Plans for Nicaraguan canal

[mr friendly guy]

What can I say, I am interested in big infrastructure projects.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-28206683

Nicaragua canal route: Atlantic-Pacific link unveiled

The Nicaraguan government and the company behind plans to build a canal linking the Atlantic and the Pacific Ocean have settled on a route.

It would stretch 278km (173 miles) from Punta Gorda on the Caribbean through Lake Nicaragua to the mouth of the river Brito on the Pacific.

Environmentalists have expressed concerns about the plans to build a canal to rival that of Panama.

Nicaragua says it will break ground on the $40bn (£23bn) project this year.

Environmental concerns
Engineers for the Hong Kong-based HKND Group said the canal would be between 230m and 520m wide and 27.6m deep.

Nicaragua said it had chosen the route so it would avoid areas of great biodiversity, indigenous territories and environmentally protected lands.

But environmentalists are still concerned about the effects it may have on Lake Nicaragua, Central America's largest lake and an important source of fresh water.

The commission in charge of building the canal said environmental and social impact studies would be carried out on the route and changes would still be possible.

It said it expected construction to begin in December and to be finished within five years.

'No rivalry'

Sceptics point out that it took the United States 10 years to build the Panama Canal, which at 77km is less than a third of the length of the planned canal through Nicaragua.

But Nicaragua insists engineering and construction techniques have moved on since 1914, when the Panama Canal was completed.

Nicaraguan officials say their waterway would "complement" the Panama Canal rather than be in direct rivalry to it.

They say a bigger canal is essential to allow for increased global trade and ever larger tankers, many of which are too large for the Panama Canal, even after its current expansion.

They are confident the project will help lift the country out of poverty.

Paul Oquist, a close adviser to President Daniel Ortega on the project, said that formal employment in Nicaragua "would double thanks to the canal and its multiplier effect".

Mr Oquist told the BBC that the projects surrounding the canal, such as the creation of two free-trade zones, two ports linked by a railway and an international airport would create "a formative change in job creation".

The government estimates it will lift more than 400,000 people out of general poverty by 2018 with the help of revenues created by the project.

Opposition lawmakers have been sceptical of the government's projections.

Congressman Eliseo Nunez of the Independent Liberal Party called the announcement of the canal route "a propaganda game, a media show to continue generating false hopes of future prosperity among Nicaraguans".

Nice picture.

Being longer than the Panama canal its going to cost more to build presumably in today's dollars compared to if the Panama Canal was built today. It however is wider and capable of dealing with larger ships. Geographically if you're talking about trade between the Atlantic and the Pacific, the route will appear shorter.

[madd0ct0r]

Sceptics point out that it took the United States 10 years to build the Panama Canal, which at 77km is less than a third of the length of the planned canal through Nicaragua.

But Nicaragua insists engineering and construction techniques have moved on since 1914, when the Panama Canal was completed.

Yeah, just a little bit

[cosmicalstorm]

Is Nicaragua still a rival of the US? I wonder what (or if it would try to) subtle sabotage the US might deliver to this project.

What would happen if they connected both oceans without any locks on the way?

[mr friendly guy]

Well the US did fund money against Daniel Ortega, Nicaragua's current president when he was ruling back in Reagan's time. He is also a leftist and we know what that means to America.

[Sea Skimmer]

Is Nicaragua still a rival of the US? I wonder what (or if it would try to) subtle sabotage the US might deliver to this project.

The US doesn't give a damn. Actually it appears this canal will be big enough for a CVN to transit so building it might be a major strategic advantage to the US, but I'd kinda expect Nicaragua to ban nuclear powered ships of any form and ships carrying nuclear weapons from the canal, defacto banning all US warships as the US won't confirm/deny nukes on specific anything.

What would happen if they connected both oceans without any locks on the way?

The ocean current will end up favoring one direction or the other, as I recall the Atlantic side is a little higher at Panama but it might not be at a different point on the coast. At Suez the Red Sea side is higher and hundreds of Red Sea species have swum into the Mediterranean and generally taken over.

The Panama canal meanwhile is an excellent defense against invasives because leaving aside the whole lock thing, the lake is true freshwater and this kills almost all marine growth on the hulls of the ships transiting. Most coastal ports even on rivers are brackish enough that this doesn't happen otherwise.

[Simon_Jester]

Sceptics point out that it took the United States 10 years to build the Panama Canal, which at 77km is less than a third of the length of the planned canal through Nicaragua.

But Nicaragua insists engineering and construction techniques have moved on since 1914, when the Panama Canal was completed.

Yeah, just a little bit

The catch is that modern engineering methods are a lot more safety-conscious than 1900-era ones. We COULD in theory use modern machinery to do the same jobs much faster, but in practice we just use it to hire fewer workers to do the job, then take about as long to do it anyway.

But then we COULD, in theory, dig the whole canal by running a series of boreholes and touching off subterranean nuclear explosions so the surface rock falls into the craters.* Whole job done in a week or two once the first construction machinery arrives. Thing is, it'd be a very radioactive canal, and structurally not very sound...

*Obviously we'd have to install locks unless we used even MORE nukes...
_________________

Also, I don't know if Nicaragua has corruption problems; if they do everything will be harder. I hope they don't.

[madd0ct0r]

meh. with little working at height there's less issue with safety regs. Big earth movers only suffer when they have to work around squishy humans. Given a clear run, it'd basically be straight line strip mine.

[Ziggy Stardust]

Honestly, the big things that delay modern projects (and will probably delay this one beyond the projected 5 years) are just bureaucratic red tape and good old fashioned corruption. In my home town, it took them 15 years to build a bridge that way maybe 100ft long for this reason. The Big Dig in Boston was similarly delayed due to that kind of idiocy.

[Elheru Aran]

Earth-moving technology hasn't changed *that* much since the Panama Canal was dug; it's just a bit more efficient and stronger. Given enough liberty, the right equipment and skilled operators, a Nicaraguan Canal could be dug within months, not years. Installing the locks would take some extra time but construction and excavation these days are two industries that have gotten quite good at what they do.

I suspect it's unlikely to happen anytime soon, though.

[Broomstick]

Medical science has also advanced since 1914, when there were major, major problems with workers falling ill. Thousands died. This definitely had an effect on construction.

[slebetman]

Yeah, if I remember correctly, the big problem with the Panama canal was medical (indeed, it took the discovery of the cure to Malaria to even make it possible). That shouldn't be a big issue now.

[Ziggy Stardust]

Yeah, if I remember correctly, the big problem with the Panama canal was medical (indeed, it took the discovery of the cure to Malaria to even make it possible).

Hm? At the time of the Panama Canal, the treatment for malaria was quinine, as it had been since the 17th century. It wasn't until the 1940s that any other treatments were developed (and, hell, strictly speaking the search for a "cure" is still ongoing).

[Simon_Jester]

Well, the easiest cure for malaria is to kill all mosquitoes. Colonel Gorgas, medical officer for the US attempt to dig the canal, spent a lot of time killing off mosquito populations in the area, fumigating, making sure people slept under mosquito netting so that they couldn't catch malaria, and ensuring that the mosquitos couldn't get to actual malaria victims to "load up" on infected blood either.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_mea ... nama_Canal

[Elheru Aran]

Yeah, if I remember correctly, the big problem with the Panama canal was medical (indeed, it took the discovery of the cure to Malaria to even make it possible).

Hm? At the time of the Panama Canal, the treatment for malaria was quinine, as it had been since the 17th century. It wasn't until the 1940s that any other treatments were developed (and, hell, strictly speaking the search for a "cure" is still ongoing).

The problem at the time was prevention, not treatment (and IIRC they were woefully short of quinine at the time, that was one major issue which led to widespread manufacturing of the drug). The areas they were digging through were basically a swampy hellhole. In the tropics, that's a spectacularly awesome recipe for malaria, yellow fever, and all kinds of lovely mosquito-borne ailments.

While modern medicine can solve a lot of these issues, I suspect that preparation for a Nicaraguan canal would probably involve a bit of pre-emptive draining of swamps, spraying insecticides over wide swaths of land, etc...

[Broomstick]

Don't forget mosquito netting for worker sleeping quarters, screen doors on buildings and machinery cabs, and mosquito/bug repellent for the workers. Avoiding being bit in the first place is best, and even if you drain swampy areas and spray you will still have some mosquitoes.

[Irbis]

Out of curiosity, is there even need for the canal? If you read news about northern passages through Russia and Canada opening up with warming climate making trip to EU and USA from Asia much shorter and safer than going through Suez or Panama...

It looks the only country that really will profit from the canal will be USA and (maybe) Mexico. Shorter route with larger ships possible, but no one else will really need it. Maybe Panama also will suffer a bit by losing traffic, but it's all. Or do I miss something?

[Broomstick]

Even if the north pole thaws every summer sea ice will still be a problem at least in the winter in the Arctic for the foreseeable future. Some people might want to avoid that risk, or continue shipping during months where it would be a problem.

[madd0ct0r]

the wiki suggests Panama would be full in the next decade or so.

It also suggests Russia sees this a 2nd route incase Panama goes fully into the US.

[Elheru Aran]

The Northern Passage is possible but fairly unlikely. Global warming has not advanced so far that it's going to be fully passable anytime soon. Even once it does, you're still going around two very wide continents, Eurasia on the one and North America on the other. This takes up a lot of energy and time. It may not be worth it, frankly, unless you're trying to trace something like a great-circle route.

A canal across Nicaragua would give more strategic freedom to the various countries, but in general the main thing it would accomplish is simply making ship transportation from Atlantic to Pacific a bit more flexible. If it was larger, there would certainly be the option to move super-tankers and carriers through, which is another plus-- if the country permitted it.

Let's be honest-- in a war situation, if the US felt it was warranted, the Panama Canal could be seized with ease. We did it once already, IIRC (though I could certainly be mis-remembering the situation, that was back in the 80s). They have enough carriers on both sides of it that they don't really need to transit them through the canal. A second canal, especially a larger one, would complicate the situation and may be discouraged by the US for that reason.

[Irbis]

The Northern Passage is possible but fairly unlikely. Global warming has not advanced so far that it's going to be fully passable anytime soon.

But I thought it already sees trial routes of big freighters [link], plus building some infrastructure in northern Russia/Canada is going to be simpler and quicker than digging massive canal.

Ice is a problem, yes, but in 5 years there might be no multi-year thick ice left in both routes, allowing ships to pass even in winter conditions, either with icebreaker help or stronger hulls.

Even once it does, you're still going around two very wide continents, Eurasia on the one and North America on the other. This takes up a lot of energy and time. It may not be worth it, frankly, unless you're trying to trace something like a great-circle route.

See the map:



SF-London or Shanghai-Rotterdam is shorter than going through Panama or Suez and unlike both canals, offers unlimited passage regardless of ship size.

[Simon_Jester]

Even if the north pole thaws every summer sea ice will still be a problem at least in the winter in the Arctic for the foreseeable future. Some people might want to avoid that risk, or continue shipping during months where it would be a problem.

Also, there are shipping routes for which it is genuinely more convenient to sail through the middle of Central America than to sail around the northern end of Canada.

The Northern Passage is possible but fairly unlikely. Global warming has not advanced so far that it's going to be fully passable anytime soon. Even once it does, you're still going around two very wide continents, Eurasia on the one and North America on the other. This takes up a lot of energy and time. It may not be worth it, frankly, unless you're trying to trace something like a great-circle route.

Yes. Also, there will always be sea ice issues in the Arctic; icebergs will still tend to form if nothing else, and while the Northwest Passage may become safe for part of the year with only a few degrees of climate change, making it entirely safe would probably require five to ten degrees...

Let's be honest-- in a war situation, if the US felt it was warranted, the Panama Canal could be seized with ease. We did it once already, IIRC (though I could certainly be mis-remembering the situation, that was back in the 80s). They have enough carriers on both sides of it that they don't really need to transit them through the canal. A second canal, especially a larger one, would complicate the situation and may be discouraged by the US for that reason.

Well, it's not like the US couldn't overpower Nicaragua too.

I honestly doubt the US is going to undermine this.

Ice is a problem, yes, but in 5 years there might be no multi-year thick ice left in both routes, allowing ships to pass even in winter conditions, either with icebreaker help or stronger hulls.

Almost anyone would rather sail their ships through tropical waters than ram them through icepacks. Having to rely on icebreakers to convoy your ships for you makes it very uneconomical to send them by a certain route.

Even once it does, you're still going around two very wide continents, Eurasia on the one and North America on the other. This takes up a lot of energy and time. It may not be worth it, frankly, unless you're trying to trace something like a great-circle route.

See the map:
http://www.grida.no/graphicslib/thumbs/ ... s_1336.jpg

SF-London or Shanghai-Rotterdam is shorter than going through Panama or Suez and unlike both canals, offers unlimited passage regardless of ship size.

For a lot of other routes, though, that isn't true- and the canals will always be open, while the Northwest Passage may only be open at certain seasons, and might be suddenly, unpredictably closed by a colder-than-usual winter.

[Irbis]

Almost anyone would rather sail their ships through tropical waters than ram them through icepacks.

Said tropical waters include Strait of Malacca and Horn of Africa, two pirate infested areas requiring costly insurance.

Having to rely on icebreakers to convoy your ships for you makes it very uneconomical to send them by a certain route.

The thing is, said route is 5000 km shorter and soon you will be able to pay the icebreaker fee on less than spent fuel costs. Then, there is the fact you will arrive 7-10 days faster, and you can use twice as large ship drastically cutting CO2 emissions compared to tropical routes.

Also, my link was example of just regular, albeit reinforced ship expected to make trips from western Canada to EU without any icebreaker help (Canada, unlike Russia, having no dedicated icebreaker fleet and all...). Yes, if it is more convenient to visit say India or Middle East on the way, sure, but western NA or east Asia trade with EU benefits more from investments into far north, not canals.

For a lot of other routes, though, that isn't true- and the canals will always be open

They will be open to what, ships requiring maximum of 10 meter deep water, which is not a lot today. Ships like these and larger will have trouble using canals. Even Panamax ships, built to canal dimensions, cause problems due to slow day transits thanks to their tight fit, and if one happens to ran aground canal might not be opened again for a pretty long time. So, it's not that clear cut, IMHO.

[Broomstick]

I think international shipping prefers more options, not fewer.

If there are enough entities interested in a Nicaraguan canal it might well be built and if it's built it will be used.

[K. A. Pital]

Russia, despite having a huge stake in the Northern Sea Passage succeeding, is also one of the major parties interested in the Nicaraguan channel. Better more options than fewer, just as Broomstick said.

[Ziggy Stardust]

The problem at the time was prevention, not treatment (and IIRC they were woefully short of quinine at the time, that was one major issue which led to widespread manufacturing of the drug). The areas they were digging through were basically a swampy hellhole. In the tropics, that's a spectacularly awesome recipe for malaria, yellow fever, and all kinds of lovely mosquito-borne ailments.

While modern medicine can solve a lot of these issues, I suspect that preparation for a Nicaraguan canal would probably involve a bit of pre-emptive draining of swamps, spraying insecticides over wide swaths of land, etc...

I realize this. My post was just in response to slebetman's claim that "the discovery of the cure to Malaria" made the Panama canal possible, which is simply factually inaccurate.