This document discusses the concept of offshore ports and hubs. It notes that while the idea is not new, only one has been successfully built - Yang Shan port in China. It attributes this to existing ports being able to handle cargo volumes up until recent changes reduced shipping lines and increased vessel sizes. This has created an urgent need for ports able to service mega-carriers. However, many ports cannot upgrade, risking their viability without regional solutions like offshore hubs. It analyzes past offshore hub plans and identifies key success factors like treating the hub as an ocean connection rather than standalone terminal. Yang Shan is presented as the prime example, becoming the world's largest container terminal through its regional hub role.

1. ©
Marco
Pluijm,
14/01/2017
Illustration
©
Marco
Pluijm
Offshore
hub
with
sustainable
breakwater
Planning
Offshore
Hubs,
Observations
and
Guidelines
Marco Pluijm
Senior Expert Ports and Coasts
The idea of offshore ports or hubs is not new. Various concepts have been floating
around for some time and some have made it to a feasibility level assessment. And one
has been built. Just one, mainly because existing onshore ports were still able to
handle the required cargo volumes and size and types of carriers, moving those
volumes around.
Sudden changes in the global economy can impact all of this, almost overnight. Current
drop in volumes, increase in overcapacity and rock bottom prices have resulted in less
shipping lines, operating equally less but substantially bigger carriers, all in order to
survive and be sustainable. A situation not likely to change for the better at short
notice.
As a consequence of which fewer mega carriers will call for less ports around the world
and regional transshipment will need to increase in order to distribute the goods over
that same regions, which were serviced earlier with more, but smaller long haul
carriers.
Pressing Needs
Leading to an urgent demand for adequate port infrastructure, able to handle both the
mega carries, the volumes and the shore sea shipping. Which for example for a port
such as Rotterdam is not really an issue. In Rotterdam the port and terminals have just

2. ©
Marco
Pluijm,
14/01/2017
been upgraded to be ready for the coming decades, able to handle the largest carriers,
including short sea shipping requirements, barge facilities and hinterland connections.
Unfortunately quite a few other main-­‐ports around the world and consequently the
shipping lines calling them, find themselves in a much less comfortable position.
Such as a number of US East Coast and Gulf Coast main-­‐ports. Where an equal relative
small number has managed to secure funding for their upgrade to New Panamax size
standards and got their upgrades just completed. While the other ports in the region,
who couldn’t find the cash, are likely destined to fade and gradually go out of business.
Unless at short notice proper short sea shipping comes up to speed, needed in order
to stay connected with the regional main ports. Under the condition those main ports
will be able to provide the right service levels to the main carriers.
Despite all the hard work upgrading to the New Panamax level of 12,500 +
TEU (20 ft
containers), the US EC and GC operators are still facing another massive challenge,
which is the impact of the New Suez Canal, opened In August 2015. Allowing the
newest and biggest carries, ranging from 19.000 till say 22.000 TEU, to make direct
calls to suitable mainports along the US EC and GC. Where basically none of these
ports are ready nor can make the necessary adjustments and investments for another
upgrade. Including the port of NY/NJ, even with the Bayonne Bridge roadway elevation
completed, won’t be able to handle these newer generations, not even in the
foreseeable future. Unless drastic changes will be made. Which basically means,
expanding in seaward direction.
Following the global trend of less calls with much bigger vessels, it seems fair to
assume that there would be an imminent need for one or two suitable port and
terminal facilities in that part of the world, as well as other places..
And that’s where the concept of offshore container ports or hubs comes back in.
Offshore Ports and Hubs
The idea of an offshore port along the US EC and GC is not new. An initiative for an
offshore terminal in the Mississippi Delta is known as the Louisiana International Gulf
Transfer Terminal (LIGTT). Based on what has been published about it, a plan what is
believed to be destined to fail straight from the beginning due to the way it was
conceived and laid out. Despite a number of consultancy cycles, apparently that plan
never seem to have reached the level what is required for a proper investment
decision. In particular with regard to location, layout, shipping and terminal
operational criteria, as well as a number of civil engineering and construction aspects.
In a more general sense, one major factor which probably should have been very clear
straight from the beginning, is that the criteria for planning and operations of an
offshore transshipment hub, are by no means the same as those for a normal, shore-­‐
based container-­‐ or transshipment terminal. And therefore can’t be transferred

3. ©
Marco
Pluijm,
14/01/2017
straight away to a manmade offshore platform. An approach not unique to LIGTT,
because it has been observed with other plans as well.
For instance with the Venice Offshore Onshore Port System (VOOPS) project. A plan
what is believed to have reached a higher level of detail and sophistication than LIGTT.
But believed to suffer from similar topside and related logistics issues. One interesting
addition of VOOPS is the smart barging system, which adds operational flexibility to the
overall logistic scheme.
Observations and lessons learned over the years and focusing on the overall logistic
and operational concepts of any offshore transshipment hub, one of the key elements
to success, is to treat the offshore containerhub as part of the hot connection between
the shore based terminal(s) and the ocean going carrier, as such. And, as mentioned,
not as a traditional terminal, transferred to an offshore platform.
Offshore Port and Hub Success Story
Offshore container ports and transshipment hubs can be extremely successful. The
best example of all is Yang Shan, located about 35 km offshore in the Yangtze Delta.
Which came into operation in 2004 after the port of Shanghai ran into difficulties with
their inability of further dredging their shallow waters. They could not keep up with the
draft requirements of the newest carries at that time nor for the future. Consequently
the Chinese built what now has become the largest container terminal in the world.
Handling close to 40 million TEU per year. With a bridge connection to the shore, but
also serving as short sea and barge hub for the region, feedering cargo to Yang Shan
via the Yangtze river, way up to Wuhan and beyond.
Driven by the urgent need at the time, Yang Shan has become the showcase for an
offshore hub as economic driver and sustainable solution for present and future trade,
transportation and shipping needs.
Kicked off by an unfortunate condition, similar to what is actually happening right now
along the US EC and GC. Ports no longer able to catch with the current and future
requirements and, apart from financial conditions, facing physical constraints which do
not allow them to expand and upgrade their facilities any further.
Basically leaving no other option than to develop and build one or more offshore hubs.
Preferably one in the NY/NJ region and one further down south.
Observations and Guidelines
Having been involved in the panning and design of offshore ports and all what comes
with that for a large part of my professional career, I have noticed that there’s a
number of issues that keeps on coming back. Which usually are a reason for
misunderstanding and mixed discussions between those involved, and eventually
resulting in poor feasibility studies and equally bad bankable reports.

4. ©
Marco
Pluijm,
14/01/2017
A few of these issues I would like to highlight as observations and which may serve as a
kind of guidelines when planning and designing offshore container ports or hubs in the
future.
Logistics
As referred to earlier, the offshore container handling facility is best to be seen as an
integral part of the hot connection between the onshore terminal and the ocean going
carrier. And by no means a copy of a landbased containerterminal, projected on a
manmade offshore platform.
The type of offshore terminal handling is very much different and any storage on the
platform shall be avoided as much as possible.
In case of regional transshipment, a small section on the platform area can be assigned
for this purpose, but all main handling and storage is done on the landbased, onshore
main support terminal and or regional terminals.
Operations
As integral part of the hot connection between shore and main carrier as mentioned,
the way the containers move over the platform area and are being handled is different
from traditional terminal operations. And so is the equipment. All can be done fully
automated and handled by automated equipment.
In addition, in order to enhance efficiency, equipment and techniques which are
common in the world of mass production and mass transit can be applied in order to
maximize smooth flow over the terminal and minimize traditional rolling transport.
Exposure to the elements is often thought to be an issue. An idea mainly driven by the
damage which is often observed when hurricanes have hit onshore port terminals.
When analyzing those damages, it is concluded that as a matter of fact, an offshore
container hub is much less vulnerable for extreme weather impacts. For instance due
to much better opportunities for avoiding unwanted vortices and related impact
forces. The Resilient by Nature approach can help to get this sorted.
Which all together offers the opportunity to kit out the offshore hub as Disaster
Response Unit, to come into operation when a superstorm or surge has hit the
mainland ports and put them out of production due to post event siltation, flooding or
damaged equipment.
Construction
The actual location offshore is often defined on the basis of adequate navigable water
depth for the design vessel, in order to avoid dredging.

5. ©
Marco
Pluijm,
14/01/2017
However, where applicable, it is advised to balance the amount of dredging with the
amount of fill required for the platform and seek the most profitable balance between
those two. It’s by no means a proven fact that no dredging on the site will offer the
best net result in terms of construction costs and operations. Also because potential
maintenance dredging in deeper water will usually be negligible.
In case of sufficient suitable sand available, and applying the concept of a sustainable
breakwater, that structure can be build from the same materials. Which in itself can
create added value to the marine environment and cost savings. Especially when
following the “Resilient by Nature” approach.
There are various ways for building the platform, required infrastructure and as
mentioned, the breakwater. Like shipping, marine construction is a global industry and
in order to aim for an optimal result, tenders shall be organized as such, that
international competitive bidding is guaranteed. Which approach may impact the
design and type of structures and construction. For instance by avoiding local flavors
for one specific type of structure only. Still with the intention to maximize local
employment opportunities.
Multipurpose
Offshore infrastructure is too valuable to be single user only and shall serve more
stakeholder interests but one. Adding hard substrate can be an asset for the marine
environment and may support additional activities such as commercial fishing.
More in general, depending on the availability and choice of construction materials
and for instance slopes and contours, additional value can be created.
In particular when is chosen for a sustainable breakwater and platform and
compensation for the affected sea bed areas. As for instance is done with the
Rotterdam Maasvlakte II extension.
Multiple other functionalities and stakeholders can benefit from such an approach,
including wetland conservation, flood protection, fishery and tourism.
In addition an offshore port is the perfect instrument for selective and discreet
screening of suspect vessels and cargo with regard to homeland security.
Investment
It seems a no-­‐brainer, but experience has learned that with regard to the investment
decision, the bankable report shall cover all potential functionalities and modalities
involved and not what is usually done, just the container shipping and handling.
In this respect Important factors are the rates and earnings per TEU for all moves,
including road and rail. In principle covering the whole combination of chains, per
region of origin and destination.

6. ©
Marco
Pluijm,
14/01/2017
In addition all potential added functionalities and values as mentioned earlier shall be
assessed and factored in.
By considering the offshore port option as a solution for constraint onshore port
development, taking into account all functionalities and potential benefits, various
earlier made cost benefit assessments turned out to be positive.
Conclusion
Given the current development in the container shipping industry and all that’s related
to it, it can be concluded that in those areas where further port improvement and
upgrading has reached its limits, such as large parts or all of the US EC and US GC, that
offshore container transshipment hubs are basically the only step forward to be
sustainable.
Actually the most sensible next step forward in the improvement of today’s
international logistic chains and the so badly needed efficiency improvements and cost
reductions.
Plans have been drawn up, knowledge and experience are available to get them up to
par with what’s required today, update the number crunching, it’s now the moment to
move on.