DP World signs lease option for Corpus Christi container terminal

When does the Corpus Christi container terminal open?

DP World has signed a lease option agreement with the Port of Corpus Christi to develop a container terminal capable of handling 1 million twenty-foot equivalent units annually. No construction timeline or opening date has been announced. The port currently handles no container traffic.

The agreement marks DP World's first U.S. container terminal development since 2006, when bipartisan opposition in Congress forced the Dubai government-owned operator to divest terminal leases at several major American ports over national security concerns.

Jeffrey Pollack, chief strategy and sustainability officer for the Port of Corpus Christi Authority, confirmed the lease option during the American Association of Port Authorities annual convention in New Orleans on September 29. Under the proposed development, DP World would design, build, and operate the terminal.

What capacity is planned for the terminal?

Port officials envision a relatively modest operation by the standards of the largest U.S. gateways, with capacity ultimately topping out around 1 million TEUs annually. Corpus Christi currently is not a container port. Adding container operations would diversify a cargo base heavily centered on energy.

The port is one of the nation's largest gateways by total tonnage but has historically focused on crude oil, liquefied natural gas, refined petroleum products, agricultural commodities, and industrial cargo rather than containers. Customers moved 110.3 million tons through the Corpus Christi Ship Channel during the first half of 2026, up 7.7 percent from the previous first-half record of 102.4 million tons set a year earlier.

DP World is one of the world's largest terminal operators, handling roughly 10 percent of global container traffic through more than 60 ports and terminals.

What happened in 2006?

The company became the center of a major political controversy in 2006 after its acquisition of British terminal operator P&O would have transferred P&O's terminal leases and operations at several major U.S. ports to DP World. The deal triggered bipartisan opposition in Congress over national security concerns.

DP World ultimately announced in March 2006 that it would divest P&O's U.S. operations after lawmakers moved to block the transaction. The controversy came despite the George W. Bush administration's support for the transaction and its position that port security would remain under the responsibility of U.S. Customs and Border Protection and the Coast Guard, according to the U.S. Senate Commerce Committee's February 28, 2006 hearing on terminal security.

The Corpus Christi project would mark DP World's first U.S. container terminal development since that episode and its first container terminal development on the U.S. Gulf Coast.

What inland port property supports the terminal?

Corpus Christi recently acquired about 2,000 acres roughly 8 to 10 miles south of its Inner Harbor that port officials envision as an inland port supporting the proposed container terminal. Pollack said the property can connect with all three Class I railroads serving the port and multiple interstate highway systems, potentially attracting manufacturing, warehousing, and other import-export operations.

DP World and the Port of Corpus Christi first announced in June that they had entered exclusive negotiations for a long-term lease. At the time, the parties said negotiations would focus on terminal design, capacity planning, and the project's investment structure.

What this means for drayage fleets

The project could significantly alter Corpus Christi's position in Gulf Coast freight markets. A new 1-million-TEU terminal in a port that currently handles zero containers will create drayage demand where none exists today. Fleets serving Houston or other Gulf Coast container ports may find new lanes opening if the terminal attracts import-export cargo that currently moves through other gateways.

The 2,000-acre inland port site with Class I rail access suggests intermodal volumes, not just local dray. That means longer average haul distances and potentially steadier contract work for carriers willing to spec equipment for container chassis. The timeline remains unclear, but the lease option is signed. Fleets planning equipment replacement cycles in the next three to five years should watch for construction announcements.