7 TASK V - ENGINEERING AND COST ANALYSES
7.1 MAJOR MARINE ENGINEERING REQUIREMENTS
7.1.1 L1: LÜDERITZ FISHING PORT
112. Comprehensive upgrading of facilities into a fishing port  serving mainly white fish trawlers. A total berth length for smaller vessels, especially wet-fish trawlers, of about 200 m (about 50 m more than current) is anticipated for 1995, increasing by another 300 m by 2005 and perhaps by another by 2105. In terms of Strategic Context 3 limited commercial facilities might be added to accommodate low-volume freight while a new port is being built at Cape Cross (CC1).
7.1.2 WB1: WALVIS BAY COMMERCIAL PORT
113. Any new container and general cargo facilities are developed in the existing port by commercial operators. However, no major infrastructural expansion is envisaged before 2015. Under the rapid growth scenario long-term planning for port expansion might begin after 2005. In terms of Strategic Context 1, such expansion would comprise a future seaward extension of the existing port (under use of basic planning by Namibia Ports Authority (NamPort)). In terms of Strategic Contexts 2 and 3, any new port development would take place at Cape Cross, either in the form of a new port (CC1), or by expansion of a fishing port already built there (CC2).
114. Bulk cargo facilities are constructed by private enterprise at the port for moderate volumes, but at dedicated terminals outside the port for large volumes. For Strategic Contexts 2 and 3 such facilities would be provided north of Swakopmund. One special bulk facility would be for cement (0,6 millions tpa by 2005 and 3,0 millions tpa by 2015 for rapid growth scenario, requiring one 180 m berth for each 0,6 millions tpa). Excluding cement, the rapid growth scenario for general cargo is 0,9 millions tpa by 2015 requiring 2 berths, for containers 1 berth and for dry bulk cargo up to 4 berths.
115. The main commodities for bulk cargo exports are salt (0,8 millions tpa) or ore/minerals (1,1 millions tpa), both requiring good rail and road access and large backup storage facilities with mechanised handling equipment. Both categories might be accommodated through dedicated bulk terminals, either in or outside the commercial port. For the backup storage areas space is available at W.B., but access to the berths could be a problem.
7.1.3 CC1: CAPE CROSS COMMERCIAL PORT
116. The facilities at W.B. are replicated at Cape Cross and all additional commercial expansion is located there. Any bulk loading terminals are located separately south of Cape Cross.
7.1.4 WB1-B: WALVIS BAY FISHING PORT DEVELOPMENT
117. The existing fishing port is developed by terminating the privately-held leases on state-owned land between the sea wall and the old high water mark and placing the land under a public fishing port authority. The main developments are additional dredging, a full length quay along the waterfront (total: 2.200 m in place of the existing 400 m), additional jetties and surfacing of the quay-side land. With the additional jetties the requirement will be sufficient for the increased trawler demand on berth length.
7.1.5 WB1-A: WALVIS BAY FISHING PORT DEVELOPMENT
118. As for case WB1-B, but the total requirement is shared between Walvis Bay and Möwe Bay.
7.1.6 WB1-D: WALVIS BAY FISHING PORT EXTENSION
119. A public fishing port is built as a northward inland extension of the present fishing port, mainly to handle white fish from the central and northern zones. The increased trawler demand on berth length (2005: 350-400 m; 2015: 450-700 m; depth: 6,5 m) calls for substantial additions to the existing fishing port quay (400 m). Also the fast-growing fleet of smaller fishing vessels will require additional berth length (300 m by 1995, 700 m by 2005 and 1.200 m by 2015).
7.1.7 WB1-C: WALVIS BAY FISHING PORT EXTENSION
120. As for case WB1-D, but the total requirement is shared between Walvis Bay and Möwe Bay.
7.1.8 CC1-A: CAPE CROSS FISHING PORT
121. The fishing port are designed to handle the entire catch from the central zone and a minor part of the trawler catch from the northern zone. Walvis Bay's purse-seiner landing jetties are partly relocated to Cape Cross (approx. frontage: 600-800 m, increasing to 800-1.000 m after 2005). The increased trawler demand on berth length (medium term: 350-500 m; long term: 400-700 m) and depth (6,5 m alongside) calls for substantial harbour facilities of off-loading white fish. The berth facilities for the fast-growing fleet of smaller fishing vessels will also have to be continuously extended to keep up with the expected developments. The total berth length required might reach 300 m (1995), another 200 m (2005) and another 300 m (2015).
7.1.9 CC1-B: CAPE CROSS FISHING PORT
122. The existing facilities at W.B. mainly for purse-seiners are replicated at Cape Cross (600-800 m, increasing to 1.000- 1.200 m after 2005), but to a more optimal port design for the entire catch of the central and northern zones. New facilities, mainly for trawlers (medium term: 550-700 m; long-term: 650-1.000 m; depth: 6,5 m) and smaller vessels (300 m by 1995; 700 m by 2005 and 1.200 m by 2015) are added, for white fish, either as an integral part of a new commercial port, or inland at a separate site south of Cape Cross. Walvis Bay's purse-seiner landing jetties are relocated to Cape Cross (approx. frontage: 600-800 m, increasing to 1.000-1.200 m after 2005). The increased trawler demand on berth length (medium term: 550-700 m; long term: 650-1.100 m) and depth (6,50 m alongside) calls for substantial port facilities for off-loading white fish. The berth facilities for the fast-growing fleet of smaller fishing vessels will also have to be continuously extended to keep up with the expected developments. The total berth length required might reach 300 m (1995), another 400 m (2005) and another 500 m (2015).
7.1.10 CC1-C: CAPE CROSS FISHING PORT
123. The fishing port facilities are designed to handle most of the white fish catch from the central zone and a minor part from the northern zone. Although the existing W.B. fishing port continues to handle most landings of pelagic fish, some frontage will be required at Cape Cross (200-400 m). The increased trawler demand on berth length (medium term: 350-500 m; long term: 400-700 m) and depth (6,50 m alongside) calls for substantial port facilities for off-loading white fish. The berth facilities for the fast-growing fleet of smaller fishing vessels will also have to be continuously extended to keep up with the expected developments. The total berth length required might reach 300 m (1995), another 200 m (2005) and another 300 m (2015).
7.1.11 CC1-D: CAPE CROSS FISHING PORT
124. A new public fishing port is built to cater mainly for white fish trawlers and smaller vessels generally. Fishing port facilities are built either as an integral part of the new commercial port, or inland at a separate site south of Cape Cross, or both. They are designed to handle most of the white fish catch from the central and northern zones. Although the existing W.B. fishing port continues to handle most landings of pelagic fish, some frontage will be required at Cape Cross (200-400 m). The increased trawler demand on berth length (medium term: 550-700 m; long term: 650-1.000 m) and depth (6,50 m alongside) calls for substantial port facilities for off-loading white fish. The berth facilities for the fast-growing fleet of smaller fishing vessels will also have to be continuously extended to keep up with the expected developments. The total berth length required might reach 300 m (1995), another 400 m (2005) and another 500 m (2015).
7.1.12 MB1: MÖWE BAY FISHING PORT
125. A public fishing port is built to serve a mixed pelagic (300 m by 2005; 400-500 m by 2015; depth: 4,5 m) and demersal fish fleet (200-250 m by 2005; 250-350 m by 2015; depth: 6,5 m) as well as of a fleet smaller vessels (200 m by 2005; 400 m by 2015) for most of the northern zone catches.
7.2 IDENTIFICATION OF PORT DEVELOPMENT OPTIONS
126. Resulting of above analysis the range of different options (216 different options are possible: 3x3x3x4x2=216) can be narrowed to seven different port development options (1, 2A, 2B, 3A, 3B, 4A, 4B plus 3 "Flexiport"-alternatives (F2)). See table 48: Matrix of Port Development Options and Locations.
TABLE 48: MATRIX OF PORT DEVELOPMENT OPTIONS
* Or WB1-C + Or WB1-D + SC = Strategic Context.
7.2.1 PORT DEVELOPMENT OPTION 1
127. No port development at either Walvis Bay or Lüderitz which is relevant to Strategic Contexts 1, 2 and 3. No major marine engineering projects (Null Option).
7.2.2 PORT DEVELOPMENT OPTION 2A
128. Walvis Bay commercial port fully exploited; Walvis Bay fishing port developed or northern extension; Möwe Bay fishing port built. This option is relevant to Strategic Context 1. The major marine engineering projects are: L1: Expanded fishing port at Lüderitz; WB1: Additional handling and storage facilities at W.B.; WB1-A: Walvis Bay fishing port developed or WB1-C: northern extension built, covering mainly central zone white fish landings and MB1: New fishing port at Möwe Bay.
7.2.3 PORT DEVELOPMENT OPTION 2B
129. Same as Port Development Option 2A except that Möwe Bay fishing port is not built. This option is relevant to Strategic Context 1. The major marine engineering projects are the same as for Option 2A except that WB1-A is replaced by WB1-B and WB1-C is replaced by WB1-D: northern extension built, covering mainly central and northern white fish landings.
7.2.4 PORT DEVELOPMENT OPTION 3A
130. Walvis Bay commercial and fishing ports are fully used but no new investments; new fishing ports at Cape Cross and Möwe Bay are built. This option is relevant to Strategic Context 2. The major marine engineering projects are: L1: Expanded fishing port at Lüderitz; CC1-C: New fishing port at Cape Cross, covering mainly central zone white fish landings and MB1: New fishing port at Möwe Bay.
7.2.5 PORT DEVELOPMENT OPTION 3B
131. Same as Port Development Option 3A but Möwe Bay fishing port is not built. This option is relevant to Strategic Context 2. The major marine engineering projects are the same as for Option 3A except that CC1-C is replaced by CC1-D: new fishing port at Cape Cross, covering mainly central and northern zone white fish landings.
7.2.6 PORT DEVELOPMENT OPTION 4A
132. Walvis Bay commercial and fishing ports will be run down, both replicated at Cape Cross with additional fishing port facilities built at Cape Cross and a fishing port built at Möwe Bay. This option is relevant to Strategic Context 3. The major marine engineering projects are: LL1: Expanded fishing port at Lüderitz; CC1: New commercial port at Cape Cross; CC1-A: New fishing port at Cape Cross, covering mainly central zone landings, pelagic as well as demersal fish and MB1: New fishing port at Möwe Bay.
7.2.7 PORT DEVELOPMENT OPTION 4B
133. Same as Port Development Option 4A but Möwe Bay fishing port is not built. This option is relevant to Strategic Context 3. The major marine engineering projects are the same as for Option 4A except that CC1-A is replaced by CC1-B (and CC1-E: see below): New fishing port at Cape Cross, covering mainly central and northern zone pelagic and demersal fish landings. For the case where Möwe Bay is not developed but replicated at Cape Cross with reduced rates, this project is indicated as CC1-E. Estimated costs for all construction activities with the exception for dredging costs, are accordingly reduced with a margin of approximately 40%.
7.2.8 PORT SERVICE TO THE OFFSHORE OIL INDUSTRY
134. A port further north of Walvis Bay may prove to be a better base for the support of the offshore industry in the northern concession areas. By the year 2015 two offshore supply vessels could be in operation in this sector for which one berth of 120 m length would suffice. The required water depth at the berth will be 11 m. About 30.000 m2 open area and 2.0002 of covered storage will be needed as well as a crane with a lifting capacity of 25 t.
7.3 ALTERNATIVE "FLEXIPORT" OPTION FOR NEW PORT
135. A new port concept of "Flexiport"-technology could be an interesting alternative for the Cape Cross and/or Möwe Bay sites and even the Walvis Bay fishing port expansion alternative. Cost aspects and speed of construction seem to be very interesting. A stage construction concept can be followed according to requirements. The residual value of such "pre-fabricated port system" is very high, the port system can even be re-erected at different sites. System lends itself to leasing. The concept could be suitable for a small fishing port (3 pontoons initially), be that at a northern location (Möwe Bay) or for a combined commercial/fishing port (Cape Cross) with bigger pontoon combinations (6 to 9 pontoons) or even for a extension for the fishing port at Walvis Bay or for somewhat different requirements at Lüderitz.
136. A 3-pontoons port with all adjacent internal port infrastructure can be built within 12 to 15 months for approximately 50% of the costs of a conventional port. A preliminary cost estimate for such a "Flexiport" port at Cape Cross is approximately US $ 24 million (end 1992-prices) . This estimate is based on the following:
The price includes (if built in Holland) training, first year management, transportation, installation and commission. Furthermore it is envisaged to integrate a fish processing plant or plants in one or more pontoons. This will not interfere with the normal cargo movement but will create earlier amortisation of the costs of the installation. Cold storage should be included in the scheme. Each pontoon will have some 5.000 m3 of free storage space within the pontoons.
137. Detailed investigations into such a system will have to be taken place. Many intricate questions have to be answered by intensive in-situ examinations. A brief preliminary listing, as it is seen at this early stage of investigation, of the pros and cons of the floating "Flexiport" port installations for a harbour site along the Namibian North Coast is as follows:
PROS: (in random order)
CONS: (in random order)
7.4 SUPPORTING PHYSICAL INFRASTRUCTURE AND RESOURCES
138. Since the fishing industry is cast as the motor in coastal economic growth, access to appropriate infrastructure and services is of strategic importance. The costs of additional or new supporting physical infrastructure is dependent on the locality of the port facility to be established and the availability and accessibility of adequate potable water sources. The following tables are showing the populations and population projections in coastal towns (tables 49 and 50), the bulk water supplies (table 51) as well as consumptions (table 52) and water demands (tables 53, 54, 55 and 55).
TABLE 49: POPULATION OF COASTAL TOWNS, 1981 AND 1991
NOTA: * 1980. + Estimate.
TABLE 50: POPULATION PROJECTIONS: DIFFERENT OPTIONS
NOTA: * Under option 4, the
population of Walvis Bay decreases by 10,000 to 2005 and by another
TABLE 51: BULKWATER SUPPLIES FROM NAMIB
TABLE 52: FRESH WATER CONSUMPTION: WALVIS BAY, 1990/91
TABLE 53: WATER DEMAND: NON-PORT CENTRES
TABLE 54: WATER DEMAND: CENTRAL AREA PORT OPTIONS
TABLE 55: TOTAL WATER DEMAND: CENTRAL AREA
NOTA: MB = Möwe Bay fishing port.
TABLE 56: WATER DEMAND FOR CAPE CROSS
7.4.1 WALVIS BAY
139. For the Walvis Bay expansion option no major new physical infrastructure will be required. A major obstacle, however, is the future provision with potable water. The water supply restrictions render the medium to long term capacity for expansion at W.B. as extremely limited.
140. From the present population of 28.000, the population growth over the planning period can be estimated to 40.000, and 70.000 if the Möwe Bay fishing port is not built. An increase in social infrastructural facilities, that is housing, schools, hospitals etc., may be required in line of the new housing and labour policies of the Republic of Namibia (Strategic Context 1).
141. The preliminary estimated present-day engineering costs to provide such additional social infrastructure is of the order of some R 142 million per 10.000 capita (US $ 47,24 million) increase over the present capacity. Thus for an expansion of 40.000 over the planning period, the total additional present-day engineering cost is estimated with US $ 228,96 million.
142. This estimate provides for:
7.4.2 CAPE CROSS
143. This option carries with it the establishment of an entirely new physical and social infrastructural base. For this scenario on the base of 70.000 population, replicating the total physical and social infrastructure at Walvis Bay, the preliminary, estimated present-day engineering cost is approximately US $ 546,44 million over the planning period to 2015. This amount includes for:
144. This estimated engineering cost includes some US $ 36 million for a railway line to link Cape Cross to the existing rail network at Trekkopje . A summary of the feasibility report for this railway line will follow after the next section of this Study. Furthermore, the provision of an airfield with appropriate landing strips, freight handling facilities and instrument landing system is included at an estimated engineering cost of some US $ 7 million. It may be well noted that if Möwe Bay fishing port is not built, the total population by 2015 may well reach 100.000.
220.127.116.11 UPGRADING OF THE ACCESS ROAD TO CAPE CROSS
145. The upgraded access road from Swakopmund to Cape Cross (and eventually further to Möwe Bay) comprises approximately 120 km of road, consisting of main road 44 between Swakopmund and Henties Bay and district road 2301 between Henties Bay and Cape Cross. The existing road consists of a gypsum-salt gavel pavement and has a poor vertical and horizontal alignment, which do not conform to a 120 km/h design standard. During wet conditions, mainly due to the coastal fog, the top layer soften significantly, resulting in a slippery surface . The situation is aggravated at night, when visibility is severely limited by fog and the absence of road markings.
146. Two alternatives were investigated during the basic planning phase. Alternative 1 from Swakopmund to Henties Bay and Alternative 2 deviating nearer to the sea, north of Henties Bay, were evaluated and the choice of the alignment was influenced by the following factors:
147. At Wlotzkasbaken, Alternative 1 keeps to the existing road, to the west of the proclaimed route, in order to avoid the rich lichen fields to the east of this settlement. Alternative 1 traverses the Jakkalsputz salt pan, since a deviation around the pan (2,5 km inland in the case of the proclaimed route) would leave a vast area of desert vulnerable to uncontrolled vehicle movement, as well as disturbing a large Damara Tern nesting site. At the Lagunenberge, Alternative 1 was aligned between the existing road and the proclaimed route in order to achieve a design standard of 120 km/h on the one hand, and limiting uncontrolled access into the Lagunenberge, which hosts a variety of lichens, on the other. Furthermore, Alternative 1 follows the existing road some 1,8 km east from the sea between Henties Bay and Mile 68 over a distance of 20 km, while Alternative 2 deviates to the high back dune next to the beach.
148. The initial (1992) equivalent annual average daily traffic (AADT) on main road 44 is 672 vehicles and on district road 2301 256 vehicles. The traffic growth calculated according to available data from the Ministry of Works, Transport and Communication is 5% p.a. Dierks  has proved that the quality and cost optimised point to surface a good gravel road with a full bitumen surfaced pavement lies in an AADT in excess of 500. Due to the present low traffic loading on DR 2301 of an AADT=256, an economical pavement design was introduced in order to improve the benefits over the costs of this road with approximately 60%. This picture will change with the establishment of a port at Cape Cross and/or Möwe Bay. A small or medium fishing port would increase the traffic on MR 44/DR 2301 with 20% respective 40%. A large commercial port at Cape Cross would increase the traffic with 60%. The alternative pavement design was based on the possibility of constructing a small to medium size port, with corresponding 30% increase in traffic.
149. The feasibility investigations furthermore revealed the urgent feasibility of a road by-pass at Swakopmund to be included into the access road to Cape Cross/Möwe Bay, since all traffic from Windhoek, Walvis Bay and Henties Bay now traverses the Central Business District of Swakopmund with the resulting noise and gas pollution and traffic safety risks. The completion of the Trans Caprivi and Trans Kalahari highways will generate additional heavy vehicle traffic between the Namibian Atlantic Coast and Namibia's eastern neighbouring countries, all travelling through the CBD of Swakopmund.
150. A total of three alternative by-pass alignments have been evaluated, all starting at the Swakop River Bridge at Swakopmund and ending at km 3,965 on MR 44, a distance of some 8 km. Alternative 1 follows the southern and eastern perimeters of Central Swakopmund to join Winter Street, passing the industrial area, and joining MR 44 which runs between the residential areas of Vineta and Tamariskia to the common end point at km 3,965. Alternative 2 follows the same alignment as Alternative 1, but instead of using Winter Street, it deviates around the residential areas of Tamariskia and Mondesa. Alternative 3 is the furthest from the town perimeter leaving enough space for the town and industrial area to extend in the medium term. Alternative 1 provides the best access to the industrial area and the CBD, but does not serve as a by-pass to heavy transit traffic between Henties Bay and Windhoek and limits the medium extension of the resident area of Kramersdorf. Alternative 2 does not provide adequate access to the industrial area, but serves as a by-pass to all transit traffic and with the same limitations to the extension of Kramersdorf as Alternative 1. Alternative 3 provides poor access to the industrial area, but serves transit traffic the best and poses little restriction to the extension of Kramersdorf.
151. The planning study recommended that MR 44 and DR 2301 between Swakopmund and Henties Bay (but without the deviation to the sea between Henties Bay and Mile 68) be upgraded to a full bitumen surfaced standard according to Alternative 1, with an economical pavement design for DR 2301 when a medium scale fishing port to a full commercial port at Cape Cross is seen only as a medium to long term project. The Swakopmund by-pass should be built according to Alternative 2 with the relevant alterations in alignment to include Winter Street as a first phase and accommodate it as an arterial in the second phase.
152. The benefits over costs which derive from the above recommendations are summarised in the following three tables:
TABLE 57: ROAD: SWAKOPMUND-CAPE CROSS
NOTA: 1: OCC Opportunity Cost of Capital. For investments by commercial enterprises the time cost of money is assumed to be an average of the short-term and long-term rates of interests. When the effect of public investment in highways is considered, the interest rate must reflect the return on investment in the national economy.
2: NPV Net Present Value
The NPV of a given investment is obtained by subtracting the present value of the future benefits. The benefits as well as the costs are discounted at the OCC discount rate. The investment is feasible if the NPV is positive.
3: IRR Internal Rate of Return
The IRR of a given project is defined as the discount rate at which the present value of benefits and the present value of costs are equal. It is a measure of the marginal efficiency of capital. For a project to be feasible, the IRR has to be greater than the average of the OCC.
4: FYB First Year Benefit (1 US $ = 3,5 N$)
TABLE 58: SWAKOPMUND BY-PASS
TABLE 59: CAPE CROSS ACCESS ROAD: COSTS
18.104.22.168 NEW RAILWAY LINE TO CAPE CROSS
153. During 1992 the feasibility of a railway line to a future port site at Cape Cross was investigated. Two of the more likely lines were investigated and compared on a design, topographical, infrastructural, constructional and economic basis. A cost estimate was prepared for these two lines finally chosen:
- Cape Cross to Trekkopje : US $ 35 500 000: 132 km
- Cape Cross to Omaruru via Uis: US $ 56 614 833: 232 km
The investigation involved a route location study which determined the most cost-effective solution for the alternative routes, taking the following aspects into consideration:
154. From an engineering point of view both lines are feasible. No insurmountable features occur along these routes and all the design criteria can be met as far as geometric requirements are concerned. No serious engineering constraints to the construction and operation of these lines across the Namib Desert to the Atlantic Coast are foreseen. The railway line should not have a great effect on the environment and the socio-economic benefits will far outweigh any negative influences on the environment. The following specifications were considered:
1. Rail section used: 30 kg/m on concrete sleepers
2. Permissible axle loads: 16,5 tons per axle
3. Minimum curve radii: 600 m
4. Ruling grade: 1:66
5. Nature of traffic conveyed: general goods, minerals
6. Allowable speed of trains: 60 km/h
7. Traction mode: Diesel-electric locomotives
8. Methods of trains operating: Radio control (control office at Cape Cross)
9. Train length: 140 axles (35 wagons).
155. From a pure financial analysis and point of availability of funds it appears that the Trekkopje Line would be the better choice. Also from the point of transport-economic arguments it would be more appropriate to support the Trekkopje railway line because this line would also channelise all traffic from the Trans Kalahari Highway to Cape Cross in contrast to the Omaruru-Uis alternative. The line from Omaruru will, however, have a far greater socio-economic effect. Many small mineral deposits occur along this route and the mining as well as the marketing of these minerals will benefit greatly from a railway line in this area. Establishing this line will have a major effect on the revival of the mine and town of Uis, subject to a complete socio-economic analysis.
156. The net present value was calculated to determine the financial feasibility of the shorter rail route between Cape Cross and Trekkopje. A sensitivity analysis was done which indicated that the project is most sensitive to changes in the cost of capital and the tonnage conveyed. From a financial point of view this project is only feasible with low capital costs and a high tonnage conveyed (i.e. positive NPV for a total throughput of 1,848x106 tons per annum: The harbour throughput analysis revealed that in the case of a replicated port at Cape Cross (Strategic Context 3): for the slow-growth scenario 1620 tpa; expected growth scenario 1740 tpa and the rapid growth scenario 1930 tpa for the year 1995). This means a railway line to Cape Cross could become feasible for the Strategic Context 3 by 1995. The potential economic benefits relating to the creation of jobs and the multiplier effects are difficult to quantify and could be significant. Other important factors such as the construction of port facilities at Cape Cross, the opening up of the area between Cape Cross and Omaruru and the future economic prosperity this would bring to this region would first have to be fully investigated and evaluated.
TABLE 60: SCENARIOS FOR TREKKOPJE-CAPE CROSS RAILWAY
NOTA: Operating Cash Flow: Net Income: 20 t truck: US$ 0,25/km 0,84x106x132x1/20x0,25 = US $ 1 386 000
7.4.3 MÖWE BAY
157. As for Cape Cross, this option provides for an entirely new physical and social infrastructural base to support a capita base of 30.000 by 2015. The preliminary estimated present-day engineering cost is approximately some US $ 520,35 million per 30.000 population. This amount includes for:
158. In case that district roads 2620 and 3245 between Khorixas and Torra Bay are not upgraded, the estimated costs can be reduced by approximately US $ 31 million (surfaced standard option) and US $ 7 million (gravel standard option). Similarly in case of lowering the standard of the airfield at Möwe Bay a further saving of approximately US $ 4 million can be achieved. No railway line is envisaged for the Möwe Bay port option. The cost of such a link from Cape Cross to Möwe Bay would be approximately US $ 95 million.
7.5 CONCLUSION: ENGINEERING AND COST ANALYSES
159.The Engineering and Cost Analyses are evaluated and summarised in the following four tables. Since the re-integration of Walvis Bay and the Off-Shore islands into Namibia was concluded on 01.03.1994, the sovereignty issue has been solved and only Strategic Context 1 will be dealt with in the following sections of this Study (Task VI: Cost-Benefit Analysis). The Cape Cross option can thus be discarded. All wind and wave data collections and further analysis at Cape Cross were stopped by the author of this Study in August 1993, when it became clear that Walvis Bay and the Off-Shore islands will be re-integrated on the 28.02.1994 into the Republic of Namibia.
TABLE 61: ENGINEERING COSTS: PORT FACILITY DEVELOPMENTS
(Unit: million US$; US$ 1 = N$ 3,5)
* If instead of developing the existing fishing harbour, a northern extension is developed, project numbers WB1-C & WB1-D apply, and the costs increase as follows:
Option 2A: 1995 - 2005: +US$ 1,15 mm
Option 2B: 1995 - 2005 : +US$ 11,30 mm
**MB1 (F1) can be constructed with another alternative (MB1 (F2)): General cargo pontoons (2 x 30 m x 100 m x 6,5 m) are added and the 5 x 30 m x 100 m x 6,5 m becomes 4 x 30 m x 100 m x 6,5 m and the 4 x 30 m x 100 m x 4,0 m becomes 5 x 30 m x 100 m x 4,0 m: The cost estimate is increasing from US$ 61,89 millions to US$ 65,87 millions.
TABLE 62: COST ESTIMATES: SUPPORTING INFRASTRUCTURE
(Unit: million US$; US$ 1 = N$ 3,5
* The construction costs for main road 44/district road 2301 (Swakopmund-Cape Cross: 120 km) have been justified by a feasibility study on criteria excluding port considerations. If port development takes place at Cape Cross, the cost of this road is attributable to development at Cape Cross rather than at Möwe Bay. The length of the access roads: Cape Cross to Möwe Bay (DR 2301/2302) is 321 km and from Khorixas to Möwe Bay (DR3245/DR2620) is 210 km.
TABLE 63: SUMMARY: PORT AND INFRASTRUCTURAL PROJET COSTS
(Unit: US$ million; US$ 1 = N$ 3,5)
* If the existing fishing harbour (WB1 -A or -B) is not developed and instead thereof a northern extension is developed (WB1 -C or -D), the port '1996-2005', port '1992-2015' and 'Total' costs are increased by US$ 1.15 mn (in place of WB1-A) and by US$ 11.30 mn (in place of WB1-B).
L1 Lüderitz: expansion of existing fishing harbour - applicable to options 2, 3 and 4.
L2 Lüderitz: Social & supporting infrastructure (in conjunction with L1) for additional population by 2015 = 10,000 - applicable to options 2, 3 and 4.
L2-1 Lüderitz: Social & supporting infrastructure where no additional port facilities provided but for natural additional population growth to 2005 only of 5,000 - applicable to option 1 only.
WB2 Walvis Bay: Social & supporting infrastructure where no additional port facilities provided but for natural additional population growth to 2015 of 30,000 - applicable to option 1 only.
WB1-A Walvis Bay: Existing fishing harbour extended (in conjunction with development of new fishing port facilities at Möwe Bay: see MB1 below) -applicable to option 2A only.
WB2-A Walvis Bay: Social & supporting infrastructure (in conjunction with WB1-A) for additional population growth by 2015 of 40,000 - applicable to option 2A only.
WB1-B Walvis Bay: As for WB1-A, but Möwe Bay not developed - applicable to option 2B only.
WB2-B Walvis Bay: Social & supporting infrastructure (in conjunction with WB1-B) for additional population growth by 2015 of 70,000 - applicable to option 2B only.
CC1/CC1-A Cape Cross: Existing Walvis Bay commercial and fishing harbours replicated, additional fishing port facilities provided (in conjunction with development of new fishing port facilities at Möwe Bay: see MB1 below) -applicable to option 4A only.
CC2/CC2-A Cape Cross: Social & supporting infrastructure (in conjunction with CC1-A) for population by 2015 of 70,000 - applicable to option 4A only.
CC1/CC1-B Cape Cross: As CC1-A, but Möwe Bay not developed - applicable to option 4B only.
CC2-B Cape Cross: Social & supporting infrastructure (in conjunction with CC1-B) for population by 2015 of 100,000 - applicable to option 4B only.
CC1-C Cape Cross: Fishing port facilities provided to supplement Walvis Bay; (in conjunction with new fishing port facilities at Möwe Bay: see MB1 below) - applicable to option 3A only.
CC2-C Cape Cross: Social & supporting infrastructure (in conjunction with CC1-C) for population by 2015 of 30,000 - applicable to option 3B only.
CC1-D Cape Cross: As CC1-C, but Möwe Bay not developed - applicable to option 3B only.
CC2-D Cape Cross: Social & supporting infrastructure (in conjunction with CC1-D) for population by 2015 of 60,000 - applicable to option 3B only.
MB1 Möwe Bay: Development of a fishing harbour for northern fishing fleet applicable to options 2A, 3A and 4A.
Möwe Bay: Development of fishing port - applicable to options 2A, 3A and 4A: Alternative: Flexiport Technology
MB2 Möwe Bay:
-2A Social & supporting infrastructure (in conjunction with MB1) for population of 30,000 by 2015 - applicable to option 2A only.
-3A Social & supporting infrastructure (in conjunction with MB1) for population of 30,000 by 2015 - applicable to option 3A only.
-4A Social & supporting infrastructure (in conjunction with MB1) for population of 30,000 by 2015 - applicable to option 4A only.
TABLE 64: SUMMARY: PORT AND INFRASTRUCTURAL OPTION COSTS
(Unit: US$ million; US$ 1 = N$ 3,5)
OPTION 1: NULL OPTION - "Do nothing" as regards port
OPTION 2A: EXPANSION and NEW PORT OPTIONS COMBINED - applicable
OPTION 2B: EXPANSION OPTION - EXISTING FACILITIES - applicable to Strategic Context 1
OPTION 3A: EXPANSION and NEW PORT OPTIONS COMBINED - applicable to Strategic Context 2 (Altern.: (F2): Flexiport)
OPTION 3B: EXPANSION and NEW PORT OPTIONS COMBINED - applicable to Strategic Context 2
OPTION 4A: EXPANSION and NEW PORT OPTIONS COMBINED - applicable to Strategic Context 3 (Altern.: (F2): Flexiport)
OPTION 4B: EXPANSION and NEW PORT OPTIONS COMBINED - applicable to Strategic Context 3
STRATEGIC CONTEXT LEGEND :
CONTEXT 1: NAMIBIAN SOVEREIGNTY ESTABLISHED
CONTEXT 2: NAMIBIAN SOVEREIGNTY NOT ESTABLISHED: JOINT ADMINISTRATION
CONTEXT 3: NAMIBIAN SOVEREIGNTY NOT ESTABLISHED and
WALVIS BAY REPLACED.
 Dierks, Klaus: Guidelines for the Formulation of a Maritime Transport Policy in Namibia with Special Reference to Emergency Plans regarding the Walvis Bay Issue, Windhoek, April 1992
 See Annexure tables with alternatives 2A (F2), 3A (F2) and 4A (F2): A "Flexiport" with 1.200 m berth length would cost US $ 61,89 millions and is equivalent to MB1-conventional port with US $ 80,94 millions, thus representing a saving of 23,5%.
 Ministry of Works, Transport and Communication: Planning Study of Trunk Road 2/2, Main Road 44 and District Road 2301 between Swakopmund and Cape Cross, Windhoek, 1992
 Ministry of Works, Transport and Communication: Pre-Feasibility Study: Route Location and Cost Estimate of a Railway Line to Link Cape Cross to the Rail Network, Windhoek, 1992
 Dierks, Klaus: Technical Aspects for Appropriate Low-Volume Roads in Namibia, Ph.-D.-Thesis, Berlin, 1992, p.155 ff
 Dierks, Klaus: Technical Aspects for Appropriate Low-Volume Roads in Namibia, Ph.-D.-Thesis, Berlin, 1992, p.166: table 15
 With the re-integration of Walvis Bay and the Off-Shore islands on 01.03.1994 only Strategic Context 1 is of any relevance.