Shame on you! <g>
COSCO was a big issue, and AFAIK, COSCO still isn't operating any terminals. They are landing lots of freight however.
We are also hearing that only 5% of containers are being checked. The voices saying that 100% are checked from the EXIT port is not being heard.
Depends on what "checked" means. I'm still looking for corroboration for the assertion that 100% are scanned for radiation. 100% landing at Oakland are (supposed to be), but the (not yet passed) Department of Homeland Security Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006 recites an allocation of funds for a DEMONSTRATION program.
In case you can't tell, I think this is a nice catch. I'm still leaning "pro" ports, primarily on the rationale that our security depends on inspections at the port of origin, not our ports, and we need cooperation from folks like DWP to do that, but the more info, the better.
I think the bruhaha over the DPW purchase of P&O is blown so far out of proportion as to be a joke. IMO, there is ZERO safety and security ramification as a result of the sale. I'd concede thre may be a marginal difference, likely due to funding or ability to fund technology, that favors the sale. That is, I think DPW will be more able and willing to implement technologial advances than P&O would be.
As for checking containers at overseas ports, the buzzwords are Container Security Initiative, and Megaports Initiative.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1581698/posts?page=80#80
Another reference, re: Megaports ...
March 2005PREVENTING NUCLEAR SMUGGLING
DOE Has Made Limited Progress in
Installing Radiation Detection Equipment
at Highest Priority Foreign SeaportsDOE's Megaports Initiative has had limited success in initiating work at seaports identified as high priority by DOE's Maritime Prioritization Model, which ranks ports in terms of their relative attractiveness to potential nuclear smugglers. Gaining the cooperation of foreign governments has been difficult in part because some countries have concerns that screening large volumes of containers will create delays that could inhibit the flow of commerce at their ports. DOE has completed work at 2 ports and signed agreements to initiate work at 5 other ports. Additionally, DOE is negotiating agreements with the governments of 18 additional countries and DOE officials told us they are close to signing agreements with 5 of these countries. However, DOE does not have a comprehensive long-term plan to guide the Initiative's efforts. Developing such a plan would lead DOE to, among other things, determine criteria for deciding how many and which lower priority ports to complete if it continues to have difficulties working at higher volume and higher threat ports of interest.
Through the end of fiscal year 2004, DOE had spent about $43 million on Megaports Initiative activities. Of this amount, about $14 million was spent on completing installations at 2 ports. Although DOE currently plans to install equipment at a total of 20 ports by 2010, at an estimated cost of $337 million, this cost projection is uncertain for several reasons. For example, the projection is based in part on DOE's $15 million estimate for the average cost per port, which may not be accurate because it was based primarily on DOE's work at Russian land borders, airports, and seaports. Additionally, DOE is currently assessing whether the Initiative's scope should increase beyond 20 ports; if this occurs, total costs and time frames will also increase. DOE faces several operational and technical challenges in installing radiation detection equipment at foreign ports. For example, DOE is currently devising ways to overcome technical challenges posed by the physical layouts and cargo stacking configurations at some ports. Additionally, environmental conditions, such high winds and sea spray, can affect radiation detection equipment's performance and sustainability.