Answers to Questions No One Has Asked

It’s amazing what kind find out if you’re willing to put in, say, about two hours on the internet.

Really.

I decided to go to the web site of Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Company (P&O) and see what I could discover about their operations at the seaports that fell under the jurisdiction of the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey. Here’s what I discovered:

P&O Ports, a subsidiary of P&O, operates exactly one cargo terminal at the Port of New York and New Jersey, which is the Port Newark Container Terminal.

P&O Ports is the exclusive provider of terminal management and stevedoring services for the Port’s New York City Passenger Terminal, Manhattan.

I then went to the web site of the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey. Most of the information below has been culled and/or lifted from the information provided there.

The Port of New York/New Jersey

The Port of New York & New Jersey is the largest port complex on the East Coast of North America. The Port Authority of New York & New Jersey directly oversees the operation of seven cargo terminals in the New York-New Jersey region. Each terminal offers comprehensive shipping services. The Port Authority of New York & New Jersey is a bi-state agency formed in 1921 to promote trade and commerce in the entire port region and has been the grantee for Foreign Trade Zone No. 49 since 1979.

Foreign-Trade Zone No. 49 (FTZ 49), administered by The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, ranked number one in the country out of 250 foreign-trade zones for foreign-value of merchandise received in 2003. FTZ 49 has six active general-purpose zone operators and six active subzones.

Port Facilities

Each year, more than 25 million tons of oceanborne general cargo, including 4.5 million TEUs (twenty-foot equivalent units) of containerized cargo, move through the Port of New York and New Jersey.

The following terminals handle most of the cargo and these facilities are managed by the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey:

The Port Newark/Elizabeth-Port Authority Marine Terminal Complex (NJ)
The PA Auto Marine Terminal (NJ)
The Brooklyn Piers
The Red Hook Container Terminal (NY)
The Howland Hook Marine Terminal (NY)

In addition, there are private operators such as Global Marine Terminal and a number of marine terminals operated by private bulk cargo operators.

The Passenger Ship Terminal known as New York Cruise Terminal for passenger ship service is operated by P&O Ports North America for the City of New York.

Who Operates What, and Who Owns What: Non-P&O

Unfortunately, the Port Authority’s web site doesn’t consistently provide terminal operator information. In some cases it’s listed and in some it is not. Often it is confusing. Before discussing those facilities P&O manages, let’s take a look at some of the facilities they don’t.

The PA (Port Authority) Auto Marine Terminal: The Port Authority's Auto Marine Terminal is located along the Jersey City/Bayonne waterfront in New Jersey. It is dedicated exclusively to the movement of vehicle imports and exports. The terminal includes two ship berths, open vehicle storage areas, offices and processing buildings for the facility’s two tenants, BMW of America’s Port Jersey Vehicle Preparation Center, and Northeast Auto Marine Terminal (NEAT). CSX and Norfolk Southern offer direct service to the facility through its adjacent automobile rail terminal. It is also included in Foreign-Trade Zone No. 49, which is operated by the Port Authority.

The Brooklyn Piers: The Brooklyn Piers are leased for stevedoring and warehousing primarily breakbulk cargo. It appears the Brooklyn Piers are not a cargo terminal complex but rather a bulk cargo facility. In addition, it appears that the Port Authority has overall operational responsibility for the Brooklyn Piers.

The Red Hook Container Terminal: Red Hook Container Terminal is a deep draft facility for containerized and non-containerized cargoes. On-dock fumigation facilities allows Red Hook to handle specialized commodities such as coffee and cocoa. Red Hook Terminal is operated by American Stevedoring Inc., which appears to be a privately held corporation based in Brooklyn, New York.

The Howland Hook Marine Terminal: Howland Hook Marine Terminal is a terminal and container facility located in the Borough of Staten Island in New York City. New York Container Terminal Inc. operates a container terminal on the site. The Port Authority is constructing an intermodal rail terminal as well as leasing some of the property for warehousing and distribution uses. New York Container Terminal Inc. is a wholly owned subsidiary of Orient Overseas (International) Limited (OOIL, Inc.), which is a publicly traded company listed on the Hong Kong stock exchange.

As I have already mentioned, there are also private operators and a number of marine terminals operated by private bulk cargo operators. Here are some of them:

Global Marine Terminal: The Global Marine Terminal is the only privately owned and operated container terminal at the Port of New York and New Jersey. It is operated by Global Terminal and Container Services, Inc., which is also a wholly owned subsidiary of Orient Overseas (International) Limited (OOIL, Inc.).

Other Private Terminal Operators: Other private terminal operators include APM Terminals, which is owned by A.P. Moller-Maersk Group of Denmark, and Maher Terminals of New Jersey. Both have facilities at the Elizabeth-PA Marine Terminal complex.

P&O Operated Facilities

New York Cruise Terminal: The Passenger Ship Terminal known as New York Cruise Terminal for passenger ship service is operated by P&O Ports North America for the City of New York. P&O holds the exclusive right to provide terminal management and stevedoring services at this Manhattan facility.

The Port Newark/Elizabeth-Port Authority Marine Terminal Complex: It is important to understand that P&O does not operate the entire terminal complex. Port Newark and the Elizabeth-Port Authority Marine Terminal operate as one fully integrated marine terminal. It is the largest collection of maritime cargo handling facilities on the East Coast of North America. The entire complex is part of Foreign-Trade Zone No. 49 and is operated by the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey.

1) Port Newark

Port Newark’s facilities include wharves, deep-water ship berths, and 3 million square feet of buildings distribution buildings, specialized facilities, roadways and direct rail access. Port Newark features:

• Direct rail service for tank cars, and box cars handling non-containerized cargo.
• An interim rail terminal for containerized cargo.
• A 125,000 square-foot refrigerated storage space.
• Two bulk liquid handling facilities for warehousing fats and oils.
• A high-tech copper rod production plant.
• Two orange juice concentrate storage and blending facilities.
• Two auto preparation centers of nearly 300 acres for preparation and storage.
• A wallboard manufacturing plant.
• Several bulk cargo handling facilities.
• Public warehousing and distribution buildings.

Within this complex, P&O operates Port Newark Container Terminal, LLC. To give you an idea of the relationship between P&O’s operations and Port Newark in its totality, note that P&O’s facilities cover 175 (18.8%) of the 930 acres at Port Newark, and utilizes 4,200 (17.8%) of the 23,600 linear feet of berthing available.

2) Elizabeth-Port Authority Marine Terminal

Elizabeth has three fully equipped containership terminals. It features ExpressRail, the port’s on-dock-rail facility, more than one million square feet of warehouse space, seven distribution buildings, numerous terminal buildings and an auto preparation center.

APM Terminals is a 266-acre container facility that is being expanded to 350 acres by 2006. Maher Terminals Inc. has consolidated its container properties into a single, 445-acre terminal.

Elizabeth is also the home of DAS, an automobile processor which handles the imports of Nissan and other vehicles from Japan.

More than 1 million square feet of warehousing and distribution space are available at Elizabeth, including Expressport Plaza a group of modular office/warehouse facilities which are suitable for a variety of uses including light manufacturing, assembly and warehousing.

P&O does not operate any terminals within the Elizabeth-Port Authority Marine Terminal complex.

So There You Have It...

The sale of Peninsular and Oriental to Dubai World Ports gives the United Arab Emirates access to roughly 18% of one-half of one of the seven Port Authority port facilities that handle cargo, as well as access to the Port Authority’s only passenger ship terminal. And as we’ve pointed out over the past several days, the Port Authority and the appropriate federal agencies still retain all security responsibilities for the facilities in question.

So this – what I’ve described above – is exactly what the likes of Chuck Schumer, Hillary Clinton, Michelle Malkin and Markos Moulitsas are actually talking about when they say the sale of P&O to DPW means “turning over American ports to foreign governments”... As well as what they mean by “being serious about port security”.

Comments

[evariste]

Your journalistic fact-finding is a dire threat to hatemongering-as-usual. You must be silenced at once. Perhaps your real identity as a modest Ohio CPA might be revealed, such that your clients, who were previously unaware of your greivous insults to the dignity of your blogging betters, might be moved to dump you.

[evariste]

Good greif, I misspelled greivous.

[jill_bryant]

You're right - these aren't the questions I am asking. Questions I was going to ask are - why did they have to rush through the vetting in 25 days instead of spending the normal 45? How much time do they spend checking out the security of this company AS WELL AS ANY OTHER? What incompetent crony is making money off this deal? And, why would Bush jump to veto something he just learned about himself. Oh ---- but maybe Bush knows a lot more than we do because of all his secret wiretapping. We all know he has excellent intel.

Am I surprised people are freaked out by this latest move by our incompetent government - nope. Bush has hammered home fear for just about five years now. I'm sorry - is it not time for a terror alert? No elections coming up? Some people think everyone is connected to Al Queda - hey, if the secular Hussein was in bed with bin Laden....who can you trust? And, the UAE is an obvious focus if for no other reason than location - they are very close to a part of the world where we are bringing the fight to them so we don't have to fight on our own soil. You know some of the people that find their way through there might not love us - in fact, they might hate us for our freedoms.

But I believe port security has been an issue for the likes of the Democrats for quite a while. I do remember Kerry talking about it - I don't remember the Luntz/Rove spin on that but it doesn't matter since everyone has ADD.

Maybe we should just take it on faith that Homeland Security is in great shape. Why would we think otherwise?

[Anna in Cairo]

Wow, your research on this issue is really interesting. And your comments on it are much more rational, not to say morally sound, than the majority of both right- and left-wing xenophobic race-baiting I've been hearing on this issue.

If, as many people are now disingenuously saying, they care about "port security" as a greater issue, why are they not aware of the above issues, as well as your earlier post on the Chinese-owned port management firm that already runs ports all over the East Coast? More to the point, why have they not gone to these same websites and looked this stuff up?

[Terrye]

Jill:

This deal has been around since Novemember. That is more than 25 days. The truth is the opposition should have said something a month or more ago if they were so pissed about it. They had 30 days to lodge a complaint and did not. Instead they waited until days before the deal is done to throw a wrench in the works.

Most of the incompetence I am seeing is coming from people running off at the mouth about something they know jack about.

[Fits]

Confusing the danged issue with fact mongering ain't gonna change nothing. The A-rabs want our ports and they can't have them.

[jonst]

Just curious....do the other firms (nations?)get this little gem in the contract? It will come in might handy (if the report is correct) if someone wants to find out anything , in a legal process that is, about how the company is run.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,,-5640688,00.html

[DennisThePeasant]

Jonst-

Ask the Chinese. Ask Singapore.

In fact, why weren't you asking about their contracts two weeks ago?

Too busy?

[DennisThePeasant]

Jonst-

While you're at it, please find out how the contract provisions mentioned in the Guardian article jeopardize national security and let me know the details. I'll be happy to post them here.

[David Thomson]

I was perhaps the first person to cite Georgia10’s February 17th piece on the Daily Kos blog. That alone should have prompted some people to think twice before jumping onto this train wreck. The tide has already turned and the contract with Dubai World Ports should be thankfully approved in the very near future.

[Sam]

You might enjoy looking at the TKS blog at National Review (used to be The Kerry Spot, now it's just Geraghty's blog).

He was originally concerned, but starting with his post "SO THE UAE DOESN'T HAVE ANY SAY IN PORT SECURITY? WHAT'S THE BIG DEAL THEN? [02/22 11:50 AM]" is taking a more intelligent approach.

The first sentence of that post: "My fellow bloggers… we’ve been snookered."

The URL for the blog is http://tks.nationalreview.com/.

Some of the other people at National Review are taking a more alarmed point of view, but I think generally people are coming around.

They've been worried about who will own the company that owns the company that manages the contract that hires the American companies that move cargo through the entirely-separate US-provided security.

[FabioC.]

It seems that DPW was asked and agreed to a non-standard system of checks and controls (still being aware that The Guardian is a newspaper with a precise and known ideological bend).

So where's the problem? If this maintains security, why bother?

[Russell]

Hey Dennis -

Great research, great post. All good points.

I personally am not particularly in favor of the deal. It's not because I think all Arabs or Muslims are evil. It's not because I think we're selling our ports to foreigners. It's not because we're handing control of port security to foreigners.

The UAE royal family has, frankly, a mixed record regarding Bin Laden and Al Qaeda. Ditto regarding the transfer of NBC materials. There's little distinction to be made between the royal family and the government of the UAE, which owns DPW. After the deal goes through, DPW gets access to a US container facility. One of the most likely paths for the introduction of NBC materials into the US is via uninspected containers. Most of the containers coming into the US are uninspected.

So, I'm uncomfortable with a group of people who have, historically, had some connection with our sworn enemy gaining access to container facilities at US ports.

It's not racism, it's not paranoia, and it's not hate. It's simple prudence, IMO.

I think this will turn out to be a quid pro quo for access to gulf area naval facilities in the UAE, with maybe a little sweetener for Snow in the deal.

Thanks -

[FabioC.]

In a few minutes on the 'Net I found another interesting bit of information:

In April 2004, the UAE signed a Trade and Investment Framework Agreement (TIFA) with Washington and in November 2004 agreed to undertake negotiations toward a Free Trade Agreement (FTA) with the US.

[anon]

I'm not sure what your point is. Never mind that the Port of Newark is massive -the PA's own site says that, combined with the Port of Elizabeth, it forms the largest port on the East Coast. The other five that they control, e.g., the Red Hook Port, are absolutely puny by comparison. Operating 17.8% of the Port of Newark's berthing is still quite a bit.

But what exactly do you think people are concerned about being smuggled in? An entire army? If that were the case, then yes, 17.8% of the port would represent quite a bottle neck. The real threat, however, comes in the form of things that can be smuggled in a single container -a WMD, like a dirty bomb, or even more conventional weaponry like SAMs, or perhaps a person or two. Hell, 1.78% of the Red Hook port would be enough to smuggle something in on a single container.

You also state all the federal and local agencies that would be providing the real security for the ports. Well, this would be great if they were already doing a great job, but you must know that since 9/11, security concerns have been raised repeatedly about our ports. If security has been so bad prior to the UAE deal, why should we assume it would magically get better afterward? From the Atlantic Journal-Constitution, May 26, 2005:

"Government Faults Port Security; GAO Reports Few Containers Checked

U.S. efforts to prevent global shipping cargo from becoming a tool of terrorists are falling far short of their goals, congressional investigators said in reports made public Wednesday.

The 20-month review looked at America's defenses against the possibility that one of the roughly 10 million shipping containers that arrive at U.S. seaports each year might contain a weapon of mass destruction.

Among the conclusions:

* A highly touted U.S. Customs and Border Protection agency program set up to increase security by examining cargo while it is still in foreign ports actually inspects a mere 0.34 percent of the containers before they arrive in American ports.

* Only 17.5 percent of the shipping containers that are rated as "high risk" by U.S. officials were inspected before being put on ships bound for America. U.S. officials said 93 percent of these questionable shipments were inspected at U.S. ports.

* Radiation detection equipment used in foreign ports to test U.S.-bound cargo is of unknown reliability.

* Hundreds of companies in a private sector-government partnership program have been exempted from numerous inspections without having their operations thoroughly examined."

[jonst]

Hey Dennis, I will bet you a dozen Maine Lobsters that there are dramatic differences between this contract and other contracts covering other ports. Let's wait a few weeks to see.

As to your question about why I was not concerned about this issue two weeks ago reminds me of the guy who was asked "so, when did you stop beating your wife". Who says I do.

Who says I was NOT interested in this issue tow week ago? One would have to be a blind fool to not be concerned by the BushCo's in depth, and long-standing, relationship with off shore criminal enterprises. Many of them located in the Middle East. And this does not even touch on omnipresent concerns regarding BushCo's basic honesty or competence on any friggin thing; never mind deciding who should manage our ports. Other, that is, then getting elect. They are past masters at that.

Then there is the simple question of the selling off of American assets in a frenzy of de- regulation and privatization that has taken place, world wide, since the late 1970s. There are lots of people concerned with this. I realize as well that it is easy to turn these questions into a simplistic, demagogic nativist argument. However there are also good arguments against the fire sale. And down the pike comes one more example. From my perspective anyway.

As to how the contract might affect "national security". Well first you are the one who seems to think, at least for the sake of this argument, that one can only have "national security" concerns on this issue. I have lots of other concerns as outlined above. So forgive me if I don't by in to your artificial construct.

But that noted, it really very simple regarding the national security question...if in theory, one wanted to subpoena information on the company via civil discovery this clause would make it very difficult if not impossible. Do you rule out, upfront, that such a concern might ever occur? Are you implying that such a scenario could not occur? Of if it does that it is irrelevant, for matters of civil discovery, where the business records are located?
issue. I have lots of other concerns be they real or imagined. So forgive me if I don't by in to your artifical contstruct.

But that noted it really very simple...if in theory, one wanted to supeanu information on the company via civil discovery this clause would make it very difficult if not impossible.

[DennisThePeasant]

Jonst-

It's a purely personal prejudice, but whenever I run into a person who feels the need to use terms such as "BushCo", I find myself unable to consider them with any seriousness.

KOS talking points interest me just about as much as LGF talking points do... which is to say they don't interest me in the least. Feel free to stay, just don't expect much in the way of response.

The adults in the room have work to do.

[DennisThePeasant]

You also state all the federal and local agencies that would be providing the real security for the ports. Well, this would be great if they were already doing a great job, but you must know that since 9/11, security concerns have been raised repeatedly about our ports. If security has been so bad prior to the UAE deal, why should we assume it would magically get better afterward?

I've read the particular GAO report you have referenced. The issue isn't whether the federal, state and local agencies charged with port security are doing an adequate job. The issue is why it is supposed that excluding Arabs/Muslims from operating terminals within ports will enhance port security.

Excluding businesses from port operation solely on the basis of race or religion will not cure the defects in port security... Such actions don't even address the activities or organizations involved in port security.

Discriminating against Arabs and Muslims does nothing to improve port security, because Arabs and Muslims have nothing to do with port security.

[jonst]

Yes, well, its an interesting juxtaposition to equate "personal predjudice" (sic)with being an "adult"; with "work" to do no less. Since you've chosen to not directly answer any of the questions I posed in my last three posts, I had little expectation you would do so in the last post. Without or without the BushCo.

However, that said...you have disarmed me sir. I can't argue with a man with as good a taste in music as you. So I bid you adieu. But BushCo it is.....I've been working RICO cases long enough to know one when I see it.
And long, long, before I ever hear of that blabbermouth, self-promoting, KOS.

[Dave]

Hey Dennis,

I'm the "anon" who wrote about the GAO report.

I'm not trying to say whether or not the deal should be approved, or whether racism is a factor. I admit that I know very little about the UAE company at the center of this controversy. I was merely trying to point out that your argument in "Playing the Muslim Card: Dubai Ports World, Part 3" wasn't particularly strong. Specifically, you list eight US and regional agencies responsible for security, then state:

"Wow. All I can say is I have to step back and admire the cunning of those particular sheiks within the government of the United Arab Emirates for being able to come up with a workable plan to infiltrate so many different governmental agencies and to fool or enlist so many U.S. citizens..."

That particular post seams to imply (and maybe I'm misreading here) that someone or some group - Arab or not - would never be able to get around these combined forces, when of course this happens all the time.

[wxjames]

jonst, U R an idiot. During your RICO years, did you come across any Arkansas governors connected to mob type hits there ? Bushco indeed.

Thanks, Dennis, great work. This makes me right on 2 issues now, Harriet Miers, and now Dubai Ports World. Bush was only right on one of them. Then there's McCain/Fiengold, Specter/Toomey, the UN, etc., etc.

[a.]

"During your RICO years, did you come across any Arkansas governors connected to mob type hits there? "

WXJames, you are an idiot. I suppose you think Hillary was responsible for Vince Foster.

[jill_bryant]

Terrye -
You're right - maybe I don't know enough about this. I don't know how you were all over it back in November but, from what I've heard - maybe you know better - Bush, Snow, Rumsfeld and certainly the majority of Congress weren't aware of it until a few days before we heard about it. So, it looks like they are asking for 45 more days to check out the security issues.

What I do know is business deals often get put on hold for one reason or another. I've been in companies where we thought everything was smooth sailing and, someone, usually a lawyer, would throw a wrench in, in the very last minute and everyone had to go back to the drawing board or find out if there was a conflict, patent problems or whatever. Sometimes incompetence, sometimes delays were routine and sometimes it's actually just been the business climate would stall something that just a couple of years prior would've had no problem.

[Captain Kirk]

Maybe we should look at WHY UAE does not acknowledge Israel in any way shape or form,
1948 was along time ago for this democracy not to be acknowledged. And why are the Saudi's and other Arab states the largest financial contributors to the moonbats that don't want any drilling in ANWAR? Is this not Imperialsim at it's finest? Frankly, this makes me a little nervous after recently reading Hemingway's-"The Fifth Column".

[Guesst]

Isn't this the sort of investigative reasearch and reporting that many blogs claim to be good at, and claim as their very reason for being?