BajaNomad - Port Colonet on again

Port Colonet on again

Paulclark - 8-18-2009 at 07:19 AM

It was announced by SCT that bidding for the construction of Port Colonet will happen in September.

"The construction of a giant deep-sea port on the shores of Baja California was greenlighted on Monday by secretary of Communications and Transport (SCT) Juan Molinar Horcasitas who foresees auctioning the construction contract next month."

BajaGringo - 8-18-2009 at 07:34 AM

The project was always on - the submission date for submitting their projects was set back to give the different groups additional time to line up funding after the economic meltdown last fall.

astrobaja - 8-18-2009 at 10:10 AM

Theres so many potential stumbling blocks for a megaproject of this type.
All kinds of infrastructure, transport wise have to be in place before the port even gets built! I'm hoping that it will eventualy falter.

woody with a view - 8-18-2009 at 11:41 AM

the dollars are changing hands all along the coast. the governor put on a show awhile back. it'll happen.... :barf:

Bajahowodd - 8-18-2009 at 11:42 AM

It remains to be seen if, and when this actually comes to fruition. The original plan involved private investment that would be granted a 45 year concession to operate the facility. Obviously, much has been written lately about how slow traffic is at the LA-Long Beach port, due to the worldwide recession. Another ingredient in the mix, is that according to the original plan, the initial phases of the Punta Colonet project would be operational in 2014. That is a long time away. But it will also coincide with the opening of the expanded Panama Canal, which will allow "post-panamax" ships (that currently do not fit) which will represent almost 40% of the world's shipping fleet by then. Over-capacity?

Curt63 - 8-18-2009 at 11:44 AM

With Obama in office, I'm betting this project won't happen.

Bajahowodd - 8-18-2009 at 11:47 AM

:?:

BajaGringo - 8-18-2009 at 11:49 AM

The four groups that have signed up to bid for the project have each deposited 250 million pesos to be able to participate in the licitacion. I met with Dr. Rubio who is the project director in his office in Tijuana not long ago and he assured me that all the groups are actively moving forward with their project bids.

We should know if that is true very soon as time will tell...

mtgoat666 - 8-18-2009 at 11:53 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Curt63
With Obama in office, I'm betting this project won't happen.

why?

I do commend any US politician that would like to expand US ports and rail in LA, San D, San Fran, Portland and Seattle so we don't lose port business to Mexico.

DENNIS - 8-18-2009 at 11:57 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by mtgoat666

I do commend any US politician that would like to expand US ports and rail in LA, San D, San Fran, Portland and Seattle so we don't lose port business to Mexico.

Bigger US ports...more freight...more drugs. Why not? The war is lost anyway.

BajaGringo - 8-18-2009 at 12:12 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by DENNIS

Quote:

Originally posted by mtgoat666

I do commend any US politician that would like to expand US ports and rail in LA, San D, San Fran, Portland and Seattle so we don't lose port business to Mexico.

Bigger US ports...more freight...more drugs. Why not? The war is lost anyway.

Do you actually believe we were ever trying to really win that war??? (Sorry for the hijack!)

Bajahowodd - 8-18-2009 at 12:13 PM

Because the Mexican port will have a lower overhead, mainly due to labor costs? Where were you when the fleet of cargo vessels carrying goods around the world became mostly foreign-flagged and operated by foreign crews. Right now roughly 5% of merchant vessels plying the seas are flagged with the stars and stripes. And basically those ships do not compete with world trade, but are used to carry US aid and assistance to foreign countries. If the Mexican project can do it cheaper, it will be a success.

mtgoat666 - 8-18-2009 at 12:18 PM

US ports can compete with mex ports quite well. first, port work is not labor intensive (it's all machines, cranes these days). second, our expansion costs can be much lower relative to building new port from scratch. third, a port in mexico to serve US imports will not get built if US says no.

Bajahowodd - 8-18-2009 at 12:21 PM

Land costs, environmental laws and taxes will figure into the equation, as well. My understanding is that some big time Wall Street money is lined up along with Sr. Slim. So, who in the US is going to be able to veto it?

BajaGringo - 8-18-2009 at 12:24 PM

I really think that the bulk of the Colonet port traffic will be from China. Panama cannot do much to put a big dent in that and I agree that Long Beach is pricing itself out of the market with port fees, increased regulation and very expensive storage/trasport fees. With the streamlined import process already approved under the Bush administration, Colonet can store cargo, move imported parts to assembly plants in Valle de Trinidad and then whisk them across the border without even making a customs stop. Import duties will be charged by cargo transponders installed by treasury agents working at the distribution centers in Mexico.

Maybe Obama is thinking about undoing that agreement???

Bajahowodd - 8-18-2009 at 12:33 PM

I do think the Colonet project is aiming at the US heartland. However, East coast destinations and non-US destination goods will be going through Panama. IMHO.

Curt63 - 8-18-2009 at 12:42 PM

Goat, My point exactly. Big labor owns Obama and it's payback time. Obama would love to get credit for putting Americans in these jobs and get re-elected.

BajaGringo - 8-18-2009 at 12:43 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Bajahowodd
I do think the Colonet project is aiming at the US heartland. However, East coast destinations and non-US destination goods will be going through Panama. IMHO.

Yes, but then the goods will have to be assembled in China and shipped at a higher cost due to larger shipping volumes. That is a big advantage Colonet offers. By shipping only manufactured parts from China they can take advantage of lower shipping costs to produce parts for TV's, dishwashers, microwaves and even cars to be assembled in Mexico. The rail access through Arizona can hub to all of the midwest / east coast markets with quicker shipping times and lower net cost of goods.

That is what this global economy is all about...

[Edited on 8-18-2009 by BajaGringo]

Bajahowodd - 8-18-2009 at 12:59 PM

I understand that one can ship more goods unassembled. And frankly, international trade is not right there in my wheelhouse. But, when you consider that labor costs remain much lower in China, and the post-panamax ships will carry that much more cargo, it seems to me there is a wash. As far as TVs go, don't they already call Tijuana the television capital of the world? As an aside, a few years back, riffing on your globalization thing, we bought a refrigerator that was ostensibly marketed by LG-Canada, LG being a Korean company, and assembled in Mexico. Three countries for the price of one!

BajaGringo - 8-18-2009 at 01:09 PM

Yes, the lower assembly costs / higher shipping costs probably will be a wash. What may tip the scales though is that the port fees and transportation costs out of the port will probably be lower via Colonet and as the bean counters are driving most of the corporate decisions today, I think Colonet will win out.

Under the emerging global economy I suspect most assembled goods will carry manufactured parts from a number of locations. Tech support will probably get even more complicated...

Bajahowodd - 8-18-2009 at 01:15 PM

Just ask Boeing about their Dreamliner. :lol:

bajalou - 8-18-2009 at 01:19 PM

The daily cost of operating the ships will be the major factor of east coast via Panama vs west coast-rail via Colonet or LA. This is the reason that the containers via rail to east and gulf coast from Calif ports got started about 30 years ago. Even European cargo was trans-shipped across US and reloaded on ships for Europe. Ship turn around time is the big factor.

Bajahowodd - 8-18-2009 at 01:29 PM

Another reason for the ever-larger ships.

BajaGringo - 8-18-2009 at 01:33 PM

And as a deep water port, Colonet will be able to handle those mega container ships as well. Only two ports in the world will be larger - Shanghai and Singapore.

We should have a much better idea by year's end how this will all pan out...

mtgoat666 - 8-18-2009 at 01:52 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Bajahowodd
I do think the Colonet project is aiming at the US heartland. However, East coast destinations and non-US destination goods will be going through Panama. IMHO.

of course, the US is colapsing like decline of roman empire, so maybe investors will not invest in colonet

BajaGringo - 8-18-2009 at 01:57 PM

If you follow the World Bank much, it is not that the mega investors are not investing anymore, just not in the US. The US will always be a market worth pursuing as a customer though with its nearly 300 million...

[Edited on 8-18-2009 by BajaGringo]

mtgoat666 - 8-18-2009 at 02:24 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by BajaGringo
If you follow the World Bank much, it is not that the mega investors are not investing anymore, just not in the US. The US will always be a market worth pursuing as a customer though with its nearly 300 million...

colonet is a port to service US. after US gets past the great bush implosion, US will no longer have disposable income to buy all the worlds trinkets, TVs and SUVs, so no need for a mega port. US will be 2nd world, like spain or italy, but with bad food :lol:

[Edited on 8-18-2009 by mtgoat666]

BajaGringo - 8-18-2009 at 02:33 PM

:lol:

china>mexico>?

wessongroup - 8-18-2009 at 02:36 PM

Quote:

Provided the U.S. work force is again employed and making the same $$$ to spend on things, and we are able to service the National Debt.

Not even bring up the environmental issues associated with the degree of magnitude which these increasing larger and larger man made facilities have.

Think following our nuclear carriers is a better indicator

arrowhead - 8-18-2009 at 03:10 PM

Colonet was eyed as an alternative because the Los Angeles-Long Beach port was approaching capacity and had no room to grow. In 2007, during the peak Summer months it was doing close to 1 million containers per month. But now the volume is off more than 25% and activity is back to year 2002 levels. So there is lots of excess capacity at Los Angeles-Long Beach. Although they'll be going through the motions, Colonet will be on the back burner for probably the next 10 years.

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_pMscxxELHEg/Sl-qU7A1vNI/AAAAAAAAF1...

There is no way Colonet will pencil out for any investor right now. Don't forget, they not only have to build a deep water port, they also have to build rail and roadways, and the Mexican government is not putting any money into the deal.

rts551 - 8-18-2009 at 03:14 PM

Guuuyyyyys.... the port was supposed to ship to the US. Guess whattttttt????? No one wants the rail yards... so you can circle J ... all you want. but the US still has not learned. Check out the fight Arizona has against rail yards transferring goods from Mexico

wilderone - 8-18-2009 at 03:23 PM

Taking containers to Colonet is a fraction of the import/export biz. Getting the goods into the US or elsewhere into Mexico will necessarily rely on rail and truck. Below are considerations from shippers, and, as an example of the strain that such a US importation point would create, extracts from a summary report in a Texas region talking about the increased imports from the Sinoloa shipping container expansion are described. With the environmental and importation considerations, US security, the additional long-distance rail leg and it's concomitant storage and trucking component (delays?), the resulting costs may not make it a bargain to ship to Colonet. And of course, as has been discussed before, an entire town must be created to accommodate the workers and their families. They can bid, the bidders can take the Mex. govt's money, employ their families for a while, and walk away from it in a few years, with the usual wake of destruction behind them.

"Government and port community stakeholders may present additional obstacles to capacity enhancement. For example, the government may not make a priority of building or improving road infrastructure so that it can accommodate high levels of container traffic by truck. Also, the risk that the government will make regulation increasingly stringent in the areas of security, environmental protection and safety creates disincentives for new trucking firms to enter the industry and for incumbents to invest further. A recent survey that asked the top North American ports to rank 25 capacity factors (e.g., conditions at the terminal, labour issues and surface transport services) revealed that port managers’ greatest concern is with the capacity constraints imposed by local roads. Second and third most important capacity factors, according to the ports surveyed, were capacity constraints in rail and truck services."

"The “Entrada Al Pacifico” highway currently under construction in Mexico will provide the shortest route from the west coast of Mexico in the State of Sinaloa to Chicago, Illinois. The highway will begin in the city of Topolobampo, Sinaloa where foreign interests have begun the expansion of the port facilities to accept greater freight traffic from countries in the Far East. This highway will cross the U.S. border in Presidio, Texas near the Big Bend National Park. The Mexican rail line will run parallel to this highway and also enter Texas in the same area. Increased accessibility to this area will cause a rise in population on both sides of the border. With the increase in population, it is expected that the local crime rate will increase as well. Texas Department of Transportation is not currently seeking to increase the highway infrastructure which will cause traffic congestion and a quicker deterioration of highways. The accessibility that this corridor will create may cause a rise in smuggling operations along the western and most desolate areas of the state. Narcotics smugglers from the Far East will have greater access to Mexico and if an alliance is formed with established Mexican cartels will pose an even greater threat. However, if these smugglers compete against established Mexican cartels for control of the highway and access to Texas, a rise in violence along the border can be expected. Additional personnel will be required to address these issues. Significant increases in transportation infrastructure such as those envisioned by the Trans-Texas Corridor Act, will place additional requirements upon the Department to provide adequate service on these expanding miles of roadway. The Trans-Texas Corridor will be a system of new infrastructure facilities located parallel or adjacent to many of our existing highway systems, which will be designed to alleviate many transportation problems created by NAFTA, and our population growth. Upon completion, the corridor is expected to include six vehicle toll lanes, three in each direction, with room to expand with the population. At full development, it will have six rail lines, three in each direction to serve as the backbone of a regional rail system serving all Texans. One will be dedicated to high-speed rail between cities, one dedicated to high-speed freight rail, and one dedicated to commuter and freight rail. The potential increase in police traffic services and disaster emergency services required to protect such an infrastructure is tremendous."

fishbuck - 8-18-2009 at 03:43 PM

I'm sure you guys noticed the new hotel being built in Colonet. That must mean something.

BajaWarrior - 8-18-2009 at 04:24 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by fishbuck
I'm sure you guys noticed the new hotel being built in Colonet. That must mean something.

Like another incomplete project?

fishbuck - 8-18-2009 at 04:27 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by BajaWarrior

Quote:

Originally posted by fishbuck
I'm sure you guys noticed the new hotel being built in Colonet. That must mean something.

Like another incomplete project?

Ya, it's about half built. Didn't see alot of work going on there but maybe they were working on it.

[Edited on 8-18-2009 by fishbuck]

Don Alley - 8-18-2009 at 04:55 PM

If and when this project gets built, we should hire all new customs inspectors and charge a 20% duty on everything that crosses into the US. :biggrin:

k-rico - 8-18-2009 at 06:21 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by fishbuck
I'm sure you guys noticed the new hotel being built in Colonet. That must mean something.

Hey fishbuck, port towns are famous for, well, you know, "niteclubs." Colonet may be a good place to stop for a night, or two, or three, oh, OK for a while.

I'm all for port development. :bounce:

fishbuck - 8-18-2009 at 06:29 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by k-rico

Quote:

Originally posted by fishbuck
I'm sure you guys noticed the new hotel being built in Colonet. That must mean something.

Hey fishbuck, port towns are famous for, well, you know, "niteclubs." Colonet may be a good place to stop for a night, or two, or three, oh, OK for a while.

I'm all for port development. :bounce:

Maybe that's what the hotel is for! :cool:

I fished Mag bay a while back and stayed at a cheap little hotel.
Turns out the girls staying there were very friendly and in town to accommodate the needs of the tuna fleet sailors.
I think I'll fish there in Oct/Nov.