Proposals for a new domestic container shipping network in Indonesia

Tim Power Director, Head of Maritime Advisors

Copyright notice This Report is for the sole use of the purchaser and is not to be copied or distributed outside of the client organisation

10th December 2015

Drewry Maritime Advisors | New liner network for Indonesia

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

© Drewry 2015

2

Drewry Maritime Advisors | New liner network for Indonesia

Current network

The current domestic shipping network consists of numerous direct services mainly from Java from the rest of Indonesia. Vessel sizes are generally small. Key domestic sailing routes in Indonesia

Nunukan

Belawan

Tarakan

Sibolga

Bitung Badam Pekanbaru

Toli Toli

Kalimantan

Kijang

Sumatra

Gorontalo

Pontianak

Tobelo Ternate

Samarinda Palikpapan

Padang

Pantoloan

Luwuk

Sorong

Sulawesi

Manokwari

Maluku Kumai Sampit

Palembang

Banjarmasin Batulicin Kendari

Ambon

Bintuni

Biak Papua Serui

Berau Fak Fak

Jayapura

Nabire Timika

Panjang

Makassar

Baubau Tual

Jakarta Semarang

Java

Surabaya

Lombok Benoa

Merauke Benete

Maumere

Kupang

In 2014, IPC contracted Drewry to develop a new network design whose primary objective is to reduce inter island container logistics costs.

© Drewry 2015

3

Drewry Maritime Advisors | New liner network for Indonesia

Key container logistics cost elements

The main container logistics cost incurred by the shipper include trucking, terminal handling charges, sea freight, storage and inventory holding costs.

Truck

Trucking costs

Origin port

Container storage and handling

Sea transport

Discharge port

Sea freight

Container storage and handling

Truck

Warehouse

Financing

Trucking costs

Warehouse storage

Inventory holding cost

Logistic costs Key container logistics cost elements • The container supply chain was mapped from the origin to destination where key costs elements incurred at each leg are listed.

Indonesia domestic container logistics costs Storage cost 6%

Trucking costs 28%

• The Indonesian domestic container shipping network is modelled where the corresponding costs are determined in consultation with the shipping lines.

Inventory holding cost 26%

• Interviews with stakeholders were conducted to estimate the proportion of each cost element. Terminal handling charges 17%

Sea freight 23%

Source: Shipping line schedules and vessel size Unit costs: Drewry Maritime Services Interviews with shipping lines © Drewry 2015

4

Drewry Maritime Advisors | New liner network for Indonesia

Issues with domestic container shipping

Current issues include port infrastructure, low port productivity, high operating costs and resulting low service reliability. Key issues faced by domestic container shipping Port infrastructure • Restrictions on vessel size due to lack of port infrastructure (Berth depth, channel size) • Terminal equipment at some ports were reported to be in poor working condition.

Terminal productivity • Domestic terminals were reportedly operating at low productivity levels.

Cost • Shipping lines reported high terminal handling tariffs especially in the ports in the Eastern Regions. • The transhipment moves were being charged at the same rate gateway containers which was a disincentive to hub and spoke operations. • Bunker cost in Indonesia was reported to be twice of Singapore. Lines Volumes • The routes covered by each shipping line were predominantly East or West Indonesia. To achieve economies of scale by linking multiple routes would depend on multiple shipping lines working together as the individual lines did might not have sufficient volume.

Source: Interviews with shipping lines

© Drewry 2015

5

Drewry Maritime Advisors | New liner network for Indonesia

APPROACH

© Drewry 2015

6

Drewry Maritime Advisors | New liner network for Indonesia

Approach

Proposed framework to reduce the logistics cost: Port productivity, berth windows and network restructuring. This must be supported by terminal infrastructure and equipment.

Network restructuring

Berth window

Port productivity

Reduction of logistics costs

Terminal capacity, infrastructure and equipment Source: Drewry Maritime Advisors

© Drewry 2015

7

Drewry Maritime Advisors | New liner network for Indonesia

Approach

We have modelled the revised network and quantified cost impacts on liner networks and shippers. We have also adapted the design to fit market realities.

Step 1: Determine scenarios to model

• Shipping networks •Current •2012 Pendulum adapted •Revised networks • Impact of initiatives •Port productivity •Berth windows •Liner network changes

Step 2: Build shipping line network and shipper cost model

• Shipping line network cost model • Port charges • Bunker cost • Charter cost • Transhipment stevedoring cost • Shipper cost model • Trucking cost • Sea freight (includes terminal container handling costs) • Storage cost • Inventory holding costs

Step 3: Model theoretical network and costs

• Shipper / liner network costs •Port productivity improvements •Implementing berth windows •Liner network changes • Preferred scenario • Infrastructure / policies required • Vessel size required – impact on ports, terminals and shipping lines • Annual port calls • Level of competition and monitoring • Number of cranes required • Hub & spoke or direct calls for EREG • Optimal mix of pendulums/direct services, and hub/spoke services

Step 4: Adapt theoretical model to market realities

• Understand lines current regions of interest and market shares •Map services •Estimate shares • Assess potential for alliances and joint services •Assess compatible market shares •Identify existing relationships •Propose joint services • Design network based on feasible alliances and lines’ market positions

Step 5: update to new Eastern Region development

• Update flows •Check new sources •Update current understanding • Forecast flows •Forecast organic growth •Forecast inorganic growth • Review, optimise and update Eastern Region liner network •Consider direct vs. transhipment •Check hub choices •Model and compare alternative networks •Consider competition •Set preferred network and vessel sizes

© Drewry 2015

8

Drewry Maritime Advisors | New liner network for Indonesia

Approach

Key issues in liner network design

 Economies of scale: requires partnerships among competing carriers  Larger vessels: increasing vessel sizes means reducing frequency  Balanced utilisation: essential to maintain consistent utilisation of main line vessels on all sectors of arterial routes in order to capture scale benefits  Transhipment: in short sea trades, transhipment must be used with care; handling is a high % of slot costs; transhipment increases transit times and risk of delays  Lines must be able to operate reliable networks: port infrastructure, working practices and productivity

 Benefits to shippers will arise from improved transit times and reliability and reduced seafreight costs  Competition should be sustained © Drewry 2015

9

Drewry Maritime Advisors | New liner network for Indonesia

10

Approach

A total of eight scenarios with different port operations assumptions and varying shipping networks were modelled. Network

Port Productivity

Berth windows

Scenario 1

Current

Current

None

Scenario 2

Current

Improved

None

Scenario 3

Current

Improved

Implemented

Scenario 4

Pendulum

Improved

Implemented

Scenario 5

Revised Pendulum; 1 service per week

Improved

Implemented

Scenario 6

Revised Pendulum; 2 services per week

Improved

Implemented

Scenario 7

Adapted to market realities

Improved

Implemented

Scenario 8 (in progress)

Modified for revised Eastern Region findings

Improved

Implemented

© Drewry 2015

Drewry Maritime Advisors | New liner network for Indonesia

11

NETWORK DESIGNS

© Drewry 2015

Drewry Maritime Advisors | New liner network for Indonesia

12

Scenario 4: 2012 Pendulum adapted

The original pendulum ran twice weekly from Belawan through to Sorong. We have diverted one weekly loop to Bitung to improve utilisation which is still low east of Makassar West bound vessel utilization

East bound vessel utilization .

Belawan

Jakarta 25.0%

Surabaya 53.3%

Makassar 65.0%*

Bitung/ Sorong

17.8%/ 26.5%

Makassar

Surabaya

Jakarta

45.6%

17.0% / 19.7%

Belawan 41.3%

36.8%

Scenario 4: 2012 Pendulum adapted Pendulum A1 Pendulum A2 Nunukan Belawan

Belawan – Bitung (28.5% market)

Tarakan

Sibolga

Bitung Pekanbaru/ Perawang

Badam Kijang

Toli Toli Gorontalo Pontianak

Tobelo Ternate

Samarinda Palikpapan

Padang

Pantoloan

Luwuk

Sorong Manokwari Biak Bintuni

Sampit Kumai Banjarmasin

Palembang

Serui Fak Fak

Batulicin Kendari

Berau

Jayapura

Ambon Nabire Timika

Makassar

Panjang

Baubau Tual

Belawan –Sorong (28.2% market)

Jakarta Semarang

Vessel size (TEU)

Scenario 4

Pendulum A1

8,093

Pendulum A2

8,093

Surabaya

Lombok Benoa

Merauke Benete

Maumere

Kupang

Source: Company schedule and Drewry Maritime Research *Due to weights of containers, 65% is the best consistent utilization achievable, based on interviews with shipping lines © Drewry 2015

Drewry Maritime Advisors | New liner network for Indonesia

13

Scenario 5 and 6 Revised Liner Network

Next variant has a twice weekly pendulum loop (Belawan-Makassar), a weekly (Jakarta-Sorong) pendulum and a Bitung loop. These frequencies double for Scenario 6 Scenario 5 -Twice weekly; Scenario 6 – Four times weekly • Pendulum A : Belawan – Jakarta – Surabaya – Makassar

Scenario 5-6 These scenarios seeks to ‘trade’ lower economies of scale with higher slot utilisations by splitting the pendulum as follows:

Scenario 5 – Weekly Scenario 6 – Twice Weekly • Pendulum B: Jakarta – Surabaya – Makassar – Sorong • Bitung Loop: Jakarta – Surabaya – Makassar – Bitung

Scenario 5-6: Revised network

Belawan

Belawan – Makassar X2 (43.1% market)

Pendulum A Pendulum B Bitung loop

Nunukan Tarakan

Jakarta– Bitung (7.7% market)

Sibolga

Bitung Pekanbaru/ Perawang

Badam Kijang

Toli Toli Gorontalo Pontianak

Tobelo Ternate

Samarinda Palikpapan

Padang

Pantoloan

Luwuk

Sorong Manokwari Biak Bintuni

Sampit Kumai Banjarmasin

Palembang

Serui Fak Fak

Batulicin Kendari

Ambon Nabire Timika Amamapare

Makassar

Panjang

Jayapura

Berau

Baubau Tual

Vessel size (TEU)

Scenario 5

Scenario 6

Pendulum A

5,331

2,665

Jakarta– Sorong (7.3% market)

Jakarta Semarang Surabaya

Lombok Benoa

Pendulum B

3,305

1,653

Bitung Loop

2,221

1,111

Merauke Benete

Maumere

Kupang

Source: Company schedule and Drewry Maritime Research

© Drewry 2015

Drewry Maritime Advisors | New liner network for Indonesia

14

Network designs

Split pendulums achieve better slot utilisations on all dominant leg sectors between Belawan and Bitung/Sorong

Eastbound vessel utilization Scenario: route

Belawan

Jakarta

Surabaya

Makassar

4: Pendulum A1 Scenario 5: Revised Pendulum 25.0% network

53.3%

65.0%

4: Pendulum A2

25.0%

53.3%

65.0%

5/6: Pendulum A

38.0%

59.1%

65.0%

5/6: Pendulum B

36.6%

65.0%

5/6: Bitung Loop

50.4%

65.0%

Sorong

Bitung

26.5% 17.8% (MKS-> BIT)

65.0% 65.0% (MKS-> BIT)

Westbound vessel utilization Scenario: route

Bitung

Sorong

4: Pendulum A1 Scenario 5: Revised Pendulum network Service TypeA2 4: Pendulum

Makassar 19.6%

Service 17.0%route

Surabaya 45.6%

Average 45.6% vessel size 5/6: Pendulum A 41.4% (TEU) Pendulum A BelawanJakartaSurabayaMakassar 3,845 5/6: Pendulum B 59.2% 58.6% Pendulum B Jakarta- Surabaya- Makassar- Sorong - Makassar - Surabaya – Jakarta 2,722 5/6: Bitung 62.0% Makassar- Surabaya- Jakarta 63.2% Bitung Loop LoopJakarta- Surabaya- Makassar- Bitung1,604

Jakarta 36.8%

Vessel 36.8% Service frequency deployed 48.1% 6 3 3

12.7% Twice weekly Weekly 35.1% Weekly

Belawan 41.3% Annual 41.3% volume 62.8% (TEU) 2,588,537 462,711 435,100

Market Share (%) 42.8% 7.7% 7.2%

Source: Company schedule and Drewry Maritime Research *Due to weights of containers, 65% is the best consistent utilization achievable, based on interviews with shipping lines © Drewry 2015

Drewry Maritime Advisors | New liner network for Indonesia

15

Network designs

Scenarios 4 -6 are all based on hub and spoke services serving Sulawesi and Eastern Region out ports. Makassar, Bitung and Sorong are key hubs Scenario 4-6: Eastern Region and Sulawesi services Service Type

Hub

Scenario 4 vessel size (TEU)

Scenario 5 vessel size (TEU)

Scenario 6 vessel size (TEU)

Service frequency

Market Share (%)

EREG feeder A

Sorong

1,289

1,289

645

EREG feeder B

Sorong

854

854

427

Sulawesi feeder A

Makassar

228

229

229

Weekly

0.2%

Sulawesi feeder B

Bitung

136

136

136

Weekly

0.2%

2.0%

Weekly (scenario 4 & 5) Twice weekly (scenario 6)

1.0%

Nunukan Belawan

Sulawesi feeder B Bitung - Ternate - Luwuk Gorontalo - Bitung

Tarakan

Sibolga

Bitung Pekanbaru/ Perawang

Badam Kijang

Toli Toli Gorontalo Pontianak

Tobelo Ternate

EREG feeder A Sorong - Manokwari - Nabire - Biak - Jayapura - Biak - Manokwari Sorong

Samarinda Pantoloan

Palikpapan

Padang

Luwuk

Sorong Manokwari Biak Bintuni

Sampit Kumai Banjarmasin

Palembang

Serui Fak Fak

Batulicin Kendari

Ambon Nabire Timika Amamapare

Makassar

Panjang

Jayapura

Berau

Baubau Tual

Sulawesi feeder A Makassar - Kendari - Makassar

Jakarta Semarang Surabaya

Lombok Benoa

Merauke Benete

Maumere

Kupang

EREG feeder B Sorong - Amamapare - Timika Merauke - Sorong

© Drewry 2015

Drewry Maritime Advisors | New liner network for Indonesia

16

Scenario 4-6

Main Kalimantan ports are served by individual services from Jakarta and Surabaya, with a feeder from Balikpapan to north Kalimantan; Benoa and Kupang are served from Surabaya Scenario 4-6: Kalimantan & Surabaya services Service Type

Hub

Kalimantan A

SUR t/s via JKT

Service frequency

Market Share (%)

Scenario 4 vessel size (TEU)

Scenario 5 vessel size (TEU)

Scenario 6 vessel size (TEU)

3,806

3,809

1,905

1,812

1,812

906

Kalimantan B2

1,816

1,816

908

Kalimantan C

1,821

1,821

911

Kalimantan D

4,173

4,174

2,087

240

239

239

Weekly

0.5%

Kalimantan feeder Balikpapan

781

780

390

Weekly

0.9%

Surabaya A

JKT t/s via SUR

354

226

226

Twice weekly

1.0%

JKT t/s via SUR

269

268

268

Weekly

0.3%

Kalimantan B1

Kalimantan E

JKT t/s via SUR

Surabaya B

Nunukan Tarakan

Sibolga

Bitung

Padang

Badam Kijang

Toli Toli Gorontalo Pontianak

Kalimantan A Jakarta - Pontianak Jakarta

Balikpapan

Pantoloan

7.9%

Tobelo Ternate

Luwuk

Kalimantan D Surabaya - Balikpapan Samarinda - Surabaya Kendari

Sorong Manokwari Bintuni Serui Fak Fak

Jayapura

Berau

Ambon Nabire Timika Amamapare

Makassar

Panjang

Baubau Tual

Surabaya B Surabaya - Kupang Surabaya

Jakarta Semarang

Kalimantan B2 Jakarta - Balikpapan Samarinda - Jakarta

4.1%

Biak

Sampit Kumai Banjarmasin Batulicin

Kalimantan B1 Jakarta - Banjarmasin Jakarta

3.5%

Samarinda

Kalimantan E Surabaya - Sampit - Kumai - Surabaya

Palembang

4.0% Weekly (scenario 4 & 5) Twice weekly (scenario 6)

Kalimantan Feeder Balikpapan - Tarakan Balikpapan

Belawan

Pekanbaru/ Perawang

6.0%

Surabaya

Kalimantan C Surabaya - Banjarmasin - Surabaya

Lombok Benoa

Merauke Benete

Surabaya A Surabaya - Benoa Surabaya

Maumere

Kupang

Source: Company schedule and Drewry Maritime Research All vessel sizes assume infrastructure improvements will be made to accommodate them – this may not be effective in the river ports of Pontianak and Samarinda © Drewry 2015

Drewry Maritime Advisors | New liner network for Indonesia

17

Scenario 4-6

Direct Sumatra – Jakarta services cover smaller ports

Scenario 4-6: Sumatra services Service Type Sumatra A1 Sumatra A2

Sumatra B Sumatra C Sumatra D

Hub

Service frequency

Market Share (%)

357

Twice weekly (scenario 4 & 5) 4 X weekly (scenario 6)

2.2%

46

46

Weekly

631

631

316

1,065

1,065

533

Twice weekly (scenario 4 & 5) 4 X weekly (scenario 6)

278

278

278

Twice weekly

534

Twice weekly (scenario 4 & 5) 4 X weekly (scenario 6)

Scenario 4 vessel size (TEU)

Scenario 5 vessel size (TEU)

Scenario 6 vessel size (TEU)

714

714

46

SUR & MAK t/s via JKT SUR & MAK t/s via JKT SUR & MAK t/s via JKT SUR & MAK t/s via JKT SUR & MAK t/s via JKT

Sumatra E

1,068

SUR t/s via JKT Sumatra A2 Belawan Jakarta - Sibolga Jakarta

2.3% 3.4% 1.2% 1.1%

Nunukan

Sumatra E Jakarta - Palembang Pekanbaru - Batam Pekanbaru - Palembang - Jakarta

Sibolga Pekanbaru/ Perawang

1,067

0.1%

Tarakan

Bitung

Badam Kijang

Toli Toli Gorontalo

Pontianak

Tobelo Ternate

Samarinda Palikpapan

Padang

Pantoloan

Luwuk

Sorong Manokwari Biak

Sumatra B Sampit Kumai Jakarta - Pekanbaru Banjarmasin Perawang - Jakarta

Palembang

Bintuni Serui Fak Fak

Batulicin Kendari

Sumatra C Jakarta - Palembang Jakarta

Panjang

Sumatra A1 Jakarta - Padang Jakarta

Jayapura

Berau

Ambon Nabire Timika Amamapare

Makassar Baubau Tual

Jakarta

Sumatra D Jakarta - Panjang Jakarta

Semarang Surabaya

Lombok Benoa

Merauke Benete

Maumere

Kupang

Source: Company schedule and Drewry Maritime Research

© Drewry 2015

Drewry Maritime Advisors | New liner network for Indonesia

18

Adapted liner network

Drewry adapted the network to lines’ present market positioning and feasible alliances in order to test feasibility of implementation East West Pendulum with revised Eastern Region network proposed Pendulum A

• West Indonesia (BelawanJakarta-SurabayaMakassar) served through two separate Pendulum loops

Bitung Loop Nunukan

Belawan

Tarakan

Tobelo Sibolga Bitung

EREG A

Badam Toli Toli Ternate

Kijang

Pekanbaru/Perawang

Gorontalo

Pontianak

Samarinda

Luwuk

Pantoloan

Sorong Palikpapan Padang

Manokwari

Biak

Bintuni

Sampit

Palembang

Serui

Pendulum B

Kumai

Banjarmasin

Jayapura

Berau

Fak Fak

• East and West Indonesia connected through two Pendulum loops from Jakarta to Sorong

Batulicin

Ambon

Kendari

Nabire

Timika

Makassar

EREG Direct Amamapare

Panjang Baubau

Tual

Jakarta

Ambon Loop

Semarang

Surabaya

Lombok

Merauke

Benete

Maumere

Benoa

EREG B Kupang

Drewry has sought domestic lines views on the network proposals, and has suggested specific joint services which reflect lines’ present market positions on individual routes

• Eastern regions served by a combination of • Two feeder services for North and South Papua/Maluka • Single direct service from Jakarta • Sumatra and Kalimantan services should be left to the market.

Source: Drewry Maritime Advisors

© Drewry 2015

Eastern Region (work in progress) 2030. Revised network part of Eastern Region port Drewry Maritime Advisors | New liner network for Indonesia development project Bitung Loop Tobelo Feeder Babang/Sanana feeder

19

Pendulum B EREG A1 EREG A2 Bitung

Sulawesi Feeder A1 Sulawesi Feeder A2 Sulawesi Feeder B1 Sulawesi Feeder B2

Toli Toli

EREG B1 EREG B2 Ambon loop Ambon feeder loop

Tobelo

Anggrek Ternate

Pendulum A Luwuk

Pantoloan

Sorong Babang

Manokwari

Biak

Belang-Belang

Serui Sanana

Palopo

Fak Fak

Bula Amahai

Kolaka Bungkutoko

Pare-Pare

Jayapura

Kaimana Nabire

Ambon Namlea

Amamapare

From Surabaya

Makassar

Tual Bau Bau

Reo Maumere Waingapu

Ende

Saumlaki

Timika Dobo

Merauke

Atapupu

Tenau-Kupang

NTT loop A1 NTT loop B1 NTT loop B2

© Drewry 2015

Drewry Maritime Advisors | New liner network for Indonesia

20

Infrastructure: Vessel size projection

As the domestic volumes grow, the port infrastructure would have to be upgraded to accommodate the larger vessel sizes or additional services would have to be introduced. Proposed network (logistics cost reduced)

2015 3,500 TEU vessel

2025 7,200 TEU vessel

2030 9,900 TEU vessel

2040 18.500 TEU vessel

2030 6,800 TEU vessel

2040 13,500 TEU vessel

Current network (No reduction of logistics cost)

2015 1,700 TEU vessel

2025 3,400 TEU vessel

Source: Company schedule and Drewry Maritime Research

© Drewry 2015

Drewry Maritime Advisors | New liner network for Indonesia

21

COST SAVINGS

© Drewry 2015

Drewry Maritime Advisors | New liner network for Indonesia

22

Potential cost savings

The proposed liner network was shared with lines. The revised options represented a realistic network which can result in significant shipping line and shipper cost savings. Liner network cost 6,000,000

•

The proposed liner network was shared with lines.

•

The revised options represented a realistic network which can result in network cost savings of 33% vs. current operations.

•

Scenario 5 gives the lowest liner network costs but reduced frequency and choice for shippers and reduced competition

•

Scenario 6 and 7 reduce cost to shippers due to lower storage and inventory holding costs. These savings more than offset higher network costs.

•

Scenario 7 represents a realistic option in line with the market position and shares of key lines

Annual network costs (IDR million)

5,000,000

IDR million

4,000,000 33% 3,000,000

2,000,000

1,000,000

0 1

2

3

4 Scenario

5

Annual marine charges

Annual charter cost

Annual bunker cost

Annual T/S cost

6

7

© Drewry 2015

Drewry Maritime Advisors | New liner network for Indonesia

23

B. KEY IMPLEMENTATION STEPS

© Drewry 2015

Drewry Maritime Advisors | New liner network for Indonesia

24

Key implementation steps

Drewry has listed the following implementation steps for the network restructuring with the aim of reducing logistics costs.

Improving existing services Improving existing services • Joint/agreed audit of current performance at individual ports • Detailed list of improvements by port • Implement productivity improvement • Implement berthing windows

Preparation for implementing network changes

Preparation for implementing network changes

• Identify realistic plans for individual ports to accommodate larger vessels, with timescales • Lines to update their plans for network development • Lines to consider opportunities for joint service and explore with potential joint service partners • Lines to plan and implement fleet upgrades to ensure availability of optimum sized vessels

Implementing network changes Implementing network changes • Will be driven by port upgrades (performance and infrastructure) • Port infrastructure to be phased • Important for lines to respond, - otherwise new entrants may see that improved infrastructure as an opportunity

Other issues Supporting steps • Regulatory environment (for joint services) • Shipper awareness • Requirements for documentary/procedural improvements • Review inland haulage

© Drewry 2015

Drewry Maritime Advisors | New liner network for Indonesia

25

Contact

Head Office – UK Drewry Shipping Consultants Ltd 15-17 Christopher Street London EC2A 2BS, United Kingdom t: +44 (0)20 7538 0191 e: [email protected]

India Office Drewry Maritime Services Private Limited 209 Vipul Square, Sushant Lok-1 Gurgaon, Haryana-122002, India t: +91 124 497 4979 e: [email protected]

Tim Power Head of Maritime Advisors [email protected]

Singapore Office Drewry Maritime Services (Asia) Pte, Ltd. 15 Hoe Chiang Road #13-02 Tower fifteen Singapore 089316 t: +65 6220 9890 e: [email protected] Shanghai Office 555, 5th floor Standard Chartered Tower, 201 Shi Ji Avenue, Pudong District, Shanghai, China 200120 t: +86 (0)21 6182 6759 e: [email protected]

© Drewry 2015