The Oil Drum | US Port Security and the United Arab Emirates

111 comments on US Port Security and the United Arab Emirates

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

Jack on February 21, 2006 - 11:37pm

If you refuse to respond to an argument because you think the presenter might not share your politics, then remove the term analysis from your posts. Many commenters here have said good and bad things about Chavez. Neither condemns or validates their points. Chavez is not a religious prophet. We are allowed to discuss him.

Plucky Underdog makes a clear and relevant point that "The DPW deal isn't "propping up" anything, certainly not the UAE's ability to produce oil.". This seems accurate and a serious challenge to Dave's assertion. PU says that one of Dave's two main points is wrong. Now you can cast aspersions on the commentor or claim you don't know what it means, but I think that is weak.

Plucky Underdog asserts that UAE's cheap energy resources are commercially viable and that they don't need to be propped up by a Port deal in the US. This seems right to me. If it is not, I would like to hear why.

More importantly, this website is non-partisan and dedicated to pursuit of the truth. I think that trying to silence arguments by tarring commentors with political labels is antithetical to this effort.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

MikeCotton on February 22, 2006 - 12:17am

More importantly, this website is non-partisan and dedicated to pursuit of the truth.

I agree, which is why we should ignore any post which uses the term 'arts-graduate scum'.

His analysis seems decent on the surface, but his choice of terms casts doubt on his intellectual rigor. Thus it's better not to get drawn into a dicussion where those terms are implicit, and instead wait for the information to be represented in a more appropriate fashion.

I'm sure we can agree on that.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

Jack on February 22, 2006 - 12:47am

Yes. You are right.

I should have realized that the content of the initial post "casts doubt on his intellectual rigor" and that it is fair to ignore posts that don't engage at the level of civility required to have a "website (that) is non-partisan and dedicated to pursuit of the truth."

I also did not mean to address Dave directly as he is one of the best posters here, although I do not feel this one is up to his standards.

My point should have been made more generally. Ad hominim attacks on posters are not a positive contribution to the discussion. If you disagree with a point refute it. My orginal comment should be seen as directed to both Plucky Underdog as much as to TrueKaiser. Thank you for pointing this out.

I do think the question of how the US could be seen as propping up UAE is a legitimate one and I, at least, presented it in positive terms.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

plucky underdog on February 22, 2006 - 1:06am

Phew! Funny how flamewars develop. It wasn't apparent to me that anything I wrote was an attack on any identifiable poster (and we're all hiding behind these monikers anyway). There were certainly no obvious errors of fact in Dave's post, but I'd welcome his clarification of how the UAE's oil production or gas import plans are "propped up" by another UAE state-owned entity's purchase of a company that operates a melange of businesses in unrelated sectors (containerized seafreight, stevedoring, cargo forwarding, passenger ferries, and some logistics/supply chain stuff), and made a loss (that's a LOSS) of UK pounds 250 million on revenues of UK pounds 2400 million in 2004 (last year of figures on Yahoo! UK at http://uk.finance.yahoo.com/q/pr?s=PO.L if you don't believe me). Can we see the next part of your analysis, Dave?

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

Dave Cohen on February 22, 2006 - 1:34am

Re: "I do think the question of how the US could be seen as propping up UAE is a legitimate one and I, at least, presented it in positive terms"

So, why do you say "I do not feel this one [post] is up to his [my] standards"?

I wrote this one up quickly without an in-depth geopolitical analysis because it deserved discussion. Who knows what's really going on? I thought I made that clear. That's it, that was the whole point. Still, I think I presented a reasonable analysis. I'm still waiting for someone to utterly refute it.

Who can deny that the US seems to be making these kinds of deals with the UAE and Qatar given the natural gas situation going forward?

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

Hugo Chavez on February 22, 2006 - 1:46am

OK, don't worry, you are not the target here. You don't have a dog in this fight. Everybody actually agrees with you. Just a matter of how much. This has moved up a notch. Find Cover Quick! Incoming!

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

Jack on February 22, 2006 - 1:55am

So, why do you say "I do not feel this one [post] is up to his [my] standards"?

Because most of your posts are excellent, analytical views on subjects that I have found to be solid, fact-based and and convincing. This one is largely speculative and in your own words founded on "paranoia" and evidence that is "circumstantial".

Port management is an international business and many ports globally are operated by foreign companies. Dubai Ports World has not launched into some diabolical plan to control US ports. Rather, they have bought another foreign company (British) that already operated the US ports. This makes them the thrd largest operator of ports worldwide (Forbes). So Bush had nothing to do with selecting the highest bidder.

I think you can make an argument that US ports should be run by the US government or only US companies, although I would disagree. However the claim that Dubai Port World's purchase of British P & O is a "criminal negligent" or "treasonous" act committed by the Bush administration to secure oil resources is a stretch.

I think that Plucky Underdog's comment that: "The DPW deal isn't "propping up" anything, certainly not the UAE's ability to produce oil." is right.

Good background:
http://www.forbes.com/home/feeds/afx/2006/02/19/afx2537798.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/17/nyregion/17ports.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

Jack on February 22, 2006 - 2:03am

Ooops, I forget to address this point:

"Who can deny that the US seems to be making these kinds of deals with the UAE and Qatar given the natural gas situation going forward?"

I can. The US did not make the Port deal, so it impossible that they made it based on natural gas resources.

The Bush administration, through the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, approved it, but there is no direct evidence that this was anything but routine.

"it is important to note that the vast majority of transactions submitted to CFIUS (including the preceding example) are approved without difficulty."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Committee_on_Foreign_Investment_in_the_United_States

I do think that energy and terrorism cooperation likely placed a role in the decision, but that fall fars short the strong alleagtions made by you and the Daily Kos.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

Dave Cohen on February 22, 2006 - 2:23am

C'mon Jack, that's why I used the words cirumstantial and paranoia. I qualified what I said. The issue requires discussion. I gave my analysis. You may disagree but the geopolitical argument certainly remains intact at this point, does it not? I would still argue that helping out the UAE benefits Qatar, whose LNG exports are seen as essential to solving America's gas shortages in the future.

However, I agree with your point that Dubai Port World's contract is not necessarily a security problem--though it may be. But it can legitimately be seen as a "pay off" in the insecure oil & gas markets we see today.

best, Dave

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

Hugo Chavez on February 22, 2006 - 3:19am

I told you to duck. But you want to fight. Jack is your best friend. You can't try to attack him. You have to develop a different strategy. Preferably with Jack on your side.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

Jack on February 22, 2006 - 4:04am

Dave and I are on the same side. We can still disagree. In fact, although I often quibble with some of his points, I have acknowledged repeatedly that he is a valuable contributor to this site and has helped me explore these issues, deepen my understanding and change my mind. Let's not mistake discussion for opposition. :) (and that's my first smiley face ever !)

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

Hugo Chavez on February 22, 2006 - 4:21am

Jesus Jack. I'm on your side. And Dave's. What did I say? What did I say that contradicted what either of you believe? I was trying to get you two to cooperate. Now I'm a target. Cease Fire! Stand Down, Gentlemen. Hahahaha!

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

Jack on February 22, 2006 - 4:36am

Too late now Hugo. I got you in my sights. Once I make peace with Dave I can concentrate my full efforts on you.

:)

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

Hugo Chavez on February 22, 2006 - 4:59am

Jack you will never take me out. I assure you of that. The reason is that I always stand behind my troops. Kind of like Dick in the quail-field. And I keep my head down. You confuse me with the Patton family. I'm an Eisenhower with a bit of Rommel in the mix.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

Jack on February 22, 2006 - 4:19am

OK Dave, I retract my comment that this post is not up to you usual standards, which should have read 'your usual high standards" in the first place. I accept that this is a piece for discussion and that just because you post a couple multi-thousand word posts replete with data and charts does mean you can never submit a lighter post ever again. On second reading, I do see your use of the words "circumstantial" and "paranoia" as a light hearted qualification.

So back to the discussion:

I don't see how this deal can be a payoff by the Bush administration, because it is an arm's length commercial transaction between companies in two different countries. Is your assertion that approval by the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States is the "pay off"? I would disagree. I do not think it is unreasonable to think that this would have been approved in the normal course of business (see my Wikipedia link above).
Dubai World Ports is now the third largest port operator in the world with operations all over the globe. Certainly those were all commercial transactions, not "pay offs" for energy access. I don't see US port operations as any different. I don't see that the deal is on preferential terms or that the dollar value is significant when compared to the energy business it is supposedly supporting. In this regard, I still find Plucky Underdog's comment that "The DPW deal isn't "propping up" anything, certainly not the UAE's ability to produce oil" convincing.

I don't disagree that the Bush administration is grateful to UAE for terrorism and military support. This is probably true for energy supply as well, although I expect that UAE is acting in their own interests in the developments you describe. I also am sure that UAE has been rewarded by the US, particularly in defense support. However, I do not see any evidence that the Dubai Port World's purchase of P&O is anything other than commercial.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

Gets IT on February 22, 2006 - 11:55am

I'll deny it as long as you can't prove it simply because it makes no geographic sense as has already been said. The only sensible source for LNG in the western hemisphere that I know of is Trinidad. Any other would be more lost transport cost and boiloff. Anyway, China and India are already locking up the mideast LNG with long term contracts. Do you guys think you're going to step in in 2025 and snatch up the last tanker load with a handfull of used F-14s or what?

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

Hugo Chavez on February 22, 2006 - 1:32am

I'll be honest. I was skimming through this thread to get the jist of it. I was aware of the major themes. But,aside from reading Dave's original post, which I like very much -I didn't stop until I saw Jack's name.

Jack doesn't post here a whole bunch, but I have always been very impressed with what he says. So I stopped to read what he said. Then I went back and read very carefully what everybody else said leading to what Jack said. As usual I believe Jack to be right.

And Dave, I think this is your best piece so far. You are a very quick worker. I know this piece on the UAE will detract from your time on other projects, but I like the info, and the fact that you decided to do it. My only piece of advice for you is to post your stuff and then make the concious decision to leave the room. Ignore people's comments on your work for at least a week. You don't need to defend yourself. Others will do that for you. You do a great job.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

Hugo Chavez on February 22, 2006 - 1:41am

Since I posted this three of you guys' post ended up before mine in the queue.

I disagree Jack, I think this is one of Dave's best. I'm glad I can finally disagree on something with you.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

111 comments on US Port Security and the United Arab Emirates

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

Beware email scams!

Beware email scams claiming to be from this site. We do not have any job openings. If anyone contacts you about a job at The Oil Drum, do not reply to them, and definitely do not give them any personal information or send them money. Read more here.