Tffi\DaleCole & Ass*c{nt*s

J,r iq,n,i'j{ "[.; -t" .*""'ot*, O*U U** nn5

9 July 2018

Panuku Development AucklandPO Box 90343Victoria Street West.Auckland 1142New Zealand

Attention: Mr Tommy Ma - Senior Planning Consents Advisor

Dear Sir

Queens Wharf Mooring Dolphins - Confirmation

I am in receipt of your e-mail, with attachments, dated 6 July 2019.

These documents have been reviewed by the undersigned. lt is noted the drawings havebeen provided by Beca.

These drawings conform to the objectives and recommendations of the report Dale Cole &Associates prepared for Auckland Transport in October 2017.

I therefore support the intention and rationale of the drawings and believe if panuku'sconsent application is granted these two dolphins will provide Auckland Transport with a safeberthing option for cruise ships between 294 meters and up to 362 meters LOA at eueensWharf East,

It is noted that the use of Queens Wharf West to berth cruise ships will no longer be part ofAuckland's cruise ship berthing options, as this berth will be expanded to enable additionalberths for local ferry operators.

Yours faithfully

Dale ColeDirector

u'New south wales I Po Box 3005, Tuross Head NSW 2ss7 lr: +61 2 4478 9139 | M: + 61 418 115 7971 E: daie@dcadt.com.au

1

Report

To

Auckland Transport

From

Dale Cole & Associates Pty Ltd

Into

Berthing Requirements

For

Cruise Ships

At

Auckland’s Queens Wharf East & West

October 2017

2

INDEX

Chapter Title Page

1.0 Introduction 3 2.0 Executive Summary 6 2.1 Visual Approach 6 2.2 Mooring Challenges 6 2.3 Dolphin Walkway 7 3.0 Outline of work to be undertaken 8 4.0 Auckland 10 5.0 QWE and QWW berthing options 12 5.1 Preparing QWE and QWW for cruise ship arrivals 12 5.2 Berthing Options at QWE and QWW in diagrammatical form 12 5.3 Outer berthing dolphins 16 5.4 Other berthing restrictions 16 5.5 Appropriate restrictions prior to the construction of the dolphins 17 5.6 Why the Inner Dolphin proposed by Pacific Marine is not recommended? 17 5.7 Dolphin walkway / gangway 19 5.8 Cost to undertake excursion, creep and environmental risk analysis 19 6.0 Risk Analysis 20 6.1 Previous Risk reviews 20 6.2 DCA’s Risk Review 20 6.3 Worley Parsons’ Risk Review 22 Appendix A: Glossary of terms 23 Appendix B: Gap Analysis 26 Appendix C: Photographs of oversize cruise ships mooring line layout 33 Appendix D: Beca’s Queens Wharf comments – Page 31 and 32 40 Appendix E: Photographs of damaged QWE fenders 41 Appendix F: Mr Kelle’s quotation 42

3

1.0 Introduction The first Queens Wharf was built of timber in 1852. This structure was demolished in 1911 and replaced with the current timber and concrete structure in 1914. The wharf is heritage listed. In 1914 ships berthing at Queens Wharf were at least one-third the length of the longer cruise ships booked to call at Auckland in 2017 / 2018 and one-twelfth their Gross Tonnage1.

Figure 1: Diamond Princess (LOA 290.2 metres) alongside QWE (Photo courtesy Princess Cruisers)

The Auckland Harbourmaster (AHM) confers with senior pilots to define the parameters for determining a safe berth under Direction 1-14 of the Maritime Transport Act 1994 (MTA 1994). The current practise is for cruise ships up to 295 metres Length over-all (LOA) to berth at Queens Wharf East (QWE) and cruise ships between 295 metres and 320 metres LOA to berth at Princess Wharf East (PWE). Cruise ships less than 200 metres LOA can berth at Queens Wharf West (QWW).

1 See Appendix A Page 23

4

Stakeholders2 have requested Dale Cole & Associates Pty Ltd (DCA) to provide the AHM with a plan to safely berth cruise ships over 295 metres LOA as well as cruise ships over 320 metres LOA (oversize) at QWE and cruise ships less than 200 metres LOA at QWW. DCA has also been asked to review environmental conditions which may influence any restrictions placed on visiting cruise ships as well as issues that may have safety implications when cruise ships are berthed at either QWE or QWW. The AHM will consult with senior port pilots to ensure DCA’s plan is acceptable and sustainable. The concept of passenger ships, on dedicated routes i.e. Southampton to New York lost their appeal over 50-years ago to air transport and it wasn’t until some 45-years ago when entrepreneurs realised there were sufficient Americans and Europeans wanting a cruise experience rather than a means to travel between designated ports. This created opportunities for smaller ports in the Caribbean, Northern Australia, South Pacific, New Zealand, Alaska, North-west Canada and the Mediterranean to establish their uniqueness and attract cruise industry operators. As a consequence, ports with limited trading appeal found themselves in demand as attractive destinations for cruise ships. A number of these ports are located in regions where port infrastructure had not kept pace with changing maritime history. Wharf apron space is one of the biggest challenges. In a significant number of ports the new cruise vessels were longer than the available berths so innovative ways to safely berth these vessels had to be found. Several berthing options are shown in Appendix C (Page 33). Cruise ships are one of four categories3 where vessel size has dramatically increased. 60-years ago the largest passenger ships in the world were Cunard’s Queen Elizabeth and Queen Mary, both just over 83,000 Gross Tons with a LOA of 314 metres and 311 metres respectively. By way of illustration the three largest cruise vessels scheduled to call at Auckland: Majestic Princess Gross Tonnage 144,216 (LOA 330 metres), Ovation of the Seas 168,666 (LOA 348 metres) and Queen Mary 2 149,215 (LOA 345 metres). Waiting in the wings are the Oasis class cruise ships which are approximately 225,282 Gross Tons and 362 metres LOA. Obviously cruise ship operators have to make sure their capital investment is protected. An Oasis class cruise ship visiting Auckland represents an investment of approximately US$1.4 billion, accommodates a maximum of 6,680 passengers and has a crew of 2,196. Cruise operators undertake berthing analysis and / or simulations to demonstrate to their shareholders, port authorities, agents, insurers, crews and passengers that their vessel can safely moor alongside smaller wharf faces provided an innovative spread of mooring lines and dolphins are used to minimize or eliminate vessel excursions4 and creep, as a

2 Auckland Council, Ports of Auckland Limited, Auckland Transport (AT) and Panuku Development Auckland 3 The others being dry bulk, container and Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) 4 See Appendix A Page 23

5

consequence of environmental factors and mooring line alignment. Implicit in this review is acceptance QWE and QWW and its fittings are fit for purpose. However few, if any, wharves dedicated for use by today’s cruise operators are over 100-years old and heritage listed. DCA has not been asked to investigate the strength of the current bollards and fenders attached to QWE and QWW and whether additional structures are required in order to protect the integrity of the wharf under a range of environmental factors and mooring line alignments. However DCA notes that Beca Limited’s Queens Wharf Mooring Option5 report has concerns about the structural integrity of Queens Wharf infrastructure for cruise ships over 295 metres LOA. DCA has not undertaken an engineering analysis of the wharf structure, but suggests that Beca is well qualified to register their opinion. In addition to berthing options DCA has been asked to review normal port activity which includes passengers, crew, shore staff and repair personnel embarking or disembarking, as well as the interchange of baggage and stores. For these operations to be conducted safely vessel excursions and creep have to be minimized or eliminated. DCA notes different locations were used to extract critical wind velocities. For example: Pacific Marine Management (Pacific Marine) and Wind Climatology used data from Auckland Airport, while DCA used data from POAL’s anemometer situated on Bledisloe Wharf. There are differences between the Airport data and Bledisloe data. DCA argues the Bledisloe data is more relevant than the Airport data. DCA has used Bledisloe Wharf wind data in this report. DCA notes, when researching the approach of port owners, authorities or corporations to port safety, every port has either length, draft, breadth or environmental limitations, which dictate the suitability of the berth and / or port to safely berth / accommodate a cruise ship in weather conditions deemed suitable and appropriate. DCA recommends that Auckland’s approach be no different. 5 See Appendix D Page 40

6

2.0 Executive Summary

Stakeholders, through the AHM, engaged DCA to undertake a review of the berthing arrangements for cruise ships under 320 metres LOA and over 320 metres LOA, which currently call or are forecast to call at Auckland. In the preparing this advice DCA is mindful of the following challenges: 1. Berthing, what are currently the world’s largest cruise ships (Oasis class cruise ships that

are 2.7 times the size, in gross tonnage terms, of the iconic passenger ships of yester-year Queen Elizabeth and Queen Mary), at Auckland’s Heritage Listed QWE.

2. The absence of simulator trials to confirm the acceptance by pilots and the AHM that it

would be appropriate to berth oversize cruise ships at QWE given their size and wharf fallibilities.

3. The need to identify appropriate mooring arrangements that will restrict vessel

excursions and creep. 4. Determine the maximum wind velocity oversize cruise ships can berth and / or remain

alongside QWE. 2.1 Visual Approach At the time of writing this Report, DCA is reliant on its maritime and naval architecture background to identify appropriate berthing solutions. In DCA’s opinion cruise ships berthing at QWE in excess of 320 metres LOA, are not afforded a secure mooring platform unless two dolphins are constructed north of the northern face of Queens Wharf. The distance north of the wharf will be determined by a combination of simulation and calculation. Therefore the drawings shown in Section 5 (Pages 13, 14 and 15) provide stakeholders with a diagrammatic presentation of the positioning of the dolphins should vessel simulation and naval architecture calculations support DCA’s visual approach. The Figure 12 photograph on Page 37 shows a two dolphin option illustrating DCA’s suggested visual approach. 2.2 Mooring challenges In addition to the length challenges each oversize vessel pose, individual vessels have for’d and aft mooring leads the positioning of which vary from ship to ship. These differences add to the complexity of designing an appropriate mooring profile at QWE.

With this in mind, DCA has looked at a model where for’d and aft mooring arrangements become part of the AHM’s suite of considerations to determine whether berthing an oversize cruise ship is berthed bow in (facing south) or bow out (facing north). Because of the age of the wharf and its surrounds berthing head out (facing north) will be a challenge for pilots, as the berthing manoeuvre will have to be as delicate as possible to

7

ensure cruise ship propeller turbulence does not undermine the Quay Street seawall at the southern end of Queens Wharf. However, DCA accepts the AHM may require some flexibility when exercising his / her discretion as to the alignment of both under 320 metres LOA cruise ships and oversized cruise ships as all have variable features for consideration such as the positioning of baggage and stores shell6 openings. DCA commissioned naval architect (Holger Kelle) to review Pacific Marine’s report on the suitability of the inner dolphin to provide a safe mooring platform for oversized cruise ships berthing at QWE. Using the data provided by Pacific Marine; Mr Kelle determined the inner dolphin option (Point 3 Page 9) does not provide the required safe berthing platform for Majestic Princess LOA 330 metres, and is unlikely to provide a stable platform for any oversize cruise ships when wind velocities exceed 16.0 m/s. This argument is pursued in Section 5.6 Page 17 and Appendix B Page 26. In DCA’s opinion cruise ships between 340 and 362 metres LOA will require an intermediate and an outer dolphin to enable this class of cruise ship to run breast7 lines as well as stern / headlines that will provide pre-compression to the wharf fenders thus assisting in the elimination of vessel excursion and creep when wind velocities exceed 10 m/s. 2.3 Dolphin Walkway In Section 5.7 (Page 19) DCA articulates the benefits of a dolphin walkway. Summarized these benefits are: 1. Security. 2. Safety. 3. Mooring line flexibility. 4. Increasing stern and / or bow mooring line options.

6 See Appendix A Page 23 7 See Appendix A page 23

8

3.0 Outline of work to be undertaken The purpose of AT’s decision to engage DCA is to assess the dolphin options which have been proposed in terms of their ability to safely moor the reference ships, including environmental conditions, which may require mitigation measures or would preclude berthing the ship. In addition DCA was asked to review safe working and mooring arrangements, and propose any modifications, alternatives or operational strategies to ensure an oversize cruise ship can safely berth at QWE. AT stipulated the following should be considered: 1. Understand NZ Legislative and legal requirements relating to the safe berthing of ships. 2. Review technical information attached. This would include providing commentary of this

work and suggestions of any further technical work, which may need to be undertaken in order to provide a full assessment of the options.

3. Engage with Harbour Master, Port Pilots and where necessary the officers of Royal

Caribbean International and Carnival Corporation, the operators of the reference ships, on the capability and operation of the ships with the proposed mooring dolphins.

4. If required, discuss the technical reports provided with the authors of these reports. 5. Undertake a risk assessment of the dolphin options. In the case of the dolphin off the

end of the wharf with or without a gangway, the risk assessment undertaken by Worley Parsons may be utilised. In the case of the dolphin adjacent to Queens Wharf a risk assessment will need to be undertaken. The risk assessment may be conducted with the input of respective parties either in Auckland or via videoconference.

6. Propose operating conditions or mitigation measures which comply with accepted

practises, which would enable the safe operation of each of the mooring dolphin options. Additional technical input advice or assessment may be requested for these proposals.

7. Provide a report of the findings of the review, risk assessment and any proposed

additional or alternative measures. This should be provided initially in a draft form to enable discussion with the commissioning parties. Reports back may occur after each stage of the study.

The study will be led by the AHM and will report to and involve a steering group comprising the Development Programme Office of Auckland Council, Ports of Auckland, Panuku Development Auckland and Auckland Tourism Events and Economic Development. Stakeholders have also requested DCA to undertake a review of berthing options at QWW for cruise ships up to 200 metres LOA. In addition to the above the AHM has requested DCA undertake a review of berthing options complete with a risk assessment, which a prudent mariner would normally consider when berthing at an international port / berth for the first time.

9

In the original brief AT requested DCA to review seven options, which, for practical and feasibility reasons, were reduced to three: 1. Outer dolphin (positioned 75 metres north of the centre line of Queens Wharf) with a

connecting walkway between the dolphin and wharf apron. 2. Outer dolphin position as above without a connecting walkway between the dolphin and

the wharf apron. 3. Inner Dolphin (a cluster of bollards fitted on a dolphin positioned adjacent to the centre of

the northern end of Queens Wharf). This report reviews these options. It also recommends an additional dolphin similar to 1, but placed 35 metres north of Queens Wharf (approximately halfway between the outer dolphin and the northern face of the wharf) is constructed to ensure cruise ships are moored safely at both QWE and QWW.

10

4.0 Auckland

Figure 2: Ports of Auckland Operational Areas

Auckland is New Zealand’s largest city and, in terms of ship movements, its busiest port. In 2017 / 2018 104 cruise ships of varying length will call at Auckland. The Auckland cruise season now runs for 12-months: 1 July to 30 June. Oversized cruise ships are included in the 104 count. Most cruise ships are scheduled to spend nine to sixteen hours per visit either alongside QWE, QWW or PWE. Four will overnight in Auckland. As the photographs in Appendix C (Page 33) show, it is not unheard of for cruise ships to overhang their berth. This situation presents an outcome acceptable to risk managers. However, most of the illustrated cases are in ports where the infrastructure is relatively modern, environmental conditions more benign and the tidal range8 is, in the majority of ports, less than Auckland’s spring range. The issue of tidal range is significant, as it determines mooring line fetch9. In short the greater the tidal range the longer the length of mooring line.

8 See Appendix A Page 23 9 See Appendix A Page 23

11

DCA has reviewed eight years of wind velocity data collected from Bledisloe Wharf. The occurrence of wind velocities over 20 knots (10.0 m/s) has been identified. The table below illustrates this point:

Wind Speed, in knots

0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0 Total

N 0.0 1.88% 2.33% 1.17% 0.27% 0.05% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 5.71%

NNE 22.5 1.06% 2.80% 2.56% 0.77% 0.17% 0.02% 0.00% 0.00% 7.39%

NE 45.0 0.85% 1.71% 1.80% 0.70% 0.14% 0.02% 0.00% 0.00% 5.23%

ENE 67.5 0.86% 1.77% 1.52% 0.86% 0.28% 0.06% 0.01% 0.00% 5.35%

E 90.0 0.92% 1.90% 1.69% 0.80% 0.27% 0.08% 0.01% 0.00% 5.67%

ESE 112.5 0.76% 1.02% 0.73% 0.16% 0.04% 0.01% 0.00% 0.00% 2.74%

SE 135.0 1.05% 0.95% 0.19% 0.03% 0.01% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 2.24%

SSE 157.5 2.00% 1.29% 0.22% 0.03% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 3.56%

S 180.0 2.61% 2.13% 0.38% 0.03% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 5.15%

SSW 202.5 2.78% 4.42% 1.39% 0.14% 0.01% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 8.74%

SW 225.0 2.52% 4.22% 1.53% 0.16% 0.01% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 8.44%

WSW 247.5 2.90% 3.37% 1.02% 0.14% 0.01% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 7.45%

W 270.0 4.95% 4.77% 1.71% 0.40% 0.05% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 11.88%

WNW 292.5 3.79% 3.50% 1.86% 0.52% 0.11% 0.02% 0.00% 0.00% 9.80%

NW 315.0 2.50% 2.19% 1.19% 0.52% 0.17% 0.04% 0.01% 0.00% 6.62%

NNW 337.5 1.58% 1.58% 0.61% 0.21% 0.06% 0.01% 0.00% 0.00% 4.05%

360.0 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

Total 33.02% 39.96% 19.59% 5.74% 1.39% 0.27% 0.04% 0.01% 100.00%

Table 1: Bledisloe Wharf Wind Data 2010-2017 DCA’s review of the wind velocity data from Bledisloe Wharf shows the wind force above 20 knots (10.0 m/s) over an eight-year period did not exceed an annualized 1.71% (equal to 6-days per year) of time. Auckland’s tourist industry acknowledges cruise ship visits are a significant contributor to the Auckland / New Zealand economy.

12

5.0 QWE and QWW Berthing options 5.1 Preparing QWE and QWW for cruise ship arrivals In DCA’s opinion the structural condition of Queens Wharf will have to be assessed. Engineering consultants Beca Limited (Beca) have stated Queens Wharf will have to be upgraded for cruise ships over 295 metres LOA. DCA’s and Beca recommendations follow: 1. Check under-wharf piling to ensure bollards on the eastern and western face can

withstand the line forces likely to be applied. Beca input. 2. Repair and / or replace QWE and QWW wharf fenders. The quality of the fendering

design along a wharf face, where vessels are subject to excursions and creep, is critical. Pre-compression of a wharf fender is one tool a naval architect / structural engineer has at their disposal to design out excursions and creep. DCA’s input.

3. Ensure the berth trenches are dredged to a datum depth of 10.5 metres (QWE) and 8.0

metres (QWW). The maximum width of the trench should be at least 1.5 times the beam of the largest cruise ship likely to rotate through Auckland (QWE). DCA’s input.

4. Establish a policy that prevents a ship from berthing at Captain Cook West when a cruise

ship is berthed at QWE. DCA recommends this beam should be 25.0 metres. DCA’s input.

5. Establish a policy which requires the AHM to consider issuing an emergency departure

order for oversize cruise ships when wind velocities reach or are forecast to reach 12.5 m/s. DCA’s input.

5.2 Berthing options for all cruise ships DCA has undertaken a review of berthing options at Queens Wharf and has established principles that should guide stakeholders in their determination as to the length of cruise ships that are allowed to berth at either QWE or QWW. These guidelines will be subject to the findings from berthing simulations and excursion / creep modelling. In addition, working wind velocities will also have to be established. As a rule of thumb cruise ships less than 200 metres LOA will always berth head in at QWW. This set-up will ensure cruise ship propeller turbulence will be minimized at the ferry berths at the southern end of QWW. Cruise ships between 200 metres and 320 meters LOA to berth at QWE either head in or head out depending on the gangway positioning as well as the position of stores and /or baggage door openings. The preferred alignment for oversize cruise ships is head in, as shown in Figure 3 (Page 13). However, Figure 4 (Page 14) illustrates an alternate alignment should shell door access dictate a head out berthing alignment.

13

Figure 3 Recommended berthing alignments at QWE and QWW for 350m and 200m cruise ships.

DCA suggests the above drawing represents the AHM’s standard response to an agent’s application for a berth. Dolphins (intermediate and outer) are 35 and 75 metres north of the centre line of Queens Wharf.

14

Figure 4 Cruise ship less than 200 metres LOA berthed head in QWW and 350 metre cruise ship berthed head out at QWE

DCA suggests the above figure illustrates the AHM’s response for a head out alignment at QWE. Dolphins (intermediate and outer) are 35 and 75 metres north of the centre line of Queens Wharf.

15

Figure 5 Oasis class cruise ship berthed head in showing restricted manoeuvring space for the for’d tug

Oasis class cruise ship berthed at QWE head in. The diagram illustrates the limited room the for’d tug has when attending cruise ships with a beam in excess of 40.0 metres and requested to take the weight astern (north-east through to easterly wind) up to 12.5 m/s. The stretch of the tug’s for’d strap up line is 20-metres.

16

5.3 Outer Berthing Dolphins DCA has reviewed the diagrams depicted in Section 5.2 and concludes a two dolphin approach (intermediate and outer) could be the safest option to ensure oversize cruise ships are moored safely in wind velocities up to 12.5 m/s. However, the two dolphin option has to be tested against an oversize cruise ship berthing simulation and modelling for vessel excursions and creep as well as determining maximum wind velocity appropriate for berthing and remaining alongside. Establishing the position of the intermediate and outer dolphins will be determined by the results of the berthing simulation and modelling of Oasis class cruise ships at QWE. However, the following possibilities have been identified: 1. Construction of an intermediate and an outer dolphin; the intermediate approximately 35

metres and the outer 75 metres north of the north face of Queens Wharf, which would meet the berthing options for oversize cruise ships up to 350 metres LOA.

2. Construction of an intermediate and outer dolphin; the intermediate approximately 41

metres north of the north face of Queens Wharf and the outer approximately 82 metres north of the north face of Queens Wharf, which would meet berthing options for oversize cruise ships up to 362 metres LOA.

3. Walkways10 (gangways) connecting the centre of the north face of to the intermediate

dolphin and continued from the intermediate dolphin to the outer dolphin. 4. Both dolphins to be connected to shore power to enable a capstan11 plus bollards or

mooring hooks of sufficient number and holding power to simultaneously make fast the mooring lines of cruise ships berthed at QWE and QWW. The bollards or mooring hooks to be remotely operated, which will enable the mooring lines from berthed cruise ships to be automatically released in an emergency.

5. Ladders from the deck of both dolphins to be fitted to provide the linesmen with an

alternative means of escape if a walkway or walkways are damaged during the berthing / unberthing manoeuvre.

5.4 Other berthing restrictions In DCA’s opinion the following restrictions should apply when oversize cruise ships are berthed at QWE: 1. The berthing maximum wind velocity can be tested by simulation or modelling. However,

in DCA’s opinion it is unlikely to exceed 12.5 m/s.

10 See Risk Assessment Page 20 11 See appendix A Page 23

17

2. Linesmen and tugs will attend an oversize cruise ship when wind velocities are forecast to exceed 12.5 m/s.

3. Two omni directional tugs will make fast to an oversize cruise ship during all berthing /

unberthing manoeuvres at QWE. 4. No vessel to be berthed at Captain Cook East if the beam of a cruise ship berthed at

QWE exceeds 25 metres. 5. The berth trench should be dredged to a datum depth of 10.5 metres (accommodate

Queen Mary 2) and at least 1.5 times the beam of Queen Mary 2 or an Oasis class cruise ship.

6. Cruise ships berthing at QWE can berth either head in or head out and cruise ships less

than 200 metres LOA should only berth at QWW head in to ensure ferry operations at the southern end of QWW are not interrupted by propeller turbulence from an arriving or departing cruise ship.

7 Investigate whether QWE bollard alignments produce the best results visa vie reducing

excursion and creep. 5.5 Appropriate berthing restrictions prior to the construction of the dolphins

The following restrictions should be applied until such time the repairs to Queens Wharf have been completed and construction of the two dolphins (with walkways) completed. 1 Only cruise ships less than 200 metres LOA to berth at QWW. 2 Cruise ships up to 295 metres LOA to berth at QWE. 3 Cruise ships between 295 metres and 320 metres LOA to berth at PWE. 4 An oversize cruise ship may berth at PWE providing berthing approval has been granted

by the AHM and senior Auckland pilots. 5 Berthing and sailing manoeuvres for cruise ships up to 320 metres LOA should not occur

when wind velocities exceed 12.5 m/s. However, should an oversize cruise ship be berthed at QWE and wind velocities increase, the AHM and senior pilots may determine the safest option is immediate departure with the assistance of two tugs.

6 Arriving oversize cruise ships should not enter Waitemata Harbour when wind velocities

at Bledisloe Wharf exceed 12.5 m/s. 5.6 Why the Inner dolphin proposed by Pacific Marine is not recommended? The following summation is a repeat of Mr Kelle’s conclusions (Appendix B Page 31 and 32):

18

a) None of the proposed mooring options on their own provide a satisfactory solution. Mooring creep and sway and surge motions and loads that worsen overtime are evident.

b) The basis of design needs to be firmed up. The wind data is not consistent between

the various reports. This appears to be an artefact from trying to make the existing wharf work and conflicting information from various parties in relation to acceptable operational limits.

c) The Outer Dolphin appears to be the mooring with the lowest risk; however, the outer

dolphin on its own is insufficient to reduce sway motion and mooring creep. d) From reviewing of the analysis to date, a combination of inner (intermediate) and

outer dolphin appears to provide the best option. Further, bollards of sufficient capacity in the south wharf area for spring lines are yet to be considered by BECA.

e) The fendering system is not well understood and described in the analysis as

performed. It is likely that the current fender assumptions affect the analysis outcome negatively.

f) The fendering itself appears to be not selected with vessels of >320 meters LOA in

mind. g) It appears that the inner dolphin mooring does not provide satisfactory mooring line

arrangement for vessels of > 320m for bow-out and bow-in alignment. h) The 75m location of the outer dolphin is likely to be insufficient for vessels with a LOA

of >348m (i.e. Oasis of the Seas with a LOA of 361.6m). Mr Kelle notes that the analysis preformed to date is not sufficient to determine the ability to moor safely an oversize cruise ship for longer than 1-2 hours. This is also true of an oversize cruise ship with a LOA greater than 348 meters. Further, the analysis performed to date cannot be relied upon due to:

• The vessels are creeping up the quay. • The excursion increases over time. • The fender capacity has not been assessed correctly. • Some of the mooring line configuration analysed are not feasible in practice (lines

crossing around the bow etc.). DCA internalized that the original inner dolphin would provide a less stable platform for oversize cruise ships (320 metres and 362 metres LOA). In addition, with the berthing of smaller (200 metres LOA or less) cruise ships at QWW, and the need to position these ships

19

well clear of the Ferry Terminal, coupled with their propensity to remain in port for longer periods and thus be exposed to a greater range of environmental factors, the positioning of two dolphins north of Queens Wharf should provide berthing stability as the drawings on Pages 13, 14 and 15 demonstrates. The question of the source of historical wind velocity has not been resolved. DCA is using Bledisloe Wharf data. 5.7 Dolphin Walkway / Gangway DCA lists the arguments as to why the dolphins should be connected by a permanent walkway: 1. Mooring crew safe access to the dolphin. Should wind velocities exceed 10.0 m/s during

berthing / unberthing operations DCA is of the opinion that the personnel transfer of linesmen from the lines launch to the dolphin ladder or from the dolphin ladder to the lines launch would present an unacceptable risk as the resultant wave heights are likely to exceed 1.0 metre. At this wave height, with a relatively light lines launch, the rise and fall of the vessel will lead to the conclusion that this method of embarking / disembarking a dolphin is an unacceptable risk.

2. DCA’s international experience indicates the preference for a walkway simply as a

means to reduce risk and enhance efficiency. 3. DCA does not support the view that wave height at the mooring dolphins is a

determinant for vessel entry irrespective of the LOA of a cruise ship. 4. Should any cruise ship be moored to the dolphin and an urgent departure is ordered by

the AHM the ability to comply with such a direction is simplified and made more immediate if the dolphins are connected by a walkway. The alternative, letting go the mooring lines from the ship, from a safety perspective (mooring lines becoming caught in the ship’s propellers) is unacceptable.

4. Security. International experience suggests the general public should be denied access

to the mooring dolphins, because sensitive electrical equipment will be fitted to each dolphin. If there isn’t a walkway and the only access is via a ladder then in time the surface of the dolphin will became fishing and aquatic (swimmers and divers) haven with a reasonable chance the capstan and mooring hooks will be vandalised. With a walkway, entrance onto this structure from the northern end of Queens Wharf can be regulated by fencing and a security gate.

5.8 Cost to undertake excursions, creep and environmental analysis Holger Kelle, DCA’s naval architect, has prepared a quote to undertake the review of excursions, creep, positioning of the two off-shore dolphins and the calculated maximum environmental conditions that are safe for the various classes of cruise ships to berth and remain alongside QWE and QWW. This quotation with costs and timelines is re-produced in Appendix F (Page 42).

20

6.0 Risk analysis 6.1 Previous risk reviews Two risk documents were produced namely:

• Queens Wharf Mooring Dolphin Risk Review Options Risk Report (580743-RPT-R0001) by Worley Parsons, January 2017 and,

• Safety in Design Risk Assessment Register Queens Wharf Mooring Dolphin

(3232840) by BECA, August 2016. The Worley Parson approach was to conduct a desk top review where three options were subject to risk identification and assessment. The three options were:

1 The baseline option which is a gangway route to an outer dolphin (75 metres to the north from the end of the wharf) with public access to the gangway except during mooring operations.

2 Boat access to the same dolphin so that the gangway access is not required and

removed.

3 Modified dolphins but where boat access is still required. The conclusion from this report was that the alternative option of using a boat rather than the gangway (Baseline Option) “cannot be considered reasonably practicable”. 6.2 DCA’s Risk review DCA would support this conclusion but would make the following observations: 1 Distribution and feedback of this document should be sent to and, sought from other

stakeholders. 2 The capital cost with regard to the mooring boat seems to be too high. However, an

alternative competitor to POAL may wish to compete for this work resulting in competitive lines-launch / mooring gang tariffs.

The initial design was to have a narrow gangway with access for POAL staff only. DCA does not support access by the public to the walkway, because the dolphins are a work station with electric capstans and sensitive remote controlled mooring hooks that should not be handled by the general public. In the Risk Register (No. 1 and 2) there are hazards of medium risk identified with accessing the dolphin for normal operations i.e. slip / trip on the catwalk causing personal injury or potential of falling into the water. As this would apply to the public as well, DCA cannot see the merit in allowing the public access this dolphin.

21

DCA comments that the order of risk assessment is for Queens Wharf to be established as a safe environment for passengers, crew and POAL staff, then to establish the risks associated with mooring crews transferring from the wharf to the outer dolphin. If public access were to be allowed further risk mitigation such as physical surveillance and CCTV etc. would have to be provided. The Beca report was conducted as a risk assessment workshop, with twelve attendees from various stakeholders. The risks were examined under the following categories:

• Construction.

• Operation.

• Inspection, Cleaning, Maintenance and Repair,

• Demolition and Disposal. Each of the identified risks was given a Severity rating which was then re-valued after controls / mitigations were applied. Both of these documents applied to risks associated with an outer mooring dolphin which certainly added value to the project. However at this stage there is no evidence (except visual) to support the proposition that an outer dolphin and an inner dolphin will provide the mooring capacity to accommodate berthing of oversize cruise ships. DCA notes both risk assessments have been conducted on the assumption that the wharf infrastructure is in good order. However, a risk assessment of the wharf infrastructure should be completed first to confirm this, i.e. an appropriate outer dolphin is not acceptable if the wharf itself possess various risks. Excursions and creep all have the potential to cause problems with passenger embarkation / disembarkation, crew transfers, baggage handling, storing as well as providing access for shore based repair / maintenance personnel. Wharfs have to be constructed to ensure: 1. Wharf fendering is of sufficient design to provide pre-compression to the fenders when

breast lines are tensioned and capable of absorbing the energy of the berthing cruise ship.

2. The structural capacities / capabilities of the wharf’s beams, piles and bracing have to be

appropriate to carry the expected loads.

3. The geotechnical capacity of the existing piles has to be established.

22

4. The safe working loads of all bollards, the mooring line configurations and the adequacy

of the bollards’ position has to be established. 5. Determination of maximum wind velocities for various classes of cruise ships to

determine safety parameters for berthing, remaining alongside and unberthing. 6. Ship manoeuvring risk with regard to the width of the berth trench and reduced amount

of room for tug assistance. 7. Underwater depth and condition of Queen Street seawall at the southern end of the

wharf. 6.3 Worley Parsons Risk Assessment DCA supports the conclusion reached in Worley Parsons risk review, but note there would be a moderate risk transferring the heaving line from the ship to the appropriate dolphin. This line would have to be joined to a messenger12 and then transferred to the dolphin capstan. There would be a moderate risk associated with this transfer especially in wind velocities of 12.5 m/s.

12 See Appendix A Page 23

23

Appendix A Glossary of nautical terms and used in this report:

Nautical Terms

Meaning

Athwartships From one side to another of a vessel Breast Lines Mooring lines that run approximately 90º to the fore and aft line of the ship.

Used to secure a vessel alongside. Berthing – mooring line positions

Mooring line positions with fenders

Berth Trench The space a ship sits in when alongside it berth. It must be deep enough to ensure the ships is “always afloat” at the lowest astronomical tide forecast for Auckland. The width of this trench should be at least 1.5 times the beam of the widest oversize cruise ship scheduled to berth at QWE.

Bollard Designed structure to which a mooring line eye is attached.

Bow The fore part or front of a ship Capstan Power capstan fitted to the deck of a dolphin used to transfer a mooring line

from a cruise ship to the dolphin bollard

24

Creep Continuous movement of a vessel along the wharf while moored. Dolphin Standard design of a mooring bollard with bollards, walkway and ladder.

Excursions Sway, Surge, Yaw, Pitch, Roll and Heave or a vessel while berthed at a wharf.

Gross Tonnage

The internal cubic capacity of a vessel, with some permitted minor deductions multiplied by an approved formula. Gross Tonnage is not related to weight.

Fenders Specially designed structures fitted at intervals along the face of a wharf to minimize compression and protect a wharf when a vessel comes alongside a wharf. Also designed to limit ship movement from excursions and creep.

For’d Fore part of a vessel. Head Line Lines that run from the bow or fore section of a vessel at an angle of

approximately 45º to the fore and aft line. Used to minimize vessel creep as well as assist keeping the bow alongside.

Length Over-All

The maximum bow to stern length of a ship measured parallel to the water-line

Make fast To secure a vessel safely alongside a berth. Messenger A light rope of about 15mm diameter and 50 metres long used to assist in

the transfer of a ship’s mooring line from the ship to the dolphin by way of capstan fitted on the dolphin.

Metres per second

1.0 metres per second equals 1.94384 knots

Mooring Line fetch

The distance between the ship and the shore bollard the mooring line is placed over.

25

Oversize cruise ships

In Auckland, vessels over 320 metres LOA

Port Side The left hand side of a vessel when facing for’d Shell Hull plating from keel to lower deck Springs Mooring Lines that run along the side of a ship. For’d springs run aft and aft

springs run for’d. Used to minimize vessel creep. Starboard Side

The right hand side of a vessel when facing for’d

Stern Lines Lines that run from the stern of a vessel at an angle of approximately 45º to the fore and aft line. Used to minimize vessel creep as well as assist keeping the stern alongside.

Spring Tidal Range

The difference between high water and the proceeding low water or succeeding low water at new moon or full moon.

Yokohama Fenders

26

Appendix B Gap Analysis

CONTENTS Introduction .......................................................................................................................................... 26

References ............................................................................................................................................ 27

Review of Design Reports ..................................................................................................................... 27

Review of: Pacific Marine Peer Review report by Alan Ractliffe, 12 April 201[1] ............................ 27

Review of Mooring Generic Long Cruise Ships at Queens Wharf Preliminary Draft by Pacific Marine Management Lt (Reference [4]) ........................................................................................................ 27

General .......................................................................................................................................... 27

Mooring line arrangement: ........................................................................................................... 28

Section 8.2 Mooring Practice: ....................................................................................................... 28

Revision Draft Report from February 2017:.................................................................................. 28

Review of Mooring Large Cruise Ships at Queens Wharf [3] ................................................................ 28

Use of Davenport Spectra: ............................................................................................................ 28

Balancing of mooring lines and line arrangements Section 7.4 Ovation of the Seas. .................. 29

Section 10 Conclusions ................................................................................................................. 29

Wind Data [6] .................................................................................................................................... 30

BECA Report [2] ................................................................................................................................. 31

Section 6.2.:................................................................................................................................... 31

Conclusion ......................................................................................................................................... 31

Introduction

Auckland Transport, through the Auckland Harbourmaster (AHM), is considering allowing oversize cruise ships (>320 meters LOA) to berth at Queens Wharf East (QWE), which is designated as Ports of Auckland Limited’s (POAL) primary and preferred cruise ship berth. A number of studies were undertaken by various parties, which have been itemized in the reference section on Page 2. The AHM tasked DCA to consider the following berthing options at QWE:

• Dolphin with gangway • Dolphin without gangway • Inner dolphin • Wharf extension • Strengthening works with no wharf extension • Cavotec vacuum mooring devices • SALM proprietary sea anchor • Sea anchor and buoy

27

To support the selection of one or more options a number of design reports and risk assessments were prepared by other consultants (see reference section). This report details the key findings from DCA’s gap analysis of the various reports.

References

1) Pacific Marine Peer Review report by Alan Ratcliffe, 12 April 2017 2) Queens Wharf Mooring Options Prepared by Beca Limited (Beca), 18 April 2017 3) Mooring Large Cruise Ships at Queens Wharf, by Pacific Marine Management Lt,

Mark Oxley ‐ Dynamic Analysis, 13 April 2017 4) Mooring Generic Long Cruise Ships at Queens Wharf Preliminary Draft by Pacific

Marine Management Lt, Mark Oxley, 22 March 2017 5) 3232840-SE-K-011 - inner dolphin off wharf design drawing, by Beca 6) POAL Bledisloe Wind Data 2010-2017 7) Proposed Queens Wharf Mooring Dolphin Structure: Navigation Safety Review, by

Capt. J. V. Dilley, Master Mariner, Maritime Consultant and Harbourmaster, July 2016.

8) Wind Climatology for Auckland (Queens Wharf and Princes Wharf) for September –April, by Weather Routing Inc. June 1, 2017

Review of Design Reports

Review of: Pacific Marine Peer Review report by Alan Arncliffe, 12 April 2017 The peer review does not provide any view on the fendering or on the mooring line arrangements; the peer review only concludes that the loads obtained by the calculation software are as expected. Further, the peer review correspondence highlights that Alan Ratcliffe seems to believe that the mooring lines are not balanced and set-up properly and that they are too steep. The peer review also highlights that Mark Oxley (the author and analyst of 3) and 4) used initially incorrect assumptions for the pre-tension of the lines. Review of Mooring Generic Long Cruise Ships at Queens Wharf Preliminary Draft by Pacific Marine Management Lt (Reference 4))

General In general, the draft report does not include any information on fender stiffness; this is important since the fenders counteract the mooring line pretension and play a significant role in absorbing the energy in the overall system. It is likely that the lack of pre-compression of the fenders will result in high dynamic peak loads in the mooring lines and will likely result in creeping of the ships while moored. It is not clear from the final report to what extent the fenders were considered, further it is not clear what the fenders loads are on the hull and on the berth foundations.

28

Figure 3 Extract from Reference 4 section 5.1.1 showing bow-out Bow mooring line arrangement

Mooring line arrangement: The report 4) shows the bow out arrangements in section 5.1.1; the bow mooring line arrangement includes spring lines that cross around the bow structure (Line number 33 to Bollard J shown in Figure 3) and physically either over or under the breast lines. This appears to be not a practical arrangement. Reconfiguring of mooring lines will change the mooring analysis results and likely the conclusions drawn. Section 8.2 Mooring Practice: This section describes the practice of pre-tensioning the mooring lines, the report states that pretension of 25t to 30t may be used. Pretension of 25t is uncommon in the industry and pretension between 5 and 12 tonnes are the norm. The use of 25 tonnes will lead to high dynamic peak-loads in the mooring system which is likely to slip the winch and causes creep of the mooring. Revision Draft Report from February 2017: This version of the report includes details on fender assumptions; the report concludes a possible fender reaction force of 108 tonne which can be exceeded under higher wind velocities. The report does not provide any information on hull pressure; it states that the fenders are 5.7m long. A permissible hull pressure should not be more than 12 tonne per square meter, i.e. fender contact area with the hull should be approximately 5.7m x 2m to achieve reasonable hull pressure conditions. The exact hull fender pressure is to be established. The author uses a super cone fender in lieu of cell fenders; this is only permissible for the first 100-200mm of deflection (in the linear section of the stiffness curve). Review of Mooring Large Cruise Ships at Queens Wharf 3) Use of Davenport Spectra: The mooring analysis is conducted using the Davenport Spectra. The Davenport spectrum is originally developed for wind over land with wind run up length of 1200m. It is unlikely that

29

this spectrum applies for wind directions coming from South, South West, West and South East due to the turbulence shielding created by nearby buildings. Further, the spectra require the use of 10 minute mean wind speed. The report does not indicate if a 1 hourly wind speed or 10 minute mean wind speed was used. The Davenport spectra is likely to overestimate the gusts velocity coming from shore on the other hand the use of 1 hourly mean wind velocity would under estimate the actual mean wind forces on the vessel. It is recommended to use for the shore-wind direction a Harris spectrum or Kaimal spectrum (the latter used for Eurocode 1). For the North and North Westerly direction, the Davenport spectra can be used but a more detailed analysis of the local wind condition may favour a Froya spectra. The presences of buildings and wind shielding effect for winds from the west should reduce the forces on the ships significantly and will reduce sway motion; this shielding effect has not been considered. As a consequence, it is likely the gust velocities for shore winds are overstated and understated for winds from the channel. The more important issue appears here that all spectra require the use of 10 minute mean wind velocity and it appears that 1 hourly means winds were used, resulting in underestimating of the mean wind load in the mooring lines. Balancing of mooring lines and line arrangements Section 7.4 Ovation of the Seas. Line 4, 5, 7 and 8 crosses under the stern, it is likely that the lines will interfere with the hull and that this mooring configuration is not possible.

Figure 4 Ovation of the Seas bow-in line configuration at the stern (overhang) Section 10 Conclusions The report concludes that there is little difference between the end-mooring-cluster and outer dolphins, however, the graphs in appendix 5 show clearly an increase in amplitude surge motion for the inner dolphin. Further the graphs in Appendix 5 indicate that the mooring lines

30

are unbalanced since the vessels creep along the quay and sway increases over a 3-hour period. It is not clear if the increase in sway is a contribution of the change in tide or poor selection of pretension and an unbalanced between fender pre-compression, fender friction and mooring line set-up. Further the Ovation of the Seas mooring line set-up with inner dolphin does not appear to be feasible (Figure 4). It is evident in the sway and surge results that the fenders are either incorrectly sized (as indicated in the report in Section 5.3.1.) and hence the conclusion from mooring analysis cannot be supported. Based on the report only an outer dolphin appears to provide sufficient mooring line control to reduce high amplitudes and the associated effects with mooring system creep or slip as well as a feasible mooring line arrangement. It is likely that a proper mooring line set-up will require an inner dolphin and an outer dolphin cluster. No sensitivity check was done to check if the outer dolphin location is chosen correctly, larger vessels may benefit from an outer dolphin located further than the currently assumed 75m off the wharf head. Wind Data 6) The wind data from Bledisloe Wind Data 6), includes significantly higher wind velocities then recorded at the Auckland airport and used by Weather Routing 8), the Bledisloe data also shows that the critical wind velocities of 30 knots are coming from the east-northeast (ENE) or the east (E), with a significant portion coming from the northwest (NW)

Table 2: Bledisloe Wind Velocity in kn data 2010-2017 (10minute average, 9.5million records)

Table 3: Bledisloe Wind Velocity in kn data 2010-2017 (10minute average, 9.5million records) in %

• 99.95% of events are less than 30-knots.

Wind Speed, in knots0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0 40.0 45.0 50.0 55.0 60.0 65.0 70.0 75.0 80.0 85.0 90.0 95.0 100.0 Total

N 0.0 178,953 221,241 111,587 26,153 5,069 466 33 2 4 1 1 1 2 4 1 3 0 1 5 1 0 543,528NNE 22.5 100,878 266,232 243,378 73,654 16,451 2,234 183 2 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 703,016NE 45.0 81,188 162,603 171,230 66,271 13,621 2,026 237 17 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 497,198ENE 67.5 81,410 168,536 144,594 81,837 26,428 5,452 818 99 10 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 509,187E 90.0 87,389 180,620 160,626 75,827 26,037 7,145 1,384 138 14 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 539,181ESE 112.5 72,758 97,449 69,740 15,187 4,056 1,049 154 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 0 0 260,399SE 135.0 100,021 90,307 18,444 3,260 518 118 28 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 3 0 0 212,703SSE 157.5 190,442 123,126 21,041 3,076 307 53 59 50 3 4 4 4 10 12 8 4 4 2 1 1 0 338,211S 180.0 247,870 202,540 36,170 2,823 222 36 37 21 3 1 3 3 7 14 14 7 5 4 4 0 0 489,784SSW 202.5 264,774 420,407 131,978 12,921 789 22 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 6 0 0 830,901SW 225.0 239,303 401,181 145,879 15,287 714 27 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 802,397WSW 247.5 276,185 320,493 97,463 13,424 1,072 57 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 708,694W 270.0 470,750 453,614 162,780 37,627 4,914 314 8 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 1,130,011WNW 292.5 360,924 333,246 176,790 49,380 10,406 1,681 202 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 932,644NW 315.0 237,507 208,720 113,488 49,018 16,112 3,739 723 145 22 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 629,477NNW 337.5 150,309 150,288 57,841 19,794 5,338 1,055 159 41 25 8 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 4 1 1 0 384,865

360.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Total 3,140,661 3,800,603 1,863,029 545,539 132,054 25,474 4,028 535 82 16 8 10 20 30 24 14 12 21 29 7 0 9,512,196

Wind Speed, in knots0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0 40.0 45.0 50.0 55.0 60.0 65.0 70.0 75.0 80.0 85.0 90.0 95.0 100.0 Total

N 0.0 1.88% 2.33% 1.17% 0.27% 0.05% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 5.71%NNE 22.5 1.06% 2.80% 2.56% 0.77% 0.17% 0.02% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 7.39%NE 45.0 0.85% 1.71% 1.80% 0.70% 0.14% 0.02% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 5.23%ENE 67.5 0.86% 1.77% 1.52% 0.86% 0.28% 0.06% 0.01% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 5.35%E 90.0 0.92% 1.90% 1.69% 0.80% 0.27% 0.08% 0.01% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 5.67%ESE 112.5 0.76% 1.02% 0.73% 0.16% 0.04% 0.01% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 2.74%SE 135.0 1.05% 0.95% 0.19% 0.03% 0.01% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 2.24%SSE 157.5 2.00% 1.29% 0.22% 0.03% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 3.56%S 180.0 2.61% 2.13% 0.38% 0.03% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 5.15%SSW 202.5 2.78% 4.42% 1.39% 0.14% 0.01% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 8.74%SW 225.0 2.52% 4.22% 1.53% 0.16% 0.01% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 8.44%WSW 247.5 2.90% 3.37% 1.02% 0.14% 0.01% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 7.45%W 270.0 4.95% 4.77% 1.71% 0.40% 0.05% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 11.88%WNW 292.5 3.79% 3.50% 1.86% 0.52% 0.11% 0.02% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 9.80%NW 315.0 2.50% 2.19% 1.19% 0.52% 0.17% 0.04% 0.01% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 6.62%NNW 337.5 1.58% 1.58% 0.61% 0.21% 0.06% 0.01% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 4.05%

360.0 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%Total 33.02% 39.96% 19.59% 5.74% 1.39% 0.27% 0.04% 0.01% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100.00%

31

• Wind speeds greater than 30-knots are likely to come from east-northeast (ENE, 19%) or the east (E, 32%), with a significant portion coming from the northwest (NW, 19%).

• Wind recorded approximately 11m above ground. In general, the Wind data for Bledisloe shows that wind velocities up to 30kn represent more than 99.95% of the ambient wind condition. On this basis the 32kn Limit used in 3) are a reasonable limit to provide sufficient berth availability per annum. The Wind velocities and directions evaluated 8) by Carnival Cruises are of similar magnitude, except for that the Bledisloe wind data shows that wind velocities in excess of 32kn are rare events but can occur. While the Carnival Cruise data 8) did not show any records greater than 40kn sustained wind velocity. Further, the locale climate effects from high-rise buildings, streets and the open channel show that the higher wind velocities are more likely from the West, North West, North and North East, while the Carnival Cruise report concludes that the higher wind velocities are more likely from south west. It is recommended to utilise the Bledisloe wind data for future evaluation, due to the close vicinity of the anemometer to Queens Wharf.

BECA Report 2) Section 6.2.: The BECA Bollard layout does not allow for spring lines forward of 40m from the south end of the wharf. Current Bollard locations are not supported by mooring analysis conducted. Northern Fender Cluster does not provide any information on fender stiffness, wharf’s ability to absorb fender load (reaction forces). The fender load in accordance with PIANC or British Standard and berthing velocities are not specified. Outer Dolphin distance from wharf end (75m) likely not far enough to be sufficient for vessel with overall length of 360m (Oasis of the Seas). SALM, photos shown for the SALM mooring are actually photos of a calm buoy mooring with mooring hawser. A calm buoy has 6 to 8 mooring legs and is designed to weathervane. A SALM installation will only have one anchor leg, some SALM moorings maybe equipped with a mooring buoy/ Others SALMs are configured as a swamp mooring, where the mooring line sinks to the seabed in disconnected condition and the end is marked with small marker buoy for re-connection. Conclusion From Mr Kelle’s review of the options suggested in the Consultants Brief (Queens Wharf Mooring Dolphin) we have concluded:

32

i) None of the proposed mooring options on their own provide a satisfactory solution. Mooring creep and sway and surge motions and loads that worsen overtime are evident.

j) The basis of design needs to be firmed up. The wind data is not consistent between the various reports. This appears to be an artefact from trying to make the existing wharf work and conflicting information from various parties in relation to acceptable operational limits.

k) The Outer Dolphin appears to be the mooring with the lowest risk; however, the outer dolphin on its own is insufficient to reduce sway motion and mooring creep.

l) From reviewing of the analysis to date, a combination of inner and outer dolphin appears to provide the best option. Further, bollards of sufficient capacity in the south wharf area for spring lines are yet to be considered by BECA.

m) The fendering system is not well understood and described in the analysis as performed. It is likely that the current fender assumptions affect the analysis outcome negatively.

n) The fendering itself appears to be not selected with vessels of >320 meters LOA in mind.

o) It appears that the inner dolphin mooring does not provide satisfactory mooring line arrangement for vessels of > 320m for bow-out and bow-in alignment.

p) The 75m location of the outer dolphin is likely to be insufficient for vessels with a LOA of >348m (i.e. Oasis of the Seas with a LOA of 361.6m).

Our Naval Architect (Holger Kelle) notes that the analysis preformed to date is not sufficient to determine the ability to moor safely an oversize cruise ship for longer than 1-2hours, and in one case having a LOA greater than 348 meters. Further, the analysis performed to date cannot be relied upon due to:

• The vessels are creeping up the quay. • The excursion increases over time. • The fender capacity has not been assessed correctly. • Some of the mooring line configuration analysed are not feasible in practice (lines

crossing around the bow etc.).

33

Appendix C

Photographs of oversize cruise ships moored in various ports showing mooring overhangs, mooring line spread and use of mooring dolphins.

Figure 5 Celebrity Equinox at Willemstad-Curacao

Figure 4 AIDAperla at Napoli with short headlines and breast lines

34

Figure 6 Ovation of the Seas moored with for’d breast lines and springs

Figure 7 Queen Mary 2 moored with for’d breast lines and springs

35

Figure 8 Volendam moored at Juneau with for’d breast and springs

Figure 9 – Majestic Princess “head in” with stern overhang

36

Figure 10 Cruise ship line-up Miami

Figure 11 Cruise ship with bow overhang

37

Figure 12 Cruise ship made fast to mooring dolphins

Figure 13 Cruise ship made fast to several mooring dolphins

38

Figure 14 Cruise ship tied up to multiple dolphins

Figure 15 Cruise ship moored to dolphins for’d and aft

39

Figure 16 LNG tanker made fast to dolphins in Singapore. Note walkways.

40

APPENDIX D Reference Queens Wharf Mooring Options – Beca Limited 18 April 2017 – Pages 31 and 32 “A 3-dimensional SAP 2000 model was used to analyse the demands of the existing wharf due to the increased bollard loads. The deck elements were modelled as a grillage of longitudinal and transverse members with section properties defined according to the size/spacing of the deck beams. Pile and pile bracing elements were modelled as line elements with section properties defined according to the pile and bracing dimensions. Soil interaction was modelled using Winkler Springs. Only limited drawings are available of the existing wharf and several assumptions had to be made in relation to the structural layout of the wharf, in particular the location and arrangement of the pile bracing. Further investigations will be required in the next design phase to confirm the wharf general arrangement and dimensions in the vicinity of the bollards. Analysis indicates that, in a global sense, the loads can be satisfactorily distributed around the structure without exceeding the assessed/assumed structural capacities of the main members (beams, piles, bracing). However, it is noted that capacities have generally been assessed using comparative load methods rather than assessing capacities based on reinforcement arrangements. This method is considered normal and adequate for preliminary design given the lack of uncertainty of information and uncertainty in the some of the reinforcement detailing arrangements. Accordingly, it will be necessary to carry out investigations to confirm the reinforcement arrangements at selected areas in order to confirm capacities. However, the geotechnical capacity of the existing piles to resist tensile (uplift) loads as a result of the applied bollard loads were found to be an issue. The existing piles comprise square reinforced concrete elements which were driven down on top of the underlying sandstone. Geotechnical technical capacity is achieved through friction between the pile surface and the surrounding ground. Because the depth and quality of the soil surrounding the piles (above the sandstone) is limited, the friction and therefore tension resistance provided is negligible.”

41

APPENDIX E Photographs of QWE fendering:

Figure 16 QWE existing fender

Figure 17 QWE Northern end showing missing fender

42

Appendix F

October 3, 2017

Dale Cole Delivered via email:

DALE COLE dale@dcapl.com.au Ref.:10228-PRP-002

Re: Mooring Analysis Queens Wharf

Dear Dale,

Please find below quotation to undertake mooring analysis of Queens Wharf East for large cruise ships, the scope of work would be as follows:

1) Prepare layout drawing showing the mooring line set-up of: • Queen Mary 2 • Oasis of the Seas; and • Generic 250m Cruise ship (or to be nominated) • Moored to QWE,

2) Determine the best achievable compromise mooring set-up with an outer dolphin at approximately 30-40m and second outer dolphin at approximately 70-80m (the aim is to determine the most appropriate dolphin distances).

3) Undertake mooring analysis of the QWE with QM2 head out and OASIS of the Seas head out for wind velocities of 12.5m/second 10-minute wind and 15m/second 10-minute wind.

4) We have received the General Arrangement of the QM2 and the we hard-copies of Oasis of the Seas, but we have not received current and wind coefficient. Therefore, we will determine the wind coefficients based on a paper called “Cruising Performance of a Large Passenger Ship in Heavy Sea” Toshifumi Fujiwara and Michio Ueno National Maritime Research Institute Tokyo, Japan and Yoshiho Ikeda Department of Marine System Engineering University of Osaka Prefecture.

INCITIAS Pty Ltd Unit 3.02, 17/19 Yarra Street ,Abbotsford 3067, Vic. Tel +61 409 079 445 Info@incitias.com www.incitias.com ABN: 47 604 177 362

43

5) In total we will be running 2304 Cases in ANSYS AQWA, a 3D radiation and diffraction mooring analysis program. We will be determining the most probable maximum mooring line forces, simulating 3 hours of each case.

6) The analysis would follow PIANC and BS 6349:20141 and OCIMF mooring equipment guidelines.

7) We will also undertake a berthing energy calculation to determine appropriate fender sizing for use with QWE and QWW in the analysis.

Deliverables:

As deliverables we will prepare a detailed analysis report and one arrangement drawing of Queen Mary 2 berthed head out at QWE and a 250-meter cruise ship berthed head in at QWW with a 50-meter northern overhang. Super imposed over this shape, in a different color would be an Oasis (264 meter) size ship berthed at QWE head in.

Th analysis would follow PIANC and BS 6349:20141 and OCIMF mooring equipment guidelines.

The following matrix summarizes the cases we are proposing to analyses and the Cost Time Resource estimate:

44

One Outer Dolphin Set-up

Hours

Case Matrix

Oasis of the Sea

s

QM 2

Analysis

runs:

Model Set-up 1 Draft 60 60

Current shielding calculation/ Wind Coefficient calculation/ Berthing Energy Calculation/ Initial Mooring line Set-up and Dolphin Location 70 65

Current: East (One Speed) 4 4

West (ONE Speed) 4 4

Wave Direction 3 directions (head seas and ±30°) 1x wave height 8 8

Wind Speed 12.5 and 15 m/second 10-minute wind

Wind direction N NNE NE ENE E ESE SE SSE S SSW SW WSW W WNW NW

100 80 low tide Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

high tide Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Bow out Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Layouts (mooring line drawing)

Queen Mary 2 berthed head out at QWE and a 250 metre cruise ship berthed head in at QWW with a 50 metre northern overhang. Super imposed over this shape, in a different colour would be an Oasis (264 metre) size ship berthed at QWE head in

20 20

Reporting 40 20

Total Hours 306 261

Cost

Costin

g

Hours AUD/hour Cost NA Reuben Kent 369 148 $54,612.00

Lead NA C. Bonay 178 175 $31,150.00

Holger Kelle Review 20 250 $5,000.00

Labour Total $90,762.00

Discount 5% -$4,538.00

Total Fee (excl. GST): $86,224.00

Terms and Condition:

• Prices includes 1 Client Review Cycle only; • 1st client review report 10 weeks from placing of order; • Final report 10 days from 1st draft issue; • Additional Work on Schedule of Rates; • Fortnightly Progress report; • Payment terms: 20% on contract ward, 30% EOM 1, 30% EOM 2, 20% after final report

issued; • Liability Limited to Rework of the Analysis; • Validity: the offer is valid until 30 September 2017; and • Mutually to be Agreed Terms and Conditions Apply

We propose to undertake the work on lump-sum basis, for AU$ 90,762.00, 5% discount applies if the work is awarded or a letter of intent is received by COB Monday the 9th of October.

45

We can start the analysis immediately.

Information still to be agreed/provided is appropriate wave height and current velocity.

Warm regards,

DALE COLE

DIRECTOR