Dredging Coastal Ports An Assessment of the Issues (1985) / Chapter Skim
Currently Skimming:
4. Does the United States Need to Accommodate Large Vessels?
4. Does the United States Need to Accommodate Large Vessels?
Pages 26-39
The Chapter Skim interface presents what we've algorithmically identified as the most significant single chunk of text within every page in the chapter.
Select key terms on the right to highlight them within pages of the chapter.
From page 26... ...
This chapter appraises the purported need for additional capacity to handle large vessels in terms of these three categories of justification. As an initial step, it is necessary to define "large ships." Two categories of deficiency in port capacity have been identified in studies conducted by the U.S.
|
From page 27... ...
While definite conclusions cannot be drawn from the table, shippers and ship operators dealing in bulk commodities in these and other ports uniformly emphasized to the committee their need to load additional feet of draft. Draft limitations for tankers or bulk carriers limit their cargo-carrying capacity as follows: for a 150,000 DWT or 200,000 DWT vessel, failure to use a foot of draft may translate into 3400 to 4900 long tons of lost cargo-carrying capacity.
|
From page 28... ...
from additional navigational capacity is difficult to determine, owing to the volatility of trade, and of oceanborne shipping, and several uncertainties affecting projections of the future, as discussed in succeeding sections. Vessels in the World Fleet and Major Trends Tables 7, 8, and 9 (all in Appendix G)
|
From page 29... ...
Large bulk vessels dominate iron ore trade: 80 percent of iron ore shipments were carried in vessels 100,000 or more in 1981. The trend to larger vessels for iron ore and coal was reinforced by the introduction of combination carriers (oil, ore, dry bulk)
|
From page 30... ...
During the recent worldwide economic recession, demand for vessels was influenced by the use of existing stocks of major bulk commodities, and the amounts shipped tended to be smaller than the amounts consumed (Maritime Transport Committee, 1984~. Other factors which can influence port needs are suggested by a new trade pattern that emerged for coal in 1982.
|
From page 31... ...
ECONOMICS Clearly, the primary factor influencing the movement toward larger ships is that they offer lower transportation costs. Stated in the simplest terms, the argument for additional channel dimensions to handle larger ships is to allow the nation to enjoy the transportation
|
From page 32... ...
In either case, the cost to the nation will be higher. Most of the controversy over whether there is a need to develop additional port capacity to handle large ships revolves around whether the reduced transportation costs flowing from that capacity will be sufficient to cover the costs of developing the capacity.
|
From page 33... ...
The potential world market for U.S. coal has been the most frequently used rationale for developing additional port capacity.
|
From page 34... ...
Decisions with regard to developing additional port capacity, then, must be made with the recognition that the fundamental reality is an uncertain future. An uncertain future implies risks: · If the decision is to do nothing, trade may be lost.
|
From page 35... ...
In sum, the nation's decisions with regard to developing additional port capacity must find some accommodation between what will likely be a continuing uncertainty about need and the long lead times required to develop that additional capacity. Stated simply, the nation's choice is: "What should be done in the face of uncertainty?
|
From page 36... ...
role in the world economy, and perhaps most fundamentally they sometimes have an unstated premise. That unstated premise reflects differing views about or whether the federal government should underwrite the costs associated with developing additional port capacity.
|
From page 37... ...
Future Flexibility The United States has very limited capabilities to take advantage of any benefits that may be offered by larger ships. Only two of the nation's major ports can handle dry bulk carriers of more than 90,000 DOT and only a limited number of the nation's major container ports can readily handle the latest-generation, high-value cargo vessels.
|
From page 38... ...
The committee found itself in unanimous agreement that faced with this uncertainty, the nation should develop sufficient capability to allow it to be able to respond flexibly to whatever opportunities develop in the future. That is, the United States should move from a position of not being able to accommodate large bulk carriers on the Atlantic or Gulf Coasts and limited capabilities to handle medium-size vessels to one where it has expanded capabilities.
|
From page 39... ...
(1984) , Survey of World Fleet prepared for Committee on National Dredging Issues, Stamford, Connecticut, Maritime Data Network, Ltd.
|
Key Terms
This material may be derived from roughly machine-read images, and so is provided only to facilitate research.
More
information on Chapter Skim is available.