Ports & Terminals Insight

Quarterly Analysis of the Ports and Terminals Market Quarter | 4 | 2017

Intensity of container Potentially over- Global port demand Port connectivity

terminal asset usage ambitious port growth rate has matters as much as
is in long-term flat-line projects in the accelerated again size
pipeline

Executive summary
In this issue, our thought leadership changes, and we also introduce our global port developments are critically examined
spotlight analysis looks at the intensity with container port connectivity index. The in the new projects section, followed by
which the three most expensive terminal latest quarter’s port volumes are assessed our analysis of the latest financial trends,
assets – quay line, crane and land – are on a region-by-region basis, along with affecting the major listed port operators.
used, providing a time series insight. The long-term port throughput growth index We summarise below the key findings of
East Med port market is the focus for our analyses and our rolling average annual our analyses, which are covered in more
analyses of liner services and port call growth indicator. Three significant new detail in subsequent pages.

SPOTLIGHT ANALYSIS LINER SERVICE AND PORT CALL TRENDS

Is intensity of container terminal asset usage Extra loops serve growing East Med trade; New Drewry port
improving? connectivity index introduced Ukraine
Odessa

• For investors and operators, the key to success is • Hub port calls on the main East-West
Chornomorsk
Romania
Russia
Constantza

the intensity with which expensive assets – quay routes are still important, but direct services Varna
Black Sea
Novorossiysk

line, crane and land – are used have increased in the last 12 months
Bulgaria
Ambarli
Poti Georgia
Haydarpasa
Asyaport Izmit

• Actual industry performance for all three assets • In Drewry’s new global container port Greece

connectivity index measure, Asian ports

Gemlik

has not changed that much over the last 10 years

Izmir

Turkey
Mersin Iskenderun
Piraeus

dominate the top 20 table, but there

• Significantly, the intensity of land use appears to
Lattakia
Cyprus

are surprises in North America, plus the

Beirut Syria
Transhipment hub
Direct call gateway Limassol

be on the decline
Feeder gateway Mediterranean Sea Lebanon

geographical isolation of Australian ports

Haifa

Damietta Israel
Alexandria
Ashdod

has an upside Egypt Port Said West Port Said East

NEW PORT PROJECTS AND CONCESSIONS PORT THROUGHPUT TRENDS

Understanding partners and market potential Global growth rate accelerates again Africa Oceania
• Planned new • In the third quarter, global container port growth
container port Haydarpasa
Evyaport
Yarimca reached 6.4% on a rolling annual basis, up from
projects in Poland Sea of Marmara Yilport
Derince
5.2% in the previous quarter
(Gdansk and • This is now the fifth consecutive quarter
Limas
Middle East/
Gdynia) and of growth, increasing each quarter Latin America
Borusanport
Gemport Turkey South Asia
Turkey (Derince) Rodaport

appear to have • Third quarter growth rate was double

ambitious reach digit in Africa, Oceania, the Middle East/
Gdynia South Asia and Latin America
• State interests in Gdansk
Indonesia need
to give foreign Szczecin Poland PORT SECTOR FINANCIAL ANALYSIS
partners more Placating investors’ appetite for earnings growth
space to breathe Port Klang
• Sector profitability inched higher from 36.7% to 37% EBITDA, but the
in the Kuala

$
Belawan
Malaysia
Kuala Tanjung
price-earnings multiple moderated from 19.5x to 19x
Tanjung project Tanjung Pelepas
Singapore

Indonesia
• Major terminal operators are keen to hold stakes in free
Palembang
Jakarta
trade zones, looking for wider sources of earnings growth
Panjang • On the M&A front, CMPH’s strong acquisition appetite
nearly accounted for all of the $1.08bn transaction values in
the past three months

In this issue
Executive summary 1 New port projects and concessions 23
Spotlight analysis 2 Port sector financial analyses 28
Liner service and port call trends 6 Contact 32
Port throughput trends 14

Nov 2017 | 1 © Drewry Maritime Research

 Ports & Terminals insight spotlight analysis

Is intensity of container terminal asset usage improving?

There is much focus on service levels in the container terminal industry, presented here is based on a sample of
but for investors and operators, the key to success is the intensity with around 320 terminals worldwide, each
which expensive assets – quay line, crane and land – are used. Actual with a throughput of over 200,000 teu
industry performance for all three assets has not changed that much per annum, and accounting for nearly
60% of global throughput in 2016. This
over the last 10 years and, despite some high-performing terminals,
data excludes terminals where handling is
remains well below theoretical design parameters. Significantly, the undertaken by means other than ship-
intensity of land use appears to be on the decline. to-shore gantry cranes and is based only
In theory, a ship-to-shore gantry crane For example, quay line performance in on terminals for which non-estimated
is capable of handling at least 200,000 excess of 2,000 teu per metre per annum throughput data is held. The average
teu per annum a hectare of yard over is seen at terminals in Busan New Port, throughput per terminal in the sample was
40,000 teu per annum and a metre of Singapore, Shanghai, Ningbo, Hong Kong, just under 1.3 million teu (in 2016).
quay over 1,500 teu per annum. These Port Klang, Laem Chabang and JNPT The analyses reflect the most important
are industry benchmarks and parameters port in India. A number of these terminals and expensive infrastructure and
that designers and operators of terminals also achieve more than 250,000 teu per equipment assets, and hence cover quay
regularly use – and are seeking to push crane per annum. Teu per hectare per line, land area and ship-to-shore gantry
upwards. For example, the stated capacity annum figures in excess of 50,000 are also cranes. With gantry cranes costing in the
of the new PSA-CMA CGM JV terminal achieved although here it is more difficult order of $10 million each and quay wall
at Singapore is one million teu per berth to generalise as some high-performing construction costs as much as $100,000
per annum, well above the industry rule terminals have restricted land area and per metre, they need to be used as
of thumb of 500-700,000 teu per berth. there is no option but to evacuate boxes intensively as possible. The focus on the
Assuming 450 metres quay length per quickly, often to supporting near-dock or intensity of use of these key assets is
berth, the PSA-CMA CGM terminal off-dock storage locations. deliberately distinct from typical service
equates to 2,220 teu per metre of quay level-related measures such as crane
Examples of high performance at
per annum, and with likely four cranes moves per hour.
variance with industry norms
per berth, a capability of 250,000 teu per
crane per annum. These examples of high performance are Looking at the long-term trend, the
at variance with the industry as a whole, influence of world events and trade
There are high-performing terminals which typically performs at far lower levels on the intensity of asset usage at
around the world, albeit predominantly in levels of asset usage, as illustrated in container terminals is clearly evident (see
Asia, which achieve these heady heights. Table 2.1. The actual performance data Figure 2.1).

Table 2.1 CONTAINER TERMINAL ASSET USAGE INTENSITY

Typical industry Actual performance
Comments
design parameters (2016) *
Design parameters typically range from 800-1,700 teu per metre p.a.,
Teu per metre of quay per annum 1,500 1,154
depending on terminal size, vessel arrival patterns and traffic types
Teu per ship to shore gantry crane Design parameters are influenced by box-teu ratio, traffic type and
200,000 127,167
per annum scope for twin and quad lifts
Design parameters are highly dependent on yard equipment type and
Teu per hectare per annum 40,000 26,366
dwell times
* Based on a sample of 321 terminals handling > 200,000 teu p.a.
Source: Drewry Maritime Research

Figure 2.1 TEU PER METRE OF QUAY PER ANNUM, GLOBAL AVERAGE, 2007-2016
1,300
“New normal” activity levels
Trade recovery period
Global trade growth
1,200
boom years

Global
1,100 financial
crisis

1,000

900

800
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Source: Drewry Maritime Research

Nov 2017 | 2 © Drewry Maritime Research

 Ports & Terminals insight spotlight analysis

Little change in performance over last over 100 metres of said quay). Perhaps, that the declining trend in the intensity
decade the positives and negatives have cancelled of land usage, indicated by the sample
While Table 2.1 is a snapshot that each other out. results, is a direct consequence of larger
compares the latest performance data container ships.
The teu-handled per gantry crane per
with industry design parameters, Table 2.2
annum tends to follow closely the quay Regional trends from 2003
provides a 10-year time series of actual
line performance as both assets are an In Tables 2.3-2.5, we have also examined
performance data. On a global basis,
integrated part of the same ship-to-shore the long-term trends for three world
the intensity of quay line usage has crept
function. Performance has remained regions: North America, Europe and
upwards by an average of just over 1%
largely unchanged on average over the Latin America, going back as far as 2003
a year and the typical level achieved by
last 10 years, seemingly settled at a level (when the world’s largest container ship
terminals worldwide is at around 1,100
of around 127,000 teu per crane a year. was a mere 8,000 teu). There are some
teu per metre per annum. It is noteworthy
This is only around half the theoretical significant changes over this period; for
that the performance achieved is relatively
maximum annual capability of a gantry example, the teu per hectare per annum
unchanged, even though average and
crane. in North America has increased by 50%
maximum ship sizes have increased
– a consequence of the move away from
massively in the same period. In 2007, the Marked decline in intensity of land use
chassis operations and towards fully
average ship size in the world fleet was Of most interest is the fact that the teu-
grounded yard systems. In Latin America,
2,466 teu, while the largest was 15,550 handled per hectare of land per annum
the improvement in land usage is even
teu. By 2016, these figures had increased shows a declining trend over the last 10
more pronounced (up 66%). In this region,
to 3,878 teu and 19,224 teu, respectively. years, falling by just over 1% a year and
the last 10-15 years have seen a move
over 9% in total. The average performance
Therefore, it is clear that bigger ships away from simple, small multi-purpose
over the period is around 27,000 teu per
have not resulted in better use of quay terminals in many locations – towards
hectare per annum. Given that waterfront
line assets, but perhaps more notably, larger, specialised container terminals.
land is the rarest and most valuable asset
they have not worsened the use, despite
in a port, it is significant that the trend is Short-term comparisons of
much discussion about the phenomena
for it to be used less intensively by the performance by world region
of ‘berth wastage’ (the contention
industry. Previous research by Drewry has Figures 2.4-2.6 show the changes in
that, for example, whereas in the past,
shown that the impact of ever-larger ships performance by world region over the
1,000 metres of quay could neatly
is felt most in the yard because of the last four years, for each of the three key
accommodate three large 300 metre long
substantially increased volume peaks. The asset usage measures. In almost every
ships at once, today, such a quay could
net result is the need for more yard space case, Asia heads the list, both in 2013
only accommodate two 400 metre long
and a likely increase in the shuffling of and 2016, either maintaining or improving
ULCVs simultaneously, and would ‘waste’
boxes in the yard. It may well be the case performance levels. The region benefits

Table 2.2 CONTAINER TERMINAL ASSET USAGE INTENSITY, GLOBAL AVERAGES, 2007-2016
10 year
2007-2016 average
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 growth CAGR level
Teu per metre of
1,037 1,058 933 1,117 1,075 1,109 1,123 1,170 1,139 1,154 11.3% 1.2% 1,091
quay per annum
Teu per ship to
shore gantry 130,784 127,459 115,913 124,747 124,674 129,295 132,530 128,651 127,379 127,167 -2.8% -0.3% 126,860
crane per annum
Teu per hectare
29,073 28,452 22,467 30,243 27,624 26,015 26,460 25,621 26,261 26,366 -9.3% -1.1% 26,858
per annum
Source: Drewry Maritime Research

Figure 2.2 TEU PER SHIP-TO-SHORE GANTRY CRANE PER ANNUM, Figure 2.3 TEU PER HECTARE PER ANNUM, GLOBAL AVERAGE,
GLOBAL AVERAGE, 2007-2016 2007-2016
135,000 32,000

30,000
130,000
28,000
125,000 26,000

120,000 24,000

22,000
115,000
20,000

110,000 18,000
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Source: Drewry Maritime Research Source: Drewry Maritime Research

Nov 2017 | 3 © Drewry Maritime Research

 Ports & Terminals insight spotlight analysis

from having much larger terminals than

Table 2.3 CONTAINER TERMINAL ASSET USAGE INTENSITY, NORTH AMERICA, 2003 AND 2016
the world average, and a relatively high
2003-2016 proportion of transhipment activity. The
2003 2016 growth CAGR Middle East and South Asian terminals are
Teu per metre of quay per annum 665 777 16.8% 1.2% also high performers in a number of cases
Teu per ship to shore gantry crane per annum 90,661 91,885 1.4% 0.1% although the addition of new terminal
Teu per hectare per annum 9,604 14,407 50.0% 3.2% capacity in the Middle East has negatively
Source: Drewry Maritime Research impacted average land usage recently.
The performance figures for Europe have
Table 2.4 CONTAINER TERMINAL ASSET USAGE INTENSITY, EUROPE, 2003 AND 2016
dived since 2013, but in this region, there
2003-2016 has been significant new capacity added
2003 2016 growth CAGR to a mature (low volume growth) market
Teu per metre of quay per annum 653 761 16.6% 1.2% in locations such as Rotterdam and
Teu per ship to shore gantry crane per annum 100,110 94,819 -5.3% -0.4% the UK, and this has impacted average
Teu per hectare per annum 16,651 18,794 12.9% 0.9% performance.
Source: Drewry Maritime Research
North America sits at the bottom of all
three measures. The rarity of 24/7 ship
Table 2.5 CONTAINER TERMINAL ASSET USAGE INTENSITY, LATIN AMERICA, 2003 AND 2016 work has a big influence on the teu per
2003-2016 metre of quay and teu per crane figures.
2003 2016 growth CAGR As for land usage, as mentioned above,
Teu per metre of quay per annum 665 849 27.7% 1.9% this has improved, as a result of the move
Teu per ship to shore gantry crane per annum 105,517 110,307 4.5% 0.3% to fully grounded operations. However,
Teu per hectare per annum 16,696 27,752 66.2% 4.0% there remains a legacy issue that will still
Source: Drewry Maritime Research take some time to change.

Main reasons for differences in key higher than gateway ones. Transhipment Asian terminals have high density RTG
asset intensity usage performance terminals typically have larger vessel and RMG systems. Terminals with
Terminal size: Performance of large sizes and container exchanges per call smaller throughputs have a greater
terminals is higher than small ones. and lower container dwell times. Most tendency to use low density yard-
Average terminal size in Asia and Europe transhipment terminals are much larger stacking equipment, and those with
is much higher than in Africa or South than most gateway ones. higher throughputs use denser yard-
America, or North America. stacking solutions. Container dwell
Nature of yard: The choice of yard
times also have a strong bearing on yard
Traffic type: The performance of equipment naturally has a strong
performance.
transhipment terminals is markedly bearing on teu per hectare, and many

Figure 2.4 TEU PER METRE OF QUAY PER ANNUM BY WORLD REGION, 2013 AND 2016

2013 2016

Asia: 1,548 Asia: 1,627

Middle East and Indian Subcontinent: 1,223

World: 1,154
World: 1,123
Middle East and Indian Subcontinent: 1,086

Europe: 913 Oceania: 965

Latin America: 871

Oceania: 864 Latin America: 849

Africa: 837

North America: 777

Africa: 671 Europe: 761

North America: 656

Source: Drewry Maritime Research

Nov 2017 | 4 © Drewry Maritime Research

 Ports & Terminals insight spotlight analysis

Figure 2.5 TEU PER SHIP-TO-SHORE GANTRY CRANE PER ANNUM BY WORLD REGION, 2013 AND 2016

2013 2016

Asia: 165k Asia: 162k

Oceania: 146k
World: 133k

Oceania: 132k
World: 127k
Latin America: 126k

Europe: 113k
Latin America: 110k
Africa: 106k

Middle East and Indian Subcontinent: 105k

Middle East and Indian Subcontinent: 104k
Africa: 98k

Europe: 95k

North America: 85k North America: 92k

Source: Drewry Maritime Research

Figure 2.6 TEU PER HECTARE PER ANNUM BY WORLD REGION, 2013 AND 2016

2013 2016

Middle East and Indian Subcontinent: 36,230 Asia: 37,612

Asia: 36,184

Latin America: 32,869

Latin America: 27,752
World: 26,460 World: 26,366
Europe: 23,654 Oceania: 24,562

Oceania: 23,302
Middle East and Indian Subcontinent: 22,362

Africa: 19,363

Africa: 18,727 Europe: 18,794

North America: 14,407

North America: 10,033
Source: Drewry Maritime Financial Research

FOR MORE DETAILS AND OTHER MARKETS Learn more

Nov 2017 | 5 © Drewry Maritime Research

 Ports & Terminals insight liner service and port call trends

Extra loops serve growing East Med trade; New Drewry

port connectivity index introduced
While hub port calls on the main East-West routes are still an important vessels calling at ports in the region are
part of how the Eastern Mediterranean is served, the last 12 months unchanged, these being 15,908 teu and
have seen an increase in direct services to the main ports in the area. In operated by the 2M alliance. However,
Drewry’s new global container port connectivity index measure, Asian more loops are now using vessels in the
range of 10,000 – 14,000 teu.
ports dominate the top 20, but there are surprises in North America, plus
geographical isolation has an upside. Main hub ports for wayport calls are
Port Said East, Piraeus and Damietta
LINER SERVICE SPOTLIGHT Dedicated loops into the Eastern Med Table 3.2 displays the number of wayport
ANALYSIS – EAST MED have increased in response to volume loops by line/alliance, along with the ports
growth that they cover in the Eastern Med. Eight
Approach Table 3.1 shows a breakdown between loops making wayport calls are operated
Each quarter, Drewry scans its proprietary the different types of wayport and by alliances, and of the 10 non-alliance
database of liner services and selects dedicated services in the region. Wayport loops, seven are weekly loops in the
an area or trade route that has seen services predominate, demonstrating Middle East/South Asia trade, while
significant changes in service patterns, the importance of hub operations in the three wayport loops are non-weekly/
vessel deployments and ports of call. This Eastern Med. There has been no change multipurpose services. Wayport calls are
quarter, the focus is on the services calling in the number of wayport services in the generally at ports that provide the lines
in the Eastern Mediterranean, the Black last 12 months, but there have been with transhipment opportunities to get the
Sea and the Adriatic Sea. Comparison is changes to the routes and services with best market coverage by making only one
made between the services, vessel sizes, wayport calls, following the changes in regional wayport call.
and port calls in third-quarter 2016, and alliance services in April 2017. Figure 3.2 shows the gateway and
those in third-quarter 2017. transhipment volumes for the main hub
There has been a significant increase
The different types of services that call at in the number of dedicated services ports. The ports for which transhipment
the Eastern Med ports include: operating via Suez, from nine to twelve represents the greatest proportion of their
loops, with the three extra loops serving business are Port Said East, Piraeus and
• Wayport calls on the main East-West the Eastern Med ports. There has been Damietta. These are also the ports which
services passing through the area, en no increase in the loops covering the have the greatest number of wayport loop
route between Asia and North Europe, Adriatic and Black Seas. This is in line with calls in third-quarter 2017.
the Western Med and North America growth in container volumes in the region, There have been some changes in the
• Dedicated services via Suez to the which increased by 4.6% in 2016 and by number of wayport loop calls between
Eastern Med 7.9% in the first 9 months of 2017 on an third-quarter 2016 and third-quarter 2017.
annualised basis, using a sample of ports Port Said East and West have both lost
• Dedicated services via Gibraltar to the for which data is available.
Eastern Med calls, while Piraeus has gained calls. The
Average vessel sizes on loops calling in the main reason for this is that both Ocean
• Dedicated services to the Black region have generally increased although and THE alliances favour Piraeus for
Sea and to the Adriatic Sea, via the there has been a reduction in capacity wayport calls, while previously O3 and
Eastern Med ports on the loops via Gibraltar. The largest G6 had calls at Port Said. Ocean’s calls

Table 3.1 NUMBER OF SERVICES CALLING IN THE EASTERN MEDITERRANEAN, 3Q16 VS 3Q17
Average Maximum
Vessel Size Vessel Size
Increase/ Increase/ Increase/
Type of service Trade route 3Q16 3Q17 3Q16 3Q17 3Q16 3Q17
(Decrease) (Decrease) (Decrease)
Teu Teu % Teu Teu %
Wayport Services North Europe 3 6 3 8,085 11,094 37.2% 14,354 14,354 0.0%
West Med 10 8 -2 10,750 10,550 -1.9% 14,500 15,908 9.7%
ECNA 5 4 -1 6,523 6,665 2.2% 9,200 10,081 9.6%
Total 18 18 0 9,205 9,945 8.0% 14,500 15,908 9.7%
Dedicated Services via Suez
East Med only 4 7 3 8,042 7,837 -2.5% 15,908 14,100 -11.4%
Adriatic Sea via East Med 2 2 0 7,085 9,253 30.6% 9,074 13,100 44.4%
Black Sea via East Med 3 3 0 6,494 6,914 6.5% 10,622 10,622 0.0%
Total 9 12 3 7,313 7,843 7.2% 15,908 14,100 -11.4%
Dedicated Services via Gibraltar 4 4 0 2,968 2,624 -11.6% 4,253 4,253 0.0%
Wayport + Dedicated
Total 31 34 3 7,953 8,307 4.4% 15,908 15,908 0.0%
Services
Source: Drewry Maritime Research

Nov 2017 | 6 © Drewry Maritime Research

 Ports & Terminals insight liner service and port call trends

Figure 3.1 MAIN EAST MED AND BLACK SEA CONTAINER PORTS BY TYPE

Ukraine
Odessa

Chornomorsk

Romania
Russia
Constantza

Novorossiysk
Black Sea

Varna
Bulgaria
Ambarli
Poti Georgia
Haydarpasa
Asyaport Izmit

Greece

Gemlik
Izmir

Turkey
Mersin Iskenderun
Piraeus

Lattakia
Cyprus
Beirut Syria
Transhipment hub
Direct call gateway Limassol
Feeder gateway Mediterranean Sea Lebanon
Haifa

Damietta Israel
Alexandria
Ashdod

Egypt Port Said West Port Said East

Source: Drewry Maritime Research

FOR MORE DETAILS AND OTHER MARKETS Learn more

Nov 2017 | 7 © Drewry Maritime Research

 Ports & Terminals insight liner service and port call trends

Table 3.2 EAST MED WAYPORT CALLS BY LINE/ALLIANCE, 3Q16 VS 3Q17

Number of Loop Calls
Number of Port Said Port Said
Damietta Alexandria Ashdod Haifa Beirut Mersin Ambarli Piraeus
Wayport Loops East West
3Q17 2M 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0
Ocean 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 3
THE 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
Zim 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Other 10 2 2 4 1 0 1 1 1 1 2
TOTAL 18 4 2 5 1 0 1 3 1 1 6
3Q16 TOTAL 18 6 4 5 1 1 1 3 2 1 3
Increase/(Decrease)
0 -2 -2 0 0 -1 0 0 -1 0 3
3Q17 over 3Q16
Source: Drewry Maritime Research

are undoubtedly motivated by Cosco’s Med loops, while now there are loops Middle East/Black Sea loop. There has
terminal investment in Piraeus. MSC’s operated by 2M, Ocean and THE been greater change in the loop calls at
Himalaya Express (South Asia – North alliance Eastern Med ports, as shown in Table
Europe) and CMA-CGM/Hapag Lloyd’s 3.5, which covers calls at these ports
• A South Asia/East Med loop operated
New Nemo Service (Oceania – North on all the dedicated loops via the Suez
by MSC (covering five Eastern Med
Europe) have also added Piraeus wayport Canal. Piraeus has shown the greatest
ports, including Port Said West,
calls in the last 12 months. gain, moving from three to seven loop
Ambarli and Piraeus)
calls. All the new Eastern Med loops
All alliance lines now have access to
• A second loop operated by CMA- include a Piraeus call, as well as one call
at least one direct loop to Eastern Med
CGM/Cosco from South Asia to being added to Hapag Lloyd/CMA-CGM/
Table 3.3 shows the split of the dedicated Cosco’s Middle East/Eastern Med loop.
Eastern Med ports (covering Port Said
loops via the Suez Canal to the Eastern Ambarli has gained three additional loop
West, Piraeus, Mersin and Damietta)
Med/Black Sea/Adriatic Sea by destination calls from the new MSC and THE loops,
and by operator. There has been no These extra loops both provide additional
together with an added call by Zim’s
change to the three Black Sea services capacity to the area, and also provide
Eastern Med loop.
over the last 12 months, operated by some lines with direct services from Asia to
Ocean (previously O3), Maersk and Zim. Eastern Med ports for the first time. Increases in loop calls at both Port Said
and Damietta have been provided by the
Similarly, the two services to the Adriatic Greatest increase in Eastern Med port
MSC and CMA-CGM/Cosco South Asia
stand unchanged, operated by Ocean, calls at Piraeus, Damietta, Ambarli and
loops, which added calls at both Port Said
in place of O3, and 2M. However, the Mersin
West and Damietta (one in each direction).
number of loops serving only Eastern Med Table 3.4 displays the number of loop calls The only port that has less loop calls is
ports (including the Marmara Sea) has at the Black Sea and Adriatic ports. Three Iskenderun, reducing from three to two,
increased from four to seven. The extra ports in the Black Sea and three ports in as a result of O3/Ocean’s Black Sea loop
loops are: the Adriatic Sea have direct calls. The call switching its call to Mersin. Mersin and
pattern of these loops is largely stable, Iskenderun compete as gateway ports
• An increase of one alliance loop;
with the only change being an extra call for southern Turkey, and there has been
previously 2M + CKYE had Eastern
at Constantza added on Maersk’s ME3

Table 3.3 SPLIT OF DEDICATED LOOPS VIA SUEZ TO EASTERN MED/ Figure 3.2 CONTAINER VOLUMES AT MAIN EAST MED HUB PORTS,
BLACK SEA/ADRIATIC SEA BY DESTINATION AND BY 2016 (TEU)
OPERATOR, 3Q16 VS 3Q17
Gateway Transhipment % Transhipment (right axis)
Number of Loops by Destination Area 4.0 100%
3.5
Alliance/ Black Adriatic Eastern 3.0
80%
Line Sea Sea Med only Total 2.5 60%
3Q17 2M 0 1 1 2 2.0
Ocean 1 1 1 3 1.5 40%

THE 0 0 1 1 1.0
20%
0.5
Zim 1 0 1 2 0.0 0%
Other 1 0 3 4
Total 3 2 7 12
3Q16 Total 3 2 4 9
Increase/(Decrease)
0 0 3 3 Source: Drewry Maritime Research
3Q17 over 3Q16
Source: Drewry Maritime Research

Nov 2017 | 8 © Drewry Maritime Research

 Ports & Terminals insight liner service and port call trends

together a complete picture of how the

Table 3.4 NUMBER OF LOOP CALLS AT BLACK SEA AND ADRIATIC PORTS, 3Q16 VS 3Q17
changes in the last 12 months impact
Dedicated Loops via Suez individual ports. Table 3.7 shows the
Black Sea Ports Adriatic Sea Ports number of loops, average vessel size, and
Alliance/Line Constantza Odessa Novorossiysk Koper Rijeka Trieste maximum vessel size for the Adriatic and
Black Sea ports. As discussed above,
3Q17 2M 0 0 0 1 1 1 there has been no change in the number
3Q17 Ocean 1 1 0 1 1 1 of loops serving these areas, and the only
3Q17 THE 0 0 0 0 0 0 change in port calls is the additional call at
Constantza by the Ocean alliance. Sizes
3Q17 Zim 0 1 1 0 0 0 of vessels calling in the Black Sea show
3Q17 Other 1 0 1 0 0 0 little change. The average vessel size has
Total 2 2 2 2 2 2 reduced at Constantza, with the addition
of a loop with smaller vessels. Both
3Q16 Total 1 2 2 2 2 2
Adriatic loops have been upsized, with the
Increase/(Decrease) larger vessels operating on 2M’s AE12/
1 0 0 0 0 0
3Q17 over 3Q16 Phoenix loop.
Source: Drewry Maritime Research
Significant increases in vessel sizes
a recent expansion in capacity at Mersin. • Maersk: WCSA (Ecuador) to the Black calling at Izmir, Ashdod, Mersin and
It has an overall gain of three loops, with Sea Haifa
the new THE and CMA-CGM/Cosco Table 3.8 shows the number of loops,
• Turkon: North America to Turkey average vessel size, and maximum vessel
loops calling there, as well as the switched
Ocean loop. • Zim: North America to East Med ports size for the Eastern Mediterranean ports.
(THE lines also have slots on this The largest percentage increase in average
Most Americas-Eastern Med cargo is vessel size is at Izmir (78%), followed by
service)
transhipped en route Haifa (14%), Ashdod (11%) and Mersin
There are only four dedicated loops to the • Grimaldi: North Atlantic/West Africa to (11%). The increases at Izmir, Ashdod
Eastern Med from the West via Gibraltar. Gemlik and Mersin are due to the fact that the
There has been no change to the number new THE East Med loop calls there, with
Therefore, most of the cargo between the
of these loops in the last 12 months average vessel size over 12,000 teu. The
Americas and the Eastern Med, including
although a previous North Atlantic service increase at Haifa is due to the upgrading
Adriatic and Black Seas, has to be
by Nordana Line has been discontinued, of vessel size on the 2M AE12/Phoenix
transhipped en route.
and there is now a ro-ro service operated Eastern Med loop, from around 9,000 teu
by Grimaldi that calls in Gemlik, as part of Little change for Adriatic and Black Sea to 12,000 teu.
a circular service calling in North America ports in number of loops or vessel sizes
and West Africa. The four services are The main reductions in vessel sizes calling
With the different routes and types of
now: at the Eastern Med ports are caused by:
services operated, it is useful to draw

Table 3.5 NUMBER OF PORT CALLS, DEDICATED LOOPS VIA SUEZ, 3Q16 VS 3Q17
Number of Loop Port Calls
Port Port
Alliance/
Said Said Damietta Alexandria Ashdod Haifa Beirut Mersin Iskenderun Izmir Izmit Asyaport Gemlik Ambarli Piraeus
Line
East West
3Q17 2M 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 1
Ocean 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 2
THE 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 1
Zim 0 0 0 1 1 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 0
Other 1 3 3 0 0 0 1 3 2 0 2 1 0 3 3
Total 3 4 4 2 3 4 2 6 2 1 4 2 0 8 7
3Q16 Total 2 2 1 2 3 3 1 3 3 1 4 1 0 5 3
Increase/(Decrease)
1 2 3 0 0 1 1 3 -1 0 0 1 0 3 4
3Q17 over 3Q16
Source: Drewry Maritime Research

Table 3.6 NUMBER OF PORT CALLS, DEDICATED LOOPS VIA GIBRALTAR, 3Q16 VS 3Q17
Number of Loop Port Calls
Number of
Alexandria Ashdod Haifa Mersin Izmir Izmit Gemlik Ambarli Piraeus Yuzhny Novorossiysk
Loops
3Q17 Total 4 1 1 1 2 3 1 2 2 1 1 1
3Q16 Total 4 2 1 1 2 3 1 1 2 1 1 1
Increase/(Decrease)
3Q17 over 3Q16 0 -1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
Source: Drewry Maritime Research

Nov 2017 | 9 © Drewry Maritime Research

 Ports & Terminals insight liner service and port call trends

Table 3.7 NUMBER OF LOOPS, AVERAGE VESSEL SIZE, AND MAXIMUM VESSEL SIZE FOR ADRIATIC AND BLACK SEA PORTS, 3Q16 VS 3Q17
Total Number of Loops Average Vessel Size (teu) Maximum Vessel Size (teu)
Q316 Q317 Increase Q316 Q317 % increase Q316 Q317 % increase
Constantza 1 2 1 9,610 8,418 -12.4% 10,622 10,622 0.0%
Odessa 2 2 0 6,931 7,015 1.2% 10,622 10,622 0.0%
Yuzhny 1 1 0 3,070 3,077 0.2% 3,078 3,078 0.0%
Novorossiysk 3 3 0 4,166 4,457 7.0% 6,612 6,802 2.9%
Koper 2 2 0 7,478 9,839 31.6% 9,074 13,100 44.4%
Rijeka 2 2 0 7,478 9,839 31.6% 9,074 13,100 44.4%
Trieste 2 2 0 7,478 9,839 31.6% 9,074 13,100 44.4%
Source: Drewry Maritime Research

• 2M switching its largest vessels advertise to a range of direct and feeder • CMA-CGM uses Piraeus as its hub
serving the area (15,908 teu) – from a ports in the Black, Marmara and Aegean for all destinations. This reflects the
direct loop to Ambarli to a West Med Seas, in both a westerly direction (from number of calls it has there, by both
loop, which makes only a wayport call Shanghai) and in an easterly direction alliance and non-alliance services
at Port Said East (from New York). Significantly, there is a
• Hapag-Lloyd uses both Piraeus and
strong correlation between the chosen
• Several ports, such as Gemlik, Istanbul (Ambarli) as hubs
hub ports and lines’ related terminal
Asyaport, Damietta, are gaining
investments. From New York:
one or more loops, but as these are
operated with smaller vessels, this From Shanghai: • There are no direct services; all
pulls down the average for the port destinations require transhipment
• CMA-CGM has the largest number of
Many ports served with mixture of direct calls, followed by 2M • Both CMA-CGM and Maersk use
direct and feeder services hubs outside the Eastern Med to
• Maersk is the only line to make
With the different combination of wayport transfer cargo onto services into the
extensive use of Port Said East as
and dedicated services available for region. CMA-CGM uses Malta where
a hub for the Black Sea. This is
each line, there is no ‘standard’ model it has a terminal investment, and
because it can ‘interline’ cargo to its
as to how they provide port-to-port similarly, Maersk uses Algeciras. In
ME3 service into the Black Sea. Other
services into the region. By way of Maersk’s case, this requires a second
feeder ports are served via Ambarli as
example, Table 3.9 shows, for one line transhipment at Ambarli to reach a
it is the nearest direct port from which
from each alliance, which route they number of feeder destinations
to use third party feeders

Table 3.8 NUMBER OF LOOPS, AVERAGE VESSEL SIZE, AND MAXIMUM VESSEL SIZE FOR EASTERN MEDITERRANEAN PORTS, 3Q16 VS 3Q17
Total Number of Loops Average Vessel Size (teu) Maximum Vessel Size (teu)
Q316 Q317 Increase Q316 Q317 % increase Q316 Q317 % increase
Port Said East 8 7 -1 10,883 9,882 -9.2% 14,500 15,908 9.7%
Port Said West 6 6 0 7,295 6,165 -15.5% 10,622 10,622 0.0%
Damietta 6 9 3 6,735 6,505 -3.4% 11,388 8,814 -22.6%
Alexandria 5 4 -1 4,177 4,598 10.1% 8,073 10,000 23.9%
Ashdod 5 4 -1 6,660 7,452 11.9% 10,050 14,100 40.3%
Haifa 5 6 1 6,633 7,565 14.1% 9,200 13,100 42.4%
Beirut 5 5 0 9,702 9,833 1.3% 14,036 14,036 0.0%
Iskenderun 3 2 -1 7,345 6,534 -11.0% 10,622 6,921 -34.8%
Mersin 7 9 2 5,846 6,512 11.4% 11,388 14,100 23.8%
Izmir 4 4 0 3,423 6,099 78.2% 6,800 14,100 107.4%
Izmit 5 5 0 8,106 8,085 -0.3% 15,908 14,036 -11.8%
Gemlik 1 2 1 1,878 1,363 -27.4% 1,878 1,878 0.0%
Asyaport 1 2 1 14,137 10,724 -24.1% 15,908 14,036 -11.8%
Ambarli 8 11 3 6,649 6,897 3.7% 15,908 14,100 -11.4%
Piraeus 7 14 7 10,427 10,478 0.5% 15,908 14,354 -9.8%
Source: Drewry Maritime Research

Nov 2017 | 10 © Drewry Maritime Research

 Ports & Terminals insight liner service and port call trends

Table 3.9 ROUTING FOR CONTAINERS TO BLACK SEA/MARMARA SEA/AEGEAN SEA PORTS
From Shanghai From New York
Maersk CMA-CGM HL/UASC Maersk CMA-CGM HL/UASC
Discharge Port Hub Port Hub Port Hub Port Hub Port Hub Port Hub Port
Odessa Port Said East DIRECT Piraeus Port Said East Malta Piraeus
Chornomorsk Port Said East x x Algeciras + Ambarli x x
Novorossiysk Port Said East Piraeus Piraeus Algeciras Malta Piraeus
Constanta Port Said East DIRECT Piraeus Algeciras + Ambarli Malta Piraeus
Varna Ambarli Piraeus Istanbul Algeciras + Ambarli Malta Piraeus
Poti Ambarli Piraeus Istanbul Algeciras + Ambarli Malta Piraeus
Haydarpasa x Piraeus Piraeus x Malta Port Said West
Ambarli DIRECT DIRECT DIRECT Algeciras Malta Piraeus
Gemlik Ambarli Piraeus Istanbul Algeciras + Ambarli Malta Port Said West
Izmit DIRECT DIRECT Istanbul Port Said East Port Said West Port Said West
x = no service advertised
Source: Drewry Maritime Research

• Hapag-Lloyd uses Piraeus as its hub slot exchange arrangement between at Damietta and Piraeus en route from
for the Black Sea, and Port Said West THE and Zim Oceania to North Europe
for most of the ports south of the
• Maersk’s transhipment is again mainly • Maersk’s Ecumed service between
Bosphorus
centred on Port Said East; CMA-CGM WCSA and the Black Sea
Table 3.10 provides the same analysis for similarly uses Malta
Otherwise, North-South destinations are
the ports in the Mediterranean Sea.
• Hapag-Lloyd’s transhipment uses transhipped either via West Med hubs or
From Shanghai: several hubs, determined by Middle East/Asia hubs.
connections available rather than
• Maersk and Hapag-Lloyd have three However, two new services have been
any strategic choice of hub. This is
direct calls, while CMA-CGM has two introduced in November:
probably also the result of Hapag-
• Maersk uses only Port Said East as Lloyd having no related terminal • Maersk/CMA-CGM’s Asia-West
its hub, where APM Terminals has a investments in the region Africa loop FEW7 is being re-routed
terminal investment via the Suez Canal instead of the
Extra direct North-South services
Cape of Good Hope; it will call at
• Hapag-Lloyd uses Damietta as its coming to Eastern Med
Port Said East en route to Dakar and
hub, while CMA-CGM uses several In the last 12 months, the only North-
Nouakchott
different hubs South services calling direct in the Eastern
Med have been: • Maersk’s WAF7 service between
From New York:
Algeciras and the northern range
• Hapag-Lloyd/CMA-CGM’s New Nemo
• Only Hapag-Lloyd has direct West African ports is being extended
service making westbound-only calls
services, which are provided by a to Mersin, Izmir and Port Said East

Table 3.10 ROUTING FOR CONTAINERS TO MEDITERRANEAN PORTS

From Shanghai From New York
Maersk CMA-CGM HL/UASC Maersk CMA-CGM HL/UASC
Discharge Port Hub Port Hub Port Hub Port Hub Port Hub Port Hub Port
Izmir Port Said East Malta Damietta Port Said East Malta Salerno
Mersin Port Said East Malta DIRECT Valencia Malta DIRECT
Iskenderun Port Said East x Piraeus Port Said East Malta Mersin
Latakia Port Said East Beirut Damietta x x x
Limassol Port Said East Port Said East Damietta Port Said East Malta + Damietta Piraeus
Beirut DIRECT DIRECT Damietta Port Said East Malta Salerno
Haifa DIRECT x x Port Said East x x
Ashdod Port Said East x DIRECT Port Said East x DIRECT
Piraeus DIRECT DIRECT DIRECT Algeciras+ Marsaxlokk Malta DIRECT
x = no service advertised
Source: Drewry Maritime Research

Nov 2017 | 11 © Drewry Maritime Research

 Ports & Terminals insight liner service and port call trends

Implications for Eastern of 10 for the port with the most weekly 5) Intra-regional services are not included
Mediterranean ports services. Thereafter, a trade route breadth in the analysis
• With continuing volume growth in the index is calculated, with a maximum score
Asian ports dominate top 20
region, additional direct services will of 10, when a port has connections with
six world regions. A port with connections Table 3.11 displays the top 20 ports
most likely be introduced. These may
to three world regions would score 5 globally using this new methodology.
be on the North-South routes, as
and so on. The mainline trade density Shanghai is the port with the highest
well as on the established East-West
and trade route breadth index are then (maximum) index figure, being directly
routes into the Eastern Med
multiplied together to produce a maximum connected by services to all six world
• Wayport calls on the East-West connectivity index score of 100. regions, and having the highest number of
services will continue to be important, mainline services per week (168 in total).
giving opportunities for hub ports that Therefore, when looking at the results, As the world’s largest container port, it
are close to the main East-West route there are a number of important facts to is not surprising that Shanghai tops the
through the region to secure business be aware of: table. Given the scale of the container
port industry in Asia, and the extent of
• Although at present, the largest 1) The degree of connectivity is
major gateway and hub ports, it is also not
vessels making wayport calls are determined by the combination of: a)
surprising that nine of the top ten ports
under 16,000 teu in size, in due Number of trade routes served, and, b)
are in Asia. The tenth place is occupied
course, the largest ULCVs deployed Number of mainline services per week
by the North European port of Rotterdam,
on the Europe-Asia loops may well be
2) The maximum number of mainline but with a connectivity index score of only
scheduled to call at the Eastern Med
services per week figure is the port around one-third that of Shanghai.
hub ports
(anywhere in the world) with the highest
It is important to note here that the
• Vessel sizes in the range of 10,000 number. It will vary from quarter to
connectivity index deliberately does not
– 14,000 teu are now becoming the quarter
take account of vessel size. The purpose
norm for the direct alliance loops in
3) Trade routes that are not direct (i.e. of the index is to show the degree of
the region, and further increases in
that involve transhipment) do not connectivity (in essence, the ability
vessel size can be expected
count as a ‘service’ for the purpose of of shippers using the port to directly
• Lines’ choices of hub ports are connectivity access the widest range of origins and
influenced by a range of factors. destinations). Hence, even though a large
4) The maximum number of possible
Proximity to the gateway markets port with the same range of shipping
trade routes served will always be six
is not necessarily the main driver, services, but with larger ships, is likely
(there are seven world regions and
with terminal investments by related to generate more port volume overall, its
each port will always be in one of them)
companies, and opportunities for
interlining (to avoid third party feeder
costs) being equally important Table 3.11 GLOBAL CONTAINER PORT CONNECTIVITY INDEX, 3Q17 (TOP 20 PORTS)
Mainline Number of
Global Connectivity
GLOBAL CONTAINER PORT Port Region services per trade routes
ranking index score
CONNECTIVITY INDEX week served
Drewry has developed a bespoke index 1 Shanghai Greater China 168 6 100.0
of container port connectivity in order to 2 Ningbo Greater China 156 6 92.9
rank and monitor how well connected
3 Singapore South East Asia 149 6 88.7
the world’s ports are. For this measure,
two simple variables have been focused 4 Busan North Asia 102 6 60.7
on: First, the number of mainline services 5 Hong Kong Greater China 87 6 51.8
calling at each port per week, and second, 6 Yantian Greater China 85 6 50.6
the number of world regions with which 7 Qingdao Greater China 70 6 41.7
each port is directly connected. For every
port, the number of weekly mainline 8 Port Klang South East Asia 64 6 38.1
services is listed for each of seven world 9 Kaohsiung North Asia 63 6 37.5
regions. Each port is located in one world 10 Rotterdam North West Europe 62 6 36.9
region, and so, the maximum number of 11 Antwerp North West Europe 60 6 35.7
regions it can be connected to is six. Note
12 Shekou Greater China 59 6 35.1
that only direct services are included, not
indirect services that involve transhipment. 13 Savannah East Coast North America 55 6 32.7
The index produces a score for over 330 14 Xiamen Greater China 50 6 29.8
ports around the world. 15 Le Havre North West Europe 47 6 28.0
Each quarter, the port with the highest 16 Guangzhou (Nansha) Greater China 45 6 26.8
number of services per week will set the 17 New York East Coast North America 45 6 26.8
maximum figure against which calculations 18 Colombo South Asia 53 5 26.3
are made, so the connectivity measure is
19 Hamburg North West Europe 44 6 26.2
always relative to the port with the most
services. A figure for mainline service 20 Valencia West Med 43 6 25.6
density is calculated out of an overall score Source: Drewry Maritime Research

Nov 2017 | 12 © Drewry Maritime Research

 Ports & Terminals insight liner service and port call trends

as Savannah, despite being bigger

Table 3.12 GLOBAL CONTAINER PORT CONNECTIVITY INDEX, 3Q17 (TOP 10 NORTH AMERICAN
ports. ECNA ports, such as Savannah,
PORTS)
have connections to Europe, Asia and
Regional Mainline services Number of trade Connectivity elsewhere due to their geography, whereas
Port
ranking per week routes served index score WCNA ports, such as Los Angeles and
1 Savannah 55 6 32.7 Long Beach, tend to have a more singular
2 New York 45 6 26.8 focus with Asia. Long Beach has fewer
services per week than Los Angeles (18
3 Norfolk 47 5 23.3 versus 25), but also serves one fewer
4 Charleston 38 6 22.6 world regions directly (four versus five),
5 Oakland 32 5 15.9 hence its lower position in the North
American ranking.
6 Los Angeles 25 5 12.4
7 Houston 23 5 11.4 Similarly, in the UK, London Gateway
scores higher than Felixstowe and
8 Manzanillo 26 4 10.3 Southampton, even though it only has
9 Halifax 20 5 9.9 around a quarter of the throughput
10 Vancouver 22 4 8.7 of Felixstowe and less than half of
Southampton. However, it benefits from its
Source: Drewry Maritime Research
range of trade areas served (all six possible
world areas are served by direct services,
connectivity index may be no better than glance, it is surprising that the largest port
whereas Felixstowe and Southampton
a smaller port with the same range of liner in the North American region (Los Angeles)
only have five – both missing Oceania).
services. is only sixth in the table, and the second
Additionally, some of London Gateway’s
largest (Long Beach) is not in the top 10
North American surprises services ‘score double’ in the service
at all (it is in fact 12th). However, this is
Taking a regional focus, and using North count. For example, the CMA CGM/
because ports concentrated on one or
America as an example, Table 3.12 shows Hapag-Lloyd (NEWMO/EAX) and MSC
two trade routes, e.g. WCNA ports serving
the top 10 North American ports in order (Australia Express) services to Oceania
the Transpacific will not score as highly
of connectivity. The top four slots are all also call at Singapore, and so are counted
as those with a wider range of regions
taken by East Coast ports, with Savannah as services providing connectivity to Asia
served directly. Therefore, for example,
in first place by virtue of having the most as well.
Los Angeles and Long Beach do not
mainline service calls per week. At first score as highly in terms of connectivity Geographical isolation has upside
Table 3.13 shows the highest scoring port
Table 3.13 HIGHEST SCORING CONNECTIVITY INDEX PORT IN EACH WORLD REGION, 3Q17 in each of Drewry’s 20 world regions. As
previously mentioned, the connectivity of
Mainline services Number of trade Connectivity
Port Region the Asian ports is much higher than that
per week routes served index score
of ports in any other world region. As a
Shanghai Greater China 168 6 100.0 general rule, large transhipment hubs
Singapore South East Asia 149 6 88.7 tend to have high connectivity, as would
be expected. The leading port in several
Busan North Asia 102 6 60.7
regions has a very low connectivity score,
Rotterdam North West Europe 62 6 36.9 for example, Scandinavia and the Baltic,
Savannah East Coast North America 55 6 32.7 North Africa and West Africa. This is
Colombo South Asia 53 5 26.3 mainly because these regions tend to
have limited direct call services instead
Valencia West Med 43 6 25.6 being served mainly by feeder. Note
Jebel Ali Middle East 50 5 24.8 that in North Africa, the highest scoring
Melbourne Oceania 27 6 16.1 port is Casablanca because the major
Moroccan hub port of Tanger Med falls
Oakland West Coast North America 32 5 15.9 under the West Med region in Drewry’s
Piraeus East Mediterranean & Black Sea 23 5 11.4 classification. In Oceania, Melbourne is a
Houston Gulf Coast North America 23 5 11.4 relatively small port by world standards,
but Australia’s geographical isolation
Balboa Central America/Caribbean 27 4 10.7
means that it is highly connected (all six
Djibouti East Africa 21 5 10.4 world regions).
Callao West Coast South America 21 4 8.3 Now that this new analysis has been
Durban Southern Africa 16 5 7.9 introduced to the publication with live data,
Santos East Coast South America 17 4 6.7 we will track the ports gaining or losing the
most connectivity each quarter, and seek
Cotonou West Africa 16 4 6.3 to explain why and what the implications
Casablanca North Africa 5 1 0.5 are. We will also explore ways of refining
Gothenburg Scandinavia & Baltic 2 2 0.4 the analysis, and identify additional ways
to sort and present the data.
Source: Drewry Maritime Research

Nov 2017 | 13 © Drewry Maritime Research

 Ports & Terminals insight port throughput trends

Global growth rate accelerates again

In the third quarter, global container port growth reached 6.4% on a was nearly 10 points up on the September
rolling annual basis, up from 5.2% in the previous quarter. This is now the 2016 figure and nearly 12 points up on
fifth consecutive quarter of growth, increasing each quarter. the September 2015 level of 113 points,
indicating the clear improvement in the
Approach Continued increase in global growth market in 2017.
Each quarter, Drewry scans its proprietary rate
The index figures for Asia (exc. China),
database of container port throughput Despite continuing uncertainty about the
Europe, North America and Africa declined
and highlights the growth or decline global economy, Drewry’s rolling average
in September 2017 compared with the
by individual ports and on a global and annual port throughput growth analysis
previous month, but displayed growth
region-by-region basis in the following depicts a clear advance from recent years.
when compared with September 2016 (see
charts. The most likely reasons for the Having dipped into negative territory last
Table 4.1). The global index delivered 8.5%
growth or decline at selected ports are year, it reached 6.4% in the third quarter
annual growth in September 2017. Among
explained in the call-outs. – its best showing in several years (see
the world regions, the Americas depict the
Figure 4.1).
Small ports can more easily register large highest annual increases (double-digit),
growth or decline in percentage terms. Figures 4.2-4.6 provide Drewry’s container whereas Europe was the lowest at 4.4%.
Therefore, to avoid clouding the analyses, port throughput indices, a series of volume
Chinese tide floats all boats
we have focused only on the ports that growth/decline indices based on monthly
handle at least 125,000 teu each quarter. throughput data for a sample of over 220 As ever, the recovery in China helped drive
Additionally, it is important to note that we ports worldwide, representing over 75% the volumes forward with the sheer volume
can only include ports for which the data is of global volumes. The base point for the generated by the country making a huge
available. The full quarterly throughput data indices is January 2012 = 100. difference to world trade. After several
for all the ports in the sample is available in years when North China had started to
After increasing in July and August dominate, it is South and Central China
a soft copy in Excel format as an appendix
2017, the Drewry global container port where the recent improvements have been
to this report.
throughput index contracted by two strongest. While imports have performed
Apart from tracking the quarterly growth points to 125.2 in September 2017. better than exports as the government
at the port and regional levels, we also Nevertheless, the September 2017 figure seeks to rebalance the economy, firm
analyse the roiling annual global growth
rate, and new for this quarter’s report, we
have introduced a long-term container port Table 4.1 SUMMARY OF DREWRY REGIONAL CONTAINER PORT THROUGHPUT INDICES,
throughput index. SEPTEMBER 2017
While the weakening of freight rates has Monthly Annual
Index Sep-16 Aug-17 Sep-17
been a problem for shipping lines, ports change (%) change (%)
are enjoying stronger throughput as the Global 115.4 127.1 125.2 -1.5% 8.5%
global economy does well, and carriers China 123.9 136.1 136.7 0.4% 10.3%
remain reluctant to trim their services.
Shipping lines are unwilling to turn cargo Asia exc. China 112.9 121.4 118.3 -2.5% 4.8%
away after so many lean years, but they Europe 107.3 114.7 112.0 -2.4% 4.4%
are also keen to establish their reliability North America 118.0 137.8 132.9 -3.6% 12.6%
credentials as their new alliances establish
Latin America 102.5 113.6 113.9 0.3% 11.1%
themselves in the market. The result is that
rates are now 16% below where they were Africa * 104.0 117.4 111.9 -4.7% 7.6%
a year ago, according to Drewry’s World * Note that the index figures for Africa are based on a relatively small sample, and so should be viewed with caution
Container Index. Source: Drewry Maritime Research

Figure 4.1 GLOBAL CONTAINER PORT THROUGHPUT: ROLLING 4-QUARTER Figure 4.2 DREWRY GLOBAL CONTAINER PORT THROUGHPUT INDEX,
AVERAGE % CHANGE (SAMPLE PORTS), 1Q13-3Q17 JANUARY 2011-SEPTEMBER 2017
7% 140 Jan 2012=100 Unadjusted Index
6%
130
5%
120
4%

3% 110

2%
100
1%
90
0%

-1% 80
1Q13 3Q13 1Q14 3Q14 1Q15 3Q15 1Q16 3Q16 1Q17 3Q17 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Source: Drewry Maritime Research Source: Drewry Maritime Research

Nov 2017 | 14 © Drewry Maritime Research

 Ports & Terminals insight port throughput trends

Figure 4.3 DREWRY CHINESE CONTAINER PORT THROUGHPUT INDEX, Figure 4.4 DREWRY ASIAN (EXC. CHINA) CONTAINER PORT
JANUARY 2011-SEPTEMBER 2017 THROUGHPUT INDEX, JANUARY 2011-SEPTEMBER 2017
160 Jan 2012=100 Unadjusted Index 130 Jan 2012=100 Unadjusted Index
150 125
140 120
130 115
120 110
110 105
100 100
90 95
80 90
70 85
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Source: Drewry Maritime Research Source: Drewry Maritime Research

global demand is likely to keep export Rotterdam rebounds year growth was only half that of its Dutch
volumes healthy. In Europe, Rotterdam has been neighbour.
strengthening its grip on the transhipment
Chinese analysts expect a return to Even though it handles barely a tenth
market. After treading water in 2016, the
double-digit growth in all trade for the of Rotterdam’s volumes, Gdansk put in
port saw its transhipment volumes jump
full year, but the country’s leaders remain a stellar performance by adding more
by a quarter in the first half of 2017 as
concerned by the political situation across than a third to its third-quarter 2016
2M, THE alliance and Ocean all used the
the Pacific. China’s trade surplus with volumes, while strong showings at Kotka,
port as their bases for relay traffic in the
the US remains stubbornly large, partly Helsinki and St Petersburg – as well as
region.
because of the stronger dollar, whereas Novorossiysk in the south – suggest that
it has been narrowing with the rest of Although Rotterdam’s year-on-year growth Eastern Europe is recovering some of the
the world. Any measures by the Trump was not the biggest in percentage terms, vitality that had been lost in recent years.
administration to curb that surplus will, in volume terms its third-quarter growth
Europe’s recovery extended to the
therefore, have a disproportionately heavy was more than double that of any of its
Mediterranean, with the gate ports of
impact on China. rivals in our sample, at nearly 370,000 teu.
Mersin, La Spezia, Ambarli and Valencia
Gothenburg, by contrast, lost a quarter of
The strengthening yuan is also likely to showing strong improvement, though none
its volume in the same time frame because
dampen Chinese trade, although other of them could match Barcelona’s 36%
of continued labour issues.
countries in the region, notably South surge. The fading of Algeciras in the third
Korea, are poised to pick up the slack. Antwerp, which had been nibbling away quarter is a reflection of congestion issues,
Third-quarter imports into Los Angeles at Rotterdam’s position, seemed to have but overall the picture is one of South
and Long Beach were 8% and 16% higher stalled in the first half of the year, with Europe’s economies clawing their way
than last year, suggesting that America’s growth slowing to below 2%. Its third back after several years teetering on the
hunger for imports remains undiminished. quarter was better, but its 5.8% year-on- brink of economic disaster.

Figure 4.5 DREWRY EUROPEAN CONTAINER PORT THROUGHPUT Figure 4.6 DREWRY NORTH AMERICAN CONTAINER PORT
INDEX, JANUARY 2011-SEPTEMBER 2017 THROUGHPUT INDEX, JANUARY 2011-SEPTEMBER 2017
120 Jan 2012=100 Unadjusted Index 150 Jan 2012=100 Unadjusted Index

115 140

130
110
120
105
110
100
100
95 90

90 80
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Source: Drewry Maritime Research Source: Drewry Maritime Research

FOR MORE DETAILS AND OTHER MARKETS Learn more

Nov 2017 | 15 © Drewry Maritime Research

 Ports & Terminals insight port throughput trends

Figure 4.7 REGIONAL SUMMARY - SAMPLE PORTS: VOLUME GROWTH/DECLINE 3Q17 VS 3Q16

The improving oil price has led to more

Africa spending in Nigeria and Angola

Asian demand has supported growth, although

Oceania next year is likely to see a moderation of growth

The strengthening real is

Latin America sucking imports into Brazil

India has been less impressive, but Pakistan

Middle East, South Asia and Iran have made strong recoveries

North America US consumption remains strong

North Europe, Scandinavia It was a long time coming, but the recovery of the Eurozone has
& Baltic sucked in plenty of imports, plus Russia continues to recover

The EU’s Mediterranean economies

Mediterranean are showing some signs of recovery

Overall healthy growth in the thrid quarter,

Global average although the 2016 comparison was weak

Growth of northern ports is far behind those in south. Besides strict pollution
Greater China controls, export-oriented companies are concentrated in east and south China.
Ports in south benefited more from the recovery of global economies
North Asia

Southeast Asia

0% 1% 2% 3% 4% 5% 6% 7% 8% 9% 10% 11% 12% 13% 14% 15% 16% 17% 18%

Source: Drewry Maritime Research

Figure 4.8 GREATER CHINA SAMPLE PORTS: VOLUME GROWTH/DECLINE 3Q17 VS 3Q16
Zhuhai (Gaolan & Jiuzhou)
Spectacular growth as the port
Zhanjiang
targets intra-Asian markets
Qinhuangdao

Haikou (Hainan Island)

As the end of the second Eurasian land bridge, the
Lianyungang
port has been enhancing services to central Asia
markets under the Belt and Road initiative strategy
Fuzhou
The consumption boom has driven cargo
Ningbo
through China’s central and southern ports
Zhongshan
Port authority introduced subsidies in Sept 2017 for containers through
Xiamen Sea-Rail combined transportation and transhipment to attract volume
Guangzhou (Nansha) Capacity expansion is allowing growth - Nansha
Phase 3 started operation in May 2017
Quanzhou

Tianjin/Xingang
Domestic traffic is the
Shenzhen main driver of increase
Shantou

Country sample average

Hong Kong Moderate growth amid fierce competition from neighbouring ports in
Guangdong Province. However, government now is implementing the
Guangdong – Hong Kong – Macau Greater Bay Area Initiative, to
Shanghai improve the synergy and development of ports in this area
Rizhao

Weihai

Wenzhou

Yantai

Yingkou

Qingdao The north’s industry is

coming under pressure
Dalian from pollution controls

Dandong

-10% -5% 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35%

Source: Drewry Maritime Research

Nov 2017 | 16 © Drewry Maritime Research

 Ports & Terminals insight port throughput trends

Figure 4.9 NORTH ASIA SAMPLE PORTS: VOLUME GROWTH/DECLINE 3Q17 VS 3Q16

Russia’s efforts to develop

Vladivostok its Far East region are
bearing fruit, along with
recovery from economic
Taipei slowdown and sanctions

Aggressive expansion continues to show good results,

Inchon helped by free-trade agreements with China and Vietnam

Taichung

Results were good despite the

Kwangyang (Gwangyang)
loss of some traffic to Busan

Despite good results, Keelung is still

Keelung very much in Kaohsiung's shadow

Alliance restructuring and the Hanjin

Busan bankruptcy dampened growth,
especially transhipment business

Region sample average

With Korean semiconductor

Pyongtaek manufacturers opening plants in
China, growth stimulus is weaker
With mainline trade faltering,
Kaohsiung Kaohsiung is looking to develop
intra-Asia business

-25% -20% -15% -10% -5% 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50% 55%
Source: Drewry Maritime Research

Figure 4.10 SOUTHEAST ASIA SAMPLE PORTS: VOLUME GROWTH/DECLINE 3Q17 VS 3Q16

Winning a 2M string
has been a boon, but
Tanjung Pelepas
an oil spill kept 3Q16
numbers low

Johor

Attracting Ocean Alliance has helped

Singapore Singapore get back on track

Congestion in Bangkok is pushing

Laem Chabang more cargo out to Laem Chabang

Region sample average

Bangkok

Penang
With Ocean Alliance
cutting its calls, Klang
has lost much of its
Port Klang transhipment business
to Singapore

-25% -20% -15% -10% -5% 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30%
Source: Drewry Maritime Research

FOR MORE DETAILS AND OTHER MARKETS Learn more

Nov 2017 | 17 © Drewry Maritime Research

 Ports & Terminals insight port throughput trends

Figure 4.11 MIDDLE EAST/SOUTH ASIA SAMPLE PORTS: VOLUME GROWTH/DECLINE 3Q17 VS 3Q16

The port is being used

as a transhipment hub
Sohar to serve Qatar in the
face of trade embargo
by its neighbours
Alliance restructuring and resultant
Salalah transhipment business has helped Salalah
bounce back after a poor start to the year

The cut in export tax has boosted

Karachi exports, especially textiles

Despite tensions with the US,

Bandar Abbas (Shahid Rajaie) Iran’s economy is resurgent

Overflow from JNP has

Mundra/Adani made for strong growth

Region sample average

Booming Bangladeshi exports have

Colombo been a major factor in recent growth

Competition from new

Chennai (Madras)
rivals will blunt growth

Growth will be limited as the

Jawaharlal Nehru Port port is close to capacity

Cochin (Kochi)

Dubai

Aqaba

Kolkata (Calcutta)

Tuticorin

Volumes have been

falling since the second
Pt Qasim
quarter, with exporters
favouring Karachi

Gujarat Pipavav

Abu Dhabi (Mina Zayed)

-30% -20% -10% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 110%

Source: Drewry Maritime Research

FOR MORE DETAILS AND OTHER MARKETS Learn more

Nov 2017 | 18 © Drewry Maritime Research

 Ports & Terminals insight port throughput trends

Figure 4.12 NORTH AMERICAN SAMPLE PORTS: VOLUME GROWTH/DECLINE 3Q17 VS 3Q16
Market share gain from
Prince Rupert USWC ports, in particular
Seattle-Tacoma

Halifax

Philadelphia

Altamira

Vera Cruz

In volume terms Long Beach has been the big

Long Beach
winner as a strong dollar keeps imports high

Infrastructure and equipment upgrades

Baltimore have allowed larger ships to call

New Orleans

Lazaro Cardenas

Vancouver Market share gain from USWC

ports, in particular Seattle-Tacoma

Manzanillo

With all terminals now able to handle the bigger ships, the
New York port is tracking the regional average growth for the quarter

Region sample average

Percentage growth is sub-10% but

Los Angeles absolute growth over 170,000 teu

Houston

Hampton Roads

Savannah

Montreal

Charleston

Oakland

Miami Florida ports are the

exception to the strong
growth seen across the
US. Weather related issues
Jacksonville may be one reason

Port Everglades

-5% 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35%

Source: Drewry Maritime Research

FOR MORE DETAILS AND OTHER MARKETS Learn more

Nov 2017 | 19 © Drewry Maritime Research

 Ports & Terminals insight port throughput trends

Figure 4.13 LATIN AMERICAN SAMPLE PORTS: VOLUME GROWTH/DECLINE 3Q17 VS 3Q16

Recovery of Caribbean
Colon (Cristobal) coast transhipment
activity

MSC’s decision to focus its operations at the port (after taking

Valparaiso a stake in the TPS terminal) have led to a volume surge

Rio Grande

Puerto Limon

San Antonio The port is doing better than

expected since losing MSC

Montevideo

Region sample average

Callao

A customs strike at the port’s busiest time

Santos will stunt growth at the region’s largest port

Itajai

Balboa

Colon (Evergreen)

Colon (Manzanillo)

-10% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 110% 120% 130% 140%

Source: Drewry Maritime Research

Nov 2017 | 20 © Drewry Maritime Research

 Ports & Terminals insight port throughput trends

Figure 4.14 NORTH EUROPE, SCANDINAVIAN & BALTIC SAMPLE PORTS: VOLUME GROWTH/DECLINE 3Q17 VS 3Q16

Recovery of Russian
transhipment volumes
Gdansk (the cargo surge has
prompted plans to build
a new port area)

Kotka

Le Havre

Russia’s recovery has been

St Petersburg
faster than expected

Helsinki

Rotterdam was a big winner from

Rotterdam the alliance restructuring in April

Irish economy
Dublin
continues to do well

Region sample average

Despite draught restrictions, Hamburg

Hamburg
has benefited from Russia’s recovery

Szczecin-Swinoujscie Growth has moderated as the country

becomes a more mature economy

Antwerp Strong growth of recent

years has now matured

Sines

Bilbao

Strikes have hit

Gothenburg Gothenburg
hard

-40% -30% -20% -10% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%

Source: Drewry Maritime Research

FOR MORE DETAILS AND OTHER MARKETS Learn more

Nov 2017 | 21 © Drewry Maritime Research

 Ports & Terminals insight port throughput trends

Figure 4.15 MEDITERRANEAN SAMPLE PORTS: VOLUME GROWTH/DECLINE 3Q17 VS 3Q16

Devaluation has
slashed imports, and
Damietta the improvement is
more a reflection of a
poor 3Q16

Transhipment volumes have leaped

Barcelona after alliance restructuring

The port has recovered well since losing MSC business to

Ambarli
Asyaport. Cosco buying into Kumport terminal may be a factor

La Spezia Increase in transhipment

activity (from a low base)

Mersin

Beirut

The southern port has also benefited

Novorossiysk
from the Russian recovery

Naples

Valencia

Region sample average

Haifa

Ashdod

Venice

Constantza

Congestion has resulted

in diversion of
Algeciras transhipment traffic to
Tenerife

-50% -40% -30% -20% -10% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%

Source: Drewry Maritime Research

FOR MORE DETAILS AND OTHER MARKETS Learn more

Nov 2017 | 22 © Drewry Maritime Research

 Ports & Terminals insight new port projects and concessions

Understanding partners and market potential

Planned new container port projects in Poland and Turkey appear to deep pockets – of international player
have ambitious reach, while state-owned port authorities in Indonesia DP World at Yarimca and leading Turkish
need to give foreign partners more space to breathe. player Yilport Holdings, with terminals
at Gebze and Gemport, as well as local
This section of the report analyses the increased 26% over 10 years, reaching market leader Evyaport (see Figure 5.2).
implications of selected new port projects $10,790 in 2016. Manufacturing is one of Combined, the existing ports of Borusan,
and concessions. This quarter, the focus the main drivers of growth, with industrial Evyaport, Gemport/Gemlik, Haydarpasa,
is on the proposed new port of Kuala production in September tracking 10.4% Limas, Rodaport, Yilport and Yarimca
Tanjung in Indonesia, the plan to add more up year-on-year. recorded throughput of just under 2 million
capacity in the Marmara Sea with the teu in 2016 against a capacity of 5.1
The fact that there is a sizeable container
arrival of Safiport Derince, and the parallel million teu. Collectively, the throughput
base to draw on for terminals in the
plans to develop new port areas at the of these facilities has grown by a healthy
region is clear, but there are many mouths
main Polish ports of Gdansk and Gdynia. 11% per annum on average since 2010
looking to feed from the same meal, which
In Turkey, the comparatively late arrival means that the latest arrival, Safi Derince (see Table 5.1), but this remains somewhat
of Safiport Derince on the container International Port, faces a challenging short of what would be necessary to fill
terminal scene will add to the already journey to fulfil its container ambitions. all this capacity. With the expansion of
well-supplied capacity of Izmit Bay and Derince was privatised from Turkish the multipurpose Gemport Terminal, the
the wider Marmara Sea region. While the State Railways ownership in 2015, when start-up of Gemlik Phase II and the build-
developers have no previous experience Safi Holding paid $543 million for the up of capacity at Yilport’s home terminal
in port operations, the holding group’s 39-year concession. The group plans to at Gebze, capacity will climb to 5.6 million
core competencies of dry bulk trading invest $350 million into Safiport Derince teu this year. It has long been the plan to
and handling are significant. Poland’s to create an 18-metre deep, 490-metre close the state-run Haydarpasa container
two competing ports of Gdansk and long container berth, and a 450-metre terminal, but this will only mitigate the
Gdynia have both laid out their plans long ro-ro and general cargo berth on the capacity increase to a small extent, if and
for development of future deepwater existing port footprint. ZPMC’s ship-to- when it happens.
container capacity. However, current shore gantry cranes and Kalmar’s RTGs It is worth noting here that the nature
container volumes make it hard to justify have been ordered, and are expected in of these competing facilities varies
even one of the ambitious projects at May 2018. considerably from, for example, the new,
this stage. In Indonesia, port authority fully equipped and dedicated terminal of
This is parent group Safi Holding’s first
Pelindo I is sending mixed messages to Yarimca to the more basic mobile harbour
foray into the port development sector,
its partner, Port of Rotterdam Authority, crane-served operations of the likes of
having made a name for itself in the
in its greenfield Port of Kuala Tanjung Rodaport. Safiport Derince will need to find
construction, management and operation
development. its place within that spectrum.
of general cargo and bulk ships, as well as
in production and marketing of domestic Wide utilisation variations at terminal
Derince, Turkey coal. Both the container sector and port level
operations are new to the group, so Safi As subsequent expansion phases are
Type of facility: Region: Country:
Holding’s move into Derince is a clear completed and Safiport Derince comes
Redevelopment Marmara Turkey
break from its core business. on stream, the Izmit Bay region’s capacity
of existing Sea (Izmit
facility Bay) Heavyweight rivals will rise to 6.75 million teu by 2021 (see
Port: Company: In the Izmit Bay region, the newcomer will Figure 5.3). In order to fill this capacity, a
Safiport Derince Safi Derince have to compete with the might – and significant jump in market throughput will
International Port
Management, Safi Figure 5.1 LOCATION OF DERINCE, TURKEY
Holding
Deal date (existing facilities)/
Operational date (greenfield projects):
February 2018 for phase one, 2022 for
completion Haydarpasa Yarimca
Evyaport
Investment amount (if known): Derince
$350 million
Annual handling capacity: Sea of Marmara Yilport
500,000 teu in the first phase, 2.5
million teu at completion in 2022
Limas
Many mouths to feed in Izmit Bay
As a cargo base, Turkey continues to have Borusanport Turkey
huge potential. Its population has grown Gemport
from 72.3 million in 2010 to 81.2 million Rodaport
at present, while GDP per capita has
Source: Drewry Maritime Research

Nov 2017 | 23 © Drewry Maritime Research

 Ports & Terminals insight new port projects and concessions

Figure 5.2 IZMIT BAY AREA, MAIN CONTAINER PORT THROUGHPUTS, Figure 5.3 IZMIT BAY AREA, CONTAINER PORT THROUGHPUT AND
2016 (’000 TEU) CAPACITY, 2010-2021 (MILLION TEU)
8 Throughput Capacity
86 52 7
110
Evyaport 6
Yilport
688 5
249 Gemport
Borusanport 4
Haydarpasa
Rodaport 3
Yarimca 2
364 Limas
Derince 1
396 0
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
Source: Drewry Maritime Research Source: Drewry Maritime Research

be required; volumes in 2016 were just teu, with a dry bulk capacity of 10 million bound by general, dry and auto cargoes
38% of capacity. Even when focusing tonnes per year and a multi-storey car and not reliant primarily on the region’s
just on the five ports within Izmit Bay park with a capacity of 1.5 million vehicles. hotly-contested container volumes.
itself (Yilport, Yarimca, Evyaport, Limas The focus on dry bulk capacity sits more
Safiport Derince’s Chairman, Mustafa
and Derince), utilisation in 2016 was only comfortably with the group’s interests in
Hakan Safi, has a self-declared mission:
slightly higher at around 40%. However, coal production and bulk carrier ownership
to make the facility the largest and most
there are wide variations within this and may be its primary focus if sufficient
efficient port in Turkey, emulating the
average, ranging from a high of over 100% container volumes cannot be attracted in
likes of Singapore. The group is already
at Evyaport to a low of only 5% at Limas. the first instance.
considering further port investments,
Safiport Derince sees its cargo base as Highlighting bulk competencies specifically naming Alsancak Izmir Port as
Turkey’s industrial hub of Istanbul, as This potential ‘Plan B’ is cemented by a potential target. Container volumes from
well as the Central Anatolia and Marmara Safiport Derince’s recent agreement to Turkey and the surrounding region will
regions. However, it will compete for cargo help ostracised Qatar with its domestic grow in the medium term, and therefore,
from that extended hinterland with other needs, with the port signing a deal with increasing box handling capacity in the
terminals in the Marmara Sea, notably Doha’s Hamad port in August to seal Marmara Sea is sound logic. However,
Evyaport, Yilport and Yarimca – which direct trade between the two. The service Safiport Derince is new – and late – to the
have expansion plans of their own. started in November and is expected to container handling sector here and may
bring $5 billion in business a year. Under well focus at least equally on its holding
The port’s ambitious plans aim for it to
the deal, three joint vessels are to be group’s core competencies of dry bulk
expand its current 45 hectare hardstanding
bought to service the trade, exporting food and general cargo handling to ensure
to 120 hectares through land reclamation.
and construction materials to Hamad in payback of its $893 million investment,
Piling has begun, with the project planned
return for petrochemical products. This albeit its expenditure on STS cranes and
to be completed by 2022. On completion,
deal could lay down the foundation for a RTGs for container handling cannot be
Derince will be able to handle 2.5 million
successful future for Safiport Derince, one ignored.

Table 5.1 DEVELOPMENT OF IZMIT BAY AREA CONTAINER PORT THROUGHPUT, 2010-16 (’000 TEU)
Port 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 CAGR 2010-16
Borusan 193 195 189 218 227 226 249 4.3%
Derince 1 2 1 1 8 0 2 16.5%
Evyaport 248 284 400 458 523 605 688 18.5%
Gemport/Gemlik 267 463 375 331 389 369 364 5.3%
Haydarpasa 176 205 162 143 128 121 110 -7.6%
Limas - - 7 47 26 13 14 -
Rodaport 53 107 130 124 102 89 86 8.5%
Yilport 145 231 230 305 354 375 396 18.2%
Yarimca - - - - - 2 52 -
Total 1,084 1,487 1,495 1,627 1,756 1,801 1,962 10.4%
Source: Drewry Maritime Research

FOR MORE DETAILS AND OTHER MARKETS Learn more

Nov 2017 | 24 © Drewry Maritime Research

 Ports & Terminals insight new port projects and concessions

Gdansk/Gdynia, Poland Figure 5.4 LOCATION OF GDANSK AND GDYNIA

Type of facility: Region: Country:

Greenfield Baltic Sea Poland
Port: Company:
Gdansk/Gdynia Port of Gdansk/Port
Gdynia
Gdynia
Deal date (existing facilities)/
Operational date (greenfield projects): Gdansk
2027 for both
Investment amount (if known):
Unknown (both projects at concept
stage)
Szczecin Poland
Annual handling capacity: Unknown

Miles apart?
They are just 25 kilometres distant from Source: Drewry Maritime Research
each other in Poland, but the ports of
reconstructing the quays at the inner port. Risk of overcapacity
Gdansk and Gdynia appear to have
Works for this project are expected to be While neither project states a total
independent plans when it comes to
finished by the end of 2020. planned capacity, with at least two new
planning future container capacity.
deepwater terminals in the offing – and
Not to be left out, neighbouring Gdynia
Gdansk has announced its intention to possibly more – these terminals would
has also presented plans for the
create a Central Port to complement its almost certainly inject a large amount of
development of a deepwater container
Deepwater Container Terminals (DCT) capacity into the Polish port sector. In
terminal, to be located in a new, yet-to-
1 and 2. The plan – still at the concept 2016, Polish port throughput was just
be-built outer port area. This proposed
stage and forming part of the port’s 2027 over 2 million teu against capacity of 4.55
facility would add to Gdynia’s two current
strategy – will see deepwater terminals million. The completion of DCT2 this year
box terminals – ICTSI’s Baltic Container
created with storage facilities and road/ pushed capacity up to 5 million teu (see
Terminal (BCT) and Hutchison’s Gdynia
rail access. The project is described Figure 5.5). Overall container traffic at
Container Terminal (GCT). The outer
as the first large-scale concept for the Polish ports has grown by over 11% per
port development forms part of the Port
development of the Port of Gdansk in annum on average since 2010 (see Table
of Gdynia 2030 programme, likely to
40 years. The Central Port will be built 5.2), doubling from 1.05 million teu, but
include non-container facilities as well,
close to the existing DCT terminal; DCT2 continued rapid growth would be needed
although this has not been confirmed.
opened this year, adding 1.6 million teu to to fill existing capacity, let alone new. That
The port is seeking an external partner
the port’s overall capacity. A ro-ro terminal said, there are significant variations in
to invest in the project, which it plans
in a new outer port completes the 2027 utilisation between the existing terminals.
to complete within 10 years. Part of the
strategy plan. For example, estimated utilisation at GCT
development includes construction of a
was 63% in 2016, but just 27% at BCT.
In more imminent and more concrete new turning basin, the deepening of the
DCT’s utilisation across its two terminals
plans, Gdansk port has commissioned internal sea areas and the fairway, as
was only 50%, but this includes the newly
contractors to upgrade its Obroncow well as the construction of the outer port.
opened DCT2 (see Figure 5.6).
Poczty Polskiej Quay and Mew Quay at a With Central and Eastern Europe as their
cost of $10.9 million. This forms part of a hinterlands, both ports see these projects The similarities in the two ports’ expansion
multi-stage infrastructure upgrade project, as lending support to their ambitions of projects reflect a fight for essentially the
which includes dredging the fairway and competing with North Continent ports. same cargo base. Traditionally, Gdynia

Figure 5.5 GDANSK AND GDYNIA CONTAINER THROUGHPUT, 2010-2016 Figure 5.6 ESTIMATED UTILISATION LEVELS, MAIN GDANSK AND
(MILLION TEU) GDYNIA CONTAINER TERMINALS, 2016
1.4 Gdansk Gdynia
Gdynia Container Terminal
1.2

1.0
Baltic Container Terminal (BCT) Gdynia
0.8

0.6
Gdansk DCT*
0.4

0.2
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%
0.0 * Capacity figure includes DCT2, newly opened in 2016. On basis of DCT1 alone, estimated
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 utilisation level would have been 93%
Source: Drewry Maritime Research Source: Drewry Maritime Research

Nov 2017 | 25 © Drewry Maritime Research

 Ports & Terminals insight new port projects and concessions

Table 5.2 DEVELOPMENT OF POLISH CONTAINER PORT THROUGHPUT, 2010-16 (’000 TEU)
Port 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 CAGR 2010-16
Gdansk 512 686 929 1,178 1,212 1,091 1,299 16.8%
Gdynia 485 616 676 730 849 685 638 4.7%
Szczecin-Swinoujscie 57 55 52 62 78 88 91 8.2%
Total 1,054 1,357 1,657 1,970 2,140 1,864 2,028 11.5%
Source: Drewry Maritime Research

was Poland’s main container import/ new deep-sea port. Having carried out a
export gateway, but this prominence has Kuala Tanjung, Indonesia feasibility study, Rotterdam then signed
been steadily eroded through Gdansk’s a further agreement in November 2016
dogged pursuit of its deepwater plans with Type of facility: Region: Country: to prepare the development of the port,
DCT and subsequently DCT2. DCT (and Greenfield Asia Indonesia but works still have not started. Facing
Poland’s) volume growth has been built not Port: Company: what appears to be sabre-rattling from
only on gateway cargo but also significant Port of Kuala Port of Rotterdam; DP the Indonesian government, the Port of
transhipment volumes, with weekly Tanjung Phase World; Pelindo I Rotterdam is taking a steadfast approach.
mainline ULCV calls by the 2M and Ocean II & III Earlier this year, Indonesia’s Minister for
Alliances now well established. Deal date (existing facilities)/ Transportation set a May 2017 deadline
Operational date (greenfield projects): for Rotterdam to make a firm commitment
Therefore, Gdynia could lose more if its
End-2019 on moving ahead with the project, or he
expansion plans do not see the light of
warned that the government would look
day. Gdansk already has the ministerial Investment amount (if known):
for other investors. Another Pelindo I-set
green light for its Central Port project and Total investment over three phases:
date – August – for second phase works
is now starting on the necessary design $520 million
to begin – has since passed without
work to take it off the drawing board. Annual handling capacity: action. Nonetheless, Indonesia’s flexed
However, the port needs to be mindful 2 million teu muscles seem to be having little impact on
of the impact the project might have on
Rotterdam. The European port authority
DCT – its incumbent and highly successful Unclear timeline is publicly supporting the project, but it
terminal operator. Both projects will need Amid swirling contradictions, Indonesia’s refuses to be bound by Pelindo I’s timeline.
to secure appropriate funding in order to Port of Kuala Tanjung container port
proceed further. is edging closer to reality with support Indonesia’s mixed messages
from the Port of Rotterdam Authority. Perhaps the Port of Rotterdam Authority is
Joint approach as an alternative?
While phase one – the construction of confused by the Indonesian government’s
With both projects still at the concept
a multipurpose terminal – is virtually stated intention to keep its options
stage, there is still scope to re-think to
complete, development of the second open as it continues to look for further
benefit both ports, as well as Poland
and third phases – the industrial area and investors in the project. Pelindo I is offering
as a whole. There are now precedents
container port – has been slower to start. both development partnerships and
for collaboration between previously
management partnerships in the upcoming
competing ports to meet the musical The Port of Rotterdam Authority first phases. The government has also formally
chairs of shipping line alliances and made a commitment to the project back offered the project to both Japanese
the demands created by ever-larger in 2015 when it signed a partnership and Chinese investors. To further muddy
container ships. The classic example of agreement with Indonesia’s Pelindo I the waters, DP World is also advising on
neighbouring, competing ports getting port company for the development of the the project, despite giving notice of its
strategically closer is the Tacoma and
Seattle tie-up under the North West
Figure 5.7 LOCATION OF KUALA TANJUNG
Seaport Alliance, which after three
years, is still going strong. Other port
authority partnerships of note include Port Klang
the Copenhagen-Malmo merger and the Belawan
Ningbo-Zhoushan partnership, as well Malaysia
as the cooperation between the more Kuala Tanjung
distant ports of Virginia and Savannah Singapore
on the USEC. The ports of Gdansk and Tanjung Pelepas
Gdynia might be better placed to face
the future with a shared focus, building Indonesia
new deepwater terminals based on
overall Polish cargo volumes rather than Palembang
simply trying to outdo their neighbour. Jakarta
Independently, it may not be possible for
both ports to be winners, but collectively, Panjang
their shared ambitions of competing further
with the main North Continent ports might
be more achievable. Source: Drewry Maritime Research

Nov 2017 | 26 © Drewry Maritime Research

 Ports & Terminals insight new port projects and concessions

intention to exit its PT Terminal Petikemas itself, which adds an element of caution Barra – in the northern part of Rio de
Surabaya operation in Indonesia. to international operator enthusiasm for Janeiro State, in Brazil. Bringing port
Indonesian concessions. authorities with a proven track record
The Port of Rotterdam is clearly taking
into emerging market greenfield projects
a cautious strategy, especially given Rotterdam’s established track record
brings significant expertise into a project,
that just three months after signing Rotterdam’s confirmed interest in Kuala something that Kuala Tanjung and Pelindo
an agreement with the Indonesian Tanjung is clearly worth nurturing. It has I could benefit from.
government, accepting a role to advise proven itself in foreign partnerships and
on the development of Kuala Tanjung has already made progress with greenfield Sited across the Strait of Malacca from
and Belawan port in North Sumatra, DP port projects in Sohar (Oman) and Porto Malaysian transhipment hub Port Klang,
World announced its intention to pull out Central (Brazil) through its World Port and not far from other major hubs –
of its PT Terminal Petikemas Surabaya. It Network project. In the Indonesian joint Tangung Pelepas and Singapore, Kuala
stated that it would not renew its operating venture, Pelindo I has 51% ownership of Tanjung will likely need to find a captive
contract when it expires at the end of the shares, and the remaining 49% are local market for its container volumes.
2019, having been disappointed that “the owned by Rotterdam. It will require strong partnerships with
significant positive contributions made port authorities, terminal operators and
by global terminal operators in Indonesia Rotterdam is not the only European shipping lines, and management of those
have not been fully recognised”. It appears port authority actively and successfully partnerships in the most effective way. At
as if the Indonesian partners were asking investing in overseas ports. Port of present, it is not clear how the relationship
for too much, in DP World’s view. To add Antwerp International is investing $10 between national (local) port authority,
to this, Pelindo has demonstrated its million in Porto do Açu – a privately- international port authority and international
desire to majority own and run terminals owned port complex in São João da terminal operators will pan out.

FOR MORE DETAILS AND OTHER MARKETS Learn more

Nov 2017 | 27 © Drewry Maritime Research

 Ports & Terminals insight port sector financial analyses

Placating investors’ appetite for earnings growth

Ports struggled to retain investment interest as earnings tripped up 36.7% to 37% (see Table 6.2). Given the
amid strong throughput growth. Sector profitability inched higher from 19.0x PE valuation of the sector, which
36.7% to 37% EBITDA, but the price-earnings multiple moderated from trades at a premium to the MSCI Emerging
19.5x to 19x. Major terminal operators are keen to hold stakes in free Markets Index at 15.8x PE, investors
are unforgiving in earnings growth
trade zones, presumably to find earnings growth when the profitability
expectations, and have little qualms of
from port operations comes under pressure. As new mega-ship selling down the sector should growth
orders of up to 23,500 teu capacity test ports’ infrastructure limits, disappoint (see Figure 6.3 and Table 6.3).
transhipment hubs are caught in a predicament to weigh the risks and
returns of incremental investments. On the M&A front, CMPH’s strong To plug the expected earnings weakness,
acquisition appetite nearly accounted for all of the $1.08bn transaction some port companies have expanded
their quay operations expertise to
values in the past three months. Meanwhile, ICTSI reshuffled its
developing economic zones. DP World
portfolio into riskier territories. has been active on this front, planning to
Throughput growth reflects global the Drewry Global Port Throughput Index develop a greenfield free zone, adjacent
economy continued its upward trajectory in July and to the Port of Berbera in Somaliland and
The upturn in the global economy August (see Figure 6.2). For the companies managing the Suez Canal Economic
gathered pace in the third quarter of that Drewry Maritime Financial Research Zone located in the hinterland of DP
the year as domestic consumption in (DMFR) covers, the total port volumes World Sokhna in Egypt. At home, it has
G3 nations strengthened. According (excluding Global Ports Investments increased the scale of its leasing business
to advance estimates, US growth and Tianjin Port) tallied 59.4 million teu, with the acquisition of Dubai Maritime
probably expanded 3% year on year in representing an increase of 8.5% over 54.7 City, complementing the Economic World
the third quarter, underpinned by robust million teu in the same period last year Zones bought in 2016 (see Figure 6.4).
contributions from personal consumption (see Table 6.1). Even after normalising the In the first full year of consolidation, the
expenditures, private inventory investment inorganic volumes of DP World by using
and exports, among others. In the the company’s like-for-like comparison, the Table 6.1 QUARTERLY THROUGHPUT GROWTH
Eurozone, the unemployment rate edged throughput comparison against the same
Growth
lower to 8.9%, fuelling optimism that period last year reaffirmed broad-based Million teu 3Q17 3Q16
YoY
the runway for economic growth is clear containerised trade acceleration globally. In
to build on the 2.5% year-on-year GDP the third quarter, the gainers outnumbered DP World 9.39 7.34 27.9%
growth registered in the previous quarter. losers, with Westports remaining rooted to ICTSI 2.29 2.17 5.6%
Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe the bottom of the throughput growth table.
CMPH (gross TEU) 26.91 25.46 5.7%
won a mandate to continue serving in the
Finding earnings growth through Santos Brasil (units) 0.24 0.28 -13.5%
highest office as Abenomics stimulated
vertical integration
public infrastructure spending and export HHLA 5.45 4.92 10.7%
Terminal operators have been successful
growth in the previous quarter. Meanwhile, Cosco Ports 4.36 3.88 12.3%
in defending their profitability through
the Chinese manufacturing Purchasing
the container shipping downturns Dalian Port 2.79 2.82 -1.1%
Managers Index (PMI) of 51.0 in October
between 2008 and 2015, but the track
was in the expansionary region, with the Global Ports Inv n.a n.a n.a
record is increasingly under threat from
leading indicator suggesting factories Tianjin Port n.a n.a n.a
its customers’ persistent strategy in
would remain busy in anticipation of the
minimising slot cost by upsizing their HPHT 5.81 5.35 8.7%
firmer global demand compared to last
fleet. Despite handling about 9% more Westports 2.14 2.49 -14.1%
year (see Figure 6.1).
volumes in the third quarter than the
The encouraging headline figures were preceding quarter, the average ports’ Total 59.37 54.70 8.5%
reflected in the containerised trade as EBITDA profitability edged higher from Source: Companies, DMFR

Figure 6.2 DREWRY GLOBAL PORT THROUGHPUT INDEX,

Figure 6.1 CHINA MANUFACTURING PMI, JAN-OCT 2017
JAN 2012-AUG 2017
65 Chinese manufacturing PMI 130 Drewry Global Port Throughput Index

60
120
55

50 110

45
100
40

35 90
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Source: IHS Markit, Drewry Maritime Financial Research Source: Drewry Maritime Research

Nov 2017 | 28 © Drewry Maritime Research

 Ports & Terminals insight port sector financial analyses

Figure 6.3 PRICE-EARNINGS MULTIPLES, JAN 2012-NOV 2017 Figure 6.4 FREE ZONE ACQUISITION LIFTS DP WORLD PROFITABILITY
30 Drewry Port Index MSCI Emerging Markets Index 1.4 EBITDA ($ bn) EBITDA margin (right axis) 60%

Millions
1.2
25 55%
1.0
20 0.8 50%

15 0.6 45%
0.4
10 40%
0.2

5 0.0 35%
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 1H10 1H11 1H12 1H13 1H14 1H15 1H16 1H17
Source: Bloomberg, Drewry Maritime Financial Research Source: DP World, Drewry Maritime Financial Research

leasing business elevated the EBITDA Transhipment hubs back in play? bring an acceptable level of return on
margin of the company from 47% to The revival of mega-ship ordering will investment.
about 55%. The UAE-based company once again place the spotlight on both
In the hub-and-spoke transhipment
also has a hand in ship repair business transhipment and gateway ports. Drewry
model, mainline vessels consolidate
with the acquisition of Drydocks World modelling shows that economies of scale
regional containers at a transhipment
– immediately earnings-accretive to the in ship sizes have already started to level
hub before employing feeder vessels to
shareholders of DP World. off. While the latest orders placed by
reach the regional gateway ports. On the
MSC and CMA CGM are not expected
While it does not run any economic zone back of a firm global demand growth,
to significantly increase the vessel
in Latin America, CMPH is optimistic that which started in the third quarter of 2016,
dimensions, servicing the sheer capacity of
the Bagamoyo Special Economic Zone in most transhipment hubs have benefitted
23,500 teu vessels is likely to further hike
Tanzania, which the Chinese port operator from the trade expansion. Furthermore,
terminal operational costs. It remains to be
will jointly develop with Oman Sovereign many regional ports do not have the
seen whether these mega-vessels intensify
Fund, will see brisk business similar to infrastructure to cope with the trend of
volumes at transhipment hubs. To date,
the Shenzhen Special Economic Zone vessel upsizing. Therefore, the hub-and-
these very large ships have continued
it developed at home. Meanwhile, ICTSI spoke model remains relevant in the
to multi-port call at major gateways. We
launched a rail service connecting Adriatic movement of seaborne cargoes.
are now at the limit of current maximum
Gate Container Terminal - its terminal in
vessel dimensions (i.e. LOA ~400 metres, Out of the seven hub ports we identified
Croatia – with a cargo cluster in facilitating
draft ~16 metres, 24 rows width). Any along the Far East- Europe route, all
exports of wood in containers. This model
further increase in vessel teu capacity will the five Asian ports outperformed
has worked well for HHLA, which has a
have to exceed this limit, requiring ports the European ports (see Table 6.4).
strong intermodal business into Central
to invest heavily in port infrastructure Transhipment activities heated up in
Europe to help anchor gateway volumes at
and superstructure, which is unlikely to Asia as Chinese import demand surged.
the port.

Table 6.2 LISTED PORT COMPANY PROFITABILITY STATISTICS

Company Revenue EBITDA EBIT Margin (%)
Comparable YoY Comparable YoY Comparable YoY
$ million Latest results Latest Latest Latest EBITDA EBIT
period change period change period change
Cosco Shipping
3Q17 144 156 8.0% 59 60 2.5% 23 36 55.7% 38.6 23.1
Ports
CMPH 1H17 493 519 5.4% 244 249 2.2% 151 158 4.5% 47.9 30.4
DP World 1H17 2,094 2,295 9.6% 1,176 1,225 4.2% 906 924 2.0% 53.4 40.3
Dalian Port 3Q17 502 282 -43.8% 54 50 -8.4% 24 20 -18.8% 17.7 7.0
Global Ports 1H17 164 162 -0.8% 112 97 -12.7% 60 14 -76.6% 59.9 8.7
HHLA 3Q17 341 368 7.7% 103 96 -7.5% 66 61 -7.9% 26.0 16.6
HPHT 3Q17 418 413 -1.3% 243 245 1.1% 149 148 -0.5% 59.5 35.8
ICTSI 3Q17 284 315 10.7% 133 145 9.2% 96 99 3.0% 46.1 31.5
Santos Brasil 3Q17 67 63 -6.0% 8 9 3.4% 1 2 -34.4% 13.9 2.6
Tianjin Port 1H17 985 1,049 6.5% 262 231 -11.9% 173 157 -9.0% 22.0 15.0
Westports 3Q17 108 101 -6.4% 57 58 1.9% 46 47 0.4% 57.2 46.3
Source: Drewry Maritime Research

Nov 2017 | 29 © Drewry Maritime Research

 Ports & Terminals insight port sector financial analyses

totalled $1.08 billion in the three months

Table 6.3 LISTED PORT COMPANY FINANCIAL STATISTICS
to November 2017 (see Table 6.5).
Market Cap Free Float P/E EV/EBITDA CMPH acquired a highly profitable
$ million % FY16 LTM FY16 LTM terminal in Brazil for $924 million, which
Cosco Shipping Ports 3,123 54.7 16.5 6.2 18.0 17.9 will immediately accrue earnings to
shareholders. Under the brand of the Belt
CMPH 8,559 47.3 11.0 9.5 14.2 20.2 and Road Initiative, the second largest
DP World 19,970 19.6 14.2 19.6 10.4 10.6 container port in Brazil is the only Latin
Dalian Port 4,395 80.2 37.5 29.4 12.4 22.9 American venture for CMPH, though it
may not be long before we see another
Global Ports 689 20.0 12.3 n.a 19.7 8.2 Chinese flag on the continent’s port
Hamburger Hafen 2,050 34.1 17.5 21.9 5.4 5.5 operations. Besides the highly significant
HPHT 3,615 69.9 17.1 26.5 10.6 7.2 deal, CMPH’s subsidiary Chiwan Wharf
consolidated Zhongshan Port Group with
ICTSI 4,147 51.0 18.2 28.1 9.4 9.1
a 51% stake for $75.5 million. Meanwhile,
Santos Brasil 705 33.7 n.a n.a 4.1 20.1 the risk appetite of CSP is arguably higher
Tianjin Port 914 25.3 13.7 11.7 7.1 3.8 than CMPH. Following the acquisition of
Noatum Container Terminals in June 2017,
Westports 2,916 42.1 22.4 20.4 16.1 13.6
CSP consolidated another loss-making
Source: Bloomberg, DMFR entity in APMT Zeebrugge for $42 million.

According to the National Bureau of Piraeus lost volumes to Turkish ports, while Against the backdrop of a positive
Statistics of China, monthly imports in the Algeciras has capacity constraints, which economic climate, the 11 port companies
third quarter tracked 14.3% on average have been causing diversion of some followed by DMFR are on track to affirm
compared to the same period last year. activities. In the broader picture, however, their annual capital expenditure budget of
A robust domestic demand fired up the the continual vessel upsizing trend and the approximately $7.5 billion (see Table 6.6).
factories in other Asian economies, with strengthening bunker fuel prices of late The current capex book is a reversal of
transhipment and gateway volumes in could be beneficial for transhipment port 2016 when all port operators underspent
the geographical continent registering activities. the budget set at the beginning of the year.
rapid growth in the third quarter. The In the first nine months of 2017, DP World
Pace of M&A decelerates, but capex actualised Jebel Ali T4 operations, and
selected transhipment ports of Piraeus and
on track ICTSI turned expansionist for the first time
Algeciras performed poorly as they lost
0.6% and 19.4%, respectively. The blame Chinese port operators continued in two years with the addition of two ports
fell squarely on market share changes to take the credit for overall mergers in Papua New Guinea. The Filipino terminal
in the West and East Mediterranean. and acquisitions (M&A) value, which operator is also bidding for Bissau terminal
in Guinea, besides undertaking capacity
Table 6.4 PORTS WITH SIGNIFICANT TRANSHIPMENT INCIDENCE expansion at its Iraqi terminal that promise
to double the capacity to 1.2 million teu.
Transhipment incidence (2016) 3Q17 3Q16 Growth
Despite losing a significant chunk of
Singapore 85.0% 8.62 7.85 9.9% Ocean Alliance’s transhipment volumes to
Busan 50.6% 5.13 4.92 4.3% Singapore, Westports is unaverred in its
pursuit of CT9.
Hong Kong 30.7% 4.18 3.86 8.3%
Dubai 49.0% 3.86 3.66 5.3% Port companies continue to rein in gearing
by shoring up a healthy level of cash.
Colombo - CICT 85.0% 0.63 0.53 19.8%
The average net gearing decreased from
Algeciras 92.1% 0.98 1.21 -19.4% 30.4% to 27.1% for the companies that
Piraeus 82.5% 0.95 0.96 -0.6% reported their third-quarter results, with
Source: Port authorities, DMFR
the metric boosted by an 18% surge in

Table 6.5 ANNOUNCED PORT TRANSACTIONS AUG - NOV 2017

Date Target Country Acquirer Seller Stake Deal size ($ million) Valuation
Sep-17 TCP Participacoes SA Brazil CMPH Advent International Corp 90.0% 924 14.3x EV/EBITDA
Sep-17 APMT Zeebrugge Belgium Cosco Shipping Ports APM Terminals 76.0% 42 IRR: 10.9%
Shenzhen Chiwan Wharf Zhongshan Zhonghang
Sep-17 Zhongshan Port China 51.0% 75 12.5x P/E
Holdings Investment Development
Sep-17 Manila North Harbor Philippines ICTSI Petron Corporation 34.8% 34 Unavailable
Port of Las Palmas de Terminal Investment
Oct-17 Spain Noatum Ports 45.0% undisclosed Unavailable
Gran Canaria Limited (TIL)
Nov-17 PT Olah Jasa Anda Indonesia PT Samudera Terminal ICTSI Jasa Prima 80.2% undisclosed Unavailable
Source: DMFR

Nov 2017 | 30 © Drewry Maritime Research

 Ports & Terminals insight port sector financial analyses

Table 6.6 LISTED PORT COMPANY GEARING STATISTICS

Company Cash level Disclosed capex 2017 Net debt Net gearing (%)
$ million Prior period Latest % change Budget Expended Remaining Prior Latest % change Prior Current
Cosco Shipping Ports 333 801 140.6% 2,600 -1,057 1,543 1,111 1,181 6.3% 23.3 21.8
CMPH 466 1,975 324.1% 2,561 -2,236 325 2,407 1,495 -37.9% 25.5 14.9
DP World 1,299 1,631 25.5% 1,200 -595 605 6,319 5,916 -6.4% 66.4 54.9
Dalian Port 962 1,042 8.4% 45 -19 26 650 163 -75.0% 22.5 5.6
Global Ports 119 116 -2.8% 30 -8 22 947 915 -3.4% 291.6 249.5
HHLA 193 232 20.3% 188 -106 82 117 57 -51.3% 17.7 8.2
Hutchison Port 971 863 -11.2% 243 -195 48 3,315 3,437 3.7% 43.3 44.9
ICTSI 263 320 21.8% 240 -214 26 1,111 1,149 3.4% 62.7 61.8
Santos Brasil 82 70 -14.2% 5 -1 4 2 1 -63.3% 0.4 0.2
Tianjin Port 837 1,150 37.4% 150 -60 90 1,022 852 -16.6% 33.1 26.3
Westports 93 103 10.6% 204 -121 83 218 233 6.4% 42.8 47.1
Source: Bloomberg, Drewry Maritime Financial Research

cash level from $2.9 billion to $3.4 billion. third quarter results halting the party operators’ faithful investors may be too
While DP World did not report its third momentarily. carried away by robust throughput figures
quarter financial results, the leverage of the that ride on a resurgent global economy,
CMPH slipped to the bottom of the table
company is expected to climb on the new driving earnings expectation that can be
with a loss of 14.7% in the course of three
acquisitions. too demanding to meet. On the contrary,
months. As soon as the special dividend
the negative throughput story may be
Performance of the Drewry Port Index was recorded in the shares registrar,
overplayed in the case of Westports.
constituents CMPH investors pared their positions
While it has lost transhipment volumes to
As investors temper their earnings in the company. Credit rating agency
Singapore, the Malaysian terminal operator
projections on the reported third quarter S&P expressed concerns about CMPH’s
had compensatory earnings from handling
earnings, all but three of the 11 port leverage with a downgrade before the
increased gateway volumes in the third
companies that constitute the Drewry Port Chinese port operator is confronted with a
quarter.
Index saw their share prices slid deep potential softness in domestic port tariffs
into negative territory (See Figure 6.5). In next year. Its Chinese counterpart Cosco As of 22 November 2017, the
terms of market performance, both the Shipping Ports was not spared either as market-weighted Drewry Port Index
best and worst companies were not driven the share price of the second largest port underperformed the MSCI Emerging
by fundamentals that were reflected in operator in China fell 14.1% compared Markets Index, which ratcheted 6.8% in
their earnings card. In the case of the top with three months ago. the last three months compared with the
performer Santos Brasil, the company’s former’s 4.4% gain (see Figure 6.6). The
Following a strong first quarter report
valuation rallied on the potential sale of trailing twelve months earnings multiple of
card, HHLA is priced to deliver about 17%
assets, following the TCP transaction in ports at 19.0x PE implies that the sector
earnings growth in the second semester.
which CMPH took control of the port at is struggling to retain investment interest
On the set of weak third quarter results,
14.3x EV/EBITDA. The Brazilian fiesta among growth-seeking investors as the
HHLA shareholders sold down the stock,
was in full swing when the company PE multiple cooled from the 19.5x PE
wiping 13% off the market capitalisation
mulled a possible sale for its fastest- reported in the third quarter edition of this
in a day. Evidently, the German terminal
growing Imbituba port, with only the weak publication.

Figure 6.6 DREWRY PORT INDEX PERFORMANCE AGAINST EMERGING

Figure 6.5 SHARE PRICE PERFORMANCE OF PORT COMPANIES
MARKETS, JAN 2012-NOV 2017
3-month 1-month 180 MSCI Emerging Markets Drewry Port Index
Santos Brasil
160
Dalian Port
DP World
140
ICTSI
HPHT
120
Westports
Global Ports
100
Hamburger Hafen
Tianjin Port
80
Cosco Shipping Ports
CMPH
60
-30% -20% -10% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Source: Bloomberg, Drewry Maritime Financial Research Source: Bloomberg, Drewry Maritime Financial Research

More information and expert analysis of the financial performance of listed port companies is available from
Drewry Maritime Financial Research (https://www.drewry.co.uk/maritime-financial-research)

Nov 2017 | 31 © Drewry Maritime Research

Ports and terminals advisory services
tailored to your commercial needs

Drewry Maritime Advisors have been providing ports and

terminals advisory services for nearly 20 years, and in that time
has built a reputation as market leader in this sector.
Recent projects have included strategy planning for a European
port operator, commercial due diligence for UK port groups
and corporate planning for a Middle Eastern client. Browse
case studies of past project work.

enquiries@drewry.co.uk

About Drewry Maritime Advisors

While research is in our DNA, we do not stop there. We are passionate about applying this insight to provide actionable, practical and
timely advice. The combination of understanding and expertise in the markets we serve allows our clients, whether shippers, carriers
and port operators, banks, investors and financial intermediaries, to make the right commercial decisions at the right time.

UK India Singapore China

15-17 Christopher Street 4th Floor, Tower C #13-02 Tower Fifteen Unit D01  Level 10,
London Pioneer Urban Square 15 Hoe Chiang Road Shinmay Union Square Tower 2,
EC2A 2BS Sector 62, Gurugram Singapore 089316 506 Shang Cheng Road, Pudong,
United Kingdom Haryana – 122 101, Shanghai 200120 P. R. China
India

T +44 20 7538 0191 T +91 124 497 4979 T +65 6220 9890 T +86 (0) 21 5081 0508
 Global Container Terminal Operators Annual Review and
Forecast 2017
One of the most detailed assessments of the global ports and terminals market, with
unrivalled coverage and depth of insight, analysis and commentary.
£1,995 single copy

Ports and Terminals Advanced Subscription  

An advanced annual subscription providing access to both the Annual Review of Global
Container Terminal Operators Annual Review and Forecast report and the Ports and
Terminals Quarterly Insight.
£2,975 annual subscription

Container Forecaster
Our flagship quarterly analysis of the container shipping market. Widely regarded as the
go-to reference for the global container industry, this product provides comprehensive
market analysis and forecasts for container trade and port volumes.
£3,100 annual subscription

FOR MORE DETAILS AND OTHER MARKETS Learn more

About Drewry Research
Drewry Maritime Research is the research arm of global shipping consultancy Drewry. The company
has over 40 years’ experience in the maritime sector and employs more than 90 specialists across
its offices in London, Delhi, Singapore and Shanghai.

Our market research is renowned for its quality and is trusted by industry leaders around the world
to deliver impartial, robust analysis and balanced opinion. This independence, alongside our sector
knowledge and expertise, sets our research apart and gives clients the rich market insight they need
to make informed business decisions.

Copyright Terms and Conditions

Drewry owns full copyright of all its research products, covering both reports and online interactive
resources. Drewry’s rights and entitlements as copyright holder are protected by law in all jurisdic-
tions. In this context, Drewry operates a simple policy of single-site and multi-site licences. All basic
research products are sold on the basis of a standard licence covering a single site.

The primary source of market insight, analysis and advice trusted by a global audience of maritime
and shipping industry stakeholders

UK India Singapore China

15-17 Christopher Street 4th Floor, Tower C #13-02 Tower Fifteen Unit D01  Level 10,
London Pioneer Urban Square 15 Hoe Chiang Road Shinmay Union Square Tower 2,
EC2A 2BS Sector 62, Gurugram Singapore 089316 506 Shang Cheng Road, Pudong,
United Kingdom Haryana - 122 101, Shanghai 200120
India P. R. China

T +44 20 7538 0191 T +91 124 497 4979 T +65 6220 9890 T +86 21 5081 0508

enquiries@drewry.co.uk www.drewry.co.uk