The Port of Sydney - The approach to building a consortium

Cape Breton Regional Municipality Follow Me

Posted this 2015-12-08 1:40 PM AST (updated 2016-02-19 10:20 AM AST)

THANK YOU FOR YOUR INTEREST IN DEVELOPMENT AT THE PORT OF SYDNEY. OUR Q&A IS CLOSED. WE WILL BE BACK WITH A NEW UPDATE AT THE NEXT TURNING POINT FOR THIS PROJECT.

Barry Sheehy of Harbor Port Development Partners outlines the approach being taken to assemble a global consortium to develop the Port of Sydney.

This 40 minute presentation was recorded on November 17, 2015 at Prof. Dannie Brown’s International Business class at the Shannon School of Business, Cape Breton University. After the presentation, Mr. Sheehy and Port of Sydney CEO Marlene Usher answer students’ questions.

We invite you to also ask questions. Please post a question below and a member of the Port of Sydney development team will respond. We’ll leave this Q&A session open until January 3. We are planning more presentations in the future so there will be ample opportunity to discuss the development goals for the port.

Posted by Cape Breton Regional Municipality
Receive news by email and share your news and events for free on goCapeBreton.com
SHOW ME HOW

Like 8 Dislike 0

FOLLOW 13

7,350 52

Barry Sheehy of Harbor Port Development Partners outlines the approach being taken to assemble a global consortium to develop the Port of Sydney.

52

Depth
Christian Murphy Follow Me 2015-12-08 5:18 PM AST Reply 1 0 I've read a number of the news articles. Is it safe to say they have agreed to design and build it, not pay for it? The Ottawa Citizen reported that their is an equity discussion. Who will be paying for the feasibility study? Is there anything in the contract between Harbor Port Development Partners and the CBRM that would see Harbor Port Development Partners reimbursed for expenditures/compensated in the event this fails?
Cape Breton Regional Municipality My Post Follow Me 2015-12-08 5:48 PM AST Reply 2 0 Hi Christian. Thanks for your questions. CCCC have agreed to do design work and pay for the feasibility - in this case it means determining the detailed capital costs and design of the terminal specific to the greenfield site. The financing and equity arrangements are not finalized but will include a number of partners including CCCC. There is no agreement to reimburse HPDP if the project does not proceed. Christian Murphy Follow Me 2015-12-08 8:33 PM AST Reply 1 0 Thank you.
Mary Campbell Follow Me 2015-12-08 7:02 PM AST Reply 1 1 You seem to be stating two contradictory things: on the one hand, the Egyptians are undertaking the huge project of expanding the Suez Canal, New Jersey is undertaking the challenge of raising the Bayonne Bridge to 215 feet and ports in Europe and the Middle East have spent huge amounts to adapt to the new ships (despite being "hemmed in" like U.S. ports). And yet, for some reason, we're to believe no East Coast US port will undertake similar expansion projects? According to Neil MacNeil, Jackson, Savannah, Norfolk, Baltimore and Charleston have all dredged to over 40 feet. Cape Breton Regional Municipality My Post Follow Me 2015-12-09 4:41 PM AST Reply 1 0 The Ultra large Container Vessels that Sydney is targeting require exceptional draft (we have 16.5m = 54+ feet) and over 300 acres of terminal capacity. Sydney is well positioned in these two areas. Because it’s a new build, the Port of Sydney will have custom cranes and other technology that can handle these vessels in an cost efficient manner. We have confidence in the business case - as do the partners joining our working efforts, which now include two of the largest international construction companies in the world. Mary Campbell Follow Me 2015-12-10 1:14 PM AST Reply 0 1 That actually doesn't answer my question: do you really think no East Coat US port will do the work to accommodate these vessels? As for your "partners," I can make no judgement on the level of their participation in the project because you have shared no details. Cape Breton Regional Municipality My Post Follow Me 2015-12-15 4:50 PM AST Reply 0 0 We are very focused on the economic case that a new build at Port of Sydney will solve the problems facing the eastern seaboard in the most cost-effective and efficient way. Many other ports could/may invest billions with no guarantee of success and still have logistical problems. Old ports are hemmed in by urban development and therefore are constrained for expansion. Sydney has no land constraints and the new technology employed is more suited to a custom built terminal rather than adapting an old one.
Dan Yakimchuk Follow Me 2015-12-08 7:37 PM AST Reply 0 0 Is CCCC the same company that is "ineligible to engage in any road and bridge projects financed by the World Bank Group until January 12, 2017" due to fraudulent practices? If so, is that something we should be concerned with? http://www.worldbank.org/en/news/press-release/2011/07/29/world-bank-applies-2009-debarment-to-china-communications-construction-company-limited-for-fraud-in-philippines-roads-project Cape Breton Regional Municipality My Post Follow Me 2015-12-09 4:51 PM AST Reply 0 0 Regarding CCCC’s disbarment by World Bank as outlined in the link you shared... All aspects of the development of the Port of Sydney are done under the legal protections and regulations of Canada. CCCC does $70 billion a year in business on every continent. They recently purchased a major construction company in Australia with the endorsement of that country’s treasurer. Here is the link: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-04-08/treasurer-joe-hockey-approves-john-holland-takeover-by-cccc/6377542 He directly addressed the World Bank debarment: The Treasurer noted media reports about the company having been barred from participating in World Bank projects until 2017 due to concerns about collusion over project bidding by a related entity. However, Mr. Hockey said those concerns had been taken into account in the decision to let the takeover proceed. "I have sought advice and action on these and other issues in relation to CCCC," he said. "As a result, appropriate arrangements have been put in place to mitigate any concerns in relation to this issue and I am satisfied that this investment is not contrary to our national interest." CCCC is also rated A3 by Moody’s. They said “CCCC's standalone credit strength in turn reflects its large scale and long track record." Read the January 2015 press release here: https://www.moodys.com/research/Moodys-assigns-first-time-A3-rating-to-China-Communications-Construction--PR_316103 CCCC is #165 on the list of Fortune 500 companies and #5 on the list of top international contractors by the Engineering News-Record. They have 173 offices in 97 countries. We are pleased that CCCC are prepared to invest in the next stages of the development project at Port of Sydney with industrial giant Bechtel. We are confident that their partnership in this project will be wholly beneficial to our goal to develop a world-class container hub. madeline yakimchuk Follow Me 2015-12-09 8:18 PM AST Reply 0 0 they are prepared to invest or they are willing to discuss building? Cape Breton Regional Municipality My Post Follow Me 2015-12-10 5:11 PM AST Reply 0 0 They are investing in further feasibility at this stage - and pending results - will be in discussions on investment in the project. That they are prepared to fund these preliminary studies suggests their confidence in the project. As we expressed in another reply, this is an important step forward, but only a step.
Joe Ward Follow Me 2015-12-08 8:49 PM AST Reply 2 0 Thank you to the CBRM for sharing this information here, and for a willingness to engage discussions in social media platforms like goCapeBreton. I'll be checking out the video soon. The new youTube channel for the Port of Sydney Development Corporation is an excellent idea. Props.
Bill Goldston Follow Me 2015-12-09 6:05 AM AST Reply 0 0 How does this affect the agreement with Bechtel announced in July? Are they competing for the same project? Can you clarify that both companies are contractors and not investors. The news stories are quite confusing. Cape Breton Regional Municipality My Post Follow Me 2015-12-09 4:30 PM AST Reply 0 0 Both companies are involved with this project. It is anticipated that they will partner on the project for design, build and quality control. It will be up to these private sector partners on how they structure their relationship.
Matthew Butler Follow Me 2015-12-09 12:10 PM AST Reply 0 0 Just an FYI, the video description on Youtube shows it was "recorded on November 17, 2016". A little ahead of things ;) Cape Breton Regional Municipality My Post Follow Me 2015-12-09 4:56 PM AST Reply 0 0 Thanks! fixed it.
Wayne O'Toole Follow Me 2015-12-09 3:48 PM AST Reply 0 0 I have a few questions: 1) Is this a signed deal as we speak or as indicated in news, a discussion? 2) What is taxpayers responsibility financially and for what rate of return? 3) What risk are taxpayers undertaking? 4) Will details be released or is this another Non Disclosure, non transparent deal? I am hopeful for success of our region but as well very cynical when no details are provided and from past promises that turned into money grabs and pipe dreams. Our region needs transparency and details when it comes to projects where the potential for taxpayer money to be funneled is there.I believe the citizens of our island require data, and details, not just vague comments, can you provide a full status update, and updates as it progresses? Cape Breton Regional Municipality My Post Follow Me 2015-12-10 5:07 PM AST Reply 0 0 1. It is a signed agreement to work on feasibility. In the industry, this means modeling the project, crunching numbers, site specific work. This is an investment by CCCC. They are coming in January. 2. CBRM has already invested in the greenfield site. ($6 million in May, 2012) It is publicly owned. As the project progresses we expect it will deliver significant local benefit in jobs and revenue. 3. The greatest risk would be the loss of this opportunity. Without a project the money invested in the site would then not yield a return. 4. The CBRM and Port of Sydney Development Corp. are publicly accountable bodies. The chair of the board at the port is the Chief Administrative Officer of the CBRM - a public servant. There are updates on the progress of files related to Port development on a regular basis. Tuesday's most recently. Prior to that, the announcement about railway operator involvement and prior to that the exclusivity agreement with HPDP and the addition of other companies to our port like McKeil Marine and Canadian Maritime Engineering. In contrast with previous efforts,HPDP's have undertaken this project "at risk" covering their own time and expenses. They have made available a global network of partners. If the project, under the direction of HDPD, does not proceed CBRM has no financial obligations. Wayne O'Toole Follow Me 2015-12-10 5:30 PM AST Reply 0 0 So right now, there is no commitment to move forward past a feasibility study? Hasn't there been a feasibility study that was kept from counsel and showed the harbor not a viable option? Is there going to be investment from the public coffers? Sorry but your answers are not substantial, the CBRM administration needs more transparency especially on large projects like this from start to finish. Cape Breton Regional Municipality My Post Follow Me 2015-12-15 4:51 PM AST Reply 0 0 There has been no feasibility study completed on a container terminal on the greenfield site. The scope of the work being undertaken by Bechtel and CCCC is worth millions of dollars in value (expenses, hours and expertise). These global partners – who did over $100 billion in works between them last year – feel that Port of Sydney is a viable option, which is why they are investing their time and effort. Public investment? The consortium being assembled is private-sector and financed by the private sector. Earlene MacMullin Follow Me 2015-12-15 6:56 PM AST Reply 0 0 There has been no feasibility study completed on a container terminal but there was a port feasibility study completed. Back to Wayne's second question, was that study kept from council? Cape Breton Regional Municipality My Post Follow Me 2015-12-21 4:23 PM AST Reply 0 0 To date there has been no feasibility study completed on either the port or a container terminal. Other reports you may be referring to are not feasibility studies.
Wayne O'Toole Follow Me 2015-12-09 4:29 PM AST Reply 0 0 Also, what expectations should Cape Breton have: 1) Number of local hires and will training be provided for those seeking employment? 2) upgrades to social programs locally? Better infrastructure spending i.e. road repair, snow removal, new venture spending for the arts, lowering university tuition making it accessible, drug rehab to help our problem, aid for the 1/3 of our children living below poverty and under nourished? We need to understand what is expected...5 year goal? 10 year? Again very hopeful this is going to help but cynical. Are local businesses able to bid on projects? Cape Breton Regional Municipality My Post Follow Me 2015-12-10 5:07 PM AST Reply 0 0 1) We expect the employment on a project of this scope to be significant. We discussed it in the video. 2) Yes. The economic spin off of a project of this size extends to local government via tax base expansion. These benefits should offer the opportunity for improvement on many spending priorities. Skills training is being factored into to the larger plan. You might consider what the impact will be on social services, infrastructure, taxes, snow removal and employment, if the project does not proceed. Some of these questions appear premature as we are only at the feasibility stage of this project. The fact that one of the largest engineering and construction companies in the world is prepared to fund these preliminary studies at considerable costs, suggests their confidence in the project. This is an important step forward but only a step.

Joe Ward Follow Me 2015-12-10 6:43 PM AST Reply 0 0 Q1. Pending completion of feasibility, modeling, and an accurate estimate of (or bid on) capital costs, has CCCC indicated the general guidelines in terms of how much of the total project costs they would contribute as an investor? If we use the guideline of $1-$1.2 Billion for the total project cost, what is the max percentage that CCCC is willing to contribute? This is directly relevant to project feasibility. While 10% might reflect $100 Million+ and can help open doors to bringing other investors on board, it would still leave $900 Million+ in project costs uncommitted. Q2. Given that there are multiple large firms in the world capable of building out an automated shipping port as described, when CCCC completes the design, modeling and provides a bid, are other major firms then able to bid on the project as well? If the investment capital (however it is comprised) is successfully obtained, giving thumbs up on the project, I'm assuming the investors would also want to ensure that there is a competitive process in place? Q3. Who owns the intellectual property that results from CCCC's planned activities? Q4. Has CCCC been given an exclusivity on port development as well? Q5. What is the estimated value of the feasibility, site work, modeling, and design that will be completed by CCCC? Q6. Are other firms also invited to do the same feasibility study if they are interested? Q7. Would CCCC or any other other potential investors identified consider the option of acquiring rights to the rail line segment at risk of being abandoned by G&W? Is this a factor that has been discussed already? Q8. Several media reports, either headlines or article content, have been presented as though CCCC is committed to building the port. Would you consider those media reports accurate? If not, how would you clarify such headlines? Example headline from the Cape Breton Post: "Chinese company signs agreement to build Sydney container terminal" Cape Breton Regional Municipality My Post Follow Me 2015-12-15 4:49 PM AST Reply 0 0 1) Premature to speculate on at this point. It’s the second step. But we are just about to take the first step. Based on our meetings to date we are confident that pending a positive outcome on the feasibility there will be a number of financial partners at the table. 2) The project’s investors will want to ensure the most competitive processes are employed to ensure capital costs are controlled. A key to the success of this project is that it is that we are the most cost-competitive port operation in Eastern North America. 3) CCCC is funding this work. The information will be their property. 4) HPDP is the exclusive developer of the port. They are assembling a consortium, in which CCCC is engaged. 5) In the millions. Cape Breton Regional Municipality My Post Follow Me 2015-12-15 4:50 PM AST Reply 0 0 6) Firms who are interested in investing in the Port of Sydney should contact HPDP. 7) There are various options for the continuance of rail. We are currently working with CBCNS railway. Any inquiries as to their plans for the rail line should be conveyed to them. 8) The news release: CCCC plans to undertake the design and construction of Sydney’s container terminal including all required infrastructure. In addition, CCCC will provide container cranes, gantries and other port related equipment, including any required design and engineering. Concurrently, CCCC will undertake a feasibility study on the development of the overall container terminal, and define the development plan for this facility to be located on the Greenfield site. HPDP and CCCC are also engaged in discussions involving potential equity participation by CCCC in the port development project. CCCC and HPDP also agreed to work together on related infrastructure projects that may arise in the course of this billion dollar plus multiyear project. China Communications Construction Company “welcomes the opportunity to participate in this exciting endeavor. Given its strategic location CCCC views Sydney’s deep water harbour as a potential game changer for the North American eastern seaboard. As a partner, CCCC brings global experience, state of the art technology and financial strength to this project. We expect to have our first working visit to Sydney early in the New Year,” said Chang Yunbo, Vice President of China Communications Construction Company Limited (International). The terminal construction will take place after the feasibility study is indicative of a viable container terminal.
Joe Ward Follow Me 2015-12-10 7:09 PM AST Reply 0 0 Q9. Were the documents or other materials and visuals presented during the most recent Chinese trip created by CCCC, Port of Sydney Corp, HPDP, or other? Q10. Do either of the HPDP partners have any direct business experience with port development? If so, which projects were they involved with, and what was the scope of their role? Q11. What is the most successful business either ongoing or past that either HPDP partner was involved with? "Blue Zen" for example had multiple name changes, and though not deep research, online searching doesn't present any information indicating these companies were successful. http://bit.ly/1RmX3RS Were any of the businesses they've been involved with successful at a scale that would indicate their qualifications for putting together a $1-1.2 Billion dollar project? Q11. Prior to the HPDP actually being incorporated the mayor and several media reports made reference to them spending $1 Million or more of their own money on marketing the port. This was used as a key component in building support for their exclusivity agreement. Part A: Did the municipality vet this information? I.e. Are you in possession of an itemized list of how these funds were utilized? Part B: If you are aware of how these funds were utilized, can this information be shared with Cape Breton citizens? Part C: To which legal entity were these expenses accounted? Note: There has been some general scrutiny by skeptics, including myself, that this amount of money seemed too large to be spent merely for travel of the partners during the ~1.5 years that it was regarded as having been invested. What marketing artifacts, studies, consulting services, travel or related expenses made up this amount? The HPDP partners can volunteer this information without disclosing the name of any partners that wish to remain anonymous at this stage. In the interest of transparency, it will create a great deal of trust. Cape Breton Regional Municipality My Post Follow Me 2015-12-15 4:53 PM AST Reply 0 0 9) The new materials presented at the public meeting were produced by CCCC. Presentations for China were produced by HPDP or Port of Sydney. 10-11) HPDP have many years of experience in project development and extensive networks to move the Port of Sydney project forward. They have been successful in taking this project to the largest companies in the world. The results, so far, are positive. We are pleased with the progress. 12) HPDP have been at work on this project for upwards of two years now and as such have spent thousands of hours on this project for which they have not been compensated. They have been to Asia and Africa and Europe – several times , USA several times. HPDP are private sector developers who are assembling a consortium of partners in a competitive marketplace.
Joe Ward Follow Me 2015-12-10 7:16 PM AST Reply 0 0 Q12. A member of the goCapeBreton community recently posted the results of a FOIPOP request submitted to the CBRM. It was requesting communications between the CBRM and the individual partners of what is now known as HPDP. There appeared to be only 1 email from the mayor, and no others from other CBRM representatives, to the partners. I understand that some of these emails may have been redacted due to proposed confidentiality related issues. However, the mere date, subject, and sender of such communications is information that has value and does not compromise any sense of reasonable confidentiality. It merely establishes a timeline of communication and general subject matter (if subject is unredacted). Can the CBRM attest that there were no other email exchanges, either through official CBRM email accounts or personal accounts used for such business purposes, that were not included in the FOIPOP package? Was anything left out? Cape Breton Regional Municipality My Post Follow Me 2015-12-15 4:54 PM AST Reply 0 0 The Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy (FOIPOP) process is governed by Nova Scotia laws which public bodies, like CBRM, adhere to.
Joe Ward Follow Me 2015-12-11 10:45 AM AST Reply 0 0 Q. 400 jobs is the estimate by HPDP. Mr. Sheehy, in his CBU presentation, also made reference to the following: Our port is anticipated to do more containers by volume than Montreal. The port of Montreal has ~18,000 jobs as a result of their port system. He also referenced Savannah in similar context. How was the 400 jobs estimate determined? Is it based on some other comparable port operation, and, if so, which one(s)? Also, why is there such a large disparity between Mr. Sheehy's comparison to the 18,000 jobs that are created through Montreal, and a container traffic that could be lower volume than what Sydney would do with the new breed of ultra large container ships? Cape Breton Regional Municipality My Post Follow Me 2015-12-15 4:54 PM AST Reply 0 0 The 400 jobs is an estimate of direct jobs in a highly automated terminal. It does not include jobs in the logistics park or spin off jobs. As stated in the video, the job creation potential also exists in a logistics park and other related opportunities the development generates. The Port of Sydney project is a tremendous development opportunity. We are confident that the greatest benefit it offers to the local community is job creation – direct and indirect. Joe Ward Follow Me 2015-12-29 8:59 PM AST Reply 0 0 If the only other revenue opportunity for the CBRM is leasing the greenfield site, what would be the maximum amount of annual revenue we could expect to obtain by leasing it to any port developer? Note: Ballpark estimates have been provided in almost all other contexts. Will HPDP get a percentage of our leasing revenue? With Protocase approaching 200 employees with only millions in investment, isn't a billion dollar port project that only suggests doubling that employee count (400+) a low ROI investment, by comparison? Cape Breton Regional Municipality My Post Follow Me 2016-01-05 2:50 PM AST Reply 0 0 The lease of the greenfield will be negotiated between the parties and will be approved by CBRM council. Leasing revenue would be paid to CBRM. The billion dollar cost will be to build the terminal and the 400 is a conservative estimate.Other jobs will be created from spin off activity including the logistics park.
Jim Clark Follow Me 2015-12-11 11:48 AM AST Reply 0 0 I understand CCCC has agreed to fund the new feasibility study. Has there been any suggestion on who might carry out this study? Also, is there a scope of work drafted to determine what the study will focus on? Cape Breton Regional Municipality My Post Follow Me 2015-12-15 4:55 PM AST Reply 0 0 CCCC is carrying out the work. They are currently assessing the terms of reference and the scope of the feasibility including their investment.
Earlene MacMullin Follow Me 2015-12-14 8:50 PM AST Reply 1 0 Is the feasibility study based around the whole ideology of the Port of Sydney being able to construct and maintain an active port, or is this study being complete to see if CCCC are able to design and construct the container port itself in our area? It was mentioned in media that CCCC would not be the operator so it would be nice to have some clarity to make sure they going to complete an unbiased study. If the company that is planning to build the structure is the one completing the study I find it hard to believe they would not try their very best to secure their venture especially when they are willing to complete it for free. There are not many things in life that are free anymore. Cape Breton Regional Municipality My Post Follow Me 2015-12-21 4:22 PM AST Reply 0 0 The work to be undertaken by CCCC will assist them in assessing the next step for their company. This is a private-sector led development. All stakeholders will be assessing the viability of the project from their perspective based on the results from the feasibility reports. All stakeholders will seek conditions that ensure a return on investment and long term profitability. We believe the Port of Sydney can yield that result.
Joe Ward Follow Me 2015-12-15 9:18 PM AST Reply 0 0 Thank you very much for providing responses to my extensive question set. Though I have significant concerns with several of the answers, the mere fact that you've taken the time to respond is very positive, and a big step towards more responsible local government.
Joe Ward Follow Me 2015-12-27 6:41 PM AST Reply 0 0 Q. Who is paying Bechtel? Re: http://www.cbc.ca/informationmorningcb/2015/12/17/bechtel---rex-gundle---pt-1/ i. Who does Bechtel include on invoices (or will they invoice if not already issued)? ii. If it is the Port of Sydney Corp, does HPDP get a commission or any type of related fee due to the transaction? iii. If it is HPDP, what is the source of their funding? Is it monies allocated to them by the Port of Sydney Corp or the CBRM? Cape Breton Regional Municipality My Post Follow Me 2015-12-30 11:13 AM AST Reply 1 0 Hi Joe, Port CEO Marlene Usher discussed this topic in depth - among others - in a recent interview on CBC. You can find that here: http://www.cbc.ca/player/play/2680859165 Joe Ward Follow Me 2016-01-02 1:31 PM AST Reply 0 0 In a response to Wayne O'Toole's question (above), you said: "Public investment? The consortium being assembled is private-sector and financed by the private sector." In Marlene Usher's CBC interview, she says: 1. Bechtel is NOT under contract with the CBRM or Port of Sydney Development Corp, 2. Bechtel IS being paid by Sydney's Port Corporation, and 3. Bechtel is contracted by Harbour Port Development Partners (HPDP) Q. Port of Sydney Dev Corp is paying the invoices for a firm that is contracted to someone else? > Perhaps this comes down to verbiage. If so, please clarify. What I'm reading is that tax payer money has been paid to Bechtel to develop assets related to the port development. And Usher further indicates these assets were utilized to open the door to CCCC and other stakeholders. While developing and leveraging an asset isn't a bad thing, I'm curious why there is such conflict in how this project is described. (Again) Q. Is the Port of Sydney Development Corp paying invoices on behalf of HPDP, to whom Bechtel is supposedly contracted? Please resolve the apparent conflict of actions taken (money changing hands), and how the arrangement is described (i.e. a "private" consortium). It looks like the tax payers are fitting the bill, but credit being given to HPDP. The more we ask about this group, the more it sounds like we're moving towards their contribution being only travel expense and "in kind" services. I.e. Minimal expenditures; costs possibly paid for by Port of Sydney Development Corp. This exposes even further issues with nebulous claims of their personal expenses used as the key criteria for justifying their exclusivity arrangement with the CBRM. Cape Breton Regional Municipality My Post Follow Me 2016-01-05 2:55 PM AST Reply 0 0 The Port of Sydney has required that work be undertaken to advance the project and are funding a portion of the work and the Port of Sydney will own this information. The Port of Sydney are not paying invoices on behalf of HPDP. Joe Ward Follow Me 2016-01-02 1:40 PM AST Reply 0 0 1. CBRM owns the greenfield site (public asset) 2. CBRM via Port of Sydney Development Corporation has paid for the assets developed by Bechtel (Marlene Usher confirmed, Bechtel rep refused to disclose) 3. The assets of the CBRM, purchased via engagement with Bechtel (see 2), were key in opening the door to CCCC. 4. CCCC is billed (by Clarke/Usher) as the most promising move towards securing a port project. 5. Mayor Clarke (Mayor, CBRM) and Marlene Usher (CEO, Port of Sydney Development Corp) have both travelled and incurred expenses to/in China for the port project. Please correct if any of the above is incorrect. Why do we consider this a private lead consortium if the key assets developed (Bechtel engagement, assets owned (greenfield), and advances made have all been paid for or invested by the Port of Sydney Development Corporation and the CBRM, plus some Federal investment granted to Port of Sydney Dev Corp? Cape Breton Regional Municipality My Post Follow Me 2016-01-05 2:54 PM AST Reply 0 0 1. Correct. 2. Partly. We are paying a portion of costs incurred. 3. As noted above, partly purchased. Port of Sydney is not the only investor. 4. It’s another step forward. 5. Business development is costly and at a prefeasibility phase there is shared risk both by the developer and the CBRM and the Port. The project which has advanced to a new phase, full feasibility, is now being funded by the private sector. The large project of building the terminal will be private sector funded. Please keep in mind that Port of Sydney, CBRM, federal and provincial governments are all publicly accountable and regularly update the public on their activities. The private sector partners do not have this obligation and operate in a competitive marketplace. They are engaged in the project, and in the case of assembling the consortium, they are leading. They are investing their own resources.
Joan O'Connor Follow Me 2015-12-28 12:23 PM AST Reply 0 0 In the scrum after the announcement by Cecil Clarke a question was asked as to empty containers out bound. This seems to be the largest obstacle to attracting a shipping company at the moment. In Prince Rupert, which is the only terminal with similar challenges to ours they have a viable amount of outboud cargo as you can see here: http://files.rupertport.com.s3.amazonaws.com/snapshots/102/Monthly%20TEU%20Cargo%20SummaryTEU-JULY%202015.pdf?Expires=1451319290&AWSAccessKeyId=AKIAJT7NKA535OKDFPBQ&Signature=gDqxlV7qms9yIhZ0RimPvcPjx1g%3D Has anyone, to date looked seriously at the issue? if so, what were the results. Also Maersk Shipping was looking at the port two years ago. What happened in that case? Cape Breton Regional Municipality My Post Follow Me 2015-12-30 11:14 AM AST Reply 0 0 Prince Rupert is a great success story. Many aspects of that project mirror the Sydney opportunity. Port of Sydney is significantly closer to Chicago and mid-west markets than Prince Rupert - by rail and by seaway. The expansion of the Suez Canal leads to new opportunity on Atlantic trade routes. There are many moving parts in this project and finding the proper alignment of interests is critical. Outbound cargo as well as empty containers form part of the analysis that has been considered. These issues will need to be addressed to the satisfaction of shipping lines.

Peter Sheehan Follow Me 2015-12-28 2:09 PM AST Reply 0 0 Is there a sort of critical path of project steps with dates and simply worded deliverables anywhere so people can better see what is expected to happen in the next 24 months plus and then the result at each critical milestone ? Cape Breton Regional Municipality My Post Follow Me 2015-12-30 11:15 AM AST Reply 0 0 Thanks for your question. In assembling a consortium of aligned interests, we move forward in a methodical fashion. In the next months we anticipate growth of the consortium and ‎more investment in feasibility analysis (the examination of the business case from the perspectives of investors and participants across several sectors). Our goal in this timeframe is the development of a container terminal and transshipment hub at Port of Sydney.
Joan O'Connor Follow Me 2015-12-30 12:52 PM AST Reply 0 0 In the 2007 study on a port @ Sydport, the conclusion reached was that Sydport would better lend itself to break bulk and RoRo. In the CBC interview with Bectel's guy he says transshipment is the model being looked at. Is container traffic any part of the current business model study, (which seems quite advanced). ? Transshipment would indicate RoRo and break bulk are the main thrust. Cape Breton Regional Municipality My Post Follow Me 2016-01-05 2:52 PM AST Reply 0 0 The Port of Sydney Development Corporation is focused on all aspects of port development at Port of Sydney. The mandate: The Port of Sydney Development Corporation has a mandate to manage and develop the largest port development opportunity in eastern North America: the Port of Sydney, Nova Scotia, Canada. The Port of Sydney’s wide development mandate includes the harbour and the development of its infrastructure, including marine, truck, rail and air transportation services. The development mandate includes facilities contributing to or engaged in the movement of commercial goods through the seaports, highways, railroads and airports and all complementary and support services. The model being looked at involves both rail and transshipment.