More Ports in the Storm?
Jim Hamilton at Econbrowser, Ben Muse, and Movie Guy have questions about how Homeland Security tallies ports slated for takeover by DP World:
Homeland Security's curious "fact sheet", by James Hamilton, Econbrowser: Ben Muse and Econbrowser reader Movie Guy ... have been investigating some information disseminated by the Department of Homeland Security that appears to be misleading or inaccurate. Ben Muse was the first to call attention to a ... Department of Homeland Security ... Fact Sheet... This document makes the following statement:
DP World will not, nor will any other terminal operator, control, operate or manage any United States port. DP World will only operate and manage specific, individual terminals located within six ports. ...
Movie Guy noted in comments the apparent inconsistency between this statement from the Department of Homeland Security and this story from UPI dated Feb. 24 which claims that the DP World takeover would involve 21 rather than 6 U.S. ports. ... Movie Guy writes:
I have verified that the sale of P&O to DP World will include the acquisition of ALL existing operations of P&O Ports North America. ... There is no question that the acquisition involves all P&O North America activities and operations on the East Coast and Gulf Coast. Therefore, the acquisition will include the transfer of operations at 22 U.S. ports on the East Coast and Gulf Coast, not 6 ports as stated by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security...
The acquisition will involve, at a minimum, the transfer of P&O North America operations at 55 terminals, not 11 or 16 terminals as stated by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security. Eliminating from consideration the cruise ship terminals .., the number ... is reduced to 49 terminals. DHS has failed to acknowledge the sale and transfer of 39 to 44 of the East Coast and Gulf Coast terminal operations of P&O North America.
Now, I'm wondering what this means. Perhaps ... DHS is drawing a distinction between the kinds of activities performed by P&O in these 22 ports and the activities in the 6 U.S. ports that they highlight. ... Hence there may be an intended interpretation to DHS's use of the phrase "operate and manage specific, individual terminals" for which the press release is technically accurate, though the interpretation that a reader might naturally draw ... could easily be different from the true meaning. Another possibility is that DHS honestly believes that P&O is only involved in the seven ports mentioned in the press release, in which case it would seem to provide ammunition for those claiming that the review of the security issues was less than thorough. Either way, in my opinion it does not reflect well on DHS.
Posted by Mark Thoma on Wednesday, March 1, 2006 at 01:19 AM in Economics, Terrorism | Permalink | TrackBack (0) | Comments (9)

The administration might have misled us? This administration? No way, not with the credibility they've built up. If they say this mission is accomplished, they should be believed.
In any case, we have no right to ask questions. It might undermine the troops. Unquestioned loyalty to our leaders is the foundation of democracy. What are we thinking asking hard questions?
Posted by: anon | Link to comment | Mar 01, 2006 at 07:32 AM
Having read Kevin Philips, I'm wating to hear of a Neil or Marvin Bush or a James Baker III somewhere in the pile.
Posted by: ken melvin | Link to comment | Mar 01, 2006 at 09:20 AM
Ok, anony we know who you are and your days of sliming Our President with your fancy pants satire are numbered.
Posted by: calmo | Link to comment | Mar 01, 2006 at 10:02 AM
The Administration was attempting to say, I believe, that they will only manage TERMINALS at six ports: New York, Newark, New Orleans, Miami, Baltimore, and Philadelphia. However this is truly nitpicking at the nature of the buyout: Some pieces of terminal management will be U.S. controlled (as always).
I think the administration could have done a better job.
Furthermore, I'm unclear as to where the number 22 came up. New Zealand Hearald states: "DP World on Monday bowed to demands from US lawmakers for a 45-day review of its deal to take over port facilities at US cities including Miami, Baltimore, Philadelphia, New Orleans, New York and Newark, New Jersey. The container terminals are among the 29 DP World is acquiring as part of its purchase of P&O."
Are 22 of those domestic U.S.?
Posted by: Ben | Link to comment | Mar 01, 2006 at 11:52 AM
Uh-oh.
Posted by: anon | Link to comment | Mar 01, 2006 at 11:52 AM
Understand port operators also build facilites. If true is this something else Congress and or the public should have been aware of?
Posted by: Larry | Link to comment | Mar 01, 2006 at 03:07 PM
Ben -- "Furthermore, I'm unclear as to where the number 22 came up."
Here is where you can determine the number of P&O port activity operations in the U.S., and the number of terminals involved as well:
P&O Ports North America operations locations
http://portal.pohub.com/portal/page?_pageid=169,1,169_82863&_dad=pogprtl&_schema=POGPRTL
Plus this news release:
Port of Tampa (not displayed on the map above)
http://portal.pohub.com/pls/pogprtl/docs/PAGE/PO_PORTS_NORTH_AMERICA/TAB82846/TAB83548/TAMPA%20PRESS%20RELEASE.PDF
22 ports on the East Coast and Gulf Coast of the USA
55 terminals at a minimum
..49 cargo/RoRo terminals
...8-15 cruise ship terminals (Port of Miami has many, though it's not clear how many P&O support or operate)
More info at the Econbrowser link that Mark noted above. Plenty of details. Recommend starting with the previous Econbrowser post on this subject.
Link:
http://www.econbrowser.com/archives/2006/02/tempest_in_a_se.html#comments
Scroll down to the comment, P&O Acquisition by UAE DP World - Setting the Facts Straight.
Enjoy.
--
Posted by: Movie Guy | Link to comment | Mar 01, 2006 at 11:50 PM
Thankyou Movie for the torrent you are on this item, which I had construed as a mere lapse in public relations. As in, the sale of P&O got cursory treatment from those secret(!) panels that investigate the security issues surrounding it. The transition from the general perception that Dubai is an Arab country and Arabs are evil, to the general perception that UAE was Arab but not evil, was not given adequate attention. It was assumed that because the public bought the Al Qaeda - Sadddam Hussein allegiance so readily, that they would buy just about anything (to paraphrase Krugman).
This is a major mistake by the American(!) CEO of DP: under-estimating the American Public and over-estimating the executive power of government and business.
Posted by: calmo | Link to comment | Mar 02, 2006 at 02:11 PM
I'm astonsihed that the false fact sheets from DHS and Customs are still up at thier web sites.
No shame whatsoever. And the American public is just putting up with this charade?
Come on, people. Please help write emails to Congressmen and Congresswomen. Or call them.
Senators of the 109th Congress
http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm
House of Representatives
Members names and telephone numbers
http://clerk.house.gov/members/mcapdir.html
House Democrats
http://democrats.house.gov/about/member_pages.cfm
House Republicans
http://www.gop.gov/your_rep.asp
---
Posted by: Movie Guy | Link to comment | Mar 02, 2006 at 08:21 PM