Meeting of the Economic Working Group of the SEG took place on Monday, July 9, 2001 @
1:30pm. It was held at USACE/Savannah 3rd floor conference room.
Meeting was called to order by Judy Jennings, EWG Chairperson @ 1:45pm. Mr. Shelby
recorded the minutes. Agenda items for the meeting were agreed upon by the
attendees. They were as follows:
Morgan Rees stated that the data reported in this paper has been exhaustively footnoted to allow referencing without bias. Considerable effort has been taken to include all online information available. Terry Stratton had questions about the completeness of the paper. He wondered if the group was missing data that could have been offered in publication that were not "online". The question within the group at that time was... "How to approach this paper?" Morgan Rees stated that each item listed should be looked at in the basic of ways. Assumption Items vs Examine Items. Assumption items were assumed in the initial feasibility study by Booz- Allen Engineering. Examine items are what the EWG wanted to see answered. There are nine assumptions (A - I) and nine examine items (J - R). Each will be discussed in alphabetical order. Before full discussion of the assumption item (A); resolution of possible missing data/referencing and a specific outside item took place. It is noted per Terry Stratton that the following list should be gleaned for additional data to be included in the final draft of this white paper.
It was also noted within the EWG that GPA reached 1 million TEU's in June 2001. This could later some white paper data on growth.
Full discussion of assumption item "A" began. . "Savannah will retain it's regional market share". It was stated by Terry Stratton that commodities that are exported and imported through the port of Savannah are regional. Listing these specific commodities should not be difficult. They could be tracked through U.S. Customs data and/or through GPA data. The group asked is this data could be obtained to verify the final conclusion of this item. Morgan Rees asked Terry Stratton to submit such a list to the EWG. Judy Jennings stated that she felt exports were more reliable than imports; due to the fact that Savannah now has several large regional distribution centers. This could be driven by the areas large regional population. But, to adequately and fully answer this question the group might need to questions each company directly. " Why did your company locate your distribution center in Savannah?" The EWG also wondered if this trade is secure. Some parts of this answer could be gleaned through analysis of commodities data from U.S. Customs and/or GPA.
A consensus was reached on assumption item "A". It was not objected to by the EWG . But, further data is needed to fully verify and/or defense the statement as the data is uncovered.
Full discussion of assumption item "B" began. . " Savannah share of US market will decrease" Discussion within the group began as to alliances and/or agreements between port to port partners of Savannah. Are there Latin American or South American ports that move specific commodities through Savannah that can justify large draft vessels? Are there any trading partners tied to Savannah or other U.S. ports that are planning expansion projects that would justify harbor deepening? The group maintained that obtaining additional data about what percent of LA/SA ports are planning port expansions would be beneficial. Also, additional data about the percent of "All-Water Routes"...ie...Panama Canal vs Suez Canal.
A consensus was reached on assumption item "B". The conclusion that the assumption was not valid was agreed upon by the EWG. But, additional data should be obtained to fully defense the statement.
Full discussion of assumption item "C" began.. "6.1% short-term growth, 4.8% long-term growth"
It was stated by Morgan Rees that the conclusion of this assumption was lower than anticipated but fair(based on current research). Mr. Rees further stated that growth within container shipping will exceed U.S. GDP (based on current research). And it will exceed regular cargo shipping as well. Therefore an agreement was attained within the EWG.
A consensus was reached on this conclusion. The EWG agreed with the conclusion. But, further data( as it is available/uncovered) will be needed to fully validate this conclusion.
Full discussion of assumption item "D" began.. " Local, regional national and international economic growth will continue."
A consensus was reached by the EWG. The conclusion that the assumption was valid was agreed upon by the group.
Full discussion of assumption item "E" began. . " Projections in the South Atlantic Ports Study apply."
A consensus was reached by the EWG about the conclusion within the paper. The conclusion that this study's application as economic analysis associated with the proposed harbor deepening project is outdated and underestimated compared to actual statistic was agreed upon by the EWG.
Full discussion of assumption item "F" began.. " Non- containerized shipments are important to project economics." The group collectively said that the size of vessels in non-containerized shipping should be studied and explored as it applies to harbor deepening project. Also, the future of these fleets should be studied.
A consensus was reached by the EWG that this assumption is valid. But, additional data is needed to fully defend this statement.
Full discussion of assumption item "G" began. " Industry trend is away from general cargo." The conclusion within this paper was that the assumption was valid. No dissenting views within the EWG were given.
A consensus was reached by the EWG that the conclusion within the paper was valid and was accepted as written.
Full discussion of assumption item "H" began. " Transition from general cargo will be moderate in the future." The conclusion within the paper is that the assumption is not valid. Further, conclusion within the paper states that it will happen rapidly and steadily.
A consensus was reached within the EWG that the conclusion within the paper is valid about the assumption.
Full discussion of assumption item "I" began. " Some growth in Asian
trade will shift to the Suez Canal." Judy Jennings had some difficulties with the
valuation of units of time within this item. She further stated that shipping time vs wait
time to access the port
should be valued equally. Further data as to the future ratios of 3000 TEU vessels (Panama
Canal routes) vs 6000 TEU vessels(Suez Canal routes) should be factored equally into the
final conclusion of this assumption. The papers conclusion is that the assumption cannot
be proven.
A consensus was reached by the EWG. It was agreed upon that the conclusion within the paper that this assumption cannot be proven is valid.
Full discussion of assumption item "J" began. The EWG consensus was that the conclusion that trade projections based on those areas cited in the assumption was acceptable for now. Further data might be needed in the future.
White paper items (J - R) discussions were tabled till the next meeting of the EWG. These are all of the "Examine Items".
The letter has been sent out and to date the EWG has received varied input/responses from almost all agencies involved. Main theme of their responses was that they "will participate" in the discussion of valuations on natural resources. But, they are "unfamiliar" and "unsure of exact methodologies to do so." It was noted within the groups' discussion that GPA wants full mitigation and anticipates 100% mitigation. Russell Webb stated that he was unsure (per U.S. FWS) if there is a "real" methodology to place dollar value on natural resources. Ted Will stated that he felt that obtaining value figures for total impact of project could be obtained; as it relates to stripped bass. A consensus was reached by the EWG that there is no specific methodology to date. Progress toward that is limited. But, some agencies are still "looking" for answers.
It was stated that the contents of the letter was part of the ongoing research of the USACE.
New boundaries were discussed as to facilitating tine spent per item and per paper. A time facilitator was discussed for future meeting of the EWG. Morgan Rees and Ali Rees stated that they would estimate when to expect final drafts of initial White Paper and get back to the group with those purposed dates. It was agreed upon by the attendees that the EWG would meet again on 7/31/2001 @ 9am (site to be determined) to finish the examine items of the Trade Projections White Paper and to take up and complete discussions of the Fleet Projections White Paper.
Meeting was adjourned @ 5:10pm
Respectfully Submitted,
John T, Shelby, LWV of Sav'h/Chatham