The write-up of this project in Rail this week (#787 p16 and particularly p28) is not quite so definite about the volume of traffic from Liverpool to Drax.
It seems to suggest that Drax and the shippers can still choose the port of arrival and therefore the amount of traffic on various rail routes.
The Liverpool route is even described as "an alternative in case of disruption" for east coast ports.
I imagine it would also depend on where the biomass is sourced, Scandinavia or North America.
In a way this is actually partially correct as I will explain below.
The said "contract" that was signed and confirmed in the public domain, that 3 million tonnes of biomass to Liverpool per annum for 3 years, long with biomass to other UK ports to serve Drax PS. I dont think Peel Holdings (& along with LIPAC who operate the facility) would spend millions on a facility to be used as an "alternative in case of disruption" as it dont make good business sense and surely you must agree on that?.
Absolutely, Peel require a guaranteed throughput for the terminal. When the Liverpool Bulk Terminal was built there was I believe a commitment by Powergen to provide X number of ships per annum over a given period of time. When their own power stations started to reduce the volumes they still had to pay the costs for the terminal based on the contracted throughput. As a result they started to handle ships on behalf of other operators initially on an adhoc basis and hence the reason why the terminal became known as Liverpool Bulk Terminal, so it would appear to be independent of Powergen now Eon. The operators of LBT today will very likely be paying Peel the contracted rate whether they handle any ships or not.
The contract(s) between Draw and it's suppliers would specify the quantity within specific time frames as well as such things like the terms of shipment and destination port using Incoterms. This is a globally accepted set of rules that are used for all international movements of freight by all modes of transport. Whilst the rules specify who is responsible for each element of the movement, it is usual practice to also define a name placed of delivery. I would imagine that the shipper or cargo owner, which may not be the same party as the manufacturer or supplier would likely have negotiated their contract(s) on CIF terms and perhaps give Drax an option on various ports. The advantage for shipper selecting CIF terms would be that whilst they would bear the initial chartering costs etc., they would have far greater control the shipments and probably be able to negotiate lower freight rates. So yes the Shipper would be able to choose the port of discharge, but it would have to be approved by Drax and most importantly have suitable facilities to allow the cargo be discharged and handled in accordance with Drax's requirements.
Incoterms are fully explained in this link.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incoterms
The recent shipments came from America, hence a major west coast port being an advantage. It certainly doesn't exist solely as "an alternative", but of course having ports on both east and west coasts is an advantage.
Worth also bearing in mind the physical handling ability of the Liverpool port. Post-panamax, so some ships calling there physically can't go somewhere else (but ships from the east coast ports can go to Liverpool).
I think you will find the ships came from the West of North America, near Portland Oregon/Vancouver, so the voyage would entail the ship transiting the Panama Canal so for the moment cannot be larger than Panamax as the locks on the Canal are exactly the same size as Gladstone Lock. Of course next year the Panama Canal will open new locks which will allow larger ships transit the canal. However, this increase will not necessarily result in larger ships being deployed as the loading and discharging ports would similarly have to upgrade which given that there is a global glut of panamax bulkers there is little advantage for all the parties concerned in current market conditions.
Liverpool also has the geographical advantage of being on the West Coast and therefore reduced the sailing time by probably several days, and incidentally outside the EU legislation that requires ship owners to use low sulphur fuels in the English Channel and North Sea which adds considerably to the cost of the fuel used on these Panamax ships.
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/air/transport/ships.htm
Yes Biomass is coming from America now and for the future too. However, the biomass ships involved will need to use Gladstone Lock from the Mersey and therefore those ships using the port can and will serve other ports in the UK too - nothing will change there as far as I am aware.
True, ships berthing on the Tyne and Humber do not have to berth within an enclosed lock system, as is the case in Milford Haven or Hoiyhead were Biomass business could materialise.Ships calling at Bristol and Avonmouth are governed more or less by the same conditions as Liverpool as the locks are Panamax capacity.
