NZ | Ports + Infrastructure

[otumoetaiNZ]

I still can't understand why we have so many ports in this country! The big three city ports (Auckland, Tauranga and the new deep water Marsden point) should be the focus of all the import/export business, with rail linking towns like Napier, New Plymouth, Palmerston North etc. It's just crazy!

[Davee]

Originally Posted by otumoetaiNZ

I still can't understand why we have so many ports in this country! The big three city ports (Auckland, Tauranga and the new deep water Marsden point) should be the focus of all the import/export business, with rail linking towns like Napier, New Plymouth, Palmerston North etc. It's just crazy!

Very North Island centric?

Oh well.

We in the south then could ship our small contributions out through one or maybe two of our little SI ports. Invercargill/Bluff and one of these - Dunedin/Port Charlmers, Christchurch/Lyttleton or Nelson.............but then there is the damn inferior road and rail system we have to cope with..........oh well..............

[otumoetaiNZ]

Obviously there's a need for a major port in the South., but I was commenting more on the farcical situation in the North. Think of all the money that could be saved by consolidating on those three ports, not to mention the efficiency.

[greenwelly]

Originally Posted by otumoetaiNZ

I still can't understand why we have so many ports in this country!

Because, the biggest shareholders in Ports in NZ are local government, and they
a) don't like to cooperate- witness steps to merge Auckland and Tauranga
b) are convinced that the local port is needed for local industry
c) cannot be sold without huge outrage and claims of evil privatisation
d) have access to council rates funding when times get tough.

[KingKong1]

Then you have Timaru Port which is the major bulk cargo destination in the SI.

[Richard7666]

Originally Posted by otumoetaiNZ

I still can't understand why we have so many ports in this country! The big three city ports (Auckland, Tauranga and the new deep water Marsden point) should be the focus of all the import/export business, with rail linking towns like Napier, New Plymouth, Palmerston North etc. It's just crazy!

Read something in the paper recently about how trucking freight the length of the SI produces the equivalent carbon emissions to shipping the same load from NZ to Asia. To consider the most extreme example, which would be aluminium from Bluff to any of those three ports mentioned (which incidentally are ridiculously close together), wouldn't it make a lot more sense to ship directly from Bluff?

I mean, you COULD go by rail to Picton, then onto trucks to cross Cook Strait, then rail to Auckland, but...see my point here?

[Kane007]

Originally Posted by Richard7666

Read something in the paper recently about how trucking freight the length of the SI produces the equivalent carbon emissions to shipping the same load from NZ to Asia. To consider the most extreme example, which would be aluminium from Bluff to any of those three ports mentioned (which incidentally are ridiculously close together), wouldn't it make a lot more sense to ship directly from Bluff?

I mean, you COULD go by rail to Picton, then onto trucks to cross Cook Strait, then rail to Auckland, but...see my point here?

Refer to near end of page 1 of this thread about that same article .

[greenwelly]

Originally Posted by Richard7666

To consider the most extreme example, which would be aluminium from Bluff to any of those three ports mentioned (which incidentally are ridiculously close together), wouldn't it make a lot more sense to ship directly from Bluff?

Al is fairly much shipped only from Bluff,
Rio Tinto run a fairly lean operation, they ship Alumina and Bauxite in, and processed ingots out, all part of a global supply chain, its a fairly self contained operation.

[otumoetaiNZ]

Originally Posted by Richard7666

Read something in the paper recently about how trucking freight the length of the SI produces the equivalent carbon emissions to shipping the same load from NZ to Asia. To consider the most extreme example, which would be aluminium from Bluff to any of those three ports mentioned (which incidentally are ridiculously close together), wouldn't it make a lot more sense to ship directly from Bluff?

I mean, you COULD go by rail to Picton, then onto trucks to cross Cook Strait, then rail to Auckland, but...see my point here?

It's time that the Government stepped up to the mark a electrified the rest of the rail network between the cities. That'd certainly help lower carbon emissions, and would allow the country to centralise its ports to promote efficiently and cost-effectiveness.

[otumoetaiNZ]

Originally Posted by greenwelly

Because, the biggest shareholders in Ports in NZ are local government, and they
a) don't like to cooperate- witness steps to merge Auckland and Tauranga
b) are convinced that the local port is needed for local industry
c) cannot be sold without huge outrage and claims of evil privatisation
d) have access to council rates funding when times get tough.

Which is why Ports in this country should either be heavily regulated by the Government, or should be bought-back into public ownerships. Look what an inefficient mess private companies have created!

[Richard7666]

Regarding point b) of Greenwelly's post, not sure what you mean there. Are you saying local ports aren't vital to local industry? Or that they are and the councils know this

[greenwelly]

Originally Posted by otumoetaiNZ

Which is why Ports in this country should either be heavily regulated by the Government, or should be bought-back into public ownerships. Look what an inefficient mess private companies have created!

Err, my point is that they *are* in public ownership, which has prevented any rationalisation as local parochialism prevents any rational discussion of mergers, witness the often talked about Auckland-Tauranga Tie up.

@Richard7666, my point is that due to local public ownership, the big picture is never grasped, New Zealand has too many small ports.

[otumoetaiNZ]

Originally Posted by greenwelly

Err, my point is that they *are* in public ownership, which has prevented any rationalisation as local parochialism prevents any rational discussion of mergers, witness the often talked about Auckland-Tauranga Tie up.

There are only two major ports in this country which are POA and POT. While POA once was under semi-private ownership it has now been brought back into public ownership, POT is currently private.

Private enterprises have a very chequered past with regards to ownership of strategic assets in this country. Witness the mess that our rail network is currently in, and the disaster of private ownership of our major Airport which sees passengers and airlines alike pay exorbitant fees at AIA.

With particular respect to Ports, the Government need to take over their operations (including the partial public-private owned ones) and force consolidation in the industry. This means closing or downsizing non-strategic ports in places such as Napier, New Plymouth, Nelson, Gisborne, etc. and placing more emphasis on hub ports in large, strategic and growing cities such as Auckland & Tauranga, as well as potentially utilising the new deep-water Northport facility (especially for all Australian-bound cargo)

[Ironmanfood]

POT, while a publicly listed company, is about 75% owned by the Tauranga City Council.

The TCC, as majority shareholder, also has other political interests - such as head office jobs staying in Tauranga, therefore resiting a merger with a large rival like Auckland.

[Richard7666]

Originally Posted by otumoetaiNZ

With particular respect to Ports, the Government need to take over their operations (including the partial public-private owned ones) and force consolidation in the industry. This means closing or downsizing non-strategic ports in places such as Napier, New Plymouth, Nelson, Gisborne, etc. and placing more emphasis on hub ports in large, strategic and growing cities such as Auckland & Tauranga, as well as potentially utilising the new deep-water Northport facility (especially for all Australian-bound cargo)

Why do they need to do this, exactly? How do the benefits outweigh the negatives? And what's so special about this port in Northland? That'd be the last place I'd have thought you'd want one of the 'main ports', considering proximity to Auckland and Tauranga, and having bugger all industry.

[NZ1]

Originally Posted by Ironmanfood

POT, while a publicly listed company, is about 75% owned by the Tauranga City Council.

The TCC, as majority shareholder, also has other political interests - such as head office jobs staying in Tauranga, therefore resiting a merger with a large rival like Auckland.

It's 55% owned by Environment Bay of Plenty (via Quayside Securities - I think). The rest is held by private investors, mostly large investment firms.

[NZ1]

Originally Posted by Richard7666

Why do they need to do this, exactly? And what's so special about this port in Northland? That'd be the last place I'd have thought you'd want one of the 'main ports', considering proximity to Auckland and Tauranga, and having bugger all industry.
In all honesty I can't even understand why Tauranga has ended up as one of our two major ports.

It's a JV with POT having a 50% stake in Northport, and the remainder held by Northland Port Corporation, and is one of only a handful of deep-water port like POA, POT, Port Taranaki etc.

IMO it was basically a hedge against the merger (read acquisition) of POA by POT, not going ahead. Their vision is to rail freight from Auckland to Northport, effectively killing off POA. The rest of the country would be served by POT.

[Ironmanfood]

Originally Posted by Richard7666

Why do they need to do this, exactly? How do the benefits outweigh the negatives? And what's so special about this port in Northland? That'd be the last place I'd have thought you'd want one of the 'main ports', considering proximity to Auckland and Tauranga, and having bugger all industry.

While not being a port 'expert' or even overly interested, I have to agree with you questioning the need.

Why downgrade somewhere like Nelson with it's isolation combined with it's fishing, farming, horticulture, forestry exports? Same with Napier & New Plymouth. They seem like logical locations for ports?

I'll concede that combining the international operations of Timaru and Lyttleton would make sense, and probably Gisborne with Napier.

IMO, Northport seems more a property speculation than a current strategic need for a port north of Auckland. My hunch is that people (including myself) assume that one day Auckland's waterfront real estate will be more valuable as waterfront property - than as a functioning port. While Northport has a refinery and a pipeline, it doesn't currently have a rail link.

[Richard7666]

Agreed. Of the 'secondary' ports, Napier serves our 6th largest urban area, Port Chalmers our 7th, Nelson has it's isolation and lack of rail, while Bluff and New Plymouth serve specific industries.

Can't comment on Timaru or Gisborne as I don't know enough about them.

Here's a list of ports in NZ from wiki

Container ports: Ports of Auckland (Auckland), Port of Tauranga (Tauranga), Napier, Wellington, Lyttelton (Christchurch), Port Chalmers (Dunedin)
Other ports: Whangarei, Devonport (Auckland), Gisborne, New Plymouth, Wanganui, Nelson, Picton, Westport, Greymouth, Timaru, Bluff

[UglyBob]

Originally Posted by Richard7666

Agreed. Of the 'secondary' ports, Napier serves our 6th largest urban area, Port Chalmers our 7th, Nelson has it's isolation and lack of rail, while Bluff and New Plymouth serve specific industries.

Can't comment on Timaru or Gisborne as I don't know enough about them.

Here's a list of ports in NZ from wiki

Container ports: Ports of Auckland (Auckland), Port of Tauranga (Tauranga), Napier, Wellington, Lyttelton (Christchurch), Port Chalmers (Dunedin)
Other ports: Whangarei, Devonport (Auckland), Gisborne, New Plymouth, Wanganui, Nelson, Picton, Westport, Greymouth, Timaru, Bluff

It will be interesting to see which ports come out on top over the next few years. I have to admit I struggle with the idea that the Port of Tauranga is somehow ordained above other North Island locations.

Re the South Island: With Lyttleton and Port Otago in talks about some form of merger, I'd expect places like Timaru might miss out but then Holcim plans to rail cement from Weston/Oamaru to Timaru if it proceeds with its new manufacturing plant. Lyttleton has coal from the West Coast and the Canterbury agricultural & manufacturing base. Port Otago seems secure at the moment with Fonterra deciding to distribute dairy products from Southland, Otago and South Canterbury through its new Mosgiel facility and with large forestry stocks in Otago and Southland. South Port at Bluff might come into its own if oil is struck in the Great South Basin; I can't see Port Chalmers winning that battle on a grand scale because it has limited room to expand without getting into all sorts of environmental arguments.