Given the recent discussions surrounding New Zealand's ports and shipping infrastructure, I thought it was time we created a separate thread. :)

Stickified (if that is even a word). :)

Thanks Svartmetall :)

In response to KaneD's post in the rail thread here. (http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=726816&page=4)

IMO, this proposal has already shown that it is more than simply "pie in the sky" conjecture.

Here are the salient points:


The NZTA have reported that "Total freight movements on the transport system are expected to more than double by 2040. To cope with this increase, alternative transport modes including coastal shipping will be
essential." Therefore this is strong central government for these alternative transportation methods.

While no accurate figures exist for freight costs in NZ, it is the aim of the study to find out what the most efficient method of transporting the various classes of goods are, and their associated costs.

This is primarily a freight service, that has the opportunity to also carry passengers.

The service already has strong justification from a freight cartage perspective. Port Taranaki already has a significant import/export freight business from the large local Engineering, Dairy, General Cargo and Oil & Gas (including value-add products such as fertiliser) sectors.
Indeed it has already passed the bar in relation to allocation of funds for a formal study.

One significant impediment to the use of inter and intra-region rail transport has been removed, now that the small Kai Iwi tunnels have been bypassed. This allows the next generation of rail freight containers to be
used on the line.

Port Taranaki has one of the deepest harbours in the country and is the only deep-water West-coast port. This is likely to remain the case for the foreseeable future.

There are already frequent shipping services to Australia, Europe, North American and Asia. Plans are underway to develop further direct links.

While the majority of cartage is envisioned to be freight containers, the service would allow trucks to be loaded onto the coastal freighter vessels, allowing for non-stop service to the South Island. Currently it takes between 2-3 days for a truck to travel from Auckland to the South island due to the regulated rest-breaks.

While an upgrade of the rail network to facilitate the volumes of containers being shipped is ideal, this will take some time and a significant amount of money which we are unlikely to see allocated in the current economic conditions.
It is also extremely important to provide an alternative service for reasons of networks security and competitiveness.

The service would compliment a daily service to Australia, guaranteed to arrive on the same day. This is important for perishable (for example) goods such as fruit shipments from the Hawkes Bay.

The Government plans to cut almost all funding for coastal shipping from 2009, the Green Party has discovered.

“Sea freight is a key part of our transport infrastructure,” said Green Maritime Transport spokesperson Sue Bradford today.

“National plans to throw this all away by removing funding for rail and sea freight development,” Ms Bradford said in response to the Government’s revised Policy Statement (GPS) released this week.

“A huge amount of work went in over the last few years in getting the Roadways to Waterways and Sea Change strategies under way. The gains are now all at risk.”

The Sea Change strategy aimed to transform coastal shipping in New Zealand and double its share of the freight task to 30% by 2040, taking trucks off New Zealand’s roads and making the country’s freight infrastructure more sustainable. The previous Government had committed up to $179 million to develop sea and rail infrastructure through to 2019. National propose reducing this investment to between $8–13 million.

“Instead of helping Kiwi ships operate staffed with Kiwi seafarers, National are leaving them high and dry, without a plan to grow their share of the freight industry or the required investment to achieve it,” Ms Bradford said.

“Even worse, National seems to neither know nor care that sea freight has the potential to make a huge contribution to reducing greenhouse gas emissions and our reliance on foreign oil.” Coastal shipping is the most energy efficient way to move freight around the country, producing only 14 grams of CO2 per tonne-kilometre compared with road at 92–123 grams of CO2 per tonne-kilometre.

“This retrograde step flies in the face of any Government commitment to emissions reduction.”

Ms Bradford also expressed concern at the lack of consultation on the proposed decimation of sea freight funding. The deadline for feedback on the funding changes is Thursday, April 2 – just one week away.

“I doubt whether the Ministry has made any effort to consult with key shareholders such as unions or the Shipping Federation. A lack of public awareness leads me to suspect that there has been no real effort to seek the views from those most affected by the proposed changes,” said Ms Bradford.

The Green Party called on the Government to urgently reconsider its decision to cut funding to coastal shipping development.


I know this a few weeks old. Does anyone know anything about this?

^^
Nats scrapping Labour policy due RTF lobbying.

I wouldn't be so worried if the hidden subsidies to trucks were removed too, but thats not going to happen with the level of "investment" the RTF has in politicians (approx $100,000 between the two main parties).

Perhaps the Waterview Connection funding was initiated by Labour in order to keep the RTF party donations flowing! ;)

Anyway, the article I posted regarding an investigative funding allocation for coastal shipping services to/from New Plymouth was announced on May 6th. I would have thought if the funding was going to be scrapped that the process would have been placed on hold.

The first round of Sea Change grants had already been approved before the policy change and are not affected.

I don't know if the New Plymouth coastal shipping funding is part of the Sea Change Strategy or whether it is a new initiative by the current govt.

See the government is going to pump millions is building and upgrading cruse ship facilities at Auckland, Christchurch and Wellington.:banana:

Lyttleton, Port of Christchurch has nothing. Infact the whole town and area is so underdeveloped for tourists.......perhaps here is the start of a reawakening for the cradle of Christchurch and Canterbury.

^^that is good news.

Does that mean they putting money towards developing a cruise ship terminal on Queens wharf in Auckland as well? It would be fantastic to get some progress on that after so much talk.

The report in the Press didn't say to much, but, because the PM holds the Tourisim Portfolio, he is really keen on this.

I suppose each of the 3 cities will come up with what they need.

I know CHC will have to start almost from scratch.

The Government plans to cut almost all funding for coastal shipping from 2009, the Green Party has discovered.

“Sea freight is a key part of our transport infrastructure,” said Green Maritime Transport spokesperson Sue Bradford today.

“National plans to throw this all away by removing funding for rail and sea freight development,” Ms Bradford said in response to the Government’s revised Policy Statement (GPS) released this week.

“A huge amount of work went in over the last few years in getting the Roadways to Waterways and Sea Change strategies under way. The gains are now all at risk.”

The Sea Change strategy aimed to transform coastal shipping in New Zealand and double its share of the freight task to 30% by 2040, taking trucks off New Zealand’s roads and making the country’s freight infrastructure more sustainable. The previous Government had committed up to $179 million to develop sea and rail infrastructure through to 2019. National propose reducing this investment to between $8–13 million.

“Instead of helping Kiwi ships operate staffed with Kiwi seafarers, National are leaving them high and dry, without a plan to grow their share of the freight industry or the required investment to achieve it,” Ms Bradford said.

“Even worse, National seems to neither know nor care that sea freight has the potential to make a huge contribution to reducing greenhouse gas emissions and our reliance on foreign oil.” Coastal shipping is the most energy efficient way to move freight around the country, producing only 14 grams of CO2 per tonne-kilometre compared with road at 92–123 grams of CO2 per tonne-kilometre.

“This retrograde step flies in the face of any Government commitment to emissions reduction.”

Ms Bradford also expressed concern at the lack of consultation on the proposed decimation of sea freight funding. The deadline for feedback on the funding changes is Thursday, April 2 – just one week away.

“I doubt whether the Ministry has made any effort to consult with key shareholders such as unions or the Shipping Federation. A lack of public awareness leads me to suspect that there has been no real effort to seek the views from those most affected by the proposed changes,” said Ms Bradford.

The Green Party called on the Government to urgently reconsider its decision to cut funding to coastal shipping development.


I know this a few weeks old. Does anyone know anything about this?

Whadya know...See ^^ Mr S(tupid) Joyce is going to seriously FUBAR (Fuck Up Beyond All Recognition) New Zealand.

New Zealand Women's daily (http://www.nzherald.co.nz/transport/news/article.cfm?c_id=97&objectid=10588227)
2009/08/04

Trucking timber from Nelson to Christchurch has the same carbon footprint as shipping it all the way to Australia, says a study of greenhouse gas emissions by a Nelson forestry company.

The study, published by Nelson Forests Ltd, showed that ocean freight was five to 10 times more efficient than road transport in terms of carbon emissions, according to its author, Dan McCallum.

Coupled with the low carbon footprint of log products produced in New Zealand's plantation forests, this meant logs sent overseas were "just as competitive, if not more competitive on a carbon basis as those of our leading competitors", he said.

A truck carting logs 900km - roughly Nelson to Southland - would produce the same emissions as freighting the logs by sea to Asia.

Programme manager of NZ Wood Geoff Henley said the study confirmed that sustainably grown plantation wood products from New Zealand could not only compete well on price internationally, but also in environmental terms.

Mr McCallum's snapshot of Nelson Forest's operations in 2007 calculated the carbon footprint of its logs supplied to the domestic market at 18.7kg of CO2 per cubic metre and at 65.1 kg of CO2 per cubic metre for its export operations.

Yep these guys are firmly in the pockets of the RTF. They don't appear to be even slightly interested costal shipping.

Found video of the TVNZ interview with Tony Freidlander about heavier trucks here:

http://tvnz.co.nz/business-news/industry-player-pushes-case-heavy-trucks-2853154

Says it all really they have withdrawn funding to costal shipping, slashed funding to rail and pumped a whole lot of money into putting heavier trucks on our roads without, it would appear, even conducting proper analysis (see below). So despite the rhetoric we are not going to have anything like an integrated freight network it will be pretty much trucks all the way. We are heading for big trouble.


Tim Davin: Inadequate analysis of effects of heavier trucking loads
4:00AM Monday Aug 03, 2009


Should the maximum legal truck load be raised from 44 to 50 tonne? We really don't know the answers to these questions as the analysis has not been done.

The Ministry of Transport is proposing to increase allowable vehicle weights and dimensions, and this is principally being driven by the contribution this will make to lifting productivity. The argument is that this will enable freight transport to be more efficient, with more freight being able to be moved more safely and with less fuel, lower labour costs and less emissions. These are powerful arguments.

However, there is considerable concern that the analysis of the costs to date has not been adequate - particularly relating to the impact on roads, and it cannot be argued that it will improve productivity without such an analysis.

Studies to date suggest that there will be a 16 per cent reduction in the number of trips and a 21 per cent reduction in fuel use. This could have a positive effect on New Zealand's gross domestic product of between $250 million and $500 million a year.

The proposal will allow heavier vehicles to operate more freely but they will be restricted to specific routes.

The proposal is to increase weight limits from 44 tonnes to 53 tonnes - an increase of 20 per cent. The damage to road pavements is generally regarded to follow the 4th power rule which means that if a load is doubled, the damage to the road pavement increases 16- fold.

While there is ongoing debate about whether the number is smaller or larger than the 4th power, if we assume it is the 4th power, and axle loads are increased by 20 per cent then the damage to a road by each truck will increase 102 per cent - that is double. This far outweighs the reduction in trips of 16 per cent.

To date there has been no analysis of the impact on roads. This proposed change will result in many more loads over 44 tonnes on many more roads than is currently the case.

There is also concern that rather than decreasing the number of trips by 16 per cent with improved competitiveness, road freight will become more attractive to operators, and we may see increased trips and emissions.

With larger vehicles on more roads, and an increase in trucks, it's possible we will face a double whammy - more damage on more roads.

Until research is undertaken on the likely extent of the damage and the costs analysed in economic terms and balanced against the benefits, it simply cannot be concluded that this will improve productivity.

The impact of making an uninformed decision could be considerable. Twice the wear on roads will not be noticed overnight.

Road pavements are designed to withstand a certain number of (equivalent) axles over time. The proposed change will significantly shorten the usual 20-30 year lifespan of pavements, but the cost will not be felt for some time.

Rising costs will not be solely met through heavy vehicle road-user charges. Currently freight vehicles contribute around 37 per cent of the Government's revenue and fuel excise 63 per cent. Local government pay half the cost of local roads so increased maintenance costs will inevitably fall on petrol users and ratepayers.

The proposal to allow these increased loads on specified routes may not be practical. Freight movement relies not only on the state highway network but, at every origin and destination, local roads.

With more freedom of movement for large trucks, will it be practical to specify such large number of routes? How will we carry out suitability assessments of the routes? And how can we ensure trucks will use them?

Eighty-eight per cent of roads in New Zealand are local roads and a third, unsealed. Many trucks, particularly tankers, which are not currently full, are able to increase their loads without modification.

This means there is a real possibility that low-strength and low-volume rural roads and bridges will have to cope with much heavier milk and wine tankers. Growth in the agricultural and horticulture sectors will only exacerbate the problems.

The issues are much more complex than simply considering economic benefits, reduction in emissions and improvements in safety.The cost of the impact on roads must be assessed. Who will benefit and who will pay has to be evaluated. If we analyse the issues we can address them.

We all support improving New Zealand's economic performance and productivity but without a serious analysis it is not possible to conclude that an increase in vehicle weights will contribute to that goal.

* Tim Davin is director of public policy at IPENZ (Engineers New Zealand).

And big trouble is getting even closer...

Peak Oil

It's sorta like Dumb and Dumba. S(tupid) Joyce and ALL national supporters.

To them peak oil sounds a lot like global warming. Speak to the hand! They would rather believe in peter pan, faeries, leprechauns, dragons, talking burning bushes and talking snakes than open their eyes (minds) and see the brick wall rapidly approaching!:bash:

http://www.holidayinsights.com/stpat/leprechaun1.jpg
^^ Baron Bill English ^^

From that bastion of the right wing mentality, the New Zealand Woman's Daily 2009/08/03 (http://www.nzherald.co.nz/energy/news/article.cfm?c_id=37&objectid=10588388)

The world is heading for a catastrophic energy crunch that could cripple a global economic recovery because most of the major oil fields in the world have passed their peak production, a leading energy economist has warned.

Higher oil prices brought on by a rapid increase in demand and a stagnation, or even decline, in supply could blow any recovery off course, said Dr Fatih Birol, the chief economist at the respected International Energy Agency (IEA) in Paris, which is charged with the task of assessing future energy supplies by OECD countries.

In an interview with The Independent, Dr Birol said that the public and many governments appeared to be oblivious to the fact that the oil on which modern civilisation depends is running out far faster than previously predicted and that global production is likely to peak in about 10 years - at least a decade earlier than most governments had estimated.

But the first detailed assessment of more than 800 oil fields in the world, covering three quarters of global reserves, has found that most of the biggest fields have already peaked and that the rate of decline in oil production is now running at nearly twice the pace as calculated just two years ago.


Invest In Oil
High Profit Potential In Oil We Show How. Start Here
www.seismaresearch.com
Invest in Uranium
You Won't Believe Where the Price is Heading - Read This Now
www.DailyReckoning.com.au
CGCA - Cobra Oil & Gas
Word's Out On Cobra
www.amspec-02.com
$187 Per Barrel?
We have a free report on why it's going that high and how to invest
www.MoneyMorning.com/oil

On top of this, there is a problem of chronic under-investment by oil-producing countries, a feature that is set to result in an "oil crunch" within the next five years which will jeopardise any hope of a recovery from the present global economic recession, he said.

In a stark warning to Britain and the other Western powers, Dr Birol said that the market power of the very few oil-producing countries that hold substantial reserves of oil - mostly in the Middle East - would increase rapidly as the oil crisis begins to grip after 2010.

"One day we will run out of oil, it is not today or tomorrow, but one day we will run out of oil and we have to leave oil before oil leaves us, and we have to prepare ourselves for that day," Dr Birol said.

"The earlier we start, the better, because all of our economic and social system is based on oil, so to change from that will take a lot of time and a lot of money and we should take this issue very seriously," he said.

"The market power of the very few oil-producing countries, mainly in the Middle East, will increase very quickly. They already have about 40 per cent share of the oil market and this will increase much more strongly in the future," he said.

There is now a real risk of a crunch in the oil supply after next year when demand picks up because not enough is being done to build up new supplies of oil to compensate for the rapid decline in existing fields.

The IEA estimates that the decline in oil production in existing fields is now running at 6.7 per cent a year compared to the 3.7 per cent decline it had estimated in 2007, which it now acknowledges to be wrong.

"If we see a tightness of the markets, people in the street will see it in terms of higher prices, much higher than we see now. It will have an impact on the economy, definitely, especially if we see this tightness in the markets in the next few years," Dr Birol said.

"It will be especially important because the global economy will still be very fragile, very vulnerable. Many people think there will be a recovery in a few years' time but it will be a slow recovery and a fragile recovery and we will have the risk that the recovery will be strangled with higher oil prices," he told The Independent.

In its first-ever assessment of the world's major oil fields, the IEA concluded that the global energy system was at a crossroads and that consumption of oil was "patently unsustainable", with expected demand far outstripping supply.

Oil production has already peaked in non-Opec countries and the era of cheap oil has come to an end, it warned.

In most fields, oil production has now peaked, which means that other sources of supply have to be found to meet existing demand.

Even if demand remained steady, the world would have to find the equivalent of four Saudi Arabias to maintain production, and six Saudi Arabias if it is to keep up with the expected increase in demand between now and 2030, Dr Birol said.

"It's a big challenge in terms of the geology, in terms of the investment and in terms of the geopolitics. So this is a big risk and itis mainly because of the rates of the declining oil fields," he said.

"Many governments now are more and more aware that at least the day of cheap and easy oil is over, [however] I'm not very optimistic about governments being aware of the difficulties we may face in the oil supply," he said.

Environmentalists fear that as supplies of conventional oil run out, governments will be forced to exploit even dirtier alternatives, such as the massive reserves of tar sands in Alberta, Canada, which would be immensely damaging to the environment because of the amount of energy needed to recover a barrel of tar-sand oil compared to the energy needed to collect the same amount of crude oil.

"Just because oil is running out faster than we have collectively assumed, does not mean the pressure is off on climate change," said Jeremy Leggett, a former oil-industry consultant and now a green entrepreneur with Solar Century.

"Shell and others want to turn to tar, and extract oil from coal. But these are very carbon-intensive processes, and will deepen the climate problem," Dr Leggett said.

"What we need to do is accelerate the mobilisation of renewables, energy efficiency and alternative transport. [ <- S(tupid) Joyce read here]

"We have to do this for global warming reasons anyway, but the imminent energy crisis redoubles the imperative," he said.

This is getting a little more frequent these examples of wisdom out of this rag. Has someone high up suddenly woke up and gone "Oh fuck! What a total cluster fuck these wankers in the National party are turning out to be."

The Daily Reckoning also tipped Taranaki as being the Saudi of the South, and that shares in Australian Worldwide Exploration were likely to be big movers in 2010 due to drilling which begins in Taranaki in November. I get a lot of good stuff out of that newsletter, not sure whether it is worth signing up to some of their other stuff like Small Cap investigator.:banana:

Sweet Jesus Taranaki as the Saudi Arabia of the South Pacific!

How the fuck are we going to spend US$186 billion a year!

Wet wet wetty dreams!

The port of Lyttleton plans to extend its coal handling facility with a $24 million expansion. While this may not happen in a hurry this is a sign that the area is about to undergo new development. Also proposed or suggested have been a new cruise ship terminal. It would be great to finally see something happen in Lyttleton.:lol:

The Daily Reckoning also tipped Taranaki as being the Saudi of the South, and that shares in Australian Worldwide Exploration were likely to be big movers in 2010 due to drilling which begins in Taranaki in November.

Got a link?

www.DailyReckoning.com.au

It is more of a newsletter which they email you. It is very much to the point regarding the present state of the economy and questions mainstream media. Try a google search the other links on the previous post didn't go through either.

I still can't understand why we have so many ports in this country! The big three city ports (Auckland, Tauranga and the new deep water Marsden point) should be the focus of all the import/export business, with rail linking towns like Napier, New Plymouth, Palmerston North etc. It's just crazy! :nuts:

I still can't understand why we have so many ports in this country! The big three city ports (Auckland, Tauranga and the new deep water Marsden point) should be the focus of all the import/export business, with rail linking towns like Napier, New Plymouth, Palmerston North etc. It's just crazy! :nuts:

Very North Island centric?

Oh well.

We in the south then could ship our small contributions out through one or maybe two of our little SI ports. Invercargill/Bluff and one of these - Dunedin/Port Charlmers, Christchurch/Lyttleton or Nelson.............but then there is the damn inferior road and rail system we have to cope with..........oh well..............

Obviously there's a need for a major port in the South., but I was commenting more on the farcical situation in the North. Think of all the money that could be saved by consolidating on those three ports, not to mention the efficiency.

I still can't understand why we have so many ports in this country!

Because, the biggest shareholders in Ports in NZ are local government, and they
a) don't like to cooperate- witness steps to merge Auckland and Tauranga
b) are convinced that the local port is needed for local industry
c) cannot be sold without huge outrage and claims of evil privatisation
d) have access to council rates funding when times get tough.

Then you have Timaru Port which is the major bulk cargo destination in the SI.

I still can't understand why we have so many ports in this country! The big three city ports (Auckland, Tauranga and the new deep water Marsden point) should be the focus of all the import/export business, with rail linking towns like Napier, New Plymouth, Palmerston North etc. It's just crazy! :nuts:

Read something in the paper recently about how trucking freight the length of the SI produces the equivalent carbon emissions to shipping the same load from NZ to Asia. To consider the most extreme example, which would be aluminium from Bluff to any of those three ports mentioned (which incidentally are ridiculously close together), wouldn't it make a lot more sense to ship directly from Bluff?

I mean, you COULD go by rail to Picton, then onto trucks to cross Cook Strait, then rail to Auckland, but...see my point here?

Read something in the paper recently about how trucking freight the length of the SI produces the equivalent carbon emissions to shipping the same load from NZ to Asia. To consider the most extreme example, which would be aluminium from Bluff to any of those three ports mentioned (which incidentally are ridiculously close together), wouldn't it make a lot more sense to ship directly from Bluff?

I mean, you COULD go by rail to Picton, then onto trucks to cross Cook Strait, then rail to Auckland, but...see my point here?

Refer to near end of page 1 of this thread about that same article :).

To consider the most extreme example, which would be aluminium from Bluff to any of those three ports mentioned (which incidentally are ridiculously close together), wouldn't it make a lot more sense to ship directly from Bluff?

Al is fairly much shipped only from Bluff,
Rio Tinto run a fairly lean operation, they ship Alumina and Bauxite in, and processed ingots out, all part of a global supply chain, its a fairly self contained operation.

Read something in the paper recently about how trucking freight the length of the SI produces the equivalent carbon emissions to shipping the same load from NZ to Asia. To consider the most extreme example, which would be aluminium from Bluff to any of those three ports mentioned (which incidentally are ridiculously close together), wouldn't it make a lot more sense to ship directly from Bluff?

I mean, you COULD go by rail to Picton, then onto trucks to cross Cook Strait, then rail to Auckland, but...see my point here?

It's time that the Government stepped up to the mark a electrified the rest of the rail network between the cities. That'd certainly help lower carbon emissions, and would allow the country to centralise its ports to promote efficiently and cost-effectiveness.

Because, the biggest shareholders in Ports in NZ are local government, and they
a) don't like to cooperate- witness steps to merge Auckland and Tauranga
b) are convinced that the local port is needed for local industry
c) cannot be sold without huge outrage and claims of evil privatisation
d) have access to council rates funding when times get tough.

Which is why Ports in this country should either be heavily regulated by the Government, or should be bought-back into public ownerships. Look what an inefficient mess private companies have created! :ohno:

Regarding point b) of Greenwelly's post, not sure what you mean there. Are you saying local ports aren't vital to local industry? Or that they are and the councils know this

Which is why Ports in this country should either be heavily regulated by the Government, or should be bought-back into public ownerships. Look what an inefficient mess private companies have created! :ohno:

Err, my point is that they *are* in public ownership, which has prevented any rationalisation as local parochialism prevents any rational discussion of mergers, witness the often talked about Auckland-Tauranga Tie up.

@Richard7666, my point is that due to local public ownership, the big picture is never grasped, New Zealand has too many small ports.

Err, my point is that they *are* in public ownership, which has prevented any rationalisation as local parochialism prevents any rational discussion of mergers, witness the often talked about Auckland-Tauranga Tie up.


There are only two major ports in this country which are POA and POT. While POA once was under semi-private ownership it has now been brought back into public ownership, POT is currently private.

Private enterprises have a very chequered past with regards to ownership of strategic assets in this country. Witness the mess that our rail network is currently in, and the disaster of private ownership of our major Airport which sees passengers and airlines alike pay exorbitant fees at AIA.

With particular respect to Ports, the Government need to take over their operations (including the partial public-private owned ones) and force consolidation in the industry. This means closing or downsizing non-strategic ports in places such as Napier, New Plymouth, Nelson, Gisborne, etc. and placing more emphasis on hub ports in large, strategic and growing cities such as Auckland & Tauranga, as well as potentially utilising the new deep-water Northport facility (especially for all Australian-bound cargo)

POT, while a publicly listed company, is about 75% owned by the Tauranga City Council.

The TCC, as majority shareholder, also has other political interests - such as head office jobs staying in Tauranga, therefore resiting a merger with a large rival like Auckland.

With particular respect to Ports, the Government need to take over their operations (including the partial public-private owned ones) and force consolidation in the industry. This means closing or downsizing non-strategic ports in places such as Napier, New Plymouth, Nelson, Gisborne, etc. and placing more emphasis on hub ports in large, strategic and growing cities such as Auckland & Tauranga, as well as potentially utilising the new deep-water Northport facility (especially for all Australian-bound cargo)

Why do they need to do this, exactly? How do the benefits outweigh the negatives? And what's so special about this port in Northland? That'd be the last place I'd have thought you'd want one of the 'main ports', considering proximity to Auckland and Tauranga, and having bugger all industry.

POT, while a publicly listed company, is about 75% owned by the Tauranga City Council.

The TCC, as majority shareholder, also has other political interests - such as head office jobs staying in Tauranga, therefore resiting a merger with a large rival like Auckland.

It's 55% owned by Environment Bay of Plenty (via Quayside Securities - I think). The rest is held by private investors, mostly large investment firms.

Why do they need to do this, exactly? And what's so special about this port in Northland? That'd be the last place I'd have thought you'd want one of the 'main ports', considering proximity to Auckland and Tauranga, and having bugger all industry.
In all honesty I can't even understand why Tauranga has ended up as one of our two major ports.

It's a JV with POT having a 50% stake in Northport, and the remainder held by Northland Port Corporation, and is one of only a handful of deep-water port like POA, POT, Port Taranaki etc.

IMO it was basically a hedge against the merger (read acquisition) of POA by POT, not going ahead. Their vision is to rail freight from Auckland to Northport, effectively killing off POA. The rest of the country would be served by POT.

Why do they need to do this, exactly? How do the benefits outweigh the negatives? And what's so special about this port in Northland? That'd be the last place I'd have thought you'd want one of the 'main ports', considering proximity to Auckland and Tauranga, and having bugger all industry.


While not being a port 'expert' or even overly interested, I have to agree with you questioning the need.

Why downgrade somewhere like Nelson with it's isolation combined with it's fishing, farming, horticulture, forestry exports? Same with Napier & New Plymouth. They seem like logical locations for ports?

I'll concede that combining the international operations of Timaru and Lyttleton would make sense, and probably Gisborne with Napier.

IMO, Northport seems more a property speculation than a current strategic need for a port north of Auckland. My hunch is that people (including myself) assume that one day Auckland's waterfront real estate will be more valuable as waterfront property - than as a functioning port. While Northport has a refinery and a pipeline, it doesn't currently have a rail link.

Agreed. Of the 'secondary' ports, Napier serves our 6th largest urban area, Port Chalmers our 7th, Nelson has it's isolation and lack of rail, while Bluff and New Plymouth serve specific industries.

Can't comment on Timaru or Gisborne as I don't know enough about them.

Here's a list of ports in NZ from wiki

Container ports: Ports of Auckland (Auckland), Port of Tauranga (Tauranga), Napier, Wellington, Lyttelton (Christchurch), Port Chalmers (Dunedin)
Other ports: Whangarei, Devonport (Auckland), Gisborne, New Plymouth, Wanganui, Nelson, Picton, Westport, Greymouth, Timaru, Bluff

Agreed. Of the 'secondary' ports, Napier serves our 6th largest urban area, Port Chalmers our 7th, Nelson has it's isolation and lack of rail, while Bluff and New Plymouth serve specific industries.

Can't comment on Timaru or Gisborne as I don't know enough about them.

Here's a list of ports in NZ from wiki

Container ports: Ports of Auckland (Auckland), Port of Tauranga (Tauranga), Napier, Wellington, Lyttelton (Christchurch), Port Chalmers (Dunedin)
Other ports: Whangarei, Devonport (Auckland), Gisborne, New Plymouth, Wanganui, Nelson, Picton, Westport, Greymouth, Timaru, Bluff

It will be interesting to see which ports come out on top over the next few years. I have to admit I struggle with the idea that the Port of Tauranga is somehow ordained above other North Island locations.

Re the South Island: With Lyttleton and Port Otago in talks about some form of merger, I'd expect places like Timaru might miss out but then Holcim plans to rail cement from Weston/Oamaru to Timaru if it proceeds with its new manufacturing plant. Lyttleton has coal from the West Coast and the Canterbury agricultural & manufacturing base. Port Otago seems secure at the moment with Fonterra deciding to distribute dairy products from Southland, Otago and South Canterbury through its new Mosgiel facility and with large forestry stocks in Otago and Southland. South Port at Bluff might come into its own if oil is struck in the Great South Basin; I can't see Port Chalmers winning that battle on a grand scale because it has limited room to expand without getting into all sorts of environmental arguments.

It will be interesting to see which ports come out on top over the next few years. I have to admit I struggle with the idea that the Port of Tauranga is somehow ordained above other North Island locations.


The only people ordaining POT above other ports is POT themselves! They're just empire building.


Ports at Napier and New Plymouth (for example) will continue to play important roles in large local sector industries.

Port Taranaki exports a large amount of condensate and other oil & gas products, and has a growing cargo and grain business. The regular shipping services to Australia have already saved one local exporter from losing a multi-million dollar contract as distributing products via POA and POT to Australia were taking 5-7 days.

The only people ordaining POT above other ports is POT themselves! They're just empire building.


Ports at Napier and New Plymouth (for example) will continue to play important roles in large local sector industries.

Port Taranaki exports a large amount of condensate and other oil & gas products, and has a growing cargo and grain business. The regular shipping services to Australia have already saved one local exporter from losing a multi-million dollar contract as distributing products via POA and POT to Australia were taking 5-7 days.

Ummm no. Tauranga is in a fast growing region with easy access to over half of NZ's population and its most important markets. It just makes good business sense to consolidate on the two large city ports, especially now that the cost of rail is set to drop thanks to Government subsidies and less emphasis purely on profit. If anything, consolidation will pick up faster.

So, it'd be better for importers/exporters in the rest of the country to consolidate into those two ports?

Good god I hope not. Image how wet S(tupid) Joyce's panties would get at the prospect of all the road freight this would generate for him and his Trucking cronies!

http://www.odt.co.nz/news/business/69798/fonterra-calls-more-ocean-cargo-capacity

Good god I hope not. Image how wet S(tupid) Joyce's panties would get at the prospect of all the road freight this would generate for him and his Trucking cronies!

Actually I would think that it would be good news for rail, because suddenly you have massive quantities of containers going to just one or two places over reasonably long distances. If all containers from New Plymouth, Napier, Wellington all went to those ports then there is no way trucking would be the cheaper or sensible option.

The idea is to have three major ports in the North Island, not just one or two. These would be the Tauranga and Auckland ports, along with the developing Northport. We're only a small country and with over 50% of the population living in the golden triangle, and most of the economic growth coming from this region, it just makes good economic sense.

The existing ports wouldn't be closed, they'd simply be downgraded to places that provide coastal shipping services to the three ports above as an alternative to using rail.

The Port of Tauranga are right, councils should be forced into placing their port assets into a holding company. That'd soon sort out the wheat from the chaff.

Actually I would think that it would be good news for rail, because suddenly you have massive quantities of containers going to just one or two places over reasonably long distances. If all containers from New Plymouth, Napier, Wellington all went to those ports then there is no way trucking would be the cheaper or sensible option.

Would actually be good, BUT you are forgetting Joyce and the Nats hatred for rail.

The idea is to have three major ports in the North Island, not just one or two. These would be the Tauranga and Auckland ports, along with the developing Northport. We're only a small country and with over 50% of the population living in the golden triangle, and most of the economic growth coming from this region, it just makes good economic sense.

The existing ports wouldn't be closed, they'd simply be downgraded to places that provide coastal shipping services to the three ports above as an alternative to using rail.

The Port of Tauranga are right, councils should be forced into placing their port assets into a holding company. That'd soon sort out the wheat from the chaff.

That still doesn't answer my question; what are the benefits of this over direct shipping to and from the other ports?

Economies of scale obviously. Replicating ports and their infrastructure throughout the entire country is just wasteful, particularly when doing so in smaller towns. Rodders is always harping on about councils wasting rate payers money, so just think how much is being spent unnecessarily on ports!

Would that outweigh any potential harm to the economies of the areas in question though?

Who knows, but it doesn't matter anyway because if you want to partipate in a free-market economy then that's the price you pay if goods can be transported cheaper & more efficiently from another region.

Obviously Tauranga and Auckland have vastly superior economies of scale to small town operations.

It looks like the only ones who will benefit will be the ports of Auckland and Tauranga. You can't really say "who knows" when it comes to things that could have a big impact on the whole country's economic efficiency. If it proved harmful to industry in the rest of the country but beneficial to Auckland and Tauranga then it would be totally pointless, wouldn't it.

We could save money on duplication up-front by only having an international airport in Auckland, but the impact of that would be crippling.

If companies can ship goods more efficiently by consolidating on the two main ports then obviously it's going to have a positive economic benefit for the country.

We already have two major airports in NZ. International airports outside of the cities are not exactly successful are they? Just like their cousins the ports. Its time for consolidation and rationalisation.

^^

I think if the major shipping companies stop calling at New Zealand because it is no longer economic for larger ships to call here at all because we didn't consolidate (as they are currently suggesting will happen) then the smaller regions will be a lot more f*cked than if the consolidation does happen.

^^ True true, if that's the issue then fair enough

Further calls from Port of Tauranga for quite justified rationalisation.

"Parker reiterated the call for port rationalisation.

Larger vessels require very expensive infrastructure in terms of deep harbour channels, container cranes and considerable land areas. New Zealand can only justify one or two ports making this investment."

Union fears Fonterra move will hurt ports
4:00AM Monday Aug 31, 2009


The Maritime Union wants KiwiRail to spell out what part state subsidies may have played in Fonterra's deal to move its exports through regional ports in favour of long-distance rail.

Dairy giant Fonterra is switching shipment of its products from Timaru to Port Lyttelton for the next five years and dropping the port at New Plymouth to ship through Auckland, Tauranga and Napier.

The Timaru and Taranaki ports will each lose about a third of their cargo volumes.

Critics claim the extra cost of railing 22,000 containers to Auckland and Tauranga must make use of the Government's $90 million KiwiRail subsidy to be financially viable.

But KiwiRail chief executive Jim Quinn told the Taranaki Daily News the subsidy was irrelevant.

"KiwiRail needs that subsidy, that's a fact. But the Fonterra deal has nothing to do with that," he said.

"We price freight movements by distance. Fonterra had clearly made its decisions based on how it wants to operate its end-to-end supply chain."


Fonterra would pay more to move product from its Whareroa factory in Taranaki to Auckland or Tauranga than to Port Taranaki but that was its choice, he said.

However, Maritime Union general secretary Trevor Hanson said he was not satisfied with KiwiRail's answers and "either they are being subsidised or not, and we believe there is more to this situation than regional communities are being told".

The union called for public meetings for those affected to begin "active resistance" to Fonterra's actions.

Locals needed to fight back against the destruction of these ports, and ultimately the damage to their regional communities, he said.

"The Government has the end responsibility here to step in for the national interest.

"To stand aside and let these heartland communities have their infrastructure and transport systems demolished by a 500-pound gorilla called Fonterra is showing that it either has no idea or the wrong idea."

Mr Hanson said the money ports had invested in infrastructure to handle Fonterra's trade had effectively been flushed down the drain.

"The question needs to be answered - is the Government aware of any influence of subsidies on the price of the movement of cargo on rail hundreds of kilometres away from its regional catchment?"

The 65 per cent reduction in Fonterra shipping through Port Taranaki would result in about 22,000 containers being cut from the record 65,000 the port handled last year.

Port Taranaki spent $20 million in 2007 on dredging so it could handle the same big ships that called at Auckland and Tauranga.

PrimePort Timaru would lose about 30,000 containers a year - nearly half its container trade, which accounted for about 80 per cent of its operation - to Port Lyttelton.

- NZPA

Thats just a bunch of rubbish. It may be more expensive to rail but Fonterra knows that and did it on purpose. There was another article which said why Fonterra decided to do this.

It said that what happens now is a ship full of loaded containers comes into Auckland, the containers are moved to an inland port in Auckland where they are unloaded. These empty containers then go back to the port and are loaded onto another ship. That ship takes the empty containers to port of new plymouth. The empty containers are railed to the fonterra factory. They are loaded there. Then they are railed back to port new plymouth and loaded onto a ship. The ship goes to dunedin where the containers are stored at the port. Then another ship comes along and the containers are put onto it and then that ship goes to whatever country. The whole process takes about 18 days and one missed connection (theres a lot to go wrong) screws everything up badly.

The new way of doing it is that a full container ship comes into auckland, the containers are unloaded at an inland port, then they are railed to the fonterra factory and loaded. The full containers are then railed to either napier,auckland or tauranga onto a ship that goes direct to the destination. 6 days total.

Sounds like a no brainer then. Can understand those ports squealing they are losing a fair chunk of business but it does sound a lot more efficient for Fonterra this way.

Its good to see efficiency has won out of the emotion of small town ports. The country is so reliant on the diary sector we can't afford to have these idiots continue to screw up the export sector by adding inefficiencies. Centralisation of NZs port infrastructure is the only way forward and its good to see its happening naturally.

Thats just a bunch of rubbish. It may be more expensive to rail but Fonterra knows that and did it on purpose. There was another article which said why Fonterra decided to do this.

Not entirely correct form the perspective that,

1. Fonterra themselves have stated that the main reason for the change was that the Asian shipping service leaves New Plymouth once per week, rather than the five they can get at Tauranga.

2. The ships bringing empty containers also brings full containers for delivery to New Plymouth, so it is not a special trip.

3. Empty containers already at the New Plymouth port are also used.

It would be interesting to see the actual calculations behind this move and whether POT has provided some incentive for this to occur.

However, Fonterra are of course free to make whatever business decision they believe is best for their company.

Southport announced a massive 64 per cent annual net profit increase yesterday, largely because of the difficult international trading environment southern exporters faced.

The Bluff port operator reported a profit of $4.12 million, up from $2.51m a year earlier.

Chairman John Harrington said $810,000 of that was because of one-off gains, including tax-paid dividends and capital returned from the shareholding in Hardwood Forests following the sale of its assets, deprecation recovery from the sale of a mobile crane and foreign-exchange gains. The normalised profit result was about a 30 per cent increase, Mr Harrington said.

That included a 25 per cent increase in revenue from port and warehousing operations to $19.1 million.

Chief executive Mark O'Conner said more-difficult trading conditions for many exporters meant products were being stored for longer periods of time as international markets were sought.

Other reasons for the profit increase included a shift in market share. In particular, the MSC container service, which began operating in May last year had increased opportunities for local exporters and importers.

The company had invested in significant additional plant and staff numbers had increased from 40 to 60 in the past 15 months, he said.

Mr Harrington said the gains came despite a 17 per cent drop on the record tonnage of 2008, with cargo volumes significantly affected by the capacity reduction at the Tiwai Point aluminium smelter the port's single largest customer.

Smelter output capability was reduced 30 per cent for almost eight months of the financial year when a potline was closed down. However, the company's long-term licence arrangement largely restricted the negative financial impact. The potline had since been reactivated and a new 35-year agreement became effective in April .

Other volume declines were recorded in fertiliser, acid, logs and woodchips, offset by improvements in containerised cargo, which lifted by 123 per cent.

Mr Harrington said the strength of the New Zealand dollar would act as a hand-brake on any domestic economic recovery in the next year.

"All known facts and current assumptions indicate that a tax-paid profit of $3 million is a realistic profit guideline for the 2010 financial year."

The energy sector, including offshore oil and gas exploration, were to likely to drive the southern region's next growth cycle, he said.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/southland-times/business/2773164/South-Port-earnings-soar-by-64pc

Port asks for Govt funding to transform into transport hub

By ROB MAETZIG - Taranaki Daily News

Port Taranaki has developed a multi-million-dollar plan to transform itself into the energy transport hub of New Zealand and it wants the Government to fund the project.

The plan, which would centre on the port's eastern reclamation, was revealed to Prime Minister John Key during the official opening of the new Port Taranaki Centre in New Plymouth yesterday.

And with it came a reminder that each year the oil and gas industry - which is almost entirely centred on Taranaki - pays several hundred million dollars to the Government in royalties and taxes. The amount is expected to be $300 million this financial year, growing to $700 million in 2010-11 when the offshore Kupe and Maari fields get to full production.

"Here at Port Taranaki we have faithfully served, in the interests of New Zealand Inc, the oil companies that have provided your Government with the millions and millions of dollars in royalties," said port company chairman John Young.

Now it wants a share of that money back so it can develop an integrated supply base for the energy industry, he added.

Yesterday it was also confirmed that Venture Taranaki has now become involved, and will be travelling to Wellington next week to make a presentation to Government officials on behalf of the port.

While no estimates of the cost of this project were given yesterday, Mr Young told Mr Key it would be "less than half" the $40 million the Government recently paid for Auckland's Queens Wharf, which is to be transformed into an entertainment centre in time for the 2011 Rugby World Cup.

"I venture to suggest that your contribution [to the Port Taranaki project] will deliver far fewer sore heads, and will add to your potential for an increase in royalties," he said.

Mr Young's announcement was obviously the first time Mr Key had heard of the development plan, so there was no reaction from the Prime Minister in his speech.

But later yesterday Port Taranaki chief executive Roy Weaver said he and Mr Key "had a long talk about it", and the Prime Minister's reaction to the idea was positive.

"He expressed a real understanding of the economic benefits of the oil and gas industry, and the need to encourage it," he said.

"Everyone talks about Australia being the lucky country in terms of its natural resources. Well, Taranaki is the Australia of New Zealand."

Mr Weaver said the project had its beginnings when Port Taranaki was approached by a group of energy companies. They asked for an investigation into development of an integrated supply base at the port.

"At present we have different players scattered throughout the port we have energy tugs berthed at cargo wharves, other operators elsewhere, others who need cranes. It's all over the place.
Ad Feedback

"But if we had a purpose-built facility, with the necessary deep water, they could make better use of what's there at the port. In the energy industry sense it could be similar to integrated facilities at Aberdeen for the North Sea, and Perth in Australia."

Asked why the port company felt the Government should be financially involved, Mr Weaver said the energy sector had played a very large role in turning around New Zealand's balance of payments problems.

"We think it would be prudent investment back off the royalties it has received it would enhance Port Taranaki's ability to service the energy industry."

http://www.stuff.co.nz/taranaki-daily-news/news/2876638/Port-asks-for-Govt-funding-to-transform-into-transport-hub

The same sort of thing will be needed in Invercargill. Dunedin and Invercargill ports will both be the centre of activity once exploration begins in the GSB.

Some interesting stats on export tonnage from 2009 (sorry formatting doesn't copy)

Port name - Gross Weight (tonnes) - Value (FOB) NZ $millions


Whangarei 1,551,435 442,465
Auckland 2,796,110 9,828,315
Tauranga 6,594,267 9,333,992
Taharoa 583,500 30,225
Gisborne 805,698 136,029
New Plymouth 3,057,470 2,866,363
Napier 2,004,555 2,371,635
Wellington 789,277 951,275
Nelson 1,180,064 853,567
Picton 281,457 49,235
Christchurch (Lyttelton) 3,216,969 3,545,394
Timaru 314,179 802,426
Dunedin (Port Chalmers) 1,598,753 5,351,262
Invercargill (Bluff) 553,211 1,099,765
All seaports 25,326,944 37,661,950

http://business.newzealand.com/common/files/New-Zealand-ports-and-airports.pdf

Auckland and Port Chalmers are massively productive, Timaru and Bluff are pretty impressive too though they ship small amounts. Tauranga does alright as well.

What do they export from Gisborne though, rocks?

Logs and other forestry related things.

Tauranga choice for big ship spending

By Owen Hembry
5:30 AM Thursday Aug 26, 2010

Tauranga is the logical choice ahead of Auckland for investment to handle a bigger breed of ship, says a group of New Zealand's biggest exporters.

A report yesterday by the New Zealand Shippers' Council - which also represents importers - said that if some ports were not capable of handling 7000 twenty-foot equivalent unit ships within five years, there was a risk shipping companies might increasingly hub through Australia.

Council chairman Greg Steed urged all those involved in the supply chain to consider the report's findings and recommendations extremely seriously.

"It is imperative to the future security of New Zealand's export trade [that] the country becomes capable of accommodating bigger ships as soon as possible."

All four major container ports of Auckland, Tauranga, Lyttelton and Otago could handle ships in the range of 4500-5000 TEU and would need to increase capability to support projected cargo growth, the report said.

However, not all four ports would need to invest initially, and it was logical for two to invest to become 7000 TEU capable within five years - one each in the North and South Islands.

Article continues below

Tauranga and Lyttelton were the logical candidates to start exploring implementation of capital plans.

Under the scenario, Auckland and Otago would continue to play a vital role in servicing exports and imports, the report added.

Ports of Auckland managing director Jens Madsen said the report did not hold any fears for the company.

"The work that they have done is to be appreciated by a lot of different parties, and it's always nice to be challenged. We feel that we are in control of future capacity. We can accommodate ships that are much larger than what we currently have ...

"At fairly short notice we would be able to do additional dredging in the shipping channel from Rangitoto."

Port of Tauranga chief executive Mark Cairns said it was time for New Zealand to make some tough decisions on infrastructure investment to ensure exporters remained competitive globally.

An application to widen and deepen Tauranga harbour's shipping channels was about to be considered by the Environment Court following a recommendation from Environment Bay of Plenty to grant the resource consents.

"We have board approval to commence the first stage of the dredging project as soon as we have resolved the appeals," Cairns said.

The Shippers' Council report said Ports of Auckland was the natural location for the North Island's initial bigger-ship port based on cargo volumes, but the council did not have confidence it was able to become 7000 TEU capable within five years.

The investment required at Port of Tauranga was between $50 million and $80 million, compared with $200 million at Auckland, the report said.

Investment decisions at Ports of Auckland were likely to be stalled by political issues surrounding Super City governance and organisational structures, and whether port operations on prime waterfront real estate were the best use of the space.

HIGH STAKES

THE ISSUE
If some ports cannot handle 7000 twenty-foot equivalent unit ships within five years, shipping companies might hub more through Australia.

THE RISK
$194 million a year increased cost faced by exporters and importers to send product via Australia if the level and quality of services to Southeast Asia is lost.

THE BENEFIT
$144 million-a-year potential benefit from 2015/16 with bigger ships on Southeast Asia route and two ports able to handle 7000 TEU vessels.

WHAT NEXT
Analysis and research says it is logical for Tauranga and Lyttelton to explore investing for the bigger ships.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=10668860

Fantastic news for tauranga :banana: The city just keeps getting better!
This will fuel another round of growth in the city. Good thing the government are investing in projects for the city otherwise the economy of the country would suffer.

Region sets sights on ship service
JAY BOREHAM

A "bluewater highway" connecting New Plymouth and Nelson could be operating as early as July next year.

The proposed highway would see Port Taranaki used to ferry goods to Nelson, cutting 400 kilometres off the round trip from Auckland to Christchurch for transport companies.

This would benefit the Taranaki economy because up to 50 trucks a day using the route would require servicing by local businesses, project manager Kiri McRae told the Taranaki Regional Council.

Since early 2008 TRC and Port Taranaki have been looking at whether a move to sea freight was viable as an alternative route for goods travelling from Auckland to Christchurch.

The Western Blue Highway transport study was completed last October.

The highway would also give KiwiRail the opportunity for a link to Nelson, something it had been unable to do to date, Ms McRae said.

The initial study looked at providing a three-day-a-week service, but talks with the transport industry after the study concluded showed a five-day service was needed.

The timing of the service would get goods from Auckland to Christchurch by the end of the following day, Ms McRae said.

Late-night sailing around the early hours of the morning was the most viable, she said. Goods travelling north could fit into any time as there was less demand.

Studies showed that even with turbulent West Coast swells the service would be 98.8 per cent reliable.

Possible benefits of the route could be savings in road-user charges and costs to fleet owners, fewer kilometres resulting in fewer costs, no compulsory rest breaks for drivers and the removal of the necessity for driver swaps.

The next step would be going through due diligence to ensure the certainty of revenue, developing a joint venture between transport operators, a ship operator and Port Taranaki and finding a ship, Ms McRae said.

TRC chief executive Basil Chamberlain said the highway looked promising.

"It would be beneficial for Taranaki, but we think it is beneficial for the nation, because it is a shorter route and less use of those congested roads.

"It's all part of how to contribute with improvements to the national network as well as the benefits that it would bring through Taranaki," Mr Chamberlain said.

The challenge now was to turn the economically viable plan Port Taranaki had into a reality that fit into the commercial marketplace, he said.

Possible hindrances could be the need for upgrades to State Highway 3, with transport operators questioning whether the roads would actually be able to carry the high-productivity motor vehicles.
Ad Feedback

Owner operators who were paid by the kilometre could also be an issue.

Port Taranaki chief executive Roy Weaver agreed the highway would be fantastic for Taranaki but said there was still a lot more work to be done before they could pull it off.

Making sure the Government supported another inter-island link - "that they actually believe that it is in the nation's interest" - was one of the key factors, he said.

- Taranaki Daily News

This was reported in the Nelson Mail last year or earlier this year. Personally I think it'll be a big boost to both regions since it will provide Nelson with a more direct link to the North Island rather than driving two hours to Picton. Hopefully, this development will spur regional rail development which will reduce the numbers of trucks on main arterial roads.

However, a cross strait freight service was cut due to lack of demand. Whether or not this service will be viable financially remains to be seen. Plus, maintenance facilities should be already in place by the time this ferry connection starts since Port Nelson recently won the contract for the Interislander ferry maintenance.

Well no, the initial discussions have been widely published, however this update which includes a time-frame the latest news.

Yes I think it will be great news for both Cities, and for those using the service. While rail proponents are adamant that such freight should be railed from Auckland to Wellington, and then on to a ferry, I can't see that occurring en mass any time soon. Besides, a little competition is always good isn't it.

Well no, the initial discussions have been widely published, however this update which includes a time-frame the latest news.

Yes I think it will be great news for both Cities, and for those using the service. While rail proponents are adamant that such freight should be railed from Auckland to Wellington, and then on to a ferry, I can't see that occurring en mass any time soon. Besides, a little competition is always good isn't it.

I skim read the article. July? Really? They're being quite optimistic with that date. I'd have expected something along the lines of maybe 2010-13 depending on how much red tape the shipping industry has. Plus, where's the supposed rail link going to go? There's little room at the port currently, unless they plan on building brand new "proper" facilities.

Of course, there'll be those who are living along the waterfront who will complain about the noise, "pollution" etc. as well as fring groups like Nelsust who come up with hairbrained schemes to "improve" the port. Last I heard of them, they proposed barging logs from a prime recreational area.

But that's a little off topic. I still think they should go ahead. Is it purely freight or will there be room for passenger services?

The link between Auckland and Christchurch is vital for the country - why not just sail between the two? Both have deep water harbours? Surely ships can cope with sailing up and down the east coast and the trip would take no longer than 24 hours?

I reckon itd be way too slow. the best thing to do is to invest in rail and have an express train from auckland/tauranga to wellington then load it on to the ferrys and then rail it down to christchurch. Quit stuffing around in the provinces and get the heart of the economy sorted out!

Somehow, I'm not surprised at this response. Can you see beyond the end of your own nose?

Somehow, I'm not surprised at this response. Can you see beyond the end of your own nose?

Why bother shipping goods to isolated regions first when they can just travel totheir final destination directly? Yeah maybe stuff actually going to nelson would work but most of it is probably going to christchurch anyway. Its just a waste of money.

Why bother shipping goods to isolated regions first when they can just travel totheir final destination directly? Yeah maybe stuff actually going to nelson would work but most of it is probably going to christchurch anyway. Its just a waste of money.

Those statistics further up the page disagree with your statement. Also, Lyttleton is going to be out of action for a while, so it would be better to try and improve potential ports while they get Lyttleton running again. We've even had another crane delivered to help boost capacity and reduce turnaround times.

And it would spur the development of rail links to Nelson which would reduce our reliance on heavy trucks and bring us inline with other ports in NZ. Plus, it would be good to see competition to the Interislander.

Why bother shipping goods to isolated regions first when they can just travel totheir final destination directly? Yeah maybe stuff actually going to nelson would work but most of it is probably going to christchurch anyway. Its just a waste of money.

LOL! Why ship stuff through Tauranga when most of it is for Auckland? Shot down by your own argument. :lol:

Because Tauranga is a major primary producer of goods and...oh wait no it isn't.

LOL! Why ship stuff through Tauranga when most of it is for Auckland? Shot down by your own argument. :lol:

Got any numbers to back up that tauranga imports are mostly bound for auckland? Nah of course not, youre not smart enough for that.

But you can keep on trying building your straw man but in the mean time maybe you can prove why shipping stuff to nelson then trucking it (because theres no rail) to christchurch makes sense? Oh wait it doesnt does it.

Because Tauranga is a major primary producer of goods and...oh wait no it isn't.

Auckland isnt a primary producer of the main export products for this country either so maybe youd care to start an argument about how unimportant auckland is then? Same flawed logic that your using as always :lol:

Got any numbers to back up that tauranga imports are mostly bound for auckland? Nah of course not, youre not smart enough for that.

But you can keep on trying building your straw man but in the mean time maybe you can prove why shipping stuff to nelson then trucking it (because theres no rail) to christchurch makes sense? Oh wait it doesnt does it.

Sticking your fingers in your ears and pretending others don't exist isn't helping. And as I said, this future link will probably be a catalyst for future rail development.

Nelson exports and imports freight not just from around NZ but the world as well. We're not that "backwater" you make us out to be.

When I first read this "blue highway" bizzo I must admit I thought it was a joke! We have a hugely underutilized electrified railway from Akl - Wlg, 2 very competitive ferry companies over Cook Strait with their ships lying idle or sailing half full for much of the year and another stretch of now very quiet train track from Picton to Christchurch. The infrastructure is there for double the volume of freight to be handled between AKL - Chch on a 24 hour operation. I cant for the life of me see how it could possibly be cheaper, quicker or operationally more efficient to send goods via country roads to Taranaki, load on to ships for moving to Nelson, then tranship again for a truck ride to Christchurch???

And if you seriously think that Kiwi rail is going to investigate building a rail link to Nelson for this supposed traffic when we cant even get a link to Marsden point or whatever (kiwi rail is closing down rail links not opening them) then I think you mite have had a few too many...

The good folk of taranaki could probably better spend their time trying to get freight back on to rail to save the SOL line rather than wasting time and resources on these sorts of studies i would have thought

Got any numbers to back up that tauranga imports are mostly bound for auckland? Nah of course not, youre not smart enough for that.

But you can keep on trying building your straw man but in the mean time maybe you can prove why shipping stuff to nelson then trucking it (because theres no rail) to christchurch makes sense? Oh wait it doesnt does it.

Oh heck, you're too smart for me. You've also discovered straw man on Wikipedia. Whatever next? :nuts:

The link between Auckland and Christchurch is vital for the country - why not just sail between the two? Both have deep water harbours? Surely ships can cope with sailing up and down the east coast and the trip would take no longer than 24 hours?


I really don't know how long it would take - perhaps someone on here more closely associated with the freight industry could enlighten us? I've heard that same argument come from the rail proponents who say "why not just rail the goods from Auckland to Christchurch", so there must be some fundamental reasons why this isn't happening already.

Previous articles on the shipping service talked about freight movements between New Plymouth, Nelson and the West Coast, allowing quicker access for those sites to the only deep water port on the West coast, so perhaps the volume of AKL-CHC freight is only part of the story.

Obviously having a number of different transport options for freight through-out the country will always be beneficial.

Thing is, it would be good for other viable transport options in case the current system is rendered inoperable for some reason. Christchurch isn't looking too flash for future rail development (for obvious reasons) so another alternative would be viable should the main link fail for some reason.

Anyway, that's a bit off-topic.

Auckland isnt a primary producer of the main export products for this country either so maybe youd care to start an argument about how unimportant auckland is then? Same flawed logic that your using as always :lol:

Not the main export products, no, but I never said that.

This is definitely the future of shipping in new zealand. One or two major hub ports with all the rest either closing or being used to feed the hub, and the close you are to that hub the easier and more cost effective itll be to import or export your goods.


Port of Tauranga tips 25pc traffic jump

Tauranga's port has been chosen by the world's second-largest container shipping line as the only New Zealand stop-off for its new Oceania Express service.

The vessels will initially call every fortnight but once business grows it will revert to weekly, and all the east coast ports will send cargo to Tauranga.

The service was announced by Mediterranean Shipping Company (MSC) yesterday. Tauranga will become part of a rotation that includes Melbourne, Sydney and Brisbane, Balboa at the Pacific entrance to the Panama Canal, and Californian city Long Beach.

Port of Tauranga has recently announced five other new services, and the company expects container volumes will increase by 20 to 25 per cent in the next year, reaching 750,000 TEUs (20-foot equivalents).

Port of Tauranga chief executive Mark Cairns said the latest shipping service would mean more jobs at the port.

"We are delighted that MSC have chosen Tauranga as their New Zealand hub port and this announcement provides another tangible example of the structural change that is occurring in the New Zealand Port sector," Cairns said.

"We are undertaking significant capital expenditure at the container terminal over the next few years to ensure that we continue to provide our customers with world-class levels of productivity."

MSC's Oceania Express service would start in October.

- APNZ

This is definitely the future of shipping in new zealand. One or two major hub ports with all the rest either closing or being used to feed the hub, and the close you are to that hub the easier and more cost effective itll be to import or export your goods.


So, am I to expect the closure of Port Nelson on the basis that is nowhere near Tauranga? Is Port Chalmers going to close? What about Lytelton? They're nowhere near Tauranga either. Should they close?

So, am I to expect the closure of Port Nelson on the basis that is nowhere near Tauranga? Is Port Chalmers going to close? What about Lytelton? They're nowhere near Tauranga either. Should they close?


Did you read what I said? Small town ports like nelson could be feeders to tauranga and auckland if cargo volumes are alright, otherwise they could be closed. Nelson probably wont cause its isolated from any major ports.

Did you read what I said? Small town ports like nelson could be feeders to tauranga and auckland if cargo volumes are alright, otherwise they could be closed. Nelson probably wont cause its isolated from any major ports.

Wait, are you saying it should be or it shouldn't?

new crane for Bluff

Aug 25 (BusinessDesk) – The Port of Bluff operator, South Port New Zealand Ltd., will spend $6.3 million in the next financial year on new cargo-handling facilities in the largest commitment of capital spending since the company was formed in 1988.

South Port reported a net profit after tax of $5.98 million in the year to
June 30, a 15% improvement on the previous year as every major cargo category, including logs, processed sawn timber, meat and dairy-related exports and imports, and a record year of shipping from the Rio Tinto aluminium smelter at nearby Tiwai Point.

“In the port industry, it is unusual for almost all cargo sectors to be either growing or maintaining their existing tonnage levels at the one time,” said chairman John Harrington in a statement to the NZX.

Total tonnage through the port had increased from 2.17 million tonnes in the previous financial year to 2.674 million tonnes, and the port had “at times been stretched with its existing resources to service an elevated base level of cargo.”


Consequently, despite forecasting profits 15% to 20% lower in the current financial year, Harrison said the port was committing $5.8 million to a new, larger mobile harbour crane, and $700,000 on an additional heavy lift container forklift.

At the same time, South Port is lifting its total dividend payout for the year to 20 cents a share, compared with 17 cents last year. A final, fully imputed dividend of 14.5 cents a share, payable Nov.2, with a record date of Sept. 23.

The result was built on record revenues of $25.1 million, up 11% on the previous year, while earnings per share lifted from 23.9 cents to 19.9 cents on a normalised basis, which ignores non-cash impacts of changes to rules
governing capital asset depreciation.

The reduced profit outlook owed to the strength of the New Zealand dollar, weakening dairy commodity prices, and debt-constrained European and American economies, along with a substantial increase in insurance premiums because of the Canterbury earthquakes.

At balance date, the port had only managed to replace some 80% of its expiring reinsurance cover, although the remainder had been purchased since then.

With just 26.2 million shares on issue and issued capital of $9.4 million, the thinly traded South Port shares were unchanged today at $3.20.

otumoetaiNZ, which ports would you close?

Any which carry very low volumes of goods, are close to hub ports, or are subsidised by the regional councils. So probably oamaru (use lyttleton), whanganui (whats left of it), and gisborne.

Id downgrade timaru, port chalmers, nelson, new plymouth and napier to feeder ports which would service tauranga, auckland and maybe northport once the place and the railway network is upgraded sometime in the future.

What a stupid idea, why?

Gisborne should lose its useless port, Tauranga should lose its useless airport. :)

At least Lyttleton and Wellington are left alone. And Bluff, though you probably just forgot to give it the chop.

Have any ports actually ever been closed? Some on the West Coast maybe?

What does gisborne export? Maybe a few logs but they could be sent on a barge, small ship or maybe rail to a major port or maybe combined with other stuff at napier and then sent on to a major port.

And its not just me calling for it but experts in the industry. Theres just too much replication of infrastructure in this country especially in smaller towns.

Have you not thought of lack of rail infrastructure, what about the idea of moving goods domestcially, imports, regional development, heard of a term hub and spoke?

Have you not thought of lack of rail infrastructure, what about the idea of moving goods domestcially, imports, regional development, heard of a term hub and spoke?

Hard to do when the advocate of a central hub is too busy pulling out the spokes.

and the wheel falls over

Yup logs from gisborne could be railed to napier and then hubbed to tauranga or auckland. I think the rail line from gisborne needs quite a bit of work but itd be cheaper in the log run than having to maintain a tiny port operation.

otumoetainz - this is it in a nutshell really and the dilemma that much of smaller NZ now faces. With small volumes of freight not really enough to sustain both a rail operation and a port facility and operational and maintenance costs ever increasing. You can continue to put a little bit through the port and a little bit by rail but I don't think this will work forever given the freight forcasts and population base of the area. It really has to be one or the other unless local ratepayers are prepared to look at subsidies.

Nelson had the decision made for it years ago when the rail was ripped up. Today it has one of the best regional ports in the country, good freight volumes and doing very well too I mite say.

So its probably decision time for Gisborne as realistically I don't see much changing for the region in the long term. Do you want your rail or do you want your port?

Nelson had rail?

Nelson had rail?

First city in NZ to have rail I might add. The Nelson Section was an isolated section of track running from Nelson to Glenhope, with the section being closed in 1955. Since then, it's been on the government's books to link Nelson with the rest of the South Island's network, either through Inangahua or Blenheim. The Blenheim route was actually commissioned by then Prime Minister Walter Nash, meaning work was actually due to commence. Keith Holyoake campaigned to have the line work halted in 1960, which, after he won the elections, was what happened. Nothing has been done about it since.

Yet another upgrade to keep pace with demand at Bluff

A $4.5 million dry storage warehouse project will begin at South Port in the next few months to keep up with increasing demand from the agriculture sector.

At the South Port annual meeting yesterday, chief executive Mark O'Connor announced the construction of the multimillion-dollar warehouse, with the first of the two stage development, at 3000 square metres, beginning in the new year.

The port had several contracts for dry storage, which included stockfeed such as palm kernel and molasses, but dry warehousing was limited so more space was needed, he said.

"All the existing dry warehousing at the moment is fully occupied at the port," he said.

It was the growth in the agriculture sector that had prompted the expansion, while there was also an expected increase in stockfeed demand, Mr O'Connor said. "We saw some fairly strong stock import volume in the province in the past year and there is potential for this dry storage warehouse to be required for stockfeed."

The first stage, which would cost about $2.5m, would be constructed by Calder Stewart and was expected to be completed by June, while the second stage was expected to double the size and would be reviewed in about 12 months to make sure it was still viable, he said.

The Bluff-based company's performance figures for the financial year ending June 30 were released last month and showed cargo movements on the island harbour hit a record of 2.64 million tonnes, up 470,000 tonnes on last year. This resulted in a normalised profit of $5.98m, up $770,000.

Primary industries remained the key to the port's growth, with log volumes exceeding 300,000 tonnes last financial year, a substantial lift from about 100,000 tonnes two years previously, Mr O'Connor said yesterday.

South Port outgoing chairman John Harrington, who stepped down from the board of directors following the meeting, said New Zealand Aluminium Smelters was still the most vital client of the port, especially because there was no guarantee shipping lines would continue.

The company's target profit for the 2012 year was between $5m to $5.3m, he said. This reflected the effect on trade from continuing global economic uncertainty and represented a 10 to 15 per cent reduction for the 2012 financial year.

Fantastic news for tauranga! :banana:

Maersk blames strikes, pulls one Auckland service

The possibility of further strikes at Ports of Auckland has forced major shipping line Maersk to shift one of its services to the Port of Tauranga, leaving the Auckland port company $20 million out of pocket.

Maersk told the port early this morning that it had shifted its Southern Star service to Tauranga.
Ports of Auckland chief executive Tony Gibson said he was ''hugely disappointed''.

''Maersk have explained to us that the possibility of further industrial unrest has been central to their decision to shift the service to Tauranga.''

The port company will lose 52 ship calls, 82,500 containers, and nearly $20m in revenue annually.

Gibson said the port had postponed today's mediation with the Maritime Union of New Zealand as a result of the move.

The port's Bledisloe and Fergusson container terminals were shut from Thursday night to Monday night, in a four-day stoppage by 330 wharfies over their collective contract. Another strike by workers and lockout by the company is planned later this week.

Gibson said his worst fears had been realised.

''We had already warned the union that their strike action, during one of the busiest times in the shipping schedule, could cost Ports of Auckland a major customer and threaten jobs.

''However, despite these warnings, a very fair offer on the table and a further offer of a paid stop work meeting, the union proceeded with its strike over last weekend, has already given notice of another strike this Friday, and is continuing to signal the possibility of further strikes, saying publicly it will do 'whatever it takes'.

''Given the magnitude of this service loss we have decided to postpone mediation till later in the week,'' Gibson said.

''We need time to work through the implications of the change in relation to the collective bargaining process.''

Gibson reiterated his call for the union to lift the strike notice it has in place for this coming Friday.

''Further strikes will achieve nothing other than to put jobs at Ports of Auckland at risk and undermine the country's supply chain at a critical time of the year.''

Maersk Line New Zealand trade and marketing manager Dave Gulik confrimed industrial unrest at Ports of Auckland had played a part in Maersk's decision to alter the service.

"The security of their supply chain is of primary importance to our customers, so anything affecting that, or likely to affect that in the future, will come into the equation when we are deciding schedules," he said.

He didn't expect a material change to total transit times for local exporters and importers.
Ad Feedback

"Most of the export cargoes we currently ship out of Auckland are coming out of the Waikato-Bay of Plenty region, and those exporters' transport and logistics operations tend to be port-neutral," Gulik said.

The company's Northern Star service would continue to call at Auckland.

Maersk currently operates the Northern Star and Southern Star services in conjunction with Malaysian Line MISC Berhad, which plans to exit the container shipping business in June next year.

Meanwhile, Port of Tauranga chief executive Mark Cairns said Maersk's decision was great news for his port.

''We have been working for some time to attract a new import ship call to Tauranga to better
balance our MetroPort rail shuttle service to and from Auckland.

''We are very pleased to confirm the announcement by Maersk Line and MISC who will now operate both their Northern and Southern Star services through Tauranga on a weekly basis, with connections through to their South East Asian hubs.''

The service loss is effective from this week's vessel, the Euro Max voyage 126N, which will now call at Tauranga on Saturday, December 10.

- BusinessDay.co.nz

Idiots are shooting themselves in their footses

More money for the port of tauranga though so im not complaining! I reckon Hamilton will do pretty nicely as well with their inland port hub idea. The export opportunities for businesses in the region is just fantastic! :banana:

Another massive win for Tauranga! :banana:

Fonterra quits Ports of Auckland amid strikes

Dairy giant Fonterra, the country's biggest exporter, has quit trading from Ports of Auckland as strikes by Maritime Union member workers continue.

Port of Tauranga and Port of Napier will share the load, picking up Fonterra's $27 million weekly trading, from the end of January until further notice.

Union member Ports of Auckland workers have been in negotiations with their employer for better pay since August, with major client Maersk pulling out of the port to move its trading to Tauranga last month due to the industrial action at Auckland.

Ports of Auckland chief executive Tony Gibson said it was inevitable customers would need to move operations elsewhere with uncertainty caused by the strike action. It recently put its ninth offer to the union which remains on the table.

''Following Fonterra's decision, I have today advised the union that this is our best and final offer.

''It includes a generous 10 per cent rise on hourly rates, performance bonuses of up to 20 per cent on hourly rates, and the retention of existing benefits and entitlements in return for a new roster system that will provide increased operational flexibility while allowing workers to plan their rosters a month in advance,'' Gibson said.

''Coupled with the departure of Maersk's Southern Star service to Port of Tauranga, the loss of Fonterra's business means that action is needed urgently.''

Fonterra and the Maritime Union were not immediately available for comment.

Tony needs to start firing people, these bums work less than 30 hours are week and are making 90K plus, these are unskilled workers, they should be bloody happy with what they've got, I pretty sure there are plenty of men out there who would do the job for 50K.

I couldn't agree more - this is like a return to the 1970's where unions hold companies to ransom. Why is this allowed to happen in this day and age? This is supposed to be a "free market". Every employee has the right to ask for better conditions/more pay from their employer. If they say no, then they have the choice to continue working for them or look for work elsewhere. That is what the rest of us have to do! Get back to work you greedy workers or let the sackings begin!

The average annual wage of an Auckland wharfie is about $91,480 - reportedly for a 26-hour week, employees and their families get free medical insurance, and three weeks sick leave entitlement is written into contracts. They also get five weeks annual leave.
God damn, why are they complaining again??

God damn, why are they complaining again??

Seems like theyre on a pretty good wage already eh! I went past there a couple of days ago and they had their kids holding the placards while they sat in deckchairs talking LOL! Not a good look!

I don't think they have much if any support either, especially now that we know what they are already earning and how little they work to get it.

Would this see an end to the Port of Auckland which could then be transformed into a new Cruise Ship Terminal? plus prime land for Apartments? thus opening up the whole of Aucklands Waterfront along Quay Street with a tram running along ... ??

Air, seaports would benefit from stock exchange listing, says report.

Listing large council-owned seaports and airports on the stock exchange would put added pressure on these assets to lift their game, says the Productivity Commission. In a 278-page draft report released yesterday on freight and transport, it said a stock market listing would offer "significant potential governance improvements for larger companies" with a partial-council ownership. Listed entities are "subject to strong, and ongoing, scrutiny and pressure for improvement" and have a share price that reacts to market conditions, the perceived quality of directors and any plans they announce, it said. "Stock exchange rules such as those requiring regular reporting and continuous disclosure can expose poorly-performing managers, and pressure from minority shareholders and external analysts can spur the timely rectification of such problems." Four seaports - Port of Tauranga, South Port New Zealand, Northland Port and Lyttelton Port - are already on the New Zealand stock exchange. Auckland Airport is also listed as is Infratil - the company which owns two-thirds of Wellington Airport. Christchurch Airport, owned by the Christchurch City Council and the Crown, is not listed, while Ports of Auckland delisted in 2005. The commission also said a degree of private ownership, particularly of New Zealand ports, could improve their efficiency. Privately-owned companies tended to out-perform their publicly-owned counterparts, the report said, although they are not the best at delivering some services valued by the community. "We know that privatisation 'works' in the sense that divested firms ... become more efficient, more profitable, and financially healthier, and increase their capital investment spending," the report said, quoting an international study. Although five New Zealand ports have some degree of private ownership, the draft report included submissions from the Shippers' Council and Federated Farmers advocating increased levels of privatisation. "It is perhaps no coincidence that New Zealand's best performing port [Port of Tauranga] is also the port with the highest proportion of private ownership," Federated Farmers said. The commission also cited an argument from Auckland Council - which owns 100 per cent of Ports of Auckland - claiming "public ownership with commercially focused boards" was an efficient operating model for ports. Despite this, the commission said the argument that higher levels of private ownership increased performance was "generally convincing". The commission said that although government ownership of rail offered "poor incentives to improve efficiency", past performance suggests the infrastructure does not pay its way under any ownership structure. The commission's final report is due out in April.

Here (http://www.productivity.govt.nz/sites/default/files/The%20draft%20report%20FINAL%20smaller%20size.pdf) the draft report.