2004prinsen PDF

BRUNEI MARITIME MASTERPLAN
Muara port development strategy
Faculty of Civil Engineering and Geosciences

Department of Hydraulic and Geotechnic Engineering
Section of Hydraulic Engineering
Name student: A.F. Prinsen
Study number: 9672063
COMMITTEE
Chairman Prof. H.Ligteringen MSc
Section: Hydraulic Engineering, Ports and waterways
Email address: H.Ligteringen@citg.tudeldft.nl
Member: R. Groenveld MSc

Section: Hydraulic Engineering
Email address: R.Groenveld@citg.tudelft.nl
Member: J.P. Noppen BBE BSc MSc

Section: Processes in Building
Email address: J.P.Noppen@citg.tudelft.nl
Member: T. Vellinga MSc

Section: Hydraulic Engineering
Email address: T.Vellinga@citg.tudelft.nl
External Advisor: R. Clarke

Function: Director Ports and Dockyard, Halcrow Group Ltd.
Email address: clarkerj@halcrow.com
BRUNEI MARITIME MASTERPLAN

Acknowledgment
This research project completes my study at the faculty Civil Engineering of the Technical University
Delft. The project was offered by Halcrow Group Ltd. and provided me with the opportunity to
contribute to the maritime development of Brunei.
This study provides insight of the development possibilities of Brunei maritime infrastructure and
Muara port. I hope that the structure of the approach and its outcome contribute to the realisation of
Brunei’s vision on the future maritime development possibilities.
I would like to thank my graduation committee members for their guidance, critical remarks and
contribution:
Chairman prof. ir. H. Ligteringen
ir. R. Groenveld
ir. J.P. Noppen
ir. T. Vellinga.
Special thanks goes to mister Richard Clarke of the Ports and Dockyards department of Halcrow
Group in London for providing me with the opportunity gaining working experience abroad.
Alexander Prinsen
The Hague, July 2004
BRUNEI MARITIME MASTERPLAN -i-

Summary
Summary
The Sultanate of Brunei, located on the island of Borneo in Southeast Asia, is a country with
large oil and gas reserves that has been able to create economic growth from its oil and gas
revenues. The Asian crisis and fluctuating world oil and gas prices have shown that Brunei’s
economic base is vulnerable as it depends heavily on these revenues. Furthermore new oil and gas
finds are becoming scarce and oil and gas production may decline in the future.
With the aim of creating a more balanced economy the Brunei Government has developed since
its independence in 1974 National Development Plans. Currently the 7th NDP is being
implemented and more emphasis is put on attracting (heavy) manufacturing and high-tech
industry. The government has selected 10 industrial areas (722 ha) in Brunei for industrial
development. On one of these sites, Sungai Liang, plans are to develop large scale industrial
activity such as an Alumina Smelter and Tire Recycling Plant. On the other industrial sites
manufacturing and services industry are to be developed.
Substantial growth of the Brunei economy goes hand in hand with a review of its present
maritime infrastructure. Gaining insight into the implications of an increase in the various cargo
flows (dry bulk, multi-purpose and container) on the maritime (Muara Port and Sungai Liang)
and land (truck) infrastructure, will be the main focus of this study. The project goal is defined as:
‘To determine for Brunei the optimal terminal locations for the 2015 cargo flows and to develop
for Muara port a phased expansion plan.’
The general cargo port of Brunei, Muara port, has facilities for containers and multi-purpose
cargo.
The container terminal (16 ha) has a capacity for 200,000 TEU and the multi-purpose terminal
(10 ha) has a capacity of approximate 1.0 million tons. The planned expansion of the Brunei
economy, based on large scale non oil and gas export oriented projects, will therefore have a large
impact on the Brunei maritime infrastructure. The existing port facilities are not sufficient to
accommodate the foreseen increases in cargo volumes.
Three cargo scenarios are developed (low, average and high) to estimate the future cargo
volumes.
The individual components which generate cargo volumes are determined. The total cargo
volume in any year under consideration is calculated as the sum of the individual components.
The three individual cargo volume components are based on the real GDP growth (excluding oil
and gas), the preferred large scale (heavy) industry investment options at Sungai Liang and the
development of the other 9 industrial sites.
The average scenario for the year 2015 is chosen for further detailed study. The expected
throughput for Brunei of 6.9 million tons is divided between Muara port (3.0 million) and at the
west coast near Sungai Liang (3.9 million tons).
The potential terminal locations are evaluated and development of Kuala Belait is discarded,
based on the extensive redevelopment required. This leaves Sungai Liang and Muara port as the
preferred terminal locations.
The conclusion from the hydraulic analysis is that the significant wave height at Sungai Liang (Hs
> 0.5m, occurring 50% of the time) does exclude the container terminal option. This results in
handling the container ships in Muara port.
Five routing alternatives, via water and/or land, are generated for the two terminal locations and
the cargo volumes involved: direct shipping, Sungai Liang dry bulk jetty and Muara port land
transport, Sungai Liang dry bulk jetty and Muara port (multi-purpose) transshipment, Muara port
(multi-purpose and dry bulk) transshipment and finally Muara port full land transport option.
BRUNEI MARITIME MASTERPLAN - ii -

Summary
Through a MCE based on four distinctive costs criteria (nautical, hydraulic, transportation and
construction) these different alternatives are evaluated. Sungai Liang showed the highest potential
as (direct) dry bulk handling terminal location, whereas Muara port is selected for container and
multi-purpose cargo handling facilities with truck transport to the hinterland.
For Muara port the terminal area dimensions and the required berth length are determined. For
2015 the multi-purpose and container terminal require 26 ha each (total 52 ha). This is 26 ha more
than currently in use. The average shipment volumes for the container and multi-purpose are 250
TEU and 4,000 tons respectively. Six multi-purpose berths (939 m) and two container berths (488
m) are required. This is respectively 328 meters and 238 meters more than the current situation.
To accommodate the expansion in Muara port four alternative layouts are developed: maximum
use existing waterfront (expansion of the terminals to each side), maximum use total waterfront
(relocating the multi-purpose terminal), minimum use Pulau Muara Besar (relocating the
container terminal to the island) and maximum use Pulau Muara Besar (relocating both terminals
to the island).
The results from a MCE conducted show that the full development of Pulau Muara Besar has the
highest score. This is the result of relocating all maritime activity away from the urban area to the
island where space is in abundance and no disturbance occurs to the village of Muara. The
relocation of the multi-purpose terminal in Muara port is regarded as the worst. Taking also the
high capital cost of the latter into account, this alternative is discarded.
Immediate port expansion at Pulau Muara Besar is not feasible as the development of the island
has a lead time of approximately nine years, whereas the multi-purpose terminal requires
expansion in 2007.
This has lead to the conclusion that a phased development approach must be chosen. First the
existing waterfront of Muara port has to be developed. Approximately 25 ha is available for
expansion until 2015. Parallel with the expansion in the port the basic infrastructure for Pulau
Muara Besar must be developed consisting of a bridge and bypass road around Muara village.
This phasing will make it possible to relocate the container terminal in 2013 to the island and
providing enough space for the multi-purpose terminal on the Muara port waterfront till 2030.
Expanding Muara port increases the traffic, industrial noise and safety risks for the surrounding
urban area. Noise pollution will require some mitigating measures before 2015. Early
construction of the bypass road will alleviate the negative effects of the increased traffic on the
inhabitants of Muara village. The hinterland connection capacity itself is sufficient until 2030.
With the foreseen port expansion to the island it is recommended to develop the bypass road at an
early date.
The final conclusion is a phased development approach for Muara port is possible, via the
existing waterfront to Pulau Muara Besar and that expansion of Muara port and the development
of Pulau Muara Besar has to start as soon as possible. The total investment cost for the phased
port development is estimated to be 330 million dollar.
BRUNEI MARITIME MASTERPLAN - iii -

Table of contents
Table of contents
ACKNOWLEDGMENT........................................................................................................................I
SUMMARY........................................................................................................................................... II
TABLE OF CONTENTS.................................................................................................................... IV
LIST OF TABLES ...........................................................................................................................VIII
LIST OF FIGURES............................................................................................................................. IX
1 INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................................... 1
2 SCOPE OF RESEARCH .............................................................................................................. 2
2.1 PROBLEM DEFINITION .............................................................................................................. 2
2.2 PROJECT GOAL ......................................................................................................................... 2
3 PORT DEVELOPMENT FRAME WORK ................................................................................ 4
3.1 HISTORICAL PORT DEVELOPMENT THEORY ............................................................................. 4
3.2 THE FUNCTIONING OF A PORT .................................................................................................. 4
3.3 PORT MASTERPLAN METHODOLOGY ....................................................................................... 4
3.4 FRAMEWORK STUDY................................................................................................................ 5
PART ONE; PRESENT SITUATION BRUNEI .................................................................................. 6
4 GENERAL OVERVIEW BRUNEI ............................................................................................. 6
4.1 ECONOMIC FACTS .................................................................................................................... 6
4.2 EXISTING MARITIME INFRASTRUCTURE................................................................................... 8
4.2.1 Ports and terminals West coast .............................................................................................. 8
4.2.2 Port locations in Brunei Bay .................................................................................................. 9
4.3 HINTERLAND INFRASTRUCTURE ............................................................................................ 10
4.3.1 Road infrastructure .............................................................................................................. 10
4.3.2 Rail infrastructure ................................................................................................................ 10
4.3.3 Waterways ............................................................................................................................ 10
4.3.4 Power infrastructure ............................................................................................................ 10
4.3.5 Pipeline infrastructure ......................................................................................................... 10
4.4 METEOROLOGICAL AND HYDRAULIC CONDITIONS................................................................ 11
4.4.1 Wind ..................................................................................................................................... 11
4.4.2 Wave ..................................................................................................................................... 12
4.4.3 Current ................................................................................................................................. 13
4.4.4 Tide....................................................................................................................................... 13
5 MUARA PORT INFORMATION AND PERFORMANCE................................................... 14
5.1 RELEVANT DETAILS OF MUARA PORT ................................................................................... 14
5.2 MUARA PORT THROUGHPUT .................................................................................................. 15
5.2.1 Reconciliation of both sets.................................................................................................... 15
5.2.2 Container terminal ............................................................................................................... 16
5.2.3 The Multi purpose terminal .................................................................................................. 17
5.3 SURROUNDING AREA MUARA PORT ...................................................................................... 18
PART TWO; CARGO AND MARITIME SCENARIOS .................................................................... 19
6 SCENARIO DEVELOPMENT.................................................................................................. 19
6.1 NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL PLANS .............................................................................................. 19
6.2 CONTAINER DEVELOPMENTS REGIONAL AND WORLD WIDE ................................................. 20
6.3 SCENARIOS ............................................................................................................................ 21
6.3.1 Component 1: the real GDP growth (excluding oil and gas)............................................... 22
BRUNEI MARITIME MASTERPLAN - iv -

Table of contents
6.3.2 Component 2: the preferred large scale (heavy) industry investment options at Sungai
Liang.............................................................................................................................................. 23
6.3.3 Component 3: the development of the other 9 industrial sites ............................................. 24
6.4 RESULTS FROM THE SCENARIOS ............................................................................................ 25
6.4.1 Results scenarios .................................................................................................................. 25
6.4.2 Industrial development per district ...................................................................................... 26
6.5 MARITIME OVERVIEW............................................................................................................ 26
6.5.1 Regional Maritime history.................................................................................................... 26
6.5.2 Container ship size overview................................................................................................ 27
6.5.3 Multi-purpose ship size overview ......................................................................................... 27
6.5.4 Dry Bulk ship size overview ................................................................................................. 27
PART THREE; DEVELOPMENT OF ROUTING AND PORT LAYOUT ALTERNATIVES........ 28
7 EVALUATION OF POTENTIAL TERMINAL LOCATIONS ............................................. 28
7.1 CARGO VOLUMES PER DISTRICT ............................................................................................ 28
7.2 DESIGN SHIP SIZES ................................................................................................................. 29
7.2.1 Container ship ...................................................................................................................... 29
7.2.2 Multi-purpose ship ............................................................................................................... 29
7.2.3 Dry bulk ship ........................................................................................................................ 29
7.3 HYDRAULIC ANALYSIS .......................................................................................................... 30
7.3.1 Berthing operational limits due to wind speed..................................................................... 30
7.3.2 Berthing operational limits due to significant wave height.................................................. 30
7.3.3 Additional information Design parameters for Sungai Liang.............................................. 31
7.3.4 Wave period.......................................................................................................................... 31
7.3.5 Current ................................................................................................................................. 32
7.4 NAUTICAL REQUIREMENTS .................................................................................................... 32
7.4.1 Approach channel................................................................................................................. 32
7.4.2 Manoeuvring area ................................................................................................................ 35
7.5 CONCLUSIONS........................................................................................................................ 37
8 NATIONAL CARGO ROUTING.............................................................................................. 38
8.1 ROUTING ALTERNATIVES ...................................................................................................... 38
8.1.1 Alternative 1; Direct shipping .............................................................................................. 39
8.1.2 Alternative 2: Bulk jetty and Muara port land transport ..................................................... 40
8.1.3 Alternative 3; Bulk jetty and Muara port transshipment...................................................... 41
8.1.4 Alternative 4: Muara port transshipment............................................................................. 41
8.1.5 Alternative 5: Muara port full option................................................................................... 42
8.2 EVALUATION OF CARGO ROUTING ALTERNATIVE ................................................................. 43
8.2.1 “Hard” criteria .................................................................................................................... 44
8.2.2 “Soft” criteria ...................................................................................................................... 45
8.3 RESULTS AND CONCLUSION................................................................................................... 46
9 MUARA PORT SPATIAL REQUIREMENTS ....................................................................... 47
9.1 TERMINAL AREA REQUIRED ................................................................................................... 47
9.1.1 Container terminal ............................................................................................................... 47
9.1.2 Multi-purpose terminal......................................................................................................... 49
9.2 BERTH LENGTH REQUIRED..................................................................................................... 50
9.2.1 Queuing theory ..................................................................................................................... 51
9.2.2 Arrival rate ........................................................................................................................... 51
9.2.3 Service rate........................................................................................................................... 52
9.2.4 Service system chosen .......................................................................................................... 52
9.2.5 Berth calculations................................................................................................................. 53
9.3 CONCLUSIONS........................................................................................................................ 53
10 MUARA PORT LAY-OUTS DEVELOPMENT FOR 2015 .............................................. 54
BRUNEI MARITIME MASTERPLAN -v-

Table of contents
10.1 MUARA PORT DEVELOPMENT STARTING POINTS ................................................................... 54

10.1.1 Present Muara port land use.............................................................................................. 54
10.1.2 Muara port terminal limitations......................................................................................... 54
10.2 MUARA PORT LAY OUT ALTERNATIVES DEVELOPMENT ....................................................... 56
10.2.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................ 56
10.2.2 Layout 1; Maximum use of the existing waterfront ............................................................ 57
10.2.3 Layout 2; Maximum use of the total waterfront ................................................................. 58
10.2.4 Layout 3; Minimum Pulau Muara Besar development ...................................................... 59
10.2.5 Layout 4; Maximum Pulau Muara Besar development...................................................... 60
10.3 MULTI CRITERIA EVALUATION SELECTION METHOD ............................................................ 61
10.3.1 Criteria ............................................................................................................................... 61
10.3.2 Determining individual weight factors............................................................................... 61
10.3.3 Nautical & Hydrodynamic aspects..................................................................................... 61
10.3.4 Nautical safety and accessibility ........................................................................................ 62
10.3.5 Future ship size .................................................................................................................. 62
10.3.6 Terminal expansion flexibility ............................................................................................ 62
10.3.7 Urban impact...................................................................................................................... 63
10.3.8 Infrastructural changes ...................................................................................................... 63
10.3.9 Port morphology................................................................................................................. 63
10.4 SCORING TABLE ..................................................................................................................... 64
10.4.1 Sensitivity analysis ............................................................................................................. 64
11 MUARA PORT DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY ............................................................... 66
11.1 AVAILABLE AREA .................................................................................................................. 66
11.2 LEAD TIME ............................................................................................................................. 67
11.3 COSTS ESTIMATE DEVELOPMENT .......................................................................................... 68
11.4 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT ............................................................................... 69
11.4.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................ 69
11.4.2 Methodology followed ........................................................................................................ 70
11.4.3 Frame work ........................................................................................................................ 70
11.4.4 Determining relevant issues for this study ......................................................................... 71
11.4.5 Valuable areas.................................................................................................................... 71
11.4.6 Hinterland traffic impact (congestion, truck emissions/noise/safety) ................................ 71
11.4.7 Noise pollution by port activities........................................................................................ 73
11.4.8 Hazardous cargo & Risks................................................................................................... 75
11.4.9 Alternative 4 implications................................................................................................... 75
11.5 SYNTHESIS AND CONCLUSIONS ............................................................................................. 76
12 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................... 77
12.1 CONCLUSIONS........................................................................................................................ 77
12.2 RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................................................................. 78
13 REFERENCE LIST ............................................................................................................... 79
APPENDIX .......................................................................................................................................... 81
A HISTORICAL BACKGROUND BRUNEI..................................................................................I
B BRUNEI ECONOMIC BACKGROUND .................................................................................. II
B.1 POPULATION ........................................................................................................................ II
B.2 WORK FORCE & SECTORS............................................................................................... II
B.3 ECONOMY.............................................................................................................................III
B.4 TRADE FIGURES .................................................................................................................III
B.5 TRADE STATISTICS OF BRUNEI ....................................................................................III
BRUNEI MARITIME MASTERPLAN - vi -

Table of contents
C MAP ROAD INFRASTRUCTURE............................................................................................ V

D APPENDIX ENERGY AND OFFSHORE INFRASTRUCTURE ......................................... VI
D.1 POWER SUPPLY BRUNEI.................................................................................................. VI
D.2 OFFSHORE INDUSTRY INFRASTRUCTURE................................................................ VI
E RECONCILIATION CARGO THROUGHPUT TABLE....................................................VIII
F CARGO FORECAST RESULTS ............................................................................................... X
G VESSEL SIZE CHARACTERISTICS.................................................................................... XII
H WAVECLIMATE.COM DATA ............................................................................................. XIV
I BERTH CALCULATION ....................................................................................................... XVI
J AREA RESTRICTIONS TERMINALS ...............................................................................XVII
K ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT ASPECTS........................................................... XVIII
L ENVIRONMENTAL BACKGROUND BRUNEI............................................................... XXII
L.1 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTS .......................................................................................... XXII
L.2 GOVERNMENT ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION POLICY.............................. XXII
L.3 INTERNATIONAL & NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL TREATIES .................... XXIII
L.4 COASTLINE .................................................................................................................... XXIII
L.5 ISLANDS........................................................................................................................... XXIII
L.6 ECOLOGY ....................................................................................................................... XXIII
L.7 INLAND JUNGLE AND FOREST ................................................................................ XXIII
L.8 MANGROVE AREAS ..................................................................................................... XXIV
L.9 CORAL REEFS................................................................................................................ XXIV
L.10 SPECIES .............................................................................................................................XXV
BRUNEI MARITIME MASTERPLAN - vii -

Table of contents
List of Tables
Table 4-1 APEC region real GDP Growth .............................................................................................. 6
Table 4-2 Real GDP growth rate broken down for 1993 to 2001 ........................................................... 7
Table 4-3 Total Export revenue from 1993 to 2001................................................................................ 7
Table 4-4 Total import value from 1993 to 2001 .................................................................................... 7
Table 4-5 Hs for Muara port (Waveclimate.com).................................................................................. 13
Table 5-1 Overview terminals in Muara port ........................................................................................ 14
Table 5-2 Set 1992 – 1996 .................................................................................................................... 15
Table 5-3 Set 1996 – 2000 .................................................................................................................... 15
Table 5-4 Reconciled Annual throughput Muara port terminals for years 1992 - 2000 ....................... 16
Table 5-5 Average container shipment.................................................................................................. 16
Table 5-6 Berth occupancy container terminal ..................................................................................... 17
Table 5-7 Berth occupancy Multi-purpose terminal 1992 – 2000......................................................... 18
Table 5-8 UNCTAD multi-purpose terminal berth occupancy recommendations................................ 18
Table 5-9 No. of berths estimate multi-purpose terminal 1992 - 2000 ................................................. 18
Table 5-10 Maximum number of berths per ship at Multi-purpose terminal ........................................ 18
Table 6-1 Industrial options .................................................................................................................. 19
Table 6-2 Industrial site size and activity.............................................................................................. 20
Table 6-3 Global Container Volume, according to ESCAP.................................................................. 21
Table 6-4 Container throughput increase Southeast Asia 1990 – 1999 ................................................ 21
Table 6-5 Cargo growth scenarios......................................................................................................... 22
Table 6-6 Container and multi-purpose cargo growth percentage 2000 - 2030 .................................... 23
Table 6-7 Input 2005 cargo volumes..................................................................................................... 23
Table 6-8 Tire Recycling Plant cargo and Alumina Smelter cargo full capacity .................................. 24
Table 6-9 Cargo forecast results for selected years............................................................................... 25
Table 6-10 Percentage of the total industrial site for each District ....................................................... 26
Table 6-11 Cargo handled per district until 2030.................................................................................. 26
Table 7-1 Expected container ship dimensions ..................................................................................... 29
Table 7-2 Expected multi-purpose ship dimensions ............................................................................. 29
Table 7-3 Expected dry bulk ship dimensions ...................................................................................... 30
Table 7-4 Limiting wind velocity for ship operations........................................................................... 30
Table 7-5 Limiting Hs and the resulted downtime for the terminals ..................................................... 31
Table 7-6 Reference hydraulic information .......................................................................................... 31
Table 7-7 limiting current values for berthing ...................................................................................... 32
Table 7-8 Approach channel depth adjustments ................................................................................... 33
Table 7-9 Approach channel width calculation..................................................................................... 35
Table 7-10 Width approach channels .................................................................................................... 35
Table 7-11 Required basin width and depth ships................................................................................. 36
Table 7-12 Turning circle dimensions................................................................................................... 36
Table 8-1 Weighted score routing criteria............................................................................................. 44
Table 8-2 Hard criteria score................................................................................................................. 46
Table 8-3 Sensitivity analysis................................................................................................................ 46
Table 8-4 Soft criteria score .................................................................................................................. 46
Table 9-1 Required total stacking area container terminal.................................................................... 48
Table 9-2 Total container terminal area ................................................................................................ 49
Table 9-3 Total multi-purpose terminal area required........................................................................... 50
Table 9-4 Average container shipment volume in TEU forecasted to 2030 ......................................... 51
Table 9-5 Average multi-purpose shipment volume forecasted to 2030............................................... 51
Table 9-6 Total ships call to Brunei ...................................................................................................... 52
Table 9-7 Queue system and waiting time criteria ................................................................................ 52
Table 9-8 Number of berths per terminal type ...................................................................................... 53
Table 9-9 Total berth length required 2015 – 2030............................................................................... 53
Table 10-1 Muara port land use ............................................................................................................ 54
Table 10-2 Terminal area requirements ................................................................................................ 56
BRUNEI MARITIME MASTERPLAN - viii -

Table of contents
Table 10-3 Weighted score criteria ....................................................................................................... 61

Table 10-4 Multi Criteria Evaluation result .......................................................................................... 64
Table 10-5 Validation sets..................................................................................................................... 64
Table 11-1 Lead time port development ............................................................................................... 67
Table 11-2 Environmental port issues................................................................................................... 71
Table 11-3 Estimated generated traffic for Muara port......................................................................... 72
List of Figures
Figure1-1 Southeast Asia ........................................................................................................................ 1
Figure 1-2 Brunei map ............................................................................................................................ 1
Figure 3-1 Masterplan time frame........................................................................................................... 4
Figure 3-2 Framework report .................................................................................................................. 5
Figure 4-1 Average price crude oil.......................................................................................................... 6
Figure 4-2 Production oil and gas for Brunei.......................................................................................... 6
Figure 4-3 ASEAN water and land infrastructure ................................................................................... 8
Figure 4-4 Map West coast of Brunei ..................................................................................................... 9
Figure 4-5 Maps of the Brunei Bay....................................................................................................... 10
Figure 4-6 Average wind speed altimeter ............................................................................................. 11
Figure 4-7 Seasonality wind speed........................................................................................................ 12
Figure 4-8 Wind scatter diagram........................................................................................................... 12
Figure 4-9 Average Hs (SAR data)........................................................................................................ 12
Figure 4-10 Seasonality Hs .................................................................................................................... 12
Figure 4-11 Offshore wave scatter diagram Brunei .............................................................................. 12
Figure 4-12 Sungai Liang Tidal Range February 2004......................................................................... 13
Figure 4-13 Muara port Tidal Range February 2004 ............................................................................ 13
Figure 5-1 Photo Muara Port................................................................................................................. 14
Figure 6-1 Industrial sites Brunei .......................................................................................................... 20
Figure 6-2 Real GDP multi-purpose cargo volume............................................................................... 23
Figure 6-3 Real GDP TEU cargo volumes............................................................................................ 23
Figure 6-4 Cargo volume Sungai Liang ................................................................................................ 24
Figure 6-5 Throughput of the other 9 industrial sites............................................................................ 25
Figure 7-1 Cargo origin/destination of the 2015 situation .................................................................... 28
Figure 7-2 SAR average wave period ................................................................................................... 31
Figure 7-3 Muara port approach channel .............................................................................................. 33
Figure 7-4 Sungai Liang approach channel........................................................................................... 34
Figure 7-5 Kuala Belait approach channel ............................................................................................ 34
Figure 8-1 Routing container transport ................................................................................................. 38
Figure 8-2 Selected terminal locations .................................................................................................. 38
Figure 8-3 Routing cargo flows of alternative 1 ................................................................................... 39
Figure 9-1 Container terminal area growth ........................................................................................... 49
Figure 9-2 Multi-purpose terminal area growth .................................................................................... 50
Figure 10-1 Muara port land use ........................................................................................................... 55
Figure 10-2 Layout 1; Maximum use of the existing waterfront .......................................................... 57
Figure 10-3 Layout 2; Maximum use of the total waterfront ................................................................ 58
Figure 10-4 Layout 3; Minimum Pulau Muara Besar development...................................................... 59
Figure 10-5 Layout 4; Maximum Pulau Muara Besar development ..................................................... 60
Figure 11-1 Muara port spatial growth alternatives .............................................................................. 66
Figure 11-2 Alternative port development paths................................................................................... 67
Figure 11-3 Development path Muara port ........................................................................................... 68
Figure 11-4 Muara access road capacity ............................................................................................... 72
BRUNEI MARITIME MASTERPLAN - ix -

Table of contents
Figure 11-5 Noise contour present situation ......................................................................................... 74

Figure 11-6 Noise contour alternative 1................................................................................................ 74
Figure 11-7 Noise contour alternative 3................................................................................................ 74
Figure 11-8 Schematic outline of the expansion in time ....................................................................... 76
BRUNEI MARITIME MASTERPLAN -x-

Introduction
1 Introduction
Southeast Asia has become in the last decades the largest economic growth region of the world. Its
manufacturing products are distributed over the region and the world. Historically maritime transport
has been the main method for trading products, due to the lack of sufficient land infrastructure. This
resulted in a specialised trading pattern in which smaller ships (so called feeders) use the many
shallow ports along the coastline. Ports have become increasingly important as the cargo handling
transfer nodes in the sophisticated logistic chain of manufactured goods. Specialisation and upgrading
of port infrastructure is therefore a main focus in the whole region.
Brunei1 is located on the island of Borneo and is surrounded on the land side by Malaysia and on the
water side by the Brunei Bay and South China Sea (180 km coastline), see Figure 1-2 (More about
Brunei history can be found in appendix A.). The country (with a gross surface area of 5,770 sq
kilometres and 358,000 inhabitants in 2000) has an economy based mainly on oil and gas revenues
(90% of its export earnings). Per capita Gross Domestic Product (GDP) was 11,059 US dollars in
2002. Over the past 10 years the Brunei GDP growth varied between 4 % in 1997 and – 4% in 1998,
averaging 2 %. The land surface developed in the tertiary age and consist mainly of sandstones and
clay. The terrain in the western part is hilly lowland, which rises in the hinterland to about three
hundred metres and swampy plains and alluvial valleys dominate the Brunei-Muara, Tutong and Belait
districts.
Borneo lies central in the region (in the middle of the main region economies Thailand, Malaysia,
Indonesia, Vietnam and the Philippines Figure1-1) and the close proximity of the main shipping route
between Singapore, Hong Kong and Japan (which is used for the trade to the intra-Asian2 cargo and
international shipment) could provide Brunei with an additional competitive advantage.
Figure1-1 Southeast Asia Figure 1-2 Brunei map

Of the four regional districts of Brunei (from the south to north: Belait, Tutong, Brunei – Muara and
Temburong , which is separated by the Malaysian province of Sarawak from Brunei), the Brunei-
Muara district is the financial and governmental centre. Its capital Bandar Seri Begawan, located at the
mouth of the Brunei River, is connected with ferry connections to the Temburong district and the
surrounding coastal villages of Sarawak and is connected by roads to all the other districts of Brunei.
Other urban concentrations can be found in the northwest and west of Brunei alongside the main
Brunei coastal highway, running from the north from Muara, via Tutong to Kuala Belait in the far
south.
1
Brunei Darussalam is the official name
2
This is the trade between the Asian countries themselves.
BRUNEI MARITIME MASTERPLAN 1

Scope of Research
2 Scope of Research
Presently the reliance of the Brunei economy on the oil and gas revenues makes the economy
vulnerable, especially with the prospect that the oil and gas reserves are limited. (It is currently
estimated that oil and gas reserves will last till 2020 and 2030 respectively). Therefore the oil and gas
revenues are likely to decline in the future. With the aim of creating a more balanced economy the
Brunei Government has developed since its independence in 1974 five year National Development
Plans (NDP’s).
Currently the 7th NDP (2000 – 2005) is being implemented and more emphasis is put on attracting
export-oriented manufacturing and service activity.
The government has selected 10 industrial areas (722 ha) in Brunei for industrial development. For the
Sungai Liang coastal industrial site (see Figure 1-2), plans are to develop large scale heavy industrial
activity3 such as an Alumina Smelter and Tire Recycling Plant. On the other 9 industrial sites (High-
tech) manufacturing and services industries are to be developed. These developments will increase the
cargo flows like multi-purpose cargo, containers and dry bulk.
The implications of these projects and the general economic growth on the Brunei maritime
infrastructure will pose challenges to port planning. A study investigating the possible future maritime
(e.g. new facilities at Sungai Liang, changes to Muara port) and land infrastructure alternatives could
increase the understanding of the choices available and contribute to the discussions on the future
infrastructural developments of Brunei.
Of the existing ports in Brunei, Muara Port is in an excellent position to support the expansion of the
export-oriented economy and to become a regional port of significance. It has a tremendous advantage
over other ports along the Borneo coast because Muara port is located in a sheltered bay, close to the
island of Pulau Muara Besar (Malayan: Puala Muara Besar).
Development of Pulau Muara Besar is considered for terminal expansion by the Brunei Government.
Industrial and logistic development has not yet been considered in the 7th NDP and is therefore left
outside the scope of this study.
Halcrow Group Limited, a United Kingdom based Civil Engineering company, is involved in Brunei
as a consultant for the development of a transshipment container terminal on the island of Pulau Muara
Besar. It has supported this study to gain insight into the future Brunei maritime development options,
with emphasis on Muara port.
2.1 Problem definition

Substantial growth of the Brunei economy goes hand in hand with a review of its present maritime
infrastructure. Gaining insight into the implications of an increase in the various cargo flows (dry bulk,
multi-purpose and container) on the maritime (Muara Port and Sungai Liang) and land infrastructure,
will be the main focus of this study.
2.2 Project goal

To determine for Brunei the optimal terminal locations for the 2015 cargo flows and to develop for
Muara port a phased expansion plan.
Research objectives to reach project goal:

Collect relevant economic, infrastructural, hydraulic and metrological information
Provide a consistent dataset as a basis for cargo flow analysis and Muara port performance.
Develop a spreadsheet model for economic scenarios up to the year 2030 to predict cargo
flows
3
Industries requiring large spatial demand, large throughput volumes and high energy consumption.

Scope of Research
Use predicted cargo flows for evaluation of water and land transport routing alternatives and
select most suitable alternative.
Calculate terminal dimensions and berth lengths to develop layout options for Muara port and
select the most suitable option(s), taking also into account the environmental impact.
Provide a vision for port development beyond 2005

Port development frame work
3 Port development frame work
3.1 Historical port development theory

Bird4 (1971) has conducted a detailed study into the spatial development of ports in the United
Kingdom. Bird developed a model called “Anyport” in which the spatial growth of a port is explained.
Bird’s model shows that a port grows in different stages away from the city towards deeper water to
accommodate specialised terminals.
Hoyle5 (1981) has elaborated the model of Bird further into the modal called “cityport” and included
the port’s relation with its surrounding urban area. This relation is becoming more and more
intertwined and the urban expansion pushes terminal development away from the city, hand in hand
with redevelopment of old terminal areas into urban areas.
In the Brunei situation, historically the port was located at the estuary of the Brunei River near the
capital (Bandar Seri Begawan). As the ships grew in size, the water depth was not sufficient anymore
and Muara port had to be developed to overcome the limited water depth at the capital city (5 meters).
With limited international trade occurring in Brunei, little terminal development was required,
enabling the surrounding urban area to grow around the port but at the same time this was limiting
future expansion of the port. Muara port has already a designated industrial area (Seresa) for export
oriented industry.
3.2 The functioning of a port

At points were the land infrastructure converges with the maritime systems, ports have been created.
The primary function of a port is to accommodate cargo handling activity (warehousing, trans-
shipment). As a result the focus of the port is on one hand on the maritime side and on the other hand
on the land side requirements. To fulfil this, a port requires sufficient maritime access for ships,
sufficient space for maritime interface (the berths), sufficient land infrastructure (cranes, warehouses)
and good hinterland connections.
3.3 Port masterplan methodology

The research objectives mentioned before are normally part of the development of a port masterplan.
The general methodology of a port masterplan is therefore briefly described below.
For ports to be able to adjust to future changes in cargo throughput and developments in the maritime
sector, a flexible port expansion plan must be developed. In such a plan three different time frames can
be distinguished, as seen in Figure 3-1 7;
(1) masterplan, with an horizon of 25 years (long term).
(2) first phase masterplan, with a horizon of 10 years (medium term).
(3) minor layout changes within 2 years (short term).
Figure 3-1 Masterplan time frame
4
Bird, J, 1971, Seaports and seaport terminals, London: Hutchinson University Library
5
Hoyle, B.S., and Pinder, D.A. (eds) 1981, Cityport Industrialisation and Regional Development: Spatial
Analysis and Planning Strategies (Oxford, Pergamon Press)

Port development frame work
The reason to develop a masterplan is to provide insight into future development requirements. With
this insight terminal area can be reserved. When a country has more ports, national or regional
masterplans for port development are required for optimum allocation of resources. These plans
should take into account the existing port capacity, the hinterland connections, the industrial
development and the cost of the infrastructure.
The port planner plays a role in the optimisation of existing ports (Can the efficiency and throughput
capacity be improved, often without new infrastructure?) and in preparing lay-outs for new port
facilities or extensions where appropriate. Port planning incorporates maritime aspects, such as
hydraulic, nautical and operational aspects, together with land aspects such as, spatial planning,
transport, environmental and legal aspects. Preliminary design of infrastructure is carried out to
determine costs. 7
3.4 Framework study

Part of the methodology (and terminology) of the port masterplan development is now translated for
the Brunei situation in a three step approach (Figure 3-2).
Part 1; Present situation
Part 2; Scenario's
2005 - 2030
Part 3;
Cargo routing and Potential terminal locations
port layouts
Selected terminal
locations
National cargo routing
Selected routing
alternative
Muara Port spatial
requirements
Future terminal area
and berth length
Port development
alternatives
Preferred port
development plan
Figure 3-2 Framework report
Part one; Present situation
Data on the present situation is gathered for the economy, the ports, port infrastructure, the hinterland
connections and the hydraulic and meteorological conditions, see chapter 4. The port and terminal
performance of Muara port is analysed in chapter 5.
Part two; Cargo and maritime scenarios

Brunei’s industrial, economical and maritime developments are identified, which are translated into
three scenarios, Low, Average and High, see chapter 6.
Part three; Development of routing and port layouts alternatives

The results from step 2 are then used to determine the most optimal maritime terminal locations for
development, chapter 7, followed by determining the most optimal cargo routing, chapter 8, followed
by the maritime requirements for Muara port, chapter 9. For Muara port alternative port layouts are
developed and evaluated with a Multi Criteria Evaluation, chapter 10. Chapter 11determines a Muara
port development plan, involving the phasing, environmental impact and a costs estimate.

Part one; Present situation Brunei
4 General overview Brunei

Before any port development can take place first the present situation of the economy, ports,
hinterland, meteorological and hydraulic conditions and finally the Muara port performance has to be
investigated.
4.1 Economic facts

The Southeast Asian economies have over the last decades shown much larger economic growth than
the world average. During the Asian currency crisis in 1997 the Southeast Asia economic growth
dropped (in terms of real Gross Domestic Product), the region recovered from 2000 onwards and
growth is again above the world average. 1 (see Table 4-1)
Year
Real GDP growth (%) 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001
World 3.3 3.5 2.3 3.0 4.0 1.4
Southeast Asia 7.4 4.1 -7.7 3.9 5.9 2.1
Brunei Darussalam 1.0 3.6 -4.0 2.6 2.8 1.5
Indonesia 7.8 4.9 -13.7 0.3 4.8 3.3
Malaysia 10.0 7.3 -7.4 5.8 8.5 0.4
The Philippines 5.8 5.2 -0.6 3.4 4.4 3.2
Singapore 7.7 8.5 -0.1 6.9 10.3 -2.0
Thailand 5.9 -1.4 -10.5 4.4 4.6 1.8
Viet Nam 9.3 8.2 5.8 4.8 6.8 6.8
Table 4-1 APEC region real GDP Growth
From the table it can be concluded that Brunei‘s real GDP growth is structurally lower than the
average of the other countries in the Southeast Asia region.
The real GDP of Brunei is highly dependent on the contribution of the oil and gas exports 6. The
production of oil and gas has remained fairly constant over the years (see Figure 4-2). Fluctuation of
world market prices for these products therefore affects the economy directly, see Figure 4-1 and
Table 4-3 16
Gas, natural: Gross million cubic meters
80.000 Petroleum:Crude thousand 42-gallon barrels
70.000
60.000
50.000
40.000
30.000
20.000
10.000
Volume
0
1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001
Figure 4-1 Average Year e/
price crude oil
Figure 4-2 Production oil and gas for Brunei

The non-oil and gas sector, defined as the total economy minus the oil and gas sector including among
others the Government, agriculture, manufacturing and services sectors, shows a more stable economic
growth. 5 The non oil and gas sector is still recovering from the aftermath (1999 – 2001) of the Asian
crisis. (See Table 4-2) The growth figures before the crisis are more in line with the average APEC
regional growth (see Table 4-1).
Year
Real GDP (%) 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001
Brunei Darussalam 0.5 1.8 3.0 3.6 4.1 -4.0 2.6 2.8 0.8
Oil and gas sector -2.4 -1.0 1.0 1.0 1.5 -9.0 4.6 3.7 1.5
Non oil and gas sector 4.8 5.6 5.7 6.7 7.1 2.3 0.3 1.8 -0.1
Table 4-2 Real GDP growth rate broken down for 1993 to 2001
The revenues of the oil and gas exports are shown in Table 4-3. More details on the Brunei economy
can be found in appendix B. 6 In 2001 90 percent of the export revenues were derived from the oil and
gas sector. The secondary export products (others in the Table 4-3) were worth in total of 393,524
thousands US$ (9%).
(1) Textiles and apparel (Special traditional clothes and dresses for ceremonials)
(2) Machinery and Electrical Appliances
(3) Vehicles
(4) Prepared Foodstuffs / Base metal and Metal articles
Revenues in thousands of US$

Sector 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001
Oil and Gas Unknown 1,628,628 2,593,761 2,293,305 2,656,726 1,834,669 2,212,400 1,783,478 3,136,922
Other Unknown 156,710 177,222 199,949 57,436 88,986 128,264 385,669 393,524
Total Unknown 1,785,339 2,770,983 2,493,255 2,714,162 1,923,655 2,340,664 2,169,147 3,530,446
Table 4-3 Total Export revenue from 1993 to 2001
The Brunei import statistics show the reliance of the economy on the imported products (see Table
4-4). With the low oil prices prevailing during 1998/1999, some 70 percent of the export earnings
were used for imports. In 2001 with the high oil prices this figure dropped to 37 percent. The
categories of imports (through Muara Port) in 2001 were worth in total 1,309,975 thousands US$ and
consisted of:
(1) Vehicles
(2) Machinery and Electrical Appliances
(3) Textiles and apparel
(4) Other
(5) Base metal and Metal articles
(6) Prepared Foodstuffs
(7) Chemicals
(8) Live Animals
Revenues in thousands of US$

1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001
Total Unknown 2,000,404 2,132,661 4,434,841 2,310,688 1,276,250 1,720,353 1,067,610 1,309,975
Table 4-4 Total import value from 1993 to 2001
The government budget policy is centred on the principles that the Brunei population shares in the
benefits created from the exploitation of oil and gas. Brunei has free health care, fully sponsored
education and sponsored housing and food. There is no income tax at the moment. 6
6
Asian Trade statistics from the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN),
http://202.154.12.3/trade/publicview.asp ,

Out of a total population of 358,000 per July 2003 the workforce in Brunei consisted of around
143,000 people, 40% of the total population and 60% of the people eligible to work.
The oil and gas industry is next to the government the main employer of Brunei, together making up a
total of 90% of the total jobs. The other 10% is provided by the agriculture, forestry and fishing. The
unemployment rate is 5%.
The revenues from the oil and gas sector are accounting for over 30% to 50% of gross domestic
product (GDP), around 80%-90% of the exports, and 75%-90% of government revenues.
The commercial activity in the private sector is made up of small scale manufactures (textiles and
furniture) and primary production, including agriculture (Rice/ vegetables / fruit / water buffalos
(imported from Australia)), forestry and fishery. The livestock is used to produce Halal (islamic
method of preparing meat products) meats.
4.2 Existing maritime infrastructure

The inter-regional trade is carried out by small cargo ships (feeders) that travel along the maritime
routes shown in Figure 4-3 below. It can be seen that Brunei is centrally positioned within this
regional maritime infrastructure. On the South China Sea site of Borneo other ports are located like
Bintulu, Kushing and Kota Kinabaru. These ports are small are outside the scope of this report.
Figure 4-3 ASEAN water and land infrastructure

The Brunei maritime infrastructure can be divided into two categories, the mainly export oriented
facilities for oil and gas (liquid bulk terminals) at the west coast and the facilities for all the other
cargo at Muara port (general cargo, consisting of containerised and multi-purpose cargo, and cargo for
the local construction market, cement and bitumen port).
4.2.1 Ports and terminals West coast

The west coast of Brunei has a shallow coastline with the 10 meter water depth contour line minimal
four kilometres offshore, as shown in the Admiralty Chart 9 in Figure 4-4. The offshore oil and gas
industry owns many pipelines in front of the coast.

Figure 4-4 Map West coast of Brunei
The most southern port of Brunei is the port of Kuala Belait (No. 1 in Figure 4-4), at the mouth of the
Kuala Belait river. The natural sheltered port has an available water depth of 4 meters above Chart
Datum and access is limited to barges and very small cargo ships. The port has specialised itself to
supply the offshore industry.
The port facilities area located on the north side of the river bank. The south bank is covered with
mangroves, swamps and oil production wells. The population lives along the north bank and is
concentrated along the coastline.
The next village north of Kuala Belait is Seria (No. 2). Two offshore buoys in front of the coast (No.
6) are used for the export of crude oil. A small oil refinery north of Seria is refining crude oil for local
demand7 (Figure 4-4). The population is concentrated along the coastline extending from Kuala Belait.
Twenty kilometres north of Seria along the coastline Lumut (No. 3) can be found. Here the LNG plant
and LNG export facilities (4.5 km LNG jetty) are located (No. 7). Special LNG carriers export the gas
to various clients in Asia. (Figure 4-4)
Just five kilometres north of Lumut lies Sungai Liang (No. 4). The area between the LNG plant and
Sungai Liang has been selected for large scale (heavy) industry development (more in paragraph
6.3.2).
North of Sungai Liang at the mouth of the river Tutong, the coastal village of Tutong (No. 5) is
located. A very shallow entrance to the port restricts entrance to Tutong, see the Figure 4-4.
4.2.2 Port locations in Brunei Bay

Muara Port is located on the west of Brunei bay and can be reached through an approach channel from
the South China Sea. (Figure 4-5) The approach channel has been dredged through the Muara Spit that
shelters Muara Port. The Brunei Bay is relatively deep (on average 20 meters) with deep trenches at
the entrance of the bay.
7
Capacity of 10,000 bpd of leaded and unleaded petrol, diesel, aircraft fuel, and kerosene for local consumption.
From www.uktradeinvest.gov.uk

In front of Muara port the uninhabited island Pulau Muara Basar is located. The island is separated
from the main land by a channel with a water depth between 8 to 10 meters.
Further south in Brunei Bay the capital Bandar Seri Begawan is located. It can be reached from the
Brunei Bay through the estuary of the Belait River (Figure 4-5). The available draft in the estuary is
approximate 5 meters.
Figure 4-5 Maps of the Brunei Bay
4.3 Hinterland infrastructure

The hinterland for the maritime infrastructure of Brunei is small. Borneo itself is not highly populated
/ industrialised and has no significant land infrastructure of any kind. Therefore the focus will be on
Brunei itself. The infrastructure of Brunei is briefed below.
4.3.1 Road infrastructure

The total road length in Brunei is 2,800 km, of which 1,123 km is asphalted, see also appendix C. The
asphalted roads are mainly located in the populated areas (the Brunei-Muara district and the coastal
areas in the west). The longest highway, 135 kilometres long, connects Kuala Belait with Muara.
There are 176,000 private cars and 19,000 commercial motorised vehicles in the country.
4.3.2 Rail infrastructure

No commercial railway systems are present in Brunei. For the oil and gas industry a dedicated railway,
13 kilometres long, is used for the transport of materials between Kampong Badas and Lumut.
4.3.3 Waterways
The four rivers in Brunei are of limited use for inland transportation. The west coast rivers (Kuala and
Tutong) are only navigable near the mouth of the rivers. Over the Brunei River cargo is transported
from the Brunei bay to the capital Bandar Seri Begawan. In the Temburong district the Temburong
River is used for very small boats to supply the small villages in the jungle.
4.3.4 Power infrastructure

The electricity demand in Brunei is provided by four power plants located at Lumut, Jeradung,
Gadong and Berakas. The fuel type used is Natural Gas, a fuel that Brunei has in abundance. The
installed capacity is approximately 720 MW. To accommodate the planned increase in industrial
activity the government is planning to extend the Lumut capacity with 500 MW, which will increase
the total national capacity with 75%. More can be found in appendix D.
4.3.5 Pipeline infrastructure

The oil and gas industry has developed a sophisticated offshore pipeline system for transportation of
the produced oil and gas. At three locations this pipeline system is connected to onshore locations: (1)

Seria, the crude oil refinery and export terminal; (2) Lumut, the natural gas LNG plant and export
terminal; (3) Jeradong, the natural gas power plant. The total length of the network consists of 553 km
crude oil and 920 km natural gas pipeline.
4.4 Meteorological and hydraulic conditions

For any new port development or modifications to the existing ones hydraulic (wind, significant wave
height and current velocities) conditions have to be known and this is done through the use of the
database Waveclimate.com.
The areas looked at are offshore of Sungai Liang (planned site for Alumina Smelter and Tire
Recycling Plant, paragraph 6.4, with longitude 4°39'03''N and latitude 114°22'59''E), and Muara port
(longitude 5°01'30''N and latitude 115°05'42''E).
Brunei has a tropical equatorial climate. The annual rainfall is generally high, approximate 3,000 mm,
and the humidity is high throughout the year, approximate 85%, due to the high temperature and
rainfall. Air temperature is relatively uniform throughout the year, fluctuating between a minimum of
240C and a maximum of 310C, with an average of 280C.
Monsoon winds influence the climatic variations. There are 2 main monsoon periods in Brunei, from
December to March with a wind direction from the northeast and from June to October with the main
wind direction from the southeast. In between this period two inter-monsoon periods occur from April
to May and November to December.
The rain seasons occurs from September to January, with December as the wettest; and from May to
June. Virtually a drought period is from February to April.
Although Southeast Asia experiences many tropical storms, Brunei is not affected by these storms.
4.4.1 Wind
In general the wind speed is defined as the hourly
average wind speed at 10 meters above the sea
surface.
The average offshore wind originates from the

northeast, with speeds (Figure 4-6) in a range of 2
– 6 m/s. Higher speeds occur in the Brunei bay of
6 – 8 m/s.
Throughout the year, taking into account the

seasonality8 of the wind speed, Figure 4-7 shows
wind speeds between 2 – 10 m/s, with the higher
values in the months November to March, which
Figure 4-6 Average wind speed altimeter coincides with the northern monsoon period.
This will also be valid for Muara port.
A more detailed investigation into the wind speed
and direction (using the scatterometer, Figure 4-8) reveals that the main wind direction is from the
northeast (with strong wind up to 14 m/s) and southwest (with moderate winds up to 6 m/s).
8
The seasonality presents the seasonal distribution of either wind speed (Figure 4-7) or significant wave height
(Figure 4-10). The mean wind speed or wave height per month is shown with a red line. The orange band gives
the range of wind speeds or wave heights that occurs 90% of the time: 5% of the time the wind speed or wave
height is below this band, and 5% of the time it is above it. The wind speed in the seasonality plot is obtained
from the ERS-1/2 scatterometer, the wave height from the ERS-1/2 altimeter.

Wind speed directions

N Windspeed (m/s)
1,5
0-1
1-2
1
2-3
3-4
0,5 4-5
W 5-6
0 E 6-7
7-8
8-9
9 - 10
10 - 11
11 - 12
12 - 13
Figure 4-7 Seasonality wind speed
13 - 14
S
Figure 4-8 Wind scatter9 diagram
4.4.2 Wave
The significant wave height (Hs) is defined as the
arithmetical mean value of the height one-third of
the waves for a stated interval.
The average offshore Hs (Figure 4-9) show that the

range is between 0.5 – 1.0 meter.
The seasonality of Hs (Figure 4-10) show that the
range is between 0 – 2.8 metres, with the higher
values in the months November to March, which
coincides with the northern monsoon period.
A more detailed investigation (Figure 4-11) into the

Figure 4-9 Average Hs (SAR data) wave direction and occurring Hs reveals that the
main wave direction is from the north (with Hs
between 0.0 – 3.0 meters) and northwest (with Hs between 0.0 – 1.0 meter).
N Wave direction
Hs (m)
12
10 0.0 - 0.5
8
0.5 - 1.0
6
1.0 - 1.5
4
2
1.5 - 2.0
W 0 E 2.0 - 2.5
2.5 - 3.0
Figure 4-10 Seasonality Hs S

Figure 4-11 Offshore wave scatter diagram Brunei
9
A scatter diagram shows wind or wave directions and the frequency that a certain wind or wave direction
occurs.

For Hs at Muara port (Table 4-5) the range is between 0.0 - 0.5 meters throughout the year.
Range Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
0.0 - 0.5 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
0.5 – 1.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100
Table 4-5 Hs for Muara port (Waveclimate.com)
4.4.3 Current
The offshore current velocity along the coastline of Brunei shows a maximum value of 0.75 knots. The
velocity at the approach channel entrance of Muara port is assumed to be the same. Within Muara port
the tidal current is assumed to be approximate 0.5 knots.
4.4.4 Tide
The tide in Brunei has a mixed diurnal tide. The mean water level is approximate 1.2 meters above
Chart Datum10 Muara port and Sungai Liang.
The tidal information for Muara port, Figure 4-13, has been obtained from the Muara port website for
the month February 2004. The result shows that the Mean Higher High Waterlevel (MHHW) is CD+
2.4 meters and Mean Lowest Low Waterlevel (MLLW) is CD+ 0.2 meters.
The tidal information for Sungai Liang has been obtained from the online database Tidel-info.com for
February 2004, Figure 4-12. The reference level of the tide is the Mean Water Level. The tidal
elevation in Sungai Liang is approximate + 0.8 meters and –1.0 meters. That will imply that the
MHHW is CD+ 2.0 meters and the MLLW is CD+ 0.2 meters.
Both locations show therefore approximate the same tidal graph.
Figure 4-12 Sungai Liang Tidal Range February 2004 Figure 4-13 Muara port Tidal Range February 2004
10
Chart Datum is the Lowest astronomic tide water level.

5 Muara Port information and performance
This chapter is assessing the current performance of the Muara port terminal as a starting point for
future development. This will be carried out for the container and multi-purpose terminal. The bitumen
and cement terminals are not further investigated.
5.1 Relevant details of Muara Port

The port was opened in 1973 for commercial exploitation and the Port Department of the Brunei
Government took over the port management and operations in 1986. The Maritime Department is
responsible for the nautical aspects of the port, like dredging and ship assistance with tugs.
The port area covers Muara port and the Seresa industrial area, with a waterfront length of
approximate 4.000 meters, and comprises of a container terminal, a multi-purpose terminal, bitumen
jetty, naval base, fishery, cement jetty and a ferry terminal. These facilities (Table 5-1) are spread over
the waterfront from the entrance of the approach channel to the Seresa industrial area, see Figure 5-1.
The port water depth is 12.5 meters since 2001. 11
No. in No of Berth length Terminal area Terminal water depth

Terminal type
Figure 5.1 berths (m) (ha) (m)
1 Ferry Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown
2 Cement Unknown Unknown Unknown 8
3 Fishery wharf 1 Unknown Unknown 9 (est.) Unknown
4 Container 1 250 10 12.5
5 Multi-purpose 3 611 10 12.5
6 Fishery wharf 2 Unknown Unknown 10 (est.) Unknown
7 Bitumen jetty Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown
8 Naval Base Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown
Table 5-1 Overview terminals in Muara port
Figure 5-1 Photo Muara Port
11
From the Brunei Port and Marine department websites : End 2000 the port has been dredged from 9.5 meters
to 12.5 meters at LLWL

On the Muara port photo (Figure 5-1) the following areas can be distinguished:
• The urban area of Muara is located behind the port and the Seresa industrial area
• At the entrance of the port (number 8) the naval base is located with its barracks and other
facilities.
• Two jetties of the bitumen terminal (number 7), next to the naval base. Its throughput is unknown.
• Two fishery wharfs with its fishery industry, east of the multi purpose terminal (number 6) and
west of the container terminal (number 3).
• A cement jetty (number 2) at the Seresa industrial area. The Brunei cement factory started
production in 1995.
• A ferry terminal (number 1) at the Seresa Industrial area, since 1997 operational.
5.2 Muara port throughput

Two data sets were available to assess the performance of Muara Port. The first one for the years 1992
to 1996 12 and the second one for the years 1996 to 2000. 13 The first set included the cement and
bitumen terminal and the second set not. Both data sets are presented in Table 5-2 and Table 5-3.
The multi-purpose terminal throughput in the first set did not specify separate throughputs for
imported and exported multi-purpose cargo. In the second data set these were given as non
containerised cargo, but included also the cement and bitumen. To provide a baseline for the multi-
purpose terminal throughput, both tables have been reconciled.
Set 1 Set 2
YEAR 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 YEAR 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000
Total ship calls 918 979 1,142 1,234 1,460 Total ship calls 1,460 1,437 1,154 877 1,059
CONTAINERISED (million metric tons) CONTAINERISED (million metric tons)

Import no data no data no data no data no data Import 0.865 no data 0.607 0.630 0.565
Export no data no data no data no data no data Export 0.030 no data 0.044 0.065 0.077
Total 0.507 0.600 0.694 0.734 0.895 Total 0.895 0.866 0.651 0.695 0.642
Multi purpose 0.791 0.907 0.980 0.831 0.999 NON-CONTAINERISED (million metric tons)
Cement 0.084 0.127 0.103 0.611 0.494 Import 1.501 no data 0.556 0.359 0.450
Bitumen 0.016 0.022 0.018 0.022 0.021 Export 0.013 no data 0.013 0.007 0.014
Total 891 1.056 1.101 1.464 1.514 Total 1.514 1.226 0.569 0.366 0.464
Total tons (million metric tons) Total tons (million metric tons)
Import no data no data no data no data no data Import 2.366 no data 1.163 0.989 1.015
Export no data no data no data no data no data Export 0.043 no data 0.057 0.072 0.091
TOTAL 1.398 1.656 1.795 2.198 2.409 Total 2.409 2.092 1.220 1.061 1.106
T E Us ('000)14 T E Us ('000)
Import 23 26 30 37 44 Import 44 41 30 32 31
Export 21 24 29 34 40 Export 40 38 29 30 30
Total 44 51 59 71 85 Total 84 79 60 62 61
Table 5-2 Set 1992 – 1996 Table 5-3 Set 1996 – 2000
5.2.1 Reconciliation of both sets

The overlapping year 1996 showed in both sets the same values for all the totals (ship calls, total
containerised, total non-containerised, total cargo throughput), allowing to make the datasets
consistent and filling up the blank spots for the cargo types bitumen, cement and multi-purpose cargo
for the years 1996- 2000. The reconciled annual terminal throughput as determined in appendix E is
12
www.bruclass.com/bboatinfro.htm
13
Port department website
14
Figures provided by the Muara Port authority for the container terminal

presented in Table 5-4.
Annual throughput terminal Muara port (Millions tons)

Year 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000
Containerised 0.507 0.600 0.694 0.734 0.895 0.866 0.651 0.695 0.642
Multi purpose 0.791 0.907 0.980 0.831 0.999 1.046 0.459 0.292 0.434
Cement 0.084 0.127 0.103 0.611 0.494 0.120 0.090 0.060 0.020
Bitumen 0.016 0.022 0.018 0.022 0.021 0.060 0.020 0.014 0.010
TOTAL 1.398 1.656 1.795 2.198 2.409 2.092 1.220 1.061 1.106
Table 5-4 Reconciled Annual throughput Muara port terminals for years 1992 - 2000
From 1992 onwards a gradual increase was seen in the total throughput until the year 1996. After
which a decrease set in till the year 2000. The total tons that passed through Muara port varied
between 1.11 million tons (2000) and 2.41 million tons (1996).
The container and multi-purpose terminal will be dealt with in more deal below.
5.2.2 Container terminal

The terminal is located in front of Muara village (number 4 on the Muara Port photo). In 2000 the
container terminal operations became the responsibility of the PSA Corporation Limited terminals
from Singapore for a 25 year lease. The terminal is equipped with 2 Panamax cranes with a 40-tonne
lifting capacity each for the handling of containers. The water depth alongside the present 250 meter
berth is 12.5 meters. The total terminal area is assumed to be approximate 16 ha. The area on the
waterfront (10 ha) uses equipment consists of forklift trucks, reach stackers and straddle carriers. The
area behind the multi-purpose terminal (6ha) is operated by forklift trucks. 15
The container terminal throughput, in TEU table 6-1 and 6-2 has been increasing till 1996 and
decreased ever since, to level of 60.000 to 70.000 TEU in the year 2000.
The average number of containers (TEU) handled per call (loaded and unloaded) in Muara Port is
shown in Table 5-5. This is derived from the total TEU throughput divided by the total container ship
calls. This shows that the average number of container handled per ship has been decreasing since
1992 from 121 TEU per call to 95 TEU in 2000.
Year 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000
TEU (*1000) 44.0 50.7 58.6 71.1 84.5 78.6 59.3 61.5 60.8
Calls 362 400 578 612 688 666 651 632 642
TEU handled per call 121 127 101 116 123 118 91 97 95
Table 5-5 Average container shipment
To get an indication of the berth occupancy for the Muara Container Terminal the following equation 7
can be used.
C b = p * f * N b * t n * mb
In which:
Cb = throughput per annum. [TEU]
P = gross production per berth. [moves/hr]
F = TEU factor. The composition of the container flow in 40’ units and 20’ units. [-]
Nb = the number of cranes [-]
tn = working hours per year [hrs/yr]
mb = berth occupancy. These should be between 0.3 – 0.4. [-]
15
websites: PSA Muara Container terminal and Ports department

Cb = shown in Table 5-2 and Table 5-3

P = assumed is 25 moves per hour.
F = assumed is that a value of 1,3 can be used.
Nb = 2 (paragraph 5.2.2)
tn = 8760 operational hours (24 hour service during 365 days)
With the above formula the berth occupancy is calculated and the results are presented below.
Year 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000
Berth occupany (mb) 0.07 0.08 0.09 0.11 0.13 0.12 0.09 0.09 0.11
Table 5-6 Berth occupancy container terminal
The terminal has a low berth occupancy rate in this rough estimate. For the actual data available in the
year 2000, it is very likely that the terminal working hours are much lower. When it is assumed that
there on average 12 working hours the berth occupancy is increased to 0.22. This shows that the
terminal is operating far below its capacity. Furthermore the gross production of the cranes might be to
optimistic, a range of 20 moves/hr would seem more realistic with the current performance.
Muara container terminal has according to the Brunei government and the terminal operator PSA a
capacity of around 200,000 to 300,000 TEU per annum with 1 berth. This capacity is more likely to be
on the lower side with the following argument. Assuming the maximum acceptable berth occupancy
of 0.30, a maximum possible handling rate of 30 moves/hr and taken the other factors constant, a value
of Cb of 200,000 TEU per annum is the resultant.
A Cb value higher than 200,000 can only be achieved when the berth occupancy is increased above
0.30 and that will always result in higher waiting times for the ships. Higher waiting times are not
welcomed by ship owners as the profit for ship owners is made during sailing.
Therefore the maximum capacity of the container terminal is approximately 200,000 TEU’s.
5.2.3 The Multi purpose terminal

The Multi-Purpose terminal is located directly next to the container terminal and a wide variety of
ships are serviced, Ro-Ro, live animal and general cargo vessels, number 5 on the Muara Port photo,
Figure 5-1. The terminal has presently 3 berths with a total berth length of 611 meters and the water
depth is since 2001 12.5 meters. Mobile cranes are present to assist in the handling of the cargo. Each
berth is equipped with a transit shed. The storage area of the terminal consists of 3 transit warehouses
with a total capacity of 12,950 m2 and a long storage warehouse with a capacity of 16,630 m2.
The total tonnage for the multi-purpose cargo (Table 5-4) is used to determine the berth occupancy of
the terminal during the period 1992 – 2000.
A first estimate for the berth occupancy for the terminal can be found using the following equation. 7
c b = p * N b * t n * mb
in which:
cb = throughput per berth per annum [tons]
p = average gang productivity [ton/hr]
Nb = number of gangs per ship [-]
tn = Number of operational hours per year. [hrs/year]
mb = berth occupancy. [-]
cb = annual throughputs from Table 5-4

p = assuming 30 tons/hr on average
Nb = assuming 2.5 gangs per ship
tn = 4160 working hours per year (2 shifts of 8 hours and 5 working days)

The result shows, Table 5-7, the total berth occupancy for the multi-purpose terminal.
YEAR 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000
Total berth occupancy (mb) 2.54 2.91 3.14 2.66 3.20 3.35 1.47 0.94 1.39
Table 5-7 Berth occupancy Multi-purpose terminal 1992 – 2000
In order to know the actual number of berths in use the results given in Table 5-7 are divided by the
number of berth resulting in the average berth occupancy for the terminal. The outcome is than cross
referenced with the UNCTAD recommendations 12 (Table 5-8) for the maximum acceptable berth
occupancy. This is a rough method, as it does not take into account the waiting time at the terminal.
Number of berths 1 2 3 4 5 6 – 10
Recommended maximum berth occupancy 0.40 0.50 0.55 0.60 0.65 0.70
Table 5-8 UNCTAD multi-purpose terminal berth occupancy recommendations
This result in shown in the Table 5-9 below.

Year
No. berths needed 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000
1 2.54 2.91 3.14 2.66 3.20 3.35 1.47 0.94 1.39
2 1.27 1.45 1.57 1.33 1.60 1.68 0.74 0.47 0.70
3 0.85 0.97 1.05 0.89 1.07 1.12 0.49 0.31 0.46
4 0.63 0.73 0.79 0.67 0.80 0.84 0.37 0.23 0.35
5 0.51 0.58 0.63 0.53 0.64 0.67 0.29 0.19 0.28
6 0.42 0.48 0.52 0.44 0.53 0.56 0.25 0.16 0.23
Table 5-9 No. of berths estimate multi-purpose terminal 1992 - 2000
Although the multi-purpose terminal claims to have three berths, it can be clearly seen that more
berths were required before 1998.
Investigation in the ship sizes used for this period and the respectively quay length required, shows
that a maximum of 5 berths requires 593 meters of quay length, Table 5-10. More berths would
surpass the maximum quay length of 611 meters. This would lead to the conclusion that in those years
no real increase in waiting time occurred, when on average the handled ships consist of small multi-
purpose ships.
Average ship size Number of Maximum berth length per ship

(dwt) berths size at the multi-purpose terminal
(m)
3,000 5 593
2,000 5 538
Table 5-10 Maximum number of berths per ship at Multi-purpose terminal
5.3 Surrounding area Muara port

The port is connected to the other areas in Brunei by a road that starts at the entrance of the container
terminal and runs through the urban area of Muara to the west where the coastal highway begins.
To the east of the approach channel the island Pelempong along the Muara Spit (see Figure 4-5) is
located sheltering the port from the offshore climate conditions. Muara Spit is a habitat for monkeys
and breeding ground for turtles, see appendix L. It is largely covered with forest, has some sand dunes
and some mangrove areas.
South of the industrial area of Seresa the Royal Marina of Brunei is located at the beginning of a
peninsula. The water area is used for recreation and the shoreline consists further south of mangroves
and forests.

6 Scenario development
For the development of the maritime infrastructure the future cargo situation must be known. In this
chapter the container and multi-purpose cargo is forecasted through 3 economic scenarios (low,
average and high). Furthermore the maritime developments for the region and Brunei will be
discussed to predict the design ship size of the maritime infrastructure.
6.1 National industrial plans

Under the 7th National Development Plan 16covering the period 1996 to 2000, the structural reforms to
promote economic diversification included:
(1) Encouraging oil/gas downstream manufacturing activities such as petrochemical and gas-
based industries, refining and bunkering;
(2) Promoting Brunei as a service hub for trade (manufacturing export sites), tourism and business
services;
(3) Developing agriculture and fisheries, mainly to cover some part of Brunei’s domestic
requirements, such as Halal production and shrimp production;
(4) Engage in becoming an offshore financial centre for the region.
Under (1) the following industrial activities in Table 6-1 are seen as potential options.
Oil Gas Spin-off industries

Larger oil refinery Ammonia Plastics
Petrochemicals Urea Textiles
Methanol Packing materials
Energy intensive industries, Synthetic rubber
such as an Alumina Smelter Tyre Recycling Plant
Agricultural chemicals
Pharmaceuticals
Table 6-1 Industrial options
Under (2) and (3) 10 industrial sites for export oriented business have been allocated, Figure 6-1. 2
16
From website: http://www.mod.com.bn/editor_2.htm.

Figure 6-1 Industrial sites Brunei

For each industrial site the type of industrial activity is determined by the Brunei Government and
shown in Table 6-2.
District No. Industrial area Area (ha) Activities

1 Serasa 83 Manufacturing and Services
2 Kampong Salar 40 Furniture, warehouse and Cold Storage
Brunei-
3 Lambak Kanan (east) 74 HI-Tech Industry
Muara
4 Lambak Kanan (west) 45 Food processing and Services
5 Beribi I & II 47 Manufacturing and Services
Tutong 6 Serambangun 40 Manufacturing and Services
7 Sungai Liang 300 Large scale manufacturing (heavy industry)
Belait 8 Sungai Bera 50 Manufacturing and Services
9 Pekan Belait 38 Manufacturing and Services
Temburong 10 Batu Apoi 5 Manufacturing and Services
Total 722
Table 6-2 Industrial site size and activity
To the Brunei-Muara district 5 industrial sites with a total area of 290 ha are allocated. The main
advantage of these sites is the close proximity to Muara port.
Near the village of Tutong one industrial site will be located with an area of 40 ha.
To the Belait district 3 industrial sites, with a total site area of 388 ha, are allocated, one near the LNG
plant of Lumut (no 7, Sungai Liang), one near the oil refinery of Seria (no. 8 Sungai Bera) and one at
the waterfront of the Kuala river (no. 9, Pekan Belait). The large Sungai Liang site (300 ha) has been
reserved for oil and gas related and/or (large scale heavy) high energy consuming industries. For this
site specific plans to develop an Alumina Smelter and Tyre Recycling Plant are under consideration.
In the Temburong district a 5 ha industrial area is planned (no. 10, Batu Apoi)
6.2 Container developments regional and world wide

The prediction according to an extensive research17 by the Economic and Social Commission for the
Asian and Pacific region is that the world annual growth rate in container volume will be 6.5% from
1999 to 2006 and 6% from 2006 to 2011 3. The decline is partly the result of the expected limit of the
17
This study is based on the application of the Maritime Policy Planning Models (MPPM) developed and
maintained by the Transport, Communications, Tourism and Infrastructure Development Division of ESCAP. Its
objective is to provide a planning context for informed decision making by governments, shipping lines and port
authorities in the ESCAP region. ESCAP provides detailed, quantified and internally consistent forecasts of the
structure of the maritime container transport system serving the ESCAP region through to the year 2011. These
forecasts cover three broad areas: the volume and direction of container flows, the shape of the shipping
network, and the port facilities required to service the trade.

containerisation18 rate of high value added cargo. The containerisation is still growing through
increased trade liberalisation, through Free Trade Zones and through an increased share of
international trade represented by manufactured goods, Table 6-3.
Year19 1980 1990 1999 2006 2011

Container volumes (million TEU) 13.5 28.5 59.0 91.7 122.7
Compounded average growth rate over previous period - 7.8% 8.4% 6.5% 6.0%
Table 6-3 Global Container Volume, according to ESCAP
Asia’s share in the world containerised exports is expected to rise from 46 percent in 1999 to 51
percent in 2011; the share in the world containerised imports is expected to rise from 40 percent to 44
percent. This increase mainly is a result of China becoming one of the largest manufacturing bases in
the world. 3 9 The Southeast Asian share in the total world distribution of containers will increase from
10 percent in 1996 to 11 percent in 2011.
For the two major container terminal key hubs in Asia (Singapore and Hong Kong), the container
transshipment volumes are assumed to reach 64 million TEU by the year 2011.
The container throughput in Southeast Asia has risen from 9.550 thousand in 1990 to 28.000 thousand
in 1999, representing an average growth rate of approx. of 13% 3, Table 6-4.
YEAR 1990 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999

TEU (*000) 9,550 19,894 21,730 24,151 25,506 28,314
% growth -- 52% 9% 11% 6% 11%
Table 6-4 Container throughput increase Southeast Asia 1990 – 1999
For the intra-Asian trade it is expected that the growth rate for containers will be 7.6 percent 20 per
annum until 2011. This is above the expected world average of 6.0 percent per annum and below the
past performance. Similar figures would apply for the future container growth of Brunei as there is a
large potential market in Southeast Asia of which Brunei could have a share.
6.3 Scenarios
Key to this study of the future development of Brunei’s maritime infrastructure is the knowledge of
the expected future cargo volumes. This study will focus on the multi-purpose, container and dry bulk
cargo terminals. The ferry, cement, bitumen, fishery wharf are assumed not to require additional space
and therefore left outside the scope.
Firstly a timeframe has to be defined for this study. The period from 2005 to 2030 has been chosen.
The 25 year period is in line with the general practice for port masterplans (paragraph 3.3).
Secondly the individual components, which generate cargo volumes, are determined. The total cargo
volume in any year under consideration is calculated as the sum of the individual components. The
three individual cargo volume components are the following:
1. Component 1: the real GDP growth (excluding oil and gas)

2. Component 2: the preferred large scale (heavy) industry investment options at Sungai Liang
3. Component 3: the development of the other 9 industrial sites
In parallel the key variables are determined to estimate the cargo volume generated by the each of the
18
The cargo being put into containers for shipment.
19
Estimated and forecast growth rates for container trade (1980–2011). ESCAP, 2001.
Comparison of the study’s forecasts with those provided by private consulting firms suggest that these global
level estimates lie within the range of expert opinions, but slightly towards the more conservative end of that
range.
20
The intra-Asian trade will continue to outperform global container growth by some percentage points,
recording an average of 7.6 percent per annum over the forecast period.

individual components. For the first component the two key variables are the real GDP growth rate
and the cargo multiplier for containerised (TEU) and multi-purpose cargo. The second component is
constant at a given throughput for multi-purpose, containerised (TEU) and dry bulk cargo. For the
third component the key variable is the TEU generated per ha of industrial site.
Due to the uncertainty in the key variables a range (low-, average- and high) of values is chosen to
reflect this uncertainty and as a result components 1 and 3 will have each three scenarios. The outcome
of the total cargo volume for any chosen year will be the result of the addition of the three individual
scenarios (high with high, average with average and low with low for the components 1 and 3, plus
component 2).
6.3.1 Component 1: the real GDP growth (excluding oil and gas)
As concluded in the paragraph 4.1 economic analyses, the Brunei real GDP growth, including the
revenues from the oil and gas, has been historically lower than the average for the Southeast Asian
region, due to the high dependence of the Brunei economy on the oil and gas revenues. This resulted
in a 2 % historical growth of the real GDP for the 1992 to 1998 period. 6 This figure changes when the
oil and gas is excluded, this then shows that the economy has been growing at a higher rate (on
average of 6%) during that period. Estimates are that the non-oil and gas economy will growth with
6% during the period 2002 – 2005.6
The scenarios will start in 2005, therefore the cargo volumes from 2000 to 2005 are estimated using
the actual 2000 and 2001 GDP figures 1.8% and 0.0% (Table 4-2) and the estimated 2002 – 2005 GDP
figures 6%.
For the average scenario a 6.0% underlying future real GDP growth, for the low scenario a 4.0%
growth and for the high scenario an 8.0% growth is assumed.
It is further assumed that these growth rates can be maintained over the period 2006 till 2030, as a
result of the positive effects of the industrialisation on the Brunei economy and no major decline in the
oil and gas revenues.
The total cargo volume is divided into three categories, containerised which is measured in TEU,
multi-purpose cargo and dry bulk measured in tons. For the cargo forecast the real GDP excluding the
oil and gas sector is directly linked to the cargo volumes, with a multiplier 14 . The general cargo and
container multiplier are 1.1 and 2.0 respectively.
It is assumed that the multiplier for multi-purpose cargo forecast is constant during the whole period.
For the container forecast for the period 2000 to 2005 a multiplier of 2.0 is taken. In the period 2005 to
2015 in which Brunei is beginning to industrialise and containerisation is taking place on a larger
scale, the multiplier is assumed to decrease to 1.5. In the period 2015-2030 a multiplier of 1.0 is
assumed to take into account a more gradual container growth due to the limited size of the country
(population and industrial activity).
In the cargo forecast these economic scenarios (Table 6-5) translate, through the multiplier, into three
scenarios for the container and multi-purpose cargo volumes (Table 6-6 ).
Economic growth
Scenario
2000 2001 2002 - 2005 2006 - 2030
Low 1.8% 0% 6% 4%
Average 1.8% 0% 6% 6%
High 1.8% 0% 6% 8%
Table 6-5 Cargo growth scenarios

Multi-purpose cargo Containerised cargo

Scenario
2000 2001 2002- 2005 2006 - 2015 2015 - 2030 2000 2001 2002 - 2005 2006 - 2015 2015 - 2030
Low 2% 0% 6.6% 4.4% 4.4% 3.6% 0.0% 12.0% 6.0% 4.0%
Average 2% 0% 6.6% 6.6% 6.6% 3.6% 0.0% 12.0% 9.0% 6.0%
High 2% 0% 6.6% 8.8% 8.8% 3.6% 0.0% 12.0% 12.0% 8.0%
Table 6-6 Container and multi-purpose cargo growth percentage 2000 - 2030
For 2005 the cargo volumes results are shown in Table 6-7. In order to forecast the containerised cargo
into TEU’s an average weight per TEU of 10.8 ton is assumed. [reference from Ecorys and Port of
Rotterdam]. The result is shown in the figure below.
Cargo volume 2000 2005

TEU 60,566 93,537
Containerised (tons) 642,000 560,426
multi-purpose (tons) 434,000 1,010,199
Total tonnage (tons) 1,076,000 1,570,625
Table 6-7 Input 2005 cargo volumes
The forecast for the multi-purpose (Figure 6-2) and container (Figure 6-3) cargo volumes are
presented geographically presented below.
5.000.000
4.000.000 Low Multi-purpose cargo
Average Multi-purpose cargo
3.000.000 High Multi-purpose cargo
2.000.000
1.000.000
tons
0
00
02
04
06
08
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
26
28
30
Years
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
Figure 6-2 Real GDP multi-purpose cargo volume
1.000.000
900.000
800.000
Low TEU
700.000 Average TEU
600.000 High TEU
500.000
400.000
300.000
200.000
100.000
TEU's
0
00
02
04
06
08
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
26
28
30
Year
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
Figure 6-3 Real GDP TEU cargo volumes
6.3.2 Component 2: the preferred large scale (heavy) industry investment options at Sungai
Liang
The government has identified an Alumina Smelter and tyre recycling plant as a the first preferred
large scale (heavy) industry options for the Sungai Liang site, 300 ha (see also paragraph 6.1). Both
the Alumina Smelter and Tyre Recycling Plant have very high energy consumption per ton of intake
and the availability of cheap gas makes this location an attractive proposition.
The development of these projects has entered the feasibility stage. Therefore this study will consider
these projects to go ahead and assumes construction will start in 2008. In 2010 the production of both

industrial plants will commence and reach full capacity in 2014. A linear production increase is
assumed during these 4 years. After 2014 the plants will operate at full capacity, as is shown in
Figure 6-4
2.000.000
Containers (TEU)
Cargo volume
1.500.000
Dry Bulk (tons)
1.000.000 Multi purpose (tons)
500.000
0
Year
00
02
04
06
08
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
26
28
30
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
Figure 6-4 Cargo volume Sungai Liang
Based on a literature survey, relevant information for an Alumina Smelter of 600.000 tonnes per
annum Alumina intake and for a Tyre recycling plant of 800.000 tonnes per annum Shredded tyres
intake, is compiled and evaluated.
The individual raw materials and products of these plants can be combined into 3 groups consisting of
containerised cargo, multi-purpose cargo and dry bulk, the individual materials and products can be
found in the Table 6-7.
• The containerised cargo is the sum of Thermoplastic, Scrap Steel, Textile waste, Thermo
elastomers, Aluminium Fluoride and other, Ingots and waste and others. This totals 483,100
tons containerised in 80,508 TEU’s.
• The multi-purpose cargo is the sum of Scrap Steel, Textile waste, Thermoplastic Elastomers,
Aluminium Fluoride, Ingots and Waste and others. This totals 861,100 tons.
• The dry bulk is the sum of powder bulk (Alumina and Petroleum Coke) and other dry bulk
(Pre shredded tyres and Thermo plastic rubber). This totals 1,635,000 tons.
The full capacity cargo volumes calculated are presented in the following Table 6-8:
Tyre recycling plant Import Export Alumina Smelter Import Export

Tons TEU Tons TEU Tons TEU Tons TEU
Pre shredded Tyres 800,000 0 - - Alumina 600,000 - - -
Thermo plastic rubber 112,400 3,707 - - Petroleum Coke 123,000 - - -
Scrap Steel - - 93,500 3,100 Aluminium Fluoride and others - 107 - -
Textile waste - - 67,000 2,200 Ingots - - 200,000 4,167
Thermoplastic Elastomers - - 488,000 30,000 Waste and others - - 12,600 787
Empty containers - 31,593 - - Empty containers - 4,847 - -
Total cargo throughput 912,400 35,300 648,500 35,300 Total cargo throughput 723,000 4,954 212,600 4,954
Table 6-8 Tire Recycling Plant cargo and Alumina Smelter cargo full capacity
6.3.3 Component 3: the development of the other 9 industrial sites

The cargo volumes resultant from the development of the other 9 planned industrial areas (total area of
420 ha) are difficult to estimate as no details are available. On basis of the following assumptions a
best estimate is made:
the total raw materials import and total product export consists of containers only, measured in
TEU.
the manufacturing investment projects produce 500 TEU per built ha per yr, including

imported and exported containers.

the total average TEU load is assumed to be 11 ton/TEU 7
the planned manufacturing capacity is assumed to come on stream between 2006 and 2030 on
a linear basis.
The total built manufacturing area is assumed to cover 50% of the total area (thus 210ha). This results
in a total of 105,000 TEU’s and total containerised tons of approx. 1,155,000 tons for the year 2030.
The uncertainty in the assumptions made is very high, therefore the above calculated value will be
taken as the average. A high estimate of 1,000 TEU per built ha per yr will be assumed and a low
estimate of 250 TEU per built ha per yr. For each of these values a scenario line will be constructed, as
shown in Figure 6-5.
250.000
200.000 Low Average High
150.000
100.000
50.000
TEU's
0
00
02
04
06
08
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
26
28
30
Year
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
Figure 6-5 Throughput of the other 9 industrial sites
6.4 Results from the Scenarios

The results are derived from a model that has been constructed using the input data presented in the
above paragraphs. With this model the different cargo volumes (container, multi-purpose and dry bulk
cargo) are forecasted and if required, the influences of changes in the key variables on the cargo
volumes can be studied.
6.4.1 Results scenarios

The outcome from these computations is presented in Table 6-9 for four reference years (2005, 2015,
2025 and 2030). The period 2005 – 2015 represents the first phase masterplan and the whole period
the complete masterplan timeframe (paragraph 3.3). The full computation which is the underlying
basis of Table 6-9 is presented in the appendix F together with the graphically presentation of the three
cargo volumes.
For example the outcome of the average scenario for the TEU forecast in the year 2030 (701,586
TEU) consists of the contributions the three components i.e. (i) the average GDP growth scenario
(516.078 TEU), (ii) the Sungai Liang site (80.508 TEU) and (iii) the average industrial growth
scenario for the of the other 9 sites (105.000 TEU).
Year
scenario Cargo type 2005 2015 2025 2030
Low Containers (TEU) 101,249 265.858 365.786 428.993
Multi-purpose cargo (tons) 585,085 1.726.532 2.190.454 2.508.989
Dry bulk (tons) 0 1.635.000 1.635.000 1.635.000
Average Containers (TEU) 106,155 337.849 550.152 701.586
Dry bulk (tons) 0 1.635.000 1.635.000 1.635.000
High Containers (TEU) 113,161 444.644 853.301 1.179.148
Dry bulk (tons) 0 1.635.000 1.635.000 1.635.000
Table 6-9 Cargo forecast results for selected years

The uncertainty of attracting sufficient export-orientated industry make the accuracy of the prediction
for the 2015 – 2030 period less meaningful. Therefore this study will concentrate on the maritime
requirements for the year 2015 and ensure that the options selected are non regret for the later years.
Of the three scenarios the average scenario is taken, as the basis for the development of the maritime
infrastructure and where applicable for sensitivity purposes the high and low scenario will be used.
6.4.2 Industrial development per district

The cargo forecast developed in the scenarios does not show what the impact will be for the different
districts in Brunei. This might be of importance when different port locations are considered. To
extract these figures the total average TEU capacity for the new industrial sites (excluding Sungai
Liang) is used as a starting point and the following steps are followed:
• combine the industrial areas per district
• pro rate this capacity for each district as a percentage of the total new industrial sites area
New industrial % of total new

District
site (ha) industrial site
Brunei-Muara 289 68
Belait 88 22
Tutong 40 9
Tembourong 5 1
Total 422 100%
Table 6-10 Percentage of the total industrial site for each District
• Establish for the reference years the TEU capacity (average scenario) of these industrial sites.
This results in the following table.
Table 6-11 Cargo handled per district until 2030
6.5 Maritime overview
6.5.1 Regional Maritime history

The Southeast Asian region has historically developed an unique type of maritime trade. The lack of
inland infrastructure made the economies heavily dependent on the water infrastructure for the trade
and text box 1 emphasis this.
The countries of Southeast Asia depend heavily on marine transport and benefit greatly from the
participation of international trade and shipping. Although Southeast Asia does not produce large
volumes of bulk cargo such as oil, iron ore and grain, industrial development in the core countries
(Thailand, Malaysia, Indonesia and the Philippines) since 1970’s has produced large volumes of
containerised cargo. [Southeast Asian regional port developments, 2001]
Text Box 1

6.5.2 Container ship size overview

The world wide drive by containership owners to lower their transportation costs per container is
resulting in increased ship sizes. It is predicted that the container ship of the future will be able to carry
12,500 TEU to 15,000 TEU. 4 These mega-container ships are still on the drawing board as their
power and size impose technical and practical limitations. Their very large size will restrict the use of
these ships to specific high volume transport routes, with calls to only a few ports with enough water
depth and adequate infrastructure. The largest container ship now in service is the Sovereign Mærsk
with a capacity of 8,000 TEU, length 347 meters and a beam of 42.8 meters.
The maritime pattern in Southeast Asia has resulted in the specific use of certain types of container
ships as emphasised in textbox 2.
“The Asian Short Sea shipping market is characterised by the dominance of Lo-Lo container
shipping. The fact that there are relatively few land borders between the main countries of the region
means that modal options such as road and rail are generally not available for anything other than
short distance or domestic moves. In addition, RO-RO services tend to be limited to localised and
domestic trades. As a result, Lo-Lo shipping is the primary means of carrying intra-regional traffic, as
well as taking a natural place in the forefront of feeder traffic carriage of course. The dynamic
economic growth of the region is therefore transmitted directly through to containerised shipping
flows. Making Asia the largest and fastest growing regional container market in the world.”
[Short Sea Container Markets, The Feeder and Regional Trade Dynamo, Drewry Consultants, 1997]
Text Box 2
Currently the container ship size used in the Inter-Asian maritime trade varies between 20 and 1,500
TEU, with an average ship size of 700 TEU. The ships deployed between Thailand and Singapore
average currently already 1,000 TEU. For the future these so called feeder ships will increase in size
(to between 1,000 and 2,500 TEU), as the Inter-Asian trade is expected to keep on growing. 4 When
more cargo is generated in Brunei it becomes more economical for the shipping lines to use these
larger container ships on route to Brunei.
6.5.3 Multi-purpose ship size overview

Multi-purpose cargo is not suited for transport in containers, due to its size or economic limitations.
The multi-purpose ships range from 2,000 dwt to well over 20,000 dwt and are equipped with derrick
and gantry ship-based cranes. The majority of the multi-purpose ships in service are in the range
between 2,000 dwt and 10,000 dwt. The larger sizes are only used for specialised cargo types and on
routes with scheduled pick-up and deliveries for specific clients.
The characteristics of the Southeast Asian trade, in particular the short travel distances and the
dominance of shallow ports, make the smaller multi-purpose ships the most preferred. This was also
true for Muara Port in the past with its restricted water depth of 8 meters and low cargo volumes.
Now that the Brunei and regional economy are expected to continue to grow, the maritime trade will
also continue to grow. It is assumed that this will result in an increase of the average ship size.
13 15
The design of multi-purpose ships has not changed much for decades and therefore current ship
dimensions can be used.
6.5.4 Dry Bulk ship size overview

The dry bulk is transported in four types of ships, the Capesize, Panama-max, Handy-max and the
Handy class. For Brunei the arrival of Capesize ships is not realistic, because these ships are only
economical for annual volumes in access of 3 million tons and on long hauling distances. The arrival
of Panama-max ships is only likely when shipments originate from Japan. The Handy-max and Handy
class are for Brunei and in the world maritime trade the most commonly used types, as these are
economically for short distances and specialised cargos. The dimensions of these vessels have
remained constant over the last decades 15.

Part three; Development of routing and port layout alternatives
Part 3;
Cargo routing Potential terminal locations
and port layouts
Selected terminal
locations
Selected routing
alternatives
Muara Port
development
Alternative
layouts
Port development
alternatives
Preferred port
development plan
7 Evaluation of potential terminal locations

- cargo volume per district
- design ship sizes
- nautical requirements
Potential terminal locations
Selected terminal
locations
For this study the year 2015 has been chosen as the year for further detailed evaluation. For the three
port locations (Kuala Belait, Sungai Liang and Muara port) first the suitability is investigated for their
use for the forecasted cargo throughput.
7.1 Cargo volumes per district

In the previous chapter the cargo volumes for the different cargo types have been established. The total
cargo volumes to be handled are compiled per district by using the Table 6-11. It is assumed that the
contribution of the existing economic base can be allocated for 100% to the Brunei-Muara district.
This is a reasonable assumption as 80% of the population lives there (paragraph 4.1) and it makes no
difference for changes to the land infrastructure whether the additional 20% of the cargo would be
transported from Muara port beyond the Brunei-Muara district.
For the average scenario of the year 2015 these are presented in Figure 7-1 below.
The Sungai Liang industrial plants operate at full capacity and the other 9 industrial areas are at 20%
of their capacity.
Kulau Belait
Containers: 9,240 TEU
Sungai Liang
West coast
Dry bulk: 1,635,000 tons

Multi-purpose: 861,100 tons
Tutong
Muara Port
Brunei - Muara district

Containers: 243,910 TEU Temburong
Multi-purpose: 1,061,917 tons Containers: 420 TEU
Figure 7-1 Cargo origin/destination of the 2015 situation

Of the total Brunei-Muara district container volume of 243,910 TEU’s, 28,560 TEU’s are generated
by the new industrial areas.
A cargo analysis for the Sungai Liang site shows the following:
- The total cargo throughput at the Sungai Liang site is (approximately 3,0 million tons) of the
same order of magnitude as Muara port (approximately 3.4 million tons, with 1.1 million tons
multi-purpose and 2.3 million tons containerised cargo).
- It processes in comparison with the Brunei-Muara district all dry bulk, almost half of the multi-
purpose cargo and approximate 1/3 of the total TEU’s. The other districts have hardly any impact
on a national scale.
- For Sungai Liang the multi-purpose cargo and half of the number of containers are for export
only. In addition the other half of the containers are imported as empties.
7.2 Design ship sizes

As the Sungai Liang cargo volumes are relatively high it is logical to consider alternative terminal
locations to Muara port. The terminal locations are Sungai Liang (with a new long and possible new
short pier, Figure 7-4) and Kuala Belait. In order to study the future suitability of these sites the
expected ship sizes have to be determined first. An overview of the ship size can be found in appendix
G. 11
7.2.1 Container ship

The regional maritime container transport is done using feeder ships ranging between 250 and 1,250
TEU depending on the volumes transported on the routes. Development of the Sungai Liang site is
likely to attract feeder container ships up to 250 TEU and for Sungai Liang and Kuala Belait this is
taken as the design ship size. Muara port will likely attract container feeder ships up to 1,000 TEU for
the year 2015 and this is therefore taken as design ship. The dimensions are given in the table below.
Length overall (m) Beam Draft

TEU (LOA or Ls) (m) max. (m)
250 143 19.0 6.5
1000 200 29.0 10.0
Table 7-1 Expected container ship dimensions
7.2.2 Multi-purpose ship

The most common range of multi-purpose ships is 3,000 to 20,000 dwt. The Alumina Smelter and Tire
Recycling Plant might require occasionally ships up to 15,000 dwt, exporting large volumes of
homogenous cargo. This is therefore taken as the design ship size for Muara port and Sungai Liang.
For Kuala Belait the design ship size is taken of a 8,000 dwt. The dimensions are given in the table
below.
dwt (LOA or Ls) (m) max. (m)
8,000 125 18.0 8.0
15,000 165 21.5 9.5
Table 7-2 Expected multi-purpose ship dimensions
7.2.3 Dry bulk ship

For the dry bulk terminal the Panamax (70,000 dwt), the Handy-max (45,000dwt) and Handy ships
(20,000 dwt) are expected. The largest of the ships, the Panamax will be taken as the design ship size
for Muara port and Sungai Liang. For Kuala Belait port the berthing of these ships is not considered an
option, as the port cannot realistically be developed to accommodate these ship sizes.


dwt (LOA or Ls) (m) max. (m)
70,000 255 35.5 13.5
Table 7-3 Expected dry bulk ship dimensions
7.3 Hydraulic analysis

The wind and wave data investigated in paragraph 4.4 will now be used to determine the suitability of
offshore berthing at Sungai Liang and of the sheltered ports of Muara and Kuala Belait. Kuala Belait is
discarded in this analyses as these conditions do not affect the port.
7.3.1 Berthing operational limits due to wind speed

For safe berthing operation and cargo handling the locations will need to comply with the following
rules:
• Berthing for oil tankers less than 60,000 dwt, operational wind speed limit of 10 m/s. 11 This limit
is assumed to be also valid for the large bulk ships.
• Loading and unloading operations of oil tankers less than 60,000 dwt has an operational wind
speed limit of 20 m/s 11. This limit will be assumed to be also valid for the large bulk ships.
• Container operations are hampered by wind speeds of 20 m/s and more 11.
• Mooring boats are limited by wind speeds of 12 – 15 m/s. 11. For Brunei 12 m/s is assumed to be
the limit.
• For optimal berthing conditions the berth orientation should be aligned within 300 of the prevailing
wind direction. 7
The downtime for Sungai Liang and Maura port is determined by the above limitations in relation with
the actual wind speed occurrence as found in waveclimate.com database. The database provides the
percentage of annual occurrence of specific wind speeds, which have been translated into days per
year. The output from the database is given in the appendix H. The number of days that the wind
speed exceeds the acceptable limit (downtime) set by the above operational rules has been compiled in
Table 7-4.
The downtime value for (un)berthing at Muara Port can be expected to be lower than for the offshore
conditions at Sungai Liang, because Muara port is sheltered from the northeast by the Muara Spit and
from the southeast by land.
The berthing orientation result for Sungai Liang in a direction of 2200 – 500 and for Muara port all
directions are possible due to its sheltered location.
Limitation value Vwind Downtime (days/yr)

Type of limitation
(m/s) Sungai Liang Muara Port
(Un) Berthing 10 15 <10
During cargo handling 20 <1 <1
Equipment limitation 20 <1 <1
Mooring boats 12 4 3
within 300 of the prevailing
Berth alignment wind direction
2200 – 500 All directions
Table 7-4 Limiting wind velocity for ship operations
The downtime related to the wind speed limits show acceptable results for both locations.
7.3.2 Berthing operational limits due to significant wave height

For the save berthing of ship and the cargo handling operation at a terminal, Hs should not surpass
certain limits. These handling limits for Hs per ship type 11 are given in Table 7-5. These limitations
are based on wave periods between 7 – 12 s.

The downtime for Sungai Liang and Maura port is determined by the limits set above in relation with
the actual Hs occurrence as found in waveclimate.com database. The database provides the percentage
of annual occurrence of specific Hs, which have also been translated into days per year. The output
from the database is given in the appendix H. The number of days that Hs exceeds the acceptable limit
(downtime) set by the above operational rules has been compiled in Table 7-5.
The mooring boats meet to the ships outside the port area and will be influenced by the offshore wave
conditions.
The conditions for Muara port are far more sheltered and it is assumed that the downtime for berthing
is less than 1 day per year.
Downtime terminal due to the

Limiting wave
Type of Limitation According to wave height (days/yr)
height (m)
Sungai Liang Muara port
Mooring boats PIANC 1.5 7 7
Berthing ship PIANC 1.0 47 <1
General Cargo PIANC 0.8 – 1.0 47 <1
(un)loading container ship PIANC 0.5 193 <1
Dry Bulk 30,000 – 100,000 dwt Loading PIANC 1.0 – 1.5 7 <1
Dry Bulk 30,000 – 100,000 dwt Unloading PIANC 0.8 – 1.0 47 <1
Table 7-5 Limiting Hs and the resulted downtime for the terminals
The downtime related to Hs limits shows very unfavourable results (53 percent per year on average)
for container ships.
7.3.3 Additional information Design parameters for Sungai Liang

Additional information on the Hs return periods at the Lumut location has been obtained from
Interbeton (Table 7-6), which has constructed an LNG terminal there. These wave conditions for
Sungai Liang are in line with the data obtained from the waveclimate database.
1:100 year Hs = 4.31 m, Tp = 12.07 s

1:50 year Hs = 3.94 m, Tp = 11.81 s
1:10 year Hs = 3.61 m, Tp = 11.13 s
1:1 year Hs = 3.09 m, Tp = 10.23 s
Extreme offshore wave direction : North
1:100 year surge: 0.4 m
MHWS: +2.04 m
Table 7-6 Reference hydraulic information
7.3.4 Wave period

The average wave period that occurs in front of
Brunei is in the range of 5s to 10s
(waveclimate.com) and the values for the limiting
Hs in Table 7-5 are therefore valid to use for
Brunei.
Figure 7-2 SAR average wave period

7.3.5 Current
The velocity of the current along the berth of the terminals will influence the ship handling when
certain limits are exceeded. For Muara port it has been assumed that the current along the existing and
future berths will be 1 knots, perpendicular 0.25 knots and at the port entrance the 0.74 knots. The
results are presented in the Table 7-7.
According Limiting current Occurring currents (kn)

Type of limitation of berth
to velocity (kn) Sungai Liang Muara port
Current alongside the berth OCIMF 3 0.5 – 0.75 1 (assumed
Current perpendicular on the berth OCIMF 0.75 0.5 – 0.75 0.25 (assumed)
Maximum velocity current at port
Ligteringen Min. 4 - 5 none 0.75 (assumed)
entrance
Table 7-7 limiting current values for berthing
The current does not impose any limitation to the Sungai Liang and Muara port locations.
7.4 Nautical requirements

The design ship sizes will be used to determine the dimension of the approach channel (depth, length
and width) and the manoeuvring area for the terminal locations.
7.4.1 Approach channel

7.4.1.1 Depth
The depth of the approach channel is calculated for the design ship with the equation below 7 , in
which the water level factors (influencing the ships motion in the water) are taken into account. For
Muara port there will be no tidal range applied as the port authority wants 24 hour access.
d = D − T + smax + r + m
In which:
d Water depth required [m]
D Draught vessels fully loaded for the design ships. [m]
T Tidal elevation above a reference level. [m]
smax Maximum sinkage of the vessel due to ship motions given as squat and trim. [m]
r Vertical motion due to wave response by the ship; [m]
m Remaining safety margin or net underkeel clearance; For the three locations a sandy bottom is
assumed.
[m]
To calculate r the significant wave height (Hs) is divided by 2. From the hydraulic analyses in chapter 5 the
maximum Hs expected is approximate 3 meters.
T = 0.0
smax = 0.5
r = 1.5
m = 0.5
The water level factors total 2.5 meters. In the Table 7-8 the results for the different ship sizes are
given for the water depth required in the approach channel. The existing approach channel water depth
is for Muara port 12.5 meter (+CD), for Sungai Liang it is dependent on the distance of the berth to
shore, and Kuala Belait approximate CD +4 meter.

Approach Additional depth required (m)

Vessel type channel depth Sungai Liang
Max Draft (m) 21
(m) Muara Port Kuala Belait
Panamax 13.5 16.0 + 3.5 * --
Multi-purpose (15,000 dwt) 9.5 12.0 - 0.5 * --
Multi-purpose (8,000 dwt) 8.0 10.5 - 2.0 * + 6.5
Feeder 1000 TEU 10.0 12.5 0.0 * --
Feeder 250 TEU 6.5 9.0 - 4.5 * + 5.0
Table 7-8 Approach channel depth adjustments
The water depth of the Muara Port approach channel requires an increase (+3.5 m) for the Panamax
dry bulk ship only. Kuala Belait requires for the smallest multi-purpose ships 4.5 meters increase and
for the smallest container ships an increase of 5.0 meters.
To accommodate Panamax ships at Sungai Liang an offshore dry bulk pier is required (16 meters of
water depth).
7.4.1.2 Length
The one way approach channel of Muara

port shown in Figure 7-3 has a depth of
CD +12.5 m. Accommodating Panamax
ships results in adding 500 meters to the
channel length (total 3,411 meters).
There is no need to go to a two way as the
number of average ship calls is maximal
5 per day in the year 2015.
Figure 7-3 Muara port approach channel
21
* Can be designed to be adequate

The offshore berthing area for Sungai

Liang will be located six kilometres
offshore, with a water depth of 16.0 meters
so no approach channel is required.
Potential coastal shipping could be located

two kilometres offshore, with a water
depth of 10 meters.
Figure 7-4 Sungai Liang approach channel
To receive the smallest container ship for the shallow port of Kuala Belait a new approach channel
(depth 10.5 m and width 100 m), extending approximate 1,000 to 2,000 m into the sea, is required.
The new approach channel alignment for Kuala Belait must take into account four requirements 7 :
(1) Shortest possible length from the port entrance to deep water, to minimise the dredging costs.
(2) Minimum cross-currents and cross-wind, to minimise the width of the approach channel for
the navigation of ships.
(3) A small angle into the dominant wave direction, to minimise the width needed for the ships in
the approach channel.
(4) Minimum number of bends.
For Kuala Belait the last requirement will
pose the main limitation, as there will
always be a bend at the port entrance. To
have a small angle with the dominant wave
direction the channel must be orientated as
indicated below. This results in a
favourable length, and cross wind and
current influence.
A one-way channel is adequate for the
cargo volume (container and multi-
purpose) involved. This results in an
estimated average of 3 calls per day in
2015.
Figure 7-5 Kuala Belait approach channel

7.4.1.3 Width
The approach channels are assumed to be a 1-way channel. To accommodate the design ships the
required width is determined using the following equation below. 7
W = Wbm + ∑ Wi + 2Wb
The total approach channel width is made up of different components W that are determined by the
local natural conditions and these are determined in Table 7-9 below. These components are assumed
to be valid for all the locations, based on the assumption that the offshore conditions are similar. These
width components are a multiplier function of the beam (B) of the design ship.
Width component Condition Width (m) Argument

Basic Width (Wbm) Water depth <1.25 1.7 B
ships Draught
Additional Width (Wi)
* Prevailing cross-winds 15 – 33 kn 0.4 B
* Prevailing cross-current 0.5 – 1.5 kn 0.7 B The maximum expected cross current from
paragraph 4.4.4 is between 0.5-1.5 kn
* Prevailing long current 1.5 – 3 kn 0.1 B The current through the approach channel is
caused by the tidal current in the Muara Port area
* Prevailing wave height 1–3m 1.0 B
* Aids to navigation Good 0.1 B No electrical aid mechanism is used
* Seabed characteristics Soft 0.1 B Fluvial soil
* Cargo Hazard none --
Bank Clearance (Wb) Sloping edge 0.5 B Type of approach channel bank
Table 7-9 Approach channel width calculation
The total width required for a 1-way channel would be 5.1 B. The present width of Muara port is 122
meters and Kuala Belait has presently a width of approximate 50 meters.
Approach channel Adjustment approach channel (m)

Ships Beam
Ship type width Sungai
(m)
(m) Muara Port Liang21 Kuala Belait
Panamax 25.0 125 +3 * --
Multi-purpose (15,000 dwt) 21.5 108 - 14 * --
Multi-purpose (8,000 dwt) 18.0 90 - 32 * + 40
Feeder 1000 TEU 29.0 145 + 23 * --
Feeder 250 TEU 19.0 95 - 27 * + 45
Table 7-10 Width approach channels
For Muara port the adjustment to the approach channel has to made for the 1000 TEU feeder ship.
(widening with 23 meters). Kuala Belait requires doubling of the existing channel width at the port
entrance.
7.4.2 Manoeuvring area

The area within the port is now evaluated. The main area in the port consist of the basin dimensions
and the turning circle for ships.
7.4.2.1 Basin
The basin requirements are given by the following four design rules 7 .
(1) Basins with a length of less then 1 km the width should be (4 to 5)B + 100m.
(2) Basins with a length of more than 1 km the width should be Ls + Bs + 50 m.
(3) Bulk carriers need (4 to 6)B +100m.
(4) The water depth in the basin will need to be 1.1 * the draught of the vessel.

For the sheltered conditions in Muara port and Kuala Belait the low value of 4B is used for a basin
length shorter than 1 km. Muara port has much more water area, so that the second rule is applicable.
Sungai Liang will require no basin dimension. Kuala Belait has an estimated width of 150 meters.
Additional requirements
Basin dimensions (m) Muara port Sungai Liang Kuala Belait
21
Ship type
Short Long Water depth W d (m) W d (m) W d (m)
basin basin (CD +) (m) (CD +) (m) (CD +) (m) (CD +)
Panamax 242 -- 14.9 -- + 2.4 * * -- --
Multi-purpose (15,000 dwt) 258 237 10.5 -- - 2.0 * * -- --
Multi-purpose (8,000 dwt) 172 193 8.8 -- - 3.7 * * + 22 + 4.8
Multi-purpose (5,000 dwt) 160 170 7.7 -- -- * * + 10 + 3.7
Multi-purpose (3,000 dwt) 152 153 6.6 -- -- * * + 2 + 2.6
Feeder 1000 TEU 216 279 11.0 -- - 1.5 * * -- --
Feeder 250 TEU 176 212 7.2 -- - 5.3 * * + 26 +3.2
Table 7-11 Required basin width and depth ships
Muara port has due to its enormous water space no restrictions to the width of the basin. The water
depth along the berth requires only an increase for a dry bulk terminal (+2.4 meters).
Kuala Belait shows that the basin width requires an additional 22 meters for the largest multi-purpose
ships and 76 meters for the smallest container ship. The water depth requires an increase of minimal
2.6 meters for the smallest multi-purpose ship and 4.8 meters for the container ship.
7.4.2.2 Turning circle

Ships must have sufficient turning area within the port for manoeuvring. PIANC advises a minimal
depth of 1.1 * Vessel Draught (same as the above depth) and a diameter minimal of 2 * Length vessel
(Ls), see Table 7-12.
Ship type Diameter circle (m) Water depth in circle (m)
Panamax 510 14.9
Multi-purpose (15,000 dwt) 330 10.5
Multi-purpose (8,000 dwt) 250 8.8
Feeder 1000 TEU 400 11.0
Feeder 250 TEU 286 7.2
Table 7-12 Turning circle dimensions
Muara port and Sungai Liang can accommodate this in the existing water area. Kuala Belait on the
other hand requires widening its basin from 100 meters to 250 meters.

7.5 Conclusions
Muara port and Sungai Liang can be developed to accommodate the design ship sizes. Kuala Belait is
discarded based on the following considerations.
• The coastal port of Kuala Belait, cannot realistically be developed to accommodate the 70,000
dwt Panamax, as a result of their sheer size.
• Kuala Belait as an alternative to Sungai Liang for containers and multi-purpose cargo is
discarded as an option for the following reasons:
o An very expensive completely new approach channel in a shallow coastline has to be
dredged (depth of 10.5 m, width 100 m)
o The port basin dimensions adjustments are also too large to be accommodated (water
depth 4 to 8.8 m, turning area diameter from 150 to 286 m)
• In addition such major adjustments would have a very negative environmental impact on the
coast morphology, salt intrusion and mangrove conservation areas.
The wind speed and the current velocity presents no limitation.
From the downtime analyses it is concluded that the container handling is not possible in Sungai Liang
without investing in sufficient protection. The bulk ships and multi-purpose ships experience still a
10% downtime period per year and detailed investigation is required to determine if that is acceptable.
The choice for other berthing facilities at Sungai Liang will require large investment in improving the
berthing conditions and the investment must be compared to other means of transporting the cargo to
Sungai Liang. (This is in large contrast to the existing LNG berth at Lumut, but these ships can berth
under much larger wave conditions (up to 2 meters) resulting is much less downtime.)
The analysis confirms that Muara port is a very sheltered port. There is not enough information
available to assess the tidal velocity accurately. This report will therefore assume that the tidal
conditions will be adequate for terminal development in Muara port and at Pulau Muara Besar.
Muara port requires widening of the entrance channel by 23 meters to accommodate the 1,000 TEU
container ship.

8 National cargo routing

- alternatives
- selection through MCE
Selected routing
alternative
The potential terminal locations have been determined in the previous chapter. In this chapter the most
optimal land and water transport alternatives are considered to supply Sungai Liang and the Brunei
economy. This will result to the optimal national cargo routing for 2015 and beyond.
8.1 Routing alternatives

Container transport over sea to the West coast has not been considered as a viable option for the
following reasoning:
Based on the results found in chapter 7 container transport via water to Sungai Liang experiences a
downtime of 193 days. This downtime is unacceptably high (container ships demand 24 hour turnover
time throughout the year) and can only be overcome by very extensive wave protection methods
which require huge investments. In addition half of the total Sungai Liang container throughput is
imported as empties. These empties are available in Muara port because Brunei will remain in the
future a net importer of containerised cargo. The Brunei-Muara district is serviced by trucks from
Muara port, relocation of empty containers by truck to Sungai Liang is therefore the most logical
solution from the transport logistics point of view, resulting in the schematic routing as shown in
Figure 8-1.
Container cargo
Muara 80 km Truck Sungai
Port transport Liang
(un)Loading
Figure 8-1 Routing container transport

The question now to be answered is: “What additional maritime facilities are required in Sungai Liang
and Muara port for optimal routing of the cargo volumes?”.
Without Kuala Belait as a port option and without container water transport, Figure 8-2 gives a
schematic overview of the logistic characteristics.
W a te r tra n s p o rt
120 km
D = 16 m
D o w n tim e :
M u lti-p u rp o s e 47 days
J e tty P ie r D ry B u lk 47 days
D o w n tim e :
6 km
A ll h a n d lin g < 1 d a y
7 m < D < 10 m
O ffs h o re T e rm in a l lo c a tio n
2 km
C o a s ta l P ie r D >12 m
S u n g a i L ia n g M u a ra P o rt
7 km S h e lte re d p o rt lo c a tio n
80 km
L a n d tra n s p o rt
Figure 8-2 Selected terminal locations

In view of the dominant cargo position of Sungai Liang (Figure 7-1), at first glance the preferred
option would be to develop for this cargo local maritime facilities. Such a development would result in
the construction of a 6 km long jetty to handle multi-purpose and dry bulk cargo (Figure 8-2).
Alternatively a light weight jetty could be built for dry bulk only, possibly supplemented with a
coastal jetty (2km) for the multi-purpose cargo which can be transshipped via Muara port. Off course a
full Muara port transshipment alternative for multi-purpose and dry bulk cargo is considered as well.
For the routing a total of five alternatives have been developed based on the above considerations:
Alternative 1: Direct shipping

Alternative 2: Bulk jetty and Muara port land transport
Alternative 3: Bulk jetty and Muara port transshipment
Alternative 4: Muara port transshipment
Alternative 5: Muara port full option
Maritime and land transport are intimately linked in the transport chain from origin to destination.
More maritime transport will automatically result in less land transport. In alternative 1 the maritime
transport is maximised and land transport minimised, whereas for alternative 5 the reverse situation
applies.
In addition at each point in the transport chain where maritime transport ends and land transport takes
over (and vice versa), unloading and loading operations are taking place normally involving additional
equipment and storage area.
The cargo flow routing alternatives (1 to 5) emphasize maritime routing and volumes involved. To
complete the overall picture, the accompanying sea and land transport chain implications in terms of
distance and loading and unloading operations for the three different cargo types have been amplified.
As Muara port and its surroundings is a critical area for congestion and pollution also the number of
truck movements per annum has been estimated and presented.
8.1.1 Alternative 1; Direct shipping

In this alternative, Figure 8-3, the cargo for the west coast and Muara port is handled separately. The
dry bulk cargo (import) and multi-purpose cargo (export) for the west coast is handled at a newly built
offshore Sungai Liang terminal with its storage area onshore. Muara port handles the multi-purpose
cargo for the Brunei-Muara district. The containers are distributed, via the Muara port terminal, to the
industrial areas of Brunei-Muara, Sungai Liang, Kuala Belait and Tutong.
Truck transport
Jetty transport
Short Sea Shipping 9,240 TEU Kulau Belait
West coast
Dry bulk: 1,635,000 tons

Sungai Liang 80,508 TEU
3,780 TEU Tutong

Muara Port
Containers: 337,849 TEU 337,849 TEU

1,061,917 tons
420 TEU Temburong
Multi-purpose: 1,061,917 tons
243,910 TEU
Figure 8-3 Routing cargo flows of alternative 1

The transport logistics involve a 6 km long pier, over which the dry bulk is transported with a
conveyor belt and the multi-purpose cargo with trucks. The truck transport will occur in concentrated
periods when a ship is moored.
D r y B u lk
O ffs h o r e 6 km C onveyor Sungai
te rm in a l tra n s p o rt L ia n g
u n lo a d in g
M u lti- p u rp o s e c a r g o
O ffs h o r e 6 k m T ru c k Sungai
te rm in a l tra n s p o rt L ia n g
L o a d in g
C o n ta in e r c a rg o
M u a ra 8 0 k m T ru c k Sungai
P o rt tra n s p o r t L ia n g
(u n )L o a d in g
The transport loads over the jetty results in a heavy jetty structure. The jetty will have a 2–way truck
transport lane and in addition a dry bulk conveyor belt system.
8.1.2 Alternative 2: Bulk jetty and Muara port land transport

In this alternative, Figure 8-4, the dry bulk cargo is routed directly to a newly built dry bulk terminal at
Sungai Liang, the container and multi-purpose cargo via Muara port. From Muara port the distribution
to the industrial sites is done by truck.
Truck transport
Jetty transport
9,240 TEU Kulau Belait
Short Sea Shipping
West coast
80,508 TEU
Dry bulk: 1,635,000 tons Sungai Liang
861,100tons
3,780 TEU Tutong

Muara Port

337,849 TEU
420 TEU Temburong
Multi-purpose: 1,926,417 tons 1,926,417 tons
1,061,917 tons 243,910 TEU
The transport logistics involved consists of bulk transport directly to Sungai Liang and trucking of the
other two cargoes from Muara port (80 km).
D r y B u lk
O ffs h o re 6 km C onveyor Sungai
t e r m in a l tra n s p o rt L ia n g
u n lo a d in g
M u lt i- p u r p o s e c a r g o
P o rt tra n s p o rt L ia n g
L o a d in g
C o n t a in e r c a r g o
( u n ) L o a d in g
The consequence of this alternative is that the import terminal can be constructed for the dry bulk
only, resulting in a much lighter pier and causeway construction. The causeway requires also
maintenance provisions for the conveyor and berth, so a one way road has to be considered for the
maintenance crew.

For this case the expansion of Muara port will only apply to the multi-purpose and container terminal.
8.1.3 Alternative 3; Bulk jetty and Muara port transshipment

In this alternative, Figure 8-5, the dry bulk will be transported directly to a newly built offshore
terminal at Sungai Liang and the multi-purpose and container cargo are routed through Muara port.
Through an assumed modal split (70% coastal shipping and 30% trucks) the multi-purpose destined
for Sungai Liang is transported by coastal ships to a newly built coastal pier at Sungai Liang with a
storage area onshore. From here the cargo is further distributed/collected for the Sungai Liang
industrial area. The other 30% is transported by truck to the sites individually together with total
volume of containers from Muara port.
Truck transport
Jetty transport
West coast
80,508 TEU
261,730 tons
3,780 TEU Tutong

Muara Port
Containers: 337,849 TEU 337,849 TEU 420 TEU Temburong

1,323,647 tons
1,061,917 tons 243,910 TEU
The transport logistics for the multi-purpose cargo is more complex involving also coastal ship
terminal operations.
D r y B u lk
O ffs h o re 6 km C onveyor S ungai
te r m in a l tra n s p o rt L ia n g
u n lo a d in g
M u lti- p u r p o s e c a r g o
M u a ra 8 0 k m T ru c k S ungai
L o a d in g
U n lo a d in g
1 2 0 k m C o a s ta l C o a s ta l 2 + 7 k m T ru c k
tra n s p o rt je tty tra n s p o rt
L o a d in g
M u a ra 8 0 k m T ru c k S ungai
The handling of dry bulk at Sungai Liang will require a light weight structure to shore for the
transportation of the dry bulk with a conveyor belt system.
The coastal ships are to be berthed north of Sungai Liang with a (heavy) jetty structure capable of
exporting the multi-purpose cargo. A 2-way lane is required for efficient transport on the pier. From
the storage area additional 7 km transport is required to Sungai Liang.
8.1.4 Alternative 4: Muara port transshipment

This alternative, Figure 8-6, will route all cargo through Muara port. All dry bulk cargo is transported
from a newly built dry bulk terminal by coastal ships to a newly built Sungai Liang terminal and
forwarded by truck to the industrial sites of Sungai Liang. Using the same modal split as for
alternative 3 (70:30) the multi-purpose cargo for Sungai Liang is transported by coastal ships to the
Sungai Liang terminal where a storage area is located on shore for the distribution to the industrial
areas. The remaining 30% is transported by truck to the other sites together with the containers.

Truck transport
Jetty transport
West coast
80,508 TEU
261,730 tons
3,780 TEU Tutong

Muara Port
Dry bulk: 1,635,000 tons 337,849 TEU 420 TEU Temburong
Containers: 337,849 TEU 1,323,647 tons
Multi-purpose: 1,926,417 tons 1,061,917 tons 243,910 TEU
The construction of the coastal pier is such that it can support the multi-purpose cargo and conveyor
belt.
D r y B u lk
M u a ra Sungai
P o rt L ia n g
u n lo a d in g
L o a d in g 2 km C onveyor
1 2 0 k m C o a s ta l C o a s ta l
tra n s p o rt + 7 k m
tra n s p o rt je t t y
( u n ) L o a d in g tru c k tra n s p o rt
M u lt i- p u r p o s e c a r g o
L o a d in g
1 2 0 k m C o a s ta l C o a s ta l 2 + 7 k m T ru c k
tra n s p o rt je t t y tra n s p o rt
L o a d in g
In Muara port additional berthing and terminal area must be allocated to handle the coastal ships at the
terminals.
8.1.5 Alternative 5: Muara port full option

In this alternative,
Figure 8-7, all the cargo is handled in Muara port where the cargo is distributed (and vice versa) by
truck to the industrial areas. For the dry bulk a new terminal has to be created in Muara port.
Truck transport
Jetty transport
West coast
1,635,000 tons
80,508 TEU
Sungai Liang
861,100 tons
3,780 TEU Tutong

Muara Port
Dry bulk: 1,635,000 tons 1,635,000 tons

Containers: 337,849 TEU 337,849 TEU 420 TEU Temburong
1,926,417
1,061,917 tons 243,910 TEU

The logistic routing is for alternative for all the cargoes similar.
Dry Bulk
unloading
Multi-purpose cargo
Loading
Container cargo
(un)Loading
8.2 Evaluation of cargo routing alternative

As shown in the above presentation of the alternatives 1 to 5, the choices of the terminal location
determine the logistic process involved. The resultant cargo routing alternatives have to be compared
with each other in order to find the optimum alternative. The economic evaluation of each alternative
requires a detailed assessment of all capital/terminal/infrastructural investment costs and (logistic)
operating costs. These are considered outside the scope of this report. Therefore the evaluation will
concentrate on a more qualitative comparison based on the following “hard” criteria. This is
supplemented by a number of “soft” criteria.
“Hard” criteria “Soft” criteria

- transportation cost - environmental consideration
- hydraulic consideration - industrial clients perspective
- nautical implications
- construction cost
To select the most (beneficial) routing alternative the Multi Criteria Evaluation (MCE) method is
used.8
The MCE uses qualitative criteria which are scored on a scale from 1 to 10, in which 10 is the best
score and 1 the worst. The scores are multiplied with the weight of the criteria and then added up. The
weight of the criteria is established using a comparison matrix, in which the same criteria are listed in
column and rows. Each criteria in a row is compared to the other criteria in the columns. When a
criteria in a row is considered more important that the one in the column, it is awarded a 1. If not it is
awarded a 0. When both criteria are considered equally important, both are awarded a 1.
The awards of each criteria from the columns are then added to determine the total score. From the
total score the relative score of each criteria is then determined. This individual score is than corrected
to a scale of 100.
Group 1 Criteria a Criteria Score Weighted score

b
Criteria a x Individual score/sum
Criteria b x
Sum Total score
In the following the criteria will be discussed and a scoring set will be presented.

8.2.1 “Hard” criteria

The weight factors for the ‘hard’ criteria are derived from the following table.
Criteria Total Corrected Weighted score

A B C D
awards awards %
Transportation costs A X 0 0 0 0 1 7
Hydraulic costs B 1 X 1 0 2 4 27
Nautical costs C 1 1 X 0 2 4 27
Construction costs D 1 1 1 x 3 6 40
Total score 6 15 100 %
Table 8-1 Weighted score routing criteria
The hard criteria are evaluated as follows

1) Transportation costs
These are the total transportation cost for using truck, ship and conveyor belt, including all the
handling costs.
Alternatives Score Only the dry bulk and multi-purpose cargo transportation costs have to be
1 10 compared as container transport cost are the same for all alternatives. When
2 8 comparing the logistic diagrams alternative 1 will result in the lowest
3 5 transportation costs, followed by alternative 2 and 3, as dry bulk import for
4 2 all 3 cases will be directly shipped to Sungai Liang. Alternative 3 is ranked
5 1 lower then alternative 2 because it still involves some 9 km truck transport
with additional handling at the coastal pier. Alternative 4 involves also the
truck transport of dry bulk and is certain less attractive then alternative 3, but
is difficult to judge whether it is cheaper than alternative 5.
2) Hydraulic costs
These costs relate to the reduction of the downtime, see also Table 7-5.
Alternatives Score Alternative 1 and 4 experience the same wave conditions during the winter
1 1 season influencing the terminal operations of the multi-purpose cargo
2 6 (coastal) ships. For the dry bulk ships in alternative 1, 2 and 3 the impact on
3 3 the of these conditions is the somewhat less. Alternative 5 scores the highest
4 2 as Muara port experiences a downtime of less than 1 day per year.
5 10
3) Nautical costs
These costs relate to the adjustment of the approach channel and port basin area to accommodate
the future ship sizes. See paragraph 7.4.
Alternatives Score Alternative 1 and 2 require no adjustments in Sungai Liang and minimal
1 6 adjustments in Muara port. Of the alternatives 3, 4 and 5, alternative 3
2 7 requires the minimal adjustments in Muara port, whereas alternative 4 and 5
3 5 require major nautical adjustments to accommodate the Panamax ship in the
4 1 port.
5 1
4) Construction cost
These are related to the construction costs required at the terminal locations.
Alternatives Score Construction costs for alternative 1 are extremely high, as it involves a 6 km

1 1 long 2-way truck causeway with a dry bulk conveyor system approach trestle
2 5 structure, with at the end a (protected) dry bulk berth (consisting of 2 berths,
3 3 as a first estimate) and multi-purpose berth (consisting of 1-3 berths, as a first
4 3 estimate). This alternative is not really feasible. Alternative 4 will still
5 8 involve very high investment costs for the 2 km long heavy dry bulk/multi-
purpose approach trestle (with possible the same number of berths as
alternative 1). Some additional terminal and storage cost in Muara port will
be encountered as well.
For alternative 3 the investments costs in the light weight dry bulk pier and
approach trestle will still be high, but lower than the alternatives 1 and 4.
Alternative 2 only involves the dry bulk pier, making it less expensive than
alternative 3. For alternative 5 all investment costs in Muara port are low
compared to the other alternatives.
8.2.2 “Soft” criteria

The soft criteria are shown below:
1. Environmental considerations
The environmental impact of these routing alternatives will have the largest effect on the number
of trucks between Muara port and Sungai Liang. In addition the construction of piers at Sungai
Liang will have some effect on the morphology of the coast line.
Alternatives Score Alternative 5 will create the largest number of truck movements, but has no
1 10 effect on the west coast shore, and is viewed as the least favourable and
2 8 therefore scores less than all other alternatives. Although alternative 3 and 4
3 3 stimulate the use of coastal shipping, as an environmental friendly transport
4 3 option, the additional effect to the west coast shore will influence the score
5 1 somewhat negatively. Alternative 1 will be the best followed by alternative
2, as the morphological consequence are better than for alternative 3 and 4
and no long distance hauling is involved in alternative 1.
2. Industrial clients perspective

The owners of the industrial plants of Sungai Liang prefer to have a terminal nearby to limit the
transport between their site and the terminal and thus having more control over the transport
chain.
Alternatives Score Alternative 1 is the most preferred option, followed by alternative 2 and 3.
1 10 The alternatives 4 and 5 via Muara port are the worst options.
2 8
3 4
4 1
5 1

8.3 Results and conclusion

Using the Multi Criteria Evaluation (MCE) method for the ‘hard’ criteria results in the following
scoring table (Table 8-2).
Alternatives
Criteria
WF 1 2 3 4 5
Transportation costs 7 10 8 5 2 1
Hydraulic costs 27 1 6 3 2 10
Hard
Nautical costs 27 6 7 5 1 1
Construction costs 40 1 5 3 3 8
Total score 100 293 600 367 213 620
Table 8-2 Hard criteria score
Alternative 5 has the highest score, but the difference with alternative 2 is minimal. Alternative 1, 3
and 4 score considerably less than alternative 2 and 5.
The outcome of the ‘hard’ criteria will have to be validated to get some insight into the sensitivity of
the outcome against the chosen weight set. A first validation set when all the criteria are given the
same weight factor. In the second and third set variations in the hydraulic and nautical costs have been
evaluated. In the forth set the key issues are high transportation costs and low hydraulic and nautical
costs.
Weight factor Score
Criteria
WF0 WF1 WF2 WF3 WF4 1 2 3 4 5
Transportation costs 7 25 7 7 40 WF0 297 603 368 214 620
Hydraulic costs 27 25 33 19 10 WF1 450 650 400 200 500
Nautical costs 27 25 19 33 10 WF2 267 595 354 221 677
Construction costs 40 25 40 40 40 WF3 337 609 382 207 551
100 100 100 100 100 WF4 510 650 400 230 470
Table 8-3 Sensitivity analysis
For all sensitivities considered alternative 2 and 5 remain the most attractive. With a slight advantage
of alternative 2. Therefore alternatives 1, 3 and 4 are discarded. This leaves a comparison between
alternative 2 and 5.
The key issue between alternative 2 and 5 is the difference between the dry bulk trucking costs from
Muara port compared to the construction cost of a light weight dry bulk pier at Sungai Liang. It is
difficult to draw a final conclusion as to which alternative is the most attractive, therefore the influence
of some “soft” criteria, like environmental considerations and industrial clients perspective will be
taken into account as well.
Alternatives
Criteria
1 2 3 4 5
Environmental considerations 10 8 3 3 1
Soft
Industrial clients perspective 10 8 4 1 1
Total score 20 16 7 4 2
Table 8-4 Soft criteria score
This evaluation shows that alternative 1 is preferred over all the other alternatives and alternative 5
and 4 (little less) have the lowest score. The difference between alternative 2 and 1 is very small.
Combining both conclusions from the ‘hard’ and ‘soft’ criteria leads to the conclusion that alternative
2 is the preferred option. This alternative will therefore be further developed, focusing on the
development of Muara port layout alternatives.
In addition it is recommended to conduct an in depth study into the development of the dry bulk
terminal at Sungai Liang.

9 Muara Port spatial requirements

- number of calls
Muara Port spatial - cargo forecast
requirements
Future terminal area
and berth length
In the previous chapter Muara port has been identified to remain for the foreseen future the central
maritime container and multi-purpose cargo handling port of Brunei. The future cargo volumes to be
handled require additional terminal area and berth length and these will be calculated. For the berth
length calculation the queuing theory will be used. The outcome of the calculations will be used as
input to develop alternative port layouts.
9.1 Terminal area required

Table 6-9 from paragraph 6.4 will be used to determine the terminal area for the container terminal
and multi-purpose terminal.
9.1.1 Container terminal

The container terminal area is subdivided in three areas:
• the stacking area for the containers (import, export and empties). Stacks for hazardous cargo
and reefers will not be taken into account.
• the buildings and road area (general facilities)
• Container freight station (CFS)
To calculate the total terminal area, firstly the stacking area for each of the three stacks (import, export
and empties) is determined using the equation below. 7 Secondly, from the total of the three stacking
areas the total terminal area can be calculated assuming certain percentages of the total terminal area
for general facilities and CFS.
Ci * t d * F
O=
r * 365 * mi
In which:
O = Stacking area required for import, export and empties [m2]
Ci = Number of container movements per year per stack [TEU/yr]
td = Average dwell time [days]
F = Required area per TEU inclusive the travel lanes for the stacking equipment (m2) [m2/TEU]
r = Average stacking height / nominal stacking height [-]
mi = Acceptable average occupancy rate [-]
Ci = through the stacks: 45 % import, 45 % export and 10% empties.

td = import 5 days, export 7 days and empties 20 days
F = 12 m2/TEU
r = import 0.6, export 0.8 days and empties 0.9
mi = 0.65
The values used for each individual parameter are discussed below:
• The number of annual container movements in TEU (Ci)
Of the total annual container movements 45% is moving through the import and export stack
respectively, as currently is the case, and 10% through the empty container stack.
• Average dwell time (td)

The average dwell time differs between the different container stacks. The export stack has a dwell

time of 7 days on average. The import stack in general is cleared as soon as possible and therefore has
the lowest dwell time, on average 5 days. The empty container stack has on average a dwell time of 20
days, because this stack is used as long storage for empty containers.
• Required area TEU per m2 (F)

The required stacking area is dependent, among other things, on the total annual throughput of the
container terminal and the type of container stacking equipment used. The following criteria for the
selection of the stacking equipment type in relation to the annual throughput are used: 11.
(1) Forklift trucks for less than 200.000 TEU per annum.
(2) Reach stackers for less than 300.000 TEU per annum.
(3) Straddle carriers for more than 100.000 TEU per annum.
(4) Gantry cranes for more than 200.000 TEU per annum and for limited terminal space.
Because the container forecast exceeds the given maximum, the use of the first two types of stacking
equipment is not feasible.
For the last two types of stacking equipment (straddle carrier and gantry crane) the value of F is 12 m2
per TEU (this is consistent with a stacking height of 3 high) is chosen.
• Average stacking height / nominal stacking height (r)

The value of r is mainly dependent on the number of moves for re-positioning in a particular stack.
Imported containers will leave the terminal relatively fast and these containers will need to be easily
accessible, hence a value of 0.6 is taken. The exported containers are stacked according to a ship
loading plan, hence less additional re-positioning is needed in stack and a value of 0.8 is applicable.
For the empty container stack little re-positioning of containers is required, therefore a value of 0.9 is
used.
• Acceptable average occupancy rate (mi)

The arrival and departure pattern of containers to and from the terminal is stochastic by nature. On
average the value of mi varies between 0.65 and 0.70. For this terminal the lower value of 0.65 is
chosen.
The outcome of the equation is presented in the table below.
Year
Scenario 2015 2025 2030
Low Area (m2) 133,256 183,343 215,024
Average Area (m2) 178,952 275,752 351,656
High Area (m2) 222,869 427,700 591,023
Table 9-1 Required total stacking area container terminal
The stacking area or primary area (Apy) is part of the total terminal area required. This area is
approximately between 60-85 percent of the total area. Using Thorensen 2003 the total yard area (AT)
can be calculated by adding the stacking area, general facilities area and CFS area.
The CFS area for stuffing and stripping of containers (ACFS) is approximate between 15 – 30 percent
of the total area. The general facilities area (AROP) is approximate between 5 – 15 percent of the total
area.
For this report the following areas in percentage of the total terminal area are assumed:
- The ACFS area is 20% of the total terminal area.
- The AROP area is 10% of the total terminal area.
This leaves for the primary yard 70% of the total area. The total terminal area is presented in the Table
9-2.

Year
Scenario 2015 2025 2030
2
Low Area (m ) 190,365 261,918 307,177
Average Area (m2) 255,646 393,932 502,365
High Area (m2) 318,384 610,999 844,319
Table 9-2 Total container terminal area
The present container area in use (16ha) will not be sufficient for the future, as a shortage of space will
occur after 2010, as is shown in the graph below.
90
80 Low
70 Average
60
High
50
40
maximum space 2005
30
20
10
Ha
0
2005
2010
2015
2020
2025
2030
Year
Figure 9-1 Container terminal area growth

This implicates that additional storage capacity is required in the immediate future.
9.1.2 Multi-purpose terminal

The multi-purpose terminal area is divided into:
• warehouses, transit sheds and open storage
• the buildings and road area. (general facilities)
To calculate the total terminal area firstly the total storage area Ots is calculated using the equation
below 7 . Secondly the total terminal area can be calculated from the total storage area Ots assuming a
certain percentage of the total area for general facilities.
f1 * f 2 * Cts * t d
Ots =
mts * h * ρ * 365
In which
Ots = the required floor area at the terminal [m2]
f1 = proportion gross/net surface in connection with traffic lanes for FLT’s. [-]
f2 = bulking factor due to stripping and separately stacking of special consignments [-]
Cts = fraction of total annual throughput Cs which passes the transit shed [ton/yr]
td = Dwell time [days]
mts = Occupation rate of the transit shed or storage [m]
h = Stacking height in the storage [m]
ρ = Density of the cargo as stowed in the ship [-]
365 = days per year [-]
The variables in the equation are dealt with in detail below:

f1 = 1.5
f2 = 1.2
Cts = total multi-purpose cargo throughput will pass through the storage area from Table 6-9.
td = 10 days
mts = 0.70
h = 2 meters
r = 0.6

This result in the following total storage area required
Year
Scenario 2015 2025 2030
Low Area (m2) 92,915 117,882 135,024
Average Area (m2) 103,672 154,811 195,584
High Area (m2) 116,624 209,457 294,925
The multi-purpose terminal consists of more than the storage facilities alone. There are other building,
traffic lanes, berthing areas and parking areas on the terminal and it is assumed that the total storage
area consists of 40 % of the total terminal area. The total multi-purpose terminal area is shown in
Table 9-3.
Year
Scenario 2015 2025 2030
Low Area (m2) 232,288 294,704 337,560
Average Area (m2) 259,180 387,026 488,959
High Area (m2) 291,560 523,642 737,312
Table 9-3 Total multi-purpose terminal area required
The present multi-purpose terminal area (10 ha) will not be sufficient to accommodate the future
multi-purpose cargo beyond 2007, as is seen in the figure below.
80
70 Average
60 High
50
40
Low
30 maximum space 2005
20
10
Ha
0
2005
2010
2015
2020
2025
2030
Year
Figure 9-2 Multi-purpose terminal area growth

Immediate expansion is required for the multi-purpose terminal also.
9.2 Berth length required

At the waterfront the terminal requires a certain berth length (quay) to handle the future number and
the average length of the ships. The total terminal berth length can be calculated using the equation
given below 7 . The average ship length (Ls) of the multi-purpose and container ships has been
determined in paragraph 7.2.
Lq = 1.1 * n * ( Ls + 15) + 15
In which
Lq = quay length, made up from the total length of n berths [m]
Ls = the average ship length expressed in Length Over All [m]
n = the number of berth needed determined by the queuing theory [-]
The number of berths (n) has to be determined first before the quay length can be calculated. For this
the queuing theory has to be used.

9.2.1 Queuing theory

This theory 5 makes it possible to calculate the number of service points (berths) through a chosen
type of service system. Such a system characterises the distribution of the arrival pattern and the
distribution of the service time of the ships. The choice is between an irregular system with a negative
exponential distribution (M) and a regular system with an Erlang 2 distribution (E2).
Firstly the total terminal berth utilisation (ρ) is determined:

λ
ρ=
µ
In which :
ρ = total utilisation of terminal [-]
λ = inter arrival time of the ships [hr/ship]
µ = service rate of the ships [hr/ship]
The service rate is the time a ship occupies the berth. This consists of the handling time at the berth,
the time the ship requires to berth and unberth and other time consuming activities as custom duties.
The number of berths (n) is found by dividing the total terminal utilisation by an assumed number of
berths. If the outcome for the service system chosen is less than the maximum accepted delay also
chosen, which can be found in tables 5 then the number of berths is correct.
ρ
u=
n
In which :
u = berth utilisation [-]
ρ = total utilisation of terminal [-]
n = number of servers required (berths) [-]
9.2.2 Arrival rate

The expected arrival rate of the ships (container and multi-purpose) is based on the assumed shipment
volume (defined as the total cargo volume loaded and unloaded during berthing). The maritime
overview of paragraph 6.5 is used as basis to determine these shipment volumes.
The maritime development of Asia showed that feeders are to remain the main means of transport. For
the reference years in the Table 9-4 the assumed average shipment volumes are shown for all three
scenarios.
Year
Scenario (Average shipment volume in TEU) 2015 2025 2030
Low 250 500 500
Average 250 1,250 1,500
High 500 2,000 2,500
Table 9-4 Average container shipment volume in TEU forecasted to 2030
The average multi-purpose shipment volume is assumed to show no large increase until the year 2015,
as the cargo throughput is similar to the peak of 1996. From 2015 onwards the average shipment
volume will increase to year 2025 and remain constant. This has been highlighted for each of the 3
scenario in Table 9-5.
Year
Scenario (Average shipment volume in Tons) 2015 2025 2030
Low 3,000 5,000 5,000
Average 4,000 6,000 6,000
High 5,000 8,000 8,000
Table 9-5 Average multi-purpose shipment volume forecasted to 2030

cargo throughput
The arrival rate of the ships (λ) can then be calculated as:
average shipment volume
With the above assumptions on the average shipment volume and the cargo forecast determined in
Table 6-9, the following arrival pattern, Table 9-6, has been derived.
Year
Calls Scenario 2015 2025 2030
Low TEU 1,063 732 858
Multi-purpose cargo 576 438 502
Average TEU 1,351 440 468
High TEU 889 427 295
Table 9-6 Total ships call to Brunei
9.2.3 Service rate

For each shipment volume the average terminal handling rate applies. These rates are estimated in the
following:
• For the container terminal it is assumed that each ship will be serviced by 2 Panamax cranes with a
average capacity of 50 moves/hr. The terminal operator claims this rate and this seems realistic as
39% of the world terminals operate at this rate. 11
• For the multi purpose terminal the cargo handling is divided into two categories.
○ The multi-purpose cargo from Sungai Liang is assumed to be handled at a rate of 300
tons/hr ( scrap steel and aluminium ingots with 30 ton cranes with 10 moves per hour and
the bags are loaded with special bag loader with a total capacity of 300 tons/hr ).
○ The handling rate for the other multi-purpose cargo in Muara port is assumed as 30 ton/hr *
2,5 gangs (for a 100 meter ship) 7 this is total 75 ton/hr. The shipment volume is the
average total handling per ship.
From the above the handling hours per ship are resultant.
Adding to the handling time per ship the hours for berthing and (un)berthing time, 1 hour (0.5 hour
berthing and 0.5 hour (un)berthing), gives the total service rate per ship. Other time consuming
activities like customs are assumed to be done during the handling period of the ships.
9.2.4 Service system chosen

Systems and maximum acceptable delays for each terminal, Table 9-7.
Queue Delay as percentage of the

Terminal type
system type service time
Sungai Liang multi-purpose cargo M/E2/n 30%
Multi-purpose terminal Muara port M/M/n 30%
Container terminal E2/E2/n 10%
Table 9-7 Queue system and waiting time criteria
For Sungai Liang the multi-purpose cargo vessels arrive throughout the whole year on irregular bases
(M). The service rate is regular, because the vessels are more or less the same size (E2). A waiting time
of 30% of the service time is generally accepted.
For the multi-purpose terminal in Muara port the vessels arrive throughout the whole year on irregular

bases (M). The ships vary in size (on average 8,000 dwt, but the range will vary between 5,000 dwt
and 15,000 dwt) and as is also the shipment size (M). It is further assumed that the terminal operates
as one terminal and a waiting time of 30% of the service time is generally accepted as maximum.
For the container terminal the arrival pattern of the ships is normally according a scheduling making
the calls regular (E2). The service rate is also more or less regular, because the shipment sizes are
assumed to be more or less the same (E2). In general a waiting time of 10% of the service time is
accepted as a maximum. It is furthermore assumed that the future container operations are conducted
from one terminal only.
9.2.5 Berth calculations

In the appendix I these calculations are presented for the average scenario in Table 9-8.
Year
Terminal type 2015 2025 2030
Multi-purpose 6 7 8
Container 2 3 3
Total 8 10 11
Table 9-8 Number of berths per terminal type
Now the total berth length can be calculated using the design ship lengths given below for the
container and multi-purpose ships:
Year
2015 2025 2030
Multi-purpose (m) 125 125 125
Container (m) 200 200 270
The ending result is presented in the Table 9-9.
year
Terminal type 2015 2025 2030
Multi-purpose (m) 939 1,093 1,247
Container (m) 488 725 956
Total (m) 1,427 1,818 2,203
Table 9-9 Total berth length required 2015 – 2030
The additional berth length for the multi-purpose and container terminals for 2015 are 328 meters and
238 meters respectively.
9.3 Conclusions
For the year 1996 – 1997 the port reached a historical maximum throughput of 0.9 million tons
containerised and 1.0 million tons multi-purpose cargo. This meant for the multi-purpose terminal that
this throughput required 13 ha (with the terminal area calculation method of paragraph 9.1.2) was just
manageable, as it exceeded its theoretically maximum capacity in terms of terminal area (10 ha of
terminal area) and its berths were fully occupied.
For the container terminal this throughput was approx. half of its capacity in terms of terminal area (7
ha of 16 ha, assuming that area A is integrated into the container terminal).
Between 2005 and 2010 the maximum capacity of the terminals will be reached, looking at the
Figure 9-1 and 9-2, and will increase further beyond 2015. Therefore the terminals have to be
expanded in the near future and alternative developments must be considered.

10 Muara port lay-outs development for 2015

- Layout alternatives
Port development
- Multi Criteria Evaluation
alternatives
Preferred port
development plan
In the previous chapter the terminal area and berth length requirements for 2015 have been determined
and now these requirements must be translated into an optimal layout for Muara port for 2015 and
beyond.
10.1 Muara port development starting points

The present Muara port land use will be highlighted first. Thereafter, using the terminal area
requirements of chapter 9, different port layouts will be developed.
10.1.1 Present Muara port land use

Currently the total port area is 72 ha (excluding the naval base, bitumen jetty and cement jetty). The
total vacant port area on the existing waterfront totals 27 ha, with a total waterfront length of
approximately 2,000 meters. The approximate existing land use of Muara port for the different
terminals is shown in the following Table 10-1.
Area Waterfront length

From north to south: (ha) (m)
NB Naval Base unknown unknown
OT Oil & Bitumen Jetty unknown unknown
FW1 Fishery Wharf 1 9 206
M-p Multi-purpose 10 611
A Area A (used by CT) 6 0
CT Container Terminal 10 250
B Free area B 12 353
C Free area C 5 0
FW2 Fishery Wharf 2 10 260
D Free area D 10 380
CJ Cement Jetty unknown unknown
Table 10-1 Muara port land use
10.1.2 Muara port terminal limitations

Good access of the port by road is very important, as all the cargo will be transported by truck through
Brunei. With the increased cargo activity in the port the current road infrastructure is expected to be
insufficient. Considerable modifications may be required to accommodate the increased traffic.
Terminal development on Pulau Muara Besar requires a land connection together with a bypass road
around Muara port.

Figure 10-1 Muara port land use
For terminal expansion to Pulau Muara Besar the area available is assumed to be more than 100 ha.
The area E is reserved for a bridge connection to Pulau Muara Besar.
For the further development of Muara port it is assumed that the following terminals will remain
unchanged:
- The naval base at the entrance of the channel (NB)
- The shell bitumen jetty next to the navel base (OT)
- The cement and ferry jetties. (CJ)

10.2 Muara Port lay out alternatives development

To develop Muara port the areas B, C and D are readily available for future development and the
fishery wharfs FW1 and FW2 can possibly be combined. Rearranging of the existing container and
multi-purpose terminals is also considered. Area A is currently in use by the container terminal, but
this area can be modified for the multi-purpose terminal.
10.2.1 Introduction
The required terminal area and berth length have been calculated in chapter 9 for all scenarios. The
average scenario was chosen for further development, but as this development has to be non regret for
later years the high and low scenarios for the area requirements for years 2025 and 2030 are also taken
into account, as is shown in Table 10-2. As mentioned before the existing container terminal area is 10
ha with additional 6 ha and the multi-purpose terminal area is 10 ha.
Total 2015 Total 2025 Total 2030

Terminal Scenario
(ha) (ha) (ha)
Low 19 26 30
Container terminalAverage 26 40 50
High 32 61 84
Low 23 29 34
Multi-purpose terminal Average 26 39 49
High 29 52 74
Table 10-2 Terminal area requirements
Terminals can be further developed either along the existing waterfront or on the island of Pulau
Muara Besar. Building a second separate container and a second multi-purpose terminal along the
existing waterfront has not been considered a viable proposition for the following reasons:
- After a short investigation into the viability of operating two container terminals along the
existing waterfront, this option has been dismissed. The container throughput is relatively low
and separating container operations will result in doubling of equipment and thus more
investment. Furthermore relocation of containers between the two terminals will become more
costly and create additional handling costs.
- One multi-purpose terminal operation is more efficient in terms of space and berth utilisation.
The following future alternative developments for Muara port are considered for the year 2015 and
presented in layouts:
Alternative 1: Maximum use existing waterfront (Layout 1)

Alternative 2: Maximum use total waterfront (Layout 2)
Alternative 3: Minimum use Pulau Muara Besar (Layout 3)
Alternative 4: Maximum use Pulau Muara Besar (Layout 4)
Alternative 1 and 2 make maximum use of the limited existing waterfront. In alternative 1 the
terminals will expand each to one side and in alternative 2 the multi-purpose terminal is relocated to
the Seresa waterfront to make space for the container terminal expansion at the old multi-purpose
terminal area.
In alternative 3 one terminal moves to the island. The container terminal instead of the multi-purpose
terminal is chosen to move to the island, because the new terminal can be optimally designed with
state of the art technology ensuring a cost competitive solution. In addition the multi-purpose terminal
requires less terminal depth enabling a wider buffer zone with the urban area reducing noise, dust and
light pollution.
In alternative 4 both terminals are located on Pulau Muara Besar from the start.

10.2.2 Layout 1; Maximum use of the existing waterfront

This layout maximises the use of the existing waterfront in Muara port. The free area on both sides of
the existing terminals will be used for the container and multi-purpose terminal expansion
respectively.
For the expansion of the multi-purpose terminal to 25 ha the fishery wharf WF1 (9ha) will be
relocated at the Seresa Industrial area on location D and area A (6ha) will be redeveloped for the
multi-purpose terminal.
The container terminal expansion to 27 ha will redevelop the areas B (12ha) and C (5ha) for its
expansion.
This layout requires a berth extension of 566 m (multi-purpose and container berth respectively 328 m
and 238 m) resulting in a total berth length of 1,427 m. This is approximately the maximum waterfront
length available.
This development alternative maximises the port land use. There is no area vacant beyond 2015 for
expansion on the Muara waterfront.
Multi-purpose terminal
(25 ha) consists of:
A = 6 ha
M-p = 10 ha
FW1 = 9 ha
Container terminal
CT = 10 ha
B = 12 ha
C = 5 ha
Figure 10-2 Layout 1; Maximum use of the existing waterfront

10.2.3 Layout 2; Maximum use of the total waterfront

This layout maximises the total waterfront area of Muara port. The multi-purpose terminal is relocated
to the Seresa waterfront at the locations B, C, WF2 and D (total 37 ha), to accommodate the container
terminal expansion at its present location (by 16 ha to 26 ha). The container terminal will integrate the
present multi-purpose terminal area (10 ha) and area A (6ha) into its terminal. This assumes the
relocation of the fishery wharf WF2 to the other fishery wharf site WF1.
This layout requires a new quay of 939 m for the multi-purpose terminal and a total quay of 488 m for
the container terminal (this leaves 373 m vacant on the old multi-purpose quay).
This development alternative results in some area (17 ha) available for expansion beyond 2015 for the
multi-purpose terminal and no area available for expansion of the container terminal.
Multi-purpose terminal (37 ha)

consists of:
B = 12 ha
C = 5 ha
FW2 = 10 ha
D = 10 ha
Container terminal (26 ha)

consists of:
CT = 10 ha
A = 6 ha
M-p =10 ha
Figure 10-3 Layout 2; Maximum use of the total waterfront

10.2.4 Layout 3; Minimum Pulau Muara Besar development

This layout is based on the assumption that the container terminal will be moved to Pulau Muara
Besar. The multi-purpose terminal will expand on the former container terminal area (10ha) and
redevelop area A (6ha) for the multi-purpose terminal. The development of a new container terminal
on Pulau Muara Besar opposite of Muara port requires a new terminal area of 26 ha.
This layout requires a berth length of 939 m for the multi-purpose terminal. The existing multi-
purpose berth is 611m and old container terminal berth is 250 m. This requires the construction of an
additional approx. 80 m of berth. The container terminal requires the development of 488 m berth at
its new location.
For the multi-purpose terminal expansion beyond 2015 a total area of 27 ha consisting of B, C and one
of the fishery wharfs can possibly be developed bringing the total area to 60 ha. This area is sufficient
to accommodate the multi-purpose terminal beyond 2030 for the average scenario.
On Pulau Muara Besar there is enough area available to accommodate the expansion of the container
terminal.
Multi-purpose terminal
CT = 10 ha
A = 6 ha
M-p = 10 ha
Container terminal
PMB = 26 ha
Figure 10-4 Layout 3; Minimum Pulau Muara Besar

development

10.2.5 Layout 4; Maximum Pulau Muara Besar development

In the last layout both the container terminal (26 ha) and the multi-purpose terminal (26 ha) will be
relocated on Pulau Muara Besar. The terminals will be located opposite of Muara port. This layout
will result in total vacant area in Muara port of 53 ha (27 ha free area and 26 ha old terminal area).
This layout requires the development of new berths totalling 1,427 meters (939 m multi-purpose berth
and 488 m container berth) for the year 2015.
Multi-purpose terminal (26 ha)

consists of:
PMB = 26 ha
Container terminal (26 ha)

consists of:
PMB = 26 ha
Figure 10-5 Layout 4; Maximum Pulau Muara Besar

development

10.3 Multi Criteria Evaluation selection method

To select the most (beneficial) port layout the Multi Criteria Evaluation (MCE) method is used. 8 The
method was already described in paragraph 8.2. In the following the criteria will be discussed and a
scoring set will be presented.
10.3.1 Criteria
The following criteria have been selected:
- Nautical and hydraulic aspects - Urban impact

- Nautical safety and accessibility - Land infrastructure
- Future ship size - Port morphology
- Terminal expansion flexibility - Capital investment effectiveness
To use costs as criteria in this analyse will not be considered, as costs are quantitative and the above
method uses qualitative criteria. It is recommended that an in-depth study is further developed and that
the costs of all alternatives are quantified.
10.3.2 Determining individual weight factors

The result of the weighted scoring is shown in the comparison matrix below:
Criteria Total Weighted score

A B C D E F G
awards (WF0) %
Nautical and hydraulic aspects A X 1 1 0 0 0 0 2 10
Nautical safety and accessibility B 0 X 1 0 0 0 0 1 5
Future ship size C 0 0 X 0 1 1 1 3 14
Terminal expansion flexibility D 1 1 1 x 1 1 1 6 28
Urban impact E 1 1 0 0 x 1 1 4 19
Land infrastructure F 1 1 0 0 0 x 1 3 14
Port morphology G 1 1 0 0 0 0 x 2 10
Total score 21 100 %
Table 10-3 Weighted score criteria
The terminal expansion flexibility is seen as the most important criteria followed by the urban
expansion, land infrastructure and future ship size. The other criteria are less significant but are
nevertheless important to take into account.
10.3.3 Nautical & Hydrodynamic aspects

The nautical and hydraulics criteria include dredging required, berthing conditions and wave
penetration. The approach channel adjustments are assumed to be identical for all layouts.
Score
9 Alternative 1 requires little dredging of the basin and berthing areas. Berthing conditions
are expected to be unchanged. Minimal adjustment is required.
7 Alternative 2 requires extension of the port basin towards the Seresa waterfront at the
newly developed multi-purpose terminal and dredging is required along the new berths.
The berthing conditions are assumed to be adequate.
4 Alternative 3 requires extension of the port basin towards Pulau Muara Besar for the
container terminal. The actual location of the berths will determine the amount of dredging
required, considerable dredging is expected in the northeast corner.

1 Alternative 4 requires extension and expansion of the port basin area towards Pulau Muara
Besar. The northeast corner requires sheltered berthing conditions reducing wave
influences from the approach channel. The northwest corner development is assumed to be
influenced by the tidal current velocity. This alternative has the largest dredging and
berthing implications.
10.3.4 Nautical safety and accessibility

The nautical safety is the risk that ships will collide with each other or with port structures. The higher
the estimated risk the less safe the layout will be. Accessibility of the berthing areas depends on the
degree of ship manoeuvring required.
Score
6 For alternative 1 the access and safety is almost the same as for the present situation. No
change is expected.
8 Alternative 2 will also have no particular accessibility problems. The velocity of the cross
current may cause some negligible nuisance during berthing at the multi-purpose terminal,
thus decreasing the accessibility somewhat but not hampering the nautical safety.
7 For alternative 3 the location of the container terminal on the island increases the safety in
the port as the container ships can manoeuvre independently from multi-purpose ships.
Berthing at the container terminal will require more manoeuvring at the northeast corner
compared to the northwest corner.
6 Alternative 4 The shipping activity is now concentrated at Pulau Muara Besar making the
situation comparable to alternative 1.
10.3.5 Future ship size

Future ship size has impact on the port basin, berthing length and water depth along the berth. Have
the present terminals flexibility to accommodate larger ships? It is assumed that the new berths are
capable to receive the larger ships and the older berths not.
Score
5 In alternative 1 the new berthing area will be able to receive larger ships. This results both
for the container terminal and for the multi-purpose terminal in only one berth for the larger
ships.
3 Alternative 2 will have no new berths for the container terminal restricting the flexibility of
the terminal. The multi-purpose terminal has all new berths and will therefore have no
limitations. The flexibility of the container terminal is more important then the flexibility of
the multi-purpose terminal.
6 Alternative 3 has a newly constructed container terminal with maximum flexibility. The
multi-purpose terminal does not have new berths thus limiting its flexibility.
10 In alternative 4 the construction of both terminals at Pulau Muara Besar results in the
maximum flexibility for future ships sizes.
10.3.6 Terminal expansion flexibility

This criteria focuses on the flexibility to expand the terminal area and berths after 2015 without major
constraints.
Score
2 In alternative 1 further expansion is very restricted.
2 For alternative 2 the future expansion is very restricted.
8 In alternative 3 both terminals will have expansion options available at the locations.
10 Alternative 4 has unlimited expansion options.

10.3.7 Urban impact

When the port is expanding what are the consequences for the urban areas with regard to congestion
and environmental impact?
Score
1 In alternative 1 the terminal traffic is concentrated along one road through Muara port.
Congestion is expected to be severe and as a result increasing environmental pressure in the
urban area. The increased terminal operations will develop more environmental pollution
like dust, noise en night light. The urban areas will experience the maximal hinder.
2 Alternative 2 is almost identical to alternative 1. Part of the terminal operation has been
relocated, but still the hinder experienced will be great.
6 Alternative 3 The congestion is lowered as the Pulau Muara Besar traffic will be diverted
along the future bypass road. The environmental conditions will improve but the access
road of Muara port will still experience some congestion. The terminal operation
environmental pollution is less.
10 Alternative 4 The total traffic is bypassing Muara port and the environmental conditions
have improved considerably in Muara port, as the terminal operations are located elsewhere
10.3.8 Infrastructural changes

The land and water infrastructure will require adjustment to the future situation. The less adjustment
the better.
Score
8 In alternative 1 the increased traffic, due to the two terminal expansions, require investment
in the road infrastructure. On the other hand the waterfront expansion is very small (only
extension of the existing berths). Therefore the total changes are limited.
6 Alternative 2 is identical to alternative 1 for the infrastructural changes. The waterfront
development is on the contrary large as new berths have to be developed for the multi-
purpose terminal.
2 In alternative 3 large infrastructural adjustments are to be constructed in order to develop
Pulau Muara Besar. Besides a land connection a new bypass road has to be developed to
handle the future traffic. Furthermore construction of new berths on Pulau Muara Besar is
contributing to the large changes.
1 Alternative 4 has even larger changes as now also the multi-purpose terminal is transferred
to the island. The same land infrastructural changes will occur as in alternative 3.
10.3.9 Port morphology

How large will be the effect of the port layout on the morphology of the port? Can there be change
expected to the port bed conditions?
Score
10 In alternative 1 the terminal development is expected to have little impact on the port
morphology. The extension of the terminals is affecting the basin soil balance to a
minimum.
6 Alternative 2 requires development of the Seresa industrial waterfront and some impact is
expected on the port morphology.
3 In alternative 3 the dredging of the northeast corner of Pulau Muara Besar is expected to
have impact on the morphology in the port as a large area will be dredged. The impact of
the northwest corner is expected to have less impact as the northeast corner, but still

significant.
2 For alternative 4 the dredging required for the Pulau Muara Besar development is expected
to have significant impact on the port morphology as large areas will be dredged.
10.4 Scoring table

The result of these scores and weight factors is shown in Table 10-4. Alternative 4 has the highest
score (684). Interesting to see that the alternative 2 has the lowest score (390). This is explained by the
large redevelopment required for the short term and expansion limitation on the long term. Alternative
3 is the second best option (555) and alternative 1 the third (477).
Layout
Criteria WF 1 2 3 4
Nautical and hydraulic 10 9 7 4 1
Nautical safety and accessibility 5 6 8 7 6
Future ship size 14 5 3 6 10
Terminal adjustment 28 2 2 8 10
Urban impact 19 1 2 6 10
Land infrastructure 14 8 6 2 1
Port morphology 10 10 6 3 2
100 477 390 555 684
Table 10-4 Multi Criteria Evaluation result
10.4.1 Sensitivity analysis

The outcome of the MCE will have to be validated to get some insight in the sensitivity of the
outcome against the chosen weight set. A first validation set investigates how the results change when
all the criteria are given the same weight factor. For the second validation set the land criteria are
increased with 6.7 points each (20 points change in total) and at the same time the waterside criteria
are decreased with 5 each giving the same total change (20 points). This is then reversed in the third
validation set where the land criteria are decrease with 6.7 and the water criteria increase with 5 points.
Weight factors Score

Criteria WF0 WF 1 WF 2 WF 3 1 2 3 4
Nautical and hydraulic 10 14 5 15 WF 0 477 390 555 684
Nautical safety and accessibility 5 14 0 10 WF 1 577 480 518 580
Future ship size 14 14 9 19 WF 2 396 334 565 735
Terminal adjustment 28 15 35 21 WF 3 540 404 501 621
Urban expansion 19 15 26 12
Land infrastructure 14 14 20 8
Port morphology 10 14 5 15
100 100 100 100
Table 10-5 Validation sets
For all the sensitivities considered alternative 4 remains the most attractive and alternative 2 is in all
cases the worst. This means that the outcome is robust against large variations in the weight factors.
Before detailing the development plan the merits of alternative 2 will be closer investigated.
In addition to the outcome of the MCE the following analysis support the elimination of alternative 2.
• Up to 2015 the investment in alternative 2 is higher than alternative 1 (see the cost estimate below)
• Also longer term alternative 2 has more regret investment as it involves compared to alternative 1
additional relocation of terminals: Firstly the fishery wharf 2 has to be relocated and combined

with fishery wharf 1 (10ha for both wharfs), secondly the multi-purpose terminal has to be
relocated after redevelopment of the Seresa waterfront and thirdly the vacant area the multi-
purpose terminal leaves behind is converted into container terminal, which will be converted back
to multi-purpose terminal when moving to alternative 3.
Cost estimate between alternative 1 and 2.

Relocating fishery wharf:
Alternative 1 FW1 to D 5 million
Alternative 2 FW2 with FW1 10 million
Landfill
Alternative 1 100,000 m2 (FW1 and B together) * 4 meters water * $ 4/m2 = $ 1.6 million
Alternative 2 60,000 m2 (area B only) * 4 meters water * $ 4/m2 = $1.0 million
Berth
Alternative 1 503 m * $ 54,000 /m1 = $ 27.2 million
Alternative 2 939 m * $ 54,000 /m1 = $ 50.7 million
Land development
Alternative 1 200,000 m2 * $ 200 /m2 = $ 40.0 million
Alternative 2 470,000 m2 * $ 150 /m2 = $ 70.5 million
Dredging
Alternative 1 320,000 m3 (503 m long * 12.5 m deep * 50 m wide) * 7 /m3 = $ 2.2 million
Alternative 2 590,000 m3 (939 m long * 12.5 m deep * 50 m wide) * 7 /m3 = $ 4.1 million
Redevelopment terminal
Alternative 1 60,000 m2 (area A for multi-purpose terminal) * 100 /m2 = $ 6.0 million
Alternative 2 160,000 m2 (area A and old multi-purpose terminal) * 100 /m2 = $ 16.0 million

11 Muara port development strategy

The integral development of Pulau Muara Besar (alternative 4) had the highest score in the MCE and
alternative 2 which was discarded, the lowest.
This leaves alternatives 1, 3 and 4 as viable options for port development. Below these alternatives
have been schematically presented in Figure 11-1 with reference to figure 9-1 and 9-2 and appendix J
(where the spatial demand of both terminals was drawn as a function of the time in years).
It can be concluded for the average scenario that:

• The existing multi-purpose terminal (10ha) and container (16ha) reach in year 2007 and 2010
respectively their maximum capacity.
• In alternative 1 both terminals (52ha, 26 ha each) reach their capacity around 2015.
• In alternative 3 the multi-purpose terminal (52 ha) has adequate free area to operate until around
2030 and for the container terminal there are no restrictions.
• In alternative 4 there are no restrictions over time for both terminals.
ct & m-p t no limit

Space
4
ct: ha > 100
m-p t: ha <52
3
ct : ha < 26
m-p t: ha < 26
1
0
Alternative 3 out of
space in Muara Port
Multi-purpose Alternative 1 out of
terminal area container space
limit terminal area
limit
Time
2005 2007 2010 2015 2030 ?
Figure 11-1 Muara port spatial growth alternatives
How should Muara port be developed over time? There are three restrictions found:
- Available area
- Lead time
- Environmental
Each of these restrictions will be evaluated below
11.1 Available area

Crucial for the choices to be made is the knowledge till what year for alternative 1 and 3 the spatial
demand can be met on the existing waterfront. As there is limited space at the existing waterfront,
container and/or multi-purpose terminal capacity will in a certain year be fully utilised and additional
capacity will only be available on the island.
As the existing terminals are limiting in the near future (2007 – 2010) urgent action has to be taken to
implement terminal expansion. This can either be done by implementing alternative 1, 3 or 4 directly
or following a certain sequence. All development paths are shown in Figure 11-2.

Development path
Sequence
4
0
Time
Figure 11-2 Alternative port development paths
11.2 Lead time

The question now arises is: How should the port development plan be phased to ultimately arrive at
alternative 4?
The shortest route is directly to alternative 4.

Alternative 1 and 3 are potential intermediate stages. The development could possibly be realised via
alternative 1 and 3 or moving from the present situation to alternative 3 and from there to alternative 4.
Alternative 1 can relatively early be implemented whereas alternative 3 and 4 involve development of
Pulau Muara Besar and require long lead times. The lead times for the different alternatives are
estimated in the project planning below.
Planning scale (years)

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
Planning
Tender & design
Muara port development

Expanding container terminal
Expanding multi-purpose terminal
Relocating FW1
Bypass road
Pulau Muara Besar development

Bridge
Container terminal development
(quay construction, dredging,
terminal area)
Relocating container terminal
Table 11-1 Lead time port development
The lead time is defined as the time required from start of the planning till operation. The estimated
lead time for the developments are (in years):
Muara port expansion : 6
Pulau Muara Besar development : 9
As the multi-purpose terminal will be short of space in 2007 immediate expansion is required. As the
development of the island takes 9 years, going directly to alternative 3 or 4 is not an option. This
implies that alternative 1 has to be developed first. This leaves the following development paths open,

as is shown in Figure 11-3.
Sequence
Development path 4
0
Time
Figure 11-3 Development path Muara port
As the terminal area in Muara port will be insufficient beyond the year 2015 also the decision to move
to alternative 3 or 4 has to be taken now, as both alternatives have an estimated lead time of 9 years.
Alternative 1 involves terminal investment costs for the expansion of the existing multi-purpose
terminal. Following the development path from alternative 1 to alternative 4, which means relocating
all terminals on the island is not considered viable, as the investment costs for alternative 1 are then
regret costs. Following the development path from alternative 1 via alternative 3 to alternative 4 leaves
the multi-purpose terminal on the existing waterfront in operation, with expansion possibilities till
2030.
11.3 Costs estimate development

To provide a rough insight in the costs of developing the terminals an estimate is given below.
For the development of alternative 1 it is estimated that the following costs are involved:
○ For the approach channel costs have to be made to make it suitable for the 1,000 TEU ships. The
widening will involve a volume 840,000 m3 (23 m wide * 2,900 m long * 12.5 m deep).
840,000 * $ 3/m3 = $ 2,520,000
○ For developing alternative 1 the expansion requires land fill of the area B next to the container
terminal and landfill of the Fishery wharf 1. This is estimated to be 6 ha each with 4 meters of
landfill, 480,000 m3.
480,000 * $ 4/m3 = $ 1,920,000
○ The construction of the quay walls total 560 meters new structure and dredging of the new walls to
a depth of 12.5 meters, 350,000 m3 (12.5 m deep * 50 m wide * 560 m long).
560 * $ 54,000/m1 = $ 30,240,000
350,000 * $ 7/m3 = $ 2,450,000
○ The new developed terminal area requires redevelopment of in total 26 ha.
260,000 * $ 200/m1 = $ 52,000,000
○ For the relocation of the FW1 to D involves costs for compensation and construction of new fish
boat jetties and warehouses together with possible cleaning up of the old site.
$ 5,000,000
Creating alternative 1 results in making costs of approximate 94 million dollar.
For the development of Pulau Muara Besar for alternative 3 the following costs have to be made:

○ Connecting Pulau Muara Besar to the main land a bridge of 1,500 meters long and 30 meters wide
and a new access road (the bypass road) of 10,000 meters and 30 meters wide has to be
constructed.
Cost bridge 1,500 * 30 * $ 1,000/m2 = $ 45,000,000
Cost road 10,000 * 30 * $ 100/m2 (30 cm thick asphalt) = $ 30,000,000
○ The development of Pulau Muara Besar involves the construction of the container terminal with
700 meters of quay wall and 60 ha of terminal land. Furthermore dredging is required along the
berth after completion 440,000 m3 (700 m long* 50 m wide * 12.5 m deep).
Quay wall: 700 * $ 54,000/m1 = $ 37,800,000
Terminal area: 600,000 * $ 200/m1 = $ 120,000,000
Dredging: 440,000 * $ 7/m3 = $ 3,080,000
The development of alternative 3 is estimated to cost 236 million dollar.
The total phased port development costs (alternative 1 and 3 ) are estimated to be 330 million dollar.
In addition the environmental impact of the port expansion is a third factor influencing the phasing of
the plan. This aspect is examined in some detail below.
11.4 Environmental impact assessment
11.4.1 Introduction
In general a port is situated where the land and water infrastructure meet, requiring a large spatial area
and as a result affecting an area much larger than its own. Ports are sometimes located in
environmental sensitive areas with natural habitat values, local recreational value and urban
settlements. The effects of the port activity are therefore not localised, but have their influence far
beyond the port. It is therefore important that the economic activities of the port are balanced with the
national and local environmental values to provide a sustainable growth for the port, but also for its
surrounding area.
Examples of different areas and accompanying effects are:

- urban areas, potentially creating social problems and affected by an increase in traffic, noise,
risk of accidents.
- natural areas, which will experience environmental pollution from the port.
How these different values are evaluated does largely depend on the local and political perceptions, as
those will determine the strategy decisions and regulating instruments for the development directions.
Either way the balance between economic progress and environmental concern has to go hand in hand
to provide an sustainable port development program, which is according the Rio Convention 1992:
“Development which meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future
generations to meet their own needs”
The instrument to guide decision making towards a balanced sustainable development is the
Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA). This structured approach, see appendix K was developed to
provide a broader view on the issues related to infrastructural projects, such as port development, and
to come to a more integrated assessment of its impact on the surrounding area.
There is not yet an environmental agency in Brunei that regulates all the environmental issues. The
limited industrial development (the oil and gas sector) in Brunei, has regulated itself through very
strict environmental guidelines. Therefore at the moment there is no integral environmental
management system in place for the port development, but on the other hand an integrated coastal
zone management system is being set up to face the increasing industrialisation / urbanisation and the
introduction of more intensive agricultural practices.
In addition the Brunei government has proposed policy objectives and environmental strategies which

will play a role in the future decision making process. (see appendix K)
11.4.2 Methodology followed

A practical methodology is presented in the European Sea Ports Organisation (ESPO) document
“Environmental Code of Practise”. This methodology systematically discusses the environmental
issues involved. Not all these issues are applicable for the Muara port development. The issues for the
spatial expansion of the port will be highlighted.
The goal is to identify which issues linked to the Muara port development cause environmental
concerns and how the port development can take these issues into account. For the issues identified the
impact of the phasing of the alternatives will be worked out in some detail.
11.4.3 Frame work

The frame work divides the environmental issues into four functionalities of the port:
1) Hinterland transport
2) Port area (land and sea)
3) Ship / Port interface
4) Maritime area (outside the port area)
The hinterland transport issues concern the accessibility of the hinterland and road safety. The better
the access of the port by road, the less congestion there is in general. Furthermore truck transport
mixes with the local transport and a large increase in truck transport will increase the risk of accidents.
It is in the interest of the port that this impact is minimised.
The port area is the area within the port where all the industrial and terminal activity takes place. This
area will therefore have significant effect on the surrounding area and it is in the interest of the port
that the impact of its industrial activity on the surrounding area is minimised.
The Ship / Port interface concerns the area in the port where ships are handled, in particular the
terminal area. Depending on the management structure of the port authority, it has directly or
indirectly influence on the cargo handling methods used and thus on the surrounding area. On the
other hand the port authority is directly responsible for adequate waste disposal by ships when
required.
The maritime area is the water area outside the boundaries of the port, but within the national
territorial waters. This area is of interest to the port as it involves maritime transport, which should be
promoted as environmentally friendly as possible.
These four functionalities have resulted into the following list of issues that are of concern for a port.
Hinterland transport Port area Ship / port interface Maritime area

Accessibility hinterland Port development Ship Waste Management Maritime Safety
Road safety Dredging and Disposal of Dredged Material Cargo Handling Ship Emissions
Soil Contamination Hazardous Cargo
Noise Management
Port Waste Management
Water Quality and Management
Air Quality and Management
Monitoring the Port Environment & Reporting
Port Preparedness and Contingency Plans

Table 11-2 Environmental port issues
11.4.4 Determining relevant issues for this study

As this study will focus on the Muara port development and the limitations imposed on the port
development the relevant environmental issues are all related to the impact on the surrounding areas.
The issues out of the above list which relate to port and terminal expansion are:
- Accessibility hinterland
- Road safety
- Port development
- Noise Management
- Air Quality and Management, due to increased traffic urban area
- Cargo Handling
- Hazardous Cargo
The above issues are interrelated and will therefore be discussed in an integral matter.
As was seen in figure 5-1 the port activities have been identified including the industrial activity
taking place at the Seresa site. The main focus will be the two terminals (multi-purpose and container)
and how they will affect the surrounding area.
The hinterland connection consists of the access road through Muara port, used by local and industrial
traffic. Expansion is considered through the creation of a new bypass road around Muara port, which
connects to the main roads of Bandar Seri Begawan and the coastal highway.
The urban area of Muara port is located directly behind the terminals and industrial area of Seresa. The
distance from the outer boundary of the two terminals is approximate 500 meters.
11.4.5 Valuable areas

The environmental nature areas have been identified as the Muara Spit, which is the island next to the
entrance channel (This is the habitat for breading turtles and a tribe of monkeys) and the water area
between Pulau Muara Besar and Muara Spit, which is used for local fishing. Out of scope are the coral
reefs north of the port and the mangrove area along the coast in the south. More can be found in the
appendix L.
A recreational area of value is the royal marina sailing club, south of Seresa industrial area behind the
peninsula.
11.4.6 Hinterland traffic impact (congestion, truck emissions/noise/safety)
11.4.6.1 Congestion
The future cargo throughput of the terminals will have impact on the road system in and around Muara
port, especially on the current access road. Therefore the current road capacity will be investigated and
when applicable suggestions for adjustments will be made.
In addition the increase in truck traffic will result in increased pollution by trucks (emissions) and
increased noise levels along the road.
The access road originating at the roundabout (see Figure 11-5 to 11-7) where the coastal highway
Highway
into Brunei
Terminals from Sungai Liang and the Bandar Seri
Muara Port access road 1,600 meters
Begawan road meet, runs through Muara
residential area and divides into a road to the
Seresa access road
terminals and a road to the Seresa industrial

area.
The traffic volume moving on the section to
and from the port is given in Table 11-3.

There will be some traffic to and from the industrial area and some local traffic, increasing the traffic
load from the intersection to the roundabout. The latter part will be the bottleneck.
In order to determine the maximum capacity of this road comprehensive simulations have to be made
using detailed data on the composition of the vehicle flow and its distribution over time. This is
outside the scope of this study, but a rough estimate will be made based on a number of assumptions.
I. With a working day of 16 hours and a maximum of 1,000 vehicles per hour 16,000 vehicles can
pass over the road per day. It has to accommodate also
1,000 * 16 hours/day
local traffic (5,000 people with 1 moves per day), traffic
5000 * 1 move/day
from Seresa (50 ha with 10 moves/day) and work traffic
50 ha* 10 moves/day
to the terminals (52 ha * 10 moves/day). This would result
work traffic 52 ha * 10 moves/day
into 10,000 possible truck movements per day.
10,000 trucks moves/day possible
II. For the number of annual truck movements the following assumptions are made.
- container transport (assuming 2 TEU per truck) is carried out both ways.
- multi-purpose cargo transport uses a truck capacity of 24 tons 12. For the Alumina Smelter and
Tire Recycling Plant cargo the journey to Sungai Liang is empty. For the other locations this is
carried out both ways.
The annual traffic generated (both ways) for the terminals for years 1996 to 2030 is given below.
1996 2005 2015 2030
container 85,000 94,000 230,000 700,000
multi-purpose 83,000 47,000 120,000 300,000
Total annual move 170,000 140,000 350,000 1,000,000
Moves per day (300 days) 566 466 1,200 3,400
truck moves/hr 30 24 60 170
Table 11-3 Estimated generated traffic for Muara port
This results in the following figure on the Muara port access road capacity. The figure shows that the
present road has sufficient capacity beyond the year 2030.
12.000
10.000
8.000
6.000
4.000
Moves/day
2.000
0
2005
2010
2015
2020
2025
2030
Year
Truck movement forecast maximum truck moves possible
Local traffic
Figure 11-4 Muara access road capacity

From the above no bottleneck is found concerning the traffic within the time scale considered. The
conclusion is that the road in Muara port is capable of transporting the expected moves.
11.4.6.2 Emissions and safety

The heavy traffic will be affecting the village in two ways:
1) large increase in heavy traffic, generating much more emissions affecting the air quality of
Muara village drastically and creating more disturbance to the housing located directly next to
the road.
2) the mixture of heavy traffic with local traffic will increase the likelihood of accidents with

pedestrians and local traffic. Any disturbance in the flow will result directly into congesting
the one-lane road.
These two aspects are not creating a sustainable development of the village. Therefore to increase the
liveability two alternatives must be considered:
• adding two new lanes to the existing road for the port traffic. As the road runs through an urban
area this might be problematic, because it might require demolition of houses alongside the road.
Compensation measures are required to offer new housing and to increase the safety on the road.
• Building the bypass road, foreseen for the Pulau Muara Besar development, at an earlier date and
connecting the Seresa industrial area / port terminals to this bypass road. This will lower the
negative effects in Muara village.
The bypass road is already part of the future development of Pulau Muara Besar. Early construction of
this road and connection to the existing terminals, based on the above, is highly recommended.
11.4.7 Noise pollution by port activities

The cargo handling at the terminals inevitably creates noise and with close proximity to urban areas,
as is the case in Muara port, nuisance to the Muara village is being created. The area affected by the
maximum acceptable noise levels is determined by national regulations. No Brunei official regulations
have been found, therefore the Dutch regulations have been taken for guidance.
For urban areas in the Netherlands the maximum acceptable noise levels created by industrial activity
(including port activity) are the following: 22
• 50 dB(A) for the day
• 45 dB(A) for the evening
• 40 dB(A) for the night
In order not to exceed these limits the recommended distances for container and multi-purpose
terminals from urban area are 500 and 300 meters respectively 23. As a first approximation it is
assumed that these distances apply from the outer boundaries of the terminals. In actual practice for a
detailed study, the noise sources are identified and through extensive modelling the contour lines are
determined.
The impact of the noise contour lines on the present situation and the impact of expanding the
terminals along the lines of alternative 1 and 3 are evaluated below. For large pictures see the
appendix K.
22
(Handreiking industrielawaai en vergunningverlening, ministerie Vrom, oktober 1998)
23
“Bedrijven en milieuzonering 1999” handbook

The present location of the terminals and

urban areas are separated by a buffer zone of
approximate 500 meters, with some
warehousing and green zones. The noise
contour lines are not crossing urban areas.
Figure 11-5 Noise contour present situation
Expanding the container terminal to the

left the contour line will move with it
into the urban area.
Expanding the multi-purpose terminal to
the right, the contour line coincides with
boundary of the urban area.
Figure 11-6 Noise contour alternative 1
Relocating the container terminal to the

island will decrease the noise distance to
300 meters and will affect the urban area
of Muara village.
Figure 11-7 Noise contour alternative 3
When moving from the present situation to alternative 3, no noise impact will be experienced. On the
contrary moving from the present via alternative 1 to alternative 3, the maximum noise levels will
exceed the maximum allowable during the period alternative 1 is operational. The longer this period
the more measures are required to mitigate these effects.
Sustainable development can be created by moving the container terminal to the island. When the
economic growth is less that the average prediction, resulting in longer term of operation in alternative
1, longer term mitigation actions have to be implemented. One could consider to construct high

buildings and more green zones as additional buffer to lower the noise disturbance for the affected
areas.
11.4.8 Hazardous cargo & Risks

Handling hazardous cargo at the terminals will pose special risks to the surrounding environment and
community. A disaster can be prevented by the enforcement of correct handling and storage
regulations. (Partly these regulations are set in SOLAS by IMO and partly by the national
government). In view of handling of hazardous cargo at the two terminals, creating storage areas
closer to shore could be considered (maximum distance as possible from the urban area in case of
explosions or toxic gases).
Furthermore truck transport of hazardous cargo will also impose risks to the urban area on the access
road. This is an additional stimulus to construct the bypass road at an early date.
Another terminal to consider is the bitumen terminal next to the multi-purpose terminal. The area that
it could affect will be small on land, but very large on the water side. The close proximity to the
fishery area and Muara Spit will pose a big risk, in case of a big explosion or fire, spilling bitumen into
the Brunei Bay and sea.
11.4.9 Alternative 4 implications

Above the environmental aspects were reviewed for alternative 1 and 3. When alternative 4 will be
developed large changes will take place and some new environmental aspects must be taken into
account.
- The bypass road will be used by all cargo traffic to and from the island, relieving Muara
village from truck transport, lowering the truck pollution and the risk of traffic accidents.
- The relocation of the terminals from Muara port to Pulau Muara Besar will reduce the noise
pollution to virtually zero.
- The risk of hazardous cargo accidents affecting Muara village is eliminated.
Developing Pulau Muara Besar will put some pressure on its environmentally valuable areas, such as
the fishing area, mangroves areas and its natural habitat.
Therefore the development of part of the island into a port and industrial area has to be done in a
balanced way. Ultimately moving the multi-purpose terminal to the island as well, will result in the
best overall solution, also from the environmental point of view, because the environmental pressure
on the Muara village is reduced to almost zero.
Pulau Muara Besar is the largest island in Brunei that can be used for development. Alternative 3 will
initially require 50 ha in 2030 on the island (3% of the total island area) for the container terminal and
100 ha (6% of the total island area) for alternative 4 in 2030.
It is uninhabited and the Government has not dedicated this island as a protected nature area. It is
therefore difficult to assess the environmental value of the island. When the terminal development in
this report is considered the maximum development of 6% in 2030 is small. Nevertheless
compensating measures to create a sustainable island development will increase in the future with the
terminal expansion. This will then be inline with the ambition of the Brunei government to have
economic growth with good environmental quality. The directions one has to look at are:
a) creating environmental protected areas on the island as buffer against the industry
b) compensating a decrease of area on the island with an increase of protected area nearby
c) enforcing environmental friendly industrial activity
It is therefore recommended to evaluate future terminal development against environmental and

economic values to ascertain a balanced sustainable industrial port development. This view has to take
into account the growing environmental awareness of Brunei. With that in mind the terminal
development of Pulau Muara Besar will involve a balance between environment and industry. In

accordance with the European situation any reduction of environmental area has to be compensated by
creating an environmental protected area elsewhere.
11.5 Synthesis and Conclusions

At the existing waterfront the multi-purpose terminal is adequate to 2007 and the container terminal to
2010. In order to accommodate future cargo growth, expansion of the existing terminals is imminent
and has to start before 2007.
Because of the limited terminal expansion area in Muara port, Pulau Muara Besar has to be developed
under any scenario at some time in the future. For the assumptions in this study, the year that existing
terminals in alternative 1 will run out of space is around 2015. Planning of any development on the
island requires a lead time of nine years. In order to have the container terminal in operation on the
island around 2015, construction of Pulau Muara Besar infrastructure (maritime and land) has to start
as soon as possible.
The above also implies that alternative 1 has to be implemented at short notice and that in Muara port
until 2015 also (considerable) infrastructural changes are required.
Implementing alternative 1 increases the environmental pressure around Muara village. Some
mitigation measures to limit the noise pollution are required until 2015. It has been recommended to
construct the bypass road at as early as possible to diminish environmental pressure on Muara village.
In addition relocation of the container terminal will reduce the noise level and possible relocation of
the complete multi-purpose terminal to the island beyond 2025 will reduce the noise pollution to zero.
The following schematic overview (Figure 11-8) shows in which year terminal area and environmental
limitations are reached.
Noise contour line Muara access road

limit alternative 1 full capacity
ct & m-p t no limit
4
ct: ha > 100
m-p t: ha <52
3
ct : ha < 26
m-p t: ha < 26
1
0
Alternative 3 out of space
in Muara Port
Multi-purpose Alternative 1 out of space
terminal area
limit container terminal
area limit
Time
2005 2007 2010 2015 2030 ?
Figure 11-8 Schematic outline of the expansion in time
In line with the theory of Bird and Hoyle all terminal on the island is the most preferred solution for
sustainable development point of view. The other end situation that could be envisaged has part of the
multi-purpose terminal at Muara port (at full capacity) and the other part on the island together with
the container terminal.
Ideally all future export oriented industry should be located on the island as well, resulting in
minimum transport distances with the maximum environmental gains.

Conclusions and recommendations
12 Conclusions and recommendations
12.1 Conclusions
With regard to Brunei’s port capacity, its main port (Muara port) has a multi-purpose terminal which
is close to capacity and a container terminal with some spare capacity. The planned expansion of the
Brunei economy, based on large scale non oil and gas export oriented projects, will therefore have a
large impact on the Brunei maritime infrastructure.
• The planned industrial activity at Sungai Liang has a total cargo throughput of approximate 3
million tons (half of it dry bulk cargo import). This is of the same order of magnitude as Muara
port throughput.
• The significant wave height at Sungai Liang results for container ships in a downtime of 193 days
(Hs>0.5m), which would require expensive wave protection structures and for bulk ships and
multi-purpose ships in a downtime of 47 days (Hs >1.0 m), which will be easier to accommodate.
• Of the potential port locations Kuala Belait has been discarded, due its spatial limitations and the
environmental impact due to the major adjustments required. This leaves Sungai Liang and Muara
port as potential terminal locations.
• A number of alternatives for distributing the cargo by ships and/or truck has been selected and
evaluated by a MCE. The outcome shows as the preferred option that the dry bulk cargo is shipped
directly to Sungai Liang (over a 6 kilometre light weight dry bulk jetty) and the multi-purpose and
container cargo directly to Muara port.
• The future cargo volumes in Muara port require additional terminal area and berth length. The
multi-purpose terminal is limited in 2007 and the container terminal in 2010. Four alternatives
have been developed as possible port expansion options and it was concluded that Muara port does
not have enough free port area to accommodate expansion beyond 2015. Terminal expansion area
is available in abundance on Pulau Muara Besar opposite of Muara port.
• Expanding Muara port increases traffic, industrial noise and safety risk for the surrounding urban
area. Noise pollution will require some mitigating measures before 2015. Early construction of the
bypass road will alleviate the negative effects of the increased traffic on the inhabitants of Muara
village.
• Immediate port expansion to Pulau Muara Besar is not feasible as the development of the island
has a lead time of approximately nine years, whereas expansion of the terminals is required
starting in 2007. In addition there is approximately 25 ha available for expansion on the existing
waterfront. Therefore a phased approach has been chosen.
• The final port configuration will be either all terminals on Pulau Muara Besar or a part of the
multi-purpose terminal in Muara port and the other part on the island together with the container
terminal.

Conclusions and recommendations
12.2 Recommendations
This study provides a framework for developing Brunei’s maritime infrastructure. The structure of the
approach has general validity. The basic data contain many assumptions, which when more detailed
knowledge is available might require changes. In addition certain choices have been made on limited
data and a more detailed analysis would be recommended to validate the outcome.
Therefore it is recommended that in the following areas more research is done:
⇒ More detailed information on Muara port and its land use

⇒ More detailed information on the future diversification plans and required terminal capacity
⇒ More precise economic figures on the Brunei economy
⇒ Future design ships for the container and multi-purpose terminal
⇒ More detailed hydraulic data

⇒ The economic viability of a dry bulk terminal at Sungai Liang.
⇒ The economic viability of a coastal export pier for multi-purpose cargo.
⇒ Quantify the investment cost of all Muara port alternative layouts
⇒ More detailed information of the port access road
⇒ More basic data for the Environmental Impact Assessment

⇒ Early implementation of the bypass road to create better environmental Muara port
⇒ More morphology research for the Pulau Muara Besar waterfront development
⇒ Extensive soil data collection of Pulau Muara Besar
⇒ Investment plan for the phasing of the developments

Reference list
13 Reference list
1
APEC 2002
Anonymous, ‘APEC 2002 Economic Outlook’, APEC Secretariat, 2002.
2
BEDB
Brunei Economic Development Board, Brunei Investment info kit,(from www.bedb.bu, last viewed )
3
ESCAP 2001
Regional Shipping and Port Development Strategies, Under a Changing Maritime Environment’,
Maritime Policy Planning Model (MPPM), Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the
Pacific, document ST/ESCAP/2001, 2001. (from www.unescap.org.)
4
Drewry Consultants, 1997
‘Short Sea Container Markets, The Feeder and Regional Trade Dynamo’, Drewry Consultants Ltd.,
1997.
5
Groenveld, 2001
Groenveld, R., ‘Service Systems in Ports and Waterways’, CT4330 Faculty of Civil Engineering and
Geosciences Technical University Delft, Delft, 2001
6
IMF 1999
IMF Staff Country Report No. 99/19, ‘Brunei Darussalam; Recent Economic Developments;
International Monetary Fund April 1999’, (from www.worldbank.org)
7
Ligteringen 2000
Ligteringen H., ‘Ports and terminals; CTwa4330/5306’, Faculty of Civil Engineering and Geosciences,
Delft Technical University Delft, 2000
8
Ridder 2003
Ridder H.A.J de., ‘Integraal ontwerpen in de Civiele Techniek – Ontwerpproject 1, CT1061’,
Technical University Delft, Delft november 2003
9
South Asia Studies 2003
Chia Lin Sien, Mark Goh and Jose Tongzon, ‘Southeast Asian Regional Port Development, A
Comparative Analysis’, Institute of Southeast Asian Studies, Singapore, 2003.
10
Royal British Admiralty
Admiralty Charts South China Sea, Royal British Admiralty
11
Thoresen 2003
Thoresen, C. A., ‘Port Designer’s Handbook: Recommendations and Guidelines’, Thomas Telford
2003
12
UNCTAD 1985
‘Port development, A Handbook for planners in developing countries’, United Nations Conference on
Trade and Development (UNCTAD), second edition 1985.
13
UNCTAD 2002
‘Review Maritime transport 2002’, United Nations Conference on Trade and Development,
UNCTAD/RMT/2002 (from www.unctad.org)
14
Welters 2001
Welters, H.W.H, Langen, de, P et al, ‘Port Economics I’, Erasmus University Rotterdam, 2001

Reference list
15
Wijnolst 1996
Wijnolst, N., ‘Shipping’, Delft University Press, 1996
16
Wu 2001
Wu, J.C., ‘The mineral industry of Brunei’, U.S. Geological survey minerals yearbook 2001
Web sites
General information on Brunei:
17
Asian Trade statistics from the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN),
http://202.154.12.3/trade/publicview.asp ,
last viewed 25 January 2004.
18
Brunei Government information on Brunei, http://www.brunei.gov.bn/about_brunei/land.htm ,
last viewed 30 September 2003.
19
CIA fact data on Brunei, www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/bx.html,
last viewed 30 September 2003
20
Energy Information Administration (EIA), http://www.eia.doe.gov/,
21
Energy Information Administration (EIA), http://eia.doe.gov/,
22
UNESCAP data on Brunei, www.unescap.org, last viewed
23
Summary on the 7th National Development Plan, http://www.mod.com.bn/editor_2.htm,
last viewed 30 January 2004.
Data on Muara port

24
Brunei Marine Department, http://www.marine.gov.bn/towards/index.htm,
last viewed 15 October 2003.
25
Brunei Port Department, http://www.ports.gov.bn/muara/,
last viewed15 October 2003
26
Brunei Government port information, http://www.brunet.bn/homepage/tourism/muara/mport.htm,
last viewed 15 October 2003
27
Muara port data before 1996, http://www.bruclass.com/bboatinfo.htm ,
last viewed 3 March 2004.
28
Muara Port and throughput statistics 1996 – 2000 http://www.brunet.bn/gov/ports,
29
Muara Container Terminal, http://www.psamuara.com.bn/ ,
30
Philippines port authority on Muara port, http://www.ppa.com.ph/apa-2002/apa_members/
apa_brunei /apa_bru.htm, last viewed 20 January 2004.
Environmental information on Brunei

Brunei Government Environmental data, www.brunet.bn/gov/modev/environment/551.html,
last viewed 15 November 2003.
Protected coral reefs, http://www.reefbase.org/dataphotos/dat_gis.asp, last viewed15 November 2003
Marine Protected Areas in Southeast Asia, www.arcbc.org, last viewed15 November 2003
Alumina Smelter and Tire Recycling Plant

Tomoga Alumina Smelter, http://www.tomago.com.au/, last viewed
Hillside Alumina Smelter Ingot dimensions, http://aluminium.bhpbilliton.com/docs/HillsideIngot.pdf,
last viewed

Appendix
Appendix

Appendix
A Historical background Brunei

Source: U.S. State Department Background Notes 1999
Historians believe there was a forerunner to the present Brunei Sultanate which the Chinese called Po-
ni. Chinese and Arabic records indicate that this ancient trading kingdom existed at the mouth of the
Brunei River as early as the seventh or eighth century A.D. This early kingdom was apparently
conquered by the Sumatran empire of Srivijaya in the early ninth century and later controlled northern
Borneo and the Philippines. It was subjugated briefly by the Java-based Majapahit Empire but soon
regained its independence and once again rose to prominence.
The Brunei Empire had its golden age from the 15th to the 17th centuries, when its control extended
over the entire island of Borneo and north into the Philippines. Brunei was particularly powerful under
the fifth sultan, Bolkiah (1473-1521), who was famed for his sea exploits and even briefly captured
Manila; and under the ninth sultan, Hassan (1605-19), who fully developed an elaborate Royal Court
structure, elements of which still remain.
After Sultan Hassan, Brunei entered a period of decline, due to internal battles over royal succession
as well as the rising influences of European colonial powers in the region, that, among other things,
disrupted traditional trading patterns, destroying the economic base of Brunei and many other
Southeast Asia sultanates. In 1839, the English adventurer James Brooke arrived in Borneo and helped
the Sultan put down a rebellion. As a reward, he became governor and later "Rajah" of Sarawak in
northwest Borneo and gradually expanded the territory under his control.
Meanwhile, the British North Borneo Company was expanding its control over territory in northeast
Borneo. In 1888, Brunei became a protectorate of the British Government, retaining internal
independence but with British control over external affairs. In 1906, Brunei accepted a further measure
of British control when executive power was transferred to a British resident, who advised the ruler on
all matters except those concerning local custom and religion.
In 1959, a new constitution was written declaring Brunei a self-governing state, while its foreign
affairs, security, and defence remained the responsibility of the United Kingdom. An attempt in 1962
to introduce a partially elected legislative body with limited powers was abandoned after the
opposition political party, Partai Rakyat Brunei, launched an armed uprising, which the government
put down with the help of British forces. In the late 1950s and early 1960s, the government also
resisted pressures to join neighbouring Sabah and Sarawak in the newly formed Malaysia. The Sultan
eventually decided that Brunei would remain an independent state.
In 1967, Sultan Omar abdicated in favour of his eldest son, Hassanal Bolkiah, who became the 29th
ruler. The former Sultan remained as Defence Minister and assumed the royal title Seri Begawan. In
1970, the national capital, Brunei Town, was renamed Bandar Seri Begawan in his honour.The Seri
Begawan died in 1986.
On January 4, 1979, Brunei and the United Kingdom signed a new treaty of friendship and
cooperation. On January 1, 1984, Brunei Darussalam became a fully independent state.
BRUNEI MARITIME MASTERPLAN I

Appendix
B Brunei economic background

Some general economic background is presented.
B.1 Population
Brunei has approximate of 358,098 inhabitants (July 2003). The population is projected to increase to
436,500 people in 2011, equivalent to a population growth of 2% per annum. The age structure of the
Brunei population shows that the population is relatively young, see Table B-1 Population structure of
Brunei
% of
Age class (2003 est.) population Male Female
0-14 years 29.6 54,118 51,902
15-64 years 67.6 128,421 113,480
65 years and over 2.8 4,804 5,373
100 187,343 170,755
Table B-1 Population structure of Brunei
Of the total population 72% lives in the urban areas and 28%. in rural areas. The population is
concentrated in the north and western coastal zone where 85% of the population lives, of which 66% is
living in the Brunei-Muara district. The population density is the highest in the Brunei-Muara District
with 384 people per sq kilometre, see Table B-2. The capital Bandar Seri Begawan has 3,380 people
per sq kilometre.
Population % of total Area per district Population Density

District (1999) population (sq km) (people / sq km)
Brunei-Muara 218,800 66 570 383
Belait 66,800 20 2700 25
Tutong 35,700 11 1200 30
Temburong 9,400 3 1300 7
Total 330,700 100 5770 57
Table B-2 Population concentration per district
In the following table the it can be seen that one third of the population is concentrated in the four
largest villages of Brunei.
Major cities Population

Bandar Seri Begawan 45,876
Kuala Belait 21,163
Seria 21,082
Tutong 13,049
Total top 4 villages 101,170
Table B-3 Major Cities of Brunei (1991)
The population composition (1999): Malayan people (67%), Chinese (15%), Indian (11%) and
indigenous people (6%).
B.2 Work force & sectors

The working force in Brunei consists of around 143,000 people, that is 40% of the whole population.
The participation of the male population is 75% and the female of 54%. The female participation has
BRUNEI MARITIME MASTERPLAN II

Appendix
been growing over the last couple of years. The oil and gas industry is after the government the main
employer of Brunei, both making up a total of 90% of the total jobs. The other 10% is provided by the
agriculture, forestry and fishing industries. The unemployment rate is 5%.
Economic sectors and % of total employment of Brunei (Figures 1999)

Government service 48%
Production of oil, natural gas, services, and construction 42%
Agriculture, forestry and fishing 10%
Table B-4 Work force divided over working sectors
B.3 Economy
The government economic policy is centred on the principle that its population shares in the benefits
created from the exploitation of oil and gas. Brunei citizens enjoy free health care, fully sponsored
education and sponsored housing and food. There is no income tax at the moment.
The main offshore oil and gas fields are Champion and Southwest Ampa (the oldest field, with more
than half of Brunei's natural gas reserves and production) and Magpie. The majority of the produced
oil is exported and some is transported to the Seria oil refinery for inland use. The gas is transported
by pipeline to the Lumut LNG plant, where the gas is liquefied and exported by ship. The fossil
reserves have been estimated to last till 2018 for the oil and 2033 for the gas.
The commercial activity within the private sector is mainly carried out by small scale manufactures
(textiles and furniture) and farmers (Rice/ vegetables / fruit / water buffalos (bred in Australia). The
livestock is used to produce Halal meats.
B.4 Trade figures

The importance of the ASEAN countries for the Brunei economy for 2000 is shown in the Table B-5
Main import and export trading partners of Brunei.24
Export partners Export % Import partners Import %

Japan (Gas) 40.3 Singapore 32
South Korea (Gas) 12.3 Japan 23
Thailand 12.1 Malaysia 19
Australia 9.2 United Kingdom 6
United States of America 8.1 Hong Kong 5
Republic of China 6.4 Others 15
Singapore 5.7 Total 100
Others 5.9
Total 100
Table B-5 Main import and export trading partners of Brunei
B.5 Trade statistics of Brunei

Within the ASEAN region Brunei is a very small country. Although its GDP per capita is relatively
high its contribution to the ASEAN economy is very small. It accounts for around 1% of the trade of
the countries in its region; Malaysia, Thailand, Singapore, Indonesia and Philippines. The Asean trade
statistics are obtained from the ASEAN secretary website: www.asean.org
Export 2001 Import 2001

Brunei 3,530,446 Brunei 1,309,975
Cambodia 1,495,093 Cambodia 1,501,986
24
From the website: www.asiatradehub.com
BRUNEI MARITIME MASTERPLAN III

Appendix
Indonesia 56,317,618 Indonesia 30,962,141

Malaysia 88,031,608 Malaysia 73,097,902
Myanmar 2,218,368 Myanmar 2,811,431
Philippines 32,150,202 Philippines 29,550,811
Singapore 121,686,816 Singapore 115,919,039
Thailand 65,117,827 Thailand 62,072,285
Total 370,547,976 Total 317,225,570
Table B-6 Regional economic performance Brunei
Export trade (Thousands US$) 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001

Mineral Products 2,656,726 1,834,669 2,212,400 1,783,478 3,136,922
Textiles and apparel 56,841 88,542 126,583 175,730 209,500
Vehicles 37 1 - 130,201 101,717
Machinery and Electrical Appliances 3 4 4 39,655 31,514
Prepared Foodstuffs 265 121 325 453 18,525
Base metal and Metal articles 75 3 842 21,799 16,530
Other 214 314 510 17,831 15,738
Total 2,714,162 1,923,655 2,340,664 2,169,147 3,530,446
Table B-7 Main Export products Brunei
Import (Thousands US$) 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001

Live Animal 69,574 23,306 46,770 42,560 63,249
Vegetable Products 77,957 109,213 54,579 49,610 42,649
Prepared Foodstuffs 150,115 91,552 100,345 94,065 98,106
Mineral Products 112,456 39,233 29,714 21,179 17,460
Chemicals 128,524 67,115 278,391 75,481 85,734
Textiles and apparel 119,229 79,180 117,477 152,046 180,067
Stone/Cement/Ceramics 82,729 39,983 29,217 26,046 23,410
Base metal and Metal articles 292,663 192,083 130,079 107,905 127,937
Machinery and Electrical Appliances 476,986 205,658 451,416 191,300 241,962
Vehicles 415,229 137,920 272,025 135,439 257,031
Miscellaneous Manufactured articles 100,410 53,536 38,976 31,947 34,031
Other 284,818 237,472 171,364 140,031 138,340
Total 2,310,6881,276,2501,720,3531,067,6101,309,975
Table B-8 Main Imported products Brunei
BRUNEI MARITIME MASTERPLAN IV

Appendix
C Map road infrastructure
Figure C-1 Brunei Road infrastructure
BRUNEI MARITIME MASTERPLAN V

Appendix
D Appendix energy and offshore infrastructure

Information taken from the ASEAN Centre for Energy of the website:
http://www.aseanenergy.org/energy_sector/electricity/brunei/map_electrical_system.htm
D.1 Power supply Brunei

The power supply system of Brunei consists of three networks. The networks 1 and 3 are the most
important ones for the Brunei economy. The current capacity is supplied by six power plants using gas
as fuel. The capacity at the moment is close to its maximum and additional capacity is being plant in
Lumut (500 MW) the majority will be used for industrial expansion. The gas for the Brunei-Muara
(network 3) power plants is supplied by an offshore pipeline coming to shore at Jerudong. .
Figure D-2 Power supply Brunei

Power stations Fuel Type 1997 1998 1999 2000
(MW) (MW) (MW) (MW)
Network 1
Gadong 1 Natural Gas 128.0 128.0 128.0 128.0
Lumut Co-generation Natural Gas 180.0 180.0 180.0 180.0
Network 2
Belingus Diesel 9.5 7.5 7.5 7.5
Network 3
Jeradong Natural Gas 73.6 73.6 73.6 74.0
Berakas Natural Gas 128.8 128.8 128.8 129.5
Total 707.1 705.1 705.1 706.5
Table D-9 Power Capacity Network
D.2 Offshore industry infrastructure

The offshore oil and gas industry has a dense network in front of the west coast. This is shown in the
picture. The information is taken from the Shell Brunei website, http://www.shell.com.bn/.
BRUNEI MARITIME MASTERPLAN VI

Appendix
Seria has a crude oil terminal and refinery and Lumut a Liquefied Natural Gas plant and export
terminal.
Figure D-3 Offshore industry infrastructure Brunei
BRUNEI MARITIME MASTERPLAN VII

Appendix
E Reconciliation cargo throughput table

The methodology uses the following formula:
Total cargo throughput = ∑different cargo types [average shipment * number of calls ]
The total Muara port cargo throughput and the total number of calls are known using the tables 6-1
and 6-2 from paragraph 6.1. So if the average shipment per cargo type and number of calls per cargo
type can be estimated such that the equation is consistent than the data sets are usable to fill up the
blank spots in the years 1996 – 2000 for the bitumen, cement and multi-purpose throughput. In order
to do so the following had to be assumed:
• The average bitumen shipment is assumed to be constant, as these specialised ships have standard
sizes (in the Brunei case the shipments range has been assumed of 2000 to 4.000 ton).
• The average cement shipment has been influenced by the construction of the cement factory in
1995 and the infrastructural activities during the years 1994 to 1996.
• The containerised shipment ranged between 1,100 – 1,500 tons more or less inline with the
number of containers (TEU’s) and the water depth restriction of Muara port.
• The average multi-purpose shipment is determined by the total non-containerised minus the total
bitumen minus the total cement throughput.
The estimation of the average shipment and calls have been done parallel to obtain the average
through for different cargo types. In the spreadsheet the multi-purpose throughput is than derived from
total non-containerised throughput minus the result for the cement and bitumen throughput.
The iteration is been done until the difference with the annual calls and total cargo throughput resulted
into the minimal difference.
BRUNEI MARITIME MASTERPLAN VIII

Appendix
BRUNEI MARITIME MASTERPLAN IX

Appendix
F Cargo forecast results
BRUNEI MARITIME MASTERPLAN X

Appendix
1.400.000
1.200.000
1.000.000 Low Average High
800.000
600.000
400.000
200.000
TEU
0
2000
2002
2004
2006
2008
2010
2012
2014
2016
2018
2020
2022
2024
2026
2028
2030
Year
Figure F-4 TEU cargo forecast to 2030
6.000.000
5.000.000 Low Average High
4.000.000
3.000.000
2.000.000
1.000.000
0
Tons
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
2030
Year
Figure F-5 Multi-purpose cargo forecast to 2030
2.000.000
1.500.000 Dry bulk
1.000.000
500.000
Tons
0
AR
01
03
05
07
09
11
13
15
17
19
21
23
25
27
29
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
Year
YE
Figure F-6 Dry Bulk cargo forecast to 2030
BRUNEI MARITIME MASTERPLAN XI

Appendix
G Vessel size characteristics
BRUNEI MARITIME MASTERPLAN XII

Appendix
BRUNEI MARITIME MASTERPLAN XIII

Appendix
H Waveclimate.com data
Occurring Wind frequency for the different months.
lower upper Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1 2 2,4 4 8,2 18,9 25,8 25,7 12,7 21,7 22 21,3 17,1 8,5
2 3 1,9 3,6 10,5 13,3 18 16,5 17,1 17,8 18 15,8 16 11,4
3 4 3,6 7,3 12,1 12,6 18,4 15,5 19,5 18 19,2 12,5 13,4 12,4
4 5 5,2 11,6 16,8 14,1 14,4 13 19,7 11,1 13,9 11,9 9,2 12,2
5 6 11,4 14,1 15,3 15,3 11,8 10,6 12,3 9,1 12,3 14 11,2 11,5
6 7 17,4 16,2 11,4 11,9 5,4 7,6 7,7 7,8 6,9 9,3 11,5 10,1
7 8 20,5 13,7 9 6,9 2,9 4,7 4,6 5,6 3,7 6,3 7,8 8,6
8 9 16,5 12,7 7,5 3,5 1,9 3,1 2,3 3,2 1,4 4,3 7,1 7,4
9 10 9,1 7,5 5,5 1,8 0,8 1,9 1,3 2 1,4 2,6 3,9 8,1
10 11 7,2 3,7 2,6 0,9 0,3 0,7 1,5 1,1 0,5 1 1,6 4,8
11 12 3,7 3,5 0,9 0,6 0,1 0,2 0,7 1,1 0,3 0,7 0,8 2,3
12 13 1 2 0,2 0,1 0 0,3 0,3 1,1 0,3 0,5 0,3 0,9
13 14 0,1 0,2 0 0,1 0 0,1 0,3 0,4 0 0 0,1 1,1
14 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0,1 0 0 0 0,1 0,2
15 16 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
16 17 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0,1
17 18 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
18 19 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0,1
19 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0,1
20 21 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
21 22 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0,1
22 23 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
23 24 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
24 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
total 100 100,1 100 100 99,8 99,9 100,1 100 99,9 100,2 100,1 99,9
Wind Days / yr
lower upper Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec total
0 1 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0
1 2 0,7 1,1 2,5 5,7 8,0 8,0 3,8 6,7 6,6 6,6 5,1 2,6 58
2 3 0,6 1,0 3,3 4,0 5,6 5,1 5,1 5,5 5,4 4,9 4,8 3,5 49
3 4 1,1 2,0 3,8 3,8 5,7 4,8 5,9 5,6 5,8 3,9 4,0 3,8 50
4 5 1,6 3,2 5,2 4,2 4,5 4,0 5,9 3,4 4,2 3,7 2,8 3,8 47
5 6 3,5 3,9 4,7 4,6 3,7 3,3 3,7 2,8 3,7 4,3 3,4 3,6 45
6 7 5,4 4,5 3,5 3,6 1,7 2,4 2,3 2,4 2,1 2,9 3,5 3,1 37
7 8 6,4 3,8 2,8 2,1 0,9 1,5 1,4 1,7 1,1 2,0 2,3 2,7 29
8 9 5,1 3,6 2,3 1,1 0,6 1,0 0,7 1,0 0,4 1,3 2,1 2,3 21
9 10 2,8 2,1 1,7 0,5 0,2 0,6 0,4 0,6 0,4 0,8 1,2 2,5 14
10 11 2,2 1,0 0,8 0,3 0,1 0,2 0,5 0,3 0,2 0,3 0,5 1,5 8
11 12 1,1 1,0 0,3 0,2 0,0 0,1 0,2 0,3 0,1 0,2 0,2 0,7 4
12 13 0,3 0,6 0,1 0,0 0,0 0,1 0,1 0,3 0,1 0,2 0,1 0,3 2
13 14 0,0 0,1 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,1 0,1 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,3 1
14 15 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,1 0
15 16 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0
16 17 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0
17 18 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0
18 19 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0
19 20 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0
20 21 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0
21 22 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0
22 23 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0
23 24 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0
24 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0
365
Monthly distribution of sign. wave height (m)
BRUNEI MARITIME MASTERPLAN XIV

Appendix
lower upper Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
0.0 0.5 13,2 30,6 56 69,6 89,6 81,8 83,6 71,4 78,8 59,3 11,9 6,8
0.5 1.0 54,7 51 36 28,3 8,3 14,5 16,4 22,2 18,2 31,5 71,2 50
1.0 1.5 28,3 16,3 8 2,2 2,1 3,6 0 6,3 3 9,3 13,6 32,4
1.5 2.0 3,8 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3,4 8,1
2.0 2.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,4
2.5 3.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,4
3.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
total 100.0 99.9 100.0 100.1 100.0 99.9 100.0 99.9 100.0 100.1 100.1 100.1
Days of occurrence of significant wave height

lower upper Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec total
0.0 0.5 4 9 17 21 28 25 25 22 24 18 4 2 199
0.5 1.0 17 14 11 8 3 4 5 7 5 10 21 16 122
1.0 1.5 9 5 2 1 1 1 0 2 1 3 4 10 38
1.5 2.0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 3 5
2.0 2.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2.5 3.0
3.0
31 28 31 30 31 31 30 31 30 31 30 31 365
BRUNEI MARITIME MASTERPLAN XV

Appendix
I Berth calculation
BRUNEI MARITIME MASTERPLAN XVI

Appendix
J Area restrictions terminals

90
Low Average
80
High maximum space 2005
70
Area available alternative 1
60
50
40
30
20
10
Ha
0
2005
2010
2015
2020
2025
2030
Year
Figure J-7 Area restrictions container terminal
80 Average High
70 Low maximum space 2005
60 Area available alternative 1 Area available alternative 3
50
40
30
20
10
Ha
0
2005
2010
2015
2020
2025
2030
Year
Figure J-8 Area restrictions multi-purpose terminal
BRUNEI MARITIME MASTERPLAN XVII

Appendix
K Environmental management aspects

Environmental Impact Assessment
The EIA is generally conducted through a tool in which the different perceptions are combined
resulting into an approved EIA program. The general method employed to do this consists of the
following steps:
1) Identification of the project and possible environmental impact
2) Initial environmental examination to determine if possible environmental aspects should be
studied further
3) Draft EIA. The environmental aspects are outlined, different options are examined and
improvements are suggested. This is done also for the existing situation without any
adjustment.
4) Participation of non governmental organisations
5) EIA. Suggestion and comments are evaluated and incorporated.
6) Approval of the EIA
Port development aspects

The aspects that have to be balanced between the port and its surrounding areas are:
i) Economic prospects
These are the economic opportunities created through the
cargo forecast and development initiatives for the port area.
ii) Environmental consequences
The development of new and expanding the existing port
area influences the surrounding environment. This has
therefore to be minimized.
Competent Parties
environmental affected iii) Operative law and regulations
authorities These issue addresses the administrative power of local and
national government to regulate the development of the
port.
iv) Social aspects
developing party The social aspects of the surrounding urban areas have to
of the project; be integrated into the development of the port to
compensate the negative impact of the port onto the
population. One must think in the loss of urban land,
fishery grounds, fishery wharfs and coastal area.
v) Technical possibilities
These aspects will determine in large extend the innovative
solutions to circumvent the above aspects.
Economic The issues and their expressed values are perceptions and
prospects views from the affected and beneficiary parties. These
parties involved are in generally the developing party of
Environmental Social the project, Parties affected and the competent
consequences aspects
environmental authorities.
Port
development
Operative There is not yet a sophisticated environmental agency in

Technical law and
possibilities regulations Brunei that regulates all the environmental issues. The
limited industrial development (the oil and gas sector) in
Brunei, has regulated itself through very strict
environmental guidelines, together with the relative small population the environment was not on the
agenda. Therefore at the moment there is not integral environmental management system in place, but
BRUNEI MARITIME MASTERPLAN XVIII

Appendix
on the other hand an integrated coastal zone management system is being set up to face the increasing
industrialisation, urbanisation and the introduction of more intensive agricultural practices.
The 7th National Development Plan ) objectives and strategies:
The proposed policy objectives are:

1. Maintain sustainable utilisation of natural resources;
2. Minimise negative impacts on the environment arising from population growth and
human activities;
3. Balance socio-economic development objectives to ensure good quality environment.
The proposed environment strategies include the following:

a. Improve Environment and Natural Resources Assessment and Information Database;
b. Integrating Environmental Dimensions in Economic Planning and Development;
c. Controlling Pollution;
d. Improving Solid Waste Management;
f. Protecting Vulnerable Ecosystems and Habitats;
g. Improving Environmental Awareness and Education;
h. Protecting Coastal and Marine Environmental Resources;
i. Improve Working and Living Environments in Urban Areas.
Figure K-9 Noise contour present situation

The present location of the terminals and urban areas are separated by a buffer zone of
approximate 500 meters, with some warehousing and green zones. This fulfils the above
requirements.
BRUNEI MARITIME MASTERPLAN XIX

Appendix
Figure K-10 Noise contour alternative 1

Expanding the container terminal to the left the contour line will move with it into the urban area.
Expanding the multi-purpose terminal to the right, the contour line coincides with boundary of the
urban area.
BRUNEI MARITIME MASTERPLAN XX

Appendix
Figure K-11 Noise contour alternative 3

Relocating the container terminal to the island will decrease the noise distance to 300 meters and will
affect no urban area anymore in Muara port.
BRUNEI MARITIME MASTERPLAN XXI

Appendix
L Environmental background Brunei

Sources used:
- National development plan: Brunei web: Brunet.bn
- Climate: brunet.bn
- Ecology: arcbc.org
L.1 Environmental facts

Main environmental facts of Brunei.
• Brunei has 161 kilometres coastline.
• There are 33 islands, with a total area of 7,939 hectares.
• The total offshore reef area is 45 km2.
• Mangroves are mostly to be found on the coast of Temburong in East Brunei, between Tutong
and Telisai and at the catchments at Kulua Belait in South West Brunei.
• Turtles are found nesting along the beaches mainly on the western part of Brunei and on the
Muara Spit east of approach channel of Muara Port.
• Large areas of Brunei are covered with forests, 3,410 sq kilometres
• The continuous demand of sand and gravel for landfills and construction creates problems of
soil and coastal erosion and increased siltation in the coastal waters. Coastal development is
also a major threat to the coastal environment of Brunei, as is domestic, agricultural and oil
pollution.
• The coastline between Kuala Belait and Lumut is reinforced with a rock wall.
• An offshore sediment flow comes to shore between the offshore island of Pulua Punyit and
Muara, where the sediment flow is divided into a northeast and southwest flow.
L.2 Government environmental protection policy

The Brunei government has recognised the need for managing its unique environment, it has one of
the most untouched environment in the world.
The National Environmental Strategy has been drawn up since 1993 to improve the environmental
status and awareness of the country. In the 7th National Development Plan the goals for the
environment were formulated:
- Sustainable use of natural resources

- Minimise negative impact on the environment arising from population growth and human
activities
- Achieving an appropriate balance between socio-economic development and maintaining the
quality of the environment
- Principal areas:
o Raise environmental consciousness;
o Integrate environmental dimensions in economic planning and development;
o Protect vulnerable ecosystems, habitats and biodiversity;
o Protecting the forests, the ocean, freshwater resources and the atmosphere
o Managing solid waste
BRUNEI MARITIME MASTERPLAN XXII

Appendix
L.3 International & National Environmental Treaties

The process of rectifying international environmental treaties by the Brunei government is slow.
Nationally it has been recognised that the environment needs more attention and the following has
already been implemented:
- National Oil Spill Contingency Plan. The petroleum industry and maritime traffic locally and
in neighbouring Malaysia impose tremendous hazards of oil pollution.
- The Integrated Management Plan for the Coastal Zone has proposed that all 33 islands of the
country be classified into three categories respectively for General use, Conservation and
Protection. Twenty-one islands have been selected for protection (i.e. highest level of
protection for biodiversity preservation), 10 for conservation (i.e. where regulated eco-
tourism, education, research and sustainable resource exploitation are allowed) and 2 for
general use. The two very small islands with coral reefs, Pelong Rocks and Punyit are
respectively classified for Conservation and Protection, as marine wildlife sanctuaries.
L.4 Coastline
Brunei’s 161 kilometres of coastline contains sandy beaches, mud flats and estuaries with mangrove
and peat swamps facing the open sea. This zone is the country's most productive ecosystem and the
coastal resources are largely untouched. The low saline level, relatively warm water (29.5 degrees
Celsius) enriched by nutrients, carried by the river, is making the coastal waters rich fishing grounds.
L.5 Islands
Of the 33 islands, with a total area of 7,939 hectares or 1.4 per cent of the total land area, all except
two (Pelong Rocks and Pulua Punyit) are located in river or estuarine environments consisting of
mangrove swamps or shifting vegetation. Largely uninhabited, the islands are an undisturbed
environment and breeding grounds for endangered species.
The largest island in Brunei, Pulua Muara Basar, is located in front of Muara in the Brunei Bay. The
island is covered with some forests and mangrove.
L.6 Ecology
Brunei has vast areas of forests inland, some mangroves and coral reefs in the coastal areas are
present, see the Table L-10. The major threats to the coastal and marine environment are coastal
erosion and increased siltation from gravel and beach sand mining.
Area (sq km) % total area

Islands 8 1.4
Mangroves 184 3
Reef 45 0.01
Forest and Jungle 3,410 58
Total 240,41 67
Table L-10 Environment divided over landmass in percentage
L.7 Inland Jungle and Forest

Large areas of Brunei are covered with forests, 3,410 sq kilometres. The inland forests have been
largely unexploited and therefore very interesting for eco-tourism, see also Figure L-12.. A short
period existed when some commercial forest exploitation was done but the government has regulated
this since. The forest has since been relatively untouched
BRUNEI MARITIME MASTERPLAN XXIII

Appendix
Figure L-12 Forests in Brunei
L.8 Mangrove areas

The mangrove are relatively unexploited by commercial activity and therefore they belong among the
best preserved mangrove areas in the region. These are mostly to be found on the coast of Temburong
in East Brunei, between Tutong and Telisa and at the catchments at Kulua Belait in South West
Brunei.
The mangroves provide important functions in the coastal area, as habitat for plant and animal life and
natural hatcheries of marine life and as natural sea protection system of the coastal areas.
Its commercial use for aquaculture, such as fish, shrimp or prawn rearing, will put the mangroves
under pressure. Continuous research and effort with the right expertise are being realised to manage
and preserve this natural asset from neglect and future overexploitation.
L.9 Coral Reefs

The total known reef area is 45 km2 and is mostly confined to five areas far from the shore on offshore
islands and shoals (the two largest areas being Ampa and Victoria patches 25km off the west coast of
Tutong and Telisai, number 4) The only two oceanic islands, see Figure L-13 Coral reefs and
Mangroves in Brunei, are found in the north west side of the coast, these are Pelong Rocks (1) and
Pulau Punyit (2).
The coastal waters between Muara and Tutong are fringed with coral reefs and shoals. The outer coral
reefs of Colombo (3) {at the champions oilfield} and Ampa Patches (4) are located in oil and gas
fields.
BRUNEI MARITIME MASTERPLAN XXIV

Appendix
Figure L-13 Coral reefs and Mangroves in Brunei
L.10 Species
Many species of animals and insects have their habitat in the swamps, mangroves and islands.
On the islands many species of birds and flying foxes (large fruit bats) can be found. Mangroves and
swamps harbour indigenous animals like reptiles and monkeys and are the temporary homes for birds
migrating every northern winter from China and Siberia to Brunei. For the coral reefs large amount of
species of hard corals and over 150 species of fish have been recorded.
Three species of marine turtles are found nesting along the beaches mainly on the western part of
Brunei and on the spit east of Muara.
BRUNEI MARITIME MASTERPLAN XXV

2004prinsen PDF

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

2004prinsen PDF

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

BRUNEI MARITIME MASTERPLAN

Muara port development strategy

Faculty of Civil Engineering and Geosciences

Member: R. Groenveld MSc

Member: J.P. Noppen BBE BSc MSc

Member: T. Vellinga MSc

External Advisor: R. Clarke

BRUNEI MARITIME MASTERPLAN

BRUNEI MARITIME MASTERPLAN -i-

BRUNEI MARITIME MASTERPLAN - ii -

BRUNEI MARITIME MASTERPLAN - iii -

BRUNEI MARITIME MASTERPLAN - iv -

BRUNEI MARITIME MASTERPLAN -v-

10.1 MUARA PORT DEVELOPMENT STARTING POINTS ................................................................... 54

BRUNEI MARITIME MASTERPLAN - vi -

C MAP ROAD INFRASTRUCTURE............................................................................................ V

BRUNEI MARITIME MASTERPLAN - vii -

BRUNEI MARITIME MASTERPLAN - viii -

Table 10-3 Weighted score criteria ....................................................................................................... 61

BRUNEI MARITIME MASTERPLAN - ix -

Figure 11-5 Noise contour present situation ......................................................................................... 74

BRUNEI MARITIME MASTERPLAN -x-

Figure1-1 Southeast Asia Figure 1-2 Brunei map

BRUNEI MARITIME MASTERPLAN 1

2.1 Problem definition

2.2 Project goal

Research objectives to reach project goal:

BRUNEI MARITIME MASTERPLAN 2

BRUNEI MARITIME MASTERPLAN 3

3 Port development frame work

3.1 Historical port development theory

3.2 The functioning of a port

3.3 Port masterplan methodology

Figure 3-1 Masterplan time frame

BRUNEI MARITIME MASTERPLAN 4

3.4 Framework study

Part 1; Present situation

Part two; Cargo and maritime scenarios

Part three; Development of routing and port layouts alternatives

BRUNEI MARITIME MASTERPLAN 5

Part one; Present situation Brunei

4 General overview Brunei

4.1 Economic facts

BRUNEI MARITIME MASTERPLAN 6

Revenues in thousands of US$

Revenues in thousands of US$

BRUNEI MARITIME MASTERPLAN 7

4.2 Existing maritime infrastructure

Figure 4-3 ASEAN water and land infrastructure

4.2.1 Ports and terminals West coast

BRUNEI MARITIME MASTERPLAN 8

Figure 4-4 Map West coast of Brunei

4.2.2 Port locations in Brunei Bay

BRUNEI MARITIME MASTERPLAN 9

Figure 4-5 Maps of the Brunei Bay

4.3 Hinterland infrastructure

4.3.1 Road infrastructure

4.3.2 Rail infrastructure

4.3.4 Power infrastructure

4.3.5 Pipeline infrastructure

BRUNEI MARITIME MASTERPLAN 10

4.4 Meteorological and hydraulic conditions

The average offshore wind originates from the