120424 apm terminals - ports in the future presentation 3 mb
TRANSCRIPT
APM Terminals APM Terminals
Ports in the FutureSoren Sjostrand JakobsenHead of Project ImplementationAPM TerminalsThe Hague, Netherlands
Presentation overview Presentation overview
• APM Terminals Introduction
• Why are we in Gothenburg?Why are we in Gothenburg?
• Setting the stage (the shipping industry today and what are our customers looking for)
• How can we enhance the services we offer – and do we need to?
• Productivity – the future battleground
Company overview –and why is APM Terminals in Sweden and Gothenburgand why is APM Terminals in Sweden and Gothenburg
3
APM Terminals is part of A P Moller–Maersk Group APM Terminals is part of A.P. Moller–Maersk Group
A.P. Moller-Maersk Group Copenhagen, Denmark
• 2011 Revenue: USD 60.2 bill(Shipping, Energy, Retail)
• 108,000 employees, 130 countries.
APM Terminals The Hague, Netherlands
• 2011 Revenue: USD 4.7 bill. Segment result USD 649 millresult USD 649 mill
• 2011 container volume: 33.5m TEUs (Container Volumes weighted by equity share)
• 24,000 employees, 64 countries
• 56 operating terminals, 15 projects, 155 inland facilities
4
History: 54 years of innovation, growth and progress
First dedicated A.P. Moller terminal facility opens, in the Port of New York.1958Containerization begins to change patterns of global trade and growth; the company opens its first dedicated container terminal at Berth 51, Port Newark, NJ USA.1970s p , ,
Ongoing evolution of containerization and economic efficiencies of international trading patterns lead to the rapid establishment of global port load centers and transhipment networks, requiring highly coordinated and specialized container terminal operations and equipment as vessels grow in size and capacity.
1980s
Maersk Line acquisition of US-based Sea-Land Services enlarges scope of terminal operations globally.1999
APM Terminals is established as a separate container terminal operating company within Maersk Line.
2001
APM Terminals becomes an independent corporate entity, with HQ in The Hague, Netherlands.2004
Revenue of $2.5 billion, $111 million profit; APM Terminals reports earnings separately.2007
Named “Port Operator of the Year” by Containerisation International Magazine.2006
2007Only true Global Terminal Network in port industry; Focus on emerging market investment.2008Named "Port Operator of the Year" by Lloyd's List.; Revenue of $3 billion 2009
I l d i i f d h APM T i l bi d f $4 2 billi2010
APM Terminals named winner of Lloyd’s List Global Safety Award
Inland services unit transferred to the APM Terminals; combined revenue of $4.2 billion2010
2011
Established as separate, independent business unit in 2004 unit in 2004
Segment Cash Flow
Revenue
4 251
4,682
Segment Result
Segment Cash Flow
from Operations
3,126
4,0244,251
2,068
2,520
,
793679 760
845 912
1,3131,504
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
53 92 142 160302
431649
103 230 299 275
679
6
APM Terminals’ Financial Results 2004-2011 (Million USD)
Our port facilities: A balanced global network serving all major marketsserving all major markets
Port facilities: Europe regionPort facilities: Europe region
8
Projects under implementation Projects under implementation
MV2
V d
CTWGothenburg
SCCT Ph 2 Aqaba Ph 2
Vado
Moin
Poti
Pipavav
Lazaro Cardenas
Luanda
Monrovia
Santos
Callao
Moin
Apapa Ph2
Projects under implementation
Santos
Initiation phase
Planning phase
9
Execution phase
Why is APM Terminals in Gothenburg?Why is APM Terminals in Gothenburg?
Gothenburg – Strong Market Position • Largest gateway in Sweden – and handles only
Real GDP GrowthSource: IHS Global Insight
g g y ygateway cargo, not competing for transhipment
• The only real deep sea container terminal in Sweden & Norway
Gothenburg Container Volume2.0
4.0
6.0
Sweden
Eurozone
• 45% of Gothenburg cargo goes on rail using unmatched rail connectivity
600
800
1000
1200
1400
(0
00
)
6 0
-4.0
-2.0
0.0
2000
2002
2004
2006
2008
2010
2012
2014
2016
2018
2020
0
200
400
600
TEU
-6.0
Why is APM Terminals in Gothenburg?Why is APM Terminals in Gothenburg?
37.4 40 0
Crane moves / hourUASC, 3.0%
Other, 7.4%
Share of Swedish Market 2010
29.3 28.0 27.5 21.9
10.0
20.0
30.0
40.0 Maersk Line, 22.8%
OOCL, 4.2%
Evergreen, 3.7%
COSCO, 3.3%
Hamburg Sud, 3.2%
APL, 3.0%
‐
ZEE BRV AAR ROT SCT
MSC, 13.9%
Hapag Lloyd, 11.2%CMA CGM,
10 6%
Yang Ming, 5.0%
CSCL, 4.8%
Hanjin Shipping, 4.3%
10.6%
Our vision for GothenburgOur vision for Gothenburg
The shipping industry today – setting the stageThe shipping industry today – setting the stage
13
Seaborne trade has grown faster than global GDPSeaborne trade has grown faster than global GDP
Indices for world GDP, the OECD Industrial Production Index, world merchandise trade and world seaborne trade 1975-2011 (1990=100)
300
250
200
150
100 World merchandise trade
World seaborne trade
W ld GDP50
0
1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005
World GDP
OECD Industrial
Production Index
14
1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2011
Increased use of containers; higher productivityIncreased use of containers; higher productivity
Indices for global container, tanker and major dry bulk volumes 1990-2011 (1990=100)
700
600 Container
Major dry bulks
500
400
Major dry bulks
Tanker
300
200
100
0
1990 1995 2000 2005 2011
15
1990 1995 2000 2005 2011
Source: UNCTAD secretariat, based on Review of Marine Transport, various issues; and on Clarkson Research Services, Shipping Review and Outlook, Spring 2011
Global container throughput growth 1970-2010Global container throughput growth 1970-2010
Million TEUs
600
500
600
300
400
100
200
19801970 1990 2000
02010
16
(Source: Containerisation International Data 2011)
Long-term attractiveness of the port industry is driven by ongoing globalization containerization and privatizationongoing globalization, containerization and privatization
World container port handling demand (TEU million)
• 10% CAGR from 1990 - 2008Fundamental drivers
• (9.1% ) global volume loss for 2009 • Recovery in 2010 with 14.8% growth• 50% projected rise 2009-2015
Fundamental drivers of port demand
• Global economic growth.• Increased regional trade (e.g.
Intra-Asia).• Increased containerization of
commodities (e.g. grain, reefer).
• Necessity to upgrade existing capacity (e.g. larger vessels, deep draft and larger crane requirements)..
• Growing consumer demand in developing countries.
F t d fi b d
17 (Source: Drewry Shipping Consultants, October 2011)
Forecasted figures based on 5% average annual growth
Container shipping factsContainer shipping facts
Largest vessel Container shipping Number of super post Largest vessel
1980: 2,800 teu1990: 4,800 teu2006: 7 100 teu
pp gfinancial results:
2009: (USD 16 Bil)
2010: USD 20 Bil
Number of super post panamax cranes:
2000: 172006: 7,100 teu2011: 15,500 teu2013: 18,000 teu
2010: USD 20 Bil
2011: (USD 8 Bil)2010: 3,200
Maersk Line Market Share
1992: 4%
MSC Market Share
1992: 4%
CMA-CGM Market Share
1992: 3%
2011: 16% 2011: 13% 2011: 8%
18
(Sources: Drewry Shipping Consultants, Alphaliner)
Let’s just take the financials againLet s just take the financials again
Estimated financial result for the liner industryEstimated financial result for the liner industryshipping financial results:
• 2009 (USD 16 bill)
• 2010 USD 20 bill
• 2011 (USD 8 bill)2011 (USD 8 bill)
• 2012 (USD XX bill)
19
New larger vessels are being deployed –80% of all new buildings are VLCS/ULCSg /
World Container Fleet Development to 2014
Source: Alphaliner Oct 201120
The next generation is hereThe next generation is here
Shipping lines continue to seek greater economies gof scale.
In 2013, the Maersk Line EEE series will be the largest vessels afloat
•Capacity: 18,000 TEUs•Length: 400 metersg•Beam: 60 meters•23 containers across
21
So what are our customers looking for?So what are our customers looking for?
22
It is all rather simple when you sum it upIt is all rather simple when you sum it up
• Growing industry: 6-8% y-o-y growth, doubles in 10-12 years
• Truly global industry most top 20 carriers are global players• Truly global industry, most top 20 carriers are global players
BUTBUT
• Dysfunctional industry with poor financial returns (our t t bl di th i ti bl d)customers are not bleeding, they are squirting blood)
• Cutthroat competition for market share
• Huge investments in new big ships containers IT etc• Huge investments in new big ships, containers, IT etc.
• Industry consolidation limited
23
So what are they looking for?So what are they looking for?
• Productivity – minimum growing with the vessel size
• Lower cost per unit including unit price reduction• Lower cost per unit – including unit price reduction
• Remove infrastructure bottlenecks – as long as they don’t have to pay
• Hinterland connectivity (truck, rail, barge, feeders)
• Logistics systems that work (customs, forwarders, depots)
24
Can we enhance the services we offer?And do we need to?And do we need to?
25
Inland Services elevated Inland Services elevated
26
Cologne, Germany Pipavav, India
Port industry needs to respondLogistics services Inland infrastructure and connectivity
Port industry needs to respond
b l f dSustainability- Safety and Environment
27
Productivity – the new battleground. And we need itAnd we need it…
28
1950’s1950 s
29
20112011
30
Land reclamation: The NetherlandsLand reclamation: The Netherlands
M l kt II R tt d
31
Source: Port of Rotterdam
Maasvlakte II, Rotterdam
Land reclamation: Costa RicaLand reclamation: Costa Rica
32
Moin, Costa Rica
The evolution of crane sizes... and why nothing has happened in the past 30 years has happened in the past 30 years
Terminal productivity has stagnatedTerminal productivity has stagnated
The situation at APM Terminals is similar across the industry. The charts below show average productivity across 20 APM Terminals facilities regularly handling exchanges of more than 2 500 movesof more than 2,500 moves.
4 0
5.0
6.0
ity
Crane Intensity
40
50
60
ur
Gross Crane Productivity
‐
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
crane intens
Max
Average
Min
‐
10
20
30
40
moves / ho
u
Max
Average
Min
250
Berth Productivity
50
100
150
200
moves / ho
ur
Max
Average
Min
34
‐
Larger ships will result in longer port stays,unless we take actionunless we take action…
Maersk Line’s Triple E ships have 16% more capacity than the PS class –but they are the same length. This means that crane intensity, and h f b h d i i ill i h h ltherefore berth productivity will remain the same on these larger
vessels unless we change the game
35
We have many many optionsWe have many many options
From bigger cranes … … to smarter cranesFrom bigger cranes … … to smarter cranes
Innovation: FastNet cranes will double productivityInnovation: FastNet cranes will double productivity
37
Remote STS / RTG opsRemote STS / RTG ops
From this…
To this…
38
Innovation: A path to improved productivity Innovation: A path to improved productivity
Lift Automated-Guided Vehicles at the new Maasvlakte II at the new Maasvlakte II terminal in Rotterdam will increase productivity by an estimated 25-50% over conventional terminal design.
For the first phase of the Maasvlakte II terminal, the fleet ,will consist of diesel/electric-powered 36 Lift AGVs in combination with 128 storage racks
39
racks.
Split head-blocksSplit head-blocks
40
Dual hoist craneDual hoist crane
Dual hoist offers two completely independent hoisting t hi h t ith i t d
41
systems, which can operate either in tandem, or separately.
Double trolley craneDouble trolley crane
Double trolley cranes decouple the ship side crane cycle, from the yard operation.
An added benefit is that twistlock handlers work An added benefit is that twistlock handlers work on an elevated platform above the hazardous wharf area.
It is possible to combine dual hoist and double
42
trolley functionality. QQCT has 6 dual hoist, double trolley cranes.
Stack profilingStack profiling
Stack profiling uses 3D laser scanners to build up a map of where the containers are on a ship, or in a stack. Because the crane “knows” where the containers are damage due to accidental knows where the containers are, damage due to accidental impacts, or heavy landings can be virtually eliminated.
Knowing the shape of the container stack enables the “flight
43
path” of the container to be automated and optimized – reducing cycle time.
Personnel detectionPersonnel detection
44
Even with equal hardware - results are differentEven with equal hardware - results are different
A significant productivity gap exists between our best terminals, and the rest. Yokohama is the only terminal close to reaching the physical limit of STS crane productivity It is clear that consistent productivity of 35+ moves / hour is achievableproductivity. It is clear that consistent productivity of 35+ moves / hour is achievable.
60
Avg Gross Crane Productivity 9 months to Q1 2011 ( > 2,500 moves)
30
40
50
oves / ho
ur
10
20 gross m
o
‐
45
Benefits of higher productivityBenefits of higher productivity
Shipping lines
• Fewer vessels required for a string• Fewer vessels required for a string
• Lower fuel cost
• Dependable service
• Schedule flexibility
Port operators
• Capacity optimized, expanded
• Lower operating cost through scale
Lower (or avoidable) investments • Lower (or avoidable) investments
• Safety improvements
• Happy customersppy
46
So are we ready to take on the challenge?So are we ready to take on the challenge?