Jump to content

Ports Expansion


Recommended Posts

Putting my economist hat on, gotta say that the trickle down trick of "so and so many thousand jobs created" is as old as the hills and usually relies on some very dodgy stats. So I'm very wary of the claim by Rehabilited (whoever he or she is) that POA "adds more than 187,000 jobs to the Auckland economy." I also find it the mark of a crude analysis, not to put too fine a point on it, that Rehab dismisses any alternative to his/her views as communist (grey boiler suits from memory). I think Rehab loses on a reverse technicality of Godwin's Law.

 

But let's not forget the most telling argument as far as I'm concerned: I'm told that the Lenny and Penny (Hulse not Whiting) faction promised no change until the big report on the whole future of the ports had been released for discussion. The P and L faction won't be getting my vote.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ironsands are exported from POAL on bulk carriers - it is hard to believe but it does actually happen...

 

A bit like logs in containers awhile back

 

 

You mean they truck it from the West Coast of the NI to PoAt?? I thought the Bulk carrier was loaded directly from the dredge over on the West Coast. Trucking that kind of stuff all the Way to Auckland to go out on a BulK Carrier would be stupid nuts. Not to mention the enormous stock pile of Sand they would need on the Warf somehwere.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Ports of Auckland is also the country’s dominant cruise exchange port, vehicle import hub and container port, handling 36% of the entire New Zealand container market and 60% of the upper North Island market.

 

In October 2011 the company commissioned Market Economics to complete reports on Ports of Auckland’s economic role and economic impact. As well as estimating the role and impact of the port in 2010, the reports give projections for 2021 and 2031, based on the economic growth targets in the draft Auckland Plan, and explored the impact on Auckland in a ‘no port’ future.

 

 

Approximately $26.4 billion of trade passes through Ports of Auckland (POAL) each year, nearly 31% of New Zealand’s total trade, and more than 90% more than the 2nd  [ Port of Tauranga ].The $26.4 billion is made along by $9.6 billion of exports and $16.8 billion of imports.

 

By value, POAL is New Zealand’s largest port for both imports and exports. $16.8 billion of imports, $12.1 billion (72%) are intermediate inputs which are further processed or manufactured elsewhere  around  Auckland or New Zealand, sometimes for re-export .POAL  is the largest export port  the country has with value terms.

 

Trade handled by POAL represents 25% of sea exports and 22% of total New Zealand merchandise exports by value, and 30 per cent of sea exports by volume. The total role of POAL in the Auckland economy during 2010 was $12.5 billion of value added (equivalent to GDP) or 22% of the Auckland economy.

 

It's all typical baffling the public with BS numbers. You can make Stats tell any story you want. So what that nearly $25Billion come via PoA. PoA don't make money from the value of products. And if PoA suddenly slipped into the Sea over night, all that Freight would still come in and go out of NZ via other Ports just fine.

 

In my view, I reckon the better place for a Port would be Manakau and dredge a decent channel, even if dredging was a continuous on going project. Freight would be in a far better area for distribution around Auckland and the rest of the Country and most of the big Freight companies are stiutated over that way anyway. Imagine the Volume of heavy Transport suddenly taken away from the Central City area. Plus a large number of Ships are coming in from the West anyway, so it becomes a much shorter journey for them.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

heating up

 

Port expansion: Legal action over Auckland port fight

 

The group said it had notified Ports of Auckland and Auckland Council late yesterday that it proposes to issue legal proceedings against them in the High Court because it considers the resource consents for the wharf extensions were granted unlawfully.

Urban Auckland chairwoman Julie Stout said: "We are acting because we believe there has been a miscarriage of justice and because it is in the public interest that secret decisions and processes are scrutinised in the High Court."

 

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=11423782

Link to post
Share on other sites

The idea of using Manakau as a replacement location was reviewed quite extensively. The conclusion was that the quantity of moving sand is so substantial that a large barrier would be need to be constructed to control this movement. Rather than dredging the channel they would need to dredge and dump to maintain the volume movement. They weren't sure if they could keep up though!

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Popped up as a case study in a presentation on process optimisation I was reading this morning:

 

The Port of Hamburg is located in the centre of the city, it is constrained by space and cannot expand. The number of containers passing through the port has doubled in the last 10 years to 9million per year, they are expecting it to go up to 25million per year by 2025. To cope with demand the port authority are looking to a new computerised process for optimising traffic flow. They will integrate details of ship movements, inventory and destination of containers on the ship, data on traffic flows on roads, parking spaces, and scheduling truck arrivals as close to container offload times as possible - with the intent of increasing throughput.

 

Maybe Ports of Auckland should look to doing things smarter...

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Reading the POAL long term plan, they themselves note that they can increase truck TEU movement by double and train TEU movements by 6 fold using current infrastructure....seems like a no brainer to me!

Geting more containers/cars/machinery off the port and out of the CBD and to destinations faster and more efficiently should be the current area of focus, rather than reclaiming more land to store them on.

Link to post
Share on other sites

hehehe

 

the letter contained an "iron fist in a velvet glove". If all else failed there was a "thermonuclear" option.

A senior council officer indicated the "thermonuclear" option could see heads roll.

The officer said the council was not impressed with the ports company or ACIL over the wharf issue.

 

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=11427067

Link to post
Share on other sites

the same councilor who, at the last meeting where her and looney len voted to proceed, said she couldn't understand what the fuss was about because as far as she was concerned it was just a benign issue.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I've written to my council representative and had a fairly ambiguous reply. What we need and what the people of Auckland need is a list of council representatives who support the megalomaniacs who want to take Aucklands harbour off Auckland and Aucklanders,New Zealanders for that matter, and we just vote them all out next election.

Simple , One issue decides who you vote for . get rid of them and make sure they know that you're going to get rid of them.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you'll find MB that "acting for the shareholders" entails maximising profitability.

I have no idea what other conditions are in their 'constitution' but I guarantee profit heads the list. In the USA corporates can be sued (and are) by shareholders for not maximising profits above everything else (short of breaking the law :oops: )

The directors have a duty in law in NZ. The council makes the rules (amongst other bodies) that governs what they can and can't do - both in terms of rules of building/extending/consent processes etc and in setting the port company up in the first place - the port companys' constitution.

 

I'm no fan of extending the port - but maybe we shouldn't blame the port company - they're just following they're mandate I would guess. It is a guess though.

 

To me it's a classic case where these quasi state/council run bodies are set up at arms length by the governing bodies in order to either/or/or both maximise profit and to deflect any issues away from state/council. Shrug of shoulders - "hey it's not us, voters. It's those port company people!" :wtf:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Boom!

Court orders resource consents granted for the ports extensions be set aside.

Judge concludes that the way the consents were put was unlawful.

Ports of Auckland broke down the total work of extending the wharfs into multiple small consents, so that one consent application by itself would not need to be publicly notified.

 

This is a bit like applying to build a motorway, but saying you will only excavate 50 m2 at a time, so as to not need an earthworks consent - completely underhanded and deceitful behavior by Ports of Auckland, and now declared illegal  :-D

 

The interesting thing now, with the consents being set aside, means the POAL don't have consent for the wharf extensions, and will need to start that whole process again, but this time the consents will need to be publicly notified.

 

I bet a good bottle of rum POAL will appeal.

 

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11468031

Link to post
Share on other sites

Boom!

Court orders resource consents granted for the ports extensions be set aside.

Judge concludes that the way the consents were put was unlawful.

Ports of Auckland broke down the total work of extending the wharfs into multiple small consents, so that one consent application by itself would not need to be publicly notified.

 

This is a bit like applying to build a motorway, but saying you will only excavate 50 m2 at a time, so as to not need an earthworks consent - completely underhanded and deceitful behavior by Ports of Auckland, and now declared illegal  :-D

 

The interesting thing now, with the consents being set aside, means the POAL don't have consent for the wharf extensions, and will need to start that whole process again, but this time the consents will need to be publicly notified.

 

I bet a good bottle of rum POAL will appeal.

 

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11468031

Sneaky ,underhand and manipulative.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Boom!

Court orders resource consents granted for the ports extensions be set aside.

Judge concludes that the way the consents were put was unlawful.

Ports of Auckland broke down the total work of extending the wharfs into multiple small consents, so that one consent application by itself would not need to be publicly notified.

 

This is a bit like applying to build a motorway, but saying you will only excavate 50 m2 at a time, so as to not need an earthworks consent - completely underhanded and deceitful behavior by Ports of Auckland, and now declared illegal  :-D

 

The interesting thing now, with the consents being set aside, means the POAL don't have consent for the wharf extensions, and will need to start that whole process again, but this time the consents will need to be publicly notified.

 

I bet a good bottle of rum POAL will appeal.

 

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11468031

Is there a bad bottle of rum?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...