United Ports seals $2.4bn terminal partnership

CMA CGM and infrastructure investor Stonepeak have completed the formation of United Ports LLC, establishing a jointly financed terminal platform across major container gateways in the Americas, Europe, and Asia.

Stonepeak has invested US$2.4 billion for a 25% interest in the business, while CMA CGM holds the remaining 75% and retains full operational control. The structure releases capital for the shipping group without transferring management of terminals that have become increasingly important to its wider transport and logistics network.

The completed portfolio contains interests in nine operating assets. These include Fenix Marine Services at the Port of Los Angeles, Port Liberty terminals in New York and Bayonne, terminals operated through Santos Brasil, facilities at Valencia, Bilbao, and Algeciras in Spain, CMA CGM’s Kaohsiung terminal in Taiwan, and Gemalink at Cai Mep in Vietnam.

Nhava Sheva Freeport Terminal in India is expected to join the venture once the relevant closing conditions and approvals have been completed. Its eventual inclusion would give United Ports a presence in another large manufacturing and sourcing market while extending the platform’s reach across six countries.

Beyond Stonepeak’s initial investment, the partners have agreed a framework through which the investor could provide a further US$3.6 billion for terminal projects. Potential uses include capacity expansion, new cargo handling equipment, stronger rail and inland connections, electrification, and shore power installations.

Those requirements extend well beyond additional berth space. Larger vessel calls place greater pressure on quay cranes, yards, gates, customs processes, rail terminals, and surrounding road networks, while uneven sailing schedules can generate sharp peaks in container exchanges. Expanding one part of a terminal without strengthening the rest of the system often moves congestion rather than removing it.

United Ports gives CMA CGM a means of funding these capital intensive projects while preserving influence over vessel windows, yard planning, equipment availability, and the transfer of containers into inland transport. The operational connection between carriers and terminals has grown closer as shipping groups have expanded into warehousing, forwarding, rail freight, air cargo, and road transport.

Terminal ownership moves closer to the cargo

Control over strategically located terminals can improve coordination between ocean schedules and landside capacity, particularly when disruption produces vessel bunching or forces late changes to port rotations. A carrier with visibility across ships, terminals, and inland services has more scope to adjust equipment and labour before a delayed vessel reaches the berth.

Greater integration also concentrates responsibility. Shippers may gain from fewer handovers and better aligned operations, but a problem within a vertically connected network can affect several stages of a movement at once. Terminal performance must therefore be assessed through total dwell time, connection reliability, gate productivity, and inland availability rather than the speed of the quay operation alone.

The capital programme at Gemalink shows the scale of investment required in fast growing manufacturing regions. Its second development phase is intended to raise annual capacity from 1.7 million to three million TEU by late 2027, supporting increasing cargo volumes through southern Vietnam and the Cai Mep port complex.

Investment in rail and inland connections will carry similar weight at European and North American assets. An enlarged terminal may process more containers over the quay, yet boxes can remain trapped in the yard when train paths, chassis, drivers, or depot capacity are unavailable. Reliable onward movement determines whether additional maritime capacity translates into shorter supply chains.

Electrification introduces another layer of infrastructure demand. Electric cranes, yard tractors, automated equipment, refrigerated containers, and shore power can reduce local emissions and fuel consumption, although their combined electrical load may require substantial grid reinforcement. Ports, terminal operators, utilities, carriers, and local authorities must coordinate work that can take considerably longer than buying new handling equipment.

Shore power presents a particularly demanding case because visiting vessels require compatible connections, sufficient electricity, agreed tariffs, and infrastructure positioned around active berths. The resulting emissions reduction can be considerable where ships would otherwise run auxiliary engines throughout a port stay, but utilisation must be high enough to justify the capital committed.

Stonepeak’s participation brings long duration infrastructure capital into a portfolio that would be difficult and expensive to replicate. Major container terminals depend on scarce waterfront land, deep water access, licences, established customer relationships, and connections to inland freight networks, creating barriers that extend well beyond conventional property development.

CMA CGM, meanwhile, gains a financing structure that supports further expansion while keeping the terminals aligned with its shipping and logistics operations. The eventual allocation of the additional US$3.6 billion will show whether United Ports concentrates on enlarging its existing gateways or uses the platform to acquire and develop further assets.

Nine terminals already give the venture considerable geographic reach, but ownership alone will not determine its performance. The enduring measure will be whether investment increases usable capacity across the entire port interface, from a vessel’s arrival and crane productivity through to customs release, rail departure, and final collection from the yard.