Posted on 10/01/2006 3:28:29 AM PDT by tlb
Nicaragua intends to spend $20 billion on a new Central American waterway that was initially proposed in the 19th century.
If approved by Nicaragua's Congress, the project would be a joint public-private venture financed by unnamed investors, said Lindolfo Monjarretz, a spokesman for Nicaraguan President Enrique Bolanos.
"We will have a deeper draft than the Panama Canal and reach a different market than Panama," Monjarretz said in a telephone interview. "The construction of the canal … will be pushed forward by Nicaragua because it's necessary for global trade."
The official announcement will come Monday.
"We know that for every 100 ships that come to the Americas, only 7 use the Panama Canal," he said, according to Nicaraguan media reports. "There's a lot of business to share."
(Excerpt) Read more at latimes.com ...
Before you get too generous in giving away those revenues to Mexico, I would ask how much of it they are going to finance.
I remember that article about the peaceful use of atomic explosions to dig a deep, wide, sea-level canal with no locks. Wasn't it in Life Magazine?
My question then was: what about the fallout and contaminated soil the explosions would throw up? Maybe they could do the explosions underground to just loosen the soil. My question today, looking at the map, is would the canal go through Lake Nicaragua? Is that lake freshwater now? Would connecting it with the sea make it salty?
If there is one, I bet it isn't truthful nor realistic.
I think we should build it. We could dig out the Rio Grande.
Fence? We don't need no Steenking fence.
The Panama Canal was built pre DDT and pre viable treatment for malaria, although malaria is still nothing to play around with.
I thought we were wainting on global warming to open the NW Passage?
You're correct. Estimates for an enlarged Panama Canal are that the new lake needed to supply the locks would have to be 4-5x time size of the present body of water. Who gets to write the environmental impact statement?
The bigger problem in Panama is the unstable soil...landslides occur constantly, dredging is continuous..and the new, proposed canal, besides being wider, would have to be much deeper..which makes the landslide problem much greater.
In addition high susceptibility to hurricanes is listed under negatives, but hey, what's a day or two closure now and then, compared to driving an aircraft carrier through from one ocean to another, of perhaps large oil tankers etc.
The Chinese don't "have" the Panama Canal.
Never did, never will. The Panama Government can't give it to them. It must remain neutral as per the neutrality agreement.
Finally Jimmy Carter's folly will be reversed.
What's up with all of that think China is the be-all and end-all when it comes to investment? Why would China invest in this project over, say, JPMorgan Chase?
Besides, the Kansas City Southern railroad--which bought the TFM railroad in Mexico and turned it into the KCS de México subsidiary--has a more workable solution, namely using a port on Mexico's Pacific coast to transport international shipping containers through Mexico back into the USA with double-stack intermodal trains.
The environmental impact statement is gonna be a bitch...
We don't need no stinkin' environmental impact statement!
Huh? Where are you getting your information from?
There is no new lake.
Gatun Lake's level will rise by 1.5 feet. Additionally, the widening and deepening of Gatun Lake's and Gaillard Cut's navigational channels will add 385 million gallons of water capacity per day.
Suggest reading the ACP's plan.
The article i saw was in either an American Legion or VFW magazine. I'll have to see if I can find it.
I wouldn't be surprised if the chinese are the "unnamed investor" in all of this. I think they are very active in central/south amer.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.