| Submit your comments on this article | |
| Caribbean-Latin America | |
| $20bn and 10 years to build - a giant rival for Panama canal | |
| 2006-10-04 | |
The mega-engineering project is expected to take more than 10 years to build but could redraw the map of world trade by opening the east coast of North America, Europe and Brazil to large-scale sea traffic from burgeoning Pacific rim countries including China and South Korea. The new route would cut 500 miles - or at least a day - off the route between California and New York, and could considerably shorten and cheapen the journey from China to Europe for large ships. Yesterday's formal announcement of what is known as the Grand Inter-Oceanic Nicaragua Canal was greeted with trepidation by nearby Panama, which is also planning to widen its canal. It fears that its main source of income will be seriously affected if Nicaragua builds a rival. If built, the Nicaraguan canal would allow 250,000-tonne tankers and container ships to pass through the isthmus that divides the two oceans, compared with the Panama canal's 79,000-tonne boats. Even if an expected $5bn (£2.6bn) upgrade of the Panama canal goes ahead, it is expected to only accommodate 120,000-tonne boats. | |
| Posted by:Steve White |
| #16 There are a couple of major problems with a Nicaragua canal. First, the lake is 105 feet above sea level, but only 84 feet at the deepest point. It's a long run up the San Juan river from the Caribbean to the lake, but only about 10 miles from the Pacific. Dropping 105 feet in 10 miles would require some hefty locks. There are some substantial volcanos along the western edge of the lake, and two on one of the many islands within the lake. While the San Juan is considered "navigable", I don't think it's capable of supporting supertankers or US aircraft carriers. A second canal in Panama, say from the San Blas Gulf west-southwest to the Pacific may make more sense, since it could continue to use water stored in Gatun Lake. |
| Posted by: Old Patriot 2006-10-04 22:35 |
| #15 -- they would however, require time-consuming and expensive loading and unloading of containers.-- Jobs and we'd have a foot there by requireing scanning of all containers. The Chicoms own Panama - give them the competition. |
| Posted by: anonymous2u 2006-10-04 22:26 |
| #14 150 billion maybe. But a sealevel canal allowing passing supertankers to pass in Lake Manugaga would be a gold mine. |
| Posted by: Shipman 2006-10-04 18:37 |
| #13 Re #5 - we already have a huge number of containers offloaded on the west coast and railed to the center of the US. We even have some shipped to Houston and loaded back on a ship for points east. Still - they built the Chunnel..... |
| Posted by: Bobby 2006-10-04 18:16 |
| #12 Won't global warming take care of the problem eventually ? |
| Posted by: wxjames 2006-10-04 17:53 |
| #11 There was an old Atoms for Peace idea to dig this canal in an interesting way. |
| Posted by: 3dc 2006-10-04 17:02 |
| #10 If I remember correctly Nicaragua has some nice lakes that shorten the distance but it also has a chain of volcanos which makes things very complicated. |
| Posted by: rjschwarz 2006-10-04 16:57 |
| #9 $20 billion is a small fraction of the cost to build a canal big enough for the largest containerships and oil tankers. A Nicaraguan canal would be over 100 miles and would have to have the ability to raise and lower supertankers. Note the channel tunnel cost $21 billion for a 31 mile hole for a train (12 years ago). Hugo might go for the idea though. |
| Posted by: DoDo 2006-10-04 16:47 |
| #8 Gleaque Shairong2690: Correct. Note that it was the FRENCH who had started the canal in Panama, failed and got the US to buy them out. Coincidence? |
| Posted by: Iblis 2006-10-04 13:42 |
| #7 Hey, Nicaragua, make sure you don't let Jimmy Carter get involved. Just sayin'... |
| Posted by: mcsegeek1 2006-10-04 13:22 |
| #6 If they build the canal and a free-wheeling hong-kong style near zero taxation capitalist container port on each end I think they'd find the Panama Canal would be ignored pretty damn quick. |
| Posted by: rjschwarz 2006-10-04 12:37 |
| #5 As to the unloading issue of containers the idea of roll-on roll-off ships with rail containers utilizing railcars seems to make sense. But then we run into the issue of rail gauge widths |
| Posted by: Cheaderhead 2006-10-04 10:52 |
| #4 (1) The current canal is too narrow for many ships. (2) A chinese company with strong ties to their government controls the existing canal operations IIRC. |
| Posted by: lotp 2006-10-04 09:44 |
| #3 iirc, the Nicaraguan was the first choice for the Americans to build a trans-ocean canal. However, investors in defunct Panama ventures engaged in [horrors] lobbying to get the Yanks to buy their holdings out. To include a nifty propaganda piece of a bogus Nic postcard showing an erupting volcano. |
| Posted by: Gleaque Shairong2690 2006-10-04 08:47 |
| #2 Iff histoire' is any measure, odds are iff the USA doesn't start it, the USA will end up completing the project for them. |
| Posted by: JosephMendiola 2006-10-04 05:38 |
| #1 Do what you like. The US doesn't have a merchant marine anymore. Talk to Liberia and Nassau. Perhaps they will be willing to foot the bill. |
| Posted by: Super Hose 2006-10-04 00:55 |