The Dubai Deal: Isn’t This Special?
Sweetness and Light — Saudi Shipping Company Controls 9 US Ports (i.e., ALREADY; see correction)
Note: based on S&L post content, it should
read “9 Berths at North American Ports.”
The company’s name is NSCSA (America), Inc. The company profile is here.
The company has terminals at nine ports in North America (eight in the US and one in Canada; list at S&L Link has two duplicates).
No one else in the press bothered to figure this out and report it.
Sweetness “graciously” comments: “Maybe they don’t know about it, as the company’s only been around since 1979.”
I guess a story’s never vetted until the bloggers have been given a week to do the job the WORMs (Worn-Out Reactionary Media, known to most as The Mainstream Media) should be doing.
_________________________________
Previous Posts:
Excuse Me? The Blog you linked to has a VERY misleading headline. WHERE does it say that NSCSA OPERATES a US port? They are a SHIPPING company. I looked at the list of Terminals linked to and what does it say? They are Terminals that the company SHIPS to, NOT OPERATES. Hell, the Savannah Port is operated by the GEORGIA PORTS AUTHORITY. “Sweetness & Light” didn’t seem to do ANY research — which took me all of 2 minutes. I read your blog almost every day. I don’t always agree with you, but I do like it. When you link to crap like that, you’re just as bad as the WORMs.
Comment by Lee — February 26, 2006 @ 2:59 pm
Nice find!
Comment by Porkopolis — February 26, 2006 @ 3:07 pm
#1, Stop me if I’m wrong.
This link is to a list of THEIR terminals:
http://www.nscsaamerica.com/marine_term.htm
S&L’s headline is weak, and I have noted a correction I would have included.
The post content describes the list as “the ports where they control berths,” where (referring to the post of earlier today) they “manage the loading and unloading of shipping containers.” The stevedoring companies listed at each terminal are the ones who “take it from there” after the unloading is done, or who get the goods to the point where they can be loaded by NSCSA.
So I believe the content stands, and I don’t think it’s just a list of places they ship to that they have no ownership interest in.
Of course I’m open to correction and will respond pretty quickly if necessary.
Comment by TBlumer — February 26, 2006 @ 3:13 pm
#1…The point is that the Saudi controlled company provides the following value added services according to their web site:
* Inland transportation services
* Intermodal transfers
* Warehousing and groupage services
* Depot and storage facilities
It’s not clear where these services are being provided, state-side or in Saudi Arabia, but it should have come across the radar of the MSM if they were being complete in their reporting to check this out.
Comment by Porkopolis — February 26, 2006 @ 3:25 pm
#2 and #4, thanks for the info. The mix of services probably differs in the various locales they are involved in.
And of course, WORMs/MSM have been acting like this is some kind of “never done anything like that” deal for over a week, which is a central point of this post.
Comment by TBlumer — February 26, 2006 @ 3:34 pm
I looked at that same list before I made the original comment. It lists the port operator on the first line of each terminal. Seeing P&O operates many of the listed terminals as well as other compnaies listed implies they (others– not NSCSA) operate those terminals. I stand by my original post. Those are where they ship to, not operate and the original point that this is not an example of a double-standard by the MSM. It was very easy to determine that Savannah for example is run by the Geogia Ports Authority. Google “savannah” and “ports” and the FIRST hit you get the the GPA. S&L didnt read the list correctly and didnt seem to do any other checks. And frankly, T, your citing of the same list doesnt help the case. Yes, they provide other services and those are also of concern. But it doesn’t negate the original point that this (P&O - DPW) is a VERY bad deal. I’m not surprised that there exists a Saudi shipping company. — although they only 2 things they don’t import themselves are oil and cement. But saying “see there’s this other Arab comapny that does this too so we should approve the deal” is ridiculous. I’m against the deal because it is a serious Natl Sec risk. DPW will administer the ports which may be worse than running the security: they will control the paperwork flow of the cargo. Thats the first line of defense.
On a side note, I would have said all this on S&L but they require a stupid “registration” just to add comments. Sheesh.
Comment by Lee — February 27, 2006 @ 12:39 pm
#6, Your statement…..
DPW will administer the ports which may be worse than running the security: they will control the paperwork flow of the cargo. Thats the first line of defense.
….. and this statement at NR …….
http://media.nationalreview.com/090936.asp
Dubai Ports World will not be running these ports. How many times does this have to be said: They will only be managing the loading and unloading of shipping containers. And they will only be doing this at a few terminals at each port. DP World has a relationship to each port authority similar to that of a tenant and landlord. Tenants conduct their business in the space set out by the landlord, and have to abide by any and all rules. DP World will not be running these ports, just like I don’t run my apartment building.
….. don’t mesh.
I’m with NR until I see compelling evidence to the contrary.
The relevance of another Arab Co. is that nothing has happened with them, and that they exist in a similar role to what DPW would be doing. Of course that’s not proof that security issues aren’t relevant, and no one is saying that it is. What it actually represents, though, is yet another failure of MSM to provide context that could have and should have been provided.
Instead we get superficial, incomplete crap that appears to have been designed to gin up opposition. See my next post on this:
http://www.bizzyblog.com/?p=1541
Comment by TBlumer — February 27, 2006 @ 3:00 pm