are independent of each other and could take place simultaneously. *Shiploading facilities would consist of a dock witha traveling loader or a linear loader with breasting and mooring dolphins. The draft would be 15m in.either case to permit loading of a 100,000 DWT coal carrier at a rate of 4000 t/h. The facilities described above are similar in many detailsto the newly operational coal terminal facilities at Port Kembla, NSW as described by. RAY W*. JENKINS MINING CONSULTANT 7 77 Ca^ e. J e--,,.. Z (Z).) 7- f7f-. T /.o cu C,7C A: 6 C C,11, Av!!@F 7- erlVrl---17- 4@1 ;0 ZlXr =7 "la.u., Soros, 1982. The fol I owing cost da ta are extrapolated from this @article:' M $ Marine works 10 Site works, foundations 15 Ship unloaders 10 Ship loader 8 Material handling 15 Stackers 10 Reclaimers 10 TOTAL 78 (Accuracy 30% low or 10% high) An order of magnitude operating cost for a'facility ofthis kind is estimated as follows on an annual basis: M $ Labor, all categories: allow 100 persons at $40,000/a 4.0 Maintenance, operation materials and services 4.0 Capital charges at 15% 12.0 Sub Total 20.0 10.0 CNMI.ground rent GRAND TOTAL 30.0 Assuming an annual throughput of 10.OM t/a the cost per tonne would be in the order of $3.00. This is the same order of port charges of other pacific coal ports. R" W. JENKINS, MINING W.,NSULTANT '7 Aa- r. s c 7 1-o, tilt CIS oe C@aeoO9 =7-- -/4 Utilization Systems COAL UTILIZATION 1. A Coal/RFO Fired Model for Saipan This model is a preliminary approach to examining the practicality of significantly reducing the electrical energy costs on Saipan by substituting coal fired generation for the larger part of the-oil@" fired power generation. Initial analysis indicates that the fuel cost savings based on current prices of RFO and Australian low sulfur coal delivered to Saipan are substantial.. The current low ratio of RFO cost to coal cost per million Btu of $5.25 to $2.19 at Saipan and $5.57 to $2.10 at Guam, in the opinion of the writer, are artificial and not likely to prevail..,A more likely price ratio for the last half of the 1980's is $7.50 to $2.80. A test calculation at this ratio indicates the cash flow from fuel cost savings would approach or exceed the cost of the coal fired installation.. These results, though admittedly preliminary and somewhat superficial due to the lack of good inputs, justify an in-depth study of the pQte ntia-l of coal fired By-products and Controls of Coal Pollutants able Land Transport St or age '.!T& Blending COIT Loading & by Conveyor Stockpiling Unloading at system the Dock kollutants Dust Dust Dust Dust A Seepage T Leachate S N .-H Controls Enclosed Enclosed Water Sprinkle Enclosed S Conveyors Conveyors/ Wind-breakers Structure Vacuum Plated pad Cleaners Enclosed byBerms S Bond to collect drainage water Dome for small 4E amount Of coal Source: A.J. [email protected],, Iml2acts of coal-Fired Power Plants on Fish, Wildlife andT energy on Saipan'. Input for the model originates from the following sources: *DOE 176reit.orial Energy Assessment, 1981 (TEA) .*COE Preliminary Port and Harbor Study of the CNMI' 1981 .(COE) .*Stearns-Ro ger, Coal-Feasibility Study for Hawaiian Electric CO. (SR) *DPED State of Hawaii Data Book, 1981 (DPED) *I.Y. Borg, Coal.@s an Option for Power Generation in the U.S.,Territories of the South Pa@cific, 1981 (BOffGT *1981 Coking Coal Manual, including thermal coal and anth@raci te (COR) *DOE Interim Report of the,Interagency Coal Export Task For@_c_e, 1981 (CET) bles as outlined below. -,The model output is presented in a series of ta Data.,s-ources are indicated: Table A. Projection of the Existing Plant 1980 to 2000. *Population from PBDC. *Demand follows the per capita demand experience as given in DPED of 6000 kwh/y. 1980 Saipan demand as shown on TEA p. 75 is 5750 kwh/y. Increase in tourism is expected to increase unit demand per resident. *Base Load is calculated: Demand/8760 h. *Peak Load: TEA p. 75 indicates a base to peak load ratio of 10.5 to 14.5 or 1.38. On page 79 the ratio for 1981 and 1986 are-shown as 14.8 to 16.5 and 21.8 to 24.2 or 1.11. Table A uses a ratio of base to peak load of 1 to *Residual Fuel Oil.usage if based on TEA p..75 1980 burn rate of 145 000 bbls'for 92.0 million kwh. This ft equivalent to 15.106 kwh/gal. HECO 1981 Annual Report p 38, shows -fuel oil output of 14.04 kwh/gal. by calculation. .*Fuel cost,used is $32.11/bbl as per TEA p. 75. @TEA-p.. 34 shows a-Guam price of $34.067. The footnote on page 75 ..indicates that the-Saipan price does not include taxes or local transportation. *Fuel cost per kwh is calculated at $0.051. Guam's price and usage base results in a fuel cost of $0.0579 or 114% of the Saipan cost.. There is a great deal of conflicting information in the narrative and tables concerning the current and future energy situation on TEA pp. .75 to 79. A much more specific study of the facilities and operations --,will be required for a useful-preliminary survey of the possibilities for improvement. Table B is based on the use of an 18 14w*coal fired generating unit. This unit was selected to see if the savings in using a unit that* would not require flue gas treatment would have important savings. Low sulfur Australian.coal with a heat content of 12,000 Btu/Ib. or 26.4m Btu/tonne was assumed for this table. Washed coal would have an ash content of 8Z and a sulfur content of less than 1%. Cost delivered c&F is $60/tonne. This is the sa on TEA p. 51 in the Guam me as used narrative about conversion to coal. As indicated in the table footnotes, the coal fired -availability was estimated to be 330 dly. All other factors are the same as used in Table A, Table C is similar to Table B, except a.25 MW coal fired plant was used. - In Tables A,, a, a nd C JC h ecoal. f i red plant performance was derived from data included in SR Section 5 on coal fired plant performanc for'a-.25 Mw plant projected.for Maui Hawaii sites... InJable's B and C it was assumed that'.the first full year of coal fired- plant operation would be 1986. It was also assumed that the coal would be transported by bulk carriers similar to the Australia National Lines Lake Classt' which are 16,500 OWT vessels having a length of 486', beam 75', depth 39', and a draft of 28.5. They would normally carry 16,700 t. These ships are equipped with 3 - 17 ft. deck cranes for unloading cargo. Theywould unload.into dockhoppers which would be serviced by trucks hauling to. -An arrangement where the hoppers could disc the plant. harge on.to a conveyor- belt to the plant store*appears to be possible with minimal. dredging and pier construction. Table D indicates the comparisons of fuel costs between the existing RF.0 fired plant and the 18 and 25 Mw plants from 1986 to 2000 inclusive. The savings for the 25 Mw plant are significantly larger, since it can carry a larger part of the load in the later years. Table E is based on recalculating the RFO cost on the basis of Guam fuel prices and performance. The fuel price savings of the combined RFMoal plant with the 25 M unit and the straight RFO plant are substantially larger. If Guam were to shift to coal, Table F uses the same input as Table E but assumes a $45.52/bbl RFO cost and a $68.25/t coal cost. 'This is equivalent to a $7.50/MBtu cost for RFO and a $2.50/MBtu cost for coal. The three to one ratio is a minimum likely ratio for the m future. The discounted'cash flow return would pay for, the stea' plant i n_l ess than 15 years at a 15% interest rate. This is based on plant costs-in the order of.$1000.to $1300 per kw or a'25 t4w:steam-turbine,' pulveri.zed coal fired plant. The plant would be locate'd,.adjacent to, the existing RFO plant.and use the same support facilities for service, maintenance and management. There would not be any land costs and offsite,facilities. Coal haulage would be done under contract. The plant would be set up to handle 25 kt of sodded coal for a stockpile and 25 kt in a storage structure equipped with a recovery feeder'used with a front end loader. A 500. t plant silo would hold coal for feedi.ng the pulverizer. The plant isexpected to conform to all inage, noise. appropriate.EPA regulations regarding emissions,, dust, dral and other offsite.impacts. Fly ash and bottom ash would be automatically collected in separate silos. FGDS sludges would be stabilized with the ash and lime to form a hardened product of low permeability suitable for disposal in.a landfill. Alternatively, the ash could be used for roads or as a Concrete additive and the FGDS sludges could be used for land plaster. Saipan's remote location offers some problems from a standpoint -.of equipment delivery and construction costs. The site does have some advantages and a,high level of interest by the community and its officials can result in an efficient and economically-designed facility that will have a positive impact on the island economy. Borg points out that the generating capacity per capita for Saipan is 1.28 kw while California is.I.O. The HECO annual report for 1981-shows a system-wid factor of 1.66.kw/capita. This includes e -Oahu, Maui And Hawaii. Assumingthat after the delivery of the 8 @unit in 1983 the effective generating capacity on Saipan will be about 30 Mw, based 0. nHawaiian standards this would be equivalent to-a population of 18,000, the expected level 'for 1984. If a.more conservative factor of 1.5 kw per capita is used, additional generating,capAcity will be required in 1986.-.If the'suggested 25 N4 plant.is put on line at that time and the existing plant is used for peaks and standby, -the capacity will be adequate until 2000. It is likely that a lower factor can.be applied to a steam plant. The limited economic review herein does not include any consideration .:.of operating costs, which are generally much lower for a steam coal. fired plant. It has also been'assumed that there will be adequate -.manpow er available to run the steam plant and the standby units.,- r Japan shipping route passes very near to Guam. The Australia ,,A.significant quantity of coal in lots similar to those required by Taiwan, Hong Kong, Si.ngapore, Malaysia, New Caledonia, and smaller. industrial users in Japan is available.' The business is sought after by coal companies because it is additional revenue with no -,significant capital layout. The shipments required are approximately the same as used by Hawaii's cement users. Ability to handle large bulk carriers or transshipment of coal is not important tot Saipan's requir ements.. If Guam were to shift to coal.there is a possibility that dual shipments in a larger carrier would offer some price advantage. Presumably, the ship would return to Saipan with a partial cargo. Drafts in the same order of magnitude as projected in the proposed COE program are adequate for any foreseeable coal service to Saipan. Table A."-@ Power Demand r-4 ri Saie 0 Cd H rq Existing@'Plant 0 W 100 4 - Z -ri 0 C)) ro r-I -p n 0 E@ W Cd cd cd to (L) 0 4) EO 0 cd ca 0z W 0 z :3 0-69- Year P4 rqM VA 94 P4 rx, 0 :5@ M 1980 6.o. 92.0 10.5 14.5 145- 4.66 c 81 16.6 99.6 11.4 12.5 157 5.04 82 17-3 103.8 11.8 13,0 164 5.25 8 3 17.9 107.4 12-3 13-5 169 5.44 .84 18.6 111.6. 12,7 14.0 175 5.65 c 85 19.4 116.4 13.3 14.6 183 5o89 C 86 20.0 13.7 15.1 .189 -6.07 c 87 20-7 124.2 14.2 15.6 196 6.29 C 88 21.6 129.6 14.8 16.3 204 6.56 c '22 15-3 212 89 .4 134.4 16.9 6.8o o 90 23.3 139.8 16.0 17,6 *220 7*05 C 91 24.2 145.2 16.6 18.2 229 7-35 C 92 .1 150 17.2 18.9 @.237 7 25 .6 .62 0 93 26.o 15600 17.8 19.6 246 .89 c 7 94 27.0 162.0 18.5 20-3 255 8.20 C 95 28.1 168.6 @19.2 21.2 266 8.53 1 9 6 29.1 174.6 19.9 21.9:- 275 8.84 c 22.7 285' c 97 30.1 18o.6 20.6 9.14 98 31.1 186.6 21.3 23.4 294. 9.44 c 99 .192.6 24.2 304 .9-75 32.1 22.0 2000 33.1 .7 10-05 c 198.6 22 24.9 313 14:ao.Le B. @;aipan txiszing r-.-,anT, e.Lus jo mw uoa.L rirea uniT, 4J (1) ta TI P4 4-3 E0 r-I >1 El Cd 0 (0 Cd Cd Cd Cd 0 0 Cd 01 4) a) C 0 :3 Year M A Pq 00 1985 13.3 14.6 116.4 183 86 '15-1 120.0 106.4 '54. 0 3.25 22 13.7 87 14.2 15.6 124.2 112.4 56.2 3-37 18.,,, 88 14.8 16 129.6 8.6 3-52- -3 117.2 .5 19.1 121.2 60.0 20.8 89 15.3 16,9 134.4 .3.63 90 16.0 17.6 130.8 126.7 63.4 3.80 20.8 91 16.6 18.2 145.2 131.5 65.7 3.94 21.6 92 17.2 18.9 150.6 136.2 6801 4.09 14.4 93 17.8 19.6 152.0 141.0 7005 4.23 .2307 94 18.5 20.3 162.0 142.6 71-3 4.28 30.7 19.2 21.2 168.6 142.6 4.28 41.10'0 '95 71-3 96 19.9 21.9 174.6 142.6 71.3 4.28 50.6 97. 20.6 22.7 180.6 142.6 71-3 4.28 6o.o @@98 21-3 23.4 186.6 142.6 71-3 4-028 69.5 .99 22.0 24.2 192,6 142,6 71-3 4.28 79.0 2000 22.7 24.9 198.6 142.6 71-3 4.28 88.5 .-Plant Stoker fired 18 MW without FG treatment. Data after S-R HECO study, Nominal Capacity MW 1B Gross Capacity MW 19,8.' Net Plant Heat Rate Btu/kwh 11820 Coal Used Btu/lb. 12000 M Btu/tonne 26.4 Btu/He 19800 x 11820 M Btu 234 tonnes/hr. 8.86 uo. 9. Plant Availability Planned Maintenance Days 30 'Forced Outages Days 5 Net of Days 330 Net of Hours 7920 zbtlpaxl VV %j Z s r.L Ub QJL.L b tp a 43 rd EO -4 4-2 Cd 19 .0 4) Cc Cd Cd El Cd P (d w Cd E0 Cd 0.'400 0 0 Year Cd 0 fX4 13-3 14 0 6. 116.4 183 1985 13-7 15-1- 120.0 108.3 50.3 3-02 18 87. 14.2 15.2 124.2 112.4 52.2 343 .'18 129.6 2 .19. 88 14.8 16.3 117. 54.4 3.26 89., 15-3 16.9 134.4 121.2 56.2 3-37 20 90 16.o 17.6 130-8 126.7 58.8 3-53 20 16.6 18.2 145.2 131.5 61.o 3.66 .21 92 17.2 .18.9 150.6 136.2 63.2 3-79 22 93 17.8 19.6 156.0 141.0 .65.4 3-92 23 24 :.:94 18-5 20-3 162.0 146-5 68.0 4.08 95 19.2 21.2 168..6 152.1 70.6 4.23 26 -3 157.6 73 @1 41@ - 9 .4426 .96 19.9 21.9 .174.6 97 20.6 22.7 180.6 .75-7 4.54 27 -3 4 28 98 21 23.4 186.6 16807 .70 '99 22.0 2402 192.6 174.2 80.8 4.85 28 2000 '22.7 24.9 198.6 179-8 83.4. 5-00 29 Plant Pulverized Fuel Fired 25M w/ FG Treatments Data after S-R HECO at Net Output MW 25 Gross OutpU@ MW 27.6@ @@V?lkht-'Reat Rate Btu/KWk ......11820 - Coal Used 12000 Btu/lb or M Btu/tonne 26.4 Coal Usage tonnes/hr. 11.6 Availabilityi Planned Maintenance 30 days Net Available 330 da y Forced Outage days 7920 hou Total Outage 35 ablbe -A.. ana B.And A And C., @',@:.Table'-D...i.;Cbmpariponif7 of!:,,Fu6l-to&-ts @e ar B A/B c A A 1986 6.07, -..3-96 2.11 3.61 2.4 87 6.29- 3.97 2-32 3-73 2.5 88 6.56 4.15 2,41 3-89 2.6 89 6.8o. 4-30 2.50 4.o4 .2-7 90 7.05 4.47 2.58 4.19 2.8 91 7-35 4.64 2.71 4-36 2.9 92 7.62 4.82 3-10 4-52 3-1 4.99 2.90 93 7.89 4.68 3.2 4.87 3-3 94 8,20 .5.26 2.94 95 8.53 5.60 2.93 5-07 .3.4 '96 8.84 5.90 2.94 5.25 2-5 97 9.14, 6.21' 2.93 5.42 307 98 9.44 .6-51 2-93 5.61 3..8 99 9-75 6.81 2.94 3-77 3-9 2000 10-05 7.12 2.93 5-95 4.1 Tabl- E. Case "C" 0 C% W\O 00 Cd9 vk--@ _.k .00 0 OH 0 Mr-I 0 0 0 Year GWh Kbb1s M$ M$ 1986 1200 204 6.95 .11.7 0.71 3-0 87 1242 211 7.20 11.8 0-72 30 1.@ 88 1296 220 7-51 1204 21 0.72 3. V .''89. 1344 229 7-79 130-2 '22 0#76 3.3r, 8 13.1 22 0.76 ...90,-,:. 139 238 8.10 3-5: 0.79 3.6@ 1452 247 8.41 13.7 23 :911.-1 6 o.83 3.71, 9 2 150 256 8.73 14.4 25 0.87 3-9 15.0 26 93 -.1560 265 9-03 0 94:. -16- 2- 276 9-39 15.5 26 o.go 4. OE 4. 2.@ 1 287 9-77 16.5 28. o.96 95 686 29 96 1746 .297 10011 17.0 0.98 4. x 806 1.01 4 97 307 , lo.46 17.4. .30 -5L 98 1 6. 7.9 30 1.03 4 86. 317 10*81 1 -7( 31 1-07 4.8. 99* 1926 329 11-17 18.4 .1986 200.0 338 11-50 18.8 @2 1.09 5-N r .1980:1alue of cash flows at 15% interest is $22.84 million. ble F RFO and Coal Prices Projected 7.50 and $2.50/M Btu.-Guam B RFO Only COUI UO, IN 0 ro 0;Q .6p, o4J 1986. 204 9.29 21 o.96 50-3 '3.43 4.39 87 211 9.67 21 o.96 52,2- -52 3-56 4 220 10.01 21 0*96 54.4 3.71 4'.67 89 229 10.49 22 1.08 56.2 3.84 4.92 go 238 10-91 22 1-.08 58-8 4.0 5.09 91 247 11-37 23 1-05 61.0 5421 92 63.2 4 256 11-73 25 1.15 .31 5.46 93 265 12.14 26 1.19 65.4 .4.46 5.65 276 12.65 26 1.19 68.o 4.64 5.83 95 287 13-15 28 1.28 7o.6 4.82 6.io ..96 297 13.61 29 1-33 73.1 4.98 6-31 97- 307 14.07 30 1-37 75.7 5-17 6-54 _.:::.98 31.7 14-52 30 1-37 7803 5-34--. 6.71 '99 328 15-02 31 1.42 80.8 5-51 6.93 338 15.49. 32 .1.47 .83.4 5.69 7.16 Table Coal and Petroleum Imports Mariana, Caroline# and Mars During the Japanese,Admini ion (1917 -1935) COYL fVtL'E1JM Year Value Quantity Value Qu Yen Pounds -trio Tons Yen Litre ..1917. l7j2ll .1918' --- --- 301800 --- ;.1919 --- 26,o6l 209344 1921, 900 --- 16g622 --- 68v507 --- 32j659 1923 68v292 --- --- 30#884 79062' --- --- 81 953 1925 122#632 --- 79#589 --- :'1926 1129666 --- 61008 1927 95o646 75#589 1928, 1519066 1049745 9lo327 --- 46v6li 1930 267064 30,76o,ooo 13,956 66047 j86,ooo 1931 1829767 260982#000 12g242 82t2lO 482,900 1932 '187oll8 34,648,ooo 15#720 79P946 472j0OO 1933 -178t586 18M7005 8r519 107007 573022. 1934 152#992 23#53lt645 lo,676 1319591 789j281 146j465 18,o6o,095 89194 151v545 '899t693 SOURCE ,.I metric ton = 29204 ibs. 1 litre = 0.264 gallons :1 barrel = 55 gallons FEW PHILIPPINES snc.APCRF, HAWAII JAPAN KORE& fF X HCNCEL CNLY ELECTRICITY 3.4 CEMENT 8.3 GNERAL INDUSTRIAL 0.7 70M THM4AL 12.4 :1985 ELE=CITY 13 6.8 4.8 1.0 0.5 CEMENT 11 3.0 0.2 1.4 ....,.GENERAL INDUSTRIAL 2 N/A 'TOM THERKAL .26 9.8 5.0 0.5 METALUJRGICAL 75 2.4- GRAND TOTAL 101 1990 ELECTRICAL 38 3-1.6 11.4 2.0 1.0 CEKENT 12 4.0 0.3 1.9 GENEM INDUSTRIAL 3 N/A TOTAL TBEIML 53.5 15.6 3.1.7 3.9. 1.0 DETAIILWICAL 69.5 123.0 U95 65.0 12.0 GENERAL INDUSTRIAL 3.5 TOTAL THERAAL 80.5 bWnULLRAGICAL - 97.5 GRAND TOTAL 178.0 MAX @DISTANCE GUAM DISTANCE COAL FORT, LOADIW LEDL'TH TAIWAN PANAMA DRAFT VE, YOKOHAMA DWr ,.:AUSTRALIA FORT KDMLA (E) 472/U.6 55.000 4j330 -120,000 WC) 280/15.1 ;:.fw r 's= (E) 365/lloO 55j000 540/lloO 600,000 (t)C) /15.2 111,000 SYDNEY 320/11.0 55,000 3,,006.-- GLADSTONE (E) 381/11.3 60rOOO (E) 205/12.2 60,000 (E) 290/12.2 55"000 (P) 120r000 (E) 343/16.2 120t000 BOWEN (E) 108/901 15,000 ABBOT Pona (p) 120j000 4o262 ROBERTS BANK (E) 270/18 125,000 4,675,. NEPTUNE TEF?41NAL (E) 164.6/16.2 125,000 4#262 PORT MOODY (E) 385/13.7 65 000 4,262 R111LEY ISLAND (P) 3,810 SOUTH AFRICA RICHARDS BAY (E) '700/18.9 150,000 UNITED SIATES 10 304 HAM?ICN ROADS 305/11.0 40,000 9,504 lo830 549/14.2 150,000 332/13.7 100,000 BALTIMPE 274/12.8 60,000 273/11.6 60,000 MDBIIE 305/13.4 100,000 LOS ANM= 243/15.5 70,000 41839 5,229 2,913LOS ANGE7M LOS ANM= 243/15.5 70j000 41839 Sj229 21913 U)S ANMMES 243/15.5 70,000- 4,839 5,229 I= BEACH 643/13.7 80,000 4,839 21,913 90AL, PORT, LOADnr., LENGni MAX DIST?-qE GUAM DIST1WM TAIWAN FANWA DFMT VESSEL YCKC1. A YcKaiAm AUSTRALIA PW KDMEA (E) 472/11.6.,'.' 55.000 4,330 00 280/15.1 120,000 NEW CASTLE (E) 365/11.0 55,000 540/11.0 60,000 (LTC) /15.2 11loOOO symm 320/11.0 55rOOO GLADSTONE (E) 381/11.3 60,000 (E) 205/12.2 60,,000 (E) 290/12.2 55,rOOO (P) 120,000 HA3mow (E) 343/16.2 120,000 (E) 16819.1 l5r000 ABBOT POW (P) 120l000 CANADA RMMIS BANK (E) 270/18 125,000 4t262 4#675 NEPTUNE TEENZAL (E) 164.6/16.2 125t000 4t262 'PORT MOODY (E) 385/13.7 65,000 4,262 RMLEY ISLAND (P) 3s810 SOUTH AMCA PICHMW BAY -(E) 700/18.9 150,000 UNIM SZkTES HX4PTCN WADS 305/11.0 40,000 91504 10#304 lo830 549/14.2 150#000 332/13.7 100,000 274/12.8 60r000 273/11.6 600,000 MOB= 305/13.4 ioo,,ooo LOS'ANCELES 243/15.5 70,000 4,839 5o229 2t913 COAL VESSEL CARRIER CHARACTERISTICS Tablg 'CLASS LAKE RANGE ANL ANL \j NORM .(DWT) 169000 30,000 401,000 55,000 70,000 85,000 LENGTH (m/ft) 148.01485 171.31561 203.01665 216/708' .226/741 2321760 BEAM (m/ft) 23.0/75 25.0/82 29.6/97 33.81110 36.9/121 37.8/124 DEPTH (m/ft) 11-8/39 .14.02146 15.7151 17.2/56 18.6/61 18.9162 DRAFT (m/ft) 8.7112 10-19733 11.0136 11.6/38.-, 12.5/41 13.9146. NET COAL CRANE NO. 3 3 -CAPACITY 17 tons 15 tons HOLES. 4 6 5 6 7 8 SPEED BALLAST 16.5 15.5 SERVICE 15.5 14.5 15.5 14.9 14.5 14.1 3028 ft 1 m References REFERENCES Borg, I.Y.,'Coal @as an Option for Power Generation in U.S-@Terrlltories 0 f -the acifiT, Li-wrence Livermore National Labori-to:rys -University of California, Livermore, California, 1981. Borg, I.Y., Technical Considerations -Relating to Use'of Coal in American Samoa for Power Gener5tion, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, University of California, Livermore, California, 1982. Doerell, P. E., "Seaborne Steam Coal Trade May.Quadruple in 199091, World Coal.,* Vol. 7, No. 2, 1981, pp. 27-28. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc., Coal Industry Quarterly, June 1982. OECD (Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development), Maritime Transport 1981, Maritime Committee, Paris, 1982. Page, R. P. and Farragut, P. R., "Export Coal: Implications for U.S. Ports," Transportation Research Forum, Proceedings of the .22nd Annum Me-eting, Vol. 22, No. 1, 1981, pp. 112-120. Port and Marine Task Group, Western U.S. Steam Coal'Exports to the Pacific Basin, report prepared by the Port and Marine Task,' Group, Western Coal Export Task Force, Pacific Basin Steam Coal Export Study (Denver: Western Governors' Policy Office, 1981). Robert Panero Associates, A Proposal for the Development of an International Transshipment and Petroleum Storage Port, District of Palau, Western Caroline Islands, Trust TerritiTr@y@f the .Pacific, Port Pacific Corporation, 1975. Shore, M., "Overall Economics in Transportation of Coal for Export, in Critical Issues in Coal Transportation Systems: Proceedinqs of S@mposfiTmFTW_ashington, D.C.: National Academy of Sciences, 1979). Waters II, W.G., "Transportation and Market Prospects in the World Coal.Trade," The Logistics and Transportation Review, Vol. 18 -No. 2. June 1982. x x Keller a.nd.Gannon, Saipan Power System Improvement Study, 1981. 2. U.S. General Accounting Office,, Alternatives to the Northern* Mariana Islands Lease, 1982. 3. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Port and Harbor Study for CNMI, .1981. 4. N..Ni-shimoto, Forecast and Record of Power Generation, 1982. 5. Power Generation Branch, Letter to Director of Public Works, (CNMI Government), 1982. 6. Burns and Roe Pacific Inc., Bid Evaluation for the Saipan Permanent Power Plant, 1978. 7. Coastal Resource Management Office, Issues Related to Construction of a Major Oil Transshipment Facili@Z in the CNMI., 1980. a, CNMI Government, Commonwealth__Register, 1981. 9. @CNMI Energy:Office, Renewable Energy, 1982. 10. -U.S. DOE/DOI,.Territorial Energy Assessment, 1981. 11. G. N. Okura and G. A. Chapman, Hawaii Deep Water Electrical Transmission Cable Demonstration Program, 1982. 12. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Saipan Small Boat__Harbor, 1981. References and notes, Tinian Coal Center: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Pacfic Ocean Division, Preliminary Port and arbor Study of the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, May, 1981. Source of information concerning the physical features of Tinian Is. For references concerning the Tinian overall material handling scheme refer to the following feature articles in Bulk Solids Handling, Volumes 1 (1981) Venator, T. J., Applications Aspects of Continuous Unloaders, p107. Hargreaves,, D., Australian Bulk Ports and Shipping-Can They Meet the Challenge of the 80s p565 Knights, R. I., Coal Loading Facilities in the Port of Newcastle p573 Soros, P., Port Kembla Coal Terminal p581 Kajakoski, P., Stacking, Blending and Reclaiming of Coal p105 Volume 2 (1982) Soros, P., Conneaut-An Economical Superport, p413 Sasadi, J., Latest Developments in Coal Handling for Self-unloading Ships and Barges p383 Robinson, G., Leith Cosl Outloading Plant .p111 A p Pend i xes STUDY AREA co N IQY 0 MANAGANA TURNING BASI SAIPAN ISLAND NTS 0 DEEP ML & G) ef ot ENTRANCE CHANNEL 9,400' LONG CHANNEL MOUTH So,= I WIDE PUNTAN -4b DEEP MLLW -4-0 DEEP MLLW FLORES SEAPL BAKE lq4D cc=7 CHARLIE DOCK ABLE DOCK ww) PROPOSEDO PUNTAN MUCHOT IMPROVEM N 0 T E S 1. PLAN OF IMPROVEMENT BASED ON HYDRO- AMERICA'N GRAPHIC SURVEY BY M S E PACIFIC, DTDj MEMORIAL PARK SAIPAN 19 SEP 1979, CD 2. NAVIGATIONAL AIDS WILL HAVE TO,BE ADJUSTED. t7l 3. THE EXIStING CHANNEL IS APPROX. 300' 600@ .e GRAPHIC SCALE IT I 'JUT AllLA ll!HANI WIDE AND,-29 DEEP MLLW. q 2000 0 2000 40 SCALE IN FEET U. S. ARMYE RE STUDY AREA MANAGANA TURNING BASI SAIPAN ISLAND NTS -5d DEEP ML ENTRANCE CHANNEL 9,500' LONG OUTH -50 DEEP MLLW 60 DEEP MLLW FLORES CHANNEL M 530, WIDE PUNTAN SEAPL BA CHARLIE DOCK ABLE DOCK ("IP.UNTAN PROPOSE D N 0 T E S: MUCHOT IMPROVEM 1. PLAN OF IMPROVEMENT BASED ON HYDRO- <3 AMERICAN SAIrAN GRAPHIC SURVEY BY M a E PACIFIC, DTDI MEMORIAL PARK 19 SEP 1979. ti 2. NAVIGATIONAL AIDS WILL HAVE TO BE ADJUSTED. GRAPHIC SCALE 3. THE EXISTING CHANNEL IS APPROX. 300 E!HIN I WIDE AND -29' DEEP MLLW. 4 2000 0 2000 SO SCALE IN FEET co U. S. ARMY Ef STUDY AREA c'ORAk. N f"/M.AN AGANA TURNING BASIb SAIPAN ISLAND '94olet.!';'a 1-30c NTS DEEP MLLI ? ENTRANCE CHANNEL 90 ?4-00' LONG CHANNEL MOUTH WDE P'UNTAN CO DEEP MLLW @-460DEEP MLLW FLORES - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- SEAPL OAK Oc CHARLIE DOCK ABLE DOCK PUNTAN PROPOSED OF N 0 T E S: MUCHOT IMPROVEME I. PLAN OF IMPROVEMENT BASED ON HYDRO- AMERICAN SAWAN C? GRAPHIC SURVEY BY M a E PACIFIC, DTDI a MEMORIAL PARK. 19 SEP 1979. ti 0 2. NAVIGATIONAL AIDS WILL HAVE.TO BE ADJUSTED*. 3. THE EXISTING CHANNEL IS APPROX. 300 GRAPHIC SCALE I IJUT ARLA CHCANI WIDE AND.-29' DEEP MLLW. 2000 0 2000 C-2 SCALE IN FEET U. S. ARMY EN PROJECT J, Al 0; Art cunas coo It Tyr"Tor co, v /v 001, 100 NOTFS vg"4 cow.. West J" LLIVAIW" L to Ora, a mum Ao I.- n = " I m"m COwft AWOM AUAAIV OF THR Hasn"ll 5AIrAm, MAMA 110VIONTAL Cow ASTAO (V$") be 4mspuc" by W-AL wmwo % --sm TYPI&AL mevE!Tr9o mol-o! --memo L 11.1 11 @ OF qc&ta sw riter cc&,& 0 Fur % z EAST QUAY 0 OUTER, BASIN. SEAWALL PROPOSED MARINA AREA ..,-....JNNER' BASIN A 4pp@?q)e -SCA4Z -rIA114^41 NORTHERN MARIANA ISLANDS PRELIMINARY SAN JOSE HARBOR S ARPAY Scific PlannAq and Oes-9- Conswit-ImS ENGINEER DIVISION, PACIFIC OCEA-4- Conn OF ENGVIEEns Figure v 777 All i"-*. LV- 1! VVE P. A 7 AAM p Pho Figure Coal HandlingFacilities at long --Bea*CA. . . . . . . . . .. . . . . ..... . .... . "417 P", I-T A -77 37 Pho to Figure Australian Coal at Honolulu Harbor Photot-Actouka FigV. Mobil Bulk Plant,* Saipan IWAmmm gj K V@@; i 'W Ilk 11 I f7 i'N 1 7 ;';T@ Or F7%v V-W vmv "AA= aim VAN '7 1@4 dR 9 Iasi , - -Iowa%. Ir A. -Ovi Sit Pho t Figure Saipan 21 Mwe Power Plant and Substation',. Nil , r-I -i P-11 74 Y:2 @ 71, T' C VIA.; 41 Fig West Dock, Rota Phot SIMI Air f@v -":'I tf iZ f ...ko t/ V rAft V F, 'r :4r,j f 04m p@ a"'PT, W71 -grow ,jpq@w' Air, 1IkjATV_..' '7 'tr t?7 Pho to i Figure Rota Diesel Power Plant at West Dock- 7-4 "t A4" @f4 tn. Ok xw; iv* 5 or East Dock, Rota Phol i,.yr -,I'! A: Y. 'Ph Figure Charlie Dock and Marianas Queeng Saipan .@I Ckv, 1: w4% -IC Tq ,,' ;A'p @.v 4.- unm it. 'vt;@ R 4 74" Z7 N-V NT -,444.V Uwe I t.11-1,@'(1?-t ;izj. IA no unions, A*119L A. Figj**. San Jose Harbor Tinian Photo PA@F- CAPAcrr RA P_ CA TY, 71 Z4VC) (34`0 7 Q- _c j'7,4-' Sao ziolto -a 10, (C-4! Q 'SW-c. Z. 3 rRAAJ.3 LUC_F_@ pAAIE4r, T F'7AIK GEOME-rMir- W@l .44U31MAD. WALL VEAtiS '4 -0 -0 HIGH noa- up.,00(3m 3:0 cwo )IIGN AAA@ 3 ATE o 1@ ;V. .7, STORAGE REC'!'L:AlM 1:0 L .7 P*6 skull COLUM4 C)RCLE PJLE DIAMETEM MACHWERY'SUPP'T PLAroromm -OR CXPTJOtlAL PEVTHOUSE. cmARGiAla coWE)(oft. RGOfr VE4TZ. 74 At tu STORAG ;liu PAC I IL TABLE lus .5,0PTS Salo zo INV iA@A;Mv ANV @rlO)JAL STACKIAIG TUBE- ELEVATIOIJ -"-PRo T.,S? INC f' .4wimmcw C.^Ljp"pv" CPW=L DEFINITIONS...,.: Al I - i n chaiget: S.i njl echarge for al I services. Alongside: 'With the vessel standing at the-quay or jetty, the cargo moved from ship direct to surface of quay (or in inverse direction)-. Opposite: overside. Anthracite Coal: A hard, high rank coal with high fixed carbon. Ash (fly ash): Light-weight solid particles that are carried into the atmosphere.by stack gases. -..Base Load: The.-minimum load of a utility, electric or gas, over, a given period of time. Berth: Section of quay (pier, wharf, or jetty) notionally designed jo. accommodate one vessel and including a section of the surface over which labor, equipment,'and cargo move to and from the vessel. By transference, in-shipowner's language, service to a port. Berthing fee (or charge): A charge levied by certain ports on the ve9sel to pay for the use of the berth (and not always payable, or fully payable, if the ship stays mid-stream). Bituminous Coal: The coal ranked below anthracite. It generally has a high heat content and is soft enough to be readily ground for easy combustion. It accounts for the bulk of all coal mined in this 4 -7 country. Break-bulk (cargo): Cargo packed. in separate packages (lots or consignments) or individual pieces of cargo, loaded; stowed, and unloaded individually; as distinct from bulk cargo. BTU: British thermal unit, a measure of the energy required to rais e one pound of water one degree Fahrenheit. Bulk carriers; bulker: Ship designed.to carry bulk, nonl i quid,. cargo....... Coa. a I iqu; .1 liquefaction:' Conversion of coal to for-use ap synth qti.c, petroleum. Coaster:. Ship.,that plies between coastal ports on the s*ame: coast or archipelago or in interisland trades. Commercial Sector: A subsector of service industries thatlincludes wholesale and retail trade, schools and other government nonmanufacturing facilities, hospitals and nursing homes, and hotels. As defined, 'this sector does not include transportation and household se i rvices. Conference.(liner or.steamship..conference): A-6mbination (technically, a cartel) of shipping companies (or owners) which sets common liner freight rates on a particular route and which regulates the provisiorf- of-services. Cra6age: A p-ort charge levied for the use of cranes. It is paid by ship or cargo owner or by both parties in certain proportions according tb-the customs of the port. DWT: Dead.weight tonnage. The weight in long tons that a vessel can carry when fully laden. Effluent: Any water flowing out of an enclosure or source to a ..surface water or groundwater flow network. Elasticity: The fractional change in a variable that is caused by a unit change in a second variable. Income elasticitie's are important in energy estimates, since these estimate the changes in quantities of energy demanded as incomes change. FCL: Full container load; a contaiher'that is delivered to the shippi.ng company full of the consignor's. cargo@ The meaning changes Jim.. accordingto who uses the term; ports may describe containers as FCL. e ving been u or_ -;-i fthey I ave@ the port's area without ha nstuffed stripped)..,. General cargo: Cargo, not*homogeneous in bulk, which consists of individual.. uni ts or packages (parcels). Greenhouse effect:- The potential rise in global atmospheric,temperatures due to an increasing concentration of COi in.the atmosphere. CO' absorbs some of the heat radiation given off the Earth, some of which is then reradiated back to the Earth. GRT: Gross register tonnage, a measure of the total space ofa vessel 'in terms of 100 cubic feet (equivalent tons) including mid-. deck, between deck, and the closed-in spaces above the upper deck, less certain exemptions. The GRT of most of the world's ships is, recorded j nLloyds Register,.- See also, NRT and DWT. Gross energy demand:@ The total amount of energy consumed by direct burning and indirect burning'by utilities to generate electricity. * Net energy demand.includes direct burning of fuels and the energy content of consumed electricity. The difference between gross and ne t energy demand is a measure of the energy losses by utility conversion to electricity. The difference between gross and new energy demand is a measure.of@the energy losses by utility convers to electricity,. About two-thirds of the energy input at the utility is lost in generation and transmission. Channel dues: 'Charge levied (on the vessel) for using the channel. Charter rate: Payment by charterer (such as cargo owner) to shipowner for the charterer (such as cargo owner) to shipowner for the charter of the vessel. It is determined by market conditions and terms of charter., c.i.f.: Cost + insurance + freight. This.corresponds in principle 0 t the landed pri.ce of shipments before tax. Coal .1he-process that produces synthetic gas from coal, Gross-National Product'(GN ?1: 'The..value of all goods..and.serv.ices -p rodu c@ e*d i.n a, given year. GNP i sa"value added" concept. It is stated in either current or tonstant'(real) dollars. Groundwater:. 'Subsurface water occupying the saturation zone from which - we] I s: and. springs are fed; 'in a.strict sense, this term applies only to water below the*water table. Heat pump: A device that moves heat from one environment to another. .-In the winter it moves heat from the outside of a building to the inside. and in the summer it moves heat from the inside to the outside. Hook: Loading and discharging point along a vessel; is the hook lowered by ship's derrick or crane to receive the net holding the c go. Hence, hook hours,'the base of a measure of port out ar put (cargo tons moved per hook hour). Industry: Industry is an aggregate of three sectors manufacturing, mining, and construction. Joule: A unit of energy which is equivalent to 1 watt for I second. 1 Btu 1,055 Joules. Labor force: The number-of persons 16 years of age or older who are either employed or actively looking for work. Landing charges: A charge levied by certain ports on the cargo- owner for receiving and handling imports. Te corresponding charge for exports is called shipping charag- Lash: Lighter.aboard ship. This is a techniqUe of water transport by which cargo is.loaded on barges which are in turn taken up by an ocean vessel which transports them and ultimately releases them to carry the cargo.into port. Less tha n contai 1 oad;, cargo destined for shipment I n a LCL: ner contal-ner. that. is-Aelivered by,the consignor for consolidation with other cargo'and@ insertion 1n a container by the shipPing.,company at a container freight station. Lignite: -lowest rank- coal from a heat The.", content:and fixed carbon standpoint. Measurement ton: A unit of quantity of cargo based on its cubic measurement (for example, 40 cubic foot or I cubic meter). Metallurgical coal: Coal used in the steelmaking process. Its special properties and difficulty of extractio.n-make it more expensive than. steam coal.. Feeder first carried . (service): Transport of containers which are by*the main line container vessel to a port of transshipment# unloaded, and then loaded on a smaller vessel' for feeding to a further port.. Feeder service implies transshipment. Flue-gas desUlfurization: The use of a stack scrubber to reduce emissions of sulfur oxides. See stack scrubber. f.o.b.: Free on board.: In the case of ocean carriage it means the value of the goods (including the value of packing) when placed on board the vessel.' It includes such charges as the shipper had to pay to.the port but excludes cargo Insurance (and freight) and corresponds only approximately to market value in the-exporting country. Freight tons: A heterogeneous unit for counting cargo or traffic in liner shipping. It is based on the rules by which freight rates are assessed. For cargo paid by weight tons, the weight ton (long, short, or metric) is a freight ton..-For 'cargo paid for by measurement- xam !5 -tons (for e ple,, 40'cubic; feet the measurement ton. isthe f reight ton. 0 n CFS:[email protected],. freight. stat Channel:. Pass.age of water leading to the port that is normally dred-ed And pol i ced by the port authority. 9 Methane: CH-, carburated hydrogen or marsh.gas formed by the.decomposition ..4 matter. It is, the moist common gas found,in coalimines. of. organic. NRT; Net register.tonnage, the GRT minus the spaces that are non- earning machinery, permanent bunkers, water ballast, and crew quarters.., Over the range .0 to 6,000 NRT there is a reasonably good correlation between NRT and DWT: OWT 2.5 NRT. One-off visit: A nonroutine or nonschedule call at a port. Overside: Cargo being loaded or unloaded from ship into barges standing along the vessel. Opposite: alongside Palet (palette): Tray or other solid base oh.which cargo is loaded for.loading or'unloading; a form of unitized,cargo (paletized). Palet ships are designed to carry cargo piled on palets. Particulate matter: Solid airborne particles, such as ash. Peak power: The maximum amount of electrical energy consumed in any consecutive number of minutes, say 15 or 30 minutes, during a month. Port dues: A.charge levied by certain ports on the vessel or cargo. Process steam and heat: Steam and heat produced for industrial process uses, such as the activation of drive mechanisms and product processing. Productivity: The.value of goods or services produced by a worker in a, given period of time, such as one hour. For the United States in 1975, this averaged $7.39. Increases in output over time are used to measure gains in productivity. A variety of time-periods are used, in r Also, productivity.statements cluding 6utput per worker pe ear.,. -of ten refer to gains in private sector output per worker rather-than output in the total economy. job Quad One quadrillio r u n (101,5) British the 'mal * nits (Btu).. Quai.charges (rer!t):. A port charge levied on the vessel for the. use of the quay' Reserves: Resources of known location, quantity, and quality which are,.economically recoverable using currently available technologies. Residential sector: Includes all.primary living units houses,' apartments and mobile homes. Households are classified as follows; a) family households, which incorporate persons who are either married. or blood related'; b) primary individual households, which are made up either of single persons or incorporate two or.more persons who are neither married or blood-related. Resources: 'Mineral or ore estimates that include reserves, identified deposits that cannot presently be extracted due to economical or technological reasons, and other deposits that have not been discovered but whose existence is inferred. Retrofit: A modification of an existing structure, such as a house or.its. equipment to reduce energy requirements for heating or cooling. Thereare basic. types of retrofit: equipment, such as a heat pump replaci.ng less efficient equipment; and insulation, storm doors, calking, etc., designed to lower energy requirements. Roll-on/roll-off: Cargo carried in wheeled containers or wheeled trailers aboard and moving on to the ship and off it on wheels, usually over ramps. Seam: A bed of coal or other valuable mineral of any thickness. Ship measurements: Measures of cubic capacity, in tons of 199 cubic feet; see GRT.. NRT, and DWT.. a mi xture of liquid and Slurry.pipeline:-- Apipeline that conveys s lid, The primary applicatiop proposed is to move-coal long distances o (over-300 mi es) i.n a@water mixture. Stack scrubber:. An air pollution control device that usually uses a liquid spray*to remove.pollutants, such as sulfur dioxide or particulates, from a gas stream by absorption or chemical reaction. Scrubbers are also used to reduce the temperature of the emissions. Steam coal: Coal suitable for combustion in boilers. It is generally soft enough for easy grinding and less expensive-than metallurgical coal or anthracite. ....Stevedore: Labor employed to load and unload cargo and, by transference, the organizer of this work. In many-ports, stevedores only work 'aboard ships for the.account of vessel or cargo-owner, and work ashore is done by the port's labor. Subbituminous coal: A low rank coal with low fixed carbon and high percentages of volatile matter and moisture. Sulfates: A class of secondary pollutants that includes acid-sulfates ..and neutral metallic sulfates. Sulfur: An element that appears in many fossil fuels. In combustion of the fuel the sulfur combines with oxygen to form sulfur dioxide. Sulfur dioxide: One of several forms of sulfur in the air; an air pollutant generated principally from combustion of fuels that contain sulfur. Supply: The functional connection between the price of a good and the-quantity of that.good that some agent is willing to sell at that price. The supply function is generally positive, or (geometrically ;...speaking) tip-sloping,.meaningthat as the'price goes up, the quantity s uppl ted also goes.up Swing fuel A fuel that plays a key role during the transition from.. exhausti.ble...to inexhaustible fuels. Coal is.viewed by many as 'the swing. fuel. during the transition. Synthetic fuel:, A fuel produced by biologically, chemically,.or thermally transforming other fuels'or materials. TEU: Twenty-foot equivalent unit. Standard unit for counting (equivalent) containers of various dimensions: 20 x 8 x 8 feet; in other words, A 20-foot equivalent container. Transportation sector: Includes five subsectors: 1) automobiles; 2) service trucks; 3) truck/bus/rail freight; 4) air transport; and 5) ship/ba.rge/pipeline. Trampers (Tramps): Nonscheduled, nonconferpnce vessels. Transit shed: A shed in the port area, usually in customs-bonded- areIa, which is positioned behind the berth to receive cargo unloaded from vessel or for loading. Distinct from warehouse. Unit train: A system for delivering coal in which a string of cars, with-distinctive markings and loaded to full visible capacity, is operated without service frills or.stops along the way for cars to be cut in and out. Unitized cargo: Cargo packed in units, for easy presentation to vessel and port; for example, containered cargo and paletized cargo. Western coal: Can refer to all coal reserves west of the Mississippi. By Bureau of Mines definition, includes only those coalfields wes-t of straight line disecting Minnesota and running to the Western tip of Texas. Wyomi.ng and Montana (subbituminous) and North Dakota (lignite) have the largest.reserves. Wharfage: -A -charge levied by some. ports on the cargo owner.for the ' -6f.the por rface over which the ca.rgo moves..@ use t su Primary Personnel Contacted Government 0. Governor Pedro P. Tenori Pedro-A. Tenorio -Lt. Governor Senate President Olympio T@ Borja Benigno R. Fitial Speaker of the House* Herman M. Manglona Mayor, Tinian Prudencio T. Manglona Mayor, Rota Ramon S. Guerrero Special Assistant to the Governor, CNMI Gloria Hunter Special Assistant for Programs and Legislative Review George Chan Acting Special Assistant for.Planning and Budget Ivan Groom Physical Pl anni ng -Of f i ce Ignacio M. Sablan Consultant to the.Special Assistant to the Governor for Planning and Budget Manny T. Sablan Acting Program Coordinator, Coastal',., Resources Management Herman Guerrero Washington Office George Ehlers Physical Planning Nick Songsong Rota, Labor and Commerce Tony Tenorio Consultant to Public Works Masahiro Nishimoto Power Plant Branch Supervisor, Department of Public Works Ben Sablan Acting Director of Public Works, Tinjan Antonio C. Mona Chief of Labor Henry U. Hofschneider Tinian, Marianas Public Land Corporation William R. Concepcion Chief Planner, MPLC Jose R. Lifoifoi Chairman, Resources and Development, House of Representatives Private Sector David M. Sablan President, MICROL Corporation Alfred Santos President,.Saipan Stevedore Company Don Conner Tinian, Stevedores, Inc. Jose A. Songsong Assistant Executive Director, Ports Authority 3 6668 1 102 3970