Mintrans beckons to Balga
It was not long ago that Sergei Aristov, Deputy Minister of Transport of RF, stated in the interview with PortNews IAA that the ministry offered stevedoring companies of currently operating port of Kaliningrad to move their capacities to the Balga Peninsular in Kaliningrad region, where construction of a new deep-water port is planned. As PortNews IAA learnt from port’s largest stevedoring companies, they have not yet expressed great interest to such a perspective. Nevertheless, it is possible that some of them move under definite conditions, experts highlighted.
As PortNews IAA learnt from Sergei Aristov, Deputy Minister of Transport of RF, in the course of II Annual International Conference “Trilogy”, a new port shall have a number of advantages against the operating port of Kaliningrad. ‘There we have an opportunity of deep-water port creation, which is impossible within the existing one. Besides, the operating port id impossible to develop its capacities and berths,’ explained Deputy Minister, ‘the stevedoring companies should understand it might be too late’.
It is necessary to point out that there are three stevedoring companies providing greater part of Kaliningrad port cargo turnover: LUKOIL-Kaliningradmorneft LLC (29%), FGUP Kaliningrad Sea Fishing port (about 19%) and Kaliningrad Commercial Seaport OJSC (about 17%).
As PortNews IAA learnt from PR department of NC LUKOIL OJSC, the company does not see any sense in the existing facilities relocation of LUKOIL-Kaliningradmorneft LLC. ‘We have our own terminal linked with a pipeline to our platform. It is a completed and fitted out object. It is not very large but we plan it to be developed. There is a crude storage, a berth, oil refinery station successfully operating, that is why we are hardly interested in facilities relocation,’ commented LUKOIL press-service representative. He as well pointed out that the company was not going to participate in the project of a new port construction.
FGUP Kaliningrad Sea Fishing port (KMRP) representative informed PortNews IAA that they haven’t yet got either offers or instructions related to the possible relocation of capacities. As per Nataliya Dementieva, KMRP’s CEO assistant, the stevedoring company is a state enterprise subordinated to Rosrybolovstvo, that is why it cam move only upon the according instruction on the part of the state.
Kaliningrad Commercial Seaport OJSC (KMTP) also stated that no official offers on possibility of relocation consideration were submitted to the company. ‘It seems to an issue of quite a distant perspective. KMTP does not currently participate in the project of port construction on the Balga Peninsular,’ commented Nataliya Posdnyakova, press-attache of KMTP.
As per Sergey Semenov, Development director of design institution Morstroytechnology, it would be really inconvenient for LUKOIL to relocate its capacities as its terminal in Kaliningrad is linked to the pipeline. As for KMT, for example, its facilities relocation would not course much difficulties and costs, on condition that the state would provide the stevedoring companies with prepared infrastructure at a new place: new moorages of sufficient depths, railways and roads, the possibility of areas lease. ‘It is not that costly to re-move handling equipment and construct several administrative and service buildings for the terminal with an open warehouse. In case of specialized covered warehouses construction the project would cost more,’ explained Sergey Semenov. As per his opinion, it is necessary to correlate operators’ costs and additional opportunities that they acquire due to a deep water port.
Vitalii Chernov.
As PortNews IAA learnt from Sergei Aristov, Deputy Minister of Transport of RF, in the course of II Annual International Conference “Trilogy”, a new port shall have a number of advantages against the operating port of Kaliningrad. ‘There we have an opportunity of deep-water port creation, which is impossible within the existing one. Besides, the operating port id impossible to develop its capacities and berths,’ explained Deputy Minister, ‘the stevedoring companies should understand it might be too late’.
It is necessary to point out that there are three stevedoring companies providing greater part of Kaliningrad port cargo turnover: LUKOIL-Kaliningradmorneft LLC (29%), FGUP Kaliningrad Sea Fishing port (about 19%) and Kaliningrad Commercial Seaport OJSC (about 17%).
As PortNews IAA learnt from PR department of NC LUKOIL OJSC, the company does not see any sense in the existing facilities relocation of LUKOIL-Kaliningradmorneft LLC. ‘We have our own terminal linked with a pipeline to our platform. It is a completed and fitted out object. It is not very large but we plan it to be developed. There is a crude storage, a berth, oil refinery station successfully operating, that is why we are hardly interested in facilities relocation,’ commented LUKOIL press-service representative. He as well pointed out that the company was not going to participate in the project of a new port construction.
FGUP Kaliningrad Sea Fishing port (KMRP) representative informed PortNews IAA that they haven’t yet got either offers or instructions related to the possible relocation of capacities. As per Nataliya Dementieva, KMRP’s CEO assistant, the stevedoring company is a state enterprise subordinated to Rosrybolovstvo, that is why it cam move only upon the according instruction on the part of the state.
Kaliningrad Commercial Seaport OJSC (KMTP) also stated that no official offers on possibility of relocation consideration were submitted to the company. ‘It seems to an issue of quite a distant perspective. KMTP does not currently participate in the project of port construction on the Balga Peninsular,’ commented Nataliya Posdnyakova, press-attache of KMTP.
As per Sergey Semenov, Development director of design institution Morstroytechnology, it would be really inconvenient for LUKOIL to relocate its capacities as its terminal in Kaliningrad is linked to the pipeline. As for KMT, for example, its facilities relocation would not course much difficulties and costs, on condition that the state would provide the stevedoring companies with prepared infrastructure at a new place: new moorages of sufficient depths, railways and roads, the possibility of areas lease. ‘It is not that costly to re-move handling equipment and construct several administrative and service buildings for the terminal with an open warehouse. In case of specialized covered warehouses construction the project would cost more,’ explained Sergey Semenov. As per his opinion, it is necessary to correlate operators’ costs and additional opportunities that they acquire due to a deep water port.
Vitalii Chernov.