ORIGINAL: Don Bowen
OK, I think I understand the point here (much aided by a second cup of coffee).
Yes, the daily capacity limit is increased only for loading. This assumes that a refinery, for example, has a loading terminal whose purpose is to load fuel onto tankers for transport. It is capable of unloading fuel as well, but that requires some reconfiguration of the pumps and temporarily disables the ability to load.
Sorry to be dense, all this was done quite a while ago and is not currently in the active memory portion of my fog encrusted brain.
I think a case could be made for changing this in any of several possible ways.
1. Eliminate the unload rate bonus - the facilities were primary for load.
2. Reduce the unload rate bonus to a fraction of the load rate bonus.
3. Provide full unload capacity increase
4. Leave it as it is.
#4 looks pretty good to me, being busy, lazy, and all.
Thank you for coming to grips with something not at the forefront of your concerns right now and clarifying matters - you're not being dense at all, as some of this stuff is quite convoluted.
The concept that a port will have enhanced facilities to handle the extra traffic its immediate hinterland generates makes good sense to me. I can also see a case for differentiating between loading and unloading facilities.
There's certainly an argument for increasing a port's overall handling capacity for loading bulk cargoes but not unloading them. The obvious example is the staithes erected in British ports in the 19th century for loading colliers: easy enough to run wagons to the end of these and tip them into the colliers' holds, but you still need a lower capacity crane with grab to unload at the destination, which is less efficient.
The only exception I can think of to the general rule that bulk loading was easier to automate than bulk unloading in the mid 20th centry was light cargoes such as grain where you could use suction.
Possibly the logic fails when you come to deal with tankships. I believe it is current practice (and suspect this has long been the case) that unloading is done via the ship's cargo pumps, suggesting that the only way you can enhance oil handling facilities is by providing additional pipe jetties, which permits the terminal to handle more ships, but at no greater speed, either for loading or unloading.
From what I've read, transhipment of inflammables is subject to constraints that tend to fix the rate of loading/unloading regardless of available pumping capacity - e.g. the pumping rate has to be controlled so as to manage the extent of the static charge generated by the operation.
Although I am much in favour of changes that produce a more accurate model of how a port's facilities affected cargo handling, it's more important to me to get a clear understanding of how whatever system is in place operates, so I can make plans I can rely upon. But that's just the way I look at it; others may take a different view.
