Shanghai set to beat Rotterdam as top port

[RafflesCity]

It's expected to see a 20% rise in cargo handling this year to 370m tonnes

8 Nov 04

SHANGHAI will overtake Rotterdam as the world's largest port this year, as China's economic expansion boosts demand for shipping services, Shanghai Port president Lu Haihu said in Rotterdam.

http://business-times.asia1.com.sg/mnt/media/image/launched/2004-11-08/shanghai-172342.jpg

The amount of cargo handled by Shanghai International Port Group Ltd will probably grow by about 20 per cent this year to 370 million tonnes, Mr Lu told journalists. Rotterdam expects to handle about 350 million tonnes this year, a record for the port, spokesman Tie Schellekens said.

China's exports rose 36 per cent to US$360.6 billion in the first eight months of this year. Imports increased 41 per cent to US$361.5 billion.

China's share of world trade has risen to about 7 per cent, about triple that of 10 years ago. That growth is fuelling demand for shipping throughout China, especially around Shanghai, Mr Lu said.

Mr Lu expects Shanghai's container traffic to rise by 25 per cent this year to the equivalent of about 14.5 million TEUs (20-foot containers). In 2005, Shanghai will probably handle as much as 390 million tonnes of cargo and 16.5 million TEUs of containers, he said.

Rotterdam's container volume may reach eight million TEUs this year, according to Mr Schellekens.

Recent measures by the Chinese government to try and dampen the country's economic growth probably will have little impact on the port next year because of the strength of demand from Shanghai and the surrounding region, Mr Lu said.

The Netherlands' trade deficit with China widened to a record of about eight billion euros (S$17.1 billion) last year as imports of computer and telecommunication equipment increased. The deficit has about quadrupled since 1997 as the Chinese economy expanded and Dutch exports became more expensive.

The port of Shanghai has been expanding to meet demand and has just invested about US$330 million in a container facility in its Waigaoqiao zone that is designed to handle about 8.3 million tonnes of cargo.

It is also constructing the Yangshan deep-sea terminal complex about 30 kilometres from Shanghai that will be able to handle a total of 15 million TEUs and which will require a total investment of about US$850 million in its first phase.

The country's export growth and its demand for oil and other commodities have also helped send international shipping rates higher this year. Freight rates for hauling so-called dry-bulk commodities, including iron ore and grains, surged about 20 per cent last month as demand for shipping space outpaced capacity on offer.

China's government has attempted to slow lending to steel, real estate and other industries this year to cool investment after the country's growth contributed to power shortages and accelerating inflation. - Bloomberg

http://business-times.asia1.com.sg/sub/shippingtimes/story/0,4574,134942,00.html?

[Dennis]

its a lie guys! dont believe this! :) :nuts:

[RafflesCity]

oh it is? I just saw the grabbing headline!

so whats the real story?

[babystan03]

its a lie guys! dont believe this! :) :nuts:

Show us the real thing then......:yes:

[RafflesCity]

Shanghai is world's second largest port

18 Jan 05

(BEIJING) Shanghai became the world's second largest port in terms of freight volume in 2004 after Singapore, surpassing Rotterdam in the Netherlands.

http://business-times.asia1.com.sg/mnt/media/image/launched/2005-01-18/dock-221042.jpg

Shanghai port handled 379 million tons of freight last year, 19.8 per cent more than a year earlier and 2.3 per cent less than Singapore, which handled 388 million tons of cargo in 2004, according to the Shanghai Daily yesterday.

The expanding economy driven by trade and investment in Shanghai and the Yangtze Delta cities have helped fuel the growth in the shipping business.

Total trading through local customs, including both imports and exports from Shanghai and neighbouring cities, surged by 40.4 per cent from a year earlier to hit US$287.57 billion.

Fixed investment, another engine driving the economy, rose by 25.8 per cent over a year earlier to hit 308.4 billion yuan (S$60.8 billion) in Shanghai.

Shanghai also maintained its place among the top three container ports in the world by handling 14.55 million TEUs (twenty-foot equivalent unit) of containers, leaving it behind Hong Kong and Singapore.

Shanghai claimed third place by container volume in 2003 when it overtook Busan in the Republic of Korea. Shenzhen port in southern China claimed fourth place in the world in 2004 by handling 13.655 million TEUs.

Shanghai is currently building a big deep water port on an island just outside the city, which is scheduled to start service by the end of the year. - Xinhua

[Bond James Bond]

Yeah, but will it look as cool as Rotterdam? :cool:

[snake]

Yeah, but will it look as cool as Rotterdam? :cool:

Man, what kind of question are you asking? :weirdo:

[huaiwei]

its a lie guys! dont believe this! :) :nuts:
Your sense of denial is amusing. :D

Anyway, which ever means of measure we use now, it has become apparant that Rotterdam is no longer the busiest port in the world. On the other hand, Shanghai is very much on its way to grapping that title this year, although I am not too sure if it is going to grap the title using gross tonnage handled...a measure Singapore will be prefering to look at as always.

Meanwhile, we will be seeing interesting stuff in the Container business too. If all things go as it is, Singapore may actually overtake HK as the busiest container port this year. Both Shanghai and shenzhen are waiting in the wings to snatch away that title too thou. ;)

[hkskyline]

If you combine the Hong Kong and Shenzhen container ports, you'll notice a huge amount of traffic for such a small region that is unrivaled elsewhere in the world. At the center of attention is Hutchison, the world's largest container port operator based in Hong Kong.

[huaiwei]

Depends. The combination of Shanghai and Ningbo might be just as interesting to watch thou.

[snake]

Depends. The combination of Shanghai and Ningbo might be just as interesting to watch thou.

There are 3 major clusters of ports in China actually that are huge. in 2004 Jan-Nov in 11 months
1. Pearl River Delta centered by HK, GZ, SZ
HK?
GZ 195.04m
SZ 123.21m
Zhuhai 29.75m

2. Yangtse River Delta centered by SH
SH 346.75m
Ningbo 208.62m
Zhoushan 69.29m
Suzhou 80.76m (40% increase)
Nanjing 87.15m (45% increase)
Jiangyin 23.72m
Nantong 67.28m (50% increase)
Hangzhou 43.65m (50% increase)
Zhengjiang 43.40m (65% increase!!)

3 Bohai centered by Tianjin
Tianjin 191.33m
Tangshan 26.03m (12 months)
Qinghuangdao 137.90m

[hkskyline]

Ningbo is still a very small container port right now, and it will take some time before it can get as large as either Shenzhen or Hong Kong.

Big China Port to Be Expanded --- Hutchison, Orient Overseas, Ningbo Operator to Invest $800 Million in Terminals
19 January 2005
The Asian Wall Street Journal

SHANGHAI -- Ningbo Port Group Ltd., Hutchison Whampoa Ltd. and Orient Overseas (International) Ltd. will invest a combined US$800 million to expand China's second-busiest port, at Ningbo, the port's operator said.

Hong Kong-listed container-ship operator Orient Overseas and Ningbo Port Group will invest US$650 million in a fifth phase of a container terminal, Ningbo Port Group's president, Li Linghong, told Reuters.

Ningbo Port Group will contribute 80% of the US$650 million investment, and Orient Overseas the remainder.

Orient Overseas is controlled by the family of Hong Kong Chief Executive Tung Chee Hwa.

Mr. Li also said Ningbo Port Group and Hong Kong conglomerate Hutchison, controlled by Li Ka-shing, will invest US$150 million expanding another terminal at the harbor on the country's east coast.

The president of the port operator also said the company would form a venture with Hutchison -- Beilun International Container Harbor Co. -- in which Ningbo Port Group would control 51%.

The venture would finance the purchase of a 414-meter-long, 1.5-berth container terminal at the harbor, Li Linghong said.

"We'll sign an agreement with Hutchison [today] to invest in the second phase of the Beilun Harbor project," he said in a brief telephone interview with Reuters.

A spokesman for Hutchison's huge ports subsidiary, Hutchison Port Holdings, declined to comment. But he noted that Hutchison already operates one container terminal with three shipping berths at the Ningbo Beilun port, and was the first company to develop operations there. As of June 2004, Hutchison operated terminals at 11 sites in China, including Hong Kong.

Hutchison's Chinese shipping business, driven by the steady stream of goods manufactured in China that need to be transported to the rest of the world, was brisk in 2003, the last full year for which statistics are available. The combined throughput of Hutchison's mainland Chinese terminals soared 53% in 2003 from the previous year. Overall, the ports business was the largest after-tax contributor to parent company Hutchison's profit in 2003, not including finance and investments. Ports and related services contributed HK$3.19 billion (US$409.1 million) in net income.

Ningbo Port Group, meanwhile, has been trying to beef up its facilities to compete more effectively with the giant Yangshan port project in nearby Shanghai.

Both investments underscore eagerness to grab a slice of China's trade.

"Our company would continue to seek more opportunities to cooperate with overseas counterparts," Mr. Li of the port operator said. Among other projects, Ningbo Port Group has selected the Hong Kong subsidiary of Italy's Lloyd Triestino Shipping Co. to jointly invest US$250 million in the port's Chuanshan Harbor. Each side would account for half the investment for two berths at the Chuanshan Harbor's fourth phase, Mr. Li said.

The eastern port of Ningbo, situated south of Shanghai in prosperous Zhejiang province, has secured investment partners in the past.

Last January, China Merchants Holdings (International) Co. signed a contract to take 45% of a three billion yuan, or about $360 million, container-terminal project on the island of Daxie, 700 meters off Ningbo.

China International Trust & Investment Corp. and Ningbo's port authority were partners in that, officials said.

Ningbo Port Group handled 209 million metric tons of cargo in the first 11 months of 2004, up 22% from a year earlier, becoming China's second-busiest port after Shanghai. It moved 3.64 million twenty-foot equivalent units, or TEUs, of containers in the same period, an increase of 45% from the same period of 2003.

[huaiwei]

Ningbo is still a very small container port right now, and it will take some time before it can get as large as either Shenzhen or Hong Kong.
Well, it wasent that long ago when Shenzhen seems to be a "very small container port" too, but look at where it is today. With Ningbo already registering a rate of 45% growth, it will not take long for it to be a formidable force in container traffic if growth rates are sustained.

Also, do note, that Ningbo already enjoys total shipments including via non-containerised means exceeded the total handled by Hong Kong, and is the second busiest port in China after Shanghai by that measure. And if we were to take into account snake's contributions for the Yangtse River Delta area, it is certainly worth the attention increasingly accorded to it.

[hkskyline]

Ningbo's container port is about a sixth the size of Hong Kong right now. As to how 3 million can get to 20 in a few years is quite a mystery, given that the Pearl River Delta is a much more well-developed manufacturing powerhouse than the Yangtze River Delta right now.

Also notice the disparity in numbers. While the gap between Hong Kong and Shenzhen is narrowing quite rapidly, notice how Shanghai dwarfs Ningbo in container traffic. That is probably why Li Ka-shing decided to invest in Ningbo - promote it as an alternative to Shanghai. It also affirms the Pearl River Delta's lead in the manufacturing trade, which drives the container numbers.

[huaiwei]

Ningbo's container port is about a sixth the size of Hong Kong right now. As to how 3 million can get to 20 in a few years is quite a mystery, given that the Pearl River Delta is a much more well-developed manufacturing powerhouse than the Yangtze River Delta right now.

Also notice the disparity in numbers. While the gap between Hong Kong and Shenzhen is narrowing quite rapidly, notice how Shanghai dwarfs Ningbo in container traffic. That is probably why Li Ka-shing decided to invest in Ningbo - promote it as an alternative to Shanghai. It also affirms the Pearl River Delta's lead in the manufacturing trade, which drives the container numbers.
Not entirely a mystery, apparantly. Its not like Shenzhen's almost 14 million TEUs handled in 2004 was sucked entirely out of HK's figures, something you appear to be suggesting between that of Ningbo and Shanghai. Rather, trade growths experienced in China has allowed for overall growth in port activity, and some ports are better able to tap this rise then others.

Also, how does Li Ka-shing investing in Ningbo as an alternative to Shanghai affirm Pearl River Delta's lead in the manufacturing trade? Perhaps you might wish to eleborate on that assumption.

[hkskyline]

Actually, container traffic in the entire Pearl River Delta is growing, so while Shenzhen has been growing rapidly in the past few years, Hong Kong was also growing as well. The same can be applied to Shanghai and Ningbo, only in their case the total container traffic is much smaller than Hong Kong and Shenzhen. In fact, the central government is encouraging more partnership between Hong Kong and Shenzhen, and business is growing for both cities.

Foreign investors are not moving their factories to the Yangtze River Delta region from the Pearl River Delta, so it's highly unlikely growth rates in the Yangtze region will greatly surpass the Pearl region. Both catchment areas are recipients of major international investment, but it's unclear whether one is favoured than the other. In fact, it seems like both are being invested together. In that case I wonder how the 13+3 total for Shanghai and Ningbo can narrow to 20+14 for Hong Kong and Shenzhen any time in the near future. What economic assumptions are there to show that the two regions will equalize their container traffic soon?

[huaiwei]

Actually, container traffic in the entire Pearl River Delta is growing, so while Shenzhen has been growing rapidly in the past few years, Hong Kong was also growing as well. The same can be applied to Shanghai and Ningbo, only in their case the total container traffic is much smaller than Hong Kong and Shenzhen. In fact, the central government is encouraging more partnership between Hong Kong and Shenzhen, and business is growing for both cities.

Foreign investors are not moving their factories to the Yangtze River Delta region from the Pearl River Delta, so it's highly unlikely growth rates in the Yangtze region will greatly surpass the Pearl region. Both catchment areas are recipients of major international investment, but it's unclear whether one is favoured than the other. In fact, it seems like both are being invested together. In that case I wonder how the 13+3 total for Shanghai and Ningbo can narrow to 20+14 for Hong Kong and Shenzhen any time in the near future. What economic assumptions are there to show that the two regions will equalize their container traffic soon?
Firstly, my previous post opposes the idea that Shenzhen's growth means no growth in Hong Kong, although you cannot deny, that it does represent lost opportunities for greater growth for Hong Kong. The same applies in the relationship between Ningbo and Shanghai. I noticed you appear to be suggesting that the growth in Ningbo is going to hurt Shanghai's growth, but fail to mention that between Shenzhen and Hong Kong?

Secondly, the partnership between Shenzhen and Hong Kong does not, in a major way, affect trade out of the Yangtze delta.

Thirdly, no one suggests, that growth in the Yangtze delta has to involve a shift of industries from one to the other. Rather, I envisage intense growth in both areas, which need not be at the expense of each other.

Therefore, it is no wonder that there is "difficulty" in imagining a 16 TEU gap closing in on a 34 TEU gap.

Meanwhile, I wonder why two key factors are ignored:

1. Why are figures for Guangzhou not factored in? Is it not in the Pearl River Delta area? Meanwhile, how about other ports around the Yangtze Delta?

2. I mentioned earlier, that both Shanghai and Ningbo has already overtaken both Hong Kong and Shenzhen in terms of total tonnage handled. Not every form of trade and investment involves the movement of goods via containers. If you measure economic activity via containers alone, then you are obviously missing out on the overall picture.

In connection with this, Ningbo's shipments via non-containerised means does have potential to be converted to containerised means of transport, of cause not in its entirety, but to a reasonable degree. The recent introduction of container terminals there are only the beginning of the story.

Therefore, the conversion of already high amounts of trade into containerisd traffic, plus the potential of economic growth in the region, does indeed give the Shanghai-Ningbo partnership a force to be taken into consideration, in addition to that between Hong Kong and Shenzhen.

[hkskyline]

No, I am not suggesting Ningbo's rise will mean the demise of Shanghai. While competition will benefit someone and hurt another volume-wise, the overall effect can be counteracted by a growing catchment area.

In fact, in order for Shanghai and Ningbo to catch Shenzhen and Hong Kong, the Yangtze delta region must be exporting a lot more goods than the Pearl River Delta. Otherwise where will the traffic growth come from? In that case, either the Yangtze industries are getting more productive, or investors are flocking over there at the expense of the Pearl River Delta. The Evidence doesn't point to either possibility. In that case, how can Shanghai and Ningbo close a significant traffic gap with Hong Kong and Shenzhen in the short run?

Keep in mind my discussion is strictly based on container traffic, which usually comprises of goods transport. Total traffic includes the commodity trade, which is something totally different altogether. Foreign investment may not influence the commodity trade, since the investment dollars tend to focus on manufacturing, benefiting the container trade. Mixing the two together will confuse the big picture.

Container port traffic is a very good indicator of export growth. Commodity trade can be funneled into both domestic consumption and foreign export. For a developing country such as China that is heavily reliant on the export trade, economic activity is far better quantified using container port numbers than total port numbers which include domestic consumption as well.

[huaiwei]

No, I am not suggesting Ningbo's rise will mean the demise of Shanghai. While competition will benefit someone and hurt another volume-wise, the overall effect can be counteracted by a growing catchment area.

In fact, in order for Shanghai and Ningbo to catch Shenzhen and Hong Kong, the Yangtze delta region must be exporting a lot more goods than the Pearl River Delta. Otherwise where will the traffic growth come from? In that case, either the Yangtze industries are getting more productive, or investors are flocking over there at the expense of the Pearl River Delta. The Evidence doesn't point to either possibility. In that case, how can Shanghai and Ningbo close a significant traffic gap with Hong Kong and Shenzhen in the short run?

Keep in mind my discussion is strictly based on container traffic, which usually comprises of goods transport. Total traffic includes the commodity trade, which is something totally different altogether. Foreign investment may not influence the commodity trade, since the investment dollars tend to focus on manufacturing, benefiting the container trade. Mixing the two together will confuse the big picture.
Glad that at least you are not suggesting the demise of Shanghai, although I am still wondering how would Li's investment in Ningbo affirms anything about the Pearl River Delta's position.

In terms of total shipment, Shanghai and Ningbo already exceeds that in Hong Kong and Shenzhen. In fact, both ports in the Yangtze delta are ahead of both ports in the Pearl Delta. As mentioned earlier, even not factoring in the natural growth of industries in both areas, the gap can be closed very rapidly, if modernisation of the transportation of goods promotes the use of containerised traffic in the Yangtze delta. Is this factor worthy to be ignored?

If your big picture only composes of container traffic, then I must say it needs some enlargement of sorts. Manufacturing does not rely totally on container trade, and vice versal. Total shipments is a better measure of trade volumes, for afterall, bulk transport, as well as goods which could have been containerised but are not, are also included in the overall assessment.

[hkskyline]

Li Ka-shing's investments in container ports worldwide signal Hutchison's belief that the money put in will earn a good return. Keep in mind the differences between total port traffic and container traffic. Hong Kong and Shenzhen have much more container traffic because the Pearl River Delta is a manufacturing region, so goods need to be shipped out to the rest of the world. The Yangtze Delta is both a manufacturing and consumption region, so it's not surprising that China's demand for natural resources will enter the country those Shanghai / Ningbo.

Manufacturing does not rely totally on container trade, and vice versal. Total shipments is a better measure of trade volumes, for afterall, bulk transport, as well as goods which could have been containerised but are not, are also included in the overall assessment.
In fact, manufacturing traffic depends on containers. Otherwise, how can the goods be sent out by sea? Put them in a plastic bag and onto a ship? Are you aware of the workings in the shipping industry?

Have you noticed an international trend? For the commodity ships, they enter China full, but leave China empty. However, for container ships, they enter China with foreign goods, and leave China with export goods. The economic impact is far greater because it is no longer an import-only transfer. Container ships deal with both import and export traffic. When China becomes a major resource exporter, then bulk transport might feature more prominently economically.

Since China is an export machine right now, analyzing container traffic is a much better indicator of China's industrial rise and primary indicator of economic growth than mere total numbers that confuse the analysis with bulk goods / resources.

[huaiwei]

Li Ka-shing's investments in container ports worldwide signal Hutchison's belief that the money put in will earn a good return. Keep in mind the differences between total port traffic and container traffic. Hong Kong and Shenzhen have much more container traffic because the Pearl River Delta is a manufacturing region, so goods need to be shipped out to the rest of the world. The Yangtze Delta is both a manufacturing and consumption region, so it's not surprising that China's demand for natural resources will enter the country those Shanghai / Ningbo.
Eeeh? So when Li invests in both Shanghai and Ningbo, isnt that supposed to mean more manufacturing in the Yangtze Delta, if we are to buy your assumptions? How then, does that counter my take on the Yangtze Delta?
In fact, manufacturing traffic depends on containers. Otherwise, how can the goods be sent out by sea? Put them in a plastic bag and onto a ship? Are you aware of the workings in the shipping industry?
Thats humourous, but no, before containers were invented, manufactured goods were shipped using bulky means...practically by large sacks. If manufacturing and container traffic MUST go hand in hand, can we then say the manufacturing in the world only started with the invention of shipping containers?

I am begining to have serious doubts about your knowledge of the shipping industry too. I didnt know plastic bags were used before the invention of containers! :lol:
Have you noticed an international trend? For the commodity ships, they enter China full, but leave China empty. However, for container ships, they enter China with foreign goods, and leave China with export goods. The economic impact is far greater because it is no longer an import-only transfer. Container ships deal with both import and export traffic. When China becomes a major resource exporter, then bulk transport might feature more prominently economically.

Since China is an export machine right now, analyzing container traffic is a much better indicator of China's industrial rise and primary indicator of economic growth than mere total numbers that confuse the analysis with bulk goods / resources.
For your information, bulk transport is NOT the same as commodity goods. You seem to assume, that every item manufactured on earth can be packed into containers, and ARE packed into one when shipped over the sea. Is a car a commodity, or a manufactured product? Do you pack it into a container, or do you ship it via roro ships? How about crude oil and other petrochemical products, which are not just turned into fuel for use in homes and industries, but also millions of by-products which can be re-exported (including even the oil itself)? Do you pack crude oil into containers, or Tankers?

Bulk transport isnt just about grains, sand and water, you know?

If China has to primary goods to fuel its industries, why should that not factor into the equation? If they need more and more food, which can be packed into containers btw, why should they count only when in containers, and not when shipped in bulk?

Seriously, what is your understanding of the shipping industry?

It appears to me, that you are trying to ignore a set of figures, which is the total tonnage handled, and prefering to talk only about container traffic, just because the numbers look prettier to you? Even then, I would believe that given the great extend of trade already going out via the Yangtze Delta, that it will indeed give the Pearl Delta area a run for its money in the container traffic as well in the years to come, and not just in terms of total tonnage handled.

[hkskyline]

Eeeh? So when Li invests in both Shanghai and Ningbo, isnt that supposed to mean more manufacturing in the Yangtze Delta, if we are to buy your assumptions? How then, does that counter my take on the Yangtze Delta?

What about investments in Shenzhen? Hutchison is the world's largest container port operator. Does a large investment in one city indicate growth prospects are larger? Not necessarily when viewed in isolation, since ports operate at different ends of the life cycle, and have different payback periods. Hutchison will need to spend a lot of money developing the capital infrastructure Panama container ports from its current state, while it will spend less money in more developed ports that merely need maintenance. Does that indicate the return in Panama will be above that of Shenzhen?

What if a company finds a good deal with low maintenance costs, but with less cash flows? The airport dilemma in the Pearl River Delta is a good example. Zhuhai is cheap, but although the region is booming with air traffic, Zhuhai has been sidelined.

Thats humourous, but no, before containers were invented, manufactured goods were shipped using bulky means...practically by large sacks. If manufacturing and container traffic MUST go hand in hand, can we then say the manufacturing in the world only started with the invention of shipping containers?

Quite humourous indeed. This is the year 2005. Are goods not shipped in containers anymore? Measures change as times change. Anyone following the industry as it evolves will know containers are critical in goods transport worldwide today. What do you see at the congested ports of Vancouver and Long Beach? Seas of containers full of Chinese goods. Sure, the world used different ways to ship goods a century ago, but we're looking at statistics today. Do we care where Prussia is today?

Are you able to show that containers are no longer the preferred maritime shipping method for goods? Or are you pulling these hypotheses out of thin air?

For your information, bulk transport is NOT the same as commodity goods. You seem to assume, that every item manufactured on earth can be packed into containers, and ARE packed into one when shipped over the sea. Is a car a commodity, or a manufactured product? Do you pack it into a container, or do you ship it via roro ships? How about crude oil and other petrochemical products, which are not just turned into fuel for use in homes and industries, but also millions of by-products which can be re-exported (including even the oil itself)? Do you pack crude oil into containers, or Tankers?

Wrong assumption. A car is a manufactured product. It comes out of a factory. Timber is a commodity. It is a natural resource. Bulk transport is predominantely used for natural resource imports as China struggles to get these items from the rest of the world. Is China exporting cars? It's negligible compared to containerized goods such as toys and clothes. In fact, China is specialized in producing smaller consumer goods that can fit into containers for easy transport, which is why analzying container traffic is important, and why ports release such information. Are bulk transport ships lining up at Vancouver, Seattle, and Long Beach? No. The lineups comprise of container ships.

I thought it was rather funny to see a bulk transport with natural resources reaching the US from China. China doesn't have enough natural resources already. Why would they export them? Is China even allowed to send grain to the US? Wouldn't the American farmers riot in Washington if they even hear about this?

I see a whole bunch of generalizations again, but a lack of understanding of the composition and dynamics of China's export market and how they relate to the country's shipping traffic. The fact is, container port growth is very important, and many cities are expanding their berths to handle this surge in traffic. Bulk transport will remain predominatently import-based as China struggles to bring in resources from the rest of the world.

[huaiwei]

What about investments in Shenzhen? Hutchison is the world's largest container port operator. Does a large investment in one city indicate growth prospects are larger? Not necessarily when viewed in isolation, since ports operate at different ends of the life cycle, and have different payback periods. Hutchison will need to spend a lot of money developing the capital infrastructure Panama container ports from its current state, while it will spend less money in more developed ports that merely need maintenance. Does that indicate the return in Panama will be above that of Shenzhen?

What if a company finds a good deal with low maintenance costs, but with less cash flows? The airport dilemma in the Pearl River Delta is a good example. Zhuhai is cheap, but although the region is booming with air traffic, Zhuhai has been sidelined.
Yeah...but arent you the one saying Li's investments in Ningbo is somehow testiment to the growth in the Pearl river delta? If you end up arguing against yourself, then maybe I should just leave you to your devices...
Quite humourous indeed. This is the year 2005. Are goods not shipped in containers anymore? Measures change as times change. Anyone following the industry as it evolves will know containers are critical in goods transport worldwide today. What do you see at the congested ports of Vancouver and Long Beach? Seas of containers full of Chinese goods. Sure, the world used different ways to ship goods a century ago, but we're looking at statistics today. Do we care where Prussia is today?

Are you able to show that containers are no longer the preferred maritime shipping method for goods? Or are you pulling these hypotheses out of thin air?
I am sorry dear, but in case if you have not realised, containerised means of maritime transport is actually a very contemporary invention, introduced only in 1954 (or 1966 according to Malcolm MacLean). Even as late as 1980, there was still zero container traffic between China and the US, for example.

In the year 2004, containerised cargo amounts to 576 million tonnes worldwide. Compare that to approximate 300 million tonnes for general cargo, 2000 million tonnes for dry bulk and 2400 million tonnes for liquid bulk. China currently attracts 19% of bulk goods, and 22% of all goods shipped by containers across the ocean worldwide and which originate from China.

I seriously do not know how anyone can look at one figure, and ignore the rest, when they account for such a huge share of global maritime trade. Yes it is the year 2005, but yeah, the facts point to the fact that containers simply dont dominate global maritime traffic just yet. And yes, that is figures for today.

And may I remind, that China is still very new to the container business, as is so for other emerging markets like India. Container shipping are gradually replacing conventional and bulk transport where possible, but as its clearly evident, they are still not representative yet. Hence, there is still much shipping activity taking place into and out of China using conventional means of shipment waiting to be containerised, and this is the obvious case in Ningbo.
Wrong assumption. A car is a manufactured product. It comes out of a factory. Timber is a commodity. It is a natural resource. Bulk transport is predominantely used for natural resource imports as China struggles to get these items from the rest of the world. Is China exporting cars? It's negligible compared to containerized goods such as toys and clothes. In fact, China is specialized in producing smaller consumer goods that can fit into containers for easy transport, which is why analzying container traffic is important, and why ports release such information. Are bulk transport ships lining up at Vancouver, Seattle, and Long Beach? No. The lineups comprise of container ships.

I thought it was rather funny to see a bulk transport with natural resources reaching the US from China. China doesn't have enough natural resources already. Why would they export them? Is China even allowed to send grain to the US? Wouldn't the American farmers riot in Washington if they even hear about this?

I see a whole bunch of generalizations again, but a lack of understanding of the composition and dynamics of China's export market and how they relate to the country's shipping traffic. The fact is, container port growth is very important, and many cities are expanding their berths to handle this surge in traffic. Bulk transport will remain predominatently import-based as China struggles to bring in resources from the rest of the world.
Wrong assumption? Actually, my example of cars is to catch you right in your tracks. You mentioned all forms of manufacturing are shipped in containers. So....cars are manufactured goods, correct? Are they shipped in containers, if we were to follow your assumption?

China may not be a mass exporter of cars, but hey, they happen to be an increasingly important importer of cars.

So, you saw tonnes of ships lining up are mainly container ships? Well, thats because you are looking at the anchorages of container ships near container ports. In Singapore, which handles more then just containers, there are segregated anchorages for various ship types, such as tankers, bulk carriers, frighters, and container ships. There are also different types of ports to cater to each type of goods. If I were to stare at the tanker anchorage, I would be probably thinking Singapore dosent have containerised traffic.

Visual observation isnt exactly going to counter factual data I just posted, to put it bluntly.

So, whether you could accuse me of generalisation, I leave it for others to think about. Here we have pure factual data countering a whole bunch of text based on visual observation, as well as being obviously captivated by all those media articles talking about container traffic, when there is a far bigger pie out there waiting to be grapped, and which, btw, is undeniably the measure used in accessing the world's busiest ports.

They simply do not care WHAT you are importing or exporting. They only care how MUCH. Since that is the industrial standard in measuring port activities, I am quite sure I am pretty safe to take total tonnage figures as a measure of shipping traffic (notice you were talking about traffic in the beginning), rather then just container ships alone!

[hkskyline]

Yeah...but arent you the one saying Li's investments in Ningbo is somehow testiment to the growth in the Pearl river delta? If you end up arguing against yourself, then maybe I should just leave you to your devices...

No, I didn't say that. I said Ningbo is part of Hutchison's expanding maritime empire. Hutchison's investment by itself cannot be construed as an indicator that Ningbo will outgrow other regional ports.

I am sorry dear, but in case if you have not realised, containerised means of maritime transport is actually a very contemporary invention, introduced only in 1954 (or 1966 according to Malcolm MacLean). Even as late as 1980, there was still zero container traffic between China and the US, for example.

So you're looking at 2004 data, and but understand the shipping industry back in 1966? So what if there was little container traffic 50 years or 100 years ago. This is 2005, and we're examining 2004 data, and we see a major surge in container traffic because today's exports of consumer goods are sent out by containers.

In the year 2004, containerised cargo amounts to 576 million tonnes worldwide. Compare that to approximate 300 million tonnes for general cargo, 2000 million tonnes for dry bulk and 2400 million tonnes for liquid bulk. China currently attracts 19% of bulk goods, and 22% of all goods shipped by containers across the ocean worldwide and which originate from China.

China is gobbling up resources, but it depends on exporting goods to sustain its economy. In that case, the facilities for export must be top-notch to meet the volume. Shanghai and Shenzhen, for example, are expanding their container-handling capabilities.

If you've actually looked at some data, container traffic is indeed far more important than you think. Natural resource shipments can be influenced by domestic consumption, which tends to grow / decline with stability. However, export traffic can fluctuate with volatility due to economic cycles. In that case, analyzing a total port figure will not necessarily yield a conclusive result since there are 2 key influential factors that don't correlate well with each other. However, analyzing container traffic will isolate the economic factors, making it much easier to see patterns and draw conclusions.

That's why all this time, I've been looking at container traffic numbers. I can relate them to China's export growth. You don't ignore the total port figure, but given the limitations of finding patterns and relationships, it's much easier to see something out of container traffic than total traffic with bulk cargo.

Here are some real-life examples of how container traffic is measured and how important it is to ports :

Hong Kong
Overall, 73% of the seaborne cargoes in 2003 were containerised. Practically all transhipment cargoes were carried by containers. More than 90% of seaborne exports were containerised, while the ratio for seaborne imports was more than 60%.

Sea cargoes to and from Hong Kong are carried both by liners and bulk vessels. Liner shipping is operated under a scheduled timetable with pre-announced rates and destinations. Many key routes are under liner conferences (agreements by the main shipping lines on tariffs and sailings). Hong Kong is served by some 200 shipping lines. Containerised cargo dominates the liner market in Hong Kong.

Bulk shipping takes care of bulky, unpacked goods such as oil, gas, grain, minerals and timber.

Shenzhen
Sea container traffic through Shenzhen rose 28 percent in 2004, buoyed by China's strong export growth. The growth rate matches that of rival Shanghai. Shenzhen has 18 professional container berths and is expected to see one to two new berths to come on stream in 2005 in Shekou and Chiwan, the official added.

Shanghai & Export Traffic
China's largest foreign trade port Shanghai handled US$161.3 billion of imports and US$121.3 billion of exports in 2004, up by 44 percent and 37 percent respectively over the 2003 figures.

Private companies, on the other hand, posted the fastest growth with US$23.7 billion of imports and exports via Shanghai port, a two-fold increase over the previous year.

China's macro-control of its national economy has substantially slowed down the imports of steel, iron and other raw material via the Shanghai port since the second quarter of 2004, the statistics show.

Exports of traditional commodities, such as garments, textiles, furniture, shoes and suitcases, also reported double-digit rises, the customs statistics say.

Sources with the port said the sustained economic growth of China was the leading factor behind the rapid development of the port, which has seen its handling capacity of TEUs increase from 450,000 in 1990 to 8.613 million in 2002.

Therefore, Shanghai has started the construction of the Yangshan port, where over 50 container berths can be built, to increase its handling capacity.

By 2020, a maximum of 35 container berths are expected to be built along an 11-kilometer stretch of deep water coastline at theYangshan port area. These berths will have a combined annual handling capacity of 20 million TEUs.

Commerce Minister Bo Xilai has predicted the country's foreign trade for 2004 will reach 1.1 trillion US dollars, up some 30 percent from the previous year.

Commentary
This is exactly the reason why I like to look at container numbers instead of total traffic numbers. Notice resource imports are slowing, yet exports are growing, so the total traffic number will still increase, but container traffic will move significantly higher compared to the total traffic figure - hence separating exports and resource trade is key in understanding China's economic structure.

That's why industry watchers look at container numbers, especially for the Pearl River Delta, since those ports are not major resource-trade cities. They specialize in export traffic servicing all the factories in the delta. Even for Shanghai, they realize that they must cater to export traffic, so they are on a facility building-spree. After all, China is an export machine.

An understanding of economic context, not history, will definitely help in analyzing today's maritime traffic numbers. After all, companies are buying and selling products today using today's methods, and not yesteryear's.

[huaiwei]

No, I didn't say that. I said Ningbo is part of Hutchison's expanding maritime empire. Hutchison's investment by itself cannot be construed as an indicator that Ningbo will outgrow other regional ports.
Ok....then, I am still having trouble understanding what this paragraph is supposed to mean:
That is probably why Li Ka-shing decided to invest in Ningbo - promote it as an alternative to Shanghai. It also affirms the Pearl River Delta's lead in the manufacturing trade, which drives the container numbers.
How does Li's investment in Ningbo relate to Pearl River Delta's lead in the manufacturing trade? That was my initial question, and it remains unanswered.
So you're looking at 2004 data, and but understand the shipping industry back in 1966? So what if there was little container traffic 50 years or 100 years ago. This is 2005, and we're examining 2004 data, and we see a major surge in container traffic because today's exports of consumer goods are sent out by containers.
That is a ridiculously skewed way of reading my post, and you know it. Firstly, you suggested, that the link between manufacturing and container traffic is inseperable and interlinked. Sure. So, since containers were introduced in 1966, I suppose there was not much manufacturing before 1966?

In addition, I suppose they used plastic bags to ship goods prior to 1966, if we were to take your statement seriously?

You are obviously avoiding what I am telling you point blank. Containers as a means of shipment is only 4 decades old on a global scale. In terms of its use in China itself, it was less then 3 decades old. No one is looking at 50 years or 100 years like you are doing. For example, containerised shipping was only introduced to Shanghai in 1978. Shenzhen's container port is only about 10 years old. The entirety of China had just 15 container ships in 1984.

Ningbo's development of her container business is relatively recent too, and there is plenty of potential for growth. Its container throughput is expected to hit 10 TEUs by 2010, and currently has space to build 62 container berths, for an estimate handling capacity of 15 million TEUs.

That you seem to assume that China's ports has been using containers for all these while, is clearly not the case there.

If you've actually looked at some data, container traffic is indeed far more important than you think.

That's why all this time, I've been looking at container traffic numbers. I can relate them to China's export growth. You don't ignore the total port figure, but given the limitations of finding patterns and relationships, it's much easier to see something out of container traffic than total traffic with bulk cargo.
Actually, no one doubts the fact that containerised shipping is an important means of conveying goods. You are only highlighting this, because you seem to think that high-value goods are only conveyed through containers, and that all container goods are high-value ones worthy for consideration?

Also, you seem to hold this assumption that containerised traffic dominates the maritime transport business, when the statistics shows they dont?
Commentary
This is exactly the reason why I like to look at container numbers instead of total traffic numbers. Notice resource imports are slowing, yet exports are growing, so the total traffic number will still increase, but container traffic will move significantly higher compared to the total traffic figure - hence separating exports and resource trade is key in understanding China's economic structure.

That's why industry watchers look at container numbers, especially for the Pearl River Delta, since those ports are not major resource-trade cities. They specialize in export traffic servicing all the factories in the delta. Even for Shanghai, they realize that they must cater to export traffic, so they are on a facility building-spree. After all, China is an export machine.

An understanding of economic context, not history, will definitely help in analyzing today's maritime traffic numbers. After all, companies are buying and selling products today using today's methods, and not yesteryear's.
Yesterdays technology is probably to be ignored, if it constitutes little maritime traffic to the overall port handling figures. The figures show, that this is hardly the case. All the above information simply does not demonstrate how redundunt non-containerised traffic is when accessing how busy a port is. Especially when we refer back to how this entire discussion started, of how you simplistically concluded that the Pearl River Delta sees more maritime traffic then any other area on Earth. That is obviously hardly the case, if we were to look at all forms of maritime traffic. Ningbo, for example, is one of China's most important oil transfer ports. How much crude oil does Hong Kong and Shenzhen handle?

We dont really have to look at economics or history, in actual fact, if you want to make a comment about how busy the traffic is in the two deltas. Port handling figures dont really care if the goods are meant for import, export, transfer, high value, low value, or any of that sort. Looking at the overall shipping tonnage handled with give a far better clue than container traffic alone, the later of which is obviously highlighted when the aim is to paint that area as a busier region than the Shanghai-Ningbo area.

[hkskyline]

How does Li's investment in Ningbo relate to Pearl River Delta's lead in the manufacturing trade? That was my initial question, and it remains unanswered.

Here is the context to my statement :
Ningbo's container port is about a sixth the size of Hong Kong right now. As to how 3 million can get to 20 in a few years is quite a mystery, given that the Pearl River Delta is a much more well-developed manufacturing powerhouse than the Yangtze River Delta right now.

Also notice the disparity in numbers. While the gap between Hong Kong and Shenzhen is narrowing quite rapidly, notice how Shanghai dwarfs Ningbo in container traffic. That is probably why Li Ka-shing decided to invest in Ningbo - promote it as an alternative to Shanghai. It also affirms the Pearl River Delta's lead in the manufacturing trade, which drives the container numbers.

Looking at the total port numbers for the Yangtze River Delta, there is a lot of commodity / bulk cargo trade - much more than in the Pearl River Delta. I notice the total port traffic is enormous while container traffic is relatively small. The Pearl River Delta is an industrial region, manufacturing goods for export. From the total port vs. container numbers, they affirm the Pearl River Delta's lead in the manufacturing trade (because of the high % of container traffic to total port traffic relative to the Yangtze Delta).

Firstly, you suggested, that the link between manufacturing and container traffic is inseperable and interlinked. Sure. So, since containers were introduced in 1966, I suppose there was not much manufacturing before 1966?

Manufacturing is indeed related to container traffic today, because we are looking at data from 2004 aren't we? This is not a historical comparison, is it? Did anyone post a timeseries trend going back to the pre-container days? I'd assume we're talking about the recent past when all the data available comes from the recent past.

Does the evolution of the container trade from 4 decades ago to today change the fact that export goods are oftentimes containerized and leave port on container ships, thereby driving the container traffic numbers? In fact, China's ports only started getting busy since the economic restructuring began 20 years ago, just when container ships started becoming prominent in the region. Chinese exports only started flooding the world market recently.

I wonder why you're making a historical comparison when all the data available are very recent. Sure, container ships didn't exist a hundred years ago, but how relevant is that to analyzing the relationships in the 2004 data? I never assumed these relationships existed back to the beginning of time. I made inferences based on the data available. I wonder how you're thinking I'm not looking at 2004.

Actually, no one doubts the fact that containerised shipping is an important means of conveying goods. You are only highlighting this, because you seem to think that high-value goods are only conveyed through containers, and that all container goods are high-value ones worthy for consideration?

No, your assumptions are wrong. I wonder how you can make that baseless conclusion. Containerization is not strongly correlated with the value of the goods. In fact, very valuable goods are oftentimes sent out by air. A lot of cheap goods, such as toys and clothes, are sent out by sea to keep their prices low. That's why Walmart and major retailers have their Christmas inventory shipped by sea months before the holiday shopping season begins.

Also, you seem to hold this assumption that containerised traffic dominates the maritime transport business, when the statistics shows they dont?

Container traffic dominates exporting economies, such as the Pearl River Delta and Hong Kong. Commodity shipping is also important for resource-gobbling economies, which is also China, but more so in the Yangtze River Delta than around Hong Kong. If you look at the container traffic numbers vs. total traffic for Hong Kong and Shenzhen, and compare them with Shanghai, you'll see the relationship.

Yesterdays technology is probably to be ignored, if it constitutes little maritime traffic to the overall port handling figures. The figures show, that this is hardly the case. All the above information simply does not demonstrate how redundunt non-containerised traffic is when accessing how busy a port is. Especially when we refer back to how this entire discussion started, of how you simplistically concluded that the Pearl River Delta sees more maritime traffic then any other area on Earth. That is obviously hardly the case, if we were to look at all forms of maritime traffic. Ningbo, for example, is one of China's most important oil transfer ports. How much crude oil does Hong Kong and Shenzhen handle?

Keep in mind I am talking strictly about container traffic. In fact, I like to look at container traffic because I can draw a direct correlation with the manufacturing economy. Is there another region where a small concentration of ports handle so much contaienr traffic? Is there another region that is growing so rapidly either? Not really.

China is a major exporting economy. A lot of these exports travel by sea. That's why on the other side of the Pacific, American and Canadian ports are swamped with container ships that have to wait in the ocean for days to find a parking spot at the port.

We dont really have to look at economics or history, in actual fact, if you want to make a comment about how busy the traffic is in the two deltas. Port handling figures dont really care if the goods are meant for import, export, transfer, high value, low value, or any of that sort. Looking at the overall shipping tonnage handled with give a far better clue than container traffic alone, the later of which is obviously highlighted when the aim is to paint that area as a busier region than the Shanghai-Ningbo area.

The United Nations would not agree with you. In their "REVIEW OF MARITIME TRANSPORT 2004" report, they single out container traffic when analyzing the importing and exporting patterns of Asian economies. Here is an excerpt from the highlights. Funny how I don't see the total port figures mentioned in the summary. It's all about container traffic, which makes sense because, as I have said, non-containerized cargo follow a different pattern and should not be aggregated into a total port figure because many important trade relationships inherent in the data will be wiped out :

http://www.unctad.org/sections/pub/img/143x200/rmt2004_en.gif

This year´s Review indicates that world output grew by 2.6 per cent in 2003 and world seaborne trade (goods loaded) increased by 3.7 per cent. Indicators for world fleet productivity (calculated in tons carried per dwt and thousands of ton-miles per dwt) showed increases of 2.9 and 4.3 per cent over the figures for 2002. World container port traffic expanded by 9.2 per cent over that of the previous year, reaching 266.3 million TEUs, with ports of developing countries handling 103.6 million TEUs, or 38.9 per cent of the total.

The regional review focuses on Asia. Average export and import growth rates for 40 selected Asian economies reached 14.8 per cent in 2003, and Asian countries were major players in world maritime transport, having sizable shares of several activities. These countries accounted for 35.8 per cent of container ship ownership, 45.7 per cent of container ship operation, 60.4 per cent of seamen, 62.3 per cent of container port throughput, 64.7 per cent of container port operators, 83.2 per cent of container ship building and 99 per cent of ship demolition. The plight of Asian landlocked countries, such as the Lao People´s Democratic Republic and several Central Asian countries, facing abnormally high transport costs is highlighted in this year´s Review. On some borders, the average cost and time can reach up to US$650 and 280 hours.

http://www.unctad.org/img/base/logo_en_left.gif

[huaiwei]

Manufacturing is indeed related to container traffic today, because we are looking at data from 2004 aren't we? This is not a historical comparison, is it? Did anyone post a timeseries trend going back to the pre-container days? I'd assume we're talking about the recent past when all the data available comes from the recent past.

Does the evolution of the container trade from 4 decades ago to today change the fact that export goods are oftentimes containerized and leave port on container ships, thereby driving the container traffic numbers? In fact, China's ports only started getting busy since the economic restructuring began 20 years ago, just when container ships started becoming prominent in the region. Chinese exports only started flooding the world market recently.

I wonder why you're making a historical comparison when all the data available are very recent. Sure, container ships didn't exist a hundred years ago, but how relevant is that to analyzing the relationships in the 2004 data? I never assumed these relationships existed back to the beginning of time. I made inferences based on the data available. I wonder how you're thinking I'm not looking at 2004.
Yes, it is indeed related, but do you notice you are assuming that all forms of manufacturing are shipped via containers, the point I am actually finding faults with? The logic is simple. You are assuming that manufactured goods muct be conveyed by containers. This is despite the fact that non-containerised forms of shipments exist even today and the figures show that they are not as insignificant as you insist in terms of tonnage handled.

So I asked you...what happens before the invention of containers. You tell me they use shopping bags. :lol: Oh well, I am compelled to show you the history of the development of Container shipping to the global shipping scene, and its introduction to the Chinese maritime trade. No one is asking you to so a historical comparison, really.

Meanwhile, I find a need to present some history behind the development of those Chinese ports, because it gives us clues as to how the port development of the Chinese ports may develop in future. For example, we now know, that the potential of Ningbo as a container port is further highlighted as historically, we can see that its potential as one is hardly tapped despite its strategic position as a traditionally important maritime port for Mainland China. we can also see, that there are massive plans to build new container terminals, something not even in existance there before.
No, your assumptions are wrong. I wonder how you can make that baseless conclusion. Containerization is not strongly correlated with the value of the goods. In fact, very valuable goods are oftentimes sent out by air. A lot of cheap goods, such as toys and clothes, are sent out by sea to keep their prices low. That's why Walmart and major retailers have their Christmas inventory shipped by sea months before the holiday shopping season begins.
No, actually that isnt my assumption. Its yours. I am merely repeating what you suggested! :lol: How you could end up countering your own point is beyond me...
Container traffic dominates exporting economies, such as the Pearl River Delta and Hong Kong. Commodity shipping is also important for resource-gobbling economies, which is also China, but more so in the Yangtze River Delta than around Hong Kong. If you look at the container traffic numbers vs. total traffic for Hong Kong and Shenzhen, and compare them with Shanghai, you'll see the relationship.
Tes, we all know that container traffic dominates the pearl river delta maritime traffic, and at the same time, non-containerised forms of shipments dominates the ports in the Yangtze delta. To ignore all forms of shipment just to highlight one form of shipment because it skews the impression of a "busy harbour" in favour of certain regions seems not be the academically ethical thing to do.

In fact, I would strongly encourage you to look beyond the Pearl River Delta in your attempt to paint a picture of supposed dominance of the container means of shipping. All thee of the world's busiest ports of Singapore, Shanghai and Rotterdam, registers massive non-containerised cargo handled year after year. Hong Kong, trailing at 4th place, looses out in total tonnage figures. Look through the rest of the world's busiest ports, and the story repeats itself. Hong Kong and Shenzhen's situation, in addition to a few more other major ports, are actually the exception rather then the rule.
Keep in mind I am talking strictly about container traffic. In fact, I like to look at container traffic because I can draw a direct correlation with the manufacturing economy. Is there another region where a small concentration of ports handle so much contaienr traffic? Is there another region that is growing so rapidly either? Not really.

China is a major exporting economy. A lot of these exports travel by sea. That's why on the other side of the Pacific, American and Canadian ports are swamped with container ships that have to wait in the ocean for days to find a parking spot at the port.
Your discussion about container traffic alone does not discount my preference to talk about overall maritime traffic, as what I am clearly doing all these while. Is the Pearl River delta area the only region on Earth with such a high concentration of see-going vessels? Not really.

China is a major exporting economy, and it is a major importer of raw materials to. To only factor in its exports, and not its imports, just because the later tends to be conveyed by non-containerised means, seems to be a purposeful means of skewing the data already available.

The United Nations would not agree with you. In their "REVIEW OF MARITIME TRANSPORT 2004" report, they single out container traffic when analyzing the importing and exporting patterns of Asian economies. Here is an excerpt from the highlights. Funny how I don't see the total port figures mentioned in the summary. It's all about container traffic, which makes sense because, as I have said, non-containerized cargo follow a different pattern and should not be aggregated into a total port figure because many important trade relationships inherent in the data will be wiped out :

http://www.unctad.org/sections/pub/img/143x200/rmt2004_en.gif

This year´s Review indicates that world output grew by 2.6 per cent in 2003 and world seaborne trade (goods loaded) increased by 3.7 per cent. Indicators for world fleet productivity (calculated in tons carried per dwt and thousands of ton-miles per dwt) showed increases of 2.9 and 4.3 per cent over the figures for 2002. World container port traffic expanded by 9.2 per cent over that of the previous year, reaching 266.3 million TEUs, with ports of developing countries handling 103.6 million TEUs, or 38.9 per cent of the total.

The regional review focuses on Asia. Average export and import growth rates for 40 selected Asian economies reached 14.8 per cent in 2003, and Asian countries were major players in world maritime transport, having sizable shares of several activities. These countries accounted for 35.8 per cent of container ship ownership, 45.7 per cent of container ship operation, 60.4 per cent of seamen, 62.3 per cent of container port throughput, 64.7 per cent of container port operators, 83.2 per cent of container ship building and 99 per cent of ship demolition. The plight of Asian landlocked countries, such as the Lao People´s Democratic Republic and several Central Asian countries, facing abnormally high transport costs is highlighted in this year´s Review. On some borders, the average cost and time can reach up to US$650 and 280 hours.

http://www.unctad.org/img/base/logo_en_left.gif
You are obviously barking up the wrong tree. The United Nations is not the definitive body behind international maritime trade statistics, and neither would anyone seriously make such a sweeping conclusion based on one of their publications. That is horrendously unprofessional.

Meanwhile, I find it humourous why you would assume that publication does not touch on non-containerised traffic. Take a look at the content page, and see it for yourself. Matters pertaining to container shipping alone are highlighted in bold. It dosent seem to overwelm the entire publication, would you think? ;)

Table of contents

Introduction
Summary of main developments

Chapter 1
Development of international seaborne trade

A. World economic background
B. World seaborne trade

Chapter 2
Structure and ownership of the world fleet

A. Structure of the world fleet
B. Ownership of the world fleet
C. Registry of vessels
D. Shipbuilding and the second-hand market


Chapter 3
Productivity of the world fleet and supply and demand in world shipping

A. Operational productivity
B. Supply and demand in world shipping
C. Comparison of cargo turnover and fleet ownership


Chapter 4
Trade and freight markets

A. Crude oil and petroleum products seaborne freight market
B. Dry bulk shipping market
C. Liner shipping market
D. Estimates of total freight costs in world trade


Chapter 5
Port development
A. Container port traffic
B. Improving port performance
C. Institutional change
D. Security measures in ports

Chapter 6
Trade and transport efficiency

A. Efficient transport and trade facilitation
B. Legal framework for international transport
C. Production and leasing of containers
D. Inland transport developments
E. Status of conventions

Chapter 7
Review of regional developments: Asia

A. Economic background
B. Maritime trade and the demand for maritime transport services in Asia
C. The supply of maritime businesses
D. Focus on selected cases

Annexes
I Classification of countries and territories
II World seaborne trade by country groups, 1970, 1980, 1990 and 2000-2003
III(a) Merchant fleets of the world by flag of registration, groups of countries and types of ship, as of 31 December 2003 (in grt)
III(b) Merchant fleets of the world by flag of registration, groups of countries and types of ship, as of 31 December 2003 (in thousand dwt)

[hkskyline]

I never said the whole port industry is container traffic only, but note an organization as highly regarded as the United Nations would publish an international maritime report and emphasize container traffic because it correlates strongly with the export-oriented economies of Asian countries (as I've said all along). That's why analyzing container numbers is very useful in understanding this relationship, hence its prominence in this study.

Read this line again :
It's all about container traffic, which makes sense because, as I have said, non-containerized cargo follow a different pattern and should not be aggregated into a total port figure because many important trade relationships inherent in the data will be wiped out.

So is the United Nations report useless? Where is the evidence?

Here is an introduction to the report from the UN :
The Review of Maritime Transport is one of UNCTAD´s flagship publications, published annually since 1968. It reports on the worldwide evolution of shipping, ports and multimodal transport related to the major traffics of liquid bulk, dry bulk and containers.

A number of tables containing information such as the top 20 container carriers and the top 20 world container ports are also provided, together with statistical annexes of country fleet size by major ship categories.

By the way, before you make comments on the legitimacy of a UN report, I suggest you to actually read one of them to see where they're getting their data and assumptions. The 2003 report is available free of charge :
http://www.unctad.org/Templates/webflyer.asp?docid=4126&intItemID=1397&lang=1&mode=downloads

Happy reading!

[AltinD]

huaiwei vs hkskyline

[hkskyline]

Here is yet another example of how China's export economy has a direct correlation with container traffic :

China's Export Surge Provides Boon for Container Maker CIMC
By Jeff Meyer Dow Jones Newswires
24 January 2005
The Asian Wall Street Journal

SHANGHAI -- China's booming export performance has rankled some of its trading partners but has meant fat returns for shareholders of the world's largest shipping container maker, China International Marine Containers (Group) Co.

Analysts expect good times to keep on rolling for CIMC -- at least for this year -- as China continues to make inroads into the global marketplace.

Strong export growth propelled China's trade surplus to a six-year high in 2004. A large chunk of the goods rolling out of Chinese factories to fill retail shelves around the world are transported in containers made by CIMC. The company has emerged as one of a handful of local corporate powerhouses by grabbing more than half of the world's shipping container market and extending its factory network to the U.S. heartland.

That sort of reach helped CIMC's net profit more than triple in the first nine months of 2004, and shareholders have reaped gains from this surge in profitability. CIMC's Hong Kong dollar-denominated B-shares listed in Shenzhen have soared more than 70% since the end of 2003 to close Friday at HK$16.31. The Shenzhen Composite Index has shed about 20% in that period.

Yet some analysts wonder how long CMIC can ride on the export wave generated by China's trade surge.

CIMC "has had a good run for three years, but its growth rate will start to slow," said Christopher Lee, associate director for Standard & Poor's Asian-Pacific Equity Research in Hong Kong. Investors have one more year to "play the stock," he says.

Mr. Lee has a 12-month price target on CIMC's B shares of HK$18, indicating an upside of about 12%. He has a "buy" rating on both CIMC and its closest rival, Hong Kong-listed Singamas Container Holdings Ltd., but added there is more upside to Singamas shares.

CIMC's largest shareholders are two shipping-related companies, state-owned China Ocean Shipping (Group) Co. and an arm of China Merchants Holdings (International) Co., the company's 2004 midyear report shows.

A potent cocktail of China's export prowess, a global container-ship building spree, and the continued swing toward container rather than bulk shipping, have created a windfall for container makers in the past few years, analysts said.

China's entry into the World Trade Organization in 2001, meanwhile, has spurred an increase in the amount of goods plying the oceans in containers.

The global container trade should expand 10%-12% this year and 8%-9% in 2006 after provisional growth of 12.1% in 2004, said John Fossey, director of container shipping at Drewry Shipping Consultants in London.

Robust demand for containers boosted CIMC's revenue to 13.71 billion yuan in 2003 from 9.03 billion yuan in 2002. In just the first nine months of 2004, its revenue reached 18.46 billion yuan, according to international accounting rules. The company's net profit leapt to 1.77 billion yuan in the first three quarters of 2004 from 571.5 million yuan a year earlier.

Lv Yizhen, an analyst at Guangzhou-based E Fund Management Co., estimates CIMC's net profit will jump nearly 2.5 times in 2004 and rise an additional 25% in 2005.

Yet some analysts caution the seas may turn choppy for CIMC this year. Higher raw material prices or an unexpected slowdown in global trade could crimp the company's growth, they say.

CIMC's market dominance allowed it to largely pass along rising steel prices to customers in 2004. But some analysts say further price increases may be more difficult to pull off.

Given its already large share of the shipping-container market, CIMC is looking to diversify into road transport vehicles, such as semitrailers.

[huaiwei]

I never said the whole port industry is container traffic only, but note an organization as highly regarded as the United Nations would publish an international maritime report and emphasize container traffic because it correlates strongly with the export-oriented economies of Asian countries (as I've said all along). That's why analyzing container numbers is very useful in understanding this relationship, hence its prominence in this study.

Read this line again :
It's all about container traffic, which makes sense because, as I have said, non-containerized cargo follow a different pattern and should not be aggregated into a total port figure because many important trade relationships inherent in the data will be wiped out.
If you are not assuming that the global port industry is composed merely by container traffic, then on what basis are you ignoring them? Because a publication from the United Nations (which btw, can hardly be considered to be analysing container traffic alone...the entire publication was overwelmingly talking about total global maritime traffic of all kinds) lists container port data only? That they should be ignored just because they "follow a different pattern"? The thing is...if you are trying to use maritime traffic as a measure of trade, then fine. You might have a reason to ignore them.

But look here. You were talking about maritime traffic in the two deltas. Whether non-containerised traffic data should skew port operating figures because of "different patterns" is hardly going to deviate from the fact that they do involve the introduction of ships congesting the river deltas, and adding to the massive traffic there. You yourself tried to use visual observation of the anchorages to access traffic. Do trade figures make those tankers dissapear from the seas? (I rushed to the window a few days ago just to make sure they are still there. Yeah, indeed they were still there choking up our sea lanes and anchorages, I was relieved to find out! :D ).

So is the United Nations report useless? Where is the evidence?

Here is an introduction to the report from the UN :
The Review of Maritime Transport is one of UNCTAD´s flagship publications, published annually since 1968. It reports on the worldwide evolution of shipping, ports and multimodal transport related to the major traffics of liquid bulk, dry bulk and containers.

A number of tables containing information such as the top 20 container carriers and the top 20 world container ports are also provided, together with statistical annexes of country fleet size by major ship categories.

By the way, before you make comments on the legitimacy of a UN report, I suggest you to actually read one of them to see where they're getting their data and assumptions. The 2003 report is available free of charge :
http://www.unctad.org/Templates/webflyer.asp?docid=4126&intItemID=1397&lang=1&mode=downloads

Happy reading!
Actually I was wondering if you yourself read it at all, because I ended up having to show the entire content list to you! :lol:

If non-containerised shipping is as insignificant as you say, then why bother having so much discussion on all kinds of shipments all over the publication? Why bother having data for all ship types? Why segment the ship types into 5 groups, of which Container ships are just one of them?

It appears to me, that you are insisting that containers are the only worthy topic to talk about when refering to port statistics, and using this UN publication to back up your assumption. Anyone who has been following trends in the global maritime traffic over extended periods of time (and not just when this thread popped up) will have pointed out that there is an added emphasize on containerised shipping in discussions about port development since the 1970s, precisely because it is indeed a the most advanced form of conveying general cargo, and its development is seen as a yardstick of advanced economic advancement.

Look at that UN report closely. That section was on port development, with an emphasize on port development in developing countries. Container ports significy economical development and efficiency. They are being used as a baramoter to access the economic development of their home cities. Similarly, governments, knowing that container shipping is the crème de la crème of sorts in the maritime industry, tends to highlight container shipping developments too. Governments of developing countries will be quick to highlight the building of a container port in their cities (ususally thanks to foreign investors), irregardless of the state of the overall economy. Hardly surprisingly, the media follows suit.

However, does this make non-containerised ships sink and dissappear from view? No. Look at that UN report again. The tonnage of oil tankers represented 36.1% of total tonnage in the global shipping fleet, bulk carriers 35.5%, general cargo ships 11.5%, while container ships make up 9.8%. Of coz, the % of container ship tonnage will increase over time, given that it is the prefered means of transport for manufactured goods, but 9.8% of total shipping fleet is hardly what I would consider numerically superior. Sure, tankers usually involve higher tonnage per ship, so they wont be numerically high in terms of individual number of ships, but I doubt anyone could argue that there are more container ships than bulk carriers of even general cargo, because container ships also happen to have huge tonnage per ship on average when compared to general cargo ships. In fact, for every one container ship, there are 2 bulk carriers and 3 general cargo ships in the world today!

As I say...let the numbers speak. Who cares about the legitimacy of the UN report, especially when no one is questioning it just yet! ;)

[hkskyline]

If you are not assuming that the global port industry is composed merely by container traffic, then on what basis are you ignoring them? Because a publication from the United Nations (which btw, can hardly be considered to be analysing container traffic alone...the entire publication was overwelmingly talking about total global maritime traffic of all kinds) lists container port data only? That they should be ignored just because they "follow a different pattern"? The thing is...if you are trying to use maritime traffic as a measure of trade, then fine. You might have a reason to ignore them.

Nowhere did I assume the world's port traffic is solely made up of container traffic. In fact, I alluded to the existence of bulk transport and concluded that it is not as important in export-oriented economies such as China. In fact, you have ignored all the context and came to a conclusion based on ignorance.

In fact, I've always been talking about China's export economy. I don't understand why you went to talk about oil tankers at the international level. Are you aware of what I'm discussing?

How should we analyze China's ports? It's all about container traffic, because so many exports are leaving China. This theme is echoed in trade publications and news reports of North American and Australian ports struggling to cope with the surge in container traffic.

Here is more context from a previous post. You should refresh your memory on what I'm discussing before criticizing :
Container traffic dominates exporting economies, such as the Pearl River Delta and Hong Kong. Commodity shipping is also important for resource-gobbling economies, which is also China, but more so in the Yangtze River Delta than around Hong Kong. If you look at the container traffic numbers vs. total traffic for Hong Kong and Shenzhen, and compare them with Shanghai, you'll see the relationship.

The basis for ignoring total port traffic is a different relationship and a different driver. Bulk transport should be analyzed on its own because its effect on China's container ports is different across cities. The data show that bulk shipping is far more prevalent in the Yangtze River Delta than in the Pearl River Delta, which makes sense since the south is a factory zone. However, this important dynamic in China's export economy cannot be determined by merely investigating total port data.

I am looking at exports, hence container traffic is useful. I urge to look beyond the total traffic numbers if you want to understand the dynamics of China's port traffic. China's economy is heavily powered by exports. If you want to know more about this export economy, you'll need to know how to analyze data to suit the purpose.

Obviously, Singapore and the Netherlands are not close when it comes to exports. Obviously their container traffic won't be as prevalent compared to total traffic. However, I am discussing China's export economy, and not interational trends. However, many foreign shipping firms are aware of the China factor and are changing to sell to this market. With China's ascension to the WTO, the might of China's export machine will have a powerful influence on the world economy. It is not the exception, but the new norm.

If you want to look at total maritime traffic then that's fine if you're not interested in learning about China's export economy. But remember, China's consumption of raw materials for domestic and export purposes is driven by rising incomes and the export industry.

It's funny how you draw conclusions on my argument when you don't even know what I'm arguing about.

[hkskyline]

Here is yet another example of how China's export economy is affecting world container ship manufacturing.

Hyundai says it wins order to build world's biggest container ship

SEOUL, Jan 23 (AFP) - The world's largest shipbuilder, South Korea's Hyundai Heavy Industries, said Sunday it had won an order to build the world's biggest container ship.

It said four ships, each with a capacity of 10,000 TEUs (twenty-foot equivalent units), would be built for China's Cosco Asia Maritime.

The deal is part of orders worth a total of 800 million dollars to build seven vessels -- the four for the Chinese line, two 8,600-TEU vessels for Germany's Hapag Lloyd and one LPG carrier for Japan's Orix Corp.

The Chinese shipping group will receive the four "ultra-large container ships" by 2008, Hyundai Heavy said in a statement.

It said the biggest container ship now in service can carry 8,200 TEUs.

"Shipowners want bigger and speedier container ships to remain competitive in today's ever-changing container ship market," the statement said.

The latest orders brought Hyundai Heavy's order book to 230 ships worth 16 billion dollars, which can keep its yards busy for the next three years, it said.

Hyundai Heavy is targeting new orders worth 5.5 billion dollars for this year.

[huaiwei]

Nowhere did I assume the world's port traffic is solely made up of container traffic. In fact, I alluded to the existence of bulk transport and concluded that it is not as important in export-oriented economies such as China. In fact, you have ignored all the context and came to a conclusion based on ignorance.

In fact, I've always been talking about China's export economy. I don't understand why you went to talk about oil tankers at the international level. Are you aware of what I'm discussing?

How should we analyze China's ports? It's all about container traffic, because so many exports are leaving China. This theme is echoed in trade publications and news reports of North American and Australian ports struggling to cope with the surge in container traffic.

Here is more context from a previous post. You should refresh your memory on what I'm discussing before criticizing :
Container traffic dominates exporting economies, such as the Pearl River Delta and Hong Kong. Commodity shipping is also important for resource-gobbling economies, which is also China, but more so in the Yangtze River Delta than around Hong Kong. If you look at the container traffic numbers vs. total traffic for Hong Kong and Shenzhen, and compare them with Shanghai, you'll see the relationship.

The basis for ignoring total port traffic is a different relationship and a different driver. Bulk transport should be analyzed on its own because its effect on China's container ports is different across cities. The data show that bulk shipping is far more prevalent in the Yangtze River Delta than in the Pearl River Delta, which makes sense since the south is a factory zone. However, this important dynamic in China's export economy cannot be determined by merely investigating total port data.

I am looking at exports, hence container traffic is useful. I urge to look beyond the total traffic numbers if you want to understand the dynamics of China's port traffic. China's economy is heavily powered by exports. If you want to know more about this export economy, you'll need to know how to analyze data to suit the purpose.

Obviously, Singapore and the Netherlands are not close when it comes to exports. Obviously their container traffic won't be as prevalent compared to total traffic. However, I am discussing China's export economy, and not interational trends. However, many foreign shipping firms are aware of the China factor and are changing to sell to this market. With China's ascension to the WTO, the might of China's export machine will have a powerful influence on the world economy. It is not the exception, but the new norm.

If you want to look at total maritime traffic then that's fine if you're not interested in learning about China's export economy. But remember, China's consumption of raw materials for domestic and export purposes is driven by rising incomes and the export industry.

It's funny how you draw conclusions on my argument when you don't even know what I'm arguing about.
Oh? ;)

I have been speaking against this line way back in post #9, and which sparked off this conversation all these while:
If you combine the Hong Kong and Shenzhen container ports, you'll notice a huge amount of traffic for such a small region that is unrivaled elsewhere in the world. At the center of attention is Hutchison, the world's largest container port operator based in Hong Kong.
So do you think it is still feasible to declare that the "huge amount of traffic for such a small region...is unrivaled elsewhere in the world" when you are obviously merely looking at container throughput as evidenced in the above quote?

I have shown you how non-containerised traffic as well as number of ships dominates the global shipping scene. Similarly, I have shown you how Shanghai and Ningbo commands a much higher figure of total tonnage handled then HK and Shenzhen combined. I have also shown you how container throughput dominating HK and Shenzhen's total tonnage handling figures is an exception rather then the rule when looking at the world's largest ports.

So, do you still think you have anything substaintial to argue that the "traffic" in the Pearl River delta is "unrivaled elsewhere in the world"?

You ARE talking about traffic all these while, arent you? :lol: Traffic, as far as I understand, refers mainly to the QUANTITY of ships in the waterways, correct? Unless you have just divised your own definitions, and hence, resulting in this beautiful conversation which is still going back to square one? :lol:

[hkskyline]

If you combine the Hong Kong and Shenzhen container ports, you'll notice a huge amount of traffic for such a small region that is unrivaled elsewhere in the world. At the center of attention is Hutchison, the world's largest container port operator based in Hong Kong.

Is there another region in the world with so much container traffic? Perhaps you should read more carefully. I'm talking about container traffic specifically, so I wonder what's the relevance of discussing non-container traffic when I'm not discussing about it?

So some people can't read .. figure.

[huaiwei]

Is there another region in the world with so much container traffic? Perhaps you should read more carefully. I'm talking about container traffic specifically, so I wonder what's the relevance of discussing non-container traffic when I'm not discussing about it?

So some people can't read .. figure.
Perhaps you should read more carefully too, that I was talking about total maritime traffic all these while. so I wonder what is the rational of forcing me to conform to your personal definitions, something which I have been questioning all the time as well? ;)

Some people can't read? Well....they have some company!

[hkskyline]

If you combine the Hong Kong and Shenzhen container ports, you'll notice a huge amount of traffic for such a small region that is unrivaled elsewhere in the world. At the center of attention is Hutchison, the world's largest container port operator based in Hong Kong.


Originally Posted by huaiwei
So do you think it is still feasible to declare that the "huge amount of traffic for such a small region...is unrivaled elsewhere in the world" when you are obviously merely looking at container throughput as evidenced in the above quote?

So if you analyze the traffic from the container ports of Hong Kong and Shenzhen, you get total maritime traffic? That's quite an amusing assumption you're giving. I am not talking about the total port, but the container ports only.

Is there another small region in the world where container traffic is as large?

So I wonder why you're questioning my container traffic study when you admit you're looking at something totally different. :) It's funny how you tried to question whether container ports source all maritime traffic, and realizing that doesn't make any sense, try to seek shelter into claiming you're talking about something totally different all along. Do you need corrective lenses?

[huaiwei]

If you combine the Hong Kong and Shenzhen container ports, you'll notice a huge amount of traffic for such a small region that is unrivaled elsewhere in the world. At the center of attention is Hutchison, the world's largest container port operator based in Hong Kong.



So if you analyze the traffic from the container ports of Hong Kong and Shenzhen, you get total maritime traffic? That's quite an amusing assumption you're giving. I am not talking about the total port, but the container ports only.

Is there another small region in the world where container traffic is as large?

So I wonder why you're questioning my container traffic study when you admit you're looking at something totally different. :) It's funny how you tried to question whether container ports source all maritime traffic, and realizing that doesn't make any sense, try to seek shelter into claiming you're talking about something totally different all along. Do you need corrective lenses?
You see, I would have simply left you alone if you wrote your initial line many posts ago as:

If you combine the Hong Kong and Shenzhen container ports, you'll notice a huge amount of CONTAINER traffic for such a small region that is unrivaled elsewhere in the world. At the center of attention is Hutchison, the world's largest container port operator based in Hong Kong.

I see reason to correct your statement. It is as simple as that, and there is perfectly nothing wrong with making this correction based on all which has been discussed above. ;)

[hkskyline]

So you have to specify container traffic although I'm already talking about container ports? Perhaps the next time I visit the grocery store I should ask why they don't make a sign that says groceries available? Or perhaps ask an expecting mother whether it's a human inside the womb or a dog?

There's nothing wrong with the statement :
If you combine the Hong Kong and Shenzhen container ports, you'll notice a huge amount of traffic for such a small region that is unrivaled elsewhere in the world. At the center of attention is Hutchison, the world's largest container port operator based in Hong Kong.

It's concise and the terms are not redundant.

[huaiwei]

So you have to specify container traffic although I'm already talking about container ports? Perhaps the next time I visit the grocery store I should ask why they don't make a sign that says groceries available? Or perhaps ask an expecting mother whether it's a human inside the womb or a dog?

There's nothing wrong with the statement :
If you combine the Hong Kong and Shenzhen container ports, you'll notice a huge amount of traffic for such a small region that is unrivaled elsewhere in the world. At the center of attention is Hutchison, the world's largest container port operator based in Hong Kong.

It's concise and the terms are not redundant.
Oh yes you very well should in all those examples listed above! :lol: You never know when you are going to get an unexpected answer, especially if the grocery store is selling outdated products, and expecting mother is feigning pregnency! :D

[hkskyline]

^ And that relates to port traffic somehow? :) Wow, some people can so easily get sidetracked!

Shanghai Port Group in talks with global banks as IPO looms closer
By Keith Wallis in Hong Kong
28 January 2005
Lloyd's List

SHANGHAI International Port Group is set to launch an initial public offering in Hong Kong later this year in a move that could raise up to $800m to finance investment in port facilities in China’s largest container port.

The Financial Times yesterday said that SIPG, the commercial port arm of Shanghai municipality, is thought to have asked four banks — such as Citigroup, Deutsche Bank, Morgan Stanley, Merrill Lynch and UBS — to bid for a contract to advise on the deal.

Cash raised from the flotation would help finance the development of the massive $10bn Yangshan port complex.

This is being built about 30 km offshore of Zhejiang province.

It would also give foreign investors a foothold into what is planned to be a 52-berth complex.

The move to list in Hong Kong comes after China Merchants Holdings (International), the Hong Kong-listed commercial subsidiary of China’s Communications Ministry, confirmed plans three weeks ago to spend Yuan5.57bn ($672.7m) acquiring a 30% stake in SIPG.

Insiders said SIPG planned to float about 25% of the company in Hong Kong.

Given the target price, this would value the whole company at $3.2bn.

This represents a premium on the price paid by China Merchants Holdings (International) for its stake.

Media reports said no decision on the timing, location and size of the IPO had yet been taken, saying that it would depend on market conditions.

Separately, Shanghai Port Container has decided to partially transfer stakes in two Shanghai logistics firms to its subsidiary in the former Portuguese enclave of Macau in southern China.

The Shanghai-listed company will sell a 10% stake in Shanghai Jixiang Freight to Shanghai Container (Macau) in a move that would reduce its shareholding to 69.84%.

Shanghai Jixiang Freight had net assets of Yuan263.54m ($32m) at the end of last year.

The firm’s board has also agreed that Shanghai Haihua Shipping should sell a 30% stake in Shanghai Haihua International Trans- portation to Shanghai Container (Macau) for Yuan7.06m.

Shanghai Haihua Shipping will continue to hold a share of 60% in Shanghai Haihua International Transport-ation when the deal is completed.

[1st Division Marine]

Shanghai could beat Rotterdam i reacon.