daily menu » rate the banner | guess the city | one on oneforums map | privacy policy | DMCA | news magazine

Go Back   SkyscraperCity > Asian Forums > India > Infrastructure & Transportation > Misc. Infra Projects



Reply

 
Thread Tools Rating: Thread Rating: 88 votes, 5.00 average.
Old May 16th, 2006, 10:22 PM   #181
Ajaypp
Trivandrum Lobbyist
 
Ajaypp's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Trivandrum/Boston
Posts: 7,655
Likes (Received): 726

Exclamation Trouble at the port...

Let's hope things are sorted out fast.... Kerala can ill-afford an industrial protest.

Quote:
BR Petroleum asked to submit report after tank collapse
V. Sajeev Kumar

Kochi port denies allegations that storage tanks contained chemicals

Kochi , May 15

The Cochin Port Trust has asked Mumbai-based company BR Petroleum to submit a report immediately, following the collapse of one of the chemical storage tanks erected by the company in Willingdon Island on Sunday.

The port had leased out land to the company to set up eight tanks for storage of petroleum products and edible oils. Senior port officials who visited the accident site said all these tanks were in the construction stage and the tank, which collapsed was full of water — filled as part of test loading the capacity.

The cause of the accident would be revealed only after the company submits the report. The officials, however, dismissed the allegations that the tanks contain various chemicals imported through the port. It is pointed out that the tank started collapsing when the water filled in it as part of loading test was being drained out into another tank.

Residents protest

Meanwhile, protest is brewing among the residents in the locality at Vathuruthy near the Island over the decision of the port management to lease out lands to set up storage tanks. This is the third time in two years that such accidents have occurred. A benzene tank had caught fire in December 2004 and another tank collapsed in June last year killing one person.
Read the story in The Business Line
Ajaypp no está en línea   Reply With Quote

Sponsored Links
 
Old May 16th, 2006, 10:26 PM   #182
Ajaypp
Trivandrum Lobbyist
 
Ajaypp's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Trivandrum/Boston
Posts: 7,655
Likes (Received): 726

Angry Red Tape strikes again.....

Quote:
Hutchison awaits nod to bid for Chennai, Mumbai box terminals
Mamuni Das

Chennai Port Trust asks cos to extend validity of bids to Sept 15

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bidding process
Chennai port has accepted bids for the container terminal, but is awaiting the clearance of all bidders before opening them.
Mumbai port is awaiting security clearances of bidders before accepting the financial bids.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------


New Delhi , May 15

With the Government yet to give a security clearance to Hutchison Port Holdings to bid for container terminals at Chennai and Mumbai ports, the validity of bids for Chennai port terminal is fast approaching expiry.

In fact, the Chennai Port Trust has written to the bidders asking them to extend the validity of their bids to September 15 against the present date of June 1. Meanwhile, Mumbai port has again delayed the last date for accepting bids to June 15, according to sources.

For building and operating container terminals at Chennai and Mumbai ports, the Hong Kong-based Hutchison has bid along with Larsen & Toubro.

However, the entire bidding process for both the terminals has been hanging in balance, as the Government has not given a security clearance to Hutchison. The matter had been referred to the Cabinet Committee on Security, which further referred the issue to the National Security Advisor. Read the article in The Business Line
Wonder why the damn babus can't get a move on!!!
Ajaypp no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 22nd, 2006, 06:33 AM   #183
nik
A Bite of Reality
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 1,383
Likes (Received): 3

India's Gateway terminal to be ready in 30 months.

Quote:
The first mainline vessel should be calling at Kochi soon

V. Sajeev Kumar

With the refurbishment of equipment and better vessels calling at Kochi, the terminal will be able to offer high quality facilities and services, in tune with international standards.

The design consultant for the Vallarpadam ICTT project will be appointed by May 25. All the soil excavation and test pile work have been completed. The design consultant is expected to enable tendering of the construction work by September. As per the present projection, the terminal will be ready to go on stream by December 2008. full story
nik no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 22nd, 2006, 09:36 AM   #184
Ajaypp
Trivandrum Lobbyist
 
Ajaypp's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Trivandrum/Boston
Posts: 7,655
Likes (Received): 726

Vizhinjam Port number one on GoK's list!

Quote:
Vizhinjam port work to be expedited

Our Bureau

Thiruvananthapuram , May 21

The development of Vizhinjam port, near here, into an international container trans-shipment terminal is high on the agenda of the newly sworn-in Left Democratic Front (LDF) Government in Kerala.

The Government would take immediate steps to get political clearance for the project from the Centre and the work was expected to begin within the next six months, Mr Vijayakumar, Minister for Ports, said here on Sunday. Full article in the Business Line
MVK, the new Ports Minister, is one of the staunchest supporters of the Rs 4,500 crore project - the single largest FDI in Kerala. Good thing that the new Govt. has its priorities right. Time to set the right the damage wrought by the last one!
Ajaypp no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 23rd, 2006, 10:02 AM   #185
nik
A Bite of Reality
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 1,383
Likes (Received): 3

As DPW has fixed the date of opening of Vallarpadam to be Dec. 2008, Road Rail connectivity is in full swing. Over 80% of acquisition for 4-lane road connectivity is over. Land for rail connectivity is being acquired.

Here is a plan from CPT website
nik no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 25th, 2006, 06:13 AM   #186
nik
A Bite of Reality
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 1,383
Likes (Received): 3

Quote:
Dubai based DP World tightens its grip over India ports

On the east coast, DP World will operate the Chennai Container Terminal, the Visakha Container Terminal in Visakhapatnam and the one that is expected to come up at Kulpi in West Bengal.

The Indian Shipping Ministry, which had earlier voiced concerns over the near-monopolistic status of P&O Ports, is worried that the cabinet clearance to DP World to run terminals in Kochi and Visakhapatnam will lead to a virtual monopoly for the United Arab Emirates based entity in Indian container terminal operations. The statistics are revealing. In fiscal 2005-06, the aggregate throughput of all the public and private terminals at major Indian ports was 4.61m teu, including 2.66m teu at JNPT alone. If one were to add the throughput of the two private terminals at Mundra (239,969 teu) and Pipavav (87,938 teu), the total container traffic handled at all Indian ports came to 4.93m teu. The five Indian terminals under DP World, between them, handled 2.98m teu, which suggests that the UAE company would have a 64.6% market share that would make it an extremely dominant container operator, handling two out of every three containers moved in or out of India. Even so, Dr Jose Paul, former chairman of Mormugao Port Trust and also former acting chairman of JNPT, feels there is no cause for worry, as adequate competition to DP World is on the way. About 54% of India's container traffic is handled at JNPT in New Mumbai where the state-owned container terminal and NSICT (now under DP World) are significant operators, handling 1.34m and 1.32m teu, respectively. A third terminal, India Gateway Terminal, under the Maersk-Concor consortium, has just launched partial operations in April, and expects to get up to its full capacity of 1m teu by September this year. Mumbai Port Trust has been trying hard since September last year to get its plans for an offshore container terminal moving. But its moves have been consistently hampered by the reluctance of the cabinet committee for internal security to give clearance to one of the key bidders, Hutchison Port Holdings, which has Chinese ownership.
What's the big fuss now. DPW took over another MNC - P&O. What does this author
want to say - that business cannot be sold to another ?
Holding up clearances too on security grounds, like US Senate did, is funnier !!
If security issues vis-a-vis UAE and China why don't they freeze all the trade and travel with these countries ? Will they do it ? Why should Infosys, TCS and Wipro be allowed to operate from Shanghai and Dubai ? Won't they bug Chinese offices ? Incidently, this was the "reason" given by USA to block import of Lenovo machines for use administration !!
nik no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 25th, 2006, 03:11 PM   #187
kronik
Registered User
 
kronik's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: DED, PHL, MUM
Posts: 4,512
Likes (Received): 24

Quote:
Originally Posted by nik
What's the big fuss now. DPW took over another MNC - P&O. What does this author
want to say - that business cannot be sold to another ?
Holding up clearances too on security grounds, like US Senate did, is funnier !!
If security issues vis-a-vis UAE and China why don't they freeze all the trade and travel with these countries ? Will they do it ? Why should Infosys, TCS and Wipro be allowed to operate from Shanghai and Dubai ? Won't they bug Chinese offices ? Incidently, this was the "reason" given by USA to block import of Lenovo machines for use administration !!
No matter where, a monopoly is always bad. For a country of the size of India, one single, foreign company operating most of its major ports is not advisable in view of its economic and strategic effects.

Dude, we can't even fathom the levels of spying the US and China do on each other.
kronik no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 26th, 2006, 06:33 AM   #188
nik
A Bite of Reality
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 1,383
Likes (Received): 3

Quote:
Originally Posted by kronik
No matter where, a monopoly is always bad. For a country of the size of India, one single, foreign company operating most of its major ports is not advisable in view of its economic and strategic effects.

Dude, we can't even fathom the levels of spying the US and China do on each other.
Almost all of top level management in DPW consists of British and other Europeans ? Did it bother UAE ?

Unfathomable are difficult to comment on in SSC, isn't so Kronik ?

What I do fathom is the acceptibility of Made-in-USA conspiracy theories among Indians.
When USA imposed humiliating fingerprint-for-visa norm in 2002 on all non-European, non Japanese visa seekers all the countries of the size of India, decried and retorted. Brazil even hit back by imposing same norm back on US visa seekers. Our Indian govt nodded head and accepted it all as part of "superior firangee wisdom". Well, let me not digress even further
nik no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 26th, 2006, 01:59 PM   #189
Ajaypp
Trivandrum Lobbyist
 
Ajaypp's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Trivandrum/Boston
Posts: 7,655
Likes (Received): 726

Quote:
Originally Posted by kronik
No matter where, a monopoly is always bad. For a country of the size of India, one single, foreign company operating most of its major ports is not advisable in view of its economic and strategic effects.
Good point Kronik. It is not a question as much of which nation a firm as to whether it is forming a monopoly. We are talking economic logic here and not nationalistic fervour or regional paranoia. A single operator with 60-70% of market share does not promote competition does it, be it any sector - banking, airlines, FMCG....! And especially if that monopoly operator has business interests in competing ports outside the nation, as DPW has in Dubai and Colombo - for transshipment. I think, GoI should not discriminate based on nationality - beyond a certain threshold - but should certainly ensure that India's economic interests are not harmed. A upper cap can be set on the % of traffic a single operator can handle. This is done for most sectors, where M&A is closely scrutinised for monopoly formation. I am involved in M&A work, so I have a pretty gud idea.

Fortunately, the arrival of other operators like Hutchinson, AP Moller, CGA-CM, Maersk, CHEC and so on to take up new terminals like Mumbai Offshore, Chennai, Tuticorin, Vizhinjam etc will help to mitigate DPW's monopoly.

Quote:
Dude, we can't even fathom the levels of spying the US and China do on each other.
Lol, now that's worth a thought!
Ajaypp no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 26th, 2006, 03:59 PM   #190
kronik
Registered User
 
kronik's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: DED, PHL, MUM
Posts: 4,512
Likes (Received): 24

Quote:
Originally Posted by nik
Almost all of top level management in DPW consists of British and other Europeans ? Did it bother UAE ?

Unfathomable are difficult to comment on in SSC, isn't so Kronik ?

What I do fathom is the acceptibility of Made-in-USA conspiracy theories among Indians.
When USA imposed humiliating fingerprint-for-visa norm in 2002 on all non-European, non Japanese visa seekers all the countries of the size of India, decried and retorted. Brazil even hit back by imposing same norm back on US visa seekers. Our Indian govt nodded head and accepted it all as part of "superior firangee wisdom". Well, let me not digress even further
If you are implying that I am against DPW controlling most of our ports because the US didn't allow it, then you are dead wrong.

Lets keep this argument to the control of India's port, which, like i said before, should, ideally, remain in Indian hands. Sure foreign companies can run ports, but again, for the size and number of ports in India, it is important that one foreign company does not run most of them. It may be a company from Dubai, or it may be a company from the US, I dont care, I just dont want them controlling our top strategic ports.

It comes back to the case against monopoly. Like Ajay said before me, I do not want one foreign company controlling more than half of our ports.
kronik no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 26th, 2006, 04:30 PM   #191
Bombay Boy
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 4,608
Likes (Received): 7

i wouldnt want one company having a monopoly over ports. indian or otherwise. i dont think the nationality is an issue for me
Bombay Boy no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 27th, 2006, 12:19 AM   #192
pding
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 2,135
Likes (Received): 0

coming to indian spying, let's not talk about it. we don't know what goes on in the intelligence world. let me just say our RAW is pretty deep into this shit.

one company having control of all ports is not good. but nationality shouldn't really matter as long as our law and security authorities have their jurisdiction on the location.
pding no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 27th, 2006, 10:23 AM   #193
Naresh
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 1,167
Likes (Received): 218

.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bombay Boy
i wouldnt want one company having a monopoly over ports. indian or otherwise. i dont think the nationality is an issue for me
Bombay Boy,

I believe that in the “Port Management Contracts” there is a Clause to the Effect “Change of Ownership of the Management Contractors is Subject to the Approval of the Clients and same not to be unreasonably withheld”.

The following Article throws light on the subject :

DP World's India foray runs to murkier waters

DUBAI — Contrary to the strong assurance given in Dubai on Tuesday by Indian Minister for Commerce and Industry Kamal Nath over the smooth transfer of P&O's India assets to DP World, opposition to the deal from various quarters is snowballing day by day amid increasing legal complexities.

Apart from the "monopoly issue" which has been fanning the controversy over DP World's India foray to a fever-pitch, two state government bodies have now come to the fore with yet another strong reason to block the deal — the breach of concession agreement by P&O.

During his Dubai visit, the Indian minister met top DP World officials and endorsed its acquisition of three Indian container terminals operated by P&O — Nhava Sheva in Mumbai, Chennai port and Mundra in Gujarat — and brushed aside criticisms that the takeover would give the Dubai company a monopoly status as it already runs two other terminals — in Kochi and Visakhapatnam. Operations in these five ports would give DP World some 50 per cent of India's container shipping traffic.

In the latest twist, the Chennai Port Trust is reportedly pondering a move to slap a show-cause notice on P&O Ports over violation of concession rights. Earlier, such a show cause notice was also served on P&O by Gujarat Maritime Board (GMB), the regulatory authority for ports in Gujarat, asking why its licence to operate Mundra International Container Terminal in Kutch should not be cancelled.

According to sources in India, Chennai Port Trust (CPT) had already sought approval of the ministry of shipping, road transport and highways to issue a notice for termination of the concession agreement between Chennai Port Trust and Chennai Container Terminal Pvt Ltd, operated by P&O Ports. CPT has already written to the ministry that the selling of business of Chennai Container Terminal (CCTPL) by P&O to DPW without prior permission of CPT had violated the provisions of certain concession agreement clauses.

GMB, which spearheaded the opposition to DPW's takeover, has also issued a show-cause notice to Gujarat Adani Port Limited (GAPL), with whom P&O had entered into a sub-concession agreement to operate Mundra International Container Terminal (MICT).

GMB has also raised the issue of dilution of equity of P&O Ports and transfer of property, assets and undertakings of MICTL without prior permission. A GMB official said the takeover of MICTL was a breach of the concession agreement.

"Under the sub-concession agreement, DP World cannot automatically take over or start operations in Mundra because of the undertaking that P&O Ports and GAPL have given that they cannot transfer equity, property, assets or management of Mundra port without prior permission from GMB and the Gujarat government," reports quoted him.


According to Indian sources, while a smooth transition is far from reality, DP World is also facing "poaching" of employees by rival port operators. Some key terminal employees at Mundra and Nhava Sheva have quit their positions, while some other vital staff such as crane operators and managers are leaving the company.

Cheers
Naresh no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 27th, 2006, 04:11 PM   #194
Bombay Boy
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 4,608
Likes (Received): 7

thats a normal clause in any contract naresh. similar to leasing out your property. a sub-lease cannot be created without a NOC from the landlord

i find this interesting

"Subject to the Approval of the Clients and same not to be unreasonably withheld"

not to be unreasonably witheld. does this mean the state governments have to give very strong reasons not to allow transfer? and how much power do state governments have over major ports like nhava and chennai?
Bombay Boy no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 27th, 2006, 05:08 PM   #195
Naresh
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 1,167
Likes (Received): 218

.
Bombay Boy,

1. In an ordinary Property Lease contract – depending upon the size of a property – there may be no sub-lease provisions.

2. I, not being conversant with the Terms of the Mundra or other Agreements, cannot give an exact answer and as such I cannot quantify the period of time the term “and same not to be unreasonably withheld” or other terms-conditions may involve. It is of course for the Legal Eagles to come up with a solution.

Basically, in my experience, when such changes of ownership-management are involved the Original Owners discuss the matter with the Clients but in the case of the P & O Sale to DPW it seems that P & O did not even bother to sound out its Clients.

As such the Indian Authorities in Charge of the various Ports where P & O have had a Management Contract would most probably – if not reject outright – be in a strong position to get reasonable concessions from P & O prior to the handing over to DPW.

One would shudder to think as to the outcome if DPW nominated Executives of Indian Origin to their Pakistani Port Operations or nominate Executives of Pakistani Origin to their Indian Port Operations.

Of course the Indians may accept it just like they accepted over 50% of the Kolkata Port Trust Floating Staff being Pakistani Citizens (1947-1972) and a considerable figure being Bangladeshi Citizens (1972 Onwards)

Note : You will have noticed that India and Iran agreed to a contract for the supply of 5 or 7.5 Million tonnes of LNG Annually for 20 years subject to Iranian Parliament Approval-Sanction

The Iranian Parliament did not Approve-Sanction and now the Iranians have doubled the Price for “renewed negotiations”

Cheers
Naresh no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 28th, 2006, 08:21 AM   #196
nik
A Bite of Reality
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 1,383
Likes (Received): 3

Quote:
Originally Posted by kronik
If you are implying that I am against DPW controlling most of our ports because the US didn't allow it, then you are dead wrong.

Lets keep this argument to the control of India's port, which, like i said before, should, ideally, remain in Indian hands. Sure foreign companies can run ports, but again, for the size and number of ports in India, it is important that one foreign company does not run most of them. It may be a company from Dubai, or it may be a company from the US, I dont care, I just dont want them controlling our top strategic ports.

It comes back to the case against monopoly. Like Ajay said before me, I do not want one foreign company controlling more than half of our ports.
**Its true that for the next few decades DPW will not have big competitors in transshipment, since they won contract for Vallarpadam. But that was the case any operator, who would have bagged Vallarpadam.

** DPW's purchase of P&O and CSX have given them monopoly in many key ports in UK and HongKong. That is by default !! If, thru one buy out DPW's share shot up from 15% to 65% - it means P&O already had a stranglehold over Indian ports - none seemed to have been bothered about this. Okay, I'm for monopoly restriction act. This cannot be resolved that easily as long as we have private capital based development.
Can you say, business cannot be sold to another ? Only resolution I've come across is by splitting business. This too hardly resolves the conundrum.

** The other point went unnoticed is - it fosters corruption. From the point of view of a company which loses a bid, be it expansion of existing terminals or greenfield like Vallarpadam, they can always rake up the monopoly (or even security) issues against the winner. This brings political leadership and bureaucracy into the issue and immediately opens scope for massive scams - sobataging the whole purpose of transparent bidding. This is why I quoted Lenovos case - any US major who lose out to Chinese cos in bids can now easily bribe the administration, rake up security threat perception and snatch the contracts !! See the case of aerobridges - and look at the differences, Chinese firm quoted Rs.80 cr while ThyssenKrupp bid Rs 190 cr. Now contract is going to be denied for Chinese on security grounds

(In the above article what the author alleges as corruption does not make sense - DPW have already won the bid for P&O and dont need any politician to help the takeover)

An aside, DPW is Dubai govt owned. a good example that PSUs can be grown to this standards

Last edited by nik; May 28th, 2006 at 08:35 AM.
nik no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 28th, 2006, 02:54 PM   #197
Ajaypp
Trivandrum Lobbyist
 
Ajaypp's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Trivandrum/Boston
Posts: 7,655
Likes (Received): 726

Exclamation

Quote:
Originally Posted by nik
**Its true that for the next few decades DPW will not have big competitors in transshipment, since they won contract for Vallarpadam. But that was the case any operator, who would have bagged Vallarpadam.
Very interesting statement, lol! With new deepwater terminals like Mundra, Vizhinjam, Tuticorin and others set to commence operations by 2010, DPW will face strong competition. More importantly, the 70% share of transshipment in Indian cargo held by foreign ports like Colombo and Dubai, where co-incidentally DPW-P&O have control, will be drastically reduced. This alone will be a blow to DPW. You seem to assume that even with these projects and existing ones like JNPT undergoing expansion, Vallarpadam will be the market leader. Quite a stretch, isn't it?

Quote:
Okay, I'm for monopoly restriction act.This cannot be resolved that easily as long as we have private capital based development.
Can you say, business cannot be sold to another ? Only resolution I've come across is by splitting business. This too hardly resolves the conundrum.
Nik, isn't that a contradiction, considering the fact that anti-monopoly litigation and regulation is the strongest in capitalist economies like the US and Europe? Many large firms have been broken upto avoid monopoly. Even market shares of 30% have resulted in regulators calling for breaking up mergers, even those of firms like GE. In fact, it is the very economics of capitalism which say that a monopoly results in a sub-optimal market situation, right?

Quote:
See the case of aerobridges - and look at the differences, Chinese firm quoted Rs.80 cr while ThyssenKrupp bid Rs 190 cr. Now contract is going to be denied for Chinese on security grounds
I agree totally. Co.s should not be denied contracts because of their nationality unless there is a substantiated threat. The example of the aerobridges pales into significance when one considers the denial of permission for Chinese co.s to move forward in such massive projects as the Rs 1,800 crore Offshore Container Terminal in Mumbai and Rs 4,600 Crore Vizhinjam Deep-water Transshipment Terminal. Hope that is resolved soon!

Quote:
An aside, DPW is Dubai govt owned. a good example that PSUs can be grown to this standards
Another aside. DPW is owned by the Dubai Govt. But the shekhs are not exactly democratic are they, which means DPW is as good or bad as a privately held firm. Not quite "Public" Sector, is it? Good for them, though!

Last edited by Ajaypp; May 28th, 2006 at 03:11 PM.
Ajaypp no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 29th, 2006, 06:55 AM   #198
nik
A Bite of Reality
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 1,383
Likes (Received): 3

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ajaypp
Very interesting statement, lol! With new deepwater terminals like Mundra, Vizhinjam, Tuticorin and others set to commence operations by 2010, DPW will face strong competition. More importantly, the 70% share of transshipment in Indian cargo held by foreign ports like Colombo and Dubai, where co-incidentally DPW-P&O have control, will be drastically reduced. This alone will be a blow to DPW. You seem to assume that even with these projects and existing ones like JNPT undergoing expansion, Vallarpadam will be the market leader. Quite a stretch, isn't it?
I know that JNPT (a host of operators), Tuticorin (PSA) are operated by competent firms.
JNPT & Mundra are far away from int'l shipping channels. In fact PSA will give competition for Vallarapadam. For a few decades to come this will be the sole competitor.
Govt of India appointed expert committee of parliamenterians, in 1997, identified Vallarpadam as the key transshipment terminal of future for the same reason. That's why a firm like DPW offered hitherto unheard 33.3% revenue share and bagged the project. If it didn't have that potential it would have ended with some fencesitting infrastructure developers which, at best , build toll bridges and and sewage lines


Quote:
Nik, isn't that a contradiction, considering the fact that anti-monopoly litigation and regulation is the strongest in capitalist economies like the US and Europe? Many large firms have been broken upto avoid monopoly. Even market shares of 30% have resulted in regulators calling for breaking up mergers, even those of firms like GE. In fact, it is the very economics of capitalism which say that a monopoly results in a sub-optimal market situation, right?
Exactly !! This what I have said clearly - within capitalist development you cannot resolve this paradox satisfactorily - even thru break ups


Quote:
The example of the aerobridges pales into significance when one considers the denial of permission for Chinese co.s to move forward in such massive projects as the Rs 1,800 crore Offshore Container Terminal in Mumbai and Rs 4,600 Crore Vizhinjam Deep-water Transshipment Terminal. Hope that is resolved soon!
I heard of Hutchison bid held up due to security issues. That's the only one thus far
reported in news.
Quote:
But its moves have been consistently hampered by the reluctance of the cabinet committee for internal security to give clearance to one of the key bidders, Hutchison Port Holdings, which has Chinese ownership.
This also involves FDI. So, like Vallarpadam, it needs FIPB or CCEA clearance. I know of no other FDI funded project hanging in fire.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Ajaypp
Another aside. DPW is owned by the Dubai Govt. But the shekhs are not exactly democratic are they, which means DPW is as good or bad as a privately held firm. Not quite "Public" Sector, is it? Good for them, though!
Then why did China "privatize" their PSUs Everything is held by communist part appointed bosses !! For that matter - why did Dubai themselves "nationalize" their petro industry ? They could equally well have been left to Shell or Caltex - as in their pre-independence era. In fact this is what enabled
then to get large revenue for funding a good social security cover for their citizens. So practically - the biggest part of the funds are going into public welfare. (Nowadays, even education is being funded by state in gulf states- after neglecting it for decades.) And sheik is expected to only manage and rule for people (I dont mean there is no swindling by sheik, but in principle this is how it is and it works for the most part.)
Even in autocratic Dubai political decisions are political decisions. And an administration is an administration. Until wisdom dawns on their citizens - a large majority of whom approve their system - they will be under Caliphs and Emirs, AND that will be their government (not sheik's private ltd company)

Last edited by nik; May 29th, 2006 at 07:07 AM.
nik no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 29th, 2006, 09:05 AM   #199
Ajaypp
Trivandrum Lobbyist
 
Ajaypp's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Trivandrum/Boston
Posts: 7,655
Likes (Received): 726

Smile

Quote:
Originally Posted by nik
Exactly !! This what I have said clearly - within capitalist development you cannot resolve this paradox satisfactorily - even thru break ups
Well, you seem confused. What is happening in the real world is that monopoly restriction is being practiced very well and fully along capitalist economic principles. In fact, it is applied in all infrastructural projects in India like airports, ports, roads etc. If you check up on the bidding for the Mumbai and Delhi airports, you will notice that the bidders were prevented from bidding for more than one airport, eventhough the airports on offer were only two of the top six airports - the others being Chennai, Hyderabad, Bangalore and Kolkata.

Also, as some of the other forumers mentioned, P&O is legally bound to get permission from its clients - various State Govt.s/maritime authorities before executing the merger. And this has not been done.

Quote:
I heard of Hutchison bid held up due to security issues. That's the only one thus far reported in news.

This also involves FDI. So, like Vallarpadam, it needs FIPB or CCEA clearance. I know of no other FDI funded project hanging in fire.
I think you have been reading very limited news then. The $ 1 billion Vizhinjam International Transshipment Terminal was picked by the ports construction giant, China Harbour Engineering Company. This project has also been referred to the CCEA for security clearance. At $ 1 billion, it is one of the biggest FDIs in infrastructure in India.

Quote:
(I dont mean there is no swindling by sheik, but in principle this is how it is and it works for the most part.) Even in autocratic Dubai political decisions are political decisions. And an administration is an administration. Until wisdom dawns on their citizens - a large majority of whom approve their system - they will be under Caliphs and Emirs, AND that will be their government (not sheik's private ltd company)
While casting no aspersions on the good sheikh, I wouldn't be so naive as to put them in the "angelic" bracket. And I believe the citizens of the Gulf nations are wise enough to go in for democracy, unless you have evidence to the contrary. Last time, I checked, the current form of Govt. is called monarchy or autocracy. And we were talking about the public sector, which means indirect ownership by the people, through direct ownership by a democratically elected Govt.

As an aside, DPW is owned by the Nakheel Group, which is a privately held company, whose chairman is a member of the royal family. Other than that it has no pretenses to being a "PSU". Check the Nakheel website

Anyways, these discussions are tangential to our main point. Whether a monopoly should be allowed or not, in a sector as strategic as ports? We are not discussing the nationality or ownership model of the prospective monopolist. The answer is a resounding "NO" and I think this sentiment will soon be borne out in a series of legal battles, which may force DPW to relinquish many of its holdings. Let's confine our discussion to this vein. Looking for more opinions!

Last edited by Ajaypp; May 29th, 2006 at 11:28 AM.
Ajaypp no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 29th, 2006, 12:08 PM   #200
Ajaypp
Trivandrum Lobbyist
 
Ajaypp's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Trivandrum/Boston
Posts: 7,655
Likes (Received): 726

More to DPW's kitty?

Quote:
Dubai group seeks to run Pak port

A Dubai-based investment group, Nakheel Group Investment of which Dubai Ports World is a part, is understood to have shown interest in running Gwadar port, Pakistan's largest deep-water port. The first phase of the port will be ready for operation within a few months, it is learnt.

A delegation of the investment group, during its recent visit to Pakistan, expressed a desire to enter into a long-term arrangement with the Pakistani Government for management and operational control of the port. Islamabad had earlier stated that it was in favour of leaving the operation of the port to an international port management company.

Also, it would like to develop the second phase of the Gwadar port on BOT basis. It might be noted that DP World operates one container terminal in India, Visakhapatnam, and has secured contract for operating another at Kochi and would control three other ports, Nhava Sheva, Chennai and Mundra, by virtue of its takeover of P&O Ports.
Source: The Business Line, May 29
Ajaypp no está en línea   Reply With Quote


Reply

Thread Tools
Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT +2. The time now is 01:45 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Feedback Buttons provided by Advanced Post Thanks / Like v3.2.5 (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2014 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.

vBulletin Optimisation provided by vB Optimise (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2014 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.

SkyscraperCity ☆ In Urbanity We trust ☆ about us | privacy policy | DMCA policy

Hosted by Blacksun, dedicated to this site too!
Forum server management by DaiTengu