Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

If the Panama Canal gets a rival

worldif.economist.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 47 posts

Re: If the Panama Canal gets a rival

#31

Post by BurningFrog »

InclinedPlane wrote: post #22
mschuster91 wrote: post #16

> After all, what wouldn’t China pay to see one of its naval fleets one day emerging from the Central American jungle right under America’s nose? Not that the US Navy couldn't already shoot up entire fleets with missiles, but when a fleet passes through a tiny canal, well, it's a canal and a tiny nuke is enough to blow up the entire fleet with no way to escape...

It's 2015, fleets don't move without being observed today. Every major power has surveillance satellites specifically designed for keeping track of naval fleets. A Chinese fleet rushing around the world on a provocative trajectory toward the continental US is going to gain a lot of attention and a lot of company very rapidly.

To monitor an inland canal you just need a guy and a lawn chair.

Re: If the Panama Canal gets a rival

#32

Post by BurningFrog »

realityking wrote: post #23
PhasmaFelis wrote: post #15

It's weird how they compare China's (hypothetical) desire for a naval military presence in the Atlantic to the USA's presence in the Pacific. Guys, the USA has coasts on the Atlantic and Pacific. No one can say we don't have a legitimate interest in defending our borders at least. I can't think of any reason for China to have carrier groups steaming around the Atlantic other than "lookin' for trouble."

Pray tell, why do you have a carrier in the Indian Ocean?

The US is to a quite good approximation, the only naval power on the planet.

Re: If the Panama Canal gets a rival

#33

Post by protomyth »

The two-lock waterway could take vessels with a proposed freight capacity of 25,000 20-foot containers, or 20-foot equivalent units (TEUs); currently the biggest ships have a capacity of around 19,000 TEUs and make up a tiny fraction of the world fleet. Even the expanded Panama Canal, due to open in 2016, is limited to taking cargoes of 13,000 TEUs, so ships that otherwise would have rounded Cape Horn or gone via Suez would be able to move more easily between east and west.

That's about the only reason I can see for building this canal.

Re: If the Panama Canal gets a rival

#34

Post by rch »

PhasmaFelis wrote: post #15

It's weird how they compare China's (hypothetical) desire for a naval military presence in the Atlantic to the USA's presence in the Pacific. Guys, the USA has coasts on the Atlantic and Pacific. No one can say we don't have a legitimate interest in defending our borders at least. I can't think of any reason for China to have carrier groups steaming around the Atlantic other than "lookin' for trouble."

My understanding is that China conducts significant resource exploration and production activities in the Gulf of Mexico and other areas around the Atlantic already.

As far as I know they are not currently building any islands.

Re: If the Panama Canal gets a rival

#35

Post by GnarfGnarf »

yc1010 wrote: post #24
jabits wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not the main reason. As always, politics really ruled with US-Columbia relations factoring in heavily (Panama was a province of Columbia early on in planning), as well as the existing US-owned Panama Railway.

There was a good documentary on PBC about the canal recently, the US basically staged a coup for Panama to gain independence from Columbia and in return got their Canal Zone

ColOmbia?

Re: If the Panama Canal gets a rival

#36

Post by GnarfGnarf »

It is more likely that Peak Oil will kick in before the project is completed. There will be a permanent change in the order of things, it will no longer be economical to import plastic doodads from China, world shipping will decline and the Nicaragua canal will lie half-finished like stone statues on Easter Island.

Re: If the Panama Canal gets a rival

#37

Post by imglorp »

pavement wrote: post #18
CPLX wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Harbors generally are freshwater, and boundaries between fresh and sea water are innumerable, if you stop and think about it for a few seconds. If this was a real problem it would have contaminated Lake Michigan and the Hudson Valley by the same means. The reason it hasn't is that water generally doesn't flow uphill.

I guess 32.7 meters above sea level is reasonably uphill. I'm too lazy to calculate the approximate volume of fresh water that represents, based on the lake's surface area. Pretty safe to say that the rest of the lake's volume, at and below sea level wouldn't be rendered brackish too easily. Although, given China's penchant for environmental accidents, I wouldn't put it past them, if all that additional lake water ab…

Meh, China may have Three Gorges, but Western corps have plenty of environmental atrocities as well. They can pretty much operate with impunity, even on US soil. Bhopal, Prince Edward Sound, Deepwater Horizon, Niger Delta, fracking, etc etc. I think the only constant is money.

Re: If the Panama Canal gets a rival

#39

Post by eloff »

brianbreslin wrote: post #3

Disclaimer, I'm part Panamanian, that being said, I find this highly suspicious. A lot of my Nicaraguan friends are also highly doubtful this will ever take off. The big problems for Nicaragua with this are: - Horrible ecological impact (fisheries in Caribbean are already [1] - Many think this is an excuse for the politicians to get cushy land/resort deals along the proposed route and near the entrances to the canal…

I've been living in Panama since 2006. I've followed a lot of the articles around the Nicaraguan canal to try to get some sense of how it will affect Panama.

My conclusion is a canal in Nicaragua makes no economic sense, there must be some hidden motivation at play here, such as personal glory for Wang Jing or a ploy to secure land rights and tax exemptions. The reasoning is as follows:

1) The possible ROI from a ~$70 billion investment is very low. The same revenue can be achieved by building a third set of locks in Panama for ~$15 billion. Right away it looks like bad business. Most ways you can spend $70 billion will yield a better return with less risk.

2) The Chinese government is not involved. If it were a political thing, it could explain why someone would forge ahead despite the poor ROI, but the government is not financing it and government companies won't touch it with a stick.

3) Wang Jing is a telcom billionaire and neither he nor his company have any experience with construction or engineering.

4) A Chinese construction and engineering company has offered to finance and build a fourth set of super-sized locks in Panama for ~17 billion. This would compete directly with a hypothetical Nicaraguan Canal for the largest ships, but at a much smaller investment.

Given two nearly identical products, the company with lower costs will be able to offer lower prices while still making a profit. That will clearly be Panama. There's just no logic in the Federation's move here. Jorge Quijano, who leads the Panama Canal Authority, has come to the same conclusion.

[1] http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-04-23/panama-can...

[2] http://insidecostarica.com/2015/04/14/chinese-interested-fin...

[4] http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/03/26/us-panama-canal-id...

Re: If the Panama Canal gets a rival

#40

Post by tjradcliffe »

pavement wrote: post #18
CPLX wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Harbors generally are freshwater, and boundaries between fresh and sea water are innumerable, if you stop and think about it for a few seconds. If this was a real problem it would have contaminated Lake Michigan and the Hudson Valley by the same means. The reason it hasn't is that water generally doesn't flow uphill.

I guess 32.7 meters above sea level is reasonably uphill. I'm too lazy to calculate the approximate volume of fresh water that represents, based on the lake's surface area. Pretty safe to say that the rest of the lake's volume, at and below sea level wouldn't be rendered brackish too easily. Although, given China's penchant for environmental accidents, I wouldn't put it past them, if all that additional lake water ab…

For comparison, the Great Lakes are about 60 m above sea level (Kingston, at the junction of Lake Ontario and the St Lawrence, is at 200 ft). Salt water inundation has not been a problem. However, invasive species (zebra mussels, for example) have been. They are fresh water species that get sucked up into ballast water in other ports (many of which are on rivers or estuaries) and pumped out in other destinations. There are procedures to avoid this (exchanging fresh-water ballast for salt water while at sea, for example) but those procedures are inevitably implemented by humans, who are certain to eventually make a mistake sufficient to cause contamination.
Post reply on HN