Latvian Maritime academy
Latvian Maritime academy Latvian Maritime academy
For three years the Riga port handling ranged from 308.5 thousand tons to 398.91 thousand tons peryear. The first eighteen months of the period did not exceed 378.64 thousand tons (Decile2=378,64),therefore, it can be said that the Riga port handling a longer period of time, was less than the averageannual grain handling, so in future periods is most likely that the Riga port will handle less than 444thousand tons of grain.Klaipeda seaport loading rates fluctuated (Vσ =21%) in 2011 reduction reached 25% compared to2010, but in 2012, the load factor increased by 54%, which means that the annual growth rate was 154%.During whole period the absolute annual average increases to 14.2 thousand tons. Riga port during theanalysis period, steadily loaded almost every year, more and more, an average of 68.71 thousand tonsannually from 2009, when it was recorded in a reduction in grain handling. It must be emphasized thatalthough the Riga port grain handling descriptive statistics indicators are significantly lower than theKlaipeda seaport, however, the grain growth rate is faster than the Klaipeda seaport and grain handlinggrowth rate of more than 4 times who has a big effect on grain yield transit from Kazakhstan.Figure 3. Grain handling trends at Klaipeda and Riga seaportsAccording to the linear trend method of grain handling trends in both ports and holding thecorresponding periods of the next economic development patterns in respect of the investigation period itcan be said that after 10 years of Klaipeda and Riga seaport grain handling will be the same – 1337.33thousand tons.However, a grain handling development trends of Sea port of Klaipeda depend varied extensivelyand prediction error can be greater than the allowed 10 percent, and such fluctuations can be explained bychanges in grain import and export performance dynamics and changes to infrastructure and investmentin bulk cargo terminals. The causation analysis allowed establishing the fact that the Klaipeda seaporthandling is not linear over the import, than the export macroeconomic indicators, while Riga sea portindicators directly depend on the export and import values.Figure 4. Riga port grain handling linear dependence on the country import and export rateAccording to Figure 4 Regression models suggest that the relationship between macro-economicindicators are very strong, but significant changes in the handling of grain does not predict: exportsincreased a thousand LVL, grain handling changes are not significant, increase in turnover in just 800kilograms, and the increase in imports of one thousand tons. Forecasting the growth of imports by 1percent can be predicted that the grain handling at the port of Riga increased only 0.5 percent Suchdependence indicates that the Riga seaport intensively served by transit cargoes of grain from Eastern86
European and Asian countries, and exports more than Klaipeda seaport Port Lithuania harvested grainyield.a) b)Figure 5. Grain handling linear dependence of the grain produced in Lithuania (a) and Latvia (b)While every million tons of cereal production in the country has an impact on grain handling andport of Riga (193,17 thousand tons) and Klaipeda seaport (196.9 thousand tons), however, the seaport ofKlaipeda cereal production effects seen 78 percent signal strength, which means that only 22 percent ofthe effect of grain handling port goes to the other factors. The fact that the port of Klaipeda intensiveexport crops grown shows and the first quarter of 2013 the port report, which states that 70 percent of allcargo handling during this period amounted to Lithuania harvested grain residue exports.a) b)Figure 6. Grain handling dependence on grain purchase prices in Lithuania (a) and Latvia (b)The analysis of grain prices in the countries, it was found that the entire analysis period, grainpurchase price of Latvia was higher on average by 8 percent by 2012. The Latvian grain purchase pricewas less than 5 percent, when Lithuania average price of grain increased by 10 percent. However, theRiga port grain handling increased an average of 2 thousand tons of grain purchase price of an averageincrease of EUR 1 per ton of feed grain price increases, and increased grain handling characteristics,which shows that in Latvia grain are exported directly at farms owners and collectors, while Lithuaniagrain exports farmers directly for purchase to receiver which suggests grain export system is flexibleLithuania.ConclusionsAfter the grain handling Klaipeda and Riga ports infrastructure elements comparison, was found thatthe Riga seaport inefficient use of its infrastructural and technological feasibility of grain handling, aspractically all indicators infrastructure elements much better than Klaipeda seaport, except for the landareas of performance. Therefore, it can be said that it is 4.2 times higher in Klaipeda port productivityleads to higher grain handling (port performance recorded in 2011: Klaipeda seaport - 71 thousandtons/ha, Riga port 17 thousand tons/ha). Such figures are determined by the port of Klaipeda seaportefficiently organized and united railway infrastructure. Klaipeda seaport grain handling conclude anaverage of 10% of the bulk, while the Riga port grain handling accounts for only 3% of the bulk.After the grain handling Klaipeda and Riga ports descriptive statistics compared data found that theRiga port grain handling is characterized by stability, but the expected load factor does not exceed theaverage, reaching 444 thousand tons annual turnover. Meanwhile, the Klaipeda port grain handling,87
- Page 35 and 36: 17. Professoren-Protest gegen 10 Ja
- Page 37 and 38: affected by competing ports [2]. Ne
- Page 39 and 40: Tendencies of cargo flows volume an
- Page 41 and 42: increase, inflation decreases, beca
- Page 43 and 44: 4. Belova, J., Mickiene, R. Economi
- Page 45 and 46: Description of researchIf volume co
- Page 47 and 48: p p 1 10(11)C021Here, C1is a speed
- Page 49 and 50: Figure 4. Dependence of pressure on
- Page 51 and 52: EXPERIMENTAL INVESTIGATIONS OF IC D
- Page 53 and 54: Figure 2. Prototype of variable geo
- Page 55 and 56: 4. Experimental equipment and softw
- Page 57 and 58: Figure 6. Dependence of main indice
- Page 59 and 60: Figure 8. Dependence of main indice
- Page 61 and 62: DEVELOPMENT AND APPLICATION OF SIMU
- Page 63 and 64: program was developed regarding the
- Page 65 and 66: F11: High sea water pressure alarmF
- Page 67 and 68: In the main interface as given in F
- Page 69 and 70: Figure 7. Failure mode selection sc
- Page 71 and 72: Figure 11. Causes of failure select
- Page 73 and 74: 6. Xiaoyan, X., Min, H., Huayao, Z.
- Page 75 and 76: Asia region is fastest developing n
- Page 77 and 78: performance of design. Speed is the
- Page 79 and 80: In summary, it can be said that wor
- Page 81 and 82: ReferencesArticles1. Belova, J., Mi
- Page 83 and 84: Grain cargo life cycleGrains are ca
- Page 85: Maritime law is made and enforced b
- Page 89 and 90: EVALUATION OF IMO SECOND GENERATION
- Page 91 and 92: Sample vessel: a container shipA co
- Page 93 and 94: Natural roll frequency in calm wate
- Page 95 and 96: REQUIREMENTS FOR THE MANUSCRIPTSSUB
European and Asian countries, and exports more than Klaipeda seaport Port Lithuania harvested grainyield.a) b)Figure 5. Grain handling linear dependence of the grain produced in Lithuania (a) and Latvia (b)While every million tons of cereal production in the country has an impact on grain handling andport of Riga (193,17 thousand tons) and Klaipeda seaport (196.9 thousand tons), however, the seaport ofKlaipeda cereal production effects seen 78 percent signal strength, which means that only 22 percent ofthe effect of grain handling port goes to the other factors. The fact that the port of Klaipeda intensiveexport crops grown shows and the first quarter of 2013 the port report, which states that 70 percent of allcargo handling during this period amounted to Lithuania harvested grain residue exports.a) b)Figure 6. Grain handling dependence on grain purchase prices in Lithuania (a) and Latvia (b)The analysis of grain prices in the countries, it was found that the entire analysis period, grainpurchase price of Latvia was higher on average by 8 percent by 2012. The <strong>Latvian</strong> grain purchase pricewas less than 5 percent, when Lithuania average price of grain increased by 10 percent. However, theRiga port grain handling increased an average of 2 thousand tons of grain purchase price of an averageincrease of EUR 1 per ton of feed grain price increases, and increased grain handling characteristics,which shows that in Latvia grain are exported directly at farms owners and collectors, while Lithuaniagrain exports farmers directly for purchase to receiver which suggests grain export system is flexibleLithuania.ConclusionsAfter the grain handling Klaipeda and Riga ports infrastructure elements comparison, was found thatthe Riga seaport inefficient use of its infrastructural and technological feasibility of grain handling, aspractically all indicators infrastructure elements much better than Klaipeda seaport, except for the landareas of performance. Therefore, it can be said that it is 4.2 times higher in Klaipeda port productivityleads to higher grain handling (port performance recorded in 2011: Klaipeda seaport - 71 thousandtons/ha, Riga port 17 thousand tons/ha). Such figures are determined by the port of Klaipeda seaportefficiently organized and united railway infrastructure. Klaipeda seaport grain handling conclude anaverage of 10% of the bulk, while the Riga port grain handling accounts for only 3% of the bulk.After the grain handling Klaipeda and Riga ports descriptive statistics compared data found that theRiga port grain handling is characterized by stability, but the expected load factor does not exceed theaverage, reaching 444 thousand tons annual turnover. Meanwhile, the Klaipeda port grain handling,87