[@Letter Bee]

No. As far as I know neither region are known for precious metals and any precious metals they have would have had to be imported in exchange for exports or as taxes for through-passing caravans. Or direct spending on the Ottoman court in the region. The timber of those territories may not be wide spread enough either for any commercial use, which is not to mention trees that develop in arid environments don't tend to be tall enough, straight enough, or regular enough for ship building (cyprus trees tend to be short and skinny, olive and nut trees too knotted, and if you were to go extreme and go to Australia where Eucalyptus can be tall enough it is also too hard and far too knotted to plane down to regular boards). So Egypt would have to still export timber in exchange for gold or direct exchange of commodities (Fiat vs Commodity Money).

To that point as outlined in the article Egypt had to make use of French expertise imported into the country and utilized a shipyard in Cairo built by Napoleon to even make the ships that were disassembled and caravaned to the Red Sea for use in the Arab campaigns that are the subject of the essay. But:

The French would be willing to sanction some small amount of ship building timber to Egypt for an amount of commodity in exchange if not just straight gold. But the French will not send significant amount of timber so as to not make the British or Ottomans too upset and maintain a regional balance.