One day last week we discussed a “preliminary analysis” that had just been released stating that the proposed port in Jasper County could generate $ 2.3 billion for South Carolina and Georgia by the year 2020. Annual container volumes at the new port were projected to grow at rates of “6.7 percent” and “5.3 percent” between now and 2050, the analysts estimated.

But on the very same day The Post and Courier published a story that put a different slant on things. According to the story, officials say that Maersk Lines, the Port of Charleston’s biggest client … and the world’s largest shipping line … is threatening to leave the port “unless the State Ports Authority and the International Longshoremen’s Association can come together and throw it a financial life raft.”

In a written statement, Maersk said that it “cannot remain in Charleston if it means losing money, and therefore, if a path which enables profitability cannot be found, we will have to depart.”

But the SPA and the ILA, according to reports, “have been unable to find common ground in the high stakes negotiations.”

In an attempt at appeasement, a solution proposed by the ports authority would cut dozens of union jobs at a time when man-hours on the local docks have already plummeted. ILA officials won’t have it, saying it would set a troubling precedent.

Maersk’s threatened departure also comes at a particularly sensitive time for the SPA. It recently reported a nearly 10 percent drop in container volume for its latest fiscal year.”

The SPA’s chief executive officer said that the problem centers on a contract between Maersk and the SPA that requires the port to purchase more than $ 8 million in equipment and commit terminal space and staffing to Maersk … which happens to account for about 24 percent of the SPA’s container volume.

“Throughout 2008,” the story reported, “the company has been charged ‘shortfall’ fees for not meeting the volume agreed upon in the contract with the SPA. Those fees,” which the port director refused to disclose, “only compound the financial problem of not moving as much cargo. The SPA proposed two solutions,” the director said.

• “One would modify the license agreement, reducing Maersk’s space and taking back some of the equipment the SPA purchased.

• The other would move Maersk’s operations at Wando Welch Terminal to a ‘common-use area’ in the yard, where non-union SPA employees would perform the jobs currently handled by union workers.”

The latter plan appealed to Maersk because it would reduce operational costs, but the protesting ILA president said the move to the common area would eliminate the jobs for 30 clerks, 16 maintenance workers and 67 longshoremen. After losing 300,000 man-hours since 2004, the official reported, man-hours are down at least 10 percent so far this year. He also stated that seasoned longshoremen are about to lose their benefits because they can’t find enough work.

The ILA will not concede, the president said. “The decision pretty much has been made that we cannot afford to do that,” he said, adding that accepting the arrangement would set a standard that national ILA leaders would not support.

As part of a nationwide cost-cutting move, Maersk closed down its Charleston customer-service center, terminating 140 local employees. SPA’s chief executive, commenting on this closure, said the company’s worldwide market-share is down. “They’re talking to ports all around the country to cancel or change their arrangements,” he said.

“But the problem is here now,” the article stated. “Charleston Port Services owner Robert New said the maritime community hopes for a resolution that will keep Maersk calling. ‘We can’t stand to lose any more business in this port,’ he said.”

Obviously, Mr. New and others, including the port’s chief executive, have known for some time that TEU volumes at the Port of Charleston were declining. In fact, The Post and Courier produced an article early this year with the following headline:

“Economic slowdown to be felt at port”

“Volume in February is forecast to drop 7.6 percent compared with the same month last year,” the report stated. “If that forecast holds true, it will be the seventh month in a row to show a year-over-year decline, as retailers reduce imports to reflect lower sales expectations … Further, data released by the State Ports Authority shows cargo volume in Charleston was down 13.2 percent for the first six months of its fiscal year compared with the same period the previous year …”

When “retailers reduce imports to reflect lower sales expectations,” that means that the customer – the buying public – determines what, and how much, will be delivered to the port. Carriers, like Maersk for example, can only supply what’s demanded, and most people have no trouble understanding that concept. SPA officials may be among the exceptions, however.

They’re very good at selling, though. Even though the port’s container volume dropped 10 percent in this last fiscal year, and even though the world’s largest shipping line is having difficulty finding a path that will enable profitability not only at Charleston but elsewhere around the globe, and even though the bottom has been falling out of the world’s economy, SPA officials haven’t been at all bashful about requesting hundreds of millions of dollars from South Carolina taxpayers for one kind of upgrading or another.

[It’s that “6.5 percent” and “5.3 percent” growth rate mentioned in the recent “preliminary analysis” that will loosen the purse strings!]