Some forum participants have tried, without success, to start a forum which covers containerisation.
Regardless, here are some thoughts to progress the topic in general terms. Because container transport is usually imagined to involve ocean trade a reader will rightly assume that this article concerns only that aspect of the business. However the article can hopefully be interpreted for other forms of mineral handling.
Mineral bulk handling is in the doldrums and is likely to remain so. A downturn in the fortunes for Chinese demand is an unjustified explanation for the downturn. What was the world demand for minerals before the Chinese expansion? Ore supply exceeds demand and is forever likely to do so. Coal is doomed to extinction because of environmental pressures but more straightforwardly because of scarcity: demand will grow to match supply. Some large Asian consumers must be content to import wetter and wetter coal while still referring to it as fuel!
A fundamental flaw in mineral handling processes is their very large scale although still not very different to the smaller scale techniques of yesteryear which were, of themselves, only marginally adequate. It is surprising that dry bulkers were ever built after the appearance of container ships. One explanation of the continued existence of dry bulkers lies in market inertia. Producers and consumers had grown familiar with ordering millions of tonnes annually: they still are. So you mined extensively and stored in anticipation of the arrival of the next shipment. Processors then stored the cargo, when it was unloaded, until it could be used. It is an age old process: biblical and fraught with biblical mystery.
Large scale shipments persist because the shipping companies make large profits. If the profits are threatened then the shippers can simply restore their profitability by charging demurrage to the receiver. This exacerbates the supply of the ponderous ship unloaders, which are often unreliable and require provision of standby systems. Hanjin shipping recently went into liquidation carrying a fleet of 60 reefers and 35 bulkers. This fleet breakdown indicated the perceived importance of dry bulk trade. Yet in every port on the planet vast banks of empty containers loiter in despair at ever returning to their beloved Orient. Why do those battalions of containers stand idle? Surely these boxes could be used to transport bulk cargos rather than return empty. Surely low revenue is better than no revenue. Wait, the shipper would then be asked why dry bulk gets preferential treatment. Why indeed? Shipping rates have always been subjective: often strictly confidential. With a little negotiation shipping rates can be OPEX friendly to mineral producers, shippers and mineral processors alike.
Containers carry millions of TVs and other delicate goods through ocean storms in safety. Mineral cargos will not cause concern when stuffed into containers. CAPEX falls into oblivion when containerisation is introduced. Container cranes, straddle carriers, spreaders and skeletal semi trailers abound. Berthing is regular and cargo is mixed. Importers are able to regulate the quantities delivered and the delivery mechanism exists worldwide. Imagine a bulk terminal out of action. Surrounding mineral importers are well and truly stuffed. With containers it takes a lot of port cranes to be out of action before complete shutdown. Just-in-time logistics is a real possibility for most mineral processors and producers. Storage sheds could be put to better use when secure sealed and highly mobile containers are introduced. The advantages just go on and on.
Consider that a revival of mineral ore demand will probably involve much smaller tonnages than previous recent excesses and prospects for just-in-time containerised logistics becomes ever more appealing: but not to bulk handling leviathans.
Really effective containerisation of dry bulk must involve standard boxes. Special containers incorporating letter boxes, top inlets and 30foot length destroy containerisation for everybody and are, essentially, no different to pressurised bulk tankers etc. Use of liners in most containerised cargo is bound to be more costly than steam cleaning a correctly emptied container. Often 20foot containers are chosen because the bulk density of the cargo autosuggests the match. However further examination suggests that using a 40foot box would eliminate the need for dunnage in most applications. Since 70% of standard containers are 40footers this aspect deserves consideration.
Although container handling is mechanised to, or beyond, the limits of human intervention there is room for improvement in the final stripping and stuffing stages. These stages involve truck and rail interfacing. It is always better if these stages are conducted as drive-through workings. Railways have long recognised that truck tipplers are a better option than separating individual cars but truckers still seem to prefer reversing against a fixed target before discharging any cargo. This situation is due to the sheer arrogance of drivers who love to show how easy it is, for them, to manoeuvre a 40 foot trailer with only 25mm clearance at each side. This author is party to that. Drive-through operation can be achieved with a crane and swivel blocks. Cranes will cost no more than a single tipping skeletal trailer and swivel blocks are light and simple enough to be carried in the same side compartment as load securing straps and number plates. More might follow.
What does the team think? ■
John Gateley johngateley@hotmail.com www.the-credible-bulk.com
Ask not for whom the bell tolls:but try Dry Bulk Handling
Some forum participants have tried, without success, to start a forum which covers containerisation.
Regardless, here are some thoughts to progress the topic in general terms. Because container transport is usually imagined to involve ocean trade a reader will rightly assume that this article concerns only that aspect of the business. However the article can hopefully be interpreted for other forms of mineral handling.
Mineral bulk handling is in the doldrums and is likely to remain so. A downturn in the fortunes for Chinese demand is an unjustified explanation for the downturn. What was the world demand for minerals before the Chinese expansion? Ore supply exceeds demand and is forever likely to do so. Coal is doomed to extinction because of environmental pressures but more straightforwardly because of scarcity: demand will grow to match supply. Some large Asian consumers must be content to import wetter and wetter coal while still referring to it as fuel!
A fundamental flaw in mineral handling processes is their very large scale although still not very different to the smaller scale techniques of yesteryear which were, of themselves, only marginally adequate. It is surprising that dry bulkers were ever built after the appearance of container ships. One explanation of the continued existence of dry bulkers lies in market inertia. Producers and consumers had grown familiar with ordering millions of tonnes annually: they still are. So you mined extensively and stored in anticipation of the arrival of the next shipment. Processors then stored the cargo, when it was unloaded, until it could be used. It is an age old process: biblical and fraught with biblical mystery.
Large scale shipments persist because the shipping companies make large profits. If the profits are threatened then the shippers can simply restore their profitability by charging demurrage to the receiver. This exacerbates the supply of the ponderous ship unloaders, which are often unreliable and require provision of standby systems. Hanjin shipping recently went into liquidation carrying a fleet of 60 reefers and 35 bulkers. This fleet breakdown indicated the perceived importance of dry bulk trade. Yet in every port on the planet vast banks of empty containers loiter in despair at ever returning to their beloved Orient. Why do those battalions of containers stand idle? Surely these boxes could be used to transport bulk cargos rather than return empty. Surely low revenue is better than no revenue. Wait, the shipper would then be asked why dry bulk gets preferential treatment. Why indeed? Shipping rates have always been subjective: often strictly confidential. With a little negotiation shipping rates can be OPEX friendly to mineral producers, shippers and mineral processors alike.
Containers carry millions of TVs and other delicate goods through ocean storms in safety. Mineral cargos will not cause concern when stuffed into containers. CAPEX falls into oblivion when containerisation is introduced. Container cranes, straddle carriers, spreaders and skeletal semi trailers abound. Berthing is regular and cargo is mixed. Importers are able to regulate the quantities delivered and the delivery mechanism exists worldwide. Imagine a bulk terminal out of action. Surrounding mineral importers are well and truly stuffed. With containers it takes a lot of port cranes to be out of action before complete shutdown. Just-in-time logistics is a real possibility for most mineral processors and producers. Storage sheds could be put to better use when secure sealed and highly mobile containers are introduced. The advantages just go on and on.
Consider that a revival of mineral ore demand will probably involve much smaller tonnages than previous recent excesses and prospects for just-in-time containerised logistics becomes ever more appealing: but not to bulk handling leviathans.
Really effective containerisation of dry bulk must involve standard boxes. Special containers incorporating letter boxes, top inlets and 30foot length destroy containerisation for everybody and are, essentially, no different to pressurised bulk tankers etc. Use of liners in most containerised cargo is bound to be more costly than steam cleaning a correctly emptied container. Often 20foot containers are chosen because the bulk density of the cargo autosuggests the match. However further examination suggests that using a 40foot box would eliminate the need for dunnage in most applications. Since 70% of standard containers are 40footers this aspect deserves consideration.
Although container handling is mechanised to, or beyond, the limits of human intervention there is room for improvement in the final stripping and stuffing stages. These stages involve truck and rail interfacing. It is always better if these stages are conducted as drive-through workings. Railways have long recognised that truck tipplers are a better option than separating individual cars but truckers still seem to prefer reversing against a fixed target before discharging any cargo. This situation is due to the sheer arrogance of drivers who love to show how easy it is, for them, to manoeuvre a 40 foot trailer with only 25mm clearance at each side. This author is party to that. Drive-through operation can be achieved with a crane and swivel blocks. Cranes will cost no more than a single tipping skeletal trailer and swivel blocks are light and simple enough to be carried in the same side compartment as load securing straps and number plates. More might follow.
What does the team think? ■
John Gateley johngateley@hotmail.com www.the-credible-bulk.com