Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

DP World assets 'will get few takers'
Gulf News ^ | March 11, 2006 | Reuters

Posted on 03/12/2006 2:54:00 AM PST by PrinceOfCups

Chicago: Dubai Ports World is unlikely to find many bidders for its six US port terminals embroiled in a political storm over US security concerns, making a sale or spinoff difficult, ship brokers said on Friday.

DP World pledged on Thursday to transfer those operations to a US entity to allay concerns that its control of the ports posed a threat to US national security. Potential buyers seem limited to three US companies, brokers said, citing SSA Marine Inc of Seattle, a unit of Carrix Inc; Maher Terminals Inc of Berkeley Heights, New Jersey; and Marine Terminals Corp of Oakland, California.

"These are the among the larger companies handling the movement of goods at port and are big enough to handle additional capacity," said one broker on condition of anonymity.

Another broker, who also asked not to be identified, said "there are companies out there in the United States which operate at ports and do this kind of work. The question is whether they want to and whether it is commercially viable for them to do so."

SSA and Marine Terminals declined to comment, while officials with Maher Terminals could not be reached. Dubai Ports World, which had gained control of the US ports by taking over the British firm P&O, could sell the assets to private equity firms, which were watching the process from the sidelines.

However, none of the major players were making any commitment about joining any sale process.

Many lawmakers have demanded the Dubai company be stopped from running the ports because of potential security risks, rebelling against US President George W. Bush, whose administration approved the company's involvement in January.

The statement by DP World's CEO, Edward Bilkey, said the company had decided to "transfer fully ... to a US entity" the operation of North American ports terminals it had acquired from P&O.

US port management is highly fractionalised. While some private companies operating terminals are US corporations, many are non-US businesses that operate terminals worldwide or are affiliated with foreign flag steamship lines, the American Association of Port Authorities said.

SSA operates more than 120 facilities worldwide, including seven marine container terminals on the US west coast. Maher Terminals operates the largest marine container terminal in the port of New York and New Jersey. Marine Terminals provides stevedoring, terminal operating and related cargo handling services.


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Foreign Affairs; War on Terror
KEYWORDS: dpw; dpworld; dubai; ports; uae
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-26 next last
Reuter's summary
1 posted on 03/12/2006 2:54:03 AM PST by PrinceOfCups
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: PrinceOfCups

"SSA and Marine Terminals declined to comment, while officials with Maher Terminals could not be reached. Dubai Ports World, which had gained control of the US ports by taking over the British firm P&O"

as usual, they overhyped, considering DPI was only buying 50% of the stocks of that company


2 posted on 03/12/2006 3:15:03 AM PST by sure_fine (*not one to over kill the thought process*)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sure_fine

"Dubai Ports World, which had gained control of the US ports by taking over the British firm P&O"


they should be charged with something just because they so grossly mislead the readers


3 posted on 03/12/2006 3:17:52 AM PST by sure_fine (*not one to over kill the thought process*)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: PrinceOfCups

Any offer will be low ball forcing the government to make up the difference. Wish I had a company capable of handling the terminals.


4 posted on 03/12/2006 3:31:48 AM PST by ncountylee (Dead terrorists smell like victory)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ncountylee

The bureaucrat's (and politician's) response will be to determine that it is time for the government to take over terminal management, in the name of national security of course. Isn't this exsctly what the bruhaha was all about?
Port Authority is already a government function as is all security and Customs. May as well give the whole ball of wax to the 'crats and be done with it.


5 posted on 03/12/2006 3:56:50 AM PST by Louis Foxwell (Here come I, gravitas in tow.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: All

lets face it, the Mafia runs ALL our ports, they will be the ones who will have to be appeased


6 posted on 03/12/2006 4:02:24 AM PST by sure_fine (*not one to over kill the thought process*)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: PrinceOfCups
Potential buyers seem limited to three US companies, brokers said, citing SSA Marine Inc of Seattle

And guess who has an incestuous business relationship with SSA. Sen. patty murray(D-WA). Her husband works for them.

Pork-Pillow politics

7 posted on 03/12/2006 4:14:21 AM PST by Dane ( anyone who believes hillary would do something to stop illegal immigration is believing gibberish)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PrinceOfCups
The Evolution of Ports in a Competitive World
8 posted on 03/12/2006 4:23:46 AM PST by Cannoneer No. 4 (Our enemies act on ecstatic revelations from their god. We act on the advice of lawyers.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cannoneer No. 4
Hey, thanks for the link. I just scanned it quickly but found sufficient meat to download the whole report. Digest it at work tomorrow.
9 posted on 03/12/2006 4:34:56 AM PST by PrinceOfCups (Just the facts, Ma'am.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Dane
And guess who has an incestuous business relationship with SSA. Sen. patty Murray(D-WA). Her husband works for them.

I'm so sure it's just a coincidence.
10 posted on 03/12/2006 4:41:15 AM PST by PrinceOfCups (Just the facts, Ma'am.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: PrinceOfCups
Potential buyers seem limited to three US companies... "The question is whether they want to and whether it is commercially viable for them to do so."

Ooops....yet another ugly fact gets in the way of the emotional and thoughtless DP World temper tantrum.

11 posted on 03/12/2006 4:50:27 AM PST by angkor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PrinceOfCups; onyx

Onyx pinged me to that last night.


12 posted on 03/12/2006 5:04:35 AM PST by Cannoneer No. 4 (Our enemies act on ecstatic revelations from their god. We act on the advice of lawyers.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: PrinceOfCups
Potential buyers seem limited to three US companies

Three potential US buyers. hmmmm.

Two weeks ago the proponents of the deal were telling us that there were no US companies who could do the job. Amazing that they've already found 3 when sole-sourcing is replaced with capitalism.
13 posted on 03/12/2006 6:08:00 AM PST by TomGuy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TomGuy
...Amazing that they've already found 3 when sole-sourcing is replaced with capitalism.

But will the terminals make sufficient profit for them to invest? Always the stockholders.
14 posted on 03/12/2006 6:10:29 AM PST by PrinceOfCups (Just the facts, Ma'am.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: TomGuy
Two weeks ago the proponents of the deal were telling us that there were no US companies who could do the job. Amazing that they've already found 3 when sole-sourcing is replaced with capitalism.

With all due respect, you have no idea what you're talking about. Your post demonstrates a complete lack of understanding about the issues related to the ports deal.

1. There was never a question about whether U.S. companies "could do the job" when it comes to port terminal operations. U.S. companies can -- and do -- operate port terminals all over this country. The problem was that none of these companies were in a position to pony up $6.8 billion for the entire P&O Ports company -- which is what Dubai Ports World had offered for the company. Terminal operations is only one small part of the global shipping industry, and the industry is now dominated by multi-faceted companies involved in terminal operations, maritime vessel operations, and even other industries like railroads and trucking. The simple fact is that there are no U.S. companies involved in the shipping industry to this extent, which is why U.S. companies are only able to get involved in the deal when one tiny part of the P&O empire (U.S. terminal operations) is separated from the rest and sold separately.

2. "Sole-sourcing" is not even an issue here. Nothing was ever being "sourced" in the first place, despite the utterly ignorant statements by various people in media and government that "the U.S. government is selling our ports to foreigners," "the U.S. government is outsourcing port operations," etc. Nobody was ever in a position of tendering any contracts here . . . it was simple a corporate acquisition involving two foreign companies, subject to a formal review by the U.S. government.

15 posted on 03/12/2006 7:57:45 AM PST by Alberta's Child
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Alberta's Child
The argument 2 weeks ago WAS that no US companies could do the job.


Go back and check all the DPW threads from that time period.

With all due respect, you have no idea what you're talking about.
16 posted on 03/12/2006 8:01:31 AM PST by TomGuy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: TomGuy
Go back over all the threads in the last two weeks -- especially mine, if you have the patience to do this -- and note that anyone who had even a minimal understanding of U.S. ports and the maritine shipping industry was saying exactly what I've said here. For those of us who know these things, he issue was NEVER whether a U.S. company could "do the job," but whether a U.S. company could compete with foreign conglomerates like Hutchison Whampoa (China), Dubai Ports World (UAE), or APM/Maersk (Denmark) in coming up with $6.8 billion to buy P&O Ports in its entirety.

Eller & Co. and Maher Terminals (one of the companies listed in this article) are both U.S. companies that have operated port terminals in this country for years. Neither one of them has access to $6.8 billion in capital to buy P&O Ports in its entirety, but either of them could potentially buy out an operating contract for several port terminals. This may sound hard to believe -- and may require you to swallow your pride a little bit -- but some of us actually knew this.

17 posted on 03/12/2006 8:23:34 AM PST by Alberta's Child
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Alberta's Child

Good luck with that one.


18 posted on 03/12/2006 8:47:19 AM PST by clawrence3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: PrinceOfCups
NJ Sen. Menendez pushing Maher Terminals to replace UAE; follow the money
19 posted on 03/12/2006 8:48:46 AM PST by mewzilla (Property must be secured or liberty cannot exist. John Adams)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Alberta's Child
Eller & Co. and Maher Terminals (one of the companies listed in this article) are both U.S. companies that have operated port terminals in this country for years. Neither one of them has access to $6.8 billion in capital to buy P&O Ports in its entirety, but either of them could potentially buy out an operating contract for several port terminals.

If so, AC, then what they have been lobbying for?

20 posted on 03/12/2006 8:50:13 AM PST by mewzilla (Property must be secured or liberty cannot exist. John Adams)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-26 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson