14. starptautiskÄ konference 2012 - Latvijas JÅ«ras akadÄmija

More documents

Recommendations

Info

2000200120022003200420052006200720082009201020002001200220032004200520062007200820092010Proceedings of 14th International conference „Maritime Transport and Infrastructure - 2012”50 % of the cargo flow at the end of the analyzed period. On the contrary, the proportion of mineralfertilizers and timber declined gradually from 12 % to 5 % and from 31 % to 10 % accordingly. Themost constant proportion fluctuating at the level of 6 – 8 % (coefficient of variation Vσ = 12 %) wasdemonstrated by cargo containers. Compared to the year 2000 when the proportion of other cargomade up a fifth of the turnover it was just a tenth in the last years. Thus it indicates that theconcentration of cargo assortment has been taking place since the beginning of the century.Structure of cargo turnover at the port of Riga in 2000 – 2010, percentTable 2VσCoal 0 8 14 24 39 44 42 40 47 47 38 54Oil products 21 23 29 23 18 14 19 18 18 22 21 19Mineral fertilizers 12 10 10 9 6 6 5 8 7 7 5 31Timber 31 29 23 21 18 16 12 11 7 6 10 51Cargo containers 6 7 6 6 6 6 6 7 6 6 8 12Woodchip 3 3 5 5 5 5 5 3 3 2 4 26Roll-on, roll-off cargo 1 1 2 3 2 3 1 2 2 2 2 34Construction materials 4 2 1 1 1 2 3 3 2 1 1 51Other 22 16 11 8 5 5 7 8 9 7 11 53Source: authors’ calculations based on data obtained from Central Statistical Bureau of Latvia 2Significant changes were observed at Liepaja port also (Table 3). The proportion of grain andgrain products reached a peak of 41 % in 2009 compared to just 2 % in 2000. However, the proportionof other most important cargo groups decreased more or less notably. For instance, since 2004 theproportion of roll-on and roll-off cargo demonstrated a downward trend and resulted in a total drop of10 percent points (from 15 percent in 2000 to 5 percent in 2010). The proportion of metals and metalmanufactures went down by 8 percent points, timber – by 5 percent points, but oil products – by 4percent points.Structure of cargo turnover at the port of Liepaja in 2000 – 2010, percentTable 3VσGrain and grain products 2 6 11 11 11 22 24 30 34 41 32 64Metals and metalmanufactures20 18 22 17 19 18 20 19 14 14 12 18Timber 25 22 18 18 18 16 14 13 11 13 20 25Oil products 13 16 17 15 13 10 19 14 13 9 9 25Roll-on, roll-off cargo 15 17 15 17 16 10 0 0 0 8 5 75Scrap metal 2 0 0 0 2 4 5 5 9 4 6 79Crude oil 0 0 2 6 5 5 5 5 7 4 3 58Chemicals 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 3 2 60Construction materials 2 2 1 0 1 2 2 4 3 1 6 81Other 17 19 13 15 16 12 11 10 8 5 5 40Source: authors’ calculations based on data obtained from Central Statistical Bureau of Latvia2 Available (accessed on 15.03.2012):http://data.csb.gov.lv/DATABASE/transp/Ikgad%C4%93jie%20statistikas%20dati/Transports/Transports.asp20
2000200120022003200420052006200720082009201020002001200220032004200520062007200820092010Proceedings of 14th International conference „Maritime Transport and Infrastructure - 2012”At the beginning of the analyzed period just two equally important cargo groups accounted foralmost 70 % of the turnover at Ventspils port, namely, oil products and crude oil (Table 4). However,within 10 years the situation changed dramatically. The upward trend in proportion of oil products wasaccompanied by gradual decrease in proportion of crude oil. In result, the latter plummeted and was nilin 2010. At the same time the proportion of other cargo either increased or remained almost the same(with the exception of potassium salt which after wild fluctuations and subsequent insignificantdecrease leveled off at 10 % in 2010). The proportion of coal demonstrated the most considerableincrease of 15 percent points. It was followed by roll-on, roll-off cargo (5 percent points). Theconclusion can be drawn that unlike the concentration of cargo assortment which could be clearlyobserved at the port of Riga, the structure of cargo turnover has become more diversified at the port ofVentspils.Structure of cargo turnover at the port of Ventspils in 2000 – 2010, percentTable 4VσOil products 37 36 44 52 53 56 52 54 53 60 54 16Coal 1 4 5 6 14 15 14 13 16 20 15 53Potassium salt 14 13 16 18 16 17 13 10 9 4 10 33Roll-on, roll-off cargo 0 0 0 1 1 2 6 6 5 3 5 89Liquefied gas 2 2 1 3 3 3 3 3 4 3 2 30Grain and grain products 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 3 2 3 110Woodchip 0 0 0 1 1 2 2 1 1 2 1 64Crude oil 39 40 26 12 8 1 7 7 5 2 0 111Other 6 5 7 7 4 3 4 4 5 4 11 39Source: authors’ calculations based on data obtained from Central Statistical Bureau of LatviaIn comparison with 2000 the structure of cargo turnover at small ports was more balanced in2010 (Table 5). Although timber continued to dominate as the most important cargo its proportion wasnot so large as it used to be at the beginning of the century (91 % and 66 % accordingly). The gradualdecrease in proportion of timber occurred at the expense of the rise in woodchip which formed almosta fifth of the cargo transported through small ports at the end of decade. Likewise, the proportion ofconstruction materials climbed from 1 percent to 8 percent.Structure of cargo turnover at small ports in Latvia in 2000-2010, percentTable 5VσTimber 91 88 88 72 72 60 58 65 62 54 66 18Woodchip 3 7 8 11 16 16 17 19 25 25 19 47Construction materials 1 0 1 9 4 15 17 8 6 8 8 81Peat 1 0 0 5 5 5 5 5 3 6 5 61Other 5 4 3 3 3 3 2 2 5 6 3 35Source: authors’ calculations based on data obtained from Central Statistical Bureau of LatviaThe significance of changes in the structure of cargo turnover at Latvia’s ports can be revealedin the result of special quantitative analysis and application of statistical technique. Nowadays severaldissimilarity indexes have been proposed [17]. A dissimilarity coefficient is a function that measuresthe difference between two objects [18]. One of the most commonly used measures is the one (formula1) invented by Hungarian statistician Sandor Alexander Szalay (1912-1983), who did research on21
Page 1 and 2: LATVIJAS JŪRAS AKADĒMIJALJA PĒTN
Page 3: Proceedings of 14th International c
Page 7 and 8: Proceedings of 14th International c
Page 51 and 52: KEMPINSKItNt>...... /1--":-...... I
Page 71 and 72:
Concentration, mg/m 3Proceedings of
Page 73 and 74:
0:001:002:003:004:005:006:007:008:0
Page 75 and 76:
Proceedings of 14th International c
Page 77 and 78:
Page 79 and 80:
Page 81 and 82:
Page 83 and 84:
Page 85 and 86:
Page 87 and 88:
Page 89 and 90:
Page 91 and 92:
Page 93 and 94:
Page 95 and 96:
Page 97 and 98:
Page 99 and 100:
Page 101 and 102:
Page 103 and 104:
Page 105 and 106:
Page 107 and 108:
Page 109 and 110:
Page 111 and 112:
Page 113 and 114:
Page 115 and 116:
Page 117 and 118:
Page 119 and 120:
Page 121 and 122:
Page 123 and 124:
Air temperature, deg CWater tempera
Page 125 and 126:
Water level (+/-), centimetreProcee
Page 127 and 128:
Page 129 and 130:
Page 131 and 132:
Page 133 and 134:
Page 135 and 136:
Page 137 and 138:
Page 139 and 140:
Page 141 and 142:
Mln. LtMln. LtProceedings of 14th I
Page 143 and 144:
Page 145 and 146:
Page 147 and 148:
Page 149 and 150:
Page 151 and 152:
show all

14. starptautiskÄ konference 2012 - Latvijas JÅ«ras akadÄmija

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?

14. starptautiskÄ konference 2012 - Latvijas JÅ«ras akadÄmija