Dancing the Charleston

$ 63.7 million for container-handling equipment, $33,155,000 of which purchases four new container cranes, and another $ 25,824,000 going for the sixteen new RTGs … Wouldn’t you just love to get the commissions on those sales? And the 59 pieces of equipment in Charleston’s fleet of container handlers … what do you suppose the tab was for those vehicles? The salesman who puts these deals together is in a class by himself. He could sell sand to the Arabs.

Even before this website went on line, information about our patented “container-handling” systems was placed in the hands of a number of folks in the Charleston area including the governor and some of the state representatives.
• We’ve made it clear in this website, and in our personal appearances in South Carolina, that our system would require only one of the existing terminal sites in order to handle not only today’s volume of containers but also the projected volume increases in the foreseeable future … however optimistic that estimate might be. Instead of the harbor having the appearance of an enormous junkyard, the remaining terminals would be dismantled and the sites turned back to the community for other more practical and profitable uses. Charleston deserves something more attractive than messy container terminals in what was arguably the Southland’s most beautiful maritime setting.
• We’ve also made it clear that the State’s taxpaying citizens would not be required to fund the construction and/or operation of our facility. The operations of the State’s conventionally-structure facility has already relieved taxpayers of hundreds of millions of dollars, and the annual returns to the State for these ongoing investments are paltry by any standards. Even the salespersons’ commissions exceed the amounts returned to the State.
• We’ve made it clear that our facility would not require container cranes of the “super-post-Panamax” variety. There are already ‘way too many container cranes in the harbor. We’d make use of a few and auction off those we’d consider to be surplus.
• We’ve made it clear that our patented systems are designed to operate without the encumbrances of RTGs and RMGs. More surplus to be auctioned off. And the 59 pieces of container handlers in Charleston’s yards? Ditto. We’d use only four-pronged fork trucks … and we’d never require 59 of ‘em.
• We’ve made it clear that we’ll pay several hundred thousand dollars per acre per year to the State to lease the land we’ll require, and we’ll pay an additional $ 10 for every TEU we handle in the course of the year … imported as well as exported TEUs. For example: We’ll pass through at least 3 million TEUs per 100 acres. We’ll pass through at least 6 million TEUs per 200 acres … and our cost-effective system will indeed attract 6 million TEUs. If we agree to pay $ 500,000 per acre every year, the State will realize a return of $ 50 million for a mere 100 acres … plus a $ 10 fee for each TEU, of course. You do the math. Is the present authority paying anywhere near that much to the State nowadays? This much we know . This year’s record-breaking volume at Charleston is still under 2 million TEUs. The port is in debt by $ 137 million, and committed to add another $ 63.7 million to the wrong side of the ledger. You can live with that?