A.P. MOLLER-MAERSK GROUP 8th PORT LOGISTICS CONFERENCE Barcelona June 5, 2008 The Gigantism of Container Ships Capt. Laurids Uglvig Chief Operations Officer APM Terminals Algeciras

A..P. MOLLER-MAERSK GROUP  Berthing  Dimensions  Systems  Equipment Contents

A..P. MOLLER-MAERSK GROUP Berthing – What changes?  Positives  Large operations with high crane intensity  Increasing berth productivity and hence Terminals Berth Capacity  Quick turnaround resulting in better berth utilization  Negatives  Large vessel requiring more time to berth / depart  PS type taking 2 hours from pilot to gangway is set  A / G / S taking 1 hour from pilot to gangway is set  Occupying more quay as using minimum 2 sets of bollards for head / stern lines  PS type occupying 500 meter quay (400m vessel + 2*50m)  A / G / S type occupying 410 meter quay (350m vessel + 2*30m)

A..P. MOLLER-MAERSK GROUP Maersk Line PS-class vessel ( TEU) compared to: A /G /S-class, Panamax D-class, WAFmax T-class  Average horisontal travel distance from mid quay:  PS: 28m + 3m + 15m = 46m  A / G / S: 21.5m + 3m + 15m = 39.5m  Panamax: 16.5m + 3m + 15m = 34.5m  WAFmax: 13.5m + 3m + 15m = 31.5m

A..P. MOLLER-MAERSK GROUP Maersk Line PS-class vessel ( TEU) compared to: A /G /S-class, Panamax D-class, WAFmax T-class  Average vertical travel distance from quay level:  WAFmax: 11.5m + 5.7m = 17.2m  Panamax: 17.0m + 5m = 22.0m  A / G / S: 19.0m + 8.0m = 27.0m  PS: 28.4m m = 45.7m

A..P. MOLLER-MAERSK GROUP Maersk Line PS-class vessel ( TEU) compared to: A /G /S-class, Panamax D-class, WAFmax T-class  Modern cranes have following operating speeds:  Trolley travel speed: 240 m/min or 4 m/s  Hoisting / Lowering: Between 90 m/min & 180 m/min or average 2.5 m/s  Difference in average travelling based previous data & considering WAFmax as standard: Vessel Type HorisontalVerticalTotal extra time/move Total cycle time Resulting GMPH msecondsm Seconds PS A/G/S Panamax WAFmax

A..P. MOLLER-MAERSK GROUP Is this productivity loss a fact?  The answer is no, not as dramatic as it is shown  The cranes work for long times in the same position  The hatchcover / container ratio dramatically drops  More chances to use already stowed containers to steady container being loaded  Vessel doesn’t move, heel or trim easy

A..P. MOLLER-MAERSK GROUP Systems  Vessel configuration in systems  Too wide - 22 rows where system only allowed for 20  Too many tiers under deck  Workqueues  Very large bays containing several hundred containers causing system problems if transferred in one queue  Very large blocks difficult to compensate if needed  Processing time for EDI files and strain on system  Deadlines should be reconsidered in view of the number of moves the vessel has  Bayplans

A..P. MOLLER-MAERSK GROUP Systems - Bayplans become a challenge (A4)

A..P. MOLLER-MAERSK GROUP This is why! (A4)

A..P. MOLLER-MAERSK GROUP Ship to Shore Cranes - Lifting height  Lifting height  Crane specific limitations  Additional factors to consider when planning  Not possible to use safety cages in all positions / with all cranes

A..P. MOLLER-MAERSK GROUP Outreach  Outreach  Increased boom lenght  Increased cost  Increased wheel load  Are 22 rows enough?

A..P. MOLLER-MAERSK GROUP Hinge point of boom  Hinge point  Will the raised boom touch the bridgewing?  Can the cranes pass the bridge?  If the vessel has to heel it takes time – a long time!  Do we need a different crane design?  The 45 degree booming is not enough

A..P. MOLLER-MAERSK GROUP Thank you for your attention